An art exhibition in London has been cancelled after an attack by Hindu extremists on two of the paintings. The excuse: "security reasons." How incredibly wimpish is that? Particularly when...
Maqbool Fida Hussain, 90, who has stirred controversy in India among militant Hindus by painting Durga, Saraswati, and other Hindu deities in the nude, came to London for the summer to seek a more tolerant artistic climate.
That was after he faced charges in India for hurting the sentiments of people. (A very curious charge. Lots of things offend my "sentiments" every day — people driving planet-destroying 4WDs in London, for example, but I don't expect them to be charged because of my feelings.)
The artist, most usually known as M.F. Hussain, or just "Hussain," so well-known is he in India, has had a score of solo exhibitions around the world, going back to 1950. He was described by Forbes magazine as "the Picasso of India.. This is no young artist setting out to make a splash with controversy. (Not that it should matter if he were.)
After the attack, with black spray paint, Asia House's insurers have said they would not cover the exhibition. (Which surely they should not be allowed to do. They are insurers — it might be reasonable to demand more security precautions or guards, but such actions only invite more similar actions. Have they not thought of that?)
I've linked above to the Telegraph story (short), and there was a comment piece in the Observer yesterday. That's it. (At least all that appears on Google News.) A blog piece by Sujit Nair, a PhD student in America, sets out some of the issues and refutes the arguments of those who would deny Hussain free speech.
A major exhibition, by an important international artist, has been forced to close by probably a handful of people. And hardly anyone seems to have noticed. This simply isn't good enough, from the media, from Asia House, from the artistic community, from London itself.
All references to the exhibition appear to have been removed from the Asia House website but the email address is there. If you care about artistic freedom, about freedom of speech, I'd suggest dropping them a line.
(The image, of a painting called "Mother India", is from MFHussain's website, which, when I found it, showed signs of being attacked by hackers but was still more or less functional. I don't know if it will stay that way.)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joanie
Amazing how the few can oppress the rights of the many, isn't it? I'm rather tired of everyone having to be so politically "sensitive" and "correct" that they require everything to be set to their liking.
In San Diego, we face losing a war memorial that's stood for 50+ years because it's in the shape of a cross -- all because a few people say it offends them. They haven't protested over the Shinto bell down by the harbor yet (nor will they -- it's not a Christian symbol, so it's not offensive), but soon I believe we'll lose our missions because, despite their being a huge part of California history, they're standing symbols of Christianity.
Were the artist who was forced to end his exhibition standing on the corner denouncing Hinduism, he'd likely be afforded more protection and a larger platform. Sadly, his beautiful works of art celebrating a religion in a manner not in accordance with a few folks is going to suffer from THEIR insensitivity.
I really shudder to think what this world is coming to when we can all start claiming we've been offended.
It's going to come down to everyone trying to please everyone all the time and nobody being allowed to express ANYTHING for fear of offending a single person. That's the exact opposite of freedom and tolerance, isn't it?
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Natalie,
I read about this fellow on Desicritics, where his work had stirred up lively debate. Perhaps you should post this piece there if you can. I know very little about your fine city, but I do know that lots of Desis live there, and your posts should be of some interest to those on Desicritics.
3 - Nathan
You know, I think you all are so blinded by wanting to stop extremists that you fail to understand how tasteless and offensive Husain's exhibits are to hindus. For goodness sakes, one of his older pictures shows a revered goddess fornicating with a bull. Such a picture is far removed from any bounds of taste. There is a limit to what can be tolerated.
4 - Natalie Bennett
That sounds rather like "The Rape of Europa", Nathan, an image to be found in pretty well any art gallery displaying European art.
You say you know what the "limit of what can be tolerated" is.
Well, I can think of one Hindu tale I happen to know, which has no doubt been illustrated by artists, of how Ganesh got his elephant's head. Not I might find that image of familial child abuse (his head was chopped off by his father in a fit of jealousy, for those who don't know the story) grossly offensive, but it doesn't mean that I think artists should not be able to show it.
Free speech means just that. And the alternative to free speech is tyranny - in this case theocratic tyranny.
It is simple - if the image offends you, don't go to see it.
5 - Joanie
Natalie, you make a fine point by saying, "if the image offends you, don't go see it." Absolutely!
I think back to the outcry here in the states over Mapplethorpe's images. Based solely on the lighting and composition, aside from the subject matter, they were most definitely works of art. Would everyone be able to view his nudes and their themes with a critical eye or would they only see the nudity? It's subjective. That, however, never stopped Bosch from including the bizarre and disturbing images often included in his work.
Of course, there are those whose tolerance of any sort of nudity is quite low. For those people, I say "look away".
6 - Jim C.
Remember those Muhammed cartoons that extremist Muslims rioted over? That only about 4 news outlets in the world would print?
