Dear readers,
As some of you may know, I am a rather small time competitive player of Pokemon. As more of you would probably know, the new type chart was released recently for X and Y. What does this have to do with anything? Well today, I responded to a Youtube comment on a Xenon video complaining about how this all threw off the balance of the game. Instead of replying in the comment section the good man decided to reply in a private message claiming that the type chart now debalanced the game by nerfing a grand total of four steel type lines.
Ordinarily I would make no note of such an incident except for two little things at the end of the conversation. First he said that me PMíng him was getting annoying when he was the one who PMed me to begin with. Secondly he said that I "could take my gay type and leave". For those unaware the type he meant was the Fairy type.
This is the exact reason I hate most of the fandom. First let us consider what he means by this statement; which is most obviously the derogatory meaning of the word gay- or rather the idea or concept that one is gay means that they are less valuable to society as individual people. Then let us consider the secondary meaning he posits to us- that being that all Fairy type Pokemon must feminine and weak.
You know what, lets consider both of these at once. What is being said here is that all things feminine, weak and/or homosexual are sub-par members of our society by the simple virtue of being. One does not make a conscious choice in regards to their sexual and romantic orientation for example. That said, what this one statement says is that for reasons completely out of your control you are an unworthy member of this society. Although, perhaps more interestingly, I find a lot of people in that situation are having a hard time even reconciling such concepts with their fear of death. Which brings me to the next point.
If one has a terror crisis over the existence of different people then one should not be allowed on the internet. Why? Because the internet is full of auto-biographical accounts of people who aren't you and of people who disagree with you.
But then again, what brought on this rant? An attempt at a zinger. So I write this to simply think out their written words before they actually send them to a stranger, because in social issues the pen is more powerful than the sword.
From,
Michael Hand
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Some Thoughts on the Power of Storytelling in Video Games
Dear readers,
Today I bring you an editorial on the ultimate tool of learning and brain washing alike: Storytelling. You may have wondered at some point as to why we tell stories. The answer is surprisingly simple; we tell stories so that the listener will know how to behave in society.
You may wonder why I'm telling you this but wonder no more. I've recently been thinking about the plots that most AAA video games use as video games are one of the most (if not the most) effective tool for storytelling. This was brought on while I was playing the game Thomas was Alone- which is an indie game that made me emotionally attached to rectangles.
I feel though that at higher levels of development I usually find myself caring less for the main characters than I do with a minimalist game like Thomas. The reason why is that I generally find the characters less interesting with more thought put into how guns look or what the DLC will be rather than into the characters. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. I would go so far as to say that, of all games, Pokemon has flourished into an exception and has had some complex villainous characters recently (namely N).
So what is the problem with that? A lot actually because it causes these games to run the risk of accidentally saying something like "all Russians are terrorists", "all religious belief is extremist" or much more commonly "all Muslims are terrorists". Now lets consider that the most common type of large budget game in recent years are first person shooters and you might be able to see the problem of not having a fleshed out villain.
In short you are teaching your audience that certain groups are evil and that the proper response is the termination of said groups. Now, I know that you're thinking "but we can distinguish fiction and reality," let me let you in on a little secret. After Jaws premiered we started hunting sharks to the point of near extinction (where they are now). We didn't do it before Jaws on the scale we did after the film aired. Why? Because we can't tell the difference between reality and fiction as the purpose of fiction is to teach us something.
So what was the purpose of this post? Simply to give a short- and hopefully educative- lesson to some of the aspects of storytelling you often see in video games and why I think the FPS games by large developers need to focus more on their characters and story.
From,
Michael
Today I bring you an editorial on the ultimate tool of learning and brain washing alike: Storytelling. You may have wondered at some point as to why we tell stories. The answer is surprisingly simple; we tell stories so that the listener will know how to behave in society.
You may wonder why I'm telling you this but wonder no more. I've recently been thinking about the plots that most AAA video games use as video games are one of the most (if not the most) effective tool for storytelling. This was brought on while I was playing the game Thomas was Alone- which is an indie game that made me emotionally attached to rectangles.
