|
Obdicut posted:Nah, those are both really important distinctions. In the first case, one kind of borrowing is both destructive and is likely to lose important parts of the original when borrowed, so that even if you're ascribing to the 'outsiders challenge the insiders' thing (which is of limited truth because insiders challenge the dominant paradigm all the drat time) then it's obviously better if you actually know what you're challenging in the first place. To put it in musical terms, at one end of the scale you have Mulatu Astatke, participating, borrowing, blending, being a cool-rear end dude, and on the other hand you have Michael Bolton, rifling through various musical styles to find a genre where he could be commercially successful, and finding it in the area of music that is the heart of appropriation, easy listening, which sands off any remotely challenging or outsider element from music to present it. Your problem with Michael Bolton is what, exactly. He's making art. Some people like his art. The heart of your distinction appears to be an aesthetic judgement, not an ethical one, that Michael Bolton is bad at art or is making bad art, not that what he's doing is categorically different from whoever that other guy I've never heard of is.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
Why don't we pick an example where there's more aesthetic gray area and talk about primitivism in Picasso, Gaugin and those guys. Do you really think they were being respectful of or deeply knowledgeable about the cultures they were appropriating?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:Your problem with Michael Bolton is what, exactly. He's making art. Some people like his art. The heart of your distinction appears to be an aesthetic judgement, not an ethical one, that Michael Bolton is bad at art or is making bad art, not that what he's doing is categorically different from whoever that other guy I've never heard of is. No, I'm saying he's categorically different. dogcrash truther posted:Why don't we pick an example where there's more aesthetic gray area and talk about primitivism in Picasso, Gaugin and those guys. Do you really think they were being respectful of or deeply knowledgeable about the cultures they were appropriating? Probably not. Did you get the bit about how you can both appropriate and create great art?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It makes it all the more ethical imperative to try your absolute best to include that minority group, on every level, I agree. Yeah man, like seriously how can you judge the validity of an opinion in my head man, I'm the one experiencing it and its valid to me man. People aren't offended by interracial marriage because seeing a black man releases a hormone, its because they have lovely, invalid as gently caress opinions. And yes, the legitimacy of someone's offense goes directly to the legitimacy of the moral imperative not to offend them. If a tiny group of people have a legitimate reason to be offended about something then you're probably an rear end in a top hat if you ignore them. If a massive group of people have a totally illegitimate reason to be offended (see: interracial marriage circa 1960) then the moral imperative may actually be to tell them to gently caress off. Also this retreat to trying to debate whether someone's offensive can really be called invalid because its their feels is a shining example of your constant goal post shifting, disingenuously pedantic bullshit posting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, I'm saying he's categorically different. Your whole story about him rifling through various musical genres to find one where he could be commercially successful is a just-so story. You have no idea how he creates the music he creates or what his intent is. Do you think it matters? Obdicut posted:Probably not. Did you get the bit about how you can both appropriate and create great art? Okay then. So you don't think great art is worth it, or what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:Your whole story about him rifling through various musical genres to find one where he could be commercially successful is a just-so story. You have no idea how he creates the music he creates or what his intent is. Do you think it matters? IN terms of the music? Yes. I think that people who go and look at the roots of something, people who go and participate, who get the experience of the insiders, who expose themselves to differences, are generally going to be better than those who don't. Weirdly, your argument is both that outsiders can change a genre in a way that insiders can't--which is pretty farcical to me because insiders challenge stuff all the time--and that it doesn't matter how you approach art, which would seem to invalidate your belief outsiders can be more valuable than insiders in challenging the art form. quote:Okay then. So you don't think great art is worth it, or what? I don't think it's necessary to appropriate, either at the individual artistic level--you can participate instead--or at the economic level of the studios, or the cultural level of the critics, or the political level of the treatment of that music. Great art is great art, even if it's made by someone who murdered the gently caress out of dudes or was just an enormous shithead. I'm saying appropriation isn't necessary, you can do it in less harmful ways. You can also not give a poo poo and create great art. If all you care about is creating great art, and don't care about minorities being erased or not economically benefiting while you make money off of their poo poo, you can go for it, and I don't think there's any legalistic way of stopping you. I'm saying you don't have to, you can do it the better way--as