Picked up this book out of curiosity of the man whose work circulates much of my cultural and religious art worlds, and wanted to learn more about him.

but I was not expecting was to learn about an apparently dark side of his work????

The chapter begins by defining and stating the difference between cultural appropriation, content appropriation and subject appropriation: “subject appropriation – the representation of culture-specific practices or experiences by cultural ‘outsiders’; content appropriation – the use of styles – distinctive to cultural groups by non-members; and object appropriation – the procurement or continued possession of cultural objects by non-members or culturally distant institutions.”

“Cultural appropriation is a concept first coined by academics in the 1980s in postcolonial discussions and critiques of imperialism“, which states a direct connection between cultural appropriation, postcolonialism and imperialism.

Imperialism… Prada? (a Western luxury brand that projects structural && cultural dominance over the global South)

However, I disagree with this definition of cultural appropriation: “the taking or use of the cultural products of ‘cultural insiders’ by ‘cultural outsiders’”.

I dont necessarily believe that the use of cultural products by ‘outsiders’ is a direct act of appropriation. In fact, it is argued that it makes the lives of South Asian diaspora easier, as our norms and lifestyles are more “accepted” and normalised, which can discourage othering and find a common ground of interests. I think, though, when those interests lean more “exoticism” and “orientalism”, alongside wrongful credit, it becomes problematic.

My concern is already addressed by Young who is referenced in the book, “there is no reason to think that an act of cultural appropriation in art automatically harms the original culture. However, the term ‘cultural appropriator” is generally understood to be accusatory or derogatory.”

So therefore… it matters how and why something has been done.