Skip navigation

Tag Archives: the beatles

Days ago, I was informed that fans of Lady Gaga believe her to be much more than a musical performer. Because she designs her own outlandish apparel. Or something to that effect. Okay, I can take that for what it is, not really knowing much about the girl’s music or her fashion statements.

I don’t understand fashion. Either as a result of my having a penis or of my not thinking it speaks to humanity in any way.

Now that my bias has been aired…

Eccentricity is not art. I’ve said before, in passing, that I think money brings out everyone’s eccentricities. It could be too much or too little. This morning, I stumbled upon a news article referring to a message Lady Gaga had written to her fans…on a five-thousand dollar purse. My curiosity peaked because, as I said, I’d recently been told Lady Gaga was a supposed artist based on her fashion sense, rather than her taken art form of music.

Throwing $5000 into (not literally) a purse is beyond ridiculous, in my mind. And is perhaps the best example of said artist’s eccentricity. The message (which I understand referred to her Japanese fans as “little monsters”) is icing on the cake of proof.

Art is supposed to speak to the human condition. It is supposed to represent something meaningful, something that transcends everyday language and communication.

Jackson Pollock was eccentric. So is Ted Turner. I’m not going to debate the major differences between those two individuals because it’s ludicrous. Simply put, one was an artist. The other is not.

I am not talking about individuality here, mind you. In fact, I might suggest that once you become your eccentricities, you’ve lost a portion of your individuality. Because you are no longer a person, but a broadcast of ideas that might somehow be interpreted as art.

Bah, the whole thing is sickening on many levels. If someone truly respected their art (in Lady Gaga’s case, music), why would they seek to draw attention away from it? I will concede that it does not begin with her. Fashion can exist as an artform if and when it defies social conventions. The problem I have with this, of course, is that I doubt the merit of the need to challenge today’s social conventions. They are rehashes of the past. It’s not daring anymore for four guys from Liverpool to come out with long hair.

There are certain things that get labelled as art ubiquitously, in order to keep them alive. Fashion is one, I believe. Pornography fits in there too. Pornography is not art. I’m not suggesting that I have a major beef with porno (I like the blooper reels, myself), just that calling it an art doesn’t help your cause. And yes, I feel the same way about fashion.

Before he was an artist, Dennis Rodman dabbled in mediocre basketball playing.

As I understand it, an artist will use their eccentricities, all of their little individualism hang-ups, to divert attention away from what it is they are actually doing because they don’t actually believe in what it is they are doing.

Jackson Pollock couldn’t paint for sour beans, so he covered it up by being crazy. Lady Gaga’s music is nothing special, so she covers it up with pointy dresses and eyeliner. The list could go on and on to include anyone and everyone, but it really doesn’t help to abate the problem.

Lunatic or daring seamstress?

Under these conditions, everyone, given ample moneys, could be an artist. And that is more than just unfair to those who are legitimately gifted in the art of humanity. Give me the $5000 Lady Gaga spent on her handbag, and I’ll give you artistic gold. And I promise it would be much more than a slap in the face.

Do what you do, and like what you like, but there are some things you really can’t cover up with make-up or hair dye. Talent is a different animal than art…

I’ve not much else to say, but I will leave you with one question. Feel free to answer if you like:

If it weren’t for Madonna’s sexually-charged and explicit music videos of the ’80s, would her music career have spanned these 30 years?