Lady Gaga and her album cover fight
“My album covers are not sexual at all, which was an issue at my record label. I fought for months, and I cried at meetings. They didn’t think the photos were commercial enough…The last thing a young woman needs is another picture of a sexy pop star writhing in sand, covered in grease, touching herself.”
-Lady Gaga
Good for here, but wow. The record company is saying that in order for a female artist to be "commercial" she has to have "sexual" album covers.
1
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Lady Gaga and her album cover fight.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17412
I agree this quote is a good thing, although she spends so much time otherwise half-naked and writhing that I'm not sure how much the absence of a sexualized album cover will do for her fans.
Generally her half-naked writhing is not considered sexual or attractive by people attracted to women, though. I think most of her costumes are meant to be unexpected, wacky, and eye-catching in a "screw with your head/expectations of what fashion should be and what it means to get attention" sort of way ... not in a "I'm a pop star, therefore I'm a porn star" kind of way.
I wouldn't classify her as a role model for young girls, but I do think she is a role model for other pop stars, in a way ... she shows that you can be popular without being a sex symbol -- just look at how many hits she's had, and she certainly isn't projecting a conventional image. She's often rumored to have a penis, or of being a hermaphrodite (even though at times she wears so little clothing that it's obvious -- at least to ME -- that she possesses only female genitalia). I think these rumors stem from the fact that she is somewhat androgynous in her presentation -- dressing in that glam rock David Bowie style that makes people think of male rock stars, not female pop stars. It's also more acceptable for men to be androgynous than for women to be, at least in 80s glam rock and any synth-pop offshoots of that. It's basically like the public is telling her that she cannot possibly be a "real" woman, because she isn't wearing conventionally attractive outfits like your Beyonces and your Christinas and your other cookie cutters. Not that those women aren't vocally talented, but their physical appearances and presentations aren't exactly shaking up the paradigm.
I also see Lady Gaga as a (non-sexual) parody of celebrities who desperately want attention. She's basically a satire of pop star culture and she even admits it (at some of her shows, she has randomly shouted "Lady Gaga is a lie," and completely confused the audience members who aren't in on the "joke").
I wouldn't class her as a feminist by any means, though. Most of her lyrics are ... well, just look at the Unhealthy Songs post and you'll find two of her hits. But she is shaking up expectations of female artists in the pop music scene (which has needed an overhaul for YEARS), and I respect that, even if I wish her lyrics were more empowered.
I'm glad she said that and all, but I agree with aletheia_shortwave. I don't like Lady Gaga, but I think there's an interesting point to be raised here. Where is the line between expressing sexuality and using sexuality as a commodity to sell albums? And how much can an individual profiting from a system that profits on the sexualization of the female body really subvert it with her "unsexy" album covers?
I'm really starting to like Lady Gaga, even if I don't particularly care for her music.
I do actually like lady gaga's music (its strange because I don't listen to a lot of mainstream pop music) and other than the "I am not a feminist" comment that she made I think that she actually has a brain and when it comes to business she uses it. Her songs are about sex so the overly sexualized videos make since for the music that she is singing. I think that if the video matches the music than there is nothing wrong with the sex in them. I also commend her for doing something about her album cover and speaking against the record label instead of giving in to what they want
Wow.That's almost a feminist statement from someone who insists she isn't a feminist. I want to ask her why she cares about how pop culture reflects and influences women if she's so certain that things are equal and there's no need for her to be a feminist. Now I'll wait for someone to take a shot at me and tell me it isn't my place to decide what people should or shouldn't call themselves. Well, it's my perogative to be annoyed with people who want to reap all the benefits gained by feminism (usually while totally taking for granted that feminism actually made these things happen, that the choices we have were not always there)and then going out of their way to make sure they aren't associated with the movement that made it possible for them to have what they have because of the work and sacrifice other women who DID identify as feminists, even to their own detriment.
That said, I enjoy her music very much and I love her voice. She has true talent that surpasses the shock factor.
I love her.
I find her aesthetic really interesting. I remember watching some video where she was looking through thrift stores for clothes to wear during performances, and she was talking about how she doesn't find her aesthetic sexy at all, even though she does show a lot of skin.
Which is actually kind of revolutionary, since in our culture attractive naked woman automatically = sexual. Her incredibly peculiar wardrobe choices and all her oddness make her too weird to be sexualized, because everyone's busy wondering why she's wearing a Sesame St character and where her pants went.