Technology and The New Aesthetics of Violence | Eddy Von Mueller | TEDxEmory.
Dr. Mueller’s TED talk will focus on how new technologies have affected the entertainment industry and drastically changed the movie consumer’s experience, particularly in a growing desensitization to violence.
Eddy Von Mueller is a Senior Lecturer in the Emory Department of Film and Media Studies, where he also serves as the Faculty Coordinator of the Film and Media Management Concentration. His scholarly work examines history of the entertainment industry and the intersections of technology, economics, and aesthetics in screen media. His scholarly publications explore subjects as varied as silent adaptations of the works of William Shakespeare, the samurai films of Akira Kurosawa, the police procedural genre on film and television, and the use of science fiction as tool for communicating and teaching science. He is the co-editor of a forthcoming anthology of essays in commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the publication of Mary Shelley’s iconic novel, Frankenstein. A working filmmaker, his most recent feature, The Lady From Sockholm (2007), an all-puppet film-noir, played at over 40 film festivals around the world.
0 notes
I saw your tags on the post about trick or treaters not speaking and I am v interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the concept of “developmental delays”! I‘ve seen the idea that disability is a construct, but I’m not as familiar with the idea that development is also a construct. You have really great takes as an educator and someone who like, actually GETS how kids work, so I am interested in your thoughts!
I also know that posting on this subject might be poking the bear, so it is 1000% cool if you would rather not comment 💜 Tysm!
Oh I'm happy to talk about it! I love talking about this stuff, thank you for asking me to 💙
This isn't exactly new ground; there's been plenty of research into and writing on the subject, and deconstructing "development" as a static concept was, ironically, a huge part of my most recent development class.
The idea is that our understanding of "benchmarks" of development, which informs the larger concept of development as a whole, is heavily rooted in the assumption that Western culture is The Standard. We prioritize walking, talking, reading, and writing, which means we cultivate these skills in our children from a young age, which means they develop those skills more quickly than they do others.
To use one of my favorite examples from Rogoff, 2003, Orienting Concepts and Ways of Understanding the Cultural Nature of Human Development:
Although U.S. middle-class adults often do not trust children below about age 5 with knives, among the Efe of the Democratic Republic of Congo, infants routinely use machetes safely (Wilkie, personal communication, 1989). Likewise, Fore (New Guinea) infants handle knives and fire safely by the time they are able to walk (Sorenson, 1979). Aka parents of Central Africa teach 8- to 10-month-old infants how to throw small spears and use small pointed digging sticks and miniature axes with sharp metal blades:
"Training for autonomy begins in infancy. Infants are allowed to crawl or walk to whatever they want in camp and allowed to use knives, machetes, digging sticks, and clay pots around camp. Only if an infant begins to crawl into a fire or hits another child do parents or others interfere with the infant’s activity. It was not unusual, for instance, to see an eight month old with a six-inch knife chopping the branch frame of its family’s house. By three or four years of age children can cook themselves a meal on the fire, and by ten years of age Aka children know enough subsistence skills to live in the forest alone if need be. (Hewlett, 1991, p. 34)" (pg. 5)
In the US we would view "letting an 8-month-old handle a knife" as a sign of severe neglect, but the emphasis here is placed on the fact that these children are taught to do these things safely. They don't learn out of necessity, or stumble into knives when nobody is watching; they learn with care, support, and safety in mind, just like children here learn. It makes me wonder if Aka parents would view our children's lack of basic survival skills with the same concern and disdain as USAmerican parents would view their children's inability to read.
Do we disallow our children from handling knives because it is objectively, fundamentally unsafe for a child of that age to do so- because even teaching them is developmentally impossible- or is that just a cultural assumption?
What other cultural assumptions do we have about child development?
Which ties in neatly with various social-based models of disability, particularly learning and, of course, developmental disabilities. If your culture doesn't value the things you are good at, and you happen to struggle with the things it does value, what kinds of assumptions is it likely to make about you? How will it pathologize you? What happens to that culture if it understands those values to be arbitrary, in order to accommodate your unique existence?
174 notes
·
View notes
i think it's not my place to speak but the way johnnys disability was treated at the end of steel ball run feels wrong
he can walk a bit... as a treat <3 (the entirety of steel ball run is his physiotherapy)
77 notes
·
View notes
So I follow you, and tumblr notifications now alert you when someone you follow interacts with your post. So when I saw you liked my werewolf comic I yelled across the house to my betrothed, “Babe! You know that person who absolutely loathes Olaf? They liked my comic!”
