Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LADY GAGA GOT a bit of a land earlier this month when Instagram sent her an email, apparently automated, containing safety information after users flagged her photographs. Gaga had posted some handwritten lyrics from her new album, and some fans clearly took this as indicative of a frail mental state. With lines like “Each day I cry / I feel so low from living high”, you can see how some of Gaga’s monsters were concerned.
Gaga seemed perturbed by Instagram’s preset pep talk, though, and tweeted “What the actual hell? Hahahaha”, which seems a little unfair seeing as the idea that Instagram will send safety information to users who are reported as being at risk is kind of great.
In fairness to Gaga, she was probably feeling a little defensive; it’s not nice when strangers cast aspersions on you when all you were doing was diligently promoting your latest release, as per your contractual obligations. Considering Gaga’s previous record as an advocate of mental health awareness, it seems an odd reaction. Possibly because a celebrity’s social media presence, far from being a window to his or her soul, is a carefully-managed promo reel, and fans getting the wrong idea is… Well. A bit of a PR fail.
Social media has sold us all a platform for self-expression on a scale that we could scarcely have imagined only a few short years ago. It’s given rise to a pervading trend of image management – not just amongst the famous. Through social media, ordinary plebs like moi and toi can now compartmentalise our private life into private-private and public-private. We promote that attractive side of ourselves through carefully-posed selfies, filtered photographs of our dinners (#nom), strategic check-ins at hot spots and witticisms we nicked from George Takei. It scarcely matters if we’re really sitting on a mound of takeaway wrappers in our pyjamas, watching repeats of Top Gear on Dave; no one need ever know. We’re all master image manipulators now.
Celebrities can share their “quirks” with their public by simulating intimacy via social networking. Usually, this manifests in artful selfies and carefully plotted tweets. Just as it is for the rest of us, there’s more than a hint of micromanagement to this faux familiarity, and it’s rare that a celebrity shows us something that contradicts their “public” persona. It’s just that sometimes it’s hard to see the string-pulling, which is why Gaga’s fans reported her lyrics; there is a difference between the celebrity’s private life and the image they present to the public, but social media blurs those lines.
In fact, the idea that social media can frame true self-expression is debatable, and we don’t just see that in the carefully managed accounts run by celebrities and their PR teams. Instagram also made headlines this month when it shut down the account of photographer and visual artist Petra Collins. The offending image was a self-portrait in which Collins, unwaxed, posed in a bikini bottom.
The thin glimpse of a young woman’s pubic hair was deemed to violate Instagram’s terms of use, although the company has little issue with Rihanna’s knickerless arse, as she’s bald as an egg from the neck down. The message seems to be: share, overshare, frame, filter and pose, but do it in a way that the world finds aesthetically pleasing. Rihanna can be provocative via safe, sanctioned sexiness, but a photograph that silently challenges beauty standards? Oh hell no.
Meanwhile, over on Facebook, the company has lifted a ban on decapitation videos so long as it’s clear the act is condemned, but photographs of breastfeeding infants where the infant is not “actively engaged in nursing” – read: no nipples, please, we’re squeamish – are deemed to violate its terms of service. Not to pick on the poor lamb, but Rihanna’s arse cheeks and jewel-pastied boobs are, again, a-ok.
Why pubes and nips are morally warping but near-nude glamour shots are not is confounding. It smacks of the kind of loophole hunting one usually associates with teams of Hollywood super-lawyers, treading the fine line between what’s allowed and what’s not allowed to push products at us in the most provocative way possible.
More and more, the celebrity is the product – not simply their talent, but their body, thoughts and person, all in one. We can’t deny there is massive pressure on stars, particularly female stars, to present physical perfection alongside their art, and selling the idea of sexual availability is yet another complication. “Self-expression”, for many of the biggest stars on social media, involves a lot of booty shots. “#nofilter!” tweeted Kanye the other day, as his missus Kim K does the look-over-shoulder-bum-stuck-out pose in a white swim suit (duck face is for tweens, duck arse is for ladies). The idea is to present an intimate portrait of Kardashian-West home life, but with Ye Olde Sexy Twiste.
I was going to point out we never see Kanye with dat ass out on Twitter, but let’s not tempt fate.
Why no mummy boobs while pop stars post close-ups of their backsides? It’s all self-expression, isn’t it? Well yes, but only one of them is a literal money-maker. The commodification of intimacy shouldn’t surprise anyone, seeing as we’ve found ways to commodify absolutely everything else.
Occasionally, we’re reminded of that gulf between the reality of constructed image and what social media claims to give us, and the Gaga faux-pas is a perfect example. Her fans took this arty, feigned angst not as another prong to the publicity campaign, but as an glimpse into Gaga’s process, thoughts and emotions. Some of them were concerned about her, and Instagram, as it seems to do when it gets enough flags on any particular user, sent her some safety information.
OK, so it might be a little bit funny, Gaga, but it’s so rare that social media gives us something genuinely benevolent. For Yeezus’ sake, let us have this one.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
No we’re all not at it. When’s the last time you wore a dress of denny rashers bown the pub?
Christ I’ll never get that 2 mins back after reading that dribble
I know the feeling
Godammit.
I used to be a sub editor, and I remember proof reading a piece like this… Needless to say it did not make it to publication. Absolute drivel.
