Posted by Jeff on February 13, 2011 
Remember the “Goody-Gaga” effect per Prof. Boguski at Harvard? Well, here’s an example of compelling art as a statement. What is art? What is the message? Maybe that’s the point.
Lady Gaga arrives at the Emmy Awards tonight in a giant egg, ready for “rebirth.” A reference to “Born This Way”? A provocative way to garner attention? Is it necessary? These are all questions about how to define art, performance and how we define fame.
Well, when you consider how directly derivative her new song is of Madonna – not to mention her Modanna-esque attire when accepting the award, I guess she needs something to make her stand out.
(We had great fun singing Madonna’s lyrics to the “new” Gaga song.)
Cue uTube links to TalkTalk’s album “Natural History”…
…or Björk’s song “Human Behaviour”.
Björk: “Human Behaviour” -I think having a bear show up at such a hyped-up event and start killing everyone around would be cool -but it would probably fit into the definition of “a provocative way to garner attention” 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urrbhgC8PB0&feature=bf_prev&list=QL&index=1
Indeed. Björk is an extremely creative artist; I have enjoyed her work since the “Surgarcubes.” Thanks for your comment.
I mean, really?? I’m a scientist, and just reading that even made *my* eyes glaze over. If one thing they’re trying to convey is the importance and relevance of the scientist’s research to GQ readers, what percentage of the readers are really going to walk away with a deeper understanding of what Dr. Jamieson does by reading that description? It would have been a small thing to ask each participant to submit a layman-friendly version of their research (their “elevator talk” description, for example) for GQ to include.
Finally–one of the “scientists” is Dr. Oz. What is he doing in there? One, I would think he’s already well-known enough; why not save that spot for another scientist? Two, yes, I know he’s actually done research and published, and is on the faculty at Columbia. Fantastic. He’s also a serious woo peddler, who has even featured everyone’s favorite “alternative” doc, Joseph Mercola, on his talk show, and discussed how vaccines may be playing a role in autism and allergies (despite mounds of evidence to the contrary). This seems to completely contradict their goal of “research funding as a national priority,” since Oz is often (and Mercola is always) highly critical of “mainstream medicine.” I really don’t understand his inclusion, and think it’s to the detriment of the rest of the campaign.
Thanks for the excellent posting. I have bookmarked it and I am taking a look ahead to reading new articles. Please keep up the good articles! . Your time isn’t going to waste with your posts.
February 13, 2011
February 14, 2011
February 14, 2011
February 14, 2011
February 15, 2011
February 16, 2011
February 26, 2011