neoontime said:
I know you say your done but I just want to explain I agree and disagree with your points. That's cause I feel you say one thing one way and one thing the other. I have not doubts that the -isms depicted in media are different from those acted upon in real life. The way I think; One is a thought that simply demonstrates the idea, and the other does the same while possibly leading to the "direct attack" (in parenthesis since I can't break it down into as simply physical actions and/or attempts to encourage those on an individual or group). It seems your responses, you've denied the ability of those -isms to be present and also acknowledged their existence by stating their differences (acknowledging that -isms aren't something exactly physical but ideological). Other than that, if you have time, I want to address points I'm confused by in your post. I understand if your done and don't have to to reexplain anything, you stated your tired already, but I'd at least like to understand your viewpoint better since its beneficial to me.
And since a virtual Z-ism and a real world Z-ism are not directly realted, we needed those millenniums of critique to analyze these topics.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Maybe you interpreted me saying that we needed those years rather than that I was saying that people have been talking about present -isms through their works. More of saying that artist will intentionally make a point of the the -isms, (point that their present in art) to reflect their views on it or to make a point on the morality of it to convince a reader to think a certain way.
We don't know. Art is ambiguous. It is open to interpretations.
The thing is, I consider human interaction and reasoning just as ambiguous and open to interpretation. We have no real way of knowing what people think and that's why we use merits for a way to reason why someone did what they did. People are systematically rational, therefore more often reasonable than a fictional character, but that still doesn't keep away from the fact that we can't know everything that will influence someone's logic for why they think and do things. At least with a fictional character you got to only understand the artist and the cues they'll leave behind to sometimes explain things. To me, that's why I think ambiguous are does not mean people shouldn't try to interpret it a way as we interpret the ambiguousness of life and interaction as well.
This is not really my discussion to be honest. Because I am not really a part of the western world etc etc. But this discussion vividly mirrors another situation that I am painfully in, and from which I've been successfully escaping on gaming sites for quite some time.
There's a widespread claim backed by propaganda that some people are fascist. And this claim is being used by press and average Joes to justify actions that I myself view as fascist.
And this shit is yet to bloom into a war that will bring much sorrow to everyone, including the dumb hate mongering bastards around me.
Ahem.
With that said it probably means that I hate war and hate mongering.
Now onto the topic and away from my increasingly crazy comrades.
I think this is propaganda you are talking about. Uhm... It's tricky but I long for clarity so let's try and sort this out.
There's art, there is propaganda, there is critique and there are demands to change and fix something that may or may not be called censorship. It is going to get dirty, isn't it?
An art piece is meant to bring you to a cathartic cleansing.
A propaganda piece is meant to hammer some point in.
This is why art is open to interpretations - you get to decide yourself on a change in you after what you have experienced.
The line between art and propaganda is blurred. (While we're at it, have a nice Extra Credits episode on the subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP4_bMhZ4gA )
An artist has biases. His art piece is probably biased too. There can be art in propaganda and propaganda in art.
Propaganda is not necessarily bad, but I do believe that harmful propaganda is bad and should be called out.
And that is why critique and discussion should have their place.
Now, there's critique, and there's that other thing...
Let's try to clarify what critique is and what a critic does.
Critique is a piece of creative work. There are famous critics we know and whose word lives to this day and provides us with a point of view, gives us the power of the context, etc.
A critic is supposed to assess an art piece in it's fullest and give us his conclusion on weak and strong points of the thing. Also a critic is also inevitably biased, and is supposed to disclose his biases one way or another. This way we have a piece of mind from an author, that is biased, and a piece of mind from a critic that is biased. And we get to be in between.
But a critic does not get to wave flags. A critic is a creator, and not a revolutionist. As soon as he takes off for a pitchfork this is not critique anymore.
Critic does not get to make someone change something. A critic's work is as open to interpretations as the author's. It is not a final verdict.
Now who gets to change someone's work? Plenty of people that are on the team and a person who I believe is a censor.
Censorship is a tricky subject in itself, but do we really get away from propaganda and not toward it via censorship?
Now, why I think we do not get to fight games the way we should fight sexism.
I am a big fan of the word "adequate". In psychology "adequate" means that the response is on par with a stimulus. If we respond to a piece of creative work with a piece of creative work it is adequate. If we respond to an action with an action that is also adequate. If we respond to a piece of creative work with an action - this is what I have a problem with.
As I have stated before, sexism is an action. And if we say, that there's sexism in games ? it seems that it is reasonable to respond with an action. To stand up and... whatever.
But it is an illusion. Because whatever happens to game characters happens to characters and not people. That is why I say we do not get to fight "sexism in games".
A game if it is not a foul piece of hurtful propaganda, is arguably an art piece. It's not an action.
And if we want to respond to an art piece ? we assess and critique, and not rally and complain.
We have our "it could be stronger if", but we don't get to fix and change. Because it is not how things bloom.
Yes, people do get to interpret things, that is the point. But if we interpret to label and label to condemn no good can come of this. If you look for sexism you'll find it, okay. But what's next? We might as well go look for classism in the ancient greek philosophy and we'll find it, but will it do good for us?
Now we want change. Supposedly. We are the public, the subject of art. Art can be stronger by incorporating that change. And art wants to become stronger. For this change to bloom it needs sunlight. This is where critique comes in. This is where "stronger if" takes place. But there's no sunlight in a shitstorm.
I'm probably totally off the track by now, but this is what I have in mind.