Amph Lady Gaga's Transformation

I would sharply disagree with this. Most artists attempt to call attention to their subject matter. Upton Sinclair, for instance, was trying to highlight the plight of workers and encourage the socialist alternative. His goal was not to win personal attention. Likewise, among singers, most try to highlight specific topics. Religious music attempts to move so that they will join in the worship or reverence of a particular deity. Nationalistic songs call to mind particular ideals or important incidents in the history of a country. Pete Seeger is an excellent example of trying to make people focus on pacifism and other social issues through music.

If someone is so narcissistic and self-referential that the only thing they can call attention to is themselves, that's very much worthy of criticism.

 

I would hope a musician or an actor or a writer or artists generally do what they do because they feel the desire to express themselves, to create something beautiful -- and not just for attention, or fame. In fact artistry as mere attention seeking makes me a little sick, and typifies what's wrong with a lot of modern 'art'. Gaga's crazy attire isn't art -- she's not trying to make some kind of post modern critique on celebrity or something, she just wants attention. That's exactly what is lame about it. So no, the nature of art is anything but artists just trying to get attention. Or at least it shouldn't be.

 

Says the guy with the carefully crafted and maintained online persona.

 

To me, the primary purpose of art should be to express oneself, be it romantic angst, politics, whatever. With so many artists of various types neither receiving a lot of attention nor seeking it (at least not to the corporate-infused level of Lady Gaga and Lana del Rey), it strikes as weird that attention should be of paramount importance.

 

And it's more contrived because her music is anything but shocking or crazy... it's just fairly bland, generic pop.

 

Yeah, she is so generic.

 

Solid argument.

 

I'm not saying that's why artists do the things they do. I'm saying that if we want to be cynical, we could very easily spin it that way. And I happen to disagree about Gaga's attire; much of it is art. If you don't agree with that, then that's where we're going to have a separation of the ways. All I know is that a lot of her outfits over the years have provoked really strong emotional reactions of various types; some of them have been really beautiful, others have made me laugh and some have disturbed me. What does that make them if not art?

That said, I'm not sure what the point of art is if no one pays attention. Yes, the artist is trying to express him or herself, but to what? Art isn't art until it forms a connection between, at the very least, two people. There have been a very few artists over the centuries who have gone against this model, done things like write poetry and immediately burn it or draw a picture and immediately erase it. I mean, would you say that's art? It's an idea, but I just don't think it can be art; it wasn't art before it was destroyed and the act of destruction isn't art either. Interesting, I suppose, and you can have a discussion about it, but I think it's a dead end. Would you prefer that model because it's more pure and the artists aren't sullying themselves by wanting "attention?"

But I argue that the nature of art or the point of art or however you want to say it is to create connections between people, empathetic, emotional connections between the artist and the audience and, at its best, within the audience as well. Maybe you have a different philosophical take on it. Can something be art if no one has seen it? You may think so and I'd love to hear you make that case.

And anyway, I don't know how anyone could say her stuff is generic. I know a Gaga song the second it starts. I'd never forget who the artist on Bad Romance is; there's only one person it could be. I mean, who else in the music market today might have released Applause? Of Montreal? He's the only one I can think of doing those kind of vocal tricks/jokes, but he wouldn't know how to craft it into a full-fledged song, I don't think, nor would he really be interested in tapping into the anxiety at the heart of the song.

EDIT: I do feel I should also say that I'm not conflating "attention" & "fame" which I think you are. Well, you seem to just straight forwardly use them as synonyms or almost synonyms. I think there's a large difference. In fact many of the most "famous" people in the world really become wallpaper. When was the last time you paid "attention" to anything Kim Kardashian said? Fame is an object's state of being; attention is an audience's conscious consideration. I think you're probably right that artists shouldn't seek "fame." But every artist should want people to encounter & think about their art.

 

Gaga's package, the whole thing, is part of her expression. Some eschew the package and let the music speak for itself. Some don't. Gaga is the latter. I also think there's a huge amount where she plays with her image and recognizes it as her image. She seems to get the whole "fame" thing. She knows it's empty. Think of the name of her album The Fame Monster. It's not an accident and her stage name isn't either. She knows there will always be a real distance between the image of her and her(Stephanie Germanotta)

 

I thought Gaga's package was a myth?

 

oh god i forgot about that

 

there's no point just wearing crazy things if there is no meaning behind them, though. i'm not against controversial art - i like tracey emin's my bed, with its menstrual blood and condoms and whatever else -- but that was a piece of art with meaning behind it, which the artist put her heart and soul into during some dark moments of her life. gaga is a singer who writes pop ditties and wears crazy costumes which bear no relationship to her music, or, to anything really. you can't just wear a crazy outfit and call it art. if my girlfriend puts on a nice outfit that i find beautiful, or funny, or disturbing, i wouldn't necessarily call it art, even if it does envoke some kind of emotion in me.

it's not about an artist's obtaining attention -- good art should create attention, ultimately; it's about the intention of the artist in the first place. i think art can definitely exist without it forming a connection with anyone else besides the artist. if an artist paints something that he finds beautiful, and keeps it locked in his basement for his own life, is the piece not art? of course it is. but i do agree that good art will create connections with people, and stir up emotions in others, just not that that is the sole purpose of the piece of art itself. the art is created between the art and the artist first and foremost; the audience follows.

there are so many other talented musicians out there that i would consider true artists (i used lana del rey as an example earlier, primarily because she also has a top 40 presence, and so could be used to compare) but consider the likes of bjork, pj harvey, cat power, patti smith, to use some female examples. bjork has even worn the odd crazy outfit too but her music is what defines her, not a silly swan outfit. i don't know how anyone could reasonably compare the unique beauty of something like bjork's hyper-ballad to any of gaga's electro dance pop. but hey, it's subjective, that's what makes it an interesting discussion.

except i'm right.

 

to me gaga is just boring, both her image and her music. that she is "in on it" only makes her machinations more calculated, not more interesting. but this thread at least sparked a good conversation.

 

As for me, Gaga is a talented singer, but first of all she is a successful commercial project. And by saying that, I don't mean anything bad. This project is quality and interesting. I believe that Lady Gaga net worth in $190 million is absolutely justified due to her talent and efforts.