Gaga as a teenager: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ke2JG5v5Y0.
Camille Paglia will reveal in the Sunday Times that Lady Gaga is in fact bluffin’ with her muffin: she’s fake, antiseptic, and stripped of eroticism. It’s an enjoyable irony that the moralizers of this generation must hearken back to those simpler, more innocent times like the … 70s. Women were women, men were men, and the group sex was authentically erotic.
Camille Paglia will reveal in the Sunday Times that Lady Gaga is in fact bluffin’ with her muffin:
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 Gaga’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.
Furthermore, 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. 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 Gaga’s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an era…
I’ve always thought that transcending sex in some way — trying to be extremely sexual while being extremely un-sexy — was Gaga’s whole shtick, as pretentious and tiresome as it has become. You know, she means to challenge our preconceived notions of gender and sexuality and blah blah blah. Reams of post-modern literature about her are earning professors tenure as we speak …. And the professor whose Gender Transgression Studies class inspired her should be suing Gaga for his fair … Pièce de muffin.
But I’m wary about the dramatic death-of-this-or-that talk. It’s an enjoyable irony that the moralizers of this generation must hearken back to those simpler, more innocent times like the … 70s. Women were women, men were men, and the group sex was authentically erotic. But heed the soothsayer’s warning:
Generation Gaga doesn’t identify with powerful vocal styles because their own voices have atrophied: they communicate mutely via a constant stream of atomised, telegraphic text messages. Gaga’s flat affect doesn’t bother them because they’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 vagina…
I’ve read so many critical theory and cultural studies papers with the same sort of critique that I can’t get worked up any more about Paglia’s — especially by the idea that a whole generation isn’t “attuned to facial expressions.” The Church and the Critical Theorists agree on one thing: our values are going to hell in a hand-basket, and they would like to see them reformed, whether via Christ or Marx (or at least, once-upon-a-time it was Marx).
There is an anti-Culture Industry industry. It’s about as tiresome — and unexciting — as Gaga herself.
By: Wes Alwan