Bring Me the Head of Nina the Infidel!

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.”

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. 🙂

240 thoughts on “Bring Me the Head of Nina the Infidel!

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

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

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

  2. Nina:

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

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

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

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

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

  4. 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 🙂

    That’s “mighty white” of you Zoe I mean Nagasai, not “naively” labelling me a racist “solely” for being white – not here anyway. But I am labeling you as a racist. A racist with a lot of over-written, highfallutin, decades-old academic puffery as self-justification.

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

    Read it again, please. All the words this time. Without adding words that aren’t there.

    Hefty stuff, I know,

    No, just lame.

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

    Actually I’ve very much enjoyed the back-and-forth on this board. Only your racism sucks. And there’s no back-and-forth with you, since you don’t actually read what I write, whether it’s here or on my web site.

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

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

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

    KIDDING. So kidding. Have at it, you’re both big girls. 😀

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

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

  8. “Black people haven’t.”

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

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

    “Art is for everyone.” -Keith Haring

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

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

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

  11. Nagasai..Rap music 🙂 And I love them for it forever!

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

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

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

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

    This thread gets better and BETTER. Seriously.

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

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

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

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

  16. “Weren’t most of the samples in old school rap albums from black artists anyway? Old funk and soul stuff…”

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

  17. “An entirely new genre of music is not being formed here.”

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

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

  18. “As copyright laws have become increasingly draconian in the US”

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

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

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

    Or am I being to simplistic?

  20. “An entirely new genre of music is not being formed here.”

    Dude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  25. Nina:

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

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

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

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

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

  27. Preston, 🙂 . Indeed. Its gotten to the point where there’s a few rap songs on the radio that I wish were the bhangra version instead. 🙂

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

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

  29. Nagasai in 146:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But they seldom mobilise counter-attacks. Most of the parodies are enjoyed by other Christians. While a tiny group of Catholics protested outside theaters showing “Dogma,” tons of Christians bought tickets. Things aren’t “set right” in that the parodists are discredited. Parody is simply well-tolerated in the US. It might be because there are so many Christians in the US they don’t feel threatened by it. But most Jews are laid-back about religious satire too. Not all, most.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    However,

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

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

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

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

    If an intern falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, then does it make this blog?

    ponders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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