• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Photographic Gems of Our Times From The Web Burkha Project by Rosa Liksom

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi folks, I thought this is worth sharing with you:

http://www.rosaliksom.com/burkha-project/

Regards Jarmo


Hi Jarmo,

Of course the bright blue shapes against urban or other landscapes make for Christo-like art. I do have a nagging reservation as to the socially-sensitive considerations in using the Burkha as a mundane decoration when it is a robe, (that aims to provide sanctity of body), for the woman who adheres to the code demanding such hiding of the body from the gaze of strangers. Here, the art does not seem to embody any reference or recognition of the sentiments of those who wear that garment in everyday life as an act of devotion. Of course, in Western minds, the very same garment is a symbol of keeping women down and subservient. Adherents to the custom would argue that our own loose culture has no respect for the women we seek to "liberate".

How would devout Christians accept art that used Crucifixes devoid of the new testament sense of sacrifice, and just as objects to stack, paint, fuse together or otherwise repurpose? I'm not saying you can't make such art, but at least know it might be deemed disrespectful, to say the least!

Of course, I'd hesitate to censor such work but I'd like to know whether or not this would normally upset or infuriate folk embedded in such cultural codes of conduct.

Art does sometimes call for pushing seemingly inviolate barriers. Religious norms are obvious candidates. In that respect, a wonderful book on photography, Shekina, by none other that the Leonard Nimoy, (the actor who made famous the character of Dr. Spock, of Star Trek's Enterprise). He photographed female nude models wearing tefillin, reserved for wearing on the arm and around the head for Jewish men during sacred morning prayers. He did the unthinkable, in the adoration of the feminine aspect of God, the Shekina, but it's still great art! In that sense, his work, although igniting the wrath of incensed orthodox detractors, expressed Leonard Nimoy's love of people and our need to reach to heaven for reinforcement, reaffirmation, support and approval.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
excerpts from the linked website:


Artist Rosa Liksom tries to tame the burkha

By Anu Uimonen



Rosa Liksom "I was born in the far north, in a small village, where most of the people were members of the Conservative Laestadian sect. There women were always dressed in black, and they wore black scarves, showing only their faces." "As my roots are in this type of culture, Muslim dress was never a very foreign element to me." "The burkha is an extreme version of many different types of Muslim attire. Liksom became acquainted with it in the 1970s when she lived in suburbs of Paris in the 1970s, and later in Copenhagen and Stockholm." "From there it came into my paintings, more as an aesthetic element."




"The aim of Liksom's work is to spark debate, not to appear as a defender of the burkha.

"If the extremes of the image of a woman are the burkha and appearing half
-naked, then perhaps each of the extremes have an equal right to existence.

- Liksom asks uncomfortable questions. Why do we approve of women being unclothed in advertising on the street, and not of a woman who is covered up? Who determines the codes of dress, and whose wishes do they carry out?


- The most important props - the burkhas themselves - were came from Kabul, where the housekeeper of the local Finnish chargé d'affaires and a Finnish anthropologist bought them at a local bazaar.


- Rosa Liksom's Finlandia exhibition will be on display until May 7th at the Galleri Cupido (Svartmansgatan 27, Stockholm). In June the exhibition will move to the Galleria Krista Mikkola in Helsinki.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I do hope my writing is not inhibiting folk from making their own comments. The burkha project is significant for many reasons, but, likely as not, it speaks more about "Westernisms" than the Burkha.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Liksom asks uncomfortable questions. Why do we approve of women being unclothed in advertising on the street, and not of a woman who is covered up?


I don't think that this is quite correct. I never came across an occasion where a woman (or man) would be asked to strip on the street because she was wearing a long coat or head cover. I have never been to Finland, but I would be surprised if the Conservative Laestadian women who "wore black scarves, showing only their faces" were the subjects of public outrage for indecent clothing. On the other hand, I know people who object to unclothed women in advertising.

Who determines the codes of dress?

Ultimately, Legislature, I would think.
 

Jarmo Juntunen

Well-known member
The burkha project is significant for many reasons, but, likely as not, it speaks more about "Westernisms" than the Burkha.

Asher, I'm not quite sure that's true. Like you already pointed out, Liksom's idea was not to be judgmental, nor did she maker her primary comment on the rights of women in Islam. She's well aware of the social connotations of the burkha in Europe. She told in a radio interview that when they were shooting in France they got frequently spat on. But she added that public response in Europe has been wonderful. People have commented that "these women look nothing like oppressed. If they feel like climbing a tree in their burkhas they go climb a tree".

