However, I will point out that you still haven't answered my critique of you not being familiar enough with Lady GaGa's work to offer an intelligent opinion.

Aristotle's definition of art seems a bit skewed to me, because in Ancient Greece, the 'highest' and most prevalent art form was plays. These, of course, *do* require characters and plot to be valuable; however, a painting clearly does not. You use Michelangelo as an example of higher art that we can all agree on, but where, in his paintings, is the use of plot and character? By your definition, Michelangelo was merely some sensationalist, no-talent hack.

Far more importantly, the Aristotelian definition of art is not really useful anymore (again, because it was made mainly with an eye to plays); generally, people consider art to be something that was created in order to stimulate senses, emotions and the mind. It could also be said that art is a medium for the artist to use in order to convey a message or elucidate their view of the world though - of course - not everything that conveys a message can be considered art. So, to judge all art forms by your own and Aristotle's view is an exercise in futility - not everything can be judged with an eye to character and plot.

If art is meant to inform us of the artist's view of the world and/or to evoke emotions and thought, Lady Gaga can be seen to have *triumphed utterly*. Her music, to millions, is excellent. She talks about how she sees love and fame and money and so many other things. Have you seen her live concerts? Because *I've* been to one, and the whole idea of Gaga is one of uniqueness and acceptance of self. She has a message, she inspires feelings, she delights the senses, and, as is quite clear from this discussion, she provokes a great deal of thought.

Thus, it can be concluded. Lady Gaga is an artist.

Synalon - an excellent argument. Aristotle's views are confusing to say the least. I was in a class that read Aristotle a few years ago and we concluded that he could be interpreted as somewhat sexist, perhaps anti-art in the modern sense and maybe or maybe not racist.

Where did you get the possibility of racism from? Was it about slavery? I can see that he would have definitely been sexist though.

Synalon +1.

Yeah in Nicomachean Ethics he says some things about women and children that would definitely be considered either patronizing or derogatory today depending on who you are. Yeah it was slavery.

You know, I think this has officially become my Vietnam of posts, so to speak...

OK, here we go *again*:

First, I'm not using Aristotle exclusively here, nor have I ever said or hinted I was, I clearly mentioned him, J.S. Mill and, of course, since it seems all my posts include he and Shakespeare, Nietzsche as influences on my idea.

As influences.

They are not my ideas full stop, and certainly not Aristotle.

And the part I take from Aristotle isn't from Nichomachean Ethics but rather from Poetics and, to a lesser degree, Politics.

Further, I don't accept or even quite understand your claim Aristotle's Poetic ideas are no longer valid or useful for evaluating art. Saying that, in descending order, plot, character, direction (that one is admittedly more applicable to plays, but it still works in this age of films and music videos, and so is clearly applicable to Gaga's work here) and spectacle are the pieces that make up art and rank thusly in importance seems pretty useful and still-applicable to me...

When we say a movie's bad, what's one of the biggest complains, likely the #1?

Bad/stupid/poorly told story.

The Plot.

So it seems that still is perfectly relevant today; the slavery talk that's going on here, however, is entirely irrelevant, and I'm not sure how that came into the discussion other than Aristotle (I think) endorsed it, but 1. What do you really expect from a 2,500 year old philosopher, and hey, he's still a great thinker if for no other reason his ideas provide a good portion of the base, either directly or through people opposing and refining his views, for much of the West and 2. As this is art we're talking about and not civil rights or anything like that...why does this matter?

If it pertains to the Master-Slave Morality part, and hence the Higher/Lower cultures, I'm pretty sure I qualified this but if not I'll go again and say that's not what I mean, and "my version" of M-S Morality is essentially the idea that Masters have a certain personality and focus (ie, the Greeks respecting power and knowledge and heroes who died in battle) and that Slaves have another (ie, the Judeo-Christian heroes who are traditionally more submissive to God than, say, the defiant Odysseus was with his deities, especially Poseidon) which is essentially Nietzsche's version of the idea, only here to avoid controversy and another atheists vs. Christians fight I will say right now I don't think of Christians as "slaves" or that there are "masters" in the racial sense of one race being dominant over another.

