At the risk of distancing myself from all things that seem to praise Lady Gaga in all her eccentricity, I find her to be an artist worthy of dutiful respect for her catchy songs and empowering lyrics, but far too manufactured in all her wildness. Camille Paglia writes a scathing report on Lady Gaga and the storm that has seem to have swept itself in her favor and her new claim of revolutionizing style in every industry possible. Paglia calls Lady Gaga the “diva of déjà vu”, “trying to be hip and avant-garde and yet popular and universal, a practitioner of gung-ho show biz”. Although Paglia’s assessment of what she deems theft on Gaga’s part (Paglia thinks the artist seems to have borrowed “too heavily” from influences like Madonna and Gwen Stefani) is too harsh, it can offer a viewpoint that can be used to asses what kind of “global system” Lady Gaga, as a state, would command. After all, the purpose of Lady Gaga is to entertain, and that is purely what she does. Her audiences do not revere her for her intense musical talent or her resonating voice, but for her star quality that skyrocketed her into the persona she has become today. This outlandish persona can apply itself to an infant nation. The fact that everything is encouraged, and nothing is explicitly discouraged (except for normalcy) under Lady Gaga would insinuate that her state would be one of intense free thinking and zero social norms. The fact that everything is abnormal, in essence, would be normal. This presents a distinct challenge when asked about governance. Because there is no form of normalcy, it would be assumed that standards of law are abhorred because of the homogeneity they can encourage. Self-governance is a dangerous road to take a nation down, but if the intense bond that Gaga perpetuates towards her “monsters”, which creates a relationship and society so integrated with love and passion, there would really be no need for heavy-handed social laws to dictate what is appropriate. Ideally, everyone would do what was best for each other. Self-expression would be encouraged to an extreme, because everything that Gaga represents herself is to embody her personality, her sense of self, and her own sense of style. Regardless of what Paglia asserts, Gaga does have a trademark, and that is to do the unexpected. Although this may not be a new trademark, and the Gaga generation may indeed have blinded itself by following anyone who dares to be as bold and different, the nation that Gaga would preside over, or exist as, would reach a social crossroads as undoubtedly, conflicts arise as these forms of “self-expression” start crossing boundaries. The crux of the matter is this: there would be no social norms in a society governed by Lady Gaga. She speaks to the Beatnik 2.0 generation, to disillusioned teenage angst and to the few (ha) who need to hear a song or two about love and heartbreak. And the very fact that she can culminate as many audiences as she does says that her nation would be diverse, culturally unrestricted to any category, and free-thinking to a very strong degree.
PS. How do you wake up Lady Gaga? Poker face.
I really liked what you said about "diva of deja vu". Lady GaGa gets so much attention for being so "iconic". If you look back at Madonna's effect on the 80s, a lot of parallels can be drawn pretty quickly. While Madonna wasn't wearing Kermit the Frog or raw meat, her fashion choices were very avant garde and risqué for that time period. Also, consider Madonna's lyrics. Even in a society moving away from the social norms of the 50s, 60s and 70s, a girl openly expressing her sexuality was still far gone from normalcy.
ReplyDeleteLady GaGa, as humble as she may be, hopefully realizes that she's not the first person to put herself out there. As raw as she may seem, it can only last so long. I'm afraid she may be turning into a one trick pony. Make no mistake, I speak only of her personality, not of her musical talent.