linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (08/07/85)
This is not a complete solution, but I think it would help. Right now most of us economically support a culture of violence. What do most people, even well-educated professionals, do for enjoyment? - go to a movie. And usually the movie has at least ONE murder. Somehow American scriptwriters cannot restrain themselves from including at least one act of violence in their movies. Where there is not outright violence, the emotions portrayed are suspense, fear, suspicion, and emotional intensity. And so most people go to these movies because "There is nothing else to do". There are many rationalizations and excuses: "I wanted to see the computer graphics". "There was only a little bit of violence, and it was an interesting story". "We missed the last showing of the movie we really wanted to see". In spite of all rationalizations, violence is our art and our culture. Women continue to dole out their admission fees to support these Hollywood companies which make a fortune and to buy products advertised on violent TV shows? Who advertises on violent TV shows? How many auto companies? Why would the auto companies support this - in spite of the protests of parents' groups? Because as long as the streets and public transportation are not safe, we have to depend on private automobiles. If the streets were safe, why not ride the subway or a bicycle at night? Why do people continue to spend money going to violent movies rather than contributing to the local chamber music ensemble, orchestra, or arts center. Why not make contributions stipulating that the money not be used to but on productions which include violence? What does this have to do with rape? Many people consider rape to be a crime of violence, not of sex. It is often accompanied by other forms of violence. Right now violence is our entertainment - so how can our culture say that at the same time it is a problem? L. Seltzer __________________ (Does not necessarily represent the opinion of AMD)
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/08/85)
> Why do people continue to spend money going to violent movies > rather than contributing to the local chamber music ensemble, > orchestra, or arts center. That's right! They could be going to the opera to see, say, Lulu (Alban Berg) which has a shooting murder, a bludgeon murder, and two stabbing murders by a jack-the-ripper character. All set to a great deal of interesting and often beautiful music. Or how about a play? How about Macbeth, or King Lear, or Titus Andronicus? Face it - violence is exciting (when you're not at the receiving end of it, obviously). That's (one reason) why artists of all kinds have used violent subjects. Believing violence in society is caused by violence on screen seems just a little bit backwards to me. Jeff Winslow PS. I should probably admit, however, that I don't usually care for excessively violent movies (note BIG subjectivity factor here) and I do contribute to local ensembles, orchestra, etc. Also to a fair number of net arguments.
crs@lanl.ARPA (08/09/85)
> Why do people continue to spend money going to violent movies > rather than contributing to the local chamber music ensemble, > orchestra, or arts center. Why not make contributions > stipulating that the money not be used to but on productions > which include violence? Thank you for saying that; I couldn't agree more. > What does this have to do with rape? Many people consider rape > to be a crime of violence, not of sex. It is often accompanied > by other forms of violence. Right now violence is our entertainment - > so how can our culture say that at the same time it is a problem? I have read (and I largely agree) that the frequent viewing of violence tends to cause one to become insensitive (ie calloused) to violence, thus not as likely to restrain themselves, to say nothing of being less likely to help one who is the victim of violence. It is interesting that, as a society, we are more likely to forbid the viewing of sex than of violence. And, of course, as society has become more calloused to the old fashioned forms of violence in entertainment the producers have "improved" their techniques to give us more and more graphic portrayals. But the public keeps paying for it... > L. Seltzer > __________________ > (Does not necessarily represent the opinion of AMD) -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
crs@lanl.ARPA (08/10/85)
> > Why do people continue to spend money going to violent movies > > rather than contributing to the local chamber music ensemble, > > orchestra, or arts center. > > That's right! They could be going to the opera to see, say, Lulu > (Alban Berg) which has a shooting murder, a bludgeon murder, and > two stabbing murders by a jack-the-ripper character. All set to > a great deal of interesting and often beautiful music. > > Or how about a play? How about Macbeth, or King Lear, or Titus Andronicus? > > Face it - violence is exciting (when you're not at the receiving end of it, > obviously). That's (one reason) why artists of all kinds have used violent > subjects. Believing violence in society is caused by violence on screen > seems just a little bit backwards to me. > > Jeff Winslow Jeff, I'm going to intentionally misunderstand to make a point (I apologize in advance). Are you saying that because violence also occurs in "cultural" productions (eg opera, "legitimate" theatre, etc.) that it is alright? What was pointed out is that the American public (I don't know about other countries) supports an awful lot of violence in the guise of entertainment. Maybe we should cut down a little. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) (08/12/85)
