A Case Study on Art in the Online Space

Home , Poppy (entertainer), Trapped in a Box

Poppy A Case Study on Art in the Online Space

Name: Zoë Gielen Student number: u1277689 ANR: 720016 Master: Art, Media and Society Date: 24/10/’17 Supervisor: dr. P.A. Bax Second reader: dr. I.G.M. van de Ven

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my appreciation to Sander Bax for his endless patience, support and honest feedback during the process of writing my master thesis. I would also like to thank him for being a great ‘dad’ to all us Art, Media & Society kids, throughout the premaster and the master.

I would like to express my appreciation to all the Art, Media & Society lecturers for the refreshing new perspectives and passionate discussions.

I would like to thank my parents for always believing in me, supporting me and giving me the opportunity to do what I love.

I would like to thank my sister, my partner and my friends for always telling me everything is going to be alright and for convincing me to pursue my Master’s degree.

Abstract

This thesis examines the artistic and discursive strategies that young artists can use to contribute to the public debate in the context of capitalist and neoliberal society, by means of their media presence and artistic work. Starting from a theoretical framework, the work of two young artists in the online space is analysed.

Table of contents

Introduction 4

1. Theoretical framework 7 1.1. Media & neoliberalism 7 1.1.1. Television 8 1.1.2. New media 10 1.2. Public intellectual & celebrity 12 1.2.1. The public intellectual 12 1.2.2. The celebrity 13 1.3. Art & post-art 13 1.4. Conclusion 14 2. Case study 17 2.1. Operationalisation & methodology 17 2.1.1. Operationalisation 17 2.1.2. Methodology 18 2.2. Public behaviour 19 2.2.1. The ‘Poppy’ and ‘Titanic Sinclair’ personas 19 2.2.2. Poppy’s interviews 27 2.2.3. Titanic Sinclair’s interview 34 2.2.4. Discursive strategies 37 2.3. Artistic work 39 2.3.1. Lowlife music video 39 2.3.2. My Past video 49 3. Conclusion 52 3.1. Discursive strategies 52 3.2. Artistic strategies 53 3.3. Societal context 54 4. Discussion & recommendations 55

Images 56

Literature 57

Introduction

Near the end of 2016, I was mindlessly browsing YouTube when I stumbled upon a music video for a song called Lowlife, by an artist called ‘That Poppy’. The song and the accompanying video were, appropriately so, rather poppy and featured a girl with long blonde hair, big doe eyes and childlike, angelic features. At the same time, the video had somewhat of an eerie feel to it. In the ‘recommended section’ next to the music video, I saw a number of other videos that featured the same girl. They were posted to a YouTube channel by the name of ‘Poppy’ with a ticked ‘verified’ box. When I clicked on the channel, I found that over a hundred videos had been uploaded to it. All of the videos featured the same blonde girl: Poppy. They were all set in the same, seemingly empty, white space and featuring Poppy staring into the camera and talking in an innocent voice or doing some kind of activity (Poppy, 2011). I started watching the videos and before I knew it I had fallen into the internet rabbit hole surrounding Poppy.

Image 1: Still from video ‘I Am Not In A Cult’ (Poppy, 2017).

The videos on the Poppy channel are minimalistic, pastel coloured and rather absurd. The outfits she wears are always quirky and dainty. Despite her sweet, innocent voice and appearance, there seems to be something off in the videos. The background noises and soundscapes in the videos are strange and unsettling. The way Poppy speaks seems almost dictated or cyborg-like and strange things often seem to happen. Most of the videos have a duration between fifteen seconds and three minutes. However, there is also a fifty-minute video of Poppy reading from the bible, without any cuts or breaks. Often the videos contain estranging elements or objects, like disturbed screens or sounds, Poppy interviewing a plant, Poppy being interviewed by a mannequin, Poppy starting to bleed from her mouth and a ten-minute video of Poppy staring into the camera and repeatedly stating ‘I’m Poppy’ while the camera switches angles. There seems to be a theme to the videos as well. In many of them Poppy talks about fame, likes, clicks, the internet, YouTube and computers. The way she talks about them, almost makes her seem alien. For example, when she tells you things like ‘I like making videos on the website YouTube dot com on the internet’ (“Poppy”, 2011).

At this point, I was very intrigued and eager to find out more about this mysterious Poppy girl. When I clicked the description box beneath one of her videos, I found out that it was directed by a person going by the name ‘Titanic Sinclair’. I soon found out that all her videos were directed by this same person. When I googled this name, I found a website for Titanic Sinclair, which told me that he is a director/writer living in Los Angeles. The website had some pictures of Titanic Sinclair, links to his Instagram and Twitter profiles and some videos of his work. He directed some music videos for other artists and he is a musician himself as well. I also found a YouTube channel for Titanic Sinclair, that featured videos very similar to the videos on the Poppy channel. They seem to be recorded in the same space, they are edited and styled in the same way and they feature Titanic Sinclair talking to the camera about similar themes (Sinclair, n.d.). I also found a website for Poppy. The website has a pastel and playful layout. It features some pictures of Poppy, tour dates, a computer screen that displays messages like ‘Hi, I’m Poppy’ and ‘I wonder what it feels like to reboot’. There is also a web store with Poppy merchandise (“That Poppy”, n.d.).

Image 2: Still from video ‘I Am Not A Cult Leader’ (Titanic Sinclair, 2017).

Upon doing some more research, I found that it was very hard to find more information about the people ‘behind’ the Titanic Sinclair and Poppy personas. There was little to none personal information about their private lives and what they did before ‘Titanic Sinclair’ and ‘Poppy’. I did find that many people were digging for information on the two of them. I found a significant number of YouTube videos, sub-Reddits, and Facebook groups that were trying to unravel the mystery around Poppy, Titanic Sinclair and their supposed message. A recent article and interview in online magazine WIRED said the following about it:

If you Google more about Poppy or watch one of the Poppy explainer videos made by other YouTubers, you’ll find out that Poppy refuses to tell reporters her age. She claims to be from Nashville, but she gives little other biographical information. A cursory search will tell you that no one has been able to figure out who she is. […] The satanic and Illuminati

symbolism in her work leads some to say she’s a cult leader. […] Whatever the case, she is an enigma, and she has cultivated a fan base that spends hours poring over her videos trying to glean clues about her identity and the deeper meaning of her oeuvre (Pandell,2017).

The mystery and eeriness surrounding this project seems to captivate more and more people. The first video on the Poppy channel dates to 2015. At the end of 2016, when I found the channel, it seemed to be fairly popular in a relatively small circle of YouTube fanatics. In the following months Poppy’s popularity started to expand rapidly. More and more mainstream news outlets started to pick up on this strange internet girl, people started to talk about her videos and their possible deeper meaning on other platforms, she released some new music, was featured on comic con and some of the biggest YouTube channels like PewDiePie and The Fine Brothers featured her in their videos. In February of 2017 Comedy Central gave Poppy her own show on their Snapchat channel, introducing her to a broader mainstream audience. Both Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are active on Twitter and Instagram, where they interact with their followers, but also comment on current affairs. During the Art, Media and Society premaster and master track I have developed an interest in art in the online space and online and popular culture in general. I believe the ‘online space’ has become a very important part of the public debate. I am very interested in how young artists present themselves in this online public space and how they can use their artistic work to comment on contemporary society and affairs. However, a critical perspective from the arts, within the online space, does present us with a few dilemma’s:

➢ First, when artists critique the online space, while being part of it, a paradox arises. Artists need a platform to reach their audience. Is it possible to criticize the same system that provides you with your audience, or can the system only be undermined when you are part of that same system? How can artists stay authentic when they are subjected to the same system that they are criticizing?

➢ In accordance, a second dilemma presents itself when said artist becomes more and more popular. What happens to the authenticity and the autonomy of critical art when it becomes so popular that slowly becomes more commercialized. Is the critical message still credible when the incentive becomes more about profit than about ideals or can they co- exist? Does commercialization mean that the message can now be perceived by a larger audience, or does this mean the message is lost because the motivation has changed?

➢ A third dilemma presents itself, when thinking of critical art as a countermovement. Can commercialism, kitsch and ‘non-art’ or post-art be perceived as a countermovement in contemporary art by challenging the norms of autonomy and authenticity, perhaps even criticizing these norms? In what ways can these forms of commercialism, kitsch and post- art give a commentary on the state of autonomy and authenticity in contemporary society and culture?

These dilemma’s lead me to ask the following research question: Which artistic and discursive strategies can young artists use to contribute to the 21st century public debate, through their media presence and artistic work in the online space?

1. Theoretical framework This theoretical framework will provide context in accordance to the aforementioned research question and dilemma’s, regarding the contemporary public domain, the public debate, media, celebrity and art. This context will function as a base for the analyses in the case study.

1.1. Media & neoliberalism In his essay collection Repressief Liberalisme (2013), Pascal Gielen discusses the paradox of the current political system, that on one hand advocates freedom, but on the other hand is subtly restricting this freedom more and more. Gielen wonders what this development means for democracy and if artists could provide a meaningful response. In the introduction, Gielen states that freedom is the value that the artist and the liberal politician have in common. The artist needs freedom to come up with the best ideas and the liberal needs freedom for his ideal society. In practice, however, absolute freedom turns out to be a utopian ideal, according to Gielen (Gielen, 2013). Liberalism and neo-liberalism are concepts that are hard to pinpoint and that have different meanings in different societies. Generally, in liberalism, the freedom of the individual is the main problem of politics. According to liberalism, the government is there to protect the individuals and their freedom, but the government is also a threat to liberty. Liberals see government as a ‘necessary evil’. Thus, the system should give the government the power to protect the individual, while at the same time making sure that the government does not abuse this power (Minogue, Dagger & Girvetz, 2017). 19th century classical liberalism, which focussed on a free-trade economy and freedom of the individual against an excessively powerful government, was the root of all the different forms of liberalism to follow. In the late 19th century, modern liberalism came from the social-liberal tradition, focussing on obstacles for individual liberty that were a result of capitalism, like inequality, poverty, health and discrimination. According to modern liberalism, the government should protect individuals from these impediments, through direct state intervention. Now, there was funding for public schools, regulation for working hours, funding for hospitals and all sorts of social services of the welfare state. Things seemed to be going well, but in the 1970’s, the economic growth stagnated and the public debt increased. Economists argued for a return to classical liberalism, which in its new and altered form came to be known as neoliberalism (Smith, 2014). According to Gielen, the arrival of neoliberalism was accompanied by ‘evidence based policy’, audits, accreditations, coaching and monitoring. Overall, the freedom that was the core value of the classic liberalist ideology, was restricted further and further in what Gielen named repressive liberalism or post-freedom. At the same time, Gielen beliefs, a growing number ofartists was now employing their artistic freedom in service of the society and the growth of the economy to keep up with neoliberal society. To combat the ‘elitist’ stigma that was associated with them, artists were now striving to prove their societal and economic relevance, without isolating themselves. Gielen labels this new approach of compromises ‘post-art’. Post-art consists of artistic- like shapes, images and sounds, which still refer to what we used to call modern art, but serve everything but art and culture (Gielen, 2013). Post-art, in Gielen’s definition, seems to be the commercialized and industrialized ghost of what modern art once used to be. Mark Fisher, in his 2009 work Capitalist Realism, poses the phrase that it is easier to imagine the world ending, than it is to imagine capitalism ending. Fisher uses this phrase to illustrate his believe that capitalism is the only viable political and economic system, and that it is not even

7 possible to imagine a viable alternative to it anymore. Fisher defines this as ‘Capitalist Realism’ and neoliberals as the capitalist realists supreme. In the first chapter of his work, Fisher uses dystopian film as an example to illustrate capitalist realism. He argues that, where dystopian film used to trigger the imagination with alternative ways of living. Now, the disasters and dystopias they depict, seem to be more of an extension or extrapolation of contemporary society, than an alternative to it. According to Fisher, capitalist realism consumes all historical, cultural and symbolic rituals and objects, and reduces them to their monetary value. As a consequence, these cultural and historical practices and rituals are reduced to merely aesthetic objects, ironized artefacts. Fisher states:

Capitalism is what is left when beliefs have collapsed at the level of ritual or symbolic elaboration, and all that is left is the consumer-spectator, trudging through the ruins and the relics. Yet this turn from belief to aesthetics, from engagement to spectatorship, is held to be one of the virtues of capitalist realism. […] capitalist realism presents itself as a shield protecting us from the perils posed by belief itself. The attitude of ironic distance proper to postmodern capitalism is supposed to immunize us against the seductions of fanaticism. Lowering our expectations is a small price to pay for being protected from terror and totalitarianism (Fisher, 2009, p. 8-9).

Fisher continues to elaborate on the role that commodification acquired when it comes to culture production in the twentieth century. As an example, Fisher describes the established ‘independent’ and ‘alternative’ scene. Much like Gielen’s post-art, Fisher states that ‘independence and ‘alternative’ are no longer outside the mainstream. Not only have they become part of the mainstream, they have become the most dominant ‘style’ in the mainstream. Every move an artist makes, in attempt to challenge the establishment, has become predictable, a cliché, according to Fisher. Even realising this, has become a cliché, Fisher states. Fisher refers to Žižek, who stated that anti-capitalism has disintegrated in capitalism. Fisher encounters that more often the villain in a Hollywood film, turns out to be a large ‘evil’ corporation. As an example, Fisher addresses Wall-e, an animated film about a dystopian future where robots are left to clean up the earth after it was destroyed by a large ‘evil’ corporation. Humans are now residing on a space ship and have evolved in dumb, lazy beings that are too fat to walk and the only interaction they have is with their computer screens, while the corporation is keeping them dumb and fat. Fisher notes, that in this case the consumer of the film seems to be the object of satire. However, he states, this sense of irony only strengthens capitalist realism, rather than challenging it, as irony has become our shield and excuse to not care about anything. We watch the movie, acknowledge its irony and in that way, it performs our anti-capitalism for us, in return allowing us to continue consuming without a conflict of conscience (Fisher, 2009).

