Orlan. Those stuck-on facial modifications in the Born This Way video were a total rip off of Orlan’s actual facial modifications. Even her wig looked like a rip off.

The opening to Born This Way really has nothing to do with Egyptian imagery. An upside down pink triangle was used to mark homosexuals during WWII. Now it’s seen as a symbol of pride…of being “born this way”. Kind of makes sense to me.

and in a recent paparazzi shot, Gaga is clearly ripping off the look of Humans.

I’m confused. No ones allowed to let other peoples art influnce theres? Meaning the only true art is when you sit someone in a dark room all their life and let them have no contact with the outside world.

Yeah, that makes sense. I understand. I always thought art was takeing influnces from the world and others and using them to create something. I was wrong.

You’re writing style reminds me of many other bloggers, please stop copying them.

why are you even wasting time “writing” an article about some famous star “ripping” off other artists? why did you waste this space with what could have been, the next coolest installation art, artist, or record you recently unearthed? lazy, flavorpill. lazy.

I’m sorry but this article is just making an issue out of nothing. Shouldn’t we be celebrating the fact that contemporary art is influencing the ideas and themes behind the videos/style of one of the worlds biggest stars? Surely it’s better than seeing videos of people just moping around looking miserable or some girl grinding on a guy that’s quite clearly been pumped with steroids. Lady Gaga’s videos are right up there in my favourite music videos of all time simply because they combine elements of art and fashion. Not to mention the fact that they’re just damn good. Back off her, she’s done nothing wrong here.

I’m no fan of Gaga either, Marina, but I have to agree with Rom, morgan t and Natalie S; this entire article smacks of self-importance and unfortunately amounts to yet another facile attempt to illegitimate one artist’s supposed creative appropriation. Not the least bit fun; you can do better. I‘d expect such drivel from common dilettantes.

When someone that you like does it, it’s an homage. When someone that you don’t like does it, it’s a rip-off?

Oh, geez. Another day, another jealous, pretentious, lazy writer trying to score cool points by bashing Lady Gaga. Yeah Gaga is influenced by the music and art and fashion that she has witnessed and experienced in her life. Well, duh, of course she is. That does not mean everything she does is ‘ripped off’ from some other artist. Really, it doesn’t.

This whole Gaga backlash that’s been going on for about six months now is getting old. Yeah she got super-famous super-fast. That doesn’t mean she deserves to get slammed for every single thing she does or says. Get over it.

Yup, I can name waaaay more possible references than that in Gaga’s work. Ain’t she and her talented collaborators great? Hey, wanna know why I even started reading books as a kid? Because I wanted to read what Neil Peart was reading. It made me think and search, and I found what he was talking about. He, in his own rock n roll way, made me learn about ideas. Gaga’s annotations may not be on par with T.S. Elliott, but she’s pretty up front about her influences. She’s interesting, she’s fun, she’s genuinely and fantastically loud, and she does have a very real message. I also believe because of her, a lot more young people are exploring art.

PS Walking across the country in impractical shoes was also a theme in an opera I just saw, Lillian Alling, and of Ann-Marie Macdonald’s bestseller, Fall on Your Knees. The concept is moving through art forms and cultures and gaining resonance. It’s okay!

Most of your alleged rip-offs are appallingly off-base and show you know nothing at all about the elements Gaga and/or her directors incorporated in her videos or why. For example, some of the dominant imagery in ‘Bad Romance’ is influenced by Kubrick, specifically ’2001′ and ‘Clockwork Orange’. Lots of filmmakers use the kaleidoscope effect. In the instance of ‘Born This Way’, director Nick Knight extends this effect from an earlier video shot with Gaga for Viva Mac Glam in which half her face is a mirrored reflection. Do your homework next time.

Um, the meat dress was a huge rip off, too. http://collections.walkerart.org/item/object/957

Oh man…you’re really reaching here aren’t you?

“the similarities between Gaga’s weathered, mud-splattered, ruined fancy foot wars and Marilyn Minter’s — seen here peddling Jimmy Choo — are pretty on point.”

Really? You’re saying that she’s kinda sorta wearing heels that look a little bit alike and the shot is a little similar (but not really) and they’re both, in some way, dirty? Come on.

You’re trying really hard to show how much art knowledge you have and in the process showing how psychologically removed you are from reality.

This post is so dishonest. You should be ashamed, Marina Galperina.

It would be amazing if every artist had no point of reference other than their own wouldn’t it?

I know one else influences me in my life. Ever. I know that I really appreciate no one’s work but my own. Therefore, I shall never pay my respects to those that have influenced me because no one has. I am the Alpha and Omega.

