Christina Aguliera’s “Dirrty”
video has been the go-to reference for the hyper-sexualized representation of
women in music. Aside from the song’s suggestive lyrics, the video contains
provocative choreography, with Christina barely clothed participating in some
sort of boxing match. The video is analyzed in Lesley Robinson’s “’Dirrty’
Discourse: The Politics of Gender Representation in Popular Music” from several
perspectives. She offers the male hegemonic approach, which claims that Christina
behaved the way she did to appeal to the more dominant structures of masculinity
in society, as well as the feminist view that Christina was simply embracing
her sexuality.
There are many questions to be so considered, the most important being the question of industry norms. Did Christina represent herself this way in order to make money? If this is the case, can her behavior truly be viewed as inappropriate? Or, did she have to conduct herself in this manner, when most males will likely perceive her as a sexual object regardless of what she was wearing anyway? Are males threatened by this overtly-sexual woman?
If she did chose to represent herself explicitly on her own terms, can she be deemed a bad role model for her predominately female audience? Is she empowered by embracing her sexuality (“sex-positive postfeminism”)? Robinson neglects to include two pieces of information that may also affect someone’s opinion of the music video, and certainly information that influences my opinion. It is important to note that Christina defended her video on numerous occasions, likening it to the “let loose” mentality any 21-year-old might have. Also, she has made it known her overall distrust of males after witnessing domestic violence in her home as a child. These factors, while personal to Christina’s life, could have some sort of weight in the debate over whether her video was overtly sexual simply to make money or to affirm her sexuality.
“Since popular music is defined by industry norms, Western definitions of what constitutes ‘music’ and representations of race, class, and gender, ‘we might best think about music and politics as an activity embedded in relations of power’” (Robinson, 47). While there is certainly a power struggle between males and females, it is up to the fan whether or not to entertain these relations as they play out in the music industry. Given that Christina has significantly more female fans than male fans, what do you think the overall opinion was of the “Dirrty” music video? What was your personal opinion? Do you think this video helped or hindered her success as an artist?
As Christina represents herself as a sexual object, there is a LGBT community in music that represents itself similarly. An article from Pitchfork entitled “We Invented Swag: NYC’s Queer Rap” details the rise of queer rappers in NYC that all have one thing in common: they play into their sexuality by appearing in drag when performing. However, if Christina’s representation of herself as a sexual object was indeed to turn a profit, these rappers do not have the same kind of advantage. “When it comes to a culture that caters almost exclusively to heteronormative sensibilities, it’s easy to applaud topic gestures of gay acceptance without demanding to see them applied on a tangible, more mainstream level, be it in the form of live bills shared between gay and straight rappers, co-signs, radio play, or label deals” (Battan). Why do you think this is? Why is Christina’s creation of sexually-charged material an accepted method of achieving success in music, but queer rappers cross-dressing does not legitimize them in the eyes of music professionals? Does being part of the hip-hop genre make them less likely to be successful?
Furthermore, given the complexities of sexual orientation, can gender representation be so simply categorized? Liesbet van Zoonen makes an interesting point in “A ‘New’ Paradigm?” when she concludes, “Gender should thus be conceived, not as a fixed property of individuals, but as part of an ongoing process by which subjects are constituted, often in paradoxical ways. The identity that emerges is therefore fragmented and dynamic; gender does not determine or exhaust identity” (van Zoonen). If gender is not the sole determiner of identity, why did Christina choose to represent herself in such a clearly feminized way, and why do queer rappers choose to represent themselves in a way that is entirely indicative of their genders?
Battan, Carrie. “We Invented Swag: NYC’s Queer Rap.” Pitchfork. 21 Mar. 2012. Web. Accessed 5 Apr. 2012.
Robinson, Lesley. “’Dirrty’ Discourse: The Politics of Gender Representation in Popular Music.” Mediations 1, 2004. 45-52.
van Zoonen, Liesbet. “A ‘New’ Paradigm?” Chapter 3. Ed. Denis McQuail. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage, 2002.
