Adventure Forums - View Single Post

mszv · 02-04-2006, 10:25 PM

I've got a long post, here, thinking about what I want to say.

I take it that there are two issues
- depicting Muhammed at all, visually
- the nature of the images.

If you aren't supposed to depict Muhammed at all, then it's going to be hard to do any kind of visual satire that references Islamic religious themes.

I think the question to ask yourself is if it's OK to do satire on religious themes, and if OK, under what circumstances. Is sacriligious content OK?

I'm trying to think of something comparable with regards to satire/sacriligious content on Christianity. I don't think doing a charicature of the Pope would count. Although he's the religious leader of the Catholic Church, a sect of Christianity, I don't think it's exactly the same. Perhaps a satire depicting Brigham Young, founder of the Morman Church would count. While it might be a bit difficult to get such a comic published in Salt Lake City, Utah (though I'm sure there would be no problem if it was in an academic publication) - I'll have to check, but I'm sure there are plenty of images around, slamming Brigham Young, with not much in the way of a big protest. I realize it's a different situation.

Although not exactly comparable, I think a better comparison is to look at images where Jesus Christ is presented, in a satiric or sacriligious way. In the Christian tradition, Jesus is the "Son of God", and he is also a representation of the "One God" - what can I say, it's complicated. I think satires of Mary, the mother of Jesus, that might also count, if we are looking for something with a big emotional impact. Mary has a revered place in Christianity, particularly for Catholics, a sect of Christianity.

Offhand, I can't think of anything that appeared in a newspaper, though again, I'd have to do my research. US publications are a little conservative on that sort of thing - on satirizing Christian religious images. I suspect it's not unheard of - but I'd have to check.

In the contemporary art world, that's a different matter. I can think of several images - the ever so contraversial "P*ss Christ" (I put the star in myself, in case the software censor blocked me. You can figure out what the word is). It's a photograph of a crucifix (small sculpture with an image of Christ on the cross) submerged in a specific bodily fluid of the artist. When this was exhibited in New York City, in 1987, there was quite a bit of contraversy, though no rioting. One thing to note was that it wasn't published in a newspaper, as a cartoon, so, contraversial yes, but it also wasn't in a populist publication.

What I found much more interesting was an exhibit at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art ( http://www.sfmoma.org ) called "Ultrabaroque: Aspects of Post-Latin American Art, Saturday, August 18, 2001 - Wednesday, January 02, 2002".

Here's a quote from the SFMOMA site -
"Organized by the Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, Ultrabaroque focuses on a critical re-reading of the Baroque in Latin America and its use by contemporary artists as an important cultural metaphor. Containing approximately 75 works by 15 artists from South America, Mexico, the Caribbean, and the United States, the exhibition explores cultural differences and the impact of globalization on visual thought."

Now, I went to this exhibit, and it was great. Along with the more "normal" stuff, there were amazing images - one with an amazing combination of the crucifix with other things, and others combining some references to Mary (in Christianity, the mother of Jesus), with some body suggestive images. Personally, I think that no one can do unusual/disturbing Christian (in this case Catholic) imagery better than the Latin Americans, as they come from historically Catholic countries. It helps to be immersed in the culture before you can play with it. Sometimes it's called being a "cultural Catholic". Those images had a real bite to them, and some of them were funny! What's also interesting is that there is not even one little suggestive image on the SFMOMA site. I don't think that SFMOMA saw any reason to court contraversy. So yeah, you see that sort of thing being played around with, with regards to Christian imagery, and much more extreme stuff than what was in the comics. I think the difference is probably the setting. If there is very satiric Christian imagery in European newspapers, I'd be interested in reading about it and seeing them. I suspect you'd see more of that in Europe than in the US.

What I'd really be interested in seeing is if any, for want of a better word "cultural Islamists" who were artists - if they were starting to play around with any Islamic satiric themes, particularly visual ones. It does seem to me that you need a certain amount of secularism in a culture before you can start to do that, without worrying if you were going to get killed. After the publication of "The Satanic Verses", in 1989, Salmon Rushdie had to go into hiding, after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for his death. Incidentally, the Japanese translator was stabbed to death in 1991, the Italian translator was injured, also in 1991, and publisher in Noway survived an assasination attempt, also in 1991. This did not stop people from reading the book. I suspec that, if this sort of thing is happened, it's way underground.

I'll comment on Neil Gaimon in a subsequent post.

