[GOTFIVEONIT]

Taslima attack: Should art respect religion?

Saturday, 11 August 2007

BanglaDesh, August 11: Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen was attacked in Hyderabad by MLAs of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) when she was attending the book release of the Telugu translation of her latest novel Shodh.

The political party involved in the attack is completely unrepentant. It has in fact said that the MLAs should have rather killed her.

A Muslim daily has also wondered openly in an editorial, as to why the activists did not put Taslima to death.

Should this be seen as religious fanaticism or an effort to gain political mileage out of Taslima’s controversial writing? The incident is not an isolated one, nor is it the first of its kind.

Earlier this year Hindu activists disrupted an art exhibition at the Maharaja Sayajirao University (MS) University in Baroda for permitting a ‘nude’ painting be exhibited in the university. The Dean faced suspension and the artist who painted it was arrested.

And for that matter, fatwas against renowned artist M F Hussain who now lives in exile outside India due to the numerous death threats and cases against him for apparently insulting Hindu Goddesses should not go unmentioned.

All this paves way for only one question: Should art respect religion?

--Agencies





The Siasat Daily, 2004.
Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Abids, Hyderabad - 500001, AP, India
Tel: +91-40-24744180, Fax: +91-40-24603188
contact@siasat.com

[Yahya]

Assalamualaikum

Should art respect religion?
Yes. Full Stop.

Probably the main reason why there so much chaos in this world is because people have a great lack of control over their desires, there need to be strict limitations for everything, artists are no different, in actual fact it is more important that they respect and enforce such limitations as their art can influence societies greatly.

Wasalamualaikum warahmatullah
Yahya

[Arabesque]

Religion respects art, therefore, art should respect religion, too.

Religion highlights the beauty of art, so art should not 'debeautify' religion. If it can't add to religion's beauty, then it should stay out of it.

Personal opinion.

[LEGALEAGLE]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

Religion respects art, therefore, art should respect religion, too.

Religion highlights the beauty of art, so art should not 'debeautify' religion. If it can't add to religion's beauty, then it should stay out of it.

Personal opinion.

Arabesque in actualite modern western art isn't concerned with conventional ideas of beauty...they believe in art as a method of shocking people...

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by LEGALEAGLE

Arabesque in actualite modern western art isn't concerned with conventional ideas of beauty...they believe in art as a method of shocking people...

I would have to agree with you on that.

[Blue_Phoenix]

Only if all art respects all religions.

[Variable]

I don't really think the argment can be usefully framed like that - 'art respecting religion'.
Art is a method of expression, not some entity, and both religion and art are so fundamentally subjective. A more realistic question I think would be 'should artists respect believers of a religion'.

And that's a hard one to answer, because everyone has different ideas of what respect is. Religions have a tendency to make certain things taboo, while to other groups those same things are treasured parts of their culture.

And then things really heat up when something that is no big deal in one culture betrays all religious sensibilities of a certain realigion. Drawings of the Prophet are a good example - when those cartoons were published a while back. I'd definitely say that that was an example of an artist disrespecting the believers of a religion. At the same time, (and this may be a little controversial still) believe in that artist's right to express themselves by doing that.

As long as it's not being forced down people's throats, as long as there is enough room left that those offended can avoid them in their everyday life, then I think people should be left to express themselves through art as they see fit.

[Blue_Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Variable

I don't really think the argment can be usefully framed like that - 'art respecting religion'.
Art is a method of expression, not some entity, and both religion and art are so fundamentally subjective. A more realistic question I think would be 'should artists respect believers of a religion'.

And that's a hard one to answer, because everyone has different ideas of what respect is. Religions have a tendency to make certain things taboo, while to other groups those same things are treasured parts of their culture.

And then things really heat up when something that is no big deal in one culture betrays all religious sensibilities of a certain realigion. Drawings of the Prophet are a good example - when those cartoons were published a while back. I'd definitely say that that was an example of an artist disrespecting the believers of a religion. At the same time, (and this may be a little controversial still) believe in that artist's right to express themselves by doing that.

As long as it's not being forced down people's throats, as long as there is enough room left that those offended can avoid them in their everyday life, then I think people should be left to express themselves through art as they see fit.

Congratulations, you told us why political correctness is ridiculous. If you do something that's intended to be noticed by a mass audience, someone somewhere will be offended no matter what.

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by Variable

And then things really heat up when something that is no big deal in one culture betrays all religious sensibilities of a certain realigion. Drawings of the Prophet are a good example - when those cartoons were published a while back. I'd definitely say that that was an example of an artist disrespecting the believers of a religion. At the same time, (and this may be a little controversial still) believe in that artist's right to express themselves by doing that.

Following on that, the cartoonists may have been exercising their right to freedom of expression, but they only demonstrated intolerance and hatefulness through that. Does freedom of expression accommodate intolerance and bigotry?

Since we'll never agree on limits and where to draw the line, I think it is best that art stays away from religion.

Again, it's a personal opinion.

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

Earlier this year Hindu activists disrupted an art exhibition at the Maharaja Sayajirao University (MS) University in Baroda for permitting a ‘nude’ painting be exhibited in the university. The Dean faced suspension and the artist who painted it was arrested.

Wait a minute... I'm lost. He protested against a nude painting, but there are statues of naked people engaging in sexual acts in Hindu temples.....

[zzze]

asalamu alaykum

In the free world art cannot be limited, that's why it's there...it's a means of expression. Now islamically...it's a different matter. In pratice, however, it can't happen, it makes no sense. When social problems (or at least the roots of them) are eradicated, it makes no sense to set limits upon the very things which enable people to express themselves, their beliefs and frustrations. There is no point in merely removing the outward.

[MossadConspiracy]

Religion has always been the main source of inspiration for art, or at least one of the main ones. This goes for all societies, throughout history. So obviously its pointless to say that artists should simply avoid religion.

Religions do of course respect some art. Religious leaders are the ones who sponsored much of the world's art. But religious leaders also disrespect some art, and there are many examples of this. Similarly, artists are human beings who express themselves through whatever medium theyre using. Some human beings disrespect particular religions or all religion, others are intolerant of other people, etc.

ws

[Arabesque]

As long as you justify for artists their direspect of religion, then I guess we can similiarily justify the backlash at those artists. It's all freedom of expression, after all. Even violence, mind you, is a type of expression. Some people just know how to express themselves a certain way, you know.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

As long as you justify for artists their direspect of religion, then I guess we can similiarily justify the backlash at those artists. It's all freedom of expression, after all. Even violence, mind you, is a type of expression. Some people just know how to express themselves a certain way, you know.

no, violence against people or attacks on property arent protected speech. At least not in any free society (or less than free society) that i've ever heard of. But I agree, if an artist or anybody else attacks people's beliefs they certainly have the right to similarly attack his beliefs

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

no, violence against people or attacks on property arent protected speech. At least not in any free society (or less than free society) that i've ever heard of. But I agree, if an artist or anybody else attacks people's beliefs they certainly have the right to similarly attack his beliefs

I didn't say violence is a form of free 'speech.' I said it was a form of expression. People express themselves differently. Sometimes words can kill before a sharp tool can do fatal damage.