There are many questions to be so considered, the most important being the question of industry norms. Did Christina represent herself this way in order to make money? If this is the case, can her behavior truly be viewed as inappropriate? Or, did she have to conduct herself in this manner, when most males will likely perceive her as a sexual object regardless of what she was wearing anyway? Are males threatened by this overtly-sexual woman?
If she did chose to represent herself explicitly on her own terms, can she be deemed a bad role model for her predominately female audience? Is she empowered by embracing her sexuality (“sex-positive postfeminism”)? Robinson neglects to include two pieces of information that may also affect someone’s opinion of the music video, and certainly information that influences my opinion. It is important to note that Christina defended her video on numerous occasions, likening it to the “let loose” mentality any 21-year-old might have. Also, she has made it known her overall distrust of males after witnessing domestic violence in her home as a child. These factors, while personal to Christina’s life, could have some sort of weight in the debate over whether her video was overtly sexual simply to make money or to affirm her sexuality.
“Since popular music is defined by industry norms, Western definitions of what constitutes ‘music’ and representations of race, class, and gender, ‘we might best think about music and politics as an activity embedded in relations of power’” (Robinson, 47). While there is certainly a power struggle between males and females, it is up to the fan whether or not to entertain these relations as they play out in the music industry. Given that Christina has significantly more female fans than male fans, what do you think the overall opinion was of the “Dirrty” music video? What was your personal opinion? Do you think this video helped or hindered her success as an artist?
As Christina represents herself as a sexual object, there is a LGBT community in music that represents itself similarly. An article from Pitchfork entitled “We Invented Swag: NYC’s Queer Rap” details the rise of queer rappers in NYC that all have one thing in common: they play into their sexuality by appearing in drag when performing. However, if Christina’s representation of herself as a sexual object was indeed to turn a profit, these rappers do not have the same kind of advantage. “When it comes to a culture that caters almost exclusively to heteronormative sensibilities, it’s easy to applaud topic gestures of gay acceptance without demanding to see them applied on a tangible, more mainstream level, be it in the form of live bills shared between gay and straight rappers, co-signs, radio play, or label deals” (Battan). Why do you think this is? Why is Christina’s creation of sexually-charged material an accepted method of achieving success in music, but queer rappers cross-dressing does not legitimize them in the eyes of music professionals? Does being part of the hip-hop genre make them less likely to be successful?
Furthermore, given the complexities of sexual orientation, can gender representation be so simply categorized? Liesbet van Zoonen makes an interesting point in “A ‘New’ Paradigm?” when she concludes, “Gender should thus be conceived, not as a fixed property of individuals, but as part of an ongoing process by which subjects are constituted, often in paradoxical ways. The identity that emerges is therefore fragmented and dynamic; gender does not determine or exhaust identity” (van Zoonen). If gender is not the sole determiner of identity, why did Christina choose to represent herself in such a clearly feminized way, and why do queer rappers choose to represent themselves in a way that is entirely indicative of their genders?
Battan, Carrie. “We Invented Swag: NYC’s Queer Rap.” Pitchfork. 21 Mar. 2012. Web. Accessed 5 Apr. 2012.
Robinson, Lesley. “’Dirrty’ Discourse: The Politics of Gender Representation in Popular Music.” Mediations 1, 2004. 45-52.
van Zoonen, Liesbet. “A ‘New’ Paradigm?” Chapter 3. Ed. Denis McQuail. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage, 2002.
