Does it matter who owns art? (a version of cultural appropriation)

[Barrister]

Saw this on teh interwebs today - a CBC article titled "Does it matter who owns Black art?"

https://www.cbc.ca/arts/does-it-matter-who-owns-black-art-1.6440252?cmp=DM_Display_PopularNow_CBCArts

The article by the way never comes to a formal conclusion (not that it has to), but it seems to say that while of course anyone can purchase and own art, it does still somehow "matter" if people of the Black community own Black art in terms of telling a story.

(as a side note I see the CBC consistently spells is as Black with a capital "B", which I understand is the new progressive norm).

The argument can certainly extend past Black art to art from any marginalized community.  To me what comes to mind is indigenous art.  I have a small collection of soapstone carvings done by Inuit artists, and I have three art prints by first nations artists hanging in my office.

This goes beyond who makes the art, which is a separate debate.  Can or should a white artist use Black (or indigenous) themes, or should those be reserved for Black artists?

But instead - is it acceptable for white people to buy Black art (or indigenous, or other)?  How do you balance the wants of a community to keep ownership over it's cultural heritage, with the understandable desire of artists to profit from their own works? (soapstone carvings is a not insignificant industry in the otherwise quite poor Canadian arctic)

[Zanza]

No, it does not matter who own art. Certainly not ethnicity as a criterion.

But I think the most outstanding pieces should be accessible to the public in museums etc.

[Josquius]

Buying art from other cultures-> no. Thats how its done. It only becomes iffy when its stuff that has been stolen and is being sold amongst the powerful with those responsible not seeing a penny.

Creating art influenced from other cultures-> It depends how its done, punching up/punching down and all that. For instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.
When you get rich white suburban kids going acting like gangster rappers and going on about being from the hood and all that shit though...no.

[Barrister]

Buying art from other cultures-> no. Thats how its done. It only becomes iffy when its stuff that has been stolen and is being sold amongst the powerful with those responsible not seeing a penny.

Creating art influenced from other cultures-> It depends how its done, punching up/punching down and all that. For instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.
When you get rich white suburban kids going acting like gangster rappers and going on about being from the hood and all that shit though...no.

I've never liked the "punching up/punching down" dichotomy.  It basically means certain groups can never be criticized, regardless of how right or wrong they might be.

Music is an interesting aspect to this question.  I know Eminem, or even Vanilla Ice, were criticized for appropriating rap music back in the 90s.  But these days Hip Hop *IS* popular music.  Rock and roll is old people music (and yes, it was appropriated from Black musicians).  How can a white person even make music without sounding like Hip Hop?

[Oexmelin]

Considering that owning art is difficult to distinguish from "displaying" art, it does matter a great deal - for reasons BB alluded to. Displaying art is telling a story, and this entails a degree of control from the person telling that story. Public institutions (or minimally public-facing institutions) can at least enable multiple stakeholders to have a voice through a variety of mechanism. Private collectors can usually dictate the terms.

Art, or esthetic objects of all sorts, have been traded forever, including to people outside one's own group. The difficulty, when it comes to the 19th century, is to figure out what where the transactions that were "free-ish" and which ones were more coerced by material or political difficulties and circumstances. Many flatten out all transactions into "colonial extractions": it seems evident when clearly sacred objects were sold by groups (or even individuals, unauthorized to do so) under duress. The case is much less clear say, in the case of tourist art of the 19th century, which Haudenosaunee or Mi'kmaq artists clearly produced to sell white tourists.

[Josquius]

I've never liked the "punching up/punching down" dichotomy.  It basically means certain groups can never be criticized, regardless of how right or wrong they might be.

Eh?
How on earth does it mean that?

[Jacob]

I can see arguments that sometimes it matters - not as a fundamental truth, but contextually.

I would not want to undermine the ability of non-white artists to survive from their art by limiting their potential market. Like... I think NW Indigenous art is pretty cool. If it always matters that the owners of art are from the communities that produced it, then I (and other people who aren't NW Indigenous) ought not to support the artists by buying their work - and that's going to make it much harder for those artists to make ends meet.

On the flipside, I think there are plenty of cases where repatriating significant artistic objects to the originating communities can function as an act of reconciliation, can bring significant value to those communities, can add additional value to the art object by being exhibited in a different context, and so on. And I also get why individuals can get additional value from collecting art from the marginalized community they belong to, and that that can be empowering both for themselves and their communities in ways outsiders collecting the art is not. But that doesn't add up to a fundamental ought; it just adds some context which can or can not be significant, depending.

