09-21-2010, 12:13 PM
Camille Paglia
Published: 12 september 2010
Lady Gaga is the first major star of the digital age. Since her rise, she has remained almost continually on tour. Hence, she is a moving target who has escaped serious scrutiny. She is often pictured tottering down the street in some outlandish get-up and fright wig. Most of what she has said about herself has not been independently corroboratedââ¬Â¦ ââ¬ÅMusic is a lieââ¬Â, ââ¬ÅArt is a lieââ¬Â, ââ¬ÅGaga is a lieââ¬Â, and ââ¬ÅI profusely lieââ¬Â have been among Gagaââ¬â¢s pronouncements, but her fans swallow her line wholeââ¬Â¦
She constantly touts her symbiotic bond with her fans, the ââ¬Ålittle monstersââ¬Â, who she inspires to ââ¬Ålove themselvesââ¬Â as if they are damaged goods in need of her therapeutic repair. ââ¬ÅYouââ¬â¢re a superstar, no matter who you are!ââ¬Â She earnestly tells them from the stage, while their cash ends up in her pockets. She told a magazine with messianic fervour: ââ¬ÅI love my fans more than any artist who has ever lived.ââ¬Â She claims to have changed the lives of the disabled, thrilled by her jewelled parody crutches in the Paparazzi video.
Although she presents herself as the clarion voice of all the freaks and misfits of life, there is little evidence that she ever was one. Her upbringing was comfortable and eventually affluent, and she attended the same upscale Manhattan private school as Paris and Nicky Hilton. There is a monumental disconnect between Gagaââ¬â¢s melodramatic self-portrayal as a lonely, rebellious, marginalised artist and the powerful corporate apparatus that bankrolled her makeover and has steamrollered her songs into heavy rotation on radio stations everywhere.
For two years, I have spent an irritating amount of time trying to avoid Gagaââ¬â¢s catchy but depthless hits Lady Gaga is a manufactured personality, and a recent one at that. Photos of Stefani Germanotta just a few years ago show a bubbly brunette with a glowing complexion. The Gaga of world fame, however, with her heavy wigs and giant sunglasses (rudely worn during interviews) looks either simperingly doll-like or ghoulish, without a trace of spontaneity. Every public appearance, even absurdly at airports where most celebrities want to pass incognito, has been lavishly scripted in advance with a flamboyant outfit and bizarre hairdo assembled by an invisible company of elves.
Furthermore, despite showing acres of pallid flesh in the fetish-bondage garb of urban prostitution, Gaga isnââ¬â¢t sexy at all ââ¬â sheââ¬â¢s like a gangly marionette or plasticised android. How could a figure so calculated and artificial, so clinical and strangely antiseptic, so stripped of genuine eroticism have become the icon of her generation? Can it be that Gaga represents the exhausted end of the sexual revolution? In Gagaââ¬â¢s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an eraââ¬Â¦
Gaga has borrowed so heavily from Madonna (as in her latest video-Alejandro) that it must be asked, at what point does homage become theft? However, the main point is that the young Madonna was on fire. She was indeed the imperious Marlene Dietrichââ¬â¢s true heir. For Gaga, sex is mainly decor and surface; sheââ¬â¢s like a laminated piece of ersatz rococo furniture. Alarmingly, Generation Gaga canââ¬â¢t tell the difference. Is it the death of sex? Perhaps the symbolic status that sex had for a century has gone kaput; that blazing trajectory is overââ¬Â¦
Gaga seems comet-like, a stimulating burst of novelty, even though she is a ruthless recycler of other peopleââ¬â¢s work. She is the diva of déjàvu. Gaga has glibly appropriated from performers like Cher, Jane Fonda as Barbarella, Gwen Stefani and Pink, as well as from fashion muses like Isabella Blow and Daphne Guinness. Drag queens, whom Gaga professes to admire, are usually far sexier in many of her over-the-top outfits than she is.
