I think an unfortunately sizeable portion of this site just tries to knee jerk react with the most contrarian dunk they can without actually thinking it through. Definitely not the majority but it doesn't mean I'm not sick of seeing it
well it's not revolution, but it's important to discuss the limits of respect and "PC." I'm down with telling redditors depicting Muhammad to """protest""" to fuck off, but prohibiting anyone from seeing ancient artifacts that are usually created to depict history because you're offended is just wild. I'm not even a :freeze-peach: advocate. But I don't want to pretend like dissenting Muslim opinions or that entire periods of history don't exist.
Fully respect religious people to live however they want to live, but I don’t agree with the idea of forcing your religious norms on those outside of your religion.
It's frustrating in large part because reactionaries are routinely able to get people fired for similar banal assertions and transgressions.
So the Leftist Take In Theory (people need to have academic discussions with a degree of distance and objectivity rather than getting hung up on cultural taboo) is good. But the Reactionary Policy in Practice (conservatives can have a melt down over someone disrespecting the flag, then harass any Muslim who pips up about a respect for Islam) is awful.
A lot of it just boils down to recognizing privilege. In a majority White Christian school, this sort of display can easily be construed as punching down on a vulnerable group.
it's a religious taboo that is very important to them and has reasonable internal justifications from the Islamic faith calling it weird is kind of belittling
also why would you show the picture if it wasn't to cause controversy and otherise Muslim students. It's not like there is a protest about her serving her students pork it's that she is doing something you would only ever do to provoke a reaction from Muslims
So instead of showing the countless examples of Arabic calligraphy of the shahada or mosque interiors or Quran design, she decided to choose a form of Islamic art that's, shall we say, heavily controversial within the Islamic world with Islamophobic implications in the place where she's teaching?
you cannot respectfully depict Mohammed. Showing any imagry of Mohammed is deeply offensive to the Islamic faith you might as well insist everyone in your cooking class taste tests pork sausages
Islam would forbid any religious iconography of the abrahamic god. They are not asking that Islamic law be broadly enforced merely that Mohammed not be displayed.
we do not live in a cultural vacuum Muslims are frequently harrassed and displaying Mohammed is often done as a form of deliberative hate speech. Which is the broader context here
That absolutely happens, but that clearly isn't the case here. You say often and not always, so I'm curious what case you would think depictions of Muhammad are not intended as hate speech, if not an example like this?
I think in the context of the west there is an inherent tone of dismissal of Muslim beliefs in showing Mohammed due to our cultural context.
It's like white people saying the N-word you just shouldn't. The fact Muslim artists drew it (in an entirely different cultural context mind I'm not sure how they would feel about this usage of their art) is like saying you were quoting a song.
culture is living and art draws it's meaning from the context of it's environment
It’s like white people saying the N-word you just shouldn’t. The fact Muslim artists drew it (in an entirely different cultural context mind I’m not sure how they would feel about this usage of their art) is like saying you were quoting a song.
If she went up and drew Muhammad on the board, this analogy would make sense. To me, displaying a work by a Muslim is more like playing a song by a black artist containing the word than it is saying it yourself.
culture is living and art draws it’s meaning from the context of it’s environment
I completely agree with this. What I don't see, is why the only environment that matters is that this course is taught in the West and not an Islamic culture. There are other environments and cultural contexts than just geography or general religious background of a culture/place. Isn't academia an environment? Isn't a discussion between people of different cultures and religions itself an environment? I don't mean to get too abstractly philosophical with this, but you are very insistent that this Western context is so dominant that no other contexts matter. I cannot agree that this context is so much more important than any other, that discussion and depiction of offensive things can never overcome that. Nothing is that absolute.
Yes, that is a good point. I thought about mentioning The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn similarly. The thing is, both Harper Lee and Mark Twain were white, so I thought it was more apt to use an example of the art being made by a member of the marginalized group, because this illustration was by a Muslim.
