Sunday, October 18, 2009
Lady Gaga...I'm not Buying it.
Lady Gaga bothers me...okay, that's not exactly true. I don't really feel one way or another about Lady Gaga. I don't love her. I don't hate her. What bothers me about her is very indicative of what bothers me with the modern gay rights movement in general. What bothers me is the way she's suddenly been appointed grand marshal of the gay rights movement. I wish the community was more capable of some complex, analytical though. I wish that all the gay men fawning over Lady Gaga were able to look at her, break her down into digestible parts and see her for what she is. Perez Hilton will publish photos of Lady Gaga in her crazy getups, and praise her being artistic and "ferosh." Really? Silly me. Here I was thinking that being an artist means having something to say that's intelligent/ culturally resonant. If slapping on some glitter eye-liner, a shimmery thong and an Indian headress made of dildos makes you an artist, then it's pretty easy to be an artist. Kind of diminishes it for the rest of the artists, that distinction that's been bestowed upon Ms. Gaga. I know that Lady Gaga has made several public speeches uplifting the gay community, and promoting gay rights. But that doesn't make her some great humanitarian. That makes her smart. No shit, Sherlock. You mean someone whose top singles are titled "Let's Dance" and "Paparazzi" can't afford to alienate the gay community? Stop the presses! Yeah, I know. Supposedly, she can actually sing and play the piano. I know she was accepted to Julliard. Props. But that's Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta we're talking about. Not Lady Gaga. I don't buy into the Lady Gaga myth. As "shocking" as her outward appearance is, if you listen to her music, you'll hear how innocuous and silly it is. She's not saying anything radical or important that warrants the facade she puts forth. It just comes off as laughably desperate to me. "Look at me! Aren't I outrageous?" No. Not really, actually. Bjork is outrageous. Bjork is a freak. She dresses freaky, she does freaky things and she makes freaky music that upsets some people. But if you take away the first part, she's still freaky. I don't really have a lot of patience for people who wear everything that makes them interesting on the outside. From Lady Gaga, to the hipster chicks in suspenders and vintage lunch boxes for purses in East Atlanta--two sides of the same obnoxious coin. Bjork earns her crazy appearance but you can kind of only pull that off if you're an artist in every aspect of your life. And most real artists don't need it. Look at Lenny Bruce, Cat Stevens, Toni Morrison, Sylvia Plath, Richard Pryor, Ernest Hemingway. These people all dressed very plainly. Why is that? Perhaps because they were too busy turning heads with their IDEAS to worry about which outfit would turn the most heads at the Video Music Awards.
Her music sure is catchy though.