(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

franzen
2010-09-18 07:28 pm UTC (link)

I have no problem with this. All of this:

It's been pointed out that she appropriates a lot of things from musical traditions created by people of colour and nonwhite people. That her work contains transmisogyny. That she appropriates the experiences of people with disabilities.

CONTAINED LINKS TO POSTS DETAILING THOSE ISSUES. lolwhut.

It's not uncommon on kyriarchy-centered blogs to expect commenters to be willing to learn on their own. If you don't understand, the response is not "please stop talking about the larger issue to provide me with a greater understanding of 101 concepts," because, yes, that is privilege.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

waltraute
2010-09-18 07:32 pm UTC (link)

One of the comments down thread engages with those posts, and says:

But that paragraph doesn't tell you that much. Using electronic sounds is appropriation? Wearing "outlandish attire" is appropriation? Why has Gaga stolen from Grace Jones, but not Cher? When I Google "mia gaga mimic" I get MIA saying that Gaga tries to mimic pretty much everyone, not specifically singers of color. And these are two subjective claims - opinions. If SE wants me to take them seriously, she needs to evaluate them with videos or sound clips side by side.

Maybe a musicological analysis isn't the OP's strong point, but it's worth then bringing up and discussing in the comments.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

franzen
2010-09-19 12:19 am UTC (link)

I admit that I only scrolled quickly through the blog post before jetting out the door, because I was a fan of Shapely Prose and the wank write-up didn't sound right to me. For my money, it's possible to discuss Gaga appropriating from singers of colour as a specific issue within the larger context of Gaga's overall "stealing." I think most people would be willing to submit that Gaga has borrowed from Madonna (in my experience, that point never garners controversy), but when you bring up, for example, M.I.A. or Grace Jones comparisons, reactions tend to be much more hostile. "But she's not Grace Jones, durr." That commenter is setting up a straw man -- Gaga isn't specifically appropriating from singers of colour, but she has appropriated from them, and they are far less likely to get credit, and this appropriation is far less likely to be discussed, than her appropriation from white sources. And for my money, "If SE wants me to take them seriously, she needs to evaluate them with videos or sound clips side by side" is the height of privileged, derailing douchebaggery. "Oh, you just have an opinion until you have evidence, which I won't find by myself, even though a LMGTFY search would turn it up."

Wanna bet that even with evidence, said commenter would turn tack to "Gaga steals from everyone, it's not a racial issue!"? Yeah. I'm having a hard time getting pissed at SE here.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	waltraute 2010-09-19 12:27 am UTC (link)
	I think a detailed discussion would make a good second blog post, perhaps to come after the one above as a general introduction. I think Sparky's Monster is about as successful a comment moderator as Teresa Nielsen Hayden, to lift a comparison that one anonymous poster made. (Reply to this)(Parent)

chibikaijuu
2010-09-19 08:09 pm UTC (link)

I do feel like people are less willing to admit that Gaga cribs from artists of color than from white artists, and I wish she were more cognizant of that. But I don't think that incorporating elements of the work of artist of color who are famous in their own right (so long as the elements aren't directly tied to race) is necessarily appropriative. It's a racial issue because her fans refuse to acknowledge her sources, not because she is using those sources (if there is any evidence of her downplaying their influence specifically, especially in comparison to her white influences, I'd love to be pointed towards it).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

scifantasy
2010-09-18 08:03 pm UTC (link)

That definitely does change the tenor of the debate. Probably an important point to have been in the writeup--there is a big difference between statements unsupported and statements with links.

But at the same time, all links are not created equal, and shaky foundations make for shaky arguments. Reading through the spark here, I see this sequence:

Article: "Some of what Lady Gaga does clashes with her self-identification as a feminist. For example, she appropriates from people of color and nonwhite people. See this link." (This is part of a wider theme of examining--not judging, just analyzing and closely inspecting--the question of Lady Gaga's feminism as represented through her music, and perhaps also the degree to which culture at large gets into crazy debates about Lady Gaga in particular.)

Commenter Whitney: "I don't think that article supports its thesis--that Lady Gaga appropriated--very well. Its evidence for that point seems to consist of Grace Jones and M.I.A. both claiming that she copied them, with links to where they said it. But that seems to be it."

