The Power of Universal Humanity

hariharan1972 said:

Sri KRSji,

I noted your comments on M F Hussain with interest. Knowing for a fact that you are open to counterpoints, i take the liberty of disagreeing with you, ever so slightly.

Firstly let me get this off the way. I disaprove of the hounding of M F Hussain, so whatever i have to say in the following paragraphs doesnt in anyway condescend the manner he has been treated.

1. You are right in saying that 'Vulgarity' depends on the person who views a work of art. As much beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, i suppose, so does vulgarity. However, i am thinking aloud whether 'this vulgarity' that you infer (i am led to believe so, since you invoke KS) is more to do with the 'erotic variety'. While i acknowedge that per se, there is nothing 'erotically vulgar' about M F Hussain's depiction of Hindu goddess, i question his intentions
As you correctly infer, yes, I was addressing the vulgarity associated with the erotic, as that was the main point in the posting that I responded to. However, as you correctly point out below, vulgarity spans all kinds of communications and activities.

I say so because for a man of such intellect it isnt really rocket science to know that his action could cause distress to a Hindu majority, albeit non theocratic, nation. While artistic freedom is to be respected, i wonder whether it is a one way path ; isnt the artist supposed to 'reciprocate' the love and affection that he gets, across the board ?
We do not know his 'motives'. All I have read are 'imferred' and/or from third parties. Unless the artist explains, we do not know. However, he has apologized without explaining his original motives.
These paintings in question were done during the 70s, and as serious artists do, it was his 'Saffron Art' period. A good artist expresses universal themes through his art. Just the fact that he chose his themes this way, tells me that he was very comfortable with his subjects (meaning here the Hindu representation of Gods). I do not think that an artist when the muse strikes should worry about an audience's reaction. Almost no artist worth his salt will do that. He can only express his ideas that come out through his art. It is a complement to Hinduism that he chose to paint the subjects he did, without any fear.

And by doing what he did, did he 'reciprocate' it ?
Again, this is an issue only if you think that he was out to insult Hinduism. I can not infer such a motive unless the artist explains, because, from the art itself, I do not infer any such vulgarity.

2. To buttress my point about 'vulgarity otherwise than as in erotica' i quote my own case. A few years back, when i was younger (implicitly i am still young ), when i was in high spirits, i cracked, what is typically a party joke about 'Virgin' Mary, The Pope and Bill Clinton.

The fact that i have mentioned a certain word in quotation, is the giveaway on the 'kind' of joke that i cracked.

After the laughter had died down, my boss, a genial quiet man, advised me : "Never crack a Mary joke before a Catholic".

Gosh ! it hit me hard then that among the peer group having a drink was a true blue catholic. He was such a wonderful friend and took the joke on his chin.

Do i need to tell you how i felt the rest of the evening ?

The long and short of my story is that i crossed the line that evening ; i committed a "vulgarity". The joke by itself isnt too vulgar, at best suggestive, perhaps could find it's way into any party joke book, but in not respecting the feelings, traditions of a fellow colleague, a fellow human, i think i committed a grave mistake.

I had indulged in "vulgar" behaviour. Period.

Now in this context, how would you want to qualify M F Hussain ?
Yes, your behaviour was indeed vulgar, because in the presence of a Christian, you clearly insulted his beliefs. Again, as I have said, I do not infer any such insult from his paintings. Irreverance may be; but insulting, in my opinion, no. And irreverance is allowed in our religion.

3. Akhil Sibal, son of Kapil Sibal is the advocate of M F Hussain. Appearing in a TV channel once, he retorted, to a question on why M F Hussain has never painted The Prophet (PBUH), "But Islam doesnt believe in Idol worship".

Now I wonder whether M F Hussain is an artist first or a Muslim first ?

Which is the bigger attribute ?
Again, let MF Husain speak. To me, looking at his paintings, he comes across as an artist first. But that is my own inference. People who think that he has trampled on Hinduism have every right to think so, but in my opinion, a lot of these folks would not have even seen the said paintings.

