Though most shoujo manga typically have a female protagonist, there are some that have male protagonists. With a female protagonist, shoujo manga also usually have an underlying romantic development part of the plot, which isn’t characteristic to a shoujo manga with a male protagonist. What is it about these male protagonists that classify the manga they appear in as “shoujo”? What are the similarities and/or differences of various male protagonists of shoujo manga? How do their interactions with other people, their surroundings, and the plots of the manga determine this classification? Finally, does having a male protagonist in a shoujo manga have any social implications, since the target audience is generally teenaged girls? If so, how?
A few examples include: Hakkenden, Natsume Yuujinchou, and Gakuen Babysitters. I’m sure there are others, but these are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Male shoujo characters have different personalities, so it is hard to pinpoint what exactly defines them as 'shoujo'. There could be the popular one, the quiet one, the perverted brash one, the 'I-may-look-perfect-but-I-have-a-dark-secret' type... I think what makes a male protagonist belong in a shoujo manga is if the female character is able to help them in some way - whether it's improve their situation or overall attitude. Since romance plays a big part in 'shoujo', there is a sense that the male and female are perfect for one another, so they need to have some flaw that is improved once they meet the female. – YsabelGo9 years ago
Take a look at anime that either were adapted so poorly from the manga or are left incomplete that deserve to be remade from scratch. Kanon 2006 or Space Battleship Yamato are examples of anime that have done this.
What is the mass appeal of "The Revenant?" Despite the appearance of Leonardo DiCaprio, "The Revenant" does not contain the typical hallmarks of a blockbuster film; it is beautifully shot and powerfully acted, yet even DiCaprio terms it as an "art film," a genre that does not usually break into the mass market on a large scale. And yet, "The Revenant's" opening weekend's box office earnings were second only to "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." What about "The Revenant" appeals to a mass audience? Is it the presence of DiCaprio, or is there another reason for its popularity? Is it simply that the American public has become more open to art films as popular entertainment?
I don't think The Revenant has "mass" appeal, but there has been a lot of hype surrounding the performances by DiCaprio and Hardy. Moreover, Inarritu won Best Director last year and Lubezki has won two straight Oscars for Best Cinematography, so more people had reason to see this movie than other "art films." I'm not sure what opening weekend numbers you're looking at, but according to IMDB The Revenant brought in $474,560 over its opening weekend and a total of a little over $125,000,000 so far. The Revenant has made in total about what Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 made in its opening weekend and nowhere near what Star Wars: The Force Awakens made in its opening weekend. – JLaurenceCohen9 years ago
I agree with the above, I don't think "The Revenant" has much mass appeal. It just had the names of DiCaprio and Hardy, and the title of "from the director of last year's Best Picture winner, Birdman". While I think that the argument that art films are becoming more commercially accepted is interesting, I think that focusing on the popularity of "The Revenant" would be misled. – Matthew Sims9 years ago
JLaurenceCohen, I was looking at the Box Office Mojo numbers (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=revenant.htm), which shows that The Revenant was 2nd on its wide opening weekend (Jan 8). Of course, it came nowhere near Star Wars in numbers, but it did do well.
My question doesn't need to have to do with The Revenant in particular, if the author doesn't want to take it in that direction, but I think it might be an interesting lens through which to examine art films in popular culture. – sophiacatherine9 years ago
Starting with the new Netflix show Sense8, which the creators have discussed as a 'twelve hour movie,' discuss how Netflix's schedule of releasing all new episodes at once has changed the way we view pacing/narrative challenges in TV shows.
I'd also like to point out that they've done studies that show that breaks commercial or otherwise help us to digest what we are watching. Binge watching actually makes it so that we remember less of what we see. So perhaps we end up having to watch our favorites over and over again just for it to stick? – Tatijana9 years ago
Yes, and producers who air their shows on platforms like Netflix or Hulu (or Amazon) need to take that into account. Cliffhangers, for example, definitely don't have the same effect. – jmato9 years ago
Netflix has locked on to the needs of consumer culture. "We want more and we want it now." I'm sure there are statistics out there that show how longer shows that air on tv only once a week lose viewers consistently because either people can't be bothered to wait or they finally miss one episode and go "well, whatever, I'm out of date now and I don't really care to take the effort to catch up." Bingeing is part of the instant gratification our society has become accustomed to. – Slaidey9 years ago
I think we also miss out on the interactional aspect that week-to-week shows tend to have too. In an interview, Constance Zimmer (who has appeared on the Netflix show House of Cards) said that, while the ability to binge definitely has its advantages for fans, a disadvantage is that we miss the "water cooler conversations" that happen when shows are released over time. It's harder to converse with others about what we are viewing because we're afraid of spoiling something for them. There's so much pressure to watch it all as quickly as possible, there's no time to soak it all in or discuss what we're watching. Back before the binge culture, people would often chat about their reactions on what they had both watched the night before, talk about their predications on what would happen next, etc. – elphabaanne9 years ago
I have to second what elphabaanne stated. I live tweet shows like "Arrow", "Agents of Shield", and " The Walking Dead". However, when Jessica Jones was released Friday I couldn't live tweet the show; everyone was on different episodes, most having finished the entirety of JJ already. While I like the immediacy of Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu to a lesser extent I feel they create distance between audience members. Being able to discuss what I love about a show is important to me, it is through discussion I am able to realize new aspects about something which has caught my attention. I hope this has provided some assistance to you. Note: I would focus on Jessica Jones, Orange is the New Black,- Sense8 has been out for a while now.
– SincerelySeb9 years ago
With most spoilers and discussions for shows happening on places like Tumblr and Reddit, being able to binge watch a series that everyone else has already watched does have the positive effect of facilitating people to catch up on social conversations. However, I would agree that the loss of the suspense factor and the time for the brain to imagine alternate conclusions robs the fans of an aspect of the storytelling experience. – EulalieS9 years ago
No delayed gratification, that's for sure. – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
Definitely support the writing of such a topic. Perhaps discuss whether the path of Netflix's acceptance into modern consumption activity will ever mean that this release of televisual content will ever become the norm. – Matthew Sims9 years ago
There might also be the question about how the way we are encouraged to binge-watch shows, the way we do binge-watch shows, changes the way shows are written, directed and produced.
And, maybe, as this note comes about 4 years late, the evolution of those tendencies (in general and/or more particularly since this topic was submitted, 4 years ago). [I hope my (verylate) comment is still relevant and understandable, as I am neither a native English speaker nor fluent in English – yet!] – Gavroche5 years ago
The number of movies related to environmental causes increases year after year. From animal protection to sustainability issues, these films have found a huge market, especially with younger generations. But, how many of this audience actually feel motivated to make a change on the planet, and how many of them discard the information after leaving the theater?
I think a helpful note here would be to distinguish between environmental movies that depict a theoretical apocalypse, such as the movie 2012 or other popular or mainstream films, and movies that are more non-fiction based, such as an educational film students might see on a field trip in an IMAX theatre or something on the Discovery channel. There are of course other ways to go about it, but differentiating between things such as film type or environmental type could help the article go a long way. – kathleensumpton9 years ago
I think it is clear that they are talking about Documentaries, not fictional disaster films or movies like "Ferngully." Because when I think of Environmental Filmmaking, I think of Docs either in IMAX, Discovery, or National Geographic. When I think of the movie "2012," I think of a poorly designed disaster film. When I think of "Ferngully," I think of an animated movie with an "environmental message," but it's chief purpose is to entertain people with colorful characters, a creepy villain, and a few songs.
However, I would agree that because the description here does not specifically use the word "documentary," it should be added in, if that is indeed the type of film or television production that this topic is referring to. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Sorry if I wasn't clear, guys. Yes, I'm talking about documentary; not fiction. – Mariana Aramburu9 years ago
I think this is a really interesting topic and one that could be taken in a couple of different directions. Based on experience, I think environmental documentaries vary in their impact depending on what the message is and how it's presented. For instance, some documentaries have a clear "call to action" while others are more thought-provoking with a lingering "now what" feeling afterwards and, along these lines, it would seem that being aware of various issues is quite different than being aware of what could be done to "solve" those issues. However, I think a question linked to this is that even if this general awareness or "call to action" is accessible and easy for viewers to comprehend and/or participate in, is this information reaching the "right" people with the power to make large-scale change and do people actually feel connected enough to the topic being presented to bother to learn more and/or change? – DragonWrite9 years ago
I totally misunderstood the title. – T. Palomino2 years ago
A significant number of the longest running shows on television today belong to the crime drama/police procedural genre. I'm thinking Criminal Minds, CSI, and NCIS. What is it about the genre that is so appealing and sustaining on network television? Is there something unique to this genre that comedy sitcoms or other styles of drama don't have? Is it the format of the shows or does it have to do with the crime, itself?
I definitely think this is a topic worth pursuing. I constantly wonder how these shows are still on! There are so many, I don't even know the difference between them. I think it has something to do with the crime itself and that we get to put on our "detective shoes" and try our hand at solving a crime--even a fictional one. I think there's some sort of appeal to that. – Christina9 years ago
I feel as though television shows such as Criminal Minds, CSI and NCIS romanticize crime which is already a very attractive element in today's society. Crime shows today add mystery and glamour to situations that would not regularly be attractive in real life. They promote "mean world syndrome". – Hanfanrachxo9 years ago
People are fascinated by the hidden side of our natures. It is always interesting to see what happens when the facade or the polite mask is peeled away. Sometimes it shows the hero underneath or other times shows the sinister aspects of our characters. Sometime it shows we can be both hero and villan. When the good guys always win in the end, it reassures us that the world is a safe place. Maybe in an era when the lines between perpetrators and victims, good guys and bad guys are not so clear, shows that have a clear line between good and evil help us deal with our real life demons. Munjeera – Munjeera9 years ago
Analyze the use of LGBT stereotypes in TV, asking whether they serve to help the LGBT community by raising awareness, or do more damage by perpetuating stereotypes. Ideas: the "Gay Best Friend", the "Butch" lesbian, etc.
LGBT stereotyping in anime also seems like an interesting topic to tackle. – smarrie9 years ago
Definitely a good one to do. I broached that a little on my site (http://mattdoylemedia.com/2015/09/23/article-bi-visibility-day-2015-and-my-writing/) with regards to Bi Stereotyping.
Popular entertainment has so much power with this I think. Anime/Manga is no different to Western entertainment in that respect. – mattdoylemedia9 years ago
This is a good topic. Just like any other stereotype (i.e. the "dumb blond," "the nerd"), LGTB stereotyping can be overused and make a character seem bland. Having a character be the "gay best friend" may be a good foundation for a character, but the character must be written to have a unique personality, otherwise he or she will just be a bland character that doesn't help raise awareness for the LGTB community. – valiantreader9 years ago
People today aren't watching TV the moment it airs. In the early days of TV, people had to sit down and watch TV the moment it aired or else they would have no other chance to see it. Today, we are watching TV on Netflix and online when it is convenient for us to watch. How is this changing the way we consume TV? Is this making the TV industry weaker and will it slowly die out like past mediums (radio, newspaper, etc.)?
It is in a sense making TV weaker, because honestly, I watched about four episodes of The Flash, but when I heard it was going to be on Netflix I stopped watching it and now that it's currently on Netflix I'm honestly just going to binge watch it. I think that's how it's going downhill. A lot of consumers probably do that, unless the show is the best show you've ever seen, it's better to just wait till you watch it online. Shows like Rick and Morty, you can only watch on Adult Swim, you can barely find it online, except on the website, so it's harder to say with R&M because I watched that faithfully on screen. You can basically find every show online now, not even with a streaming service, the minute it airs and even sometimes before it's on the internet for you, so it's an interesting generation we have here. – scoleman9 years ago
The format of TV series is likely not to die out, just the way the business and marketing strategies currently run. With more and more shows being produced by Amazon and Netflix strictly for their exclusive online markets, and plenty of shows like Doctor Who, Steven Universe, Star Wars Rebels, and any number of others releasing their new episodes on Itunes a day to a few days after they first air: plenty of people, including myself, have less of a reason to watch an episodes premiere on cable television, and would rather wait to at least watch it when we want to, and be able to own it and download it at the very same time. There's a bit more power and control that way when it comes to my viewing habits. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
While I agree that to some degree it is making TV weaker, it's definitely expanding the variety of television shows available. However, I feel like there's a collective knowledge impact that would probably be lost in this new era where everything is available instantly and nothing is delivered. For example, everybody knew what Twin Peaks by the time it finished it's first season in the early 90s and the television show Beverly Hills 90210 was zeitgeist to the 90s decade, albeit the final season did end in 2000. I like the idea where the reign of television is questioned and as to whether or not it would fade away, but would it be possible that for it to just morph into an amalgam medium that retains its former structure but just presents itself without a cable/channel service provider? – tvguyd9 years ago
Over the last few decades, television has seen a rise in antiheroes as the main characters. Whether it be Tony Soprano in "The Sopranos," Walter White in "Breaking Bad," or Nucky Thompson in "Boardwalk Empire," it appears that many of the most talked-about television series star protagonists whom the audience could find just as repulsive as they are relatable. Are a character's flaws the measure of how relatable he/she will be to the viewer?
Ooo this is interesting. I would also like to consider gender here--especially because all the characters you specifically listed are men. Are female anti-heroes different than men? How do expectations of the audience play into gender (i.e., is it more acceptable for men to behave "repulsively")? – cray03099 years ago
OBAMA PRESIDENT ATTACK TODAY AND ADMIT IN HOSPITAL CNN NEWS REPORT BY http://ADVANCE.PK
– tazatareen9 years ago
Analyze the various trends and features of cult culture, such as music, tv and film.
Talking about the different types of the definition of "cult" could work as well, cult TV shows from the 2000's were something that was a huge hit. Freak and Geeks and Twin Peaks are considered cult classics, Daria is as well. Why are TV show considered a cult classic or a cult TV series? What makes them that way, and what elements define them as a "cult" classic. – scole9 years ago
I don't think there is a formula. It is about circumstances. – T. Palomino2 years ago
How does Disney potentially teach kids lessons early in life? Sure there are good and bad things in disney movies, but ultimately, isn't it better for kids to understand these things when they are young rather than having to go through the harsh reality later in life?
I saw you guys speaking about exploring this topic further, based on what I had written in my article. So I'm very flattered that it inspired you to look into it more. Although, I thought you wanted to write an article about this yourself, not offer it up as a topic for someone else to cover? Also, I think the description you've written here doesn't quite remove itself enough from my article, in that it asks basically the same sort of question I asked, and sets the potential writer up for the very same answers and content. It might be more fitting to approach further exploration of this idea by asking people, "In what ways can Disney films, and other animated movies for children, be used to actively teach lessons and morals, rather than just appreciating them as entertainment?" This gives a more specific and different intention for a "sequel" article than what could result in a rehash. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Be careful with this topic as a similar article has already been written on it! It was my first one actually haha, comparing Disney and Chaplin. It was quite a long time ago, true, but if you could explore the more 'parenting' side and differ from it, that would be better for The Artifice! – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
If this topic has been done already. Perhaps you could branch out into stories in general? Or moral based stories? Or even silly things we tell children about the boogie man.
– Tatijana9 years ago
I want to know more about this topic because I wonder if it the right thing or not. I haven't watched disney channel in a while, but when I see it nowadays, the topics are about dating and other teenage topics that I wonder is good or not for young children who are watching. – sidneylee9 years ago
A different angle for this topic might be the parenting styles represented in Disney movies. For example: Cinderella's stepmother Lady Tremaine is authoritarian and abusive. Ariel's father King Triton is not purposely abusive but definitely authoritarian. Jasmine's dad doesn't really "parent" her since she's an older teen, but he definitely has shades of the permissive parent. Tiana's parents are authoritative but attentive, as are Mulan's. How does each style influence what a character does and how he/she gets along in the world? What do kids learn, good or bad, from watching these parents? Can parents learn anything from them? – Stephanie M.8 years ago
Examine the rise in live televised productions of musicals and their popularity. NBC's "The Wiz Live!", "Peter Pan Live!", and Fox's "Grease: Live" have all aired within the past year and a half. Are these broadcasts marketing ploys, artistic revivals of treasured classics, or simply a chance for those who live far away from the glamour of Broadway to enjoy the live musical experience without breaking the bank?
I would be interested in someone commenting on the play experience v.s. the TV experience. A play is more than something live, it is a performance that effects the audience differently than a recorded production immensely. – LaRose9 years ago
What criteria should be used to rank Avengers movies? What ranking would the Avengers movies have? I think 1-10 with 10 being the highest would be a easy reference for ranking. I would love to see what people have ranked already and a discussion for what really makes a great Avengers movie. If this could be timed to be written around the time Civil War is released even better. I found Age of Ultron derivative but know some people loved it. I think originality, the origins story and the villain are key to great conflict and rising tension. Character development, such as in Ironman, also adds flavor. Another often forgotten criteria is the supporting actors. Hope this helps. – Munjeera 6 hours ago
I think 1-10 with 10 being the highest would be a easy reference for ranking. I would love to see what people have ranked already and a discussion for what really makes a great Avengers movie. If this could be timed to be written around the time Civil War is released even better. I found Age of Ultron derivative but know some people loved it. I think originality, the origins story and the villain are key to great conflict and rising tension. Character development, such as in Ironman, also adds flavor. Another often forgotten criteria is the supporting actors. Hope this helps. – Munjeera9 years ago
Looking back to cartoons and animated series as an adult can be nostalgic, but it can often make you blush as a passing line of dialogue catches your attention. Animation studios are able to get away with double entendres and subtle adult humor since they mostly work with adult voice actors, and children aren't involved until they consume the product. Is adult humor acceptable in youth programming if the children don't get it? Is it a good way to snag the attention (and viewership) of adults? Or is it wrong to potentially expose kids to more mature themes and subjects? I suggest looking to SpongeBob SquarePants (pre-2002) as well as the Animaniacs, a cartoon that often tested its censors, and Ren & Stimpy, a cartoon that was rehashed for kids as some examples of adult humor in cartoons/kid's shows.
If it's mostly expressed in dialogue, or in a way that children would never get unless they had context, then I think it's a clever thing to include for the adults who are also watching. It allows a show to grow and mature with you (in a juvenile way you could say). Although it's also better if the show is well written in a way that adults can appreciate on a critical level. For me personally, this kind of humor makes a lot of old shows I used to watch more entertaining because they can sometimes get a tad risque. Animaniacs was the king of this concept. Besides which, if any kid already does have context for certain dirty jokes, then letting them hear that joke wouldn't necessarily adversely affect them, because they already know what the joke means. Adult jokes can't teach kids anything outright if they're hidden intentionally to only resonate with adults who get the references. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I think of it as a courtesy honestly. You grow up watching these shows for one reason, and when you grow up, you can watch the same exact program because you then discover new things to love. I don't think there's anything inherently bad about double entendres in children's programming since there are just as many shows out there without them. If a parent was worried about hidden meanings, they can always watch Sprout or Nick Jr. – moonkid9 years ago
As long as the dialogue is not too confusing for the children, then I think it's alright to add subtle adult jokes into youth programming. Children television series are usually watched with adults (whether it's a parent, relative, or guardian), so the creators like to make humour that can cater to both audiences as long as it fits. I think this happens more with programming catered to middle schoolers though, since I can't recall any double entendres in pre school. – YsabelGo9 years ago
I've actually had this conversation with my dad, and he told me the only reason he could stand me watching Toy Story almost every day of my child life was because of the more adult content in the dialogue. The way I see it, the dialogue we see like that was specifically designed to appease adults, because if they have to sit through a childish movie about toys, they might as well get a few laughs out of it. – brady6729 years ago
Going to the movies was once a family experience--newsreel for adults, a 7-minute cartoon for kids, and a feature for everyone. Animators like the Fleischer Brothers and Tex Avery tried to keep adults in mind in the 1930s (and '40s and '50s for Avery) when making the cartoons that distributors marketed to kids. – drchrisp9 years ago
Nickelodeon cartoons, for sure! And Cartoon Network, Cartoon Network, Cartoon Network! – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
I think about this a lot when my children are watching Teen Titans. The name itself suggests it's marketed toward teenagers, but I'm not sure that's true; the creators would know that a younger market would be interested, at least. The humor is also borderline - and it's not the language per se, but much of the physical humor - there is a lot of emphasis on the consistently thwarted romantic relationships (Robin and Beastboy longing for Starfire and Raven, respectively), kissing, butt shots, tongues hanging out and eyes bulging when Raven takes off her cloak; things like this make me a little uncomfortable when my young children are watching. Ultimately it is up to me as the parent to make this judgment call, but it's hard without knowing who they are actually trying to market to. – Katheryn9 years ago
What do readers look for when purchasing a celebrities autobiography? Do readers prefer sentimentalism or heart-felt stories.
Also, what are a celebrities' aim for their autobiography?
It may helpful to compare and contrast the sordid "tell-alls" with more sophisticated, well-regarded autobiographies. Both can include raw, unpleasant material: but what would make one honest and personal, and the other sleaze sensationalism? – Luthien9 years ago
I don't have the expertise to write this essay, but I would love to read it once it is written. Why DO people read celebrity biographies? – sophiacatherine9 years ago
I think I can answer your question Sophia. To participate in the exciting lives of celebrities and live through them. – Munjeera8 years ago
Personal reasons, different motives. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" is full of colorful language and symbols, so it would be interesting to have a critical analysis of the song's many themes and symbols using a structural approach.
This is an interesting idea but I think it is too broad. What kind of specific questions would you raise about the song, other than what themes and symbols it has? Also, I think you mean "structuralist" analysis, not "structuralistic" (if you're referring to the literary theory of structuralism). – Christina9 years ago
Indeed, that was a typo and has been corrected. The idea of the article would be to analyze the lyrics without leaning toward any other theory, such as psychoanalysis or lesbian/gay criticism. While those ideas may be found within (indeed, they have been used before), I would like the meaning of the lyrics to be tested without the bias of other literary theories. – scmblack9 years ago
Has anyone ever felt old when you speak of a show that a younger generation knows nothing about? We can all think of some but one that does not fit that category is The Muppets. They appeal to young viewers as well as mature audiences from appearing on "Sesame Street" in the 1960s to their new show "The Muppets" on ABC. Jim Henson created The Muppets in 1955 and 60 years later it is still as popular as ever. What is it that makes The Muppets so appealing to all audiences and in different but appropriate ways? Is there a science to it? Can any show do it?
Look into why movie goers can actively disregard "scientific problems" in films such as Star Trek and Star Wars, but grow exceedingly less forgiving during films like "Gravity", "Interstellar", and most recently "The Martian".
"Star Wars" is gritty and more honest with it's depiction of an "aged" and "well-used" future, or past, compared to other earlier depictions of space. However, at its heart, it is entirely a fantasy set in a technological environment.
"Star Trek," on the other hand, wants to be more believable with it's well-researched details based in scientific fact (or at least it used to be), nevertheless it has always been too far beyond our modern limitations to really bother taking issue with anything it gets wrong. It's too perfect, too streamlined, too clean. Barely anyone ever has to wear a space suit, and only if they need to do outside repairs, which isn't often. All of the other films try to handle space in a more gut-wrenching, tension-filled, anxious, terrifying, and life-changing way. Their space craft are based directly on current designs and understandings with regards to cost and efficiency. And artificial gravity in space still requires rotational inertia to work (eg. The Hermes from "The Martian, and The Endurance from "Interstellar"). The stakes are high. Death is a very real possibility. If you aren't smart and clever enough you could lose all your air, fly out the hull and into the void, burn your skin off, lose a limb. And there are no warp cores, phasers, or photon torpedoes to save you. So if the script for these films takes a short-cut, or doesn't portray something accurately, then it looks like a cheat. Whereas "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" can get away with such a cheat, because their narrative drama does not hinge on the scientific accuracy of the details and numbers, and whether or not somebody can patch up a breach in the hull with duct-tape, or find out how to swing around a planet just right to get back to Earth faster while conserving the most fuel. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I love this idea. I think as we drift closer to becoming more technologically advanced, as we discover more about space, society is becoming more fearful of the future therefore films like Gravity and Interstellar are less favored by the audience. I am interested to see where someone takes this! – emilyinmannyc9 years ago
Girls from all around the world having been playing dress up since they were a little girls. Make up has played a huge role in women's lives to express themselves. Is this self expression viewed as a form of art or a way to hide flaws? One could argue women are faking the way they truly look when, in reality, it is another form of art that can be studied.
Well, using makeup to enhance physical attraction and seeing makeup as art are two very different topics. You could look at it psychologically, as a form of behavior to be studied, because it's not a question when it comes to art; Makeup can be and is art. https://www.facebook.com/sosenka.official This is a link to the artist Sosenka, who is also a female and uses makeup for her profession. – Slaidey9 years ago
You could probably also incorporate body painting/body art into this conversation about makeup as art. Both forms are using the body as a canvas. – Marcie Waters9 years ago
from my point of view, ladies want to hide flaws and look more attractive for men. women like to be the center of attention especially for men. they learn make up art not because it is a art, because they can use it for their aims. human beings are crazy about beauty and integrity. most of the people do not see beauty in deep skin so ladies have found a solution for this weak point.
– Elahe Almasi9 years ago
If you're going to look at it from a psychological perspective, one thing to consider would be "how does using makeup at a young age affect a little girl mentally"? Girls are pressured from a young age to be and look perfect, and it's only human nature to judge each other based on looks. Another aspect to think about would be "how does everyone else's perspective on makeup affect the little girl"? What would the societal pressures on her be? What about the opinions of her sisters and/or her mother (hypothetically speaking)? What is the media saying? There are many factors which can be considered when it comes to such a subject. And then there are the girls who do see makeup as a creative expression, an art form. How does society treat them? Are they denoted for their use of makeup? Are they celebrated for their creativity? How do they differ from the girls using CoverGirl to cover up "flaws"? The creative girls are naturally more outgoing because they have the confidence to wear bold colors. While the girls covering up their so-called "imperfections" are naturally more inwardly drawn. Is this the fault of the makeup? Or just the way they are as people? Finally, why do girls think they are "flawed" in the first place? That would be the root of the problem, which, of course, could loop back to societal pressures and predetermined standards set upon women in the first place. Just a thought; I hope it helps! – Megan Finsel9 years ago
For the author of this article, be sure to read this, another article about makeup on The Artifice, and make sure there's not too much overlap: https://the-artifice.com/the-feminist-makeup-culture-reconsidering-cosmetics/ – MichelleAjodah9 years ago
Explore the role of the "disability con" in films like The Usual Suspects, The Score, and The Ex. The disability con consists of a character feigning disability in order to appear harmless or pitiable. This is an example of what David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder call "narrative prosthesis." What is the effect of characters faking disabilities? How do these films alter the way we view disability? Are these portrayals harmful, helpful, or neutral?
Oh, interesting topic! I wonder, would "There's Something About Mary" fit into this trope, too? – cray03099 years ago
Yes, There's Something About Mary is another good example of the disability con, as is Arrested Development: Maggie Lizer first fakes blindness and then pregnancy to manipulate others. – JLaurenceCohen9 years ago