I see. I don't think it's necessary. I've already recognized that it did not progress organically. I'll assert that maybe we'd all be happy if it were created with respect to the dominant culture, but then it'd be a plain old cultural product.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that there was ill intent involved in its creation, but it's simply too difficult to try to pick apart a product of multiple persons for the purpose of discerning motive. If every person involved had ill intent, that'd be one thing, but the presence of a single good intent demands an investigation of the weights of influence, which is exhausting. I find it far more efficient to use a different angle of approach.
Actually, I'll add on to my assertion: if pop culture were allowed to progress organically (without crutches or life support), then - even with a sinister initial state - it would eventually be forced to conform to the dominant culture, effectively defusing the majority of subversive elements. But also that this was impossible to occur because we have no system for preventing such subversive efforts, combined with the existence of even a single person willing to subvert it.
tl;dr: The initial state doesn't matter, because it suffered an inevitable subversion.
Yes, I agree. It's made worse by older media not even handling credits properly; failing to credit certain types of workers or influencers. At least now it's not too hard to find and follow a money trail in modern media credits.
What I mean is the sort of situation we can see easily online now, where there's a definitive central creative lead, he means well, but he's surrounded by cretins trying to subvert him. It's sad, but a lot of creators can't seem to handle that kind of pressure; they cave in and compromise their own work.
It's not always the twitter-esque social pressure, sometimes it can be pressure from above. Even though the producer should be concerned only with profit, sometimes they meddle and the weird casting or bizarre event in a movie suddenly becomes "who really chose this? the director or some guy pulling his strings?". In the case that the creative talent is stripped of their control over the product, I don't expect to find easy evidence of it.
No. Why do you ask?
I see. I don't think it's necessary. I've already recognized that it did not progress organically. I'll assert that maybe we'd all be happy if it were created with respect to the dominant culture, but then it'd be a plain old cultural product.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that there was ill intent involved in its creation, but it's simply too difficult to try to pick apart a product of multiple persons for the purpose of discerning motive. If every person involved had ill intent, that'd be one thing, but the presence of a single good intent demands an investigation of the weights of influence, which is exhausting. I find it far more efficient to use a different angle of approach.
Actually, I'll add on to my assertion: if pop culture were allowed to progress organically (without crutches or life support), then - even with a sinister initial state - it would eventually be forced to conform to the dominant culture, effectively defusing the majority of subversive elements. But also that this was impossible to occur because we have no system for preventing such subversive efforts, combined with the existence of even a single person willing to subvert it.
tl;dr: The initial state doesn't matter, because it suffered an inevitable subversion.
Yes, I agree. It's made worse by older media not even handling credits properly; failing to credit certain types of workers or influencers. At least now it's not too hard to find and follow a money trail in modern media credits.
What I mean is the sort of situation we can see easily online now, where there's a definitive central creative lead, he means well, but he's surrounded by cretins trying to subvert him. It's sad, but a lot of creators can't seem to handle that kind of pressure; they cave in and compromise their own work.
It's not always the twitter-esque social pressure, sometimes it can be pressure from above. Even though the producer should be concerned only with profit, sometimes they meddle and the weird casting or bizarre event in a movie suddenly becomes "who really chose this? the director or some guy pulling his strings?". In the case that the creative talent is stripped of their control over the product, I don't expect to find easy evidence of it.