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.
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.
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!
As I said earlier, the context of this video--Halloween costumes--is not appropriately applied to art as the author of the article is attempting to do.
Yeah I have to agree with you on that. Were you responding to a point I made and disagreeing with it? I mean that sincerely; I'd would like to address it if that's the case.
BTW I really appreciated your background on Hawaiian culture earlier: that moment in the video where the woman said her grandmother wasn't allowed to dance raised my eyebrow as well, but I didn't know enough about the culture to comment, so I just gave you the "thumbs up".
Written today by Daniel Laan on Fstoppers (Fine-Art Landscape Photography (Part 1): The Magically Appearing Photograph). And I couldn't agree more.
"Ask yourself: What is it that’s caught my eye? And more importantly: Why would you pay attention to it? Is it the texture, color or shape? Once you’ve established the thing you notice, it’s up to you how you would like to portray that through photography. Minimize, dramatize or abstract"
This is what makes creative art - the ability to notice something that stands out to you and then to emphasize, subtract, dramatize or whatever else suits your artistic vision, not restrict, limit or narrow to the ever shrinking list of what's acceptable maintained by the left's thought police.
Stop trying to censor other people's creativity. You do not define what is morally right and wrong.
I agree with everything you said right up to, “… whatever else suits your artistic vision, not restrict, limit or narrow….” Then you went left-field —no pun intended, but appropriate, wish I'd thought of it— when you concluded with, «…the ever shrinking list of what's acceptable maintained by the left's thought police». At that point, you lost me.
You were so close! If you think mockeries of others culture is a partisan political issue instead of the social issue (or even socio-political issue) it really is, then you missed the point of the article and the video.
It does not matter what you express or feel. You are free to feel that way and express it. But when it offends others, even if you did not intend to offend, (especially if you did not intend to offend), it behooves you to at least try to understand how and why it was perceived as offensive.
For example, many Muslims are offended that I call myself, ‘Karim,’ instead of, ‘Kareem,’ or ‘Abdul-Karim.’ The very first time this issue came up, did I say, “Tough cookies for you, if you are offended! It's my name and that's that!” No! I inquired as to why they were offended.They told me. We spoke about it. Now, if any other Muslim takes offence to my name, I can address the issue, having clearly understood it. Thus far, only two of my Muslim friends no longer call me, Karim. One calls me, Kareem, the other calls me Abdul-Karim, (or sometimes, A.K., for short), and I am okay with that. When other non-Muslims call me, Kareem, I correct them.
Now why should others care what my name is and why should I care if my name offends them? Because we are human, and that is what humans do; we care. Once you start to say, “No one can tell me how to express myself. I should be free to say whatever I want, even if others are offended,” then you stop being human. It is not a matter of liberals vs Conservative, nor left-wing vs right-wing, in is a caring or not caring issue.
I have still not changed my name, and I do not intend to do so, but I care enough that it is offensive to some of my friends, that we talk about it, and we compromise.
People seem to miss the point of this well written article, (and the mostly well articulated accompanying video), that it is not a ban on using other people's cultural identity in one's art (or even daily expression), but to not take the time to understand it, and end up using it in a manner which members of that culture find offensive.
Even if one gets the authenticity of the costume correct, one may get the appropriateness of the costume incorrect; such as dressing up in a manner that a Bedouin Arab might as they travel through the desert, then say, “look, I am a terrorist!” I have never seen Eric Rudolf, Timothy McVeigh, nor any of the late 20th to early 21st century terrorists in America dressed like a Bedouin. In fact, they all dressed like Billy Bob Johnson next door. Indeed, I can't understand why Ted Kaczynski, Terry Nichols, or Stephen Paddock would even be dressed that way.
To show the contrast, it is one thing to put on a black, red, green, & gold tam with fake dreads coming down the sides, and walk around with a RedStripe, saying,“Irrrrrieeee, mon! Yeah, mon. Rrrrreggae, mon,” and say you are being Jamaican, (and makes me [feel like I] wanna punch somebody in a tam), and a totally different thing when Jay Leno, —or was it Conan O'Brien???— showing Halloween costume fails, had, ‘receding-hairline-dreadlocks-with-bad-comb-over.’ The former is offensive for many reasons, (including the fact that Rastafarians, having taken their Nazirite vows, do not drink alcohol), and the latter is BOABDL funny! (…unless you have a bad comb-over).
This is not about photographers (or others) not being able to use others cultural elements in their expressions, but to do it correctly, respectfully, and without intended, or unintended offence.
Karim, couldn't disagree with you more here.
Violence in response to how someone dresses? wow.
Some of the best art is offensive, whether intended or not. Critics found much of Picasso’s unorthodox work completely unacceptable. Salvador Dali, a Spanish surrealist in the mid-20th century, disgusted many with works including his 1929 “The Great Masturbator” featuring nudity and sexual overtones that would make even a progressive hedonist blush. How about Sally Mann's naked portraits of her kids? We could go on and on here.
Art is expression, feeling, and should NOT be limited to what all people find non-offensive. In fact, it's practically impossible in today's day when there are people who are so ready to be offended that they want to attack people for what they say or wear.
