"It's just their on stage persona"

Something that has been bothering me about pop star culture

I think we can all agree that we are old enough and wise enough to know that the onstage persona of a popstar is not how they behave in everyday life. My persona that I use with clients or on a goddamn phone call is different to how I behave in everyday life. That girl is way more chill and fun.

We, and by we I mean society, are old and wise enough to know that the tooth fairy isn’t real (whoops spoiler alert, trigger warning etc.) and that Taylor Swift doesn’t walk around her house in her Eras tour outfits performing her songs. At least not all the time.

That’s fine. Agree. They are “putting on a performance” and part of that performance is the character they play. Got it.

What I take issue with, is when a popstar does something problematic and we say “it’s just part of the art.” Or, when they make a business move that takes people by surprise, and we are expected to get on board with it because “it’s part of their project.” Or, they themselves push back against public criticism because “we just don’t get their art.”

I understand the purpose of an artistic statement. I understand subverting expectations to make a point. But, I do think that if it isn’t clear enough to your audience (i.e. the public) and you are getting criticism from fans (i.e. people who are supposed to “get it”) maybe it hasn’t landed. Maybe it’s not as artistic as you think.

Because the tricky thing about an artistic statement is that it is open to interpretation. The especially tricky thing about subverting a stereotype or an expectation is that often, you have to play into it a little in order to then flip it on it’s head. In that time between playing into the expectation and flipping it, you are in essence condoning the expectation. This is now part of your brand. You are representing it, and appealing to those who support it.

You are also profiting off it. By switching up expectations and changing your branding you are (I can only assume) going to appeal to a different (and probably wider) audience. This is going to increase your profitability and presence as a public figure.

Maybe this is a difference in personal values, but I would feel deeply uncomfortable profiting off something that I don’t believe in and don’t stand behind. Regardless of what I intend to do later down the line/how I intend to flip the script. Additionally, controversy makes money, and sticking to your values doesn’t isn’t always popular. So, dabbling in branding that doesn’t allign with your values is a dicey game. You might make more money, and be pressured to continue down the path you chose “only for a little while.”

It’s also a part of your legacy as an artist. That is how people will think of you, from now and into the future. Potentially after you have died. So surely, you would want your work to be something that you believe in, and stand behind? Or, at the very least, work that you are comfortable being associated with?

I think the public are extrapolating a little too far with the “it’s all part of the act” statement. There is a difference between having an “on stage persona” which is a heightened version of yourself which is more appealing for widespread consumption and completely changing your whole branding and what you stand for. I think it’s safe to assume that if someone is supporting something or purporting certain values in their art, it is not too far removed from their actual personal beliefs. They wouldn’t step off stage and completely change their views on sexism and racism. If they are comfortable dabbling in that point of view, even for a little while, maybe they aren’t as “committed to the cause” as we thought. Money is strong motivator. I think we can also assume if they aren’t talking about it, they aren’t that worried about it. Which is fine! People are allowed to believe whatever they want, and share whatever information they want with the public. We are not entitled to everything.

All of this just leads me back to my stance of: “We shouldn’t be looking to artists for political information, we should be looking to them for bangers.” I believe you can seperate the art from the artists, as long as they are not profiting off the beliefs that you don’t agree with. So, if an artist makes feminist art and then is a total sexist in real life, I wouldn’t engage with the art they create. But, if they don’t have that stance and their art isn’t about that and it’s good stuff - I’ll engage. I treat artists the way I treat science. If it’s true, and they aren’t backflipping in their personal lives (like the creators of social media) I’m listening.

I think what it comes down to, is that I look for authenticity in what I consume. I find it hard to believe, and hard to reconcile, that someone would be comfortable with their brand and their legacy being contrary or inhibiting their personal values and beliefs.

I also believe in engaging fully with a piece of art before I make my decision about it. I have never not finished a book, no matter how much I disliked it. Because I believe I need to finish it to be able to make an informed statement about it.

So, in conclusion, if it smells problematic, I think it probably is. But, I also think we should engage with a whole piece of work, be it an album or a book, before we make a call.

Yes, this is about Sabrina Carpenter’s upcoming album and yes, I am nervous!!!!!!!!!