The danger is that this discussion will descend into a "what is art?" debate, which usually raises blood pressure and ultimately leads to very little. When it comes to being offended by art, I try to err on the side of artistic expression over political correctness (maybe a poor choice of words). My logic is that if the viewer is offendend, s/he can simply walk out of the exhibit/change the station/close the book. In this instance, my reaction to the painting was negative. I don't know if I would go so far as to say I'm offended as a Hindu, though I know many people who would be, but I just didn't enjoy looking at it and it didn't speak to me at all. That is my prerogative, just as it is Nina's prerogative to create the work in the first place.

I find Nina's comics endearing. I find they open a world to those that may not know to wonderful surprises where one may not be interested at all. I loved Sita sings the Blues though I remembered thinking 'Wow that Sita is one sex pot' but didn't think much of it.

Coming back to this. I would be lying if I said it didn't offend my senses to see this form of Kali (anytime you see a blue goddess with her tongue out it evokes images of Kali) She is pure power that brought all evil to justice. She was the ultimate feminist.

Having said that showing her holding a severed penis is the only thing that I find offensive. The breasts don't bother me. I've seen images of Indian godesses my whole life that had those breasts. That isn't something any of us can really deny. I thought the placement of the 3rd eye instead of err a cloth or something else covering her privates was some form of feminizing of her powerful form not misplaced perhaps but inappropriate because it's not how I'd like to see Kali. I'd like to see a Kali who shows power over evil in other ways than a severed penis or a third eye for a vigina. Those two things bring too much attention to sexuality and that isn't how I grew up seeing Kali.

And this goes without saying that Nina is someone I know personally as well and would never question her integrity or intentions. She's brilliant at what she does. But religion is a fine line even if it were my own. I would never condone stifling art but as I get older I've learnt the value of respecting something and yet finding ways to be controversial about it.

Bring Me the Head of Nina the Infidel!

What does not bother me:
I am a hindu and this piece does not bother me. There are ancient relief sculptures of Hindu deities that would make this one look tame.

What does bother me:
If this were about any other Desi religion, the macaca would hit the fan in record time.

P.S. Nina, I can't leave comments on your blog. Google has closed doors to non-Google barbarians and that bothers me.

Shodan:

What does bother me:
If this were about any other Desi religion, the macaca would hit the fan in record time.

Example's please. Dont tease us with that statment, open your heart and let that hate out.

The term "infidel" is irrelevant when discussing Hinduism. But you already knew that!

The problem comes when the Chairperson of South-Asian religions in the Ohio school system decides that this is the only representative depiction of Kali to be included in all Ohio school textbooks. That's when I will be offended and fight tooth and nail to replace this with the commonly accepted (by the layman, religious Hindu) represenation of Kali.

M. Nam

Nina P's art does not bother me at all. In fact, I enjoy her interpretation. Be as it may, interpretation are always subjective.

Ramayana has hazaar (thousand) interpretations from Tulsidas to Valmiki to Ashok Bankar to various different related tribal folklores.

I agree with Shodan's viewpoint too.

I for one think this is a very interesting interpretation of kali. As for why this might be offensive....

Naked :-- nah...she is usually depicted as such..with the gruesome garland of heads and the skirt of severed hands covering the ...um...potentially offensive parts.

The Eye :- kinda offensive....though I really can't think of a reason why....perhaps because it draws your attention to the 'yoni' of the reverend mother of the world.

The "bit 'o man" :- She does wear a skirt made of severed hands ......so...nothing unusual there I guess....

What I take issue with are the teeth....cmon..those make kali look like a spider or something. One can maybe imagine some deep symbolism for everything else...but the teeth...nah....just doesn't fit.

Well that was my two paisa...

P.S. :- I hope NINA realizes that after this there is no going back to India....after the Hindi news channels get a whiff of this.....let's just say....i see TRPs equaling the world cup and the VHP all twisted in knots.

I think it will only be fair if Nina can join the discussion and elaborate on why she thought it was appropriate to use the penis and eye and also if she will take similar creative liberties with Christian, Islamic or Jewish religious symbols.

What I find deeply offensive is that anyone still follows a religion. And, worse, that they look down on those who don't. There's a no god, and besides, if she did exist, she wouldn't give a damn about you.

But I'm willing to live and let live, and acknowledge the mystery that others see the matter differently.

Nina's picture is superb. It certainly doesn't mock religion and the standard imagery of Kali (and all the other divinities) is, in any case, multivalent. That's part of their allure. This picture has a strong feminist vibe too, and that's cool.

But where there are images that do mock religion, I love those too. Atheists come in for a lot of mockery, and fair's fair, religions should be mocked in return. Pope jokes, Mohammed cartoons, saffron balls, whatever. It's all good. Unless the mockery is a mask for racist or other anti-human rights agenda, in which case I'm happy to side briefly with the religionists.

Re nudity - up until the 8th century most depictions of hindu gods and goddesses are in the nude, or at least topless. Ajanta and Elephanta caves come to mind.

Generally, I'm glad there are representatives from both sides of the issue. It's good people protest against porn or hurt feelings or whatever and its good that people have porn, challenge sentiments, provoke etc. Although fringe luntatics are sad, they do serve their purpose. It would be simply awful if any one side became too dominant.

Re sita and her blues, there are many versions of this story so another one is most welcome. I've only seen very little of it and was quite charmed in general but did note some things that didn't quite gel. In spite of the many versions of the hindu stories, there is a common thread that runs through them. Unlike the supreme unknowable Being of the JC traditions, the hindu gods are definitely identifiable. They have names, they have husbands and wives, sons and daughters. They live in particular places, have their favorite pastimes, dress in a particular way and hang out in particular places. All of this hangs together with the philosophy in general whether the story tellers know it or not. So when people are telling a story, I think it is important to get this. Otherwise, it may as well be a story about the tooth fairy or the easter bunny.

Nina's art expresses her insecurities in life. The penis is the penis she would have liked to ripped out from her ex. The big breasts represent the breasts she would have liked to have. The eyes in vagina represents how up close and personal she would like to see whatever that she would like to see.

Before many of you jump on the bandwagon against me, if Nina can have creative freedom to express her insights about her interpretation of whatever. Then so can I, giving insights about her art and her.

I think it will only be fair if Nina can join the discussion and elaborate on why she thought it was appropriate to use the penis and eye and also if she will take similar creative liberties with Christian, Islamic or Jewish religious symbols.

I heartily disagree. No artist owes anyone an explanation of anything. If you don't like the work, move along or blog about it. Nina doesn't need anyone's permission. No one owns Hindu iconography, and the last time I checked Indian artists were free to use whatever materials they wanted in their creations. Art is supposed to bother people. Otherwise, it's just decoration.

I don’t associate Jesus with porntastic accessories. I do, however, associate Kali with raw energy, sexuality and power and if I am wrong to do so, I look forward to being corrected.

I guess this is the problem. People from outside the faith can associate one's deities with basically anything they want. Sometimes that's done with the utmost respect. Other times, it's not. But it's not always easy to discern between those two instances.

All art exists in a social context, and it's human nature to think about this context. So a work like this raises a few big questions for me, which could totally change its interpretation. For example, who is this work intended for? Is it intended for Hindus/Indians who already have a strong understanding of the "source" material? The mostly white, socially liberal artistic elite in urban centers? Churches? The meaning and values of this depiction of Kali change a LOT depending on who is "supposed" to be viewing it. And the more traditional, ancient representations of Kali would evoke different reactions in each of those situations as well. A certain type of person, looking at this painting, would see it as nothing more than one of those scary, hypersexual idols that just underscores the savagery of pagan Hinduism. A different type of person might see a very affirming image of female divinity. A third person might be outraged at the blasphemy involved in ANY modern reproduction of an idol outside very precise religious standards.

Of course, even when people do "get" the history and tradition behind a mythological figure, they may still have wildly different ideas about the meaning of that tradition. I mean the fact that Anna was freaking out about the bare chest speaks volumes, IMHO, since bare-chested female idols are not all that rare in Hindu households (depending on the tradition, of course). My guess (and I acknowledge this is only a guess) is that it reflects the different ways that Greek Orthodox and traditional Hindu theology deal with sexuality and the female body. So the thing that's taboo to you may not be remarkable to others. But the dismembered cock n' balls is a lot more shocking when you come from that tradition. Given the fact that you're dealing with such vastly different cultural assumptions and traditions, I think it's natural for Hindus to be very wary about attempts to recast their holy symbols.

Of course, the artist's intention matters here too. But that's never easy to divine. I'm not familiar with the rest of Nina P's work, but I suspect that viewing this image in concert with other things she's created would definitely help put it into context. But external markers like name and skin color signal a certain background as well. I would not assume that a random white woman (I know Nina P is NOT just some random white woman, but bear with me) would understand the history, tradition, and significance of Kali. Given the negative media presentation of this particular deity, as well as Western art's propensity towards the shocking and novel, my first assumption about an artist from outside the cultural community creating a provocative work starring one of my major deities would be one of suspicion. I realize that's a bias. But I don't think it's an undeserved one. I like to think I could could overcome that bias by judging the work in context, though.

Let me turn the question around. If one were to create a hypersexualized, "porntastic" image of Jesus, would your interpretation of that work be influenced by whether or not the artist is a practicing Christian? Would that image evoke the same reaction to you if he or she was an atheist?

None of this is meant to attack Nina P, who has been a really cool poster since I've been posting here. And I like her visual style, though I'll admit this one makes me uncomfortable. I just think that it's not THAT unreasonable to at least take the artist's background and cultural upbringing into account when trying to understand a work of art.

Art is supposed to bother people. Otherwise, it's just decoration.

One of the things that art can do is bother people. But that is not what it is supposed to do. That suggests that anything that does not bother people is not art --- and that is just as narrow a definition of what art is as anything else.

Well put, Neal. One must always be alert to the narrative behind the narrative. And I say this as someone who enjoys (or at least tolerates) porntastic images of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What does bother me:
If this were about any other Desi religion, the macaca would hit the fan in record time.

Ummm, no it wouldn't.

Anyhow...

I love this conversation, but since most of us, to whatever extent, straddle some form of cultural divide between an old one and our new one, it seems ridiculous that any of us would be critical of people from our new culture taking interest in the old, let alone in a way that is as deeply invested, and obviously as loving, as Nina's art.

I won't even get into the hypocrisy of a western Desi criticising a persons interest in thier culture because they're white - macacas pulease.

Nina's art expresses her insecurities in life. The penis is the penis she would have liked to ripped out from her ex. The big breasts represent the breasts she would have liked to have. The eyes in vagina represents how up close and personal she would like to see whatever that she would like to see.

Totally. I also saw the art not as a interpretation of religion, but as a type of self-portrait (through religious icons). Which I thought in itself was rather poignant since she has her own decapitated head in the painting.

I liked it. But I'm not Hindu. And I wonder how I would feel if it was a Muslim "icon" which technically, doesn't exist since Muslim art is all based on text and patterns, and creating an image of the prophet is haram (over the course of history, any image of the prophet shows him faceless, if they exist at all). And thus there are no popular depictions of any image of people/gods in Islam. So, I am having a hard time drawing parallels.

Preston #13,

I wrote the comment in all honesty, I don’t meant to belittle artists or her expression, I sincerely would like to understand the depiction as drawing my own conclusion only makes it murkier.

Art is supposed to bother people. Otherwise, it's just decoration.

it depends on what your meaning of bother is

Let's see. What all comes to mind?

1. As a female TamBrahm, I rather like the depiction of blue goddess run rampant, who is Kali to me by virtue of her style of sickle, if nothing else.

2. Some say that the blue is the euphemistic hue for Hindu gods/goddesses who are dark-skinned. That, to me, is flattering yet weird. Why not just paint them dark brown?

3. When I was a child and threw my (rare, of course) tantrums, my mother would ask me in Tamil why I was screaming and running around like Bhadra Kali.

4. My family deities are Madhura Kali in Siruvakshiyur and Rudra (morbid ascetic Siva who visits cremation grounds, etc.) near Thanjavur. These are said to be some of the most basic and elemental versions of Parvati and Siva; I am proud that my limb of the religion sports these rather different and out-there takes on the classical and docile versions of these gods. Sorta explains me.

5. If Kali ripped off the heads of demons and rishis in full unbridled rage, why would she not rip off their most masculine vestige, too? However, this depiction makes me wonder if it casts Kali in an irrational PMS-addled, anti-male, feminazi light, rather than the terrifying and evil-destroying burst of energy she was meant to signify. I mean, can't you just hear her reciting Ezekiel 25:17 before going Lorena on her enemy's wang?
Of course, this brings me to: Did Kali go after men alone? We know from Hindu mythology that demonesses got whacked as well and by members of the opposite sex - for instance, Surpanakha has her facial features lopped off by Lakshmana in the Ramayana. So, was there more to Kali's repertoire than misoandry?

6. Regardless of the author's own religion or bias, if they can do justice to a given topic and are open to constructive comments and criticism, he or should write about it. So, I have no problem with ANNA writing on Hinduism, if she returns that courtesy for her own Christianity.

Go Nina! Go Uni High!

Nina asked in the other thread if she would have been less prone to attack were she Indian, and that she once thought yes but has been subsequently disabused of that notion. I'd like to go back to that idea for a moment. I think, to a small but significant degree, being of the culture does entitle you greater latitude to critique and offend.

Being of the culture lends the presumption that your perceptions are the result of personal experience, and anything that results from experience is, in my view, legitimate. For example, if Taslima Nasreen's were not Bangladeshi, I'd be incredibly offended by her novel Lajja. Still, she writes of things she hasn't personally experienced so my metric that you gotta be 'of' it to depict it falls apart at some point thus maybe it isn't a very good metric at all. It comes down to credibility and communication. We assume that desiness carries respect and filial sentiments for the culture so that the critique that comes from that person will be 'from within' -- my Desi/Muslim friends and I often have incredibly critical conversations about Islam that I would not have with people who might not share a common set of understanding. Maybe its wrong, or just too superficial perhaps, to associate that common set of understanding with desiness but these simplifying mechanisms are an essential part of how the mind works. We're a lazy species.

Being not-of-the-culture, Nina has to find some other way to communicate that she does hold that common set of understandings. I think she has more than met her burden, so maybe this was all pointless, but I think the burden does exist.

3. When I was a child and threw my (rare, of course) tantrums, my mother would ask me in Tamil why I was screaming and running around like Bhadra Kali.

i got called that too (mostly by my brother at times) ... please relieve me of my ignorance ... is this an insult to kali / hindus / hinduism in general ? i knew it was bad since my brother was calling me that and b/c i've heard my dad use it to describe his sisters at various points ... but as i've gotten older, i've always wondered what the implications of that insult was

Are there pictures of Kali where she isn't naked and de-bowling men that I'm not aware of?

Fantabulous Picture/Cartoon.
BTW, I really need to know this.. Whose d**k is that?

My problem with that picture is.. some girl taking it seriously and trying to be a modern day Kali.. cutting off d**cks and heads..

P.S. If it were my mom responding to this, these would be her comments:

1) Cheeeee. Kadavale! Vera vela kadayaathaa ivaluku? (Translated as: Yukkkk. Oh, god! Do these people have no other work?)

2) Be she Nina Patel or Nina Paley, she has no business taking liberties with the respected religious icons of others.

