the politics of "cuteness"

Not too long ago in class, I mentioned the possibility of examining the so-called infantilization of Japanese pop culture in light of its origin, having grown out of the post-WWII era when memories of catastrophic death, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the American occupation still reeked of spilled blood. Helloooo, Hello Kitty, Doraemon, and other symbolic creations of sheer (and sometimes, downright weird) cuteness - instead of wielding weapons, often they'll blink you into a wild mesmerism of "Awww's" with those impossibly large and watery eyes. But what do these creatures signify? Do they speak to a time of stunted individual and national growth following the wartime traumas of being both perpetrator and victim? Do they illuminate the ways by which the U.S. as a kind of father-figure created a system of dependency with Japan by removing/replacing its former imperial system and re-writing its Constitution to erase "war as a sovereign right"?

This is where Takashi Murakami, a Tokyo-born and trained artist, steps in. A few years ago he showcased an exhibit called "Little Boy: The Arts of Japan's Exploding Subculture" - the "Little Boy" of the title serves as a direct reference to the name of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. In an art review from The New York Times, Roberta Smith suggests that Murakami's intention is to somehow reveal that not only is his country's national psyche reflected in its popular culture, but "the psyche of its chief protector, the United States." Do I buy this completely? Yes - and - No. But I think the success of the exhibit lies in its ability to jumpstart thinking of this breed, and extend what we usually associate with "cuteness" beyond the seeing eye. Murakami, it seems, turns "cuteness" on its head by adding another layer of the monstrous and violent to it. Below are a few examples of his work... what do you think "cuteness" as Murakami utilizes it means?