The Attack on Imagination

by Jon on May 27, 2010

Photo Credit: Delos Johnson

For as long as humans could speak, there have been a surplus of people who remind us to plant our feet firmly on the ground, to prevent our minds from piercing the clouds and to keep our dreams small.  Amongst the most pronounced in our modern age are certain cultural critics dismayed with their perceived failings of popular culture.  They consider our music to be banal, think our exposure to “genre” literature is dumbing us down, our games are artless, our websites are trivial.  Overall, our culture can be described as “alternately violent, pornographic, unreal, trite, vapid, conformist, consumerist, meaningless and brainless.”

I can detect three ideas that pervade much of these pessimistic views:

  • Great art is somehow irreconcilable with the notion of popularity and capitalist production.
  • Culture which entertains people and unites them around social activities is deficient to that which enlightens.
  • Art which plays with the imagination is ______________ (vapid, escapist, unreal, unimportant)

The anti-capitalist critique of art may have begun with Adorno and the Frankfurt School, who saw consumer culture as a way for The Man to prevent a glorious Marxist revolution by pacifying us with a supply of bourgeoisie goods.  Although many contemporary critics have dropped the communist pretext, the substance of the argument hasn’t changed much.  Contrary to this viewpoint, great art (note also that I’m refraining from vague distinctions such as “popular” versus “fine,” which I find to be based more on economic class rather than artistic merit) is produced best within consumer-driven, capitalist economies.  You cannot create cultural works in a society that is incapable of producing ample surpluses; and you cannot enjoy culture in a society that lacks in leisure time.  Even renaissance workshops were operated as businesses, but their markets were small.  Leisure time was virtually nonexistent before the modern era, and has continued to increase over the last few decades. Furthermore, free markets are the most efficient way to connect niche consumers with niche artists.  The Internet has amplified this effect because it is able to aggregate people with very diverse interests from around the world, making it possible to produce niche content that, in total, exceeds the “popular” content. Culture is getting more diverse, not more homogenized or “dumbed down” as some would see it.

With a surplus of free time available, it makes sense that we’d be exhausted by the large variety of content that can educate or enlighten us.  That’s a fair explanation for why people demand entertainment that–well, entertains.  It’s a necessary part of the cycle of recharging us for more creative and productive activities.  There’s not much evidence that our entertainment has a “dumbing down” effect at all: throughout the world, illiteracy rates are plummeting and IQ is on the rise.  Another facet of modern popular entertainment–whether a multiplayer game, a rock concert, or simply talking about a television show around the water-cooler–is that it is often a social activity.  It strikes me that the anti-entertainment critique of culture makes a value judgment that certain solitary cerebral pursuits are inherently superior to social activities.  I see no reason that one is fundamentally better than the other, nor can I think of a reason why they’d be mutually exclusive.

Imagination and the Sense of Wonder

This leaves us with the third theme–what I’ll call the “attack on imagination.”  Those who critique games, science fiction, fantasy literature and the like will often view these pursuits as mere escapism, vapid, a waste of time, a distraction–activities that offer no rewards and lead to no greater good. In contrast, consider what Tom Shippey, a scholar of both medieval literature and modern fantasy literature, has to say about how literature can deal with large, epic problems of the “real world” within the metaphors of fantasy and science fiction:

…the traditional opposition between ‘escapist fantasy’ and ‘realist novel’ was, throughout the twentieth century and beyond, 180 degrees in the wrong direction: it is the fantasists like Orwell or Golding or Vonnegut or Tolkien who have been confronting the fearful and horrible issues of political life, while the E. M. Forsters and John Updikes stayed within their sheltered Shires.

Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is a good example: within the backdrop of an engrossing and interesting fantasy world, one has to cope with the nature of good and evil, with the dangers of obsession, with temptation, concerns about industrialization, the horrors of war–to name only a few of its subjects.

Fantasy and science fiction have an ability to ignite our imaginations with something that is hard for other forms of literature to do: inspire us with a sense of wonder.  The sense of wonder is one of the greatest exhilarations one can experience in fiction (whether a novel, a movie or a game), for it is this emotion that inspires us to expect–no, demand–better things from humanity.  It is this sense of wonder which is central to fantasy and science fiction literature; in the former, through the settings which stretch the imagination, the magic and unreality acting as a metaphor for all of the things that are most dear to the human heart–and in the latter, challenges and experiences that provoke us to strive for the truly awesome.

Do all modern cultural artifacts contain this sense of wonder?  Or redeeming entertainment or social value?  No; there’s clearly a need for criticism, taste-makers and a demanding public.  Some media are demonstrably better than others.  But to generalize and speak of a general cultural decline is insulting and narrow-minded.

I leave you a video that expresses some of the thoughts I’ve described above.  It is from the “meaningless” morass of YouTube.  Its content is a “vapid” mashup of other video content, set to “banal” electronic music–dealing with subject matter which is not science-fiction itself–but is surely fired by our “escapist” dreams:

Did you think this was interesting? If so:
Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook:

Thank you for reading this article. Please follow me on Twitter to hear more from me on innovation, games and entrepreneurship. If you'd like to learn how games can transform your business, also check out my book, Game On: Energize Your Business with Social Media Games.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Mark HouckNo Gravatar May 29, 2010 at 3:08 am

First of all Jon, thanks for sharing that amazing video clip. Sagan and Hawking set to music. Brilliant. Wish I had done it.

With that as an example of your point however, I think you may be reinforcing the opposition’s argument more than you think. This video is a real gem, but most of the content on youtube IS vapid, self indulgent mirror worship as the critics of such things claim. It’s not really fair to raise the best of the best as an example of what’s available because, by and large, it’s not a fair representation of what’s available. Most of what’s available really IS crap.

When we’re talking about user generated content (like youtube), I’m one of the guys in the “what is all this junk?” camp, with the caveat that I don’t expect it to be great. It’s user content on youtube. It’s an inherently voyeuristic adventure, a window into some else’s free time and it’s fun for that- some cool a lot not. What I think is cool may not be your definition, but that’s another topic altogether. Youtube is free and you kind of get what you pay for a lot of the time.

What I think guys like me lament in games is the same thing I ran into as a musician back in NY struggling to get a record deal. It’s really tough for a developer (read: musician) to make something great (different and interesting), because the cost of failure is really high ($$$) and if someone else is paying for it, what just sold last year already made money so…. It’s a business and an expensive flop can sink a company in a heartbeat. Yes, it sucks for innovation but it’s reality.

If the cost of failure were zero, I think the critics (like me :) ) would probably shut up because there WOULD be experimental, ground breaking games coming out every day. I, and a lot of guys like me would love that, and some (like me) are actually working toward that because we thing it’s important.
We are hopeful and tireless little monsters, buoyed by the knowledge that things are changing, that the indie’s are getting good tools and cheap distribution, that breakout iPhone apps are making money now and then, and that a regular guy with a great idea actually has a shot at making enough to pay the rent.

We aren’t condemning the whole industry for making junk, we know there’s good (even great) creators out there- we just aren’t getting a chance to see them, a lot like the video you presented. We want to be moved, but not much is measuring up. It’s coming and we know it, we’re just a little… impatient sometimes.

Thanks for broaching the topic. I hope it lights a fire under the men and women so much smarter than I am to make something great and then prove us all wrong. I can’t wait to see it.

Mark Houck
CEO, DACAAM

super chimpNo Gravatar May 31, 2010 at 4:01 pm

I was particularly struck by this part that you wrote:

“Contrary to this viewpoint, great art … is produced best within consumer-driven, capitalist economies. You cannot create cultural works in a society that is incapable of producing ample surpluses; and you cannot enjoy culture in a society that lacks in leisure time.”

I am curious what you think of countries with a dominant Muslim culture. It appears that strict Islamics forbid most forms of art, not just depictions of Mohammad.

Personally, I think when you take art, music, games, comedy, theater and all these things away from people, you end up with a humorless, angry, intolerant mob. Sad, illiterate people whose lives are so bleak they think becoming a suicide bomber is a good decision.

And in that way it seems that Communism and extremist Islam result in similar, unhappy societys.

JonNo Gravatar May 31, 2010 at 5:15 pm

@Mark: No doubt there is much of that, which is why I acknowledge an important and continuing role for criticism. Although I don’t mention it in my post, I also think that there’s a lot more that could be done technologically to help throw a spotlight on the best content (or perhaps the content most interesting to you). I feel we’ve probably gotten as far as we can with the basic community-ratings features. It isn’t that bad stuff doesn’t exist (Sturgeon’s Law continues in full force!) but that one can’t generalize an entire medium as somehow being morally and artistically deficient, as if it’s an inescapable function of the medium itself.

@super chimp — thanks for comment. I think it is difficult to draw any generalizations regarding Islam, a religion practiced by 1.5 billion people with vastly differing beliefs. Turkey and Malaysia are two examples (of several) where a majority of the population practice Islam but also enjoy the benefits of competitive, modern economies. Historically, Islamic countries have made fantastic contributions to math, science, literature, art, architecture and many other domains.

You do make a great point regarding *extremist* theocracies (modern Iran comes to mind) as well as older Communist governments (such as the modern Soviet union). Free speech and the ability to express oneself artistically is an important aspect of free market capitalism. Governments that prohibit free speech are not only destroying their peoples’ spirit, they are also destroying their economies. Incidentally, here’s a recent op-ed from the New York Times discussing how Rock and Roll helped contribute t othe fall of the Soviet Union: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/opinion/11iht-edsorokin.html?pagewanted=all

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: