002 — Why cultural appropriation might be the death of meaningful art
Why do some individuals from our society blame artists and people so vehemently when it comes to cultural appropriation?
A simple question, yet with such complex answers as there are opinions in the public space. I don’t pretend to know the proper solution, nor do I have the idea this is more than just another drop in the great ocean of things said in the cloud.
The main question on my mind regarding this issue is >> What if we are wrong?
Can we admit that some people borrow, wear or use certain artistic influences that don’t represent their own culture in their art out of sheer love and admiration for that object? If these artists use it with the mindset of genuine respect or appreciation, are they wrong to use it? Is there an absolute on this issue? Some people argue that if it’s not from your culture, you are not allowed to use it. Are things that simple? I prefer not to adhere to that vision. Although I agree that some appropriations are completely wrong, I can’t state with certainty that everything not belonging to your culture can’t be used in good faith.
I want to mention Picasso as an artist who changed people’s understanding of modern art. He was inspired by African and Oceania art, even bluntly stole from these anonymous artists, yet he never fully admitted it. We might never know his reasons for being so secretive about his admiration and clear inspiration. Still, we can accept his works are groundbreaking. His ability to create and develop art has stirred things a little, motivating others to do the same. He managed to break the locked spaces of museums and art galleries, bringing traditional art to the masses. Of course, his achievements are not singular, nor was he the only one doing that, but he is one of the greats. We’ll never know for sure if Picasso would have been radically different without this subtle act of cultural appropriation, yet he was a veritable talent at it. I think the world would be a bit less beautiful without all the work these humans bestowed upon us. The argument against his attitude is valid, yet on this occasion, can we say that “the goal excuses the means”?
Maybe we can condemn him, although he is the one that inspired many generations of artists to reach their creative peak. Pablo Picasso is one that hopefully will stand the turmoil of the time and help others be as creative as he was. His body of work is a legacy the world needs, and based upon it, the world can evolve, not only in the artistic field.
So, I came up with another question >> What if we have the next Picasso in our midst, but she/he’s too afraid to act upon his inspiration and scared that she will be dragged into the online mud for borrowing or using other people’s arts or cultures as inspiration?
Are we ready to sacrifice this creative potentiality in the name of absolute righteousness? Maybe that person does it wrongfully, but they are so many specific situations that we’ll never know the outcome until we let that person try it.
Being radical is a double edge sword. The world had seen situations when radical thinking brought a fundamental change in society. Abolishing slavery was a profound thought at the time, unwelcomed by many, yet extremely necessary and senseless that it didn’t happen earlier. The list of normal moral transformations is long, and probably most of them have roots in radical thinking compared to their age. Thinkers who saw a problem were smart enough to understand it and come up with a solution. Those times are slowly fading as the problems in developed nations are less clear. In the 18th century, cultural appropriation was bluntly stealing parts of the Parthenon and placing them in the British Museum. The wrong was clear and inexcusable.
Today, using Zorba music in a Hollywood movie might be seen as inappropriate from one point of view or appreciated from another. The line is fine, and the thread is uncertain.
Dragging people all over the muddy slime of social media is something that backfires right in the face of the people or communities you’re pretending to protect. We need to be a more tolerant, respectful, and equal society, but accusing people all the time, even destroying their lives, is not the solution. Trying to understand them and admitting we might be wrong is part of the answer.
Another form of cultural appropriation might be made by regular individuals who dress in a kimono or other traditional attire. What if they do it out of respect and admiration, or do they simply find it better than their own? We are a connected society, and I believe we should be free to borrow, promote and use everything created by humankind.
If we forbid using anything that doesn’t belong to our own culture, we will end up isolated and less innovative. Those societies might be too small to thrive. Their culture might remain remote and eventually perish as many have done during history — even great empires succumb. Think about tribes and communities secluded around the world. They might be too small to promote their art around the world, and without the help of others, we might never be blessed with their craftsmanship.
Having Romanian roots, I’ll share the example of the pioneer of modernism — Constantin Brancusi, a sculptor who revolutionized art in the last century using a minimalistic approach and clear geometrical lines. Like many of his peers, he was influenced by other non-European cultures as well as the folk models coming from his own country. He is exhibited worldwide, changing young sculptors’ perspectives daily, although he’s long gone.
As a youngster, France adopted him, one might say appropriated. His most notable works are in Centre Pompidou and on the grounds surrounding it, while few significant pieces are in his home country. People know about him, and he has such significant influence because he was in France — helped by it and promoted by its people. While in Romania, the communist party wanted to demolish his Endless Column using a tractor — luckily, the communists’ tractors were not very good, and their attempt was unsuccessful.
If Brancusi had not been appropriated by France, his name would have vanished in history. If nationalist spirit prevailed in him, his works would have been only a continuation of Romanian folklore art — banal and quickly forgotten. His luck was leaving a place where art was ignored and going to a place that embraces art from all over the world. Today, Brancusi, like many others, should be afraid of using any creation that doesn’t belong to his own culture because he might be appropriating it.
We should build upon the world culture as we are one specie, for art and knowledge belong to every human being; even aliens should be allowed to be influenced and inspired, but only if they’ll ever visit us.
If this has upset you, I’m sorry, but remember that I also might be wrong.
