Cultural Appropriation or Creative Exchange?

Blurred Lines

Who gets to borrow in the global art world? There is a line of tension in the air recently—a muted one in certain communities, a bellowed one elsewhere—but it's there, always. It is the line between international cultural exchange and cultural appropriation, and 2025 is looking to be a year where that tension is igniting fiery argument.

Across the art world, we’re seeing exhibitions canceled, social media firestorms lit in seconds, and institutions scrambling to get ahead of backlash. But beyond the headlines, there’s a deeper conversation happening.It’s about intention, power, and responsibility. And it’s about asking an uncomfortable but necessary question: in today’s interconnected world, is it still possible to borrow without taking?

Lighting the Fuse

Rather than focus on a single incident, what we’re seeing is a pattern—a global trend in which artists from dominant cultures draw on the visual languages of historically marginalized ones. Sometimes this results in celebrated collaborations; other times, it leads to controversy, especially when there is no credit, context, or community involvement.

Over the past few years, well-established institutions such as the Brooklyn Museum, the British Museum, and the Getty have all come under fire regarding exhibitions of non-Western cultures. Most of these controversies are rooted in issues of authorship, representation, and whether or not the represented work includes or excludes the voices of the represented cultures. As the world grows smaller, these gaffes are no longer under the radar—and the public wants to know.

Why Does This Happen

One of the largest issues with cultural appropriation discussions is thatappropriation pretends to be creativity—until you step back.

Artists borrowed from their own world forever. From Picasso's"stealing" of African sculpture to Warhol's borrowing of Native American imagery, Western art history is full of unattributed influence. The twist now is consciousness—and instantaneity. Artists are operating in a digital world where all the aesthetics of all cultures are available to them at their fingertips—but so are a global audience primed to attack whatever comes across as exploitative or false.

Power dynamics is all about it. When a powerful one gains from the visual discourse of an oppressed one—without co-labour and recognition—it's not exchange. It's extraction.

Creative Exchange Still Has a Place

We aren't, however, dispensing with the idea of cross-cultural creation. Where there is integrity, there is respect and openness, cultural exchange is worthwhile—and needed. The difference is collaboration, not copying.

There are increasingly co-curated exhibitions wherein artists from different backgrounds collaborate side by side, combining their visions into one line of narrative. Examples such as the Africa Centre in Cape Town, Asia Art Archive in Hong Kong, and Indigenous-led curatorial initiatives in North America illustrate what can be achieved when dialogue and equity in the process.

This is not political correctness. It is ethical storytelling. It is being aware of the difference between appropriating a culture and being responsive to it.

By 2025, authenticity is no longer a buzzword. It's the new norm.

So Where Do We Draw the Line?

There isn't a simple answer—and perhaps that's the point. The point is to be asking the right questions:

• Who benefits from this work?
• Who is being represented, and how?
• Was there consent, collaboration, or credit involved?
• Is this art adding to a conversation—or co-opting one?

Artists don't necessarily have to remain in one cultural lane. But they do have to own up to how they drive the road.

And institutions—galleries, museums, patrons—must step up, too. That involves asking those very same questions before putting a show on the wall. It means amplifying previously excluded voices. It means collaborating with cultural aesthetics not as trends but as living legacies.

Final Thought

It’s About Power, Not Just Pattern. At its core, the debate around appropriation isn’t about who’s allowed to paint what. It’s about who has power. Who gets the platform. And who is still being spoken over.

If anything, 2025 has shown us that art is not made in a vacuum. Great artists—the ones who touch us—are willing to wade into the nasty stuff, pose the difficult questions, and create from a place of honest respect.

Let the conversation continue.

‍