Kind of sad…
<img class="blogImageCenter" src="https://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2009/04/01/1238604240-picture_8.jpg" alt="fa39/1238604240-picture_8.jpg" width="400" height="209" /
Kind of funny…
The images, which are from here, Pixdaus, are about the crossing and clashing points of Islamic and Christian values. In the first image, the values clash (the result being sad), and in the second the values cross (the result being funny). It is easy to understand why the first image is sad, but why is the second one funny? Because here the Christian ritual of the self celebrating the self (the preservation of the image of the individual—the one who is committed to the love of another individual, Jesus) is undone by the Islamic value of self-negation and absolute submission to the will of an alien God. What’s left in the image is the touristic form of taking a photograph and not its meaning—the preservation and celebration of the individual or individuals.
Actually, I don’t see anything sad about image # 1. Maybe you can spell it out?
I didn’t look at the writer of this post before reading it. But I knew it was Mudede within two sentences. You have interesting ideas, man, but you are so damn predictable.
That site has some good images… I particularly liked this one.
If you’ve been posting the exact same bitches about Charles Mudede for three years, then you know a thing or two about predictability.
It’s all relative, Charles. In picture 1 I see a couple, with whom can identify, being close and affectionate in an epic setting; enjoying life in the now. Then I see another couple, whose way of life is foreign to me, sitting with a careful distance apart, the woman negated and separated from the world by her habiliment. Both caught in the past. They look, not at each other or the grand setting, but at that which they cannot be. For them, it’s sad, for us (as I identify with the first couple) it’s a celebration of our freedoms. It’s unfettered joy.
The second one? Yeah, that’s funny. If they mix up their pictures at the FotoMat how would they be able to tell? Wait! That’s not Aunt Gladys’ burqa!
I saw three women dressed like the ones in the second photo taking pictures of each other in a park in Cairo. I was pretty amused to see them posing for their photos in their head to toe burqas too. It was endearing and a little sad. The three women were with a slightly stooped, older looking gentleman- I assumed he was their father until my companion told me he was their husband.
Charles —
GREAT April Fools joke! Social commentary that actually makes sense!
And now back to the non sequiturs.
They recognize the women in the photograph by their hands, probably.
Chaz, everybody knows that if you have to explain the joke, it’s probably not THAT funny to begin with…
Good Morning Charles,
Interesting study in almost contrasting images. The affectionate pose of the one couple is indeed in contrast to the other couple in the first pic. Personally, both photos are sad albeit the second is surreal as well. No doubt it is a cultural clash. Orthodox Islam is problematic for women. I don’t like it. I find it unfortunate that both scenarios could only occur in the Occident and not in say, Saudi Arabia. That kind of display of public affection isn’t allowed in many quarters of Islam except for Turkey.
I largely agree with your comments. Indeed, in the West, we do have a culture of self-adoration.
In the first one, I see rude Western tourists. Tourists behaving like that in a country where it is not acceptable public behavior are not doing anyone any favors. They would get dirty looks in every country in Asia (i.e. including ones where the women aren’t dressed head-to-toe in burqa).
Cultural mores are relative. What if that were the steps of a library in the US, and the couple on the left were naked and having sex? Would it be sad that the couple on the right was looking at them in disbelief?
The second picture is charming.
plus, he has a big butt.
@11: I’m sorry — which country is it that they’re in? There is absolutely nothing in that image which sets that scene in a particular country.
I think the funny picture is funny because you can’t see the ladies faces which is the whole point of posing for a picture. I can just imagine years from now, the five of them looking at the picture and not being able to tell eachother apart.
@12: Golly, he does. Didn’t notice that until you pointed it out. It’s an oddly feminine butt, isn’t it?
@13 – The typical hot-weather travel garb on the Westerners (sandals, quik-dry pants), the giant curb without a railing, that sign to the right of the door, and whatever that architecture is … hard to know for sure, but I’d be willing to bet that the Muslim couple is home and the Western couple is visiting.
@16: ZOMG sandals, I must be in the holy land! Perhaps you’ve never been to New York City, but that looks like a good percentage of people here, locals AND tourists, from May to September; it’s standard Western warm weather clothing. The “sign” (if it’s not just discoloration, graffiti or the glue from a sign that’s been ripped off the wall) can’t be parsed into an alphabet, let alone a language and the rest of the architecture could exist anywhere within the reach of the Roman Empire or an architect who was influenced by the Romans — in other words ANYWHERE!
Seriously, that could be Italy, Spain, Greece, France, England OR Turkey, Eqypt, Tunisia (doubtful any theocratic Muslim country or they’d be getting led away and shot…) there’s no way to tell.
@16 – It appears they are both wearing Tevas. They should be dragged away by the religious police for that alone.