NEWS: Gaga talks ARTPOP, Applause, VMAs, + injury with WWD

[Pure Adrenaline 1,518]

Damn, I hate to be the Debbie downer but this article scares me. I'm having a hard time being hyped now, I loved loved loved all the teasing and the few promos and I truly want to be as excited as everybody but urgh, this just makes me anxious. I trust her, she's brilliant so we'll se how that translates... But:

 

Firstly, I can't really wrap my head around her 'every icon' statement.

 

I think that it's interesting that she's pushing her everyday transformation, 'every icon' visual one step further. But to me it sounds like there won't be regularity, no direction, no theme. Just like the pointlessness of all her looks these past few weeks and around the BTWBall. I loved every one of her look individually but the lack of meaning and of big picture makes it... yeah, pointless.

 

I think it was fantastic when her day to day attire was supporting the concept of her record. When she wore the BTW horns around, when she wore the grey wig for the fame monster... Even just having a general aesthetic that was close to the record, that had the same feeling. Now she just seems all over the place.

 

 

"“It’s interesting how you view things, and you look at it like, I’m a pop icon, and [you wonder] ‘Is this the image of the album? Is this the direction? Who came up with it?’ I think that’s so interesting because it’s exactly the kind of thing we’re trying to destroy. This is one jacket. This is one image. This is one moment. This is one statement."

Urgh I just hate that quote so much. Maybe it's one statement but one statement doesn't have power, it doesn't have impact. You need a concept, you need something to tie everything together and so elevate your idea. You can't serve fabulous brunette bombshell and Pierrot Gaga within litterally 3 hours. It's just distracting. If your statements don't serve a big picture then what's the point? You can't get a point across with one moment. Unless it's something as brutal as the meat dress but you can't replicate that many times.

 

If wearing a clear visor is a complete statement on its own, then it could mean anything. And so anything could mean anything if you don't have a perspective. It's like trying to draw a line with one point, it goes anywhere and most importantly: nowhere.

 

 

Also, I don't really like how she talks about Applause. It seems so egocentric and self-centered. It's like a codependent relationship. I didn't think that was the way she viewed fame. I thought she viewed fame as something from within, not a thirst that only screaming fans could quench. She's a soldier to her own emptiness, the whole inner strength and own sense of accomplishment theme.

To me, it just sounds like giving in to someone else's approval to feel good. An artist should not be idolized, or rather put themselves in the position of an idol and that is the position she puts herself in. She says fans cheer before she even starts and that's not something she should romanticize.

I understand the 'feel good' quality of being cheered of course, but it sounds more like a need than a... 'bonus' for making a great performance. And that worries me about her intentions with this song. I'm hoping it's more of a celebration of obsession, and a commentary on the addictive nature of being adulated, than literally her living for the fame. (Isn't it a shame, shame?)

 

 

I also hate what Inez said about stripping bare and natural beauty. This is not for Gaga. Gaga defines beauty in the 'pile on all the artifices you want and feel fabulous' kind of way. The inner sense of beauty. Natural beauty is part of that but I don't see it as being any relatable.

 

And for god's sake, please no chic, toned down fashion. The fashion world is in such a bad shape, nobody needs subtle clothing. The world needs outrageous and in-your-face f*ckery. This is the part I was looking the most forward to. Since Gaga has not showed up at an award show, did you notice how fast everything went back to normal, basic stuff?

I just want her to be outrageous in everything she does again. I can't see her doing a risky, forward performance piece with Marina and walking out of there in Balenciaga.

I don't know, everything just seems a little safe. You can see it in the single cover. It is a gorgeous photograph but it won't stay on my mind the same way a pointy shouldered, facially distorted Gaga will. It's not devastatingly beautiful neither, I just don't feel anything. I've seen this kind of makeup before, and much sharper with Alex Box's work. Like this picture for example which has much more appeal and a more meaningful aura.

 

I don't know, I'm just not impressed and it bugs me.

(No bashing please. I adore Gaga just as all of you, I'm just waiting to be proved wrong. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, and probably too negatively but at the moment, this just leaves me blah and I don't like feeling that way. Please, hype me again. )

Is that a meltdown I'm smelling at right this moment .... 

 

JK. Maybe this time her theme is not having one    like being as many things as possible at one 'every icon'. Remember how she said that she very often visit her fan sites and this particular one, and here like 89% of the time u see people complaining and wanting to please their own needs ... like she should wear that, or she should make that, would be amazing if we hear song like that from her etc. 

And last year when she started her design project on LM, wanting all her fans to make outfits for her that's some sort of 'designing you own icon' and now she said that she is every icon not just one, maybe she will go trought countless of transformations for the era like a shapeshifter.

I think that this bold statement she's trying to give is that everyone is trying to make some one 'the icon' without flaws the perfect role model, in it's every aspect. So she'll show the world how being a 'the icon' and still u wont be satisfied. Just look at all the ARTPOP promo shoots there isn't one single flaw on it and yet a lot of people are complaining even the V still when she was fully naked without make up...well isn't that what everyone was wanting during the BTW her to be looking HOT and SEXY now when she gave us that... us see that like half of people that wanted it now are disturbed by it nd wanting something outrageous.

 

And about the APPLAUSE, I don't think that she's that basic after all that's not Katy. So don't worry and enjoy the moment u will see that it'll live up your expectations ;)

[Haunts 7]

Is that a meltdown I'm smelling at right this moment .... 

 

JK. Maybe this time her theme is not having one    like being as many things as possible at one 'every icon'. Remember how she said that she very often visit her fan sites and this particular one, and here like 89% of the time u see people complaining and wanting to please their own needs ... like she should wear that, or she should make that, would be amazing if we hear song like that from her etc. 

And last year when she started her design project on LM, wanting all her fans to make outfits for her that's some sort of 'designing you own icon' and now she said that she is every icon not just one, maybe she will go trought countless of transformations for the era like a shapeshifter.

