somebody with a knowledge of performance art would engage with an evaluation according to the technicality of the performance, the content of the performance and its merits, the execution of the performance regarding technique and timing etc. a person in the arts establishment could, hypothetically, explore the 'performance' for deeper meanings and then analyse them on their own merits: what is the performance getting at? what are the major aesthetic themes of the performance, and why? how do the lyrics/spoken-word/literary parts of the performance engage in dialogue with the visual-aspects? etc.etc. ad infinitum. this is just hypothetical stuff thrown out on the spot-- im not going to try to 'objectively evaluate' a lady gaga video because it isn't my field and i couldn't carry a 'performance art' evaluation, for i lack the education and specialization. that's not to say that there aren't people out there that do have it, though.
as ive already said- i think gaga is doing a 'valid thing'. i think she's on top of the pop industry and is driving it musically and visually into a new area/'era' of performance - and i think that's a good thing. it's entertaining to watch, is catchy and seems to have a pervasive influence on the rest of the industry... there are lots of gaga-clones already. she is a successful pop-artist; probably one of the most successful pop-artists in the world. but i just don't particularly 'get' much of a deeper significance or meaning behind her music videos, beneath her lyrics and song-writing. that's the benchmark of 'fine art' and the point at which song-writing and the arts cross over into a new dimension of importance and appreciability. im sorry but reading through the lyrics for 'poker face', im just not getting any deeper themes or any particularly potent or sophisticated messages. it's an entertaining song -- catchy, even -- but people should respect that, whereas gaga does her thing well, it is not becoming the next great songwriter to capture the zeitgeist of our generation.
and you can dismiss that as 'elitism' if you will, but it doesn't hide the fact that content of that level simply is not there in her work. you can claim that it's not important, for your tastes personally and your own personal, subjective judgement- and that's fine, too. but objective fields of appreciation, major art discourses and contemporary 'movements', 'schools' and emerging genres all do serve that purpose very well. and they very much do exist, whether your knowledge vaguely knows of them or admits their presence, or not.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-07-01 08:50:52)
