Is Gaga unappreciative of the role of business in the art industry?

[Supersonic 49,376]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

How so??? She had less creative control before and ill be honest, I liked her old work better!

You said it yourself. You only like her old work and she would rather be dead than go back to her old ways. Seems like you're just incompatible.

[Aga Gydal 3,158]

I dunno, I think certain fans think that if Gaga isn't sitting at the top of the proverbial heap then she's failing or that she doesn't care about "the business," and I think that's a really archaic (and frankly naive) opinion. Fact: Lady Gaga is very much a brand, and a very meticulous one. Yeah she makes music that inspires her, that isn't necessarily on trend, but that's her ****ing brand. She has always intentionally been the oddball pop act who's sort of in her own lane. She'll strike gold sometimes, and sometimes won't. 

Joanne is a very honest piece of work for her, but it's also a deliberate business opportunity. She's reframing her image and that's very much a business thing. She's trying to shift from enigmatic provocateur and into a singer-songwriter industry force. The former burns out when you abuse it and the latter can sustain her, move her toward critical acclaim, and give her a platform to make more substantial music that can be appreciated. It's a slow burn, but it seems to be working and she's set the bar for her next album to hit harder. 

For example, Beyonce's Lemonade couldn't have been possible after I Am Sasha Fierce. It took 4 to convince the masses that Beyonce was a pure talent, and it took Self-Titled to convince the masses that she had an interesting perspective. Gaga's on a similar journey I think so we've yet to see her truly hit her stride. But my point is that Gaga is very much appreciative of the business side of things, and is very aware of what's best for her brand and image moving forward. I see that awareness in every single interview she gives.

[Karandr 150]

It's a really interesting perspective you've presented. I think it's very observant - and it does make sense given Gaga's experiences.

I feel like this is a very unpopular viewpoint, but art is not sacred, art is not above reproach or evaluation or critique. There is a reason that Yayoi Kusama has international exhibitions but your cousin who does amazing pencil portraits doesn't. The art that is often the most successful (in terms of reception) is that which pushes boundaries, which asks questions, presents new ideas and concepts, or subverts expectations. 

When you factor in that Gaga is a recording artist, a pop artist with albums to sell and contracts to fulfil, it becomes even more competitive. If Joanne came out and it was hot trash (I mean music that is objectively badly written, recorded, produced) I would really love to see how many people would defend it under the banner of "it's her art, she can do what she wants". Of course she can, but that's not always the smartest thing to do in terms of business, and we know Gaga is a smart person. 

It's like there's a restaurant you've been going to for years and you love their food. Recently, though, the head chef has been trying new dishes and recipes - some of them have been great but others not so nice. If majority of the menu changed to dishes that the original clientele of the restaurant didn't like, and if that restaurant proceeded to then not have the same success as before - sure, the chef could keep doing their thing and cooking whatever they want, but at the end of the day people will vote with their feet. Feedback is important for every creative. Artistic integrity is a wonderful virtue, but unwavering virtuosity is for saints. 

TL;DR: if you want to produce work solely for yourself, that's great for freedom of expression but you may find your audience and success dwindles if you lose sight of the core spark that made you successful in the first place. 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

49 minutes ago, T E Anne said:

i need something sacred from you
together we'll both find a way
to make a pure love work in a dirty way  

 

[VenusBlackStar 1,301]

6 hours ago, HighwayUnicorne said:

I think that making art just because you want it's recognition is not really making art.

Nah gurrl if you're "making" art then you're still making art. Doing for no particular reason other than wanting recognition is just a loose definition of Aestheticism.

[RonnieGagz 4,300]

7 minutes ago, VenusBlackStar said:

Nah gurrl if you're "making" art then you're still making art. Doing for no particular reason other than wanting recognition is just a loose definition of Aestheticism.

Well, that's your opinion and it's fine. But for me, doing art only for money and fame don't sound authentic.

[NIghtmareElm 2,606]

Gaga should stop surrounding herself with yes people. 

[Katie14 4,828]

51 minutes ago, HighwayUnicorne said:

Well, that's your opinion and it's fine. But for me, doing art only for money and fame don't sound authentic.

I don't think art has to be authentic to be art. I consider advertising to be art, and thats done for a specific business purpose. 

[RonnieGagz 4,300]

1 minute ago, Katie14 said:

I don't think art has to be authentic to be art. I consider advertising to be art, and thats done for a specific business purpose. 

Art is a way for the human to interact with his feelings, it's a lot more complicated and don't aways involve advertising.

[Katie14 4,828]

9 minutes ago, HighwayUnicorne said:

Art is a way for the human to interact with his feelings, it's a lot more complicated and don't aways involve advertising.

Im not saying the only type of art is advertising.

[RonnieGagz 4,300]

Just now, Katie14 said:

Im not saying the only type of art is advertising.

Sorry if I understood wrong. I just beleive that if an artist isn't good with his work, it can't be considered a honest art.

[RonnieGagz 4,300]

Just now, HighwayUnicorne said:

Sorry if I understood wrong. I just believe that if an artist isn't good with his work, it can't be considered a honest art.

 

[Zombie 1,218]

7 hours ago, M Monstre said:

Art is subjective. Creativity is subjective. All of the things that make up art are subjective and overall revolve around the creativity of the artist. The business aspect ruins that to some extent. I completely understand and agree with what Gaga has said in the past about how business can stifle a musician's creativity.

Let's also remember, art is made so that the artist can enjoy their art. They love art because they love to make art. And, when I say "artist", I'm talking about the musician, the poet, the painter, the sculptor, etc. etc. Art isn't and shouldn't be made to please somebody, in my opinion. Then again, like I said, art is subjective, and it's completely reliant on the artist, so if the artist believes they need to create art to please and garner more people, then that's on them; I just don't agree with that sentiment.

The reason why Gaga became as big as she was was because of her art and creativity. Yes, there were people who were similar to her in the past; however, she herself has revolutionized the music industry and popular culture. 

 

She dont have the full package like Beyoncé who can be artsy fartsy and mainstream twerking pretty face hot body pop star