But Is It Art?
link What happened to Lady Gaga? | New York Post.
The reason that the product of many artists is so revered and timeless is because their works were often poignant reflections of the particular zeitgeist of their era. Through their respective media, they brilliantly capture and convey their observations and perceptions. It was the resonance with the audience that would determine the timelessness of their work. The medium didn’t matter; painting, sculpture, literature or music. While we know that many works of art were commissioned by patrons during their time, most ‘true’ art has no real correlation with financial value…at least not at the outset. It’s a fair guess that nobody commissioned Pablo Picasso to create cubist paintings for financial gain. In fact, when the patron first saw the result, he probably refused to pay.
With the passage of time, the appreciation of high artistic expression has been driven by those who have been mysteriously appointed as arbiters of value. Today, works of art are sold through Sotheby’s and Christie’s for tens of millions of dollars or more because essentially, somebody convinced somebody else of their value. Music of course is a general exception to this. If it doesn’t catch on with the masses, its value is truly only esoteric. Music isn’t better because it costs more. As far as other forms of high artistic expression, the general public wouldn’t know a Cezanne from a Monet. Or Walt Whitman from Walt Disney. The masses are happy with their velvet Elvis’ and their paintings of bulldogs playing poker.
Interestingly, there is an attempt to transplant the high art model into the pop culture business. In the world of pop culture, what passes as artistic is usually overwhelmed by what is marketable and profitable. No one went broke capitalizing on the very brief lives of teeny pop stars. From the David Cassidys and Leif Garrets of yesterday to the Taylor Swifts and Justin Biebers of today, the teeny girl demographic will always be a dependable source of pop star mania. Of course, in order to market the young phenoms, at the very least, they need to have some semblance of talent, however limited that might be. The fact is, much of the reason that pop stars become pop stars is because of promotion, not unlike the art auction racket. Once they begin to market that boy band “A” is the flavor of the day, then the public believes it and the process becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If any art or talent is truly involved, it’s a happy coincidence. Come to think of it, that’s how politics works. Hmm.
In the case of Lady Gaga, her ascension to pop culture icon status is truly a mystery. Bereft of any vocal or observable entertainment talent, her shtick seems to be dressing as if her outfits were picked by seeing eye dogs or designed by 3 year olds in art class. Full credit to her team of promoters, over the past 3 years or so, she has managed to place herself front and center in the pop culture business. This is exhibit “A” of what happens when entertainment is pursued as a marketing exercise rather than as artistic expression, (Exhibit B being Miley Cyrus). It’s hard to imagine that years from now, people will listen to a classic Gaga track and then say “hey that’s good, play it again!”
So the question posed in the linked article is, what happened to Lady Gaga, as if some great talent has disappeared. Nothing has happened to Lady Gaga. It’s more likely the audience has moved on. In the absence of talent, the shelf life of weird can only last so long. Unlike in the high art world, it’s much harder to convince the plain folk that a sow’s ear is a silk purse. Sometimes weird is just weird.