Hope this isn't TL;DR! I came across a really interesting post on Tumblr today and thought i would share/put its subject matter up for discussion. The post talks about a
recent interview with Lady Gaga in the LA Times. Here's a couple of extracts from the story:
Her new songs address serious themes like women's shame about their bodies and the need for open communication in relationships; her often physically distorting costumes show that the pursuit of the feminine ideal is far from natural. Her commitment to confront the changing notion of what's "natural" puts Gaga on the same road traveled by artists she admires, such as the photographer Cindy Sherman. Her frank talk about how female artists aren't expected to write their own songs or about how young women are afraid to ask for what they need from their sexual partners inches her toward a new articulation of feminism.
..."The great thing about Gaga is she always want to push for the most extreme option," Card said. "She's brave enough to let herself be a canvas for a designer to go and really express themselves. Nothing is off limits! With Rihanna and Beyoncé there is an end result of desirability and unattainable sexiness, whereas Gaga is a really interesting bridge between the desirable and the grotesque. She's not at all worried about looking ridiculous or hideous; actually, I think she thrives off it."And here's a couple of extracts from the
brilliant post on Tumblr:
i feel like there are limits, maybe, to how “hideous” an extremely skinny blonde white girl can be considered...to put it another way: picture a fat woman, or a black woman, or a Latina woman, or a fat black Latina woman, doing ANYTHING that lady gaga has ever done, and tell me people would still be talking about her as some kind of subversive artiste...tell me 95% of the commentary about her outside maybe the feminist blogosphere wouldn’t be ridicule or disgust.
...or to put it another way: white skinny bodies are allowed to be art. you see this all the fucking time in the twee/hipster zones of the world/internet, soft-focus photos in sepia tones with size 2 AT MOST people standing in for melancholy, or wistfulness, or love, or whatever. you don’t see fat girls lying in a field of daisies wearing fishnets and reading haruki murakami next to a picnic spread under a parasol. because then the viewer, it’s assumed, would get distracted by their fatness. skinny bodies (& white bodies) are allowed to turn themselves into things because they are presumed to be blank slates. they’re neutral. fatness already symbolizes things in our culture - laziness, sloth, greed - so it’s not allowed to symbolize other things.
or another way: lady gaga is allowed to play at being grotesque because it’s understood that she is making a choice to be grotesque; fat, non-white, or otherwise atypical bodies already belong to the realm of the grotesque. the choice is made for them. whether it’s as unfuckable (fat women, women with visible disabilities) or inherently sexualized (black and Latina women) or some weird combination of fuckable but not sexual (asian women) or just grotesque and unworthy (trans women).I think the critique on Tumblr brings up some really interesting and valid points with particular reference to the way we see things on the internet in terms of body types/ethnicities represented in the art and photography we post on our journals, or write about in our blogs, or favourite on Tumblr.
So discuss if you wish: Lady Gaga and her image, representations of 'controversial' women in pop culture, white/thin bodies v everyone else.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
crushed
amused
