These sorts of artists aren't really known for their depth, so the video really isn't trying to say anything beyond cheap shock value and sex appeal.
I don't know if I've ever disagreed with you at all before, much less
strongly disagreed with you, but I do on this.
I've hesitated to comment on this thread, even after UV specifically asked me to, because I think this goes way beyond shock value and sex appeal, and I just didn't know if I wanted to put the time and thought into it. This is an extraordinarily complex video. I lost count of the pop music references, and the religious references are confusing. The undercurrent of violence and militarism manages to be campy and disturbing at the same time. Androgyny hasn't been shocking for forty years, at least to anybody who doesn't answer to "Grandpa," but Gaga's managed to take it to a level that discomfits me a little, and I don't think it's because I'm getting older. My comfort zone is really broad.
Another thing that makes it hard for me to enter into the conversation is my approach to art. When art succeeds
as art, it's always a mistake to try to explain what it "means." And I think this video does succeed as art.
To explain what a work of art "means" -- any kind of art: music, film, dance, painting, sculpture, fiction, poetry, anything -- is to miss the point. If I could write a paragraph telling you what I mean, I wouldn't have needed to write the story; I wouldn't have needed to paint the painting. Art that is merely didactic has failed as art. That's why nobody looks for meaning in Aesop's Fables -- the meaning is right there on the surface. That's why the
Chronicles of Narnia, in my opinion, fails as art. A successful work of art cannot be boiled down to a paragraph or a page of explanation.
In that respect, Bill Donohue doesn't get it, which is not surprising, because Bill Donohue doesn't get anything. Katy Perry doesn't get it. This isn't blasphemy for the sake of publicity or for its own sake; I don't think it's blasphemy at all. People are reacting to Gaga pretty much as they reacted to Madonna; that is, I think both her fans and her detractors tend not to plumb the depths of her art. And I think Gaga's art is deeper and more complex than Madonna's, even though Madonna is all over this video to such an extent that it's trite to talk about Madonna references. This video re-envisions Madonna. Gaga here is a deeper, more complex, more disturbing Madonna. Gaga isn't merely derivative of Madonna or Abba or Ace of Base. This is way beyond that.
So what is the point? I think it's impossible to say. I think Gaga's own comments on it are necessarily simplistic. That's not a slam; what
could she say? On the other hand, I suspect that the director's comments are disingenuous, and there's probably a bit of calculated misdirection in Gaga's comments, too.
I agree with UV and others about the video's complexity. It's complex, and even confusing, and I think it's meant to be. Good art means different things to different people. It's able to engage people -- at least the people who are willing to engage it -- on a multitude of levels and in a multitude of ways. Art is always a dialogue between the artist and the audience, and the quality of that dialogue depends on the audience as much as the artist.
Bill Donohue and Katy Perry fail because they haven't engaged the video. They haven't done the work required of an audience. UV and some of the other posters on this thread succeed as an audience because they're willing to do the work of an audience. UV has actually turned it into a multilayered meditation, and I think that's very cool.
I like your analogies, Vi. Gaga uses a LOT of symbolism in her videos.
A LOT.
Yes, she does, and I especially like this coming from you because I know you "get" symbolism. "The Yellow Brick Road represents the gold standard" -- that's not symbolism. Symbolism isn't about representation; it's about Mystery.