1.1.1. Television According to Gielen, Neoliberalism, or as he addresses it: repressive liberalism, aims to eliminate the voice of the minority to maintain a position of power. In short, neoliberalism and neonationalism rely on democracy and the voice of the majority to acquire a position of power. When this position is acquired, they attempt to drown out the voice of minority to maintain this power, thus in a way rejecting the values of democracy, according to Gielen. By repressing and

8 restricting artistic outings and information, they are in way repressing the minority. Gielen believes that neoliberalism attempts to find the largest cultural denominator of the culture consumer, thus homogenizing culture. The media politics of neoliberalism tend to portray the ‘common man’. However, this common man is a carefully constructed and marketed concept created by media tycoons, trend watching and market research. The common man is not that interested in culture, he despises elitists and he is somewhat a caricatural representative of ‘the people’, which in this case is the before mentioned empowered majority (Gielen, 2013). Through television, the concept of this common man, political correctness and market-safe culture, is fed to the public, Gielen states. The target audience is carefully calculated to deliver a customized portion of culture to the viewer. But this customized portion, is still inside the norms of political correctness and neoliberalism, conserving the ‘cultural barbarian’ who dislikes art and is entertained by what neoliberalism is feeding him through the ether. The ideal position for neoliberalism and neonationalism to maintain and expand its power (Gielen, 2013). To gain more insight into the context in which neoliberalism, media and art exist, I have to rewind a little bit. In 1998, cultural philosopher Pierre Bourdieu, was invited by the College de France to give a lecture. The lecture would not be in front of an audience, but it would be filmed. The circumstances under which this lecture took place however, were very exceptional according to Bourdieu. First of all, he was not restricted by any time limit. He could speak for however long he deemed necessary. Second, there were no restriction when it came to topic, he was free to choose whichever topic he wanted and he was free to change it at any time. Lastly, there would be no one there to ‘keep him in line’ with technical or moral requirements of any sort. According to Bourdieu, this situation is unique, because he has control over the instrument of production as opposed to any journalist or speaker that is part of produced content. The lecture was later translated and published as his work On Television (1998). In it, Bourdieu already stated:

I think that television poses a serious danger for all the various areas of cultural production-for art, for literature, for science, for philosophy, and for law. What’s more, […] I think that television poses no less of a threat to political life and to democracy itself. […] I could prove this claim easily. I could analyze how, precisely because its goal is the largest audience possible […] (Bourdieu, 1998, p.10).

Bourdieu argues that the modern media exploit the primal passions of people and certain groups of people, to fuel the fire in their battle for audience. Intellectual discourse is one of the most important forms of resistance against manipulation and one of the pillars of free thought and speech. However, Bourdieu states, in political debates on American television, no one is allowed to speak for more than seven seconds at a time. Besides that, there are also the camera angles, editing, use of images and so forth, to manipulate the public. Perhaps there is still hope for television, as Bourdieu concludes his introduction:

I hope that [this lecture] will furnish some tools or weapons to all those in the image professions who are struggling to keep what could have become an extraordinary instrument of direct democracy from turning into an instrument of symbolic oppression (Bourdieu, 1998, p.10).

Bourdieu addresses television as an instrument of ‘symbolic oppression’, but he also expresses his hope for it to become the ‘extraordinary instrument of direct democracy’ it once promised to be. When one agrees to appear on television, Bourdieu argues, usually there is a set of rules to which one needs to comply. Usually, there is a time limit, an imposed or fixed topic, technical requirements and requirements about what the public will or won’t understand, morality and ‘common decency’. The person complying to these ‘rules’, no longer has ‘control of the instruments of production’. Bourdieu then ponders, why do people accept these conditions? He continues that, writers, scholars, researchers and journalists, who appear on television, without worrying if they will be able to say what they want or need to say, are making it clear that they are not there to say anything at all. They are there to be seen and perceived by a large audience. Bourdieu then quotes Berkeley’s “to be is to be perceived” and continues to state how these people intent to stay on the ‘good side’ of the public and journalists, accepting all the compromises that go with this pandering. And so, Bourdieu states, television has become a window for narcissistic exhibitionism (Bourdieu, 1998). The manipulation and censorship do not stop there. What about the economic and political aspects that influence television? Bourdieu argues that these restrictions are not only imposed on people, they also censor themselves to protect their image or to pander to the public or the people who have more power. Next, it is important to know how a certain television station or broadcast is funded. Some are funded by the government, others are owned by large corporations. As example, Bourdieu mentions that NBC is owned by General Electric, which immediately provides a conflict of interest. How are they going to cover protests against their newest power plant? Whether a television station or broadcast is funded by a large corporation or a government, there always seems to be a conflict of interest (Bourdieu, 1998), in accordance with Fisher’s ‘evil corporations’: the visualisation of the villains of capitalism. It appears that not much has changed since Bourdieu wrote On Television. The mass medium is still pandering to the largest possible public. It seems to be all about ‘being seen’, being perceived and exposure. Politics and money still, both distinctly and ambiguously, seem to have the upper hand in what is broadcasted to the public.

1.1.2. New media The public space of the 21st century, however, does not solely consist of television and traditional media. As José van Dijck writes, in her work The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media (2013), in the last decade, a new online infrastructure has emerged. This online sociality has become interwoven with every aspect of contemporary culture, she states. Social media and other online based platforms have become indispensable in our society. Van Dijck states:

Social media […] form a new online layer through which people organize their lives. Today, this layer of platforms influences human interaction on an individual and community level, as well as on a larger societal level, while the worlds of online and offline are increasingly interpenetrating (van Dijck, 2013).

As van Dijck, states, these new media have become an important part in the public debate. However, the commercialization of these new media, just like traditional media, is jeopardizing democracy as well. Profit driven news and social media platforms, where clicks equal dollars, might not be the place to escape from repressive liberalism. In the same manner television is pandering to an audience, online media outlets create content that generates ‘shares’ and clicks, because

10 online, clicks equal revenue. Social media and other online platforms that are ‘free’ to use, gain their profit from your information so they can specifically target what they want to show and sell you. The pitfall of these structures, that are inherent to how these platforms are built, is that they will mostly show you things that you already showed interest in, in your online behaviour. This phenomenon is known as ‘echo chambers’ or ‘filter bubbles’. The danger of these filter bubbles is that they exclude opinions, debate and information that lays outside your personal scope or field of concern, due to the personalization algorithms of these platforms. This can cause great divide between two or more groups that become more and more isolated from each other (Hosanagar, 2016). For example, the recent elections in the United States bore many features of two groups that were isolated in separate echo chambers. Donald Trump’s eventual victory over Hilary Clinton, came as a great surprise to most of the anti-Trump and more left-wing public and media outlets. It seems likely that the echo chamber effect contributed to the fact that the anti-Trump camp was mostly oblivious to the sentiment of this ample group of people who eventually supported Trump. The commercialization of media has been a problem for traditional media as well as new media. As the public debate is moving to the online space more and more, these problems can become a threat to democracy. For many people the online space, seemingly has become their primal source for information and opinion forming. But can there still be a healthy public debate when a large share of the contributors is just shouting into a unanimous, echoing void? When politics and societal affairs become distorted by the workings of these profit driven outlets, we need to ask ourselves is there is still a space for an empathic public debate, with mutual understanding. When this is no longer the case, our democracy is entering a dangerous playing field. The online space does, however, provide us with new possibilities and platforms to evade and even protest or counteract the repressiveness of the traditional mass media. Is there still room to bypass the before-mentioned profit driven structures of the lion share of new media? Young creators appear to be more flexible in the platforms they use. An example of this is the so called ‘YouTube ad-pocalypse’. Besides directly sponsoring a selection of creators, the most common way to make money on YouTube is via its ad-system. Advertisers pay money to have their ads run before and after YouTube videos with a specific or relatively large audience. For the creator, this translates in to ‘the more views, the more revenue’. A very straightforward system it seems. However, in last March 2017, something interesting started happening. YouTube started getting complaints, from their advertisers as well as their viewers, about controversial videos having ads on them. It appeared that videos with extremist and hate content as well as videos with extremely graphic and violent footage, were being monetized by YouTube. YouTube’s ad-system, was not differentiating between videos with ‘brand-friendly’ content and videos that were not brand-friendly at all. As a result, a number of YouTube’s largest advertisers like BBC, Volkswagen, McDonalds and others, starter boycotting the platform by immediately withdrawing their ads. This boycott was soon addressed as the ‘ad-pocalypse’. Besides YouTube losing a fair amount of profit, the creators on the platform were the ones that were hit the hardest, as many of them rely on their ad revenue to make a living. YouTube was quick to response with changes in its ad-algorithms and monetization policy. There was going to be more manual control, and stricter regulation regarding ‘brand-friendliness’. It was not long before complaints started to flow in again. This time, creators who produced more controversial content, were finding their videos being demonetized. Now LGBTQ+ creators, and independent news outlets, among others, were being labelled as ‘not advertiser friendly’. This, of course, was a worrying development. Basically, ‘controversial’ creators were now being censored.

If LQBTQ+ content, independent news and other creators are stripped from their income and ‘family-friendliness’ is rewarded, the freedom of speech on YouTube appears to be in jeopardy (Westbrook, 2017). Entrepreneur and YouTube creator Hank Green, who made a video about the ad-pocalypse, believes that creators will find other ways to ensure their voices will keep being heard:

[...] this has really squeezed creators who are making content that may be good, but may be not like super happy family funtime stuff. And again, is this worth it? [...] are we going to have to find other ways to turn the value we create into value we can spend? [...] If we are forced to deal with it, if the value proposition breaks, we will find -and we have already started to do this- new ways to support great content on the internet. [...] and YouTube and advertisers are going to have to be careful, because eventually they are going to need our eyeballs more than we need their pennies. (Green, 2017, Vlogbrothers YouTube channel).

Green is optimistic, but I wonder if there is still a way around these profit driven platforms. Can we surpass capitalism or is capitalist realism, like Fisher states, the final verdict with which we will have to work? Then again, perhaps the system can only be undermined from within. Nonetheless, I believe that it is very important that this new generation of creators and artists finds a balance in the commercialization of their content and at the same time keeps providing people with independent and quality content that is needed to keep the public debate informed and active.

1.2. Public intellectual & celebrity Jürgen Habermas described the public sphere as “A domain of our social life where such a thing as public opinion can be formed [where] citizens …deal with matters of general interest without being subject to coercion … [to] express and publicize their views.” (Habermas, 1997, p. 105).

1.2.1. The public intellectual In her work Writers as public intellectuals, Odile Heynders provides some characterizations of the public intellectual. According to Heynders, the public intellectual is controversial, participates in the public debate and has an engaged point of view from a sideline position. The public intellectual has critical ideas and knowledge, encourages debate and provides alternative scenarios when it comes to politics and social and ethical questions. The public intellectual engages non-specialist public in matters of general concern. Heynders’ public intellectual can intervene in the public sphere in many different ways, ranging from lectures, speeches and books to articles, manifestos, television, film, documentary and even online presence on social media. She also states that it is important that the public intellectual is visible in our media-saturated society, to be able to communicate his or her message (Heynders, 2016).

[…] the recent addition of the term ‘public’ to intellectual, interchanging with ‘celebrity’ or ‘media’, points to the activities of translation, mediation and the popularisation of ideas, aimed at a wider outreach and communication. Significantly, the public intellectual sometimes makes compromises with regard to the intellectual content of ideas in order to address a larger audience. The public Intellectual addresses an audience beyond intellectual

peers, whereas the intellectual mainly interacts with other intellectuals (Heynders, 2016, p. 4).

The public intellectual has an obligation to inform, provide alternative scenarios and to educate the general public. When taking into account what Bourdieu wrote on intellectuals on television, it is important to protect the integrity and authenticity of these public intellectuals so that they are not censored by the producer that control the medium, or even worse, that they do not censor themselves to pander to an audience.

1.2.2. The celebrity In his work, Understanding Celebrity (2013), Graeme Turner writes about modern celebrities and how they relate to the media. According to Turner, the modern celebrity is highly visual in the media and often the interest in their private life is greater than the interest in their actual achievements and professional life. According to Turner, contemporary celebrities derive their fame from attracting public attention, rather than acquiring professional achievements. The excessive lives in the spotlights, that these celebrities are living, could be one of the causes of this disproportionate interest in celebrity’s private lives. However, these excessive, public lives also contribute to the perception on inauthenticity and commodification by mass mediated pop culture. Turner states: “The approach I am developing in this book deals with celebrity as a media process that is coordinated by an industry, and as a commodity or text which is productively consumed by audiences and fans.” (Turner, 2013, p. 23). Celebrities have become a commodity, according to Turner. Sociologist of celebrity Joshua Gamson, states the following in his 2011 article The Unwatched Life is Not Worth Living:

… the Web has also generated a sort of bottom- up, do- it- yourself celebrity production process […] In the established Hollywood- based celebrity system, one has to navigate the tight gatekeeping structure, already tipped toward the young, beautiful, or talented; find, create, or wait for a break; get an agent, a job, a recording contract, and perhaps a publicist. The Internet drastically widens the pool of potential celebrities by lowering the entry barriers—a computer and a bit of moxie, and you’ve got a shot—and bypassing the tightly controlled publicity system and the tightly controlling middle people of Hollywood (Gamson, 2011, p. 1065).

So, the internet provides us with opportunities as well as pitfalls, when it comes to celebrity. On one hand, it becomes easier to acquire ‘do-it-yourself’ fame, while surpassing the ‘dictators’ of the entertainment industry. It becomes easier for the underdog to get a platform, a stage to broadcast their authentic work. On the other hand, however, it also becomes easier for the manufactured celebrity to get a platform. The ‘Instagram-famous’ celebrity, who is reading from a cue card of screen how much she loves her detox tea, all while the producers are raking in the big money.

1.3. Art & post-art According to Gielen, modern art -which is often perceived as useless or functionless- creates a sense of possibility. It does not matter if this alternative point of view is more beautiful, more interesting, or truer, what matters is that it shows that there is always the possibility of a different perspective.

And the artist who stands alone, who goes against the rules and shows us a different perspective, is by definition, a barbarian.

Those who confront society with something ‘different’ or ‘possibly otherwise’ find themselves alone, especially in the beginning. The dismeasure may become more acceptable over time or even come to belong to the orthodoxy within the artistic field, but the dynamic within the modern art world is only guaranteed by the constant arrival of new dismeasures (Gielen, 2011, p. 6).

This barbarianism in contemporary art is not limited to only ‘high culture’. In popular culture, film and pop music, there are also artists who are going against the stream, instead of excelling within the rules. The technological developments of the mass media and research techniques, have made it possible to establish a common ground, a medium. Gielen wonders if the internet has become another mass medium to construct mediocracy and create a new barbarism of clashing cultural participants, or if it contributes to a more advanced type of barbarism. Populism, neoliberalism and neonationalism create a specific kind of barbarism. The barbarism of the ‘common man’ who despises culture, intellectuals and elitists, because they benefit from this barbarism. The mass media are their weapon of choice when it comes to broadcasting this barbarism. Gielen wonders if the internet is just as willing to be instrumentalized as such, and if it even is a mass medium. It appears that the world-wide web is more interactive and less passive than the traditional media. It provokes conversation and discussion and room for new forms of barbarism, according to Gielen (Gielen, 2013). In a chapter about community art, Gielen writes about relational art and how all art is in essence relational. Art needs to be seen or perceived, it needs to have an audience to even be art. Gielen then goes on to explain the importance of dialogue between the artist and the audience, when it comes to what he calls ‘relational aesthetics’. By seeking out dialogue, the artist is not immediately making critical or overthrowing work. However, Gielen goes on to interpret this hunger for dialogue as a possible indirect critique on a lack of cohesion and dialogue in society(Gielen, 2013). If art needs to be perceived by an audience to actually be art, there is an intrinsic urgency for a platform to ‘broadcast’ the work. To have or to use a platform, it would seem that an artist would have to be part of the associated system. The artist being critical of the system or platform he uses, creates a paradox. Can the system only be undermined when the artist is part of it? And what does this mean for the credibility of the artist? What happens when an art project starts out as a critique on the system, but then slowly but surely ventures into the realm of commercialism and post-art?

