Why are pop stars so fucking cringy and pretentious about their

Taste isn't objective. let the market die on her ass anon.

>>72694495
I'd imagine many started out wanting to make real art and are now in denial about what they've really turned out to be making.

>>72694541
>pop music isn't real art

>>72694564
did i stutter you stupid nigger?

but her gazongas are perfection.

>>72694800
Were. She's 30 now and starting to lose it. Which is all she had. That's why she cut her hair.

>>72694815

yikes

>>72694495
>Woke-pop
How are these people even real?

>>72694564
Music made for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible and as many 14 year old girls liking you isn't. It cruel be an art of marketing teams and PR firms for sure.

woke-pop is my new favorite genre

>saying 'woke' either ironically or unironically
I fucking hate everybody

>>72694815
>She's 30
She's actually turning 33 this year.

>>72694495
It's always funny when irrelevant pop singers in their 30's know that their career is dying and they some cringy bullshit publicity stunt in hopes that it will save their already dead career.

Woke-pop, woke-rap, woke-metal, woke-rock, woke-country, woke-blues, woke-jazz, woke-punk, woke-folk, woke-hop...

can we just skip to post-woke stuff please

>>72694495
>Why are pop stars so fucking cringy and pretentious about their shitty, manufactured music?
grimes. also that tweet is sickening

>>72695061
post-woke-rock?

>>72695009
>woke-metal
i want

people who use terms like real art and use art as an adjective synonymous with good in general are just the worst

any creative effort is art
something being art doesn't mean it can't also be shit

>>72695118
that's called dream pop

>>72695141
woke-dream-post-pop

>>72695128
They're trying to make a distinction between stuff only designed sell records and stuff where the artists actually cared about quality. The "everything is art" stuff is just some Jewish subjectivist bullshit.

>>72695162
why does something being made to sell mean it's devoid of care
also it is very hard to take you seriously when you not only fail to posit a definition of art but cry about Jewish people as if they're the only ones that see art is subjective

>>72695162
Everything that is created to be art is art. Corporate pop stuff on the other hand is just another product to sell.

>>72695173
What >>72695187 said. The goal of certain music is literally just to sell the music. And that's fine, but it's not art. You can desire to make music that sells well and market it, but you need to have some artistic integrity and desire.

post-woke-post-punk

manufactured pop is not art you disgusting philistine. its a product. that's like saying coca-cola is art

Do we know at this point who wrote the songs?

>>72695216
I just don't think it's fair to assume that pop stars are lacking in the integrity and desire part

considering how hard it is to become a successful musician and how many other avenues to wealth there are that are less risky, I just don't see someone committing to it without some sense of passion unless they were born lucky and can just buy the opportunity.

>>72695243
the bottle aesthetic is art, yes. If I were really into chemistry I could probably find artistic value in its composition.

>>72694495
>woke-pop
I refuse to believe people like this aren't self-aware.

>>72695286
>the bottle aesthetic is art, yes. If I were really into chemistry I could probably find artistic value in its composition.
s m h

>>72694853
>Music made for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible and as many 14 year old girls liking you isn't. It cruel be an art of marketing teams and PR firms for sure.

It IS art. It's just "bad" art, and even that is subjective. The only thing you can objectively say about it is that it's shallow and unoriginal.

>>72695243
coca cola is art. art is for sale, even some of the most universally agreed upon forms of art. you have to pay to eat at the best restaurants, and picassos and Gauguins are auctioned for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. pretty much all music is sold, too. There's not some clear line between "art" and "product" that makes it possible to delineate them, idk where you got that idea.

>>72695286
It's not like the boy band formula hasn't been tried before.

>>72695286
They are passionate about the money it makes and the attention they get. If Katy cared about Bon Apetite I'd be shocked. Also the coke can isn't art. It's only purpose is to be recognizable branding. It's not an expression of the artist or anything. That's what I meant by subjectivist bullshit (probably shouldn't have said Jewish because I can't explain that part well atm)

>>72695354
It's not that hard to manufacture bands. Let me remind you of Mili Vanilli. They didn't even sing on their own records, despite winning a Grammy.

