6 ms·

If art is important to building empathy, our problems might stem from art's recent pivot to shock over beauty and virtue signaling over the cultivation of virtu

If art is important to building empathy, our problems might stem from art's recent pivot to shock over beauty and virtue signaling over the cultivation of virtue.

pm90 8y ago
Could you expand on that? We do have a bunch of art influenced by politics (TShirts, Graffitis e.g. the Obama Hope poster, Beto Campaign Tees etc.)
- mebassett 8y ago
  I cannot speak for the parent, but I have some ideas on the matter. if one takes art to mean a narrow group of things with a narrative (specifically film, tv, novels, and radio and news stories, thus specifically excluding things like tshirts and the obama hope poster) then you can start finding examples of works designed to produce shock and contrast them with earlier works intended to invoke beauty. Star Wars is a silly, but relevant, example. the creators of the last jedi specifically wanted to "subvert audience expectations", which sounds likes "shock" to me. Whereas the first original 70s star wars just wanted to tell a good, entertaining story. To be clear, I don't buy any of the misogynistic criticisms of the last star wars film. but I did think it was a poor story. my instincts say that such a change in "art" matters, but I don't really have good evidence to show how it does. much less that the arrow of causality points the way I think it does.
watwut 8y ago
When was art about cutivation of virtue? Also, shocking art is quite old ...
- bobthechef 8y ago
  I don't know what is meant by the OP, but FWIW, art has traditionally been about beauty and transcendence and elevating the minds of men. That can have the effect of inspiring virtue, I'd say, and can help influence certain sensibilities. Art today is often nihilistic and destructive, obsessed with subverting a world it cannot stand.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    I really don't know what you mean by saying art today is nihilistic and destructive. Especially in the realm of pop culture it seems art is obsessed with finding meaning and purpose. The most obvious example that comes to mind is the incredible rise of popularity in super hero movies over the last decade and more. The overarching narrative is literally one where people (the heroes) are finding meaning by fighting to save the world. Then there's music: just looking at the top 3 entries on Billboard, they're all about trying to find love. Maybe there's nihilism & destruction etc. in some art, but by far it does not appear to be a dominant theme.
  - watwut 8y ago
    > I don't know what is meant by the OP, but FWIW, art has traditionally been about beauty and transcendence and elevating the minds of men. That can have the effect of inspiring virtue, I'd say, and can help influence certain sensibilities. I would not be so sure. Plenty of art was not like that - purely practical portraits, paintings depicting wars, beheadings, fires and other historical events. Medieval nun with dick tree and running dog eating penis (google it), medieval texts that are about disgusting behavior. Plenty of old tales are basically about violence with no influence on sensibilities nor much virtues. Even in Homer Odyssey is quite debatable about how much it is virtue inspiring and what kind of virtue. > Art today is often nihilistic and destructive, obsessed with subverting a world it cannot stand. Classical books are often depicting destructive and nihilistic characters and caused controversies in their own time for being too close to home.
ineedasername 8y ago
I won't infer your own political views. I simply want to point out that the phrase "virtue signaling" has been appropriated by conservative factions as some sort of insult. It is used to imply that their liberal counterparts are in some way fraudulent or faking their stated concern for other people or groups of people. This sort of blanket painting of opposing viewpoints as disingenuous lies is exactly the type of thinking the posted article was speaking against.
- matte_black 8y ago
  Some sort of insult? Which type? An insult that has no basis in reality, or an insult that cuts a bit too close against the truth and makes people feel exposed?
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    You appear to be arguing that push back on the insult as untrue is in fact support for believing the insult is true. In essence this amounts to saying that disagreeing with you is proof that you are correct. That is very poor logic. It's easy to see lies in people who disagree with you. To do so confirms your own world view without making you question it. It's much harder to look upon other views and say, "Some very intelligent people honestly believe something very different than me... some very intelligent people also believe as I do. What should I make of this?". I don't have an easy answer to that last question, but I'm also not looking for easy, convenient answers that require large portions of the population to be crazy, stupid, evil, etc.
    - matte_black 8y ago
      Instead of "trying to understand the other side", most people would be better served by playing devil's advocate against their own side. Would you know how to identify a virtue signaler if you found one?
      - ineedasername 8y ago
        I'd say a virtue signaler is someone who acts as though they're virtuous when they're not. So identifying one would entail things like examining the differences between what they say and what they do. But not all hypocrisy is cynical. There are people who honestly espouse high ideals, even while falling short of them. So I think there are distinctions to be made there as well.
ineedasername 8y ago
Nearly every art movement was in some way shocking to people. Mannerism was somewhat shocking in its exagerations compared to previous renaisance styles. The decadence of the Baroque style similarly discomforted mannerist sensibilities. You can continue to trace this back and forth pattern through the centuries. Rock & Roll is a classic example of art that shocked. And the political overtones of much music in the 60's isn't much different in this respect than today's art that also contains political overtones.
Buldak 8y ago
Can you provide some examples?
Nasrudith 8y ago
I have seen the virtues promoted by past art for the purpose. The virtues weren't that great and ammounted to propaganda for the status quo. In fact the "virtues" were often evil in themselves. Roman gladiatorial games are thought of as decadence but the Romans thought they were a measure against it. The Soviet Union had that sort of "virtue cultivating" art and it sure as hell didn't promote either their "virtures" or actual virtue.

