As Halloween comes to a close and we reflect on all the creative costumes roaming the streets, I think it’s a good time we take a moment to talk about cultural appropriation. We are blessed as photographers to be able to view images from any culture in the world through the Internet. It’s pretty cool that we have access to unlimited inspiration from just about everywhere, something the founding fathers of photography had nothing close to. It's important for photographers to have a vast basic knowledge of cultures, subcultures, and social classes so that we can always use culture with respect and honor in our images.
Aside from sacred things, it isn't wrong in itself to share the cultures of the world, but we have to do it right, to leave people feeling positive about the images knowing they are looking at something close to what they'd see traveling to these places. Before choosing elements to use in themed and styled shoots it’s important that we take the extra step to learn the background of what we want to photograph in order to leave little room for disrespectful images. Although you should care, even if you don’t personally find it important to avoid conflicts with your viewers you should still do this. It’s never a negative thing to receive messages like “you portrayed my culture really well” rather than, “this is a disgusting insult to my culture.” Although constructive and sometimes not so constructive criticism can be good for us, we would all rather see the compliments and appraisal in the comments under our photos online.
I want to share this short video from Teen Vogue below. It's an eye-opening and straight to the point explanation of why we should all care about culture and the proper capturing and sharing of it. The women in this emotional video share their history, and their stories are the reasons we should do our research before using elements from other cultures to break the heartbreaking patterns of appropriation. They share the real meanings behind the garments that we often see poorly redesigned and mass produced into inaccurate costumes and fashion.
In addition to this powerful video here are a few essential steps to take before executing a photoshoot inspired by an unfamiliar culture. Before creating my own photoshoots from the ground up portraying a culture, I prefer to look for local subjects who are actually immersed in that culture I am interested in. The images become powerful when you bring real people with the traditional clothes right out of their closet and a whole lot of true stories to tell to your lens. Instead of replicating, by photographing people who are part of a culture we are sharing the truth. But if you can't find anyone to help you out here are some tips to keep in mind when recreating culture through your own imagination and renderings.
1. Do Your Research
We have the world at our fingertips, get on the web and gather a few credible sources documenting the culture or elements you'd like to use.
2. Ask Around
Your friends and family online and in real life have a vast amount of cultural knowledge. The stories you get from real people are far more valuable and one of a kind than what you'll find on Google. Because the idea of culture is so vast, a lot of it is missing from the Internet or hard to find on your own. Face to face conversations about culture is as real as it gets.
3. Have a Solid Plan
Leave no room for any "winging" it, as that's when appropriation starts to happen quickly. Get the proper materials, a model that will mesh well, appropriate makeup and hair, and a posing plan appropriate for the culture.
4. Make Some Prints of the Real Deal
When I aim to do justice to something when photographing it, I make sure to print out a few images as reference to look back at throughout the shoot. This is a great way to stay on track and not take the culture out of context.
5. If Your Images Aren't Doing a Culture Proper Justice, Try Again
Rather than potentially offending people if you don't nail a culture's elements in a proper way, fix what you need and re-shoot it. This is worth the extra time and effort.
Gabrielle, I didn't mean to infer that "culture" is crap. Culture is the result of generations upon generations experiencing cycles of strife and equanimity.
Culture is what defines US and the vehicle it uses to do so is free expression. Expression through written and spoken word. Expression through art. Free expression cannot and will not ever be docile. It will not ever be inoffensive. If we allow our society to to become one where provocation is verboten; free expression will not simply become inoffensive. It will cease to exist. And when free expression ceases to exist, so does culture.
Excellent article and steps to adjust to the culture. Video has good analysis from people of various backgrounds and their introspective viewpoints.
Funny how all of a sudden political correctness is destroying western culture. I always though bullets and full scale wars were the prime culprit.
wow....really......Big headed logic again. Spoken to Gandhi lately.......
You kidding me right.
You do know there is more than one Gandhi..... all 3 were assassinated.
I am sure your are well acquitted with history. all 3 Gandhi's were Indians, but only one was known by the MK Gandhi, the man who challenged British rule in South Africa and India. The the other two were, Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi. Both assassinated. Indira Gandhi was killed by her security guards, while Rajiv was killed by a female suicide bomber.
The freedom I enjoy is the result of one man's determination to rid of imperial British rule in India.... We just have to agree to disagree who brought about the change and my right to enjoy peace on planet earth.
Although MK Gandhi was regularly imprisoned by the British for sedition, at least the British recognise Gandhi's contribution and there is a statue of Gandhi now in Parliament Square, London.
You mean civilised Western culture monsters like Hitler. You know f all about me. So please do spare me your biased perception.Good day.
