<
p>
The cover of the upcoming summer issue features a middle class white American woman holding several items that represent work and family life in a multi-armed Hindu deity’s pose. I get the juggling metaphor, and the sour look on her face informs that she’s not too pleased with her conflicting situation. What I’m conflicted and not pleased about is the frequency with which American media and pop culture icons are co-opting South Asian religion to suit their aesthetic fancy.[bitch]
This cover reminds me of the Sotomayor cover that the National Review did (and that Abhi covered here). I’m conflicted in both these covers. On the one hand, neither cover excessively pokes fun at the religion but uses the iconography to express some deeper message they are trying to convey. I believe deeply that art should be given the freedom to express.
But on the other hand, can we really call the Ms. Magazine cover ‘art’? It is the advertising front page of a magazine for commerce. And truthfully, I am discomforted by the fact that Ms. Magazine caters to a middle class liberal white women clientele. Question is, would I have felt different if they had depicted a brown woman in the same image, or if it had been a different magazine? Probably.
It’s completely inappropriate to utilize Hindu iconography in this context, mocks the religion, and diffuses the imagery of its “true” meaning. When a cultural or religious symbol is used for marketing purposes by cultural or religious outsiders that fail to convey respect for and understanding of the intricacies of that culture or religion, it is offensive.[bitch]
<
p>
What we wind up with is more Orientalist perspectives circulating through movies, magazines and stores, more South Asians having to answer for an entire group of individuals about everything from food to yoga, and more ignoring national, gendered, class and sexual differences within the community…I also find it completely unacceptable for a feminist publication to blatantly marginalize women of color as a result of their appropriation of culture. It is a reminder of the divided nature of the feminist movement, and the continued tendency of white feminists to participate in the exoticization or “Othering” of women of color. [Feministing]
What does your gut tell you when you see this image?
not an authority on hindu iconography, but this is benign and i think consistent with the image of hindu gods who (imho) show the multiple arms not in the sense of a multi-limbed freak show but in the sense of their multiple responsibilities; and for that matter the image of jesus nailed to the cross has been used directly and as a subliminal reference in popular media in the representation of the abused anti-hero.
I am more offended by the fact that somehow, as a minority ( I am a cultural Hindu) I am supposed to be treated with kid gloves. Far more offensive is the idea that absolue idiots like Rajan Zed start speaking out for me, or groups like the Hindu janjagruti manch. That is offensive that they take a very olerant, very inclusive system and pour forth their own narrow interpretations. I have seen several such magazine covers in Indian magazines. Seen politicians depicted as religious icons and found all that ironic. Its not “othering”. Indeed the insistence to be treated with kid gloves is. Lakshmi on a burger is also a non-issue. Just a Ravi-Varma-esque representation is not essentially Lakshmi and I have seen several calendars of shoe companies among others with deities represented( the same pictures). I understand the need for a composite cultural identity, but I do not understand how getting uber-offended is going to help in becoming accepted people, not types. I agree about there being much more to be offended about- like the male-female birth ratio, like actual discrimination. Oh, and culture essentially needs to change and be influenced by outside in order to remain culture- the 3000 year old Hindu culture has managed just fine without manufactured outrage so far,
Re. the comment that Ms. caters to a largely white liberal audience, I would ask if the variety of articles in Ms.regarding the global women’s movement has been really read? Book reviews and arts also feature perhaps a majority of women of color.You’ll find a number of South Asian women in the bylines.
You mean a hopelessly confused article like this one? Women, people of South Asian origin, women of SAO, People in truly open relationships etc. etc. Something for everyone — to get irritated about.
As a brown woman, as an Indian, as an artist, as a one-time magazine designer, as a feminist, I feel a funny feeling of complete indifference to this image. Every image in the media is cultural appropriation and irreverent and referential on some level, it is truly wound-seeking to find this particular image offensively disrespectful. With the Sotomayor cover, yes that was supposed to be insulting and it was weird. This is just meh.
pagans 🙂
Camille : “is it right to co-opt or appropriate religious images? The second question is whether it is ok to do this for art, or for commercial purposes (advertising) [I acknowledge there is a whole body of work on whether ads are art, but I’ll leave that aside]. We’re talking about taking the divine, holy, or deified, and bringing it down to a human level.”
