gypsyfire said:

Yanno!!!

I'm still wondering if anyone read the essay. I really don't think so!

DavidEye said:

the point of the essay was not to analyse Madonna's conscious political views, I don't think. Which is to say, I don't think hooks was suggesting Madonna holds any open prejudices against black people. She was not saying Madonna is a racist in the sense of someone who believes blacks are inferior, etc. The point she was trying to maintain was that much of Madonna's work serves to ingrain certain stereotypes of black people and maintain the position and cultural image of black people as subservient and exploitable (perhaps contrary to her own intention). In Like a Prayer Madonna might have intendend her use of black characters as an acknowledgment of her debt to black music, but hooks is saying there is a more pernicious, possibly subconscious political implication beneath the surface. There is a difference between the creation and reception of the text, and it is at the latter end of the process that hooks is conducting her analysis. Which isn't to say I necessarily agree with her analysis, but I think you should move past the shock value of calling Madonna a racist (!) because it's really not the issue here. In fact I'm not sure if there is one time in the article where hooks directly labels madonna a racist(?)

mistermaxxx said:

Oh god, please don't start running off at the mouth with that tired "Janet is copying Madonna" bollocks. Don't EVEN go there.
[This message was edited Tue Feb 4 11:23:15 PST 2003 by JANFAN4L]

fairmoan said:

No, but my point was that Hooks is wasting her literary and intellectual capabilities by publishing a paper on the conscious / unconscious racism in madonnas work, when there are far greater evils in the world to focus her energies upon.

Racism I think we'll all agree is a highly important issue, one that must be addressed, and to speculate about the racial connotations in the work of a pop artist (no matter how influential) is really taking such issues to the extreme.

To my mind that article was extremely self indulgent and written for no purpose other than for Ms Hooks to prove how clever she is. I aint saying shes not clever, just that shes wasting whatever talent it is she may have by focusing on an artist who lets face it, has less effect on the way ethnic and religious minorities are treated in America than say our friend Mr Bush.

fairmoan said:

Exactly. The point of hooks' essay seems to point to Madonna as a perpetuator of white supremacist perspectives (albeit cloaked within the shroud of being sexually/racially/culturally progressive). Which I find fascinating.

I think hooks' argument is supported -- even down to the publicized black 'romances' she's engaged in.

Michael Jackson, Prince and Dennis Rodman? Please! You can look at these 3 brothers and see their issues -- one has transformed (for whatever reasons) into a white woman. The other 2 have been known to (in varying degrees) dress like women. Rodman even "went there" and took on the "blond ambition" hooks raised (I'm sure you all remember the wig he wore with the wedding gown at his book-signing).

I am no huge fan of Madonna. I think she puts more emphasis on her image and less on her music, which, unfortunately, is exactly what MTV has become. But I also don't fault her for stealing or borrowing what many consider 'black music' or R&B.
It's wrong for anyone to say she is stealing or borrowing from a culture, if, in fact, she grew up in that culture.
Is everyone white not allowed to play R&B just because they're white??
Is everyone black supposed to only play R&B and Hip Hop??
Both answers are obviously, NO.
Unlike Britney, who seems like she grew up in Disney Land, Madonna grew up in Detroit and NYC and that music seems to be a part of her, not simply for promotional reasons.

Now that said, I do have some contempt for an audience that will embrace a somewhat talented artist over two obviously more talented artists like MJ and Prince.
To each their own, but I don't see a comparison between Maddie and MJ/Prince. They simply are far more talented.

ThreadBare said:

Great summary! I find it fascinating just the way you put it.

CrozzaUK said:

hooks's career was not built on Madonna essays. This is like a side note to her larger project which is exactly focused on the far greater evils in the world.

NuPwrSoul said:

it may not have been built on Madonna essays, but any time she needs some press, she's quick to bring up the name. and if she's addressing the greater evils of the world, then citing a pop star like Madonna really makes her a fool.

JANFAN4L said:

what has janet ever done that madonna didn't do first?

Sage said:

So one article now defines her career?

Madonna is a Babe.I ain't gonna Swear at anyone again but let me say this:as a Black Man if I defend Madonna then that's good enough.If I say She is cool than She is cool.I'd throw a Ring on Madonna's Finger Before Bell Hooks in a Heartbeat.

NuPwrSoul said:

it isn't the only one.

Sage said:

oops, my apologies. it is the only one. i thought that the sudden interest in this article meant there was another.

but anyway... bell hooks, still getting mileage out of this article 11 years later.

