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?