In any case, I explained my bases for Higher/Lower art...and frankly I reject your argument for art froms not being able to convey plot or character. I see no good reason to take the view opposite that, that not every art uses those mediums, as really- what doesn't? Plays, literature, and music all do, paintings show us characters or, in lieu of that sometimes, places and images which can "act as" characters for the purposes of the medium, and certainly paintings have a form (however wild or expressionist, so that can work for direction) and spectacle it surely has. The same can be said for sculptures.

What art form doesn't have plot, character, direction OR spectacle? (There, that was my first caps, I've been good so far...it's a weaning process; actually if you look at that real essay of mine I posted I have no caps or italics, so really I use it more informally for forums and for a forum without italics, as in a real essay I don't use caps and use those italics sparingly to emphasize when I really want to and not so casually.)

Gaga.

Plot?
Character?
Direction?
Spectacle?
And, the thing Aristotle says these all build to and in a good work should be infused within, the most important piece, and this is not so often contested and I don't think you all will either...

Theme.

It isn't just a matter of if Gaga has it; as I said before, it also matters the degree to which she is able to accomplish these.

To use my (albeit silly) example again, grant me Higher and Lower Art existing for the moment (as I didn't really see an argument against my of the division, that being something solely focused on one or two lower-tier aspects of art, like Playboy with spectacle, being Lower Art and then something that does all four well with theme, like Michaelangelo's David or Shakespeare's "Othello")...

Imagine that the Higher Art is a Hall of Fame For Art of sorts.

Now, to get into the Baseball Hall of Fame, for those who don't follow baseball (Let's Go Mets! Sorry, slipped out...) to get into the Hall not only do you have to play well and have good actions and statistics and, sometimes, character, but these accomplishments and stats need to *at least* measure up to, if not surpass, those already in the Hall of Fame. To put it another way, there is a standard of excellence, and those in the Hall are the bar- match or exceed them in you're in, fall short and you might have been a "good" player, but still not a Hall of Fame Player.

Now take Gaga.

And no one has adressed this yet, so I'm going to keep hammering home this question:

Going with my analogy of the Higher Art being like an Art Hall of Fame, if you wish to argue Gaga is a "Hall of Famer" for Art, she has to match or exceed the accomplishments of those already "enshrined."

So- can Gaga match or trump Shakespeare in artistic merit? Bach? Milton? Da Vinci? Puccini? Dante? Ibsen? Tchaikovsky or Pushkin or Dickens or Verdi or...?

Who? Who can she match there? Calling someone "High Art" isn't just a lightly-tossed-around title, it cannot be, if art is to be held in the proper esteem, then to say that someone is at the Pinnacle of Artistic Importance and Meaning, or, if you want to be allegorical, if you wanted to imagine a pantheon of all the High Art Artists painted on a great ceiling like the Sistine Chapel (actually, now that I think of it, that'd be a pretty amazing painting and job, I'd kind of like to see that now...) so...

Who? Who does Gaga match there or beat out to make her worthy? Which of her accomplishments are greater or equal to those in the "Hall?"

If you say that it's unfair to put Gaga up against them, that they're from different forms of art and that this is an unfair comparison...that doesn't quite hold if we go with that hall of Fame analogy where you have to be at least as good as the greatest ever to play the game of baseball before you yourself can really be called a great- if you want to make the claim Gaga is High Art, then logically she should be able to stack up against other High Art.

So again I ask- who?

(And rlumley, I already dropped the slut-bit and made ammends on that issue and admitted a logical wrong on my part there, will you please just drop it already?)

