Final Paper!
Posted: April 29th, 2010 | Author: lindsey | Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »Viole(n)t: The Doll You Love to Hate
Commentary on Children and Violence
Lindsey Elliott
Melanie Crean
PGTE 5201-C
April 23, 2010
Like violence, you kill me.
- Blink 182
Introduction:
We live in a world, today, where violence is everywhere. Acts of abuse, beating, and killing can be seen just by simply flipping through the various channels of a television. Not to mention, these malicious behaviors are even present in shows, films,and games that children, and teenagers, watch and participate in. From Wile E. Coyote trying to out-smart and assassinate Roadrunner, to playing a trigger-happy, car-jacking “gangster” in Grand Theft Auto; I can’t help but wonder, is violence something that kids should be exposed to at an early age?
Now that I’m older, I’ve been surrounded by friends who have given birth, and now have children to look after. Some deprive their offspring of certain shows, games, and toys; while others have no boundaries and are free to do and/or watch whatever they please. Obviously, there is no right way to parent, but a line should be drawn somewhere. These “lines” vary from parent to parent, hinging on what they deem appropriate; however, drawing a line when it comes to violence is a must. No parent wants to put their child/ children in the position to be effected negatively, but this is one of the possible outcomes when children come in contact with violent media.
Looking back on my own childhood, I realize that my parents did, somewhat, shelter me from certain things; violence being one of them. I was not allowed to watch gory horror movies, or play violent games with my brothers (who are more than eight years older than me); my parents claimed that I was “too young”. Instead, I was encouraged to watch The Berenstein Bears, play “house”, and be involved in various sports. However, growing up in this day and age, is a completely different atmosphere than what I had to deal with. Today, kids (ages 5-15) think the term “fun” consists of staying indoors playing games or watching television/ movies, which more than likely, possesses violence within it. My piece, Viole(n)t: The Doll You Love to Hate, hones in on this socially accepted idea that violence is appropriate for children of all ages, and does not effect them later in life.
This piece is a visual and interactive experience. Viole(n)t aims to create a dialogue between adults about the effects of exposing children to violence. Perhaps, even make them think twice about letting their own kids watch and/or participate in all things brutal. From shooting at whoever is deemed “the enemy” to fighting to the death; my piece begs to ask questions such as, “What is the difference between killing a person on a screen, versus killing a human-inspired doll?” Being able to watch a child, or a person of any age, harmfully interact with an object, in the form of a human, can be viewed as unhealthy or twisted. Through the simple act of play, adults can realize that this form of interaction can suffice as evidence that kids who are constantly exposed to harmful media are affected, one way or another, by what they have seen.
Context/ Research:
Viole(n)t is a combination of three main concepts: interaction, play, and child psychology (a.k.a.- the effects on children due to via various media). Each one of these terms intertwine with one another to create a cohesive, multi-part piece. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines interaction as ” acting upon one another” 20. Play is
” the conduct, course, or action of a game… playfulness”; however, it is suppose to be in the “absence of serious or harmful intent” 21 Ibid., 551, which in this piece, is not true for all cases. These two actions must be met, in order to grasp the main concept of ,the present-day, children’s relationship to violence. As people are playfully interacting with the piece, they can start to visually see similarities between this commentarial piece and how violent and vicious some toys and/or games on the market actually are. And more importantly, whether or not it is appropriate for kids to be exposed to such things.
My project, Viole(n)t, should be viewed as a critical art piece, and not a commercial venture. It is geared towards adults, but could easily be played with by children. This particular work consists of two aspects: the doll itself, and short “instructional films” featuring various people interacting with this object.
The doll and the films, via website, would be seen as one cohesive piece. The user would be able to interact with the doll, and also have the ability to check out the company website to view past users’ experiences, which would serve as instructional videos. One could see how others interact with it, what subjects/ feelings it brought up, etc. By having these two layers, one physical and one virtual, viewers could see how they play off and/or work with one another to help create and promote dynamic thoughts and conversation.
The doll is a human-inspired plush toy, that possesses two extremely different ways that it can be played with: the “good/ non-violent “way or the “bad/ violent” way. Within the doll, there are five set interaction opportunities that the user can participate in (three are violent, two are not). The functions consist of the following: 1.) unzipping the back of the doll and removing the inner organs, 2.) placing one’s hand in front of the mouth, for five seconds, to watch the doll’s cheeks turn from red to blue due to virtual suffocation, 3.) removing the left arm and pulling out “fabricated” blood from within the doll’s body, 4.) accessorizing the doll with a hat that can be magnetically attached to the right side of its head, and 5.) applying pressure to the heart of the doll to hear its audio that says, “I love you” while seeing its heart beat. Inevitably, these set interactions/functions (“good” vs. “bad”) are displayed on the tag of the doll as visual instructions for the user.
