First off, I am currently a high school student. I created this as part of an art class in school. My theme for the year was “reinterpreting religion.” I come from a very traditional Christian family, and Christian themes are very strong in my work. Though I embrace a lot of the values behind Christianity, I would not say that I am a traditional Christian. I have high respect and tolerance for other religions, and I don’t believe that Christianity has a monopoly on truth.

With that said, this piece is meant to connect aspects of different religions in a “we are all brothers” way. I purposely made Jesus with dark skin (he was Middle Eastern) and even made Him without a face as a reference to Muslim art, where Mohammed’s face is never drawn. I explained the rest in the original description. I’m not trying to say that any religion is better than another, but I obviously have a closer connection to Christianity because that’s where my roots are. I’m still learning and questioning and forming my beliefs, but this is where I stand right now.

I realize the phrase “dharmaic hierarchy” sounds rather condescending. It is not an insult to the Hindu religion, but rather to class-based discrimination. The situation of Untouchables in India really bothers me.

Also, in regards to the art: this is not one of my prouder pieces. It was my first time using pastels in years and I admit that the quality of the drawing is terrible. However, this piece was centered on meaning and not artistic quality.

To the friendly atheist: I kind of like this website. I used to believe that most passionate atheists were bitter and hateful to religious persons (especially Christians). I like the “friendly” idea a lot better. Of course I don’t agree with what you believe, but I’m glad that we can both be tolerant.

When you’re an artist, you automatically critique art. We can’t help it, really.

I haven’t actually seen any “critiques.” Just “it’s poor/bad art.” But then again, I tend to be of the camp that thinks constructive criticism is acceptable and helpful, while purely negative comments – like “this piece sucks” – tend to do more harm than good. Of course, if you have a very strict definition of “art” and want to limit the number of artists in the world, I suppose discouraging those you don’t find up to par is in your best interests.

Not all artists feel the need to offer unsolicited, unhelpful critiques of others, only the ones who take themselves and their field too seriously.

(This isn’t directed entirely at you, as I don’t know what your views are. But I do think the number of negative comments every time a piece of art is shared in a blog is quite startling and rather depressing – especially when the artist herself isn’t sharing it with us, Hemant is sharing the work of someone else, who may or may not have contacted him first and who may or may not even know that he’s sharing her art here.)

It’s just bad art. Looks like something you’d see on the wall of a local coffee shop.

For those of you who don’t see it as worthy art… well, isn’t worthiness in art in the eye of the beholder?

That, by the way, is the reason there are so many Muslims and Christians in India; when these foreign religions came in, they gave a way out for the lower castes.

Buddhism once served that purpose as well, but it died out in India centuries ago.

jeez, guys, he wants your opinion on the idea, not your criticism of the art.

When you’re an artist, you automatically critique art. We can’t help it, really.