Concern over Graydog's "Dreamtime" designs - culturally inappropriate

[DecafJane]

I am not sure how many international people are aware of the fact that copying the designs or even style of Australian aboriginal art is considered culturally offensive and detrimental to Australian Aborigines, but here is an article (http://ab-ed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/aboriginal-art/protecting-australian-indigenous-art/background-information/protection-the-issues/fair-game-aboriginal-designs-in-the-marketplace) that explains some of the reasons behind it.

I like Graydog designs and they are so friendly to deal with, and I am sure that they would not be doing this if they realised that it was inappropriate, but they seem to be making a number of items in a style inspired by aboriginal art and even going so far as to call it "Dreamtime." I know that a lot of the designers on e-bay take inspiration from the designs of others, but I think that making designs based on the work of another distinctive indigenous culture without concern over the cultural implications is a bit concerning and offensive.

Do you think I should contact them? Is this something that people in the USA are aware of, or is it common practice to copy indigenous art in your own designs?

[Kuchen]

I would guess that they don't know and made an honest mistake.

[Tangles]

How exactly is this any different from using a generic Celtic design or generic Native American design?

So long as the artist avoids using a specific clan emblem, or otherwise make pretensions to authenticity, I don't see the problem. :confused:

[Nat242]

Decaf Jane, why don't you write to them, and direct them to a few resources on the problems of the appropriation of Aboriginal culture and art? It's probably an innocent mistake, and they're probably unaware of the cultural context surrounding Aboriginal art.

Funnily enough, as I'm writing this an ad for Voyages Hotels and Resorts is flashing above, advertising adventures at "Ayers Rock". Cough.

[DecafJane]

Have you read the link yet? It explains it better than I could.

I can see pros and cons in using their design in your own artwork, but I think it is important to respect the beliefs and cultural integrity of the people whose designs you are borrowing. Some could almost see it as a form of identity theft and dilution of cultural symbols.

Edit: Nat - "Ayers Rock!" Oh dear.

I think I will let them know, but I just wanted to get an impression from the US members of the forum on whether this was standard practice in your culture.

[wendyg]

I have no idea if they know. But how many people here would hesitate to wear plaid because specific Tartans have cultural meaning in Scotland? There are so many cultures in the world and so many ways to offend.

wg

[wendyg]

decafjane: could you point to an image you believe they've copied or appropriated?

wg

[Tangles]

Maybe I'm incredibly dense, but I still don't see how this should be illegal. I mean, I guess it is a bit tacky and not culturally sensitive but if this wasn't legal then a lot of similar merchandise would be also.

[Nat242]

Wendy and Tangles - it's a complex issue that's difficult to explain in a post. The indigenous people of Australia are engaged in an ongoing struggle to have ownership over their cultural art forms, and to prevent the appropriation, misuse, and removal of their art from the overall cultural context. There has been a history of cultural and artistic appropriation in this country, as well as the denial of Aboriginal/tribal ownership over their art.

In addition, art provides an important medium for cultural education (for both Aboriginal people, to keep their culture alive, and for the education of non-indigenous people) and indigenous empowerment in Australia. If I understand correctly (and there are diverse views on this topic, even within indigenous communities, as Aboriginal culture and language is still amazingly diverse, even after genocide), non-Indigenous artists may use Indigenous design forms and techniques, but it is expected that there is some consultation with Indigenous artists and a comprehensive understanding of the culture on the part of the non-Indigenous artist.

Remember that the indigenous inhabitants of Australia experienced genocide quite recently and complete extermination in some areas, were classified as "fauna" for an embarrassingly long time, and the attitude of terra nullius is still shockingly pervasive, though has thankfully been removed from legislation in the past decade or two.

The adoption of Aboriginal art and culture without consideration to the cultural background or consultation with the owners of that culture denies the cultural and economic power that appreciation for Aboriginal art should bestow.

I'm not sure if I can explain any better than that - I don't feel like I've done a very good job.

[freznow]

I never knew anything like this would cause offense, though I can sorta see why. But as far as I know, in the US it's fair game to take inspiration/methods/etc from others' work. Note the many many Americans who draw manga.

Definitely shoot Greydog an email, it's not something I would have considered before making something (If I were at all artistic) so it's entirely possible that they didn't know it was inappropriate.

[DecafJane]

Here are links to several articles that I sent them:


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1988/47.html
http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/units/aht213/recognition/appropriation.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/artcrime/newstead.pdf

The legal journal mentions several cases that have been based on this. Again, it is not my personal opinion (and I can respect differences :) ), but is what is occurring in legal and cultural circles here.

Here (http://search.stores.ebay.com.au/Graydog-Woodenware-graydogwood_dreamtime_W0QQfciZQ2d1QQfclZ4QQfsnZGra ydogQ20WoodenwareQ20graydogwoodQQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQs aselZ2459539QQsofpZ0) is a search of Graydog items with the "Dreamtime" motif. They are very pretty!

Nat, that was really well explained!

[Nat242]

Tangles - it's not illegal to use Aboriginal artistic techniques.

[Nat242]

<snip>

Here (http://search.stores.ebay.com.au/Graydog-Woodenware-graydogwood_dreamtime_W0QQfciZQ2d1QQfclZ4QQfsnZGra ydogQ20WoodenwareQ20graydogwoodQQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQs aselZ2459539QQsofpZ0) is a search of Graydog items with the "Dreamtime" motif. They are very pretty!

Thanks for contacting them, DJ! They are beautiful sticks, without a doubt.

Oh, and thanks for saying I explained it well - I'm not sure I agree, but at least you could understand me!

[Teazel]

I think that's a good explanation, Nat. The same debate (or whatever it might be called) is going on here, regarding Maori art, language etc.

[Tangles]

Interesting. I know the Aboriginals have experienced a lot of horrible treatment pretty recently, moreso than Native Americans in the US. I guess I can sort of see the idea. I would need to do more research before fully understanding all the ramifications of the art thing though.

[wendyg]

decafjane: I am aware that aboriginal Australians had a horrid time. What isn't clear to me is how close Graydog's designs are to the aboriginal ones. A casual images search on Google suggests that they're a fairly distant interpretation. Hence my question if you could point to images.

wg

[Nat242]

I think that's a good explanation, Nat. The same debate (or whatever it might be called) is going on here, regarding Maori art, language etc.

Thank you. I always cringe a little when I see imitations of the Maori tribal tattoos, sported by people that just thought they looked cool and had no comprehension of the cultural context of their ink, and often done by artists with no idea either.

I do think that New Zealand have a better track record on Indigenous rights than Australia, but that's not much of a compliment! ;)


Interesting. I know the Aboriginals have experienced a lot of horrible treatment pretty recently, moreso than Native Americans in the US. I guess I can sort of see the idea. I would need to do more research before fully understanding all the ramifications of the art thing though.

Thanks for trying to understand a different point of view, Tangles; IMO, that's one of the coolest things a person can do. :flowers:

[DecafJane]

It is the actual "footprint" design, the use of dots and the use of the word "Dreamtime" which appears to be specifically based on Aboriginal art traditions, albeit as the basis of their design rather than direct copy. It is hard to explain or find examples, but it is not a direct copy of a specific artist.

Wendyg, there don't seem to be many actual Aboriginal art images available on the web for some reason, but here (http://storesense04.dynamic.net/stores/tjapukai/catalog/3218%20WATERHOLE%20DREAMING.JPG) is an example. You can see the footprints in the bottom left hand corner, and these motif appears to be used in the Graydog designs. I know it isn't a direct copy, but it doesn't need to be a direct copy to be culturally inappropriate. :)

Thanks, everybody, for trying to understand. This is a difficult issue to explain.

[manderly]

While I sympathize with the plight of the aborigines, I'm afraid that I disagree that a culture can "own" art. Art is to be viewed, and seen by all, therefore it will be borrowed, interpreted, infused, adapted, and outright stolen by others.

I can think of a dozen different ways that what many people wear as art can be argued as insensitive or stealing from another culture.

Tribal tattoos have gained popularity in recent years. So have hawaiian images. Unks. Celtic knots. Fleur de lis. Kanji.

The list goes on and on. One culture cannot "own" their art. Art is a gift to the world.

[DecafJane]

Manderly, I can see your point of view, but the way I understand it is that they would feel the same way about their art (which is sacred to them) being used by other cultures the same way that modern Christians would feel about images of Jesus or the cross being used in inappropriate art and being justified as self-expression. Sure, you can do it, but it doesn't mean that somebody else won't think it is offensive or inappropriate. ;)

[Teazel]

The list goes on and on. One culture cannot "own" their art. Art is a gift to the world.

But when that art has specific meanings within the culture it comes from, is it right to steal it? For instance, Maori tattoos (moko) are wrapped in ritual, spiritual meaning, status, family, what have you - they're not just a cool design. Jean Paul Gaultier used models with moko to promote one of his fashion ranges... I can see why many Maori get upset about this sort of thing. At the very least, it's bad manners.

[akurah]

Eh, it's good and well to mention to them, but to be honest, the first thing I thought of when I saw the little footprints? Not Aboriginal art.

My grandmother had a picture and a poem, it was a picture of a sandy beach, and the poem was some kind of (hypothetical?) conversation between Jesus and a follower. There were times where there were two sets of footprints (both Jesus and the follower), and other times where there were only one. But the "one" set of footprints wasn't Jesus abandoning his follower, but instead, carrying him through the hard times. I *think* the poem is called "Footprints in the Sand" but my memory is hazy at the best of times, so. Maybe someone else with a Christian background (be it Christian themselves or familiarity via a Christian family) knows the poem/image I speak of and can explain better?

[Nat242]

While I sympathize with the plight of the aborigines, I'm afraid that I disagree that a culture can "own" art. Art is to be viewed, and seen by all, therefore it will be borrowed, interpreted, infused, adapted, and outright stolen by others.

