resemblance?
Even if it is just the makeup, the manscaped eyebrows, the heavily "product"ed hair, and the piercing blue eyes, there's something a little upsetting about the very apparent resemblance between Ian Somerhalder, Chace Crawford, and Zac Efron. Each actor appeals to a decidedly different demographic, but they all look wildly similar. Zac may do it for the preteens, and Chace for Gossip Girl fanatics, but Ian is just an older version, for the more mature viewers who watched LOST back in its first season. They're even wearing similar shirts, and often bear the same facial expression. Yes Boone's look has the hardened effect of a plane crash survivor, and Zac's the same borderline suggestiveness of his High School Musical scenes, where he appears in the locker room shirtless to get a pep talk from his dad or psyche himself up for the big game. Nevertheless, these three are the perfect example of society's narrow-mindedness and our obsession with uninteresting, boring, conventional beauty. I find it at times utterly tiring and frustrating, yet widely fascinating, that we all have such similar ideas of beauty and standards for what beauty is. I think it is so incredible how we have been instructed to find certain people attractive, or have been attracted to certain people instinctively, and not others. I buy into this too, and it isn't always necessarily a bad thing, but why is Zac's, Ian's, and Chace's look so popular. Why is is so attractive? Why does it sell? Why is it preferred (generally) to a more unique looking person?
Social and generational trends and themes are constantly changing, and constantly interesting. Why is it that teasing redheads, or gingers, has become such a marker of our generation? Why do certain genres of film, TV, and novels go in and out of style? Why do values change? Does it take an increasingly progressive mind or political stance to stay open to such generational shifts? The Who certainly didn't care who was open to change and who wasn't. Why do certain pieces of clothing, celebrities, music tastes, and political philosophies come back into style, while others vanish? Why is Bruce Springsteen THE MAN again, after all these years? Dictionary.com defines generation as, "a group of individuals, most of whom are the same approximate age, having similar ideas, problems, attitudes, etc." Each age group in the United States's history has been given a generational title, classified with generational accomplishments or characteristics. From the Lost Generation to Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation, from my parents' Baby Boom Generation, to Obama's Generation Jones (55-64). Are generations, and the age groups with whom we associate great determiners as we develop our world views and personal tastes? If so, how does generationalism also promote such distinct differences as it did in 1960's politics. All of those men, members of the GI Generation, served in WWII together, and shared common pasts, common goals. Yet in the midst of new generations, of war protests, and hippies, and flower children, this older generation met a great schism that has persisted and consequentially divided subsequent generations. Do generations provide for the same amount of social diversity as they do political differences?
If diversity does still exist, which I believe it does, I must also believe it is the desire to be a part of something greater, something memorable, something identifiable that drives our willingness to be categorized. Our compliance in being meshed together in a 10 second Pepsi commercial that uses three, brief, stereotypical clips to capture millions and millions of people. It is pretty incredible how different everyone is, but also how similar, and how willing to make connections with others, establish some sort of legacy or reputation, find common ground. Now, for our nation's sake, wouldn't it be nice if we could adapt this viewpoint to our politics?
No comments:
Post a Comment