Why did I feel this project so intriguing? I think it shows wonderfully how ancient habits slowly absorb into new places and customs. There is a growing Islamic community even in our isolated little Northern country. Certainly there are clashes between "us" and "them" but slowly the world is changing.
 

Jarmo Juntunen

Well-known member
I have never been to Finland, but I would be surprised if the Conservative Laestadian women who "wore black scarves, showing only their faces" were the subjects of public outrage for indecent clothing.

Jerome, that's an interesting and just allegory. The Laestadians, just like any religious fundamentalists, set very strict rules for themselves and in particular how their women should dress. In this case it is not the (Finnish) society that judges but their own religious community.

I commented this matter on OPF earlier:

_img900.jpg

Yes, the man in the photograph is Lars Leevi Lestadius himself.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Jerome, that's an interesting and just allegory. The Laestadians, just like any religious fundamentalists, set very strict rules for themselves and in particular how their women should dress. In this case it is not the (Finnish) society that judges but their own religious community.

Yes, but that is not what I was saying.

At least in western Europe, women have been taught to dress "modestly" by their communities for ages. If you check the traditional dresses of most European regions, you will find that the Laestadians, although a bit on the stricter side, were not that different to what was traditionally worn in, say, Portugal (Antonio can confirm). This predates christian times, BTW: Roman women were also supposed to restrain their hair and wear head cover.

So: yes, you are right: traditional communities imposed strict rules on how their women should dress in Europe and some of them still do.

What I was arguing is different. Rosa Liksom wrote "Why do we approve of women being unclothed in advertising on the street, and not of a woman who is covered up?". The question implies that "we" (so: presumably "Europeans" or "Finns") do not approve of a woman who is covering up. That is simply not true. "We" (at least in some countries where wearing one is illegal) may not approve of a burkha, but the disapproval is specific of the burkha, not of the idea that a woman can dress modestly.
 

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
Jarmo,

Thanks for sharing!. I think that this project is interesting for several reasons.

There are of course the strange aesthetics of this approach.
There is the out-of-place aspect.
There is the intend to provoque.

From my point of view, looking only at any kind of religious aspect doesn't capture all aspects of women wearing Burkhas or similar clothing (same goes for men), it even hides an important part of the picture.

Think of the basics of human interaction:
The face is the most important part of the human body used to identify someone.
The face is an important facor for communication - facial expressions are very important, ranging higher than for example body language which is also literally veiled by a Burkha.
In many western cultures, hiding the face means to deliberately avoid recognition or even hiding the face because of shame.

In that respect, a wonderful book on photography, Shekina, by none other that the Leonard Nimoy, (the actor who made famous the character of Dr. Spock, of Star Trek's Enterprise). He photographed female nude models wearing tefillin, reserved for wearing on the arm and around the head for Jewish men during sacred morning prayers.
You might have missed it - I posted the link to his website including the shekina gallery here.

Best regards,
Michael
 

Jarmo Juntunen

Well-known member
"We" (at least in some countries where wearing one is illegal) may not approve of a burkha, but the disapproval is specific of the burkha, not of the idea that a woman can dress modestly.

I agree. But I also find Michael's point about the significance of uncovered face in human interaction to be very much true. Since covering one's face is not something us, the Westerners, do we don't really know what to think of people who do that.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
The pictures on the site you presented to not really address that specific aspect of face versus faceless interaction, do they?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So, if the above work is taken in the context of Western idioms and Western art of the past 50 years, isn't this just a variation of Christo's colored umbrellas? So she chose instead, the Burkha for a splash of color in otherwise quiet landscapes, isn't that all that has happened? Just has Christos use of umbrellas really have little to do with rain or protection from anything, the Burkha's actual use by Muslim women may be really afterthoughts. It does make me question whether the artist is trying to jazz up a mere modification of Christo's motif of using color - it's very simple: he splashed it vividly to awaken our visions.

I now think the "Burkhaness" of the Burkhas and the femininity of the women inside them are really quite minor components of, (and have little to do with), the total esthetics of the visually "Performance Art" experience - which is to have wind-blown cloth of vivid color in the chosen scene. It's entertaining and refreshing but not really enlightening! The rest, any would-be connections with the practice of covering up, or the rights of women are "appreciations" one is free to make, but the artist has not actually made any down-payments, real sacrifices or investments in design to speak to more than the blushes of color as Christo has done so many times, and on a much larger scale before. However, to this artist's credit, the colored cloths move with more than the wind, as the women inside them are freely mobile and not fixed as in most of Christo's works.

