Amanda 0 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Hasn't Gaga said the song is about rape (SXSW), and how other people would take advantage of her and it was written as a way for her to purge those feelings of worthlessness, emptiness, pain, etc... (not exactly what she said but it's the gist of it - iTunes Festival)? With that said, I see the "vomit art" as a symbolism of purging those feelings. Not as a promotion of bulimia or a statement as "Hey! If you throw up you'll feel better." What if the "vomit art" was a way for Gaga to say she was once bulimic (I've heard rumors that she's said she had bulimia and I've heard rumors that she's said she have anorexia - so I'm not sure which is true, of it is at all) and saying that she is now okay? You gotta get into people's head and get to an understanding that multiple things could mean multiple things to different people. I doubt this performance would prompt people to become bulimic (as that is not how bulimia or anorexia occur/manifest) and I doubt it would promote bulimia in any way. Jeez, people are so sensitive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronyoji 2,007 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 the glamorization comes from the fact it was part of a successful pop star (arguably an artist)'s commercially funded and live-streamed performance at a music festival where an attractive woman forced herself to regurgitate colorful vomit on said pop star while scissoring said pop star. and then later, when Ruby came out to play violin, the slipperiness of the vomit was a joke. yes, the song was about rape, but the treatment of the vomit was trivialized and glamorized, and that's what I have a problem with. but through the ugly act of vomiting she was able to be lighter and joke about it afterwards because thats what she said before she started singing swine: "if youre a real passionate artist you can turn even the most ugly thing into the most beautiful painting" it was meant to be liberating for her, and i feel like it was. i can tell she was very nervous when she flat out said it was about rape, especially considering she was wiping her forehead incessantly which, it could mean nothing, but to me it seemed stressed induced cuz she was extremely candid and blunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy Wonka 4 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 ill just add then, that I feel more, hmm, lets say, triggered (kinda gives me the feelings that got me there in the past), everytime I see her (or any other pop star for that matter) use "hot" dancers, with six packs, etc, not with watching her being covered in vomit honestly, i don't even know where to start with this because it's so unrelated. but i'll try. 1. the existence of fit people does not in and of itself relate to eating disorders like the act of forcing oneself to regurgitate what one has ingested does 2. their bodies are a by-product of their career 3. if anything, their appearance is a testament to good diet and exercise and healthy living 4. your reaction is a result of your eating disorder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy Wonka 4 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 but through the ugly act of vomiting she was able to be lighter and joke about it afterwards because thats what she said before she started singing swine: "if youre a real passionate artist you can turn even the most ugly thing into the most beautiful painting" it was meant to be liberating for her, and i feel like it was. i can tell she was very nervous when she flat out said it was about rape, especially considering she was wiping her forehead incessantly which, it could mean nothing, but to me it seemed stressed induced cuz she was extremely candid and blunt. let's say i agree with you. knowing her history as an activist and social commentator, does she not have some sort of social and moral responsibility to clarify the context of the actions and reinforce her positions? to clarify and explain the significance of the vomit? but going off of what you're saying, isn't that sort of even a scarier message? you can throw up your feelings and then feel better and happier? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda 0 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I have binge eating and it was pretty serious (i had been pretty sick and thrown up in the past), and after that performance i've been eating normally, now i have been 3 days clean it's a huge deal for me. That performance actually helped me so I don't see why people make such a huge deal out of it. I completely understood now what Gaga said that sometimes something really wrong can actually lead to something greater. I hope now people see the performance and understand how sick eating disorder is and stop doing it. I'm glad this performance has helped you! I'm glad to hear that you are doing better! Well idk, I just feel like it disturbs a lot of people and I'm not sure why you would want to disturb people as an artist. When you see all these people on twitter posting pics sticking their fingers down their throats, they're doing it because their icon did it. My grandmother was like omg!! When she found out about the performance Because it's art. People are going to be disturbed about a lot of artistic things in life! Are you serious? Which artist in history has never gotten a **** ton of criticism because some person felt something was inappropriate or controversial? Look at J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher In The Rye". That book was BANNED from high school's because of the "adult content" and the shooter of John Lennon got John Lennon to sign the shooters copy of the book? Look at Edgar Allan Poe. His crap was criticized from timbuktoo and back because of how "dark" and "depressing" and "morbid" his works were. Carrie was banned. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer were both banned and then EDITED. Darwin's work is still criticized. Edison's work with the light bulb is still criticized because he made a mistake 500 times before finding the right filament wire. Amy Lee is criticized because her music is "too dark" and "too epic" and "too depressing". Evanescence was criticized for stating they are not a Christian band. They were criticized for having a "suicide" song (which it really was a song from the perspective of someone who was contemplating it and if they would be delivered or not). All those people who were/are criticized for their art because some people are too sensitive, crazy, picky, over protective, etc... It's ridiculous! People should be ALLOWED to express themselves in whatever way they want to... And to all you who say "fingers in their mouths are concerning". I guess Baby Spice was promoting bulimia too, then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronyoji 2,007 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 let's say i agree with you. knowing her history as an activist and social commentator, does she not have some sort of social and moral responsibility to clarify the context of the actions and reinforce her positions? to clarify and explain the significance of the vomit? but going off of what you're saying, isn't that sort of even a scarier message? you can throw up your feelings and then feel better and happier? i guess it does obligate her, but since it was a purely artistic statement with very little pretense, the artist side of her doesnt need to always explain the work detail to detail. i feel like she explained it enough, its not her fault people want to