I can think of a dozen different ways that what many people wear as art can be argued as insensitive or stealing from another culture.

Tribal tattoos have gained popularity in recent years. So have hawaiian images. Unks. Celtic knots. Fleur de lis. Kanji.

The list goes on and on. One culture cannot "own" their art. Art is a gift to the world.

I study Middle Eastern and North African dance (aka belly dance) - it is not my culture, but I'm interested in it and enjoy it. Because of this, the onus is on me to educate myself regarding the cultural context and history of the dance, and to endeavor to be as true to the mother culture of this dance as a foreigner can ever be. When funding permits I intend to travel to the homelands of the dance and study there. I consider this to be my responsibility as a student, hobbyist, and occasional performer of the dance...I don't make any money out of belly dance, and if I did, I believe my responsibility would be even greater.

We are a globalised world, and no art form or culture is safe from being "borrowed". However, I do still believe that the "borrower" has a responsibility to the culture from which it is borrowing, and should endeavor to understand the cultural origins and context as best they can.

[Tangles]

Manderly echoes my original sentiment. So Nat, youre saying that companies that "borrow" Aboriginal art aren't trying hard enough to understand its origins? Or?

[DecafJane]

Speaking of culturally inappropriate . . . chocolate Jesus (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24732258-13762,00.html), anybody? :D

[Caldonia Sun]

All art is an interpretation of something either seen, experienced, etc. somewhere, sometime. We see symbols used in artistic expressions all the time that come from other cultures and probably very few know the origins of them. If it's not copyrighted, it's most likely fair game.

[Teazel]

Speaking of culturally inappropriate . . . chocolate Jesus (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24732258-13762,00.html), anybody? :D

"Tasteless"? Chocolate? Never! :lol: :wink:

[rienzi0711]

Manderly, I can see your point of view, but the way I understand it is that they would feel the same way about their art (which is sacred to them) being used by other cultures the same way that modern Christians would feel about images of Jesus or the cross being used in inappropriate art and being justified as self-expression. Sure, you can do it, but it doesn't mean that somebody else won't think it is offensive or inappropriate. ;)

Been there, done that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ). And just as in this case, there is no need to bend over backwards to adhere to an entirely separate group's sensibilities. No one owns any style of art or any symbol. As for preservation and respect for culture, that sort of restriction is the kind of thing that will indeed make native Australian culture die out. Every so often you hear in the news about the last speaker of such-and-such a native American language die, and it's impossible to learn about the now dead language. That native people continue to isolate themselves will only result in the extinction of not only their culture, but all knowledge of it.

tl;dr: Graydog has every right to use whatever inspiration he sees fit. Get over it.

This reminds me of a previous incident (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/didgeridoos_are_not_for_you_li.php) when someone got upset over a girl's book that contained a section on how to play a digeridoo.

fsb

[manderly]

Manderly echoes my original sentiment. So Nat, youre saying that companies that "borrow" Aboriginal art aren't trying hard enough to understand its origins? Or?


This is what I wanted to say. I don't see that using a vaguely aboriginal design on a lovely hairstick is being disrespectful.

[DecafJane]

This is what I wanted to say. I don't see that using a vaguely aboriginal design on a lovely hairstick is being disrespectful.

I don't think it is (intentionally) disrespectful in our Western caucasian cultural context, either, and I agree that it is lovely. :) My initial query was whether other countries feel the same way about these issues so that I could know whether Graydog would like to or should be informed that there MAY be some potential for offense. That is all. I know that they would never set out to cause offense, but different cultures find different things offensive, and sometimes it is nice to know that when you are making something that is based on the art of another people. :)

I'm sure there are plenty of Aboriginal people who wouldn't mind and would like it, too, and we are all entitled to our own and very different opinions. It is what makes the world an interesting place.

I wasn't trying to change anybody's opinion, but I like to know what other cultures may or may not find offensive. :)

[pookatrina]

DecafJane - Thanks for the education, I guess as an American my education lacked a lot of things such as this, it was interesting to read about. Whatever Graydog does with the info is up to them, but I'd think most people would at least want to know what they are selling might be that offensive to some. They most likely had no clue & now can decide having a broader depth of understanding if the design is too similar & if it is how they feel about selling it.

[trillcat]

I am confused. Art is that, art. It borrows from lots of different sources. If I sit down and draw a Native American type tribal design, do I need to contact people it might offend? If I draw a snow scene, do I need to contact someone? Mexican art, OK guess that is wrong, if I do not consult someone. African art, on no, that would just label me racist somehow. I have a howling wolf tat on my back with tribal, am I in some sort of trouble with the PC police? PC can be taken too far.:rolleyes:

[Mely]

I saw the new Greydog designs, but didn't realize that they take their inspiration from native Australians. Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery? The things they are making are beautiful. Maybe they have been on vacation in Australia recently and are inspired by what they saw there.

I wasn't aware that it was considered rude or non-politically correct to do this. I'm not aware of anything such as this in Canada, regarding native art. The logo for the upcomming winter Olympics in Vancouver is an Inukshuk, which is an Inuit design.

Wait a minute--while trying to find a picture of the logo to link to, I found this article (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/04/26/Olympiclogo0426.html) about some native people who are unhappy with it.

Edit: I came across these beautiful inlaid flutes (http://www.searchingbearflutes.com/SBFinlay.htm) the other day. The guy who makes them says he is of Cherokee and Powhatan descent, but he doesnt look it (http://www.searchingbearflutes.com/MSB/MSBFrameset-1.htm)--must be a long way back.

[DecafJane]

There is also the possibility that they did not intend the association - it is just easy to see if you come from a certain background or have it pointed out to you. I wrote an extra e-mail to apologise if that was the case. My first email was hardly accusatory, so hopefully there was no offense caused. Like I say, extra education and awareness is always a bonus as opposed to a burden. :)

Mely, from the article I gather that indigenous groups weren't consulted about the logo - this seems odd and a little sad. Then again, Olympic logos have never made a lot of sense. ;)

[Nat242]

Been there, done that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ). And just as in this case, there is no need to bend over backwards to adhere to an entirely separate group's sensibilities. No one owns any style of art or any symbol. As for preservation and respect for culture, that sort of restriction is the kind of thing that will indeed make native Australian culture die out. Every so often you hear in the news about the last speaker of such-and-such a native American language die, and it's impossible to learn about the now dead language. That native people continue to isolate themselves will only result in the extinction of not only their culture, but all knowledge of it.

tl;dr: Graydog has every right to use whatever inspiration he sees fit. Get over it.

This reminds me of a previous incident (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/didgeridoos_are_not_for_you_li.php) when someone got upset over a girl's book that contained a section on how to play a digeridoo.

fsb


The issue here is how a dominant culture appropriates the art and culture of those it committed genocide upon, oppressed for years, and whose people remain incredibly disadvantaged, with their art being one of the few remaining mediums for cultural education and pride, and community empowerment.

It is an issue deserving thought and consideration at the very least, so please don't tell me to "get over it".

Respect for a culture will destroy it? Your post smacks of a new White Man's Burden - we have to save the Aboriginal culture from itself, do we? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Removing cultural elements from any consideration of its context and origins kills culture and creates kitsch, IMO.

Many Aboriginal cultures in Australia have been made extinct, many languages have been lost and a great deal of knowledge has been lost. This wasn't lost due to "preservation and respect for culture", as you put it, but due to the opposite, due to genocide. Perhaps no one can own a symbol or artistic technique, but perhaps you can forgive an oppressed and disadvantaged group for being a little possessive over what remains of an ancient culture.

As I said in an earlier post, to my knowledge many Aboriginal artists don't mind if another artist uses their techniques, symbols, and imagery, but it is preferred that the artist using these techniques consults with Aboriginal artists/elders in order to ensure a depth of cultural understanding and respect.


Manderly echoes my original sentiment. So Nat, youre saying that companies that "borrow" Aboriginal art aren't trying hard enough to understand its origins? Or?

I don't know. I'm sure some do. I'm sure some don't. All I'm saying is that I understand why many Indigenous Australians do not want their artistic techniques used by people ignorant of the cultural origins and context, and I've stated the reasons why I feel it necessary to consider the origins of any pieces of Aboriginal art I buy.

I feel that context is important, and I do feel like we owe something to the original culture when we employ their artistic techniques, especially when that culture is fighting so hard for it.

[joyfulmom4]

I'm with Manderly. I think it's wrong for someone to present their art as original to a culture if it is not. And it's wrong to take the actual artwork of a culture and then resell the images (ie: mass-producing t-shirts of someone's original art).

But something that's inspired by the art of another culture is another thing entirely. If we begin to limit people's creative expression, where does it end? If I have a particular artistic style, may I restrict the rest of the world from creating anything similar? No. I can prevent other artists from creating something that looks like my work and then signing my name to it and trying to pass it off as mine. But I can't prevent someone from using a similar style.

There is far too much grey area in this anyway. What if I come up with something on my own but it resembles the work of another culture somewhere? It's still mine. What if someone *thinks* someone else's work looks too similar to another culture but someone else thinks it looks original? This is art.

You seem to be suggesting that the Aboriginal people have some special right to their artwork that doesn't extend to the artwork of other cultures or individuals.


While I sympathize with the plight of the aborigines, I'm afraid that I disagree that a culture can "own" art. Art is to be viewed, and seen by all, therefore it will be borrowed, interpreted, infused, adapted, and outright stolen by others.

I can think of a dozen different ways that what many people wear as art can be argued as insensitive or stealing from another culture.

Tribal tattoos have gained popularity in recent years. So have hawaiian images. Unks. Celtic knots. Fleur de lis. Kanji.

The list goes on and on. One culture cannot "own" their art. Art is a gift to the world.

[joyfulmom4]

One more comment. If we are expected to never create any artwork that might be offensive to *someone* what will be left to create?

