"WE DO MUCH IN THE name OF art, BUT VERY little IN THE name OF love."
There is a desire within every culture and time period to express ideology and emotionality both practically and honestly. Perhaps now in our modern society we feel this desire stronger than ever before and, although deep advancements have come in artistic knowledge and in the technicality of our expression thereof, our world is seemingly lost to the mentality that none of it matters in the end. In fact, it is almost impossible to find raw, clear and relevant creative expression without being demeaned, challenged, questioned or flat-out written off.
I find it frustrating, especially expressionistically, that so many of us, whether knowingly or not, postulate our cultural “normality” (whatever that is) as being innately right or wrong on a relational or even global level. We so easily look at the behavior or views of another human being, or perhaps another culture as a whole, and immediately pick out what is acceptable and unacceptable in their daily interactions and views. It becomes so easy to incorrectly fuse cultural traditions, behaviors and nuances with religious, philosophical and theological views.
THERE IS AN enormous difference HERE.
What I have come to learn, rather unwilling, since being in LA, is that there is an enormous difference between our undeniable moral absolutes and beliefs and our expressions and limits within their context. Speaking within the gates of moral absolutes, we have a tendency to assume that, because something offends us personally, it is, therefore, wrong morally. My argument is not to say that every minor offense is ok morally.
I would like to challenge that belief by using an example of topic of violence being portrayed in, you guessed it, film. (I had to, I’m studying it for goodness sakes). Here we go:
Violence in art has been criticized more than any other function of depiction of the human condition. Margaret Miles, a professor, was quoted in the Journal of Religion and Film: Violence in Popular Film as saying:
In short, a film that employs an adventure film's scenes of sex and violence cannot communicate anything but voyeuristic exploitation of suffering people. The pain of the oppressed is ultimately used for the entertainment of comfortable spectators. (Miles).
While Miles does have a point, she is a little over-zealous in her conclusion. Yes, much of violence in film is used solely for the entertainment of the audience and, often times, serves no greater purpose than to woo a reaction and push a boundary. However, there are many times when violence is used not just as a means of entertainment, but on a much deeper level, to give site to the often unseen aspects of human thought, action and, ultimately, the human condition.
Viewing of violence is often perceived by many communities as an unorthodox behavior. To this point, however, I would like to sincerely object. At times, yes, it can be. However, viewing, understanding and choosing to grow, develop and learn from such cinema can be very beneficial. It all goes back to, in my opinion, the motives behind why the violence is being portrayed. As moral beings in cinema, as in life, we have a responsibility to relate to our cultures and an obligation to understand and articulate the why and what of how they behave. That being said, we also have a duty to transcend such behavior and to offer a redemptive look into the truths we do know.
It is illogical to call the portrayal of violence wholly wrong just as it would be to call the use of the facilities of comedy wholly wrong. The reason being that, just as any other tool used to tell a story, violence is not always presented as ok or even good when it is employed. In fact, more often than not, violence is portrayed as wrong and is later corrected. That aside, I believe that what makes this portrayal ok is that it helps the audience to understand that the bad is bad and the good is good.
SO WHAT IS THE point?
The point is that, although the portrayal is not wrong, many of us will have different limits as to how much or how extensive our doses of violence can be. Just because one of us cannot handle seeing, for example, someone pass away, another one of us may be very touched by the deeper story that the death portrayed on screen is telling.
This attitude is one that should be taken into every aspect of our lives. It is imperative that we examine our views and deduce what inside of our minds is cultural or personal as opposed to what is morally right or wrong. Our limits or understanding of an area or behavior might be noticeably less or more than another persons. This, however, does not necessarily make their expression of art, whatever it may be, wrong. Again, I feel as if I need to repeat this frequently, this is stipulating that the action falls under the lens of moral absolutes.
The tendency to hate or, on a more common level, to look down upon, another individual because they partake in behaviors contrary to ones we do is almost sickening. Now, by no means am I a moral relativist and I do not claim truth to be subjective. I do, however, want to challenge you, the reader, for whatever it’s worth, to take a look at what you are judging as “ok” or “not ok” behavior. Is what you are deeming “wrong” wrong because it violates an absolute standard, or is it because it offends a limit that you have even though that limit is well within the boundaries of moral acceptance?
