Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Lady Gaga and Money-Making

Rate this topic


Eiuol
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am not saying or implying that. Reasonably excluding some observations does not imply that the conclusion was not based on any observations.

Thank you.

I think her music has a nice beat and I do enjoy it when it pops on the radio but that is where it ends for me.

To be quite honest, that's pretty much were it ends for me. Largely I'm just objecting to the very quasi-puritanical views that some Objectivists have on sexuality. I really don't like using the "p" word as I know it is often over used in this sense, but somehow it seems to fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cheap, classless woman who uses shock and sex as her calling cards because her musical gifts are nothing spectacular and -as it has been pointed out- her eccentric persona consists of a grand number of plagiarized ideas. If this is who you wish to hold up as a representation of your values, sia, I prefer to admire artists who make good money and are successful whilst maintaining a modicum of class and decorum that respects the art they are performing - for the Gesamtkunstwerk- as opposed to (as the song in Chicago says) Girls who'll touch your privates for a deuce. No class, no sprezzatura.

I'm not sure why class is necessarily important. It's just one way of behaving that isn't inherently superior to any other way of behaving. I do not think shock is the intention as I said before, since I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that. A grand number of plagiarized ideas is also a stretch to claim. The outfits she wears she gives credit to who designed it (as in the person she found to make it). Sometimes there is an obvious heavy influence from another designer in those outfits, but that happens often when designing anything. The same would apply to music. As time goes on, influence from others usually decreases as a personal style is perfected. Plagiarism would be outright taking what a person has produced and claiming it to be your own.

I'm not even sure how sex is a metaphorical calling card of Gaga's. Does she show too much skin? Clothing too tight? Sexually suggestive in lyrics a lot of the time? Explain what you mean. None of that is bad, since really it isn't even sex at all. Your quote is fine, but are we really even talking about sex here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... ...-“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.
Thanks. Meanwhile, I found one similar quote in the "Answers" book.

In light of this, do you hold Kira's behavior during her first meeting with Leo (We the Living) as depicting someone doing something immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why class is necessarily important. It's just one way of behaving that isn't inherently superior to any other way of behaving.

Class, as defined within the context of an artist's behavior, is possessing elegance, the attribute of being tasteful, maintaining refined grace and a dignified state. In other words, to take oneself and what one does seriously enough to respect it-- and to have enough respect for one's audience.

So yes, I am sorry, but it is a superior way of behaving insofar as artists go. It marks the difference between Lady Gaga and an actual artist- be they popular or otherwise. By saying that 'it isn't superior to any other way of behaving' you are essentially saying that behavior is relativistic. If there are standards of ideas, thoughts, and interactions, there must necessarily exist a standard of behavior that corresponds to the best possible and a standard of behavior that corresponds to the worst possible, you can't escape that classification. People like Lady Gaga fall squarely in the second category. The manner in which you treat others

I do not think shock is the intention as I said before, since I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that.

Then you need to do your research more thoroughly.

"At 18, thereabouts, you started working in clubs, yes?" said Walters.

"Yes," said Lady Gaga.

"And at one point when you were performing, some of the customers did something you didn't like, and you did what?"

"Well, the name of the club was The Bitter End, and I played there all the time, but I had been gone for a while and it was my first time playing my new glam-inspired music," explained Gaga. "And nobody would be quiet. I walked into the room and before I even opened my mouth they were yelling and chatting and drinking and slamming their glasses, And I, I kept [saying], 'Excuse me, hello,' and nobody would stop. So, um, something just came over me and I, I took my clothes off."

"You took all your clothes off?" asked Walters.

"Not all of them..."

"But most of your clothing."

"I left my bra and underwear on."

"You take your clothes off a lot."

"I do."

And the girl, of course, did this out of no desire to shock. The poor thing was suffering from heatstroke.

Indeed.

I'm not even sure how sex is a metaphorical calling card of Gaga's. Does she show too much skin? Clothing too tight? Sexually suggestive in lyrics a lot of the time? Explain what you mean. None of that is bad, since really it isn't even sex at all. Your quote is fine, but are we really even talking about sex here?

