Vertimus

I am saying she has radically altered her public persona, and almost eliminated it. That is her choice, I am only observing and remarking on it. If for 18 to 24 months you successfully and consciously present yourself to the world as a glamour doll, then slowly withdraw from that stance to the degree that 3-4 years later you’re willfully posting ugly selfies of yourself taken from distorted angles, people are going to notice and wonder what’s going on in your psyche.
 
Does it ‘mean anything’? I think it does, since I am a believer in depth psychology. What it means, I am only making an educated guess about, but you are of course free to think and believe that it means nothing or something entirely different.

And that’s the danger for all artists: having a huge mob of cultish fans for whom you can do no wrong, for whom you are unquestionably GREAT at all times and in all things, who will only and always praise you and YES MAN you to death. If the artist succumbs to that kind of mindless, blanket attention and flattery, they're doomed.
 
I have witnessed these rabid cults for Joni Mitchell, Michael Jackson, Prince, Woody Allen, R.E.M., Tori Amos, Twenty One Pilots, Lady Gaga, David Foster Wallace, Martin Scorsese, Sia, Billie Eilish, Wes Anderson, David Lynch and so many others.

.  
I agree 100%. Often, ‘authentic’ and ‘natural’ in real life is a lot sexier than photo ‘fantasy’ shoots and airbrushing. Casual doesn’t have to mean homely, sloppy, plain, unattractive, etc.
 
There were many times between 2012 and 2014 were she looked casual—as on the UV cover—and still looked terrific.

There is nothing wrong with her ‘bare face,’ but purposely posting badly-taken color and B&W selfies shot at terrible angles so that she looks deformed or a victim of poor plastic surgery is not ‘bare-faced.’
 
She could easily take, or have taken, photos of herself in which she looks lovely/pretty but without much makeup. And that’s not what she’s been doing for two years.
 
It’s as if, as with the Billboard cover, that when others take photos of her now, she often chooses the least flattering if she’s given a choice in the matter.
 
So to me that seems at least partially a feminist message: ‘This is what I really look like, or do if I make no effort. And I am okay with that.’ But that doesn’t jibe too well with the LDR of ‘dripping peaches,’ by which I assume she meant her breasts as they look when she exits the sea.
 
As I wrote before, there are semi-precedents for this in the case of Nico, who willfully destroyed her international beauty as she felt men didn’t take her seriously as an artist with that beauty, and Marianne Faithfull, who, after years of suicide attempts, debauchery, violence and homelessness in the Seventies, released very unattractive album covers for the almost next three decades. In old age, Faithfull finally started having lovely photos of herself taken for her album covers.
 
Both Nico and Faithfull were junkies for most of their adult lives, however, and that played a significant role in their image difficulties, or was a partial reflection of those difficulties.
 
I have no problem at all with LDR ‘just being herself’ and just looking like herself, but the desire for human beauty is a universal constant, found in all cultures to some degree since the dawn of recorded history. Most or all of us hope or want to look good in photos, the best we can at the moment, and we want attractive photos of our friends, family, and pets. That’s seen as just normal, just healthy.
 
So I don’t know why she wouldn’t want to look
‘like herself’ but also as reasonably attractive as most of us hope to look in our own selfies and group photos.
 
At this point I expect the NFR album art to be one of her industrial photos on the cover, like those accompanying the poetry book, with a small plain selfie-style photo of her inside.

No one is look-shaming or ‘policing’ her appearance, I am just acknowledging the change while observing it. Maybe it means nothing. But that is rather like saying her lyrics, her poetry, her music and her life mean nothing either.
 
Some people are more comfortable attempting to draw educated, tentative conclusions, and shouldn’t be ‘shamed’ for that either.

And that’s the danger for all artists: having a huge mob of cultish fans for whom you can do no wrong, for whom you are unquestionably GREAT at all times and in all things, who will only and always praise you and YES MAN you to death. If the artist succumbs to that kind of mindless, blanket attention and flattery, they're doomed.
 