Commenter Snarky's Machine: "If you don't see it that's because you have your head shoved up your ass. You're saying you don't understand and therefore you're right."

Which...strikes me as what a friend of mine calls a purple hair problem.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	kattahj 2010-09-18 10:26 pm UTC (link)
	CONTAINED LINKS TO POSTS DETAILING THOSE ISSUES. lolwhut. Yeah, I'm not sure what the "sources" thing was all about, because those would be sources. I don't know what those sources are on half the time (temporary use of crutches and wheelchairs is OMGWRONG now?) but they clearly do back up their opinions. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lizbee 2010-09-18 10:48 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, I was skeezed out by the wheelchair and crutches thing until I realised that it's a portrayal of injury, not permanent disability. I mean, potential for injury is pretty damn universal. (Reply to this)(Parent)

franzen
2010-09-19 12:23 am UTC (link)

I think it's a kind of hipster ableism. It's also frustrating to see disabilities portrayed for shock value and it's always dicey when you have someone without a disability appropriating that experience. The blog post itself reads:

There are a few things about these 50 seconds that are somewhat promising in terms of disability representation, not least of which is the fact that disability and persons with a wide variety of disabilities are sorely underrepresented in popular culture, particularly in music videos. As someone who uses a cane, witnessing Lady Gaga's use of shiny silver arm crutches in this sequence makes me wonder if there might be a market for crunk canes (a la the Crunk Cup). Decorated wheelchairs (with the caveat that Lady Gaga's wheelchair in this clip is not quite as bejewelled as her attire, or as fantastically bizarre as her hair)? Yes, please.

However, there are some things with which I have issues, one of which is that Gaga's disability in this video is temporary, and it's clear that we as viewers are supposed to know that. The representation here lasts for less than a minute. Her temporarily-disabled status has also been caused by someone else: at the beginning of the clip, she is pushed off of a ledge by her partner as paparazzi photograph the two together, and she exacts her revenge at the clip's end by poisoning him (while wearing a very confusing outfit that seems to take its inspiration from the Bee Girl in that Blind Melon video, Mickey Mouse, and Bjork). Are we supposed to pity her, since her disability has stemmed from her intimate partner's actions? Should viewers side with one of the sensational newspaper headlines--"LADY NO MORE GAGA"--that appears right before the music begins, implying that she just isn't as fabulous as she was before her dis-ablement?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

kattahj
2010-09-19 09:49 am UTC (link)

Yeah, I read the post, but as lizbee says, it's an injury. People get injured all the time, and most of us have used at the very least crutches at one point or another in our lifetimes. I find it dicey when disabilities that are permanent IRL are treated as temporary in fiction ("You'll never walk again! Oh wait, you will!") but I don't see how a video portraying someone getting hurt (in an unspecified way) and then getting better is appropriating disability.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

franzen
2010-09-19 05:54 pm UTC (link)

Not everyone with a disability may need a wheelchair or crutches 24/7, so certainly Gaga's portrayal plays into the "permanent IRL/temporary in fiction" trope ("Lady No More Gaga"). I also think that injury is just another way of saying disabled, temporarily or permanently -- not every disability starts at birth. Moreover, crutches and wheelchairs are symbolically loaded objects: when used in a temporary fashion, I think the default (cultural) response is very much, "Oh, you poor thing, thank God this will be over soon and you can be back to normal," etc. So, yeah, I find something dicey about Lady Gaga using culturally-loaded symbols of disablement, being referred to as "NO MORE GAGA," and then casting them off to become fabulous again, wrong her attacker, and blah blah blah happy ending kyriarchy preserved kittens fly out of her ass.

I'll declare my bias in saying that I am non-visibly disabled (cerebral palsy); I cannot tell you how many times strangers have approached me to yell at me for parking in a handicapped space, even when the placard is visible. (I actually got a note calling me a "rotten person," because I "walk just fine.") Gaga's use of disability plays into the so-far only culturally recognized way of being disabled (i.e., signaled with aids), but it's okay, you guys, because she gets better.

