Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd like to point out an irony. The title of this topic is "Why it's time to stop paying attention to Lady Gaga" yet by creating this topic it's just drawing more attention to her.

Personally I consider myself a pretty ecclecitc person and there are a few songs that she does that I like. Her music videos are wierd but then again I don't really watch music videos. Her style is wierd but I have no room to judge as I have holes in my ears large enough I can put my index finger through them. While she may be a wierd person (or just very smart at advertising) at least she isn't doing things other singers are (R-Kellys child pornography charges, the joke that is now Brittany Spears and all her exploits etc.)

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'm not trying to argue that she's god or something. I'm just saying that that particular article wasn't remotely convincing or good. There is intelligent criticism out there, but none of it has been near this thread.

Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's not intelligent.

Okay, so the Cracked article was a little lowbrow, but Paglia's article was pretty well reasoned. You disagree with her conclusions, which is fine, but you can't say that she's unintelligent for stating them.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:I'd like to point out an irony. The title of this topic is "Why it's time to stop paying attention to Lady Gaga" yet by creating this topic it's just drawing more attention to her.

Besides being at least the fourth to point that out, it isn't ironic either.

Ahtman wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:I'd like to point out an irony. The title of this topic is "Why it's time to stop paying attention to Lady Gaga" yet by creating this topic it's just drawing more attention to her.

Besides being at least the fourth to point that out, it isn't ironic either.

I'd like to point out that this irony has become redundant.

This is the second time that this has been pointed out, making that redundant and ironic.

WarOne wrote:
Alright. Would you like to introduce some criticisms to her style that are intelligent?

Sure, in addition to giving a point by point rebuttal of stupid crap I'll go further out of my way to provide what anyone asks for

http://www.theprophetblog.net/rob-fusari-on-pre-fame-lady-gaga-she-used-to-be-anti-club-beats-and-performance-art

An actual question, posted with actual evidence. Shocking. I know it's on a blog, but there are a billion other websites with the same story and that one had it condensed nicely.

I wish I could find the links I'm looking for, but here are some examples. If people really want them I can dig and fish them out:

Someone did an article about her (from one of the major music magazines I believe) that was an excellent critique from the musical side. It stayed away from the "she sucks, durr hurr!" and focused on actual complaints, like how her hit songs aren't melodic. This started a big argument on the Gaga boards I go to but I managed to actually persuade the masses that her big hits really aren't melodic, and it's not a huge slam, but it is a fact.

There are some good articles questioning her recent interview where she said she did cocaine occasionally. She would later talk more about that statement and say she meant maybe once or twice a year, but she got blasted by a lot of the fans on it too simply from the side of her having younger fans and encouraging heavy drug usage in any capacity.

I'm kind of losing steam looking for these. If I stumble across any others and anyone here still cares I'll post them.


@Monster Rain: Just because it's written doesn't mean it's intelligent either. There's nothing in there but opinion and hate, thereby I dub it unintelligent. And you may not know but Manson was on one of her remixes.

'Grats on 2500 points, unbearable one.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:There is intelligent criticism out there, but none of it has been near this thread.

I put it to you that you made this comment in haste and that you are completely incorrect.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
@Monster Rain: Just because it's written doesn't mean it's intelligent either. There's nothing in there but opinion and hate, thereby I dub it unintelligent. And you may not know but Manson was on one of her remixes.

Well, I wasn't saying that. I was saying that the article was intelligently written. Unfortunately I can't say the same for that blog that you linked to.

Someone want to quote me some intelligent criticism that has occurred here? -_-

Edit: Yay, 2500 posts! Same heading though.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Someone want to quote me some intelligent criticism that has occurred here? -_-

Edit: Yay, 2500 posts! Same heading though.

I would like to criticize the shameful posting of your 2500th post.

It's wrong, and the system is broken.

Please vote Conservative for the next election cycle and we'll call it even.

I tried to defend Lady Gaga on Dakka a while back, when the Bad Romance video came out. Since Telephone and Alejandro, however, I can see the other side much more clearly. Theres just nothing to say about it. Actually, res ipsa loquitor. If I step in a pile of dog gak, I don't need an essay prepared to defend being displeased. As for her message, Cannerus, you've heard it far more convincingly before (with no price tag or ego machine):

You said that there is nothing in here but 'opinions and hate, thereby I dub it unintelligent'. Let's go back to basics. Do you know what intelligence is?

