The She Does Podcast features conversations with creative women making their mark in the field of media. The series has showcased creative professionals from various different industries, from Kirsten Lepore who's written and directed an episode of Cartoon Network's Adventure Time, Academy Award nominee for Winter's Bone, Debra Granik, and Mary Coleman, the Senior Development Executive at Pixar Animation Studios. Why is it important to tell share the success stories of women in creative fields? For inspiration? Does it encourage more women to do so?
Note: This podcast is available on iTunes and at shedoespodcast.com I am not affiliated with them in any way, just found the series very interesting.
I think it does good for aspiring young women in these fields. As someone looking to go into creative media, I find She Does extremely helpful. If you want to do a further indepth look into female focused organizations, Film Fatales is a nationwide group that provides mentorship among female filmmakers. I'm a member, and it's been really helpful just to know that there are people in my city that I can go to for help whenever I need it. – marsthebard9 years ago
Liz Gilbert's "Magic Lessons" podcast is similar. Just a heads up. :) – Kristian Wilson9 years ago
I definitely think, especially when I see a lot more male film directors, that having a podcast where women speak of their goals and accomplishments in creative fields does encourage other women to pursue what they want and engage in fictional narratives. – Emily Deibler9 years ago
I think its extremely important to share the stories of women in creative fields. It tends to be a very male dominant career in terms of leadership. Promoting the experiences and successes of women who have excelled is extremely important to help inspire future generations. – ericaty9 years ago
Meme's are interesting "new" ways to express oneself. Some can be funny, stupid, or very deep and political. One can find one and share it or make one and share it, etc. Analyze the impact and/or the efficiency of memes as political art for communicating ideas.
I really like this topic. Meme and internet language has become almost universal, and has traversed its way into daily, even political conversations. We'd have to dive into the origin of the meme, which could be a tricky thing to find in this finnicky internet. – CHRISagi9 years ago
Very interesting topic. Memes are a great new way to express oneself because they can be understood throughout any language. Memes change often, though, so they can be hard to follow – carleydauria9 years ago
Considering most Renaissance art is actually 'fan art' of the Bible, what place does the upsurge in artistic renditions of pop culture have in the realm of 'high art?' Can the culture of online artists thriving on Tumblr and DeviantArt create traction in academic circles? The same could be asked of fanfiction — writers all over the world write novel-worthy offshoots of popular characters and stories. How can these creators of the 21st century gain recognition outside of the internet and their respective fanbase? Will it ever happen?
You'll also want to talk about whether fanfiction could be considered literature. The question here appears to be: can art that imitates art be considered art in its own right? – Kristian Wilson9 years ago
This is a fascinating topic! I have to say, I'm kind of surprised that there isn't much scholarly interest in fan art, considering there is some academic discussion regarding fanfiction and fandoms. I think one thing you need to address is the legal aspect of this topic. Fanart and fanfiction are technically illegal, since they are derivative works. Many fanfictions are tolerated by authors of the original work, but only under the condition that the fanfic writers stay non-commercial. Some authors don't tolerate fanfiction at all. Same goes for fanart, I believe. So yeah, the illegality of these works might be a big reason as to why they don't get much attention, so it's worth looking into that. – ericg9 years ago
I would say that a focus on either the art or the fictin would be preferable. Otherwise, this runs the risk of being too fleeting, and stretching across too many topics. – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
Very intriguing! I agree with ericg, there is the legal side to fanart and fanfiction to consider as copyright issues do restrict the artists and authors' ability to share their work. But in a way, both fanart and fanfiction are becoming their own categories in art and literature. Now instead of just talking about the two individually, you could compare fanart to fanfiction. How are they developing? Does one seem to have a higher popularity rate than the other? Another question you could ask is: why choose fanart/fiction? If the individual is as talented as they are, what drives them to choose to create something fandom-based instead of an original work? These would all be interesting points to explore. A side note, if you do decide to write about both fanart and fanfiction, I would revise your title, something to the extent of: "The Artists and Authors of Fandoms". – Megan Finsel9 years ago
Over the last few years, I've been thinking about graphic novels and comics beyond a "medium." Last year, /Critical Inquiry/ released and issue dedicated to comics and media that include a variety of articles from academics and industry icons (e.g., Chris Ware) that are looking to push the boundaries of the art and aesthetics of the genre. For example, Ware has been pushing (and practicing) a view of graphic novels that plays with the idea of the physical object of a book containing the narrative–this, he notes, is something he's been thinking about as digital comics have become more popular. One of the more interesting projects I've seen recently is by Özge Samanci: GPS Comics ((link) She's also written an article for the International Digital Media and Arts Association exploring how to move graphic novels from discussions of medium to genre: (link) While I dig the idea of comics as a genre, I wonder if there would be a way that we might talk about graphic novels and comics as a aesthetic method rather than as a medium or genre. Thoughts?
