Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Friday, September 21, 2007
Monday, March 05, 2007
Remove the Price Tags and Take Your Pick!
Self Portrait
4 Mar 2007 The Observer
Is there a link between a painting's artistic merit and its market value? John Windsor thinks not. There has never been so much money sloshing around the art market. A record £392m was spent during Christie's and Sotheby's auctions of Impressionist, modern and contemporary art in London last month. Rich first-time buyers competed fiercely with art dealers, some of whom left in disgust. Celebrity artists led the field: at Christie's, a record £14.02m for a leering Francis Bacon pope and £5.39m for a garish Andy Warhol Brigitte Bardot. German emigre Frank Auerbach, now 75 - a core member, with Bacon, of the School of London in the Fifties - was back in fashion: his vigorous Camden Theatre in the Rain of 1977 fetched £1.92m at Sotheby's. Only £500,000 had been expected.
Those of us who have difficulty finding four-figure sums to rub together might wonder whether it is ever possible to buy an inexpensive great work by an artist who has slipped under the market's radar. But my visit to the first comprehensive exhibition for 23 years of British-based Jewish German emigre Martin Bloch (1883-1954) at the Sainsbury Centre in Norwich has convinced me the criteria for market success do not necessarily have much to do with an artist's merit or even his influence. Bloch was a unique and extraordinary colourist. He was 50 when, in 1934, he and his family fled to London from Berlin, where he had been at the height of his career. His fresh battle for recognition was disrupted by nine months of internment. Upon release, he painted blitzed cityscapes, stunning evocations of light and hope rising from ashes. In 1958, four years after his death, his name was billed with Francis Bacon and Henry Moore in an exhibition in Liverpool.
Since then, his commercial reputation, though not his artistic influence, has waned. Of the 18 paintings of his that have appeared at auctions during the past decade or so, none has sold for more than £3,450. Last March two Blochs estimated at £2,000-£3,000 failed to sell. Bloch's technique is impressive for his sensitive tonal juxtapositions of warm and cool colours, at a time when British artists tended to see tone as no more than light or dark. If you have ever taken brush to canvas you will marvel at the way he solved problems of composition and perspective by applying the most unlikely-looking blues and yellows. So how come the auctioneers can sell an Auerbach for £1.9m but not a Bloch for £2,000? When you compare London street scenes painted by these two refugees, the answer seems farther away than ever. The £1.9m Auerbach, to my mind, is ... I could say 'slapdash', but I think 'exaggeratedly expressionistic' is more art-crit speak. The ensemble tends towards a muddy monochrome, lacking depth and differences in texture. It's park-railings stuff. Bloch's House With Figureheads, 1936, is observed, pondered, then recreated from within, in contrast to Auerbach's apparently heedless attack on the canvas. Warmth and hospitality exude from the curious building. In the cool blue twilight, the bay is warm purple and the orange interior beckoning through the window is bright as a furnace. The eye is drawn from the bright window to the silhouetted policeman. The Auerbach, on the other hand, has a confusion of focal points. Tear off the price tags and I'd choose the Bloch every time. Here is a tick-list of criteria for commercial success: a reasonably prolific oeuvre (beans or Blochs, dealers need a constant flow of stock); membership of an art movement; recognition in art history; artwork in public galleries; backing from powerful collectors such as Charles Saatchi. One might add: high quality art. But the market does not judge art; it merely rides the reputation merry-go-round. Good art is art that sells.
Bloch co-founded the now-forgotten School of Contemporary Painting in 1934 but did not ally himself with any art movements; he is scarcely mentioned in history books; he is owned by plenty of public galleries because many of his loyal pupils became curators, but his work tends to end up in store; he was never championed by a powerful collector. But his big drawback is too small an oeuvre. There remain probably fewer than 300 paintings, many of whose owners would not dream of selling. Much of his work was lost in Germany or during the Blitz. By contrast, Auerbach lived in Britain from the age of eight; he has his niche in the School of London and has shown at the Hayward, the National and the RA. The plus side for Bloch is that he has knowledgeable and devoted champions outside the market.