I’ve read Facebook statuses that are more thought provoking.
Lisa McInerney is in limbo. That horrible place where her articles are too well written to be in a women’s magazine, but too ridiculous to be anywhere else. As a result, I’ve put a euro into the charity box in my local pub, and have prayed to St. Anthony for her
Sorry, scratch my comment. After painstaking research (five seconds) I’ve found out that it WASN’T Kanye who tweeted ‘No Filter!’. It was Kim herself. So Lisa, you’ve even managed to get this wrong. The omens aren’t good I’m afraid. I won’t be horrible, but thanks for the effort.
I think she suffers from assholism.
Someone stage an intervention ffs!!
Such s***e
No, I will not bother commenting, agree?
I agree, I won’t bother either.
I had to read that twice.ya em,if you don’t like social media or anything that goes along with it then DO NOT USE IT.
Ya I know,Kanye and Kim are clowns,but its up to them If they want to be clowns.
Lady gaga gives my lady the gawks,but lady gaga sells a product and that her business with who ever is producing her music.
Been honest I’d rather see lady gaga gagged but who am I to judge.
Ya and Kim kardashian is puck ugly.
I thought there was some valid points made there..
Do go on.
And on.
And on.
Etc.
Do all the negative comments mean that Lisa is going to write an article about how Journal commenters are sexist, chauvanistic pigs?
I’ll actually respond to that.
“We’re all master image manipulators now”
The average Twitter user will have posted 307 tweets, with an average of 1.07 posts a day. I work in the field of psychology and, without knowing this author, it smacks of someone who is too engrossed in social media to understand that the vast, vast, majority do not fall within her view. I’d hazard a guess that Lisa is surrounded by SM to such an extent that it clouds opinion and has surrounded herself by similar SM users devoid of actual human interaction and like the ‘NOISE’ associated with SM and in particular twitter.
The opinion piece actually reads like a series of twitter posts of 140 characters with no structure and just “NOISE”.
On the money Tiger.
I don’t understand why the author is receiving such harsh criticism. I thought it was quite fluid and some good points were made. I didn’t agree with the point about Lady Gaga’s faux pas as I would think she/PR hoped for a reaction like that from her Little Monsters when she posted up the lyrics. But are we expected to agree with every opinion? I’m also surprised at the harsh tone used in some of the comments. Would these comments have been said the same way in person, if at all?
Of course not. But then that’s the nature of the internet & keyboard warriors. And it’s more than fair to say most of the critic’s would probably struggle to put together an article and get it printed on here.
Having said that I always read Lisa’s articles. She’s like a female Eamon Dunphy. Very aggresive and some of her opinions border on ridiculous. Particularly her reaction to “Slane girl” earlier this year.
Lisa I thought this was a very well made piece. Perhaps others are offended as it is at odds with what they choose to believe (more fun to believe celebs are being genuine, though it goes against all logic).
No, I found it a hash of words without any structure, form or cohesive argument.
No I’m not offended by the digs at celebrities. I don’t really care about celebrities. Except Tom Hanks, who has a heart of gold. I’m only human.
Anyway – the reason I didn’t like this piece is very straightforward…
It was just really badly written. I know it might be hurtful for the author to read these comments and I’m genuinely sorry if that is the case.
Notwithstanding that – objectively, this just is not good writing – at all.
The Journal should be aiming for quality and not quantity.
A few days ago there was a column written about politicians perjuring themselves, but sadly the author didn’t seem to realise that perjury only happens while under oath.
As readers of the site and by corollary , generators of advertising income for the site’s owners, I think we ‘re entitled to request higher standards. It’s one of the biggest news sites in the country, but to maintain that, this continued decline in quality must end.
It’s lacking an argument because it’s observational, the only argument put forward could be the question of whether this is a negative thing or not. It’s a short comment on a much greater issue and one which we are all starting to consider (in short- the false image of ourselves presented online). I think the topic at hand could probably have an essay or two written on it and this is only dipping in.
And I’d rather read any number of these sort of articles than another Listicle. I do understand both of your points though. The lack of clarity for those who haven’t already pondered this topic means the readers are too confused to make any comment other than to state confusion.
I’m not offended by her opinion, I’m offended by the utter rubbish that this work is.
It’s not constructed properly, the argument is misshapen, it should be clear from the outset what point she’s making and lastly, it reads as if she had mental diarrhoea and absolutely no capacity to filter or edit.
It’s written like she has a cluttered mind and is not exactly sure what her point is.
Her other articles tend to do that too. Edgy is the new incoherent and inconsistent. I do make a point to read her opinion pieces though, but only in the sense that one has when rubber-necking a car accident on a motorway, you slow-down, anticipate that you are going to come across something truly awful with all the associated carnage.
However I find if you carry on a go back to doing something more productive, quickly the opinion piece fades into insignificance relative to your own sense of mortality, until the next time you come across another one…..
The @Swearlady twitter handle is also as professional a contact name for a “journalist” or “columnist” as madb1tch4eva83@hotmail.com
She’s right about the breast feeding. I have never understood why it is not ok to show breasts being used for their intended purpose but it’s ok for them to be used for titillation ( if you will excuse the pun!)
I found it quiet funny
have your say