ON BEING CHRIS LONDON: The Price of Speaking Truth in A Narcissistic Culture November 9
It has long been postulated from Freud to leading psychologists and self-help gurus that a certain level of narcissism is part of a healthy self esteem, to be distinguished from excessively high self esteem. One can only wonder whether the pervasiveness of narcissistic behavior in society, which has risen to epidemic levels, can be explained by people operating under the mistaken belief that their self indulgence in self promotion and pursuit of the “Fame Game” is some how a healthy activity in pursuit of their ultimate destiny. In a study that explored the rise of narcissism among students in 2007, Jean Twenge, the author of “Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled and More Miserable Than Ever Before,” said narcissists tend to lack empathy, react aggressively to criticism and favor self-promotion over helping others. Narcissism can have [some] benefits, said study co-author and co-author the coming book, “The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement”, W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia, but:
“Unfortunately, narcissism can also have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others,” he said. The study asserts that narcissists “are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors.” See: Dr. Sanity Blog
It would seem that a certain level of humility and awareness combined with a degree of introspection is necessary for one to appreciate their rightful place and role in a civilized society. It used to be that those with talent, achieved a degree of success and were celebrated and honored for their accomplishments. Those who achieved stature and prominence in society were more often photographed, written about, sought after for their opinions and perspective. Social standing or fame was based upon some quantifiable or tangible level of accomplishment. Some where along the line, this all got turned upside down. Now playing the famegame is viewed as a starting point to doing something meaningful with one’s life. Fame it self, however achieved, can now be lucrative and lead to even more fame with few questioning what’s behind it. So there I am on a Red Carpet shooting social retards in designer dresses wondering why this all matters, as business, community and political leaders walk on by escaping my lens and the eyes of publicists.
Diplomacy or the art thereof is not rewarding liars, hypocrites, poseurs and manipulators for their vapid, inane and sometimes bordering on unethical conduct, but rather is confronting them, illustrating the error of their ways and suggesting an alternative to their existing approach. Critique is only the opposite of manufactured false praise that they have become accustomed to and receive on a regular basis through the rigging of New York’s social media. It is only hurtful if you allow it to be.
In covering “The Society Show” I am not intolerant of a level of meaningless distraction and recognize fully the role of social role-players, even court jesters if you will to spruce things up for the greater good of highlighting meaningful culture and philanthropy and the sake of a more fun party. But something is awry when the circus sideshow ends up becoming the show itself, with the fame seekers taking over and using a philanthropic back drop to extend their notoriety and their brand of a “soulful” engaged and community building citizen when all it is that they are engaged in is a non-stop fame dance worshipping at the Temple of Bravo TV.
I was advised recently by a notable authority that if I wanted to continue to be a society journalist, photographer etc and have access to cover social life, culture and philanthropy in New York City that I should (a) stop writing and or (b) only say very nice things about the people I write about otherwise I might risk offending gatekeepers (publicists) representing individuals and organizations who do not want a critic at large undermining on any level the positive press that work to create for their clients. Fair enough. That was definitely good advice, I have to admit. On location, at a social, cultural or charitable event that I am invited and choose to cover, truth is that I am far from a critic and endeavor instead to operate within the existing framework to be the best documentarian that I can be, to illustrate and highlight the best aspects of an organization’s fundraising initiatives and supporters.
My commentary here at times, however, is about the fabric of our culture and society’s role players. If I fear commenting via my blog about the oddities in our culture that I perceive from my vantage point behind the lens because I fear that folks like Paul Wilmot will give Chris London the Ashley Dupre treatment and deny me access to a red carpet for a “foofy” event, or that I am persona non grata at GuestofaGuest.com because I dared to offer a critique and did not acquiesce to dispensing more freely with my images, c’est la vie. That’s the price I will pay in my effort to do something unique in this town. Despite sharing a birthday with the Devil that wears Prada, I do not suspect that I will ever be the favorite shutterbug of the Fashion Nazi’s in this town, and that has nothing to do with my capabilities. For one, I would have to start taking them and their faux elitism seriously, lose a few pounds, be a little less cranky, become pretty as a popsicle, dress more like a dandy and learn to kiss some major tuchis. Not happening.
