Art and Responsibility

Lately I've been thinking a lot about "the responsibility of the artist." (In quotes because it sounds like this BIG IMPORTANT THING to make art responsibly, though it's an impossibly tricky subject to cover, or even define.) Yesterday when I was looking for something else, I came upon two posts from Bitch magazine's blog, The Transcontinental Disability Choir: Disability Chic? (Temporary) Disability In Lady GaGa's Paparazzi and  Popular Songs That Get Disability (Mostly) Right . From the former:

[Susan, author of "Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability "] Wendell's argument about the disabled body as not public gets to the very crux of why the "disability chic" representation in "Paparazzi" is so problematic: the temporarily disabled Lady Gaga is hidden not just from the paparazzi, but also from public space. The only time that viewers see her in the wheelchair is as she is being wheeled down a purple carpet--an ostensibly "public" space--from her limo (private), into her mansion (also private). The mansion (private home) is where her highly stylized "recovery" takes place, with the "help" of people of color. The split between public and private is yet again reinforced in the guise of disability-as-chic representation. The overall message: Disability can be "cool," but only if it is temporary, not shown to the public, and that your eventual recovery from it can be portrayed through the timeless medium of dance! Oh, and be sure to have people of color around to assist you with your wheelchair and with your "recovery"-cum-dance routine.

The post is one of the better analyses I've read on the "Paparazzi" video. To be honest, it's one of few. Though I do remember Lady GaGa herself on one of those year-end things saying no one wanted to air the wheelchair part. Considering that "Paparazzi" is a mainstream pop (in the grandest sense of the word) video and not an art house project (yes, I do apply different standards), I think it was a pretty brave move. (And worthy of further analysis.)