FA+
Shop
501 submissions
I've really wanted to color another coyote piece and this was my chance. Took some time with all the details but happy with how it came out.
Traditional mixed media
Traditional mixed media
Category Artwork (Traditional) / All
Species Canine (Other)
Size 750 x 557px
File Size 530 kB
I want to be respectful trust me, really want to! specially with a fellow Aspergers but… seeing your comments and their overall mood I'm afraid I can't give you an olive branch this time but I hope that this hypothetical round of verbal slaps is enough to make you grow wiser and fly away from such accusations… After all we're considered intelligent for a reason... because we employ critical thinking and stick to logic most of the time.
So I do hope you actually grow wiser with this reply.
First… why is this painting a fetish? As far as I see on the picture there's no nipples shown, there is no vagoo in the frame much less any kind of fetish I can see you enjoy in your favorites like obesity, macro/micro, feet… (looked your watches and got a idea of what could be a fetish) This picture for me pretty much classifies as a safe for work painting since there's no obvious nudity, although it is hinted under the coat of fur of the wolf. It is pretty much what I would consider artistic nudity and as well we get a nice anthro wolf lady in traditional native clothing to go along with it. As well… you claim that the artist is doing appropriation of native American culture right?
First things… appropriation in the dictionary is essentially saying something belongs to you or taking it for yourself. The artist in no moment said “Hey! I'm a native American!” or “Native American culture was born in my house!” such claims you have laid out don't sustain themselves, they have FAR worse footing and stability than a old cow standing on a greased up surfboard when a 9.7 earthquake is shaking the ground.
I must assume that as well you're American (Just assuming here but I still want to lay down the facts and enjoy it) Americans weren't born from thin air, their descendants are mostly comprised by peeps from the british empire. Do you know how good the colonizers were? Let's just say that they would fit their disease ridden wieners on every warm hole they could find, they wrecked local native populations either by conflict or diseases the natives never faced. I'm a Spaniard myself and my ancestors might've been evil too, but British certainly made Spanish colonizers look like angels in comparison.
It's been like 415 years since the brits set foot on the US? (Jamestown in 1607) you can't bring natives back to life or make it up to them after so much time. You're likely not even a native American having British offspring on your blood, and you of all people here want to tell what is right and what is wrong?
From what tribe are you even? Cherokee? Choctaw? Cheyenne? (to name a few) If you were a blood native maybe I would have a reason to consider your claims but since you're not and most likely a whip cracker the artist has no obligation to even consider your false claims. There's literally no country in the world whose very foundations aren't built on red bricks painted with the blood of natives or any other indigenous tribes.
So, word of advice… Stay silent and look dumb to everyone in a room, rather than speaking and CONFIRM to the room that the claim is true.
Cheers!
PS: I should have lowered my expectations after seeing the icon on his page and the description which says "Pls go easy on me but I wont go easy on you" ... Also apologies for the wall of text to whoever is here 😅
So I do hope you actually grow wiser with this reply.
First… why is this painting a fetish? As far as I see on the picture there's no nipples shown, there is no vagoo in the frame much less any kind of fetish I can see you enjoy in your favorites like obesity, macro/micro, feet… (looked your watches and got a idea of what could be a fetish) This picture for me pretty much classifies as a safe for work painting since there's no obvious nudity, although it is hinted under the coat of fur of the wolf. It is pretty much what I would consider artistic nudity and as well we get a nice anthro wolf lady in traditional native clothing to go along with it. As well… you claim that the artist is doing appropriation of native American culture right?
First things… appropriation in the dictionary is essentially saying something belongs to you or taking it for yourself. The artist in no moment said “Hey! I'm a native American!” or “Native American culture was born in my house!” such claims you have laid out don't sustain themselves, they have FAR worse footing and stability than a old cow standing on a greased up surfboard when a 9.7 earthquake is shaking the ground.
I must assume that as well you're American (Just assuming here but I still want to lay down the facts and enjoy it) Americans weren't born from thin air, their descendants are mostly comprised by peeps from the british empire. Do you know how good the colonizers were? Let's just say that they would fit their disease ridden wieners on every warm hole they could find, they wrecked local native populations either by conflict or diseases the natives never faced. I'm a Spaniard myself and my ancestors might've been evil too, but British certainly made Spanish colonizers look like angels in comparison.
