Perhaps the most interesting passage in that Guardian article about Caroline Shaw was this one:
Being open to so many influences hasn’t always been straightforward. One of the vocal techniques referenced in Partita was Inuit throat-singing, which Roomful of Teeth studied with two representatives of the tradition. In autumn 2019, another Inuit singer, Tanya Tagaq, claimed on Twitter that Partita was a work of appropriation. Shaw was devastated.
“I stopped any performances of Partita at that moment. We had to figure this out. I fully respect what was said. Then a few months later Covid hit, so we haven’t performed it at all since then.” How does she see Partita working in the future? “I’m going to change the section that I never would have written had the conversation been different 10 years ago.”
There are a number of interesting elements here. Let's take the last one first. She says “I’m going to change the section that I never would have written had the conversation been different 10 years ago.” This raises the interesting question of whether any piece of music--or artwork generally--can endure over time? As they are always finding new things that are no longer permitted, then that raises the possibility that any artwork can become, even over ten years, objectionable in whole or in part. Ten years ago it was "cool" to study Inuit throat-singing and, as a kind of tribute, incorporate it into your work. Now it is "cultural appropriation" and therefore forbidden. That is like a sword of Damocles hanging over any creative artists work. Who knows what new thing will be forbidden ten years from now?
But let's look at this idea of cultural appropriation more broadly. It seems the strangest pole to hang your flag from because all music, and art, undergoes transmutation and "appropriation" in the course of history. One artist even said once that composers don't borrow, they steal. Yes, and if they do it well, it may result in better music than the model. Just look at what Bach did with Vivaldi concertos. If Inuit throat-singers really want to take back throat-singing so that it is a technique only they can use, ok.
But Europe called and wants its harmonic system back along with equal temperament, the violin, cello, piano, guitar and most other instruments. You can keep cymbals as they come from Turkey and the marimba and xylophone as they come from Java. Everything else, including the five-line staff, is cultural appropriation!
Yep.
7 comments:
Complaints of cultural appropriation are mainly based on the fact that minorities haven't benefited economically from their heritage. If Caroline Shaw had written her piece, and then handed over to Inuit cultural institutions a considerable amount of the financial benefit it brought her, there would be less criticism of what she did.
Recently I read an article about how Paul Simon doesn't get so much flack for using South African musical traditions in Graceland precisely because he compensated his South African musicians well.
Yes, and there is a some history of musical ideas being taken from African musicians and used without compensation. But is there some sort of line that is crossed when some musical feature is still considered to belong to a particular group and when it becomes considered common property?
Anonymous, that's probably true. Had she given exposure to Inuit musicians and composers the the cultural appropriation concern might not have come up. On the other hand, had she never won that Pulitzer to begin with would people have decided she culturally appropriated absent any coverage associated with her prize?
I think the fault mainly lies with the Pulitzer Prize committee. If the native singing styles were an important contributor to the winning work than the Pulitzer should have also cited that and divided the prize money accordingly.
I have a pretty simple take on cultural appropriation: consider the power dynamics. When Mexican kids appropriate goth culture, it's fine; when white frat bros wear sombreros for their Cinco de Mayo parties, it's not. Meanwhile, are we really so mad that Caroline Shaw is having new opinions in the face of challenges to her work? That's the sign of a reflective and critical thinker. If she just dug in her heels about the throat-singing, would that be so admirable?
Again, it's all about power and politics.
In my opinion, I feel like culture should be celebrated, shared and preserved. I'm a mixed-race Brazilian (black/white/indigenous), and I never had the privilege to learn about my roots because I was "whitewashed".
I've always been interested in other cultures, including Japanese and Inuit traditions, and I don't think that katajjaq should only be practiced by Inuit. First, throat singing exists in many places, and katajjaq specifically is both a form of play and an art, and these things should not be gatekept.
Katajjaq isn't even sacred.
However, I do think that it is a wise idea to donate part of the profits to those who would benefit from the money, as Arctic people suffer from massive poverty.
I would also mention the artists that I am inspired by. There was a controversy about the same topic involving Connie LeGrande, and she did credit Tagaq (I also look up to her).
Caroline Shaw seems to have asked for permission to perform her piece, so this must count.
I don't demonise them at all, and as you said, "music appropriates". I don't get offended if a white person does reggae, funk, jazz or disco. I used to get angry, but not anymore, as my stance changed on this matter. But of course, there should be representation and acknowledgement of origins. We wouldn't have techno and house if it weren't for minorities.
In the end, everyone needs to be treated with respect.
As an aspiring artist (music, visual, etc) I would love to incorporate elements from different countries in my work as a way to pay homage and to spread diversity and knowledge. I also want people to take action regarding the plights of Indigenous communities, particularly the violence endured by them, land rights, seal hunting, etc.
Post a Comment