LADY GAGA MAKES GIRL VOMIT ON HER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle

I was half joking about Millie being mentally ill. I appreciate art as much as the next man and will defend freedom of expression to the death, but this is on the borderline of the offensive.

Performance art that shocks us by going against the grain of our expectations is something that appears throughout history, yes, but my view is that the pop industry as it stands is dominated only by those who are prepared to take this to its very extremes in order to get people to internalise the message they are trying to portray in their songs. I never said that this is the first recorded instance, just that it's happening far too often today - especially where Gaga is concerned. Had she not made a confessional speech about bulimia and accompanied her song with such an outlandish performance, do you think the message of the song she was performing would have had the impact she wanted? My own preference is for a song to be sung and the rest be left to me. That is my own relationship with music, though.

---

I think it's a it silly to say it's dominated only by artists like that. In fact I can think of few pop artists that regularly go to these lengths? Note: I don't consider Miley Cyrus twerking on Robin Thicke to be anything like this

Well I disagree that the song or the performance is about bulimia since she preceded it by saying the song, Swine, is about rape. So the performance is about the utmost disgusting feeling you can have. I can see why people are linking it to bulimia but to say it's glamorising it or promoting it is silly and wrong...

That's fine if that's what you feel about music, I love music as well - I am currently doing a degree in it. But I also hugely appreciate and admire artists, like Gaga, that take it all one step further. And Bjork, Kanye...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas

What's glamorous about this performance?

---

nothing was, forgot my sarcasm cant be heard over the web, unfortunately!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas

Who else

I love it cos it's bold.

And yes Millie is a legitimate artist, so it is art. Whether it's good or not is questionable... But what she does takes dedication, patience and passion. I don't think it's right to slam something you don't understand.



She's stupid beyond belief

---

But then where's the line. Does that mean if i was able to create colourful poo I could be a legitimate artist? That's the problem with modern art really, it's so open than anything can be classed as art even if it basically is crap (no pun intended)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peteyt

But then where's the line. Does that mean if i was able to create colourful poo I could be a legitimate artist? That's the problem with modern art really, it's so open than anything can be classed as art even if it basically is crap (no pun intended)

---

Well yes, I suppose so? I've seen performance art pieces way worse than throwing up neon paint. I guess it could be considered a problem but it could also be considered great. The context is important. I don't think Millie throwing up everywhere seemingly for no reason is very interesting myself, although some of her paintings she made by vomiting are quite pretty. But in this performance I personally think it works in relation to the song and the intended meaning.

Whether it's crap or not is obviously up to the individual. It's like, if someone sat at a kick drum and just hit it over and over and called that music, it still is technically music. If someone creates the worst possible movie ever, that's still film. I've never understood this debate about whether something is art or not? Whether it's you making colourful poo or Millie Brown throwing up all over the place, still performance art (in the right context obviously lol not you having something funny to eat at home and .. ye)

I guess that's why performance art is such a niche thing though, cos people generally don't buy into it. But I suppose the goal of this was to shock and make people talk, and looks like they succeeded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas

Well yes, I suppose so? I've seen performance art pieces way worse than throwing up neon paint. I guess it could be considered a problem but it could also be considered great. The context is important. I don't think Millie throwing up everywhere seemingly for no reason is very interesting myself, although some of her paintings she made by vomiting are quite pretty. But in this performance I personally think it works in relation to the song and the intended meaning.

Whether it's crap or not is obviously up to the individual. It's like, if someone sat at a kick drum and just hit it over and over and called that music, it still is technically music. If someone creates the worst possible movie ever, that's still film. I've never understood this debate about whether something is art or not? Whether it's you making colourful poo or Millie Brown throwing up all over the place, still performance art (in the right context obviously lol not you having something funny to eat at home and .. ye)

I guess that's why performance art is such a niche thing though, cos people generally don't buy into it. But I suppose the goal of this was to shock and make people talk, and looks like they succeeded.

---

While technically true, I just feel like a lot of art has lost meaning and now suddenly everyone is an artist. I could throw paint around randomly on to something and say it represents the chaos of the current world, economics etc and people might even buy this when all I did was just make a mess to get rich from it.

While I obviously know modern art is here to stay and obviously like all tastes is subjective, I just think it's getting to a certain point of stupidity and I feel sorry for what I at least would class as real artists