[birthmarkie]

I think people are mixing up art for the sake of art with art for the sake of profit. You can create what you want for private use, but if you are going to make a profit off other people's designs, then you have to be careful that you are not copying. The point is that the Aborigines probably do deserve copyrights and all those things but may not have them yet because of their sad history and exploitation. It is easy for groups and companies with lots of money and power to obtain copyrights and prohibit art-for-profit that is based off of their designs but it is not so easy for underdog groups to do this. I don't see the uproar over the big companies stifling artistic expression, so why pick on the minority groups who do deserve to be protected?

[Hypnotica]

I think it's nice that you have informed them about it. In the end, it's their choice.

[Carolyn]

One more comment. If we are expected to never create any artwork that might be offensive to *someone* what will be left to create?Exactly! Some is going to be offended no matter what it is :shrug: I looked at the crochet hooks that were up for sale. I could barely tell the little spots were supposed to be footprints after being told they were footprints. I'd say it's up to Graydog to do as they wish with the information given to them.

[Mely]

This comes from a description of a Greydog hook that is on ebay right (http://cgi.ebay.com/GRAYDOG-WOOD-CROCHET-HOOK-DREAMTIME-4-GEM-INLAY-20mm_W0QQitemZ290277130009QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_De faultDomain_0?hash=item290277130009&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A1%7C39%3A2%7C240%3A1318#eb ayphotohosting)now:

A Malachite Spiral meanders its way around the circumference of the handle, enclosing a pattern of the inlaid Turquoise, Lapis and Coral. I thought it was like a corral with sheep. So I asked Bill - What is it? And he said, enigmatically, "It's the Path of Life." Anyway, it's a dream, so you can give it your own interpretation.

[melikai]

It's rather a tricky issue. On the one hand, it is atrocious what has been done in the past to these and other minority groups, and understandable why they would be very protective and sensitive about their cultural art and symbols. On the other hand, as was mentioned, we live in a very globalised world now, and what is happening with art is a natural process and result of this. The symbols and art and imagery of all cultures and eras belong to everyone and is truthfully and literally accessible to all minds. If the usage and spreading of symbols and art is seen instead as the evolutionary progression of new styles and symbols; new ways of interpreting and part of the development of this new global culture, then it's not really something negative or disrespectful.

[Nat242]

I think I've said all I need to say here, but let me just clarify one thing. This isn't about what's offensive, this is about what's ethical.

I don't think I've said anywhere that Aboriginal people would be offended by these sticks, nor am I trying to be the "PC Police" as one poster put it.

I've attempted to shed some light on why Australians may perceive an issue here, and that there is a history of struggle in Indigenous arts in this country. I've not called for a boycott or criticised Graydog. And yes, when it comes down to it, Graydog, and anyone else, for that matter, can do whatever they want, so long as nothing is directly copied. No where have I said that they should stop doing what they're doing because it might be offensive to a group of people.

It's not about what's offensive, it's about what's ethical. I've considered the issue and I know what I believe to be ethical. You can feel differently.

[Nat242]

It's rather a tricky issue. On the one hand, it is atrocious what has been done in the past to these and other minority groups, and understandable why they would be very protective and sensitive about their cultural art and symbols. On the other hand, as was mentioned, we live in a very globalised world now, and what is happening with art is a natural process and result of this. The symbols and art and imagery of all cultures and eras belong to everyone and is truthfully and literally accessible to all minds. If the usage and spreading of symbols and art is seen instead as the evolutionary progression of new styles and symbols; new ways of interpreting and part of the development of this new global culture, then it's not really something negative or disrespectful.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. I'll use the example of dance again. Lots of dancers create fusion - that is, they combine two or more distinct dance forms to create something new.

Many dancers hold the opinion that fusion is fine, and can be wonderful artistic expression, but it requires you to be thoroughly versed, experienced and educated in both styles - it's not a matter of just doing whatever you want blindly and calling it belly dance/salsa fusion. You should understand and deeply study the art forms you're using before you / in order to truly create a new one.

So, in my mind, if you're a painter that wants to incorporate indigenous Australian techniques and styles into your art, you should *study* it. This may mean travelling. So be it.

That said, many dancers and painters would disagree with me :shrug:

[frizzinator]

Greydog's designs prompted DecalfJane to educate us. The point of art is to open our eyes and mind. Just like in the case of chocolate Jesus, the design theft might enlighten someone who never would have had the opportunity to learn about the subject.


If native artists are required to have a long spiritual apprenticeship before being allowed to reproduce the designs, then that spirituality surely is conveyed in the art, which of course would not be represented in reproductions by outsiders. Therefore, the existence of the unauthorized reproductions would serve to help educate non-natives about the originals, while it would also increase the non-native's desire for the original and thus raise the value of the work produced by the native artists. How can the outsider learn to recognize the superior without being able to compare it to the inferior?

[DecafJane]

I just got a lovely reply from Jill from Graydog which she told me I could reproduce here:

Thanks very much for your emails and for bringing the issue to our attention.
Bill is an artist himself -- Many of his paintings and sculpural works hang on our walls
(and in galleries and private collections).
He has always been interested in semiotics and iconography, and he has the highest respect and admiration for indigenous and aboriginal
art of all cultures.
Bill actually didn't copy any source or pattern for his designs on these items.
When he showed them to me, I was reminded of some works of Paul Klee and the American Pop artist Keith Haring.
And some of them also reminded me of Australian Aboriginal art, as well as elements of Mayan,
Aztec, and Roman and North African mosaic art.
So I named the series "Dreamtime."
Now that you point out that it may be offensive to some, the next time we list items from that
series, we will re-name them "Dream Time" which in English carries the meaning of "time to dream,"
similar to "play time" or "bed time" (as distinct from the sacred terms "The Dreamtime" and
"The Dreaming").
And, in fact, "Dream Time" really is more suitable and descriptive of the spirit
of this series of Bill's designs. One should always take time to dream.
We have also read the LHC thread on this subject with interest, and we appreciate the thoughtful
comments expressed by you and everyone who posted to it.

I think that changing the name of the series to Dream Time actually clears up any confusion as it can mean whatever you want it to. I really appreciate her taking the time to clear this up and change the name. :)

Thanks for all of your thoughts - it has been a good thread. We have shared ideas, learned new information, and gotten each other thinking. There is a huge difference between legalities and ethics (one only has to look at all of the things that are currently legal in the world, such as sweatshop labour and animal exploitation to know this) and what is culturally offensive varies greatly between cultures and individuals. What is beneficial may be entirely different from what is acceptable.

I don't think that Graydogs designs were an overt attempt to copy Aboriginal art and are original and interesting works that draw inspiration from many places, as all who create are likely to do. People who view art also bring their backgrounds and experiences to the interpretation, which was obvious when I looked at the work and thought it was loosely based on something Australian. (Note: I myself am not Aboriginal.)

I hope that the next time anybody here sees a cheap tourist knock-off that seeks to make profit from an exploited and disenfranchised culture, they think twice about what supporting such dubious enterprises means for the people whose artwork you are admiring. :)

[Tangles]

[quote=DecafJane;365044]I just got a lovely reply from Jill from Graydog which she told me I could reproduce here:

Thanks very much for your emails and for bringing the issue to our attention.
Bill is an artist himself -- Many of his paintings and sculpural works hang on our walls
(and in galleries and private collections).
He has always been interested in semiotics and iconography, and he has the highest respect and admiration for indigenous and aboriginal
art of all cultures.
Bill actually didn't copy any source or pattern for his designs on these items.
When he showed them to me, I was reminded of some works of Paul Klee and the American Pop artist Keith Haring.
And some of them also reminded me of Australian Aboriginal art, as well as elements of Mayan,
Aztec, and Roman and North African mosaic art.
So I named the series "Dreamtime."
Now that you point out that it may be offensive to some, the next time we list items from that
series, we will re-name them "Dream Time" which in English carries the meaning of "time to dream,"
similar to "play time" or "bed time" (as distinct from the sacred terms "The Dreamtime" and
"The Dreaming").
And, in fact, "Dream Time" really is more suitable and descriptive of the spirit
of this series of Bill's designs. One should always take time to dream.
We have also read the LHC thread on this subject with interest, and we appreciate the thoughtful
comments expressed by you and everyone who posted to it.

How nice that they replied. I am still of two minds about the "ethical debate." I can see Nat's point, but then you would really have to extend the same ethical protection to other cultures.

[burns_erin]

I believe various native american tribes tried to accomplish something similiar and were quite thoroughly smashed in courts in the US. And in general no one thinks anything of ouright copying let alone borrowing the themes and peices in the US.

[Nat242]

<snip>
How nice that they replied. I am still of two minds about the "ethical debate." I can see Nat's point, but then you would really have to extend the same ethical protection to other cultures.

Yes, where possible, the same ethical consideration should extend to other cultures, which is why I used the example of cultural dances.

Some symbols and techniques are so old and so widely dispersed that it's difficult to track down the original meaning, let alone original guardians of the original meaning, who wish to be stewards of the information.

In the case of Aboriginal art, there are teachers, artists and elders who are stewards of this information, and it's relatively easy to track the history of these symbols and techniques because Aboriginal Australians were isolated for so long.

There is the also the more particular issue regarding Indigenous disadvantage in Australia, and the importance of art as a means to educate and empower (including economically). This is (happily) not universally the case, although there are undoubtedly other cultural groups to whom this extra consideration would apply.

***

That's a very satisfactory response from Graydog! I'm really impressed.

[Teazel]

Well done, DecafJane! :)

[birthmarkie]

I think that is a good solution that Jill offers and there is no claim that the work is Aborigine art or based upon it. I do think a seller should be aware of cultural considerations. I wouldn't want to visit an Aborigine community wearing a hairstick that offends someone.

