[ SECRET POST #4494 ]

[case]

? Secret Post #4494 ?

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02. https://i.imgur.com/cKlQX2I.gif
[animated gif]


__________________________________________________


























03. [SPOILERS for Game of Thrones]



__________________________________________________



04. [SPOILERS for Jane the Virgin]



__________________________________________________



05. [SPOILERS for Jane the Virgin]



__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for possible discussion of suicide/abuse]

[Kimetsu no Yaiba]


__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for possible discussion of suicide/abuse]

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #643.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Let's discus the complexity then. I'm game.

- 'Responsibility' is a dangerous term in relation to art that not only sucks the fun out of everything but is often used as a weapon against certain groups. Whenever I see it thrown around in fandom discussions, I imagine someone wagging their finger at the artist like a stern parent. You know which artists are really big on implementing 'responsibility' in their work? Propaganda graphic designers. Often 'responsibility' can lead to very scary things depending on who is being 'responsible'.

- The word 'problematic' is quickly losing its power on account of being overused in popular conversation. It's a buzzword at this point used to get a negative rise out of people and is increasingly being thrown around without considering possible consequences for its use. When people start dictating what others can and can't produce in media, it risks treading into thought policing which in itself is a tool of social control, sometimes against disfranchised groups.

- Artists don't owe the masses anything just like the masses don't owe the artist. It's funny how artists are often paid very little but art, or rather the perceived meaning of the art, is apparently so valuable in social currency that it's treated by society as being potentially as dangerous as contraband.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for your answer. To be clear, while I tend to be more on OP's camp of "fiction and reality or not 1=1", it's more from personal experience and I don't have a definite general answer about this issue. It's something that would ask a lot of actual, controlled, researches and deep reflexions. Are there any data supporting one claim over the other ? Does fanworks affect or not directly someone's behaviour in real life in any significant way ? Is it direct causation of criminal/immoral acts ? I'm not so much mad about people not doing this in-depth work, because I haven't either, but more peeved about the way many states their claims about fanworks like it's a proven-without-a-reasonnable-doubt fact, and use that to demonize or look down upon those that disagree.

1- When I talk about "responsibility" I was including the possible lack of it. I do feel that we could argue a certain level of moral obligation when producing a content that's easily avaible to minors. But I don't think that it's so much about the content itself as about using the proper warnings to be sure a minor woulnd't be reading something that they shouldn't (and, of course, many are going to read it anyway but at this point that's on them not on the artist). I'm not dead set on this point tbh.

That's a good and scary point about propanga graphic designer using "responsibility" in their work. Brrrr ... My issue is still what I've written above. How do we know if art is a direct causation of bad acts (sorry to sound so naive) ? I don't feel there's been any proof of that. If it is ever proven that some fanworks do cause people to act badly (I mean like murdering, raping or torturing) then yes, you could say there would be some responsibilities surrounding the fanwork and those that deal with it. However, now, I agree that it's dangerous to assign responsibilities.

2- Yes, I definitely agree there. Not much to add, sorry.

3- Again, totally with you on that one. I'll nuance a bit by adding that it's the same for every human beings, every citizen : there's a legal obligation (like a barman not being allow to serve alcool to minors) and, as part of the human race, an incensitive to not do (too much ?) harm to our fellow human beings. Maybe ? But why are artists and people that enjoy their works being called out more than anyone else, I don't get it ?

I hope this reply wasn't too messy (I'm not a native English speaker but I did my best to not leave spelling mistakes). It was nice to have someone extending a bit about their perspective. Thank you again.

[(Anonymous)]

Same anon as above. I didn't realise two people had replied to my comment. I'm the one that start their comment by "A-freaking-men".

[(Anonymous)]

'Responsibility' is a dangerous term in relation to art that not only sucks the fun out of everything but is often used as a weapon against certain groups.

I'm not sure how to really respond to this, because it seems like this is mostly talking about the reasons that the word "responsibility" annoys you personally, and it's sort of hard for me to comment on that. And I don't really know what you mean about it "being used as a weapon against certain groups."

I do think that, in general, human beings have moral responsibilities. With regards to art, one of those responsibilities - as OP says - is being aware of when media is normalizing things. I agree that it's really shitty when you have to balance that responsibility against enjoyment and having fun. Finding that balance is hard and I'm really sympathetic to the idea that it's important for people to be able to enjoy things. But I don't think it's right to ignore that by just dismissing the responsibility and entirely, either. Sometimes that sucks but that's kind of how the world is, it seems to me.

The word 'problematic' is quickly losing its power on account of being overused in popular conversation.

Sure, it's an overused buzzword. It's very annoying because I think it's useful. But that just means it's overused and meaningless, not that people who use it are necessarily wrong (or right, for that matter).

When people start dictating what others can and can't produce in media, it risks treading into thought policing which in itself is a tool of social control, sometimes against disfranchised groups.

I agree that dictating blanket bans is not necessarily reasonable. But I don't think the solution is to just dismiss the criticisms that people make in their totality, or to dismiss the very idea of making criticisms, which it seems to me is what people want to do. In general, I think that you have to look at the specific arguments being made on their specific merits, and use your judgment as a human being to decide what you do and don't think is correct. It all comes down to cases.

And then, as a society and as a culture and as a subculture, we try to use those insights to try to figure out cultural norms for what is and isn't appropriate in given situations, which is always going to be an imperfect and uneven process, but that doesn't make it an incorrect one.

Artists don't owe the masses anything just like the masses don't owe the artist

Sure, but that doesn't mean that they should be free from critique and response, either. And figuring out how to balance those things is another one of those tricky, complicated processes.

It's funny how artists are often paid very little but art, or rather the perceived meaning of the art, is apparently so valuable in social currency that it's treated by society as being potentially as dangerous as contraband.

Sure. Pay artists more.