The Sainsbury exhibition was instigated by the film maker Cyril Frankel, an admirer, collector and friend of Bloch's. He says: 'Bloch is an anomaly - top-class work overlooked by dealers. He is not just slightly undervalued, but seriously undervalued. 'Bloch's descendants, particularly his grandson Peter Rossiter, an artist and Courtauld art history graduate, are assiduous promoters of his reputation. Rossiter curated the exhibition and understands the need to supply the market. He is offering drawings from under £1,000 to £2,000. A couple of the paintings are also for sale. And the exhibition is a hit. About 1,000 people a week are going, rivalling the centre's previous exhibition devoted to Bacon. The hope is that it will move to London. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has also been approached. Is it worth hoping that Bloch's reputation can be raised from such oblivion? Remember van Gogh.· 'Martin Bloch: A Painter's Painter' is at the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, University of East Anglia, Norwich, until 15 April. See http://www.scva.ac.uk
Is there a link between a painting's artistic merit and its market value? John Windsor thinks not. There has never been so much money sloshing around the art market. A record £392m was spent during Christie's and Sotheby's auctions of Impressionist, modern and contemporary art in London last month. Rich first-time buyers competed fiercely with art dealers, some of whom left in disgust. Celebrity artists led the field: at Christie's, a record £14.02m for a leering Francis Bacon pope and £5.39m for a garish Andy Warhol Brigitte Bardot. German emigre Frank Auerbach, now 75 - a core member, with Bacon, of the School of London in the Fifties - was back in fashion: his vigorous Camden Theatre in the Rain of 1977 fetched £1.92m at Sotheby's. Only £500,000 had been expected.
Those of us who have difficulty finding four-figure sums to rub together might wonder whether it is ever possible to buy an inexpensive great work by an artist who has slipped under the market's radar. But my visit to the first comprehensive exhibition for 23 years of British-based Jewish German emigre Martin Bloch (1883-1954) at the Sainsbury Centre in Norwich has convinced me the criteria for market success do not necessarily have much to do with an artist's merit or even his influence. Bloch was a unique and extraordinary colourist. He was 50 when, in 1934, he and his family fled to London from Berlin, where he had been at the height of his career. His fresh battle for recognition was disrupted by nine months of internment. Upon release, he painted blitzed cityscapes, stunning evocations of light and hope rising from ashes. In 1958, four years after his death, his name was billed with Francis Bacon and Henry Moore in an exhibition in Liverpool.
Since then, his commercial reputation, though not his artistic influence, has waned. Of the 18 paintings of his that have appeared at auctions during the past decade or so, none has sold for more than £3,450. Last March two Blochs estimated at £2,000-£3,000 failed to sell. Bloch's technique is impressive for his sensitive tonal juxtapositions of warm and cool colours, at a time when British artists tended to see tone as no more than light or dark. If you have ever taken brush to canvas you will marvel at the way he solved problems of composition and perspective by applying the most unlikely-looking blues and yellows. So how come the auctioneers can sell an Auerbach for £1.9m but not a Bloch for £2,000? When you compare London street scenes painted by these two refugees, the answer seems farther away than ever. The £1.9m Auerbach, to my mind, is ... I could say 'slapdash', but I think 'exaggeratedly expressionistic' is more art-crit speak. The ensemble tends towards a muddy monochrome, lacking depth and differences in texture. It's park-railings stuff. Bloch's House With Figureheads, 1936, is observed, pondered, then recreated from within, in contrast to Auerbach's apparently heedless attack on the canvas. Warmth and hospitality exude from the curious building. In the cool blue twilight, the bay is warm purple and the orange interior beckoning through the window is bright as a furnace. The eye is drawn from the bright window to the silhouetted policeman. The Auerbach, on the other hand, has a confusion of focal points. Tear off the price tags and I'd choose the Bloch every time. Here is a tick-list of criteria for commercial success: a reasonably prolific oeuvre (beans or Blochs, dealers need a constant flow of stock); membership of an art movement; recognition in art history; artwork in public galleries; backing from powerful collectors such as Charles Saatchi. One might add: high quality art. But the market does not judge art; it merely rides the reputation merry-go-round. Good art is art that sells.
Bloch co-founded the now-forgotten School of Contemporary Painting in 1934 but did not ally himself with any art movements; he is scarcely mentioned in history books; he is owned by plenty of public galleries because many of his loyal pupils became curators, but his work tends to end up in store; he was never championed by a powerful collector. But his big drawback is too small an oeuvre. There remain probably fewer than 300 paintings, many of whose owners would not dream of selling. Much of his work was lost in Germany or during the Blitz. By contrast, Auerbach lived in Britain from the age of eight; he has his niche in the School of London and has shown at the Hayward, the National and the RA. The plus side for Bloch is that he has knowledgeable and devoted champions outside the market.
