Did you know that A Native American, Frank Buffalo Hyde grew up on the Onondaga reservation in New York, but he was born in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where he attended the Institute of American Indian Arts. Hyde strives to create artworks that highlight the lives of Native Americans, rather than support negative stereotypes people may harbor regarding Native Americans—and do so in an often humorous way. Hyde’s painting, In-Appropriate # 1, seems to depict a pretty white woman with blonde tresses, who tries to appear Native American—but isn’t fooling anybody!
It is very interesting. Slightly unrelated but not completely, the singer song write Buffy Sainte Marie was also a Native American. My guess is that a lot of people would not have heard of her. However, I am fairly confident that most here would have of know of at least one of her songs!
I guess it comes under that "eye of the beholder" rubric. It ain't working for this eye. Pocahontas was an actual person, 17th century Virginia, a native American, the daughter of Powhatan. What I don't get is why this guy would portray her that way, not just Euro and blond, but wearing eye shadow, obviously historically wrong as well as anachronistic, but for satirical purposes that I don't get. I'm not even offended. I just don't get it.
Doug Swanson. I understand your opinion and concern. I didn’t mean any confusion But I simply named this thread Pocohotas as a joke. The artist was trying to intentionally make the woman Caucasian to spark humor if you read the whole caption.
I also want to clear up the fact that some of my titles on my threads are not made to offend or confuse anyone. I sometimes use the titles as a play on words or just about the painting or subject I’m talking about. So that being said I apologize if any of my past discussions (threads) may have rubbed anyone the wrong way. I in no way mean to offend any group of people. Just in case anyone was wondering about my posts. No harm intended.
I'm pretty hard to offend, no problem for me, but I'm kind of astonished at a Native American portraying Pocahontas that way since she was a historical figure who's part of Virginia history. I really meant that I didn't get it.
I don't get humans sometimes, in fact, a lot of times. Cultural appropriation is universal, otherwise, as a descendant of ancient Germanic tribesmen, I'd be dressed in bearskins, living in Central Asia. Buildings, technology, clothing, roads, the wheel, language....they're all appropriated from someone outside the bearskin village. In a way, it seems flattering to have your culture appropriated, not to mention inevitable. Technology and communication have all made that much easier. No one group has invented everything. My tribesmen ancestors might not have invaded Rome if Thor or Wotan had told them about having running water and indoor toilets as the Romans did.
My cynical self says that cultural appropriation only became an issue when patents and copyrights made lawyers rich. Prior to that, it was just the way Romans copied Greeks and then later Europeans copied both of them. That happens everywhere that two cultures rub past each other and one has something that the other wants.
But punish living indigenous people in North America while profiting off aspects of their culture?
We have that habit.
It is a false claim for us. Not just seeing that we can use the wheel as well.
Patents were an invention in the US Constitution. The wealth of the US has been greatly enhanced by patents.
"Others" with property are being trampled upon by our society. Patents and copyrights being property.
It is not really do not take from indigenous culture. It is buy the culture if you are still interested from indigenous peoples.
Are any of us only interested in rap music if Vanilla Ice is the act we hear?
If you really like rap putting Vanilla Ice in your line up is kewl. If not just listening to Vanilla Ice is garbagy behavior and might I say predictable behavior. Think the days of the King of Rock and Roll Elvis. None of the African American acts mattered much. Terrible travesty.
No, I'm not, in fact my qualification was that once copyrights and patents got involved fairly recently in history, it all changed. In most cases, the reason we argue about images is the they either offend somebody for some reason, or that someone claims to own an image and doesn't want somebody else to claim or use it, mainly having to do with money, and to a lesser extent, pride of ownership. If it gets to court, arguments ensue about how close the copy has to be to an original, like, how you probably can't own all pictures of all mountains, but you can own certain pictures of certain mountains.
When these discussions come to cultural appropriation, it gets even more seriously hazy. Every human made thing in the world has been appropriated to some degree, either with or without permission, with or without payment, but in our political discussions, we only define certain things as being appropriated and that seems to have some relation to something that's a socio-political issue in that time and place. The image that started the thread is strange because it's less about appropriation than mis-attribution, like naming the blond European with the eye shadow "Pocahontas". Some commentary must be intended, but it's not clear what it is. In that sense, it just doesn't communicate well.
I have no idea how to resolve all this, but for me, as I said, I just don't understand with the artist was trying to do, so it wouldn't end up on my wall.
You have to look at who does the most appropriating.
The US Constitution created the first patent laws that I know of. Those laws reserved solely for the benefit of white male landed gentleman. That is a tradition. It is far to easy to shove that aside and gimme for free. And we have been pushing that aside. Since in the constitution and further laws only white males held power we have set up a system of demographics. You seem to be arguing now that demographics are not the way you want it. Just gimme.
The Chinese manufacturers are also just saying gimme.
I could careless to discount the system because it is a recent invention. I was born into this. I do not want it now stripped down by just anyone saying gimme. It is not their property.
Back to the demographics it bares repeating we set up the demographics not anyone else.
I had to do some looking-up and apparently patents have a long history, back to at least 500 BC. The US system is only as old at the US, but in British history (the source of our laws), it has lots of centuries in it. Of course, British and most European law, has roots that go back to the Roman Empire, so people have been thinking about this for a long time.
The main difference between patent issues and "cultural appropriation" however, is that one has law and a document trail, while the other does not. There's no patent document for jazz music, only copyrights for specific songs by specific composers or specific recordings.
I do appreciate how this is a sensitive issue for people who see their culture as being appropriated, but, being appropriated also means that someone's culture has been assimilated into the universe of common life. That's not a bad thing except for people who want to remain insulated from the world in some sort of cultural bubble, something that's rarely possible now. One can also regard appropriation as being flattering too; it's not an insult, just part of how the world moves on, incorporating diverse influences into the mainstream.
Absolutely nothing we can do will ever make history run backwards.
The profiting off of the culture is central to the debate.
It has zero to do with hiding the culture away or insulating the culture from the world.
If a tribe has a long history that is not patentable I get that fully, Walking in and using the elements to profit is still dishonest.
People are being called on it and shamed. Losing their successful livelihoods.
You brought up the reason why. The elements have a universal appeal. Meaning the elements are popular. Popularity for the entertainer or artist can be stripped. And in many cases is being stripped. The people who originate the art then can step in and take those profits with their own efforts....ONLY going forward.
All is fair in love and war.
It has nothing to do with going backwards. That can not be done and is not at all an expectation in this.
Without the actual living western artist's permission should you buy a button down shirt from China that uses her or his design? Meaning literally should you buy half of what China is producing as consumer goods?
We have been letting that slide so far. We should not be letting it slide.
CA is often referred to in terms that make it appear like some sort of cultural theft, but as long as it's legal, it's fair game. People have been copying hamburgers and frankfurters for a long time without recognizing Hamburg or Frankfurt. I don't know what else we can do even in the US, not to mention China. It's especially true in reference to the shirt with the design "inspired by" someone else. Knock offs have been around for a very long time and seem to migrate to a rising industrial part of the world that hasn't gotten too expensive yet. That's China now, but could be other places as well.
The problem is what, realistically, to do about it. Nobody owns a culture and doing anything about it requires some recognized ownership. We have come to depend on lower-wage parts of the world to support our relative affluence by selling stuff that would be more expensive to make in the US and then exporting massive amounts of American currency to those parts of the world. Economists have been warning us about this for decades, but people only focus on today's purchase and somehow we keep going for another year.
90% of the people that shop in big chain stores, don't give a crap about who holds the rights to a design, don't look at the country of origin but they will buy it "store1" because it's cheaper than "store2". If you pose the direct question to those people....would you pay much more for this if it came from an American factory with patent rights observed, some would say yes, but many would say no. In actual life, the easer thing to do is to not even notice the label, not to mention checking its authenticity.
People loosely stop buying that is what. Product manufactures with higher overhead than we as individual artists have are squeezed to give up production. The last dollar in is the most profitable. Those dollars are denied.
The younger folks totally buy into making that happen. It is a different form of civic capitalism.
Also the major platforms play a policy and coding role in stopping this....ie early on Ebay stopped the selling of some forms of Native American art by non Native Americans.
Hamburgers and Hotdogs? Germans are the largest American ethnic group. Larger than the percentage of Irish and English.
It's interesting because I do know people who, in one sense, do "buy local", support arts and local crafts, but a lot of that is one-time items, like an special article of clothing or a decor item. Unfortunately, as a part of the entire economy, those local, crafty items are really tiny pieces of the pie. Much of the economics of buying is the little stuff that we don't pay much attention to, as well as the materials, parts and commodities.
The interesting thing is that this process has a leveling effect on economies, like how you ask yourself, how long can China be the source of shiploads of low priced stuff. Decades ago, Japan did that, bootstrapped their economy, but then Japan came to be too expensive for filling the Mega-Mart with bags of white socks and cheap knock off clothes. Eventually, it will be somewhere else while a few of us try to support local economies, but the large part of the purchasing public will continue to buy whatever is cheapest, at least in part by necessity.
That was true during the supply side economics period of 1981 to 2020.
During demand side periods that is much less true. The western Europeans who are one economic cycle ahead of us have had garment producers locally for decades producing far better clothing than the US consumers were getting by importing. The European cultures are also more intact. Yes local but there is more to it economically. Those cultures for the average man are wealthier.
Please login before posting a reply to this message. If you do not have an account on Fine Art America, click here to create one!