Well specifically the Pirates of the Caribbean news. In Paris, California, and Florida, the classic Auction scene in Pirates of the Caribbean will be replaced with a new scene that turns the situation around and makes the Redhead a Pirate, leading a new auction of loot.
If you are in any way involved with an online Disney community, and since you are here, you likely are, then you have seen the complicated and passionate reactions. Twitter has exploded in debate, taking both sides. The Disney Parks Blog comment section is quite frustrated. And I don't even dare check the thread on the WDWMagic Forums. That's probably not a fun place right now.
There's a lot to talk about in relation to this. Why the change now? Is the new scene as good? What about all the changes Pirates has already endured over the years? Is this ruining a great attraction? Why should Pirates be politically correct? What will they change next?
I am going to talk about none of those.
I am really only interested in the debate that has come up about Theme Parks as an Art Form and what the rules are about changing that Art.
I was going to just comment on this news with some tweets, but I realized I had more to say after reading a really good blog post about this at Disney Tourist Blog. In his commentary about this news, he talks about how art doesn't change and should be "confronted on the terms of its day". I left a comment there, which I then felt I wanted to expand on, and that leads to where we are now.
The below might be a little rambly, because I am trying to assemble a complicated set of ideas into an overall argument, but it makes the point I want to share. Overall, I try to identify the characteristics of Theme Parks that make them an art for and then present my personal opinion about how that Art Form can change.
Are Theme Parks Art?
Well simple answer is yes, of course it is. Its a designed creation that is enjoyed by patrons, inspires emotional and mental reactions, and can be interpreted by the observer to understand its meaning.
But what kind of art is the more complex question. I've seen many comparisons to paintings and movies so far. But to me, that is a too simplistic view.
Though so many of the traditional Theme Park design metaphors are based on filmmaking, there's just as much a case for theme parks relating to theater. Both in the design and how the two art forms are meant to be experienced.
A painting or a movie may be really intended to be experienced in a specific setting with a specific audience, but it can be observed as a primary document anywhere, anytime, with anyone. You can see a picture of the art or a copy of the film, and it really is the same thing however you experience it. Yes, real fine art vs a picture is different in how you can appreciate it, but the form of experience doesn't change.
But with theater, and Theme Parks, the experience of the art has to take place in the moment, at the particular location, in the world that the artists intends. Its a live medium. Any other way you appreciate it - pictures, videos, recordings - are secondary sources of the art. A reduction in both quality and experience. This also explains why Theme Parks are so special for so many of us, regardless of how many times we've been or how many videos we've seen. The personal moment of experience is by far the most rewarding way to experience a theme park. You just have to be there.
To an extent, the metaphor also means that the effect the creation has on you is the art and the element to be appreciated, not the actual physical characteristics of the production. I don't think this is quite true for Theme Parks, because we can definitely appreciate the production design, architecture, and visual design as an art. But the effect the story has on us is just as important.
To an extent, the metaphor also means that the effect the creation has on you is the art and the element to be appreciated, not the actual physical characteristics of the production. I don't think this is quite true for Theme Parks, because we can definitely appreciate the production design, architecture, and visual design as an art. But the effect the story has on us is just as important.
This theater metaphor works for me to begin describing the art of parks. Really Theme Parks are their own completely unique art form but this is a good enough jumping off point. The main difference in my view is the interactive nature of the parks, but really some forms of theater do that as well. So its a solid comparison in my view. A Theme Park is like a perpetual work of theater, with the same physical elements creating a new production for new guests every day.
Can Art Change?
This is more complicated. I've seen many jump quickly to saying that no, art is permanent and should never change. Comparisons are often made to paintings being changed or a movie being re-edited, which shouldn't really happen. I definitely agree there. However theater changes a lot and it is completely accepted. If were going with theater as the closest Theme Park analogue, then let's talk about that.
The core elements of theater is the story and the meaning that the story is intended to convey. Originally, a production is created with an assemblage of design elements to create this meaning. These designed pieces, all themselves works of art, are put together to be understood by the cultural context of the audience for that production so that the story and meaning come through clearly.
