As for this thread that rapidly evolved in the last few days concerning Ariana Grande (great posts by people), I did not know who she was and read with interest looking at the broader issues and the work. I’m reminded, thought, that Ariana is young and wants to promote her carrier as a singer. However, behind what she does on stage is a machine that wants her to be choreographed exactly as they see fit. Given the lyrics and her dress, and given the knowledge of what the promoters know of what audiences want (or what they have imbued audience’s to want), Ariana is following their script and it may not be who she is? Did she write the lyrics? If so, why, to what aim? She takes offense, naturally, to being objectified by the “observing” public and cannot see the elephant in the room, the promoters and her agreement to being promoted as such.
Her promoters help drive her actions and she becomes caught up in it, having to defend herself while the promoters rake in the profits of this exposure. Many promoters know that controversy helps promote, too.
Ariana says she is a victim, and indeed she is. The promoters will use near anything and anybody to promote, and if not Ariana, than it will be someone else. It could be said that the true victims are the non-observers, both women and men who choose not to observe - society at large, who must function together in a greater hysterical society that is being more and more transformed from behind their everyday reality. What the promoters leak out in these forms of expression and manipulations become exponentially adapted in social media and inculcated into reality whereby people must interact with the social fallout in it’s many forms.
I’ve know a few women whereby when they tried to seek out promoters for their art, and the promoters first discussion was on how to market them, not their voice, not their lyric’s and abilities, it was their dress – how to reveal; dump that attire and wear only this or that. In a sense, they are setting up the artist to be objectified as they see fit, as they see the people in the market; which consists of what people can gather by observation. Some artists will say, no thanks bud, and walk away, while others will follow what they have been told to do – they become highly managed and must react to what happens through their own and promoted actions. This is no different on movie sets, other than its not real-time, with a producer/director whose aim is to manipulate the viewer and exploit the actor, if they are not strong enough to resist the extremes of what is being asked of them. The actor might say, in these cases, that it was simply an act, and it is an act. Ariana will say it was an act also, and it is an act.
Print advertising, pornography and other media messages each have promoters who set the scene and the actors, artists and the more exploited (pornography) bring to the observer a projected fantasy that can be instilled as reality. The false reality to want, to identify with and to lust after. Media promoted is a manipulation by degrees.
As for the observers, the promoters, using vehicles such as Ariana or anything else that fits, bank on the observer paying to observe, to purchasing that which is being promoted. As long as people agree to keep purchasing, they will continue to guild peoples observations and manipulate their emotional psychology. The more this becomes instilled, the more people who want to observe will pay and demand of these extremes.
Adaryn’s post here http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,43414.msg694789.html#msg694789 brings up some good points and links to the C’s discussion on sexuality.
Another thing noted was after someone sent me episode 2 of John Berger’s film ‘Ways of Seeing’ (1972) whereby he looks at oil painting canvas art and how the artist promotes it – and this has historical aspects. This dealt with the woman (often nude) canvass and the mostly, yet not all, men observers and what is going on in the observers heads and how they have been lead to this thinking. Berger interviews a group of women after they viewed the film for their thinking. There is a post here on the forum concerning this film starting with episode 1. http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,41308.msg640960.html#msg640960
Lastly, Pashalis notes G’s comments below that are perhaps worth repeating:
Pashalis said:
Here is what Gurdjieff had to say about ordinary people, outside of the work:
ISOTM said:
"I think I understand what you mean," I said. "And I have often thought how little there is in the world that can stand against this form of mechanization and choose its own path."
"This is just where you make your greatest mistake," said G. "You think there is something that chooses its own path, something that can stand against mechanization; you think that not everything is equally mechanical."
"Why, of course not!" I said. "Art, poetry, thought, are phenomena of quite a different order."
"Of exactly the same order," said G. "These activities are just as mechanical as everything else. Men are machines and nothing but mechanical actions can be expected of machines."
"Very well," I said. "But are there no people who are not machines?"
"It may be that there are," said G., "only not those people you see. And you do not know them. That is what I want you to understand.
and this:
ISOTM said:
"Man's possibilities are very great. You cannot conceive even a shadow of what man is capable of attaining. But nothing can be attained in sleep. In the consciousness of a sleeping man his illusions, his 'dreams' are mixed with reality. He lives in a subjective world and he can never escape from it. And this is the reason why he can never make use of all the powers he possesses and why he always lives in only a small part of himself.
c.a. also discussed this a little concerning “handlers” in this thread here http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,43414.135.html
) topic for discussion. 
