• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Contemporary painting and Indian politics
<img src='http://www.sanatansociety.com/free_stuff/hanuman.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> Link
I think the efforts are being made to break lila (or narrative) aspect of Hindu art forms. Look at above painting. Little rascal Hanuman is pulling beard of rishi maharaj. Little rascal is putting out vedic fire. I am sure little Hanuman must have been previous avatar of Mohammad Ghori and Francis Xavier, says our modernist friend.

Lila is evident in this painting. There is no trace of Lila in Hussain and likes, rather there is just an attempt to portray humans as bundles of various essences.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If we learn to be moral beings through mimesis, it means that moral and ethical actions must be susceptible to being mimed. Contrast this stance with that of the West: a moral individual (an ideal priest or, say, Jesus Christ) is inimitable in principle. That is, a moral individual is actually a message, which does not say “be like me”, but one which proclaims “hope” for the humankind, brings “glad tidings” so to speak. And the “hope” is that the presence of such an inimitable, excep-tional individual will “save” humankind. If one is “righteous”, it is not only because that is the way to one’s ‘salvation’, but more importantly, because the salvation of humankind depends upon the “righteous” being present amongst them. One is “moral” so that other ‘sinners’ may be delivered from their ‘sins’. Such figures cannot influence daily life positively, but do so negatively viz., as examples of what we ordinary mortals, cannot be. They are, literally, the embodiments of ‘ought’ and, as such, outside the ‘is’ (Not every human being can be an ideal priest or even, as the exam-ples tell us, ought to be one.)

In Asia, such an ‘ought’ is no moral example at all. A moral action must be capable of emulation in daily life and only as such can someone be an ‘example’. Moral actions are actions that a son, a father, a friend, a teacher, a wife, etc., can perform as a son, a father, a friend, a teacher, a wife, etc. Either moral actions are realizable in this world, and in circumstances we find ourselves in our daily lives or they are not moral actions at all. Therefore, those real or fictitious individuals whose ac-tions we mime and who are, consequently, construed as ‘exemplary’ individuals cannot find them-selves ‘outside’ our world, but in situations analogous to our own. (Such a view is consistent with our models of ‘self’, for obvious reasons.)

5. This suggests that the role of moral authorities in these two cultures is different. In the West, the moral authorities are rigid principles without mercy or forgiveness. All talk of autonomy notwith-standing, moral ‘decisions’ are totally heteronymous. One has to reflect not only about the princi-ple one has to apply, but also judge whether one has correctly applied it. As a consequence, moral domain becomes one of judgement. The objects of judgement are and can only be conceptual ones, viz., theories. To say that some action is moral is to say whether or not the description of that action satisfies some or other moral principle. We have noticed this already. Moral life gets impoverished by being reduced to a principle (e.g. utilitarianism) or by being at the mercy of an-other’s ‘judgement’ (e.g., that of a priest).

In Asia, by contrast, the immediate physically recognizable authority figures (parents, teachers, elders) are also figures of moral authority. Mimesis in moral action requires figures recognized as moral authorities. Consequently, in a culture dominated by mimetic learning, not only do such au-thorities play an important role in regulating moral conduct, but are also so recognized. That is why, I suggest, parents, teachers, elders, ancestors have such a privileged position in our culture. They are not only familial or socially recognized authorities, but are individually recognized moral authorities also.
79, 80:

Thank you for explaining Ashok Ji. Have you compared this (esp, classifications of statuses/conditions of consciousness ) with how Bhagwan Patanjali has explained? pretty close I would say.

But back to the topic, he further even criticises the revivalist painters too - especially Nandalal Bose and Avanindranath Tagore. He mentions one particular painting of AT called 'Bride of Shiva' and says Tagore has been increasingly under the influence of vital.... he says the lady portrayed can not be parvati at all, and renames this painting as 'Bride of Pasupati'.
Bodhi where did he say that? All are not following the topic and it helps when we make statemetns to back them up.
Thanks, ramana
Ramana , 'He' referred to Sri Aurobindo. Please check post 78. This was about Sri Aurobindo's views on the contemporary artists and their arts. The quotation was from "Evening Talks with Sri Aurobindo" by A.B.Purani.
a la-Virenji trivia quiz.

Which was the last silent (and therefore Pan-Bharatiya) movie of India?
Author of this article claims that various devatA-s and mahAtmA-s have visited him through their subtle body in his yogic practice, and he has been able to produce sketches/paintings of their actual appearance.

