The Use of Cultural Appropriation in Fashion

[Spike413]

But why stop at fashion? Why not impose the same sort of guidelines on all visual or performing art forms? I mean, why should fashion designers, fashion photographers, stylists, art directors, makeup artists, etc be the only creative individuals to be held by limiting standards that may stifle their form of expression?

I mean in essence what the argument seems to be from the people against cultural appropriation is that, since its taking something intrinsic to a culture or belief system and turning it into a commodity that doesn't necessarily take into account its history or meaning, it's wrong to do. So how is that different than a major Hollywood studio using a story that depicts any number of cultures and traditions and all of that for the sake of financial gain? Sure, the depictions may be accurate and researched and considered, but does that make the fact that the goal is, first and foremost, to churn a profit out of another culture's story any different than making an imitation headdress for the same purpose?

And what about art or decor that appropriates the images of the Buddha, or ancient Egyptian or African deities, again for mass consumption and profit making based solely on the way the item looks, not what it symbolizes? Will these things fall under the imaginary guidelines as well?

To me this topic brings up more questions than it answers, because as someone (I think it was dior couture) pointed out, it's a very slippery slope once we start quantifying what is and isn't acceptable cultural appropriation.

 

[squilliam]

Regarding freedom of speech...
As long as it is "in good taste" freedom of speech would protect it, but the founding fathers of the United States never clearly stated what qualifies as good taste. Right now the only thing that is censored are certain swear words, and some people try to argue that that violates freedom of speech, so imagine how Americans would feel if freedom of speech became more selective. I remember when Galliano got arrested for saying anti semetic comments, the were confused Americans who didn't understand why he got arrested because they thought he would be protected by freedom of speech, and were surprised that France had laws dictating what you say. The law in the US protects everyone, it doesn't matter if they're good or bad. For example, mein kampf is banned in Germany and many European countries but allowed in the US because of freedom of speech, you could even publish a book about how to do illegal things and not get in much trouble. The Bill of Rights (which contains the right to freedom of speech in the first amendment) is practically untouchable, especially the first amendment. That one amendment dictates the values that the US was built upon and stands for, and people will fight for it. With that said, freedom of speech is the most hotly debated part of the first amendment. In the US the law will protect from unjust acts by the government, but the reaction of other people is not controlled. You have a right to say whatever you like, and they have a right to hate you for it, societal norms control censorship in the US

 

[fashionista-ta]

Something I would love to see ... coverage of Fashion Week is typically incredibly lame and generally boring. Wouldn't it be great to see Cathy Horyn interviewing someone of Wilma Mankiller's stature (perhaps one of the Native grandmothers) about the D-Squared collection? And then getting their response? I'd love to hear what the boys have to say for themselves. Personally I think they fall in the category of needing to creating controversy to cover for the lack of talent But someone ought to hold their feet to the fire, and make them wonder if all publicity is truly good.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

^ excellent point fashionista-ta! the fashion media could be more pro-active in this as well. stop with all the sycophantic reviews of collections and actually do some journalism!

how is that different than a major Hollywood studio using a story that depicts any number of cultures and traditions and all of that for the sake of financial gain?

spike, i don't think it is that different, and hence a lot of people have complained about recent films like the lone ranger for it's stereotypical portrayals, or about pan for which they cast rooney mara to play the native character when they could've cast an actual indigenous actress. people argued that this hearkens back to blackface/minstrelsy etc.

so i think it spans the arts. it's just that our focus here is fashion.

 

[Phuel]

If "freedom of speech" has no bounds in art, then is it okay to make a snuff film? is it okay to erect a public sculpture promoting genocide? is it okay to print literature saying jewish people need to be eradicated, or homosexuals, or blacks? can't we have some respectful boundaries in our art? i am not a big censorship person, so let me make that clear, but when we have no boundaries, and when anything goes, we risk serious cultural fault-lines.

Didn't see a smiley emoji so I'll wager you're not joking this time, Jane: Snuff films are a tad an extreme of an example of free speech-- particularly with this discussion on "cultural appropriation" in high fashion, don't you agree...? And there are people spouting death sentences-- and enforcing them, to gays all the time, all over the world.