1.4. Conclusion With the rise of neoliberalism, a growing number of artists was now fighting the elitist stigma they had acquired, by trying to prove their societal and economic relevance through their artistic work, in what Gielen (2013) describes as post-art: the commercialized and industrialized shell of what modern art once used to be. This emphasis on economic value is also a product of capitalism. Fisher (2009), states that it capitalism has become the only viable political and economic system. It is not even possible to imagine a world without capitalism anymore, in what Fisher labels as capitalist realism. He states that capitalism consumes all historical, cultural and symbolic rituals and objects and reduces them to their economic value. Culture becomes a commodity in capitalist realism and what Gielen describes as post-art. In accordance to post-art, Fisher goes on to describe the merely

14 aesthetic and ironized culture that is left. According to Fisher, ‘independent’ and ‘alternative’ are no longer a countermovement, rather they have become the norm. But if every attempt an artist makes to challenge the establishment has become cliché, what function does art still have in the public debate if not only one of aesthetic? Fisher states that irony has become our coping mechanism to not care about anything. We perceive art with a message that is a critical commentary on our society, we recognize the irony, and by recognizing this irony we feel we did our part to fight the system. It allows us to consume without a conflict of conscience. The media has a prominent role neoliberal and capitalist society. According to Gielen (2013), repressive liberalism uses media to homogenize culture, through their carefully constructed portrayal of the ‘common man’. Gielen says this concept is fed to the audience through television, maintaining the cultural barbarian who dislikes art and is entertained by mainstream culture. In his lecture On Television (1998), Bourdieu spoke about the workings of television. Intellectual discourse is suppressed by the regulation and overproduction of televised content. The set of rules to which one needs to comply to be on television, make it hard to convey an intellectual message, without bargaining your integrity. Besides that, Bourdieu argues, the fact that intellectuals comply to these rules, implies that they do not even care about conveying a message anymore, they only care about being seen and being perceived by a large audience. Bourdieu states that television has become an enabler for narcissistic exhibitionism. However, intellectuals, artists and such are not only censored by production, they also censor themselves to pander to the audience. They say what the public wants to hear, as to maintain their position of celebrity, status or economic value. Contemporary society does not only rely on traditional media to acquire information and enjoy entertainment. The 21st century public space relies more and more on a new online infrastructure. According to van Dijck (2013), online sociality has become interwoven with every aspect of contemporary culture. However, the commercialization of these media, just as withtraditional media, has become a hazard for democracy. Clicks and likes equal dollars and in general, profit has become the main motivation, creating filter bubbles. This raises the question if there is still a space for an empathic, informed and inclusive public debate? The online space does however provide possibilities as it has become easier to gain a platform while bypassing the ‘controlling middle-man’. Creators are constantly searching for alternatives to avoid caving to the profit driven censorship of their platforms of choice, so there is still a need for independent and diverse platforms that allow for honest and critical commentary and entertainment featuring creators who are as diverse as the people who watch them. The public intellectual has a duty to inform and educate the general public, and provide them with alternative ideas and scenarios. However, when taking into account Bourdieu’s views on television, it has become more difficult to have complete freedom of speech when it comes to media that reach a large audience. The integrity and authenticity of public intellectuals has perhaps become more ambiguous when production, regulation and commodification come into the picture. With Bourdieu touching on the subject of narcissism and exhibitionism in intellectuals, the line between celebrity and intellectuals in the media has become blurrier. According to Turner (2013), the excessive public lives of celebrities contribute to a perception of inauthenticity and commodification of culture. As Gamson (2011) mentioned, the online space has provided a more bottom-up or do-it-yourself structure of celebrity production, which like mentioned above, makes it easier to avoid the established Hollywood-system or the controlling middle man. However, we must keep in mind that even the do-it-yourselves celebrity can be controlled or sponsored from just outside the frame of what they are showing us.

So, what is the role of art in this story? According to Gielen, art provides us with a sense of possibility, an alternative scenario. However, Fisher states that it is no longer possible to even imagine an alternative to capitalist society. Gielen says that he who challenges convention, will stand alone and create a dismeasure. This dismeasure eventually becomes the norm again, but luckily the dynamic of the contemporary art field guarantees the constant arrival of new dismeasures. This does not only happen in ‘high culture’, in popular culture there are also artists who are going against the stream. Gielen also states that art needs to be perceived to even be art. Gielen perceives a hunger for relational art that creates a dialogue with the audience. Gielen ponders if this craving for dialogue in art is an indirect critique on the lack of dialogue and cohesion in society. If art needs to be perceived, there is need for a platform to broadcast. The artist critiquing the system, while being a part of it creates a paradox. What does it mean for the integrity of the artist when they start out critiquing the system that they are becoming dependent on? In conclusion, there is a blatant need for an alternative voice in the media. There is a need for more artists and intellectuals to find a way to address large audiences in an honest way, to challenge their views and discourse, to break censorship and to contribute to the public debate in e meaningful way. There is also the question of integrity and hypocrisy in the platforms that are used to reach and audience as well as in content that we consume. To what extent is it produced, profit driven or authentic? Which artistic and discursive strategies can contemporary artists use to contribute to the public debate in a way that is integer, honest and provides us with an alternative perspective?

2. Case study To gain further insight into the role of young artists in the 21st century public debate, I will do a case study surrounding the online and media presence of Poppy and Titanic Sinclair, as well as their artistic work. I will focus on the before mentioned dilemmas, regarding the paradox of critiquing the system while being dependent on it, the shift from autonomy/authenticity to commercialism and commercialism/post-art as a counter movement. The case study includes both Poppy and Titanic Sinclair, because even though Poppy seems to be the face of the project, Titanic Sinclair directs all the videos and is also very much present on social media.

2.1. Operationalisation & methodology In the introduction of this thesis I posed three dilemmas to illustrate the topic of my thesis. In the theoretical framework, I elaborated on these dilemmas and I outlined the context in which these dilemmas exist. To create the bridge from the theory to the analysis of the case study, I will revisit these dilemmas in relation to the case study.

2.1.1. Operationalisation The first dilemma deals with the paradox of the artist having a critical perspective on the online space, while at the same time being part of it or even being dependent on it. Is it possible to criticize the same system that provides you with your audience, or can the system only be undermined when you are part of that same system? How can artists remain authentic when they are subjected to the same system that they are criticizing? In the case of Poppy and Titanic Sinclair, the art project almost completely exists in the online space. At the same time, the topics that the art project touches on, are amongst others, digitalisation, social media, online fame and celebrity. The Poppy and Titanic Sinclair project is commenting on the exact thing that they rely on to reach their audience: online fame. As the aforementioned paradox is omnipresent in- and inherent to this art project, it makes for a very interesting case study as to see which artistic and discursive strategies these artists use to contribute to the public debate, as well as examining how they balance and play with this paradox and the authenticity of their online presence and artistic work. The second dilemma presents itself when the artist gains popularity and fame. What does it mean for the authenticity and the autonomy of critical art, when it becomes so popular that is slowly becomes more commercialized. Is the critical message still credible when the incentive becomes more about profit than about ideals or can they co-exist? Does commercialization equal a larger audience for the artists message, or does the message become more clouded because the motivation has changed? In the case of the Poppy project, it started out as fairly unknown project, which went viral and experienced a quite sudden rise to fame and increase of media attention. This sudden increase of popularity not only meant that they now had a far larger and more general audience, it also opened doors to collaborations with other parties. For example, when Poppy did a web series on internet fame on the Snapchat channel of Comedy Central. Working with larger parties, also means that the artist partially loses control of the instrument of production. The Poppy case study will provide insight in how commercialisation and authenticity are handled by these artists. The third dilemma is centred around the notion of post-art. Can commercialism, kitsch or post- art be perceived as a countermovement in contemporary art by challenging the norms of autonomy and authenticity, perhaps even criticizing these norms? In what ways can these forms of

17 commercialism and post-art give a commentary on the state of autonomy and authenticity in contemporary society and culture. This relates to the Poppy case, because the thematic as well as the aesthetic of the project play with notions of commercialism and kitsch. They are commenting on the state of commercialism in contemporary culture, by including these themes in their work. It could be argued that Poppy’s videos are not high art, but popular culture. However, there seems to be a deeper layer to their work, than just quirky videos and pop songs. In the analysis, I want to unravel the discursive and artistic strategies they use to convey a deeper message or commentary.

2.1.2. Methodology The case study consists of two main parts. An analysis of Poppy’s and Titanic Sinclair’s public behaviour and an analysis of their artistic work. In the analysis of public behaviour, I will first address and illustrate their appearance and the way they present themselves on social media, because this is an important aspect of the aesthetic and the symbolism in this case study. I will provide examples of their behaviour on Instagram and Twitter. I want to assess the differences and similarities in how Poppy and Titanic Sinclair interact with their public as well as how they comment on current events in the public debate. Later on, when I am analysing their public behaviour and artistic work, I will refer to these characteristics in the context of their content to discern artistic and discursive strategies.

The second part of the analysis of public behaviour consists of interviews with Poppy and Titanic Sinclair. As Poppy is the ‘face’ of the project and thus has given more interviews, the main focus will be on interviews with Poppy. I will discuss one staged and edited video interview and one live video interview on an unedited podcast, to assess the similarities and differences when it comes to the control of the instrument of production. I chose to discuss an edited as well as an unedited interview, to see the difference in discursive and artistic strategies used by Poppy and Titanic Sinclair in a situation where they have a lot of control versus a situation where they have little control over the output. To strengthen my argumentation, I will briefly refer to other interviews that support the same findings. Titanic Sinclair only gave one recent in-depth solo interview, in which he discusses his and Poppy’s project, which I will analyse as well. This interview has audio and an animation of Titanic Sinclair sitting in a room. The last interview I will discuss more general is a recent written interview with both Poppy and Titanic Sinclair. In the analysis of the video interviews I will focus on their visible behaviour as well as content of their answers, because what people do and what people say, can communicate different messages, symbolism or representations. In the analysis of the written interview I will focus on the content of their answers as well as the observations of the interviewer. Based on the literature and my own observations I will attempt to discern the discursive strategies that they use in their public presence. The second part of the case study consists of an analysis of their artistic work. This part is split up in the analysis of one of Poppy’s music videos and the analysis of a video on Poppy’s YouTube channel. The music video that will be analysed is the video for the song Lowlife. I selected this song, because the lyrics as well as the video have a clear discernible narrative, that is important for the narrative of the whole project. This was confirmed by Poppy and Titanic Sinclair when they announced a crowdfunding campaign for the sequel of this video. The description of the Kickstarter campaign reading: “We are making a visually-stunning music video for Poppy's upcoming single "Bleach Blonde Baby" - a visual sequel to her song Lowlife.” (Sinclair, 2017). I will analyse the video

18 by doing a close reading, looking into the aesthetic and symbolism and based om my observations and the literature I will attempt to identify the artistic strategies that are used in the work. I will also do a close reading, and look into the aesthetics and symbolism, of the video My Past, from Poppy’s YouTube channel, because it is one of the most viewed videos on her channel. Besides that, it connects to the narrative that is also present in the Lowlife video, mentioning themes like fame and the internet. To support my argument, I will briefly address and give examples from other videos on the Poppy channel.

2.2. Public behaviour To assess Poppy’s and Titanic Sinclair’s public behaviour, I will first look in to the characteristics of their online presence. As their online presence consists of ‘stage names’ or pseudonyms and the consistent portrayal of characters, I will refer to them as ‘personas’. After that I will discuss their representation in interviews and their behaviour on social media and in the online space.

2.2.1. The ‘Poppy’ and ‘Titanic Sinclair’ personas As I will be writing about the Poppy and Titanic Sinclair ‘characters’ or ‘personas’, it is important to touch upon the notion of the character or persona in relation the artists and the person. As for now, I will describe what I see when looking at the content that they share with their audience, to illustrate and introduce the appearance that they portray. Further on in the case study, when analysing their online presence and artistic work, there will be more insight into how the characters or personas relate to the artists and whether it is even possible to make a distinction between the two or not. One of the most predominant peculiarities of this case study, is the personas that Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are portraying in public. For starters, the names ‘Poppy’ and ‘Titanic Sinclair’ are not the names that are found in their passports. If you do a thorough search, you will be able to find those names, but Poppy and Titanic try their best to keep them hidden from the public in the same way they do with other private information. Both Poppy and Titanic Sinclair have flagged multiple YouTube videos that were digging for personal information on the artists with copyright strikes, which forces the creators to delete said videos (Yoel Rekt !, 2016). There is no trace of any of their private information in any of the content that is controlled by them personally. This is interesting to me, because without ‘having a past’, it seems like their characters came into existence, or ‘were born’ on the internet.

Image 3: Screencap from Poppy’s Instagram, caption: ‘Cute elephants’ (Sinclair, 2017).

When looking at pictures and videos of Poppy, I see a girl with platinum blonde hair, pale skin, large dark and wide opened doe-eyes and a young-looking face. The combination of her smooth skin, large eyes, shiny blond hair and delicate facial features, give her a doll-like appearance. Her quirky, pastel themed wardrobe contributes to this doll-like feel. The photograph of Poppy, pictured above, gives an example of one of those quirky outfits. Often, they involve strange elements, like stuffed animals, eyeballs, branches and weird and excessive hats and jewellery. In an interview with BCG Magazine, Poppy described her style as ‘Barbie-kawaii-child’ (BCG Magazine, 2015). Kawaii means ‘tiny’ or ‘sweet’ in Japanese. The word is used in manga and anime culture, and also describes the corresponding fashion style.

Image 4: Poppy’s profile picture on Twitter and Instagram (Poppy, 2017).

Her dainty style, in combination with her delicate face and her eyes that are always wide open, make her seem childlike and innocent. Upon watching her videos, at first, this image is maintained. She is soft spoken, with a slight high pitched, feminine voice. However, an unsettling feeling will soon surface. Her voice and the way she talks, sound dictated and her invasive eye contact will leave the viewer feeling slightly uncomfortable. Her cyborg and puppet-like mannerisms, contribute to the ‘alien feel’ of Poppy. And in this context, the childlikeness becomes almost creepy, like a possessed child or doll in a horror movie. There is discrepancy between what we expect and what we experience in the videos, that contributes to the elusiveness and mystery of the content. The character is appropriately so, called Poppy. It suits the theme of her videos, music and persona, that seem to be centred around popular culture and internet fame. The Poppy persona first surfaced in November 2014. Besides Instagram, where Poppy mainly posts the same videos she posts on her YouTube channel, she is very active on Twitter. Below I will provide some examples of her Twitter presence and interaction.

Image 5: Screencap from Poppy’s Twitter feed (2017).