02-04-2006, 10:25 PM	#83
mszv Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: San Francisco Bay Area, California, US Posts: 261	I've got a long post, here, thinking about what I want to say. I take it that there are two issues - depicting Muhammed at all, visually - the nature of the images. If you aren't supposed to depict Muhammed at all, then it's going to be hard to do any kind of visual satire that references Islamic religious themes. I think the question to ask yourself is if it's OK to do satire on religious themes, and if OK, under what circumstances. Is sacriligious content OK? I'm trying to think of something comparable with regards to satire/sacriligious content on Christianity. I don't think doing a charicature of the Pope would count. Although he's the religious leader of the Catholic Church, a sect of Christianity, I don't think it's exactly the same. Perhaps a satire depicting Brigham Young, founder of the Morman Church would count. While it might be a bit difficult to get such a comic published in Salt Lake City, Utah (though I'm sure there would be no problem if it was in an academic publication) - I'll have to check, but I'm sure there are plenty of images around, slamming Brigham Young, with not much in the way of a big protest. I realize it's a different situation. Although not exactly comparable, I think a better comparison is to look at images where Jesus Christ is presented, in a satiric or sacriligious way. In the Christian tradition, Jesus is the "Son of God", and he is also a representation of the "One God" - what can I say, it's complicated. I think satires of Mary, the mother of Jesus, that might also count, if we are looking for something with a big emotional impact. Mary has a revered place in Christianity, particularly for Catholics, a sect of Christianity. Offhand, I can't think of anything that appeared in a newspaper, though again, I'd have to do my research. US publications are a little conservative on that sort of thing - on satirizing Christian religious images. I suspect it's not unheard of - but I'd have to check. In the contemporary art world, that's a different matter. I can think of several images - the ever so contraversial "P*ss Christ" (I put the star in myself, in case the software censor blocked me. You can figure out what the word is). It's a photograph of a crucifix (small sculpture with an image of Christ on the cross) submerged in a specific bodily fluid of the artist. When this was exhibited in New York City, in 1987, there was quite a bit of contraversy, though no rioting. One thing to note was that it wasn't published in a newspaper, as a cartoon, so, contraversial yes, but it also wasn't in a populist publication. What I found much more interesting was an exhibit at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art ( http://www.sfmoma.org ) called "Ultrabaroque: Aspects of Post-Latin American Art, Saturday, August 18, 2001 - Wednesday, January 02, 2002". Here's a quote from the SFMOMA site - "Organized by the Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, Ultrabaroque focuses on a critical re-reading of the Baroque in Latin America and its use by contemporary artists as an important cultural metaphor. Containing approximately 75 works by 15 artists from South America, Mexico, the Caribbean, and the United States, the exhibition explores cultural differences and the impact of globalization on visual thought." Now, I went to this exhibit, and it was great. Along with the more "normal" stuff, there were amazing images - one with an amazing combination of the crucifix with other things, and others combining some references to Mary (in Christianity, the mother of Jesus), with some body suggestive images. Personally, I think that no one can do unusual/disturbing Christian (in this case Catholic) imagery better than the Latin Americans, as they come from historically Catholic countries. It helps to be immersed in the culture before you can play with it. Sometimes it's called being a "cultural Catholic". Those images had a real bite to them, and some of them were funny! What's also interesting is that there is not even one little suggestive image on the SFMOMA site. I don't think that SFMOMA saw any reason to court contraversy. So yeah, you see that sort of thing being played around with, with regards to Christian imagery, and much more extreme stuff than what was in the comics. I think the difference is probably the setting. If there is very satiric Christian imagery in European newspapers, I'd be interested in reading about it and seeing them. I suspect you'd see more of that in Europe than in the US. What I'd really be interested in seeing is if any, for want of a better word "cultural Islamists" who were artists - if they were starting to play around with any Islamic satiric themes, particularly visual ones. It does seem to me that you need a certain amount of secularism in a culture before you can start to do that, without worrying if you were going to get killed. After the publication of "The Satanic Verses", in 1989, Salmon Rushdie had to go into hiding, after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for his death. Incidentally, the Japanese translator was stabbed to death in 1991, the Italian translator was injured, also in 1991, and publisher in Noway survived an assasination attempt, also in 1991. This did not stop people from reading the book. I suspec that, if this sort of thing is happened, it's way underground. I'll comment on Neil Gaimon in a subsequent post.