Evaluating the findings of the Approcreations concert project, I conclude that creating approcreative art is possible, provided that it is conducted with careful consideration of the issues discussed in this article. To avoid the misuse of cultural elements and unintended crossings of critical boundaries, great sensitivity is required from the artist, who needs to have sufficiently familiarised themselves with their source of inspiration and its conventions. As the scope of this research component was not large, it does not warrant sweeping generalisations, yet certain guidelines can be fathomed.

Considering questions of cultural appropriation, the debate on the points of friction may be considered essential. With the code of good conduct changing over time, the discussion should be ongoing. However, the project findings suggest that the prejudicial attitude often prevailing in public media will not promote the cause but trigger hypersensitivity and irritability instead, potentially resulting in over-cautiousness and wariness towards art rich in intercultural inspiration.

Considering affordances, my reading is that the use of instruments integrally linked to their geocultural origins is riskier in that they may give rise to preconceived expectations about the assumed context, sonic expression, and ethnicity of the musician. Creative handling of an instrument, even one of considerable sociocultural importance like the balafon, is not forbidden, but again, cultural sensitivity and familiarity with the tradition are prerequisites. Similarly, a culturally ambiguous artistic identity will not necessarily create ambivalence on the audience’s part once on stage. However, the wariness of event producers about potential audience sentiments takes on an important role in terms of whether an artist is given a platform or not. Should hesitation or rejection occur, it is more likely to happen during the artist selection processes.

This specific project thankfully ended on a positive note, as praises were generous and the response, as one-sided as it may have been, marked no offensive boundaries crossed. On the other hand, since one of the aims on the drawing board was to venture beyond the boundaries to pinpoint their exact location, this could indicate that the approach fell short of audacity, and a more maverick creativity would produce sounder results in the project's future. This would also result in the autoethnographic artist-researcher becoming increasingly more vulnerable. There is a contradiction in maintaining the illusion of art as an unpredictable, unconstrained, provocative force capable of shaking us out of our ossified mindsets while simultaneously expecting the artists to navigate the minefield of propriety etiquette without error. Should one fail, indignant disapproval quickly follows. Excessive cautiousness will not be a solution either, as art’s role has always been to startle and awaken. Hopefully, an abundance of multi-sourced approcreative art will be seen alleviating tensions over time.

The balafon now having fulfilled its role as an emissary, I hope the findings prove useful for other art practitioners. We may anticipate negotiating these issues to gradually become less stressful, if for no other reason than the lack of alternatives. The ubiquitous network bursting with multicultural sonic delicacies is here to stay. Relying on the problem-solving skills of creative artists all over the world and the audiences’ willingness to love art in all its diverse nuances, colours and sources, I feel confident in predicting approcreativity in the future forecast as well. ■

click to enlarge