I just don't consider academia a distinct environment in terms of hatred. I think you are just as likely to hear a professor say something racist or islamophobic as a mechanic and you wouldn't expect me to consider a chop shop a seperate environment for this context
How likely a person in a profession is to do something bigoted really isn't what I meam by context. It's about intention and purpose, and about respect. Using offensive things specifically for education, conveyed respectfully, without any intention of hurting people, and giving people a choice to not participate is a different context from a professor saying something racist, even if they are both on a university campus. You seem to think of context only in terms of location, whether it's the West generally or in the university. I don't think you understand my point if that's how you approach this. The discussion between the non-Muslim professor, the non-Muslim students, and the Muslim students, for the purpose of art history and learning about religious iconography, is context as much as what building and what part of the world they are in.
The students were given advance notice, given the opportunity to step out for a few minutes before the image was shown, and none of them chose to do so.
Not all groups of Muslim believe that though. For example the paintings in question were drawn by Muslims. I don't think they considered their actions offensive to the Islamic faith.
no they didn't but there is tremendous disagreement on numerous issues between Muslims and were this conversation happening in an Islamic environment I would have a very different position.
I have known Christians who wouldn't consider it unacceptable to depict the pope burning in hell but Catholics would find it offensive
no they didn’t but there is tremendous disagreement on numerous issues between Muslims
Almost like having an art history class to discuss the development of these disagreements, and show prior historical acceptance, might help students studying art history...
By making them step out it singles them out as separate from the rest of the class and makes the rest of the class complicit in disrespecting an important aspect of their religious faith. Which is a form of textbook bullying
it also is a way of singling out Muslims that has historical links to the Spanish inquisition where activities forbidden by Islam were performed in groups to isolate and identify Muslims
just be respectful of marginalised groups cultural values
I can understand if these were modern "activist" depictions of him, but prohibiting people from seeing ancient, historical objects - usually made by other Muslims - is a bit much. Are we supposed to just seal everything away? I don't think this can be compared to the confederate statute bullshit because you don't need to see a statue to understand the history of the south and slave owners etc. But an art history class would be strange if you can't see the art. It is alienating to force Muslims to choose between their religion and education, but in what context are you supposed to view these artwork in then if not a history class?
Someone mentioned that they could've just shown christian art, but why? I'm not saying they NEEDED to show Muhammad, but just choosing Christianity is reinforcing its dominance.
I suggested Christian art as an alternate, admittedly because that was being the religion I am most familiar with the first that came to mind. Hindu, Buddhist, etc religious iconography could also be used. Even a dead religion like the norse gods
it isn't that hard to get iconography from one of the many religions that does not religiously object to iconography
The comment I was responding to was suggesting showing Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Norse, etc, religious iconography and did not offer showing some alternative Muslims art in this class as an option. Which is why I asked "So the solution is less Muslim representation in art history?" in response to what they said. That was my interpretation of what their proposed solution would create. If you replaced the art in question with something about Odin
but I was just frustrated with immediately jumping to “I guess all Muslim art is off the table then”
I'm pointing out that I didn't suggest this, the comment I was responding to was suggesting this. And I was questioning that because to me that also did not sound like a great idea. We are agreeing here.
Paintings which depict scenes without animals or spirits or anything, such as of the moon split into two pieces or the Red Sea likewise split, which were miracles connected to Muhammad and Musa (Moses) respectively. Likewise depictions of religious buildings (temples and such) could fit, and one can imagine various symbolism used therein with staging elements like the positions of the sun and stars, the placement of a river, etc.
It seems like your main objection is that the west is leading the "depiction of Muhammad" discourse. I agree that I'm suspicious of any non Muslim who insists of drawing him or showing art of him. Maybe having a Muslim faculty member in charge of the lesson would result in good faith discussion, although I imagine most aren't interested in taking that position if they're religious. So you're stuck with whitey (or in this case, a Hispanic professor) doing it.
so what are you supposed to do with the art if we can't look at it in a history class? The student in question says it should never be displayed for any reason.
I don't care all that much what you do with it art history is less important than providing a tolerant space for all. Admittedly part of my position on that could be largely due to my cultural predudice that art history is a subject taken by obnoxious aristocrats
Also I think a lot of this is westerners being mad that there is something people don’t want them to do to be respectful
No I agree with this. See my comment about their obsession with the N word. But my point is that people sign up for an art history class and are upset with the content. You're kinda forced to care if you want to make suggestions on what should be changed.
Yes, because she said it should never be displayed. I disagree with this and so do many people. The implication is that no one is allowed to see it in under any circumstances, even educational ones. See, I'm fine with book burning :eric-andre: when it comes to reactionary media, unless it's in an educational context.
If that's what you want, but instead of destroying reactionary media you want to destroy art of Muhammad regardless of context, then say so - since depicting Muhammad for "activism" is bullshit racist behavior, and looking at depictions for research and study shouldn't be allowed, there's only one option left.
And I'm not talking about "you" specifically either, just anyone who thinks simply looking at it = hating Muslims.
I agree. But my main point is what is to be done with all the artwork that people do find offensive? Like I said above, if no one is allowed to even research or study that art, what do we do? Destroy it?
it's a class that they take in order to learn how to manage art assets they use to launder dirty money.
Many of my relatives have been servants to aristocrats and they are just awful to everyone around them and art history classes are a vehicle they use to exclude others and pass down generational wealth
Was the Muslim Persian creator of the image purposefully disrespecting their faith?
Pork is haram according to the Quran. That being so, I've never met a Muslim who would be offended by, for example, an event offering pork as food and people being given an alternative choice. Have you? You said insist on pork, but that's not a fair comparison because they did have a choice.
Islam is an incredibly broad religion with numerous internal disagreements with it if this was a debate taking place in an Islamic country I wouldn't have such a strong position. But in the west I feel the western cultural context demands consideration and the western cultural context for depiction of Mohammed is hateful
And Muslims object to themselves eating pork not pork being eaten whereas they object to Mohammed being depicted rather than them being shown the depictions. so it's an entirely different kettle of fish
western cultural context for depiction of Mohammed is hateful
I don't think general trends in a cultural context are absolute, or that one should never even try to go against that trend respectfully. Just because this is often the case in the West and the course is in the West, it shouldn't be impossible to handle this subject respectfully. It seems anti-intellectual and counterproductive to say education should not depict controversial imagery just because their context is generally offensive. Should a course about race and racism not show severely racist imagery, because their cultural context is otherwise extremely offensive? There are legitimate reasons to use offensive things respectfully as part of education. Why should cultural context (or literal geographical location) restrict that?
And Muslims object to themselves eating pork not pork being eaten whereas they object to Mohammed being depicted rather than them being shown the depictions. so it’s an entirely different kettle of fish
Fair enough, but you did make the comparison to begin with. I just followed through on it because it did not make sense to me.
severely racist imagry being shown to discuss it's meaning is essential to dissection of racist beliefs. The concept of iconography can be adequately explained using non Islamic iconography
also while looking up this article I found extensive coverage of the story from explicitly and extremely islamophobic sources which I feel vindicates my position that the cultural context this took place in is hateful
Hamline’s president, Fayneese S. Miller, co-signed an email that said respect for the Muslim students “should have superseded academic freedom.” At a town hall, an invited Muslim speaker compared showing the images to teaching that Hitler was good.
“When you say ‘trust Muslims on Islamophobia,’” Dr. Berkson asked, “what does one do when the Islamic community itself is divided on an issue? Because there are many Muslim scholars and experts and art historians who do not believe that this was Islamophobic.”
Mr. Hussein responded that there were marginal and extremist voices on any issue. “You can teach a whole class about why Hitler was good,” Mr. Hussein said.
When you say Muslims who think art of Muhammad isn't an issue are equivalent to the man who committed genocide, you lose all credibility
I don't think taking a ridiculous statement from on person making an argument that is ridiculous because it is hyperbolic is a good counter argument to the point being made
But he was invited to represent the students, and he seems to think he represents most Muslims as well. The "cultural context" is that a person showed a painting during history class and another person believes it's no different than being a Nazi.
