That Rolling Stone quote means nothing they are not the purveyors / guardians of what art or pop are. Fallacy #1 deflated!
Fallacy #2 is that Madonna has somehow never stated that her music or career is art or artistic? She has. She's known (and also hated) for being like that.
Yikes. Not going through the rest of this mess. So, so wrong on all levels.
It's just not RS.
How about from Camille Paglia?
Quote:
The Cyrus fiasco, however, is symptomatic of the still heavy influence of Madonna, who sprang to world fame in the 1980s with sophisticated videos that were suffused with a daring European art-film eroticism and that were arguably among the best artworks of the decade. Madonna’s provocations were smolderingly sexy because she had a good Catholic girl’s keen sense of transgression. Subversion requires limits to violate.
Young performers will probably never equal or surpass the genuine shocks delivered by the young Madonna, as when she sensually rolled around in a lacy wedding dress and thumped her chest with the mic while singing “Like a Virgin”at the first MTV awards show in 1984. Her influence was massive and profound, on a global scale.
But more important, Madonna, a trained modern dancer, was originally inspired by work of tremendous quality — above all, Marlene Dietrich’s glamorous movie roles as a bisexual blond dominatrix and Bob Fosse’s stunningly forceful strip-club choreography for the 1972 film Cabaret, set in decadent Weimar-era Berlin. Today’s aspiring singers, teethed on frenetically edited small-screen videos, rarely have direct contact with those superb precursors and are simply aping feeble imitations of Madonna at 10th remove.
Madonna of course will refer to herself as an artist and, if asked, explain her art sometimes. But that's quite different from calling everything you do art as if to convince people.
Madonna of course will refer to herself as an artist and, if asked, explain her art sometimes. But that's quite different from calling everything you do art as if to convince people.
what about that entire #revolutionartfreedom campaign she went on for months? or hanging out with Haring and Warhol on purpose to literally BE art. Madonna is just as obsessed with the concept as this elusive "pop girl" you keep referring to.
And no, Camille P doesn't matter, either. It's still a fallacy to submit to an "authority" instead of presenting fact.
Bjork is less capitalist and corporate influenced than Madonna so her art seems to be much more authentic (in the sense that she doesn't care how much money her album makes her label; she's just doing it for the ART. You know, kind of like putting the ART in front of the POP )
Neither have to come out and say what they do is 'art', because it just is and critics recognise that. When a pop girl starts talking about their work being art, that's when you're in trouble. Luckily both Bjork and Madonna don't do that because they are secure in their work and themselves. They just create and don't need to explain their creations.
Having said that Bjork is obviously less inclined to consider making her art popular and accessible (after Post) than Madonna, who is the noted master at it. Rolling Stone in their album review of Like A Prayer praised it saying, "what you hear once you get inside the package is as close to art as pop music gets." They have different objectives in their artistry.
But if by "authentic" art, a somewhat crude and misleading term, you mean less mainstream, then Bjork definitely wins. But if it's about creating an artistic statement that has huge commercial success (ROL), then Madonna is clearly front runner.
what about that entire #revolutionartfreedom campaign she went on for months? or hanging out with Haring and Warhol on purpose to literally BE art. Madonna is just as obsessed with the concept as this elusive "pop girl" you keep referring to.
And no, Camille P doesn't matter, either. It's still a fallacy to submit to an "authority" instead of presenting fact.
Bjork is less capitalist and corporate influenced than Madonna so her art seems to be much more authentic (in the sense that she doesn't care how much money her album makes her label; she's just doing it for the ART. You know, kind of like putting the ART in front of the POP )
Art is discussed by critics and an elite group, it's not based on telephone surveys. Therefore you have to appeal to authority and their opinion.
You're the one asking for 'authentic' art.
Unless by facts you mean the sale receipts for ROL, LAP, Erotica vs Post, Homogenic, Medulla?
Well then, explain to us philistines how you define and categorise 'authentic' art? Since you obviously know what you don't consider it.
Deferring to me. There we go. Eh-hem:
Well, if I had to guess I'd say Bjork's art is more authentic because it lacks the same Bieber-esque capitalist mantra that Madonna's 1983-1987 art did (also Bedtime Stories, Hard Candy and MDNA were all pretty sellout-y).
How can Madonna sellout when her goal was ALWAYS to be a commercial artist? Does that make any sense at all? There's a reason people refer to her as the Material Girl.
what about that entire #revolutionartfreedom campaign she went on for months? or hanging out with Haring and Warhol on purpose to literally BE art. Madonna is just as obsessed with the concept as this elusive "pop girl" you keep referring to.
And no, Camille P doesn't matter, either. It's still a fallacy to submit to an "authority" instead of presenting fact.
Bjork is less capitalist and corporate influenced than Madonna so her art seems to be much more authentic (in the sense that she doesn't care how much money her album makes her label; she's just doing it for the ART. You know, kind of like putting the ART in front of the POP )
Keith Haring was her best friend. And not you using Haring and Warhol, they were part of pop art movement, you know that movement which was based on capitalism, using corporate products and which gave birth to commercial design... so how was Madonna seeking authenticity and validation when she was hanging out with them if ( according to your logic) their art was not authentic anyway
they are not the purveyors / guardians of what art or pop are. Fallacy #1 deflated! 
)
Luckily both Bjork and Madonna don't do that because they are secure in their work and themselves. They just create and don't need to explain their creations. 