By this strange definition, then, what a stripper does has nothing to do with sex, since she never engages in sexual intercourse. This is a willing dissociation of related concepts in an attempt to try to salvage a fixation from an association. What Madonna did wasn't "performance art", it was using sex to shock- the same thing Gaga does.

Edited by kainscalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By this strange definition, then, what a stripper does has nothing to do with sex, since she never engages in sexual intercourse. This is a willing dissociation of related concepts in an attempt to try to salvage a fixation from an association. What Madonna did wasn't "performance art", it was using sex to shock- the same thing Gaga does.

I can agree with this. Gaga chooses her clothing (or lack thereof), actions, etc, based on sexual appeal. She did not pick them at random out of a hat. You cannot pretend that because she is not actually engaging in sexual intercourse on stage, that somehow her appeal (and her choice of attire) is entirely divorced from sex. Sex does not occur in a vacuum. :P

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's call a spade a spade here: You're applying rationalization in order to justify your admiration for a slattern and somehow present this as a healthy view of sexuality.

Lacking an answer, I'm going to assume it is not directed at me since this part and the rest that followed were completely off the mark with regards to my contributions in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lacking an answer, I'm going to assume it is not directed at me since this part and the rest that followed were completely off the mark with regards to my contributions in this thread.
I think Kainscalia's remarks were aimed primarily at Kori's post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By this strange definition, then, what a stripper does has nothing to do with sex, since she never engages in sexual intercourse.

Right, you can call that sexually suggestive maybe if displayed in a certain way, but is it sex? Showing more skin in a performance does not necessarily mean anything negative for example. When does showing your body in a certain way become complete degradation of the actual act of sex? I think the only time that would be reached is if sex is actually engaged in with onlookers. I get the sense here most of the really really negative comments are really more about saying some people dislike Gaga's style and would like to then say it must be because it's a response to something really depraved. As I said earlier, maybe "admirable" is not the best adjective to use, but I think it's still safe to say that she's at least neutral in good and bad qualities (although to me the positive is a bit stronger).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, you can call that sexually suggestive maybe if displayed in a certain way, but is it sex?

The tone of that argument sounds very Bill Clinton circa Lewinskygate. You are attempting to be obtusely naive, or otherwise you are trying to pretend that the suggestion and the act have nothing in common, which is honestly quite disingenuous. You are trying to say that the subject and the object are divorced and unlinked--- while at the same time agreeing to a certain contextual connection. There is either a context or there isn't, you can't have it both ways. Lady Gaga is vulgar and sensationalist, and she embodies and uses a view of sexuality and sex that is unhealthy and sensationalist, this is the fact you cannot escape.

People who admire and respect the beauty of the human body don't toss off their clothes to shock an audience into silence anymore than the Regietrash directors who use nudity in the middle of an opera in a vulgar and superfluous fashion to cause a rise out of the audience for purely shock's sake. Rather, they turn both the human body and sexuality into a mockery by thrusting it into a context in which it clashes and becomes discordant, distorted and objectified, bereft of all deep romantic meaning. I have heard a lot in this argument about context, well here's the gist of it- what they do is contextually incoherent and therefore seeks to reduce the object to an object of mockery, and therein lies the depravity of these so-called artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who admire and respect the beauty of the human body don't toss off their clothes to shock an audience into silence anymore than the Regietrash directors who use nudity in the middle of an opera in a vulgar and superfluous fashion to cause a rise out of the audience for purely shock's sake. Rather, they turn both the human body and sexuality into a mockery by thrusting it into a context in which it clashes and becomes discordant, distorted and objectified, bereft of all deep romantic meaning. I have heard a lot in this argument about context, well here's the gist of it- what they do is contextually incoherent and therefore seeks to reduce the object to an object of mockery, and therein lies the depravity of these so-called artists.

Mind you when reading this I am with you about disliking Gaga.

Aside from her though it could be argued that nudity even being considered contextually incoherent could be something a skilled artist could try to break down. A naked body being considered shocking could be something an artist wants to break down. While I myself am not pro public nudity (in large part because of how unattractive a large percentage of the population is) you have to admit that a naked human body being in itself shocking in any context is bizarre and a remnant of our irrational religious past.

A skilled director could choose to use nudity in the middle of an opera in what seems a superfluous fashion to shock- and it could be valid if the director's choice in doing so was based on making people consider why it would be superfluous or shocking to see a naked human to begin with.

Lets not forget how irrational cultural norms can be. Take the old censorship laws and see how culture has changed. Rhett Butler saying "damn" in Gone with the Wind was controversial at the time. You couldn't show two people in bed together. Strict rules against kissing. How long did it take to show a homosexual couple showing any kind of affection?

And I think that's where this argument about sex v sexual innuendo is stemming from. As social norms have for lack of better phrasing loosened up the automatic skin=sex response is diminishing.

I believe that like any cultural shift this is going to have both positive and negative consequences- the consequences determined by the philosophical make up of the populace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a willing dissociation of related concepts in an attempt to try to salvage a fixation from an association.

Tell me about. I'm sick of playing these sorts of games with people.

I know a very manipulative woman who will flirt, bat her eyes at you, and put an all around good show as to appear to be interested in you. If you actually pursue these advances? She'll pretend nothing was meant by it. Disgusting.

Some people appear to have a poor understanding of purpose, as though actions and thoughts are subjective accidents not worth changing and without consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not forget how irrational cultural norms can be. Take the old censorship laws and see how culture has changed. Rhett Butler saying "damn" in Gone with the Wind was controversial at the time. You couldn't show two people in bed together. Strict rules against kissing. How long did it take to show a homosexual couple showing any kind of affection?

And I think that's where this argument about sex v sexual innuendo is stemming from. As social norms have for lack of better phrasing loosened up the automatic skin=sex response is diminishing.

Yes, that is basically the sort of thing I meant by "is it really sex?" I was looking for more specifics about when a person displaying themselves in a certain way is degrading towards sex. I think the whole sex vs sexual innuendo thing is the sole reason there is any disagreement about Gaga's aesthetic or worthiness as an artist. This makes a whole lot more sense in explaining why some people (I don't mean kainscalia specifically, I mean people in general) don't simply say "nah, that's not my style" but rather would prefer to go a step further and make a strong negative moral judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't presume judge her on a moral basis, but simply say that I just don't care for her music. Nothing wrong with the human body, and I've never understood the aversion towards it. I do think that gratuitous nudity for the hell of it adds nothing to a video or film. It's usually a juvenile "hey, look, boobies!" kind of thing.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a music, it is no 'selective re-creation of reality into metaphysical value judgement'. It is no selective, nor re-creation of reality and very surely no metaphysical value judgement. The following is popular literature, but without the small -- very small -- effort to write that exists hardly even in pop literature.

I would not regard her as a Wynand -- you cannot find in her biography or sort of 'social speeches' any clue to basic understand of the term 'philosophy', though, neither Keating was rich for a while -- neither Marx keeps selling copies of his own 'capital'. Are they moral? Are they a creation of a free society?

To get a value of money as a value must be conextual to how one gets it.

Not everything you do and sell means your creation is valid in propert to standard X, nor everything you thing gains or keeps yours.

If she were marketing herself as a 'sexy shower', I appraise, twas ethically just. But as long as artist with a lower value that aspires not to a free society such as Gaga or Keating, is to get way more money than a way better one -- all you can know is how a society is not philosophically interested or qualitified to be free, and you can assume what shall happen with money's value.

T.R.

Edited by Tomer Ravid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah and Michael Moore is a success story. Or Kurt Cobain if he hadn't killed himself. It is possible to have to have some talent or business acumen and still make me cringe. Who was it that said, "No one ever went broke underestimating average intelligence?" Something isn't valuable just because people are buying it. This is never more true than when it comes to taste in art.

Edited by Brian9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah and Michael Moore is a success story.

In a way, yes. Everything else about him besides the money he makes MASSIVELY (pun intended) tips the scale towards irrationality, though. Something IS valuable by definition if people are buying it, but I think what you mean to say people buying something does not mean it is an objective value. My point in writing the OP was to point out what is required to make money in all cases except when money is acquired through force. Lady Gaga is a producer of values, but the question is if those values produced end up being more destructive to your own life. Michael Moore is certainly more destructive because he has no understanding of capitalism at all and condemns everyone else for what he himself does. The values Gaga produces aren't destructive ultimately, but then again, that's why the whole argument about showing sexuality even arose.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something IS valuable by definition if people are buying it, but I think what you mean to say people buying something does not mean it is an objective value. My point in writing the OP was to point out what is required to make money in all cases except when money is acquired through force. Lady Gaga is a producer of values, but the question is if those values produced end up being more destructive to your own life.

Firstly, I do not care for the product of Lady Gaga, even though she is productive. When I listen to her music come on the radio I do

not feel a sense of joy or happiness in her art.

I think Lady Gaga has earned her wealth by producing music which is of a socially objective value. One which lowers the standards of what

to achieve and what potential is possible for aspiring artists. The work of great musicians is of a more philosophically objective value

than the works of some contemporary pop music, even though the socially objective value shows differently by examining what art sells and

to whom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Lady Gaga has earned her wealth by producing music which is of a socially objective value. One which lowers the standards of what

to achieve and what potential is possible for aspiring artists.

What do you mean by a socially objective value which lowers the standards of what to achieve? Pop in general is just a different style of music that some people may or may not like. In regards to Gaga, you could say she even raised the standard demanded of musicians in general at least in regard to music distribution and demonstrating intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by a socially objective value which lowers the standards of what to achieve? Pop in general is just a different style of music that some people may or may not like. In regards to Gaga, you could say she even raised the standard demanded of musicians in general at least in regard to music distribution and demonstrating intelligence.

I do not see what thought provoking or wholesome lyrics can be gathered through this style of music such as the one that Lady Gaga is labeled under. Strip her costumes off and remove the visuals, take it for what it is intended for, audio, and what demonstration of intelligence

is there to aspire to? I wonder what aspiring mucisians feel when they look for her acheivement. I think she is a place holder for what could be.

Not unlike walking into an esteemed gallery to find the walls adorned with abstraction, canvas that are taking up valuable space for the paintings that could have been. The abstractions would not be up there if there were not a customer base to buy them. The good paintings would be up there

only if there were customers to buy them. A socially objective value is what determines the market price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I agree your original post. She must be doing something right. She must posses intelligence, a good work ethic, and so on. My objection is that I think you may be making too much soup from one omelette (or whatever that expression is!!!). If Michael Moore can make money pedaling his garbage, how hard can it be? H.L. Mencken wrote, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." My point is look at all the people who overpaid for houses recently. It was a bubble, or a mania. Lady Gaga is a fad. I needn't find a justification for how much money she is making. She is making too much, I predict it won't last. She is overrated. Of course, I think I said the same thing about Madonna, so what do I know?

Edited by Brian9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see what thought provoking or wholesome lyrics can be gathered through this style of music such as the one that Lady Gaga is labeled under. Strip her costumes off and remove the visuals, take it for what it is intended for, audio, and what demonstration of intelligence

is there to aspire to?

If it is pop music in general that you are referring to, the value derived is not just from he lyrics! But that can be said of all genres.

It does not make sense to think of Lady Gaga without her costumes and visuals. She is a whole act who explicitly considers herself as such. And I believe Eioul was referring to Gaga's demonstration of intelligence in her interviews (even songs at times IMO), which she clearly does, not necessarily in her lyrics as you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I believe Eioul was referring to Gaga's demonstration of intelligence in her interviews (even songs at times IMO), which she clearly does, not necessarily in her lyrics as you are talking about.

Can someone point me to one of these interviews that displays her intelligence? I am genuinely curious, because the only interviews I have seen have either been ordinary and not anything to really make a note on, or she has been rude and disrespectful, I remember one instance where she wore these gigantic sunglasses that completely blocked out her eyes during a whole interview and the interviewer...you could easily tell was very offended by the fact she would not take those shades off throughout the interview. Intelligent? Perhaps. Respectful and considerate? I am holding my judgement on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her Larry King interview. I think you can tell from it she is at least smarter than the average bear. I wouldn't know how to quantify it. I guess Kurt Cobain was smarter than average too. He made music people liked, made money, and killed himself. So, my argument is what does it matter if she if is smart and entertaining? Michael Moore may be a smart guy too, I still despise him and he is still overpaid. I don't mean to insult Gaga. Moore is a convenient example. I believe I have heard Clinton scored higher on his IQ test than Reagan. It doesn't really matter to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...