Taking an existing concept and re-inventing it is what Madonna did with Material Girl and It's what Katy has done with Roar in fact that is the essence of Pop Art: taking a popular imagery, or a popular concept, intervening/changing it into something else - if not the purpose, the execution, if not the execution, the meaning.
The Material Girl video borrowed heavily from Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend. I wouldn't call that a "reinvention." There are, however, many examples of how Madonna has reinvented herself.
As for the Aphrodite thing, that's a reach. I highly doubt Katy knew about the Greek settlements along the Nile. She was probably looking for something to rhyme. It's not exactly brilliant, "artistically rich," nor ignorant. It's a creative license.
You can do better than this, Dark_Lorde. Your essays for Madonna have been way better.
Jeff is explaining his work he did for gaga. An artist that constantly explains her work to her fans.
Can you provide an example of Koons explaining any of his work independent of lady gaga?
Anyways, I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that Andy and Keith Proclaimed themselves pop artists all the time. You didn't make that up did you? - You would have read it somewhere, should be able to post the link.
There you go. There are many more where that came from.
It's actually really annoying to ask someone for links to youtube videos because you literally are communicating with me via the internet - where you can do the work yourself (since you're the one confused and asking for help) rather than demanding I do it.
But I'll help you since I'm bored (watching my word-count because lilMonsterKayla thinks I'm typing like, way too much!!)
Not only is Andy introduced as a pop artist but he goes on to answer questions about his work (thru the iconic Queen Edie S.) for the entire interview.
You can find more sources if you're interested but I don't feel like doing that for you.
No Ezra, I'm not asking you for assistance. I'm asking you to provide evidence to your claim.
FYI: this isn't evidence because that isn't what you said. You said Andy and Keith went around proclaiming they were pop artists.
This isn't what this is. It's not about ME searching for things to prove what YOU said.
It's about YOU being able to back what you say up. If you say it happened a LOT. You should have lots of sources.
If you want to say something without being able to back it up, that's totally fine by me but don't attempt to turn it around and make it my responsibility to research a claim YOU made.
Earlier you have a totally incorrect definition of pop art that was a copy and paste job from wiki.
I couldn't be bothered explaining it to you because it would be futile. You could be perched in HQ waiting for members to ask questions that you can give answers to like a mod or in my thread giving incorrect definitions stolen from wiki. - Pop art is about taking the "norm" and twisting its message.
Anywho, I could go into a more complex explanation but you're not open to it and you never will be.
You do though, have the audacity to comment about my knowledge on art despite your copy and paste jobs pointed out by other members.
My copy and paste jobs, okay
You don't need to explain anything to me. I know what pop art is, thank you. Pop art was not about "taking the norm and twisting its message," pop art was about taking things that were not considered art and elevating them to the status of art. It was a "**** you" to the institutions that validated art, to abstract expressionism, and to other popular schools of thought (you might want to check out Warhol's piss paintings for an easy example).
Cubism, abstract expressionism, pop art, Dada... most of the major early-to-mid 20th century art movements had little to do with the subjects they were depicting. The subject matter was secondary to the statements about art itself that were being made. The whole point was to defy the standards of drawing, painting etc. that had been closely followed for centuries.
Oh and back to pop art for one last note. Since pop art was about elevating the mundane or commercial to high art, pop stars by definition are not part of pop art. Pop music has the potential to be artistic, of course, but first and foremost it is a product. Pop stars are not part of pop art because they already are mundane and commercial.
But I suppose I'm done replying since you don't know how to discuss art except to accuse me of copying and pasting.
Jeff is explaining his work he did for gaga. An artist that constantly explains her work to her fans.
Can you provide an example of Koons explaining any of his work independent of lady gaga?
Anyways, I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that Andy and Keith Proclaimed themselves pop artists all the time. You didn't make that up did you? - You would have read it somewhere, should be able to post the link.
And?
-
More Jeff Koons explaining his art, meanings behind it, intent, meaning to him, etc.
No such thing as 'real art!!1!' but there is such a thing as not being art. Which, I believe katy's historical references are not art.
There you go. There are many more where that came from.
The article you linked furthers my point.
Quote:
“The art happens inside the viewer. The art isn’t in the object. If you go to a museum and you look at a Van Gogh or you look at a Picasso or you look at a piece like this, the art is not there. The art happens inside you the viewer, and the art is your own sense of your own potential as a person. That’s where the art is. These are just kind of like transponders and they trigger that information within you.”
You can do better than this, Dark_Lorde. Your essays for Madonna have been way better.
Let me agree with this.
This thread is like downgrading of your own real estate. At least when you're is talking about Madge's artistic achievements and/or commercial accomplishments there's substance without dislocating a shoulder to reach for the sake of reverse warholian shade.