<img src='http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/1010/hanuman.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Adi Sankar:
<img src='http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/1010/adisankara.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Before visiting Thailand in 1999, the author had a divine visitor.  What resulted was sketch of a woman, as a consequence. And her portrait consistently displayed flat nose, despite trying to make corrections. At the end she wrote her name as Thailand. Then the author understood that Goddess Thailand came for inviting the author.

Communication with celestials

Agni Devata (fire God) does not visit emitting heat or fire, but does visit like any other Devata as an invisible.  During his visits Agni Devata gifted the necessary physical strength to the author. The author has drawn nearly 20 sketches of Agni Devata.

Lord Hanuman and gurus gifted the author the ability (siddhi) to draw the sketches.  By 1978, he has drawn 27 pictures of Ramayana characters. In 1978, a saintly lady told the author that he can draw 5 more sketches with the siddhi. As she rightly professed, the siddhi ended after making 5 sketches more. Again, after meeting the saint Vidur Giri at Jodhpur in 1996, the siddhi was gifted once again after 18 years.

Nature of sketches

To date the artist has made nearly 500 sketches of celestials, some of which were made with pencil, while some are in colors.  These may be their gifts of immeasurable value to mankind. In 1998-1999, the author recited Srisuktam in Yajur Veda for 3000 times, as a result Kubera was pleased and visited a few times. Colored sketches were drawn for the first time with his force, which is a leap in author’s divine art from black sketches made earlier with pencil. He also drew the virtual Chakras mentioned in science of Yoga that act as transmitters and receivers and form aura around head as a result, the aspects of which are unknown to the physiologists. The great saint, ‘Guru nanna garu’ of Bapatla in Andhra Pradesh demonstrated once to his follower a brilliant glow (aura) around him termed ‘Chit- kala sandamdarsana’. 

Similarly, author’s recitation of Aditya Hrudayam in Valmiki Ramayana might have pleased the Sun God (Surya). As a result, he visited several times and drew around 40 sketches, mostly in colors. Initially some portraits made are apparently in human form. Notably, the sketches made exclusively of the Sun planet and its emissions disclose many scientific secrets of the sun planet, which hitherto astrophysicists are not fully aware off. Sketches were also made of astrological planets (navagrahaas), which are venerated as Devatas.

<b>Artistic freedom and social responsibility</b>
<i>By U. Narayana Das </i>
Panikkar continous hatred toward Hindus -
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Signature campaign to protest remark by Panikkar begins at MSU</b>
Thursday July 12, 12:29 AM
AKHIL Bharatiya Vidhyarti Parishad (ABVP) and University Youth Group on Wednesday launched their agitation against Prof Shivji Panikkar's comments on Hindu Bhajans being played in Sayajibaug, by initiating a varsity-wide signature campaign on MS University campus.

ABVP leaders said that, what Prof Panikkar said was unforgivable and are not only demanding his rustication from the varsity, but want him exiled from Vadodara as well, for hurting people's sentiments. The protests against Panikkar's statements have only intensified since Sunday and are set to increase in the city.

ABVP leader Vikas Dubey said that the signature campaign commenced at the Faculty of Arts and Commerce on Wednesday, and is set to cover all the faculties in MSU.<b> "On Wednesday, we received around 4,000 signatures from Arts and Commerce faculties," Dubey said. He added that they planned to get at least 15,000 signatures by Friday and submit the memorandum to the MSU authorities.</b>

Also University Youth Group led by Arts faculty general secretary Rupesh Prajapati said, <b>"Prof Panikkar's cartoon was made with a gun and was take out in the faculty. Around 700 signatures were collected by them and plans to have 8,000 signature." </b>Prajapati said Panikkar has abused the value of teachers by making such statement.

ABVP members also spoke to students about the entire issue in an effort to garner more support for their cause. According to Dubey, some students knew of the issue from media reports, while others had to be told of the incident, after which they pledged their support. "The signature campaign is only the beginning, the protests may intensify in a few days time," Dubey said.

At a panel discussion on higher education and university autonomy on Sunday, <b>Panikkar had made controversial statements referring to Hindu bhajans being played at Sayajibaug every morning and that he was forced to listen to the songs as he went for morning walk there. </b>ABVP leaders strongly condemned his statements.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jun 20 2007, 01:05 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jun 20 2007, 01:05 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->a la-Virenji trivia quiz.

Which was the last silent (and therefore Pan-Bharatiya) movie of India?

