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

[Kayla 7,595]

  I made this!!

 

 

I love it!

[OliviaRodrigoStan 4,416]

I made this!!

That's super cool!! and I personally think that's exactly what the whole cover artwork is all about, you nailed it

And Zexion_Armando: It's ok, I'd never say you're stupid or culture-less simply because you dislike the cover, it actually surprised me that you assumed I would. Maybe it's because I'm new here, so you haven't seen my posts that often, but nope, I'm not that kind of person, I actually like to respect diversity ;)

[AgusPop 4,064]

That's super cool!! and I personally think that's exactly what the whole cover artwork is all about, you nailed it

 

 

I'm glad someone like you is here to educate us

[AgusPop 4,064]

Maybe in spirit, but not as specifically as the black and white, in my opinion. I think you can take thousands of maybe-related artworks and say Koons was inspired by them 

"The left side represented the living, the right side the dead. Warhol alluded to this by presenting Marilyn incolour on the left side and in black and white on the right. Now look at the background of the Koons cover of'ARTPOP'"

Black and white background of the Koons cover has a meaning and the Expert explanation makes sense to me. of course, it is his interpretation but you CAN'T say its wrong!

now, Tell me what is your explanation for the Black and white background because its not random.

[OliviaRodrigoStan 4,416]

I'm glad someone like you is here to educate us

Haha, you are waaay too nice honey, I can't educate anyone, I just share my humble opinions, but thanks for your kindness

Back on topic: I'm really glad that critics are giving her some nice feedback, even though the article basically praises Koon's work, it is still her cover, and her vision (she even got paired with Warhol, sure, there were question marks, but still, it's kinda huge coming from an art critic, mostly considering people usually think she's "just a pop singer").

I mean: the media is very harsh on Gaga, I'm happy that she receives some nice feedback every now and then :)

[Didymus 34,379]

Well, how am I supposed to know what the explanation of the black and white background is? I just don't see a relationship between the Marilyn work and the cover. There is no "left" and "right" on this cover and it doesn't feature the same image like one picture of Marilyn. They're two completely different artworks, even in a different medium. There's a painting and a sculpture, both based on mythological fiction instead of "celebrity culture" with Lady Gaga as another sculpture sitting in front of this background.

 

Not to mention that the Venus painting is not edited like the coloured Marilyn part of Warhol's artpiece, nor does the black-and-white resemble the technique that Warhol used on the right side of his work. Another contrast is the repetition of Marilyn, which does not occur at all in the cover. Now is the only link really the fact that it uses color and black and white simultaneously, because I'm sure there are tons of other artworks that use it.

 

This is why I feel like the investigation isn't well done. The influence of Warhol on the era and on Gaga as an artist is very obvious, but that does not mean that such a specific artwork had any influence in the creation of the ARTPOP cover, especially when the "life" and "death" part of the painting is the writer's own interpretation.

 

Also, since the writer didn't even mention the fact that the black-and-white part had another sculpture in it, I think he thought it was the Venus painting in black-and-white, which it obviously isn't. So doesn't that derail his theory already in the first place?

 

"The left side represented the living, the right side the dead. Warhol alluded to this by presenting Marilyn incolour on the left side and in black and white on the right. Now look at the background of the Koons cover of'ARTPOP'"

Black and white background of the Koons cover has a meaning and the Expert explanation make sense to me. of course, it is his interpretation but you CAN'T say its wrong!

now, Tell me what is your explanation for the Black and white background because its not random.

[HeavyPunkLover 2,120]

Just because one "expert" likes it, doesn't mean that it's true lol. Dont get me wrong, i actually like the cover, but art is objective and one mans trash is another mand treasure.

This guys opinion is as significant as a homeless person on the street. Just saying.

Really? So, next time you don't feel very well why you don't go to an homeless guy to hear out his opinion?

[Wolf Boy 3,174]

Really? So, next time you don't feel very well why you don't go to an homeless guy to hear out his opinion?

If i was ill, that requires a diagnosis which is a relation to science which is based around facts. Art isn't about facts, it's about subjectivity and opinion, different story, but congrats on missing the entire point of my post.

[HeavyPunkLover 2,120]

If i was ill, that requires a diagnosis which is a relation to science which is based around facts. Art isn't about facts, it's about subjectivity and opinion, different story, but congrats on missing the entire point of my post.

You miss one inportant thing. You can have your own opinion, but we are talking about an a--litic read of the artwork. Could you do that? The meaning, normally, is knows only by the artist and he decide if sharing his messge.

You post has not respect for all those who have studied and worked all their life in contact with ART.

