you're in.
Celebrities are the most accessible form of images, but at the end of the day we, too, are walking images. In a time of perceived control, the era of Teigen, an Internet age where we are overwhelmed with the ability to choose, we are given great opportunity for positive freedom. But, with this increase in positive freedom comes the ever-shrinking option of negative freedom; an alarmingly fast diminishing ability to opt out. Once we’re in, we’re in, and the way in which we continue to perpetuate our “in,” our marked space in the image terrain, has more choices than ever before. We certainly play a part in creating the images we reflect, but once we start in one direction, the influence, affirmation, and/or pushback from our networks, can drastically shape the way in which our images are manufactured. The problem becomes then, with all of the things we now can do, we seem to be losing the ability to choose to not do. With all of the various ways in which we can choose to present ourselves, are we being given more tools to reflect the truest versions of ourselves, or simply being given more means by which our reflections can be influenced? If our positive freedom is increasing, but our negative freedom is decreasing, we’re essentially being forced to continue produce image after image. Although the production should be, and is perceivably, in our control, the reality is that it’s nearly impossible not to create an influenced reflection. The influenced reflection becoming increasingly possible and exponentially more likely with every additional freedom, the ability to not reflect, to just be without presenting becoming an (image)ined reality.
image: re(imag)ined
If you look up image in the dictionary, you’ll find a plethora of different definitions. Regardless of the fact that it can serve as both a noun and a verb, the sole focus of the word as a noun still comes with a series of various, yet similar meanings.
1) A representation of the external form of a person or thing in art, a visible impression, a person or thing that closely resembles another.
2) A simile or metaphor
3) The general impression that a person, organization, or product presents to the public; a semblance or likeness.
None of these definitions imply a meaning of truth. Rather, they all acknowledge something that’s basically true, but not necessarily entirely so. We’re walking images; all of us. We passively take in the images of things and of each other, and we actively present our own. What’s true about us and who we are in our most authentic form, may not be, at all, the image we present to the waking world. So, what happens if our images become us? When the two are synonymous because we can only see them as such. Do we lose sight of who we really
were or are, or perhaps, we never even knew to begin with.
In the world of celebrity, image is crucial. The image is who celebrities are to consumers. So, how did we get to a point today where it seems many of us have disregarded the concept of image, and rather, began to feel that what celebrities are presenting us with isn’t the semblance or likeness, the impression, the closely resembling truth of who they are, but rather them as them? Although image is still undoubtedly pervasive in celebrity presentation, we’ve somehow reached a point where we, as consumers, seem to view a celebrity’s image as true reflection. How can we possibly assume that what we’re digesting is a reflection when we know now, more than ever before, the amount of work that happens behind the scenes in the presentation of these seemingly super humans? Because these super humans have become more personal, more involved, and more and more, the seemingly sole presenters of their own images. They are the ones tweeting, giving us sneak peeks, offering behind the scenes footage, or trips inside their homes. They are the ones reflecting the slightly distorted reflections, but this doesn’t mean that they’re the ones entirely responsible for the distortion. In fact, the conceptualization, packaging, and presentation of these images was once a process completely beyond their control. Except, now they have some control, right? Or, at least, there’s the illusion that they do — the illusion of knowledge, in other words, an image.
Now, more than ever, it’s incredibly easy for non-celebrities (us) to create personal brands and to connect with a large scope of people. We've become tangible versions of the Hollywood microcosm. However, the increased ease of manufacturing such images doesn’t mean we’re necessarily putting more of our authentic selves out there, it just means the means by which we’re given that option have grown exponentially. As consumers, we’re also at fault of assuming that we all have the same sort of control over the images we present. Ultimately, this assumption isn’t completely false. The way in which we decide to reflect ourselves, the images we create and depict, and the way the way we offer information is increasingly in our control, but our control means nothing if the influence of what we assume others want to see overpowers that autonomy. It’s interesting, then, to see even if the ability to present ourselves and offer more information has become easier, whether that increased access means a greater understanding of those around us or just a greater amount of noise. Do we know others better than we used to? Or, does it ultimately just equate to a littering of various manufactured images? If the celebrity image is to us who they are, are the images we present to the world who we really are?
In the social equivalent of global warming, the illusion of knowledge not only refers to a false confidence of understanding, but rather the illusion of knowledge of people. Perhaps, the pollution of these images have created a smog so dense, that we become not only confused about who someone else actually is, but who we, ourselves, even are.
the evolution of image management
THE MID 40’S-50’S, THE GOLDEN AGE, AND THE REIGN OF THE STUDIO SYSTEM
Once upon a time, in a magical black and white world of Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor, five major studios had hold over all steps of the production and distribution process of films, including how celebrities in these films were presented to the general public. The five big dogs included: MGM, 20th Century Fox, Paramount, Warner Brothers, and RKO Radio Pictures, and they’re accredited with identifying, grooming, and producing some of the most iconic stars of the era. These five sugar daddies essentially pimped out starlets to the general public, and they did so in a way that would most favor the studios, attracting beneficial press to whatever film it was that they were releasing. Many of the star contracts during this period remained active for several years, revocation of contracts only to be enacted by the studios themselves (not the celebrities). These contracts gave studios complete control over actors, including the right to influence what roles actors chose, and how they were allowed to spend their free time. More often than not, that free time consisted of social activities scheduled by the studios to draw the desired press and curate the desired celebrity image.
