Please read the following essay by the poet Joyelle McSweeney about Lady Gaga's "blasphemy."
In your comment for this week, address McSweeney's definition of blasphemy in relation to Lady Gaga in teh context of how we've been discussing poetry. Is poetry blasphemous? Are the poems we discussed and/or wrote in class blasphemous? If so, what makes them that way?
Also, considering how we've been discussing poetry, please discuss whether McSweeney's essay is itself "poetic" or "blasphemous."
McSweeney's defines blasphemy as a verbal injury against the name of God, which in the article's contexts implies that Lady Gaga's music is a verbal infliction against God or Catholicism. I agree that Gaga and poetry can be blasphemous at times for sake of argument or message. Poetry has often tested political, religious and social boundaries as does Gaga. McSweeney's essay could also be considered blasphemous. Blasphemy is such an ambiguous concept because it pertains to the idea of God, therefore, it can have hundreds of interpretations. Personally, I do think that that Gaga's work, poetry and this article are blasphemous, and it's a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI believe that McSweeney's definition of blasphemy is insulting the name of God and, specifically, in the case of Lady Gaga, Catholicism. I do not believe that the poems we wrote in class were specifically blasphemous. But, I do believe that poetry can be blasphemous due to the author's message or intent. McSweeney's essay could be considered blasphemous in some reader's eyes because religion has such different meanings for different individuals. I do think that Lady Gaga tries to push the boundaries in an incredibly creative manner.
ReplyDeleteLooking at a blasphemy as an injury against the name of God, I think Lady Gaga's "Alejandro" video definitely makes this true. She makes her video very religiously aware in parts where she doesn't need to. However, I also agree with McSweeny in his discussion of fame. If we think of how many times we mention Gaga in the average week, then it is clear that she is doing something right. Throughout the entire video I couldn't help but think how strange she is, but that is probably the best thing for her career. Right after watching it I showed it to all of my roommates, which is exactly what she would want me to do. So, although people might not agree with what she is doing, it is clearly working for her.
ReplyDelete--Sydney Gitelis
The author clearly defines blasphemy as a verbal injury against the name of God. In this case, I suppose anything spoken or written (including poetry) has the potential to be "blasphemous", depending on WHAT is said/written and HOW its said/written. In my opinion, I dont think any poems that we have encountered in class have been explicitly blasphemous in any way. And regarding McSweeny's essay, I think it was blasphemous only in the sense that it was terrible and hard to read/follow.
ReplyDeleteI think Sweeney is saying blasphemy is a verbal assault against God. As far as Lady Gaga and anything we or anyone for that matter has done with poetry - anything can be deemed blasphemous if taken into a certain context. That's the beauty/curse of religion, try hard enough and you can make a case for anything you please - as long as you put God in your corner of the ring. I personally don't think Lady Gaga's video or our poetry can be considered blasphemous since the original intention was in no way intended to insult God. The original intention should be the deciding factor, not how you can twist the words of the final product around to suit your own agenda.
ReplyDeleteIn this day and age, I think anything can be deemed blasphemous if twisted around to reflect such a mind-set. Blasphemy has become a blanket word for offensive. As McSweeny defines blasphemy as a verbal assault against God, and the devout believe God is everywhere, then any interpretations of "verbal assault" could be construed as blasphemous. Similar to the wildly subjective nature of poetry, so too are the bounds of religion and blasphemy. While I do believe Lady Gaga's work, especially "Alejandro," test the lines of societal acceptability, referring to it as blasphemous is a bit much. McSweeny's essay reads like an unbalanced and personal attack on Gaga as it goes on and on fishing for insults and weak connections. Gaga's work may be offensive to some, but McSweeny's may be as well.
ReplyDeleteI personally think this is pretty awful. I think its very degrading to people with christian religious backgrounds. Lady gaga in my mind is just the Madona of our day, she trys to be over the top, who really gives a shit?
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else said, blasphemy is defined as a slight or insult against God. But what does this word mean to non-believes and atheists? If I don't believe in God then who am I offending? Blasphemy only comes out of the mouths of people who are already insulted, and therefore, think that their God must have been hurt too. Really? The Creator of everything is insulted by a word or thought that we say (which was also already created by the Creator)? To think that God has made everything, physical down to emotional, but he himself has the emotional range of a toddler? It's a pathetic theory. It would be like saying that a person's shit they just took insulted them and it badly hurt their feelings. You'd be like, "What the hell are you talking about? It's just a piece of shit, how can it possibly have hurt your feelings?" That's how I feel the theory of blasphemy is, which I am sure many people will feel what I am saying is pure blasphemy. So again, according to the definition and people who believe in it, Lady GaGa's songs and some of the poems we have read could be considered blasphemous, but I do not.
ReplyDeleteblasphemy is described as a verbal injury against the name of God. Under this definition, I think that you could take any number of performers including Gaga and say that their work is blasphemous. But really I think that you can manipulate just about anything into being blasphemous if you really want to. I do not put much stock in it. The article itself was blasphemous according to its own definition and it was also somewhat hard to follow and to understand.
ReplyDeleteThe article explained blasphempy as a verbal injury of God and since there are so many forms of poetry, I can see how at times it can be blasphemous because poetry tests all kinds of views. I have read some poetry that I myself have not agreed with because of my views, but that is what poetry is about, it pertains to all different kinds of people but can't make everyone happy. I agree with how anything can be blasphemous if you want it to be, because if you don't agree with something, it could be seen as blasphemous to you but not to someone else. The article itself was not really blasphemous I don't think because it wasn't really agreeing with Gaga's music video, it was just explaining what it portrayed I think. I do agree that it was hard to read though as well.
ReplyDeleteIf someone really wanted, they could find blasphemy in just about anything. People who are very religious can probably manipulate anything into being considered blasphemous, so in that sense, this song or maybe any poem we have read or wrote could be considered blasphemy to a reader in some ways. I'm sure some people could consider McSweeney's article as blasphemous for even comparing something Lady Gaga did to relate to the Catholic church. I guess a lot of it depends on the reader and how they want to understand something, whether the producer/artist intended any certain meaning or not.
ReplyDeleteI find that Mcsweeney is a pompous man that has a very weird take on what blasphemy is. As far as it pertaining to GaGa, i think his definition does not apply. I think that in any poem, there is no such thing as blashemy because like i have said before, in art, anyone can say anything or do anything.
ReplyDeleteI think the way that McSweeney defined blasphemy was really odd. She gave so many different definitions after the original one in an attempt to demonstrate how lady gaga was being blasphemous. However, i do not think that Lady Gaga can be accused of blasphemy in an intentional way. Most artists and people in general might make that mistake due to all the different referneces, religions, and ways things can be interpreted. I also don't think the poems we wrote in class were blasphemous, to express yourself in the way that God, whatever God you believe in, is not a bad thing. It is an act of originality and creativity that God or whatever you beilieve in graced us with in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis is all pretty ridiculous. Yes, by this definition Lady Gaga's video is blasphemous, but she's doing this on purpose. Blasphemy is supposed to be a bad thing, when I think it can be good. I think the Alejandro video is pretty over-the-top and awesome, while others say it's offensive. Religion itself isn't based on truth, so McSweeney's opinion doesn't mean much to me. Since all of this is opinion based, then the poems in class can be seen as blasphemous too. I don't think they are, but someone else would be happy to argue with me. Sorry if I offended anyone in my post. I probably contradicted myself too. : )
ReplyDelete