Hi Suzi, I enjoyed reading your post. According to Zoonen, “Socialization can refer to the various ways in which individuals become social subjects, although in functionalist theories of the media it usually applies to cognitive and behavioral process” (51). In today’s society, people believe they need to fit in by imitating the behavior of “role models.” Christina Aguliera’s “Dirrty” video and song lyrics were definitely not the first to stir up controversy. In 1956, Elvis Presley sparked controversy with his song, “Hound Dog” (Music and Dance). His “pelvis-shaking intensity” made his fans and critics from around the country “slam the performance for its ‘appalling lack of musicality,’ for is ‘vulgarity’ and ‘animalism’” (Music and Dance). Zoonen also explains, “the learning process whereby we all learn how to behave in certain situations and learn the expectations which go with a given role or status in society” (51). Therefore, Aguliera (along with other singers and/or celebrities), feel the expectations that go along with their singing. If the audience keeps coming to concerts, it is obvious that they like the sexuality displayed by Aguliera.
ReplyDeleteLike you stated above, Robinson “offers the male hegemonic approach, which claims that Christina behaved the way she did to appeal to the more dominant structures of masculinity in society, as well as the feminist view that Christina was simply embracing her sexuality.” In my latest Theory to Practice, I affirmed gender in music is different for males and females because “male[s] desire to control the world, women themselves must be controlled and manipulated” (Robinson 46). Therefore, Aguliera represented herself in order to get attention and to make money. Her behavior is appropriate because it is her job. People do not have to watch her videos or listen to her music. Just like television, people do not have to view what they do not like to see. Men are not threatened by these overtly-sexual women because they most likely view women as sexual objects anyways.
“Music is not a transcendent, natural, or universal art form, but rather a social construction shaped by structural forces, dominant ideologies…and the hegemonic values of white, Western patriarchy”(Robinson 45). In other words, society forms music and tells the artists what we like to hear and/or see. I do not believe Aguliera lost female fans due to her choice of clothes and vulgarity of word choice (like you said before, she has more female fans than male). If anything, young girls are watching her videos and dressing like her.
Trujillo says, “sports…[have] provided far more opportunities for male participants than for female participants and has placed far more emphasis on marginalizing women as cheerleaders, spectators, and advertising images” (Trujillo 292). Precisely why the Aguliera would dress how she did, and how she chose her lyrics carefully to start controversy. Gender is the sole determiner of identity. Aguliera choose to represent herself in a feminized way in order to be an equal to men and to make money. Overall, Aguliera feels the expectations that go along with their singing. If the audience keeps coming to concerts, it is obvious that they like the provocative display by Aguliera.
"Music and Dance." PBS. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2012. .
Robinson, Lesley. “’Dirrty’ Discourse: The Politics of Gender Representation in Popular Music.” Mediations 1, 2004. 45-52.
Trujillo, Nick. “Hegemonic Masculinity on the Mound: Media Representations of Nolan Ryan and American Sports Culture.” Culture Studies in Mass Media (2003): 290-308. PDF file.
Zoonen, Liesbet. “A ‘New’ Paradigm?” Chapter 3. Ed. Denis McQuail. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage, 2002.
I haven’t watched Christina Aguilera’s “Dirrty” video since I was about 11 or 12 so I decided to watch it again after reading your blog post and the article. Honestly, when I was younger I don’t think I understood what was going on in the video, but now after reading Robinson’s article I view the video differently, and in a more positive light. All I remember at the time when this video came out was all the negative comments and backlash at Christina. Now though I do believe that Christina shot this video to show her empowerment, and not just to make money.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Liesbet Van Zoonen, “Gender should be perceived not as a fixed property of individuals, but as part of an ongoing process by which subjects are constituted, often in paradoxical ways”( Van Zoonen 51). When “Dirrty” came out it was on Christina’s second album. Her first album consisted of the bubblegum type pop songs that associated Christina with her pop princess image at the beginning of her career. At the same time Christina was also competing with other pop princesses such as Britney Spears and Mandy Moore who had a similar image. But then something changed, and the girls grew up. Just like Von Zoonen said, gender is an ongoing process, you cannot expect Christina or Britney to stay with their pop princess images when they are older. So Britney released her game changer “I’m a slave 4 U” and Christina released “Dirrty”. Both videos show the girls dressed and dancing provocatively.
