"[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

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.

Monday, May 7, 2012

:: +Stigmata Dreams+ ::

Performance Art: What Would Lady Gaga Do?
By Ama Birch

Gaga
Smoking hot.
Not your mama.

DO THE ROBOT!
(The reader signals to the audience to stand up, and they all do the robot dance together.)

Call, call, call
When I am alone
Mall, mall, mall
Telephone.

Baby, baby
Born this way
Maybe, Maybe
Dada gay.

Glitter lands.
Diamond encrusted hands.

Author Bio: 


Ama Birch is a writer, artist, filmmaker, and curator. She was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, and she grew up in Brooklyn, New York. She has an undergraduate degree in Performance and Stage Direction from the State University of New York at New Paltz, and a Master of Fine Arts degree in Writing from the California Institute of the Arts. She has been published by A Gathering of the Tribes, Les Figues Press, ValeVeil, Harold Abramowitz, Compost 2010 and Inglewoodland. She lives and works in New York City. You can find her on Twitter @amabirch.





+ + +

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, May 2, 2012

:: +Stigmata Dreams+ :: Our Lady Pop

By Merrill Miller


Author Bio: Merrill Miller is a poet as well as an avid fan and scholar of popular culture, feminism, queer theory, and new media. When she needs a break from studying for her M.A. in Literary and Cultural Studies at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA, she is probably writing creatively, making beaded jewelry, or discussing politics.   



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.




Saturday, February 25, 2012

Jetztzeit and the Messianic Skip of Gaga’s “Scheiβe”: I Don’t Speak German, but Benjamin Does

By Eddie McCaffray


The motif of “skipping” – of a phonograph’s needle or a CD player’s laser beam rudely leaping across the surface of a disk – dominates the song “Scheiβe.” Start from the beginning; play the song. “I don’t speak German but I can if you like, ow! – immediately one wonders what this declaration is apropos of. No one asked you to speak German Lady Gaga, did they? Who was even talking about German? The song just started! Right away, this song creates the feeling that we’ve begun in the middle of something, some other conversation. Something’s been skipped and now everyone is confused.

Then, Gaga’s German [begins 0:03]: incomprehensible gobbledy-gook, yet rhythmic and repetitive. Isn’t that how a CD sounds when it’s really stuck? Dzhep-dzhep-dzhep-dzhep, fhet-fhet-fhet-fhet? Next comes the churning, fuzzy, bass-synthesizer backbone [begins 0:19], and it too sounds like the beginning (or middle) of a thought. It’s resonant, suggestive, even begins to develop like music should before stalling out [example 0:23-0:27] and eventually resorting to repeating itself, to repeating its incomplete opening over and over again – the techno-organ line will do the same a little later [begins 0:41], when it appears. Then, the techno-scratching noises start up [begins 0:26]: they’re what first grabbed me, what first sounded like skipping, what pulled me into this impossible-to-consummate-feedback-loop of a song, of a creative project.


Because that’s where this is going: skipping isn’t just a weird, cool trash-aesthetic sound to build a dance banger around. As usual with Gaga (Stigmata), it’s a creative and ethical practice – even a principle, perhaps. It makes an argument, and it’s a way to do something. Not that we’re done tracing the motif in its simple appearance just yet, however. That was just a little taste of what’s to come. Maybe my essay is skipping a little bit itself.

Once we get into the lyrics proper, the skipping motif becomes explicit. “I’ll take you out tonight, say whatever you like. Scheiβe, Scheiβe be mine, Scheiβe be mine. Put on a show tonight, do whatever you like. Scheiβe, Scheiβe be mine, Scheiβe be mine.” Repetition interrupting itself. Then, the “I”s of the chorus: “I, I wish I got to dance on a single prayer, I, I wish I could be strong without somebody there,” almost as though Gaga is getting stuck on herself, on the self, on her own I. The last phrase then stutter-repeats into a reprise: “Oh, oh, oh, o-oh, without the Scheiβe yea,” Gaga’s voice becoming its own reflexive, diminishing echo. Next, the fragmentary return-and-modification of Gaga’s opening German declaration [begins 1:37]. Eventually, the stuttered “I”s and the fragment of “I don’t speak German but I wish I could . . .” blur together, distort, and literally skip [begins 2:46]. They’re even subsumed into the beat of the song itself. The whole sonic assemblage is reduced, or elevated, to a whirling blend of either not-quite or just-barely intelligible sentence (or musical) fragments, changing their order, recombining, and so on.