[KatKeRo]

After reading this thread I can't see why someone should be offended. The art on the sticks and crochethooks is based on designs of aboriginals and not a copy.
They should be proud that someone uses their designs as base for their own work.
I feel the moment some artform is released to the world you can use it to make other art with it as long as it's no copy.

Besides it it offends you don't buy it.

[akurah]

I really like her graceful reply. And it goes to show my theory (of it being multi-origin, not just Aboriginally inspired) has some merit to it.

I'm glad for this thread, too, as I learned quite a bit that I probably wouldn't have discovered otherwise.

[DecafJane]

I really like her graceful reply. And it goes to show my theory (of it being multi-origin, not just Aboriginally inspired) has some merit to it.

You (and others) were right, Akura. :)

[Islandgrrl]

I don't see the problem with his designs. He's not misrepresenting them; not saying they're Aboriginal art or made by anyone other than himself.

I would certainly take offense if he were misrepresenting the pieces as being made by the Aboriginal people. But that's not the case. Not that I could find, anyway.

[Nat242]

I don't see the problem with his designs. He's not misrepresenting them; not saying they're Aboriginal art or made by anyone other than himself.

I would certainly take offense if he were misrepresenting the pieces as being made by the Aboriginal people. But that's not the case. Not that I could find, anyway.

Calling them "Dreamtime" did suggest that they were based on Aboriginal art, and the multiple origins weren't clear. Altering the marketing as indicated in their response will make the distinction clear, and I tip my hat to them for that.

[Nat242]

After reading this thread I can't see why someone should be offended. The art on the sticks and crochethooks is based on designs of aboriginals and not a copy.
They should be proud that someone uses their designs as base for their own work.
I feel the moment some artform is released to the world you can use it to make other art with it as long as it's no copy.

Besides it it offends you don't buy it.

Shall I repeat? It's not about being offended, it's about the ethics of cultural/artistic appropriation.

[Kirin]

Shall I repeat? It's not about being offended, it's about the ethics of cultural/artistic appropriation.

Actually, no ethics are involved. As a professional artist myself, using a style is not an infringement of -any- kind of art. As long as original works are not copied or remade, an individual artist may express themselves however they see fit.

My opinion may not be well liked, and it isn't in the United States alone, it is world wide, even Austrailia. Art is art, and the ownership of its individual creator. I am not saying this to be argumentative but state the truth. Sorry, you can NOT own a style of artwork, nor put a copyright on it. It is the art PIECE itself that can be branded.

If it were the case that one ethnic group could "own" their style of artwork, no one for decades and centuries would be allowed to use oil paint, paint in the style of Picasso or Rembrandt.... or use watercolors, Chinese symbols or Eastern Dragons. Celtic artwork and knotting could not be used, nor could African art, Norse, and Celtic Woading....... or for that matter, Henna tatoos.

Artists just don't work like that, at least none I know of...... they get an idea, based on some visual or remembered reference, or a fantasy, and create. Few..... if any at all go looking through books and books and legalities to see if they are allowed to create their artistic vision.

Many cultures have "Traditional" artwork, you know it on sight.. but it is still used, and re-used by artists today.

[Islandgrrl]

Actually, no ethics are involved. As a professional artist myself, using a style is not an infringement of -any- kind of art. As long as original works are not copied or remade, an individual artist may express themselves however they see fit.

I have to agree with this.

[Nat242]

Actually, no ethics are involved. As a professional artist myself, using a style is not an infringement of -any- kind of art. As long as original works are not copied or remade, an individual artist may express themselves however they see fit.

My opinion may not be well liked, and it isn't in the United States alone, it is world wide, even Austrailia. Art is art, and the ownership of its individual creator. I am not saying this to be argumentative but state the truth. Sorry, you can NOT own a style of artwork, nor put a copyright on it. It is the art PIECE itself that can be branded.

If it were the case that one ethnic group could "own" their style of artwork, no one for decades and centuries would be allowed to use oil paint, paint in the style of Picasso or Rembrandt.... or use watercolors, Chinese symbols or Eastern Dragons. Celtic artwork and knotting could not be used, nor could African art, Norse, and Celtic Woading....... or for that matter, Henna tatoos.

Artists just don't work like that, at least none I know of...... they get an idea, based on some visual or remembered reference, or a fantasy, and create. Few..... if any at all go looking through books and books and legalities to see if they are allowed to create their artistic vision.

Many cultures have "Traditional" artwork, you know it on sight.. but it is still used, and re-used by artists today.

Perhaps you don't see any ethical considerations here, but I do. Ethical arguments are always subjective, and your opinion is as valid as mine.

I'm not a painter, but as a dancer, I would not consciously incorporate the dance styles of Indigenous Australians into a performance unless I had studied under a suitably knowledgeable teacher. This is my decision; others may feel differently, I understand that.

ETA: Others may think that as an "artist" I can do whatever I want, use whatever I want. It's my right as an artist. This may be true, but I still feel I have a responsibility to the cultures from which I am deriving my art.

I'm not trying to force this consideration on anyone, the choice is a personal one. I supported Decaf Jane in her original letter to Graydog, because I thought that they should have the context of Aboriginal art appropriation explained to them so they could make a decision in full knowledge.

[SHELIAANN1969]

Speaking of art and dance, if I were dancing and anyone saw me, the Good Lord only knows what kind of infringement rights I am literally and figuratively trampling on, I look pretty spastic but love my freestyling none the less :D

Here is a bit of what I might resemble:



:cheese::taz::disco:


then some of this:


:happydance::cheer::joy:



and


:hollie::rockerdud:wethree:

[DecafJane]

Sheliaann, your dance ROCKS!!

Thanks for your support, Nat. You have been able to state the case much more eloquently than I could. People will always disagree, but it is a blessing to be able to make your viewpoint understood. :)

[KatKeRo]

Actually, no ethics are involved. As a professional artist myself, using a style is not an infringement of -any- kind of art. As long as original works are not copied or remade, an individual artist may express themselves however they see fit.

My opinion may not be well liked, and it isn't in the United States alone, it is world wide, even Austrailia. Art is art, and the ownership of its individual creator. I am not saying this to be argumentative but state the truth. Sorry, you can NOT own a style of artwork, nor put a copyright on it. It is the art PIECE itself that can be branded.

If it were the case that one ethnic group could "own" their style of artwork, no one for decades and centuries would be allowed to use oil paint, paint in the style of Picasso or Rembrandt.... or use watercolors, Chinese symbols or Eastern Dragons. Celtic artwork and knotting could not be used, nor could African art, Norse, and Celtic Woading....... or for that matter, Henna tatoos.

Artists just don't work like that, at least none I know of...... they get an idea, based on some visual or remembered reference, or a fantasy, and create. Few..... if any at all go looking through books and books and legalities to see if they are allowed to create their artistic vision.

Many cultures have "Traditional" artwork, you know it on sight.. but it is still used, and re-used by artists today.


I have to agree with this.

I couldn't agree more.

[prosperina]

What a graceful and lovely reply from Graydog. Now, if only I could afford their beautiful accessories!

I've followed this thread with interest, and I just can't keep my mouth shut. :D I think some of the artists here are getting a bit too defensive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Nat was never arguing for copywriting images or restricting freedom of expression. If there was borrowing to be done she was advocating for intelligent, reasoned and sensitive borrowing. Whether it's a tattoo or a painting, to borrow something without knowing the history or the culture behind it is not only insenstive it just makes for bad art. Good artists are aware of the meanings behind symbols and employ them, juxtapose them, and play with them in interesting, thought provoking and transformative ways. It's a free country; people are free to make bad art, have bad tattoos, but art is not an ethics free realm, nor is quality merely a matter of personal taste.



Removing cultural elements from any consideration of its context and origins kills culture and creates kitsch, IMO.

This was really well said, Nat.

[Comfrey]

You know it really doesn't matter what people think, its what the indigenous peoples of Australia think! The Dreamtime is not just art its sacred and it tell the stories of how man was created. Its beautiful and incredibley moving.

You know whilst the analogy of having crucified jesus figures hanging from our hair ornaments might be a good one, but this is more like making the book of genesis into a hat!

I get tired of hearing people say "Oh well I'm not offended". It isnt up to you. Its quite simply wrong.

[Comfrey]

PS
This isnt the same as copying Celtic design by the way. This is a completely different kettle of fish because as I said the Dreamtime is NOT art, its sacred.

oh and reference the tartan. I visited America not so long ago and I went to a "Highland Games". Had I not been a guest of an American family I would have walked out. I saw it in the same way as seeing a load of white Native American wannabes, we unfortunately have in Britain, wearing full tribal dress complete with feathered headress.

I'm a Stewart and even I wont wear the kilt (not that ladies do), despite being ethically allowed, because I wasn't born of the land and its the land which speaks to the Native Scot.

ETA
I didnt know before I went that everyone was going to come out dressed in their "clan" tartans, otherwise I would have made myself busy.

[eadwine]

Just a little note to that: Celtic designs can be sacred to. Other things as well.

An example: the five pointed star may be just a star to you, but it is sacred to me.

It is all in the eye of the beholder :)

I don't mind people using that star as an ornament :)

[Mely]

You know it really doesn't matter what people think, its what the indigenous peoples of Australia think! The Dreamtime is not just art its sacred and it tell the stories of how man was created. Its beautiful and incredibley moving.

You know whilst the analogy of having crucified jesus figures hanging from our hair ornaments might be a good one, but this is more like making the book of genesis into a hat!

I get tired of hearing people say "Oh well I'm not offended". It isnt up to you. Its quite simply wrong.

I've seen Noah's Ark jewelry. In fact it has even passed through my mind that it would be possible to make a Noah's ark hair stick--with the main bead being the ark, and pairs of animals being dangling beads. I'm not saying I will make such a thing or wear it, mind you. That would be a bit much, even for me--and I wear sticks with Hello Kitty dangles. (I'm not Japanese either)

[Comfrey]

Just a little note to that: Celtic designs can be sacred to. Other things as well.