I think both these singles were the girls’ way of showing the world that they aren’t these cute little girls anymore, but empowered women. Like stated in Robinson’s article, because Christina Aguilera’s fans are mainly women, they aren’t taking her “Dirrty” message as objectification but as empowerment. According to Robinson, “ ‘Dirrty’ creates a space in which feminine representations of sexual desire, vanity, and prowess can be expressed” and in the video Christina is “calling upon her ‘girls’ to crash the male dominated spheres of social inhibition and ‘make some noise’”(Robinson 50-51). Like Suzi stated in her blog, I do think that this was a way for Christina to let loose, and prove a point. I think she used “Dirrty” to challenge the current gender stereotypes and let other women know that it is okay to embrace your sexuality.
Christina obviously chose this song and video for a reason, it wasn’t a man who chose it for her. I think she wanted to show men that she can do whatever she wants, and be in charge of how she represents herself, even if that meant showing herself as a sexual object. Maybe her “Dirrty” video wasn’t the best one for being a role model, since we all watched it at such a young age, but I do believe it left that sense of empowerment for those who took it for more than it was. Even though the video received a lot of negative comments, it did not hurt her career, and she is still known to have one of the best voices in music today.
Personally, I found it interesting to read the article on Aguilera's video simply because today, videos like that are the norm. As Kristy mentioned, when the video initially came out, it was shocking for viewers like myself because we were so young. But, now that I think about it, videos such as Aguilera's 'Dirrty' just paved the way for pop icons like Rihanna and Lady Gaga to stir up controversy with their music videos. To be honest, I view the video as both a tribute to female empowerment and a way to legitimize patriarchal society. I don't think you can have a video that it is that sexually appealing without contributing to both of these ideals. So if what Robinson says is true, that "popular culture can be understood as a collective space where identities are constructed, enforced, and negotiated," (Robinson 46) then this video and the ones we continually see like it, represent both male hegemony and femininity. Others may disagree with me, but I see Aguilera's ability to wear the clothing she does while showing pride for her body and her personal emphasis on her sexuality as a cry for females to embrace themselves as well. It should be and now is socially acceptable to flaunt your sexuality and femininity. But, we can't ignore that she is directing herself towards male audiences. Trujillo claims that "hetersexuality" is the hegemonic norm, promoting what is "'good,'" "'normal'" and "'natural'" (Trujillo 292). Then we have to assume that Christina's video was most likely directed at men. I don't think she was singing about dancing and sweating, while wearing leather and a bra, for me. Even though she's embracing her sexuality, she's offfering it up to the men who she's getting "dirty" for, because they are the ones who are going to take the physical representations she's giving to heart. As Robinson further suggests, "pornographic imagery, such as when Aguilera, presented as a boxer, holds her mouth open to receive squirts from a water bottle supplied by her team of buff, shirtless men" (Robinson 47)flourishes throughout the video. Granted, men are being exploited too in scenes such as this, but we can't ignore the phallic symbolism and sexual imagery being inflicted on the viewers. Men see women as sex objects, while women are meant to feel proud of being sexual objects. I'm not sure if this is a good thing, but it seems like an ideological compromise of sorts.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question regarding queer rappers and their difficulty in finding commercial success, I think the answer is sad but simple. People in the LGBT community are not considered to be a part of the social norm, especially when considering heterosexuality as the exclusive ideology uner masculine hegemony. People aren't as willing to listen to music, despite how creative it may be, if the music is attached to a name that goes against what is heteronormative in our culture. This does not make it right, but I think we have to take that into consideration.
Robinson, Lesley. “’Dirrty’ Discourse: The Politics of Gender Representation in Popular Music.” Mediations 1, 2004. 45-52.
Trujillo, Nick. “Hegemonic Masculinity on the Mound: Media Representations of Nolan Ryan and American Sports Culture.” Culture Studies in Mass Media (2003): 290-308. PDF file
Like other contributors on this post, I started my research by re-watching Christina Aguilera’s “Dirrty” video to see exactly what the article was talking about. I was surprised at the amount of, or lack of, clothing that she was wearing in the music video. I don’t remember it being quite as appalling when I was younger, as Kristyne also mentioned. The dance moves and lyrics seem to be totally explicit and send a bad message, especially when you consider the young female audience the video was directed towards. Sure, you could argue that this was her “let loose” image, but I think that celebrities should use their power for good, not money. While I think this video did help her to succeed as an artist, only because of the age old adage that sex sells, it also dropped her status as an incredible singer to just another sexy pop star. Celebrities with the talent and power that Christina has shouldn’t feel inclined to follow these music video patterns. “Though female performers indeed work within patriarchal conventions and industry norms, many female performers have a great deal of control over the cultural productions they create, and many such creations are largely marketed to a female audience” (Robinson 48). Clearly, celebrities do have the ability to make executive decisions to change the outcome of their videos. You can see how times have changed, and how she has evolved her message to the female audience, when you look at some of her more recent videos. Songs such as “Ain’t No Other Man,” “Candyman,” and even “Hurt” have embraced a whole new attitude in her music videos. They are now much classier, with a swinging 1930s and 40s vibe to them. Her lyrics are still somewhat explicit, as are her dance moves, but overall she seems much more grown up. She found a way to combine her sex appeal with a modest theme. I find her to be more of a positive role model now than before. I’d rather look up to the strong, American woman in “Candyman” than the grungy, pierced boxer in “Dirrty.” In Liesbet Van Zoonen’s article, “A ‘New’ Paradigm,” she explains how socialization research has been done to investigate how children’s view of gender expectations is affected by the media. “The results of these studies are contradictory but show among other things that media effects are mediated by other variables such as age, gender or education” (51). We can see how age and education has affected even our own perceptions of gender within this class. When we were younger, we did not realize the true meaning of Christina’s video or her lyrics, and now that we are older we understand her motivations behind it – whether it was falling in line with industry norms, or shouting her “let loose” attitude. But, we can also see how age has not only affected our understanding, but the celebrity’s as well. Christina has clearly evolved into a more sophisticated woman as the years have passed.
ReplyDeleteRobinson, Lesley. “’Dirrty’ Discourse: The Politics of Gender Representation in Popular Music.” Mediations 1, 2004. 45-52.
Van Zoonen, Liesbet. “A ‘New’ Paradigm?” Chapter 3. Ed. Denis McQuail. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage, 2002.
Hey Suzi, you asked some very interesting questions. In reference to Christina Aguilera’s “Dirrty” video I felt that she behaved the way she felt the most comfortable; she embraced her sexuality. Christina has stated on countless interviews in the past that she’s always wanted to break away from the bubblegum innocent look that her management forced her into. She claimed that the Dirrty video, and the entire rest of the album, at the time was more her expressing herself then any music she put out prior to that album. When a woman is in the spotlight with the media influence they have doing something risky, like the video, people will always try to criticize everything. People claimed that what she was doing was inappropriate for young viewers especially if the artist are supposed to be role models. In the McQuail book there’s an article called, “a ‘new’ Paradigm?” by Van Zoonen, which stated, “The causal relation between media exposure and sexist attitudes in unclear since it appears that even at a very early age children have considerable knowledge of ‘appropriate’ gender behavior” (Zoonen pg.51-52). This is stating that even though music videos similar to Christina’s video are being seen by young children, the children still know and understand gender behavior; they understand at a young age the role of a man and of a woman. Another important point that Zoonen made is that these roles were created by the patriarchal society. He stated, “Since we are born into societies that have labeled a particular difference between human beings as woman vs. man, and a related difference as feminine vs. masculine, we come to think of ourselves in these terms: as being and feeling a man, or being and feeling a woman (Zoonen pg. 50). Since we were made into a society already labeled one way we put ourselves into those terms; we turn into what we were told by society we need to be.
