Jump to content

Gaga: “Art and Capitalism can be friends”


Recommended Posts

Posted

The amount of anti-intellectual takes devoid of any nuance on this thread is astounding. :rip: Capitalists only fund art that is profitable and fits within a set standard of what's marketable, which logically isn't good for art as a whole, even if it does allow for this specific type of art to be made. I mean, some of you are saying "Hollywood is capitalist!" as if we don't know, and as if that's not why most Hollywood productions are totally soulless. :skull: 

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2

  • Replies 251
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Communion

    8

  • Raspberries

    8

  • Happylittlepunk

    6

  • Kern

    6

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Trent W said:

oh cmon Ariana is a capitalist machine just like taylor

Which is why listening to the 50+ mumble demos that surfaced over the last year is considered taking back the means of production as both a socialist and fan. :clap3:

 

Too busy shilling makeup to release an album more than once every 4 years? It's fine, sis, we got 3 more without you needing to do anything. :jonny6:

 

 

Edited by Communion
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 3
Posted
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 8
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, ninasayers said:

The amount of anti-intellectual takes devoid of any nuance on this thread is astounding. :rip: Capitalists only fund art that is profitable and fits within a set standard of what's marketable, which logically isn't good for art as a whole, even if it does allow for this specific type of art to be made. I mean, some of you are saying "Hollywood is capitalist!" as if we don't know, and as if that's not why most Hollywood productions are totally soulless. :skull: 

Some of the girlies also seem to be purposefully mis-remembering Ms. Stefani's more avant-garde moments.

 

I somehow recall deep in the throes of the ARTPOP era something about being vomited on while a giant-sized Dorito hung in the background, and her pointing out the absurdity of a snack company funding her doing something as unappetizing as that, with her essentially wanting to take the piss out of them as a corporate sponsor (because she herself was deeply uncomfortable being seen as needing to be a pretty product).

 

478527491-scaled-scaled.jpg

 

**** YOU DORITOS, THIS IS ARTPOP INDEED :jonny6:

 

(A bag of the purple sweet chili flavor will always slap, whew)

Edited by Communion
  • Like 14
Posted

anyways, is she pregnant or nah ?

  • Like 1
Posted

Shes clearly in her harley quinn method joker 2 era 

Posted
36 minutes ago, qurl said:

Pop done truly ate ha heart :rip:

Posted

Stans use sales, tour numbers, celebrate when one gets paid millions for a movie or becomes a billionaire. Idk why stans are acting holier than thou. When we “yassss” at our faves serving on red carpets and street looks, they’re wearing clothing that many can’t afford and we celebrate at them looking good. :michael:

  • Like 1
Posted

Art depends on capitalism to survive, so yeah

  • Thumbs Down 2
Posted

This comes from someone who idolizes Andy Warhol so I’m not surprised. The goal of progressive artwork that changes lives and makes a lasting impact is almost exclusively anti-capitalist 

  • Like 5
Posted
3 hours ago, LittleStarmen said:

???

 

The fame was all about money/fame/glamour

 

Artpop was all about extravagant spending too

Yes. The Fame was mocking all of those things 

 

The literal focal point of ARTPOP was "music not the bling" :deadbanana: 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Happylittlepunk said:

No she didn’t not when she had songs like money honey, and living the luxury life. Her high fashion wardrobe and concepts of high art should’ve always  been a clue she always fully supported capitalism. She became exactly what should be and made her stand out. Unlike other pop girls who pretend like capitalism is a bad thing when it’s not!

She literally had segments of The Monster Ball where she said she hates money, the entire focal point of ARTPOP was "music not the bling" etc :rip: 

 

Entire songs on The Fame are satire/parodies of celebrity lifestyles and culture 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Trent W said:


You support Ariana Grande and Capitalism and that’s ok

 

No one is judging you

That same user trashes politicians, celebrities etc for sneezing but refuses to discuss the blackfishing and homewrecking of his own fave and instead makes passing jokes. If the other girls were to do something similar, he would be calling for their public crucifixion :rip: 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Almodusa said:

Stans use sales, tour numbers, celebrate when one gets paid millions for a movie or becomes a billionaire. Idk why stans are acting holier than thou. When we “yassss” at our faves serving on red carpets and street looks, they’re wearing clothing that many can’t afford and we celebrate at them looking good. :michael:

cuz our faves are not often as brazen and blatant about how much they’ve sold out, especially considering the things SHE in particular has said in the past about being an artist first and foremost

 

i stan Beyoncé. she is absolutely a greedy capitalist, but at least she’s never pretended to be anything different. y’all are really in here acting like miss Stefani has not done a complete 180 turn from the person she used to be. Gaga’s problem is she talks and has talked too much in her career and now the contradictions are catching up to her. that’s why Beyoncé shut her ass up long ago and we haven’t heard her speak outside of the constraints of what she chooses to edit/release of her speaking. i’ll respect shrewd business savvy any day of the week folder someone talking out of their ass who ends up saying things that are in diametric opposition to the beliefs they held not even that long ago and if y’all refuse to acknowledge that from Gaga then yall just don’t want to see it. more power to you guys !

