I just saw this work by artist Sandow Birk called the American Quran (h/t Calligraphy Qalam blog).
The project took five years (and counting?) and consists of Birk hand-transcribing the English Quran onto pages with paintings depicting life in America in the background.
My immediate reaction was 'Cool, another way of carving our own unique space into the American landscape.'
But then when I looked at the sample pics, I was turned off by certain imagery that clearly goes against "Quranic culture". Let's put aside the traditional Islamic stance against painting human images - for it can be argued that Muslim artists and miniaturists throughout the centuries partook in such forms of art.
What really offended me was seeing the translation of the Quran on a backdrop with a woman wearing a mini-skirt and another one breast-feeding her child. Blasphemous? No, not really. Such images are seen everywhere on a daily basis. But is it appropriate to place these images inside a work calling itself the American Quran?
What do the other pictures contain of the American lifestyle? Images from Spring Break in Daytona Beach? Maybe a scene inside a techno club in NYC? Or how about some fat-cat banker standing on Wall street holding up his million dollar bonus?
All images I would deem inappropriate inside a sacred text.
But then again, it *is* art, no? And as they say, 'All's fair in love and art'.
And the various pictures of dogs struck me as a bit odd, especially from someone who, according to his bio, "traveled extensively through the Islamic world, visiting several of the most populous Muslim nations".
You'd think he would've picked up on the small fact that mini-skirts and dogs are a bit taboo in most Muslim cultures. But I guess I'm projecting a non-American version of Muslim culture onto his interpretation of an American-Muslim culture.
I wonder if he's implying that an American instance of the Muslim culture will find these pictures acceptable.
Am I being overly sensitive?
WAW
4 days ago
11 comments:
Well, let's start with some basic facts 1) from what we know, he is not a Muslim. So this is artwork coming from a non-Muslim perspective. So because he is on "the outside", I think it is fair to say that he is not a representative of indigenous American Muslims or their culture. And 2) the artwork does not contain the Arabic Quran, but rather the english translation. From the little that I know, translations from Arabic are NOT considered the original word of God. I'm guessing he thought about all of these things beforehand, considering his experience with Muslim culture.
What are my feelings? Personally? I think it's brilliant. I love the way he takes the images and words from the Quran and applies them to the scenes that we see everyday in our life, mainly ones that flash before us in the media. It is combining the two that causes the jolt. You can not help but pause and reflect. It forces a person to see the relevance of a 1,400 year old revelation against the backdrop of the here and NOW. It makes you recognize how drastically the times have changed yet, likewise, how much things have stayed the same. I haven't seen the whole thing, just what is on his blog...but from what I see, I do not find it offensive. I would love to see the whole exhibit, and I would make the trip to do it.
I'm sure that I will probably be in the minority opinion here. We'll see.
And if you don't mind Naeem, what was your issue about the "dogs", are you saying it is offensive to have the words of translation next to a painting of a dog? Can you clarify? I'm confused?
Salaam 'alaikum. Well, I can see just how much you read my blog. ;) I wrote about this guy and his artwork back in October. Of course, this was during the time when you were chillin' in your Fortress of Solitude.
Bismillah
Asalaamu alaikum.
i saw mainstream media stories of this guy's work about a year ago. i remember being impressed by the work, and thinking it beautiful that a non-Muslim would go to such effort to showcase an English interpretation of Qur'an in his work. i don't recall seeing any paintings that were offensive, though certainly i did not see all of them but only a few.
All that said, i agree with Sabiwabi. This is work done by a non-Muslim, so you cannot expect it to be Islamic. It is infused with his own style, method, and level of awareness. It is clear from viewing the work and from things he has said that he has no intention of being offensive, but merely of juxtoposing Islam with American everyday life and one can see how they meld/blend and also where they are at odds with each other. As he is showing American life, i do not find it at all odd that he would show women in mini-skirts - that's what every street on America looks like, including many Muslim women in American streets. i can't even imagine what the objection is to showing a woman nursing, and i am tired of men having such an issue with something that is perfectly natural and everyday (though i haven't seen how he painted that piece, so perhaps the objection is to how much is shown, but still, i would probably disagree with the basic premise that it is a problem). As to the dogs... i really laughed. i don't know how frequently or in what situation dogs are present in the work... but really? Are dogs not Allah's creatures? Are they not everywhere in America, such that any painting of an American scene without a dog would be odd? And honestly, about half of the American Muslims i know (convert and immigrant) own a dog, so regardless of the Islamic view on it, showing dogs in anything that is depicting American Islam would be pretty accurate. My only question would be does he also paint cats? :)
End point: Don't expect Islamic art from non-Muslims. Heck, we can't even expect Islamic art from a lot of Muslims. And yes, art is subjective. He is clearly attempting to be respectful, clearly has a positive point to make. Let's save our complaints for the jerks who think art is a Qur'an decorated with swastikas and urine.
Ya, I recall a hadith of the Nabi 'alayhis salam in which he said it would be a sign of the end of times when people begin dwaring suwar (pictures) within the Mushafs.
Just another attempt to violate sacredness. It would consider it equivalent to throwing the Qur'an in the toilet or the likes. It is disrespect from within the Islamic tradition, and it should be condemned. It is not "art", but blatant kufr.
That is all...
was-Salam,
Abu Layth
AA-
@Sabiwabi and Aaminah, the objection I have with the dog images is that Islamically dogs are seen as impure animals. Some hadith state that angels will not enter the home with a dog. Another one teaches us to wash a dish 7 times if a dog licked it.
Now, does that mean an image of a dog is also impure and unacceptable. No. But, I just found it odd that of all the animals to picture inside a Quran, the dog was found several times.
Knowing the position of the dog in Muslim culture, don't you find that odd and insensitive?
About the breast-feeding and mini-skirt, I'm not declaring blasphemy and raging with anger. I even acknowledged that those images are seen on a daily basis across America.
I'm just saying that for an artist's rendition of a sacred text to show cleavage and legs, when in that same text its being taught to cover those parts of the body, is objectionable to say the least.
And do check out JD's blog post on this same topic. He's got a nice link to another collection of pics from this work.
Br. Naeem,
With all due respect, Allah mentions a dog IN the Quran itself by name, in Suratul Kahf. So the very fact that the Lord of the Worlds (swt) saw fit to mention the name of an "unclean" animal in his holy revelation says a lot to me. I would take more of an issue with a chick in a miniskirt over an innocent creature of Allah, any day. It's not like it was a pig, and even if it was...it is NOT next to, super imposed over or NEAR the REAL Quran, which is in Arabic.
Did you read JDsg's post? Thanks for suggesting it to me. I agree with his viewpoint that it would at least expose the Quran to people who may not have normally ever decided to look at it or read it. I see it as a positive thing (albeit not perfect), but definitely positive.
Abu Layth, Funny, the Persian Muslims were making pictures in their Mushafs a LONG time before Sandow came along (and remember, Sandows' is NOT a mushaf, btw). I guess that the "end is nigh" thing has been going on for centuries now. And you really want to put Sandows' work in the same toilet as let's say, Theo Van Gogh and the Danish cartoons?
My, what discriminating taste we have.
AA- S,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Funny you mention the dog in Sura Kahf, as I dedicated an entire post to it. So, yeah, I'm familiar with that tale. But that doesn't negate the long-standing stance on dogs being impure in our Islamic tradition.
I get your point on this Quran NOT being a real Quran, just a translated version. But I still believe it maintains its sacredness and should be treated with the utmost respect. After all, we don't throw our English translations of the Quran around like some old magazine do we?
As for this project being used to introduce the Quran to persons normally not exposed to it, I dunno. I don't think the words of Allah are in need of such gimmickry.
I guess I'm just too old school. :-)
Thanks Naeem
I hear you about treating even the translations with respect and from what I have seen of his work....I just do not see blatant disrespect going on there. Like Aaminah said, I'll save that anger for the "artists" who come along with the urine. I've been exposed to a lot of art in my day and let me tell you, when it comes to religion and art, it could have been far, far worse. I am grateful that it's NOT of that variety and I really hope when his pieces are done, that Muslims do not attack him. That is my hope, but we will see.
I've thought about this a lot (I really like to dwell on art) and I think if I were looking at it as a non-Muslim, with no general interest in Islam, it would definitely peek my curiosity.
Allah knows best.
There is no "American Quran", just like there is no "American Islam".
This 'art', like most modern takes on religion, is running on the precious fuel of society's belief in sacredness, tradition and ultimately: faith.
In the end, shaitanic efforts like this burn societies view of tradition and sacredness up.
Finally, when sacredness and tradition itself will be consumed in this flame, the 'art' itself will be meaningless.
This is a short-lived currency for 'art'.
Bismillah
Asalaamu alaikum.
i really must stand corrected! Like Yursil, i strongly dislike the idea of an "American Islam", so his point is well-taken. i also agree completely that our society has no respect for the sacred anymore. On the contrary, i think that for a long time American culture has wanted to push and blur boundaries and to profane things just for the sake of being profane. This is especially true in the world of art. And i do love art, i do come from a background of being one of those who pushed buttons, tried new things, did things for shock value. But with Islam should come growth, and i like to believe that over the last 12 years i have greatly overcome those inclinations. Ultimately, art is about ego. And i'm not saying art is bad, always bad, has no redeeming qualities. But yes, when it takes the sacred and makes light of it, when it takes the sacred and twists it... well, we do have to acknowledge the dangers and problems there. i still believe the artist was/is sincere, but i think he is misguided. i wonder how people would react if i were to do a similar project utilizing Biblical or Torah scripture... though i suspect that has been done, my point is that i as an "outsider" doing it and interpreting it as i see fit would probably not be well-liked. At the same time, i do think that it is not so unusual for a non-Muslim artist to think it is okay to do this, as there are many Muslim artists who do similar things, and even Muslim artists that do highly offensive things. It is very difficult to know where the line is and what shouldn't be crossed because our whole culture here is all about crossing those lines, getting a reaction. i think my initial reaction was partly rooted in my love for art and the right for artists to express themselves, and partially rooted in what i see as some hypocrisy on the part of the Muslim community (not on the part of individuals in this conversation, i was thinking this on a much broader level) to joyfully accept & even promote Muslim artists and writers who trespass upon the sacred all the time, while taking quick offense to non-Muslim artists, even when no offense seems to be intended. i guess i just don't expect much from non-Muslim artists, i don't expect them to "get it". But that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't let it be known when they are getting it wrong. So thank you Naeem, for a fairly balanced attempt at letting the artist know he got it wrong.
Post a Comment