If it is the former, he should care two hoots about his religious credentials ? If it is the latter, he should clarify whether Islam mandates or allows denigration of the symbols of other religions.
I agree that one should be careful about denigrating other religion's symbols. The issue here is whether he has done so here. If the paintings are not 'vulgar', but only his motive is imputed to be 'vulgar', then he should be allowed to speak to his motives. Problem is, as you stated in the begining, he is being hounded out. But, when and if he speaks, we should accept his explanations.

Whether Islam is a religion of Iconoclasts ?

I also wonder why all his "creative ability" is reserved for Hindus ? If he has never seen The Prophet (PBUH) in flesh, neither has he seen Goddess Saraswathi.

How come his neurons are whipped into action only for Hindu Goddess, i wonder ?
Again, for whatever reason, his muse has come through this way. It is silly to ask an artist why he paints such and such subjects and why not other subjects. Art, by definition, is about expression of ideas that the artist holds dear. We can, I guess infer all sorts of things, for example, I can say, may be he does not find the prophet as an interesting idea. This is where artistic freedom comes in. And here is an acknowledged, world renowned artist - he is not a hack. To me such an artistic freedom trumps everything else, even if his motives were wrong. If they were, then his art would not be viewed in an artistic light but rather would be viewed as a common place third rate hate art. Which will not be considered to convey any sense of artistic, aesthetically expressed subtle universal messages. His stock as an artist will take a serious dive.

4. I seek your views on whether 'creative freedom' has some responsibilities or should it be allowed a free run in gay abandon ? If policing of the VHP / BD kind is reprehensible, should artistic freedom be allowed to freely trample the sensitivities of a vast majority ?
I have addressed this above. Serious art by nature, appeals only to a select few. The vast majority is not even aware, unless someone usually with political interest whips it up as an issue, as is in this case. Art should not have any limits as it is the expression of the world through the sensitivity of the artist. It is also very subjective. As I have said, the value and appreciation of an artist's work is judged eventually by the people who understand art.
It is true that to appreciate art, especially modern art, it requires formal understanding of art ; not something everyone is blessed to have ;

So should the artist be more careful, cognizant of the fact that his art could be more often misunderstood than understood and hence act more responsibly ; sensibly.

At the end of the day, should the bull or the china be more responsible in a crockery shop ?
I am against censorship of almost all kinds, except the age based ones. An adult should be allowed to see, read and judge whatever idea that is put out there. The filtering mechanism will be automatic. I believe that people know to choose what is good for them. There is no need to treat adults as children, by the big brother government.

Click to expand...

happyhindu said:

if i had money, i'd have bought all of those paintings and given them off for worship.

there is a garbharakshambika idol sculpted into one of the pillars in the meenakshi amman koil in madurai. it used to be uncovered. then it got covered with a cloth. why such moral policing of our faith...why allow ourselves to be conditioned by so called victorian and islamic 'ideals' - why not celebrate how women were in the past - divine and feminine.

Click to expand...

Brahmanyan said:

Dear Sri KRS.,

An interesting discussion indeed. But please tell me, do we have a separate "Hindu Culture" ? I agree with most of your views. except that,to my knowledge we do not have such a single culture which directs us with "do-s and don't-s. We have varied cultural practices among the Hindu communities according to the region in which they live. For instance marriages in north take place during night hours as against day time in South. I can quote hundreds of such differences.

I agree. I was only talking about the common cultural practices as they relate to the subject we are talking about, that is about prudishness as it relates to both sacred and profane. I should have made this clearer. I was not making any universal observation.

