As IF Times

Source: Neighbors Of Harrisburg Teen Charged With Supporting ISIS Express Disbelief « CBS Philly

Why is Twitter even something that people do? Why do people Tweet?  How did the world get along without this stupid app?  I’m not even sure of how to use the word.  I guess it’s a verb, as in I twit you, or I twitter you.  If in a bar, do you tell someone to twitter you? Would they twitter you later, after dinner perhaps? Is it a noun, as in he’s a twitter, or they’re all twitters? If it’s singular, does that make someone a twit?

This useless app was invented on the heels of the success of all social media phenomenon beginning of course with Facebook.  In the case of Facebook, the app at least makes some sense as social voyeurs and exhibitionists alike could satisfy their particular needs.  In the case of Twitter, it appears that the utterances of a few celebrities or personalities are so compelling that subscribing to their timely bon mots is a must do.  It’s a bit of an evolution from the days of gathering around Moses while he reads pronouncements from a stone tablet.  But you’d think that based on the popularity of the app, that the pronouncements made by present day social deities are no less sage.

Why can’t people wait until the 6 pm news to know what Kim thinks? Why do we need to instantly know that she just bought a tennis bracelet for her cat? Why would any sane person need to be piped in to Al Gore’s recent verbal discharge?  According to Google, the accounts with the largest followings include Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift and Barack Obama.  Wait…Barack Obama?

Unless you’re a spy, the compunction to be a twitter user implies that someone else’s life is more interesting than your own. It actually accentuates the very human tendency to listen to those views that are already agreeable to their own.  The more people that are in that echo chamber, the more it reinforces and validates their own worldview.  As the top twitter personalities above indicate, this is the realm of 12 year old girls.  This is the constituency of those that wait breathlessly for every word from their idols.

It’s actually brilliant marketing, since they don’t stop making 12 year old girls which come with their natural need to be part of a popular mob.  It’s curious that some people never outgrow that though. That’s why they’re called followers.

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.