(FEATURING INTERVIEW WITH “TELEPHONE”

DIRECTOR JONAS AKERLUND!!!)

Well then my little monsters, let me be your surrogate monster daddy

for a moment as I add more sociological woolgathering to the already
teetering tower of Gaga nonsense. Because it isn’t so much that you
should give a shit about Lady Gaga any longer, it’s more that you have
to – Gaga is like violence, we are existing with this excretion of
humanity whether you like it or not.
So then, immersed in the creepster psyche of an internet meme,
studded leather underpants bursting with lust, you are a little monster,
and debates about whether the world’s most popular celebrity is
artistically talented or intelligent mean nothing here. When David
Byrne posted a quote from MoMa director Klaus Biesenbach on his
blog about how Gaga is not an “artist”, it seemed to be done with
jealousy that represents the sentiments of many Byrne fans – the type
of music lovers who like to bridge the gap between fantasies of new-
wave punk and art school. Byrne was later forced to publish a mea
culpa after Biesenbach wrote Byrne and retracted his statement.
Biesenbach’s motive here is clear: if MoMa rejects Gaga, then MoMa
rejects a possible future. MoMa no longer has the option of exhibiting
the future of art, which apparently caused Biesenbach some
confusion. MoMa is dead, like a museum should be, and new art needs
to navigate a new economic system and reinvent the way humans use
power, like Gaga is trying to do. MoMa wants Gaga on their side.
Jealousy and antiestablishment discontent aside, whether Gaga is art
is not the question, more so the question is how do we identify, utilize
and improve upon the excretion of humanity that is Gaga.

As an artist and as someone who thinks a post-capitalist world is

desperately necessary, I seemingly may be obligated to despise Gaga.
She in some ways represents a system of American consumerism and
imperialism; she misappropriates rebel culture that once inspired me;
she is way more successful than I have ever dreamed of becoming, but
in reality these dislikes can only be justified when a sincere hardline is
drawn between liberal American culture and radical political
movement – a line that will always be artificial until in the midst of a
riot.

In reality, Gaga is a New York rebel artist whose growth was stunted
before radical change became a real option. This happens to be the
state of nearly every young rebel artist who functions in America
today – that is to say even those train hopping crusty-kids who laud
bands like Ghost Mice, barbarous noise musicians, or the activist-y
Swoon. These acts are not radical, but traversing avenues already
paved by previous radicals. Furthermore, she is clearly far more
badass than the timid indie rock that has been dominating the last
decade. For instance, in the videos directed by Jonas Åkerlund,
TELEPHONE and PAPARAZZI, Gaga attacks patriarchy with a viciousness
that by some readings is on par with Valerie Solanas. Both videos play
out a fantasy of gendercide as Gaga poisons her boyfriend (PAPARAZZI)
then slaughters a diner full of normies with allusions to lesbian
separatism (TELEPHONE).

A shot in TELEPHONE where Gaga appears wearing a crust-punk

studded leather jacket is an image of appropriated radical culture that
many, including myself, fixated upon. This is a D.I.Y. leather jacket with
the patches of violent dissenter anarchist punk bands, G.I.S.M., Doom
and Dystopia sewed on among metal biker studs. G.I.S.M. and Doom
are both known for their political dissidence and violence (G.I.S.M is
an acronym for Guerilla Incendiary Sabotage Mutineer.) This sort of
appropriation of punk culture will generally offer two readings: some
will pejoratively accuse Gaga of being a fashion punk; the majority of
the globe, however, gets a reassuring sense of rebellion as they watch
the superstar strut across the crustpunk cat walk.

