"Gaga's Album Cover Is A World-Class Work Of Art" says expert

[daviddarko 144]

Well, it was very clear to me that it was a first-class piece of art, since I first saw it, I never needed an "expert" opinion to confirm it. Actually, I think that anyone with the slightest education regarding visual art, could easily perceive the artistic value of the image, whether they like it or not.

I mean: if you've ever been into a museum, if you've ever attended an art exhibition, if you've studied art history... it is not hard to recognize the "ARTPOP" cover as a true piece of art. You know, it doesn't differ from what you find in museums. I'm not even talking about the quality of the work, but merely about it being an obvious piece of art. It's a Pop Art collage, and it is certainly art, it surprises me that there are some people doubting it.

Also, it seems to be a common misinterpretation of the phrase "art is subjective". Art is, in fact, subjective, which doesn't mean "everything is art" at all. Art is subjective in the way that, the same piece can generate several different interpretations depending on the viewer, all of them being valid. That, of course, does not implies that a piece of art can be claimed not to be so (or viceversa).

If there's an artist behind it, it is art. If there's not an artist behind it, it is not art.

And even though it sounds bad, an art critic's opinion is, usually (and logically) more valid and will have a different weight than that of a forum member. It sounds harsh and elitist, but it is just common sense: doctors and medicine students will know more about medicine than most people, and their opinions will be sustained by their knowledge on the matter, rather than their mere abstract impressions. In the same way, artists, and art erudites will obviously have "better" opinions regarding art, than pop music fans on a forum, is just a logical thing.

That of course doesn't mean that you can't give your opinion, we all can, and every single view (if presented respectfully) should be respected, but "experts" opinions will hold a different weight, it should hurt no one to deal with that.

Now, regarding the critic's review in question, I think it's a good one. His a--lysis might look simple, because the piece itself sends a sort of simple message.

Some people don't seem to understand that art is not only about feelings, emotions and sensations, it is also about ideas, and concepts.

Pop Art, particularly, is generally perceived as "cold" (and sometimes: not art at all) because it's not that much about feelings, but more about ideas, and concepts.

Just because the image doesn't portrays "love" or "desperations" (aka: feelings and sensations) doesn't mean it's not art.

This critic's review is kinda simple, because the intentions of the piece are simple.

At first, ART overtook POP (Pop Art, Warhol).

Now Pop overtakes ART (Art Pop, Lady Gaga).

Just because it's simple, it doesn't means it's meaningless, there's a very clear concept behind the piece, and it is well executed.

Also: it would be nice, now that Gaga is finally receiving recognition for her work, not to have arguments over people LIKING her work. Let's respect each others opinions and have some peace already.

 

:clap:  :clap: great great post

[cometoogg 0]

[Kayla 7,595]

:udidnt: Thank goodness some people understand!

Gaga's really smart, and she knows her stuff. I think it's awesome she's doing this, and it's a really unique take on art and how it applies to pop culture.

That being said, one reason why this album cover is brilliant is it's making higher class art accessible, and it's combining different eras/time periods of art.

So yes, it's a collage of **** that's been made before, but that's the point. Gaga wants people to take the time to look at this art.

When you create art that gets people talking, draws attention to an idea, you've made something that is important. You know why this is a world-class work of art? Because it's actually doing something and impacting things.

Well the cool thing is, as someone pointed out the other day, she's taking art that would normally only be available to the rich elites who can afford to spend multi-millions on Koons' art and she's making it available to the masses- soon it will be stocking the shelves of Walmart and Target. Which means she's making good on her ridiculous sounding (at the time) promise to make the new era a "reverse-Warholian" experiment- Warhol took mass produced items like soup cans and brought them into the "high art" world, she's doing the reverse.

[Dangerous Man 9,245]

The most praised cover of our generation. :omg:

[Kayla 7,595]

Well, it was very clear to me that it was a first-class piece of art, since I first saw it, I never needed an "expert" opinion to confirm it. Actually, I think that anyone with the slightest education regarding visual art, could easily perceive the artistic value of the image, whether they like it or not.

I mean: if you've ever been into a museum, if you've ever attended an art exhibition, if you've studied art history... it is not hard to recognize the "ARTPOP" cover as a true piece of art. You know, it doesn't differ from what you find in museums. I'm not even talking about the quality of the work, but merely about it being an obvious piece of art. It's a Pop Art collage, and it is certainly art, it surprises me that there are some people doubting it.

Also, it seems to be a common misinterpretation of the phrase "art is subjective". Art is, in fact, subjective, which doesn't mean "everything is art" at all. Art is subjective in the way that, the same piece can generate several different interpretations depending on the viewer, all of them being valid. That, of course, does not implies that a piece of art can be claimed not to be so (or viceversa).

If there's an artist behind it, it is art. If there's not an artist behind it, it is not art.

