Cultural appropriation in fashion is an ongoing issue, particularly within the high-stakes world of Fashion Week Designs. While designers often seek inspiration from diverse cultures, the line between homage and theft is frequently blurred, leading to significant ethical concerns. This issue becomes deeply personal when designers directly appropriate Indigenous designs, as exemplified by the controversy surrounding KTZ’s Fall/Winter collection at New York Fashion Week.
KTZ, a brand showcasing at New York Fashion Week, presented a collection described as a “tribute” to Indigenous peoples. However, within this collection, a dress emerged that was far from a tribute; it was a direct appropriation.
This dress bore an unmistakable resemblance to the designs of Bethany Yellowtail, a Crow artist known for her contemporary Indigenous fashion. Yellowtail’s “Crow Pop Collection” features designs deeply rooted in her cultural heritage, making the similarities with the KTZ dress particularly egregious.
The side-by-side comparison starkly reveals the extent of the design theft. The silhouette, collar, length, and overall design elements of the KTZ dress mirror Yellowtail’s original creation.
Bethany Yellowtail’s designs are not merely aesthetic patterns; they are imbued with cultural significance. The beadwork she incorporates is often generational, carrying deep meaning and history within her Crow community. These are not abstract shapes but cultural property, belonging to her family and tribe, making their appropriation a profound act of cultural disrespect.
In a video interview, Bethany eloquently explains the profound meaning embedded in her beadwork designs, emphasizing the balance shape representing the spirit and physical worlds, central to Crow cosmology. This thoughtful integration of culture into her fashion designs stands in stark contrast to the superficial and appropriative use by KTZ.
The “balance shape” central to Bethany’s designs and Crow culture is undeniably the focal point of the KTZ dress, demonstrating a blatant and insensitive appropriation of specific cultural symbols, not just generalized “inspiration.”
Marjan Pejoski, the designer behind KTZ, described his Fall/Winter 2015 line as a “tribute to the primal woman indigenous to this land.” This statement itself is laden with problematic othering and exoticism, reducing Indigenous cultures to stereotypical tropes. Far from a tribute, the collection reads as a mockery, celebrating cultural theft under the guise of homage.
Beyond the Crow design appropriation, the KTZ collection featured other instances of cultural misappropriation, drawing from various Indigenous cultures without understanding or respect.
The collection included designs directly lifted from Navajo Yei weaving, another example of disregarding the specific cultural context and intellectual property of Indigenous artisans.
Comparing the KTZ design to a traditional Navajo rug reveals the direct and unacknowledged source of “inspiration,” highlighting the lack of originality and respect.
Further examples from the KTZ collection showcased appropriated beadwork and feather designs, compounding the issue of cultural theft across multiple Indigenous cultural expressions.
Unfortunately, KTZ is not an isolated case. Fashion weeks have repeatedly featured designers appropriating Indigenous cultures, from Nicholas K’s “Apache Shamanistic Journey” to Karl Lagerfeld’s Chanel collection, demonstrating a persistent pattern of cultural theft within the fashion industry.
The lack of creativity in these appropriations is stark. Designers repeatedly recycle the same harmful stereotypes and appropriated imagery, failing to innovate or engage authentically with the cultures they claim to admire. Indigenous cultures are not a “free bin” of inspiration for designers to exploit. The intellectual property rights of Indigenous peoples are often overlooked, while the same protections are fiercely defended for mainstream designers. If KTZ had copied designs from major fashion houses, the legal repercussions would be swift and severe. However, the cultural and intellectual property of Indigenous communities are consistently undervalued and unprotected in the same way.
The solution is clear: “There should be no representations of us, without us.” Designers seeking inspiration from Indigenous cultures must collaborate directly with Indigenous artists and designers. For instance, if KTZ admired Bethany Yellowtail’s Crow designs, the ethical approach would have been to collaborate with her, offering her a platform at New York Fashion Week instead of stealing her work.
While online outrage can bring attention to these issues, it also inadvertently provides publicity for the offending brands. The cycle of appropriation, outrage, and non-apologies risks normalizing cultural theft. While awareness is crucial, there needs to be a more profound shift in the fashion industry towards respect, collaboration, and recognition of Indigenous intellectual property.
Bethany Yellowtail’s response to the KTZ appropriation emphasizes the need for genuine dialogue and for designers to see Indigenous artists as contemporary creatives, not relics of the past. The act of cultural appropriation is not just about design; it’s about erasure, violation, and the perpetuation of colonial power dynamics. It echoes the broader issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women, highlighting the systemic erasure of Indigenous identity and culture.
To contribute to positive change, individuals can actively support Native designers. By purchasing from brands like Bethany Yellowtail’s Byellowtail and retailers like the Beyond Buckskin Boutique, consumers can directly invest in authentic Indigenous fashion and creativity. Furthermore, amplifying the voices of Indigenous designers and holding appropriative brands accountable on social media are vital steps towards fostering respect and ethical practices within the fashion industry.
