Subject:
|
Re: Something not right about Captain Ahnee and the Dipwads?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Nov 2000 03:37:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
939 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I hope it's OK that I generalized most of this away from the JJB comic that
> started this. I really do think it's a bigger issue of violent media exposure
> in general.
Yes, thanks. By generalizing, you're shifting a beaten argument (by me as
much as anyone) about a specific instance into a more socially relevant
conversation.
> For you and I, seeing this character brutalized might not pose a problem. For
> other folks it might. It is a plausible hypothesis, regardless of all the
> contrary unfounded ranting, but certainly not strongly supported by evidence,
> that witnessing brutality in a context of "good clean fun" causes a disonance
> in the processing of thoughts, emotions, ethics, etc. And that this disonance
> may lead some people (kids is what most people claim, but they're just small
> people) to exhibit less constructive behavior.
On one level, I think it's important for us to understand as a society
whether simulated violence in entertainment actually makes a populace more
prone to violent behavior.
On another level, I enjoy a good cinematic bloodbath. And since physical
agression is not a part of my behavior, I feel that such entertainment has
no substantial influence on my treatment of others. And as anyone might, I
project my own experiences and reactions upon others to try to predict their
own behavior. Sure, I hardly make a valid sample group, but introspection is
a person's most immediate source for psychological insight.
> Regardless
> of what you think on this, you don't know it. No one does.
Yeah. That's the conclusion I'd have to draw from my previous two paragraphs.
> > Or maybe this: some fiction exists merely for entertainment, not
> > as a moral parable.
>
> Nah. Artists tell themselves that, but it's a cop out. It's horse pucky.
> Fiction, created as only entertainment, still acts as a moral parable to some
> of the audience. Maybe lots of the audience, but I'm sure that varies.
And what conclusion should be drawn from this? Do artists, writers,
musicians, and others who forge our culture have a responsibility to
restrict their work to straightforward reinforcement of traditional morality?
Must they restrict their audience to the most naive, accepting members of
our society?
Is there validity to art which challenges the "intelligensia" but is ignored
by the public?
What about art which seeks to improve society by countering what is seen as
one extreme by presentation of an equal, opposite extreme? This would be
sort of a renewal-through-destruction approach.
If I sound like an art snob, I'll admit I've got a broad streak of that. But
I also have a hearty appreciation for a lot of pure, insubstantial, pop
entertainment.
I'll be the first to criticize art that presents nothing beyond shock value.
But I won't dismiss something simply because it is shocking. Our society
must take the example of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" to heart: what is now
considered a beautiful masterpiece of classical composition provoked
incensed riots at its debut in 1913.
It happens often - a work dismissed or despised in its own time is viewed as
inspired and visionary in hindsight.
So I wouldn't presume to provide guidelines for "responsible art." Art,
literature, etc. often makes the most contribution to society when it
emphasizes and challenges our ideals and assumptions in such a way that our
discomfort forces us to react, or at least to contemplate.
Well, I wasn't quite sure about the implications or your point, and by now
you're probably wondering where I'm going, too. How about this: if artists
have certain "responsibilities" then so do the members of their audiences.
Part of that, as I believe you and I agree, is to support artistic
statements that one approves of, and criticize those that they do not.
Another part of that responsibility is to make an effort to analyze and
understand the work. At times, this requires that one suppress initial
distaste in order to see below the surface, even if the subdermal layers of
a given work eventually prove as unappealing as the surface.
It's been said many times before, and more eloquently (eg. books and their
covers, etc...). So I'll leave it at that.
Josh
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
62 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
