Subject:
|
Re: Something not right about Captain Ahnee and the Dipwads?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:42:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
838 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Josh Spaulding writes:
> 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.
I think that is worthy of research.
> On another level, I enjoy a good cinematic bloodbath.
Me too. :-) I'm the proud owner of most of Tarantino's works on laser disc.
> 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.
When you first took in a "cinematic bloodbath" were you shocked, horrified,
impressed, etc. more than you are now? As cinematic expression gets more and
more distinct in explicit violence, and inclusive in the media experience
(surround sound, wider and curved screens, and new future technologies), do you
think it's possible that you will continue to become desensitized to violence?
What about when we have strong VR, and you've been lead by this increasing
realism in traditional media, so you watch violent movies from the "inside?"
Right now, the level of desensitization is so minimal that for it to translate
into real-world violent activities, we can safely say that a person was
unbalanced anyway, so it's not the fault of the media involved. But maybe that
won't be forever.
> 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.
In(correct)sight. At least potentially.
> 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?
No.
> Must they restrict their audience to the most naive, accepting members of
> our society?
No.
> Is there validity to art which challenges the "intelligensia" but is ignored
> by the public?
Absolutely.
> 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.
Right, what about it?
> If I sound like an art snob, I'll admit I've got a broad streak of that.
Fine, me too. Being a college art student does that to you.
> 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.
Yeah, but something so obviously lewd is bound to produce that reaction. ;-)
> It happens often - a work dismissed or despised in its own time is viewed as
> inspired and visionary in hindsight.
Or, like Warhol, the opposite.
> So I wouldn't presume to provide guidelines for "responsible art."
I'm not propsing guidlines either. I just think that artists should concern
themselves with these ideas. And everyone (artists, mechanics, bums,
presidents, etc.) needs to face the fact that they bear the responsibility for
their actions. We all do.
> 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.
Strongly agreed. I sometimes drive to NYC (about two hours for me) to see a
new opening, and I routinely see people in fancy clothes walking around going
"hmmm." What does that mean? I think it means that they aren't really giving
it any depth of thought, they're just there for the society aspects. That's
fine, I guess, but I think they're cheating. They ought to be thinking about
it.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
62 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
