Skip to main content

Artisan raping wands


In the comment sections of Randa Jarrar's essay, "Why I can't stand white belly dancers," commenter listtowardslight said:

As a world musician, I'm going to register my deep disapproval of this article.  If someone studies an art form deeply, gives credit where due, and gives it a thorough and deep treatment, they become a part of it.  They're communicating in ways greater than words.  It's nigh well a responsibility to continue the transmission.


How many videos of any Middle Eastern instrument played can you find without some argument breaking out in the comments - this is Persian!  No!  They ripped it off from the Kurds!  No!  The Armenians invented everything!  These jokers want to place national ownership on an instrument or a type of music.  Are they the ones playing, singing and dancing?  Hardly ever.

Does the author want to see if any Chinese are angry that the Japanese koto, the Korean gayageum, the Vietnamese danh tran, the Mongolian yatga all ripped off their ancient zither, the guzheng?  Was this not an organic proliferation?

The reality is that artists are driven by empathy and inspiration, and that's what the nationalists miss.  The nationalists have a deep underlying mistake in thinking *anything* in the world has a linear, neatly bounded growth rather than a unbounded, ongoing weave.  There is no single family tree to any long-standing art; cross-pollination is more the rule than the exception.  That's why, done rightly, it's effective connective tissue, effective antidote to oppression!

What about when it's done disrespectfully or wrongly?  Are there cheap, disrespectful knock-offs?  Yes.  They're outed as soon as something real shows up.  It's all a part of the conversation.

I'm talking about humanity's bards and artists doing what they *ought* to do.  Every pre-literate society passes on their stories through song, and often by dance; these things have deeper roots.  They are anthems to a deeper part of ourselves that goes deeper than social or national constructs, which we are better for listening to.

Art and song and dance slips boundaries and brings people into sync more readily than it sections them by nation, tribe, or race.  It is more powerful when kindling empathy than smothering it.  Compare any real cultural transmission to national anthems - what has more power?  Art is at its vital best when it's humanizing people, which powerfully counters corporate and national propaganda which would have us dehumanizing the Other so that war can be sold to the masses.

Yes, there is an issue with cultural appropriation.  It came from power differential and violent oppression, which are the creations of politicians, warlords, and bean-counters.  Not artists.

I'm going to close with a quote from a well-known poet, but the fact was that he wasn't just a poet.  Each line of his poetry was to be spoken in the midst of dance, during yet another time of notable cultural exchange and awful war.  His instruments were banned by religious fundamentalists and had to be smuggled as contraband, because those poems and that music and that dance were all a part of something they wanted to suppress.

* * *

I
Have
Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call
Myself

A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.

* * *

There's a reason we remember Hafez's unbounded spirit - here transmitted by Daniel Ladinksy - far better than anyone that tried to nail it down or set boundaries on its transmission.


Normally I think progressives would just agree with you, but right now, I'm not quite sure. 
For one, we're watching "True Detective," where the ones with deeper roots in the pre-literate Bayou, who's art and rituals have leaked through all the state's attempt at smothering, are rabid child-abusers. And the rope they use -- it's not for weaving but for tying kids down. And if we're admiring the anthropological mind of detective Rust, it's because it's going to help him snuff them out. 
Secondly, the European nations that attempted to kill pre-literate folk culture, replaced astrology with astronomy, magic with science -- and it's getting harder for us to champion any group that could think science an imposition. Normally we're all with you, because championing the traditionally picked on pisses off Republicans to no end, but it's becoming more important to champion science above all else. So the pre-literate cultures which enabled female empowerment and "commerce" with such things as their dance, art, and witchcraft, against a masculine state that wanted the multivalent tamed and unified -- but who were also against superstitions and for science, are going to get a more appreciative reappraisal from us.  
And you know, folk art may not contain a wit of empathy; it might not even be its core. The Venus figurines are considered amongst our first human art, and like what's at the bottom of "True Detective's" Bayou "sink," they may have been used mostly as child-raping wands. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...