Harriet Jean Evans takes a look at the social commentary of the past, and explains why she believes it just doesn't matter.
Our anonymous blogger reflects on her attempts to have a student Christmas... and how she came to the conclusion that home-made is always best.
Gillian Love urges you to vote 'No' to the motion to replace Women's Committee with a 'Gender Equality Committee'.
Yet regardless of these things I’m still very much a fan. And in no way does this mean I’m anything other than an ordinary, well-balanced young woman.
I say this, because in this week’s Sunday Times Magazine, Camille Paglia analysed and “demolishes” Lady Gaga, branding her character and music a disturbed copycat symbol of a generation ruined by technology.
I disagree.
My introduction to Lady Gaga began, predictably, at Ziggy’s, through a friend who absolutely adores her (enough to take to the Ziggy’s stage in a leopard-print body, high heels and massive sunglasses). For a person who had never really bothered to enjoy music in clubs before, the catchy tunes released by Gaga were revelations. Okay, so the videos are risqué and fairly disturbing in places – as are some of the lyrics – but it wasn’t really about that, it was about dancing and singing and having fun.
Actually, maybe my anger isn’t about Lady Gaga at all. Maybe Paglia’s article annoyed me so much because of the insinuations and accusations she levelled toward my generation and our choice of idol.
She accuses “everything” of being a “pose” when referring to the society that has allowed Lady Gaga to create her “Poker Face” persona – but when did people ever not perform and pretend and act a part? Nobody is one hundred percent genuine all the time, especially those in the public eye. Self-characterisation is not a trait limited exclusively to our generation: the blurring of fact and fiction Paglia attributes to the “sprawling anarchy of the web” was not created by our current circumstances – this “sprawling anarchy” just means our performances are acted out more in the public eye. But that’s our choice – if we want to create a persona, why not? Sometimes it’s more fun – like the yorker ’s own Roxy. But we shouldn’t assume, like Paglia does, that Lady Gaga is a victim of her creation. Nobody believes for a second that The Elusive Male is restricted by his “elusiveness”, or that That Girl from Derwent is unable to function outside of her college. Persona’s are creative, certainly. Liberating, maybe? Fun? Definitely. And all this “sprawling anarchy” suggests is that we’re less repressed about wanting to be somebody else for a while – and surely that’s a good thing?
Of course, I see some of Paglia’s points – Gaga is obviously out to make money, after all, who isn’t? But she hardly heralds the “death of sex” and the ruination of integrity and originality. That’s taking things a tad far. So what if Gaga wants to represent misfits when she actually had a relatively standard comfortable upbringing? I dispute Paglia’s claim that Gaga’s contradictions are a negative thing – they just don’t matter in my opinion: the whole point is that Lady Gaga wants the freedom to be able to declare what she wants. It doesn’t hurt anyone – so what’s the issue? Paglia laments that someone so “artificial” has apparently been chosen as an icon – but as a result of the Internet and technology Paglia derides, we know Gaga is artificial – people aren’t deluded they just happen to quite like her – and if we want to pick Lady Gaga as an icon, who has the right to tell us we shouldn’t?
Paglia, apparently. But she goes further than telling us we’ve simply made wrong decisions in our musical tastes, suggesting these decisions are inevitable as we are victims of “emotional poverty” seduced by Gaga’s twisted lyrics, outrageous outfits and “sick”, death-obsessed videos.
Woah. Wait a moment.
Just because I like Lady Gaga, doesn’t mean I can’t adore other, apparently more worthy vocal talents (ironically, Paglia cites Beyonce as an opposite to Lady Gaga when the two have worked together). Just because I enjoy watching the videos or jumping up and down in a club to “Bad Romance” doesn’t mean I can’t also spend lazy days in a park reading poetry, or appreciating art or some other “cultural” experience.
I am not enslaved to my computer; I am not desensitised to human contact because of the Internet – surely my eagerness to go out dancing proves this? Lady Gaga is expressing herself – why should anyone call her “sick” for it? And no one should assume that the tastes of our generation are the wrong ones because they may be different or strange.
My generation is not a ruined one.
We just happen to have different tastes to previous generations.
We just happen to be more prepared to redraw the borders of our society.
Get over it.
I've read a fair bit of Camille Paglia's literary babel, and while there are certain sparks of genuine creativity and innovative thinking in her work - "Sexual Personae" in particular is, if nothing else, bound to ignite a million Starbucks couch discussions - she is, ultimately a bitter, bitter woman.
This might seem ad hominem, but given that Paglia has wasted no time ripping into many figures from second and third-wave feminism (Naomi Wolf, Gloria Steinem et al) with attacks that are either completely irrelevant or downright personal, it shouldn't at all be a surprise that Paglia's assault on Gaga is equally ad hominem. The American Politics Journal even invokes a sense of envy in Paglia's soul, suggesting that her venomous critique of Naomi Wolf is based solely on the fact that the latter earns a huge salary, has serious political clout, and is on a first-name basis with top-level Democrats. Paglia, on the other hand, teaches at a third-rate college that all of five people outside Philly will have heard of.
It's interesting to note also, that Paglia herself seems to eschew any particular gender label. This is not to say she is transgender in any way, but instead, perhaps like Bowie before her, exhibits a sort of cold asexuality straddling between male and female. Despite her bisexuality, Paglia seems remarkably unwilling to discuss her personal life, or relationships (or lack thereof).
Why is this relevant? Perhaps because Gaga exhibits a similar type of asexual appeal and out-of-character celibacy, but rather than shrivel coldly into intellectual autoeroticism, Gaga has burst onto the scene with colour and energy, the kind of verve and wit that Paglia desires, and on top of that, has made brilliant music, scored millions in cash, and is enormously popular with fans and critics alike.
Jealous much, Cammy?
This is an amazing comment piece! I loved reading it. Lady Gaga is a wonderful, creative person who makes great pop music.
Fantastic piece, Harriet. So many journalists out there think they 'understand' Lady Gaga, but all they can make is quasi-scientific observations and overanalyse somebody who, at the end of the day, is just another human being.
I look at Lady Gaga as an artist - yes, she's made money, but she's also gone into massive debt on her tour because she's obsessed with staging the best show for her fans.
Her success is primarily a result of her music - who's ever succeeded in getting a Gaga hook out of their head? - and yes, her wacky image contributes to it. But attacking her for being 'unoriginal' is ridiculous, as this is something other people have labelled her as, not something she has ever claimed. She's just expressing herself, and I've heard her very logically explain the motivations behind all her videos, costumes and lyrics through symbolism and art.
Most importantly, the message she delivers to people to free themselves and be comfortable with who they are is much better than a lot of musical icons. The press really need to give her a break.
I would dispute the notion that TGFD is able to function outside of her college 
"or that That Girl from Derwent is unable to function outside of her college"
My favourite quote... Ever!
Personally I'm not much of a fan of Lady Gaga's but I think this article is rather spot-on in that every previous generation is keen to label the next as degenerate and broken for some reason - technology is just the latest in a long-list of problems apparently seen with youth throughout the last century.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report