I feel though that at higher levels of development I usually find myself caring less for the main characters than I do with a minimalist game like Thomas. The reason why is that I generally find the characters less interesting with more thought put into how guns look or what the DLC will be rather than into the characters. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. I would go so far as to say that, of all games, Pokemon has flourished into an exception and has had some complex villainous characters recently (namely N).
So what is the problem with that? A lot actually because it causes these games to run the risk of accidentally saying something like "all Russians are terrorists", "all religious belief is extremist" or much more commonly "all Muslims are terrorists". Now lets consider that the most common type of large budget game in recent years are first person shooters and you might be able to see the problem of not having a fleshed out villain.
In short you are teaching your audience that certain groups are evil and that the proper response is the termination of said groups. Now, I know that you're thinking "but we can distinguish fiction and reality," let me let you in on a little secret. After Jaws premiered we started hunting sharks to the point of near extinction (where they are now). We didn't do it before Jaws on the scale we did after the film aired. Why? Because we can't tell the difference between reality and fiction as the purpose of fiction is to teach us something.
So what was the purpose of this post? Simply to give a short- and hopefully educative- lesson to some of the aspects of storytelling you often see in video games and why I think the FPS games by large developers need to focus more on their characters and story.
From,
Michael
Saturday, July 13, 2013
A Soft Swell
In certain times of glory
I have stopped and thought
About times of old and that story
That you once bought.
I have stopped and thought
As I wandered through the storm:
That you once bought
Such a form!
As I wandered through the Storm
Only admiration descended upon my head.
Such a form-
For one with such dread.
Only admiration descended upon my head
As times of past [you] ran
For one with such dread;
Far from a wise man.
As times of past [you] ran
The fire of my heart burned dry.
Far from a wise man
There is nothing left but why.
The fire of my heart burned dry
As the clouds above cleared.
There is nothing left. But why?
I think not for one so weird.
As the clouds above cleared
And the Sun shone with hope
I think not for one so weird
Though, I may have missed the scope.
And the Sun shone with hope
A dance I knew well-
Though I may have missed the scope-
Within me did it swell!
A dance I knew well
Sang from my soul
Within me. Did it swell?
I say it made me whole.
Sang from my soul
About times of old and that story
(I say it made me whole!)
In certain times of Glory.
I have stopped and thought
About times of old and that story
That you once bought.
I have stopped and thought
As I wandered through the storm:
That you once bought
Such a form!
As I wandered through the Storm
Only admiration descended upon my head.
Such a form-
For one with such dread.
Only admiration descended upon my head
As times of past [you] ran
For one with such dread;
Far from a wise man.
As times of past [you] ran
The fire of my heart burned dry.
Far from a wise man
There is nothing left but why.
The fire of my heart burned dry
As the clouds above cleared.
There is nothing left. But why?
I think not for one so weird.
As the clouds above cleared
And the Sun shone with hope
I think not for one so weird
Though, I may have missed the scope.
And the Sun shone with hope
A dance I knew well-
Though I may have missed the scope-
Within me did it swell!
A dance I knew well
Sang from my soul
Within me. Did it swell?
I say it made me whole.
Sang from my soul
About times of old and that story
(I say it made me whole!)
In certain times of Glory.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Soul Eater Anime Review (English Dub)
Dear readers,
Today I'm going to do a review of the anime Soul Eater. The reason for the review is that the manga for the series is ending soon (I believe it has one more chapter left) and I want to put my thoughts down about the anime before the manga ends.
Now, you may be wondering "if the manga (source material) hasn't ended did the anime end?" The answer to that is yes. While the manga is over one hundred and ten chapters, the anime received an early end that allowed it to be only fifty one episodes long. This was done because the anime was going to overtake the original work and they didn't want to do a ton of filler in the wait (which I do applaud). Now this is both good and bad: Good because it makes the show a quick watch and bad because the ending involved a giant ass pull (for the sake of spoilers that is all I'll say about it).