You're dismissing the valid opinions and criticism of everybody in preference to your own, but then again you were very pleased indeed when fauntleroy agreed with you. I do agree with what you've been actually saying - when you've actually been making intelligent statements - but you're also being unneccesarily offensive about it in summary. You're not coming across as any better than anyone else.

For example, you flamed Chrysaor's quick analysis of the article's quality and authority whilst completely missing his point. The internet is full of necks with beards who write slightly humourous articles on their 'blogs. They struggle to grasp the complexities of good comedy in the vain hope that One Day They Will Truly Write, but will never get anywhere, as they are too personally entertained by the inane reactions (i.e. this thread) they observe and actually think they're producing a worthwhile product.

Then again, they're not really getting paid for it. It is just a laugh.

If anyone derived enjoyment from the article in question, good on them. I didn't because I thought it was trite, unoriginal and lacking in fact wherever it didn't just consist of outright error. Still, the OP just wanted to share something he found funny. This thread has gotten far too serious. Everyone should know 'haters gonna hate' and all of that by now. There's no point in trying to correct people on the internet who have already established an opinion that is just as valid as yours. If you think that your opinion is more valid then you're just plain wrong.

Facts are different to opinions. If you enjoy researching Gaga - and we already know you're a fan - then by all means post your research. Just don't make sweeping criticisms of all of us because an article that could have been composed by a teenager got under your skin.

I don't feel like I'm being offensive, but I'm also not the one who would be offended either I'm sorry if I came across that way. I was originally talking about the Sunday Times article being unintelligent based on have no basis of any kind, but I sort of sucked everyone under that umbrella without realizing it. Again I meant no offense to anyone, I was probably looking for the word objective in my latter usage more than anything. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and all that jazz and mine is no more valid than anyone else's. I do get annoyed when people screw up facts or draw conclusions from things that were never an issue to begin with when it's something I find personally important, though I also realize it has little to no effect on the average person's life.

@Manchu: I hear ya, but Mr. Rogers didn't just accept an award on international national television in a meat dress.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
@Manchu: I hear ya, but Mr. Rogers didn't just accept an award on international national television in a meat dress.

But he kept on wearing a sweater decades after it left the fashion world, never to come back again like things always do.

Tell that to some of the old men who used to come into Dillards or the ones who meet for coffee at 5 am at McDonalds.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Tell that to some of the old men who used to come into Dillards or the ones who meet for coffee at 5 am at McDonalds.

Oh, they're apart of the resistance movement against change. One day they'll herald the end of the end of civilization by snapping it straight back into attention with their belts of fiery welts (+2) and their grim resolve to have a Bob Hope channel on every channel known to man.

When civilization finally collapses they'll sustain themselves on an infinite supply of Werther's Originals whose wrappers have come partially undone in their pant pocket.

WarOne wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:I'd like to point out an irony. The title of this topic is "Why it's time to stop paying attention to Lady Gaga" yet by creating this topic it's just drawing more attention to her.

Besides being at least the fourth to point that out, it isn't ironic either.

I'd like to point out that this irony has become redundant.

The fact that it isn't ironic was not connected to to the fact that I had to point out that it had been said before. People posting without reading threads isn't irony.

WarOne wrote:This is the second time that this has been pointed out, making that redundant and ironic.

That also does not contain any irony.

I have to admit I'm a little bemused that forum that spends so much time declaring it's love for metal would hold a lot of hatred towards Lagy Gaga. Metal is theatrical and ridiculous, and therein lies a lot of the fun. Gaga is no different.

IG_urban wrote:I guess my issue is the mindless fandom effect you get with ultrapop stars.... The same thing happens. You can go back 30 years and it's still there. My issue is with that die-hard, creepy, almost zombie like fandom of a group, or one group of people....that fades into nothingness, or gets transplanted, in a very short period of time. A large percent of this fanbase is just jumping on the bandwagon, which brings me to the even more disturbing underlying (IMHO) cause. Lack of one's own self. So much of the American (and international) culture is so lost, they just follow the heard for fear of being ostracized. It disturbs me. And it just so happens that Lady Gaga is at the epicenter of one of these forms of zombie mentality at the moment.

Or possibly kids are joining in to a fashion because they find it fun? Which is something a whole of teens will tend to do for a while?

Monster Rain wrote:Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's not intelligent.

