TRY, TRY AGAIN!
I came across this Op-Ed piece earlier in the week that caught my attention. It starts off with "The Great Gatsby" (sic), then moves on to what the author, George Packer, calls "modern celebrity" -- which he links to social inequality.
Over at Edmodo you will find two different versions of the article -- one plain, and one with highlighted (by me) passages. Choose either one.
Then, because I'm stupid, or stubborn, or just a cock-eyed optimist, I want to take another try at a "virtual round-table" discussion. You have two options. 1) Quote a passage, and give your response to it. 2) Respond to someone else's response. And you must make a minimum of two entries.
(Both may be responses to responses. It would be best if you make your responses at two different times. If you wait too long you won't be able to do that.)
They don't have to be too long. I'm looking for insight here. As well as a spirit of give-and-take.
"What are celebrities, after all? They dominate the landscape, like giant monuments to aspiration, fulfillment and overreach."
ReplyDeleteThis quotation really stood out to me as I was beginning this article. It not only sets the article's tone of questioning the validity and accuracy of these celebrities, but it also brings out a valid point. If you really think about it, half the celebrities now are famous for nearly nothing. They dominate our lives with magazines and newspapers and any other sort of press. Yet they are built up to these huge titles just to be torn down again by the press. I like the word "overreach" in this quotation. These celebrities do seem to reach farther than they can possibly do. They try to be perfect in every way because with the press, they have to be. I like the question of "What are celebrities?" Can we even say they are citizens any more? Seems like all their personal rights are stripped from them.
~Martha Denisky
Martha,
DeleteThe question "What are celebrities?" really intrigues me too. Quite frankly, they are just as much of human beings as any one of us, and we chose to praise and admire many celebrities as if they are superior. For example, some people would pay absurd amounts of money to buy a celebrity's used tissue, and as silly as that sounds to mention, it's true, and it shows that the world seems to be becoming more materialistic.
Their personal rights do seem violated so often because of the extreme attention that the public gives them. The media constantly updates the lives of these celebrities to the general public, no matter how cruel or demeaning the details might be. The media thrives off of the public's reaction to the celebrities' stories, meanwhile they are events that can happen to any "average" person.
"They dominate the landscape, like giant monuments to aspiration, fulfillment and overreach."
ReplyDeleteAre you thinking what I'm thinking?
(Ozymandias, riiiight!)
Thanks for kicking us off, Martha. Now, c'mon, you slackers!
"They loom larger in times like now, when inequality is soaring and trust in institutions — governments, corporations, schools, the press — is falling." This quotation stood out to me because it left me with an image of a mob running from authority following one bold rebel. I think it's so true that as a society, we are putting less faith in institutions and relying more on small groups than powerhouses like the government. Even in our own school, we complain about the administration daily, and not just because of our senioritis. I think we're all sick of being run by something and we want to find our own motives, so we look to a single person to inspire us. "Inequality is soaring" is a powerful phrase to me. I believe that people striving to be in a higher class than they are, or a more popular group of people, for example, place their ambitions in admiring someone of that social status. Someone may not be able to become Angelina Jolie, but by becoming a devoted fan of her, supporting her, admiring her any chance you get, it's almost as if you are close to them. I believe in times like this when so many people are trying to move up, they become infatuated with celebrities like they are leading a pack to wealth and fame.
ReplyDeleteDo we have celebrities at THS?
DeleteI think we do have sorts of celebrities. Maybe not like the cliche movie stars and actors but there are those people that everyone knows and that anyone can pick out in a crowd of people in the hallways.
DeleteI was talking to a sophomore I am friends with and she says that every single underclassman knows who almost every senior is. It was the same way for when we were freshmen. I knew most of the seniors and could name most of them even if I had never even spoke one word to them. The seniors of the school could also technically be the celebrities in a way. And we are the pack of rebels, like Megan said, because many of us do stand up to the administration as often as possible. I also like what you said about admiring, watching, and supporting celebrities is trying to become as close to them as possible. In younger grades many of us have tried to immerse ourselves with the "celebrities" of our grade because they are the ones that we want to be. This changes as we get older though.
DeleteYeah I definitely believe there are celebrities in our school. Whether it's a teacher or student I believe there are good and bad celebrities. For example, some teachers are notorious for being fun, supportive, a good teacher, or someone you can go to, while others may be known as a tough grader, mean, boring, etc. The same goes for students: there are the kids you all know because they are the nicest people you can think of welcoming anyone and everyone, and there are also those who you know to stay away from, like the bullies.
DeleteAbout "trying to get close to celebrities by loving them," I can say from experience that after watching so much "John and Kate Plus Eight," (a show on TLC about a family with a set of older twins and sextuplets) I missed the kids when the show ended. I knew it was silly to feel attached, but I had watched so much and learned so much about the family that being so infatuated by the show and how cute the kids were made me feel like I actually knew the family!
Megan,
DeleteI completely agree with your comment about "trying to get close to celebrities by loving them." I too watched "John and Kate Plus Eight". I was in love with that family, and I could even tell all the sextuplets apart! I think the reason why I watched the show is because part of me really wanted to be a part of that family. I only have one sibling, so I always think about what it would be like to live in such a large family. I think it's fair to say that I was idolizing the Gosselin family a little bit because at times I wished I had a bunch of little siblings.
"Our age is lousy with celebrities. They can be found in every sector of society, including ones that seem less than glamourous."
ReplyDeleteThis is so true and I am so glad that George Parker made a comment on that. Why do we worship celebrities that are famous even though they didn't really do anything. Take the Jersey Shore people like Snokki and Ronnie and the rest of that gang. Everyone loved these people but all they do is get drunk at bars and do really stuid things. And yet people want to be like them.
I think part of the problem why celebrities that really don't do anything and yet are famous and worshipped by many people is that the media, whether it is the tabloids or television stations, want to create drama and make these people more interested. There are so many pointless shows that raise people to celebrty status like "Real Desperate Housewives" and "Buckwild". The media loves to build up these celebrities that people adore and it makes me mad that we allow the media to have this power
Hey Rebecca,
DeleteThis is exactly what I was thinking while reading this article. It IS the media and press that creates these celebrities. The funny thing is we, as the audience, are intrigued by these celebrities even when the media is tearing them down! We look up to their trends and ideas yet enjoy reading about their failure. I can't even imagine what it would be like for the whole world to know your life's ups and downs. It's crazy
~Martha
Most often, the media gives us what we want. Counterprogram "Real Housewives" with a show about a kind-hearted social worker, and see which gets better ratings. It's a vicious cycle, I suppose.
DeleteI was fascinated by this while I was reading too. I think Jersey Shore is a perfect example of this. These people are praised for their lack of drive and their general misbehavior. No child should aspire to be like these people when they grow up. However, these our the people that our society puts on a pedestal. When our parents were young they looked up to people like doctors or astronauts because they were the heroes of society. Now we look up to folks like Kim Kardashian who got her fame from a sex tape. If we want our kids to turn out decent I think we should give them an upstanding and extraordinary citizen to look up to.
DeleteI agree with you guys as well. I did watch Jersey Shore because it was some interesting entertainment, but more on the side of how stupid they were. Like you said though, somehow everyone ends up loving these people. What's to love? I think if most people met a famous person, no matter how unworthy their fame may be, they'll be starstruck and suddenly love the celebrity.
DeleteI have to agree with you there, Megan. Jersey Shore was entertaining to a point, but really only worth watching because of how intensely ridiculous the behavior of the "stars" was. When it comes down to it, they really are just a handful of too-tan, attention-seeking people who seem to take pride in their absurdity. I like how you said, "What's to love?" The answer is, not much. It just goes to show how desperate some people can be for entertainment (and on the other hand, clueless as to what quality entertainment even is), when they stoop to idolizing people like the Jersey Shore gang. It just seems ridiculous to me that people actually became that famous of off partying way way way too hard while on camera.
DeleteI agree that the media is what makes us so interested in shows like these. It reminds me of the saying "There's no such thing as bad publicity." Like you guys said, even as the media is being critical and tearing these people down, we still love it. It's strange to think that something so stupid as partying could become such a popular thing to watch and cause people to idolize those involved. This also reminds me of movies like "The Hangover". I guess its funny the first time, but when it really comes down to it, its really stupid, yet a good chunk of the population love the movie. I feel that there are many celebrities that shouldn't be idolized, but are.
DeleteYes Rebecca, the media definitely wants to create drama in order to boost ratings and promote certain shows. Almost all reality shows are scripted in some way, although they claim not to be. If a person takes the time to read the end credits of a reality TV show, some statements include how the producers have edited clips to create more action or drama, that otherwise would not have happened. So, what the viewer sees on the screen and admires the actors for may not actually hold true to the actors' everyday lives.
