I have recently noticed that in today's world, curiosity and wonder is close to non-existant. Now that search resources such as Google exist, we just look up the answers.
I recently read an article on 'The extinction of the curious', and I think it would be very interesting of someone were to look deeper into this.
The topic of this article would be more on the cultural side of Arts & Culture.
This is intriguing. Or, you could say... curious. The flipside of this argument could be that readily-available resources increase curiosity, or at least immediately satisfy that curiosity and promote the spread of knowledge. – Erica Beimesche9 years ago
I don't think wonder or curiosity has become extinct. We simply do not search it out anymore. Children certainly still have this sense of wonder, just like they always have. Spouses on their wedding day are filled with unimaginable wonder and joy. No matter how many pictures of beautiful places you see, you'll still be amazed and awe-struck at their beauty in person.
Wonder and curiosity aren't gone, they're buried. Buried much deeper than they've ever been, but they are there. As a species we've settled for complacency and instant information, but what we need is adventure and wonder. – G Anderson Lake9 years ago
This is interesting. I would like to see some research to back it up because I can't say that I agree that wonder has gone extinct. I feel like we wouldn't be progressing as a society if we didn't have curious people in the world. How else would there be all of these incredible new technologies if someone didn't wonder whether or not something can be done? You can't Google innovation! Maybe it's not that we don't have curious people in the world at all but rather that they're a rare breed. I also really hope that whoever decides to write this spells "disappearance" correctly. – Nicole Williams9 years ago
Maybe wonder and curiosity are taking new forms. Perhaps they manifest themselves differently in our technology rich era. I'd be interested to see a literary experiment in wonder and curiosity. Surely people still ask questions. Is that curiosity? Are people listening? And is the divide between listening and understanding also the wall between curiosity and wonder? How much curiosity does it take to feel wonder? I think there are lot of good questions lurking in here. – rollerz9 years ago
There is something to be said about the relationship between space and place. Often, where we are located geographically and the site in which we operate in contribute greatly to the cultural goods we produce. In the arts, this is commonly seen where low-cost, renovated heritage sites have been turned into galleries, studios, cafes and apartments. But is there really a relationship between space and place and do they truly influence culture?
An artist friend of mine said to me the other day that when she is working, who she is and always has been comes out in her work – and see has witnessed this in other artists too. In particular, she sees elements of her parents personalities she inherited showing in her work. Is art something that is innate, or is it brought upon by the environment?
This same friend of mine went on to say that every great artist needs a strong network of community support. Reinforcing the important of place, an artist is a person who arises out of their own space, supported and influenced by the place in which they live and work, and is, I believe, an ever-changing person along with the cultural spaces in which they inhabit.
What do you think? Are space and place important for an artist, or is it all innate?
I think this is an interesting topic. You could also speak, not only about how we have affected the spaces and places around us. Should art aim to change our ideas of spaces and places. Also, these places and spaces need not only be considered in a geographic sense, but could include a number of other discourses, such as race, sexuality, gender, nationalism, capitalism, and so on. – Matthew Sims9 years ago
The distinction between space and place is an interesting area to explore. How do we perceive space, and what limits do we set to define it as a place? As an artist, thinking spatially is an important aspect, whether working in 2D or 3D mediums. The depiction of space visually in artwork is a compositional and conceptual component. In terms of influence, I think our surrounding environment, culture, and ideologies are a massive factor in determining who we are and how we produce our artwork, and worth considering in terms of the physical space we inhabit. – Kim9 years ago
I think space and place are very important for an artist. Very often it's what influences them, and so I don't think art is innate. Your inspiration, your drive, has to come from somewhere, from something that inspires you. – Desexualize the Banana9 years ago
"God Made Girls" and "A Girl in a Country Song" are often played next to each other on country radio, though one clearly perpetuates gender stereotypes, while the other calls the portrayal of women in modern country songs into question, while still perpetuating gender stereotypes in the song's video quite hypocritically. Also the song "Girl Crush" has been banned some places for its lesbian undertones, though it is not a lesbian song. So, what really is going on with girls in country music, and will there ever be a place for the LGBT community in pop country?
Comedy comes from none other than tragedy. At least, this is what some say. In sitcoms, when we laugh, the jokes are often at the expense of someone else. This blurs the line between tragedy and comedy, two polar opposites of theater. What is funny to one may be tragic to another. The two are opposites where one represents the rise of positive circumstances and the other represents the descent of positive circumstances and the rise of negative, the downfall of a once powerful figure. Comedy is birthed from tragedy in the sense that if someone, for example, is a klutz, and falls down the stairs but the ways in which he does it, the motions made during the fall, could be hilarious. Sometimes, it depends on the circumstances that surround the tragedy that dictate whether the audience laughs or cries. An example of this is Peter Griffin in Family Guy who could fall down the stairs and the audience laughs, Homer hammers his own finger in and we laugh, yet if someone else fell down the stairs or hammered his finger in, it calls for crying. Does this mean there is a sort of inner sadist in everyone that laughs at the pain of fictional characters? Or is something else at play?
I know that there are three main stances that scholars take over the notion of humour. Superiority Theory, Relief theory, Incongruity Theory. Superiority theory: one of the oldest stances, relies on the notion that humour, or laughter, stems from positioning ones self at expense of another (Nelson from the Simpsons for example). in this vain, the humour one feels watching a character like Homer Simpson and Perter Griffith fall (sometimes literally) into shenanigans, because we feel superior/reassured that we are not in the same situation and therefore we laugh at them to confirm our position over them. Relief Theory: the next oldest position, posits that laughter is a elease valve for pent up emotions that are built up and unused. For example: your walking down the street and suddenly a giant gorilla jumps out of the bushes in front of you. only to be revealed soon after as a man (the show "just for laughs" for example), and you laugh when your pent up adrenaline and fear is suddenly confronted in a situation that no longer requires them, so you laugh to release the unused build up. In both of these two positions, an element of tragedy or negativity is mostly present. Incongruity theory can be a little murky in this. Inconcruity, the most recent of the three main stances, states that laughter comes from moment of realization of incongruity between a concept involved in a certain situation, such as Wyle E. Coyote getting the mail, and the objects/setting of it happening, Wyle. E Coyote gets hit with a boxing glove from inside his mailbox. There is the tragic element, but inconruity does not nessesarily rely on a tragic element of some sort. A group of frogs croaking "Budweiser" for example, from the Simpsons. in this, there is no sadists/sadist element causing the comedy, it is the cognitive dissonance one experiences making sense of frogs product placing.
– KathyOttaway9 years ago
What about the ability to laugh at oneself, situation or the ability to look at society and point out it's flaws. A deconstruction of superiority perhaps. I think that is best discussed by people who are actually funny and study comedy as a performer: Academic understanding may be helpful but not as much as scholars would like us to believe. – fchery9 years ago
I think that this topic is really interesting. One could also look at the increase of awkward comedy, where you laugh out of potential emotional pain, rather than the physical pain, of a character. This is especially noticeable in a lot of Ricky Gervais' television shows (e.g. The Office, Extras, so on). I do not think this necessarily falls into the first theory of superiority, but rather equality, at times. I have considered writing something similar about the development towards this sort of "non-medy" (also check out the Tim Heidecker film The Comedy). – Matthew Sims9 years ago
I agree that this topic is interesting, in that sometimes I would laugh and sometimes I would cry for help. There are definitely times when I have witnessed someone I know do these things that Homer and Peter do and have laughed, simply because I can't help it, even though I see they are in pain. There are other times where immediately I have rushed to their aid. Does this mean that the comedy I see in fiction has blurred the lines between itself and reality for me? – kathleensumpton9 years ago
There is a plethora of musicals that are adapated from another source, from older ones such as Les Miserables, through the 90's and 00's hits such as The Lion King, Wicked and Billy Elliot to the recent Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate factory. Whilst this is not unique to musicals, what is notable is that there is so very few original scripts to balance it. You could count the original musicals in the last 10 years on one hand (Book of Mormon and Avenue Q, which have the same makers.) It would be nice to see this from the pont for view of someone who is well versed in musicals, and to see if there is a reason for it beyond unoriginality.
This seems to be a general trend in entertainment. So many new movies and tv shows are also based on books, earlier movies, etc. I don't know if it's because of a lack of originality, or because it's less of a risk for creators to base their productions on works that have already proven successful. – Marcie Waters9 years ago
Writing an original musical is, like any large creative project, incredibly daunting. You need a story, music, choreography, lighting, rigging, etc. Part of it is, I imagine, just that it's easier and cheaper to write a musical version of a story that's already been written and put it out there for the masses to enjoy, while you reap the profit. The other part of it is it would be incredibly difficult to create an original musical that would garner enough attention to make a profit. For example, Oklahoma is a musical about a two couples finally reconciling their differences to come together as the state of Oklahoma officially becomes a state. Oklahoma was written in the 50's and was good for it's time. Nowaday's, to reference the two musicals you mentioned, there are Avenue Q and Book of Mormon. Both are incredibly offensive to the wrong audience member. They're crude, crass, and the lines/songs are not necessarily something you would sing/say in every day life. It's gotten harder to draw people in to musicals these days, and the profit just isn't there anymore. – LittleLottie9 years ago
What will be Christopher Lee's artistic legacy as an actor and musician?
There would be so much to talk about here. It would end up being quite a sweeping article if you took in all of his life. It might be interesting to just focus on the musician part, or just his early work, or just his later work, to get more in depth? – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
Discuss the Toronto-Austin music city alliance. Talk about the benefits of the relationship, the changing nature of Toronto's music scene, musician compensation, and the increasing economic importance of the music industry despite the decline of the recording industry. Not speaking to the various streaming services cropping up in the past few years, can live performance sustain the industry? Discuss opinions on music festivals and their economic impact. With the market for music festivals becoming increasingly saturated what are the criteria for a sustainable fest? Discuss the inaugural "WayHome" festival and what it means for the Toronto music scene. With so much hanging in the balance what will happen if it's a success? If it's not?
Tomo Tanaka, Dalton Ghetti, Willard Wigan, and Steven Backman, are examples of artists that create extremely tiny works of art. This article could examine why this style is explored by artists. Is it awe in the hard work it took the artist or something else that makes this style popular?