In the screencap pictured above, the first tweet says, “When Poppy created dogs, she knew they would be a hit with humans.”. In these few words, it is implied that she is some sort of creator or god, by stating she created dogs. She also says, “…she knew they would be a hit with humans”, implying that she might nog be a human herself. The third thing that is very characteristic for her Twitter behaviour, is that she speaks in the third person: “When Poppy created…”. This could be interpreted in many different ways; as a distancing from a character, in a ‘royal way of speaking’ or even that she is not writing the tweets herself, but that someone else is writing them for her. In the other tweets, we also see some religious symbolism, in her saying “Bless” to someone who tweeted her about praying to Poppy.

Image 6: Screencap of a tweet from Poppy’s Twitter feed (2017).

In the last tweet (Image 5), someone tells her he ‘is’ tempted to get tickets to her show. She responds that she ‘is’ Poppy. This is also a recurring theme in her interactions with fans. When they say they ‘are’ something referring to a feeling for example, she will respond with “I am Poppy”. This interesting, because it represents a sort of misunderstanding of what is meant, like Poppy is not used to communicating with humans. In (Image 6), a similar exchange occurs. When someone asks her if she ‘is’ a feminist, she answers that she ‘is’ Poppy. Her answers are a very literal interpretation of what is said/asked. Instead of referring to the more abstract or emotional definition of ‘being’, she refers to the very practical and literal definition of ‘being’. Again, this contributes to the outer-worldly or cyborg-like quality there is to her.

Image 7: Screencap of a tweet from Poppy’s Twitter feed (2017).

The tweet pictured above is also characteristic of her Twitter presence. She often refers to celebrity and fan culture in what could be described as an ironic or naïve manner. It is often said that (young) people are being misled by celebrities who have everything, telling them that everything will be alright and that they can be anything they want, when the matter of fact is, that only few people will become famous. Poppy’s very blunt tweets about this subject are like a reminder to fans who engage in this kind of discourse, that they should take these kinds of phrases with a grain of salt. Later on, in the analysis of the interviews, I will further discuss this.

Image 8: Still from video ‘My Steve Madden Shoes’ (Titanic Sinclair, 2017).

Titanic Sinclair, like Poppy, has sleek, bleach blonde hair, dark eyebrows and pale skin. In most of his videos he is wearing the same black suit and white shirt that are pictured above. If he is not wearing the suit in his videos, his wardrobe is still predominantly black and white, occasionally alternated with an item of their merchandise. In his videos, as well as in press photos, Titanic Sinclair always sports the same emotionless, ‘bored’ facial expression. This ‘unimpressed’ or ‘uninterested’ appearance is also apparent in his kind of slouchy body language and his monotone way of speaking.

Image 9: Screencap from Titanic Sinclair’s Instagram feed (Titanic Sinclair, 2017).

When looking at a screencap from his Instagram feed, the same black and white aesthetic is seen in his style of clothing, varying between a more formal style in press photos or photoshoots and a slightly less formal, but still presentable style in the more candid photos. In the candid photos, Titanic Sinclair is seen smiling and not sticking to the same emotionless facial expression he is sporting in his videos and in press photos and photoshoots. This could suggest a differentiation between his person and his persona. Titanic Sinclair has a different approach to his Twitter presence than Poppy. Where she is very consistent in the way she presents herself in accordance to the art project, Titanic Sinclair seems to have more discontinuity in his tweets and he also more distinctly comments on public affairs. Titanic Sinclair’s tweets often feature sarcastic or ironic remarks on contemporary society, as seen in image 7.

Image 10: Screencap from Titanic Sinclair’s Twitter feed (2017).

Titanic Sinclair’s tweet, “I know enough about the Paris Accord and climate change to express my opinion on Twitter.”, is a very cynical commentary on so called slacktivism (a contraction of ‘slacker’ and ‘activism’), where people contribute to an issue in an easy way that doesn’t really help the cause, other than making oneself feel good for contributing (Techopedia, n.d.). Slacktivism is something that is often seen in celebrity media presence. They are mentioning or addressing issues in the media that are ‘current’ of ‘hip’ to make themselves look better, more interesting or more engaged, without really knowing what they are talking about. In the same way Poppy’s tweet commented on celebrity culture by holding up a mirror to the audience, Titanic Sinclair is doing the same in this tweet. When someone responded critically to this tweet, Titanic Sinclair’s response is again very sarcastic and cynical: “I am a useless millennial and my tweets are how I protest”, again a commentary on slacktivism. The pinned tweet at the top of Titanic Sinclair Twitter feed at this moment, reads: “#Resist Capitalism – Sent from my iPhone”. Again, he is holding up a mirror to his public, ‘the millennials’, but at the same time, he is a part of this exact group. Titanic Sinclair is also infamous for starting and partaking in twitter feuds with other celebrities and followers, as seen in image 8 below.

Image 11: Screencap from Titanic Sinclair’s Twitter feed (2017).

To provide some context: Halsey is a fairly new and popular artist who is very active in the gender equality movement. For example, she chooses to go by a gender-neutral pronoun. Her music is very poppy and she works with big and commercial names in the industry. In this instance, she labelled hip-hop artist Kendrick Lamar as being ‘urban’, which upset a lot of people, because they felt she was making him out to be mainstream while they felt she is mainstream herself. Titanic Sinclair did not take long to engage in the argument, making fun of her being ‘the status quo’ and stating that she collaborates with very commercial and mainstream names in the industry, like The Chainsmokers. Halsey then reacted to all the negative response by saying that female artists are labelled ‘popstars’ all the time, even if they are way more complex than that. Titanic Sinclair’s response was laughing at the fact that she collaborates with The Chainsmokers, which in his opinion seems to make her a ‘superficial popstar’.

In other tweets, he also went after numerous artists, like Katy Perry, accusing them of copying his work and personal style. He then went on to create a shirt that reads “Titanic Sinclair was mean to me on Twitter”, which he started selling as merchandise. People then started to ask him to be mean to them on Twitter, to which he obliged, so they would buy his shirt (image 9).

Image 12: Screencap of Titanic Sinclair being mean on Twitter (2017).

Besides being cynical and holding up a mirror when it comes to current affairs, I also feel like Titanic Sinclair is purposely being an ‘Enfant Terrible’, be picking fights on Twitter, to then cash in on them by selling T-shirts about him being ‘mean’ to people. Again, it could be argued that Titanic Sinclair is making a mockery of the exact thing he is a part of. He curses at people and then they are also buying his t-shirts, while he is making merchandise money. This reminds of when I was visiting a Banksy exposition in Rome. I paid for a ticket to see the exposition, only to face a Banksy painting asking me why I paid for a ticket if I could see his work for free on the streets? After that I saw a painting that read ‘Exit through the giftshop’, a commentary on capitalism that confronts you with the fact that the only motivation is profit. To exit the exposition, I had to go through the giftshop. The irony was not lost on me and these two works, almost made me feel embarrassed that had I bought a ticket to see the exposition. I can imagine that in the case of Titanic Sinclair, people might feel this same feeling of embarrassment or ‘being found out’.

2.2.2. Poppy’s interviews The first thing that stands out when watching and reading interviews with Poppy, is the consistency in the way she presents herself. Below, I will transcribe part of an interview Poppy did with Circa. The Circa interview was staged and edited. During the entire interview Poppy is very soft-spoken and maintains the same smiling facial expression.

Circa: Hey Poppy, how’s it going? Poppy: Hi, how are you? C: Very good, so tell me…who exactly is Poppy? P: I’m Poppy.

C: And Poppy, you are kind of famous, you are famous on YouTube. What is it like to be famous? P: I’m very famous on YouTube, and it’s my favourite thing. C: Why is it your favourite thing? P: Being famous is very important. If you are famous, they can give you a TV show. C: What do you do for fun? P: My favourite thing to do is to make videos on YouTube dot com. I like to make viral videos on YouTube. And I also like to record music. I like to sing about technology. Technology is my favourite thing to sing about lately.

At this point, Poppy’s answers to the interviewer’s questions are quite brief and in short sentences. She talks about fame being her favourite thing, because when you are famous, they can give you a TV show. The notion of ‘being on TV just for being famous’ is interesting when thinking of Turner’s description of contemporary celebrity, which is centred around celebrities being popular, just for the fact that they are famous and not because of their professional achievements. In accordance, Bourdieu wrote about the notion of narcissistic exhibitionism, where intellectuals just want to be on TV to be perceived, without worrying about their message being censored. They even pander to their audience to maintain their popularity. In the case of Poppy, her answers about fame seem a hyperbole or an ironizing of contemporary celebrity and societies obsession with fame.

C: Who are you wearing? P: A flower.

When the interviewer asks Poppy ‘Who are you wearing?’, referring to which designer made her outfit, Poppy answers ‘A flower’, referring to the flower that is on her dress. This makes it seem like she is not familiar with this common way of phrasing this question, she is taking it very literal. Her short answers in combination with her not understanding figurative speech, reminds me of interactions with artificial intelligence, like chatbots, which often have difficulties recognizing constructs like figurative speech, sarcasm or sayings.

C: Are you dating anyone? P: They won’t let me. They won’t let me have a boyfriend or a girlfriend yet. I fell in love once with a computer boy. But they took him away from me.

‘They’ is a term Poppy often refers to in her interviews, without elaborating on who ‘they’ are. However, from the context of the interviews we will be able to gather some information on ‘they’. She talks about ‘once falling in love with a computer boy’. This could raise the question if Poppy is ‘technology’ as well. Is she a computer, a robot or artificial intelligence? At the same time, her being in love with a computer boy, could be a commentary on contemporary society’s and culture’s almost unhealthy obsession with technology and ‘being online’.

C: Who is “they”? P: It’s them. They’re right behind you. C: How did you get ready for this interview today? P: I got ready for his interview in several ways. First, they gave me clothes to put on. Then they gave me the red boots.

Again, Poppy is talking about ‘they’. ‘They’ took her computer boy away, ‘they’ gave her clothes to put on. When the interviewer asks how ‘they’ are Poppy does not give much clearance when she says: ‘it’s them’. It does however become clear that whoever ‘they’ are, they have some sort of control over- or influence on Poppy. When she says: ‘they’re right behind you’, the interviewer does not respond, but it could imply that ‘they’ are in the same room or that ‘they’ are perhaps watching or omnipresent in a ‘Big Brother’ kind of way. In this case, the interviewer does not dig deeper after Poppy avoiding the answer. But by avoiding to clarify who ‘they’ are, Poppy creates an air of mystery and confusion.

C: How do you feel about your fans? P: My fans are the most important thing to me. I love them so much. I love how interactive my fans are. I like to talk to them on the internet. C: How do you feel about this interview? P: I love to be interviewed. It makes me feel comfortable. If you talk to people on camera, other people can see it. And then they can learn more about Poppy. When I say the word ‘Circa’, I imagine what it looks like. It looks very futuristic and pretty (Basha, 2017).

Phrases like ‘I like to make videos on YouTube dot com’ and ‘I like to talk to them on the internet’ have a bit of a strange ring to them. Where normal people would say ‘I like to make YouTube videos’ or ‘I like to talk to them online’, Poppy’s formulation seems a bit static or formal and very literal, again almost chatbot or cyborg like. The fact that she maintains the same tone of voice and smiling facial expression does not help either. In this last part of the interview, Poppy is talking about her fans, which relate to fame. She says that her fans are the most important thing to her and that she likes talking to them on the internet. Later, when analysing her social media presence, there will be more insight in her communication with her fans. By saying her fans are important to here, she creates a sense of a two-sided relationship between her fans and her. She makes them feel loved by her. She does need her fans, because without them she would not be famous. However, there is not really a two-sided relationship between them. They might close to her and like they personally know her, but really it is a very one-sided relationship as she knows very little about her fans, creating a false sense of closeness that is often seen in celebrity-fan relationships. Another thing that stands out is, that in her last answer, Poppy switches to talking in the third person. She says: “And then they can learn more about Poppy”. This is something we will see in other interviews and social media posts as well. By talking about herself in the third person, she creates a notable change of perspective. By referring to herself in the third person, she creates a distance between herself and her words, like she is talking to herself from an outsider’s perspective. The before mentioned relationship between the persona and the character, is highlighted here. Is she distancing herself form the Poppy character, or is she defining a difference between her person and a character she plays? Is she implying that Poppy is just a character? Referring to yourself in the third person is also something we see robots and androids do in popular culture, perhaps to emphasize their artificialness or ‘un-humanness’. As the Circa interview was a staged event, it makes it easier to manipulate what the public eventually sees. For an actor, an edited production would make it easier to maintain the illusionof the character, because when the actor breaks character, it could simply be edited out. In a live broadcast, a break of character cannot be edited out, breaking the illusion of the character as well. In the case of Poppy, there is no question that she is representing herself in a consistent way.

However, the question remains, to what extent ‘Poppy’ is a separate character or persona from the person underneath. In the majority of her interviews -I will provide more examples later on- Poppy does not acknowledge that she is portraying a character. However, in the before mentioned in depth interview with WIRED, the following exchange happened between Poppy and the interviewer:

Eventually, I ask: How much of this is you and how much of this is Poppy? “I think we’re the same at this point,” she says. “We’ve really … we’ve just become one. Hollywood does that to you.” This answer contains something I haven’t seen in the other interviews she’s done—an acknowledgement that she is playing a role, or at least that she was playing one initially (Pandell, 2017).

As Pandell justly points out, for the first time Poppy acknowledges that she was playing a character, but that they now have become one and the same, adding “Hollywood does that to you.”. This leads us to the next point, because as the Circa interview was staged, Poppy also partakes in live and unedited interviews, in which she ‘remains in character’. She does not rely on edited productions to maintain the continuity in her representation. Perhaps, the fact that her initial character has fused with her person, contributes to this uncanny ability. The fact that Poppy participates in unedited interviews, does not mean that she and Titanic Sinclair have no control over the output. At the beginning of a live interview on the Zach Sang podcast, Poppy is taking her time to answer and during her silence, you can very faintly her a voice telling her what to say through her headphones; Titanic Sinclair. In contrary to what Bourdieu addressed in his famous lecture On Television (1998), it seems that in this case the producer of the content is not the one manipulating the audience through means of editing, time constrictions and moralities. In this case it seems that the artist is the one who is intentionally managing and editing the image to, in a way, manipulate the audience. An interesting reversal of roles. Instead of the broadcaster or the producer manipulating the content of the output, it seems that the artists are mostly in control here. The way that Titanic Sinclair and Poppy control the content that is presented to the public -not only in interviews and artistic work, but also in the way they protect their private lives by filing copyright strikes against people trying to expose them- provides a solution to Bourdieu’s problem. Where Bourdieu sat in front of a camera, with total freedom to say what he wanted to say -no time restraints, no moral restraints and no editing, Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are the directors and executive producers of their own work. They have been doing this since the beginning of their project, but now they are more popular, they are still the ones in control as they have never committed to a record label or another large entertainment company. Everything they do is on their terms and they can permit this kind of freedom, because they have become so popular with their audience. This raises the question if Poppy’s and Titanic Sinclair’s public appearances and interactions are perhaps more performance than interview and if in this case the control is with the artist, insteadof with the producer, what does this mean for free speech and democracy? Below I will discuss some fragments from the unedited Zach Sang podcast.