Of late, I have witnessed some rather bizarre things, including RED CARPET at Society Charity Events (a) filled with people of literally no accomplishment, social or cultural significance or philanthropic bent other than that they promote themselves on a REALITY SHOW or are angling for a reality show to document their every inconsequential move in life (b) vanity media outlets being given preferred access to document their friends and (c) Faux-Socialite Journalists infusing themselves into the story rather than covering the story (d) photographers assigned to cover the event doing the same. WTF is going on here?
Recently overheard at an event where a photographer for one of these “media outlets” was discussing with a friend how while covering the New York Public Library Lions Benefit he spent a good part of the evening with an assistant trying to get in a photo with Dustin Hoffman who was in attendance at said event. Perhaps not so ironically one of their “journalists” or as the NY Post coined him, “amateur papparazzi”, got in a scuffle with Sopranos‘ star James Gandolfini for filming him with a camcorder while Mr. Gandolfini was walking around Soho with his ex-wife and son on Halloween. Not so strange really, considering a couple of years ago I began to notice how a photographer for one of the more prolific agencies in town would regularly take or have taken of upwards of 5-10 photos of himself at events that he was “covering” and then his counterparts followed suit, blurring the line between what was being covered, the event or the photographers documenting the event. As stated by an anonymous public relations professional: “Don’t you know, they are stars in their own show.” Andy Warhol culture gave everyone their 15 minutes and then reality culture hit and like that the fame dam broke which led to a takeover of New York Social Media by the Scissors Mafia and the Faux-Socialites. Last I checked “journalists” do not follow celebrities without their permission with a camcorder while said celebrity is shopping with his family and “covering” an event does not mean you follow a celebrity around to get his photo taken with you. Just an F-Y-I.
“Faux-Socialites” (pronounced ’foschialites’, see, e.g. Anisha Lakhani, Micah Jesse et al etc.) definition: people adept at social climbing who master who they need to know and for how long before sharing their true nature which is often initially masked even though they wear their raw ambition, couched in apparent insecurity so you will feed their ego, with pride on their sleeve. These folks often spend more time, money and energy on their publicist, facebooking and twittering to add to their total number of friends, the nail and hair salon, personal stylist and shaking down designers for free dresses under the guise of being famous and assuring said designer that their fame would enable exposure for the designer. Charity? What’s that? Your lucky if you get these folks to “Give back” the dress clean without remains of their personal stank. When a fauxsocialite gets her own reality TV show she graduates to the next level and becomes known rather as a celebutard, see e.g., Bethenny Frankel.
I have sympathy for the public relations professionals who on some level have no choice but to enable this conduct and perpetuate the culture of “Poseur” Philanthropy if it leads to further exposure and media coverage of the event and their sponsors by faux-socialite bloggers and entertainment media outlets. In effect, what is truly “busted” or even ironic is when these people who come in, suck out all the press and then leave out the back door without ever having purchased a ticket or having any comprehension of what it is that they are patronizing. Most often their only other payment is to a Wire Service photographer to insure that they are covered “patronizing” said charity event and their own photographer trailing them documenting their presence for the post event coverage on their own blog. Some have even inquired of me, “Chris, can you tell me which are the TOP 5 most important charity events for me to be seen at.” Or better yet being cornered by an unknown fauxsocialite that I have not photographed and asked: “Where are you from? Who are you shooting for? Do you know who I am? You may want to take my photo, I have over 300 images on PMC and he always takes my photo.”
My critique is simply that, a playful nudge, a tease to the poseurs, as a temporary break from the incessant adulation and fawning that they regularly receive for their every move by their friends in the Faux-Socialite New Social Media (See e.g.: Anisha Lakhani, Rachelle Hruska, Micah Jesse, Kristian Laliberte) I mean after all, besides hyper-linking each other or failing to do, I hardly expect you to question each other’s respective fame dances. If my asking questions gets me ostracized or cast as an outsider so be it. In fairness to Mr. Laliberte, if only he took himself a tad more seriously, the sky might be the limit. (Coming soon in the Trilogy of Narcissism Series of blogs, a more in depth discussion of the Fauxsocialite bloggers, one of whom has even published a book, which was trashed on Amazon by her former classmate.) And in fairness to all of the above, democraticization of societal coverage is not necessarily a bad thing if done properly. Please note, this blogger makes no claim to being the next Jimmy Breslin or Norman Mailer but instead is offering up his commentary (which is a work in progress) and alternative perspective that the body of your work, to date, is more style over substance even though it may have the potential to be far more.