I have witnessed these rabid cults for Joni Mitchell, Michael Jackson, Prince, Woody Allen, R.E.M., Tori Amos, Twenty One Pilots, Lady Gaga, David Foster Wallace, Martin Scorsese, Sia, Billie Eilish, Wes Anderson, David Lynch and so many others.

No one is look-shaming or ‘policing’ her appearance, I am just acknowledging the change while observing it. Maybe it means nothing. But that is rather like saying her lyrics, her poetry, her music and her life mean nothing either.
 
Some people are more comfortable attempting to draw educated, tentative conclusions, and shouldn’t be ‘shamed’ for that either.

Very well expressed.
 
My point, directly related to the MAC and ‘Hope’ photos, was not what she really looks like or whether she’s attractive or not in real life, but simply the slow-to-arrive but still significant change in how she is choosing to present herself professionally to the media, the world and her fans. That’s the point I was making. That’s specifically what interests and concerns me: the way she’s representing herself.
 
Like you, I have not observed LDR in her social media, press releases and inconsistent record of statements for the last 9 months and come away with the impression that she’s happy, in a good place, and fully in control of herself, her life and her career. And the lyrics to ‘Hope’ just underscore that in a big way. I could be totally wrong. I am just carefully reading the cards as I see them , as she and her team put them out to the world.

I don’t think we know who she is anymore. After the ‘Plain Jane’ Billboard cover last year as well as the ‘Plain Jane’ photo of her sitting by the side of the highway, she’s clearly negatively reacting to her former glamorous image and saying, “I’m not that.”
 
Keep in mind that she’s been roundly criticized by the Left, by members of her own party, many of whom are feminists against the glamorization of women, which they consider a male plot to keep women oppressed.
 
Personally, I think she’s going through an identity crisis, or coming out of one, which is to be expected, perhaps, for someone who has assumed numerous identities over the last ten years or so, each with its own set of expectations.
 
That’s why the NFR cover art will tell us a lot—not necessarily who she is or ‘ really is,’ but at least how she is projecting herself to the world now.

No one is look-shaming or ‘policing’ her appearance, I am just acknowledging the change while observing it. Maybe it means nothing. But that is rather like saying her lyrics, her poetry, her music and her life mean nothing either.
 
Some people are more comfortable attempting to draw educated, tentative conclusions, and shouldn’t be ‘shamed’ for that either.

And that’s the danger for all artists: having a huge mob of cultish fans for whom you can do no wrong, for whom you are unquestionably GREAT at all times and in all things, who will only and always praise you and YES MAN you to death. If the artist succumbs to that kind of mindless, blanket attention and flattery, they're doomed.
 
I have witnessed these rabid cults for Joni Mitchell, Michael Jackson, Prince, Woody Allen, R.E.M., Tori Amos, Twenty One Pilots, Lady Gaga, David Foster Wallace, Martin Scorsese, Sia, Billie Eilish, Wes Anderson, David Lynch and so many others.

And that’s the danger for all artists: having a huge mob of cultish fans for whom you can do no wrong, for whom you are unquestionably GREAT at all times and in all things, who will only and always praise you and YES MAN you to death. If the artist succumbs to that kind of mindless, blanket attention and flattery, they're doomed.
 
I have witnessed these rabid cults for Joni Mitchell, Michael Jackson, Prince, Woody Allen, R.E.M., Tori Amos, Twenty One Pilots, Lady Gaga, David Foster Wallace, Martin Scorsese, Sia, Billie Eilish, Wes Anderson, David Lynch and so many others.

And that’s the danger for all artists: having a huge mob of cultish fans for whom you can do no wrong, for whom you are unquestionably GREAT at all times and in all things, who will only and always praise you and YES MAN you to death. If the artist succumbs to that kind of mindless, blanket attention and flattery, they're doomed.
 