In article <2402@amdcad.UUCP> linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes: > >This is not a complete solution, but I think it would help. >Right now most of us economically support a culture of violence. >... >In spite of all rationalizations, violence is our art and our culture. I find it interesting that violence does seem to be an important part of our civilization. Not to get back into discussions of sociobiology again, but perhaps "violence" is an integral part of human character. I know of no solid proof for or against, although there's much flimsy evidence (some primitive cultures seem to be nonviolent, but they generally are found in hostile environments - violence comes from outside rather than inside). >Why do people continue to spend money going to violent movies >rather than contributing to the local chamber music ensemble, >orchestra, or arts center. Why not make contributions >stipulating that the money not be used to but on productions >which include violence? I'm a fan of chamber music and play classical flute, but I would not want to eliminate the violence of Beethoven's Fifth or Ninth (or even parts of the Sixth). If everything in life were reduced to the bloodlessness of Devienne's or Haydn's music, there would be little to distinguish it from death... This is a little far afield from the topic of rape. I'm *not* defending rape; I'm suggesting that training everyone to be nonviolent might be another one of those cures that is worse than the disease. It might be extraordinarily risky even to experiment with; if violence *is* linked to creativity, extinction of violence would be irreversible... stan shebs
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (08/13/85)
>This is not a complete solution, but I think it would help. >Right now most of us economically support a culture of violence. >What do most people, even well-educated professionals, do for >enjoyment? - go to a movie. And usually the movie has at least >ONE murder. Somehow American scriptwriters cannot restrain themselves >from including at least one act of violence in their movies. It's important to remember that it has never been shown that vicarious violence (movies, books, etc.) causes violent behavior; It is an area of current controversy. Nor is your charge literally true. There are many sorts of films (comedies, musicals, etc.) which rarely feature violence. Your singling out of American screenwriters also seems gratuitous. There is violence in the films of all countries. Perhaps American films are, on the average, more violent than the films of other countries, but what I've seen of the Italian and Japanese cinema suggests otherwise. > Where >there is not outright violence, the emotions portrayed are suspense, >fear, suspicion, and emotional intensity. Do I correctly understand that you are against the portrayal, not only of violence, but of "suspense, fear, suspicion, and emotional intensity"? If so, you don't seem to leave the artist much leeway. > And so most people go to these >movies because "There is nothing else to do". There are many >rationalizations and excuses: "I wanted to see the computer graphics". >"There was only a little bit of violence, and it was an interesting story". >"We missed the last showing of the movie we really wanted to see". >In spite of all rationalizations, violence is our art and our culture. And is there no possible legitimate purpose for violence in art? I have known people who liked horror films because such films *helped* them deal with their own fears, by allowing them to work through them vicariously. In any case, your complaint seems to be against all violence in art, not just extreme violence. Wouldn't that put our art a long way from reality? >Who advertises on violent TV shows? How many auto companies? >Why would the auto companies support this - in spite of the >protests of parents' groups? Because as long as the streets and >public transportation are not safe, we have to depend on private >automobiles. If the streets were safe, why not ride the subway >or a bicycle at night? I find it more reasonable to believe that the greedy auto companies want to sell a lot of cars, and therefore advertise on shows that are watched by a lot of people. But your theory is original, I must admit. >What does this have to do with rape? Many people consider rape >to be a crime of violence, not of sex. It is often accompanied >by other forms of violence. Right now violence is our entertainment - >so how can our culture say that at the same time it is a problem? I guess a lot of us see a fundamental difference between real violence and simulated violence. I object to murder, but I don't necessarily object to murder being portrayed in a film. I wouldn't mind at all if films more often tried to show us a better world than the one we live in; I'm fond of optimistic stories. But without conflict there *is* no story. Nor, I think, is there any way to curtail the popularity of adventure and suspense, short of censorship. I agree we should vote with our $$$ for films we like, but we can't expect everyone else to always vote the same way. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (08/14/85)
-- > I find it interesting that violence does seem to be an important > part of our civilization. Not to get back into discussions of > sociobiology again, but perhaps "violence" is an integral part > of human character. I know of no solid proof for or against, > although there's much flimsy evidence (some primitive cultures > seem to be nonviolent, but they generally are found in hostile > environments - violence comes from outside rather than inside)... > > stan shebs Ah yes, the "savage ape". Popular myth. Perhaps more probable, though, is the notion that our aggressiveness is entirely cultural, an ironic figment of our becoming "civilized". Hunter- gatherers can always pack up and move on (and they do, or did), but once you put down roots, you have your territory, a stake worth fighting for. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 14 Aug 85 [27 Thermidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/14/85)
> > I find it interesting that violence does seem to be an important > > part of our civilization. Not to get back into discussions of > > sociobiology again, but perhaps "violence" is an integral part > > of human character. I know of no solid proof for or against, > > although there's much flimsy evidence (some primitive cultures > > seem to be nonviolent, but they generally are found in hostile > > environments - violence comes from outside rather than inside)... > > > > stan shebs > Ah yes, the "savage ape". Popular myth. Perhaps more probable, > though, is the notion that our aggressiveness is entirely > cultural, an ironic figment of our becoming "civilized". Hunter- > gatherers can always pack up and move on (and they do, or did), > but once you put down roots, you have your territory, a stake worth > fighting for. Ah yes, the "noble savage". A once-popular myth. Many of the tribes of american indians were hunter gatherers. Most of these were constantly at war with each other. Ironically, many of the most peaceful of the indian tribes were those which had developed agriculture. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Like a newuser (HACK!), flamed for the very first time..."
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/14/85)
> Are you saying that because violence also occurs in "cultural" > productions (eg opera, "legitimate" theatre, etc.) that it is alright? > What was pointed out is that the American public (I don't know about > other countries) supports an awful lot of violence in the guise of > entertainment. Maybe we should cut down a little. Well, shucks. I had my fun and now you're going to make me think about it. I'm not a big fan of graphic movie violence. But I think it's reaction to our violent surroundings, not a cause of them. And it is not a new phenomenon, just a new form of an old one (which presumably did not cause any problems). I'm not sure what you could do about it, anyway, that you (and I) aren't probably already doing (eg, not going to those movies). I suppose you could start a boycott movement of some kind, but I shudder (or laugh) to think of an activist group against movie violence. The possibilities for satire are too delicious. ("What do you mean, hypocritical? We're against *movie* violence, not *real* violence.") :-) Sorry - I'm off having fun again. Jeff Winslow
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/15/85)
In article <1079@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: > It's important to remember that it has never been shown that vicarious >violence (movies, books, etc.) causes violent behavior; It is an area of >current controversy. There have been many studies done with children that demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that watching violent behavior on television or file leads to increased aggression and violence in the watcher's behavior. There is some controversy as to whether this is true of adults, though there is sufficient evidence to conclude that watching violence at least causes a desensitization. Obviously, the above are generalizations and not necessarily true for all children or all adults. Note that this cuts two ways. At the ends of the bell curve there could be people who can watch Clint Eastwood movies all year without noticeable change in behavior and people who can be pushed over the edge of violence by a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Either type could be too rare to significantly affect experimental results. > ... There are many sorts >of films (comedies, musicals, etc.) which rarely feature violence. Your >singling out of American screenwriters also seems gratuitous. There is >violence in the films of all countries. Perhaps American films are, on the >average, more violent than the films of other countries, but what I've seen of >the Italian and Japanese cinema suggests otherwise. I agree. > ... But without >conflict there *is* no story. There's always character studies and documentaries. (-: > ... Nor, I think, is there any way to curtail the >popularity of adventure and suspense, short of censorship. I agree we should >vote with our $$$ for films we like, but we can't expect everyone else to >always vote the same way. One of the cheaper prices of freedom. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
dick@ucsfcca.UUCP (Dick Karpinski) (08/15/85)
In article <29482@lanl.ARPA> crs@lanl.ARPA writes: > >I have read (and I largely agree) that the frequent viewing of >violence tends to cause one to become insensitive (ie calloused) to >violence, thus not as likely to restrain themselves, to say nothing of >being less likely to help one who is the victim of violence. > I have heard of a very interesting, but little quoted, study which offers a bit more detail on kids and violence on TV. Please let me know if you can cite the study. The conclusion was that when the episode of violence involved the bad guys getting their comeuppance, the kids WERE more violent in their own play. However, when the good guys got beat up, kids were LESS violent in their own play. Kind of makes you stop and think about the wisdom of the Hollywood ending... Dick -- Dick Karpinski Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick (415) 666-4529 (12-7) BITNET: dick@ucsfcca Compuserve: 70215,1277 Telemail: RKarpinski USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (08/15/85)
> > Do I correctly understand that you are against the portrayal, not only > of violence, but of "suspense, fear, suspicion, and emotional intensity"? If > so, you don't seem to leave the artist much leeway. > > I wouldn't mind at all if films more often tried to show us a better > world than the one we live in; I'm fond of optimistic stories. But without > conflict there *is* no story. Nor, I think, is there any way to curtail the > popularity of adventure and suspense, short of censorship. I agree we should > vote with our $$$ for films we like, but we can't expect everyone else to > always vote the same way. Your reply, and the notion that there always has to be a "story" shows just how limited many people's views are because of the influence of mass media. In film, for example, look at the work of Stan Brakhage, such as his "The Text of Light", an hour and a half of pure visual images, pure abstract film. Each frame is said to be a masterpiece in itself. Now the mass media classifies this as "experimental" (i.e. esoteric and not important) film. The New Age movement in the arts in the US has been dismissed by critics as "minimalism" - but luckily Steve Reich and Meredith Monk have gained acclaim in New York, at least. Now let's look at even the enlightened city of Berkeley. Two weeks ago there was a concert by the students of the Ali Akbar Khan school of music. These people have obviously found a fascinating alternative to violence - learning to play the sarod and the tablas, and composing music which combines Western and Indian instruments. Yet only about 75 people attended. How many people read the arts listings in detail and really make an informed choice? They look at for the most widely hyped-up and publicized works instead. Furthermore - why don't people organize their own entertainment - playing music together, hiring a model and doing life drawing, etc. ? (Some people do, but not most). Even the most highly educated people turn 30, start making a little money, and turn their brains off.
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (08/15/85)
In article <679@ttidcc.UUCP>, hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: > In article <1079@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: > > It's important to remember that it has never been shown that vicarious > >violence (movies, books, etc.) causes violent behavior; It is an area of > >current controversy. > > There have been many studies done with children that demonstrate beyond > reasonable doubt that watching violent behavior on television or file leads > to increased aggression and violence in the watcher's behavior. There is > some controversy as to whether this is true of adults, though there is > sufficient evidence to conclude that watching violence at least causes a > desensitization. I believe that there have been studies by George Gerbner, Dean of the School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, which reported that people who watched television often generally were more suspicious, believed more often that WOMEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE THE VICTIMS OF CRIME, and beleved with greater likelihood that they could be victims. > > > > ... But without > >conflict there *is* no story. > > There's always character studies and documentaries. (-: > What about spirituality, romance, and mytstical experience? What about abstract art?
