[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE: Weak to the strong, Strong to the weak - An article by Sri Arun Shourie
In article <ghenDzqLB0.5o3@netcom.com>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
> This is an excellent article by Arun Shourie. This was forwarded by
> a friend, I do not know the original source.
Thanks for posting the article. The source is probably the Indian Express.
One point about Hussein that doesn't seem to have been made so far is
that he may have -- or even must have -- done this deliberately. I
mean, the man is at best a mediocre artist who has over long decades
failed to make any decent headway in making a mark for himself. For
the excellent reason that rather than devote himself to his art, he
seems to prefer to try one gimmick after another to keep himself in
the limelight, little realizing that this does nothing to impart worth
to his work. In the eighties, when the Ram-temple movement started
gaining ground, and with the Ramayan tele-serial, etc., the feeling of
devotion was *recognized* as being widespread (it would be wrong to
say became widespread, because it was already so), Hussein painted
several watercolor caricatures of Hanuman that looked to me as though
they had been painted by a child in primary school (all right, so I
don't appreciate modern art -- never said I did). And proclaimed that
he was closer in his heart to Hinduism than to Islam.
What that gimmick actually achieved, if anything, is questionable;
more recently we had our dear artist applying his matchless skill to
put to canvas the indescribably exotic features of that peerless
actress, Madhuri Dixit -- as if the poor long-suffering public had not
already choked in its collective consciousness from a relentless
exposure to her likenesses everywhere. Needless to say, this too did
little to enhance Hussein's flagging reputation, although the press
dutifully recorded the historic event in words and in pictures.
And now comes this, wherein no doubt the "artist" hopes that by
outraging the sensibilities and sentiments of the majority of Hindus,
he will gain sufficient notoriety to be able to sell a few more of his
otherwise-worthless canvases. But he doesn't seem to realize that the
public is not that stupid. For most people, a painting is an
expensive, long-term investment, and while they may gawk at and listen
to all the hoopla, they will be less than eager to part with their
money for something that doesn't deserve it. Thus, at the end of the
day, Hussein will be back to square one as a professional, but will
have done himself the additional disservice of annoying many who might
otherwise have thought well of him. He would indeed be better advised
to serve his art with humility, rather than hope that these foolish
exercises in self-aggrandizement will get him anywhere. I believe it
was the late Sir C.V. Raman who noted that science is a hard mistress
who wants one to serve her for her own sake, with no other reward. No
doubt something very similar is true of art as well.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
--
http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html
