On Cultural Appropriation
(copied from an email I sent to a student, who asked about this as part of our âoffice hoursâ--thought tumblr could find it interesting) Thank you also for your question--please forgive the extra time I've taken to give it proper attention.
The question of cultural appropriation is certainly a complex one.Â
Our general contemporary understanding boils down to: "do not take what isn't yours, and definitely do not use it disrespectfully," however, this simplification relies on certain absolutes (what does "yours" mean, what does "taking" mean?) that can feel confusing or impossibly, even unnaturally rigid. Â
On "Owning":
The fact is that no artwork or cultural product is going to be a purely "authentic" in an essential way, because no culture is static and unchanging. All cultures have histories, with various ancestors and influences from whom they've adapted and translated their traditions. As the members of that culture live into the present, those traditions will keep adapting in response to the new cultures, artworks, and ideas that they come in contact with. I frequently say in my classes (paraphrasing the art citic, Stuart Hall), "when you have found something purely authentic, what you have really found is the end of your memory." Especially as our world expands, most artists today have come in contact with thousands of different artistic and visual traditions, which we both consciously and sometimes unconsciously translate into our work.
Accepting that human cultures are essentially syncretic, and that almost all of the artwork or cultural products we encounter are fusions or translations of other artworks or traditions, how do we navigate the question of "owning" something or "stealing" something?
I think it is also important to recognize that a relationship between a people and their traditions (artistic and otherwise) can be profound without being "pure." Native Americans in this country have a profound relationship to their ancestral lands that is felt through the thousands of generations who have become part of that ground and through the spirituality that connects their original, and identity-forming, myths to specific features of the landscape--whether they initially migrated from across the Bering Strait or not. Although African American women did not invent quilting, the tradition of quilt-making in the American south and the way that quilts were used to preserve stories, hide messages, and express creativity despite significant barriers to this kind of self-expression makes these quilts an important part of black southern visual tradition (consider the Gee's Bend quilts and some examples of African-American story quilts).
In this sense, we can think of "owning" as the result of a profound relationship to a (visual, etc.) tradition or practice, based on an ancestral relationship to it; its contribution to one's sense of identity; its centrality to one's spiritual traditions, etc.Â
On "Stealing":
Ideas (traditions, artistic styles, materials, images, etc.) can move from one culture to another in various ways. Though gifts (travelers bringing their culture's treasures to their host, or teaching their practice where they go), through imitation (travelers recreating what they've seen elsewhere out of admiration or curiosity), through assimilation (moving to a new place and adapting the traditions that already exist there, sometimes mixing them with their own), through conquest (one culture taking over the other, and absorbing what was there into their own culture and/or forcing the original inhabitants of that culture to assimilate into the new dominant one), through theft/misappropriation (forcibly taking artwork from a place or person and thereby changing its meaning through a change of context), etc.
Being aware of how this contact happens is the most important question to ask when Identifying whether we are looking at syncretism or cultural appropriation/misappropriation. When you want to analyze a moment of cultural contact is to ask: who are the actors in this exchange? Who is in control of how, and whether, this exchange happened?
For example: In the case of Van Gogh's use of Japanese prints and brushwork technique to develop his own signature style (he translated their visible brushwork into thick oil paints and focused on the humble beauty of countryside and daily life in the same way Hiroshige did, actually copying some of Hiroshige's prints as practice: see here), We can see that Van Gogh did not have control over Japan's artistic production through political, economic, or other means. Japan was considered a relatively equal peer to France, and Van Gogh considered Hokusai and Hiroshige as artists equal to (if not superior to), even if he exotified them in the process. For their part, Hokusai and Hiroshige were freely sharing their artwork with the west, and had chosen to adapt western techniques of perspective in their own work as well. While Van Gogh was certainly "appropriating" Japanese technique, this should not be considered "theft."
By comparison, Picasso's "invention" of cubism was also influenced by another culture. Cubism is essentially the translation of three-dimensional African masks into two-dimensional paintings. However, Picasso encountered these masks in exhibitions of stolen artifacts (not given willingly, but forcibly removed from the palaces, altars, and homes of African people by European colonial forces, both out of curiosity and because the Europeans knew that separating African peoples from their sacred and royal objects would damage their sense of self and will to fight, aiding in their imperial conquest.) Although Picasso clearly admired the formal qualities of these objects, he did not see the people who created them as artists, famously saying in 1907: "African art? Never heard of it!" (âLâart negre? Connais Pas!â) At the time, France was exerting significant military, political, and economic power over African people, from which Picasso benefitted: he could claim African influences as his own without any africans contradicting him, because he had a privilege to be heard and respected that they didn't have. Furthermore, Picasso was exalted for his invention of a new form of art, making money and building his reputation, while the African people from whom he had appropriated these forms continued to be disrespected and in many places forbidden from making these for their original spiritual and political purposes. In this case, understanding this point of cultural contact as "cultural appropriation" and âtheftâ is clear.
As you navigate contemporary questions of cultural appropriation, ask yourself the following:
Who might have a profound, identity-based or ancestral relationship to this practice?Â
Who is in control of the exchange?Â
Does one person have political or economic privilege over the other? (I.e: white Americans over Native Americans, Black People, immigrants; academics over uneducated people; autonomous citizens over incarcerated, or institutionalized people?)
Does the culture from which the practice organization/that has a profound attachment to this practice have the power to refuse the exchange--what are the consequences to them of if they do refuse? (i.e: seriously impoverished nations may not be able to survive economically without the influx of tourism to their sacred spaces, ceremonies, and imagery)
Is someone benefiting--making money/building their reputation--from the practice they are borrowing? Is any of that money or acclaim being shared with the "owners" of the practice?Â
Are the "owners" of the practice recognized as peers by the person borrowing it? Are they named? Referred to as artists? compensated? credited? Treated with respect? Or are they treated as ignorant, "accidental" producers of something only the borrowing artist and elite culture can understand and appreciate?Â
Is the "borrower" of the practice considered the expert of that practice?
I'm happy to talk about this more if you have additional questions (as you can see, I have spent quite a bit of time with the subject). In the meantime, I hope this offers you some clarity, and some things to think about!
Best,
