First things first, the credit for this article goes to ME, and the brickbats go to Ms V... this article is take off from where she left off in hers... You'll find her in my friends, please feel free to let out ur anger at this article...
Marriages are lovely times, and I mean that. From every perspective possible, they are the best occasions... Lemme explain why... and how...
They are the best everyone loses something, and gains something... Lets start with the groom shall we... He gets a fully paid publicity event, with lots of money (I would like to be politically incorrect and say "from the guy's point of view, dowry is a positive thing"), gets to meet lots of friends, gets to see lots of girls, enjoys the great food... and gets (all virgins, say i do) a honeymoon... NOW... what he loses is the freedom for the rest of his life... he is now officially gonna tick the "married" column which probably holds much greater significance than just the ink... He is now a responsible person, and i think the "r" word is the opposite of the "f" word for a guy... or is it?!
Next, the bride gets loads of jewelry... which is again, quite good when you love to show off... she gets to live in her own house, have her own family, and live the great Indian dream... and the gifts.. and the honeymoon... what does she lose in all of this? well, she wont be getting a million friend requests a day which actually make her feel so sought after... and of course, her husband is gonna throw everything in wrong"est" place possible...
The guy's parents lose a pocket-hole digger... they can finally buy the skoda and not the swift... the girl's parents can proudly say that their daughter is married, and they don't have to worry about "when will we get her married? ... how much will it cost?"... they can buy the flat and get out of rented accommodation...
The guests are split in half... Half of them love the food, the girls... and the give the gifts as a sign of payment for all the enjoyment they get out of it...
The other half are the left to fend for themselves... they are the disgruntled ones... who hate wearing jewelry, hate the photos, hate the insatiably hungry "others", and still sleep off early in the night for the marriage next day...
Well, as is usual now, I don't think everyone will get everything I have written in the blog... But do feel free to give a 10 rating for the spoof that it was...
May 31, 2007
May 14, 2007
Art of attacking the Gods
Well, I am pretty sure most of the readers are aware of the "Art Attack" episodes on news telivision universe. The news channels have laboriously created a universe for themselves, and funnily, its drifting further and further from that of the astronomer's. And the use of such terms as "Art Attack" (by the way, thats a really good show on Disney) are quite a poor effort on the part of the researcher/reporter in highlighting the story.
Cutting to the chase, I don't think all of the "vandalism" by the VHP activists should be viewed in the photographer's room. I don't believe that all "expressions" should be left uncensored. I don't think it is right to propagate the view that "The artist should be allowed to open his mind and heart whenever he has a brush/pen in his hand". After all, would we like a person on the street opening his filthy mouth when it comes to addressing us or our family members. I am not going into the Constitution here for two reasons. I don't have such a deep insight into the laws in that large fat book. And second, I believe that the Constitution is deeply flawed if it allows for such "expressions".
Over the past year, it has been made quite clear through various incidents that everthing from a cartoon strip to a movie to a painting can be categorized as offensive. In the countless discussions that have gone on, one thing has emerged. The religious leaders are very liberal when it comes to "offensive" material with respect to another religion, but very strict when it comes to their own. So, basically, the discussion is stuck in a muck, with no outcome whatsoever. I have a very simple solution to these mess. A common sensical one.
Why can't there be a law which states that a finite number of sacred symbols cannot be used in "artistic expressions"? I am sure the artists can work with such a "restriction". I am critical of the artists because it is becoming more and more obvious that their effort is more to create a media hype, and fetch a higher price for their work. I cannot think of any other reason why the artist in Vadodara would paint such a painting knowing fully well that it was refering to the sacred space of a religion. I only wish he wouldn't have got himself into jail by painting his explosive and deragatory expressions. I wish he would be as relaxed as I am while I am writing this blog. :)
If only the artists would go about their business the way the rest of India does, I would have had a better discussion than "Art Attack" to watch while I had my dinner. :)
Cutting to the chase, I don't think all of the "vandalism" by the VHP activists should be viewed in the photographer's room. I don't believe that all "expressions" should be left uncensored. I don't think it is right to propagate the view that "The artist should be allowed to open his mind and heart whenever he has a brush/pen in his hand". After all, would we like a person on the street opening his filthy mouth when it comes to addressing us or our family members. I am not going into the Constitution here for two reasons. I don't have such a deep insight into the laws in that large fat book. And second, I believe that the Constitution is deeply flawed if it allows for such "expressions".
Over the past year, it has been made quite clear through various incidents that everthing from a cartoon strip to a movie to a painting can be categorized as offensive. In the countless discussions that have gone on, one thing has emerged. The religious leaders are very liberal when it comes to "offensive" material with respect to another religion, but very strict when it comes to their own. So, basically, the discussion is stuck in a muck, with no outcome whatsoever. I have a very simple solution to these mess. A common sensical one.
