Real Art is TBD

Quillette in another fantastic episode of Let’s Shrink Conversations So We Can Fight The Strawman has published “Real Art Is Bound to Cause Offense” by Gabriel Scorgie.
Per usual, I’m going to go nearly line-by-line to refute three things:
- Did you read the article?
- You’re not arguing in good faith.
- You’re taking my words out of context.
This one is hilarious, so, let’s dive in, shall we?
Introduction
Artists traditionally have faced a choice: stay true to their calling, trading financial security for intellectual freedom — or put art aside in favour of a steady paycheque and the stifling strictures that come with corporate life.
I needed a smoke break after reading this line. I have been hearing this since high school — we could just make corporate pop, but are band is real!
No. No, you couldn’t. The “I could be rich if I just sold out” isn’t real. You ain’t no Katy Perry.
But in the current era, something has changed.
It doesn’t matter if “something has changed.” If something, undefined, sucks just name it. Or name a date when things were good. Oh…you don’t so it’s up to me to make it up.
Cool. It’s 1993.
Artists now experience the worst of both worlds: They still struggle to make ends meet, while enduring all of the oppressive controls that come with selling out.
Gabriel, who the fuck are you talking about? What defines artist? What oppressive controls? From whom? You left that open for me to define so…

One well-known recent example is that of Anders Carlson-Wee, the poet who denounced his own poem after being shamed by his editors at The Nation.
Oh snap! I wrote a whole piece on this — The Death of Trying.
Seriously, is there only like four examples of things you don’t like? Save you some time if you don’t want to read more of my stuff — his poem sucked and there’s no details on why the poem was withdrawn. So Gabriel just made that up that it was his editors. They made an apology, but it’s never defined who made the call. Also, The Nation kept the poem on their site alongside their apology.
Stephanie Burt and Carmen Giménez Smith had published Carlson-Wee’s poem, titled How-To, in July, but then had second thoughts, suddenly declaring it to be full of racist and ableist wrongthink. The poet, too, felt the need to beg for forgiveness, telling the world, “I am sorry for the pain I caused.”
Yeah…he also said “it didn’t work.” That happens.
For someone so focused on artists, you understand that artists fuck up, yeah? Nah, you want your readers to see the apology, not the other parts. You don’t include Carlson-Wee’s actual apology. Nah, he was just a wimp who backed down in the face of SJW’s or something.
But this is just one piece of a larger trend.
So you say.
There is a concerted effort among many progressives to pre-empt artistic risk-taking.
So you say.
They want the artist to work on pre-approved themes and express pre-approved truths, even if the artist herself suspects those truths may not actually be truths at all.
Such as? Oh…you don’t say. Let’s say it’s all this.
This policy of obedience is toxic to creativity.
By whom? Who is the enforcer? I thought toxicity was a SJW term to talk about masculinity?
Artist’s need freedom to explore the unknown — to follow their thoughts wherever they go, and to represent their beliefs through art.
Sweet. Gabriel — you suck at writing. Glad I have so much freedom because of my beliefs. My art is telling you that you need to do better at words or reality. I feel so represented.
Creating real art is bound to cause offence in some cases, yet the practice must be encouraged.
I thought I suffered a head injury when I read this sentence.
“Yet” doesn’t create a conjunction in this sentence. See if you want to encourage this idea, you just say “and.” “Yet” is a contradictory conjunction.
What are we discussing? Say it. “Real art” — such as? Here, I’m sure you mean this:

Not this:

