The Use of Cultural Appropriation in Fashion

[ssgghh]

I don't believe CA is about the right to wear or not wear something. Everyone can wear what they want. It's about the message it's sending. And most of the time it's not the consumer who makes the decision for trends and such, but the designers and manufactures.

Exactly. If the person is uneducated and not thinking about it we have a problem. thats why I dissagree about the consumer not making the decision, the consumers are as responsible as designers and manufacturers and the whole lot involved in the buisness. We all make choices every day. I think its crucial to know what they imply.

And actually there is a list, if you will, about what is ok and what is not ok to appropriate. If an entire group of people say don't wear our war bonnets they are sacred to us, then people should stop and listen. If you really respect them you will listen to them it's simple.

Im sorry, although Im not justifiying bad and ignorant decisions to wear stuff from other cultures without knowing or caring what it implys I really think it is not that simple. Entire groups of people are saying alot of things and I think we should always be carefull about the line...the main point is is that we make a choice and i cant stress enough how important it is for that choice to be an educated one.

 

[RomanXII]

Has anyone paid attention this lately?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/michelle-williams-redface-another-magazine_n_2860914.html

As a Native I don't find anything offensive or appropriative about Michelle's cover. Nothing sacred is being hijacked here so I fail to see where the complaints are coming from. Just more Non-Natives finding something vaguely Native to be offended about imo.

 

[YoninahAliza]

I am SO glad to read that something good came out of the Paul Frank 'pow-wow' party fiasco from last year. The brand has apologized but more importantly taken actions to support native american designers by collaborating on an accessories and jewelry line. Actions speak far louder then words. And it is good to see that Paul Frank actually took steps to understand why their appropriation of native american imagery was wrong.

LOS ANGELES, June 18, 2013 /PRNewswire/ –
Paul Frank announced today its first-ever “Paul Frank Presents” fashion collaboration with four Native American designers from different tribes and regions across the country. Set to debut in August 2013, the collaboration fuses the iconic Paul Frank brand with four different artists’ aesthetics, each rooted in their heritage. The collection, which will include a tote bag, hand-beaded sunglasses, graphic tees and Hama bead jewelry is an expression of the Native American culture and a way for the artists to integrate their perspective and tribal identity into fashion.

Drawing inspiration from their communities, each artist is bringing to life a visual identity with roots from their culture. Louie Gong, a designer from the Nooksack tribe who creates custom drawings and paintings on materials, is creating a silk-screened canvas tote bag for the collection. Candace Halcro, from the Plains Cree/Metis tribes, is skilled with the classic Native American beading technique and will showcase her talents on authentic Paul Frank sunglasses. Dustin Martin, a graphic T-shirt fashion designer from the Navajo tribe, is using a phrase taught to him by his grandfather to inspire the prints of the famous Paul Frank character, Julius. And Autumn Dawn Gomez, a jewelry designer from the Comanche/Taos tribes, is creating accessories inspired by various landscapes, which have impacted her life.

“We’re honored to be working with such talented and enthusiastic designers for this fashion and accessories collection,” said Elie Dekel, President of Saban Brands. “Each artist has really captured the whimsical and fun energy of the Paul Frank brand and incorporated it into their designs for the line. We are so excited to share these items with Paul Frank fans very soon!”

To unveil the collection, Paul Frank is partnering with the Institute of American Indian Arts (IAIA) Museum of Contemporary Native Arts (MoCNA) to host an event in Santa Fe, New Mexico on August 16, during SWAIA’s annual Indian Market Week. The event will showcase each of these designers and preview their limited edition pieces for the Paul Frank line for the very first time. These items will then be sold in the MoCNA Store.

You can read more about the collaboration and why it came about from here...
http://nativeappropriations.com/2013/06/the-paul-frank-x-native-designers-collaboration-is-here.html

 

[Ella]

I think the problem is that it designers (who are mostly European and mostlyy white) have ever since treated (non-European or non-WASP) cultures as treasure troves from which to get whatever they find ~pretty~ or ~inspiring~ while those cultures have suffered from oppression and a lack of autonomy for centuries at the same time. Cultural appropriation is a form of colonization in that the original peoples do not have the control over what is being said about them. I know that many peoples during colonialism and imperialsm were not allowed to were their traditional clothes or speak their languages. And if they did they were considered backward and wild. All the while being misrepresented in "human zoos" all across Europe and America just 90 years ago. Brown and black people from Africa and Asia were mixed together and simply presented as "colonial people" doing things which they never did in their homelands. Clothes and traditions or dances were mixed up or simply made up in order to entertain the European population. Not to mention the racism.

