Jessica Hopper asks a good question. Of course the answer can be/is more than just whether we’re able to believe her own beliefs. For me, it’s “are those beliefs artful and/or well-done?” The “well-done” I don’t think is up for debate. It’s a very well-made album.

For me, it’s that Lana’s core belief system is one driven by what appears to be a deep-seated, maybe even unconscious immersion in marketing-speak. Her aesthetic reflects this: it’s all surface-level signifiers of “dramatic” and “dangerous” and “vampy,” and “retro,” delivered in a voice that tries to be everything to everyone at once at the same time. As Jessica points out, Lana herself describes her music in the boardroomiest of descriptive cliches: “Gangsta Nancy Sinatra,” “Lolita lost in the hood,” “Bruce Springsteen in Miami.”

Songs are always already their own advertisements; that’s what makes them such a compelling commodity. But my main problem with BTD is that it steps beyond the necessary function of pop song-as-ad and embodies the form of advertising as well. It doesn’t mean that LDR critiques thus can’t be (unconsciously) gendered (even this one), but to me it’s impossible to get past. We can both embrace the multiple pleasures of pop artifice while simultaneously critiquing its most craven examples.