THE MID 60’S-EARLY 00’S, POST-STUDIO ERA AND THE ATTACK OF THE AGENCIES
It's not that agencies and publicists were created once the studio system broke down, it's just that once it did, the functions of the agencies intensified. Although the agencies operated outside of the studio's control, the way in which they organized became reminiscent of the conglomerate style clustering of the five major studios of the Golden Age. This talent concentration manifested itself in the establishment of five alpha dog talent agencies, which secured the leash on chunks of A-list stars. Those agencies included: Creative Arts Agency, PMK, International Creative Management, United Talent Agency, and William Morris Endeavor, and their rosters included stars like Tom Cruise, Jodie Foster, Drew Barrymore, Matt Damon, Kate Hudson, and Hugh Jackman. With the chunking of talent came an incentive to bundle an agency's clients together. Although the agency normally acquired a standard 10% of commission from each star, the 60's meant television and television meant packaging fees. Packaging fees were essentially large sums of cash agencies received for attaching their A-list clients to shows. Depending on how many pieces of talent the agency was offering, a network would pay these agencies upwards of $30,000 an episode to secure some of the best money could buy. Although packaging fees still exist on some television networks, they're generally not encouraged (as they largely benefit the agencies). In contrast to these conglomerate agencies, it was also not uncommon for celebrities to hire personal managers — the benefit of this route being that one-on-one attention. However, unlike agencies, managers are not legally required to help celebrities find work, and generally, at the large and leading agencies, A-list celebrities received dedicated attention from teams of representatives anyway. Although the studio system has broken down, the Hollywood image management machine lives on in a different form: agency players. The geographic proximity of the leading agencies has created a tightly bound network and with their history of credible celebrities, the addition of newcomers and rising stars has become easier and more expected.
scroll to begin to understand the crack.
dust off the mirror, and uncover the history.
THE MID 00’S-TODAY, THE INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA
Today, celebrities are seemingly in more control than ever before. The studios have fallen, and although the agencies still exist, they're less pervasive than the omnipresent being that's successfully established itself as a necessary part of a majority of people's lives: the Internet. With the creation of the Internet, the idea of sharing and over-sharing have become so routine that unlimited access is no longer a luxury, but rather an expectation. With this increased access and the establishment of social media, it's up to the celebrities to present themselves on platforms however they please. Sure, this doesn't mean that they don't get paid to promote X or that their publicist doesn't encourage them to do Y — they do, those things happen, and they're a very real part of the way in which celebrities present themselves on these platforms. However, beyond what's contractually obligated, celebrities are free to present themselves on social media as they please. These seemingly liberating shift in image control appears, on the outside, beneficial. Aren't we then consuming what the celebrities, themselves, want to put out there? Perhaps. But, what if what celebrities want to put out there isn't being put out because they want to, but rather it's being put out by what they feel they're expected to. Social media image presentation affected by contractual obligation is one thing, but what happens when every move a celebrity makes online is visible to the millions of fans obsessing over their every step? Well, they better know exactly where to step. With the ability to immediately respond and pile on, celebrities have taken down Instagram posts that have received fan backlash, received hateful commentary, faced death threats, and even lost careers over publicizing choices they, themselves, made. The solution to maintaining both a fan base and their celebrity status? Please the consumer.
IMAGE CONTROL STATUS: THE CONSUMERS
the manuf(r)actured image
Arrow to uncover the story behind the story
Arrow to uncover the story behind the story
Arrow to uncover the story behind the story
but, who are you?
TODAY, SOCIAL MEDIA, YOU, ME, AND OUR DISTORTED UNDERSTANDING
The script is being flipped. It's not just about Hollywood.
You don’t just wake up one morning and suddenly know yourself. It doesn’t happen magically when you turn 21 and all of a sudden you’re legal to drink the tequila you first stole from your parents’ liquor cabinet six years ago. You don’t land your first job, or even your second, or your third and realize, “This is who I am; I’m doing exactly what I was meant to be doing.” It doesn’t work like that. It never has, and it never will. It’s a constant monitoring, an understanding that takes serious daily self-reflection and, sometimes, years of thinking. It’s mentally exhausting, but that’s what it takes. It’s one of the most challenging and, perhaps, most neglected tasks: getting to know ourselves. And working within the social Internet sphere of today, it might be more difficult than ever before, as we’re surrounded by the constant access of influence. The pressure, or the drive, to know or to be us may not be entirely motivated by the inherent desire to really know who we are, but rather it’s misunderstood by what’s become the inherent desire to perform who others have come to expect us to be. Celebrities are the microcosm, but we are the reality. Like Teigen, in a day where the act of presenting “ourselves” to the world might be easier than ever before, depicting our truest selves, the us for us, becomes increasingly more difficult. What might start out as a reflection of ourselves is consumed by our networks, and with that consumption, we are affirmed in certain ways and discouraged in others. Whether or not we realize the true impact of those assertions or lack thereof, we are all victims of the reaction. The reaction is what shapes our reflection. Investigating the possibility of a reaction-shaped reflection, I Interviewed three different people of various ages within the millennial generation to understand if, and how, the way they present their images have been shaped by the response of their networks.
IMAGE CONTROL STATUS: OUR NETWORKS