Though I'm sure a certain member will do a back bend to "disqualify" this interview with something like, "he was drunk and didn't know what he was saying back then".
Quote:
Originally posted by TayLord
what is this argument that real artists don't explain their art?
i studied art criticism and art history for my senior year of high school, and while much of the course involved interpreting our own meanings, most of the artists we studied had solid, straight forward explanations of their art
how embarrassing is this thread
Well here you go, an educated person talking about art.
Though I'm sure Dark Lorde went to art school too!
More Jeff Koons explaining his art, meanings behind it, intent, meaning to him, etc.
No such thing as 'real art!!1!' but there is such a thing as not being art. Which, I believe katy's historical references are not art.
I'm not disputing that there are occasions where artists explain in depth their work.
I just feel like it's not something that is often done. it's interesting you found that though, good but it's also not really the point of a thread.
To take one line of a rather long OP and run with it - I mean, if you think her historical references are not art, that's fine. At least you acknowledge the historical references.
This thread is like downgrading of your own real estate. At least when you're is talking about Madge's artistic achievements and/or commercial accomplishments there's substance without dislocating a shoulder to reach for the sake of reverse warholian shade.
Exactly. There's a reason Katy's own fans aren't even in here trying to hold this silliness up and fight for it. We know what this is.
Anyway, I'm done being the art teacher in here. But FYI to anyone reading: def watch that Koons interview I posted & the Andy on Merv G. Amazing and worth the watch.
what is this argument that real artists don't explain their art?
i studied art criticism and art history for my senior year of high school, and while much of the course involved interpreting our own meanings, most of the artists we studied had solid, straight forward explanations of their art
Exactly. There's a reason Katy's own fans aren't even in here trying to hold this silliness up and fight for it. We know what this is.
Anyway, I'm done being the art teacher in here. But FYI to anyone reading: def watch that Koons interview I posted & the Andy on Merv G. Amazing and worth the watch.
You don't need to explain anything to me. I know what pop art is, thank you. Pop art was not about "taking the norm and twisting its message," pop art was about taking things that were not considered art and elevating them to the status of art. It was a "**** you" to the institutions that validated art, to abstract expressionism, and to other popular schools of thought (you might want to check out Warhol's piss paintings for an easy example).
Cubism, abstract expressionism, pop art, Dada... most of the major early-to-mid 20th century art movements had little to do with the subjects they were depicting. The subject matter was secondary to the statements about art itself that were being made. The whole point was to defy the standards of drawing, painting etc. that had been closely followed for centuries.
Oh and back to pop art for one last note. Since pop art was about elevating the mundane or commercial to high art, pop stars by definition are not part of pop art. Pop music has the potential to be artistic, of course, but first and foremost it is a product. Pop stars are not part of pop art because they already are mundane and commercial.
But I suppose I'm done replying since you don't know how to discuss art except to accuse me of copying and pasting.
This SCALDING HOT TEA.
This is how you eloquently clock & prove that you actually have knowledge of what you are saying and not just bull******** out of your behind.
The backtracking. Now it's not the point so we should stop talking about it since receipts were provided that proved them wrong.
"backtracking" LOL Bang up, this is how a discussion works. I actually ASKED for receipts. If someone can provide them, I can of course acknowledge them and acknowledge a point being made.
You're not really interested in a discussion though. I mean, I cant stand Ezra but at least he acknowledges the historical references. See, he can see that, In my OP due the recipes just like i could see his receipts and acknowledge them. That's a discussion. Something that you're not interested in.
Though I'm sure a certain member will do a back bend to "disqualify" this interview with something like, "he was drunk and didn't know what he was saying back then".
Well here you go, an educated person talking about art.
Though I'm sure Dark Lorde went to art school too!
Wow so artists do talk about their work and being artists? Even though the OP stated that since Katy rarely discusses those things that she must be, secretly(!!), a mastermind artist.
It may be viewed by some in the art world as 'kitsch' or 'tacky' to talk about your work but I'm sure there's lots of critics/fans who don't care and prefer it.
EDIT: Thor you kill me. In here with your smilies and stan lingo Never change.
You gave a false definition of "Pop Art" & he clocked you not only with correct definition but also proved that he knows a lot more about the subject than you do.
Wow so artists do talk about their work and being artists? Even though the OP stated that since Katy rarely discusses those things that she must be, secretly(!!), a mastermind artist.
It may be viewed by some in the art world as 'kitsch' or 'tacky' to talk about your work but I'm sure there's lots of critics/fans who don't care and prefer it.
You're right!
Some people in the art world do find it tacy and there are a lot of people that prefer things explained to them.