Course I don’t know, cause you don’t say it. By not saying it, you don’t have to stand by anything. You don’t have to deal with any contradiction that Pollack or Basquiat might have some merit, or perhaps the derivative nature of many of the “real art” pieces you might cite.
Otherwise, the goal of art will be to placate ideological critics, thereby pushing it into the realm of propaganda.
Such as? See when you reader have to fill in the blanks, as a writer you can stand behind nothing. Otherwise, people like me could take you toe-to-toe in regards to “the goal of art” and “ideological critics” and “propaganda.” Instead, Gabriel doesn’t define it because he doesn’t want to discuss specifics.
Last month, actress Scarlett Johansson walked away from Rub & Tug, a film about transgender gangster Dante “Tex” Gill, after protesters claimed that she effectively was taking a job away from a transgendered actor. At one point, a representative for Johansson released a statement directing protesters to Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto and Felicity Huffman, three cis (i.e. non-trans) actors who have played transgender characters in recent years. The seemingly flippant tone of this response only fueled the outrage. And protesters continued to press the issue until Johansson finally stepped down from the role.
Links would help. I really don’t understand the writing habit of Quillette to start sentences with “And.” You can use a comma. I know why you do it of course. It gives the sentences the appearance of having to drag on as further evidence, when it’s actually just a singular statement. Sorry to get into the writing weeds.
AND don’t use “seemingly.” It either happened or it didn’t. Again, links would help so the readers could make their own judgment.
I’ll go with it. Scarlett was guilted out of a role. Gabriel goes on to explain Gill’s story. I’ll trust that that’s an accurate summation.
By accepting the role of Gill, Johansson was not doing a disservice to the trans community. In fact, having an actress of Johansson’s stature attached to Rub & Tug was likely the only way this film was ever going to be made.
Possibly. This was an argument brought up surrounding Ghost in the Shell as well. Course, lots of people knew the anime anyhow.
Similar comments could be said about To Wong Foo

As well as The Birdcage

It’s hard to say as obviously having a star is going to make a movie more popular, but then again, because the movie wasn’t made, who knows. Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing were probably a huge win for Star Wars when no one knew who Harrison Ford was.
The original casting decision was part of a trend in Hollywood of hiring big-name actors to play sexual minorities, thereby ensuring a wide release even if a film’s budget is tiny.
Sort of. I don’t think it’s any definitive strategy. So there’s “Gill”, Dallas Buyers Club, Brokeback Mountain, Milk, and Gabriel lists The Imitation Game, which I agree focused on Turing’s sexuality, I wouldn’t say that sexuality was the focus of the film, more so that Turing’s sexuality further isolated him, which helps us understand his suicide.
Gabriel lists all these movies and sums up their awards. I’d be wary of saying because there are acclaimed movies that there wasn’t already an existing genre of sexual minorities.
Days after Johansson stepped down, Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, which advocates for greater LGBTQ representation in film and TV, praised Johansson’s decision:
Gabriel quotes Sarah, which I invite the reader to read the full quote. The gist is that it was good for Scarlett to step down. Considering how badass of a story Gabriel presented, I’d think this might actually be a good breakout roll for a trans person rather than give Black Widow an Oscar Bait role.
That said, I can see Gabriel’s point as well. I don’t run the movie studio and obviously the story has played out completely yet.
Artists should be nervous when advocacy groups gain influence over the creative process: Their focus is never art.
Really? Regardless of the issue at hand, do you really believe massive movie studios cave easily? Do you really think movies and roles are planned out like some off color joke? No one bankrolls millions of dollars willy-nilly.
While yes, there is a creative process in Hollywood, there is also a production process as well. This isn’t Jimi Hendrix riffing on his Stratocaster. If you think Tom Cruise’s The Mummy is art, I have some bad news for you.
It’s always their own narrow agenda.
Well, that is the idea of any advocacy group. The NRA isn’t advocating for moss protection. PETA isn’t talking about the second amendment. Habitat for Humanity isn’t helping with literacy. Does McDonald’s serve Wendy’s hamburgers? In other words — no shit Sherlock, that’s how specialization works. There’s no Good for All Good Things That All People Agree That Are Good organization.
“GLAAD will be holding dedicated pressure on studios to fulfil their social responsibility for LGBTQ inclusion, and we are here as a resource to help them achieve their goals,” read the introduction to GLAAD’s annual Studio Responsibility Index.
Bummer GLAAD — Studios have zero social responsibility. However, GLAAD is well within their right to get as pissed and protest as much as they want. If studios make a decision based on that, their call. I don’t really think too many were holding out for what GLAAD thought about Deadpool II was about.
It’s a sly move to insist that furthering social responsibility — not making great movies — is the proper goal of a film studio.
See you can make movies that are objectionable. Just because objection occurs does not mean that some form of “real art” would have happened had no one pitched a fit.
Seriously Gabriel — name one screenplay that was GENIUS that the libs ruined because their feelings were hurt. Not even genius, just like ho-hum. Oh, you got nothing. Gill? Do you have link to the original screenplay? Oh, you didn’t include that. Scarlett aside, us as readers don’t even know if that film would have sucked period. The studio could have killed it because it had no arc.
(From a film artist’s point of view, meanwhile, the only “social responsibility” that requires advancement is their responsibility to tell great stories.)
Once again, I have no idea why Quillette lets these (parenthetical) sentences happen. I know you’re trying to make an aside or something, but it is lame.
To your point, what is a “film artist’s point of view”? I see you’re listed as a writer on one episode of a Canadian TV series. You’ve definitely got more street cred than I do, but are you really try to pull rank?
Look, you could have said “As someone experienced in the film industry I….” or something similar. Instead you put it in parentheticals and called yourself an artist. You’re not. You have no clout or standing. You wouldn’t even stand by your own experience when you actually have some. Odd.
Notwithstanding her purported expertise, Ellis appears to have forgotten how Hollywood actually changed America’s perception of gay and lesbian lives. It was not by waiting until the stars aligned and a perfectly diverse cast appeared.
Dude we just covered expertise. GLAAD does not purport to be film scholars. Sorry “Film artists.”
The second sentence is bizarre. Trans stories are not ones like say Friends where some cast just happened to include a trans character. They are about that specific concept. It’s not about making sure that there’s always a gay Jewish African American post-op trans women is included in every cast. By the stars no less.
Hollywood has indeed brought up these issues, but just like people aren’t lining up for Uncle Vanya II: The Revenge This Time It’s Personal with Boobs certain subjects that are in cultural dialogue tend to sell tickets more. I thought you were a film artist. Clearly not in marketing.
For Brokeback Mountain, Director Ang Lee hired the best actors he could get, full stop
I guess.
(which was a challenge at the time, as there was a lingering stigma in Hollywood against playing gay characters).
Dude, what is up with the parentheticals? You know that “which” is already an aside?
Also, I call bullshit. Both these actors were praised for their roles. Furthermore, earlier Gabriel you say that the whole point of the success of these movies is because it’s a sweet spot. So which is it? Is being gay / trans in a movie typhoid fever? Or is it a way to gain attention?
The producers of The Imitation Game, likewise, fought hard to get Cumberbatch on board because they thought he would be perfect for the role of mathematician Alan Turing.
That may be true, but is it because it was he was afraid of getting the gays? Cumberbatch has plenty of opportunities at the moment. Link would help. Like one where Cumberbatch was like “I didn’t want to play a gay guy. That’s super gay.”
As for Milk, Penn told Rolling Stone that the movie’s Oscar success (including Penn’s own Best Actor award) was a large reason it was seen by so many people. “If we hadn’t gotten these eight nominations, we’d be straight to video right now. That’s just the nature of the beast.”
Sure. This is the concept of Oscar Buzz. Milk wasn’t no Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
Films such as Milk and Rub & Tug do not have a guaranteed audience.
Agreed.
Unlike comic-book movies and blockbuster sequels, on which a studio can bank nine figures solely on the basis of brand recognition, art-house films about gay or trans individuals typically require some infusion of star power.
I wouldn’t call Milk an art-house film. According to Wikipedia, the budget total was $20 million. The Birdcage was $31 million with over $183 million at the box office. These aren’t exactly student films.
Even if Rub & Tug is produced, New Regency will have a difficult time getting the public to see it if it fails to attract attention on the festival circuit and at pre-screenings — which becomes difficult without a high-wattage star.
Yeah, but you just decided that. Crazy Rich Asians in its second weekend has made over twice its budget. I’m guessing most people have zero idea who its cast is.
Some activists in this field will seek to argue with artists on their own terms — claiming that a transgender person will give a more authentic performance when playing a trans character.
Oh man I can’t wait for the beat to drop.
But there is no evidence to back that up.
It is an actor’s job to embody characters who are different from themselves
This is why I always advocate that all Shakespearean roles are played by men. A man is just as capable of bringing to the stage or screen what it’s like to be a woman just as much as a woman. It’s about being a good actor. It’s why I advocated for Glory to have the black regiment played by only white women. Denzel understood.
Indeed, when Milk was released, New Yorker film critic Dan Denby praised the decision to cast Penn as the star: “By casting a famously macho actor as Harvey Milk, Van Sant has made the central humanist desire for self-acceptance and pride newly powerful. Giving himself utterly to the role, Penn takes an actor’s craft and dedication to soulful heights, making a demand for dignity that becomes universal.”
Yeah, but at least Penn looked like Milk. They wouldn’t have cast him as Malcolm X. Besides, how else was a critic supposed to praise an actor for a good performance? Constantly mention that he’s got a case of the not-gays as part of his description?
Taken to its logical conclusion, the campaign to kick Scarlett Johansson off Rub & Tug is fueled by an ideology that, if taken to its logical conclusion, leads to the death of acting as we know it — for there is no reason that the required congruence between actor and subject must end at gender or skin colour.
We’re really being taken to a logical conclusion. Hey, we all make typos.
Anyhow teasing aside, that isn’t the logical or even a personal recommendation conclusion. This would reduce every film to a documentary. No one would demand that fiction ends or that Russel Crowe have served on an English naval ship in 1805.

