Sita Sings the Blues (2008, Animation by Nina Paley)

[amit]

In particular, the comments made by Indian Hindus in that discussion bring the debate forward in a constructive way.  There are some who are wary of misrepresentation of the Ramayana, and others who support Nina Paley's take on it, and all the points they make are constructive to the debate, I found.

Nina, agreed that it takes effort to have a constructive debate, but as far as I'm concerned, pre-emptive use of words like "bigoted", "prejudiced", "fundamentalist" etc. when there wasn't any previous comment in this thread to justify use of such terms, does not make for an auspicious beginning or show a willingness to be open-minded. It comes across as if the person using these terms has already made up her/his mind and is pre-judging all criticisms instead of evaluating them on their own merit, and is not interested in a constructive discussion.

[Nina]

Nina, agreed that it takes effort to have a constructive debate, but as far as I'm concerned, pre-emptive use of words like "bigoted", "prejudiced", "fundamentalist" etc. when there wasn't any previous comment in this thread to justify use of such terms, does not make for an auspicious beginning or show a willingness to be open-minded. It comes across as if the person using these terms has already made up her/his mind and is pre-judging all criticisms instead of evaluating them on their own merit, and is not interested in a constructive discussion.

If you go back to the first page of the thread, you will see that I used the term "bigoted" not about anyone on this thread, but comments on a blog (Paley's own, older one circa 5 years ago) that is no longer extant; these comments had called for the suppression of Paley's work on grounds of religious offense.  Not stating their disagreement or offense:  demanding censure.  As I then defended, I think that was an accurate use of the term:  calling a spade a spade.  But, I repeat, it was not directed at anyone or any statement made here; no-one here afaik is calling for censure.  I stand by what I said, but admit it was not of relevance here since they referred to unverifiable statements in the past.  Instead it served to immediately sour the tone of debate here through -- you're right -- pre-emptive use, and I'm truly sorry about that.  The state of this thread really saddens me, I'll cop to my mistake in making it so, and I do hope it can be brought back to reasonable debate.

What I see in Sita Sings the Blues is a feminist retelling of a sub-plot of the Ramayana, done with affection and humour and a good dose of flippancy.  I think it's a creative idea well-executed, and that there is a place for that in a world of critique and interrogation.  I found the second half of the film weaker than the first, the "intermission" dragged and seems a creative mistake imo, I cringed at the karaoke version of Luv and Kush singing Ram's praise, and decided that bit went too far for me.  YMMV.  The rest made me laugh, or be reflective, and think.  It prompted me to look up academic readings on the Ramayana, and for that too I think it is a worthy work to have out there.  Overall, despite a few weaknesses and errors in my opinion, I think it is a creative work of some value. 

[Machu]

these comments had called for the suppression of Paley's work on grounds of religious offense.  Not stating their disagreement or offense:  demanding censure. 

That was very gracious of you Nina.

I only have one comment on the statement about censor. Assuming the persons who wanted to censor were Indians, I still would not call it as bigoted. since Indian laws (written by  the liberals for the most part) specifically has this in its books. "an offense under Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code. "

Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs

So the people are only invoking the laws in the books.  So the censor against free speech is an offense  committed by the Indian government for a long time. Only government can curtail free speech. Individual citizens can only whine. A  citizen invoking rights to seek redress in court is a lawful act...something to be commended not called a bigot! They are seeking redress in court, not beating up or beheading  the author/artist. Now, that would be bigoted.

 

Look here..Muslims are invoking their rights under the law as well and have gotten their way:

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/02/12/editor-and-publisher-arrested-for-hurting-the-religious-feelings-of-muslims-in-india/

[etu]

Are we talking about censoring -- meaning no one gets to see it -- or censuring -- meaning reprimanding someone for their conduct?

[Nina]

sorry: censoring, meaniing no-one gets to see it.

[Nina]

Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs

I know such laws exist on the statute books of many if not most countires, but from a purely philosophical point of view I wish they didn't.  I believe that everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want, wherever they want.  If an idea thus expressed can stand up to scrutiny, then it enriches us.  If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it can be discounted.  If it is spurious or offensive, it brings disgrace only on whoever said it.

