Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

April 18, 2024, 12:23:40 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Artists breaking taboos in the public eye

Started by alan nagsworth, September 26, 2010, 09:42:10 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

alan nagsworth

After seeing Lady GaGa's meat dress at the VMAs last week, it got me to thinking about musicians in particular using their status to push the envelope of shock, knowingly within the public eye to gain the reaction they desire. My main questioning was whether it was always entirely necessary, or whether or not they were good or bad decisions.

Now, as it turns out, GaGa has said that her reasoning for wearing the dress was a metaphor for gay rights ...

Quote"Equality is the prime rib of America, but because I am gay, I don't get to enjoy the greatest cut of meat my country has to offer," Gaga proclaimed to the rally crowd. "Shouldn't everyone deserve to wear the same meat dress I do?"

... but is that metaphor just an excuse to cover up for what some people have described as a barbaric act of unnecessary animal cruelty? Both acts were orchestrated perfectly (as is the GaGa way) but I find it dubious that the two were originally intended to be related.

So... Is it a good thing, in the grand scheme of things, that she made such an outlandish fashion move? Is this something that, in ten or twenty years from now, my generation will look back on with fond nostalgia of the shock and outrage it caused, but with a willingness to accept that society has moved on morally? Is that shifting of morals a cultural advance, or just pathetic desensitization? Am I reading too much into something that was simply designed to shock and provoke a reaction, and succeeded?

There are likewise media shocks over the years, and a couple that stand out as seemingly running in a satisfying succession of similarity are that of David Bowie, and later, Marilyn Manson. I'm talking mostly about Bowie causing a stir for wearing a dress on the cover of 'The Man Who Sold The World' (one of my favourite album covers of all time) and Manson tarting himself up a treat like a transexual mannequin for 'Mechanical Animals' and, more specifically, 'the 'Dope Show' video. These two seem to point perfectly to the antics of GaGa, with Manson being hugely inspired by Bowie, and GaGa quite obviously following in the footsteps of Manson's glam phase, exaggerating it to her advantage on a mass scale. And don't even get me started on Madonna.

I definitely think we need this shock, to a degree, to keep us seething, just as much as any disgruntled employee needs a boss to loathe. We secretly love it. A friend of mine, a vegetarian, was appalled at GaGa wearing the meat dress. My reasoning for it not being all that despicable was that the animal was dead anyway, and did not die specifically for the purpose of vanity. But GaGa had to make a scene, just as much as we had to mutter disgustedly about it in the staff rooms and coffee houses across the country. Expecting a zany fashion choice from GaGa means predictability, and save for actually going out, slaughtering a few cows and making the dress herself in her basement, she and her publicists knew she had to up the ante somewhat and remain as fresh as the chilled beef on her slender figure. Bowie reinvented himself, as did Madonna, as did Manson.

This unpredictability, whether you love or hate the shocking headline-grabbing shenanigans of our best-loved pop stars, is, now more than ever, 100% necessary to keep the pop scene interesting, because lord knows most other things about it are tawrdy and fucking stale these days. GaGa knows this. PETA knows this. The Daily Mail knows this. And as long as I keep finding myself wound up by the shocked reactions to shocking celebrities, the cycle is complete and I'm perfectly happy. And so is GaGa, and so are the animal rights campaigners.

What are your opinions on shock and awe in the pop industry? As dull as the music they churn out, or era-defining necessities that you find yourself irresistibly drawn to? Or do you just not give a shit? If so... please go about your business. :)

Fuck I'm tired. This is too much text to just delete and go to bed, though... Sod it. *post*

Famous Mortimer

I started thinking about Lady Gaga for a minute, then I realised I'd probably be a lot happier if I didn't. Good on her for supporting the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell though.

Gaga's obviously a fashion/pop culture nerd at heart, so she probably was aware of Jana Sterbak's Meat Dresses. Her stand though admirable is certainly not the biggest issue facing the US Military, one must look at how they care for their veterans and the lack of support for soldiers who have suffered Post-Traumatatic stress, that's a far bigger issue with greater implications for the US than gay rights.

I suppose you could say at least Gaga is using her platform, unlike a great deal of Pop Stars in the UK, who in contrast to previous generations (look at all the protest music released under Thatcher's reign) seem largely oblivious to the current plight of the nation, preferring instead to dwell in the realms of ego and escapism.

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: alan nagsworth on September 26, 2010, 09:42:10 AM
There are likewise media shocks over the years, and a couple that stand out as seemingly running in a satisfying succession of similarity are that of David Bowie, and later, Marilyn Manson. I'm talking mostly about Bowie causing a stir for wearing a dress on the cover of 'The Man Who Sold The World' (one of my favourite album covers of all time)

Did this ever cause that much of a stir?  The Mothers of Invention did it in - what? - 1966 - as did the Stones for the cover of Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing In The Shadow?



I don't think that much was made of it in the media in the time, certainly nothing compared to the way the News of the World went after them the following year.

Have to bring this up since we're talking about meat, controversy and album covers:


Roy*Mallard

Throbbing Gristle at the I.C.A. 1976? Wall-to-wall pornography, used tampaxes in glass cases and (one of the) first live performance of TG. Must have been pretty shocking back then, but all it did was spur on a few mindless arseholes trying to push the envelope a little further using shock tactics (Whitehouse, SPK etc - fun when you're an impressionable teen, but crap when you get your head around what they're doing and why).

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Roy*Mallard on September 27, 2010, 02:31:27 AM
Throbbing Gristle at the I.C.A. 1976? Wall-to-wall pornography, used tampaxes in glass cases and (one of the) first live performance of TG. Must have been pretty shocking back then, but all it did was spur on a few mindless arseholes trying to push the envelope a little further using shock tactics (Whitehouse, SPK etc - fun when you're an impressionable teen, but crap when you get your head around what they're doing and why).
I think the most shocking aspect of that gig was Tony Parsons' write-up.