@ obiwan,

First, I have to commend you on your 180 in writing. This post was like a breathe of fresh air. However, a number of us have given you examples of Gaga's work that we believe to be comparable to works by the Beatles. You continue to ask for examples, and yet we've given them to you several times. I'll list them here, again:

Paparazzi outlines the shallowness of today's society (something you should like, actually) and criticizes people's over-value of fame and fortune.

Dance In the Dark and Bad Romance are both about domestic abuse.

Alejandro is about a young, vulnerable girl finally standing up for herself after being mistreated by older men.

This are all issues in today's society. How do these songs, specifically, not constitute higher art. To me, they seem just as powerful as Elanor Rigby, which you've already said should count as Higher Art.

Oh my god *rubs temples* either you've completely missed the point or you know you're wrong and don't want to admit it. You used the example of movies to say that plot is important to -all- art, but that doesn't work because different media are evaluated on different grounds. YES, films are an art form and YES they require plot, but paintings are an art form and don't have any plot at all. They quite clearly don't normally have character either but you're bending over backwards to say that, for example, a fruit bowl is a deep and nuanced character when featured in a painting. It is not. It is absolutely definitely not. It just looks nice.

The talk about slavery was just an example for how very old views are often misguided when applied to today. We weren't saying that because he endorsed slavery, his views on art were wrong.

If we were going with the silly notion of higher and lower art, then I would still maintain that Gaga would fit in the Hall of Fame. I do believe that there is some objectivity in art, but for the most part, it is subjective. I hate Hamlet. I love Bad Romance. I derive more enjoyment from Gaga than Shakespeare. Others here, even others who agree with me overall, would say that Gaga is nothing compared to Shakespeare, but it doesn't matter - my opinion has no bearing on theirs and vice-versa.

Anyway, it is very clear to any rational human that not all art forms involve all four of plot, character, direction and spectacle. Where is the characterisation and plot in An Ode to Joy? Where is it in most classical music? Where is it in any music that doesn't have words to tell you about it? Even -films- don't *need* it: have you seen Koyaanisqatsi? It features no dialogue or plot but conveys a message and is pretty. Where is the spectacle in a finely crafted story? Where is the plot in the Mona Lisa? I rest my case.

This is what happens when people try to get normative about things that require judgement.

*headdesk*

@abgemacht:

I don't think they're really that deep, but I can see that's a fight I'm not apt to win, so I'll point out another aspect, namely, that she must match or exceed others in that Higher eschelon accomplishment-wise.

Now, in terms of song popularity and meaning and overall effect, she still has a way to go, and even if she were the second coming of Mozart I'd say that, because time *is* a factor! I mean, you don't just call the best new young players in football the best ever so quickly, right?

And then, again, meaning in and out of art- Shakespeare and the Beatles had work that not only defined their generations, and not were very important and even influential in political and philosophical thought ("Julius Casesar," Hamlet," and the Histories all gave Shakespeare not only popularity and important works within Art, but he intentionally wrote ans strucutred these plays, epecially the Histories and "Caesar," to give commentary on the current day, and he was actually listened by peasants and nobles alike...The beatles in that Vietnam Era of their work, say from around Yellow Submarine-The Breakup, gave a lot of works that were not only popular and not only spoke about the war, but these songs wee adopted as active protest songs, The Beatles and songs like "Revolution," "Hey Jude," and "Let It Be" all came to be a sort of ammunition for the protestors against the war and activists of that time.)

The same can be said of nearly any of the above examples I gave.

So when Gaga writes a song so powerful and moving in not only its content but its applicablity, and, say, she becomes the symbol Shakespeare was in his day or the Fab Four were in theirs, and her songs become the "ammunition" for activists, for *real change* in subjects like immigration or the War or racism or sexism...something like that, I'll maybe then elevate her.

Until then, the most I can call her is a popular artist and, subjectively for some, a good one.