An example: the five pointed star may be just a star to you, but it is sacred to me.

Hi Eadwine :)

I'm a pagan so I know what your saying, but aboriginal art is different. People have tried to explain it before and much better than me. I just cant explain, but the pentacle may be sacred to some, but it is a personal thing not an ethical one

[Comfrey]

Just another thought. Just because things have been seen, doesn't make it right, does it?

[florenonite]

PS
This isnt the same as copying Celtic design by the way. This is a completely different kettle of fish because as I said the Dreamtime is NOT art, its sacred.

oh and reference the tartan. I visited America not so long ago and I went to a "Highland Games". Had I not been a guest of an American family I would have walked out. I saw it in the same way as seeing a load of white Native American wannabes, we unfortunately have in Britain, wearing full tribal dress complete with feathered headress.

I'm a Stewart and even I wont wear the kilt (not that ladies do), despite being ethically allowed, because I wasn't born of the land and its the land which speaks to the Native Scot.

ETA
I didnt know before I went that everyone was going to come out dressed in their "clan" tartans, otherwise I would have made myself busy.

There's an American student in the hall that I lived in last year (albeit with a Scottish last name) who plays the bagpipes, badly and in the middle of the night, and walks around in a kilt, much to the dismay of the Scots.

On the topic of belonging to a "clan", my Scottish friends also find it weird that North Americans claim to be Scottish if they have one grandparent who is Scottish, whereas Scots whose parents are English still consider themselves to be Scottish rather than English, because they were born and grew up in Scotland. Therefore, you don't belong to a clan just because you happen to be descended from some McIntoshes who moved to North America during the Highland Clearances and you possess that last name. My last name is English, but I definitely don't consider myself to be English. Rather, I think of myself as Scottish and Canadian, because my parents are Scottish and I was born in Canada, though I now mostly live in Scotland, and I exhibit aspects of both cultures. For instance, I have been known to say both "aye" and "eh" in the same sentence. I think the fundamental difference in the view is that the British see your nationality as being where you live and where you associate yourself with culturally, whilst North Americans are more concerned with descent, and I think this is because a lot of Britons can say "well, my granny's English, but the rest of my family's Scottish" or some such thing, whilst North Americans tend to have a more varied racial background, just because of the immigrant culture of Canada and the United States.

[Mely]

PS
...oh and reference the tartan. I visited America not so long ago and I went to a "Highland Games". Had I not been a guest of an American family I would have walked out. I saw it in the same way as seeing a load of white Native American wannabes, we unfortunately have in Britain, wearing full tribal dress complete with feathered headress.

I'm a Stewart and even I wont wear the kilt (not that ladies do), despite being ethically allowed, because I wasn't born of the land and its the land which speaks to the Native Scot.

ETA
I didnt know before I went that everyone was going to come out dressed in their "clan" tartans, otherwise I would have made myself busy.

People yearn to belong to some sort of culture. My grandparents came to Canada from Scotland almost 100 years ago. Because Canada is such a young nation, there no "Canadian culture" as such. Canada is a mosaic of many cultures. Accept for the First Nations peoples, the rest of us must look to some other part of the world to find our cultural roots. What is wrong with that? Is it not through migration that various cultures have been spread around the world?

I get the feeling that you were disgusted at seeing the Americans dressed in highland regalia. But I think you will find similar Highland games in Canada, Australia and New Zealand -- other places that were destinations of Scotland's diasporas.

Perhaps new immigrants, or their children, want to cut all cultural ties, and would feel embarrassed wearing traditional clothing from their homeland. But after a few generations often people begin to yearn for some sort of ancient culture to be a part off.

Right now, I'm wearing a jumper made from the Nova Scotia tartan (though I'm not from Nova Scotia -- I just like the colours in it). I'm going to my Scottish Country dance group tonight, and I'm going to wear a thistle hair comb. I don't see why this is a big deal, whether my grandparents were from Scotland or not. Lots of people, for example, take up belly dancing, and wear costumes for that. Are they being "fake" when they do that? I'm also thinking of joining a group that does traditional Ukrainian folk dancing--and I don't think it matters a damn that I have no Ukrainian ancestors.

[Comfrey]

Hi florenonite :)

Whats weird about my family background is I have both Stewart and Macdonald and after the dissipation of the clans following Culloden, both of these, but mainly the Macdonalds left for the States and some assimilated with the native population.

There is a really interesting book called "Glencoe and the Indians" about this very subject.

But despite me having an enormous interest in Native American culture and history, would it be right for me to say I was a relative of Crazy Horse because he was said to have had light curly hair :lol:

[KatKeRo]

PS
This isnt the same as copying Celtic design by the way. This is a completely different kettle of fish because as I said the Dreamtime is NOT art, its sacred.
It's exactly the same. Celtic designs are sacred also for those who are Celts and I'm proud to be one of them.
And still I don't mind when artists use those designs in their art.

[eadwine]

Hi Eadwine :)

I'm a pagan so I know what your saying, but aboriginal art is different. People have tried to explain it before and much better than me. I just cant explain, but the pentacle may be sacred to some, but it is a personal thing not an ethical one

Hi :)

I can understand what you are saying, however I simply cannot agree that those things are different because they are aboriginal art.

I can understand it being offending, it would be maybe be equally so when the cross was worn upside down and a Christian would see it.

I think my stance is simple: art is art, no matter what kind.

We'll just have to disagree I guess. I WILL however guide a friend who is part aboriginal over to this thread, and his mom is 50% I THINK. I am curious what he will say about it and am curious on her opinion as well.

[Comfrey]

Mely I wasnt disgusted at all because I do indeed understand. That doesnt mean I had to like it though.

What actually DID disgust me however was the ignorance of Scottish history when I saw the MacDonalds come out with the Campbells. I could easily have blown a gasket.

[KatKeRo]

Hi Eadwine :)

I'm a pagan so I know what your saying, but aboriginal art is different. People have tried to explain it before and much better than me. I just cant explain, but the pentacle may be sacred to some, but it is a personal thing not an ethical one
I don't see the difference. A pentacle is sacred to Pagans like aboriginal art is sacred to aboriginals, celtic designs for Celts and a cross for a Christian.

[Comfrey]

It's exactly the same. Celtic designs are sacred also for those who are Celts and I'm proud to be one of them.
And still I don't mind when artists use those designs in their art.

I'm a celt and it IS different. The difference being that the dreamtime represents more than our celtic knots represent. Not that we know anyway because so called celtic art is neo pagan anyway because we dont actually know what the celts did or didnt paint.

But the point is not whether YOU mind, its whether they do!

[Comfrey]

I don't see the difference. A pentacle is sacred to Pagans like aboriginal art is sacred to aboriginals, celtic designs for Celts and a cross for a Christian.
The pentacle was adopted by neo pagans, it is hardly the same thing.

[Comfrey]

Right now, I'm wearing a jumper made from the Nova Scotia tartan (though I'm not from Nova Scotia -- I just like the colours in it). I'm going to my Scottish Country dance group tonight, and I'm going to wear a thistle hair comb. I don't see why this is a big deal, whether my grandparents were from Scotland or not. Lots of people, for example, take up belly dancing, and wear costumes for that. Are they being "fake" when they do that? I'm also thinking of joining a group that does traditional Ukrainian folk dancing--and I don't think it matters a damn that I have no Ukrainian ancestors.

Sorry Mely I just read this again, I must have missed this bit :o

What you are talking about here is different I think, at least according to what my Scottish friends would have me believe. At the games all the chaps and chappesses came out in full regalia and started marching around in their respective "clans". Also as far as I could ascertain, there weren't any games either so it was also a misnomer.

It was just an excuse to play dress up and its was that I found, not so much disrespecful (although I know plenty of Scots who would have gone mad) as distasteful.

[prosperina]

I'm a celt and it IS different. The difference being that the dreamtime represents more than our celtic knots represent. Not that we know anyway because so called celtic art is neo pagan anyway because we dont actually know what the celts did or didnt paint.

But the point is not whether YOU mind, its whether they do!

Excellent point, Comfrey. This is why some of the posts earlier in the thread bothered me so. They seemed to be arguing from a "might makes right" point of view: Aborigines may complain that they don't want their sacred art misrepresented, but why should we listen to them? Aboriginal art and religion can be stolen therefore no one has the right to complain, and because it can be stolen and reproduced in an insensitive manner, it should be stolen, and it's okay for it to be stolen. Um, no. It's *much* more complicated than that. Just because something *can* be done, doesn't mean it should be done. To me this is just Ethics 101. And I am not trying to be mean or condescending, but I don't think people always think about art in an ethical context, afterall it isn't always popular to do so.

Someone earlier was comparing it to a fleur de lys symbol, which like the celtic knot, is entirely different. No members of the French monarchy are around to protest its (mis)usage in tattoos! Although I do wonder if Quebeckers would look strangely at someone with this tattooed on their body? Afterall the fleur de lys is on the Quebec flag...I'm not arguing against someone's right to have that tattoo, but it's not really "your" symbol...

[akurah]

Excellent point, Comfrey. This is why some of the posts earlier in the thread bothered me so. They seemed to be arguing from a "might makes right" point of view: Aborigines may complain that they don't want their sacred art misrepresented, but why should we listen to them? Aboriginal art and religion can be stolen therefore no one has the right to complain, and because it can be stolen and reproduced in an insensitive manner, it should be stolen, and it's okay for it to be stolen. Um, no. It's *much* more complicated than that. Just because something *can* be done, doesn't mean it should be done. To me this is just Ethics 101. And I am not trying to be mean or condescending, but I don't think people always think about art in an ethical context, afterall it isn't always popular to do so.