Sure times have changed, but the issue remains the same. Cultural appropriation is about misrepresentation, glamourizing and covering up the (colonial) past and the idea that non-while cultural objects look better on white bodies.

I think you mentioned a few important points here, namely that the conversation becomes about who has the power to represent different cultures, to what audience and in what way. I don't think there's a monolithic, homogenous "right" representation of any one culture but I also most definitely don't agree with the idealistic post-racial kumbaya-esque "we all live in a globalized world and can all take what we want from each others' cultures"-school of thought either.

As mentioned above, when the (mostly white) designers of Western countries use other cultures as "inspiration" it does tend to smack of cultural appropriation, and as if cultural imperialism has been replaced by cultural extraction to suit the neoliberal agenda. For me it boils down to the point that communities should have some control over the representations sent about them to the world at large.

 

[models_vlada]

I feel like I've discussed this topic my whole life. I'm not really worried about representation, or misrepresentation, or ignorance about the meaning behind pieces or garments, I think my stance on this will always lean more towards financial credit/reciprocation/support. That's the only thing that does outrage me, when you see someone like Galliano traveling all the way to Peru to get his textile inspiration and then gets back to Paris and reproduces it with slightly better material at skyrocketing prices, you have a community below the poverty line, forgotten by society, unacknowledged by their government, whose only sustain is their artisanal work passed on to generations.. it is public

This Point.
Actually i was viewing some previous collections non-seen by me, and it was actually Dior Haute Couture Fall 2005 that brought me again to this thread, there's a part in the show that clearly states a background in Andean Culture (Peru and Bolivia), even if there's an inspiration or not about the culture itself... in the show, some of the outfits are exactly the same as the typical "Cholita" Garment, only with more expensive fabrics, the music of the show it's exactly music from those places, and the hats and hairstyle it's exactly the same as in the proper culture... so NOW there's a moment where you ask yourself, did Galliano really inspire himself from this culture ? or is this just some sort of a marketing strategy to show that the artist of the brand made a collection inspired in some foreign culture that everybody seems to know it exists, but nobody knows in what consists, which is safely enough to make it look exotic and salable/marketable.

When i saw the collection, it really angered me more than anything, because they're basically appropriating of a culture and selling it as it looks much more worked and expensive.

Probably i'm being too sensitive, because i know a little bit more about this culture, or maybe you agree with me. Would love to hear your opinion on this collection.

PD: Some of the dresses were expectacular i have to admit, on how he worked the fabrics, and the result was good... but others were just a simply more expensive imitation.

 

[cutefierce]

Really interesting to read all post I think the part of sexual campaigns and all of that part of fashion can pursue people to do things or dress in a manner that is not appropriate which leads to a lot of problems and about the r*pe, in Colombia for instance the town where I used to live there was not victoria secret or any sexual campaign and there was a time where there would be a lot of rapes I think it depends on peoples backgrounds and how they are raised more than what fashion brings or shows.

 

[XavierRaphael]

I never really think of the impact this could have, but I love when people adopt the aesthetics of another culture. It's statement making in itself.

 

[YoninahAliza]

This Point.
Actually i was viewing some previous collections non-seen by me, and it was actually Dior Haute Couture Fall 2005 that brought me again to this thread, there's a part in the show that clearly states a background in Andean Culture (Peru and Bolivia), even if there's an inspiration or not about the culture itself... in the show, some of the outfits are exactly the same as the typical "Cholita" Garment, only with more expensive fabrics, the music of the show it's exactly music from those places, and the hats and hairstyle it's exactly the same as in the proper culture... so NOW there's a moment where you ask yourself, did Galliano really inspire himself from this culture ? or is this just some sort of a marketing strategy to show that the artist of the brand made a collection inspired in some foreign culture that everybody seems to know it exists, but nobody knows in what consists, which is safely enough to make it look exotic and salable/marketable.

When i saw the collection, it really angered me more than anything, because they're basically appropriating of a culture and selling it as it looks much more worked and expensive.

Probably i'm being too sensitive, because i know a little bit more about this culture, or maybe you agree with me. Would love to hear your opinion on this collection.

PD: Some of the dresses were expectacular i have to admit, on how he worked the fabrics, and the result was good... but others were just a simply more expensive imitation.

