Thematic Collection: Performance

   Because we studied Rock n' Roll, we looked at performance quite a bit, everyday actually.  We thought about the performance of voice, sexuality, and gender.  We looked at their actual shows for a lot of our discussion, but what I want to focus on the performance of the person by the person.  I am very intrigued at the notion that one is always performing--on stage and off stage.   Can we really know who the "real" star is?
  The only time we see celebrities and artists are when they are in the public eye; we do not know them personally or intimately.  Therefore, most of what we see is what the want us to see.  Except for those unfortunate events when paparazzi gets to close and captures things like Britney's exposed crotch.  So they have the ability to be constantly performing and shaping their public identity.  This raises the question of authenticity.  Do they really feel they way they say they do? Do they really believe in the things we think they do?  Basically, it what we see really who they are or are they just performing a certain type of person so that they can sell?  When we see them are they just characters?
    I first started thinking about this when we saw Lips, the lead singer of Anvil.  Lips was a character that was used on the stage and in real life, it was a type of person the singer used.  In the documentary we watched we saw Lips (I don't even know his real name) get a telemarketing job because he thought "Lips" would be good at aggressively selling things only to find out that his real person could not. On another note, today in class we discussed Lady Gaga and her contradicting performances.  These stars, Gaga and Lips, also bring in the theme of a double layered performance meaning that within their performance, they are also performing a performance of sexuality.  Sexuality is a performance, and the performers choose what type of sexuality they want to represent.
   I think this discussion is circular.  There is no way you can determine authenticity or performance. Is their performance true to who they really are, or is their "authenticity" just part of their performance? What is real and what is the show?  It sounds like some fatal question that would precede the fall of a civilization or something in a book, but that is the "reality" of our pop culture today.

 Here is an article featured in the magazine BAZAAR titled "The Real Lady Gaga." There is also some pictures of her fashion statements--look at those and think about the idea of her using those to always perform. The article is short and doesn't take long to read but here are three main paragraphs that relate to performance.

While this might seem a departure from more theatrical Gaga garb, she doesn't see the slightest difference. "I don't really view it as 'natural,'" she explains. "I think that artifice is the new reality. It's more about just being honest and sincere to the core of what you do. Whether I'm wearing lots of makeup or no makeup, I'm always the same person inside."

But does she ever look in the bathroom mirror in the morning and think, Here we go again? "Sometimes I do. It all really depends on my mood for the day. But I think the perception that I 'put it on' every day is probably not true."

In Gaga's mind, "putting it on" is subject to interpretation. "Don't you think that what's on the cover of a magazine is quite artificial?" she asks. "There's this idea that it's all natural, but everything's been staged to look natural. It is also an invention. It's just that my inventions are different. I often get asked about my artifice, but isn't fashion based on the idea that we can create a fantasy?"

Read more: Lady Gaga Fashion Interview - Real Lady Gaga Quotes on Style - Harper's BAZAAR 

 Interview with Eminem entitled "The Real Marshall Mathers."  We are lead to believe that because he answers questions, this is the real man....but I think if you look at some of his answers you could make the argument that he is still performing.  Look at his answer to the first question.



Link: The Real Marshall Mathers


Look at how sexuality is performed in these images. Performances are practiced an well thought out, they do every move on purpose so we have to view their sexuality as performed.

Rihanna

Justin Timberlake

pussycat dolls

Adam Lambert

Thematic Collection: Feminism

    Feminism. The collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women (Wikipedia).  We could not go a day with out talking about feminism in some form.  We analyzed music and culture and determined if 1st wave, 2nd wave, or 3rd wave feminism was evident.  
    1st wave feminism is basically women's suffrage. It is women demanding the right to vote and run for office.  I think of it as demanding their basic rights.  2nd wave feminism is choice feminism.  Women choose who they want to be, what they want to do, and what they want to look like--and they are empowered by these choices because they made them.  The main example we used in class of 2nd wave feminism was Madonna.  There are so many definitions of 3rd wave feminism because it is so diverse and complex, but In my mind its ideology is "We're women and girls and we come in many different shapes, sizes, orientations, colors, ethnicities, and nationalities and we do all kinds of different things and have crazy different ideas, dreams, gifts, talents, and world views, but we are people and what we do, create, build, sing, draw, write, manage, or take care of has value and is awesome because we are women. " It isn't so much about equalizing as it is empowering women and recognizing them because they are women and what they do is awesome in itself. 3rd wave feminism is most often seen as a movement, while 2nd wave is about individuals making choices.  
   I want to talk about 2nd wave feminism for a bit because I don't buy all of it.  While I agree that your choices should empower you,  I don't buy that the choices of objectification through sexuality is very empowering.  I think that women view this as their role in society and maybe they view it unknowingly as their only choice because that is all that is presented to them, and through 2nd wave feminism they can finally call it (their only choice) empowering.  Maybe I would think it was empowering if women viewed their mind as their greatest asset and then their body, and still made that choice....but I don't think most women who are empowered by choosing to be a pornstar or pose in sexy, vulnerable positions really believe that. 
    I think 3rd wave feminism is awesome because it is seeks to empower women for who they are---whomever that might be.  However, I would probably define myself as a cross between 2nd and 3rd wave feminism because I still like the being empowered by choice idea, but I also hold to the idea that women can do things just as good and better than men in the areas that they are trying to make gains in.  My literature professor James VandenBosch repeatedly told my class that since women gains the right to vote and were able to get an education, women have made bounds and leaps and are getting better grades and constitute more of the population in every area of study except Engineering and...Physics (and a couple others I think). And that's just in the last 100 years!  He would always say, "Just think what women will be able to do in the next 100 years!" 


