Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars Exhibition Explores Human Identity
Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that a new exhibition has opened at the Montreal Science Center that explores human identity through the Star Wars saga and its quirky characters combining the latest scientific research in areas of psychology, neuropsychology, and genetics with some 200 costumes, props, models, and artwork from the Lucasfilm archives to ask the fundamental questions: who we are and how do we become who we are? Visitors to the exhibition will rediscover their favorite Star Wars characters 'in a whole new light' while also developing a better understanding of their own complex identity. 'Since Star Wars takes place in a fantasy world, the characters need to be identifiable so that the audience can connect to them,' says Star Wars creator George Lucas. 'These larger-than-life characters come complete with friends, enemies, values, and beliefs. This exhibition examines how the Star Wars characters are like us, what we may have in common, and what makes up our individual identities.' Each visitor is given a bracelet, which records the decisions they make during the tour and each visitor's decisions combine to create an avatar, which is revealed at the end of the tour. 'When I finally took the tour with the audio guide and bracelet, it was thrilling,' says LucasFilm exhibits manager Kyra Bowling. 'When I saw my hero (avatar) at the end, I felt like a kid again. After I was done I immediately went through a second time and made different decisions so I could end up with a different hero.'"
I hope they left Ja Ja out the back
Oh, wait what?
This exhibition examines how the Star Wars characters are like us, what we may have in common, and what makes up our individual identities.
The prime example is CowboyNeal and Jabba the Hutt.
not this crude matter!
Or do "exhibitions" like this read more into the material than was ever originally there? I really don't think Lucas is deep enough to embed philosophical questions about psychology, neuropsychology, and genetics, or gave two hoots about our "individual identities"...
Its a series of films, people. Not much else.
Explore human identity through it? some people are averse to Star Wars like the plague. Some of those costumes are the way they are becuase the only mask left in the props department was the funny one for 20 cent and that's why the alien looks funny. How the characters are like us?
People invent and write fiction out of their own life experience, obviously there will be some parallels between how human are and the stories they create.
Oh, did you know there is a re-release of star wars in 3D-BD? DID YOU KNOW THAT? DID YOU??
This Star Wars force feeding has reached emetic levels.
Why is /. turning into such a teenie weenie tiny whiny website focusing on worthlessness?
I am so sick of "the exploration of human identity" being the only question worth pursuing when discussing works of art. It seems like the only thing we expect of art is that it help us answer the question of what it means to be human, and it's not like anyone can articulate a straight answer to that question, except in that the art itself is its own irreducible answer. It's a "tree falls in the forest" kind of question: its main purpose is to make the person asking it look smart; no answer is required.
Sci-fi fandom is especially guilty of pushing this sort of treacle. But let's be honest here: human identity issues are not the most interesting aspect of Star Wars, and Star Wars is not a very interesting subject for the exploration of human identity. If you want to talk about what it means to be human, talk about District 9 and Source Code, just to pick two recent examples. And if you want to talk about Star Wars, let's talk about whether our own lives are all just sequels to our parents' stories.
But I get it. You just want to capitalize on a mass-market intellectual property to drive attendance at your science museum. Well, you can do it without the pompous psychobabble.
Seriously? Star Wars is an expensive Space Opera, stocked full of shallow stereotyped characters. I wouldn't be my first port of a call in an analysis of human identity,
"ask the fundamental questions: who we are and how do we become who we are"
We are what we do, and we become who we are by taking responsibility for what we do. We do not get to go back in time, re-write history and change events because we got them wrong the first time.
What can we learn from Star Wards in this regard? Nothing. Hans shot first.
My Avatar was Jar Jar Binks so apparently I'm a pot smoking rastafarian. Not sure if it gets any worse. Most find that they are Jedi knights but I find I'm a stoner looser that everyone hates. There must be something lower in the Lucas universe like the trash monster. No, now that I think about it there isn't. Even the trash monster squid had some self respect.
'Since Star Wars takes place in a fantasy world, the characters need to be identifiable so that the audience can connect to them,' says Star Wars creator George Lucas.
Dear Mr. Lucas,
Please tell this to whomever wrote and directed episodes 1, 2, 3. A lack of identifiable characters the audience can connect with was one of the biggest problems. Please refer that guy to Plinkett's reviews and this guy, who point this out, quite clearly.
In fact, you might consider firing that "director/writer" guy you've got, and finding talents like you did when you hired Lawrence Kasdan, Leigh Brackett and Irvin Kershner to write and direct Empire Strikes Back. Their story still holds up many years after the special effects have become dated. Lawrence Kasdan is still alive. Maybe he knows some good people. Maybe they could do a re-imagining of 1, 2, 3 that would actually be watchable.
Keirsey's also Four Temperaments uses Star Wars Characters to illustrate for basic types of human behavior as well. Similar to Meyers briggs, it classifies people's personality types based on how the interact and make decisions.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Sometimes you have to sweeten science with some sugar to engage children / the general public. Perhaps the exhibition teaches some really good science about genetics, personalities, psychology, etc, I am not sure. But it looks like they are using Star Wars as a way to engage the public. Perhaps we have to critically analyse what is being purported to being taught: is this education or entertainment? Maybe next year they will teach the same subject but use The Simpsons / Hello Kitty / other popular cultural phenomenon.... is it a problem if it gets more people to think about science and educates them on the way?
A dune exhibit would be much, much more interesting.
I'm a fan of Star Wars, but at best its characters are archetypes at best (most would say stereotypes), not real people. Children can relate to Luke Skywalker. For adults, he's just not deep enough. Leia and Darth are one dimensional (with the exception of Darth's return to the light side). Even Han is fairly vanilla: he's always motivated by whatever will keep him in the story. Lando is the most interesting of the bunch, I think, but most of his stuff takes place "behind the scenes". And the most interesting elements for ALL the characters come from Empire. But these aren't character driven films.
I am so sick of "the exploration of human identity" being the only question worth pursuing when discussing works of art. It seems like the only thing we expect of art is that it help us answer the question of what it means to be human, and it's not like anyone can articulate a straight answer to that question, except in that the art itself is its own irreducible answer.
Isn't that the entire point of art, that we see into it what we want to see into it, and it reflects that vision back to us? Sometimes it's clear what the artist intended; other times, not so much. I don't think that "art is its own irreducible answer." More like it's an opportunity for us to peer more deeply into things we might normally take for granted, or only see one way. That's the true beauty of art, and what makes it more democratic than people might think. One family might buy a mass-market print of a Monet water lily because they think it looks pretty. Someone else might buy a reproduction of a Warhol soup can because they think it makes them look hip or cultured or smart. Others collect art because it allows them to recall an experience or time they want to be reminded of. Art need not be complicated or abstruse, just personal. One can even say that something like Serrano's Piss Christ has value simply because it creates a reaction. It's never going to have the universal appeal of a Monet or Degas, but it does cause people to think and react, or not think and get angry. Either way, it brings out emotions.
It's a "tree falls in the forest" kind of question: its main purpose is to make the person asking it look smart; no answer is required.
There's a lot of Buddhist scholars who might take exception to your belief about the usefulness of a koan.
I've seen them try to make these connections before. Meh.
From the original trilogy:
YODA: You are wise and softly spoken.
VADER: Your are imposing and powerful. You act on your emotions immediately. Also you are black.
STORM TROOPER: Despite being one of countless identical copies, people still remember you and you're instantly recognisable.
C3P0: You are prissy and annoying, you only exist so that others may think of themselves more favourably by comparing themselves to you.
BOBA FETT: You are awesome.
From the Prequel Trilogy:
AMIDALA: You are a featureless drone with no discernible personality whatsoever. People can only describe you by your occupation, physical appearance and the clothes you wear.
The thing is, this Star Wars crap has tons of artifacts and is as cheap as dirt to license. Just have to come up with some gimmick and we'll have an exhibit that will pack the lemmings in.
It is really no deeper than that, folks. There is no search for human identity, blah, blah, blah.
Most of art and literature deals with "exploring human identity". Star Wars has to be one of the crappiest examples of that and gives SciFi a bad name.
Really? A lot of SciFi is about fun and adventure. A lot is about technological possibilities. Some of it may be about "identity", but not in the moronic philosophical sense in which most classical literature deals with the topic.
If anybody is "especially guilty", it is pompous high literature and its academic devotees, the kind of people who traditionally are offended by SciFi.
do "exhibitions" like this read more into the material than was ever originally there?
Yes, and that's partly why Star Wars is still so popular. There's always more stuff because it's still growing, and that is because people are allowed to add to the universe (mostly through books, computer games and the Clone Wars series).
I really don't think Lucas is deep enough to embed philosophical questions about psychology, neuropsychology, and genetics, or gave two hoots about
Agreed, but he also doesn't mind people building on, making fun of, and in other ways keeping the Star Wars universe popular.
I guess this is where we could start a discussion on the benefits(?)/limitations of copyright.
Hans didn't shoot first. Han shot only.
My point is that sci-fi has so *many* different Big Ideas, it's annoying that its serious reviewers and fans tend to focus only on the human identity question. I think they do so to emulate and prove themselves to pompous high literature devotees, who don't ask about other big ideas because their own genre has so little else to offer.
Does the phrase "fiddling while Rome burns" come to mind?
What a pathetic waste of time.
It's a "tree falls in the forest" kind of question: its main purpose is to make the person asking it look smart; no answer is required.
I'm posting anonymously so as not to appear to be trying to "look smart"
On the surface this question sounds like one of making assumptions about that which is not directly observed. But this isn't such a silly question as you think because it really drives to your definition of "sound" which says a lot about you as an individual and how important you see yourself in the world.
If you define sound as the compression of air into "waves," then the obvious answer is "Yes." If you define sound as your own brain's interpretation of that air compression as what we call "sound," then the obvious answer is "No." So you have to pick. Does sound require a brain, and if so, then how much of what we interpret as reality requires a brain to process it to make it reality? For instance, ask the same question (with input adjusted appropriately) of all your other senses. Then think about what that means for what the Universe really is without our brains interpreting all these inputs into pretty colors and sounds. Obviously having a "consciousness enhancing substance" at your disposal for this type of thought experiment doesn't hurt.
If it doesn't (require a brain to be a sound), then do we really need to be here at all. Would the world or Universe give a flying rat's ass if life ever existed here? Of course, a flying rat would be pretty awesome.