In The Sunday Times Magazine this weekend, writer Camille Paglia ripped Lady Gaga a new one, calling her a “manufactured personality” and going on further to declare that “despite showing acres of pallid flesh in the fetish-bondage garb of urban prostitution, Gaga isn’t sexy at all – she’s like a gangly marionette or plasticised android.” Yikes.
Of Gaga’s actual music, the author says little besides “Compare Gaga’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 Madonna’s valiant life force, what we find in Gaga is a disturbing trend towards mutilation and death…” Double yikes.
While Paglia presents a compelling argument on why Gaga, despite bondage attire and bare flesh, is unable to acheive real ‘sexiness’ the question that remains unanswered is- why do we care? One could say that the bikini clad Katy Perry far outranks Gaga in terms of teenage wet dreams but compare their latest singles, ‘California Girls’ to ‘Alejandro’ and tell me what will be the song that will last, which video is the most compelling? It certainly isn’t ‘California Girl’s.’ And even if you were to take away all the theatrics, there is a reason why Gaga’s album has produced more top hits than any other, her songs are great. Bottom line. Couple fantastic pop songs with a production and personal style that, you should remind yourself, Gaga so meticulously works at as a form of performance art that speaks to millions, you not only have one of the greatest singer-song writers of our time but also, artists.
MP3: Lady GaGa – Monster (House Of Mark Mix)
damn. ruthless. but accurate.
Well, I guess that it’s all made even more interesting given Paglia’s position as a leading feminist academic and critic. Anyway, there’s an interesting riposte to the Times’ article over at the Graun (where else!)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/13/camille-paglia-lady-gaga
I thoroughly enjoyed this article. I think what Paglia is saying is worth considering. I lost complete respect for Lady Gaga when I watched her promote her Mac line of lipsticks for Viva Glam a campaign in support of raising HIV/AIDS awareness. During many interviews Gaga stated that she wants her “little monsters to have sex with only those who love them and to engage in monogamous relationships” as if sex with those who you love is the basis of not getting HIV; as if she isn’t promoting sex and promiscuity in all of her music videos; as if the Bathaus of Gaga is where one engages in coitus with those whom you only “love.” Please bitch, check what you are singing and dancing about then go and say something stupid like that. It just goes to show that she is a manufactured doll, who may have catchy songs, but that’s all she has and the allegiance of fans she has hypnotized are blindly following her.
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4f7hP3kntc&feature=related (from 3:15 to 3:335)
In ten years – hell, five – Both Katy Perry and Gaga will be only dimly remembered. Katy Perry is outright awful and Gaga is mediocre.
Here is a response to this article by the Guardian. I still think Paglia is on the mark.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/13/camille-paglia-lady-gaga
And still it rumbles on… http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/sep/17/lady-gaga-feminist-icon