I might misunderstand you, but I feel that you're implying there's some echelon of high art that can't be bothered with the social problems of the generation. I think that artists should feel a certain responsibility in shaping society, if they feel so strongly inclined. Even if one's work is altogether ignored, that artist has framed a social problem for future generations to observe.

While I definitely am not suggesting that artists should just bury their head in the sand and pretend their social climates don't exist, I get really skeptical when I encounter the notion of artists deliberately attempting to shape a generation. I feel that this works counter to the notions of individuality, people finding their own way through life, which are things I don't think always work effectively when you see some artist further some doctrine for how to behave and think. It may be my own personal opinion, but I don't think this is what art is about. To me art is about broadening the spectrum of experience and understanding, appreciating new ways of looking at the world. There seems to be something so finite about artists wishing to convey one viewpoint in order to get the audience to adopt specific ways of thinking. To me, that's not terribly useful.
 
To me there is a difference between an artist providing alternative routes of thought and an artist attempting to get the audience to see things their way. The differentiation, to me, is the distance between art and propaganda. Art is more about possibility, propaganda more about a definite motive behind the artist's work. It's not always easy to make this distinction, and it's a rather large gray area much of the time, but I think you can usually look at a work of art and identify how much the artist has endeavored to simply show something and when they've been attempting to get people on board with their way of thinking.
 
Granted, sometimes social shaping happens on its own with motiveless work, sometimes even with a positive benefit. Hell, I could think of deliberate works of propaganda that I consider art and unapologetically forgive for their aggressive motive. But for the most part I stand behind the belief that it oughtn't be the intrinsic requirement of the artist to indoctrinate, for the same reason I don't believe it's fair the way the mainstream furiously indoctrinates. Life isn't about getting these stupid bite-sized snippets of ways to think. It's much more complex than that, and my natural inclination is to seriously question the candor of artists who do not understand this.

Quote from: Barack Obama on January 30, 2013, 06:00:15 am

hundley is right tho, shit's so irreparably fucked in the media and it's going to continually get worse and worse

 
This is defeatist and unrealistic, even. Both mainstream opinion and social media have been behind the curve concerning civil progress. Consider that black voting privilege was ensured only 48 years ago. Since then, both public opinion and media portrayal has been changed in a vast way, even though it took time. I do not believe the media is going to make significant backwards turns as long as the criticism exists and the opinion is held that racial and sexual stereotypes exist. The changes are god-awful slow, but as long as there is an opposition, the sentiments change, whether it be the old ignorance dying out, or a more accepting generation moving in.

Sure, if you omitt the previous statement. I am 100% serious that everything subsumed by capital turns to shit(see: Marx, Debord) and will continue to so long as value is in operation contorting the totality of social existence around extracting money and time from people.
 

"We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

So get on it comrades

art cant be anything but exclusive these days as long as it exists as a commodity in an era where ppl are being ejected from the production process.
steal fuckin' everything or ignore it & do yr own shit IMO just make it all go away

So, in order to solve this issue is to re-build the underlying foundations. That part seems obvious enough, but it sort of puts up against a wall. I mean, there will be no point in re-building a foundation that still exists and is in full operation. You can't just put a new foundation up at the exact same spot where the old foundation is taking up that exact same area of space.
 
My question is this comrades: If the problem is going to persist until we re-build the foundations of this current society from the ground up, exactly how are we expected to knock down the faulty foundation that insists on holding everything up despite numerous social and health code violations? It's not something where we can each just pick up a sledgehammer and start whacking away at random beams. Even if it is a system that would eventually fail and completely collapse under it's own weight, that seems like the absolute least ideal solution imaginable.
 
Man, the 2012 doomsday prediction was such a LETDOWN. The one time a doomsday prediction would actually make things EASIER for us, and it turns out exactly like every single other doomsday prediction.

i like how the past four series' were like SOMETHING BIG WILL HAPPEN IN 2012 ALIENS RETURNING IT IS PROVEN FACT
 

my reaction to the video games being totally submerged in capital is to default to hacker ethos and GPL everything. not a solution in itself but working from software that is (in theory) primarily held as common property and aiming to contribute back to public knowledge feels like it cleans out the tentacles a little. obv the production of free software is mostly dependent on funding from tech-business capital and is therefore often shaped to its needs (if indirectly and imperfectly). but valuation by the market has at least been mixed up with valuation by the various communities. aside from that, unrestricted access to bits of game source are generally prerequisite to developing video games. so in (ever so slightly) increasing the volume of unencrypted game code (with my malformed filth), I may increase the possibility that others with computer access may produce a video game without being subjected to the games industry. given that i am Extremely Backwards, i have set out to do this in the most difficult and unproductive way possible.
 
perhaps a True Artist would develop a method of Video Game Sampling and totalising romhack to use the already produced material referentially. i can imagine how theoretically this would work (thought of it just now, but can explain the theory in great detail somehow) but would never attempt it as i am not an artist, really. i just make a bunch of stuff because it's what i do with my time.
 
