As much as it pains me to even talk about her and give her more attention, I think the question is valid even though shock-jock-types go back as far as they come. But what do you think, is her brand of crazy just fine or do you think she takes things too far? And that's in all areas not just the whole meat thing.
" None of the options. I voted it's fine, though, but that's because she should do whatever the fuck she wants to. If her thing is wearing really weird outfits and being generally freaky, then good on her for it. "^
Seems kind of silly that anyone would care so much about what she does. Then again, I don't watch TV so I'm not overly exposed to it.
I think the best thing that can be said about Lady Gaga is that quite a few of her songs are catchy (that's why they translate so well into 8-bit remixes) even if they're not exactly works of musical genius. I have no problems with her image but the media and public seem to regard her music as much finer work than I do and I don't think they've done a good thing by focusing so much on her image.
She is indeed a huge attention whore, but a good amount of celebrities are. I will say this about Lady Gaga; when it comes to getting publicity for herself, she does one hell of a job -- I watch almost no TV, (note: I'm saying I'm holier-than-thou for not watching TV, there are just no shows I want to watch at this point), don't listen to any radio unless you count podcasts, and definitely do not visit celebrity gossip websites yet somehow I'm still aware that she had "meat" on something she wore. Which I'm still unsure how that even works as I've not seen any pictures of this. Personally I do not care what she wears, or what she staples onto her clothes.
And after looking at the photo @one_2nd posted, I've got to say I do think she is attractive in the trashiest way possible.
i think the OP gets it all wrong.
The REAL question is why the fuck do we like her shitty, completely corporate created image at all. she used to be a cute little indy chic from NYU and played piano and sang amazing and dressed really pretty. now shes like this a-sexual thing.
i actually dont think ANYONE likes her image. at all. but they just love her catchy pop music. i mean, its not bad i like it. its good pop because its a great to dance to. its not like your supposed to buy her shit and listen to it all day like the new albums Flamingo or Hurley. she makes great music for the club. but my goodness, i hope her style never catches on or clubs will be the most boring and weird place ever.
check out this excellent article that just demolishes her:
LADY GAGA AND THE DEATH OF SEX
Feminist icon and cultural critic Camille Paglia really lays into Lady Gaga in a recent article published in the UK’s Sunday Times entitled “Lady Gaga and the death of sex”
… and man did she ever NAIL IT.
I couldn’t agree more with what she had to say… check out some of the more viciously dead on excerpts below:
On Gaga’s relationship with her ‘Little Monsters”:
She constantly touts her symbiotic bond with her fans, the “little monsters”, who she inspires to “love themselves” as if they are damaged goods in need of her therapeutic repair. “You’re a superstar, no matter who you are!” She earnestly tells them from the stage, while their cash ends up in her pockets.
On her ‘humble’ upbringing:
Although she presents herself as the clarion voice of all the freaks and misfits of life, there is little evidence that she ever was one. Her upbringing was comfortable and eventually affluent, and she attended the same upscale Manhattan private school as Paris and Nicky Hilton.
On her style:
Gaga has borrowed so heavily from Madonna (as in her latest video-Alejandro) that it must be asked, at what point does homage become theft? Gaga seems comet-like, a stimulating burst of novelty, even though she is a ruthless recycler of other people’s work. She is the diva of déjà vu.
On her sexuality:
Peeping dourly through all that tat is Gaga’s limited range of facial expressions. Her videos repeatedly thrust that blank, lugubrious face at the camera and us; it’s creepy and coercive…. Gaga, for all her writhing and posturing, is asexual. Going off to the gym in broad daylight, as Gaga recently did, dressed in a black bustier, fishnet stockings and stiletto heels isn’t sexy – it’s sexually dysfunctional.
On Gaga being an “artiste”
Gaga is in way over her head with her avant-garde pretensions… She wants to have it both ways – to be hip and avant-garde and yet popular and universal, a practitioner of gung-ho “show biz”. Most of her worshippers seem to have had little or no contact with such powerful performers as Tina Turner or Janis Joplin, with their huge personalities and deep wells of passion.
On Gaga’s moronic fans:
Generation Gaga doesn’t identify with powerful vocal styles because their own voices have atrophied: they communicate mutely via a constant stream of atomised, telegraphic text messages. Gaga’s flat affect doesn’t bother them because they’re not attuned to facial expressions… Gaga’s fans are marooned in a global technocracy of fancy gadgets but emotional poverty. Borderlines have been blurred between public and private: reality TV shows multiply, cell phone conversations blare everywhere; secrets are heedlessly blabbed on Facebook and Twitter. Hence, Gaga gratuitously natters on about her vagina…
Wow… that was a perfect summation.
What do you Gagaloos think?
Uh. I first thought when she showed up that here's another chick trying to live off of controversy, a-la Madonna, and then I heard some interview where she said she gets the power of her music and inspiration from her vagina. Wow. There's a chick that's buying a little too much into her own BS.
Where's option C? The one that says, "Enjoying her flesh peddling before she ends up in a padded room with Britney and Lindsay."
I vote for that one.