Pete U, you could not, I'm afraid, be more wrong in stating that there is no "better" or "worse" art.

By such logic, why not call a two-year old banging pots as musically significant and as good a piece of art as Beethoven's Ninth?

Art has a goal, to create ideas and to give an impression of ideas and expressions to the audience to which it plays.

And how well that goal is achieved, the degree to which the ideas are successfully translated to the audience...

INFLUENCE.

THAT is art.

I agree art has no intrinsic value- it is all evaluative; however, for these evautations to be anything but arbitrary there must be some relative constants that allow for successful evaluations. Ypu will judge Cola A better than Cola B based on certain qualities like taste, less filling, etc., but while your opinion of what these properties are exist, the fact that these properties exist is not.

Your perception of taste may be open to your opinion, but that taste exists and is a factor in determining successful cooking/colas is not.

Additionally, the attributes of those properties further determine what should be valued. We would value (hopefully) a book or stage show or TV show more than, say, Playboy. You can claim that there is a value to Playoby, and there is...but the artistic attributes it has, while present, are so shallow and base that given a choice a competent judge would choose something else, again, like a TV show or play or book, whatever suits the tastes, but the constant among those being that these things all on the whole possess more and more potent qualities than a mere Playboy image.

The error I find with your logic (and I'm sure this is an issue you ahve with kine) lies in the idea that you seem to be alright letting any and all be deemed art, so everyone may have their opin ion, everyone may have their tastes.

Such is the mantra "let's agree to disagree"...one of the poorest of man's ideals.

If there are ANY answers in life, then agreeing to disagree over them is NOT finding those answers out! Rather it is allowing you to have your delusion and I mine, it does not solve the issue at hand!

There ARE greater and lower forms of art, and these are determinable through emprical experience and, following these experiences and samples, a reasoning to determine the greatest influences and messages and such allowed by each work.

You your self seemed to have no problem stating how unoriginal rappers are, and had no problem stating that Gaga's material is preferable to Lennon's solo work.

You have, buy your own actions and admissions, allowed for the idea of higher and lower art forms, and all that seperates you and I sis that you would have us stay with the slogan "to each his own" where I have and will continue to champion the idea that while there are variances in choices in a certain level of art, there are still elevels, still greater and lesser works.

There can be no great artists if all ar great.

Again, if everyone is special- no one is.

If everyone is the greatest writer ever simply because that's someone's opinion, then Shakespeare and a pig with a pen are no different, it is only your taste that decides.

And frankly, I find that absurd, and reject the pig wallowing in his filth (is this perhaps a metaphor for the Playboy "artists?") and fully embrace the ideal that a man can be greater than another if he works hareder for it...and his work can, too, be greater as well.

All men are created equal.

They do NOT all finish that way, we have great men and men that never shall matter, we have the Shakespeares and WAshingtons and Eleanor Roosevelts...and then we have the men who never lifted a finger to help another person, never looked for a job, lives in the gutter and expects society to take care of him.

And to say he is equal to a Washington or an elizabeth is not only absurd, but insulting to the potential of man.

To say Gaga's lyrics are pleasing, are pleasant...I do not see that, they are not at all enjoyable to me, but there you CAN disagree and be in the right, for taste is allowable.

But just because you enoy a lower form does not stop it from being a lower form, the same way your being a fan of the Detroit Lions or *insert worse English football team here* does not stop them from being abject losers, and far below the quality of the championship teams like this year's champion, the New Orleans Saints, or the Spanish World Cup team (there, Englishmen, I watched the World Cp to the end...it was interesting, I'll still never follow it regularly and I'll love baseball and American football and hockey before it, but in 2014 I'll definitely watch the Cup again...)

Art must have intent, and that intent, largely, determines its worth, that and its execution, of course, for good ideals never realized are still failed ideals.

Lennon's song's have a clear intent, for peace and thought and all the things that, frankly, we've all ehard attributed to his work before and to go on about it any further is to sound like a Lennon-crazed hippie here.

