Support NeoGAF

[JzeroT1437]

Since attaining my Master's in Literature a decade ago, I've noticed a sharp transition in popular media where critics have moved from assessing a film almost exclusively on its artistic merits to noticeably condemning films for their lack of minority inclusion. There are several lenses for assessing this through, perhaps most popularly the Bechdel Test, and as a former lit studies nerd, I find this transition heartening, but also wonder if these lenses have any place in popular assessment of a work of art. Several years ago, the Bechdel Test would have been relegated to the realms of academia and literary/film theory studies, as a means of exploring race or gender politics in a time or place, but lately, these have become part of a film's overall receptions.

While I understand that minority inclusion furthers social progress, and in some films, is just logical (The Great Wall with Matt Damon, I'm looking at you), I don't necessarily understand why furthering or hindering a group's sociopolitical platform or awareness should be lauded or condemned as a part of a film's reception, unless the point of that film is to explicitly or thematically do so.

For example, this past Summer it was impossible to avoid the Ghostbusters "female" controversy--it almost felt like a microcosmic gender war. Entire articles flooded the internet both lauding and condemning the film for featuring an all-female cast. Amidst all this, very little was said of the film's quality or lack thereof--it was almost exclusively a platform for people to express their own gender-driven agendas.

This is also expressed in other mediums--just this past Summer, Author Lionel Shriver was faulted for her blitheness on cultural appropriation in her writing. Here is a link to the Offended's article

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...entity-i-had-no-choice-but-to-walk-out-on-her

And Lionel's response

http://time.com/4495523/lionel-shriver-cultural-appropriation-interview/

As this type of discussion has grown more prominent in pop culture and critical discussions, do you believe that it holds legitimate merit? Should artists be restrained by their own background or casting decisions while making their art, or should they be free to express themselves as they see fit?

 

[NandoGip]

Just respect the story. If the setting is 1960's Wisconsin, there's probably going to be 99% white people.

If it's set in ancient Egypt, there are no damn white people!!!

 

[El Topo]

I think it is legitimate to point out inequality in media. We have heard excuses for inequality (in movies) for decades, I think it is only fair to tackle the issue (in principle).
You argue that it is disheartening that critics actively value diversity, I say it is sad that they did not care about it at all for many, many years.

Amidst all this, very little was said of the film's quality or lack thereof--it was almost exclusively a platform for people to express their own gender-driven agendas.

Pretty sure you will find plenty of reasonable discussion in the Ghostbusters OT.

 

[Neoleo2143]

We should criticize artists when we truly felt that their work misrepresented an issue. Otherwise we can't ask inclusiveness of everything, only as much as needed to reflect the experience that the author wanted to convey. If inclusiveness could have improved the work, then we should go ahead and present those feelings. Otherwise, doing things for the sake of it is kind of pointless and can distract from the author's motivation to create the work or from the critique's nuance in appreciating the strengths of the work.

 

[sphagnum]

If it's set in ancient Egypt, there are no damn white people!!!

Depends on the era. If it's in classical antiquity there could be plenty of Greeks, but they ought to be played by Mediterranean actors.

 

[NandoGip]

Depends on the era. If it's in classical antiquity there could be plenty of Greeks, but they ought to be played by Mediterranean actors.

That's fair. Are Greeks even considered white? I wouldn't really. They're kind of the middle ground somewhere I guess


But on topic, minority inclusion is definitely important because historically in America, it has been almost entirely white people portrayed on television. There's evidence showing that anyone not white has been underrepresented, and I think it's only fair as minorities become the majority that they should be represented more.

 

[LastGamer84]

If artists aren't free to express themselves, then it isn't really art to me. It becomes manufactured entertainment, stories become even more formulaic and the ability to explore new concepts is restricted.

Imagine if a movie like the Matrix were lambasted not because of its story or technical work, but because it didn't include a female asian character for example. Critics are arguing over what a movie isn't instead of what it is. As an aspiring writer I've struggled with this idea because I feel works are looked upon poorly if some form of minority/gender accommodations. If the story in your head doesn't have a strong female lead because that's not how you imagined it, why should your work receive less consideration than a work that has an all female cast?

