|
|
Post by bertiebotts on Feb 6, 2012 4:37:39 GMT -5
mszue thank you that was very interesting text to read. I agree with you: there are many sides to one person. I believe that the "characters" we saw on the music video represent very closely the real different sides of Adam ~ none of them is "fake."
But I still do believe that when you act most like your true self is when you feel no need to make any impressions or try to protect yourself - and that's (imo) when you're with your close friends, family and loved ones. When there's no need to be anyone else than just yourself. I don't believe that's complitely possible with strangers; fans&media people&collegues... etc.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2012 12:55:12 GMT -5
Mszue, before going on to read your post about emotional labor I wanted to thank you again for starting this thread and the chance to read your thoughts and those of others. We need an Adam Lambert Philosophical Society.  The remarks on impression and the social contract aspect of it ring so true. Some years ago I had the opportunity to meet a man who was then one of the top nightclub performers in Hawaii, Al Harrington. He spoke of his unhappiness when he was attending college on the mainland in the 1950s. This unhappiness stemmed from the way he was treated; namely, that because of his appearance:  people literallly did not know how to treat him. Was he white, black, Hispanic, Asian? And without knowing how to treat him, they avoided him altogether. In relation to Adam, I agree that this played a big factor in putting people off when Adam adopted an aggressively androgynous persona on the FYE album cover. Also his look at Fantasy Springs. I can't remember the source now but I remember reading that Adam once described himself (pre-Idol) as the "son and the daughter" of one of his influences. And we have seen the photos of him in drag. All this proved to be a barrier between Adam and part of his potential audience, one he now seems intent on removing. I think this is something of a one-way door for Adam image-wise, and that he would have a very difficult time retreating to his prior androgynous turf without alienating his fans. I have to say that when I saw Adam in concert he was much less androgynous than I expected from the impression on YouTube. I was really interested to read what Rihannsu posted about Bono. I actually did not know he was a little guy, that is how convincing his "face" was to me. I thought a lot about Adam's faces/realness last week even before the video because of the criticism Adam was getting from some quarters of the fandom for giving up the glitter for the new album cycle. I am uncertain how much of this has to do with unease with Adam's new "face" (if he looks different is he still the same guy?) and how much has to do with other factors such as enjoyment of how Adam reflected on our own "faces." In other words, do I seem less cool if my hero looks conventional? Did I seem cooler because I liked this rulebreaker? Faces/realness are a very emotional topic, and I think linked in deeply with Outlaws of Love as well as BTIKM. Here is something unusual about my "face": I don't have a Texas accent. In fact, I have what I am told is an unusual manner of speaking. I can't hear it myself and it is not something I want to change, even though some people seem to find it a barrier between them and me. It is part of who I am. I think each person has things about themselves they are willing to change to conform and things that they cannot or do not wish to change. It will be interesting to see where Adam draws the line as "this far and no farther."
|
|
|
|
Post by Craazyforadam on Feb 7, 2012 1:00:02 GMT -5
Jumping into this discussion, hope that's ok. I am not sure that I caught the beginning of this, but I read through this thread, so I am responding based on that.
I think it is both:
I think that Adam as a person encompasses a lot of typically considered different personalities all inherently in himself (ontologically and essentially so). i.e. while many of us will be leaning more masculine or more feminine, Adam has both sides.
While most of us are more gentle and introvert and others are more boisterous and extrovert, Adam has both sides to him (as the video clearly works out quite nicely)...and so on...
By covering a lot of ground when it comes to who he inherently is, he can now show himself in many different ways and still come across as genuine, because the snapshot that he shows does relate back to a certain part of his personality. Yes, he is really this flamboyant or yes, he is really such a nice humble guy.
The issue that this seems to create for Adam is twofold:
a) He cannot with one visual image represent all sides of himself, because there are too many or it is too much to cover with one look. That means, every look will only show a slice of him, but in itself that slice will be well connected to the corresponding part of the REAL Adam.
b) As he jumps around between different snapshots he creates confusion for those that don't want to invest further to understand him. He also creates confusion in those that due to their own bias do not want to see all the parts and start filtering according to their own agenda.
For the rest of us, Adam showing different sides to himself creates enormous variety and excitement and creates that ride that we are all on.
I do not believe that Adam could not go back and do glam if there were a message there he wanted to explore. I think he totally could, and one day he might. If people are only coming on board because he represents mainstream Adam and then don't learn a thing as they start following him more, then they will be gone again pretty soon, because Adam will not allow himself to be locked into one representation of himself. Adam's pursuit of 'realness' will take us all to other slices of himself and these same folks will be freaked out again, just that this time it is not the guyliner, but rather some other lifestyle choice that is a real part of himself. (i.e. today's discussion of Adam cruising for love as a possible line in one of his songs will shy those same folks away that previously ran because of the guyliner).
I think that Adam realized that showing the glam and androgynous side of himself with such strong emphasis, has distorted the discussion and been a distraction and as he now wants to focus on this getting-to-know-him part, he needs to strip it back and eliminate that distraction.
