Authenticity: A Response to Dave Hickey’s “Air Guitar”
AUTHENTICITY: A RESPONSE TO DAVE HICKEY’S “AIR GUITAR”
I recently read a reading pulled from Dave Hickey’s Air Guitar, which touched on many mind tingling topics, but mainly focused on the subject of “authenticity.” Although written in 1997, this reading could not be more relevant to our current society. In Air Guitar Dave Hickey uses Liberace as an example of “authenticity,” due to the fact that he never hid who he was; that cliché saying “never judge a book by its cover,” flies right out the window in Liberace’s case, because everything that was shown on the surface of Liberace was truly him.
While reading this article I was very impressed by how Dave Hickey used Liberace’s life as a platform to expand and cut into other areas of question. For example, throughout this reading he re-tells how Liberace’s sexuality and personal life were constantly questioned and attacked by the media and the public. Why are those questions important and such a big deal? I would like to think that by his behavior and actions he was, on a subconscious level, provoking everyone to question, ironically, the very questions being asked and “ask why ask why.” Why are we so preoccupied in categorizing everything? Why do we have to slap a label on everything? Could it be tied with our consumer driven society?
At that time Liberace was a product being sold in the United States and abroad, reporters would question why we as a society would fall (purchase show tickets, watch his television shows, buy his memorabilia, etc) for such a “preposterous” clown. Therefore, by using the word “preposterous” or in other words “crazy” or “not real” they are questioning the “authenticity” of Liberace, which in turn indicates people were buying or consuming a fake. But what was “preposterous” or “fake” about him? Besides the fact that he constantly denied what was obvious in regards to his sexual orientation, nothing. He was who he was, in other words “it is what it is” and nothing more. So I would say that the people who attacked him were pushing their standard and their preconceived notion of “authenticity” against Liberace, when in fact what he needed to say to prove he authenticity was not relevant at all.
From my perspective, it seems Liberace exploited their arrogance and their bias standard of what it is to be “authentic” and cashed in on it daily. The media pressured him for the truth constantly when the truth was written all over his pink, rhinestone-covered suite. It’s either you prefer “the honest fakery of the neon or the fake honesty of the sunset,” is there a real difference, and does it really matter? And I quote Dave Hickey for the hundredth time “it’s more a matter of one’s taste is duplicity.” But controversy is hot, and hot is sexy, and sex sells; just look at today’s pop celebrities who are cashing in on the public’s debate of who’s “real” and who’s “fake.” Their selling point is not their talent, it’s their public or private behavior and the debate over if they’re a “real” or just a “fake” has filled their bank accounts to the tee. In reality, they have never claimed to be the best actor, singer, or talented individual, which on a small level raises a lot of questions about our current society.
For example, Paris Hilton or Eminem, someone who has appropriated the “rhetoric of the closet” and has used it in his music and public battles to question today’s standard of what or how a “real” role model should portray his or herself. Why is the younger generation looking to him for guidance instead of their parents? Both of these figures I believe have shown a hint of Liberace in them and like Liberace has “cried all the way to the bank.” But I’ll talk about Paris Hilton, reason being, we all know and have seen the disastrous effects of a broken home and growing up in a lower middle class neighbor hood (Eminem) and I believe the other end of the spectrum would be Paris Hilton, something a little more interesting.
For the past three or four years she has been a constant spotlight in the mainstream media. Why? She is not talented, nor as stunningly beautiful, as people would make her to be, so how has she still managed to appear in numerous movies, score a record deal, start a successful clothing line, and the list goes on and on. And yes, I know she’s filthy rich and she has the capital to dabble in all industries, but it’s a proven fact that the masses consume her products with great enthusiasm.
My point being, although she has added more filth to the already tainted entertainment, or pop industry, at the same time she has caused many people to question why society would encourage or strive to be like such an individual whose image is most notable for partying, sex scandals, and “air headedness”. Young teenage girls to college women flock to the stores to purchase a so called “book” with a 8-10 page spread of her modeling various outfits; they will also buy a $200 pair of sandals just because she’s wearing it. Everyone is caught up in the debate of “who is she? She’s a fake, not worthy of ‘real’ celebrity status.” However, in the end she’s just being who she is, an innocent “pop naïf,” with a taste for provocative clothes, and a Swarvoski Gem covered phone with no clue, I’m pretty sure, of how her life has had such a massive impact on today’s society and has left everyone with many questions to dwell upon in regards to what a “REAL” role model should be status-quo.
Posted by: Matthew Honda