"Muhammad's image subject of art in past"

[yared...@yahoo.com]

Muhammad's image subject of art in past
Lost in the furor over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad is the fact
that his likeness has long been portrayed in the collections of some of
the world's greatest museums and libraries without exciting alarm or
comment.
at http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060208-121150-5609r.htm

[Mani Deli]

Pick out an artist who could draw on a master level whose skill and
ability to create complexity is immediately obvious.

Complain, if strikes you as beautiful and technically superior.

Complain when they distorted anything.

If its nudes complain that they are erotic.

Complain if there is even a hint of telling a story; that's evil
illustration

Complain that it looks smooth and there is no presence of flat looking
schmier.

Complain if the artist was highly successful.

For extra added effect equate anyone who happens to like these works
with bourgeois philistines and suggest that they are fascists who like
Hitler

All modern academic art students should, together with the required
Artspeak, learn to complain about the 19th cent academic art by seeing
about three slides and listening to warnings about 19th c. academic
evil. Particular attention should be paid to the lurking dangers of
illustration, kitsch, commercial in politically correct art history
courses.

You must learn to never be fooled into being impressed by fine
draftsmanship, craftsmanship, technique and beautiful subject matter.
You might just get the impression that you would like to do something
like that and then where would all those incompetent art teachers end
up?

That's why Bouguereau scares the shit out of Picassoholics..