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 8
Posted
29 minutes ago, ninasayers said:

The amount of anti-intellectual takes devoid of any nuance on this thread is astounding. :rip: Capitalists only fund art that is profitable and fits within a set standard of what's marketable, which logically isn't good for art as a whole, even if it does allow for this specific type of art to be made. I mean, some of you are saying "Hollywood is capitalist!" as if we don't know, and as if that's not why most Hollywood productions are totally soulless. :skull: 

Socialist countries had state-owned music labels that would kick and persecute their artists that criticized the ideology and/or promoted western "degeneracy"

 

How is that any better for art? 

 

  • Thumbs Down 3
Posted

i agree with gags

Posted
1 hour ago, qurl said:

:deadbanana4:

 

Hollywood has truly destroyed her, it’s like she knew it was going to happen but there was no stopping the inevitable 

  • Like 1
Posted

Oh Gaga, this was a hornets nest...

 

Spoiler

In the time since the Industrial Revolution (which destroyed the class of aristocrats who had nothing better to do with their time but make art), the only consumable art (at a level above, say, folk songs and fairytales, many of which date back centuries anyway) has come through capitalism. In a world without a large number of people who can spend their life making art without ever having to worry about feeding themselves (and since you can't buy artistic talent, output quality really is improved by increasing the number of people able to partake), the only way that art can be made is either as a hobby or in some way that extracts value from the art to provide for the creator. Today, capital systems profit off of art, which can only be financed by the capital system in the first place, so it's an ouroboros of profitability and financing. Now, the profit structures are broken and most commercially viable art (especially big-budget film) is rotten to the core, but the alternative would probably be zero art, so I'll take what I can get :deadbanana4:

 

Tsarist-era Russian literary tradition (which was used as a method of coping during the many challenging times) is widely regarded as producing some of the strongest literary works of all time (Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina, Dead Souls, Fathers and Sons; Pushkin, Lermontov, Tsvaetva, etc.), and yet the number of renowned Russian poets or authors in 1910 was astronomically higher than the number in 1930. The Interbellum USSR was an incredibly hard place to live (which one would think would lead to the production of more art), but other than those making propaganda posters and films, those in charge of producing busts of Lenin and then Stalin (I think these are the same people responsible for those metro stations Tucker Carlson was raving about), or those dancing in the Bolshoi for the Politburo to enjoy, there wasn't much art, and what little was made didn't withstand time. Obviously the USSR isn't the only alternative to capitalism (it's just a convenient example since I'm not as familiar with pre-1911 Chinese art), but until we devise an economic system where basic needs can be met for all, that can also sustain a sizable forever-unemployed artisan class of the population, humans are going to have to pick between making art, working to make a profit, or making art for profit. 

 

Literally the only feasible exception I can think of is religious art funded by the Church (or by independent mosques/synagogues/temples etc.), but we aren't seeing much of that these days either. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted

shes so boring now. its sad to watch.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 2
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted

Perhaps that explains her new Cybertruck. Probably she is getting that from the year end bonus from Nurtec and Haus Labs :gaygacat6:

Posted
56 minutes ago, qurl said:

cuz our faves are not often as brazen and blatant about how much they’ve sold out, especially considering the things SHE in particular has said in the past about being an artist first and foremost

 

i stan Beyoncé. she is absolutely a greedy capitalist, but at least she’s never pretended to be anything different. y’all are really in here acting like miss Stefani has not done a complete 180 turn from the person she used to be. Gaga’s problem is she talks and has talked too much in her career and now the contradictions are catching up to her. that’s why Beyoncé shut her ass up long ago and we haven’t heard her speak outside of the constraints of what she chooses to edit/release of her speaking. i’ll respect shrewd business savvy any day of the week folder someone talking out of their ass who ends up saying things that are in diametric opposition to the beliefs they held not even that long ago and if y’all refuse to acknowledge that from Gaga then yall just don’t want to see it. more power to you guys !

Interesting that you say all this considering you stan beyonce. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2
  • Thumbs Down 2
Posted

Is this art in the room with us now? 

  • Haha 1
Posted

Beyonce collab confirmed!!

Posted
2 hours ago, ninasayers said:

The amount of anti-intellectual takes devoid of any nuance on this thread is astounding. :rip:Capitalists only fund art that is profitable and fits within a set standard of what's marketable, which logically isn't good for art as a whole, even if it does allow for this specific type of art to be made. I mean, some of you are saying "Hollywood is capitalist!" as if we don't know, and as if that's not why most Hollywood productions are totally soulless. :skull: 

A popstar, in essence, is a capitalist product

Posted
1 minute ago, Happylittlepunk said:

Interesting that you say all this considering you stan beyonce. 

not quite the read you think it is when the post you quoted addresses why I respect Beyoncé being a shameless capitalist (she’s never pretended to be anything other) as opposed to Gaga’s flip floppy ass. but we could also get more into it if you’d like ! if Beyoncé does music for a movie (The Gift) she puts a fair amount of thought and effort into creating something that goes with the project and extends the breadth of her discography, Gaga made “Hold My Hand” for the most MAGA audience centric blockbuster in the past decade. if Beyoncé’s going to deep dive into a subgenre of music she hasn’t really explored (Renaissance, Act II) she’s going to do it thoughtfully and connect it to the history of that genre’s proximity to her own blackness, meanwhile Gaga made Chromatica as a cash grab and it accordingly sounded awful!

 

Beyoncé is smarter in how she goes about being a capitalist. Gaga has (over) talked herself into being a completely different person than who she was a decade ago …. hope this helped !! :heart:

  • Like 5
  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Down 3
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.