In light of Gaga's latest album beeing released, I think it is time for me to give you my latest academic turn on Gaga. In this essay I will show that Lady Gaga is a huge identity construct that shows that she is not the usual pop star we expect her to be. So I hope you can enjoy the read.
Structure
- From Warhol’s Theories of Perception and Grotesque, out of this World Couture to constant Gender Blur and a Fight for LGBT IQA Rights – Welcome to the Multi Layered World of Lady Gaga
- The Theory of Plural Identities and Identity as a Construct
- Camp – [Former] prison for an illegal minority, now […] a holiday for consenting adults (Core, 80)
- Queer and Queer Theory – Deconstruction as an Enterprise
- “A unicorn, [a] giant vagina, a meat couch, homoerotic dancing & screaming monsters. U won’t see that sh*t at a Bieber concert. #BornThisWayBall” (@VEVO) – Lady Gaga and the Art of Grotesque
- A Pop Star and a Message – Why Lady Gaga is able to Spread her Agenda
- Stripper Boots and Female Empowerment – Lady Gaga as a feminist (?)
- Joe Calderone, Yüyi the mermaid and a sexualized body – Lady Gaga’s relation to Gender, Sex and Drag
- Fashion Forward, Fashion Fatale, Fashion(able)? – Lady Gaga and “la mode”
- The Beauty and the Beast – Monster Like or a Real Lady? – Beauty & Lady Gaga
- In Shape and in Style – Lady Gaga and the Body
- Mother Monster and her Little Monsters – Lady Gaga and her Fans
- Lady GayGay thanks “God and the Gays” – Gaga and LGBT Activism
- Violence, Sex and Tabloids – Lady Gaga and the Unholy Trinity of Celebrity Culture
- Lady Gaga – A Multitude of Identity Parts
- List of Works Cited
1. From Warhol’s Theories of Perception and Grotesque, out of this World Couture to constant Gender Blur and a Fight for LGBT IQA Rights – Welcome to the Multi Layered World of Lady Gaga
[Lady Gaga:] When you watch each image and you watch each thing come out, they might not look exactly the same. I’m not defined by the same designer or defined by the same hair cut or defined by the same icon. The statement is that I’m not one icon. I’m every icon. I’m an icon that is made out of all the colors on the palette at every time. I have no restrictions. No restrictions. (Iredale)
As Lady Gaga makes a visually stunning, theatrical and artistic complex comeback to the music scene she constantly reminds the ever scandal hungry public that she is more than what obviously meets the eye. Behind the glamorous and outrageous fashion choices, shocking and fascinating performances, disturbing and mesmerizing music videos there are many different layers at work, all the time. Lady Gaga is more than a flat character, more than a single identity, or as she puts it in the quote: “I’m every icon.” What meets the academic interest here is that this pop star gives us a view behind the curtain. Lady Gaga apparently is a well thought, multi layered, ambiguous and controversial construct nourished by the possibilities offered by a queer world reading, camp and grotesque aestheticism and an anti – heteronormative identity and gender performance.
In this essay I will give a reading of the identity construct of Lady Gaga. Theoretically I will center my analysis on Amartya Sen’s theory of identities as constructs of plural affiliations and I will prove that multi layered identity constructs are not contradictory. Ongoing, I will explain the functions and mode of operations of queer, camp and explain the importance of grotesque for this essay. As I have laid out the theoretical basics I will go on and dissect the most important and prominent features of the constructed identity that is Lady Gaga and provide this identity autopsy with examples of the oeuvre of the artist. Alongside I will show why her body of work has such an impact on popular culture and why her disturbing attempts to change the world one sequin at a time are so successful.
2. The Theory of Plural Identities and Identity as a Construct
The economic theorist and essayist Amartya Sen is widely famous for his book Die Identitätsfalle – Warum es keinen Krieg der Kulturen gibt. In this book he not only explains his ideas of multiculturalism and cultures and oppression but also his theory of identity as a construct. Sen begins his argumentation with the notion that every “realer Mensch […] vielen verschiedenen Gruppen angehört […]” (Sen, 35 ) and that being part of numerous different categories simultaneously is very important (Sen, 33). He exemplifies this argument by giving the reader a short display of some of the groups he belongs to:
Was mich betrifft, so kann ich mich zur gleichen Zeit bezeichnen als Asiaten, Bürger Indiens, Bengalen mit bangladeschischen Vorfahren, Einwohner der Vereinigten Staaten oder Englands, Ökonomen, Dilettanten auf philosophischem Gebiet, Autor, Sanskritisten, Mann, Feministen, Heterosexuellen, Verfechter der Rechte von Schwulen und Lesben, Mensch mit einem areligiösen Lebensstil und hinduistischer Vorgeschichte […] [bezeichnen]. (Sen, 33-34)
Each and every part of these groups is ranked in a hierarchical system and case by case one has to decide which one of this identity parts takes which priority (Sen, 34). As to be observed are the following two rules: Erstens die Einsicht, das[s] Identitäten entschieden plural sind und das die Wichtigkeit einer Identität nicht die Wichtigkeit einer anderen [zunichtemachen] mu[ss]. Zweitens mu[ss] man […] entscheiden, welche relative Bedeutung man in einem bestimmten Kontext den unterschiedlichen Loyalitäten und Prioritäten beimi[ss]t, die möglicherweise miteinander um Vorrang konkurrieren. (Sen, 34)
The idea that all the given identiy parts are plural and can coexist is further emphasized by Sen when he explains that „[j]eder von uns hat in seinem Leben in unterschiedlichen Kontexten an Identitäten vielfältiger Art teil, […] und jedes diese Kollektive kann einem Menschen eine potentiell bedeutsame Identität vermitteln.“ (Sen, 38). His argumentation comes to a closure by the following statement: Im normalen Leben verstehen wir uns als Mitglieder einer Vielzahl von Gruppen, denen allen wir angehören. Staatsangehörigkeit, Wohnort, geografische Herkunft, Geschlecht, Klassenzugehörigkeit, […], Musikgeschmack, soziale Engagements usw. – das alles macht uns zu Mitgliedern einer Vielzahl von Gruppen. Jedes diese Kollektive, denen ein Mensch gleichzeitig angehört, verleiht ihm eine bestimmte Identität. Keine seiner Identitäten darf als seine einzige Identität […] verstanden werden. (Sen, 20)
All the examples Sen has provided, his argumentation, that identity is a construct of smaller identity parts which are plural in their nature, but not exclusive nor contradictory in their connection and coexistence, paints the picture of identity as a multi layered concept applicable to any human being, regardless of age, gender and sex. No identity part might be understood as the individual’s single identity. The identity theory he presents is based on two primary sources: the plurality of the identity parts and their changing priority due to the change of context.
3. Camp – [Former] prison for an illegal minority, now […] a holiday for consenting adults (Core, 80)
Since its first emerge in the Stonewall era camp has come a long way and transcended into mainstream culture making it a “disguise that fails” (Core, 80). What Core wants to express is that camp emerged in the time of the 1960’s and 70’s as a matter of “passing”. In her essay, From Interiority to Gender Performatives, Judith Butler not only explains how gender is constructed, and how the heteronormative discourse keeps its power, but also the reason why camp emerged: “[Camp emerged] as a strategy of survival within compulsory systems, [since] gender is a performance with clearly punitive consequences. […] we regularly punish those who fail to do their gender right.” (Butler, 366). What Butler expresses is that camp emerged as a disguise for homosexuals. But what makes it more special than a normal disguise is that camp is a disguise constituted to fail (Core, 80). Core explains his poetical description of camp as follows: “There are only two things essential to camp: a secret within the personality which one ironically wishes to conceal and to exploit; and a peculiar way of seeing things, […], but strong enough to impose itself on others trough acts or creations.” (Core, 82), which brings us to the understanding that “CAMP is in the eye of the beholder, especially if the beholder is camp.” (Core, 81). This means that the disguise of camp only fails if the recipient is aware of camp and its workings. Further it is understood as a parodic device characterized by irony, aestheticism, theatricality and humor (Horn, 87). Therefore camp relies on its audience’s ability to “find” it, a characteristic that it shares with irony and its discursive community.
Even though camp emerged in the homosexual community one does not necessarily need to be homosexual to be, understand or create with camp (Core, 80). But, as I said before, “It takes one to know one.” (Core, 80). A remarkable ability of camp is that, due to its nature, it is able to operate at the heart of popular culture without generally being perceived as criticizing it at the same time. “The “normal” man remains comfortable with camp because it amuses him.” (Core, 85) and to add: there might be a good possibility he might not understand what camp is about. Camp resides on people’s desire to be entertained (Core, 85). To ensure its survival and multiply its abilities and space to work within “[…] camp has taunted the media to concentrate on excess, any excess […]”, because camp works best in the realm of its four basics: theatricality, aestheticism, irony and humor. Excess and over the top aesthetics offer the best possibilities for an effective use of camp, which explains why Lady Gaga can be seen as camp, because no other pop star is as excessive in her existence as she is.
One could easily question: Why this excess? Why the aesthetic sweets buffet? With the help of camp it is possible to criticize. In his essay Warhol’s Camp Matthew Tinkom put it as follows: “[I]n camp we witness viewing practices which do insist on reading […] popular culture for [it’s] limits and contradictions” (Tinkom, 348). Hence, it is perfect for this criticism since one must know of the workings of camp or either would not perceive a campy work as such. Which brings us another glimpse of Core who named gave the most striking line about camp: “CAMP is a lie that tells the truth.” (Core, 81). If a campy work is placed in the center of the discourse it criticizes, it alleges conformity but is placed publicly for all camp insiders to see. “CAMP is gender without genitals” (Core, 83) explains camps over the top nature as exaggerating gender and ironizing it to a point where camp is gender fluid and gender mocking.
Another important characteristic of camp, and especially of Andy Warhol and therefore of Lady Gaga’s camp, is it’s appreciation of glamour (Tinkom, 349). Warhol as an artist always sought out to iconize and ironize everyday products by sheer endless repetition. When he turned to film he “[…] sought to use the materials of Hollywood in order to critique it.” (Tinkom, 348). Warhol, as Lady Gaga, used Hollywood glamour and ironized it to a point where it reached such an over the top point from where it was constructed that it ultimately was only to be perceived as constructed. Tinkom showed the way of Warhol’s camp by stating: “Remembering Warhol’s comment that he wanted $ 1.000.000 from Hollywood to make a movie, I can only hazard that the final product might have looked like Terminator II with RuPaul playing the hero.” (Tinkom, 351).