Asher
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
I shall take a pass re this rigorous discussion.

Just a point though....I use the phone often.

I believe many of you do too... Multiple times a day.
Then there is messaging etc...

This is interaction...untold times a day..without ( in most cases for me at least )
Without looking at a face.

Of course, phoning and messaging in your part
Of the world might always be face to face.

Just wondering.

p.s this message too is interaction with OPF
members... I cannot see e.g Asher, but he is reading this
Message. No need to see my not so handsome face.
 

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
Fahim,

sorry to interfere, but this is no comparison.

A phone call and a forum participation is fundamentally different to a conversation with someone who is there in front of you and yet neither face not body language can be read because of the garment chosen or obliged to wear.

You try to compare a long distance communication where seeing the 'other end' only has become possible with newer technology with a communication that happens between two persons who are - let's say - in the same room without any necessity (communication-wise) of obstructing means of communication/recognition/interaction.

In business there is a lot of conversation/communication this way and yet - face to face meetings (sic) are often required and still the best way to improve communication, especially if things go awry.

Best regards,
Michael
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I shall take a pass re this rigorous discussion.

Just a point though....I use the phone often.

I believe many of you do too... Multiple times a day.
Then there is messaging etc...

This is interaction...untold times a day..without ( in most cases for me at least )
Without looking at a face.

Of course, phoning and messaging in your part
Of the world might always be face to face.

Just wondering.

p.s this message too is interaction with OPF
members... I cannot see e.g Asher, but he is reading this
Message. No need to see my not so handsome face.


Fahim,

As Michael indicates, when there is an impasse, we fly thousands of miles to have diplomats meet prime ministers to avert the very misunderstandings that come from faceless correspondence over the phone or by a report or message! The very fact of someone standing in court to face his/her accusers and the judge seeing their reactions is essential to most justice systems, where a person is provided with his/her day in court. Many business deals get negotiated indirectly by form filling, phone calls and correspondence, but then the principals have a face to face meeting to actually sign off on the deal!

Notwithstanding that argument, this art, using the blue or black Burkha, has nothing, in my opinion to do with the purposes or effects of the Burkha, rather it's used as one would colored canvas in decorating a bridge or wrapping around a building as a performance art project, to make people stop for a few moments and contemplate as opposed to be consumed with their own bubbles of delusion.

I really doubt that the artist has either much first hand knowledge of, (or even less sympathy for), values of modesty, (inherent in practicing the covering of women), fundamental to many religions. This artist Burkhas are mere performance props, just colored flags that are conveniently so mobile. Here actors can get to any position the artist imagines, at no engineering cost and no need for permission from the local city authorities in most cases and no environmental impact statement, LOL!

Asher
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Michael, your participation is not considered an interference by me. This is a civil discussion.

My point was in relation to your statement and I quote:

" Think of the basics of human interaction:
.....
In many western cultures, hiding the face means to deliberately avoid recognition or even hiding the face because of shame. "

All I wanted to say was that millions of ' human interactions ' take place daily without the necessity of ' seeing' the parties involved. Nothing more and nothing less.

Discussions about the importance of seeing the ' face ' of a person one is having a ' conversation ' ( not interaction ) with is another topic. Unfortunately ( or fortunately ), the term ' face to face ' in the English Language ( as far as my understanding goes ) implies that both faces of the participants are visible to the other ( maybe all faces visible to all participants ) in a conversation.

But, and here is the rub, that is only accurate from specific cultural perspectives only. And I agree with it having lived a considerable amount of time in the west. But not necessarily so in all cultures. In certain cultures, one face can be covered while the other is visible during a ' face to face ' conversation. Both faces can be covered. Both faces can be visible. Many faces can be covered and only one be visible. And there could be other permutations..all accepted as normal.

The cultural aspect is paramount in this regard. The Western perspective is correct as is the situation in a culture in which covering one's face is taken as normal.

" In many western cultures, hiding the face means to deliberately avoid recognition or even hiding the face because of shame ".

Once again, the operative word here is ' many western cultures '. In certain non-western cultures, covering the face ( as opposed to the word 'hiding'..which denotes some wrong doing to me ) can be conformity to custom, religion, tradition. Not ' deliberately avoid recognition ' or ' hiding the face because of shame '. Quite the contrary.

This being a forum, where the majority of participants are groomed in the western culture, such misunderstandings are easy to understand.

But our world does comprise of other cultures also. Else it would be such a bland existence, and nothing to get Asher jumping up and down.

I would like to add that ' covering ' a face refers to a woman covering her face. And my points are only made in that regard.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Asher.

You posted while I was typing and our posts crossed.

There is a difference between ' interaction ' and ' conversation '. And there is a difference between various situations.

I do not want to get involved in the discussions of ' Burkha ' or ' Niqaab '. Various situations determine what is to be done. It would be stupid to allow a covered face driving a car, for example.

I might not be from the west, but please do not consider me, or others who subscribe to our traditions, to be devoid of common sense and are ignorant of the arguments in this matter.

p.s. Lest I forget..I think DNA is ( currently ) the determining attribute of a person's identity.

p.p.s. My mother was the head of Obs and Gynae, and a surgeon to boot. Anyone that thinks that she was interacting in the OR with her face covered and performing hysterectomies really needs to do a lot of
reading on our culture.

Or what of my daughter, who is called in to confirm whether the surgeons need to operate on a vital organ or amputate a limb..do you think she is scanning the tissues with her face covered. Get real.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher.

I do not want to get involved in the discussions of ' Burkha ' or ' Niqaab '. Me neither, Fahim :)


Various situations determine what is to be done. It would be stupid to allow a covered face driving a car, for example.

Works well for British Special Forces or for bank robbers, LOL I can't see how masking the face is a problem for driving as long as there's an unrestricted ability to see into the mirrors and through the windows. If one can do a cardiac transplant wearing a face mask, then for sure one can drive!

I might not be from the west, but please do not consider me, or others who subscribe to our traditions, to be devoid of common sense and are ignorant of the arguments in this matter.

When did you ever get that idea, my good friend! ..and it works the other way around too and that's good!

Asher
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Asher..

" ....The very fact of someone standing in court to face his/her accusers and the judge seeing their reactions is essential to most justice systems, where a person is provided with his/her day in court.... "

You know too little of how our court system works..for you to write this.

"... Many business deals get negotiated indirectly by form filling, phone calls and correspondence, but then the principals have a face to face meeting to actually sign off on the deal!

Ayesha is a business woman. I " sign off on the deal ". When she feels she does not want to, else she does.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher..

" ....The very fact of someone standing in court to face his/her accusers and the judge seeing their reactions is essential to most justice systems, where a person is provided with his/her day in court.... "

You know too little of how our court system works..for you to write this.

I don't pretend to! I never did think much of the Western justice system anyway. Smart silver-tongued lawyers with their paid "experts" sway those folk too poorly educated to get out of jury duty! Those of us with advanced education are automatically excluded, you know. When one walks up the grand steps of the halls of justice to enter a courtroom and sees above one's head a woman, holding the "Scales of Justice" aloft, one should have considerable fear, as one has almost a 50% chance the scales tipping against logic in one direction or another - of being found guilty or innocent despite the evidence.

"... Many business deals get negotiated indirectly by form filling, phone calls and correspondence, but then the principals have a face to face meeting to actually sign off on the deal!

Ayesha is a business woman. I " sign off on the deal ". When she feels she does not want to, else she does.[/QUOTE]

Note the qualifier, "many" does already take that into account!

Asher
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
....

When did you ever get that idea, my good friend! ..and it works the other way around too and that's good!

Asher

You are correct there Asher. I too should have woven the qualifier ' many ' in a reworked sentence.

My point is just to say that millions of human communications take place around the globe without the necessity of having uncovered faces between the participants ( so as to see each others face/s ). Please inform me where I am mistaken in saying that.

In certain situations one does need to have ' uncovered face to face human interaction '.

I also pointed out that ' an uncovered/covered face during a conversation ' in my discussion/s of and contributions to this thread refers only to a woman's face being visible or not during a conversation with people.

I also stated, and maintain, that ' many ' participants on OPF come from a western culture. And, as such, the preponderance of the views put forward shall reflect that culture. Nothing wrong in that. Nothing wrong at all.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong in a non-western culture to have a woman cover her face during a conversation. Nothing wrong at all.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Fahim,

...and aren't we both fortunate that we can decide as we wish, which set of rules should apply to us and when.

I appreciate privilege as I have come up a a tall ladder missing most of the rungs!

Asher
 

Chris Heilman

New member
Another fascinating project that explores an aspect of womanhood in the most controversial manner. The pictures are pleasing, so any discomfort MUST come from the viewer's feelings on the topic of covering.
 
Top