If art is important to building empathy, our problems might stem from art's recent pivot to shock over beauty and virtue signaling over the cultivation of virtue.

pm90 8y ago

Could you expand on that? We do have a bunch of art influenced by politics (TShirts, Graffitis e.g. the Obama Hope poster, Beto Campaign Tees etc.)

mebassett 8y ago
I cannot speak for the parent, but I have some ideas on the matter. if one takes art to mean a narrow group of things with a narrative (specifically film, tv, novels, and radio and news stories, thus specifically excluding things like tshirts and the obama hope poster) then you can start finding examples of works designed to produce shock and contrast them with earlier works intended to invoke beauty. Star Wars is a silly, but relevant, example. the creators of the last jedi specifically wanted to "subvert audience expectations", which sounds likes "shock" to me. Whereas the first original 70s star wars just wanted to tell a good, entertaining story. To be clear, I don't buy any of the misogynistic criticisms of the last star wars film. but I did think it was a poor story. my instincts say that such a change in "art" matters, but I don't really have good evidence to show how it does. much less that the arrow of causality points the way I think it does.

watwut 8y ago

When was art about cutivation of virtue? Also, shocking art is quite old ...

bobthechef 8y ago
I don't know what is meant by the OP, but FWIW, art has traditionally been about beauty and transcendence and elevating the minds of men. That can have the effect of inspiring virtue, I'd say, and can help influence certain sensibilities. Art today is often nihilistic and destructive, obsessed with subverting a world it cannot stand.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  I really don't know what you mean by saying art today is nihilistic and destructive. Especially in the realm of pop culture it seems art is obsessed with finding meaning and purpose. The most obvious example that comes to mind is the incredible rise of popularity in super hero movies over the last decade and more. The overarching narrative is literally one where people (the heroes) are finding meaning by fighting to save the world. Then there's music: just looking at the top 3 entries on Billboard, they're all about trying to find love. Maybe there's nihilism & destruction etc. in some art, but by far it does not appear to be a dominant theme.
- watwut 8y ago
  > I don't know what is meant by the OP, but FWIW, art has traditionally been about beauty and transcendence and elevating the minds of men. That can have the effect of inspiring virtue, I'd say, and can help influence certain sensibilities. I would not be so sure. Plenty of art was not like that - purely practical portraits, paintings depicting wars, beheadings, fires and other historical events. Medieval nun with dick tree and running dog eating penis (google it), medieval texts that are about disgusting behavior. Plenty of old tales are basically about violence with no influence on sensibilities nor much virtues. Even in Homer Odyssey is quite debatable about how much it is virtue inspiring and what kind of virtue. > Art today is often nihilistic and destructive, obsessed with subverting a world it cannot stand. Classical books are often depicting destructive and nihilistic characters and caused controversies in their own time for being too close to home.

ineedasername 8y ago

I won't infer your own political views. I simply want to point out that the phrase "virtue signaling" has been appropriated by conservative factions as some sort of insult. It is used to imply that their liberal counterparts are in some way fraudulent or faking their stated concern for other people or groups of people. This sort of blanket painting of opposing viewpoints as disingenuous lies is exactly the type of thinking the posted article was speaking against.

matte_black 8y ago
Some sort of insult? Which type? An insult that has no basis in reality, or an insult that cuts a bit too close against the truth and makes people feel exposed?
- ineedasername 8y ago
  You appear to be arguing that push back on the insult as untrue is in fact support for believing the insult is true. In essence this amounts to saying that disagreeing with you is proof that you are correct. That is very poor logic. It's easy to see lies in people who disagree with you. To do so confirms your own world view without making you question it. It's much harder to look upon other views and say, "Some very intelligent people honestly believe something very different than me... some very intelligent people also believe as I do. What should I make of this?". I don't have an easy answer to that last question, but I'm also not looking for easy, convenient answers that require large portions of the population to be crazy, stupid, evil, etc.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    Instead of "trying to understand the other side", most people would be better served by playing devil's advocate against their own side. Would you know how to identify a virtue signaler if you found one?
    - ineedasername 8y ago
      I'd say a virtue signaler is someone who acts as though they're virtuous when they're not. So identifying one would entail things like examining the differences between what they say and what they do. But not all hypocrisy is cynical. There are people who honestly espouse high ideals, even while falling short of them. So I think there are distinctions to be made there as well.

ineedasername 8y ago

Nearly every art movement was in some way shocking to people. Mannerism was somewhat shocking in its exagerations compared to previous renaisance styles. The decadence of the Baroque style similarly discomforted mannerist sensibilities. You can continue to trace this back and forth pattern through the centuries. Rock & Roll is a classic example of art that shocked. And the political overtones of much music in the 60's isn't much different in this respect than today's art that also contains political overtones.

Buldak 8y ago

Can you provide some examples?

Nasrudith 8y ago

I have seen the virtues promoted by past art for the purpose. The virtues weren't that great and ammounted to propaganda for the status quo. In fact the "virtues" were often evil in themselves. Roman gladiatorial games are thought of as decadence but the Romans thought they were a measure against it. The Soviet Union had that sort of "virtue cultivating" art and it sure as hell didn't promote either their "virtures" or actual virtue.