Lady Gaga Mask

• ·         What does Lady Gaga’s success actually represent to the author?
• ·         Does the use of technology today produce art that is less expressive, innovative and genuine?
• ·         Has technology desensitized the younger generation? 

Some could say that, through the many advances in technology, almost anything can be produced artistically and the possibilities are endless. Others could say that what is made today is artificial and sub par to great works of art and music created historically. In Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex by Camille Paglia, the author describes the era we live in today as something that is rich with inventive technology that makes just about everything more efficient, yet feels that there is a price to pay, which is a sense of disassociation to self. Does the use of technology today produce art that is less expressive, innovative and genuine? I really think that it depends on which side of the double edged sword you are looking at. On one side, artists of the past have certainly paved the road, but they also broke molds which cannot be replicated making current standards more difficult to appease. On the contrary art today is created under new standards, for new audiences and out of a different social consciousness and can go beyond the limits of human ability.

The author notes famous innovators in music whom Lady Gaga claims to have idolized such as Madonna and David Bowie. The thing that seems contradictory is that Lady Gaga represents an era where it does not really matter how talented you are because technology can fill in the gaps where the actual artistic gift is lacking. Bowie and Madonna gained their popularity by liberating the public through their own self expression and angst where Lady Gaga is removing expression by showing the world a mask of over the top displays of freakish antics. I guess the author feels that this is something that she hides behind, which is contradictory to the purpose of real art.

This day in age voices can be digitally altered to sound better than they ever will in real life, mistakes can be easily fixed with the touch of a button, and popularity can be gained through the ability of the internet to reach every corner of the earth. Colors that just don’t come out right through traditional film can be digitally altered. Someone can create a photograph that has very little to do with an original print. All you really need today is a good idea and the technology to produce the rest. Is this really art? Artists like Ansel Adams and Van Gogh had visions as well, but they produced those expressions of self and art with their own hard work. A computer did not fix anything for them, they were the real thing.

Cliff Notes: Is Google Making Us Stupid?

1. Does the ease of access to information via the internet hinder attention span because too much is available?
2. Why is research style this day in age via the internet less helpful with actual learning versus pre-internet days?
3. Has technology created laziness or efficiency?

Is research style this day in age via the internet less helpful with actual learning versus pre-internet days?

The focus of the article Is Google Making us Stupid? By Nicholas Carr seems to be exploring the notion that while the internet has opened many doors and possibilities, it has also altered the way information is received. When I grew up, if I had to do research for a class project I would go to my local library and find books, magazines and newspaper articles relevant to the subject of my research and read and entire section of a book or an entire article before moving the next item. Focus in those days seemed to be much stronger because we were not being diverted by hyperlinks, flashing ads and social media. Something would be read from start to finish because quick summaries weren’t readily available, thus enabling more thorough research and grasp on subject.  However when pouring through an encyclopedia or reference book it must be noted that, depending on the subject, the information within these works may already be outdated or irrelevant.

Today we are involuntarily exposed to one redirection after another. Like Carr, I have often caught myself looking up one subject on the internet, and ending up at the other end of the spectrum, wondering how I got there. The ease of access to all corners of the world through the internet may have created more vast curiosity, but with the wider range to cover, less time is spent on a core task. The author goes as far as describing Google and the internet as a form of Cliff Notes. Why would someone spend the time on a particular piece if it had a seemingly reliable summary about its contents? One could argue that this creates the ability to cover more information in the same amount of time. Furthermore, while the access to an infinite amount of data is now readily available and more current than printed periodicals, the relevance is hindered. A good example is Wikipedia: I can change U.S. History should I want to by a simple edit; I can create a web page of my own and post any sort of nonsense I can fathom. Hence, new research methods now include the imperative task of determining whether or not a source is credible in addition to how current the information is.

The internet may seem to create a conundrum filled with distractions and trivial deviance to a person’s focus, but it also creates the possibility of access to global and up to the minute information. It gives access of knowledge to people who otherwise might not have been able to get to a particular piece of information. Today, a Tibetan goat herder can research climate in the Pacific Northwestern United States, find organic gluten free recipes for his goats, and check in on what the Kardashians are up to with the simple click of a mouse.