rj2n

So is the theme here that Ballet wants to be inwardly looking, (e.g. eager to drop its history as a class signifier) but its attempts to do so make it impossible because the directions tries to demonstrate that claim ultimately embed it in the broader world it is a part of? (e.g. Male dancers have to deal with masculinity concerns, selection into it has to deal with class/privilege, etc)

It was a bit difficult reading this to figure out what was progressing, being ignorant of the practice. I get the feeling, well, Ballet was like this, then it became that, and now people want to make it this. Was this supposed to be a narrative or a collage?

Man that actually makes me more queasy about Mann then. I can teach a young person who depends on me for their well being all sorts of attitudes, since what else do they have to compare with and what would would they if they disagreed with me?

I have no reason to believe Mann had any malicious intent, but going with theme of perspective and judgment, it’s not hard to see why some might see the acclimation you describe as her being responsible or perhaps being manipulative.

It’s a wilderness of mirrors.

A good line from a bad movie I always remember fondly is, “Indecency is just a question of geography.” That seems to be the nature of these photographs, prior to actual discussion of their content. Intimate portraits for general public browsing and perusal.

But the (rhetorical) question, I’d like to know is who, if anyone, did Mann want to see her work? The lay public, critics, art dealers, future parents, her own family, etc? To be read at home, in a gallery, on the subway, in a library?

I wondered what her children think of all this, being the focus of the work, but I get the sense that’s an irrelevant question. This isn’t about them; it’s about us.

Did you think the little revelation at the end of Sy’s own personal history took away from the film? I always thought Sy worked better as a bit of a blank slate that we develop. Actually knowing something about him takes away from that, I felt.

Projecting our own qualities onto others isn’t just something we do to animals but inanimate objects as well. People “talk” to their GPS’s and early users of computerized devices, e.g. CT scanners, like to treat their equipment as fickle co-workers.

Sometimes we do it to our physical selves. Individuals operating in high stress, emotionally, and/or physically taxing work environments such as athletes or investment bankers see their own exhaustion as their body “rebelling” against them and having a “mind” of its own.

This is obviously not to say, computers, machinery, our left quads, and right wrists are sentient, just that we live in an era where people are inclined to see “agency” wherever we are. I imagine if we were the middle ages, we’d see more of God all around us.

As W.I. and D.S. Thomas once observed, things perceived to be real become real in their consequence. They were writing about children but there is no age restriction to its applicability. Not surprising people see their pets as agentic and desire to extend rights to them. No less surprising we want to give them our other qualities as well, whether they want them or not.

The studies brought up here seem to suggest a slightly more subtle point. Namely, video games have mechanics that incentivize certain forms of behavior. Some times that behavior is competition and aggression. Those effects are short term in the lab, but what would happen with repeated exposure over an extended period of time? (Since no IRB in the country would ever sign off on that sort of study, the debate will never entirely die down)

The key mechanism under debate is that while we recognize certain behavior is appropriate in certain settings (dominance behavior in video games), we do not entirely shed those behaviors when we enter a new one, especially if they have been conditioned as heuristics and routines useful in some way. In fact, this is also the argument in favor of video games as having salutary benefit. (Being more sensitive to environmental cues in problem solving, improved coordination, etc)

It doesn’t take a lot to recognize that playing a lot of competitive Call of Duty and then picking up an assault rifle to shoot up a school is farcical but playing a lot of competitive Call of Duty and then acting more like a d-bag is believable. It is the difference between saying eating a large steak will cause you to die from a heart attack, versus saying eating a large steak will increase the cholesterol and fat in your blood stream after consumption.

In fact, Craig Anderson, the most cited researcher in this article is essentially distinguishing between all these points in the studies on video game exposure being quoted here. Essentially, playing a lot of video games is going to affect us and some of the ways in which we are affected is outside our control.

Saying video games do not cause anything deleterious effectively requires us to assume they do not matter and/or we can always compartmentalize our experiences perfectly from one another. It is a variant of the broader argument that media does not affect us, unless we want it to. That we are in full control of how we engage with the world. If you believe that to be true, then the article will sway you of its merits. If you don’t, then articles like this sound more like preaching to a choir. (That’s what it felt like to me in a red-meat-isn’t-bad-for-you, in-fact-it-has-nutrients, sort of way)

As someone who grew up playing video games and continues to enjoy them (As well as a lot of steaks), the most compelling account for the relationship of video games and violence is Randall Collins take on the Sandy Hook shootings.

http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2013/12/sandy-hook-school-shootings-lessons-for.html

The relationship is more complex than many of us may want to acknowledge.

Really, I don’t think we’ve “blown away” anything about this debate. Even this article ends on the conclusion that perhaps the evidence isn’t there rather than claiming it is categorically wrong. More that the smoke hasn’t cleared and depending on who you are, you may or may not like what you see when it does.

Sounds like they’ve successfully tapped into Flow psychology with a bit of social exchange in their game design. It’s a winning combination.

This is an excellent analysis of 14 sai. Great job of pointing out the deft storytelling and character work that Mizutani is deploying.