The Use of Cultural Appropriation in Fashion

[Phuel]

^^^ I always thought it was so tacky and desperate of these types to wear a "Che" shirt: Yeah I get it, you're so political and such an intellectual and you have the shirt to prove it... No different than those that have to have a Birkin to show off their status.

^^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.

That mingling of cultures from the beginning of civilized time-- like when Persian, Indian and Chinese culture all influenced one another in their art, religions and fashion is exciting to me; Just like when I saw Gaultier's S/S 1994 presentation "Tattoo You" that fused cultures-- both world-cultures and subcultures, with his own French culture of the 18th-century, done so beautifully, so elegantly, so visionary. That, to me, is the best of what one culture being inspired by another, with no limits, is all about and what makes it all worth it to support creative freedom.

That Gaultier vision of multi-culturalism still remains a swooning fashion moment that's yet to be rivaled by any designer-- past or present, for me; The designs, the styling, the casting-- Rossy de Palma, Brandi Quinones, Jenny Shimizu, Christy Turlington looking like royalty from the time of the Maharaja, and a cast of pierced and tattooed individuals, the music, the location and set design, and the mood and attitude is perfection. Heavenly to me.

I understand people mean well, but the idea that you can't touch another's culture to include in your work unless you've taken 3 semesters on the subject and met with a council of its people for their approval, is just such an unwelcoming demand that would turn many people off-- and going against the organic process of creativity in high fashion to me. Sometimes a great design to some is just that: A great design. And there's nothing wrong with that to me.

 

[MulletProof]

Oh it is tacky if you look at it from our adult seat but when you're a student or just a teenager having some sort of political awakening, you're just drawn to these loud sartorial statements on 'the system'. Well at least that's how it was where I come from ... I don't find it that obscene... if they make it a career you know they'll switch that for some Paul Smith-looking outfit that never finds its way to the washing machine.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^^ Just wanted to mention that a photo of Che Guevera has been noted as the most famous photograph in the world. I think at that point, you're officially iconic. And I have to appreciate that he's famous for a lot more than being famous.

Personally I don't find it necessary to judge people based on the t-shirt they're wearing. I will refrain from judging you for judging people based on their t-shirts

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Judge away, baby! LOL

(Then hopefully you'll give me a chance and get to know me...

Of course we judge one another on how we present ourselves. And how I present myself may just be intentionally misleading... But when you're wearing a Che tee-- and I don't mean as your jammy, then you definitely want everybody to know your political leanings.)

 

[Not Plain Jane]

"uniformity" all across the fashion-scape

good god! i certainly don't want this either phuel!

but in a way, could appropriation lead to that sort of homogeny? is it a form of assimilation? taking bits and pieces from other cultures and mixing them into a hodgepodge? maybe not... just thinking aloud.

Oh it is tacky if you look at it from our adult seat but when you're a student or just a teenager having some sort of political awakening, you're just drawn to these loud sartorial statements on 'the system'.

this is very true. some buy such "statement" pieces because they've been politicized in college or something.

but i think others buy without knowing hardly anything about the guy, just some vague notion about "revolution."

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I'm sure ... I have to believe the average Urban Outfitters customer isn't politically (or otherwise) sophisticated. I'd still rather see Che on a t-shirt than, say, a moustache.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ LOL

(What about Che tee and a moustache...?)

I know you don't mean that you'd support uniformity in high fashion, Jane... but if we have to be sensitive and worrying about how everyone's reaction may be, in particular when designs from various cultures are brought into (Western) high fashion, then we are stripping high fashion off its individuality and spontaneity.

A friend who's a stylist started talking about the work we had done some time ago. She's very commercial-minded, always keeping in mind what will work in reality and thinking about the masses. She told me when her straight, male friends who don't care about fashion would comment how they would never dress themselves in the style we had worked together on, I chuckled inside to myself since her styling work was nothing remotely near daring... And if we had to get the approval of these types, then high fashion would never progress-- conceptually and socially. That's how I feel about having to worry about, or even leaving out "cultural appropriations" in high fashion because it upsets, or is too "much" for some. And as much as I loathe Karl, I really do love love love that Chanel war bonnet... I mean, c'mon-- it's a CHANEL war bonnet!! LOL

 

[Rova]

I understand people mean well, but the idea that you can't touch another's culture to include in your work unless you've taken 3 semesters on the subject and met with a council of its people for their approval, is just such an unwelcoming demand that would turn many people off-- and going against the organic process of creativity in high fashion to me. Sometimes a great design to some is just that: A great design. And there's nothing wrong with that to me.