It all comes down to how you perceive religion, the concept of god, etc. - if you own it or think you do, then whoever does whatever away from "the norm" is wrong; if the philosophy exists independent of you and to show how you can change and grow, you may be a little more giving.

Some observations about TamBrahm:

1. Claim they are TamBrahm like 300 times a minute.
2. Google other TamBrahm names and jerk off to their pictures.
3. Claim math genius Ramanujam is their relative.
4. Claim anyone holding a high post anywhere as their relative.
5. Denounce the temple priests because many of them were converted from lower castes by Ramanujam.
6. Pretend to still be an authority of all things Hinduism.

Which brings me to, ...ah never mind.

The cultural and religious background of the artist is relevant in the work they create, especially when creating religious works that aren't for the sake of a sole benefactor, like the church or a king. In many cases it is very likely that a work of art is meant to produce offended reactions - Christians, in particular, get more than their fair share of this. With virtually no knowledge of Nina, combined with the imagery and style of this painting(?) I can't imagine taking offense. But I'm not a Hindu, my guess would be that some see this as the cultural commodification of their religion while others see it as cultural unification - which one matters more to you is really the question.

excellent points by shodan and neal (no e).

i don't have a problem with nina's work or interpretations as such and don't find them offensive. but one must expect a return gaze (hopefully a reasonable one not based on hatred).

however, in relation to what preston said, i do think there isn't enough serious hindu/buddhist exploration of abrahamic theology/iconography, either by hindu/buddhist scholars or artists. most comparative religion books or art i see tend to be from a very western/non-indic viewpoint, which sort of puts anything indic at a lower or subsidiary level in that the standard of comparison is the judeo-christian tradition and thus the thing being compared suffers in comparison. this is fine (except for those outright hatred-filled comparisons) but there needs to be a balance and an othering of judeo-christian traditions as well. we need to see psychological/anthropological and other interpretations of jesus, the virgin mary, various saints etc. written by hindus or buddhists from their point of view.

What I found most interesting was how though the symbolism in her drawing definitely evoked Kali, she never explicitly stated that she was depicting this very beloved Goddess.

My problem with this image is same as of Pardesi Gori: I doubt they have any respect for the indian culture; they just like the trendy-cool look of things.
This picture[It's hard for me to call this is as art, but then that's my personal opinion] is that it would work as a piece of throwing insults towards Hindus, by members of other religions[because of it's inaccurate depction].

we need to see psychological/anthropological and other interpretations of jesus, the virgin mary, various saints etc. written by hindus or buddhists from their point of view.

That would be a really interesting work. I would totally read it.

i also think hindu, buddhist, tribal, african and other iconography often offers artists/designers a means of expressing themselves and their political/whatever viewpoints in a way that they cannot through their own cultural/religious iconography because it is more constrained and has more strictures.

i got called that too (mostly by my brother at times) ... please relieve me of my ignorance ... is this an insult to kali / hindus / hinduism in general ? i knew it was bad since my brother was calling me that and b/c i've heard my dad use it to describe his sisters at various points

Rani, I don't think it an insult at all. Hindus may not actively play the part, but they know that the human personality has yin and yang to it, and that these are reflected in their deities as well. For Sri Devi, there is Bhu Devi, there is Ratri (night), there is Kali, there is Yama, and a varied assortment of terrible gods and goddesses who depict the darker, nastier and seamier side of ourselves and our earth.

Kali is simply a hyperaggressive, enraged and inappropriate Parvati. It exists in us, too.

Oh, and Sam, I'm not related to Ramanujan because he's Iyengar and I'm Iyer. So there. :-P

Art like this can be potentially damaging because there are a great deal of people out there who don't have a correct counterbalancing force to tell them, "this is an exaggeration. this is art."

It's why comparisons to Jesus Christ Superstar and other exaggerations of Christian figures is a useless comparison. When people see them, they know they are exaggerations.

Whether the work comes from a Johnson or Jani, Paley or Patel is irrelevant.

So, I have no problem with ANNA writing on Hinduism, if she returns that courtesy for her own Christianity.

I second that and might I add that at times when I have had the privilege of discussing such topics with her, she has always had more insight into the topic than I ever will. And I am someone who shares a similar background with Maitri when it comes to religion.

Maitri: 26: :D Ahh our mom's are so alike.

Sam 27: You might want to read the last paragraph by the author.

I liked it. But I'm not Hindu. And I wonder how I would feel if it was a Muslim "icon" which technically, doesn't exist since Muslim art is all based on text and patterns, and creating an image of the prophet is haram (over the course of history, any image of the prophet shows him faceless, if they exist at all). And thus there are no popular depictions of any image of people/gods in Islam. So, I am having a hard time drawing parallels.

I am going to be tangential for a moment.

Yes, you are correct about Muslim icon being haram. Therefore, islamic depictions have mostly his face hidden (not always though in Islamic culture too ) but they do exist.

However, history is full of Prophet Mohammed's images (the most famous western one being by Dante)

Also, in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, the 786 is everywhere - an iconic representation for Bismillah. Some consider this too as haram. They are some.

Now, Christ being a sexual being - Temptation of Christ (book and movie), Seven sins of Christ (a play).

That is why I support Nina P - art and culture grows by interpretation. The good ones live on, others die or evolve into someting else.

However, history is full of Prophet Mohammed's images (the most famous western one being by Dante)

Just a correction Kush -- those are artists depictions of Mohammed based on Dante's poetic presentation of him in The Divine Comedy.

What I find deeply offensive is that anyone still follows a religion.

if you are so charged with changing people's faith, the consistency of that responsibility becomes your religion.

The real culprits are the religions who proselytize, and consider their goddamn religion as superior. That's racist and intolerant, and that moronic idea has killed people all over the world.

Nina's art expresses her insecurities in life.

Sam! :))

It's a competition to remain positive and be tolerant. I often hear Hindus haven't been tolerant enough. This picture gives Hindus more practice. If the idol-worshipers get a bit angry, wouldn't it be good news? doesn't controversy make a quick buck? Jeff Kripal, and Wendy Doniger will be proud. And Harvard Divinity School might start a new journal on hindooism (with footnotes on feminism, and equality).

------------------

Here's a poem by Swami Vivekananda, written in Kashmir, on a houseboat on Dal Lake. After visiting the Kshir Bhavani Temple, he returned, in ecstasy, to the boat and wrote this:

Kali The Mother

The stars are blotted out,
The clouds are covering clouds.
It is darkness vibrant, sonant.
In the roaring, whirling wind
Are the souls of a million lunatics
Just loosed from the prison-house,
Wrenching trees by the roots,
Sweeping all from the path.
The sea has joined the fray,
And swirled up mountain-waves,
To reach the pitchy sky.
The flash of lurid light
Reveals on every side
A thousand, thousand shades
Of Death begrimed and black-
Scattering plagues and sorrows,
Dancing mad with joy,
Come, Mother, come!
For terror is Thy name,
Death is in thy breath,
And every shaking step
Destoys a world for e'er.
Thou Time, the All-destroyer!
Come, O Mother, come!
Who dares misery love,
And hug the form of Death,
Dance in destruction's dance
To him the Mother comes.

------------------

In Bengal, we have a genre of bhaktigeeti (Hindu devotional songs) called Shyama Sangeet. These songs are about total surrender, about a dialogue between the mother and the child, and what beauty in the lyrics! Listen to Pannalal Bhattacharya's renditions, if you get a chance. Kazi Nazrul Islam, the rebel poet, wrote several Shyama Sangeets.

Rani, I don't think it an insult at all.

hmm... i don't know ... i know that my bro would never call me that in the presence of my parents and my dad would definitely not call his sister that to her face either ...

but i do see what you mean about recognizing the yin & yang of our personalities ...

MY OWN INTERPRETATION -> there is a bitch in all of us, but calling someone a bitch is generally considered an insult

having said that, i will now run for the hills before the boulders are thrown

What I find deeply offensive is that anyone still follows a religion. And, worse, that they look down on those who don't. There's a no god, and besides, if she did exist, she wouldn't give a damn about you.

I totally agree. But even people who are not very religious can get offended because religion is tied up with identity and the way person is perceived, specially in a multi racial society. What a person might be hearing when his religion is shown in bad light is "Your religion is stupid, so your background and heritage is stupid, so high chances, you are stupid".

As per the image, I am not offended, but find it a bit tasteless. Although Kali is depicted naked traditionally , her vitals are generally tastefully hidden using some props (hand/head skirt or what not!). I am not a big art expert, but after a visit to Getty, it seems like a common pattern in most of the "naked" images in most of the culture (the way the women stand or a careful positioning of a leaf). Most of the time they somehow find a way to present nakedness (specially female genitalia )in a tasteful way. I think there is a subtle difference between "nanga" and "vastrheen", and a good artist will be able to discern and express it. Or if the intention is to shock, then its a different story.

Some observations about TamBrahm:

WTF may I suggest you get your own blog where you can piss all over anyone you want. How the what you wrote relevant to the post?

Nina's art expresses her insecurities in life. The penis is the penis she would have liked to ripped out from her ex. The big breasts represent the breasts she would have liked to have. The eyes in vagina represents how up close and personal she would like to see whatever that she would like to see.

There's so much great quotable stuff here, starting with Sriram's comment #1 which I completely agree with. But since some are wondering, I'll answer the question: what the hell was I thinking?

The picture is of Desire. Specifically, amorous desire, mine. I was being tormented by desire to the point I couldn't sleep, and a friend suggested a draw a picture of it. She's holding a penis because that's what she wants, but she's also cut it off, because she (my Desire) is a vicious bitch. The head is mine, because, well you know what desire does to our heads. Her vagina is an eye because she sees everything through it, while her eyes are crazed spirals. The skulls represent all my failed relationships, or my ex-lovers - casualties of relationships Desire instigated herself. If I'd set out to draw Kali as Kali, she'd look different, but the picture is of Desire, who looks like that.

Artistic impulses pay no heed to propriety. The question is whether to share these images publicly. I posted the image on my blog, with the title "Desire" and the caption, "This could explain why I don't have a boyfriend. That's my head she's holding, by the way." The intended audience was people I know, and people who are interested enough in me and/or my work to look at my blog. But anyone can come have a look, and that's how some came to be offended.

I agree with Kush and add that art and culture are only enhanced by interpretation. Aren't we discussing Kali and what she means right here right now? What is so Sacred Cow about a religion as old as Hinduism, a Sanathana Dharma, that it cannot withstand scrutiny by western, non-Hindu people and needs the support of the misinformed such as Mr. To Be Banned & Deleted. Angry fundamentalists do more disservice to their religion than they know and will be its destruction.

But the Mohammed example has interesting implications for this work. In many cases, Western depictions of Mohammed were deliberately hostile acts. Either they portrayed him in a negative light, or they simply hoped to nettle Muslims by doing something the artists knew to be "a sin". It was effectively political art intended to serve as propaganda against a military and economic enemy.

Of course, Western artists had (and have) the right to do this. But members of the faith tradition also have the right to get pissed off in response. If your goal is to honor a faith rather than to kick it, you need to be far more cautious. Unfortunately, the history of non-Western figures in Western art shows that many more artists have been more interested in kicking than honoring.

Last year an exhibition of paintings by MF Husain at Asia House in London was closed after some of the paintings were vandalised, and after the gallery and artists received death threats and promises of violent protests. This came at the end of a campaign of protest by various Hindu groups in London.

WTF may I suggest you get your own blog where you can piss all over anyone you want. How the what you wrote relevant to the post?

Starting from this line "When I asked one of my closest friends if HIS TamBrahm sensibilities were offended, this is what ensued:" continuing with this "As a female TamBrahm, I rather like the depiction of blue goddess run rampant, who is Kali to me by virtue of her style of sickle, if nothing else.".

Now tell me WTF does TamBrahm has to do with any of this? Or should i expect the answer in your blog?

Just a general question, what would your reaction be if the art in question was not on a website but was a scukpture at ABC home and carpet?

Sam, I'm not related to Ramanujan because he's Iyengar and I'm Iyer. So there. :-P

:)

To a large extent I think these images, although a personal interpretation, teach us a lot of things (at least I figured a few things). I have never claimed to be religious, but coming from an apparent "top of the line" Hindu sect, I never knew that Kali was naked. And I never engaged in why she was represented the way she was (WRT the arms and the heads and all that). I find this conversation very enlightening.

Discussion is important for religion, I have always enjoyed the company of people who knew about the subject (not just blindly followed it) and gave me insight. And it is the same discussion that allows me to look at a person from another religion and treat him as an equal.

Naiverealist: What a beautiful poem and thoughts on religion. Thanks for sharing. Gotta check out your blog.

Rani: As I said, one of our family deities is Kali, so I don't find it insulting when the term Kali is lobbed about in everyday speech. Depends on the context, too, I am sure.

Also, I'm sure many of you are familiar with this work, but thought I'd introduce it in this thread. It is one of my favorite pieces of art, not feminist art, not religious art, just visceral eye candy.

starting from this line "When I asked one of my closest friends if HIS TamBrahm sensibilities were offended, this is what ensued:" continuing with this "As a female TamBrahm, I rather like the depiction of blue goddess run rampant, who is Kali to me by virtue of her style of sickle, if nothing else.".

Now tell me WTF does TamBrahm has to do with any of this? Or should i expect the answer in your blog?

Since I have been referred to, I have to butt in.

If you did not know, the general consensus among Hindus is that Tambrams form the "highest level" in the religious food chain (might I add that personally I have never agreed this argument). This has to do with them historically being educated and working with the scriptures etc.

So if someone were to be offended the most, chances are that they would be Tambrams.

Catch my point? (Tell me someone get's this line)

Can't read the whole thread right now, but in a nutshell, this is a really great depiction of Kali.

For reference, here's today's incarnation of the ever-changing wikipedia article on Kali.

Yes, you are correct about Muslim icon being haram. Therefore, islamic depictions have mostly his face hidden (not always though in Islamic culture too ) but they do exist.

Kush,

I'm not saying historically there isn't. I'm saying there is no 'popular' image. i.e. when people see the depiction of kali, without Nina having to say it is kali, Hindus know who she is talking about. The only 'popular image' that I would recognize immediately having to do with Islam is a picture of the Kabbah. Even with the dutch cartoons, they had to label it is as the prophet-it's not an image that was immediately recognizable. Maybe cuz my house was relatively orthodox, but I can't think of any popular Muslim icon, but then again, maybe that was the whole reason to make it haram in the first place.

to me it doesn't seem that practicing hindus are the target audience here. they'd definetly be offended by the image. i am. and i can look away.

nina's ethnicity although should not be questioned. nina has the right to do her version of kali as an artist. as a non-christian i agree more with jesus christ being depicted as a darker skin man, realizing that my irish and italian friend won't hear any of it.

a hindu deity tearing out a circumcized cock at the stump is axully raison for joie.

kali da avenja takes out the muslim/catholic/jewish vermin.

howzzatt

bro! I underwear!!

Catch my point? (Tell me someone get's this line)

"If I'd set out to draw Kali as Kali, she'd look different, but the picture is of Desire, who looks like that."

interesting explanation for this piece :) thanks. my curious nature would ask: not why does kali look like desire but why does desire look like kali in your mind and not some other female icon, western or indian? thanks.