Someone earlier was comparing it to a fleur de lys symbol, which like the celtic knot, is entirely different. No members of the French monarchy are around to protest its (mis)usage in tattoos! Although I do wonder if Quebeckers would look strangely at someone with this tattooed on their body? Afterall the fleur de lys is on the Quebec flag...I'm not arguing against someone's right to have that tattoo, but it's not really "your" symbol...

I guess I better rush out and get my tattoos lasered off then, since they're written in Japanese and I'm not Japanese!

[KatKeRo]

I'm a celt and it IS different. The difference being that the dreamtime represents more than our celtic knots represent. Not that we know anyway because so called celtic art is neo pagan anyway because we dont actually know what the celts did or didnt paint.

But the point is not whether YOU mind, its whether they do!
So called Celtic art is from the Celts and not neo pagan and are often sacred symbols. We do know what Celts paint or didn't paint like we know what other cultures did or didn't paint.


The pentacle was adopted by neo pagans, it is hardly the same thing.

The pentacle is also an ancient symbol so in my eyes it is the same thing. And even should it be neo it's still sacred so you can't say it's hardly the same thing.

[KatKeRo]

Sorry Mely I just read this again, I must have missed this bit :o

What you are talking about here is different I think, at least according to what my Scottish friends would have me believe. At the games all the chaps and chappesses came out in full regalia and started marching around in their respective "clans". Also as far as I could ascertain, there weren't any games either so it was also a misnomer.

It was just an excuse to play dress up and its was that I found, not so much disrespecful (although I know plenty of Scots who would have gone mad) as distasteful.

Perhaps for some it was an excuse to play dress up but for some who are from scottish descent it's a means to show of their national dress and the fact they are proud of it.

[teela1978]

I think that in the USA and probably also in Canada, our local culture is still very much immature and still forming. Therefore we hold on to and cherish any link to any culture that we may have, be that a Scottish grandmother or a vague resemblance to people of another continent.

We will vehemently declare our nationality to be American, but are very fast to celebrate cultures that we may or may not have any claim to. I think that's actually a good thing.

[Comfrey]

So called Celtic art is from the Celts and not neo pagan and are often sacred symbols. We do know what Celts paint or didn't paint like we know what other cultures did or didn't paint.



The pentacle is also an ancient symbol so in my eyes it is the same thing. And even should it be neo it's still sacred so you can't say it's hardly the same thing.

The facts are that although there are some evidence of prechristian celtic art remaining, the stuff we see these days is mainly, in fact almost exclusively, reconstructionist and dating from the 1800's

The pentacle again (and I wore one for years) whether an ancient symbol or not (and there are arguments on both sides as it can very easily be claimed by Christians too) is not sacred in the same way as aboriginal art.

As I said, the pentacle has been claimed by neo pagans as their own and even the argument about its meaning within those very circles is fiercely argued. Many modern Pagans actually refuse to wear one because of what it has come to represent.

We quite simply dont know what the celtic people did or didnt believe, because there is no documentation and that which we do know was documented by the Romans as the conquering Army. As there are NO native celts surviving we can only surmise.

But this is not an argument on neo paganism its about Native Australian art and as I said before, it is not up to us to say they are wrong. Try telling a Native American that you think you should be able to wear an eagle feather and see what happens ;)

[Comfrey]

We will vehemently declare our nationality to be American, but are very fast to celebrate cultures that we may or may not have any claim to. I think that's actually a good thing.
Hi Teela :)

You see this is what confuses me. If I were American or Canadian I would be proud of that. Both have a rich history and although it may not be as old as say Britain, that doesn't mean it is any less valid.

Celebrate yes. Even do that games that wasnt a games thing, but dont shout at me when I say I find it a problem.

As I said before I am half Scot (my Father is a Scot). Half Royal Scot to be exact (as in Royal Stewart descent) and even I would not wear a kilt, even though I actually have documentation saying I have that right.

I was NOT born of the land and to the Scots the land is tantamount.

[eadwine]

Just to add something funny (at least I found it funny when I read all this ;) ) to this thread.

Did you know that in an ancient synagogue in Israel there is a swastika mosaic made in the floor? India uses it, Nazis used it, neo Nazis now use it, you can call it a symbol, you can call it art. (more info on that here: link (ttp://www.reclaimtheswastika.com/history/)

I think anyone can be offended at anything if we pull it as far as it has been pulled by now. If we can only follow the origins we would have to tear down buildings, scrape off our tattoos, take out our septum piercings, and throw our religion out the window too (ALL of them), as they are all borrowed. :)

[teela1978]

Hi Teela :)

You see this is what confuses me. If I were American or Canadian I would be proud of that. Both have a rich history and although it may not be as old as say Britain, that doesn't mean it is any less valid.

Celebrate yes. Even do that games that wasnt a games thing, but dont shout at me when I say I find it a problem.

As I said before I am half Scot (my Father is a Scot). Half Royal Scot to be exact (as in Royal Stewart descent) and even I would not wear a kilt, even though I actually have documentation saying I have that right.

I was NOT born of the land and to the Scots the land is tantamount.

I don't think I was shouting. Or even directing that post towards you. I was responding to several posts where people were trying to understand why many individuals and groups in north america celebrate cultures that are not their own. As you point out, we have a rich history. But our culture? Um... it's pretty much a mish-mash of every other culture out there.

I was largely trying to point out that we wouldn't think twice about whether or not someone has the 'right' to wear a kilt. If you like them, and enjoy celebrating that culture, then wear them. Apparently our celebration offends sometimes. That is unfortunate.

[KatKeRo]

The facts are that although there are some evidence of prechristian celtic art remaining, the stuff we see these days is mainly, in fact almost exclusively, reconstructionist and dating from the 1800's

The pentacle again (and I wore one for years) whether an ancient symbol or not (and there are arguments on both sides as it can very easily be claimed by Christians too) is not sacred in the same way as aboriginal art.

As I said, the pentacle has been claimed by neo pagans as their own and even the argument about its meaning within those very circles is fiercely argued. Many modern Pagans actually refuse to wear one because of what it has come to represent.

We quite simply dont know what the celtic people did or didnt believe, because there is no documentation and that which we do know was documented by the Romans as the conquering Army. As there are NO native celts surviving we can only surmise.

But this is not an argument on neo paganism its about Native Australian art and as I said before, it is not up to us to say they are wrong. Try telling a Native American that you think you should be able to wear an eagle feather and see what happens ;)

So what are debating about?
Graydog is using reconstructionist aboriginal art. If you don't have any problem with reconstructed celtic symbols than you can't have a problem with Graydogs art.

Look it up and you find information of Celts that's not written by the Romans.

And yes I'm a native Celt born and bred in Flanders from people who can trace their anscesters all the way to the Celts if they look hard enough.

The pentacle is an ancient symbol and it's sacred to me and a lot op pagans.

[prosperina]

I guess I better rush out and get my tattoos lasered off then, since they're written in Japanese and I'm not Japanese!

That was not my point at all. Gee whiz. Give me some credit, maybe I was unclear, but still!! The fleur de lys is a symbol of a province and an entire culture in the way that Japanese kanji simply aren't. It would be like someone who wasn't Quebecois running around with "Je me souviens" the slogan of Quebec tattooed on his/her backside!

I was merely asking the question that can someone really appreciate a cultural symbol if they aren't from that culture? Won't there always be some kind of misunderstanding? For instance, "je me souviens" (I remember) well, you could get that tattooedh on you, but no, I'm sorry *you* don't remember. I think there's a fine line between stealing from another culture (because you like it, because it's meaningful to you) and treading upon something that you couldn't possibly understand. For instance, I won't be jumping over a broomstick at my wedding, because it's not my culture, I wouldn't even dream of being able to truly understand African American experience; it's not my culture. All I was saying is, there's some real ethical issues here.

And I've seen your tattoo, it's wonderful, and I know you're smart enough to have researched it. They aren't for instance the upsidedown kanji you see on some NBA stars. I don't see that the same ethical concerns apply with your tattoo. Although I still reserve the right to snicker at ignorant people with fleur de lys tattoos. I can't help it. Not understanding the background of the symbol is a problem.

[Comfrey]

I don't think I was shouting. Or even directing that post towards you.
.
Please accept my apologies, I didnt mean to direct that at you either. The written word is fraught with misunderstanding and I am dreaful for getting carried away when I get passionate. Please forgive me :)

[Comfrey]

So what are debating about?
Graydog is using reconstructionist aboriginal art. If you don't have any problem with reconstructed celtic symbols than you can't have a problem with Graydogs art.

Look it up and you find information of Celts that's not written by the Romans.

And yes I'm a native Celt born and bred in Flanders from people who can trace their anscesters all the way to the Celts if they look hard enough.

The pentacle is an ancient symbol and it's sacred to me and a lot op pagans.
Look I'm not going to argue and if you consider the pentacle sacred then I apologise to you also.

[Comfrey]

Did you know that in an ancient synagogue in Israel there is a swastika mosaic made in the floor? India uses it, Nazis used it, neo Nazis now use it, you can call it a symbol, you can call it art
I may be wrong but I believe the swastika really IS an ancient symbol and they were even found in China :)

[akurah]

That was not my point at all. Gee whiz. Give me some credit, maybe I was unclear, but still!! The fleur de lys is a symbol of a province and an entire culture in the way that Japanese kanji simply aren't. It would be like someone running who wasn't Quebecois running around with "Je me souviens" the slogan of Quebec tattooed on his/her backside!

I was merely asking the question that can someone really appreciate a cultural symbol if they aren't from that culture? Won't there always be some kind of misunderstanding? For instance, "je me souviens" (I remember) well, you could get that tattooedh on you, but no, I'm sorry *you* don't remember. I think there's a fine line between stealing from another culture (because you like it, because it's meaningful to you) and treading upon something that you couldn't possibly understand. For instance, I won't be jumping over a broomstick at my wedding, because it's not my culture, I wouldn't even dream of being able to truly understand African American experience; it's not my culture. All I was saying is, there's some real ethical issues here.