I just looked up that Dior HC collection to have an idea of what you were referencing (hadn't seen that collection before either, some of it was truly gorgeous I must say) and when I was looking at it I also noticed that in the looks that are very much found in Andean Culture's the model's seem to have a lot of bronzer (or darker makeup) on their face, it doesn't match the rest of their bodies skin tone. Which just makes this sort of appropriation all the more awful too. I don't think you are being too sensitive about the collection, I can see how one could be angry over it. It doesn't seem right that the house could have pretty much replicated the 'Cholita' garments just with more expensive fabrics and higher quality dyes. Especially since some people are living in poorer conditions where such 'Cholita' garments are common, and they don't receive any compensation for it. Selling or making such items can very often be people's livelihood and when designers do 'knock-offs' of locally worn clothing, well, it can be iffy at times.

I was thinking about this the other day but one analogy for fashion designers who borrow and don't acknowledge or give credit to particular groups of people, is that it is like not citing an author while writing a paper. That's plagiarism and this, while obviously a lot more messy and complicated, is a bit similar. Anyone else think that this analogy might work? I'm stilling mulling this idea over.

 

[BetteT]

Please see this thread ... we are taking nominations for brands in a category that relates to this topic: Nominations for the Honorary Award for Diversity for the 2013 "Tiffies"

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Let’s promote a “Buy Native” trend!

(source: âpihtawikosisân.com)

A lot of attention has been drawn to the native fashion trend in the past year or so. From violations of the Navajo trademark, to No Doubt and Victoria’s Secret experiencing a long-overdue backlash to the all-too common misuse of Plains warbonnets; the issues surrounding ‘native inspired’ fashion are being talked about on a wider scale.

What a lot of people are asking is, “If we love native fashion, where can we get it without engaging in cultural appropriation?”

Jessica Metcalfe (Turtle Mountain Chippewa) has been answering that question for quite some time on her blog, Beyond Buckskin. Even more awesome, she launched the Beyond Buckskin Boutique which gives you instant access to legitimate native fashion, from haute couture to streetwear, modern and traditional.

In a recent article, Jessica Metcalfe was asked how launching a ‘native fashion’ boutique is any different than what Urban Outfitters and so many other companies are doing. I think her response is well worth quoting here:

I work with Native American artists – folks who are active members of Native communities. These artists are exceptionally talented. They are also very knowledgeable and smart about their cultures and cultural values and know which items (ie sacred items) are off-limits and shouldn’t be sold. They know how to translate the artistic traditions of their Native communities to be shared by people from ALL backgrounds. They don’t resort to stereotypes, and they present a new vision and a new version of ‘the Native’ in fashion. They are incredibly respectful of Native people. Profits from the Beyond Buckskin Boutique go directly to these artists and support small businesses, many of which are in Native communities and represent economic development strategies. I could go on.

This is pretty much as good as it gets, in my opinion. There is a difference between appropriation and appreciation, and Metcalfe pretty clearly lays out what they are above. Beyond Buckskin has a page devoted to a variety of native-run stores you can browse this holiday season for some kickass presents for you or others. Take a look at some of what is available out there, for natives and non-natives alike!

So whether you’re looking for someone awesome to spend your money on and treasure for always, or if you’re just sick of people asking you, “Are we allowed to wear ANYTHING AT ALL!?” you can use this resource as resounding, “YES PLEASE!”

Here's a link to the "Beyond Buckskin Boutique"

http://shop.beyondbuckskin.com/

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Below is the link to an interesting article from TIME magazine written by Susan Scafidi, "a professor at Fordham Law School, founder of the nonprofit Fashion Law Institute, and the author of Who Owns Culture? Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law"

It's about the fine line between inspiration and appropriation, taking as its jumping off point the recent Pharell faux pas.

http://time.com/2840461/pharrell-na...ign=Feed:+time/topstories+(TIME:+Top+Stories)

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Cultural Appropriation At Anna Sui New York Fashion Week Show

FEBRUARY 18, 2015 - Anna Sui presented her Fall/Winter 2015 Collection at Lincoln Center during Mercedes-Benz New York Fashion Week, and the show seemed to use traditional Inuit facial tattoos:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/margscrawf/...ds=1385994718381047&fb_action_types=og.shares

buzzfeed

 

[ad091215]

A.P.C. Founder, Jean Touitou, Uses The N-Word To Describe Latest Collection
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/28/apc-founder-jean-touitou-n-word_n_6559556.html

 

[Not Plain Jane]

On DSquared2’s Racist and Extraordinarily Offensive FW15 Line “DSquaw”

http://themuse.jezebel.com/on-dsqua...source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

[dior_couture1245]

One chooses to be offended. End of story.

