In the last thirty years appropriation has been studied as the practice of reworking earlier works of art or literature by presenting them in new contexts, or to challenge notions of individual creativity or authenticity in art. However, the term “appropriation” is hotly debated in the fields of Indigenous and postcolonial studies for the English language, writing and visual art have for a long time assumed the connotation of “colonial property” and thus appropriation arguably involves a partial collaboration with the idioms of the coloniser. Conversely, the settlers’ various attempts to appropriate and incorporate is part of a wide range of forms of “indigenisation,” a term coined by Terry Goldie to suggest “the impossible necessity of becoming indigenous.” Hence, the debate on appropriation has often focused on the issue of “authenticity” ranging from an essentialist view of appropriation as a process of cultural contamination to the recent multicultural celebration of a neutral, transparent, cross-cultural exchange, which is open to all.
The object of this enquiry is to explore the extent to which Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian appropriations of the English language, writing and visual art, provide—though they differ widely in terms of themes, strategies and styles—a terrain for discussing the current state of intercultural relationships, freedom and sovereignty in the Australian contact zone. The paper offers a close reading of some literary and visual “practices of proximity” in order to demonstrate that Indigenous Australian appropriations variously disrupt neo/colonial claims of property and liberalism.