And I've seen your tattoo, it's wonderful, and I know you're smart enough to have researched it. They aren't for instance the upsidedown kanji you see on some NBA stars. I don't see that the same ethical concerns apply with your tattoo. Although I still reserve the right to snicker at ignorant people with fleur de lys tattoos. I can't help it. Not understanding the background of the symbol is a problem.

Well, actually, I didn't miss the point. You just simply made it for me (this quoted text here) far more clearly than my two line statement did, is all.

[prosperina]

Oh, okay. :o Tone is hard to tell on the internet. :flower:

[eresh]

Symbols will be used as they are, or as inspiration to new designs based on them, ...
because symbols are often powerful designs & forms and people will be attracted to them.

Sometimes they will be used in a negative way (swastika & nazis) but mostly in a positive way.
You can dislike it but it won't change that people will be attracted to them and want to use them.

I think there's nothing wrong with that in connection to art & to the designs made by Graydog.
It's very nice of them to mail an explanation and even do a name change.

I could get worked up about Madonna using certain symbols...
But what good does that do, nothing.
I'd rather focus on other things.

[Nat242]

What a graceful and lovely reply from Graydog. Now, if only I could afford their beautiful accessories!

I've followed this thread with interest, and I just can't keep my mouth shut. :D I think some of the artists here are getting a bit too defensive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Nat was never arguing for copywriting images or restricting freedom of expression. If there was borrowing to be done she was advocating for intelligent, reasoned and sensitive borrowing. Whether it's a tattoo or a painting, to borrow something without knowing the history or the culture behind it is not only insenstive it just makes for bad art. Good artists are aware of the meanings behind symbols and employ them, juxtapose them, and play with them in interesting, thought provoking and transformative ways. It's a free country; people are free to make bad art, have bad tattoos, but art is not an ethics free realm, nor is quality merely a matter of personal taste.

This was really well said, Nat.

Thank you, Proserpina :flowers:

Addressing the Aboriginal Art / Pentacle discussion - I understand that the pentacle is sacred for many people. There are differences; the social issues that I pointed out earlier in this thread, for example. However, there are similarities, and I have heard people for whom the pentacle is sacred express annoyance when it is used by people who don't understand the history and meaning of the symbol :shrug:

[Mely]

Hi Teela :)

You see this is what confuses me. If I were American or Canadian I would be proud of that. Both have a rich history and although it may not be as old as say Britain, that doesn't mean it is any less valid.

Celebrate yes. Even do that games that wasnt a games thing, but dont shout at me when I say I find it a problem.

As I said before I am half Scot (my Father is a Scot). Half Royal Scot to be exact (as in Royal Stewart descent) and even I would not wear a kilt, even though I actually have documentation saying I have that right.

I was NOT born of the land and to the Scots the land is tantamount.

Well, I think dressing up is fun, and humans always seem to be looking for an excuse to dress up. Sometimes on Canada Day (July 1) we have celebrations where people dress up in traditional costumes and do traditional dances, and cook traditional food. There is no genereric way to dress up as a Canadian. If we dressed up using First Nations attire, when we are not of First Nations decent, that would seem in bad taste to me. Likewise, I would probably not wear tradition garb from India. That would make me feel fake. There are a LOT of people from India, or of south Asian decent in Canada, and I'll leave it to them to wear the traditional dresses of India (even though I greatly admire those styles).

So if I was going to take part in a Canada Day celebration, it would be most natural for me to wear a tartan of some sort (actually 3 of my grandparents are from Scotland--two from Caithness and 1 from around Aberdeen--and the 4th is from England).

According to what you say, none of us should be dressing up and celebrating other cultures unless we were actually born in those countries. But have you thought this through as it would apply to decendents of folks who have emmigrated to a new land? You seem to be saying that if people emmigrate, they should instruct their decendents to completely divorce themselves from their cultural heritage--to have no cultural heritage at all, as if they dropped out of outer space. That is just not realistic.

[Graydog]

Hi, Kitchen Witch,
You said in a post above:
"Removing cultural elements from any consideration of its context and origins kills culture and creates kitsch, IMO."

I agree. But, leaving aside for the moment the question of what consideration is required, perhaps context and origins are not so easily defined and limited.

It occurs to me that all art (including music and dance) must be derived in some way from natural forms. I'm fascinated by the similarity between the inside of an Australian Banksia Pod and the patterns in Aboriginal artworks. Some symbols and motifs, such as spirals and knotwork, occur independently in widely diverse cultures. And since we are creatures of nature, we share the same fundamental inspirations and the same collective subconscious. So in the individual and cultural expression of those inspirations it wouldn't be surprising if there are common elements. How could I be touched by a work of Aboriginal art or a Tibetan Mandala or an ancient cave painting if I didn't, essentially and at the foundation of my being, dream the same dream? Aboriginal art is so moving because it helps us touch a neglected or forgotten part of our selves.

Certainly we can learn much from the study of other cultures. And we may need the guidance of teachers. But that reservoir of wisdom is also within us, if we truly seek it.

I think the creation (and enjoyment) of art is an expression of the need to relate -- to oneself, to others, to the Earth, to God, if you will. Of course there's no relating when the primary motivation is to copy and make money. And it's a sad fact that in practice the Higher (Sacred) tends to deteriorate toward the Lower (Profane) - in art, religion, good intentions, even Scots gatherings. ;-) So we must constantly regroup. But if an artist is genuinely touched by, inspired by, and influenced by elements in the art of other cultures, perhaps he/she is not so much "removing" them as "re-introducing" or "re-examining" them with his/her own individual interpretation -- in a "transformative way" as Prosperina so eloquently puts it. I can see how this would be a key element in choreography inspired by ethnic dance forms. Your body knows if it's honoring the original form of the movement.

(Regarding the subject of this thread: We can't revise current items, since they already have bids. But any new items in that series will have the name changed.)

Interesting and thought-provoking discussion, this! :-)

Jill (Graydog)

[Comfrey]

You seem to be saying that if people emmigrate, they should instruct their decendents to completely divorce themselves from their cultural heritage--to have no cultural heritage at all, as if they dropped out of outer space. That is just not realistic.
Hi Mely :)
I said I'm not going to argue any more and I'm not. For some reason I have a way of ruffling peoples feathers and I can only conclude that is because I am used to a certain debating style misunderstood here. It most certainly isn't intentional.

But I actually do understand what you say and I can think of nothing nicer than honouring your descendants this way on Canada day. I would definitely do the same should I live there no doubt.

There is also of course a huge difference between dressing in "native" dress for this special occasion and doing so to (as I said) dress up.

My argument about the so called Highland games was slightly different partly because of the complete lack of understanding given to the history regarding certain clans. That in my opinion is not only ignorant but insulting.

But my argument as such, does not stem entirely from my views per se, but those of the borne Scots I know.

If we are discussing ancestry I have more right than a good deal of those actually born north of the border to wear a kilt, but I dont because they dont like it one bit. I dunno, maybe the only scots I know are as bad tempered as me :rolleyes:

For what its worth we have Powwows over here now and often have what are advertised as "real Native American Chiefs" in attendance. I have been to one of the largest in England at a bison farm not far from where I live

They had this grand entrance thing and there were all these pale Brits, dressed in chamois leather some in full head dress, pretending to be Native. I was mortified and not a little embarrassed.

[Mely]

Hi Mely :)

...There is also of course a huge difference between dressing in "native" dress for this special occasion and doing so to (as I said) dress up.


For what its worth we have Powwows over here now and often have what are advertised as "real Native American Chiefs" in attendance. I have been to one of the largest in England at a bison farm not far from where I live

They had this grand entrance thing and there were all these pale Brits, dressed in chamois leather some in full head dress, pretending to be Native. I was mortified and not a little embarrassed.

And I suppose those Powwows would seems as silly to Native North Americans as the Highland Games you were at would seem to people from Scotland.

Actually, at my Scotish Country Dance group there are several people who are from Scotland. They don't seem to object to the rest of us wearing tartan. Far from it.

[Nat242]

Hi, Kitchen Witch,
You said in a post above:
"Removing cultural elements from any consideration of its context and origins kills culture and creates kitsch, IMO."

I agree. But, leaving aside for the moment the question of what consideration is required, perhaps context and origins are not so easily defined and limited.

It occurs to me that all art (including music and dance) must be derived in some way from natural forms. I'm fascinated by the similarity between the inside of an Australian Banksia Pod and the patterns in Aboriginal artworks. Some symbols and motifs, such as spirals and knotwork, occur independently in widely diverse cultures. And since we are creatures of nature, we share the same fundamental inspirations and the same collective subconscious. So in the individual and cultural expression of those inspirations it wouldn't be surprising if there are common elements. How could I be touched by a work of Aboriginal art or a Tibetan Mandala or an ancient cave painting if I didn't, essentially and at the foundation of my being, dream the same dream? Aboriginal art is so moving because it helps us touch a neglected or forgotten part of our selves.

Certainly we can learn much from the study of other cultures. And we may need the guidance of teachers. But that reservoir of wisdom is also within us, if we truly seek it.

I think the creation (and enjoyment) of art is an expression of the need to relate -- to oneself, to others, to the Earth, to God, if you will. Of course there's no relating when the primary motivation is to copy and make money. And it's a sad fact that in practice the Higher (Sacred) tends to deteriorate toward the Lower (Profane) - in art, religion, good intentions, even Scots gatherings. ;-) So we must constantly regroup. But if an artist is genuinely touched by, inspired by, and influenced by elements in the art of other cultures, perhaps he/she is not so much "removing" them as "re-introducing" or "re-examining" them with his/her own individual interpretation -- in a "transformative way" as Prosperina so eloquently puts it. I can see how this would be a key element in choreography inspired by ethnic dance forms. Your body knows if it's honoring the original form of the movement.

(Regarding the subject of this thread: We can't revise current items, since they already have bids. But any new items in that series will have the name changed.)

Interesting and thought-provoking discussion, this! :-)

Jill (Graydog)

Jill, thank you so much for taking the time to come here and read this discussion. I really appreciate it and I have great respect for you as a vendor and an artist.

First of all, in relation to my kitsch comment quoted above, I certainly was *not* referring to your designs! Please understand that your sticks were merely the launching point for this discussion, and the majority of my comments are about the issue in general, not about your sticks, which are exquisite.

I agree with what a lot of what you've said here, which you've phrased quite beautifully, and as far as I'm concerned, changing the marketing on new items in the series addresses the key concerns raised in this discussion.

Thank you again for your time and for your thoughtful consideration.

- Natalie

[Graydog]

<snip>...merely the launching point for this discussion, and the majority of my comments are about the issue in general ...<snip>
- Natalie

Yes, I do understand! That's why I dared to post my comments about the issue in general too, hoping I won't be busted by the (dear, intelligent, and beautiful):puppykisses: mods. :o)

Jill (Graydog)

[wendyg]

When I was in 2nd grade - in about 1961 - we actually painted and put up a teepee in our classroom and had "pow-wows" in front of it and made cornbread. It seems so incredibly *weird* to think of that now. I think I thought it was kind of weird even then, but now...

wg

[eadwine]

I have heard back from my friend who is part aboriginal. He had this to say:

"I've always considered an artist's use of another's style to be a sign of respect. I understand some might get angry over this, but some get angry over the use of any medium for a range of reasons and generally I ignore this small faction of the whole.

Each case by case 'abuse' has to be examined individually so you don't end up witch-hunting non-aboriginal artists who respect the tradition and people."

[manderly]

Sounds like a very intelligent friend you have eadwine.

I think this thread has kind of gone crazy, but that's just because I'm coming from the view of not seeing anything wrong with this. :shrug:

I did learn a lot, so thanks for that.

[30isthenewblack]

Greydog's designs prompted DecalfJane to educate us. The point of art is to open our eyes and mind. Just like in the case of chocolate Jesus, the design theft might enlighten someone who never would have had the opportunity to learn about the subject.

If native artists are required to have a long spiritual apprenticeship before being allowed to reproduce the designs, then that spirituality surely is conveyed in the art, which of course would not be represented in reproductions by outsiders ...

Good post Frizzinator. This was a good opportunity for other cultures to learn about the Aboriginal culture and I hope at least some people took advantage of that opportunity. When you stop listening to the sound of your own voice and start listening to other points of views, it is a chance for you to grow and develop. As a fellow Australian, I am very proud that other Australians cared enough to bring this matter to Graydog's attention and Graydog responded in a very gracious manner.

[florenonite]

Right now, I'm wearing a jumper made from the Nova Scotia tartan (though I'm not from Nova Scotia -- I just like the colours in it). I'm going to my Scottish Country dance group tonight, and I'm going to wear a thistle hair comb. I don't see why this is a big deal, whether my grandparents were from Scotland or not. Lots of people, for example, take up belly dancing, and wear costumes for that. Are they being "fake" when they do that? I'm also thinking of joining a group that does traditional Ukrainian folk dancing--and I don't think it matters a damn that I have no Ukrainian ancestors.

But Scottish Country dancing is so awesome, of course you can do it:p I think it's great to do that sort of thing if you're interested in it, as long as you're staying true to the forms of the dance. My uni holds regular ceilidhs, and loads of English and Americans (and myself) go, even though none of us were taught social dance at school like the Scots, who had to do it every December in P.E. With regards to the tartan, I have a scarf that my aunt (who lives in Scotland) got me which some old man in a pub told me is the Stewart tartan, and I'm not a Stewart, but it's a nice warm scarf.



Someone earlier was comparing it to a fleur de lys symbol, which like the celtic knot, is entirely different. No members of the French monarchy are around to protest its (mis)usage in tattoos! Although I do wonder if Quebeckers would look strangely at someone with this tattooed on their body? Afterall the fleur de lys is on the Quebec flag...I'm not arguing against someone's right to have that tattoo, but it's not really "your" symbol...

I remember being very bemused to find a gold fleur-de-lis on a blue background on the carpet of a pub, because why on earth would the Québec flag be on the floor of a Scottish pub (yes, I know the Québecois flag is actually a white fleur-de-lis, but it's close)? I had it explained to me that the gold fleur-de-lis on a blue background is the symbol of Mary, Queen of Scots, who grew up in France and later became Queen of France, only returning to Scotland after the death of her first husband. The reason both Mary, Queen of Scots and Québec have this symbol, is, of course, because it was on the French coat of arms before the Revolution. I just thought I'd point out that some symbols have different meanings for different people of different cultures that share a similar root. Hence, the fleur-de-lis is a symbol for both Scots and Québeckers (though it's been argued that Mary, Queen of Scots really wasn't a very good queen, and therefore shouldn't be remembered to the extent she is).



What you are talking about here is different I think, at least according to what my Scottish friends would have me believe. At the games all the chaps and chappesses came out in full regalia and started marching around in their respective "clans". Also as far as I could ascertain, there weren't any games either so it was also a misnomer.


What bothers me about the "clans" is the belief by many that all Scots are a part of a clan, when in truth there were only clans in the Highlands and the Western Isles, and not in Orkney or Shetland (though those places, culturally, are very like Scandinavia, as they were a part of Norway until the later Middle Ages), or in the Lowlands or the Borders. Tartan, too, only comes from the Highlands and Western Isles, and yet a quick Google search turns up a tartan for my "clan". My last name isn't even Scottish, let alone Gaelic! It's English, possibly because the area my Dad comes from (south of Galloway and the Forth) was part of England until about the 14th century, possibly due to intermarriage between the Scottish and English nobility, or possibly due to cross-border landholding.



Actually, at my Scotish Country Dance group there are several people who are from Scotland. They don't seem to object to the rest of us wearing tartan. Far from it.

Well, I would say that wearing tartan for Scottish Country Dancing is perfectly acceptable. You need something that'll birl about, it's far better than wearing trousers, and for men that's a kilt. However, Scots wear a kilt on other occasions as a formal dress, for instance, my cousin married in a kilt, and my wee sister's friend's dad is Scottish, and her brother attended his prom in a kilt. Scots would probably be a wee bit irritated if someone who was descended from those exiled during the Highland Clearances got married in a kilt, though.


I have heard back from my friend who is part aboriginal. He had this to say:

"I've always considered an artist's use of another's style to be a sign of respect. I understand some might get angry over this, but some get angry over the use of any medium for a range of reasons and generally I ignore this small faction of the whole.

Each case by case 'abuse' has to be examined individually so you don't end up witch-hunting non-aboriginal artists who respect the tradition and people."

Smart man, your friend.

[goldenwaves]

Yes I think you should contact them, and do so in a polite manner as they may not realise what they are doing. Good on you for standing up for Aborigines!

[Nat242]

<snip>
Each case by case 'abuse' has to be examined individually so you don't end up witch-hunting non-aboriginal artists who respect the tradition and people."

Very true. Please thank your friend for his input from us. I hope this hasn't seemed like a witch-hunt, because that really wasn't my intent in posting here.

[eadwine]

Sounds like a very intelligent friend you have eadwine.
Thanks Manderly. I immediately thought of him when I saw the posts.



Smart man, your friend.
Thanks Florenonite. :)



Very true. Please thank your friend for his input from us. I hope this hasn't seemed like a witch-hunt, because that really wasn't my intent in posting here.
I will do so Nat242 :)

[Climber]

If one isn't sure about the meaning of particular symbols, hilarity can ensue:

http://www.hanzismatter.com/

The moral of the story: do your research.

[Periwinkle]

Everything we have is borrowed from somewhere. I heard a fascinating programme on the radio a couple of weeks ago about French phrases used in English and the totally different meanings they carry in French. Language is nicked from all over the place - should we have something against people taking our words? Should we get offended because the French talk about 'le weekend'? What about things that came about in separate areas of the globe at separate times? Maybe we should be allowed to be Christians in the west - after all, it's not where the faith originated!

Something may originate from a certain place and time but that is as far as it goes. Deliberately misleading people (in this instance, something like saying that these are genuine Aboriginal designs when they aren't, or copying another artist's work, which is of course totally different from using recognised symbols) is another matter, but you can't have one style and expect no one else to use it too.

[Periwinkle]

If one isn't sure about the meaning of particular symbols, hilarity can ensue:

http://www.hanzismatter.com/

The moral of the story: do your research.

Some of those made me laugh very, very hard :D Thank you!

[truepeacenik]

I was struck by an early post with the comment that a Native American artist didn't "look" his tribes.
So I offer this:

http://meadowlarkflutes.com/gallery_enlarge.php?image=images/news/ash-and-john.jpg

is the gentleman on the right "allowed" to play indigenous Australian music?


























he is, he's Larrakia.

ashdargan.com

[DecafJane]

I'm confused by what you are saying. He looks indigenous to me. There are many hundreds of cultural groups of Australian Aborigines, and there is variation in appearance in the people between the regions, as there is between humans in every area on the planet. Many have some European heritage, but are raised in Aboriginal families in the culture, so that is what they identify as. What are you suggesting?

[Nat242]

I'm confused by what you are saying. He looks indigenous to me. There are many hundreds of cultural groups of Australian Aborigines, and there is variation in appearance in the people between the regions, as there is between humans in every area on the planet. Many have some European heritage, but are raised in Aboriginal families in the culture, so that is what they identify as. What are you suggesting?

There is a lot of variation and diversity, including the blonde Indigenous people, for example. Not only that, but many "European" Australians would be surprised to find some Aboriginal blood in them, even if they aren't culturally Indigenous.

I'm confused too - and I can't see the picture.