many, many musicians have. Has their doing so removed all of the appropriation from the system? No, partially because some appropriate, and partially because of the other people in the system, who I already talked about--the mangers, radio station owners, politicians, etc--who culturally appropriate. But it helped. Jarmak posted:Yeah man, like seriously how can you judge the validity of an opinion in my head man, I'm the one experiencing it and its valid to me man. I agree that race is bullshit, and a social construct, so yeah, you can call their opinions 'invalid' if you want. They are stil actually offended. It's just it's fine if they are offended. It's kind of a good thing. Offense shouldn't automatically be catered to. quote:And yes, the legitimacy of someone's offense goes directly to the legitimacy of the moral imperative not to offend them. Okay, well I think you're wording things extremely bizarrely but I don't really disagree. quote:If a tiny group of people have a legitimate reason to be offended about something then you're probably an rear end in a top hat if you ignore them. If a massive group of people have a totally illegitimate reason to be offended (see: interracial marriage circa 1960) then the moral imperative may actually be to tell them to gently caress off. This is true, and I haven't ever argued anything against this. quote:lso this retreat to trying to debate whether someone's offensive can really be called invalid because its their feels is a shining example of your constant goal post shifting, disingenuously pedantic bullshit posting. It's not a retreat. It's just a reality. You for some reason decided that meant I thought all offenses should be catered to, which I never in the least bit implied. I'm saying that if people are offended and it's not for some lovely reason like they think other people are inferior, take that into account as a decent human being. If for some reason you think that holding cultural icons dear and being offended by seeing them abused or misused by people who don't understand them is like being offended at interracial marriage, then you and I disagree. I think the latter may be kinda trivial, but it's not from some hateful place. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Black people make music like this: *enjoys a rich tapestry of art from all cultures taking inspiration from a diverse selection of influences. He has created a poignant work of art.* White people make music like this: *cynically markets race music to suburban youth. Despite his commercial success, he doesn't understand or enjoy the source material.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
I like how we're at the level of distance from reality that we're basically arguing whether black-face minstrel shows are appropriation. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It makes it all the more ethical imperative to try your absolute best to include that minority group, on every level, I agree. Outrage can totally be illegitimate and you even provided a suitable example in the bolded part of your post. You even seem to agree with that, given that you told it's perfectly OK to ignore someone's indignation from various reasons. It's natural to shun some values and opinions and even the most stalwart social justice activists tend to do that. A half of this thread is composed of angry posters calling others names for not agreeing with their definition of cultural appropriation. The only time when some of them pretend that judging others is wrong is when their side is attacked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Honestly I think it would be more productive to talk about how appropriation is a part of cultural diffusion as a whole. Not sure its within the scope of the thread tbh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
With regard to the Japanese tattoo discussion, has it been brought up that tattoos are strongly associated with criminality in Japan? That kind of makes trendy kanji tattoos extra problematic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:With regard to the Japanese tattoo discussion, has it been brought up that tattoos are strongly associated with criminality in Japan? That kind of makes trendy kanji tattoos extra problematic. Problematic if the tattooed wants to visit an onsen, but problematic in any other way? Are kanji tattooes more problematic than, say, an Arabic tattoo? A Hebrew tattoo? Are certain ethnicities of tattooed people more problematic? What if it's a Korean person with a kanji tattoo? What if a person with the kanji tattoo is an atheist Lithuanian homosexual Marxist member of Anti-Racist Action with a felony conviction? I really just want to know how to analyze these things Correctly. It would help if, like, we had color codes or something like that. Some sort of obvious way to, you know, segregate people as problematic or unproblematic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Kanji (or other foreign language not understood by the wearer) tattoos seem to be about on par with the sari example in the OP, to me. I.e not taking something that is sacred, but fetishising/dressing up in exotica to make whitebread people feel ~unique~
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Kanji (or other foreign language not understood by the wearer) tattoos seem to be about on par with the sari example in the OP, to me. I.e not taking something that is sacred, but fetishising/dressing up in exotica to make whitebread people feel ~unique~
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Re: Tattoos Maori appropriation is waaaaay worse and since this thread has trouble with even admitting the concept exists, why don't we stick with the more blatant examples. I mean we had disagreements on blackface...
