Read on Twitter
CW// Incest
Sorry to talk about Gretchen on main, but I've been thinking about her essay and just how bad it is. Basically, it exists as a "get out of criticism free" card, which sucks. https://www.patreon.com/posts/25994657
Sorry to talk about Gretchen on main, but I've been thinking about her essay and just how bad it is. Basically, it exists as a "get out of criticism free" card, which sucks. https://www.patreon.com/posts/25994657
The essay opens with "You can't show women being hurt" and continues to be this strawman where the simple act of depicting messed up things is not allowed, even though there isn't anything to explain how this should be taken as fact
this moves onto calling people who would be upset in the strawman scenario "American Family Association with a glittery coat of paint," and again isn't substantiating these things. The essay just states this, makes the assumption that this is true, and works from there
That doesn't speak well for the writing or the message. If you say "art should be problematic" and the way you open up your argument is to just assume things without providing the audience the evidence that your assumption is correct, you're just wanking off.
it's like how people make fun of Shapiro.
"Assume, for the sake of the argument, that you cannot depict bad things in art. And let's say, hypothetically, that people are the American Family Association if they do this"
"Assume, for the sake of the argument, that you cannot depict bad things in art. And let's say, hypothetically, that people are the American Family Association if they do this"
it's opening with "what if the world was made of pudding" and assuming that's a good way to start your piece.
Anyways, we move onto the meat of the essay: corporate art is bad.
Corporate art is bad, according to the essay, because it's corporate and in order to find good representation you have to dig deep for "subtext" and past other shitty aspects of the art.
Corporate art is bad, according to the essay, because it's corporate and in order to find good representation you have to dig deep for "subtext" and past other shitty aspects of the art.
I think that's a fair read, tbh. "CIA-Approved wokeness of [...] Black Panther" maybe doesn't hit right coming from a white lady on the internet, but I can see where she's coming from. In order to find LGBT+ rep in, say, Captian Marvel you have to dig past the Air Force stuff.
However, "When independent artists release material featuring actual deviant sexuality though [...] -- from gay content to incest -- the reaction from these same people is overwhelmingly prudish." is where the hand tips hard
why would you say that both "gay" and "incest" content is "deviant" in a similar way.
"gay" content isn't about inherently taking advantage of family dynamics, unlike, say "incest" content.
"gay" content isn't about inherently taking advantage of family dynamics, unlike, say "incest" content.
the argument seems to be that disagreeing with, or criticism of, either, "gay" content or "incest" content is inherently prudish. To say "hey, this incest content sucks" is to be a prude *on the same level* as saying "hey, this gay content sucks"
it's a shitty equivalence that absolutely tips Gretchen's hand: "gay" and "incest" content are on the same level, and if you're made uncomfortable by "incest" content you're a prude.
This is hammered home further by asking "what's left in art once you scour away the things that make you uncomfortable?"
again, the "uncomfortable" art is, as noted above, is "gay" or "incest" art.
"what is left in art once you scour away the incest" is what is being asked here
again, the "uncomfortable" art is, as noted above, is "gay" or "incest" art.
"what is left in art once you scour away the incest" is what is being asked here
and, I dunno about you, but art doesn't *need* that. you absolutely don't need to be subjected to incest in art for it to be meaningful, and it's shocking that someone would argue that with full confidence that they're any level of correct
and again, Gretchen continues by saying that if you criticize this art, you're on par with "anti-violent video game morality groups to the Westboro Baptist Church's unhinged campaigns to remove television with gay content from the airwaves"
So, following the essay so far:
The people who criticize "incest" content by indie people are other marginalized people and/or people directly hurt by incest, and for them to criticize this content makes them on the same level as anti-gay groups.
The people who criticize "incest" content by indie people are other marginalized people and/or people directly hurt by incest, and for them to criticize this content makes them on the same level as anti-gay groups.
it's... not a great argument, and just saying "you being uncomfortable with this makes you like an anti-gay group" isn't even coherent. It's just tossed out there and you're expected to shake your head in blind agreement.
We also get to the second part of what drives this essay: a friend was criticized.
"A close friend of mine was attacked as a "vicious anti-semite" for quoting [Nancy Friday's My Secret Garden]"
No link is given, or example provided, obviously. Just nod your head and accept it.
"A close friend of mine was attacked as a "vicious anti-semite" for quoting [Nancy Friday's My Secret Garden]"
No link is given, or example provided, obviously. Just nod your head and accept it.
"The same friend was attacked en masse for her erotic comics featuring gay and bisexual men, comics which depict those men with complexity, heart, and loving attention to detail. The argument was that as a straight woman it was fetishistic for her to portray sex between men"
again, no link to the comics so we can make up our mind if this woman was depicting men in gay/bi relationships with "complexity, heart, and loving attention to detail." We are, again, blindly told that this is true, and are not allowed to make up our own mind.
So now we get the full picture of the essay.
"My friends should be able to make whatever art they like, be it "gay" or "incest", and if you are to criticize their art you are a scold and a prude, regardless of the content of the criticism"
"My friends should be able to make whatever art they like, be it "gay" or "incest", and if you are to criticize their art you are a scold and a prude, regardless of the content of the criticism"
And again, because Gretchen decided that "incest" and "gay" content are the same and should be treated similarly, you get weird readings of the following line:
"When you've crushed the hopes and dreams of every woman writing dark erotica or making beautiful, sensual comics about love and loss, what's left but staring at each other in a creative wasteland ..."
"... and waiting for one of your own to show the tiniest sign of weakness so you can recapture the thrill of moral outrage by ripping them apart"
In a vacuum, that line is okay. But when you add the context of "Gretchen thinks "incest" and "gay" content are the same" it really reads like "when you criticize incest art, YOU'RE the real bad guy!"
Finally, the essay ends with "Enjoy your popcorn movies, your Steven Universe and [...] , but ask yourself, what are you immersing yourself in by not reaching beyond those things?" which I think is another telling thing
Earlier in the essay Gretchen establishes that Corporate Art is bad because it's not made by LGBT+ people, it's made by corporations, so the rep you want can be found by art made by indie LGBT+ people.
But... one of the last examples, Steven Universe, is LGBT+ art made by LGBT+ people. It may be Corporate Art in that it's made with the help of a corporation (Cartoon Network), but it's also made by the same people she says we should be seeking out in this art?
Again, the implication is that you're free to enjoy this Corporate Art, but it's not as good as the indie "incest" and "gay" art, so you're missing out by not seeking out other stuff. It's a bad note to end on in an overwhelmingly bad essay.
So where does this essay leave us? If we're to just nod and accept the essay is correct, it really seems like it only leaves us with one message at the end:
"Art should make you uncomfortable. If you're uncomfortable with "gay" or "incest" art you're a prude"
"Art should make you uncomfortable. If you're uncomfortable with "gay" or "incest" art you're a prude"
the implication throughout the essay is that "gay" and "incest" art are on the same level. if you're upset with "incest" art it's just as bad as being upset with "gay" art, and you *need* to be made uncomfortable in order for art to be good, or at least better than Corporate Art
the other thing throughout the essay is the lack of examples. we're told about this "thoughtful" comic, but are not shown it. We're told that the criticisms against the comic and artist are unfounded and "dense", but are not shown it.
so, within this framework, we're told that art should make you uncomfortable, and you have to be uncritical of it. Otherwise, Gretchen will say you're a prude or you're anti-gay or some sort of scold who gets off on harassing people.
there is no room for criticism here. all criticism of "gay" or "incest" art is simply unfounded, it comes from babies who can't handle being uncomfortable, yet they are able to harass people into not making this Good Art
and this article is shared around uncritically, just like you're told. It's "uncomfortable" to hear that "gay" and "incest" art are on the same level, and that you're the real problem with art if you have a problem with this
it's just such a bad essay on many levels, and that so many people blindly agree with it, as if they didn't even read the essay, is just so frustrating.
Anyways, that's it, no more Gretchen on main. she sucks, this essay sucks, and anyone who supports or endorses the article is someone whomst I do not trust.
