- · 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.
You brought up a great point with how technology affects modern music. I agree with you because music produced these days is mostly awful. I have no idea how these “artists” are able to make so much money from what they call “music” album after album. It seems as if you download some recording software and start recording songs with the help of Auto-Tune, then you have it made if you have a unique backstory or something such as Lady Gaga’s odd fashion sense. The point being that most modern songs in my opinion are nowhere near as good as they were in the past few decades. Another thing about modern songs that bothers me is many of them literally take parts (or samples as they are called) of superior older songs, use Auto-Tune, change the song name and label it as their own. The copyright laws might say it is fine; however the lack of creativity and originality annoys me. I really like your conclusion because I have noticed the lack of creativity as well. Just look at mobile applications like Instagram, it instills a sense of being creative because users simply take a picture using their inferior smartphone cameras, apply some boring filter and upload it so their friends can comment on it. That doesn’t sound like art to me because the person who took the picture didn’t design the application that enhanced the picture, a team of many talented programmers did.
ReplyDelete