I Hate The Sexualization/objectification Dialogue ...

[Lumireaver]

I hate the sexualization/objectification dialogue pretty much because it feels like the people (read: scholars) criticizing artistic works (read: videogames) are being narrow minded and heinously judgmental.

 

It bugs me that these people (read:scholars) are in a position to say these things with an air of credibility because of all of the heaps of money they've invested in their (scholarly) image.

 

I suppose this means I need to throw heaps of money at universities so that I can argue normative relativism and egalitarianism with a smart people hat.

 

Excuse me, while I grump about nonsense.

[Pandaslayer]

Yeah... umm... ok?

[Lumireaver]

I warned you about nonsense, didn't I?

 

(For the record, this was partly incited by the recent stink surrounding Kojima, and Quiet from MGSV.)

[Zhoyzu]

people be dumb, best to leave em be

[Lumireaver]

I don't want to leave em be though, I'm worried they're going to ruin art forever.

[Stinker]

Broski, they've tried to ruin art for centuries. It's not working.

There have been casualties, yes, but never has art itself been in jeopardy.

[NotBot]

I just ignore deep analysis of works because I fear it always treads into the swamps of navel-gazing backed up by intellectual sounding jargon.

 

Criticizing something on it's content or function is fine, just don't suddenly conjure something's content and function from the aether and then criticize on trace meaning and illusory depth.

[MAL1WAN]

I love the classy English that is being spoken in this thread.

[Lumireaver]

Broski, they've tried to ruin art for centuries. It's not working.

There have been casualties, yes, but never has art itself been in jeopardy.

 

I thought the same thing, then I thought "why hasn't it succeeded yet," and when I couldn't reason answer that I started panicking. I mean look at China. (No offense, China.) There's just one example out of dozens where people can't do what they please because of overbearing censorship.

 

There's little to no historical precedent for any of the dialogues going on about videogames because they're an entirely new(ish) thing.

 

I just ignore deep analysis of works because I fear it always treads into the swamps of navel-gazing backed up by intellectual sounding jargon.

 

Criticizing something on it's content or function is fine, just don't suddenly conjure something's content and function from the aether and then criticize on trace meaning and illusory depth.

 

What if the naval-gazers are rich enough? What if they outnumber us?

[Stinker]

Well, china isn't a free country. Of course things like art have odd rulings on them. last I checked, china was ranked 150 something on the freedoms list with a 56% overall 'freedom score'.

 

What makes you think art hasn't succeeded? Entertainment is nothing but art and more art. Even ads have artistic merit to them. If you are referring to more classic stuff like paintings and drawings that aren't pixels, yeah it's less popular on the interwebs. Doesn't mean it isn't popular elsewhere.

 

EDIT: Also, since when have critics ever had any real merit? When was the last time you agreed with a critic's review of a movie you enjoyed?

Edited September 9, 2013 by Stinker

[Grailchaser]

Referring to the issue at the heart of this debate, the claims of sexualization that have manifested in the wake of the MGSV: The Phantom Pain character Quiet, wasn't the controversy one that was ultimately verified by Kojima, given his admission that Quiet's character designer was instructed to make female character designs as 'erotic' as possible to facilitate marketability? 

 

I can agree that elements of the media and the academic community do enjoy blowing things out of proportion from time to time, but I find that a lot of the time, when taken with pinches of salt and with due acknowledgement of agendas that may be present, these discourses do tend to provoke lively discussion about the nature of the representations we've become accustomed to. While, there is naturally the element of activism that sometimes blinkers many advocates of any given viewpoint in these discussions, there is generally enough well-considered discourse occurring on the sidelines to enrich the collective understandings of those who choose to participate, vis-a-vis the topics under contention. 

 

What is perhaps most important to consider is that the critical voices that tend to attract most attention are those which advocate the most extreme ends of the argumentative spectrum, which does tend to make a cursory examination of these debates somewhat painful to process. There does therefore need to be some consideration exercised on the parts of external observers regarding the prudence of personal participation given the individuals who are provoking these discussions, as what tends to happen is that individuals will flock to the voice that proposes an interpretation closest to their own, leading to an us-them bipolar divide, which in turn makes conversation almost necessarily adversarial in nature. 

 

With regards to the issue of the education factor, without meaning to impose, I think I would not be remiss in noting a seemingly bitter, needlessly caustic tone to TC's considerations of the matter, which may interfere with an objective perspective on the issue. Many, if not most of those who propose these interpretations do not necessarily predicate their hypotheses on their education, but their experience with the gaming industry and their views as concerned (perhaps overly so) members of a gaming community they feel a need to support, in any way possible. 

 

As these debates have been launched on the internet, the need for an advanced degree in sociological studies is also nullified by the blanket of anonymity which the internet provides, making discussions as open as they can possibly be. You are (demonstrably) free to posit your counterarguments to the views you oppose on any public forum you wish to, even taking your points straight to the source in the form of a polite e-mail I am confident will receive at least some sort of response.

 

The most important factor to consider is, I think, that many of these points do tend to be formulated as open questions, which neither demand your acquiescence nor require your dismissal. They are simply things someone has seen fit to comment about, given their concerns about a certain topic in a certain field of their interest. 

 

I hope we can all continue to help each other along to better understandings of our world and our fields, through the discussion that the internet should engender.

 

Thanks for your time.

[snrd3r]

I hate the sexualization/objectification dialogue pretty much because it feels like the people (read: scholars) criticizing artistic works (read: videogames) are being narrow minded and heinously judgmental.

 

It bugs me that these people (read:scholars) are in a position to say these things with an air of credibility because of all of the heaps of money they've invested in their (scholarly) image.

 

I suppose this means I need to throw heaps of money at universities so that I can argue normative relativism and egalitarianism with a smart people hat.

 

Excuse me, while I grump about nonsense.

Yes, there's no real issue here.

 

This isn't about ~50% of the world's population being alienated by media so clearly meant to cater to someone else...

 

Or a growing proportion of the other ~50% feeling insulted by all the pandering towards their sexuality...

 

Or about hard-working and intelligent artists and designers who, because so many of their peers insist on selling their work through base titillation, find it difficult to have their own work taken seriously.

 

No, you're right on the money; this is about a bunch of eggheads justifying their expensive diplomas.

 

I'm going to assume you're not currently in possession of one of those.

Edited September 9, 2013 by snrd3r