On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charles Haynes [15/05/08 09:32 +1000]: >> >> Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of Gustave Courbet's "L 'Origine >> du Monde?" > > Given that primitive answers to that question mostly involved sex .. I > think the egyptian explanation for the milky way was Ra masturbating and > scattering his semen around the heavens. So Courbet isnt way off base.
Do you see it as relevant to MF Hussain? I certainly do. How do you feel about the works of Chris Ofili or Andres Serrano? Does art that refers to religion need always be respectful? Is Ofili's case, it's clear that respect is in the eye of the beholder. I certainly want to see art that is critical, even disrespectful of religion, and I want to participate in the resulting dialog. Suppressing the expression obviously does not suppress the thought. > Call me old fashioned but I dont think Duchamp (or let's say his urinal) is > art though. Yeah? I certainly do. It seems clear to me that it's art now. Was it art when it was created? :) > Subversive, certainly, on the same lines as that Sokol piece in > socialtext. I agree that it is subversive, but disagree that it's on those same lines. How do you feel about Dada, or surrealism? Is that art? > The NYT judges back then certainly couldnt distinguish between > a urinal submitted to the contest under a pseudonym, and actual art. > Elevating a porcelain utensil to iconic art status seemed the best way to > save face, I imagine .. I think we are dangerously close to bringing this thread back around to semiotics and structuralism... :) -- Charles
