
(Published:
Art Etc. News & Views, 130, July, 2012: 5-7)
Born
of an Indian father and a white American mother, Sarina Khan Reddy
is a new face of the South Asian immigrant culture in the United
States. Her new media work intensely scrutinizes, among other
things, the hegemonic underpinnings of American world view. I met
with Sarina at a café in Newburyport, Massachusetts, to talk about
her life and the sharp political edge that defines her art.
Sarina Khan
Reddy: My father was born in Bhopal, north India. He came here for
his Ph.D. and decided to marry and stay in this country, against
his parent’s wishes. I was born here. My mother is American. So I
guess I am first-generation Indian-American. And as with most
Indian parents, my father always said….”you will be a doctor or an
engineer”…
Sunanda K
Sanyal: Did you go back to India to grow up?
SKR: We
went every summer. I have over forty cousins in Bhopal, Bombay,
and Delhi. I am very close to my Indian family. Later in life, I
studied engineering (as my father expected), and after my Master’s
degree in Chemical Engineering, I started working for Eastman
Kodak in R&D. I am still working there, now as a project manager
and software developer. But I’ve always been interested in art. So
early on, while I was creating technology at Eastman Kodak, I
decided that I would rather be the artist who uses technology
creatively. So I thought it was a long shot, but I applied to grad
school for an MFA. I don’t have an undergraduate degree in art,
but thought I’d apply and see what happens. At the time, I was
working with a non-profit foundation in south India that was
helping the local poor population; and they were also making
multimedia CDs of some of Indian mythologies / mantras / deities,
etc. So I was working for them and at the same time thinking what
I would put in my portfolio; and then it dawned on me. This
multimedia along with other work, gave me acceptance to grad
school. I was quite excited to get into the School of the
Museum of
Fine Arts
in Boston, and even more excited when I received my MFA in 2003.
SKS: So
you’re one of those hybrids with regard to your art education?
SKR:
Hybrid, yes! Yeah, undergrad and graduate degree in Chemical
Engineering, and then I went back for a graduate degree in art.
And the
Museum
School is perfect, because they let you do a little bit of
everything; you don’t have to concentrate in one field. I was able
to take printmaking, video, installation etc. The school is very
theory-based, which was fabulous for me! You really are able
research in depth what you’re interested in and then look for the
best medium to implement the ideas. For example, I have always
loved Indian design, and the exotic, and all of that. But when I
got to grad school, their first question was, “Well, why do
you like it?” So it was the first time that I really started to
critique and take apart….investigate what is the “Other”, what is
Orientalism…
SKS: Did
you get theoretical training before you went to grad school?
SKR: No, but I
had always been very political, and read a lot. Also, as an
engineer, I think we tend to analyze and take things apart….
SKS: But
engineers don’t typically read Baudrillard and Derrida. So I’m
wondering what led you to that.
SKR:
Well, I’ve always been extremely politicized. I have always loved
Noam Chomsky and have heard him speak many times at MIT. When
you’re looking at politics, you need to deconstruct things. So
when I got into art school, I took a literary theory class. And
when they started talking about Marx, I thought this is the way I
have always thought! It’s just that I didn’t have words or labels
for it. And I was thinking, why didn’t I study literary theory so
long ago?
My MFA thesis
show was entitled: The Great Game: A
New World Order?
(2003).
It
is a three-channel video, which explores the new colonization
embodied in globalization. Through comparative strategies, the
viewer is asked to examine the differences between the current
glorification of US war technology, the past glory of the
British Empire, and the glamorization of the 3rd
Reich as expressed in the Nazi propaganda film, Triumph of the
Will.
The items within the installation are an important part of
the artist and her extended family’s homes. Most of the sepia
photos are of the artist and her family.
SKS: Do
you think there is a fundamental difference between the
sensibility of an artist of South Asian origin who came here as an
adult and one who was born here?
SKR: I
think the important question is: Does an artist identify as
diasporic? And if so, the artist embodies the paradoxes of being
an American and being part of the South Asian Diaspora. I see
myself as being Western and Eastern, being the colonizer and the
colonized. Critically analyzing colonialism and at the same time
desiring a discredited history. These paradoxes can reveal the
remaking of a culture and counter what is out there in the
mainstream. I question the US role of imperialism here in this
country. And in
India,
I question the effects of colonialism. I feel I address in my work
the problematic of the American love for
India
for its exoticness. So being an American, I deconstruct that
desire; look at the theory behind it.
SKS: So
you’re suggesting that South Asian artists who are born here have
the advantage of belonging here, so that they can “look” at the
“look” of the West at the Other?
SKR:
Exactly. And I think the diasporic artist has the unique ability
to question the dominant paradigm.
SKS:
Yes, generally speaking. But I’m trying to locate a difference
between a diasporic artist who has spent half of her/his life in
India and someone who was born and raised here, one who has the
advantage of “looking” at the “look”.
SKR: I
think if you have spent half of your life in India, you’re going
to be more likely to critique
India
and glamorize the United States. I, on the other hand, critique
the American agenda harshly and at the same time critique my
desire for the “exotic
India”.