YOOO YOU FOLLOW ME? THATS SO COOL! YOUR COMIC WAS SO SWEET! Asg7gghhgyjgggfddhfhhfk ahh I am coping with being mutuals with cool art people
(Linking it here since I'm gonna get asks about it, cw for implied domestic abuse and toxic relationships)
171 notes
·
View notes
to attempt to categorize aziraphale & crowley's actions into the simple dichotomies of 'correct' and 'wrong' or 'good' and 'bad' is to employ the exact same fallacy that the show warns of. throughout season two we see aziraphale struggle with morals and their ambiguity, no matter crowley's assertion (and demonstration) that there is no true 'good', no true 'evil'- that the lines are not only blurred but frankly non-existent- aziraphale can't move past the principles he was raised on. good actions are good (inherent to angels, inherent to heaven), evil actions are evil (inherent to demons, inherent to hell). aziraphale's decision to try to 'fix' heaven is the perfect representation of the reality of the universe. he believes it to be a simply good decision, something angels do and heaven is all about (he'll get heaven back to normal! back to being good!) but the reality of his decision is so much murkier than that. it isn't that aziraphale did something bad or evil, nor is it that he did something correct or good, he did something that, like many things in the universe, embodies both.
157 notes
·
View notes
There are no stars. There is no light. There will be no future. (Requested by @thediscoelysiumlesbian )
Alt text: Screencaps from Revolutionary Girl Utena with overlaid text. 1: A closeup of Anthy's eyes, hair down and no glasses, staring down Utena in the moment she discovers Akio abusing Anthy. Text: "Oh, yes."
2: A closeup of Utena's eyes, wide with shock, from the same scene. Text: "This is real darkness."
3: A framed photo of Akio and Anthy, half in shadow as the window shades rise to reveal the room. Text: "Real darkness has love for a face."
4: Anthy's silhouette, hair flying wildly, pierced by many blades. Text: "The first death is in the heart." End alt text.
223 notes
·
View notes
my first existential crisis was probably when I was maybe nine or ten and i came to the hysterical realization that i had no way of knowing that what i saw in the world around me was anything like what my friend saw. not in a metaphorical sense but a literal one. like, how do I know that my perception of what a given, individual jellyfish looks like is the same as somebody else's? i don't! i can't! language is the best means i have of trying to figure it out and language is fallible and subjective too
picture me, vibrating at summer camp, contemplating how the truth of a shared reality is unknowable and maybe there's no such thing as reality at all
70 notes
·
View notes
TLOZ translations always seem to be a bit shitty. I still see people talk about the weird translation of the Demise monologue at the end of SkSw. I think someone said that Demise was more general with his statement, as in there will always be forces from the demon tribe fighting against the light or smth? Not specifically "us three will always fight". (I've read it a few times, but hard to remember, sorry.)
(On the topic of SkSw, I kinda dislike how much it impacted theories within TLOZ, some theories are really cool, don't get me wrong. But now, even games that existed for years before suddenly are being pushed to fit with the lore presented in that game. Ganondorf being the best example: He no longer is his own character who did bad things because of his own will and actions, it's now "He did it all because an evil curse made him do it. He had no choice, he was born as a vessel for the demonic lord."
The implications that "the curse of Demise" also would mainly go for the already vilified race of the Gerudo, and make their one male an evil warlord is already kinda... yeah... no. (Not to mention that there are other demon lords throughout the franchise that have nothing to do with Ganon.)
Ohh speaking of this I recently saw this post that did a good translation of that very moment, and pretty much confirms what you are mentioning anon; that it's basically a promise of that cycle coming back moreso than Demise himself coming back (especially since his actual and definitive death is a big deal in that game).
But yeah, I agree it has taken a huge space in the way the series is thought about. I pretty much completely missed that hard turn, as I couldn't play Skyward Sword when it released and wasn't super into Zelda afterward anymore (I had gotten too edgy.... 2011 was the year where I got obsessed with every horror videogame in existence basically except for Resident Evil for some reason I could never get into that series ANYWAY WAY off topic........), so coming back a few years later had me very ???? puzzled about how the theories had reconstructed themselves around Hylia and Demise and endless cycles (it's not that it wasn't a thing before, but I wouldn't say it was as much a Series Trademark as it is now).
But yeah. Ganondorf having his own motivations makes him immediately stronger as an antagonist, especially since his deal is quite complicated all things considered.
I am having a thought about how a lot of Zelda villains' motivation is a sort of rebellion against nature. I have scratched enough digital paper about Ganondorf's situation, but like... Minish Cap Vaati is also very much motivated by his refusal to remain small and whimsical and seize power instead of staying in his lane (and then he gets horny in Four Sword so, maybe let's not go there), Zant is.... Zant, Hilda in A Link Between World has been cosmically punished for trying to reject the Goddesses and create a world on its own terms --like SERIOUSLY this is HORRIFYING I feel like we don't talk enough about how utterly nightmarish of a reality that paints for Hyrule as a whole-- Girahim is devoted but fights for the side more or less destined to lose... It's interesting how Hyrule is hostile to change and anything that threatens the statut quo.
(then you have the occasional Majora and Yuga, whomst I dooon't think really fit the above category --to their full credit! and then you have Bellum, who is..... a blob...... And I don't remember enough from either the Oracles game or about Malladus to put them in either category, I need to replay those games)
Hyrule really has this frightening quality to it when you stare at it for too long: that your two only options are to either graciously submit to your assigned cosmic role, or fight it and become darkness incarnate in some way. A Link Between World showed, quite starkly, that trying to escape that binary choice is *not an option*.
92 notes
·
View notes
idk how to express or articulate this exactly but there’s something deeply worrying and hurtful to me to look around the aromantic tags and see constant posts talking about “expanding” or “reclaiming” the word/concept of love away from like. just romantic. like “oh if other aros want to expand/widen the concept of love to include them that’s fine but i dont” or whatever and that’s all well and good but i am vehemently against the idea that love as a concept has to be expanded to include me. it already includes me.
a lot of people will often say love as a shorthand for romantic love and trust me as a romance repulsed aro trying to live in this world im excruciatingly aware of that, but the idea that it ONLY means that EXCLUSIVELY as a broad concept is like……. no? the idea that love is also platonic, also includes things like family, pets, friends, etc is… not an expansion. it’s not a shift in the definition. it is already there. it is already a legitimate part of the word. people saying “oh love can be platonic to, uno reverse now YOURE the bad one” when aros point out the problem with posts implying romantic love is the centre of everything are not the same as aros pointing out that love is a word that belongs to us too and doesn’t need to be expanded or changed or broadened to do so. i find it deeply upsetting to see people talking like that with zero pushback. you might not be comfortable with the word, but do not take it away from me or scare people off it by insisting it’s only ever romantic and we, as a broad group or a society on the whole, are all on the same page about that.
love belongs to me. it’s always belonged to me. it doesn’t need to be changed to do so. it doesn’t need to be expanded. it always DID belong to me, and trying to retroactively define us out of it, even while trying to say it’s fine to want to be included in it or expand it to include us, isn’t fair or even factually accurate.
319 notes
·
View notes
what is it with this past 24 hours and absolutely baffling takes on the last episode
49 notes
·
View notes
Opinions Do Not Define Your Reality Wallpaper
11 notes
·
View notes
diversity win! your evil clone has pink hair and pronouns now
15 notes
·
View notes
me whenever i remember the extremely obvious and purposeful almost exactly the same like line for line brenner and mike parallels
33 notes
·
View notes
I hate people that go "oh but what if this is all a simulation" and decide that they must be the only "real" person bc
Yeah, what if? Why is that suddently a reason for you to be a jerk to the """"""NPCs"""""", be selfish and cruel?
Why is your first instinct when questioning reality "how does it benefit ME?"
8 notes
·
View notes
im still reeling from gohan outright stating that he doesn't like fighting. everything he's been through since he was 4 years old up to adulthood. and he doesn't like fighting. every exhausting training he's had, every battle he's ever fought, every victory or defeat, every villain he's ever had to face for the sake of the world. and he doesn't like fighting. he's just a kid who wants to make the people he loves proud
228 notes
·
View notes
Cluster B culture is having a cozy overly simplistic narrative that you ruined your life and all your friends hate you and don't look back ever and I'm the worst and freaking out, losing your mind when that is challenged and maybe your not the worst person ever born and some people might be able to forgive you and your fine, maybe you did a bunch of stupid shit when you didn't have all the information, but that's fine, that's normal, your mortal, you have limited knowledge, calm down!
.
63 notes
·
View notes