After a very lively discussion among the IGF commenters about Adam Lambert and politics vs. art, it struck me that we have forgotten about the reason we are having the discussion in the first place: political artists. They're the ones who run the two categories together, and have given some people the impression that art and politics are necessarily interrelated.
I was reminded of that when watching the American Music Awards last night. While Lambert's flamboyant and aggressive performance really did bring "Sexy Back" (with no apologies to Justin Timberlake or anyone else), it was just a performance -- one that involved Lambert kissing one of his male dancers, and making the censors scurry to avoid showing the nation another male dancer simulating oral sex on Lambert. This is the guy Aaron Hicklin thinks is worried about being perceived as too gay.
Lady Gaga gave one hell of a performance as well. But in contrast to Lambert, she is more than happy to take up the flag of gay rights as part of her persona. Most recently, she openly criticized prominent music industry figures whose homophobia and misogyny continue to be a point of pride, and she does it with style and sense.
There's a long line of artists who have been gratifyingly or gratingly political. But there is an equally long line of artists who had no taste for politics. In our highly politicized age, particularly for homosexuals who have to be political in order to obtain our fundamental rights, it may seem to a lot of people that gay artists have the onus of using their talent and fame for the greater purpose of equality.
But art is its own justification. Ironically, Lada Gaga's performance was the less political one. Playing a piano on fire is as pure and striking an image as Magritte's flaming horns - with the added attraction of breaking glass. Lambert's performance was more political, but only because being gay is political; nothing lesbians and gay men do in America can be simply personal, from getting married to joining the military to paying their taxes to burying their partner.
But that doesn't have anything to do with us; it is purely a function of the fact that those who refuse to see us as ordinary citizens insist on having us fight against the status quo in the political process. We engage that battle simply by refusing to deny who we are.
That is a battle Lambert has engaged. But beyond that, it's his call, as it is Lady Gaga's or Kanye West's or that of any other artist. Politics is one available tool to create art. Beauty is another, and the list is unlimited. Only an individual artist can determine which tools work best for him or her.
4 Comments for “In Case of Piano on Fire, Break Glass Like Mad”
posted by Debrah on
Lambert is unquestionably talented.
A very strong voice. Great range.
But he went waaaaaaay off key a few times with that song.
Not his best.
I think he’s a bit disingenuous when he said all of that happened “in the moment”. It’s obvious that he spent far too much energy thinking about the antics of the show, and as a result, the vocal delivery suffered.
But hey, he was able to put the cock-sucking on display for those waiting with bated breath.
Consequently, little short loudmouth stumps with outing tendencies like Michelangelo Signorile, etc….should be blissful about the performance.
I can see this being rhapsodized for months and months to come.
LIS!
posted by Debrah on
” But in contrast to Lambert, she (Lady Gaga) is more than happy to take up the flag of gay rights as part of her persona.”
****************************************
This woman has to do something to set herself apart.
Theatre, mere theatre.
She’s ugly.
Lambert’s not.
posted by Jimmy on
While I am not a consumer of either of these two artists, Lady Gaga does strike me as the more artistic of the two since she is her own principle song writer, a musician, and the creative force behind her persona. There is something there beyond vocal histrionics, which is what Adam Lambert has to offer. I don’t get a sense of him as an artist.
Hicklin used Lambert and crassly made controversial mountains out of mole hills with that editor’s letter in order to create more buzz for his magazine.
What is it with the obligatory pole dance that must accompany pop music performances? Strippers never had it so good. Only a few weeks ago, we were treated to sixteen year old Miley Cyrus’ pole dance in prime time. Heck, Brittany’s whole act is one lip synched turn on the pole after another. So, America’s sweethearts expect a dollar tip for their time? People should generally agree that the ongoing sexualization of children in pop culture is undesirable.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Years ago I created a stage play that went on to win an award for promoting social justice. I remember thinking about the wedge being driven between blacks and gays in particular over whose civil rights were more authentic.
But more importantly I wanted to illustrate SHARED history and just how much there was in common, which was a great deal.
I wanted to see a thoughtful and honest dialogue occur between to of the most disenfranchised minorities in this country, and one in particular, in the world.
Artists, being artists can turn their work into important statements.
I remember watching John Patrick Shanley in an interview with Charlie Rose and why he wrote “Doubt”. His ambition was the same, for the country to have a dialogue about a long neglected outrage in the Catholic Church.
I have a copy of an article from the NYTimes regarding political theater and it’s power.
The Vagina Monologues and The Laramie Project come to mind as specific narratives that have reached immense audiences worldwide in many languages.
Pop stars certainly have the mass media on their side, but the effort, to learn one’s political subject thoroughly requires a lot of time and some artists just don’t really have it.
To sit down and give it the due attention, at least to make it a little more than clips.
Bob Dylan and Odetta, Joan Baez and so on, sang during the most turbulent times of our era.
Their politics WAS their songs. Artists like Lambert sometimes are so flamboyant in their personas, rather than their songs…a statement can get lost.
After all, the aforementioned artists had no such trappings, backup dancers and special effects.
And these are OVER SEXUALIZED people, for sure.
The spectacle would be hard to forget, to the point that if these artists are seen without all the makeup and so on…would or could they be more relatable to WHAT they are speaking to, not just WHO?
I’m an artist too, and felt some responsibility to the activism in a different way.
I don’t wish anything ill on these artists mentioned in the article, but we’ll see.
Perhaps after a time of more reflection and maturity they’ll be better at speaking for the issues they care about.