[rumori] Appropriation reactionary?

eleven (elevenATblue.weeg.uiowa.edu)
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:32:59 -0600

It's an excellent question. There is some subtlety here.

In my view, 'appropriation' is a tool like a 'paintbrush' or a 'guitar'.
There are, of course, reactionary uses for all of these things. They
also can be tools for expressing _originary_ ideas that do not proceed
solely in reaction to other existing ideas or works. I proceed from the
assumption that when I use someone else's work as the raw material for
my own, I am 'reacting' to it _only_ in the same way as a painter
'reacts' to his paint.

The normal usage for the word 'reactionary' implies one is making a
'counter-work' to a work that already exists in an attempt to discredit
or counteract that work. Or that one is voicing a political view with
the same effect. It does not mean that one is simply reacting to
anything at all. If it did, then making a cup of coffee might be
'reactionary' because one is 'reacting' to his or her drowsiness, or

Andrew Lander wrote:
> This reminds me of a question I've thought of a couple of times but never
> asked. Isn't appropriation inherently reactionary?
> Andrew

Lloyd Dunn  --  psrfATinav.net
The Tape-beatles \\ P.O. Box 3326 \\ Iowa City IA 52244 \\  USA
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index

[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.