Entertainment
2009-10-03 03:40![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeastFurther to my last entry, for a while now i've been thinking about what i've come to call 'the entertainment society'.
This is a society in which people are generally either 'performers' or 'spectators'. Particular value is accorded to those who are 'performers'; most 'performers' are regarded as 'creative' in some way, where 'creative' itself is (along the lines of my previous entry) regarded as involving things like fiction / poetry, drawing, music, painting, acting, knitting, sewing, crochet or sculpture. Similarly, activities are rated according to the extent to which they are 'entertaining'.
Over the years, as someone involved in social and political activism for almost two decades, it has felt as though the ongoing shift towards the entertainment society has increasingly influenced activism. It seems as though people are increasingly disinclined to discuss social and political issues unless they're wrapped up in a container of entertainment1. Indeed, sometimes i feel like i need to be Hoodwinked's singing mountain goat in order to have a chance at being heard.
Given all this, what are the implications for society? What are the implications when people are only interested in social and political issues if those issues can be raised in a sufficiently entertaining way, rather than because they are concerned for moral or ethical reasons?
Are these the writings of someone suffering from some type of creativity envy? Possibly. Certainly, hanging around alternative and pagan communities in which those who draw or make music are constantly fawned over - often with good reason! - can make us 'non-performers' begin to feel rather inadequate. It's also true that i get annoyed by the fact that the IntarWebs, which has given 'creative types' greater access to potential audiences than previous generations could even dream of, was created by us supposedly non-creative types: by such people as the mathematicians involved in developing information theory, by computer scientists and programmers, by electrical engineers, and so on.
i do think, however, that a genuine imbalance has developed in our society which is leading us to a 'bread and circuses' mentality. There are many 'non-performers' making what i feel are important contributions to society - people who are only 'spectators' in the sense that they 'fail' to entertain people with their work - but who aren't receiving the recognition they deserve. 'Performers' should not be the only people recognised for their contributions to society.
1. Something i've discussed previously here and here.
This is a society in which people are generally either 'performers' or 'spectators'. Particular value is accorded to those who are 'performers'; most 'performers' are regarded as 'creative' in some way, where 'creative' itself is (along the lines of my previous entry) regarded as involving things like fiction / poetry, drawing, music, painting, acting, knitting, sewing, crochet or sculpture. Similarly, activities are rated according to the extent to which they are 'entertaining'.
Over the years, as someone involved in social and political activism for almost two decades, it has felt as though the ongoing shift towards the entertainment society has increasingly influenced activism. It seems as though people are increasingly disinclined to discuss social and political issues unless they're wrapped up in a container of entertainment1. Indeed, sometimes i feel like i need to be Hoodwinked's singing mountain goat in order to have a chance at being heard.
Given all this, what are the implications for society? What are the implications when people are only interested in social and political issues if those issues can be raised in a sufficiently entertaining way, rather than because they are concerned for moral or ethical reasons?
Are these the writings of someone suffering from some type of creativity envy? Possibly. Certainly, hanging around alternative and pagan communities in which those who draw or make music are constantly fawned over - often with good reason! - can make us 'non-performers' begin to feel rather inadequate. It's also true that i get annoyed by the fact that the IntarWebs, which has given 'creative types' greater access to potential audiences than previous generations could even dream of, was created by us supposedly non-creative types: by such people as the mathematicians involved in developing information theory, by computer scientists and programmers, by electrical engineers, and so on.
i do think, however, that a genuine imbalance has developed in our society which is leading us to a 'bread and circuses' mentality. There are many 'non-performers' making what i feel are important contributions to society - people who are only 'spectators' in the sense that they 'fail' to entertain people with their work - but who aren't receiving the recognition they deserve. 'Performers' should not be the only people recognised for their contributions to society.
1. Something i've discussed previously here and here.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-03 06:56 (UTC)doing tech stuff like programming can be as creative as any kind of art - and i can say that with complete authority as i am a formally trained artist and made my living in the field for over a decade. anyone who says otherwise obviously hasn't sat on both sides of the fence and doesn't know that the view is the same from either side.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-03 15:07 (UTC)That said, there are more political means of 'performing' available than ever and are increasingly popular - for example the success of popular documentaries or satires about social/political issues - Franny Armstrong, Morgan Spurlock, Michael Moore, The Chaser boys, etc
no subject
Date: 2009-10-04 23:35 (UTC)'In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles.' Guy Debord, 1967.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle
no subject
Date: 2009-10-04 23:36 (UTC)