I believe your theory holds some water, a prime example being H.P. Lovecraft's notoriously bad dialog. But not always. I believe it depends upon your personality. Some must experience it, some do not need to. Creativity being the main consideration in the matter.

Chris: "...Cultural appropriation is not ethically wrong, but it is artistically wrong..."

Chris, I don't wanna pursue this too far, only because it's awfully close to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" in my opinion.

I DETEST theoretical proclamations relative to 'art' (except my own, of course). Rules are made to be broken. For every rule, there is an exception. For every example you toss out, I can produce a dozen that contradict yours. Etc. Etc. Etc....

In my world, there is no such thing as 'artistically wrong'. It either works or it doesn't.


Aside: "appropriation" has a negative connotation ie. "without permission" which is pretty obtuse when you start trying to tie it down. But I believe the origins of the word means something akin to 'making one's own' --which goes to the denotation side of the thing and is pretty neutral.

All of culture is one big act of "appropriation" ie, making one's own, often times w/out persmission.

And as far as "writers" and gender, race, etc etc, one word:

RESEARCH.

BTW: my best and most popular work was a play written for an actress playing a 19th century african-american (female). It's been performed around the country hundreds of times.

I'm a white, 20th century male.

Seriously, give it up.

No way, Chris.
Any artist worth a damn steals from everyone and everywhere.

Art doesn't respect those kinds of limits, and neither should we.

Good work, Chris Kent. I'll be revisiting the issue at Mac-a-ro-nies tomorrow.

However, as I said in the my entries on the topic, I don't oppose cultural appropriation unless:

1) It is done poorly, i.e, the writer or other artist doesn't know enough about the culture to be believable. Sometimes, the person is just a poor observer. An example would be a creative writing class I was in once where a white guy created African-American characters with black palms. And, no, he was not blind.

2) It is done with contempt. (For example, anything that a psycho, misogynist and racist like Shark would produce.) The result is doubtlessly an argument against cultural appropriation.

3) Someone is being cheated, i.e. the black musicians whose music has been ripped off over the years.

I'll have more to say about this topic in a blog entry tomorrow.

My entries about cultural appropriation are here and here.

...anything that a psycho, misogynist and racist like Shark would produce.:

She's jealous.


MacDevil's List of No-Nos for Art:

1) It is done poorly, i.e, the writer or other artist doesn't know enough about the culture to be believable.

Another profound observation that states the bloody obvious: something done badly is done badly. Any more truisms?

2) It is done with contempt.

Who determines contempt? YOU? With art and literature, it's often very subjective. One person's 'homage' might be another's 'contempt'--- especially someone who has a giganitc, imaginary self-inflicted "I'm a victim" sign on their flagellated back.

Where would "Demoiselles d'Avignon" fit on your continuum of 'contempt', "rip-off", and "appropriation"? Was Picasso showing contempt for women in general, French prostitutes, African mask carvers, or his audience? And who the hell really cares---except some paranoid deconstructionist amateur martyr? (that would be you, dear)

3) Someone is being cheated, i.e. the black musicians whose music has been ripped off over the years.

For a writer, you're pretty sloppy with language. "Rip off" is not "appropriation" and vice versa. Are we talking about "appropriation", or "rip-off"? You can't change the terms in the middle of the debate, although I know that's your specialty.

And even assuming, for the sake of argument, they are equivalent (oy), where do the royalties stop, who adminsisters them, and how? When Elvis sings a gospel song, does he owe Aretha--- or the families of anonymous slaves who originated the song over 100 years ago? Who does Aretha owe? Can it get any more ridiculous?


I await a rational rebuttal.

Chris,

writing is about imagination and research. Couple those with talent, and you've got all you need.

If you can write a story from the viewpoint of an *alien, a *machine, an *insect, or an *animal, who's to say you can't write beyond your gender, culture, or race?

With all due respect, it's really, at the heart of it, a ridiculous thesis you and MADiva are bandying about.

*numerous SF writers, Kafka, Burroughs, Jean Craighead George, Jack London, et al, many many et als.

I DETEST theoretical proclamations relative to 'art' (except my own, of course). Rules are made to be broken. For every rule, there is an exception. For every example you toss out, I can produce a dozen that contradict yours. Etc. Etc. Etc....