I found extensive coverage of the story from explicitly and extremely islamophobic sources which I feel vindicates my position that the cultural context this took place in is hateful
That's unfortunate and unsurprising that they would report on this like that. But that doesn't logically follow that the event is Islamophobic from that. The context of a bigoted media publication is different from a classroom.
That being so, I’ve never met a Muslim who would be offended by, for example, an event offering pork as food and people being given an alternative choice. Have you? Y
No. I don't know the "severity" of certain pillars of Islam, but the Muslims I know don't really address the pork consumption of non Muslims - though some of them may think I'm dirty for eating it (though I don't blame them considering what we know about mass farming). Most of them will still eat with me or order halal food from the same restaurant. But depictions of Muhammad is still frowned upon almost universally so it seems like that's more concerning compared to a friend eating pork in front of you.
If she just wanted to provoke a reaction, why would she warn them in advance and tell them they have permission to leave? Seems like anyone who would react strongly would just leave.
telling Islamic students this is going to happen and making them decide whether or not to be part of the class is forcing them to choose between their faith and their education which is unfairly singling them out
I don't see how leaving the class for a few minutes is the same as missing out on education generally. It is a choice they have to make, but the stakes don't seem anywhere near how you're putting it.
How would presenting art of Muhammad be done respectfully without presenting a choice like that? You call it singling them out unfairly, but no choice would obviously be bad.
If your answer is to never show it in the course under any circumstance, I think that is taking something out of the education, as the professor envisions it, and out of the history of art. Muhammad is unquestionably part of the history of art, despite some Muslims being opposed to his depiction. There are depictions of Muhammad by Muslims, such as by Iranian Shia. I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of those illustrations is exactly what they were displaying. The Quran never even prohibits depictions of Muhammad, it comes from hadith that are not universaly accepted. Because of that, there are depictions of the prophet by Muslims, going back centuries.
I don't think it's reasonable that an art history course should never be allowed to display paintings that are religiously controversial. Discussing iconoclasm versus iconography in Islamic art could be an important part of the course.
why can't you just be respectful of the cultural values of a marginalised and otherised group.
it's not like this is a protest about showing lgbt+ people it's about someone doing something infamous for being specifically done to mock and belittle a group that faces regular hatred in the west
Would it not be considered the same that in a psychology course discussing traumas providing a content warning before getting to discussions of sexual assault? The person in power provided a content warning stating that this would be coming up in the class both in the course description and reasonably ahead of the display. If they then lost their position as a psychology professor for simply discussing a part of psychology and trauma like this professor did with the depiction of a historic art piece depicting the Prophet, I would find it equally bullshit.
I think this is an apt comparison. Although discussions of sexual assault are usually not meant to offend people compared to depictions of Muhammad, so I can see why there's more scrutiny for the latter. But you'll still be alienating people in both cases if you give them the options to stay or be excused from the class. But if you want a better understanding of the topic, you'll either stay or go through alternative material
. If I hold a position of power over Christian-minority students in some country (India, say) and I insist on referring to Christ as “that Jew who went too hard with his BDSM displays”, they’d be fucking right to be upset,
Now, Islam deserves to be criticized just like any religion. But I don’t see a point in drawing Muhammad. Most Muslims aren’t deranged terrorists, so when you do draw him they’re just going to be offended and upset and go on with their daily lives. The only people who will react to your actions in a way that “interests” you will be the ones who are willing to behead you and blow up your home, and even then most Muslims condemn that violence, so you’re really just inviting exclusively extremists to harass you for what - internet points?
So I'm not really shedding a tear over it I mean, Japanese people laughed at and made memes of the Japanese hostages who got executed by ISIS, and no one is offended by that (except the families lol), so dunking on the frenchies is no different. Plus Charlie Hebdo continued to depict Muhammad after the attacks so clearly they're trying to use humor to cope, so by not being an asshole you'd go against the studio's ethos and the artists' legacy.
I didn't remember that, so I'm sorry. But my main paragraph still stands. You know the only ones who will give the reaction you want will be extremists, so you can't be surprised when they commit terrorism. And yes, I am victim blaming here. When people are sexually assaulted it's often unexpected and many times perpetuated by someone you trust. But everyone knows the worse responses to depicting Muhammad will be from terrorists, and it's clear they're not interested in the reactions of the average Muslim giving them the stink eye for offending them. They want something to put on the headlines, and they dragged innocent people into their crusade of :freeze-peach:
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I think an unfortunately sizeable portion of this site just tries to knee jerk react with the most contrarian dunk they can without actually thinking it through. Definitely not the majority but it doesn't mean I'm not sick of seeing it
:kim:
well it's not revolution, but it's important to discuss the limits of respect and "PC." I'm down with telling redditors depicting Muhammad to """protest""" to fuck off, but prohibiting anyone from seeing ancient artifacts that are usually created to depict history because you're offended is just wild. I'm not even a :freeze-peach: advocate. But I don't want to pretend like dissenting Muslim opinions or that entire periods of history don't exist.
It's frustrating in large part because reactionaries are routinely able to get people fired for similar banal assertions and transgressions.
So the Leftist Take In Theory (people need to have academic discussions with a degree of distance and objectivity rather than getting hung up on cultural taboo) is good. But the Reactionary Policy in Practice (conservatives can have a melt down over someone disrespecting the flag, then harass any Muslim who pips up about a respect for Islam) is awful.
A lot of it just boils down to recognizing privilege. In a majority White Christian school, this sort of display can easily be construed as punching down on a vulnerable group.
it's a religious taboo that is very important to them and has reasonable internal justifications from the Islamic faith calling it weird is kind of belittling
also why would you show the picture if it wasn't to cause controversy and otherise Muslim students. It's not like there is a protest about her serving her students pork it's that she is doing something you would only ever do to provoke a reaction from Muslims
deleted by creator
So instead of showing the countless examples of Arabic calligraphy of the shahada or mosque interiors or Quran design, she decided to choose a form of Islamic art that's, shall we say, heavily controversial within the Islamic world with Islamophobic implications in the place where she's teaching?
you cannot respectfully depict Mohammed. Showing any imagry of Mohammed is deeply offensive to the Islamic faith you might as well insist everyone in your cooking class taste tests pork sausages
This is a secular class.
Islam would forbid any religious iconography of the abrahamic god. They are not asking that Islamic law be broadly enforced merely that Mohammed not be displayed.
we do not live in a cultural vacuum Muslims are frequently harrassed and displaying Mohammed is often done as a form of deliberative hate speech. Which is the broader context here
You clearly didn't read any of the other context.
That absolutely happens, but that clearly isn't the case here. You say often and not always, so I'm curious what case you would think depictions of Muhammad are not intended as hate speech, if not an example like this?
I think in the context of the west there is an inherent tone of dismissal of Muslim beliefs in showing Mohammed due to our cultural context.
It's like white people saying the N-word you just shouldn't. The fact Muslim artists drew it (in an entirely different cultural context mind I'm not sure how they would feel about this usage of their art) is like saying you were quoting a song.
culture is living and art draws it's meaning from the context of it's environment
If she went up and drew Muhammad on the board, this analogy would make sense. To me, displaying a work by a Muslim is more like playing a song by a black artist containing the word than it is saying it yourself.
I completely agree with this. What I don't see, is why the only environment that matters is that this course is taught in the West and not an Islamic culture. There are other environments and cultural contexts than just geography or general religious background of a culture/place. Isn't academia an environment? Isn't a discussion between people of different cultures and religions itself an environment? I don't mean to get too abstractly philosophical with this, but you are very insistent that this Western context is so dominant that no other contexts matter. I cannot agree that this context is so much more important than any other, that discussion and depiction of offensive things can never overcome that. Nothing is that absolute.
deleted by creator
Yes, that is a good point. I thought about mentioning The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn similarly. The thing is, both Harper Lee and Mark Twain were white, so I thought it was more apt to use an example of the art being made by a member of the marginalized group, because this illustration was by a Muslim.
