The Battle for Art: How the Popular Cultural Misappropriation Movement Views Art, and Why it Matters

By Derrick Elchers

The concept of cultural appropriation is nothing new to the western art world. However, the term and general knowledge of the concept seem to have exploded in the last ten to fifteen years. This recent visibility has brought about both awareness and misuse of the concept, and has created a chasm in opinions on the subject, leading to the mire of

• Language: English
• Publisher: Outcast Media
• Release date: Aug 1, 2020
• ISBN: 9781735313313

Derrick Elchers

Derrick Elchers is a creative writer and a student of history, philosophy, and ethics. While his creative writing has spanned over a decade, Derrick has spent the past three years researching the debate surrounding cultural appropriation and art, culminating in the writing of The Battle for Art. He has also been a panelist on the subject of diversity in writing. Derrick is happily married and lives in the state of Missouri, where he and his wife do their best to make the world a little brighter with their words and art.

Book preview

The Battle for Art

Copyright © 2020 by Derrick Elchers

Any Internet addresses (websites, blogs, etc.) and citations in this book are offered as a resource. They are not intended in any way to be or imply an endorsement by Outcast Media, nor does Outcast Media vouch for the content of these sites and citations for the life of this book.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed articles and reviews, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

For information write to: Outcast Media, 1440 State HWY 248 STE Q #310, Branson, MO, 65616

Published by Outcast Media.

Cover Design: Magpie Designs LLC

Printed in the United States of America

Thank you for giving me a story to tell, an imagination full of wonder,

and a desire to hear others’ stories.

Table of Contents

Dedication

Author's Note

Useful Art

An Introduction to Wearing Hats

The Historical Connection

Who Owns Culture: Gatekeeping and Ownership

Who Owns Culture: Who Can Appropriate?

Anglo-Centric Colored Glasses

The Culture of Zero-Sum

Access and Success Are Not Everything, It's the Only Thing

Speak No Evil

The Experience of Identity

Criticism and Cheap Art

Post-Truth or Pro-Preference?

The Beginning and the End of Tribalism

Some Final Questions

What Then Shall We Do?

Acknowledgements

About the Author

Appendix A: A History of Oppression

Appendix B: Speaking For Those Who Can't

Appendix C: Freedom and Censorship

Appendix D: Cultural Genocide and Ethnocide

Citations and Notes

Selected Bibliography

Author’s Note

My introduction to the world of cultural appropriation began in September of 2016, when I happened to stumble across the internet firestorm surrounding Lionel Shriver’s opening speech at the Brisbane Writers Festival on the 8th of the same month.

I found this subject of cultural appropriation to be interesting and a little concerning, but I didn’t think too much of it at the time. It wasn’t until the same topic began to sow discord throughout a writers’ group I was involved with that I decided to begin working on this project, which ultimately turned into the writing you are presently reading.

It was Shriver’s speech and Yassmin Abdel-Magied’s response that prompted me to write on this topic of cultural appropriation, as these two women had become figureheads for their respective positions at the time, and they were my primary introduction into the subject. Since that was the case, I originally framed the book around the statements made by Shriver (a journalist and author known for her blunt and satirical edge) and Abdel-Magied (a mechanical engineer, activist, and writer).

My perspective of the subject didn’t change until well into 2017, when I began to see just how widespread the debate had become and how many issues the topic of cultural appropriation encompassed.

The scope of this writing changed from how the subject of cultural appropriation impacted only fiction writers, to its effect on artists as a whole, as this is an issue that has repercussions for creators of all forms. The importance of Shriver’s and Abdel-Magied’s viewpoints to the conversation around cultural appropriation also decreased as the writing progressed, although their statements still carry weight and are felt periodically throughout this work.

As the scope of the writing increased, so did the subjects covered. Some of these, I felt, were important but not essential or conducive to the core flow and thought of the subject and this response to it, so I have included those writings as appendices.

With that said, I have tried to keep the core flow of this work as simple as possible:

What cultural appropriation is, and the difference in definitions of the term.

Why the difference of the definitions is important.

Addressing the concerns raised, and the arguments made by the popular understanding of cultural appropriation.