>>72695355
this definition is impossible to actually apply, though. Like there's some really good music that's been wildly successful as well. Were the beatles just doing it for the money? how about the stones? what if money is a partial, but not total factor in someone's work? what if someone, for instance, paints a painting that is picked up later by a big company for advertising. Does its ensuing use as a tool for profit make it no longer art, even if it was originally made as art?

I definitely am not totally in the subjectivist camp (i think there are definitely good and bad movies, and paintings, and albums, at least to certain broad extents) but you have to at least see that your definition here is totally untenable.

>>72694853
Could be*

>>72695371
Not him, but I don't think you're far off in the car of the Beatles.

>>72695353
Coca cola is not art, it's bottle and logo may have some artistic merit, but coca cola itself is just a soft drink.
> picassos and gauguins
They didn't create their paintings to be sold for tens of millions now did they?

>>72695388
In the case*

>>72695388
my point is that even if the beatles were just doing it for the money, they made some of the most acclaimed and influential music of all time. That doesn't count because they were doing it for profit?

Ultimately that anon's argument boils down to "art is only art if I personally perceive it to be authentically made", which is bogus for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that human beings are very easily misled about authenticity (see: political campaigns and advertising in general).

>>72695371
It's pretty specific. Does the artist care about what they are making as a piece of art or not? For example, Katy Perry did not care about Bon Apetite. She's trying to use popular music trends and Migos to stay relevant. I would not be surprised if she cared about some of her other songs like Unconditionally. But songs like Bon Apetite are meant exclusively for commercial reasons. Even when the Beatles were selling 3 minute ditties, they had quality control for what music they made past "will it sell?".

>>72695407
Kraftwerk were extremely influential as well, but I don't think you'd consider synth pop the pinnacle of music expression. On the other hand, their German contemporaries created some of the most forward thinking, otherworldly and original music ever.

>>72695433
And as far political movements go, every Krautrock band made their music to create a new sound for their country and to combat nazis that were still in power. They wouldn't surrender and make catchy and cute schlagers. If that's not as genuine as you can possibly get as a band and as a musical movement, I'm not sure what is.

>>72695419
But all of the criteria you list here are determined exclusively by some baseless assessment you've made of the artists' intent. You have no way of knowing if the artists care or not, you just decide whether or not they do based on how you personally feel about them/their art. Based on how fickle people's perceptions of authenticity are, it is not reasonable to base the definitional quality of "art" on yours or any single individual's perception of how much an artist they have never met "cares" about their music.

And if you're planning on crowdsourcing opinions of authenticity to verify art, you're probably going to be really disappointed with what ends up in that category. The vast majority of people are more likely to see stuff like Starbuckscore as more authentic than stuff like indie rock or less accessible music, which gets hit with the "pretentious" label a lot, literally the antithesis of authenticity.

With mainstream artists like Katy, nothing is ever authentic or sincere. She claims to be ''woke'' and make ''purposeful pop'', then when her ''woke'' song underperforms she goes and makes songs about ''being spread like a buffet'' and when it underpefroms even worse goes back to being ''woke''. I'm sure she wishes she never supported Hillary in the first place so she wouldn't feel the need to make ''woke'' music, now she is in too deep to turn back to her old safe, bubble-gum image or else her fans will see through her fake ''wokeness''.

>>72695433
>>72695453
I'm not sure I get your point. I might not agree that all of that art is equal, or equally good, but I definitely don't think there's any justifiable way to say that synth pop isn't art.

>>72695391
But when does a food or beverage go from being "art" to "just a soft drink"? do you just not think the culinary arts are arts at all?

>>72695487
I do think that culinary arts are art. But was coca cola created to be some sort of self expression or a way to convey new ideas or feelings?

>>72695526
It's impossible to say. And how would you handle if something started as just a personal expression but was later mass produced? McDonald's used to be just a local restaurant, was its food art then, but no longer art now? If so, at what point did it stop being art?

Seeing art as the exclusive purview of the impassioned auteur really limits what art is, both academically, and functionally.

>>72695471
>>72695343
This is the most sensible way of thinking about the topic we're discussin, although I don't think going that much in depth in the case of synth pop and similar genres is worthwhile.