anyways basically my thoughts are:
step 1: disengage
step 2: destroy (slowly)
 
probably i'm naive idk. usually i disagree with myself in some way three months later. this is really all i have to say about the games industry anymore.

to a certain extent with games, there's an element that goes far beyond dickjerk fantasy realisation. e.g. this guy is totally serious http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6574/be_honest_be_nice_marketing_and_.php and does not really see the duplicity in claiming that the goal in developing indie games should be providing the larger platform-holders with what they need. some people approach game development as a business venture and nothing else, and some "startup" gamedevs basically want to be the next Zynga. (which reminds me of http://warriorsofperpetualadolescence.tumblr.com/). there is definitely something in checking yourself to make sure you're not building dumb derivative games though i guess. idk if being informed and self-critical is sufficient for that though.

agreeing w/ elias re self-reinforcing nature of ideology, i think anyone growing up in an environment where art is more or less synonymous with consumrculture is gonna have some weird shit to get out of their system but "unauthorised" versions of mainstream fantasy or ideology without the levels of polish or craft that naturalises them can be pretty cool or interesting in themselves eg doom wads, "black bart" t-shirts with optional speechbubbles commenting on a variety of events, all those comics that you draw at 8 years old featuring the power rangers as squat, blocky, interchangeable humanoids leaping around huge square rooms of indeterminate purpose, ghana movie posters, erotic romhacks, etc, none of these things has to have a consistent critique embedded in them, but ridiculous garbage can sometimes help illuminate the fact that the established culture they're mirroring is ridiculous garbage as well. the fact of a hundred thousand independent comicbooks about tough, muscular dudes beating each other up and attacking "bases" for no particular reason is in some ways as brutal a critique of superhero comix as you'll ever find.
 
i'm not really making any argument but i think a big part of the reason why mainstream stuff remains profitable is that it's not really based around providing quality of experience so much as a certain consistency of experience, like having a reasonable idea beforehand of how bearable/unbearable something is likely to be to eliminate the effort of reaching independent decision on it (which is likely to be confused and ambiguous as all things are). and i think the big terror of things like the innumerable independent music/video hosting websites is their inconsistency, having to actually make a decision on a song or a video arising from a context confused enough it may as well not exist. something that requires effort from the audience with absolutely no guarantee that this effort will be paid off. and anything with that element of risk involved is de facto more interesting than any amount of quality product where you have such a good idea of what you're in for that the experience itself adds nothing, eg the many "oscarbait" movies showing near you NOW or the popular garfield comic. choosing from a shelf of identically awful, interchangeable amateur crime thriller books is still better than reading John Sandford even if the final quality is exactly the same because the uncertainty as to whether one's reading an Established Brand or Derivative Garbage promotes critical thinking and a can-do spirit ​
 
gamasutra is extremely terrible.

http://kotaku.com/5981171/?post=56956833

I know I know kotaku is dumb

I just want to know what you guys think?

I've never played the game but watching that video of the character immediately made me think "She's racist?, I guess?"
IDK if saying 'crunk' and 'badonadonk' is racist. Though I admittedly have a special dislike of the word 'badonadonk' for its use in one of the worst songs I've ever heard.
Changing her might fuck up her character, and continuity. Even if she is racist, which is debatable, technically, could you just say she's a 'good person but problematic character'. and, like leave it at that? because people like this do exist.

This is coming from someone who's never played the game because they did not find the first game very fun.

idk. the character's lines just seem like bad writing - sensational faux-hyper derivative writing by clueless career gamers. in this context, I think "verbal blackface" is a stretch. I mean, the first thing I think of when there's a QuIrKy white person saying badonkadonk is ellen degeneres. ellen uses language like that as jokes on her show, and the idea is that the jokes are supposed to be ellen making fun of herself and how uh I guess UN-HIP she is. that's the intent, whether or not it's successful idc. I don't know if there's ever a reason given for why this character talks like that, maybe she's supposed to have DID or some other mental disorder, but I guess there's similarly supposed to be humor in the way a young qUiRkY white girl uses outdated hip hop lingo from the 00s.

the guy arguing is probably unknowingly racist going by his comments. the character itself isn't necessarily racist, that's definitely a stretch (DID, picked up the lingo from someone of unknown ethnicity, many other possibilities). whether or not the inclusion of such a character in the game is racist or damaging, that's a more difficult question that I don't know if I can answer. it was definitely not a great idea, but we've already covered that

I remember kind of liking that scene with her in the trailer where she giddily blows something up, but also being apprehensive about it probably being some kind of awful tank girl pastiche. and yeah apparently it is, it's just taking some poor impressions from tank girl and mashing them with some looney tunes and jar jar binks

edit: can only have a nonsexual female char in game if she reaffirms the truth and justice of macho white male gamer south park humor