Discuss the rise of image-based social media often portraying stylized images of food, clothing and interiors. Do these portrayals (both seeing them and creating them) allow all of us to become artists, forcing us to appreciate visual beauty in the everyday? Or do they force us to value the narrowly beautiful at the expense of more complex encounters with beauty?
Would you be referring to reality TV here as well? – Munjeera8 years ago
Great topic. If everyone has a camera, can everyone therefore claim to be an artist? Are we snapping and sharing photos because beauty has truly resonated with us, or is it because our craving for admiration and likes compels us to capture and share everything we encounter? – bloom8 years ago
Wow this is definitely something I have been thinking about lately. Should we need images to appreciate the beauty of these things? Likewise, would we appreciate them if they weren't constantly blogged about/posted online? How are we defining art/beauty? I think the images almost create a barrier between us and experience--As if we are constantly viewing the world through a lens rather than actually being present. – Bfitts8 years ago
Brilliant topic: humans as lemmings; objectivity, subjectivity and beauty; the psychology of manipulation; natural vs. man made beauty; etc. – Tigey8 years ago
I feel like I'm in a permanently repeating matrix-world where everyday someone is sharing a new article about the harmful nature of image-based social media... it's exhausting and repetitive. However, as a visual person, the endless stream of perfectly colorful smoothie bowls and fresh-ass clean artistic barber cuts that flood my instagram feed are endlessly awe-inspiring and make me happy. I think the problem is a psychological one with people, not with "art" made in the modern world. – ssudekum8 years ago
Analyze the way George Carlin, in his comedy routine titled "Soft Language", discusses the evolution of language through jargon and euphemisms in daily society and interpret the effects of this evolution over time, beginning with the groundwork laid by Carlin in his 1990 Comedy Special Doin' It Again and ending with modern day jargon and euphemisms.
This would be interesting to explore in light of current political divisions— how the same idea can be split and reinterpreted in different groups, and called entirely different things. – eleanorstern8 years ago
The "Blurred Lines" lawsuit has (pun definitely intended) blurred the lines of how copyright can and should be interpreted and enforced in the popular music world. Popular music of all kinds has for generations been predicated on iteration, from the transmutation of blues into rock and roll, vocal jazz into soul, and on and on. The precedent that a song can be marked as theft because of similar "feel" is one that may cross from a defense of intellectual property into one that has a chilling affect on creative extension of our shared musical heritage (particularly for up and coming musicians who have no resources to fight off a potential copyright claim). How is our culture defining these legal boundaries, and has this process become inherently unfair to those musical artists who are young (ie not in the baby boom generation that notoriously owns much in our copyrighted cultural landscape, since they came up alongside the new mechanical media that enabled mass-marketing of musical works), and without financial resources to defend against such suits? Was "Blurred Lines" genuinely too derivative of Marvin Gaye's work, or is this a case of judicial overreach?
Using a particular genre of music, like pop, alternative, or folk(etc.), as well as what culture you would be referring to, would be a good way to keep the article on track. The influence of instrumentation, into how this affects an interpretation of similar "feels," could also add another dimension to the article. – BlackLion8 years 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 McCracken8 years 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. – Kyle8 years ago
I would suggest a wariness about the idea that "digital audio production" is the standardizing factor here. A) There are a ton of records made in the digital realm that are done so simply for economic reasons--it's a lot cheaper and easier at this point to work with inexpensive software on computers that most everyone possesses than to work with, say, a 24-track analog tape machine (which I know Segall often favors, but is, at this point in time, an enormously expensive boutique undertaking). B) There are a ton of records made digitally that emphasize so-called lo-fi aesthetic choices in instrumentation, arrangement, and overall production (see: Wolf Eyes, the latest Lightning Bolt, etc). I think the culprit here may be more about the cultural/commercial forces that see "indie rock" as a commodified genre with marketable stylistic tropes, rather than digital audio production itself (and to an extent, about the loss of meaning in the term "indie rock"...much as with "alternative" before it, it has become a sonic style more than a true "independent" category of creation). Digital audio production equipment ist just a toolset, and if you are skilled with the toolset, it doesn't demand or determine what the results are creatively. You can record nasty, one-take, lo-fi stuff into GarageBand or Pro Tools just as easily as on tape (and often for less money). I do think your central thesis relating homogenization of indie rock to creative class gentrification has legs, I'd just be careful about blaming the digital boogieman. – joshloar8 years 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?
Also outdoor art in public spaces! – Mariel Tishma8 years ago
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 Hufbauer8 years ago
Good topic...personally I believe art should be accessible in numerous venues. There are many museums that offer free or reduced admission for individuals possessing student ID, but for museums that do not, enjoying the arts can be a very costly activity. Art should be visible in every venue...
– danielle5778 years ago
It is difficult to define art in concrete terms, since it is very much a subjective field; I do believe that more classical forms of art such as old paintings and marbles work best when presented in a museum setting, while modern pieces such as abstract sculptures and kinetic pieces might achieve maximum effect in a nontraditional venue, i.e. an outdoor space. The most important thing for viewing art, I believe, is placing it in an environment that allows it to be viewed to the best degree, whether it be in a credited museum, or in an underground gallery. – angelofmusic6608 years ago
I love this topic because I believe that art can be seen in a variety of ways such as nature or graffiti. – boyerj8 years ago
Such a great topic. It would be interesting to compare work in a museum with art that takes on a more guerrilla approach, such as installation art or graffiti, even advertising.
People are looking for different things at different times, in different settings.
When you ask the question,"What is most important in viewing art and putting it on display," it makes me think about the bridge between abstract and hyper-realism. Should abstract art be displayed in a different way than realism?
These are all intriguing questions. – EmilyMarie8 years ago
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. – SoalaIda9 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. – Jamie9 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. – Sunbro9 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? – Kim9 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. – jonj7248 years ago
A great idea. Maybe explore a post modern art style approach as an explanation of social media as art. – TheSwampThing8 years 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... – Lusk228 years 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. – xxvacxx8 years 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. – JamesZhan95928 years 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 Errington8 years 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/ – LauraKincaid8 years 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.8 years 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 McCracken8 years 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? – Kevin8 years ago
