Do I really need to tell you who Lady Gaga is?  You already know.  That's probably why you're reading this.  I do not promise you witty commentary concerning her latest fashion choices, or photos, or whatever.  I'm here to call her out on her schtick.  In a word, she's probably one of the more unremarkable ironists, and quite possibly the most annoying performance artist since that guy that nailed himself to a car and then had a friend shoot him in the freaking arm in a museum in the 70's.

[caption id="attachment_41099" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="Because shooting a guy in a museum is totally art, you just don't understand...philistine."]Because shooting a guy in a museum is totally art, you just don't understand...philistine.[/caption]

Just reviewing Lady Gaga's music videos, the photos she's taken, and the outfits she's worn, almost all of them devoid of pants of any sort and wearing glasses that make the whatever future she got them from retarded, I came to the realisation that she is trying to be the next generation of pop star.  Not to be confused with the starlets of our recent past, like Britney Spears and her early, "Girl-Next-Door" image, Lady Gaga is trying to show us what the pop-star of the future is going to look like, sound like, act like, what have you.  As this article from Slate Magazine's Music Box says, Lady Gaga is conducting "an elaborate, Warholian pop-art project."

[caption id="attachment_41108" align="alignnone" width="213" caption="I hate the future so much right now."]I hate the future so much right now.[/caption]

Slate says "she's an exquisite horror."  I say she's just another self-absorbed performance artist, trying too hard to adopt a particular, almost unnameable style, without adding any actual substance to it.  In two words: she's pretentious.  She's that one upstart little Theatre major you had to sit next to in class your Freshman year, who always referenced Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs even though they had nothing to do with what you were talking about, and thought that composer John Cage's piece, 4'33'', was the best thing ever.

[caption id="attachment_41110" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="Look at him, not playing piano. Being all "experimental" and stuff.  Good for him, actually."]Look at him, not playing piano.  Being all "experimental" and stuff.[/caption]

This isn't to say that I hate art.  I love art.  I love the hell out of the art world, it's just that some movements are a bit preposterious.  Post-Modernism?  Abstract Expressionism?  Mostly, it's smug dudes in black turtlenecks talking about how their painting of a square is misunderstood by the uncultured American public, when, really, they just have nothing interesting to say with their art.  And Lady Gaga, if I may be so bold, is among these people.  She's trying to be like Bjork, except...Bjork was already Bjork; and she is much more experimental in the pop world than Lady Gaga has been so far.  Plus, Bjork totally owns in the "Female Pop Artists Who Wear Insane Outfits Regularly" category.

[caption id="attachment_41111" align="alignnone" width="264" caption="Bjork, commanding her artsy minions to help her create the most experimentally awesome pop music in the history of the world."]Bjork, commanding her artsy minions to help her create the most experimental pop music in the history of the world.[/caption]

Thus, whereas Bjork is like the female version of David Bowie, Lady Gaga may fade into obscurity if she continues to struggle finding an original concept that won't put her in the shadows of the two pop-music giants.

Here's Lady Gaga's "Paparazzi" music video, by the way.  Just click the word "Paparazzi."