Okay, so the Cracked article was a little lowbrow, but Paglia's article was pretty well reasoned. You disagree with her conclusions, which is fine, but you can't say that she's unintelligent for stating them.

Sure we can It was an unintelligent article.

It was an unintelligent article because it took a very frivolous thing in Lady Gaga, and treated it with great seriousness. It was unintelligent because in trying to criticise Lady Gaga it did nothing but demostrate that Paglia fails to understand Lady Gaga - the ridiculous nature of his celebrity carry-on (including wearing sunglasses in an interview - how rude!) is the point. That she does not meet the standards of beauty set up by most popstars is the point. It was unintelligent because she then goes on to champion Madonna as an artist full of meaning, and not just a singer chasing contraversy as a way of gaining fame and trying to appear relevant. Madonna chased contraversy just like Gaga does, the only difference is that Madonna pretended there was a greater issue behind her claims to fame, Gaga seems a little more honest to me in that she doesn't co-opt issues in chasing her celebrity.

But this is Camille Paglia we're talking about here. She's pretty much made a career of being a very smart lady who says incredibly stupid things.

sebster wrote:She's pretty much made a career of being a very smart lady who says incredibly stupid things.

Ha. Now that's ironic!

It's hard to take Camille Paglia's criticism seriously. I'm a big fan of Paglia -- I have a lot of feminist friends who annoy me, and dropping a Paglia quote is a fun way to rile them up -- but anyone who has read her knows she is completely insane when it comes to Madonna. Completely insane.

That the mainstream media is constantly referring to Gaga as the new Madonna, with the implication that the old Madonna is no longer relevant (and really, she hasn't been for at least a decade), must be like nails on a chalkboard to Paglia, and -- given that she's a loudmothed loose cannon on her good days -- one can only expect Paglia to be strongly prejudiced against Gaga and come out swinging. But I think both Paglia and the mainstream media are missing a real point about Gaga.

Gaga isn't the new Madonna, because Madonna was a sex symbol and quite consciously so. That was what made Madonna relevant in the aftermath of the sexual revolution and feminism -- she was a transformative figure who asserted through her music and persona that women could own their own sexuality, that they could be sex objects that owned themselves, rather than being sex objects on entirely male terms. This is why Paglia is obsessed with Madonna, because Madonna personifies the rediscovery of women's dionysian sexual power over men in the aftermath of feminism.

Madonna is the Alpha of a moment in culture and art that reached its nadir with the invention of Brittney Spears -- Spears is the fake, hollow and vapid Madonna, stripping the femme fatale of its subversion, the sex object re-reimagined back as the object of male desire, owned and controlled by men. Most of the criticism of being fake and artificial leveled against Gaga is just a stale rehash of that leveled against Spears, but in Gaga's case it's misplaced.

Gaga is the Omega of what Madonna started. That's why I find her interesting. Gaga is the death of the pop sex object, she has climbed inside improbably (which is why Paglia keeps hysterically returning to the obvious fact: Stefani Germanotta isn't particularly sexy, she's kind of plain, and her outfits and affections only accentuate her weirdness), and is forcing us to reappraise the concept.

What Madonna gave birth to, Lady Gaga has come to kill.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Ha. Now that's ironic!

Alright, that was a good one.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
On a side note, I seem to remember her saying in an interview she drew inspiration for her costumes from everywhere including the net.
With that in mind something has been bugging me, in Alejandro with her heavy Catholic theme, there is a sci-fi costume you see her in, only see her top half I think, but it looks like a parody of a Sister of Battle suit, she even has a hairstyle that looks like a SoB, its blinkin odd, but I do wonder if she saw a SoB pic.

Yeah, I thought elements of that videos were very 40k, there was some discussion on Dan Abnett's website and Facebook about this very issue.

Shame the song sounded like an old Ace of Base b-side from the late 80s, but...

I like the pseudo Crowley stuff she's done http://www.akirathedon.com/2009/10/lady-gaga-does-crowley/

.. and, just to join in some more..My mate told me that I just don't understand irony.

Which was ironic because we were at a bus stop at the time.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:If I must

The Sunday Times wrote:Lady Gaga is the first major star of the digital age. Since her rise, she has remained almost continually on tour. Hence, she is a moving target who has escaped serious scrutiny. She is often pictured tottering down the street in some outlandish get-up and fright wig. Most of what she has said about herself has not been independently corroborated… “Music is a lie”, “Art is a lie”, “Gaga is a lie”, and “I profusely lie” have been among Gaga’s pronouncements, but her fans swallow her line whole…

I have no clue how being on tour raises you above scrutiny for starters.