>>72695680
Discussing*

>>72695680
>I don't think going that much in depth in the case of synth pop is worthwhile
Why is synth pop considered to be bad?

>>72695877
I'm not sure who I'm replying to, but that question, although indirectly, was answered here:
>>72695343
>It IS art. It's just "bad" art, and even that is subjective. The only thing you can objectively say about it is that it's shallow and unoriginal.

>>72695560
>if something started as just a personal expression but was later mass produced
I think that the original self expression is work of art, but the mass produced products that followed are products that use the original work of art as a mean to sell you the product by showing you glimpses of that original idea or expression behind the art (more commonly known as marketing).

God, I sound like a pretentious moron now. I don't even know wtf I'm writing anymore.

>>72695901
There are good synth-pop bands that I wouldn't call unoriginal/shallow, though? Every genre has shallow/unoriginal examples.

Is it bad that I like Chained to the Rhythm? It's well produced if nothing else.

>>72696047
Sure, but it's ultimately done for mass consumption, therefore profit and building a bigger ego.

>>72695128
>creative effort
DONT MESS WITH THE FORMULA

You dont make an industry out of an art form. Thats just backwards.

>you will never have 5 writers, 3 producers, 2 sound engineers and an army of staff so you can sing lines like "Errybody in the club looking at us, we gonna burn this city down" through Autotune

lmao this song flopped so hard

>>72695560
>>72695929
So when they are selling us pop music, they aren't selling us the music, they are selling us an image of an pop artist who is "woke", "purposeful" and who "has a story". An image of creative mind behind the "art". And when this image has a deep story behind her/him, the music also becomes meaningful. So you could say that in the mainstream pop music, the artist becomes the art and the actual music is irrelevant.

File: 1493050855695.png (204KB, 3952x4200px)

204KB, 3952x4200px

>it's the everything is art because muh urinal episode again

File: MAINSTREAM METEOR.jpg (104KB, 840x960px)

104KB, 840x960px

>>72696304

>>72694495
You mean why are the fans like that.

>>72696304
And what most people who make that "argument" don't research is:
>The context for the purchase and naming of Fountain was a worthy exhibition by the Society of Independent Artists, formed on the model of the Parisian Salon des Indépendants. It was to show works by anyone, subject to a fee of $1 for membership and $5 annual dues. Duchamp himself, as a celebrated foreign artist, was on the board, as were various prominent American painters and art world figures. From early on, however, Duchamp seemed tempted to subvert the whole enterprise.

>>72695121
isnt that p much nsbm tho

subjectivism was a fucking mistake

>>72695009
woke-wave

>>72695118
post-wock

Get a life you dumb white males. srsly.

File: 1405297313751.gif (2MB, 250x250px)

2MB, 250x250px

>girl shows me some random Lorde song
>"ugh her first album was just so good, blahblah such genre overlapping"
>listen to it
>not really anything special, her voice is nice but gets old
>she then proceeds to tell me how disappointed she is in the new album
>listen to it
>it sounds the exact fucking same

I mean what the fuck

>>72694495
>just invented woke-pop
I this sarcasm? I can't tell anymore.

>>72696901
Nu-woke-metal

>>72694495
Well, all music is manufactured. The only person who should be recognised for something is the person who birthed the overall idea and then only if it is good.
Commercial music could become something good if they realised what painters did in the 1200s.

>>72696939
you're deaf and a pleb, she's right

>>72695286
Mr Dillettante,
You don't know anything about art. If you did know anything about art you would make the Joseph Beuys argument, but even then no one would buy it because he was a fucking idiot.

Art is a practice. Music is an entertainment medium in the commercial form most people understand it by.

woke-core

>>72697299
>listents to lorde
>calls others plebs
wew lad

>>72696304
Better than misusing the word art to mean "thing I like" and then parading around as a superior being.

>>72695009
woker polka

>>72697788
The wokest of all genres.

