LogFAQs > #933545139

Uh, yes, but not due to some sort of immutable authority of identity. In an ideal world it would not matter, but because people of different demographics have different life experiences, that has an impact on the types of art/entertainment they create, among other things. So it's less about direct identity and more about the perspective that someone with a given identity may have. For example, a white philosopher in the early 1900's could not have written The Souls of Black Folk by Du Bois because there's too great of an experiential racial gap.

The primary reason why people tend to go on about representation is because historically people of certain groups have been restricted either from participating altogether, or participating in a way that doesn't dehumanize them in some way, or from being compensated/credited fairly when they were able to participate (for example, male relatives taking credit for the artwork of their female relatives, keeping black people out of shows or stereotyping them when they are in shows, LGBT people being forced into the closet for fear of losing employment or even their lives, etc).

In addition to making life generally more difficult for people of marginalized groups historically, that's had the added negative of making it so that the perspectives of marginalized people are not often well-known. At first glance that might not seem like that big a deal, but it hinders the development of art, philosophy, history, political analysis, etc... it is in the interest of societal development to try and combat historical suppression of the perspectives of marginalized people.

That doesn't mean that it matters whether or not movie X is directed by a person of demographic Y... not unless the movie's content is tied up with that director's experiences as a member of that group... at least, I think so.

---

Hi