Less time at home means a lower chance of intrusion into one's private life. When she's on tour she's 'on'. She's not Stefani Germanotta. That said, I happened to glance at a newspaper article which listed every boyfriend she ever had the other day, so there's still digging going on, even if she's not being papped coming out of her apartment in a track-suit.

How about the full quotes?

“Everyone wonders who Lady Gaga is. Who is the person behind the make-up and the glasses?” The Sydney Morning Herald quoted her as saying during a sit-down chat with Fairfax in New York.

“I’m a performance artist and this is what I do. Art is a lie and every day I kill to make it true,” she added.

Ugh. That is so pretentious. And totally meaningless. Art is the synthesis of meaning through the creation of cultural texts, and I have a sneaking suspicion Ms. Germanotta doesn't know anything about it.

Although she presents herself as the clarion voice of all the freaks and misfits of life, there is little evidence that she ever was one. Her upbringing was comfortable and eventually affluent, and she attended the same upscale Manhattan private school as Paris and Nicky Hilton. There is a monumental disconnect between Gaga’s melodramatic self-portrayal as a lonely, rebellious, marginalised artist and the powerful corporate apparatus that bankrolled her makeover and has steamrollered her songs into heavy rotation on radio stations everywhere.

Just because your parents are rich doesn't mean you're fulfilled. She was teased in school (for many of the same things people do now) and got in trouble for various things since it was a Catholic school. Her makeover was out of her pocket, working with friends and a small producer at times. That happened before she ever got signed.

Do you deny that she has a massive corporate juggernaut bankrolling her? And that she was a record industry hack before she was a pop-star? She wasn't exactly plucked from obscurity, was she?

For two years, I have spent an irritating amount of time trying to avoid Gaga’s catchy but depthless hits Lady Gaga is a manufactured personality, and a recent one at that. Photos of Stefani Germanotta just a few years ago show a bubbly brunette with a glowing complexion. The Gaga of world fame, however, with her heavy wigs and giant sunglasses (rudely worn during interviews) looks either simperingly doll-like or ghoulish, without a trace of spontaneity. Every public appearance, even absurdly at airports where most celebrities want to pass incognito, has been lavishly scripted in advance with a flamboyant outfit and bizarre hairdo assembled by an invisible company of elves.

Hateful drivel. Rudely worn during interviews indeed, whatwhat!

Do you deny that her persona is heavily 'managed'? Of course, it all depends on your belief in how music should 'be'. The whole idea of 'spontanaiety', 'honesty' and 'real-ness' are old hat - they have always been myths. But I think Paglia's point is reasonable, if a matter of taste.

Furthermore, despite showing acres of pallid flesh in the fetish-bondage garb of urban prostitution, Gaga isn’t sexy at all – she’s like a gangly marionette or plasticised android. How could a figure so calculated and artificial, so clinical and strangely antiseptic, so stripped of genuine eroticism have become the icon of her generation? Can it be that Gaga represents the exhausted end of the sexual revolution? In Gaga’s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an era…

Somebody's jealous. I know a large number of guys and otherwise straight women who'd jump at the chance.

Uh, I think you're missing the point.

Edit: There's a certain element of her not trying to be traditionally sexy as well. She dressed up as a dude for a recent photo shoot as well as having stuffed a dildo in her pants in another. When you do different things with your appearance besides the norm, you're either trying to stay hidden or trying to get noticed and reinvent what's sexy. Guess which applies.

I happen to think she couches her 'shock' in pseudo-intellectual psychobabble to disguise what is, basically, a shallow (but ultimately succesful) attempt to make a splash.

Care to supply any proof with the accusation? They made spanish-sounding songs? If anything her song is closer to Ace of Base, but I guess the Madonna comparison requires even less research to come up with (consistent theme here).

'La Isla Bonita'. Ugh, I can't believe I typed that!

Gaga seems comet-like, a stimulating burst of novelty, even though she is a ruthless recycler of other people’s work. She is the diva of déjà vu. Gaga has glibly appropriated from performers like Cher, Jane Fonda as Barbarella, Gwen Stefani and Pink, as well as from fashion muses like Isabella Blow and Daphne Guinness. Drag queens, whom Gaga professes to admire, are usually far sexier in many of her over-the-top outfits than she is.

