gold_flamingo (gold_flamingo) wrote,
gold_flamingo
gold_flamingo

as seen on TV

I was talking with my brother a few weeks ago, and he asked me if I thought there was such a thing as immoral art - if artists bear any ethical obligations regarding the content of their work.  I said yes.  I think the thing that defines art - what differentiates it from craft - is its attempt to capture and convey human experience.  We turn to art for entertainment and aesthetic pleasure, but also to learn about how other people see the world, to find out about how things are, or could be, or should be, or might once have been.  And particular works are more or less successful at achieving this, but there is only one way for art to be immoral, and that is for it to deliberately and profoundly misrepresent the nature of human life.  Art is perforce not factually true, but it is only wrong inasmuch as it is dishonest.  If the dishonesty is too pervasive, it ceases to be art and becomes something else instead: propaganda, or pornography, or advertising.  But frequently it's nothing so clear cut - a little bit of falsehood mixed into an otherwise viable work, just for dramatic effect, just to keep things interesting.  It happens all the time.  We kind of expect it, particularly in art's more commercial forms.  But it still has the capacity to cause harm.

Music and television shows are probably the most pervasive art media in our culture.  And while I think anyone finding emotional guidance in Britney Spears songs is apt to be let down eventually, it's television that concerns me at the moment.  TV shows tell us a lot of pretty stupid things about the world - about what will make us happy, about how relationships work, about what space aliens spend their time doing.  But I think one of the most dangerous lies on television is its habitual portrayal of the utility of torture.  Anyone who watches dramas predicated on international conflicts or violent crime (the spy show, the army show, the FBI show, the cop show) is familiar with this: the ticking bomb.  The loved one in deadly peril.  The villain or terrorist withholding vital information.  Enter the hero of the moment: someone grimly determined, even desperate.  He doesn't like what he's about to do, but this is his last lead, and innocent lives are at stake.  The bad guy is uncooperative.  A few punches don't loosen him up, so then the gloves come off.  This isn't the good guy's usual line of work, so the tools are simple: a knife, a pair of pliers, a cigarette lighter.  We don't have to watch anything too graphic - blood in the corner of the screen and some screaming.  Within twenty seconds, the bad guy caves, starts spouting information: places, times, names.  This is the last we see of him.  We only watch the good guy run off and save the day, just in the nick of time.  How many times have you seen that story?

We are lucky to live in a country where the government tends to only practice torture on foreign nationals, on foreign soil.  We don't have much personal experience with it.  We haven't spoken with its victims, we're not concerned that when our college buddies are arrested at some protest, they'll be released with electrical burns, if at all.  And so, over time, it is not so hard to sympathize with the guy on TV - what would you do, after all, if it was a choice between inflicting a little pain and letting a nuclear bomb go off in Times Square?  And as soon as this becomes the question, we have swallowed the lie.  We have accepted the (criminally false) premise that torture produces accurate, actionable intelligence, rather than a confession to anything and everything that might make it stop (I am a terrorist.  My mother is a terrorist.  My cat is a terrorist).  We have accepted that the good guy and the bad guy are labeled in advance based on political affiliation, and that these designations are not altered by individual choices and behavior.

It's not Hollywood's fault that the executive branch has spent much of the last eight years waging systematic war on the basic tenets of civilization (transparency, accountability, rule of law, respect for human rights).  We learned phrases like "enhanced interrogation" and "extraordinary rendition" from the news, not Jack Bauer.  But he might be part of the reason that I've had to debate whether torture is always wrong with otherwise decent and reasonable adults, and part of the reason why the news doesn't prompt more outrage.  Our "liberal media" have, I think, contributed a fair amount to this country in terms of promoting civil rights (how many times have we seen black or female presidents on TV?  Often enough for it to feel familiar by 2008?  Yeah, 24 may have done its part there too).  But there is something worse than irresponsible about the number of "heroes" who are willing to get their hands dirty for the greater good at prime time.  It's worth remembering that life imitates art sometimes, too.
Subscribe

  • notes from the couch

    There's nothing quite like a cold to make me feel that autumn and its attendant aura of stately decline have finally arrived. Not that…

  • don't make me come to Vegas

    I've been feeling nostalgic for Las Vegas lately, maybe because of the novel I'm editing, much of which takes place in a version of the city,…

  • I am my own behavioral psychology experiment

    So, it's April now, which is to say early summer in New Orleans. It's 85 and humid here, with little prospect of significant cooling for the next…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments