College work, questions inside!

[Bobalonga]

K so, for my FMP at college Im working on the links of violence in art to real world violence, and the limitations to designers and artists due to health and safety laws put in place by paranoias surrounding sharp objects and weapons etc... For this to be successful, Im trying to figure out just what people deem acceptable violence wise in games, art, and the media in general, and what they think should be censored, or only viewable by certain audiences.

So, to start,

1) Do you believe that it is necersary to produce and view violent art forms? Do we as a species require some form of outlet for our primal instincts to ensure that they are expressed in a non-violent way? Is there what you consider a cut off point for what you deem acceptable and unacceptable in civilized society or do you believe that people should be free to express themselves as they see fit, with or without a meaning behind those expressions?

2) Do you consider "Cutesy" or "Cartoony" violence to be more acceptable than that which mimics real life? (Eg, would you consider the Happy Tree Friends more acceptable than say, Gears of War.) Do you consider the amount of blood to be a factor which should decide the suitability and rating of a certain piece? (For example, would you consider the normal Tom and Jerry to be more suitable for viewing than if it contained blood?) If so, why?

3) Can you think of any games or movies which contain violence, blood and gore, yet at the same time appear to be very childish, both in graphical quality and looks upon first viewing?

4) Do you feel that artists should feel the need to push the boundaries of what is, and what isnt acceptable (The Chapman Brothers for example, googling them may be nsfw if you use an image search, though I imagine wikipedia would be ok), or do you feel that it is irresponsible? Should all Art involving themes of violence have a meaning behind it to ensure it is not taken out of context by those viewing it, or do you feel it is fine to simply create it for the sake of creating it?


If anyone takes the time out to reply to these questions it would be much appriciated, and if it goes well there will likely be more on the way (Once I collate and record all the answers I recieve to this bunch anyway)

[Skeeterxi]

1) Yes. I would say this is why hunting and fishing is so popular, it just taps into an instinct I think. Its a rush. Maybe most sports might be this way, I dunno. I think people should express themselves, until it starts to negatively effect other people.

2) I think your example in happy tree friends would indeed be more acceptable because it shows animals and not humans. Tom and Jerry without blood is more suitable than with blood, but all of this also depends on the age of the viewers as well.

3) There are tons of games and movies like this. Like WoW for example, its graphics are pretty cartoony and childish looking but you constantly kill other players and there is plenty of violence. I think there is too many examples of this to even bother listing.

4) I don't feel artists should feel the need to push boundaries but controversy sells. If you can shock people you will grab lots of attention. I don't think artists have to make sure their art isn't interpreted wrongly and they could create it just for the sake of creating it. I mean, if you have a kid who interprets a game or show wrong lets say, and does something like shoots up his school or something crazy, is it the artists fault? Not to me, I hold the parents responsible for not monitoring their child, not the artist for expressing themselves.

[MisterBob]

BG: Doing homework for people (usually poorly) since 1772

[Bobalonga]

Not really homework, more research for a final outcome to the project, but I figured that posting on here was likely going to be mostly useless. Ty for the answers though Skeeterxi.