Björk

Yes, I agree. I don't take the opinion of some of these nutty art-critics that anything they don't like isn't art. :flower:

I just don't like Bjork's style because to my eyes she isn't either chic or elegant, just my opinion. Fashion is too complicated to be judged really...just about anything could look good...
 
im glad someone finally started this thread. let me start by saying i side with princeofcats completely. i do not find bjork to be a musical genius nor a fashion icon. ive never been impressed with her attempts at being ironic. i think if something looks awful, it looks awful no matter what artistic view you look at it with. thats when art really pisses me off. i love avant garde but i think there should always be an aesthetic element to every piece of art and bjork to me is complete disregard for aesthetics. art can offend, it can challenge, it can be disturbing, but there is always a balance and a rhythm to it. artsy kids are just eating it up because ohmigod its so unusual, such disregard for rules...yeah and its still ugly.
 
yes smashin i agree....

on that note....i have always been utterly annoyed with people who like something just BECAUSE it is different (not that everyone who likes something different is behaving that way) it is clear when a person favors, art, music, fashion etc that is odd just because it is far away from mainstream... to me if it looks bad it looks bad.... i judge everything on first impressions - no need to analyize - that is why I did not do well in art history.... if i like it i like it, if it looks bad it just looks bad no need to understand why the brush strokes etc etc.....same with bjork...... i once had a coworker tell me he did not like the beatles WHY i ask.... "they are too mainstream" oh please....
 
Originally posted by lele@Dec 29th, 2003 - 2:14 pm
to me if it looks bad it looks bad.... i judge everything on first impressions - no need to analyize - that is why I did not do well in art history.... if i like it i like it, if it looks bad it just looks bad no need to understand why the brush strokes etc etc.....same with bjork...... i once had a coworker tell me he did not like the beatles WHY i ask.... "they are too mainstream" oh please....
a little off topic, but it proves a point: i never liked picasso. until i read quantum physics and the theories of the fourth dimension. i realized that picasso was trying to express the fourth dimension through his art which was not only difficult but revolutionary and after understanding his art i appreciate it. i think this rings true with a lot of art and when we first see it we are often put off by it because its strange and we dont understand it. i think this is where the problem arises in art because this allows people to say, "you dont like it because you dont understand it." while this is often true i also think there is a lot of crap that gets passed off as art under these pretenses.
 
yes i see your point....
sometimes also if you give it time you can see or hear things in a different light and end up liking something you did not whatsoever at first - that has happen to me with music many times.... we are off topic so moving back.....

bjork indeed is one of those public personas you have strong feelings about....in either direction!
 
Although I have been taught to understand and even respect unusual art through my education, the bottom line for me always is: do I actually like it on its own? :unsure:
 
Or to put it another way: you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink... :P
 
i think my posts were just a really long way of saying.. i'm not into bjork. i guess i just get tired of everybody building her up so much. :neutral:
 
Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Dec 29th, 2003 - 5:10 am
This is not my 'arrogant' opinion it is a fact. She uses a simple style that is derived from classic Western styles of composition. It is monophonic. Monotonal. Monorythmic. Uses the standard Western octave. Normally uses standard, non-compound, time signatures. Uses standard Western devices such as mordents and cadences. It does use some dissonance but only to a degree that is part of existing harmonic structures. The music is not at all syncopated and it does not swing (it doesn't have swung rythm). The music is largely pre-composed. The backing uses fairly standard chord progression (i.e. no chromatism or use of the glissando to change). The use of chord structures is totally standard (i.e. she doesn't substitute in other chords such as the mediant &c.) She does not use these standard techniques exceptionally well - J.S. Bach is much better at using these classic styles (there is extensive literature on why Bach is among the best at use of classical devices such as counterpoint). Her singing style is fairly refined - it doesn't come near the raw-ness of some of the blues singers. But her singing does not have exceptional musical finesse (i.e. the vibrato &c. is not completely controlled).

Actually bjorks rythms are not as simplistic as you would make it sound.

Art is not about dooing some technically amazing ordeal, art is abotu creativety, look at some body liek Frida Kahlo who is regarded as oen of the most amazing artists, why? Not becuas she has amazing technique btu becuas she was cerative and emotional and true. I think bjork is breaking boundaryess, she is doing ehr own thing, and I think that is breaking boudarys wetehr you think so or not.
 
Unless you tell me what makes them more complex or what boundaries Bjork is breaking we can harldy either argue with you or agree with you...

Look at Picasso, Renoir, Matisse, Van Gogh, Monet, Miro &c. they were all higly technically skilled (all of them could have been traditional styles if they had chosen) all of them are great artists...

Phrases like 'doing her own thing' are all very well but what boundaries is she actually breaking? How does she change our conception of music or art? How does she advance the progress of musical styles?
 
Actually,I think,in her music these last few years she's been playing alot with the organic undertones of classical music. Maybe its become something she's inspired by-the romanticsm of it all. The music in general,is alot less complex and over-conceptualized than it used to be.
 
Bjork is similar to Van Gogh, Matisse, Picasso etc... because they were highly criticized at the start of their career except for Picasso. I dont know if you are old enough to remember her in the Sugarcubes but she is just a long line of talented punk remnants like Siousix, Exena, Morrisey, Bono, Robert Smith, Francis Black etc, who all still rock but may have commercialized or lost their edge
I love that everyone hates or loves her thats powerful. and a sign that she is a good Artiste
 
Originally posted by Theone@Dec 29th, 2003 - 11:28 pm
Bjork is similar to Van Gogh, Matisse, Picasso etc... because they were highly criticized at the start of their career except for Picasso. I dont know if you are old enough to remember her in the Sugarcubes but she is just a long line of talented punk remnants like Siousix, Exena, Morrisey, Bono, Robert Smith, Francis Black etc, who all still rock but may have commercialized or lost their edge
I love that everyone hates or loves her thats powerful. and a sign that she is a good Artiste
oh give me a break how can anyone group bjork with picasso and van gogh? that is going way too far. somebody please give me just one example of what shes done thats so revolutionary.

and everyone either loves or hates britney spears does that make her powerful too?
 
Originally posted by Theone@Dec 29th, 2003 - 9:28 pm
I dont know if you are old enough to remember her in the Sugarcubes but she is just a long line of talented punk remnants like Siousix, Exena, Morrisey, Bono, Robert Smith, Francis Black etc, who all still rock but may have commercialized or lost their edge
I love that everyone hates or loves her thats powerful. and a sign that she is a good Artiste
yes, exactly theone. :clap:

actually i saw the sugarcubes when i was 11 !! it was my first concert -they were opening for U2 ( zoo TV). thats why i didnt say anything when someone in this thread mentioned she has " no staying power" :lol: kind of funny sinse she has been around for decades, and her first recording deal at 11. but thats all for me, i respect everyones opinion ,:smile: love or hate her :flower:

i do truly love her music, big time sensuality, hyperballad, possibly maybe, isobel........ so many.....

actually my mother loves bjork as well. she took me along to the concert. we still listen to bjork even together. :lol: so ive just been in a pro - bjork household for a while :lol:

here are a few links to some bjork interviews :heart:
here (2001)and
here (2003)
 
Give me that Swan Dress any day over ANY boring Renee Zellweggerish outfit.
 
Originally posted by Bixii@Dec 30th, 2003 - 12:20 pm
Give me that Swan Dress any day over ANY boring Renee Zellweggerish outfit.
then i must love boring..........
 
Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Dec 28th, 2003 - 4:27 pm
I like publicity so I'll say it again:

Bjork's music is a simple monophonic rthym with an equally simple melody and little use of harmony. Her own lyrics show little use of more complex poetic devices and do not have exceptional beauty of expression. Her version of 'I can't get no satisfaction' was a complete bastardisation.

She is nobody, she should dress like nobody...
i completely agree.......
she is one of those pple whom people pretend is more of artistic than commercialised yet they know that the truth is hat she is as commercialised as britny spears.She is like an early version of jlo whereby all the rave was abt her raw and uniquelatin energy then all the hype and she is yesterdays news.Or even sjp... :ninja: whoosh whoosh........ :yuk:
 
Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Dec 29th, 2003 - 12:59 pm
Yes, I agree. I don't take the opinion of some of these nutty art-critics that anything they don't like isn't art. :flower:

I just don't like Bjork's style because to my eyes she isn't either chic or elegant, just my opinion. Fashion is too complicated to be judged really...just about anything could look good...
I quite agree. She is neither chic nor elegant, nor does she probably desire to be. IMHO, she's not Bjork, she's Blech! :wink: As always, to each her own! :flower:
 
Originally posted by eguana+Dec 30th, 2003 - 3:27 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eguana @ Dec 30th, 2003 - 3:27 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-PrinceOfCats@Dec 28th, 2003 - 4:27 pm
I like publicity so I'll say it again:

Bjork's music is a simple monophonic rthym with an equally simple melody and little use of harmony. Her own lyrics show little use of more complex poetic devices and do not have exceptional beauty of expression. Her version of 'I can't get no satisfaction' was a complete bastardisation.

She is nobody, she should dress like nobody...
i completely agree.......
she is one of those pple whom people pretend is more of artistic than commercialised yet they know that the truth is hat she is as commercialised as britny spears.She is like an early version of jlo whereby all the rave was abt her raw and uniquelatin energy then all the hype and she is yesterdays news.Or even sjp... :ninja: whoosh whoosh........ :yuk: [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
210,541
Messages
15,118,239
Members
84,192
Latest member
Yams Yamborghini
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"