Nobody attempted <!--emo&Sad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->

The honour goes to 'Setu Bandhan' of Dada Saheb Phalke, which was not only the last silent movie - but also the first dubbed movie of India. Short film of 9 mins, made in 1932, and the personal favourite of Phalke.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jul 27 2007, 08:53 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jul 27 2007, 08:53 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jun 20 2007, 01:05 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jun 20 2007, 01:05 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->a la-Virenji trivia quiz.

Which was the last silent (and therefore Pan-Bharatiya) movie of India?

Nobody attempted <!--emo&Sad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->

The honour goes to 'Setu Bandhan' of Dada Saheb Phalke, which was not only the last silent movie - but also the first dubbed movie of India. Short film of 9 mins, made in 1932, and the personal favourite of Phalke.

The last silent movie that I know is Pushpak in 1988.

Congress's UN General Secratary writes:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>It's time to stop harassing M F Husain</span>
29 Jul 2007, 0052 hrs IST,Shashi Tharoor

The question of why Husain doesn't paint Muslim figures in the nude is a red herring. The Islamic tradition is a different one from either the Hindu or the Western; what causes offence in one is different from what causes offence in another. Islam, after all, prohibits any visual depiction of the Prophet, whereas visualising our gods and goddesses is central to the practice of Hinduism.

The emails and messages still haven't stopped coming in on the Husain paintings of unclad Hindu goddesses, but I think it's time to draw a line under that debate with one last foray. First, though, i'd like to deal with those who've questioned my own record: many have written to ask whether I have spoken out in favour of freedom of expression elsewhere (i have, for decades, and continue to do so); whether I have publicly defended Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses (i have, widely, and in writing as well as in person); and whether I have spoken in favour of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (I have not, because I consider them a needless provocation). The last line of questioning, I must say, irritated me; those who draw a parallel between Husain's art and a bunch of cartoons have not begun to understand the first thing about either.

But it's time to acknowledge that one category of objection cannot be lightly dismissed. I wrote a few weeks ago about those readers who, while fully respecting Husain as an artist, and without expressing any of the communal bigotry that I found particularly distasteful about this affair, nonetheless expressed anguish at seeing representations of goddesses in the nude. They wrote of their hurt that images they worshipped should have been so depicted; many asked why Husain has not depicted figures of other faiths, including his own, undressed. Several added that this was because Hindus are a pushover; other faiths are more robust in their self-defence, whereas Hindus like me are all too willing to accept being insulted.

There's a lot to be said about all this that one can't fit into a single Sunday column. But some points must be made. First: I don't feel insulted by the paintings because (unlike the Danish cartoons) no insult was intended. As i've explained before, Husain is no Johnny-come-lately; he is a major artist, a national treasure, one with a long record of being inspired by Hindu mythology as a major source of inspiration for his work. His paintings of goddesses are consistent with 50 years of his paintings of other iconic Hindu images, clad and unclad. I saw the paintings in that context; his critics saw them out of context (and judging by some emails I received, grossly exaggerated what the paintings depicted: a Hindutva website falsely alleges that Husain shows Durga in sexual relations with a tiger, something it would take a perfervid imagination to see in his picture!) Husain saw his paintings as being within a millennial Indian tradition in which nudity has been widely used in art, including on temple walls. So did i. But I accept that's not enough.

Husain as an artist has long used form to suggest ideas beyond form; images in his works are both less and more than realistic depictions of what they portray. His paintings are full of metaphors and allusions; the body, he has often said, is a representation of something formless, illusory (maya). As a Hindu, I did not see his goddesses as literal depictions of the images I worship. I believe in the Upanishadic view that the Divine is essentially unknowable, and that all worship consists of human beings stretching out their hands to that which they cannot touch. But since we humans, with our limited minds, need something more specific to aid our imaginations, we visualise God in forms that we find more easily recognisable. Hinduism, in accepting that need, also gives its adherents an infinite variety of choices about how to imagine God. That's why there are 333,000 names and depictions of the Divine in Hinduism; each Hindu may pick the ones he wishes to venerate, and the form in which he wishes to venerate them. There's nothing more 'authentic' about a Raja Ravi Varma image of Saraswati than that of a calendar artist; each is imagining the goddess according to his own sensibility. As a Hindu, I had no difficulty in according Husain the same right.

The question of why Husain doesn't paint Muslim figures in the nude is a red herring. The Islamic tradition is a different one from either the Hindu or the Western; what causes offence in one is different from what causes offence in another. Islam, after all, prohibits any visual depiction of the Prophet, whereas visualising our gods and goddesses is central to the practice of Hinduism.

