Do you want love, or do you want fame?
A bit late, I know, but this is my article rebuttal to Camille Paglia's critique of Lady Gaga in the Sunday Times (last sunday!). Don't be discouraged that it is a reactive article though - I think it stands on its own well and even those who don't read the Sunday Times will understand it. I also reference Caitlin Moran's brilliant interview of Gaga - if you haven't read it do - it's amazing. (And because the Times Online is now ANNOYING and will only let members read articles, this links to a repost of it at ohnotheydidnt .)
This is my first real article, so I hope you read and comment! I would really, REALLY appreciate some feedback as I want to send it to the Times.
Here's the intro so you get an idea of what it's about...
Since her debut in 2008, Lady Gaga has been idolised and criticised equally. Heralded as a cultural icon, her songs, shows, and even behaviour have caused controversy, a reaction that she not only encourages but exploits. She is a woman of extremes, and it is therefore no surprise that since her rise to fame many articles have been written both praising and condemning her. An article that does little but the latter is “What’s Sex got to do with it?” by Camille Paglia. Marketed as a “revelation of all that Lady Gaga is... and isn’t”, this article reads more like an elitist rant about Gaga and youth culture, and Paglia’s “revelations” are little more than the tired criticisms thrown at Gaga on a daily basis. Despite the almost petty degradation of Gaga by Paglia, the article does raise some interesting points begging the question: why has Gaga inspired such attention?
One of the most frequent criticisms of Lady Gaga, and one that Paglia uses jeeringly in her article, is that Gaga is simply a copycat, leeching off styles pioneered by icons such as Bowie or Madonna. There is no doubt of these artists’ affect on Lady Gaga and her style. But is it fair to say that she is simply copying? It can’t be denied that Gaga has gone further with Bowie or Madonna’s shock techniques: wearing Bowie-esque outrageous outfits on a daily basis (literally), or having fire shoot out of the iconic conical bra, which Madonna herself copied from Marilyn Monroe. Here is where we can see an obvious hypocrisy in Paglia’s article: while she openly insults Gaga for imitating Madonna’s style, Paglia turns a blind eye to how Madonna copied, among others, Marlene Dietrich. Instead, Paglia applauds Madonna’s “brilliant videos” that “adopt” Marlene’s style and the choreography of Cabaret. It seems odd that Paglia, so quick to condemn Gaga for adopting her own inspiration’s techniques, would praise Madonna for the same. Lady Gaga herself has admitted that she takes inspiration from Bowie, Madonna and Monroe, whom she declares are her idols. By imitating their styles she does not seek to copy them, or render them unimportant, but to introduce their techniques to a new generation, pushing the boundaries of fashion, beauty, and society’s perception of both. Which is exactly what her idols did in their time.
The Evolution of the Conical Bra.
Another popular, and not unjustified, criticism of Lady Gaga is that of the sexual nature of her music. It can’t be denied that her lyrics can be crude and her videos explicit. But how is this different from any degrading hip-hop video with their scantily-clad, gyrating girls? Gaga is different because her videos, even the most erotic, are empowering. As Paglia is the first to admit, “Gaga isn’t sexy at all”: she is skinny, wiry, and short. It is this, however, that reveals the bravery of her videos, and the message she intends to send. As Gaga declared in her interview with Caitlin Moran: “[my videos] are not what straight men masturbate over”. Of course they are not. Gaga’s videos show her, in all her beautifully unsexy glory, unafraid to show all she isn’t, sending the message of acceptance and self confidence. Which of course makes her wonderfully attractive, as a woman, and an icon.
What is most strikingly unprofessional about Paglia’s article is how personal it is, and how poorly researched. She frequently misquotes lyrics, and declares that “there is little evidence that [Gaga] was ever [a misfit]”. As anyone who has researched Stefani Germanotta would know, although she had a privileged, middle class upbringing, she was an outcast. As Caitlin Moran wrote in her interview with Gaga, Stefani was a “goth girl obsessed with Led Zeppelin and David Bowie” constantly being picked on at school. Also, Paglia claims that Gaga is “rootless”, supporting this criticism with the “proof” that Gaga has a “tattoo on her arm with the death date of an aunt she never knew”. Again, Paglia lets herself down with poor research. Stefani’s aunt is an inspiration to her, one that she feels is watching over her. The poignancy of this tattoo has also been ignored or unnoticed by Paglia: the aunt died of lupus, a genetic disease that Gaga herself may be suffering from. Further revealing her obtuseness, it is obvious that Paglia doesn’t understand the message of and motivation behind Gaga’s videos: calling them “barbaric”, “sadistic” and disturbing”, while praising Madonna’s then-shocking techniques. What Paglia doesn’t like is that Gaga is the new shocking artist, and what she doesn’t understand is that through her music Gaga reveals the silent, selfish pain of youth, so often misunderstood and belittled by the older generation. Gaga incorporates suffering into the spectacle of her shows, and the result is a production bordering on Arto (the Surrealist Theatre of Cruelty movement). Art is something that Gaga believes strongly in, and what sets her apart from other musicians is that she uses sophisticated techniques such as symbolism, visual metaphors, and warping of film strips in her videos. No-one can accuse Gaga of being generic, and compared to the mind-numbing, over-sweetened, subversively sexually degrading videos of so many popstars, Lady Gaga is truly a breath of fresh air.
That is not to say, however, that Gaga is perfect. Paglia calls her music “insipid”, and it is true to say that her lyrics, although at times brilliant, are generally not the most poetic, and her music can be little more than catchy pop tunes. There is nothing especially new or different about her musical style: what she really excels at is spectacle, art, and the themes her music and videos convey. Also, Paglia makes a good point about the “disconnection between Gaga’s self-portrayal as a lonely, rebellious artist and the corporate apparatus that bankrolls her”. She is not, after all, an indie artist revolution. But when has she ever pretended to be? If that “corporate bankroll” helps her make her shows bigger, better, and more influential, then maybe it’s not so bad. For Lady Gaga, unlike other celebrities, does not horde her money. She either spends it on spectacle, putting on extravagant shows or buying into fashion, or donates it to charity. This is an aspect of Gaga that Paglia ignores. Recently, Lady Gaga donated all the proceeds of one of her shows, over $500,000, to help the victims of the Haiti earthquake. In her latest tour, the Monster Ball, Gaga offered VIP tickets to fans who volunteered in homeless aid organisations, raising more than $80,000 for homeless youth. It is natural that Paglia would not mention this, as she would probably criticise those the money was raised for, saying they should get jobs, or some other overly simplistic Laissez Faire solution.
Paglia’s article was marketed as “Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex”. Oddly, there is very little about sex and sex culture in her article, the real sub topic reads like an elitist rant about the youth of today. Although stating that “Gaga represents the end of the sexual revolution” (a vague declaration in itself: one assumes she means the “free love” movement of the 60s and 70, but she does not clarify), Paglia does nothing to support this view, simply going on to list classic stars she finds sexier. This is disappointing, although unsurprising that Paglia could not justify her accusation. Gaga rather represents a revival of the “sexual revolution”, celebrating the idea that sex should be about equality, trust and fun, the central ideas behind Free Love. She doesn’t pander to the modern culture of almost degrading promiscuity: when she sings about love and sex she conveys the themes of love and passion, but also comments on the dysfunctional and damaging nature of relationships. Dance in the Dark is a perfect example of this. Lady Gaga exposes the repression of the modern sex culture and the pain of relationships as she tells the story of a girl who “dances in the dark” because when her boyfriend is looking she “falls apart”. Although insulted, called “tramp” and “vamp” the girl still dances, revealing her not to be a victim of society but victorious in her own secret way. This is also an undeniably feminist song, which is unsurprising as Gaga herself has strong feminist ideals. She says “I am a feminist because I believe in women’s rights, and protecting who we are”. Feminism is a recurrent theme in her lyrics, and her celebration of the philosophy is no doubt why so many are drawn to her. As Caitlin Moran says: “it will be hard to oppress a generation who’ve been brought up on pop stars with fire coming out of their tits.”
It is not enough to critique this pop culture sensation: Paglia goes on to insult young people or, as she calls them, Generation Gaga. According to her, all teenagers or young adults live in a “cultural vacuum” in a constant state of “emotional poverty”, unable to understand facial expressions or body language as they have “abandoned [them] in daily interactions”. This is of course ridiculous. By her description, all youngsters are locked in their rooms, addicted to computers and never venturing into the outside world. When they interact, they talk like robots, preferring “fancy gadgets” and have no “values”. No-one could possibly believe this is true. Of course young people still go outside, have conversations, and can interact like normal people. Yes, we utilise technology: who wouldn’t? Those that spend their time on computers and have become isolated would have done so anyway. There have been recluses in every era. Perhaps technology has created a generation dependent on computers, but that also means that information is more readily accessible. Contrary to what Paglia believes, that today’s youth have no knowledge of previous stars, the internet has meant that instead of fading into obscurity, more singers such as Tina Turner are being introduced to a new generation. Especially David Bowie and Madonna, thanks in part to Lady Gaga.
Although marketed as a revelation of what Lady Gaga truly is, Paglia’s article is simply one generation misunderstanding another. Maybe Gaga isn’t all she seems. Maybe the image she markets is false. Maybe it really is all a lie. But does that mean that the youth she represents, all the loners, misfits and freaks she has inspired, all the hope she has created, means nothing? Even if it is just a show, does that mean that she cannot be an icon? Paglia does prove one thing about Gaga though: when Stefani Germanotta created Lady Gaga she aimed to be controversial, and Paglia’s article alone is proof that she succeeded.