It has been interesting to see how, what I once thought to be a linear trajectory

between our courses at MACS, actually intersects and overlaps in the most organic way.

The First example is the one I have taken from 500 A – Formations of Cultural Studies,

and the second one is an e-response to one of our readings in 502 A – Cultural Studies as

Collaboration.

The class discussion is 500A veered toward appropriation of native and

indigenous objects and symbols of cultural significance by colonialism and the example

that I offered to the discussion was the symbol of the Swastika and the negative

connotations associated with it in the Western world, and the complete antithesis of its

actual meaning in Hindu philosophy.

The Swastika is a symbol of prosperity and good fortune for the Hindus, with a

five thousand year old history. It was a deliberate, inappropriate appropriation by Hitler

who skewed the symbol, made it black, (where the original Swastika is red), and

completely distorted the meaning and philosophy behind it. Most of my cohort were

unaware of the actual meaning because all they could think of was Swastika = Nazi =

Holocaust.
 It was a moment of breaking pre-conceived notions, bias and wonderful learning

for all of us as I explained the true meaning of the symbol, and the Eurocentric

appropriation of a profound symbol and philosophy to serve a heinous agenda.

When a classmate of mine, in all innocence, (and lack of awareness really), asked

whether the Swastika was now viewed in India as Hitler’s symbol for Nazism? It

enriched and expanded my own, and the cohort’s knowledge when I articulated at length

that just because a despot, with a Eurocentric arrogance distorted the sacred meaning, it

did not mean that it wiped out millennia of cultural significance for the people of India,

who continue to use it just as generations before had done and generations after will

continue to do. It was a moment of reflection for all of us because the discourse of

appropriation was an important part in our cultural studies program, and this

deconstruction was significant to our scholarship.

In 502 A, The Dunn-Leeson reading was largely about the potential in

collaboration and collaborative projects, how much of Public Art today is

collaborative/participatory work and, how arts engagement with a social consciousness is

becoming more and more mainstream, whether it is looking at environmental issues (like

the work of artists Vicuna, Michael Heizer, and Robert Smithson), or community and

cultural identities and/or change.

In the Notes section of the essay, the line below, made me pause, reflect, and react

to the academic’s words, in which I found a parallel to what I had encountered to the

class discussion in Prof. Harewood’s class – 500 A. It also brought in direct focus to me

on how far my own academic journey as a scholar had grown, in terms of my critical
thinking skills, and my approach in the way I am now beginning to engage with texts,

readings, conversations and how I am developing the language and the vocabulary to

articulate and argue with affect and clarity.

We can all think of examples of works that are aesthetically and visually powerful

or compelling, but which represent an ideology or worldview that we disagree with

or find distasteful. But we would normally not describe these works as beautiful.5

- Dunn, Peter, and Loraine Leeson. "The Aesthetics of Collaboration." (1997): p.26

I have been ruminating on this sentence ever since I read the Dunn and Leeson

essay and I feel strongly that I have to address it.

While I agree with Dunn and Leeson about works of art that might be visually

compelling but ideologically distasteful – for e.g. paintings depicting slavery,

To The Highest Bidder – Harry Herman Roseland

 I have to call out the example that is quoted in the article and affirmed in the

Notes section:

5
For example, one could say that the swastika is a visually powerful, well- designed

logo, but unless one is sympathetic to fascism one would not call it beautiful. It

might be considered beautiful by a Hindu, however, who uses the symbol in

reversed form, and who is unaware of or distanced from the events in Europe in the

1930s. The point is that the social significance of the image crucially affects the

designation of beauty.

Language and semantics are so crucial and need to be used thoughtfully, and with

care because firstly, the Swastika is not a Logo, but a visual symbol dating back to more

than 5000 years - of deep cultural, spiritual and philosophical meaning in India, China,

and indeed, many parts of Asia. Secondly – “….might be considered beautiful by a

Hindu, however, who uses the symbol in reversed (emphasis mine) form, and who

is unaware (??) of or distanced from the events in Europe in the 1930s.

The Swastika is not the symbol that is reversed – the Nazis appropriated the

Swastika, both the symbol and the name, so it is actually the Nazis who reversed and

skewed it and completely bastardized the significance and the meaning.

So in the context of the Dunn/Leeson essay, I see it as an appropriation of an

appropriation! The readings in 500 A and 502 A - Decolonizing Methodologies: Research

and Indigenous Peoples (1999) Tuhiwai Smith and Suspending Damage: A Letter to

Communities (2003) Eve Tuck, return frequently (with urgency and gravitas), on the
appropriation of indigenous knowledge, cultural symbols, and cultural symbolism by the

colonizers.

This specific example in the Dunn/Leeson reading, for me, comes from a

completely Western/Eurocentric lens and “universalizes” the Swastika (in the distorted

Nazi representation, and which is actually NOT the original and authentic Hindu/Asian

Swastika at all), to have the negative connotations that is localized largely to the

West, but assumes the (arrogant) mantle of being the world view!

https://youtu.be/IGlU5m2JpXY