It’s not absurd to suggest a living actor play someone from 1805, Malcom X be played by a black male actor, that a female role be played by a female, and finally it’s not absurd that some people would advocate for trans roles to be played by trans people. In all cases, it’s the production company’s and the actor’s choice to make that call if they feel the role is right. Believe it or not, actors do turn down roles even when they seem perfect for them.
Will Smith turned down Neo in The Matrix and Sean Connery turned down Gandalf for LOTR.
Gabriel goes onto describe Boys Don’t Cry and a protest regarding a speech by the writer at Reed College. Let’s pick up where it gets interesting.
Yet protesters at Reed claimed Peirce was yet another “cis white bitch” who made money off of transgender stories.
Just a tip for anyone reading articles, whenever you see something that inflammatory, see who said it, especially when there’s no link. It wasn’t too hard to find documentation of this incident. College students said stupid shit.
Gabriel doesn’t link to say The Advocate’s article on the matter called “Calling Kimberly Peirce a ‘Bitch’ is Not a Good Idea.” A publication and opinion maker with a little more authority than a college student with handmade sign could be a counter opinion, one that doesn’t agree with Gabriel, but nonetheless condemns the behavior of the students.
In a foreshadowing of the Johansson controversy, Swank also was criticized for stealing a job from a transgendered actor.
By whom? Also that film is lauded as a positive step forward in the suffering of transgender individuals because it was about that subject matter. Maybe not by everyone, but it’d be great to see what criticism you’re referencing. Were their any transgender films in between now and 1999 that had similar controversies? Foreshadowing usually follow one thing after another, not 19 years later.
These protesters, powered by luxury outrage (basic tuition at Reed is $56K/year), waved their placards and chanted songs until Peirce left the stage.
I’m not really sure what “luxury outrage” is. I assume you mean the students are spoiled brats based on their tuition (not mentioning how many scholarships or financial aid happens at Reed) so their opinions are from a place of wimpy helicopter parenting so they are the product of the nanny state or something.
Let’s take a look at Evergreen State College: In-state: $8,380 Out-of-state: $22,795. Oh, so I guess their outrage was justified cause they hadn’t reached the “luxury” tuition level.
See how this works? If tuition is the barometer of credibility, how do you explain a counterexample? It’s obvious the only point was to simply defame the students as idiots, which they were for how they protested, but the intent was to say they’re rich, ergo out of touch and insensitive to basic human decency cause money.
Also remember:
Peirce is a brave woman whose ground-breaking film brought visibility to the transgendered community. She lived through the AIDS epidemic and was openly lesbian at a time when many struggled to reveal their sexuality.
Agreed.
She had the authentic lived experience (a quality so often sought after by activists) to know what being a sexual minority was like in the 80s and 90s.
Agreed, but do understand that the activism for sexual minorities still continues. So while we can definitely lambast the students at one protest at Reed College one time, bringing up the issue for more proper representation in films is going to come up at some point.

