@Jamiet99uk:
I totally agree- it IS my own reaction.
Art is subjective, and so any system, mine or Kant's or Nietzsche's or Aristotle's or whoever's, sistyem of evaluationg art is going to suffer from the fact that it cannot be totally true and correct in its assertions in an objective sense.
But given my definitions of art and music (again, MINE) I should view Lada Gaga to be inferior. Now, I have my reasons, and that would be my system. What I am trying to convince you of is my system first and THEN the artist. Some might agree with my assertion that art's purpose is to create and shape ideals and feelings, to allow for a sense of distinctiveness in what is otherwise an indistinct world.
If you agree with my assessment of art, then naturally you'll agree with my assessment of Gaga. If you go further and agree with my metaphysical idea that the world we live in is indistinct (I'll state what I mean by that momentarily) then of course you will disagree with my artistic appraisals, because you and I have yet to agree on even the metaphysical ideals upon which it is based- no base, no layers on top...
What I mean by indistinct:
Right now, the room you are in is filled. You may be alone, but it is filled still with physical objects. Even if those are not present (in which case, how are your reading this lol) then air of some kind is present, be it oxygen or, if you really want to press the issue, a sort of gas that kills you and you are dead, but still, those particles of air fill the room.
There ARE areas of emptiness, to be sure, between atoms and inside the atoms themselves (I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure there is some empty space within an atom.)
So the area is filled.
Now, he WORLD we live in operates in the same way, only on a much larger scale. The only reason we exist as we do, the only self we have is that which is constructed...but let's take that in both possible meanings. If that is to say we construct ourselves via, say, empirical knowledge or self-discovery and things like that, we are learning, we are growing, we are CHANGING...just like the molecular world around us, nothing is static. If we take it literally ans say we are a construct...well, we are, we're an atomic construct, atoms arranged in a highly specific way, at this very moment atoms are leaving and entering your being, you are changing, the atoms themselves may be changing in ways, frming bonds or breaking them and the like, and so again we have a constant state of change. Further, it is no secret when we die our atoms will disperse, eventually, and any atomic distinctiveness will be gone.
The world we populate is one of atoms constantly in motion, constantly changing, and people are constantly changing. There is no portion of us that is immune to change. Empirically, this is our basis, we learn through empiricism. A priori, certain maxims may be argued to be ever-the-same (ie, a triangle always has 3 sides and adds up to 180 degrees) but for us to be aware of such maxims we must first come into contact with them in some way (ie, if you have never seen a triangle before the triangle maxim will not be apparent, and at the very least it will not appear to you, the same way that if you have never been to a galaxy beyond the Milky Way where the maxim is all triangles add up to 280 degrees, and their triangles work perfectly in that manner, then you will have no conscious or unconscious awareness of this fact) and as we become aware of maxims, we change. We are constantly losing atoms, gaining atoms, and those atoms themselves are gaining and losing electrons, and forming and breaking bonds, and becoming isotopes and so on.
We are in a constant state of change.
Everyone is.
And through this, as everyne is constantly changing, and everyone is interacting in this manner with others (my actions affect other objects which affect other people which affect other people and objects which... and so on)
As such, the entire world is one buzzing hive of influences and forces acting upon people and objects, whether these forces are physical, aristic, chemical, emotional, or otherwise.
Extended, we may comment on (what we know of as) the universe being somewhat like this, as, while it has blankness and emptiness, it also has forces acting upon forces.
In this sea of action upon action and forces acting on other forces, we are indistinct, like individual grains of sand in a sandstorm, being influenced by other grains of sands in their bumping into us and the winds moving us.
So we are indistinct, as really we are more precisely one Whole that is constantly in change and we simply happen to be occuring as a process of that change at this moment, but we are NOT the force of change, and further it is by coincidence that we occured, nearly random, as DNA allows for so many variations, lives allow for nearly unlimited amounts of variations, and so forth.
So we are indistinct- how does this pertain to art?
The only way by which we can hope to gain any sort of sense of significance and distinctiveness is through acting upon others, being the wind rather than the sand at least some of the time. We as human beings are creatures that respond to stimuli and to influences; your mother or father influenced your life in their actions, and as such they have a certain distinctiveness, as at least to you they are distinct; someone else, some faceless person among the 6 billion+ on planet EArth that you have never met and has never influenced your life, reamins indistinct. To deal with the possible case of someone you've never met influencing you still (and by this I mean people today; of course none of us have ever met George Washington, but needless to say if we live in America or England he has influenced the land we find ourselves in to a degree) I would then say that in such a case they have, in fact, influenced you, and your are aware that someone somewhere did influence you, but the DEGREE here varies. I am influenced right now by someone who designed my model laptop, and the people who put it together, and the people who shipped it...but as all of these influences are comparatively small and spread between so many, I only know it was someone and can only refer to them as "someone," and as such the degree of influence is rather minute, and as a result their distinctiveness to me is even more minute.
So we should seek to influence others (and even if we don't seek it we WILL by our very existence) as all things seek control of some kind, be it very minute and simply the ability to exist, or larger, and these are the artists and politicians and scientists and conquerors and so on.
So what is the mission of art?
From this idea of indistinctiveness- to gain distinctiveness and to create ideals and impressions. As we are one, ever-changing cloud of subjective people, subjected to an ever-changing experience, true objective evaluation of arts is impossible. However, the necessity for the evaluation and valuation of arts is vital, as if we are to be influenced, we should, naturally, like some control in the matter; generally what art we experience and choose to experience is something we have some control over, and so it becomes necessary to evaluate art forms and forms within those forms (genres) to do so. Influences can be positive or negative, and naturally we want postive influences, things that will help us or make us feel good, or, even better, help us to grow for, as we are in a constant state of change, it is folly to think we should stay at this mode of being forever, we will change as the world and others "re-shuffle the deck" thorugh influences, so to speak, and so we should hope to be greater, not lesser, when we change.
