I don’t feel like I’m a part of this anymore.
“The visuals included a Christ like image on the cross and his private parts being exposed and a few nude drawings of a few ‘deity’ like figurines.”
“He responded by saying if MF Hussain did it then so can I. That I think did him in.”
The Art History department as a response to the arrest of a student over his print put up images of erotica existent in the art of the subcontinent. There is no erotica in any tradition that employs any image remotely close to depictions of Christ. Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) led a life alone.
I would be offended with an image like that. I donot hold dear the image of Crucifixion, but this sort of depiction defiles the regard I have for a prophet of God.
The justification he put forth was, however interesting. MF Hussain’s depictions of women and goddesses have always ignited controversy. He paints them naked, clothed, however he wishes. Some could be interpreted sexually but by no means are the Indian goddesses devoid of sexuality. Sexuality is an integral part of the cult of any Goddess.
The argument on behalf of the offender has been freedom of expression and purity of intention, but on grounds of artistic responsibility, I find the young student lackadaisical.
*written as a post script to Whose Morality?, on the events following the arrest of an art student over a print he displayed as part of his exam work at the Faculty of Fine Art, M S University, Vadodara.
Alternate and supportive points of view here