The premise of the series is that the main cast can either transform into weapons or use said weapons to fight against demons and witches who threaten to destroy order in the world. The vast majority of these warriors go to a school (or teach at said school) which is run by the grim reaper (who is portrayed rather comically. I think its refreshing to see such a laid back death personification). Ultimately, their cause is to defeat the first "kishin" (an extremely powerful demon) Asura who is the cause of "madness".
With that out of the way, let us discuss the over arching themes. The most prevalent one is of fear vs. courage. This is probably one of the better themes one can use in general because it allows us to question what the meaning of fear is, why we experience it, why we bother being brave and more importantly if fear is good to have. Another prevalent theme is that of teamwork, or more specifically, that you need to rely on other people in order to develop.
The voice acting presented (I was watching the English dub) was pretty well done. With the exception of Black Star, the cast gave a marvelous performance. In the case of Black Star, his higher pitched voice didn't fit well next to Soul who sounded like he'd already gone through puberty.
One the point of characters, they're all well done. The main character, Maka, is a legacy child who has to deal with the stress of being a legacy while going through a divorce caused by the philandering of her father-who still dots over her. Her weapon, Soul, is a former musical prodigy who left home because of the skill gap between himself and his brother. The series begins with him losing his chance for a promotion.
The other characters that stood out as exceptional were Stein, Chrona and Free. In Stein's case I thought that the over used character type of "mad scientist" would get boring quickly but some of the best moments in the series involved him fighting his sociopathic tendencies and his madness. Chrona, being a character with essentially no prior human interaction, is both terrifying and lovable. Free, being an idiotic yet powerful immortal being, is rather charming. Particularly the part where he got arrested so he could dig out of prison with a spoon.
The most interesting part of the series is its setting for the reason that it not only lends credibility to some of the nightmare fuel that populates the series but it also looks some what like a series from Tim Burton. The moon and sun have faces, people sprout blades from their bodies and terrible eldritch abominations exist and fight against a skeleton person. I think you see what I'm getting at.
Now the worst point of the series is the rushed ending. I won't give anything away but when you see what I'm talking about you'll see what I'm talking about.
For now I'll leave with this AMV I found some of the nightmare fuel moments set to Marilyn Manson's "This is Halloween" so you can get a small taste of the series. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T51kyM7DS7k
I hoped you enjoyed,
Mike Hand
Today I'm going to do a review of the anime Soul Eater. The reason for the review is that the manga for the series is ending soon (I believe it has one more chapter left) and I want to put my thoughts down about the anime before the manga ends.
Now, you may be wondering "if the manga (source material) hasn't ended did the anime end?" The answer to that is yes. While the manga is over one hundred and ten chapters, the anime received an early end that allowed it to be only fifty one episodes long. This was done because the anime was going to overtake the original work and they didn't want to do a ton of filler in the wait (which I do applaud). Now this is both good and bad: Good because it makes the show a quick watch and bad because the ending involved a giant ass pull (for the sake of spoilers that is all I'll say about it).
The premise of the series is that the main cast can either transform into weapons or use said weapons to fight against demons and witches who threaten to destroy order in the world. The vast majority of these warriors go to a school (or teach at said school) which is run by the grim reaper (who is portrayed rather comically. I think its refreshing to see such a laid back death personification). Ultimately, their cause is to defeat the first "kishin" (an extremely powerful demon) Asura who is the cause of "madness".
With that out of the way, let us discuss the over arching themes. The most prevalent one is of fear vs. courage. This is probably one of the better themes one can use in general because it allows us to question what the meaning of fear is, why we experience it, why we bother being brave and more importantly if fear is good to have. Another prevalent theme is that of teamwork, or more specifically, that you need to rely on other people in order to develop.
The voice acting presented (I was watching the English dub) was pretty well done. With the exception of Black Star, the cast gave a marvelous performance. In the case of Black Star, his higher pitched voice didn't fit well next to Soul who sounded like he'd already gone through puberty.
One the point of characters, they're all well done. The main character, Maka, is a legacy child who has to deal with the stress of being a legacy while going through a divorce caused by the philandering of her father-who still dots over her. Her weapon, Soul, is a former musical prodigy who left home because of the skill gap between himself and his brother. The series begins with him losing his chance for a promotion.