It's been like 415 years since the brits set foot on the US? (Jamestown in 1607) you can't bring natives back to life or make it up to them after so much time. You're likely not even a native American having British offspring on your blood, and you of all people here want to tell what is right and what is wrong?
From what tribe are you even? Cherokee? Choctaw? Cheyenne? (to name a few) If you were a blood native maybe I would have a reason to consider your claims but since you're not and most likely a whip cracker the artist has no obligation to even consider your false claims. There's literally no country in the world whose very foundations aren't built on red bricks painted with the blood of natives or any other indigenous tribes.
So, word of advice… Stay silent and look dumb to everyone in a room, rather than speaking and CONFIRM to the room that the claim is true.
Cheers!
PS: I should have lowered my expectations after seeing the icon on his page and the description which says "Pls go easy on me but I wont go easy on you" ... Also apologies for the wall of text to whoever is here 😅
First thing that should be note, culture is not immutable, culture is something that evolves and changes over time, sometimes rapidly and sometimes slowly. Many of the elements in the work of art are not pointing to any one particular place or time. They are vaguely Native American, but many cultures up down the Americas have used turquoise beads and blue dyes dating back farther than what we currently think of as modern Native American tribes.
Go back to the Aztec, the Inca, and the Olmec. And then in other cultures across the globe, you can go back even farther than them with seeing similar patterns in materials used back in Ancient Egypt. They don't have the same specific flare or the exact same usage, but those basic materials can not be considered appropriation when every culture has used them in some form for as long as humanity has existed, and the use of feathers is even more prevalent in human culture.
What maybe gives it away as North Native America is the species of anthro, and the specific bird species she chose to use as feathers and maybe some of the general overall design. But can you truly point to a specific tribe she is stealing elements from that she would be trying to erase. Which Tribe of Native America's is this art specifically trying to rewrite history for? Serious question. How is FANTASY tribal art in any way trying to erase a culture when someone can't even pinpoint what culture it belongs to. The irony here is that others have also tried to say GoldenWolf is doing the same thing, but GoldenWolf has gone and sold her art at Native American convention type events, which you would think if there was such a problem with it, would not let her attend.
D&D thrives on Medieval era culture(s), and yeah there is A LOT of what would be historical inaccuracies, but it is not trying to be historical now is it? It is there to capture the taste and feel of that era without directly tying to historical events, because the world of D&D has its own history and events in its own fictional universe that is not ours. But as artist, we can only draw what we know, not what we don't know. It is kind of the curse of being creative, we can only iterate and re-interpolate what already exists. It is why the Hero's Journey is such a common trope and structure for writing good stories. It is why George Lucas modeled his starfighter dog fights after WW era dog fights before military conflicts were decided at beyond visual range distances, which otherwise would have been far less interesting.
Like yes, Cultural Appropriation exists, but not here, there is no one sitting here claiming that a SPECIFIC thing that belongs to a SPECIFIC tribe or culture is theirs to any degree. Like an example would be taking a very specific ceremonial headdress and using that inappropriately to alter it SPECIFIC meaning would appropriation. But using a generalized aesthetic that is not tied to a specific time, place, event, culture, etc can largely be wrapped up into "this is fantasy and is not reflective of any specific culture, in part or in whole, and is used for aesthetic value and not to change or alter cultures which have existed or still exist." - But that should have been kind of obvious with most anything done for fantasy art, whether more grounded or fantastical.
Edits are mostly for grammatical and spelling errors caught after post
Go back to the Aztec, the Inca, and the Olmec. And then in other cultures across the globe, you can go back even farther than them with seeing similar patterns in materials used back in Ancient Egypt. They don't have the same specific flare or the exact same usage, but those basic materials can not be considered appropriation when every culture has used them in some form for as long as humanity has existed, and the use of feathers is even more prevalent in human culture.