As my collection, I wanted to post a bunch of images of feminist activism, as well as things that I think represent the three waves. 

I think this sums up 80's metal's idea of women.

interesting in light of the comment made in class about the difference between porn and high art.  Why is one naked woman different than another?

This was a walk protesting the idea that "all women are sluts" .  All women are not sexually available to any man that wants them.  It says "Make it known that those who experience sexual assault are never the ones at fault. 

And now: the Three Waves of Feminism:

Madonna finding power through sex appeal. 

Riot Grrrl

I just wanted to add this because it is so preposterous. In light of all of the great things women have done and everything we have learned about feminism, there are still people who are adamantly against it. For real. This is a cite that claims feminism is evil and manipulates the Bible for it's cause to give "proof" that women's rights are from the devil and women are ruining the world. It claims that according to the Bible,

A godly man is a threat to the feminist's agenda, because he believes that a woman's place is still in the home—baking cookies, knitting, and caring for the children (1st Timothy 5:14). Of course, hen pecked husbands and sissies are exempt.

...that was seriously a direct quote. It was so infuriating that I could only read 3 paragraphs, but I thought it was so ridiculous that I had to share it.  Link: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Feminism/feminism_is_evil.htm

Thematic Collection: Crisis of Masculinity

   The Crisis of Masculinity has been a major theme surrounding our discussions of males in rock n' roll.  Since women have gained more power in the last century and can provide for themselves, protect themselves, even procreate with out a man in their life,  the traditional concept of a male's role has been made obsolete.  They are no longer the only head of the household or breadwinner.  This is the crisis of masculinity.  Men are trying to figure out what role they play, and how their masculinity can be defined if provider, protector, and procreator is no longer needed.
   Because of this crisis, men are trying to form and shape their identity.  This creates the culture of identities always being "in flux." We saw this in Springsteen's rebellion against fathers in order to become their "own man."  We see this in lad mags where men have the "boys will be boys" mentality and revert back to the tradition roles of male dominance where men are sort of cavemen and their women are their to please them.  We also studied 80's metal.  Here, men exert power over women by excluding them, treating them as sexual creatures to be wary of, and by using the women's typical role of being objectified to gain power.
    I think men try to define their roles and form their identity in the midst of confusion by sorting through everything that they are bombarded through pop culture.  On one hand, they are supposed to be MEN (read in caveman voice) where they are dominant creatures and get in fights, gain territory, take care of their women, earn the most money, and on and on. (We are familiar with this role).  They are supposed to learn from their fathers, but branch out in order to really become a man.  They are supposed to be free to express themselves.  So if they don't like everything that comes with the traditional role, they pick and chose what they want to keep and go through this forming process of their masculinity.  Because of this crisis, there is no clear answer to what masculinity is.  In my mind masculinity is a huge bowl of contradictions.  They are supposed to be emotionless...yet have passion an therefore emotion.  They are supposed to be strong, but vulnerable sometimes.  They need to earn the most money, yet follow their dreams.  They need to provide for their families, and stay at home and be a good father.

This is an article in NewsWeek about the Crisis of Masculinity:
it claims that "A true masculinity is grounded in a man’s determination to fulfill his manhood in being a good husband, father, citizen, worker, leader, and friend — one who makes a difference, fulfills a role for others, and devotes his life to these tasks." 

link: http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/23/man-up-or-man-down-newsweek-redefines-masculinity/

Images of Masculinity:

80's metal

death cab for cutie

Thematic Collection: Commodification

    A commodity is defined as something of trade or commerce, especially a product or distinguished form of service; something of use advantage, or value.  The way we talk about commodification in this class can be defined as to treat something (an artist) inappropriately as if it can be acquired or marketed like other commodities.  The only problem is, music artists can be acquired and marketed today through the industry, their albums, their images, and their merchandise.  Artists today either play the game of commodification, or they are thrown into it.

