Lady GaGa (November 2010 - June 2011)

[Jungla_Juana]

They're most likely Noritaka Tatehana...

 

[MrFalconer]

 

[Captain_Lydia]

Damn, maybe I should get a pair of them funky shoes. Her butt looks amazing. Better than shape-ups I reckon

I'm really excited to see her new video. I just worry it won't live up to the hype as so many things seldom do.

 

[Toccata]

well, yes! i was looking for a rebuttal. haha. there's no fun in making a grand argument, without someone coming back with a counter.

I'll be happy to refute you on a few quick points.
I interchange between the words Icon and Artist but I mean the same thing.

I. Lady Gaga is a brand, not an icon. The product she sells is an
amalgamation of pop cultural taboos such as the sexual and
grotesque appetites of tasteless modern art, which she has
packaged as a series of effects, one advert after another.

II. I challenge your definition of an iconic musician.
"re-inventive and varied images and looks"
An artist does not reinvent themself;
they reinvent art because of being themself.
They affirm and share the world as they see it.

III. Here's my shortlist of Female Musical Icons;
Mahalia Jackson - "The Queen of Gospel"
Billie Holiday - "Changed the Art of American pop vocals forever"
Ella Fitzgerald - "The First Lady of Song"
Sister Rosetta Tharpe - "Original Soul-Sister"
Gladys Knight - "Empress of Soul"
Maria Callas - "The definition of the diva as artist"
If one could christen Lady Gaga with a title, as the
artists above were, what would it be - Culmination of Shock-Pop?

IV. Lady Gaga's claim that she'll Revolutionize Pop Music
To lead a revolution you must make a dramatic change, not make
the same appear dramatic. Lady Gaga's image is a mix bag of disposable
passions that entice, excite, entertain, amuse, bewilder, and then bore.
She is not substance, just effect; not an artist, but an entertainer.
She is not empowering, she is not in control, we are!
Take the meat dress explanation:

It has many interpretations. For me this evening, if we don’t stand
up for what we believe in and if we don’t fight for our rights pretty soon,
we’re going to have as much rights as the meat on our bones. And, I am not
a piece of meat. [Everyone Cheers]​

True artists control their subject-matter, in order that our response to it should be their doing, not ours.
But with Lady Gaga, the responsibility is on us to give her image meaning. That evening, her meat dress stood up
for our rights because we are more than just meat on our bones or it demonstrated that she is not a piece of meat.

Lady Gaga is not the best modern culture has to offer.

 

[loonaka]

She's got such great legs

 

[happycanadian]

so, Toccata -- i can definitely respect your list of icons. these are all legendary women of music. it seems to me as though you value women who achieve a sort of "first" status. who, as you say, change the way things are thereafter. but yet your list stops far before anyone contemporary. there have been plenty of female artists in the past 25 years who have paved a new trail.

i can understand how Gaga can be interpreted as simply a "culmination of shock-pop" -- but it's just not entirely true. she is something new, in a way. name me another artist in the history of popular music who possessed all of these traits: 1) such an intensely personal relationship with her fans. 2) complete devotion to her over-the-top living performance art. 3) genuinely talented vocalist, pianist, and songwriter. and all of this COMBINED with 4) being THE biggest solo act on the planet at a particular time.

there have been many many women who have possessed some or a few of these traits, but who else has them all.

also - i dispute your definition of an artist as well.
"An artist does not reinvent themself;
they reinvent art because of being themself.
They affirm and share the world as they see it."

i agree with the final sentence -- but the first two are so limiting to an artist. it implies that in order for someone to be considered an artist, they have to remain static. they cannot change. would you not agree that, in changing themselves, their art can also be reinvented?

​

 

[Toccata]

Hey Happycanadian! I'm sorry I don't have time to debate all your points,
but I'll address the most important ones central to the argument - Should
Lady Gaga be considered as a Revolutionary Artist and deified as an Icon.

I would argue that to be new, you have to be first but not the other way
around. Whitney Houston was first for MTV, but she wasn't new.
When you say Lady Gaga is new, her newness is based on being
a combination of the unconventionality of others - an industry parlour trick.
When people think of Gaga, do they think craftsmanship or spectacle?
Is Gaga's work judged for its artistic achievement or entertainment value?