White people shouldn’t play Latinos forever, right? Certainly roles are going to take on more meaning, especially when targeting specific communities when people of those communities are the people who lived that experience.
For example, in Band of Brothers, the cast was sent to a bootcamp to train as the 101st Airborne did. They even gave David Schwimmer special privileges amongst the cast to help build up the animosity that the real company felt towards his character.
So yeah, having Ice Cube’s son play Ice Cube in Straight Out of Compton can go a long way. A lot of what is being cited is not that Matthew McConaughey literally needed to be dying of AIDS to be in Dallas Buyers Club, but that other actors are often overlooked for the easy bet when there are others available.
See I agree with the casting of Scarlett in Ghost in the Shell. This is what that character looked like in the original:

White, heavy bust, athletic. Dye Scarlett’s hair. Done. Hell, have you seen what Naruto looks like:

Yet none of this mattered to protestors who had the good fortune to grow up in a more enlightened age.
Are we really saying the homophobia of the 80s was more enlightened? This is why we have movies like Philadelphia.
Gabriel goes on to describe the film A Fantastic Woman, ending with the following quotes from the director on choosing to cast a trans actor in a film about the subject.
Yet when the Hollywood Reporter asked the film’s director, Sebastián Lelio, about the Johansson controversy, he said: “I’ll never make myself available to join or empower any idea that aims to restrict one of society’s most precious assets, which is the freedom of its artists.”
And:
“Whenever the decision to cast Daniela Vega is interpreted as an authoritarian gesture, a gesture that tells people what to do, I always raise my hand and say ‘No.’ I’m not commanding anyone to do anything, I’m exercising my [own] artistic freedom.”
Sure. He’s not condemning anyone and he’s not praising himself. Not a crazy idea, but this isn’t an advocation of Gabriel’s point. It’s a straightforward statement that — I’m going to do what I choose to do, and others are free to do what they feel is right.
I guess you could take that as a comment about Scarlett’s situation (who by the way dealt with the same thing with Ghost in the Shell and took the role anyways), but it’s not necessarily directed at the situation brought up by Gabriel.
Nonetheless, we all went there on opening night for A Fantastic Women, right? Gabriel — be honest, you were more of a Luis Gnecco fan, right? Certainly you couldn’t have picked this film because the quote matched what you personally wanted to say. I mean, we all know about the Chilean trans drama films the kids are super excited about this week.
That freedom Lelio speaks of is slowly being clawed back.
Such as?
George Orwell wrote that “even a single taboo can have an all-round crippling effect upon the mind, because there is always the danger that any thought which is freely followed up may lead to the forbidden thought.”
Let’s pause here. There is a universal taboo regarding incest so let’s set scale. Furthermore, saying “Hey shouldn’t trans characters be played by trans people?” is not TABOOOOOOO!
So that’s not really the discussion. Casting even non-white actors for white comic characters is not taboo. Nick Fury was redesigned to specifically look like Samuel L. Jackson even though he was originally white. Idris Elba up for playing Bond was not taboo. At best, contentious, but Bond’s been played by lots of actors, there are black people in England, and Idris is English / sauve / athletic just like Daniel Craig and Sean Connery (was).
You might as well use the word sinful or demonic if you wanted to blur terms.
We now inhabit a moment when even artists — especially artists — are becoming afraid of forbidden thoughts.
Gabriel, I don’t know if you’ve heard of art history, but Michelangelo was on thin ice for his depiction of the human figure. Also, why is it ESPECIALLY artists? Compared to? Artists are typically the ones pushing boundaries of expression. Not, you know, accountants.
Works of art are being protested and suffocated even before they’ve been created.
No conservative institution has ever done that, which is why the Evangelical church was all about this:
Or why Republicans loved these guys:
And this guy is played in kindergartens:
Whiny $56k tuition babies are the problem for “art”. That’s the problem for expression.
If it appears that a movie will not be adequately “progressive,” it dies in utero; and the risk-taking artist is ostracized.
Here’s the operative word — “a” — movie. You got one, which Gabriel, I don’t know if you know this, but lots of movies die in preproduction. You’re not going into other details like the director attached, budget, release date, and every other element including the screenplay. If Scarlett was the only element that appeared billable than if she drops out, then the project drops. Was it a perfect movie otherwise? Have you read the script? Lots of crappy scripts get shot for the same reason — a big star was attached. Have you seen a recent Adam Sandler movie?
I don’t know because you tell us no other details. Again, big name actors leaving projects, which happens even due to scheduling, will often destroy or, you know, delay films. Another element you fail to mention. The phrase is usually “shelved indefinitely.” Not “destroyed because we weren’t progressive enough.”
Well-known American economist Eric Weinstein has argued that universities should have strong departments and weak administrations. Such a dynamic would allow the most productive professors to take risks and break ground for the rest of their profession, with minimal fear of repercussion.
There’s a word…on the tip of my tongue...TENURE. Isn’t that what we’re always pissed off about? How progressive professors have locked out departments cause they can’t be fired?
I’ve even written about the matter in reply to another article in Quillette where they complained about that exact matter regarding Randa Jarrar. Professors are both too entrenched in their beliefs and also under the firm thumb of administrations.
Publishers of art should provide cover for their artists in a similar fashion. Artists should feel reassured that they will get the support they need to make creative decisions about hot-button subjects; otherwise, they will have, in the back of their mind, the knowledge that one controversial choice could ruin their career.
First off, not sure who you’re speaking about. If Scarlett didn’t want to do the movie, they could have found another actress. We were just talking about universities a second ago, and we were talking about film previously, but now it’s publishers. You know artists can self-publish too. Hey! I’m doing it write (PUN!) now.
Second, apparently Gabriel you’ve never met an artist. Artists theoretically are aware of the topics they’re engaging with.