What maybe gives it away as North Native America is the species of anthro, and the specific bird species she chose to use as feathers and maybe some of the general overall design. But can you truly point to a specific tribe she is stealing elements from that she would be trying to erase. Which Tribe of Native America's is this art specifically trying to rewrite history for? Serious question. How is FANTASY tribal art in any way trying to erase a culture when someone can't even pinpoint what culture it belongs to. The irony here is that others have also tried to say GoldenWolf is doing the same thing, but GoldenWolf has gone and sold her art at Native American convention type events, which you would think if there was such a problem with it, would not let her attend.
D&D thrives on Medieval era culture(s), and yeah there is A LOT of what would be historical inaccuracies, but it is not trying to be historical now is it? It is there to capture the taste and feel of that era without directly tying to historical events, because the world of D&D has its own history and events in its own fictional universe that is not ours. But as artist, we can only draw what we know, not what we don't know. It is kind of the curse of being creative, we can only iterate and re-interpolate what already exists. It is why the Hero's Journey is such a common trope and structure for writing good stories. It is why George Lucas modeled his starfighter dog fights after WW era dog fights before military conflicts were decided at beyond visual range distances, which otherwise would have been far less interesting.
Like yes, Cultural Appropriation exists, but not here, there is no one sitting here claiming that a SPECIFIC thing that belongs to a SPECIFIC tribe or culture is theirs to any degree. Like an example would be taking a very specific ceremonial headdress and using that inappropriately to alter it SPECIFIC meaning would appropriation. But using a generalized aesthetic that is not tied to a specific time, place, event, culture, etc can largely be wrapped up into "this is fantasy and is not reflective of any specific culture, in part or in whole, and is used for aesthetic value and not to change or alter cultures which have existed or still exist." - But that should have been kind of obvious with most anything done for fantasy art, whether more grounded or fantastical.
Edits are mostly for grammatical and spelling errors caught after post
Which is understandable when you are actually taking and using a stereotype. Use of feathers and turquoise beads is something that belongs to more than just Native Americans and something tied more generally to tribal aesthetics the world over, and we are still using beads and feathers in jewelry today with a modern spin on it. but we still use it. But again, how is fantasy art erasing a culture, it is neither claiming to or a stand in for actual cultures, and it exists separately from those cultures, especially when people can't even agree what culture it is referencing.
Like, in medieval fantasy we see a lot of different era armors getting mismatched together to provide the general feel of it, but it has not erased what was medieval culture, but it is also so far into our past, that while sometimes media reinforces misconceptions about the era, we have a lot of historical documents and modern documentations of artifacts found and the like that we can easily know what is being used purely for fantasy without it hurting our understanding of the era from which the aesthetic came. So are only currently existing culture untouchable? Like we can't keep treating culture as this unchanging monolith, that is why we have historians and archeologists to help document and preserve culture but also analyze how it is changing.
Like we all the stereotypical Viking helmet with the horns, which certainly didn't exist, and if it did, it was only on a handful of artifacts, and most people are pretty aware that it is a stereotype and not reflective of that culture, but it is a way to immediately evoke that culture. You see the same thing with Celtic, Roman, Greek, Aztec, Egyptian, and etc cultures where their aesthetics have been co-opted, but most every knows that it is fantasy and is not entirely reflective of the culture or it's people. But it does give people an entry point into learning more about that culture to a degree as well. think about it this way. If we didn't use these aesthetics and people even know there was a wealth of knowledge to explore, would as many people be aware of the Greek and Roman gods as they are today? Would people be just as aware of Scandinavian culture, not in the modern sense, but in the medieval sense. Like, think about how this might inspire someone to look into the real cultures that influenced the work and a result gain an even deeper appreciation for the people who do exist and separate the people from fantasy depictions because they are no longer the same but exist apart from each other and can stand on their own.
I know I wouldn't have been as interested in Greek or Egyptian culture if it wasn't for it usage in other media and in fantasy works and games, Like WotC has done with Magic the Gathering, using Egyptian aesthetics and culture to develop the plane of Amonkhet, or Greek/Roman aesthetics for Theros, or even more recently as New Capenna with it's 1920's aesthetic. All of these cutlures, modern and old have played a role in developing the mechanics of those expansion sets, but also in some ways help people make connections between the fictional world and the real world, but also keeping them their own thing by re-interpolating them in a way that keeps them separate from the culture they borrowed from without erasing any of that culture, because it purely fantasy and the two are not directly competing with each other, they are their own thing outside of the overall aesthetic.
Which is very much what DarkNatasha, Goldenwolf, and others are doing, they are not trying to mask or hide or erase a culture, they are trying to let those culture influence how they shape their own fantasy work without disrupting the identity other cultures they borrow from, because they are trying to use the lowest common denominator in terms of their elements, unless they are trying to capture something very specific, and there are artists who want to depict a very specific ceremony or ritual from a specific tribe or culture, but most are just trying to create something aesthetically pleasing without taking anything that isn't commonly used. Again, bead jewelry and loin cloths, and feathers in hair date back farther than any modern Native American tribe, and likely predate a lot of them. It is something shared between a lot of human cultures around the globe, maybe in different specifics, but how is using a shared element erasure? Something which we know to have existed for much longer than the cultures trying to claim appropriation when it is likely they inherited that part of their culture from their ancestors? Again, Unless you are trying to force everything into a mono-culture, culture is never a static thing. Medieval Europe culture slowly morphed into what it has today, and those morphed out further into individual nations with their own culture, which morphed into more local culture, but when you pull out, you can find commonalities between the hyper local and the general local and the country and the continent sized cultures, and those similarities filtered through are where a lot of people will pull from because they are so common among a lot more people.
Like, in medieval fantasy we see a lot of different era armors getting mismatched together to provide the general feel of it, but it has not erased what was medieval culture, but it is also so far into our past, that while sometimes media reinforces misconceptions about the era, we have a lot of historical documents and modern documentations of artifacts found and the like that we can easily know what is being used purely for fantasy without it hurting our understanding of the era from which the aesthetic came. So are only currently existing culture untouchable? Like we can't keep treating culture as this unchanging monolith, that is why we have historians and archeologists to help document and preserve culture but also analyze how it is changing.
Like we all the stereotypical Viking helmet with the horns, which certainly didn't exist, and if it did, it was only on a handful of artifacts, and most people are pretty aware that it is a stereotype and not reflective of that culture, but it is a way to immediately evoke that culture. You see the same thing with Celtic, Roman, Greek, Aztec, Egyptian, and etc cultures where their aesthetics have been co-opted, but most every knows that it is fantasy and is not entirely reflective of the culture or it's people. But it does give people an entry point into learning more about that culture to a degree as well. think about it this way. If we didn't use these aesthetics and people even know there was a wealth of knowledge to explore, would as many people be aware of the Greek and Roman gods as they are today? Would people be just as aware of Scandinavian culture, not in the modern sense, but in the medieval sense. Like, think about how this might inspire someone to look into the real cultures that influenced the work and a result gain an even deeper appreciation for the people who do exist and separate the people from fantasy depictions because they are no longer the same but exist apart from each other and can stand on their own.
I know I wouldn't have been as interested in Greek or Egyptian culture if it wasn't for it usage in other media and in fantasy works and games, Like WotC has done with Magic the Gathering, using Egyptian aesthetics and culture to develop the plane of Amonkhet, or Greek/Roman aesthetics for Theros, or even more recently as New Capenna with it's 1920's aesthetic. All of these cutlures, modern and old have played a role in developing the mechanics of those expansion sets, but also in some ways help people make connections between the fictional world and the real world, but also keeping them their own thing by re-interpolating them in a way that keeps them separate from the culture they borrowed from without erasing any of that culture, because it purely fantasy and the two are not directly competing with each other, they are their own thing outside of the overall aesthetic.
Which is very much what DarkNatasha, Goldenwolf, and others are doing, they are not trying to mask or hide or erase a culture, they are trying to let those culture influence how they shape their own fantasy work without disrupting the identity other cultures they borrow from, because they are trying to use the lowest common denominator in terms of their elements, unless they are trying to capture something very specific, and there are artists who want to depict a very specific ceremony or ritual from a specific tribe or culture, but most are just trying to create something aesthetically pleasing without taking anything that isn't commonly used. Again, bead jewelry and loin cloths, and feathers in hair date back farther than any modern Native American tribe, and likely predate a lot of them. It is something shared between a lot of human cultures around the globe, maybe in different specifics, but how is using a shared element erasure? Something which we know to have existed for much longer than the cultures trying to claim appropriation when it is likely they inherited that part of their culture from their ancestors? Again, Unless you are trying to force everything into a mono-culture, culture is never a static thing. Medieval Europe culture slowly morphed into what it has today, and those morphed out further into individual nations with their own culture, which morphed into more local culture, but when you pull out, you can find commonalities between the hyper local and the general local and the country and the continent sized cultures, and those similarities filtered through are where a lot of people will pull from because they are so common among a lot more people.
But the issue here is this person has been piggybacking off of Indigenous / Native cultures their whole career... "it's their aesthetic " unless your from an Indigenous/ First Nation's/plains natives culture you have no say on others feelings on the art pieces. They make references to raindancing and other closed practices. Full offense they are appropriating my culture . You're wrong simple.
Hm. So then people should also stop using Ancient Greek/Roman culture for aesthetics, no one should make medieval fantasy art, ever. People should stop using Gaelic and Scandanavian cultures for aesthetic influence, even though one literally influenced the other by way of "Celtic Knot" designs and patterns. Architectural design has literally piggy backed on other cultures architecture for millennia. Anything Cyperpunk with a hint of another culture should be universally off limits then.
Like, did you seriously think about how applying that sort of philosophy for general aesthetics to the rest and every other culture that has or ever to have existed would be you could step one foot without trampling on someone else's culture. If you have ever made medieval fantasy art; stop that, you are insulting my heritage, would sound pretty silly, but I know the difference between something that was made to be representative of the time period and something that is clearly fantasy where weapons and armor designs that are centuries apart would have never met each other in European history.
DN is not depicting a specific culture or even anything that is remotely unique to a culture. It is a fantasy design. Much like WotC has done with Central America aesthetics when creating the plane of Ixalan. It is not supposed to be representative of that culture or even caricaturize it, it is a point of reference when trying to capture a specific feel. Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty is a cyperpunk spin on Japanese culture and they used some of the most icon, but also most general icon to convey that feel. But Kamigawa is NOT Japan or supposed to be a stand in for Japan and it's culture. It is merely a point of reference, to give people a specific feel for that FANTASY world might be like.
If you can tell me what specifically about this piece is unique to your group and how it is being misused and then how to correct it rather than trying broad stroke it without actionable solutions.
I can't tell you how to feel, but calling someone racist for using a general aesthetic would then make you and everyone a hypocrite, because there is nothing in this world that was not influenced by something before. And I bet that a good portion of Native American culture was pulled an adapted from other cultures and tribes that preceded modern ones. Culture and artist referencing is not static, humanity does not exist in a vacuum.
Like, did you seriously think about how applying that sort of philosophy for general aesthetics to the rest and every other culture that has or ever to have existed would be you could step one foot without trampling on someone else's culture. If you have ever made medieval fantasy art; stop that, you are insulting my heritage, would sound pretty silly, but I know the difference between something that was made to be representative of the time period and something that is clearly fantasy where weapons and armor designs that are centuries apart would have never met each other in European history.
DN is not depicting a specific culture or even anything that is remotely unique to a culture. It is a fantasy design. Much like WotC has done with Central America aesthetics when creating the plane of Ixalan. It is not supposed to be representative of that culture or even caricaturize it, it is a point of reference when trying to capture a specific feel. Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty is a cyperpunk spin on Japanese culture and they used some of the most icon, but also most general icon to convey that feel. But Kamigawa is NOT Japan or supposed to be a stand in for Japan and it's culture. It is merely a point of reference, to give people a specific feel for that FANTASY world might be like.
If you can tell me what specifically about this piece is unique to your group and how it is being misused and then how to correct it rather than trying broad stroke it without actionable solutions.
I can't tell you how to feel, but calling someone racist for using a general aesthetic would then make you and everyone a hypocrite, because there is nothing in this world that was not influenced by something before. And I bet that a good portion of Native American culture was pulled an adapted from other cultures and tribes that preceded modern ones. Culture and artist referencing is not static, humanity does not exist in a vacuum.
Or maybe you should realize that all art for millennia has pulled form many other sources for as long as humans have been making art. I would be more than happy to go into art history and archeology
E.g. Romans borrowing from the Greeks; All the variants of Gothic architecture, Celtic knotwork showing up in more places just the British Isles, Fireworks, gunpowder, paper, dyes, designs in jewelry. I could go on.
Here are examples of bad stereotypes. Depicting Arabs with heavy amounts of eyeliner in historical films. Depicting Japanese geisha as prostitutes, which they aren't. Incorrectly using headdresses of Native Americans for historical films.
Examples of referencing an aesthetic which not representing a specific culture. Almost every medieval fantasy movie, game, etc, that you could possibly imagine. The plane of Innistrad from MtG, Atalantis and it's various depictions. Spear Pillar in Pokemon being vaguely Greek/Roman in general design without being a standing for that culture. Basically anything that is borrowing an aesthetic that is not actually representative of a specific group of people.
The difference, The former is using stereotypes to represent a specific group of people that do exist or have existed, the latter is not using nebulous concepts and general aesthetics.
E.g. Romans borrowing from the Greeks; All the variants of Gothic architecture, Celtic knotwork showing up in more places just the British Isles, Fireworks, gunpowder, paper, dyes, designs in jewelry. I could go on.
Here are examples of bad stereotypes. Depicting Arabs with heavy amounts of eyeliner in historical films. Depicting Japanese geisha as prostitutes, which they aren't. Incorrectly using headdresses of Native Americans for historical films.
Examples of referencing an aesthetic which not representing a specific culture. Almost every medieval fantasy movie, game, etc, that you could possibly imagine. The plane of Innistrad from MtG, Atalantis and it's various depictions. Spear Pillar in Pokemon being vaguely Greek/Roman in general design without being a standing for that culture. Basically anything that is borrowing an aesthetic that is not actually representative of a specific group of people.
The difference, The former is using stereotypes to represent a specific group of people that do exist or have existed, the latter is not using nebulous concepts and general aesthetics.
Maybe don't argue with First Nations folks when they are speaking on appropriation if you're not First Nations i personally didn't call them racist however the point still stands this person has been asked many times not to do this they've been doing this since the 90's We're still here the ancient romans aren't see the difference are you white? because only white people bring up white cultures that have been "Appropriated" as examples When a First Nations person is saying something is offensive Sit down think about it listen and leave us alone
Maybe you shouldn't assume someone's ancestry or the amount of digging they have done, or what their own life experiences are. Because guess what, "Rainmaking" is something that is not wholly unique to Northern Native American tribes, and chances are the modern tribes adapted it from previous tribes or the knowledge of was shared across different tribes. But you also find similar traditions in Ancient Rome, Central American cultures, even as far back as Ancient China. So if you want to claim misuse of your tribe's specific version of it, that would be fine, if a person were improperly depicting your tribe's version of it. But as a general ceremony, you cannot hold sole proprietary ownership of such ceremonies.
Okay, they have been asked not to do...what? Depict any sort of indigenous culture ever. Because that is pretty short sighted when you could apply that philosophy to the whole of humanity. Art has been influenced by other cultures, contemporary or extinct for as long as humans have been making art. Which is more than 10,000 years.
Just because one culture exists and the other doesn't, doesn't mean that that culture's legacy no longer exists. Like Roman concrete is a thing which we have been working on for ages, because of how it gets stronger when exposed to sea water. The architectural designs they used are still around today for making domes.
If you want to clutch your pearls be my guest, but just because one culture exists doesn't means its general aesthetics will not influence contemporary fantasy art. Geishas are a thing which have been poorly represented, but it took specific education about geishas do to change how they were depicted in Western Media. But again, that was a specific thing which could be changed and had an actionable solution.
Your broad strokes "don't use indigenous aesthetics" doesn't fly because there are plenty of tribal aesthetics from cultures that no longer exist, only exist in remnants, or only in a modernized form. Celtic and Scandinavian designs are the first to come to mind. Like plenty of those people still exist and use similar aesthetics from their ancestors. Like there is a clear design aesthetic which makes something feel Celtic versus different sets which makes something feel Gothic, but any fictional depiction is going to pull from the broad design philosophy version rather than trying to be representational of anything specific.
So I will ask again, WHAT specific element is being misused here, and how might it be changed for an actionable corrective solution going forward?
Okay, they have been asked not to do...what? Depict any sort of indigenous culture ever. Because that is pretty short sighted when you could apply that philosophy to the whole of humanity. Art has been influenced by other cultures, contemporary or extinct for as long as humans have been making art. Which is more than 10,000 years.
Just because one culture exists and the other doesn't, doesn't mean that that culture's legacy no longer exists. Like Roman concrete is a thing which we have been working on for ages, because of how it gets stronger when exposed to sea water. The architectural designs they used are still around today for making domes.
If you want to clutch your pearls be my guest, but just because one culture exists doesn't means its general aesthetics will not influence contemporary fantasy art. Geishas are a thing which have been poorly represented, but it took specific education about geishas do to change how they were depicted in Western Media. But again, that was a specific thing which could be changed and had an actionable solution.
Your broad strokes "don't use indigenous aesthetics" doesn't fly because there are plenty of tribal aesthetics from cultures that no longer exist, only exist in remnants, or only in a modernized form. Celtic and Scandinavian designs are the first to come to mind. Like plenty of those people still exist and use similar aesthetics from their ancestors. Like there is a clear design aesthetic which makes something feel Celtic versus different sets which makes something feel Gothic, but any fictional depiction is going to pull from the broad design philosophy version rather than trying to be representational of anything specific.
So I will ask again, WHAT specific element is being misused here, and how might it be changed for an actionable corrective solution going forward?
Also, I just want to point this out as its own separate thing. You do realize that you created a double standard?
You just said it was okay to borrow generalized aesthetics from the Romans but not your own, simply because one exists currently and the other doesn't. The principle should be the same whether you existed historically or exist presently, because those cultures no longer have people who can speak for them.
So simply, you just justified why YOU could borrow from them, but you won't allow others the same privilege.
You just said it was okay to borrow generalized aesthetics from the Romans but not your own, simply because one exists currently and the other doesn't. The principle should be the same whether you existed historically or exist presently, because those cultures no longer have people who can speak for them.
So simply, you just justified why YOU could borrow from them, but you won't allow others the same privilege.
I'm waiting on an example of when Indigenous people "appropriated" white folks or other people of colors artwork or regalia. this isn't about other cultures. You're also putting words in my mouth id rather not argue with someone daft who doesn't understand not to take from people of color. Also capitalize Indigenous we are a group of people. I obviously have to spell out the issue for you.
U s i n g p e o p l e s t r a d i t i o n a l r e g a l i a i s w r o n g.
E N D O F S T O R Y
U s i n g p e o p l e s t r a d i t i o n a l r e g a l i a i s w r o n g.
E N D O F S T O R Y
"We're still here the ancient romans aren't" - If that isn't making the case for why one is okay, and the other isn't, I don't know what is, and that is still a double standard. It shouldn't matter if you are alive or dead if you are going to hold to the principle of the action
SO I am going to ask again; what TRIBE is this appropriating from? Because unless you can point to a specific one with a specific element that needs to be changed. There is nothing in this piece which is not simply shared by many cultures both alive and dead.
Let me give you an example of where appropriation actually happened. The Catholic Church overriding the celebrations of Saturnalia and Yule, and various other Gaelic Winter Solstice traditions and iconography, for Christmas, absorbing and adapting their icons and traditions making it part of Christmas. And then as a result, almost no one celebrates those specific holidays, BUT on the flip side you now have a religious holiday that has slowly morphed into a secular holiday, that even non-religious people celebrate.
If you want to play the game of using people's traditional regalia is wrong, what tradition are your people using for loin clothes, arm bands, decorative feathers use of turquoise, twine, etc. If you are going to stand on that high horse, than bear evidence that this piece has ripped from something that connotates a specific tradition that is unique to your tribe or another specific tribe.
