To briefly summarise my last instalment, I reviewed Francis Schaeffer's notion of fragmentation in society, as reflected particularly in the media of music and art. We saw the expression of the beauty present in the universe reduced to simplistic elements, often arranged in a chaotic manner, which appears to level the playing field between the sublime and the mundane, as far as inherent meaning, purpose and value is concerned.
It should further be noted at this point (or perhaps in my previous post, had I not written it in the wee hours of the morning) some the inconsistencies present in this worldview. We have already seen that the universe cannot simply be a dizzying condensation of chaos and chance, when we consider things like aeronautics, physiology and mathematics. As far as the beauty and inherent value of man is concerned, Schaeffer notes that whilst much of Pablo Picasso's work portrayed people as simplistic and elemental, portraits of those persons close to him retained the detail reflecting the beauty in his subject.
Neither the order nor beauty in the world around us should be denied.
Let's continue.
Schaeffer proceeds to discuss the idea of anti-art; that is, a piece of art created simply to make an intellectual statement, rather than express anything concerning the reality of who people are, nor the fullness of the universe.
Take John Cage's 4'33", (watch it on YouTube) as previously discussed, which he believed to be his most important work. While this 'creation' (using the loosest conceivable definition of the word) clearly communicates Cage's ideas about what music can be, I've just communicated the same idea to you using a few words. What's the difference? Sitting down at a piano and 'actively doing nothing' will get you a little more attention. (I will resist making any direct remarks regarding political publicity at this point)
I'd like to move on to Lady Gaga (who I incidentally learned today is six months younger than I am). Now be aware that these comments are my own; Francis Schaeffer had the pleasure to miss out on the world going Gaga, but then he had ample questionable morality to deal with in his own lifetime.
Despite being a worldwide sensation, I feel Lady Gaga is among those artists who should, if she must, be heard but not seen. While she does not boast a glass-shattering voice (in a good way), there is certainly musical talent there. Lyrically, there is nothing profound in her writing, but little is in pop-music today. Visually, well let's just say that those seeking anything wholesome would be well-advised to gouge out their eyes to save themselves further pain. Much of her costuming I expect pushes the boundaries of even today's lax censorship standards, and many of her music videos are arguably not suitable for general viewing, despite their accessibility.
Now, while I do not want to deny Gaga's musical talent, and label her work as 'anti-art', I do want to consider why she has achieved such worldwide success, to the degree that she has and for so long. Is this because she is a musical sensation; an amazing vocalist and a brilliant lyricist? I don't think she's that great. I think the answer is in her image.
Generally, while pushing the boundaries and bending the rules attracts attention, it's not always accepted at first (Debussy, and in his later years Beethoven, knew this). Outright controversy sells well, however, and Lady Gaga has it in spades. Her image doesn't simply push the boundaries on current trends, but rather takes her on a flying leap across the line to land in the headlines (meat bikinis will do that). And, while she denies that her attire is intended to make any kind of political or sociological statements, but rather express herself as an individual, I question how looks created by a number of different designers and stylists can express a person's own, unique individuality.
Perhaps her outrageous and controversial style is what has kept (and continues to keep) the public eye trained squarely on Gaga, when it would otherwise have moved on to the next global sensation. However, she can only push the boundaries so far to keep its gazed fixed upon her. We can only wait in apprehension to see what's next for the "fame monster". SG
3 comments:
I have heard that - apparently - Lady Gaga wears such outrageous outfits because a label executive/producer/someone similar once told her she was not pretty enough to be a superstar... so this is her way of detracting from her natural appearance. Apparently.
Re: Leah's comment - That's so sad.
"World going Gaga" - Love it!
Leah, that would make sense. Somebody also once suggested that perhaps she does it so nobody will recognise her when she simply 'goes out' as her normal self - an effort to maintain some level of privacy in her life.
Regardless, Gaga is as much about image as she is about music.
Post a Comment