Heather (interviewer): H Dan (interviewer): D Zach (interviewer): Z Poppy: P

[…] P: Plants are living, just like me. D: Are you living though? You kind of seem like a robot. P: hmm, I don’t feel like a robot. Z: What do you feel? P: I feel so many things that human beings feel. Like emotions.

When Poppy says, “I don’t feel like a robot”, it is a very paradoxical statement. She is creating discontinuity about the question if she is a human or not. She does not deny that she is a robot, but at the same time she says she ‘feels’, which is a characteristic for humans and other living things. Then, she goes on to say that ‘she feels so many things that human beings feel’, which implies that she is not human herself. The way she meanders between human qualities, like feelings, and technology, like cyborgs and robots, are very relevant in contemporary society, where artificial intelligence and the ethics surrounding the interactions between artificial intelligence and human beings are a fervent subject for debate and controversy.

Z: So, when you woke up today, how did your day start? P: First, they told me to get dressed. Z: “They”? P: And then they washed my hair. Z: Okay. D: Who’s they? P: And then they told me how good… Three Musketeers bars are. H: [laughing] They are good!

Again, Poppy is talking about ‘they’. The fact that some unknown party is controlling her, combined with her robot-likeness seems to creep the interviewers out. When watching the video, you can tell by their facial expressions and their body language that at times, they are very uncomfortable and even a little freaked out. Poppy seems to be unfazed by the obvious awkwardness. But just as easy as she creates the tension, she breaks it by saying something whimsical, disarming her public with her innocent and random remarks, for example about the musketeer candy bars in the segment above. This balance between the mystery and creepiness and her innocence and quirkiness, is very important to keep her audience engaged I believe.

[…] Z: Is Poppy a girl? P: I’m Poppy. Z: You look like a girl, so I would say yes. But then again… I don’t know. P: I feel like a girl Z: You believe that gender is eventually going to go away, right?

P: It has already. Z: Has it? P: There’s no such thing as gender. Z: I mean… P: Only computers. Z: But you said you have feeling like a human… But there’s only computers, so do computers have human feelings? P: They’ve been feeling for a long time. They’re just like us. […]

Now, besides Poppy occasionally addressing herself in the third person, the interviewer is addressing Poppy in the third person. Instead of asking “are you a girl?”, he says “is Poppy a girl?” He is trying to distance the Poppy character from the girl that is sitting in front of him, seeing if he can get her to react. However, Poppy does not budge or acknowledge a character. Again, a fusion between technology and humans pops up in the conversation with Poppy saying computers “are just like us”. When she says ‘just like us’, it would imply that she is human as well, so again, she is circling around the question if she is human or technology. There is also a paradox in her saying she ‘feels like a girl’, but then stating that gender has ceased to exist already. This is also a very high- profile controversy in the current public debate. Her subtle and clinical way of addressing these topics, like she is assessing humans from a non-human perspective, almost makes that she could say anything, without people criticizing her for it.

Z: Does Poppy use a cell phone? P: They give me so many cell phones. Z: ‘They’? So, the people who take care of you, who wash you in the morning? P: [Nods and points to cell phone] This is my cell phone. Z: Oh, there it is, so you are always connected? P: I talk into my cell phone. Z: You type in it too, right? P: [agrees] We all do. Z: Just making sure. Just didn’t know if you were doing it any other way, with your eyes or something. [in mocking tone] H: [laughs] P: Pretty soon you won’t even need your fingers to type. H: Oh, how are you going to type? P: We are just going to think to each other. Z: Do you feel you can do that now? P: [Nods] On YouTube dot com, yes. Z: [laughs] People love you on YouTube, obviously because of your music and everything that is Poppy. How do you take online fame? P: Everybody is famous now. So it’s easy. Z: Does that cheapen art, because everybody can get famous? P: No. Z: Is what you are doing art? P: I like that everyone’s famous.

Z: Why? P: It makes life more fun. […]

The interviewer continues to address Poppy in the third person. The content of Poppy’s answers often has a futuristic or progressive theme not only when it comes to technology, but also when it comes to society. For example, when she talks about there being no more gender, computers having feelings and the possibility of telepathy. In her answers, her vision of progression, technology and the future seems very idealistic and optimistic. However, when she is talking about celebrity culture on Twitter and in interviews, a strong sense of irony surfaces, illustrated again in the transcription below.

[…] D: Do you like when other YouTube famous people are trying to figure you out […]? P: Hmm… I like when famous people talk about me. Z: What do you feel when people talk about you. P: It makes me more famous. Z: And what is the goal of Poppy? P: Ehm.. To make everyone on the planet my fan. D: Because ‘Poppy’ is ‘Popular’.. P: I love my fans. […]

In the part of the interview above, the topic of fame is discussed, another recurring theme in the Poppy content. By saying “I like when famous people talk about me” and regarding to what she feels when people talk about her: “it makes me more famous”, Poppy confirms that the ‘acquisition of fame’ is important to her. It does not matter that people are talking about her, it does not matter what they are saying, because at least they are talking and Poppy is getting more famous. As Graham Turner said in Understanding Celebrity (2013), the modern celebrity is highly visible in the media and often the consumer is more interested in their private life than in their actual achievements and professional life. In the case of Poppy, this is interesting because there is nearly no information about her and titanic Sinclair’s private life. Although the mystery surrounding their personal life is adding fuel to the fire when it comes to fans trying to find more personal information, the irony in Poppy’s ‘obsession’ with fame is hard to miss. She wants to be more famous, yet nobody knows anything actually about her. Her ironization of contemporary celebrity, reveals their robot-likeness, executing orders and mimicking ‘real human beings’ in their public behaviour.

[…] Z: Do you have a mother? P: I do not have parents. Z: None? P: I have a creator. D: Oh that’s what I was about to ask, who created you?

Z: That’s what I’m saying, I think she is the popstars that is just created, she is like the test tube popstar. That is Poppy. P: I don’t remember. […]

In this part of the interview, one of the interviewers calls Poppy the ‘test tube celebrity’. Poppy has a creator. Again, this relates to Turner’s notion of celebrity as a commodity, a media process, coordinated by an industry and consumed by fans or an audience (Turner, 2013, p. 23). This commodification, that according to Turner, contributes to the perception of the inauthenticity of mass mediated popular culture.

[…] Z: How do you define fame, last question? P: Fame is the best thing to happen to a human being. Everybody wants to be famous. Z: Really? Why is it the best? P: Everybody gets to be famous. Z: Is that really true? I don’t think so.. P: The internet makes being famous very easy. Z: Well, it makes it easy, but there’s still competition […] you still got to have a talent, right? A gift. Something that.. [Poppy interrupts] P: I think the greatest gift is fame […] (Zach Sang, 2017).

In this last part of the interview, Poppy and Zach talk about fame again. Poppy says that fame is the best thing to happen to a human being and that everybody gets to be famous, because the internet makes it very easy. Zach disagrees, he thinks there is still a lot of competition and that you have to have skills or talent. As Gamson (2011, p. 1065) mentioned: “… The Internet drastically widens the pool of potential celebrities by lowering the entry barriers … and bypassing the tightly controlled publicity system and the tightly controlling middle people of Hollywood”. While it becomes easier for the underdog to get a platform to broadcast their authentic work, it also becomes easier for the ‘Instagram-famous’ celebrity who is reading from a cue card off screen what the producers and advertisers want her to say, to acquire a large audience.

2.2.3. Titanic Sinclair’s interview The interview with Titanic Sinclair, I will be analysing was for Dom’s Sketch Cast, a podcast YouTube channel with animated videos. At the beginning of the interview Titanic Sinclair asks the interviewer if the animator can make him look bored. The animation features an uninterested looking animated version of Titanic Sinclair, sitting in a room filled with old TV’s. The fact that Titanic Sinclair asked if the animator could make him look bored, contributes to my earlier observation that looking bored and uninterested is an important part of his aesthetic and image. Below I will transcribe and comment on parts of the interview.

Interviewer: I Titanic Sinclair: TS

[…] I: Do you like the concept of scaring people? …If they were scared, would you feel like you fulfilled something? TS: Yeah ehm, I feel like, throughout every day, for the most part, everyone’s day is very boring… for the amount of information we are all eating, compulsively, every day, non-stop, we’re pretty boring creatures… and even like, for me in LA, where everything is kind of... it’s like the saturation of everything is like increased, there is so many crazy people, just so much of everything, ehm… that we’re all just kind of desensitized… At least, when I make a video or when I make something, I kind of hope or aim for that thing that I’m making, to be, when people watch it, maybe it will be the strangest moment of their day, or the most exciting moment or you know, the scariest moment. You know, the fear… it is fun to play with […] I like the idea of people reacting in a way they probably hadn’t reacted at all, like that day. […]

The first thing I noticed, is that Titanic Sinclair’s answers seem more elaborate and more candid as well. Where Poppy’s answers are very calculated and where she never stumbles on her words, his answers are more ‘unrehearsed’ and he seems to consider his words with care often pausing and thinking. The second thing I noticed was the blatant contrast between his Twitter presence and the way he presents himself in this interview. Where he portrays himself as provocative, cynical and stand-offish on Twitter, in this interview he seems calm, collected and well spoken. He is taking time to think about his answers, he is soft spoken and waits patiently for the interviewer to finish his questions, never interrupting him. He even seems a bit shy at times, stumbling on his words and nervously giggling at some questions and remarks. He talks about people being desensitized because of the overload of impulses in contemporary society. He tells the interviewer that it also affects him. He wants to make something that is different and that makes people feel something else they had not felt before. By doing this, his work stands out from the continues stream of information he mentions. He is making an effort to poke a hole through his public’s desensitized state of being, by startling them with something provocative.

[…] TS: [Talking about Andy Warhol being one of his favourite artists] I think he did a very hard thing and made it seem very easy and he is definitely one of my biggest influences, absolutely. He was able to make, the obvious one is the Campbell soup can, it was just a can and it was just a painting, you know… not rocket science. And he managed to really make people ehm… he was a troll! You know? I think he was a troll. When someone is a troll, or you know, someone is like ‘I make videos and they’re weird or goofy or silly or whatever’ and it is just to get a reaction… even if the motivation or the input behind that is like light-hearted or funny, I think that still can result in some very strong art. […]

Titanic Sinclair mentions Andy Warhol being one of his biggest influences. He then goes on to describe Andy Warhol as a troll, internet slang for someone who is purposely causing disruptions

35 or mayhem by posting inflammatory content or messages. To me, this is very telling for Titanic Sinclair’s behaviour on Twitter, where he is purposely picking fights and insulting people. Him listing Andy Warhol, who he thinks is a troll, as one of his biggest influences, to me confirms that his Twitter behaviour is ‘trolling’, he is not really that angry, bitter, argumentative person, he is just trying to get a reaction. And it is working, because his audience is responding and even buying his merchandise because of it, whether they acknowledge ‘the troll’ or not. The connection with Warhol is not only present in his online behaviour, it is also strongly present in his work. Just like Titanic Sinclair mentioned earlier, making something weird to get a reaction can be a way to get through to people, to stand out from the endless, ongoing stream of information that has desensitized the public.

[…] TS: Are you familiar with the Uncanny Valley idea? I: Yes, but describe it again. TS: I’ve heard it described with, like artificial intelligence and like CG for example. […] any time that there is something that is very human-like, but not quite human enough to trick us into believing that it’s an actual, ehm… equal, if that makes sense? […] when you kind of blur the lines of reality a little bit, and pay very, very close and sometimes not close enough attention when producing something, it can really disorient the viewer. And I really like that. […] I: How much do you look forward to seeing androids? In real life, talking to a complete AI, that looks and feels and sounds like a human. […] TS: I already know one. I: Okay alright [both laughing] TS: And it’s great [laughing] I: Who is this android? TS: She… [chuckles] …she is a very human-like being, who one day approached me and I decided to document her [chuckles].

The concept of the uncanny valley, as explained by Titanic Sinclair, is interesting because it is a very relevant topic in contemporary culture and science when it comes to research and development concerning artificial intelligence, robots and cyborgs, but also when it comes to special effects and other technological developments the creative industry. It also presents an ethical dilemma, what if artificial intelligence becomes indiscernible from a human being? What does this mean for the relationship between man and technology? In the case of Poppy, it is interesting that we experience the uncanny valley, even though she is (most likely) a human being. Again, Titanic Sinclair emphasises the element of disorientation and discomfort in his work.

I: […] I believe she is a woman, isn’t she? TS: Hmhm, I haven’t seen all of the body parts but I believe they are a woman (Dom’s Sketch Cast, 2016).

In the excerpt above, again the aspect of gender surfaces. What stands out to me, is that Titanic Sinclair uses the gender-neutral pronoun ‘they’, instead of the female pronoun ‘she’. This is corresponding with Poppy saying that gender does not exist anymore, during the Zach Sang

36 podcast. Where Poppy said she ‘feels like a girl’, Titanic Sinclair is saying ‘I believe they are a woman’. There is never an explicit confirmation that Poppy is a woman.