Bringing me to...

ava, this is not me being normative or absolutist, I gave my whole reasoning and stated clearly all these "rules" are rooted on a subjective grounding, and that if times should change and thus the conditions for High Art to be considered as such, then maybe I'd be wrong, then the "rules" I have could change. For instance, no one would have called Rock 'N Roll "serious" or "important" or "influential" music with it bursting onto the scene in the late 40s-early 50s...and then along came the 1960s and The Beatles and The Stones...

But, again- time. You don't call the Rookie of the Year instantly as good a baseball player as Willie Mays or Babe Ruth, and you don't call Gaga "High Art" when she's still, for all intents and purposes, still new and a "rookie" on the scene considering the other art here has been around and been called great for decades if not centuries.

So perhaps when I'm old and grey I can look back and say, "Gee, that Lady Gaga was one of the greatest musicians who ever lived...thank goodness I was alive to apprecia- no, I hated her, oh, what a FOOL I WAS!"

Not yet, but hey- maybe When I'm 64. :p (Yep, another one...I don't do it in formal writing as I showed with that essay, just in casual forum posts.) ;)



And Synalon- I did adress your point, I even pointed out how plot and character applies to art as well.

Take "The Last Supper." You may not see a story there, but I do.
"The Scream?" I see a story, in that scream and all around it...

Is it maybe more abstract and interpretive and primal in some cases than, say, a movie or play?

Yes.

But it's still there...and you'd better believe there's character, direction/form, and spectacle in "Mona Lisa" and the above paintings I mentioned, and themes, so that's all of them, and stand by my statement firm.

Obiwan, between trying to decide whether art is really such a convoluted thing as you make it out to be, or whether you are crazy, I would just employ Occam's Razor and conclude that you were crazy.

Can't it be both? ;)

(Besides, it's not convoluted, it's simple...just complexly simple...)

@obiwan

May I make a few observations:
- When someone gives an example that proves your thesis is wrong it serves no purpose of giving ten other examples that support it, while totally ignoring the example given to you. You do this constantly. Aristotle's definition of art is clearly wrong by today's standard - people gave you a good explanation and you really should be able to understand it.
- Being able to say "oops, I was wrong, haven't looked at things this way" is actually a good thing. Sticking to your original ideas no matter what... well, we have saying here for such people - that it makes more sense to argue with the radio :)
- Trying to outtalk others with sheer volume is not much different than a baby getting his way by constantly crying. You don't win the argument, the others just give up at some point.
- You should really learn to express yourself in a manner that does not require constant clarification, disclaimers and so on. I've had a couple of discussions with you and the one thing that made me decide it's totally not worth it is that you say something, I respond (in a manner that proves your arguments were not correct) after which you say "well, actually, I meant...". This is no good.
- Using famous people to back up your argumentation makes a very bad impression. You're no Shakespeare or Aristotle or Nietzsche and trying to associate yourself with them is again, not good - and you do it constantly.

Finally, how old are you - do you think you have it all figured out and are never wrong? You do realize this directly implies you have decided to never get smarter? There's nothing more important in this life than one's ability to constantly learn and improve - and you only do this when you're open to the idea that the current version of you can be wrong and does make mistakes. I've never seen you really accept this possibility - there's always something you say to make things blurry and avoid saying "I was wrong".

I am sorry for the blunt message - to be perfectly honest I had decided that it makes no sense to argue with you about anything (I mean - you're a nice bloke, but it just makes no sense based on my observations). However, this thread seems like a good occasion to break that policy.

If you're going to respond and expect me to then again respond, please, can you try this - respond to my points and try to make it no more than 30% longer than my post - I'm sorry, but won't bother reading it otherwise.

OK, I just now finished watching the artist colliqually known as Gaga.

As everyone seemed to laud it, I took in her work "Bad Romance," and to make sure I gave her the fullest artistic chance, to not abridge or miss part of any vision she might have had, I didn't just listen to the song, I watched the music video.

So, first, since I do like it and think it still works as a general guide, commentary through the Poetics, and then, to be fair since there is some dispute as to whether we hold that to be of any use or if my idea is correct, I'll give a more general and free-from-format account after.