The other characters that stood out as exceptional were Stein, Chrona and Free. In Stein's case I thought that the over used character type of "mad scientist" would get boring quickly but some of the best moments in the series involved him fighting his sociopathic tendencies and his madness. Chrona, being a character with essentially no prior human interaction, is both terrifying and lovable. Free, being an idiotic yet powerful immortal being, is rather charming. Particularly the part where he got arrested so he could dig out of prison with a spoon.
The most interesting part of the series is its setting for the reason that it not only lends credibility to some of the nightmare fuel that populates the series but it also looks some what like a series from Tim Burton. The moon and sun have faces, people sprout blades from their bodies and terrible eldritch abominations exist and fight against a skeleton person. I think you see what I'm getting at.
Now the worst point of the series is the rushed ending. I won't give anything away but when you see what I'm talking about you'll see what I'm talking about.
For now I'll leave with this AMV I found some of the nightmare fuel moments set to Marilyn Manson's "This is Halloween" so you can get a small taste of the series. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T51kyM7DS7k
I hoped you enjoyed,
Mike Hand
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Dear readers,
I am generally an advocate of allowing film adaptations of books to take artistic liberties. Far too often I hear people complain about how some minor character or call back from a book was cut from the movie version. Other times I hear that the movie simply wasn't as good with no deeper explanation (which makes sense because we tend to bond with characters when they are new). Occasionally I blame the book for being bad (ie. Twilight) but often I blame it on over zealous fans.
For this film, I know exactly what to blame it on. You see, when I first read the book Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close I wasn't sure I knew what to feel about it. For those who are unaware, the book presented three complementary narratives discussing communication, death and the horrors of war. Our main narrative follows Oskar Schell as he attempts to decipher what he views as the last message left to him by his father before his father died in 9/11. Understandably, this quest involves exploring the five boroughs to meet everyone there named "Black". The second narrative is that of Thomas Schell Sr.- Oskar's Grandfather- through letters to his unborn child explaining his life in Dresden before the fire bombing and why he fell out with his wife. The third narrative is of Oskar's Grandmother done in the form of letters to Oskar about her perspective on why her marriage fell a part. Each of these segments often include full page pictures, one phrase/word pages and (at one point) several blank pages.
Now what I won't criticize the film for are these: A. Making Oskar autistic (while Jonathon Safran Foer has said that Oskar was never meant to be autistic- although one could read the character as such- I will not criticize the film for this change because it came up that Oskar could be read as autistic in a college discussion by some one who had never seen the film); B. The removal of characters (The movie is over two hours long, of course some characters are going to be fused or removed). So lets get to what I will criticize this film for.
The first thing I need to criticize is the voice overs. I firmly believe in the visual powers of film and I hate it when the character I'm supposed to like is telling me what I can already see on the screen. The second thing to criticize is how much his father showed up. Now, I know this may be weird to criticize as most people tell me that the thing they hated most was how little Tom Hanks appeared. The thing is though, his character is dead when the film begins. We didn't need to be as flash back heavy in the beginning to get that he was a good guy and that we should miss him. The point is moving on, not hanging onto (also in some of that time we could have had the interview with the deaf Black or Ron could have appeared or any other countless possibilities).
Another thing to criticize is the truncation of metaphors from the book-most notably the Sixth Borough metaphor. The book made the sixth borough be the story of the character's relationships with each other, carefully crafted to tell story of Oskar's family. Here it served only as a metaphor for letting go, which I felt was a wasted potential.
The final big thing to criticize is the removal of the two complementary plots. I can understand why this is done (as mentioned earlier its a long film from Oskar's point of view already) but that doesn't exclude the fact that the bombing of Dresden was, by far, the most brutal and striking scene in the book. Given how flash back heavy the movie already was by the point Thomas Schell Sr. was introduced, I find it hard to understand why there wasn't a Dresden flashback along with his rather vague story.
Now onto what I liked. First off is the acting. Given what everyone has said about the film, I figured that the entire thing would be atrocious-especially the acting. When I had first heard that they were having a child actor portray a character with Asperger's (small note: in the film Oskar refers to it as Asperger's Disease. It is not Asperger's Disease but rather the DSM-IV refers to Asperger's as a disorder. Given that the DSM-IV was released in 2000 Oskar should be aware of its standing in 2002 and the writers of the film should be aware of its standing in 2011) I thought that he would be terrible. I was wrong, I thought he was great. In fact, the acting was all around great in the film.
The other thing I liked was when the film actually tried to use its visual abilities-and damn were they striking. Don't believe me? Look up the sensory overload scenes some times. Once Oskar starts to get panicked and the film tries to overload us, it actually does a pretty decent job of it. I have to give kudos to them for that.
So, did I like the film? Yes, but only as a stand alone film. Now that I've seen it I can reliably say that I know why people don't like it: It is not the book. And that may sound like a silly reason but it really isn't. The book had multiple ongoing stories and extremely complex characters, a few of which ended up destroying their relationship due to a lack of communication. Oskar's long monologues felt more natural in the books while the movie the first eleven minutes were too crowded with them. This really is a case of the movie not being capable of standing up to the book.
Hoping this was enjoyable,
Mike Hand
I am generally an advocate of allowing film adaptations of books to take artistic liberties. Far too often I hear people complain about how some minor character or call back from a book was cut from the movie version. Other times I hear that the movie simply wasn't as good with no deeper explanation (which makes sense because we tend to bond with characters when they are new). Occasionally I blame the book for being bad (ie. Twilight) but often I blame it on over zealous fans.
For this film, I know exactly what to blame it on. You see, when I first read the book Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close I wasn't sure I knew what to feel about it. For those who are unaware, the book presented three complementary narratives discussing communication, death and the horrors of war. Our main narrative follows Oskar Schell as he attempts to decipher what he views as the last message left to him by his father before his father died in 9/11. Understandably, this quest involves exploring the five boroughs to meet everyone there named "Black". The second narrative is that of Thomas Schell Sr.- Oskar's Grandfather- through letters to his unborn child explaining his life in Dresden before the fire bombing and why he fell out with his wife. The third narrative is of Oskar's Grandmother done in the form of letters to Oskar about her perspective on why her marriage fell a part. Each of these segments often include full page pictures, one phrase/word pages and (at one point) several blank pages.
Now what I won't criticize the film for are these: A. Making Oskar autistic (while Jonathon Safran Foer has said that Oskar was never meant to be autistic- although one could read the character as such- I will not criticize the film for this change because it came up that Oskar could be read as autistic in a college discussion by some one who had never seen the film); B. The removal of characters (The movie is over two hours long, of course some characters are going to be fused or removed). So lets get to what I will criticize this film for.
The first thing I need to criticize is the voice overs. I firmly believe in the visual powers of film and I hate it when the character I'm supposed to like is telling me what I can already see on the screen. The second thing to criticize is how much his father showed up. Now, I know this may be weird to criticize as most people tell me that the thing they hated most was how little Tom Hanks appeared. The thing is though, his character is dead when the film begins. We didn't need to be as flash back heavy in the beginning to get that he was a good guy and that we should miss him. The point is moving on, not hanging onto (also in some of that time we could have had the interview with the deaf Black or Ron could have appeared or any other countless possibilities).
Another thing to criticize is the truncation of metaphors from the book-most notably the Sixth Borough metaphor. The book made the sixth borough be the story of the character's relationships with each other, carefully crafted to tell story of Oskar's family. Here it served only as a metaphor for letting go, which I felt was a wasted potential.
The final big thing to criticize is the removal of the two complementary plots. I can understand why this is done (as mentioned earlier its a long film from Oskar's point of view already) but that doesn't exclude the fact that the bombing of Dresden was, by far, the most brutal and striking scene in the book. Given how flash back heavy the movie already was by the point Thomas Schell Sr. was introduced, I find it hard to understand why there wasn't a Dresden flashback along with his rather vague story.
