Post #155664 by ikitnrev on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 10:03 PM

Societies have a tendency to produce certain unified views of looking at the world - a group mindthink that is common to most people. There is nothing wrong with this - it can represent our informal national identity, and perhaps even our culture.

A danger exists when this worldview is presented as the only acceptable and proper way of looking at things, and anything that strays from this view is listed as deviant or perverse and something to immediately be squashed.

Cultures do need artists who are willing to take a critical look at this mainstream groupview, and raise questions about the norms that exist, and be able to shout out 'The Emperor Has No Clothes' or "try looking at things this way!' The crowds may recognize the truth of the shouted warning or statement, or they might choose to simply ignore it, as they often do.

If a culture is to grow and be vibrant, its attitudes and opinions must be open to change. In what direction does a culture move? - it moves towards a view or expression that was formally not in the mainstream. Often the seeds of these views were first presented by an artist, or perhaps some other visionary not even associated with the art world. As cultures evolve, what may have been formerly taboo might now become common - an example being the level of nudity that Playboy Magazine helped introduce.

I do recognize that many people may not want to be constantly exposed to these differing views. The older generation may want to live nostalgically in the world of their youth, where movies did not show such graphic images. And those with children may worry about their ability to choose when and where their children will be allowed to view such images. There are other legitimate reasons for why certain groups of people might prefer to live in the mainstream world.

What is the proper amount of violence and nudity in our movies, our music, on the sidewalks in front of our streets? It will vary depending on whatever subculture - mainstream or subversive - that you are associated with. Your identity with subcultures may change according to whatever situation you relate to - whether it be geographical, professional, family, religous, political, recreational, age group, or whatever else you determine to be imporatnt at that moment. Some may identify with only one key identity, while others might like to swap them as often as they change their shirts.

There is a difference between recognizing the validity of a different subculture, while still allowing it to exist somewhere else where others can still discover it when the time is right, versus feeling the need to permanently squash that subculture for fear of it contaminating your own view of the world.

Is the editing out of sex and violence in DVDs a danger? If it is seen as an effort to help create and define your own subculture, then it can be a good thing. But if it is seen as the first steps to squash something that they feel should not exist in the world at all, then there is much potential for it to become a dangerous thing.

Having Wal-Mart sell only censored versions of music CDs may not be a problem when you live in a city and have the option of visiting other nearby stores. But if you live in a rural area, where there might be only one store (a Wal-Mart ) that sells music CDs - then you are in a sense being forced to live in a restricted world.

This is a fascinating topic, and I am enjoying reading the views of the others here.

Vern