DeleteWhat I love about the “Dirrty” video is that Christina decided not to be what people expected; she vowed to be herself no matter what society expected of her. I think that the video added to her success because it started controversy, and in media if you want to be successful you have to strive on causing controversy; you have to be the one who does something different and stand out. The controversy had to do with Christina playing the role of a sex object. In the article, “Dirrty Discourse: The politics of Gender Representation in popular music” by Lesley Robinson, he states, “Within the confines of patriarchy then, women are essentially delineated to one of two roles in popular culture; that of nurturer or sex object….Male hegemonic conventions prevent women from assuming full human status in popular music” (Robinson pg.46). In popular music women can only take on two roles and its either negative or positive, there’s hardly an in between. In the “Dirrty” video was looked at negatively by males and females don’t realize these terms that were given each other were created by males to give them power can to belittle us as women.
I think Suzi provokes some interesting discussion points in her blog post. Christina Aguilera is not the first music artist to create controversy through her musical expression and I am very confident in saying she will not be the last. Whether done intentionally or not, Christina Aguilera used her talent and influential presence in society to create a music video that generated a lot of controversial discussion and input. In response to one of Suzi’s first questions, it is hard to say why Aguilera chose to assemble her video as she did. Everything from the way she dressed, to her very raunchy and sexually suggestive gestures, to her choice in scenery and role, reflect a sort of rebellion or, at the very least an attempt at creating publicity. I am sure that the industry’s desire to make money influenced the way in which Christina represented herself through her attire, her very physical movements and her sexual gesture but I am not so sure that could be considered the driving factor. It is often said that “sex sells”. Whether it be in the movies, television, or in the music industry sex is something that everyone can identify with and something that most people are attracted to. This being the case, I definitely think some of the raunchiness of the video can be attributed to better chances of making a sale and generating fan reactions.
ReplyDeleteGiven the sexuality of some of Aguilera’s movements and some of the explicit effects of the video, I could see how some would view her representation of herself as an objectified attitude towards woman. I think people have a strong argument when they state that such behavior is inappropriate for younger fans to be viewing and associating with and that it could send the wrong message to men. However, I find the argument that supports Aguilera’s choice to be different and fierce more convincing. As Suzi mentioned, Robinson’s article “Dirrty Discourse” analyzed Aguilera’s video through several different perspectives. Of the different views mentioned in the article I would have to say that I agree with the feminist view in that I think Christina was just embracing her femininity and her right be express it how she wants. I actually applaud Christina for doing so in such a fierce way. I think her video was not only successful in identifying her as a strong woman but it also tested the norms of gender by challenging the gender norms that are often developed through societal expectations. According to Zoonen, “socialization can refer to the various ways in which individuals become social subjects…McQuail for instance , defines socialization as the ‘teaching of established norms and values by ways of symbolic rewards” (Zoonen, 51). I am not sure this is as common nowadays but I think over the years, it was often common for young children to attribute certain characteristics and qualities to certain genders. Think about babies for example. From a very young age children are dressed and presented with gifts that coincide with what society deems masculine or feminine. Girls are dressed in pink and expected to play with dolls and Barbies while boys are dressed in blue and given trucks, and action figures. It would be strange if a two year old boy received a Barbie because that is not the norm established by society.
Christina’s role as a female boxer and the strong, tough attitude she demonstrates throughout the video allows her to show her femininity through sexuality while maintaining her status as a strong independent woman. I liked that she chose to play the role of a female boxer because it is empowering to see her deviate away from the norms of society. It isn’t every day that you come across a female boxer and although this was not a legit role I still think it speaks to and encourages the strength of women.