Maitri, do you think attending Uni gave me a skewed idea about desis? As in, thinking "they" were like everyone else to the point of not realizing "they" were a "they" to begin with? Was there racial/cultural discrimination at Uni I was unaware of? I wasn't very well integrated into high school life, in fact I hated high school, but I don't recall desi-ness being a big deal there. But I was pretty out of it, socially.

what bothers me most is that Nina didn't spend a considerable time in bengal. She spent time in the south, so how about a uber sexy come hither Meenakshi. Ma Kali does represent adi shakti but once the tongue is out it shows restraint of unbridled passions. So Nina the tongue shouldn't have been out in your pic and then the severed penis fits in perfectly. By the way i grew up knowing that one had to be uncompromisingly honest when before Kali, so be careful!

Somehow the penis fits - I mean conceptually. Perhaps the penis is a visual reference to the Shiva Lingam and hence to Shiva himself. Not a modern day castrating "b," Kali in this painting is a depiction of feminine might and the de facto ruler of the universe, a theory firmly rooted in many religious lores and even Shakespearean drama.

On the other hand, it is none of that, but rather a lazy artistic sensationalism guaranteed to win a few accolades. Salman Rushdie made a living out of the genre.

I hadn't heard of this artist before I read this this blog post at http://zooeylive.blogspot.com/2006/12/of-cultural-appropriation-and-white.html. I think Zooey's critique is on-point. I do wish more Mutineers had a basic understanding of post-colonial theory. There seems to always be this huge crowd of commenters defending problematic stuff every time I read this site.

Art is supposed to bother people. Otherwise, it's just decoration.

I think there's something to be said for aesthetically pleasing expression as well. By this standard, the Van Gogh poster I had up in college would not be art because it did not bother anyone.

I mean the fact that Anna was freaking out about the bare chest speaks volumes, IMHO, since bare-chested female idols are not all that rare in Hindu households (depending on the tradition, of course). My guess (and I acknowledge this is only a guess) is that it reflects the different ways that Greek Orthodox and traditional Hindu theology deal with sexuality and the female body. So the thing that's taboo to you may not be remarkable to others.

Perhaps you missed the following statement regarding what you accidentally misinterpreted on Anna's behalf:

2) Because so many of us are at work, I painted a very shabby halter bikini top on Nina's cartoon, to de-NSFW it. That rack was driving me to distraction. ;) Forgive me, Miss Paley? The unmolested version of the image is here, for your consideration

Since you missed that, I don't expect you to also notice that the original image was below the fold. We've received gentle complaints in the past from readers who point out that it might be kind of us to remember that they sate their SM-fetish when they're supposed to be looking at spreadsheets, not breasts, no matter how cartoonish. The bikini top was a nod to that, not puritan hang-ups.

Catch my point? (Tell me someone get's this line)

a hindu deity tearing out a circumcized cock at the stump is axully raison for joie.

kali da avenja takes out the muslim/catholic/jewish vermin.

howzzatt

Perhaps you missed the sentence after the one you highlighted, when she said "That rack was driving me to distraction. ;)"

I don't particularly care if the boobs were a big deal to Anna or not. And sure, the NSFW consideration is important. But I defend my reading of that statement, too. The point is that even when you understand the history of a mythological figure, your ingrained cultural sensibilities are always going to impact your perception. I stand by that.

And btw, yes I noticed the actual picture SMIntern, thanks. I didn't just start writing based on the third of the post above the fold.

Maitri, do you think attending Uni gave me a skewed idea about desis? As in, thinking "they" were like everyone else to the point of not realizing "they" were a "they" to begin with? Was there racial/cultural discrimination at Uni I was unaware of?

If there was one thing missing at Uni, it was racial/cultural discrimination, at least while I was there, so you're ok on that one. That said, back in the 80s and early 90s, Asian-Americans were definitely more of a "they" than Indian-Americans. It never held I-As back, diluted their culture or anything similarly untoward, though.

You just are the sum of your experiences and passions, Nina, and if you choose cartoons as your tool and Hinduism as one of your vehicles, then so be it. I've heard your name pop up in the oddest circles because of your Sitayana - you put Sita in the vernacular of my generation, how about that?

I guess my point is that which I make with Ganeshas on beer bottles and Parvatis on thong underwear: If the maker understands the religious value of that same iconography and would then turn around and do the same thing to a picture of Christ or the Pope, more power to them. Does a white boy gangsta-leanin' in a tricked out car while blasting Ludacris or 50 somehow dilute or disrespect the black culture of origin? It's almost the same question.

Perhaps you missed the sentence after the one you highlighted, when she said "That rack was driving me to distraction. ;)"

Waiter? Sense of humor for table 66? Thanks.

Does a white boy gangsta-leanin' in a tricked out car while blasting Ludacris or 50 somehow dilute or disrespect the black culture of origin?

Maitri, a black boy gangsta-leanin' in a tricked out car while blasting Ludacris disrespects black culture.

why does desire look like kali in your mind and not some other female icon, western or indian?

Also, I like the part about how Shiva eventually throws himself beneath Kali's feet, which shakes her out of her rampage and moves her to return to a more benign form. True love ends the cycle. I hope it does for me, too.

I really don't know of any other icon, Western or Indian, like Kali.

Maybe cuz my house was relatively orthodox, but I can't think of any popular Muslim icon, but then again, maybe that was the whole reason to make it haram in the first place

More accurately, your house was relatively Sunni orthodox. Shias have a lot of images of Ali and Hassan/Hussain.

a kinder, gentler Kobayashi: Thanks for making my nose a hot chocolate fountain. Hahahahaaa!

Back to the point, that is an aspect of black urban culture (very prevalent, say, here in New Orleans) and white kids emulate it, too. Insert your own favorite black rapper in place of Ludacris.

Sorry this is off-topic. Does anyone know about a group blog like this staffed with young professionals/intellectuals serving any of these other brown communities? Latino, Arab, Pacific Islander, Ethiopian, Native American, or other indigenous communities? I'm interested in other intelligently written, frequently updated group blogs by brown folks that get beyond the "white/black" narrative. Thanks.

Nina, I want to thank you for being receptive enough to have this dialogue with everyone. You're baring yourself in a conversation where you are extra vulnerable and I dig that you're answering questions and participating. :)

Back to it!

I think there is something to be said about the fact that the average American might not see the 'art' element of this depiction but take the crazed Hindu goddess chopping off male genitalia and head at face value. Lampooning foreign gods in a culture which already lampoons these particular foreign gods is a little nasty and insensitive to say the least.

Maitri, thanks.

Whenever the proselytizers approach me (they think I am a good candidate for Christianity), I tell them, with due respect, they are wasting their time. I already believe in Christ, and I don't believe his followers. :)

I think there is something to be said about the fact that the average American might not see the 'art' element of this depiction but take the crazed Hindu goddess chopping off male genitalia and head at face value.

Exactly. It's a power that many may not even know they have. I'm not familiar with the person who's works of art are in question on this thread - so I'll keep my statement general. But if a person chooses to create and spread exaggerated depictions of Hinduism and they are indeed as educated about the religion, as they and others are claiming - then I hold them responsible for providing counterbalancing viewpoints/artworks/messages as well, to ensure their exaggerated artworks are clearly recognized as such.

I think the greatest lesson here is that when you protest something too much you end up unnecessarily giving it MORE publicity and MORE attention, and a bigger stage and audience than it had in the first place. Case in point...if Nagasai and myself had kept our mouths shut, maybe we all wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, and we could have all remained ignorant of this image. Not that the image grossly offends me. I don't believe in any goddess. But I value much about my cultural heritage, and that's where this image rubs the wrong way. Maybe the best approach if you don't like something is ignore it and don't give it too much importance.

Come on, Pondatti! Sure, I got the joke but it's clearly kidding on the square at best.

Like I said, it doesn't matter to me. I don't think there's anything wrong with being uncomfortable displaying bare breasts on the front page of your website. But y'know, there's a reason for that decision and it's one example of an attitude that clearly changes one's interpretation of any work.

Maybe I'm not communicating this well. Another example is the concept of "maya". Most of us know what it means, but it's pretty hard to actually translate into English accurately. Saying something along the lines of "intense physical pleasure" kind of gets at it, but it will evoke different attitudes (with moral judgement attached) depending on one's upbringing. But saying something "cleaner", like "transcendent joy" misses something too. If you're coming at the concept from outside the faith, you're less likely to get subtleties like that (of course it's not impossible).

If the fact that I referred to Anna's original post is what's throwing you off, ignore it. I'd redact it if I could -- I don't want squabbling over one sentence to overshadow anything else.

Case in point...if Nagasai and myself had kept our mouths shut, maybe we all wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, and we could have all remained ignorant of this image.

Would you have preferred that? Do you think this is a discussion we shouldn't have? :)

Lampooning foreign gods

in a culture which already lampoons these particular foreign gods

is a little nasty and insensitive to say the least.

Are you not overreacting Anna? I paticipated in that discussion, and it looked to me that most where supportive.

Dang those blockquote tags!!

Maybe the best approach if you don't like something is ignore it and don't give it too much importance.

True. A personal website meant for friends and acquaintances is not likely to make a dent in anyone's consciousness. Krishna with a cat on its head, being distributed to every major record store in the country, well, that just might. One should pick and choose their battles.

Are you not overreacting Anna?

Overreacting by...? Creating a new post for an interesting facet of a different discussion? Obviously it was a wanted discussion, look how fast the comments have flown in just a few hours.

nina, thanks for the explanation. my only quibble is that, from my point of view, i don't think kali is "out for male blood."

Would you have preferred that? Do you think this is a discussion we shouldn't have? :

No, I'm glad we're having it (can't believe we've made it to over 80 comments without the thread being closed). But I personally sure wouldn't want to (advertently or inadvertently) widen the audience for Nina's art, or gain it extra exposure via any comment or action of mine. I wouldn't want to encroach on her freedom either of course. And you are right about the following:

Nina, I want to thank you for being receptive enough to have this dialogue with everyone. You're baring yourself in a conversation where you are extra vulnerable and I dig that you're answering questions and participating. :)

Nina, it's not hard for me to believe that this is an act of reverence on your part. Cartooning != caricature != parody.

I wasn't lampooning Kali. I know it's hard to believe, but this is a form of sincere reverence for me.

ANNA speaks highly of you and I trust her enough to know that you mean well. So I guess what you are saying is subjectively true but objectively sure does look like a lampoon.

The subset of the culture in which I live does not "lampoon these particular foreign gods." If some people in the West hate on Hindus and their gods, that doesn't mean the entire culture does.

Well, I dont know where you live and that very well might be true in your sub-culture. I disagree about 'some' people in the West mocking Hindu gods. I would say that the popular culture in the US does in fact mock Hindu gods IMO.

The intended audience was folks I know or who are interested in my work and life as chronicled on my blog. If I shoved it in the face of devout Hindus, somehow posted it on a devout Hindu web site, or printed up posters and distributed them at Hindu temples, that would be nasty and insensitive. But I didn't. And I wouldn't.

Ok, I did not know that it was for a selective audience. I was under the impression that it was for mass public consumption. I dont have a problem with you shoving it in the faces of devout Hindus in India. Its about depictions in a country where the Hindu religious iconography is usually a subject of ridicule. Kinda like piling on, if you will.

Anyway, I bear no ill-will towards you.

Peace.

Cartooning != caricature != parody.

Heh. That's a dangerous thing to say to a cartoonist.

However, if that's right, then are the Amar Chitra Katha comic book versions of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata inherently disrespectful? What's the difference between a comic book and a sequence of miniatures?

Ok, I did not know that it was for a selective audience. I was under the impression that it was for mass public consumption.

No, it was on Nina's blog. It's actually from a while ago at that. People need to hunt around to find it.

However, if that's right, then are the Amar Chitra Katha comic book versions of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata inherently disrespectful? What's the difference between a comic book and a sequence of miniatures?

Amar Chitra Katha's intent is clearly to educate. From the A.C.K. website, regarding the comic's founder:

"One day as he was watching a quiz programme on television; he saw that the participating children from English-medium schools were well versed with the lore of Tarzan and the exploits of Greek gods but could not answer simple questions about the Ramayana. That is when he decided to use the popular medium of comics to acquaint Indian children with their rich cultural heritage. "

However well intentioned and reverential the picture in question here was, it's QUITE a stretch to state it's intent is to "acquaint Indian children with their rich cultural heritage." The comparison itself is ludicrous.

Ennis, Amar Chitra Katha was exactly what I had in mind with that comment. IMO, cartoons are just more accessible, but are not necessarily intended as parody or humor.

If you did not know, the general consensus among Hindus is that Tambrams form the "highest level" in the religious food chain (might I add that personally I have never agreed this argument). This has to do with them historically being educated and working with the scriptures etc.

So if someone were to be offended the most, chances are that they would be Tambrams.

SK this was not an attack on you.
And secondly,
There in lies the irony. Educated? then why still cling on to the caste.

i think there's a big difference between the amar chitra katha style of drawing and the one above (irrespective of nina's intentions for drawing it.) the two styles evoke different reactions, especially if one doesn't know nina's explanation for her drawing.

Maybe I should also clarify how I can be an atheist/agnostic yet revere god/s, although it's hard to clarify something so inherently murky. Indra Sharma says, "painting is my prayer," and so it (drawing/animating) is for me. Although I don't believe in god/gods as real, hard-fleshed, absolute, man-in-the-sky, these-stories-are-all-true-they-really-happened, capital-R Reality, I do find that prayer/reverence/meditation can focus my mind and lighten my heart. It's good for me. The religious rapture described by many True Believers seems very similar to the rapture I'm subject to when in the thick of making art. It sounds pompous and stupid, but when the work's going right it really does feel like channeling. It bypasses reason and ego. Where do the ideas come from? How do I know how to do this? I don't know, but I've learned to stop questioning the Muse and just serve it. I don't identify with any particular religion, but for the past several years I've been working with and studying Hindu iconography, so that's what's been foremost on my mind. In addition to being beautiful, these icons are amazingly useful for coping with the world. I'm in awe, really.

I'm so aware of being an outsider as I type these words. I want to defend myself already. Instead, I'll just consider myself lucky I get these experiences at all, and that there's so much beauty in the world, and how cool it is that we get exposed to more art/culture from more parts of the world than ever before in history.

!=, Ennis! NOT Equal!

Yeah, that's the problem with spending 10 seconds on reading a comment and replying while at work. Mea Culpa.

Educated? then why still cling on to the caste

Educated? They why still cling to religion and tradition at all? And cling may be a strong word.

Nina, geology is my prayer, I feel you. You have looked away from what you know and explore the unknown. Onwards!

i think there's a big difference between the amar chitra katha style of drawing and the one above

$StringX is my prayer is a trite cliche.

$StringX is my prayer is a trite cliche.

I was born Hindu, but I claim to be agnostic. So taking offense is out. I think this cartoon is interesting and after reading Nina's idea behind, it is amusing. Thanks for introducing us to her talent!

$StringX is my prayer is a trite cliche

And all cliches are, by definition, trite!

Art is supposed to bother people. Otherwise, it's just decoration."

Preston this is an age old sentiment that would provoke a scene straight out of Frank Miller's '300'......Isamu Noguchi was decried as being "too decorative" in the era of Rothko and Motherwell...He was never fully accepted by Japan or the US....he was fully a titanic genius and the parallel to many of us living in multiple worlds with (perhaps) divided hearts is apt.

We live in a world of mind boggling choice...Try it all I say...and regret nothing when you die :)!