No worries, but thank you for your thoughtful apology. We live in an ever changing world and regardless of where we live, change does bring some very interesting benefits. Photography and this website is a good example. Wish you all the best Bob.
you have to be kidding..
Well, I thought long and hard before commenting. The last thing I did was watch the video and, honestly, I felt sorry for the girls in it. To willingly reduce yourself to a member of a culture is sad. Of course your culture is part of you and some people identify with theirs more than others, but everyone is so much more than their culture.
I'm Irish. People do much worse than these costumes every St. Patrick's Day. I don't care because I'm less than the accumulated Irish in the world. I'm less than all the Americans in the world. I'm me and there's nobody else like me in the world and never has been. People have "appropriated" me in ways that would make those girls cry. I don't care. In fact, I think it's funny.
You can't change anyone else. Change yourself if you can't handle that.
This isn't intended to infer everyone should do whatever they want. Only that they will.
Fstoppers, please?! Stop pushing left wing politics. Please
Any time an immigrant comes to America and partakes in American festivities, wears a cowboy costume, gets a career that wasn't available in their country, cooks a cheeseburger, listens to rock and roll, wears a football jersey, or any other of the millions of things people enjoy about the American way of life, they are appropriating OUR culture.
Nope. Everything you just described is cultural assimilation, which is distinctly different from appropriation.
Sorry I meant to respond to James here and am having trouble removing the post.
Appropriate and cultural appropriation are not exactly the same. Appropriate is a verb that can be used removed from cultural discussions, where cultural appropriation is a sociological term. It's not an agenda to find nuance and discuss interesting concepts. And whoa there with the language.
Welcome back, Bizarro Bob. May I call you that?
Alex, besides the fact that you are constantly pushing politically charged left wing articles on a photography forum, you are also defeating your own argument here. The people who initially practiced whatever cultural practice are still free to do so.
"appropriate - take (something) for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission."
They haven't been robbed of anything since culture is essentially just a set of practices, it isn't finite, meaning that it can be shared among a limitless number of people, without the "original" practitioners losing out on anything. It's not possible to obtain permission from a culture since cultures are made up of individuals with different opinions, and what may be acceptable to one person may be egregious to another.
You’re confusing a sociological term with the term you gave. I never said culture was a finite thing that could therefore be exhausted, nor did I say those from whom it was taken are being robbed in a literal sense of the thing that isn’t finite anyway; in fact, I’ve advocated for the intermingling of cultures multiple times in these comments.
p.s. I didn’t write this article, and out of the 900 articles I’ve written for this site, maybe 7 have dared to address the intersection of photography and politics (which is a nonempty intersection anyway). I’d hardly call 7 out of 900 “constantly pushing.”
Alex, I said "pushing," not wrote, so stating the number of articles you wrote has nothing to do with it. If I went through and looked at every political article on this site, I'm sure you'd be found pushing it in the comments.
Support for every left leaning article on the site = pushing. In terms of political bents, there is little to no intellectual diversity on this site, only neutral (photography related) and left. And besides obviously biased, it seems you are completely unaware of it.
I'm not sure of your point here. I'm not confusing anything, I just disagree with you. You defined the term, I used your definition to dismantle your own argument. Seems you are confused. And I'm doubtful that there is any hope for those that have decided that anything that offends anyone in the slightest should be banned or shamed.
Sorry James, but I’m allowed to have personal views and express them in the comments. That’s not pushing; that’s being a normal adult. I do diligent work to ensure that they do not drastically affect my articles or my discussions related to my own writing. Also, the vast majority of my discussion here has been academic, despite attempts by others to drag it into politics. And you did confuse the terms, as you argued a different term than the one I used.
Right, you are allowed to push your views, and we are allowed to point out the biases. And don't confuse using big words with being academic. "Academic" universities these days teach people what to think, not how, so that word won't garner you any merit from me.
Very few care about the semantics of the terms, they care about the larger issues at play: victimhood culture, double standards, outrage culture, censorship, shaming, though policing, and virtue signaling to name a few.
It was interesting how you switched from a substantive argument to a semantic one when I mentioned the hypocrisy of American cultural appropriation. This here lies your bias. You only really seem concerned when particular cultures are offended.
Take the case of St Patrick's day, which celebrates some arguably offensive stereotypes, and yet many people who aren't Irish can freely walk with "Kiss Me, I'm Irish" t-shirts on, and not be subject to this type of shaming. Can you imagine your outrage if the same was done with Mexican or Native American culture? That sir, is called bias.
I agree with you on the political viewpoint part, there is a lot of low-quality content made by activists like Wasim Ahmad, who is not very good at making images nor spreading knowledge, but makes a lot of noise.
