|
In response to
"Maybe I’m missing the message and I’m too tired to read, but…"
by
Mop
|
The examples in your post are about diversity and inclusion, not cultural quality or impact.
Posted by
Roger More (aka RogerMore)
Aug 30 '22, 05:39
|
It's great to have a superhero show focussed on a young female Muslim character, but it's still a superhero show. Is it saying anything new or original? What impact is it having on society - beyond 'Muslims can be superheroes too'?
The Indian, Chinese and Nigerian film industries are all big and growing bigger, but they're also focussed on popular entertainment for their domestic audience more than holding up a mirror to their own societies. Plus artists in those countries have to be very careful about the questions they ask.
Essentially what the article is saying is that art and culture are entirely focussed on commercial production, leaving very little space for true cultural innovation to grow - and the reason is because the traditional patrons of this type of art, the high elite, are not very interested in it.
Over the 1880s-1910s, you had a bunch of artists in Europe creating a series of new trends from Impressionism to Cubism that changed the way people thought about art, and part of why they created these new trends was that a bunch of rich Americans were going over to Europe and buying up any any new art they could get their hands on, to hang in their mansions and signify their social status. The equivalents today - Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos etc - are not interested in buying art (or sponsoring opera, or whatever), their pet projects are in other areas like disease prevention or colonising new planets.
|