Comments on: The Appeal of Anti-Heroes http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/06/allurid_antiher.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:04:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Frank http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/06/allurid_antiher.html/comment-page-1#comment-53645 Frank Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:40:57 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/06/the-appeal-of-anti-heroes.html#comment-53645 You're absolutely right about the differential "viewer-reception," and I can see why we want to shield children from a lot of what's out there. As for Shakespeare--Koppelmann suggests that obscene material may get treated differently than nonobscene because its sexual/violent contact has such an immediate impact on viewers. Drawing on that distinction, I would think the Shakespeare plays are sufficiently mediated by elevated language, reflection, costumes, etc. that they would not fall into the same category as the most lurid episodes of The Sopranos. But the more reflective episodes might make the two indistinguishable. You’re absolutely right about the differential “viewer-reception,” and I can see why we want to shield children from a lot of what’s out there.

As for Shakespeare–Koppelmann suggests that obscene material may get treated differently than nonobscene because its sexual/violent contact has such an immediate impact on viewers.

Drawing on that distinction, I would think the Shakespeare plays are sufficiently mediated by elevated language, reflection, costumes, etc. that they would not fall into the same category as the most lurid episodes of The Sopranos. But the more reflective episodes might make the two indistinguishable.

]]> By: Patrick S. O'Donnell http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/06/allurid_antiher.html/comment-page-1#comment-53644 Patrick S. O'Donnell Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:33:02 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/06/the-appeal-of-anti-heroes.html#comment-53644 Figures as diverse as Plato and Freud were, I think, rightly concerned about the powerful and sometimes deleterious effects of various forms of art, but there's so many ceretis paribus clauses we'd have to invoke for most generalizations it renders much of what we might have to say rather insipid or unhelpful. It does seem that art affects different people differently, with some of a certain state of mind or certain sort of character (perhaps prone to borderline psychopathology) that renders them rather susceptible to being influenced this or that way by what they've watched, read or heard. So we're undoubtedly on treacherous terrain when it comes to making moral or psychological generalizations about art. Nonetheless, I think we might go as far as Anne Sheppard and acknowledge that "art has some part to play in inculcating values and attitudes, for it can influence the terms in which we see life," however much this effect on our "values and attitudes is often subtle, indirect, and only appreciated by hindsight." So, while Frank Pasquale won't go bad by watching the Sopranos, maybe 15-year old Frankie Friendless, alienated, bitter, maltreated, at home in his small apartment obsessively watching reruns of Tony and the cast of characters behaving illegally if not immorally will be adversely affected...and that should concern all of us. By the way, instead of the Sopranos, think about some of Shakespeare's plays: do we have the same sort of concerns? Why not? Figures as diverse as Plato and Freud were, I think, rightly concerned about the powerful and sometimes deleterious effects of various forms of art, but there’s so many ceretis paribus clauses we’d have to invoke for most generalizations it renders much of what we might have to say rather insipid or unhelpful. It does seem that art affects different people differently, with some of a certain state of mind or certain sort of character (perhaps prone to borderline psychopathology) that renders them rather susceptible to being influenced this or that way by what they’ve watched, read or heard. So we’re undoubtedly on treacherous terrain when it comes to making moral or psychological generalizations about art. Nonetheless, I think we might go as far as Anne Sheppard and acknowledge that “art has some part to play in inculcating values and attitudes, for it can influence the terms in which we see life,” however much this effect on our “values and attitudes is often subtle, indirect, and only appreciated by hindsight.” So, while Frank Pasquale won’t go bad by watching the Sopranos, maybe 15-year old Frankie Friendless, alienated, bitter, maltreated, at home in his small apartment obsessively watching reruns of Tony and the cast of characters behaving illegally if not immorally will be adversely affected…and that should concern all of us.

By the way, instead of the Sopranos, think about some of Shakespeare’s plays: do we have the same sort of concerns? Why not?

]]> By: Patrick S. O'Donnell http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/06/allurid_antiher.html/comment-page-1#comment-53643 Patrick S. O'Donnell Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:31:26 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/06/the-appeal-of-anti-heroes.html#comment-53643 Figures as diverse as Plato and Freud were, I think, rightly concerned about the powerful and sometimes deleterious effects of various forms of art, but there's so many ceretis paribus clauses we'd have to invoke for most generalizations it renders much of what we might have to say rather insipid or unhelpful. It does seem that art affects different people differently, with some of a certain state of mind or certain sort of character (perhaps prone to borderline psychopathology) that renders them rather susceptible to being influenced this or that way by what they've watched, read or heard. So we're undoubtedly on treacherous terrain when it comes to making moral or psychological generalizations about art. Nonetheless, I think we might go as far as Anne Sheppard and acknowledge that "art has some part to play in inculcating values and attitudes, for it can influence the terms in which we see life," however much this effect on our "values and attitudes is often subtle, indirect, and only appreciated by hindsight." So, while Frank Pasquale won't go bad by watching the Sopranos, maybe 15-year old Frankie Friendless, alienated, bitter, maltreated, at home in his small apartment obsessively watching reruns of Tony and the cast of characters behaving illegally if not immorally will be adversely affected...and that should concern all of us. By the way, instead of the Sopranos, think about some of Shakespeare's plays: do we have the same sort of concerns? Why not? Figures as diverse as Plato and Freud were, I think, rightly concerned about the powerful and sometimes deleterious effects of various forms of art, but there’s so many ceretis paribus clauses we’d have to invoke for most generalizations it renders much of what we might have to say rather insipid or unhelpful. It does seem that art affects different people differently, with some of a certain state of mind or certain sort of character (perhaps prone to borderline psychopathology) that renders them rather susceptible to being influenced this or that way by what they’ve watched, read or heard. So we’re undoubtedly on treacherous terrain when it comes to making moral or psychological generalizations about art. Nonetheless, I think we might go as far as Anne Sheppard and acknowledge that “art has some part to play in inculcating values and attitudes, for it can influence the terms in which we see life,” however much this effect on our “values and attitudes is often subtle, indirect, and only appreciated by hindsight.” So, while Frank Pasquale won’t go bad by watching the Sopranos, maybe 15-year old Frankie Friendless, alienated, bitter, maltreated, at home in his small apartment obsessively watching reruns of Tony and the cast of characters behaving illegally if not immorally will be adversely affected…and that should concern all of us.

By the way, instead of the Sopranos, think about some of Shakespeare’s plays: do we have the same sort of concerns? Why not?

]]>