I think the concept of “Cultural Appropriation” is bullshit from start to finish. A culture does not get to put limits on what aspects can be copied or adopted by others. You don’t like that someone has used a hairstyle or musical style that you hold dear?..tough. Unless they are passing-off fake as real, directly copying trademarked designs, stealing physical property or preventing you from doing it…I say carry on.
…“trademarks” are a limit placed by a culture on what aspects can be copied or adopted by others. Why is “Cultural Appropriation bullshit from start to finish”, but protection for trademark designs something you 100% support?
Meh. It is a worthy discussion. I love Led Zeppelin, but they were 100% wrong in their approach to taking blues songs written by other people and heavy-ing them up without credit. Same with the Pat Boones of the world back in the 50’s, and many more.
It is a spectrum worth discussing, but in this case with Bruno Mars, it is a silly kerfuffle not worth the time or energy.
Speaking for myself, I support an individual’s creation as much as I support trademarks and other IP. Just like patents and copyright, unlike the current laws, should not be perpetual, I don’t believe another culture’s symbols should be considered the property of the descendants rather than those who created them. There are probably other cultures who don’t agree with me on that, but hey, everyone has a point of view.
Silly, silly little girl.
Cover albums pay royalties. Whatever Bruno Mars is doing doesn’t. And he’s been sued over it.
…so you accept that trademarks are a limit placed by a culture on what aspects can be copied or adopted by others. There are a number of treaties and statutes worldwide that protect indigenous intellectual property rights. Do you disagree with those treaties in principal?
I agree, but I think I would extend ‘passing off fake as real’ to include stuff where a copied thing is copied in a way that makes it offensive to the original - the only good example I can think of is blackface, but I’m sure there are others less extreme that I would still consider verboten.
But yeah, taking something that group A enjoys, and introducing it and enjoying it in group B should be pretty much OK most of the time.
had you stopped here I’d disagree completely, I think they did a brilliant job and made something far better than the original compositions.
The last part is the important bit. They should properly credit and reward people but that it irrelevant as to whether they should have adapted the songs in the first place, which is what the “cultural appropriation” complainers would say.
“Offensive to the original” what on earth does that mean?
What are they? what do they say? what limitations do they seek to put in place?
…it isn’t hard to google “indigenous intellectual property.” But the specifics don’t really matter. If you accept “western” limitations on intellectual property that have been passed into law, why would you absolutely refuse to accept indigenous limitations on intellectual property that have been passed into law?
I mean if a cultural element is taken and turned into an offensive mockery of the original, it’s probably not OK. I gave an example.
I don’t see where you are getting that I accept all the western limitations on intellectual property that have been passed into law when my post said pretty much the opposite. I imagine that I would agree with some indigenous IP approaches and disagree with others.
…you don’t intentionally break any of these laws are you? Then you accept those laws. You just disagree with them.
That doesn’t have much to do with one’s views on cultural appropriation, though. I was interpreting your post as having relevance to the thread.
…what is it, do you think cultural appropriation actually is? Its fundamentally about intellectual property. Its about the differences in how the western world see intellectual property and how indigenous people see it.
well, they do matter. I’ll do your work for you and I’ve read up on it…still seems like bullshit.
one example
The extension of the logic would be that someone seeking to create art in the style of the Australian aborigines would in some way be restricted. That’s nonsense. If someone wanted to make a book or film out of a traditional tribal oral story they should be able to, just as myriad fairy-tales have been treated to all sorts of interpretations over the years.
Because the indigenous limitations seek to go much further than current intellectual property laws (which are at the upper end of what I consider acceptable) and because much that I see getting placed under that umbrella is public domain.
Where there is a specific inventor or designer or artist we already have enough legal protections for their work while they are alive and the ability to pass it through to public domain when they die. I’m assuming that the indigenous people would want to have those protections in perpetuity? A story or painting under those restrictions would never be be considered public domain? I think that is a bad approach and human diversity is harmed by it.
You see I can play around with Shakespeare or Dickens to my hearts content and draw the Mona Lisa with a Hitler 'tache. That is a good thing.
CNN has a story about the whole thing.
It seems that someone named Shawn King, identified as a BLM activist, ask in a tweet ‘what kind of music is this man allowed to do?’.
Just to be clear here, I’m not for one second suggesting that every artistic, stylistic and aesthetic choice should necessarily be consequence free. Along with the absolute right to make those choices comes an absolute right to criticise it. Someone might do the above in a clumsy and ill-thought-out way and I’ll join you in calling them an arsehole. Or they might do it for serious political or dramatic effect and I may be more measured.
In each scenario I would neither seek to legally block them from doing it, nor demand that every give them a round of applause. None of us have the right to remain un-offended.
If you are on that same page then we don’t disagree. If you would seek legal sanctions in either scenario then I think you are on an ill-advised path.