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.