Serious Art and Culture

[TheValkyries]

Does art guide culture itself, and therefore by proxy guide our behavior, or is art merely a reflection of our culture since it is made by those who live in it?

I've been wrestling with this idea for a long time now and I've decided that I want to get some different perspectives on it. The major trigger point for this idea was Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women in Video Games series which critiques an art form for the harmful cultural stereotypes that it uses. And my main problem is that she levels her criticisms against the artists themselves, as if they a. are even cognizant of these elements and b. have a responsibility to push culture forward. To me that seems backwards. Art is made by those who live in and participate in their culture on a subconscious level. The influence culture has on these artists is tangible through the ideas expressed in their works, not because they consciously put them there, but because our culture guides our thoughts and forces its way into the fictional worlds we construct. To me you don't "fix" the art by attacking the artists and telling them to know better, you fix the art by attacking the problematic aspects in the culture itself. The art is a good way to attack those ideas, since art is itself ideas conveyed in one of its purest forms, but don't mistake the bullet for the trigger.

But then again there is something to be said that art perpetuates cultural norms, implicitly making them more socially acceptable and we should point out how those things can be harmful and wrong, and how we shouldn't do those things. But I just feel like our culture is a thing we engage in 100% of the time, be it in idle conversation, buying a coffee, working, etc. Yet we treat art is being a thing disproportionately more influential on our culture than anything else we do.

So what do you think Smogon, how do art and culture interact?

 

[Trax]

Art is the primary way we can observe culture (or a given aspect of said) from perspectives other than our own, be that perspective of a person or an abstract and from this art allows us to examine our culture. So it's both a guide and a reflection at different times, depending on the nature of the art being made.

There are bigger problems with Sarkeesian than how she attributes blame, like starting with a premise then searching for evidence that agrees with that.

 

[Crux]

That women are oppressed and visual media are a mechanism of that oppression is a pretty well-established premise, I think she can be forgiven for not surveying all existing polities to prove that premise given existing literature. Also, her videos seek to show examples of that oppression rather than prove some statement that all video games are oppressive?

Basically, check your privilege.

 

[TheValkyries]

That women are oppressed and visual media are a mechanism of that oppression is a pretty well-established premise.

Yeah but what I'm asking here is to what extent is art the vehicle of oppression. And not even in just this example case but in all art, to what extent does the art we view guide our thoughts and behaviors versus all of the other things we do and experience? Is it more? Is it less?

 

[Minwu]

Yeah but what I'm asking here is to what extent is art the vehicle of oppression. And not even in just this example case but in all art, to what extent does the art we view guide our thoughts and behaviors versus all of the other things we do and experience? Is it more? Is it less?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_films_of_1933–45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_propaganda_films_of_World_War_II
ty

 

[Trax]

pointless crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_films_of_1933–45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_propaganda_films_of_World_War_II
ty

Be careful, your confirmation bias is showing.

 

[Myzozoa]

Does art guide culture itself, and therefore by proxy guide our behavior, or is art merely a reflection of our culture since it is made by those who live in it?

I think that art and life are mutually constitutive, I think 'art' is a reflection of what 'our world' ( hate this phrase tbh) 'seems like', but art has a role in shaping what people desire and affirming a certain portrait (a particular perspective) of what the world consists of. If I wanted to be really overly masturbatory about this, I might say that all meaningful actions are meaningful because they are interpreted by groups for whom the actions carry shared significations. Thus, all actions that make up our lives are performative, as the actor seeks to convey a certain meaning to an audience. This performance of life determines whether a body will be allowed to live in a society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_death .

This leaves the question: if all actions that constitute our lives are performative, then are our lives art? This question could be the end to a distinction between life and art.


Also I think you should consider some other word than 'culture', it's really doing a lot of work in this discussion while evading definition or elaboration.

I've been wrestling with this idea for a long time now and I've decided that I want to get some different perspectives on it. The major trigger point for this idea was Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women in Video Games series which critiques an art form for the harmful cultural stereotypes that it uses. And my main problem is that she levels her criticisms against the artists themselves, as if they a. are even cognizant of these elements and b. have a responsibility to push culture forward. To me that seems backwards. Art is made by those who live in and participate in their culture on a subconscious level. The influence culture has on these artists is tangible through the ideas expressed in their works, not because they consciously put them there, but because our culture guides our thoughts and forces its way into the fictional worlds we construct. To me you don't "fix" the art by attacking the artists and telling them to know better, you fix the art by attacking the problematic aspects in the culture itself. The art is a good way to attack those ideas, since art is itself ideas conveyed in one of its purest forms, but don't mistake the bullet for the trigger.

Anorexia, Bulimia, and such eating disorders may also be sites where distinctions between art and life are produced (constructed) or perhaps they fall apart...

Is Sarkeesian critiquing an art-form, or an industry? I feel the language of your post makes a serious effort to misunderstand her method, if you would suppose she is critiquing an art-form rather than the industry which makes it (though i will admit ive only seen a few, not all, of her works). Industries produce products, some of which are presentations and representations, critiquing a product for presenting a certain stereotype is not uncommon at all.

Does this mean that actively reducing one's consumption of stereotypical representations and products is an imperative? It seems that capitalism, in addition to being an exploitative system, also helps perpetuate the internalization of damaging stereotypes. Thus critiquing advertisements and avoiding buying certain products has become a way of resisting 'social forces', and this can be done self-consciously or through self-reflection ('that image is sexist becuz xyz' 'i will not buy that product').

But then again there is something to be said that art perpetuates cultural norms, implicitly making them more socially acceptable and we should point out how those things can be harmful and wrong, and how we shouldn't do those things. But I just feel like our culture is a thing we engage in 100% of the time, be it in idle conversation, buying a coffee, working, etc. Yet we treat art is being a thing disproportionately more influential on our culture than anything else we do.

