I think we’re straying waaaaaay off topic and into musical taste now. I’m not seeing that Beyonce has anything to worry about “cultural appropriation”. She seem to be doing alright for herself.
I don’t think that is necessarily important at all.
yes, obviously so.
depends what you mean by “mimic”. if you are talking about an exact copy then it is difficult to see how you’ve added very much. If you take some of the techniques and produce you own work with your own meaning then that is absolutely valid and you need absolutely no knowledge of the background of the original work.
e.g. consider the cave paintings at Lascaux. We know nothing about the people who made them, nor the thinking behind them but I’d be quite happy seeing those styles adapted by contemporary artists to produce work of their own.
But art can have cultural significance can it not? art produced by one culture for one culture is meaningful in a certain way for that culture. Similarly, the art produced by a culture with a colonial attitude (whatever that is supposed to mean) will have significance for them, a significance that is signified by money rather than religious or spiritual currency. If money is important to the originators of a style then they are free to sell their works as well.
who does the disparaging? certainly no-one in this thread.
There’s that word again, who is doing this disparaging?
No, absolutely no need to do this. You can see the art and take from it whatever you want and gain whatever financial benefit you can. I think it is a terrible idea to restrict artistic freedom in any way.
That’s ridiculous. People are free to perform art as they wish. Should an aboriginal need the blessing of a limerick master before writing a limerick?
There once was an Aussie named Nick…
Who drilled a large hole through a stick
People are free to do whatever they want.
Including roll their eyes at Miley Cyrus twerking in embarrassingly wrong way so that she can establish street cred with her (white) fans while exoticizing a stigmitized sub-culture she has no kinship to, one she can discard as easily as yesterday’s panties when she’s got some new bills to pay.
Artists can do whatever they want, damned the “rules”. But if their ears are too precious to hear “YOU LOOK LIKE AN ASSHOLE, ASSHOLE”, then they have no business calling themselves an “artist”.
And generally, all is forgiven if what they do is undeniably awesome. But if it’s obvious they’re exploiting a marginalized, stigimitized culture just to get a rise out of a crowd, they’re going to piss people off.
Art is a two-way interaction. You can’t give the artist carte blanche to say whatever they want without allowing the observer to suck their teeth, roll their eyes, or protest in the streets in response. True, some observers are full of shit. But so are some artists. Again, if the artist can’t handle the response his or her artwork evokes, then they need to find another line of work.
He said “now I can hunt”
There is no such thing as the “twerking police” and no right or wrong way to do it. You are obviously annoyed about her doing it due to the colour of skin…I’m not sure what that says about you.
She likes it, so she does it. I very much doubt it has anything to do with street-cred.
I’m struggling to find an example of an artist considering themselves above criticism.
Getting that degree of reaction sounds like a valid artistic choice to me. They may also be a dick. The two aren’t mutually exclusive
I agree entirely
There’s always someone who wants to drag the conversation into the gutter…
I’m not having it, though;
“in The Cam, for a punt,”
…so I can finally fish in this crick!
I don’t expect behavior to be tied to ethnicity, race, gender etc. One of my favorite artists is Prince. I don’t begrudge him playing European instruments. Another is George Michael I am not bothered when he sings Motown influenced music. He won best R&B one year. Was that inappropriate?
Did you miss where I said “undeniably awesome”? You’ve just named some undeniably awesome artists. None of these examples are like Miley Cyrus grinding her flat ass on stage like an obvious wannabe.
Pat Boone caught a lot of flak for trying to capitalize off of black culture because he did it in a white-bread way, at a time when black culture was hugely stigimitized. If you’re going to Pat Boone your shit, expect to get booed off the stage. But if you do it like Elvis or the Rolling Stones, go 'head with your bad self. If it’s awesome, people will be too busy jamming with you to care.
There aren’t any rules except don’t look like you’re trying to hard. If you fail at this, expect people to laugh at you and call you a poseur. If you don’t want that label, you better bring it. Or stay home.
I honestly did not know “twirking” (I shudder to even type that word) was a black thing (regardless, nobody looks good doing that shit) though I associate it with cheap strippers (of all ethnicities), not Miley Cyrus. So I guess my question is, should she simply not perform that move (I vote “please stop”)? Give credit to the originators? If so, how? Not to harp on this one little thing; just in general how would one borrow from another group’s culture / style in a way that isn’t subject to accusations of appropriation?
I think you forgot to add “IMHO”. I think twerking is pretty cool when it is done correctly (and all dance forms have their rules of correctness). And yes, it is an artform that originated in a subculture of black American culture.
She should do whatever she wants to do, just as long as people who watch her are allowed to think and say whatever they want about her performances. IMHO, she fits the bill of someone who grabs at pieces of whatever culture is “hot” right now to hype herself. Not because she has something unique to say with those pieces, but because she wants to look cool and make money. Folks in this thread seem to think that someone with this mentality shouldn’t be judged at all because artistic freedom. I think that’s crazy. There aren’t any rules on who can and can’t do something. But this doesn’t mean you won’t be evaluated and judged a million different ways. “You’re making a mockery of my culture” is a valid criticism when the artist is doing just that (which Miley was, IMHO). But if Miley hadn’t been so over-the-top with her ratchet act, and it was clear that she had a true appreciation of the culture rather than a superficial and fleeting one, then it wouldn’t be a valid criticism.
There are a ton of white artists who create and perform, jazz, R&B, and hiphop and do so without getting accused of “appropriating”. Probably because they are good at what they do, and also because they stay true to who they clearly are. Teena Marie wasn’t a country western singer who ran into some black people one day and decided, “Hey! I can make more money by pretending I’m a sista!” She was real, or at least looked real. Miley Cyrus shaking on the stage didn’t look real. She looked like someone who doesn’t have her own artistic voice–just the voices of others. And she doesn’t care that by exploiting those voices, she misrepresents them to the mainstream and only perpetuates their stigma and marginalization. Her gyrating on stage surrounded by a bunch of black women dressed in animal suits doesn’t exactly uplift black culture, you know. But it does increase her “coolness” to white fans who live vicariously through her, while inwardly looking down their noses on actual “ghetto” people in their everyday lives.
I’m not going to judge anyone for checking out other cultures just to see what they are all about and finding creative nexus points. But wearing someone else’s culture for a hot minute, just to get attention, damned how it makes people feel or how stupid it makes one look? That kind of behavior invites negative judgement.
Some cultural appropriation is licensed. For nearly half a century – maybe longer – the Hopi have distinguished between sacred Kachinas and tourist Kachinas. The latter are made and sold without any fuss. The former are not made for sale and are kept private.
There was a minor kerfluffle recently about a model appearing wearing a dream-catcher. This is silly, because dream-catchers have been commercialized for decades. They’re like tourist Kachinas. Nobody gives a damn if you incorporate a dream-catcher in your art. You can buy them at every gift-shop in the entire Hopi nation.
(I don’t even know if dream-catchers originated with the Hopi. It’d be funny if they had appropriated them from another group.)
At this point, dream-catchers have become so generic, they are made and sold by non-Indians. There isn’t any cultural value left to them. It’s like coon-skin caps: the idea is so overused, it’s become self-parodying.
I don’t know why this is so hard for some people to get. It’s not appropriation if one is a genuine participant in and contributor to the culture. That is not circumscribed by the ethnicity one is born with.
Damn, we made dream catchers when we were kids in the '60s. Since we didn’t wear them and weren’t famous, no real harm done I guess.
But those Hopi - anybody ask them where they got their bows and arrows?
j/k
Dream Catchers originated with the Ojibwe people.
I get a kick out of seeing them swaying from car/truck/mini-van’s rear view mirrors because, yeah, great idea to have something that catches bad dreams in a vehicle going 65 mph. Or as earrings… but I guess a lot of people sleepwalk through life.
While I’m sure you’d agree that the actions of a few self-proclaimed critics or SJWs or terrorists don’t reflect on the culture or race or religion as a whole, I’d note that the criticism was widespread enough for SNL to film a parody of it, so it as definitely a thing noticed enough in the cultural zeitgeist for people to get the point of said parody.