I can't argue with your criteria because it furthers my point that she is
known for being a combination of what is popular in others more than
an artist as individual. Instead we have cliche's, stunts, and interpretations.
Her career depends on our amusement - but what is amusing at first, is
boring the second time around. She can't wear the meat dress again or be
carried around in another egg. Gimmicks like these have incredibly short life
spans, soon they'll start to bore us and much like Marilyn Manson nowadays,
Lady Gaga will not outlast her novelty.

I'll give you final word and we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Menace]

Toccata, I have something to say...

Gaga's "gimmicks" and being over-the-top "weird" is so she can connect with her fans that feel "different" those who feel like they don't belong in this world (dramatically worded I know, haha). Hence, "monsters" and "little monsters." When fans see Lady Gaga being proud and confident of being different and "shocking" maybe they'll feel like they fit into this world.

If Gaga is nothing but a corporate superstar "shock jock" then she could've EASILY gone the way of Ke$ha singing about party, booze, and sex. That's kinda how she began with "Just Dance," but Gaga had a vision she wanted to pursue after she achieved her fame.

 

[XavierRaphael]

so, Toccata -- i can definitely respect your list of icons. these are all legendary women of music. it seems to me as though you value women who achieve a sort of "first" status. who, as you say, change the way things are thereafter. but yet your list stops far before anyone contemporary. there have been plenty of female artists in the past 25 years who have paved a new trail.

i can understand how Gaga can be interpreted as simply a "culmination of shock-pop" -- but it's just not entirely true. she is something new, in a way. name me another artist in the history of popular music who possessed all of these traits: 1) such an intensely personal relationship with her fans. 2) complete devotion to her over-the-top living performance art. 3) genuinely talented vocalist, pianist, and songwriter. and all of this COMBINED with 4) being THE biggest solo act on the planet at a particular time.

there have been many many women who have possessed some or a few of these traits, but who else has them all.

also - i dispute your definition of an artist as well.
"An artist does not reinvent themself;
they reinvent art because of being themself.
They affirm and share the world as they see it."

i agree with the final sentence -- but the first two are so limiting to an artist. it implies that in order for someone to be considered an artist, they have to remain static. they cannot change. would you not agree that, in changing themselves, their art can also be reinvented?

She's not there yet, she only has three albums. when she reaches like eight, then you know she's "it."

 

[XavierRaphael]

Hey Happycanadian! I'm sorry I don't have time to debate all your points,
but I'll address the most important ones central to the argument - Should
Lady Gaga be considered as a Revolutionary Artist and deified as an Icon.

I would argue that to be new, you have to be first but not the other way
around. Whitney Houston was first for MTV, but she wasn't new.
When you say Lady Gaga is new, her newness is based on being
a combination of the unconventionality of others - an industry parlour trick.
When people think of Gaga, do they think craftsmanship or spectacle?
Is Gaga's work judged for its artistic achievement or entertainment value?

I can't argue with your criteria because it furthers my point that she is
known for being a combination of what is popular in others more than
an artist as individual. Instead we have cliche's, stunts, and interpretations.
Her career depends on our amusement - but what is amusing at first, is
boring the second time around. She can't wear the meat dress again or be
carried around in another egg. Gimmicks like these have incredibly short life
spans, soon they'll start to bore us and much like Marilyn Manson nowadays,
Lady Gaga will not outlast her novelty.

I'll give you final word and we'll agree to disagree.

Yeah, but he's still Marilyn Manson. He made an impact, can't he be considered an icon now?

 

[Libra Skye18]

Lady Gaga took her Twitter to post a new photo of herself along with the following message: “Dyed my bangs black. Its my new monsterlook. Let the mitosis of the future begin. Off to meet Judas.”


GagaDaily

 

[Anet]

^love the look

 

[shuffle]

It's quite 'ordinary' for Gaga, love the fringe though.

 

[Style Savvy]

*dies*

 

[Menace]

that was...

*no comment*

(as of now.. lol)

 

[Style Savvy]

Is that Anne V?!

 

[Teja]

She amazes me. Can't stop replaying the video.

 

[Pricciao]

Is that Anne V?!

I was thinking maybe that's Raquel? but Anne V is also possible.

 

[Rachel_Tolland]

I'm still not sure if I liked the new video.

 

[alonsoJonathan]

i really think is raquel.the video is very GAGA no more words.