By the way, I regret to some degree, when I hear Adam say, the glam was all a mask. I think that this was certainly a piece of it, but another was that Adam was in a place where he was celebrating a break-through victory. He could finally do as he wanted, in a mainstream environment and with a mainstream audience and with a record contract in the pocket he could fly the flamboyant flag. He had earned that right. He celebrated that and he should be proud of that accomplishment. In the end he had an audience that understood him and was with him on this journey.
But every celebration has an end and Adam was looking at what he wanted to focus on next and we probably have seen only the beginning of it, but its again going to be an intense ride.
I do not see glitter and flamboyance as only a piece of the past. But I think it does not fit what for him comes now and next, so it will be gone for a while, because right now that is not his topic.
Hope this makes some sense...and looking forward to seeing many different slices of the whole ensemble, both visually in what he presents to us, as well in what is residing underneath to give it substance and authenticity.
|
|
|
|
Post by mszue on Feb 7, 2012 1:16:44 GMT -5
I shouldn't be posting this late at night...I will probably make some more spelling faux pas....so pardon-moi right up frount!!
OT...Juniemoon...it is interesting that you talk about your unusual manner of speaking...my mother was a British war bride and we half-heartedly emigrated to England for less than a year when I was 5 years old [so started school there], but, I seemed to adopt some sort of hybrid British-tinged odd accent that has stayed with me all my life...I have had people guess me for everything, most oftem, Boston[ese] :-) Kids always telling me to "say hamburger" "say rabbit"...:-)
Sharon Bolton--a UK scholar-- created a typology for emotion management that I think makes it easier to discuss this whole concept and I have used it in my writing too... WHat she does is acknowledge that we use various strategies to manage our emotional show and we often use 2 or more simultaneously. She allows for a a far more nuanced examination, IMO.
She refers to her typology as the 4 P's of emotion management and they are:
pecuniary (emotion management according to commercial values),
prescriptive (emotion management according to organizational/ professional rules of conduct),
presentational (emotion management according to general social feeling ‘rules’)”
philanthropic (emotion management according to general social feeling ‘rules’ but with a sense of gifting...that is, going above and beyond )
I think it is interesting to consider how many of Adam's emotional and/or aesthetic choices are governed by which of these 4 P's...especially as the relate to REALNESS. What I really like about Bolton's typology is that it gives us an easier way to look at the multiplicity of our emotional strategies....all of these applies to our aesthetic choices as well...I think.
There is another concept based on the emotional labour research but dealing with appearances...called Aesthetic labour. It is germaine to some of this conversation as well. The focus of most of this research is interpersonal service work but not always. We will likely end up looking at some of this stuff too, if there is interest.
To blow my own horn...if anyone has access to academic journals, and would like to know more of this research area, I just had an article published in a special Issue dedicated to Aesthetic Labour. The title of my article is : Putting on a good face: An examination of the emotional and aesthetic roots of presentational labour in Economic and Industrial Democracy Volume 33 Issue 1, February 2012
|
|
|
|
Post by mszue on Feb 7, 2012 1:26:24 GMT -5
I like this passage craazyforadam:
"I think that Adam realized that showing the glam and androgynous side of himself with such strong emphasis, has distorted the discussion and been a distraction and as he now wants to focus on this getting-to-know-him part, he needs to strip it back and eliminate that distraction."
I think you make a good point here....and if you look at where I defined the 4P's typology...is it fair to say he has been weighing both prescriptive and presentational management strategies to his display. But I suspect part of why you are saying next: "By the way, I regret to some degree, when I hear Adam say, the glam was all a mask." could it be that you feel like there may be a little Pecuniary strategizing here and that makes you uncomfortable???
Is there something 'wrong' about this??
:-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Craazyforadam on Feb 7, 2012 11:30:08 GMT -5
I like this passage craazyforadam: "I think that Adam realized that showing the glam and androgynous side of himself with such strong emphasis, has distorted the discussion and been a distraction and as he now wants to focus on this getting-to-know-him part, he needs to strip it back and eliminate that distraction." I think you make a good point here....and if you look at where I defined the 4P's typology...is it fair to say he has been weighing both prescriptive and presentational management strategies to his display. But I suspect part of why you are saying next: "By the way, I regret to some degree, when I hear Adam say, the glam was all a mask." could it be that you feel like there may be a little Pecuniary strategizing here and that makes you uncomfortable??? Is there something 'wrong' about this?? :-) Well, if it is pecuniary strategizing, then I am not buying it and neither do I believe that others will. So, hope there is a bit more to it than that, but for me it is presently a point of disconnect. In an attempt to bring the focus onto the new and not have the discussion return back to the past during interviews, the past is belittled or presented as that was just a mask, when really that was only part of the picture. I mean, I do believe that Adam needed a bit of a mask or a topic to hang his whole story on. Glam gave Adam a focus that allowed to pull a musical background, a visual focus and his out and proud lifestyle together under one banner out of which he could develop a theme for an era of his artistic life, while still sorting out the completely changed set of circumstances that he found himself in at the same time. So, it was a mask in the sense that he could behind the scenes develop his understanding of his own place in public life, his understanding of himself in this new world he was finding himself in and also learn the expectations of this new world (label, radio, fans, other media, friends, everybody), while already putting out and presenting a product at the same time. But it was also a milestone and achievement that deserved to be celebrated and a lot of what he presented was true to who he was or showing an important slice of the whole that is himself. Dissing this now as a mask for pecuniary reasons, if that is what is going on, might run the risk that people will say, wore a mask then and sold it as himself, probably he is doing it always in the sense of 'a leopard does not change his spots'. Therefore they keep missing the point again and again. Therefore I regret this part of his talking points that he clearly has developed for the present phase of interviews. His glam phase was a milestone and a stepping stone, and with all steppingstones, eventually it is time to move on from there, but they still deserve to be celebrated. It was a representation of what was real at the time or is essentially real for Adam in general. And that was the point I was trying to make. Am I at all answering your question? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 12:09:56 GMT -5
I think you have a really good point, craazy. I think Adam tends to oversimplify or "dumb down" in some interviews. This is something that we all do ... say something was "fun" or "that was interesting" when it was in fact much more, or perhaps even nothing of the kind. I think Adam is trying to tailor his explanation to the shallow demands of the medium and it ends up sounding like he is dissing his past to some degree. There have been a few times when Adam sounded false to himself (as when he claimed that the on-stage antics at the AMAs just happened in the moment, a claim he has now dropped). This may be another one of those times. I think he is way more thoughtful than he pretends to be at times.
It seems like the pecuniary aspect of the emotion management 4Ps is bugging some long-time fans as well as catching the attention of the usual critics of Adam. I am maddened by the notion that Adam is selling out, any more than his use of glitter and glam was somehow gimmicky.
My take is that Adam discovered over the course of the last couple of years is that he is not, in fact, a performance artist like David Bowie, no matter how much he might admire him. I don't think Adam ended up being that interested in deliberate artificiality as social commentary the way that Bowie was in the '70s. I think he found in himself a deep ability to connect on an authentic emotional level, and that is what he is going for with REALNESS.
I think Adam is still searching for a way to avoid being classified in a world that loves classification -- the good/bad Adam both trapped in their boxes in the BTIKM video seems a direct commentary on this.
I don't know if I'm expressing myself very well but I guess I am thinking that Adam is following the path of trying to reach out to more people with a more accessible face. He seems to want a truer connection. When he is singing he really lives inside the music; he is not a crazy character but more completely himself. I do think Adam has become aware of his potential as a unique figure in pop music and he wants to shuck away some of his old image to bring his music and message of liberation, joy, and excitement to more people.
Of course all of the faces are a construct, so the question is what makes one more "authentic" than another?
|
|
|
|
Post by mszue on Feb 7, 2012 12:12:42 GMT -5
Please do not think I am 'dissing' anything...when I ask questions in this forum, I am asking them in a thoughtful, inquiring demeanor...not in an evaluating way. I am asking less about whether Adam is doing this and it is bad...I am questioning whether that is necessarily bad, first of all, and perhaps secondarily if that is what Adam is doing. note also that if we use this typology and terminology...built into the 'questions' is the sense that we often have ...most often I would say...multiple motivations or reasons for making our identity claims.
If presenting a given 'face' for pecuniary reasons is bad...then anyone wearing a uniform of any kind is being fake as that is the very definition of 'putting on a mask for pecuniary reasons'!
In our western civilization...particularly in North America...we valorize the notion of 'individuality' to the point where we consider any hint that we are not UNIQUE in every way an afrount to our personhood. It is an insult to be compared to any one else...look at the way we defend Adan as NOT Freddie, and put down Gaga as simply Madonna redux. I am asking...in a reflective sense, if we need to question this sense of the REAL sometimes...and if this sense puts too tight a box around a changeling such as Adam....
|
|
|
|
Post by mszue on Feb 8, 2012 0:54:09 GMT -5
I just have to throw in a quick comment....did you notice that in the interview Adam did today he was wearing the most makeup we have seen on him in quite some time. I can think of a couple of reasons for this but wonder what you all think.
1. He has been really sick and I know when I am feeling under the weather I tend to compensate by wearing more makeup....just makes me feel better when I feel I look 'better'.
2. the other is that he may want to 'keep it real' by showing us that he has not sworn off makeup altogether...and sometimes he just feels like wearing more. If he goes for too long wearing almost nothing, the public may find it difficult to adjust to seeing him wear it if he goes through a more flashy phase again....best to keep them 'innoculated' against the shock of the guyliner kid...he broke that ground once, no need to do it again....
Or maybe we/I am just overthinking everything! :-)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 16:59:31 GMT -5
I noticed that too Mzsue and thought the same thing ... that Adam was leaving himself some ground to stand on for his more androgynous look.
I think to make a long story short from yesterday ... if Adam goes around saying that his old look was a "mask," then if he wants to look that way again, isn't he just putting the "mask" back on? He may have realized this and made a mid-course correction.
It would be interesting to know how much of what Adam does is instinctual, as a person of action, and how much is intellectual.
Would like to write more but not the day for it!
|
|