More accurately, your house was relatively Sunni orthodox. Shias have a lot of images of Ali and Hassan/Hussain.

i was thinking the same thing. a big problem in expressing an opinion about the mainline of a 'culture' or 'religion' is that personal views tend to be biased against the full range of expression. btw, these references to nina's part have always peppered SM. nice to see us discussing it as a main subject for once :-)

also, as an atheist of muslim cultural background, i tend to agree with AMJ that hinduism does come in for lampooning in american culture. i think that's a good thing, i find religion childish, but unfortunately it isn't an equal opportunity game. i think that context is pretty important, a lot of these comments basically point to this reality (that hinduism is particular is the object of ridicule in a way other religions would not be), people aren't as mad about this specific act/image as they are about the bigger cultural frame. so you need to decompose the various issues. what % of your animus is toward nina? what % to the cultural framework which doesn't render to your religion the same "respect" that other religions get?

Fundies rushing to damn a piece of art based on their idea of blasphemy.
Liberatis rushing to praise a piece of art based on their notions of dangerous art.
Aren't they both guilty of same sin? Whatever happened to objectivity?

shodan, when is art objective? it is fundamentally subjective, ain't it?

Art isn't. Art criticism can try to be.

Art criticism can try to be.

objectivity is framed by the axioms (criteria) you use to judge. what are you axioms?

What bothers me about this picture? Not the eroticism or the violence depicted. Its the cartoonism asscociated with the picture that has me offended. But again i've tolerated "The temple of doom" and applaud virgin comics 'Ramayana:3001 A.D'. Anyone who looks at this picture will associate it with hinduism and most probably look at it in a "are these people insane" context. I was offended when i saw it and believe rightly so. If the picture was more serious in tone and darker in a mature sense it would not have been offensive as Kali did represent a woman's wrath in all its fury. Don't worry, i won't be protesting with a sign that says "Behead those who say Hinduism is violent!"

Oh for fuck sakes people the "cartoonish" and comedic element that can be assoicated through interpretation with this is the offensive part. The masses will not be able to grasp the concept of this image rather they will take it at face value just like the jackasses who did not understand the satirical elements in Borat. The artist should adhere to respect before their own "artistic expressions" or at least exercise balance like David Dasharath Kalal's "Who's your Daddy" depection of Sri Krishna. I am a follower of Shaktism and do worship Ma Kali, I can appreciate this depiction in certain ways, for instance the castration element is indeed interesting along with the dancing and I can't comment on the accuracy of this depiction beacuse accuracy is problematic as there are many depictions of Ma Kali's nature. But then again the "cartoonish" and comedic like element are offensive it does need a lot more maturity to it. The next thing you know white girls will get this image tatooed on their ass, shoulder or ankles and then go with nina to eat some goat curry and "chai tea" and talk about "how powerful" her depiction is.

By the way please excuse the terrible spelling and grammar mistakes :)My bad...

The next thing you know white girls will get this image tatooed on their ass, shoulder or ankles and then go with nina to eat some goat curry and "chai tea" and talk about "how powerful" her depiction is.

Was the "with Nina" necessary? Do you know her, in order to make that statement? I think what was so jarring was how the rest of your comment was powerful and smart...until this bit which is quoted above.

Fundies rushing to damn a piece of art based on their idea of blasphemy. Liberatis rushing to praise a piece of art based on their notions of dangerous art. Aren't they both guilty of same sin? Whatever happened to objectivity?

this is an interesting point

"The next thing you know white girls will get this image tatooed on their ass, shoulder or ankles and then go with nina to eat some goat curry and "chai tea" and talk about "how powerful" her depiction is."

But that's my slam poetic artistic expression. I guess I should have exercised some respect before my own artistic expression no?

Relax intern bwoy...

Was the "with Nina" necessary? Do you know her, in order to make that statement? I think what was so jarring was how the rest of your comment was powerful and smart...until this bit which is quoted above.

SM Intern i think Name was making a point on how people like to talk about subjects without any appreciation about its meaning. He hasn't threatened Nina or many a malicious comment in any way. Ease up on the restrictions on speech a little or you're defeating the purpose of the blog.

Nina, your image is simply wonderful. I love the eye in the yoni, the ballbuster (to put it mildly) imagery. The fresh, and freshly shocking, and freshly powerful image of Kali you have created is not out of line with historical depictions of Kali. Has it occurred to the naysayers that Kali was meant to be grotesque, cartoonish, shocking in most depictions? She's the destructive principle. Please check out the idols in India next time you're down there for Kali puja. Many are far more 'cartoonish' than Nina's depiction.

He hasn't threatened Nina or many a malicious comment in any way.

Yes.

Ease up on the restrictions on speech a little or you're defeating the purpose of the blog.

No. :)

Has it occurred to the naysayers that Kali was meant to be grotesque, cartoonish, shocking in most depictions?

Naysayers? What naysayers? Really guys, I am most disappointed. Is this all the passion hindus have for their religion. Bring on the fatwas, my friends. This ain't no fun.

No. :)

With time i'm sure you'll make the right decisions.

...and similarly, with time I'm sure You will understand we already do. You wouldn't be here if we didn't.

"The next thing you know white girls will get this image tatooed on their ass, shoulder or ankles and then go with nina to eat some goat curry and "chai tea" and talk about "how powerful" her depiction is."

the "cartoonish" and comedic like element are offensive

Actually someone commented on my site that they wanted to get a tattoo of this, so Name isn't that far off. Sometimes I'm uncomfortable with some of the "supportive" comments I get, as well as the criticism.

Nina, what I objected to was the idea that you would be with people eating goat curry. ;)

Seriously though...if someone had left that comment, but used "black" instead of "white" girls, I don't think it would be okay. I worry about latent hypocrisy...

"Has it occurred to the naysayers that Kali was meant to be grotesque, cartoonish, shocking in most depictions? She's the destructive principle. Please check out the idols in India next time you're down there for Kali puja. Many are far more 'cartoonish' than Nina's depiction."

Actually I have been there for Kali puja and my father does do Kali puja every sunday with a Ma Kali murthi straight from Kolkata. And as I stated I can appreciate certain aspect of this depiction even the ferocious, savage parts (and if you want to go all into the semantics of Ma Kali which is really difficult to do, what may be mising is the "compassionate element" which is found in many many depictions but like I said accuarcy is problematic because of the various things associtaed with Ma Kali). But Ma Kali is not meant to be cartoonish the same way Jesus Christ and the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed are not suppose to be depicted that way. Especially with the crazy eye, tongue and teeth motif which can be assopciated with the motifs used in the Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show and Tiny Tunes when showing insanity. Sm Intern please refer back to comment 118. Relax bwoy...

i honestly dont see why this topic deserved its own thread as all it has done is made some people uncomfortable and others relish this discomfort (you know who you are) ... anyways...

now excuse me while i go wipe my arse with paper towel with crosses on them... i keed....

i honestly dont see why this topic deserved its own thread

Then I'm not sure why you read us at all.

as all it has done is made some people uncomfortable and others relish this discomfort (you know who you are) ... anyways...

I want everyone to be comfortable here. Except the douchebags, fundamentalist jackasses and trolls. I hope they feel nothing but discomfort (you know who you are).

now excuse me while i go wipe my arse with paper towel with crosses on them... i keed....

So clever and amusing. I keed.

Name,
Interesting point about the 'compassionate' element. There's a gleeful, dancing, joyful part to Nina's Kali I like, and which might be somewhat akin to the 'compassionate'. Not sure I agree about the crazy tongue, eyes, teeth - some of the idols I've seen have some pretty crazy eyes and tongues too - gleaming red eyes and huge lolling obscene tongues.

Btw - what's wrong with eating goat curry?

Its the cartoonism asscociated with the picture that has me offended.

Welcome to planet earth. Like people have said before, religion should adapt itself to new forms. Why do we now have religious TV channel's, websites that talk and discuss religion? This is just another form, we need to accept and embrace it and figure out ways to best use it.

i honestly dont see why this topic deserved its own thread as all it has done is made some people uncomfortable and others relish this discomfort

So people like me could explore and understand more about our own religion. Like a very close friend of mine once said the tag line for SM should be "Everything your parents never taught you". It holds well in my case.

Seriously though...if someone had left that comment, but used "black" instead of "white" girls, I don't think it would be okay. I worry about latent hypocrisy...

douchebag...no
fundamentalist...lol
jackass...depends on who you ask
troll..ouch

Then I'm not sure why you read us at all.

because there are a lot of other things that are on this blog that does not involve possibly hurting others sentiments

Wow this blog allows rapid responses, damn my 7 year old computer!

NINA, I personally do not belive that cartoon art is a low form of art, many use to criticize jazz as being a low form of music that only primitive like people use to assoicate with and now look at jazz music... My problem is generally people may not interpret cartoon art in the intended "enlightened sense." They may take it at pure face value which may be assoiciated with comedy (as a cartoonish elements may have deep roots in comedy) and then when one throws in a "holy image" (and yes I know that combination of words is also problematic) with cartoonish themes it inadvertently creates the oppsite effect of the intended piece like the movie Borat, for instance the "Jewish egg bashing scene" may have been a satire of the anti-semtic hostilities in the US by US folks but not that many people may have understood this rather they just recieved this portrayal at its face value. My feelings of this are divided, I do like certain parts of this like I stated before in the previous comments and then I hate certain parts of it. And If people do get offended that should be taken into consideration, in growing from it as an artist (unless you have a confrontational or unappologetic attitude and simply don't give a fuck) and finding other ways as to avert insults and still being true to what the message is. Naturally you can't please everybody...

Maybe I'm not communicating this well. Another example is the concept of "maya". Most of us know what it means...

"I don’t know how I would feel if I saw a cartoon of Jesus holding hands with a blow-up doll, but I also don’t think that example is analogous; I don’t associate Jesus with porntastic accessories. I do, however, associate Kali with raw energy, sexuality and power and if I am wrong to do so, I look forward to being corrected."

with due respect, does it really matter what something is traditionally or normally associated with, from an artist's independent viewpoint? if the value of nina's work is that it is 'freshly shocking" or funny or her own genuine interpretation of desire, would it be so wrong for another artist, a hindu perhaps, to see desire in the virgin mary (some people are turned on by virgins) and portray her as portrayed above? after all, it's being said that art should "bother" people. why should an artist conform to what is "traditional"? or use jesus or mohammed to depict whatever it is they're feeling at the time (desire, anger, evil) in a way that is "freshly shocking" but not meant as an insult? if someone genuinely gets sexually turned on by jesus, is that wrong? should it really matter that is is "haram" to others if the intent of the artist is genuine - like nina's- (meaning not meant to insult but meant to really depict their artistic impulse that wasn't really conscious or reasoned?)

i think in many ways, as i said above, hindu/buddhist/tribal/african etc iconography and their greater "freedoms" offer artists/designers an easy way out of their conundrum of not being able to use the virgin mary or jesus or mohammed in ways they may want to or are scared to or are too sacrosanct for them. although the bible is full of violence against women and violence in general, especially against infidels, and desire and anger and greed and sex and misogyny are rampant in it, it's very hard for artists (it seems) from these traditions to depict all that. nevermind an artist outside of that tradition. as shodan pointed out, the reaction would most definitely be different.

it all boils down to control. in a perfect world, nina or a hindu artist should be able to use whatever symbols and icons they want. however, this is not the case. it is still very much a one-way street when it comes to east-west. the west has more of the east (and other parts of the world) in museums. the west churns out more comparative religion and culture scholarship. so we see freudian analyses of hindu icons by christians but don't really have a psycho-sexual analysis of jesus or mary from a hindu/buddhist viewpoint. never mind the movies and literature. it's been a case of "what's ours is ours and what's yours is ours too" (and this had nothing to do with nina personally). but things are slowly changing. when it was announced that shekar kapur was going to direct 'elizabeth" i remember reading some condescending articles by british journalists and historians casting doubts on his ability, as an indian, to portray a cherished icon of england. nevermind that they had been interpreting us for us for ages in many ways. then they got mad about the portrayal of the english in lagaan. then they questioned mira nair's ability to do vanity fair (albeit less criticism than kapur faced). one day it will be more balanced or indeed the balance will tip the other way (and it will be both good and bad when it does).

This discussion and Nina's piece are VERY NECESSARY, its important to explore, investigate and confront many issues no matter how sensitive or no matter how controversial especially religion.

Dharma Queen I was referring to the sacrifices of goats made to Ma Kali and a statment made by Sepia mutiny about Goat Curry way back (it was in a thread about Kate Moss being painted black) combined with some "poetic" cynicism.

In this matter I BELIEVE THAT NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE AS ALL THINGS ARE RELEVANT...

like I said I do appreciate certain aspects... I can always appreciate art in its many forms... but art will always be subjected to critical analysis and that must be taken into consideration by the artist. And if not then (And I know this is a BIG stretch even a really bad example) then Gwen Stefani can continue to "racially appropriating" the Harijuku girls in her music video and still maintain that it is artistic and as a result the negative implications of this will continue). By the way I am not going to appologize for the goat curry comment..I will leave it to you for your own interpretation of that... I do enjoy and love this blog, even though you may wish me away...

Om Jai Ma Kali!

Welcome to planet earth. Like people have said before, religion should adapt itself to new forms. Why do we now have religious TV channel's, websites that talk and discuss religion? This is just another form, we need to accept and embrace it and figure out ways to best use it.

No doubt the above image captures Kali's essence all right. But the cartoonish aspect of it removes any of its seriousness which is where i think its offensive to Hindus in general. Plus many of those who are opposed to Hinduism in general use Kali's savagery as a focal point to prove the 'debauchery' in Hinduism (along with lingam worship.. etc). Idol and Deity worship is still a core of the Hindu culture among many groups so seeing it illustrated like this would offend them.

...and similarly, with time I'm sure You will understand we already do. You wouldn't be here if we didn't.

Easy tiger, No need to take the effort to post links to other comments, I don't use smileys so forgive me if you took my comment seriously.

I wasn't offended by the picture, but it is easy to see why someone could be offended by it at various levels.

What some people might perhaps be more upset about is the posibility of this image being used to mock hindu icons or imagery (*look at all those hindus, and the kind of stuff they believe in*).

Or else.....perhaps it might end up in a revived "This week in god" on the daily show.

nina's art doesn't offend me. in fact, I think she's pretty brilliant. There are also other nonbrown people who work largely in the "brown" domain whose work I admire (Berkeley linguist George Hart is an excellent example). On the other hand, there are other nonbrown people, like Martha Nussbaum, who engage with brown culture and whose work I find particularly offensive. It's really hard for me to articulate why I find nina's art innocuous (not as a substantive matter - the art is clearly provocative. but it doesn't tickle my sensibilities) and Nussbaum's work deeply offensive. but I know I do. At some level, I think it's clear that most of us would find certain nonbrown engagement with brown culture objectively offensive. I'm not sure where this line is. but I'm confident that Nina's work does not cross it.

They may take it at pure face value which may be assoiciated with comedy (as a cartoonish elements may have deep roots in comedy) and then when one throws in a "holy image"

NinaP, I liked your work, and feel like it's more a depiction relating to your self than it is something religious, although I agree with you that art is a sacred act for artists. An artist myself, I find art the only thing that gives me the peace and solace that others find in religion. I also commend you on putting your work out there and joining in on this discussion. I found your work and the discussion it inspired really interesting.

I can always appreciate art in its many forms... but art will always be subjected to critical analysis and that must be taken into consideration by the artist.

