Cultural appropriation in music

[SIY]

I meant both your points, but certainly "good" is subjective in art, as you point out. Which is why my attitude is, "let artists do what they do, and their art will succeed or fail on its own merits."

As a scientist, I don't spend much time worrying about what culture gave us what fact or insight, just, "does it work?"

 

[svart-hvitt]

@svart-hvitt how about we drop the loaded language of "cultural appropriation" and rephrase the discussion: do you believe that when borrowing from other cultures, especially from groups that are socioeonomically disadvantaged, there should be any sensitivity whatsoever?

As this is about the strongest position anyone on this forum has taken.

Nobody has opposed cultural exchange, nobody has opposed borrowing per se. In fact, I think, like you, we're all very strongly pro-cultural exchange.

To me the question of cultural sensitivity is simply a question of consideration and respect.

You can make up any situation that fits a theme; this thread has «cultural appropriation» on it. So you can make up a situation where somebody feels treated badly.

In my country we have the Sami people. I cannot imagine Sami people feeling bad if they see their culture portrayed in a cartoon, or if some of their music is used in another context. As long as the culture and music is not used to make fun of the Samis in a bad way.

Having said that, I have difficulty with the term «socioeconomically disadvantaged» because I have experienced how people who regard themselves as «socioeconomically advantaged» treat people who in their view are «socioeconomically disadvantaged».

 

[andreasmaaan]

In my country we have the Sami people. I cannot imagine Sami people feeling bad if they see their culture portrayed in a cartoon, or if some of their music is used in another context. As long as the culture and music is not used to make fun of the Samis in a bad way.

It seems that you agree at least with my first point regarding artists having a responsibility not to perpetuate damaging stereotypes in their art - am I reading this correctly?

I have difficulty with the term «socioeconomically disadvantaged» because I have experienced how people who regard themselves as «socioeconomically advantaged» treat people who in their view are «socioeconomically disadvantaged».

Could you please explain more? Thanks.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I meant both your points, but certainly "good" is subjective in art, as you point out. Which is why my attitude is, "let artists do what they do, and their art will succeed or fail on its own merits."

As a scientist, I don't spend much time worrying about what culture gave us what fact or insight, just, "does it work?"

This is my attitude in engineering too, although the scientific and engineering communities have a sophisticated legal mechanism to deal with unfair or exploitative use of another individual's work in the patent law regime (I appreciate the difference that was pointed out, however, between an individual's work and a community's).

I'm interested to know, on what grounds do you think it is appropriate to criticise an artist's work?

 

[svart-hvitt]

It seems that you agree at least with my first point regarding artists having a responsibility not to perpetuate damaging stereotypes in their art - am I reading this correctly?



Could you please explain more? Thanks.

Treat people with respect. That’s all there is. And feel free to mix some Sami chants into your next EDM hit.

Extra explanation: Some people construct tragedies in their own head just to feel better. They are entrepreneurs in making things up just to erect their own ego. So the princes and princesses treat the son of the shoe maker in a special way to make themselves feel better. I am certain the son of the shoe maker is perfectly able to be treated as a normal person, not as a «socioeconomically disadvantaged». There is so much lack of respect for other people among the do-gooders. Remember, the way to hell has always been paved by good intentions.

People should simply use their head. In Norway we have another expression: Healthy peasant wit (sunt bondevett). Use healthy peasant wit.

(Wit is in this context to be understood as understanding, sense).

 

[SIY]

I'm interested to know, on what grounds do you think it is appropriate to criticise an artist's work?

If I don't like it.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Treat people with respect. That’s all there is. And feel free to mix some Sami chants into your next EDM hit.

As you probably know, I couldn't agree more - although that is not a piece of music I'd want to listen to

Extra explanation: Some people construct tragedies in their own head just to feel better. They are entrepreneurs in making things up just to erect their own ego. So the princes and princesses treat the son of the shoe maker in a special way to make themselves feel better. I am certain the son of the shoe maker is perfectly able to be treated as a normal person, not as a «socioeconomically disadvantaged». There is so much lack of respect for other people among the do-gooders. Remember, the way to hell has always been paved by good intentions.

No need for ad hominem generalisations about "the do-gooders" (which is a nebulous concept in any case).

I believe that equal respect should be shown to all, but that what "equal respect" specifically entails may depend on one's relationship to the person and the context of the interaction.

To illustrate, I show respect differently to members of my family due to the nature of their relationship to me and other contextual matters, than I do to friends or colleagues. I also show respect differently in some cases to members of different groups in society because of their relationship to groups I belong to (Aboriginal people in my home country of Australia, in particular circumstances, for example).

All this really means is that I try to be aware of possible sensitive contextual matters (e.g. my grandmother's expectations about family, e.g. the colonial history of Australia) when interacting with others.

