Quote:
Originally posted by Cap10Planet
This seems to be the opinion of several artists who have spoken about Gaga.
|
Lol if by "several" you mean a handful and that's contrasted w/ all the veterans + current artists in a variety of different fields who've spoken highly of her. I love Karen O and understand where she's coming from, but I disagree. (Shocking, I know!) At least she doesn't make the mistake of dissing art that's referential (like so many 15-year-olds try to do w/ those lame "X copied Y" reaches), but I do think through her barrage of cultural references (that do extend far beyond just Madonna) Gaga has cultivated an image/identity that is distinct and pretty recognizable.
People call Gaga the "postmodern pop star" in large part because her image and sometimes her music/lyrics are built upon numerous references to the past - she's like the past 50 years of pop culture in a blender, which results in a pastiche that becomes more than just the sum of its parts. I've always felt Tarantino's film style is a good comparison to what Gaga does in pop music (lol, although Tarantino is miles (
miles) better at directing and consistently executing his ideas well). Tarantino's films are all mostly pastiche as well - he culls from the exploitation genres of the 70s with gleeful reckless abandon.
Even though Tarantino constantly utilizes references to the past in his work, the end result is still something with a recognizable style - it's not too hard to identify a Tarantino movie even if you saw it not knowing the director. His style of dialogue and music are two of his most prominent motifs. I also think Gaga has an image/style that most would recognize - think any time you've seen an absurdist outfit or a music video that was out there or seemingly nonsensical and you thought "how very Gaga" or w/e. Gaga can't be distilled down to just one of any of her references, the combination of many references/styles becomes a new creation in its own right.
I remember reading this
Cracked article (a site I usually love) and thinking he wasn't even very far off the mark in describing what she does/her style but I think he still missed the point. The writer says that her "originality" (ugh - hate the misguided obsession with that word) is incredibly overstated/non-existent because her image can be broken down into Madonna (sexualization/empowerment) + Marilyn Manson (incorporating macabre/grotesque imagery). But even if it's as simple as that the end product becomes something that isn't "just" Madonna or "just" Manson. And if you really want you can break down any artist's style like that - what was Madonna's early style other than what she pulled from the underground gay Puerto Rican/Black communities in NYC + white female sexualization? I don't find it to be a very compelling criticism, at least if the artist isn't denying the source(s) of their inspiration (which Gaga doesn't).
I would be the last to call Gaga original or even authentic - I don't think either matter much in terms of performing and don't like when they're given so much primacy as the best measures of "quality" - but I think it's less her and moreso some of her stans saying she's so original or her haters propagating the notion that she thinks of herself that way in order to tear her down by "proving" otherwise. But I do think she has developed a relatively unique style/image, certainly at least within the context of the mainstream pop world, even if nothing else.