shiv sastry wrote: [ on 09:23 PM 5/16/2007 ]
I was just wondering if I painted a picture of a woman with a baby emerging
from her vagina and labelled it "Arundhati Roy" would it perhaps have been
taken in better spirit that labelling it "Durga mata"?
Art can mean a lot of things, but a picture of Jesus Christ's dick
or the cunt
of a Hindu goddess is pushing the definition of art to areas where some
people may be a little unhappy.
You know - a couple indulging in cunnilingus on a public road could be art
too. The BJP and Gujarat may all be bad, but common sense dicktates that an
artist should have some idea of the reactions his art will provoke. If I, for
example, think that I have made it an art form to sexually assault my
neighbor's wife - I should have some inkling about what is coming at me,
apart from what may be coming out of me.
Y'know, all the discussion around "what is art?", while fascinating
and important, isn't the real issue being discussed here.
The real issue (to me, at least) is "what kind of society do you want
to live in?" One where any random goon's _current_, _public_
interpretation of "morality" and "culture" is what one has to
genuflect before? In this context (there's that word again!) crab's
comment about it being quite possible to protest the destruction of a
lousy painting has resonance.
That's not a rhetorical question (or, not _just_ a rhetorical
question). Some responses appreciated.
Udhay
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