It's coming to the point where works are judged based on an arbitrary inclusion sentiment rather than on the merits of the work. By all means include strong females or minorities or transgender characters if it works for your story. But artists should not be forced to include them.

And I totally agree with your points on the arguments surrounding the ghostbusters reboot. It became a frenzy of opinions on the all female cast rather than whether the movie was actually any good.

 

[TurnipFritters]

If artists aren't free to express themselves, then it isn't really art to me. It becomes manufactured entertainment, stories become even more formulaic and the ability to explore new concepts is restricted.

Most criticisms regarding a lack of diversity are specifically aimed at the manufactured entertainment that represents 90% of Hollywood's output.

 

[Palette Swap]

While I understand the intuition behind that assertion, I don't know how true that is, in the sense that I wouldn't hang my hat on Shriver's bitterness (I remember the thread we had about it) or the Ghostbusters clusterfuck.

If your argument is that film or literary critics center their appreciation around identity politics, it would be more relevant to see how the tone and discourse of a given publication or reviewer has changed over time.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

As this type of discussion has grown more prominent in pop culture and critical discussions, do you believe that it holds legitimate merit? Should artists be restrained by their own background or casting decisions while making their art, or should they be free to express themselves as they see fit?

Why present such a blatantly loaded question? What about your stance do you think is so weak that you'd need to frame a question like this?

 

[JzeroT1437]

Why present such a blatantly loaded question? What about your stance do you think is so weak that you'd need to frame a question like this?

I don't think my stance is "weak". I believe that artists should express their stories however they see fit because they're creating art. What I am trying to do is understand the mass movement towards valuing Minority inclusion over this free expression in the media we consume, and to understand the difference between it and open censorship, rather than dismissing it.

 

[SENPAIatLARGE]

I don't think my stance is "weak". I believe that artists should express their stories however they see fit because they're creating art. What I am trying to do is understand the mass movement towards valuing Minority inclusion over this free expression in the media we consume, and to understand the difference between it and open censorship, rather than dismissing it.

Most "free expression" is done out of laziness or trying to appeal to a white consumer base. The prevalence of white washing and mighty whitey tropes in the film industry is not because of an artists specific vision. Don't kid yourself.

As a bonus, what's wrong with criticizing an artists vision if it happens to include no minorities and caters to white men

 

[geestack]

I don't think my stance is "weak". I believe that artists should express their stories however they see fit because they're creating art. What I am trying to do is understand the mass movement towards valuing Minority inclusion over this free expression in the media we consume, and to understand the difference between it and open censorship, rather than dismissing it.

hilarious because this so-called mass movement towards "Minority Inclusion" has done jack shit all. just look at oscars so white or bullshit like whitewashing ghost in the shell. your feared suppression of free expression doesn't exist when movies and entertainment still vastly prefer white over minorities.

 

[JzeroT1437]

hilarious because this so-called mass movement towards "Minority Inclusion" has done jack shit all. just look at oscars so white or bullshit like whitewashing ghost in the shell. your feared suppression of free expression doesn't exist when movies and entertainment still vastly prefer white over minorities.

Again, I didn't claim a feared suppression. What I'm trying to understand is why and if Minority Inclusion should actually be considered when discussing a work of art's Artistic Merit and Reception.

I understand why it should be discussed in sociopolitical contexts, but that's not the same as Artistic Criticism. Two totally different things, that have become blurred as of received.

 

[Pau]

How is criticizing a work on it's "artistic" merits not hindering their freedom of expression in the same way as other criticisms?

 

[The Faceless Master]

free expression is a code word for fuck minorities

 

[psaman17]

Just respect the story. If the setting is 1960's Wisconsin, there's probably going to be 99% white people.

If it's set in ancient Egypt, there are no damn white people!!!

This. A story that takes place on the great wall shouldnt be about a white guy saving china. Thats fucking bull.

 

[jet1911]

This. A story that takes place on the great wall shouldnt be about a white guy saving china. Thats fucking bull.

Matt Damon need to eat too you know.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

Errr why tf is someone's 'art' full of white people?

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

I don't care, I'll write what I want. Like it or not, whatever, it's my story and my characters and they'll do whatever or go wherever they please.