But having said that, one has to accept that people of good faith may well have been offended — and if so, it's not enough to tell them they shouldn't be. Husain himself accepts that if you hurt people unintentionally, the right thing to do is to apologise. And he has done so, more than once. Since when have Hindus become so ungracious that we refuse to accept apologies?

On his current visit to the United States, Husain was asked by a radio interviewer how he felt about the controversy "as a Muslim". The 92-year-old Master bridled. "I'm an Indian and a painter, that's all," he said. As an Indian and a painter he has brought immense honour to our country and our civilisation. Is it right that, in the tenth decade of his illustrious life, he should live abroad, fearful of being hounded and harassed if he sets foot in his native land? I appeal to the very sense of decency that some readers claim Husain has violated. Let us put this matter beyond us, accept his apology, and withdraw the multiple cases that have been filed against him and which have destroyed his peace of mind. The persecution of Husain does not show Hindus acting in robust self-defence; it shows us as petty and small-minded. What does it say about us as a society if, instead of offering our greatest living artist an honoured place, we tell him he is not welcome in his own homeland? It is time to end this harassment — not just for Husain, but for our own sake as a civilisation.


There are so many things to be said about this. Later.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It's time to stop harassing M F Husain


Anyone for blasphemy?

Arun Jaitley
Posted online: Saturday, May 19, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST

The Vadodara incident, in which an art exhibition at the MS University was disturbed by a group of protesters, escalated into a political controversy. The protesters strongly maintained that some of the art objects on display were intended to hurt the religious sentiments of a particular religious denomination. A group of artists, supported actively by political organisations and eulogised by a section of the media, strongly maintained that the protest against the two paintings amounted to moral policing and that it was a suppression of artistic freedom. The debate continued for a few days until the young artist who had sketched the paintings was released on bail.

My normal instincts are against censorship and disruption of art exhibitions. Anxious to study and analyse the real issues in this controversy, I made a conscious effort to investigate as to what the two impugned paintings were. My curiosity was further strengthened by the fact that media organisations that championed freedom of artistic expression, projected the issue in the abstract, without informing viewers and readers what the exact expression of artistic freedom in this case was. My conscious effort led me to discover that the protest was with regard to two paintings whose contents were being censored by the responsible section of the media. I am unsure whether this was deliberate or whether it was an act of responsible journalism to prevent people from viewing an obnoxious piece of art.

My curiosity led me to discover that the first painting was that of a ‘cross’ on which Jesus Christ stood crucified. Below the said ‘cross’ was an English-style WC. The painting displayed the sexual organs on the art piece, with the liquid drip from them going into the WC. The second painting was a portrait, ostensibly of the Hindu goddess ‘Durga’, in the nude with a full grown human male emerging out of her sexual organs. The young artist had obviously used the artistic freedom to paint religious figures in a sexually explicit manner. I have not the least doubt that the intention was not an expression of artistic freedom. Such perversity can hardly emerge out of a fair use of artistic expression. It was conceivably the easiest mode of success available to the young artist making him nationally known overnight.

The question for consideration in Indian society today is whether the right of an individual, including an artist, to express himself with freedom includes his right to commit blasphemy. The most prominent amongst the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution is Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees to a citizen the freedom of speech and expression. This right is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions, which, amongst others, empower the state to make laws that can restrict the exercise of this right in the interest of public order, decency or morality. This case relates to decency or morality, but let’s ignore that for the moment. The responsibility of maintaining public order prohibits an individual from engaging in actions that may lead to public disorder. The Danish cartoons controversy has clearly revealed that the cartoons were not merely excesses of caricature, but were sufficient to create disorder. Although the cartoons did not have any sexually explicit material, even then they created public disorder globally. Religious sensitivities were ignored. In the present case, it is the level of tolerance of Indian society that protests were limited to one act of slogan shouting at the art exhibition in question. What is objectionable is not the mistaken romanticism of the young artist, but the insistence of responsible sections of the society that artistic freedom would extend to such acts of blasphemy. The mere dressing up of the head of a religious sect in Sirsa with a resemblance to a Sikh Guru is sufficient to create public disorder. Can it be reasonably believed that sexually explicit paintings of Jesus Christ or goddess Durga will have no effect on society?