>>72694800
woke-gazongas

File: tumblr_om45rjwDOI1u1ljrzo1_500.gif (3MB, 470x261px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 470x261px

>"woke pop"

FUCK OFF

>>72694495
because it reaches more people than your shitty self-produced music
WAY more people
this alone makes katy perry's music objectively more important than most, so to accuse her of being pretentious (overstating your own importance) for acknowledging this is questionable
>cringy
this site is 18+

>"FUGGG DONUUUULD FRUMPFFFF"
wow so woke

File: IMG_1845.jpg (11KB, 250x193px)

11KB, 250x193px

>>72694495
More like poop music

>>72698298
>practically everyone agrees he's shit so they must be wrong
wow so woke

>>72698325
Yeah well, it ain't very original either.

>>72698325
I'm just saying that randomly putting a bar with "fuck donald trump" in to your pop songs doesn't make you a political activist

I mean something like Rage Against the Machine does it more or less the right way. Their "FUCK YOU" has at least some explanation and meaning in their songs (tho I don't support their political views in most ways)

this anon arguing in favor of complete subjectivism is wrong about pop music being art. he himself said that something has to have artistic intent to be art.

manufactured products like coca-cola and radio pop are NOT created with artistic intent. they're created assembly line style with the sole purpose of making money

>>72694495
Their fan bases don't know any better. Part of the reason they're listening to this music is because it's being marketed and designed for them...

>>72694800
i want her to get pregnant and grow some big milky mommy titties

>>72698818
It is like Wilde wrote:
"We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless."

>>72698925
woke-milk!

>>72696939
Perhaps there is more going on than you initially realize?

>>72695458
My definition is pretty loose with what is considered art. Almost all music is art. However, like I said, if the artist did not care about what they made as art, and only cared about it as a consumer product, it's not art. That excludes very few pieces of music.

>>72695121
Megadeth

>>72698272
Well, she's got 50 million followers on Twitter. Only 20k of them has bought her latwst song so far. Noone cares about her music, or her music's message. They just like to get drunk while it's playing on the background.

>>72699299
Mega-woke

File: average mutant.jpg (359KB, 720x540px)

359KB, 720x540px

>>72694853
>>72695343
>>72694495
>>72694669


oh boy here we go

>shitty, manufactured music
>"bad art"
>shallow and unoriginal
>"did I stutter you fucking nigger"

you guys are like that stereotypical fedora tipping atheist but actually real.

>>72696074
why do you hate america

>>72697766
yes.

>>72698455

>RATM

my fucking sides.

One time I saw them at a Pepsi Music Festival. They stopped the show to sing the socialist anthem with a big red star flag.

Behind them, a huge ass pepsi logo.

>The irony was lost on everyone.

>>72699650
You can't fathom the idea of people not enjoying music that appeals to the lowest common denominator and you're incapable of offering any arguments, but, oh, boy, le fedora memes are sure here.

>>72699802
Hey, at least it wasn't Coca-cola, right?

>>72699810

>not getting the difference between "enjoying something" and "arguing whether said something is art or not"

>my sides


I get that you don't enjoy it. I don't enjoy it either. I fucking hate it.

But it's art. Get over it.

>>72695121
dystopia

>>72699874
Me shitting on the ground is also art, that's not what they mean though.

>>72699936
Its art only if its woke-shit.

File: chrome_2017-05-10_19-07-59.png (11KB, 337x177px)

11KB, 337x177px

>>72698272
she and her 'woke pop' surely fit the definition

>>72694495
>woke pop

she literally appropriates black culture and perpetuates harmful stereotypes. she literally did some shit with grills, cornrows, and watermelon. she also made some video where she was egyptian goddess or someshit then also a video about being a noble american soldier--- slaughtering innocents in the middle east and africa.

she ain't woke shes a bigot or enough of a puppet to not care about the harmful images she perpetuates.

>>72699936
I just feel this circlejerk regarding pop is cringy as fuck.

We get it, you masturbate over trout mask replica. Get over Katy fucking Perry. Who the hell cares. Nobody is impressed at your impeccable patrician taste.

And don't tell me you don't enjoy getting shitfaced and dancing to pop songs. If you don't, my guess is you've been meme'd.

But then again, this comes from the same guys that tell you "considering pop music as art is a jewish conspiracy" so, yeah.


>>72699988
is this bait?

