My small contribution to Modern Art. It is entitled "Mohammed in Desert"
This was inspired by an article and cartoon I read about at the Volokh Conspiracy. More below the fold:
The offensive cartoon is by Chip Bok (whose name is interesting for reasons not to be disclosed at this blog but someone write me if this is more than a coincidence) and you can see it here:
The article from the Akron Beacon Journal:
Several Northeastern Ohio Muslims and community leaders met Friday to express their concerns about the controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that have ignited outrage and violence.
At issue are the caricatures published in the European press -- work that many U.S. newspapers decided against publishing. The group also took issue with a cartoon inked by Beacon Journal editorial cartoonist Chip Bok.
Bok said he did not draw his cartoon with intentions of offending Muslims and has defended his right to free press.
But Muslims on Friday said Bok's cartoon was disrespectful and demeaning.
The level of hurt, they said, was deeper since it was in the local paper.
``It pained me to know that the Beacon Journal printed its own editorial cartoons that sought to challenge the beauty of our community by bringing hate into its pages,'' said Rabbi David Lipper, of Akron's Temple Israel.
The Beacon Journal has not published the Danish cartoons. However, on Feb. 5, the Akron paper published a Bok cartoon depicting a pixilated picture of Muhammad on CNN. A couple in the cartoon said, ``Well, no wonder Muslims are upset. Muhammad looks like he's on acid.''
The editorial cartoon has prompted several letters in response. Also on Friday afternoon, there was a demonstration outside of the newspaper's East Exchange Street building.
At Friday's news conference at the Islamic Society of Akron & Kent in Cuyahoga Falls, the speakers were passionate.
A.R. Abdoulkarim, Amir of the Akron Masjid, applauded newspapers that decided against running the cartoons, but condemned those who did. The Beacon Journal, he said, was in a class of its own.
``They take the prize for being the most ill-intended, irresponsible property group,'' he said. ``Allah curses and condemns them and every Muslim in this community should curse and condemn them.''
Julia A. Shearson, director of Ohio's Council of American-Islamic Relations, said they want the Beacon Journal to apologize for running the ``unethical'' cartoon and want the paper to publish their letters to the editor.
After yesterday's press conference, Bok met with several leaders. The cartoonist said he drew the cartoon to take a shot at CNN for ``distorting a distortion'' and not at the prophet or Muslims.
``I don't draw cartoons just to offend,'' he said.
Still, Muslim leaders said Bok's cartoon was disrespectful because the prophet should not have been depicted in such a way. In fact, they said, there are no pictures or statues of Muhammad because he should not be confused with God.
One of the sad things about this is that those complaining seem not to know that drawing Mohammed with his face obscured has a long history:
The cartoon in question is depicting Mohammed as he has been depicted in ancient art--with face obscured. The cartoon was not even making fun of Mohammed, it was making fun of CNN. I'm not inclined to let religious sensitivity ban even the cartoons which sparked the controversy. But I definitely think that trying to shame Mr. Bok for his cartoon is ridiculous. It just makes some Muslim groups look even more ridiculously hypersensitive than before.
Sebastian: the first picture you put in is, bar none, my all-time favorite Persian miniature. I love it.
No relation.
And did you see Fafblog? (Variations on a theme. I thought of putting it up here, but it was the same day I put in a whole big chunk of Glenn Greenwald, and I thought there were limits to my pilfering.)
Posted by: hilzoy | February 14, 2006 at 02:33 AM
"Sebastian: the first picture you put in is, bar none, my all-time favorite Persian miniature."
Actually I did "Mohammed in Desert" in Microsoft Paint. Oh you mean "Miraj". [face reddens]
:)
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | February 14, 2006 at 02:39 AM
"Time is the fire in which we burn".
Good post.
Posted by: rilkefan | February 14, 2006 at 02:42 AM
And just so this thread doesn't get too boring, I read that some art historians believe that many pictures of Mohammed with his face blanked out originally had a face, but that the art was changed later. Anyone know of a good comprehensive look at that? Are the two that I posted examples of that?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | February 14, 2006 at 03:13 AM
You absolutely have to read the comments to that Fafblog thread, btw. I'm particularly fond of this (linked) one:
http://docbug.com/blog/archives/000535.html
Posted by: Anarch | February 14, 2006 at 03:15 AM
Also:
needs to enter the public lexicon.
Posted by: Anarch | February 14, 2006 at 03:17 AM
quite well done from an Islamic aesthetic, Sebastian. Geometrical abstraction is at the heart of Islamic arts and architecture.
May I make the observation that your depiction of the Prophet SAW - while certainly to me, a respectful and utterly non-inapproiate one - would become instantly and completely objecctionable and insulting if you were to add a little sword to the side?
Consider that its not the face thats the issue.
Posted by: azizhp | February 14, 2006 at 09:17 AM
My very spotty recall of the Torah tells me that the "flaming face" is one of the attributes of Yahweh in his appearances to humans.