The Sainsbury exhibition was instigated by the film maker Cyril Frankel, an admirer, collector and friend of Bloch's. He says: 'Bloch is an anomaly - top-class work overlooked by dealers. He is not just slightly undervalued, but seriously undervalued. 'Bloch's descendants, particularly his grandson Peter Rossiter, an artist and Courtauld art history graduate, are assiduous promoters of his reputation. Rossiter curated the exhibition and understands the need to supply the market. He is offering drawings from under £1,000 to £2,000. A couple of the paintings are also for sale. And the exhibition is a hit. About 1,000 people a week are going, rivalling the centre's previous exhibition devoted to Bacon. The hope is that it will move to London. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has also been approached. Is it worth hoping that Bloch's reputation can be raised from such oblivion? Remember van Gogh.· 'Martin Bloch: A Painter's Painter' is at the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, University of East Anglia, Norwich, until 15 April. See http://www.scva.ac.uk
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
My God Is Better Than Yours*
The toppling of Bamiyan Buddhas and the destruction of Babari mosque (accompanied by the world's contemptuous indifference), the late Pope John Paul's wish to see the whole world as Christian one day and the evangelical American president's claim that his God guided him to invade Iraq, not to mention the recent controversy about Prophet Mohammed cartoons and M. F. Husain's nudes, and religious schools working overtime worldwide to promote their own brand and communities attacking art for not accommodating their beliefs and declaring fatwa or violent ban on its exposure: all these acts are ways of saying: MY GOD IS BETTER THAN YOURS, AND WORSE, YOURS IS NOT WORTHY OF TOLERATION.
Ours is a time of religious and cultural arrogance. Wars are waged and cultural heritages are destroyed under pretense of making the world a safer and more civilized place. Instead, the world is becoming more dangerous and barbaric in the process. Freedom of expression is denied and opponents are killed or sent away to secret prisons for the interests of one community over others. And this practice is not limited to tyrannies; it is also at the core of the freest of societies. Destruction of Diego Rivera's mural of Lenin at the Rockefeller Center in New York, ban on Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" in India by Rajiv Gandhi, Rudolph Giuliani's threat to cut off funding to Brooklyn Museum for showing Chris Ofili's "Virgin Mary" that the Catholics found offensive, Theo van Gogh's murder in Amsterdam for his film on Islamic culture, resignation of New York Press's editorial team for not allowing reprinting of Mohammed cartoons, Drawing Center's ouster from the World Trade Center memorial for inclusion of others' (namely the Muslim's) opinion about 9/11 attacks, the fact that a Palestinian filmmaker's "The Valley of Vultures" (about the occupation-caused atrocities in Iraq) will never be shown in the United States and England, Christian opposition of “ The Da Vinci Code" and Sikh opposition of "Bole So Nihal", controversy over M. F. Husain's nude images, Indonesia's recent demand to stop local Playboy publication to avoid Islamic anger are but a few examples of the free world's hypocritical double standards about freedom of expression. Even those like Rockefellers who are into the arts become vehicle of restrictions on artistic freedom. In early 1990s, the American collector Chester Herwitz sponsored artist Vinod Dave to do a series of paintings on religions, but wanted the artist to refrain from portraying Christianity for Herwitz’s dislike of it. And Vinod once painted a portrait of Bhupen Khakkhar after ardhanarishwar (half-man-half-woman) form suggesting Bhupen's sexual orientation and he wanted to include it in his 1993 show in Mumbai, but the host Gallery Chemould excluded the painting from the show because of its subject. These actions are not of the fanatics and they only reflect personal dislikes of certain aspects. Still, they temporarily rendered the artist’s freedom of expression mute anyway.When art is attacked, it is a time for choice between freedom of expression and intimidation. Fear is the only argument for neutrality.
One can believe in anything, but can not impose it on others. In the age of globalization, propagandist religion is fast covering the planet as busily as propagandist politics of capitalism and far more sinisterly. Religions, ironically, are pointing guns at people in order to make a point. The resounding message from all the cacophony: WHAT WE BELIEVE IN IS BETTER THAN WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN.