So:

-Plot: There was not a lot of it, really, bare bones stuff, which isn't totally unexpected or harmful, as in general five minute music videos don't pack the plot-punch of a grand epic like The Iliad or so; even accounting for that, I felt it was relatively shallow if not standard stuff, not a ground-breaking song plot/idea that I'd never heard before, which was a bit of a letdown, I fully expected after all this hype for this song to be really and truly original in it's take on things, tell, through sound and song lyrics, a really fresh story or at least a fresh take on an old story, and, again, by story I don't mean a big Iliad-depth thing, but something other than just angst and a...Bad Romance...I'll say it wasn't quite as trite as I feared she might be, but it was pretty standard stuff.

-Character: This I felt she actually could have nailed and maybe really shut me up- but I think she just sort of bobbled it, didn't focus in. We get a great assortment of dancers, but they're not really characters, they're just background spectacle (more on that in a minute) and then we have her...and some other Gaga-like person...and another...maybe...and then a guy on a bed, maybe...and what looked like some photographers and stuff. So I can't say any one character was distinct- I felt she was really blurring characters, whcih was definitely a choice artistically, and if she'd done it better it could have really, again, shut me up- but a wise person once told me you have to really focus in and make us care about your character and know them, because if you don't focus in and care enough to show us who's who and what's what- why should we? She was GREAT at throwing a great many people on the screen for spectacle (more later again) but I didn't get a sense she really developed any sort of character that was distinct, at most I get an angsty someone in a room with dancing...people and another someone who might as well be anyone.

-Direction: I'm split on this: on the one hand we have a good deal of artistic form and choice with all that backbround noise and people (again, later) but on the other, direction also takes into account focus, and like I just said, I felt that was really lacking here, as either her concepts were blurred or else she presented it all in a format where she has an idea and story and concept but blurs it all in her art direction so much, without that first hand in to at least clue you in, that I felt it lacked focus or had a blurred one, and certainly that affects direction. So I'll give a pass to her here- good on some parts of what accounts for direction, not so much for others.

-Spectacle: Here Gaga reigns. That much I suspected, but even what I suspected was, admittedly, blown away- THAT was a truly good choice and use (with a few exceptions) of spectacle, and something I can and will say was, truly, something original of hers that was artistic and something I had not seen before, at least not to that degree. It's a surreal piece, with surreal staging, surreal costumes, effects, it almost makes me wish she'd done this as a straight video without the music, because the visuals here are, while as stated sometimes a tad unwieldy, brilliant and vibrant and everything that could make n experimental film *great.* The dancing...well, I thought parts of it were stiff, but overall the choreography was enough to get me through. Again, though, it's the visuals that shine and give Gaga an A+ in Spectacle, as that is definitely her strong point.

=Theme: For all of that, though, the theme...seems so flat and just unoriginal it almost makes me feel like she got cheated in a way, like if she doesn't write her own lyrics she should get a new person, and if she does she should get some help, because with those visuals setting ings up, if she had the lyrics to match, that would've chopped off my tongue and shut me up entirely. Unfortunately, as I've said before and had confirmed here...this is just pop stuff, and I cannot find a lick of originality in those lyrics. They repeat. Same words over and over, and that's fine when done for effect, but there's no larger thing to affect here. There is an undeveloped (or schizophrenic, I can't decide which) attempt at a tale of someone, or some couple, and blurred characters, and the lyrics relfect that perfectly- they are bland, they are generic, they are like candy. I've heard it all before, nothing new. For all that, however, I will grant that the musical aspect reflects the whole of the piece, so the tune itself does have some spice and some flash to it, it does have a nice rhythym and has some creative beat changes. Still, the whole thing came off to me like the icing on the cake...without the cake. I'll admit to it being better than what I expected, but also admit to it being an example of what I'd call Lower Art for the reasons I've stated, although for what it is, it *is* good, essentially the music equivalent to the "popcorn action movie," something like "Independence Day" where, even though the "Earth Attacked By Aliens In Flying Saucers" thing has been done to death, and the characters aren't much and the story has plot holes, you can just enjoy it as a Lower Art film, grab some candy and a Coke, and just have fun watching to a Sunday night or something. Same with this song/music video.