Think about how late night comedians used to be funny? Now, all they do is left leaning political rants. Being politically correct has literally ruined comedy.
«…and make me wanna punch….»
I am not being violent. I am expressing a feeling. IT MAKES ME WANT TO PUNCH!!!!!!!!
It does. This is not about violence. It is about FEELINGS!!!
…and not feelings about how they dress. Feelings about their mockery!
«…and should NOT be limited to what all people find non-offensive.»
I agree with that. The joke about the bad dreadlocks comb-over was probably offensive to some people. But an unwarranted stereotype of Bedouins being the typical terrorists in neither funny nor acceptable. Making a (false or otherwise) caricature of the Jamaican/Rastafarian people is pure ridicule.
If that is one's art, ridiculing people, then that is one's art, but one ought not be surprised if a band of protesters appear at one's gallery showing.
«…all they do is left leaning political rants. Being politically correct has literally ruined comedy.»
Make up your mind. Are they doing political rants, or are they being politically correct??? ;-) :-D :-)
(…or maybe you are saying that left-leaning rants are correct politically?) ;-) -) :-D
We can go back to the days when comedians spoke about abusing women, the wisdom of the Irish (or Polish, or [Insert Your Adversaries Nationality Here]), or the lack of education among the [Insert Your Least Loved Minority Group Here].
If that is what you call good comedy, before it was ruined by political correctness, I could not disagree with you more. I think political correctness finally gave comedians the challenge to finally create universally acceptable jokes, instead of building up their crowds by belittling others.
Besides, one can still do political incorrect comedy. Take All in the Family. Archie Bunker was hardly described as a politically correct person, but the show was filled with family humour. George Jefferson from The Jeffersons, (a spinnoff), same issues, different perspective.
When you say "and makes me wanna punch", we laugh. When you convert your speech of "wanna punch" to a punch, we send you to jail. See the difference? Speech is different from action, morally and legally.
I agree 100%. So why am I getting flak for making people laugh??? I spoke in what I thought was, (based on context), clear hyperbole. I even used parentheses and informal vernacular in an otherwise well articulated statement.
So the difference has always been clear to me.
Yet someone's takeaway from the well articulated point is to chide me for a non-existent violent response. He then goes on to say how someone offended people in 1929, so that makes it okay to mock people today. What the what?!?
Salvador Dali was not the first to offend people with their art, (and he was illustrating himself, not other people or cultures, so apples and oranges), and he has certainly not been the last. That does not make it an acceptable thing to do. Regarding Sally Mann, I personally found nothing wrong with her images, (that is, the content, and the ones I have seen, anyway), but it is clear to me that some issues are controversial, (but she also did not bring offence regarding other people and their culture, so, again, apples and oranges), so I do not emulate them at all. (I actually have issues with her style —exposure, lighting, etc., but that is all irrelevant).
Does that stymie my creativity? No! It drives it even more!
So go ahead, artistic world, and express yourself (almost) freely. Just do not think that a mockery of another culture is a good way to express yourself. But portraying Bedouin as terrorists, or Jamaicans as ‘word-mon’, RedStripe-drinking dreadlocks, is not a very good expression of ones self. It is pitiful, and neither Dali nor Mann behaved in that manner.
….
I keep trying to make this a top-level comment, but it keeps putting it as a reply. Sorry.
…
Still cannot make this top-level comment! This not intended to be a reply.
…And apparently, I cannot delete, now that it shows as a top level.
Haha same thing happened to me earlier! No worries.
This is funny, this American guilty mood. Yes, you feel guilty for a reason. And what has been done, has been done. No one will change it. But Halloween costumes? Kidding right? By the way - in my culture - we celebrate the Feast of the Deceased by visiting all of them on their graves. It's a serious and sad feast. And well I do not have any problem with Halloween. You know why? Halloween is a culture too. This stupid plastic Hawaii costume is important part of it.(IMHO)
And photography? Learn all the rules and break them!
Taking care about how you use items from other cultures isn't about "political correctness" so much as it is about understanding what you are communicating to someone else who views your image. If they understand the culture from which you are borrowing something and you don't, you may be unintentionally be communicating a personal or religious insult (if you are borrowing a religious item), an unintended association (perhaps you have chosen a clothing item typically worn when mourning and you intended the image to be joyful), or simply a message that you the image creator are ignorant since someone who understood the significance of the item would never have used it the way you chose. You can do any of these things if you choose to, it's a free country, but don't be surprised (or insulted yourself) if someone takes the image in a way you didn't intend.
Though the only responsible person for someone to be offended is himself and the person who wears that terrible costumes are the real victims here, a victim of his own ignorance and a poor education, fantastic article!
Is a matter of time. Remember how black native people were portraited in Tarzan movies or native Americans in old westerns to put a couple of examples. That's is unthinkable today.
Wow, all I have to say is that I am done with F-stoppers. I expect the Left-wing statist politicians shoving this shit down our throats, not a photography how-to website. So, so sad how brain-washed this younger generation is now. We can thank the public school system for this new attitude and the long decline of our American culture. Good-bye and good riddens F-Stoppers!
^ Blames public schools for brainwashing the younger generation, and then misspells "riddance" in the next sentence. lol