n o i t a i c e r p p A AQUILA
OR APPROPRIATION?
F
ashion designers have always drawn influence and inspiration from the world around them, and it seems that borrowing from other cultures is an essential element of the creative process. However, the fashion industry is constantly under scrutiny to ensure political correctness: a boundary which must continually be reconsidered and redefined. Cultural appropriation has emerged as one of the key issues in the industry, with almost every big fashion house, and several celebrities, being accused of it, but it is important that appreciation is not mistaken for appropriation, in order to ensure that fashion continues to be a space where different cultures can be celebrated. Cultural appropriation is defined as the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices or ideas of a group of people or society by members of another group of people or society. It often becomes controversial when members of a more dominant culture appropriate from disadvantaged or minority cultures. Experimentation and borrowing from other cultures is not a problem and it’s clear that fashion thrives when influenced by a wide range of styles, but appropriation differs from appreciation under the following circumstances: there are power inequalities between the cultures; the source is not accredited and historical context and cultural sensitivities are ignored. Often, items hold significant religious or cultural meaning to their traditional owners, or have been subjugated and exploited in the past, therefore when they are turned into a fashion accessory and are profitted off by big European and American brands, it often causes offense. A prime example of the complete disregard for the contextual
14
significance of an item is when Gucci sent white, non-Sikh models down the Autumn/Winter 2018 runway wearing turbans and faced considerable backlash from the Sikh community.
‘THE SIKH TURBAN IS A SACRED ARTICLE OF FAITH, @GUCCI, NOT A MERE FASHION ACCESSORY. #APPROPRIATION’ @SIKH_COALITION When Chanel revealed it’s $2,000 wood and resin boomerang, adorned with their logo, as part of it’s Spring/Summer 2017 pre-collection, many people immediately spotted the distasteful appropriation of Indigenous Australian culture. This was enhanced when Nathan Sentance, an Indigenous project officer at the Australian Museum, highlighted that the boomerang cost almost 10% of the average annual income of Indigenous Australians, underlining the exploitative nature of this item. The frustrating part is that Chanel has not been affected by this backlash, and still sold these boomerangs to real customers, including Jeffree Star who posted an Instagram of him playing with his new ‘toy’. It is likely that a team at Chanel spent months designing the item and it is hard to believe that they were totally unaware of the connotations and implications of their actions. To some, it seems that their ruthless intention is always to make money and gain publicity, regardless of the consequences and exploitation of others. Chanel’s response to their slip up was simply a press release which seemed to lack true remorse: “We’re extremely committed to respecting all cultures, and regret that some may have felt offended.”