ReplyDeleteTaking this viewpoint into consideration I would have to say that I agree with LaSara’s interpretation of “Dirrty” as being a form of fearless feminism. In explaining her viewpoint LaSara said, “I say fearless feminism because this new feminist genre is based not in the propagation of the myth of victimization… but in the true strength and liberation of being who we are, who we want to be. This new feminism does not disallow and disavow lipstick and bras, but encourages a creative mix of sexy and strong , saucy and strident.” (Robinson, 5) I think this perspective does a perfect job summarizing Aguilera’s representation of femininity in her video. I do not think her choice in attire or choreography is intended to objectify women. Rather I think it is meant to how that women are strong and that they can be fierce in their sexuality. I especially think this is the case considering the point Suzi made about Aguilera’s history with men and distrust in them. I think her intentions are more directed towards makig a statement for and about women.
Suzi ended her blog post by saying, “If gender is not the sole determiner of identity, why did Christina choose to represent herself in such a clearly feminized way, and why do queer rappers choose to represent themselves in a way that is entirely indicative of their genders?” It is a great question that is always up for debate, especially when we always hear the slogan of, “Sex sells.” It is a slogan that we have all heard before and that has been a path that many companies take to sell and advertise their product. So was Christina Aguilera just trying to sell her music and her “brand” by creating her songs? Granted, Aguilera has changed very much since she made that song and made videos like in the song “Dirrty.” The reason that she most likely made videos and songs like that was because she was using her body and her image to her advantage to become the most famous singer in that era. It practically forced Brittany Spears to change her approach in how she made music. In many ways it led to both of their demises because their image of how they used their gender became too much for them to handle. Both singers tried to represent themselves in such a feminized way because it is what they, and their producers, thought would give them the edge in the music world. It may give them more attention, but in the end it comes down to more than just their gender. They must be good at what they do. Lesley Robinson, who wrote “’Dirrty’ Discourse: The Politics of Gender Representation in Popular Music,” reinforced how music is more than selling gender, “Even though ‘pop-music’ can, and often does, reinforce the interests of patriarchy, it carries within itself the seeds of opposition and contestation. Meanings in popular music are never fixed, absolute or definitive; rather they call upon the listener/viewer to participate in their completion” (Robinson 51). Sure sex may sell but it is the meaning and the different ways of how we can interpret their music that makes us like these artists to the point where they become famous.
ReplyDeleteCan the same statement be made about sports? We idolize athletes because they do things that the average human cannot do. They have astonishing skills that make them able to be professional athletes. Sports are so popular in this country, and in all countries, because it shows off some of the greatest talents that the world has to offer. Especially with male sports, these athletes are shown as super-human with extreme strengths with rock hard abs. Football is a great example of this when Nick Trujillo wrote in his article, “Hegemonic Masculinity on the Mound: Media Representations of Nolan Ryan and American Sports Culture,” about how we watch things based on masculinity. Trujillo said, “…American football’s hostile takeover of the more pastoral baseball as our ‘national pastime’ has reinforced a form of masculinity which emphasizes sanctioned aggression, (para)militarism, the technology of violence and other patriarchal values” (Trujillo 292). We love to see big time hits that make us cringe. Perhaps this is the difference between music and sports. Sports do try to show off masculinity as a way of being successful, while music attempts to have messages that are up to you to decide the meaning. Sports are more definitive in their image to the public than music is.
