So, towards the end of my essay on acceptance, a commenter thoughtfully asked me to clarify what I meant by mentioning the fact that Nina Paley had lived in Kerala more recently than I had even visited it. Here’s what I said, which prompted her inquiry:
Nina has been to Kerala far more recently than I have; my last visit was back in the dark ages of 1989. In fact, she lived there, which is something I’ll probably never be able to claim. Who the hell am I or anyone else for that matter, to pull rank over that?
Did Nina’s stay in my parents’ home state give her carte blanche? No, of course it doesn’t. When I said that I wasn’t going to “pull rank”, I meant that I was going to acknowledge that others, even white others, might be more familiar with what everyone expects me to be an expert on, and because of that, I especially loathe the idea of playing the race card, i.e. I am desi, therefore I know more about (and/or get to restrict the unbrown from) my culture. If you read my post, you’ll know that I have a very intimate and poignant reason for why the part I italicized resonates with me.
I appreciate that Nagasai and Amitabh both opened a respectful dialogue about how they feel about Nina’s art but I also am known to be a fan of keeping threads on-topic, so I thought I’d spin this discussion off in to its own separate post, because the issues at play here are fascinating and significant.
What does Nina’s artwork mean to you?
What role does race play in all of this– how many of us would have the same issues we do if her name were Nina Patel vs. Nina Paley?
And how far do these “rules” go? Do some of you have a problem with the fact that I’m writing this post (i.e. that I’m a Christian, commenting on the appropriateness of Hindu imagery in art)? Inquiring and potentially bored mutineers want to know!Before we get started, there are two things I would like to disclose:
It seems that many of you know each other and Nina in real life, and the natural instinct is to be emotional and defensive of your friends
1) I do know Nina in real life. She has near-perfect attendance at NYC meetups and I have been able to befriend her because of it. Having typed that, I am not writing from a place where I am emotional and defensive about my friend; rather, I am supportive of a mutinous community member whom I have met and whom I would vouch for in terms of intention and integrity. This isn’t seventh grade and I’m not a mean girl circling the wagons ’round my BFF. This is a very special place and I think the fact that many of us have stretched online relationships formed here offline is a huge part of why that’s the case.
{Incidentally, this is also why I think meetups are more than mere frivolity; when you look someone in the eye, learn their “real” name and hear them laugh while trying some luscious ma ki dal with them, all of that contributes to a fuller, richer sense of whom that person is. This isn’t sorority rush either– I have never met a commenter I didn’t like. I’m always awed and touched when people make the effort to come hang out with us. So please do so, in the future. Not just because it adds to your “Mut-cred” in terms of how future comments from you will be interpreted, but because it’s always fun. :)}
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:
The comment thread on Nina’s own blog where people (mutineers included) initially discussed this image is here.
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. This reminds me of how all art is open to interpretation, and how the truth we see in it is often our own. I also think the fact that the severed head in one of “Desire’s” left hands is Nina’s own softened any potential offense I might have taken.
I’m not trying to say that how I feel about this image is what’s right or real, nor am I ignorant of the fact that if this were a depiction of my deity or one of his Saints, I’d be particularly sensitive to potential disrespect, much in the same way I am here when some of you (regulars included) have made throw-away comments which aren’t kind to Christianity. 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.
If anything struck me, I think I was more shocked about the placement of the “eye” than the castrated bit o’ man which the figure is shown holding. In fact, that last aspect of this cartoon almost delighted my inner warrior princess. Well, it definitely made her giggle. 😉
When I asked one of my closest friends if HIS TamBrahm sensibilities were offended, this is what ensued:
ANNA: I have a bloggy question which I feel funny asking you, since you’re hardly uber-religious ;)…but does this offend you?
SK: It shows ignorance on the part of the artist. It shows patience and understanding (about how these guys are ignorant) on the part of the Hindus. And it shows how advanced a religion we are as compared to others.
It does offend me, but not to a point where I would make a big deal out of it…hold on isn’t this … Nina from SM?
ANNA: Yes it’s Nina and I don’t think her depiction is inaccurate. Kali is fearsome, with severed heads et al…and I for one dig the imagery of her castrating someone and flaunting it. 😀
If I were a blood-drunken goddess who just ripped someone’s d!@% off, I’d wave it around, too
SK: 🙂
ANNA: ah, wait…already did that in college 😉
SK: WHAT
ANNA: So, why are you offended? What’s so wrong? The severed penis?
SK: no no no…
ANNA: the fact that she’s naked? b/c I was always taught that Kali IS. She only wears maya. Is it the eyes? She’s drunk on blood.
Come on, out with it. You’re slow this morning. Kappi kudicho?
SK: no… no kappi and I am doing like three things at one. It’s about her being naked. As a figure that someone else prays to…I think there should have been a little more thought. I never said it was not funny, but just that it could hurt the sentiments of certain people. And you always have to careful of who you hurt. Does that make sense?
ANNA: SK. she IS naked. Nina’s depiction of her as nanga is accurate, AFAIK.
SK: ooh I had no clue… like you mean normally she is naked?
