|
Post by conor on Jun 9, 2015 12:44:45 GMT
I think that it is appropriation regardless. It's a bit reductive to just dismiss the parallels between Warhol's contributions to art by appropriating others, Marcel duchamp and readymades, ETC ETC ETC. Yes, we are talking about race, but if we can't have a civil discussion about the artistic merits of appropriation in general without it immediately devolving in to ad hominem attacks it will never get anywhere. Instead I tried to open a dialogue about appropriation in art (WHICH INCLUDES GFOTY'S PERFORMANCE ART SCHTICK). Pointing out and satirizing appropriation while at the same time appropriating various things yourself has been an aspect of art for ages, including in music. Simply writing it off as off limits is just reductive. You can choose to think my contribution doesn't fit within this conversation, but without trying to argue, I simply believe that it absolutely has a place in this discussion. Artistic appropriation extends beyond visual art and I was merely trying to make a fair assessment on how we can reconcile the feelings of work being stolen or copied or culturally appropriated while still giving that artist the opportunity to express themselves through the use of things like readymades and reappropriations for the sake of provoking an artistic response. Just look around at stuff like piss christ even. I know that I'm approaching this from a mostly visual arts background but it REALLY DOES transfer over and its a little disappointing how quickly you seemed to dismiss it entirely.
|
|
|
Post by carraigs on Jun 9, 2015 13:02:38 GMT
apology up on pcmus twitter
|
|
|
Post by lovergirlsprecinct on Jun 9, 2015 13:21:22 GMT
I think that it is appropriation regardless. It's a bit reductive to just dismiss the parallels between Warhol's contributions to art by appropriating others, Marcel duchamp and readymades, ETC ETC ETC. Yes, we are talking about race, but if we can't have a civil discussion about the artistic merits of appropriation in general without it immediately devolving in to ad hominem attacks it will never get anywhere. Instead I tried to open a dialogue about appropriation in art (WHICH INCLUDES GFOTY'S PERFORMANCE ART SCHTICK). Pointing out and satirizing appropriation while at the same time appropriating various things yourself has been an aspect of art for ages, including in music. Simply writing it off as off limits is just reductive. You can choose to think my contribution doesn't fit within this conversation, but without trying to argue, I simply believe that it absolutely has a place in this discussion. Artistic appropriation extends beyond visual art and I was merely trying to make a fair assessment on how we can reconcile the feelings of work being stolen or copied or culturally appropriated while still giving that artist the opportunity to express themselves through the use of things like readymades and reappropriations for the sake of provoking an artistic response. Just look around at stuff like piss christ even. I know that I'm approaching this from a mostly visual arts background but it REALLY DOES transfer over and its a little disappointing how quickly you seemed to dismiss it entirely. I didn't mean to dismiss what you were saying, but I'm sorry if it came across that way. I think maybe were talking about different things here. What I'm saying is that when we talk about cultural appropriation of POC cultures etc there's a different set of ethics and questions that need to be examined and discussed than if were talking about artistic appropriation and authorship and stuff. I just feel like people are being a little bit dismissive or reductionist on here about issues of representation and the importance of the relationship between art and privilege.
|
|
|
Post by conor on Jun 9, 2015 13:41:14 GMT
I disagree entirely. I wasn't discussing authorship and the ethics of appropriation. I was describing in my paper the artistic merit of appropriation. I believe the same concepts of appropriation transfer over to all types of artistic appropriation (as I said before, even GFOTY's persona) and that is the point I was trying to make. That is kinda why I mentioned piss christ as a similar sort of conceptual appropriation meant to shock, but then that shock and the emotions you feel from the juxtaposition of the disgusting way it was produced with the beauty of the photograph itself create a dynamic piece of art. What she said was insensitive but it was insensitive intentionally. Art is meant to make us feel emotion, negative or positive, and criticising the artist for simply trying to make a statement about appropriation is unfair and just pushes art back in my opinion. There was so much outrage nobody wanted to think about why she said what she said. They just stopped their artistic journey in that piece by being outraged and making rash decisions.
|
|
|
Post by lovergirlsprecinct on Jun 9, 2015 13:57:54 GMT
Yeah, but what does that "emotional response" matter if the way its executed only serves to reinforce structures of thought that serve to oppress minorities. The excuse of the intention of her comments only goes so far, at the end of the day she's a privileged white artist making a shoddy satirical comment that refers to a black artist's work as "tribal", a loaded term when used by white people. No matter what her intentions are, it's not her place to make that sort of "satire" in that sort of way. Criticising something that was racially insensitive is in no way the same as saying something racially insensitive. It's the opposite of insensitive I can't stress this enough; art does not exist in a vacuum. Art and culture and pop culture all have real world, socio-political power and effects. Art needs to be criticised and examined and questioned. This does not "push back art", it does the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by conor on Jun 9, 2015 14:08:26 GMT
IF it prevents artists from making statements outside of their gender or their race then it absolutely brings back art. I did a series on masks, including masks from all over the world. Am I a culturally insensitive because I was born white? Can I not have deep emotional connections to other cultures? You completely misunderstood what she was meaning to portray with what she was saying and I am done with this discussion.
Satire can be used by anyone on any subject. I am so done being artistically limited by this bullshit. I'm making whatever the hell I want because my art is my art and having to wring my hands worrying who I might offend is just too much. I'm not going to push myself into a white bubble where I can't try to make statements about anything.
ART CAN OFFEND. IT CAN SHOCK. ART CAN BE ANYTHING IT WANTS TO BE BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF CREATIVITY.
|
|
|
Post by lovergirlsprecinct on Jun 9, 2015 14:18:43 GMT
You're literally just saying that you don't care about how media and art can negatively effect minorities, but okay.
|
|
|
Post by conor on Jun 9, 2015 14:19:58 GMT
yeah you got it thats exactly what I am saying jesus christ
edit:pretty offended actually for essentially being called someone who doesnt care about how art affects minorities based off of basically nothing. Great use of literally. I'm done with this board for a while.
|
|
|
Post by wuchi on Jun 9, 2015 14:29:24 GMT
Regardless of anyone's views about this issue, I hope we can agree that it's a good thing PC Music apologized. This was a pretty big PR blunder for them and I hope their reputation is able to recover from it. I know GFOTY was supposed to have a full-length out this year, so I guess we'll see if that's still happening.
|
|
|
Post by lovergirlsprecinct on Jun 9, 2015 15:05:24 GMT
edit:pretty offended actually for essentially being called someone who doesnt care about how art affects minorities based off of basically nothing. Great use of literally. I'm done with this board for a while. Yeah, I admit that I was being stupidly hyperbolic, but what conclusion should I make when you're saying you don't want to have to think about who you might offend with your art and you basically deny that being white effects the meaning of your art and the way it interats with other cultures.
|
|
|
Post by loukessler on Jun 9, 2015 15:27:55 GMT
It might but not be relevant but when I listen to PC Music I don't think of privileged white males, or gender or race or class or religion, in fact I don't really think about anything other than how incredible the music sounds and then I mostly just want to dance. Maybe I'm a weirdo Get this man a straight jacket. Enjoying music at face value. How dare you!? If you listen to music and it makes you think about privilege thats a reflection of you, not the music your are listening to, imo.
|
|
|
Post by conor on Jun 9, 2015 15:45:32 GMT
edit:pretty offended actually for essentially being called someone who doesnt care about how art affects minorities based off of basically nothing. Great use of literally. I'm done with this board for a while. Yeah, I admit that I was being stupidly hyperbolic, but what conclusion should I make when you're saying you don't want to have to think about who you might offend with your art and you basically deny that being white effects the meaning of your art and the way it interats with other cultures. I never said that at all. You interpreted what I said as that but that is not what I said at all. I never basically denied that being white affects the meaning of my art. That is the opposite of what I meant to say, ugh.... I'm trying to say that is what SHE WAS TRYING TO SAY. SHE WAS TRYING TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT HOW SHE AS HER GFOTY PERSONA IS CLEARLY AN IGNORANT AND SHALLOW AND FROM HER PERSPECTIVE THE BBC AS A BAND CAME TO HER FIRST, SO SHE JOKINGLY FROM HER GFOTY PERSONA STATED THAT IT WAS 'blacked up bombay bicycle club', INDICATING SHE DIDN'T GET THAT THE BAND WAS INSPIRED BY THE STYLE OF MUSIC THE ARTIST (father and son duo name escapes me) SHE REFERRED TO IGNORANTLY (ON PURPOSE) AS TRIBAL. That was not a great way to put it but I honestly think that is what she was trying to say. I was saying I feel limited as an artist, and was even criticized by my peers for doing my print series on masks, because I was 'appropriating' the cultures I was depicting. All I was ranting about was that I feel alienated and unable to try to connect to the world around my artistically because of these limits of political correctness. I have had close friends and loved ones persecuted for their race and sexual orientation and it has deeply affected me. And yet I feel barred from even approaching those subjects for fear of being called out for cultural appropriation. It just struck a deep nerve. I cannot stand being accused of what you are saying because its the exact opposite of what I believe. I want to make art and with conscious knowledge of my race and privilege and how it fits and I don't believe I gave any indication that I intended to be thoughtless in what I choose to produce artistically.
|
|
|
Post by friopi on Jun 9, 2015 15:52:42 GMT
I think we all get what she was trying to say, the point is that it didn't work as satire. Like I mentioned earlier, "satirizing racism by being racist" is really really hard to pull off without just repeating/reinforcing the same bullshit attitudes. And I don't understand why this has become a discussion on the merits of appropriation? GFOTY tried to make a joke *about* appropriation, she hasn't been accused of appropriating anything AFAIK.
|
|
|
Post by loukessler on Jun 9, 2015 16:03:12 GMT
Ugh the concept of "appropriation" in art and music is a little silly to me. EVERYTHING is based off of something else. EVERYTHING is modeled after something that came BEFORE it. Nothing except NATURE is completely without model.
The problem of appropriation came up when white pop musicians were imitating black genres for monetary gain. Presley was the classic example. However, this legitimate objection was about money: Presley and artists like him were reaping financial rewards that the originators of their music never saw. But when you divorce this concept from money(as i think real music and art should be), it does not really make sense. what does it mean to “steal” someone’s culture when we’re not talking about money? (I'm not saying the elvis example or ones like it are okay, That is called exploitation and this is something different from appropriation.)
You see something you like, and you attempt to imitate it.. This is what humans do. language is, to a large extent, a matter of imitation. English is pretty much just a bunch of "appropriated" languages jumbled together...It doesn't dismantle or marginalize the other languages that it borrows from, they still exist in their own context.
And to want all cultures to be separate, isn't that just a form of segregation?
I'm not saying cultural appropriation can't been done poorly. see: Miley Cyrus, the TuNe YarDDs, etc.
On a deeper level, everything about ourselves is "borrowed". We pick up ideas, assumptions, styles, philosophies, etc,(things that came BEFORE US.) while we are here on earth but we can't take em with us when we go. to get OVERLY identified with ownership of these things is kind of an illusion
|
|
|
Post by rampface on Jun 9, 2015 16:05:08 GMT
^ THIS!!!!!!!!!
|
|