Now onto what I liked. First off is the acting. Given what everyone has said about the film, I figured that the entire thing would be atrocious-especially the acting. When I had first heard that they were having a child actor portray a character with Asperger's (small note: in the film Oskar refers to it as Asperger's Disease. It is not Asperger's Disease but rather the DSM-IV refers to Asperger's as a disorder. Given that the DSM-IV was released in 2000 Oskar should be aware of its standing in 2002 and the writers of the film should be aware of its standing in 2011) I thought that he would be terrible. I was wrong, I thought he was great. In fact, the acting was all around great in the film.
The other thing I liked was when the film actually tried to use its visual abilities-and damn were they striking. Don't believe me? Look up the sensory overload scenes some times. Once Oskar starts to get panicked and the film tries to overload us, it actually does a pretty decent job of it. I have to give kudos to them for that.
So, did I like the film? Yes, but only as a stand alone film. Now that I've seen it I can reliably say that I know why people don't like it: It is not the book. And that may sound like a silly reason but it really isn't. The book had multiple ongoing stories and extremely complex characters, a few of which ended up destroying their relationship due to a lack of communication. Oskar's long monologues felt more natural in the books while the movie the first eleven minutes were too crowded with them. This really is a case of the movie not being capable of standing up to the book.
Hoping this was enjoyable,
Mike Hand
Thursday, May 16, 2013
A Scene From an In Progress Play
Dear readers,
Recently, I have been working on a play based on "The Rock" by Harry Chapin. Its not a very well known song and I definitely recommend you to check it out. More importantly I would like to share a scene with you. I do hope that you enjoy it.
Hoping it is enjoyed,
Mike Hand
_________________________________________________________________________________
Scene 3
(The scene is the back of the school. AUGUST sits
cross legged staring at the rock. From stage right
MR. MATTHEWS enters.)
MR. MATTHEWS
Lets make this quick August, you know what I want.
AUGUST
Yes I do.
MR. MATTHEWS
Here’s my money.
AUGUST
You’re short fifty.
MR. MATTHEWS
What?
AUGUST
You’re short Jerome. You punched me in the face so I
raised the price for you.
MR. MATTHEWS
You can’t do that.
AUGUST
Now you’re short seventy five.
(CONTINUED)
CONTINUED: 6.
MR. MATTHEWS
Excuse me?
AUGUST
You’re excused Jerome. Go home.
MR. MATTHEWS
I think I’m going to have to have a word with the
Judge.
AUGUST
You do that, his opinion holds no weight to me.
MR. MATTHEWS
The man speaks with God, his opinion is all that
matters.
AUGUST
And what of his wife?
MR. MATTHEWS
She serves him well.
AUGUST
Are you sure about that?
MR. MATTHEWS
Of course I am, if she didn’t she’d be like you now.
Wouldn’t she?
AUGUST
I served this land well.
MR. MATTHEWS
Not well enough it seems.
AUGUST
Fuck you Jerome.
MR. MATTHEWS
I bet you’ve been waiting to say that forever.
AUGUST
Proud of yourself?
MR. MATTHEWS
Very.
AUGUST
Why are you still here?
(CONTINUED)
CONTINUED: 7.
MR. MATTHEWS
I’m still deliberating on whether or not the Judge
should hear this issue.
(There is a long pause. AUGUST stands up and
tosses MR. MATTHEWS a bag of marijuana.)
AUGUST
Never again.
MR. MATTHEWS
Fine.
(Mr. Matthews exits stage left.)
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Ranting about art and whether or not it is a reflection of society
Dear readers,
There has been something vibrating through the depths of my mind today. I always hear the term that "art is a reflection of society" and I wanted to say I disagree.
More accurately, I would agree if there was a modifier so that we could discuss the statement with out discussing all art. I would like to argue that society can be a reflection of our art as well as our art reflecting our society with neither being mutually exclusive or necessary in the discussion of a definition.
My main point of disagreement is that an issue may not necessarily have been discussed before the art piece debuted. For example, Mae West was addressing issues about homosexuality in the ninety twenties Broadway scene and is considered the reason for the Wales Padlock Law. From this we can gather that the art is not necessarily a reflection of society but a critique of social practices which is part of changing the public opinion and causing the society to change and reflect the art.
My next point of disagreement comes off the last point. I think the reason why we try to define art as such is because it is easy. Defining art as a reflection of society does not take much discussion on the part of any person discussing the topic. It is a simple categorization that is easy to justify but that doesn't make it right; in fact I would say that that is part of what makes it wrong.
Art is not easy to categorize because a lot of art is not made to fit firmly into a category. For example, today my roommate and I finished our journey through Bioshock: Infinite and as the credits rolled he looked at me and asked "so what genre do you think that was?". The obvious answer is, of course, first person shooter. However, as Ken Levine once pointed out, its kind of silly to categorize a game based on its camera angle. When you think about it he is completely right: Would you put Call of Duty next to Bioshock or Bioshock: Infinite?
So what category is Bioshock: Infinite? It is a drama, to an extent it is a tragedy and to another extent yet it was a science fiction adventure. Of course it was about none of that because art contains subtext. That subtext is why you cannot easily categorize any form of art.
With that we return to the question: Is art a reflection of society? Not strictly, while society can be reflected in the art we make, our art is often reflected in our society. We shoot ourselves in the foot trying to categorize some things that we take it too far and try categorize a subject that is too broad such as art. What people who say those words don't get is that any definition you make for art is lacking. No matter how encompassing you make your definition you will be forgetting something and you will have to either defend your definition or extend it.
So, you may ask, why have I wasted your time? I'm just trying to get this off my chest before finals are done to all those people who tell me that art is "simply just" something. Art is neither "simply" or "just" something but Fucking Obnoxious Things are both those. So perhaps one should decide if they FOT or art is a reflection of society.
Now I'm just ranting,
Mike Hand
There has been something vibrating through the depths of my mind today. I always hear the term that "art is a reflection of society" and I wanted to say I disagree.
More accurately, I would agree if there was a modifier so that we could discuss the statement with out discussing all art. I would like to argue that society can be a reflection of our art as well as our art reflecting our society with neither being mutually exclusive or necessary in the discussion of a definition.
My main point of disagreement is that an issue may not necessarily have been discussed before the art piece debuted. For example, Mae West was addressing issues about homosexuality in the ninety twenties Broadway scene and is considered the reason for the Wales Padlock Law. From this we can gather that the art is not necessarily a reflection of society but a critique of social practices which is part of changing the public opinion and causing the society to change and reflect the art.
My next point of disagreement comes off the last point. I think the reason why we try to define art as such is because it is easy. Defining art as a reflection of society does not take much discussion on the part of any person discussing the topic. It is a simple categorization that is easy to justify but that doesn't make it right; in fact I would say that that is part of what makes it wrong.
Art is not easy to categorize because a lot of art is not made to fit firmly into a category. For example, today my roommate and I finished our journey through Bioshock: Infinite and as the credits rolled he looked at me and asked "so what genre do you think that was?". The obvious answer is, of course, first person shooter. However, as Ken Levine once pointed out, its kind of silly to categorize a game based on its camera angle. When you think about it he is completely right: Would you put Call of Duty next to Bioshock or Bioshock: Infinite?
So what category is Bioshock: Infinite? It is a drama, to an extent it is a tragedy and to another extent yet it was a science fiction adventure. Of course it was about none of that because art contains subtext. That subtext is why you cannot easily categorize any form of art.
With that we return to the question: Is art a reflection of society? Not strictly, while society can be reflected in the art we make, our art is often reflected in our society. We shoot ourselves in the foot trying to categorize some things that we take it too far and try categorize a subject that is too broad such as art. What people who say those words don't get is that any definition you make for art is lacking. No matter how encompassing you make your definition you will be forgetting something and you will have to either defend your definition or extend it.
So, you may ask, why have I wasted your time? I'm just trying to get this off my chest before finals are done to all those people who tell me that art is "simply just" something. Art is neither "simply" or "just" something but Fucking Obnoxious Things are both those. So perhaps one should decide if they FOT or art is a reflection of society.
Now I'm just ranting,
Mike Hand
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)