Why can't there be a law which states that a finite number of sacred symbols cannot be used in "artistic expressions"? I am sure the artists can work with such a "restriction". I am critical of the artists because it is becoming more and more obvious that their effort is more to create a media hype, and fetch a higher price for their work. I cannot think of any other reason why the artist in Vadodara would paint such a painting knowing fully well that it was refering to the sacred space of a religion. I only wish he wouldn't have got himself into jail by painting his explosive and deragatory expressions. I wish he would be as relaxed as I am while I am writing this blog. :)
If only the artists would go about their business the way the rest of India does, I would have had a better discussion than "Art Attack" to watch while I had my dinner. :)
May 3, 2007
Where realism meets idealism
Actually it doesn’t. I don’t think both of them will ever meet. I don’t think the analogy of parallel lines applies here, either. ‘coz once u talk of parallel lines, u know the distance between them. Here, they are just so far apart. U can’t measure the distance…
The difference strikes you when you think of the VT shootout. What was a guy doing with a gun on a campus. More importantly, how in the world did he get hold of it. And even more shocking, how come this happens so frequently in US. The reason behind it is the stimulus for this article.
Guns are available freely in the US. That’s a known fact. What is also known is that the gun lobby is very strong, and hence doesn’t let the “harmful” laws to limit the presence of “self-defence” arms. Well, ironically, the pistol didn’t even save the life of the miscreant at VT! To the un-“shielded” brains, the incident will look quite unbelievable. How can this be going on in a country which, otherwise, is a model for all the developing countries? Well, that’s quite true. It is a model for the developing countries to look at. The “developing” part of the country means that the country is going deeper into capitalism. And the leader of the Free World is showing us what it means to reach and live at that level. I am not an anti-capitalist. After all, my first job was a result of the proliferation of capitalism in this country. And the reason why the airline tickets are as low as the train fares is due to the same. And there are million more such examples. But the point I am trying to make here is that, we live in reality, not idealistic.
But when the reality is filled with such punch-you-in-the-face stuff, how come I find that people stick onto morals. Why is it that people stick onto out-of-date principles, and perceptions about life? At some level, it’s hypocrisy. It’s a drive within a person which makes him choose to talk of morals. Which makes him try to ridicule the world around him, or watch in apparent “amazement” at the lack of morality. This is one of the most difficult questions to find answers to… it has been so for me. I find it quite simple. Morals don’t have only one place in our society. They are taught to the tiny tots so that they believe that the world runs on “good” principles, and they live a blissfully happy time until they reach adolescence. And then they realize that life isn’t all about the good stuff, but its just as fun to live in. :D
To end on a happy note, life is just as much fun to live in, one way or another. There aren’t many rules in life, except for the ones we impose on ourselves. And I personally have found that a more practical understanding of the world un-complicates most of the events. :)
By the way, a final thought... doesn't realism meet idealism (around... lets say 21) ?
The difference strikes you when you think of the VT shootout. What was a guy doing with a gun on a campus. More importantly, how in the world did he get hold of it. And even more shocking, how come this happens so frequently in US. The reason behind it is the stimulus for this article.
Guns are available freely in the US. That’s a known fact. What is also known is that the gun lobby is very strong, and hence doesn’t let the “harmful” laws to limit the presence of “self-defence” arms. Well, ironically, the pistol didn’t even save the life of the miscreant at VT! To the un-“shielded” brains, the incident will look quite unbelievable. How can this be going on in a country which, otherwise, is a model for all the developing countries? Well, that’s quite true. It is a model for the developing countries to look at. The “developing” part of the country means that the country is going deeper into capitalism. And the leader of the Free World is showing us what it means to reach and live at that level. I am not an anti-capitalist. After all, my first job was a result of the proliferation of capitalism in this country. And the reason why the airline tickets are as low as the train fares is due to the same. And there are million more such examples. But the point I am trying to make here is that, we live in reality, not idealistic.
But when the reality is filled with such punch-you-in-the-face stuff, how come I find that people stick onto morals. Why is it that people stick onto out-of-date principles, and perceptions about life? At some level, it’s hypocrisy. It’s a drive within a person which makes him choose to talk of morals. Which makes him try to ridicule the world around him, or watch in apparent “amazement” at the lack of morality. This is one of the most difficult questions to find answers to… it has been so for me. I find it quite simple. Morals don’t have only one place in our society. They are taught to the tiny tots so that they believe that the world runs on “good” principles, and they live a blissfully happy time until they reach adolescence. And then they realize that life isn’t all about the good stuff, but its just as fun to live in. :D
To end on a happy note, life is just as much fun to live in, one way or another. There aren’t many rules in life, except for the ones we impose on ourselves. And I personally have found that a more practical understanding of the world un-complicates most of the events. :)
By the way, a final thought... doesn't realism meet idealism (around... lets say 21) ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