I think that this bold statement she's trying to give is that everyone is trying to make some one 'the icon' without flaws the perfect role model, in it's every aspect. So she'll show the world how being a 'the icon' and still u wont be satisfied. Just look at all the ARTPOP promo shoots there isn't one single flaw on it and yet a lot of people are complaining even the V still when she was fully naked without make up...well isn't that what everyone was wanting during the BTW her to be looking HOT and SEXY now when she gave us that... us see that like half of people that wanted it now are disturbed by it nd wanting something outrageous.

 

And about the APPLAUSE, I don't think that she's that basic after all that's not Katy. So don't worry and enjoy the moment u will see that it'll live up your expectations ;)

 

I understand what you're saying and that's what I got also, but if her being every icon and not being defined by anyone IS the theme indeed... then she already failed miserably.

 

The beggining of the ARTPOP era is defined by Inez and Vinoodh. ARTPOP promo shoot, video shoot, V mag shoot. They shot her for at least three different purposes. She has been defined by their aesthetic. I think that's what bugs me the most, the contradiction between what she says and what she does/did.

 

"It’s interesting how you view things, and you look at it like, I’m a pop icon, and [you wonder] ‘Is this the image of the album? Is this the direction? Who came up with it?’ I think that’s so interesting because it’s exactly the kind of thing we’re trying to destroy. This is one jacket. This is one image. This is one moment. This is one statement."

"“[i’m not] defined by the same designer or defined by the same hair cut or defined by the same icon."

She's not destroying that, she's perpetuating it. If she was as much of a shapeshifter as she makes it sound, we would not have seen the same weave twice, the same photographer twice, the same elements twice, the same feeling twice. And we did, more than twice.

Trying to destroy that... say, expectation of direction would have been being photographed by a multitude of photographers for the same shoot. Being defined by everyone at the same time and so: not being defined. Having every ARTPOP promo be in total contradiction, be EVERY icon. That would have brought back the confusion and mistery surrounding her that she had when she first came out. It would have pushed her everchanging quality to the very very limit of the concept. To an unsettling state, to schyzophrenia, to a multiple personalities disorder...

 

If the Auras theme of the ARTPOP manifesto is indeed how she's being viewed by other people, the way others perceive and capture her aura, then she failed. She had the same people define her more than once, and truthfully, her ARTPOP direction has been exclusive to Inez and Vinoodh's perception at the moment.

Plus, it's not like she's worked with:

a) people she has never worked with before to give her a new, fresh, unexpected visual.

b) people who are so diverse that they can shoot her in a thousand differents ways. Like Nick Knight, who works extremely well on location and on set, with nature, with people, being grungy, being classy, being natural and being fantasy, raw and with digital alterations... Inez and Vinoodh's work is very distinctive: soft and forward with a blank background in a studio. That's their touch and it's almost exclusively what they do. They do it extremely well, at an extremely high level but you can expect what to see in their work. From the moment their names were thrown around, you knew that she would not have been merged into a unicorn riding in the streets of New-York with a rainbow coming out of her ass. And that is the complete opposite of trying to destroy an expectation.

 

Also, the cover of Applause is a still from the music video. So it's not a moment on its own, it is not a statement on its own. It's part of a statement. It's an indication of a direction, a big giant pointer to the music video. It's even more of a pointer than the BTW single cover was to the BTW music video, because it is DIRECTLY an image FROM it.

 

So, unless all of this has been a decoy from a much bigger picture, then her supposed "theme" of being every icon is already dead, or at least not big enough to be relevant. That's why I took it as being just a thing she's gonna do and not a theme or message. Knowing her, she would have made it in a huge huge way and the point would have come across already.

I love her to pieces but: no.

 

 

I'm just gonna wait and see what comes of it, it's still pretty early in the ARTPOP era... I know I'm gonna love the music, cause she can't fail at music. But urgh, these pretentious statements bug me when it contradicts with what she does. It makes her look big and when you search for a meaning or concrete examples, there's none.

 

(Maybe the theme is contradictions indeed. )

[Kermit the frog 1,761]

I understand what you're saying and that's what I got also, but if her being every icon and not being defined by anyone IS the theme indeed... then she already failed miserably.

 

The beggining of the ARTPOP era is defined by Inez and Vinoodh. ARTPOP promo shoot, video shoot, V mag shoot. They shot her for at least three different purposes. She has been defined by their aesthetic. I think that's what bugs me the most, the contradiction between what she says and what she does/did.

 

"It’s interesting how you view things, and you look at it like, I’m a pop icon, and [you wonder] ‘Is this the image of the album? Is this the direction? Who came up with it?’ I think that’s so interesting because it’s exactly the kind of thing we’re trying to destroy. This is one jacket. This is one image. This is one moment. This is one statement."

"“[i’m not] defined by the same designer or defined by the same hair cut or defined by the same icon."

She's not destroying that, she's perpetuating it. If she was as much of a shapeshifter as she makes it sound, we would not have seen the same weave twice, the same photographer twice, the same elements twice, the same feeling twice. And we did, more than twice.

Trying to destroy that... say, expectation of direction would have been being photographed by a multitude of photographers for the same shoot. Being defined by everyone at the same time and so: not being defined. Having every ARTPOP promo be in total contradiction, be EVERY icon. That would have brought back the confusion and mistery surrounding her that she had when she first came out. It would have pushed her everchanging quality to the very very limit of the concept. To an unsettling state, to schyzophrenia, to a multiple personalities disorder...

 

If the Auras theme of the ARTPOP manifesto is indeed how she's being viewed by other people, the way others perceive and capture her aura, then she failed. She had the same people define her more than once, and truthfully, her ARTPOP direction has been exclusive to Inez and Vinoodh's perception at the moment.

Plus, it's not like she's worked with:

a) people she has never worked with before to give her a new, fresh, unexpected visual.

b) people who are so diverse that they can shoot her in a thousand differents ways. Like Nick Knight, who works extremely well on location and on set, with nature, with people, being grungy, being classy, being natural and being fantasy, raw and with digital alterations... Inez and Vinoodh's work is very distinctive: soft and forward with a blank background in a studio. That's their touch and it's almost exclusively what they do. They do it extremely well, at an extremely high level but you can expect what to see in their work. From the moment their names were thrown around, you knew that she would not have been merged into a unicorn riding in the streets of New-York with a rainbow coming out of her ass. And that is the complete opposite of trying to destroy an expectation.

 

Also, the cover of Applause is a still from the music video. So it's not a moment on its own, it is not a statement on its own. It's part of a statement. It's an indication of a direction, a big giant pointer to the music video. It's even more of a pointer than the BTW single cover was to the BTW music video, because it is DIRECTLY an image FROM it.

 

So, unless all of this has been a decoy from a much bigger picture, then her supposed "theme" of being every icon is already dead, or at least not big enough to be relevant. That's why I took it as being just a thing she's gonna do and not a theme or message. Knowing her, she would have made it in a huge huge way and the point would have come across already.

I love her to pieces but: no.

 

 

I'm just gonna wait and see what comes of it, it's still pretty early in the ARTPOP era... I know I'm gonna love the music, cause she can't fail at music. But urgh, these pretentious statements bug me when it contradicts with what she does. It makes her look big and when you search for a meaning or concrete examples, there's none.

 

(Maybe the theme is contradictions indeed. )

 

I love your a--lyses, unlike most of the pseudo-intellectual ones on this forum.

[rivingtonrebels 245]

I'm enjoying reading the a--lyses on here - but I want to point out a couple things that haven't been said.

 

Gaga has chosen to collaborate with modern artists all celebrated in their own mediums:

* IV = photography
* Marina = performance
* Robert Wilson = theatre
*Jeff Koons = sculpture and painting.  

 

I believe this is deliberate, and the era will explore the tapestry of the arts, with Gaga as the muse and the medium. It serves two purposes, really:

 

1) She fights fire with fire - you think Gaga's copying other artists?  Well now She's not only every artist, she is their tools, she is the art itself.

 

2) She keeps the most precious parts of her fame; the ability to shapeshift (to be anything) and her mistique + draw.  People will always be curious about things that they can't quite figure out.  It's endearing.

 

So when Gaga says she is every icon, I think what she means is that this era is going to be about breaking down what a popstar is, what an icon is, and has been throughout history, and changing that meaning by bringing high art to the mainstream.

 

Just my 2 cents

[Andy Darko 0]

I understand what you're saying and that's what I got also, but if her being every icon and not being defined by anyone IS the theme indeed... then she already failed miserably.

 

The beggining of the ARTPOP era is defined by Inez and Vinoodh. ARTPOP promo shoot, video shoot, V mag shoot. They shot her for at least three different purposes. She has been defined by their aesthetic. I think that's what bugs me the most, the contradiction between what she says and what she does/did.

 

"It’s interesting how you view things, and you look at it like, I’m a pop icon, and [you wonder] ‘Is this the image of the album? Is this the direction? Who came up with it?’ I think that’s so interesting because it’s exactly the kind of thing we’re trying to destroy. This is one jacket. This is one image. This is one moment. This is one statement."

"“[i’m not] defined by the same designer or defined by the same hair cut or defined by the same icon."

She's not destroying that, she's perpetuating it. If she was as much of a shapeshifter as she makes it sound, we would not have seen the same weave twice, the same photographer twice, the same elements twice, the same feeling twice. And we did, more than twice.

Trying to destroy that... say, expectation of direction would have been being photographed by a multitude of photographers for the same shoot. Being defined by everyone at the same time and so: not being defined. Having every ARTPOP promo be in total contradiction, be EVERY icon. That would have brought back the confusion and mistery surrounding her that she had when she first came out. It would have pushed her everchanging quality to the very very limit of the concept. To an unsettling state, to schyzophrenia, to a multiple personalities disorder...

 

If the Auras theme of the ARTPOP manifesto is indeed how she's being viewed by other people, the way others perceive and capture her aura, then she failed. She had the same people define her more than once, and truthfully, her ARTPOP direction has been exclusive to Inez and Vinoodh's perception at the moment.

Plus, it's not like she's worked with:

a) people she has never worked with before to give her a new, fresh, unexpected visual.

b) people who are so diverse that they can shoot her in a thousand differents ways. Like Nick Knight, who works extremely well on location and on set, with nature, with people, being grungy, being classy, being natural and being fantasy, raw and with digital alterations... Inez and Vinoodh's work is very distinctive: soft and forward with a blank background in a studio. That's their touch and it's almost exclusively what they do. They do it extremely well, at an extremely high level but you can expect what to see in their work. From the moment their names were thrown around, you knew that she would not have been merged into a unicorn riding in the streets of New-York with a rainbow coming out of her ass. And that is the complete opposite of trying to destroy an expectation.

 

Also, the cover of Applause is a still from the music video. So it's not a moment on its own, it is not a statement on its own. It's part of a statement. It's an indication of a direction, a big giant pointer to the music video. It's even more of a pointer than the BTW single cover was to the BTW music video, because it is DIRECTLY an image FROM it.

 

So, unless all of this has been a decoy from a much bigger picture, then her supposed "theme" of being every icon is already dead, or at least not big enough to be relevant. That's why I took it as being just a thing she's gonna do and not a theme or message. Knowing her, she would have made it in a huge huge way and the point would have come across already.

I love her to pieces but: no.

 

 

I'm just gonna wait and see what comes of it, it's still pretty early in the ARTPOP era... I know I'm gonna love the music, cause she can't fail at music. But urgh, these pretentious statements bug me when it contradicts with what she does. It makes her look big and when you search for a meaning or concrete examples, there's none.

 

(Maybe the theme is contradictions indeed. )

I think the problem more lies in your expectations and personal perceptions of what being "every icon" exactly is. You putting so much emphasis on the directors and directions of these photoshoots or artistic creations, rather than the prime entity itself...Lady Gaga.

