It doesn't matter what size the woman is, this type of image is NOT an authentic representation of the majority of women.

I 100% agree with this statement.

The emphasis here is still on how women should look. Why not "get educated", "get employed," or even better "help others"?

I would venture to guess that these magazines did this because Body Positivity is trending and they thought it would help them sell more products, rather than because they truly believe in the movement. These are still good things, but these magazines are definitely not pioneering this movement.

Even if there are more models of Barbie, there is still the idea that there are certain acceptable "models" that girls should strive for.

"Promising" authenticity is an interesting concept. Is authenticity really something that anyone/anything can promise?

This is still a pretty common notion. If you buy something it will make you trendier, which will make you happier, which will make your life better. That isn't usually how it actually happens, but marketers continue to use this tactic, so it must be working.

This is pretty ironic. The mass market is producing something that is proclaiming to be free from the mass market. However, this is something that has definitely stuck around. The first thing that comes to mind is heavily processed food that has packaging claiming it is "farm fresh."

Select among "pre-made" and "socially acceptable" lifestyles

Here we see the author's stance through her own personal connection to the topic. Even though we don't share this stance, it is valuable to know because it makes her a more credible source. She's not just writing to be writing, she's writing because she has something important to say. I think that this is an important quality for a source to have, and can help us think about our own relationship to our topic.

This shows background on how branding began and also relates it to the struggle between authenticity and marketing. Even long ago merchants discovered that a name can be associated with a trait, and set out to make their name associated with something great. They then faced the challenge to continually make a great product beyond just their great name. We see companies continue to do this sort of thing today, and of course, some are more successful than others. I think it is important to realize, though, that we have the power to make these associations. Even if it is a popular opinion that something is "good", we still have the power to decide whether or not we agree with that.

This makes me curious about the very nature of what we consider masculine and feminine. Who decided which traits were put into which category?

This is something that I have a really hard time understanding. I can't really wrap my head around the idea that writing violent lyrics will make someone feel less violent. In my experience, writing about things that I'm already angry about just tends to make me feel more angry.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, and I feel that it goes both ways. Unfortunately, society today does not make it easy for anyone to love themselves. There are so many industries today that rely on the fact that men and women are insecure, and thus far, we haven't let them down. I don't think that this is an issue that gets talked about enough. It's not a problem that is going to solve itself. There has to be a large number of people actively working to solve it if anything is ever going to change.

I think that in this case, covers are a more relatable form of authenticity because the average person cannot relate to singing a song for millions of people, but most of us can relate to jamming out to a song in our own home, possibly sitting in front of our phone or laptop.

I don't really think that a "performance" of authenticity can really be considered authenticity, especially if it is for commercial gain. He may be making a show of relatability, but I don't think the word authenticity can be applied here because it implies that he makes choices without acknowledging popular public opinion.

I disagree with this statement. Repetition is what allows that arts to be accessible. If it weren't for repetition, all of the arts would still be something for only the wealthy to enjoy. Repetition and reproduction allows everyone to be connected.

It's great that YouTube is now a venue for personal expression, comedy, and great videos, but what about great music? YouTube used to be a place for that, but now that it's not so much anymore, it seems like it's harder for people to have access to honestly great music.

I think The Lumineers have a lot of songs that fit into this category, and really lots of the Indie genre as well. A specific example would be "Flowers in Your Hair", which is basically just the singer describing the difficulties he faced in growing up and realizing the mistakes he made in a specific relationships.

Wordsworth says that his poetry has a purpose and gives rise to feelings that cause action.

They say that the poems are written with purpose.

So is poetry even meant to be understood? Or is it always intended to remain somewhat mysterious? Is this what allows a poem to touch people from different cultures and backgrounds?

• Rebecca

Volatility? I don't know if that is a word I would use to describe poetry.

But what if the reader does not? Can it really be considered the most universal genre?

What makes this difference? What about a lyric makes it seem that it the readers words?