Jason Baki © 2010
The origins of genre classification can be traced back to Ancient Greece. Then figures such as Aristotle and Plato discussed the merits of the various forms of poetry and drama known to them. The Greeks applied very strict definitions to their classifications, and although debate existed on their nature even then, they where largely absolute forms with very little room for deviation. The classical forms were also noticeably hierarchical, with tragedy for example considered a more noble art form than parody.
Naturally these classifications changed and evolved over time, and now a whole branch of academia exists to study the history of genre. I don't, however, want this piece to be a history lesson, so I'll move on rather quickly. Despite the evolution of genre concepts, this French word meaning "class or kind" didn't really enter the popular consciousness until the 50's and the apex of the Golden Age of Hollywood. In literature terms it had remained essentially a means of differentiating between, poetry, prose and drama. It was therefore still largely concerned with form and style, rather than the more obvious subject matter divisions we think of today.
It is largely due to the influence of film that the modern genre classifications we take for granted: horror, romance; comedy, crime, science-fiction etc arose. This period also coincides with the advent of TV and Film as powerful new mediums for marketing. It is in this environment we begin to see our modern genre classifications take form.
I think it would be fair comment to say that these modern genre categories, derived from the visual medium of film, and used primary as a marketing tool, are really no more than a means of tagging together loosely aligned subject matter. They are based on superficial similarities, grouped for easy identification in a mass market. They are in fact a form of labelling that draw upon our inherent mental tendency to group things together in order to make summary appraisal of their potential value to us. This tendency, which is in part allied to the image forming section of our brain, (unsurprising then that modern genre tags derived mainly from film) is largely the same as that which leads us to form stereotypical assumptions about people based on superficial traits. And of course like that form of stereotyping, it is almost entirely baseless when examined further.
On that basis surely genre definitions are a bad thing then? Why hang on to superficial labels, which in all likelihood bare no resemblance to the thing so tagged? Surely even worse then, to write or seek to produce art with these labels in mind? Well on the second point I would say yes, absolutely! To seek to write or produce a cultural artefact so it fits what is essentially a stereotype, is surely no better than setting out to write cliché. But having written or produced a cultural artefact, if the labels help the work find an audience, especially in this media saturated age; if it engages that part of our brain that forms such associations in order to make quick value judgements, is it so bad? I think not. After all if I want to find a book about zombies, is my task not made easier by the fact that I can go into my bookshop, trundle up to the horror section, and be fairly certain of finding there a book containing zombies?
None of what I'm saying here is groundbreaking, I realise. It's just that I've been feeling, that the purpose of the labels was being overlooked in recent discussions on genre. I do think that it's always bad to mistake the label for the artefact itself, but the labels in themselves do serve a purpose. Our brain as any marketeer knows, responds very well to this type of casual group identification. The danger as any scholar knows, is to mistake surface associations for the reality of the thing being observed, and to then seek to derive true meaning from those surface associations. Interestingly some Buddhist thinking has the idea that such things - and this extends to people - are to the unenlightened mind, essentially blank canvases on to which we project meaning, and therefore any meaning we derive tells us more about ourselves than they do the actual thing. Anyway, I digress.
Our mind likes to categorize and to label. This primary impulse closely identified with our visual sense, serves a purpose in aiding us to make instant decisions about the nature and relevance of any object, situation or indeed person. When applied to people, this can be especially damaging, and although we all do it, we can actively seek to be aware of it, and therefore base our judgements on more reasoned analysis. The same is true of cultural artefacts, but as long as we are aware of the limiting nature of such labels, they can provide us with a valuable assistance in making snap decisions. They also help to establish boundaries and create order, and all the tension and flaws that exist in the relation between form and formlessness apply.
Genre is not bad in itself, genre labels are just a tool. Not seeing the essential nature of genre and its purpose is in my opinion bad. That is what snares us in to conforming to limiting definitions, based on casual observation of form. We all stereotype, and we all respond to stereotype after a fashion. If we are aware of it, then the greater part of the battle is won. After awareness then the application of reason can begin, and we can determine the degree of usefulness such labels possess.
Addendum: I have been reading a few very good blogs this last fortnight whilst thinking about genre, and listening to the discussions of a few people associated with these on Twitter. Please pay these guys a visit:
0 comments:
Post a Comment