Gaga has no such intent. Her songs are empty songs- they may please you auditiorily, they may be "fun" to listen to, you might find her attractive (and if you do...I can't help you there, frankly she's one of the worst-looking pop stars I've ever seen, but I digress) but for all that, all that is still lower.

Lower and Higher pleasures- John Staurt Mill 101.
Lower and Higher People- Friedrich Nietzsche (and Aristotle) 101.

You know my influences, and there they are, and to meld Nietzsche with Mill is perhaps one of the oddest tasks in philosophy, as really the two hated each other and are in many ways opposed.

But both believed that there ARE greater and lower goods!

To use Mill instead of Nietzsche this time: Better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied pig.

And so better to be a poorer artist monetarily than to be rich and no real artist at all.

To convey the base pleasures, as Gaga does, and, to show I'm not biased, as the Beatles do in a lot of their early work (like "She Loves You") is to give the LOWER form of Art. It's like candy- tasty and fun, but no real substance, it cannot help you to be more, and, what's more, it does not transcend the medium, it is strictly fun music, and that's all it can ever be.

Whereas something like "Madame Butterfly," the later Beatles songs (such as "Revolution," Lennon's solo "Imagine," "Let It Be," and the like), THOSE works are of the HIGHER nature, they're not just fun notes and lyrics to make you dance, but rather have the pleasing notes and lyrics while also conveying a message- messages that are socially and humanly pertinent. Further, their works transcend, they have a function outside music, and outside their time.

And I refuse to accept this point that permeates nowadays that because you "try," because you gave an affort and "tried" to make something artistic, you're an artist.

That title is thrown around so loosely today so much of it's great meaning and honor has been diluted in a great pool of half-talents and no-talents, where the good artists, now, must share the limelight, share the influence with these hacks.

Artistry is vital to the human experience, to our very BEING, as with philosophy,as with faith!

To be an artist or philosopher or man of thought or feeling or faith is to embark upon the greatest adventures and battles mankind has to offer.

The Artist and Philosopher do NOT exist to "entertain," not the Higher ones.

They seek to illuminate the truths of our existence- and they are so brilliant in their ability to do so that they do, at the same time, give us great entertainment and pleasure, but just as much if not more of this pleasure comes not from the mere specatcle and entertainment, but from the knowledge that here is a take on man, here before you is the representation of feelings and thoughts and ideas, here are concepts and queries viatal to our very being...and, for the truly great artists and philosophers, here, too, are answers supplied by them, their great ideas that still resonate, still TRANSCEND their incidental and mortal life.

We have Oedipus Rex and Antigone and Othello, Hamlet and Waiting For Godot and A Doll's House, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Death of a Salesman and Hedda Gabler.

We have the works of Dickens and Twain, Austen and Tolstoy, Melville and Hawthorne.

Mozart, Verdi, Puccini. Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Strauss. Paul Robeson, The Beatles.

On and on we can list names.

All these are representations of man. Hamlet is a take on mankind, as is Ahab, as is "Fool on the Hill."

These things have substance, they have actual IDEAS. We can see in Hamlet not just an entertaining youth, we don't enjoy watching him simply because he might shout or sigh or swordfight with Laertes or stab Polonius. We can see all the frailties of man, his indecision, his angst, his sorrow, vengeance and mercy battling with each other, the wrestlying with one's own mortality, the nature of one's very BEING...

And what does Gaga sing of?

We can hear in "Carmen" Bizet paint for us all the differing shades of love and affection and how dark and light that feeling might run, from true love to flirtatious behavior and so forth, the notes not there merely to give us sensual enjoyment, not to make us satisfied pigs, but to underscore and emphazie feelings and emotions the characters feel, and to connect to us in such a way that we might associate those notes with feelings so we might feel Don Jose's growing anger at Carmen's lustful and flirtatious nature, that we can grasp inwardly the sweeping emotions and elevated self-opinion of escarmillo, the light and (almost Gaga-like...accept most Carmen acresses can actually hit and sustain a note) careless nature of Carmen.

And what does Gaga have?

We can see not just a story about whaling and violence in "Moby Dick," but can feel and see and ponder Ahab's quest for revenge, revenge at any and all costs, and we can ponder if these qualities are present within ourselves, if they should be, how we might lose our lege and more to the whales and demons of our fury if we should be so passionate in hunting down and destroying them.