Your interpretation is important but you lack of context if you have not studied art. You can have a good feeling or a bad feeling about a sculpture or a painting or an architecure. Your artistic reading stay and will stay worthless if you don't know about what you are talking about. But still, as public you have the right of saying "i like it" "i don't like it".

Is like tellig to a guy on the road to a--lyse the bulding in front of me. He wouldn't even guess why some windows are not at the same level than others. The same come to every single camp in the word. If you have a tech problem you call someone who knows how to help you right? Or you normally go and get homless people to help you?

By this I'm not saying that he's hot the only possible lecture of the artwork. But compared to yours? You have gotta to calm down and learn to listen who has more experence.

Gongrats on you thinking that all art students and art workers are as the same as homeless people when it comes to ART.

Clap clap.

[Wolf Boy 3,174]

Of course he has more experience, but like i said, subjective topics don't make anyone right or wrong, his a--lysis may come from an educated place but that doesn't make his opinion the be all and end all of how art should be viewed. His opinion of the cover is just that, an opinion, it doesn't validate the work anymore than it would by someone who has never studied art but can still appreciate art simply by what they find interesting in what they are viewing.

[james 37]

People who do not have an art degree or a masters need to stop commenting and thinking they know it all, some of us study for over 4 years and can comment on what we've learnt and can teach others. Art can be subjective or objective and it's your choice in which way you see it or you can overlook it with someone elses opinion and make your own.

 

The cover is a lot of things, if I could be bothered to write an essay i'd discuss the pro's n con's and how the opinion that she retweeted is 99% correct and 1% not.

 

best thing she's done in years, tbh.

 

A R T P O P

[AgusPop 4,064]

Of course he has more experience, but like i said, subjective topics don't make anyone right or wrong, his a--lysis may come from an educated place but that doesn't make his opinion the be all and end all of how art should be viewed. His opinion of the cover is just that, an opinion, it doesn't validate the work anymore than it would by someone who has never studied art but can still appreciate art simply by what they find interesting in what they are viewing.

You must to read this:

 

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]

Well, how am I supposed to know what the explanation of the black and white background is? I just don't see a relationship between the Marilyn work and the cover. There is no "left" and "right" on this cover and it doesn't feature the same image like one picture of Marilyn. They're two completely different artworks, even in a different medium. There's a painting and a sculpture, both based on mythological fiction instead of "celebrity culture" with Lady Gaga as another sculpture sitting in front of this background.

 

Not to mention that the Venus painting is not edited like the coloured Marilyn part of Warhol's artpiece, nor does the black-and-white resemble the technique that Warhol used on the right side of his work. Another contrast is the repetition of Marilyn, which does not occur at all in the cover. Now is the only link really the fact that it uses color and black and white simultaneously, because I'm sure there are tons of other artworks that use it.

 

This is why I feel like the investigation isn't well done. The influence of Warhol on the era and on Gaga as an artist is very obvious, but that does not mean that such a specific artwork had any influence in the creation of the ARTPOP cover, especially when the "life" and "death" part of the painting is the writer's own interpretation.

 

Also, since the writer didn't even mention the fact that the black-and-white part had another sculpture in it, I think he thought it was the Venus painting in black-and-white, which it obviously isn't. So doesn't that derail his theory already in the first place?

 

Ok, its your interpretation.

 

 

But Again, you CAN'T say the Author interpretation is wrong! Its his interpretation based on years of experience.

You can't be so arrogant!   really!

 

And for me, the comparacion between Titian’s Venus vs Edouard Manet - Olympia and and Botticelli’s Venus vs Koons's Gaga is Outstanding 

[Didymus 34,379]

Can you please stop? :cry: You're not reading what I'm saying. I am sensing a lack of interpretation, since all he does is say that Koons was inspired by a particular artwork, end of story. Why can't you understand my point?

 

There is nothing "wrong" about his "interpretation", it's just a guess, disguised with authority. You seem to forget that Gaga deleted her tweet about it, so maybe Koons rang her up and said: "Gurl, this is not what I did on your cover."

 

 
Again, you CAN'T say the Author interpretation is wrong! Is his interpretation based on years of experience.

You can't be so arrogant!   really!

[AgusPop 4,064]

Can you please stop? :cry: You're not reading what I'm saying. I am sensing a lack of interpretation, since all he does is say that Koons was inspired by a particular artwork, end of story. Why can't you understand my point?

 

There is nothing "wrong" about his "interpretation", it's just a guess, disguised with authority. You seem to forget that Gaga deleted her tweet about it, so maybe Koons rang her up and said: "Gurl, this is not what I did on your cover."

 

Ok, this is not a contest to see who is right and who is wrong. 

 

and I can see the Gaga's retweet