What is cultural ‘appropriation’? What is cultural ‘appreciation’? Whatever the complex answer to this question, cultural appropriation is commonly defined as ‘the taking of something produced by members of one culture by members of another’ (Young 2005: 136), whilst appreciation is typically understood as mere ‘exploration’: ‘Appreciation explores whatever is there’. (Gracyk 2007: 112). These provisional definitions suggest that there is an in-principle distinction between the two concepts that presupposes the following: what is appreciated is already available; what is appropriated (...) was, prior to its being taken, not already there or available. Moreover, perhaps appreciation, when contrasted to appropriation, is unproblematic precisely due to this basic difference. In this paper, we argue that the exclusive disjunction – appropriation or appreciation – rests on a false distinction between the two. We also show that this distinction presupposes a false normative principle that to the extent that x is appreciation rather than appropriation, then x is not – relevant to this issue – a wrong. Against these presuppositions, we defend the view that appropriation is already built into appreciation. This does not mean that we cannot ask questions of appreciation, but that questions of appreciation do not preclude the problematics of appropriation. (shrink)

I offer an analysis of the role of aesthetic value in the formation of cultural memory. More specifically, I examine how cultural memory is formed through cultural artifacts that embody a connection to the past via aesthetic means. My approach is motivated by artifacts from small-scale preindustrial societies, which make it apparent that aesthetic values, rather than being pursued for their own sake alone, enhance other functions, such as maintaining cultural identity and bringing the past into the present. I focus (...) on rock art painting from the Kimberley, Australia, and effigies animated during rituals in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea to argue that, to play a significant role in the formation of cultural memory, aesthetic value must be aligned with implicit conceptions of time which inform the production of artifacts mediating cultural memory. This argument has implications for understanding differences in apprehending memory values and aesthetic values across cultural domains. (shrink)

Philosophy & Social Criticism, Ahead of Print. What is cultural ‘appropriation’? What is cultural ‘appreciation’? Whatever the complex answer to this question, cultural appropriation is commonly defined as ‘the taking of something produced by members of one culture by members of another’, whilst appreciation is typically understood as mere ‘exploration’: ‘Appreciation explores whatever is there’. These provisional definitions suggest that there is an in-principle distinction between the two concepts that presupposes the following: what is appreciated is already available; what is (...) appropriated was, prior to its being taken, not already there or available. Moreover, perhaps appreciation, when contrasted to appropriation, is unproblematic precisely due to this basic difference. In this paper, we argue that the exclusive disjunction – appropriation or appreciation – rests on a false distinction between the two. We also show that this distinction presupposes a false normative principle that to the extent that x is appreciation rather than appropriation, then x is not – relevant to this issue – a wrong. Against these presuppositions, we defend the view that appropriation is already built into appreciation. This does not mean that we cannot ask questions of appreciation, but that questions of appreciation do not preclude the problematics of appropriation. (shrink)

In this article, the potential for Artificial Intelligence (AI) to be appraised as an object of beauty is critically examined through the lens of philosophical thought. Tracing beauty’s evolution from Platonic ideals to contemporary interpretations, the analysis contends that AI’s emergence offers a unique illustration of beauty in the modern age. Confronting the challenge of assigning beauty to entities devoid of consciousness or emotional depth, the argument unfolds to suggest that the intricate design of AI’s algorithms and its technological advancements (...) constitute an emergent form of beauty, one inherently tied to human intellectual endeavor. The article proposes that with time, as with historical art forms, the aesthetic qualities of AI may gain broader acknowledgment, implying that technological advancements necessitate an ongoing revision of established beauty norms. The historical evolution of beauty has been traced in details, and an extended literature review has been provided, serving as the foundation for a comprehensive exploration into the potential for AI to be recognized as an object of beauty. The harmony, elegance, and problem-solving capabilities of AI algorithms have been meticulously evaluated, with a comparison made to classical elements of beauty in an effort to contextually situate AI within longstanding aesthetic traditions. Furthermore, the analysis has been extended to consider the emergence of artificial and digital beauty, alongside an investigation into the parallels drawn between divine and artificial intelligence. As part of a deeper inquiry, the possibility of human emotions, such as awe and love, being authentically directed towards AI has been scrutinized. In conclusion, a reflection has been presented on the transformative role of AI in reimagining the conceptual landscape of beauty, prompting readers to thoughtfully engage with an extended review and the philosophical and cultural implications emerging from AI’s evolving influence on the field of aesthetics. (shrink)