Bedrockgames
Legend
Yes, a lot of very fine people bring up Piss Christ as their go-to example for everything, which is weird only in that this was a controversy over THIRTY YEARS ago and it is likely that many people reading this were not even alive when it happened.
What is the NEA equivalent of get off my lawn?
Anyway, it should probably be mentioned that a Catholic artist making a commentary about Christian iconography in popular culture should probably not be the go-to example for everything, let alone cultural appropriation.
I realize it is an imperfect example. I used it because everyone knows it, and most people understand how offensive it could be. Also, I realize people younger than me are on here, but understand I am in my forties, my cultural reference points are going to be slightly out of date.
I did think about the issue of him being Catholic makes the example not perfect. But I also think it doesn't matter if he is Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Atheist. I think any artist from any culture should feel free to explore that kind of artist concept.
I mean, sure, that's terribly convenient.
But, as is usual when someone invokes rights... the fact that every right comes with responsibility kind of gets forgotten. Try this - this isn't an argument over whether you have the right to do a thing. Imagine, for the moment, that we stipulate that you have the right.
Then, the argument is over whether (and how) as an outsider to a culture, you have the understanding to exercise this right responsibly. This puts it in the realm of ethics. Whether you can do it isn't the functional bit. We are talking about whether (and/or how) you should do it.
Alternatively - let us say you have the right to use ideas, music, and other cultural elements. Every right we have ever recognized in the world has limits! Where are the limits?
Speaking broadly, you don't have the right to harm people, and you admit that you have no desire to harm people.
So, here's the ticket - cultural appropriation is very often harmful to the people you take from. As a very simple item - it often leads to trivialization and formation and perpetuation of stereotypes, as the majority view of the culture becomes dominated with the elements that have been appropriated, rather than the reality and fullness of the culture you borrow from.
Thus, again, we come around to the same basic point - just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should. Repeated assertion of your rights, without attendant acceptance of the responsibilities.. is not a good look. Exercise of rights without attending to responsibilities has a name - "abuse".
I think you are inflating the idea of harm here though. You are treating a persons right to express themselves using things they see in their environment (including culture) with the same degree of caution and concern as you would treat the right to carry arms. Equating someone who freely borrows to 'abuse' to me just doesn't pass the smell test. Again, it feels like you are sermonizing because you are so sure these moral principles are true. I don't believe they are. I think this concept causes more harm than good.