@afashionablehat: I don't believe I've "lost-the-plot" at all. I also am not so cavalier as to presume someone else's understanding of a complicated political view, and then deem that as bad because it runs counter to my own.
Also please don't assume I'm for or against anything political based on what Im saying here. Im simply trying to re-iterate how complex people are and how art is just an outrageous extension of that.
All I can do in my life is try to better whatever actions I take and learn from the actions that others take and try to minimize whatever deleterious effects I have on someone else's livelihood such as money and their physical well-being. Anything beyond that is simply another type of religion I want to avoid.
There is no one way to run things (that we know of yet), and there is no objective best way for how people should verbally or artistically interact with each other.
@afashionablehat: Thank you for your response but it seems as if we, indeed, do speak two different languages.
My understanding of people and art vary wildly from yours and Im not sure what more I can really offer in this discussion.
Your take on this reminds me a lot of when people in the 90's used to say rap music will pervert our youth or playing Mortal Kombat will make you violent.
I'll even go as far as to grant you that some people may be perverted or become violent, but that in no way means its representative of the whole population of its fanbase or is representative of the product or is even representative of society. All those tangential points are all horribly complicated. Im not even really sure its useful to "throw shade" at the creators of those products with the hopes of either changing them or, weirder still, changing the minority fans they have that are odious people.
You've made a lot of claims about art existing in various ways but, correct me if I'm wrong, I think your main thrust is art exhibiting a necessity to reflect society. To me that is a very VERY complicated sentence that I'm not sure either one of us, or really any single human being is equipped to unpack. Which is why I stand by my initial statements of art being, literally, the least useful tool to use when understanding people or social ills.
I don't believe society and the world matter in art. I believe society and the world matter. Period. These are two very different things and mixing the two will kind of take you nowhere.
@afashionablehat: I have often veered away from discussions like this simply because I don't really know how to approach them. So if I falter a bit, please excuse me.
My only question to you is why do you feel art and entertainment have to be accurate representations of the world or insightful towards real-world ills? It seems like by their very nature, it makes it impossible for them to do so. To me, thats not the function of art nor do I want it to be that way. I don't make role-models out of artists nor do I try to ascertain life-lessons from their products. You're free to do this, but it just means we speak almost two different languages then.
I feel like there is a certain strain of privilege that screams about this relentlessly, and to me, it borders on either sensationalism or simply being willfully blind.
If I want to learn about something, we have nearly a limitless supply of resources at our fingertips through verified academic outlets. If I want to become a better person or just a better adjusted person, this can only be achieved through real, lived-in experiences of speaking to your fellow human beings. Frankly, if you think you've received any useful historical knowledge from products like South Park or really anything in entertainment ever, I can only conclude you're a very sheltered and misguided person. The world is more complicated than any one person's imagination, and human beings are more complicated than what they simply say and do.
For me, people that get mad that South Park is either too "centrist" or "problematic" with its humour seem to be misunderstanding the very function of what makes art artistic. Art is a distortion of reality. A one-sided rollercoaster into someone else's subjective boundaries, and sometimes may even be a journey into something that makes the artists, themselves, feel uncomfortable.
Sure, people can learn things from art but I don't believe thats its primary function nor is it even the best way to ascertain that kind of information.
Regardless, I apologize if this was not your point or if I misunderstood what you said, but I just feel there truly is a very loud and aggressive subset of individuals online these days, and their views vary from being, at best, dismissible to, at worst, repulsively paternalistic and obnoxious.
@ripelivejam: remember the Batman Arkham Knight quick look? When Jeff tried to make a big deal about the Joker hallucinations that turn on the environment?
Given that he hadn't played the game and it was such a minor part of the full product, were those criticisms worth taking note of? Or was that him just being a Picky Penny because he's a critic and needs to say something just cuz. It's also, I think, a temperamental thing. Jeff seems to like Destiny when he plays it but generally complains about it when he's not. I say generally, because he does have some good things to say about it too, just not on the whole. As a reader, my take on that is that you can put an opinion out there but I am fully within reason to call it out if it feels like a not fully explained criticism. He may be right, he just hasn't explained himself. Maybe that's the case?
I'd rather Destiny be covered by Dan and Brad, as they seem to have the same outlook as Jeff but give credit where credit is due.
Regardless, I'm just an internet troll that doesn't know any better, I guess. ...I'm also defensive.
CountPickles's comments