Peeping dourly through all that tat is Gagaââ¬â¢s limited range of facial expressions. Her videos repeatedly thrust that blank, lugubrious face at the camera and us; itââ¬â¢s creepy and coercive. Marlene and Madonna gave the impression, true or false, of being pansexual. Gaga, for all her writhing and posturing, is asexual. Going off to the gym in broad daylight, as Gaga recently did, dressed in a black bustier, fishnet stockings and stiletto heels isnââ¬â¢t sexy ââ¬â itââ¬â¢s sexually dysfunctional.
Compare Gagaââ¬â¢s insipid songs, with their nursery-rhyme nonsense syllables, to the title and hypnotic refrain of the first Madonna song and video to bring her attention on MTV, Burning Up, with its elemental fire imagery and its then-shocking offer of fellatio. In place of Madonnaââ¬â¢s valiant life force, what we find in Gaga is a disturbing trend towards mutilation and deathââ¬Â¦
Gaga is in way over her head with her avant-garde pretensionsââ¬Â¦ She wants to have it both ways ââ¬â to be hip and avant-garde and yet popular and universal, a practitioner of gung-ho ââ¬Åshow bizââ¬Â. Most of her worshippers seem to have had little or no contact with such powerful performers as Tina Turner or Janis Joplin, with their huge personalities and deep wells of passion.
Generation Gaga doesnââ¬â¢t identify with powerful vocal styles because their own voices have atrophied: they communicate mutely via a constant stream of atomised, telegraphic text messages. Gagaââ¬â¢s flat affect doesnââ¬â¢t bother them because theyââ¬â¢re not attuned to facial expressions.
Gaga's fans are marooned in a global technocracy of fancy gadgets but emotional poverty. Borderlines have been blurred between public and private: reality TV shows multiply, cell phone conversations blare everywhere; secrets are heedlessly blabbed on Facebook and Twitter. Hence, Gaga gratuitously natters on about her vaginaââ¬Â¦
To read the rest of this explosive profile, including Paglia's debunking of comparisons to Madonna, David Bowie, Elton John and Andy Warhol, and to view a slideshow of photographs, visit the thesundaytimes.co.uk/magazine now
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/publ...389697.ece
Published: 12 september 2010
Lady Gaga is the first major star of the digital age. Since her rise, she has remained almost continually on tour. Hence, she is a moving target who has escaped serious scrutiny. She is often pictured tottering down the street in some outlandish get-up and fright wig. Most of what she has said about herself has not been independently corroboratedââ¬Â¦ ââ¬ÅMusic is a lieââ¬Â, ââ¬ÅArt is a lieââ¬Â, ââ¬ÅGaga is a lieââ¬Â, and ââ¬ÅI profusely lieââ¬Â have been among Gagaââ¬â¢s pronouncements, but her fans swallow her line wholeââ¬Â¦
She constantly touts her symbiotic bond with her fans, the ââ¬Ålittle monstersââ¬Â, who she inspires to ââ¬Ålove themselvesââ¬Â as if they are damaged goods in need of her therapeutic repair. ââ¬ÅYouââ¬â¢re a superstar, no matter who you are!ââ¬Â She earnestly tells them from the stage, while their cash ends up in her pockets. She told a magazine with messianic fervour: ââ¬ÅI love my fans more than any artist who has ever lived.ââ¬Â She claims to have changed the lives of the disabled, thrilled by her jewelled parody crutches in the Paparazzi video.
Although she presents herself as the clarion voice of all the freaks and misfits of life, there is little evidence that she ever was one. Her upbringing was comfortable and eventually affluent, and she attended the same upscale Manhattan private school as Paris and Nicky Hilton. There is a monumental disconnect between Gagaââ¬â¢s melodramatic self-portrayal as a lonely, rebellious, marginalised artist and the powerful corporate apparatus that bankrolled her makeover and has steamrollered her songs into heavy rotation on radio stations everywhere.