The day I start checking boxes to please people on the internet is the day I give it up.

 

[Nepenthe]

I don't care, I'll write what I want. Like it or not, whatever, it's my story and my characters and they'll do whatever or go wherever they please.

And people will criticise you for it because we all have freedom of speech. If you wanna write a Straight Outta Compton film with nothing but white people, no one is stopping you. Just don't expect people not to let you know how much they think it's a dumb idea.

I'm also sure you already check boxes when it comes to making work. You're not throwing shit into a blender randomly, at least if you're a thoughtful artist. You make decisions based on what you think is appealing, which is partly fueled by the experience you've gathered as a human being. You cannot make art divorced from real life because you do not have a secondary context for anything but. It's just that in this case, your context does not include minority inclusion. Which is fine, but let's not separate it from any other artistic choice you think you're making. Nothing is without context. You're always "checking boxes."

 

[SENPAIatLARGE]

A directors "Artistic Vision'

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

And people will criticise you for it because we all have freedom of speech. If you wanna write a Straight Outta Compton film with nothing but white people, no one is stopping you. Just don't expect people not to let you know how much they think it's a dumb idea.

and so it goes

 

[Kinyou]

This is also expressed in other mediums--just this past Summer, Author Lionel Shriver was faulted for her blitheness on cultural appropriation in her writing. Here is a link to the Offended's article

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...entity-i-had-no-choice-but-to-walk-out-on-her

It’s not always OK if a white guy writes the story of a Nigerian woman because the actual Nigerian woman can’t get published or reviewed to begin with. It’s not always OK if a straight white woman writes the story of a queer Indigenous man, because when was the last time you heard a queer Indigenous man tell his own story?

This is kind of nuts to me. The color of your skin or sexuality should not dictate what fiction you can write.
It seems to even go against the idea of diversity by making every creator just tell stories that represent themselves.

 

[NandoGip]

This. A story that takes place on the great wall shouldnt be about a white guy saving china. Thats fucking bull.

I guess they did that because stats show that a white lead makes for higher sales in China. I can't blame them, it is a business after all.

That is really the issue with the minority inclusion in media debate, the numbers show that white casts get higher turn outs.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

This is kind of nuts to me. The color of your skin or sexuality should not dictate what fiction you can write.
It seems to even go against the idea of diversity by making every creator just tell stories that represent themselves.

Precisely this. Middle class people telling others what is okay to write about and what isn't. Absolutely pathetic.

 

[Carcetti]

The Shriver story is pretty much bullshit, though. I thought the criticism towards her sounded unreasonable too, so I read everything about the case and found out it goes more likes this:

1. Shriver writes a terrible book
2. Gets burned hard by a critic who savages Everything About the Book, Everything.
3. Shriver writes a response and somehow manages to turn it into a case of 'I was oppressed by the lefties'
4. Outrage people pick up her side of the story

 

[Nepenthe]

The argument is not about freedom of speech. The argument is about the social consequence of always propping up majority-class creators at the expense of minority ones, even if they write inclusive work. I like black characters. But I like black directors just as much, because that paves the way for me to get into that field easier. Just as well, Black Panther gon be lit.

 

[Moonkid]

Like TurnipFritter mentioned this type of criticism is largely tied to industries where someone's artistic vision isn't that significant in shaping the final piece. I haven't studied literature at a tertiary level but I don't imagine the discipline concerns itself over economic, political, and social imperatives that shape a work of art. Left to its own machinations the status quo won't change in industries. When people try to push for better representation it's met with resistance and rejection. The restraint suggested in the OP is the reality of minorities trying to include minorities in projects they're attached to. It becomes even more complex when you consider cases such as Figboy79, an artist on Gaf.

 

[Palette Swap]

I don't think my stance is "weak". I believe that artists should express their stories however they see fit because they're creating art. What I am trying to do is understand the mass movement towards valuing Minority inclusion over this free expression in the media we consume, and to understand the difference between it and open censorship, rather than dismissing it.

Again, your framing is pretty weak and undocumented, as it feeds more into this Tumblr loudmouth mental picture than say, how the most prestigious or read publications treated reviews 10, 20 years ago as opposed to today.