But, Fstoppers is a privately owned commercial website, their content only has to answer to its ower. University is different because it takes up a large amount of funding from the government, and I believe institutions like that has to remain neutral. While Fstoppers not only have the right to send whatever message it wants. Readers will leave if they don't agree with it.
I also completely agree with you about cultural appropriation is a rubbish idea, and if we dig deeper it can be quite racist because it is completely against people who are considered to be "white". Identity politic is toxic and self-replicating therefore we should abolish it.
On the other hand, Alex sounds like a reasonable person with views different from me. I actually think it is wonderful that Fstoppers is a platform we can have a conversation, consider the general social environment, maybe for now.
Sounds like we just became new friends. :)
I believe so. I appreciate you are willing to have conversation with people you disagree with, and your efforts to build this community. The last part is from a reader since 2011, back when David Hobby was actively posting contents.
The definitions of the terms matter, and I'd argue they matter because they prove your point on bias more than they refute it. Alex and I (and correct me if I'm wrong here, Alex) have both been making the distinction between academic descriptions of assimilation and appropriation because far too often people without a nuanced understanding of the terms misuse them. Not everyone in academia is out to convert you into a mindless liberal zombie, sometimes we just want to learn more about a concept and engage in conversation to form a better understanding :)
Specifically, there are those who misuse "cultural appropriation" to describe anything them think is offensive without looking at context and/or intent. The video from this post, I'd argue, is not cultural appropriation, because none of the costumes are claiming ownership over a culture, and none of the people in the video can claim to speak for the entirety of the culture they claim to represent. Appropriation is often just thrown around by people who don't like something someone is doing. The definition of the term is much more specific than that.
Assimilation (or the older term "acculturation"), on the other hand, involves more of a blending of components of differing cultures without claiming ownership or viewing the act as "stealing". That's why the distinction matters. Specifically in art, assimilating other cultures into your work has been the bedrock of artistic expression for millennia.
And funny you should mention the St. Patrick's Day point; I was thinking the same thing as I watched the video. I wonder how many of those women wear green on St. Patrick's Day without understanding the cultural implications, or whether they consider that "becoming" Irish for a day conflicts with their feelings of being offended over Halloween costumes. Pure speculation, of course, but good point.
I'm not speaking for Alex here, but I responded earlier to your post and wasn't sure if it went through correctly (apologies if I screwed up the post). It could be very well be argued that the inability for a culture to be "pure" or "original" or for a single person to represent a culture means that the ability for anyone to dictate an acceptable level of appropriation is lost. I would argue for a certain level of respect on a person-by-person basis (if an Asian American you're photographing doesn't want to wear a geisha costume, maybe just respect that), but overall your point is valid.
Defining a difference between appropriation or assimilation doesn't negate that point at all, however. It's a different point Alex was making.
Alex is right here. If they are an immigrant who is naturalized or in the process, then this would be a form of assimilation by altering your identity to fit into the perceived cultural norms of a new society. To show the complexity here, eating a cheeseburger as James describes is also not wholly an American cultural phenomenon: while the history of the hamburger is fuzzy, it is mostly agreed that the meat patty is named for a type of steak cooked in the Hamburg region of Germany in the 19th century (hence "hamburger). German immigrants and American sailors brought it to the U.S. where is was assimilated into American culture.
"eating a cheeseburger as James describes is also not wholly an American cultural phenomenon" <-Exactly, which is yet another reason this whole outrage is so ridiculous. Culture is way too complex and ever evolving to pinpoint 1 particular group that has the "rights" to practice it.
I agree with you, that it becomes particularly difficult to claim ownership over a fluid notion like culture. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, however. Just because these examples show the complexity of culture doesn't mean that there aren't instances of cultural appropriation. I would argue that the term get thrown around too often, but that the concept itself, while complicated and multifaceted, is not ridiculous.
Sorry, I misread what you wrote. Yes, the outrage is often blown out of proportion.
Wait, I call total BS on the girl from Hawaii. I lived in Hawaii in the 70s and in the 90s. My kids were required to take K-12 Hawaiiana classes taught by genuine native Hawaiian kahunas. The annual Merry Monarch dance competition displays scores of young native Hawaiians dancing their traditional dances in traditional costume to traditional music. I've heard a gray-haired old man watch one of those youth and declare, "That's just how I learned it when I was young." So I call BS on the claim that her old grandmother was forbidden until now to practice her culture. Native Hawaiians are a demographic minority, but their culture in Hawaii is not.
I also call BS on the black girl--who has the gall to talk about "our hair has been stygmatized as being untidy" while she wears her hair straightened. When I first grew my 'Fro in 1969, people asked me, "Are you one of those revolutionaries?"--because that wasn't a fashion statement back then that was a political statement. We started using picks then--her drivel about "the pick is incredibly insensitive" is just incredibly insensible from someone who has zero clue. And blackface is NOT "cultural appropriation." Jeez. We never had a cultural practice of painting our faces blacker than they already are.