Now, from a pragmatic point of view, I understand that such laws sometimes need to exist, to prevent statements which could lead to physical retaliation which can cause damage to people and property.  But an idea, on its own, cannot physically injure.  And if it morally injures, it should be either countered with better ideas, or tolerated, or ignored.  But this is an idealist view; I know.

eta:  hate speech I would class as similar to an attack on a person, btw, and deserving of legal restriction.  But critiques of ideas and beliefs I would see as fair game.  This, I think, is where it becomes difficult to draw the line: at what point do you separate the person from their beliefs?  In judging a statement which causes offense, sometimes this distinction is clear, and somethimes it is less so  -- and is what makes religious offense laws necessary.  But always improvable!

[amit]

Nina, yes I know you used the term to describe some comments on Ms. Paley's blog, but I was trying to say how it comes across. Anyway, thanks for being so gracious.

And I fully agree with you on the idealistic/philosophical pov on freedom of speech, but yes, reality intervenes and sets some limits. Such is life.

[Aliya]

“Three Hundred Ramayanas”,

A collection of essays by the late A. K. Ramanujan (recipient of several honours, including the Padmashri). He was a widely acclaimed scholar with impeccable academic credentials.
 His was an expert in many languages including Sanskrit, Tamil and Kannada.
His credentials as a scholar, writer, and teacher with extensive knowledge of ancient Indian literary traditions are incontestable.


And yet, in Feb 2008 the history department of Delhi University had to face the wrath of those who thought that there were offensive references in those essays and the university should not prescribe it.

A Buddhist version (Jataka)  interprets Ram and Sita to be brother and sister, so of course paintings were vandalised at Sahmat in the 90s (?) because it is an insult to their faith.

My point?
It's not just small fries (when compared to Budhist/Jataka interpretation and the padmashree AK Ramanujan) like Nina Paley who get bashed for their work - it's also brown/Indian/hindus/budhists whose work is attacked.

[Aliya]

Then there is Salman Khan who dared to say that he would be making a film on Ramayana and play the role of Ram.

This blasphemy brought out a petition;

http://www.petitiononline.com/nosalman/petition.html

Yes, defenders of faith are there in *every* religion, not just Islam.

[Machu]

when you attack someones faith, they will create petition (Thats a good way to defend faith. Good moral people do this), they may even say bad things about you. That's freedom of speech too.

But that's ok...as long as you don't issue a FATWA to  decapitate someones head (This is a bad way to defend faith. Bad immoral people would do this)!


GOOD vs BAD!


Calling the good way to defend faith via Petition as being bad,  is BAD also!

see!

Moral of the story = Stop messing with other peoples faith, if you don't want to be insulted back.

[Simran_Singh]

I was finally able to watch this, and I'd say 50% of it I loved and 50% I thought was just okay.

I loved the very cartoony Ramayana parts with the Annette Hanshaw songs:


and I really loved the three narrators - I thought they were so funny - animated using a kind of collage style:


I was less engaged by the song-less Ramayana parts that looked like classical paintings:


and was also less engaged by the parts explicitly about Nina and her divorce, which had a comic strip-like style:


I'm not sure what Nina was trying to get at with her reinterpretation of the Ramayana, but what I took away from it was a story about unconditional love and the parallel between Sita and Nina seemed pretty obvious to me. Sita and Rama are in a loving marriage, then they are separated by a great distance. When reunited, Rama forces Sita to undergo a trial by fire and eventually exiles her from his kingdom anyway. Despite his treatment of her, Sita continues to love Rama but eventually achieves peace by returning to Mother Earth. Nina and Dave are in a loving marriage, then they are separated by a great distance. When reunited, Dave undergoes a midlife crisis and breaks up with Nina by email while she is on a business trip leaving her homeless. Despite his treatment of her, Nina continues to love Dave but eventually achieves peace in her new life.

I loved the part when the two male narrators are talking about how after her exile Sita continued to do a daily puja for Rama and they're like, "It's not right - you shouldn't love someone who treats you so badly" and the female narrator is like, "That's why it's called unconditional love - duh"

I was also interested by the end of Sita's story - when she returns to Mother Earth in a flash of white light. The narrators don't seem to remember what preceded that event and I'm wondering if someone familiar with the Ramayana can fill me in - why was Sita returned to Mother Earth in a flash of white light? I ask because last month I saw a production of "Shakuntala" (the first professional English production of it in Canada ever, btw) the story of which also features a virtuous woman spurned by her husband who is swallowed by the earth in a flash of white light and I'm wondering if there's some kind of thematic similarity between the two events.

[Darshana]

I remember wondering whether in the Ramayana Sita also is swallowed by the earth, or becomes one with it - or whether this was an interpretation of something made by Nina Paley (for example - if Sita died in the Ramayana story, and Nina depicted it this way).

Awaara is the movie version of the Ram-Sita story which I can recognize with most confidence -- Prithvirraj Kapoor is a judge, his wife is kidnapped by some jerk from a neighboring big family (feud stuff or something).  She retains her "virtue" while captive, but is pregnant on return (after not that long a captivity).  Horrible judge husband casts her out, to become a poor person and give birth to Raj Kapoor, who grows up on the wrong side of the law.  And don't worry, this is just the setup.

The story is about the son, eventually the son and the fahter, not about Sita as viewpoint character. 

[Nina]

when you attack someones faith, they will create petition (Thats a good way to defend faith. Good moral people do this), they may even say bad things about you. That's freedom of speech too.

Calling the good way to defend faith via Petition as being bad,  is BAD also!

see!

Moral of the story = Stop messing with other peoples faith, if you don't want to be insulted back.

Yes, but surely you should only take that recourse if there is an attack.  So, I ask you:  where is the attack in Sita Sings the Blues? Why are you offended by it?

[Aliya]

Let my mentioning of Salman Khan not take away from the other two examples mentioned, where no petitions were involved just aggressive behaviour.

-“Three Hundred Ramayanas”, by A. K. Ramanujan - a hindu, and far more learned a man than the aggressive people against it, their excuse being it is an insult.
-the Budhist(Jataka version) have their own interpretation where Ram and Sita are brother and sister, but unacceptable to the aggressive people, their reason being it is an insult.
There are several examples actually.

I remember wondering whether in the Ramayana Sita also is swallowed by the earth, or becomes one with it - or whether this was an interpretation of something made by Nina Paley (for example - if Sita died in the Ramayana story, and Nina depicted it this way).

According to the original Valmiki Ramayan, Sita was born from the earth - a gift of earth (There are other details describing how it happened).
The word Sita means 'furrow in the ground'.
She was taken back by the earth in the end.

[BollyThis]

Yes, but surely you should only take that recourse if there is an attack.  So, I ask you:  where is the attack in Sita Sings the Blues? Why are you offended by it?

It's about perceived offense. Not everyone is the same. IF the narration is flippant,  someone out there could be offended. And their  response, AGGRESSIVE or not is their prerogative as long as its not violent or calling for violence against the perceived offender. No one can deny others from being offended nor their right to a response. Even aggressive response...particularly if one calls them "Aggressive people" aggravating the situation.

[Aliya]

My post# 88

Please read 'violence and vandalism' wherever I have written 'aggressive'.
Thanks.

[Darshana]

-“Three Hundred Ramayanas”, by A. K. Ramanujan - a hindu, and far more learned a man than the aggressive people against it, their excuse being it is an insult.
-the Budhist(Jataka version) have their own interpretation where Ram and Sita are brother and sister, but unacceptable to the aggressive people, their reason being it is an insult.
There are several examples actually.

According to the original Valmiki Ramayan, Sita was born from the earth - a gift of earth (There are other details describing how it happened).
The word Sita means 'furrow in the ground'.
She was taken back by the earth in the end.

Thanks, Aliya - I've only seen Nina Paley's movie once, and it was a little while ago now.  I remember thinking that her going into the earth, because of the wonderful way Paley did it, was definitely expressive of a major "deep" theme, probably in the original story itself, as well as in Paley's own work.  Great to be able to so easily get this question answered thanks to the forum.

[Darshana]

I just saw that this will be included in a film festival in London coming up right away

http://www.tonguesonfire.com/

[Spencer]

Roger Ebert's Journal

Having a wonderful time, wish you could hear
By Roger Ebert on December 23, 2008 5:36 PM
 
It hardly ever happens this way. I get a DVD in the mail. I'm told it's an animated film directed by "a girl from Urbana." That's my home town. It is titled "Sita Sings the Blues." I know nothing about it, and the plot description on IMDb is not exactly a barn-burner: An animated version of the epic Indian tale of Ramayana set to the 1920's jazz vocals of Annette Hanshaw. Uh, huh. I carefully file it with other movies I will watch when they introduce the 8-day week.

I get an e-mail from Betsy, my old pal who worked with me on The News-Gazette. "Did you see the film by the mayor's daughter?" This intrigues me. The daughter is named Nina Paley. I do a Google run and discover that Hiram Paley was mayor from 1973-1977. I am relieved. This means the "girl" probably didn't make the film as a high school class project. In fact, by my rapid mathematical calculations, she may have been conceived in City Hall. I used to cover City Hall. Worse things have happened there.

