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.