SO I am going to ask again; what TRIBE is this appropriating from? Because unless you can point to a specific one with a specific element that needs to be changed. There is nothing in this piece which is not simply shared by many cultures both alive and dead.
Let me give you an example of where appropriation actually happened. The Catholic Church overriding the celebrations of Saturnalia and Yule, and various other Gaelic Winter Solstice traditions and iconography, for Christmas, absorbing and adapting their icons and traditions making it part of Christmas. And then as a result, almost no one celebrates those specific holidays, BUT on the flip side you now have a religious holiday that has slowly morphed into a secular holiday, that even non-religious people celebrate.
If you want to play the game of using people's traditional regalia is wrong, what tradition are your people using for loin clothes, arm bands, decorative feathers use of turquoise, twine, etc. If you are going to stand on that high horse, than bear evidence that this piece has ripped from something that connotates a specific tradition that is unique to your tribe or another specific tribe.
The "when are you leaving" type comments aren't going to solve anything and are just reverse racism and desire for vengeance. Like, seriously, listen to yourself. What makes you think that sort of attitude is any better. I can't change or fix the past, all we can change is the future, and the future is going to require something better than just retaliatory behavior.
I will have to ask, where do you think those people got their designs from, it is not like any of those people magically just popped up on a hill one day. There was likely a lot of blending, trading, and adapting from other people who predate those specific tribes. Much like how art and design influence between the Celts and Nords caused similarities to come out of both cultures, or how domes spread across the world and we're adapted and changed by numerous cultures, and that is something you can see stretching from India to Rome.
Also you didn't offer how the objects could be changed to be less of a 1:1 rip or is it just the general style. Because styles of clothing and jewelry aren't entirely unique to a single group. Because I can almost guarantee those styles weren't just pulled out of thin air but we're gradually influenced by what was familiar to them at the time.
Again, I cannot fix the past, not can it be undone. The Catholic church many terrible things and that I am not going to deny. But I am not Catholic, which is neither here nor there, but again we can only reflect and learn from the past, but we can't just rewind the clock. You are asking for a physical impossibly. You are asking for other people to be executed for the crimes of their ancestors.
I will have to ask, where do you think those people got their designs from, it is not like any of those people magically just popped up on a hill one day. There was likely a lot of blending, trading, and adapting from other people who predate those specific tribes. Much like how art and design influence between the Celts and Nords caused similarities to come out of both cultures, or how domes spread across the world and we're adapted and changed by numerous cultures, and that is something you can see stretching from India to Rome.
Also you didn't offer how the objects could be changed to be less of a 1:1 rip or is it just the general style. Because styles of clothing and jewelry aren't entirely unique to a single group. Because I can almost guarantee those styles weren't just pulled out of thin air but we're gradually influenced by what was familiar to them at the time.
Again, I cannot fix the past, not can it be undone. The Catholic church many terrible things and that I am not going to deny. But I am not Catholic, which is neither here nor there, but again we can only reflect and learn from the past, but we can't just rewind the clock. You are asking for a physical impossibly. You are asking for other people to be executed for the crimes of their ancestors.
There were other things I just thought of.
What specific elements in this piece are from the tribes you listed which are not found in other places, and how would you adjust them to keep the aesthetic/feel of the piece. Like you can't just gate keep a general set of aesthetics, and trying to do so is like trying to say a culture is a monolith that cannot be touched. People do not exist in a vacuum.
Secondly, while reflecting on other comments, your attitude about a lot of this reminds me of Killmonger to reference a piece of pop culture, and I have to ask how is that sort of philosophy actually going to fix anything?
What specific elements in this piece are from the tribes you listed which are not found in other places, and how would you adjust them to keep the aesthetic/feel of the piece. Like you can't just gate keep a general set of aesthetics, and trying to do so is like trying to say a culture is a monolith that cannot be touched. People do not exist in a vacuum.
Secondly, while reflecting on other comments, your attitude about a lot of this reminds me of Killmonger to reference a piece of pop culture, and I have to ask how is that sort of philosophy actually going to fix anything?
Comments