Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 646 Location: Planet Mongo
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
Mapplethorpe's work deserves more discussion. When exhibited at the Taft Museum in Cincinnati's Eden Park, the Sheriff of Hamilton County got national media attention for trying to shut down the show. At the time, I thought the Mapplethorpe Show was garbage that no one would pay to see, and the Sheriff's big media ploy was stupid because the exhibit required a paid ticket admission.
Visitors to the museum could see the other world class exhibits from ancient Egypt, Greece, Persia, China, and rennaisance Europe completely free of charge. There were even two Van Gogh paintings you could study up close, and quietly spend hours comtemplating FOR FREE. One of the best days in my life, I took a girl friend to the museum. We blundered into a free harpsicord concert played on a fully functional 300 year old instrument. Neither of us had any idea there was going to be a live preformance. She thought it was very classy and romantic.
The Taft Museum changed a lot after the Mapplethorp Exhibit. After Mapplethorp's show, I could no longer visit the museum alone to quietly enjoy the classical art without being hit on by gay men. I blame the Sheriff, the museum staff, and Mapplethorp for turning a great museum into a giant gay bar. The Sheriff's attempt at censorship had the exact opposite effect from what he might have intended. Since the definition of art can be defined in almost any way, Mapplethorp's work deserves to be visible to any adult who wishes to see it, but his fans should go somewhere else if they can't behave with some tact and respect for people who are actually interested in the art.
Good post, Yojimbo, but there's an inherent problem with your definition of "personal censorship":
Yojimbo wrote:
Finally, personal censorship. "I don't want my son to see that." However, didn't whatever artist that created it want everyone to see that piece of work? Explore its message? Did it matter if it was age appropriate? Who determines that and, for that matter, when that determination is made, isn't that a form of censorship (audience/publics exclusion)?
Actually, a number of inherent problems:
Looks like you're conflating the artist's want for everyone to see that piece of work with an artist's inherent right for everyone to have to see that work regardless of their desires or choices.
It also looks like in the same statement, you're compounding the erroneous line of definition by equating a viewer's choice to not view something with censorship.
That kind of eliminates both personal right to choose input, and personal right to excercise one's own tastes in viewing: not everyone may wish to see your work. ;]
Same token, as an artist, you have a right to create it - but not a right to force anyone to view/read/watch/experience it.
In libertarian and democratic terms, that's known as the "Your right to swing ends 3 centimeters from my nose" Principle.
Regarding the "Did it matter if it was age appropriate? Who determines that and", parents do, and most properly should. That's the job of parenting: children are not adults, and it's both incumbent on parents to help them to develop adult judgement and to shield them from things they're not quite ready/equipped to cope with yet. And, since the parent is responsible for that child's development - not you the artist, not the government, not the schools, not anyone else - it's the parent's choice to excercise judgement on what's age appropriate. If you the artist want to have a say in how the kid should be reared and what they're exposed to... I suggest that you should also expect to be required to financially support the kid. And to take responsiblity for how your actions and choices affect them. If you don't, you don't get a say. Period.
***********************************************
General thoughts rather than specific to Yojimbo's post:
I believe that with the exception of Government and Corporate, a lot of what's being described as "censorship" so far in this discussion isn't. And Corporate "censorship" is very iffy within this discussion's confines.
In order to qualify as censorship, it has to fall within certain categories: a) does the entity [Government, corporate, individual] have the power to completely block it from expression? b) does the entity have the ability to impose unreasonable and harmful penalty for violating that stricture? c) does the entity have the ability to completely or effectively block the expression from being viewed?
NOTE: I'm not going to couch this in 1st Ammendment terms - the US Constitution only applies to the US, however Rights are inherent wether one is a US citizen or not. "Freedom of Speech" is one of those that the framers of the Constitution considered an "inalienable" right, and based on reading their other writings, they didn't consider it inalienable "only for Americans" else they wouldn't have used "all men" as frequently as they did. They were very precise in their language in a time when words actualy meant something.
Government has the power to effectively censor on all counts, by any definition of the word. A government can attempt to block things from being expressed or disseminated, can exact a harsh and potentially lethal penalty for violating strictures against expression, and can attempt [often with success] expressions from being seen.
Corporate is getting to where cries of "Censorship!" are treading on thinner ice: Right to Speech often and legitimately runs headlong into Right to Property.
It's not "censorship" for a private property owner to state that you can't perform a particular expression on his or her property and attempt to penalise you if you insist on doing so anyway. This applies to an employer's restricting what sites you can browse on the job, posting to your blog or forums while you're on the job, oe ever telling you you can't browse the web at work.
That's the "Your right to swing ends before you hit my nose" Principle. Like it or not, when you're on the employer's property or the employer's time you're either implicitly or explicitly agreed to a contract to follow the employers rules. You dislike the rules, you find employment with better rules more to your liking. The same goes for private websites: you agree to certain terms when you join, *or* the site owner generally has commenting guidelines, and if you abuse them, it's not "censorship" when they boot you out onto the greater 'net. You're always still free to pay GoDaddy $6.95 for a domain name and someone $9.99 for hosting and start your own site to express whatever you wanted to - your freedom of expression hasn't been violated. Ditto for private property: if landowner doesn't wnat you "expressing" on his/her lawn of in their living room, you're probably best off finding a different venue to express in.
Corporate becomes censorship when they attempt to infringe upon your expression off of company property and off of company time - when they attempt to tell you what you cannot do/say/post/read/browse/watch/vote off the job. Case in point: a number of companies have gotten paranoid about weblogging, and they've attempted to set conditions that employees can't blog even when they're off the job. That's corporate censorship, no matter what rationale is used for it. And it fits at least two of the guidelines: they can impose a penalty of firing you for what you do in your private life.
That's getting real close to indentured servitude.
Personal/Individual "censorship": Intrinsically, there's no such animal.
Personal freedom to choose what one buys, reads, views, listens to, watches, whatever trumps your "right" to force someone to see it or hear it. Your fist needs to stop before it hits their nose. They need to excercise reasonable discretion and avoid things they don't want to be exposed to: if they don't want to view porn, they shouldn't browse porn sites etc.
However, it's not "censorship" for an individual to complain about your expression, disagree with your expression, refuse to visit your website, refuse to purchase your products/albums/books/whatever, or even to organise a boycott of your expression. They have no intrinsic ability to block your expression from dissemination, no ability to prevent it from being expressed, and no ability to exact unreasonable penalty of your for expressing.
The monetary hit from their refusin to buy your expression or pay to see it is not an "unreasonable penalty": it's called Voting With Your Wallet, and your right to create doesn't include a "right" to disctate how someone else spends their viewing dollar. Or time, which is equally valued: it's a finite resource.
Disagreeing with your views, expression, or opinions isn't censorship either: it's excercising one's right to express a contrary view.
In the case of personal "censorship", I believe the term you're searching for is "censure".
Words mean something. And they don't just mean whatever is convenient to your purposes at a given time. If you have to stretch it to make it fit, you probably need a different word. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Joined: Jul 14, 2002 Posts: 12 Location: The Humid South
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:38 am Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
Actually, censure is something completely different and entirely unrelated to the discussion. To censure something would only imply blame.
A censor, however, is "a person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."
So, you're saying parents aren't censors? By your definitions (all well thought, BTW), you're saying that when a parent screens his child from going to see the aforementioned "South Park," he is not exercising his right to "examine ... films ... to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically or otherwise objectionable"?
I think otherwise. And that's my point. I understand exactly your point in the other (well-thought) anaolgies. However, in ensuring there was a grassroots understanding of censorship, it's prudent to makr it as it exists on many levels of community, rather than one.
Moving on, more toward the original point of the post, studios removing/adding material to productions. Anybody remember:
-- When some studios started colorizing films?
-- When some studios -- following 9|11 -- removed the World Trade Center towers from productions (Spiderman, the movie did)?
-- Or why Disney won't release "Song of the South" in the US?
-- When George Lucas made Greedo shoot first?
Missing scenes from the cartoons and the examples above are studio choices. The cartoons are the products of the studios. However, when a product has such wide public dissemination; or becomes a "classic," we attach different values to it -- national, moral and others. It becomes "ours." So, we feel we have a stake in them. And we did -- we paid the $7 for the film; or $30 for the original VHS to SEE FREAKING HAN SOLO SHOOT GREEDO DEAD!
[Inhale] [Exhale]
Now ...
If the studio chooses to make the edits, there's not much we can say about it. We can buy the cartoons or not (cartoon that were, at the time ,expressly made to show before films; during war time efforts; and were made for adults). The studios own them. They can do whatever they want with them.
However, we cry censorship (and it is -- by the studios) when they maul the originals by coloring, deleting or adding to them. It's just not the sort of censorship you can fight unless you can show the company there's a burdgeoning market for an original version of its wares (well, that and leaving scenes in a production that society now terms "offensive" vice society 40 years ago).
Live from the Cult of Han Solo, I Am ... _________________ ---|----------------
Yojimbo, A Humble Servant
http://www.jasontudor.com
Blog, photos and more at the site
I thought yours was pretty well thought out as well, in spite of what I still see as a minor flaw in reasoning. ;]
Yojimbo wrote:
Actually, censure is something completely different and entirely unrelated to the discussion. To censure something would only imply blame.
*brkzzt!* Not so fast, Ceesco. We can both cherry pick definitions if we want to, I suggest that we don't go there. ;]
Quote:
However, in ensuring there was a grassroots understanding of censorship, it's prudent to makr it as it exists on many levels of community, rather than one.
I quite agree. SO... why did you cherry pick just one on your defining of "censure"?
Cherry picking: "An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism."
Personal "censorship" of material fits that more closely: expression of strong disapproval in the course of making a personal choice.
Also covers: "An official rebuke"; "To criticize severely; blame" [Your sole definition]; and "To express official disapproval of"; all of which are applicable in some aspects. Nor are they "entirely unrelated to the discussion".
We can go back to the more ehrmm... "definitive" Merriam-Webster for even more. ;]
And while it's prudent to make sure to define it at a grassroots level as it exists on many levels of community, rather than one, it's also prudent to make sure the definitions fit.
You're stretching a bit on the other elements of censorship outside of Governmental, and heading into potentially dangerous ground.
By that interpretation, then all pre-release editing choices by an artist or producer become "censorship": including the time/space/narrative editing that exists between Director's Cut and Release Cut; and your artistic choices to remove a supporting character from an image between posting a WIP and posting a finished image.
Someone who likes the WIP better and feels an "ownership in it" might decide you're "censoring" their final viewing rather than excercising artistic control over your property and vision.
Regarding StarWars and Spiderman, it really doesn't matter how much you feel an ownership in it, no more than if you feel an ownership in Sturk's car because you've ridden in it a few times. The studios and the creators actually own it, and it's their artistic and other choices that it conforms to.
Your "ownership" is limited to wether you decide to see their edited-to-their-tastes vision, or hunt for copies of the version where Solo shot first for your collection.
Going too far down your line is going to end up with you losing your creative control in the interests of "non-censorship". _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:41 pm Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
OrcaDesignStudios wrote:
Joking aside, I think all of this has gone way too far. Today's children are basically so insulated that they're growing up without a clue as to what the real world is all about.
I don't see how anyone can say what you just did about kids these days being overly insulated. We live in the information age with the internet, chatrooms and world wide web. Kids these days are bombarded with information overload to such extremes I could never have dreamed of as a child. We have kids being fed porn in chatrooms by pedophiles and cyber stalkers. PrimeTime television gets by with more violence, nudity and foul language than you ever heard when I was a kid.
The problem is these new extremes cause people to react extremely and they over compensate with censorship of innocent stuff like WB cartoons. I don't see how you can blame them though.
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
Censorship is evil.
Those offended by nudity are usually the people who are mostly insecure about themselves, or perhaps view nudity as an invasion into their bedroom because they feel everything naked means it's sexual.
Regardless I feel most entertainment to be dull, boring, and too clean. I find it stimulating to see something new regardless of it's level of nakedness. Not sexually stimulated, stimulated that it's something I haven't ever seen before without limitations.
Of course most will say censorship is needed to keep the child molesters contained which I think is basically just that , a temporary containment for those that otherwise should be identified, and handled properly.
Religous people almost always loving arguing about what's inappropriate yet rarely do they ever think about how inappropriate it is to make issues based mostly on their own narrow understanding.
I could go on, but I think there is never a way to get everyone to agree because some people just love being the "holy-er than thou" in a misguided attempt to score imaginary heaven points....So that Live, and love is never actually furfilled.
