"[Gaga Stigmata has] very modern, edgy photography to free flowing, urban narratives without censure to analytical essays, et cetera—like Gaga, imagination without ... limits. And the beauty is that anyone can submit work to the site, so artists and writers from all over the [world] have joined this experiment." -The Declaration.org

"Since March 2010, [Gaga Stigmata] has churned out the most intense ongoing critical conversation on [Lady Gaga]."
-Yale's The American Scholar

Showing posts with label Jo Calderone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jo Calderone. Show all posts

Saturday, August 24, 2013

#throwback – Lady Gaga’s Disease: Jo Calderone and the Pathology of the Image’s Virulent Body


By Roland Betancourt

Note: This essay was presented at the Northeastern Popular Culture Association’s Annual Conference at Western Connecticut State University on 12 November 2011. This paper – which addresses the crucial aspects of image virality, Jo Calderone, and Pierrot – has not been altered in any fashion since it was written back in 2011. The original draft from which this derived was written before the “You and I” video and before Jo Calderone’s manifestation at the 2011 VMA; as such this essay bears witness to the coherent unfolding of Lady Gaga’s project over these subsequent years in a salient manner – particularly given the role that the figure of Pierrot played within this very argument, a figure who has recently come to the forefront of Gaga’s work in “Applause.”

Thursday, May 10, 2012

:: +Stigmata Dreams+:: The Realness of Jo Calderone


By Jennie Gruber

“To be able to blend – that’s what realness is.”
– Dorian Corey, in Paris is Burning

 “Drag... describes discontinuities between gender and sex or appearance and reality but refuses to allow this discontinuity to represent dysfunction. In a drag performance, rather, incongruence becomes the site of gender creativity.”
– Judith Halberstam, Female Masculinities

“On a stage, the laws of fantasy are meant to be broken, but I have always found it difficult to bring my real pussy out there with me.”
– Lady Gaga, from her November 2011 “Memorandum” in V Magazine

+ + +


HEY!

The 2011 Music Television Video Music Awards[i] open with this antagonizing roar, which emanates from an unfamiliar silhouette cloaked in smoke and spotlight.

Emerging onto the stage with an almost limping gait, the figure’s features become clear. A greasy pompadour and sideburns frame a small pretty face and sunken eyes.

The figure introduces and explains itself:

“My name is Jo Calderone. And I was an asshole.”

The live audience and those of us watching on televisions and streaming video are rushing to understand. Wasn’t the opening act of this show hyped as Lady...

“Gaga?”

As if he read our minds, Calderone spits out the nonsense words that have been imbued with so much new cultural significance in the past few years.

“Yeah, her!”

The audience starts to put two and two together, realizing that the Guido-accented Calderone is, actually, Gaga herself in very understated drag.

At this point in history, Lady Gaga is known for many things, and understatement is not one of them. Though her outfit is shockingly minimalist, her presentation is bold and dynamic. She has the audacity to filter drag as a performance concept into a mainstream idiom without ever pandering to the inevitable discomfort this elicits from the MTV cameras.

“She left me!”

Calderone, it would seem from his ranting, is not just another Gaga costume, but a fully developed persona. His presence is one of exaggerated and deliberately staged masculinity. His body language has a method. Elbows cocked, he holds a cigarette between thumb and forefinger, the other three fingers fanned out. He gesticulates like a man who has been using a cigarette to make a point since he was 14 years old. His posture is slouched forward into his black, loosely fitting Brooks Brothers suit, shoulders shaking his jacket with the muscle memory of someone who wears it everyday.

“But she’s fuckin’ crazy too right?”

Egging on the live crowd by variably charging downstage at them, he reiterates:

“I mean, she’s ... fuckin’ ... crazy!”

Describing a bedroom scene in which Gaga flaunts the ultimate femme refusal to take off her stilettos (even in the shower), Calderone himself is wearing boots with three some odd inches subtly wedged into the heels. This is perhaps the only clue in his entire ensemble that his costume is an androgynously stylized one; and his acknowledgement of Gaga’s usual hyper-feminine presentation subtly reveals that she knows exactly what she’s doing.

The MTV house cameras (who also know exactly what they’re doing) cut to the cartoonishly girlie pop starlet of the hour Katy Perry doing her best with raised eyebrows and open-mouth smile to convincingly look shocked yet delighted at what she’s witnessing.

Calderone continues to rail against Gaga – on the subject of her wild hair, her love of the spotlight, and perhaps in anticipation of the public’s reaction to this performance: “At first it was sexy but now I’m just confused.”

Britney Spears is revealed by the probing cameras, mouth agape, indeed looking predictably dumbfounded.

“And I think it’s great, you know, I think it’s really fucking great that she’s such a stah. A big, beautiful stah in the sky.”

The crowd starts to cheer intermittently, drowning some of Calderone’s punch lines. It’s almost as if they’re attempting to throw off his timing. More likely MTV’s teleprompts are begging them to act as if they understand and approve of what’s happening.

“But how am I supposed to shine?”

The powers-at-be at MTV understand that they have to fabricate reactions, like a nervous hostess frantically keeping drinks filled and hors d’oeuvres circulating. Their audience is getting awkward. This, as it turns out, ain’t no female pop star in a fashionable suit. This is a drag king show; easily the highest concept drag king show ever to be performed by a high-femme-identified pop star on mainstream television. It’s undoubtedly the first time such a pop star has asked her audience, with very little warning, to accept her as not only an unfamiliar character but as another gender for the duration of an entire media spectacle.

“I’m startin’ to think that’s who she is. I mean maybe that’s just who. she. is.”

Tomorrow and for the next few months, distressed online media reportage will sneer headlines along the lines of: “Was it too much?” and, “Brilliant or creepy?” and, “Did Lady Gaga just end her career with this embarrassing Jo Calderone?” It seems that even artists with reputations for defying expectations will be called to task for attempting something, well, unexpected- in this case, something that not only revels in its queerness but spits its high concept pretensions in its audience’s face. Though his speech is haunted by the audience’s thwarted expectations of Gaga’s femininity, Calderone is unfaltering in the face of the their unease.

“I gotta get in thea.”

A pregnant pause with cigarette outstretched, palm turned up and shaking.

“When she cums,[ii] she covers her face, like she can’t stand to have one honest moment whea nobody’s watching!”

The audience has come to expect Gaga in particular and MTV in general to be both entertainment and provocation, but they are also desensitized to contrived shocks well within their comfort zone. This digestible outrageousness has become the bread and butter of the mainstream music industry. Gaga bursts through these boundaries, playing deliberately with discomfort. Her artistic agency is all too rare in the pantheon of female pop star into which she has launched herself; almost as rare as, say, talking about their orgasms onstage.

“I want her to be real. But she says, ‘Jo...’”

A suck of the cigarette for dramatic effect.

“I’m not real. I’m theatah. And ‘you and I’...”

As these last three words are the name of Gaga’s most recent single, the crowd’s enthusiasm sounds significantly more genuine. A bone has been thrown. This is a joke they get, one they can participate in.

Their encouraging cheer all but drowns the speech’s deliberate conclusion:

You and I (meaning Gaga and Calderone, meaning Stephanie Germanotta[iii] and her audience)...

“...This is just rehearsal. I gotta get in theah.”
+ + +

If you take an elevator ride in the Imperial Palace on the Las Vegas strip, you will hardly be able to ignore the television advertising the hotel’s main attraction: Frank Marino’s Divas, a celebrity female impersonation extravaganza. Following a rapid-fire series of clips showcasing an assortment of drag queens doing Britney, Madonna, and other glamour standards, the leering mug of the blonde bejeweled queen persona of Marino materializes. The voice-over blares: “You won’t believe your eyes...” and the queen morphs into a head-shot of an out-of-drag, decidedly masculine Frank, accompanied by the assurance that: “...these gals are really guys!”

This “revelation” will be jarring to anyone who has ever frequented drag shows in dingy dives, where kings and queens immerse themselves in the attire, body language, and pronoun of a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth. The purpose of this facade is to be at once exaggerated and convincing in the chosen gender, as is the case with the dramatically campy but believably macho Calderone. The joy of being on a drag stage is weaving a collective fantasy, regardless of the degree to which the gender being depicted is a part of the performer’s identity when they peel off the spirit gum mustache or unhook their girdle.

When the Imperial Palace marketers literalize the “impersonation” aspect of Marino’s act, they undermine the central mystique of drag. In Vegas, a heterocentric territory of comfortable sensationalism not unlike the aforementioned digestible shock value of MTV, drag can profit so long as it panders to anticipated queer anxiety of its audience. “These girls are really guys” is a reassurance that the queerness inherent in drag doesn’t carry over into “real life.” Gender inversion is marketable entertainment provided it is clearly delineated within the confines of theatricality, and doesn’t spill over into identity, desire, or what the performer wears on their day off.

Gaga, in contrast, revels in the gender ambiguity implied by a drag act that never lets on that an offstage life exists. She may even achieve what the voguing queens of Jennie Livington’s 1990 documentary of underground Harlem drag balls Paris is Burning call “realness”: complete embodiment of an archetype in a performance.
+ + +

Jo Calderone’s significance is even more notable when considered alongside other instances of female pop stars in some semblance of drag.


Eleven VMAs ago Britney Spears appeared onstage in a baggy suit to sing possibly the most neutered-ever rendition of the covered-to-death Stones classic “Satisfaction”[iv]. One minute into the song the suit was ripped off to reveal a body stocking, transparent except for glittering sequins, and Spears proceeded through the motions of her standard routine of stiffly suggestive dancing. Her allure is more stripper kitsch than personal sexual expression.

R&B Singers Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Ciara, and Mya have all appeared in their own music videos[v] wearing masculine costumes, either to highlight sexist double standards or parody their male celebrity counterparts. In each case, the masculine incarnation dances alongside or otherwise transforms into her typical public imagine, writhing in stunningly feminine glamour. Though they might slip into baggy pants or fashionable blazers, any butch identification is quickly glossed over with mini-dresses and enormous diamonds.

Annie Lennox pulled her own drag stunt at the 1984 Grammys. Like Calderone, the Eurythmics frontwoman sported sideburns, pompadour and simple black suit. Lennox’s signature androgyny made this a convincing fashion statement, but she was less embodying a fully realized character than doing a superficial, if convincing, Elvis impression. In the Eurythmics’ “Who’s that Girl” video, Lennox plays the double role of “Elvis” and a blonde-bombshell in pink lipstick. Dated CGI allows the male and female Lennox to make out at the clip’s conclusion, unifying Lennox’s dual personas in androgynous lust.


Each of these flirtations with masculinity are accompanied by a “these guys are really gals” reveal, distinguishing them from drag kings as what Judith Halberstam calls “femme pretenders.” With the same queer-anxiety soothing disclaimer as the Vegas show, each of these artists shows “how thoroughly her femininity saturates her performance – she performs the failure of her masculinity as a spectacle.” (Halberstam 250) Any exploration of masculinity only serves to reinforce the feminine, a disclaimer that renders it commercially comfortable. Calderone, in contrast, never tears off his suit, or even acknowledges that he is being personified by Gaga, eliciting discomfort that is in and of itself revealing. He remains firmly committed to his character, and gender, even when he sings Gaga’s song...

+ + +

His well-rehearsed speech completed, Calderone dashes to an upright piano to launch into a barroom version of the foreshadowed “You and I.” A hidden band kicks in, and the camera cuts to cartoonishly boyish pop star of the hour Justin Bieber looking more hostile than confused, like no one told him rocknroll was gonna be gay.

The singer tears off his jacket, does another verse with Calderone-clone back-up dancers,[vi] announces the onstage arrival of Brian May[vii] on lead guitar and closes the act by hurling himself atop and off the piano, spraying beer into the bewildered crowd, and posing next to May with the enthusiasm of a very confident and clearly wasted karaoke contestant.


The relative banality of this song’s lyrics (“taste like whiskey/when you kiss me” etc) and chord progression (which it must be noted May could wail on with his hands tied behind his back) is drowned by the display of utter showmanship from Gaga, for whom the margin between inventiveness in image and originality in music has always been so suspiciously wide as to almost seem intentional.

The performance doesn’t stop with the song. When he joins the audience to watch the rest of the show, returns to the stage as an award presenter, and schmoozes backstage, Calderone remains in character with an Andy Kauffman-like commitment. Hardly a mention of the event will neglect to make particular note of him using the men’s bathroom. He has a back-story, corroborated in the Autumn/Winter 2010 Vogue Homme Japan: origin (Palermo by way of Jersey) occupation (Mechanic), and identity in relation to Gaga herself (erstwhile lover). At the post-show press conference, Calderone responds to a reporter’s query, “What can you express as Calderone that you can’t express as Gaga?” with a blank look and mumbled; “I don’t undahstand the question.”[viii]

Extraordinarily, Gaga plays the whole thing straight. She never gives an ironic wink, never points to the Lady behind the curtain. She allows her audience to squirm, and revels in the blurred boundaries of man/woman, costumed character/authentic person, fantasy/reality. Calderone’s speech, with its exploration of on-and-off-stage existence, and the 4th wall-breaking execution of the character himself, illustrates Gaga’s comfort in ambiguity. The entire stunt is a daring critique of cultural strictness, not only with regards to gender, but to the authenticity of fame culture as well.

+ + +

At the center of this frenzy of theatrics is Germanotta herself, a multiplicity of “threats”: singer, dancer, writer, entrepreneur, media manipulator, sexual provocateur. The audience wants, like Calderone wants of the woman he embodies and desires, to get in thea, inside that frenzy to understand what Gaga is really all about and why she does the sensational things she does. Is this guy really a gal? What kind of glittering underwear has he got on? Gaga resistance to a reveal not only preserves the integrity of her invented character, but also transmits the message that onstage or off, every person performs their gender and persona. Uncompromising, she offers herself as an example. The roles she plays are as real as the person creating them; her streamlined masculine persona is as real as her hyper-feminine fashion statements or abject alter-egos. Maybe the “real” Lady Gaga is the monstrous, the theatrical, the outsized, her characters, her dopplegangers.

Maybe that’s just who she is.




[i] hereafter MTV VMAs, an event whose name, once charmingly redundant, is by now just short of being a total contradiction in terms
[ii] “cums” is bleeped out by the MTV cameras along with the numerous “fuckin’”s
[iii] Gaga’s given name
[iv] rock’s most shameless expression of heterosexual male lust and frustration, containing a significant consciousness of attire which the Spears version changes from “how white my shirts can be” to “how short my skirts can be”
[v] “Upgrade U” (‘07), “Obsessed” (‘09), “Like a Boy” (‘07) and “My Love is Like..Wo” (‘03), respectively
[vi] None of whom appear to be women in drag, but who can be sure?
[vii] of the incomparable 70’s rock band Queen, and thus no stranger to shredding alongside a flamboyant frontman
[viii] along with untoward soundbites such as; “Didn’t you jerk off to Britney when you were a kid?” and, “It’s fuckin’ bright in heah!” and, in a response to an accusation of Guido-ness, “You got a problem with Italians? Wassamatter wichyoo?” – all departures from Gaga’s typically demure attitude with the press


Author Bio:
Jennie Gruber is a Creative Non-Fiction Writing MFA student at Sarah Lawrence College.  She is also an award-winning documentary filmmaker, zine-maker, and face-melting rocknroller. Her work has been published in Whore! magazine, AORTA magazine, Mcsweeney’s The Believer, and numerous Cleis Press anthologies. She has performed at San Francisco’s Litquake along with a multitude of other reading series, academic panels, and community educational events. Her preoccupations include shameless expressions of transgressive sexual identities, the para-literary, and punk communities. She lives in Brooklyn.  imnotayoungmananymore.tumblr.com

+ + +

Gaga Stigmata is currently sleeping, preparing for her cultural rebirth in print form. Submissions are currently closed. Watch for news about our book's release in Fall 2012. :: +Stigmata Love+ ::

Click here to follow Gaga Stigmata on Twitter.
Click here to “like” Gaga Stigmata on Facebook.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Oh Jo, Make Me a Cyborg

By Samantha Cohen

The following is the fifth piece in our series on Lady Gaga’s “Yoü and I.” For previous analyses, click here.

This year for my August 16 birthday, Gaga released a fantastical-violent video-world containing my favorite things: cyborgs, “nature,” mythical creatures, dolls, Jo Calderone. Also on my birthday, a friend sent me excerpts of Martin Buber’s essay I and Thou. The umlaut on “Yoü and I”’s “u” makes me almost think that Gaga intends for me to connect her video with the German essay, and I’m going to. Also, I’m going to argue that Gaga creates a world in which real love involves violence and objectification; a world in which cyborg love is the best kind.


So okay, Buber says that an individual person has no spirit – spirit exists only in the connection between two people. And the lovers in “Yoü and I” do animate each other, make spirit together, etc., but also something else is happening here. Buber laments this something else. “All response,” he says, of a You to an I, “binds the You into the It-world” (1). The beloved, in other words, never escapes becoming an object.


But in “Yoü and I,” as opposed to in I and Thou, objectification and spirit-making are part of the same process of becoming.

The world of the “Yoü and I” video challenges the idea of the natural: who can say that the fields are natural while they’re traversed by a cyborg? Who can say that anything’s natural in a world that contains mermaids and phoenixes? In becoming an object in “Yoü and I,” the beloved takes her place in the world; she takes on a set of constraints within which to create, to act in a world of other constructions.

“Yoü and I,” obviously, is about relationships. We see a lot of them. I’m going to go relationship-by-relationship below, discussing the spirit-making/objectification in each.

CYBORG GAGA

The video opens on an already-object Gaga – Cyborg Gaga. Cyborg Gaga has obviously already gone through a relating process that has both turned her into an object and given her the spirit that enabled her to disappear (in order to make art?) for two years.


Cyborg Gaga sets up early the pain and the necessity of becoming an object. The lanyard straps of her high heels are cutting her, making grotesquely bruised and bleeding ankles, yet she’s returning to Nebraska for a man who wants her “in a corner of (his) bar with (these) high heels on.” She’s returned to re-undergo the bloody process of objectification. Cyborg Gaga craves to be an object, and thus to be re-animated.


The lyrics also reveal Cyborg Gaga’s desire to be an object in that she’s returning specifically in order to be her lover’s “baby doll.” In the world of this video, we see that baby dolls are not innocent. The baby doll in the video’s intro is displayed by a ghoulish ice cream truck driver, and Cyborg Gaga’s reactions are both to nuzzle the doll to her face, as well as to wince and cower from it. I read these opposite reactions as illustrative of Gaga’s desire to both be and possess a love object, as well as her fear of the painful process of transformation.


JO CALDERONE AND NATURE GAGA

So I want to argue that Jo Calderone is not a hetero man but a queer butch or else a drag king. Mostly my rubric for this is the same know-it-when-you-see-it approach that my high school English teacher claimed applied to both good writing and pornography, but also, I’ll turn to Judith Halberstam. Halberstam makes a distinction between “Butch Realness” and “Femme Pretenders” (classifications I might change to simply “butches” and “drag kings,” as I think drag needs some degree of camp in order to qualify, and also that it’s problematic to use some kind of “natural” butch- or femme-ness to make distinctions between “real” drag and “pretend” drag, but I’ll use Halberstam’s terms). Halberstam says that we can recognize “Femme Pretenders” by “heavy eyebrows…deliberately overdone” (check), and by poses that are “deliberately, loudly theatrical and even parodic” (check, check). Jo’s beer bottle throwing, snarl, shoulder action, and anachronistic greaser style mark him, I think, as queer. Along with the spelling of his name, the typically female Jo rather than the male Joe.


The queerness of Jo and Nature Gaga’s relationship is important in this video because it demonstrates that objectification is part of all love relationships, not only heterosexual/heterosexist ones – that feminism will not lead us to a world without human-objects, nor should we want it to, for reasons I’ll get to soon. Objectification between Nature Gaga and Jo comes, though, through consensual BDSM, which is not fully enacted here, but is clearly suggested, I think,


We see Gaga’s consent in this relationship when she slaps Jo’s hand away playfully, showing her agreement to enter into a relationship of slapping/grabbing, as well as asserting her agency not to be slapped or grabbed. The violence in this relationship is ironic and playful, while also doing the necessary objectifying work.

Jo, too, is aware of his own object status. He poses and postures, greases his hair and rolls up his sleeves for Nature Gaga. (And for us. Mm.)


So here’s why, according to Donna Haraway, we shouldn’t want not to be objects: Haraway describes the cyborg condition as a shift from “white capitalist patriarchy” to “informatics of domination” within “a post-gender world” (3). Her A Cyborg Manifesto critiques the feminism of the 70s that would have goddess-women frolicking in a field, howling at the moon. The earthy nature goddesses in “Yoü and I” may be free, but ultimately they’re prancing in circles in boring nightgowns, incapable of real action in the object/cyborg-world. By opting out of objecthood, they’re opting out of personhood. They barely interact with each other, making them spiritless, Buberianly speaking. They do not sing.

Through objectification and playful domination, it seems, Jo Calderone has rescued Nature Gaga from her fate of field-prancing and brought her into the It-world, which is where she is able both to have a love relationship, and to make music. We see, near the almost-BDSM moment, Nature Gaga running fierce and determined toward the camera, away from the coven of goddesses. Also just after that moment, Gaga is playing the piano with more animation (spirit) than before, and her body movements take on a robotic (cyborgian) quality.


VIRGIN BRIDE GAGA AND HER HUNK

Let’s contrast the kind of objectification and domination between Jo and Nature Gaga with those practices between the video’s traditionally patriarchal couple: Virgin Bride Gaga and her Betrothed.

The wide-eyed and worshipful Virgin Bride Gaga is being treated as an object, but she isn’t aware of her status as such. Virgin Bride’s Betrothed unwraps her possessively, engulfingly, but Virgin Bride Gaga hasn’t consented, as Nature Gaga has, to the terms of her objectification – she’s too innocent to be capable of consent. Though the bride’s Hunk enacts the least amount of physical violence on his love object of any of the video’s lovers, he is somehow the creepiest. There is no question of future violence toward Virgin Gaga, and not seeing it only makes it more menacing. This video has already established a world in which no one is innocent. Virgin Bride demonstrates that innocence is not a thing to strive for, as innocence only means surrendering to objectification without really consenting.

Besides being childlike, Virgin Bride is ghosty and ethereal. She’s see-through. And I see her see-through wedding as a critique of the flimsy love narrative propagated by popular media – a critique of the idea of love as cute and non-violent and transcendent. The sweet, transcendent love between a virgin bride and a strapping hunk does not exist in the actual world of this video: in this video-world, in order to transcend, you have to become a ghost.

RELATIONSHIPS IN THE BARN

For me, the world of the barn is a world of metaphor, an unconscious world. Here, there are more incarnations of Gaga than I can confidently count (it’s unclear who is the same self and who is Other) and time passes nonlinearly, as in dreams. (Is the black-haired Gaga in a water chamber, for example, pre-mermaid Yuyi, or a failed attempt at mermaid making, or something else all together?) Is the male lover person creating or caring for these hybrid Gagas? The barn represents visually and non-logically what is happening in all the video’s relationships: object-creation, unspeakable violence, tenderness, love, myth-infusing, hybridity.


CLOSING THOUGHTS & CYBORG GAGA, AGAIN

Buber says, “Only silence toward the you…leaves the You free. Where Buber seems to present this leaving-the-beloved-in-silence as a non-option (or a tragic option?), in the world of “Yoü and I” the leaving, optimistically, is an option. We see the Is in this video leave their Yous free via silence here: Jo postures and puffs and looks at the sky, leaving Nature Gaga free to experiment with her music. When her lover leaves, Mermaid Yuyi flips her tail excitedly and has little moments of exultation in her new objecthood. And Cyborg Gaga has left for two years, she says, imaginably to be in a free and silent state, but is now returning for more objectifying love. Solo freedom, it seems, is the other side of object-love, but the free in this video are relation-made objects already. In this world, Spirit-imbuing objectification-love can happen, and then silent freedom, in cycles that range from a song bar to two years.


At the end of the video, we see Cyborg Gaga’s face, and it is the first face in the video that we trust, that isn’t menacing or empty in some way, and we realize that this is because we, the viewer-lovers, have created Cyborg Gaga. She is our object. By watching, we are guilty of this process of objectification-love, but also we are responsible for making Gaga possible – for entering into the relationship that makes the spirit by which she creates.

Works Cited:

1) Buber, Martin, and Ronald Gregor. Smith. I and Thou. New York, NY: Scribner, 2000. Print.

2) Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinity. London [u.a.: Duke Univ., 2006. Print.

3) Haraway, Donna Jeanne. A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. 2009. Print.

Click here to follow Gaga Stigmata on Twitter.
Click here to “like” Gaga Stigmata on Facebook.

Friday, August 19, 2011

HER AND ME

By Devin O’Neill & Mrs. O’Neill

The following piece is the second analysis in our series on Lady Gaga’s video for “Yoü and I”. For the first piece, click here; for the second, here.

We’ll begin colloquially, since the video takes place in the country.

Having little bits of metal implanted in your face and arm fucking hurts. In fact, the entire video hurts. Even the shot of her high heels looks painful, though nothing’s involved but dirt, grass and shoes. Maybe that’s saying something about high heels. Maybe that’s saying something about a lot of things.

Women are cyborgs. People in relationships are cyborgs.

Donna Haraway basically seemed to think that anything that could be parsed as two interlocking systems could be deemed cybernetic, because the distinction between the “natural” and the “artificial” didn’t mean much to her. But we see the violation of the body’s boundaries in this video and in general, in terms of cybernetics, as painful. Robocop did not look comfortable, and neither does Gaga. What does that mean about falling in love?


These implants aren’t the only painful situations in the video. There are allusions to restraint and suffocation – a mermaid outside of the water might have trouble breathing. Those prominent gills have nothing to draw in. She’s being taken care of, but a huge proportion of the scenes in the video look very uncomfortable.

There are two notable exceptions: her wedding scene and her scene with Jo Calderone.

These are worth looking at, firstly to discover if they actually are exceptions.

I can’t think about Jo without thinking about Carl Jung. The Anima and Animus, psychic shadow-personalities created from the repressed femininity in males and the repressed masculinity in females, that act at gateways, guides to the deep areas of the subconscious. The essentialist ideas implicit here cause problems, and I wouldn’t be so on board with them except for the problematic nature of Jo himself.

He’s male, and this makes him somehow different from all of Gaga’s other creations. He received an enormous amount of attention for this. Why?

Let me put this another way: Jo throws into stark relief the fact that all of Gaga’s other images and personas, while infinitely mutable, have all been decidedly female. She isn’t as amorphous as we thought. There’s something about men.

But here, at last, she gives us a man. And she has a very special relationship with this man.

Both Jung and Aliester Crowley would argue that an individual’s marriage to herself is one of the most self-actualized accomplishments in human psychic life. And that’s what Gaga’s giving us here. The force inside you that makes you fall in love, that makes the whole world seem aglow and full of butterflies? That comes from you, and gets projected onto the love-object. You can have access to that feeling whenever you want.

Is Gaga in love with Jo Calderone?

One would sculpt a male identity based on a male ideal. A possible answer is “yes”.

So we have her and Jo loving and doving in the cornfield. But we also have a very literal wedding taking place, with a gorgeous model, this acknowledgement of the other.

This other, though, is performing surgeries and violations of pornographic proportions on the pain-nerved body of our ingénue. The aggressive imagery stands in stark contrast to the upbeat rock and roll of the track. Why all the violence?


We have, here, the narrative of human love as process. Because Gaga understands something important about love, something blindingly obvious but something that often gets left out of the media’s portrayals and our own perceptions.

