Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.
Location: Where people kill 30 million pigs per year
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goblin Tears
The latest shoot from mega popstar LADY GAGA!
Hmmm. A commentary on misogyny in the music industry (women sexualised and treated like 'pieces of meat'), or is this an anti-carnivore vendetta? Please discuss your DISGUST.
Well, well, well...if this isn't THE perfect storm of anti-feminist and anti-animal images to arouse the riled and wild beast in me, I don't know what is!
I'd say Gaga's meat picture isn't an anti-carnivore message...otherwise they wouldn't have used real flesh. So, it is an attempt to point out how women are treated like meat...bodies to be consumed sexually without any care for the sentience of the individual within. But, like Tumor says...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TumorAttitude
I don't eat meat and I think its icky....... if its a comment on misogiony in the music industry (treating women like pieces of meat, only as good as their asses, ect.) then its not a very good one, considering she's sexually posed and naked....or is that a look of disgust on her face? Can't tell.
Lady Gaga's "naked truth" meat picture reminds me of PETA's ad campaigns that have naked women in cages to try to get people not to harm animals. Or nearly naked women with a piece of fur under their underpants...to try to show how women wouldn't go out with their own fur showing, so they shouldn't wear fur.
The PETA ads end up objectifying women for the sake of animals...since we all know there's nothing wrong with furry women, right? ...the reverse of Lady Gaga treating animals poorly for the sake of women (supposedly):
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan:
If a chicken was smart enough to be able to speak English and run in a geometric pattern, then I think it should be smart enough to dial 911 (999) before getting the axe, and scream to the operator, "Something must be done! Something must be done!"
Last edited by VEGANGELICA; 09-08-2010 at 10:54 AM.
Well, well, well...if this isn't THE perfect storm of anti-feminist and anti-animal images to arouse the riled and wild beast in me, I don't know what is!
I'd say Gaga's meat picture isn't an anti-carnivore message...otherwise they wouldn't have used real flesh. So, it is an attempt to point out how women are treated like meat...bodies to be consumed sexually without any care for the sentience of the individual within. But, like Tumor says...
Lady Gaga's "naked truth" meat picture reminds me of PETA's ad campaigns that have naked women in cages to try to get people not to harm animals. Or nearly naked women with a piece of fur under their underpants...to try to show how women wouldn't go out with their own fur showing, so they shouldn't wear fur.
The PETA ads end up objectifying women for the sake of animals...since we all know there's nothing wrong with furry women, right? ...the reverse of Lady Gaga treating animals poorly for the sake of women (supposedly):
Actually, I didn't say anything anti-feminist or anti-animal, lol. And there is a big difference between GaGa's shoot and that Peta one. Lady G's inspires disgust and is highly unlikely to arouse any men unless they have some weird tastes, and, well, if she were wearing a grandma jumper while she was doing that shoot, her point would hardly come across, now would it?
Location: Where people kill 30 million pigs per year
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goblin Tears
Actually, I didn't say anything anti-feminist or anti-animal, lol. And there is a big difference between GaGa's shoot and that Peta one. Lady G's inspires disgust and is highly unlikely to arouse any men unless they have some weird tastes, and, well, if she were wearing a grandma jumper while she was doing that shoot, her point would hardly come across, now would it?
Oh no no...I think you misunderstood me, Goblin...I didn't mean that *you* had said anything anti-feminist or anti-animal at all. I just meant that the image of a naked Gaga oozing sexuality while draped in the flesh of animals whom people had slaughtered, ignoring or not caring that those animals had feelings and presumably enjoyed life...was anti-Feminist and anti-animal.
The nudity isn't anti-Feminist in and of itself. There is nothing wrong with nudity, I feel, and women and men being able to be naked publicly may be an important part of equality within a culture. But since women's bodies are used more often than men in a naked state to sell products or ideas, Lady Gaga's use of her nudity to try to make her point continues that unequal trend of valuing women more for their bodies than their minds, and valuing men more for their minds than their bodies.
Hmm....Lady Gaga in a grandma's jumper adorned with raw steaks. You are probably right...that wouldn't get her point across. That would be more like a comment that old people are not viewed as sexual when they should be!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan:
If a chicken was smart enough to be able to speak English and run in a geometric pattern, then I think it should be smart enough to dial 911 (999) before getting the axe, and scream to the operator, "Something must be done! Something must be done!"
