Art and Media

      What is art?  To me, art is anything that expresses human emotion of any kind.  That can be found in things like: painting, dancing, music, film, photography, ceramics, sculpting, or architecture.  These are some of the more traditional forms of art, but I know people who create things like wine or bicycles and they consider themselves artists because they put all they have into what they are making.  A little piece of them goes into every thing that they create.  That too is art.

    Different types of art mean different things to me.  Music, for example, is usually an extension of whatever mood I’m currently in.  For example when I’m with other people, listening to “fun” music just makes being with other people more exciting.  But then there are types of art that all I do is admire the artists creativity/talent.  Some photographs don’t necessarily evoke any emotion from me, especially when it’s abstract, but I can usually sit back and appreciate what went into it.  Some types of art bring about meaning through the emotions that are brought out through them, but other types of art bring about meaning through the appreciation of the human mind/body and what it’s capable of doing. 

    Art is meaningful, also, in the sense that it’s a reflection of an individual who is part of society.  So therefore art is an extension of society.  This is meaningful because art comes about in media as well.  So if art reflects society then we can analyze art to see what is important to society’s beliefs, tastes, priorities, feelings, etc. 

    So when we look at one particular style of art, film, and look at a film that did particularly well in theaters (or let alone, made it to theaters):  Saw.  This is art because it is expressing human emotions, mainly fear.  So if this is a reflection of society because one could say that our society, for one reason or another, likes to be scared.  In this particular piece of work, this emotion is primarily evoked through the use of violence.  The story itself isn’t scary, it’s the gory actions that the characters have to commit that brings about the fear. 

    I think the context for creating this type of art is tapping into this primal need for certain emotions that need to be evoked every now and again to remind us that we’re mortal.  It’s easy to get lost in a sea of monotony when everything is electronic and there’s no sense of survival in day to day life.  We become numb to certain, powerful emotions in our modern society.  But when we go to see this movie that’s so far from ordinary life, we get these feelings that we never get to feel.  And while we might not necessarily enjoy being terrified, we do enjoy feeling an emotion that’s so extreme. 

    This participates in media because while it is art, it is also media.  And media also participates in the art.  Media talks about the art, it’s an outlet for people to come together and share the same emotions for the piece of art.  It all reflects societal views of how we perceive the art.  So society hears about the film from the media, then thinks that it’s the cool thing to go see this film (or that somehow it’s expected of them), then once they see the film, they go back to media to see what other people have to say about it or even share their own point of view.  Media and art go hand in hand.  They feed into each other. 

Chaos in the Twitter-sphere

            This is along the same lines as cyber bullying but specifically within the Twitter-sphere I’ve noticed an increasing trend in high school students directly tweeting at another person demoralizing things that I hope they wouldn’t think of saying to anyone face to face.  Before I’ve talked about how people feel free to do this when they are behind an anonymous screen name but now people are doing this even when their name and picture are clearly displayed. 

         I just read a statistic that around 10% of college applications last year were turned down because of off-putting information that was found on applicants social media cites.  I’d imagine calling someone a profane name on twitter would qualify as something that you wouldn’t want to see if your future students.  I’m not a college admittance counselor but I think I could speculate what could be some things that they would want to look for and especially things they wouldn’t want to see. 

    What we do with that information is important.  I’d say that you could take any person from any given point in history and if you gave that person the chance to write something anonymously they’d have a hard time writing something that they’d feel totally comfortable saying in person.  I think the anonymous effect is a psychologically documented phenomenon.   But take away the anonymity and how do you explain this behavior?  I think this is a cultural shift due to the ability to disassociate feelings when we type something out on a screen as opposed to saying something to someone’s face. 
   
    But if we have majority of our conversations over a screen then I think it’s possible for us to consider that the norm which allows us to carry over those disassociated feelings to lead us to become more crude and blunt in our interactions with others. 

If You Don't Have Anything Nice to Say...

Let’s talk about those awful, tasteless comments that we all see on mostly every YouTube video that has the slightest amount of popularity.  When I thought of YouTube and violence, there was no question that this should be the topic. 

The idea of negative comments bothers me because the person who writes them had to take time to craft a hateful message.  It literally would have been easier for the person to say nothing, and then there wouldn’t be a negative comment.  The idea that people think that their negative comment will bring some sort of satisfaction is a bit twisted in my opinion.  “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”.  It’s a pretty basic concept that most learn when we’re little, yet people chose to not abide by it.  

The thing that really drives me crazy is when you’re watching a cover video that some 12 year old kid is doing from his room and you can tell that they’re trying really hard, then someone comments “u suck, nvr play or sing again pls”.  That could be on the nicer end of harsh comments.  As a little kid, getting that kind of negative feedback could be detrimental.  If you don’t like the kids video, then so what, it’s a kid.  There’s no need for such un-constructive criticism that is solely designed to cut the other person down no matter the age of the recipient, but especially if it’s a kid.  What good could possibly come from that?  

When people become anonymous and are given the ability to voice their opinions, they lose control.  There’s nothing stopping them from sharing their super awesome, well thought out, genius thoughts that apparently everyone must read.  That’s rarely the case.  And I realize that anyone can make a YouTube account so I take into account that some of these users are probably kids themselves.  That’s when I think the parents should really take control of what the kids are doing on the internet.  But I know that assumes a lot of things. 

In a perfect world, the YouTube community would be a lot more warm and friendly if people didn’t say things online that they wouldn’t say to the uploader’s face.  But until then we’ll just have to keep down voting all the hateful comments until they go away.    

Cyber Social Faux Pas

When it comes to cyber-bullying I’ve heard two sides to this, 1) That it is a national crisis and that it is awful & 2) that it doesn’t really matter, kids are unaffected by it and it’s not any different from real bullying.  I’d have to say that cyber-bullying doesn’t really fit under either of these umbrellas.  I think that the term “cyber-bullying” is a bit too inclusive in some areas and not as inclusive as it should be in others.  For example, I don’t think that anytime someone is talked down to on Facebook they take it personally and are deeply wounded by that one sentence typed to them.  At the same time, online games such as found on XBOX live where people are continuously speaking hurtful words to each other can have negative effects.  

I’ve had people call me names in comments or in chat rooms, it may hurt at first but then I forget about it later.  But at the same time if someone I didn’t know in real life called me a name or made fun of me it wouldn’t really matter that much either.  People who I don’t know usually don’t impact me, that’s just my personality, I can evade those hurtful judgments because I know they don’t really know me.  But someone I know and knows me is in a good position to put me down and really cause some harm.  This also goes for online.  So I think this is where people can get too sensitive with what cyber-bullying does.  Sure you have people who feel comfortable saying whatever they want because they can hide behind a fake username and a keyboard, but most people (studies show) aren’t effected by that.  I think that cyber-bullying and real life bullying work in similar fashions.  (This obviously excludes physical harm being done, I don’t know of a parallel for this on the internet).

When it comes to online video games where there is a headset and players can converse directly to one another, I think this has potential for doing emotional damage.  Sure if I don’t know someone and they call me a name, like I said, it might hurt at first but I’ll get over it.  But if different people called me names throughout my day walking across campus, I would start to be effected by that as I’m sure anyone would.  This is what I feel is the difference in online video games.  People constantly feel the need to talk down to other people, it’s this perpetuation that I feel makes the real difference in the effects of cyber-bullying.  

Cyber-bullying, like the internet, is always changing.  There are new additions to it everyday just like some other corners of the internet become obsolete everyday.  I think it’s important for people to realize how personal things can be taken even if you aren’t saying them to their face.  I don’t condone of any sort of cyber-bullying whether its a one time shot at somebody or if it’s a perpetual verbal beat down of others.  I think the internet is a great tool to have and can provide loads of entertainment, it always saddens me when people take advantage of its anonymity.  

Playing the Victim

The article that I chose, “Community Violence, Children's Development, and Mass Media: In Pursuit of New Insights, New Goals, and New Strategies.” by Friedlander proves to be a scholarly source because it is indicated to be so according to the online database provided by Texas A&M University.  This means that the source was peer reviewed.  The only thing that might take away from the relativity of this article is the fact that it was published in 1993.  However, for my purposes, I think that the message still rings true today.  

The article makes the claim that “[c]omprehensive meta-analysis indicates that prosocial messages on television can have greater effects on behavior than antisocial messages.” more specifically, “Community violence that victimizes children is an unmitigated evil that is exacerbated by vast economic and social forces”(Friedlander).  By this, Friedlander tries to convey the power of the media’s message but only when it comes across in a certain way.  But he also tries to show that in the media can play a role in stopping this cycle of violence by saying “that mass media can play a strong and positive role in alleviating some of the distress of victims of community violence, and in redirecting the behavior of some of its perpetrators so as to protect the children.” (Friedlander)

The main point that Friedlander is trying to make, I think, is that when media takes the blame off of the perpetrator and puts it on the community, then the weight of the consequences feels light enough for kids to act violently because they feel then the guilt would be shared and no longer their own.  In other words, kids see other kids who commit violent crimes not getting blamed for what they’ve done, instead media tries to put the blame on their situation.  This creates a victimization phenomena that makes people think they can do something bad because they feel it’s all they’re good for, or that its’ all they can do because of their situation, even though that’s not true.  People should be held accountable for their actions, and they should be judged not because of their circumstances but because of their character.  That is what Friedlander thinks the media is taking away and that’s what’s leading to these crimes. 

I think that he brings up a good point and the fact that I still hear this same argument today leads me to believe that he is right in making these claims.  I think this addresses a very specific discipline because I don’t think that just anybody looks at why there are violent crimes being committed and trying to link them to media.  

Works Cited

Friedlander. ““Community Violence, Children's Development, and Mass Media: In Pursuit of New Insights, New Goals, and New Strategies.” Psychiatry 56.1 (1993): 66-81. TAMU Library Database. Web. 21 Oct 2012. 

Violent by Nature

           Violence in corporate America, does it exist?  This might come off as a vague connection but stick around for a bit.  Let’s think about what the American mind-set is, “I’m going to work hard and make as much money as possible no matter what.”  There’s not a lot of room in there for things like looking after the wellbeing of others.  Most stories you hear about  business are about ethical issues around people trying to obtain more money then they actually earned.  Some American businessmen are willing to do a lot of desperate things in order to obtain large amounts of money (Large relative to the individuals situation).  People even disregard their morals in order to further their gains.   That’s the point I want to focus on.

The act of suppressing moral judgement for personal gain is a slippery slope.  If someone is willing to cheat others out of their hard earned money that goes towards feeding their family in order to add to their bank account, what’s to stop them from later suppressing foreigners in order to acquire cheaper labor leading to greater financial gains?  If a businessman doesn’t even care about his employees why should he care about people who aren’t even his own countrymen?  Chinese labor anyone?  It may not be violent in the sense of murder, but forcing people to work 12+ hours a day for minimal pay could be seen as physically endangering others in regards to their health and wellbeing.  Which, isn’t that what violence is?  So now instead of violent acts being committed out of passion they are now being committed for capital gain.

Sure this isn’t the run of the mill story when it comes to violence in our culture but I think it’s definitely worth taking a look at corporate America from another perspective.  It may not be violent in the traditional sense but it is violent in nature.  

Batman Status

           So in the late, great “Batman: The Dark Knight Rises” there’s a fair amount of violence.  One thing that I like about Batman and how he handles justice,  it doesn’t matter if it’s one person getting mugged in an alley or if the whole city is about to get nuked, he’s going to handle it the same way.  He has a bottom line rule or creed that he is able to fall back on,  and no matter the situation it will guide him to the correct response.  

Without ignoring the fact that he’s a super hero and the movie is not a retelling of real events, he goes about dealing with evil I feel in a very just way that I feel can be modeled in real life.  He’s never killing his opponents like they’re trying to do to him, and he never uses the same weapons that they do.  Both of these symbolize how he’s above the petty level that these criminals are on, which as peacemakers I feel is very important moralistically.  If we can’t deal justice without reciprocating the same amount of terror that the “bad guys” are inflicting, then are we any better than they are?  Or are we just inflicting our will because we have the money to flex our guns against anyone who doesn’t play by our rules?

Also Batman is not a power thirsty figure enlisting to fight crime so he can fulfill some sick fantasy of inflicting pain and justifying it because they are criminals.  You wouldn’t see Batman on some YouTube video harassing prisoners of war, that's not what he's about. The thing that I love about Batman is that he sees himself as a public servant; if there was no crime, he wouldn’t exist, he wouldn’t be out looking for trouble.  He waits until he’s called upon (The Bat signal).  Which I feel we could learn a bit from this in the form of foreign policy.  

No doubt Batman is not afraid to inflict pain on a few to save the innocent many, but there’s no question that’s not the right thing to do in that situation.  As messy as things can get and as harsh of a reality that war and violence is, I feel we can look at some of the fundamental qualities that make Batman great, and apply them to real life to ensure justice is being carried out in a humane way.  

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/ 

Scare Me Once, Shame on You

I’d like to dedicate this blog to the scary movie trailers that leave me a little more than slightly disturbed, especially on those late nights when I think a little television will put me to sleep.  Psych,”no sleep for you, one year”!  (Seinfeld reference)   
   

The trailer I have in particular picked out is the one for American Horror Story on FX.  I love that channel but I hate seeing that commercial pop up because it spooks me so much.  It comes on no matter what I’m watching, whether it be a drama or a comedy or whatever other genre that channel has.  Seriously though, I don’t even have to give a specific example because we all have that one trailer in our heads picked out that gives us the willies just thinking about it.  In real life we are shocked when people do these awful things, yet look at what we’re contributing to:  Saw I-VII and other movies with demonic spirits slaughtering innocent families (Paranormal Activity series).  Our wallets show that we actually like to see violence, just not on the news.  I know nobody likes to blame media for any of these psycho attacks that happen in real life but I think we can’t simply ignore that we all feel there has to be at least a slight correlation.  

The things that pop up on “night time t.v.” (I think the earliest time I’ve seen a creepy trailer was 7?)  are just plain awful, in my humble opinion.  Who’s 10 year old do you know goes to bed before “night time television” comes on?  Are those movie trailers what you’d want your child watching?  And we want to say they have no effect on whether or not they’ll be violent?  I don’t want to risk my kids becoming psychopathic killers, or more realistically traumatizing them at the very least.  Or let’s even forget 10 year olds, I’m 20 and I still don’t want to see that stuff.  Here I am watching Wilfred (a comedy show on FX) and next thing I know I’m being bombarded with bloody scenes and demon possessed killers on the loose.  Talk about a mood destroyer, happy to terrified in .6 seconds, that should be the measurement used for how scary trailers are.  It amazes me what’s allowed to be played on public television.  

Now I don’t think watching a trailer will make someone twisted but one can’t watch that stuff over and over again without being affected by it whether they respond positively or negatively to it.  Media can’t be held responsible for how people react to what they put out but I think as a society we can make a statement and say “No, we don’t support this type of behavior.  Therefore, we won’t spend our money on things that glorify, make light of, or potentially influence violence.”  

The fact that these movies are making truckloads of money with essentially the same plot over and over again has to reflect something in our society otherwise they wouldn’t make a dime.  The question is, what exactly causes us to have such an obsession with these movies?  Is it the fact that the plot can be so far fetched that it peaks our curiosity?  I don’t think it can be too far fetched because then it would no longer be scary, I think we have to relate to the story on some level in order to get emotionally invested to become scared.  So then if it’s pure curiosity with this violence that draws us in, then should’t that be a red flag that something might be wrong with what we’re thinking about?  Or is it curiosity because some of these things we feel could never happen in real life so we live out these alternate realities to fulfill some unknown pleasure that comes from seeing these images?  So then is the movie like getting a really in-depth fictional news story about something awful that happened?  I don’t know about anyone else but I’m not one to look through news sites trying to find something tragic, I don’t think enough people enjoy that feeling for them to project that same desire to scary movies.  

I truly believe that society has an obsession with violence, I’m not sure if it’s nature or nurture.  Maybe it’s this primal instinct from our cave man days that’s lacking because our world that we live in is so urbanized that we no longer have that natural encounter with such extreme fear so we seek it elsewhere?  Or perhaps with this recent obsession with the need to be constantly being entertained that we are now having to always push the envelope for what gets us excited.   Just like a serial killer who no longer finds pleasure in killing his victims one way so he progresses to another way  and another way until a regular murder has turned into something inhuman.  I’m just saying I think we have to draw a line somewhere before we end up in a place we thought we’d never be.  

I’d really be interested to hear someone’s response who loves scary movies, especially the ones that are more slasher than spooky, you know just raw violence like the Saw films.  What is it that makes people come back for more?

Zombies vs. Terrorists

While watching an episode of “The Walking Dead” (http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead) on netflix.com I was wondering which television show would prove fitting for my topic of violence in the media.  While one of the main characters was wasting a zombie in the face I realized that I had come across the perfect subject matter...  

Now, in the show there is a “zombie apocalypse” and a band of survivors come together out of mutual survival interest in attempt to travel to a safe haven where other remaining humans might be.  Along the way there are many zombie killings and the show doesn’t leave a whole lot up to the imagination when it comes to whether or not the zombie made it out okay or not.  I believe there are some distinct concepts that we can pull from the show and compare to todays world.

For example, the group runs into the last remaining scientist at the Center for Disease Control and during this episode they discover that this zombie virus kills the brain and uses it as a host for this new parasite making these merely human vessels and no longer actual humans.  This I think is an attempt to justify killing them for their own survival needs.  This reminds me of my previous post where I talked about where do we draw the line for what’s justifiable and whats not?  Only in this show they’re trying to determine what qualifies as a human and what doesn’t qualify as a human.  Luckily for the “The Walking Dead” (http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead) characters, science has provided a pretty clear answer that the zombies are, indeed, no longer humans. 

I think we do the same thing in war because we no longer see our enemy as “good” so we see it best to kill them for the interest of our own societies safety.  This should raise some moral flags because we are drawing a pretty bold line determining what is black and white in a sea of gray.  There are two pretty significant interests that should be accounted for and both happen to be on opposing sides of this argument. 

On one hand, it’s a pretty bold claim to say that we are worthy of deeming ourselves morally supreme so much that we can go and kill a bunch of people (or zombies) for our own safety interests.  Or in other words, we are superior beings therefore why we should survive outweighs why you should survive so we will kill you.  There are so many cultural differences and the world is now such a small place it’s a recipe for disaster and there are bound to be cases where we butt heads with those who do not see the world as we do.   How we handle these situations is crucial.

On the other hand, if the other group is infringing on our societies safety then something must be done.  For me personally, I don’t care so much if I get attacked because I don’t see my life worth more than someone else’s, so I was a pacifist when it came to war.  But I wasn’t thinking about  the interests of those who don’t have the ability to protect themselves if they saw retaliating a fit course of action (Children, elderly, sick, etc.).  So then I have moral obligation to act out against those who are trying to harm that defenseless group.  At the same time how do I make sure that the people that are fighting on my side aren’t doing the same thing (Harming those who cannot protect themselves) to my enemy (i.e. fighting fairly)?  So then how do we look out for the safety of those who cannot protect themselves without committing the same offense?   Also how do we look out for that defenseless group's interests without removing the enemy’s chance to seek redemption (This is an alternate route as opposed to killing the enemy, attempt at peaceful negotiation)?  Or is there a point where the consequences of your actions must be dealt with in a way where there can be no redemption because you goofed up that bad?  Also, what if the enemy has no interest in anything other than fighting (zombies)?  

I think that fighting is sometimes inevitable and justified but I also believe that we are robbed of our chance of thinking about why we’re fighting because of our cultures readiness to strike out against those that oppose us.  I believe this comes from our society’s subconscious obsession with violence which is reflected in the media, in attempts to sell their shows/movies, which then feeds back into our consumption of thoughtless violence, creating a vicious cycle.  

Media & Violence

I believe there is a general acceptance of violence in society when a situation is spun to have a “bad guy” receiving a “just beating” from a “good guy’’.  We like this violence only if there’s a clear right and wrong, if there’s any ambiguity between the two opposing parties then people stop rooting for either side.  For example two teenagers fighting on the street, we frown upon that almost instantly because of how we view teenagers and their immaturity, we’ll write this off automatically because the causation for this violence must be juvenile.  However, if they were a bit older, one of them had a military uniform on and the other was in “classic bad guy attire” we would immediately start pulling for the person in the military get up.  

Is that type of thought process okay?  Is it something we can work on not doing?  Where do we draw this line for acceptable violence and non acceptable violence?  And if we become okay with seeing this on television shows do we become okay with seeing it on the news?  Are we over trusting of who’s drawing the line for us in real life situations i.e. Modern day wars, riots, law enforcement scandals.  How can we wholeheartedly support certain establishments when we have no idea how news stories are spun to us through the media.  

Obviously the transition from “rooting for Batman to be the bane of Bane” to “should I support this real life conflict”  is a pretty big step and there’s a lot more factors at play in real life then there would be in a movie or television show.  So I suppose a fairly important sub topic for my blog, and all of our blogs for that matter, would be how much does media influence society?  Or the flip question would be, are these movies/shows so popular because they subconsciously tap into something that we already believe therefore we’re predisposed to liking them?

I picked this topic because I used to be pro war,  pro death penalties, and pro punishment of “evil doers” until I had a series of conversations that really challenged me to think about the implications of what those just actions mean and if they truly reflect my beliefs.  I’m not at all opposed to justice, I love justice and I think majority of people inherently do just because it’s how we’re wired.  What has changed is how I feel we should deal with justice.  

The thought of taking someone’s life and their chance at redemption, whatever that may look like, has recently disturbed me quite profoundly.  I think it’s a scary thought because I believe that all humans are products of our environments (some more than others).  So a person can take 2 or 3 desperate moves that started off with good intentions, and now has made them into a killer.  And going along with the cliche “walking in someone else’s shoes” if I had become an evil doer I would want every chance I could take to seek redemption, so therefore I should give everyone else that same chance.  Redemption is a pretty vague term.  I’m not in favor of releasing murderers back into society or anything like that.  I would use the term redemption to mean merely showing remorse and coming to terms with what one did and why it was wrong, and being able to express that to the people whom I’ve cause harm to.

I’m not saying that these beliefs are set in stone, I hope to have interactions with more people through this blog over the course of this semester to challenge each others’ thoughts and come to more of a well thought out opinion.