lady gaga Dissected: why this bad romance with art sucks

first i have to ask myself this: why even bother with a post on lady gaga? well the answer must be the same as george mallory’s when asked why he climbed mount everest, “because it’s there.” well maybe i’m giving her too much credit, but lady gaga is indeed hard to miss. i suppose that’s an achievement by itself these days, to be famous for no particular reason… at least gaga is doing something. even paris hilton ‘respects’ her (now THAT… means something). but what is this “something”?  for me, it’s the holy and unholy mixture in this calculated cocktail that is scary. the mixture of things i love and the things i passionately hate all mangled into one. almost impossible to decipher. a hot dog made out of culture. it sure has fooled a lot of people but here’s why…

calculated bottom-rack pop–candy coated with a shiny facade of top-shop art:
active ingredients: tear off a page from a matthew barney catalog (it’s ok to be weird, just soften barney a bit so it’s digestible) + chop some vito acconci (be sure to wash and disinfect all grit) + a dash of warhol (the bit everyone knows about will do fine) + artificially colored dark lyrics (just dark enough, but not too dark) blend with inactive ingredients: blatant commercialism (feel free to put madonna to shame, get four brands to sponsor the same video, why just one) + perfect USDA supermarket approved pop vocals (so middle management and cab drivers alike can get into the groove) + emulate michael jackson’s moves, again (as best as you can. no need to try hard, no one will know) + grate five crates of marketing spin-masters + top with colorless, tasteless, water soluble shiny gelatin.  enjoy. by dd