Traditional art is based upon faultless technique, well-defined subject matter and definitive notions of beauty, while modern art is based upon personal expression, vision, originality and innovation. Analyse the idea that traditional art is more focused on portraying a theme or suggestion that is attractive or realistic to the eye, while modern art is more intent on conveying a theme or idea that is relevant to everyday life.
Based on this response, do individuals who prefer modern art over traditional appreciate artwork on a deeper and more meaningful level?
I hope this clarifies the topic a little better. – Ness3 days ago
This is a good topic. I think the argument could go either way, based on opinion and experience. I think personal upbringing and culture may play role as well. You might want to add that in. – birdienumnum172 days ago
Great topic. It is important to remember the different priorities in traditional art practises. In renaissance and neo classicism, artists were trained technically, with a priority of replicating reality. This obviously does not take much understanding to comprehend. Having said this, perhaps it is a reason why artistically minded people are more interested in contemporary art that holds more hidden meaning? There is so much room for debate in this topic! – emhand7 hours ago
Every major broadcast network has at least one or two live TV musicals in the works for the next few years, and will this help to normalize musical theatre for the masses, or steal the magic. Hamilton has helped to usher in a different era of musical theatre, but is it drawing the elitism out of the art form, by facilitating the creation of broadcasts like this?
Interesting topic. The rising popularity of these live TV musicals certainly merits further critical exploration. That said, I take slight issue with your choice of the word "normalization," as it implies that musical theatre (i.e. an artform that, at least since the 1980s, quite literally exists for bourgeois consumption and merchandising) is something esoteric. Musical theatre has always been prominently positioned within the mainstream, and is one of the few forms of theatre to which that label still applies; I really don't think that television is a necessary mediator for acclimatizing the general public to the concept of musicals -- they're not exactly broadcasting Edward Bond or Sarah Kane. Perhaps there are better ways of approaching the subject. Two come to mind: 1) Aesthetically, regarding how this televisual intermediation affects the performance's fundamental theatrical elements. Is liveness enough to constitute "theatre"? Does the audience on the other side of a screen genuinely care if what they're watching is live, or are they missing out on the potential virtues of cinematic editing? Is there an appeal to simply knowing that the show is theatrical, even when not experiencing it in an actual theatre? If so, what and why? How does this differ from simply making a film adaptation of classic musicals? 2) Economically, regarding how television distribution allows a wider audience to experience Broadway productions (whose tickets are quite expensive, not to mention inaccessible to those living outside of New York and other major metropolitan areas). This, I believe, is more in line with what you may have meant by "normalization," as it allows people who otherwise would not have had a chance to see these plays an opportunity to see a version of them in performance. I see potential for an analysis of ratings, sponsorships, and funding models as a means of assessing the financial success or failure of this new distributional tactic. – ProtoCanon6 days ago
Interesting topic....and definitely one worth exploring. One of the fascinating aspects of the theater is the confined environment and this type of unity within the crowd. One performance will not be an exact replica of another---part of what makes the theater so unique. A crucial component of theater is the fourth wall--the impenetrable invisible barrier between the audience and the actor--which, ironically feels breached during a televised performance?