Every weave must be different, every photographer must be different, every element must be different. You're taking the concept incredibly literally and very superficially. Even without a photographer who seemingly captures different forms or "icons" of a person, by dressing them up in most likely different, yet semi-stereotypical attire, you can still emit a different aura, a different feeling, and regardless of what you may perceive or feel, that is more dependent on the entity, than the audience.

I haven't felt any image has been in harmony or accordance with each other. It's not to a point of "schizophrenia" or "multiple personality disorders" or anything, which again I feel is both a more literal and superficial perception of what she is trying do, but it's more to the effect like this makes no sense. She may be nude in all of them, she may have the same weave...in like two of them, but I definitely get a different feeling from all the images.

However, is it strong enough to say that she has failed just become some people can not feel the difference of feelings from each photo we've gotten thus far? Definitely not.

I think perhaps the vagueness and perhaps even "emptiness" from each shoot is what is perpetuating your feeling of her failure. If her personalities, or the feelings she portrays are not simple, it is going to be more difficult to differentiate them. The more complex her auras are, the more naturally overlapping they will be. While still different, the subtle similarities will render them the same to some.

For example let's take stereotypical highschool cliques for example. You have your jocks, your emos, your preps, your gangsta kids, your nobodies, your nerds, etc.

It is easy to say they are different forms of people, because physically and audibly they most likely seem different. Their attire will be different, as well as their conversation. However, it is difficult to look inside one group, let's say the emos, and recognize the difference in all of them. Their conversation and attire are the same, so in order to realize the difference between each individual, a less shallow and superficial mindset has to be adopted. You must rely on feeling, a focus on the inner entity to really understand and see the difference in all the individuals.

Same with Lady Gaga's pictures. Yes some elements may be the same, but detach yourself from your original and conscious a--lytical focus, and allow to shift to a more subconscious and observant one. Perhaps then you may "see" the difference in the photos then.

And then your whole point about her taking the image from the video shoot being a huge contradiction to what she's trying to do, just seems like a very limited perception from your part....not trying to be offensive in any case.

I don't feel like going into detail, but "one moment".

Take the action of me tying this message to you. Although it's one moment, that moment can be dissected into even smaller moments which stand on their own. Each word I type is it's own moment, is a different feeling, a different process, both physically, mentally, and even chemically. Each letter I type has it's own moment. While all these moments are from the same umbrella, they are innately different.

The same with stills from a video. Each frame if taken apart should innately show a different emotion. And that is where the whole "different icon, different person" thing seems to really be. It's not as direct and upfront as Gaga has possibly made it seem. She is working with Marina Abramovic. Do not expect anything from this era to be as simplistic nor direct as what she says.

And I say all this with no attempt to protect Lady Gaga. I do not care if she fails as what she attempts to do, but I think it's important you open your mind before you are so quick to judge.

And Kermit the frog, you must be careful before considering other people's a--lysis pseudo intellectual. Just because you may not understand, or it may appear to be absent of any true knowledge, insight, or a--lysis, doesn't mean that it actually is...I think I have more so seem verbose a--lysis, (embellished a--lysis), rather than pseudo intellect.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Andy Darko

[SEANGT 4,709]

I understand what you're saying and that's what I got also, but if her being every icon and not being defined by anyone IS the theme indeed... then she already failed miserably.

 

The beggining of the ARTPOP era is defined by Inez and Vinoodh. ARTPOP promo shoot, video shoot, V mag shoot. They shot her for at least three different purposes. She has been defined by their aesthetic. I think that's what bugs me the most, the contradiction between what she says and what she does/did.

 

"It’s interesting how you view things, and you look at it like, I’m a pop icon, and [you wonder] ‘Is this the image of the album? Is this the direction? Who came up with it?’ I think that’s so interesting because it’s exactly the kind of thing we’re trying to destroy. This is one jacket. This is one image. This is one moment. This is one statement."

"“[i’m not] defined by the same designer or defined by the same hair cut or defined by the same icon."

She's not destroying that, she's perpetuating it. If she was as much of a shapeshifter as she makes it sound, we would not have seen the same weave twice, the same photographer twice, the same elements twice, the same feeling twice. And we did, more than twice.

Trying to destroy that... say, expectation of direction would have been being photographed by a multitude of photographers for the same shoot. Being defined by everyone at the same time and so: not being defined. Having every ARTPOP promo be in total contradiction, be EVERY icon. That would have brought back the confusion and mistery surrounding her that she had when she first came out. It would have pushed her everchanging quality to the very very limit of the concept. To an unsettling state, to schyzophrenia, to a multiple personalities disorder...

 

If the Auras theme of the ARTPOP manifesto is indeed how she's being viewed by other people, the way others perceive and capture her aura, then she failed. She had the same people define her more than once, and truthfully, her ARTPOP direction has been exclusive to Inez and Vinoodh's perception at the moment.

Plus, it's not like she's worked with:

a) people she has never worked with before to give her a new, fresh, unexpected visual.

b) people who are so diverse that they can shoot her in a thousand differents ways. Like Nick Knight, who works extremely well on location and on set, with nature, with people, being grungy, being classy, being natural and being fantasy, raw and with digital alterations... Inez and Vinoodh's work is very distinctive: soft and forward with a blank background in a studio. That's their touch and it's almost exclusively what they do. They do it extremely well, at an extremely high level but you can expect what to see in their work. From the moment their names were thrown around, you knew that she would not have been merged into a unicorn riding in the streets of New-York with a rainbow coming out of her ass. And that is the complete opposite of trying to destroy an expectation.

 

Also, the cover of Applause is a still from the music video. So it's not a moment on its own, it is not a statement on its own. It's part of a statement. It's an indication of a direction, a big giant pointer to the music video. It's even more of a pointer than the BTW single cover was to the BTW music video, because it is DIRECTLY an image FROM it.

 

So, unless all of this has been a decoy from a much bigger picture, then her supposed "theme" of being every icon is already dead, or at least not big enough to be relevant. That's why I took it as being just a thing she's gonna do and not a theme or message. Knowing her, she would have made it in a huge huge way and the point would have come across already.

I love her to pieces but: no.

 

 

I'm just gonna wait and see what comes of it, it's still pretty early in the ARTPOP era... I know I'm gonna love the music, cause she can't fail at music. But urgh, these pretentious statements bug me when it contradicts with what she does. It makes her look big and when you search for a meaning or concrete examples, there's none.

 

(Maybe the theme is contradictions indeed. )

you're killing me haunts 

 

I think you're focusing on the icon part, and not enough on this:

“[i’m not] defined by the same designer or defined by the same hair cut or defined by the same icon."

 

she is saying that I+V aren't defining her even *if* it's the same photographer, or designer, or whatever. I think in her life, she's been so defined by RedOne, by the hair bow, by the meat dress. She's been so defined by these moments that they maybe take control of her. She is going against that. She's saying that she can be anything. Do anything, and not have it mean more than her statement at the time. 

 

That's not to say that every statement must be different, but that it can be. I think the album photoshoot might be clever in this way because it's so blank. Each prop and different weave really pop. idk. something like that.

 

Overall, I think she's just rebelling against the concept album. She is a very creative person, and being tied to one idea for 2+ years must be terrible for her. I think this era we will see singles about lots of different topics and they won't necessarily relate. She is going to work with many different artists. In the same way an artist might work on one piece and have it be a complete idea until they start on a new one, I think the songs will each be their own idea. I don't think you'll see GaGa making a statement about anything that she proves with her artistry until the song comes out. Then she will actually have something to say. 

[Der Meister 3,000]

I think the problem more lies in your expectations and personal perceptions of what being "every icon" exactly is. You putting so much emphasis on the directors and directions of these photoshoots or artistic creations, rather than the prime entity itself...Lady Gaga.

Every weave must be different, every photographer must be different, every element must be different. You're taking the concept incredibly literally and very superficially. Even without a photographer who seemingly captures different forms or "icons" of a person, by dressing them up in most likely different, yet semi-stereotypical attire, you can still emit a different aura, a different feeling, and regardless of what you may perceive or feel, that is more dependent on the entity, than the audience.

I haven't felt any image has been in harmony or accordance with each other. It's not to a point of "schizophrenia" or "multiple personality disorders" or anything, which again I feel is both a more literal and superficial perception of what she is trying do, but it's more to the effect like this makes no sense. She may be nude in all of them, she may have the same weave...in like two of them, but I definitely get a different feeling from all the images.

However, is it strong enough to say that she has failed just become some people can not feel the difference of feelings from each photo we've gotten thus far? Definitely not.

I think perhaps the vagueness and perhaps even "emptiness" from each shoot is what is perpetuating your feeling of her failure. If her personalities, or the feelings she portrays are not simple, it is going to be more difficult to differentiate them. The more complex her auras are, the more naturally overlapping they will be. While still different, the subtle similarities will render them the same to some.

For example let's take stereotypical highschool cliques for example. You have your jocks, your emos, your preps, your gangsta kids, your nobodies, your nerds, etc.

It is easy to say they are different forms of people, because physically and audibly they most likely seem different. Their attire will be different, as well as their conversation. However, it is difficult to look inside one group, let's say the emos, and recognize the difference in all of them. Their conversation and attire are the same, so in order to realize the difference between each individual, a less shallow and superficial mindset has to be adopted. You must rely on feeling, a focus on the inner entity to really understand and see the difference in all the individuals.

Same with Lady Gaga's pictures. Yes some elements may be the same, but detach yourself from your original and conscious a--lytical focus, and allow to shift to a more subconscious and observant one. Perhaps then you may "see" the difference in the photos then.

And then your whole point about her taking the image from the video shoot being a huge contradiction to what she's trying to do, just seems like a very limited perception from your part....not trying to be offensive in any case.

I don't feel like going into detail, but "one moment".

Take the action of me tying this message to you. Although it's one moment, that moment can be dissected into even smaller moments which stand on their own. Each word I type is it's own moment, is a different feeling, a different process, both physically, mentally, and even chemically. Each letter I type has it's own moment. While all these moments are from the same umbrella, they are innately different.

The same with stills from a video. Each frame if taken apart should innately show a different emotion. And that is where the whole "different icon, different person" thing seems to really be. It's not as direct and upfront as Gaga has possibly made it seem. She is working with Marina Abramovic. Do not expect anything from this era to be as simplistic nor direct as what she says.

And I say all this with no attempt to protect Lady Gaga. I do not care if she fails as what she attempts to do, but I think it's important you open your mind before you are so quick to judge.

And Kermit the frog, you must be careful before considering other people's a--lysis pseudo intellectual. Just because you may not understand, or it may appear to be absent of any true knowledge, insight, or a--lysis, doesn't mean that it actually is...I think I have more so seem verbose a--lysis, (embellished a--lysis), rather than pseudo intellect.

Amazing  :clap:

[kupo 201]

Damn, I hate to be the Debbie downer but this article scares me. I'm having a hard time being hyped now, I loved loved loved all the teasing and the few promos and I truly want to be as excited as everybody but urgh, this just makes me anxious. I trust her, she's brilliant so we'll se how that translates... But:

 

Firstly, I can't really wrap my head around her 'every icon' statement.

 

I think that it's interesting that she's pushing her everyday transformation, 'every icon' visual one step further. But to me it sounds like there won't be regularity, no direction, no theme. Just like the pointlessness of all her looks these past few weeks and around the BTWBall. I loved every one of her look individually but the lack of meaning and of big picture makes it... yeah, pointless.

