Jump to content
Stefani Tee
opinion

ARTPOP Doesn't Have Much To Say

Featured Posts

Lord Temptation

Honey, the critics been saying the same thing for the last six years. I look forward to the next six :vegas:

ARTPOP keeps you talking so go off :messga:

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReginaGeorge

I agree with you completely but this fan base is just not objective enough to agree with you. 

  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAMROD

Blasphemy!

ARTPOP have a lot things to say! From sexuality, mental health, self love, rape, and more.

Those lyrics just doesn't mean anything to you, or the meanings behind it are gone over your head.

(ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ✧*:・゚ ♥ What ♥ A ♥ Fine ♥ Coat ♥ Of ♥ Fur! ♥

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dolce Vita
8 hours ago, AJRocketMan said:

What interview are you talking about? I’ve seen virtually every interview from the ARTPOP era and I don’t remember her ever sitting in silence.

You don’t remember that one interview with her in the white dress and her natural brown hair? She was asked something and she put her hands up like she was about to answer it but then said nothing :selena:

 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSlash

Well, you have to consider that at the time she gave these interviews she herself still assumed she'd release ACT II, with more experimental/artsy music than ACT I ( ARTPOP ). And as we all painfully know, that never happened so we can't tell what she had in mind with the project as a whole :shrug: .

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
heygirl
11 hours ago, GovernmentWarrior said:

Run before they draggggg you sis :ladyhaha:

that's exactly what i did :gaycat:

 

be kind guys
  • LMAO 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
heygirl
1 hour ago, ReginaGeorge said:

I agree with you completely but this fan base is just not objective enough to agree with you. 

... and that's just facts. 

 gaga describe GIF

be kind guys
  • LMAO 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
heygirl
11 hours ago, A Hybrid said:

First off, ARTPOP is neither about “an artistic revolution” nor “putting art before pop”. It’s a reverse Warholian experience, like you said, which means using classical art as a part of pop music. This doesn’t apply to more than half of the album, but still.

Not only does ARTPOP not have “much” to say, it doesn’t have ANYTHING to say. That’s the thing about postmodernism, also in literature: it doesn’t deal with social commentary, it uses art purely as art. Art doesn’t have to have a point to be good.

I’m not saying ARTPOP is good or bad here, just saying that you’re judging ARTPOP from the only angle where it’s not supposed to be judged. The hypothetical concept of integrating symbols of classical art into pop is not supposed have a social or political purpose.

 

11 hours ago, bxr said:

honest question: its genesis thesis was a “reverse warholian expedition” or “reverse warholian experience”? idk, just curious, since it seems to be focal to the conversation, and the terms are synonymous, but not entirely identical …

“expedition” is predicated upon the journey itself (which, establishes some sense of meaning by definition of progress from one point to another … so even in a postmodern sense, the journey itself could be considered a “point” and ARTPOP (and/or Gaga as the artist (or soup can, within context of the metaphor) in front of the canvas)) would be the vehicle or vessel … an “experience” on the other hand, is more aligned with the “doesn’t have to have a point,” as it doesn’t have to go anywhere necessarily to exist in a moment of immersive observation, or art for the sake of art, just creative expression or reflection maybe …

but, idk … it could be neither or both and mean anything and/or nothing at all …

 

OP: ARTPOP feels like spontaneous combustion of a supernova at the locus of fame’s crucible … it feels like the simultaneous pleasure and toil of spectacular carnage … but with some sense of imminent release or liberation … and, to me at least, that was translated through lyrics and instrumentation or production or sonic composition that conveyed strong imagery beyond immediate word play … but, again, that’s just my opinion in this moment, and could make no ostensible sense at all

 

11 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

People have been posting this hot take for years and it never makes any sense.

Here's what I wrote the last time someone tried it:

ARTPOP was the natural conclusion of the exploration of fame she'd covered in her prior three albums. 

The Fame was an ironic take on celebrity that satirized its more vapid elements (without cheapening it, flat-out stating that pop music was high-brow and should be taken seriously, as art) while basking in its excess and subtly exposing the cruelty inherent in that lifestyle, all while espousing the notion that fame was a mindset and that anyone was worthy of it (populist queen!). The Fame Monster exposed what it was like to actually live the life of a celebrity, focusing more heavily on the painful and dehumanizing aspects of being made into an idea, a piece of meat offered up for mass consumption, alienated from other human beings. Born This Way was expressly about fame and celebrity as activism, about Gaga as an icon that her fans could look up to while she used the position she'd been given to speak out about feminism, LGBT rights, racism, immigration rights, etc.

ARTPOP takes all of that to new level of ironic detachment. It's a self-reflexive interrogation of her public persona and her place within pop culture. She took on the mantel of other iconic pop stars ("I'm every icon"), ramped her re-appropriation of pop iconography up to 11 in her performances and promotional campaign and started incorporating pieces from the art world that had the aura of respectability that isn't afforded to pop music ("pop music will never be low brow"). It was the natural conclusion of what she'd started with The Fame; she'd become a part of pop iconography, so she re-appropriated her own image, showing what it was like to be the human being behind the "Lady Gaga" image that the public had in their minds by talking about insanely personal moments form her life (the girl behind the aura). She talked about her rape explicitly for the first time in Swine (she'd vaguely touched on it in the Yoü and I video before), talked about running away from celebrity and her abusing drugs to cope (Mary Jane Holland, Dope), talked about her love life within the context of her being a celebrity (Sexxx Dreams being about sex with all of society's expectations being on her mind, about filthy fantasies while under public scrutiny), etc. etc. I could go on forever

 

10 hours ago, Edonis said:

Whew. okay.

I mixed opinions about the concept of ARTPOP and how it came to be, its themes, and why it was received the way that it was, but to cut to the chase I think disregarding what LG said, the album is mostly about her very strong experiences with sex and how physical and emotional intimacy affects an individual.

You see this on practically every single track on the album (with a few exceptions, and even those tracks have a very strong theme of passion or desire, not necessarily sexually, but emotionally---> Applause/Fashion!/Gypsy, but even then, I think the demos may have had more to do with this theme). Even the title track discusses her relationship between being a pop artist and making music for the sake of art while using lyrics related to sexuality and romance (I'll undress you, lover's kites are flown on beaches for public site, perverse hue, etc.). And when you look at the album with that perspective, you can kind of see that theme of wanting something strongly or experiencing something in an escapist way through sex or intimacy or love. Sure there's imagery of partying, and drugs, and extravagant high-camp pulsating stuff BUT I think those things are secondary to the story most of the songs relay to listeners. There are so many sex metaphors and references to intimacy and aphrodisiacs, and almost like...cries for help at times that the thematic label assigned to the record seems almost ludicrous imo.

I genuinely believe that this commentary on her intimacy was further supported by her more "stripped back" makeup looks we saw at the start of the era. The darker hair color, the simpler costumes, etc. (this changed of course, but I'm talking early in the album cycle prior to GUY or anything) I think LG really felt that this album was to be her most intimate thematically compared to TF/TFM/BTW because she was sharing something so intimate about herself which is...sex lol.

 

8 hours ago, bxr said:

Astute essay :applause: Random, but it also adds a potential layer to the Reverse Warholian Expedition, given Warhol's perspectives on love and sex (particularly the wide divergence between his personal philosophy yielding toward abstinence, versus the raw exposure presented in his work, most notably from his signature voyeur/exhibitionist dynamic) …

“The most exciting thing is not-doing-it. If you fall in love with someone and never do it, it’s much more exciting.” … “Fantasy love is much better than reality love. Never doing it is very exciting. The most exciting attractions are between two opposites that never meet.” … “People’s fantasies are what give them problems. If you didn’t have fantasies you wouldn’t have problems because you’d just take whatever was there. But then you wouldn’t have romance, because romance is finding your fantasy in people who don’t have it.” … “Love and sex can go together and sex and unlove can go together and love and unsex can go together. But personal love and personal sex is bad.” -- The Philosophy of Andy Warhol

So, maybe, in some realm of an indirect and/or unintentional subplot, where ARTPOP was about “belonging together,” bridging the worlds of subtext and fantasy, converging apparent polarities, and exploring or expressing the spectrum of experiences within the sphere of sex and love … Warhol actively expressed the very opposite in his personal life and professional work (abstinence, and performance void of apparent intimacy)

Again, neither here nor there, just a random conceptual association that crossed the mind … that could make absolutely zero sense.

 

7 hours ago, Enigma said:

The whole point of ARTPOP is that "it can mean anything" aka she wanted to do everything she felt like doing. There's a reason the cover art is such a convoluted (and iconic) mess. There's a reason it goes from smoking weed to comparing yourself to an ancient roman goddess to having killed your boyfriend and wearing burqas. The best line of that album that encapsulates it the most is "Enigma popstar is fun she wears burqa for fashion / it's not a statement as much as just a move of passion". 

This album is kind of hedonism as an album. She wanted to paint her face white and rainbow, so she did. She wanted to get puked paint on, so she did. It's all extra and psychedelic.

The point is there's no point, or that there are so many that it ends up being no point. 

Is the music that deep? No. I don't think it was meant to be, cause it being a POP album is literally in capital letters in the title. 

The whole era, (planned) concepts and philosophy of it is fierce as **** though.

 

6 hours ago, bxr said:

I concur; at the core, tbh, I still just subscribe most to the “Artistic Revolution Through the Potential Of Pop” foundation / conceptual core … if only because of what those words mean, and how ARTPOP (in its admittedly multifarious iterations and projections) expressed … art, revolution, potential, and pop are strong anchors, and in that sequence, definitively encompass much -- if not all -- of what ensued across the album and era itself (including sex, intimacy, and particularly moving those experiences from the confessional to the more open space of pop culture where it becomes open for public critique / consideration, but … digress). I also agree that the album has elements of the traditional Warholian Pop Art form, at the very least from a starting point, where maybe the reverse expedition sets up its own effigy of pop art / celebrity that the future trajectory revolts against or dismantles so to speak … ? But, again, idk remotely whatsoever

The mortality point is really salient … I never really thought about that before, but it does kind of remind me of that quote about stellar genesis: “For a star to be born, there is one thing that must happen: a gaseous nebula must collapse. So collapse. Crumble. This is not your destruction. This is your birth.” So to your point it was that kind of evolution from inhibition to exhibition to a more unhindered engagement (creatively or artistically at least) with mortality … if any of that makes a modicum of sense, which tbh, probably not so much

Indeed, they’re both specific volumes in a robust anthology of artistic development …

Haha, thoroughly enjoyed the musing as well … ARTPOP, such an enigma, that sphinx of a could-mean-anything :queenga:

  Reveal hidden contents

honestly, this is all stream-of-consciousness musing rumination, so if none of this makes sense, just … tl;dr: #ARTPOP

 

Thank you for contributing to the discussion with such interesting opinions and fascinating concepts of what ARTPOP is/was/can be. I'm fascinated by it all  and it's really made me think twice about the album/era, but then again, I still feel as if all this genius which encompasses the ARTPOP concept is lost in translation through the music. And if that's the point (that the music should lack a point, or that it doesn't even matter if there is a point) then sure, but I personally still feel a disconnection though. 

I also didn't mean to say that the lyrics generally lacked purpose or that they were shallow (not to say that I disagree with that notion either, but that's a different discussion) but I just didn't feel as if the lyrics and the meanings of the songs manifested the ARTPOP concept accurately. And I think it might take time and further reflection before that opinion changes, too. But the discussion has most definitely been interesting. Thanks guys :runhug:

Edited by heygirl
be kind guys
  • Like 1
  • Love 4

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquarius

I agree tbh, & I really liked the album when it first came out, but it has sadly aged like milk. the only songs I listen to from the album are Applause, ARTPOP, Fashion! & like Gypsy, the other songs are such a hassle to listen to

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supersonic
17 hours ago, A Hybrid said:

First off, ARTPOP is neither about “an artistic revolution” nor “putting art before pop”. It’s a reverse Warholian experience, like you said, which means using classical art as a part of pop music. This doesn’t apply to more than half of the album, but still.

Not only does ARTPOP not have “much” to say, it doesn’t have ANYTHING to say. That’s the thing about postmodernism, also in literature: it doesn’t deal with social commentary, it uses art purely as art. Art doesn’t have to have a point to be good.

I’m not saying ARTPOP is good or bad here, just saying that you’re judging ARTPOP from the only angle where it’s not supposed to be judged. The hypothetical concept of integrating symbols of classical art into pop is not supposed have a social or political purpose.

Well to be fair: People are allowed to not like and criticize that particular aspect, even if it was intentional. Because in the end, there's not right or wrong way to criticize art as it is an inhearently subjective experience.

Majestic, the future is electric.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Hybrid
2 hours ago, Supersonic said:

Well to be fair: People are allowed to not like and criticize that particular aspect, even if it was intentional. Because in the end, there's not right or wrong way to criticize art as it is an inhearently subjective experience.

I agree, I’m just saying that ARTPOP is not an album that was supposed to have a point and couldn’t. Doesn’t have anything to do with how much someone enjoys it, but telling ARTPOP has no purpose is close to saying Paul Auster’s stories have no purpose. Yes, they both proudly don’t have anything to say.

Though I agree that ARTPOP, unlike Paul Auster’s stories did with the concept of “a story just for being a story”, failed to mirror its “art as the subject of pop” concept.

I can't turn off what turns me on

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...