Ethical dilemma re: "Southwestern" patterns

[TheLeadbetterLife]

I've been tying myself in knots over a beautiful pair of 2016 Ralph Lauren evening trousers that I found in a vintage shop - can't decide whether to buy them. I took them to have an Art Deco pattern, but on further research I've discovered they're actually "southwestern" i.e. Native American-inspired. Albeit not very obviously.

I think cultural appropriation is a very complex issue, and I don't always agree with the more angsty-left arguments on the subject. However, I do feel in the case of these type of patterns, which have origins in a very current culture that has only been producing them for a couple of hundred years, that fashion designers ought to be licensing them, not brushing it off as paying tribute to a magical culture blah blah. It's exoticisation, and designers should pay up, just like they do if they want to emblazon Mickey Mouse or Harry Potter on a t-shirt.

All that said, the trousers are so pretty!

I'm interested in people's thoughts more generally on this issue, aside from whether I should buy the trousers.

Interested to hear other's opinions..

Nothing in the world is new. No art, decoration, history or dress/hairstyle is owned by anyone.

Leave them behind for someone who’ll enjoy them without the navel gazing.

If that were true there would be no such thing as copyright or any ability for artists to make money from their work without it being plagiarised.

There's a reason copyright expires - we have culturally decided that there's a limit to how long an artist can claim ownership.

I would argue that these Native American patterns have not been around long enough to be considered out of copyright, in the same way that e.g. Ancient Egyptian or Greek patterns are.

Fashion designers often use images or patterns created by current artists, and they have to pay a licence fee.

I don't believe there's such a thing as cultural appropriation. It's just intermingling lives and influences.
If you like the trousers, get them.

Have you got a picture of them?

I agree with this, in general. However I also agree with the rights of artists to copyright and make money from their work.

God this is torturous. Don't get them then and move on with your life.

Jesus, it's a debate. I think it's interesting, aside from the immediate question of the trousers. If you're not interested, move along.

Are you in the US? How old are you?
Cultural appropriation is a US Internet based phenomenon only followed by very young people ime.

I am in Europe and 42.

I've already said that I am very sceptical about the concept of cultural appropriation.

However, would those pp roundly pooh-poohing the idea make the same argument for a liberal "no such thing as ownership of art" if someone ripped off a book, film or painting they had made?

If not, where's the line?

Someone else will probably buy them whilst you’re wasting time discussing them on here 😁

I'm not sure how to answer this because I'm in Britain and this would be a non issue here.

@TheLeadbetterLife well in terms of copyright for music or art it's 100 years or something like that. So if these designs date back 100 years or more you're good to go I would have thought .

It is a non-issue in the sense that I don't think anyone would care about these trousers, or even notice the origin of the pattern, anywhere I would wear them. As I said, I thought they were Art Deco.

It just got me thinking about the ethics of fashion when it comes to this sort of thing i.e. the unlicensed use of art from current cultures.

Compare, for example, a collaboration like this one with Damien Hirst: https://hypebeast.com/2019/10/les-artists-damien-hirst-spring-summer-2020-capsule-collection-release-info

Cultural appropriation is a phrase that belongs in room 101 along with all the other woke nonsense that causes nothing but division and stirs up problems where there was none before.

For sure it is an interesting question .

What you worried about, the cultural appropriation police? 🤣🤣

I guess the only way to be sure you weren't buying from a company guilty of this would be to buy trousers of a similar design from an actual Native American company of that particular tribe the designs are affiliated with them you could wear them with a clear conscience.

Ralph Lauren got paid, not the original creator of the pattern.

You are thick as well as spectacularly rude.

How do you know the designer doesn’t have Native American heritage? Or should they have refused to draw from their own heritage?

You are needily hunting for the offence in this. Buy something suitably Caucasian to match your very special halo.

Are you saying Ralph Lauren is secretly Navajo?

Your reading comprehension is very poor if you think I am looking for offence. I am mulling. Don't have a stroke.

Not sure how relevant copyright is to concerns around cultural appropriation. Copyright expires after a way shorter period than the 200 years you mention and in any case is a very specific legally generated property relationship between an individual or corporate owner and a piece of intellectual property. Surely that is different from the norms surrounding cultural traditions?

They're a second hand pair of trousers. If you like them, buy them.

Even if you subscribe to the idea of cultural appropriation, wearing a second hand pair of trousers in a print you like isn't cultural appropriation. It's just wearing a pair of trousers.