Joined: Jun 28, 2004 Posts: 190 Location: between here and insanity
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
I'm going to digress from the topic just a little here...
Quote:
Regardless I feel most entertainment to be dull, boring, and too clean. I find it stimulating to see something new regardless of it's level of nakedness. Not sexually stimulated, stimulated that it's something I haven't ever seen before without limitations.
Statements like this bother me, and I will explain why.
The reason we are seeing more and more violence and sex and the whole question of censorship is being raised is that there is this need to feed the masses with whatever gets the most "shock" for the least amount of effort. Throw in enough "shock" and even the most brain-dead executive has a winner.
I'm a believer in using what you need to convey your story. There is a place for nudity and sensuality sometimes and there is a place for violent content sometimes if it serves a purpose. And then there's cases of both where the sole purpose is "LOOK! Sex and violence! Let's GAWK!!!" It is not there for any kind of reason except to appeal to the base voyeuristic tendencies in the target audience.
Granted not everything has to be highbrow, not everything has to be pure and perfect. (I consider "Airplane" one of the funniest movies ever) But this lazy 'product' mentality is what's been fueling the censorship debate by giving the censorship side plenty of ammo to work. What better way to get publicity with no effort than to cause controversy? Poke the sheep and see which one "baaas" the loudest. It's like the forbidden fruit - if you're not supposed to have it, it becomes that much more tempting.
A while back there was a controversial show in New York called "Sensations" The controversy centered around one piece that used dried animal dung on a picture of the Virgin Mary. The exhibition was a complete sell out after the news broke. I got a chance to see the collection when bowie.net posted it, and frankly, it was not that great an art show. The works were mediocre at best, only one piece standing out in any way, and SHOULD have been a quiet showing.
Well, they say there's no such thing as bad publicity.
To me it's just reached a point of such extremes of non-thinking on both sides, it's insane. One side will do anything to shock just to get eyes to look at it, the other side will do anything to 'protect' and silence with such a narrowminded agenda that context means nothing. Lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Good or bad, these things tend to move in cycles. The roaring excesses of the 20's made way for the conservatism of the 50's to the free love of the 60's, etc. for example.
I'm not sure which end of the cycle we're on right now or how long it will last, but I can be reasonably sure than in a few years, the whole view will change again. _________________ "Flash, quit heckling the supervillain!" - Green Lantern
The Ether Forge: http://www.stkp.com/POSER/
I agree totally, GlitchGirl. I think at the moment there's a continually expanding gulf between those who want to provoke our sensibilities with ever-increasing shock tactics, and those who want react against it with overpowering conservatism. It's reflected in every aspect of our societies, from art to politics to religion. Right now there's nothing but extremism on both sides. There's a prevailing sense of "you're either with us or against us" which is worrying. I think most people of the world who have real, day-to-day things to worry about in just living their lives probably favour some kind of middle ground, but extreme views always grab the headlines. I agree with your "cycle" view of attitudes; my opinion is that we're in the middle of a cycle-shift right now. Who knows which side the coin will land? The only thing sure is that Joe Public probably still won't know where he stands, while idealists will push their propaganda, as always.
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 310 Location: Northern Kentucky, USA
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
Hasdrubal wrote:
Mapplethorpe's work deserves more discussion. When exhibited at the Taft Museum in Cincinnati's Eden Park, the Sheriff of Hamilton County got national media attention for trying to shut down the show. At the time, I thought the Mapplethorpe Show was garbage that no one would pay to see, and the Sheriff's big media ploy was stupid because the exhibit required a paid ticket admission.
Visitors to the museum could see the other world class exhibits from ancient Egypt, Greece, Persia, China, and rennaisance Europe completely free of charge. There were even two Van Gogh paintings you could study up close, and quietly spend hours comtemplating FOR FREE. One of the best days in my life, I took a girl friend to the museum. We blundered into a free harpsicord concert played on a fully functional 300 year old instrument. Neither of us had any idea there was going to be a live preformance. She thought it was very classy and romantic.
The Taft Museum changed a lot after the Mapplethorp Exhibit. After Mapplethorp's show, I could no longer visit the museum alone to quietly enjoy the classical art without being hit on by gay men. I blame the Sheriff, the museum staff, and Mapplethorp for turning a great museum into a giant gay bar. The Sheriff's attempt at censorship had the exact opposite effect from what he might have intended. Since the definition of art can be defined in almost any way, Mapplethorp's work deserves to be visible to any adult who wishes to see it, but his fans should go somewhere else if they can't behave with some tact and respect for people who are actually interested in the art.
