On Sensitivity and Specificity

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: On Sensitivity and Specificity

Post by huckelberry »

Morley wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:09 pm
MeDotOrg wrote:
Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:22 pm
Culturally, I agree with Picasso: "Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal."
Okay, 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.
Morley, Your post is the first time I have ever, ever, heard d'amoiselles criticized for cultural appropriation
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.
Last edited by huckelberry on Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: On Sensitivity and Specificity

Post by Some Schmo »

Gunnar wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:56 am
Some Schmo wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:03 pm
Has anyone watched Space Force? It's a silly comedy, but I enjoyed it.

Lisa Kudrow plays Steve Carroll's wife, and for some reason, she's in prison. As I recall, he goes to visit her, and she comes out wearing tight braids in an African American style, and when asked about it, she says, "It's not cultural appropriation if they do it to you."
Thanks for recommending Space Force. I enjoy it too. I love the way it parodies the Trump Administration, and it's not even much of an exaggeration! I have no clue about why General Naird's wife is in prison. Do you? But I have only watched the first 8 episodes so far. Perhaps the answer to that question will be revealed in one of the next episodes. It must be pretty serious, as they mentioned it was 40 year sentence.
I think not knowing the reason for her sentence is intentional. Just not sure why yet (I don't remember them revealing it by the end of the season).
Lem wrote:YES! John Malkovich is incredible. Every thought and feeling shows in every part of his body, and his character development throughout season 1 is stellar.
Agreed. He's one of my favorite actors. I loved him in Dangerous Liaisons with Glenn Close, Michelle Pfeiffer and Uma Thurman (really young Uma). They were all phenomenal in that movie.

The other brilliant thing about Malkovich in Space Force is that he plays that very serious, intense guy in a comedy, and it comes off hilarious given the situations.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: On Sensitivity and Specificity

Post by Some Schmo »

Gunnar, I meant to mention...

I sort of suspected going from the first to second episodes that her character kind of went nuts and did something illegal in reaction to her husband's new assignment. I think that's what they were going for.

To be sure, that part of the show is a great hook all by itself. Lisa Kudrow is awesome.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: On Sensitivity and Specificity

Post by Lem »

Some Schmo wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:20 pm
Gunnar, I meant to mention...

I sort of suspected going from the first to second episodes that her character kind of went nuts and did something illegal in reaction to her husband's new assignment. I think that's what they were going for.

To be sure, that part of the show is a great hook all by itself. Lisa Kudrow is awesome.
Her little seemingly non-sequiturs when calling from jail were hilarious.
(speaking of John malkovich, I'm curious if you liked "Being John Malkovich"? I thought it was a weird and quirky little thing, very dark fun, and right up Malkovich's comedy alley.)
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: On Sensitivity and Specificity

Post by Some Schmo »

Lem wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:20 pm
(speaking of John malkovich, I'm curious if you liked "Being John Malkovich"? I thought it was a weird and quirky little thing, very dark fun, and right up Malkovich's comedy alley.)
I did like it. What's funny about that movie is that I've seen it about three times with long intervals between each viewing, and both times I re-watched it, it felt a little like I'd never seen it before.

Very surreal.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: On Sensitivity and Specificity

Post by Morley »

huckelberry wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:15 pm
Morley wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:09 pm

Okay, 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.
Morley, Your post is the first time I have ever, ever, heard d'amoiselles criticized for cultural appropriation
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.
Huckelberry, thank you for your thoughtful and considered response. It's always nice to exchange ideas with you.

I don't know how art was taught thirty years ago, but yeah, I would guess that the canon has changed in the Fine Arts over the last few decades. I surely hope so.

I would suppose that there's been a move away from the male, Eurocentric focus of the past to an attempt to recognize the contributions of women, minorities, and entire other cultures that have been overlooked.

A Survey of Art course probably wouldn't have mentioned the quilters of Gee's Bend or Harlem Renaissance painters like Jacob Lawrence a couple of decades ago. Today, it might. Now Artemisia Gentileschi is taught right alongside of Caravaggio.

