Topics

A cursory glance at the names of contributors to The Artifice shows that many of us choose nom de plumes (pen names). My own pen name is a variant spelling of a character's name from an Agatha Christie novel, whilst other contributors have chosen pen names that either reflect their interests, their sense of humour or they serve as a personal statement. There are many reasons to use pen names. Some may be for political or cultural reasons. George Eliot (1819-1880), for example, was writing at a time when it was difficult for a female writer to be accepted simply as a writer and not be judged by her sex. Conversely, I recently met a male writer who writes romantic fiction under a female nom de plume; and very successfully too. Discuss how the invention of a 'literary double' might empower the writer and, just as importantly, have our nom de plumes become characters in their own right?

Recently I have witnessed an increase in the number of memes which feature nihilistic or dark humour themes. These memes seem to resonate especially well with people between the age of 20-27 years old (as of 2019). Is there a socio-cultural element which has resulted in the increased popularity of such content?

Explore the idea of apathy when it comes to engaging with certain TV series. This was something I particularly felt with the recent third season of Jessica Jones, a show I was only still watching out of a sense of loyalty and completion, having worked through the previous two seasons.

Do we now remain tethered too long to TV shows we otherwise would have apathetically abandoned due to a feeling of commitment? If we travel so far with a show, should we stick with it, come what may? Or if a show just isn't working or has lost its way, should we be prepared to abandon ship even close to the end, forsaking the cathartic feeling of completing a journey with a TV series?

If one does not read extensively before starting to write, one runs the risk of doing what has already been done. What one might think is original might not be original at all (although there is nothing wrong with a new treatment of an old topic, as long as one is aware of this). Many of our basic story lines go back hundreds or even thousands of years (to the Greeks). One can also learn much about writing fiction by reading a lot of it. However, it is difficult to read all of the important fiction of one country, not to mention the literature of all the world's nations. How much fiction, then, should one read before embarking on doing it oneself?

A teen movie has to be one of the easiest go-to scripts to write. Whether it is about high school or finishing high school, there will always be the elements of love, family and finding yourself along the way (if you're really lucky *cue wink face at the camera*). But there are some that aren't just merely entertaining to watch and actually touch on original topics or come to original conclusions when faced with a typical 'teen' issue. For me, the ones that instantly came to mind are the Perks of Being a Wallflower and Clueless. What are some more? And what are some that don't fit this topic and why?

The recent film Ophelia (2018), starring Daisy Ridley, and the crowdfunded video game Elsinore (2019) marks the latest in an increasingly popular trend of adapting Hamlet by shifting its focus from its conflicted titular character to his doomed lady love. While adaptations focusing on supporting or minor characters in Hamlet are by no means uncommon (with Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead as the most notable example), the focus on Ophelia in particular is something new. Ask: why the especial focus on Ophelia, ever-popular in art, as a protagonist? What about Ophelia made it universally panned while Elsinore has been almost universally praised? Which version offers a more compelling take on the character and the story of Hamlet?

The furor over the series finale of Game of Thrones is only the latest iteration of the phenomenon of long-running television series that unsettle, disappoint, or even enrage a show's devotees. What did such programming as M*A*S*H or Downton Abbey do right that other popular shows like The Sopranos or Game of Thrones fail to accomplish in order to satisfy their audiences?

Though the general popularity of professional wrestling might not be the same as in the Golden age or in Attitude era, professional wrestling is still alive. When Cody Rhodes and Young Bucks organized the independent wrestling event "All In", the tickets were sold out in 30 minutes(they sold about 11000 tickets), which led to the foundation of All Elite Wrestling(AEW). AEW's first Pay-Per-View event Double or Nothing was another sold out show(also sold out under 30 minutes), and their August event All Out(sequel to All In) sold out in 15 minutes. This event is planned to be held at the same arena for All In, so that would be another 10000 tickets sold out within 15 minutes. So the interest in professional wrestling was not dead.

As of 2019, there are various professional wrestling promotions with different styles. New Japan Pro Wrestling presents their show to be more sports-like or, to some fans, manga-like style. Progress Wrestling in Britain promotes themselves as British strong style wrestling( punk rock), or wrestling for grown ups. Pro Wrestling Eve, women's wrestling company in Britain, presents themselves as feminist punk-rock promotion. DDT wrestling in Japan is well known for their often comedic style of wrestling. And there are many, many more promotions. Each wrestling company specializes in different flavor of wrestling, presenting more variety than before.

It would be interesting to see how the professional wrestling industry transformed over the past 20 years. What triggered this changes? How did the companies grow? What were the challenges? How do they differ from WWE? And how would this history similar or different from different art forms such as comics?

Scientists have spent a lot of time shaping films concerned with space flight in science fiction. NASA spent a lot of time advising the producers of the 2015 film Martian. Kip Thorne, a theoretical physicist, shaped Nolan's Interstellar (2014) to make it an accurate depiction of time dilation consistent with Einstein's Special Relativity. Kevin Grazier, a planetary physicist who worked on the Cassini/Huygens Mission to Saturn and Titan, also advised the producers of the 2013 film Gravity. How have the interactions between scientists and filmmakers shaped the depiction of space travel in science fictions films on different occasions?

What exactly is the definition of freedom of speech and at what point is it considered offensive? We all are passionate about one thing or another and have the free will to act upon it by saying what we believe in. So what if your point doesn't bode well with someone else's? To what extent can you express your opinion about a particular belief, topic or idea without causing an outrage, violence or backlash for holding your opinion?

What stands out to you about a movie that will most likely make it a memorable experience? Is it the score, characters, dialog, camera shots, etc? What are some of your favorite movies and why do they stand out? Example: "The Shawshank Redemption" is regarded as one of the greatest movies of all time, but why do you personal think it is (or isn't)?

Fanart of cosmic horror novels and short stories, particularly those by H.P. Lovecraft, comes in many forms. Some of these artists attempt to capture the otherworldliness and terror inspired by the monsters found in cosmic horror, whereas others try to make them seem cute and inviting. Some of these art projects stand alone, whereas others are part of storybooks and games, like the "C is for Cthulhu" series or the board game "Cthulhu in the House". How did we get so much fanart of this genre, and how has it evolved over time? Is anything lost by trying to render cosmic horror creatures (which are supposed to look unnatural and inexplicable to us) visually?

Threads (1984) depicts a small town in England, grappling with the ramifications of a nuclear war breaking out. The movie is full of raw footage of human suffering and is said to have left audiences numb in horror. So much so that audiences of its initial release reported: "that people had just sat there thinking about it, in many cases not sleeping or being able to talk." Ronald Reagan, the president of the United States at the time, was said to have watched the film as did many British politicians. Given the research done to make the film as close of a depiction of a real nuclear exchange, how did this and other depictions of nuclear war – like The Day After (1983) – shape the public's view of mutually assured destruction (M.A.D. theory) as a military strategy, if at all?

BoJack Horseman is a well known Netflix show that gained a lot of popularity. I think many people know it for sure. I am thinking of doing character analysis about some characters in this show for my first try for an article. So, I have some occurring thoughts about it.

The main character in the series is BoJack. He is a very complicated personality that has psychological issues, hidden and unspoken traumas. However, he is also a horse, not a human. That is a really important point – the character represents the human trauma and human personality traits but has a form of an animal. Since I am interested in Animal Studies, this occurs to be a very significant point from a psychological point of view. The viewers can identify with BoJack, however, a certain distance will still remain between the character and viewers because of the character's physical appearance. BoJack feels like a human suffers like a human, but yet is not the same as a human. Because of this reason, viewers that have similar problems to BoJack's can identify with him better than with a human character experiencing the same problems – the "psychological distance" makes BoJack like an imaginary friend of every viewer having traumatic experiences. BoJack becomes like a symbolical figure of human trauma but he still has horse traits and horse behaviour stereotypes. Actually, these traits are much harder to be than for example in other characters like Princess Carolyn or Mr.Peanutbutter.
Basically, while analysing BoJack's personality, there are many paths to do it.BoJack's personality can be viewed from the angle of Animal studies, from psychology (I think Carl Jung's psychology is the best here) or simple analysis of his changes during the seasons.
I gotta point out, I am a big fan of Princess Carolyn as well. Her character is not the main, however, it is well developed. We can see many references of cat stereotypes in her behaviour and also we can see her well-developed personality, facing other challenges and problems than BoJack. Actually, in one of the first episodes, we see a very clear reference of A.Kamiu philosophy in her character.
Overall, BoJack is a pretty good show with some truly well-developed characters worth speaking more of.

The Room, an American romance film directed by Tommy Wiseau has been labeled one of the worst films in history. And yet, the film has a cult following and is watched from the view of what some call Camp, a taste towards terrible cinema. What can one make of the viewing experience of those who enjoy a film that is reviewed by critics and audiences as terrible? What does this tell us about how people watch and enjoy a film?

Video Gaming technology has passed a threshold – from arcade-style entertainment to virtual realism. As such, games have become an increasingly literary, story-driven experience. What future might Video Games have as educational devices in the literature classrooms of tomorrow? Could the teachers of today legitimately present works of gaming literature in the classroom for students to explore and analyze?

It's widely accepted that people who create or find something, whether a painting, a computer, a car, a book, a scientific discovery, etc. should receive credit for it. Yet in the online world, this seems to only go so far for artists, specifically illustrators and animators.

The internet and social media sites are rife with people posting art without crediting the artists. Many try justifying this by stating that "people can look up the art themselves" or they're giving the artists "exposure." None of these hold water, as it's been proven that most people do not go out of their way to search the artists. Exposure doesn't mean anything if people don't know who the artist is, let alone care enough to find them. It also certainly doesn't mean anything to the landlords whom artists must pay their rents to.

If a scientist published an academic paper online, and say, a college student plagiarized it and tried to pass it off as their own, I doubt many would oppose that student being punished and ridiculed for doing so. Yet if an artist protests a person for reposting their art without crediting them, that artist is labeled as "sensitive" or "greedy".

I find this double standard to tie into inherent laziness in internet users, but also a possible broader sense of people not seeing art, particularly illustration, as a legitimate profession. There are millions of artists all over the world who make a living off their art; the foundation of Hollywood is based on this (as well as nepotism and debatably cyclical abuse, but that's another discussion) yet trying to enter an art industry can be met with mockery. Many people only see the final product, and not the hours and hours of work that go into artistry, whether it's music, animation, painting, sculpting, or illustration. They assume it's effortless and that artists only do it as a hobby, not for income.

Why do you think this societal stigma is so prevalent, especially in this era where digital media is so widespread and exposes more people to more artforms than ever before? What about art carries such certain connotations that separate it from other fields and professions? How do you think this could change?

Recently the DWANGO corporation (Japan) made a presentation to Hayao Miyazaki (co-founder of the Studio Ghibli anime house) to demonstrate its 'Deep Learning' programme, created to teach A.I. how to "draw like humans do," (Nobuo Kawakami, Chairman). The result was a hideous zombie like creature that propelled itself across the screen, using its head like a leg. "It looks like it's dancing," Kawakami joked. Miyazaki was disgusted, pointing out that an A.I. has no concept of pain and human suffering: "I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself".

Discuss whether the 'creative' output of what will eventually become autonomous A.I. will ever be able to match the natural creative drive of humans. Or will it forever merely mimic its creators? Could A.I. ever 'evolve' to the point at which it feels the subtle touch of the muse? After all, it is, quite often, those small imperfections in human creative expression that make art (in all its forms) unique and sensitive.

The recent movie The Big Short, based on a book by the same name, features a number of high ranking actors and received positive reviews. And yet the movie, like Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps and The Wolf of Wall Street spend a lot of time focused on the finance industry and the recent financial crisis. Do films like this inform us for the better or leave us with a sense of dizziness and circularity, that history can and will repeat itself again?

Despite its innovations and endless creativity, animation has and continues to be dismissed by general audiences as only suitable for children in the U.S. While there are many historical and industry reasons for this, animation has proven itself to be a legitimate medium just as any other, whether in the U.S, France, Japan, and through other platforms such as Newgrounds and YouTube.

Companies such as Netflix and Sony Pictures have shown to be investing heavily in animation and trying to globalize productions and creative voices in the medium, with Spider-Verse being the most recent example. Even Japan has recently been recruiting more foreigner animators, and South Korea and China are starting to prop up their own animation industries.

On the other side, you have Disney live-action remakes/retellings which may be perpetuating the notion that animation is inferior to live action. General audiences, especially adults, can often be insecure about watching cartoons, and seeing them as live action seems to deliver the idea that realism makes these stories more mature.

How do you think animation will be perceived in the future in the U.S? Do you believe the perception will even change at all? If so or not, how?