And they've "copied" her to. Again, lots of times other people design her outfits (namely fashion designers). More hateful, unfounded drivel at the end.

Yeah, the 'drag-queen' jab was a little uncalled-for. And originality is over-rated, as we've aready discussed.

Compare Gaga’s insipid songs, with their nursery-rhyme nonsense syllables, to the title and hypnotic refrain of the first Madonna song and video to bring her attention on MTV, Burning Up, with its elemental fire imagery and its then-shocking offer of fellatio. In place of Madonna’s valiant life force, what we find in Gaga is a disturbing trend towards mutilation and death…

No idea what this video has to do with Gaga. To be fair, Madonna's video and lyrics are a lot more straight forward and can be taken purely at face value.

See below. She's implying that Gaga's videos are all flash, no substance - which is fine, but seeking a deeper meaning in them could prove to be an ultimately hollow experience, as:

Gaga is in way over her head with her avant-garde pretensions… She wants to have it both ways – to be hip and avant-garde and yet popular and universal, a practitioner of gung-ho “show biz”. Most of her worshippers seem to have had little or no contact with such powerful performers as Tina Turner or Janis Joplin, with their huge personalities and deep wells of passion.

She calls herself an artist in general. There's fashion, performance, songs, etc. It's a whole package and that's not a bad thing. I'm quite familiar with Tina Turner and to a lesser extent Janis Joplin. Interesting how Tina's big hit is actually a CCR song...

Nah man, 'River Deep, Mountain High' OWNS you.

Generation Gaga doesn’t identify with powerful vocal styles because their own voices have atrophied: they communicate mutely via a constant stream of atomised, telegraphic text messages. Gaga’s flat affect doesn’t bother them because they’re not attuned to facial expressions.

Gaga's fans are marooned in a global technocracy of fancy gadgets but emotional poverty. Borderlines have been blurred between public and private: reality TV shows multiply, cell phone conversations blare everywhere; secrets are heedlessly blabbed on Facebook and Twitter. Hence, Gaga gratuitously natters on about her vagina…

Translation: I hate progress. Things aren't how they used to be. Waaaaaaaah.

To be fair: 'I hate this woman. She's saying mean things about my beloved Gaga. Waaaaaaaaah.'

Kisses!

I read this thread and thought about responding, but it raised the hell out of my blood pressure.

Albatross wrote:
Less time at home means a lower chance of intrusion into one's private life. When she's on tour she's 'on'. She's not Stefani Germanotta. That said, I happened to glance at a newspaper article which listed every boyfriend she ever had the other day, so there's still digging going on, even if she's not being papped coming out of her apartment in a track-suit.

We have pics of that stuff already. It should say something too that she's so willing to stay on tour constantly.

Ugh. That is so pretentious. And totally meaningless. Art is the synthesis of meaning through the creation of cultural texts, and I have a sneaking suspicion Ms. Germanotta doesn't know anything about it.

Art is very much a lie though. It's intangible, it's unreal. That picture of a dog isn't really a dog; it makes you feel like you're seeing a dog. That song about a smoky bar and feeling alone isn't actually taking you to a smoky bar, it just inspires similar feelings. I was just saying quoting the full thing in order to provide what I would at least call a more proper context.

Do you deny that she has a massive corporate juggernaut bankrolling her? And that she was a record industry hack before she was a pop-star? She wasn't exactly plucked from obscurity, was she?

She worked her way up. To tell anyone that their path was simply handed to them is disrespectful, especially when we weren't there. I will counter with the fact that she's gone over budget on her tour several times and paid the difference out of pocket to make the show "her way." She's also getting a bit of rep for being stubborn about doing artistic stuff how she likes it.

Do you deny that her persona is heavily 'managed'? Of course, it all depends on your belief in how music should 'be'. The whole idea of 'spontanaiety', 'honesty' and 'real-ness' are old hat - they have always been myths. But I think Paglia's point is reasonable, if a matter of taste.

It is managed, but the major influences in it are hand-picked counsel (the Haud of Gaga) and designers who are her personal friends. The fact that she set-up her own version of Warhol's Factory is what sucked me in initially because I thought it was an interesting approach.

I happen to think she couches her 'shock' in pseudo-intellectual psychobabble to disguise what is, basically, a shallow (but ultimately succesful) attempt to make a splash.

Fair enough. I believe we have enough context now to prove otherwise but doing really shocking things tends to make people think you're an attention whore.

To be fair: 'I hate this woman. She's saying mean things about my beloved Gaga. Waaaaaaaaah.'

Me, a fanatic? I'm fiercely loyal to whatever I attach myself too, which is mainly friends now but also includes the odd popstar who doesn't even know I exist. You know Alby-poo, if someone was saying mean things about you I'd do the same There's a reason I chose Chaos.

@jwoolf: Simply put and for curiosities sake alone, for or opposed? I can probably guess already though...

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Ugh. That is so pretentious. And totally meaningless. Art is the synthesis of meaning through the creation of cultural texts, and I have a sneaking suspicion Ms. Germanotta doesn't know anything about it.

Art is very much a lie though. It's intangible, it's unreal. That picture of a dog isn't really a dog; it makes you feel like you're seeing a dog. That song about a smoky bar and feeling alone isn't actually taking you to a smoky bar, it just inspires similar feelings. I was just saying quoting the full thing in order to provide what I would at least call a more proper context.

And now we are back to pretentious and totally meaningless.

Art is tangible and real; it doesn't just exist in your imagination. Understanding concepts like 'symbol' and 'signified' doesn't mean that people don't actually put time and energy into them. The picture of the dog isn't the same thing as a dog, but it is still a picture. You can touch, carry it around, see the brush strokes, ect. You aren't the only one hearing your lord and saviors music being played: those are real sound waves being carried through the air and picked up by your ears.

I understand that and I'll do my best to keep this from going metaphysical (aka pointlessly subjective). When you paint a toy soldier, he doesn't become an ultra marine. When you roll dice, people aren't really fighting. You do, however, have a perception that the little dude is a battle-hardened warrior, possibly tearing through his enemies or falling nobly in defense of his cause. There's nothing wrong with either view in my book. If I hear this song, I'm hearing something deep, submersive (wth is the proper spelling of this word? Google is failing me), with lots of history and buried meaning. If a lot of other people hear it they might describe it as annoying beats, boring melodies and shallow lyrics. Which is wrong and which is right? Is it really a collection of feelings and emotions or is it just some programmed beats layered on by some vocal tracks? A song is the same thing to everyone that hears it, but everyone gets their own vibe or interpretation from it. Some people hear metal and start to rock out while others cringe and say it's not hard to write or that anyone could do it. I'm not arguing whether it exists or not, I'm arguing that any meaning or emotional draw it has is purely subjective, and the original quote was saying that the effort she puts into stuff is her attempt to make it so that everyone can hear what she's trying to put into it. I can understand that frustration.

I know your trying to be deep and all that junk, but it isn't. Being subjective doesn't makes something a lie, it makes it subjective. The idea that what is being represented isn't the same thing as what it represents is not even close to a new idea. Trying to understanding the complex nature of how we assign meanings to to things is as humans is good, calling it a lie is simplistic and myopic.

In Googling what the hell that was I came across:




If Britney Spears (anyone really) sings a song someone else wrote that's about a relationship she never had, that's not a lie? If George Clooney is in a movie dressed like a cowboy sheriff and claims to love the town that he never lived in, that's not a lie? The whole point IMO is that it is and it takes artistry to apply it and to sell it for lack of a better term. People often claim that things are unrealistic as a form of criticizing an already fictional movie. They want to believe it, or at the very least for it to have context. To argue otherwise would be like hearing Ann Coulter reading the lyrics to I Kissed a Girl and saying that it seemed even remotely natural

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:In Googling what the hell that was I came across:




If Britney Spears (anyone really) sings a song someone else wrote that's about a relationship she never had, that's not a lie? If George Clooney is in a movie dressed like a cowboy sheriff and claims to love the town that he never lived in, that's not a lie? The whole point IMO is that it is and it takes artistry to apply it and to sell it for lack of a better term. People often claim that things are unrealistic as a form of criticizing an already fictional movie. They want to believe it, or at the very least for it to have context. To argue otherwise would be like hearing Ann Coulter reading the lyrics to I Kissed a Girl and saying that it seemed even remotely natural

I kind of like the idea of Ann Coulter kissing girls.