Goalie Masks

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

My family home in Netherlands 13 people were there that night when nazi troopers busted in and ony 3 people left alive. Should you be allowed to do anything dutch?

Find a culture that has never been oppreseed. If you do things respectfully and tastefully to pay homage to that culture what's the ####ing problem? Unless your a rasist that doesn't want that. We live in Canada and are taught to embrace and integrate other cultures into your own life . How do you do that when its considered rasist to do what people want?

Well in this comparison it would have to be Nazi Germany using Dutch culture. I'm not comparing Canada to Nazi Germany, but Canada is the oppressor. So people going a step farther to make sure they do things on terms First Nations people appreciate is good. Would I want Dutch people to be comfortable if I'm benefitting from their culture? Yes. If I had something Dutch (to use an obvious one, clogs) and I had to write or speak about them, I wouldn't sort of vaguely say "here's a somewhat central European shoe thing", which is basically what happened. I'm from an oppressed European group too and don't think the argument that white people have never been oppressed is logical or accurate. If oppressed people don't like something and there's a relatively simple way to do things better, I know where I'll stand. And again, I don't think Holtby is getting raked over the coals here. If there's an outsized reaction, like people pushing to have him "cancelled" or lose his career, after he's taken steps to go about things in a better way, then that it uncalled for.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by P-DAZZLE

Well in this comparison it would have to be Nazi Germany using Dutch culture. I'm not comparing Canada to Nazi Germany, but Canada is the oppressor.

Actually, you just did compare Canada to Nazi Germany. And you are making an argument that no Canadian artist should be allowed to use motifs from indigenous art unless he is of the correct race. That is, by definition, a racist argument.

If oppressed people don't like something and there's a relatively simple way to do things better, I know where I'll stand.

In my long and abundant experience, the people who squawk loudest about oppression are rarely members of the oppressed groups themselves. Furthermore, ‘oppressed people don't like something’ is a rotten standard. There is literally nothing that everyone likes, with the possible exception of oxygen. At present, if you want to stop anything from happening in any art form or cultural industry, all you have to do is stand up and shriek: ‘Some member of an oppressed group doesn't like this, and it must be stopped!’

It would be bad enough if it were merely giving a veto over human culture to each member of the oppressed groups. In practice, it gives a veto to everyone who even claims to speak on behalf of such a group.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by P-DAZZLE

Well in this comparison it would have to be Nazi Germany using Dutch culture. I'm not comparing Canada to Nazi Germany, but Canada is the oppressor. So people going a step farther to make sure they do things on terms First Nations people appreciate is good. Would I want Dutch people to be comfortable if I'm benefitting from their culture? Yes. If I had something Dutch (to use an obvious one, clogs) and I had to write or speak about them, I wouldn't sort of vaguely say "here's a somewhat central European shoe thing", which is basically what happened. I'm from an oppressed European group too and don't think the argument that white people have never been oppressed is logical or accurate. If oppressed people don't like something and there's a relatively simple way to do things better, I know where I'll stand. And again, I don't think Holtby is getting raked over the coals here. If there's an outsized reaction, like people pushing to have him "cancelled" or lose his career, after he's taken steps to go about things in a better way, then that it uncalled for.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Actually, you just did compare Canada to Nazi Germany. And you are making an argument that no Canadian artist should be allowed to use motifs from indigenous art unless he is of the correct race. That is, by definition, a racist argument.



In my long and abundant experience, the people who squawk loudest about oppression are rarely members of the oppressed groups themselves. Furthermore, ‘oppressed people don't like something’ is a rotten standard. There is literally nothing that everyone likes, with the possible exception of oxygen. At present, if you want to stop anything from happening in any art form or cultural industry, all you have to do is stand up and shriek: ‘Some member of an oppressed group doesn't like this, and it must be stopped!’

It would be bad enough if it were merely giving a veto over human culture to each member of the oppressed groups. In practice, it gives a veto to everyone who even claims to speak on behalf of such a group.

