The work of Britney in the age of mechanical reproduction
There’s something wonderfully generic about dance remixes of pop tunes. Any last romantic perceptions of the artist as Genius rigorously dismantled and reassembled into a kind of proletarian music (in the sense of a music without properties). Via Jessica (the popist’s objet petit a), here’s some marvellous examples: “I’m Not a Girl (Not Yet a Woman)” transformed from sincere Dido nonsense to a kind of robotic impersonation of funky house, and a sort of bargain-basement trance version of “Lucky.” That site also has a great electroclash-ish remix of “4ever” by The Veronicas (which was already brilliant enough in its nu-Max original).
Being reminded of “Lucky,” I downloaded the video, which is even better than I remember. Britney playing the role of an actress who is acting in a film who is looking at a reflection of herself in a mirror… I hope Žižek’s seen it, as it appears to be all about the Lacanian account of subjectivity. Perhaps Žižek can be persuaded to follow up his show on films with one on pop videos. And wasn’t watching The Perverts Guide to Cinema a strange experience? Someone with a strong foreign accent (Eastern European, no less), discussing a complex subject in detail with no re-enactments or reality TV trappings or other bullshit—I thought I’d been transported back to the ’70s.
Meanwhile: Britney Spears in the age of biological reproduction.
7 comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“Britney Spears in the age of biological reproduction.” Nice. But the comments about it being sexual are too obvious. Ok, so she’s got her arse in the air and a remarkable calm look on her face for someone whose apparently giving birth. The fact all the media reports on it *mention* but don’t show the ‘crowning head’ and instead stick to safe side shots is also, er, intersting. But still, is it possible to have a sculpture of a naked woman that is *not* considered sexual? I want to compare this to the Alison Lapper sculpture again. In an interview Lapper claimed people objected to the sculpture of her pregnant because of an aversion to the idea of a disabled woman having sex. The pregnant body in that sense was a reminder of past sexuality, rather than sexuality in itself as this Britney Spears sculpture is.
Oddly pregnacy is usualy not considered that sexy. Britney Spears being a mother is perhaps something of a disaster for her cute little teen pin up/sex bomb image (no more school girl outfits?), so embracing the mother-goddess look would perhaps be rather a good thing for her. Incidentaly I love the fact that once again there is this great combination of puritanism and erotica - as it happens kind of like the way Spears has managed to be both sex symbol and clean teen idol.
Comment by Moll @ 3/29/2006 7:37 pm
Christ that picture is odd! It looks like Britney Spears head on a pregnant woman’s body. So so unreal.
Comment by rachel @ 3/30/2006 8:39 am
Britney Spears’s head, even. I hate apostrophes!
Comment by rachel @ 3/30/2006 8:43 am
Yeah, it’s a bizarre image. I think to a large extent the sculpture can be seen as sexual because it’s so idealized, with none of the messiness of actually giving birth. Which is probably also the reason for the cowardly failure to show the actual “giving birth” angle on the sculpture; I imagine if the supposed target audience saw what was involved in labor, the sculpture would have less of an easy pro-life message (and, of course, it’s no suprise that the sculpture was made by a man…).
I’m not sure I agree that Britney’s new position as a mother is a disaster for her image - it’s just the other side of the oedipus complex. Instead of embodying the virgin/whore dichotomy, now she can embody mother/whore.
Comment by tim @ 3/30/2006 3:16 pm
Someone with a strong foreign accent (Eastern European, no less)
?????
Well that must make the West of Europe very very small.
Comment by Anon @ 4/27/2006 2:55 am
I don’t think I’m particularly unusual in considering Slovenia part of Eastern Europe, Anon.
Comment by tim @ 4/27/2006 5:13 pm
Thank you for introducing web site.
Comment by k.hanawa @ 7/11/2006 4:32 am