Anyway, so I was wandering the roman wilderness that is these interwebs and came across an article lady gaga did of late for
Vmagazine. Ive never actually been a fan of
madame ga but she sure seems to have had a lot of press and influence in the last few minutes. Im not sure if anyone actually takes her seriously or not but surely
she takes herself seriously, as evidenced by this column. Its always so striking and funny for me to read something like this. I spend the lions share of my time reading blogs and message boards online. This being the case, I kind of just assume that when I read the NY times, or really, anything that is actually published on like, real life, you know,
paper, that it will magically rise to some status or quality far above that of the interwebs.
Such is not the case however. Its strange how, if you took writing like this (gagas, not mine!) and posted it more or less anonymously on a blog someplace, it would get no press whatsoever. Not the slightest mention. It would just be a footnote languishing in the backwoods. But suddenly when you attach a name like "lady gaga" to it its suddenly of sufficient quality to publish and report upon all over the world. Now, im not saying we should not pay any attention to the provenance of the author of any written word, its just an odd reality to my mind.
Anyway im drunk.
(Homebrewed hard apple cider. Still and dry, ahhh, the profits of my stupid hobbies. Should carb some of it . . .)
Lets just at the outset ignore the sophomoric tone of gagas article. The way she seems to beat us over the head with her own defensive rationalizations. Lets instead just take her (whos?) argument at face value, that
"good artists copy, great artists steal". This is one of those perennial problems with postmodern art and its analysis. Sure, all artists are influenced by the culture they are exposed to and in as much as this is the case they all "copy" and "steal" (YOU WOULDNT DOWNLOAD A MONDRIAN!). But if the "art" devolves into nothing but imitation it is mere repetition at best, an inferior reproduction at worst, just nothing but kitsch trash. Sure gaga herself might admit she is inspired by modanna or bazooka gum or whatever else, it doesnt matter really, the real question I have is, down below, deep below the shallow imitation and repetitions, down below the "homage" or "inspiration", someplace down there does there in fact exist an "original" lady gaga? If she is so unafraid of her "mondrian" so that every hem, every silhouette, every palette, is an inspiration then where is the real lady gaga in all that? Is there anything beneath the surface? Or is it just an endless reiteration of reference and pretext? Andy warhol himself said that there was nothing beneath the surface of his paintings and post modernism itself has variously been defined as an entirely reactionary development. Lady gaga reacts to her mondrian with imitation mondrian, but where is the real lady gaga? Who or what inspired the original mondrian? Isnt that essential original mondrian "ideal" lost in this endless repetition? The loss of the aura. And why is it that so many, gaga amongst them, can feel so cavalier about reinterpreting their favorites? Isnt this a little presumptuous on their part? I may call myself a christian, a follower of christ, but it is quite another thing entirely to claim I am
the christ.
Moreover, the whole thing, this whole "theft leads to great art" idea, is quite tenuous. Picassos art developed greatly over his career and at any one time he may of been ahead or behind the curve as far as stylistic variation goes but, as someone who doesnt really like picasso that much, I have to say, picasso is not a great artist because he "stole" from other artists. This entire idea is preposterous. Take for instance JS Bach, one of the greatest composers of all time, perhaps the greatest, one of the greatest artists of all time. Much of bachs greatest work can be traced back to popular songs or themes of his day. He would take a musical theme and then, with the mind of a true genius, he would transform routine tavern music into
some of the greatest music ever composed in all of recorded human history. Notice where the jump off starts, its not at the point he "steals", its at the point he starts reinventing and re-imagining the entire source material. The source material becomes more or less irrelevant, bachs version is the only one anyone cares about. Hundreds of years later his variation on the theme is the only variation many will hear. This distinction, between the source material and your own variation upon it, reminds me of that line from that supreme court justice (which one was it?) about pornography, "I cant define it but I know it when I see it." If gaga haters are calling her a rip off artists its not because she imitates or is inspired by other artists, it is only because she does this imitation badly. Her inspiration is un-inspiring.
The even more irritating thing to me is that we even need to have this discussion at all. It ought to be obvious to anyone who has spent any amount of time thinking about the thing that art is not about limitation. Instead, art is about
removing the limitations that are typically imposed upon us. Art is about liberation from boundaries, total and inexorable possibility, unfettered by reality. Telling an artist they should or should not do this or that makes about as much sense as telling a scientist she or he should not test a theory for fear of popular disapproval. Art does not bow to the inane and heartless concerns of "reason" or "logic". Art has no expressed "function". Art calls to a whole different set of desires and concerns. Incidentally, art is also not a democracy, popularity or the lack thereof means fuck all. The criticism should not be "lady gaga is un-original" or some other such utilitarian nonsense. The criticism should instead be, "lady gaga is boring", or whatever else it is about the
feeling of lady gaga that is so distasteful to her critics. Even gaga misses this though. She doesnt have to defend herself through stupid, badly edited press articles. She isnt a writer, she just looks inarticulate. Again, this is art, you dont have to respond to scrutiny or criticism, art exists in an ether of subjectivity. There are no peer reviewed journals. You dont have to check your facts. You dont have to do your homework.