Most religions are designed to promote conversion and have its supremacy over other religions. The Christians have been converting others from the day one and they warn us that theirs is the only true religion and their God is the only true God and if we believe differently, we will not be saved from hell. However, it permits artistic representation of God in human form (as it believes God created man in his own image). The mullahs brand all non-Muslims as Kaffirs or infidels and they have history of engaging in iconoclasm and forced conversion since its start. Islam advocates divinity in its abstract essence which is truly beautiful, but it does not permit divine representation in the arts for that very reason. Krishna asks us in Bhagavad-Gita to surrender only to Him. Hinduism is among the rare religions that do not mandate conversion. I want to direct attention of misguided Hindu hardliners to the very aspects of their own religion that they are ignoring when they attack or destroy art that they find offensive or sentiment-hurting. The Hindu divinity does not threaten with hell for non-obedience or lure of heaven for punishing unbelievers. Hinduism is tolerant, it does not seek converts and it is among the few religions that refuses to claim it is the one and only true religion. Arts in Hinduism are as much the vehicles of nirvana as they are a way of life and society. Depiction of divinity is encouraged in a variety of ways with equal ease: in human form-whether in a lavish wardrobe or in total nudity, in abstraction, in natural elements, even as formless (nirakar), attribute-less (nirguna) and nothingness (shunya). It allows changes, tolerates foreign influences, reshapes itself in the process, permits non-belief and still grants a chance of nirvana even to atheists. In Advaita Vedanta, it embraces all religions, respects contrary opinion and believes that God is within each soul. It considers eroticism as just another way to divinity and, therefore, it is not against nudity.
The Indian art is no stranger to the permissive nature of Hinduism where ancient scriptures enthusiastically praise the sensuality of a goddess's rosy-vermilion erect breasts with as much devotion as seeking sacred union with Godhood. Where did this hardliners’ abhorrence for nudity come from? That is not what we bequeathed; some of the most popular highlights of the Hindu legacy are Kama-Sutra and erotic sculptures of Konarak and Khajuraho. Nudity was publicly displayed in temples where great Indian monarchs sponsored social gatherings for awareness of dharma via beauty of human form in all its bare beauty. So the self-proclaimed moral police organizations that are after Husain need to educate themselves about the very basics of their own Hindu traditions. They are better off leaving art alone in which they have no authority. They seem to crudely mimic the Taliban iconoclasts. They don’t look good in their borrowed robes, they don't fit! The Taliban believes that universe started in the sixth century with emergence of Islam (like the Christian belief of beginning of the universe with the advent of Jesus Christ) and, therefore, they want to erase all traces of civilization prior to that! Hinduism does not make such an outlandish claim. Defending our culture is to stick to its fundamental mantra of tolerance and acceptance, and not by following the barbaric alien models. We will never say that our God is better than others'. That is not among our religious teachings. God of others is same as ours only with a different name, we are taught.
I suspect if these hardliners were present during the early days of India's independence, they would have destroyed our priceless Konarak and Khajuraho heritage! In fact, such a plan was thought of by the "moral guardians" of that time. Fortunately, they asked for Mahatma Gandhi's opinion about destroying "obscene carnal statuary" of these temples before actually doing so. And Gandhi was wise enough to discuss this with the Indian art guru Nandalal Bose and that saved our extraordinary heritage.
Our culture has ability not only to transform itself by absorbing foreign elements, but it also has strength to transform others comfortably to its own mould. Look at the Moguls who, despite being Muslims, patronized some of the greatest arts of all times. Muslim artists of India who paint divinity paint only from the Hindu pantheon. It is very much theirs regardless of their faith. Muslim musicians and singers have endlessly sung songs praising Hindu deities. Poets like Kabir and Rahim have guided both Hindus and Muslims and there are shrines all over India which both communities call their own with equal faith and ease. Some of the best Hindu prayers and Indian patriotic songs are sung by Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, Mohammed Rafi, A.R. Rahman and other great Muslim artisans. That is the beauty our culture. Indian civilization because of its receptiveness and amalgamating nature has endured for millenniums as a living culture. It has endured because it has liberally allowed people of other cultures, other faiths and other nationalities to experiment with itself. It has remained the cultural melting pot of all time in the truest sense. The Egyptian, the Mesopotamian, the Greek, the Roman and all rose and fell because of the non-amalgamating nature of their civilizations. Only ours has remained a living civilization since its beginning. Now misguided hardliners groups are set to change that for worse and make our culture non-tolerant/non-receptive and join the league of those long fallen civilizations.
The problem with M.F. Husain is not his paintings of nudes. They intend to celebrate Hindu spiritual sensuality. What hardliners detest is his religion and his fame. If he was not a famous Muslim, no one would have bothered. It is all politics, not religion that enters into their brutal castigation of his art. I know Husain as a fine human being. He would be the last one to disrespect Indian culture, it is as much his as it is anyone's. He could never wish to hurt sentiments (see for yourself the kind of verbal abuse he is tolerating by comment posters on his personal website: http://www.mfhussain.com ).
