Issue #2: The Chopra-Jonas union, Tumblr’s porn ban, and why CGI models shouldn’t be used to sell make-up
Every two weeks, you'll find a download of the top three things taking up my brain space right now, as well as other stuff piquing my interest from around the internet:
1. The performance of love between Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas is what makes their romance so uncanny
Priyanka Chopra is a stupidly famous Bollywood star who broke America with her lead role in Quantico. Nick Jonas is a stupidly famous American actor, singer and all-round teen heartthrob. Collectively they boast more than 52.6 million Instagram followers. And their rapid-paced relationship-cum-cross-continental marriage has had everyone on the internet losing their shit since they turned up at the Met Gala together last year.
The narrative around their marriage went into overdrive a couple of weeks back when The Cut posted a highly problematic (and now-deleted) article, titled ‘Is Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas' love for real?’, which more or less accused Chopra of coercing Jonas into their engagement to maintain her foothold in American media, playing into a whole clusterfuck of racist and sexist narratives, which were not only unfounded, but undermine Chopra’s own heavyweight status and success as a multinational actress.
Why should brands care?
While the article really was problematic, it also tapped into something real. People aren’t just obsessed with Chopra and Jonas because they’re extremely beautiful and extremely famous. The fascination is in that there really is something uncanny about their relationship – something that doesn’t add up (although it definitely doesn’t come down to her being an Indian woman, and him being a white, American man).
For a start, their whole relationship has been heavily sponsored; Vogue did an exclusive cover on their courtship, Ralph Lauren dressed the bridal party, the stag do was sponsored by both an E-bike brand called Limebike (?!) and booze brand Elit Vodka. Amazon even got a shoutout on Chopra’s Instagram during wedding prep. Meanwhile, in the interviews they do and in their online interactions, their mannerisms seem stiff – a performance of a love formerly reserved for fairytales.
This apparent lack of authenticity is exactly what’s so alluring about their union. They provide a sense of mystery in a world where everything is always on show; at a time when every celebrity wears their hearts on their sleeves and on their feeds. Despite the marketing landscape’s obsession with ‘authenticity’ – especially in the world of partnerships with influencers or celebrities – the haphazard smoke and mirrors around Chopra and Jonas is a refreshing departure from false claims of 'reality'.
TL;DR: People are bored of seeing bullshit claims of authenticity everywhere. Against this backdrop, blatant phoney behaviour is as fascinating as it is refreshing.
2. People loved Tumblr porn because of the people who curated it – and now they’ve been deleted
Tumblr has banned porn. More specifically, it’s banned “photorealistic imagery or photography with real humans, that include exposed genitals or female-presenting nipples or depict sex acts.” And while those of us who don’t use the platform for its NSFW content (or even know of its usage in this space) may not think this is much of a big deal, many of its 550 million monthly active users would probably say you should stand corrected.
Tumblr’s rich community of sex bloggers aren’t just a load of perverts wanking off on the internet. The platform’s sex community is a diverse tapestry of not only horny teens (though there are plenty of those, I would imagine), but also LGBTQ+ inclusive, feminist and ethical spaces for getting yourself off. Often, steamy GIFS and videos are (or were) curated alongside sex advice, toy reviews and sexy pop cultural references – think Grimes or Lana Del Rey – which are spliced in for aesthetic value. “Tumblr porn was a real aesthetic, tbh,” tweets writer Kyle Chayka.
Why should brands care?
The move follows the site’s official app being removed from Apple’s App Store in November over the discovery of child pornography on the site. And rather than hire an extensive and expensive force of human moderators, the site has opted for an approach that’s been criticised by users as ‘lazy’ – a catch-all ban on adult content enforced by a seemingly clumsy AI.
It was, to an extent, inevitable – not only was all the porn on Tumblr free (not in a legal way), but Yahoo’s purchase of the platform in 2013 was a giant red flag for its future. But the haphazard execution of the ban has left many who used it on a daily basis feel left out in the cold. “Tumblr sex sites created spaces for ALL KINDS of people who don't have access to sexual community elsewhere,” tweets journalist and academic Steve Thrasher, who goes on to reflect on “rising digital homelessness for deviant sex.”
Ultimately, this is about Tumblr not looking after its superusers and biggest fans – ironic given that it is the platform for fans of all things, not just sex. “Tumblr is very important to fandom, but I have no idea how important fandom is to Tumblr,” says Casey Fiesler, an assistant professor of information science at the University of Colorado Boulder, and a researcher of communities and fandom.
It’s left a bad taste in people’s mouths. When Nike partnered up with Colin Kaepernick, subsequently risking the alliance of not just the NFL, but anyone who disagreed with Kaepernick’s choice to bend the knee, it picked the side of the people it felt loved and needed it most – young, black America. While Tumblr has made this decision to protect itself from the powers that be, in terms of execution, maybe it should have taken a leaf out of Nike’s book, and taken the people that love and need it most into consideration.