The penal law in India is very clear. Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code penalises any person, who, amongst others, by a visible representation, promotes religious disharmony, ill-will or a feeling of hatred. Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code penalises any person who destroys, damages or defiles any object held sacred by any class of persons, with the intention of thereby insulting the sentiments of such class, or with the intention of such defilement being regarded as an insult to religion. If such explicit scenes had been shown in a cinema, would the Censor Board have ever cleared it? In England, a video work titled Visions of Ecstasy was not cleared by the censors on the test that “The question is not one of the matter expressed, but of its manner, that is, the tone, style and spirit, in which it is presented. The video work submitted by you depicts the mingling of religious ecstasy and sexual passion, a matter which may be of legitimate concern to the artist. It becomes subject to the law of blasphemy, however, if the manner of its presentation is bound to give rise to outrage at the unacceptable treatment of a sacred subject. Because the wounded body of the crucified Christ is presented solely as the focus, and at certain moments a participant in, the erotic desire of St. Teresa, with no attempt to explore the meaning of the imagery beyond engaging the viewer in an erotic experience, it is the Board’s view, and that of its legal advisers, that a reasonable jury properly directed would find that the work infringes the criminal law of blasphemy.”

The Censor Board’s views were challenged and the challenge went upto the European Court of Human Rights, which held that “Having reached the conclusion that they did, as to the blasphemous content of the film, it cannot be said that authorities overstepped their margin of appreciation.”
It is a different matter that in England the law of blasphemy is available only against an act of outrage and insult to Christianity. When a magistrate refused to issue summons for blasphemy against Salman Rushdie and the publishers of The Satanic Verses, Lord Watkins stated “We have no doubt that as the law now stands, it does not extend to religions other than Christianity.” Efforts to amend the law in England and bring other religions at par with Christianity have not succeeded.

The proponents of the liberal view argue that artists should have the freedom to give vent to their expression even if the same is blasphemous or offensive to religion. Followers of religions must choose to look in the other direction. That is what normally happens. Except for marginal protests, India does not witness the kind of outrage we saw in the Danish cartoon case. There is no need for any protesting citizen to take the law into his hands. The machinery of law must be allowed to operate in such cases. At the same time, the perversion in the definition of secularism as being synonymous with majority-bashing must end. This perversion was visible in the Vadodara incident. The strategy was — don’t let the people know what the contents of the two paintings are. Carry on the debate on artistic freedom in the abstract and criticise the whole idea of moral policing. Society does not need moral policemen. It can do well without those who pass on blasphemy as a part of their artistic freedom.

The writer is a BJP MP and former Union law minister
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Aug 1 2007, 01:13 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Aug 1 2007, 01:13 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Congress's UN General Secratary writes:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>It's time to stop harassing M F Husain</span>
29 Jul 2007, 0052 hrs IST,Shashi Tharoor

The question of why Husain doesn't paint Muslim figures in the nude is a red herring. The Islamic tradition is a different one from either the Hindu or the Western; what causes offence in one is different from what causes offence in another. Islam, after all, prohibits any visual depiction of the Prophet, whereas visualising our gods and goddesses is central to the practice of Hinduism.



The psec Mohamedan-apologist Tharoor probably thinks he did some great piece of anal-ytical thinking when he says "Islam, after all, prohibits any visual depiction of the Prophet, whereas visualising our gods and goddesses is central to the practice of Hinduism". But but Mr. Secretary General wannabbee, visualizing them *naked* is not, is it now?

Don't try to be cute, Mr Tharoor. Its not funny anymore. <!--emo&:f*(k--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/f*(k.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='f*(k.gif' /><!--endemo-->

...Come to think of it, if what Islam prohibits is to be respected, why not respect what Islam permits? Rape of the infidel is perfectly allowed (and encouraged) in Islam. So Mr. Tharoor, shall I arrange an appointment? You know, for your friendly neighborhood Yaseen Malik clone to come extend his hospitality to your you-know-who?

Thanking you in anticipation for your participation. <!--emo&Smile--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Can we move this to the culture thread.