And what does Gaga have?

We ahve with "Imagine" just that- a proposition for us. Imagine there's no heaven. Imagine there's no possessions. Imagine a brotherhood of man. All this we are asked to consider, to evaluate, to take our own lvies into consideration and for once ask if, perhaps, they are worthile, if this idealized and overly-utopian picture seems more appealing, and not to follow Lennon's instructions, but to think, to question again, to Imagine what could be...and to try and perhaps make the world and ourselves and our experience better for it, to Imagine improvement through peace, inwardly and outwarldy.

And what does Gaga have?



Higehr and Lower. You can tell me Gaga's song "says" this, or that it "sounds" a certain way.

But what does HAVE? Those were just small portions of one work from each of those TRUE artists-

And already I see more substance, more thought, more feeling and more exploration of being, in short, more TRUE artistry than Gaga ever has been.

So your taste may be subjective, and you may taste whatever you want in life.

But that does not change dirt to diamonds, and it does not make the Lower any Higher.

I ask that you reconsider art, not as a fun means of diversion, but as a means of true expression and creation and impression- and exploration of the human soul and core and being.

It doesn't have to be dark and dank, tragedy is NOT, contrary to Nietzsche's opinion (there, I stood against Nietzschw for once lol) the only true art form.

"Twelfth Night" or "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" are comedies...and yet they hold within them so many rfined and profound explorations of the roles of men, women, and gender, as well as the nature of life and free will and determinism vs. fatalism, respectively.

But, again- they have SOMETHING which is trancendental, give it meaning, when we attribute meaning to something, we find in the artist's intent a message and ascribe to these plays meaning because they gave us something, they gave us actual ideas and thoughts, not merely a sensual prpmpting to tap toes or clap hands and dance for the puppeteer.

And...what does Gaga have?

To make art is to explore worlds within and without ourselves-

Gaga has yet to explore, in her personhood and on her work, so much as the patio outside her lawn, and see anything.

She simply cannot, or will not, as all true artists and philosophers must, Imagine.

(Sorry for another Beatles/Lennon ending, but this took forever and I had to end it with something to tie it all together after all that...)

"So someone tell me, PLEASE- WHY is this person to be called an artist?"

Because she is actually doing something, instead of only behaving like a sexually intimidated nerd, shitting his helpless thoughts directly into a forum :-)

Helpless thoughts?

Hardly...please, Miro Klose, don't be so complimentary of me... ;)

"And...what does Gaga have?"

She has the nuts to go out there doing her strange performing, instead of forumtrolling her plans to be an artist in the future. Obiwan you know of whom i am talking to, don´t you :-)?

Oh I do...

I don't troll- geez, can I help it if I'm a talkative person, and opinionated too?

Yes.

But I like being talkative and opinionated, and I also know doing it I'll get smacked down by people who're tired of hearing me.

But...hey, you gorw by doing, I like to do it, so I do it- and I do, to my credit, give my actual ideas, and not just ciricize someone who posts a lot (you know of whom I'm talking about, Klose, don't you?) ;)

(Besides, I act in plays and write papers and try and write books and articles and treatises to get published, so hey, I have the "nuts" to do my thing, too...I'm not just posting about anything here, I always post with a talking point in mind- can I help it if you all have such good ideas to contrast and incorporate with my ideas?) :)

obipunk - I suggest that most of the people on this site are SO sick of you, and would break your fingers, given the opportunity.

obiwan - I respectfully submit that you are missing the point entirely. As soon as art says *something* to *anyone*, it is art. Full stop. I reject the idea of higher and lower art, becuase it falsely ascribes value to forms that people *think* are higher.

And the end result must be separated from the *skill*. I do not like opera. I recognise the skill involved in the composition and performance, but I do not like it. I do not like heavy metal, but i recognise the *skill* in producing some of the structures and notes. I recognise the skill in condensing human emotion and thought into a 3 minute pop song, and I would submit the songs such as 'Everybody Hurts' or 'Set The Fire To The Third Bar' offer as much insight into the human condition as any aria. Certainly, they make me, a middle aged bloke, cry on the majority of times I hear them, and, crucially, I like them. Other music speaks to me on a more hedonistic, but no less real level.

Similarly, most 'classical' art leaves me cold. I recognise the skill, but I don't like the end result. A day at the Tate Modern (for me) was far more interesting, insightful and exciting than the time I've spent at the National Gallery and The Louvre. I think that you would find much of the Tate Modern as 'low' art.

And as to what does Gaga have.

1. Originality - In a world of bland, obviously manufactured, production line clones, bowing to their reality TV masters, she has created a unique image. Right now, in popular music, there is *no-one* like her that is touching the mind of the mainstream.

2. An ear for a good tune. *No-one* should like music they don't think sounds good. Period. (The same is true for any art form).

3. A decent voice. If you think she has the worst voice in pop, you really don't listen to enough of it.

You clearly didn't see her performance at the Brits, just after Alexander McQueen died. To say that she had nothing to say is to have missed the whole point of that performance. it was not what was expected.

Finally, your definition of art is missing one key factor, and that is the most important one. For all your talk of meaning, message and something more, you have missed out that art should provide, at it's core, pleasure. If you don't like the sound of a song, why would you listen to it? If you do not like the appearance of a sculpture, why would you consider further. That visceral feeling of like or dislike, interest or repulsion, is central to the core of the artistic experience.

If you (and you appear to) consider Lennon/The Beatles to be High art, then you have to consider all pop music of being capable of being high art. your rejection of Gaga then comes not from an intellectual standpoint, but driven instead by a personal dislike of her work. That i can relate to, and that i can accept. Just in turn as you must accept that Lennon's solo career does precisely zero for me, and I would reject it as anything more than teenage schoolboy poetry of the lowest order.

Gaga is an Artist, just one you don't like

You write and you play, ok what do you write who published it? Where do you play, in school?
Artists know what a hack of job she is doing. The time and energy it needs to be a big artist these days. John Lennon would never say such things about music like you, deviding it in superior and inferior. He knew he was part of the media-industry
he played his role well and did a lot of money with it. But he also was a victim and had no privacy like Gaga.
If you really have the empathy of an artist for artists works, you would at least respect her work instead of...that.

@mapleaf
I know what you mean, it seems to me his only stage is this site...

Oh, and I missed one. I wouldn't call a 2 year old banging pots art. However, there is an interesting debate around what point a childs work becomes art in the broader sense of the word

Well, I'm not all too popular, am I?

Bad for a Diplomacy player...but then again I've always sort of enjoyed being disliked, I'll leave that for you to make the depricating remark, there are a lot to choose from there ;)

My only stage? No, I do this EVERYWHERE- seriously, three busses to college, seven in the morning, and it's time to talk politics and art and philosophy! I'm none too popular there- but I don't give a damn. In class- there I go. Waiting in line at the supermarket, "So what do you think is the ethical implication of your choosing the extra-absorbant version of Bounty paper towels instead of the original, are you suggesting there are higher and lower forms of towelry?" ;) (Not really, but you get the point, I do this EVERYWHERE, this is my life...so hey, if nothing else, you have to give me credit for being passionate and persistant with what I love to do...and I'm not publishing a thing until I think my work is perfect, I write every day, but even so I'll re-write and go again, because when I DO publish, some far off day down the line, I want it to be something that's worthwhile and meaningful and can really hold some good helpful ideas- some of which I shape and fine-tune here, because quite a few people here are able to debate a topic better here than where I live; I'd rather lose a good argument than win a one-sided one.)

AS for what John Lennon would say- hypocritically enough, I care, yes, but I don't care, I think he'd be wrong. I think Lennon was a great artist and one of the best of his time, but that doesn't make him immune to error, just like Nietzsche or Plato or I (definitely lol) am not immune to being wrong, so...yeah, I don't care if John Lennon backed your idea, I still think it's wrong, and I still think the Aristolte/Nietzsche account is far more correct...but again, even they have things I disagree with.

