Professorship or not, it is clear to me you have pursued at least some level of post-graduate studies on mythical (meth-ical?) creatures, and I will henceforth defer to your expertise.
Agreed. Based on titles, I figured Toilet 105's gotta be more hilarious, I mean, that's just ridiculous. Raped by Satan sounds like it'd be campy but still disturbing. Then I watched the trailers. It's the opposite.
We should all sign this petition folks. The Republicans presenting Glen Beck as their nominee in 2012 would be hilarious, unless he won, but either way, it's 2012, let's go out laughing (and crying)!
I recently brought someone in for an interview on the basis of them indicating they were a member of Mensa on their resume. I was really just curious to meet a proud Mensan (redundant?). It was about as I may have guessed. The Mensan was not hired.
I know this conversation is basically over, but I just wanted to add that I just watched the video and....umm...it is incredibly tame. Really. After all of this, I was really expecting something super over the top, like a dude in a Hitler mustache going down on Lady Gaga atop Brandenburg Gate or something, but nothing even close. I was willing to concede some degree of artistic responsibility for trying to profit from exploiting victims of genocide, but I see nothing even remotely approaching moral reprehension here. Just a lame, boring video with dudes in leather outfits, that do resemble Nazi couture, but I don't even think the Nazi own that look anymore.
Sorry, NC, again, all due respect, but I do have to agree to disagree.
Fair enough NC. I respect you and your opinions. I've stated mine in the above. I'll watch the video later and see if it raises any additional thoughts, otherwise we've probably run this one into the ground.
I truly did not at any point mean to belittle your feelings, offend anyone, or make this a personal attack. Just pontificating on the nature of art and taboo.
I don't think I've contradicted myself. I only brought the intentions of the artist back into the discussion once we got onto the idea of art being successful or failing. I'm not sure how you define success or failure without reference to intent. Any act is successful if it meets its objective. In that sense, you can't define art as a success or failure unless you consider the artist's intent. At the risk of giving Lady Gaga too much credit here, I could surmise that her intent is to instigate discussion on the nature of what is or isn't art. Were that to be the case, one could argue that her art has succeeded as evidenced by this thread.
As far as good and bad are concerned, yeah, artistic intent is pretty much irrelevant there - that's going to be left entirely to the observer.
Napoleon Complex, I am sorry if I've personally offended you. I know that you are discussing this particular image, this particular piece of "art", and the specific, personal relationship you have to it. I don't mean to disparrage that at all or to suggest your feelings are "wrong". I approached this discussion in a general sense, a theoretical sense (again - HAVE NOT SEEN THE VIDEO) and you've underscored the fact that for all of the philosophical positions on the subject, art DOES have a powerful ability to strike directly at personal experience and provoke reaction. I understand that this video upsets you and why it upsets you. I guess I'm just defending an artist's right to upset people. I attempted to do so respectfully.
As to the question of moral reprehensibility, ptsmith_vt, you raise a valid point about incorporating hate speech, racial/sexual/social sterotypes and the like into art. Can art hurt people? It's a powerful question and one that's not easily answered. You also make a good point that even if an artist is free to incorporate what they want into their art, that there can be consequences. The recent rash of cartoonists receiving death threats for depicting Muhammed has underscored that point.
So what's my conclusion? I guess I still tend toward the belief that artists have the right of expression, and if in the course of that expression, they offend people, it doesn't change the fact that they have the right. This is a free speech arguement at this point as much as anything else. Whether or not they're morally reprehensible? I'm not sure how to answer that. I think that's a subjective position as well. I can agree that artistic expression can and does have consequences, and that the artist bears responsibility for those consequences, but how do you measure "societal desensitization" and/or how could you put any measure of that effect on an indivudal artist or work of art? What consequences should/will Lady Gaga face for this video?
