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
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