In general: What does or does not qualify as “mature” is essentially a function of what society happens to deem acceptable in any case. On a certain level, some things would tend to confuse or frighten young children, but how young depends entirely on the particular child’s personality. Similarly, there are some adults who for one reason or another find certain kinds of content upsetting or offensive. It’s true that a lot of Americans are bothered by depictions of sex and it’s even true that that’s not rational, but none of it is rational. It’s all fiction.
Just because a hangup is irrational doesn’t mean it isn’t worthy of recognition. People who have those hangups should be entitled to warnings that let them choose for themselves what they want to consume. The trick is more discerning what bothers enough people to justify a warning.
My personal issue is not so much maturity as immaturity. Gratuitous fanservice shots in places that make no sense are immature and happen because the artist didn’t know when to stop. Some writers have every character swear incessantly because they aren’t creative enough to make the dialogue interesting without it. Violence and gore are often thrown into a story for nothing more than shock value. Any of those things could be deployed to good and legitimate effect, but in practice are often a flimsy attempt to cover up a lack of talent by trying to look like one of the big boys. To use a TV example, compare Doom Patrol with Titans for a particularly stark contrast on that front.
The lack of talent or not knowing when to stop is what it feels like from where we sit in the audience, but I wouldn’t write off the notion that it’s a conscious decision at least some of the time. Like people mentioned, sex and violence and swearing sells.
I didn’t intend to say it wasn’t intentional. It’s people who aren’t able to produce content that’ll sell because it’s good, so they produce content that’ll sell because it panders.
Same idea, pretty much. I wouldn’t say they “aren’t able”; some simply won’t bother, because the other way is cheaper and easier. Or maybe even because they, as consumers, enjoy the gratuitous stuff themselves. Intelligent people like junkfood, too.
It’s like finding out certain musicians are incredibly eloquent but they still enjoy (or choose, for easier money) to make catchy songs with generic lyrics about shaking your a$$ or droppin’ cash for b!tches, etc.
I do agree there need to be different age-appropriate approaches to the subject of sex based on the characters involved, and the target audience. Even on not 17+ titles, there are ways to approach the subject with class without having to completely curtain the idea of what is happening. Teens aren’t as clueless as many want to believe. It’s all a matter of context. When it suits the story and it’s done well it’s a realistic part of character development and relationships. I agree it should be avoided just for shock value. Random hookups might be a certain characters thing…but totally out of character for others for example. There are better ways to approach it without being overly graphic when not writing for a strictly adult audience.
So basically 99.9999% of all media content. One can make the argument that those who don’t or don’t need to are pandering as well. Just to a different audience.
But, if you could make $20 by producing widget A and $60 producing widget B for an even lower cost. Wouldn’t you?
They are professionals trying to make money, after all. It’s is a business.
Are the “pandering” creators just going after the biggest audience draw? What will sell more books. Knowing how to milk every dollar you can from your work isn’t a lack of skill, it can be argued that it is just as important a skill as anything else.
Yep! That’s exactly what I was trying to say. I don’t think it’s that people who use sex/violence to sell their wares are necessarily incapable of producing more high-brow stuff; I think some just prefer to be lucrative in easier ways (or because the sexy/violence appeals to them).
“High-brow” and “Low-brow” are in themselves subjective.
Some can see the smut written by de Sade as high-brow, others can find it some of the lowest of the low-brow. The same can be high-brow vs low-brow argument can be made of the Marx Bros. or the pinup photos by Irving Klaw, or Deep Throat or Young Frankenstein or Batman ‘66 or etc, etc, etc.
One can label the over sexualized posing in comics as low-brow, but so was Boticelli’s Birth of Venus in its time, or murals depicting sex acts in the public baths of Pompeii, as they were in the Victorian era. High-brow and low-brow is a matter of personal perspective possibly in some ways governed by the social morays of the day.
Agreed on that too. Sorry, I’m not choosing my words carefully enough, and I don’t want to go too off topic.
In some of the above posts, people claimed that those who profit off of shock value entertainment are going that route because that’s what they’re capable of.
All I’m trying to say is that statement is too broad. We have no idea if the creators of Saw or Game of Bones or whatever could also be capable of writing… oh, I dunno. Dunkirk. Or Blue Velvet. Or The Godfather.
High brow, low brow, whatever label/flavor of the day. Doesn’t matter. A person who makes A is not necessary incapable of making B.
Artists should never be considered as part of the culture of that era. Artists take a lot of liberties. They paint what they want even though most people would consider seeing it as just a bunch of bathing people.
But they were merely the most notable part of Renaissance. That era was the greatest time for artistry. It was more peaceful and they were able to enjoy more pursuits. That era is one of the exceptions. But modern art of this time period doesn’t really reflect culture as much as it does the feelings and interests of the artist. That is also the same as Leonardo. He worked with, studied, and created what he was interested in. But I will admit Greek and Roman artistry relied very heavily on the human body. Which was praised by that culture. So the artists depicted their bodies instead of their clothes and armor. But they still only created what they were interested in.
Leonardo certainly experimented with different techniques for his commissions. However, most of his painting that survived, from a subject matter standpoint, were very straight forward.
I don’t really mind violence. Over-sexualization is stupid in my opinion though. For instance, Starfire in the New 52. She was turned into nothing more than a sex object. Her having sex with Roy Harper in the first issue of Red Hood and the Outlaws and saying that “love has nothing to do with it” was so stupid. It’s like they were trying to make her seem as bad*** and sexy as they could. It seemed pretty out of character to me. And the way she was drawn when she was at the beach. They drew her so close up and in such a skimpy outfit, that it seemed that her sexualization was all that mattered. It just seemed so pointless. I don’t really have a problem with swearing in comics as long as it isn’t a whole lot. That is my biggest problem with the Titans TV show (I know that this is supposed to be about comics but whatever). They cuss so much in it, that it just seems as if they are trying way to hard to be edgy.
I think the issue you are bringing up is “gratuitous content” - for reasons that aren’t “to tell a good story” but instead external reasons for people to watch/read. But that line is a bit subjective, so it gets very tricky.