As for what I have to say outside all the Poetics analysis:

-I stand by my statement that I don't think her voice is very good for a singer; I will say it was better here than in other things I heard, maybe partially because she could record this and not do it live and thus in a controlled recording studio not press her vocal abilities as much as she might have to in a live performance...so, like most else here, a bit better than I expected, but still didn't care for her voice, for whatever it's worth.

-That was a GREAT set design, giving it a certain mood that, again, if the actual song had been better, could have really catapulted this thing in my view, and I jsut hope whoever conceived and designed that set is well-employed in this and the movie business, because that was probably the best aspect of the whole piece

-Not that it surprised me or was out of the genre's tastes...but yeah, there were a few needlessly gratuitous shots in there, I can't really dock it for that as that is part of the genre, but just saying...

-Really, what was so special about the *song?* I mean, the sets and costumes I can understand being lauded, but...why? That was not at all an original song, tha was jsut your standard love/angst/bad relationship song, and those repeated lyrics don't score anything, and early on I almost started to wonder how many words she was actually going to use, it felt like a very small repetoire from a lyrica point of view, and, again I ask- what was so great about the lyrics, the song itself? The music was alright, a bit innovative but still not shattering for the genre, but what is it about these lyrics that has everyone defending them? They were like cotton candy- looks and tastes good, but no substance at all, and when you peel (or eat) away the fluff, there's just a hollowness underneath...what makes these lyrics so special to you, defenders of Gaga? What makes them meaningful and uniquely so (and not "entertaining," I've already said they're like candy and candy's fun, too, but no substance, so, the lyrics, the meaning of the song itself- where is it, and what's so great about it?)

and ivo, this is the only place, this forum, i've ever heard anyone say Aristotle's Peotics are totally wrong...not saying they're embraced 100%, but i can honestly say i've never heard people slam them like here, and so frankly i didn't expect that to be a real talking point.

And so i can't see how Aristotle's ideas there are "clearly wrong" or "useless" so i can't accept that claim, your examples don't land with me, and as i type so much already, frankly, until someone convinces me Aristotle was dead wrong there, i'll give the Poetics and then non-Poetic treatments to satisfy both crowds, but for the record- never heard of the Poetics being regarded so poorly...

I'll give you a simple example - http://www.blueman.com/

Tell me, please:
- do you consider this art
- if yes, what is the plot/theme/character according to you
- does this fit Aristotle's definition

Btw, did you miss the rest of my post or, as usual, just ignored what you don't like/can't respond to? :)

I glanced at your post, ivo, it's 2:00am here and i just finished typing an analysis of that song after listening and watching and thining about it-

I need my caffeine to kick in before I really write much more, but didn't want to ignore you completely.

And if that post refers to the Blue Man Group...yes, I'd still say that fits, how could it not, I think Blue Man Group (from what I remember of the performances I used to watch) do a good job of expressing those to degrees and, again, in their form.

I'll try and respond more in-depth to you and, sure to come, the folks who read and come to bury my critique, not to praise it... :p

(One thing I will note before I take my hour or so leave to regenerate from the computer watching/typing: again, I write what I know, so yes, I'll include references to Shakespeare or Mill or Nietzsche or, in an informal forum for an online game where the biggest thread is one where everyone tries to post last and so it goes on forever constantly floating to the top and like my writing just won't die- yeah, a Beatles or Trek reference or two.) ;)

I have to say i did read only two of those long posts and a quote from Monthy Python came into my mind:"Shut up you american! You allways talk you americans. You talk and you talk, and you say `let me tell you something` and ´i just wanna say this`. Well, you´re dead now so shut up!"