As for the approach to research you'd like fashion designers to invest in, I'm sure some do take the time to do their research because they genuinely do enjoy learning and making a statement beyond "cute" frocks-- but to make it mandatory...? High fashion isn't anthropology. And although I'm glad there are people here on this forum I can have a dedicated discussion with and learn from, I can't say that's been my experience most of the time when working in the industry here. The amount of fluff and superficiality, shallowness... is just... well, you take the good with the bad.

The Catenacci twins aren't quite known for their intellectual nor their visionary approach to fashion. They're fun, shallow superficial and cheeky cheescake in spirit. I guess they thought they were being clever and witty with the play on word? I'm not defending them, I agree it was insensitive on their part. But that we're criticizing them in this discussion means that I'm learning from someone like yourself, Jane. And that starts a dialogue-- perhaps not with the twins, but we, as ordinary people and consumers and supporters of high fashion, are communicating and I'm learning something.

And that A.P.C. stupidity is just that: Stupidity. Some clueless rich man who's out of touch, and completely thoughtless thinks that naming his "collection" with "that" word is probably thinking how cool, how provocative, and how edgy he is. And when asked, he can just say Kanye's his bro and that somehow makes it OK. But, I still feel he should have that choice to be witless, clueless and a fool... Just like you and I have the choice to shut him down. I'd like to think he didn't know any better, and hopefully he does know better now when he's heard all the criticism. And that's what's important: that if they're witless, clueless and lacking any social barometer to put such ideas and concepts out, we have the right to put them in their place. I'm sure those that are producing snuff films and those that are calling for the eradication of minority groups won't care, but since we're on a fashion forum discussing issues that are related to high fashion, Touitou and the Catenecci twins might just be more sensitive the next time they're trying to be clever and witty.

(BTW, the DSquared2 branding may be shallow, superficial fun and sexy fashion 101, but their classic tailored menswear and leather footwear is extremely well made and constructed and the fit is supreme. I may not be fan of their image, but I won't knock their tailored pieces and leather footwear if I'm being fair.

And for every DSquared2 fluff presentation, we get something as thoughtful, regal and original like the Junya Watanabe S/S 2014 women's collection that was inspired by Native designs executed so masterfully in its presentation and inspiration.)

 

[Spike413]

^ excellent point fashionista-ta! the fashion media could be more pro-active in this as well. stop with all the sycophantic reviews of collections and actually do some journalism!



spike, i don't think it is that different, and hence a lot of people have complained about recent films like the lone ranger for it's stereotypical portrayals, or about pan for which they cast rooney mara to play the native character when they could've cast an actual indigenous actress. people argued that this hearkens back to blackface/minstrelsy etc.

so i think it spans the arts. it's just that our focus here is fashion.

Note that I didn't say anything about a white actress playing the role of a Native American actress or some similar situation. I questioned why movies like Apocalypto or Dances With Wolves or Memoirs of a Geisha, which all appropriate imagery, stories and iconography from specific cultures for the sake of making money on behalf of the people involved in creating it, are acceptable while jewelry or clothing or handbags that also appropriate imagery and iconography from specific cultures aren't.

I'm questioning why certain things are accepted or allowed as commodities while certain things are not, again going back to my (and other people's) original point that you either have to allow all or allow nothing.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I don't think it's a matter of allowing. I am not suggesting that people be overtly stopped from putting racist fashion on a runway, which would be well-nigh impossible anyway. It's a matter of respect. What I am suggesting is that pressure should be brought to bear on those who are being disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, etc. in the name of creativity, and they should be held to account. To be absolutely clear, I am talking about the court of public opinion, not a court of law.

I also don't think that a movie, which typically tells a story over hours and involves a cast of actors, drawn from a large and ethnically-diverse pool, is necessarily comparable to a fashion show, which typically takes around ten minutes, may be accompanied by a few words and typically a soundtrack, and has a cast of models who are typically drawn from a small and not particularly diverse pool. A movie has considerably more scope. If a designer is going to reference another culture and wants to do so with integrity, care and thought are required, not just free-for-all 'creativity.'

