By Meghan Vicks
I
want to begin by thinking about this movement to put “onstage” what is normally
confined to the “offstage.” We first witnessed this during Gaga’s recent VMA “Applause”
performance: her hairstylist Frederic Aspiras and makeup artist Tara Savelo
were both onstage as integral parts of the performance, and, as
Roland Betancourt first commented, their presence onstage actually draws
our attention to these operations of a performance that are normally kept
hidden from the spectators (e.g. putting on makeup and wigs, etc.). By putting
Aspiras and Savelo onstage, we not only begin to contemplate how the spectacle
comes into being, but Gaga is positioned as the medium upon which her various
spectacles emerge. Gaga is not only the spectacle (Fame-era Gaga, “Telephone”-Gaga, etc.), but also the artistic
medium (the canvas, the screen, the marble, the clay, etc.).
Throughout
her iTunes Festival performance, Gaga puts the “offstage” onstage several
times. After singing “Aura,” she announces just
a minute, I have to do a very elaborate quick change, and she does so right
before the audience – taking off a top and putting on her heels. By making this
announcement, and then changing onstage, she makes these often “offstage
operations” part of the onstage performance. She does this again right before
performing “Artpop”: Aspiras, Savelo, and others come onstage to help her switch
wigs, freshen her makeup, and change costumes. Before “Jewels and Drugs” she
again puts on shoes and a flannel shirt. And again before performing “Swine”: Aspiras
and another Haus member flank her as she removes her wig and reveals her
natural hair.
This
obvious move to put “offstage” onstage raises for me a number of questions:
1. In
general, to what extent are normal offstage operations actually part of any
spectacle? Do they merely set the stage upon which the spectacle takes place?
(Production crew people – I want to hear from you!)
2. How
is our (the audience’s) experience of the spectacle affected when Gaga shows us
the workings of the spectacle (how it is constructed)? Are we excited or let down
when we see the Oz-ian “(wo)man behind the curtain”?
3. Is
Gaga’s iTunes performance a self-aware or self-reflexive spectacle?
4. If
during the Fame-era, Gaga was known
for bringing the spectacle into everyday life, for claiming that there’s no
difference between her costumes and her real self (or between Stefani and
Gaga), then what happens when she (a) shows the construction of the spectacle
onstage, and (b) reveals her real hair onstage, while saying in the same breath
this wig is me too?
As a
preliminary answer to some of these questions, I want to suggest that by
putting onstage the “offstage operations,” Gaga reveals how even the medium
condition is a performance or an artifice. When Aspiras helps Gaga change her
wigs onstage, the preparation of the performer becomes a performance in its own
right: after all, it’s taking place on stage – the quality of it being “onstage”
grants it its ontology as a performance. Or when Gaga takes off her wig to
reveal her real hair, she still does so onstage: the revelation of the reality
is also, therefore, a performance.
This
is not to say that performance trumps reality, or that there is no such thing
as reality. Rather, this is to affirm (once again) that our realities (yes, our everyday realities, not just Lady Gaga’s)
are made up of performances.
Or,
to put it another way: what’s the difference between performance and reality?
We no longer understand the question. (What’s the difference between a
performative identity and a birthed identity? We no longer understand the
question.)
By
putting onstage the “offstage,” Gaga forces us to reconsider the boundaries of
the spectacle, and its workings. She presents herself not just as a performer,
but also as the medium condition upon which the performer comes into being.
Which leads me to a final observation: throughout her iTunes performance, Gaga continued
to construct her narrative of downfall (this narrative can be traced back to
her HAUS video “Lady Gaga is Over,” and was picked up during her VMA
performance that opened with pre-recorded audience boos and jeers). During her
iTunes performance, she thanked her audience for “taking her back,” and often
spoke in terms of a comeback. I wonder: as Gaga shows us how the pop star is
constructed on stage (with her costume changes, switching wigs, etc.), is she
also drawing our attention to a narrative that is necessary to the construction
of the pop star: that is, the narrative of her downfall, reinvention, and
resurrection? Is the “comeback” a requisite of the pop star, part and parcel of
the pop star’s mythos? And is Gaga therefore drawing our attention to this,
(just as she draws our attention to her hairstylist and makeup artist), in
order to show us just how pop stars come into being and operate, via downfall
and comeback, wigs and costume changes?
I
ask these as serious questions, and welcome your thoughts.
I really like this article and would like to point out some things I'm thinking about this. (Pardon my english, I'm not a native speaker).
ReplyDeleteFirst, I actually like how she's bringing the offstage onstage. During the Fame era I liked how Gaga, as an artist, gave up everything, even her own identity in order to become art(pop). It is very powerful. Now we see her as her "real" self, transforming onstage. To me this is even more magical because when she puts on the Fame era wig I see one Gaga and then, two seconds later in front of my eyes she transforms into other Gaga. This is very interesting, taking into account the whole canvas concept. She is actually a blank canvas and she can transform into any Gaga she wants at anytime. I consider the movement she's doing, making the boundaries between reality and performance (and between art and pop) become uncertain is so interesting in terms of theory of perception and of how we see and construct our reality, I'm thinking about the construction of identity now and the act of becoming a Subject (in the lacanian theory).
Other thing that I thought about the iTunes festival performance was that the outfit at the very begining (during Aura) was similar to the outfit she wore during Scheisse in the BTW Ball. This was the song she was performing when she couldn't go on and couldn't take the pain from her hip anymore. So I'm wondering if she chose the outfit to mark a continuation, sort of trying to go on from where she left off. Thinking about parallel realities: onstage / offstage and how the difference between these two are not always so clear.
This was a bit of free association after Reading the article so excuse me for any typos, misspelling, etc.
As someone who is starting out working behind the scenes in television, I hadn't thought about the behind-the-scenes work in terms of "setting the stage upon which the spectacle takes place" (to answer your first question). I've always considered it as just setting up the stage (or production, in my field). I have never considered my setting up a production as being part of the spectacle. After I read this article, however, it can be argued that setting up the production, or "stage," is part of the spectacle for someone who is an observer--not for someone who is part of the process.
ReplyDeleteBy reading this article, I am also reminded of Gaga saying that she "is every icon." The fact that, through the onstage make up/hair changes, she becomes a different person before our eyes, she is reiterating the fact that there are different facets to her being and that she is a canvas. When she would say that Lady Gaga and Stefani Germanotta are the same person, or when she would be asked what she was like in her private life, she would say that she is exactly the same as in her public persona. By bringing the "offstage" onstage, she is blurring the distinctions between those two beings. I think this is a way of having us, the viewers, see that we also are a canvas. We also have a performance when we leave our houses--even though millions of people do not watch us on stage, we are still performing. Like Gaga, we choose what we show others.