When you gaze upon “Crucifuckwad” above, can you not consider that some artists don’t need to be “reassured that they will get the support they need to make creative decisions about hot-button subjects”? The question, which you are incapable of answering Gabriel is — where’s your line?
See the problem is that you want a line, but if you defined it, you would have to defend it, so you put out a vague statement about how artists generally are persecuted by progressives in order to support your point without actually citing anything specific.
You want to generalize using Scarlett’s situation to make the topic so much grander and disturbing without proving that that is indeed the case. Fun trick.
In the film world, the result will be fewer serious stories about the Holocaust, slavery, colonialism, totalitarianism and sexual identity — and more throwaway movies about talking dogs and wacky bachelor parties.
Why? Seriously why? I mean, I get what you want us to think Gabriel: “Ah Ha! progressives — because you pitched a fit over this one movie, well guess what? I guess we get no more Holocaust movies because there’s not too many Holocaust survivors to star in them ergo, you guys are anti-semitic. No more slaves around to star in slave movies — so BOOM! You guys support slavery! Gotcha!”
People protesting trans representation, even if it was super petty, doesn’t preclude movies on the Holocaust. Reread that sentence? Do you see how stupid this sounds? No LGBTQ group is gonna be protesting 12 Years a Slave. How dumb are you?

We should also remember that in many cases, it is actually beneficial to have one’s culture, community or identity interpreted by outsiders.
Totally.
In the South Park clip above, it’s mocking Americans’ interpretation of the Japanese, not making fun of the Japanese. To some degree yes Gabriel, but you have to understand that for many groups this interpretation is flat mockery. This is why people get a little more sensitive.
Even our President can’t stand his hands being mocked.
It provides an opportunity to see oneself through the eyes of another — and a chance for the person interpreting your community to gain a deeper understanding of its nuances.
True, it CAN, but that doesn’t mean it’s nuances are understood at all and is often met with aggression.
For example I love natto. Fermented soybeans.

I love it. However, most people without even tasting it say it looks like snot. So I’m eating boogers now. Thanks outsiders. We’ve learned so much.
Explaining how a gay pride parade is often subverting stereotype through exaggeration or how these guys aren’t actually coming to kill you:

