art

For decades, Salman Rushdie's novel; 'The Satanic Verses' which was published in 1988, had aroused controversy in the Islamic world moving the community to rebel against the author by arousing conflict, leading protests and even sending death threats towards the author. So, what sparked such a backlash? It's just a novel, right?

Well, the Islamic community reacted to the apparent blasphemous nature of Rushdie's novel which employs the use of magical realism with contemporary events from the early years of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). The novel follows the storyline of how the Qur'an was revealed at first by the angel Jibreel (Gabriel in the novel). However, the controversy sprung from Rushdie imposing a false personality and characteristic upon such valued and respectable beings from the Islamic world. This immediately caught the attention of millions of Muslims around the world, even capturing the eyes of politicians, so much so that the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, ordered the killing of Rushdie for creating such a blasphemous text. In Rushdie's defence, literary critics have argued that the text analyses the boundaries between fact and fiction. Rushdie himself argued that books, texts, religion, communities, beliefs and ideas can all be questioned if it means people are understanding the idea and theory better by building tolerance.

Throughout time, artists and authors have brought about new ideas worth exploring, which increases the contentious nature of some of these novels. Even as recent as 2003, Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code' had earned disapproval by Christians and Catholic leaders for its blasphemous material leading to the book being banned in countries such as India and Lebanon. Moving on to 2005, Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell's 'And Tango Makes Three' had been one of the most challenged/banned books for seven years. The book makes many assumptions about homosexuality generating controversial questions about what makes a family. In more recent years, E.L. James's 'Fifty Shades of Grey' was seen as 'poorly written' and 'semi-pornographic' , thus, leading it to become banned in 17 libraries in Florida in 2012.

Looking into some of these texts, should it be allowed for literary texts or even other artistic forms to create controversy by disrespecting a belief, in order to question, challenge, debate and understand this belief better globally?

It's widely accepted that people who create or find something, whether a painting, a computer, a car, a book, a scientific discovery, etc. should receive credit for it. Yet in the online world, this seems to only go so far for artists, specifically illustrators and animators.

The internet and social media sites are rife with people posting art without crediting the artists. Many try justifying this by stating that "people can look up the art themselves" or they're giving the artists "exposure." None of these hold water, as it's been proven that most people do not go out of their way to search the artists. Exposure doesn't mean anything if people don't know who the artist is, let alone care enough to find them. It also certainly doesn't mean anything to the landlords whom artists must pay their rents to.

If a scientist published an academic paper online, and say, a college student plagiarized it and tried to pass it off as their own, I doubt many would oppose that student being punished and ridiculed for doing so. Yet if an artist protests a person for reposting their art without crediting them, that artist is labeled as "sensitive" or "greedy".

I find this double standard to tie into inherent laziness in internet users, but also a possible broader sense of people not seeing art, particularly illustration, as a legitimate profession. There are millions of artists all over the world who make a living off their art; the foundation of Hollywood is based on this (as well as nepotism and debatably cyclical abuse, but that's another discussion) yet trying to enter an art industry can be met with mockery. Many people only see the final product, and not the hours and hours of work that go into artistry, whether it's music, animation, painting, sculpting, or illustration. They assume it's effortless and that artists only do it as a hobby, not for income.

Why do you think this societal stigma is so prevalent, especially in this era where digital media is so widespread and exposes more people to more artforms than ever before? What about art carries such certain connotations that separate it from other fields and professions? How do you think this could change?

Comprised of a combination of art students, artists, and educators, the docents at Los Angeles' Broad museum do not just give visitors the answers to questions. Answering questions by asking questions invites guests to come up with their own ideas about the art they are viewing. This is a refreshing experience that challenges viewers to interact with the art at a higher level of investment thus providing a more personalized experience. By increasing viewers' understanding of art through more direct engagement, the Broad is creating a more artistically educated society one guest at a time.

What is the media landscape like right now? What can we expect from the up-and-coming art form of virtual reality? Considering the dominance of the internet as a legitimate source of entertainment, should we re-define the words "movie" and "cinema?" Finally, is narrative losing its importance to us as a form of media to be consumed? Basically, an article pondering the topic of where we came from, and where we are going.

Girls from all around the world having been playing dress up since they were a little girls. Make up has played a huge role in women's lives to express themselves. Is this self expression viewed as a form of art or a way to hide flaws? One could argue women are faking the way they truly look when, in reality, it is another form of art that can be studied.

Does the content suffer or is it made better for it?