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
A more interesting discussion about Cultural Appropriation might be is how you can't actually stop it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:With regard to the Japanese tattoo discussion, has it been brought up that tattoos are strongly associated with criminality in Japan? That kind of makes trendy kanji tattoos extra problematic. Yep. I brought it up as a reason why it wouldn't really be an attempt to connect with Japanese culture, unless you happen to be from one of the subcultures that tattoos. Zeitgueist posted:Re: Tattoos Especially when there's a really easy remedy, just go to a Maori tattooist. Venom Snake posted:A more interesting discussion about Cultural Appropriation might be is how you can't actually stop it. Can't stop murder either. Oh what a world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Can't stop murder either. Oh what a world. I don't think your going to get a law passed that disallows people from being blatantly racist and stupid. People like Iggy will exist till the end of time, and be mocked till the end of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Re: Tattoos Well yeah, I was just comparing the more innocuous forms of borrowing fashion and tattoos. Although the kanji example isn't really the same when I think about it, because Japanese people traditionally don't tattoo kanji on themselves. Tā moko (Māori tattoos) are about equivalent to war bonnets I think. They are very tapu (where the word "taboo" comes from, but means sacred as well as forbidden), doubly so for facial tattoos because the head is highly tapu as well. Haka are the same, btw, so drunk tourists or other randos doing them is mad disrespectful. But as Obdicut said, there aren't usually any issues if you just ask for permission. It's funny, I didn't realise for the longest time that those spiky "tribal" tattoos were meant to be aping Polynesian ones at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Maori appropriation is waaaaay worse and since this thread has trouble with even admitting the concept exists, why don't we stick with the more blatant examples. How is it waaaaay worse? Say someone in Norway, someone who has never been to New Zealand or met a Maori, has some heavy Maori tattooing because he appreciates them aesthetically. How is this harmful to individual Maori, or Maori culture? This is how debate works. You have to walk the skeptics through your reasoning, how you arrive at a conclusion. I don't understand how your example is 'worse' (I assume 'worse' means some kind of harm).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:I don't think your going to get a law passed that disallows people from being blatantly racist and stupid. People like Iggy will exist till the end of time, and be mocked till the end of time. I don't think I want a law like that passed, nor do I think you've read anything I've said in the thread, if you think I do. You can't stop racism. You can't stop cultural appropriation. You can reduce each of them, you can ameliorate the harms of each of them. Just like with most stuff. TheImmigrant posted:
For example if you assert that 'cultural appropriation is uselessly vague', and someone challenges you to explain how that's so, and why it doesn't apply to, oh, pretty much any term ever, if you're not a shitposter you'll actually defend your assertion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:For example if you assert that 'cultural appropriation is uselessly vague', and someone challenges you to explain how that's so, and why it doesn't apply to, oh, pretty much any term ever, if you're not a shitposter you'll actually defend your assertion. What's a shitposter? Is that, like, an uncool person who isn't in the Gang? Is it credited cool to leg-hump people whose points you are unable to address?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:41
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:What's a shitposter? Is that, like, an uncool person who isn't in the Gang? Is it credited cool to leg-hump people whose points you are unable to address? Obdicut isn't humping your leg at all that I can see, but if he keeps doing it, you have my support in pressing charges.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:How is it waaaaay worse? Say someone in Norway, someone who has never been to New Zealand or met a Maori, has some heavy Maori tattooing because he appreciates them aesthetically. How is this harmful to individual Maori, or Maori culture? It's theft of their intellectual property
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:What's a shitposter? Is that, like, an uncool person who isn't in the Gang? Is it credited cool to leg-hump people whose points you are unable to address? I'm not sure what you're talking about. LIke I said, you appear to be shitposting because all you do is assert a bunch of poo poo and can't, or won't, respond to points made against you. Like the one I've repeatedly raised--your very vague claim that cultural appropriation is too vague a term to use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
