The aesthetics of pop
I was recently told by an editor that judging music on looks 'isn't what we do', after reading my review of Summertime Ball 2015. However, when pop is so disposable what other judgement criteria is there and in a world based entirely on aesthetics, why shouldn't we judge looks?
There are studies that prove that being beautiful gets you further in life and Alain de Botton recently wrote about the drawbacks to being beautiful... if I'm honest, I could live with it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no oil painting. I would kill to look like Cara Delevingne. I don't, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell beautiful from ugly.
Beauty is subjective. There have a been a whole host of men who my friends have expressed an interest in where I just thought 'really?!' But that's because their decision isn't based on looks alone - they add charisma, intelligence and compatibility to the package; then hey presto, that person becomes beautiful. But if we're judging purely on looks, the criteria is pretty homogenised.
Even people with terrible taste swoon at the John Lewis displays. Even people who wear what I perceive as hideous clothes aren't alone in their appalling tastes. And while I turn my nose up at hippie and Aztec style, I appreciate that it looks nice.
And yet, when everything in our lives revolves around how pleasing it is to the eye, talking about human aesthetics has become a virtual no-go area. We all know Susan Boyle isn't going to make the FHM list and the fact there is such a list means that we still hold beauty in the highest regard.
We all become dewy eyed when we think of all the beauty, class and glamour of Hollywood's golden age. We still adorn our walls with pictures of Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn.
People don't pay hundreds to watch Katy Perry because she has the voice and musicality of Kate Bush. They watch her because of the spectacular show and her cracking rack. Megan Fox didn't become an actress because of her Bonham-Carter like talent, she became famous because of her blow-job mouth.
As we all know, looks doesn't get in the way of real talent. As much as women prattle on about roles for older ladies, Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep and Judi Dench are never off the Awards boards. The truth is, the more credible you are as an artist, the less important aesthetics become. No one would dream of calling Adele fat, because her talent completely overshadows that. I called Kelly Clarkson fat because in the disposable culture of pop she looked out of place and her weight overshadowed her performance. Rebel Wilson and Melissa McCarthy are making mega-buckets in Hollywood and are pivotal to a movie's success. And they don't fit into the normal Hollywood mould. Basically, if you have the goods to back it up - looks become less important.
Radicals, fashion designers, movie directors and music moguls have been challenging perceptions for centuries. This has been coupled with looks - art for art's sake. However, their physical beauty is irrelevant. Only these people have success in changing what we perceive as beautiful and what's acceptable in the mainstream. Miley Cyrus will never change our beliefs in female sexual empowerment any more than Kelly Clarkson will change our attitude towards weight. David James will never change our perception of footballers any more than Graham Norton changing our perception of gay people.
I'm all for people challenge a perception, but not when all it does is affirm it.
First published 12/06/2015
There are studies that prove that being beautiful gets you further in life and Alain de Botton recently wrote about the drawbacks to being beautiful... if I'm honest, I could live with it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no oil painting. I would kill to look like Cara Delevingne. I don't, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell beautiful from ugly.
Beauty is subjective. There have a been a whole host of men who my friends have expressed an interest in where I just thought 'really?!' But that's because their decision isn't based on looks alone - they add charisma, intelligence and compatibility to the package; then hey presto, that person becomes beautiful. But if we're judging purely on looks, the criteria is pretty homogenised.
Even people with terrible taste swoon at the John Lewis displays. Even people who wear what I perceive as hideous clothes aren't alone in their appalling tastes. And while I turn my nose up at hippie and Aztec style, I appreciate that it looks nice.
And yet, when everything in our lives revolves around how pleasing it is to the eye, talking about human aesthetics has become a virtual no-go area. We all know Susan Boyle isn't going to make the FHM list and the fact there is such a list means that we still hold beauty in the highest regard.
We all become dewy eyed when we think of all the beauty, class and glamour of Hollywood's golden age. We still adorn our walls with pictures of Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn.
People don't pay hundreds to watch Katy Perry because she has the voice and musicality of Kate Bush. They watch her because of the spectacular show and her cracking rack. Megan Fox didn't become an actress because of her Bonham-Carter like talent, she became famous because of her blow-job mouth.
As we all know, looks doesn't get in the way of real talent. As much as women prattle on about roles for older ladies, Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep and Judi Dench are never off the Awards boards. The truth is, the more credible you are as an artist, the less important aesthetics become. No one would dream of calling Adele fat, because her talent completely overshadows that. I called Kelly Clarkson fat because in the disposable culture of pop she looked out of place and her weight overshadowed her performance. Rebel Wilson and Melissa McCarthy are making mega-buckets in Hollywood and are pivotal to a movie's success. And they don't fit into the normal Hollywood mould. Basically, if you have the goods to back it up - looks become less important.
Radicals, fashion designers, movie directors and music moguls have been challenging perceptions for centuries. This has been coupled with looks - art for art's sake. However, their physical beauty is irrelevant. Only these people have success in changing what we perceive as beautiful and what's acceptable in the mainstream. Miley Cyrus will never change our beliefs in female sexual empowerment any more than Kelly Clarkson will change our attitude towards weight. David James will never change our perception of footballers any more than Graham Norton changing our perception of gay people.
I'm all for people challenge a perception, but not when all it does is affirm it.
First published 12/06/2015
Comments
Post a Comment