Name, you have brought up some interesting points but I have to say I disagree with this particular one. Art criticism is something that happens after the act of creation, and artists (usually) do not and should not take any future critical aspects (positive or negative) into account. The reason is that what people appreciate most about art is that is lends a window into the self of the artist, uncensored, unrestricted, unnamed if you will. If someone is making art assuming that no one in the audience will be open enough or knowledgeable enough to think, analyze, or research and be willing to learn something new, the work will usually end up stunted and dead. Viewers are usually drawn, positively or negatively, to the fact that the art was created without post creative critical analysis being a consideration. The art is an act of the soul, or the true self or whatever. Many great artists (at least from Western art history) were regarded very negatively by those various people who would criticize art. The impressionists garnered their name from an art critic who deemed their work so unclear and unfinished that it only gave an impression of what was painted. Jackson Pollock, Jasper Johns, even Pablo Picasso pushed the envelope (for them it was what is art) and were roundly put down and now are seen as revolutionaries. Lucien Freud's work has also been routinely criticized negatively because his nude figures are hardly beautiful and sometimes can be offensive to some, but he doesn't create with the idea that at some point his art will be subjected to critical analysis.

That said, religious or cultural respect does have a place in the artists mind, to a point. Nina herself stated that she was influenced by Hindu iconography and was not consciously trying to mimic it. I think that's why she originally intended the work to be seen by people who already know her and have background on her. Personally if I were to expose a work that was not intended to be a diety but seemed like one I would probably accompany it with an explanation. Of course, no matter what you do, someone is bound to be offended.

I am a *bit* late to this discussion, but it is quite magnanimous of you, Anna, to open this new thread and of you, Nina, to participate in it.

To make my point, which I know will be unpopular, I want to respond directly to Nina's responses in the original "Hybrid Vigor" post:

Perhaps I am being overly critical of Nina Paley, but NOT solely because she doesn't have the "requisite blood line."

I do feel that I have the right to be critical of this work, as well as the creator of the work - especially given that she is a white, American woman.

How does the second line reconcile with the first?

The linchpin of my critique does not focus on a question of rights, but rather a question of control, as Whose God Is It Anyway brought up. We can go round and round screaming, "She has a right to do whatever she wants!" and "I never said she didn't. Of course she does!" Yes - Nina Paley has the absolute right to create art, as well as the absolute right to not have to explain it, as Preston remarked.

My problem is this: when I saw her Kali/Desire drawing, I was offended as a Hindu, but I wasn't shocked. In fact, I felt something akin to ennui, as this was the umpteenth represenation of Kali created by a white woman in which Kali is depicted in an overly sexualized, grrrrl power sort of way. My discomfort with this is that Kali has been repeatedly appropriated in the West as a symbol of feminist rage, while many of the other manifestations and attributes of the Goddess are sidelined. It's almost symbolic that in the West she is referred to as Kali, whereas many Hindus refer to her as Kali Ma. And that's important. Because many Hindus, especially Bengalis, view her as a compassionate mother. She is often viewed with sweetness and endearment. Of course she has her terrifying, dark sides, and that is what makes her unique and disarming.

But why is it that so often in these Western feminist depictions of Kali, the sweetness, the motherliness, the compassion is missing? And that gets to the root of my critique: Nina's representation of Kali is part of a longer history of Westerners appropriating and decontextualizing the Goddess in order to espouse a message created for the Western cultural consumer. Yeah, all that sounds like theoretical gobbly goo, but it really is my sincere point. Why does Kali keep appearing and appearing and re-appearing in Western feminists' work as a hyper-sexualized ball-buster? And here's the thing: I am assuming Nina herself did not have any intentions to BELONG to this tradition of appropriation. Yet why Super Kali, and why all of the usual suspects over and over again?

And although Nina is probably an exception to this, so many other Western feminists who depict Kali as a rage-filled feminist icon have no idea about Kali's attributes, about her significance in the Hindu pantheon, about her compassionate, motherly sides, about how she is worshipped in Indian and by whom, about Bengali culture, about Hinduism in general, etc. It's enough that Kali is what she is on their terms, as it fulfills their desire to promote a Third Word feminist artifact. Still, Nina's end product falls in line with several other similar depictions, and that is the crux of my critique.

And this is probably where we will fundamentally disagree: I didn't critique you, Nina, solely because you are white -- which is why I am engaging in this conversation instead of naively labeling you as a racist. But I do feel white people should be held to a higher standard when creating work associated with other cultures, especially those scarred with a history of European colonization and subjugation. Again, this is where many people will disagree with me...but hey, I prefer to align myself with the second half of this blog's name :)

And that's why, when SM Intern asks:

Seriously though...if someone had left that comment, but used "black" instead of "white" girls, I don't think it would be okay. I worry about latent hypocrisy...

Hefty stuff, I know, and it might be difficult to see where one drawing fits into all this. But again, it's a question of power. We see it nowadays so often. Why, for example, when Bush visited South America recently, did none of my local television news programs show the thousands of people protesting his visit? Or why is it becoming a trend nowadays to divorce yoga from its Hindu roots to make it more palatable for Westerners?

And it turns out that when many people are provoked and offended, they go straight for the race card.

Right. Because art does not exist in a vacuum. And to me, the artist is not divorced from the art.

Look, does it suck that you seem to keep having to explain yourself about your art? Yeah, I'm sure it does. Does it suck that I use the word "white" so flagrantly? I'd think so, especially if I were white, but I hope I explain why I do so thoroughly above. Does explaining yourself make you annoyed and agitated? It probably does. Preston says, "Art is supposed to offend," but that doesn't absolve the artist from feeling agitation and provocation from the product's reception.

And this, again, is where we will probably disagree. You look at it as the "race card," whereas I view my provocation in the historical context of what you are doing. You invite a racialized response when you are working with other cultures. You can choose to divorce the images you work with from their context to varying degrees; I choose to problematize them. You argue several times that BY GOLLY, THOSE WEREN'T MY DAMN INTENTIONS! and I respond, that doesn't divorce it from the historical and sociological contexts in which your art is viewed. I'm not asking you to apologize for being a white, American woman, but I am asking you to be more critical. And hey, thanks for engaging with this, especially since it seems unpleasant. (And I don't say this to be obnoxious, but it's also unpleasant for me when I'm assumed to be a terrorist at an airport or a Starbucks. So maybe feeling uncomfortable and unpleasant sometimes when you "don't seem to belong" can be a learning experience.)

If I ever wrote that all American-born desis like my work, I'm sorry. You could help me (seriously!) by pointing out exactly where I wrote it, so I can put a correction and apology in its place.

Last paragraph on this page: http://www.ninapaley.com/bio.html

But I saw what I saw, I experienced what I experienced, and my responsibility as an artist and a human being is to be honest. It's not to promote other peoples' ideologies. It's not to shut up. And it's not to apologise, over and over again, for being a white American woman.

I'm sensing some frustration and snark, so if we're going to go there, then hell: it's my responsibility as an American citizen to uphold the laws of this country, yet time and time again I'm suspected of being a traitor because of the color of my skin. We all get pulled in a bunch of different directions and hey, shit sucks. You are being inconvenienced and frustrated by having to engage in multiple criticisms of your work. Sorry if that sucks. Again, it also sucks sometimes to be a woman of color in this country. Let's just put the inconveniences aside to discuss this. I am not asking you to apologize BECAUSE you were born white and in this country - I'm not asking you to apologize, period. In fact, that'd be pretty condescending - I really don't want an apology from you. Please understand that all I want is for you to be more conscious and critical of your position as a white woman engaging in the sort of art that you do. It's not as if you were painting daffodils one day and I came on by on a scooter and yelled, "White bitch!" You even say yourself that you work is controversial, yet you reduce it to you being attacked for BEING white. Nah. If you still feel this way, after reading what I wrote, please let know as I probably am not being clear enough. Seriously. I'm not trying to be obnoxious. It's just frustrating because I'm not 17 and I don't hate white people and ask them to apologize for not being precious with my culture. It's more than that, and I hope I've made that clear.

Then again, if anyone actually read to this point (yes, I did ramble on for a bit), you win a cookie or two :)

P.S. Also, for those of you who think my critique is the result of a severe misunderstanding of the artist a la Jackson Pollock, Picasso, et al, save it...that's a bit patronizing, no? Not all critiques are the result of a lack of cognition or artistic cultivation. The artist is not always the martyr, and the critic is not always the village idiot.

The Sanskrit word Kaali literally means "time". Kaali is the feminine word for time, for which the masculine is "kaala". Time as we are forced to understand it, is the foremost power that we experience. Kaali is the personification of time and it is not surprising that the deity of time has a terrifying image. After all, time is the slayer of all. Time is the very stuff that our lives are made of - to waste time is to waste life. The reason as to why time is represented in a feminine form is that time is the great womb - the great mother - from which we are all created - therefore it has a feminine quality. Time is also the force which causes all living beings to perish. Therefore Kaali is like the mother who destroys the children which she has created - which is one of her frightful features. Yet, through the action of time, Her action, occurs our salvation. Through time, over repeated births, we experience all that we have to and learn all that we must learn in order to merge back into our eternal existence, from which we fell into limited time and space.

I can always appreciate art in its many forms... but art will always be subjected to critical analysis and that must be taken into consideration by the artist.

Name, you have brought up some interesting points but I have to say I disagree with this particular one. Art criticism is something that happens after the act of creation, and artists (usually) do not and should not take any future critical aspects (positive or negative) into account.

I'd have to disagree with you, SemiDesi. There is a fundamental distinction between being influenced and compromised by critique and being empowered and enriched by it. For example, as an artist, if I was going to do a short film on the lives of Ghanian women, I'd want to do a good deal of oppositional research about how Ghanian/African women have been portrayed by non-Africans in cinematic history. Not to kowtow to every and any objection, but to get closer to the truth, and to consider marginalized voices. In the same regard, if I was going to use iconography from a religion and culture I was not born into, I would conduct similar research and seek out similar voices. NOT just to see where everyone is coming from, but also to be TRUER to my OWN artistic voice. For example, let's take the familiar case of using Kali iconography in the West. Let's say I was born in Texas and wanted to do a Kali piece. What if, after listening to critiques and analysis I realize that I want to portray Kali as she is OFTEN not portrayed - in a softer, gentler light, accentuating her motherly, compassionate qualities. If that was more in line with my own artistic vision and my own individual feminist ideals, wouldn't that benefit me? Wouldn't that be more interesting?

Also, you have to consider the type of art. An abstract painting will often invite a different response than a sexualized, feminist interpretation of a Hindu goddess.

Religion and controversy. They seem to go hand in hand. Personally, I love it whenever religious folks are offended. 'Cos such instances are way too rare when compared with offensive verses being churned out by them. Offending religions once in a while is only fair.

Nina P, admit it. You knew that the depiction would offend religious sensibilities and would stir up a controversy. I like it for doing just that.

One can't always separate out identity and related defensiveness from one's judgement of art, particularly when it touches on religion, and I will admit to being put off (though not outraged enough to sign petitions and stuff) by kitschy American abuse of "exotic" Hindu symbols even though I am not at all religious, and much less put off by similar liberties taken with Christian symbols. But there's a huge difference, IMO, between the clueless kitschification of religious deities a la Mike Myers in that Vanity Fair spread of 1999 and the use of religious icons and symbols in art a la MF Hussain and, I'd say, Nina's work - both of which show an understanding and engagement of what those religious icons mean in the Hindu tradition. I loved Nina's Sitayana and her depiction of Kali above is only a slight exaggeration of Indian pop culture depictions, so I'm OK with it.

FWIW, here's a late critique of Nina's work.

As a bong fob, I did not find nina's depiction of (Maa) Kaali particularly alarming. She goes wrong in many details, though; but I put it down to a combination of ignorance and creative license.

Nina shows the penis in her hands. Never saw that. (you bet :-) ) But seriously, Kaali would probably eat it up completely, together with the other body parts. At least in the story she does, gobbles up the fallen bodies.

Usually there is another weapon in her hand, most likely Siva's trishul.

There is no blood dripping from the head. But there is too much blood from the KhNaaRaa (cleaver). If you knew the legend, the idea is not to let any drop of blood fall on the ground: Maa Kaali drinks it all. These are the inconsequential details.

Here is one bit that is more substantial. Nina, like most western feminists (desi, gori, kali, hari alike) depicts Maa Kaali with too much sexuality. (At least that's how I interpret the large breasts. The other interpretation, motherliness, is equally absurd. I believe that in western feminist circles depictions of female sexuality is supposed to be liberating, in some fashion, though I personally cannot understand how that gets you female prime ministers, for example) Now nothing wrong with that and all that; but that's not Kaali. Kaali is the epitome of the martial spirit; she is in a battlefield busy killing and eating people/daemons. (the exact opposite of "srishTi sukher ullaase", and yes "ullaas" is probably the correct description here). She is not out on a romantic dinner, movie, yadda-yadda date.

Even with all this, I still found Nina managed to capture enough of the essence of Kaali, though clearly (post facto, after knowing her story) her life experiences clearly coloured her depiction to a great extent.

What I found somewhat disturbing is her blythe assumption that she is saying something blindingly new and original (I don't mean in this specific instance). But maybe it is original in the American perspective, what do I know?

And this is probably where we will fundamentally disagree: I didn't critique you, Nina, solely because you are white -- which is why I am engaging in this conversation instead of naively labeling you as a racist. But I do feel white people should be held to a higher standard when creating work associated with other cultures, especially those scarred with a history of European colonization and subjugation.

Again, this is where many people will disagree with me...

No dude, you are spot on. If Eminem and Elvis went through it, so should everyone else. I remember in a writing class, a white student wanted to center her story around a Latino family, the teacher (also white) said, "Being white, you will get shit for telling a story about Latinos."

And I was like, "So?"

Please understand that all I want is for you to be more conscious and critical of your position as a white woman engaging in the sort of art that you do

This is some tight sh@# right here.

On a very tangential note, this picture reminded me of a painting of Chinnamasta that I once saw.

The literal meaning of the word Chinnamasta is one with a severed head. She is traditionally portrayed as a naked or scantly dressed woman astride the bodies, in intimate position, of Kama (Hindu god of love and sexual lust), and his wife Rati. Chinnamasta, having severed her own head with her own sword, holds her severed head on one of her hands. Three jets of blood spurt out of her bleeding neck, and one streams into her own mouth of her severed head, while the other two streams into the mouths of her two female associates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhinnamasta

Nina:

I just don't agree with this. There's some magnificent, serious "cartoonish" art out there. Stuck Rubber Baby and Maus, for example. Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes, also railed against the ghettoization of cartoons as "low" art.

Definitely agree, and I have to say I really enjoy your visual style. I may be conflicted about the content, but the syle rocks. Comics and cartooning are my among favorite types of media. And, germane to this discussion, tons of comics have used, and continue to use, Hindu deities, with varying levels of artistic success and respect. If people think Nina's Kali is offensive, I have to wonder how they'd react to Krishna's depiction in Vertigo's "Testament" comic series.

Still, I do have to say I fundamentally agree with Nagasai (#144). I'm not going to assume anything about your motivations, but I think that someone coming from outside a cultural tradition is naturally going to be subjected to more intense scrutiny when they use that tradition's iconography. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as long as the right to take liberties goes both ways.

