Mess is good

This week’s lecture centered primarily on the danger in categorising. There is immense danger for the artist/author/creator’s creativity in getting put in a box and not being about to get out or seen in a different way, and for the audience/viewer if we aren’t open to new possibilities. By categorising works into these artificial taxonomies we risk becoming cookiecutter. Jasmine mentioned it is good to create a taxonomy but to be open to change. This idea is reminiscent of scientific paradigms: we once did believe the earth was flat after all. Consensus can change.

Adrian explained that as humans we like the boundaries that taxonomies give us, we like borders for complex issues such as gender. Similarly I think as humans we crave narrative: we look for signs, symbols and patterns to give our days/lives meaning, but things don’t have perfect boundaries. Classification isn’t black and white; we don’t have boxes but very messy, muddy edges. Definitions by definition are problematic. The following video by Hank Green of the Vlogbrothers sums up very well the fact that to put people into gender stereotype boxes we would need infinite boxes.

So do we even need to worry about classification? The more important question seems to be what the documentaries actually do. Adrian suggested we start from the premise of making and then work out where it fits. It’s much more interesting to ask a specific thing what it does rather than create overarching theories. Taxonomies impose a grid: if you don’t fit into the grid we can’t see you. Distinctions become games of power that create false dichotomies.

We contemplated the media landscape, something that is ambiguous, messy, changing and dissolving. But we shouldn’t fear, mess is good.

What can I do inside a rectangle? What does it mean vs what can it do? We need to find out what it is before we can assign meaning to it.