In class on Wednesday, we had a heated discussion about Aliaa Elmahdy’s nude self-photography. What does it mean? What is she trying to portray? Does she accomplish anything? One point raised, which I took particular issue with, was the argument over her intention. Other students expressed frustration that Elmahdy’s intention was not more explicitly stated. However, in my opinion, this is the entire purpose of art. Art is not explicitly stated, that would be a work of nonfiction. Art is to be interpreted. Art is provocative in that it provokes thought. The viewer has to work to ponder and extract meaning; the meaning is not necessarily inherent, nor is the meaning one static entity. In this sense, the meaning is fluid.

This is not, however, to say that artists of various sorts have not attempted to control their message or reorient it after its original release. Enter, a brief personal story. When I first got to NYU Abu Dhabi back in January, Ela and I got super lost exploring our new temporary home. For a campus with only a few buildings, it was astonishing how much could be discovered around each twist and turn. “It’s just like Hogwarts,” Ela kept repeating. We laughed at the nerdy comparison, but I had to wonder… wouldn’t Hogwarts be better if it was more like NYUAD? Shouldn’t a magical castle for magical people have a diverse international community like NYUAD?  Well, Potterheads for more than a decade now have asked this question. However, the difference between Elmahdy and JK Rowling is that Rowling does clarify her work. And it hasn’t worked very well for her.

JK Rowling has fallen under much criticism in recent years (as illustrated beautifully by this Bustle article) for attempting to make her Harry Potter series retroactively progressive. She has released additional canon for years after officially wrapping the series in 2007, via interview, Pottermore fiction, and most famously: tweet. She has taken opportunities to proclaim that Dumbledore was “intended to be” gay, or that Hermione was black, or that Hogwarts was actually a very religiously inclusive space.

However, the issue with this is twofold. For one, it is incredibly problematic to take credit for writing diverse and inclusive literature in an after-the-fact manner. If Rowling had truly wanted to convey blackness and queerness in her fictional Hogwarts, she should have made an effort to make these characters icons for young readers that rarely see themselves represented in their favorite novels. Instead, she capitalized on the loopholes offered by her own vague descriptions of characters to say “look, this is what I meant. Look how progressive I am!”

But secondly, Rowling’s consistent clarifying and deepening of the Wizarding World that she imagined actually hinders the reading experience for many readers. By pointing to certain fan theories as false, or clarifying what she meant in areas of vagueness, she breaks the very rules of imagination by strictly defining her imagined world. By continuing to write, rewrite, and rewrite a closed book, Rowling limits the reader’s personal artistic interpretation.

This is why I believe it would be wrong for Elmahdy to release a sweeping statement clarifying the intention of her nude portraiture. It limits the artistic interpretations that each individual has in reaction to seeing it. It might make a viewer angry, wanting to cover her up or telling her that she is bad for a movement. But the beauty of artwork is in its fickle “eye of the beholder” nature.

Side note: All the Harry Potter books are banned in Emirati schools, because the magic and witchcraft themes are deemed un-islamic. I think that’s really interesting, and maybe something we could explore.