Oh wait, none of that was true.

I agree with Michael and many others above…this article is really reaching. In it, loose similarities deemed to be rip offs points out your lack of understanding where artistic appropriation is concerned. Although not a Gaga fan, I do commend her innovation where pop stars are concerned. Why you would criticize her for not being unique in the realm of several art forms is beyond me. Try looking up what the “pop” in popular culture stands for.

It’s H. R. Giger. Not “griger”

Come on, folks !

This is bullshit who the hell wants 2 noe if gaga copied or not? Don’t u ppl have anything else 2 do than just sit here and watch gaga’s work and then waste ur time finding out what other person did it like her’s! Gaga is inspired by them and actually does it way better, Gaga did what many pop stars couldn’t do in few years!

Wtf??? lol!!!!

Pretty boring stuff she’s accused of copying, too. Brambilla is a music video hack, and Minter was surprised as the next person when her slopoy shoes turned out to turn the fashionistas on . . .

Man oh man, these hysterically defensive comments really prove the point of the article don’t they: that Gaga sure is perverting the sense of what “art” and “innovation” is among those only peripherally aware of the stuff she’s biting. Bottom line kiddies, Picasso was right: “Bad artists copy. Good artists steal.” What she references doesn’t become HERS, now does it? She’s not advancing what she references in the slightest. Everything cited here is just a diluted echo in Gaga’s and her directors’ hands. But that’s not a big revelation when it comes to music videos/adverts/and all that’s commercially inspired, is it now? What is a big revelation, as apparent from the silly outrage from the bafflingly convinced above, is that anyone takes the industry’s latest disco clown puppet and her MoMA-inspired costuming as applaudable or impressive or in any way sincere. Really…I had no idea. The article was a blast if only to see the fallout! Truth hurts, eh, kiddies?

Is anyone familiar with Post-Modernism?!?!

This article has no sense… Read a book…

I love how this short-sighted writer offers analysis that assumes that art is created in a vacuum. Any self-respecting artist of *any* creative medium knows that you take and re-appropriate and re-present. “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal” -T.S. Eliot. “Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal.” -Igor Stravinsky. Yo, check it out: Two artists of two totally different mediums who express (stole?) the EXACT same sentiment. As you mentioned in the 4th panel: Gaga stole from Brambillo, who… wait? What? “RECYCLED [other people's] cinema clips.” Bias much?

I love how this bitter writer offers analysis that assumes art is created in a vacuum. Any self-respecting artist of *any* creative medium knows that you take and re-appropriate and re-present. “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal” -T.S. Eliot. “Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal.” -Igor Stravinsky. Yo, check it out: Two artists of two totally different mediums who express (stole?) the EXACT same sentiment. As you mentioned in the 4th panel: Gaga stole from Brambillo, who… wait? What? “RECYCLED [other people's] cinema clips.” Bias much?

You fans are so stupid. You were the fans who were bashing Katy Perry for wearing the mermaid outfit? (Though Lady Gaga stole from Bette Midler). Why is it when Lady Gaga STEALS people say oh she’s inspired but when people take from her(though she steals from everyone and IS NOT original at all) you fans say that person is stealing and you all go crazy. The irony, oh the irony.

If Gaga is inspired shouldn’t she give credit instead of saying she made the video and came up with everything. She isn’t inspired she is stealing, period. Get over it.

This isn’t the first time Lady Gaga takes credit from others acting like she’s the only one who writes and produces her songs.

Read here. Like someone said if you still support her after you read this you are even more of an idiot and pathetic.

http://thetruthaboutgaga.wordpress.com/the-case-against-lady-gaga/

@DTN Good question about my bias towards Brambilla. Answer: He appropriated existing media materials into a visually original, conceptually solid series of works. Lady Gaga’s visual team made a watered down, purely theatrical version of the visuals, appropriating them for the general “plot” of her video and not really well, but that’s just personal opinion… as this entire article.

Generally, the point I wished I would have carried across more is that there is nothing wrong with doing an homage or a tribute or even straight up style-rippage, when down well and with purpose. Yet, a lot of her oeuvre seems like an aggressively edited, visual/fashion (not concept) based montages of random remakes of existing works and her hero Marina Abramović — who is vigilant protecting copyright in performance art — wouldn’t exactly dig it either.

There’s plenty I like about her social activism, effect, etc. etc. but I wasn’t talking about that. This is just about visual similarities. This is entertainment. All this is entertaining.

She is just boring.