>>72699874
>I get that you don't enjoy it. I don't enjoy it either. I fucking hate it.
I swear, this has become symptomatic at this point. There are so much more people adamantly defending bands they don't like and going out of their way to do so.

>>72699287
A good tip for understanding art is actually having an interest in it and knowing what you are talking about.

You don't get to decide your own magic definition of a profession. How many practising artists can you name? Art isn't a cool adjective that makes unrelated fields more prestigious - it's a practice unto itself. Art is art, music is music. You may as well call socks paintings.

No recorded album is a work of art, they are consumer goods. There is music with artistic merit, but that doesn't equate to being art.

Stop talking about art, you don't know what it is.

>>72699988
Who cares? Just look at this:
Artist. Activist. Conscious.
And she makes songs about popsicles. How is anyone capable of taking her seriously and for that mater other pop star is beyond me.

>>72700152
Stars*

>>72700043
You are responding to some made up boogeyman, fukk off

>>72700152
theres a difference between saying your woke and singing about apolitical neutral topics and saying you are woke, an activist, or conscious and actively perpetuating racist stereotypes and rhetoric. thats why i care....

>>72700279
>racist stereotypes and rhetoric
Have a little something to cleanse your soul.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugFTcRh0Q6I
https://genius.com/Frank-zappa-you-are-what-you-is-lyrics

>>72700112
What is your point sperg? Is it that popular music isn't art? Or music isn't art? Either way that wasn't my point. My point to the other guy was that not all music is art.

Sis used to be a big fan of hers. Didn't even want to comment on the new stuff.

I reckon the whole thing with her wanting to push a message so hard kinda pushed people away from her?

I've no idea.

[spoiler]I actually quite liked her first album as Katy Perry and she was pretty cute back then when she had black hair[/spoiler]

if art is objective why has humanity failed to come up with a universal definition after thousands of years

checkmate

>>72695009
Woke gaze

>>72700043
Fuck trout mask replica and Katy perry faggot

>>72700528

THIS.

>>72700043
>And don't tell me you don't enjoy getting shitfaced and dancing to pop songs
Talk about lowest common denominator. How does it feel to embody it?

>>72700112
For someone who claims to be "interested" in art, you have some pretty fucked up notions of what it is, what it can be, and how it exists in the XXI Century.

A recorded album is a format. Nothing more. A material format, just like a book or a kindle or a blu-ray disc. It has absolutely nothing to do with the artistic qualities of whatever gets recorded inside. It can enhance the experience at times (through the cover, the booklet(s), etc.), but the music itself is always separate. It doesn't lose any merit just because it's recorded.

>>72700750

I agree with the second part.


As for the first part, I really think you guys oughta chill a little bit and enjoy some fucking trash every once in a while.

It's fast food for the ears. I'm talking with actual experience on this. I study film. I swallowed up Adorno and shit, I enjoy Tarkovsky and Dreyer just as much as the next guy, I go to the most obscure, weird and downright insane corners of Karagarga with pleasure.

But that doesn't stop me from going to the movies and enjoying some fine Furious 7 with a big bowl of popcorn every once in a while.

It's fucking art. The fact that it's "shit" according to your personal taste, however justified it is and no matter how right you are, makes no difference whatsoever.

>>72700750
>>72700813

PS: The intent of the artist while making said art doesn't make any difference whatsoever. You're making it to sell shit? I don't care.

Think about it this way: what would happen if all your favorite artists suddenly went really mainstream and became an integral part of the market? Same music, different intent. Is it still art?

>>72700750
Albums are recorded by entertainers who make music that is primarily entertainment based and made within genre contexts designed for entertainment.
These entertainers also typically perform live for an entry fee and pander to the audience, hoping to entertain them.

Art is made for its own sake - to be shown in a specific context and convey a specific idea by way of its medium, context and every other aspect belonging to it. It doesn't not cost money to view an artwork, it is not pandering to anyone.

Why are you even trying to talk about art? If you have an interest to go learn about it. If you knew anything about it you wouldn't be calling commercial music 'art'. If you can't name a handful of artists currently practicing then you really have no right to argue 'your opinions' on it since you don't know anything about it. Right now you are like someone talking about music despite only knowing about the existence of pianos.