The knee jerk agitative punk reaction to the jacket is simple and
pretty much stupid, because punk was selling-out long before Kurt
Cobain bought a Lexus, or Chumbawumba recorded Tumbthumper.
Although I support the punk sentiments of anti-capitalism, violence,
and find punk irreverence inspiring, I don’t think there’s any reason to
cry over its commercialization – for me this is less a battle lost and
more a battle realized. The second reaction, where the radical punk
jacket is recognized as something progressive by adoring, if ignorant,
fans (“I find the anarchy symbols on her punkzzz jacket so HARDCORE and
EDGY. She is probably the punk that hacked Britney's twitter that one time,
remember?” as one blogger commented), is more useful to those who
desire radical change. I will return to this argument later.

Many may wish to judge the value of Gaga’s art by her intention – such
as: is this brand of pop sincerely advocating gendercide? and so on. To
offer some light on the matter of intent, I got in touch with the director
of TELEPHONE and PAPPARZI, Jonas Åkerlund. Most of us understand that
Gaga’s art is not the mere creation of the lone, Stefani Joanne
Angelina Germanotta, but that there is an entire HAUSE dedicated to
the Gaga spectacle. Åkerlund is instrumental in the aesthetic of her
two most popular videos, which also happen to be the two videos that
best represent a desire for social upheaval, PAPARAZZI and TELEPHONE.

One thing we should understand about Jonas Åkerlund, is that he was

the original drummer for Swedish black metal band, Bathroy.
Aggressively anti-christian, Nietzschean and violent, Bathory was a
key factor to the construction of Norwegian black metal – a scene
notorious for murders, cat sacrifices and church burnings. In the
context of 1980’s Protestant Scandinavia, Bathory and the black metal
scene that came after were extremely revolutionary, and the politics
of anti-Christianity are inherent in many detractors of patriarchy and
capitalism that are active today. In a post-interview email I asked
Jonas how is days in the metal scene with Bathory affect his work
today. He responded:

“I guess my musical background have shaped me into who I am today

[sic]. Especially how I approach film editing. To me editing, sound and
music is the most creative part of what I do. The time in Bathory was
special in many ways but creatively it wasn’t exactly a highlight. The
concept and the image was stronger than the music at the time. Later
quarton [sic]took it to a much higher creative level. My metal
 background on the other side still gives me inspiration... I’m metal to
the bones and will always be...”

To offer some further backstory to Åkerlund’s rebel pop, he directed

the first mainstream porno music video, Rammstien’s PUSSY (2009),
which depicts all out full penetration. He also directed the
controversial feature length SPUN, a liberal drug movie about crystal
meth addiction, which captured brilliant performances by Micky
Rourke and the late Britney Murphy. Although Åkerlund has stated the
movie is anti drug, it nonetheless depicts a working class, weird
America that is not often seen with such lawlessness or realism. (I
unabashedly complemented him on Spun as we begun our
conversation, both to sweeten him up to my politics, and because at
the age of 17 I loved drug movies, and this one holds up better than
most from that era.) Another notable feat for Åkerlund as a director is
Madonna’s AMERICAN LIFE (2002) video. AMERICAN LIFE was nearly as
subversive as Madonna ever was, depicting her and dancers modeling
military garb on a catwalk while video footage of modern warfare
explodes in the background. The scene becomes extremely bloody and
violent – she even throws a grenade at George W. Bush. It is most
likely the closest a mainstream music video will ever get to a Dead
Kennedy's stage show. Unfortunately, what was meant to be a protest
against the U.S. War in Iraq was never released, due to the fact that
the war pretty much began on the video’s release date. When word got
around to the press that Madonna and Åkerlund were being “anti-
american”, Madonna put a halt to the onslaught coming from an idiotic
nationalistic media frenzy by canning the video. A heavily edited
version was later released, but it doesn’t hold a candle (let alone a
grenade) to the original.

So as I prepared to interview Åkerlund over the phone from my humble

railroad apartment in Brooklyn, I thought about the Madonna video,
and the crustpunk Jacket from Telephone and I devised a series of
questions with the intention of getting Jonas to let slip some insight
into his political position or perhaps Gaga’s or just some general pop-
culture political position. He didn’t seem to appreciate the direct
questions about politics, but there are some worthy points
nonetheless. After our initial introduction and some brown nosing on
the topic of Spun, this is how our conversation went:

J.P. BULLMAN: Can you offer any anecdotal information about that
jacket? Do you know the history of the jacket? Do you know how it got
in the video?