That these reviews are more socially conscious today's is not necessarily untrue but a couple of vague examples to generalize on is not a very good premise. You mention the Bechdel test used singularly in reviews, how prevalent is this?

Anyway, the "minority inclusion vs storytelling craft" seems like an awful way to frame this, as you're not really leaving any room for debate or to account for how granular reality is.

Like, if your main beef is that reviewers should ignore any representation considerations because that somehow runs counter to reviewing art, how do you feel about other social considerations in reviews? Like, how would you review a Ken Loach movie, a Steinbeck or Zola novel without considering their context? Should reviews about To Kill a Mockingbird not consider race? What about all that praise for strong female characters (i.e. Rowlands) in Cassavetes movies? Are these extraneous considerations? What exactly is deserving of critique and what isn't?

Honestly, with that initial argument, that's a peg leg you're standing on.

 

[Kinyou]

The Shriver story is pretty much bullshit, though. I thought the criticism towards her sounded unreasonable too, so I read everything about the case and found out it goes more likes this:

1. Shriver writes a terrible book
2. Gets burned hard by a critic who savages Everything About the Book, Everything.
3. Shriver writes a response and somehow manages to turn it into a case of 'I was oppressed by the lefties'
4. Outrage people pick up her side of the story

Might that be a different incident? The author from the guardian doesnt even mention her book.

 

[Kwame120]

If artists aren't free to express themselves, then it isn't really art to me. It becomes manufactured entertainment, stories become even more formulaic and the ability to explore new concepts is restricted.

Imagine if a movie like the Matrix were lambasted not because of its story or technical work, but because it didn't include a female asian character for example. Critics are arguing over what a movie isn't instead of what it is. As an aspiring writer I've struggled with this idea because I feel works are looked upon poorly if some form of minority/gender accommodations. If the story in your head doesn't have a strong female lead because that's not how you imagined it, why should your work receive less consideration than a work that has an all female cast?

It's coming to the point where works are judged based on an arbitrary inclusion sentiment rather than on the merits of the work. By all means include strong females or minorities or transgender characters if it works for your story. But artists should not be forced to include them.

And I totally agree with your points on the arguments surrounding the ghostbusters reboot. It became a frenzy of opinions on the all female cast rather than whether the movie was actually any good.

I actually have a fantastic post (not mine):from months ago bookmarked about this.

Art is both expressive, and introspective. Despite being fictional (lets deal with fiction) it echoes the struggles in our lives, and the meaning is not lost on us. The hero's journey is something we can all accomplish, we are flawed beings so find meaning in seeing someone rise above their own flaws, for example. Representation, is key to this. When reading, or watching, we identify with certain aspects. That could be gender, race, class, sexual preference - or even more loose connections, like job. Thus, from a benefits point of view, it is important to have representation in media - that way we can all appreciate and learn from art, we don't want it to be something for "white males only", for example.

It's also important to look at the negatives from poor representation. Imagine if the only time you saw your race in cultural works, they were criminals, thieves and the morally poor of society. That's going to impact you psychologically, especially as a child, with regards to how you view your race and by extension, yourself. You can extrapolate this to always being the sidekick, or the villain - or even not there at all. A lack of representation can be just as damaging as a poor one, as it implies irrelevance.

Now I refer to the post I linked to. I've linked to it because it resonates with me, as something I myself experience, though a lot more when I was younger. All the heroes I had ever seen were white males, so in my mind the hero was a white male. That's what came initially, and the idea of "artistic integrity" was in fact damaging, because it then meant that trying to make a main character a black male was suddenly problematic, because it was not automatic. Thus you can see the cycle, the lack of representation for my race had affected who I saw psychologically as a hero, and it was a rather narrow set of options. You can then follow the psychological dominos if you wish, hypothesising about how that can affect self esteem, motivation, etcetera.

Now, I'm much less of a stickler for "artistic integrity" of that nature, and happier for it. What people seem to neglect, is that mentally forcing diversity can often improve your work. A different race most likely means a different upbringing, adding and changing aspects of their character, until they become something fresher. Thus you add more ideas to your work, and can create something more incredible and profound than before, by allowing these different ideologies and background to mingle, in a way. A crude example is my current work on a D&D campaign for my D&D group. Wanting diversity might spur me to change the race (species would be more appropriate in non d&d terms) of a character, enabling me to say change their motivations - character A was already motivated with a chip on her shoulder, now we see that that's because of her half-elf status, she feels like she belongs to neither group so needs to prove herself to both.