So this is weird. Mohammed is entirely and exclusively human, since there is no Allah etc. etc. But we can't just depict the guy as any regular Joe on the street, because that would be idolatry. However, we can disguise his face by giving it a divine attribute, and that's not idolatry.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | February 14, 2006 at 09:25 AM
Excellent point, Tad, and welcome back. I think I've seen you a few times here in the last few months, but I wanted to thank you for your gracious response (which I'm clear that I wasn't at all entitled to) to my private email to you lo these many months gone by.
I'd guess that the face-blanking was done to avoid having Mohammed worshiped as if he were a deity. If I recall correctly, Islam sprang out of polytheism (if you can call it that; I have no idea if there was some interlocking, organized system of deities or if it was just pick your own), and I suspect that Mohammed was acutely aware of the possibility that he might become transformed into yet another one. Whether he left any sort of instructions in this regard I have no idea.
Some might argue that that in fact did happen with Jesus in Christianity, but that's another conversation altogether.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | February 14, 2006 at 09:42 AM
One of the sad things about this is that those complaining seem not to know that drawing Mohammed with his face obscured has a long history
This article backs that point up, but draws a different (and I think more correct) conclusion. (I don't necessarily agree with all of his other points.) The fact that there isn't really an observed ban on drawing Mohammed isn't an indication that Muslims are stupid so much as that this whole dustup isn't really about theology or blasphemy. It's about a bunch of people feeling personally insulted by a cartoon that was intended to deliver exactly such a personal insult.
Posted by: JP | February 14, 2006 at 10:13 AM
However, we can disguise his face by giving it a divine attribute, and that's not idolatry.
Makes about as much sense to me as the Holy Trinity. Or Hell.
Posted by: Gromit | February 14, 2006 at 10:38 AM
"It's about a bunch of people feeling personally insulted by a cartoon that was intended to deliver exactly such a personal insult."
I don't even agree that original cartoons were initially directed at giving insult (at least in focus), but even if so, it's about a bunch of people feeling personally insulted by a cartoon and reacting dramtically and inappropriately by
A) Using violence to protest a cartoon;
B) Holding the government of a country responsible for the actions of a small company in publishing a cartoon;
c) Holding individual members of that country personally responsible even if they had absolutely nothing to do with it such that kidnapping threats and death threats to random Danish people in the Middle East was thought ok in response to a cartoon;
D) Creating and spreading around cartoon depictions of Mohammed that actually were deeply offensive in order to stoke the fires.
By the way, is that last act sort of like treating the prohibition against suicide as an optional rule when using suicide bombers against infidels?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | February 14, 2006 at 10:43 AM
JP: It's about a bunch of people feeling personally insulted by a cartoon that was intended to deliver exactly such a personal insult.
I can't find a single thing in Aslan's analysis to disagree with.
Posted by: Gromit | February 14, 2006 at 10:46 AM
Really, the actions of the several cartoonists and the actions of the different sorts of protesters are entirely separable from a moral standpoint. Each is potentially objectionable to a different degree and for different reasons.
Some of the cartoons might not have been obviously offensive. Some were clearly offensive to devout, nonviolent muslims.
The protests include objections to the cartoons themselves, calls for editors to be fired, calls for boycotts against the nations involved, calls for the papers to be shut down by law, calls for the deaths of the cartoonists and/or editors, calls for the kidnapping or death of citizens of the nations involved, destruction of property, and violence against human beings. Lumping all these things together is as stupid as is lumping together a cartoon endorsing a racial or religious stereotype with a cartoon commenting on the ensuing furor.
I'm not shocked that extremists in the region in question protest violently. The violence should be denounced, of course, but it is nothing new in itself. What surprises me is that there are so many in the west, across the political spectrum, who are willing to pretend that ethnic or religious caricatures are somehow morally justified by the violent acts of extremists, and that those who do not support the violence are nonetheless acceptable collateral damage in this war of ideas.
Posted by: Gromit | February 14, 2006 at 11:10 AM
I think the examples of Islamic depictions of Muhammed are somewhat misleading. For one thing, there aren't that many. Two, they are usually Persian or Turkish/Ottoman (the Shia are a little less strict on aniconism). Three, they are closely related in historical period, mostly preceding the rise of Wahhabism or Salafism in the early 19th century.
If you could find a bunch of SA, Syrian, Egyptian depictions; or if from a nation and culture famous for pictorial art, you could find a bunch of Indian/Mogul representations, I would start to become more convinced.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | February 14, 2006 at 12:10 PM
I am not, of course, defending the rioters, Sebastian. My point is that this episode, while a negative thing, might not raise the huge "clash of civilizations" concerns that people like Josh Marshall have been worrying about, or at least not to the degree that they've feared. It's a lot more mundane than that.
Posted by: JP | February 14, 2006 at 12:37 PM
Gromit, I'm somewhat uncomfortable with what RA has to say about the press's responsibilities to promote unity, harmony, etc. I'm not sure I disagree with it, but I'm not sure I agree either. The part of my comment that you quoted was about the part of RA's article that I did agree with.
Posted by: JP | February 14, 2006 at 12:41 PM
JP, I take him to mean that it is irresponsible for the press to promote viewpoints that are based on notions of cultural/ethnic/religious superiority, not that the press should abrogate its other duties in that pursuit.