There is a desire within every culture and time period to express ideology and emotionality both practically and honestly. Perhaps now in our modern society we feel this desire stronger than ever before and, although deep advancements have come in artistic knowledge and in the technicality of our expression thereof, our world is seemingly lost to the mentality that none of it matters in the end. In fact, it is almost impossible to find raw, clear and relevant creative expression without being demeaned, challenged, questioned or flat-out written off.
I find it frustrating, especially expressionistically, that so many of us, whether knowingly or not, postulate our cultural “normality” (whatever that is) as being innately right or wrong on a relational or even global level. We so easily look at the behavior or views of another human being, or perhaps another culture as a whole, and immediately pick out what is acceptable and unacceptable in their daily interactions and views. It becomes so easy to incorrectly fuse cultural traditions, behaviors and nuances with religious, philosophical and theological views.
THERE IS AN enormous difference HERE.
What I have come to learn, rather unwilling, since being in LA, is that there is an enormous difference between our undeniable moral absolutes and beliefs and our expressions and limits within their context. Speaking within the gates of moral absolutes, we have a tendency to assume that, because something offends us personally, it is, therefore, wrong morally. My argument is not to say that every minor offense is ok morally.
I would like to challenge that belief by using an example of topic of violence being portrayed in, you guessed it, film. (I had to, I’m studying it for goodness sakes). Here we go:
Violence in art has been criticized more than any other function of depiction of the human condition. Margaret Miles, a professor, was quoted in the Journal of Religion and Film: Violence in Popular Film as saying:
In short, a film that employs an adventure film's scenes of sex and violence cannot communicate anything but voyeuristic exploitation of suffering people. The pain of the oppressed is ultimately used for the entertainment of comfortable spectators. (Miles).
While Miles does have a point, she is a little over-zealous in her conclusion. Yes, much of violence in film is used solely for the entertainment of the audience and, often times, serves no greater purpose than to woo a reaction and push a boundary. However, there are many times when violence is used not just as a means of entertainment, but on a much deeper level, to give site to the often unseen aspects of human thought, action and, ultimately, the human condition.
Viewing of violence is often perceived by many communities as an unorthodox behavior. To this point, however, I would like to sincerely object. At times, yes, it can be. However, viewing, understanding and choosing to grow, develop and learn from such cinema can be very beneficial. It all goes back to, in my opinion, the motives behind why the violence is being portrayed. As moral beings in cinema, as in life, we have a responsibility to relate to our cultures and an obligation to understand and articulate the why and what of how they behave. That being said, we also have a duty to transcend such behavior and to offer a redemptive look into the truths we do know.
It is illogical to call the portrayal of violence wholly wrong just as it would be to call the use of the facilities of comedy wholly wrong. The reason being that, just as any other tool used to tell a story, violence is not always presented as ok or even good when it is employed. In fact, more often than not, violence is portrayed as wrong and is later corrected. That aside, I believe that what makes this portrayal ok is that it helps the audience to understand that the bad is bad and the good is good.
SO WHAT IS THE point?
The point is that, although the portrayal is not wrong, many of us will have different limits as to how much or how extensive our doses of violence can be. Just because one of us cannot handle seeing, for example, someone pass away, another one of us may be very touched by the deeper story that the death portrayed on screen is telling.
This attitude is one that should be taken into every aspect of our lives. It is imperative that we examine our views and deduce what inside of our minds is cultural or personal as opposed to what is morally right or wrong. Our limits or understanding of an area or behavior might be noticeably less or more than another persons. This, however, does not necessarily make their expression of art, whatever it may be, wrong. Again, I feel as if I need to repeat this frequently, this is stipulating that the action falls under the lens of moral absolutes.
The tendency to hate or, on a more common level, to look down upon, another individual because they partake in behaviors contrary to ones we do is almost sickening. Now, by no means am I a moral relativist and I do not claim truth to be subjective. I do, however, want to challenge you, the reader, for whatever it’s worth, to take a look at what you are judging as “ok” or “not ok” behavior. Is what you are deeming “wrong” wrong because it violates an absolute standard, or is it because it offends a limit that you have even though that limit is well within the boundaries of moral acceptance?