In my world, there is no such thing as 'artistically wrong'. It either works or it doesn't.

Shark,

I agree with much of what you are saying and will not deny that at times I sound like an old befuddled high school prof babbling about artistic truth. We should always take chances, no doubt. I think what I was attempting to convey (and none too successfully) was it's easier to write about others than it is about ourselves....

MD,

The music part of the equation is valid, as we all know why Elvis exploded in popularity - he was an attractive white man playing a black man's music. Thus, rock music became a part of American society. But rock music has evolved into so many different threads, that it's a difficult argument today. With the popularity of Rap and Hip-Hop, and many of the white musicians now performing it, this argument has been renewed. Many artists are groomed and fed to the market because of their looks and ability to dance. I tend not to listen to any musician who does not write his/her own songs or play an instrument. I think most people eventually see through the fabricated artist, and most of these artists becaome the proverbial flash in the pan.

Shark,

writing is about imagination and research. Couple those with talent, and you've got all you need.

Good point. There's a ton of examples to go in the opposite direction.

I'm fascianted with the Custer battle, as you are, and have read several books on the subject. Yet I would NEVER attempt to write a literary novel told from the viewpoint of the Native American, no matter how much research I did. My perspective would be hollow, and no amount of research would ever change that. I would, however, attempt to tell the story from the viewpoint of a member of the Seventh Calvary, if only because I could use my own life's experience as a Caucasian and thus tap what I spiritually know. Only then, would the work be valid.....

I would like to add that Larry McMurtry has written several novels to include Native American characters. Some have been interesting, some not. But McMurtry is in touch with a natural talent we all only dream of. And even he has struggled at times. His most fascinating characters have always been from his own culture and life experience.

Chris: "I would NEVER attempt to write a literary novel told from the viewpoint of the Native American, no matter how much research I did. My perspective would be hollow, and no amount of research would ever change that."

Chris, I''ve already gone farther in this than I intended to, but I gotta say:

Don't underestimate the power of the human intelligence and creativity. You're a human, you share the same feelings etc. as other humans. You have more in common with a Sioux than you do a wolf, but you could write a successful novel from either viewpoint.

With the proper research.

Seriously. If ONE person can do it successfully (and it's bit done dozens of times off the top of my head) then that negates your entire thesis.

Really.

Shark,

I'm not taking sides against you and don't entirely disagree with what you are saying.

The stance I'm taking has nothing to do with race or the rights of a certain culture. My argument is mainly this:

If we are attempting to create art through literary fiction, should we not tap our own life experience rather than borrow from another culture? There's a place in this world for ALL written works, good and bad. And I've read a few bad and cheesy novels in my time and enjoyed them. But if we are going to treat the written word, the literary fictional novel, as an art form, to reach into one's self and pull out broken glass, one must write about what they know - that is the essential seed.

There are thousands of examples to disprove this, and my awkward stance has nothing to do with fears of racism and bigotry.

A newspaper reporter writes about the death of a man on the street of a heart attack. The next day his father dies of a heart attack, and he must write a story on that unfortunate incident. Which story is easier to produce? Which story will be closest to his own emotional truth?

Chris: If we are attempting to create art through literary fiction, should we not tap our own life experience rather than borrow from another culture?

Oh, okay.

I can't argue with that, except (you knew that was coming!) that in certain cases, I can see a benefit derived from such an exercise in elucidating another culture's viewpoint, especially one that 'lacks a voice' due to passage of time, historical, or cultural factors.

Ask yourself: Is it possible to write a novel from the viewpoint of a 19th century civil war soldier --- a medieval knight --- or a Roman centurion? Those are "cultures" which a contemporary writer has little or no "experience" with! But you can read the personal diaries of literally hundreds of such people and get a real good idea of what if felt like to be in their skin.

The idea that a human being can't imaginitively place themselves in some other time, place, or culture (including skin color) is just... well... ridiculous. (MadDiva, ya listenin'?)


re. writing from "life experience" - I think this is overestimated, but I would certainly recommend it to a beginning writer.

If writers stuck to a 'strict' adherence to the "life experience" 'rule', then libraries would be lacking a great many literary masterpieces, and certainly the Science Fiction section would be awfully thin!

Again ~ RESEARCH, RESEARCH!!!!

I figure any library minus a Michael Crichton section is far better off.....