2.2.4. Discursive strategies In summary, in these Poppy and Titanic Sinclair interviews a few discursive strategies surface. The first, and perhaps the most obvious one, is creating a sense of mystery and ambiguity in the things they are saying. By being paradoxical and circling around certain topics, while at the same time ‘teasing’ the audience with strange bits of information, Poppy leaves the audience wanting to know more about her. Poppy always leaves her audience with more questions. Is she human or is she technology? Who are ‘they’? Is someone controlling her? Is she conspiring to take over the world? This strategy keeps her audience on the edge of their seats, it keeps them interested in what she is going to do or say next. This sense of mystery and ambiguity is corresponding with Turner’s concept of contemporary celebrity and the public. As Turner describes in Understanding Celebrity (2013), often the interest in the private life of the celebrity is far greater than the interest in their professional life. In the case of Poppy, the mystery makes the fans even more eager to find out more about her. At the same time, it seems, that by her and Titanic Sinclair not providing this information, the public pays closer attention to what they are sharing: their artistic work, in an attempt to learn more about them. This strategy, is what hooks the audience. The second strategy used by Poppy, is disassociating with her presumable character, by switching between talking about herself in the third person and in the first person. This strategy has an alienating effect. It contributes to her cyborg-likeness, but at the same time it raises the question about where the artist ends and where the character begins, or if there is even a distinction between the two anymore. It serves as a brief reminder to the audience, that there is an interplay and maybe even a fusion between the artist and the character. It is also a reminder that not everything that we see, for example in celebrity culture, is real. Being a celebrity is being a performer and sometimes it is difficult to see which parts are the true authentic self and which parts are a performance. This play of performance and authenticity is interesting in relation to what Gielen (2013) wrote about the ‘carefully constructed portrayal of the common man’ in the media, that is constructed to maintain the neoliberal ideals. By constantly playing with the notion of ‘what is real’ and ‘what is performance’, Poppy and Titanic Sinclair, might be challenging or at least giving us a peak behind the curtains of this concept of the constructed celebrity or character. The third strategy I discern, is irony. The hyperbolic representation of a superficial celebrity is like holding up a mirror. By exaggerating these celebrities; their hunger for fame; how they are controlled by producers and the media, Poppy is ridiculing this exact thing. Poppy is attempting to show her audience the irony of the situation. They are ‘fangirling’ over her, while she seems to be mocking them. Or perhaps, like Fisher stated in Capitalist Realism, they recognize the irony as their way of rebelling against the system. So why does the audience put up with this? They are part of the subject of commentary, they are being ‘bullied’ by Titanic Sinclair on Twitter. I believe Poppy’s ‘technology-like’ way of addressing controversial topics, like she is assessing humans as a non- human, in combination with her quirkiness and innocent appearance, makes that she can say almost anything she wants, without people criticizing her for it, just like a child could do. Not only are Poppy and Titanic Sinclair showing us the irony of the constructed and commodified celebrity, their exaggeration of contemporary celebrity is also in a way exposing the workings of the entertainment industry. When Bourdieu spoke about the workings of television, in his lecture On Television (1998), he stated his fear of the medium having become an enabler for narcissistic

37 exhibitionism. When intellectuals would comply to all the rules and boundaries set by the instrument of production, their message would be compromised. They would only comply to these limitations to be seen and to be perceived by an audience. These are qualities that are still present in celebrities and (pseudo)intellectuals. For example, during talk shows like the Dutch De Wereld Draait Door, which imply intellectual conversation, but are really more of an elongated commercial, glorifying its participants instead of being truly critical. In Poppy’s media presence, an answer to Bourdieu’s problem is hiding. In the case of Poppy and Titanic Sinclair, they have control over the production, instead of the medium they are working with. This is potentially an important strategy, not only in entertainment and art but also in intellectual discourse, and maybe even more important, in a crossover of those three. The fourth strategy surfaces from the interview with Titanic Sinclair and is not only applicable on their representation, but also on their artistic work. This strategy is creating a sense of disorientation and discomfort amongst the audience. This strategy is connected to the first one, of creating a sense of mystery and ambiguity and the reaction both strategies achieve are partly similar. However, where the first strategy is specifically focussed on creating a mystery around their person leaving the public intrigued and wanting to know more, this strategy is creating an uncomfortableness that the viewers can not quite place. Like Titanic Sinclair explained, people have become desensitized, because of the constant overload of information and stimuli they are experience in daily life. By making them feel or experience something they have not felt or experienced that day, he attempts to break through this desensitization. By making the audience feel disoriented and uncomfortable, their content is not only more likely to ‘stick’, it also stimulates people to assess it further. Fisher also describes the desensitization of society in his work Capitalist Realism (2009), he states: “The attitude of ironic distance proper to postmodern capitalism is supposed to immunize us against the seductions of fanaticism. Lowering our expectations is a small price to pay for being protected from terror and totalitarianism.” (Fisher, 2009, p. 8-9). This same sense of irony, according to Fisher, has become our shield and excuse not to really care about anything. It allows us to acknowledge the irony in the critical art, culture and entertainment we consume and in that way, it performs our protest for us, which allows us to continue consuming without a conflict of interest in what is also known as slacktivism. However, Titanic Sinclair and Poppy are embracing this exact kind of ironic distance that Fisher is describing, creating a paradox ironizing this irony and apathy. Could their hyperbolic representation of this ironic and aphetic character be a wake-up call? Or is it just fighting fire with fire? Titanic Sinclair describes his fondness of Andy Warhol and ‘trolling’ the public. He says:

When someone […] is like ‘I make videos and they’re weird or goofy or silly or whatever’ and it is just to get a reaction… even if the motivation or the input behind that is like light-hearted or funny, I think that still can result in some very strong art (Dom’s Sketch Cast, 2016).

Perhaps getting a reaction at all is already a way to break the apathy and to make people think. By making them feel something else, something unusual, they are already creating a possibility for conversation and new perspectives. By making their audience feel anything at all, if anything, they are creating engagement, interest and a focussed kind of attention that makes conveying a message more viable. Where the first strategy ‘hooks’ the audience, this strategy reels them deeper into the project.

2.3. Artistic work To assess the artistic strategies in Titanic Sinclair’s and Poppy’s work, I will first do an analysis of the video for the song Lowlife and the video My Past, from the Poppy YouTube channel by doing as explained in the methodology chapter. I will do a close reading, look into the aesthetic and the symbolism and how these things relate to the literature.

2.3.1. Lowlife music video In January 2017, I wrote an essay on the music video for Lowlife, titled Hi, I am Poppy -The malleability and disposability of contemporary popstars (2017). During my analysis I will refer to this essay for previous findings and background information. First, I will give a detailed descripting of the video, after that I will discuss the characters in it, the aesthetic, the symbolism and how the lyrics of the song relate to the video. The video opens with a shot of a white boom box in a white, seemingly empty space. We hear echoing footsteps and we see someone’s high-heeled feet walking into the frame. A hand reaches down and pushes a button on the boom box. A reggae/ska-like beat starts to play. The next shot features Poppy, in the same white space, sitting in a white, throne-like chair in front of a white triangle with a heart shaped hole at the top. She is wearing a yellow fur coat and white stockings. Next to her there are two people (one on each side) in white morph suits, lounging on the floor. There are candles on white stands forming an isle to the chair with Poppy on it. There are a shiny white giraffe, monkey and pig figurines on both sides. The image is almost symmetrical. Poppy is sitting with her legs crossed. She is holding one of her hands up, with two fingers pointing up and one of her hands down, with two fingers pointing down. She starts to sing as the camera slowly zooms out:

Old suitcase, clean getaway I'm the one who takes the blame again

The video briefly switches to another in a close-up frame of someone holding a paper folder and twisting a tap on what seems to be some sort of oxygen tank. This scene is really dark in contrast to the light space Poppy was in. In the background we see an older man wearing what appears to be an oxygen mask. Poppy sings:

New day but the same lines, I Feel like a victim of the dollar sign

As the video switches to the next scene, of Poppy standing in the same white space, wearing a different outfit. Only her top part is in frame. In the background three people in white morph suits are dancing and moving. The video switches back to the darker scene, we now see an older man in a suit and tie sitting in a wheelchair. He is talking to another older man in a suit andin an oxygen mask. They are pointing at and talking about something. The video no quickly alternates between the darker scene with the men and the lighter scene of Poppy singing in front of the dancers, Poppy sings:

All these years on my own

Fight my fight all alone ‘Til you came, don’t you know Don’t you know

The video jump-cuts back to the scene of Poppy sitting in the throne-like chair, zoomed in on her face. It then jump-cuts to the scene of Poppy and the dancers and then it cuts to a new scene of Poppy and a man dressed like a devil, with a painted red face, pointy ears and horns, standing in what appears to be a giant cracked open egg. Poppy is making a mirrored ‘S’ shape with her arms. The scene cuts to a shaky close up of the devil’s face, that fades. The video switches back and forth between the scene with the chair, the scene with the dancers and the scene with the devil-figure. The devil figure is mouthing the words to the song, making a gun gesture with is hand and feigning shooting himself in the head. During this passage Poppy sings:

Baby you’re the highlight of my lowlife Take a shitty day and make it alright, yeah, alright Oh, in every circumstance Yeah, you make the difference Baby, you’re the highlight of my lowlife, lowlife

Close-ups of plates with what appear to be human bones and skulls on them flash on the screen. The video now switches to a scene of Poppy and the devil both sitting at opposite ends of a dining table, filled with plates with bones on them and a centrepiece with a skull on it. Poppy is wearing a lilac turtleneck with eyeballs on it. The devil is talking to her. Poppy ignores him, looks into the camera and sings:

This bad taste, these headaches Wake up on the floor again, ah, yeah My torn dress, this failed test Soon they will be erased

The devil is laughing and making hand gestures like he is measuring something. Poppy keeps looking into the camera and singing. As the video again switches back and forth between the different scenes with Poppy, she sings:

All these years on my own Fight my fight all alone ‘Til you came, don’t you know Don’t you know

Baby you’re the highlight of my lowlife

The video switches to the darker scene of the older men talking and pointing, a close up of their faces. It then switches back and forth between the different scene with Poppy again, as she sings:

Take a shitty day and make it alright, yeah alright

Oh, in every circumstance Yeah, you make the difference Baby, you’re the highlight of my lowlife, lowlife

The devil is peeling a banana at the dinner table with Poppy. He then sticks it deep into his throat making an obscene motion. Poppy looks at him in disgust Stands up from the table and walk away. The devil gets up to follow her making angry motions with his arms. As they are walking away, we see that the white space is actually a backdrop in a warehouse or studio-like space. As the camera zooms out, for a split second (03:27), we see the back of someone who looks an awful lot like Titanic Sinclair, sitting in a director’s chair, eating a banana. The camera zooms out further and we now see that the men in the darker scene were actually facing the white space, discussing and pointing at what was happening there. Poppy opens a door and goes outside and the devil stops following her. Outside a line of people is waiting behind a fence with a red sheet over it, they are holding up pictures of Poppy and taking pictures of her with their phones. Poppy dips a paintbrush in a can of red paint at the beginning of the row of people and sloppily runs it over all the pictures, not paying attention to the people. She then gets into a car with blinded windows that is waiting at the end of the row. She sits down in the backseat of the car between two bored looking girls. They do not look at each other. One of the girls puts an oxygen mask over Poppy’s face, she inhales and gets out of the car again. She walks past the row of people and back into the building. During this scene she sings:

And I get so lonely I can't make it on my own And I need to call ya "Can you come to my chateau?" Take me in your arms and Hold me tight, yeah, pull me close Whisper in my ear All I want you to say is Baby you’re the highlight to my lowlife

She is walking backwards into the building looking at the camera in the background we see the men in the suits still discussing things while looking at papers. Poppy sings:

Take a shitty day and make it alright, yeah, alright Oh, in every circumstance Yeah you make the difference Baby you’re the highlight of my lowlife, lowlife

She walks towards the man in the wheelchair and gives the chair a push. She grabs the papers out of the hands of another suited man, flips through them carelessly and throws them away. She then gives the two other men in wheelchairs pushes in different direction. She walks backwards into the white space, looking into the camera, singing:

Baby you’re the highlight of my lowlife

Take a shitty day and make it alright, yeah alright Oh, in every circumstance Yeah, you make the difference Baby you’re the highlight of my lowlife, lowlife

The camera zooms in on Poppy, she blocks the camera with two hands, the frame goes to black and the video ends. The music for the song Lowlife, is reggae pop. The song is vert catchy and upbeat. During the bridge, starting when Poppy sings ‘And I get so lonely, I can’t make it on my own…’, the music turns more have and melancholic, when the bridge is over the music goes back to being upbeat and light.

Symbolism/aesthetic In the first frame of the video, we see the white boombox in the white space. We see a pair of high- heeled feet walking in, someone presses a button and the music starts. To me, this seems like a classic or maybe even cliché opening/prop for a pop music video. In the next frame, a lot of symbolism and intertextual references are already appearing.

Image 13: Still from Poppy’s music video Lowlife (2015).

The first thing that stands out is the colour white, which is very present in the music video. The colour is often related to innocence, purity and ‘the divine’. In the Bible, the colour white is said to represent purity, things that are good, innocence, cleanliness and honesty (The Bible Study Site, n.d.). This symbolism of the colour white, also translates to popular culture. In film, ‘thegood’ is often depicted in white; a cowboy in a white hat, a white horse, the white wizard. Besides that, the colour white is also associated with sterility and clinical things. In psychology, white is the colour of new beginnings; a blanc canvas, ready to be filled in (Olesen, n.d.). In the video, Poppy is the one who is portrayed in the white scenes. This could symbolize Poppy being pure and innocent. This could suggest that the men in the dark scene are ‘the evil’. White is also seen as a symbol for new beginnings, a clean slate. When looking at the first lyrics: “Old suitcase, clean getaway, I’m the one who takes the blame again, new day but the same lines, I feel like a victim of the dollar sign”, they

42 could be interpreted as being about a someone who is leaving everything behind to pursuit fame, a career in Hollywood. Poppy was an innocent girl, until she fell into the hands of the ‘Hollywood system’. The dark side of fame, where men in suits tell you exactly what to do or say to please the public and bring in the money. She is repeating the same lines they are feeding her and she ‘became a victim of the dollar sign’. The clinical and sterile associations with the colour white, could also be interpreted as a reference to the artificialness of the commodified celebrity, the image of pure, perfect girl that seems authentic, but is completely constructed. The setup of the scene also has a royal or even religious feel to it. The symmetry of the image emphasizes that Poppy is in the centre of attention. This is emphasized by Poppy wearing the yellow fur coat, the only colour in this frame. The colour yellow is often associated with happy things. Yellow is also associated with the sun; the centre of our universe. The ‘self’ as a star, as the centre of the universe, is related to the occult, which I will elaborate on later. The row of candles that lead up to the throne-like chair and the morph-suited people who are on either side of her, make it seem like a worship scene or a church. The triangle shape in the background, with the heart- shaped hole at the top, reminds me of the ‘all seeing eye’, that is often depicted in churches as the all seeing eye of God, but is also an important symbol in the illuminati cult, which is a very popular and present in popular culture. In my essay Hi, I am Poppy - The malleability and disposability of contemporary popstars (Gielen, 2017) I elaborate on this. Another thing that stands out, is Poppy’s hand gesture, with two fingers pointing up and two fingers pointing down. In my essay on the video, I looked into this gesture and found it is a reference to Baphomet: a winged hermaphrodite creature, who is related to ‘The Knights of the Templar’. Just like the illuminati, this is a secret society that has gained popularity for its mentioning in Dan Brown’s famous book The Da Vinci Code (2003). The image of Baphomet is believed to symbolize and celebrate the contrasts between ‘above’ and ‘below’, female and male, animal and human and science and religion. This image is also connected to the occult and the phrase ‘as above, so below’, which is about the connection between God, the universe and science. In 2015, Baphomet made headlines, when a satanic temple raised a statue of the creature (Morgan, 2015). Before, I mentioned Poppy being in the centre of the scene, dressed in yellow. I mentioned it being the colour of the sun, which is a star. With the reference to Baphomet, a symbol from the occult, this centre placement of Poppy and the colour yellow become interesting, because a famous occultist, Aleister Crowley, wrote that all men and women are a star. He believed that the ‘self’ was a god and the centre of the universe (“Aleister Crowley”, n.d.).