Love is pain.

Her example-narrative points us not to a single moment of love, the happy moment, the moment of butterflies, but to the entirety of romantic engagement as a process viewed in four-dimensional space. Five dimensional, even, because of all the layering of metaphor. Consummation is thrust in our face at the same moment as agony, and it’s all soundtracked by a rousing stomper of an uplifting track that closes Gaga’s religious statement of an album. She says, watch me get surgery performed, watch me experience pain and suffocation, and watch me do it triumphantly. Watch me get married, too. Watch me do it all at the same time.

Love and mating are engagements in which both systems involved must open to the interaction. Parts mesh, gears grind, and things get snapped off. Love is violence and collision; I’m sure Ballard would agree. Love is the creation of the cyborg, the amalgamation; it’s the ultimate surgery on our subjectivity. This is the surgery that’s being performed in the video, and whether the interaction is between Gaga and the other or Gaga and herself is ultimately immaterial – when say that we must come to love ourselves, the violence of a bifurcation has already taken place.

The oxygen mask offered to the mermaid. The splitting of the self. The longing, and the eternal gap, and the tiny, glorious moments of consummation we get. These processes are the reward for living and loving. The processes themselves. The entire picture, and the slow disassembly, throughout our lives, of the chrysalis of ourselves, the imprisoning neurosis of our own individuality. Learn to love, and learn to die. Be ready.


Grant Morrison has declared, in lectures and in writing, the end of the individual in favor of a kind of willful schizophrenia, the development of multiple personalities to avoid the ego’s calcification and lack of options toward being. What a charming idea: two of those multiple personalities could get married.

You can marry yourself.

But you can also marry somebody else. The meshing is never easy, and you do it at peril of the disruption of your current system of self. But this pain, this surgery, is celebrated by Gaga. This song is triumphant and liberating and the video should be viewed the same way; we should marvel at this gorgeous violation of becoming, we should glory in the dirty obscenities of love as thoroughly as we celebrate its beauty. The video forces us to confront both sides of the coin at once. It’s a tesseract diagram of how to love, and we should not just examine it. We should go beyond that, and examine our own lives, loves, and pains in the same way. In five-dimensional hyperspace, the way they actually exist. They’re beautiful that way.


Photographs and video from Devin and Mrs. O'Neill's honeymoon album.

Author Bios:
Devin O’Neill is a writer, performance artist, PR practitioner, and compulsive liar. He enjoys things he shouldn’t, on purpose, and tries to get other people to enjoy them too. Some of his projects can be found at http://www.popocalypse.com/ and at http://devinoneill.blogspot.com/.

Mrs. O'Neill is a psycho.

Click here to follow Gaga Stigmata on Twitter.
Click here to “like” Gaga Stigmata on Facebook.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Bifurcation of the Simple

By Eddie McCaffray

The following piece is the second analysis in our series on Lady Gaga’s video for “Yoü and I”. For the first piece, click here.


Lady Gaga’s newest video, “Yoü and I”, released two days ahead of schedule on August 16th, includes the usual heavy dollop of striking images and dichotomies. There’s the bloody-heeled, black-clad, cyborg Gaga lurching gracefully down a sun-baked Nebraska highway; there is the mad-scientist lover and the Frankenstein Gaga-mermaid he creates; there is the virginal dream-state Gaga performing “Yoü and I” in a cornfield for the Jo Calderone Gaga.


Clearly, present here are sets of oppositions: Cyborg Gaga is both glamorous and very literally artificial, fake, robotic, made in the big city of show business and high technology – what is she doing in rural farm country, in the heartland? There’s also Jo Calderone, the hard-bitten greaser, and Nightie Gaga, the picture of an innocent farm-girl. Not only do these two oppose one another as simple man and woman, or rebellious hellion and doe-eyed virgin, but they also, as a couple, stand in sharp contrast to the freakish and raunchy pairing of Mermaid Gaga and her mad-scientist creator (who is, in his turn, marked as the opposite to his fishy pop creation by the wings tattooed on his back).


What does it all mean? Of course, oppositional pairings are nothing new to Gaga’s work. In my essay about the “Judas” song and video, I discussed several such pairings: Judas and Jesus themselves, as well as Gaga’s equation of betrayal and forgiveness in an interview. That piece suggested that these opposites might in fact be one and the same: Gaga’s vices are her strengths, her fears are her aspirations. In my essay “Grammar Trouble and Lady Gaga’s Lyrical ‘I’”, I considered the way in which Gaga’s character songs blur the distinctions between various individuals, with major ramifications for power, agency, and identity.


In the “Yoü and I” video, as in these previous works, Gaga is interested in a very special kind of opposition, or duality: namely, she is interested in binaries which only appear to oppose one another; but when we peer at them more closely, or understand them in a new, more profound light, we come to see that they are in fact indistinguishable from one another – they are unities. Cyborg Gaga is, after all, returning to her home – “it’s been a long time since I came around/been a long time but I’m back in town.” She may have changed in drastic, even horrifying ways, but can it be denied that she is still a creature of the place in which she was born? Of course, Jo Calderone is easy to explain in this light: he is Lady Gaga in the most literal sense. And as an artistic creation, acted out by her, he fits in perfectly well as the dream of Nightie Gaga – who, after all, must be dreaming of some hunk, or why is she scampering around in her underwear at night in the middle of a giant field of fertility metaphor?

Giant field of fertility metaphor
In a similar sense, the winged-scientist lover and Mermaid Gaga also belong together, require one another. The monstrous passion of the scientist requires its project, as his monstrous lover’s passion requires the object of its lust. He clearly craves his opposite, a fish woman to his birdman, and their coupling is obviously both joyful and desperate on the part of both parties. Though perhaps Mermaid Gaga didn’t know that she needed the transformation her tormentor-turned-creator-turned lover has inflicted upon her, she seems to realize it by the end of the video. And the pain and violence of her creation is not incidental – it parallels the bloody, raw heels of Cyborg Gaga as she marches home down the highway. Journeys of self-discovery, as well as of homecoming, are difficult and even painful. (Odysseus, the original home-comer, is given his name by his grandfather who takes it from the word odium; he is later only recognized by the scars on his body – physical manifestations of the odium heaped upon his being. His pain, therefore, is synonymous with his identity.)


Thus the “Yoü and I” video is perhaps Gaga’s most overt statement on identity thus far. The crux of this video is that, despite the oppositions between Nightie Gaga and Calderone Gaga, between Mermaid Gaga and Nightie Gaga, between Cyborg Gaga and Nebraska Homestead, and between the two different romantic pairs, all these different Gagas belong together: even more, they are one.


This is how the identity which Gaga posits, and which she explores not only in individual songs and performances, but also in her day-to-day performance art project, is able to be at once performative and essential. The title of her second album, Born this Way, certainly caused a hubbub among many observers who considered themselves informed. How could Gaga champion empowered self-creation, to say nothing of LGBT rights, and yet choose a name that positively screamed the essentialist understanding of identity: from birth and by birth we are determined? Such observers could take a lesson from Gaga in the (re)unification of supposed-binaries: does having a destiny truly preclude self-creation, or transformation? Isn’t it conceivable that one’s destiny might be to make a certain choice, and if so, hasn’t the opposition between fate and freedom become obsolete or arbitrary?  


Hegel, in the Preface to his Phenomenology of Spirit, writes,

Further, the living Substance is being which is in truth Subject, or, what is the same, is in truth actual only in so far as it is the movement of positing itself, or is the mediation of its self-othering with itself. This Substance is, as Subject, pure, simple negativity, and is for this very reason the bifurcation of the simple; it is the doubling which sets up opposition, and then again the negation of this indifferent diversity and of its antithesis [the immediate simplicity]. Only this self-restoring sameness, or this reflection in otherness within itself – not an original or immediate unity as such – is the True. It is the process of its own becoming, the circle that presuppose its end as its goal, having its end also as its beginning; and only by being worked out it its end, is it actual. (10)

I argue that what Hegel means in this passage and what Gaga is attempting to say about identity have much in common. Hegel’s argument is that the really real, the “actual”, the human subject, must include both itself and the perception of itself. There is always a distance inherent in identity, a sense in which a person knows who and where they are, and also that they could be something else someplace else. Thus, in a way, identity is an empty space, a gulf across which the self is perceived by something at once itself and alien. Compare this idea to one of Gaga’s tweets in the days before the video was released: “We bare an Unbearable Human Inability: to just ‘be.’” She grasps what Hegel means when he writes that “this substance is, as Subject, pure, simple negativity” – humans are nothing more than the perception of something missing, of a void wherein that perception will always struggle and transform in an attempt to be fulfilled. Hence the arduous distance Cyborg Gaga must traverse, which leaves her ankles caked with blood, before she can return to a home as alien as it must be familiar. Hence the painful, rapine, monstrous transformation Mermaid Gaga undergoes before the throes of pleasure, before the coming-home of orgasmic ecstasy; hence the desire of Nightie Gaga for her dream object, which is after all only an inversion of herself. That tweet also includes “love is a result” – the result of this striving, a homecoming across the gulf of the self, which is perhaps not so different from the gulf between two selves.


Author Bio:
Eddie McCaffray is a PhD student studying medieval history at Arizona State University.

Click here to follow Gaga Stigmata on Twitter.
Click here to “like” Gaga Stigmata on Facebook.