I have no one personal "god" in literature or theatre or philosophy, even Nietzsche or Shakespeare- as much as I like them and admire them and in amny places agree with them, thy have ideas that I, personally, find dead wrong.

And I'm NOT afraid to say so just because they're Lennon or Shakespeare or Nietzsche and I'm a college student with big dreams and hopes and ideas but a tiny wallet to back it all up.

OK, to respond to Pete U's (very good, see, why should I not debate here, you're all so good at it, if I can learn from you, agreeing or disagreeing...) points:

-I agree the end result must be seperated from skill, and I believe I even said that, something like grat intent is nothing if it's not actualized or some jazz like that...but you yourself draw the distinction I attempt to make when you say that some music can appeal to you on a hedonistic level, but that such a level is still just as real as any other. I agree, it's real. It's also hedonistic...and lower. Hedonism is generally not mentioned in a good connotation, so I'll assume you meant it as such and take it that you take hedonism to be a more base form than other forms. But here again we then DO have higher and lower- we have the purely sensual, just feeding desires for sound and rhytym (the hedonistic) and then the higher ones that might ahve a more "profound" message.

-You are however DEAD WRONG when you said that I "missed" the great object of art, that being pleasure- I explicityly included that. I said that. Pleasure IS in art, it is an object. I simply said that it is not the MAIN object of art, that art serves to create and impress ideas, and that when done well we get these ideas in a pleasurable package, sort of like how we might hav a world-class meal, and then spices and herbs and toppings on top- the real substance of the meal here is analogous in my example to the real meaning and messages adn the "create and impress ideas" mantra I have, the real substance, whereas the entertainment and pleasure is analogous to the spices and toppings, it makes the meal better and elevates it from good to gourmet- but it is not the main course, so to speak.

-Adressing the three points that you attributed to Gaga:

1. Originality- I don't find her work original, it sounds totally indistinct to me, and I'll explain that. Beethoven's Ninth has been played many times, obviously. However, no matter who is pounding those keys, in a manner of speaking, I can always tell it's Beethoven coming out of that piano, not a new creation of the pianist; he/she may be a good pianist and playing the song well, but still there is such a distinctiveness about that composition and Beethoven's style overall that he can be said to be transcendental in that regard, totally distinct and recognizable, even to someone who hasn't listened to Beethoven very much, I certainly don't, yet I'd easily recognize Beethoven or hist style, it's that distinct. The same would go for Shakespeare and literature; even if you've never read a whole or seen a whole play or sonnet of his, chances are if you have knowledge of him, even the slightest bit, and you hear a line of his, chances are you'll make the connection and associate the line with Shakespeare; you may not KNOW it's Shakespeare if you don't read him a lot, but you'll know that Line A belongs to Artist A because you'll just have that feeling, that association, because he's so distinct, and so you attribute that line, consciously or not, to Artist A who is, in fact, Shakespeare. Now with Gaga I should say this is not the case. I will allow for the possibility that at some point in her career, since I can't tell the future, she'll have that transcendent quality in her style and music, and she will be distinct; however, as of now, I can honestly say I can easily pciture another artist of her ilk singing her song or coming up with those lyrics. "To be or not to be" is a line that we'd say is Shakespeare's because, in part, it is hard to imagine another artist coming up with those lines, and what I mean by that is with your knowledge of writers, really you cannot find another write who wrote quite that way. Homer, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Ibsen, Arthur Miller, Tennesse Williams, Tom Stoppard, Samuel Beckett...to use some of Shakespeare's contemporaries to make this more fair and pronounced, Ben Jonson and Anthony Munday- all of them are accomplished and have their own distinct styles...and NONE of their styles matches that line, only Shakespeare's does. To take those of his time, Jonson and Munday, Jonson's poetry and plays are more flowery and liberal with their use of language, high on description and lowr on the more metaphysical aspects, and so we cannot give him the line, he might have writen something more like, "Ah, 'tis but a sorrowful fate that I should face such a grim end, or to reject it." (I'm no Ben Jonson, and yes, if he saw my attempt to cover him he'd be apalled at how poorly I captured his style...but that's just what I mean about style, so yeah, if you're a great lover of literature like me, don't pounce on me for my bad Ben Jonson imitation, I know it's bad, that's part of my point.) Anthony Munday, by contrast, would seem to take a harsher tone than even Shakespeare (he is famous for his plays dealing with the Fall and then Death of Robin Hood, after all...) So even with contemporaries within that same genre, Elizabethan/Jacobean theatre, we see that styles are distinct, and "To be or not to be" is Shakespeare's, and cannot be confused for another's work. Thomas Kyd or Pretrarch- again, no matter who, you cannot confuse eht works for Shakepseare's as he is that distinct. I cannot honestly say the same of Gaga, I can honestly say that whatever lyrics or arragement of her ideas she has used, I can picture another teen/young pop star of that near-clone army of stars doing it; can you HONESTLY say that no one in her genre, pop music, has ever said any of the things she's "said" before? Here love songs or pop songs are so unique that you'd never heard one of her songs and heard it sung by an artist not Gaga (since obviously you could recognize the voice and then know it was her and from there make the association, but recognition of a voice, while somewhat due to art, also lends to just science and memory and is not along the lines of the arguement I pose here) that you'd isntantly think of Gaga and no other? I cannot say that- and so I cannot call her distinct, and so cannot call her original, as her work does not stand out as being such.

2....What are you saying there? I actually don't get your point, do you just mean she has a good ear for music? If so...well, I can't protest that as I don't know if she can recognize pitch and tone and all that and how proficiently, and all the other aspects that go into having a "good ear for music," but even if we allow she has a good ear- that doesn't make a good artist. I might have the best eye for good literature, knowing what works and what doesn't, but I myself might be a terrible writer...this is actually maybe the case with a lot of critics (possibly myself included, though of course I hope to be a good writer, for all I know I could turn out to be, despite the fact my writing thus far has been succcessful at every scholastic and collegiate and slowly now moving into the proffesional ranks it has encountered, even though I've always done well I might, in fact, turn out to be a terrible playwright if so I chose to become one), that they are able to evaluate and explain what works and what does not, but cannot themselves do so. So the only thing that I can give Gaga if she does have a good ear is maybe she'd make a good music critic or good music teacher then, but unless she can DO (and to this point in the argument I am still not convinced) then she cannot be considered to be a good musician.

3. I REALLY find her voice lacking, and actually, to say that of her genre she has one of the best voices, and implying she's in a genre filled with bad ones, doesn't really make her voice any better or demonstrate she has a good voice...rather that could jsut be saying one dog turd smells slightly beter than another (pardon the metaphor.) You might find it to be unfair, but compare her to those "outside" her genre, the opera/Broadway crowd, or even other "pop" singers that you can say work well, if you want to throw Lennon and the Beatles in there, the Stones, I don't know...if you want to throw in oldies like Paul Robeson and Frank Sinatra- all these I have to say are far more technically proficient, and most have so much more feeling, you may find this absurd, but I find her not only rough on a lot of notes, but actually, for all her gesturing or whatnot, rather lifeless singing. I'm judging them as objectively as I can, I'm throwing "she sounds good to me" out the window here, so on that line, I can't say she's a good singer, in fact, just the opposite, I find her a rather poor singer, not due to her genre, but sinply becuase of the technical and then emotional aspects- she sounds rough on notes, she doesn't have as wide a range as I should like to see, and I find her voice very lifeless and just dead in the water on its own, and perhaps this is why she needs to gesture and do whatever she can to call attention to her body, because frankly, paying just strict attention to her voice, I don't think she cuts it as anything but a mediocre chorus singer, let a lone a solo artist.