focus on the vomit itself and not the idea of rape and the concept she gave it right before. and its not as black and white as that, shes not saying "if u throw up you will be happier" becuase it cant be applied to every situation. if you're sick with a virus, the only way to pass it and feel physically better is to throw up. if you're carrying a dark past, the only way to pass it is to look at it dead in the face and decide its not gonna control you. i cant say the same about bulimia though, because getting better would mean the opposite of throwing up it seems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy Wonka 4 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 i guess it does obligate her, but since it was a purely artistic statement with very little pretense, the artist side of her doesnt need to always explain the work detail to detail. i feel like she explained it enough, its not her fault people want to focus on the vomit itself and not the idea of rape and the concept she gave it right before. and its not as black and white as that, shes not saying "if u throw up you will be happier" becuase it cant be applied to every situation. if you're sick with a virus, the only way to pass it and feel physically better is to throw up. if you're carrying a dark past, the only way to pass it is to look at it dead in the face and decide its not gonna control you. i cant say the same about bulimia though, because getting better would mean the opposite of throwing up it seems. i definitely appreciate you being honest about your answers. i don't think there's really a "right" or "wrong" answer as to whether this performance is related to/glamorizes bulimia, but i think it's important to have an open and honest discussion about the implications of the imagery that she uses to express herself. i think the way that the entire performance was presented is what is causing such a big divide. the song, as we know, is about s-xual assault and, for the first time ever, she very candidly and frankly threw in the word "rape" before the performance. while rape is a very heavy topic, she almost threw away the delivery of the word. on the other hand, the performance essentially focused on millie vomiting. so you have this conflict between the significance of the song, which was almost deemphasized in its presentation, and the superficial performance of the song, which was emphasized. does that make any sense? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaLuna 12,732 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 i feel like its criticized so hard, especially on the "whether its art" discussion, because it wasnt pretty or pleasant to watch. society has condensed art into accepting only whats pretty and comfortable to see, like a michelangelo statue of a rembrandt or a painting of flowers or a field of ****ing cows. just because its ugly doesnt make invalidate it as art. art can sometimes be really pretty and light, and sometimes its raw, candid, and is suppose to make you uncomfortable or question yourself. and if it does seem to be glamorizing bulimia simply because millie was dressed in a hot get up, looked pretty (imo) and had long seductive hair, i feel it was only to emphasize the theme of the performance: rape. the idea that something s-xual or s-xy is tarnished and soiled by the experience. The definition of "art" has been up for debate for decades, even centuries, but one thing's for sure, it doesn't always have to be pleasant and comforting. Art is also meant to be shocking, thought-provoking and yes, maybe even disturbing sometimes. Now, you may not agree with the execution of Gaga's performance, but that's how Gaga wanted to express the meaning her song and she shouldn't be judged for that. And anyone who knows Gaga and has been following her long enough knows that she would never, EVER promote eating disorders. I mean, she's been struggling with bulimia herself, she knows how awful it is, why the **** would she want to glamorize such a serious illness?? If haters like Perez are stupid enough to take the puking thing out of context to make Gaga look bad, there's not much she can do about it. People always find a reason to criticize her anyway, so she might as well get criticism over a bold piece of performance art. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adakam 2 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 honestly, i don't even know where to start with this because it's so unrelated. but i'll try. 1. the existence of fit people does not in and of itself relate to eating disorders like the act of forcing oneself to regurgitate what one has ingested does 2. their bodies are a by-product of their career 3. if anything, their appearance is a testament to good diet and exercise and healthy living 4. your reaction is a result of your eating disorder. and you keep missing my point, ok whatever, you know more about bulimia that all of of the people in this thread that said they were bulimic too, and watching someone vomit just doesnt have anything to do with it its the same bs as saying videogames create murderers, now vomit creates bulimics bye Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronyoji 2,007 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 i definitely appreciate you being honest about your answers. i don't think there's really a "right" or "wrong" answer as to whether this performance is related to/glamorizes bulimia, but i think it's important to have an open and honest discussion about the implications of the imagery that she uses to express herself. i think the way that the entire performance was presented is what is causing such a big divide. the song, as we know, is about s-xual assault and, for the first time ever, she very candidly and frankly threw in the word "rape" before the performance. while rape is a very heavy topic, she almost threw away the delivery of the word. on the other hand, the performance essentially focused on millie vomiting. so you have this conflict between the significance of the song, which was almost deemphasized in its presentation, and the superficial performance of the song, which was emphasized. does that make any sense? yeah that does make sense, the vomit is ultimately what the public will remember most. in the end though, i feel like just because she was able to joke about it afterwards, just because swine is a catchy dance track, just because she may or may not seem s-xualized riding a gagged pig on stage, that doesnt trivialize her message, because thats how she chose to express her darkness. some people will lower their heads, and sing a sad ballad on a guitar about it, and thats their way of coping, but gaga chose to express it in a more sensational, darkly-fun kinda way, and thats okay, her message is just as valid. its like her choice to make pop music, it doesn't devalue her artistic integrity to a certain fault. (thats a whole other issue though). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy Wonka 4 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 and you keep missing my point, ok whatever, you know more about bulimia that all of of the people in this thread that said they were bulimic too, and watching someone vomit just doesnt have anything to do with it its the same bs as saying videogames create murderers, now vomit creates bulimics bye dude i don't know where you're getting these things, because i've never said them. i'm sorry you aren't open to understanding what i'm saying and actually having an intelligent conversation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.