Contemporary painting and Indian politics

[Husky]

On declaring MF Hussain - or however that kadaver's name is spelled - an artist:

I think this is where the attempts at social engineering visibly fails.



- Except for a bunch of people who don't know what art is - don't know to work it out for themselves - and who will thus parrot others who they have allowed to determine for them what is "actual art" (and so imagine MF Husain has any skill let alone artistic expression or ability to envision forget capture beauty), the masses can visibly see the difference between aesthetics/what's truly attractive & beautiful, and puerile junk. And anyone who is remotely honest (and not literally blind) will admit that Husain's ... output is not remotely attractive no matter how you hold the paper (well, I suppose if you turn it over and can't see it anymore, it's a vast improvement). And that's as concerns his "better" (decent) works. Then there's his deformed profanities on christoislamic themes: christoislamic characters copulating in christoislamic circumstances. Less than worthless, as anyone without proclivities to extreme sleaze will allow.



- To imbibe the inverted notion of "art" (let alone aesthetics) that the social engineers want to instill, one has to first read and read and read a zillion people's worthless opinions, analyses and reviews of works of "art" and what constitutes "art". And one will need to Understand such things first and then Internalise the same. In other words, one has to take a big shard or two from the Snow Queen's all-perverting mirror and poke it into one's own eyes before a *sane* person will share such opinions.

The heathen masses won't do that: the effort required to program them into this is too much. Instead, if the heathens and other unsubverted ever come across Husain's WC-papier they'll just see it for what it is: junk. And conclude the inevitable: christoislamics can only "create" crap. (Don't blame christoislamics, it's their christoislamism that artistically, and in all other ways, stunted them so.)



- Make the same Hindu heathens look at the skillfully and authentically crafted GR sacred imagery (or even GR art), not to mention E Asian paintings and vigrahas, and instantly, the Hindoo - without knowing the tongues of the GRs and E Asians, as this language is a visual medium - will see the beauty jumping at him. (In this case: Divine beauty, whose purpose is not art at all but religion - same as with carnatic music, bharata natyam etc. They are not art, but religious practice.) What to say of Hindus viewing their own people's art, and the fashionings and likenesses made of the sacred of their own religion.



- Among ancient populations, aesthetics was recognised as a natural driving force in art and the appreciation of it: it could appeal to the masses as well as those who deemed themselves to have a more particular, more refined eye for beauty. But it was still understood that anyone born with sight would in all likelihood have the ability to appreciate visual art. Certainly, there were rules and guidelines (from golden ratios, to how to fashion rooftop edges and why, to how to draw the Gods, what materials to use, what - sole - events to depict and to have displayed) and those educated learnt the reasoning behind them and would likely choose to work with those guidelines. But there was a good deal of aesthetics governing it all.



In contrast, among India's cliquey social engineers of our times, art is elected by them for their purposes - just as the gifting of various Indian national awards now are - and it is defined to be what they declare is art. It is made so cliquey (culty) that it is verily the inverse of what has universal appeal and warrants universal appreciation.



What the social engineers attempted - the power they sought - is to tell the masses what is art. And this is where the poison failed to go down: without heathens even knowing the story of Des Kaisers Neue Kleider, the unsubverted* can see through the nonsense for themselves. Automatically. Because ugly is ugly. Scrawls are scrawls. And profanity (well, where one can see make out the scrawls) remains profanity. That it's but more christoislamic ineptitude born of the ever-low christoislamic mind does not mitigate the perception of it as junk (i.e. no special consideration for people with the self-inflicted disabilities owing to mindviruses).



* As stated above, it requires years of brainwashing to make people see beauty where there is hideousness and see profundity where there is profanity. It's only the miseducated/subverted kind that has learnt/been taught to rationalise to itself that the ugliness declared "art" that its eyes sees is "cleverness", "meaningful" or even "beauty" instead, and has frequently also unlearnt the natural ability to recognise, appreciate and value true beauty. It's the self-inflicted wound with the Goblin's mirror fashioned for Die Schnee Koenigin. Their punishment is to live with themselves - I can't imagine anything worse <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> (There's nothing that screams Debile more than Bad Taste.)







http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?opt...0&Itemid=1

INDIAN MEDIA PRAISES JIHADI ‘ARTIST’ HUSAIN FOR INSULTING HINDUS

[...]

Finally, a little but bitter truth about Husain’s alleged art. The Indian media has called him ‘Picasso of India’. The foolish media does not seem to know that both Husain and Picasso were not artists but fraudsters. Both did not practice art. The ‘modern art’ both practiced was pure swindle. In fact, Picasso had once admitted : “I fooled everyone.” While Picasso had the honesty to at least admit the truth about his ‘art’ towards the end of his career, the ‘artist’ from the holy town of Pandharpur in Maharashtra did not have the decency to do so till the end. How typically Islamic!

Reads like an admission of the Emperor's New Clothes being non-existent.