OK...so there's my responses...and I'm sorry if you all don't like me, but...well, frankly, as I quite enjoy being the odd person out and fighting uphill with thoughts even when being disliked, sort of like the player who likes to play on the road because the boos spur him on to greater efforts...well, boo, please, boo... ;)

Obiwan - I don't dislike you, I just disagree with you here ;)

1. I'd recognise Beethoven's 9th as well - it's what, 200+ years old! In the same way, i can recognise the opening of the majority of songs on my iPod (except some of the less listened to album tracks). But, there's a heck of a lot of classical music that I couldn't tell you who had composed it - I'm not sure I could tell my Chopin from my Dvorak. Does that make Chopin less of an artist than Beethoven? I think that would be a hard point to argue (i think you could put any classical composer in instead of Chopin btw), and I wouldn't want to make that argument. Conversely, just becuase you can't tell a Lady Gaga song on 'sight', doesn't mean others can't, and doesn't lessen it's position as musical art. In 10 years time, we may have forgotten her (like I'm sure we forget many other contemporaries of Beethoven), but right now we cannot make that judgement. In the 60s, not everyone liked the Beatles (some epole still don't) and would have been having the same argument.

2. My point is that, regardless of the 'value' of the art, it must have a hook to draw me in for me to consider it. The cleverness of a Dali painting, the start of the novel, the sound of music - in each way, the initial hook is there. So, by 'an ear for a tune' i mean that, like all good songwriters, she has created music which has a hook, a catch. it's not simple foot-tapping - otherwise we'd all like beepy-boppy dance music - but something more than that, something that connects. And that for me is the key - I would like her music if she wore jeans and a t-shirt. It's good pop music. The performance and persona lift it a level, but they aren't the core, the essential.

3. I loathe the singing voice of Bob Dylan. However, I would again struggle to argue against him being an influential and important artist. Likewise Morrissey. Likewise David Bowie. On the flipside, there are clearly many artists with great vocal tools, such as Mariah Carey, whose recorded output makes me cringe, because the songs are (IMO) awful. Objective measures of 'talent' are irrelevant, because it's all about the end result, the art, and its effect on the listener. You can't throw out the 'that sounds good to me' argument, because appreciation of any art form has to include an understanding of what you do and don't like, and why that is.

You've constructed a solid set of reasons for liking what yoo like, and justifying those decisions to yourself. Well done. Just don't expect us all to agree with them :P

Obiwan, for someone who claims to like the work of David Hume, you do a terrible job of acknowledging the is-ought problem. In all of the stuff you wrote that I actually read, there was not one genuine argument as to why she shouldn't play that piano, or indeed do what she does to earn a (very good) living. It was all irrational "I hate her, I hate her, I hate her" and showed nothing better than intolerance of you fellow human being's choices.

"-She is a slut and not only covents but conveys that message, and for no greater motivation than the base pleasures of fame and money"

A. She's never taken money for sex, to my knowledge. So don't call her a slut if you want to be taken seriously. If you want to mindlessly insult her, that's fine.

B. What are her songs about? Many, and indeed her more popular ones (Alejandro and Bad Romance, my two favorites), are about standing up for yourself in the face of sexual repression. Personally, I think that's a great message, provided it's broadcast to a mature audience, and not 7 year olds. (That, really, is my only problem with Lady GaGa and modern music in general) Moreso, that's a message that America desperately needs to hear. As someone who lives in the deep south, I've seen a lot of people that could benefit from that, and I'm not only talking about the LGBT community.

The bottom line is this: Lady GaGa stands up for two of the most repressed groups in modern America: Women and LGBT, (Coincidentally, I am neither) and I think that's great.

rlumley +several

what was it Oscar Wilde said about books, there are no morally "good" or "bad" books, but books that are either well written or not ? can i apply that to Lady gaga's music ? i exercise the "choice to vote with my feet", from the first time i saw a snippet of a film clip for one of her songs i simply selected an alternative program & have basically ignored lady gaga since then, it's not my cup of tea, so i don't drink it, or allow it indoors, if other people like it/enjoy it then "bully for them" and their right to pursue entertainment of their own choosing should be respected, provided they do not force it on me/others who do not wish to hear/be exposed to lady gg.
mind you, of all the things a person might get concerned/worked up about, the "artistic contributions of lady gg" would have to rate as rather trivial and inconsequential when compared to the oil spill in the gulf of mexico/ world poverty/disease and wars et al.

i shouldn't get personal obiwan, but you may be in serious need of a "neverending headjob" from "her indoors" & even if you are not i would still reccomend it for your consideration, so i will send "her indoors" around to your...., no just kidding, you will have to "catch & kill your own"

Yes i have to agree with most of the posters here
Obi, you need to chill out, there are MUCH worse pop acts out there, with fake suntans,poor dance moves, soulless and annoying tunes who dont even write(or play) their own music. Rant about jersey shore or boy bands if you must.
I find Lady Gaga quite alright actually, pop isnt really my cup of tea but her videos are quite entertaining and sounds have a instinctive groove to them(my opinion only)
your forum posts are moving towards misogynistic snobby rants.