I just don't consider academia a distinct environment in terms of hatred. I think you are just as likely to hear a professor say something racist or islamophobic as a mechanic and you wouldn't expect me to consider a chop shop a seperate environment for this context
How likely a person in a profession is to do something bigoted really isn't what I meam by context. It's about intention and purpose, and about respect. Using offensive things specifically for education, conveyed respectfully, without any intention of hurting people, and giving people a choice to not participate is a different context from a professor saying something racist, even if they are both on a university campus. You seem to think of context only in terms of location, whether it's the West generally or in the university. I don't think you understand my point if that's how you approach this. The discussion between the non-Muslim professor, the non-Muslim students, and the Muslim students, for the purpose of art history and learning about religious iconography, is context as much as what building and what part of the world they are in.
deleted by creator
The students were given advance notice, given the opportunity to step out for a few minutes before the image was shown, and none of them chose to do so.
deleted by creator
Not all groups of Muslim believe that though. For example the paintings in question were drawn by Muslims. I don't think they considered their actions offensive to the Islamic faith.
no they didn't but there is tremendous disagreement on numerous issues between Muslims and were this conversation happening in an Islamic environment I would have a very different position.
I have known Christians who wouldn't consider it unacceptable to depict the pope burning in hell but Catholics would find it offensive
I'm gonna say it.
Touch grass.
Almost like having an art history class to discuss the development of these disagreements, and show prior historical acceptance, might help students studying art history...
deleted by creator
By making them step out it singles them out as separate from the rest of the class and makes the rest of the class complicit in disrespecting an important aspect of their religious faith. Which is a form of textbook bullying
it also is a way of singling out Muslims that has historical links to the Spanish inquisition where activities forbidden by Islam were performed in groups to isolate and identify Muslims
just be respectful of marginalised groups cultural values
I can understand if these were modern "activist" depictions of him, but prohibiting people from seeing ancient, historical objects - usually made by other Muslims - is a bit much. Are we supposed to just seal everything away? I don't think this can be compared to the confederate statute bullshit because you don't need to see a statue to understand the history of the south and slave owners etc. But an art history class would be strange if you can't see the art. It is alienating to force Muslims to choose between their religion and education, but in what context are you supposed to view these artwork in then if not a history class?
Someone mentioned that they could've just shown christian art, but why? I'm not saying they NEEDED to show Muhammad, but just choosing Christianity is reinforcing its dominance.
I suggested Christian art as an alternate, admittedly because that was being the religion I am most familiar with the first that came to mind. Hindu, Buddhist, etc religious iconography could also be used. Even a dead religion like the norse gods
it isn't that hard to get iconography from one of the many religions that does not religiously object to iconography
So the solution is less Muslim representation in art history?
deleted by creator
Apologies for any misunderstandings.
I agree they could show some other Muslim art.
The comment I was responding to was suggesting showing Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Norse, etc, religious iconography and did not offer showing some alternative Muslims art in this class as an option. Which is why I asked "So the solution is less Muslim representation in art history?" in response to what they said. That was my interpretation of what their proposed solution would create. If you replaced the art in question with something about Odin
deleted by creator
I'm pointing out that I didn't suggest this, the comment I was responding to was suggesting this. And I was questioning that because to me that also did not sound like a great idea. We are agreeing here.
This is very interesting!
there is Islamic art that is not iconography just show some of that at a different class
It seems like your main objection is that the west is leading the "depiction of Muhammad" discourse. I agree that I'm suspicious of any non Muslim who insists of drawing him or showing art of him. Maybe having a Muslim faculty member in charge of the lesson would result in good faith discussion, although I imagine most aren't interested in taking that position if they're religious. So you're stuck with whitey (or in this case, a Hispanic professor) doing it.
maybe if you can't get a Muslim willing to participate it's a sign it's culturally insensitive and you shouldn't do it
so what are you supposed to do with the art if we can't look at it in a history class? The student in question says it should never be displayed for any reason.
I don't care all that much what you do with it art history is less important than providing a tolerant space for all. Admittedly part of my position on that could be largely due to my cultural predudice that art history is a subject taken by obnoxious aristocrats
they're literally taking an art history class. how can you "not care" about it if that's what you signed up to do lol
I didn't sign up for art history I can not care about art history perfectly consistently.
Also I think a lot of this is westerners being mad that there is something people don't want them to do to be respectful
No I agree with this. See my comment about their obsession with the N word. But my point is that people sign up for an art history class and are upset with the content. You're kinda forced to care if you want to make suggestions on what should be changed.
the student that complained did care they wanted the piece of culture removed from the cultural discourse
Yes, because she said it should never be displayed. I disagree with this and so do many people. The implication is that no one is allowed to see it in under any circumstances, even educational ones. See, I'm fine with book burning :eric-andre: when it comes to reactionary media, unless it's in an educational context.
If that's what you want, but instead of destroying reactionary media you want to destroy art of Muhammad regardless of context, then say so - since depicting Muhammad for "activism" is bullshit racist behavior, and looking at depictions for research and study shouldn't be allowed, there's only one option left.
And I'm not talking about "you" specifically either, just anyone who thinks simply looking at it = hating Muslims.
I'm certain there is a lot of art that is not shown that would otherwise be offensive or distasteful for people.
I agree. But my main point is what is to be done with all the artwork that people do find offensive? Like I said above, if no one is allowed to even research or study that art, what do we do? Destroy it?
Like G.W.'s paintings? Definitely destroy.
it's a cool general education class also!
that's because college isn't free and is insanely expensive
it's a class that they take in order to learn how to manage art assets they use to launder dirty money.
Many of my relatives have been servants to aristocrats and they are just awful to everyone around them and art history classes are a vehicle they use to exclude others and pass down generational wealth
do rich people really need to take the classes themselves to do that? There are no art money laundering consultants?
in any case if college was available to all I assume the ratio of normal person to money launderer would change a bit
what course do you think art money laundering consultants take to get qualified
maybe if college was free but it isn't and the fine art market is also a vehicle by which the upper class control high culture
deleted by creator
Was the Muslim Persian creator of the image purposefully disrespecting their faith?
Pork is haram according to the Quran. That being so, I've never met a Muslim who would be offended by, for example, an event offering pork as food and people being given an alternative choice. Have you? You said insist on pork, but that's not a fair comparison because they did have a choice.
deleted by creator
Islam is an incredibly broad religion with numerous internal disagreements with it if this was a debate taking place in an Islamic country I wouldn't have such a strong position. But in the west I feel the western cultural context demands consideration and the western cultural context for depiction of Mohammed is hateful
And Muslims object to themselves eating pork not pork being eaten whereas they object to Mohammed being depicted rather than them being shown the depictions. so it's an entirely different kettle of fish
I don't think general trends in a cultural context are absolute, or that one should never even try to go against that trend respectfully. Just because this is often the case in the West and the course is in the West, it shouldn't be impossible to handle this subject respectfully. It seems anti-intellectual and counterproductive to say education should not depict controversial imagery just because their context is generally offensive. Should a course about race and racism not show severely racist imagery, because their cultural context is otherwise extremely offensive? There are legitimate reasons to use offensive things respectfully as part of education. Why should cultural context (or literal geographical location) restrict that?
Fair enough, but you did make the comparison to begin with. I just followed through on it because it did not make sense to me.
severely racist imagry being shown to discuss it's meaning is essential to dissection of racist beliefs. The concept of iconography can be adequately explained using non Islamic iconography
also while looking up this article I found extensive coverage of the story from explicitly and extremely islamophobic sources which I feel vindicates my position that the cultural context this took place in is hateful
When you say Muslims who think art of Muhammad isn't an issue are equivalent to the man who committed genocide, you lose all credibility
I don't think taking a ridiculous statement from on person making an argument that is ridiculous because it is hyperbolic is a good counter argument to the point being made
But he was invited to represent the students, and he seems to think he represents most Muslims as well. The "cultural context" is that a person showed a painting during history class and another person believes it's no different than being a Nazi.
That's unfortunate and unsurprising that they would report on this like that. But that doesn't logically follow that the event is Islamophobic from that. The context of a bigoted media publication is different from a classroom.
No. I don't know the "severity" of certain pillars of Islam, but the Muslims I know don't really address the pork consumption of non Muslims - though some of them may think I'm dirty for eating it (though I don't blame them considering what we know about mass farming). Most of them will still eat with me or order halal food from the same restaurant. But depictions of Muhammad is still frowned upon almost universally so it seems like that's more concerning compared to a friend eating pork in front of you.
If she just wanted to provoke a reaction, why would she warn them in advance and tell them they have permission to leave? Seems like anyone who would react strongly would just leave.
telling Islamic students this is going to happen and making them decide whether or not to be part of the class is forcing them to choose between their faith and their education which is unfairly singling them out
I don't see how leaving the class for a few minutes is the same as missing out on education generally. It is a choice they have to make, but the stakes don't seem anywhere near how you're putting it.
How would presenting art of Muhammad be done respectfully without presenting a choice like that? You call it singling them out unfairly, but no choice would obviously be bad.
If your answer is to never show it in the course under any circumstance, I think that is taking something out of the education, as the professor envisions it, and out of the history of art. Muhammad is unquestionably part of the history of art, despite some Muslims being opposed to his depiction. There are depictions of Muhammad by Muslims, such as by Iranian Shia. I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of those illustrations is exactly what they were displaying. The Quran never even prohibits depictions of Muhammad, it comes from hadith that are not universaly accepted. Because of that, there are depictions of the prophet by Muslims, going back centuries.
I don't think it's reasonable that an art history course should never be allowed to display paintings that are religiously controversial. Discussing iconoclasm versus iconography in Islamic art could be an important part of the course.
Yes it’s a Persian miniature from the 1300s
So you're admitting that the painting has educational value?
still a religious taboo :shrug-outta-hecks:
why can't you just be respectful of the cultural values of a marginalised and otherised group.
it's not like this is a protest about showing lgbt+ people it's about someone doing something infamous for being specifically done to mock and belittle a group that faces regular hatred in the west
I don't think this situation in a classroom with advance warning is infamous for being done to mock and belittle
deleted by creator
I think the fact the Muslim students interpreted it as hateful speaks volumes about the cultural sensitivity of doing it
You haven't read the article have you.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
CW: Discussions of SA
Would it not be considered the same that in a psychology course discussing traumas providing a content warning before getting to discussions of sexual assault? The person in power provided a content warning stating that this would be coming up in the class both in the course description and reasonably ahead of the display. If they then lost their position as a psychology professor for simply discussing a part of psychology and trauma like this professor did with the depiction of a historic art piece depicting the Prophet, I would find it equally bullshit.
I think this is an apt comparison. Although discussions of sexual assault are usually not meant to offend people compared to depictions of Muhammad, so I can see why there's more scrutiny for the latter. But you'll still be alienating people in both cases if you give them the options to stay or be excused from the class. But if you want a better understanding of the topic, you'll either stay or go through alternative material
deleted by creator
nah
deleted by creator
not at all
deleted by creator
:jesse-wtf:
This comment has me curious, actually
What's Hexbear's stance on whether the Charlie Hebdo guys deserved to get merked
deleted by creator
Exactly this.
Are they islamophobic assholes who shouldn't be supported? Yeah. Do they deserve death for a drawing? No fucking way.
Agreed
my take
So I'm not really shedding a tear over itI mean, Japanese people laughed at and made memes of the Japanese hostages who got executed by ISIS, and no one is offended by that (except the families lol), so dunking on the frenchies is no different. Plus Charlie Hebdo continued to depict Muhammad after the attacks so clearly they're trying to use humor to cope, so by not being an asshole you'd go against the studio's ethos and the artists' legacy.deleted by creator
I didn't remember that, so I'm sorry. But my main paragraph still stands. You know the only ones who will give the reaction you want will be extremists, so you can't be surprised when they commit terrorism. And yes, I am victim blaming here. When people are sexually assaulted it's often unexpected and many times perpetuated by someone you trust. But everyone knows the worse responses to depicting Muhammad will be from terrorists, and it's clear they're not interested in the reactions of the average Muslim giving them the stink eye for offending them. They want something to put on the headlines, and they dragged innocent people into their crusade of :freeze-peach: