Mutual exclusivity

I'm sure you'll be shocked to read that I love when marketing matters come up in critical reviews. This is funny stuff, from writer Doyle Armbrust at Time Out Chicago:

Head over to the Harris Theater entrance on Randolph. Observe any instrument-lugging musician's reaction to the Lang Lang promo on the Harris's video screens. If it's anything other than eye rolling, chances are that musician is busy texting. Attempting to channel his inner Run-DMC with a pair of glistening black Adidas, the Chinese pianist's head is thrown back in a moment of perfectly staged, grotesquely self-involved ecstasy. It's not that classical music couldn't benefit from some image upgrades, but it's hard to see this as anything other than a product.

Not having seen it for myself in Chicago, I would guess this is the photo in question:

Armbrust goes on to write:

Fortunately, most classical superstars are more focused on the quality of their technique than on casting their eyes downward and mussing their hair. Susan Graham is one such artist.

...at worst, her publicity shots resemble your eccentric aunt from Santa Barbara.

...With her uninhibited navigation of the French texts and effortless movement among the cabaret, the salon and the grave top in these songs, the profundity is reserved for the concert, rather than the photo session.

It seems every time a classical artist gives themselves or gets that "image upgrade", they are criticized for it. Sure, glistening golden sneakers and a violin where a bra (or perhaps a shirt) should be may not have been the best photo concepts on the planet, but these artists are doing something different and presumably - for better or worse - accurately reflecting themselves. Lang Lang likes sneakers and that's how he plays the piano; truth in advertising, like the truth or not.

Susan Graham's "eccentric aunt" photos may have been her version of an image upgrade. An artist not wearing his or her glasses in a photo, or not sitting in front of a piano ("I play the piano, and to prove it, I will sit in front of one in this photo.") may be versions of upgrades.  But the drastic image changes, call them upgrades or even downgrades, are very quickly dismissed as distracting, as eye-roll generating. Susan Graham looking like your aunt in photos does not make her a great artist. She happens to be a great artist, but one thing has nothing to do with the other. 

Touring classical musicians are public figures, and with that should come a degree of image awareness and attention. Why then, when an artist has publicity photos that demonstrate an awareness of style, wears concert attire that he or she is comfortable performing in, or has a less traditional haircut, does it necessarily mean he or she is less focused or less committed to The Art? Anne-Sophie Mutter starts wearing strapless gowns and the press talks about it for a decade. Anna Netrekbo is style savvy and beautiful; surely that means she has a less powerful instrument.  But X Opera Star is overweight and hasn't taken a new press photo since 1976: now THERE's an ARTIST! Time spent shopping, at personal trainer sessions and at make-up consultations are not necessarily hours that could be spent at voice lessons. This Image Conscious v. Serious Artist debate seems exclusive to our special industry. Yes, an actor or actress may be criticized for a bad red carpet style decision, but that commentary does not extend to a discussion about his or her acting abilities or role decisions. 

Classical musicians are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Those who make new aesthetic decisions are criticized and mocked, while artists who remain aesthetically constant will garner complaints from - let's call it/us the "far left"; they're not reaching new audiences, they're catering to the old guard, they're boring. What I care about, as mentioned above, is honest reflections: if that photo/outfit/haircut is you, then go for it with the highest degree of quality you can, and pay no mind to the eye-rolls on either side of the divide.