Often when I'm planning stories, I'll look at my crop of main characters, and realise that I need diversity in voices, so add diversity to the cast. You can see that cause and effect has not been reversed here, I'm not adding diversity for wont of diversity, but because I understand the colour that it can bring to the cast, the medley of voices of different skin, gender and background creating something more profound and insightful. Not to mention the positive effect that it'll have on readers, everyone being able to identify in some way, thus enjoy my story more, and take more away from it.

Of course, I cannot expect everyone to work this way. Sometimes changing diversity for its own sake may not be appropriate, say if we consider time period and location, and would come across as forced and thus take away from the story, rather than add to it. So we should not penalise stories that do this, on an individual perspective, assuming that they're not damaging from a diversity perspective, but encourage stories that don't. After all, art does not exist in a vacuum. I'm sure there'd be an outcry at a series that actively promotes Nazism and ethnic cleansing, so from a balance perspective - it's not wrong to encourage stories that display diversity. Perhaps the uncertainty of others regarding taking this step is not understanding the positives that diversity can hold (and negatives of its absence), rather than disagreeing with it (I hope), and thus not understanding why you'd want to promote it. Well, here you have it.

 

[Red]

Ask yourself this:

Does it hinder artistic expression to expand representation? Can you tell less stories this way?

And then ask yourself this:

Does it hinder artistic expression to stick with traditional representation? Can you tell less stories this way?

Decide which course allows for greater freedom in storytelling, which allows its audience a broader range of surrogate characters, which allows more entry points for the consumer. Decide whether or not a greater range of experiences is worth pursuing, and whether or not that benefits the culture.

Should artists be restrained by their own background or casting decisions while making their art, or should they be free to express themselves as they see fit?

Why are these presented as mutually exclusive? People are necessarily restricted by their background. They are restricted by their knowledge and experience. They are also free to express themselves however they desire.

 

[Nepenthe]

Anyway, the "minority inclusion vs storytelling craft" seems like an awful way to frame this, as you're not really leaving any room for debate or to account for how granular reality is.

Not only that, but the framing is inherently combative to minority inclusion because it frames it as inherently exclusive from good storytelling, as if one must have to balance out writing a story with simply putting a minority in there. It puts minorities in this seat where they have to justify their existence even in stories including fictional elements, when white male characters are afforded the luxury of just being. There's no real reason why a great majority of characters are white (which unfortunately for people who are reflexively against inclusion means it's insultingly easy to swap their race in the inevitable film adaptation. Y'all should probably start justifying yourselves.) They're white simply because they are. Minorities should be afforded the same luxury if we're operating under a belief of artistic freedom. Subsequently, I don't believe in tokenism and pandering that excludes white men from the same categorization.

 

[weemadarthur]

If 'popular media' is now showing an interest in inclusivity, it must mean there is sufficient popular audience interested in the subject. Especially considering the barriers to reaching an audience have been so reduced. Now, critics do not need to be attached to an official news organization. They can directly reach an audience. If they survive in such an environment, it means their audience wants the content.

 

[roknin]

One of the best ways to learn about a group or a culture you are unfamiliar with is to write about them. To me, that is one of the best opportunities being a writer offers.

But if done lazily (it's usually obvious when the writer has done no research, in example), it will be readily apparent in the work itself and rightfully criticized.

I don't think that's limiting or at odds with artistic vision.

Not only that, but the framing is inherently combative to minority inclusion because it frames it as inherently exclusive from good storytelling, as if one must have to balance out writing a story with simply putting a minority in there. It puts minorities in this seat where they have to justify their existence even in stories including fictional elements, when white male characters are afforded the luxury of just being. There's no real reason why a great majority of characters are white (which unfortunately for people who are reflexively against inclusion means it's insultingly easy to swap their race in the inevitable film adaptation. Y'all should probably start justifying yourselves.) They're white simply because they are. Minorities should be afforded the same luxury if we're operating under a belief of artistic freedom. Subsequently, I don't believe in tokenism and pandering that excludes white men from the same categorization.

