Musical theater is a huge and well-loved medium, and in recent years has given us some cutting-edge hits (Legally Blonde, Wicked, Dear Evan Hansen, Hamilton, etc.) Yet there are some accepted "rules" of theater culture that still feel like stereotypes or "boxing in" actors. For instance: sopranos get the leads; mezzos and altos play "witches and britches." Tenors play romantic leads; basses play villains. Actresses past the age of 30 can expect to play mothers and grandmothers, but not love interests for their own sake. If you are a white male, you cannot convincingly play a male or female of any color (although I have conversely seen white women tapped to play WOCs). Actors with disabilities can only really expect casting in disabled roles.
Most theater aficionados will tell you there are solid reasons behind this thinking, even truth. Then again, in 2019, should conventional theater change more to suit the needs and desires of actors? Could or should a musical be written to give an ingenue role to an alto or a hero role to a bass? Is it pushing the envelope to allow actors of certain orientations to play outside of them, or for a white actor to play a POC (outside of a historical context)? In short, what would and should truly "diverse," "inclusive" theater look like?
I think that, in some respects, it's easier for theatre to accommodate diversity than other media because, moreso than in any other medium, any actor who's qualified can take a particular role regardless of race, gender, or background. This is especially true of school performances, which have to work with the available students. I've seen a rendition of one of Shakespeare's history plays that featured Black actors, for example; and on YouTube I've found versions of Little Shop of Horrors where Seymour was biracial and the dentist was Asian. I've even found a theatrical version of the Screwtape Letters where Screwtape was played (really expertly, I might add) by a woman. – Debs5 years ago
Hi, Debs, That sounds really cool. I'm glad your theater experience was more inclusive than mine. My schools (high and college) had GREAT theater programs I so wanted to be a part of. But, esp. in the case of my high school director, I was not given that chance and I think it was because of cerebral palsy (couldn't prove it, and if I'd said something it would've been, "Oh, you just think everybody's picking on you.") But the truth was, even after calling my acting phenomenal on more than one occasion, that director in particular would only assign me chorus or walk-on roles. The justification was, "Well, the leads have to dance," but chorus lines are basically there to *dance*, at least in my productions. There were other examples of non-diversity there too, such as the lead *always* went to a first soprano--and the year it went to a mezzo, of course, I wasn't in the running. But, this director was *also* willing to cast a white girl as a Hispanic lead (but not a girl of color as a white lead) ?????? Anyway, it's only been recently that I realized the full lack of inclusivity and diversity in the world at large and the theater world, so...there you go. Again, we need more stories like yours. – Stephanie M.5 years ago
Interesting question Stephanie, and I find it an important one. Yet I would consider white actors playing non-white roles in the name of diversity or inclusion a farce. Whiteness is a hegemonic power structure imposed upon non-whites. Whiteness allows for participation within the hegemonic group as long as the said behavior of conditional demographics furthers white supremacy. This is why fair skinned groups such as the Irish were not considered white, and then allowed conditional acceptance into whiteness only after they proved useful to white supremacy. This example highlights that you can have fair skin and not be considered white, and that whiteness is a very real, but social construct. Considering the above, it would be dishonest to allow the oppressor to play the role of the oppressed in the name of diversity or inclusion if we are to think of these efforts as some form of progressive emancipation of the oppressed. – kurtz4 years ago
We are living in difficult times, and many of us are dealing with the five stages of grief. The initial excitement of change, the political reassurances, the cancellations, and finally what could mean an 18 month quarantine. No matter your living situation you are allowed to grieve. And should this continue, we all need to learn how to be alone. Museum and library connections are available online, universities are offering free classes, gardening and cooking all the things you never had time for are here. If you’re anything like me, this quarantine is a blessing and a curse, for as much as I miss my friends, my mental illness was severely effecting my stress levels back home- not one to quit I refused to give up, so to me it feels like the universe sent me home. I’m doing better than ever and graduate next week, what are your quarantine journeys?
I will definitely revise this to include a broader and not so personal narrative guide to handling isolation – chloedubisch5 years ago
This is a great topic, but I would agree to make it a little less personal and more broad Perhaps navigating the quarantine: drawbacks and strengths? Or you could focus on resources or activities that are blossoming during quarantine. – birdienumnum175 years ago
I personally like the idea of making it a personal topic. I would used the sentence, "No matter your living situation you are allowed to grieve" as the title and create a series of stories around it. – amberflynn935 years ago
During these uncertain times, it seems that the things we do for ourselves– without any exterior motivations– are becoming clearer. The phrase "dress for yourself" has gained a lot of momentum amongst those who actively appreciate fashion as well as those who do not give it much thought. Without the complicating factors of social validation (whether that is conformity or aiming to stand out), this article will analyze whether or not quarantine is allowing people to truly dress for themselves.
Hm, I think it would be interesting to analyze how fashion is/will be impacted by quarantine. There are many on social media who rely on taking pictures in their backyard to be okay, while others have given up entirely and stay in pajamas. In the sense of fashion, which is ever-changing, what would quarantine mean for style and what do you make of these effects on the public? – Scharina5 years ago
I think this could be an interesting topic if it considered how quarantine will impact fashion afterwords. I only say this because many of us are not really dressing at all(pajamas). – BriLeigh5 years ago
I don't think it's quite as simple as "not going out" leading to a lack of concern about peer pressure and social norms. The conventional wisdom, as I understand it, is that people should strive to maintain as many aspects of their "normal" routine as possible to maintain a sense of purpose and fulfillment--and this includes dress. One angle to explore, then, would be whether the clothes that people choose to wear at this time reflect their degree of coping. – Debs5 years ago
I recently completed a uni course on the body in society and think this topic would benefit from some research into social science theories of aesthetic embodiment and Cartesian dualism. I personally rely on clothing to express myself and during quarantine have both seen how little it actually matters what I wear, and how important it is to me to construct the perfect outfit for my mood, errand, environment, etc. I was also wondering about the cosmetics industry. If people aren't going out, are they buying less makeup or wearing less makeup? Are they realising the ways makeup oppresses them in their daily life? I find makeup ads so funny now because they act as if "the right foundation can help a woman tackle the world", but now that we're working from home, what use does it have? What use did it ever have? – Tylah Jackowski4 years ago
Explore the notion of creativity for creativity’s sake. With Covid-19 isolation, we are seeing a lot of people filling time by making things, from banana bread to paintings. What is the value of making stuff, even if it’s not ‘good’ aka. not pretty, or moving, or delicious. You could also explore what makes people identify as ‘creative’ or not – what is the difference between an ‘artist’ v. ‘someone who makes art’?
Interesting topic! Creating is therapeutic in itself. It does not have to be pretty, or yummy--the process of creating is in our own human nature and within the process we find things out about ourselves. Instead of the value of bad art it could be The value of the process of creating. The artist and someone who makes art is a whole other debate and topic--that makes something "art" and something just a creation. I think that depends on your training. Anyone can pick up a drum or some kitchen utensils and play a beat or sing to make music, but a musician is someone who studied and trained in music for years---but everyone and anyone can make music. The same with art. The title of an artist and musician comes with level of education I believe, but that does not mean you can't be an artist by just drawing at home. Anyone and everyone can be a creator and an artist of some sort. Maybe narrow down the topic to either the benefits or what makes the difference between an artist and someone who makes art. – birdienumnum175 years ago
Well, the advantage of "bad" work (whether so-bad-it's-good or just plain bad) is that it provides an example of what not to do. For instance, the example of the Twilight series shows that if you want to write a supernatural romance, you should NOT make the supernatural partner abuse or lord it over the more "ordinary" one. More generally, for someone who is creating just because they want to, an initial work, for all its faults, provides a jumping-off point that they can use to refine their craft, by learning from their prior mistakes. – Debs5 years ago
In order to get good at anything we have to go through the initial stages of learning. Writing off the abilities of people in the initial stages of harnessing their craft will stunt their growth. How about an article about the importance of amateur creativity, which is is so often undermined in the bid for commercial success. Not everyone will "make it" big in the industry but that dosent de value the joy in the embodied experience of the creative process. Let's move away from the neoliberal obsession with perfectionism and embrace humanity. – MayWoods4 years ago
I like this topic, because I'd argue that bad art is very important. You have to accept it as part of growing and improving, and being committed to any kind of art practice at all. This quote from Vonnegut is particularly relevant to the argument that I'd make: "Practice any art, music, singing, dancing, acting, drawing, painting, sculpting, poetry, fiction, essays, reportage, no matter how well or badly, not to get money and fame, but to experience becoming, to find out what's inside you, to make your soul grow." Also worth mentioning is the Museum of Bad Art in Boston. There's a lot of directions you could go with this article :) – Cleo Newling3 years ago
After witnessing the devastation of the 1918 flu pandemic, Virginia Woolf made the titular heroine of "Mrs. Dalloway" an influenza survivor, embracing life with flowers, friendship and a dinner party.
In recent weeks, we have all seen images of the doctors, nurses and other frontline workers, saving lives in hotspots like Italy and New York. Their faces, tired and worn out, call to mind Edward Munch's "Self Portrait with the Spanish Flu" and "Self Portrait After the Spanish Flu".
I propose a feature on the lessons we can learn from the art of past pandemics.
Nice topic. Maybe you can make it How to learn from the art of past pandemics. – birdienumnum175 years ago
Through a study of different tangible folk art forms, this article will examine how it preserves and showcases the cultural diversity of India
It would be worth including a few examples with your topic suggestion, as I'm sure you have some in mind. This is not meant as a criticism. I dare say there are many at the Artifice who couldn't even name a single Indian poet, painter, writer, film maker - let alone have knowledge of Indian folk arts. In the right hands, this could make for a fascinating article though. – Amyus5 years ago
Indian-American Pulitzer Prize author Jhumpa Lahiri Director of the Creative Writing Program at Princeton University. – L:Freire5 years ago
As someone who has very little knowledge on Indian culture, I'd be very excited to get to learn and be informed through this piece. Perhaps it could include examples of ways that reflect Indian culture accurately (for those who want to learn more), and examples of how it can be portrayed in Western media (and it's inaccuracy). – Scharina5 years ago
While the fashion industry has been historically known for promoting unhealthy beauty standards and gender norms, it is shifting towards a more diverse representation which breaks down gender norms. The article would analyze the shifts in fashion media and trends overtime and how it pertains to gender norms, body image and more. Additionally, it will detail the areas in which the industry still lacks.
Interesting topic! I think narrowing down this broad idea to a country would be helpful. There are many discussions that can stem from beauty standards, body image and fashion, (such as a shift from thinness and starvation to plastic surgery for wider hips/backside). Gender norms within itself can be a topic of its own as it changes throughout time (specially the last few decades). This topic could be root to many ideas! – Scharina5 years ago
This is a really interesting topic since fashion has been a core element of art and design since time immemorial, however I think this is too broad a topic to take on in one essay, as I wrote a history of fashion myself and it’s just too complex not to focus on a certain time period. Your material will be richer and more detailed, and if you enjoy the research then by all means start a series, fashion art is amazing – chloedubisch5 years ago
Artistic medium and perception prospered in the 19th century, it is the emergence of photography which influenced artists to innovate and alter the way they made art. Photographs allow an audience to observe and categorize, they aren't just statements of the world but actual pieces of it. While painting can be a narrow and selective interpretation, a photograph can be treated as a mirror of reality. How did photography fundamentally transform painting?
Good topic! I don't know much about the relationship of photography and painting, but I do know that critics commonly claim that the development of photography pushed creative writers to become more experimental with their writing and to seek out new ways of representing "reality" (stream of consciousness, fragmentation, etc.). Photographs are narrow and selective, too, of course. When we take a photo, we choose all sorts things: content and context (what we include in the frame, what we cut out), distance, angle, lighting, exposure time, etc. – JamesBKelley5 years ago