I would have to disagree with the idea of elitism and broadcasts as analogous, especially due to the high-cost of the theater today, and making this once enjoyable, frequent venture, less common among 'average' folk. The price of tickets are astronomical and really is a disservice in a society that supposedly upholds the importance of a cultured society through the medium of art. – danielle5772 days ago
I love reading anything about theatre, especially musicals. In your suggested analysation though, be careful you're not looking at two separate topics here. Hamilton has indeed created a new generation of theatre-lovers and reinvented the genre of musical theatre. And live TV musicals have done this in their own way too; perhaps the discussion is more pointed towards where the future of musical theatre is heading, or, what is attractive about these refreshing works to a modern audience? – OJames2 days ago
This is a really good topic.I think TV broadcasts can make theatre a little more accessible, it can introduce the theatre in a similar way that Hamilton has introduced theatre to new audiences. It also comes without the cost of making trips to the West End or Broadway. You don't really lose the elitism of theatre because you still have the west end and broadway. Perhaps the focus is on the future of musical theatre, there is the live versions (And I don't think they will ever really go away), tv broadcasts and things like Todrick Hall's Straight Outta OZ on youtube. – RJRStClair2 days ago
Miscegenation in the United States is a social taboo stretching back to early colonial North America. At first, Puritan theology condemned its practice. With the institutionalizing of slavery, the racial-caste system crystalized such divisions segregating specifically black-white sexual union. Subsequently from the religious to pseudo-scientific racism, eugenics further legislated such prohibitions. By the twentieth century, the effects of Jim Crow laws restricted the spirit of artistic license by suppressing interracial imageries. With the arrival of motion pictures, the Hays Code firmly enforced anti-miscegenation guidelines in popular Hollywood film. While a knee-jerk assumption is to summon pervasive binary between black and white miscegenation, the article proposes examples of all diverse mixing of racial and ethnic categories. Meanwhile, it explores a variety of interrelated questions. How are interracial romances treated in recent popular culture across the varying artistic mediums? What elements of interracial relationships are censured? What does such specific excising say about our society? In contemporary United States, what are considered the more acceptable pairing[s] of interracial couples and why?
A few grammatical errors here, but not a cause for rejection. – m-cubed1 month ago
Sounds interesting. There has been a shift in inter-racial portrayals. Good topic. – Munjeera4 weeks ago
I love this topic. I do agree with you and understand why this is a topic of interest. – daefray244 weeks ago
I definitely want to read this! Even as recently as this year, the backlash towards film and television that shows interracial relationships proves there is still work to be done. Might be good for someone to hone in on one type of media, whether it be comic book films, music videos, dystopian literature etc. Your discussion points are really interesting and complex, I hope there are some takers. – Zujaja2 weeks 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. – LisaM7 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. – Tigey7 months ago
This topic would make a great regular column. There's so much ground to cover. Practically limitless, really. – albee7 months ago
Absolutely! I felt this way, but had to put the brakes on. – Lorraine7 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. – Tigey7 months ago
This would be interesting to hear more about. Many American think of Creedence when it comes to Vietnam "era" music. I would like to know about other pieces that impacted the movement and vice-versa. – dekichan3 months ago
This topic is a very good topic, it could even make a great column. – jhennerss1 month ago
Instagram has become a way for artists to cultivate followings and promote themselves in a way that artists in the past have not been able to do before. Poets have become household names and makeup gurus now have their own beauty lines all due to the power of the ‘gram. How does this new medium affect content? Are their negative consequences for using this service? For example, copying others work, authenticity, and quality.
Cool idea! I've noticed a few problems with people claiming that people are stealing ideas. I'm thinking specifically of the Harry Potter wand makeup brushes that 2 separate companies tried to market at the same time. I didn't spend too much time researching it, but basically, Buzzfeed featured one company and got a huge response while the other company claimed the idea was theirs initially. I'm not sure what happened with all that, but it would be a good specific case to look into if you're interested! – agmill4 months ago
Nitpicky but poets were household names before instagram... also I've never heard of any poets becoming famous/known through instagram but maybe I'm just not informed enough on that topic.Anyways, a VERY important aspect to consider for whoever writes this article is the fact that uploading content to instagram automatically grants them, and anyone else, really, to reshare and use the content as they want.This has lead to some controversial cases, one prominent one (worth researching) being this: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/living/richard-prince-instagram-feat/– Lusk224 months ago
Instagram is pulling artists into the mainstream. Artists' ideas are being seen by a vast audience, and in many ways, the newness or novelty of the artist becomes copied or replicated. Artists may get name recognition, but are they getting financial compensation? – sarahknight4 months ago
Instagram is really great for artist exposure. It's a free way to brand themselves and show the world what they offer as their own unique artist. I believe that snapchat might also become a new standard for viewing art. – damaddeo4 months ago
Instagram certainly poses issue with stealing content, an issue seen between companies like Huda Beauty, Vlada, and Kylie Cosmetics, where marketing materials were arguably stolen. This type of "borrowing" from others content can be seen throughout history in terms of influence between artists and apprenticeships. Artists have always been influenced by their mentors which often resulted in very similar styles but this ultimately leads to progress in style periods. In terms of recognition, it certainly offers new outlets for rising artists as well as well-known artists. It is a wonderful method of reaching new audiences, audiences that otherwise may not have interest in visiting galleries and museums. Artists like Jeff Koons and Kehinde Wiley have an immense following consisting of everyone from celebrities to your average teenager. – BreannaWaldrop4 months ago
Very cool topic. I'm wondering if you're planning to cover Instagram artists from the same field (i.e. make-up) or whether you wanted to cover artists from a variety of disciplines? – Amanda Dominguez-Chio2 months ago
While I think it's great to see social media being used as a means of supporting artists of all types, it seems to me that there is the potential for a problem in the fragmentation of content, and the necessity that comes from needing to make your art marketable. The first of these concerns is a problem, I would argue, with social media's effect on culture in general, and as we become more and more accustomed to bite-sized content the more engaging, long form content, as well as the way we consume said content, could suffer as result. I'm thinking specifically of mediums such as books, although there is definitely an argument that platforms like Instagram mostly act to entice people into further exploration of the work in question. Then there is the necessity of self marketing, and the potential of sacrificing the quality and/or genuineness of one's work in order to make it more popular, although this has always been an issue, even before social media. Ultimately I think all social media is a fantastic way to promote art of any kind, so long as one is able to sidestep the potential pitfalls of pandering to the public and becoming overly concerned with exposure rather than the work itself. – woollyb2 months ago
Instagram's a great platform for making the art world more accessible, which is still a huge problem despite the best outreach efforts of massive museums. I think it's also changed the way artists work in a way that's quite refreshing. We see a lot more works-in-progress and get insight into an artist's influences for example. – bodjaman4 weeks ago
I think that it's like a knife with 2 ends, it can go great or otherwise. It's a good thing that through these media channels people can get art closer to them and spread it. – AichaB3 weeks ago
Podcasts are becoming more and more popular, and many are hosted by comedians, even though their show’s topics range from murder to history. Is this candid, improvised, and comedic take on these more serious topics changing the way that we discuss them or even deal with them in our daily lives?
Is this focused solely on podcasts by comedians? Might be helpful to draw a contrast between the followers of a podcast like OnBeing vs those who follow a podcast from a comedian, and how we get different consumers to relate to the same news (like CNN vs The Daily Show) by packaging and presenting it differently (like traditional news vs comedy). – Nate Océan2 months ago
I think drawing a contrast like that would be really interesting, both types of show generate conversation, but I think they change perception and how we interact with the facts presented. That seems like a great take on this – boldlygone1 week ago
What are the most relevant examples of free speech that has been expressed through creative mediums. Have they perfectly expressed their point or even crossed the line?
Could you be more specific in what you mean by relevant examples? Relevant to what? – LaRose1 year ago
This sounds like it would be a timely topic. I would be interested in pursuing it especially with a view to looking at how comedians have brought about social change and have used political satire to respond to various views expressed by presidential candidates. Donald Trump has certainly challenged and some would say crossed the line in some of his comments. Is this what you had in mind?Also news reporting has become very politically correct in Canada. I regularly watch CNN and am impressed with the well-researched questions asked by various hosts. I have heard Alex Wagner a few time as well as others. In Canada we don't have anyone asking the touch questions and as a result the information conveyed is done in a very shallow and superficial way. At least in America, the topics relating race form a national dialogue.If you could clarify what take you wanted on this topic such as sticking with politics, comedy shows or news reporting, I would be interested in nabbing this topics.Thanks! – Munjeera1 year ago
I think this is an interesting topic, but definitely needs to be narrowed to a more specific instance, as above, otherwise, it could just descend into soapboxing about when free speech is justified. So, this could focus on free speech in comedy (e.g. Louis C.K's Saturday Night Live appearance). I think whoever writes this up needs to qualify what is meant by creative mediums, especially when discussing something like politics, something which is usually confined to the news side of media. – Matthew Sims1 year ago
Very interesting, you could add YouTube for this as well, since it is a creative medium to an extent and you get videos of just about anything. As long as it doesn't violate copyright, it stays up. – SpectreWriter1 year ago