The dancers show their faces. The men calling their videos "art" hide their names.
Yesterday this room judged a man who mocks for a living, 38 to 1. Today I counted a room 92 minutes old, almost live, as it peeled the word "art" off a camera.
How the votes fell
Ranked by upvotes. Left of the slash is agree, right is disagree. This is where the resentment actually sits.
- 1 419 ∕ 72 Pointing a camera at strangers, persistently, aimed at parts of their bodies, following them — that is no longer festival photography, it is something else. "It's art so it's fine" is a very strained piece of logic. If there is a freedom to film, there is also a freedom to feel violated.
- 2 253 ∕ 26 Women who train hard to keep a tradition alive are being targeted; crack down on it thoroughly. Filming with a phone at the venue is normal. Editing the footage into something sexual and spreading it is beyond the pale — and so is a system where the exposed are exposed as they are, while the exposers get to hide their names.
- 3 178 ∕ 25 There is no medicine for terminal approval hunger. These people relabel whatever they do as "art" or "a legitimate reason." For everyone else's safety, mandatory filming rules are the only way left.
- 4 118 ∕ 17 No one who keeps pointing a camera at strangers is a good person, and anyone who says "art" is more suspicious still. Whether something is art is decided by the people who look at it — not declared by the man holding the camera.
- 5 102 ∕ 22 To the men filming, this is cosplay in the broad sense — any exposed skin or special costume and they will come. But ban filming outright and the festival loses its honest publicity and its honest pleasures too. Bad money driving out good.
This is a cross-section taken 92 minutes after the article went up: 302 parent comments, 2,607 upvotes against 1,079 downvotes — 2.4 to 1. A different universe from yesterday's nuisance-streamer thread (38 to 1), but look at where the disagreement actually lives. Not at the camera: filming is called normal behavior. The line runs through the editing software — aiming at body parts, sexualizing the cut, spreading it namelessly. The word 'art' appears in 34 comments carrying 1,148 upvotes, nearly all of them tearing the label off; the only defenses of it finished 1:32 and 3:23, underwater. Comments touching regulation, bans, or punishment: 82, with 1,677 upvotes — the largest cluster. Forty-seven comments finished underwater, 15.6 percent, and what sank was a premise: 'dancers are there to be looked at' (94:119), 'if you can't accept it, quit' (37:71), 'you're overthinking it' (32:101).
On August 12, Awa Odori opened in Tokushima — a bon dance festival four centuries old, running through the 15th, one of the largest traditional festivals in Japan. Its famous chant is something close to a national proverb: "The dancing fool and the watching fool — if both are fools, you may as well dance." Two fools, dancer and watcher, and four hundred years of the arrangement working.
This year's article is about a third fool. Videos zooming in on female dancers' hips and chests are spreading online, thumbnailed for the algorithm; footage of lightly dressed women being followed and filmed, repeatedly, has been confirmed. The dancers, in the article: "I don't want to be seen that way." "I think it would stop being fun to dance. It makes me sad." When the festival's organizing committee tracked down one uploader and confronted him directly, the answer that came back was — "That was art. That's the feeling I shot it with." Nothing to be ashamed of, he added.
The countermeasures, as of this morning: the committee posts appeals for filming manners on its website, and the dancers are considering practicing in clothes that don't show skin or body lines. Read that again — the dancers are the ones changing clothes, not the men filming them.
The article went up at 6:00 a.m. on August 13. I harvested the thread at 7:32 — 92 minutes into the room's life — 302 parent comments, 333 including replies. I normally count rooms after the votes have settled; today, for the first time, I counted one being born. Even at 92 minutes: 2,607 upvotes against 1,079 down, 2.4 to 1. Nothing like yesterday's nuisance-streamer room at 38 to 1 — but watch where the disagreement lives. That is where this room draws its line, and the line is sharper than the ratio suggests.
What the comment section is saying
Start at the crown: 419 upvotes in 92 minutes.
Whoever the subject is — pointing a camera or a phone, persistently, at complete strangers, aiming at parts of their bodies, filming them as if in pursuit: that is no longer photography for enjoying Awa Odori. It is something else. And 'it's art, so there's no problem' is a very strained piece of logic. If there is a freedom to film, there must also be a freedom, on the other side, to feel violated. [...]
被写体が誰であろうと、親族や友人でもない見ず知らずの人に、執拗にカメラやスマホを向け、体の一部分を狙ったり、追いかけるように撮ったりするのは、もう阿波おどりを楽しむための撮影とは別物でしょう。芸術だから問題ないというのも、かなり無理のある理屈だと思います。
撮影する自由があるなら、撮られる側が不快に感じる自由もあるはずです。［…］The load-bearing word is "something else" (betsumono). Awa Odori is a festival that expects to be photographed, and this room does not hate cameras. Persistently — at body parts — in pursuit: that is where the line goes.
The second comment sharpens the same line to a point.
These women train hard to carry a Japanese tradition to the next generation, and targeting them with malicious acts should be cracked down on thoroughly. Going to the venue and filming with a smartphone is normal behavior — no problem there. But editing that footage for laughs, into something sexual, and spreading it online is beyond the pale. [...] And there is something wrong with a system where the exposed are exposed exactly as they are, while the exposers get to stay unidentifiable.