Through addressing concerns and finding opportunities where the discussion surrounding cultural appropriation can be improved, the final core point and hope of this book is that art will be seen as a beneficial bridge between human experiences that creates mutual empathy, understanding, and appreciation.

It is also my hope that art and the dialogue around it will be seen as needful parts of the resolution to the many problems that surround the discussion of cultural appropriation, as well as highlighting some opportunities for all people, regardless of artistic talent, to help promote the arts and the artists who produce them.

The author Fyodor Dostoyevsky faced opposition in his time from those who felt that art’s sole purpose was to serve a particular political view, and that only by serving said view could art be considered useful to people and society. Dostoyoevsky felt differently: The freer art is to develop, the faster it will find its real and useful path. And when the aims of art are indistinguishable from the aims of mankind, the more useful it will be to mankind if it is allowed to develop freely. In other words, art will always serve humanity as long as one does not try to circumscribe its freedom.¹

Art has been around for as long as humanity has continued to dream and form ideas; however, Dostoyevsky’s concept of free art has increasingly come under fire. Presently, the debate around cultural appropriation has taken center stage as the opponent to free art.

So what exactly is cultural appropriation?

While there doesn’t seem to be a universally agreed upon definition, the most textbook definition of cultural appropriation (going purely by the literal use of both words) is: The use of elements of one culture by members of another culture. Some have come to define this as cultural exchange or cultural amalgamation, due to the negatively-charged nature that has been applied to the term cultural appropriation.

This negative usage of the term is part of the reason it is so hard to find a universally agreed-upon definition. Thus, when people use the term, they are typically referring to this definition: The act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture.²

While the subject of cultural appropriation will be referred to as such, in order to differentiate between the two definitions throughout this work, the textbook definition will be referred to as the theory of cultural appropriation or cultural appropriation. The negative but more common understanding of the term will be referred to as cultural misappropriation. This negative usage is most commonly affiliated with a group that we shall become well acquainted with: the popular cultural misappropriation movement. The acronym PCMM will be used when discussing this usage to prevent the discourse from becoming bogged down.

With terms settled, let’s dive into cultural appropriation, misappropriation, and their discussions and impacts on artists and the art they create.

Interestingly enough, when it comes to accusations of cultural misappropriation, the visual art of painting has generated many more headlines in the public sphere than other visual or artistically-based counterparts. This is no doubt due to the very nature of the platform, as the brushstrokes of an artist pull at our emotions.

Emotions, however, have run very high in these circumstances.

Maqbool Fida Husain, considered by some to be India’s most renowned painter, ran afoul of Hindu groups due to his nude and suggestive depictions of Hindu deities. His depictions may very well have been enough of a problem regardless, but it was made all the worse because Husain was raised as a Muslim and did not ascribe to the Hindu faith. Hence, his works were considered misappropriation.

Husain’s persistence in the pursuit of his art led to lawsuits, destruction of personal property, and self-imposed exile.

He was featured in a 1996 Hindi Vichar Mimansa article as "M. F. Husain: A Painter or a Butcher?" This in turn resulted in eight lawsuits being filed against him, based on the claim that he was inciting hostility between different people groups. These lawsuits were dismissed by the Delhi High Court, but the damage was already done. Husain had become a symbol of Muslim/Hindu hostility in India. A mob ransacked his gallery in Ahmedabad, and a separate group of people broke into his house and vandalized his paintings.³

All these events led Husain to a self-imposed exile from India in 2006, until his death in 2011. Even in exile, the lawsuits continued to hound him. Husain claimed that there had been three thousand legal cases lodged against him, and these cases continued until his death. The accusations of sacrilege were struck down, on grounds that India’s tradition of sexual iconography in sculpture was art, just as Husain’s works were also art.⁴

Typically, however, accusations of misappropriation do not so prominently revolve around religious divides as deep as the ones facing India. And, while not generally religious in nature, other accusations of cultural misappropriation do tap into subjects that generate similar emotions to those of Husain’s critics.

Such was the case with Dana Schutz’s painting Open Casket.

The painting depicts the mangled corpse of Emmett Till, a fourteen-year-old African-American boy who was murdered in 1955 due to false accusations that he behaved flirtatiously with a Caucasian woman. Emmett’s mother made the brave decision to leave the casket open so that everyone could see the horrible atrocities that had been committed against her son. The pictures of Emmitt Till’s disfigured face would become a catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement.