 

[dior_couture1245]

If a designer is going to reference another culture and wants to do so with integrity, care and thought are required, not just free-for-all 'creativity.'

But how can you enforce that requirement? How does a designer "show the receipts" of their research - and even more impossibly - show that they "understand" and "respect" a culture when they present their work?

Furthermore - who's to say that even after so-called sufficient research, and with honest care throughout the design process, a designer is guarenteed to not offend?

The problem, really, is that anyone can be offended by ANYTHING. It is very unwise, in my opinion, to start dictating or deciding what is OK and what isn't when ultimately it's all opinion anyway! This isn't a clear-cut guilty/innocent case by any means. And in any culture, there are those who will be offended by appropriation of "their" culture and those of the same culture who won't, so why should we listen only to the offended voice?

 

[fashionista-ta]

I have stated repeatedly that I am not suggesting enforcement, and I believe this can be seen clearly in (the entirety of) my last post. I believe you are repeatedly raising the idea of enforcement. What I clearly said in the portion of my post you quoted is that if a designer wants to work with integrity, something I would recommend, there are additional things required than pure 'creativity.'

 

[dior_couture1245]

^^But your version of integrity is different than mine. How is that be reconciled? And both yours and my version of integrity might be different from a designer's idea of integrity? How can we decide what is created with integrity or not when we all see the issue differently?

 

[Not Plain Jane]

What I am suggesting is that pressure should be brought to bear on those who are being disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, etc. in the name of creativity, and they should be held to account. To be absolutely clear, I am talking about the court of public opinion

yes, and this is where the journalists could do their jobs. if more designers are criticized for lazy appropriation, then perhaps more designers will be more careful about their research and so forth.

it could or would create a feedback loop.

The amount of fluff and superficiality, shallowness... is just... well, you take the good with the bad.

or another way to think about it is that you support the good and call out the bad? as consumers, critics, whatever, we don't have to simply accept or support lazy and disrespectful designs or designers. people can voice their views publicly (publish blogs, protest, etc) which is the whole purpose of this thread even. or they can talk with their dollars; consumers are powerful.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Yes-- absolutely, Jane. And that's what I support and have been my, and I think, some others' point: That everyone to have an opinion with all the options presented. But, there has to be this availability of all options for creative presentations. And for me, that means the options for designers, stylists, editors and photographers to present their versions of fashion. And if it's offensive, insulting and degrading to some-- then you and I have every right to say so.

I'm questioning why certain things are accepted or allowed as commodities while certain things are not, again going back to my (and other people's) original point that you either have to allow all or allow nothing.

To be frank, Spike-- that's the slant of political-correctness: It's very biased to me. Nothing is really equal and fair.

Equality never quite means equality across the plane. Whenever I look at the threads demanding "diversity" in high fashion presentations-- whether that's shows or editorials and campaigns, it mostly means and is more supportive of black models. Asians, South Asians and Latinos seem seldom brought up as part of the needed "diversity" in models. Funnily, there have been iconic black models-- black supermodels since the 1970s: Iman, Beverly Johnson, Pat Clevelend, and of course, the one and only Naomi (I'll leave out Jourdan and Joan for now since they're still relatively new and it remains to be seen if they'll be as celebrated as the others). There have yet to be a true Asian, South Asian and Latino "supermodel" (I suppose Yasmeen Ghauri and Yasmin Lebon fill those spots for the general "Asian" category-- but they're more only known in fashion circles than their black supermodel counterparts.)

 

[Not Plain Jane]

here's a thought: what about when meaningful things are reduced to stereotypes and become hyperreal, i.e., divorced from any true reality for which they once stood or represented?

for example, we've all seen Che Guevara t-shirts and coffee cups. but i do wonder if half the people who wear and/or buy them even know anything about the man, like how he worked tirelessly for equal rights, or was a marxist activist?

similarly, there is recent controversy over urban outfitters' appropriation of native tools for sacred ceremonies, e.g., their $50+ smudge kit. article appended below. is this now simply a "hipster" thing, a "New Age/native-inspired answer to relieving stress from [the] nine-to-five grind"? (quote from article)

so what happens when meaningful things are appropriated and commodified becoming watered-down, meaningless versions of what their essence once was? don't we lose something in this exchange?

fashion is known for this of course - witness knock offs and fast fashion.

but it comes down to the nature of capitalism really. if something is successful, it is commodified and transformed. an example from music might be lollapalooza. when it first started in 1991, it was held during a weekday. the festival promoted a "take the whole day off" mentality, so that only those who were really interested in stepping outside their everyday work routines would come. but of course it blew up into a big weekend thing and music festivals are now de rigueur.

anyhow, to come back to the topic of cultural appropriation, here's the article on the smudge kit:

http://metronews.ca/voices/opinion/...ltural-appropriation-for-the-low-price-39-99/

 

[fashionista-ta]

I bet the margin on that smudge kit was amazing And frankly, it would take a fool with money to burn to buy it.

My grocery store sells smudge sticks--they're right by the incense. And I've seen people use them--it's a functional item. But the kit is something different.

I don't darken the door of Urban Outfitters ... they have been in the news over and over for this kind of thing. They clearly love to court controversy, and seem to believe that edgy and tacky are closely related.

Don't get me started on cultural icons. How about WWJD? You really want to be a saint if you're going to be a cultural icon ... I'm sure that must be the only way not to gnash your teeth to powder over how your image is used, and what people do in your name.

 

[matryoshkadoll]

for example, we've all seen Che Guevara t-shirts and coffee cups. but i do wonder if half the people who wear and/or buy them even know anything about the man, like how he worked tirelessly for equal rights, or was a marxist activist?

That is precisely why I scoff at people who wear Che T-shirts. If they actually bothered to educate themselves on his tactics and bigotry, they would burn those things.

so what happens when meaningful things are appropriated and commodified becoming watered-down, meaningless versions of what their essence once was? don't we lose something in this exchange?

Whenever I wear something significant to another culture, I put in the effort to learn about the meaning behind it. Whenever I see models like Abbey Lee adopting certain styles of other cultures, it gives off the impression of more open mindedness and can also be a conversation starter.

In terms of creativity, all cultural clothing should be fair game. I particularly loved Chanel's Paris/Bombay collection.

Posted via Mobile Device

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ What do you mean by your reference to bigotry?

 

[Phuel]

here's a thought: what about when meaningful things are reduced to stereotypes and become hyperreal, i.e., divorced from any true reality for which they once stood or represented?

for example, we've all seen Che Guevara t-shirts and coffee cups. but i do wonder if half the people who wear and/or buy them even know anything about the man, like how he worked tirelessly for equal rights, or was a marxist activist?

similarly, there is recent controversy over urban outfitters' appropriation of native tools for sacred ceremonies, e.g., their $50+ smudge kit. article appended below. is this now simply a "hipster" thing, a "New Age/native-inspired answer to relieving stress from [the] nine-to-five grind"? (quote from article)

so what happens when meaningful things are appropriated and commodified becoming watered-down, meaningless versions of what their essence once was? don't we lose something in this exchange?

fashion is known for this of course - witness knock offs and fast fashion.

but it comes down to the nature of capitalism really. if something is successful, it is commodified and transformed. an example from music might be lollapalooza. when it first started in 1991, it was held during a weekday. the festival promoted a "take the whole day off" mentality, so that only those who were really interested in stepping outside their everyday work routines would come. but of course it blew up into a big weekend thing and music festivals are now de rigueur.

anyhow, to come back to the topic of cultural appropriation, here's the article on the smudge kit:

http://metronews.ca/voices/opinion/...ltural-appropriation-for-the-low-price-39-99/

To be frank Jane, it doesn't bother, offend, insult or hurt me if something-- a material design, which has a personal, spiritual meaning to me is nothing more than a mere decoration to someone for fun.

Those mass-marketed Buddhas sold at the garden department of Home Depot, every outdoor-living store, and probably every discount big box chain doesn't bother me the least because the one I received as a gift from a monk from Tibet is the real deal that has a personal history to me. Those silly Urban Outfitter "smudge kits" getting "news" headline is just people nitpicking for poor taste to write about to me, when there are more important issues concerning Natives... A material design is just that: A material design. Your personal beliefs, your faith and spirit are much much much more stronger than that material design-- or in the cases we're discussing, the cultural designs. I know it's odd to say this when I love love love high fashion, but material possessions and representations are absolutely impermanent, even those of faith-based. That's how I disassociate such fluffy exploitations (of cultural appropriation) in high fashion, capitalization-- whatever you'd like to deem it. No cultures and peoples are being destroyed by such exploits of these material designs, nor their faith and identity diminished. Like dior mentioned: People choose to be offended by such things.

Going back to the high fashion context: Although I agree "DSquawed" is insensitive, their use of Native designs in their show doesn't bother me because DSquared's image is just "fierce" which equates hot, sexy, etc, etc, and nothing more than that. Their style and design-philosophy and aesthetic is not the same as Junya's, but both equally represent high fashion to me. And that's "diversity" to me. Like dior has also mentioned, "uniformity" all across the fashion-scape that's always PC, non-offensive and sensitive to all tastes is not my ideal for high fashion: that's the realm of department-stores. And the day that kind of blandness becomes the norm in high fashion, I'll pack it in.

 

[dior_couture1245]

^^Absolutely. Well put, once again, Phuel.

Something else that struck me recently that felt very pertinent to this discussion, in particular the use of Native American iconography - I was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art this past weekend to see the Plains Indians exhibit. It was stunning. But the impression I was left with after the exhibit was in regards to this discussion we've all been having here in this thread. The belief that Native Americans (or anyone of any culture, for that matter) "own" that iconography or that imagery isn't totally fair - because the focus of the exhibit was the 19th-century crafts, art and design of the Plains Indians - and almost all of the pieces utilized beads, silver, dyes, glass, textiles and many other objects that were traded with European settlers. In essence - the back and forth exchange of cultures opened up and expanded the visual vocabulary of both societies and wouldn't have been possible without that exchange.

You think about all the gorgeously intricate Native beading, silver decorations, ribbon trims, etc. that are associated so closely with Native art are directly influenced and made possible by cultural exchange.

Because of facts like this - I find it even harder to accept cultures wanting to restrict cultural visual vocabulary from creative use, because, as I've stated before, all cultural imagery is an amalgamation of historical cross-cultural influences. Rarely - if ever - is anything created in a vacuum of isolation.

 

[MulletProof]

That is precisely why I scoff at people who wear Che T-shirts. If they actually bothered to educate themselves on his tactics and bigotry, they would burn those things.

that's not really true, all people I know and seen that admire Che, it all actually happened after a few courses in university where they were clued in, and later they explored that topic on their own. It all depends on what kind of education you received really, because among many things he did in a time of puppet Latin American administrations installed by the American government, you can question his 'tactics' but not the symbol of unification in the region and the importance of standing up against imperialism and the bigotry this is actually founded upon, the idea that certain people can't run their own country, which is just crazy and does make you burn things, and not exactly a tee with the face of this guy on it.

Now if young people in the countries that practise violent invasions in other places and that kind of thing feel inclined to be critical of their system and grab a symbol that represents that, I say good for them, because it's brave and it's so rare, precisely because the media and educational programs twisted the whole thing and blamed the Latin American leaders of being "bigoted" (the nerve!).

 

[fashionista-ta]

The worst thing I'm aware of about Che is that he shot deserters pretty much without hesitation. But deserters from any army are highly unlikely to receive a hero's welcome if found.

He volunteered in a leper colony and had huge compassion for poor and oppressed people. He fought for what he believed in and put his life on the line for it. I can think of a lot worse silhouettes to put on a t-shirt or coffee mug.