... musing about text, context, and Lady Gaga,.

Here's a list of names: Stephen Colbert, Andy Kaufman, Bruno, Borat, Andy Warhol, Vitamin C, Peter Gabriel, David Bowie, Flavor Flav.

These are all people who played a character as part, if not all of, their lives. It was tough from time to time to tell where the conceit ended and the real person began. Interviews, press, appearances were all as that person, the invention. Maybe at some point they were subsumed by that personality (like in the case of Warhol), but most of the time there were two personalities at play.

Here's another list of names: Billy Mays, The Taco Bell Chihuahua, Britney Spears, Rick Astley.

These are all people who's appreciation was on an ironic level. Admit it, it was. People admired them more for the fact that they were trainwrecks of one level or another, or an idea so lame that it became a meme unto itself. At that point it crossed into people who did NOT know that the appreciation was ironic so they had to convince themselves that it was something more, something they were missing. "Gimmie More" by Britney Spears was only a hit in the novelty sense: the song was crap and the video was worse, but a $0.99 purchase on iTunes is something you think no one will notice - until they look at the sales chart.

Here's another name: Lady Gaga.

When she first popped up on the scene I thought she was just another disposable hit machine: a single, a follow up, and then sink back down. I did have to admit there was something compelling about watching her, and something calculating: "Poker Face" seemed like it was written to try to cash in on the poker craze but had the misfortune of being released at the tail end of the fad (okay, so I was wrong about a couple of things there).

But she didn't go away, and so I listened. And what I found were songs that weren't even double entendres; they were single entendres. There was no there there. It was a level of vacuousness that kind of surprised me. And then the way she danced...and the outfits...and then it hit me: She was part of the first category of people I listed. She was a great a experiment in pop. Create a completely fame obsessed artist, have her songs reflect what appears to be a buy-in but is really having a laugh, collect all the money and raise the level of discourse. In this way she'd be what Vitamin C was supposed to be.

You gotta admit, we all thought it at some point. And when the video for "Paparazzi" came out, well it seemed REALLY plausible. I'll admit, the video has some great moments in it, some really knock-out visuals (the dance with the crutches hits me in a weird place). But there's something missing there. It's something that Colbert, Bruno/Borat, and Kaufman all had, and it was missing in this video. It's not easy to notice.

It's a tell.

If you read a transcript of Colbert there are times when you wonder what people find funny. Sure there are some jokes, but if you take it out of context there's no way of telling if they really are (This is why Tim Robbins has not allowed the soundtrack to Bob Roberts to be released). But when you see Colbert, there's something in the delivery, the demeanor which tells you it's a joke. You have to be looking for it but not looking right at it to see it. That's also the reason why some conservatives think he's playing a character that puts a joke on the liberals, they're reading the text but not getting the context.

This lack of a tell become even more apparent in her interviews, where she talked about being awestruck at meeting Springsteen and her love of Warhol's 15 minutes of fame prediction. This is where the scales started to fall from my eyes: He always meant that as being sarcastic - fame will be disposable as opposed to sought after and people won't care why they're famous.

And now she's talking about wanting to work with Morrissey.

So what's happening? She's entering the realm of the second list: the implied artistic. Since people are realizing that their attempt to categorize her as performance art is failing, they're trying to rationalize her in the other extreme - what does she mean?

I'll tell you what she means: She means nothing.

Read the article in Rolling Stone. She's no different than the other stars/starlets. There is no artistic expression. She just wants, like the title of her album, the fame. "Paparazzi" is not a warning tale, or a damming statement: it LIKES the drama its creating in the video. The last frames say it all - it does not matter why the camera is taking your picture so long as your picture is taken. It's like she's the Madonna of the TMZ age.

And it's not just her: The Pussycat Dolls sing about wanting to become famous and the accouterments that go along with that: cars, groupies, riding on planes. It's all the text of fame, but none of the context. They don't care how it happens, so long as it happens. The development of the talent, the skill, the dedication, becoming truly great at something (the CONTEXT) is secondary, simply a means to an end (the TEXT).

People will say "Well, you have Flav in your first list, he's just as craven." Yes, he is. And he's cashing in on years of developing a talent and being the best hype man in the business, and an underrated MC in his own right. He paid the dues, he developed his talent, and then sought to reap the windfall. That he decides to do it in this manner, with dating shows, is fine. Tila Tequila is the opposite. I shouldn't have to explain that.

Look, I'm not saying it's wrong to be famous, or to make money. As much as it sickens me, we live in a Capitalistic Democracy. But there is such a thing as not being craven, and craven is really what Lady Gaga and a lot of her ilk are. And there's no point in trying to rationalize it or explain it away. You're singing about a disco stick and your muffin. You want everyone to scream your name. You yell at people to buy stain removal products.

You. Are. Craven. Not. Talented.