Open Casket was displayed during the 2017 Whitney Biennial at the Whitney Museum of American Art, where it was met with picketing and calls for its removal and destruction.

The reason? The letter calling for its removal made it clear: It is not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun, though the practice has been normalized for a long time.⁵ Schutz’s painting was also accused of being another example of non-Black artists who use Black pain as raw material.⁶

Individuals silently protested the painting by standing in front of it, and one of the protestors wore a shirt with the words black death spectacle. The protestors accused Schutz of profiting from her misappropriation of an important event to the African-American community.⁷ Schutz responded in a statement that the painting was never for sale and never will be.⁸

Schutz’s work was defended by the biennial’s curators, Christopher Y. Lew and Mia Locks (who are both Asian-American), but not every artist gets the benefit of an institution who supports their art during a controversy.

This is what happened to Amanda P.L.

Amanda P.L. is a Canadian painter who paints in the Woodlands Style made famous by Norval Morrisseau, an Anishinaabe artist. Amanda P.L.’s work was going to be shown at Visions Gallery in Toronto, but when it was found out that she was non-Indigenous, it brought about controversy and the gallery decided to close the exhibit because of the backlash.⁹

Amanda’s work was criticized as damaging to Morrisseau’s legacy, and damaging to the traditional stories that inspired her works of art.¹⁰ She was also accused of committing cultural genocide¹¹ and was subjected to harrassment.¹²

In fact, the uproar around Amanda’s work became so large that people on the opposing side of the controversy suggested that there should be an appropriation award for authors who seek to write about peoples and cultures that are not their own.¹³

But some artists don’t even get the support of an ill-advised appropriation award. Some instead get accused of cultural misappropriation because of perceived injustice.

This was the dilemma faced by first-time novelist Amelie Wen Zhao.

Zhao had landed a three-book, six-figure deal with Delacorte Press; the first of her books, Blood Heir, was to come out in June of 2019. However, controversy ignited in January 2019 over the anti-blackness of her novel, found in the Advance Reader Copies she had sent out, and what was described by observers as a Twitter-storm ensued, to the point that Zhao was really caught off guard, and stated: It was very devastating to me that the book was read in a totally different cultural context.¹⁴ In light of the reaction, she asked for her book to be pulled, and Delacorte Press obliged.¹⁵

While Zhao explained that the enslaved people in her fantasy world (which was inspired by Slavic, specifically Russian, culture) were based off of a specific critique of the epidemic of indentured labor and human trafficking prevalent in many industries across Asia, including in my own home country¹⁶ and the physical descriptions of the enslaved individuals were not explicitly or implicitly African-American (bronze, tan, or tawny skin, brown hair, blue eyes), the damage was already done. Zhao pulled her own book, and a Chinese immigrant had her dream temporarily taken away from her. Zhao would later make revisions and consult scholars and sensitivity readers, and in April 2019 make the decision to go ahead and publish her book, now pushed back to November 2019.¹⁷

These are just a few examples of how the burgeoning popular cultural misappropriation movement has impacted artists and how or what art they create. They also provide us with the beginnings of the reasons and whys of the movement, and what we can learn from them. We have already touched upon some fairly concerning ideas, a core premise being the exclusivity to experience. Or, as Lionel Shriver would put it: the denial of being able to wear other people’s hats.

Shriver’s speech at the Brisbane Writers Festival started almost immediately with her hat metaphor, as she brought up the real-life story of two college students who became ostracized and disciplined by the university because they threw a tequila party where mini sombreros were given out to party-goers. This was condemned as ethnic stereotyping and creating an environment where students of color, particularly Latino, and especially Mexican, students feel unsafe.¹

Many were at a loss as to what was so offensive about giving out these mini-sombreros. Shriver, for her part, said that I’m more than happy for anyone who doesn’t share my genetic pedigree to don a Tyrolean hat, pull on some lederhosen, pour themselves a weissbier, and belt out the Hofbrauhaus Song.²

And, while the extent to which the mini-sombreros were the cause of the actual controversy at the college has been disputed,³ the impact the story has had on the debate about cultural appropriation cannot be denied. And for Shriver and many others, that impact has been the