By this point, I'm hooked. I can't stop now. I put on the DVD and start watching. I am enchanted. I am swept away. I am smiling from one end of the film to the other. It is astonishingly original. It brings together four entirely separate elements and combines them into a great whimsical chord. You might think my attention would flag while watching An animated version of the epic Indian tale of Ramayana set to the 1920's jazz vocals of Annette Hanshaw. Quite the opposite. It quickens. I obtain Nina Paley's e-mail address and invite the film to my film festival in April 2009 at the University of Illinois, which by perfect synchronicity is in our home town. 

To get any film made is a miracle. To conceive of a film like this is a greater miracle. How did Paley's mind work? She begins with the story of Ramayana, which is known to every school child in India but not to me. It tells the story of a brave, noble woman who was made to suffer because of the perfidy of a spineless husband and his mother. This is a story known to every school child in America. They learn it at their mother's knee. Paley depicts the story with exuberant drawings in bright colors. It is about a prince named Rama who treated Sita shamefully, although she loved him and was faithful to him.

Of course there is a lot more to it than that, involving a monkey army, a lustful king who occasionally grows 10 heads, synchronized birds, a chorus line of gurus, and a tap-dancing moon. It coils around and around, as Indian epic tales are known to do. Even the Indians can't always figure them out. In addition to her characters talking, Paley adds another level of dialogue: Three voice-over modern Indians, ad-libbing as they try to get the story straight. Was Sita wearing jewelry or not? How long was she a prisoner in exile? How did the rescue monkey come into the picture? These voices are as funny as an SNL skit, and the Indian accent gives them charm: "What a challenge, these stories!"

Sita, the heroine, reminds me a little of the immortal Betty Boop. But her singing voice is sexier. Paley synchs her life story and singing and dancing with recordings of the American jazz singer Annette Hanshaw (1901-1985), a big star in the 1920s and 1930s who was known as "The Personality Girl." Sita lived around 1000 BCE, a date which inspires lively debate among the three Indians discussing her. But when her husband outrageously accuses her of adultery and kicks her on top of a flaming pyre, we know exactly how she feels when Annette Hanshaw sings her big hit, "Mean to Me."

There is another level. In San Francisco, we meet an American couple, young and in love, named Dave and Nina, and their cat, named Lexi. Oh, they are in love. But Dave flies off to take a "temporary" job in India, Nina pines for him, she flies to join him in India but he is cold to her, and when she returns home she receives a cruel message: "Don't come back. Love, Dave." Nina despairs. Lexi despairs. Cockroaches fill her apartment but she hardly notices. One day in her deepest gloom she picks up the book Ramayana and starts to read. Inspiration begins to warm the cold embers of her heart.

There are uncanny parallels between her life and Sita's. Both were betrayed by the men they loved. Both were separated by long journeys. Both died (Sita really, Nina symbolically) and were reborn--Sita in the form of a lotus flower, Nina in the form of an outraged woman who moves to Brooklyn, sits down at her home computer for five years and creates this film. Yes, she reveals in her bio that her then-husband "terminated" their marriage while he was still in India. No ex-husband has inspired a greater cultural contribution since Michael Huffington.

One remarkable thing about "Sita Sings the Blues" is how versatile the animation is. Paley works entirely in 2-D with strict rules, so that characters remain within their own plane, which overlaps with others. This sounds like a limitation. Actually, it is the source of much amusement. Comedy often depends on the device of establishing unbreakable rules and then finding ways to cheat on them and surprise you. The laughs Paley gets here with 2-D would be the envy of an animator in 3-D. She discovers dimensions where none exist.

Consider Sita's curvaceous booty. When she sings an upbeat or sexy song, it rotates like a seductive pendulum, in counterpoint to her bodacious boobs. Look at those synchronized birds overhead. When they return they have a surprise, and they get a surprise. Regard the marching greybeards. Watch Hanuman's dragging tail set a palace on fire. The animation style of the scenes set in San Francisco and Brooklyn is completely different, essentially simple line drawings alive with personality. Look how Paley needs only a few lines to create a convincing cat. Sometimes, a little photography sneaks into the cityscapes, although you might overlook it.

I communicated with Paley about inviting her film, and then went to the film's website here to find out about her. She teaches at the Parsons School of Design, won a Guggenheim, and has come up with a plan that may be useful to all starving teachers of art: If you are a blogger and will take her out to lunch, she will plug your blog on her blog.