 

[MattSimasArt]

Um, no. One chooses to be ignorant about other cultures and use it as they see fit for what they want. People have the right to be offended by a lot of this stuff. It's wrapped in a huge disregard for the actual people of that culture, a lot of the time. It's not about people being 'sensitive', it's about how too many designers just take things from different cultures and exploit it. I mean, it's 2015 and we still see the occasional blackface in magazines iron the runway. Why? Something like that is highly offensive and there's no way around it. Just don't do it.
I think cultural influences are fine. There's a difference from influence and from straight up cultural appropriation. I guess, it's a very fine line, though.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

i don't think that sort of postmodern relativism or individualism - i.e., it's up to the viewer whether he or she is offended - works when it comes to an entire culture. it's more complex than that. using the word "squaw" alone could be deemed offensive since it was a word used by white colonizers to describe aboriginal women. it's derisive. these 2 designers - being from canada - should know that, imo, and thus should be very careful about their wording and their inspirations, not to mention from where they get (or take?) their ideas.

 

[dior_couture1245]

Um, no. One chooses to be ignorant about other cultures and use it as they see fit for what they want. People have the right to be offended by a lot of this stuff. It's wrapped in a huge disregard for the actual people of that culture, a lot of the time. It's not about people being 'sensitive', it's about how too many designers just take things from different cultures and exploit it. I mean, it's 2015 and we still see the occasional blackface in magazines iron the runway. Why? Something like that is highly offensive and there's no way around it. Just don't do it.
I think cultural influences are fine. There's a difference from influence and from straight up cultural appropriation. I guess, it's a very fine line, though.

I will never understand or agree with this point of view. We live in an age of Political Correctness that is culturally and creatively stifling. We all wonder why fashion (and music, and film, and television, etc) is so dull these days, and I would say in large part it's due to the fear to "offend" that everyone has instilled in them at this point.

We live in a global world now. We have access to everything. I understand the reflex in taking offense - with access to everything, people start to subconsciously want to protect everything that is "theirs." But that's just it. What is "ours," anyway? We don't own anything in our respective cultures. Culture is an amassed dialogue of individuals that evolves and morphs and has done so for thousands of years. I do not "own" American culture. Therefor, how can I be offended when others are interested in and are inspired by American culture or iconography.

Now of course, it'd be easy for someone to come back at this argument with the age old "white guilt" or "American Privilege" schitck. However, by perpetuating this mentality, society is only reinforcing the "oppressor/oppressed" roles.

This isn't the 1500's anymore...where entire countries and entire continents were unknown to each other. Where entire civilizations, big and small, were closed off to foreigners. Regardless of the past (no one is innocent in history), we live in a free market society where we all have access to people, cultures, ideas and products from every country on this earth. There is simply NO POSSIBLE WAY to police or to define that "fine line" when someone is inspired by something from another culture.

Additionally, this cultural appropriation crusade is very naive in its concept of creativity. You cannot bottle creativity. You cannot contain it. You cannot control what people find beautiful and what people want to wear or make. You also cannot police something such as "cultural appropriation" as a universal evil when you have no idea what someone's intention is behind using something creatively from another culture. Can you really deny someone the right to wear a kimono or a Native American headdress, for example, if they genuinely love it? Denying that person that right to wear that headdress is denying Freedom of Speech. Seeing cheap Native American headdresses worn at Coachella, on the other hand, should not be offensive because they are specifically wearing a Native American headdress - you should be offended that these are unintelligent, uninteresting and unbelievably average people with no thoughts or personalities of their own. That's what's offensive. And so, even in those instances, Freedom of Speech MUST be maintained, and these brainless people have every right to wear that headdress. Denying anyone the freedom to do so, regardless of whether their intention is of love or out of stupidity, is to essentially advocate for a fascist society.

 

[fashionista-ta]

That would be true if there were no limits on personal freedom, or if the only purpose of society were to ensure maximum freedom to the individual. That is not my understanding of what our purpose is.

I find it naïve to believe that because we now have a 'global' society, the oppressions of the past no longer matter. They do matter, because not only do they continue today, but the consequences of past oppression live on and continue to have consequences, which I believe actually affect all of us.

When a culture that has experienced genocide (as natives in the US did) expresses offense at cultural appropriation, I take that seriously and I think we all should. I'm certainly going to listen and try to understand.

 

[dior_couture1245]

History is so incomprehensibly messy that how can anyone claim ownership of any one thing? For centuries now, cultures, races, religions, societies and individuals have been mixing so intensely that in contemporary society, there isn't a single human alive who isn't influenced by a culture that is not their own. How can we go around policing people on what they can and cannot use when every single aspect of our lives is cultural appropriation.