 

I think it was fantastic when her day to day attire was supporting the concept of her record. When she wore the BTW horns around, when she wore the grey wig for the fame monster... Even just having a general aesthetic that was close to the record, that had the same feeling. Now she just seems all over the place.

 

 

"“It’s interesting how you view things, and you look at it like, I’m a pop icon, and [you wonder] ‘Is this the image of the album? Is this the direction? Who came up with it?’ I think that’s so interesting because it’s exactly the kind of thing we’re trying to destroy. This is one jacket. This is one image. This is one moment. This is one statement."

Urgh I just hate that quote so much. Maybe it's one statement but one statement doesn't have power, it doesn't have impact. You need a concept, you need something to tie everything together and so elevate your idea. You can't serve fabulous brunette bombshell and Pierrot Gaga within litterally 3 hours. It's just distracting. If your statements don't serve a big picture then what's the point? You can't get a point across with one moment. Unless it's something as brutal as the meat dress but you can't replicate that many times.

 

If wearing a clear visor is a complete statement on its own, then it could mean anything. And so anything could mean anything if you don't have a perspective. It's like trying to draw a line with one point, it goes anywhere and most importantly: nowhere.

 

 

Also, I don't really like how she talks about Applause. It seems so egocentric and self-centered. It's like a codependent relationship. I didn't think that was the way she viewed fame. I thought she viewed fame as something from within, not a thirst that only screaming fans could quench. She's a soldier to her own emptiness, the whole inner strength and own sense of accomplishment theme.

To me, it just sounds like giving in to someone else's approval to feel good. An artist should not be idolized, or rather put themselves in the position of an idol and that is the position she puts herself in. She says fans cheer before she even starts and that's not something she should romanticize.

I understand the 'feel good' quality of being cheered of course, but it sounds more like a need than a... 'bonus' for making a great performance. And that worries me about her intentions with this song. I'm hoping it's more of a celebration of obsession, and a commentary on the addictive nature of being adulated, than literally her living for the fame. (Isn't it a shame, shame?)

 

 

I also hate what Inez said about stripping bare and natural beauty. This is not for Gaga. Gaga defines beauty in the 'pile on all the artifices you want and feel fabulous' kind of way. The inner sense of beauty. Natural beauty is part of that but I don't see it as being any relatable.

 

And for god's sake, please no chic, toned down fashion. The fashion world is in such a bad shape, nobody needs subtle clothing. The world needs outrageous and in-your-face f*ckery. This is the part I was looking the most forward to. Since Gaga has not showed up at an award show, did you notice how fast everything went back to normal, basic stuff?

I just want her to be outrageous in everything she does again. I can't see her doing a risky, forward performance piece with Marina and walking out of there in Balenciaga.

I don't know, everything just seems a little safe. You can see it in the single cover. It is a gorgeous photograph but it won't stay on my mind the same way a pointy shouldered, facially distorted Gaga will. It's not devastatingly beautiful neither, I just don't feel anything. I've seen this kind of makeup before, and much sharper with Alex Box's work. Like this picture for example which has much more appeal and a more meaningful aura.

 

I don't know, I'm just not impressed and it bugs me.

(No bashing please. I adore Gaga just as all of you, I'm just waiting to be proved wrong. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, and probably too negatively but at the moment, this just leaves me blah and I don't like feeling that way. Please, hype me again. )

 

 

I think you need to realize that Gaga is interested in approaching some of these subjects from a multi-faceted viewpoint. Like when you mention how she views fame. I highly doubt Gaga has changed her view that "Fame" is something within--to me, she's always demonstrated interest in how "Fame" is manufactured, but that also means it can be self-manufactured. But obviously, you can't control the way others interpret and react to your fame. And as somebody that now has achieved the most monumental fame possible--and who has always discussed how much she lived and died by and for her fans--I think it's interesting that she's admitted this sort of sad underlining. Gaga lives for the stage, and while she's always stressed the liberational aspects of that kind of philosophy, she's never really shied away from its struggles, either. And I don't think she should. I love how innocent she can be, and that she stresses these super-uplifting, really positivist positions (seriously, she doesn't get enough credit for how brave the entire BTW era was from an artistic perspective--adopting such an uncalloused, uncynical attitude with such gusto and earnestness is basically critical suicide in this postmodern era where irony rules all), but I also want her to be true to her experiences.  I think for Gaga, to a degree, it is a codependent relationship. Especially for someone with such lofty "pop" art aspirations. It becomes a bit like that old saying, "if a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a POP artist loses her audience, then what the hell's the point?

 

I mean, at the very least, her whole perfume campaign certainly should have prepared us for a slightly darker point of view on what fame is, and how it manifests itself. All that said, from the lyrics we've got so far, and what Gaga and DJWS have said, I don't think Applause will focus on these things. I think it will be more uplifting than questioning. If anything, I think these sort of more sad reflections will be merely hinted at, and left for listeners to ponder themselves after the fact, but we'll see in a couple weeks.

 

As for Gaga's chameleonic fashion and your distaste for it--I think you're actually missing the big statement and cohesion that you're looking for. It's definitely there, though. As Marshall McLuhan once famously said, "the medium is the message." In this case, the very fact that Gaga's look is impossible to define or understand IS the very point she's trying to make, and is a cohesive and uniformly employed tactic. Looking for cohesion in aesthetic is just looking in the wrong place. The cohesion in Gaga's artistic expression, rather, lies in her modality.

 

And this isn't really new. Yes, there are times when Gaga unifies her aesthetic for a purpose (the BTW alien fashion and prosthetics--which is one of my faves ever, by the way--the Versace era and the teal wig, etc.) but there have been, really from the beginning, just as many times when she was switching between looks at lightning speed, and even within those more unified fashion statements, there were (probably quite deliberate) hiccups. When Camille Paglia tried to criticize Gaga, she whined that her look was always changing, and Paglia ignorantly thought it was Gaga's way of escaping criticism--to make herself purposely difficult to pin down. She was half right--it has nothing to do with escaping criticism, but it does have to do with confounding labels and easy definitions. Marilyn Manson, who obviously admires Gaga to a degree, has also said he thinks one thing she does wrong is not commit to one look for long enough. He thinks that if she were to do so, she would more firmly lodge herself in the public consciousness. But, look at how the public "thinks" about Manson versus how the public "thinks" about Gaga. We have one static image in our head associated with Manson. Whereas with Gaga, even casual nonfans probably have a riot of equally recognizable images go through their head--at the very least, probably Fame era hair bow Gaga and a meat dress. I mean, think about that very night at the 2010 VMAs--Gaga stole the show precisely BECAUSE of her rapid metamorphosis. But the ephemerality of each "look" did not stop them from registering--both the McQueen gown and headdress she showed up in and the meat dress she ended the night in rank among her most iconic looks. Gaga, rather, understands what identity looks like--or at least, what it can look like--in contemporary internet age, where everything is rapidly evolving.

 

Gaga, from the very beginning, has pushed a thoroughly queer worldview. And that is a worldview that dispenses with labels altogether. A worldview that detests being boxed in or defined. It is a worldview about making oneself in one's own image, and recognizing that that image can change on a whim, and that that's a beautiful and freeing thing. There have been more unified aesthetic periods for Gaga, and I suspect we'll have some during ARTPOP. But from the very, very beginning, what's always been most prevalent about Gaga--most commented upon, and the true constant of her career--is that she's a shapeshifter. Here, she's just explicitly saying it herself.

[chiuga 1,904]

Gaga must be very proud to have you guys as her fans with these Intellectual and rational discussion of her ideas. Keep them coming!

U all deserve rounds and rounds of APPLAUSE!

Edited August 4, 2013 by chiuga

[Golgi 0]

I love these guys' discussion tbh. I adore intelligent debates...


but...


you guys are so deep omg. 

[heavyMetalGAGA 65]

I think you need to realize that Gaga is interested in approaching some of these subjects from a multi-faceted viewpoint. Like when you mention how she views fame. I highly doubt Gaga has changed her view that "Fame" is something within--to me, she's always demonstrated interest in how "Fame" is manufactured, but that also means it can be self-manufactured. But obviously, you can't control the way others interpret and react to your fame. And as somebody that now has achieved the most monumental fame possible--and who has always discussed how much she lived and died by and for her fans--I think it's interesting that she's admitted this sort of sad underlining. Gaga lives for the stage, and while she's always stressed the liberational aspects of that kind of philosophy, she's never really shied away from its struggles, either. And I don't think she should. I love how innocent she can be, and that she stresses these super-uplifting, really positivist positions (seriously, she doesn't get enough credit for how brave the entire BTW era was from an artistic perspective--adopting such an uncalloused, uncynical attitude with such gusto and earnestness is basically critical suicide in this postmodern era where irony rules all), but I also want her to be true to her experiences.  I think for Gaga, to a degree, it is a codependent relationship. Especially for someone with such lofty "pop" art aspirations. It becomes a bit like that old saying, "if a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a POP artist loses her audience, then what the hell's the point?

 

I mean, at the very least, her whole perfume campaign certainly should have prepared us for a slightly darker point of view on what fame is, and how it manifests itself. All that said, from the lyrics we've got so far, and what Gaga and DJWS have said, I don't think Applause will focus on these things. I think it will be more uplifting than questioning. If anything, I think these sort of more sad reflections will be merely hinted at, and left for listeners to ponder themselves after the fact, but we'll see in a couple weeks.

 

As for Gaga's chameleonic fashion and your distaste for it--I think you're actually missing the big statement and cohesion that you're looking for. It's definitely there, though. As Marshall McLuhan once famously said, "the medium is the message." In this case, the very fact that Gaga's look is impossible to define or understand IS the very point she's trying to make, and is a cohesive and uniformly employed tactic. Looking for cohesion in aesthetic is just looking in the wrong place. The cohesion in Gaga's artistic expression, rather, lies in her modality.

 

And this isn't really new. Yes, there are times when Gaga unifies her aesthetic for a purpose (the BTW alien fashion and prosthetics--which is one of my faves ever, by the way--the Versace era and the teal wig, etc.) but there have been, really from the beginning, just as many times when she was switching between looks at lightning speed, and even within those more unified fashion statements, there were (probably quite deliberate) hiccups. When Camille Paglia tried to criticize Gaga, she whined that her look was always changing, and Paglia ignorantly thought it was Gaga's way of escaping criticism--to make herself purposely difficult to pin down. She was half right--it has nothing to do with escaping criticism, but it does have to do with confounding labels and easy definitions. Marilyn Manson, who obviously admires Gaga to a degree, has also said he thinks one thing she does wrong is not commit to one look for long enough. He thinks that if she were to do so, she would more firmly lodge herself in the public consciousness. But, look at how the public "thinks" about Manson versus how the public "thinks" about Gaga. We have one static image in our head associated with Manson. Whereas with Gaga, even casual nonfans probably have a riot of equally recognizable images go through their head--at the very least, probably Fame era hair bow Gaga and a meat dress. I mean, think about that very night at the 2010 VMAs--Gaga stole the show precisely BECAUSE of her rapid metamorphosis. But the ephemerality of each "look" did not stop them from registering--both the McQueen gown and headdress she showed up in and the meat dress she ended the night in rank among her most iconic looks. Gaga, rather, understands what identity looks like--or at least, what it can look like--in contemporary internet age, where everything is rapidly evolving.

 

Gaga, from the very beginning, has pushed a thoroughly queer worldview. And that is a worldview that dispenses with labels altogether. A worldview that detests being boxed in or defined. It is a worldview about making oneself in one's own image, and recognizing that that image can change on a whim, and that that's a beautiful and freeing thing. There have been more unified aesthetic periods for Gaga, and I suspect we'll have some during ARTPOP. But from the very, very beginning, what's always been most prevalent about Gaga--most commented upon, and the true constant of her career--is that she's a shapeshifter. Here, she's just explicitly saying it herself.

 

I literally f*cking love you. You have an amazing brain, don't ever change! Your ideology on Gaga is so spot on I get a rush of energy and happiness from just reading it haha. Do you think people will ever look back on the BTW era though and realize being so uncynical made a positive impact? 

 

And I agree with the rapid fashion-changing, she changed her look several times during the fame era. I mean, just look at Lovegame to Papparazzi. I think fans believe she was more concrete though with how she was usually pantless and caked on similar makeup styles, or adopted the hairbow. You think it's smarter for her to not keep concrete looks like those though? Because if she changes so often a look will eventually resonate with the fans and or public? 

[MJ Holland 4]

I think you need to realize that Gaga is interested in approaching some of these subjects from a multi-faceted viewpoint. Like when you mention how she views fame. I highly doubt Gaga has changed her view that "Fame" is something within--to me, she's always demonstrated interest in how "Fame" is manufactured, but that also means it can be self-manufactured. But obviously, you can't control the way others interpret and react to your fame. And as somebody that now has achieved the most monumental fame possible--and who has always discussed how much she lived and died by and for her fans--I think it's interesting that she's admitted this sort of sad underlining. Gaga lives for the stage, and while she's always stressed the liberational aspects of that kind of philosophy, she's never really shied away from its struggles, either. And I don't think she should. I love how innocent she can be, and that she stresses these super-uplifting, really positivist positions (seriously, she doesn't get enough credit for how brave the entire BTW era was from an artistic perspective--adopting such an uncalloused, uncynical attitude with such gusto and earnestness is basically critical suicide in this postmodern era where irony rules all), but I also want her to be true to her experiences. I think for Gaga, to a degree, it is a codependent relationship. Especially for someone with such lofty "pop" art aspirations. It becomes a bit like that old saying, "if a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a POP artist loses her audience, then what the hell's the point?

I mean, at the very least, her whole perfume campaign certainly should have prepared us for a slightly darker point of view on what fame is, and how it manifests itself. All that said, from the lyrics we've got so far, and what Gaga and DJWS have said, I don't think Applause will focus on these things. I think it will be more uplifting than questioning. If anything, I think these sort of more sad reflections will be merely hinted at, and left for listeners to ponder themselves after the fact, but we'll see in a couple weeks.

As for Gaga's chameleonic fashion and your distaste for it--I think you're actually missing the big statement and cohesion that you're looking for. It's definitely there, though. As Marshall McLuhan once famously said, "the medium is the message." In this case, the very fact that Gaga's look is impossible to define or understand IS the very point she's trying to make, and is a cohesive and uniformly employed tactic. Looking for cohesion in aesthetic is just looking in the wrong place. The cohesion in Gaga's artistic expression, rather, lies in her modality.

And this isn't really new. Yes, there are times when Gaga unifies her aesthetic for a purpose (the BTW alien fashion and prosthetics--which is one of my faves ever, by the way--the Versace era and the teal wig, etc.) but there have been, really from the beginning, just as many times when she was switching between looks at lightning speed, and even within those more unified fashion statements, there were (probably quite deliberate) hiccups. When Camille Paglia tried to criticize Gaga, she whined that her look was always changing, and Paglia ignorantly thought it was Gaga's way of escaping criticism--to make herself purposely difficult to pin down. She was half right--it has nothing to do with escaping criticism, but it does have to do with confounding labels and easy definitions. Marilyn Manson, who obviously admires Gaga to a degree, has also said he thinks one thing she does wrong is not commit to one look for long enough. He thinks that if she were to do so, she would more firmly lodge herself in the public consciousness. But, look at how the public "thinks" about Manson versus how the public "thinks" about Gaga. We have one static image in our head associated with Manson. Whereas with Gaga, even casual nonfans probably have a riot of equally recognizable images go through their head--at the very least, probably Fame era hair bow Gaga and a meat dress. I mean, think about that very night at the 2010 VMAs--Gaga stole the show precisely BECAUSE of her rapid metamorphosis. But the ephemerality of each "look" did not stop them from registering--both the McQueen gown and headdress she showed up in and the meat dress she ended the night in rank among her most iconic looks. Gaga, rather, understands what identity looks like--or at least, what it can look like--in contemporary internet age, where everything is rapidly evolving.

Gaga, from the very beginning, has pushed a thoroughly queer worldview. And that is a worldview that dispenses with labels altogether. A worldview that detests being boxed in or defined. It is a worldview about making oneself in one's own image, and recognizing that that image can change on a whim, and that that's a beautiful and freeing thing. There have been more unified aesthetic periods for Gaga, and I suspect we'll have some during ARTPOP. But from the very, very beginning, what's always been most prevalent about Gaga--most commented upon, and the true constant of her career--is that she's a shapeshifter. Here, she's just explicitly saying it herself.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Took the words right out of my mouth AND enlighten me as well.

What she did for the BTW era WAS brave, I can see it now. I always feared her trying too hard to be a good role model for her adoring fans was going to lead to losing her self-awareness. You see, she fascinated me during The Fame and TFM era because of her understanding of where she stood. She knew she was given tons of attention due to her unusual style and performance act and loved pissing people off. She'd always admit to that.

But, as soon as she saw all those fans and the way she can influence them, she took it upon herself to teach them how to be as free as she was. Se is such a romantic and I get what she was trying to do. I am also a helpless romantic. But the way she deluded herself into believing she can change the world...

I remember watching an interview where she was asked about the Judas MV( can't seem to find it). She stated something along the lines of The Haus actually told me how beautiful it is, but that people might not understand. I mean, are you ****ting me, Gaga ?! You KNEW people are gonna take it the wrong way. Not only that, you wanted to get people talking about it, you wanted all the controversy !

In the end, I still have tons of respect for her, she is really somethings else. I am looking forward to this new Era. I miss her.

Edited August 4, 2013 by MJ Holland