A greater sensitivity toward cultural appropriation is also evident. Impressionists being influenced by Japanese woodcuts isn't seen as necessarily bad, especially since it was acknowledged at the time. The Orientalism of the Pre-Raphaelites like John Collier isn't as well liked, since it eroticized and exoticized entire cultures.

Just because Matisse knew then--and art historians know now--that Picasso was borrowing from African culture doesn't make it forgivable. Picasso's unacknowledged borrowing took place at a time when Europe was colonizing and exploiting Africa and Africans in horrible ways. Those countries still resent colonization, the theft of their artifacts, and the exploitation of their cultures. It's even worse when cultural capital is stolen without any kind of acknowledgement or recognition. No culture likes to be brushed aside (ha!--if cultures have feelings!).

To your statement about Rock music: I don't think anyone is saying that Whites shouldn't be playing Rock-and-Roll. Some music historians and African-Americans do want the recognition that Rock has its roots in Blues, and is descended from African music. That all sounds reasonable to me.

Borrowing ideas without acknowledging where the inspiration came from is understandably irritating. We have copyright laws to protect an individual's ideas. Cultures have no recourse but to complain.

No one cares if Americans borrowed the idea of making cheese. The French just don't want us taking credit for inventing it.

...
edit:

I'm sorry, Analytics. We're a long way from your original post.

.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: On Sensitivity and Specificity

Post by Morley »

obviously, i don't know my quote from my edit
Gunnar
God
Posts: 2339
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: On Sensitivity and Specificity

Post by Gunnar »

Some Schmo wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:20 pm
Gunnar, I meant to mention...

I sort of suspected going from the first to second episodes that her character kind of went nuts and did something illegal in reaction to her husband's new assignment. I think that's what they were going for.

To be sure, that part of the show is a great hook all by itself. Lisa Kudrow is awesome.
Well, I finished watching all of season 1, and can hardly wait for the next episodes to become available. I wonder if they intend to ever reveal what Maggie was in prison for.

I can't help thinking that what the President in the series wanted Space Force and General Naird to do was so like I would have expected of Trump, given similar circumstances. Perhaps one of the most implausible things I found about the series was the idea that someone like Trump would have knowingly appointed someone as inherently principled and decent as Naird, rather than General Grabaston to head the Space Force.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: On Sensitivity and Specificity

Post by Chap »

Morley wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 2:38 am
No one cares if Americans borrowed the idea of making cheese. The French just don't want us taking credit for inventing it.
Cheese was being made by human beings long before there were any people who called themselves 'French', or even 'Franks', or even 'Gauls', or even 'Romans', or even 'Greeks' or even ... can't we just say that PEOPLE invented cheese? Probably several times and in several different places for that matter.

Why does everything have to 'belong' to some currently identifiable and presently existing group? Pretty well every aspect of the culture I was brought up in has been appropriated by people in other parts of the world and adapted for their own purposes, and do you know what? I simply couldn't give a damn about it.

And I often cook food that comes from cultures other than my native culture, and I sing songs written in cultures other than my native culture, and I wear clothes in styles and materials originating from cultures other than my native culture, and so on and so forth. So far as I am concerned, we all live on this tiny blue blob in the lonely vastness of space, and the distinctions we draw between our 'us' and the other groups of 'us' in our little speck of living space are more or less bat-crap crazy. Anyone who spends substantial time living out of their origin culture* learns that pretty soon.


* By which, of course, I mean not just sitting isolated in an Anglophone bubble of 'ex-pats', but actually interacting with the population around you and (shock!! horror!!!) taking at least the trouble to learn the elementary forms of respectful communication in the majority language of the culture in question.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: On Sensitivity and Specificity

Post by Morley »

Chap wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:23 am
Morley wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 2:38 am
No one cares if Americans borrowed the idea of making cheese. The French just don't want us taking credit for inventing it.
Cheese was being made by human beings long before there were any people who called themselves 'French', or even 'Franks', or even 'Gauls', or even 'Romans', or even 'Greeks' or even ... can't we just say that PEOPLE invented cheese? Probably several times and in several different places for that matter.
I know. It was a joke.
Post Reply