I've mentioned her frequently, great case study of gender representation and the post-feminist position ... but also beyond that of queer representation, an intentional blurring of the gender binary.
On my summer list to return to and develop a new case study...
10 years of Lady Gaga: how she queered mainstream pop forever https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/apr/10/10-years-of-lady-gaga-how-she-queered-mainstream-pop-forever?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger
From Madonna to Janelle Monáe: how female sexuality progressed in pop
NB: the artist under discussion often swears in her lyrics and interviews, both of which address her sexual identity in a frank manner.
Lo might be a new low for some, her very in your face lyrics and gyrating in her videos leaving little room for interpretation, but she isn't doing anything new - nor is much of the censorious or dismissive critical reaction, and its grounding in gender politics, new.
Pop writing often ignores great female blues and jazz singers who addressed their sexuality lyrically, and each latest controversy somehow forgets Donna Summers, Madonna, even Alannis Morrisette (whose Jagged Little Pills brought some challenging topics to a huge mainstream audience).
Lo is right to be exasperated at the double standards over male performers, and the issue of agency is central here.
Is her sexualised image and performance a reflection of a patriarchal society and a misogynistic music industry (a traditional feminist stance), and Lo therefore an exploited victim, OR is she an assertive, self-assured woman in control of her image and art freely choosing to explore sexuality (a more typically post-feminist position)?
Perhaps there is some truth in BOTH positions? Lo is asserting female artists' freedom to discourse in a manner seen as male territory and unbecoming for women, thus challenging normative, hegemonic gender identity.
BUT ... she is doing this using visual tropes long linked to the male gaze, and which surely are appealing to a heterosexual male audience as much as generating any identification with or aspiration from (uses and gratifications theory) a female audience?
This is seemingly an endless debate. Going back a decade were the Pussycat Dolls empowering role models or a cynical male manager and record label boss' means of putting a positive spin on an exploitative, sexualised image?
There's nothing new in rock and pop stars transgressing and undermining normative gender expectations: David Bowie, Iggy Pop, all those 60s 'longhairs', Janis Joplin, Marilyn Manson, Perry Farrell, Boy George, Little Richard, Annie Lennox...
Nonetheless, in an era when a bearded woman won Eurovision, Judith Butler's provocative pronouncement that gender is a fiction we learn to act out has clearly won some high profile fans.
We need to be careful when judging representations: Miley Cyrus would mock a feminist male gaze reading of her controversial act, rejecting sexual and gender labels which underpin this.
...Which doesn't necessarily make her right, and Sinead O'Connor (who wrote am open letter to Cyrus on exploitation by male record label bosses) wrong. Without denying Cyrus agency, as Stuart Hall would argue, your response (or reading) will be partly guided by your own subjectivity, background, identity
Female fury and a gangster in a dress: meet the pop stars toppling gender stereotypes http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/sep/13/sex-pop-gender-stereotypes-young-thug-tove-lo-mykki-blanco-deap-vally?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger
Rob posted on this in August and I thought I'd add a few comments; interesting choice! I know the track well but had never seen the video.
Here's the vid first of all:
A few initial points:
perf. through lip-synching, but without a translation its hard to say whether its narr or concept!
fairly fast-paced editing, with some long takes though
colour and lighting a key consideration
vid can only be understand if we grasp both the precise genre and target audience
skilful cross-cutting is key to the preferred reading
GENRE/AUDIENCE: Loosely, its heavy metal, but more specifically its 'industrial' (or industrial metal) - other comparable bands would include Rage Against the Machine and Nine Inch Nails. The typical audience for this would be male youth: 15-24, but comfortably extending to 15-34 (25-34 = 'mature youth'). Industrial metal goes beyond the traditional guitar/bass/drum/vocal line-up to incorporate recorded, synth-processed sound, and is also seen as 'dark' - a world away from the 'hair metal' of Bon Jovi, Motley Crue and other giants of mainstream metal.
The crashing sledgehammers, and the sparks that fly up, are a neat signifier of the genre within the video.
GENDER: The youth male audience ensures that the Snow White depicted is heavily sexualised to fit the male gaze: the tight top, thick, bright red lipstick and the long take which lingers on her suspenders. They've taken an archetypal signifier or icon of (Disney) innocence and purity and flipped it to fit with their darker vision.
Take 2, take 1 having been wiped by the Android app crashing...
Great article, written from a queer (American) perspective, challenging the cosy consensus that we've moved on from homophobia being culturally acceptable. The writer uses a term new to me (a neologism!), straight-washing (x-washing is an established concept though, green-washing, falsely adopting an environment-friendly image, being an example I'm more familiar with).
The Sam Smith example made me think back to the depths of BI time (Before Internet!), growing up in the 80s/90s. The first lesbian kiss in UK drama (the primetime soap Brookside) was a huge news story (Eastenders finally managed this in 2013), while Queer as Folk was shock and awe television - both, not coincidentally, Channel 4 shows. Boy George became a camp national treasure ... but only after declaring he'd rather have a cup of tea than coitus [link is to a page from Simon Napier-Bell's pop history bio] (my first ever Big Bang Theory intertextual reference there...).
