Producing creative works is an act of translation: one from the authentic self to an expression of self that is marketable, monetizable and draws in an audience. This translation is only amplified when a company or label provides a platform and visibility but, in turn, alters a creative’s work and personality to fit its brand and standards — which can be seen as a form of censorship.

For fans, understanding that companies meddle with a creative’s products and how consumers perceive their personality is essential to avoiding the misleading marketing that attributes the company’s version of the creative to the creative’s authentic self.

Authenticity is a falsehood, yet it remains an enticing marketing strategy to remain relevant, financially successful and platformed. Many fans across music and film desire authenticity from celebrities, yet what they perceive as authentic isn’t necessarily the genuine truth about that person.

Meddling in creative production starts with the creative themself. Producing creative work carries the intrinsic notion that it is intended for a public audience. As a result of this intention for it to be shared, it is produced differently from something made for oneself. For example, an artist may labor over a piece to reach a level of “perfection” before posting to a public audience. Without a public audience, they might not go to such lengths. I’ve experienced this on several of my fiber art projects, as becoming interested in posting them ultimately shifted how I worked to fit what I thought people would engage with.

The act of putting something out into a public audience demonstrates a creative’s intention to connect with like-minded individuals or become mainstream. This gives them visibility and the potential to be monetized. At this stage, many creatives are self-run on platforms such as YouTube, Twitch, Instagram, TikTok or elsewhere on the internet, such as a blog, depending on the type of creative work. Therefore, working to become monetized or gain visibility on these platforms — and then maintain these traits — guides the type of creative work put out, as they must bear in mind what is relevant versus what is dated, what current fans like and dislike, how to attract new fans and how to stay within the guidelines of wherever the creative work is being published. If they cannot do these things, they risk their audience and income, making the creative work a necessity for success rather than an expression of self.

This separation of self from creative work is amplified when a creative signs with a company such as a music label or newspaper. This happens on a smaller scale if they have a self-run management team, but with large companies and labels, it becomes easy to be unable to produce the work they want to, or to have their work heavily edited. Either way, the companies’ monitoring, regulating and adjusting output — though it offers the creative funding, marketing and a platform — censors the creative’s intentions with their work and the work itself.

Using artists in the music industry as examples, many have felt forced to leave their label to produce the type of music they actually wanted to make. Independent artist RAYE was signed to Polydor Records from 2014 to 2021, where she was only permitted to release pop EPs and work on hits for other artists while the company withheld her debut album for several years. In 2021, she left Polydor, and she independently released her debut album “My 21st Century Blues” in 2023, to international recognition. The same occurs for less well-known artists too, such as Faouzia, who independently released her debut album “FILM NOIR” last November after over six years of only releasing singles, collaborations and EPs under Atlantic Records’ control.

Similarly, Halsey discussed in an interview with Zane Lowe on Apple Music that she was entirely blocked by her label from releasing an album after she shifted her genre away from pop into a more experimental, alternative sound, and because she was not making the same money for the company as she used to make as a more mainstream pop star. Additionally, artists like KATSEYE have been made to advertise for countless brands that have little to do with their music, identities and personal use of those products.

The same goes for other creatives who are edited, censored and guided into working on projects that are palatable and financially successful for the company. For some, this means working in a style and tone the creative doesn’t prefer. For others, it means working on topics that don’t interest them.

But they still must come across as interesting and preferable. And, after the work is made by a writer, for example, censorship involves the editing of their chosen diction, phrasing, argument or structure until, in some cases, it feels unrecognizable. Working with a company or label inherently means sacrificing the self to produce ideas on a stage, but they no longer fully reflect the person’s intentions.

This affects creatives whose voices are changed as companies seek to make them marketable, monetizable and appealing to fans. Consumers and fans across industries tend to attribute the content they are engaging with to the authentic self of the person whose name or face is credited, such as the writer or performer. Crediting only the outward-facing name or face ignores the other hands that shaped the work, shifting it from what the person would have created without editors or management to what they would have made authentically, not for publication. For performers, media training tends to create a manufactured authenticity that makes consumers’ perception of creatives all the more difficult to decipher.

That is not to say that creative works are inherently censored media and therefore bad or that consuming the personalities and products of creatives is dangerous. But there must be an awareness of the sacrificing of the self for visibility and monetary success, and the need to keep parasocial tendencies in check for consumers.

Allison Bonaventura is a junior double-majoring in comparative literature and anthropology.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.