Creators - Social Responsibility?

[Kwing]

Are content creators (filmmakers, storywriters, game designers, musicians, and other artists) tasked with social responsibilities?

There are a couple of different angles people can take when arguing either side. Examples might include things like sex and violence that could "make someone go out and recreate what they've seen" or they might also reflect poorly on a culture, which might be indirect (eg. it failed the Bechdel Test) or very direct (if a certain group is portrayed negatively.) The policy claims made by these critics also vary - some people simply call out a film or book that they think is racist, and their voice is simply AN opinion of that content. In other cases, people advocate for censorship on content that they feel poses a threat to cultural integrity. Where do you stand?

I can say that at least for myself, writing, drawing, or otherwise expressing myself creatively is not something that I do for other people, but for my own enjoyment. I'm always hopeful that the ideas I express open the door for me to connect and share informational communion with people that like what I do, but more often than not my first order of business is to manifest my thoughts on some level beyond what is occurring inside my neural network. Because what I do is deeply personal, the idea of censorship is less about how someone "protects" the public as it is an invasion into my identity.

This is, of course, not always the case. Big budget Hollywood films and pop music are often conceived by market research, creativity be damned. We can't assume that every creative work is someone's reprieve from maddening isolation. That said, it makes little sense to me to prune bad influences by subtracting such content from what is available. Culture is made up of people, and the same people that feel racial or gendered representation is unfair are capable of making their own content rather than trying to silence someone else's. Although not everyone has the budget to use the same platform as J.J. Abrams, a smartphone or webcam is all it takes to begin creating. When I ride public transit I often see minorities watching vlogs or skits in which the viewer's race is sufficiently represented. Clearly the budget of such videos is less important to these individuals than the content, or they wouldn't be watching.

I see the other side of the argument, especially when compared to the Free Market model. A business gains authority and leverage based on their success, and often uses that leverage against other competitors. In practice, consumers do not always have the knowledge or resources to vote with their money, so to speak. The difference is that art and entertainment are based on concepts and information rather than money. Even if the playing field is not fair and one artist may have resources that another does not, self expression is easy enough to achieve even when the ideas expressed are unpopular. To an artist, success is being able to meet your own standards. It is not the same as running a business and trying to meet consumers' standards, and it's not the same as running a campaign and trying to indoctrinate other people. Expression is something much more personal.

In regards to the risk of negatively influencing an audience, I think this is also an insufficient reason to advocate censorship. Information does not take away our individual responsibility, but rather enhances it by broadening our perspective. This is because the experience of watching a film or listening to a song is additive - no media we consume forces us to forget something we have previously seen or heard. Playing a violent video game does not suck a person's free will out of their body and deposit it into the lap of the game developer. The mass shooter that mows down a school is not under the psychological care of every author and film director. If the responsibility of such an act is to be lifted from that individual it should fall on the people in that person's immediate vicinity who might have had the means to identify their psychological needs and find help for them. Crime and injustice are viewable from any window; childproofing the television does not protect an impressionable mind from the magical force that turns them to the dark side. Anyway that's enough of my rant.

Seeing as Newgrounds itself has been home to a lot of edgy and controversial material, many of us here have produced things that would be frowned upon elsewhere, and plenty more stick around here because we enjoy seeing that kind of content. Based on that, I'm going to guess I'm preaching to the choir here but I'm sure this topic has discussion value anyway.

[orangebomb]

The problem with giving creators of media an expectation of social responsibility is that it's easy to get the wrong message because quite simply, the average moviegoer/gamer/music fan doesn't exactly know what ether they're trying to be subtle or is trying to parody something unless it's very direct. That's not including those who either don't even bother with such things whether through ignorance or simply appealing to a wider audience.

Another problem lies is that many creators (particularly in movies) is that they have a habit of whitewashing certain events or characters to fit in to their specific vision regardless of time period, (see Will Smith in Wild Wild West for example) or retconning certain characters to fit some sort of quota of racial and sexual minorities. (see the Star Trek reboot series) To be fair, most of them never claim to be historically accurate and/or have a history of having a diverse cast before which shields them from a lot of criticism, after all, you shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good story. Unfortunately, any amount of criticism towards this (even when they're legitimate) will get you labeled as an alt-right supporter who longs for the days of pre-60s cultural hegemony of straight white males, and you see why terms like SJWs get a toxic reputation.

The bottom line is that we shouldn't expect creative media, celebs or athletes for that matter to be socially conscious just to appeal to the SJW or bleeding hearts crowd who needs the approval of someone famous to give them legitimacy even when it isn't in their own benefit to do so. Being aware on a social level is one thing, being cow towed to have an opinion on certain events because someone forced it on you is quite another, which is probably why you don't hear them talk about these things in the first place.

[Kwing]

At 8/21/16 09:30 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: However, that being said, I believe there isn't a lot of consumer choice and competition in the market of entertainment. I believe that most or a lot of writers and other such 'creators' have a similar world view, and this leaks over into their works.

There is and there isn't. There are of course, investors that seek out and exploit people by turning no-names into celebrities overnight, as well as record companies, publishers, or other media giants that simply choose how to distribute other peoples' works, and they control what you hear on the radio or see on television. At the same time, the internet allows people to look beyond what is put in front of our face, even if YouTube's "Trending" button is trying to push viewers in the opposite direction.

Even before the internet, local bands or theaters have been around at places like open mics. Although those creators don't have the same exposure, they still have an outlet. In many cases, local businesses have taken flight when they represent minorities because they're the only ones supplying what has a big, unsatisfied demand. That's exactly why there are a lot of Afro-centric businesses on the south side of Chicago.

[billybobthwarten]

people are responsible for their own behavior, 110%.