No one can justify the reasons Husain's opponents give for their attack on his works, except one that is puzzling. They argue why he does not paint the Islamic divinity? They know very well that no Muslim artist will ever paint the Islamic divinity even clothed, but for that very matter they want Husain to paint it in nude. This is their argument against Husain's claim that nudity is a symbol of maturity and innocence. They will not be convinced of his claim until Husain does what they want and prove his point. No one can comment on this matter except Husain himself. And why not all other Muslim artists who paint Hindu divinity also come together and respond along with Husain and do something to shut the opponents' mouth for good?
-SPIRITUALPANTHER
*(Title courtesy of Vinod Dave; this was the title of Vinod Dave's show in Mumbai last November for a related theme. Not many were able to grasp its essence except Akbar Padamsee and few others, not even the self-proclaimed cultural theorists: an indication of superficiality of our art scene despite its economic growth. Gulammohammed Sheikh has rightly said in a recent interview, "Art criticism is a casualty. With most art historians commissioned by galleries to do catalogues, there is little space for analyses and critiques except in niche journals. We deserve more, we need diverse opinions, independent voices to raise debates".)
Ours is a time of religious and cultural arrogance. Wars are waged and cultural heritages are destroyed under pretense of making the world a safer and more civilized place. Instead, the world is becoming more dangerous and barbaric in the process. Freedom of expression is denied and opponents are killed or sent away to secret prisons for the interests of one community over others. And this practice is not limited to tyrannies; it is also at the core of the freest of societies. Destruction of Diego Rivera's mural of Lenin at the Rockefeller Center in New York, ban on Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" in India by Rajiv Gandhi, Rudolph Giuliani's threat to cut off funding to Brooklyn Museum for showing Chris Ofili's "Virgin Mary" that the Catholics found offensive, Theo van Gogh's murder in Amsterdam for his film on Islamic culture, resignation of New York Press's editorial team for not allowing reprinting of Mohammed cartoons, Drawing Center's ouster from the World Trade Center memorial for inclusion of others' (namely the Muslim's) opinion about 9/11 attacks, the fact that a Palestinian filmmaker's "The Valley of Vultures" (about the occupation-caused atrocities in Iraq) will never be shown in the United States and England, Christian opposition of “ The Da Vinci Code" and Sikh opposition of "Bole So Nihal", controversy over M. F. Husain's nude images, Indonesia's recent demand to stop local Playboy publication to avoid Islamic anger are but a few examples of the free world's hypocritical double standards about freedom of expression. Even those like Rockefellers who are into the arts become vehicle of restrictions on artistic freedom. In early 1990s, the American collector Chester Herwitz sponsored artist Vinod Dave to do a series of paintings on religions, but wanted the artist to refrain from portraying Christianity for Herwitz’s dislike of it. And Vinod once painted a portrait of Bhupen Khakkhar after ardhanarishwar (half-man-half-woman) form suggesting Bhupen's sexual orientation and he wanted to include it in his 1993 show in Mumbai, but the host Gallery Chemould excluded the painting from the show because of its subject. These actions are not of the fanatics and they only reflect personal dislikes of certain aspects. Still, they temporarily rendered the artist’s freedom of expression mute anyway.When art is attacked, it is a time for choice between freedom of expression and intimidation. Fear is the only argument for neutrality.
One can believe in anything, but can not impose it on others. In the age of globalization, propagandist religion is fast covering the planet as busily as propagandist politics of capitalism and far more sinisterly. Religions, ironically, are pointing guns at people in order to make a point. The resounding message from all the cacophony: WHAT WE BELIEVE IN IS BETTER THAN WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN.
Most religions are designed to promote conversion and have its supremacy over other religions. The Christians have been converting others from the day one and they warn us that theirs is the only true religion and their God is the only true God and if we believe differently, we will not be saved from hell. However, it permits artistic representation of God in human form (as it believes God created man in his own image). The mullahs brand all non-Muslims as Kaffirs or infidels and they have history of engaging in iconoclasm and forced conversion since its start. Islam advocates divinity in its abstract essence which is truly beautiful, but it does not permit divine representation in the arts for that very reason. Krishna asks us in Bhagavad-Gita to surrender only to Him. Hinduism is among the rare religions that do not mandate conversion. I want to direct attention of misguided Hindu hardliners to the very aspects of their own religion that they are ignoring when they attack or destroy art that they find offensive or sentiment-hurting. The Hindu divinity does not threaten with hell for non-obedience or lure of heaven for punishing unbelievers. Hinduism is tolerant, it does not seek converts and it is among the few religions that refuses to claim it is the one and only true religion. Arts in Hinduism are as much the vehicles of nirvana as they are a way of life and society. Depiction of divinity is encouraged in a variety of ways with equal ease: in human form-whether in a lavish wardrobe or in total nudity, in abstraction, in natural elements, even as formless (nirakar), attribute-less (nirguna) and nothingness (shunya). It allows changes, tolerates foreign influences, reshapes itself in the process, permits non-belief and still grants a chance of nirvana even to atheists. In Advaita Vedanta, it embraces all religions, respects contrary opinion and believes that God is within each soul. It considers eroticism as just another way to divinity and, therefore, it is not against nudity.
The Indian art is no stranger to the permissive nature of Hinduism where ancient scriptures enthusiastically praise the sensuality of a goddess's rosy-vermilion erect breasts with as much devotion as seeking sacred union with Godhood. Where did this hardliners’ abhorrence for nudity come from? That is not what we bequeathed; some of the most popular highlights of the Hindu legacy are Kama-Sutra and erotic sculptures of Konarak and Khajuraho. Nudity was publicly displayed in temples where great Indian monarchs sponsored social gatherings for awareness of dharma via beauty of human form in all its bare beauty. So the self-proclaimed moral police organizations that are after Husain need to educate themselves about the very basics of their own Hindu traditions. They are better off leaving art alone in which they have no authority. They seem to crudely mimic the Taliban iconoclasts. They don’t look good in their borrowed robes, they don't fit! The Taliban believes that universe started in the sixth century with emergence of Islam (like the Christian belief of beginning of the universe with the advent of Jesus Christ) and, therefore, they want to erase all traces of civilization prior to that! Hinduism does not make such an outlandish claim. Defending our culture is to stick to its fundamental mantra of tolerance and acceptance, and not by following the barbaric alien models. We will never say that our God is better than others'. That is not among our religious teachings. God of others is same as ours only with a different name, we are taught.
I suspect if these hardliners were present during the early days of India's independence, they would have destroyed our priceless Konarak and Khajuraho heritage! In fact, such a plan was thought of by the "moral guardians" of that time. Fortunately, they asked for Mahatma Gandhi's opinion about destroying "obscene carnal statuary" of these temples before actually doing so. And Gandhi was wise enough to discuss this with the Indian art guru Nandalal Bose and that saved our extraordinary heritage.
Our culture has ability not only to transform itself by absorbing foreign elements, but it also has strength to transform others comfortably to its own mould. Look at the Moguls who, despite being Muslims, patronized some of the greatest arts of all times. Muslim artists of India who paint divinity paint only from the Hindu pantheon. It is very much theirs regardless of their faith. Muslim musicians and singers have endlessly sung songs praising Hindu deities. Poets like Kabir and Rahim have guided both Hindus and Muslims and there are shrines all over India which both communities call their own with equal faith and ease. Some of the best Hindu prayers and Indian patriotic songs are sung by Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, Mohammed Rafi, A.R. Rahman and other great Muslim artisans. That is the beauty our culture. Indian civilization because of its receptiveness and amalgamating nature has endured for millenniums as a living culture. It has endured because it has liberally allowed people of other cultures, other faiths and other nationalities to experiment with itself. It has remained the cultural melting pot of all time in the truest sense. The Egyptian, the Mesopotamian, the Greek, the Roman and all rose and fell because of the non-amalgamating nature of their civilizations. Only ours has remained a living civilization since its beginning. Now misguided hardliners groups are set to change that for worse and make our culture non-tolerant/non-receptive and join the league of those long fallen civilizations.
The problem with M.F. Husain is not his paintings of nudes. They intend to celebrate Hindu spiritual sensuality. What hardliners detest is his religion and his fame. If he was not a famous Muslim, no one would have bothered. It is all politics, not religion that enters into their brutal castigation of his art. I know Husain as a fine human being. He would be the last one to disrespect Indian culture, it is as much his as it is anyone's. He could never wish to hurt sentiments (see for yourself the kind of verbal abuse he is tolerating by comment posters on his personal website: http://www.mfhussain.com ).