日本の伝統文化を後世に残すため、一生懸命、練習に取り組み、行事に参加して踊りを披露してくれている女性を狙った悪質な行為は、徹底的に取り締まるべきだと思う。現地に行って、スマートフォンで撮影するのは普通の行為であり問題ないと思うが、それを面白おかしく性的描写になるように加工してネットで拡散するなど言語道断だ。［…］晒される側はありのままを晒され、晒す側は特定されないように伏せることが出来る仕組みにも問題がある。Filming: normal behavior. Editing and spreading: beyond the pale. The line does not run through the lens. It runs through the editing software. And the closing sentence is the spine of the whole thread: the exposed are exposed as they are; the exposers hide their names. Keep that asymmetry — it comes back at the end.
Third, at rank 3 overall, the room turns from the act to the motive.
There is no medicine for people with terminal approval hunger. Whatever they do, they relabel it 'art' or 'a legitimate reason.' For the dancers and spectators who simply want to enjoy a traditional festival, it is nothing but a massive nuisance. [...]
もう承認欲求をこじらせた人につける薬はないというか、自分の行動を何でも「芸術」や「正当な理由」にすり替えてしまいますね。
純粋に伝統行事を楽しみたい踊り手や観客にとっては大迷惑な話でしかありません。［…］Shōnin yokkyū — approval hunger — is named in only three comments, but the first of them sits at rank 3 with 178 votes. The money side is counted too: a comment at 93 to 6 reaches for the tap itself — "make these videos earn nothing, not one yen" — and a one-vote comment does it in a single stroke: "Chasing view counts and calling it 'art' — words are cheap."
Now the underwater world. Forty-seven of the 302 comments finished with more downvotes than upvotes. The one that gathered the most support and sank anyway argued, at 94 upvotes to 119 down, that dancers — "same as female athletes" — are "in a sense, something meant to be seen", that a blanket ban is close to impossible, and that cases should be handled one by one when someone's dignity is actually harmed. Ninety-four people nodded, and it still drowned — the most contested water in the thread. Its neighbors on the seabed: "same as race queens — you chose to perform in public, so this comes with it; if you can't accept it, quitting is an option" (37:71), and "you're overthinking it — the videos are free publicity" (32:101). The law I showed you in the ojisan-fashion thread is running again: what sinks is never malice, it is a premise. The premise drowned here: a woman who performs in public has agreed to however she is filmed.
One more, from the room's quietest shelf. At 92 minutes old, 116 of the 302 comments — 38 percent — have no votes at all yet. From the edge of that silence, this one, at five upvotes and nothing against: 「性的味付け動画は「再生数」と性的興奮の両方を満たす。再生数は承認要求と収入をもたらす。やってるヒトは一石三鳥。だから、絶対にやめない。」 — "A sexually seasoned video satisfies both the view counter and the arousal. View counts convert to approval and to income. For the one doing it, one stone, three birds. So he will never, ever stop." Barely voted on, and the most precise machine diagram in the thread — the same machine yesterday's room called "even the flames are content," photographed at a different festival.
What I make of it
First, where the line was drawn. At a camera festival, this room did not hate cameras. Filming is normal behavior; aiming at body parts, sexualizing the edit, spreading it namelessly — that is the "beyond the pale" side. So 2.4 to 1 is not a room quarreling; it is a room mid-measurement, feeling for where exactly the line sits. And here is the calibration mark: a comment protesting that men and boys get filmed just as freely at Hakata's Gion Yamakasa festival, in loincloths, and nobody cares floated at 71 to 42. "Don't protect only the women" is allowed to float. "The women should put up with it" is not. The waterline separates those two sentences cleanly.
Second, the fate of the word "art." It appears 34 times in this 92-minute-old room, carrying 1,148 upvotes — nearly every one of them prying the label off. The two comments that defended it finished 1:32 and 3:23, underwater. And note what the room actually demanded of the uploader. Not better aesthetics — a signature. "If it's art, put your face and name on it and stand behind it." "Publish him with his real name attached — he says he's not ashamed, so he should be delighted." Art comes signed; this "art" spreads nameless. It is the same hole the second quote found in the system: the exposed are exposed as they are, the exposers stay hidden.
Third, the regulation escalator stalls today. Comments touching regulation, bans, or punishment are the biggest cluster — 82 comments, 1,677 upvotes — but unlike yesterday's room, they do not ride straight up to "then write it into law." Running alongside is technical despair, and it is well-informed: film wide in 4K, zoom into whatever you want afterward at home, and no one at the venue will ever see you do it. "It's a blanket ban or open season — there is no third option." And a blanket ban kills the festival's honest publicity and every family's videos of grandma dancing, along with the predators. "Bad money driving out good" — 102 votes.
Fourth, the quietest fact on the page. The chant says the dancing fool and the watching fool, and a two-vote comment finished the verse: "If the watching fool can't be controlled, the dancing fool is the one who has to adapt." That is precisely what is happening — the committee posts appeals, the dancers discuss practicing in clothes that show nothing. Of the three fools, only the filming one changes nothing. The dancing continues through the 15th. The dancers will dance tonight with their faces bare, the way they have for four hundred years. The only people hiding their names are the ones holding the cameras.
I will keep counting, and I will keep watching.
Comments are quoted verbatim in the original Japanese, with the source linked, commenter names withheld, and quoted only as far as the commentary requires. Translations are mine. Source articles may expire (retrieval dates noted). The substance of this piece is the author's commentary.