So what does this mean? What is the ethical or aesthetic meaning of all this skipping? The main message of the song is that Gaga wishes she could escape all the constraints and prerequisites of her actions: she wants to be strong – potent – without all the bullshit that invariably tags along. The conditions of her actions, or their results. The song itself is explicitly about this problem in terms of feminism or women’s rights; Gaga wants to be herself and do her thing without all this limiting, patriarchal malarkey. And skipping is, in fact, intimately related to this emancipatory struggle: when a fragment of music skips, it rejects its dependence on the principle and progression of the larger song.

Skipping is the rejecting of the intrinsic limitation that you can only sing or play the middle part of the song after the beginning part – or, for that matter, that one sound has to develop into a different-yet-related sound. Skipping puts the middle first, the beginning last, and it never ever gets to the end. Maybe it just plays one tiny part of itself, perhaps the tiny little part it likes best, a million times in a row; it feels no obligation to develop a musical or lyrical idea into its own implications, or to build such an idea out of what has already played, already appeared. The action of the skipping song rejects equally the concept of prerequisite and consequence. Skipping is a revolt both against diachronic development and against synchronic logic.

(It is also the revolt against a complete thought, or a finished identity. It is the musical equivalent of infinite births – of identity as an always-becoming, unfinished process. Born this way.)


Walter Benjamin articulated something similar to the concept of the emancipatory, disruptive skip in regards to (the music of) history:

Historicism contents itself with establishing a casual nexus of various moments of history. But no state of affairs is, as a cause, already a historical one. It becomes this, posthumously, through eventualities which may be separated from it by millennia. The historian who starts from this, ceases to permit the consequences of eventualities to run through the fingers like the beads of a rosary. He records the constellation in which his own epoch comes into contact with that of an earlier one. He thereby establishes a concept of the present as that of the here-and-now [Jetztzeit], in which splinters of messianic time are shot through.

Historicism – the understanding of time as regimented space, filled in evenly with reality, through which human subjects march, leaving the past behind and approaching the future – is Benjamin’s opponent here. What he proposes instead is that the historian, the human being, achieve a relationship with all the scope of history at each moment rather than dutifully marching along the route dictated to him by the historicist schema. Our pasts, the past of everyone and everything, is here with each of us in this present moment, and so too are our futures. We remember, we look ahead, but in doing so, those infinite expanses of time are contained within our looking, and our looking is always in the present, always fills the present.

Thus our own epoch comes into contact with that of an earlier one; Benjamin’s history is one which steps forward out of its dictated place, breaks ranks, moves laterally, reaching across an infinite distance of time and space to apprehend what it needs, what calls to it, what it finds a connection with. It rejects the principle of development. It rejects the constraint that conditions potency: “For in [Judaism’s understanding of time], every second was the narrow gate, through which the Messiah could enter.” Every moment is the moment, of potency, of salvation, of emancipation.


Gaga recognizes this. That’s why this song – a plea or a desperate play for freedom – speaks out of the broken, all-encompassing space of the skip, out of a traumatic gouge on the shining surface of sound that refracts one beam of light into a thousand beams of light:

For Robespierre, Roman antiquity was a past charged with the here-and-now, which he exploded out of the continuum of history. The French Revolution thought of itself as a latter day Rome. It cited ancient Rome exactly the way fashion cites a past costume. Fashion has an eye for what is up-to-date, wherever it moves in the jungle of what was. It is the tiger’s leap into that which has gone before . . . the consciousness of exploding the continuum of history is peculiar to the revolutionary classers in the moment of their action.

It’s no accident that, in the second verse of “Scheiβe,” Gaga replaces the skipping lyric (“Scheiβe, Scheiβe be mine, Scheiβe be mine”) with “Express your womankind, fight for your right.” Emancipation speaks out of the gap opened in mechanism, in determinism, by the skip. The disjunction of linear time foiled, of torn plastic and screeching metal and leaping light, is a gap through which freedom bursts, a space from out of which all things are possible. In “Scheiβe,” Gaga is struggling to get stuck in that gaping void, that zero, that zone of pure potentiality, that nothing which allows for infinite somethings.

But the void is only ever possible as an incomplete or scrambled thought. Which is to say: it’s difficult to dwell there.

Author Bio:
Eddie McCaffray is a PhD student studying medieval history at Arizona State University. In addition to history, he likes philosophy, literature, and the Russian language.

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

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

THE NEW FLESH

By Devin O’Neill

I watched the “Bad Romance” video the other day, the video that got me into Gaga. I wanted to see how it aged. So much seems to have happened in pop since 2009, the first time I jacked off to that video and cried because my artistic career was over and I now belonged to an Italian woman I’d never met.

When I first saw it, it felt razor sharp, fetishistic, and impossible to replicate. It had an unassailable countercultural credibility despite being blasted on the most mainstream content channels the mediaspace has to offer.

It still feels that way. Why? How does something this ubiquitous feel this edgy?

In answering this question, I’ll provide you with a step-by-step guide to producing your own art of the same shining, disruptive caliber. Be warned: if you follow my advice, there’s no escaping fame.

“There has to be danger, we have to instill a sense of fear in the audience, and ourselves. Rock’n’roll deserves that.”
–Trent Reznor


In order to properly engage constituent human fight-or-flight mechanisms, and thus compete for adrenaline-space in the hurricane gale of the new media, you must disrupt the environment of the viewer with cultural signifiers that do not have place in his ordinary threat-environment, and the best signifiers are linked to sex and violence, the beating and raping and subjugation of the identity; power and humility. All the old buttons in the monkey-brains of your viewers must be pushed relating to desire, social dominance, fear and territoriality. This is why the visual is so important – sounds can be driving, evocative, and terrifying, but our newest dangers and desires are so technologically complex that representing and then perverting them properly requires product-placement level symbolic dialog. Razor glasses, fetish gear, body auctions and golden prosthetics – if we can press the fear of wealth, fear of sex, fear of humiliation, fear of aggression, and fear-of-the-alien buttons all at once, our work is being done properly.

This cold, material danger should be balanced with vulnerability, which is just as terrifying.  Appear unstable, and allow your audience to see the human weaknesses in you that terrify them in themselves, but surround those things with a matrix of blades. Place your fleshy, teary-eyed frailties in the mechanistic jaws of the modern landscape of value exchange, like a fairytale maiden guarded by a giant firebreathing dog with the heads of Donald Trump and Karl Marx. Cry very close to the camera, and twitch a lot before being taken and bound – you are out of control. You are human.

Push these two buttons in alternating rhythm for that is the rhythm of power.


Understand the visual language that soothes your viewer’s needs. They are soft, warm creatures with leaping rabbits of desire in their chests, and it is up to you to coax those rabbits out with sweet carrots before baring your aforementioned knives. Study pornography as scripture and understand advertising as prophecy – tear the creatures from your television screen to pieces with you teeth and cybernetically reintegrate them into a lover the viewer longs for with perverse prepubescent disney-movie recognition. Swathe the gloss of those forms, reeking of desire, in the haute couture of status, the unreproducible stink of exclusivity. This occult swings on the central secret of art and entrepreneurship – the fact that the reins of creativity and collage are in everyone’s hands. You will make idols of fabric sequin and mirror from your closet, and your followers will worship these idols – because they haven’t known the central mysticism, that they can program reality, that they can make their own idols. And then later in your career, in your biggest magick-trick of all, you’ll tell them.


No explanations are necessary. You must be a self-evident non-creature, a representative of mysteries the populace already suspects exist. You do not need purpose; your style is purpose in its subversion. Dick Hebdige said the purpose of the safety pin, in terms of punk rock, is to negate its own purpose. You will wallow in the decadent drug-technologies of civilization’s nonbeing, capitalistic desire fellating itself until its cum drains, withers, dies. By reconfiguring each object in your surrounding energy field to be repurposed, and so to be purposeless in relation to the religion of purpose’s consensus is-ness, you metastasize a new paradigm of purpose that does not require memory or regret. This is impossible solipsism but each milestone of headway you make will contribute to your Fame. Since the homeostatic mode of your capitalistic prison is production, consumption, exchange, value, you will fart in a glass bottle and refuse to sell your bottled fart. But people will want to buy it anyway. You will not regret this. You will regret nothing. Regret is a function of response to systems other than your own, systems with demands. Besides, people will not buy your fart. They will buy you, and then you will kill them. Eventually, they will love you for it. Eventually, they will realize that each semiotic boundary and stylistic taboo that you sacrifice on the altar of yourself is not representative of the funeral of a discreet object – they are only flakes of skin, skin that you are shedding, as you transform into something else entirely. You are an instruction manual to become yourself.

Those are your commandments. Read carefully, live courageously, and be a monster. But not a little one. Not anymore.

Author Bio:
Devin O’Neill is a writer, performance artist, and branding practitioner. 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 http://devinoneill.blogspot.com.

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

Monday, February 20, 2012

Haus of Stigmata: Laurence Ross

Gaga Stigmata is thrilled to welcome Laurence Ross as one of our official Haus of Stigmata writers. Laurence holds an MFA in Creative Writing from the University of Alabama, and he lives, writes, and teaches in Tuscaloosa, AL. His essays have appeared in Brevity, Mason’s Road, The Offending Adam, Bluestem, and elsewhere. He has recently completed a tragicomic novel, Also, I’m Dying, rendered in three one-act “plays” in which characters deliver performances of crisis, apathy, education, vanity, alcoholism, sexuality, husband, wife, child, and anarchy, among other things.


We’re very much looking forward to featuring additional pieces by Laurence in the upcoming year. For now, check out what he’s already written for Gaga Stigmata.

On “Marry the Night,” and its creative/destructive möbius strip
Gaga must alter herself, and the creation of a new self necessitates the destruction of the old. And so Gaga destroys, takes up the box of Cheerios and dismantles it, washes herself in the milk (whiteness) and O’s (zeros/nothingness). She pours an innumerable amount of zeros over herself because there is nothing left. She opens her mouth, full of zeros, not to sing, but to show us she has nothing(ness) to say. That the Cheerios/zeros/nothingness is all that there is to see here. Gaga has lost it – it being the everything of the self, all that there was. Gaga is now nothing. As she sings in the song, “I’m a loser.” Gaga must be stripped to a naked nothingness so that Gaga may dress herself up again.

How “Yoü and I” continues the narrative of “Paparazzi” and “Telephone”
Despite the fact that Jonas Åkerlund did not direct “Yoü and I,” the video seems like the third chapter in a continuing narrative that the Åkerlund-produced videos “Paparazzi” and “Telephone” began. There is Lady Gaga’s glamour-infused romance (the result of which is death), Lady Gaga’s release from jail (the result of which is death), and then Lady Gaga’s escape to/return to Nebraska (the result of which is death). Yes, there is a repeated (rebirthed) theme, but there is also a (funereal) procession, a narrative extension on the discourse. Gaga leaves one man for another, moves from one prison to another, transitions from one state to the next. Gaga is continually killing one version of herself so that the next may be born, which implies two paradoxical sides of Gaga: one that wishes to live and one that wishes to die. “Yoü and I” simultaneously exhibits the separation (Lady Gaga and Jo Calderone) and the synthesis (Yüyi) of these two (seemingly) opposing sides of Gaga’s self. There is the Gaga who wants to be with the lover, submissive and secluded in the Nebraska barn, and the Gaga who wants to be the spectacle, the pop star, the one with agency.