The media's craven response sent the message that the extremist Muslim violence was effective in preventing further so-called insults to Islam.
Now the Hindus have figured out the same thing.
Congratulations. You asked for it. And there'll be more.
Joanie: as you should know, mere nudity was not the issue with Mapplethorpe. If it had been a picture of Muhammed instead of a crucifix in a jar of urine, there'd be a fatwa against him and worldwide violence.
7 - Sonal Panse
Thanks for this article.
You're quite right - if the paintings offend certain people, they needn't spend so much time pondering over them - spend so much time hacking that site.
I'm a Hindu and these people are NOT acting on MY behalf. In fact, I find their behaviour extremely offensive. They are hurting my sentiments with such hooliganism.
Now, don't you think, that should be reason enough - by their own measure - to give up and turn their attention elsewhere?
Since they seem to have so much free time on their hands and moreover seem to care so much about India and Indians, they might have a go at volunteering and helping out with some much-needed social serivce in the very poor and backward rural areas of India.
That should keep them busy, stop embarassing the rest of us, and also really help the nation for a change.
That's what we need. NOT the harassement and humiliation of one of our finest artists.
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Natalie, I see you did post your piece on Desicritics. And I see that you have gotten some comments there as well.
Good job!
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Looking at the whole thing from my own point of view, this artist should not be depicting Hindu goddesses. The reasons are two-fold.
1. As a Moslem, he is not supposed to be paying attention to what a Moslem would (or should) view as a pagan goddess.
2. As a member of the minority in India, he should never forget his "guest" status, and not spit in his host's rice.
This is smething that Jews living in exile understand almost instinctively. There are things that I can write here, because I live in Israel, that I would never write in Minnesota.
Apparently, he did not feel comfortable as a "guest" in India and left for the United Kingdom, where Indians are also a minority, and spitting on Anglican Christianity is the more dangerous thing to do.
Now this "guest" "host" stuff does not reflect the laws of any given country. It reflects the visceral reality - the one that goes deeper than the law.
10 - Natalie Bennett
You are totally wrong Ruvvy, for a number of reasons.
1. India is a secular state. (And in fact there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan.)
2. The artist is an Indian. Who better to comment on and depict his own culture?
3. There is absolutely no danger in criticising Anglican Christianity in England. It is probably one of the safest religions in the world to criticise - you might draw a letter to The Times from a bishop, as about the biggest reaction.
4. Law is good - law protects. Visceral as a method of running human society is very, very dangerous. And surely we've got beyond that?
11 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Natalie,
I fully realize that India defines itself as a secular state, and that the State President there is often a Moslem. I also know tha the Moslem population of India exceeds that of Pakistan. America defines itself as a secular state too, by the way.
But the realities under the self definitions are far more telling, and when the realities are a reasonably close match to the self definitions, you have a happy, stable society; when they do not match - a good example of this would be the short-lived Weimar republic in Germany - you do not have a stable society. Another example of this is today's France. The average Frenchman's self-definition of his society will be French, secular, democratic and Catholic. For a long time, this was quite true. Today it is not.
Law is good, but if the underlying realities do not back the law, the law is quite worthless.
While India defines itself as a secular state, the culture is very strongly influenced by the Hindu majority, just as America, which also defines itself as a secular state, has a culture very strongly influenced by Christianity.
As a member of a tiny minority in Minnesota, I saw how the American self definition was very strongly modfied by the viscereal reality of a huge Christian majority there. No one ever said that Jews were "guests." That would violate "Minnesota nice" and would be against the "self definition" of the country, not to mention the law. But no one ever had to explain the facts of life to me either.
In India, this fellow Hussain upset quite a few Hindus with his sculptures. Had he himself been a Hindu, it would have been one thing. More religious Hindus could rage and scream and condemn however they might. Mapplethorpe, after all, the fellow who did the "Piss Christ" thing, was nominally a Christian. Religious Christians raged and screamed, but they couldn't say he a was a Jew bastard or Christ killer.
N. Hussain is an Indian citizen and carries an Indian passport, but the fact that hs is not a Hindu makes all the difference in the world. He probably should have stayed home. He probably would have enjoyed greater tolerance within Indian society. Hindu ex-pats probably felt less restraint in attacing him in the UK than they would have at home.
Nevertheless, he pushes the envelope. As a Moslem, he should not pay attention to the deities of a different faith. And more to the point, he ought not be representing them in a way which insults the faithful. I'm not talking legality here. It just isn't wise, or good manners.
12 - Natalie Bennett
"He pushes the envelope". I'd say that's a definition of the role of the artist in society. And the role of societies' legal and institutional frameworks should be to enable that pushing. Which means somewhere like Asia House showing some backbone.
13 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Don't get me wrong, Natalie. You and I agree that India House ought to show some spine in this case. We also agree - for the most part - that the role of the artist is to push the envelope. It is just that, IMHO, N. Hussain is the wrong fellow pushing this particular envelope...
14 - emily
FYI - Piss Christ was by an artist called Andre Serrano - Mapplethorpe gained his notoriety due to the fact that he on occasion photographed naked children (in an artistic and non-graphic way and with the full consent of their parents).
15 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I sit corrected, Emily.
16 - tc
Kudos to the civil and informed conversation here... It's a sad state of affairs when this sort of discourse is even brought to bare, but at least you're keeping it in a considerate and educated tone.
Much appreciated.
17 - Priusone
Gee, I think the way the Muslims do it is way better. They'd just blow up the building, and or kill the art creator. Of course, all in the name of Islam.
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Priusone,
It does sort of end the discussion... But at some point, the people on whose territory all this mayhem takes place, might get disgusted and start killing Moslems. That almost happened in the Netherlands a while back when a van Gogh got more than his ear shaved off by a Moslem.
19 - Very Wrong
Him and his paintings should all be burned and buried. Freedom of speech and freedom to express is one thing, but to insult a religious group with sexual images of their deities is taking it way too far. If he had made cartoons about the prophets of hinduism which were humorous that would have most probably been be acceptable as long as they were not of a sexual nature, but to make disgusting insulting paintings like this and call them art is completely out of order. When the cartoons were drawn of the prophet muhammed the uproar from muslims was huge and the cartoons were not even of a sexual nature, then a muslim "artist" draws sexual images of hindu deities and expects hindus to accept them as art? People should be happy that the paintings were the only thing that were damaged during the so called "attack" rather than calling out for the upholding of freedom to express. By the way it was more of a sign of maintaining religious dignity than an attack by extremists. Your article title is way too misleading, you make it sound like it was something equivalent to 9/11 or 7/7.
20 - Natalie Bennett
"Very wrong". Do you drive a car? If so, you are grossly offending me and destroying the world. Stop immediately and take a sledgehammer to the car! That's my belief, and you are not allowed to offend it.
... I'm applying your rules.
21 - k-com
As a secular humanist I think your comment should be burned and buried. Freedom of speech and freedom to express is one thing, but to insult the democratic liberal traditions upon which western civilization is built is taking it way too far. Your post is not at all misleading, you make it sound like it was something equivalent to 9/11 or 7/7.
22 - Very Wrong
Natalie Bennett:
No i do not drive a car, and you are not applying my rules in any way whatsoever. My comments are in the defence of the principals of morality and cultural respect and although they are written in response to this article they actually cover the whole spectrum of moral behaviour when "applied", i fail to see how you found similarity in my comment to yours? Like i said there are boundaries which can be accepted but from the response he had received in india the artist should have understood his work was clearly offensive, yet he still sought to put it on display to further offend. I would argue the same comment if similar pictures of jesus or prophet muhammed would have been painted and exhibited. If you saw those pictures on the internet they would be deemed as pornographic material, just because they are hung in a gallery and named suddenly makes them controversial art?
k-com:
I fail to see how my comment was an insult to the democratic liberal traditions upon which western civilisation is built. If it was a western artist who had painted the pictures then maybe your comment would have been appropriate but since the artist is eastern how do your western traditions apply to him. I did not say scrap freedom of speech or freedom of expression, and i also did not say western people should not be allowed to see the artwork, so how was my comment denying you of your civilised rights?, i am merely indemifying the moral discretion of the artist to create such works and display them when they are obviously offensive and could lead to the misconception of a whole faith and the followers of that faith, especially in the western world where due to the freedom that is granted people are easily influenced and can interpret things incorrectly.
23 - Howard Dratch
It was good of you to post this and courageous in these days of reprisals against all forms of expression: artistic, religious, intellectual, poliical.
I only know London from novels, historical constitutional history, movies... but I do not like to think of it in the same place as Cincinatti banning a photography show and jailing the curator nor of the threats against Salman Rushdie, the brouhaha of extremists against cartoons nor the vandalism of a show of paintings (good or bad) for some imagined insult.
Artists have a tendency to make trouble. It is the nature of art.
24 - Natalie Bennett
Thanks Howard. As you say, it is the job description of artists to make trouble - otehrwise they are mere chocolate-box illustrators.
As for London, I do hope that most other institutions here wouldn't have reacted the same way. Asia House is quite new and probably thus vulnerable. But I (and I suspect a lot of other people) won't be treating it as a serious place of scholarship or art after this.
25 - Natalie Bennett
"Very wrong" - I don't accept that there should be different rules for "easterners" and "westerners". There are universal human rights - as every country in the world has accepted through the United Nations - and free speech is among them. And, as, for example, the rise of Nazism shows, for ideologies to be allowed to exist and shape people's minds wiithout challenge or questioning is a dangerous state of affairs.