How do we know the creative process of high fashion is "organic"? Couldn't it just as well be calculated?
Doesn't high fashion designers take time to research and work in a team and try to predict how their collection will be recieved by the customers, the masses and also how the content fits in with what is going on in the fashion world and the world at the moment (predicting what will be suitable for the season even)?

I too believe it's important to defend creativity and art, but we kind of have to define fashion first. It's not yet accepted as fine art as far as I know. It's defined as an applied art. Therefore it becomes tricky to compare fashion and other forms of visual arts and visual expressions.
(Isn't also "haute couture" protected? It's a business that alreday has regulations that prevents any random creative team being creative and free using that name, hehe.)

I agree with a lot of things both you and Dior Couture1245 says, but I feel the art/creative-arguments are a bit weak. Members of the public that doesn't care about fashion can't be expected to view it as fine arts, simply because it's not defined as such (if I'm not completely wrong).
I think the best defence for referencing other cultures is that it's often not hateful or offensive enough to be policed.

 

[mamiji]

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 … 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.'

I think the problem there is that the court of public opinion confuses being PC with being creative. It wants creativity to conform to a set of social rules.

But being PC (i.e. abiding by social rules and convention) is at opposite ends of the pole with creativity: the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships and to create new ideas, conversations,interpretations.

Anyway, who will lay down those rules, who will decide what integrity is, what care is, how to measure and prove thoughtfulness and positive intent ? That is a frightening thought. And if it ever does come to that then you can kiss creativity goodbye because laying down rules, requirements and parameters will effectively neuter it. Although I fear we might be there sooner than we know. People are getting so afraid to do anything that might be deemed controversial that gets them slammed in the press and on social media.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I honestly find it frightening that you are frightened by the idea that people should create with integrity, thoughtfulness, and positive intent.


And I also am somewhat astonished by the persistence of several folks in returning to their own idea that these cannot exist without rules, measurement, requirements, and the like.


Personally I believe, for example, that we are all required to act, work, create, live, etc. with integrity right now.

 

[dior_couture1245]

^^But once again - we're in circles - how can that integrity, thoughtfulness and positive intent be controlled or regulated? Who decides what is created with integrity, thoughtfulness and positive intent? How does one measure or create requirements for such things? You've asked us many times where in heaven's name we might have ever come up with a concept of a board or administration, but you keep implying that someone or some group of people has to have a checklist and needs to be monitoring the fashion industry?

And once again - I think we've been pretty clear in saying that none of us are advocating for bad behavior or malicious actions or hateful words. What we have been consistently advocating for, though, is the freedom for people to express themselves the way they see fit. For you to have the freedom to see or hear exactly what you want to see or hear means you have to allow for others to create something you DON'T want to see or hear. You cannot have one without the other. Because what make's your opinion of right and wrong right for me? Why should I not be able to make something I love because you don't like it?

You're also taking for granted the fact that all great art, film, writing and design that is meaningful to culture, society and humanity that has moved us forward all ruffled feathers as they were created. All innovative art, film, writing and design is always controversial. It upsets the status quo and opens up people to new possibilities, new perspectives and new ways of thinking. If you restrict creativity in order to prevent offense, you close society off to new possibilities.

Ultimately I just don't know how anyone can expect there to be rules about creativity when creativity is perceived by humans as purely subjective and purely opinion. There can never be any one right way or one right answer. Period. You cannot restrict or regulate art and design. If you do that - you will absolutely and unequivocally destroy it.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I honestly find it frightening that you are frightened by the idea that people should create with integrity, thoughtfulness, and positive intent.


And I also am somewhat astonished by the persistence of several folks in returning to their own idea that these cannot exist without rules, measurement, requirements, and the like.

Can someone explain this obsession to me?

 

[Phuel]

^^^ I, and some others simply believe that creative types should have the freedom to draw inspiration from whatever sources they're interested in. If their result is offensive, insulting, and hurtful, we have the right to call them out on it. And how they take that criticism is up to them, but hopefully it's a learning experience, for both sides. That's a point I've made from the very beginning.