@obi

Dude, these were really basic yes/no questions:
- do you consider this art
- does this fit Aristotle's definition

You could have just said YES and NO - and the issue is sorted. Instead you took more time, again wrote a ton a useless info, centered entirely on yourself (what is the relevance to the discussion that you need coffee or about other threads in the forum???). Not sure how you expect to be taken seriously when you can never answer a straight question...

@obiwan - Do you think it's relevant or appropriate to use a system developed over 2000 years ago to critique artforms there were not extant when the system was developed?

I suspect any 'pop' music - The Beatles, Dylan or Gaga would fail this test, as would sculpture, painting etc. However, they all can create an emotional connection (not simple rhythm or aescthetic appeal) at their heights. Your analysis misses this vital component - art *must* connect with the viewer. Great pop music, like great opera, or sculpture, or painting, or film, or TV, or dance, does that. And that over-rides the technical analysis. Technically imperfect but with soul >>>> Perfect but soulless.

You must also remember that we are viewing many of these works through the lens of time, which allows us the culturally forget or overlook the inferior works of a period (as an example, look back at the Top 40 singles of a given week in the 60s and you will find an awful lot of dross). But, culturally, we regard the 60s as a 'golden age' for popular music.
Time will tell, and our culture will place Lady Gaga where it chooses to. She may be forgotten. I tend to think she will be remembered as one of the defining popular music artists of the early 21st century

However, we must agree to disagree. Becuase, whether you choose to accept it or not, it's all opinion ;)

@Miro:

That hurts, Miro...using a Monty Python quote to roast me but good...a beloved Python sketch turned on me- that's just not fair, I an't compete with Monty Python! (Anyway, I never wanted to be a forum-posting-philosophical-folly, I always wanted to be...!) ;)

@ivo:

First, let me tell you something (thanks Miro.) ;)

Second...really, last I checked this was a Diplomacy forum and I've already told you guys I'm a college student here- when did this suddenly become so formal and serious around here that my structuring and opinions really...mattered? "Be taken seriously?" To be honest, if someone's taking me too seriously right now they need to read wiser men, I and my ideas are a work in progress here, and this isn't exactly Harvard or Oxford, it's an online game's forum- since when did a slight aside about caffeine become unprofessional and...I didn't know I really had to be professional, wow, I get if I'm making a point I should make the point and I'm trying, but really- an an aside about caffeine is now just not allowed...?

And third and to adress your question:

1. Do I consider this art? ...I said I think it fits into his scheme, so I thought that sufficed for a yes, but if not- yes, Blue Man Group counts as art.

2. Does this fit Aristotle's definition? Again, yes. Aristotle's conditions vary from form to form, or at least that's how I use his idea in my workings. Plot? An acted out one, a skit, not complex and definitely abstact sometimes, but yes. Character? Again, improvised characters that sort of can remind me of Commedia clowns at times, and certainly mimes, so a definite yes. Direction? Yes, it's a routine with an artistic intent and staged ideas, fits the description. Spectacle? Yes, easily.

So yes, yes, yes, and yes...so my anser is yes, ivo, it's art and it fits the Poetics' loose idea structure; really, I fail to see why you're up in arms about this.

To opposition of the Poetics:

Can you really give me an example of art with no plot, no characters, no direction or intent, and no spectacle at all?

None of those four, and still art?

Because until you can, I'm sticking by the Greek in the toga on this one...

"Blue Man Group counts as art."
No it´s just entertainment, like Lady Gaga.

@Pete U:

I already took an example of yours that you say doesn't work with the Poetics, The Beatles themselves, and used them as an example. To do so again, "Eleanor Rigby":

Plot?

Well, we have a girl who's sad and sits around waiting for love or some kind of affection in a church, doesn't get that love, continues to wait for it and finally dies, is buried by a Father McKenzie who himself is struggling with not being recognized as he writes "a sermon that no one will hear" and finally Eleanor Rigb is "buried along with her name, nobody came" and the Father buries her near the church and then leaves the grave. And then of course we have "all the lonely people" who are looking for their way in life.

