Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 17,223
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TheNight
(Please don't think this is me being a bitch, but I just wanted to correct you on this because it's important to me.) Actually, it's the exact opposite. Pop art sought to bring high art down to a level lower to low art by bringing pop culture to the art world. These are the soup cans we often think about, the Warhol Marilyn images, the Ben-Day dot ridden Lichtenstein artworks, etc. Gaga wanted to flip that idea on it's head - hence the "reverse Warholian expedition" line - by raising the world of pop culture into the lofty world of high art. That's why she kept referencing a number of famous artworks (Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus", da Vinci's "Mona Lisa", David's "The Death of Marat", etc.) through her looks and lyrics and "preaching", as many have called it, about the importance of art, creativity, and the freedom of the artist - she was trying to, through her power and presence in pop culture, bring the everyday pop landscape up to par with the often pretentious, high brow (this is an actual term) art scene. (This further proves that she's been doing this her entire career, as her saying that "Pop music will never be low brow" early in her career shows that she's been trying to keep it in the world of high art the entire time.) Unfortunately, at the time when she really tried to push this idea to the public, it proved too much for her, although I really wonder if even she at her peak of popularity could have made it work, as it really is arguably her most lofty goal to date. Even Warhol couldn't have done the pop art movement alone. It required the work of a good number of well known artists to have any recognizable impact. That being said, we have of course seen ARTPOP's arguable impact slowly but surely in the past two years, so it did succeed in some ways at the very least.
I think the thing about ARTPOP that has many perplexed is that it's not quite art and it's not quite pop. It's not quite some deep Michelangelo-esque masterpiece, yet it's not exactly some basic Max Martin produced/Bonnie penned bubblegum piece (this is literally directed at no one so I best not get people say I’m being shady) either. What it lacks in high art it substitutes with low pop culture, and vice versa - and that's the entire point. It's (in my opinion) a perfect combination of the two, but the juxtaposition of such polar opposites is very confusing and grating for some I think. Granted, the era certainly didn't aid too much in clearing up that confusion, but I've really been into thinking about this for a long time now, and it does make sense once you get it. It's genius actually, and I hope to incorporate it into my own career one day. |
I don't think I've ever agreed with a post so much. It's exactly how I feel about ARTPOP too when people say it's not 'art' or whatever. Because no, then the album would have been called 'ART'.
I'm not surprised that people are still dragging it though, because the realisation of the concept was one of the messiest moments in pop culture, but the concept itself was not at fault because it's actually very interesting and, as you say, genius.
|
|
|
|
Gaga's team would need to be 100% certain the single would be a sure-fire hit. Plus you know Gaga and her extended release schedules.
I hope she doesn't wait that long either though.