“Hi sisters!” is a phrase you might be familiar with if you are a fan of the Youtuber, Fashionista, and Makeup Artist James Charles. Flamboyant, fun, and fresh, Charles started his youtube channel in 2015 doing makeup tutorials. Only a year later, he became the first male brand ambassador for the company CoverGirl and went on to release his own eyeshadow palette with Morphe Cosmetics. He has received numerous awards for his work on social media and is considered to be one of the most influential figures in the progression of male inclusion in the makeup world. His theme is playful, educational, liberal, creative, and inclusive. Charles is not afraid to be himself and pursue his interest and encourages other people to do the same. His intended audience is primarily GenZ and people who are interested in makeup - commonly girls and queer boys. His audience is known for being exceedingly loyal to his content. In September of 2021, Charles posted a video called Reacting To & Trying On My WORST Outfits!. In it, he reviews and rates past outfits that received poor feedback from his fanbase and unpacks the story behind each one. The video is fun and familial, and savors as a virtuous mode of entertainment. Drawing from Adorno & Horkheimer and Sontag, I analyze the cultural significance of this video through its reflection of Commodity Fetishisms and pursuance of Camp.
Adorno and Horkheimer (1944) in their book Dialect of the Enlightenment, develop the term Culture industry - the notion that culture is mass-produced and commercialized through the motivations of capitalism. Consumers become accustomed to passive absorption of the standardized and uniform media and producers fail to differentiate their productions. A danger of the culture industry is how it cultivates commodity fetishisms in which goods are not assigned an accurate value. For example, a bottle of water which is vital to survival costs $2. A designer sweater, which is in no way vital to survival, costs multiple thousands. There is a gap between the price and utility. Buying a product is instead an investment in social value, instead of practical (p. 2). This concept can be seen in Charles' video. For starters, Charles is a celebrity - the epitome of materialism and overconsumption. Celebrities are among the most privileged and wealthiest in the world, prided for being able to avoid the tedious and experience the luxury - their lifestyle is unnecessary. Furthermore, as Charles displays his designer outfits, he is illustrating the polarized imbalance of utility. There is no efficacy in designer clothes, yet it is fetishized - the reason this video is not about water. In this production, Charles is displaying the faulty margin between social value and use value of commodities. Clothes are not a means of concealing your body, but a gesture of status, wealth, and privilege.
Susan Sontag’s (1964) essay Notes on Camp, illustrates camp as an aesthetic characterized by abundance, histrionics, staginess, and exaggeration. It transcends a threshold that society deems as ‘normal’. Camps irony paints a picture that craves the unnatural and overextended modes of art. Camp is the trash bag as a ‘dress’, the European turtle dove feathers as a ‘shirt’, and the Elmo slippers as ‘shoes’. It is an artistic performance invariably encompassed in quotation marks (p. 2). Camp can be seen in the context of Charles' video in several of his outfits, but specifically his third one from the MTV movie awards. The outfit was all white and consisted of a leather jacket engrossed in buckle straps from his neck to groin, a pair of white daisy dukes touching the tops of thigh-high boots, all bounded with silver sparkly chains. Through the reactionary nature of this video, Charles is admitting the camp of his outfits. He is actively recognizing the extreme exaggeration, flamboyance, and animation in his performance. While reacting to this outfit, Charles admits that he actually liked it and it only received poor feedback because it was too similar to his other outfits. In doing so, he distinguishes ‘ugly’ from ‘camp’ - ‘regret’ from ‘satisfaction’. Though still ironic, the outfit remains an aesthetic to be observed and appreciated. In Charles’ video, the artistic boundaries of clothes are wide. To be able to experience camp is privilege. Being able to be ‘over the top’ with your clothes is a luxury.
The dichotomy of casualness and aristocracy in Charles’ video is reflected in the mobile camera and comical banter with producers behind the camera, juxtaposed with the outfits from celebrity award shows and $5,000 necklaces. It feels as though Charles’ lifestyle is attainable, yet too far away to reach. His privilege is casualized. To be able to wear designer clothes and experience camp is an entitlement, but the tone is nonchalant. Charles’ video is a reflection of the commodity fetishisms society has as a byproduct of capitalism. His style is a reflection of camp and its irony. The video is beautifully over the top, yet so fitting to the customs of mass culture.
References
Charles, J & YouTube. (2021, Sep 10). Reacting To & Trying On My Worst Outfits! YouTube. Retrieved October 10, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg286MrpSzU.
Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1944). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. In Dialect of enlightenment. essay, Social Studies Association, Inc.
Sontag, S. (1964). Notes On “Camp”. Partisan Review.
Wow, Anastasia! This is genuinely fascinating. As a former fan of James Charles, I found your analysis of his brand intriguing and insightful. First, you are an excellent writer. This blog post was easy to follow, engaging, and very informative. I appreciate your use of Adorno and Horkheimer for this specific video. As a consumer of Charles’ videos, it is easy to get lost in his persona and character and forget to acknowledge the actual substance of his videos. In this video, it is likely that consumers, like myself, fail to recognize Charles’ perpetuation of commodity fetishization because we are lost in the video’s lighthearted tone. You do a fantastic job at connecting Charles’ casual display of designer clothes to commodity fetishism, and it opened my eyes to viewing videos like these in a different, more critical light. Your application of Sontag’s “Camp” helped me understand the term more as a whole. Charles’ experience of camp is a privilege, yet he portrays these privileges in a casual, flamboyant way. I would argue that all of Charles’ media presence is camp, not just this one video. He constantly shows off his lavish lifestyle yet never the privilege it takes to live this lifestyle safely.
ReplyDeleteI would also argue that Charles’ embodiment of camp promotes a sense of perceived interconnectedness. Crystal Abidin coined this term as the process “in which influencers interact with followers to give the impression of intimacy” (Abidin). James Charles is an excellent example of an influencer: he is an everyday user with a mass amount of followers and receives an income from advertisements in his posts. As an influencer, Charles interacts with his followers on all social media platforms to maintain a sense of authenticity. As displayed online, Charles’ most authentic self is that which has been described as camp. Perceived interconnectedness is also enabled by the influencers’ transition from frontstage (the cultivated content) to backstage (the everyday routines). Whether front stage or backstage, James Charles is flamboyant yet casual. He often posts videos lying in bed, venting about some experience in his personal life. Videos like these trick his followers into believing there is a real relationship between them and Charles. To conclude, Charles’ notions of camp not only display privilege but also blur the line between personal and professional life, offering a false relationship with his many followers.
- Libby Collins