I completely agree with what this post is saying. Paglia seems to have missed the point. The truly interesting aspect of Lady Gaga, about which she has always been extremely overt, is that she produces entertainment for entertainment's sake. Edgar Allen Poe once wrote of poetry, "there neither exists nor can exist any work more thoroughly dignified, more supremely noble, than ... this poem written solely for the poem's sake." This is a fundamental realization in any type of art -- a word that shares a root with "artifice," from the Latin word for "craft." A work need not spring from some deep feeling or belief of the artist's, but can exist only to communicate a message, or to do nothing more than inspire some response in those who experience it. Lady Gaga has stated of her own music "It's all about everything altogether-performance art, pop performance art, fashion." She is obviously artificial, obviously manufactured, but the point is that is completely irrelevant. In fact, that's the idea. Paglia writes about Lady Gaga's "sexual" dress as if it were meant to be sexy. It isn't mean to be sexy, it is meant to be interesting. Madonna might have been genuinely sexy during her time, but the two are not comparable. Not exuding that same sexiness isn't a failure on the part of Lady Gaga, it is a sign that culture has advanced far enough to look with an objective eye at the show, rather than be shocked by the sexual nature of it.