If the question you want me to answer is "...why you think it’s okay to use something horrible [like Nazism] in art..." I think I've already answered it. I think it's okay to use anything you want to in art, barring actually directly harming someone (snuff films, child pornography, etc.). Using Nazi imagery is not the same thing as being a Nazi. I disagree with the assertions made in this thread that because a piece of art is bad, or cheap, or disgusting, or whatever other subjective conclusions we draw about it, that the artist is "morally reprehensible". See: Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Sex Pistols, GG Allin, People vs. Larry Flynt, all horror films, etc.
Regarding Gaga and this video in particular (again, I haven't seen it) you presume that the objective is cheap titillation. I'd suggest that Lady Gaga's artistic objective may be broader than you've given her credit for.
Then again, maybe not.
Thanks Mans - no personal offense taken here - I hope that's the case with everyone on this thread. I'm not trying to champion Lady Gaga, Nazism as fetish, or any other specific artisistic expression here. I haven't actually even seen this video as it's blocked by the firewall I'm currently on (for ad filtering, not for artistic content).
But to the point, defending or excusing what we're all agreeing for the sake of argument is "bad' art is entirely the point. Art is "good" or "bad" and "succeeds" or "fails" based on the intentions of the artist and the perceptions of the observer. It's entirely subjective. You've just cited an example of what you consider "good nazi art". You can't say this subject is off limits unless you do it well, because that statement assumes that a) good and bad are objective and that b) the artist is entirely aware and in control of the effect of a finished piece of art before they create it. Neither of these assumptions is valid. The responsibility for the interpretation of a piece of art is on the audience, not on the artist.
That just make it bad art, ptsmith_vt, it doesn't make it morally reprehensible. And good or bad, it is art. The existence of this conversation validates it as such. You are still entirely free to your opinions of it and have the choice to observe it or not.
I do disagree with you there NC. Like it or dislike it, it's art. I don't find it morally reprehensible to appropriate any imagery for the sake of art.
Actually, I guess the reason I've chosen to argue this point is that I like provocative art but don't like Nazi's or endorse Nazism. I think it's possible to enjoy provocative art without condoning the taboo that's being used to provoke. Enjoying Lolita as a work of art does not mean one condones pedophilia, for instance. Not putting Gaga in Nabokov's league, but you see the point.
I get it, but it's the exhiliration of breaking the taboo that makes it provocative, and to many, sexy. Since Nazis committed once of the biggest atrocities in modern history, they become the biggest taboo. The fact that they also happened to also have an aesthetic that lends itself nicely to erotic appropriation just makes it an easy way of creating a taboo sexual image. It's actually been overdone, and is rather lazy at this point if you ask me. Marilyn Manson has basically covered this ground, and he wasn't the first either. Anyway, I understand what you're saying and your opinion that it's disgusting, but the fact that it prompts that reaction is precisely what gives it it's power. It doesn't do anything for me, and I'm not sure why I've adopted an apologist argument for it here, but there you go...
I understand the sensitivity, all the more so the more closely you've been personally affected by the Holocaust, but I don't see how using this imagery specifically to provoke a reaction excuses Nazism. Unless you're referring to excusing contemporary fetishism of the Nazi aesthetic as opposed to excusing the atrocities the actual Nazis committed. I guess I don't see the fetishism of the aesthetic as a statement at all about the morality of Nazism.
(this is a reply to you, NC, but I guess the replies are only allowed to go so deep? there's no reply button on your comment).
Of course you realize that this is entirely the point. She's not the first and won't be the last to invoke Nazi imagery because it prompts a reaction - any reaction. It's not much different from Tea Partiers putting a Hitler mustache on Obama. Got your attention!
I'm thinking that incorporating punctuation and unpronounceable symbols into your name is a fairly decent signpost to alert me to the fact that I do not want to hear what you have to say.
As long as we're dissecting everything she said, does anyone else find the term "old school" being ridiculously over used? Like anything that you remember from more than a year or two ago is now old school? I don't know, I'm not familiar with the history of shrimp tacos in Baja Mexico, but when I think of things that are "old school" I don't think of privileged white people eating shrimp tacos. Just feels a little more "new school" to me.
All that said, those tacos look good, and she doesn't really bother me.
Comments