Quote:
Originally posted by Apocalipstick
Theres always a balance that has to be achieved, context matters aswell, if it's meant to be an informative piece with a clear statement about why it is not the way then fine feature bulimic characters. But GaGa's always been about shocking and not everyone feels the intent behind this was honorable.
I know Gaga has done a lot of work for anti-bullying and self acceptance but this really was NOT cool. It was trivializing the issue without actual addressing the issue.
|
How was it trivializing it? You can say that all you want, but you should at least present evidence. The same goes with how she was allegedly "glamorizing it", even though everybody's reaction was the antithesis of the word "glamorous"..
The above painting is commonly interpreted to be about anxiety or depression. It's one of the most commercially successful paintings of all time, having been painted by one of the most influential artists of all time. The painting doesn't actually address anxiety or depression, does that mean those issues are getting trivialized? Given the success and prestige of this painting, is it glamorizing anxiety and depression?
You can't have it both ways. This is a piece of art
that is about a mental disorder, but doesn't openly acknowledge it. Clearly it's not informative, so is this painting by Edvard Munch not ok?
Take a step back and realize that some of what you're saying is extremely insensitive.