I also think you're wrong in what you seem to be implying, i.e. that people who are sensitive to these matters are only so because it makes them feel good. But anyway, as you know, I'm hardly defending every person who's every cried "cultural appropriation". Surely though, we can focus on what is good, rather than having the discussion degenerate into ad hominem generalisations about the people doing or not doing it.

If I don't like it.

And what if you don't like it because it's insensitive or exploitative? (I mean "you" generally here.)

 

[SIY]

And what if you don't like it because it's insensitive or exploitative? (I mean "you" generally here.)

Then look at/listen to/eat/drink something else.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Then look at/listen to/eat/drink something else.

So you're entitled to criticise a piece of art on grounds you see fit, but others are not?

 

[svart-hvitt]

As you probably know, I couldn't agree more - although that is not a piece of music I'd want to listen to



No need for ad hominem generalisations about "the do-gooders" (which is a nebulous concept in any case).

I believe that equal respect should be shown to all, but that what "equal respect" specifically entails may depend on one's relationship to the person and the context of the interaction.

To illustrate, I show respect differently to members of my family due to the nature of their relationship to me and other contextual matters, than I do to friends or colleagues. I also show respect differently in some cases to members of different groups in society because of their relationship to groups I belong to (Aboriginal people in my home country of Australia, in particular circumstances, for example).

All this really means is that I try to be aware of possible sensitive contextual matters (e.g. my grandmother's expectations about family, e.g. the colonial history of Australia) when interacting with others.

I also think you're wrong in what you seem to be implying, i.e. that people who are sensitive to these matters are only so because it makes them feel good. But anyway, as you know, I'm hardly defending every person who's every cried "cultural appropriation". Surely though, we can focus on what is good, rather than having the discussion degenerate into ad hominem generalisations about the people doing or not doing it.



And what if you don't like it because it's insensitive or exploitative? (I mean "you" generally here.)

The «do-gooders» have been characterized many times over the ages, here is a couple of examples:

1) Road to hell (ca. 1150, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with_good_intentions)

2) The Plague by Camus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plague)

In Norway, professor Terje Tvedt (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terje_Tvedt) has written about «the regime of goodness» and «the tyranny of goodness».

So you are way off in your remark that «do-gooders» is a term without content as it has plagued Christians at least since 1150, the theme has been awarded at least one literature Nobel prize (Camus) and has attracted attention among truth seekers in academia.

 

[andreasmaaan]

@svart-hvitt regardless, it is an ad hominem attack that does nothing to further the discussion.

 

[SIY]

So you're entitled to criticise a piece of art on grounds you see fit, but others are not?

Where did I say anything like that? Anyone can criticize anything they like for any reason they like. I just think that reasons like "cultural appropriation" are stupid. People have a right to be stupid.

 

[svart-hvitt]

@svart-hvitt regardless, it is an ad hominem attack that does nothing to further the discussion.

«Ad hominem»?

Could you explain what you mean?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Where did I say anything like that? Anyone can criticize anything they like for any reason they like. I just think that reasons like "cultural appropriation" are stupid. People have a right to be stupid.

I thought you said that the problems with these criticisms were that (something like, sorry I'm paraphrasing here): the criticisms limit the infinite freedom of the human spirit which is expressed in the artist's creativity.

Which led me to wonder, wouldn't by that logic, your criticisms of an artwork do the same?

 

[andreasmaaan]

«Ad hominem»?

Could you explain what you mean?

An ad hominem attack is an attack addressed to the person, rather than their argument.

 

[SIY]

I thought you said that the problems with these criticisms were that (something like, sorry I'm paraphrasing here): the criticisms limit the infinite freedom of the human spirit which is expressed in the artist's creativity.

Which led me to wonder, wouldn't by that logic your criticisms of an artwork do the same?

"Paraphrase" means "this is something you didn't say."

I did say this: "I just think that reasons like "cultural appropriation" are stupid. People have a right to be stupid."

 

[svart-hvitt]

An ad hominem attack is an attack addressed to the person, rather than their argument.

Yes, I know the term. But what exactly do you mean in this context? Where did I talk about you instead of your argument?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

I'm not suggesting you were attacking me personally. My point is that you were skirting around discussing the issue by making a generalised attack on "do-gooders".

 

[andreasmaaan]

Anyway, I'm gonna bow out of this discussion for a while now. I feel myself starting to tire of it, and starting to lapse into less constructive territory.

Thanks for engaging in it with me @svart-hvitt and @SIY - we're probably never going to agree completely, but I do feel that we made some progress towards understanding each other anyway.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Btw @svart-hvitt, I'm now listening to some Sami music and quite liking it. Is this something you're actually into / can recommend some of?