Arts

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?

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.

Post-Modern ideas have been spreading since the 1960s when the birth control pill came out and liberated women. Since then, we've seen a rise in claims of a Patriarchal society as well as the increasingly casual nature of sex. This article could investigate media representations that seem to purposefully place women in a position of power over men (ie short dialogue lines, Dinsey Channel characters, commercials). Comment on the nature of Post-Modernism. While Post-Modernism has helped advance females in society and has created new questions about meaning in the wake of "the death of God", as Friedrich Nietzche put it, has Post-Modernism lead us to an age of hypocrisy? Anti-Social social media, diversity that is divisive, and affirmative action that results in lack of merit. Investigate current thinkers on the matter.

A significant portion of contemporary internet memes seem to trivialize and wish for death, often to the concerned bewilderment of older generations. Is using memes to discus death a new exercise, or are memes simply a the most recent in a long tradition of staving off the Grim Reaper with humor? Look at representations of Death in various cultures' art and performance theater as a humorous or benign force or figure (memento mori paintings, the Grim Reaper, Beetlejuice, etc.) and compare them to modern memes which focus on death and dying.

Media is always being adapted into other forms. Books to movies, movies to games, games to movies, and a plethora of other combinations. When this adaptation occurs, those who have seen the previous media go into the new form with a preconceived set of expectations, and a past knowledge of the storyline which is not always what is given in the second form of media. Take Guardians of the Galaxy 2, for example, and the multitude of changes noted around the internet that occurred to the aesthetic of the movie, as well as the story. Or the recent ending of Game of Thrones, where the last few seasons were completed before the book series, leaving a big grey area as to whether or not the author will follow the storyline of the show or take the novel in a wholly different direction. Are these changes within the adaptation good? Are they necessary? As well, for those who have seen the previous medium does this change provide a new experience to the original?

Analyze the ways in which sexual expression has evolved with the Playboy publications. How has the content of the magazines shaped the critique of sexuality, for example, raising youth to believe nudity as something to be ashamed of. Give your take on how Playboy has helped influence the revolution in sex and sexuality. Use established authors, artists and models of the magazine to highlight Playboy as a tool towards progression to debunk the scrutiny of nudity.

Take a deep dive into the hive mind of galleries influence, art exchange, reproductions, and the notion that art… has value outside of the original artists intent.