The branding tag is an important factor within the piece, since it is where the user will get the url to the website and see how to actually interact with the doll. The tag will be in the form of circle, which will display the title of the piece on the front. Once opened, the user will see the website address on the bottom (to view the instructional videos), the “good” interactions on the left-hand side, and the “bad” interactions on the right. These two connected circles will not have the same visual feel due to the interactions being in opposite categories (good/bad). When looking at the open tag on the left side, people will notice a plain white background layered with simple images on top. While on-the-hand, the right side will have a bold red border around the edges, with a straight line going through the middle. Just from the visuals, alone, people will realize that the violent functions are not necessarily the desired interaction. However, the user will, ultimately, have the option of what type of actions they will perform. For example, someone who voluntarily decided to play “nice” with the doll might hug it to hear its audio component, while someone who plays “mean” with the doll may tear its arm off. With this moral underlining, of being able to opt for being “good” or “bad”, what does it say about each individual person? If one chooses to physically participate/play in virtually suffocating a doll, then does that make them a morally-bad person, or are they just having fun? Benji Edwards, writer of the article Can Games Become Virtual Murder?, thinks that morals do not come into play when it comes to simulated killing. He states that it is seen as having fun because it is something that is “illegal in real life” 11. On-the-other-hand, he believes that murder has become a blasé event in mainstream video games and that is “something that should make us re-evaluate our hobby” 12 Ibid., par. 28. If a devoted gamer, such as Edwards, is turning against his own pastime because of too much violence, then it is for the children’s benefit to not be exposed. My piece tries to prompt the idea that “violent media and children do not mix”. By being confronted with a piece that possesses two completely different ways to be played with, people will begin to see that violent media exposure desensitizes children and ultimately prompts children to act violently with Viole(n)t.
The idea of dolls, as toys for children, can be traced back to as early as 1270 BC, claims A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians author, Sir John Gardner Wilkinson 22. Unlike today, the Egyptians’ dolls were fabricated out of wood and carried a message “to promote health by the exercise of the body, and to divert the mind by laughable entertainments” 23 Ibid., 196. They essentially were used to give children comfort or some sense of companionship; however, now they have been repurposed for more serious and practical issues. Today, dolls are used as tools in play therapy for children. The Child Welfare Information Gateway explain in their article, Techniques for The Child Interview and A Methodology for Substantiating Sexual Abuse, that when using a doll as a part of a therapy session, they serve as “a medium through which interviewers may communicate with children, just as language is… For young children, the dolls may be a more familiar medium than speech, and often one in which they are more accomplished, because children generally interact with toys, including dolls, before they have a lot of language” 9. They continued onto stating that children do associate dolls with human forms, and are used in these situations as tools to provoke children to re-enact what they have seen/witnessed/experienced 10 Ibid., par. 32. I can only imagine that if this sort of session involved a young kid who loved playing the game Hitman, the doll would no longer be intact. This particular game, along with many others, are some of the core problems of violence in today’s media that children are unfortunately faced with; Viole(n)t exemplifies this notion.
Video games and other simulated toys are not the only way in which violence gets into children’s homes; Some of the main infiltrators come straight from the television. Much of today’s programming is violent, whether it is intended for adults or young kids. Flipping the channels from CSI: Miami to The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, shows one common characteristic: violence. In fact, the Media Awareness Network’s article, Violence in Media Entertainment, states that, “TV shows in 2001 averaged forty acts of violence per hour” 15. Combine that number with the average three to four hours of television per day that children watch 1, according to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry pamphlet, Facts for Families: Children and TV Violence; and that accumulates to children watching a frequency of 120 to 140 acts of violent behaviors per day. Not to mention, 39% of all violent acts air before 8 p.m., and one hour later 87.9% is shown – times when children are more than likely to be sitting in front of the screen 16 Media Awareness, par. 6. This, plus games and other forms of media, accumulates into an excessive amount of violent acts for such a young person to absorb; and in the end, it will have its own effect upon them.
The consequence of entertainment violence on children is complex and variable; some children end up being affected more than others, with the effects taking several forms. One form is children displaying violent behavior (due to violent media). There is an extravagant amount of research and literature that has been conducted to prove this notion, which “is amazingly consistent in its findings” 3, states Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy authors Craig A. Anderson, Douglas A. Gentile, and Katherine E. Buckley. In studies like Brad J. Bushman, PhD and L. Rowell Huesmann’s, PhD, authors of the article, Short-term and Long-term Effects of Violent Media on Aggression in Children and Adults, they found the same similar and unfluctuating results. Sources such as: television programs, films, video games, music, and comic books were used to expose violence to young children 6. The objective of their meta-analysis study was to test “whether the results of the accumulated studies on media violence and aggressive behavior are consistent with the theories that have evolved”; indeed it was 7 Ibid., 1. Tests showed that exposure to media violence was positively related to “aggressive behavior, aggressive ideas, arousal, and anger” 8 Ibid., 6. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children put this study’s results nicely: “viewing violence may lead to real life violence” 2. Regardless of a studies research method (whether it be experimental, cross-sectional, longitudinal, etc), the evidence is always similar to the previous; “strongly pointing to a significant deleterious effect of violent media on aggression and aggression-related variables” 4 Anderson, 29.
Another consequence of children being exposed to violent media is the desensitization to violence. In the opinion of Steven J. Kirsh, author of the book Media and Youth: A Developmental Perspective, the term “desensitization” refers to “the situation in which youth become less affected by, and more indifferent and callous to, genuine violence occurring in the real world” 13. A prime example of this would be a study done by Drabman and Thomas in 1974, which proved that “a person’s attitude can be created or changed with as little as a single exposure to the media”, states On Media Violence author W. James Potter 18. The study measured the amount of time it took third and forth graders to intervene (i.e., find an adult) in a fight between preschoolers; some viewed a violent film, some did not. “Results indicated that children viewing a violent film too longer to get help than others watching a nonviolent film” 14 Kirsh, 227. This outcome also in congruent with Drabman and Thomas’ prior research that demonstrates “when people are exposed to a violent television show, they show an immediate drop in sympathetic attitude… and make them temporarily less aware of and less concerned about aggressive acts in others” 19 Potter, 129. Keep in mind, these are results from children viewing a violent movie once; can you imagine what the outcome would be for children who had encountered violent media on a daily basis?
This piece was inspired by two different plush toys, one more technologically savvy than the other. The main inspiration was Adam Arber, Mike Velcro, and Charlie Bradshaw’s Roadkill Dolls. These toys are basically aesthetically pleasing plush versions of different animals that have been killed by a car. With soft guts shown coming out of flattened bodies equipped with tire marks; it is no wonder why Arber states on their website, ” We’re Toy Terrorists. We take standard toys and we mess with them. We like toys that don’t take themselves too seriously. Toys with a bit of humor. Toys with a twist” 5 .This is one way in which Viole(n)t: The Doll You Love to Hate and Roadkill Dolls are similar; taking the standard idea of a “doll” and twisting/ messing it up to create something cute and morbid. A toy with a twist. However, my doll aims to make a commentary on the serious issue of children being exposed to violence via media, while Roadkill Dolls are simply just macabre designer stuffed animals.
My other precedent that inspired me, when it came to the technological aspect of my work, is Yury Gitman’s My Beating Heart. This interactive piece is basically a pillow that is designed to be hugged by the user. While holding this pillow against one’s chest, the user will being to sense their “own heartbeat slowly syncing with My Beating Heart’s carefully designed rhythm” 17, claims the online site www.mybeatingheart.com. After viewing this piece, I decided that I needed to embed some electronics inside of the doll to give it a more lively effect. And by merging pieces from the inspirations from Arber, Velcro, Bradshaw, and Gitman; I developed Viole(n)t: The Doll You Love to Hate.
D. Project Methodology:
The process that I went through to create my piece was quite lengthy. There are various components within the doll, so I had to code and construct all of those before I could actually put everything together. I started out with sketches of the doll, that involved the outside appearance as well as the inside structure. Once I felt like everything was accounted for on paper, I progressed to fabric.
Constructing the doll was a challenge in itself. I wanted to create something that could embody electronics while still remaining to be visually appealing to children. I first wanted to create a teddy-bear, but after going back through my concept, I felt like constructing a human form would be more effective. Creating the patterns out of fabric for the different body parts was probably the easiest task because I have had experience with creating soft sculptures. However, this was also the most time consuming because I decided to sew everything by hand; I felt that if it was done with a machine it would not have the same quality that I was looking for.
Half-way through my fabrication of Viole(n)t, I decided to user test how well it translated to children. My friend was coming into town with her three kids, which I used as my guinea pigs. Two of them were twin nine year-old boys, and the other was a five year-old girl. I asked my friend if her children were free to watch violent shows, play violent games, etc. She told me that her boys play a game called Halo (multi-person “shooter” game), while her daughter is more interested in things like Dora the Explorer. I gathered the children and handed them my doll, which at this time only possessed removable guts and arm. I told them about the 2 violent features, and let them interact with it as they pleased. The girl got ahold of it first. She just held it and did not even unzip the back of the doll. It was almost like she thought it was her child. After a couple of minutes, I asked for it back and handed it to the boys. They immediately took off the arm, then proceeded to unzip the back and play with the soft organs. While the girl was witnessing this, she ran over to her mom and exclaimed that her brothers had “broke the doll”. I wish I would have videotaped/documented this test, but I was not expecting those types of reactions since my doll was not even completed yet.
Once the doll was assembled, I moved onto the electronic features. Everything had been sewn together except the back of the head, which would be my entry point for inserting the circuitry. The technological pieces were programmed using Arduino and then built onto small breadboards, which I figured I could store in the doll’s abnormally large head. While trying to fit everything inside of my piece, I came to the conclusion that I needed to create some sort of skull-like structure to keep the pieces, inside, stable. I tried to tightly stuff plush material around the electronics, but it still was not good enough; even just turning the doll different directions would cause the sensor in the mouth to move from its designated position. I felt like nothing would work; then I came across a small foam football. This ball was the solution to my problems: it was the perfect pre-made shape, could be easily hollowed out, and would form-fit my circuits. After I hacked the football, I placed it into the head, secured it (and connecting pieces) with hot glue, and sewed the skull shut; the doll was complete.
E. Conclusion:
Viole(n)t: The Doll You Love to Hate is a critical interactive piece that inclines people to think about the effects of violent media on children’s lives, and whether or not they should be exposed to such things at a young age. It creates a dialog among adults that, hopefully, makes them rethink their restrictions when it comes to their child/ children’s limitations. This doll may seem fun, but it deals with a very serious subject; it’s a light plush doll with a concept that carries a heavy load.
Endnotes
1. American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. “Facts for Families: Children and TV Violence”. Pamphlet No. 13. Washington DC, November 2002, par. 2.
2. American Academy of Pediatrics. “Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children: Congressional Public Health Summit”. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, July 26, 2000, 1.
3. Anderson, Craig A., Douglas A. Gentile, Katherine E. Buckley. Violent Video Game Effect on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, 29.
4. Ibid.
5. Arber, Adam. “About Us”. Roadkill, 2007. http://www.roadkilltoys.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=166 (accessed April 3, 2010), par. 1.
6. Bushman PhD, Brad J., L. Rowell Huesmann, PhD. “Short-term and Long-term Effects of Violent Media on Aggression in Children and Adults”. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Journal, Vol. 160, No. 4, April, 2006, 5.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Techniques for The Child Interview and A Methodology for Substantiating Sexual Abuse”. 1993. http:// www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/sexabuse/sexabusee.cfm (accessed March 15, 2010), par. 24.
10. Ibid.
11. Edwards, Benji. “Can Games Become Virtual Murder?”. Gamasutra: The Art and Business of Making Games. June 30, 2009. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/ news_index.php?story=23844 (accessed March 12, 2010), par. 8.
12. Ibid.
13. Kirsh, Steven J. Media and Youth: A Developmental Perspective. Massachusetts: Wiley- Blackwell, 2010, 227.
14. Ibid.
15. Media Awareness Network. “Violence in Media Entertainment”. 2010. http:// www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/violence_entertainment.cfm (accessed March 12, 2010), par. 3.
16. Ibid.
17. My Beating Heart. “About the Beat”. Banana Design Lab LLC., 2008. http:// www.mybeatingheart.com/about.html (accessed April 7, 2010), par. 1.
18. Potter, W. James. On Media Violence. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1999, 129.
19. Ibid.
20. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary: New Edition. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam- Webster Incorporated, 2004, 379.
21. Ibid.
22. Wilkinson, Sir John Gardner. A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1854, 308.
23. Ibid.
Bibliography:
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. “Facts for Families: Children and TV Violence”. Pamphlet No. 13. Washington DC, November 2002.
American Academy of Pediatrics. “Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children: Congressional Public Health Summit”. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, July 26, 2000.
Anderson, Craig A., Douglas A. Gentile, Katherine E. Buckley. Violent Video Game Effect on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Arber, Adam. “About Us”. Roadkill, 2007. http://www.roadkilltoys.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=166 (accessed April 3, 2010).
Bushman PhD, Brad J., L. Rowell Huesmann, PhD. “Short-term and Long-term Effects of Violent Media on Aggression in Children and Adults”. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Journal, Vol. 160, No. 4, April, 2006.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Techniques for The Child Interview and A Methodology for Substantiating Sexual Abuse”. 1993. http:// www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/sexabuse/sexabusee.cfm (accessed March 15, 2010).
Edwards, Benji. “Can Games Become Virtual Murder?”. Gamasutra: The Art and Business of Making Games. June 30, 2009. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/ news_index.php?story=23844 (accessed March 12, 2010).
Kirsh, Steven J. Media and Youth: A Developmental Perspective. Massachusetts: Wiley- Blackwell, 2010.
Media Awareness Network. “Violence in Media Entertainment”. 2010. http:// www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/violence_entertainment.cfm (accessed March 12, 2010).
My Beating Heart. “About the Beat”. Banana Design Lab LLC., 2008. http:// www.mybeatingheart.com/about.html (accessed April 7, 2010).
Potter, W. James. On Media Violence. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1999.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary: New Edition. (Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 2004).
Wilkinson, Sir John Gardner. A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1854.
