Posted: Dec 27, 2020 9:14 am
1 or 2 valid concerns about both sides of the fuss which get lost, I think...
When people complain at the labels (or censoring) they do it for a number of reasons, and don't always fully express what the reasons are - sometimes they don't really know. It can sound like a general aversion to change, and that's boring. Something close to romansh's argument jives with me, but it, too, can be construed as an aversion to change. My version of the complaint would be that whatever the label (or censoring), it leans towards a kind of coddling of audiences, which implies infantilization, or shepherding, by distributors. That's fine in a broad sense, in that this goes on anyway. So the questions imo should only be, 'How much?' and 'Who decides?'
Media distributors aren't 'ideal' arbiters, so as much as it comforts many of us to know 'some people out there who aren't me' will find comfort in warning labels pre-emptively soothing them against possible 'offence' at a work of art... the idea is kind of silly on its face. It speaks more to the laziness/passivity of audiences than to any sincere investment any of us has in the refinement of culture or the betterment of human discourse. And frankly, we need the ugly stuff out in the open, and as many eyes exposed to it as possible.
But they are only labels... so any mature person can squint & appreciate them as part of the artform itself. No piece of art is static. Only the person is static, if he insists.
When people complain at the labels (or censoring) they do it for a number of reasons, and don't always fully express what the reasons are - sometimes they don't really know. It can sound like a general aversion to change, and that's boring. Something close to romansh's argument jives with me, but it, too, can be construed as an aversion to change. My version of the complaint would be that whatever the label (or censoring), it leans towards a kind of coddling of audiences, which implies infantilization, or shepherding, by distributors. That's fine in a broad sense, in that this goes on anyway. So the questions imo should only be, 'How much?' and 'Who decides?'
Media distributors aren't 'ideal' arbiters, so as much as it comforts many of us to know 'some people out there who aren't me' will find comfort in warning labels pre-emptively soothing them against possible 'offence' at a work of art... the idea is kind of silly on its face. It speaks more to the laziness/passivity of audiences than to any sincere investment any of us has in the refinement of culture or the betterment of human discourse. And frankly, we need the ugly stuff out in the open, and as many eyes exposed to it as possible.
But they are only labels... so any mature person can squint & appreciate them as part of the artform itself. No piece of art is static. Only the person is static, if he insists.