And even though it sounds bad, an art critic's opinion is, usually (and logically) more valid and will have a different weight than that of a forum member. It sounds harsh and elitist, but it is just common sense: doctors and medicine students will know more about medicine than most people, and their opinions will be sustained by their knowledge on the matter, rather than their mere abstract impressions. In the same way, artists, and art erudites will obviously have "better" opinions regarding art, than pop music fans on a forum, is just a logical thing.

That of course doesn't mean that you can't give your opinion, we all can, and every single view (if presented respectfully) should be respected, but "experts" opinions will hold a different weight, it should hurt no one to deal with that.

Now, regarding the critic's review in question, I think it's a good one. His a--lysis might look simple, because the piece itself sends a sort of simple message.

Some people don't seem to understand that art is not only about feelings, emotions and sensations, it is also about ideas, and concepts.

Pop Art, particularly, is generally perceived as "cold" (and sometimes: not art at all) because it's not that much about feelings, but more about ideas, and concepts.

Just because the image doesn't portrays "love" or "desperations" (aka: feelings and sensations) doesn't mean it's not art.

This critic's review is kinda simple, because the intentions of the piece are simple.

At first, ART overtook POP (Pop Art, Warhol).

Now Pop overtakes ART (Art Pop, Lady Gaga).

Just because it's simple, it doesn't means it's meaningless, there's a very clear concept behind the piece, and it is well executed.

Also: it would be nice, now that Gaga is finally receiving recognition for her work, not to have arguments over people LIKING her work. Let's respect each others opinions and have some peace already.

 

Great post. :)

[zexion_armando 241]

Well, it was very clear to me that it was a first-class piece of art, since I first saw it, I never needed an "expert" opinion to confirm it. Actually, I think that anyone with the slightest education regarding visual art, could easily perceive the artistic value of the image, whether they like it or not.

I mean: if you've ever been into a museum, if you've ever attended an art exhibition, if you've studied art history... it is not hard to recognize the "ARTPOP" cover as a true piece of art. You know, it doesn't differ from what you find in museums. I'm not even talking about the quality of the work, but merely about it being an obvious piece of art. It's a Pop Art collage, and it is certainly art, it surprises me that there are some people doubting it.

Also, it seems to be a common misinterpretation of the phrase "art is subjective". Art is, in fact, subjective, which doesn't mean "everything is art" at all. Art is subjective in the way that, the same piece can generate several different interpretations depending on the viewer, all of them being valid. That, of course, does not implies that a piece of art can be claimed not to be so (or viceversa).

If there's an artist behind it, it is art. If there's not an artist behind it, it is not art.

And even though it sounds bad, an art critic's opinion is, usually (and logically) more valid and will have a different weight than that of a forum member. It sounds harsh and elitist, but it is just common sense: doctors and medicine students will know more about medicine than most people, and their opinions will be sustained by their knowledge on the matter, rather than their mere abstract impressions. In the same way, artists, and art erudites will obviously have "better" opinions regarding art, than pop music fans on a forum, is just a logical thing.

That of course doesn't mean that you can't give your opinion, we all can, and every single view (if presented respectfully) should be respected, but "experts" opinions will hold a different weight, it should hurt no one to deal with that.

Now, regarding the critic's review in question, I think it's a good one. His a--lysis might look simple, because the piece itself sends a sort of simple message.

Some people don't seem to understand that art is not only about feelings, emotions and sensations, it is also about ideas, and concepts.

Pop Art, particularly, is generally perceived as "cold" (and sometimes: not art at all) because it's not that much about feelings, but more about ideas, and concepts.

Just because the image doesn't portrays "love" or "desperations" (aka: feelings and sensations) doesn't mean it's not art.

This critic's review is kinda simple, because the intentions of the piece are simple.

At first, ART overtook POP (Pop Art, Warhol).

Now Pop overtakes ART (Art Pop, Lady Gaga).

Just because it's simple, it doesn't means it's meaningless, there's a very clear concept behind the piece, and it is well executed.

Also: it would be nice, now that Gaga is finally receiving recognition for her work, not to have arguments over people LIKING her work. Let's respect each others opinions and have some peace already.

I would not call that comparison a good one.

Doctors and medical students are using their knowledge to reveal facts based on theories, tests, work, and so on.

 

"Art" professors, students, etc, their opinion holds no more weight than anyone elses due to "art" not being an exact science. its too fluid, too abstract, too obtuse to ever be an exact. Their opinions may have slightly more information behind it, but nothing no one else can't do with 10 minutes of google, lol

inb4stopdismissing"art"

 

Of course, it all doesn't matter, cause I am a horrible culture-less troll, lol.

[mostro 0]

yass the experts have spoken

[AgusPop 4,064]

Of course, it all doesn't matter, cause I am a horrible culture-less troll, lol.

You said it!!

 

yass the experts have spoken

 

[Sudarshana 581]

I don't understand modern art, it just seems so random to me And this ACCLAIMED CRITIC that found literally 0 right connotations... He doesn't even seem to understand that gaga is GIVING BIRTH to ARTPOP, not shoveling something into her groin And he didn't bother to find out what's the sculpture is (which is Bernini's Apollo and Daphne for those who don't know)

 

I do enjoy the cover very much though. When your eyes get used to the colourful firework you notice that it's a really beautiful combination of different stuff.

[zexion_armando 241]

You said it!!

 

Since everyone is gonna scream it down my throat, lol.

Doesn't invalidate what I said.

[HausOfMark 4,167]

Amazing!!

 

Get the praise gaga you deserve!!

[OliviaRodrigoStan 4,414]

I would not call that comparison a good one.

Doctors and medical students are using their knowledge to reveal facts based on theories, tests, work, and so on.

"Art" professors, students, etc, their opinion holds no more weight than anyone elses due to "art" not being an exact science. its too fluid, too abstract, too obtuse to ever be an exact. Their opinions may have slightly more information behind it, but nothing no one else can't do with 10 minutes of google, lol

inb4stopdismissing"art"

Of course, it all doesn't matter, cause I am a horrible culture-less troll, lol.

I wouldn't say art students opinions would be "slightly" better stated, but more like "a lot" better fundamented than those of a person with no knowledge on the matter, specially when it comes to criticism of an art piece.

Is true that art isn't "exact" as medicine, but there are still basis, structures, history and rules that are meant to be learned, to obtain a certain knowledge on the issue, mostly if we're trying to a--lyse a specific piece.

During ten minutes in google you might learn several names, and general descriptions, but that's still not even close to the knowledge of a person who has dedicated his life to art (studying it, o creating it - specially, creating it).

Just because you consume art, doesn't mean you understand art and its procedures. Is that wrong? of course not, there's nothing wrong about being "ignorant" regarding art, since it's not really meant be completely "understood", but rather enjoyed, and thought about.

So: I'm not implying that "outsiders" opinions are not valid per sé, I simply stated that an "expert" opinion will always have, in general terms, more value.

To be more precise: you can listen to leads of music, and still know nothing about musical structure and its execution. Just because you look at a certain collage, doesn't mean you'll understand how the creative process actually works.

And I repeat it: there's NOTHING wrong with it, I'm not saying that people who know nothing about visual art are stupid and shouldn't give their opinion. At all.

We are ALL ignorant on different areas, because we all have different interests, it's a natural thing.

I simply think that, if you have little knowledge regarding a certain subject, have some respect towards the ones who actually do, whether you agree with them or not.

That, of course should work in the inverse: all opinions should be respected if they've been expressed politely. I mean: is just a collage, that most people seem to like, and some others do not, period. All the drama is completely unnecessary.

[AgusPop 4,064]

Thank goodness some people understand!

Gaga's really smart, and she knows her stuff. I think it's awesome she's doing this, and it's a really unique take on art and how it applies to pop culture.

That being said, one reason why this album cover is brilliant is it's making higher class art accessible, and it's combining different eras/time periods of art.

So yes, it's a collage of **** that's been made before, but that's the point. Gaga wants people to take the time to look at this art.

When you create art that gets people talking, draws attention to an idea, you've made something that is important. You know why this is a world-class work of art? Because it's actually doing something and impacting things.

 

 

  I made this!!

 

[zexion_armando 241]

I wouldn't say art students opinions would be "slightly" better stated, but more like "a lot" better fundamented than those of a person with no knowledge on the matter, specially when it comes to criticism of an art piece.

Is true that art isn't "exact" as medicine, but there are still basis, structures, history and rules that are meant to be learned, to obtain a certain knowledge on the issue, mostly if we're trying to a--lyse a specific piece.

During ten minutes in google you might learn several names, and general descriptions, but that's still not even close to the knowledge of a person who has dedicated his life to art (studying it, o creating it - specially, creating it).

Just because you consume art, doesn't mean you understand art and its procedures. Is that wrong? of course not, there's nothing wrong about being "ignorant" regarding art, since it's not really meant be completely "understood", but rather enjoyed, and thought about.

So: I'm not implying that "outsiders" opinions are not valid per sé, I simply stated that an "expert" opinion will always have, in general terms, more value.

To be more precise: you can listen to leads of music, and still know nothing about musical structure and its execution. Just because you look at a certain collage, doesn't mean you'll understand how the creative process actually works.

And I repeat it: there's NOTHING wrong with it, I'm not saying that people who know nothing about visual art are stupid and shouldn't give their opinion. At all.

We are ALL ignorant on different areas, because we all have different interests, it's a natural thing.

I simply think that, if you have little knowledge regarding a certain subject, have some respect towards the ones who actually do, whether you agree with them or not.

That, of course should work in the inverse: all opinions should be respected if they've been expressed politely. I mean: is just a collage, that most people seem to like, and some others do not, period. All the drama is completely unnecessary.

Now this is a response I can get behind.

Thank you.

I grow weary of people who treat those who dislike or dismiss art as stupid or vapid.

 

However, this is a fanbase primarily composed of gays and women, who have a natural predisposition to head to extreme's to voice their views.

[Wet Fire 6,714]

Yes