ANNA: Oh for heaven’s sake. SHE IS CLOTHED IN NOTHING BUT MAYA. does maya cover anything when YOU wear it??
I love how people get pissed about something they don’t even know thoroughly. 😉
SK: nope and I was not pissed
ANNA: From wiki– “She is often depicted naked with Maya as her only covering and is shown as very dark, as she has no permanent qualities — she will continue to exist even when the universe ends. It is therefore believed that the concepts of color, light, good, bad do not apply to her — she is the pure, un-manifested energy, the Adi-shakti.â€
SK: Hmmm. Interesting.
::
All right, mutineers. I know I’m possibly going to regret even commencing this thread, but my inner optimist thinks that we can all behave and be civil to one another, even as we discuss such inflammatory concepts as religion, appropriateness, respect and place.
I have no qualms about shutting the thread down if we’re not learning anything, i.e. if it decays in to funda-spew, if it’s off-topic or if it’s just ad-hominem attacks on Nina. Please use Nagasai and Amitabh as examples of how one can fully disagree with or disapprove of the image in question without being all Massengill about it. Thank you, don’t flame through. 🙂
No kidding! And my intentions are different. It’s not my intention (or my “place”) to educate people about Hinduism, or India. My ideal audience would already know more than average about both. To quote my dear Mama, “The purpose of an education is to get more jokes.” (And humor is neither necessarily mocking nor lampooning. Where I come from, humor comes with everything; it’s the flip side of pain, and life is painful. Please don’t ask me to fully analyse humor, explanations just kill it.)
$StringX is my prayer is a trite cliche.
I know. Sorry.
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!
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…
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.
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…
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.
Yes.
No. 🙂
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.
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.
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. People who like my art might like it for reasons I don’t agree with, just as others might dislike and criticise it for reasons I do agree with. But once the art is out there, it’s for people to receive and interpret as they will.
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.
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….
Then I’m not sure why you read us at all.
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).
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?
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.
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.
You’re right. And it’s true I don’t eat birds or mammals, so goat curry is right out.
douchebag…no fundamentalist…lol jackass…depends on who you ask troll..ouch
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…
On the contrary only about 3 commentators who have ever posted on SM know what maya means in the classic bhashya and sutra. Nina, just as your picture of Kali is one among many imaginations, the responses too to every picture including yours will differ widely from one another. I for one find the mainstream picures of all sacred personalities terribly lacking in dynamism, verve, drama, and fire. ISKCON’s depiction of Krishna are surely the worst – like this one in which Krishna is clad in a full sleeve jersey! That’s so much at variance with what the bards sang. Krishna was a wrestler, cowherd, and archer extraordinary. To see him painted up like a laddoo lover looks almost obscene. Interestingly boys are named after Kali as Kalidas, Kalicharan, or plain Kali, but girls never. In Eastern India the black Kali is brought home for Kali Puja (coincides with Dipavali). The blue Kali is offered puja at the smashaan ghat. I have attended both pujas. Kali Puja happens after the ten days of Durga Puja, and the lovely days of Bijoya (endless eating at one another’s homes, luchi mangsho, darbesh, shingara, rossogolla, tele bhaja, mudi, and endless cups of chaa). Kali Puja is a full blooded puja, with mathya, matsya, and mamsa. My daughter was two when she attended her first Kali Puja and simply loved it. It happens in the chilly hours of the night at home and after that you have a drink or two with some vefry hearty food. And then it’s off to the smashaan ghat where the post-midnight puja starts ending in the early hours of the morrrow, when you are served some incredible khichdi! Kali is a loveable person, short tempered but easy to please. When Kalidasa (the goatherd) first saw her he couldn’t help laughing. Kali angrily asked him what was so funny, “I wonder what happens when you catch a cold, with your many heads and hands, how would you know where it’s sneezing!” Which is what made her write the words of wisdom on his tongue, leading to the loveliest poetry we have read in a long time!
“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!
Of course Religion should adapt and many of the older religions are already on its way, but remember that people despise change to a set of beliefs they were brought up with. Thankfully many of those beliefs are harmful to humanity in general (Sati,Inquisitions,Caste System) are all but on it way to extinction but still some iota of respect towards religion and faith should be maintained and that’s tolerance for you. The core of hindu beliefs have always been very complex and the Gods and Goddesses were a way for the simple folk to worship and respect the qualities that they represent hence the emphasis on a ‘Supreme Creator’ for many.
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.
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.
Why can’t humor also be “holy”?
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.
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:
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:
I don’t think it is hypocritical. Why? Because white people have appropriated, re-appropriated, misappropriated, vilified, denigrated and misrepresented the cultural symbols and artifacts from the land they conquered for hundred of years. Black people haven’t. To me, it boils down to a question of power. Who was the global dominating force, and who was subjugated? Whose voices were heard and whose weren’t? Whose artistic interpretations gained merit and whose were ignored? Even amongst those “Indologists” who had the best of intentions, why did so much of their work and “objective observations” seem hard to tell apart from the work of those who thought the indigenous people were nothing but demonic savages?
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?
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.)
Last paragraph on this page: http://www.ninapaley.com/bio.html
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’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?
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?”
This is some tight sh@# right here.