You can see a Queer as Folk trailer here; NB: the series was rated 18, and the trailer features sexual references.You can find lots of analysis of the Brookside and other same-sex 'controversies' here (I was trying to find some contemporary newspaper coverage).
The Brookside kiss was headline news
Bronski Beat and the Communards had huge hits fuelled by Jimmy Somerville's extraordinary vocals, but did so with the bands' sexuality set aside in the glossy videos.
This playlist starts with The Communards' Don't Leave Me This Way, and continues with Bronski Beat's Smalltown Boy...
Annie Lennox caused much red ink to be spilt in the British tabloids by refusing to (applying Judith Butler's concept*) perform her gender like a good little girl, her shaven head, boxing gloves, trouser suits and all appalling the moral guardians in the press. [* gender as performativity; something that doesn't exist in nature but we learn to perform]
Sweet Dreams was one of many huge hits, but vocalist Lennox's counter-hegemonic behaviour, her utter refusal to play the expected (of female artists - and has this changed 30 years later?) glamour game, led to some intense tabloid flak (yes, Chomsky alert!).
Despite Madonna's Justify My Love coming along just a few years later and seemingly breaking every sexual taboo going, the bottom line is that it, like the original video for Frankie Goes to Hollywood's Relax (set in a gay club), was (and remains) banned.
The acceptable face of Frankie's Relax on ToTP:
Is the Hayley Kiyoko video Joseph Firago discusses in his article evidence of advancement? As Firago argues: yes and no - see his analysis on this.
From the colour tone to the specific intro/outro shots of the female protagonist on her bike, I can't help but perceive a curious intertextual relationship with the video for the Pixies' comeback single, BagBoy, which I've blogged on in depth...
If nothing else, though, this article manages to make the otherwise ultra-bland Sam Smith somewhat interesting!
I've briefly posted on AL before; her 80s vids for Eurythmics caused a national outcry when she played with gender expectations by dressing as a man (theory ref: Judith Butler - gender as performativity; also Chomsky's propaganda model as the 'flak' she received was designed to filter such counter-hegemonic thinking out of mainstream media and therefore public consciousness)
I made the mistake of thinking Marcy was a powerful woman in her own right. I've come to learn that there are none in TV. There aren't powerful men, for that matter, either – unless they work for an ad company or a market-study group. Those are the people who decide what gets on the air and what doesn't. Complaining about the "created by" credit made an enemy of Matt. He wasted no time undermining me, going so far as to ask my co-star, John Goodman, who played Roseanne Conner's husband, Dan, if he would do the show without me. (Goodman said no.) It was then that I had my first nervous breakdown. [excerpt]
I'll cross-post this on several blogs as it touches on gender, regulation, class prejudice and the general financial machinations of the entertainment business. Assuming you're unaware of what 'Roseanne' is, a few clicks on wikipedia or youtube will swiftly bring you up to speed - it was a hugely successful US sitcome with the USP of centring on a working-class family (with money problems and lousy jobs, not the usual facsimille of working class, or 'labour as Roseanne Barr refers to it, with a tough domestically inept/disinterested woman at the head of the family).
There are very, very few comparisons - aspects of Taxi perhaps, maybe even Married With Children.
Her article, and forthcoming book, reveal just how unprepared the US TV network (whose working practices, being fundamentally driven by financial calculations and audience testing, are not so different to those of the film biz) was to let an unvarnished depiction of working class folk go on, let alone allow a female creative lead the way. Roseanne Barr found that her own creation was credited to an entirely uninvolved male producer, who went on to make her life hell.
There may be a 'PC' moral behind this, but it is a fascinating read from a very un-PC lady.
Roseanne Barr: 'Fame's a bitch. It's hard to handle and drives you nuts'
With a hit TV show, Roseanne Barr could get the best tables in the best restaurants. Never mind about the empty flattery, the nervous breakdowns and the feeling of being used for 10 years. But she's not bitter. Honest
'I walked into the producer's office, held up a pair of wardrobe scissors to show her I meant business - "This is no character! This is my show. You watch me. I will win this battle." ' Photograph: Robert Maxwell/Art + Commerce
During the recent and overly publicised breakdown of Charlie Sheen, I was repeatedly contacted by the media and asked to comment, as it was assumed that I know a thing or two about starring on a sitcom, fighting with producers, nasty divorces, public meltdowns and bombing through a live comedy tour. I have, however, never smoked crack or taken too many drugs, unless you count alcohol as a drug (I don't). But I do know what it's like to be seized by bipolar thoughts that make one spout wise about tiger blood and brag about winning when one is actually losing. It's hard to tell whether one is winning or, in fact, losing once one starts to think of oneself as a commodity, or a product, or a character, or a voice for the downtrodden. It's called losing perspective. Fame's a bitch. It's hard to handle and drives you nuts. Yes, it's true that your sense of entitlement grows exponentially with every perk until it becomes too stupendous a