The deities themselves are a manifestation of various aspects of God. The “appropriation” of these deities and their characteristics are routinely used for art and commercial purposes (see any Indian movie). There are so many God-men and God-women who are routinely worshiped as avatars of God (think saibaba in recent history) in the country. Hence, the question of whether bringing the “divine” to human level is appropriate is kind of moot.
Manufactured outrage indeed.
Who exactly then is outraged? I think some people require Rajan Zed to pop out and make an appearance to prove some point or provide a distraction from world events. Somehow this non-issue mfgered by an Oppression Studies specialist will be laid at the feet of the HAF
jujung, I’m well aware that these religious icons are co-opted/used in other advertising and pop culture frames. I was just tracing the dimensions across which this could be analyzed. It’s also not entirely accurate to analyze their use in the Indian context as equivalent to an American appropriation. In India, Hinduism outpaces all other faith communities as the dominant religion, and in many states, as the dominant cultural backdrop. The same cannot be argued for the U.S.
Oh the larger question: Is it right to co-opt religious images. Yes, if it’s done with the purpose of making some point rather than expressly to offend. Why not? Would you feel offended if this was a painting in an art gallery? It is however mildly irritating when it’s done with no knowledge of the religion being appropriated.
This reminds me of a sculpture in the Art Gallery of Ontario made entirely of used black shoes. Why shoes? It is a copy of an old wooden African sculpture of a woman carrying a child on her back. Imagine making a Ganpati out of used chappals. Footwear is considered disrespectful in most eastern cultures. It was presented to a group of school children I was with, as something wonderful. We were all invited to view both the original and the modern appropriation from an entirely western cultural perspective, even though most of the children in the group were Asian and one was even from Cameroon, where the sculpture originated.
The other question of why it’s offensive when whites do it and not so bad if blacks or hispanics do it – it because of the history. Europeans have used the advantages of colonial wealth to study other cultures and observe them and comment on them all from a self-presumed viewpoint of detachment and superiority. Going around observing and reporting on the other has until recently been a luxury afforded mainly by those of European background and that’s why we others resent it. We’re like the second sex, even when some of us now have the advantages of the dominant group, we’re still using their lens to view ourselves.
I seriously doubt that if this was on a magazine geared towards a POC readership that it would have gotten a free pass — it may have just taken longer to come to light
I don’t know about that. It just seems when desi are victims from attacks from POC its seems that there is nowhere near the outrage that if it’s a white person doing it.
Look at this rap video which attacks a certain desi group. I hope there is outrage over this despite the background of the people behind the video.
http://www.averroespress.com/AverroesPress/Main/Entries/2009/7/19_Racist_anti-Pakistani_hate_video_in_Arabic.html
Suki, Please stop spreading that Zionist, Capitalist propaganda. 😉 We know Arabs love Pakistanis. Take your “evidence” elsewhere. Yah, yah, yah, I have my fingers in my ears. 😉
Camille, with all due respect, Taz said the opposite in her original post. See the sentence that begins “And truthfully,” and the sentence that follows it.
And if you read the sentence following that – I basically say, “would I feel just as bad if it were a desi person, or another magazine? Probably.” Basically, reflecting what Camille was implying.
Thanks Camille.
Uh, people are so uptight. Relax, it is just a visual metaphor. Now, if she had a dildo in each hand, it would be metaphorical porn.
Progressives. Like with racism, they’ve been moving the goalposts in regards to colonialism…the theory being these systems of domination result in subtle forms of oppression not obvious to those who belong to the dominant group, or perhaps even to the dominated. Suki’s observation (about the lack of outrage when blacks appropriate) is I think generally correct. But its justified. Blacks aren’t the dominant group and they never colonized India, so they get a pass, unless its really offensive…in which case you can place blame on the larger culture of western domination which no doubt also infiltrates their thought process.