File: mikael.jpg (25KB, 400x400px)

25KB, 400x400px

What on earth does 'woke' even mean? Is it some form of ebonics?

What did Katy Perry do to assume that title?

>>72699874
If everything is art, then nothing is art.

>>72700856
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woke

Also same as "redpilled" in certain circles.

>>72700528
/thread

>>72695343
It wasn't intended as art.
Therefore, it is not art.

>>72700903
>if everything exists then nothing exists
>wat

Pop music is intended as a marketable product.
Things are only art if the intention is art.
Therefore, pop music is not art.

>>72700969
marketable product and art are not mutually exclusive
see : the entire field of advertisement

>>72700951
>>72700969

Are you guys actually retarded or just baiting?

What if we found some old Da Vinci manuscript where he says "btw The Last Supper isn't art, I did not intend that painting as art"


s m h

>>72700951
This, one cannot just do art accidentally.
>whoops, i just arted

>>72700981
Yes they are.
Again, it's the intention.
John Cage is art. The late Beatles and Can are art.
Modern commercial music is not art.

>>72700933
Okay, thanks.
So what does it have to do with Katy Perry?

>>72700985
Then it wouldn't be art faggot, nice strawman though.

>>72700995

again

/mu/'s definition of art:

>If I dig it, it's art. If I don't, it's not.

>>72700985
The idea of art didn't exist until like 100 years after Da Vinci died, mate. Go read a book.

>>72695009
woke-nsbm

>>72701019
No, it's the intention.

>>72701011
Not a strawman.


>>72701021
Exactly my fucking point, m8.


>>72701031
Yes, but how can you possibly know for certain the intention of a pop star? Or the guy that writes those songs? Do you know them personally? Do you have access to their brains?

>>72700981
Not even him, but what's with all these analogies? It's not like we don't know what's going on. Some people just like to pretend.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a-machine-successfully-predicted-the-hit-dance-songs-of-2015
https://www.wired.com/2011/12/hit-potential-equation/
https://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-sex-pistols-a-manufactured-boy-band/

>>72701055
If they don't speak about their music in an artistic sense.

>>72701094
this is so vague and subjective. Its fine if it's your personal standard but don't expect other people to see it as fact

Look, my whole point is that what you guys are doing is trying to put a definition to art.

All the great aesthetic philosophers already tried to. Go read Heidegger, Adorno, Benjamin and all those faggots.

>tl;dr they failed.

What makes you think you can?


>>72701061
There are like three separate analogy guys on the thread, btw.


>>72701094
That's a good one. Really, unironically a good one.

But that means that if Katy Perry tweeted "I love being an artist" or some shit like that, the whole paradigm about whether or not what she does is art would shift, right? Her whole music catalog would be reframed as "definitely art"?

>>72699650
> If you don't like Top 40, you MUST be a basement dwelling, fat, unhygienec, virgin, fedora-tipping neckbeard

why do nu-males always do this?

>>72701126
1. It's not. Earl Sweatshirt and Kendrick do this. Tswift doesn't.
2. This is the definition most commonly accepted by people who actually know art, not shitposters.

>>72701129
If Katy Perry did frequently talk about it in am artistic way then sure. But she doesn't.

>>72700961
That's not what I'm saying, are you retarded?
I'm saying if you count everything as art then the word art has no meaning anymore.
"Everything" as you put, is physical. Art is just a label created by people to put on things that are of extraordinary quality. AKA not pop music.

>>72701129
>There are like three separate analogy guys on the thread, btw.
I suppose there are and that's why I provided evidence instead of more analogies.

>>72701129
None of those guys were involved in art, they were academics. I actually do work in art; show in galleries, pretend the old guys who run the galleries are cool so they'll show my work, etc. I sort of know what I'm talking about here.

A work of art is made to specifically get something across. The specifics include where the is, what it is, what colour it is, what year it is, who the audience are expected to be and every other variable specific included.
Consumer products like music are just made and dispensed without concern for any of that and are also made for purchase instead of being viewed for free.

Not to say that one is better than the other and that they cannot cross-over, but the two fields are entirely unrelated.