Analyzing closely “88 Pearls”
At the close of the film, as Gaga and Koh place the final pearl in the teacup, Gaga says, “Let’s do the last one together.” Gaga and Koh, together, each take hold of the pearl, each one’s thumb and finger carefully joining to pinch a side, their pair of hands forming two rings, two circles, which, when joined (jointed) at the point (joint) of the pearl, form the figure eight, form yet another figure of infinity.

On the two videos for “The Edge of Glory”
There are two music videos for Lady Gaga’s newest single, “The Edge of Glory”: the one that exists and the one that does not. This is not exactly a lamentation for a reality that could have been. More so, this is a Borgesian analysis, a deconstruction of the imagined work, an essay at assaying the untaken path in the garden of forking paths.

Britney Spears : Lady Gaga
Sometimes a telephone is a means of escape (Gaga’s text to Beyoncé) and sometimes a telephone is a jail cell (“Callin’ like a collector”). Sometimes a pussy is a cat (Gaga’s cabdriver cat suit) and sometimes a pussy is a vagina (Venus’s symbol zeroing in on the Pussy Wagon in the final shot of “Telephone”). Sometimes a sandwich is lunch and sometimes a sandwich is a bit of dance choreography and sometimes a sandwich is poison – that’s the Wonder (Bread), the Miracle (Whip) of it all. And Lady Gaga exerts this freedom, this agency, over and over again. “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose” (187), Stein tells us in her poem Sacred Emily (1922), a poem that creates a world where words and phrases are repeated to diminish meaning’s stability and to emphasize meaning’s permeability. And this world is the one Lady Gaga inhabits, a world where the meaning and identity of a person/place/thing are never stagnant, always changing. If Britney’s “Hold It Against Me” possesses Yeatsian echoes of a modernist looking backward in time, Lady Gaga’s “Telephone” possesses Steinian echoes of a Modernist looking forward to the Post-Modern, the dissolving of boundaries, binaries, and steel bars.

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

Sunday, February 19, 2012

GAGA: A PORTRAIT

By Steve Giasson



Author Bio:
Steve Giasson is a multidisciplinary artist (conceptual poetry, video, performance, theater, photography, translation), who intends to transgress genres and undermine romantic notions of authenticity, authority and originality.  He has sixteen books to his credit and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Étude et pratique des arts at the Université du Québec à Montréal.

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

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Gaga Stigmata: Yale's The American Scholar Magazine


Gaga Stigmata was featured in the Autumn 2011 issue of Yale’s The American Scholar Magazine! Editors Kate Durbin and Meghan Vicks were thrilled to speak with AS about Lady Gaga, 21st-century celebrity and scholarship, and Gaga’s relationship to academic studies. Check out the piece below:
  
Since March 2010, the online journal Gaga Stigmata has churned out the most intense ongoing critical conversation on the singer. The editors are Meghan Vicks, a graduate student in comparative literature at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Kate Durbin, a Los Angeles-based writer and performance artist. “When Gaga’s videos would come out,” Durbin says, “there would be such a response online. It was frustrating to think that I would have to wait five years to read something about it in an academic journal. So, I thought, why not help criticism catch up? Let’s see if we can shape pop culture and critique it.” Indeed, the digital immediacy of Gaga Stigmata suits the pace of 21st-century celebrity, allowing readings of the singer to update as fast as her own reinventions. “When the meat dress happened,” Durbin says, referring to Gaga’s garb at the MTV Video Music Awards last September, “we posted stuff a week later.”

In academe, Vicks says, she dreams of lecture halls in which scholars dress conceptually, like Gaga: “While I’m in the classroom explaining how the procession of simulacra works, Gaga is showing it on the street. High theory dictates how you view and understand the world, and what is high theory but discursive spectacle?”

Are academics unduly gaga over Gaga? “She’s really adamant about serious meaning and high art,” Durbin maintains. “That may be her one entirely new thing. Warhol brought pop into the museum; Gaga is bringing high art into pop culture.”



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




Please contribute if you find Gaga Stigmata's resources valuable.