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (08/16/85)
From Linda Seltzer (amdcad!linda): >> Do I correctly understand that you are against the portrayal, not only >>of violence, but of "suspense, fear, suspicion, and emotional intensity"? If >>so, you don't seem to leave the artist much leeway. I note that you quoted this part of my article without responding to it. I'd still be curious to hear your answer. >> I wouldn't mind at all if films more often tried to show us a better >> world than the one we live in; I'm fond of optimistic stories. But without >> conflict there *is* no story. Nor, I think, is there any way to curtail the >> popularity of adventure and suspense, short of censorship. I agree we should >> vote with our $$$ for films we like, but we can't expect everyone else to >> always vote the same way. > >Your reply, and the notion that there always has to be a "story" shows >just how limited many people's views are because of the influence of >mass media. In film, for example, look at the work of Stan Brakhage, such >as his "The Text of Light", an hour and a half of pure visual images, >pure abstract film. Each frame is said to be a masterpiece in itself. I think you'll find that "story" predates the mass media by at least a couple of millenia. If you reread what I wrote, you will find that I did not *say* there had to be a story; I said there had to be conflict before there *was* a story. Look, if you prefer films without story (or adventure, or suspense, or even emotional intensity), that's fine by me; didn't I say that in the article you quoted? I'm just a little more varied in my tastes. >Now the mass media classifies this as "experimental" (i.e. esoteric and >not important) film. The New Age movement in the arts in the US has >been dismissed by critics as "minimalism" - but luckily Steve Reich and >Meredith Monk have gained acclaim in New York, at least. What does this have to do with violence? (incidentally, I like Steve Reich) >Now let's look at even the enlightened city of Berkeley. Two weeks ago >there was a concert by the students of the Ali Akbar Khan school of music. >These people have obviously found a fascinating alternative to violence - >learning to play the sarod and the tablas, and composing music which >combines Western and Indian instruments. Yet only about 75 people >attended. How many people read the arts listings in detail and really >make an informed choice? They look at for the most widely hyped-up and >publicized works instead. You keep bringing up the same false dichotomy. Now I have to choose between watching RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and listening to amateur sarod players. Why is it not better that I do both, as the spirit moves me? >Even the most highly educated people turn 30, start making a little >money, and turn their brains off. Wasn't money that turned off my brain, it was sex, drugs, and rock and roll :-). - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) (08/16/85)
>> I find it interesting that violence does seem to be an important >> part of our civilization. Not to get back into discussions of >> sociobiology again, but perhaps "violence" is an integral part >> of human character. I know of no solid proof for or against, >> although there's much flimsy evidence (some primitive cultures >> seem to be nonviolent, but they generally are found in hostile >> environments - violence comes from outside rather than inside)... > >Ah yes, the "savage ape". Popular myth. Perhaps more probable, >though, is the notion that our aggressiveness is entirely >cultural, an ironic figment of our becoming "civilized". Hunter- >gatherers can always pack up and move on (and they do, or did), >but once you put down roots, you have your territory, a stake worth >fighting for. > >ken perlow ***** ***** >..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** *** I didn't realize you had a special line to truth! How do you know that this is a "myth"?? Last I heard, there's been no proof or disproof of *any* such hypotheses. Your own hypothesis is weakened by the observation that hunter-gatherers can always fight over MOTASs, a choice bit of food, the most comfortable sleeping spot,... of course, that doesn't mean that they do, or did. The other social primates certainly do; the human groups that seem not to (Australian aborigines, Bushmen, Tasadays, Eskimos, others no doubt) may not have been studied adequately (remember that much of chimp behavior was unsuspected until Goodall and others spent *lots* of time watching). Anyhow, if the choice *is* between nonviolence and civilization, I'll take civilization (does that make me a latent rapist? :-) ) stan shebs p.s. Do apartment dwellers have "roots" and a "territory worth fighting for"?
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (08/18/85)
In article <209@bcsaic.UUCP> shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) writes: >In article <2402@amdcad.UUCP> linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes: >> >>This is not a complete solution, but I think it would help. >>Right now most of us economically support a culture of violence. >>... >>In spite of all rationalizations, violence is our art and our culture. > >I find it interesting that violence does seem to be an important >part of our civilization. ...perhaps "violence" is an integral part >of human character. I know of no solid proof for or against, >although there's much flimsy evidence (some primitive cultures >seem to be nonviolent, but they generally are found in hostile >environments - violence comes from outside rather than inside). Let's define our terms, here. There is a rather large difference between someone intentionally splitting your head open with a rock, and being hit on the head by a meteor; let's not confuse the random violence of nature with the intentful violence of human beings. >... I would >not want to eliminate the violence of Beethoven's Fifth or Ninth (or >even parts of the Sixth). If everything in life were reduced to >the bloodlessness of Devienne's or Haydn's music, there would be >little to distinguish it from death... This ``violence'' is a metaphor. I don't see the cellists bashing the violists with their instruments; on the other hand, movies attempt to portray violence much worse than this, as sensationalistically as possible, and neither as metaphor nor in a larger dramatic context. The difference between the violence in a slasher film and that to be found in serious art isn't just a matter of degree; in the former the plot becomes merely an excuse for embedding violent scenes. Art become secondary. > ... I'm suggesting that training everyone to be nonviolent >might be another one of those cures that is worse than the disease. >It might be extraordinarily risky even to experiment with; if violence >*is* linked to creativity, extinction of violence would be irreversible... I don't think we'll ever eliminate unintentional violence, no matter how far technology advances. And there will always be conflict and tension--things that I would agree are essential ingredients in much of artistic creation. But *intentional* violence--the *willful* injury of one human being by another--was, is, and always will be destructive to society and to the individual, and is quite worthy of our attempts at eradication. > stan shebs -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
dyer@vaxuum.DEC (This did not happen to/Pablo Picasso) (08/19/85)
Re: Rape - Another Solution_____________________________________________________ > It's important to remember that it has never been shown that vicarious viol- > ence (movies, books, etc.) causes violent behavior[.] 100% Wrong. Psychologists deal with a lot of uncertainties, but there is one thing that has been demonstrated again and again: observing aggressive behavior results in increased aggressive behavior. Most of us, when hearing the results of psychological reasearch, have a vague distrust (or, if it clashes with our prejudices, a not-so-vague dis- trust). This is especially true when other research yields opposite conclu- sions (see previous flame about poor psychology research in my "Innate Sexual Differences" article). As for the issue at hand, aggressive behavior resulting from observation of same, I find the most people I've met think that psychological research is fuzzy in this area. It is not. Starting with Bandura's Bobo Doll experiment, every valid study that has been done has shown a relationship between observed agressive behavior and mod- elled agressive behavior. No valid study has shown otherwise. There is, as you say, controversy. Some of it has to do with the defin- ition of "aggressive." Some of it has to do with individual differences: you can demonstrate that a group of schoolchildren will become twice as aggressive after viewing aggressive behavior, but you can't demonstrate that Pat hit Sandy because of a certain episode of The A-Team. >> Who advertises on violent TV shows? How many auto companies? Why would the >> auto companies support this - in spite of the protests of parents' groups? >> Because as long as the streets and public transportation are not safe, we >> have to depend on private automobiles. If the streets were safe, why not >> ride the subway or a bicycle at night? >> > I find it more reasonable to believe that the greedy auto companies want to > sell a lot of cars, and therefore advertise on shows that are watched by a > lot of people. But your theory is original, I must admit. Both theories are reasonable. <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `:: :: :: :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: Statements made in this article are my own; they might not :::::::::::::::: reflect the views of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Corporation.
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/19/85)
> Face it - violence is exciting (when you're not at the receiving end of it, > obviously). That's (one reason) why artists of all kinds have used violent > subjects. Believing violence in society is caused by violence on screen > seems just a little bit backwards to me. This discussion of violence in net.women seems to miss the point that violence in art, in itself, is neither good nor bad. What disturbs us is the way it is sometimes used, the function it often has, in various media (mostly TV). Consider *Othello*: when Othello strangles Desdemona for what he thinks is her adultery, this instance of violence against women is experienced as a human tragedy; one feels for both protagonists as human beings, caught in a web of Iago's (but also their own) making. The strangling and the suicide that follows, both occurring onstage, were not thrown in by Shakespeare to make the play more exciting but to achieve his dramatic and artistic aims, such as to dramatize the latent violence in Othello's character. On the other hand, in the *Oedipus Rex*, whose plot contains murder, suicide, incest, and self-blinding, Sophocles chose not to show any of this onstage, yet the *Oedipus* is as exciting and suspenseful as any play that has ever been staged. Compare, now, the standard TV cop show (obviously not HSB). Opening scene: A gorgeous woman returns to her apartment late in the evening, slips off her dress, turns to face the camera, screams. Cut to detectives standing over her body lying in a pool of blood, cameras clicking. The hunt is on for the psycho. If we're lucky we'll have a couple more gorgeous dead bodies. To me, this type of TV show is deeply offensive. The woman here is nothing more than a hunk of meat to "motivate" the plot and tease our voyeurism. I experience this as an assault on my emotions, when I have started to think of the woman as a real person and she is suddenly rubbed out -- the painful emotions this arouses are simply left dangling, and consequently one tends to protect oneself from the pain by not feeling those sensitive human emotions which set one up for the shock. Why indeed should the scriptwriters attempt to resolve these emotions and make the show into something meaningful? The entire point of such TV programs is to sell cars, junk food, etc., and evidently they do the job well -- millions of people (a large proportion of whom are kids) watch them every night, and presumably go out and buy the products the next morning. The point is that is not the portrayal of violence per se that is the problem, it is whether its function is to degrade and *use* the audience, as with the cop shows and some movies, or to ennoble or enlighten or divert (or whatever you think the purposes of art should be), as with good theater and movies. As long as we're griping about the portrayal of women on TV, you've probably noticed that in standard TV fare the female lead is always "beautiful." E.g., plot summary: "A beautiful woman construction worker meets a young news photographer...." etc. Obviously, plain Janes are non-persons, or fit only for supporting roles at the most. (Another gripe about TV: guns are shown as magic devices for blowing away bad guys. Thousands of bullets fly, but Magnum, Simon & Simon, etc. don't get a scratch.) TV does not originate, it just exacerbates and perpetuates, some of the worst aspects of our society (I think it also provides a few benefits). It would be hard for me to believe that the degrading experience to which millions of people are subjected (and subject themselves) each night does not have some serious consequences. Censorship is not the answer, of course. Changing our society is, but it's not a simple answer. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (08/20/85)
> > > > Do I correctly understand that you are against the portrayal, not only > > of violence, but of "suspense, fear, suspicion, and emotional intensity"? > > If so, you don't seem to leave the artist much leeway. > > > > I wouldn't mind at all if films more often tried to show us a better > > world than the one we live in; I'm fond of optimistic stories. But without > > conflict there *is* no story. Nor, I think, is there any way to curtail > > the popularity of adventure and suspense, short of censorship. I agree we > > should vote with our $$$ for films we like, but we can't expect everyone > > else to always vote the same way. > > Your reply, and the notion that there always has to be a "story" shows > just how limited many people's views are because of the influence of > mass media... > > [Material describing art forms which get along without a "story."] > > Furthermore - why don't people organize their own entertainment - > playing music together, hiring a model and doing life drawing, > etc. ? (Some people do, but not most). > > Even the most highly educated people turn 30, start making a little > money, and turn their brains off. I haven't previously contributed to new.women, being heretofore content (despite my interest in the subject) to let others flame each other. However, I couldn't resist jumping into the fire with this one. Just what group do you think it is that supports most of the violent, sexist, trashy films and other ``art having a story'' that you criticize? Why it's the *kids* -- teenagers, young adults mostly under that magic age of 30 -- who are the bulk of moviegoers! This age group dominates the field so thoroughly with their numbers that most movies produced cater to their ``tastes.'' Why don't you ask your peers -- since being under 30, they supposedly haven't had their brains turned off yet -- why *they* don't organize their own entertainment instead of trotting off to see the latest sequel to *Porky*. -- Michael McNeil
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (08/20/85)
In article <1089@ames.UUCP>, barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: > From Linda Seltzer (amdcad!linda): > >> Do I correctly understand that you are against the portrayal, not only > >>of violence, but of "suspense, fear, suspicion, and emotional intensity"? If > >>so, you don't seem to leave the artist much leeway. > > I note that you quoted this part of my article without responding to > it. I'd still be curious to hear your answer. > My response was to two quotations from your article. I said there had to be conflict > before there *was* a story. > Look, if you prefer films without story (or adventure, or > suspense, or even emotional intensity), that's fine by me; didn't I say that > in the article you quoted? I'm just a little more varied in my tastes. > > >Now the mass media classifies this as "experimental" (i.e. esoteric and > >not important) film. The New Age movement in the arts in the US has > >been dismissed by critics as "minimalism" - but luckily Steve Reich and > >Meredith Monk have gained acclaim in New York, at least. > > What does this have to do with violence? (incidentally, I like Steve > Reich) > > You keep bringing up the same false dichotomy. Now I have to choose > between watching RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and listening to amateur sarod > players. Why is it not better that I do both, as the spirit moves me? > I will reply to all of these at once. Your comments show that it is your taste which is limited to slick productions hyped up by the mass media and by the "catchiness" of the presentation. When people have the attitude that students are "amateura" not worth listening to then their choices are determined by commercialism and slick presentation rather than honest feeling. When I refer to emotional intensity, I mean intensity in terms of fear, suspicion, suspense, and violence. Quite frankly I am sure that one's taste is varied, and one can learn to appreciate subtlety if one rejects the slick presentations of violence offered by the mass media.
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (08/21/85)
In article <2830@amdcad.UUCP>, linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes: > > You keep bringing up the same false dichotomy. Now I have to choose > > between watching RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and listening to amateur sarod > > players. Why is it not better that I do both, as the spirit moves me? > > > I will reply to all of these at once. Your comments show that > it is your taste which is limited to slick productions hyped up by the > mass media and by the "catchiness" of the presentation. When people > have the attitude that students are "amateura" not worth listening > to then their choices are determined by commercialism and slick presentation > rather than honest feeling. When I refer to emotional intensity, I > mean intensity in terms of fear, suspicion, suspense, and violence. > Quite frankly I am sure that one's taste is varied, and one can learn > to appreciate subtlety if one rejects the slick presentations of violence > offered by the mass media. "Blue noses, Mr. Rico! Millions of 'em!" Maybe in addition to net.snobs we should have net.snobs.unappreciated-artists, where the endless discussion about why artists are ignored by the vulgar can go on, leaving the rest of us in peace. -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (08/22/85)
From Jym Dyer (decwrl!dyer): >> It's important to remember that it has never been shown that vicarious viol- >> ence (movies, books, etc.) causes violent behavior[.] > > 100% Wrong. Psychologists deal with a lot of uncertainties, but there >is one thing that has been demonstrated again and again: observing aggressive >behavior results in increased aggressive behavior. Your use of the word "aggressive" rather than "violent" suggests to me that I was unclear. I meant to say only that vicarious violence has never been linked to violent antisocial behavior. I make a great distinction between violence, which is almost always anti-social, and aggression, which can be interpreted in a less negative way. Think, for instance, of those want ads for salesmen that ask for "aggressive go- getter types". I have seen at least some of the studies you refer to, and it seemed to me that they were defining "aggressive" behavior as something closer to "assertive" than violent. If a child chooses more aggressive forms of play after watching a violent film, that seems quite different to me than having the child punch out a playmate. Aggressivness is only anti-social when it's acted out in an anti-social way, such as with violence. > There is, as you say, controversy. Some of it has to do with the defin- >ition of "aggressive." Some of it has to do with individual differences: you >can demonstrate that a group of schoolchildren will become twice as aggressive >after viewing aggressive behavior, but you can't demonstrate that Pat hit Sandy >because of a certain episode of The A-Team. Precisely. I think we are in agreement, and I simply want to affirm that I meant to assert no more than what you are here agreeing with. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (08/23/85)
From Linda Seltzer (amdcad!linda): > In article <1089@ames.UUCP>, barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >> You keep bringing up the same false dichotomy. Now I have to choose >> between watching RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and listening to amateur sarod >> players. Why is it not better that I do both, as the spirit moves me? >> >Your comments show that >it is your taste which is limited to slick productions hyped up by the >mass media and by the "catchiness" of the presentation. When people >have the attitude that students are "amateura" not worth listening >to then their choices are determined by commercialism and slick presentation >rather than honest feeling. When I refer to emotional intensity, I >mean intensity in terms of fear, suspicion, suspense, and violence. >Quite frankly I am sure that one's taste is varied, and one can learn >to appreciate subtlety if one rejects the slick presentations of violence >offered by the mass media. It is you who are defining "amateur" as "not worth listening to", not I. It is interesting, if a touch strange, to see what a mass of information you believe you have about my tastes, especially since I fail to see what there was in my articles that led you to these conclusions. But never mind; who cares what my tastes are? What I still would like to know is, what is it you see that prevents me from enjoying *both* the kind of entertainment that you consider politically correct, *and* the kind of which you disapprove? Both of your articles on this subject have implied that one needs to make a choice, to reject the one in order to accept the other, but you have nowhere indicated why one would have to do this. To make it a question of RAIDERS vs. ragas is to simply ignore the fact that one is free to like both. Unless you start trying to make a better case against suspense and violence, instead of simply telling us all how wonderful non-violent art is, you are simply missing the point. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry