March 12th, 2010 / 9:23 pm
Random
the internet literature
magazine blog
of the future
Advertisement
Popular Posts
Recent Comments
- Joseph Young—
i quite felt the suffereing of thaddeus, and others, and felt empathy toward him. was what made the book best for me. but some of yours are good points to make, though might, maybe, could use some fleshing out. - Joseph Riippi—
Re: Daniel Quinn, I have to admit that the first time I read ‘Ishmael’ it blew my mind. Granted, I was 13. But it remains on the shelf of “those books” with Knowles’ *A Separate Peace* and Gary Paulson’s *Hatchet* and every Calvin and Hobbes... - d—
I guess “but it’s funny!” stops working for me at some point. Of course, the patronizing “critiques” of hip hop are the other side of the same coin, especially all the family values/role of the father conservative shit. - David Backer—
The one premise I can offer to justify my “whining” is this: In Jones’s book, and a lot of writing I’ve been reading online, there is a lack of engagement with extant-real systems of human organization: economies, households, cultures, societies,... - Matthew Simmons—
See? Now I love you. - Richard - Zine-Scene—
I thought Shelley was really nice when I saw here. She stayed around after the reading and talked with a bunch of people and seemed really laid back… It might have been because she was hosted by the University of Alabama faculty, who are really laid back too. - mimi—
Or maybe someone slipped some MSG into my dipping sauce. - mimi—
Yeah, the Fashion Severe connection is weird; is this borderline ‘exploitation’? Korine is BFFs with Chloe’ Sevigny, is he not? Did you ever see Zoolander? Remember the ‘Derelict’ (pronounced ‘de-re-LEEKT”) collection?
- Joseph Young—
Support HTMLGIANT contributors by supporting their literature
Watched this today. Holy cow. That Gaga does some crazy shiz. The video is awesome. I wish were music was as freaky. She should do a collab with Aphex Twin. How cool would that be?
reply
March 12th, 2010 / 9:42 pmKen Baumann—
YES. He’d do it for cash, probably.
reply
March 12th, 2010 / 10:01 pmMatthew Simmons—
Needs Bjork. Call Bjork.
reply
March 12th, 2010 / 11:20 pmDaniel Powell—
That would rule. Rubber Johnny: Lady Gaga edition.
reply
i was thinking about gaga and what bothers me is how normal her music is. its just typical pop dance music. her visual doesnt match it for me or something. i keep wanting her music to be more interesting.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 12:28 pmstephen—
maybe GaGa’s thinking infiltrate from within? like, get every mainstream kid in the country/world jamming to my pop tunes, then they watch my performances/videos, are oddly fascinated, and then they’re unknowingly opened up to all kinds of queer things they previously were suspicious/contemptuous of?? i dunno
reply
if her music were as interesting as this shit then we’d probably never ever hear of her. maybe a few of us would, but mainly not. I think I’m going to stick to this claim.
reply
March 12th, 2010 / 9:42 pmdarby—
but why do it at all then? why not just go purely into couture fashion unless she’s really trying to milk the fame angle?
reply
March 12th, 2010 / 9:52 pmKen Baumann—
subversion/alteration is best done with power (audience).
reply
March 12th, 2010 / 11:06 pmdarby—
i suppose, but from now on, let’s never call her an artist. instead we’ll just call her a subverter/alterer.
March 12th, 2010 / 11:41 pmKate Durbin—
Would rather Gaga be a subverter/alterer any day, if being an “artist” means you have to fit within accepted paradigms of what is “high” and “low” art, or be relegated to only preaching to the choir.
March 12th, 2010 / 11:42 pmKate Durbin—
That comment was meant for Darby…I’m in agreement with Ken.
March 13th, 2010 / 12:22 amdarby—
i was being mean a little, sorry. there’s something *good* to me about having an intention that’s more important than how many people are lining up behind you. i think gaga is pretty genius, i just dont like that she’s singing blah songs is all, like shes sacrificing something to appeal to a lowest common denom. i couldnt even watch that video beyond as soon as she started singing. thing is im probably comparing her to the wrong people, which are avant garde artists i respect, when i should be comparing her against other music artists i guess, which is not a realm im comparing things within very much.
March 13th, 2010 / 4:56 pmLincoln—
What is she really subverting other than the idea that pop music is supposed to be good and interesting” (fuck, her shit isn’t even very catchy)
March 13th, 2010 / 5:25 pmPaul—
Right, Lincoln.
I’m pretty sure her identity (or lack thereof) comes solely from critiques and “ideas” presented by the media. She learns a new word each day–then she uses that new word in a couple sentences to “describe” what she is doing and at the end of the day, she is still this person:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k7e3dLcCVU
Remember her?
If she is subverting ANYTHING, I sincerely doubt that she is aware of it.
March 13th, 2010 / 8:20 pmryan—
“Preaching to the choir” is exactly what she’s doing. That anyone could mistake this for genuine subversion honestly kind of befuddles me.
The distaste for Gaga from certain people is not because she’s “popular.” At least, it isn’t for me. She’s just boring, the same boring tropes we’ve seen before.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:02 pmTim Jones-Yelvington—
She IS trying to milk the fame angle. She’s quite up front abt that.
reply
I wish that I spent every Friday night watching ten-minute music videos. Love the phone hat.
reply
hey look! some sex!
reply
March 12th, 2010 / 10:10 pmKen Baumann—
the realm is the realm until
reply
March 12th, 2010 / 10:13 pmBlake Butler—
i heard joey fatone hired richard serra as image consultant for his comeback album. gonna be hot.
reply
March 12th, 2010 / 10:32 pmKen Baumann—
hahahaha
yeah, could be, but here’s to hoping it’s something grand
reply
Some California legislators have been trying to outlaw cell phones in state prisons for several years now. It is a crime to smuggle a cell phone into a California state prison (as a visitor, etc).
I just finished reading “Mother California” by Kenneth Hartmann; a “memoir”. He has been incarcerated 29 years, life without parole, since he was 19 years old. He was in and out of juvy for years before that. My friend turned me on to this book – my friend’s mom worked as a health educator in the juvenile detention system, wrote letters back and forth with this guy for a while. It was a pretty good read, sad and moving.
A very close friend of mine works as an educator with the “dual diagnosed” (mental illness & substance abuse) in the penal system.
Another friend of mine summer-interned (UCSC Legal Studies major,) at San Quentin, helping inmates sign up for community college courses online.
And it was with from this perspective that I watched this Gaga/B video. All the iconic prison images, mutated. Fascinating stuff.
It is Friday night and I am drinking a very cold margarita. Sugared rim. (Sacrilege!)
reply
fever ray was lady gaga before lady gaga
bjork was fever ray before fever ray
NEXT
reply
March 12th, 2010 / 11:52 pmaudri—
i do like the “telephones as demonry” premise though.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 12:51 amdarby—
ill take fever ray over gaga or bjork. at least the musics there.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 1:22 amaudri—
likewise. i do think the music’s in bjork too. or was and then flew after vespertine.
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 4:03 pmTim Jones-Yelvington—
Medulla and Volta have their moments
March 15th, 2010 / 4:05 pmstephen—
“have their moments”? i’m not bjork’s number one fan of all time, but she’s highly, highly esteemed by most music critics and her thousands/millions? of very intelligent fans
March 15th, 2010 / 4:06 pmstephen—
you are entitled to your opinion, of course
March 13th, 2010 / 12:29 pmstephen—
yes, but did she have lit-cigarette sunglasses?
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 1:57 pmKevinS—
I don’t smoke, but those glasses rule so hard. WTF rating– off the charts.
reply
so many warhol fans here. when will they address L gaga?
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 12:31 pmstephen—
she’s definitely in that tradition.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 2:24 pmblake—
hell naw
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 3:22 pmstephen—
i would agree with anyone who said her primary product, the music, is not as intriguing as warhol’s primary product, the visual art of various kinds. but i think she is updating his philosophy by being strangely business/consumer-positive (tongue in and out of cheek) in a viral meme/no-attention-span society, by being ‘vapid’ according to some people’s standards, and by challenging people’s conceptions of ’serious’ art. in the process, both of them are social commentators, philosophers, provocateurs, carefully constructed personas, and ‘a lot of fun.’ they’re also both odd in a way that almost makes it hard to believe they’re real people. to reiterate, though, i understand if you, blake, or anyone objects to the comparison. corporate pop, however artistic or avant-garde it may or may not be, is kind of a deal-breaker for a lot of serious, artistic people, and i get that. another objection i understand, though question, is this whole notion of “but bjork was weird already; she’s copying madonna; fever ray is cooler.” i would say lady gaga is different than all those women, though she’s indebted to lots of previous artists. that doesn’t take anything away from her, though. mixing together different forms, preexisting forms, into an intriguing new whole is what (post-post-….modern) art is all about, right? her most vital ingredient is that she’s unavoidable; everything she does is so over-the-top and in-your-face that you’d have to be living in a cave or have impressive self-control to avoid ‘dealing with’/’speaking on’ what she’s doing.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 3:44 pmAlec Niedenthal—
Right on.
March 13th, 2010 / 7:25 pmKevin—
I did think of Warhol when watching this video.
I thought, “God, I just don’t know what’s good anymore.”
I don’t think she is tapping into the essence of Warhol any more than
any other huge pop star has in the past 30 years. She may be doing it “bigger” and “flashier”
but not any closer or truer to what he brought to the table.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 7:26 pmPaul—
I most certainly agree.
reply
yeah, see, prison is way better than a mental hospital.
reply
empty calories.
reply
It was a bad night at the poker table but seeing this video makes it all better. I’m so glad I’m alive in the time of GaGa. Fabulous.
reply
Is anybody else seeing the whole “I’m the new MJ” message going on here?
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 2:12 pmdrew kalbach—
yes, the little move she makes just before leaving the prison.
but she can’t dance nearly as well.
reply
I was going to make a snarky comment, but then I decided to watch the video and couldn’t make a snarky comment because, yeah, it is kinda amazing.
Here is the comment I was gonna make: “If by amazing you mean shitty, then yeah, this video is the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen in my life.”
Music still sucks though.
reply
Is it just me or does Gaga need to eat one of those sandwiches she’s making in that video?
reply
boring
reply
Women in prison films. Tarantino. Hip hop montage.
reply
Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance – The Occult Meaning : http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=2737
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 2:18 pmdrew kalbach—
she is absolutely a part of the illuminati.
reply
Yeah, Gaga’s becoming alarmingly skinny — I watched a couple of her earlier videos and she wasn’t as thin in them.
reply
i love lady gaga. i dislike her music. but her image is great. and the music is built only as a reflection/vehicle for that image.
she’s actually pretty talented. good voice. plays piano well. dances so-so. but she dumbs it down to mesh into her image.
the kill bill nods were funny.
felt like the beginning was a big bore of cliches. the makeout scene was all SHOCK AND AWE but didn’t get much from me.
and the blatant advertising was funny. gaga’s next move: clothing built from corporate sponsor ads.
reply
This is astonishing on so many levels. For one, it would never have been possible w/out YouTube b/c in the old days MTV w/ its monopoly & censorship would never have aired it and I’m sure it doesn’t air on TV now (or am I showing my TV ignorance?). Two, Ms. Gaga seems to be using her stardom to do whatever she wants, which can only bode well for the future. Next, smokin’ hot women in prison… of all shapes, sizes, colors, styles… (sure, it’s a fantastical appropriation, but such fantasy never get old, does it?). Lastly, this li’l pulp masterpiece more than makes up for the trite music. Wow. Thank you, Alec.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 4:19 pmPaul—
. . . facepalm
reply
If I had to define Lady Gaga, I’d go with “solid matter discharged from an animal’s alimentary canal.”
The product placement in the video was nauseating. How can anyone defend this woman as an intellectual? Why does “existentialism” spring up every time she puts out another crap-video? Why has no one interviewed Lady Gaga–I mean “actually” interviewed her–I meaning going bucking Bronco on her ass? Why is she constantly being compared to Warhol?–love him or hate him, at least he had an agenda–at least he had intentions and substance.
Every interview is the same: Her music is for her monsters blah blah blah for all the misunderstood freaks out there just like her blah blah blah she loves the gays blah blah blah the gays love her blah blah blah she likes to bang her foot on her piano blah blah blah she likes wearing sunglasses and talking about how “slutty” she looks or how “otherworldly” and “insightful” she is
One could practically hear John Lennon rolling in his grave–his elbows knocking against the inside of his coffin as she performed her own rendition of “Imagine.”
“I talk about myself in the third person all the time. I don’t live my life in the way someone like you does. I live my life completely serving only my work and my fans. And that way, I have to think about not what is best for my vagina but what is best for my fans and for me artistically.”
Good god . . . how is she even marginally creative? The only “art” we’re dealing with here, as Stephen pointed out, is the notion that Gaga is, in fact, unavoidable. Apparently, yes, Lady Gaga knows the art of being unavoidable and she knows it very well.
I can’t believe (I MEAN I SERIOUSLY CAN’T BELIEVE) some of the positive comments on this post.
How is this “fascinating stuff?” How is so many people eating this garbage up? She is a nitwitted fame prodigy rimming off anything and everything and selling IT (along with Virgin Mobile phones and Miracle Whip) to mainstream pop-hungry audiences.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 7:31 pmKevin—
Kinda totally agree with you.
Unfortunately, I feel like some (unknowing) troll will read all of what you just wrote and say “But that’s why she’s so provocative!”
Another self-proving system, she is.
Only thing that can defeat her is boredom of her, which, thankfully, will come.
God bless America.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 7:41 pmPaul—
Right–the flame will burn out all in due time.
“Only thing that can defeat her is boredom of her” (couldn’t agree more)
The fact that you and I have shared our opinions concerning Lady Gaga in a public forum online has actually, ironically, contributed to her “fame.”
@$#@%
I feel that she really didn’t start SCREAMING Warholian copy-cat until this aired.
For me, it was a little more painful than watching the “Factory Girl” trailer.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 7:41 pmPaul—
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkONsZsFmHk
March 13th, 2010 / 7:46 pmLincoln—
Since when is being some drama club nerd wearing dumb outfits “provocative”?
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 7:56 pmmimi—
Paul- I think we actually agree on Lady Gaga. I am not a fan of her, her music (pop disco cream fluff) or her “style”. I don’t purchase her music and I don’t look for her videos on Youtube. I’ve seen her a few times on TV awards shows. As for the fashion, it’s all been done before – Elton John, Grace Jones. Katherine Helmond in Brazil, for god’s sake:
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTIyNTA3MDM2N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMjMyODk2._V1._SX485_SY350_.jpg
In saying “fascinating stuff” I was referring to the video, and the iconic prison images/themes that were used for stylized pop entertainment effect. Including the inaccuracy of a guard going to the iron pile in the yard – something that I think never happens IRL (I could be mistaken). I could have used the word “appalling stuff”, but I’m not appalled, really. “Appalling” is too negative a word, and frankly I’m not easily “appalled”. I think it’s fascinating how certain images or themes (prison life, in this case) are glorified in the entertainment world. And in this video fashion-ized and fetish-ized too.
The phone stuff was funny and I liked it.
I do like Beyonce, and in this video I dug her short-short alt-girl bangs, her black lipstick, and the implied lesbianism ( “risky”for B? – I like that – )
OK. Two more cents.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 8:39 pmPaul—
Well, that’s a relief :)
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 1:17 amjesusangelgarcia—
yes, mimi! re: brazil — much of the fashion thing seems to me like mad max retread, but there’s other stuff, too. I appreciate her audacity. and I think it’s just too funny that so many people are either hardcore with her or against her… for whatever reasons. that does mean something. and it’s clearly not about the music.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 9:04 pmstephen—
Hey Paul, why does she get under your skin so much? just curious. also, i would say terms like “agenda” and “substance” are a little questionable when dealing with andy or gaga. aren’t they undermining exactly those kinds of self-serious terms by commercializing, problematizing, destabilizing one’s conception of High, Serious Art? having said that, gaga has said numerous times that she considers pop music to be highbrow. you can take her at her word or you can say her tongue is in her cheek—that’s what so enticing about pop art: it’s playful and elusive. you’ll recall that andy was a fantastic deadpan comic in his interviews:
Q: “What do you think of Jasper Johns?” Andy: “Oh, I think he’s great.” Q: “Why?” Andy: “Oh, he makes such great lunches.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gid5qVh1hQM
Both Andy and Lennon had a tremendous sense of humor, and saw the potential for fucking with people in interviews. So does GaGa, and it looks like it’s working, cause she’s driving you crazy.
Her seriousness of intent and implied agenda are pretty obvious. her costumes go way beyond spectacle or showmanship as a pop entertainer; her intent is to wear art, to ‘be’ art. and the feminist commentary in a video like this one is pretty obvious. so, hate her all you like, but she’s definitely making an effort to be an artist. she’s definitely not just another pop starlet.
here’s the main point i have, though: why is it necessary for everyone, or for htmlgiant commenters, to share your very emphatically expressed point-of-view re: lady gaga? why are you disgusted by gaga, or by intelligent people appreciating her? is it a personal affront to you?
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 9:21 pmKate Durbin—
Amen.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 1:18 amjesusangelgarcia—
Amen II.
March 13th, 2010 / 9:48 pmPaul—
God, I’ve been waiting for someone to ask.
Well, Stephen, here goes nothing. I’ll try to answer all of your questions in an orderly fashion. Chronologically, in fact. I won’t even ignore some of your more arguably mundane commentary.
1.
I wouldn’t really say that it’s “Gaga” that “gets under my skin.” It’s predominantly the onslaught of Gaga supporters (you, apparently) that want to believe that she isn’t recycling artists of the past—that she’s a “performance artist” (self-proclaimed, anyhow) and that she is following in the footsteps of a pop-culture icon like Andy Warhol. That she’s going to be the next Andy Warhol. That everything she does is so goddamned artistic and dare I say, “edgy.”
2.
I’m pretty sure you need to brush up on your Warhol. Yes, he was intentionally undermining the media—news reporters and various mainstream persons. He was one person with his closest friends and a completely different person during interviews. Nearly everything he did (paintings, films, whatever), no matter how simple, at least came with an intelligent explanation. Warhol most definitely had an agenda—hence series after series of films or paintings that addressed a one clear topic or theme. The key component there is just that—Andy Warhol’s intelligent explanation came from Andy Warhol. Gaga is just a person that already mildly famous Akon found on the side of a dirt road—a person that he happened to like who happened to become what is presently known as a pop star phenom. She eats, breathes, and sleeps Warhol—her whole House of Gaga is riffing off of Warhol’s factory. Actually, you name it, and it’s riffing off of something Warhol has already done. Actually, I’m shocked she hasn’t started pissing on canvas yet.
3.
She’s not really driving me crazy. I’m completely aware that I’ve commented on this thread more than any other one individual. I’m also perfectly okay with that. Somebody has to educate those that are aimless and easily swayed.
4.
As Mimi just pointed out—her costumes (or unprecedented spectacle as you so nobly put it) are still nothing more than re-hashings of re-hashings. The first time she played that irritating piano song, I instantly INSTANTLY thought: ELTON JOHN. Meanwhile, the entire time, I’m thinking, Elton John can’t possibly buy this. Then, oh boy, here comes Grammy night . . .
5.
FEMINIST COMMENTARY? Are you joking? You do realize that any one woman can claim to be a Feminist, right? Even Nina fucking Hartley considers herself a Feminist. If you really want to defend so-called Feminist imagery in a Lady Gaga music video . . . my god. If that’s Feminist imagery, how much more blatantly relentless can it get? Remember how the movie, “Crash” treated racism like an anvil that needed to be dropped on audience members’ heads?
Christ.
6.
You’re exactly right, Stephen. She is obvious. She is very, very, very, obvious.
Good job!
7.
“She’s definitely making an effort to be an artist.”
I rest my case.
Maybe if I ever decide to become a filmmaker, I’ll just run around telling everyone how much I like David Lynch and how all of my films are so Lynch-esque. I’ll wear a suit made entirely out of blue velvet and I’ll just wear that suit everywhere I go.
8.
What is wrong with intellectual discourse? What is wrong with HTML Giant allowing people online to engage in some form of intelligent discourse?
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 11:37 pmSatan's asscrack—
Why can’t Lady Gaga be feminist? Why can’t Nina Hartley? Is it because she does porn? You don’t really explain yourself. You just get exasperated and say “feminist imagery” a lot.
Plus, I’m pretty sure you misread Crash. While there was a lot of car crashes and fucking and James Spader giving people weird looks, there wasn’t much racism.
March 13th, 2010 / 11:43 pmLady GaGa—
Now, now–
He only said “feminist imagery” twice
And if you remember, during a discussion with a Norwegian interviewer, I told the guy that I was NOT a Feminist…
Later, somebody supplied me with the definition of feminism.
And now I’m a Feminist!!
Stay hip, my little monsters! ;)
March 14th, 2010 / 1:49 pmMatt Cozart—
“It’s predominantly the onslaught of Gaga supporters (you, apparently) that want to believe that she isn’t recycling artists of the past”
is it even possible *not* to recycle artists of the past? i do nothing but recycle artists of the past every time i write a poem…
March 13th, 2010 / 9:52 pmPaul—
If you feel as though I haven’t answered any of your questions, you are woefully incorrect. That could only mean that you haven’t read all of my comments on this thread. I mean, I’m not going to repeat myself. I hate repeating myself.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 1:12 amjesusangelgarcia—
dooooood… what I think is funny is that you seem to know so much about her. and if you think she’s shit, then… what gives? I don’t know much about her at all. I’ve just seen a few videos on youtube. but from what I can tell, she’s a post-millennium madonna. simple as that. she’s more performance artist than popstar, but using popstar platform to do her thing, which is more fearless fashionista than musician by every measure. and so what? why are people so polarized on this woman? she’s just fun, some. geez…
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 1:17 amLady GaGa—
ROMA-ROMA-MA-AH! GA-GA-OOH-LA-LA!!
reply
Long live “Yo! MTV Raps”
reply
This was interesting until the music started.
reply
I love how uproarious people get (still) about awarding pop artists avant-garde guernsies. Surely, Paul, you aren’t that good a Warhol critic/interpreter/fan/whatever if you can’t at least see a change in status of pop art that Gaga is evoking and see only some Warhol rip-off. I think the House of Gaga thing is obvious (but also more to do with couture fashion, I think, and the present-day prerequisite for every celebrity to be a multimedia artist, even if it is just high fashion, music, and cinema for most), but if she is simply ripping off Warhol then do explain the transformations of the telephone in this clip to me. Go on an extended critique, because I bet you’ll find it very difficult to call this simple emulation, it becomes a part of too many media by the end for that even to be possible. I’m like most, I think the music’s crap and too think the music could at least reflect what’s happening on our screens and in our magazines. But to me everyone’s neglected to speak about what that this might say about audiences at large, that our visual literacy is leagues beyond our musical ‘literacy’ if you will. I think visually this work is both clever and easily palatable (the colours, the ‘pop’, the metanarratives, the fashion appendages, the fashion augmentations – all digestible) and I’m not advocating some avant-garde conceit be transfused into the music. Rather, I see a sophisticated awareness of audience, that the awareness of the public to a complexity and meta-textuality in cinema and fashion is far beyond it’s readiness to hear these things. It’s such a shame, because some artists do contribute to and extend the sounds of the public’s musical environment. Outkast, for example, or David Bowie. But Gaga needs no defending, I’m just more tickled by a guy like Paul trying to fend the pseudo-intellectuals off of a pop star taking the piss.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 10:32 pmPaul—
“transformations of the telephone”
Oh man, thanks. I needed that!
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 11:58 pmreynard—
i love how everything gagag is involved with is somehow said to be a direct product of her mind.
you guys don’t think there has been a team of A&R douches working their well-paid assess off to make the next big thing seem as authentic as possible? do you not think this perceived ‘authenticity’ came from tv specials that made it a point to convince the people that she is ‘authentic’? that she is an ‘artist’? you don’t think they’ve noticed that the lower classes idolize high fashion just as much as, if not more than, those who can afford to ‘wear art’? you don’t think they’ve been watching the sales of ‘peel slowly and see’ posters?
well, clearly, they have. they have identified a market and a collection of symbols (an aesthetic, if you will), and they have created a product that is for sale and they are selling it, which is what they always do, but this time they’ve made an effort to conceal the creation of said product, (they’ve dressed her up so that she seems to stand on her own) because the people are getting a little smarter. and so, i don’t know, maybe it’s a good sign?
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 12:09 amPaul—
Leave it to Reynard to make complete sense out of this mess of pooh pooing as Roxane called it. haha
I’m going to bed.
And Corey’s just mad ’cause he can’t read my, can’t read my,
PO PO PO POKAAA FACE
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 12:23 amKevin—
I think this is a point that has been only slightly touched upon in this whole discussion which is, to me, seemingly of the utmost value. I think we can all agree that her main, or original, ‘venue’ is that of music. I’m willing to bet that over 60% of the times her music has been listened to by any human on this planet, it has not been accompanied by moving imagery. But most of what has been discussed here is her role as an ‘artist’ or comparisons to her as Warhol, via her videos, performances or photo-sets featuring her in outlandish fashion. This end of the discussion clearly does not stand up if you merely listen to her music staring at a blank wall. I feel like this is very important to remember when taking into consideration those who are unsatisfied, to be fair, with GaGa’s acclaim. I don’t think there has been a single comment here noting any exceptional quality to her music.
This being said, my disconnect, as a 31 year old person, is ‘experiencing’ her with the mind set that she is a musician. Maybe this is less true for people under 21 years old… I don’t know. So, through whatever medium I see her ‘art’, I am really just trying to listen to the song FIRST and enjoy that. That is primary. If she fails at the ability to make good music first, she is a spectacle second.
Does this make sense?
Sorry for all the ’scare quotes’. Just saves time over-elaborating.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 1:10 amreynard—
being a pop star is all about spectacle, has been for a long time. at this point, so many people watch tv or video on the internet that the image is most definitely a part of the music. after two days, this video has 10 million views.
there are also magazines and all kinds of other bullshit that contribute to this. also, it’s nothing new. michael jackson, madonna, the beatles – all these guys had carefully manufactured images that went along with their music. so i don’t know what you’re talking about.
reply
So you’re willing to say this a Warhol rip-off but not why. I guess that’s fine if you abhor the thought of thinking about this video again, but it just isn’t useful making claims without qualifying them. If mocking was more the object in the beginning, it might have helped to have started out that way, rather than trying to argue a point.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 11:11 pmPaul—
You’re just bitter because you’re secretly embarrassed of that “transformations of the telephone” comment.
It’s okay, I’m here for you.
(hug)
reply
OK, Corey may have a bit of a point here – Lady Gaga is to the (cell) phone as Andy Warhol is to the Campbell’s soup can, or Brillo box.
However, I do not put Lady G in the same category as Warhol, at least not at this point in time. Maybe in a few decades; time will tell.
But I am wondering, isn’t the vision of the video, re: cell phones, product placement, fashion (street fashion/prison fashion), gender identification, etc. etc. etc. more to the credit of the video director than Lady Gaga?
I don’t know.
I now feel like I need to watch the video a few more times.
Drinking vodka. About to eat a grilled cheese sandwich with bacon and bread&butter pickles. (This is for context.)
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 11:06 pmPaul—
I feel like Mimi is wonderful.
reply
I’ve already answered your question. See above comments. I’m not going to copy and paste.
Do you really expect me to copy and paste?
. . . worse than grandmother
reply
Haha! I’d rather you didn’t copy what I read above and re-pasted it again, because you simply haven’t made any specific claims for a Warhol rip-off. You act as if pop-art is the singular province of Warhol, as if it hasn’t become something else. And I’m not making out that she’s a performance artist in the regular sense (I know that wasn’t directed at me, just to put us on the same page) I think she’s absolutely a pop artist (in pop-music), a pop artist par excellence. Like I said earlier, though, playing the visual field more than the musical one in terms of pop.
Mimi, I think you’re right about questions of pop reference being directed towards Jonas Akerlund moreso than Gaga. But we know that she wrote this film along with him and is possibly responsible for some of the outfits, since this is obviously not her first foray into avant-garde fashion. Also, sorry Mimi, but I’m not saying that Gaga is to the telephone what Warhol is to the Campbell’s can, I think Gaga is purely a contemporary phenomena, taken a degree again from pop itself. Pop at the time of its inception was being made by Warhol and The Factory, but we’ve had a lot of pop art since then. And celebrity is irretrievably different to his day. You could even say that since pop art any visual presentation does not come without the acknowledgement of its own representative state. Warhol didn’t force us to consider that anything is potentially art, no he forced us to consider that everything approached has a veneer of simulacra (not to say in totality, not to say infallibly so, rather that there is always the presence). So in this video I think there’s an irony here towards pop (and not the latent irony IN pop) that is responsible for things like the smoking glasses, the bodybuilder wardens, the very real engagement with tabloid rumours and its excess (only possible with the velocity of today’s media, the internet esp.) the anachronism of using the word ‘telephone’ (would you call your cell a telephone? My saying this might sound peculiar, but doesn’t the word act like a symbol for what is now myriad technologies sometimes with headsets, sometimes without? My point? The disruption this causes, and the inate multiplicity of ‘other’ things it conjures).
I’m glad that you don’t like her, Paul, I don’t particularly either. This doesn’t cause me to shut my eyes when I see something curious, though, nor would it be wise of me to deny all of that contemporary reference in this video, the shapeshifting of Gaga and of objects within the video, incl. the titular, nor the video’s renovation of pop art as it has been known, just because I don’t like her music or her obvious provocations. Either you answer the question regarding your own declarations (which I would like to see evidence as having been answered, mostly your remarks have been petulant and uninformative) or you stop making childish remarks.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 11:48 pmLady GaGa—
This was really long-ish, but I appreciate your beauty and grace.
YOU’VE LEFT ME SPEECHLESS!!! ;D
reply
I can’t believe people are debating whether or not GaGa is a “true artist.” What on earth gives anyone the right to judge that? I truly am baffled. I have a brain and I love GaGa and I think her music is music and all the pooh poohing is just so… pretentious. I’m sorry to say this, but this entire discussion makes me think we all need to take a step back from thinking too much. The video is witty and colorful and fun to look at. Also, her music is awesome to work out to.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 11:46 pmLady GaGa—
I feel ya Roxane! ;)
EVEN I WORK OUT TO MY OWN MUSIC!!!! :D
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 12:01 amRoxane Gay—
I knew you would, GaGa. I just knew it.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 12:04 amLady GaGa—
ROMA-ROMA-MA-AH! GA-GA-OOH-LA-LA!!!!
March 14th, 2010 / 12:04 amdarby—
how is it pretentious?
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 3:54 am?—
No offense, but there are people comparing some vapid pop star to Warhol and philosophers and you think the people who think her boring music is boring are the ones acting pretentious?
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 1:59 pmRoxane—
Hell yes. Vapid popstar? Alas.
reply
Oh yeah, had another look at your comments, just to add that if, Paul, you think that adding intelligent commentary along with one’s art (a la Warhol, which is a strange thing to say anyway, he certainly eschewed the intelligentsia of his time) makes pop art more interesting? How bizarre. Pop was the figurative art of the postmodern, using one’s image-excess-rendered colour wheel to make ‘art’ out of the images of the public forum, to endlessly record in dazzlingly numerous ways. Warhol would be disgusted by your ingenuousness! And, by the way, the idea of a new Warhol is fucking frightening, whoever said that is waiting for the wrong wave.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 11:45 pmLady GaGa—
You remind me of one of those purple and aqua colored pop-tarts.
I like. I like very much.
reply
I hope you don’t think I’m doing that, Roxane. What’s a true artist? But hoorah for your comments. Witty, colourful and fun are exactly what should have been said.
reply
March 13th, 2010 / 11:47 pmLady GaGa—
MWAH MWAH MWAH MWAH
reply
LADY GAGA IS A GENIUS
THE PROOF IS SHE KILLS WITH TIBERIUM
IT IS ONE OF THE MOST VALUABLE SUBSTANCES IN THE WORLD
BUT IT CAN KILL YOU IF YOU SO MUCH AS WALK ON IT
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 11:01 amDavid—
haha ZZZZIPP, as usual, yours is the most incisive comment on the thread and i’m being nothing but sincere when i say that
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 1:07 amZZZZIPP—
IT WON’T BE LONG BEFORE ZZZZIPP IS BACK ON THE STREETZZ AGAIN
MAMA AND PAPA ZZZIPP ALWAYS TOLD ZZZIPP THIS WOULD HAPPEN
“KEEP A LOW PROFILE, ZZZZZIPPY-BOY”
“NO ONE KNOWS PAPA OR MAMA ZZZZIPP”
“ITZZZ BETTER TO KEEP OUT OF SIGHT, ZZZIPPY”
“TALL ZZZIPPS GET CHOPPED FIRST”
“WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, ZZZZIPPP??”
reply
Actually, I retract some of my earlier comments. I was so disappointed by some of the video’s more uninspired moments that I flew kind of off the handle. There are indeed moments in this video where the ironies employed enact an imaginative ‘buzz’—but I’m not sure if the video as a whole adds up to anything noteworthy. I’d have to watch it a few more times, and I’m tired right now.
Roxane, I think it’s more pretentious (and kind of mean) to assume that we CAN’T judge the value of an artist, if we are generous and attentive with our imaginations. I mean, what are we, little children?
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 1:55 amRoxane Gay—
I didn’t say we can’t. I say we shouldn’t. I think it’s a pointless, narrow conversation.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 2:00 amryan—
Really?? Aside from friendships, romances, mentor/student relationships, and the intensity of our general experience with the outside physical world, artwork is a HUGE part of what influences the shape and fertility of our minds. To say that the evaluation of artwork is pointless is to say that it is pointless to have a flexible and fertile mind/imagination.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 2:07 amreynard—
if a comment falls in the forest and you don’t hear it shit talk, does it make a sound?
March 14th, 2010 / 2:05 amryan—
Also, you said ‘what gives you the right?’ and ‘I think we need to stop thinking so much.’ Those sound to me like you were saying we can’t. (ie we don’t have permission, we don’t have the right ‘equipment’)
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 2:30 amRoxane Gay—
What I mean by that, and honestly, I can’t believe I have to explain this, is that I think it is ridiculous to debate whether or not GaGa is an artist. I think we can debate the merits of the art she produces but a lot of the commentary here is just dismissive of her as an artist, like she couldn’t possibly be an artist, that what she’s creating is just pablum for the masses, that her ideas are not her own, etc etc etc. I am not saying we cannot evaluate the art. Don’t be absurd. Of course we can evaluate art and such evaluation is in no way pointless. I am saying that we are not the judge and jury as to whether or not she is an ARTIST. That sort of evaluation drives me crazy, like you have to pass some special test to be anointed artist.
March 14th, 2010 / 3:21 amreynard—
i couldn’t care less about whether or not she is an artist, or whether or not anyone says that about her. i don’t care if anyone says they are or aren’t an artist, even if they don’t produce anything that could be considered art by anyone. it just doesn’t matter.
what does matter is whether or not someone is actually responsible for the things they’re given credit for, and frankly, i refuse to believe that anyone on interscope records (anyone at all) is responsible for their own work. if you think that, you just don’t understand how the major label music industry functions. it doesn’t work like that.
it’s sort of like in the movie paris, texas. harry dean stanton comes out of the desert and he won’t speak for a while, and when he finally does start speaking his brother tells him that he makes billboards (so he’s kind of an artist, you could say). and harry dean stanton says, oh, yeah? so you’re the one who makes those, huh?
March 14th, 2010 / 3:52 amdarby—
who is dismissing her as an artist?
i think its healthy to question artists when they are popular/powerful. in fact, the more powerful, the more it is an obligation to question them, not whether they are artists, but what their authentic intentions are.
March 14th, 2010 / 7:36 amryan—
Gee, thanks for the “I can’t believe I have to explain this” dig.
In your first post you said you were angry at those who tried to evaluate whether or not she was a ‘true artist.’ I took this as shorthand for something like: ‘Is she an authentic artist—is the work she’s producing of imaginative value, or is it just the same old pop tropes re-packed under a different name?’ If what you were protesting against was evaluating whether she’s an artist at -all-, I guess that’s a different question. I suppose the debate could be between artist/entertainer. (For what it’s worth, I don’t know how you could argue that her music alone has any objective except to entertain.)
In an era where so much endemic corporate dung tries to pass itself off as “popular culture,” it’s probably healthy to question the intentions of characters like Gaga.
March 14th, 2010 / 1:47 pmRoxane—
Ryan, why are you personalizing my comment? It wasn’t a dig. I said exactly what I meant, that I couldn’t believe my meaning wasn’t clear. And hello, how on earth could you say GaGa isn’t popular culture? If her stuff is corporate dung I love corporate dung. I think corporate dung is awesome. I want to cover myself in corporate dung and while I’m doing that, I want to dance to Lady GaGa.
Reynard, I’m pretty clear on how the music industry functions and I have no doubt there are puppet masters involved but I think you’re being highly dismissive with the assumption she couldn’t possibly have any part in how she’s packaged as an artist.
March 14th, 2010 / 5:35 pmreynard—
oh i’m sure she brings some shit to the table, i’m sure she’s happy with it. she’s famous, after all.
March 14th, 2010 / 8:33 pmLady GaGa—
Yeah, and I don’t like ‘em “dismissive”
I prefer ‘em submissive ;)
March 14th, 2010 / 12:51 pmstephen—
the point is, ryan, stop pretending you are judge and jury of who’s an artist or who’s a “true” artist or just an entertainer. and maybe save your analysis of the “imaginative ring of the collective tropes in their interplay of imprint upon my mind’s sensory imaginative spatiovisual vortex” for, i don’t know, the lunch table at grad school or something. they won’t retch, in fact they’ll probably engage you on this and suggest a better word for “ring.”
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 12:56 pmstephen—
one more thing: lady gaga and her songs/videos ARE popular culture. that is a fact. you have no say in it.
March 14th, 2010 / 1:17 pmstephen—
i shouldn’t be so harsh or imply that you don’t have the right to say what you want, ryan, sorry. i do think you’re sounding ridiculous, but i should keep it to myself. i just think “endemic corporate dung” is not fair, and comparing her to King Lear and Whitman in the “trope/ironies” olympics seems.. misguided
March 14th, 2010 / 2:01 pmryan—
Why does talking about the imagination make you retch? I really am having trouble understanding the angry response.
I never proposed to be judge and jury—I was simply giving my own evaluation of the video. Is that so bad? I never said that her video should have attained the heights of a King Lear; I was simply trying to give examples of what I think the most heightened tropes/ironies feel like—sorry, I guess?
I never said that Gaga herself (or her image) was corporate dung. I really haven’t paid close enough attention to her career to know either way. I was simply suggesting that it might be healthy to in interrogate if much of the stuff corporations slough our direction really are part of ‘popular culture,’ and if so, to what level we’re OK with that.
I felt like my evaluation of the movie was not so anger-inducing? There were moments of it I found genuinely interesting, and worthy of occasional re-viewing.
March 14th, 2010 / 1:55 amryan—
And I’m also not very sure about the intensity of even the video’s highest ironies. At their greatest I felt only a low-level buzz, and nothing like the wicked, soul-reopening turns of expectation in parts of say King Lear, or “Song of Myself,” for example. I’m not sure what that says about the value of this video. (The music alone is clearly throwaway.)
IMO the criteria art should be valued by aren’t particularly hard to figure out: the imaginative effectiveness/intensity of the work’s individual tropes or ironies, and whether the collective ‘ring’ of these tropes adds up to something approaching what we traditionally call ‘therapeutic’—the feeling of seeing ironies about ourselves unfold before our minds. I don’t think this video even comes close to reaching those heights, which probably makes it a minutely significant artwork.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 1:56 amryan—
The hard part is giving generous attention to those criteria.
reply
Anal Cunt.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 5:15 pmmjm—
That’s an oxymoron.
reply
Since this thread has split off into a few camps, I feel as if some new things to be said. I, like Ryan, think the question of whether someone is an artist or not is a problematic one especially in the pop world. I don’t think this is an interesting question levelled at Gaga. Rather, I prefer to consider some of the images and tropes that are a part of the world that is created by her fashion and her videos as witty and colourful, as Roxane remarked earlier.
This I think is a contribution to pop art, which is, I argue, less the province of artists these days (in the traditional sense of an artist-creator, already forcefully problematised by Warhol with his Factory, and a clear beginning of this transition) than a more communal site inextricable from the expressions of the pop worlds of cinema, music and visual media. This is not to call Gaga an ‘artist’ other than as the common term for a practitioner. Calling someone an ‘artist’ leans towards the high brow, and is full of its own problems.
My fear, and this is particularly directed towards Roxane, is this notion that it isn’t fun to analyse ‘low-brow’ subject matters. I know you didn’t put it in these terms, Roxane, but much of your complaints are either to do with Gaga’s status as an artist (which would be terribly boring and useless and I confer, but is that what’s been discussed?) or to do with analysing texts: “I’m sorry to say this, but this entire discussion makes me think we all need to take a step back from thinking too much.” Fair enough, you might not think the video’s worth it, that’s it own discussion. You said yourself that her work is witty. It seems to me to be able to make that kind of value judgement you must have thought beyond, “this music is awesome to workout to.” For this reason, I think you are on to something and should follow through. Analysis of Gaga should be to do with the colours, with the humour, with the meta-textuality of the images. That is the enjoyment. It is more for the public than the analysers. That’s why it’s called pop-culture, because millions of people have seen Kill Bill, have seen cartoons, have seen Beyonce, have notions of blaxsploitation cinema, have heard the Gaga hermaphrodite rumours, have seen Michael Jackson music videos, have seen camp prison films, have seen pop-art, have seen Gaga’s outfits, have seen her figurations of everyday objects and are accustomed to celebrity hook-up fantasies in tabloids.
Why is this kind of analysis – strata of meaning declaring itself in more-than-Technicolor – the realm of the boring critic? Surely, this is all obvious to the most disengaged viewer? In fact, the average television viewer is going to pick up more than me since I hardly watch it. This is precisely the meaning-making and irony of a post-Pop-art popular culture readily handed to the most enormous possible audience. No, Gaga is not Warhol. Yes, she probably has a team of couture designers on her payroll. Here she has a high-profile music video director know for this particular kind of pop culture irony. Isn’t it helpful to see her as a locus of all of these connections? To be excited about what she colours? Other than the ‘artist’ claim, I don’t think a single comment has been made that embellishes anything other than what the video declares. She isn’t a revelation, but this isn’t to say she isn’t interesting.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 1:20 pmmimi—
Thanks for this, Corey.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 1:40 pmRoxane—
Corey, thanks for your comment. I really don’t like to distinguish between low brow and high brow. I think that kind of distinction is troubling. Secondly, I don’t doubt that its fun for some people to analyze stuff like this and people are free to do so. It is not something I care to do. Maybe because in my professional life I have to think hard and analyze and use fancy words I prefer to consume my pop culture uncritically. I will say that it makes me sad that people want to do anything other than dance their asses off when they hear GaGa. And I think she is a revelation and I could talk about how for me, her video was more reminiscent of Roy Lichtenstein than Warhol and I could go all analytical about why I think these things but again, I don’t want to think that hard, I really don’t.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 2:09 pmryan—
In my case, it does not involve being critical or ‘academic.’ I simply think it’s healthy to try to stay aware of how artworks (and other people, and whatever else we give attention to) influences our imagination.
In my case, it’s a survival thing. I suffer from hallucinatory major depression, and so keeping on eye on where my imagination is wandering off to during any certain activity is the thing I must do to keep myself alive.
I think it’s fun to do for it’s own sake, too, though?
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 2:33 pmstephen—
oh man, well shit, that puts it in a new context. sorry for being snarky. best of luck with everything. i agree that the effects of artworks on our imaginations is a very interesting issue.
March 14th, 2010 / 2:41 pmryan—
It really is! : ) The ‘earworm’ effect—the one that so many people find annoying—I find this fascinating. It’s such an opportunity! If you absorb any one beautiful thing long enough, you can get an ‘earworm’ thing going with it. You can carry the beautiful thing around inside you—I’m sorry if sometimes I go overboard, but I am absolutely consumed by this phenonmon (I can’t spell). If you ‘earworm’ your most favorite literature, e.g., it is almost like you are living with it—I don’t know? Maybe it’s silly. This song has been earworming in my head since last night, and it honestly makes me feel kind of oppresed. I feel much better when things with sublime ironic burst or ‘dissolve’—like ‘maybe that is just the flag of my disposition, out of hopeful green stuff woven’ from SoM—start earworming, because if they have replay value it feels much less like a compulsion.
Actually, looking back over this, maybe this is all very idiosyncratic, and a function of my own stupid tics. . . sorry.
March 14th, 2010 / 2:45 pmstephen—
no dude, it’s cool. i understand where you’re coming from now. it’s all good
“On the same coffee table between them, beside the magazines and tape recorder and a small vase of synthetic marigolds, were three artworks allegedly produced through ordinary elimination by Mr. Brint F. Moltke. The pieces varied in size but all were arresting in their extraordinary realism and the detail of their craftsmanship – although one of Atwater’s notes was a reminder to himself to consider whether a word like craftsmanship really applied in such a case.” dfw, ‘the suffering channel’, oblivion, 254.
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 1:46 amalec niedenthal—
Thanks for this, David.
reply
How are there over a 100 threads about someone who makes the most boring pop music on the market yet wears silly outfits? Who cares? Also, totally disagree with whoever above said that she had to make boring music to infiltrate the culture or whatever. Tons of pop musicians make fun, catchy music and tons more make fun, catchy music that is weird. Hip-hop especially has plenty of pretty fucking weird hit singles.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 2:08 pmLincoln—
Actually, I hate the phrase “who cares” so wish I hadn’t used it there. Still doesn’t change the fact that gaga’s music is more bland and boring than almost any other pop star.
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 10:41 amMatt Cozart—
i’m not sure i agree. i think her music is sort of an over-the-top culmination of top 40 pop of the last 15 years or so. her music isn’t something new–it’s a triumphant end of an era. (not saying i’m a fan of the era.) now pop music has no choice but to do something different. for this we should be grateful to gaga.
[this comment is 75% sincere.]
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 2:37 pmstephen—
lincoln, agree with you that there is lots of great pop and hip-hop music now that is fun and catchy but still weird. that’s probably one of the most exciting developments for me in the 2000s, was the move from bland or cookie-cutter pop to stuff like Missy Elliott, Justin Timberlake’s solo stuff (esp. FutureSex), Kanye West, etc. i agree that lady gaga can and should step up her game in that department. very good point. i would say, though, that on the fashion/image/persona side of things, she’s challenging people like beyonce (who’s responded well!) and others to up the ante.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 2:49 pmmimi—
“she’s challenging people like beyonce (who’s responded well!) and others to up the ante.” – Yes.
There seems to be this upping the ante phenom in today’s popular culture…. that pops and levels off, pops and…..
For example, Madonna and Britney kiss on national TV…pop!
Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep buss, and I’m not sure whether to say “Ew” or “Who gives a shit?” Or, “Yeah, whatever, but B’s bailing Gaga outta county & they’re gonna git ridda badass ol’ Tyrese – WITH TIBERIUM!”
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 3:01 pmLincoln—
I can’t deny she has image/persona stuff going on, but I guess I just can’t care about that if there is nothing going on underneath. If she is a musician, the music needs to be good before I care about the persona.
As it stands, the love Lady Gaga gets feels like the love Paris Hilton got a few years ago.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 3:10 pmRoxane—
It truly hurts me to see the likes of GaGa mentioned in the same sentence as Paris Hilton. Come now, Lincoln.
March 14th, 2010 / 3:12 pmstephen—
hmm, i wouldn’t say lady gaga and paris hilton are on the same level. lady gaga writes those catchy songs that are blowing up the charts. and i agree they’re pretty generic musically, but they’re still catchy as hell, and the lyrics are not bad as far as pop lyrics go (not exactly aiming for bob dylan poetry). all of that sounds like faint praise, but i’m just trying not to overstate anything. we’ll see what she does next. “speechless” seemed like a move in the direction of a john lennon-y ballad type of a thing. who knows what else she’ll try. i understand if she seems like an obnoxious drama school attention whore to you. i just think she’s on the entire country’s radar, and she’s making them watch her kiss butch lesbians, and she’s making them decipher her little messages and gestures, like “hey, during that ‘girl fight’ in the prison, suddenly it’s the old gaga, pre-fame, and she looks sad to see those girls tearing each other apart, what’s going on with that?” or maybe, “she poisoned everyone in the diner, not just the evil boyfriend?! why’d she do that? what’s that mean?” there’s art for niches and art for the masses. i think we need both.
March 14th, 2010 / 3:16 pmLincoln—
You are right Roxane, Hilton’s fashion sense wasn’t nearly as bad.
March 14th, 2010 / 3:18 pmRoxane—
Lincoln, HA! I love GaGa’s insane outfits. LOVE LOVE LOVE.
March 14th, 2010 / 3:21 pmdarby—
i was comparing her to paris hilton in my head last night. what is it about them that seems similar? they share that same uber-confidence and dismissive attitude, doing what they want.
March 14th, 2010 / 3:40 pmdarby—
would cher be a closer analogy, at least in those particular years? their music’s at the same level there, then be over-the-top fashionable which has the adverse affect of getting the world to notice you. gaga takes advantage of the new youtuber sensibility though, where what rises to the top in user generated media is whatever is the more strange/absurd/spectacle. its made oddity more palatable to average people and gagas milking it.
March 14th, 2010 / 4:29 pmLady GaGa—
@ Roxane
Thanks, doll!
My outfits are naughty with a side of (OH)
March 14th, 2010 / 9:44 pmKevin—
I am totally willing to start a conversation comparing Paris Hilton’s self-aware image crafting and Andy Warhol’s. Who’s with me?
*duck*
March 15th, 2010 / 9:41 amstephen—
“In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.”
March 15th, 2010 / 10:32 amJordan—
Everyone will be famous in fifteen minutes.
March 15th, 2010 / 10:44 amMatt Cozart—
the future is now
re “How are there over a 100 threads about someone who makes the most boring pop music on the market yet wears silly outfits?”
I feel somewhat responsible . . .
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 2:41 pmstephen—
it’s OK, paul, we forgive you. you did what you had to do. it was necessary.
reply
March 14th, 2010 / 4:28 pmLady GaGa—
ROMA-ROMA-MA-AH! GA-GA-OOH-LA-LA!
reply
[...] the web with that “Telephone” video, even at everyone’s favorite indie lit hub, HTMLGIANT. She certainly gets people worked up. I think it’s a fun Tarantino pastiche and daring by [...]
Gaga is godo.
reply
She’s doing something right. People like the shine (kinda’ like a comment-filled post here a while back regarding a marginal poet.). Some people are just good at drawing others in despite real talent.
reply
I love this comments thread. Already way more/more/more than I could say. So I glad to read/learn off it.
I am seduced by Paul (smarter than most, obviously knows his reap/sow, esp warhol), but then I see more in L Gaga, and don’t like to see her dismissed (her music, fine, but so what?). I think Paul sees more, too.
What’s wrong with drawing people in? Does that make it anti-art? Sick of that. We can’t have wine every time we see/hear/glow something.
I don’t get the P hilton gaga thing AT ALL. They do not compare. They don’t.
Why are her outfits silly? I want to think on this more because a screen print of a tomato can do seem silly, no matter how hot pink (sorry).
No one think she is distillation? A product on a shelf? Pop taken exponential? No one thinks she is the Most Overproduced Human Ever Known? Even her underwear is probably auto-tuned. This is a SHIFT. This is a COMMENT. She is taking the me-phones and the me-vos/tee-vos and the reality “Shows” (tao lin quotes) and vomiting right in our faces, ticket value $170.
I’m getting worked up and on rum and want to drop many words. I will address ga-goo-ga later. I think she’s fun, as in talkative, as in dumb, as in goofy, as in people like Paul (bordering on true intellectual curiosity [I envy this--I'm no intellect, only sometimes border clever]) have smart, keen, involved things to say. Paul disproves his own thesis. He’s engaged in GaGa while warning us off her.
So, yes, vapid, vapid, vapid.
I don’t hear an argument, until…
the words continue about G.
Then it might not be vapid.
maybe
reply
Paul, I both do and do not agree with you. The basis of agreement is that Gaga has simply come late to Warhol’s factory. But I don’t see why that neutralizes her as an artist.
Take, for instance, your conception of Warhol’s purity, that Warhol was the original Warhol, and that all art which derives from him is non-art precisely because it derives. But–and you know tons more than me about Warhol, so this could be a misreading on my part–wasn’t Warhol derivative of his own work? Wasn’t Warhol only Warhol contra Warhol? Wasn’t he dismantling and dissolving the boundaries between the authentic and the inauthentic–that work subjected to the conditions of labor is already fallen, but that art does not exist as art without a process, without its material. But this video is saturated with process–the irony, the pathos, the melodrama, the performativity. Just as in Warhol’s poppiest paintings the canvas is filled with the traces of process: they elevate the most everyday, ordinary object (say, a can of soup) to the relative “stuckness” of the aesthetic. So Gaga foregrounds process: what is a telephone hat but a bizarre equalization of the everyday and the aesthetic?
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 12:09 pmPaul—
Alec, first and foremost, what you just said about Warhol “dissolving the boundaries between the authentic and the inauthentic”–the bulk of what you said regarding Warhol is all very true.
Also, before I go any further, like the “Paparazzi” video, the “Telephone” video was directed by Jonas Aklerlund (not Lady Gaga). Could Gaga have collaborated with Jonas? Yes. Could she have told him what she wanted the video to involve? Most certainly, but I do not know what specific words were shared between Jonas Aklerlund and Lady Gaga. My primary focus here is to question how much is Gaga actually involved in the creation that is “Lady Gaga.” Below is a quote from earlier from Reynard, and I believe it was severely overlooked or at least ignored:
“i love how everything gagag is involved with is somehow said to be a direct product of her mind.
you guys don’t think there has been a team of A&R douches working their well-paid assess off to make the next big thing seem as authentic as possible? do you not think this perceived ‘authenticity’ came from tv specials that made it a point to convince the people that she is ‘authentic’? that she is an ‘artist’? you don’t think they’ve noticed that the lower classes idolize high fashion just as much as, if not more than, those who can afford to ‘wear art’? you don’t think they’ve been watching the sales of ‘peel slowly and see’ posters?
well, clearly, they have. they have identified a market and a collection of symbols (an aesthetic, if you will), and they have created a product that is for sale and they are selling it, which is what they always do, but this time they’ve made an effort to conceal the creation of said product, (they’ve dressed her up so that she seems to stand on her own) because the people are getting a little smarter. and so, i don’t know, maybe it’s a good sign?”
Now, please, keep what Reynard wrote in mind. My second focus here is largely subjective–I have no way of proving if Lady Gaga is just a pretentious and very dimwitted young woman who got caught up in a storm of a fame, but I do believe she is highly naive and manufactured. Reynard has correctly recognized Gaga as a manufactured product of the media. Not self-manufactured–the only thing I’d contend that is self-manufactured here is Gaga’s personal style, which I already mentioned earlier (as did Mimi) is re-hashings of re-hashings from the past. In terms of fashion and style, Gaga IS fun to look at and she obviously knows what she likes–she knows how to get the paparazzi’s attention. But again, marketing teams and the immediate media know what they’ve got here–a product they can sell–and everyone is going to buy into it. Even celebrities: Elton John, Ellen DeGeneres, Oprah, Barbara Walters–everyone is eating up the same interview. Gaga gives the “same” interview every interview, all while demonstrating more Warholian signifiers than you can count. At the end of the day, as I’ve already stated in my earlier comments on this thread, Gaga seems to listen to what the media says about her (Existentialist, Feminist, or what have you) and then she reiterates whatever she must to stay famous or “alive” as she would say. The market knows what they have–naivety wrapped up in Campbell’s soup label. Yes, and others have said on this thread, she is a new branch of pop culture, and I believe largely hegemonic, but I don’t believe there is anything about her that is nearly as cerebral as Warhol (and I’m not even the biggest fan of Warhol, I’m just trying to give credit where credit is due). Again, I’m sure you can see how this is very subjective.
Ultimately, I believe that too many people are reading way too much into this “Telephone” video. There’s just no substance here–people and the media are giving it substance. People love Gaga so much they’re making up for shallow end of the intellectual pool. Especially when you have people like Corey defending her so uproariously:
“Rather, I see a sophisticated awareness of audience, that the awareness of the public to a complexity and meta-textuality in cinema and fashion is far beyond it’s readiness to hear these things.”
Good god, how does someone even say something like that with a straight face? Ladies and gentlemen, I believe THAT is the first time and the last time you’ll read something like “meta-textuality in cinema” in regard to someone like Lady fucking Gaga. People need to stop basing their opinions on something someone like Perez Hilton says and start developing their own train of thought.
She is a manufactured product in the form of sex and catchy pop synths–and it seems like everyone is sold. It’s just distressing.
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 12:21 pmPaul—
. . . and to follow up on the whole tract of Feminism, as the post’s own Lady Gaga impersonator pointed out earlier, Gaga did initially say she was not a Feminist, and in the interview below, she comes across as nearly appalled by having been compared to a Feminist. I believe, at that time, she did not even have a good enough grasp of Feminism to know what she was talking about. The concept seemed foreign to her–now people discussing the feminist undertones in her sandwich-making in her silly “Telephone” video. Really now? If anything, currently, she comes across as “anti-man” if anything.
I feel this video also successfully demonstrates many of the Warholian signifiers she clings to with such nauseating dedication.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkzxwrdyRw0&feature=related
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 4:00 pmstephen—
The “Telephone” video was “Written by Lady GaGa & Jonas Akerlund.”
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 4:01 pmstephen—
Eventually she’ll address and parody all of your objections, too, if she can be bothered. Cause here she does just that to those who say she has a dick, is a man. She has a lot of fun with her detractors, seems to love mocking, confusing, playing with them.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:28 pmPaul—
Did you ever think that maybe Jonas Akerlund isn’t the smartest person ever?
I’m sorry that I’ve bored you with my narrow taste in music, Stephen.
Now, go read a book!
March 15th, 2010 / 7:15 pmstephen—
Tell me which one to read, It, and then I’ll be sure I’m in for a non-boring, meaningful experience.
March 15th, 2010 / 8:46 pmPaul—
http://marriageconfessions.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/9780060245863.jpg
March 15th, 2010 / 10:17 pmstephen—
alright, It, let’s kiss and make up. i’m a lover not a fighter. i’ll even stop calling you It. i’m confident that i’m smart enough and well-read enough to “engage intelligently” with you if i feel like it. and i don’t “have to” provoke you as much as i have been. i just have this stubborn feeling that pop music, esp. that which verges on pop art, can/should/must exist side-by-side with Very Serious Art, and i think embracing and swimming around in both may cause your life to be “more awesome and fun.” but we don’t need to discuss that anymore. i have a reading recommendation for you, a more serious, and I assure you a friendly one: “Spillway and Other Stories,” the very under-read story collection by Djuna Barnes, better known for “Nightwood.” http://www.amazon.com/Spillway-Other-Stories-Djuna-Barnes/dp/B000K1UZKE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268705817&sr=8-3
it is excellent, not boring, and produced wholly by Djuna Barnes, a woman with breasts, with no label interference. A friendly e-shake, Esteban Tullio Dicks
March 15th, 2010 / 10:22 pmstephen—
and if anyone has a much more contemporary “women with breasts” reading recommendation, or any other kind, given that women and men is equal yall, feel free to learn me. i am kind of stuck in the 20s and 60s and thereabouts when it comes to lit/film “for the most part.” obviously Htmlgiant Proper pimps various great writers all the time, but hey, it’s a free-for-all in the comments
March 15th, 2010 / 10:34 pmPaul—
You always come around, don’t you Esteban? :)
http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/life-isnt-like-that/
I can only take you in doses of one “zaireeka” at a time.
I wish there was a book called “Very Serious Art” – that would be hilarious.
Who said I don’t like pop music? I even own an Eieffel 65 album . . .
. . . and I really like the song, “Julia,” specifically.
. . . and Empire of the Sun. “We Are The People” is a really good song.
I don’t really have any book recommendations for you right now.
I’ll check yours out, though.
I accept your e-shake.
Maybe we’ll be friends some day.
March 15th, 2010 / 10:39 pmstephen—
hehe, forgot about that “zaireeka” fight, hehe… ahh memories…. us being friends is possible, for sure. once i get past my real-life “bad romance” and before or after i become wildly successful in “some career path,” i will have too much love in my heart to not “accept people on their own e-terms, even if they are not my e-terms.” peace, paul
March 15th, 2010 / 10:42 pmPaul—
sounds like the beginning of e-harmony
peace, stephen
here is a brief list of some women who are making music that’s worth talking about (in my opinion):
evangelista
josephine foster
ellen allien
perhaps we can add to the list and then continue?
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 2:29 pmdavidpeak—
valet
fever ray
kim gordon + various collaborators
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 3:04 pmPaul—
I’ve been liking St. Vincent lately.
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 5:32 pmrachel a.—
tUnE-yArDs
Little Boots
Ida Maria
Robyn
Amanda Blank
Kelis
Rye Rye
Emily Haines
Claudia Gonson
Alice Russell
Annie
Bettye LaVette
Florence Welch
Daisy Coburn
Angel Deradoorian
Eliza Doolittle
Frida Hyvönen
Sia
Hesta Prynn
Coco Sumner
Julianna Barwick
Elly Jackson
Laura Veirs
Jean Smith
Alejandra and Claudia Deheza
Thao Nguyen
Nico Turner and Jenean Farris
Yelle
Jessica and Cristi Jo
Zola Jesus
Kate Jackson
Tahita Bulmer
Lætitia Sadier
Marissa Paternoster
March 15th, 2010 / 5:34 pmrachel a.—
fuck, forgot Shingai Shoniwa
March 15th, 2010 / 6:35 pmrachel a.—
also
Basia Bulat
Charlotte Hatherley
Kaki King
Sharon Van Etten
Janelle Monáe
Rebekah Rah
Martina Sorbara
Ninja
Erin Fein
Becky Stark
Abby DeWald
Casey Dienel
MayKay
Ladyhawke
Elizabeth Ziman
Inara George
Régine Chassagne
Carolina Moraes Parra
March 15th, 2010 / 6:37 pmstephen—
right on, rachel! would you look at that, you seem to be listening to A LOT of women artists, rachel. are they all worth talking about, though? ;)
March 15th, 2010 / 6:38 pmstephen—
that new Joanna Newsom is very nice
March 15th, 2010 / 7:41 pmrachel a.—
honestly, i think people tend to listen to many more female artists than they realize. regarding the scene, it’s been my impression that women often choose one of two paths, where they either face gaga-like exposure or must render themselves or be rendered invisible. especially as the work gets more collaborative, i have seen the assumption that the output is categorically male increase in the listener.
and i’m sure they are all worth talking about, even if that conversation does not go much farther than where to begin in terms of listening to and becoming fans of theirs
March 16th, 2010 / 11:23 amstephen—
i was making a little joke, i definitely think they’re all worth talking about (sadly, i only know a fraction of these, so someone else would have to do the talking)
March 15th, 2010 / 4:03 pmstephen—
haha…. seems like a real short list, david. have these chosen lady artists “passed the test”? phew!
