Jennie’s Palette

Shri Parvati by MF Husain

” The allegations made against the painter are baseless and it would not be proper to hold that he had a deliberate intention to manifestly insult Bharat Mata,” Justice Kaul said after reasoning that nudity is part of contemporary art.

Husain’s nude paintings of Bharat Mata, as well as those of other Hindu gods and goddesses had created a furore resulting in several threats from right wing groups like VHP and Bajrang Dal, following which he is living in self-imposed exile in Dubai.

“A painter at 90 deserves to be at his home - painting on his canvas,” the judge said quashing proceedings in three cases against Husain, and added that “it is most unfortunate that India’s new ‘puritanism’ is being carried out in the name of cultural purity and ignorant people vandalize art.”

[From Delhi HC quashes obscenity case against MF Husain-India-The Times of India]

In a brilliant show of justice, the obscenity charges against Maqbool Fida Husain have been formally dropped. I am delighted that the Judge in this outlandish case also responded to the charges and the recent right wing extremist acts with logic, echoing a lot of the things I myself have wondered as well. his speech is a triumph of dignity in support of artistic expression and freedom as well as acknowledging art history and India’s own specific artistic past.
I have covered the travails of MF Husain on this blog numerous times, not only as an example of extreme reactions to nude art but of how we are becoming more reserved and more tightly puritan. I still don’t understand the complexities of his controversies but I do understand that all of the protests in the world have only made him more famous, desirable and expensive.
Now that this case is ended, what is next for India’s Picasso? I have yet to see any backlash from the judgement though I am still expecting the other shoe to drop. Will he move back? will he continue to command the prices and respect he has earned?

more disturbing? The other photo in the scandal - Miley and her father Billy Ray by Annie Liebovitz

Usually I actually ignore stories like these. this one especially appears to be a storm in a teacup, a media furor that seems to have little to do with the actual people involved. here is a collection of further editorials on the subject that I thought were a particularly fascinating read. I especially like so many members of the media taking the time to explain what a non event it is and how so much of the media is hyping it up, it appeals to the ironic in me I guess.

So why the moral uproar over a photograph which is essentially the same thing? Even if, as Greer purports, Leibovitz’s dirty postcard aesthetic depicts Cyrus as post-coital, or even worse a child prostitute and Disney her pimp, isn’t this just a depressingly conventional piece of iconography?

From That Miley Cyrus photograph: artsy or outrageous? | Art & architecture | Guardian Unlimited

The real question is why we are only now concerned about the sanctified purity of a teenaged superstar who struts around in mini-skirts selling concert tickets on the all-but-explicit promise, “Your kids will thank you, and Dad won’t necessarily be bored.” Somehow, Cyrus’s Vanity Fair photo has become the cue for a moral panic. An Associated Press writer explained: “It’s what the photo suggests rather than shows — the idea that she might be nude, perhaps even in bed — that bothered some parents.” When these people find out that we’re all nude under fabric all the time, how can the heavens fail to fall?

From
Internal Dissent: Miley Cyrus’s “nude” photo for Vanity Fair magazine - Full Comment

While there may be an uproar around Miley Cyrus’s “topless” photo for a Vanity Fair shoot, it’s possible that this photograph of Miley with “Achy, Breaky” dad Billy Ray Cyrus is more disturbing. Or maybe it’s just because we have never seen a daughter pose like this with her father. Here’s the Vanity Fair article about Miley–where she says of the topless photo, “I think it’s really artsy. It wasn’t in a skanky way.… And you can’t say no to Annie. She’s so cute. She gets this puppy-dog look and you’re like, O.K.”– and here’s the behinds-the-scenes about the photo shoot.

From Gothamist: More Creepy? Miley and Billy Ray Cyrus for Vanity Fair

Photo by Bruce Lee Smith Rigoberto Gonzalez poses in front of some of his paintings

Barocco en la Frontera” contains more than two dozen of Gonzalez’s drawings and paintings. Several of them are nude figure studies and three have full frontal nudity. It is those three that have caused the controversy. Joel Humphries, director of Arts and Entertainment for the city, said it was all a case of bad timing.

In the museum’s other gallery is “Taking Flight: A History of Kites.” Humphries said hundreds of local school children are scheduled to tour the exhibit within the next month. “We didn’t want some child wandering in there, supervised or not supervised … and then the next thing you know we have upset parents calling city commissioners,” Humphries said.

Gabriel Gonzalez, the city official, said he originally wanted to display the three works in question in a separate room with a closed door. Rigoberto Gonzalez said the city official first wanted the paintings removed entirely or put in a separate room where people were required to sign in before viewing them.

The compromise reached was that the doors to the gallery would remain closed and display a warning sign about the content. Patricia Morales, museum coordinator for HAHM, said the works are executed in a classical style and are hardly obscene. “I’m very proud that we’re exhibiting them,” she said. “They’re very beautiful.”

[From Now: Art show featuring nudity, decapitation causes stir | city, exhibit, gonzalez : TheMonitor.com]

What is interesting about this situation is that there has been no outcry about the violent pieces including decapitations. surely, if the museum was truly concerned about children seeing images that may scar them the violent images would be at the top of the list? but no, as usual everyone is afraid that the mere sight of a nude body will send children off the deep end. or is it just that our society is now so warped that something natural that we all have is more shameful and disgusting than the violence surrounding us.

Gonzalez’s works are inspired by baroque style and he cites art history as a source of bloody and violent works. Classically, violence, often inspired by biblical stories, was a favorite subject, nudes and the female form were almost as prevalent. It seems a real shame that these pieces are now behind closed doors, I had a chance to see some of his works on this youtube video and they look stunning. very much in the style of the masters (and some of my favorite artists) and I venture that this exhibition might be educational to kids as it explores the underworld and the way drug deals can go wrong. Gonzalez is a teacher and judging by the comments on his youtube, his students are aware of his works and not particularly scarred by them. when did we start feeling a need to shield kids from reality?