https://i.imgur.com/syjrpQEl.png

The value of art depends on its surroundings, its social context, and the people who created and enjoyed it. And when art is stripped of all these things and placed in museums, it just becomes dead culture. But this idea is rarely noticed in the Western world. So, when humans die, they enter into history and when statues die, they enter into art. The people who put that art in museums seemingly preserved it, but in reality, they took it out of its context and gave it a new one. For the civilizations who made these statues, the objects they made were not just objects, but signs and tools of their way of life. Maybe they were not even images of their gods, but extensions of them. The fetishes allowed them to worship their gods and go through the whole cycle of rites and rituals that united them. They treated art objects as part of their lives, not as separate things you only engage with when you go to a special place where there is nothing but piles of these objects. And even if this was the case, there was an atmosphere of ritual around these fetishes, particular rites around those masks, and meaningful context to those statues. It is admirable that museums saved these items if they would otherwise be lost to history, but it is regrettable that these objects cannot be shown within the context they had existed for centuries. There seems to be a layer of depth and meaning that was lost by moving them from their native land to a sterile cubic room in a museum.

The idea that works of art are objects and thus cannot embrace that which is sacred is inherent to the Judeo-Christian civilization, one that fears objects and fetishes as idolatry or taboo. The Biblical golden calf or Muslim fear of portraying Muhammad are just two examples of how art objects were seen as dangerous. While there are examples of such fear in other civilizations, too, it is undeniable Plato’s dislike for “mimetic” art lies at the root of Western civilization’s ideas. Of course mimetic art was later defended by Aristotle and by other thinkers, but the damage was already done. The Westerner believes that gods (or rather God) are so powerful, so sacred, and so indescribable, that it is a sin to create an object that presents them (Islam). And even if it is not (the countless images of Jesus in churches all around Europe), the object is just that: an object. It is not the object that is worshipped, but what it portrays. But some civilizations see the object they are worshipping as that very god. And that idea is what is lost when we put these objects in museums, apart from the culture that created and used them. If that culture is long dead, this is the least we can do. Of course, the film tackles colonialism and argues that it caused the native African art to, if not disappear completely, give way to boring photorealistic statues that have nothing of the beauty of the statues seen before in the film. Or worse still, statues of Mary the Virgin and Jesus Christ. African art is now stripped of its cultural meaning. It's made for the colonialists for money. It has no other role but to be made and sold.

Each culture possesses its unique way of transforming its actions into works of art. But when people are dominated by another culture, they take over that other culture’s ideas and actions. And so the art is transformed according to those. And this is a natural process, but its results are that of contextless statues in botany of death.

https://i.imgur.com/wbbcvkcl.png

Objectification and Art

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEP4rny8CI0

Hell, I don't like artificiality, but here the artificiality is so powerful that it is elevated to the level of art. This song is as catchy as the crap they broadcast on the radio, but it's also oddly progressive. The girls have sweet voices with autotune and some effects that totally objectify them in an already heavily objectifying industry. But the Japanese take a different approach to objectification than Westerners: it's not a bad thing for them; it is for us. In a sense, the Japanese like this duality: in private they can be themselves. In society, they assume a role and behave like objects that have a specific function.

The girls in such bands have a specific function. Their function is to look cute and sing fun songs. And this is how they find fulfillment. This objectification - here for the purposes of art - does not take away their personhood. If anything, it's the star factory that is damaging. And how these girls can potentially be victims of harassment, grooming, and other not-so-good practices. Or how Japan's workaholic culture keeps the really biggest bands like Perfume working 15 hours a day, making work their life. These are the true problems the Japanese are dealing with on a daily basis. But objectification is not one of them. They embraced it.

Objectification is part of not only their work but also their culture.

The same applies to the porn industry. In JAVs, women are much more objectified than in American porn. In the latter, the woman in front of the camera can be treated harshly, but she somehow retains a part of her personality, her charisma, so even if the sex is unreal, it has something in common with reality. In Japanese porn, however, the woman switches off her personality the moment the director starts recording the scene. She readily becomes an object. Not just an object of desire like her American counterpart, but literally a sex object, where she is temporarily stripped of what remains of her personhood to fulfill her only task at the moment: delivering what the viewer wants. But this is a fantasy. Acting, a role. So, assuming there is no abuse, this objectification is a role that she voluntarily enters. It is the Western civilization that associates objectification and objects with something bad. This objectification of women is on the lips of all woke activists. But as you can see, there are cultures that approach this matter completely differently.

There used to be a profession in Japan: elevator girl. Currently rare, but at the time quite popular were elevators, where you were greeted by a smiling girl after entering. She bid you farewell as you exited the elevator. Of course, that was her job. She played the role of an object, making the journey more pleasant for others. Seen from the perspective of the "progressive" West, it was abysmal objectification and sexism at that. (And probably an open invitation to harass her and treat women in general as non-human.) But for the Japanese, the woman was just doing her job. Her task was to become an object that will smile. An object with whom you can spend several seconds in the elevator. That doesn't mean that this woman has been degraded to an object all her life. NO. She came into this role at work and left as soon as it finished.

And to combine it somehow with cinema (if porn isn't close enough to cinema), most Japanese have no problem with subversive films that show situations or actions that are either impossible in the real world or considered obscene or just plain vicious in the real world, even criminal. So let's break it down into these two cases:

1. The Japanese have no problem with less reality in films, where the character behaves less naturally and more artificially than people behave in reality. For example, the domain of contemporary mainstream Japanese cinema is strong outbursts of emotions of the characters. Even if they are unnatural and hardly anyone would react like that in reality, the Japanese understand that such behavior makes sense in the context of a given scene, situation, or the whole movie. A Western viewer would probably find the acting too expressive, which would make them think that the film is unrealistic. Asian viewers do not attach much importance to realism. What counts for them is the overall effect. Emotions should usually prevail over rationalism.

2. The Japanese are less reluctant to watch (and create) content that is controversial, disgusting, repulsive, offputting, and so on. Nazi uniforms? No problem! Lolicon that depicts underage characters in sexual situations? Legal! Massive, unrealistically exaggerated brutality? Of course! Synapse-burning pornography devoted entirely to the viewer and their satisfaction, which would have no right to exist in the West? Yes! And such a free approach to art and creativity, acceptance of objectification as something natural and not necessarily as certain exploitation, and the relative lack of censorship (apart from the censorship of the genitals, but this censorship allows for incredibly creative decisions and focus on other erotic aspects than just mindless penis and vagina overload so prevalent in American porn) make Japan one of the freest countries for artists.

When we compare this with the offended and resentful Westerners, who would like to ban everything that is not in line with their morality, we get a clear difference in worldviews. In Japan, they simply understand that art is about crossing borders. It exists to project our greatest desires, most taboo ideas, and disgusting, even corrupt, thoughts. Art allows for the expression of emotions too sincere and pure for the real world and inappropriate childishness too gullible for the real world. But it also allows for heinous brutality too barbaric for the real world and degenerate behavior too dangerous for the real world. Everything we avoid in everyday life, everything that is considered inappropriate in society can flourish through art. And in this way, a fulfilled artist, and then the recipient of this art, can go out into society and be kind, moral, and human in everyday interactions with others. And after returning home, they can watch a degenerate porn film, embarrassingly tearful melodrama, or Nazi propaganda, and enjoy them in their fullest, unadulterated, perverse forms. Because that's what art is for. And that's why nice pretty girls singing in sweet voices to songs composed by unheard-of producers do their job so well. They are supposed to be nice girls who give joy to listeners. And they do just that. And as long as it's done in art and no one gets hurt, what's the problem with that?