contemporary = the simultaneous validity of coexisting cultures

This is in response to the motto of the exhibition that I am part of: Through Other Eyes, curated by Gerard Mermoz. The motto (the title of this post) is borrowed from J Swaminathan in his book Perceiving Fingers. Swaminathan ambitioned to create an art gallery with studios and workshops, in Bhopal, India, where folk, tribal and art-school-trained artists would work and exhibit side by side and engage in a productive dialogue with each other. The project failed as academic artists refused!

I am not precisely sure of the validity of my reply, and whether it falls within the required nature of an expected response. But this displacement of my Self, in a new society and culture has severely forced me to rethink and re-evaluate several issues that I had a strong opinion about before, and still do, but in a new light.

Art. Religion. Politics. For one, I feel these are heavily related terms, and cannot be taken apart, and consequently, of course, effect each other drastically. Art is not just a means of creating something pretty, its an “aesthetic” response to politics and religion. And it would be unwise to left it unsaid of how religion and politics have also had their fair share of using art for their purpose.

As for Swaminathan, his ambition, and the failed response comes strikingly close to the juxtaposition-ing of the under-developed within the developed. I'll just term it as yet another classic example of the human psyche – I'm laughing. It's the fear of the unknown, fear of being surpassed by the unknown, and of being conquered. We work towards our degrees, spend time and money towards earning a title, and earning money for our creations, it's unfair to put a tribal art-piece next to mine and judge it on similar grounds.

I regret to say that we aren't faced by religious and political boundaries, I see more personal distress boundaries instead. We are dealing with the first-mentioned ones pretty hard and strong, without much fear, though they do cause temporary hassle. Or perhaps I have a distorted view of religion and politics.

I am anti-globalization, and declare that I am not a world citizen. Why? Human psychology is a delicate thing, and it isn't programmed to automatically fall for the morally right, or the intuitionally correct. When through this youtube culture, or any mechanism that speeds up the process of transfer of information, it isn't possible for everyone to digest that information, and give a rational response. Globalization is not the solution to happily bring the world together, in my eyes. It has a tendency to set standards that everyone needs to comply with. Need I mention the Unabomber manifesto here.

But by saying that I am not a world citizen, it does not mean I am in denial of other cultures, but only more aware of the individual nature of other cultures in contrast to my own. I only encourage the coexistence of cultures when we understand the real story behind each, and not fall in the trap of the exotic; not give one advantage over the other on the basis of unique information; deal with information more realistically, although this can be quite a challenge.

To come back to the vocabulary of the topic – So I say YES. Include the art of the tribal man. Become a more inclusive culture rather than an exclusive. Give them the space they deserve on any normal basis, as any other individual would, and let the consequences be similar for all as well.

Hardcore Equality!
Insane Reality.

Violence in Pakistan. Violence wherever else.

This is my view of politics:




It of course makes all human sense to me of how there is violence, suicide bombing and firing in Pakistan; we deserve it ... stupid, barbaric, backward, ignorant Muslim state. We are killing ourselves. Nobody is responsible. And of course it also makes sense that Pakistani ISLAMIC militants are firing in America; militants who are apparently Vietnamese.
I feel like screaming right now. I really do. But I try hard to stay composed only to prove to the filthy lunatics that there is a moderate Islam. But for how long? How long is a human supposed to stay calm and composed? For how long is it ok for the others to keep attacking and killing in the name of the utterly blind and deaf and senseless justice, and we see all this chaos quietly because we are trying to prove we are not barbarians?
But I am extremely not sorry for offending anyone who reads this of how extremely unbalanced the entire scenario right now is: Islam vs West. Israel gets great corporate/governmental support from around the world to find a a tiny amount of violent-people hidden amidst absolutely innocent people. But of course it is not ok for those innocent people to fight back for all the trouble caused to them, because then it's war. They must not squeak. And it is completely ok for the media to keep associating Islam with any terrorism and violence, because that is interesting to read. How are the Muslims supposed to denounce these so-called Islamist militants and jihadists? Do a pathetic peace march and get bombed while they are all together? What does the West want?
Let's just concentrate on Hirsi Ali about her interesting story of how because of Islam she lost her vagina and can't have sex. Or talk about Wafa Sultan who has completely lost her own brains while studying psychology. Crap!
Talking about extremism. I think the non-Muslims have completely surpassed the meaning of the word in their own behavior in comparison to that of the Muslims.
And how can we talk about Islam without talking about the poor oppressed women in black things looking like ghosts. Oh yea, that is extremist, i agree. But the bikini is not extremist at all! It's the perfect symbol of the pro-libertarian-West.
FUCK IT!