Society vs art

[TheybannedTheGerm 508]

Just now, Bio said:

Beethoven was a revolutionary, even thought he played for the nobles, he always defied them and his music defied them. 

Girl what the hell do you think gagas music is doing? go back to disney land 

[Guest ARTPOPSlays]

21 minutes ago, Bio said:

No she doesn't. Gaga's music videos are full of advertisements. She was prohibited to release a lot of singles and music videos because her label thought they wouldn't sell. She went to jazz because she knew people were tired of her electronic crazy persona. She recorded a whole country album to try to gain middle america's support. Every move Gaga makes is based on how the public will perceive her. That is not an artist, that is a businesswoman trying to protect her business. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I think you could also stand on a middle ground of artist and business women. Even if your a business women it doesn’t mean your not an artist, whether it’s based off of the public’s perception of her or not, she is still creating everything she does. What she says, goes. She dries not have anyone making the decisions for her. Look at what her old management was telling her to do, but she broke away from that. I think she is both a business women and an artist

[Guest ARTPOPSlays]

20 minutes ago, Bio said:

So a McDonald's tv ad can be considered art? lol. A Trump speech can be considered art? Both are made in a creative process and you can argue that both transcend the ages. Are those art?

I would not compare Gaga’s ART to a McDonald’s add 

[Runway 27,876]

10 minutes ago, Bio said:

Beethoven was a revolutionary, even thought he played for the nobles, he always defied them and his music defied them. 

There's been revolutionary pop music: Beatles, Madonna, Queen, Michael Jackson, and them making ads with big companies or selling products does not make them not an artist  

[TheybannedTheGerm 508]

art

[Guest ARTPOPSlays]

15 minutes ago, Bio said:

Being passionate about something doesn’t mean that something is art. Someone can be passionate about data processing, doesn’t mean they’re artists.

I mean, it is a form of art. Your making soemthing happen. Gaga is an aartist, yes she is mainstream, she needs to sell her music. But overall she is an artist? Do you really think she is an industry plant? She’s been playing classical piano since 4 years old and creating music since 13 or before. What your saying is exactly what my thread is saying, there is no way of judging art or what art is. Art is just art, no matter how it’s made, why it’s made, or what it is. 

[Guest ARTPOPSlays]

15 minutes ago, Bio said:

Are you really gonna come here with a dictionary definition of art lol? That view y’all have that anything could be art is very romantic and very school-like. No, not everything is art. No, a McDonalds commercial is not art.

And let me just add that being a business person is a form of art. I’m not attacking you by the way, just having a conversation. I don’t want anyone here to feel attacked. Just wanted to Start a conversation 

[Bio 23,538]

2 minutes ago, ARTPOPSlays said:

And let me just add that being a business person is a form of art. I’m not attacking you by the way, just having a conversation. I don’t want anyone here to feel attacked. Just wanted to Start a conversation 

We'll just have to disagree on that. I've been studying art for 10 years now and this is my opinion based on my whole academic career. I'm not saying my opinion is the only one valid because there's no such thing as one truth, reality doesn't exist etc. 

I appreciate you stating your opinions in a healthy way. If you or other people want to have a healthy discussion about the meaning of art based on real study we can continue privately. What I will not do is discuss with children who can't give real arguments without being defensive and attacking others. That is a sign of immaturity.

[Bio 23,538]

13 minutes ago, Runway said:

There's been revolutionary pop music: Beatles, Madonna, Queen, Michael Jackson, and them making ads with big companies or selling products does not make them not an artist  

The Beatles was the first huge example of capitalism taking over art. What mattered was their faces sold on every item possible and not their music. 

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

I guess none of these are art, simply because it's pop

 

 

 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

In topics about the war between art vs pop, it suffices to listen to ARTPOP when you are really tired or just wasted, and all the truth, your hopes and fears, shall be revealed 

There is no boundary but within 

Paradox: What we think of art is defined by pop and what we think of pop is defined by art 

[Allan 3,881]

48 minutes ago, Bio said:

(1) No she doesn't. Gaga's music videos are full of advertisements. (2) She was prohibited to release a lot of singles and music videos because her label thought they wouldn't sell. (3) She went to jazz because she knew people were tired of her electronic crazy persona. (4) She recorded a whole country album to try to gain middle america's support. (5) Every move Gaga makes is based on how the public will perceive her. That is not an artist, that is a businesswoman trying to protect her business. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

1 - That's something beyond her. She's still signed to a record label for whatever reason, and some deals are beyond her reach as long as they provide her the means to put out her art. As time went by and she became a bigger name, her videos had a few to nome advertisements. Let's not forget that she put out a 12 minute video during ARTPOP with her own money when everybody thought the era was already over. Of course, Stupid Love had the deal with Apple, but as she said in the Zane Lowe interview, she wanted the song to reach the masses, so the deal was a great way to get extra promo.

2 - And she still managed to leak some of them (I'm looking at you, Aura). As I said, she's still signed and probably doesn't have full control of the decisions that are made. But it gets really clear when she doesn't like a single and when she does.

3 - If the goal was merely cleaning her image, she could've done anything else. Going from pure pop to jazz was a risky move, because it's a completely different and smaller demographic. To be quite honest, I feel like GP basically slept on her during the whole C2C era.

4 - I see Joanne as a way of healing from the bad experiences she went through mostly during the ARTPOP era, when her old manager left her in the middle of an album cycle and, due to many other issues, she basically wanted to quit pop music. If you see it the other way, then it's up to you.

5 - Then why are there so many threads here criticizing her? Because, as far as I've been reading some comments of you guys, she isn't giving a damn about what the fans want and what's trendy in the industry. If she went by the expected path, you guys wouldn't be so disappointed in her.

I'm not blind to Gaga as a brand and as a businesswoman, and, after all, she needs money to keep doing her stuff, but if you fail to see her artistic vision behind everything she does, even the most commercial stuff, then I just can't help you.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ARTPOPSlays said:

But art is art

Sometimes the art looks like **** and some people wanna point that out. Although, many people love ****, and enjoy ****.

Not saying SL is **** 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

8 minutes ago, Bio said:

The Beatles was the first huge example of capitalism taking over art. What mattered was their faces sold on every item possible and not their music. 

You’re not getting that marketing is all about cross-promotion: the music sells the face, and the face sells the music. Hence, the art sells the pop and the pop sells the art. This is all Warhol 101 sis. Listen to ARTPOP for a cute summary of Warhol-inverted. You’re creating a barrier that moves like a snake. 

[WhiteWitch 720]

4 minutes ago, Bio said:

The Beatles was the first huge example of capitalism taking over art. What mattered was their faces sold on every item possible and not their music. 

I’m also not trying to personally attack you, I am actually enjoying this conversation thread. I’m sorry if it’s coming across that way. Commercialism definitely helped create the Beatle-Mania, but their music has transcended that because if their lyrics and the meaning behind their music. To me, that is what music is about. Music needs to sell in the beginning, but how will it stick through the test of time? There are so many examples of pop music doing this and touching on truly deep wounds in society.
 

For me, it’s the same with paintings and sculptures. We see the same artwork because of the how they move us as individuals and what the artist wants to convey. I don’t think the canvas or delivery truly matter so long as the message is heard, even if the art has been commercialized to push even more success. There has to be a reason for something to be marketed to people in the first place, and that is why commercialization works on such a deep psychological level.