*crying from the shock of such a beautifully civilized discussion, free of assholery*

What I found somewhat disturbing is her blythe assumption that she is saying something blindingly new and original

Relax intern bwoy...

Me think Intern is a girl ;-)

Me think Intern is a girl ;-)

You're both right; intern is a hermaphrodite.

And this is probably where we will fundamentally disagree: I didn't critique you, Nina, solely because you are white -- which is why I am engaging in this conversation instead of naively labeling you as a racist. But I do feel white people should be held to a higher standard when creating work associated with other cultures, especially those scarred with a history of European colonization and subjugation. Again, this is where many people will disagree with me...but hey, I prefer to align myself with the second half of this blog's name :)

If I ever wrote that all American-born desis like my work, I'm sorry. You could help me (seriously!) by pointing out exactly where I wrote it, so I can put a correction and apology in its place. Last paragraph on this page: http://www.ninapaley.com/bio.html

Hefty stuff, I know,

You are being inconvenienced and frustrated by having to engage in multiple criticisms of your work. Sorry if that sucks.

Huh? When/where have I ever said that? Nothing I'm doing is original. Regarding "Sita Sings the Blues," the story's not original, the music isn't original, the female perspective isn't original. Others may have made this blythe assumption, but not me.

Indeed, I had visited your site some time earlier (perhaps in response to something posted here, I don't recall) and that was my impression from the tone of some of the articles. But,hey; tones are notoriously easy to get wrong, and if I did, do please accept my apologies.

Did I mention that I'm a hermaphrodite? If no, then I'm reminding y'all, since that might distract you from suddenly-brewing drama. ;)

KIDDING. So kidding. Have at it, you're both big girls. :D

Sorry, intern. I didn't see your comment until after I took the bait.

Sorry, intern.

Nina Paley, lowe means never having to say that. :D

Nina's representation of Kali is part of a longer history of Westerners appropriating and decontextualizing the Goddess in order to espouse a message created for the Western cultural consumer

Huh. So now Nina and her friends (who aren't just white...last I checked I was very dark) are "western cultural consumers". Nina, what did I purchase again?

"Black people haven't."

Nagasai..Rap music :) And I love them for it forever!

My favorite part of this entire post was Anna's judicious use of cropping to eliminate the severed penis from the picture posted on the front page. I got a good laugh out of the entire piece when I clicked on the link. She's got a freaking penis in her hand!

"Art is for everyone."
-Keith Haring

...but I think that someone coming from outside a cultural tradition is naturally going to be subjected to more intense scrutiny when they use that tradition's iconography.

The scrutiny just doesn't stem from being outside the cultural tradition, I think Nagasai qualified it a bit further:

"But I do feel white people should be held to a higher standard when creating work associated with other cultures, especially those scarred with a history of European colonization and subjugation."

Nagasai..Rap music :) And I love them for it forever!

Huh?? Please tell me the original source of rap music, from which black people misappropriated?

"Huh?? Please tell me the original source of rap music, from which black people misappropriated?"

Well glad you asked...from the POV of many in the established white shoe music biz...hip-hop artists were grossly in the wrong in their 'sampling' practives....many called it THEFT..while others said it was ART (I am in the latter camp)...the most sad case being Gilbert and Sullivan suing Biz Markie..which brought vast money tariffs into the sampling arena..

Well glad you asked...from the POV of many in the established white shoe music biz...

This thread gets better and BETTER. Seriously.

Weren't most of the samples in old school rap albums from black artists anyway? Old funk and soul stuff...

Well glad you asked...from the POV of many in the established white shoe music biz...hip-hop artists were grossly in the wrong in their 'sampling' practives....many called it THEFT..while others said it was ART (I am in the latter camp)...the most sad case being Gilbert and Sullivan suing Biz Markie..which brought vast money tariffs into the sampling arena..

Oh give me a break like Nell Carter (may she R.I.P), Elvis blantantly ripping off an entire genre (Soul/Blues) and creating an entirely new genre (Rock and Roll) Hound dog was originally recorded by this woman does not in the slightest equate to Jay Z doing the Annie song (which I personally think is a horrible song) These samples are just that: samples An entirely new genre of music is not being formed here.

many called it THEFT..while others said it was ART (I am in the latter camp)

"Weren't most of the samples in old school rap albums from black artists anyway? Old funk and soul stuff..."

Not hardly Average White Band
The turtles
Hall and Oates
Babe Ruth
Ashra Temple
Grand Funk
Bowie
Can
Bob JAMES
Zeppelin
Toto
Kraftwerk
Sabbath
and many others were in the mix
It was a glorious free for all....Music is waaaaay beyond color in any case...and the thing about hip hop is..'it can take the waackest song and make it beetterrrrr!' (KRS-1)

"An entirely new genre of music is not being formed here."

So HMF Hip-hop is NOT a new form of music?...I'm gonna have to call a penalty on that one :) 5 minutes in the box!

By the way blues to jazz to soul to rock to rocksteady to funk to dub to prog to punk to rap to emo(?) genres are genres...but music is universal.

"As copyright laws have become increasingly draconian in the US"

Nina I agree that's why RJD2 or El-P clear very few samples...of course in El-P's case he puts them through a blender first...

In the past, most western representations of the sub-continent have been pretty miserable, and in many cases very exploitative, so I can understand people getting bristly about any western interpretation of their gods and goddesses.

However, I don't see anything miserable or exploitative in this painting(?). Furthermore, I think its awfully selfish for us (more or less first gens) to not want to enthusiastically share any or all parts of the religious or cultural trappings from the old world. Seriously - Nina should be put on a pedastal for doing what most of us haplessly try to do everyday - integrate.

Or am I being to simplistic?

Hate to ask this, but what rap song goes with each of those? Did you get this from a site, or is it just from your own mad skillz? :)

"An entirely new genre of music is not being formed here."

Dude

Grandmaster Flash, RUN DMC, Sugar Hill Gang, Doug E Fresh, Kurtis Blow, N.W.A (Give my regards to Compton! Remember me to Nor-man-dy...), did not sample showtunes, or at least didn't do it so frequently as to justify a trend... ("Walk this way" doesn't count)

You can call hip hop music something other than solely black music, but in a sense you can also call it Black America's CNN. Although now I guess it can't be very newsworthy, because the main message in hip hop today is just the latest forecast about when and where some "baller" is about to "make it rain". In a sense, as a desi, what right have I had to feel a kinship to rap music? But in another sense, one can answer that by saying "who knows it feels it" like Bob Marley, who was both mixed-heritage, a thorough humanist, and a man who felt deeply the struggle of the African Diaspora

On another tangent, I want to clear up this idea that Christian iconography and stories are held sacred in the US, while Hindu icons and stories are singled out for use/abuse/"appropriation":

Dress-Up Jesus from Normal Bob Smith
Landover Baptist Church
The Brick Testament
Dogma

That's a short list, there's plenty more out there. Some of these are intended to actively provoke Christians, like Normal Bob Smith's. Dogma is by Kevin Smith, a practicing Catholic last I heard. The Brick Testament doesn't seem to have any agenda, and Landover Baptist goes after right-wing "Christian" politics.

Again, we are ALL borrowed.

Nina, have you read Jonathan Lethem's The Ecstasy of Influence? As someone who works for Project Gutenberg, I find this twist in the thread quite interesting.

Also, I don't think Nagasai's comment was overtly racist at all. The critical analysis she (or he) has done, is not only high-faluting academic analysis, although I'm sure high faluting academic analysis does happen.

As a desi trying to understand what is going on and what has gone on vis a vis our recent history, the type of analysis given in her (or his) commment is often useful. Nothing anyone says is going to be one hundred percent right, but as a diaspora, we need to have people continue to try to analyse our history and our present situation. From all angles.

Not knowing any of the people involved in this, that's all I want to say. Let's make it comfortable for people to make conjectures about these issues, because we do benefit and have benefited from it in the past

Dogma is by Kevin Smith, a practicing Catholic last I heard.

Lets not get carried away. Kevin Smith is a funny guy. He does not denigrate, he just makes it funny. That is totally different. It is not offensive enough. Everyone knows one of those artists who put a cross in a cup of pee and called it art and many christians got wound up about it. Now thats the kind of art I want to see in the same number as any other art about any other religion. Then it will all be fine.

Maitri! You work for Project Gutenberg? How cool is that?

Nina:

On another tangent, I want to clear up this idea that Christian iconography and stories are held sacred in the US, while Hindu icons and stories are singled out for use/abuse/"appropriation":

I think I addressed this point earlier, but there are a sludge of messages up there. Christian iconography/theology can be toyed with, but the national consciousness is aware that it is indeed a use/abuse/"appropriation." We immediately recognize it as caricature. Now you and I and many other readers of this board might say, "Well duh, isn't it obvious that these Hindu based works are interpretations, exaggerations, caricatures, etc.." The answer is quite simply.. to most Americans... no, it's not obvious.

But when the average American sees the "Jesus with the thumbs up" in Dogma, they are well aware of its satire. Growing up in the states, we have the correct, and socially accepted version of Jesus ingrained in our brains from the get-go. A counterbalancing force exists. The same is not true with Hindu iconography and stories. So comparisons to Christianity, in my book, are effectively moot.

In a sense, as a desi, what right have I had to feel a kinship to rap music?

Panjabi MC shows you how. ;>)

It isn't fair to compare abuse of Christian icons with that of Hindu ones. Christians have huge resources to mobilize a counter-attack. Besides, they own influential TV channels to air their own viewpoint. They have 2000 years of institutional practice, scholarship, and an army of pundits that can be mobilized to set things right. Hindus have nothing of the sort. Moreover, since Christianity is basically founded on anti-pagansim and anti-idolatory there is a built-in bias against Hinduism that needs to be recognized. I think Nagasai makes some valid points about the power equation that cannot be ignored. Not to mention white privilege. There is nothing racist about it. As a matter of fact white privilege is being taught and studied in many reputable universtities now.

This is just a general point. I don't regard Sityana as abuse of anything.

Preston, :-) . Indeed. Its gotten to the point where there's a few rap songs on the radio that I wish were the bhangra version instead. :-)

On another tangent, I want to clear up this idea that Christian iconography and stories are held sacred in the US, while Hindu icons and stories are singled out for use/abuse/"appropriation":

my knickers got all twisted when reading this ... but as other have responded so quickly and correctly to it, there was no wedgie involved

Nagasai in 146:

That's why I mentioned cultural and religious sensitivity having a place in the artist's mind while doing the work. No one should make art based on not having a proper background on how art or cultures have been percieved by other cultures, especially when it is at risk of being misinterpreted. The point I took issue with was the actual consideration of art criticism that the work will be subjected to later. Research is much different than that. I guess the way I interpreted that comment was as the critical analysis part having an influence on the artist as in "what are people going to say" as opposed to how the artist can change perceptions etc. Also, art criticism is very tailored to the particular works, and what applies to one may not necessarily apply to another. It's important to be aware of these points (research) but the possibilities of what people may say should not create boundaries in the artworks, unless that is the artist's intent. Also I was referring more to the general idea of having possible analysis being brought into consideration that would significantly alter the artwork. Had Nina allowed the possible negative responses influence how she did the work, would she even have made it? I think she did take cultural and religious aspects into account and they influenced her (even if unconsciously) so she seems to have made the image with the intention of creating something that was true to herself as an artist.

Ah. I see your point now, HMF, thanks. We may have different ideas about "most Americans." Not that different - "you can never underestimate the Average American," after all. I decided a while ago not to aim for the lowest common denominator. I can understand how your reaction to my art would be, "this lady isn't doing us any favors." I think you understand my reasons for doing it anyway.

re #179: nina, but how many of those are by non-christians? what would be the reaction in the u.s. if those were by a hindu or buddhist, even if it wasn't meant to intentionally provoke but was just the artist's interpretation?

At no point in history has religious iconography of any tradition NOT been in a state of flux. It has never not been toyed with, "appropriated" (whatever this means), venerated and slandered, or otherwise impacted by the grand discussion we call culture. Christianity's own symbols come from all parts of the world (shamrocks, fleurs de lis, Greek crosses, Ethiopian crosses, etc.), and most Christians recognize them as cultural artifacts and not holy icons.

An example, the fleur de lis is a French heraldic emblem for the Virgin Mary. It's also a the symbol of New Orleans and the logo of the Saints NFL franchise. After Katrina, you could buy t-shirts in the French Quarter with the fleur de lis in place of the "u" that read F&CK FEMA.

A better example is Jesus himself--a swarthy Jewish man, if he existed at all (there is no contemporary evidence to suggest that he did). To render an illustration of Jesus as he most probably looked, and not as a milquetoast white-robed sanctimonious Republican Sunday school teacher, as he is popularly presented, is these days tantamount not just to apostasy but sedition.

Christians have huge resources to mobilize a counter-attack. Besides, they own influential TV channels to air their own viewpoint. They have 2000 years of institutional practice, scholarship, and an army of pundits that can be mobilized to set things right.

Now, please please correct me if I'm wrong in what I'm about to say. Based on emails and some live converstaions I've had with Indians living in India, I've come to regard this general comfort with religious parody and satire as part of contemporary American culture. I gather this is not so much part of today's Indian culture. This is a hunch, because obviously I'm American and not Indian. Thoughts?

At no point in history has religious iconography of any tradition NOT been in a state of flux. It has never not been toyed with, "appropriated" (whatever this means), venerated and slandered, or otherwise impacted by the grand discussion we call culture.

I don't understand. So what is Aerosmith's use of Krishna with his head replaced by a cat? Are you saying its an attempt to redefine Hindu deities? What are you saying? And quit making the Christian comparisons, I've ad naseum described why they do not hold in the context of Hindus in the US.

There's no attempt to redefine anything because nothing is ever defined.

I gather this is not so much part of today's Indian culture. This is a hunch, because obviously I'm American and not Indian. Thoughts?

As I have said earlier, I am supportive of your endeavors and everybody else's in arts and culture (for most part, except in few exceptions).

They is a huge tradition of religious parody/ critique/ counter adaption in Indian culture, especially in Hinduism. Not in Islam and Sikhism in India, as they have governing bodies for their religious matters, the enforcer. This said, there is also a Hinduvta wing that wants to be self-appointed enforcer too, and right now the painter MF Hussien is living out of Europe.

However,

Billions of ramlilas (the theatrical/ road side adoptions of Ramayana) around October just before Dasherra every year in every town, village, city in India are testament to free interpretation. Very few of them are serious works, most of them are parodies, and local take (within the resources available) on a timeless story. That is the great strength.

In one of the Ashok Banker's story, Sita slaps Rama.

In fact, last year, one of the big hits in India was a cartoon on Hanuman.

There's no attempt to redefine anything because nothing is ever defined.

*ponders*

There's no attempt to redefine anything because nothing is ever defined.

In an absolute sense, you are correct, but in a local sense, you are incorrect.

If I take a Cross with Jesus's image on it, stick a plunger end on it, and sell it as a toilet cleaner, people will find it offensive, because in this localized space and time, the cross is well defined as a religious icon, venerated, and sacred.

what would be the reaction in the u.s. if those were by a hindu or buddhist, even if it wasn't meant to intentionally provoke but was just the artist's interpretation?

Most critics of the Kali image have a point, they really do, and so do critics of "Sita Sings the Blues." I also think SemiDesi is right on about the real responsibility of artists and role of art. She's also right that I do think about this stuff a lot (and some of the comments here are helping me think about more and different stuff) but, when the stylus hits the monitor, "what people might say" has to be ignored.