Posted by: Gromit | February 14, 2006 at 01:23 PM
We might have an opening: can you whip up a dozen more for a solo exhibition, Sebastian?
;-)
Posted by: Edward_ | February 14, 2006 at 05:04 PM
Heh, don't be cruel. Though I am good and coming up with fun names for works. My roommate paints. You should see the one I called "Crack Whore Peacock".
Hmm, I wonder if there is a niche market for "Artwork Entitler"? I can see it now. Artist: George Glass
Title: Sebastian Holsclaw.
Maybe it would have to be an underground thing. Years later as a footnote to some art book my contribution to the art world could be revealed. (Very) minor scandal ensues.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | February 14, 2006 at 05:56 PM
"Artwork Entitler"
I'm stealing that. Very poetic.
Posted by: rilkefan | February 14, 2006 at 06:02 PM
And here, I thought Sebastian was against entitlements.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | February 14, 2006 at 06:03 PM
The cartoon outrage comes at a very convenient time for the Saudis (shortly after 350 pilgrims die in Mecca) and the Egyptians (right after a major ferry accident involving, yes - you guessed it - pilgrims). This is a manufactureed crisis that has taken on a life of its own.
The paper that originally published the cartoons did a bad thing, but the people who rioted and those who encouraged them did much, much worse. We do not owe anyone respect for their religious traditions. All we owe them is non-interference in the practice of their faith.
Posted by: togolosh | February 14, 2006 at 07:23 PM
Anyone here besides me old enough to remember the hoorah over the movie biopic "Mohammed, Messenger of God," made and released back in 1976?
The creators and producers were themselves devout Muslims, and meant the movie to be a celebration of the Prophet. In keeping with the prohibition against showing the Prophet Mohammed, scenes in which he appeared were shot from his pov. The nearest they came to showing him was a shot of him pointing with his walking staff - and even that only showed (IIRC) his arm - and (also IIRC) one shot of his hand pointing to the distance.
It caused a ruckus. Lots of protests, denunciations - and, idiotically, some hotheads decided to occupy a B'nai B'rith office in D.C. (see wiki entry, below), apparently on the assumption that "the Jews" had to be behind the sacriledge somehow. But I don't recall massive riots, burnings, or anyone getting badly hurt, much less killed.
Here's the skinny from wikipedia:
[S]ome cinemas still received threatening telephone calls from those who thought that the film offended Islam by portraying the Prophet in a physical way, even though Mohammed is not shown on screen. On March 9, 1977, a group of Black Muslims, led by Hamas Abdul Khaalis, seized several buildings and took 134 hostages in the District of Columbia.[1] While their actions were related to a sectarian dispute within the Black Muslim community, one of their demands was to prevent the release of Mohammad. One of the terrorists specifically said "he wanted a guarantee from whole world it will never be shown" or they would execute some of the hostages.
While Akkad offered to show the film to the terrorists, and even said he would burn it if they hated it, the damage had already been done. The film was widely panned by critics and became a box office flop, although it was nominated for an Oscar for Best Music, Original Score."
And this sad addendum (I wondered whatever became of the man who made the movie):
Mustafa Akkad, and his daughter Rima Akkad were killed by Muslim extremists in the 2005 Amman bombings while they were attending a wedding celebration in Jordan.
Doesn't say whether that was related to the movie.
Posted by: CaseyL | February 14, 2006 at 10:36 PM
"Anyone here besides me old enough to remember the hoorah over the movie biopic 'Mohammed, Messenger of God,' made and released back in 1976?"
With great clarity. I don't even have to look up "Hanafi Muslims" to remember how to spell it (I'm betting).
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 14, 2006 at 10:50 PM
"But I don't recall massive riots, burnings, or anyone getting badly hurt, much less killed."
Um.
Similarly, plenty of other sources and cites one can check. (Having made my bet, I checked the spelling, and then reading the above comment, pulled a cite re injury and death.)Posted by: Gary Farber | February 14, 2006 at 10:53 PM
I probably should have included:
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 14, 2006 at 10:54 PM
And it's worth mentioning that Moustapha Akkad was among those blown up in the wedding party/hotel bombing in Amman, Jordan, in November. (I added Lion of The Desert to my Netflix queue when a subscription was donated to me a couple of months ago -- along with 450+ other films and documentaries, to be sure.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 14, 2006 at 10:57 PM
Sorry, you mentioned this already, Casey: "Mustafa Akkad, and his daughter Rima Akkad were killed by Muslim extremists in the 2005 Amman bombings while they were attending a wedding celebration in Jordan."
I'm trying to watch Boston Legal at the same time. Apologies. (And I have to reload this page 3 times, of course.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 14, 2006 at 11:01 PM
Hmm, I wonder if there is a niche market for "Artwork Entitler"? I can see it now. Artist: George Glass
Not only is there a niche market, there's an actual game show in NYC called "Name that Painting" where you can earn big money naming the paintings by Mark Kostabi...see here http://www.markkostabi.com/
Posted by: Edward_ | February 15, 2006 at 11:21 AM