Art that is the greatest, then, are those forms that allow for more and greater influences. This is the ONLY true mission of art, and any other- sheer entertainment, to make money, etc.- is either a lesser and diluted form of art, or else not art at tall, but an attempt for one to influence their standing through other means masked as art (ie, the "manufactured pop band" phenomenon, not to say all ARE...but certainly some pop artists are the product of corporate manufacturing for the sake of making money, and THAT is the true goal, not art but business.)
To Gaga, Lennon, and Puccini-
The reasons you give for Gaga to be considered an artist were "creative, exciting, and innovative." If we accept that these are her bases to the claim of her being an artist, we should examine each of them.
Is Gaga creative? This is vital, naturally, as art was stated to be existing for the purpose of creation. Anyone, however, cna be called creative, because the act of creation is relatively easy. The strength, endurance, and, above all, transcendental power of one's art, however, is the truer test and greater evaluation of creativity.
Again remember that we are indistinct and that distinctiveness is our goal; when viewing art, then, the question of originality comes to mind. Absolute originality is a fallacy and not to be dealt with seriously here, as by the very nature of art, there MUST be influence, and by the very nature of influence, there WILL be, then, some crossover. Shakespeare certainly took his stories' concepts form other places, they wee not original, but the actions and words and composition can be argued to be such; we can be sure to say that sonnets precede the Bard, but equally sure to say that a SHAKESPEAREAN sonnet is distinct, we will recognize it's distinct form as being Shakepeare and only Shakepeare, it may have influences and these we can trace, but only Shakespeare can write "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" and have that be recognized distinctively as his. If I write that, it is clear that I am not being influenced by a previous style or form, but merely fitting it, sliding my foot into someone else's boots, so to speak, and not creating my own boots at all.
So, back to Gaga. Can you say that you cannot imagine another artist performing her work, that her work is distinct? To be fair and put this to a musical test- if you knew of John Lennon's work and heard his voice, knew his style, and yet had never heard "Imagine," and one day heard a cover artist sing the song as John did, would you not at least think, "This sounds familiar..." in some sense? You might even be able to deduce that it was Lennon's style. It is distinct- with influences and homages all his own built into that style, but the end product, the end notes and actions are distinctly Lennon.
Take Gaga, and, AGAIN- CAN you say that her music is distinct, no one else could have produced it and you would ahve thought it an infringement upon her style? I'm behind here on all my skinny-as-a-post pop stars, but let's take an oldie and say Spears or someone knew like Ke$ha (or whatever her name is.) Can you make the claim that if you had never heard one of Gaga's songs, and you heard it for the first time come out of Spears' or Ke$ha's mouth as a cover, you would instantly have had the impression not of Spears or Ke$ha, but of GAGA?
I find that highly doubtful...and as such I cannot award her great distinctiveness, and as such cannot attribute great and lasting creativity and merit to her name.
NOW take Beethoven's 5th.
We ALL know it.
You hear someone playing it, they're not just playing a song, they're playing BEETHOVEN, and you know it, and if they wre to try to attribute that creation to themselves you would find the claim ridiculous.
It is distinct, and it is lasting. "How can you say Gaga will not be lasting?" you ask? If she is not distinct NOW, if her style now, when she is at a level where she is to be considerend an artist, is not ditinct enough to be distinguishable in her own time by people in her ownj time against other artists in her own time, and all art is influence, how can we say she will grow distinctive if she already lacks it, if covers of her work already can be mistaken by the common ear for another artists' style?
No one will mistake Shakespeare's words for Beckett's- they are both distinct.
No one will mistake Lennon's song for a cover artist- Lennon is distinct.
And as this distinctiveness carries through time, we may call iot trancendental, that though ourselves and our percpetions of art may change, we can always recognize Beethoven's 5th for the 5th and "Where for art thou, Romeo?" as Shakespeare's wriitng (and likely even further and be able to be VERY distinct and say that ti's Juliet, and even STILL some would be able to be extraordinarily distinct and, from all the moments in all of literature in all the world, be able to place the words correctly as Juliet in The Balcony Scene from "Romeo and Juliet.")
Not so with Gaga, and so I cannot accept the creativity premise.
Exciting? That is taste, and that is a secondary and utterly subjective question in art, asn so I cannot attest to that- you may find it exicitng, and I don't and that I can only offer an opinion on, for that is totally subjective with nothing to offer in definitive or distinct argument for or against...but as it is not the main purpose of art, setting it aside, or even being generous and allowing it, doesn't place Gaga in artistic company, as she hasn't fulfilled Task #1, as demonstrated above.
Innovative? That IS influence, but the phrasing is too vague...I can be "innovative" and screech to sing a song like Yoko Ono, and claim that's innovation- and how many would agree that's good art? Some subjectively would, but even still, that doesn't mean that it has influenced the medium, as all I've done is do something different, and in a world in which the nearly infinite is possible, something different is not hard to accomplish, and if the only reason I am attracting attention is because I'm different, I have not created, not impressed, merely been different in my approach, and while a difference approach to art may gain followers and is not only potentially admirable but an important part of art, without EXECUTION on that different approach, a successful execution for Task #1, I ahve still failed to be a lasting artistic force.
(Whew!) :D
We need 2 in a live game starts @ 9:20am(PST)
)
)
)
)