Littlemonsters.com Discussion

[Sister 9,907]

But is it really off her, or are you interpreting everything she says with all the negativity and overreactions on here in mind?

Well, I am not a member on LittleMonsters.com, so it's possibly here. Since I'm not a member on there, I'm not seeing that she is making these posts in response to other little monsters posts, so I don't get the full jest of it.

I was just considering that, that I might step away from this site if Gaga keeps going on in this way. It would be better to just step away and not be a part of this and be a fan from afar. I'd hate to be a part of Gaga's undoing, if that is what is happening. I believe in fate and consequence, cause and effect.

[Jeff Kunst 0]

This isn't exploration. Artists explore through the creation of more art. This is just whining, a ''woe-is-me" attitude. Like, get over it, there are people dealing with much bigger issues than what SHOULD be irrelevant criticism of the work that earns them countless dollars regardless.

 

Yeah but along with the creation of art there's a whole process of thinking about the world around her and her place in it. Themes don't just come out of nowhere. She needs to think through this stuff in order for it to get explored in her artistic output.

 

Everyone here somehow got it in their heads that all she's saying is "woe is me" over and over, but she's actually questioning a prevalent attitude and a whole process that would exist with or without her. It's not all about her and its not at all about dollars, its about questioning the way we collectively interact with art and maybe finding a better way for all involved. And that's totally fine for her to bring up for discussion, except it doesn't work if we all just dump on her for daring to bring it up.

 

It's not something to be "gotten over", its something to be discussed.

Well, I am not a member on LittleMonsters.com, so it's possibly here. Since I'm not a member on there, I'm not seeing that she is making these posts in response to other little monsters posts, so I don't get the full jest of it.

I was just considering that, that I might step away from this site if Gaga keeps going on in this way. It would be better to just step away and not be a part of this and be a fan from afar. I'd hate to be a part of Gaga's undoing, if that is what is happening. I believe in fate and consequence, cause and effect.

 

There's absolutely no reason to think this is her "undoing". At all. People can question things. They can be sad, disappointed, or even depressed. That doesn't mean she's finished, it means she is human.

she's been talking so much about it though. shouldn't she be spending more time focusing on positivity and spreading positivity?

To spread positivity maybe first she has to get people to question their unexamined lusts for negativity. At least, that's part of it.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Jeff Kunst

[monsterdreams 1,529]

i think you should need to know a bit about something to criticize it

so i agree with some part of her statement 

[Brown Eyes 0]

I know right, how dare she be human!

What does that have to do with anything...?

Just because she's been questioning the role of critics and a critical attitude in art recently doesn't mean she's actually obsessed or depressed (or "fragile") about it or anything. She's an artist, artists explore ideas in their work and outside it, and that's the topic she's currently exploring.

Well, why is she only now questioning 'the role of critics'? And not in 2010 when the media and critics dragged Xtina to hell and back and were praising Gaga to the moon? Or when she won her 5 Grammys? Why only now, now that the critics don't like her album and the public isn't buying? Are you sure it's not all about her? Funny coincidence.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Brown Eyes

[Disregard 50]

Yeah but along with the creation of art there's a whole process of thinking about the world around her and her place in it. Themes don't just come out of nowhere. She needs to think through this stuff in order for it to get explored in her artistic output.

 

Everyone here somehow got it in their heads that all she's saying is "woe is me" over and over, but she's actually questioning a prevalent attitude and a whole process that would exist with or without her. It's not all about her and its not at all about dollars, its about questioning the way we collectively interact with art and maybe finding a better way for all involved. And that's totally fine for her to bring up for discussion, except it doesn't work if we all just dump on her for daring to bring it up.

 

She needs to realize that it's a good thing for the majority of people to take enough interest in your output to want to give their opinons. How many people reviewed Bjork's last album in comparison to Gaga's? Is either one more of an artist than the other? Without interest, you're just playing to an empty room. She can make an issue of whatever she wants, but unless she realizes that she's never going to change human nature, she's lost. Ignore the reviews all you want, most artists do, but railing against it is going to have zero effect.

[Jeff Kunst 0]

Why is she only now questioning 'the role of critics' then? And not in 2010 when the media dragged Xtina to hell and back and were praising Gaga to the moon? Or when she won her 5 Grammys? Why only now, now that the critics don't like her album and the public isn't buying? Are you sure it's not all about her? Funny coincidence

 

She has in the past, actually. Maybe not to the same extent.

 

She's speaking from experience of course, but the message she's trying to send goes beyond "woe is me".

[Givewaytopeds 25]

I play the piano and know how to write a song.

 

So for everyone else, are they banned from having an opinion?

[Jeff Kunst 0]

She needs to realize that it's a good thing for the majority of people to take enough interest in your output to want to give their opinons. How many people reviewed Bjork's last album in comparison to Gaga's? Is either one more of an artist than the other? Without interest, you're just playing to an empty room. She can make an issue of whatever she wants, but unless she realizes that she's never going to change human nature, she's lost. Ignore the reviews all you want, most artists do, but railing against it is going to have zero effect.

 

She doesn't need to have an effect on the reviews or critics, though, she can get us (her fans) to discuss and question their role in art. But for that to happen we have to dig a little deeper, like actually reading and pondering what she's saying instead of automatically reducing it to "woe is me", dismissing it, and then going back to wondering when the next music video or weird outfit is going to be.

 

She wants people to pay attention, sure. But I don't think critics do pay attention to her work, really, beyond the most superficial aspects. Most of the reviews I saw of ARTPOP didn't get much beyond (misunderstanding) the title. That's not her fault, that's their lack of standards.

I play the piano and know how to write a song.

 

So for everyone else, are they banned from having an opinion?

 

That's not what she said.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Jeff Kunst

[DIVA 666]

I think she's saying people are free to like and dislike things as they please, but critique isn't all that valid since it comes from the artist and is subjective. It's actually sort of true because can art really be deemed as good or bad, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else? Just because it may not be what one person enjoys, doesn't mean it's not of quality. I guess an artist makes what speaks to them or what they feel they must create, and then they put it out so that someone in the public may take something away from it, learn from it, or even be inspired by it.  The art is for the artist and for whomever it may speak to. 

 

At least that's what I sort of get from it. 

Edited January 12, 2014 by DIVA

[Sister 9,907]

She needs to realize that it's a good thing for the majority of people to take enough interest in your output to want to give their opinons. How many people reviewed Bjork's last album in comparison to Gaga's? Is either one more of an artist than the other? Without interest, you're just playing to an empty room. She can make an issue of whatever she wants, but unless she realizes that she's never going to change human nature, she's lost. Ignore the reviews all you want, most artists do, but railing against it is going to have zero effect.

This is so true and Gaga knows it. She's even mentioned that the worst emotion of all is for someone to show indifference.

If this is a "study" of her "art" and it's "effect", she's going to crash hard at the end of it all and lose even more respect than she has lately.

[Jeff Kunst 0]

This is so true and Gaga knows it. She's even mentioned that the worst emotion of all is for someone to show indifference.

If this is a "study" of her "art" and it's "effect", she's going to crash hard at the end of it all and lose even more respect than she has lately.

 

But most critics, and people in general, are indifferent to her output beyond the most superficial aspects. And they always have been.

 

Like look how many people criticized the cover of Born This Way without stopping to ask what was being communicated there.

[Disregard 50]

She doesn't need to have an effect on the reviews or critics, though, she can get us (her fans) to discuss and question their role in art. But for that to happen we have to dig a little deeper, like actually reading and pondering what she's saying instead of automatically reducing it to "woe is me", dismissing it, and then going back to wondering when the next music video or weird outfit is going to be.

 

She wants people to pay attention, sure. But I don't think critics do pay attention to her work, really, beyond the most superficial aspects. Most of the reviews I saw of ARTPOP didn't get much beyond (misunderstanding) the title. That's not her fault, that's their lack of standards.

 

That's not what she said.

 

The fans already discuss these things ad nauseum. In fact, the opinions of the "true" fans are the only ones that matter according to her on the one hand, then on the other hand it's a dire issue to her when some outsider who doesn't "get her" gives their uninformed opinion.

 

Yes, the critics comment based on purely superficial aspects. Does she really think a cyber tantrum is going to inspire them to dig deeper?

[Jeff Kunst 0]

The fans already discuss these things ad nauseum. In fact, the opinions of the "true" fans are the only ones that matter according to her on the one hand, then on the other hand it's a dire issue to her when some outsider who doesn't "get her" gives their uninformed opinion.

 

Yes, the critics comment based on purely superficial aspects. Does she really think a cyber tantrum is going to inspire them to dig deeper?

 

What makes it a "tantrum"? That's a bunch of outside assumptions people are imposing on everything she says.

 

Like I just said she doesn't have to convince the critics to change, nor is that necessarily her goal at all. Instead, we can change how we think of them and their role in art. We can join in the discussion about that topic. Or we can dismiss it as a tantrum and miss the point.

 

I think this fan-base in general could use some more discussion about this stuff. Especially the concept of subjectivity.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Jeff Kunst

[DIVA 666]

What does that have to do with anything...?

Well, why is she only now questioning 'the role of critics'? And not in 2010 when the media and critics dragged Xtina to hell and back and were praising Gaga to the moon? Or when she won her 5 Grammys? Why only now, now that the critics don't like her album and the public isn't buying? Are you sure it's not all about her? Funny coincidence.

I think she's probably changed a bit since then.  It probably wasn't her focus. 

 

Honestly though, if people are thinking she wasn't criticized then as well, I have no clue where they got that idea.  She's been called a Madonna copycat, a hermaphrodite, ugly, terrible singer since I became a fan in 2009.  I've always been defending her. It's really nothing new.  

[Disregard 50]

What makes it a "tantrum"? That's a bunch of outside assumptions people are imposing on everything she says.

 

Like I just said she doesn't have to convince the critics to change, nor is that necessarily her goal at all. Instead, we can change how we think of them and their role in art. We can join in the discussion about that topic. Or we can dismiss it as a tantrum and miss the point.

 

I think this fan-base in general could use some more discussion about this stuff. Especially the concept of subjectivity.

 

What makes it a tantrum is that no one but die-hard apologists are able to see the other side. She's really not sparking a discussion with this, at least not one that will serve to change anything.

 

I am loathe to make Madonna an example here, but did she lash out during any of her numerous albums that were viewed as flops at the time of release? She didn't. And in retrospect, many people have gone on to look back and delve deeper into those albums and appreciate them as an integral part of the whole of Madonna's output. I don't foresee the same kind of thing happening here.