So I guess my answer is: sometimes, depending on context. Which is usually my answer, to be honest.

[Sheilbh]

I think context matters.

This is specifically about art not objects that one culture considers of purely aesthetic interest but have deep significance to another culture that is more than aesthetic (normally - though not always appropriated through colonialism) - for example the Benin sculptures, the Ethiopian Tabot, arguably the Maya codices.

There is also a question of heritage and at a certain point work by an artist I think moves beyond just being works of art into something that is closer to an intangible part of a nation's heritage - Michaelangelo and da Vinci spring to mind, similarly the Goya collection at the Prado. It would, I think, be wrong for them or for a significant proportion of them to be alienated in private collections and ideally I think they should be displayed in their context.

The origin of a lot of the great galleries, rather than museums, are private collections gifted to the nation or something similar and often they are testaments to the original donors' connoisseurship. But I wonder if there is a tension and difficulty there too - think for example of, say, a middle aged white gay guy in Manhatten who has an incredible Basquiat collection. If that doesn't revert on display is something lost.

Linked to this is the value we place on certain art forms as well. There is huge desire in the UK to "re-discover" and laud British female artists - especially in the 20th century. The easiest way to do this would be to treat print and ceramics as art forms - which, in my view, they absolutely are - rather than crafts or curiousities. I think that can also apply to other artistic forms and race.

Now having said all that - and this isn't relevant to all of my comments - but I am sat in London, the centre of a former empire that looted the world. If it wasn't just stealing things, it was certainly buying them cheap and in situations where the seller is maybe in a bit of distress (for example a lot of Chinese art - even though little of it came from formal colonialism). So I'm aware that my sense of whether things should be displayed is shaped by that - of course they should but London has been, because of that empire, a place where things are displayed not where they're taken from. Linked to that is the fact that these isles have produced a lot of great literature, but no great art (maybe Turner) or classical music - so there's also less worth stealing.

[viper37]

Considering that owning art is difficult to distinguish from "displaying" art, it does matter a great deal - for reasons BB alluded to. Displaying art is telling a story, and this entails a degree of control from the person telling that story. Public institutions (or minimally public-facing institutions) can at least enable multiple stakeholders to have a voice through a variety of mechanism. Private collectors can usually dictate the terms.

If Greek art is displayed in a British museum, it does tell a story, a story the British people can see and learn of.  When this art is loaned to another museum in Canada, Canadians can appreciate too.  However, it is done at the expense of the modern day Greeks who cannot profit from this art because it was kinda stolen in the past.  I talked of Greece, but Egypt and numerous African countries come to mind.  These people can not see their own art on display because it is in a foreign country that often refuse to loan it.

A good case can be made when a country is ravaged by war and instability.  And many of these countries, at the time where this art was picked by Europeans and their museums, were in such a state.  I am totally uncertain that any art should be given back to Afghanistan if we own it in our vaults.  But what do we do if we have given back art to a country and a new government comes in and declares such art heretical and wants to destroy it?

We want people to enjoy it, be we don't want to lose it forever either.

[viper37]

Creating art influenced from other cultures-> It depends how its done, punching up/punching down and all that. For instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.
When you get rich white suburban kids going acting like gangster rappers and going on about being from the hood and all that shit though...no.

A movie or tv series is a form of art, just as music.  Norway and Denmark weren't involved in the making of the hugely popular tv Series Vikings about Ragnar Lothbrook and his sons.

There was a tv series about Greek gods living in the modern world.  There weren't any Greek actors, no Greek producers and it wasn't shot in Greece either. You had Americans pretending to be ancient Greek Gods.

The Rome TV series was made by the BBC.  The lead actors were British.

How is all of this different than the white kid talking thrash and making crappy music?  Should we cancel Eminem because he's white?

I remember a black artist denouncing white singers who sang hip hop, saying it was black culture. Cultural appropriation.  Country was for whites, hip hop, rap and soul was for Blacks.
Since Metal music is most definitely a predominantly white music style, most appreciated by white people and originally created by white folks from England.  Do we forbid Welsh artists from performing this music?  Should I follow the racist morons who call for black metal singers to go back to their jungle and stick to rap?  I'd hate to do it, 'cause I really like diversity in metal, I like the Hu and their Mongol singing, I appreciate Quebec bands that sing about Viking folk tales, there a Spanish and Brazilian that I like listening too.  I believe some Black Americans are great singers or guitar players in their bands.  I really like Howard Jones and I think it's a shame he had to leave Killswitch Engage due to his health issues.

But if you guys tell me that art should be exclusive, so ok.  I'll kindly ask English Canadians to give us back our poutine.  And stop listening to "white" anglo-saxon music made by non whites and non anglo-saxons as to avoid any kind of cultural appropriation from now on.  Even if I still find this concept completely ridiculous.

[CountDeMoney]

For instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.

Wow. Elvis ripping off black musicians.  Christ, you're all a bunch of fucking cunts.

[Josquius]

For instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.

Wow. Elvis ripping off black musicians.  Christ, you're all a bunch of fucking cunts.

This is a pretty well known critique. Not altogether invalid. Rocks roots in the blues are well attested. I don't see whats cunty about it?

[Sheilbh]

I've never liked the "punching up/punching down" dichotomy.  It basically means certain groups can never be criticized, regardless of how right or wrong they might be.

Yeah I don't think punching up/punching down helps in this context. I think I'm pretty relaxed about this as long as you acknowledge your sources - ideally if you point to them. I think that's the difference between appropriation and actually creativity/inspiration.

[Josquius]

A movie or tv series is a form of art, just as music.  Norway and Denmark weren't involved in the making of the hugely popular tv Series Vikings about Ragnar Lothbrook and his sons.

White people of North European descent playing other white people of North European descent from a millennium ago. Many of the actors are probably descendents of real people characters in the show are based on. Even the most ott of not picker appropriation types would have trouble finding fault here.

There was a tv series about Greek gods living in the modern world.  There weren't any Greek actors, no Greek producers and it wasn't shot in Greece either. You had Americans pretending to be ancient Greek Gods.

Actors portraying fictional characters from their ancient cultural heritage. OK?

The Rome TV series was made by the BBC.  The lead actors were British.

Italy doesn't mind. Romes heritage belongs to Europe.

How is all of this different than the white kid talking thrash and making crappy music? 

Why is acting out old stories from which the original people stand in no way to profit different to ripping off less powerful folks in the here and now? Really?

Should we cancel Eminem because he's white?

Why would you do that?

I remember a black artist denouncing white singers who sang hip hop, saying it was black culture. Cultural appropriation.  Country was for whites, hip hop, rap and soul was for Blacks.
Since Metal music is most definitely a predominantly white music style, most appreciated by white people and originally created by white folks from England.  Do we forbid Welsh artists from performing this music?  Should I follow the racist morons who call for black metal singers to go back to their jungle and stick to rap?  I'd hate to do it, 'cause I really like diversity in metal, I like the Hu and their Mongol singing, I appreciate Quebec bands that sing about Viking folk tales, there a Spanish and Brazilian that I like listening too.  I believe some Black Americans are great singers or guitar players in their bands.  I really like Howard Jones and I think it's a shame he had to leave Killswitch Engage due to his health issues.

But if you guys tell me that art should be exclusive, so ok.  I'll kindly ask English Canadians to give us back our poutine.  And stop listening to "white" anglo-saxon music made by non whites and non anglo-saxons as to avoid any kind of cultural appropriation from now on.  Even if I still find this concept completely ridiculous.

Your strawman attempts I find to be completely ridiculous.
That some people take this concept too far doesn't mean the concept is instantly invalid.

To use your own approach back at you :so it's OK for a wealthy American to travel to a poor island cut off from the modern world, record the music of the people who live there and then sell it at home (keeping the profits of course) saying "this is mine. I invented this."

Also FYI poutine is stolen from us

[viper37]

I think context matters.

This is specifically about art not objects that one culture considers of purely aesthetic interest but have deep significance to another culture that is more than aesthetic (normally - though not always appropriated through colonialism) - for example the Benin sculptures, the Ethiopian Tabot, arguably the Maya codices.

I recently saw the picture of a white guy sporting a tatoo with Mayan and various Polynesian inspired art.
I didn't really care.  Should I have been frustrated?

Cultural appropriation to me, would be if I made a sculpture similar in style to Inuit art and claim myself some bogus indigenous ancestry to sell it as genuine First Nations art.

There was this man in Quebec, no so long ago, he was the President of some First Nation movement (not recognized by other, legitimate FN organizations.  He spoke about various indigenous issues.  Turns out he was a white man with absolutely no indigenous ancestry.  This, you see, is cultural appropriation.

Having a white theater actor perform the role of a black figure for 2 minutes does not really bother me though.  It's like American actors speaking accented French in a tv series and passing of as French or Québécois.  However, having a French actor play the role of a Québécois, now, that's disturbing!