Sage said:

Sage said:

without Madonna then Bell Hooks has no topic because nobody is gonna waste there time reading Her unless She mentions Madonna.AMEN to what You Said.You Nailed it.Bell Hooks has no story or interest without attacking Madonna.AMEN!!!

mistermaxxx said:

NOTE TO SELF: Remember to name check Madonna in book to ensure interest and sales.

when Bell Hooks learns how to Write then She will be above using Madonna as a Puppet to sell Her Tabloid based Essays in the Future.

Sage said:

Quite. I thought Ms Hooks addressed her arguments well, but if it is really a part of her " larger project" as you put it, then I dont believe it was well written enough to reflect so, and place it in the bigger picture.

Ultimately, and I say this with NO prior knowledge of Bell Hooks work(s) to relate the essay to, this article smacked not only of outdated feminist concepts, but ended up being a misguided diatribe on what you call "white supremacist attitudes" in the work of a pop artist. To my mind this is ultimately the kind of scepticism and paranoia that sends society round in circles, surely she could have used her energies to a better, more progressive purpose.

Of course a writer should not be judged by a single literary contribution, but given the personal nature of the article (i.e. being completely about an artist who has perpetuated nothing but good vibes about equality etc.), a little perspective would not have gone a miss , hence you see the kind of debate this essay has provoked.

CrozzaUK said:

Larger project only in the sense of her distinguished academic career.



Thank you for that clarification.



The essay is from 1992 from what I recall.



on what I call? Where did I call anything that? Don't get it twisted.



I know right? All this paranoia without any basis whatsoever, because we all know black cultural productions have never been plundered for other people's benefit. What a ridiculous thing to think.



You call this a debate? Only a few people have actually taken the time out to read the essay and offer an analytical critique. Most of what I have seen here are emotional outbursts as though hooks was talkin about somebody's momma.

YO MOMMA EDITS.
[This message was edited Tue Feb 4 15:50:18 PST 2003 by NuPwrSoul]

It still doesnt escape the fact that on its own merits, the article is simply an interesting but insubstantial expression of opinion.

Nothing wrong with it, but nothing to applaud in my mind either. If youre gonna write something to stimulate peoples minds, be balanced but be positive also.

And not to get into the semantics of it, but the whole point of different cultures living as one is that we feed off each other. This is the new fucking millenium, and we sit here bickering about how Madonna stole this, Madonna plundered that, when in reality very little can be considered mutually exclusive to any one race or culture anymore.

NuPwrSoul said:

Nu, I love you!!

CrozzaUK said:

Hence my first post on this thread (before it got crazy) that there is a fine line between appropriation and appreciation.

I agree that in the age of globalism, it is very difficult if not impossible to claim proprietary rights on any form of cultural expression. Still most artists create with whatever cultural materials are available to them at the moment. To act like these materials are not frought with other meanings or come from other places and have been historically used in certain ways is extraordinarily naive in my opinion.

On the level of the art itself, everything seems fair game as long as one is conscious of these things and is true/authentic to the aesthetic values. So that if you're gonna play jazz you better be studied in that to be taken seriously. If you're gonna do opera you better hone your chops, etc.

There are some things however which don't transfer easily from one culture to the next so easily. Madonna's use of sacred Hindu chanting in a non-sacred context is problematic because it radically alters its meaning and risks losing its sacred quality. That's not adding to the richness of culture. That's taking it away.

Like anything else, when money is brought into the picture...these issues take on newer significance and it helps to quantify in a neutering way what others would dismiss as subjective turf battles over protecting this or that culture.

As an example, this couldn't be more evident in hip hop's use of sampling. At first many post-modernists argued that sampling was a kind of sonic collage, that it was homage to the greats (James Brown, George Clinton, etc.)... that that produced a new creation that integrated disparate sounds, breathing new life and new meaning into an old track.

That may be true, but not giving songwriting credit or songwriting royalties put a different spin... it seemed like plundering and disrespect of what came before. It seemed more like appropriation rather than appreciation. Usually what people do with their money or their politics will help make clear the line between the two.

I think hooks's article raises important questions about the materials that people in this case Madonna uses for her artistic creation. The end product may be something entirely different and new to many who find it celebrating unity and multicultural life. But it's like a sample on a hip hop song--for those who have heard the original track from whence the sample came--the echoes can still be heard in the new sound.