A lot of people are very offended by my work; they think it’s very
anti-American. But I feel if you’re not an American, you’re less
likely to do that, you know.
SKS:
Now, having been born and raised here, how do you see your own
gaze at India? You’re kind of an “outsider” there, right? How do
you reconcile that?
SKR:
Well, I don’t feel I have the ability to handle themes like the
Pakistan-Indian conflict. I feel that if I showed a work in India
on such theme, that’d be problematic because I don’t know that
problem so well.
SKS:
Did your father have particular ideas about raising you?
SKR:
Yeah. But he wasn’t religious, which was a great thing. But
socially, he was very, very Indian.
SKS:
Especially because you’re a woman.
SKR:
Well, yeah. I wasn’t allowed to date until I was in college. And
he wanted to have an arranged marriage on one hand, but he also
wanted me to be a highly successful engineer and my own person.
SKS:
So he was torn?
SKR:
He was very torn. So when I met Prakash, I said, “You must be so
happy because he is Indian.” But he pointed out that he was Hindu.
And then he also added that we are not a very religious family and
that the values of all Indians are the same and that is the most
important thing. And finally he said, “You are living in the US,
so this is a non-issue, but if you were living in India, it would
be a big problem.”
SKS:
It’d be interesting to see what he would say about the kind of art
you make. He never saw you go to graduate school.

SKR:
Yes. But he knew I was interested in art, although he thought of
it as a hobby.
SKS:
But the content…
SKR:
He would love the political content. He was very, very left wing.
SKS:
And what about your mother? What kind of say did she have in your
culturally hybrid childhood?
SKR:
My mother, on the other hand, was very liberal. She exposed me to
the arts and gave me the passion for hiking and skiing. These were
not that important to my father. I am very glad that I was
influenced by the values of both cultures.
SKS:
When something is framed by the current discourse of art, do you
think it’s too aestheticized to carry any political message?
SKR:
Yes, it’s appropriated by capitalism. But because I don’t have an
undergraduate art background, I try to use a lot of mainstream
media. So I hope more people understand it. I think the important
thing is for the viewer to learn to critique. To be able to
analyze, which is something not taught in our culture. So if they
can just start to question…that’s what I think political art
allows the viewer to do at the very least, not just propaganda. It
attempts to show the layers underneath. You might not agree with
what I’m saying, but at least it’s making you think how propaganda
is given to you. I don’t want to give more propaganda; I want you
to question propaganda, and peel away the layers. I want you to
know that there is an alternative way of looking and critiquing
everything.
SKS:
What about your projects through the last decade?
SKR:
I am working on several projects in video and installation. I also
have several photography series that I have been working on over
the last several years.
SKS:
What about the one involving Disney World?
SKR:
I became very interested in architecture, how we create unreal
spaces, whether it’s Las Vegas or Disneyland. The hotels in
Florida advertise Disney World as “You can go to India, without
getting Malaria”. Some people came to my show and said: “Yeah, I
was there! Cambodia, right?…” And I said, “No! This is Florida!”
Disney World is the most visited vacation destination on
the planet. Annually 46 million tourists visit the Orlando area.
So I decided to do a project there.

In the series
of photographs entitled Picture Spot (2008), I explore the
perpetuation of the colonialist image, the construction of the
exotic, in Disney’s theme park-- Animal Kingdom. I ask the
questions: What is authentic? What is the role of photography in
tourism? What happens when you construct a scene (a spot) for a
tourist snapshot? Does this perpetuate the construction of the
other?
SKS:
So your point is to confuse the viewer, to make the case that
simulations look real in photographs?
SKR: Yes. I
didn’t change anything in the photos.
At
first glance, they are typical tourist photos of South Asia. But
then, you notice --a pasty white arm waving from a plastic paddle
boat, a handicap accessible symbol on a rickshaw, a McDonald’s
French fry container crudely painted on a stucco wall- and the
scenes begins to morph disturbingly before our eyes. These small
clues hint at the crisis of representation that the series
explores. It becomes clear that we’re looking at a simulacrum of
exotic Asia, a life-sized diorama, inscribed with colonialist
quaintness.
SKS:
Your photos even show how English words are often spelt
incorrectly in India.
SKR:
Yes, they re-wrote them! That’s unbelievable!
Disney has created the third world that was always targeted by
imperialism-climate controlled, easily escaped, conveniently free
of ‘natives’ and catered by McDonald’s.
SKS:
Any contemporary artists who interest you, and why?
SKR:
Recently I saw a show entitled Six Artists from Cairo at the MFA
(Museum of Fine arts, Boston) and heard a lecture by one of the
artist, Shady El Noshokata. His work was very interesting about
what identity is. And what an artist is. I also am interested and
have been influenced by Marina Abramovic, especially by her recent
show at MoMA, The Artist is Present. One very powerful
performance of open-eye mediation she did with viewers has brought
up a lot of aspects of ancient Indian spirituality that I am
looking at in my latest work.
Friday, January 27, 2012.
|