this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
242 points (98.0% liked)
Greentext
7988 readers
1094 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why are you talking as if their argument is completely nonsensical or novel? It's kind of a known thing that even if you portray something as "bad" as possible, there will be a number of people that look past/ don't see the criticism of the subject and take the creation of work as a sign that the subject is to be praised. Look at the music industry with gang violence, misogyny and drug use; lots of more modern artists make music that shows how these things harm society, yet casual listeners will put on a song about alcohol abuse to get drunk at a party.
It isn't necessarily that the artist is advocating for it, so much as they've produced a work that can be misinterpreted (unintentionally or otherwise) to do so.
Why are you talking as if this argument doesn't generalize an interpretation by some section of the audience to general treatment of any and all such media wholesale? Did you miss the part where it says that the media in question romanticizes the depicted practices regardless of any intent of the author, or interpretation by the generally intelligent audience? You're saying that the stupidest possible understanding of the media is what all media should aim for, otherwise by that commenter's argument it shouldn't exist. I don't think you seriously realize how deranged this take is. It's straight up advocating for the 'Idiocracy' society.
Good art doesn't pander to the common denominator, it lifts the audience above it.
I genuinely have zero idea how you came to any of the conclusions you did based on what I said. Maybe there's more context to the comment you were originally talking about, but nowhere did I ever even imply that artists should "aim for" or pander to the common denominator. I'm saying that, no matter the artists intentions, no matter how obvious or on the nose the messaging is, there are going to be cops with Punisher tattoos, and teenagers with stolen cars and guns listening to Kendrick Lamar. If you make a movie about how the Nazis were psychopathic fascists who eventually get destroyed, there will be people who can't get over how cool their aesthetic was. None of this is to say that this art should not exist, I'm not detracting from the artists. I'm pointing out a flaw in society. Messaging in art, no matter how well crafted, will never say the same thing to everyone, for better or worse.
Ah, so you're saying that some portion, perhaps very minuscule, of the audience, would be enamoured with the bad guys as role models.
But, you see, that's quite different from what I quoted originally as: “[these artists] romanticize the mafia and army nonetheless, and in general media glorifies its subject matter regardless of the author's intent“.
You seem to agree with me that a small share of especially stupid people would derive their own messaging from the art. This doesn't change the fact that this media, in general, does the critique quite alright, as opposed to what the above quote says.