cultural appropriation

[Casey Harbison <dragonphyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    I can't stop thinking about this discussion, as it it hits on
several qestions that have troubled me since I first became serious
about art, in high school.

     One question is the definition of originality. Surely every artist
is inflenced by other artists, but it can be complicated to determine
how much is too much. I have seen mathmatical formulas that define a
percentage of change from the original that would allow a new piece to
be considered an original in its own right, and not a violation of a
copyright. As an example, while the idea of saying that a painting is
30% different from the photograph that inspired it seems silly to me, I
can understand that this is at least an attempt to protect the person
who produced the photograph.

    The story of the Inuit sculpture trade angers me. I am also involved
in tapestry weaving, and the Inuit situation seems to resemble the
situation with Navajo and Hispanic weaving in the Southwestern United
States in the early twentieth century. The people who produced the
beautiful textiles were kept in poverty, while a few traders made money
by promoting the the stereotyped image of their culture. However, this
situation is changing today, as more weavers are considering their work
as an art form, and are taking control of the design process and
marketing.

    This brings me to something that used to be a personal pet peeve of
mine, but that  now, paradoxically, serves as a source of inspiration. I
live in Eastern Kentucky, which is a place famous for its uneducated
hillbillies. When I was an art student in college, it seemed that, in
order to be taken seriously by the establishment, you either had to be a
sophisticated world traveller who could list at least six foreign
cultures as a source of inspiration, or you had to be the exact
opposite-a folk artist- someone who never even left the holler to go to
Wal-Mart, but who might carve wooden chickens just because the spirit
moved them. There was no place for someone like me, who fell somewhere
in the middle.

    But I later learned that the reason the folk artists were held in
such high esteem was the fact that they created their art in spite of
the fact that practically no one in their culture understood,
appreciated or encouraged them. All of their motivation came from
within. It was years later that the academic leaders began to notice
their work.

    I guess what I learned from this was to be true to myself, and to
trust my own judgement. There will always be people who don't get it,
but hopefully, there will also be some who do. Art, like everything
else, becomes contaminated with politics and power struggles, but it
would be tragic to let this stifle our spirit. I believe artists are
born, and the need to create is a basic part of our makeup. I have
gotten mad and "quit" many times over the years, but I was never content
during those times. I finally gained the self confidence to listen to
that inner voice.
Linda Harbison