Lady Gaga vs. Cathy Horyn

[HeatherAnne]

The irony of the whole thing is Gaga is writing a fashion column criticizing someone for criticizing fashion.

Basically faulting Horyn for everything she is doing herself, right here.

 

[Leeroi]

The probablem is that Cathy Horyn unfairly criticized Gaga for wearing Versace just because Donatella said she was honored to dress Gaga. What was wrong with that? Gaga is arguably the most sought after entertainer at the moment and has been named the most powerful celebrity and the 11th most powerful woman in the world by Forbes. Any designer would be honored to dress Gaga considering Gaga wore Versace during the whole duration of her The Edge Of Glory promotion which lasted 3 long months.

Cathy Horyn was just being oh so pretentious and obnoxious about the whole situation.

Unfortunately Gaga is also being pretentious about the situation. I guess she couldn't find the best words to say about it since she is coming off as bitter, but she has every right to be when she did nothing wrong during CFDA yet Cathy Horyn felt the need to judge her just because Donatella was honored? Pfft.

I've never been a fan of Cathy Horyn. She sometimes comes across as unprofessional and tactless to me, and this unfortunately is one of those times.

 

[Scott]

replace unprofessional and tactless with honest and uncompromising,leeroi,and you'd be much closer to how cathy horyn really is. she's actually one of the very few remaining voices in our industry who doesn't follow or shall i say bite at the heels of this year's flavour. somebody poked gaga's ego and gaga doesn't like it.....big whoop.

 

[Leeroi]

replace unprofessional and tactless with honest and uncompromising,leeroi,and you'd be much closer to how cathy horyn really is. she's actually one of the very few remaining voices in our industry who doesn't follow or shall i say bite at the heels of this year's flavour. somebody poked gaga's ego and gaga doesn't like it.....big whoop.

It all depends honestly. I agree with Cathy Horyn about certain things she say, especially when it comes to her criticism against Wintour, but often she comes off as critical just for the sake of being critical. What exactly was wrong with Donatella opening the Versace archives for Gaga? Nothing.

Cathy Horyn's criticism of her about Versace is no better or worse than a random girl from tumblr saying "ewww gaga wearing versace! she should just stick to wearing her tacky mugler dress! why would donatella even bother!" considering the circumstances, if there was any circumstance to begin with.

But of course Gaga does sound bitter as I stated.

 

[Libra Skye18]

While Gaga's criticism towards Cathy was due to her writing out her view of Gaga's TEOG video with absolutely no merit, her words go far beyond Cathy.

The last instance was not the first time that Cathy has targeted Gaga, granted when she wrote her review of 'Alejandro' that was laced with backhanded compliments, she did not go on twitter and announce that she was no longer going to follow Gaga.

For all of Cathy's expertise about fashion, she reduced her words to that of any one of Gaga's detractors who make negative baseless comments and try to pass them off as a critique. That is where Gaga's criticism comes from.

It's unfortunate that many feel that critics should be able to criticize but they themselves should be immune to any and all criticism and if or when one dares to speak up for themself and question what makes this critic's opinion more important than anyone else, as Gaga has done, they are deemed butt hurt et cetera.

 

[Leeroi]

@Librek_Skye18
I honestly don't see how following Gaga on twitter was even relevant to the topic she was discussing. Seemed like Cathy, like I said, just being critical just for the sake of being critical.

They're both obnoxious in this situation.

 

[Toccata]

I went through her manifesto and made an outline of her points:

Paragraph 01 - She attacks critics for being consistently negative: focusing
more on the craftsmanship (intellectualism) rather than experience (feeling)
of the work. Then she reverses her position to make a requirement that critics
should first research and analyze a work so as to be insightful and not hurtful.
Flaw: She can't accept that some people do not share her emotional experience.

Paragraph 02 - She proposes the term 'Extreme Critic Fundamentalism' which
if anything, is meant to debase the whole art of criticism - and an art it is!
She furthers her argument that she wants reasons (scientific, mathematical,
and pertinent information) why her Titanic failed and other cruise ships
were successful - a bold affirmation of overblown ego madness.
Flaw: She condemns tastemakers while writing her own essay on proper taste.

Paragraph 03 - After establishing her wish to see objective criticism, she
goes back to her original metaphysical position with; soul, transcendence,
out-of-body, claiming a critic may not be in-touch with this faculty of sense.
Flaw: She forgot that a professional critic must use 'reasoned' judgement.

Paragraph 04 - She calls for a more modern approach to criticism, but is far
from clear on what it means. It seems like every sentence contradicts the one
previous. She is both for and against amateur journalism or more accurately
to her point, she wants Horyn to be more like a blog writer, in order to
separate herself from the common everywoman blog writer.
Flaw: She is for the modern approach only if it suits her, since this attack
stemmed from an emotionally-style critique, typical of blogging.

Paragraph 05 - She poses a jumble of rhetorical questions and calls for
the end of hierarchy or position.
Flaw: She condemns the privilege she abused when writing her opinion as a public declaration.

Conclusion: It didn't address Cathy but rather moved through her to
a much more universal critique of the art-critic and in that it was not well
argued. But it sounds high-minded and lofty. This has always been her
problem, she is too superficial and focused on appearance - the emotion of a
thing and not its substance which is what makes a real artist and what a real
critic praises.

Thanks for reading.

 

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

While Gaga's criticism towards Cathy was due to her writing out her view of Gaga's TEOG video with absolutely no merit, her words go far beyond Cathy.

The last instance was not the first time that Cathy has targeted Gaga, granted when she wrote her review of 'Alejandro' that was laced with backhanded compliments, she did not go on twitter and announce that she was no longer going to follow Gaga.

For all of Cathy's expertise about fashion, she reduced her words to that of any one of Gaga's detractors who make negative baseless comments and try to pass them off as a critique. That is where Gaga's criticism comes from.

It's unfortunate that many feel that critics should be able to criticize but they themselves should be immune to any and all criticism and if or when one dares to speak up for themself and question what makes this critic's opinion more important than anyone else, as Gaga has done, they are deemed butt hurt et cetera.

But what Gaga is doing unlike Cathy is giving a valid reason for why Cathy's writing is considered wrong. In journalism you write without emotion and everything you state must be supported. It isn't about putting your feelings into it, but creating something that is valid and understandable to the mass. I don't understand why unfollowing was just so terrible. And just like you said you don't know why people can't take criticism, look at Gaga... who is allowing words of Cathy to cause her to write a whole column on her

I went through her manifesto and made an outline of her points:

Paragraph 01 - She attacks critics for being consistently negative: focusing
more on the craftsmanship (intellectualism) rather than experience (feeling)
of the work. Then she reverses her position to make a requirement that critics
should first research and analyze a work so as to be insightful and not hurtful.
Flaw: She can't accept that some people do not share her emotional experience.

Paragraph 02 - She proposes the term 'Extreme Critic Fundamentalism' which
if anything, is meant to debase the whole art of criticism - and an art it is!
She furthers her argument that she wants reasons (scientific, mathematical,
and pertinent information) why her Titanic failed and other cruise ships
were successful - a bold affirmation of overblown ego madness.
Flaw: She condemns tastemakers while writing her own essay on proper taste.

Paragraph 03 - After establishing her wish to see objective criticism, she
goes back to her original metaphysical position with; soul, transcendence,
out-of-body, claiming a critic may not be in-touch with this faculty of sense.
Flaw: She forgot that a professional critic must use 'reasoned' judgement.

Paragraph 04 - She calls for a more modern approach to criticism, but is far
from clear on what it means. It seems like every sentence contradicts the one
previous. She is both for and against amateur journalism or more accurately
to her point, she wants Horyn to be more like a blog writer, in order to
separate herself from the common everywoman blog writer.
Flaw: She is for the modern approach only if it suits her, since this attack
stemmed from an emotionally-style critique, typical of blogging.

Paragraph 05 - She poses a jumble of rhetorical questions and calls for
the end of hierarchy or position.
Flaw: She condemns the privilege she abused when writing her opinion as a public declaration.

Conclusion: It didn't address Cathy but rather moved through her to
a much more universal critique of the art-critic and in that it was not well
argued. But it sounds high-minded and lofty. This has always been her
problem, she is too superficial and focused on appearance - the emotion of a
thing and not its substance which is what makes a real artist and what a real
critic praises.

Thanks for reading.

perfect post

 

[Leeroi]

@TREVOFASHIONISTO
But Cathy never supported her criticism towards Gaga or Donatella. She just outright condemned the fact Gaga wore Versace and that Donatella was honored? Like I said, what exactly was wrong with that? Is it wrong because Gaga is "new" and that "new" artists shouldn't be given honor to when it comes to dressing, albeit it gives the house of Versace massive promotion?

Cathy and Gaga are both obnoxious in this situation. No amount of expertise gives Cathy the privilege to criticize someone without reason, same to Gaga.

 

[HeatherAnne]

Toccata, you nailed it , I wish that would go in a column

 

[iluvjeisa]

I went through her manifesto and made an outline of her points:

Paragraph 01 - She attacks critics for being consistently negative: focusing
more on the craftsmanship (intellectualism) rather than experience (feeling)
of the work. Then she reverses her position to make a requirement that critics
should first research and analyze a work so as to be insightful and not hurtful.
Flaw: She can't accept that some people do not share her emotional experience.

Paragraph 02 - She proposes the term 'Extreme Critic Fundamentalism' which
if anything, is meant to debase the whole art of criticism - and an art it is!
She furthers her argument that she wants reasons (scientific, mathematical,
and pertinent information) why her Titanic failed and other cruise ships
were successful - a bold affirmation of overblown ego madness.
Flaw: She condemns tastemakers while writing her own essay on proper taste.

Paragraph 03 - After establishing her wish to see objective criticism, she
goes back to her original metaphysical position with; soul, transcendence,
out-of-body, claiming a critic may not be in-touch with this faculty of sense.
Flaw: She forgot that a professional critic must use 'reasoned' judgement.

Paragraph 04 - She calls for a more modern approach to criticism, but is far
from clear on what it means. It seems like every sentence contradicts the one
previous. She is both for and against amateur journalism or more accurately
to her point, she wants Horyn to be more like a blog writer, in order to
separate herself from the common everywoman blog writer.
Flaw: She is for the modern approach only if it suits her, since this attack
stemmed from an emotionally-style critique, typical of blogging.

Paragraph 05 - She poses a jumble of rhetorical questions and calls for
the end of hierarchy or position.
Flaw: She condemns the privilege she abused when writing her opinion as a public declaration.

Conclusion: It didn't address Cathy but rather moved through her to
a much more universal critique of the art-critic and in that it was not well
argued. But it sounds high-minded and lofty. This has always been her
problem, she is too superficial and focused on appearance - the emotion of a
thing and not its substance which is what makes a real artist and what a real
critic praises.

Thanks for reading.

Interesting and well written! What do you mean by the very last bit (in bold)? The emotion of a thing is of the utmost importance in art...

 

[Libra Skye18]

Leeroi, there definitely wasn't any reason for Cathy to announce that she had stopped following Gaga on twitter. I found that little declaration more childish than anything else. Meh.

But what Gaga is doing unlike Cathy is giving a valid reason for why Cathy's writing is considered wrong. In journalism you write without emotion and everything you state must be supported. It isn't about putting your feelings into it, but creating something that is valid and understandable to the mass. I don't understand why unfollowing was just so terrible. And just like you said you don't know why people can't take criticism, look at Gaga... who is allowing words of Cathy to cause her to write a whole column on her

As Leeroi already mentioned, Cathy just made negative remarks with nothing supporting her claims. I made mention about Cathy un-following Gaga on Twitter not because it was so terrible but merely to poke fun of how ridiculous I felt she sounded. It was as if her saying that she stopped following her was the biggest blow, when Gaga at that time had 12 million followers and now has over 13 million.

You're missing the point. Gaga has gotten criticism since she started. It's not that she can't take it, its the fact that Cathy was basically trolling. She had absolutely nothing to support her claims. Anyone can say 'Ugh, that's stupid' but someone like Cathy who has such a high position should be able to delve a little bit more into why she doesn't like something or someone.

So in essence its not that Gaga was criticizing Cathy and other critics for doing their job but rather for NOT doing their job. Some may not like it because they don't care for Gaga or because they feel that certain critics should be untouchable but I find nothing wrong with someone standing up for themselves and calling out those who choose to phone it in, as oppose to actually taking the time to deliver something with merit. *shrugs*

 

[Toccata]

What do you mean by the very last bit (in bold)? The emotion of a thing is of the utmost importance in art...

Hey iluvjeisa! Thank-you for asking, I'll clarify: When you say 'the emotion of a thing is of the
utmost importance in art' you mean you rank art based on your emotional reaction to it. Yes?
(You experience a song and if it induces a positive emotion you'll favour it above a negative)

If so, we can agree that you were responsible for interpreting the emotional content. No one
else can give it to you, you had to experience it for yourself. This is because art has no
intrinsic emotional value in itself. A cross is but a cross. To a Christian it is comforting, to
a Vampire it is repulsive, to a window it is a frame. It is its experience and nothing more.

Emotion is not inherent in a thing because we can disagree on the emotion attached.
My 'beautiful' may be your 'nothing special' and all of Western Music may be grating noise
to an African tribe. I know it's brief but I hope that's understandable and we can agree.

Although an artist starts with an idea, which by imagined-experience causes an emotional
potentiality, they create using dry materials (the note C is a frequency, paint is emotionless)
which is the essence shaped into form which is substance. When the material is formed in
a creative way it is praised for having substance value. When substance value combines
with a positive emotional experience, you have a masterpiece! That's what I mean.

 

[iluvjeisa]

Hey iluvjeisa! Thank-you for asking, I'll clarify: When you say 'the emotion of a thing is of the
utmost importance in art' you mean you rank art based on your emotional reaction to it. Yes?
(You experience a song and if it induces a positive emotion you'll favour it above a negative)

If so, we can agree that you were responsible for interpreting the emotional content. No one
else can give it to you, you had to experience it for yourself. This is because art has no
intrinsic emotional value in itself. A cross is but a cross. To a Christian it is comforting, to
a Vampire it is repulsive, to a window it is a frame. It is its experience and nothing more.

Emotion is not inherent in a thing because we can disagree on the emotion attached.
My 'beautiful' may be your 'nothing special' and all of Western Music may be grating noise
to an African tribe. I know it's brief but I hope that's understandable and we can agree.

Although an artist starts with an idea, which by imagined-experience causes an emotional
potentiality, they create using dry materials (the note C is a frequency, paint is emotionless)
which is the essence shaped into form which is substance. When the material is formed in
a creative way it is praised for having substance value. When substance value combines
with a positive emotional experience, you have a masterpiece! That's what I mean.

Yes, a thing, according to the general definition, does not contain the neurons required to produce the physiological responses described as emotions. That's sort of obvious.

There are myriads of facial expressions that will cause a predictable response in neurotypical individuals. However, of course not in all individuals (such as autists or sociopaths).

So while a piece of art, unless it is a person who can also be a piece of art in my definition, cannot hold emotion itself, it can produce an emotional reaction in the viewer, of varying degrees of predictability. Much like a being in that sense, except instead of the physiological state you have the attempt of induction of a physiological state that the artist attempted to create through his work.

When I produce some form of "art" my sole driving force is to evoke an emotion. I want to produce a thing that can evoke emotion.

 

[glitterpeacock]

Toccata can you please send your outline to Lady Gaga and knock her off her high horse. I found her argument hypocritical and a pathetic if I'm honest.

 

[thesweetglory]

I think that this is a sign that demonstrates that the figure of the journalist is undervalue! That's not fair!

 

[TianSoFine]

Leeroi, there definitely wasn't any reason for Cathy to announce that she had stopped following Gaga on twitter. I found that little declaration more childish than anything else. Meh.



As Leeroi already mentioned, Cathy just made negative remarks with nothing supporting her claims. I made mention about Cathy un-following Gaga on Twitter not because it was so terrible but merely to poke fun of how ridiculous I felt she sounded. It was as if her saying that she stopped following her was the biggest blow, when Gaga at that time had 12 million followers and now has over 13 million.

You're missing the point. Gaga has gotten criticism since she started. It's not that she can't take it, its the fact that Cathy was basically trolling. She had absolutely nothing to support her claims. Anyone can say 'Ugh, that's stupid' but someone like Cathy who has such a high position should be able to delve a little bit more into why she doesn't like something or someone.

So in essence its not that Gaga was criticizing Cathy and other critics for doing their job but rather for NOT doing their job. Some may not like it because they don't care for Gaga or because they feel that certain critics should be untouchable but I find nothing wrong with someone standing up for themselves and calling out those who choose to phone it in, as oppose to actually taking the time to deliver something with merit. *shrugs*

I completely agree with this.

 

[Squizree]

Lady Gaga is clearly way above her head with that article she's written. I doubt she even wrote it herself.

The number one rule of interpretation is evidence. When you interpret anything, you must have clear and effective evidence to support your interpretation. I've read many of Cathy Horyn's articles and she's actually an excellent interpreter because despite her sharp and vicious tongue, she's convincing. THAT'S what sets her apart from the "online crowd". Horyn isn't an uneducated teenager, she's a learned woman who not only knows how to interpret something effectively but also knows how to write convincingly. And THAT'S why we have a hierarchy. Because it's necessary to separate the professionals from the amateurs.

Her whole "They care not for hierarchy or position" preach sounds like a bunch of socialist crap. It's a bullsh!t and hypocritical thing to say. Everyone cares about "hierarchy and position", ESPECIALLY Lady Gaga.

The funniest thing of course is the irony. Lady Gaga calling Cathy Horyn pretentious Oh Gaga, you're so stupid