If I take a Cross with Jesus's image on it, stick a plunger end on it, and sell it as a toilet cleaner, people will find it offensive, because in this localized space and time, the cross is well defined as a religious icon, venerated, and sacred.

Well, if we have to use a Christian example ;>)

Who are "people"? And why does anyone care what they think? Some "people" might find it funny. There is nothing doctrinally wrong or heretical about a Jesus' head on a toilet plunger--after all, He died for the downtrodden and oppressed, the very folks who are forced to deal in human excreta. Some people might find this new icon a restorative gesture, bringing Christ back to His original context.

In one of the Ashok Banker's story, Sita slaps Rama.

In fact, last year, one of the big hits in India was a cartoon on Hanuman.

Billions of ramlilas (the theatrical/ road side adoptions of Ramayana) around October just before Dasherra every year in every town, village, city in India are testament to free interpretation. Very few of them are serious works, most of them are parodies, and local take (within the resources available) on a timeless story. That is the great strength.

Very few of them are serious works, most of them are parodies, and local take (within the resources available) on a timeless story. That is the great strength.

It is, given the majority of the audience knows the true story, and therefore recognizes it as a parody.

In fact, last year, one of the big hits in India was a cartoon on Hanuman.

If this is what you're referring to, I'd classify it in the same category as Amar Chitra Katha, a purely homegrown product, designed to educate through a child-accessible medium.

In my experience, most white Americans (even some liberals) don't like browns criticizing even a horrible president like Bush (a la, if you don't like it leave) so I'm going to guess your experiences in India would be something akin to that sentiment - not very attractive, but certainly universal.

Parody from within the culture elicits different reactions than parody from outside it. Even the term "parody" connotes a certain amount of audience familiarity with the source material, which is very likely for Christian works in the United States but not so much for Hindus.

Would as many Christians have enjoyed "Dogma" or "Dress-Up Jesus" if they were created by Iranians?

Also, there are definitely fault lines that WILL trigger a response from Christians in the States. The Hindu diaspora (especially the far right fringe of it) may be more vigilant about it, but Christians leap into action when they think they're being defamed too. Remember "The Last Temptation of Christ" or "The DaVinci Code"? Wasn't there a major controversy over a depiction of Christ defaced with feces a few years ago as well?

I just think the Christianity vs. Hinduism argument is a stretch in the context of the United States. One is operating in the context of widespread awareness and popular support, the other isn't.

My general impression is that the U.S. has a far longer history of religious protest than India. So I'm not sure I'd agree that they are more tolerant of parody. Protest is almost always mobilized even when it is not even remotely warranted. Think Fox. Religious intolerance on the part of Hindus is a more recent phenomenon I think.

Considering that the images of gods and goddesses are so ubiquitous in India, protesting about where they ought or ought not to be displayed is pretty ridiculous. The most popular brand of bidis is called Ganesh and has an image of him on every pack. Almost every other business, in the north at least, is called Lakshmi this or that and again her images are liberally splashed all over. There does exist some kind of a minimal ethos regarding where these images ought not to be displayed but it's mostly an unwritten code. This would include things like footwear and other things considered unclean but intoxicants and sexual stuff seem acceptable.

But Hindus are very, very emotional about their gods - this includes people they treat as gods such as assorted movie stars or thugs from the jungle or any freak with an extra toe. You have to tread very carefully or there can be a riot if you diss any of these "dieties" that are revered.

There is nothing doctrinally wrong or heretical about a Jesus' head on a toilet plunger--after all, He died for the downtrodden and oppressed, the very folks who are forced to deal in human excreta. Some people might find this new icon a restorative gesture, bringing Christ back to His original context.

Whew. I thought you were going respond with complete idiocy, totally leaving common sense by the wayside. Glad I was wrong.

My general impression is that the U.S. has a far longer history of religious protest than India

This can't be right, because by just one example, there was no kind of religious protest going on in the United States when the Bhakta movement in the Indian subcontinent was in its heyday

Neal, that was the Virgin Mary, but yes, similar idea. The fact that we don't know much about it indicates that not many people took it too seriously. But along HMF's line, if Iranians did it, it would be a big story.

In my experience, most white Americans (even some liberals) don't like browns criticizing even a horrible president like Bush (a la, if you don't like it leave)

Unfortunately, no - but many years in San Francisco (that should be sufficiently non-midwestern).

I think it's a fairly common attitude outside of acedemia, and you shouldn't apologize - as I said, I think it's universal.

"About the same, I imagine. Because Christians are so numerous in relation to Hindus and Buddhists in the US, I don't think parody coming from an "outsider" would be any more threatening. And yes, I can understand how being in a minority religion in the US, misunderstood by many, the dynamics are totally different. The outsider would be held to a much higher standard."

i'd have to disagree and say you're overestimating the average american's tolerance for "deliberate misuse" or "could be interpreted as offensive but not meant to be" depictions of christian symbols by non-christians. i mean look at this silly american idol. sanjaya is still on, and the first thing people latch on to is his ethnicity (and he's only half indian) as a cause for his still being there and come up with lame jokes about outsourcing the votes etc. that's the first thing they would latch on to if a hindu/buddhist artist produced a work seen as less than flattering to christianity. it's human nature.

during the whole mohammed cartoon controversy, u.s. television did stories on crude characterizations of christians and jews in islamic countries - in cartoons, websites etc. yet i've never really seen the same sort of deep soul searching over something like the grotesque anti-hindu chick cartoon books or over the derogatory comments by the falwells and robertsons and other prominent american evangelists about hindus and hinduism. indeed, falwell and robertson are often invited on as "respectable" guests on shows to do with religion etc. i've yet to see an american news anchor really take them to task for their comments about hindus (but they have taken them to task about their comments on muslims).

why cause offense ? enough riots happening as is. why add fuel to fire ?

Living in fear of religious fundies is NOT the way forward for anyone.

Whose God is it anyways?, I wouldn't call it taking them to task, as much as giving them an opportunity to expand and pontificate on their vileness. Sorry, "the news" has virtually no credibility these days.

LBP, like it or not, these religious fundies are legitimate parties with electoral record & protection under indian constitution and millions of voters vote them into power, possibly because they agree with some of their religious convictions. But this is all a moot point. Nina doesn't have art exhibitions in RSS heartland, neither does she plan to show these paintings to shiv sainiks. She is comfortably doing her own thing far far away from india. Once she sets foot in India with these paintings for a public exhibition, its a completely different story. You can guarantee she will require police protection. There will be riots and burnings and lost lives. And then, one might ask if all of this was worth it. That was my point - artists in India can paint just as well and rake up enough controversy messing about with religious imagery. They don't do so simply because they are more mature. They like living in India and don't want to offend other communities needlessly. Here in USA, you have that luxury. Back home, we don't.

I heartily disagree. No artist owes anyone an explanation of anything. If you don't like the work, move along or blog about it. Nina doesn't need anyone's permission. No one owns Hindu iconography, and the last time I checked Indian artists were free to use whatever materials they wanted in their creations. Art is supposed to bother people. Otherwise, it's just decoration.

Preston:

if art is meant to offend, then the offendees are part of the art. If they "move along" as you suggest, instead of throwing a fit, then the art has failed to be art, by your own definition, and it's just decoration.

...now excuse me as I have an appointment in Mies van der Rohe's Seagram building, a tribute to modernism, capitalism, and alcohalism. Inspiring art, indeed.

There will be riots and burnings and lost lives. And then, one might ask if all of this was worth it. That was my point - artists in India can paint just as well and rake up enough controversy messing about with religious imagery. They don't do so simply because they are more mature.

Is simply accepting "riots and burnings and lost lives" over a work of art really "more mature"?

Being offended is one thing, and I could understand someone being offended over a work like this. But that sounds a lot like living in fear of fundamentalists, which doesn't seem that wise to me at all.

That was my point - artists in India can paint just as well and rake up enough controversy messing about with religious imagery. They don't do so simply because they are more mature.

Or because they are scared of the riots and burnings. In which case I would consider them less mature as artists because they are allowing the people to dictate their art rather than freely creating whatever comes to them. IMHO art requires courage. The courage to put out there your innermost thoughts, opinions, and feelings in a form that, by the inherent nature of art, is open and free to being interpreted in a completely different way than you intended. I think Nina does just that. Bravo!

That is not to say that I necessarily applaud all artists who aim to deliberately incite the masses, creating controversial art in the hopes of garnering undeserved attention and wreaking havoc. But rather that I hold those artists in much higher regard than those who create something and then kill it for fear of "what people may think." To me, this kind of thinking leads to a pretty big slippery slope with possibly disastrous consequences.

Tambram:

Speaking of dicks, your first comment is out of order. Deleted. I understand you are angry, but if everyone else can lob criticism without arguing like that, so can you. In fact, you did, in the second comment you left, which is why IT still stands. Please take a deep breath. Thanks.

Or because they are scared of the riots and burnings. In which case I would consider them less mature as artists because they are allowing the people to dictate their art rather than freely creating whatever comes to them.

I think "realistic" is a more applicable word. Hello, putting your art on a blog and having it critiqued, risking maybe at worst, a "white girl leave our stuff alone" comment is far different than publishing art that might have your kids threatened and attacked, or have your house burned down.

I wouldn't move to Texas and make paintings that had Bin Laden sitting at a table with Bush's head on a platter, and taking a shit on a toilet covered with the American flag. Yes it might be artistic, and my "right" to do it, but I ain't f#($@#)(ing stupid either. As somoene said earlier, art doesn't exist in a vacuum.

So, they're not more mature or less mature, they're just realistic and practical. Sometimes "what people may think" can simply not be ignored. Reminds me of the artist in SF who was punched in the face because she drew some picture relating to Abu Ghraib (I think? maybe someone else can clarify), everyone applauded her for courage, etc.. what did she do? Packed up and left. I don't remember anyone calling her out for it.

Sooooo.......

When is the Mutiny going to have another pledge drive anyway? I think SM Intern must be running low on Scooby Snacks, ANNA should get some welcome back swag (beyond the amazingly wide-ranging response her posts have generated), and the bunker must need new curtains or something?!

Seriously, though, my congrats to the Mutineers. The quality of this discussion (overall, anyway) and, hell, everything on the front page right now shows, I think, that the Mutiny has, after so much work, become the potent cultural force it always deserved to be.

SM Intern, If Nina wants to put a penis in Kali's palm, she can create a fictional character and put one ( or several, if she so desires ) on their palms as well. I don't see why that comment should be banned. But it is your site, I'm just a guest, so fine. Speaking of guests, when people share their culture with you, its with the same spirit. You are not supposed to run away with their silver spoons, or break their cups and saucers. You are a guest and they're partaking their culture with you. When Nina takes my culture ie. Hindu Gods, especially Kali, and destroys her in this manner ( destroy as in do something with it that is generally not done ) , it does offend me(fob) and a lot of other fobs as well. You can't come to my house and break my cups and write A R T with the broken pieces and claim subjective artistic interpretation. Its not your cup. I'm just sharing it with you. The cup will be passed on to my children and further down. I don't want to stretch the analogy, but religion/God/Kali is much, much more than just a cup. She is a common property held in very high esteem, and we as devotees/guests are handling her with care/reverence so we can pass her on to the next generation. We would appreciate if someone doesn't barge in, grab our assets and break it into a hundred pieces. Its just polite/civic not to do so.

Regarding the Indian artists, they're not scared of the riots as some of the comments seem to indicate. Nor are they realistic ie. making a trade-off between art and personal safety and choosing the latter. They are just mature enough not to be unnecessarily impolite to members of another community. I was educated in India and I'm not half as smart as some of these here folk, but I think another analogy is in order. Your mom belongs to you, yes ? You wouldn't take a photograph of her and pee all over it and write MOM with your poop and hand it over to your dad, yes ? Why not ? Its art after all. Its courageous and different and expressive and all that. You wouldn't because its just not done. Not because you are scared of your dad ( ie. riots ) or being realistic ( can't stay in the same house anymore after ensuing hungama) or anything else. You are just being mature enough not to indulge in this sort of foolish behavior because it is simply unnecessary, and because there are umpteen other avenues to advance your art.

Weren't most of the samples in old school rap albums from black artists anyway? Old funk and soul stuff..."

Not hardly Average White Band
The turtles
Hall and Oates
Babe Ruth
Ashra Temple
Grand Funk
Bowie
Can
Bob JAMES
Zeppelin
Toto
Kraftwerk

Sabbath
and many others were in the mix
It was a glorious free for all....Music is waaaaay beyond color in any case...and the thing about hip hop is..'it can take the waackest song and make it beetterrrrr!' (KRS-1

Whoa, that list is highly skewed and definitely not representative of old skool hip hop sampling. It certainly "was a glorious free for all" and music does transcends color, but funk, soul, R&B, etc. samples from mainly African-American artists provided the backbone for a lot of early hip hop. I'm not implying that there is a hierarchy between musicians or that blue-eyed soul singers were not as "authentic" as their black counterparts, but the proof is in the pudding - or in this case, the plundering.

Weren't most of the samples in old school rap albums from black artists anyway? Old funk and soul stuff...

Neal's correct: all of those artists glass houses listed combined don't even come close to African-American artists/acts such as James Brown, The Meters, George Clinton, Parliament, or Roy Ayers for instance. The first mainstream Top 40 hip hop hit, Rapper's Delight, was sampled from Chic, another all Af-Am act. The artists you've listen have certainly had their music looped, chopped, and sampled but, with the exception of Bob James and Jerry Martini from Sly and Family Stone, the top ten most sampled artists are black.

I think the whole idea of "cultural ownership" comes from Disney, record companies, and the corporate entertainment industries. Ask Google, "Who Owns Culture?" As copyright laws have become increasingly draconian in the US, they pose the single greatest threat to free speech. There's an American desi angle to this too, as the author of Copyrights and Copywrongs is NYU's Siva Vaidhyanathan.

Well said, Nina. For those unfamiliar with what she's referring to, check out the Copyright Term Extension Act, legislation supported more by labels and industries than by musicians.
Artists like George Clinton encourage others to sample his music and even put out to albums designed to allow producers to do so and circumvent the record industry.

Vaidyanathan isn't the only desi working against the notion of intellectual property: fellow Primus fanatic and outsider musician Ram Samudrala makes some compelling points here. (Siva is my current man-crush, but Ram just might displace him. Sorry No Von Mises, but you can have Pollan is all to yourself.)

Art is supposed to bother people. Otherwise, it's just decoration.

I don't like this definition as it usually leads to a common fallacy:

Good art bothers people.
A dead cat on the doorstep bothers people.
A dead cat on the doorstep is art.

I wouldn't move to Texas and make paintings that had Bin Laden sitting at a table with Bush's head on a platter, and taking a shit on a toilet covered with the American flag. Yes it might be artistic, and my "right" to do it, but I ain't f#($@#)(ing stupid either. As somoene said earlier, art doesn't exist in a vacuum.

I have a serious problem with defining this kind of stuff as art as, in that case, what is art in Texas is not art in Iraq. That sounds funny to me.

IMO whether something shocks or bothers you is totally orthogonal to its value as art. Otherwise Farrelly brothers movies would be high art.

Here's one of my favorite old, Indian paintings of the naked Chinnamasta Devi, a form of Kali/Shakti. She is headless, having cut off Her OWN head this time, while drinking Her own blood and standing on top of the naked Rati and Kamadeva as they make love, Rati on top of and straddling Her lover. Kamadeva (God of Lust) is Cupid and Rati (attachment) is His consort.

