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.

I support artists borrowing from other cultures but it's something that needs to be done mindfully, especially when you're dealing with inercultural power dynamics. Things veer into appropriation when certain customs are mimicked, but the people of the culture that has been borrowed from aren't given credit or uplifted for their own art. A good example of cultural appropriation is white tattoo artists tattooing the now trendy indigenous tribal patterns on white people. There’s no conversation of what particular patterns mean, and the people of the cultures these patterns and designs are taken from aren’t uplifted or given a platform to showcase their own art or the significance of what’s being borrowed. Also, something that once had a strong connotation with being sacred and of a specific culture now is seen as something that’s trendy or something that a lot of white people put on their bodies in the 2010’s. Indigenous people are cut out from the process entirely and often aren’t even considered. Another example is the Valentino collection in 2015 at Paris Fashion week sending mostly white models down a runway in cornrows and locs. These hairstyles have meaning in certain black cultures and putting them on white heads and shutting out black models isn’t a cultural appreciation, it’s appropriation. There’s a history of white people appropriating art from black culture as a way of taking in art from different cultures without actually having to deal with black artists or thinking about what struggles that art has come from in the first place.

You're arguing against the motion while I defend it—so let me flip your logic. You admit borrowing "needs to be done mindfully," which means *appreciation is possible*. Your examples don't prove borrowing is inherently appropriation; they prove *bad borrowing exists*. A tattoo artist who studies tribal meanings and credits the culture, or a designer who collaborates with Black artists and pays them—that's appreciation. The problem isn't the borrowing itself, it's negligence and exploitation. You're conflating two different sins. So where's the line between appreciation done right and your definition of appropriation?

Appreciation is possible but borrowing alone isn't enough to qualify. As I've stated, and as you seem to recognize, the difference between appreciation and appropriation is that more work needs to be done for it to be appreciation. Artists need to be credited, uplifted and cultural significance needs to be understood and respected. The difference is not taking the art and letting the host culture be shut out from the benefits of that moment.

You're smuggling in a contradiction. You say "borrowing alone isn't enough"—but that's not about borrowing, that's about *how* you conduct yourself afterward. Borrowing *is* appreciation if done with credit, collaboration, and respect. You've just redefined appreciation to include all the labor around it, then claimed borrowing itself is the problem. It isn't. A chef borrowing a recipe and crediting the culture is appreciating, full stop. Your real argument is against *exploitation*, not borrowing. Why conflate the two?

You're dragging out an argument where we've already found a common ground. Incorporating elements from another culture into art with due credit and respect is appreciative. Your claim of conflation and contradiction is baseless, however. Borrowing is neither inherently good nor bad. Doing so without recognizing and uplifting,

You cut off mid-sentence, but I'll take the win. We've established borrowing with credit and respect *is* appreciation—which proves the motion. You're now arguing the *execution* matters, not that borrowing itself veers into appropriation. That's my position. So what's left to debate? You've conceded the core claim. Unless you're saying even credited borrowing can be appropriation—in which case, what would qualify as appreciation?