Pop Icons

Ask teen and preteen girls today who they want to be like when they grow up and it won't be long before some familiar names in pop music come trickling out of their mouths.

Music these days is less about song writing and more about projecting image, as we already know. What people don't often realize is that the people you are seeing on MTV aren't freaks of nature who have inherited extreme beauty and talent, but that they were blessed with one or the other and then built up from there. Some of them possess far more beauty than talent, and quite a few possess nothing more than an excellent production team. As fake as the sultry images staring out of magazines may be, they give a very clear message to growing girls: in order to be successful you must be beautiful in a prescribed way. Becoming a musician is more like becoming an actress these days since visual presentation is key. The recent trend of using female pop musicians to sell cosmetics, has been no coincidence. Revered more for their looks than their talent, these icons make perfect spokespeople for companies looking for "voices of authority" to persuade young customers with. A girl who worships Christina Aguilera, might be only too tempted to buy the same lipstick that her role model claims to wear.

Many of today's pop artists often accused of lacking sufficient talent. The reason for these accusations are usually based on liner notes in which a single name is rarely listed as sole author of a song, and tthe other contributors are rarely given significant credit when it comes time for promotion. This is a common practice that has been going on for a long time. There is little difference between today's Backstreet Boys and yesterday's Monkeys, except for the sophistication of the promotion involved. What has changed in the past 50 years or so is the greater emphasis placed on supermodel looks that are often achieved with the aid of extreme diets, airbrushing, and cookie-cutter faces. The majority of pop stars have been cultivated using these methods and many, like Britney Spears, have receieved great amounts of backlash for the images they portray. A more objective view raises the question of why the business operates like this in the first place. Backlash directed at the stars themselves seems misplaced in light of the fact that millions of people willingly buy records that contain far more fluff than substance. Whatever works will continue to be used.

The negative effects of images of pop icons have already been documented in respect to eating disorders. But what about the messages they give beyond just promoting thin figures? Female pop icons are rarely allowed to look overly strong or confident, and usually pose in pictures by showing doe-eyes looking up in the camera, while the rest of the photo presents a lot of skin. Since these teen idols are overwhelmingly appreciated by people who have not yet developed a full sense of self, it is only too easy to imagine what the effects can be. Repeatedly, women are told to be submissive. Certain stars, like Gwen Stefani or Shirley Manson attempt to project images of female empowerment, however neither have been able to do so without baring midriffs paired with lots of red lipstick. If a woman does manage to project power in her personality, it is invariably linked with her attractiveness as a female.

Furthermore, repeated exposure to the same faces over and over can trick the mind into believing that the people presented are indeed more talented and beautiful than the people watching them. While there is something to be said about the claim that its "just entertainment" we must also consider that the high rate of exposure of images that promote women as little more than eye candy, must have some kind of impact on the collective psyche.