Agreed here, too.

 

[SuperGamer]

In this day and age of social media, anything and everything is open to criticism. And it goes both ways. For every social-justice activist campaigning for minority inclusion, there'll be an even greater number of alt-rightists railing against minority inclusion (as we've seen with the backlash against Ghostbusters, and to a lesser extent, Star Wars). If anything, that's partly responsible for the rise of minority inclusion, because of how repulsive the alt-right have become in their efforts to keep out minorities.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

Why can't you guys just leave these artist alone. They are just trying to write their hopes and dreams of being in a country where only people that look like them exist. Envious of those 1 race countries of yore before people who look like them invaded them for resources. And since all the stories are fictional they have no control over the racial makeup of characters! Historical Accuracy = Fictional = 3 syllables = half-life 3

 

[Slayven]

Freedom of speech and expression is not freedom from criticism

 

[Silver Arrows]

Freedom of speech and expression is not freedom from criticism

Not when I don't want my works of art to be devoid of minority people! /s

 

[Gnome]

Sometimes when I'm writing a story, a pesky minority sneaks there way onto the page and you best be damn sure to know that I stamp their ass out with some whiteout before they take over.

Spoiler

/s

 

[Brakke]

Yeah I'm definitely here for criticism on a racial politics lens that recognizes under-representation as erasure or a conscious choice. A lot of that bulk is starting to get mad stale though. "Representation matters" is good and true but also small and kind of obvious. I just don't need to read another article with that thesis, I get it.

I wanna see the pendulum swing back toward text and away from production / Hollywood power politics a bit. But at the same time, the pop culture is so thoroughly product-ized right now that maybe the pop criticism we have is all the works deserve. Most of these big franchise Hollywood movies are thematically incoherent so ignoring the themes to think about the power structures that created them as products is probably appropriate.

 

[WaffleTaco]

free expression is a code word for fuck minorities

Not really, I could see why someone would see that though.

This. A story that takes place on the great wall shouldnt be about a white guy saving china. Thats fucking bull.

I mean China made the movie not Hollywood so blame them for wanting a "star"

 

[Frozenprince]

Not only that, but the framing is inherently combative to minority inclusion because it frames it as inherently exclusive from good storytelling, as if one must have to balance out writing a story with simply putting a minority in there. It puts minorities in this seat where they have to justify their existence even in stories including fictional elements, when white male characters are afforded the luxury of just being. There's no real reason why a great majority of characters are white (which unfortunately for people who are reflexively against inclusion means it's insultingly easy to swap their race in the inevitable film adaptation. Y'all should probably start justifying yourselves.) They're white simply because they are. Minorities should be afforded the same luxury if we're operating under a belief of artistic freedom. Subsequently, I don't believe in tokenism and pandering that excludes white men from the same categorization.

Sooooooo much this. It's just another method to frame the "us vs them" mentality to make minorities into a further enemy of artistic expression and trying to "curb free expression ans speech".

It's dogwhistling on it's best day.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Not really, I could see why someone would see that though.

It absolutely is. whether the people using it are aware of that is another matter.

 

[Silver Arrows]

It's funny to see the talk regarding this topic juxtaposed with the Super Mario Run topic on Gaming side.

Topic being supposed 'identity politics'

 

[Prototype Viktor]

Not really, I could see why someone would see that though.

I mean China made the movie not Hollywood so blame them for wanting a "star"

They are playing a game Hollywood made and sold to them to make the movie "sell" outside of china

 

[Angelus Errare]

It's an issue when we see people completely fine with say a random white hero in ancient China, or can create a story that excuses why a white woman would be a standard model in Japan but will question and invoke "historical accuracy" when someone asks why there are no black people in a fictitious Victorian London with vampires, werewolves and other things or any PoC in period pieces.

Or alternatively, what creative vision was destroyed in say Magnificent Seven by having a black man, Korean, and Native American as part of the cast. Or alternatively, how many people were "taken out" of the movie when they saw a black man, Korean, Native American? Why? Would you feel the same if you saw a random white man in ancient <insert time period where there were no white people> and he rises through the ranks and becomes their most powerful warrior over the course of a week?