Or how dubstep is a reactionary song to existing music isn’t easy.
These outside interpretations are not often interpreting quite so well. Ever hear the idea that people typically don’t listen, they’re just planning what they want to say?
I won’t disagree that engaging does help you gain understanding, but an outside perspective is not always on the level as to where emotions, creativity, or actions are coming from.
At a recent speaking event in Vancouver, Eric Weinstein’s brother Bret (who became famous after being hounded off the campus of Evergreen State University in 2017 by protesting students) had Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris “steel-man” each other’s debating positions, an exercise by which one articulates an opponent’s argument in the strongest possible terms.
Link would be nice. I tried to find this, but all I could find is a response to it. Gonna have to take your word Gabriel. Bret’s in the clip above. Here’s a link to Peterson and Weinstein talking with Joe Rogan.
Peterson said after the show that this exercise was valuable because it improved his understanding of Harris’ point of view.
These guys aren’t exactly oppositional. Maybe some religious stuff. Again, I don’t have a link so I’ll take your word. Yes, taking someone’s point of view can make you appreciate their point of view without adopting it.
For an artist, putting the care and effort required to effectively represent another community may be seen as the social equivalent of steel-manning.
Yes, and no. It can in that diving into a piece may make you fully appreciate a person (say with Hamilton and Lin Manuel Miranda), but it’s the question of “care and effort required.”
However, this belies a lot of what people were upset about with trans representation. It wasn’t even necessarily the care and effort, Hilary Swank won a well deserved Oscar, but rather groups deciding to pick a fight over having representation in a film.
Gabriel you don’t even suggest the obvious question — okay protesters, who would you prefer that would draw an equivalent audience?
Unless we got some Good Will Hunting or Eternal Sunshine screenplay, the response better good.
James Baldwin said the role of the artist is to tell people things they don’t want to hear.
Okay.
If someone doesn’t want to hear a story that makes them uncomfortable, that’s their decision. But they have no right to place their hands over other people’s eyes and ears.
That wasn’t the issue. The audience this would most likely affect wanted to see someone from their group as the lead, not Black Widow. Gabriel, you keep trying to make this about how others could look into a community or others could interpret the community, but you’re forgetting the community itself.
This story, which you make sound bad ass, is probably only going to be told once in our lifetimes and honestly probably wasn’t going to be a runaway summer hit. With higher visibility of trans people is it absurd that some people might pipe up that the role should be played by a trans person? Or does it make more sense to claim art is dead because Scarlett dropped a role, which killed the project?
Boys Don’t Cry and The Imitation Game are both hard to watch. They are also, by any useful definition, true works of art, advancing the audience’s understanding of the underlying subject.
The subject is the characters, so I guess so. Though Imitation Game did obscure exactly what the machines were really doing, but that’s another article.
Any doctrine that would serve to destroy such art does a great disservice to both creator and subject alike.
What’s the doctrine though? I know what you want us to think it is — people who protest any art I think is okay destroy art generally — but you don’t say it. As a reader, I get to fill in the blanks.
My Conclusion
Usually I would push on citing sources from Quillette or give Mr. Scorgie a hard time about grammar, which I have no room to judge.
What bugs me about this type of article is the outrage over the outrage.
Recently, YouTuber Shaun did a video in response to reaction to reaction over Doom. He pointed out that there were more response videos to an article that referenced some tweets than there were tweets in the first place. That’s an odd sentence to write.
There may indeed be something that needs to be in dialogue with regarding Ms. Johansson’s leaving the film. However, using words like “doctrine” or stating that “art” is JUST NOW being destroyed by progressives attempts to do what the YouTuber above points out — frame the situation as dire as possible.
Dire straits demands action and a serious one at that. Namely — no criticism for what you decide doesn’t deserve it.
If a movie doesn’t get shot, that you probably weren’t even gonna see anyways, because the only billable actress on the project drops out for a reason you can’t even for sure cite…well, that doesn’t sound like progressives are going to start burning my Bibles anytime soon. In other words, it’s not really that big of deal.
The reason I referenced Ghost in the Shell is to point out that Ms. Johansson clearly has thick enough skin (or contractual obligations) to deal with controversy related to these exact matters. If she flinched over Rub & Tug, I’m not really sure why she didn’t flinch over a more significant property with wider releases and a larger fan base. In fact, because you have no quote from her on the matter, it makes me think that angry social media posts weren’t the reason. You can’t state it as such period. You chose Lucy as your header image when a more obvious situation was more relevant. That makes me think you just wanted to avoid the topic entirely.
At best it’s lazy writing. At worst it’s misleading.
Writers like this want to appear confrontational, but they’re really just lazy asses.
This isn’t the death of real art — it’s the death of writing.
Fortunately, I’m still alive.