I'm not insisting that designers and editors have the right to mock and insult a culture and people. No one is supporting that. And I hope no designer or editor is intentionally doing that and I'll be the first to call them out on it if they did. But your level of sensitivity is obviously very different than mine. You obviously feel that a designer war bonnet in a high fashion show is so offensive and hurtful to a people, while I feel it's perfectly fine because it's celebrating a beautiful design. If that's genuinely frightening to you, then I would direct you to the Indian villages where women and girls have to prostitute themselves in order to earn a living; or to Tehran, where the slightest display of homosexual affection can have one arrested and sentenced to death; or my personal experience with a so-called "crusader for equality" who feels everyone should be equal-- except for the "gays"-- who all should be punished by being doused with gasoline and set afire on the street, according to his Islamic belief.

I know we're high fashion fans here who wear expensive designer clothes and visit TFS on our spare time on our iPhones or our retina-MacBook Pros while waiting for our lunch to be brought to us by the server who's also a NEXT model, and we're talking about "cultural appropriation" within the context of high fashion, but let's realize that if a Chanel war bonnet is the most offensive and hurtful display of exploitation Natives are dealing with, then I would say they're a very very very fortunate people. There are more "frightening" issues Natives have to deal with in reality than silly "Smudge Kits" and Chanel war bonnets. And it's not as if Chanel held their haute couture show at a Reserve with Cara and Kendall wearing authentic war bonnets with their haute-y frocks.

I grew up listening to Hip Hop. I liked Wu-Tang and Cypress Hill as much as I liked Beastie Boys and Tribe Called Qwest. I'm not a fan of homophobic, misogynist, racist, and violent expression in this genre, but I feel they should be allowed that expression just as much as the more innovative, conscientious artists like Beastie Boys, Digable Planets and Tribe. I was able to learn from these artists because I could choose which ones were actually saying something constructive that resonated with me and which ones I didn't identify with, or didn't want to be identified with and didn't agreed with, as a very young, impressionable person. Having all those choices available, I was able to develop into my own person and with my own taste. And, I hope, I'm a more decent person for having given those choices and I choosing not to be homophobic, misogynist, racist and violent. High fashion may not be as far-reaching as music-- or extreme in its expression as Hip Hop can be, but I feel the same now for high fashion when it comes its creative freedom-- and, more so because I'm seeing how homogenous, how bland and how corporate high fashion is (de)evolving into.

fashionista-ta, I always appreciate your compassion and sensitivity to others, but you seem to think those of us that are less sensitive than yourself are somehow encouraging and supporting bigotry and discrimination in the name of creative freedom. And even though you say you don't advocate guidelines and regulations, you seem to be only accepting of creative expressions that will pass your standard of "thoughtfulness" and "integrity". Because once again, the war bonnet is so offensive and exploitive to you when shown at Chanel and DSquared2, and while I do think these labels are fluffy and shallow in their execution and taste, and not as "thoughtful" as designers like Junya and Dries, I still see Karl and the Catenecci twins as celebrating a beautiful design.

I don't expect all taste-levels to be as sophisticated as Junya's and Dries. I want the entire spectrum of high fashion to be included, even if I may not like some of them. It takes all kinds and all types to create diversity. My professional experience in this industry is that it is becoming "frighteningly" bland, homogenous, synthesized, and very uniform and corporate. And political-correctness is just one instigator of many of that blandness-- but it is, nevertheless, an instigator. I've been passed over for high-profile roles because corporate office find my work too "creative" with too much flair.

Of course I'm glad there are people that are sensitive and compassionate and thoughtful to others, but sometimes that act does get carried too far where we're suppressing one group while trying to elevate another: Too far to the left is as bad as too far to the right for me.

(I think I'll get off this merry-go-round now, 'cause we are definitely going in circles LOL)

 

[mamiji]

I honestly find it frightening that you are frightened by the idea that people should create with integrity, thoughtfulness, and positive intent.

You misunderstood what I said. What I said was: "… who will lay down those rules, who will decide what integrity is, what care is, how to measure and prove thoughtfulness and positive intent ? That (meaning that has been said in the prior sentence) is a frightening thought."


The point is who decides the measure of those things. i.e The frightening thought is of a board of censorship (whether the public or legislated) that decides what is and what is not acceptable, what integrity means, who has positive intentions and who doesn't.

Look at world history , look at current events. Writers, artists, poets, painters, philosophers, thinkers - i.e. creative people have been imprisoned for creating things that did not fall within the parameters of 'acceptable' of 'respectful, or 'having integrity' of ' having the best intentions'. In the past (and even present) when rules were 'laid down' for creativity people were castigated, punished even burned at the stake, tortured or exiled to some gulag, in the present they are threatened, even murdered, an extreme and recent example is Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. More commonplace and less deadly, but still pernicious are the current digital attacks of anyone who steps outside a perception of 'acceptable', 'integrity', 'thoughtfulness, 'care', 'sensitivity' or whatever sliding scale of 'ok' people have come up with.

Also, if you read any of these current discussions and comments, many from those who feel abused are as 'abusive' as the people they feel abused by. Better would be a discussion as to why people feel this way - a sharing knowledge and history, a discussion. Not everyone has the same level of understanding or knowledge, nor does everyone feel abused or offended by the same thing, cultures have very different perceptions and world visions, even people with the same culture think differently. To take one example such as DSquaw - (whatever one thought of it )- one positive result was it brought to light a negative stereotype that might just have continued sailing under the radar. Isn't it better to use the controversy to have a conversation, teach people, in this case about the massacres, the theft of culture,language and land of American Indians, the legacy of all the abhorrent practices, instead of just deciding everyone should have known better, should know better. Anyway, that is a tall order and in this case hypocritical considering the history and culture of the America's and all it has done to cover up the abuses of the past and deny history and its legacy and negative impact on the present. People do not learn about 'The Trail of Tears' at school they learn about the bravery and courage of the colonists. Some may think fashion,art, literature is not the way to teach people - but like it or not creativity reaches a far wider audience, and who is to say what is the best way to start a conversation, and provide a catalyst for learning more. Often the conversations that arise from creativity offer a new perspective, a new understanding that challenges and yes often confronts perpetuated stereotypes, ingrained prejudice, cultural vision. To my mind the important thing is that creativity offers up a means for new dialogue and it cannot do that if someone decides only this or that is acceptable.

The positive legacy of creative people, (whether using cultural appropriation, satire or other vehicles) who have not been told what they can do and what is acceptable, is a challenging of the status quo. These people have often been catalyst for new ways of thinking, for enlightenment and awareness - at the time some were castigated, some were misunderstood and sorely abused - BUT the culture at the time or place did not curtail and punish them, decide there was a rule book they had to abide by - and for that we are the better off. Their creativity shook people up, even made them angry but it also made people think, discuss, become aware, reflect, gain knowledge, it helped develop a new and more positive world vision, albeit slowly. Yes, some people just stop at feeling angry and abused and go no further- but that does not develop tolerance, knowledge, understanding or even respect and sensitivity. I believe that creativity is essential to provoking thought and to a very wide audience.

So to reiterate, the point I made was should creativity be regulated and if so by whom and on what criteria would that be based? And if it is regulated can it still be called creativity. I personally think, if regulated, it would just be another form of PC. Many people have no idea why one image/idea/word is ok but not another - it's a habit, a social norm, a cultural sensitivity that has been regulated with no understanding whatsoever. I am all for development and enlightenment, respect and dignity but making rules just enforces, it does not generate understanding or knowledge and only understanding and knowledge can truly change a mindset for the positive.

 

[mamiji]

You misunderstood.

P.S. Just for Beauty too! There does not need to be a message it can just be one of praise. The admiration wow! of the culturally appropriated icon, image is high praise - I know of no creative person who appropriates culture for abuse or disrespect. Not one.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^^ I did not at all misunderstand what you said. My question is have you read this thread, because we have been over this point ad nauseum.

fashionista-ta, I always appreciate your compassion and sensitivity to others, but you seem to think those of us that are less sensitive than yourself are somehow encouraging and supporting bigotry and discrimination in the name of creative freedom. And even though you say you don't advocate guidelines and regulations, you seem to be only accepting of creative expressions that will pass your standard of "thoughtfulness" and "integrity". Because once again, the war bonnet is so offensive and exploitive to you when shown at Chanel and DSquared2, and while I do think these labels are fluffy and shallow in their execution and taste, and not as "thoughtful" as designers like Junya and Dries, I still see Karl and the Catenecci twins as celebrating a beautiful design.

If the majority of American Indians perceive a warbonnet on the runway as bigotry--and I don't know whether they do or not, that's why I suggested that some fashion journalism on this point would be most helpful--then I am ready to support that.


I am a member, as are you, of the court of public opinion, and I have expressed my opinion as to what I want to see on fashion runways. According to what you've said earlier, that is just what I should be doing. And if I have hurt anyone's feelings with my opinions, you have also let us know that no one should worry about that kind of thing. So as I see it, I am good

 

[dior_couture1245]

You misunderstood what I said. What I said was: "… who will lay down those rules, who will decide what integrity is, what care is, how to measure and prove thoughtfulness and positive intent ? That (meaning that has been said in the prior sentence) is a frightening thought."