>>72701230
I'm the guy you quoted.

I also work in art and studied this for a very long time.

I totally agree with what you said about what the work of art is made for but I don't really understand how music doesn't apply because it's a consumer good. Film and literature are also consumer goods and yet I would most definitely call them art.

There are clear messages getting across some pop music. How retarded, basic or unoriginal they are I feel we agree is irrelevant.

When you say "who the audience is expected to be", isn't that sort-of what consumer goods are all about? Isn't a museum just another "concert" or "theatre" or "cinema"? People pay a ticket and they witness some art.

I don't believe economics have anything to do with it, that's what I'm saying.


You're also right to call those academics a bunch of faggots who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. I agree.

>>72696939
tfw lorde is too complex for some people to understand

[spoiler]I haven't even listened to the new album[/spoiler]

>>72694495
was Katy Perry a Hillary shill? because chained to the rhythm sounds like a pro-hillary + anti-bernie song

>>72701448
She performed at the DNC you goof

>>72701412
>Isn't a museum just another "concert" or "theatre" or "cinema"? People pay a ticket and they witness some art.
Art isn't limited to galleries and it surely shouldn't be in a museum. Galleries don't charge entry - art is free.

>Film and literature are also consumer goods and yet I would most definitely call them art.
You shouldn't, they are media. Painting is another medium. Not every painting is a work of art either. Art can be accomplished through any medium, however most work in a medium is a made for the sake of the medium and is unrelated to art entirely.

>I don't believe economics have anything to do with it, that's what I'm saying.
It can, if that's what it's about. Art is a case by case practice. No medium constitutes art. Individual work does.

>You're also right to call those academics a bunch of faggots who don't know what the fuck they're talking about
Mainly Heidegger, the other lads are okay. I like John Berger myself.

>>72695121
Thou

>>72701008
pic in first post

>>72701750
Gotta admire that people think a casual joke on twitter is worthy of bizarre rage.

>>72702511
woke-joke

Writing an Anti-Trump song is actually mainstream, though. Dude could only get a band like 3 Doors Down to play the inauguration. Literally nobody else would do it.
Hating Trump IS the status quo.

The truly brave/edgy/punk thing to do now would be to come out with music protesting PC culture or supporting Trump.

File: CSHno_2UYAIq1Hu.jpg (90KB, 600x755px)

90KB, 600x755px

Hillary really ruined her mind.

>>72703781
Well, you really have to be ruined from the start to protect and actually willingly help a child rapist in court.

>>72700453
first two kp albums are alright, just fun goofy pop

but the pop trajectory is eternal: whenever a best-selling singer inevitably enters their "being a star is hard u guys" phase, you know what's coming

>>72694495
>We gonna
*We're going to
Lady Gaga? More like dumb lady

>>72694564
>>72695343
>>72700951
>>72701011
>>72701055
Webster's definition for "Art"
: Something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful and expresses important ideas or feelings
: Works created by artists: paintings, sculptures, etc. that are created to be beautiful or to express important ideas or feelings

Key words to me: "Imagination," "Skill," "Beautiful," "Ideas," "Feelings," "Important."

File: grimes_making_art_costs_money.png (155KB, 1273x577px)

155KB, 1273x577px

>>72701515
>Galleries don't charge entry
Only if/when they're government funded - or paid for by rich patrons. Art being free to make/consume is a myth.

>most work in a medium is a made for the sake of the medium and is unrelated to art entirely.
Art is entirely in the eye of the beholder - whether you/I like it or not. Full stop. A major part of the intrigue about performative art (such as music) is that it actively incorporates non-intelligent artistic elements (mistakes, aberrations) into the whole and imbues them with artistic value. Thus why painting performative artforms (such as music or dance) with exactly the same brush as non-performative ones (like painting) - as you are trying to do here - makes no sense.

>>72704361
* non-intelligent

Lol should be 'non-intentional'

>pop music has never before been an avenue of socio-political discourse

she's truly a revolutionary and her writers have a lot to be proud of

>>72700043
>If you don't, my guess is you've been meme'd.

>everything's a meme
>people don't have different personalities