    Commodification and objectification go hand in hand.  When we look at stars and commodify them, we look at them as objects to be bought and sold, bodies and images to be used, not humans with minds and souls.  We see evidence of this through our feeling of ownership and possession we get from consuming them.  We care little for what they want or care about, just as long as they give us what we want.  For this reason, when you are a commodity, you have to worry about your image. You need to make sure you are something that people want to buy or sell.  Even if an artist is not willingly a commodity, that is how the consumerism culture will treat him or her.  We saw a rebellion against this with Joan Baez.  She wanted to avoid becoming a commodity because she didn't want to have to worry about her image and work within the labels the media gave her.  She said, "If you have to label me, label me a human first." However, her main concern was not her career or music, it was secondary in her life compared to her activism.  I think this is a difference to note, because I think that is what enabled her to escape commodification.

   In our pop culture now, in order to be a successful commodity (and by this I mean be a successful artist because people want to buy and sell you the most) you have to engage in the spectacle.  In order to capture and keep consumer's attention, you have to be intrigue them with spectacle and show them something shocking and new.  Maybe because people turn to the media in order to escape the everyday so they search for the thing that will get them the farthest away.  Regardless of the reason, we have seen through this course that commodification, objectification, and spectacle come together in a nice, shocking, package in pop culture.

Commodities:

album covers

products

This is a link to Britney Spears' online store: http://store.britneyspears.com/

kiss face mask

Objectification: 

Don't these images say, "Buy Me"?

Spectacle:

Marilyn Manson: Tainted Love.  Look at how the women change and everyone is "noticing" Marilyn Manson and his crew when they enter the party.  Everyone is looking at them, wants them, and wants to be like them.

Lady Gaga:

Oh, Lady Gaga.  She is how I would define spectacle. 

Video highlighting her outrageous outfits at MTV awards.

Music Video: Judas.  Her outrageous religious imagery, 

glamour, and glitter is a crazy spectacle full of shock value.

Pop Goes the Porn Culture

"Pop Goes the Porn Culture"
By: Gail Dines

Gail Dines uses three examples to show that porn has been becoming more mainstream over the last decade.  She shows through all of these examples that women are used as commodities especially in porn, but then also in mainstream pop culture. The three examples she uses are Girls Gone Wild, the appearance of a porn star, and Vivid Entertainment.  Each of these have "sanitized" porn to mellow it down from the hardcore porn industry to move it into the mainstream so that pop culture deems it acceptable. Porn culture, especially Girls Gone Wild, makes porn seen "fun, edgy, chic, sexy, and hot." The soft core porn of a decade ago has filtrated our mainstream pop culture...and we barely even notice it.

The following clip is a Girls Gone Wild ad from 2007.  I did not watch the whole thing, so be warned that this contains an adult content.  The phenomenon Girls Gone Wild preys on the stereotypical college years of sexual exploration.  GGW's thing is using "real women" this adds to the concept that all women are sexually available

The appearance of porn stars further removed the dirty connotation with porn, and slowly made the vocation of a porn star financially appealing, and contained the "star factor"
The first porn star: Jenna Jameson

A big part in the essay is that Jameson served as a recruiter for other women to become pornstars, and the comments of users showed that porn stars are interchangeable, and all women are sluts because any woman can be a pornstar.

Here is a link to an article "the truth about the porn industry" where Gail Dines was interviewed and asked questions about her book. I thought that one of the most disturbing quotes was:

"I have found that the earlier men use porn," says Dines, "the more likely they are to have trouble developing close, intimate relationships with real women. Some of these men prefer porn to sex with an actual human being. They are bewildered, even angry, when real women don't want or enjoy porn sex."

While we can argue for and against porn, when someone studies this AND has evidence, I think we can no longer ignore the real consequences. When men begin to desire porn of a real sexual relationship...what does that mean for our lives and world? (discussion question).


Even if a man and woman do not watch porn, I still think the filtration of porn into pop culture and the prevalence of porn advertisements effects their relationship and their idea of what their sexual relationship should be. Do you agree with this? Is it harmful? Why or why not?  ....and what do we do about it either way

Another thought that necessitates discussion is that in the porn industry, women are there to please the man.  It is all about the man's pleasure.  What does this say to the 2nd wave feminism argument of empowerment through choice?  How can we say women are empowered when the result is still male pleasure?

Thematic Collection: Consumption

 An overarching theme we have come across in our discussions this interim is consumption.  Consumption of music, consumption of image, consumption of the performance, consumption of the performer, and, most disturbingly, consumption of the person. We looked at consumption in it's broadest sense.  We not only consume the artist and his or her art, we consume everything they were trying to sell to us. I define it as the "taking in" of something. We consume by listening to the radio, watching television, surfing the internet, etc.
  One aspect of this theme is mindless consumption, where we consume without realizing what we are consuming.  I always think of the person who just says, "I just like the music and the beat--its catchy," when they don't think of the ideology the artist, their image, or the lyrics are representing. We consume with our eyes, we consume with what we read,  and, by buying something from the artist, we support their ideology they are selling financially thus empowering it.
  Another aspect of consumption is the sense of ownership we get through consuming.  We feel that things we consume are our possessions.  This can harmfully translate into us thinking we possess and own an artist, a person.  We gain control through this consumption and it can have devastating effects like the ones we saw with Britney Spears. In order for us to want to consume an artists, they have to play by our rules and form to something that we will consume.  Also, because we have this idea of ownership, we think we are entitled to knowledge of everything that we have consumed.  We want to know the artist's sexuality, what the lyrics mean, why they wrote the song, why the sang it, who they are in a relationship with, what their family is like...pretty much we want to know everything without concern for the person's privacy--and we think we are entitled to it.
In our consumer culture, everything we see is put there for consumption, it is a type of performance put on for the purpose of getting people to consume it.  This is what I was thinking about when I chose the following images, links, and videos. The performance may or may not be true to what it is actually representing, but it is there to sell the consumer an idea that they will store in their mind.

This illustrates the idea of consuming through television:

In celebrities or tv starts, we are presented with something that we are supposed to aspire to be. In the TV show Happy Days, Fonzie sold a type of "cool" and taught people how to achieve it.  They consumed it through viewing the show.  

Think about what we are consuming just by looking at these Rolling Stone covers.

I typed in "women advertisements" and "men advertisements" and these were each the second images that came up.  Compare the differences in what we are consuming in what men should be and what women should be. 

Here is another image of consumerism as it relates to the music industry:  Band Tshirts.

Britney Part II

"The Exile of Britney Spears" Chapters 8-15
Christopher R. Smit


In this half of the book, Smit continues to talk about the theme of consumption.  He talks about all of the Britney merchandise.  I thought that Laura Mason's zine added a interesting point to this topic.  She talked about Britney making herself a brand and how when people use her name it literally reads "Britney TM".  Anyways, Smit talks about how we further consume her through this merchandise adding to our control.  When we consume, we own and "to own is to control." We made Britney a possession and felt that we had ownership over her. Smit then analyzes the performance of "I'm a Slave 4U" and its imagery.  Maybe she is trying to take control by using her sexuality and not being "a little girl", however she is still powerless in the face of our consumption. The video is a transition to something; it is is more animalistic, primal, and violent.
Next we move on to the Exile of Britney, where we digest our consumption and don't like what we are digesting.  We didn't like who Britney was becoming.  She took control over her own body be becoming a mother and took away them image of Britney that we loved and created. She became a mother, she was a woman--more grown up.  Then the picture scandal happened where her genitalia were exposed for the whole world to see.  This was a culmination of ruining Britney's image of perfection; she was exiled. Smit also addresses depression, drugs, and alcohol as disabling her and her mind. A disablement that was brought about by us.
But now, we have allowed her to come back.  She has transformed her image into one that we approve of and support.  She has to play by our rules in order to be the "redeemed Britney."  Britney didn't make her own comeback, we allowed her back into the music world.  However, there is also the notion that we need Britney as much as she needs us.

This is an article written by The Daily Beast about Britney's "comeback."  I think the most interesting line in the whole article is the last one.  It is talking about Britney's strategy and what she is doing now as a brand-name and in business/music.

 “She works with these people who churn it out, there’s no soul, the records come and go…Everyone knew Madonna was intelligent. She was a phenomenal marketer. No one believes Britney is pulling the strings… You just don’t want to take her too seriously.”

click here to read the article.

Britney's "I'm a Slave 4U" performance and her tragic 2008 performance of "Gimme More". Compare the difference.

This awful moment:

Oopsies! 

Discussion Questions:

1. After reading this book, does it make you feel differently about how you enjoy, view, and consume things in the media?  How can we change to avoid what has happened with Britney Spears?

2. If you could pick three main things out of Britney's career to signify her creation, exile, and comeback, what would they be and why?