Feministing’s Samitha fumes about the latest entry in the Grand Theft Auto series:
What I can’t get down with is justifying blatant misogyny by calling it art.
I know this is a crazy, crazy thought, but perhaps something can be both misogynistic and art. It can even be misogynistic and… good art.
Now, maybe GTA-IV is misogynistic; I haven’t played it, and the analysis we get later in the post—essentially that if a game permits some sort of hideous behavior, the creators endorse that behavior, and the player is participating in a self-reinforcing fantasy—seems awfully simplistic. But hey, it’s not that implausible, so let’s suppose it is. Maybe that deserves comment. But it has no bearing on the game’s status as art. Triumph of the Will is brilliant cinema; pointing out that Nazi’s are evil—while certainly worth doing—doesn’t change that.
15 responses so far ↓
1 Lawrence // May 13, 2008 at 11:22 am
I don’t know, I just flipped over to see her full post, and she was responding to a specific article.
One can “allow” or “acknowledge” something as art without “justifying” it. I’m not completely sure she wouldn’t agree with you.
Certainly you aren’t “justifying” the content of “Triumph of the Will” by calling it “brilliant cinema”. And I can still acknowledge the art behind and in GAT without “justifying” it. Which it certainly seemed the writer she was responding to seemed to be doing.
Unless you are “justifying” the content of “Triumph of the Will”, and I’m just misunderstanding you? I am assuming you are “allowing for” rather than “justifying” in this case. But as always, I may be assuming incorrectly.
2 Julian Sanchez // May 13, 2008 at 11:39 am
Well, look, I might say about “Triumph of the Will” something like: “Obviously, this was a piece of propaganda in service of one of the most morally monstrous ideologies history has ever produced. That said, it’s a masterpiece, and you should probably watch it some time.” I might then go on to discuss, in positive terms, its aesthetic merits.
I don’t know whether that counts as “justifying” or not, but that, it seems to me, is what a positive review amounts to: A judgment that something is good art, maybe even good art you should go check out, and that its objectionable ideological content is either irrelevant to this point or outweighed by its quality overall.
3 Ike // May 13, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Looks to me more like the modern version of old Doc Warner’s diatribe against comic books back in the ’50’s. And it suffers from the same weaknesses, in that it comes out of an emotional response which is, at least in part, based upon an assumption of moral authority and superiority by the author. Not to mention the implicit idiocy of “pornography causes rape” and that sheaf of related nonsense. All good old Doc Warner in a new wrapper and disguised as a literary-style review of a controversial video game.
4 Gil // May 13, 2008 at 1:43 pm
It seems to me that it is precisely good art.
It’s compelling and fun to experience. And, it stimulates posts like these that get people thinking about the subject matter.
Why is it so hard to understand that allowing people to play with ideas is not the same as endorsing the behaviors in real life?
What bothers me most is that Samantha says she doesn’t “Necessarily support the censorship of the game, I don’t really think censorship works.”
So, apparently she would support censorship if she thought it would be effective at shaping our thoughts and behaviors.
5 Psyche // May 13, 2008 at 2:29 pm
So why is it an impermissible negative review to say something along the lines of: this is good art, but not good enough to outweigh the objectionable nature of its ideological content?
I don’t read her point as “this is misogynistic, therefore it’s not art.” I read her point is “Just because it’s art doesn’t mean that its misogynistic content is immune to criticism.” You may or may not agree with this point of view, but it seems reasonable and coherent enough to me to deserve a meaningful response, not a snark.
6 lemmy caution // May 13, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I agree with Psyche. Samitha was responding to an article that attempted to deflect feminist criticisms of GTA by calling GTA art.
If someone says “triumph of the will isn’t fascist propaganda, it is art”, you can rightly respond “It is wrong to justify pro-fascist propaganda by calling it art”.
What feminists were objecting about earlier versions of GTA is that you could have sex with prostitutes which improved your health then kill the prostitutes to get your money back. The perverse game incentives were disturbing.
7 tde // May 13, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Screw her.
Let her create her own video game.
8 Clyde Mays, Jr. // May 13, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I’ve been playing GTA IV for hours at a time for over a week now, and I love it. Misogynistic? Probably. Fun? For sure. Truly, the Parts of the game most likely to be considered misogynistic (e.g., hookers, strippers) are the lamest parts.
9 southpaw // May 14, 2008 at 11:39 am
What mystifies me is the narrow mindedness of the critique. The game doesn’t just permit violence against women; it permits violence against everyone from a police officer to a helicopter pilot to a baby in a stroller. It devalues all human life, not just the lives of women or authority figures. In short, GTA is more than misogynistic; it’s misanthropic. And as long as the dystopian vision falls equally upon all involved, I’m not sure what the big fuss is about.
10 Jay // May 14, 2008 at 10:19 pm
“I know this is a crazy, crazy thought, but perhaps something can be both misogynistic and art. It can even be misogynistic and… good art
By my reading Samhita’s post was not denying that assertion but affirming it..
11 Amit // May 16, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Nazi’s? Okay, hands away from the keyboard. That’s first-degree apostrophe-abuse, buddy. You know I could run you in for that?
12 Amit // May 16, 2008 at 10:49 pm
And a Godwin’s Law violation. You’re looking at doing some real time here.
13 Clyde Mays, Jr. // May 17, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Does anyone else fucking HATE everyone who calls someone else out for violating “Godwin’s Law” in blog comments?
14 Julian Sanchez // May 18, 2008 at 2:35 am
Well, it’s more annoying when it’s a double misapplication of the law. The original law, recall, was a prediction of a Hitler/Nazi reference, so really a “violation” would be the failure to make such an allusion. But everyone fudges that. The really weird thing is that Godwin’s Law is about *comparing your opponent* in a debate to Nazis. Which, obviously, I’m not doing.
15 Amit // May 18, 2008 at 2:51 am
Sorry, guys. I was just joking around. I guess the intended tone didn’t really come off.