vyniildisk 12,689 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 54 minutes ago, Cookie Tookie said: There’s a difference between being an artist and an entertainer. Gaga is an artist. She is both. Her shows are not only her sitting in the middle of the stage with jeans, a sweater and a microphone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 10 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. Mattered to who? The Beatles? Do u think they didn't care about their art and only money? Cause if u think that u prolly not a fan of them. It's normal for a successful artist to become part of the capitalism machine. Elvis went thru it, MJ went thru it, they all died trying to keep up with the demands, but they cared about their art. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geusst1235 5,398 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 50 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 can still unequivocally be an artist while also merging those pursuits with monetary gain. Nearly every single artist has dealt with ads/promotion as well. For example, Marilyn Manson is absolutely an artist regardless of what he has promoted. Manson has created entire concept albums deconstructing and criticizing social issues/hypocrisies while using layers upon layers of various metaphors, references,etc. Even he has put his face on things like merch, starred in commercials, and done various other forms of promotion. You simply cannot say that someone who actually creates something isn't artist simply because they have done promotion or created something with monetary gain in mind. The same can be said for Gaga as well, who is also incredibly creative and is an artist in every single sense of the word. https://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Holy_Wood_(In_the_Shadow_of_the_Valley_of_Death)#Concept - Manson described Holy Wood as a "declaration of war." The album's plot is a parable, which he told Rolling Stone was semi-autobiographical. While it can be viewed on several levels, he said its simplest interpretation is to see it as a story about an idealistic man whose revolution is commercialized, leading him to "destroy the thing he has created, which is himself." It takes place in a thinly-veiled satire of modern America called "Holy Wood", which Manson described as a Disneyesque, city-sized amusement park where the main attractions are death and violence, and where consumerism is taken to hyperbolic extreme. Its literary foil is "Death Valley", which is used as a "metaphor for the outcast and the imperfect of the world." - The central character is the protagonist Adam Kadmon —a name derived from the Kabbalah which means "original man". The story follows him as he goes in search of a better life out of Death Valley and into Holy Wood. Disenchanted by what he finds, he fashions a counterculture revolution, only to have it usurped and co-opted by Holy Wood's consumer culture, and he finds himself appropriated as a figure of Holy Wood's ideology of "Celebritarianism": an ideology in which fame is the primary moral value of a religion deeply rooted in celebrity worship and martyrdom;where dead celebrities are revered as saints, and John F. Kennedy is idolized as the contemporary Jesus Christ. Holy Wood's religion parallels Christianity, in that it juxtaposes the dead-celebrity phenomenon in American culture with the crucifixion of Jesus. - The phrase "guns, god and government" is repeated multiple times throughout the album. It is suggested that these are the root cause of violence, and the album examines the role conservative American culture supposedly played in the Columbine massacre: specifically, what Manson perceived as its advocacy of gun culture, the inadequacies of traditional family values, the American inclination toward war-mongering solely for profit, and the Christian right's proclivity for moral panic. This glorification of violence within mainstream American culture is the central theme of the record. A substantive portion of the record analyzes the cultural role of Jesus Christ, specifically Manson's view that the image of his crucifixion was the origin of celebrity. Any form of music, film, or creation in general is art. The quality of said art can be debated, but it will still be a form of art nonetheless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bio 23,538 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 16 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said: 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. Pop art is a whole different thing. Warhol was actually criticizing how cosume oriented our society is and how poisonous the american way of life is. It has nothing to do with pop music being art. ARTPOP is probably my favorite Gaga album but it was unsuccessful in delivering what it promised to deliver. Taking pop music about sex and abuse and putting some visuals that reference other art is not what pop art is about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bio 23,538 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 19 minutes ago, WhiteWitch said: 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. Oh yeah, I wasn't talking about you at all, I enjoy your posts. See, the problem here is that people are understanding that I think that Gaga or other artists are to blame for being tied to capitalism but they are actually not in my opinion. I know Gaga cares about what she does BUT she is simply there to bring a huge corporation money. And if she doesn't she will be axed. Point blank. And art cannot be born in that form of environment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bio 23,538 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 21 minutes ago, kyanewest said: Mattered to who? The Beatles? Do u think they didn't care about their art and only money? Cause if u think that u prolly not a fan of them. It's normal for a successful artist to become part of the capitalism machine. Elvis went thru it, MJ went thru it, they all died trying to keep up with the demands, but they cared about their art. No, mattered to the big companies they were attached to. In the end they were there to bring them money and that is it. Elvis is a whole different story. He stole black music and was labeled as a creator of something he did not create. He did not write his music and was miserable because he knew he was just a little piece in a big machine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Temptation 11,209 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 11 minutes ago, Bio said: Pop art is a whole different thing. Warhol was actually criticizing how cosume oriented our society is and how poisonous the american way of life is. It has nothing to do with pop music being art. ARTPOP is probably my favorite Gaga album but it was unsuccessful in delivering what it promised to deliver. Taking pop music about sex and abuse and putting some visuals that reference other art is not what pop art is about. Warhol wasn’t criticising society. He was criticising the art world orthodoxy, obsessed with flowers in vases and scenes of the countryside. He wanted to represent the aspects of society that the intelligentsia deemed unworthy of study or portrayal: the mundane, the cheap, the plastic. ARTPOP is not pop art. It is a bridge between pop art and the world that it rejected. It is dismantling the dichotomy of art vs advertising and sex vs death, via the concepts of media and rebirth, respectively. We own the concept and can rewrite, or paint over it, it if we possess the media. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoxo Craig 55,649 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Bio said: The first mistake you made is thinking pop music is art. Pop music is made focusing on sales, advertisement and chart positions. It is a product and It is not and never will be art. All music is art. Pop music is form of art End Racism Now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bio 23,538 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said: Warhol wasn’t criticising society. He was criticising the art world orthodoxy, obsessed with flowers in vases and scenes of the countryside. He wanted to represent the aspects of society that the intelligentsia deemed unworthy of study or portrayal: the mundane, the cheap, the plastic. ARTPOP is not pop art. It is a bridge between pop art and the world that it rejected. It is dismantling the dichotomy of art vs advertising and sex vs death, via the concepts of media and rebirth, respectively. We can own the concept if we possess the media. Girl no he was not lol. Art wasn't even obsessed with flowers and landscapes by then. Modern art, surrealism, dada, cubism and asbtract art were already there and gone by then. What are you talking about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Temptation 11,209 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 23 minutes ago, Bio said: Girl no he was not lol. Art wasn't even obsessed with flowers and landscapes by then. Modern art, surrealism, dada, cubism and asbtract art were already there and gone by then. What are you talking about? Well, you claimed that Warhol was making fun of society but he was not. He was documenting how society was trying to move away from the trauma of war. All those genres you mentioned (and you can add the Italian futurists) blossomed between the 1910s and WW2 in the 40s. Warhol’s pop art was an rebellion against even those new movements, which he perceived to be rooted in conflict and thus subconsciously involved in war. His art disassociated itself from the violence of political ideology in favour of the culture of the popular; Hollywood, celebrity and TV commercials. He was making fun of people who took art, or politics, too seriously that they would fire a gun just to prove their point. His art was not even oppositional, unlike many of the schools you mentioned that quarreled with each other. Pop art spoke in THE universal language: money. He presented an idea of art that was truly democratic. Warhol’s pop art also observed how people’s lives were changing, how society began to abandon rural lives and emigrating into cities. He accurately captured the change in how mankind saw itself, from ranchers to office workers and film stars, and how it wanted to see itself. He was not a critic of society. He was a critic of critics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 24 minutes ago, Bio said: Elvis is a whole different story. He stole black music and was labeled as a creator of something he did not create. He did not write his music and was miserable because he knew he was just a little piece in a big machine. He didn't "steal" anything. Essentially he got inspired by black churches and choirs in the black community and wanted to make songs that were rock'n'roll, taking Chuck Berry as his biggest inspiration (a black artist, called the pioneer of rock n roll that was created by black people). And he 'democratized' black music to the biggest population, at first whites, to then all kinds of races. Quite similar to Eminem. He wrote a song actually about MLK called 'If I have a dream'. Of course, it wasn't his forté but I dont think ur not a real artist just because uve never written anything. There's an art of singing too, and he sang with his heart. Yes, he was completely taken advantage of by his long time manager, Colonel Parker, who only saw the dollar signs and never cared about music, but it doesn't mean the artist didn't care. In fact he cared so much and felt so trapped that he fell into a deep depression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 29 minutes ago, Bio said: No, mattered to the big companies they were attached to. Well of course, thats why they created a company. To make money. So I dont understand what ur point is really... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CautiousLurker 19,470 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Bio said: See, the problem here is that people are understanding that I think that Gaga or other artists are to blame for being tied to capitalism but they are actually not in my opinion. I know Gaga cares about what she does BUT she is simply there to bring a huge corporation money. And if she doesn't she will be axed. Point blank. And art cannot be born in that form of environment. From your replies it really seems like you think true art can only be born if the financial incentive is removed, and first of all that's not true, but that's also a very unhealthy thing to perpetuate - artists need to be able to make money with their craft, they cannot fully remove themselves from the reality of modern life and create work solely for the sake of it with no expectations of financial benefit, especially if they want to dedicate their career to it, cuz... needles to say, food and rent aren't free... The whole 'you need to create art for the people' thing is actually pretty hurtful - that's how you get a$$holes who harass artists for free work because 'it's their gift' and if they want to be paid, they're the ones being selfish... It's devaluing the skill it takes to create a piece of art or entertainment... It may not seem like a big deal when you're talking about someone who's made it, but not every creator out there is swimming in luxury - in fact most of them are probably struggling, and in no small part because people are under the impression that art should be free or near-free It's a joke! When you give me that look, it's a joke! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,099 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 3 hours ago, Bio said: The first mistake you made is thinking pop music is art. Pop music is made focusing on sales, advertisement and chart positions. It is a product and It is not and never will be art. Look out guys, the art police is here. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ARTPOPSlays Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Bio said: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. Honestly this is kind of the point I was trying to make with this thread, or at least similar lol. I’m not really talking about art from an academic standpoint, more so from a consumers eyes. But we can definitely agree to disagree, the whole point of this was to start a healthy conversation whether we all agree or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.