I’m not inclined to agree with your comments and use of Lady Gaga as an example for the other kind of ‘fame’ you’re thinking of. Indeed, Gaga’s fame is at a very different scale and flavour (yeah, I use British spellings — sorry about that) than that of Watts’. I do think, however, that she is a real artist. Much of the attention she gets is that kind that’s so easy to vilify — my first reaction to her was pity and some snide elitism, but I did ultimately consider her and watched a few interviews. The one that changed my mind about her completely was this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izxuALAckOQ (I didn’t shorten it because then it’s obvious I’m not hiding any virus or something). Sorry, it’s a bit long (it totals a bit less than two hours), but it’s a great portrait or window in her mindset as an artist.

Lady Gaga uses mainstream, contemporary culture and her audience to reach a huge scale — and this scale isn’t as specific or ‘curated’ as, say, that of Watts’. But I think her performance art and music is no less worthy aesthetically. In fact, she still does perform at smaller bars, and does not relegate herself to pop (videos are easily found on Youtube).

It’s obvious that Gaga and Watts possess different species of fame. However, I don’t think Gaga can be used as a synecdoche for celebrity culture as implied in your piece here.

Watts’ brand of performance is a clever mosaic of philosophy, music, humour, etc. It’s refreshing. Gaga uses pop music as a filter and lens on top of her core material. She’s definitely younger, and has much to develop, but I wouldn’t say she’s trapped in fame. I think she sees this scale as giving her the resources to simply add to her brand of performance — which sometimes involves massive lights, fashion, and volume, and other times only requires a piano, which is even more minimalist than Reggie Watts.

Anyway, cheers! I really look forward to reading more of your work and thoughts. (All three of you.)