"Can it be that Gaga represents the exhausted end of the sexual revolution? In Gaga’s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an era..."We now accept simulation and imitation as fertile ground for artistic expression where once this would have been seen as lacking the necessary quality of authenticity, Kandinsky's inner necessity. Artists of the Postmodern age proudly take refuge in places that artists of the past would have been ashamed to go. There is a lack of definition, a plurality of styles. There is a shamelessness that has become acceptable, even, arguably, essential.
Alison Pearlman talks about how the "reduction of reference to style" of art here, and its how pluralism made works of art vulnerable to misappropriation: how the commodification of art works has led to their diminished import. But does wearing a T-shirt of the Mona Lisa diminish our appreciation? Or, does our once-removed possession of her (as symbol, as myth, as masterpiece) bring us closer to genuine connection & communion with her?While I agree with Paglia that we are seeing the death of the Sexual Revolution as we have come to know it 1 - and that Lady Gaga symbolizes the flame-out of its star-burst - it's just as possible that what she signals is the spark, albeit almost imperceptible, of new one.



