That's how to have lunch with Paley. But how can you see her film? "Sita" had its premiere at Berlin in February 2008, where it won a Silver Bear, and had its U.S. premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in April. It has not found a distributor. Times are hard, and indie distributors are not rolling in available funds. To them, no doubt, this doesn't have the ring of box office gold: An animated version of the epic Indian tale of Ramayana set to the 1920's jazz vocals of Annette Hanshaw. Once they read that, and they're like me: Uh, huh. And if you were to read that description in the mailer from your local art house, would you drop everything and race through driving rain see it? Uh, uh.

So here is my plan. Beginning in Chicago, I will enlist a cadre of starving art teachers, vengeful wives and resourceful Indian-Americans to work with the mailing lists of Facets, the Music Box, the Landmark and the Gene Siskel Film Center. They will break into the houses of those film lovers, throw mails bag over their heads, chain them to seats in a movie theater, and allow them to watch "Sita Sings the Blues." If they don't love it, let 'em sue me.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/having_wonderful_time_wish_you.html

[MinaiMinai]

I was finally able to watch this, and I'd say 50% of it I loved and 50% I thought was just okay.

I loved the very cartoony Ramayana parts with the Annette Hanshaw songs:
and I really loved the three narrators - I thought they were so funny - animated using a kind of collage style:
I was less engaged by the song-less Ramayana parts that looked like classical paintings:
and was also less engaged by the parts explicitly about Nina and her divorce, which had a comic strip-like style:

Simran_Singh- Your order of the parts you liked and then didn't like is how I felt too, in that exact order.  Visually, I found the parts about Nina a bit hard to watch- I don't like that hyper style of animation where the lines are always moving.  I did, however, adore the style found in the introduction- The way the lines wave and move, fading as if gently swaying in the ocean, are beautiful to look at. 

I haven't watched the whole thing all the way through yet, but was really struck by the stunning visuals.  I'm not a big fan of cartoons and don't know much about the latest happenings in animation, but her style seems groundbreaking to me.  When I was googling for more information about Nina and the film, I recall one site mentioning that she was very popular in the animation community.  Have the styles she uses, particularly the style in the beginning, been done before?   I'm still amazed she did it all herself on a computer. 

I also can understand how some people feel offended by the cutesy treatment of religious figures, among other things.  And particularly since these aren't just any religious characters, they are beloved gods.  I do feel, after watching the film, an itch to research more into the traditional story of the Ramayana, which I've just never got around to researching much, mostly because Indian mythology is often overwhelming to me!  But this would be a great time to do so. 

SepiaMutiny discussed the film and an exclusive interview with Nina on its blog today and, and the comments section has some very interesting, and constructive, critiques as well as praise: http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005661.html  In the interview, Nina mentions this sweet letter of praise from an Indian woman: http://blog.ninapaley.com/2008/12/01/a-sweeeet-letter/  I liked this part of the letter: "My personal favorite part of the feature was the commentary about the Ramayana by the three puppets.  I felt a strange sense of deja vu, as I am certain I have had many of the conversations before with my parents and siblings.  From the apparent incongruity of Sita throwing jewels when she was supposedly in her Sanyasi clothing, to ruminating on exactly what happened when and what  is the pronunciation for that demon’s name!"

[amit]

So the blog post I'd cited mentioned the issue of "cultural appropriation by whites" and seems that some of the commenters here disagreed that that was the case with SSTB and Ms. Paley. I'd be interested to know what their thoughts are regarding this issue: http://racerelations.about.com/od/racesports/a/nativeammascots.htm - and what framework will they use (or used, if they are already familiar with this issue) to analyze the "Native-American mascots used as sports symbols" issue and where do they stand on it. Is their stance consistent when applied to these two different instances of "cultural appropriation" with same/similar dynamics? If not, then what are the reasons?

There are many parallels between the two, right down to some Native-Americans being OK with the use of their mascots (and does that make it not-cultural-appropriation?), whereas other Native-Americans not being OK.

[MinaiMinai]

Balle Balle- The issue of "cultural appropriation" you raise is such an interesting and complex one.  What I found revealing was how Nina Paley discussed the use of culture on the SSTB website.  She writes: "Dear Audience, I hereby give Sita Sings the Blues to you. Like all culture, it belongs to you already, but I am making it explicit with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License. Please distribute, copy, share, archive, and show Sita Sings the Blues. From the shared culture it came, and back into the shared culture it goes." 

I'm sure that this statement is largely related to the problems she's been having with copyright laws on the old songs she used, but it also seems to be explaining how she views the film as a whole and the Indian culture she has presented.  She seems to be saying that culture is universal and cannot really be stolen, appropriated, adopted, etc.   It's similar to one of the comments on the SepiaMutiny blog I linked to: "In my tradition we say that our myths and philosophical treatises are Universal and their wisdom applicable to all throughout time and space. This is a general belief across varying Hindu sects.  From that perspective Ms. Paley has not appropriated anything that isn't already her's just by virtue of being a soul, a part of the larger whole."

I can't quite articulate how I feel about these issues.  It's certainly complex, that's for sure (this blog link is fascinating.  A few of the comments touch on issues of Indian culture and its use: Yoga, words like "avatar" and "karma," etc.). 

[v9y]

I can't quite articulate how I feel about these issues.  It's certainly complex, that's for sure (this blog link is fascinating.  A few of the comments touch on issues of Indian culture and its use: Yoga, words like "avatar" and "karma," etc.). 

Thanks for the blog link. Fascinating discussion in the comments section.

[amit]

Balle Balle- The issue of "cultural appropriation" you raise is such an interesting and complex one. 

I can't quite articulate how I feel about these issues.  It's certainly complex, that's for sure (this blog link is fascinating.  A few of the comments touch on issues of Indian culture and its use: Yoga, words like "avatar" and "karma," etc.). 

MinaiMinai, I agree that it's a complex issue and not a simple black-and-white, and that's one of the reasons why it makes for an interesting discussion and an opportunity to learn. I also agree that sometimes, it's difficult to articulate why one feels a certain way.
I've read some posts on the ABW blog in the past but not this one, so thanks for the link - I found the comments quite interesting!!

I guess would people feel the same way, if Ms. Paley had made the same film, but used the mythology/culture of Native Americans (or African Americans) for example, and some of them were offended or had protested?

I remember listening to an NPR program a while ago where some Maoris were not happy with non-Maoris (well, not to beat around the bush, whites, presumably in New Zealand - more here on the term 'Pakeha') using Maori tattoos for their bodies. I don't know all the details, but I think in Maori culture/tradition, certain tattoos have a much greater significance than simply because it looks cool, and are associated with identity, genealogy and spirituality. Here's a link with some information: http://tattoo.about.com/cs/articles/a/maori_tamoko.htm

Anyway, all these incidents bring up interesting questions regarding freedom-of-speech and artist responsibility. I certainly don't have all the answers.

[Darshana]

The blog is interesting, and there is a variety of views expressed in a respectful way, but I essentially take a dim view of this effort to define "cultural appropriation," as a category of Bad Thing. 

I would say that you can get rid of it only at the pretty serious expense of getting rid of culture.  Culture appropriates - what could "culture" be if it did not appropriate?  where do people think this "one thing that is my culture" came from?    Any position "against" cultural appropriation involves a thing about What Is The Right Way To Understand This and The Wrong/Offensive/Vicitimizing to Somebody Way - very very very scary to me.
 
I guess if someone is interested in politics to the total exclusion of art and culture, they can generate rules and complaints about how creative people should and should not use what they encounter in life - in travels, reading, stuff they see in museums, stuff they walk by, stuff they study, stuff they don't study, melodies that float by them, stuff people tell them, stuff they are exposed to through Internet investigation or relationships, etc -- and hypothetically such a person won't feel the great loss that the imposition of these strictures would bring about -- but I can't support it.  Ultimately I feel protective of the freedom of the artist and, actually, of "culture" -- high, low, folk, educated -- to use what it encounters as it will.
 
To me the more something is in the category "art," the more individual it is, and, often, the more it's a thing we haven't seen/had before.  The artist uses what s/he uses, however she is going to.  There aren't any rules about what she can use and how, nor are their rules for assessing it.  To me, a legitimate assessment of an individual piece of work, whether it's a rap song, a comic book, or a Shakespeare play, starts with the individual experience of the viewer/reader/hearer. 
 
I don't of course cast out the possibility that my response to a particular thing, or somebody else's, would include some aspect of moral outrage, but for me it goes thing by thing.  And to me the idea that art and culture "should not offend" anybody is nightmarish.  I don't think I should send somebody a greeting card that offends her, but that is a social act, not a creative act.  I want to live in a world where I might run into things that will offend me.
 
I think it's a lot harder to articulate a good response to a work of art than it is to flag/tag/classify/regulate things, and myself I appreciate the former much more than the latter.