[Part 1 of 2] You ask some good, and challenging questions - to which I do not have a final reply. They deserve some thought. Hence, I'm trying to make conversation here.
My first thought was to ask myself "is this a topic on which my mind is changeable", because if my opinion isn't mutable, I don't want to rant. I admit to myself that it is hard to change, because what I'm having here is a powerful emotional response, and not an intellectually formed response. (I think I hinted at such in my first reply.)
Striving for the intellectual...
It is certainly NOT the case that this is a general topic which cannot be explored through the arts. All topics can be explored through the arts - and arts is a very generic term. It is a topic that *I* don't want to explore, in hardly any art. But that was not my point, and doesn't obviate yours.
(I'm reminded a little of the old joke that made fun of Feminist's lack of perspective and humor: "How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?" "That's NOT FUNNY!")
Taking your observation at face value (that LARP is similar to other forms of creative expression, because why not?) - I look at whether there is anything special about LARP that makes my feelings of unease justified.
Digression: I understand your comment about "this medium is inappropriate to this topic". I take a somewhat Mcluhan-esque view of the matter. The combination of medium and message become entwined, and the resulting construct needs to be judged on what it is, what it means, and what its overall effect becomes. In that sense, while no medium is inappropriate for all topics, some media combinations with some topics make it particularly hard to thread the needle. Maus is so amazing, in part, because it works well AND because it was a tremendous achievement of medium and message. I won't say "never the two together", but I think I am trying to say that "some combinations are exponentially harder than others". End Digression.
As I continue to think about it, I'm clarifying in my mind more about what my objection was, and I'm finding (perhaps stubbornly) that it still remains.
LARP is not the same as a novel, book or movie. Sure, aspects are similar, but it is in the very differences that I find my concerns lay.
1. Mass media are different than small private media.
There is not just a difference in degree (I feel) but a difference in kind, when an experience is small, unique, and non-repeatable. A play, movie or book is an experience that can be shared, can be referred back to, and is intended to be a reference. I feel as if that makes them more accountable - the author/director/actor is going to remain personally responsible for the quality and perception of the result.
The consequences of a bad result in mass and more permanent media help restrain the behaviors of the creators and participants in ways that private and personal media do not.
The benefits of a quality attempt are also wider.
2. Dynamically created media are more diffuse than static media.
For all your attempts and desires for sensitivity (I know you: there is never going to be an accusation of bad faith from me), the resulting experience is unpredictable, and there is little guarantee of sensitivity from the participants.
This goes back, a little, to my accountability point above. But it also goes to whether your intentions can be reliably and predictably expressed.
Of course, if it goes badly, the harm is limited.
This can only end up in differing opinions: I know that. You will weight the risk of it going badly as very low, while I am much less sure, and you will weight the harm if it goes badly as relatively small, and I'm not necessarily in agreement about that either. When people guess about the future, they guess with their existing opinions.
no subject
You ask some good, and challenging questions - to which I do not have a final reply. They deserve some thought. Hence, I'm trying to make conversation here.
My first thought was to ask myself "is this a topic on which my mind is changeable", because if my opinion isn't mutable, I don't want to rant. I admit to myself that it is hard to change, because what I'm having here is a powerful emotional response, and not an intellectually formed response. (I think I hinted at such in my first reply.)
Striving for the intellectual...
It is certainly NOT the case that this is a general topic which cannot be explored through the arts. All topics can be explored through the arts - and arts is a very generic term. It is a topic that *I* don't want to explore, in hardly any art. But that was not my point, and doesn't obviate yours.
(I'm reminded a little of the old joke that made fun of Feminist's lack of perspective and humor: "How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?" "That's NOT FUNNY!")
Taking your observation at face value (that LARP is similar to other forms of creative expression, because why not?) - I look at whether there is anything special about LARP that makes my feelings of unease justified.
Digression: I understand your comment about "this medium is inappropriate to this topic". I take a somewhat Mcluhan-esque view of the matter. The combination of medium and message become entwined, and the resulting construct needs to be judged on what it is, what it means, and what its overall effect becomes. In that sense, while no medium is inappropriate for all topics, some media combinations with some topics make it particularly hard to thread the needle. Maus is so amazing, in part, because it works well AND because it was a tremendous achievement of medium and message. I won't say "never the two together", but I think I am trying to say that "some combinations are exponentially harder than others". End Digression.
As I continue to think about it, I'm clarifying in my mind more about what my objection was, and I'm finding (perhaps stubbornly) that it still remains.
LARP is not the same as a novel, book or movie. Sure, aspects are similar, but it is in the very differences that I find my concerns lay.
1. Mass media are different than small private media.
There is not just a difference in degree (I feel) but a difference in kind, when an experience is small, unique, and non-repeatable. A play, movie or book is an experience that can be shared, can be referred back to, and is intended to be a reference. I feel as if that makes them more accountable - the author/director/actor is going to remain personally responsible for the quality and perception of the result.
The consequences of a bad result in mass and more permanent media help restrain the behaviors of the creators and participants in ways that private and personal media do not.
The benefits of a quality attempt are also wider.
2. Dynamically created media are more diffuse than static media.
For all your attempts and desires for sensitivity (I know you: there is never going to be an accusation of bad faith from me), the resulting experience is unpredictable, and there is little guarantee of sensitivity from the participants.
This goes back, a little, to my accountability point above. But it also goes to whether your intentions can be reliably and predictably expressed.
Of course, if it goes badly, the harm is limited.
This can only end up in differing opinions: I know that. You will weight the risk of it going badly as very low, while I am much less sure, and you will weight the harm if it goes badly as relatively small, and I'm not necessarily in agreement about that either. When people guess about the future, they guess with their existing opinions.
[End part 1 of 2]