The Fame Monster vs. The ArchAndroid

First of all let me say that I don’t really like Lady Gaga. I know I’m going to be labeled as the pretentious curmudgeon who shakes his fist at all the punk young teenagers but that’s OK because it’s probably an accurate label.

The longstanding argument about Lady Gaga is (or has been) whether or not her whole act is merely style over substance. Well I think it’s pretty clear that she clearly is all style and very little substance. Of course her songs are catchy and she clearly has some talent as a songwriter but that’s about it. I’ve heard people try to defend her as a great songwriter but that’s simply bananas. She’s a decent songwriter, par for course.

I think we can all agree that Lady Gaga’s videos and performances are insane. In fact I believe that's what her fans love most about her. However, I have no love whatsoever for her style in any respect. She is gaudy, tacky, and hyper-sexualized in the worst ways possible, to the point where everything about her is just nauseating.

But of course, the more over-the-top she is, the more everyone loves her.

I think her shtick is stupid and shameless but apparently everyone thinks the opposite. It’s bold, it’s fresh, it’s daring! I have a couple friends who told me that Lady Gaga’s act is performance art and therefore all the insanity had a reason.

Performance art? Really?

Why can’t we just call it what it is? It’s shameless attention grabbing. Gaga’s “performance art” is merely justification for average pop music. Without all the crazy fashion and gimmicks, what do you have? The same old crap except with more dick ennui.

Lady Gaga is trying desperately to be our generation's Madonna: edgy, groundbreaking, sexual, shocking, and blond. So, by my analysis, for all of her supposed innovation and originality, she’s just another candy-coated shock-jock copycat that’ll make you fat and rot your teeth.

Now, Lady Gaga wouldn’t bother me so much if it weren't for the fact that her influence is a contagious, leprous cancer in pop music. Ever since Lady Gaga hit it big, it seems like every mainstream female pop artist has fallen under her cheap influence in some way. Rhianna, Beyoncé, Katy Perry, and the ever-trashy Ke$ha have all seen fit to replicate Lady Gaga’s craptastic aesthetic in one way or another.

Thankfully, there are still a few glimmers of hope and promise in pop music. The spark of brilliance that has most recently caught my eye is the talented, the dynamic, the incomparable Janelle Monáe.

Janelle Monáe is awesome. Her latest album, The ArchAndroid, is a visionary, genre-busting masterpiece. Monáe and her cohorts masterfully blend soulful R&B with elements from rock, psychedelic folk, and cinematically-inspired orchestrations. Like her debut effort, Metropolis: The Chase Suite, her new album is steeped in a sci-fi story following an android named Cindi Mayweather in her quest for freedom in a depraved future.

As a performer, Monáe is one of a kind. She has a tremendous voice and amazing dance skills, yet she’s a very modest, levelheaded person. Her act seems to be inspired equally by James Brown’s look and showmanship, and Michael Jackson’s dance skills. However, despite the obvious parallels she rises above mere imitation of her influences and really owns her style.

In order to be convinced of Monáe’s spirit and value as a performer one must only watch one of her videos. She is an absolute joy to watch on stage as she delivers energetic performances driven by her live band and her dancing.

In the video for her first single off Metropolis, “Many Moons”, we are introduced to the futuristic world her music takes place in. It takes place at an auction for androids in which Monáe’s protagonist Cindi Mayweather is the centerpiece. The video succeeds in delivering a captivating performance (I’ve seen a forward moonwalk done before) and a coherent story that isn’t merely pulp schmaltz built on cheap pop culture references.

Her next music video, “Tightrope”, once again treads the line of the weird, but is still incredibly fun to watch. The song itself is probably the catchiest thing I’ve heard all year and, as a bonus, the video features some of the finest dancing I’ve ever seen.

Her latest music video is for her anthemic second single, “Cold War”. The video for this song is easily the simplest I’ve seen but is easily one of the most powerful. Perhaps inspired by Radiohead’s video for “No Surprises” (or even the making-of that video as seen in Meeting People is Easy), the video is a close-up of Monáe lip-syncing to her own song. The power and beauty of her song, coupled with the emotion in her expressions, is made all the more powerful by the simplicity of the video and the subtle sexuality she exudes.

Janelle Monáe is truly an artist. She combines different styles to create something that is fresh and new. Only an artist as talented as her could make a high-concept, sci-fi story and make it cool and catchy. She has a classy and timeless style that is bold yet nonintrusive.

Basically, in my humble opinion, she’s better than Lady Gaga in every way and I wish more people would pay attention to artists like Monáe instead of paying attention to the narcissistic posturing of pop music’s elite few.