Miro Klose, Pete U, rlumley +1 all around

@obiwan

It doesn't matter what you write; it matters what people read. And from your writing, I'm reading that your main argument against Lady Gaga is that you dislike her style of music. Please, if you can, write a direct, succinct (key word for you) argument why Lady Gaga should not be considered an artist.

From what I gather from your rambling, you declare her unoriginal and untalented (in her chosen venue). I think others have done a very good job explaining why this isn't true and I have yet to see you back up your position with a new argument.

As to intent. rlumley, Pete U, others, and I have all given examples of how Lady Gaga's songs represent oppressed minorities and contain social commentary that usually doesn't exist in most pop music. Please explain how this is less intenful than Lennon's message of peace.

obi is an attention whore.

Also, you realize that Dickens and Tolstoy are the equivalent of modern-day pulp romance novels, right?

Dickens novels were serialized and he was paid by the chapter, so he just kept going and going and going; actually, you might be good at a job like this : ) I've read War and Peace and it's a wonderful, beautiful book, but the only truly remarkable thing about it is how long it is. It's a simple matter of economics: people aren't going to read 1000+ page books, so they aren't made.

@Obiwan,

I'd like you to stop and think about your position on this, because it shows a very large flaw in your underlying philosophy. You compare Gaga to a number of books, plays, and songs. Well, consider this: all of those things you compared her to already exist. Now, you are simultaneously criticizing her for being unoriginal and for not being like this ueberartists you mention. Do you see how that makes no sense?

When you first started posting, I really enjoyed your thoughts. As time progresses, I'm starting to think that you've simply taken all of the things you like and created a grand system that ranks their value according to the enjoyment you get out of them. I know a lot of people like this and, quite frankly, they're just annoying. Please tell me this isn't the case with you.

Obiwan, to add on to the constructive criticism you seem to be recieving, I would just like to mention that complex ideas need not be expressed in complex and drawn-out ways. I think you would find that people would be less annoyed with you and more likely to engage with the interesting ideas if you would (attempt) to do some of the following when posting on this (and other) forums;

1) Don't use ALL CAPS for ANY words! GAH! You used to use them all the time, and you use them much less now. this is good, but just stop doing it altogether. Emphasis ought to be signified by constructive context, not the internet's equivalent to yelling loudly.

2) Try to organize your paragraphs into more coherent thoughts, and try to keep them uncluttered of unrelated ideas. Structure, structure, structure those thoughts the best you can! Doing so will help you achieve the third and most important goal, which is:

3) Don't write so much!! You repeat yourself all the time, and bring up Nietzsche far more than is necessary. Slow down, and try to be more succinct. This allows a far greater understanding of your ideas, allows for a swifter flow of ideas, and mkaes you look less foolish and vacuous.

Please make reading your threads a less traumatizing experience, mate! :)

And yes, Lady Gaga is crass and undignified, and her fame is surprising considering her mediocre singing ability. But she creates images, sounds and thoughts that a large number of people like to be exposed to and sometimes find meaning in.

Your evaluation of value is different from mine. Art is something that exists between people, and has no objective benchmark.

Who are you that it isn't art?

I meant to say

"...Who are you *to say* that it isn't art?..."

IE6 is rubbish, this post is to try to read the thread again :(

(Work computer, not my fault I'm still on such a godawful browser...

IE in general is rubbish.

If Obi doesn't like Lady GaGa, I shudder to think what he thinks of an artist like Ke$ha. (Who, coincidentally went to my high school and took AP English III with my brother.)

Well, rlumley, Ke$ha clearly traded her body for your brother's help writing papers.