Many musicians have adapted alter-egos throughout their careers. Famous examples include Hank Williams as Luke the Drifter and Beyonce as Sasha Fierce. Explore the appeal behind musicians adapting alter-egos, what function an alter-ego may serve for a musician, and analyze possible psychological reasonings behind the decision to adapt an alter-ego.
I am immediately drawn to this idea. It would be a great theme to explore. The idea could possibly extend to include or reference the use of "masks" in public spaces, like Sia's hairpieces or Karin Dreijer Andersson's use of makeup to cover her appearance. – Lady Cinephile9 years ago
Do these really work? Rappers have attempted this i.e. Old Dirty Bastard, Osiris, Dirt McGirt or but never seem to stick. Artists reinventing themselves like Garth Brooks seem to be a much more publicized effort, yet tend to bomb commercially. – Jason0527149 years ago
This article would discuss the impact of feminine art in popular culture and it's designation in 'shock art'. Aside from an article which was just posted to the site this last week (the artist who painted the portrait of Donald Trump from the previous article would be off limits to this one), this article would focus on four points: menstrual art, vaginal art (artwork representing the vagina and vulva), and way these types of feminine art are received compared to falic art, and the artistic representation vs commercials for feminine products. Why does this art only see feminist shows and shock art galleries? What is still so taboo about the subject the expressive forms suffer from lesser public appearances and appreciation? How can the constant ad revenue for feminine products be accepted, but the presence of celebration and politics concerning the feminine body is recoiled against?
This is interesting phallic art vs. vagina art. There are many phallic symbols in architecture such as the Washington Monument in Washington D.C. An exploration into power symbols can be explored here. The vagina art is most popular through the studies of Georgia O'Keefe. I look forward to this article. – Venus Echos9 years ago
The title–which could seriously be reworked–kind of says it all. Despite the concept being somewhat shallow, it would be fairly interesting to see someone tackle this topic and go as in-depth as they can with it. Purely examining Japanese media–such as anime, cinema, television shows in general–and American media–cartoons, cinema, and, again, television shows in general–it appears that each culture brings something unique to the table. But what is that unique thing/things? Is one truly better than the other? And how do you define better? Clearer, more concise themes? More universality and acceptance by a broader audience? These are aspects of both entertainment cultures that could be seriously explored and exhausted in a well-written article.
I would love to learn more about this topic from someone who is knowledgeable. – Munjeera9 years ago
Should the audience judge a film based on whether they "liked" it or not? Shouldn't the audience step back, look at a work of cinema objectively and judge it on its quality, not whether or not it was "too long" or "boring." Even if a film is, at first preview, "boring" or "too slow", The Shining, for example could be appreciated even if you don't like horror, simply for its master-craft of cinematic voyeur and its layers of hidden ambiguity and subliminal messages. Should the artists' be judged by their intentions above all else?
I believe everything should be looked at objectively and subjectively. Because there are plenty of things that I can say have creative merit, and yet they do nothing for me in terms of enjoyment or entertainment, or perhaps it simply does not appeal to my sensibilities, even if it is somewhat enjoyable. Everything is capable of being looked at both ways, and it reveals quite a bit if we as a society were to approach most things in such a manner. But films, most definitely. You can make a masterfully shot and executed film on a technical level, whether or not it succeeds in captivating an audience, or at least a large audience beyond a cult following, is another but still interesting matter. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Films should be judged according to their genre to achieve an apples to apples criterion. Munjeera – Munjeera9 years ago
I see what you are saying. But if a film is high quality and you don't like it, maybe there is a reason why, something the film is lacking. Taking a look at why you like or don't like a film is still a valid way to judge a film I think. – Robyn McComb9 years ago
Having already picked up one of your topics as the basis for my Jurassic Park article, I encourage you (and whoever decided to pick up this topic) to consider that there is a difference between specatorship and criticism. Being able to separate certain aspects of films from the overall body is the basic tenant of film criticism. A person can say "I don't like the Ewoks" but still think that Return of the Jedi is a good film. Likewise a person can look at The Amazing Spiderman 2 and say "overall the movie was lacking but the sound design was some of the best I have ever heard" and come to the conclusion that the film is "a well polished turd." Meanwhile I believe my Jurassic Park article defends audience pleasure pretty articulately, demonstrating the value of entertaining spectacle as a tool for instruction or inspiration. One cannot argue, however, that an "audience" should be compelled to be critics when some people just want to be spectators. Let them eat cake! – Christen Mandracchia9 years ago
The topic as it stands is very broad, and therefore difficult to explore thoroughly in an article the length of a standard Artifice submission. Perhaps specifying the parameters of exploration to the limitations of this medium would be more accessible for potential authors and readers alike; for example, limiting the topic to a particular genre (you mention horror, which would be an excellent choice considering the genre is so polemic - people seem to either love it or hate it), one specific director (Tobe Hooper, Roman Polanski, etc.), or even one specific film. – Katheryn9 years ago
A significant differentiation that needs to be present is that of what type of audience your are referring too. The average moviegoer has different opinions of a film to that of a moviegoer that has an educational insight of cinema. I agree with the comment above, the subject is a bit too broad. Try narrowing your audience first or asked a question that is more specific to a type of critic. For example, is it fair for audiences to judge a film base solely on the actor performance?
The subject has potential and it is one that causes curiosity, but because a critic or analysis can be, and is so often the case, derive from a personal opinion it is hard to pinpoint an answered to such a broad question. – Andres249 years ago
My Reaction When (MRW), Original Content (OC) and Too Long; Didn't Read (TL;DR) are just a few acronyms and abbreviations that "Imgurians" use to categorize their gallery submissions. The Reddit inspired site has allowed users with profiles the ability to create unique GIFs and MEMEs to share with a community of cynical counterparts and cohorts. The quest for upvotes, "fake internet points" and notoriety motivate people to compete against one another for the most authentic posts. Imgur's meme template enriches participatory media while simultaneously developing a homogenous form of originality. Thus does the platform's production of cookie cutter memes contribute to this trend?
Many people say nowadays that "nothing is original anymore." And they don't mean it in a negative connotation, necessarily, just as fact. Has everything been done by Homer and Shakespeare? Is everything now simply a variation on what's been done? And if so, is that a bad thing?
Yes. And it's slowly becoming common knowledge that there is no such thing as "original" anymore. But then again, everything is always based in part on something that has come before: some sort of concept, some sort of theory, some sort of tradition or practice, but taking it in a new or varied or mixed and combined direction. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Sorry. Yes to "is everything now simply a variation on what's been done?" But No on "and if so, is that a bad thing?" Because even if it's a bad thing, there's nothing we can possibly do. Everything has already been done or thought of or theorized before in some form, and everything we will do now for the rest of time will be based on the creations and concepts of others that have come before us. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
It depends on your definition of original, but yes I do think there is still original content, even if it has influences. For example, I find Orphan Black and Legend of Korra to be very original works, but they certainly have influence. There are also different levels of originality; do you mean in concept, excecution, characters?
Also, a note: Shakespeare was not original in most of his works. – IndiLeigh9 years ago
I do not think originality is dead at all. Sure, there are so many stories written from so many people, and it seems like everything has been said, which is true to an extent. Not to get too corny, but as long as there's new humans being born, there will always be something new to say. You could also argue that the fear of being unoriginal creates a perfect setting for creativity. – nancymoncada9 years ago
An interesting analysis could be between some creative writing contributors, such as Aristotle's "Poetics," Northrop Frye's "Anatomy of Criticism", or John Gardner's "The Art of Fiction." Aristotle discusses the history of writing, where it derives, while the others discuss the standardizations of writing. To analyze whether or not "novelty" still applies to today's times, I feel that you must first understand where it started. These sources could help begin a credible argument. – AutamnDarling9 years ago
I recently read Austin Kleone's "Steal Like an Artist". You might want to check it out! He is essentially laying out a guide for artists that encourages people to understand and embrace the lacking originality of art. It shows how people have always been essentially taking ideas from many sources and just adding their own flare, thus making their own new creation. – ChrissyCroft9 years ago
I wouldn't say it is "dead," because just as there is innovation in say technology or online media, there are a lot of new, original ideas ways to tell a story. I think stories aren't always original in content, but rather HOW they are told. For example, it is common to see a revenge story told through the eyes of the person enacting the revenge. But consider if the story, despite having many cliches found in the genre, was told through the perspective of the initial wrongdoer and they know someone is out to enact revenge upon them. Maybe address the idea of how stories can be told in new ways, despite having other "unoriginal" content. – Filippo9 years ago
"The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories" is a book by Christopher Booker, and explores the academic belief that there are only 7 types of stories ever told (The Quest, The Voyage, Comedy, Tragedy, Rags to Riches, Overcoming the Monster, and Rebirth). It sparked a lot of controversy, but for the most part was a successful publication and is a very entertaining read. Additionally, prior to this, Arthur Quiller-Couch is usually credited with coming up with the seven plots as a series of conflicts: Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Himself, Man vs. Man, Man vs. Society, Man vs. God, Man vs. Woman, and Man in the Middle. Thinking about this topic from the viewpoint of "There will never again be another original thought" is depressing, but exploring it from these specific angles is really interesting. It might be fun to further refine your topic by investigating one of these lists. – Katheryn9 years ago
Trying not to step on the toes of the previous notes, I'll take this from a different angle: I think in recent decades we've seen a proliferation of work from marginalized view points (ie. Black, Feminist, Third World/postcolonial, etc) that have never been seen before from the literary canon of predominantly old white dudes. There's a greater accessibility for that now that's encouraging a great deal of originality. So I think this topic could be really interesting, but maybe specify what form we're analyzing: melodrama? fiction? academia? And are we including things like folklore/mythology, popular media? Or just literature? – Tiffany9 years ago
The glorification of originality may be a notion influenced more by romantic notions than that of the medieval era, which viewed originality as a non issue and instead viewed the purpose of the author or artist to build upon a pre-existing bedrock of cultural motifs and topoi. So perhaps instead an article could explore current motifs? – SawyerBullock9 years ago
Wherever it be folk music or another form of traditional music set in a specific geographic region, is there a danger of it being lost to commercial pop music? Why is traditional music important in representing a specific culture?
I believe you have hit an important note here, pun intended. Traditional music is important because it does represent an aspect of culture. It is important to preserve the music however, it is educational to have the music available to others. This is said with antiquated cultures in mind. Now to take it to a more current event. The urban culture has its own music and I am talking about Rap most specifically. This music is about urban culture and it has been capitalized to make money and much of the original Rap culture was about telling what life is like in this culture. Now it seems it is less about story more about commercial success. – Venus Echos10 years ago
What do you mean by "lost to commercial pop music"? – T. Palomino2 years ago
With the video of Master Penman Jake Weidmann making its rounds on the internet, the art of calligraphy is enjoying a very moderate resurgence of interest. Why have we abandoned this art form? Is it even relevant in a day and age when computers can reproduce any form of script, in any size for any occasion on any type of paper? Can calligraphy or any form of artistic writing provide a substantial benefit for modern society and if so, should "we" reconsider teaching such forms of writing in schools?
I think Jake Weidmann gets more recognition because he uses his calligraphy in art. Calligraphy in it's rawest form has nothing to do with the intricate ink animals and designs be adds to the text, so that does make him a master penman as is his medium but I doubt any of the other master calligraphers extend their skill beyond text; Jake is an artist. It would be great if this article explored which he is best described as, and the difference between regular penmen, how to make a living from and what do they even do? – Slaidey9 years ago