The Maplethorpe show was NOT AT THE TAFT, it was at the Contemporary Arts Center. Dennis Barrie was the curator at the time. I don't recall the CAC ever having a free show: nor did they ever have classic artwork. They show MODERN ART and Photography.
The Taft Museum is not in Eden Park, it's downtown. Just off of "Taft Avenue" actually. The "Cincinnati Art Museum" is in Eden Park. http://www.taftmuseum.org/
What were the "two Van Goh's" you wrote about? There arent any in the Taft's permenant collection that I recall, there is ONE at The CAM, "Undergrowth with Two Figures" Painted the year that Vincent "died". The Taft however does have great artwork, including a stunning Rembrandt. I'm a member of the Taft.
http://www.taftmuseum.org/CC-Sep2005.htm
By the way: the Cincinnati Art Museum has FREE ADMISSION Tuesday - Sunday, closed on Monday. It it does feature amazing art from all around the word. I've yet to be hit on by any men there though, but I have kissed my wife there. I'm also a member there too.
http://www.cincinnatiartmuseum.com/
Doug Sturk
Husband to the Assistant to the Deputy Director of the Cincinnati Art Musuem
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 646 Location: Planet Mongo
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:14 am Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
I think the Taft collection was actually housed in the CAM until about 17 years ago. There was a bronze bust of Robert Taft in front of the CAM in those days. Is it still there?
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
GlitchGirl wrote:
A while back there was a controversial show in New York called "Sensations" The controversy centered around one piece that used dried animal dung on a picture of the Virgin Mary. The exhibition was a complete sell out after the news broke. I got a chance to see the collection when bowie.net posted it, and frankly, it was not that great an art show. The works were mediocre at best, only one piece standing out in any way, and SHOULD have been a quiet showing.
I agree , animal dung on a picture of the Virgin Mary does sound mediocre. It's obvious it was only ment to insult, and offend religous groups whose faith is built in Christianity. Dung isn't shocking just ask any farmers who see cow dung every day. That's not at all what I ment. WHat often surprizes me is how two people can discuss a matter person to person and everything is fine but when it's publicized suddenly the media and people make a big deal out of everything.
Such a discription about dung seems like imature insult, and nothing more which is not at all the kinds of material was thinking of. I was more or less thinking about content that's perticularly with exposed male, or female nudity.
Didn't mean violence either. I see more people offended by nudity than anything else which again I stand by for the same reasons as I'd explained above.
Joined: Feb 26, 2003 Posts: 3 Location: ffffffffffffff
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
This may also be..just slightly off topic, but I can say that I'm probably one of the youngest people to enter this discussion. (I'll be eighteen this April.)
Everyone up to this point has been making some good points on either side of the discussion..but what I'd like to talk about is censorship in videogames. Censorship with videogames has gotten pretty crazy, I'm a 17 + gamer that has played videogames pretty much my entire life, starting with NES.
I've played just about every type of game there is..from non-violent to ultra-violent (Grand Theft Auto Anyone?) What bothers me the most is that parents and pro-censorship people actually believe that these forms of entertainment can MAKE people go out and become murderers and psychos.
There have been cases of murders where people have blamed violent videogames on their own or someone elses behavior, I think that is simply irresponsible and ridiculous. If you read into these stories, the person accused of being influenced by violent videogames almost always has a history of depression or mental illness, a rough childhood etc.
I could go on and on..but I'll say this..the ESRB rating system is there for a reason. It's very simple for parents, obviously Mature rated games contain violence and possible sexually suggestive content that won't be suitable for children. So...don't want your children playing violent games? Don't buy the game for them, and monitor whos house they're going to, what games their friends have etc.
It's that easy...alot of parents who blame videogames for their children's bad behavior have only themselves to blame for doing a poor job of raising the kids in the first place. Myself? I'm a perfectly sane and caring individual that loves his family and friends, and has played (And enjoyed) every Grand Theft Auto title to date aswell as other violent games such as Manhunt.
Games are simply that...games.. so as the saying goes.. "Don't like what's on the channel? Change it." I guess for some people it's easier to blame things than to take responsibility. I'd just like to see pro-censorship people stop blaming Videogames and Gamers for their problems.
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 11 Location: California, USA
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
With censorship so much on the rise and them saying that they are trying to make cartoons 'better' for today's children then why is it that the vast majority of cartoons on Saturday morning now Violent Anime shows? Even the US made cartoons are now imitations of martial arts Anime. Like even the Pokiemons are always blowing up the bad guys and sending them flying through the air at least twice in every episode...fighting...fighting...more fighting...and even more fighting.
Gone are the cartoons that make light of everyday life or poking fun at each other's culture and now it's just pain Fight, Fight, Fight regarless.
What bad influenses did Casper the Friendly ghost ever protray upon kids - oh, he made of 'whites'?
What bad influenses did Deputy Dawg ever have on kids - oh, he carried a gun and made fun of the way Southerners talked?
What bad influenses did Kimba the Lion ever have on kids - oh, he made kids think African animals really talk?
What about Speed Racer - oops, he incouraged kids to grow up and break the 55 mile an hour speed limit?
Ok then, lets ban all cartoons, ban Christmas (after all it's a Pagan holiday anyway), and ban Halloween cuz the state of Oregon says it offends Wiccans (of whom already said it don't but hey, we gotta ban something right?), and for now on All babies must be born with diapers ON! And lets get some Pants on them Cows....geeesh!
You know, even a local park I gew up playing in recently took down this big old Rocket ship that I spent all my youth climbing in (and in my older youth it was great for climbing up in to hide and smoke my....um) anyway, that rocket ship was like a land mark of such for the park, it could be seen a block away, and when I asked why they took it down or at least why they didn't replace it with something bigger and better - I was told, "Because it was too high and it's now been replaced by a 'safer' toy for kids to play with" - there is now a little climbing thing about 2-foot tall, HUMFFFF! What whooosie kid wants to play on that?!
I had to ask "Did anyone get hurt on the rocket?", I was told "No", "Did anyone fall off the rocket and file a complaint?" I asked, I was told "No, we just wanted to prevent such a thing from happening is all".....I know of at least 15 years that rocket stood, perhaps more - and NOW it's a problem??
Kids will learn bad things with or without Censorship, it's up to the parents to teach them right and wrong, kids will fall down and get hurt, then they heal, that's what growing up is all about. With all this censorship and destroying all that once was I don't see the youths of today getting any 'better', in fact things seem to be getting 'worse' - Kids didn't carry guns to school when I was in school! And when I was in school Buggs Bunny and Daffy Duck was always blowing Elmer Fudd's head off
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 11 Location: California, USA
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
And not to sound racist, because I'm NOT. But what is with all of today's cartoons being of Japanese Anime style, and 90% depicting martial arts (don't get me wrong, I was an avid martial artist for many years and still practice from time to time). But what happened to the American made Saturday morning cartoons, and the ones that don't depict fighting? Just yesterday I surfed channel after channel trying to find a non-anime cartoon, there was Non. It's like their trying to shove Anime down our throats or something, or are all the Japanese Anime artists comeing to America to publish their work because they are all being banned in Japan.
Now I know this may be taken wrong by some, but it is not meant as a anti-Japanese question; it's meant as statement to ask "Where did all the talent in America go?"
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 646 Location: Planet Mongo
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: Re: Censorship - Round Table
They all went to the unemployment line.
This nasty out-sourcing trend in the animation industry began in the 50's with the Hungarian made Tom and Jerry toons. MGM was embarrassed about leaving the "Made in USA" title card off the end of the foreign toons during the height of the cold war, but their executives were able to hold down the bottom line with a considerable loss of quality. It was just crap they were making for kids.
Most of the studio jobs in this country now consist of little more than story boarding, and drawing key frames. The in-between drawings, cel painting, and photography are done in Asia. It's only logical for the network and studio executives to transfer the entire production overseas once the major portion of the work is done there already.
Although in the the last few years, some of the American studios have picked up on making toons with Flash, which doesn't require foreign investments. American studios could grab back a larger chunk of market share, and employment opportunities, if more 3D toons were being produced here.
All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 2 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Search
Memberlist
Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups
FAQ & TOS
Log in
