offer a compelling counterargument to this paragraph: Moreover, it is essential to note that the issue of cultural appropriation, as raised by hooks, is more nuanced than simply identifying Livingston’s racial background as a determining factor. Documentaries often explore cultures, communities, and experiences that differ from the filmmakers’ own. What matters is the level of respect, sensitivity, and reflexivity applied in presenting these stories. In the case of Paris Is Burning, the lasting impact of the film suggests that it has resonated with numerous people across varied cultural backgrounds, sparking conversations and furthering the visibility of the subjects involved.
On the topic of appropriation, it should be mentioned that hooks claims that “Livingston’s comments about Paris Is Burning do not convey serious thought about either the political and aesthetic implications of her choice as a white woman focusing on an aspect of black life and culture or the way racism might shape and inform how she would interpret black experience on the screen” (hooks, 284). She emphasizes that the focus should be on the level of respect, sensitivity, and complexity with which these stories are told rather than simply pointing out the racial or social differences between the filmmaker and their subjects. In that, hooks suggests that a filmmaker from a different background can create a meaningful and empowering representation of a marginalized community, but they must critically examine their own positionality and the potential for appropriation. Though hooks mentions this, she states that the lack of discussion from Livingston about her interest, fascination, and knowledge of the black gay subculture is apparent. She questions whether Livingston possessed a background understanding of black culture and history that would have provided a foundation for her work, as well as the vision of black life she hoped to convey and to whom. hooks raises the issue of whether a black woman lesbian would be asked similar questions if making a film about white gay subculture, pointing out the unequal scrutiny and assumptions at play, in which she states “To say, as Livingston does, “I certainly don’t have the final word on the gay black experience. I’d love for a black director to have made this film” first to oversimplify the issue and to absolve her of responsibility and accountability for progressive critical reflection, and it implicitly suggests that there would be no difference between her work and that of a black director. Underlying this apparently self-effacing comment is cultural arrogance, for she implies not only that she has cornered the market on the subject matter but that being able to make films is a question of personal choice, like she just “discovered” the “raw material” before a black director did. Her comments are disturbing, because they reveal so little awareness of the politics that undergird any commodification of “blackness” in this society” (hooks, 284-285). hooks also draws attention to the issue of appropriation and the market for representations of black life. She notes that the recognition by mass culture of aspects of black life, such as "voguing," fascinates white audiences and creates a market for both Livingston's documentary and Madonna's appropriation of black experience. Finally, hooks critiques Livingston for not conveying serious thought about the political and aesthetic implications of her choice as a white woman focusing on black life and culture. She argues that reviewers who deny the influence of Livingston's whiteness on her perspective collude in the denial of how whiteness informs her standpoint.