How you edit your Instagram pictures or what you post pictures of- do you consider this an art form? What about the lyrics or thoughts you Tweet? Is using social medias a new way of expressing ourselves like an art form?
Now you brought this up, Social Media is pretty much an art form. Is it respected as an art form? In the professional world maybe, but elsewhere it's debatable. A good subtopic for this topic is when social media is useful as an art form and when it's not useful as art form. Networking is probably more of a science than an art but it's an example of social media being a useful art form. On the other hand, women knowing how to get tons of likes is a useless art form. – SoalaIda2 years ago
I believe social media is a way to express a version of ourselves. I think we act differently on social media than we do in reality. This is arguable, not necessarily true but in my experiences this is what I've noticed.
In terms of social media as an art form you have to be specific as to what you say. A picture posted is obviously photography, an art form in and of itself. Can status' be art? Potentially. But art is very subjective; what is art for one person, may not be art to others, so the keep the definition of art open (as a way to express ourselves is a very good example) is probably important. – Jamie2 years ago
I can see how Social Media can be considered in art form in the same way consider charismatic types to be social artists. Every "strong post" needs a strong pull to bring attention to it, and to bring some buzz to the post. Even on facebook, you can see a divide between "artists" and "spammers".
That being said, social media is also an art form in that you create a brand for your social media identity with how/what you post. And that social media identity shapes how people see your real world identity. – Sunbro2 years ago
Interesting topic, and it leads to the question, what is art? How is art defined? Who defines art? You can certainly find artists on these social media platforms. There are a lot of great photographers on Instagram, and great writers on Twitter. But where is the line drawn on who is defined as an artist and who isn't? There's certainly a level of creativity involved, and art embodies a visual form (and you can argue that the social media platform itself is visual) but what does the person do to utilize the platform creatively? – Kim2 years ago
Very nice, a perfect topic for the contemporary moment. We have so many people from all strata of society using twitter and such, it is important to ask about the aesthetic here. Also I would add that social media as a political tool potentially coalesces and is at odds with the art form perspective. This may be something to explore. – jonj7242 weeks ago
A great idea. Maybe explore a post modern art style approach as an explanation of social media as art. – TheSwampThing2 weeks ago
Careful - art can be self expression, but that doesn't mean all self expression is by definition art. The author should pay careful attention to the main consensus of what defines art. The author should also take note of the nuance between art and a platform/venue for art. A museum hosts a lot of peoples' artwork - does that make the museum a work of art itself? Or just the venue? Similarly, social media sites host various posts of self expression. Does that necessarily make social media platforms themselves art, or simply venues? Is facebook a museum?And what about the rigors of art? Does something need to stem from careful, meticulous, hard work in order to be considered art - as many people believe? In which case instagram photos that generally lack any sort of effort are nixed.An interesting thought I have - social media platforms often have a prescribed kind of template to how you express yourself on it. Since you do not have full, true creative control, can it really be art? Is a colouring book considered art when you're just filling inbetween the prescribed lines? Can you take the templates and break them in creative ways to turn them into art?Just things to consider on this topic... – Lusk222 weeks ago
This is a really good idea. With today's technology, it's easy for people to express themselves online than they can in-person. Art is any form of expression, and I think that having that social media platform could be considered as "art." For example, people use twitter, instagram, and snapchat platforms to either show their makeup (which could be considered a form of art), their passions and ideas. – xxvacxx5 days ago
I think that not many people are talking about how asian minorities are bring represented in the media, how many are usually stereotyped. Most potrayals of asians are usually really smart, and if cast as a parent of an asian child they are usually strict. I think it would interesting to see how exactly they are being portrayed? And also maybe explore what shows or movies are trying to break the stereotype and cast asians as something other than what we are used to seeing.
Cool idea. I think many stereotypes toward Asians, especially East Asians FROM or living IN East Asian countries, are actually more or less true; I said "from" and "living in" because the white-washed ones are mostly exceptions (though not all). One thing that always gets me to frown a bit is that the big media always portrait Asians as a minority race, even though we (I'm Asian) take up more than 60% of the world's population.I haven't really seen a movie that breaks Asian stereotypes, and I generally don't think that's a good idea because to break stereotypes, the movie first has to acknowledge them, and the movie makers might not want to do that. I also think stereotypes toward Asians are less distinct and less condescending than say, stereotypes toward black and Hispanic people. For example, stereotypes have it that Asians are good at math; what good is it to break this stereotype? I actually wish that were true on me.Definitely upvoting the topic. I was just throwing out ideas. – JamesZhan95921 month ago
Would it be a specific asian group or asians in general? It would most likely be better to focus on a specific group, looking at their cultural history and expand upon it for media portrayals – Ryan Errington4 weeks ago
It would be interesting to touch on the catch 22 of trying to avoid stereotypes but doing so by whitewashing. I read that part of the reason Tilda Swinton (a white woman) played the Ancient One (in comics an Asian man) in Doctor Strange was to avoid leaning on Asian stereotypes of mysterious, mystical masters of the martial arts. Here's an article with quotes from the director: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/11/07/doctor-strange-whitewashing-ancient-one-tilda-swinton-fan-critical-reaction/93416130/ – LauraKincaid3 weeks ago
I love the topic, and I'd also love to see more Asians in all forms of media (books, movies, TV, you name it). I agree with other contributors too, that while Chinese and Japanese Asians get most of the media representation you see, Indians, Indonesians, etc. don't get enough. We definitely need to see more non-Chinese and non-Japanese Asians. – Stephanie M.5 days ago
The 1960s overflowed with social injustices, civil rights, and the Vietnam War. The civil rights movement and the Vietnam War took center stage. Activists exercised democracy in action, demonstrating their rights under the First Amendment. These protests were breeding grounds that forged a path to songs by musicians with a social conscience. Protest songs of the 60s were instrumental in shaping domestic policy. "Times They are a Changin", by Bob Dylan became a theme song of the civil rights movement. "Eve of Destruction" by Barry McGuire influenced legislators to reduce the voting age to 18 with the line, "You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin". Jimi Hendrix’s solo, spell binding guitar rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock was symbolized to be the most influential protest song of the 60s. What other songs contributed to change in America by utilizing American values?
I would recommend looking into Peter, Paul and Mary, Pete Seeger and others who collaborated with them for more on this topic. – LisaM3 months ago
It doesn't get any more accurate or pointed than Dylan's "Masters of War," or "Only a Pawn in Their Game." Dylan just added another trophy - the Nobel - to his shelf, by the way. Not bad for a guy who couldn't get a band in high school. – Tigey3 months ago
This topic would make a great regular column. There's so much ground to cover. Practically limitless, really. – albee3 months ago
Absolutely! I felt this way, but had to put the brakes on. – Lorraine3 months ago
To quote the seagulls from "Finding Nemo, "Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine." This should be fun. – Tigey3 months ago
With standardized digital audio production, much music under the "alternative" genre sounds conspicuously similar. Marrying this phenomena with the rise of Creative Class gentrification, and ultimately eclecticism without a sense of roots (see "Rust Belt Chic: The Cleveland Anthology" for more), has indie rock lost itself to indie cred?
What timeline are you looking to focus on? Is this the roots of indie rock being compared to the modern trend "authentic" indie rock? I like the emphasis on audio production and I think that could be really beneficial for showcasing how the genre has become mainstream. I also think that this observation could be compared to "punk rock" and maybe that genre could included, or that could be its own Topic. – John McCracken2 months ago
I referring to the contemporary world of indie rock. Let's say we're comparing the guitar-based, lo-fi sounds of Ty Segall with bands driven by synthesizers and maximal studio instrumentation and production. I like Segall's sound much better, as it doesn't feel like an affectation. I feel like too many bands played on SiriusXMU rely too much on technology and not on honesty, musicianship, and songwriting. – Kyle2 months ago
What is the media landscape like right now? What can we expect from the up-and-coming art form of virtual reality? Considering the dominance of the internet as a legitimate source of entertainment, should we re-define the words "movie" and "cinema?" Finally, is narrative losing its importance to us as a form of media to be consumed? Basically, an article pondering the topic of where we came from, and where we are going.
I like the ambition of this, but I want to say that this is too vague/broad to tackle in one go. To redefine "movie", "cinema", refocusing "narrative" and to try and pinpoint the timeline of where we are currently in the media landscape is a task. Where who is exactly? Which form of media? Is this referring to the U.S., non-Western Cinema, mainstream vs. cult, high culture or pop culture? These all need to be defined in this topic before advancing because to cast a really, really broad net is going to cause a problem for this topic. I am also curious what role Virtual Reality is playing in your topic, as it isn't addressed, but it is focused on in the title. I love think-pieces, but this needs to be trimmed down before some real critical thinking can happen! – John McCracken2 months ago
There's a lot of speculation on what is possible with VR movies and the cinematic language it will use. For example, there are many VR experiences in which the protagonist is the player/audience member wearing the headset - yet these are scripted movies. Could this be a new genre of movies that feel interactive though are not? – Kevin2 months ago
Institutional critique has long since been one of the driving forces in artistic and cultural development. Art responds to what confines it, the biggest culprit being institutional spaces (museums, blue chip galleries, etc). However, it’s also clear to see the value in these places – they offer a mass public a chance to see historically significant art, they allow a chance for education and often engage a community. On the other hand, "alternative" gallery spaces (basement venues, "underground" collectives etc.) arguably provide artists more freedom in what kind of work gets put on display, but there are also drawbacks to this setting too in that it often only meets a niche audience. Weigh the pros and cons of the different ways in which art exists. What is most important in viewing art and putting it on display? What works, what doesn’t and why? What should change? What shouldn’t change?
Interesting topic! ++ I would just add that, as you know, this struggle to build stronger connections between everyday life and everyday people and art has a long history. In the 1930s, in the US and elsewhere, for instance, there was a trend toward mural art—art that was out of the museums and galleries and could be seen and appreciated by everyday people. Another tricky question, and one that I hesitate to bring up, is what counts as "art." Obviously for many art is painting, sculpture, etc. But a wider definition might even include things like sophisticated cosplay as a form of performance art. But the bigger question, which your topic addresses, is how to get more people engaged with the arts no matter how the arts are defined. Having a wider definition of what art is and where it might be experienced can help enrich society in non-monetary ways. – Ben Hufbauer2 months ago
Why is it a general assumption that the first of any form of literature/art/media is inherently ‘better’ than proceeding works of art by the same artist? Does ingenuity supersede the product itself? Examples include: the first Star Wars film compared to the others, Guns N Roses’ first album, etc.
I think a good point to make is that the '1st' of things usually become called 'classic.' Take for example the movies Red and Red 2. Both movies in their own right are very well done: good plots, good score, good acting. However, because Red was first it had more time to be considered a favorite/classic. – chikkabooo3 months ago
I feel like a lot of the times, the mistake made is the comparison doesn't really end up being between 'good' or 'better', it's more of 'the first one' versus 'the new one'.
By which I mean to say, that instead of trying to see if a remake/sequel is GOOD or not, we end up trying to see if it's similar to the previous work or not (this holds especially true if the first work has been a success). Naturally, unless the creator is in the habit of repeating themself, one doesn't find too many similarities to point out, effectively pronouncing that the new work of art is 'not as good', even though all we actually figured out is that the new work of art is 'not like the last one'. – JayBird3 months ago
Everyone knows the second Star Wars was the best... – Sboother3 months ago
Things to discuss would be interrelated issues of authenticity, originality and historical primacy.Herbert Read argued that a desire for novelty, originality and primacy is one of the strongest biological impulses in the average human – due to the evolutionary need to adapt to unusual circumstances and the desire to propagate – and used this biological analogy to explain the innate “goodness” attached works considered the “first” or “original”.Edward Young proposed that what we consider ‘originals’ are mostly ‘accidental’, out-surviving or overshadowing the works that they actually imitated or were heavily influenced by. If, for instance, the Mona Lisa and all of the information about the original painting was destroyed, an art historian might see an early copy as the ‘original’. Perhaps the feeling that “nothing is original” is due to the fact that no information or artefacts is lost or destroyed by the modern digitisation and democratisation of information.There is a distinction to be made, perhaps, between something that is imitative, such as a forgery or copy, and something that is a development, like a sequel. When presented with an original painting and a good forgery or imitation we have a reason for not considering them of equal value. Although the aesthetic value of such a copy could be the same as that of the original painting, it would completely lack the art-historical value, with the former work inspiring others and developing art in general. Clearly, one does not want to give the same credit to someone who mechanistically copied a work in which an artist invested ingenuity and original thinking. This is reflected in how the legal language concerning the originality standard in copyright law has generally converged around the “sweat-of-the-brow” of the creator as well as the “skill, judgement or labour” invested in the object. In other words, it has proven difficult for courts to separate the effort and industriousness of reproduction without incorporating terms such as creativity or personality. An additional idea here is that the original object was a more “authentic” expression of an artist’s “self” or “intentions” not mediated or infringed upon by interlopers. – Christopher Pottecary1 month ago
With many Pop musicians, what you see is what you get. Their personal lives are kept at a safe distance from their work in a very profesional, cut-and-dry fashion. And then there are the others – Prince, MF Doom, Rammstein, Die Antwoord, (to name a few off the top of my head). These artists and artist groups built what might be termed their Pop Persona; that persona is an image, and that image plays into the music itself. The artist cannot be disregarded when listening to the music, yet these artists are often able to balance such a level of involvement with the imaginary celebrity they’ve constructed around themselves with easy-to-access points of entry for newcomers who just want to enjoy the music. In a way, this also occurred with Andy Warhol, but we might say he was playing off of something that already existed- which means it was around even before his time.
This topic would be very hard to talk about, but I can’t help but feel as though it’s gone unaddressed in mass cultural discussion. I’m also unsure if this kind of topic is fitting for Artifice, but I thought I would throw it out there anyway.
I believe what you are situating here is a pop star which say Justin Bieber or Britney Spears whose personal is out there for all to see and too exploit. Whereas, pop stars like Prince and David Bowie were/ are relatively private individuals; however, they created an alter persona for the public. And perhaps the article can speak about these differences from a musical point of view and how it affects or doesn't affect the musician. – Venus Echos9 months ago
For other possible examples, Lady Gaga and Nicki Minaj have done multiple personas as well. – Emily Deibler9 months ago
I think I understand what you are trying to approach here, but I believe there is some unclarity in what the actual topic should be. Are you aiming to propose an exploration of music icons, versus those who are newcomers? – Arazoo Ferozan9 months ago
Tangentially, you could also explore how the personas of musicians in their music are inextricably projected into their personal lives? – stefancharles9 months ago