 

[Frozenprince]

Exempting the lack of inclusivity and diversity of cast for a film from any sort of professional critique on the grounds of artistic expression is missing the point so bad you end up in a completely different country.

We've been hearing the "artistic expression" excuse for a century.

Enough is enough.

 

[LastGamer84]

I actually have a fantastic post (not mine):from months ago bookmarked about this.

Art is both expressive, and introspective. Despite being fictional (lets deal with fiction) it echoes the struggles in our lives, and the meaning is not lost on us. The hero's journey is something we can all accomplish, we are flawed beings so find meaning in seeing someone rise above their own flaws, for example. Representation, is key to this. When reading, or watching, we identify with certain aspects. That could be gender, race, class, sexual preference - or even more loose connections, like job. Thus, from a benefits point of view, it is important to have representation in media - that way we can all appreciate and learn from art, we don't want it to be something for "white males only", for example.

It's also important to look at the negatives from poor representation. Imagine if the only time you saw your race in cultural works, they were criminals, thieves and the morally poor of society. That's going to impact you psychologically, especially as a child, with regards to how you view your race and by extension, yourself. You can extrapolate this to always being the sidekick, or the villain - or even not there at all. A lack of representation can be just as damaging as a poor one, as it implies irrelevance.

Now I refer to the post I linked to. I've linked to it because it resonates with me, as something I myself experience, though a lot more when I was younger. All the heroes I had ever seen were white males, so in my mind the hero was a white male. That's what came initially, and the idea of "artistic integrity" was in fact damaging, because it then meant that trying to make a main character a black male was suddenly problematic, because it was not automatic. Thus you can see the cycle, the lack of representation for my race had affected who I saw psychologically as a hero, and it was a rather narrow set of options. You can then follow the psychological dominos if you wish, hypothesising about how that can affect self esteem, motivation, etcetera.

Now, I'm much less of a stickler for "artistic integrity" of that nature, and happier for it. What people seem to neglect, is that mentally forcing diversity can often improve your work. A different race most likely means a different upbringing, adding and changing aspects of their character, until they become something fresher. Thus you add more ideas to your work, and can create something more incredible and profound than before, by allowing these different ideologies and background to mingle, in a way. A crude example is my current work on a D&D campaign for my D&D group. Wanting diversity might spur me to change the race (species would be more appropriate in non d&d terms) of a character, enabling me to say change their motivations - character A was already motivated with a chip on her shoulder, now we see that that's because of her half-elf status, she feels like she belongs to neither group so needs to prove herself to both.

Often when I'm planning stories, I'll look at my crop of main characters, and realise that I need diversity in voices, so add diversity to the cast. You can see that cause and effect has not been reversed here, I'm not adding diversity for wont of diversity, but because I understand the colour that it can bring to the cast, the medley of voices of different skin, gender and background creating something more profound and insightful. Not to mention the positive effect that it'll have on readers, everyone being able to identify in some way, thus enjoy my story more, and take more away from it.

Of course, I cannot expect everyone to work this way. Sometimes changing diversity for its own sake may not be appropriate, say if we consider time period and location, and would come across as forced and thus take away from the story, rather than add to it. So we should not penalise stories that do this, on an individual perspective, assuming that they're not damaging from a diversity perspective, but encourage stories that don't. After all, art does not exist in a vacuum. I'm sure there'd be an outcry at a series that actively promotes Nazism and ethnic cleansing, so from a balance perspective - it's not wrong to encourage stories that display diversity. Perhaps the uncertainty of others regarding taking this step is not understanding the positives that diversity can hold (and negatives of its absence), rather than disagreeing with it (I hope), and thus not understanding why you'd want to promote it. Well, here you have it.

Very good post. I guess I may be blind to the cycle because I do my best not to consider race in evaluating people in everyday life. I certainly grew up in a less diverse environment, so more than likely I default to characters that match my race because it's easier to identify. Although if you asked me who my two favorite action stars were it would be Wesley Snipes and Jackie Chan. So I do feel there's an onus, if that's the right word, equally if not more so for an audience- perhaps moreso than Hollywood, to embrace diversity and inclusion.