JONAS ÅKERLUND: Ah, I think I’m going to disappoint you because I don’t really
know. You’re going to have to talk to the stylist about it, because I don’t know anything
about it. All I know is that when I saw I liked it and I said I want to have that in a video.

Ok cool, but maybe you can comment on the intended affect from the
image of this jacket in the video?

Well, it’s not just the jacket, we go through all details and wardrobe is a big part of
music videos, especially for Gaga. It’s a huge part of everything she does, there are so
many great options in her wardrobe. But to be honest I don’t remember that jacket as
sticking out as something extraordinary. But now that mention, that jacket is something
that I’ve been wearing all my life, but that’s another story. (laughter)

Are you a fan of G.I.S.M., DOOM, or DYSTOPIA???

Not really. You know, to be honest, I’m more of an 80’s British heavy metal kind of guy.

BULLMAN: So you’re not really familiar with history of G.I.S.M. then

and the extremely violent political messages that carry.

(Flatly) No

I feel there is a strong anti-consumerism message later on in the

video, as you used product placement ironically. Do you agree?

I guess both yes and no: yes because we wanted to have a strong American culture kind
of look in the video, and there’s products all around us. So, we were planting a few for
more of part of the production, the look of it. And no, because we had to take it
seriously, because we had some real product placement in there, which you have to take
seriously, you know. People pay us to be part of what we do, and the minute they do that
they become partners, so you have to take it seriously. Luckily the product placement
works within our idea, and kinda added to the whole video and what the video’s about.
And it didn’t bother and the people who actually decided to be in the video were very
respectful with what we were trying to do.

I see what you mean, so you took the product placement and put your
own spin on it. Do you think your message, or, you know, your
intentions got across by doing it in this way?

Um, not really. i don’t have that much experience with product placement in music
videos – it only happened to me a few times – and I see in videos when it looks kind of
silly, like you know, here you go the same sort of insert of the product. But I would hope
that I could always turn it around to make it part of what we’re doing, or have the power
to say no to it, because otherwise I think it would fall flat. But in our case, with
Telephone, it didn’t hurt the video, and as I said, it was kind of working with the idea of
the video.

(I mentioned Madonna’s American Life video, here, and Jonas

Interrupted enthusiastically.)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure. I’m happy you’re mentioning it, because to me that was always
such a strong video with horrible timing. The video always had such a great intention,
and it was such a hard work and such a great effort from Madonna and the timing was
just not good.

Yeah, I agree it was strong video, and I enjoyed watching it on

Youtube, but I haven’t seen it on the television.

Well we actually decided to can the video...but lately it’s been kind of appearing on
Youtube and online. There’s a timeless message in the video, obviously, and if you look
at anytime in history, except during those six months, especially in America, the video
just didn’t work. It was wrong to release that sort of images at the time, basically when
the whole country was afraid and worried. The message didn’t fill its purpose at the
time. The message actually turned around and became the opposite, so it was a wise
decision not release it and ultimately it was Madonna’s decision. We discussed it a lot
and i think it was the correct decision, but if the video would have been done six month’s
earlier or six months later, that wouldn’t have been the case and the video would have
come out.
So you feel that now the message is important, and people should be
watching that video after, maybe, some healing has occurred?

Yeah, definitely. As I said music videos are never really meant to last forever. There
always just sort of meant to hype a project or a song or sell a moment at that specific
moment. But some videos are just a little bit more timeless. I think AMERICAN LIFE will
always be relevant, you know, it’s an antiwar video. In my point of view that will always
and forever be an important message.