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/product/HT92/

Here's one of the fiercesome Bhadra Kali, holding in her hand a naked Shiva and naked dark man - perhaps Vishnu or again Kamadeva? While standing atop a naked man with chinese looking shika.

There is no dearth of nudity in old Indian paintings. http://www.exoticindiaart.com/product/HT15/

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/product/HV01/

Lingam and Yoni symbolism - "tantric folk art"

It doesn't get more explicit than this http://www.exoticindiaart.com/product/BG05/

This is the kind of art I was reminded of when seeing Nina's depiction of Kali. Here we have a form of Her holding two penises, one in each hand, while the prominant one is in it's natural place. Notice the yonis in the Goddesses two lower hands. There is a precedent in old India for the type of art depicted by Nina.

A few words about the painting;

This tantrika deity, in the form of a Shaivite Devi figure, manifests the unity of the cosmic male and female principles, which is the core of not only Tantra but also of India's cosmological vision. Using elaborate symbolism and repeated manifestations of the principle, the artist has conveyed his idea of the creative process. The blank undefined blood stained opaque background is suggestive of lifeless vacuum, the void, emerging after the deluge. It has, in the form of phallus, the male principle, which the Indian mythology identifies as Lord Vishnu. Male principle is inert, though not lifeless. The female principle rides over it and charges it into kinetic energy. In India's mythology this female principle has been perceived as Mahadevi, the Omni-present and Omni-potent female principle, and the kinetic energy as Kundalini symbolised here in the painting by the snake coiling around the phallus. The snake has, as has the Kundalini, an upward rise and in the process unites the male and female principles. Significantly, the point, where the snake transgresses into the figure of the female deity, is the sphere of Muladhara-chakra of Kundalini, the basic region wherefrom the kinetic energy takes off. The snake rises up to the womb, where the creative process conceives and the genital principle begins to operate.

Just saw this on BoingBoing. Thought I will add to Nina's list.

"Dinner and Drinks with Son of God"

Another one http://www.exoticindiaart.com/product/HP73/

The Bhadrakali pic is interesting. Kali is holding (lifeless) Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswar in her hands, and the man under her feet, is that Buddha? And whose body is she eating? Brahma's?

the series you have posted all look pretty modern in style, though; not traditional Indian art.

Corporate Serf

That painting seems to be symbolizing the annihilation of male-founded, male-dominated religions. With Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva rendered helpless and limp in her hands, as well as the brahmin under her feet (or perhaps the Buddha, as you suggest), and the feminine principle towering strong and powerful over them all..... and the Shakta and Tantric paths are female dominated ones - at least in theory or at least in terms of the Deities worshipped.

Those are some amazing paintings, MoS, traditional or not.

This is the kind of art I was reminded of when seeing Nina's depiction of Kali

Speaking of guests, when people share their culture with you, its with the same spirit. You are not supposed to run away with their silver spoons, or break their cups and saucers. You are a guest and they're partaking their culture with you. When Nina takes my culture ie. Hindu Gods, especially Kali, and destroys her in this manner ( destroy as in do something with it that is generally not done ) , it does offend me(fob) and a lot of other fobs as well. You can't come to my house and break my cups and write A R T with the broken pieces and claim subjective artistic interpretation. Its not your cup. I'm just sharing it with you.

The difference between culture and objects like cups and spoons, is that one person copying/interpreting/appropriating a song, image or story does not actually take anything away from another. If I took your spoons, you'd have fewer or no spoons. If I retell Ramayana, you still have your Ramayana. Your Kali icons are still there, too.

Just want to re-iterate, my picture is of Desire. It refers to Kali, and I understand most people see it as Kali, but that's not actually what I was specifically depicting.

Then nobody should have a problem with it.

Speaking of guests, when people share their culture with you, its with the same spirit. You are not supposed to run away with their silver spoons, or break their cups and saucers. You are a guest and they're partaking their culture with you. When Nina takes my culture ie. Hindu Gods, especially Kali, and destroys her in this manner ( destroy as in do something with it that is generally not done ) , it does offend me(fob) and a lot of other fobs as well. You can't come to my house and break my cups and write A R T with the broken pieces and claim subjective artistic interpretation. Its not your cup. I'm just sharing it with you.

So who's got a copywrite on Kali Ma now? She'd more than likely cut off your head if you even try to fit her into some kind of box.

Even if it is depicting Kali, I like it. And Kali Ma is part of my tradition - Sita even more so, and from what little I saw of Sita Sings the Blues, I like that too.

Nina, the reason I chose to use theoretical langauge to make my point was so we could have a critical exchange and not resort to name calling, accusations of lying, and defensive posturing. Still, you chose to:

(a) Label me as a racist;
(b) Accuse me of being someone else to posit this as some sort of conspiracy; and
(c) Label the language in which I choose to speak as "over-written, highfallutin, decades-old academic puffery."

Fine. So in response, I'm just going to write viscerally because I'm feeling like a bitch tonight and let the blog administrators deal with me as they please, since you seem to be some sort of "sacred cow" here. I'm not trying to strip this forum of the civility it deserves, and I'm going to try not to resort to your level of argument, but I am going to write without tip toeing.***

Nina, your calling me a racist is tantamount to me calling you a man-hater. Some of your work is obviously borne from a feminist viewpoint, and you yourself say that you initially deemed the Ramayana a "misogynistic" work. One can argue that your "Sitayana" is a feminist re-telling of the parable. How elementary and simplistic would it be for me to call you a "man-hating feminazi" because you chose to accentuate the female voice in the Ramayana? I mean, your positing Sita as the primary voice in your work obviously means that you are anti-Rama and therefore anti-man. Right? I mean, what is with your campaign against men? You must be a lesbian.

That would obviously be ludicrous. You chose to engage in a critical interpretation of the Ramayana steeped in the feminist tradition of re-positing gender dynamics within popular works. LIKEWISE, I chose to engage in a critical race analysis of your work in a postcolonial context, choosing not to divorce the artist from the art. Asking you to be critical of your position as a white, American woman is not tantamount to me hating you simply because your white. That is racism. I didn't just happen to see your piece, learn that you're a white woman, and decide to mount some campaign against you because I hate white people. Give me a damn break.

I mean, damn, let's do a simple, high school "read between the lines" of the Sitayana - your work, it can be argued, is asking the viewer to consider the female point of view and situation in the Ramayana. So why should the female view be privileged? Huh?

OH, that's right - because we don't live in a completely egalitarian, colorblind, kumba-friggin'-ya society. Sexism and misogyny are alive and strong, aren't they? Right...so it's not about hating men. It's about giving the marginalized a voice - in this case, the woman.

In the same regard, my critique is not about hating you or hating white people. But I don't live in a colorblind, patriarchy-free, all-are-equal, gender-is-irrelevant kind of society, the kind of society that even so many damn liberals selectively bring up when their positionality and privilege are brought into question. JUST as your work seems to imply that men and women are not treated equally in our society, my critique implies that white people and people of color are not treated equally in our society. Saying that does not make me a racist. As much as you and others may want to think so, I don't apply my critiques solely to white people. As much as you and others may want to think so, I don't shy away from similar critiques of my work. I have certain privileges in and pre-conceived notions about the world - HELL YEAH, I do! And if we want to take it to the next level, then damn, let's just say it Avenue Q style - everyone's a little bit racist.

A racist with a lot of over-written, highfallutin, decades-old academic puffery as self-justification.

This just irks the hell out of me. Listen, if you're going to argue using your own language and lexicon, then fine - I never called you out for that. But do NOT feign to sit there and call my reference points bullshit just because (a) you've never read them, (b) you don't understand them, (c) you don't think they apply to you, or (d) they are "old" (???????). I don't know anything about your education (institutional or otherwise), but just because something sounds "highfallutin" doesn't mean it's crap. That's the same argument Ann Coulter and the Bush camp use when liberals make sophisticated, nuanced arguments against the war, environmental degradation, racism, etc. Disagree with it, call its shit out, denounce it - fine. But dismissing whole schools of thought is pretty damn ignorant in my book.

Look, if you don't understand something, look it up. Read. Ask questions. Preston jumps in and says "'appropriated' (whatever this means)." Just because a term doesn't sit well with me doesn't mean I'm going to just dismiss it as ivy tower, esoteric, not-dealing-with-reality BS. If you don't know what appropriation is in the context of this thread, read Orientalism. Read Said and Spivak. Do a Google Scholar search. Do a Wiki search. Consider some aspects of post-modern theory, post-colonial theory and literature, Orientalist theory, subaltern studies, etc. before making a Coulter-like, "we're the authentic thing" kind of dismissal. Heck, some of your feminist messages, Nina, stem from a lot of the highfallutin' feminist academic puffery of the 1960s and 1970s. And, uh, since when is something negligible because it's OLD?! Lest I remind you that the Ramayana you're dealing with is pretty damn old, too.

But hey, why consider all this when you can just call something "lame." Seems pretty lazy to me.

That's "mighty white" of you Zoe I mean Nagasai, not "naively" labelling me a racist "solely" for being white - not here anyway.

Anyway, I have a date tonight, and a sexy black dress and a sexy white man waiting for me. I don't want any images of you or your "Desire" in my head tonight, so I'm going to cut out now.

***Seriously, Sepia Mutiny people, I'm not trying to obnoxious here. But I had to "pound the keyboard" just as Nina chose to go for the visceral, as well. Sorry, I don't want you to have to act like a parent patrolling a bunch of kiddies. But hey, I am relatively new here. And I just want to respectfully make one point, as a relative newcomer: I'm not against the banning of trolls and whatnot, but what is kind of irksome in a thread like this is when a multitude of people are trying to espouse their views and in drops the "SM Intern" with quips like, "Aww damn, Nina, you told her!" or "You don't have to apologize, Nina" (I'm paraphrasing). No, it's not that I want any sort of fuzzy attention from ya'll (high school is blisfully a thing of the past), but to be honest, it does kinda sorta create an unwelcoming vibe for new people to this blog. It kind of creates this cliquish feeling, and that's what I was trying to articulate when I said that the tendency is to be emotional. Please, free love all you want, but can it take place elsewhere so us wee newcomers don't feel like the administrators of the blog are rooting for us to embarrass ourselves in this public forum? I'm being totally sincere. Thanks. And good night.

Tambram:

Its art after all. Its courageous and different and expressive and all that. You wouldn't because its just not done. Not because you are scared of your dad ( ie. riots ) or being realistic ( can't stay in the same house anymore after ensuing hungama) or anything else.

I'd say IF someone wanted to do such a thing, the fear and realistic reprecussions would curtail it. If you're saying that they naturally would never do such a thing, just out of an innate respect and politeness, then this statement of yours makes no sense:

There will be riots and burnings and lost lives. And then, one might ask if all of this was worth it. That was my point - artists in India can paint just as well and rake up enough controversy messing about with religious imagery.

Nagasai:

Sometimes the only way to explain white privelage to a white woman, is to put it in the context of male privelage. Bravo.

Tell it, Nagasai! I'm not one who really subscribes to this 'white privilege'* thing that so many on this forum go on about, but other than that I agree with you, and you expressed yourself well.

*Yes 'white privilege' exists to various extents in different situations...and affects some people more than others...but many desis I know (including myself) are more privileged than all but the highest echelons of whites in this country. That's what's great about America.

Nagasai is right. I appreciate the nuance of what she's getting at.

Nina's right too.

In fact, it's not clear to me exactly why they are in conflict. Nagasai is suggesting the necessary hesitations, and Nina is exercising artistic license. A person can do both. A person can weigh the postcolonial/cultural-appropriation factors at play, and still produce risky, artistically challenging work.

I think drawing a line between "religion qua religion" and "religion as cultural expression" might be helpful. It's possible to have zero respect for the former (not necessarily true of Nina, but true of an apostate like me), and great reverence for the latter. It's alright to piss on religion (again, that's not Nina, that's me), but it's not alright to piss on people.

There's no one-size-fits-all solution to this thing, but "I'm offended" is rarely enough reason to get in the way of artistic practice.

Kumba-friggin-ya, people, kumba-friggin-ya. If your God is so strong, she can open up the can of whoop-ass without our help. Culture needs defending, but Gods don't.

Nagasai, I apologise for accusing you of being someone you're not. And I regretted resorting to insults as soon as I hit "post," hence my apology to SM Intern for dragging down the level of discussion.

What you call

critical race analysis of your work in a postcolonial context

Here's a sincere question for you and any other critical race analysts here: what good comes from "critical race analysis"? What are your ends? How does bringing race into a critique of art improve the critique, or understanding? I said your ideas are "decades-old" because these ideas are no longer new and radical - they're mainstream. With the exception of people who rely on the Fox Network for their news, people know about American Imperialism, colonialism, post-colonial imperialism, white privelege, and most importantly, white guilt. When you bring race into a critique, you're not actually enlightening anyone who never considered race. So what are you hoping to accomplish? Do you think that, if white artists thought more about their white privilege, they wouldn't make art that offends you?

Sepia Mutiny's blog administrators seem to have a lot of shiny and fun technology at their disposal to figure this one out.

Nagasai, all we have is a few dedicated bloggers who try and squeeze SM in when they're not being parents or siblings or full-time drones.

All I did was try and open up a discussion, a discussion I was warned not to, lest it become an absolute clusterfuck.  For the most part, I'm proud of how everyone carried themselves and I don't regret my somewhat controversial choice to try and create this dialogue.  However, I'm being challenged by my workload right now and I'm being stretched very thin.  I'm feeling like whatever I do isn't good enough and that hurts when this site is one of the most precious things in my life. 

I'm sorry that my attempts to intervene via the "intern" struck you as clannish and stupid; all I was trying to do in my flawed way was

a)  remind people that I was around,to nip the suddenly and sadly prevalent, "while the admins are away, bannable offenses are okay" bullshit right in the bud.

b)  keep things light-hearted in a VERY emotional and heavy thread...a virtual court jester, if you will.

c)  let Nina know that she wasn't alone.  Not because she's our friend but because some of you were really going at her jugular (especially the deleted comments...but I know you're kind and wise enough to remember that there were probably several of those, right?) and she didn't have to give me permission to draw a target sign on her back via this post.  I am not a mean girl in high school; I am also not an asshole.  Perhaps my compassion was running rampant, but at moments, I felt bad for her even as I was in awe that she put herself out there for skewering.

If I really were a "mean girl", I wouldn't have opened up an entire post as a forum, essentially just for you.  I love our newcomers, even as most of them don't seem to love me.  On a more general note, I don't need to be kowtowed to, but to be a little less abused, to have the best vs the worst assumed about me and to not be taken for granted would be nice.

A final note:  I am not the mutineer who closed this thread.  While each of us is responsible for modding our own threads, each of us has the others' back, as well.  I mention this so you realize that this isn't personal etc etc.  Please don't assume that the intern is ALWAYS me or that the person who closed Vinod's thread is Vinod.

And now, though I did not close it, I do agree with the decision to do so because I need to go to bed and I can't be counted on to manage this.  Perhaps it's for the best; Nagasai, you aren't the only one who apparently thinks I did a poor job of it.

Good night and thank you for participating.  To the 90% of you who weren't trolls, who were respectful and cogent, you rocked my polka-dotted socks off.  :)  Thank you, most.