I can't speak for the OP, I don't want to, but I suppose my thoughts on the matter come down to this: Gaga, like every other feminist and person on this planet, was born into the structure and socially conditioned to accept a certain reality. Awesome as she may be in some regards, she's still, in many ways, a product of environment and social constructions, institutionalized power structures, etc., just the same as anyone else. So why shouldn't we assume that, like most people, she's probably a little bit racist/transmisgynoistic/kyriarchic? The institutionalized beliefs about Others in our culture being what they are, and being so pervasive across all forms of media, we're all going to end up a little bit brainwashed. And you know what? So it goes. I have certain privileges and that means I accepted beliefs and became blind to issues I now find problematic. It means I am not everything I want to be. But I start with the default assumption that, yeah, I'm probably not as enlightened as I want to be, so if someone tells me "Hey, that sounded racist/unfriendly/you need to check yourself," I'm going to assume that they know better than I do, listen, and keep learning.

So as far as all of this goes, I guess I don't see it as an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of thing, nor do I necessarily see it as Gaga's "fault" -- she's playing off of some beliefs and tropes about disability that were institutionalized long ago. Does that make her a bad person? No, not more so than anyone else. Does it mean she's not perfect? Yeah, like the rest of us. It's not the end of the fucking world.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

kattahj
2010-09-19 06:16 pm UTC (link)

Not everyone with a disability may need a wheelchair or crutches 24/7, so certainly Gaga's portrayal plays into the "permanent IRL/temporary in fiction" trope ("Lady No More Gaga").

But most people who use crutches and wheelchairs - in number of people, if not in number of hours spent in them - will not be permanently disabled. I mean, obviously you see them as symbols of permanent disability, but I for one don't, and symbolism isn't inherent to the object, it's a matter of interpretation.

My own bias in this matter is due to having used both types of aids temporarily myself, and I find it really baffling that experiences that are incredibly common are somehow invalid, and that the desire to get better after an injury would in itself be ablist. (Truth be told, it kind of pushes certain buttons with me, since it reminds me of the "How dare you be bisexual and ruin things for lesbians!" attitude I've met - not to say that either you or the OP would ever go there. Just that hot buttons vary from person to person.)

just the same as anyone else. So why shouldn't we assume that, like most people, she's probably a little bit racist/transmisgynoistic/kyriarchic?

She probably is, but the discussion (from my perspective at least) was about this particular act. I don't particularly care about Lady Gaga, and I don't participate in this discussion out of some desire to "defend" her. For me, it's more of a "would this kind of thing be ablist" (regardless of who does it) than whether or not she is.

But I start with the default assumption that, yeah, I'm probably not as enlightened as I want to be, so if someone tells me "Hey, that sounded racist/unfriendly/you need to check yourself," I'm going to assume that they know better than I do, listen, and keep learning.

I've heard this a lot of the time, and for me, if someone tells me to check myself, I'm going to assume that they may have a point and listen to the arguments presented. Which, sure, probably means that sometimes I'm going to reach conclusions that are boneheaded and plain wrong, but being a school librarian, I'm conditioned not to accept anyone's statements as gospel.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

annaham
2010-09-19 10:59 pm UTC (link)

it's a matter of interpretation. Which, yes, I agree. And kind of why I wrote the post on LG and disability--it was/is my interpretation of the video.

As a PWD, I am probably going to see that video from a different perspective than people who do not have disabilities might. I'm not trying to say that representing use of crutches/wheelchairs is OMGWRONG in all cases. There's just going to be more to that representation in Gaga's video, for me, than "yay, dancing with crutches!" or OMGWRONG. And, like

franzen said above, I do think that those questionable bits in that video align very nicely with existing attitudes about disability (even though--as I said in the post--there might be some potential for resistance in there?)