I think that all anybody important has ever asked about cultural appropriation is that the people who were not aware of it become aware of it, and if they have naïvely consumed whitened forms of their traditions, to seek out the original forms. If they seem angry or talk about "stealing," don't get upset or fixated on it. Just be aware of culturally appropriated forms and seek out the originals. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:It's theft of their intellectual property Exclamation Marx posted:But as Obdicut said, there aren't usually any issues if you just ask for permission. If Maori tattoos are the collective intellectual property of all living Maori, the permission of one or a few Maori doesn't give you the right to steal the intellectual property of the rest, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:It's theft of their intellectual property Specific designs can be intellectual property, but black-ink face tattoos cannot be. A culture can't own intellectual property though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Let me make some political justification for making fun of a white guy in dreds so i feel better about it. Next: trying to find a political justification for making fun of fat people. You're really waking them up. Really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Let me make some political justification for making fun of a white guy in dreds so i feel better about it. Next: trying to find a political justification for making fun of fat people. You're really waking them up. Really. "You look like a poseur twat" is good enough. Why do they have to be labeled racist too?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:IN terms of the music? Yes. I think that people who go and look at the roots of something, people who go and participate, who get the experience of the insiders, who expose themselves to differences, are generally going to be better than those who don't. Ok, well I think this is an aesthetic version of the just-world fallacy, in which artists are somehow rewarded for their cultural sensitivity with greater art. Obdicut posted:I don't think it's necessary to appropriate, either at the individual artistic level--you can participate instead--or at the economic level of the studios, or the cultural level of the critics, or the political level of the treatment of that music. Great art is great art, even if it's made by someone who murdered the gently caress out of dudes or was just an enormous shithead. I think cultural appropriation is unavoidable, even by well-intentioned artists, anytime they start looking outside of their specific cultural context for inspiration or content. I also think this is not a problem because it's just culture. My perception, maybe wrong, is that you and others think that culture deserves some special consideration and that it harms people if something that they think is "their" culture becomes associated with a different group instead. All of the other stuff you're talking about -- economic benefit from art and what have you -- is a different issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:"You look like a poseur twat" is good enough. Why do they have to be labeled racist too? You could label them racist, or as I said you could encourage them to increase the awareness of the culture from which they have appropriated forms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If Maori tattoos are the collective intellectual property of all living Maori, the permission of one or a few Maori doesn't give you the right to steal the intellectual property of the rest, right? TheImmigrant posted:Specific designs can be intellectual property, but black-ink face tattoos cannot be. A culture can't own intellectual property though. No one is talking about all face tattoos. Maori tattoos are different in style to Samoan tattoos, or Tongan tattoos, or Fijian tattoos, and are designed individually for the wearer. There is a long history of fetishism of them, e.g. British colonials stealing tattooed shrunken heads because they liked the way they looked. Your second point isn't true either; the famous Ka Mate haka is legally owned by Ngāti Toa, for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:Ok, well I think this is an aesthetic version of the just-world fallacy, in which artists are somehow rewarded for their cultural sensitivity with greater art. I think if you talk to any musician they'll tell you that actually going and hearing the roots of music is inspirational and helpful. quote:I think cultural appropriation is unavoidable, even by well-intentioned artists, anytime they start looking outside of their specific cultural context for inspiration or content. I also think this is not a problem because it's just culture. My perception, maybe wrong, is that you and others think that culture deserves some special consideration and that it harms people if something that they think is "their" culture becomes associated with a different group