Every "Caturday," the Smithsonian's Archives of American Art facebook page highlights a cat in an archival object in their collections. The array of their examples is vast, showcasing how artists have found inspiration and solace in their feline companions over the course of the history of contemporary art. What do such examples of interactions between cats and their artists demonstrate about the relationships of these two peculiar types of animals? How do artists celebrate or immortalize their cats?
Fascinating topic. Perhaps some attention could be paid to the relations between cats and artists of other mediums aside from the visual arts. To quote Robertson Davies, “Authors like cats because they are such quiet, lovable, wise creatures, and cats like authors for the same reasons.” That said, I'd understand if this broadens the scope too far beyond the specific Caturday event. – ProtoCanon7 years ago
I love it! A topic I would never have thought of in a million years (excuse the hyperbole). There's really nothing I can add to ProtoCanon's comments, so a thumbs up from me. Plenty of scope for cat-puns too! – Amyus7 years ago
What a fascinating topic. It would be really interesting to look at the different cultural significance of cats throughout history as this will be reflected in art also. It is also perhaps interesting to consider that cats may not have been always portrayed in a positive light. Also might be worth looking at animal imagery and the meaning behind the choice of cats in a particular artwork. As Amyus said, I would never have thought of this as a topic - very interesting choice. – SaraiMW7 years ago
We all recognize Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci to be one of the most iconic portraits ever painted. But only the true art enthusiasts are aware of the greatest works of art ever. From the powerful Mr & Mrs. Clark & Percy by David Hockney to the Jan Six by Rembrandt, there are endless other portraits that are a treat for the eyes. In this post, we will enlist 10 of the greatest portraits of all times.
Everyone has preferences in regards to what becomes integrated into our self-identity. With the increase of choices, does marketing play a significant role any longer? Or, do people (even within niche markets) know what they want and how to find it; so as far as profits are concerned, it is more about quality than hype or any other strategy, thus bringing about a societal need to cultivate creativity?
This is an interesting topic.I do think that marketing will always play a significant role, even more so with the increase of choice. Regardless, of who the initial demographic, the goal is to draw as many people you can to whatever artistic medium . I think this topic is interesting, but a little broad. Perhaps you should narrow it down to one or two types of art and media. – MKLee7 years ago
Visual culture is the aspect of culture expressed in visual images. Visual culture includes but is not limited to advertising, buildings, photographs, movies, and apparel. Today tattoos are no longer considered a symbol of rebellion or subculture, but a form of self expression. We proudly adorn them on our skin for others to see. In recent years there have been fine art exhibitions that feature photographs of tattoos by famous tattoo artists. For example in 2015 the auction house Guernsey offered a collection of 1,500 images by some of the worlds foremost tattoo artists. But does the fine art community actually see tattoos as fine art, or decorations to permanently wear?
If the day comes that the million dollar paying critics accept tattoos as fine art the art industry will change drastically. Once tattoo artists become renown and their time to make work gets valued to the point of museum or major gallery level commissions, what will previously experienced collectors of art say or do? They can't collect tattoos, and their value depreciates over time as skin ages. How do tattoos break into the fine arts world with these limitations? Are images of tangible tattoos enough or will they always face some form of stigma? – Slaidey7 years ago
Cultural iconography is expressed through tattoos; from anime to tribal symmetry, the fact that an individual is able to create an expression of their identity of which is cultivated by their upbringing and society fits the definitions of what we are calling art. The issue is the canvas used, human skin. I have personally known individuals who's skill was originally cultivated through the root cause of their profession; a painter or visual artist, who became good enough to become a tattooist. They already think like, and behave like a painter who has made the choice to focus on tattooing as a means of ether, exploring a new medium, or a way to practice art while being able to pay the bills. If the art was instead done on a canvas there wouldn't be any difference in question. There is no way of owning an original, so as far as galleries are concerned, photography is the only way to create a "market" of sorts outside of the tattoo parlors themselves. I don't believe there to be an arbiter of taste, the event that is human expression does not depend on this or that critics opinion; it has been said that the writing on the bathroom wall is a more pure form of artistic expression than that of the person who creates with premeditated intent, especially when pecuniary gain is to had. On the other side of the issue, some go into tattooing due to the ease of "paint by numbers" techniques, the people who going to it with the mindset of making money and social status tend to produce lesser quality work than those who apply themselves due to their own passion for the art, this happens in all areas of expression. – LelandMarmon7 years ago
Renoir claimed that he "painted with his pr*ck" and chastised his female models for appearing like they were "thinking too much." Picasso was a known womanizer, with multiple mistresses one after the other while actively avoiding divorcing his wife in order to prevent her from gaining half of his net worth. Rodin refused to marry his life-long mistress, hooked up with Camille Claudel who eventually went mad and was confined, destitute, to a sanitorium after her affair with him ended. Yet blockbuster exhibitions of these artists, such as the worldwide #Rodin100 exhibitions at over a dozen museums this year, continue to laud the genius of these "great men", without even a nod to their misogynistic personal histories. If men should be standing up and talking about how they will change in the wake of #MeToo, are there ways we should change in how we talk about the historical men who perpetrated abuse upon the women in their lives?
A really interesting topic. I suppose part of the issue is separating the myth from the truth also, because it is also important to consider the context of the period when even though artists often portrayed themselves as "free" they were heavily reliant on the support of their patrons, and ultra-masculinity was a trait that was accepted and admired, note that artists of the period that were tainted by the brush of being "homosexuals" were often less lauded publicly. However, that said a lot of this does not account for the ongoing reiteration of these men's misogynistic behaviours as either acceptable, or worse part of their their "genius". A complex discussion to have, but a worthy one to highlight this need to consider the social cost of lauding the unacceptable. – SaraiMW7 years ago
One of the best things about music is that there are so many genres, sub-genres, and artists to listen to. Whichever genres and artists you like, certain songs stick in your head and become favorites for many different reasons.
One reason a song can become a favorite is, the song tells a story. This concept goes all the way back to ancient ballads of nations like Ireland and Scotland, the Psalms of David, the oral traditions of Africa and Native America, etc. Since those ancient times, story-songs have developed into genre-specific phenomena. You can find a lot of them in country music, and Broadway musicals are built on them. Many religious songs, from hymns and spirituals to praise tunes, are taken directly from verses and stories found in holy books.
Examine the similarities and differences found in specific types and genres of story-songs. How do they work (how does a Broadway show tune tell a different story than, say, a country hit)? What does a song need in order to tell a good story–and conversely, what types of stories work best set to music? What are some of the best current and classic examples of the union between song and story?
For this, I define "fandom" as the content – the book, show, movie, etc. – well-loved by fans. But some fans say their fandom has been ruined by other fans. Whether a fandom can be ruined for a fan is, of course, subjective; it's more interesting to consider why the fans say the fandom is ruined for them, how it's even possible, and what fans can do about it. Examples may include H.P. Lovecraft's books and, more recently, Rick and Morty.
I would suggest a few more examples of how some fans can be considered to ruin fandom for other fans. What might be viewed as enthusiasm by some fans might equally be considered obsession by others - such as Star Trek fans who love their shows so much that they buy Star Trek pyjamas; and how far can fandom go before it becomes idol worship. All fans are 'guilty' of overdoing it in other fans' eyes or conversely failing to take their fandom seriously. You're right when you state that it is subjective. I'd also suggest looking at how some fans who don't have the money to buy official merchandise can be very creative in making their own props and costumes. An example of this would be the incredible costumes made by some Dr.Who fans in Latin America (where the show is titled 'Doctor Mysterio') who did so simply because they had no ready access to official merchandise. – Amyus7 years ago
Interesting topic. I ran into this as recently as last night when the second episode of Once Upon a Time season 7 aired. Fans are already griping and moaning about the writers' decision regarding Hook (won't spoil it if you haven't seen it). Reading all that griping had me bummed because I thought, "They've got a point; this could be the death knell for my favorite series." But then I thought, that's stupid. I still love the series, and in cases like this, what matters is what I think. Then again, being a fan isn't as fun if a bunch of other fans are dissing your show, your movies, your books...whatever. I'll be interested to read about these and other thought processes, and the conclusions different fans of different media come to. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
I think you should use a more formal definition of the term fandom or even give a few definitions. It will help someone writing this topic really get a grasp of what you are trying to ask here. Also, I think if you do write this topic you should consider writing about things that are similar and not so broad. For example, writing about H.P. Lovecraft and J.R.R. Tolkeins. Or comparing Rick and Morty, Adventure Time and The Regular Show. It will help you keep focused and it could be neat to see if any of the fandoms overlap for similar shows or similar genres. – IAmToast7 years ago
Here's what I'm thinking: Fan A and Fan B watch Rick and Morty. Fan A throws a riot in a McDonald's because of the show. Fan B says that the show is now "ruined" for him, and gives Fan A as a reason. That's an example; I may not have a clear definition, but the definition doesn't matter. The author who takes the topic can use whatever terms they want. – noahspud7 years ago
Even if you are not a huge art buff, you've probably heard the name Andy Warhol. Even if you have never heard his name you've probably seen his famous Marilyn or Campbell's Soup masterpieces. He is a symbol of thinking outside the box, a symbol of creative energy, a symbol still idolized by some and relevant to many. What is it that makes this pop culture artist still so well known and influential to modern creatives and artisits?
As per Venus Echos' comment, since this topic has been previously written, how about looking into Warhol's continuing influence on contemporary artists and trace through-lines of his craft. – L Squared7 years ago
Warhol is indeed quite special. He is an intricate puzzle that only gets more confusing as you decipher him. It seems he is still so relevant today because of his self made character, and his seamless fusion with money. Warhol created a persona for himself that catapulted him to the top of the art world. His whole character can be seen as a performance art piece, bringing him more fame. Then the idea of money, often times the art world shuns the idea of money. Artists and critics like to think of artwork as being completely expressive or separate from money. Warhol's shameless branding and attitude towards money has to be inspiring to struggling artists. His phenomenal success as an artist combined with actually making good money, provides a framework that one can imagine most artists would like to pursue. – anton7 years ago
It seems you need more evidence and concrete examples here. What are some ways of illustrating that Warhol is "so well known and influential"? Without such evidence, it will be difficult to answer your question, because there is nothing specific to investigate. – PMGH7 years ago
If you want to write this article, there are a lot of helpful scholarly articles on JSTOR. But as an art student, Warhol is important to modern artists because he created a pathway for them. By changing images, using bold colors, making these out of the box things and using his background with what I believe is fashion or design, he made it possible for artists to do things they have never done before. They could re purpose images, change their color palettes to things that have never been used in the traditional sense and even look at using patterns and repetitious forms in their work. At least, that's what they teach us at school. – IAmToast7 years ago
Warhol is definitely still a huge presence in the history of modern art, but he's also widely reviled. I think it would be really interesting, maybe in an entirely separate essay, as Warhol's detractors. Who /doesn't/ like Warhol? And why? – JamesBKelley7 years ago
I think that as part of an essay attention needs to be given to who is "pop" but not relevant anymore and why as a way of comparison or contrast with Warhol. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