If that's your comparison then Eddie lack isn't at fault or davesart. Unless they were part of the oppression at that specific time line . I'm a Canadian I'm not oppressing them . I want their culture to be celebrated . You know most Canadians alive today didn't play a part in that oppesion. To say Canada is all oppressive is a reach. Sure maybe certain times the governments in power have but not Canada as a whole. As a first gen Canadian I celebrate the culture and find it enriching. I own multiple artworks around the house made by white and native artists. Non of which are not just beautiful but are cultural positive. I also own many Justin Bua paintings that could be culturally appropriated of he wasn't a white person celebrated in the black community of his depiction of the black music entertainment world.

Saying Canada is an opressor is a bit far. Governments have been not a country as a whole. Not every white person is a racist. Some actually want to see as much integration as possible.

Also all religions are myths. Greeks believed Hercules was real same with Zues ,hades the Minotaur we are teached they are Greek myths in schools but at one e point in history they were gods that the people believed were truly real yet they are referred to myths now with no anger towards that sentiment because jesus replaced them.

Greek mythology is actually a course studied in high school. Saying west coast mythos is.not.very removed from that

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Actually, you just did compare Canada to Nazi Germany. And you are making an argument that no Canadian artist should be allowed to use motifs from indigenous art unless he is of the correct race. That is, by definition, a racist argument.

No, and no.

I am a to appreciate nuance, while many who argue against progress like to boil things down to absolutes that don't work in the context. I was responding to someone who brought up their family being killed by Nazis, in a discussion about a goalie mask. And you are also determining what you want my argument to be so you can more easily respond to it. The amount of logical fallacies in this thread...

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

If that's your comparison then Eddie lack isn't at fault or davesart. Unless they were part of the oppression at that specific time line . I'm a Canadian I'm not oppressing them . I want their culture to be celebrated . You know most Canadians alive today didn't play a part in that oppesion. To say Canada is all oppressive is a reach. Sure maybe certain times the governments in power have but not Canada as a whole. As a first gen Canadian I celebrate the culture and find it enriching. I own multiple artworks around the house made by white and native artists. Non of which are not just beautiful but are cultural positive. I also own many Justin Bua paintings that could be culturally appropriated of he wasn't a white person celebrated in the black community of his depiction of the black music entertainment world.

Saying Canada is an opressor is a bit far. Governments have been not a country as a whole. Not every white person is a racist. Some actually want to see as much integration as possible.

Also all religions are myths. Greeks believed Hercules was real same with Zues ,hades the Minotaur we are teached they are Greek myths in schools but at one e point in history they were gods that the people believed were truly real yet they are referred to myths now with no anger towards that sentiment because jesus replaced them.

Greek mythology is actually a course studied in high school. Saying west coast mythos is.not.very removed from that

I didn't say "Canada is all oppressive" that would be a ridiculous thing to say.

It is not too far to say that Canada has been an oppressor, which is what I said. Residential schools and other things in our country's past were cultural genocide. I love Canada and am incredibly proud to be Canadian, but that is a sad fact and a part of our history that isn't that far removed and is still impacting people today. Genocide Studies is also now a high school course in Canada.

I also didn't say the use of the word myth was the issue. There was a lack of reverence, accidental in my opinion, but missing. It could have been stated much better.

[Textcritic]

Did anyone else actually read the article that P-DAZZLE posted?

Originally Posted by P-DAZZLE

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/c...n=VIA_facebook

I think there are a few things going on here, and it is important to clarify what the issues are.

First, Holtby's decision to use the Thunderbird was lifted directly from the Stanley Park Totem, but with no acknowledgement or permission from the artists's family, who has made it clear in the past that they don't want the iconic image used without acknowledgement:

Originally Posted by Lou-Ann Neel

"My grandfather's totem pole in Stanley Park is one of the most appropriated Indigenous designs anywhere. With no acknowledgement that that’s his work... It pains me to see some of the really poor reproductions of it. It’s just troubling to see that."

Second, while Holtby's rendition of the Totem seems quite authentic, there is also the issue of mixing indigenous tribal genres or styles without any clear understanding of what the artist is doing. The Totem is Kwagiulth and the orca at the bottom is Salish:

Originally Posted by Calvin Hunt

"I don't know if Holtby wanted to use Kwagiulth art. I don't know if that artist knows what he did. Does he know the difference between the different tribes and the cultures, I don't know."

Mention is made a couple of times about the importance of including indigenous artists in the designs and production of public works like this. I don't agree with some of the sentiment that only indigenous artists can or should work in these styles, and it seems from the article that there are certainly non-indigenous artists who manage to do it correctly. Doug Zilkie is mentioned, and so is Bill Holm, as two artists who successfully and correctly employ First Nations influences in their artistic works. It seems also from the article that while Brent Lynch's orca logo design was not made with input from the Haida peoples, they have since offered their endorsement, I think in large part because of how well it is done, and also because of how the Canucks have made an effort to partner with the Salish nation.

It is a complex issue, and one that I do not think is as simply resolved as drawing hard and fast lines between indigenous and non-indigenous artists. But there certainly needs to be a sensitivity and awareness to the significance and meaning of the images and symbols in use.

[Barnes]

Thanks Textcritic. Those are important points.

Goalie masks have always been this bastion of seemingly unnoticed IP theft where artists use the work of other artists. Cultural or not.

Bingo cant have a silhouette of the Calgary Tower and Dome in the CP logo but a mask artist can paint Captain America, Super Mario, the Joker, and Kylo Ren on a mask and sell it as a design for use in public and on TV. Always seemed odd to me.

[CroFlames]

I wish we lived in a world where people could borrow from each others cultures, and hey if it isn't exactly accurate or you mixed Kwaguilth and Salish culture, it's no big deal because the overall artwork is stylish and respectful.

I don't think the guy who made the Stanley Park totem with the Thunderbird has a monopoly on the image of a thunderbird. If Daveart was inspired by it, he should acknowledge that, but that is the extent of it.

Having said all that, I think it would have been fantastic if Holtby was able to source a First Nations artist who is capable of producing a goalie mask that is NHL-level quality. But I certainly don't fault him at all for using a vendor he is comfortable with.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Did anyone else actually read the article that P-DAZZLE posted?



I think there are a few things going on here, and it is important to clarify what the issues are.

First, Holtby's decision to use the Thunderbird was lifted directly from the Stanley Park Totem, but with no acknowledgement or permission from the artists's family, who has made it clear in the past that they don't want the iconic image used without acknowledgement:



.

This is where I have a problem. Do people have to track down Davinci relatives to use images of his art, does anyone need to get permission from the Mona Lisa painting. Art is "given" or sold to someone, it isn't a private image forever the property of the artist, unless it is copyrighted. The mask was done in a manner to honor the totem, not to mock it.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

This is where I have a problem. Do people have to track down Davinci relatives to use images of his art, does anyone need to get permission from the Mona Lisa painting. Art is "given" or sold to someone, it isn't a private image forever the property of the artist, unless it is copyrighted. The mask was done in a manner to honor the totem, not to mock it.

Art is protected, like any IP. The Mona Lisa is public domain. Go take pictures of the Peace Bridge or Wonderland and try and sell them.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

This is where I have a problem. Do people have to track down Davinci relatives to use images of his art, does anyone need to get permission from the Mona Lisa painting. Art is "given" or sold to someone, it isn't a private image forever the property of the artist, unless it is copyrighted. The mask was done in a manner to honor the totem, not to mock it.

I would guess one would actually need to secure permission from the Louvre, or the French ministry of Art and Culture, or whatever it is called in order to publish images of the Mona Lisa, yes.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I wish we lived in a world where people could borrow from each others cultures, and hey if it isn't exactly accurate or you mixed Kwaguilth and Salish culture, it's no big deal because the overall artwork is stylish and respectful.

Without knowing what some of the critics might have found disrespectful or objectionable in this particular case I don't feel qualified to make that determination one way or the other.

I don't think the guy who made the Stanley Park totem with the Thunderbird has a monopoly on the image of a thunderbird. If Daveart was inspired by it, he should acknowledge that, but that is the extent of it.

But the artist and his family have been veery explicit for a long time that they would prefer the clearly inspired images of the Stanley Park Totem are not made without—at minimum—some consultation.

Having said all that, I think it would have been fantastic if Holtby was able to source a First Nations artist who is capable of producing a goalie mask that is NHL-level quality. But I certainly don't fault him at all for using a vendor he is comfortable with.

I think it would have been totally fine even had Holtby consulted with an indigenous artist, explained his design, had the artist either make it for him or approve it. I suspect it would have been totally fine to have Dave Gunnarsson paint the design so long as it was vetted beforehand.

[Mr.Coffee]

Choose your next mask topic carefully, Holtby..... or you’re gonna get it!

[CMPunk]

[MrMike]

Yay a new mask to talk about

[foshizzle11]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

I like it, it seems simple enough and not too busy but what is with the horns? they look like ears folded.

Or are those horns? Lol, I don't know but that could have been better IMO.

But overall I like this one.

[bc-chris]

soooooo i gotta ask.... is the artist at griff air bush as satanist? if not, did he work with satanists on the mask concept?

[The Familia]

As an Italian, I find Super Mario extremely offensive as it is highly stereotypical and contains subliminal negative connotations surrounding Italians and their job preferences. A short, pudgy, mustache growing Italian plumber, with a high pitched heavy accent....I would prefer if the Japanese apologized for not consulting with an Italian before creating the character.

Also, everyone should stop using the Roman arch in their construction and buildings...get your own designs. Finally, I would appreciate if everyone stopped making their own pasta and pizza if you are not Italian or buying pasta and pizza from any restaurant that does not have Italian owners or chefs. It is not authentic, therefor, it should not be done. Food is highly important in the Italian culture so it should not be messed with.

Sometimes this planet.....(for the record this is all sarcasm if it wasn't obvious).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Familia

As an Italian, I find Super Mario extremely offensive as it is highly stereotypical and contains subliminal negative connotations surrounding Italians and their job preferences. A short, pudgy, mustache growing Italian plumber, with a high pitched heavy accent....I would prefer if the Japanese apologized for not consulting with an Italian before creating the character.

Also, everyone should stop using the Roman arch in their construction and buildings...get your own designs. Finally, I would appreciate if everyone stopped making their own pasta and pizza if you are not Italian or buying pasta and pizza from any restaurant that does not have Italian owners or chefs. It is not authentic, therefor, it should not be done. Food is highly important in the Italian culture so it should not be messed with.

Sometimes this planet.....(for the record this is all sarcasm if it wasn't obvious).

God. Can we let this go, yet? I would have thought that a close read of the article posted by P-DAZZLE above would have been enough to eliminate the exceptionally misplaced outrage that is shining through blatant strawmen in posts like these.

I guess not.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

But the artist and his family have been veery explicit for a long time that they would prefer the clearly inspired images of the Stanley Park Totem are not made without—at minimum—some consultation.

If the family held the IP for the totem's design, there would be a pretty clear way for them to deal with misuse of the image. It seems they don't have the IP, I would guess either because their great grandfather died so long ago or because the rights were sold along with the original totem. The family have said that it being commercialized is something that was part of the original intent. The totem was originally rented and later sold as a commercial piece, but they no longer seem to have the basis to claim IP rights. So, does it matter that the family doesn't like it being reproduced?

It raises the question of what claim members of a broader community or ethnic group should have to the unique creations of individual artists from that community. Is there an insinuation in the claims of cultural appropriation that the existing system of IP laws don't work? It's not like a system doesn't exist to protect IP.

Actually, the more I learn about the totem, the more I think it's a perfect symbol to represent the city of Vancouver. The totem itself was originally rented out by the artist for use in a movie about headhunting savages, then it was sold and erected as a symbol of indigenous culture on a site where an indigenous village was forced to leave so that the settler community could have that land for recreational purposes. It's also not even a piece of art representative of the people who were forced off that land, so it's part of erasing and misrepresenting those people who were forced out. Now it's reproduced in a variety of overpriced completely commercial forms that are made in China and sold in gift shops all over the city as symbols of Vancouver's local indigenous culture, making money off of promoting a false image to the world of Canadian appreciation of indigenous heritage. I mean, really, it's like Dave Gunnarsson actually did base his design on quite a deep understanding of Vancouver history and culture. It's kind of amazing. Holtby should keep it.