Trying to get a sense of Akerlund’s view on violence and radical

politics, I returned to the jacket: “Are you familiar with the Anti-
Capitalist rallies/protests/riots that also utilize images like the ones
found on Gaga’s Jacket – such the images you may have seen with the
news coverage of the G20 riots in Toronto last July?” He seemed
annoyed by either my continuing questioning about the jacket, or my
attempt to bait him in to talking about radical politics. In either case
he again said I would have to ask the stylist about the details of the
jacket. I emailed the stylist, Nicola Formichetti and he unfortunately
didn’t reply.

As for the G.I.S.M. jacket representing consumer culture’s devouring of

rebel culture, I believe Åkerlund’s insight offers something. First we
must consider that Åkerlund states he is “metal to the bones and
always will be,” and here, radical social upheaval is implied to some
extent, even if now it seems a bit cartoony or ironic. Also, we must
believe him when he says, “that jacket is something that I’ve been
wearing all my life.” Åkerlund, as the drummer to Bathory, has some
right to authentic punk culture. After all, the culture that spawned
Bathory is deeply connected to the culture that spawned G.I.S.M and
Doom, who all were active in the international hardcore scene after
Bathory began to make a serious impact in Scandinavia. However, he
is either unwillingly or ignorant in matters of the politics that surround
this symbolism. After he didn’t respond to a later question about
violence, I began to suspect it was unwillingness that caused his
avoidance, which leads me to believe he feels he must hide something
about his true political convictions.

❂❂❂❂
 After some research on the internet I found that the jacket was bought
by the Gaga crew from a punk-fashion boutique in the Lower East Side
of Manhattan called SEARCH & DESTROY. The boutique is located on St.
Marks Place about two blocks from Tompkins square park. This area
of Manhattan is known for being a home to crust punk culture – G.G.
Allin lived around the corner from the boutique in the St. Marks Hotel
at the time of his death, for instance. And the name of the place,
SEARCH & DESTROY is taken from the Stooges song that may have been
the first punk thing ever. The store is ridicules – jackets similar to
Gaga’s are priced around 580$ (although her’s is rumored to have cost
$2,500). The boutique is a beaming emblem of punk’s gentrification.

SEARCH & DESTROY

Initially upon my investigation into the store, I was angered by the

brainless, lifeless culture that exists there. My distaste is not so much
that it is “fashion-punk”, but more so because it is dumb and bad art
sold at bougie prices, and I don’t want anything to do with it. Having
removed myself from the store – presumably forever lest for a
spontaneous urge to sabotage – I in turn felt the SEARCH & DESTROy
fashion boutique represents some hope for radical change in our
culture. This is why:

In a book by Joseph Heath, a moron who teaches philosophy at the

University of Toronto, titled NATION OF REBELS: WHY COUNNTERCULTURE
BECAME CONSUMER CULTURE, there is an argument presented that rebel
culture equals social capital. Whoever has the most social capital
appears hipper than the person next to them and has climbed to the
social rung above. This social capital is easily transferred into
business capital, which is most easily recognized in the gentrification
of places like the Lower East Side or Brooklyn or crustie jackets. The
jacket is social capital because hipsters and other bougie fashionistas
find value in dissent.

To explain why I call Joseph Heath a moron, in his book he doesn’t see
value in radical economic and political change because he is a
capitalist reformist liberal democrat. There is no reason to rebel if all
you are trying to do is reform. He puts forth the argument that all
counter-culture in America is merely deviant culture, and misses the
fact that there is a culture of dissent currently spreading. We should
hope that Mr. Heath got some clue when his city was bashed by violent
protesters during the Toronto G20 meetings last spring.

My point here is that Gaga and company found social capital in the
jacket, and that capital is valuable for this reason: there is a swelling
undercurrent of rebellion in American culture. Gaga and Åkerlund
know this: Jonas stated his anti-war stance, Gaga is always making
allusions to some desire for social change in interviews. While Gaga’s
allusions are unfortunately relatively simpleminded, with Åkerlund at
the helm we get much more – a display of violent upheaval, something
he would have been familiar with from his days in the Scandinavian
metal scene.

