Queer Analysis

When considering gender or applying a queer analysis to shows, the first thing that comes to mind is RuPaul's Drag Race. Known as a staple in gay culture, RuPaul's Drag Race serves as a progressive form of media that has been slowly seeping into the heteronormative culture that is today's society. Jumping from Logo, a predominantly gay television station, to VH1, RuPaul has succeeded at transcending the social norm that constantly keep homosexuals oppressed and contained in a corner that's still in media's eye but far enough away that it can be forgotten about or avoided. Since the popularity of the show has risen, so has visibility for the LGBTQ community, although mainly focusing on the Gay part of acronym. It's important to note the visibility of all other forms of LGBTQ members because as gay men grow to the center of the light, bisexuals and lesbians fade into the background. I withhold transgendered people from this form of exclusion because, more often than not, they are found in RuPaul's Drag Race as transitioning contestants.
The show is something like the worlds toughest competition. Contestants, drag queens (men who dress as women), have to sing, dance, act, and construct their own outfits to compete for the title of America's Next Drag Superstar. This is done through numerous challenges that require comedy, camp, and a quick wit. This show is important because, as gay men dressing as women and embodying gender ambiguity, the show demonstrates a flippancy towards gender construction. The comedy is achieved through the recognition of gender stereotyping, heteronormativity, and gender performance. The show itself is very comfortable with poking fun at societies constructs and what is considered a norm. With contestants often winning for thinking outside of the box, transformative ideas that push boundaries are often prided and rewarded, making going against the grain of society commendable. What's rather interesting about this show is that it explores sexual othering in a new way. Rather than stigmatizing homosexuality, RuPaul's Drag Race does the reverse and stigmatizes heterosexuality, almost completely ignoring it in the show, or poking fun at it.
To touch back on what I mentioned earlier, what makes this show so incredible can also be it's downfall. Yes, any and all exposure of the LGBTQ community is good, but the loss of bisexual acknowledgment or any lesbian representation can be damaging to the already oppressed sexual deviations. It's interesting to approach this with a feminist perspective: should we be surprised that there is homosexual male representation and no lesbian representation? Have women been pushed into the back seat of LGBTQ representation in media? It's sad to recognize that sex discrimination still plays such a major roll in a progressive show, but it's important to make these distinctions so that even more progress can be made. Hopefully, the next thing we seen in media that boasts LGBTQ visibility is something like drag kings competing.

Appropriation vs. Appreciation Part II

When considering cultural appropriation versus appreciation the main distinction is knowledge and respect. When someone takes something from a culture that isn't theirs and exoticizes it, exploiting whatever it is for their own personal benefit, then it's appropriating. In contrast, when someone adopts something from another culture and knows the history behind whatever it is that they're borrowing, paying it respect, then it can be considered appreciation. In a way, cultural appropriation is synonymous with assimilation: something is being stripped of it's historical significance and integrated into a different culture.
A popular example and debate between appropriation and appreciation is last year's exhibition, "Treasures from the Wreck of the Unbelievable" where Damien Hirst displayed a huge golden sculpture of a head that was seen as being almost identical, if not very similar, to African artists who produced such heads long before this exhibit. Hirst, a white artist, was criticized for appropriating the Nigerian art, having things said about him that caution the eradication of the historically significant African heads. The idea was posed that now, since Hirst has created such a piece and is able to display it on such a large platform, that the original African artist's prior workings will be forgotten, having only Hirst's creations remembered and idolized. Something to be considered is that Hirst pays tribute to the original Nigerian art, showcasing the inspiration behind his piece in the description of the golden head, siting the sources he used. Although many people were and are upset by Hirst's creation, it's an interesting topic to discuss. If he has his African-influenced art in an exhibit and pays respect to the original, is it appropriation or appreciation? Could it be possible that Hirst is trying to use his incredible platform to inform others on the art that is less visible and has inspired him? Or is Hirst an entitled colonizer that wants to showcase exotic pieces for maximum profit? 
The line between appreciation and appropriation is an incredibly thin one, and I'm still unsure of where it should be drawn in this example that I've described. When I consider the difference between the two, what often comes to mind is the intention. Sure, everyone can like something, but are you adopting/borrowing something from another culture to profit off of it, or to inform others? When it comes to Damien Hirst I'm unsure, but it's important to keep in mind the concept of privilege. Hirst, being a white man, experiences privilege in it's most primitive form. I think what really serves as the telling sign of appropriation is if a dominant race/culture is borrowing or adopting something from a less domineering and oppressed minority group. This is a topic that I constantly discuss with my friends and family because it's interesting to see so many different view-points and if there's any innate bias in the discussion. Interpretation plays a huge role in determining how someone perceives such an incident. In this specific case, I'm not sure how to interpret what Hirst did, but it's definitely something worth considering from both perspectives. 

Appropriation vs. Appreciation

When considering cultural appropriation versus appreciation the main distinction is knowledge and respect. When someone takes something from a culture that isn't theirs and exoticizes it, exploiting whatever it is for their own personal benefit, then it's appropriating. In contrast, when someone adopts something from another culture and knows the history behind whatever it is that they're borrowing, paying it respect, then it can be considered appreciation. In a way, cultural appropriation is synonymous with assimilation: something is being stripped of it's historical significance and integrated into a different culture.