The similarities between the pink triangle and Kenneth Anger’s work are just that of the triangle. You may be trying to hard on this one. Also, it’s a pink triangle, like the Nazi badge/gay pride symbol seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle. The entire song is about gay pride, although also terrible and total Madonna knock-off.

You missed a major opportunity hear to gain some recognition for works that aren’t mainstream. You just put people on the “homage vs. ripped off” debate. Instead of a serious critical piece with some weight, it’s just another opinion piece.

jana sterbek.

Seconded: BORING. Arguing that Gaga deserves as much regard as or is equal to those artists she ‘homages’ (ahem) is like arguing that someone who pens a Cliff Notes version of a novel is on par with the novel’s original author. Yeah, nothing is created in a vacuum…EXCEPT stuff like Gaga’s. That’s the whole point, in’t? She creates in a vacuum of only the pre-existing and that made by others. She doesn’t offer it any new translation. It’s just cribbed notes and aped gestures in lieu of, I don’t know, actual ideas.

Lol… The only rip-off is having wasted ten minutes of my time reading this ridiculous article. You couldn’t have put any weaker imagery examples to back your “rip-off” allegations, could you? What a shame, next time do your homework before writing, or better yet, why don’t you interview Gaga herself and she would gladly explain to you where she takes her inspirations from, like she’s done before in many interviews already.
Now, on the other hand, I think this article is so non-sensical and self-slapping that it ended up actually doing Gaga a favor.
The only disservice in this case was to journalism.
(but you’ve got your hits, that’s what mattered, isn’t it??)

[...] Read the whole story: flavorwire.com [...]

It’s called POST-MODERNISM. Creating pastiche of previously made works to create a new statement of recycled material. Also, the blending of high and low art to be made available for public appreciation, rather than just by the intellectual elite. How many Americans do you think know what’s been shown at MOMA in recent years? Yet how many Americans are able to appreciate GaGa’s videos and be inspired to look further into the art that inspired the video? Please read some articles, or even wikipedia — the most post-modern of post-modern resources — about this strange phenomenon called post-modernism that we have been in the thick of for decades now. I think the game of guessing what GaGa has borrowed from is fun and worth noting, but bashing her does not substantiate your argument, especially when you’re only serving to bolster her own position as a self-proclaimed post-modern icon.

[...] Read the whole story: flavorwire.com [...]

I agree with some of the criticism aimed at this blog post, but I also totally agree with the sentiments of the blog!

What needs to be understood is the difference between being inspired by other art (and even incorporating some of it into your own work) and cynically playing pic’n'mix while ADDING NOTHING UNIQUE OF YOUR OWN and then proclaiming to be some kind of authentic avant garde artist.

The reason she can get away with it is simply because her audience are (in the main) dumbed down young naive consumers brought up in the cultural vacuum of corporatized/ consumer based entertainments (MTV, shopping malls, youtube narcism, sex and the city, hollywood movies, TV shows, fashion magazines etc etc).

In other words the majority of the public is culturally illiterate, and this makes them easy to impress and (more disturbingly) it makes them easy to manipulate.

In truth GaGa’s videos (along with the videos of many other corporate big name acts) are actually quite sophisticated. But this level of sophistication is not genuine artistry (in is not inspiring or enriching), instead it is the cynical (but expert) use of symbolism and archetypes, propaganda and subliminal programming to indoctrinate the audience with certain ideas, beliefs and steer society in certain directions (or simply keep us stuffed full of distracting and disorientating cultural ‘white noise’).

GaGa is certainly more culturally literate and aware than most pop stars but I do not think she has that much control over her image, persona or video story boarding. The messages and imagery is too consistent to all the other big name acts (and too specific) for this to be coming from anywhere else but the corporate music industry itself.

Added to which of course you have the fact that everything promoted (made to look cool and fashionable) by all the big name acts is actually stuff to do with corporatism / consumerism (money, power, ego,militarism, worship of material wealth as religion, hierarchy, fame, control/ subservience etc).

I mean for all their supposed ‘outrageousness’ and ‘non conformity’ you’d NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER hear any one of these big name acts speak out against governments, war, corporatism, fascism, violence, injustice, hierarchy etc … instead they make these things appear acceptable/ mundane/ sexy. That is the job now of musicians and singers in this Brave New World it seems.

For more brilliant analysis of the big name music videos (including several articles on GaGa) check out:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/category/musicbusiness/

And for a great analysis exploring some of the sophisticated symbolism put into GaGa videos check out this 4 part video series (and the whole channel is worth exploring too!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWiwkfCpaiA

its one thing to be informed by prior artists’ work. its one thing to be influenced by another artists. its another thing to pillage and not give respect to those from whom you have been influenced and informed by. i can’t quite identify why i think ‘there is something not quite right’ about gaga, but there is something that is not quite right about her. its like she’s hiding something. don’t know what it is.

[...] the case, the singer’s latest music video, You and I was released last week and it’s being viewed as either a) an homage to Marina Abramović, b) a slight copy of Abramović’s work, [...]

hahaha, this entire article is utterly ridiculous and quite sad that someone had the time (or worthless knowledge) to make these arguable comparisons. Each and one of these clips that you have so effortlessly shown it’s root is completely unsupported. I won’t even dive into every one of these clips, but to say that an upside down pink triangle is a rip off another artist — well, if you ever took 12th grade world history, (or even opened a book) it’s a symbol used to tag homosexuals during WWII. The whole video is based on loving yourself for who you are. OH wow! Look everyone, Lady GaGa ripped off Adolf Hitler! Call the press!

I should have mentioned the known origin of the “pink triangle,” but that was not the point in question. I was referring to a Gaga/GaGa’s Egyptian-esque goddess form emerging out of a zooming triangle logo and comparing it to ground-breaking gay filmmaker Kenneth Anger’s iconic, zooming triangle logo and the Sphinx that emerges out of it. But the Marco Brambilla copies? Just watch it. It’s really really good, I promise.

Eso se Llama ‘INSPIRATION’, tarado.

Gaga is an original. EVERYONE draws on others’ work (it’s impossible in not to in this day and age) and isn’t it better to draw on more obscure, interesting art than stuff that doesn’t deserve the attention? And I agree with the comments that say that many of these comparisons are barely valid. Especially the triangle. Gaga is not the first (or the last) to use a three-sided figure in her art. (And even te Egyptian face is inspired by Hitchcock, and is not meant to be Egyptian.) She is a much more compelling person than most of the bland and uncontroversial pop “artists” nowadays, that couldn’t be influenced by contemporary art even if they tried. You and I makes people think, but apparently the point she meant to convey did not stick with the author of this article.

Se que no vais a entender nada pero este triangulo al reves es un simbolo que usaban los nazis para clasificar a sus presos creo que era para los gays.

Way to find vaguely similar and totally obscure images? How about instead of trying to discredit someone with half-baked theories and what looks like a failure at reverse image search. You brush up on your research skills and maybe educate yourself so you won’t be so plain ignorant. You just made yourself look like a tryhard and jealous bitch. I’ll do my best to remember the name Marina Galperina, so whenever I see it I hit the back button on my browser ASAP. Christ Flavorwire, you have NO class.

Is it just me, or does it seem like, when Gaga is called out for being banally derivative (on here, on other blogs, on YouTube, etc.), everyone who jumps to her defense isn’t so much defending her as their own crippled sense of taste? I finally get the whole phenomena now–her fanatics are pathetically miseducated by her and all the terms she hides behind. Post-modernism? Gaga? Creating new meanings? Delivering original messages? What would that be?: “Let’s have some fun, This beat is sick I wanna take a ride on your disco stick.” Profound, indeed. How many of you heralding her over the artists cited here have even watched a Matthew Barney or Kenneth Anger or Marco Brambilla film EVER? And yet…look at all the sudden experts among you. The Brambilla connection is undeniable to anybody who bothered to look at his work. The Barney referencing has already been confessed to by Gaga herself. The Anger triangle (his logo) is melded with the upside pink triangle by Gaga, sure, but the blank-eyed face and the pulsing border AND the use of it by Gaga at the start of her video in precisely the same framing and way as Anger leads his film is hardly coincidence. The only glaring error in this post is that that she lifted a LOT more conspicuously from Anger’s work in her video for Alejandro. The scene where she slides the rosary beads into her mouth and swallows is lifted DIRECTLY from his Inauguration Of The Pleasure Dome from 1954, in content and even in framing. I’d be cool with the millions who buy into the Gaga market, if only they were spurred to actually pursue and further some appreciation from those she steals from (and she does steal from some of the best, to her credit). But, sadly, it doesn’t seem the case from reading the whining of her fanclub here.

Erm, Kenneth Anger was one of the first openly gay filmmakers so, aside from the aesthetic similarity in the logo Gaga made for herself there, it would kinda make since she’d incorporate something similar to one of his most recognized icons at the start of “Born This Way” (given the lyrics of the song and the vidy that follows). Maybe you could have mentioned that, in your defense, Marina. Anyway…fun read.

This one really drew out the pubescents in the comments, eh? Makes me think of the last line of that old children’s story about the Emperor without any clothes: “So the Lords of the Bedchamber held their heads higher than ever and took greater trouble to pretend to hold up the train which wasn’t there at all.” Talk about shooting the messenger, geesh.

***LADY GAGA IS TO ALL THOSE ARTISTS WHAT STEPHANIE MEYER IS TO BRAM STOKER!!!***

@GerGer Oh god. You’re right! Schooled.

Inauguration Of The Pleasure Dome (1954), in full.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3rtoid6sQw
That’s right, 1954.

“The only glaring error in this post is that that she lifted a LOT more conspicuously from Anger’s work in her video for Alejandro. The scene where she slides the rosary beads into her mouth and swallows is lifted DIRECTLY from his Inauguration Of The Pleasure Dome from 1954, in content and even in framing.”

YES! Only Egyptians are allowed to incorporate triangles! Oh my goodness, would you look at that! There are people, dressed in white, dancing! She CLEARLY ripped them off too! Only one person is allowed to do that!

Give me a break. You just lost ALL credibility with your outrageous, exaggerated comparisons.

Life imitates art.
freedom of expression kicks the arse of any ripoff, fool.
If it looks good and even if you cant remember where the insperation came from. it evolves and re evolves and re-emerges. good art has the nack and the feeling and if it is an evolution, then whomever it was stolen from should be proud and just say, hey, look at that. who wants some tea.

[...] Check out the post HERE [...]

Oh my god i had it with lady gaga,she is steals loks from real super stars like nina hagen,missing person’s and just yesterday she came to the MTVVA dressed as a man,nina hagen did that in 1981-82 during the nunsexmonkrock album she is a big poser and get all her looks from the past and she know kids now don’t remember what people did in the 80′s she smart but not smart to fool some of use who remember the real stars

I will come to the defence of lady gaga, not because i am a fan (which I am not, dance music is not to my taste at all) but instead due the influence she hold on the younger audiences.

Some previous posts have mentioned that gaga’s influence on the younger audience is negative due the inclusion of this ‘copying’ that she is lazily stealing from previous artists to inform and educate on the exact same values. However, what i do not understand is why we are faulting her for this. When we were adolescent and younger did we not get influenced by the artists gaga is ‘copying’, and did it not help us in the development of us as individuals and as a generation on the whole. What i believe gaga is doing, is just trying to help develop this new generation, which is widely known to be a generation that will have to face many trials and tribulations what with global warming and the present state of unrest in society. She is doing this in a way that has already proved to be effective. Why should she have to influence her generation and develop them in a completely different way from the previous generations that have proved themselves as effective.

Now i am fighting for Lady gaga, as i have said, not because I am a fan, but because of my high level of respect for her writing and message. I do not know if i respect her as a person as I do not know her as a person, and i believe that one of the things that people should understand the differences between, is that of her as an individual and the performance art that she presents herself as. I respect her ability in the sophistication of her musical abilities and understanding of present issues that need to be addressed. She is with no doubt one of the most sophisticated musical performers standing on a pop stage at this point, maybe not in appearance but in musical understanding, which transcends through to her cultural understanding. When looking into her history it is made evidently clear.

Finally I believe this is actually just a form of appropriation… which if i am correct is a trait that is used widely throughout postmodern art… – “The traits associated with the use of the term postmodern in art include bricolage, use of words prominently as the central artistic element, collage, simplification, appropriation, a return to traditional themes and techniques as a rejection of modernism, depiction of consumer or popular culture and Performance art.” (taken straight from wikipedia) now when looking at this definition of postmodern art the few points that are brought to my attention are that of “Use of words prominently as the central artistic element”, “appropriation” and “depiction of consumer or popular culture and Performance art”. This leads me to believe that Lady Gaga could in fact, by definition, be a postmodern artist who instead of presenting an instillation or traditional medium is blurring the boundaries between art and music, and is presenting herself as the artwork intending to inform, educate, appropriate and outrage our society.

[...] overlords yet. Moreover, a celebrity who has spent her career mining the past of pop music (and pop art) doesn’t seem terribly qualified to lecture us about the future of journalism. [via Observer] [...]

What? It might have been influenced by Marina’s Wall piece but the whole purpose of You and I is that she walks all the way to nebraska on her own whilst in marina’s wall both her and ulay leave the ends of the well to finally meet in the middle. I’m sure you can figure how that affects the narrative meaning of both works. Do your research better.

Wow. This is really stupid. Muddy shoes happen in two different things and suddenly Lady Gaga is copying someone? No. shut up.