Now to compare Janelle Monáe to Lady Gaga may be pointless and degrading but I felt it had to be done. I feel that this world could use more artists with class, creative brilliance, and positive messages, and less artists that seem to celebrate sordid sexuality, abject materialism, rampant consumerism, and little else.

Pop culture’s excesses and shortcomings are indicative of modern society’s ails as a whole. I think we could be doing a lot more with a whole lot less instead of falling into hedonistic indulgence and cultural nihilism.

My hope is that maybe a few people will change their minds and maybe musicians will abandon the need for one-upsmanship when it comes to over-the-top superficial absurdity.

But then again I’m just an old dog, most likely barking up the wrong tree.

The B Word

OK, this is just silly. Recently, the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP has taken offense to a Hallmark card that, according to them, is racist. Now, when I first saw this article I was a little bit wary. I thought, "Alright, it seems unlikely that Hallmark (or anyone for that matter) would publish a blatantly racist and offensive greeting card (of all things), buy hey it's possible so I guess I'll suspend my disbelief." Well, it turns out it was pretty unbelievable.

According to NAACP, the card in question, a graduation card with a speaker that plays a dialogue between two cartoon rabbits, made reference, in its audio, to African American women as "black whores" with the warning that they better watch their backs.

This is ridiculous.

I listened to the audio of this card that was provided in the news video and I heard the following:

Stupid Cartoon #1: And you black holes, you're so ominous!

Stupid Cartoon #2: And you planets: watch your back.

Granted this is a stupid, poorly written card that no one should ever give to a self-respecting graduate, but it is definitely not racist.

Minnie Hatley of the Los Angeles NAACP asserts that she hears an "R" so that the card is saying "black whores" (which obviously doesn't make sense in context) instead of black holes. Never mind the fact that I clearly hear an "L" in there and not an "R", and never mind the fact that holes has a different vowel sound than whores, I want to know, if this card were actually racist, why Hallmark would ever allow a racial slur to slip in? Why this card? Why graduations? Why the solar system? Is this some cheap attempt at subliminal racist brainwashing?

The reason why I'm so concerned by this is not because I care about Hallmark and it's reputation. I don't think Hallmark is some poor victim being unjustly accused of racism. I don't really care. I'm more concerned with the image of the NAACP. Here I see them making fools of themselves by taking offense to and taking issue with something that I frankly don't think exists. I hear Leon Jenkins of the NAACP say, "That was very demeaning to African American women when they made reference to African American women as 'black whores' and at the end says, 'watch your back,'" and all I can think is, "This is stupid, this is stupid, there's nothing there, they're just talking about black holes."

This kind of pointless knee-jerk reaction to something so trivial as a greeting card results in nothing but a loss of credibility in my mind.

A Rant on Sexism, Gender Equality, Political Correctness, Hypocrisy, and Rhetoric

So I recently read an article about the push for politically correct language. Words and phrases such as "manhole", "master bedroom", and "gentleman's agreement" are being labeled by some groups as offensive. Now this just seems silly to me. I really doubt that words like "snowman" are contributing to inequality of the sexes and arguing about these words just distracts from larger and more important issues. On the flip-side, anti-male sentiment has become popularized in modern media. In TV shows and commercials there are numerous example of the "dumb man" and the "smart woman pairing. But that isn't very disconcerting. I recently came across a "Chicks Rule" calendar at the locals Borders bookstore and what I saw worried me. Here are some images contained in these calendars:

When people look at these pictures some may see female empowerment and others may see the subjugation of males. Now, as a male, I am not threatened by these images, but the fact remains that they are sexist. But of course there's no great outrage about them, which isn't surprising. So of course what bothers me is the hypocrisy of it. Blatant sexism against males is allowed, but suddenly "snowman" just isn't sensitive. Doesn't give the feminist movement much credibility when they say they want gender equality.

Besides examining the hypocrisy, it's important to ask what this is doing to the younger generations. I remember a popular rhyme from my youth that I believe is still around: "girls go to college to get more knowledge, boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider." While this popular chant is grammatically incorrect, it is hurtful and sexist. Well I can't say anything for certain as I am not an expert and child studies, I feel that our society's children could be growing up in an increasingly male-intolerant environment.

There has a been a big controversy about a book and line of clothing produced by the clothing company David and Goliath. The products that this company sells carry slogans such as "Boys tell likes, poke them in the eyes", "Boys make good pets, everyone should own one", "Girls will be girls, boys will be toys", and "Boys aren't housebroken". These T-shirt designs often depict boys as being stupid or slovenly and portray acts of violence against boys. Masculinist critics decry these images saying they encourage misandry (which is the hatred of men, the male equivalent of misogyny). Other people say that such images are all in good fun and creator Todd Goldman has stated that they are meant to be humorous.