One could of course argue that America never colonized India either, but don’t forget , the goalposts have moved. America practices neo-colonialism, has engaged in realpolitik vis a vis the anti-communism and the war on terror, and most disturbingly has opened up her markets to India while exporting jobs there, a form of economic colonialism.
Problematizing this theory, as this thread demonstrates, is that the natives haven’t gone along with the outrage…or as I’ve reported back many times with my patented grandmother test. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the progressives are wrong. It just puts them in the uncomfortable postion of being as condescending as the neo-colinailsts they abhor. But i feel their pain. I get outraged over Che Guevara T-shirts but if the Cubans don’t mind who am I to complain? I recall speaking with a black south African friend who wasn’t too exercised about apartheid. It happens.
Intellectual vanguards exists. Its possible they see things that the rest of us, being victims of an overwhelming social construction that just appears natural, simply can’t. Of course, the other possibility is that they’re wrong, or themselves brainwashed by an (ironically) western philosophical system. After all, was Edward Said really seeing things thru Palestinian eyes or Martin Heidegger’s?
I report, you decide.
I’ve got a people in my family who would back this view. At the same time they seek to solely identify themselves with white upper middle class Americans – in taste, lifestyle, whom they choose to associate with and marry, career choice, etc.
On the internet they wax eleqount about POC and “othering”, much like you, but were their children to marry POC (other than desi) the sh*t would hit the fan.
In matters like this, one should call in the expert on all matters of that could be potentially offensive to religions.
I always found it suspicious that Octopussy was set in India. They fooled us for so long, the bastards.
Suki, Please stop spreading that Zionist, Capitalist propaganda. 😉
Oh shoot, I been exposed for what I really am. Hopefully Rob you will still support my Pro-Blago agenda.
heh,heh.
Susan. I feel you are misinformed. I thought that was a bold piece of art. Firstly, the artist is american (not cameroonian), if memory serves me right. He also had a delightful piece made of a bicycle frame and another with a set of used reeboks. if it was presented as something ‘wonderful’ that’s a problem with the educator rather than the artist or the ago. It was slightly subversive in that the casual onlooker would think it was a ho-hum ‘authentic’ african sculpture and only upon close examination would realize that the medium is very modern despite the traditional rendering. (the royal) We were amused and broke into a smile. The TRULY subversive piece of art at the ago was by kent monkman. What did you think of the rape of daniel boone? For those not in the know, it’s a young daniel boone skipping off a canoe without pants, and an erect penis thrust out from a thatch of rust hair. There are two first nations men looking on. what did monkman want to say? is boone committing the rape of sacred land, or is his prance going to be cut short by a warrior’s lance. Now THAT is subversive. Imagine the sacred cows that were dispatched in that one painting. I laughed. hahaha. hahaha. hahaha.
They should have raked John, Paul, George and Ringo over the coals for their 60s pop hit, “8 Arms to Hold You Tight.” Don’t tell me they didn’t get that idea from their country’s ex-colony. And George with that damn sitar. No Liverpudlian should have attempted that.
Whoa! You said sacred cows! Is that, um, kosher?
Well, we may be decrepit and withered – but the mind is still there. The artist in discussion is Willie cole. those art pieces haveto be presented in the context of the surrealist movement currently being highlighted at the ago. Here are a couple of samples of cole’s work.
nuttin’ is accidental my man.
after the bitch magazine saves hinduism, somebody should point them to willie. i dont think he knows he is a victim.
Are you sure he isn’t an enabler?
neither an enabler nor an ally old felooda. here’s an excerpt from cole’s bio.
my personal assessment of his work is independent of the background above; i found his work subversive, alternately mocking the collectors who hold private viewings of the next odd and ugly ebony figurine procured via their allies abroad, and applauding the art in the pieces they collect. I hear him saying, “Hey you! this form that you appreciate, I made out of pieces I picked out of ditches in trenton. this figurine that you hold against your cheek and whose gloss you admire, is recreated in that what was made in a sweat shop in viet nam and purchased at payless. is it still as valued and cherished? Ha! motherfucker. Ha!” No cole isnt an enabler.
