Jaimie asked: "What do you make of violent role-play pornography and erotica where the participants are not actually being harmed but violent scenarios are depicted through fantasy? Is this harmful to human development?"
I do not think that this type of pornography is harmful to human development. Quite the opposite, in fact. Access to this type of material, where violent acts are carried out in a fictional setting, is, I think, beneficial to humanity.
How could this be the case? Pornography and erotica of this type, where acts like rape and sadomasochism are played out through fantasy, serve a unique role for people who might be driven towards these types of fantasies. The disturbed individual who would rape will do this no matter what. But the relatively functioning individual who just happens to want to be spanked, or whip another person, can find an outlet in this type of pornography or erotica, and thus satiate the desire without harming anyone.
I rather liken it to violent video games in this regard. The disturbed individual will commit violence whether they play them or not, but "normal" individuals can use them as an outlet for the violent tendencies that we all share (like it or not). It is certainly less harmful to society for a person to steal a car and rob a bank in the Grand Theft Auto video game than for this person to go out and commit these acts in the real world.
To end with a question: What factor do you think differentiates "pornography" and "erotica?"
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Role-Playing Games
Betsy asked: "Do you think that some, many, or most, of the individuals who utilize Role-Playing Games do so in a healthy or obsessive manner?"
First, we must clarify what we are talking about. Role-Playing Games can come in a variety of media. First, there is the table-top RPG, the most classic example of which being, of course, Dungeons and Dragons. Second, we have the single-player video game RPG, perhaps most famously the Final Fantasy series of games. Third, there is the more recent phenomenon of the Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game, or MMORPG, perhaps most famously (or infamously) associated with the game World of Warcraft. There is also, of course, LARP, or Live Action Role Play. I will not address this final one, as it is not something I have ever participated in.
To answer the question, I will draw on my experience with the first three types of RPG's I mentioned, as well as what I know of other players of these games. I think I can safely say that most people who play these games do so in a healthy manner. Table-top RPG's in particular provide a creative outlet for the players, allowing them to assume a new identity and think as their character while playing out the story laid out by the Game Master (GM). They encourage social interaction within a setting.
Single-player video game RPG's serve as both tests of skill (these games often include puzzles that challenge problem-solving skills, and a variety of creatures to battle that require one learning different tactics for each), as well as an interactive story, which can often include shades of moral grey areas. Playing through a well-written RPG can have a similar effect to reading a good novel.
The MMORPG plays a unique role. Most are, in essence, a table-top RPG put online, with the notable difference between the first two of a lack of an overarching story. MMORPG's typically have an open world setting with quests that can be undertaken(and repeated ad infinitum) by the player, often in groups of other players. Most players, from my experience, will either play the games to pass the time when they are bored or to relax after finishing work (be it school work or an actual job). These can have a social aspect, as through interaction, players can form friendships with other players.
This is not to suggest that there are not people who play these excessively. For example, I have heard numerous anecdotes of people failing out of school or losing jobs because of a pathological obsession with playing World of Warcraft, and there are plenty of parodies of people who take D&D too seriously. However, these obsessive players are not typical of the people who play these games. The actions of these few fringe elements do not reflect accurately upon the vast majority of players of these games.
To end with a question: Trading card games, such as Magic: the Gathering, often commission artists to create original artwork for their cards. Would these pieces, commissioned specifically to appear on a trading card, be considered works of art? Would the cards on which the artwork appears be considered works of art, themselves? Or the trading card game taken as a whole?
First, we must clarify what we are talking about. Role-Playing Games can come in a variety of media. First, there is the table-top RPG, the most classic example of which being, of course, Dungeons and Dragons. Second, we have the single-player video game RPG, perhaps most famously the Final Fantasy series of games. Third, there is the more recent phenomenon of the Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game, or MMORPG, perhaps most famously (or infamously) associated with the game World of Warcraft. There is also, of course, LARP, or Live Action Role Play. I will not address this final one, as it is not something I have ever participated in.
To answer the question, I will draw on my experience with the first three types of RPG's I mentioned, as well as what I know of other players of these games. I think I can safely say that most people who play these games do so in a healthy manner. Table-top RPG's in particular provide a creative outlet for the players, allowing them to assume a new identity and think as their character while playing out the story laid out by the Game Master (GM). They encourage social interaction within a setting.
Single-player video game RPG's serve as both tests of skill (these games often include puzzles that challenge problem-solving skills, and a variety of creatures to battle that require one learning different tactics for each), as well as an interactive story, which can often include shades of moral grey areas. Playing through a well-written RPG can have a similar effect to reading a good novel.
The MMORPG plays a unique role. Most are, in essence, a table-top RPG put online, with the notable difference between the first two of a lack of an overarching story. MMORPG's typically have an open world setting with quests that can be undertaken(and repeated ad infinitum) by the player, often in groups of other players. Most players, from my experience, will either play the games to pass the time when they are bored or to relax after finishing work (be it school work or an actual job). These can have a social aspect, as through interaction, players can form friendships with other players.
This is not to suggest that there are not people who play these excessively. For example, I have heard numerous anecdotes of people failing out of school or losing jobs because of a pathological obsession with playing World of Warcraft, and there are plenty of parodies of people who take D&D too seriously. However, these obsessive players are not typical of the people who play these games. The actions of these few fringe elements do not reflect accurately upon the vast majority of players of these games.
To end with a question: Trading card games, such as Magic: the Gathering, often commission artists to create original artwork for their cards. Would these pieces, commissioned specifically to appear on a trading card, be considered works of art? Would the cards on which the artwork appears be considered works of art, themselves? Or the trading card game taken as a whole?
"Negative" Emotions
Having just reread Gaut's article to refresh my memory for Monday's class, I would like to take a brief moment to examine his thesis.
Gaut's argument essentially comes out to the following: the so-called "negative" emotions are only unpleasant in their typical applications. Under atypical circumstances, they are not necessarily unpleasant, and even enjoyable. Thus, for example, we may legitimately find fear unpleasant when we are being robbed at gunpoint, when our lives are in very real danger, but we may enjoy fear when watching a horror movie, which is presented in a context in which no real danger, the "typical" circumstance of the emotion being felt, exists.
I feel that this argument not only provides a very powerful response to Carroll's article, but rings true to human emotions and mentality. This thesis can clearly apply not only to horror, but to tragedy. It successfully removes the seeming paradox of the enjoyment of these "negative" emotions by a critical evaluation of the circumstances under which these emotions are felt.
To end with a question: Gaut casually throws out, on page 320, that "the majority of horror works lack any serious artistic worth. They are pure entertainment." This seems to suggest that art does not entertain, or, at the very least, that something that is meant purely to entertain cannot have any artistic merit. Is this the case? Or have I misinterpreted this passage?
Gaut's argument essentially comes out to the following: the so-called "negative" emotions are only unpleasant in their typical applications. Under atypical circumstances, they are not necessarily unpleasant, and even enjoyable. Thus, for example, we may legitimately find fear unpleasant when we are being robbed at gunpoint, when our lives are in very real danger, but we may enjoy fear when watching a horror movie, which is presented in a context in which no real danger, the "typical" circumstance of the emotion being felt, exists.
I feel that this argument not only provides a very powerful response to Carroll's article, but rings true to human emotions and mentality. This thesis can clearly apply not only to horror, but to tragedy. It successfully removes the seeming paradox of the enjoyment of these "negative" emotions by a critical evaluation of the circumstances under which these emotions are felt.
To end with a question: Gaut casually throws out, on page 320, that "the majority of horror works lack any serious artistic worth. They are pure entertainment." This seems to suggest that art does not entertain, or, at the very least, that something that is meant purely to entertain cannot have any artistic merit. Is this the case? Or have I misinterpreted this passage?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Benefits of Fiction
Jacob asked: "Since we can suffer by exposure to certain fictions and non-fiction, can we equally benefit from others?"
I think the answer to this question is a resounding "yes." The Greeks performed tragedies for just this purpose. The audience would watch the play, and though they all know the story, they would feel for the characters. With this act of empathy, at the close of the play, the audience would experience a "catharsis," a cleansing of the emotions.
In my own experience, and the experiences of others I have talked to, reading fiction and watching movies does just this. They serve as outlets for us to come to grips with our emotions. Action movies appeal to the instinct for violence, and suppress it, allowing us to experience the carnage through the characters so we do not have to. Romance novels and movies stand as surrogates for passion, allowing us to experience with the characters the thrill of pursuing a lover, the bitterness of rejection, and the final sweetness of finding true love. Horror movies allow us to face our fears, give us license to be scared in a society where showing fear is seen as a sign of weakness.
These emotions that we feel are real, and the medium of fiction grants us a safe outlet through which to release our emotions so we are not overwhelmed by them. These emotions are real, and that, in part, explains why we enjoy them so much. They give us a sense of relief to have been able to express these emotions in a socially acceptable outlet.
To end with a (completely unrelated) question: Might video games be considered potential works of art?
I think the answer to this question is a resounding "yes." The Greeks performed tragedies for just this purpose. The audience would watch the play, and though they all know the story, they would feel for the characters. With this act of empathy, at the close of the play, the audience would experience a "catharsis," a cleansing of the emotions.
In my own experience, and the experiences of others I have talked to, reading fiction and watching movies does just this. They serve as outlets for us to come to grips with our emotions. Action movies appeal to the instinct for violence, and suppress it, allowing us to experience the carnage through the characters so we do not have to. Romance novels and movies stand as surrogates for passion, allowing us to experience with the characters the thrill of pursuing a lover, the bitterness of rejection, and the final sweetness of finding true love. Horror movies allow us to face our fears, give us license to be scared in a society where showing fear is seen as a sign of weakness.
These emotions that we feel are real, and the medium of fiction grants us a safe outlet through which to release our emotions so we are not overwhelmed by them. These emotions are real, and that, in part, explains why we enjoy them so much. They give us a sense of relief to have been able to express these emotions in a socially acceptable outlet.
To end with a (completely unrelated) question: Might video games be considered potential works of art?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Dawn Phillips' Article
I did a bit of research this evening after I was reminded of the incredibly disappointing article by Dawn Phillips. I found this: http://www.dawnphillips.co.uk/Publications%20pdf%20files/Dawn%20M%20Phillips%20-%20The%20real%20challenge%20for%20an%20aesthetics%20of%20photography.pdf
I was rather surprised when I read this. The article included in our book is considered an "excerpt," but I do not think these two pieces are comparable. In the full version above, Phillips makes an actual (and, I think, rather good, if not complete) argument for photography actually being an art form.
Granted, the full article feels more like an outline for a potential argument than an argument in and of itself, but the full piece seems, to me, to be much stronger than the "excerpt" printed in our book (even if it is still lacking).
To end with a question: why do you suppose the authors of our textbook chose to print the version of Phillips' article that appears in our textbook, rather than the version presented above?
I was rather surprised when I read this. The article included in our book is considered an "excerpt," but I do not think these two pieces are comparable. In the full version above, Phillips makes an actual (and, I think, rather good, if not complete) argument for photography actually being an art form.
Granted, the full article feels more like an outline for a potential argument than an argument in and of itself, but the full piece seems, to me, to be much stronger than the "excerpt" printed in our book (even if it is still lacking).
To end with a question: why do you suppose the authors of our textbook chose to print the version of Phillips' article that appears in our textbook, rather than the version presented above?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)