Now, if we limit the conversation strictly to things like Halloween costumes, we might have a subject for discussion. But this video spreads beyond that, and the author of the article takes it 'way beyond that and 'way too far.
This is where it goes in totalitarian regimes, when even art is required to support the political stance. I recall an artist in the old Soviet Union complaining, "Sometimes I'd like to paint a vase of flowers without it being criticized for its political content."
At the core, I think it has to come down to asking yourself "is this out of respect, or is this to demean?"
I'm kind of torn about this one and I finally had to come to the conclusion I stated above. For example, if I go southwest and buy jewelry from Hopi artisans, am I then not allowed to wear it? I'd think it's okay to wear it because I bought it out of appreciation for the history and artistic merit.
When I first heard the therm "cultural appropriation" it was from Native American Navajo who were complaining about white companies making copies of Navajo jewelry and selling it as genuine Navajo jewelry. If you stole a design and claimed it was yours, I'd call that cultural appropriation.
And that makes sense. Not very honorable intent on the part of companies.
Right. A lot of people are confusing cultural (mis)appropriation with acculturation and cultural assimilation here, and that distinction is extremely important.
And, legally, they don't get it, inasmuch as neither copyright nor patent laws apply. But for someone to take a cultural design and claim he invented it is unethical even when legal.
This is such BS. I'll entertain your idea of "cultural appropriation" just as soon as you outline what cultural things that white people have that the others aren't allowed to appropriate. Oh, and does this mean I have to move out of the predominantly black neighborhood I live in? Do I have to not eat the rice that my filipino daughter-in-law makes? Please tell me more how I'm suppose to live my life.
Nope, you don't have to move out or stop eating the rice. That's all cultural assimilation, which is distinctly different from appropriation.
Why does it have to be appropriation? Why can't it be Appreciation? What happened to imitation being the highest form of flattery?
If a male from another culture dresses in a suit, is that cultural appropriation?
It depends. Is he white? ;-) <- I'm kidding. Sometimes people miss the winking, smiley face.
No, that's acculturation or cultural assimilation depending on the context.
To your point, Alex, context is key here. I think that a good deal of the backlash from this video–particularly in relation to art and appropriation–comes from a supposed finite definition of what constitutes cultural appropriation. Just because one person is offended by a practice does not necessarily mean that an action is cultural insensitive (it also, doesn't mean that is isn't). The definition of appropriation is far more nuanced than what the video shows. I'd recommend Arnd Schneider's view reappraising the concept of appropriation in relation to changing personal, symbolic, and global viewpoints for anyone interested (he specifically discusses art and appropriation).
Yeah, definitely agreed that context is everything. And I agree that the definition and practical assessment of appropriation is very nuanced and often gets confused with cultural assimilation and acculturation, which leads to a lot of false arguments and misplaced anger. Thanks for the recommendation; I haven't seen his work before! Most of my training on it is from a musicological and sociological standpoint just by virtue of my academic studies.
I come from a background in history, so thick interpretations of sociology and anthropology normally make my head spin, but theories on cultural contact affect nearly all the arts and social sciences. On my 2nd (or 3rd!) read of Schneider I started to get a good grasp of complicated notions of "originality", "hybridization", and "appropriation" and their fluid interpretations. If you're coming from a sociological standpoint you'll probably get even more than I did.
That’s super cool. What area did you specialize in in history? Is there a specific Schneider article you recommend?
I specialize in late 18th and early 19th century American history with a focus on nationalism and identity formation. It's actually how I got back into photography again: I wrote a paper on daguerreotype portraits of American Revolutionary soldiers and got interested in early photographic processes.
The Arnd Schieder article is called "On Appropriation. A critical reappraisal of the concept and its application in global art practices." It's available online, but I didn't want to post a link due to rights infringement. Hope you enjoy it!
There's more to understanding a complex sociological theory than taking a screengrab of a Google definition. And if you read what I wrote, I was actually using those more nuanced interpretations of the concept of appropriation to refute the video's argument, not to justify being offended. According to some academics, the concept of appropriation can lose its rigid definition because of the inability for groups and/or persons to claim original ownership of a culture. Therefore, context and intent become equally useful in determining levels of appropriation, especially in relation to art.
It's your choice to decide to not understand something, but you don't have to be dismissive of it. And if you don't want to partake in the discussion, kindly move on so those that do want to talk about it can. It's childish to continue with the obnoxious screengrabs.
Haha. You're a hoot, Bob!