But productions do not run forever, they close and maybe eventually are revived. It's still the same story and the same meaning, but as it is revived and readapted over the years, basically everything else is subject to change. Sets, costumes, casting decisions, even the music and order of songs and script. These changes are made to translate the original design into how the new audience understands the meaning. Or even to add new dimensions to the the process by which the audience interprets the work. Things change so that the story has the same impact for the new audience.
But productions do not run forever, they close and maybe eventually are revived. It's still the same story and the same meaning, but as it is revived and readapted over the years, basically everything else is subject to change. Sets, costumes, casting decisions, even the music and order of songs and script. These changes are made to translate the original design into how the new audience understands the meaning. Or even to add new dimensions to the the process by which the audience interprets the work. Things change so that the story has the same impact for the new audience.
So if this is acceptable for theater, is it acceptable for theme parks?
My theater examples are extreme. You shouldn't redesign all the sets of a ride just because styles have changed. But at the same time, if there is an element in a ride that no longer speaks to the guest in the same way and therefore hurts the understanding of the overall meaning of the story, why not fix it. It makes a better guest experience.
My theater examples are extreme. You shouldn't redesign all the sets of a ride just because styles have changed. But at the same time, if there is an element in a ride that no longer speaks to the guest in the same way and therefore hurts the understanding of the overall meaning of the story, why not fix it. It makes a better guest experience.
So my answer is that your shouldn't change the art of a theme park just to change it, but when change is needed to preserve the overall artistic expression of the story. The bigger art concept is more important than the elements that get you there.
Funny enough, Joe Rhode posted something about this on instagram just this week. He says that the boomboxes in the queue of Kali River Rapids were intended to show that the residents were living contemporary lives with real technology. Now it says the opposite, so they really should be replaced eventually to maintain the original concept. Even though that's a small example, that is how I feel about changing the art of Theme Parks. Do it when necessary to better the guest experience.
And the guest experience that needs to be prioritized is obviously the in person experience, not the secondary reproduction of the experience that shows up in pictures or videos or books. It's only about what you experience in the moment, not what you think you should see or what you've seen before. The normal guest does not experience an attraction with the full contextual knowledge of the attraction's history or a detailed description of how they are supposed to feel about something. Its just about what they see in the moment and what that means to them. The history element is more impactful on the secondary form of the experience, plus those of us who do know everything and ride knowing the background information.
Overall, change to theme parks attractions is going to happen because the world around us changes as well. Culture changes, norms change, and generally what guests want to see changes.
Really this has been happening for years and years, but this is the largest and most high profile case, leading to this debate. Flight to the Moon was changed to Mission to Mars because advances in the space program meant that guests no longer could understand the futuristic concept. Carousel of Progress updated its last scene for the same reason. And somewhat similarly, the original Fantasyland dark rides were all changed so that guests better understood their stories. All case where change improved the guest experience.
I want to say though that this is not me falling into the all change is good group. Definitely not. Changes made with good intentions to better the guest experience can significantly hurt the themed design concept, which as a designer, I obviously believe is crucial. Changes for the guests sake can fundamentally change the overall artistic concept, which is against everything I wrote above.
Getting specific, the rumors of what would happen to EPCOT, which maybe making guests happier quickly because of more IPs, would change the whole artistic concept of EPCOT.
Changing tower to Guardians changes the artistic concept of Hollywood Land.
But personally, changing the Auction scene does not change the concept of Pirates of Caribbean. So that's why I can accept it.
Finally, even though I said I would not talk about the specifics of this situation, some comments.
I'm not entirely sure that the change had to be made, but I am not opposed to the change because of what I said above. It's not something that exactly bothered me in the past, but I understand how it could bother others. It's still Pirates of the Caribbean to me.
Yes, its a little unfortunate that its such a recognizable scene is pretty much the most classic and historic attraction in the parks. Nostalgia is a powerful reason to be frustrated about this change and I understand it. But the parks are not stagnant representations of history like I discusses above.
The main argument though for keeping it is that the Pirates are supposed to be bad people and you are supposed to understand that in the attraction. The Auction scene is supposed to be just another example of their faults. The issue with this is that, even if this was the original intent, that's really not obvious now. We've had 5 movies now that show the Pirate life and make them the heroes of the story, guests can learn to be a pirate hourly outside the attraction, the entire gift shop sells Pirate accessories, and the general Pirate concept has been glorified throughout the parks and resorts.
Guests don't come out of that attraction wanting to be the soldiers in the fort or the noble townspeople. We all want to be Pirates. Pirates who do bad things. So in my view, this is just removing the most problematic of the bad things and leaving intact the more culturally acceptable vices and the ones that are most closely aligned with what we imagine as the Pirates life.
I look forward to seeing what the replacement scene ends up being and continuing to enjoy the classic attraction.
I know you may have a different opinion. Maybe you see all of this completely differently. If you have a different idea of the Art Theory Concept or how attractions should change, leave a comment below and lets discuss.
Funny enough, Joe Rhode posted something about this on instagram just this week. He says that the boomboxes in the queue of Kali River Rapids were intended to show that the residents were living contemporary lives with real technology. Now it says the opposite, so they really should be replaced eventually to maintain the original concept. Even though that's a small example, that is how I feel about changing the art of Theme Parks. Do it when necessary to better the guest experience.
And the guest experience that needs to be prioritized is obviously the in person experience, not the secondary reproduction of the experience that shows up in pictures or videos or books. It's only about what you experience in the moment, not what you think you should see or what you've seen before. The normal guest does not experience an attraction with the full contextual knowledge of the attraction's history or a detailed description of how they are supposed to feel about something. Its just about what they see in the moment and what that means to them. The history element is more impactful on the secondary form of the experience, plus those of us who do know everything and ride knowing the background information.
Overall, change to theme parks attractions is going to happen because the world around us changes as well. Culture changes, norms change, and generally what guests want to see changes.
Really this has been happening for years and years, but this is the largest and most high profile case, leading to this debate. Flight to the Moon was changed to Mission to Mars because advances in the space program meant that guests no longer could understand the futuristic concept. Carousel of Progress updated its last scene for the same reason. And somewhat similarly, the original Fantasyland dark rides were all changed so that guests better understood their stories. All case where change improved the guest experience.
I want to say though that this is not me falling into the all change is good group. Definitely not. Changes made with good intentions to better the guest experience can significantly hurt the themed design concept, which as a designer, I obviously believe is crucial. Changes for the guests sake can fundamentally change the overall artistic concept, which is against everything I wrote above.
Getting specific, the rumors of what would happen to EPCOT, which maybe making guests happier quickly because of more IPs, would change the whole artistic concept of EPCOT.
Changing tower to Guardians changes the artistic concept of Hollywood Land.
But personally, changing the Auction scene does not change the concept of Pirates of Caribbean. So that's why I can accept it.
Finally, even though I said I would not talk about the specifics of this situation, some comments.
I'm not entirely sure that the change had to be made, but I am not opposed to the change because of what I said above. It's not something that exactly bothered me in the past, but I understand how it could bother others. It's still Pirates of the Caribbean to me.
Yes, its a little unfortunate that its such a recognizable scene is pretty much the most classic and historic attraction in the parks. Nostalgia is a powerful reason to be frustrated about this change and I understand it. But the parks are not stagnant representations of history like I discusses above.
The main argument though for keeping it is that the Pirates are supposed to be bad people and you are supposed to understand that in the attraction. The Auction scene is supposed to be just another example of their faults. The issue with this is that, even if this was the original intent, that's really not obvious now. We've had 5 movies now that show the Pirate life and make them the heroes of the story, guests can learn to be a pirate hourly outside the attraction, the entire gift shop sells Pirate accessories, and the general Pirate concept has been glorified throughout the parks and resorts.
Guests don't come out of that attraction wanting to be the soldiers in the fort or the noble townspeople. We all want to be Pirates. Pirates who do bad things. So in my view, this is just removing the most problematic of the bad things and leaving intact the more culturally acceptable vices and the ones that are most closely aligned with what we imagine as the Pirates life.
I look forward to seeing what the replacement scene ends up being and continuing to enjoy the classic attraction.
I know you may have a different opinion. Maybe you see all of this completely differently. If you have a different idea of the Art Theory Concept or how attractions should change, leave a comment below and lets discuss.
Thanks for reading. Back with a design post soon.
No comments :
Post a Comment