RESPONSE

The idea of anonymity as mentioned beforehand is similar to the idea of latent—in that there is a certain dimension present yet unrecognizable (phenomenally) in the emergence to being (the compounding of a certain existent and its existence) of a particular phenomenal-based knowledge such as that which might be determined by the relations identified between traditional ‘moko’ and a certain popular context. I think this is a case of appreciating from the outset the essentiality of intangible dimensions in the existence of a certain phenomenon.

If the distinctions made by the two ‘moko’ artists are based on the relations between separate cultural dimensions with regards to ‘fashion accessory’ versus ‘cultural statement’ then I think it begs from the outset the in-depth understanding of essential reasons behind appropriation. So that the distinctions are already from the outset anonymously emerge out of an already determined dialogue between the idea of a traditional ‘moko’ dimension and the image of which is posited as the essential source of the statements ‘cultural statement’ and ‘fashion accessory’.

Here’s where I don’t think its viable to even make such distinctions since, for many young people, ‘cultural statement’ is also a ‘fashion accessory’ with regards to the significance of inked-skins. Both are intertwined and stylistically weaved into a dynamic mechanism of identity processing.

A cultural statement in itself is externalised partly through an appeal to fashion and aesthetics. A fashion accessory is itself implemented in servitude of a certain statement emerging from weaved fibres of the individual and the context(s) in which he or she occupies.

The context here is many and multi-dimensional. It is in one aspect represented by the ‘moko’ itself in that its availability determines the kind of context(s) or field from which one draws. We move closer to a context imbued with various elements and their availability defines the resistance to cultural protocols and historical confinements.