For two years, I have spent an irritating amount of time trying to avoid Gagaââ¬â¢s catchy but depthless hits Lady Gaga is a manufactured personality, and a recent one at that. Photos of Stefani Germanotta just a few years ago show a bubbly brunette with a glowing complexion. The Gaga of world fame, however, with her heavy wigs and giant sunglasses (rudely worn during interviews) looks either simperingly doll-like or ghoulish, without a trace of spontaneity. Every public appearance, even absurdly at airports where most celebrities want to pass incognito, has been lavishly scripted in advance with a flamboyant outfit and bizarre hairdo assembled by an invisible company of elves.
Furthermore, despite showing acres of pallid flesh in the fetish-bondage garb of urban prostitution, Gaga isnââ¬â¢t sexy at all ââ¬â sheââ¬â¢s like a gangly marionette or plasticised android. How could a figure so calculated and artificial, so clinical and strangely antiseptic, so stripped of genuine eroticism have become the icon of her generation? Can it be that Gaga represents the exhausted end of the sexual revolution? In Gagaââ¬â¢s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an eraââ¬Â¦
Gaga has borrowed so heavily from Madonna (as in her latest video-Alejandro) that it must be asked, at what point does homage become theft? However, the main point is that the young Madonna was on fire. She was indeed the imperious Marlene Dietrichââ¬â¢s true heir. For Gaga, sex is mainly decor and surface; sheââ¬â¢s like a laminated piece of ersatz rococo furniture. Alarmingly, Generation Gaga canââ¬â¢t tell the difference. Is it the death of sex? Perhaps the symbolic status that sex had for a century has gone kaput; that blazing trajectory is overââ¬Â¦
Gaga seems comet-like, a stimulating burst of novelty, even though she is a ruthless recycler of other peopleââ¬â¢s work. She is the diva of déjàvu. Gaga has glibly appropriated from performers like Cher, Jane Fonda as Barbarella, Gwen Stefani and Pink, as well as from fashion muses like Isabella Blow and Daphne Guinness. Drag queens, whom Gaga professes to admire, are usually far sexier in many of her over-the-top outfits than she is.
Peeping dourly through all that tat is Gagaââ¬â¢s limited range of facial expressions. Her videos repeatedly thrust that blank, lugubrious face at the camera and us; itââ¬â¢s creepy and coercive. Marlene and Madonna gave the impression, true or false, of being pansexual. Gaga, for all her writhing and posturing, is asexual. Going off to the gym in broad daylight, as Gaga recently did, dressed in a black bustier, fishnet stockings and stiletto heels isnââ¬â¢t sexy ââ¬â itââ¬â¢s sexually dysfunctional.
Compare Gagaââ¬â¢s insipid songs, with their nursery-rhyme nonsense syllables, to the title and hypnotic refrain of the first Madonna song and video to bring her attention on MTV, Burning Up, with its elemental fire imagery and its then-shocking offer of fellatio. In place of Madonnaââ¬â¢s valiant life force, what we find in Gaga is a disturbing trend towards mutilation and deathââ¬Â¦
Gaga is in way over her head with her avant-garde pretensionsââ¬Â¦ She wants to have it both ways ââ¬â to be hip and avant-garde and yet popular and universal, a practitioner of gung-ho ââ¬Åshow bizââ¬Â. Most of her worshippers seem to have had little or no contact with such powerful performers as Tina Turner or Janis Joplin, with their huge personalities and deep wells of passion.
Generation Gaga doesnââ¬â¢t identify with powerful vocal styles because their own voices have atrophied: they communicate mutely via a constant stream of atomised, telegraphic text messages. Gagaââ¬â¢s flat affect doesnââ¬â¢t bother them because theyââ¬â¢re not attuned to facial expressions.
Gaga's fans are marooned in a global technocracy of fancy gadgets but emotional poverty. Borderlines have been blurred between public and private: reality TV shows multiply, cell phone conversations blare everywhere; secrets are heedlessly blabbed on Facebook and Twitter. Hence, Gaga gratuitously natters on about her vaginaââ¬Â¦
To read the rest of this explosive profile, including Paglia's debunking of comparisons to Madonna, David Bowie, Elton John and Andy Warhol, and to view a slideshow of photographs, visit the thesundaytimes.co.uk/magazine now
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/publ...389697.ece
