|
|
Post by littlemorons on Jul 28, 2013 3:15:14 GMT -5
Do you know that Lady Gaga nude pic was inspired by the really famous "The Birth of Venus" painting. Google it! She wasn't thinking about Madonna so give it a rest. *sigh*
itsjoshthough
The Birth of Venus? Ha! Since when was Venus born sitting on a stool? And I guess you are refering to Sandro Botticelli’s painting Birth of Venus, right? You see, there are other works of art with the same name, so try be more specific.
Oh, I forgot! You can’t be more specific. You are simply repeating something you read somewhere else without having any actual knowledge on the subject. That’s why your message was so simplistic. That’s why you simply told me to “Google it," instead of presenting any supporting ideas to your argument.
Lucky you, I am very familiar with the Birth of Venus by Boticelli. That is one of my favorite paintings of all time.
In fact, I have talked about it before over a year and a half ago, when I had to educate you little morons monsters on Madonna’s Super Bowl performance (you uneducated Lady Gaga fans tried to accuse Madonna of copying Kylie Minogue’s Aphrodite). You should check those posts here and here to learn something.
About Gaga’s picture, there is NOTHING referencial to Botticelli’s Birth of Venus - apart from the long hair (which is NOT a reference to that particular painting).
Gaga’s picture does not evoke any aspect of Botticelli’s “Venus": it does not evoke the sea, it does not evoke the continents, it does not evoke the water, it does not evoke birth, or puberty at all. All these are elements related to the painting. Gaga FAILED to reference to all of them. In fact, Gaga is depicted as a child in her picture - the opposite of Botticelli’s Venus, who represented a fully grown woman.
But don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with the fact that Gaga might have tried to recreate Boticelli’s Birth of Venus. In fact, I love the fact that little monsters believe Gaga was trying to recreate that painting. I actually hope so.
You see, the fact that Gaga could not capture any aspect, or the essence, or the classical canonized meanings attributed to Botticelli’s painting is another evidence of how dumb, uneducated and shallow Gaga’s creative team is. It only proves how watered-down and uneducated the “haus of Gaga" is. I have no problem with that at all.
So if Botticelli’s “Venus" was what Gaga was going for, she, once again, failed miserably. She came out as just an ugly naked woman sitting on a stool - which is far more similar to Madonna’s picture (the only difference is that Madonna is not ugly).
I also love it how little monsters are so ignorant, that they think a naked woman sitting on a stool covering her vagina and her breasts with her hands is a reference to the Birth of Venus painting. There is no imagination going on with you all, huh?
You see, Madonna opened her 2001 Drowned World Tour recreating the Birth of Venus.
Was there nudity? No.
Did she have long hair? No.
Madonna did not have to COPY obvious visual elements to recreate that painting. Why? Because unlike Gaga, Madonna is a real artist: she is smart, she is artistic and theatrical. Madonna’s opening for the Drowned World Tour was a conceptual reference to the Birth of Venus, not a copy and paste job.
That’s why the show opened with all of the performers (including the band) drowned deep in the ocean. They all emerge from the sea (like Venus did). But here’s how Madonna’s depiction of the Birth of Venus is a lot more complex and rich than the average Lady Gaga fan could understand:
Madonna’s Drowned World Tour’s opening concept also represents the creation of life in this world (hence the reference to the “birth" of Venus): it goes from life deep in the sea, to the Pangaea, to the separation of the continents, to maturity.
Some of Madonna’s band members represent life in the sea, then we see the Pangaea (most of the band comes out together in the center of the stage), then they diverge into different directions (representing the separation of the continents). Then Venus (a punk version of her) comes out of the sea. Also, note that Madonna’s Drowned World Tour was considered her most mature era (up to that point) by the critics - which is one of the main characteristics of Venus - a fully grown woman (mature) coming out of the sea.
And that is the difference between Madonna and Lady Gaga. One is an actual artist, whose work goes beyond the surface and deals with concepts and ideas, the other goes for the obvious visual reference and thinks she’s creating art (and we all know that there’s nothing artistic about obvious references, right?).