In response to Christina Aguilera’s video “Dirrrty,” and the argument of whether it promotes a positive embrace of femininity or perpetuates the selling of a male approved image and sex, I’d have to side with the business end. While it’s impossible to deny that Christina looks amazing in the video and is showcasing the female form, I doubt that this is the image she finds ideal for her audience to emulate. I don’t buy into this sort of sexuality, and certainly will not parade around campus in crotch-less chaps after rewatching the video. Robinson made a great point when stating that “it is imperative that students of cultural studies are not ignorant to the meanings of such a text carries for it’s target female audience, or that we fail to recognize how this text represents a developing the articulation of the female voice” (Robinson 45). Christina is ultimately perpetuating a certain action and presentation of women to her younger viewers in this video that doesn’t always fit what we as a culture find normal or appropriate for that age demographic. However, what I fear is that videos like Christina’s “Dirrrty” have become run of the mill in the music industry. Media as we know it today showcases the most sexual and provocative versions of our culture. Popular culture in the United States today is putting forth notions that allow traditional values to be watered down, and for promiscuity and oversexualization of adolescents to be commonplace. Robinson suggests, “popular culture can be understood as a collective space where identities are constructed, enforces and negotiated” (Robinson 26). If this is true, then videos like Christina’s and others that project similar images and ideals are contributing to a social shift where sexuality reins supreme and sexuality and the use of such is the determinant for success. Contrastingly, I think that the use of this idea is only applicable to the sexualities and provocative language that our culture is comfortable with today. Cross-dressing of certain rappers has been brought into discussion, and why their use of sexuality isn’t rewarded, yet Christina’s is. It is my belief that this use of sexuality and the statement being put for by these artists is not recognized as legitimate because our society is not comfortable or fully supportive of this sort of action. As sad as that statement is to me, I fear that it might be accurate for large portions of Americans. Neither Christina’s use of sexuality, or the rappers is right or wrong; neither is any more natural or unnatural than the other. Yet one is commonly represented and accepted and the other is not. In order to combat these notions, and to form a more comprehensive media world, we need to be more inclusive of representations of sexuality. Only then can the correct or incorrect use of sexuality really be determined.
ReplyDeleteChristina Aguilera’s “Dirrrty” music video certainly opens up an interesting dialogue on gender roles in music. However, there are many points that Robinson makes which I feel grossly over exaggerate the cultural significance of this particular music video and the presence of a patriarchy in music. Yes, it is clear that the term “music” is not a “transcendental, natural or universal art form but rather a social construction shaped by the... hegemonic values of a white, Western patriarchy”, on this point you will not find me arguing. The music industry has long been controlled by the American major music labels and their white male CEO’s who have been able to, some might argue, greatly influence what is “popular” music in America. But the idea that Music is a “psychodynamic paradigm of male domination” is frankly, crap.
ReplyDeleteComparing the sexual experience to the creative process and the place of the male in this experience as a reason for “controlling the means of cultural reproduction” is a colorful and compelling critique, it is hardly cogent. This argument sounds like it was taken from a workshop taught by the bookstore owners on Portlandia (http://youtu.be/UiI0S9QV0gI ) Modern American Pop Music history is littered with powerful female characters who hardly fit the “isolated and objectified” persona touted by as the norm. Aguilera herself hardly fits into this role.
In response to your question “Did Christina represent herself this way in order to make money?” the answer is a clear “Yes.” This song is not an emotional ballad, a la “Beautiful”, but a trite catchy pop song that was made to be played on the radio and sell records by adopting the age old principle that “sex sells”. And whether Christina had a say in this matter, which is really just an extension of her image, I think one can assume that she did, as most artists with Aguilera’s experience and talent DO have a say (at least to some degree) in what songs they release (this being true for both males and females).
Another idea presented in Robinson’s article that I find as an unfair representation of females in popular culture is that “women are essentially delineated to one of two roles in popular culture; that of the nurturer or the sex object”. It’s easy to quickly agree with this point as we run through a list of celebrities in our heads putting them into each category (Mila Kunis: Sex Object, Oprah: Nurturer) However, that does not necessarily mean that these are the only two categories that exist. I’m not going to try and suggest what some of those other categories are, but rather propose that we should consider people that defy or fit into both categories. Furthermore, this argument presumes beauty, or sex appeal, as a stigma, and that Aguilera is somehow less legitimate for utilizing it.
I prefer to look at this issue from the “sex positive feminist” standpoint. In this matter Christina is using her sex appeal to meet two ends. One, to empower herself and other women and two, to be a successful recording artist.