Yeah i agree that there is no 'outside' to cultural influences. But in so far as we each individually help to constitute the cultures we inhabit, we an act in ways that resist the (negative) dominant logics of that culture. And as I've already said: I think not consuming products, and critiquing images as much as possible, is central to resisting the internalization of norms.

itt: ppl appeal to the mysteries of 'art' and 'culture' in order to feel less bad about the video games they purchase.

Art is the primary way we can observe culture (or a given aspect of said) from perspectives other than our own, be that perspective of a person or an abstract and from this art allows us to examine our culture. So it's both a guide and a reflection at different times, depending on the nature of the art being made.

'art' and 'culture' and a 'we' that shares 'perspective'. i cannot understand these sentences.

 

[omgocd]

Why question whether art influences culture -or- reflects it? I can't imagine how anyone could argue only one of those statements is true.

I'm not very familiar with Anita's work but as far as I know, her criticisms come from the games' reinforcement of stereotypes/gender roles/etc which already exist. The argument from there questions whether or not those reinforcements lead to further mistreatment of women. I would say that they probably do to some degree. From there you can argue whether it's more important for games to not reinforce these stereotypes, or whether the way in which people are influenced by video games is the 'real' issue. But that has nothing to do with the original question.

 

[capefeather]

And my main problem is that she levels her criticisms against the artists themselves, as if they a. are even cognizant of these elements and b. have a responsibility to push culture forward. To me that seems backwards.

FWIW she explicitly says this in Damsel in Distress Part 2:

One of the really insidious things about systemic & institutional sexism is that most often regressive attitudes and harmful gender stereotypes are perpetuated and maintained unintentionally.

Likewise engaging with these games is not going to magically transform players into raging sexists. We typically don’t have a monkey-see monkey-do, direct cause and effect relationship with the media we consume. Cultural influence works in much more subtle and complicated ways, however media narratives do have a powerful cultivation effect helping to shape cultural attitudes and opinions.

So when developers exploit sensationalized images of brutalized, mutilated and victimized women over and over and over again it tends to reinforce the dominant gender paradigm which casts men as aggressive and commanding and frames women as subordinate and dependent.

Anyway, it's hard to talk about "art" and "culture" in a meaningful way without trying to break them down into unambiguous concepts, so I'm just going to taboo them out.

I guess at the core of this is the concept of communication. I'm using the term "communication" in a very basic way that refers to causally evoking a response from something else. In its most basic interpretation, everything that happens could be interpreted as a "communication", producing various effects both intentional and unintentional (assuming we're talking solely about observable phenomena), though that doesn't mean that the effects are always significant. "Artists" are communicators, and the more popular you are, the more of an impact your communications have. So I don't see why they shouldn't be held accountable for what and how they communicate. There is no bullet/trigger dichotomy.

 

[TheValkyries]

This leaves the question: if all actions that constitute our lives are performative, then are our lives art? This question could be the end to a distinction between life and art.

Yes(ish) and no respectively. Art is an expression of one's perspective, however artists working in worlds that are purely fabricated are forced to impose more of their own perspective into their works, and we as an audience see them more clearly. They are thoughts conveyed to us by people who are professional at conveying their thoughts. Joe Schmoe on the street isn't going to be able to tell you all about his complex world view in idle conversation, so art is still a more dominant representation of a person's perspective.

Also I think you should consider some other word than 'culture', it's really doing a lot of work in this discussion while evading definition or elaboration.

If I absolutely had to I would say that culture is a shared way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a group of people. Happy?

Is Sarkeesian critiquing an art-form, or an industry? I feel the language of your post makes a serious effort to misunderstand her method, if you would suppose she is critiquing an art-form rather than the industry which makes it (though i will admit ive only seen a few, not all, of her works). Industries produce products, some of which are presentations and representations, critiquing a product for presenting a certain stereotype is not uncommon at all.

Does this mean that actively reducing one's consumption of stereotypical representations and products is an imperative? It seems that capitalism, in addition to being an exploitative system, also helps perpetuate the internalization of damaging stereotypes. Thus critiquing advertisements and avoiding buying certain products has become a way of resisting 'social forces', and this can be done self-consciously or through self-reflection ('that image is sexist becuz xyz' 'i will not buy that product').

Your wording in that second sentence confuses me, so I'm not certain if I am confusing her methods or not, but I will say that I agree that she is critiquing the industry and those who work in it, and I feel that placing the blame there is inappropriate. Critiquing the art and using it as a springboard to talk about the aspects of culture that it reveals is in my opinion the better conversation since I believe that art is not the driving force of how we view the world (this is a thing that Sarkeesian clearly disagrees with as outlined by the quote capefeather just posted).

Yeah I agree that there is no 'outside' to cultural influences. But in so far as we each individually help to constitute the cultures we inhabit, we an act in ways that resist the (negative) dominant logics of that culture. And as I've already said: I think not consuming products, and critiquing images as much as possible, is central to resisting the internalization of norms.

So in the context of what I'm asking originally you would say that art does have a large control over how we as people see the world. Like what 35%, 40%? (Keep in mind this is what I'm talking about here, not Sarkeesian's work)

itt: ppl appeal to the mysteries of 'art' and 'culture' in order to feel less bad about the video games they purchase.

I can't repeat this enough don't confuse my example for the primary premise of the thread. I could easily swap out examples for many other things where criticism is laid on the artists and not the culture they operate in as if they are primarily responsible for these harmful actions. Maybe they are? I don't think they are, but that's why I made this thread... to find out what yall think about it.