It doesn't really matter what the intentions behind these kind of images are, it still stands that they can be considered offensive and hurtful. Again, we see the hypocrisy. There is no market for "Girls Are Stupid" products because feminists would yell and protest until they were off the shelves. But we are no strangers to hypocrisy so that is not the most important issue at hand. What is important how these products affect young boys. Yes, the images are supposed to be funny but boys may not get in on the joke. Masculinists argue that these kind of images stigmatize and victimize young boys, which may not be too far off. In general, girls seem to being performing better than boys in many scholastic areas. Boys are much more likely to develop social and behavioral issues. Now, masculinists contend that boys are being confronted with a new crisis of self esteem. Imagine being a 10-year old boy and seeing someone wearing a T-shirt that says you're dumb and that girls should hurt you. How would that make you feel? And if you were a girl that saw a T-shirt that made fun of girls and encourage violence towards girls, how would you feel? It's not acceptable either way. These kinds of images can either be considered a form of bullying or can lead to bullying.

While some people believe the concerns raised about the "Boys Are Stupid..." products may be exaggerated, I think that it's an issue that deserves more attention than the debate over the political correctness of using "spokesperson" instead of "spokesman". Should we shorten "woman" to "wo"?

On an almost-related note I feel like discussing this image:

Now, at the surface this seems like an interesting statistic that is supposed to spark some sort of moral outrage. This is a poster made by the Guerrilla Girls, a feminist group dedicated to exposing "sexism, racism, and corruption in politics, film, art, and pop culture." I'm all for that I just don't like it when people go about it in stupid ways that leads to a loss of credibility in my eyes (which is really also my problem with PETA). But let's look at the poster. "Less than 3% of the artists in the Met. Museum are women but 83% of the nudes are female." Now, I know what the argument behind this poster is supposed to be: women are unfairly unrepresented in museums due to sexism. That's what they're trying to say but I feel they did it in a poor way. If you examine it more closely, you'll see that the statistics they have provided are completely irrelevant to their argument if examined in a logical way. 

The Metropolitan Museum of art is filled with art, thousands of years worth. It's a sad truth that women's rights have only really emerged in the past 100 years or so. It has been a male-dominated world for most of history. While there have always been female artists, historically they have either been outnumbered by men or overshadowed by men for whatever reason. I am an outsider to the art world and have only a very limited knowledge of art history. I have learned and heard about Dali, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Picasso, Monet, and van Gogh and all the other "great" artists that everyone knows. The only notable female artists I can recall coming across are Georgia O'Keeffe and Frida Kahlo. Now my lack of knowledge can be the result of sexism in the art world or something else. Maybe the reason I don't know about many female artists is because they were ignored in their time. That is probably true to some extent. However, we cannot reconcile the prejudices of old. 

I find it perfectly reasonable that only most of the art in the Met is made by men. I believe that in history there have probably been a greater number of male artists (or at least a greater number of successful male artists) than female of artists in history. From what I have seen men have been the dominant cultural force in art. If this is not true then there must be a conspiracy amongst art historians. Do I believe that the curators of the Met purposefully left out art by females? No (but then again I may just be naive). Besides, should there be a quota for pieces of art by females? Would that accomplish anything? 

The next part that gets me is the fact that 83% of the nudes are females. Interesting, but irrelevant. In my mind this statistic was included to make an emotional connection to the subjection of women. But I know rhetoric when I see it. Let's see: most of the art is by men and a lot of men find the female figure beautiful so it only makes sense that most of the nudes would be female. Would it be less sexist if all the nudes were male? Probably not. The statistic is included merely as a rhetorical ploy to inflame emotions. Is celebrating the female body sexist? If so why do so many women like the Vagina Monlogues?

The point I'm trying to make that the two statistics really have no meaningful connection. "Do women have to be naked to get into U.S. museums?" Well I believe museums follow the policy of "no shirt, no shoes, no service". 

Maybe I'm completely wrong. Perhaps museum curators and popular historians have been hiding the truth. Maybe there have been just as many female artists as males who are just as capable and I'm just talking out of my ass.  That's extremely possible. The Guerrilla Girls may very well be on to something. I'm just always wary of rhetoric, whether it comes from right-wing pundits on Fox News or left-wing activist groups such as PETA. I think the Guerrilla Girls have a worthy cause, I just wish they didn't make it seem so petty.