Last edited by VEGANGELICA; 09-08-2010 at 11:54 AM.
Lady Gaga's use of her nudity to try to make her point continues that unequal trend of valuing women more for their bodies than their minds, and valuing men more for their minds than their bodies.
No her point is LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME.
Anyone that suggests otherwise with her track record is just deluding themselves.
As for her
How about you just put it away for 5 minutes. Go away somewhere and try making that turgid disco shite you put out as interesting as you keep on telling everybody it is.
Here's a clue, If you keep on having to explain to people why your art is so deep then perhaps the reason for this is because you are not showing that in your art well enough.
Location: Where people kill 30 million pigs per year
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger
No her point is LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME.
Oh sure, I agree...gaining attention is part of her plan. And it is possible she actually *wants* to be viewed as "meat" and her picture of herself in steaks can be taken at face value. But don't you think she could also be intentionally trying to be thought-provoking through the images of her?
Quote:
Here's a clue, If you keep on having to explain to people why your art is so deep then perhaps the reason for this is because you are not showing that in your art well enough.
Don't tell people, show them.
But she *is* showing and not always just telling people, Urban! She has made all these unusual images of her, and she doesn't always explain what they are supposed to mean or what her intentions are, as far as I know. So viewers and listeners are left to wonder about the meaning. Seeing depth in art doesn't mean the art has to be clear or clean or easy.
I like her Paparazzi song and video, for example, because it takes the LOOK AT ME idea and plays with it, exploring different aspects of what it means to be the viewer and the viewed. The subject matter of the video/song has several layers, but summarizing them I'd say it deals with what people want and take from each other, and why, and whether it is right or wrong to use other people to achieve your own goals.
I feel the song is pretty and sad, her voice is lovely, and the images in the video are memorable because they are startling. Just in case you haven't watched it (and I can't imagine you haven't, but maybe not?)...:
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan:
If a chicken was smart enough to be able to speak English and run in a geometric pattern, then I think it should be smart enough to dial 911 (999) before getting the axe, and scream to the operator, "Something must be done! Something must be done!"
I just think it's funny when people give an artist so much credit for the messages they infer of their own accord from the art. If her art is ambiguous in its message then it is silly to like her because she is saying a particular thing when you, yourself, have decided what that thing is.
Similarly, others may choose to dislike her because they interpret her art as sending a different message.
All in all, if she has something important to say, she's certainly doing a terrible job of it. i think it's ok to dislike her for that. It isn't ok, however, to like her (or dislike her) for saying something she has never explicitly said.
I dislike her for her irresponsible messages of materialism which are extremely explicit in her art.
I just think it's funny when people give an artist so much credit for the messages they infer of their own accord from the art. If her art is ambiguous in its message then it is silly to like her because she is saying a particular thing when you, yourself, have decided what that thing is.
Similarly, others may choose to dislike her because they interpret her art as sending a different message.
All in all, if she has something important to say, she's certainly doing a terrible job of it. i think it's ok to dislike her for that. It isn't ok, however, to like her (or dislike her) for saying something she has never explicitly said.
I dislike her for her irresponsible messages of materialism which are extremely explicit in her art.
No, lrn2LadyGaga
You really don't know what you're talking about. As cliche as it is she sends a message of "acceptance and love" and I would say that is pretty ****ing important. She's doing an EXCELLENT job of saying that. Maybe it's your OWN FAULT that you can't look past the surface. Look at her speaking at the gay marriage rallies, or being a VIVA GLAM spokeswoman, and preaching to every magazine she's interviewed in USE CONDOMS USE CONDOMS USE CONDOMS USE CONDOMS. She's using her sex for good **** too.
The whole point isn't materialism, and it's foolish to act like you know so much about her when you clearly don't. Even she saidthat the point of it was to make everyone "feel like they're beautiful, dirty, rich" even if they're poor. It's not about having money, it's about being weird, and she's saying she accepts all the weirdos.
...the reverse of Lady Gaga treating animals poorly for the sake of women (supposedly):
Linear Mode
