Too much artistic freedom?

[Head Empty 25,196]

I've been watching a lot of interviews with both Gaga as well as other artists lately, among which these Gaga documentaries about each individual era. When listening to Gaga's words about her distaste for the corporate world, I started thinking about how unique Gaga's position in that industry is. 

Gaga has taken creative freedom to a much higher level than a lot of her peers. Every single appearance of hers has unique sets, props, looks and sometimes entire art installations that are specifically created for a single occasion. Think about how much time, work and money her team and her management have to invest into organizing those things every time. She can change her entire esthetic, and she has an entire team that will back her up to make it happen. What that means is that, even though Gaga has spoken a lot about being controlled by commerce, when you look at it from a distance you'll realize that she already achieved an amount of artistic freedom and diversity that many other established artists could only dream of - both in past and present. 

Gaga argues that this is a good thing, and that more creative freedom will benifit her artistry. Being limitless has always been an aspiration for her. My question is; is more artistic freedom really a good thing? Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone to be controlled by others, and I certainly don't want the "popstar mold" to be reinforced. But in my eyes, limits are the things that challenge us to be better, and force us to be creative with the limited resources that we have. By implementing boundaries your core talents start to matter more than ever. And in my opinion, Gaga has been relatively limitless in what she could do over the past few years (I can't stress the word "relatively" enough, because I know she has had a lot of "creative differences").

So what if Gaga was limited more in her work? What would her work be like if she could, for example, only afford a handfull of wigs per year? What if designers stopped sending her clothes for free? Or what if she was only allowed to build one piano that had to last through an entire album era? What if one bad choice in creating something could not be fixed by changing it up the next day? These are just arbitrary examples, and they're all things that would limit her in the possibilities of what she could do, and limit her in the amount of ideas that she could put into the world. But in my eyes it would certainly force her to focus. It would challenge her to filter out the 'o.k.' ideas, and dig deeper to get to the true creative gems. In short; it would become a case of quality over quantity.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with my statements, or do you think that being completely without limits will lead to a better artistry? What limits do you think there should or shouldn't be?

Disclaimer: I'm not arguing about liking or disliking certain work, or whether things achieve commercial succes. I'd just like to start a discussion about creative processes and reflect on the things Gaga has said about this in the past.

[liz89 373]

It sounds like you want to say that artistic freedom (without any limits) is defined by how many things you can afford... and the more you can afford, the more free you are. (I'm referring to the piano, designers etc part). 

I think that's not right tbh. 

Artistic freedom has nothing to do with the amount of things you can buy.. it's something in your mind (the ideas you have etc.) 

[Supersonic 49,376]

Hit thread in 3...2...1...

Also: I think that nowadays with things like Facebook & Twitter where you get flooded with likes people started thinking that their opinions are worth more than a rats ass.

[Blade 5,603]

It sounds like you want to say that artistic freedom (without any limits) is defined by how many things you can afford... and the more you can afford, the more free you are. (I'm referring to the piano, designers etc part). 

I think that's not right tbh. 

Artistic freedom has nothing to do with things you can buy.. it's something in your mind. 

​SLAY MY MIND HUN BUN 

[Tropico 4,145]

Interesting points! And I see where you're coming from. It's kinda like a "Go hard or go home" situation. 

 

While I do see the rewards you're speaking off, I think it'd only work till she fails once. Then the pressure becomes to real to do what will be approved and like by the general public and her management. There'll be this constant mindstate. "If I mess up, I mess up big time. There's no redo's." And that could end up making Gaga really stressed which would put her in a bad place mentally which would affect her craft. The art will be compromised and possibly ruined. I don't want that type of drama for her. 

 

I think all this artistic freedom has made Gaga's career like a beautiful paint pallette. All these different colors and their shades and tones have made Baba's whole career very interesting. Sure, there'll be mess ups, but it onld adds to the beauty of the art. I want her to have as much artistic freedom as possible so she can experiment and be vocal verbally as well as through her visuals. 

 

It's great for her to know she's in control. She said she doesn't like Telephone video much because she wasn't very 'hands-on' with that video. We don't want her to regret so many career moves. 

[Jjang 2,262]

We're all limited due to our physical abilities, but i disagree. I think an artist should create and think limitlessly. However, there's an endless amount of different forms of limits, so its a tricky question. We firstly need to define our own limits in order to break through.

As for Gaga, the majority of her work feels limited to me because for the most part she essentially writes for a vasically structured common pop patterns. I feel like her label, fan base and her own self kept her from executing her own true vision.

 The OP is a bit confusing... artistic freedom is a positive thing & it has nothing to do with how many wigs you buy per year.

[TiphEret 1,320]

What you say is very interesting, I don't kno what to think about it but the way I see it is that Gaga was extremely determined to succeed and I think she wouldn't just take an average success she seemed to need to be a big icon. It seems to me and that's only my opinion that the fame was like a door to fame so she could get a great exposure. But before the fame she was limitated in her artistic freedom financially.

I don't know if she played a role, or if she genuinely was like that at the time but she was clearly open saying she wanted to be famous, that was her point but the next era she made some drastic change when it comes to her aesthetics and music and even references so that was quite a big twist!

and now she is even in another universe so it's very interesting how much she change, how much she explore, in that sense she is free but I think that if she would decide to settle down for something more low key, she would loose some people on the way. Because now she is expected to be this kind of special icon that has different outfit and aesthetic everyday...

I think she has talent anyway and she is creative so even if she didn't have the money (and she didn't at first) she would manage.

[Head Empty 25,196]

It sounds like you want to say that artistic freedom (without any limits) is defined by how much things you can afford... and the more you can afford, the more free you are. I think that's not right tbh. 

Artistic freedom has nothing to do with things you can buy.. it's something in your mind. 

​I'm not necessarily focussing on the money per se, but it cant be denied that it's a big aspect of it. Being backed up creatively/mentally is just as important as being backed up financially when it comes to bringing ideas into practice.

[Quasi 10,935]

I agree that limits can help you focus in on your best and most creative ideas, but what Gaga has shown is that she can be "limitless" within the limits imposed on her (whether it be financial, or industry limits etc). I think that really shows her creativity, so I have no problem with even more artistic freedom given that what she has already shown us is "limitless" in itself.

[Head Empty 25,196]

The OP is a bit confusing... artistic freedom is a positive thing & it has nothing to do with how many wigs you buy per year.

​This depends on whether you define artistic freedom as something internal or external. Internal freedom is a very positive thing indeed. External freedom in the context of my statements is also positive, but what I'm saying is that practical and/or creative limitations can also cause your creativity to blossom as a means of "fighting against the limits" as it were. Thanks for the post!

[LoveandMagic 1,731]

I love conversations like this! Such depth and many great points of view!

[liz89 373]

​I'm not necessarily focussing on the money per se, but it cant be denied that it's a big aspect of it. Being backed up creatively/mentally is just as important as being backed up financially when it comes to bringing ideas into practice.

​I agree that money can bring your ideas to life. But the ideas always come first and that's why I'm saying that there can never be too much artistic freedom. 

You can be creative even if you don't have a lot of money. In fact many artists (painters, poets etc) don't have lots of money. 

 

[Haroon 49,685]

Wow this is a very interesting way of looking at it, I'd never thought of it this way before  I see what you mean that with a tighter reign people are pushed to squeeze out their absolute best within the realm of possibility  But then why should someone have to be subject to that? I'd rather someone soar around in all directions freely than attempt to soar and hit a glass ceiling  Maybe a compromise medium would be the optimal solution actually, but then I don't really like the idea of compromises in this case, but if it is used as fuel to push someone then maybe it's okay  

[liz89 373]

We're all limited due to our physical abilities, but i disagree. I think an artist should create and think limitlessly. However, there's an endless amount of different forms of limits, so its a tricky question. We firstly need to define our own limits in order to break through.

As for Gaga, the majority of her work feels limited to me because for the most part she essentially writes for a vasically structured common pop patterns. I feel like her label, fan base and her own self kept her from executing her own true vision.

 The OP is a bit confusing... artistic freedom is a positive thing & it has nothing to do with how many wigs you buy per year.

​Exactly. I agree  

That's what I'm trying to say in my previous posts. 

 

[Head Empty 25,196]

​I agree that money can bring your ideas to life. But the ideas always come first and that's why I'm saying that there can never be to much artistic freedom. 

You can be creative even if you don't have a lot of money. In fact a lot of artists (painters, poets etc) don't have lots of money. 

 

True, but I wouldn't necessarily say that ideas always come first. For example: if Gaga hadn't been sent tons of fashion every day, wouldn't she and the Haus be more inclined to create stuff of their own? A limit like that will perhaps stimulate artists to not take the obvious/easy route, but rather find solutions that are more innovative or out-of-the-box.

It works both ways though, so I definitely agree with what Haroon said about finding a good middle ground.