The point is who decides the measure of those things. i.e The frightening thought is of a board of censorship (whether the public or legislated) that decides what is and what is not acceptable, what integrity means, who has positive intentions and who doesn't.

Look at world history , look at current events. Writers, artists, poets, painters, philosophers, thinkers - i.e. creative people have been imprisoned for creating things that did not fall within the parameters of 'acceptable' of 'respectful, or 'having integrity' of ' having the best intentions'. In the past (and even present) when rules were 'laid down' for creativity people were castigated, punished even burned at the stake, tortured or exiled to some gulag, in the present they are threatened, even murdered, an extreme and recent example is Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. More commonplace and less deadly, but still pernicious are the current digital attacks of anyone who steps outside a perception of 'acceptable', 'integrity', 'thoughtfulness, 'care', 'sensitivity' or whatever sliding scale of 'ok' people have come up with.

Also, if you read any of these current discussions and comments, many from those who feel abused are as 'abusive' as the people they feel abused by. Better would be a discussion as to why people feel this way - a sharing knowledge and history, a discussion. Not everyone has the same level of understanding or knowledge, nor does everyone feel abused or offended by the same thing, cultures have very different perceptions and world visions, even people with the same culture think differently. To take one example such as DSquaw - (whatever one thought of it )- one positive result was it brought to light a negative stereotype that might just have continued sailing under the radar. Isn't it better to use the controversy to have a conversation, teach people, in this case about the massacres, the theft of culture,language and land of American Indians, the legacy of all the abhorrent practices, instead of just deciding everyone should have known better, should know better. Anyway, that is a tall order and in this case hypocritical considering the history and culture of the America's and all it has done to cover up the abuses of the past and deny history and its legacy and negative impact on the present. People do not learn about 'The Trail of Tears' at school they learn about the bravery and courage of the colonists. Some may think fashion,art, literature is not the way to teach people - but like it or not creativity reaches a far wider audience, and who is to say what is the best way to start a conversation, and provide a catalyst for learning more. Often the conversations that arise from creativity offer a new perspective, a new understanding that challenges and yes often confronts perpetuated stereotypes, ingrained prejudice, cultural vision. To my mind the important thing is that creativity offers up a means for new dialogue and it cannot do that if someone decides only this or that is acceptable.

The positive legacy of creative people, (whether using cultural appropriation, satire or other vehicles) who have not been told what they can do and what is acceptable, is a challenging of the status quo. These people have often been catalyst for new ways of thinking, for enlightenment and awareness - at the time some were castigated, some were misunderstood and sorely abused - BUT the culture at the time or place did not curtail and punish them, decide there was a rule book they had to abide by - and for that we are the better off. Their creativity shook people up, even made them angry but it also made people think, discuss, become aware, reflect, gain knowledge, it helped develop a new and more positive world vision, albeit slowly. Yes, some people just stop at feeling angry and abused and go no further- but that does not develop tolerance, knowledge, understanding or even respect and sensitivity. I believe that creativity is essential to provoking thought and to a very wide audience.

So to reiterate, the point I made was should creativity be regulated and if so by whom and on what criteria would that be based? And if it is regulated can it still be called creativity. I personally think, if regulated, it would just be another form of PC. Many people have no idea why one image/idea/word is ok but not another - it's a habit, a social norm, a cultural sensitivity that has been regulated with no understanding whatsoever. I am all for development and enlightenment, respect and dignity but making rules just enforces, it does not generate understanding or knowledge and only understanding and knowledge can truly change a mindset for the positive.

Absolutely awesome post.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I'm reading an article in Yes! magazine about a community of 12,000 people in the Amazon who are fighting the oil industry and winning. I couldn't help but think of this thread when I read the following ...

Inside an oval building with a thatched roof, we fine Jose Gualinga, another of Patricia's brothers, who was then president of Sarayaku. He is holding his ceremonial staff and wearing a black headband and [wait for it] a Che Guevara T-shirt."

 

[DelicateFlower]

I'm reading an article in Yes! magazine about a community of 12,000 people in the Amazon who are fighting the oil industry and winning. I couldn't help but think of this thread when I read the following ...

A+ spotting

I love it.

EDIT meant to include the whole comment.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

^ ha ha, fashionista-ta.

here's a great article on how collaboration can trump appropriation. valentino working with a metis artist for his 2016 work! well done.

http://aptn.ca/news/2015/06/30/cana...fashion-powerhouse-valentino-2016-collection/