From Egyptian times through postmodern art and contemporary visual culture, the image of the cat has been popular as subject matter for sculptors, painters and other artists. What is it about cats that compels us to render their likeness or hang their portraits on our walls? Is it simply their elegance and beauty or is it their intelligence and the mystery of their inner thoughts, or is it the companionship and the emotion connection we feel with them at our sides or on our laps?
Would this topic include the phenomenon of watching cat videos or memes online? I would love to see this topic come full circle. – Cmandra9 years ago
Also interesting to consider the pervasive association with cats and witchcraft! The cat has, for a long time, been a symbol of beauty, but mischief and evil. – agombar9 years ago
Discuss and analyze negative responses to late-in-life productions of authors/artists. Many face(d) harsh criticism in later years as a result of: (expectations based on/comparisons to) previous work, questioning of mental/creative faculties, life circumstances (e.g. affluence, change of environment and such), and so forth. I've found recent reviews of Toni Morrison's last two novels (Home and God Bless the Child) and contemporary reviews of Vladimir Nabokov's Transparent Things and Look at the Harlequins! in past research, but I'm sure that there are more authors/artists that experience this. It seems easy to pigeon-hole a longstanding, well-received author rather than accept a change in style or subject. What lies behind this phenomenon?
Might be interesting to examine a gender double-standard here. Artists like Madonna are mocked for sticking around past their prime, while male rockers like Elton John, Keith Richards, Billy Joel, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, John Bon Jovi (the examples are endless, really) seem to only get more popular with time. – agombar9 years ago
We are all aware of the ongoing debate in the game world about whether games can be art or not; however, we don't seem to give much room for what the art world has to say about this topic.
There are handful of museums and art galleries that have show different forms of games (video games, interactive games, card games…and many other games). In fact, bringing game in museums and galleries is used as an innovative strategy to invite public (including non-art public). Explore different ways museums and galleries exhibit games and write about different types of games as an art form. Perhaps look into interactive games using Arduino, Occulus and Leap Motion and/or games that incorporates various topics such as food games to make a concrete argument about how games are accepted in museums as an art form.
This is a great topic and, although I would very much like to feel that there is a sort of reason that video games should not be considered art, i cannot think of a reason as to why they shouldn't be...I mean namco themselves released a game collection in which they called Namco MUSEUM. It has also inspired people to further develop what a video game can be (ie the Occulus)...art is supposed to be inspiring, enlightening, cause everyone to have thoughts. Video games only prove more and more that they are an art form with the now present Theatrical feel they possess (the Metal Gear Series). It's a dope topic ( i believe) – Cargoflo9 years ago
I am an artist myself and would like to take this opportunity to introduce game art scenes specifically in the art world such as Game Art Festival at Hammer Museum (Los Angeles, CA) and many other artists who blurs the boundaries between game and art with this topic. Being said that, I think mentioning the stereotypes that is entitled to the word, 'game' would be an interesting starting point. Thank you for your opinion! – Camella D. Kim9 years ago
Where some people backdate the media of their favorite genres of mediums while waiting for other content to come out, others hold their breath in anticipation for the newest comic book film or whine about the time it will take for the newest Game of Thrones book to come out. Considering the plethora of quality older novels or films in these genres, do you think that some people brush them aside too easily or ignore them entirely because they are not new? Or is this just another first world problem to complain about?
It's perfectly fine I think to be looking forward and waiting with bated breath for new episodes of our favourite serials to come out, but I do agree with you that there's an awful lot of gems, both well-known and hiddent, just waiting to be uncovered in the past. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
In "the beginning", art was something that was it's own category apart from other things, containing mostly painting and sculpture, as talents such as singing and drama was left for "entertainers" – a much less prestigious occupation.
Nowadays, our definition of art is more subjective, and has opened the doors to everything from video games to a selfie of our dinner last night.
When is art no longer a representation of our lives? When does it turn into a reality?
This is a fascinating subject! Sometimes people tend to forget that perceptions and interpretations varied greatly in different time periods. An intriguing book on this subject in reference to Italian Renaissance art is "Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image Before the Era of Art" by Hans Belting. The introduction especially focuses on the distinction between pre-modern and contemporary perceptions of what art is, how it functions, and its purpose for society. – skgoodwin9 years ago
I also agree that this is a very fascinating subject. My take on the relationship between Art and Reality is a triadic relationship of sorts. Reality, and the artist's existence in Reality, provides the materials that are processed into Art. Upon consumption/interaction by/with an auditor (or perhaps even upon creation owing to the fact that the artist is the first consumer in most instances) Art becomes part of reality, able to be subsumed once again into Reality. Thus when and if Art can ever escape its bonds to Reality, it may no longer be "a representation of our lives." However this seems like a very spurious possibility. Is it really possible to create Art that is completely removed from Reality? – echarlberg9 years ago
With things like Common Core and other standardizations, art, among other "extracurricular" classes are often cut from public schools. What are the negative impacts of this? How can children benefit from having their creative outlet taken from them, and how will they truly become well-rounded people if they are not exposed to a new ways of thinking, a variety of subjects and social interactions? While I can think of many negative effects of these "cuts," the positives are few and far between, and shaky at best.
Talking about the prevalence of band, orchestra, and chorus over art such as painting and drawing classes. – gabrielleceleste9 years ago
Good point; but even those classes are excluded in many cases. I know that the school where I used to teach (in NC) only offered "music" once a week... Band was an extracurricular, if students could "skip" parts of other classes... and chorus was an after-school club. – burchdm9 years ago
Children, and more over, human beings, are not machines. Creativity is critical to maintain a balanced education. Additionally, kids are by no means skilled at the same things; a dyslexic child taught that passing standardized tests is of utmost importance, and who is thus cut off from arts education, may never realize her full potential. – emilyak9 years ago
Dissonance in music is an acquired taste. As society has less and less exposure to dissonance is music, our tolerance for said dissonance decreases dramatically. What led to this decrease in the general acceptance of music with occasional dissonant qualities?
I'm not a musician but I feel like your talking about the difference between Florence and the Machine and most pop music? That's my only reference. I think it's sad that bands like Muse are starting to mold into main stream, their newest songs instrumentals are more predictable and lyrics getting diluted. We understand people's attraction to simple beats because it reminds us of Mother's heartbeat in utero, but there's a reason all our music didn't start out that way... why? – Slaidey9 years ago
You have to be really careful about general statements like "As society has less and less exposure to dissonance..." because, depending on your perspective or sources, this is not necessarily true. For example: Kendrick Lamar's To Pimp a Butterfly is one of the year's best-selling records and, according to the reviews and discussions that I've read, already in contention as album of the year. There are passages throughout that album of dissonant jazz and electronica, and TPAB's success has led to increased exposure of the other artists who collaborated on it and who likewise utilize dissonance in their music (specifically: Flying Lotus, Thundercat, and Kamasi Washington). All of these facts can be searched and confirmed on Google or basically any major music outlet.
If anything, I'd say that the acceptance of dissonance has increased then. You're right, dissonance is an acquired taste, but the success of big names like Kendrick Lamar who use dissonance show that there must be some acceptance. I think you have to ignore whatever's playing on public radio (since the music industry has a history of pushing certain music on those broadcasting channels) and look at multiple music scenes to get a clear idea of society's "taste." – conorsmall9 years ago
As a music junkie, I think this topic would be great to discuss. One thing I can think of is Mumford and Son's new album and sound and how people are beginning to compare them to Coldplay. I think it would be interesting to explore different bands and the genres that are considered "mainstream" and compare that to their overall success over their careers. – Samantha Brandbergh9 years ago
Social media, other technology, and our complicated, busy lives compete for the simple enjoyment of taking time to listen to good music. – JeffinAurora9 years ago
Dissonance is a pretty important quality in a lot of music, some of it pretty popular (see conorsmall's note above), and the underground noise scene is gaining traction in more visible contexts. Case-in-point: Prurient's 2015 release on well-loved metal label Profound Lore; Wolf Eye's 2015 release on Jack White's Third Man Records. Granted, these releases may appeal to more niche audiences, but dissonance definitely isn't going away. – markplasma9 years ago
One thing to consider here is also the genre of music. If you're talking about popular music, perhaps there is a decrease in dissonance. I myself study classical voice, and the more recent music is (generally) far more dissonant! You could also look at what purpose dissonance serves within music; why did dissonance occur in the first place? Usually, there's a social reason. Does the "lack" of dissonance of more popular modern music indicate that our social climate has less of a need or a desire for dissonance and what it represents? Dissonance tends to cause tension; perhaps the lack of dissonance in more mainstream music is indicative of our society's general desire to avoid things that are grating/tension-filled? I think you could do a lot with this topic. – laurakej9 years ago
We all know that there cannot be a hero without having a villain but does this mean that we have to hate the villain? Sure there are those people/creatures that are truly monstrous and who want to destroy the world or inflict pain and terror but what about more innocuous villains? villains who just happen to share a different moral code than the hero? or rivals that engage in the same behaviour as the hero but happen to be on opposite sides (Gangs of New York, The Godfather). It is Manichean to see the villain as evil but are they totally unredeemable?
Wouldn't that make them anti-heroes? Villains are defined as villains when there is no good in them, or when they were once good but there is no redeeming factor for them. To which the other term that should be brought up is antagonist. Who is an opponent for the protagonist, but is not really evil, and is often mistaken for a villain despite the morality differences between antagonist and pure villain. – Ryan Walsh9 years ago
A good example of a villain versus an antagonist is in "Les Miserables" with Thenardier and Javert. Thenardier does evil for his own gain while Javert believes he is doing good while he is the antagonist to Jean Valjean. In the end Thenardier doesn't change while Javert realises the harm he has caused and *spoiler* commits suicide. – smartstooge9 years ago
I think I agree with Ryan Walsh. You seem to be conflating the anti-hero and the villain. Perhaps it would be more productive to study the rise of the sympathetic villain in Pixar. – InAugust9 years ago
Another good example of two differing viewpoint of antagonist and protagonist are Marvel Comics' Magneto and Professor X. They both want mutants to be treated better, but because of Magneto's past as a Jewish boy during WWII, he believes that the humans will never see the collective "other" as their equal - at the very least, not through talk. Magneto believes he is doing the right thing by mutant-kind, but so does Prof X, who wants nothing more than for humans and mutants to get along. Another example is Regina from Once Upon A Time, who is a sympathetic villain and could be seen as the protagonist of her own story. – VelvetRose9 years ago