No one can justify the reasons Husain's opponents give for their attack on his works, except one that is puzzling. They argue why he does not paint the Islamic divinity? They know very well that no Muslim artist will ever paint the Islamic divinity even clothed, but for that very matter they want Husain to paint it in nude. This is their argument against Husain's claim that nudity is a symbol of maturity and innocence. They will not be convinced of his claim until Husain does what they want and prove his point. No one can comment on this matter except Husain himself. And why not all other Muslim artists who paint Hindu divinity also come together and respond along with Husain and do something to shut the opponents' mouth for good?
-SPIRITUALPANTHER
*(Title courtesy of Vinod Dave; this was the title of Vinod Dave's show in Mumbai last November for a related theme. Not many were able to grasp its essence except Akbar Padamsee and few others, not even the self-proclaimed cultural theorists: an indication of superficiality of our art scene despite its economic growth. Gulammohammed Sheikh has rightly said in a recent interview, "Art criticism is a casualty. With most art historians commissioned by galleries to do catalogues, there is little space for analyses and critiques except in niche journals. We deserve more, we need diverse opinions, independent voices to raise debates".)
Monday, December 11, 2006
The Mess That Is Our World
Let's face it, THE WORLD IS IN A MESS and you are inheriting it.
Generation Y, you are on the cusp. You are the group facing many problems: abject poverty, global warming, genocide, Aids, and suicide bombers to name a few. These problems exist, and the world is silent. We have done very little to solve these problems. Now, we leave it to you. You have to fix it because the situation is intolerable.
-Kirk Douglas on his 90th birthday
Generation Y, you are on the cusp. You are the group facing many problems: abject poverty, global warming, genocide, Aids, and suicide bombers to name a few. These problems exist, and the world is silent. We have done very little to solve these problems. Now, we leave it to you. You have to fix it because the situation is intolerable.
-Kirk Douglas on his 90th birthday
Monday, December 04, 2006
The Case Against Faith
A Dissent: The Case Against Faith
Religion does untold damage to our politics. An atheist's lament.
Sam Harris in Newsweek : Nov 13, 2006
Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the Earth, more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue. Those with the power to elect presidents and congressmen—and many who themselves get elected—believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah's Ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the Earth and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God.
This is embarrassing. But add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years, and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking. Given the most common interpretation of Biblical prophecy, it is not an exaggeration to say that nearly half the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. It should be clear that this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically. Some of these people are lunatics, of course, but they are not the lunatic fringe. We are talking about the explicit views of Christian ministers who have congregations numbering in the tens of thousands. These are some of the most influential, politically connected and well-funded people in our society.
It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable and incompatible with genuine morality. One of the worst things about religion is that it tends to separate questions of right and wrong from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people will devote immense energy to so-called moral problems—such as gay marriage—where no real suffering is at issue, and they will happily contribute to the surplus of human misery if it serves their religious beliefs.
A case in point: embryonic-stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every human ailment (for the simple reason that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body), including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, severe burns, etc. In July, President George W. Bush used his first veto to deny federal funding to this research. He did this on the basis of his religious faith. Like millions of other Americans, President Bush believes that "human life starts at the moment of conception." Specifically, he believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Here, as ever, religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion.
This is embarrassing. But add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years, and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking. Given the most common interpretation of Biblical prophecy, it is not an exaggeration to say that nearly half the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. It should be clear that this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically. Some of these people are lunatics, of course, but they are not the lunatic fringe. We are talking about the explicit views of Christian ministers who have congregations numbering in the tens of thousands. These are some of the most influential, politically connected and well-funded people in our society.
It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable and incompatible with genuine morality. One of the worst things about religion is that it tends to separate questions of right and wrong from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people will devote immense energy to so-called moral problems—such as gay marriage—where no real suffering is at issue, and they will happily contribute to the surplus of human misery if it serves their religious beliefs.
A case in point: embryonic-stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every human ailment (for the simple reason that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body), including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, severe burns, etc. In July, President George W. Bush used his first veto to deny federal funding to this research. He did this on the basis of his religious faith. Like millions of other Americans, President Bush believes that "human life starts at the moment of conception." Specifically, he believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Here, as ever, religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion.
Given our status as a superpower, our material wealth and the continuous advancements in our technology, it seems safe to say that the president of the United States has more power and responsibility than any person in history. It is worth noting, therefore, that we have elected a president who seems to imagine that whenever he closes his eyes in the Oval Office—wondering whether to go to war or not to go to war, for instance—his intuitions have been vetted by the Creator of the universe. Speaking to a small group of supporters in 1999, Bush reportedly said, "I believe God wants me to be president." Believing that God has delivered you unto the presidency really seems to entail the belief that you cannot make any catastrophic mistakes while in office. One question we might want to collectively ponder in the future: do we really want to hand the tiller of civilization to a person who thinks this way?
Religion is the one area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give good evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for. Consequently, we are living in a world in which millions of grown men and women can rationalize the violent sacrifice of their own children by recourse to fairy tales. We are living in a world in which millions of Muslims believe that there is nothing better than to be killed in defense of Islam. We are living in a world in which millions of Christians hope to soon be raptured into the stratosphere by Jesus so that they can safely enjoy a sacred genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history. In a world brimming with increasingly destructive technology, our infatuation with religious myths now poses a tremendous danger. And it is not a danger for which more religious faith is a remedy.
Harris is the author of the New York Times best sellers "Letter to a Christian Nation" and "The End of Faith."
Religion does untold damage to our politics. An atheist's lament.
Sam Harris in Newsweek : Nov 13, 2006
Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the Earth, more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue. Those with the power to elect presidents and congressmen—and many who themselves get elected—believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah's Ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the Earth and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God.
This is embarrassing. But add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years, and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking. Given the most common interpretation of Biblical prophecy, it is not an exaggeration to say that nearly half the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. It should be clear that this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically. Some of these people are lunatics, of course, but they are not the lunatic fringe. We are talking about the explicit views of Christian ministers who have congregations numbering in the tens of thousands. These are some of the most influential, politically connected and well-funded people in our society.
It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable and incompatible with genuine morality. One of the worst things about religion is that it tends to separate questions of right and wrong from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people will devote immense energy to so-called moral problems—such as gay marriage—where no real suffering is at issue, and they will happily contribute to the surplus of human misery if it serves their religious beliefs.
A case in point: embryonic-stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every human ailment (for the simple reason that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body), including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, severe burns, etc. In July, President George W. Bush used his first veto to deny federal funding to this research. He did this on the basis of his religious faith. Like millions of other Americans, President Bush believes that "human life starts at the moment of conception." Specifically, he believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Here, as ever, religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion.
This is embarrassing. But add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years, and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking. Given the most common interpretation of Biblical prophecy, it is not an exaggeration to say that nearly half the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. It should be clear that this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically. Some of these people are lunatics, of course, but they are not the lunatic fringe. We are talking about the explicit views of Christian ministers who have congregations numbering in the tens of thousands. These are some of the most influential, politically connected and well-funded people in our society.
It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable and incompatible with genuine morality. One of the worst things about religion is that it tends to separate questions of right and wrong from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people will devote immense energy to so-called moral problems—such as gay marriage—where no real suffering is at issue, and they will happily contribute to the surplus of human misery if it serves their religious beliefs.
A case in point: embryonic-stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every human ailment (for the simple reason that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body), including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, severe burns, etc. In July, President George W. Bush used his first veto to deny federal funding to this research. He did this on the basis of his religious faith. Like millions of other Americans, President Bush believes that "human life starts at the moment of conception." Specifically, he believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Here, as ever, religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion.
Given our status as a superpower, our material wealth and the continuous advancements in our technology, it seems safe to say that the president of the United States has more power and responsibility than any person in history. It is worth noting, therefore, that we have elected a president who seems to imagine that whenever he closes his eyes in the Oval Office—wondering whether to go to war or not to go to war, for instance—his intuitions have been vetted by the Creator of the universe. Speaking to a small group of supporters in 1999, Bush reportedly said, "I believe God wants me to be president." Believing that God has delivered you unto the presidency really seems to entail the belief that you cannot make any catastrophic mistakes while in office. One question we might want to collectively ponder in the future: do we really want to hand the tiller of civilization to a person who thinks this way?
Religion is the one area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give good evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for. Consequently, we are living in a world in which millions of grown men and women can rationalize the violent sacrifice of their own children by recourse to fairy tales. We are living in a world in which millions of Muslims believe that there is nothing better than to be killed in defense of Islam. We are living in a world in which millions of Christians hope to soon be raptured into the stratosphere by Jesus so that they can safely enjoy a sacred genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history. In a world brimming with increasingly destructive technology, our infatuation with religious myths now poses a tremendous danger. And it is not a danger for which more religious faith is a remedy.
Harris is the author of the New York Times best sellers "Letter to a Christian Nation" and "The End of Faith."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