Much of Gaga’s desire for rebel chic should be taken in to account

with the her upbringing in the Upper West Side , and her year living in
the Lower East Side of Manhattan – a venture that was funded by her
father as she took a year off from NYU to become a rock star. As
gentrified as the Lower East Side was by the time Gaga got there, a
crust punk stench remained embedded in the fabric of the community.
Popular open mic venues like the Sidewalk Cafe continue to carry a
tiny whiff of rebel punk. We must imagine as the Stefani Germanotta
Band failed to impress at these open mics, she listened carefully to
the applause for more subversive acts. This is where Gaga would have
learned to tell journalists things like, “I left my entire family, got the
cheapest apartment I could find, and ate shit until somebody would
listen,” about her experience living in one of the most desired
locations in New York on her daddy’s buck.

What is meaningful here is that this rebel chic executed in subtle and
somewhat ignorant allusions to culture change is the backbeat of
American consciousness. For example, hoards of pop-culture gawkers
became confused and completely fascinated when Gaga twittered
about receiving a “communist red” coffee cup for a birthday gift. We
have no reason to think Gaga knows anything about economics, let
alone has anything interesting to say, but what she does understand is
that the global collective consciousness is desperately searching for
alternatives to free-market capitalism, and that merely mentioning
“communism” out of any relevant context is going to set half a million
computers on fire for thirty seconds as crowds storm to the page to
see what the fuss is about. My reasoning is similar in the case of
Gaga’s violent feminism, queerness and the machine guns augmenting
her breasts during her latest video (Alejandro.)
Here the case of counter culture vs radical culture should be made
clear. Counter culture alone is socially deviant, something that opts
not to participate. This is something like the culture influenced by
beat writers, where you dropout because you don’t feel you fit. This
alone is not radical culture. Radical culture is dissent for the purpose
of introducing a change that is absolutely necessary. Dissent not
deviance. Dissent is inherent in the violent energy represented by
Gaga and Akerlund, and it is quickly becoming popular in the
mainstream.

So when people see the jacket, they should also think of the G20 riots
and the riots in Greece and France, because that is where the G.I.S.M.
vein of anarchism has led. In Gaga’s cultural ragbag, she has found
that these images are still worthy, that people will still watch the
spectacle, that they still have social capital. She is not a Illuminati
puppet, as many mystified radicals put-forth, she is merely trying to be
cool.

I need to emphasize the “trying” of Gaga’s coolness, because when it

comes down to it her art is not that interesting, and it is certainly not
radical. In the style already executed and invented by pop-artists, she
simply touches upon some basic allusions without offering anything
new. Unlike a more timeless artist such as Warhol, her lips let loose
some telling information about her ephemeral hollywood liberal
politics – for example she makes a spectacle about supporting Prop. 8
and opposing Arizona’s immigration laws. This sort of liberal drivel
implies a lack of willingness or ability to look in to the deeper issues
that are plaguing a liberal American democracy – a society quickly
headed towards a state of complete crises and ultimately,
disintegration. Lucky for Gaga, the final act of American art will be to
demoralize the Nation. Although, thus far this doesn’t appear to make
for great art, it is the necessary art. If Gaga can achieve that, she can
fulfill the role of the artist.

What Gaga does capture is an infuriated rebellious and increasingly

violent culture. This is a culture that exists both on the left and the
right, as anarchist protests turn to violence, and militias in rural
Wisconsin practice weapon training using the effigies of liberal
democrats. And she is certainly not subduing the masses, but further
agitating in a blazing menagerie of pop-cultural. The ugly fact is the
potential for there to be violence during the fall of the United States is
rising. An extremely unsavory forecast if you consider the problems
we already have with identity politics here, where divergent ethnic,
religious and gender groups often feel at odds. If you want to imagine
how this sort of Gaga fueled energy manifests, I would suggest
looking at some North American riot or militia footage.