Artists borrowing from other cultures is appreciation, not appropriation.

Daily Debate #595: "Artists borrowing from other cultures is appreciation, not appropriation.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Oscar Wilde.

It is not compulsory that an artist who borrowed an element from a culture would always be an appropriation He borrowed it because he thought it can be represented as a form of art which is his way of appreciating the culture He may, in some circumstances mistakenly harm the culture However that is given that he was not educated enough on what he should do/not do The act of borrowing an element from a culture is definitely not appropriation

You're confusing intent with impact, and that's where your whole argument collapses. An artist's *feelings* about appreciation don't determine whether harm occurs. A surgeon who "appreciates" anatomy but operates without training still kills the patient. Your "mistakes from ignorance" clause actually proves appropriation exists, you've just renamed it "accidental." If borrowing requires perfect education to avoid harm, then most borrowing *is* appropriation by definition. So which is it, did the artist earn the right to borrow, or did they just get lucky they didn't offend anyone?

Why is there a need to have a right to borrow

Because cultures aren't free resource libraries. Sacred symbols, techniques, and stories carry meaning earned through generations of context you don't possess. Without respecting that ownership, you're just looting. Why should your aesthetic goals override someone else's heritage?