Idols as puppets of the aesthetic norm.

I intend to expose and develop a problem of which we have all been or are a part; hurtful criticism, discrimination and demands towards bodies in general in the artistic and/or musical environment. The psychological abuse that public figures suffer through social networks and how it affects us as a society.

Without going any further, at some point we have all looked at who we have in front of and criticized their clothing, hairstyle, skin, way of dressing, laughing, etc. It is normal, prejudice as an idea or predetermined belief that we have towards a person, object or situation, it is also an evil force that we carry for human beings since we were born. We are all partially determined by our ancestors as well as our way of seeing the world. Although our environments have changed, it is inevitable to hold structures or ideals similar to those of our parents or grandparents, since our first years of life our behavior is based on observing and learning from them in order to survive and immerse ourselves in the society at the appropriate time. Now, we adopt many of these ideals or beliefs because they are the only thing we know at this early age and we usually support them if once immersed in the community we reaffirm these ideas, or the opposite may happen, we can place ourselves in a position totally against this.

All times have been characterized by a certain hegemony or aesthetic norm; In simple words, this means that a body model is considered superior and better than others. Also, we cannot ignore the different historical contexts; wars, famine, enslavement of natives and black people, colonization and other atrocities that have been important factors in deciding which ''race'' they considered superior and which not. The racism that is being fought so hard today is a clear example of these discriminatory ideologies that many seek to defend with arguments that are inconsistent with our understanding of the 21st century. Added to this, the lack of tools or knowledge in the medicinal fields, since the beginning of time they have installed unhealthy means to achieve these aesthetic goals. From clothing to diets that do not provide the necessary nutrients for a good quality of life, surgeries and painful treatments. Not only because the lack of general knowledge dictated that whoever did not comply with this had a low quality of life, but also because the little word ‘’ugly’’ began to emerge to call the body different from the one that predominates in society.

This different body has been condemned, believing that through this social torture the person would deign to change. A clear example of this condemnation is the famous myth that the overweight or ''fat'' person evidently has health problems and that by showing and accepting themselves as they are, they are initiating a positive feedback regarding the obesity. On the contrary, we assume that a thin person is malnourished or for sure suffers some disease... Same thought, different examples.

Taking both extremes of the debate, why does it seem that nothing is enough to the society? Here we bring back the term judgment, an action that we attribute to ourselves for the simple fact of existing. Dragging these ideals from our ancestors and completely ignoring the new knowledge that technological advancement has brought us. We just observe with the eyes of another century.

To exemplify, one of the many things that modern medicine has given us is that the ‘’fat’’ person does not necessarily maintain an unhealthy dietary routine, or in some cases they may even suffer from nutritional anorexia. Also, a thin person is not necessarily malnourished, and if they have a poor quality of life, it can be the product of the opposite of what we assume. What a paradox, right? This is because today we know that metabolism is an important factor in the increase or decrease of body mass, which is largely determined by our genetics and has been adapted over time through our ancestors, in order to sustain the survival of the species. Pretty often, no matter what we eat or do, our body can have its own limits, opposed to our personal desires or goals.

Even so, social condemnation can lead us to develop diseases, eating disorders and emotional crises, causing a snowball effect throughout the system. The need to achieve an aesthetic goal can often be the root of problems on a larger scale, and not viceversa.

However, many of these things seem to be known to us, we take them for granted or at least with our close ones we apply this deconstruction and personal re-construction, precisely because affection makes us avoid judgment or hurtful attitudes. But going back to the topic that brings us here, why is it different with public figures? Perhaps when it is someone famous, do we have a kind of authorization to indicate how it should look?

In a small survey I did, I received many interesting responses:

‘’… The exhibition brings that, makes it more far-reaching. But whether you are a public figure or not, opinions are always there, only that some peopla  have more scope. I'm sure that if I upload a full-body photo, someone is going to criticize it but noy publicly. ’’

‘’ It seems that we are able to do so, but it is not correct. ’’

'' People in order to bring down anyone who succeeds, they take the only thing they can criticize.’’

‘’ No, but public figures are reified, then a certain sense of dominance is generated. ’’

‘’ No one is authorized to speak about someone else’s body. ’’

‘’ It is not an authorization, being a public figure facilitates and accelerates the reach of your photos to more people, making your image ‘’global ’’ and making it easy to access or opinion. ’’

'' No, we don't have authorization. That person has feelings and we do not know what negative comments can generate to them. I answer everything from the bad side. Because if they are good things, yes, good comments would be ‘’You look good like this’’ ‘’if your bad diet hurts you, you should change it’’ always from the constructive side the good comments…''

‘’ I feel that it is VERY normalized that only because it is about someone famous who ‘’has everything’’ nothing can affect them, and that as fans or viewers then we can criticize that person. But we forget that they are still normal people, who decides for themselves and no one has to criticize them, nor demand or impose what they should do. ’’

As they said, the fact that the content of the famous covers a greater extension of society, makes it inevitable that at a certain moment it reaches the hands of that part of society that have not yet released from these stereotypes or predetermined judgments by our ancestors. Also in this great scope, an idealization towards the figures takes place, this means that the person begins to be deified, completely ignoring his human, mortal and common capacities that they can share with any other human on earth.

In this idealization, an image or idea is created of what the person is supposed to be like. Those who admire this figures see them as untouchable and unattainable, so you would be unworthy and disrespectful if you look at them into the eyes. The fear of turning to stone, just like the legend of Medusa. Others might limitate themselves in criticism, assuming, as someone well said in one of the responses to the survey, that having everything material that anyone would want and the eyes of millions of people on them, they lack feelings, emotions and sensitivity. As if fame takes away your humanity. And we cannot rule out the one who demands. A mixture of these both examples. Someone who considers that for granting to the idols his/her admiration, the public figures owes them their absolute obedience and fulfill his expectations as a show of loyalty, from how they look like to what they do in their daily life.

Obvious the demand makes the production. What the public wants, the artist must give. With this idea the industry has been built. High-net-worth companies are at the root of this great system in which artists and their content are nothing more than components and puppets in a marketing network. Of course, these companies are also the ones that open the most doors to new talents that emerge in society. But its ideals are versatile as they are based on the wishes of its consumers. As long as the public demands compliance with this aesthetic standard, the directions of the industry will not change and the only ones who suffer in this supply-demand are those who are caught in the middle. Coming from any of these sides (audience//companies), the discrimination, mockery, racism, criticism and demand will only affect those who must follow orders without objection, because if they do not do so, they will be doomed to failure, no matter how much talent they have.

Social classes are non-existent when it comes to  emotions or human circumstances. All change in society begins with oneself, whether with who we have in front of or with an idol on top of the world.