Talking about Nudity. We have never considered Religious Nudity as vulgar. Most of the sculptural representation of "Bhikshadanar" is in nude only. Till few generations back, among many communities upper portion of females was not covered and it was considered normal in many places. Old photographs and our Temple sculptures of female form will support this. Vulgarity or not in Art lies in the eyes of the viewer and the intention of the Artist who had done the piece. Great works of western art depicts characters from Bible, including Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ.
Exactly my point. But as you might have noticed, our society has become more victorian even when it comes to religious nudity. That is the way it is today, more and more (there are exceptions). Vulgarity while is in the eyes and heart of a person viewing, reading, hearing a piece of art, one should also consider that there are definitely some works of 'art' that are considered vulgar by the majority. In this sense, when a huge majority that understands a subject, views something as vulgar, then it is vulgar. Yes, a good portion of western art, post Christianity covers the characters from that religion. But western art, started well before Christ.

As for M.F.Hussain, it is a considered opinion that he enjoys controversies. Started as a cinema banner painter he has turned into an artist of repute now. For which Hindu religious figures have helped him a lot. He is selective in his subjects and confines mostly to Hindu mythology. It is good that he does not touch subjects from other religions. Otherwise he would have become another Rushdie or Taslima.
Every artist starts humble - I hope you don't hold it against him to have started as a cinema banner painter to earn his livelihood. He started his career in 1940s and it is not fair to say that he is selective in his subjects. Again, as an Indian, growing up amongst the Hindus, he probably saw the Hindu icons as composing of various interesting aspects to be perfect for his avant-garde expressions through modern art.

I applaud him because he also got in to trouble with fundamentalist muslims on one of the sufi songs in one of his movies. By the way the 'saffron' art is only a fraction of his whole body of work. And his controversies did not start till the middle of the nineties.
It is also not correct to question an artist's selection of his subjects. Just because he has selected Hindu icons and not others (by the way, he could have easily depicted Christian icons as well without having any fear of physical retribution) it is not fair to assume that he did so because of fear. We should take an artist's choosing of any subject as the way his muse spoke. On the same token would we question Rushdie about his 'selective' covering of Islam only? The issue comes because we see MFH as a muslim first and not an artist. An good artist is beyond any boundaries that tend to limit his expressions. Unless we understand this about art, there will be clamour to limit the freedom of expression by any artist, given to the whims of arbitray tastes and feigned injury to majority sentiments!

Sacredness of a painting or an icon is infused after regular consecration only. I do not think some one keeping a picture of God in his wallet or in his chain with reverence is wrong.
Yes, I did not say it was wrong. I was pointing out about how we treat the profane in one respect with our icons, but hurl stones at others who use the same icons for other profane purposes.

Well. Before concluding this post a few words about "Kama Sutra". People consider this book, a work on sexology only. But it is a book on Sociology too. Sage Vatsyayana has written in detail about the social issues prevailing during his time in the same work. Quite interesting piece to read.
Yes, I agree.

Regards,
Brahmanyan.

Click to expand...

Brahmanyan said:

Dear Sri KRS.,

Thanks for your detailed rejoinder to my post. I have no dispute on the views expressed by your good self. I only wanted some clarifications on certain points.

As a respected Senior Member, I hope by now you must have got an idea about my views on many subjects dealt in this forum. I have always tried to unshackle myself from the petty attachments of groupings in the name of Country, Language, Religion, Caste or economic disparity etc. I have nothing against any individual on this score. I respect the works of M.F.Hussain, an alumnus of J.J.School of Arts Bombay. But it is my view that "my freedom of expression" should not affect the personal feelings of others. I am doubtful whether M.F.Hussain has responded positively to the sensitivity of others while selecting his subjects for painting.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan.

Click to expand...

hariharan1972 said:

Sri KRSji,

An afterthought after i read your response.

The kernel of your message seems to be that "Hinduism shouldnt fall into the trap of being too restrictive ; Hinduism's strength is it's resilience and tolerance" and such "commercial works of art dont have any spiritual sanctity".

This is what i understand.

Not only the commercial art has no sacredness to it, in this case we agree that the painter is an acknowledged world class painter in modern art. So, without understanding the iconology of his paintings properly, one can not ascribe any 'bad' motives on his part.

Now sir, my questions are as follows :

a) Hinduism which is based on Sanathana Dharma is all encompassing ; liberal and unrestrictive in it's construct. While my views on the "Vanarashrama Dharma" is a bit too confusing for my own comfort, i dont know as yet whether it is Hinduism's strength or it's weak link.

Whatever it may be, the fact remains that others (mainly Christianity) have made inroads into Hinduism by exploiting the "ills" of the caste hierarchy.

So i feel there is a threat to Hinduism, however small, so far as keeping it's flock together.

So wouldnt we conveying a message to others that we are too meek to protect our turf if we keep brushing aside everything ?

My issue is not about not defending Hinduism, but rather protecting it from real outside insults and denigration and not the feigned ones. When we protested the way our Acharyal got arrested and treated, when we protested the YSR's interference with the Tirupathi temple affairs, when we protest against the destruction of Rama Sethu and countless other real insults against ourreligion, we are defending our faith.

But to go after a modern artist and his creativity in the name of protecting the sacred does not make any sense to me. As an artist, irrespective of his birth religion, he should be free to paint whatever he wants. His art belongs to all people in the world, not just to one religious group.

b) I feel that the beauty of Hinduism has been nurtured by every generation ; so in that sense we are indebted to our ancestors for passing on the rich heritage to us.

Now shouldnt we repay the debt by passing on the legacy to our succeeding generations ?

If we take everything in our stride and keep faith in the 'Sanathana Dharma's' ability to defend "itself" arent we exposing our system to abuse ?

Afterall there is nothing "physical" apart from us, the followers of Hinduism should defend it from abuse, isnt it ?

I have never said that we should not rise up to protect our religion from the elements that wish us harm. Remember, for example, in this very Forum, I have supported the scrapping of the Rama Sethu project on the grounds that it hurts Hindu sentiments (I remember us even having a lively conversation about an article by an Indian historian lady, trying to establish that Rama Sethu may not be where it is at all!).

We need to fight real fights, not these bogus fights that end up reducing our credibility and tar us all as fundamentalists. When we start fights that has nothing to do with any insults to our religion today (Ayodhya issue is a prime example), then we diminish the way we should defend our faith. I recall a High Court petition by a person representing a group of folks asking for the ban of a movie very recently on the basis of a non existent scene! This was before the movie's release! Is this a correct way to go about defending the religion?

c) A hypothetical question for you sir.

Assume the 'kazhaga goons' of TN want to destroy some famous temple in TN.

Should we raise in protest or not ?

Afterall, this temple is NOT all that Hinduism has got to offer ? Surely Hinduism can survive without this temple too ?

What would be your take sir ?

And if we should defend the temple, why and how is it different from viewing MFH's work critically ?

You are assuming that what MFH did is comparable to destroying our temples! Of course we will rise up if our temples are destroyed.

My contention is that MFH did not paint these figures to insult Hindus. My contention is that his paintings are not vulgar. My contention is the very fact that he chose our Gods to be represented in his art, should make us proud, and not vice versa. Do you have any arguments with any of my contentions? Even if you do, I can only say that if your Hindu sentiments were hurt by those paintings and please read his apology on that score. What else you want him to do? Destry his own works that the art world appreciates , but a few staunch Hindus say are hurting their sentiments? If it hurts someone's sentiments, then, please do not look at those paintings, but a few Hindus should not have any power to decide what a lot of us appreciate in those paintings. What about the people's sentiments, who appreciate his paintings? What about the hounding of a ninety year old man that may deprive more of his future paintings, that may not now come as a result?

MFH's paintings have been viewed critically by people who understand the modern art and iconology and have already passed judgements in a positive manner. Chritie's in NY just auctioned off a few of them for a good sum. I do not understand how a few peole can pass any artistic judgement on something that they do not understand, but want the works to be banished anyway! This has nothing to do about defending Hinduism. This clearly smacks of over reaching in an area which should be beyond such controversy.

Click to expand...