Lady Gaga: A Parody of Contemporary Pop Culture?

 

The history of rock and pop music since the 60's has been the development of a culture in which the image of the artist is not less important than the music he or she creates.   

Pop and rock musicians have become stars, icons and designers of culture, their faces known and idolized by the masses. Concerts became what in ancient Rome were Gladiator battles, and the artist gained his fame not only by the quality of his music, but also by his ability to perform on stage. Michael Jackson gained fame by inventing a dance style to accompany his music. Madonna took it further- her concerts and music videos defined fashion while adding sex-appeal to musical talent. 

Rock musicians understood the change occurring in the music industry and followed. Alice Cooper gained popularity by bringing theatrical elements to his concerts: magic, horror elements and blood. Ozzy Osbourne ate bats to support his image as "a prince of darkness". Marilyn Manson took it further by adopting the image of a freak and becoming more of a performer than a musician.  

Then the 2000's gave birth to Stefani Germanotta's character, whom she called Lady Gaga (after Queen's "Radio Gaga"). From the very beginning, Germanotta took all the elements previously present in the music industry to the extreme. She turned herself into a monster of fame, as the name of one of her albums. Her constantly-changing looks and most often very unusual clothing make her appear a bit of a joker. Her popular music is often criticized as unoriginal and her lyrics simplistic, carrying no depth to them. It appears like she is never seen out of character, similarly to the comedian Sasha Baron Cohen. Contemporary performers like Eminem added to their fame by inventing alternate personalities who define them, but Gaga has taken her alternate personality so far that it's not clear who Stefani Germanotta really is. Even her name, Lady Gaga, is unusual, even odd.

I am brought to the inevitable conclusion that what makes Gaga so original is the fact she is a parody. Her absurd, over-the-top sensationalism and her often provocative public appearances make her a joker, a parody of pop culture. Instead of trying to bring an original new look into the pop industry, she decided to put a mirror before it. Instead of trying to be deep and emotional, she brings robotic dance movements into her videos, quacking and stuttering into her songs (Ra-ra-ra, ga-ga oo-la-la, po-po-poker face). See my colorful, plastic outfits? See the odd shapes and glitter? It's not me that is plastic, it's you. Why am I always wearing make up and sunglasses? Because I am fake, just like you.

Don't compare her to Madonna, she is not Madonna and she doesn't even try to be her. Lady Gaga is not real. She is not human. She's a fictional character made up by Stefani Germanotta. And heck, with five Grammys, a very successful one, too.

http://artpulsemagazine.com/deconstructing-lady-gaga-pop-culture-as-a-toolbox

What's Wrong About Vengeance? 

 

The topic of vengeance has been explored to the max in cinema. From Once Upon a Time in the West to The Punisher, From Carrie to Kill Bill, Hollywood used and abused the topic, while we watched and cheered as the beauty of it was shown. Vengeance is justice, it is a punishment for a crime, and when we see it, we are happy. 

But that is not the way it is in real life. Why does history, philosophy and religion always paint vengeance in dark colors, presenting it as immoral and problematic? I would try to explore the philosophical implications of the action. 

Argument 1: Vengeance is a punishment for wrongdoing and injustice. 

But is it really? Cinema brings us story of personal revenge. An individual or a group of people commit an unjust action towards an individual. They hurt him or those dear to him. The harmed individual goes on a quest for revenge. The goal of the revenge is punishing wrongdoers. But is it really? Vengeance is not only about punishment. It is an action often, if not always, fueled by emotion, pushing a person to dangerous or even irrational actions in order to gain retribution; sometimes it is also a tool for repairing psychological damage caused by injustice. Vengeance is not meant to restore things to the way they were before. That is sometimes impossible, like in the case of a murder. It is only meant as a punitive action. Therefore, by rational thinking, vengeance does not make things better. In the best scenario, it would make a wrongdoer regret his actions or discourage others from repeating the wrongdoing. In the worst scenario, it would fail or achieve nothing.

Argument 2: Vengeance makes people regret wrongdoings and discourages them from repeating them, therefore restoring justice.

Does it really? Unfortunately, in our world every person could have a different view of justice. While a certain person may see a situation as unjust, another would see it as normal and right. Blood feuds between tribes and families (and even nations) are caused by that tragic reality: A tribe commits a wrongdoing towards another tribe. This causes the other tribe to seek vengeance for that action. The first tribe considers the second tribe's revenge unjust or disproportional to their own wrongdoing. This feeds a never-ending circle of violence in which power, honor and egoism prevent one party from understanding the other's motivation and feeds injustice instead of ending it. 

Argument 3: Vengeance is justice. 

Once again, we have a problem of different understandings of justice. This brings me back to the argument that vengeance is punishment. At first sight it may seem that personal vengeance is a legitimate way of punishing wrongdoing, but it isn't. When a person or a small party decide to seek personal revenge then he or they consider themselves both judges and executioners for another person or party's wrongdoings. Legitimizing vengeance undermines the rational logic in having law and judicial systems and presents a danger of deterioration into a Hobbesian state of anarchy where every individual makes up his own law. Therefore, when a person decides to punish a wrongdoer by himself it is not justice. Neither is it legitimate punishment. Justice is defined by the standards of a society and only society as a collective could decide a punishment for a wrongdoer which could be considered just. 

So what do I conclude here? Why is vengeance wrong? Vengeance is wrong because it shatters the foundations of law and order which constitute a society. Vengeance is not punishment and punishment is not vengeance. Punishment is normatively legal, vengeance isn't. It may be just by one man's standards, but maintaining justice means that wrongdoings must be dealt with according to the society's laws.

*P.S. All of this doesn't apply to Uma Thurman;
 Please don't kick my ass.