ECHOES OF AN EDIT.
[This message was edited Tue Feb 4 16:32:13 PST 2003 by NuPwrSoul]

Sage said:
what has janet ever done that madonna didn't do first?[/quote]

Janet was acting before Madonna...
Janet was singing before Madonna...
Janet put out a record months BEFORE Madonna...
Janet was nominated for an Oscar BEFORE Madonna...
Janet won a Grammy BEFORE Madonna...
Janet was an MTV Icon before Madonna...
Janet did FAME...Madonna tried and couldn't even make the cut! HA!

Janet was already SOMEBODY before Madonna came along...so get over it.

Boy, Nu and Rhonda aint givin me any dap.

I didn't say I completely agreed with the essay, but it made me think about Madonna and her whole esthetic for a while; and damn it, I was stimulated--Neck up that is.

Her major points about Madonna, for those who missed the essay are:

Madonna likes being the boss over other black people; et al, dancers, bodyguards etc...

She plays mother figure to the dancers and back-up singer without being equal partners.

She jokes that she is a dictator; and hooks does not like that kind of ideal in anyone.

Madonna could have gotten any dancer she wanted but she chose a black dancer and singer who couldn't dance.

Hooks interviewed other black woman, and none had a good thing to say about Madonna. One even said, "the bitch can't even sing".

Madonna waters down black culture, but never gives the credit in interviews or telly, and never gives any props at awards shows.

Hooks mentions the pepsi commercial where Madonna uses burning crosses, and a black choir; meaning that blacks are always in the background, never in front.

---

Also Madonna never mentions racism. She has no political clout on race.

Madonna isn't an actual racist, at least not to me, because that has to be proven using pretty strict procedure. But Hooks makes good points. at least it is provocative--Just like Madonna.

Where you at Dansa?

And Lova, You cute.

2freaky4church1 said:

That used to be the knock against Prince. He had black women in the background of his videos and movies and white and Latin women were front and center.

I agree that Prince was probably a self hating black guy in the 80's, but he became more radical after the snot inducing JW stuff. Religion made him more racial; don't understand how. lol.

JANFAN4L said:

All of the things you mentioned are either things that were bestowed upon her by someone else, something her family made her do, or something she got because of her family. Janet herself has never had an original thought in her head, and if Madonna wasn't around, she wouldn't know what to do with herself from day to day.
[This message was edited Tue Feb 4 18:23:34 PST 2003 by AaronUnlimited]

2freaky4church1 said:

Or, rather, Madonna likes being the boss of ALL people: et al, white, black, latino, gay, straight, etc.
[


They aren't equal partners. She's writing their paychecks. And not all of those dancers were black. In fact, how many were black anyway? I don't recall at the moment.



Except in herself of course, when bestowing qualities to people she's never even met. And was it the ACLU that always used to say "There's a little Iotollah(sp?) in all of us." Bell Hooks is going to criticise Madonna for admitting to a personality trait found in the majority of people in the world?



What are you referring to here? Which dancer was this?



So let's put that black woman that she asked about Madonna under a spotlight and see how many high note THAT "bitch" sings. As for none of them having anything good to say about her, Hooks could have asked a racial cross-section of women what they thought about Madonna in 1992 and she would've come up with the same results. Madonna was a pretty easy target for punching-bag-of-the-year in '92.



So what? Has Bell Hooks ever read or seen an interview with Madonna? Barring ONE article in 1989 (which has been reprinted on this site numerous times in which Madonna references Prince and others), no one EVER asked her about her music, influences, etc. until about 1998.



Seeing as Madonna is white, that Madonna is the focus of her videos and act, that Madonna is the superstar, ALL people are in the background. Does Hooks fail to mention that Madonna's co-star in the actual video was a black man? And that she made him a black jesus?

---



She's a celebrity. Celebrities in this country have no political clout on anything. And anyone that gives them some is a fucking moron. As for Madonna mentioning racism, see my comments on the the Like A Prayer video above.




No, she really doesn't. Because it seems that most of her criticism is that Madonna is putting black people in the background, not treating them as equals. She fails to note that Madonna's presence forces EVERYONE into the background. After all, Madonna's videos star her. Truth or Dare was a movie about HER. It wasn't about her dancers. It was nice of her to even include anyone else in the movie. As for not treating them as equals, they AREN'T equals. She's writing the checks. And remember that not all of the dancers were black.
[This message was edited Tue Feb 4 19:13:52 PST 2003 by AaronUnlimited]

2freaky4church1 said:

freaky4church, we were waiting for you to chime in... didn't know where you were coming from til then. but since you did chime in, here's your dap