Approbation or Inspiration?

I, like everyone else, have been seeing a lot of this in the last few years:

(Source)

Heck, I even wrote about how much I was loving "Mexican" and "Native American-esque prints" over a year ago. I still find these patterns beautiful and inspiring... but now I have to wonder: was I being ignorant? Is it not okay for these patterns and textiles to be mass produced and sold by corporations?

Sasha Houston Brown doesn't think so. She wrote an open letter to Urban Outfitters (which you can read on the very cool Racialicious blog), condemning their use of the word Navajo to describe a line of their products, as well as the designs of the products themselves. The word "Navajo" is trademarked by the Navajo Nation, and in Brown's opinion, the Native Nations should be the ones to design, produce, and earn revenue from native-inspired fashion. She makes a ton of good points in an interview on Ecosalon.com, and has me teetering on the edge of a moral conundrum. 

This "print" hat is for sale at Urban Outfitters online. Image source. 

Is there a difference between inspiration and approbation, and where does one draw the line? 

As devil's advocate, I could also argue that Nordic Prints are very popular right now and have been for quite some time. Much like the "Native" products circulating the market, I'm certain these "Nordic" products are devoid of their cultural significance and don't actually reflect Nordic heritage. The same could even be said for Hawaiian prints; the iconic Hawaiian shirt is mass produced, probably without the involvement of Hawaiian designers and craftspeople. Would a person from a Nordic country or from Hawaii find their culture's print on panties offensive? 

Image source: Hawaiin shirt from Asos  

Image source: Nordic Panties from Knickerocker's Etsy store

There is no denying that these prints are attractive and even inspiring, but when in the hands of a major corporation, are stripped of the soul and meaning they had for the originating culture. Is that okay? Or should using these prints be the sole domain of members of this culture? That seems limiting to other artists...what a conundrum!

What do you think? Is there an appropriate and sensitive way that artists and designers can incorporate traditional images from other cultures? Are major labels being inspired by these popular prints, or flat-out stealing them? Is it inspiration, exploitation, approbation, or something in between? I'd love to hear your thoughts. 

collecting cobwebs (and a thought on ethical shopping)

Wearing:
Rainbow white tee and poofy hip pants
Laceup boots from Underground Atlanta
Cardigan from H&M (Suzhou)
Shawl/scarf vintage, found in attic.

I don't know why I let some outfit pictures languish on my desktop for weeks without posting them. Maybe I'm busy, or a bit discouraged by a fussy camera. Or maybe it's because I can't quite decide what I want to say about them.

Reading this Asian Cajuns post didn't help me want to gush about my clothes either. Boo! I hate it when the reality of a favorite indulgence confronts me. Lar basically points out the ugly truth I always know but never really think about when it comes to trendy cheap clothing stores like Forever 21 and H&M and probably my beloved ghettofabulous Rainbow, too. That for me to get that brief satisfaction of scoring a sequined top for $7, someone on the other end is sacrificing in some way. I like the way Lar puts it when she says, "at the back of my mind I did have that niggly sensation (aka guilty conscience) because I knew if I was buying a necklace for £1, someone on the other end wasn’t making very much money." I know exactly the sensation she means.

But what's an impoverished clothes-addict to do? Lar suggests shopping in thrift stores, but sometiems you just need your quick fix of a fleeting trend (you know, to set off all the frumpy oversized thriftstore garments you wear during the week). What do you think, my lovely fashionable ones?