instead. Sometimes. It can be done respectfully and make people happy, too. quote:All of the other stuff you're talking about -- economic benefit from art and what have you -- is a different issue. It's another fact of the same issue, but I agree with you--and have since the beginning--that the artistic part of it on its own can be the least problematic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Let me make some political justification for making fun of a white guy in dreds so i feel better about it. Next: trying to find a political justification for making fun of fat people. You're really waking them up. Really. Fat people are unhealthy, but more on point you can just google 'pepsi tattoo' to see how silly the intellectual property argument is in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think anybody is talking about somebody like George Harrison, who really took the time to learn about Indian classical music and put his teacher, Ravi Shankar, in the spotlight. He didn't just buy one of those Danelectro sitar guitars and start trying to play fake poo poo. But even diligent students and archivists of art forms can engage in forms of cultural appropriation. It's what happened with Alan Lomax and Leadbelly. Nobody can take away from the enormity of Lomax's accomplishments for the Library of Congress in recording both traditional black music and developing trends. If not for his work, much of the history of blues and jazz would be unknown. But ultimately he selected and promoted artists through his own bias, and the way he used Leadbelly's hard upbringing and criminal past to make him exemplify a "blues musician" was shameful. No white artist needed to take on the forms in order for white culture to shape and redefine black art. Whites saw what they wanted to see. At the same time, Lomax deplored gospel, which he saw as too refined and a sharp departure from the "field music" he had spent so long archiving. Truth be told, he saw field music as the kind it was blacks' place to sing. That's cultural appropriation; taking what you want, that which reinforces your existing prejudices. You enjoy the "exotic" flavor of the art, and when it's brought to your attention that many of those people are suffering, you think "well, suffering makes for great art!" It's a power relationship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You could label them racist, or as I said you could encourage them to increase the awareness of the culture from which they have appropriated forms. Is a non-rastafari black guy appropriating when he wears dreds or does he get a pass because of strategic essentialism? Are rastas appropriating Spartan culture? unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm not sure what you're talking about. LIke I said, you appear to be shitposting because all you do is assert a bunch of poo poo and can't, or won't, respond to points made against you. Like the one I've repeatedly raised--your very vague claim that cultural appropriation is too vague a term to use. You never made any point, you never made any sort of connection as to why the reasoning he was using applied to racism, you just randomly decide to assert he had to prove a negative in order for his statement to be valid. You again, and again, and again, try to evade and re-frame an argument to be about some bullshit pedantic derail instead of addressing whats actually being discussed or the point being made, and then by the time we get back on topic you pretend like the original point being made never existed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You never made any point, you never made any sort of connection as to why the reasoning he was using applied to racism, you just randomly decide to assert he had to prove a negative in order for his statement to be valid. It's a completely valid thing to say, if someone objects to something as 'not useful', point out that it shares quality with another term that gets used all the time and is useful. It did lead to the hilarity of people claiming that racism was also useless as a term. But not him. quote:You again, and again, and again, try to evade and re-frame an argument to be about some bullshit pedantic derail instead of addressing whats actually being discussed or the point being made, and then by the time we get back on topic you pretend like the original point being made never existed. Nah, I tend to respond really fully to people and lay my arguments out straightforward, and they're reasonable. I've said cultural appropriation exists, gave examples of it, talked about how, yes, it can be very trivial, and that a lot of it wasn't legislatable at all, only culturally fixable. The remedies I've suggested have been small-scale, easily achievable, and reasonable. Go on frothing about this other me though, he sounds like a slippery devil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
Why is the geisha thing 'cultural appropriation'? Isn't it just a business model, like any other form of sex-trade work?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 03:20
|
|