3 days ago
21 notes
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Jul 28, 2013 18:43:08 GMT -5
Do you know that Lady Gaga nude pic was inspired by the really famous "The Birth of Venus" painting. Google it! She wasn't thinking about Madonna so give it a rest. *sigh* itsjoshthough The Birth of Venus? Ha! Since when was Venus born sitting on a stool? And I guess you are refering to Sandro Botticelli’s painting Birth of Venus, right? You see, there are other works of art with the same name, so try be more specific. Oh, I forgot! You can’t be more specific. You are simply repeating something you read somewhere else without having any actual knowledge on the subject. That’s why your message was so simplistic. That’s why you simply told me to “Google it," instead of presenting any supporting ideas to your argument. Lucky you, I am very familiar with the Birth of Venus by Boticelli. That is one of my favorite paintings of all time. In fact, I have talked about it before over a year and a half ago, when I had to educate you little morons monsters on Madonna’s Super Bowl performance (you uneducated Lady Gaga fans tried to accuse Madonna of copying Kylie Minogue’s Aphrodite). You should check those posts here and here to learn something. About Gaga’s picture, there is NOTHING referencial to Botticelli’s Birth of Venus - apart from the long hair (which is NOT a reference to that particular painting). Gaga’s picture does not evoke any aspect of Botticelli’s “Venus": it does not evoke the sea, it does not evoke the continents, it does not evoke the water, it does not evoke birth, or puberty at all. All these are elements related to the painting. Gaga FAILED to reference to all of them. In fact, Gaga is depicted as a child in her picture - the opposite of Botticelli’s Venus, who represented a fully grown woman. But don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with the fact that Gaga might have tried to recreate Boticelli’s Birth of Venus. In fact, I love the fact that little monsters believe Gaga was trying to recreate that painting. I actually hope so. You see, the fact that Gaga could not capture any aspect, or the essence, or the classical canonized meanings attributed to Botticelli’s painting is another evidence of how dumb, uneducated and shallow Gaga’s creative team is. It only proves how watered-down and uneducated the “haus of Gaga" is. I have no problem with that at all. So if Botticelli’s “Venus" was what Gaga was going for, she, once again, failed miserably. She came out as just an ugly naked woman sitting on a stool - which is far more similar to Madonna’s picture (the only difference is that Madonna is not ugly). I also love it how little monsters are so ignorant, that they think a naked woman sitting on a stool covering her vagina and her breasts with her hands is a reference to the Birth of Venus painting. There is no imagination going on with you all, huh? You see, Madonna opened her 2001 Drowned World Tour recreating the Birth of Venus.
Was there nudity? No.
Did she have long hair? No.
Madonna did not have to COPY obvious visual elements to recreate that painting. Why? Because unlike Gaga, Madonna is a real artist: she is smart, she is artistic and theatrical. Madonna’s opening for the Drowned World Tour was a conceptual reference to the Birth of Venus, not a copy and paste job.That’s why the show opened with all of the performers (including the band) drowned deep in the ocean. They all emerge from the sea (like Venus did). But here’s how Madonna’s depiction of the Birth of Venus is a lot more complex and rich than the average Lady Gaga fan could understand: Madonna’s Drowned World Tour’s opening concept also represents the creation of life in this world (hence the reference to the “birth" of Venus): it goes from life deep in the sea, to the Pangaea, to the separation of the continents, to maturity. Some of Madonna’s band members represent life in the sea, then we see the Pangaea (most of the band comes out together in the center of the stage), then they diverge into different directions (representing the separation of the continents). Then Venus (a punk version of her) comes out of the sea. Also, note that Madonna’s Drowned World Tour was considered her most mature era (up to that point) by the critics - which is one of the main characteristics of Venus - a fully grown woman (mature) coming out of the sea. And that is the difference between Madonna and Lady Gaga. One is an actual artist, whose work goes beyond the surface and deals with concepts and ideas, the other goes for the obvious visual reference and thinks she’s creating art (and we all know that there’s nothing artistic about obvious references, right?). 3 days ago 21 notes  Aside from the obvious and disgusting Madonna praise, I guess this is as close as you will get to trying to prove Madonna is original. For those unfamiliar with the painting being referenced, here it is: .jpg) So Paws Down is criticizing Gaga for not using any elements from the original painting (water, continents, birth, etc) yet later on he says Gaga did a "copy and paste job" of the painting? Huh? However, Madonna's intro includes water, birth and continents (all elements of the original painting) and they automatically assume it was a brief reference to the painting. So Madonna uses a bunch of the concepts from the painting and is automatically hailed as "original and artistic" (for crying out loud! The Tour was called the Drowned World Tour! Drowned World = Water!) but Gaga, (who they first stated did a poor job at incorporating elements; though near the end they said it was a "copy and paste job") who did not incorporate any elements from the painting is a copycat? I am really confused! Lol.  EDIT: Madonna was not the first to re-create the "Birth of Venus" painting.  someone posted a photo that shows Madonna was not the first to sit in a chair semi-nude. And unfortunately, Madonna is not beautiful.  The last thing I would like to talk about is the mention of The Drowned World Tour being part of her most mature era. Since that tour promoted the Ray Of Lies album, I will tell you why the Ray Of Light album was a cheap rip-off and poor attempt by Madonna to look mature. These two albums explored and experimented with new sounds and styles. It is also notbaly to state that these albums incorporate influences of electronic music before Ray Of Lies was released. - Wikipedia: "Mark Roland drew comparisons with the music of St Etienne and Björk's Homogenic album, highlighting Ray of Light's lack of cynicism as its most positive aspect; "It's not an album turned on the lathe of cynical pop manipulation, rather it's been squished out of a lump of clay on a foot-powered wheel. Lovingly teased into life, "Ray Of Light" is like the ugly mug that doesn't match but is all the more special because of it."  "Homogenic was highly acclaimed on its initial release and continues to be praised by critics, with Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine stating that "if not the greatest electronic album of all time, it's certainly the greatest of its decade". - Wikipedia: "Billboard's Larry Flick described the album as "stunning", concluding that "it's a golden commercial opportunity for a major [record company] with vision and energy [to release it in the United States]. A sharp ear will detect a kinship between Impossible Princess and Madonna's hugely successful album, Ray of Light."  - "Together they embarked on a series of trips across the United States and southern China on a mission of self-discovery. The trips and her relationship with Sednaoui made Minogue feel free to express her own creativity and talent." Madonna: "I feel that talking about it trivializes it. I've been studying the Cabala, which is the mystical interpretation of the Torah. I've studied Buddhism and Hinduism and I've been practicing yoga and obviously I know a lot about Catholicism. There are indisputable truths that connect all of them, and I find that very comforting and kind. My spiritual journey is to be open to everything. Pay attention to what makes sense, be absorbed. For me, yoga is the closest thing to our real nature." - Both albums are reflections of Kylie's and Madonna's past and how they feel as they have matured and changed from who they used to be. LIES! If Madonna claimed that she would be more spiritual and she would be a new person, why would she continue to steal (especially for this album- in which many of the lyrics were written by others)? Why did she go back to flashing her nipples on stage? If anything, this just shows how fake Madonna and her "re-inventions" are. You can't claim to be "spiritual and changed" in one album and then go back to being a sl-t on stage in the next. Let's not forget that the reason the album is praised is due to William Orbit's electronic production, which many praised for its "fresh, experimental and futuristic sound." PS. Please stop posting articles from Paws Down as your responses to Madonna being original. This is an anti-Madonna site, not a site to promote pro-Madonna groups or sites. [/i] |
|
|
|
Post by jessicalotiva on Jul 28, 2013 23:56:18 GMT -5
For all we know, Gaga could have been inspired by the painting and added her own unique twist to it. If you are inspired by something, it doesn't have to be an exact replica of the original.
Meanwhile, M could have also been inspired but there is nothing unique with her interpretation of the image since it features water, the birth, the life at sea and the maturity (all of which are in the original painting).
Not a Gaga fan but I'm pointing out the obvious. Madonna did not add any new twist to her interpretation except for having punk-fashion clothes, while Gaga's interpretation only kept the nudity and added a fresh modern feel to it.
Not that I am surprised. All of M's "inspirations" are direct rip-offs with nothing that makes her stand out.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlemorons on Jul 29, 2013 1:52:20 GMT -5
Do you know that Lady Gaga nude pic was inspired by the really famous "The Birth of Venus" painting. Google it! She wasn't thinking about Madonna so give it a rest. *sigh* itsjoshthough The Birth of Venus? Ha! Since when was Venus born sitting on a stool? And I guess you are refering to Sandro Botticelli’s painting Birth of Venus, right? You see, there are other works of art with the same name, so try be more specific. Oh, I forgot! You can’t be more specific. You are simply repeating something you read somewhere else without having any actual knowledge on the subject. That’s why your message was so simplistic. That’s why you simply told me to “Google it," instead of presenting any supporting ideas to your argument. Lucky you, I am very familiar with the Birth of Venus by Boticelli. That is one of my favorite paintings of all time. In fact, I have talked about it before over a year and a half ago, when I had to educate you little morons monsters on Madonna’s Super Bowl performance (you uneducated Lady Gaga fans tried to accuse Madonna of copying Kylie Minogue’s Aphrodite). You should check those posts here and here to learn something. About Gaga’s picture, there is NOTHING referencial to Botticelli’s Birth of Venus - apart from the long hair (which is NOT a reference to that particular painting). Gaga’s picture does not evoke any aspect of Botticelli’s “Venus": it does not evoke the sea, it does not evoke the continents, it does not evoke the water, it does not evoke birth, or puberty at all. All these are elements related to the painting. Gaga FAILED to reference to all of them. In fact, Gaga is depicted as a child in her picture - the opposite of Botticelli’s Venus, who represented a fully grown woman. But don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with the fact that Gaga might have tried to recreate Boticelli’s Birth of Venus. In fact, I love the fact that little monsters believe Gaga was trying to recreate that painting. I actually hope so. You see, the fact that Gaga could not capture any aspect, or the essence, or the classical canonized meanings attributed to Botticelli’s painting is another evidence of how dumb, uneducated and shallow Gaga’s creative team is. It only proves how watered-down and uneducated the “haus of Gaga" is. I have no problem with that at all. So if Botticelli’s “Venus" was what Gaga was going for, she, once again, failed miserably. She came out as just an ugly naked woman sitting on a stool - which is far more similar to Madonna’s picture (the only difference is that Madonna is not ugly). I also love it how little monsters are so ignorant, that they think a naked woman sitting on a stool covering her vagina and her breasts with her hands is a reference to the Birth of Venus painting. There is no imagination going on with you all, huh? You see, Madonna opened her 2001 Drowned World Tour recreating the Birth of Venus.
Was there nudity? No.
Did she have long hair? No.
Madonna did not have to COPY obvious visual elements to recreate that painting. Why? Because unlike Gaga, Madonna is a real artist: she is smart, she is artistic and theatrical. Madonna’s opening for the Drowned World Tour was a conceptual reference to the Birth of Venus, not a copy and paste job.That’s why the show opened with all of the performers (including the band) drowned deep in the ocean. They all emerge from the sea (like Venus did). But here’s how Madonna’s depiction of the Birth of Venus is a lot more complex and rich than the average Lady Gaga fan could understand: Madonna’s Drowned World Tour’s opening concept also represents the creation of life in this world (hence the reference to the “birth" of Venus): it goes from life deep in the sea, to the Pangaea, to the separation of the continents, to maturity. Some of Madonna’s band members represent life in the sea, then we see the Pangaea (most of the band comes out together in the center of the stage), then they diverge into different directions (representing the separation of the continents). Then Venus (a punk version of her) comes out of the sea. Also, note that Madonna’s Drowned World Tour was considered her most mature era (up to that point) by the critics - which is one of the main characteristics of Venus - a fully grown woman (mature) coming out of the sea. And that is the difference between Madonna and Lady Gaga. One is an actual artist, whose work goes beyond the surface and deals with concepts and ideas, the other goes for the obvious visual reference and thinks she’s creating art (and we all know that there’s nothing artistic about obvious references, right?). 3 days ago 21 notes Aside from the obvious and disgusting Madonna praise, I guess this is as close as you will get to trying to prove Madonna is original. For those unfamiliar with the painting being referenced, here it is: So Paws Down is criticizing Gaga for not using any elements from the original painting (water, continents, birth, etc) yet later on he says Gaga did a "copy and paste job" of the painting? Huh? However, Madonna's intro includes water, birth and continents (all elements of the original painting) and they automatically assume it was a brief reference to the painting. So Madonna uses a bunch of the concepts from the painting and is automatically hailed as "original and artistic" (for crying out loud! The Tour was called the Drowned World Tour! Drowned World = Water!) but Gaga, (who they first stated did a poor job at incorporating elements; though near the end they said it was a "copy and paste job") who did not incorporate any elements from the painting is a copycat? I am really confused! Lol. EDIT: Madonna was not the first to re-create the "Birth of Venus" painting. someone posted a photo that shows Madonna was not the first to sit in a chair semi-nude. And unfortunately, Madonna is not beautiful. The last thing I would like to talk about is the mention of The Drowned World Tour being part of her most mature era. Since that tour promoted the Ray Of Lies album, I will tell you why the Ray Of Light album was a cheap rip-off and poor attempt by Madonna to look mature. These two albums explored and experimented with new sounds and styles. It is also notbaly to state that these albums incorporate influences of electronic music before Ray Of Lies was released. - Wikipedia: "Mark Roland drew comparisons with the music of St Etienne and Björk's Homogenic album, highlighting Ray of Light's lack of cynicism as its most positive aspect; "It's not an album turned on the lathe of cynical pop manipulation, rather it's been squished out of a lump of clay on a foot-powered wheel. Lovingly teased into life, "Ray Of Light" is like the ugly mug that doesn't match but is all the more special because of it." "Homogenic was highly acclaimed on its initial release and continues to be praised by critics, with Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine stating that "if not the greatest electronic album of all time, it's certainly the greatest of its decade". - Wikipedia: "Billboard's Larry Flick described the album as "stunning", concluding that "it's a golden commercial opportunity for a major [record company] with vision and energy [to release it in the United States]. A sharp ear will detect a kinship between Impossible Princess and Madonna's hugely successful album, Ray of Light." - "Together they embarked on a series of trips across the United States and southern China on a mission of self-discovery. The trips and her relationship with Sednaoui made Minogue feel free to express her own creativity and talent." Madonna: "I feel that talking about it trivializes it. I've been studying the Cabala, which is the mystical interpretation of the Torah. I've studied Buddhism and Hinduism and I've been practicing yoga and obviously I know a lot about Catholicism. There are indisputable truths that connect all of them, and I find that very comforting and kind. My spiritual journey is to be open to everything. Pay attention to what makes sense, be absorbed. For me, yoga is the closest thing to our real nature." - Both albums are reflections of Kylie's and Madonna's past and how they feel as they have matured and changed from who they used to be. LIES! If Madonna claimed that she would be more spiritual and she would be a new person, why would she continue to steal (especially for this album- in which many of the lyrics were written by others)? Why did she go back to flashing her nipples on stage? If anything, this just shows how fake Madonna and her "re-inventions" are. You can't claim to be "spiritual and changed" in one album and then go back to being a sl-t on stage in the next. Let's not forget that the reason the album is praised is due to William Orbit's electronic production, which many praised for its "fresh, experimental and futuristic sound." PS. Please stop posting articles from Paws Down as your responses to Madonna being original. This is an anti-Madonna site, not a site to promote pro-Madonna groups or sites. [/i][/quote] THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE QUEEN DOES NOT LOOK LIKE AN UGLY TRANNY AND CAN ACTUALLY PASS OF AS VENUS, GODDESS OF WATER. CACA ON THE OTHER HAND, LOOKS LIKE A FREAK. NOTHING ABOUT HER IMAGE IS SIMILAR TO THE PAINTING. MEANWHILE, MADONNA TOOK INSPIRATION FROM IT AND MADE IT HER OWN. THE ENTIRE INTRO REVOLVES AROUND HER EMERGING FROM THE SEA AS A BRAND NEW, REBORN AND MATURE WOMAN. AND SHE LOOKS HOTTER THAN CACA COULD DREAM. AS FOR THOSE ALBUMS, THEY WERE BOTH FLOPS. NOBODY TALKS ABOUT BJORKS ALBUM. OR KYLIES. AND DONT FORGET MADONNA USED ELECTRONIC MUSIC IN BEDTIME STORY IN 1994, WAY BEFORE EITHER OF THEM. |
|
|
|
Post by littlemorons on Jul 29, 2013 1:55:49 GMT -5
For all we know, Gaga could have been inspired by the painting and added her own unique twist to it. If you are inspired by something, it doesn't have to be an exact replica of the original. Meanwhile, M could have also been inspired but there is nothing unique with her interpretation of the image since it features water, the birth, the life at sea and the maturity (all of which are in the original painting). Not a Gaga fan but I'm pointing out the obvious. Madonna did not add any new twist to her interpretation except for having punk-fashion clothes, while Gaga's interpretation only kept the nudity and added a fresh modern feel to it. Not that I am surprised. All of M's "inspirations" are direct rip-offs with nothing that makes her stand out. ITS MORE ABOUT WHO DID IT BEST. CACA FAILED TO COPY THE IMAGE WHILE MADONNA MANAGED TO FIND INSPIRATION IN THE PAINTING AND MAKE IT HER OWN. |
|
|
|
Post by someone on Jul 29, 2013 5:58:07 GMT -5
AS FOR THOSE ALBUMS, THEY WERE BOTH FLOPS. NOBODY TALKS ABOUT BJORKS ALBUM. OR KYLIES. AND DONT FORGET MADONNA USED ELECTRONIC MUSIC IN BEDTIME STORY IN 1994, WAY BEFORE EITHER OF THEM. Don't forget about Kraftwerk who uses electronic music since 1973. Mandonna was a little teenager back then. PS. Floptime story was written by Björk. And look how much Copydonna adds to the paintings.  |
|
