Indecent Lascivious Iconography?

[y.r.rani at mail.utexas.edu]

Dear Mr. Rajagopalan,

> description of Khajuraho as exotic

I did not call it "exotic."  I called it "erotic."  Which it is.  It is
certainly not "cheap" and whomever would ever call it cheap, would think
that Michelangelo David is "cheap"  because he is depicted with his
genitalia exposed.  (I hesitate to use the word "penis,"  uncertain of the
limitations imposed by the newly passed Telcom Bill.)

>Khajuraho stands for principles noble and lofty

I think that this is true.  It is rich with symbolism.

>some British colonialist wrote in a humiliating fashion about Khajuraho as
>exotic

To him, from his Victorian retentiveness, Khajuraho most likely was quite
"exotic!"  He had probably never seen another human being naked in his
life. (We can still use the word "naked" can't we?)  To me, it is not
"exotic" or "bad" or somehow "lewd and immoral!"  It is beautiful,
intriguing, paradigmatic and full of life.  It is also a beautiful and
compelling expression of religious art, which should be discussed in a
respectful manner, devoid of judgmental, culturally prejudiced
perspectives.

>Please spread this message on Khajuraho and not the incorrect and
>erroneous description such as exotic

I guess from where I sit here in the USA, I would suspect that most people,
unfamiliar with Indian art, would consider the carvings at Khajuraho and
the erotic art found in Pahari Miniatures, to be quite "exotic".
Hopefully, Indologists would see its cultural and historical context, and
thus it would not be seen as "exotic."   It would, however, still be
"erotic."

Yvette C. Rosser
UT Austin
----------------
"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
		--Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.