4 ms·
Not sure why it's a fireable offence since precautions were taken. Give a strike or whatever and debate it's relevance to the course of "art history". I don't
by whatyesaid 4y ago
Not sure why it's a fireable offence since precautions were taken. Give a strike or whatever and debate it's relevance to the course of "art history".
I don't think the painting itself is significant, it could just be referenced. The context of why the painting is banned inside of Islam is relevant as previously there was a lot of idol worship and even nowadays figureheads like Jesus are now claimed to be God, stuff like "Jesus is Lord". But this moves more into theology than art history now.
Reminds me a bit of Kanye being banned on the new free speech platform Twitter and people saying it wasn't an actual Swastika, it was an UFO cult symbol, it being tied to the older peace symbol of Hinduism etc.
- hutzlibu 4y ago"the context of why the painting is banned inside of Islam is relevant" How is that relevant to anyone not muslim? Because this is what this is about - (some) muslims wanting other people to follow their religious rules.
- whatyesaid 4y agoWell, when I said relevant or not relevant, significant or whatever, I mean in terms of the class "art history". It's not like any of the painting depictions had any notable art styles nor new techniques, from what I can tell. So I think it crosses moreso into the intersection of religion and art, that's why historical context becomes relevant. If you deem context irrelevant then why include any of it unless the art has some different quality about it? I think there was art novelty with the decorations of churches and mosques though.