The Lady will perform on September 13 at this year's MTV Video Music Awards, and she's planning something big. In an interview with Newsweek's Ramin Setoodeh, she says: "I'm going to be performing one of the most recent singles off my album. But it's going to be a different and more dramatic interpretation. And it is most certainly rooted in New York-style performance art." Setoodeh asks — and who could blame him — "What does that mean?"

Gaga explains:

It's less of me singing the song, and more of an art installation. A performance-art piece. It's very well-designed and thought out, and we've been planning it for months and months. It is for me a very meaningful performance, [for] where I am in my career, as well as the experiences I've had, as well as the co-headlining tour I'm going on in the fall. […] I sort of have this philosophy about things: there's never a reason to do something unless it's going to be memorable, unless it's going to change things, unless it's going to inspire a movement. With the song and with the performance, I hope to say something very grave about fame and the price of it.

Does that clear anything up? Hell no. But even more cryptic is her answer to the question, "what are you going to wear?"

I would say that the fashion for the performance is a representation of the most stoic and memorable martyrs of fame in history. It's intended to be an iconic image that represents people. I think after watching the performance and maybe studying it after you watch it on YouTube, you'll see the references and the symbols come through.

And, when talking about her lighting scheme, Ms. Gaga says: "I like it to be moody. I like it to evoke an idea more than light my face. It's not about what you see. It's about what you don't see, and sometimes that vacant space can be very scary."

Perhaps you find it tiring to hear about her "philosophy," her "art," "symbols" and "meaning." Maybe it would be easier if she just said, "I'm going to dress like Joan of Arc. It's gonna be dope." But the other women topping the chart right now? Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift. Those two aren't exactly… interesting.

Back when that song "Beautiful" was all over the radio, a DJ friend of mine once said, "The devil didn't invent rock and roll for James Blunt." And I can't help but agree, as a woman raised on filthy Prince lyrics, Madonna writhing to "Like A Virgin" (at the VMAs!) and sexual innuendo in George Michael hits. Lots of people can sing. Lots of people write songs. Pop music should be more that that. Not a lot of people sing well, or write catchy songs; Lady Gaga does both. But more importantly: Lady Gaga makes it exciting. Titillating, unexpected. With Muppet coats, teacups, awful (untrue) hermaphrodite rumors and general pantslessness. Without her, pop would be a bland landscape right now. And think about it: People mocked what David Bowie and KISS wore, too. In addition, she uses her Haus of Gaga to "propel" friends and young designers into the spotlight, using her fame to further their careers.

You might think Lady Gaga is pretentious, a phony. But if she is, it's as someone once said of Holly Golightly: She's a real phony… She honestly believes all this phony junk that she believes. Asked, "How old were you when you first wanted to be famous?" Lady Gaga replies:

I think I was in my mother's womb. But it's not about fame, you see. It's about "The Fame." It's about a life of glamour. I believe in a glamorous life.

Lady Gaga Will Rock the VMAs [Newsweek]

Earlier: Questions About The High Fashion & Domestic Violence In Lady GaGa's Video
Before The Teacup & Blonde Wig, Pants Were Still A Problem
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Lady Gaga Visits The View

The backstory: Megan Fox, the shapely Transformers star and current objet d'onanism for straight males everywhere, was leaving that film's London premiere when a portly and hopeful young lad—eyes gleaming with wonder, palms hairy in adoration—desperately offered her a single yellow rose to show his undying affection (though, son, a yellow rose means friendship, not love, so...) Well, Ms. Fox was so blinded and overwhelmed by the crush of paparazzi and well-wishers that she cruelly ignored him, as captured indelibly at left.

The sad picture made the rounds and Fox was criticized for being callous and cruel to the wants of a child. She's since apologized to the boy on tape, and says she'll personally apologize to him if she finds out his name.

A personal apology from Megan Fox? Better bring a change of pants, boy-o!

Now a kindly major international corporation called Kodak (they make portraiture devices) has intervened and offered REWARD MONEY for the identity of the would-be swain:

Kodak will offer $5,000 to the first person who can provide verifiable information that enables Kodak to make this connection happen. Kodak will also cover travel costs for the young man and his family to help allow destiny to take its course, and provide cameras for him to capture the moment.

Please send us an email at yellowroseboy@gmail.com [oh, and cc tips@gawker.com, though we won't pay you] if you have any information or can help turn the rose boy's dreams into reality.

You guys!!! Find hiiiiiim!

Photo via WENN

It was a party for the nondescript publication's annual "Beautiful People" issue, this edition featuring Christian rocker turned manufactured pop rocker grrl Katy Perry. And, aside from the general hideousness of that as a concept (not to mention what sort of asshole you have to be to consider yourself worthy of going to a party called "Beautiful People"), the thing sounded like a damn organizational nightmare.

Four thousand buffoons RSVP'd to the shindig, held at Hiro Ballroom in Chelsea, which proved far over capacity. Scores of people were turned away at the door, left to wriggle and clatter on the cold, cold sidewalk like so many ugly, normal people. Among them: Poor stricken heiress Lydia Hearst and, embarrassingly for everyone involved but especially whoever the party planners were, Paper magazine editor Peter Davis. He'd just flown in from India and was left stranded at the door, Guest of a Guest breathlessly reported.

It was Paper Magazine Editor Peter Davis. He had literally just flown in from India. Keith Lissner and I showed up an hour late to the party and found Peter with his hot new boyfriend (a student at Parsons), unable to get passed the door. They had been at capacity and the mob outside looked straight out of L.A. We had no choice but to leave…

Yes, sigh. GoaG was stuck outside too.

On the precious inside was your usual cacophony of idiocy and reasons why New York can become such an easy place to hate. Like the Katie Couric of New York weeklies, the New York Observer went around asking attendees an important, hard-hitting question: "What does it mean to be beautiful?" Every little oil slick they asked said the same sad thing: it's what's inside! Which, as we should all know by now, is one of those lies children are told about the world, like "You can be anything you want to be." They should have just asked this robot. Case closed.

Our favorite party response? The doubling-back-on-itself theorizing of soap star Chrisell Stause:

It's all about what's inside. It's kind of used and tired. But especially in this economy when you can't really maybe afford the finer things, you've got to rock the vintage or whatever. But you've got to do it with confidence. It's all how you feel.

We feel :(

Image via WENN

Steverino_Begins' new line beats the original, "Oh Look There's a Lamp Over There. Let's Go Bump Up Against It for Awhile."

Mount_Prion's new line beat the original, "It Ought to Be a Full House Tonight."

feistykate's new line beats the original, "Paper Bag? Should I Be Carrying a Paper Bag? Where Can I Get a Paper Bag??"

CodePink's new line beats the original, "Master Allows Me to Leave the Castle Just Once a Year..."

shostakobitch's new line beats the original, Ten-Year-Old Photo Found In New York Gutter.