I have witnessed these rabid cults for Joni Mitchell, Michael Jackson, Prince, Woody Allen, R.E.M., Tori Amos, Twenty One Pilots, Lady Gaga, David Foster Wallace, Martin Scorsese, Sia, Billie Eilish, Wes Anderson, David Lynch and so many others.

I legit couldnt give two shits if she wore a paper sack and smeared mud on her face. As long as I got Cinnamon and In Your Car!

No one is look-shaming or ‘policing’ her appearance, I am just acknowledging the change while observing it. Maybe it means nothing. But that is rather like saying her lyrics, her poetry, her music and her life mean nothing either.
 
Some people are more comfortable attempting to draw educated, tentative conclusions, and shouldn’t be ‘shamed’ for that either.

I thought so. Like Vertimus, I mean no disrespect, but it's a bit confusing, especially for newer members like myself. I don't think anyone was intentionally trying to derail this thread, it was just the natural progression of the discussion. ETA: Never mind, the admin was kind enough to explain it to me in PM so all good, all good.
 
Anyway, we're definitely not getting anything NFR-related between now and the 20th, so maybe we should lock this thread down like a tangerine penitentiary.

Respectfully to all, I see it as related due to the uncharacteristic photos of herself she’s used since September for MAC and ‘Hope,’ and due to the ‘I’m not that’ line in ‘Hope,’ referring to the dressed-to-the-nines debutants. Aren’t these parts of NFR, and directly connected?

No one is look-shaming or ‘policing’ her appearance, I am just acknowledging the change while observing it. Maybe it means nothing. But that is rather like saying her lyrics, her poetry, her music and her life mean nothing either.
 
Some people are more comfortable attempting to draw educated, tentative conclusions, and shouldn’t be ‘shamed’ for that either.

I am saying she has radically altered her public persona, and almost eliminated it. That is her choice, I am only observing and remarking on it. If for 18 to 24 months you successfully and consciously present yourself to the world as a glamour doll, then slowly withdraw from that stance to the degree that 3-4 years later you’re willfully posting ugly selfies of yourself taken from distorted angles, people are going to notice and wonder what’s going on in your psyche.
 
Does it ‘mean anything’? I think it does, since I am a believer in depth psychology. What it means, I am only making an educated guess about, but you are of course free to think and believe that it means nothing or something entirely different.

There is nothing wrong with her ‘bare face,’ but purposely posting badly-taken color and B&W selfies shot at terrible angles so that she looks deformed or a victim of poor plastic surgery is not ‘bare-faced.’
 
She could easily take, or have taken, photos of herself in which she looks lovely/pretty but without much makeup. And that’s not what she’s been doing for two years.
 
It’s as if, as with the Billboard cover, that when others take photos of her now, she often chooses the least flattering if she’s given a choice in the matter.
 
So to me that seems at least partially a feminist message: ‘This is what I really look like, or do if I make no effort. And I am okay with that.’ But that doesn’t jibe too well with the LDR of ‘dripping peaches,’ by which I assume she meant her breasts as they look when she exits the sea.
 
As I wrote before, there are semi-precedents for this in the case of Nico, who willfully destroyed her international beauty as she felt men didn’t take her seriously as an artist with that beauty, and Marianne Faithfull, who, after years of suicide attempts, debauchery, violence and homelessness in the Seventies, released very unattractive album covers for the almost next three decades. In old age, Faithfull finally started having lovely photos of herself taken for her album covers.
 
Both Nico and Faithfull were junkies for most of their adult lives, however, and that played a significant role in their image difficulties, or was a partial reflection of those difficulties.
 
I have no problem at all with LDR ‘just being herself’ and just looking like herself, but the desire for human beauty is a universal constant, found in all cultures to some degree since the dawn of recorded history. Most or all of us hope or want to look good in photos, the best we can at the moment, and we want attractive photos of our friends, family, and pets. That’s seen as just normal, just healthy.
 
So I don’t know why she wouldn’t want to look
‘like herself’ but also as reasonably attractive as most of us hope to look in our own selfies and group photos.
 
At this point I expect the NFR album art to be one of her industrial photos on the cover, like those accompanying the poetry book, with a small plain selfie-style photo of her inside.

It’s all of a piece with LDR, I think. We can’t, with the limited information we have, separate her glamour and beauty from her music, lyrics, personality and role-playing, especially when she’s written so much about her own beauty and the power it has provided her.
 
So I hardly think almost any aspect is ‘off the table,’ including her appearance and presentation to the world, both privately and publicly.
 
Regarding ‘Hope,’ we know she’s just said, about the 50s debutants, “I’m not that,” and I don’t think, as these are the latest comments on her appearance and being, that they can or should be discounted or written off.

She said in an interview that she thinks it's wrong to try and look extremely beautiful. And when she sang "if I get a little prettier can I be your baby" live she added "fuck that". Also dyed her hair darker to be taken more seriously. "We are ugly but we have the music". I do think she either doesn't really care that much about appearance anymore or wants to make a clear statement that it is all about her art. And the fact that she takes "unflattering selfies"... she's never had a great sense of aesthetics, there are some bad pictures (bad hair, outfits) from even her Lizzy Grant days (it's a silly topic, but it's unfair to say it's a sign of an underlying problem).

But from sexy, glamorous and beautiful to very plain is rare, if there’s any precedent for it at all, and clearly she doesn’t need to do something like THAT to ‘maintain interest,’ not after having just had a number one record. If so, it would come across as desperate, in my opinion.
 
David Bowie did alter his persona a lot during the 70s, but he was the dynamic, innovative exception, and his alterations were very artistic.
 
Most artists of that era, like Bob Seger, Robert Plante, KISS, Heart, Leonard Cohen, Fleetwood Mac, Patti Smith, Lou areed, Blondie, Gordon Lightfoot, Linda Ronstadt, Iggy Pop, etc. hardly changed at all.
 
Madonna was really the one who brought the ‘complete style change’ from project to project in with ‘Like a Virgin,’ abandoning the look and sound of her debut.

I don’t think ‘beautiful’ has to be ‘sexual’ by any means—equating the two for quite a while was LDR’s choice.  
In the distant past of classic Hollywood, a lot of actresses were beautiful and considered beautiful without being very sexy at all, like Irene Dunn and Margaret Sullivan, and later, Jane Wyatt.
 
In the 60s, both Nico and Sandy Denny were considered beautiful without being in any way overtly sexy or sexual. Kate Bush has never been overtly sexual in any capacity, but certainly been considered beautiful, attractive and desirable.
 
In LDR’s case, since the change—though not necessarily on her album covers—has been so dramatic, people are definitely going to take notice.
 
Similar observations are made of male performers like Justin Bieber and Zayn Malik. Fans and Stans follow every slight change of appearance, every hairstyle change, every suspected shot of Botox or filler, every suspected pound gained or lost, change of makeup, body enhancement, etc., and includes the airbrushing of photos too, as we saw in Bieber’s Calvin Klein campaign a few years ago.

But musical stars usually don’t radically shift from ‘high glamour’ to ‘very plain’ in just a few years. In the distant past, Carly Simon, Rickie Lee Jones, Patti Smith and Kate Bush hardly altered their persona, style or appearance an iota over the course of their long careers, and, while more recently, Tori Amos has altered her look a little from album to album, it has remained largely consistent over almost 30 years. 
Note that none of these artists went from trying their damnedest to look sexy and glamorous to very plain and utterly unadorned.
 
LDR is free to do whatever she wants with her appearance, style and persona, though I would prefer she look beautiful, since she is beautiful and has placed herself in the public eye by choice. But if she wants to abandon that aspect, that’s her choice to make, utterly.
 
The lack of professionalism otherwise is also very troubling to me, which is why I wonder if the two are perhaps related.