Morley, Your post is the first time I have ever, ever, heard d'amoiselles criticized for cultural appropriationMorley wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:09 pmOkay, MeDot, nothing against what you're generally saying, but it's pretty funny that you would mention Picasso as someone who had thoughts about cultural appropriation that we should heed.
Cultural appropriation becomes an acute problem when ideas are stolen (or appropriated) rather than borrowed (with credit given). When that happens, it can become a form of plagiarism. Picasso's pivotal masterpiece, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, is often given as one of the prime examples of cultural appropriation in the art world. Though influenced by African tribal art, Picasso pretended the new style that he displayed was all his own innovation. His legacy is tainted because of this. If he'd acknowledged the influence, all would have been fine.
So, I had to laugh. Picasso is kind of the poster child for being dickish in this way.
After being baffled, thinking your poster child comment bizarre I started thinking perhaps it represents sizable change in attitude from the past that I have not been keeping up on.
I spent some close study time of Picasso in the past. But the most recent writing about him I have read would be Arrianna Huffington's biography of him(1989) That book certainly marks a change from adulation to criticism in approach to Picasso. Modern art was once deeply influenced by Picasso but has been more inclined to try to avoid or escape his influence for some (half a century?)time.Is worrying about his sources related to that or is it an issue of more current concern about intercultural power issues?
I cannot imagine anyone thinking that the influence of African masks was a secret. as you picture, one is right there in the forefront of Damoiselles. Back in the adulation days it was standard for others to remark upon it. I have not considered all of Picasso's own comments. What point would there be? He was almost never straightforward about speaking of his process. I cannot imagine that he was required to be. He spun images to hide in.
I have heard Picasso considered dickish toward women with reason but I have never heard him described as dickish toward African art. Is this the same line of thought which proposes white folks are not allowed to play rock and roll because it was invented by black folks?
Influence and use of prior examples is pervasive, standard, and completely unavoidable in art or music. To do something interesting with those is what matters. I have not heard of a painting with attached credits. Not even Johns flags.
I was asking about a possible shift in attitudes in the past thirty years that I have not followed. I remain firmly believing all culture is open for appropriation by anybody. Using such to disparage other cultures would at best be borish. But to use things in making new art would be a mark of respect.
In music there is a question of royalties. I suppose it is possible to consider whether some of the hyperrich owning Picasso paintings should pay some royalty to those African tribal sources.
------------------------------------
an addition,
I think Picasso distinction between barrowing and stealing is a colorful way of making a good distinction. Picasso did not make pictures of African masks he used the formal ideas of the masks as material to make his own ideas. the become his and thus are stolen. A mere repition of an established idea does not become something new it is simply a reflection, barrowed.