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 4:11 pmdavidpeak—
i am selective about music in general. so yeah, short list. makes sense.
the point was to start with a few so others would add on, as opposed to listing everything that’s “passable.”
passable is boring.
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 4:13 pmstephen—
it’s hard to join in without goals and context. “women who are making music that’s worth talking about” is kind of vague, highly subjective, meaningless?
March 15th, 2010 / 4:14 pmdavidpeak—
add your own context. give it meaning.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:15 pmdavidpeak—
why do you need goals?
March 15th, 2010 / 4:19 pmstephen—
good point. point taken. i think it’d be a fool’s errand for me, though. my intuition tells me i would need to put on my “cooler than thou, untouchable taste in art” hat here if i want to avoid getting laughed at or just not contributing to the goal you have here, which i think is separating the supposed wheat from the supposed chaff (the unchosen get sent to the boring death camp for women?). i do do that sometimes, but i’ve been trying to cut it out.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:20 pmstephen—
because no one comments on a message board without a goal.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:20 pmdavidpeak—
interesting assumptions.
death camps? that sounds harsh.
i’m not that judgmental.
just wanted to see what others thought.
instead, i feel like i’ve been judged.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:22 pmstephen—
i’m just grumpy because people on this thread seem to have a very narrow taste in music and prejudge female artists in a way that borders on sexism.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:24 pmdavidpeak—
that’s exactly what i was trying to get away from. so let’s talk about other vibrant female artists. that’s all i wanted. no judgments. there are lots of amazing women making music out there, many deserving of the kind of attention that gaga gets on a daily basis.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:27 pmstephen—
there’s nothing wrong with fever ray, or with st. vincent. but a huge contributing factor to why people like those women over lady gaga (to the exclusion of lady gaga) is because there aren’t as many unwashed masses (or highly perfumed tween girls, or grown men in assless chaps) who like them too. now, you will say it’s all about the music, and that is another contributing factor. their music is more targeted to you, it’s true. and the aesthetic in videos and otherwise is more targeted to you. it’s essential that fever ray be weird but not fun, in order to target her audience more effectively, and that her videos feel more “arty” with no bright colors or MTV cuts. i honestly think that if “telephone” was shot in black and white, had no MTV cuts or graphics to help you follow the storyline, if it was more restrained and had no levity, no product placements, you’d be more compelled to like it. but it’d be essentially the same product, just tweaked for the indie lit dude demographic.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:31 pmstephen—
fair enough re: your goals for this. my grumpy side wants to point out that you’re suggesting that women have to be compared only to other women in one little box, but whatever.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:34 pmPaul—
Please refrain from interpellating David and I–it’s not very attractive. We aren’t necessarily opposing the dominant culture that you speak of. I’m sorry that you feel the need to label us as two individuals that have bought into some strange subcultural indie lit dude demographic (talk about prejudgment). I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you’re talking about. At this point, I am amused by you.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:35 pmstephen—
Fuck you, Paul. How’s that.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:36 pmdavidpeak—
stephen, you’re making more assumptions about my “goals.” i’m not interested in making comparisons, nor have i called for comparisons, nor have i said anything about “one little box.” you have said all of those things. stop waging war.
maybe my tone irked you? my lack of context?
i was curious to see what other female musicians other people thought were worth talking about the way gaga is “worth talking about.” instead, i somehow get a lesson in the way music video works.
well thanks for that. i’m taking my interest elsewhere.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:37 pmPaul—
Brilliant deduction–you’re a credit to humanity.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:38 pmPaul—
That was @ Stephen, by the way–not at all directed at David.
March 15th, 2010 / 4:38 pmstephen—
I stand corrected for jumping the gun, David. I stand by my comment re: “It.”
This is kind of a fun read:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1633858/20100312/lady_gaga.jhtml
and there’s a whole lot of shit more on the MTV site, including long comments threads. In my quick (very quick, like 30 second) perusal, didn’t come across any references to Warhol, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any there (hee hee).
This is the first time I have ever gone to the MTV website. OMFG.
I think Gaga should do a guest appearance on Jersey Shores.
reply
Getting here late… this conversation has maybe already died down — I don’t have the energy to read everything but have skimmed a lot of it.
Regarding the music — I like dance pop. I think writing/creating/performing dance pop that catches (however derivative or disposable it might seem) requires a level of skill. Gaga’s dance pop isn’t progressive (say, in the way that Chicago House must’ve seemed in the mid-80’s), but she’s got a voice and knows her way around a hook — her albums are packed end-to-end with potential singles, which is actually really rare. I think she strikes a chord for some of us who are pretending to be very serious artists and activists but still just want to be Jem.
I think it’s kinda weird people are looking to her for “substance”?? I think she elevates the superficial in some extraordinary ways — I feel like her fashion, performance, etc should appeal to some of the aesthetes in this forum. She’s also disruptive and grotesque in some ways I think should (and do) appeal to fans of transgressive lit, particularly the feminist & queer-inclined.
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 4:42 pmstephen—
amen
reply
Elevates the superficial, now this I like, Tim. Thank you.
Paul, you haven’t read my comments from before fully. That mention of meta-textuality was regarding the film clip’s references, and earlier I admitted that we have no idea how involved Gaga was in the conception of the video. If you are going to deny the existence of a multitude of visual references in the video, then you’re blind.
I think your problem is that when you read some pseudo-academic language used on Lady Gaga you seize up, as if this were already some kind of excess. But this is your problem because language is language and I don’t mean to add anything to what the video does with an analytical appreciation, I’m just trying to discuss certain aspects of it. I come to conclusions about pop-culture in 2010 and its difference from pop art in 1970 from watching it, and with a basic knowledge of other Gaga videos and tv appearances.
My basic point which I find it hard to believe you disagree with is that the video (and her fashion) is far more sophisticated than the music, is witty where the music is not, and that this is an interesting indicator for a public that seems to have better visual literacy, then, than musical ‘literacy’, if I may call it such a thing.
You really must read people’s comments more precisely, because it seems to me that you read “jargon-jargon-jargon-jargon” without understanding what is said, “Warhol-jargon-jargon-Warhol” and come to the conclusion that I and some others are equating Warhol’s work with hers. And like I’ve said a number of times (something you still don’t understand) Gaga is an interesting pop-cultural phenomenon and indicative of a post-Warhol phenomena where the degrees of image shapeshifting are beyond what we knew, and referentially so. This is not to say she isn’t the product of others. I’d like to propose that there are no longer any auteurs in pop music. One must be many places these days, as a multimedia artist of sorts, to succeed.
If you didn’t get it, Paul, this means that Gaga ISN’T special, she’s just the extreme version of what’s otherwise ongoing, and compulsory, in pop music.
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 8:43 pmPaul—
The only thing I agree with you on is that she is the extreme version of what’s otherwise ongoing and compulsory in pop music.
However, the video is garbage (by the way, that’s called AN OPINION). The lengths you’ve gone to make my claims seem useless and unwarranted –that too, is garbage. I promise you, Corey, that I have read your awe-inspiring comments with much precision. Your advocacy is very clear. Also, I was very aware of the manner in which you used the term “meta-textuality”–apparently you did not grasp that I was poking fun at the extremes you went to award your little Gaga merit.
Perhaps you and Stephen should rent out a cottage together and have a little ‘bad romance’ of your own. ;)
In the meantime, I’ll step back so you can continue pissing into the water hole.
Don’t stop until we all have Weil’s disease.
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 10:28 pmstephen—
we iz friends now, paul, please see other comment. we “kissed and made up.” well, i kissed you. will u not kiss back? i won’t use tongue [note: i'm just having fun; it is like pop music, fun]. we shall have a bad e-romance. it will be garbage :) jk
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 10:32 pmstephen—
it is cool, bc we r friends now, but your comment kinda “outed you” as a “person who makes homophobic jokes.” that doesn’t make you a homophobe, “necessarily,” to be fair. we r still friendz. it iz all love. ahhhhhh…. wonderful love btw 2 internet bros, so nice….. not being sarcastic, only silly, try it, not just for “women, queers, and children” love everyone, g’night
March 15th, 2010 / 10:36 pmPaul—
You know the term “homophobic” is actually etymologically incorrect, right?
Just saying ;)
reply
March 15th, 2010 / 10:43 pmstephen—
did not know that (i know, we already kissed AND said goodnight, but i’m still here, need a life, etc.) maybe we -can’t- engage intelligently? maybe i’m uninformed. sad. well, you’re not a homophobe, you’re paul, you made a joke, it was decent :) k bye!
March 15th, 2010 / 10:44 pmTrey—
Yeah Paul, but the alternative is homosexophobia and it is a longer word :(
March 15th, 2010 / 10:48 pmPaul—
hahahahaha
damn those long words