A description of Contemporary modern Indian painting from a website on crafts from India

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Contemporary Indian Modern Painting

<b>The root of contemporary Indian modern painting lies in antiquity. From the ancient Indian cave paintings to the tribal paintings, from Miniatures to Madhubani, from Raja Ravi Verma to Rabindranath Tagore … the rich heritage of Indian paintings has cast its powerful impression on the mind and art of modern, contemporary Indian artists Indian painting breathed a whole new life in the 19th and 20th century and the main proponent of this renaissance was Raja Ravi Verma.</b>

<b>Another important move was the setting up Government Art Colleges in Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai and Lahore. </b>The Bengal school originated with the works of Abanindranath Tagore, Nandalal Bose, A.K. Haldar and many more. In the south there were pioneers such as K.C.S.Panickar, K. Madhavan Menon and others whose rich colors and simplicity of design set a propensity that was to be followed by future artists. Modern Indian contemporary painting is like an interconnected flow of various styles and movements: inspired from the Western academic custom of Raja Ravi Verma, to the indigenous and Asian-inspired art of the Bengal School, from Rabindranath Tagore's imagery, to that of Ramkinker Vaij, reflecting the forms of nature; from the art of Amrita Sher-Gill and F N Souza that was inspired by European Modernism, to that of KCS Panikaer that seeks a deeper link with traditional crafts and philosophy; from the socially responsible art of Somnath Hore, Sudhir Patwardhan and others to M F Husain and K G Subramanyan who differently reveal the universality of folk-tribal-urban gamut. The rare aesthetic blend of all these trends and traditions has given rise to the <b>contemporary Indian modern paintings, reflected in the works of Jogen Chowdhury, Satish Gujral, M F Husain, Bhupen Khakhar, Krishen Khanna, Gieve Patel, Ganesh Pyne, G m Sheikh, J Swaminathan and others.</b>
Read More about Modern Paintings
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Aug 18 2007, 03:13 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Aug 18 2007, 03:13 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can we move this to the <b>culture</b> thread.

This is rather un-culture I would say. Lets keep this here.

Ravi Varma Award to Hussain is 3 weeks away, on his birth day. Is this an award or a gift?
Looks like MF Hussain's bug has bitten Salman Khan


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Controversies and Salman Khan have pledged to remain together through out life. And look there is another one in air. <b>Some days ago only this creative aspect of the angry young man was revealed.</b> People received it as a positive side of the action hero who has always been blamed for arrogance.

<b>Recently a painting by him hit the news headlines and created furore. The painting called ‘Last Supper’, a religious painting of Christians in which Jesus and his apostles dined together is alleged to be painted by the actor in which he places the family of his relative Amrita Arora.</b>

<b>The holy picture is looked at with great reverence by the Catholics and has been taken it as an insult to their religion by a Bombay based Christian activist organisation.

Christians took it as offence to their sentiments. The catholic Secular forum has announced that they will hold demonstrations at Amrita’s house if she receives the offensive painting.</b>

An official of the organisation said that the issue is a punishable offence and they have written to the police commissioner D.N. Jadhav to register a case under section 295(a) of the IPC. Minority ministry has also been informed about the whole controversial affair. He also informed that they called for legislation to prevent such insults to any religion.

He warned that legal action will be taken against actor.

<b>The issue got boiled more because of the fact that none of the party either Salman Khan or Amrita Arora belongs to the religion.</b>

None has come forward to clear the confusion over the issue. All this hue and cry was created over a newspaper report which talked of such painting having ‘the Last Supper content’.

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Aug 21 2007, 12:50 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Aug 21 2007, 12:50 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The issue got boiled more because of the fact that none of the party either Salman Khan or <b>Amrita Arora belongs to the religion.</b>

but I thought Arora-s were catholic or half-catholic.
Amrita Arora is Catholic and married to Muslim.
Salman step mother is Helen who is catholic and his biological mother is Hindu Rajput.
Mudy, His biological mother is Salma Khan, wife of Salim Khan the famous movie script writer. Salman had recently painted something which was sold for over Rs 1 crore - must be getting ready for his second innings. It's only for so only one can prance around young hotties without shirt on.
Father: Salim Khan (Bollywood screenwriter)
Mother: (Hindu)
Brother: Sohail Khan (actor)
Brother: Arbaaz Khan (actor)

mother may be converted to Islam for marriage.

Here is about Salim Khan<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Salim Khan was born in 24th Nov.1935, in Indore, India. His father was a police officer; his mother died when he was still young.

In 1964, he married a non-Muslim woman, a Hindu from Maharashtra. She changed her name from Sushila to Salma when she married. Salma's Hindu family was unhappy that she had married a Muslim. Her father refused to speak to Salim or Salma for seven years after the wedding..

Salim and Salma have had four children: Salman (b. 1965), Arbaaz (b. 1967), Sohail (b. 1970), Alvira. They also adopted a daughter named Arpita.

In the late 1970s, Salim took a second wife, the dancer/actress Helen, who lives in a separate household. Relations between his two families were rumoured to have been tense at first, but Salim's children by his first wife are now said to be fond of his second wife as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)