Gaga over Gaga?
Camille Paglia's take on Lady Gaga has in it illustrations that is superb learning material for marketers. Lady Gaga after all is, marketer creation. So were the icons that preceded her and the ones that will follow.
Never mind Camille's ire about what L' Gaga represents. Icons of an age merely reflect the aspirations of mortals of that age. Gaga is the glorified us of today. Madonna wasn't any better. She was yesteryear's vagrant child. In fact Gaga and Madge aren't in any way different because their fantasy appeal is essentially the same.
I recommend the 'icon concept' be seen in 'reverse'. People don't take to icons. Its the latter that engineer the fomer, via marketing. And so the icons and their following are mere creations of a marketing mind. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are few and far in between. Gaga with her crafted image has engineered for herself a 'natural' following aptly termed, the 'Gaga Generation'. As Camille writes, '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.'
It is therefore fit for us to note that the Gaga story isn't either about feminism or iconism. Its pure Marketing. And that's where the lesson for the rest of us is.
Never mind Camille's ire about what L' Gaga represents. Icons of an age merely reflect the aspirations of mortals of that age. Gaga is the glorified us of today. Madonna wasn't any better. She was yesteryear's vagrant child. In fact Gaga and Madge aren't in any way different because their fantasy appeal is essentially the same.
I recommend the 'icon concept' be seen in 'reverse'. People don't take to icons. Its the latter that engineer the fomer, via marketing. And so the icons and their following are mere creations of a marketing mind. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are few and far in between. Gaga with her crafted image has engineered for herself a 'natural' following aptly termed, the 'Gaga Generation'. As Camille writes, '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.'
It is therefore fit for us to note that the Gaga story isn't either about feminism or iconism. Its pure Marketing. And that's where the lesson for the rest of us is.
Comments