I am confused. Since when was the perceived value of art based on the materials it was made of. It’s not as if Van Gogh’s paintings are so much more appreciated than mine because he used unicorn skin for his canvas.
You are reading too much into this. Why give unwanted publicity to this magazine? Its the first time I have even heard about it…At this time lets remember the words of Blossom Baby Kutty: “Live and let live”- Peace!
This hoopla over religious images reminds me of when Muslims got all violent over the dutch cartoons, its a joke. Since when did indians become so sensitive
Umm…who exactly is outraged beyond the Leftist who wrote the article? Who is protesting in the streets baying for blood? No one….you seem to have a vivid imagination.
Exactly. I’m a proud, teetotolling, lacto-vegetarian, vrat-observing, Hindu (born and partially bred in the cow/hindi belt) and I LIKE seeing the desification of mainstream American culture.
Jai Hind!
Jai Mata Di!
I’m normally sensitive to these things, but this time, I saw nothing but a stressed-out modern mom, a person who seems to have or needs many arms in this day and age.
Koofi, I am not misinformed, perhaps you are. The original piece that the american artist copied was an old wooden sculpture from Cameroon. Both original and black shoe copy are in the gallery museum. The replica was very well made and a lot of thought had gone into it, and I appreciate all that, but I’m just saying what struck me about it and the way it was presented. If you’re in Toronto go and have another look.
Yes, the bike sculpures were clever. And yes, there are some very subversive pieces there too, relating to native new worlders such as that Victorian looking costume made of twigs and commemorative saucers for breasts but I don’t see what that has to do with this.
I see it as all part of the conspiracy to de-sensitise Americans to all things desi so that America will just slide right into the mergence without a glitch.
I wake up this morning and log onto yahoo to check my email and the headline there is a desi tradition story – http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090720/sc_afp/scienceastronomyeclipseasiatourismsuperstition
I see desi symbols everywhere now, on commercials, in movies, in mags. The words avatar, mantra and pundit are commonspeak. Even some hip hop artist named an album “jagaurnath”.
They are getting us ready for the new world order, is all I can think.
At any rate, its now “cool” to be desi so we might as well exploit that in the PUA Game circuit. I know I am!
this is beside the point. your earlier comment suggested that it was disrespectful to use shoes for ‘African art’. There were so many assumptions that I had to call you out.
Rahul – the point on the medium was that much like the henna-mango imagery that is used to sell indian books, i find african art and artifacts marketed in the same breathless tone. hence i felt the cole pieces were wicked.
everything susan. daniel boone is a rugged image in north americn lore – a man’s man who mastered beast and land. to portray him as a louche, a prancign wood nymph seemed to me that monkman was co-opting the european settler’s icon for his own interpretation. this is subversive, vastly more than the little cover illustration under discussion here – and definitely more agaisnt the grain. a similar piece that i see coming down the pipe [somebody make a note of this] is an african artist making a begging bowl sculpture from consignment boxes. Co-opt and conquer.
What assumptions? If his intention was to mock collectors of African art by making this piece as you suggested, that’s even more disrespectful, it looks like he’s mocking the original sculpture. but what the hell, why should he be respectful of some piece of carved wood plucked from and another continent and plonked down in a sterile room out of context? Willie Cole’s art is pretty cool and sometimes even beautiful but I was hoping there was more to it than just being clever and subversive. I am really tired of looking at art that’s just ironic.
Actually khoofi, I think you’re wrong about Cole mocking the collectors. He was so appreciative of the stylization that he appropriated it, in the same way that Picasso used African art as inspiration. He’s just doing what artists, graphic designers, all creative types do – borrow ideas.Your “odd and ugly” comment makes you sound rather Victorian.
i think it’s in poor taste. ms. magazine could have gone for something better…
you said the rendering-in-shoes was ignorant and that the appropriation was offensive because it reflected a colonial perspective. quite the contrary. did you know it was cole who did the sculpture when you said the below to equate the shoe sculpture to the ms mag cover?
Can you cite a “progressive” who makes this argument on a consistent basis? In any case, I agree with #40’s first paragraph above – and that it is possible to believe that cultural appropriation and commodification happen and that this is not a good example of the more negative forms of it. Your race baiting is absurd. obviously Black people, White people, Asian people, South Asian people, etc., all participate in cultures that reproduce symbols about different sorts of people. Of course Black people can make racist comments – just like your comment!
Wives/Mothers are often called Griha-Laxmi in Hindu culture. This is just a depiction of that in a western context. Sure there are a couple of extra pair of arms compared to the traditional representation but the idea is sound. Not only is it non offensive in my view, but also captures the essential concept of Devi quite well.
I think this cover shows the racism and cultural insensitivity that is prevalent throughout the United States. And I’m disappointed that Ms. is perpetrating this type of appropriation. I love Ms., don’t get me wrong, and I’m sure the content of this issue is going to be great like always. But using religious iconography to advertise the magazine is kind of disgusting, especially for a feminist magazine.
I write more about the cover at my blog, here is the link.
Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.
You’re joking with us, right?
Are you going to do a geneological background check on everyone who “appropriates” something to see if they have any DNA linked back to the Dutch, the Portugese, the Brits, the Mongols or the Turko-Persian?
Get real!
This is not a big deal. One of the features of an America that is made up of people from so many different cultures is that the products of those cultures are integrated into a cultural mish-mash as people think and imagine and follow the trails of what fascinates them. We’ve gone through this before with previous groups of immigrants and their cultures. Do you drive a Saturn or a Mercury? Is that offensive to Italians and Greeks? The commercialization of culture is one of the means that many cultures are integrated into modern America. We have a great adventure ahead of us and no one owns cultural products, so we can expect a lot of creative adaptation from every source. And that is a good thing. When people who are of a different backgrounds use your cultural products then that is a good thing because it means that they have found a truth or value in it. This magazine cover may seem trivial, but it is an example of how ideas cross cultural boundaries that used to be firm but are now fluid and creative.
And let me add, I could just as easily say that as a woman, any MAN (reglardless of ethnicity) who wants to stake claim over GODDESS figures, is appropriating MY culture.
How dare any MAN, even an Indian man, try to say that I have no rights to use DEVI iconography to further the cause the of the SISTERHOOD. What cheek to say that a WOMAN or WOMEN’S magazine can mis-appropriate a FEMALE/GODDESS figure!
Talk about the audacity of a dominant group!
Men – back off!
“Blacks aren’t the dominant group and they never colonized India, so they get a pass, unless its really offensive…in which case you can place blame on the larger culture of western domination which no doubt also infiltrates their thought process.”
well, I supposed it could be Onionesque, but on the possibility you’re for real… how bloody insulting to blacks and everyone else. They can’t think for themselves? Somehow “western domination” (read whitey) needs to be repsonsible for anything anybody of any color thinks? Does that include both good and bad or only “imperlialist” thoughts. And for how long? 50 more years? 100? 200? Forever? Because they’ve certainly been thinking and fomenting and had access to just as much info as anybody else, so, boys and girls, let’s all just make every adult in this country responsible for his or her own “prejudices.” Maybe I’m just a little out of it. The area I live in, a typical metro coastal area, is so full of browns, blacks and yellows, with so few whites, that if that white-colonizer-in-the-sky is still controlling their thoughts and actions, he must have powerful joo-joo. Never thought I’d say it, but Jeez. get a life.
You mean the central thesis: “the theory being these systems of domination result in subtle forms of oppression not obvious to those who belong to the dominant group, or perhaps even to the dominated.”? Yeah, Edward Said wrote in dept about relativity and orientalism, specifically the unknowingness of the Orient to the Westerner. Fanon famously explored how even the dominated group could come to embrace the cultural code of the colonizer (Black Skin, White Masks). More recently, Peggy MacIntosh, one of the earliest users of the term “white privilege”, wrote: “I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group.” The common theme is domination and subjectivity…which of course lends credence to my central thesis.
OK. But how does that conflict with anything I wrote?