TL;DR: The fans that matter the most are the superfans – brands should protect them above all others, even at the risk of wider audiences.
3. Dior Makeup’s partnership with a CGI beauty influencer completely missed why people love beauty influencers
‘2018 was the year AI influencers and digital models took over fashion’, reads a headline from Dazed and Confused – a headline that seems simultaneously from the future, and of the zeitgeist. Dior Makeup is the latest brand to step into the world of unreal influencers, joining the ranks of Ugg, Kenzo, Proenza Schouler, Balmain, and a tonne of others.
In a partnership with CGI model Noonoouri, Dior Makeup posted a number of images and videos starring the sim online – one where she recreates a lipstick ad initially featuring Natalie Portman, another where creative director Peter Phillips powders her nose. And the whole thing is making people feel pretty weird. “There are few things as creepy as a real person pretending to apply makeup on a cartoon character,” writes beauty industry exposé Instagrammer EsteeLaundry.
Why should brands care?
The CGI model craze is nothing new. Lil Miquela was the first of a long line of sims to break into the world of branded sponsorship, with her near-convincing CGI selfies having seen users leaving comments on her Instagram like ‘but are you real though?’ for years. And as her animated brethren, this isn’t Noonoouri’s first rodeo, either – she’s posted pictures of herself with Gigi Hadid, modelled for Valentino and worked with Vogue Spain.
Love it or hate it, these sims are here to stay. Because from these brands’ perspective, they make perfect sense. Their worlds are more aesthetically malleable than reality, allowing brands to have full control over art direction, while enabling them to demonstrate how cool with the future they are – something stuffy old luxury brands are especially keen to do. Plus, their uncanny nature and objective beauty means people can’t stop looking at them. It’s why they work so well for fashion; we’re accustomed to seeing beautiful, unrealistic bodies carry clothes in beautiful, unrealistic settings.
But make-up? “It just doesn’t make sense to try to ‘show’ a physical product on fake, poreless skin,” writes one commenter on Instagram. “Of course it’s going to look good, [but] that’s not skin or makeup.” Beauty influencers are important because they provide people with information they can’t get from an online store. What’s the pigment like? How does it sit on the skin? No matter how realistic that CGI is, this kind of information will never be gleaned from an influencer that isn’t also a human.
TL;DR: People might follow influencers because they’re cool or beautiful, but they won’t buy into influencer-promoted products unless they can effectively demonstrate what the product actually does.
Some other interesting internet finds:
'Cancel culture: when celebrity worship goes wrong'
Kevin Hart is the latest celebrity to fall prey to the social posts of his past, rendering him cancelled by the wider internet. And while his not-so-great apology is also to blame for said cancellation, this is a super insightful bit of content that explores the unforgiving nature of internet culture – which is also not-so-great.
Huck (December 7th)'Orbiting, another thing for online daters to worry about'
While my inner single girl is definitely a sucker for any and all think pieces re: online dating phenomena, this one applies to more than the ghosts of dating past, present and future. Functions like the green ‘online’ dot and knowing who’s seen your Stories make Instagram one of the most socially disruptive platforms around – and not in a good way.
The New York Times (December 8th)'Spongebob is fashion now'
Spongebob is everywhere. He’s a meme superstar, he’s a regular collaborator with streetwear brands, and increasingly, he’s a high fashion icon. I sadly never made it onto the Spongebob bandwagon (so creepy?!), but the adoption of infantile imagery by grown-up brands is not only an interesting manifestation of delayed adulthood, but an interesting partnership space for brands that want to go there.
Quartzy (December 15th)'The most 2018 photos ever'
This is basically cheating, given that it’s someone else’s rundown of zeitgeisty media rubble from the past year. That being said, I’m feeling lazy and have full faith in The Atlantic to summarise the year on my behalf. Thanks Atlantic!
The Atlantic (December 17th)'Twitter just released a new "sparkle" button to switch between algorithmic and chronological timelines'
FINALLY. A social platform that listens to what its users want! No one likes algorithmic social feeds. They mean you miss a load of stuff from the accounts you love, and see more stuff from randoms. And for a platform like Twitter, they remove the sense of getting information in real-time. Which is probably why it’s introduced a button that lets users switch between chronological and algorithmic feeds.
Buzzfeed (December 18th)'I rewatched Love Actually and am here to ruin it for all of you'
Yeah, yeah, I know. This is supposed to be a newsletter about the cutting edge of contemporary culture – aka not commentary from 2013 on a film from 2003. I know. But it’s almost Christmas, and five years on, this is still the most relevant piece of journalism I may ever read. I’m not sorry.
Jezebel (December 18th, 2013)