I was about to say, "Hey, I took a class on this!" But then I realized. Hmm, for thoughts on how to approach this, maybe the post could start out talking about the concept of comics as a medium (there's also that article where the author examined comics as a language), and then go into why the aesthetic method may be more fitting. There's the GPS comics you mentioned above, as well as the "Building Stories" box of narratives we looked at in class. I'd be fascinated to see someone take this on. Also, there's Topffer's original goal of comics as an accessible education method to consider. – emilydeibler9 years ago
Thanks, Emily. I taught that class. :) – revfigueiredo9 years ago
Pop music is bland, simple in technique, hollow in intention, and infectious. It's what many people want to hear because (most commonly) the message behind it is so broad, that almost everyone can relate to it on a basic level. Often times the musicality of pop music is also far from complexity and artistic craftsmanship; many pop artists do not compose their own music or lyrics. Because of these reasons it would seem that Pop music, as an art, is somewhat soulless. Is this breed of simple minded music slowly killing deep, musically rich songs and bands?
In your first sentence you don't want to have "and intention" followed by "and infectious", the double use of and is unnecessary and unattractive. I would request you fact check the popularity of pop music because I don't buy that is is the most popular genre. Your final sentence is looking at the issue entirely wrong, music is meant to enrich the world, every piece and ever note, even popular music has something to bring to the table. Looking at pop music as completely useless is very narrow minded. – alexpaulsen9 years ago
I feel like this might be more band/artist specific. I can find plenty of examples of non pop stars that have simple music. I will give you that a lot of pop stars don't really write their own music, but I won't give you that there is no soul behind it. Plenty of popstars have songs that really hit home for them and you can see it in their faces when they sing them. I'd actually argue that other types of music kill my soul. Pop music lifts it up, makes me happy, makes me want to dance. Some other types make me angry, make me depressed, or make me thoughtful. I don't think any music is bad. I think maybe we as people need to stay away from thinking like "if it's popular it's not cool/good/etc." and "being different is the coolest, no one should want to be the same." Maybe things are popular, because they are good and its what the general public likes. That said. Your topic can still be fine. Focus maybe not so much on it killing our souls but the differences that go into them. Or maybe just focus on their complexities. For example pop music uses a less broad singing range thus making it simple (I'd expect this to be the opposite honestly, but give example of what makes it simple.) Pop music uses computers instead of instruments. I wouldn't consider this simple. Honestly, I could probably learn a guitar quicker than I could learn to mix beats on a computer that are new and sound good. But you get the picture. Focus on the differences and not on one being better than the other. – Tatijana9 years ago
It would also be worth touching on how pop has changed over the years and who the forerunners were. As much as I prefer rock and metal, there are some legitimately talented pop artists who go beyond the simplistic rules. Perhaps tie the article into reality shows like X-Factor too? – mattdoylemedia9 years ago
One thing to look at for this topic could be harmonic simplicity, bad (and often damaging) vocal technique, simplicity in general, and auto-tuning (and the subsequent lack of the "natural" voice). However, it could be worth looking at the good qualities of pop music. Why is it popular in spite of this? I agree; perhaps the lyrics are simplistic enough to relate to many people. Perhaps it portrays certain societal ideals. Does it make people "feel good"? Do they feel better about themselves listening to it because many people would be capable of producing music of that quality? Also, perhaps they use other musical techniques that appeal. For example, the drummer of the Beatles focused on creating different timbres by hitting the cymbal in different places. Maybe the repetition is appealing because we get to know the song more intimately. I'm not a fan of pop music in general myself, but I think there are good reasons that people are. It could be worth exploring those. – Laura Jones9 years ago
Cliffhangers can be frustrating, but often times they engage the reader's creativity in thinking of a new ending for the story. Other times, the author plans to write a sequel or continuation to the story, and he/she hopes that the reader is frustrated by the cliffhanger enough to buy the continuation. When I was in seventh grade, we were given an assignment: to write an ending for the story "The Lady or The Tiger." The original story was great, and the cliffhanger was extremely frustrating, especially since we wanted to see what the protagonist would choose for her lover's fate! – AdeleLai9 years ago
Analyze how plays that make the audience interact with the narrative may affect those who attend, perhaps in comparison to "normal" theater experiences (a clear boundary between the stage and seating). An example that could be explored is Punchdrunk's Sleep No More, an immersive, site-specific play where the audience members are free to roam different rooms to collect pieces of a silent narrative derived from Shakespeare's Macbeth. For the audience, how does this set-up possibly open up more possibilities when it comes to experiencing play narratives?
I like the plays to be more spontaneous. A play with a predictable ending is almost boring. – shadowformality9 years ago
I would suggest that the writer focus on plays which are being re-invented through the use of inclusion so that there is something to compare the different methods to. Richard Schecner's 1970's production of Mother Courage is an excellent example. – Cmandra9 years ago
Glade's Museum of Feelings is a limited-time exhibit currently open in Manhattan. The Museum is interactive for the patrons who visit, and the exhibit itself is influenced by social media, allowing its light display to serve as a "mood ring" for the city. Looking at the implications of this exhibit would be interesting. This exhibit speaks not only to the way technology and social media is changing how we consume art and media, but how marketing does as well. The museum is not only an artistic experience, but a branded one. Does that impact the validity of the "art"?
This seems to be a form of art, in which the artistic expression comes from the audience, not mainly from the creator. In doing this piece, this shall need to be emphasized. – JDJankowski9 years ago
The whole idea of "art" has been in question for over a century, ever since Duchamp's exhibit of "The Fountain." Historically, the museum has functioned as a way of 'branding' a work as art, even though some of the most interesting art projects exist outside of the (proverbial) museum's walls. JDJankoswki's point speaks to this view, too. Take a look at Duchamp's article, "The Creative Act": http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Smith_Kim/2007/Fall/INF385H/Duchamp_CreativeAct.pdf. – revfigueiredo9 years ago
In any form of art, whether it be film, poetry, or literature, some of it is very abstract. So abstract, that some people assert that perhaps it is lacking in actual meaning. Many students in an Intro. to Creative Media class I am taking has postulated that David Lynch's films are void of meaning because they are so abstract and ambiguous. Is this something that should be thought? That simply because we cannot conceive of the artists' intention that perhaps there is none?
Maybe the artist finds it funny that there is no meaning his meaning is to show that people find meaning in anything? Or maybe he has no meaning, but it's meaning is a study on what people come up with? I honestly am not the hugest fan of trying to find meaning. Poetry, literature, film, I think it's all how you perceive it. If it evokes emotion in you. If you find it clever, relatable, beautiful. What's more important: what the author meant? Or what it means to you. And honestly, unless an author specifically says what he means, it's all speculation anyway. And from that standpoint as far as scholarly analysis goes, everyone's opinion is valid and all opinions can be discussed. – Tatijana9 years ago
Lynch's films are surreal because their narratives are essentially dictated by dream logic. They usually have so much meaning (too much for some) that they can present a very difficult challenge for a mind unconditioned for the processing of such abstractions. His idiom demands a special discipline, much like learning a foreign language. Because his films don't conform to mainstream methods for conveying ideas they can seem too far beyond one’s capacity to process and that leads to frustration, resulting in unfair pronouncements of his work being “void of meaning.” As an artist myself, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a piece of work completely “void of meaning.” A piece of art may have meaning that’s inane or pedestrian, but just placing oneself within the process of producing something stimulates meaning. Even if that meaning is simply, “I create, therefore I am”
– kublahken9 years ago
I don't know if this a direction you'd want to go, and I don't have much knowledge in the way of film critique. But you could, exploring meaningless, bring up existentialism. Citing Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Foucault, and the like, could help explain the meaningless portrayed on screen. You could even maybe start with Derrida and explain his beliefs about language being a fruitless endeavor that doesn't actual convey anything of ontological substance, just concepts that lead onto each other. Then, you could move to Camus and absurdism and explain how, once seeking meaning is thrown to the wayside, the viewer and artist are free to enjoy the pure aesthetic value of the subject or piece being viewed. Like an art informed nihilism or something. haha – PGJackson9 years ago
