Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

If people find that indecent, check this link out, a similar kind of 'artistic expression' by an Indian artist, husband of a recently murdered Mumbai-based artist Hema Upadhyay! See which one is more indecent

http://www.thequint.com/india/2015/12/23/chintan-upadhyay-the-self-confessed-provocative-artist

 

It is nothing but titilation of the cheapest kind...These painters take their so called  freedom of expression to new heights like MF Hussain did with Hindu Goddesses !

Humans are the only species who dress to protect from weather effects. 

rambabu wrote:

Indecency crossed all the borders of Aesthitics. Many famous artists painted using live Models keeping their brushes within the limits. Execess will lead to such controversies.

Painting is painting, we can accept it even if the brushes of the artists go beyond the limit. But what will be the reaction of the people when they see a lady lying down in a museum without wearing dress?   

Now, it's up to you to decide whether that is decency or vulgarity.

Nude is neither bad nor vulgar...In many Western beaches especially in Copacabana in Rio , you see many ladies and men in the nude but it does not look vulgar since it fits in with the place and surroundings. It depends on the individual as to how he or she views it ..

rambabu wrote:

Lying down on the road, exposing in Paris's Musee D'Orsay is nothing short of vulgarity. Ir's a shame on the part of Civilized world in general and legendary Artists of the World in particular.

You are right it is indecent deed to make a news, nothing more than it.

 

There can be no line of demarcation as in real fact nothing is bad only thinking makes it so. See our temples especially the Khujaharo temples with explicit images. Is that Ok? India is much ahead of France.

Khajaraho wall sculptures, Konark wall sculptures depicted the importance of sexual importance in our lives. This was done in accordance with the then norm of the day.

But, what happened in Paris is display of vulgarity openly. Simply because we eat meat, no body hangs a chain of bones around the neck. It's nothing but taking Freedom of expression too far.

usha manohar wrote:

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

If people find that indecent, check this link out, a similar kind of 'artistic expression' by an Indian artist, husband of a recently murdered Mumbai-based artist Hema Upadhyay! See which one is more indecent

http://www.thequint.com/india/2015/12/23/chintan-upadhyay-the-self-confessed-provocative-artist

 

It is nothing but titilation of the cheapest kind...These painters take their so called  freedom of expression to new heights like MF Hussain did with Hindu Goddesses !

True Usha., I feel that freedom of expression should be used to express things in a beautiful and appealing manner. Many painters of the past and present have painted and still paint human bodies in the nude, but it is the way they do it that makes the picture vulgar or beautiful. This kind of expression, especially the manner in which the likes of Upadhyay and Hussain and all their cult do is nothing but cheap titillation and teasing people!

Painters will paint through their thought process and not from others. They do not force anyone to look at their paintings.