Image 14: An illustration of Baphomet

So, Baphomet is a symbol for contrasts or opposites if you will. In Poppy’s video, we see all sorts of contrasts. There is the contrast between the light, white space and the dark space, there is a contrast between good (innocence) and evil, there is a contrast between young and old and there is a contrast between male and female. I will explain these contrasts further in the analysis. The other interesting thing about the reference to Baphomet, is its connection to God, the universe and science, as Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are playing with notions of artificial intelligence, worshipping and cults. The aspect of artificial intelligence is not as strong in this video as it is in other content, however, the connection to the occult is remarkable, because it is based on the believe that you are the centre of the universe, you are your own god. The references to secret societies like the Knights of the Templar and the Illuminati, are in the first place a reference to popular culture and

44 the public’s fondness of mystery, but these secret societies and the occult are also related to cults. There are numerous mentions in as well Poppy’s as Titanic Sinclair’s tweets and videos, stating ‘they are not in a cult’ and that Titanic Sinclair ‘is not a cult leader’. They also sell t-shirts that read “I am not in a cult led by Poppy”. However, the symbolism in their work hints at the opposite. This theme and occult notion of the ‘self’ as the centre of the universe is very relevant in the context of celebrity culture, and how celebrities are put on a pedestal and worshipped like they are gods or superhumans. Opposite to the white space with Poppy in it, is the dark space with the older men in it. They represent the people with power in Hollywood and the entertainment industry: older white males. They are the people who are in control, they are the producers of fame and celebrity. They are a reference to ‘the men in charge’, the ‘dictators’ of the publicity/entertainment machine. The wheelchairs and the oxygen masks emphasize that they are ‘fossils’, who still run the business. However, these objects also imply some sort of weakness. They cannot walk or breathe on their own. Near the end of the video, Poppy is seen pushing these men in the wheelchairs away and they cannot do anything to defend themselves. Even though they have the power, Poppy takes control. This ‘going against the system’ is also seen in the scenes with the devil. The devil, could be seen as an extension of these men. He is tempting the innocent girl to ‘sell her soul to the devil’. When Poppy and the devil are standing inside what appears to be an eggshell, this could symbolize the birth of the celebrity, the new person. As mentioned before, in the analysis of her public behaviour, Poppy says she was created.

Image 15: Still from Poppy’s music video Lowlife (2015).

In the still above (image 15), the devil character is seen eating a banana in a very suggestive manner. This happens while he is at the table with Poppy. Her reaction is looking at him in disgust, getting up and walking away. To me, this is a reference to the objectification and oversexualization of young girls in the entertainment industry, which is very problematic and present in the industry. For example the recent Harvey Weinstein scandal, where he, a very important name in Hollywood, was accused of sexually harassing and abusing a large number of women (Mumford, 2017), or the Kesha situation, where the young pop singer said to be mentally abused and manipulated by her producer Dr. Luke, who was also a very important name in de industry (Hunt, 2017). In the video as

45 well as in Poppy’s other appearances, she presents herself as very feminine, but never in a sexual way, more in a childlike, innocent way. In the video, the devil is tempting her to sell her integrity for fame with his suggestive gestures, but just as with the older men, Poppy takes control of the situation and walks away. Although Poppy is presented as innocent, feminine and childlike, in this video she never seems weak. Her body language, the way she looks into the camera and the way she takes control of different situations, radiate strength and confidence.

Image 16: Still from Poppy’s music video Lowlife (2015).

Before, I mentioned the theme of contrasts in the video. Besides the contrast between the light and the dark scenes, there is an clear contrast between male and female. As I mentioned before, Poppy presents herself in a very femine way, from her clothing, to her hair and makeup to her soft spoken voice. This is in strong contrast with the men in their suits in the darker scenes. The video portrays the men as being in a position of power, with their masculine, expensive looking suits, their folders with important looking papers and the way they appear to be discussing what is in front of them. Like I mentioned before, this concept of men being in charge in Hollywood and the entertainment industry, is still very relevant and often problematic. The before-mentioned Harvey Weinstein ordeal, for example, resulted in the massive sharing of the hashtag ‘metoo’, started by actress Alyssa Milano. The purpose of this hashtag, was for women to share their own experiences with sexual harassment and intimidation and to show how common this still is. This is interesting, because Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are showing us this construct in their work, with Titanic Sinclair being the man in charge, and Poppy being the girl who does as she is told. He is the director, he is portrayed as the one telling her what to say in interviews. Most of the time, he is wearing a similar kind of suit to what the older men are wearing. Recently, Poppy and Titanic Sinclair won a Streamy; an award for web based creators. During the red carpet of the award show, Poppy was inside a plastic box, which Titanic Sinclair was pulling around on a chain (Image 17).

Image 17: Still from YouTube video about the Streamy Awards (2017).

Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are overdrawing this ‘Hollywood hierarchy’ of men and women. Poppy is not only presented as just an aesthetic object, she is also trapped in a box unable to voice her thoughts and Titanic Sinclair is the one holding the chain. It represents the popstar as an object that we can behold, secluded from the ‘real world’, but it also represents the people who create these kinds of popstars and who control them and put them on display in a ‘glass box’. In the music video, we see Titanic Sinclair briefly sitting in a directors chair, pealing a banana. As mentioned before, the devil was also eating a banana. This suggests that the devil and Titanic Sinclair embody something similar in the video. When considering the following lyrics: “All these years on my own, fight my fight all alone, ‘til you came, don’t you know, don’t you know. Baby you’re the highlight of my lowlife” and “And I get so lonely, I can’t make it on my own … All I want you to say is, baby you’re the higlight of my lowlife”, in light of the video, this could be about the interdependent relationship between Poppy and Titanic Sinclair or in a broader sense, the relationship between the celebrity and the ‘producer’. The relationship between Poppy and Titanic Sinclair is complex, because on one layer it is performative, but on another layer they are two artists working together. What they portray is Titanic Sinclair controlling Poppy, hence the connection between Titanic Sinclair and the Devil, who symbolizes the temptation or the dark side of fame. In their public representation, Poppy is dependent on Titanic Sinclair, something that is emphasized in the lyrics; someone picker her up when she was down. This also creates a paradox. On one hand, in their performance Poppy is standing up to the big producers of Hollywood, taking control and maintaining her independence from them, but on the other hand, she is still controlled by Titanic Sinclair, which I believe represents the treacherous nature of these kinds of relationships in the entertainment industry. Poppy and Titanic Sinclair as artists, are not signed to a major label. The indepence that they emphasize in their performance is also present in their professional process.

Image 18: Still from Poppy’s music video for the song Lowlife (2015).

In the still pictured above (image 18), Poppy is ‘signing’ the pictures that her fans are holding up with red pain, in a careless way, without even looking at her fans. She then gets into the car with the two other girls and breathes in from the mask they put over her mouth. I think the signing of the pictures is a reference to something Titanic Sinclair has also mentioned in interviews and on his Twitter account; fans worhship celebrities who do not even care about their fans, because they are just anonymous faces to them. The oxygen mask in the car could be a representation of the ‘fans’ smothering her. She needs a break from them, a breath of air, before she gets out of the car to face everything again. She needs to be revived, like a lifeless doll. The oxygen mask could also be a reference to drug use in the entertainment industry. There are countless cases of celebrities who were addicted to substances, or even perished as a result of addiction like Kurt Cobain, Philip Seymour Hoffman and countless others. There is also the phenomenon of the ‘derailed child-stars’, like Lindsay Lohan, Miley Cyrus and Macaulay Culkin, where drugs become a way to cope with the enormous amount of pressure to be perfect in the public eye. The video ends with Poppy blocking the camera with two hands, something that is often done by vloggers to end their videos. However, it could also represent her pushing the camera out of her life, her being fed up with being in the public eye. All of this being said, in the video, Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are portraying the story of a girl who left everything behind in persuit of fame. They portray her struggles regarding integrity, objectification and the pressure of constantly being in the public eye, by creating a parody of the entertainment industry. They paint a caricature of the hierarchy of men in the industry and they symbolize the treacherous nature of fame by introducing the character of the devil, who is constantly tempting the popstar to sell out for fame, by making indecent proposals. In the end, it appears that good defeats evil, when Poppy takes control by pushing out the men in charge. She is maintaining her authenticity and independence from the establishment. At the same time, the controlling presence of Titanic Sinclair is still lurking in the background, which is emphasized by the parallel between Titanic Sinclair and the devil. By breaking the third wall -when she walks out of the scene and the studio is revealed- she is reminding us that the perfect image we see, is constructed and controlled. Lyrically, what appeared to be just another love song, now becomes visualisation of the ‘twisted’ interdependence of the celebrity and the industry.

2.3.2. My Past video In the introduction, I briefly wrote about the videos on Poppy’s YouTube channel. Most of them are around a minute long. There are a few things they all have in common. All of the videos are set in the same empty, white space. All the videos have estranging soundscapes as background noise and all of the videos end very abruptly. There is no fade out in the music or the image. A lot of videos on Poppy’s channel feature Poppy repeating a certain over and over again. Examples of this are the video I’m Poppy, a ten-minute video of Poppy repeating the phrase ‘I am Poppy’. Another example is the video Delete Your Facebook, in which Poppy keeps repeating ‘delete your Facebook’, or the video Queen, where she simply repeats the word ‘queen’. The way she repeats these phrases is very staccato and reminds me of computer generated voices. In the video Your Neighbour, Poppy is standing, looking at a point beside the camera, with her hands sticking out in front of her in a plastic-doll-like manner. She is repeating the phrase “Say hello to your neighbour”. After every repetition on the phrase, a bleeping sound is heard and she moves her hands in an almost mechanical way, opening and closing her fingers (image 19).

Image 19: Still from Poppy’s video Your Neighbour (2017).

These repeated, mechanical movements, just like the repetition of phrases, resurface in a number of videos on Poppy’s YouTube channel. This mechanical repetition in movement and speech does not only contribute to her cyborg-likeness, it also portrays the artificialness of contemporary celebrity, who are repeating the same lines over and over to pander to their audience and their producers. These celebrities are like robots themselves. The movements and behaviour, in combination with the strange soundscapes, contribute to the before mentioned uncanny valley effect, where the object becomes unsettling because it is too similar to a human, but not quite human. The abrupt ending of the videos contributes to the unsettling feeling. They almost come as a jump scare, like something bad has happened or is about to happen. In the video My Past, Poppy is sitting on the floor with her legs crossed, in the now familiar white space. She is wearing a black and white checkered jumpsuit with a white heart on the chest. She is

49 wearing a hairpiece that looks like two blue cube structures. She is holding her hands on her knees, almost like she is meditating. The perspective of the frame is a bird’s eye perspective, where the viewer is looking down on Poppy and where Poppy is looking up into the camera. The visually pleasing aesthetics and great attention to detail are notable in every video on the Poppy channel. They contribute to the notion of Poppy as a merely aesthetic object, instead of a human being.

Image 20: Still from Poppy’s video My Past (2017).

Poppy is looking directly into the camera while talking about her past. While she is talking, a strange soundscape is heard in the background. I transcribed and commented on what she says in the video below:

It’s time to tell you about my past. I’ve done some things in the past that I’m not proud of. My past is riddled with mystery and confusion.

It is interesting that she is talking about her past, as before in interviews, she has stated that she was created. It is also interesting in relation to the video for Lowlife, where she sings about leaving everything behind and everything becoming better. She is triggering the viewer to be curious about what has happened in her past.

I want to talk about my history with you. I feel like I was born so long ago, Back when things made more sense. Back before the internet made us think differently.

Now, Poppy says she was ‘born so long ago’, which is strange, because before she stated that she was never born, but that she was created by a creator. Again, she is confusing the viewer with her

50 answers. However, she says: I ‘feel’ like I was born so long ago. By never truly confirming or stating anything, she is maintaining the sense of mystery and ambiguity. The way she says, ‘before the internet’ and ‘so long ago’, almost make it appear that she has lived another life in another time. However, this generation of millennials is known for being the generation that has experienced life before the internet, but are also digital natives. It would be plausible to assume, she is talking about childhood and ‘simpler times’. By doing this she is playing at a more emotional and human aspect of her representation, constantly balancing between the alien and the familiar.

I remember the last time I was here, It was different then. People were less concerned with memes.

‘I remember the last time I was here’, almost seems like she is talking about reincarnation. In the light of the constructed celebrity and the narrative of the Lowlife video, this could be a reference to reinventing yourself, or her ‘rebirth’ as Poppy, the celebrity. ‘People were less concerned with memes’, is a very telling phrase. It references the digital ‘sharing culture’, where people share things just for likes, but in essence, it is empty. Again, it seems like she is reminiscing older times, when things were more sincere and meaningful.

Sometimes I think about my past and it feels real foggy. Almost like it doesn’t exist. If my past doesn’t exist, does that mean I don’t exist?

This last part, really touches upon the dichotomy between the person or the artist and the character again. As mentioned before, when an interviewer asked her how much of it was her and how much of it was Poppy, she answered “I think we’re the same at this point, we’ve really … we’ve just become one. Hollywood does that to you.” (Pandell, 2017). The lines above, represent her past fading, it seems like it does not exist anymore, because the character is all that is left. She is telling her audience something about her past, but at the same time she is saying nothing at all. By doing this, she creates an illusion of closeness; a personal relation or depth, even though what she is actually saying is meaningless and empty. This illusion of closeness and a personal relation between a Poppy and her audience, is again an ironic rendition of the relation between celebrities and fans. It seems bilateral, but in reality it is empty.

3. Conclusion At the start of this thesis, I stated the question “Which artistic and discursive strategies can young artists use to contribute to the 21st century public debate, through their media presence and artistic work in the online space?” In the work and the public behaviour of Poppy and Titanic Sinclair, I have discerned several discursive strategies and artistic strategies.

3.1. Discursive strategies The first discursive strategy is creating a sense of mystery and ambiguity in the way they present themselves. In Understanding Celebrity (2013), Turner describes the public’s excessive interest in the private lives of celebrities. In Poppy’s case, the mystery surrounding her and Titanic Sinclair’s past and private life, is making the public even more eager to find out, making them pay closer attention to what they do. This strategy is what hooks the public. The second strategy is disassociating with her presumable character. By switching between addressing herself in the third person and the first person, she is creating confusion, but also awareness regarding the relationship between the artist and the character. It functions as a reminder that there is an interplay between the two. It also serves as a reminder that not everything that we see in entertainment, is real. Celebrities are performers, which sometimes makes it difficult to see what is true, what is authentic and what is a performance. This emphasis on the interplay between performance and authenticity in celebrity culture, is interesting in relation to what Gielen (2013) wrote about the ‘carefully constructed portrayal of the common man’. According to Gielen, this portrayal is used by the media to maintain neoliberal ideals. By playing with the notion of ‘what is real’ and ‘what is performance’, Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are triggering their public to re- evaluate and be more critical towards the content they consume. Poppy’s fans are obsessed with her and at the same time she is ridiculing this exact concept. Why would you obsess over something that is not real? Like Fisher stated in Capitalist Realism, the consumer recognizes the irony and that becomes his way of protesting the system. The third strategy is maintaining control in situations where other parties are involved. As seen in the edited interviews as well as in the live interviews, Poppy and Titanic Sinclair direct and produce everything to perfection. When Bourdieu spoke about intellectuals, in On Television (1998), he expressed his concerns for television becoming an enabler for the narcissistic exhibitionism of not only celebrities, but also intellectuals as they surrender the control of their message to the producers. In Poppy’s and Titanic Sinclair’s media presence, an answer to Bourdieu’s problem is present. They maintain the control of the element of production, reversing the classic hierarchy. This could be an important strategy, not only in entertainment and art, but also in intellectual discourse, to safeguard the authenticity and the message of public figures. The fourth strategy is creating a sense of disorientation and discomfort. By doing so, Poppy and Titanic Sinclair break the desensitization that is caused by the constant overload of information and impulses that people are subject to in contemporary society. In Capitalist Realism (2009), Fisher describes the attitude of apathy and ironic distance that is the result of postmodern capitalism and functions as a blindfold and protection against fanaticism, terror and totalitarianism. I believe breaking this apathy and distance is the first step to engaging in meaningful discourse with the public. Making the public feel something, or getting a reaction at all, is already a brick from the wall that we build to protect ourselves from caring.

