The Shanaakht Fiasco
We have seen 'photoons' - photo cartoons - of her being married to Nawaz and Altaf on the net before. I did not take offense to them because they were satirical comments on real alliances. After all, even the textual statements in the press referred to these, at times, as 'marriages of convenience' or 'an unholy political matrimony'. The images only carried the representation further. I admit that I, too, on hearing that JI chief Qazi Husain Ahmad had tried to prevent Mian Nawaz Sharif from forming an alliance with BB, had passed around (among friends) a photoshopped image of the two newlyweds - with Husain Ahmad looking sullen - and captioned it Jab Mian-BB raazi to kyaa karay ga Qazi.
Labels: Activism, Art, Bloggers, Education, Events, Literature, Media, News, Pakistan, People, Personal, Poetry, Politics, Rant, T2F, Urdu
7 Comments:
Let me caveat this comment by saying that I am a committed supporter of BB (of the person but not the party).
I completely and passionately disagree with your stance on the matter. Should Jesus Christ be portrayed with his arms around the shoulder of an image depicting the devil? No, he shouldn't. Does that mean an artist, with an inclination towards representing this image on canvas, be barred from painting such an image. No, he shouldn't - even though it does not represent anything.
To even suggest that the artist was trying to depict BB in an "insinuating position" is a gross misrepresentation of the painting and is a slippery slope that leads to some in our country justifying the public flogging of a woman seen walking with a man that is not a close relative. A wise man once said that freedom of expression cannot make up for lack of talent. Reject the painting and the artist if you believe she is not worth her salt and leave it at that. More than that and you will create more ripples than you bargained for.
09 April, 2009 21:44
@anonymous You are certainly welcome to disagree with what you call my 'stance' ... I was merely expressing the fact that I found the image offensive and elaboratied upon the reasons for it. Believe me, very little offends me and am, in fact, a great lover of irreverent humour.
I also do not think that the artist has no business painting such an image. It may actually even hold a deeper meaning in her mind. But I do think that the exhibition of art is always governed by the sensitivity of the environment.
Of course, while my blog and identity is open for you to understand or know me beyond the confines of this single post and criticize me, you have exercised the dubious privilege of hiding behind anonymity which makes a healthy discussion impossible.
09 April, 2009 22:16
Understood. Two issues: (1) The expression of self through art should be protected. I can choose to paint or buy any image and hang it in my house without anyone have any issues. Whether or not it is exhibited is a separate consideration up to the organiser, the publisher, the buyer or the exhibitionist. Its availability for public viewing should be cognizant of public views not because that is a public (read: human) right but because it is obviously sensible. However, (2) sensitivity of the environment must be as narrowly defined as possible. I differ with you in that I don't believe in this case the views of the public outweigh the painter's freedom of expression. Only very limited exceptions exist, one example of which you express in your post.
As far as anonymity goes, it's a "dubious" privilege I exercised simply because it can only be replaced by a name which would mean absolutely nothing to you. My intention is not to hide behind anything. Anyway, why do you feel it makes healthy discussion impossible?
10 April, 2009 13:02
@Saad
1. That is what I was saying. In no way am I against any artist painting or expressing something s/he feels (or does not feel) anything about. It is the public display that needs to be thought through sensibly.
2. I think you are reading more into my statement than i meant (or, perhaps, misconveyed). I, too, do not "believe in this case the views of the public outweigh the painter's freedom of expression". That's for sure! My issue WAS with the error of curatorial judgement.
As for anonymity, I had done a post on it earlier. I don't even care if your name is not Saad or, if it is, are you a Saad I know or do not know. I'd settle for a pseudonym or - as some of the lazier commentors put in - a meaningless jumble of letters. But when comments keep getting added and several of them are anonymous I have no idea whether some are from the same person or are more people agreeing to a particular view. And my response @anonymous, too, must cause confusion to later readers who have to sift through them to find who I am referring to.
That said, if I cannot put a face to a name, I do feel better (it may be a personal quirk) putting a name/identity to someone I am talking to - as I do now.
10 April, 2009 21:19
@saad - and others
hop across to sabeen's blog www.bitsonline.net/beanz/ where there's an exciting debate going on about this issue.
10 April, 2009 21:22
I think that what needs to be understood is the bond Bhuttos have with the masses. I mean the people, not the mutant confused sub-class which lives in the cities. People see them as saviors who laid down their life for them.
The humiliation people faced at hand of upper classes against which ZAB stood up linked their class consciousness with them.
Artists have a right to express themselves but Artist must know one thing. For whom he is making the Art? if he/she has an answer to it, such things will not take place
I personally dont support censorship but i also dont support such a foolish kind of thing as Art.
12 April, 2009 00:17
Err ... "A foolish kind of thing as Art"? Is all art foolish? Or any at all? I beg to differ from you on this point but agree on the two opening paras.
Art - including performing art - is a means of expression. Not everyone can or does want to express only in words. And a picture is woryth a thousand one of them - hence the greater impact. Imagine if, instead of the image, a long treatise had been put up proclaiming that the compromises that PPP has made with the establishment (true or not) were like democracy being in the lap of the armed forces or some such thing ... How many would have stopped to read it.
Is this image, in itself, foolish? I disliked it for many reasons - poor taste, incorrect or misleading portrayal of facts, feminis ... but the artist obviously thinks different and has a right to express herself.
Injudicious display - the result of an oversight - is what caused the problem at the festival, specially one celebrating the silly idea (imo) that 17 crore people have one identity. Outside of that, had I seen this work at a one-woman exhibition in a not-so-public space, here, or anywhere abroad, I'd have certainly engaged the artist in a discussion.
Rushdie's non-controversial writings (let's take the delightful Haroun and the Sea of Stories as an example) are far from 'foolish' ... but, given his association and infamy in most minds, it would be highly unlikely that any publisher here would risk putting it out or displaying it in stores.
12 April, 2009 18:40
Post a Comment
<< Home