Seems like a plot to me, and a pretty complex and deep one, too, considering the song is just a bit longer than two minutes, which, just to add, is about half the time of Gaga's "Bad Romance,"...

Characters?

The girl, the church Father, and the lonely people, each with motivations and traits, the girl wainting love and having a sadness and grief in not being noticed, the Father also not liking being noticed and reacting with a touch of resignation to this fact, and the lonely people...

Seems like we have that...

Direction?

A succinct story narrative, underscored by music that has form and an intent and pattern and, if you want to include the song's part in the movie "Yellow Submarine" by The Beatles, art direction in the animation to fit the moments in the song.

Seems like that is present...

Spectacle?

The music and the illustrations and animation.

Seems pretty apparent that's included...

Theme?

"All the lonely people- where do they all belong?"

That seems a perfectly good theme right there that's explored, along with the loneliness and loss of identity the girl faces and the resignation of not having a voice that can be heard, helplessness in society raised by the Father McKenzie character.

That certainly seems present.

So...what part of that is not matching the Poetics? It seems to fit to me...

@Miro Klose:

*sigh*...

Entertainment is a *part* of art, a by-product, so Blue Man Group being entertaining doesn't mean it's not art; on the contrary, are you honestly saying that if something is entertaining it's not art as it's meant here?

I think those who enjoy Shakespeare or Ibsen or Dickens or, as I just used as an example above, The Beatles and plenty of pop culture with it, would disagree.

You can have entertainment and have it be Higher Art, it just needs to be, well, Higher Art that's entertaining, and further, yes, any art can be entertaining, Lower Art too, Tom and Jerry cartoons are entertaining and they're just fun cartoons and not serious art...so what's the point of your statement?

You contradict yourself. If Blue Man group is YES, then so is Gaga.

And I totally didn't understand this "First, let me tell you something (thanks Miro.) ;)". What did you want to tell me exactly :P

As for your 'Second' - well, I guess I won't take you serious then and just consider you're taking bullshit and trolling around.

Not sure why anyone else would actually care to respond if, when cornered, all you can say is "well, actually, whatever I'm saying is not to be taken seriously".

Stick to whatever nonsense you want - I remember your previous two big posts were "Everyone still hates the Germans because of WWII" and "Atheists are as bad as religions fundamentalists". Guess I should have stuck to my "Obi is a moron and there's no point it trying to discuss anything with him" policy. Goodbye and sorry if I offended you - but my conclusion is obviously accurate - unless you can prove me wrong that is :P

"are you honestly saying that if something is entertaining it's not art as it's meant here?"

No, i am saying the Blue Man Group and Lady Gaga are entertainment but not art.

Ok Obi

Bad Romance

Plot: More simple, but it certainly captures a woman expressing her physical desire for a man, not wanting his friendship, but more concerned with the hednonsitic pleasure of sex, even though this may be a bad relationship

Characters: The protagonist is well defined as a confident, sexually aware woman. The object of her song, not so, but then this is a song primarily about *her*, as many songs are.

Direction: Form. Intent. pattern. Changes in these through the song. All present

Spectacle: As you have said, definitely there.

Theme: You are familiar with the concept of a chorus, yes. Some repetition of words and structures is an integral part of music, and something the Beatles use as much as anyone else. However, the lyrics *do* vary through the verses, and the whole thing builds to a satisfying climax (if you'll excuse the joke). However, I think the theme is pretty clear - that the protagonists wishes to consume the physical relationship, regardless of the cost.


So, I reckon it fits. And, byw, Eleanor Rigby is probably my favourite Beatles song.

But the Poetics do not consider the inherent need for an *emotional* connection. Have you never expereiinced art which ticks all those boxes but leaves you cold and uninterested? I know I have.