Oh, look at me, getting all serious-business. I wish I knew a good joke.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sepiamagpie 2010-09-20 12:07 am UTC (link)
	I've got one for you! It's my favourite. Okay, so, a hunter calls up 911 in a panic. Operator: 911, what is the emergency? Hunter: Oh god! I've shot my friend! I think he's dead! Operator: Calm down. First, I need you to make sure he's actually dead. Hunter: Okay. Gun shot: ensues Hunter: Okay, now what? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

annaham, 2010-09-20 12:23 am UTC

(no subject) -

sepiamagpie, 2010-09-20 12:27 am UTC

(no subject) -

dr_tectonic, 2010-09-20 06:39 pm UTC

(no subject) -

sepiamagpie, 2010-09-20 08:10 pm UTC

	kattahj 2010-09-20 04:30 am UTC (link)
	If it's any consolation, I think - having slept on it and mulled it - that I'm getting a somewhat clearer image of the potential pitfalls, and how the phoenix-from-the-ashes thing could rub one the wrong way. Will stop serious stuff now. I don't know any good jokes at 6.30 in the morning, but this is a reliable source for dumb ones: http://theoatmeal.com/djtaf/ (Reply to this)(Parent)

	annaham 2010-09-19 10:03 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you for explaining this apparently better than I did in that post. (Reply to this)(Parent)

ruslan
2010-09-20 08:21 pm UTC (link)

One of the most interesting things I've read was a science fiction story written by a disabled man. It was the standard quadriplegic guy offered an experimental treatment that would cure him.

Except he didn't find it empowering or beautiful or anything, in fact, it scared the piss out of him! Because suddenly he wouldn't have an excuse to be a guy who stays in his house all day, has no friends, and refuses to come to terms with the past. He had to deal with the fact that these problems were internal and he couldn't use his disability as an excuse not to grow as a person anymore.

While I was looking for it I found a directory of fiction about and/or by disabled people, and it looks like the guy wrote some more and even put out an anthology. I think I'll get it, you almost never see disabled issues explored with much depth in science fiction. The story I read was The Cure.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kattahj 2010-09-21 04:23 am UTC (link)
	Sounds interesting, and makes sense - huge life-changing events are scary. Thanks for the directory! (Reply to this)(Parent)

snarkhunter
2010-09-19 12:21 pm UTC (link)

But even there, she's conflating disability with injury. I like Snarky's Machine's work a lot, but I think in this case she's misreading the text. (I am thinking of the wheelchair, not the canes. I can't speak to that.)

I have a student in a wheelchair at the moment. She's in a wheelchair b/c she can't walk on the broken leg caused by a motorcycle accident. This is a temporary disability. In that light, I'm confused as to why Lady Gaga's video is a problem. She argues that "persons with a wide variety of disabilities are underrepresented," then goes on to argue against one particular representation of a temporary disability.

I don't know. I just find this a very confused analysis.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	annaham 2010-09-19 09:57 pm UTC (link)
	Snarky's Machine didn't write the post on LG and disability; I did. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	snarkhunter 2010-09-19 10:08 pm UTC (link)
	My apologies. I misunderstood. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	annaham 2010-09-19 11:01 pm UTC (link)
	:) And you're welcome to find my analysis "confused" and/or disagree with it, though the "misreading" thing is, I think, subject to change depending upon whom you ask. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	phuck_u 2010-09-20 09:06 pm UTC (link)
	FWD - hypersensitive, passive-aggressive twits. Figures you're a fan of that kind of blog. (Reply to this)(Parent)

visp
2010-09-19 05:38 am UTC (link)

Well, not really. I think the standards should be about the same as any academic opinion. Therefore if I say "The ancient Romans did X" I shouldn't have to answer "Who were the Romans?" and "what does 'ancient' mean?" That doesn't mean I don't have to back my allegations up.

She stated, as fact, that Lady Gaga appropriated other people's work and disabled experiences, and had transmisogyny in her work. She doesn't have to explain what those terms mean or why they're bad. She does have to include a bit more than a random link with a baseless accusation and no proof.

Cite your sources, people, and don't get pissy when asked for proof of a very specific accusation.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

bacon_lover
2010-09-26 10:31 am UTC (link)

Or at least don't be surprised when people do their own research and don't find the best images or sounds to support the author's opinions.

I followed the Gaga article's links to Grace Jones, and I did some googling... YMMV, but I don't see Gaga wearing 'the same things' as Grace Jones. But I find Grace Jones so awesome, so striking in her images, herself as much a part of her images as her clothes that I can't see that much appropriation between the two.

Maybe there are great images out there beyond the links already provided, or beyond what an hour of Googling and browsing provided. But I have a hard time feeling bad that I'm not drawing connections the author would like me to see. *shrug*

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -