Photo Credit: Annie Leibovitz
I forgot about her until I heard the buzz her new followers. I couldn't understand what made her so special . I didn’t even know what she looked like; until one day as I was working out at the gym and huffing and puffing on an elliptical, I saw her appear on the flat TV screen before me. She emerged from a pool and rose wearing a shattered mirror mask. The only aspect of this video that I liked was the clash of a metallic looking substance against water. It was a mismatch that stood out.
When I first heard “Let’s Dance,” I thought it was bland. When I first heard, “Poker Face” I thought it was ridiculous. I simply didn’t understand the hoopla. It wasn’t until Lady Gaga’s 2009 American Music Awards performance of Bad Romance and Speechless that I began to fall in love.
Gaga wore a flesh toned costume (fit to her skin type. As we all know “"flesh tone" or nude” is not a one size fits all. Nude actually comes in different colors depending on skin color.) that came straight out of modern dance art. Much of the dance also seemed very much in keeping with modern dance.
It was then that I became truly aware of the artistic goals of Lady Gaga. I read up on her, I watched TV interviews in which she displayed her intelligence and her hunger for art. After that everything that Gaga created, sat well in my tummy. Well, almost.
I could do without a lot of the skin to the wind outfits. In my book, her artistic nature does not give her a free pass to expose her body. One could argue that Lady Gaga is writing her own book, but revealing one’s body isn’t new.
In the latest edition of Vanity Fair, Lady Gaga exposes herself completely. She has posed nude in magazine publications in the past and had always covered various parts of her body with her hands. I am not fond of these images either. Here, in the January 2012 issue of Vanity Fair, the Gaga is completely naked.
Beauty…and anything else really, is in the eyes of the beholder. And of course what we think of ourselves matters most. But being that Gaga’s art is meant to be seen, she obviously wants to convey something through her photos.
Admittedly I am unaware as to what Gaga is trying to accomplish here. She is posing naked before Tony Bennett in his art studio. The two collaborated in their rendition of "Lady and the Tramp", and the song is featured on his latest album, Duets II. It really is a lovely track.
I imagine many who set their eyes upon this photo, will think to themselves, “Wow.” Some may leave it at that and then move on and some may exclaim with their friends about how she is a bad ass and how everything she does is perfect. I suppose there are a myriad of other possible responses but I think that many who love this photo may not love it because it is anything special but simply because they love Lady Gaga . For some who are likely to obsess over a public figure; they go forth with the idea that the object of admiration can do no wrong. So, in the end, her genius is not because she is authentic, but simply because she is Lady Gaga. In my humble opinion that is disrespectful to the artist it insults our own intelligence.
When I saw the image, my first thought was, “Wow, I can’t believe she did that.” It wasn't a reaction of shock but rather a response of disappointment. My second thought was, “This has been done.” My third thought was, “There is no art here.”
Perhaps the image signifies Gaga’s collaboration with Bennett. The two made art and here they are making art in a different fashion; In the more traditional understanding of what it is to create art. Drawing, painting, sculpting.
Gaga tells the Hollywood Reporter, “I walked in and said, ‘Well Tony, here we are’ and I dropped my robe and I got into position,” the singer explained. “I felt shy and thought, ‘It’s Tony Bennett, why am I naked?’ “
Yes, Gaga why ARE you naked?
In a sense Tony has bared all as well, as he poses without his trademark glasses. He is almost unrecognizable.
As an anti-porn feminist, I am never a fan of women voluntarily exploiting themselves. I do not shame Lady Gaga for her choices to strip down, but I find her willingness to expose herself in this way to be an artless perpetuation of patriarchy.
Gaga has enough talent and creativity and doesn’t need to pose nude in order to gain our approval. Perhaps the chick just likes taking her clothes off. It comes off as narcissistic and vain rather than an act of depth and daring.
I don’t know if Gaga considers herself to be a provocateur but her attempts to challenge us fall short with this endeavor. She is not alluring but rather, blatantly attempting to be so, which leaves her nudity worthless.
I am still a fan of one Miss Lady Gaga and I don’t expect that admiration to dissipate any time soon. We can’t expect to have no qualms with everything that is birthed from an artist and I think it is essential that we leave ourselves open to critique. We challenge ourselves when we think without influence from the public figures we admire and the fans that surround us -- and THAT is something that Lady Gaga (or any other artist) cannot give us.
I think of myself as a feminist too, but I don't have any problem with women posing nude, as long as it's done tastefully and doesn't portrait women as objects.
ReplyDeleteI think that this picture isn't really provocative, but I don't see the «art» in it at all. I'm not sure I get what Lady Gaga is trying to convey here...
And I would love to understand more about your opinion/feeling about this kind of exposure. I'm not sure I get why this is such a no-no for you and I would love to hear you elaborate! :)
Thank you for this interesting post!
Thank you for your interest in this post. It is okay if we end up disagreeing with each other -- and it seems that we already do. If you take no issue with this photo it doesn't make you any less of a feminist.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself to be an anti-pornography feminist, however, there are many feminists who are in the pro-porn camp. The issue of pornography is a on going debate within feminist circles and it always will be.
You mentioned that you do not have a problem with women posing nude as long as they do not portray themselves as objects. Here Lady Gaga is nude and is allowing herself to be perceived as an object.
There are many great paintings, drawings, sculptures, photos of nude women that come from artistic thought. In fact the photo above shows great line and shape. But even in the context of an art studio Gaga is offering herself in a way that is typical of a Playboy spread.
There is nothing challenging or thought provoking about it. It doesn't speak to anything other than her state of undress.
It seems as though we the audience are supposed to enjoy this image as it is sexual in nature. We are to be grateful for the fact that she has taken her clothes off. It is considered daring because she has done so. In my mind it falls flat and it is an act of selling oneself.
In this image she is not viewed entirely as an artist but also as a centerfold. There isn't much depth to this photo but there is a willingness to be viewed as simply a naked body. Lady Gaga can of course do anything she wishes, but I would never place myself in that situation.
My understanding is that those who pose nude in magazines often do so because they enjoy the attention and admiration of those who either wish they could look like them or those who will fantasize about them.
Pornography depicts women as less than fully human. They are not women with minds, women with vulnerabilities, desires, insecurities, complexities, simplicities, but they are women who's purpose is to please the sexual gaze of others.
A man or woman can fantasize about Lady Gaga with her clothes on, but her exposure sends the message that she is more than willing to partake in media's capitalistic pursuits.
Feel free to take a gander at my Anti-Pornography archives if you want to get a clearer picture. There's too much to fit into a single comment post!
Thanks for the interest!