Quantcast
Is Lady Gaga already becoming irrelevant?

Forums - General Discussion - Is Lady Gaga already becoming irrelevant?

.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl



Around the Network
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

May i see that definition of art just to see why some artists fit to it but Gaga doesn't?



 

.:Dark Prince:. said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

May i see that definition of art just to see why some artists fit to it but Gaga doesn't?


Art stimulates you intellectually and evokes emotion. Not just the "yea let's dance and drop some X" sort of emotion/intellect either. The best example is opera. I hate opera and find it to be one of the most boring things that has ever existed. However, and I know this experience is not just me, when I hear a good singer I get goosebumps and tears actually form in my eyes. I don't know what the hell they are singing about, or what it means, or really anything, but it still happens.

So no, Lady Gaga's songs are not art, they are just entertaining and that is what they will remain unless she does some amazing change. As I said you can call it "subjective art" or "my form of art," but if you call it actual art, then your opinion is wrong.



mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

May i see that definition of art just to see why some artists fit to it but Gaga doesn't?


Art stimulates you intellectually and evokes emotion. Not just the "yea let's dance and drop some X" sort of emotion/intellect either. The best example is opera. I hate opera and find it to be one of the most boring things that has ever existed. However, and I know this experience is not just me, when I hear a good singer I get goosebumps and tears actually form in my eyes. I don't know what the hell they are singing about, or what it means, or really anything, but it still happens.

So no, Lady Gaga's songs are not art, they are just entertaining and that is what they will remain unless she does some amazing change. As I said you can call it "subjective art" or "my form of art," but if you call it actual art, then your opinion is wrong.

You are using personal reference.  Just because YOU get goosebumps or tears doesn't mean, I do or the guy down the street does.   Lady Gaga could easily stimulate you intellectually and evoke emotion.  (And last time I checked, Joy or Happiness fits the billing of an emotion). 

Again,  you can't take your personal opinions and express them as fact.   Art has a myriad of definitions beyond the one you listed and you can't prove Gaga doesn't fit with the one you listed either. 



i cant tell you weather lady gaga is becoming irrelevant or not but i can tell you that her popularity is at an all time high and that kesha is no where near the levels that lady gaga is at in popularity.

 

lady gagas fans span the globe...in the billions

 

kesha..well not so much unless you are an american citizen...



hello how are you.

Around the Network

Lady GAGA irrelevant?Um Youtube Bad Romance it's the first youtube video to get to 200 mil views what are you blind?



Seece said:

I think it's unfair to call her a one trick pony, since The Fame she has only recorded a few new songs, one of which has been her biggest.

I'm sure her new album will be a reinvention not just in terms of image but music too.

I don't get why people that obviously love more savoury music (beatles, radiohead ect) have to lash out so hard at people like Lady gaga. Why? cos it's pop it's talentless and meaningless?

It's a snobby arrogant view.

Savoury music?

What does that even mean?

And half the reason people lash out is because they're so damned sick of the music being played everywhere. Plus we're snobby and arrogant =P



leo-j said:

opinions opinions, but she isn't irrelavent, especially since because of her dance techno became popular in the americas..

and artistic fashion is also on the rise because of her (you see all those girls with hairbows? All those people with colorful sunglasses, and artsy clothing? Guess who started that trend..)

and her record sales are just climbing and climbing with more than 60 million records sold.. nearly 12 million albums (in just 2 years) and the fact she continues to grow as an artist, and in popularity..there is no way she is going anywhere.. and some "celebs" say ke$ha is the way she is now because her label didn't want her to fall behind.. the same goes with most other artists.. who are now required to sing live (despite how bad it may sound) or they will fall behind.. she pushed pop music, and hell even miley cyrus said "I hate pop music, but lady gaga is an icon and I listen to her". Katy Perry called her alejandro video blasphemy (envy) and MTV is going nuts all over her new video which has garnered up almost 20 million views in just 2-3days (ke$ha's new video for comparison since you compared her to her only has about 8 million with almost a month ).

all i needed to read to say this is a retarted post techno was huge way before gaga.



mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

You are right in saying that art stimulates an emotional or intellectual response, however where you are wrong is assuming that you can define what will cause that response for each person. That's the bit thats subjective. So yes, as much as I hate Lady Gaga's music to somebody it is art, it stimulates emotion or perhaps even the intellect (though god knows how).

Art is subjective because what causes one person to feel something, does not always cause somebody else to feel the same thing.



Rath said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

You are right in saying that art stimulates an emotional or intellectual response, however where you are wrong is assuming that you can define what will cause that response for each person. That's the bit thats subjective. So yes, as much as I hate Lady Gaga's music to somebody it is art, it stimulates emotion or perhaps even the intellect (though god knows how).

Art is subjective because what causes one person to feel something, does not always cause somebody else to feel the same thing.

The emotional part yes, however the intellectual no. If Lady Gaga stimulates someone intellectually then they are either very young, very uneducated, or have not seen much of the world at all. It has nothing to do with subjectivity and everything to do with what experiences you have had before, or what one's mental capacity is. In fact, if anyone is intellectualy stimulated by Lady Gaga, it says infinitely more about them than it does the song they are listening to.