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
whatever.
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 http://soli.inav.net/~psrf ---------------------------------------------------- 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 http://detritus.net/contact/rumori ----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.