The fifth strategy is creating the illusion of closeness between the celebrity and the public. Poppy keeps saying ‘she loves her fans’ and that her fans are important to her. She gives them the idea that she is sharing something personal about herself, when in reality, she is saying nothing at all. This illusion of closeness and a personal relation between her and her audience is an ironic rendition of the relationship between celebrities and their fans. She gives them the illusion that they know her and that she knows them, when in fact it is a one-way communication of hollow words. This strategy could make her fans feel special and loved, but it could also serve as a reminder that there is in fact no personal relationship at all between starts and fans.

3.2. Artistic strategies Besides discursive strategies, I also found several striking artistic strategies in their work. The first one is the use of different kinds of symbolism. The contrast between good and evil, light and dark is used to symbolize the different aspects and pawns of the industry. On one side, there is Poppy, who is represented as being light, innocent, feminine and childlike, and on the other side there is the ‘dark side’, where the powerful men reside who control the industry and manufacture the celebrities. The occult and cults are also a frequently returning symbolism. The references to Satanism, the devil and the Illuminati, represent the sinister world of the entertainment industry that is supposed to be hidden from the consumer. They also represent the temptations of fame; selling out, losing your integrity, objectification, substance abuse and power games. By using this symbolism, Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are showing the dark side of fame. They are breaking a part of the illusion of the ‘perfect popstar’. In their work, there are frequent references to religion and worship. These references symbolize how contemporary celebrities are put on pedestals and worshipped like gods. They are expected to be flawless and perfect and if they fail to be so, they are subjected to a digital lynching. The use of this symbolism exposes these aspects of celebrity culture, while at the same time it is creating a strong bond amongst the fans. They feel like they are part of a cult, a religion and they worship Poppy. Besides the references to religion, technology has a very important part in their work. The portrayal of Poppy as some sort of cyborg or artificial intelligence, symbolizes the emptiness and malleability of celebrities and popular culture. It also symbolizes how much technology and ‘being online’ has become embedded in our culture and daily life. While Titanic Sinclair and Poppy are almost worshipping technology in their work, they also address the dark side of it; the never ending stream of information that has numbed society. The other prominent artistic strategy is the use of aesthetics. All Poppy’s and Titanic Sinclair’s artistic work, is very aesthetically pleasing. The videos are always in high quality. There is a great attention to detail in their work. Their use of colour, space, shapes, styling and fashion, makes the image in itself a visually appealing piece of art. In Capitalist Realism (2009), Fisher stated that capitalist realism consumes all historical, cultural and symbolic rituals and objects, and reduces them to their monetary value, which results in these objects and rituals being reduced to merely aesthetic and ironized artefacts. This is exactly what Poppy and Titanic Sinclair portray in their behaviour and their work. Poppy is the epitome of an ironized, aesthetic object, but at the same time she is drawing attention to this construct. By ironizing the celebrity as an object, they show us how robot-like and artificial celebrities have become.

3.3. Societal context In my theoretical framework I have attempted to sketch the societal context in which this question exists, starting from three dilemmas that fascinate me. I found that the role of art in the 21st century public debate, is a complex one. The rise of neoliberalism and the ever-present manifestation of capitalism, have changed the way that art and artists interact with their public and with society. The commercialization and commodification of art, has become an inevitable cause of capitalist society. According to Fisher (2009), we are not even able to imagine an alternative to capitalism anymore. We are hiding behind cynicism, to protect ourselves from feeling anything at all, he states. We acknowledge the irony in the art and the entertainment that we consume and by acknowledging this irony, we feel we have done our part in protesting. So, what does that mean? Are we finished talking, wondering, conversing and imagining? Are we helpless in the magnificent, overwhelming current of capitalism? Have we become paralyzed, aphetic zombies, eyes gleaming blue from the light of our screens, brains in shutdown from the overload of information and impulses? There has to be an alternative, right? So, what are the things that make us feel? The things that jolt us awake, that startle us, make us ask questions? The things that intrigue us and ignite our passion. The things that make us care. Neoliberalism tells us art is useless. A waste of money and time and a threat to the focussed mind of the common man, working his job. The economic value and the reproducibility have become more important than the authenticity and the autonomy of the artist. And of course, there are different sides to this story and we cannot dismiss opposing perspectives, but the truth is that all of us have to navigate the consequences of our capitalist society. To have a platform and a voice, even though critical, artists have to be part of the system. When you are outside of the system, you do not have a voice, you do not have a stage. And for art to be art, it has to be perceived. To touch your audience, you have to reach your audience first. So how can artists reach their audience? Bourdieu (1998), already described the pitfalls of the television medium. He warned us for the narcissistic exhibitionism that had not only affected our entertainers, but also our intellectuals. They caved to pandering to their audience, fell victim to commercialization and the control that the industry had over them. Then the internet came, it was promised that it would connect everyone from all layers of society, all over the world. The internet created ‘do-it-yourself’ structures that made it possible to bypass the ‘big man’ in Hollywood. Everyone could have a stage. Everyone could become a star. But things turned out different; clickbait, filter bubbles and other profit driven structural flaws tempered the excitement and corrupted part of its user based creators. A large segment of society, has lost trust in these platforms, in our politicians and in our intellectuals. They question the authenticity and the motivations for their actions and words. It can be depressing and overwhelming to think about all the things we don’t know and all the things we can’t seem to fix. Sometimes it seems easier to give up, to go with the flow, to shield ourselves with apathy instead of appetite. But there is somewhere we can start. Art can provide us with a sense of possibility and alternative scenarios. It can stimulate us to imagine, and if we have minds capable of imagining, we have minds capable of change. If there is a need for an alternative voice in the public debate, an honest voice and a challenging voice, we should embrace art. We should welcome it as a viable voice in the public debate and we should cherish it. Art can shock us, challenge us and confront us. It can build bridges and start conversations. Poppy and Titanic Sinclair confuse us, they make us wonder, they confront us and they create a childlike sense of excitement and mystery that is needed to break the apathy. At the same time,

54 they are holding up a mirror and challenging their audience to re-evaluate what they know. They trigger them to be more critical when it comes to the entertainment and information they consume, by showing an ironized and hyperbole version of reality. They make us question what is real and what is fake, by playing and meandering around notions of artificialness, authenticity and sincerity. At the same time, they are setting an example against mindlessly floating along with the stream, by marching to their own drum.

4. Discussion & recommendations

What Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are doing is not unique, but it is exemplary for what contemporary culture has become. I believe it also lifts a curtain on what contemporary society needs; more meaningful discourse, engagement and mutual understanding. The fact that Titanic Sinclair and Poppy are very popular with a young audience, shows that there is a need for something strange and something different. There is a need to break the rut of daily life. So concretely, what should young artist do to contribute to the public debate in a meaningful way? I believe that artists should challenge their audience. By creating a reaction – if this is by confronting, moving, shocking or relating to their audience – they are instigating a conversation. By making their audience feel uncomfortable or unusual, they challenge them to step out of their comfort zone, their bubble and engage in something. This sense of strangeness or unease, stimulates the imagination and creativity and that is exactly what we need to imagine alternative scenarios, to instigate change and to see new perspectives. For further research, I would recommend conducting interviews with artists in the online space, to gain more insight into their message and how they present their message. It would also be interesting to conduct interviews or ethnographic research with within the fanbases and online communities of these artists. It would be very interesting to conduct further research on digital culture and its effect on the public debate, by analysing the constructs of different kinds of online platforms. In addition, I think it would be useful to gain further insight into the workings of digital communities. In the case of Poppy and Titanic Sinclair, I would recommend conducting further research with a focus on their fanbase and its cult-like nature. This culture of worshiping celebrities and following them like spiritual leaders, could harbour a lot of information on the workings of contemporary discourse. In the light of Bourdieu’s On Television, it would be interesting to revisit this topic more in depth in today’s society.

Images

Image 1: Poppy & Sinclair, T. (2017) Still from video ‘I Am Not In A Cult’ [video still]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy1N3ntOoNc Image 2: Sinclair, T. (2017) Still from video ‘I Am Not A Cult Leader’ [video still]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFbfxAohDdQ Image 3: Sinclair, T. (2017) Cute elephants [photograph]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/BO7YJ5iAdHn/?taken-by=thatpoppy Image 4: Author unknown (2017) Poppy’s profile picture on Twitter and Instagram [photograph]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/poppy Image 5: Poppy (2017) Screencap from Poppy’s Twitter feed [screencap]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/poppy Image 6: Poppy (2017) Screencap from Poppy’s Twitter feed [screencap]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/poppy Image 7: Poppy (2017) Screencap from Poppy’s Twitter feed [screencap]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/poppy Image 8: Sinclair, T. (2017) Still from video ‘My Steve Madden Shoes’ [video still]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIzlVNq6xb8 Image 9: Sinclair, T. (2017) Screencap from Titanic Sinclair’s Instagram feed [screencap]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/titanicsinclair/ Image 10: Sinclair, T. (2017) Screencap from Titanic Sinclair’s Twitter feed [screencap]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/titanicsinclair Image 11: Sinclair, T. (2017) Screencap from Titanic Sinclair’s Twitter feed [screencap]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/titanicsinclair Image 12: Sinclair, T. (2017) Screencap from Titanic Sinclair’s Twitter feed [screencap]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/titanicsinclair Image 13: Poppy & Sinclair, T. (2015) Still from Poppy’s music video Lowlife [video still]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwnoSeiAFSY Image 14: Author unknown (2015) An illustration of Baphomet [illustration]. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33682878 Image 15: Poppy & Sinclair, T. (2015) Still from Poppy’s music video Lowlife [video still]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwnoSeiAFSY Image 16: Poppy & Sinclair, T. (2015) Still from Poppy’s music video Lowlife [video still]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwnoSeiAFSY

Image 17: Author unknown (2017) Still from YouTube video about the Streamy Awards [video still]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoOKLUU1YQ Image 18: Poppy & Sinclair, T. (2015) Still from Poppy’s music video Lowlife [video still]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwnoSeiAFSY Image 19: Poppy & Sinclair, T. (2017) Still from Poppy’s video ‘Your Neighbour’ [video still]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpleqACHXzU Image 20: Poppy & Sinclair, T. (2017) Still from Poppy’s video ‘My Past’ [video still]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX1K_FJk0z4

Literature Aleister Crowley. (n.d.) Retrieved October 18, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley Basha, N. (2017, July 18). YouTube sensation That Poppy gave us the most wonderfully bizarre interview ever. Retrieved from https://www.circa.com/story/2017/07/18/hollywood/youtube- star-that-poppy-talks-career-live BCG Magazine (2015, November 23). #GIRLTALK: Official interview with singer That POPPY [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8XSVlDkhPQ Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. London, England: Penguin Books. Bourdieu, P. (1998). On Television (9th ed.). New York, USA: The New Press. Dom’s Sketch Cast (2016, october 31). Titanic Sinclair | DSC Interview [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l81ienfgzss&t=2029s Minogue, K., Dagger, R., Ball, T., & Girvetz, H. K. (2017). Liberalism: politics. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist Realism: is there an alternative? Ropley, England: John Hunt. Gamson, J. (2011). The unwatched life is not worth living: The elevation of the ordinary in celebrity culture. PMLA, 126, 1061-1069. doi:10.1632/pmla.2011.126.4.1061 Gielen, P. (2011). The Art of Democracy. Krisis, 3, 4-12. Gielen, P. (2013). Repressief liberalisme opstellen over creatieve arbeid, politiek en kunst. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Samenwerkende Uitgevers. Gielen, Z. (2017). Hi, I am Poppy -The malleability and disposability of contemporary popstars. Unpublished essay, Tilburg University.

Green, H. (2017, April 21). The Adpocalypse: What It Means [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7M7yyRDHGc Habermas, J. (1997). The Public Sphere. In R. E. Goodin & P. Pettit (Eds.), Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology (pp. 105-108). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Heynders, O. (2016). Writers As Public Intellectuals: Literature, Celebrity, Democracy. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Morgan, J. (2015, August 1). Decoding the symbols on Satan's statue. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33682878 Olesen, J. (n.d.). White color meaning - The color white. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from https://www.color-meanings.com/white-color-meaning-the-color-white/ Pandell, L. (2017, June 4). Pop singer? YouTube star? Cult leader? Whoever she is, Poppy is here to take over the internet. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2017/06/shes-poppy/ Poppy [YouTube channel]. (2011, October 6). Retrieved January 4, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/user/thatPoppyTV/about Sinclair, T. (n.d.). Titanic Sinclair. Retrieved January 4, 2017, from http://titanicsinclair.com/ Sinclair, T. (2017, July 11). "Bleach Blonde Baby" Music Video by Poppy. Published on Kickstarter. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/titanicsinclair/bleach-blonde-baby-music-video-by-poppy Smith, N. ( 2014, November 25). Neoliberalism - political and social science. Retrieved May 24, 2017, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism Techopedia. (n.d.). What is Slacktivism? Published on Techopedia. Retrieved from https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28252/slacktivism That Poppy. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2017, from http://impoppy.com/ The Bible Study Site. (n.d.). Meaning of the color White in the Bible. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from http://www.biblestudy.org/bible-study-by-topic/meaning-of-colors-in-the-bible/meaning- of-color-white.html Hunt, E. (2017, April 26). Dr Luke no longer head of Sony's Kemosabe Records amid battle with Kesha. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/apr/26/dr-luke-no-longer- head-of-sonys-kemosabe-records-amid-battle-with-kesha Mumford, G. (2017, October 18). Lena Headey claims she was sexually harassed by Harvey Weinstein. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/18/lena-headey- sexually-harassed-harvey-weinstein-game-of-thrones Turner, G. (2013). Understanding Celebrity. London, England: Sage Publications. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Westbrook, A. (2017, April 27). What does the ad-pocalypse mean for the future of YouTube? Retrieved June 6, 2017, from https://www.thememo.com/2017/04/27/youtube-ad-pocalypse- what-does-it-mean-for-the-future-of-youtube/ Yoel Rekts ! (2016, September 12). Mars Argo Explained For That Poppy Fans [Video file]. Retrieved January 4, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9VqKqcLOp8 Zach Sang. (2017, August 10). Poppy Talks Poppy.Computer, Diplo and Ariana Grande [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J5WqyJFbVs