The analysis above suggests that, in order to produce a new iden- tity, what must be articulated is a set of parameters which defines the entity by giving it a specific location in time and space. Our focus on processes of appropriation has suggested the importance of the diachronic dimension, since acts of appropriation unfold through time, allowing for multiple mutations and transformations.
The significance and function of the Coke bottle in Western culture is unavailable to the Bushmen, denizens of an isolated culture who assign the bottle an entirely new set of meanings and uses. At the other end of the spectrum we could imagine a liturgical object that changes hands but con- tinues to be used for its original intended function within a largely similar religious context.
The ends of the spectrum might be considered ideal cases or logical abstractions in our model of appropriation. However, Sponsler points out that bricolage is a technique of appropriation useful to the powerful in society as well — as her example of the Lancastrian construction of a text of the Canterbury Tales suggests.
The medieval Books of Hours appropriated by the bour- geoisie in the sixteenth century to function as family record books, while perhaps retaining some of the associations of Books of Hours, are closer to the bricolage end of the spectrum. Both the male founders of the order and the female penitents adopt and adapt reli- gious rules and myths to a new purpose of identity-building, but without changing the meaning of those discourses.
Keeping this spectrum in mind when discussing examples of appropriation should mitigate the tendency to apply one reductive model of the process and of its effects. The metaphor of the one-time event of appro- priation simply cannot capture the richness of cultural process involved.
Aussi bien, une oeuvre est-elle toujours une oeuvre collective. The individual is, from the origin, a moment of this cultural fabric. Likewise, a work is always a collective work. Despite the varied disciplines of participants, the theme of appropriation generated discussions that were thought-provoking and truly interdisciplinary. Although only two of the essays included in this special issue began as presentations at the conference, this volume is meant to continue that intellectual excitement in print.
Nelson and Richard Shiff, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, , — Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, , 3. Scott Bryson et al. Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press, ; the quotation is from pp. James Clifford and George E.
Marcus Berkeley: University of California Press, , Marcus, ed. Durham, N. Rao, eds. New Brunswick, N. See also Jane M. Like other works of unincorporated group authorship, cultural products lack protection under our system of intellectual property law. But is this legal vacuum an injustice, the lifeblood of American culture, a historical oversight, a result of administrative incapacity, or all of the above?
Who Owns Culture? From indigenous art to Linux, Susan Scafidi takes the reader on a tour of the no-man's-land between law and culture, pausing to ask: What prompts us to offer legal protection to works of literature, but not folklore? What does it mean for a creation to belong to a community, especially a diffuse or fractured one? And is our national culture the product of Yankee ingenuity or cultural kleptomania?
Providing new insights to communal authorship, cultural appropriation, intellectual property law, and the formation of American culture, this innovative and accessible guide greatly enriches future legal understanding of cultural production. We live in a country where you can have Thai take-out ordered in while you lay warm under your Navajo-style blanket watching Bollywood musicals on Netflix.
We are surrounded by other cultures that we also have a duty to protect. This volume is all about defining that responsibility and giving readers the tools to fulfill it.
We must all learn to questions this cultural crime before it wipes out and whitewashes all of our differences away. Exposes the new generation of whiteness thriving at the expense and borrowed ingenuity of black people—and explores how this intensifies racial inequality.
American culture loves blackness. From music and fashion to activism and language, black culture constantly achieves worldwide influence. Yet, when it comes to who is allowed to thrive from black hipness, the pioneers are usually left behind as black aesthetics are converted into mainstream success—and white profit. It is a blueprint for taking wealth and power, and ultimately exacerbates the economic, political, and social inequity that persists in America.
Send Cancel. Toggle navigation Menu. Help Need help? Chat with us limited to Stanford community Email a reference question Find a subject specialist Using SearchWorks Connection Connect to e-resources Report a connection problem If we don't have it Interlibrary borrowing Suggest a purchase limited to Stanford community System status Access Advanced search Course reserves Selections 0 Clear all lists.
Name of resource. Problem URL. Describe the connection issue. Toggle navigation Back to results. Borrowed power : essays on cultural appropriation. Responsibility edited by Bruce Ziff and Pratima V. Imprint New Brunswick, N. Physical description x, p.
0コメント