Art should entertain undoubtedly but shocking recreation needs to be demarked by certain limits even good ole John Stuart Mill wouldnt argue to this. Viewing agnostic imagery with secular lenses may give a hazy view of socio-religious backdrop just behind these bold artifacts, Husseins canvass in this case, but the fact remains They do exist and clearly visible to the naked eyes of many mal-nutritive but spiritual bodies in third world. Behzti, Satanic Verses, Lajja are all commendable work from greyest of grey cells in the South-Asian literary club, but even the demonized authors of these work would consent that religion is very much entangled in the personal egoistic framework of its fervent followers. Artfully playing or experimenting with some shades of divine may result in a brilliant art work but one which is stained and doomed to be given a faithful crimination, at least in the home grounds. Whether its a prophetic caricature or holy full frontals of pagan Gods, people holding the same sacred should be and would be agonized. As British writer Hanif Kureishi commented post notorious Rushdie hula bolo, is fiction which kills (Danish artworks recently) or hurts worth to be fictionalized?
Had to post this after reading the other messages.I have this to say about the responses so far: (a) we still confuse faith with religion and conscience (b) we still confuse a man's profession with a man's calling, and attempt to regulate the personal as we censor the public. (c) we still tend to force art into a binary with morality, metaphor into a binary with realism, out of a lack of depth and insight into the roots of art, human endeavor, and the signifier that a civilization like India's could be. (d) We do not understand the difference between each of sex, sexual acts, sexuality, sensuality, pornography, identity, cultural artifacts, the philosophical import of the metaphors which are gods, and the role of human integrity in artistic endeavor. Pity. No wonder we could not understand the difference between Sita and 'Chhaya Sita'; no wonder we don't understand the ungendered point of the lakshmanrekha--the boundaries of form and material must be transgressed if great things must be enacted/created. (e) We have not understood the interplay of form and content, veil and gaze, nor the difference between naked and nude.
If nudity is a form of innocence and maturity, as the famous painter suggests, animals must be the more innocent and mature than humans. It would be a shame if after thousands of years of evolution, learning, and education all we can say is that monkeys who are always in the nude are more intelligent than us humans who wear clothes.
I am remember of my grandfather who used to say "Ramchandra keh gaye Siya sey, aisa kalyuga aayegaa...". Only in Kaluga can we become so advanced as to claim that the way to innocence and maturity is by going back to becoming animals!