DeleteIt seems as though there is a reality show about everything to attract every type of viewer. Not only that, but there are so many reality TV shows that have almost identical premises, such as American Idol and The Voice. The media wants more ratings so they influence the public into thinking that there is a "new and fresh" show that people can follow, as well as promote celebrities that host, participate in, and, in this case, judge the shows. It's a very effective way to gain publicity.
“The celebrity monuments of our age have grown so huge that they dwarf the aspirations of ordinary people.”
ReplyDeleteI’m split with what George Packer says here because what do you think all the kids on YouTube are trying to do these days? They are still trying to make it big. They saw Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift and many others get discovered just by record labels hearing them sing on social media sights. If you were to look up a famous song, and type in “Piano Man Covers” you would see there are thousands of people that do it every day. Of course, the chances of being discovered are so slim that it seems out of reach for us ordinary people.
I think we feel like we need celebrities to give hope to kids out there with nothing so they can look up to them as role models. Celebrities are huge, (we see gossip on them all the time in the magazines—I know when I go to the grocery store I stand and read the headlines of magazines) but they don’t leave room for anyone else to get into the business. People in Hollywood are powerful, and so I’m now leaning towards Packer. We all hope and dream to be famous someday, but we know that in the back of our heads that won’t happen unless a miracle happens.
Anna,
DeleteI agree with what you are saying how celebrities give us hope and determination to strive toward greatness even though the possibility of becoming a celebrity is so small. "They are as intimate as they are grand, and they offer themselves for worship by ordinary people searching for a suitable object of devotion." Like I said before they are people that you and I look up to because they have the fame, the perfect familiy, the big house, or the perfect life. These days gossip of celebrities is all you hear from TV, magazines, and social media. Honestly, though, I do not want the life of a celebrity. All the attention they bring to themselves either makes them look bad, or more god-like and less human. Too many people are trying to make it big these days, and with already the amount of celebrities there are in the world there is barely any room for us non-celebrities to make it into the big world. Like Anna said the amount of talented covers I have seen on You-Tube that have not become celebrities is insane.
-Tori
I agree with you Tori when you say that the attention makes celebrities seem less human, but I don't see it as more god-like. Gossip magazines try to embarrass them and start rumors about them without provocation from the star themselves. They want a story so they will get more money so if one doesn't arise, they will make one. Anna, I completely agree with what you said about kids trying to make it big, but when you say that their aspirations aren't dwarfed, you contradict yourself. You have made covers of songs at coffee house, as have I, and our reasons aren't for fame, but because we love it. Why don't we do it for fame? Because we know how difficult it is to break into the business. Our aspirations, as well as many of the kids on YouTube, have been dwarfed because we don't see ourselves as being able to make it into the business, whether we have the talent or not. Celebrities are also the models for how we should look, according to society. I personally don't agree with this, but many do. Their aspirations to look like the Selena Gomez's and Kate Moss's out here are being dwarfed because they are photo shopped and impossible for many people to achieve.
Delete"We know our stars aren’t inviting us to think we can be just like them. Their success is based on leaving the rest of us behind."
ReplyDeleteWell, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that if everyone is notable, then no one is notable.
No, in the sense that without a consumer, there is no product. Without widespread fascination, there is no celebrity.
It's this idea that has carried me through a time where hating the media seems to be a trend. I do not, in fact, hate the media or celebrities. Essentially, both function as a result of the masses who allow them to function.
Celebrities only exist as a result of people giving them attention. They have brands, logo's, interviews, and films because that's what the consumer has allowed them to have. If no one cared about "Keeping Up with the Kardashians," and the show didn't make money, then it would be pulled. If it's not making money, the industry disregards it and moves on to the next thing that people will pay attention to.
So if you really hate hearing about celebrities, quit consuming them so much and maybe they'll go away.
Ariel, I think you make some very good points about celebrities and our priorities to their needs of attention. It’s a vicious cycle of the mainstream media bringing these celebrities up to the top and then down to the bottom, all while sucking in our attention. Celebrities that are famous for being famous are only in the media’s spotlight because we put them there. We cannot complain about the Kardashians and Britney Spears because we essentially raised them. If we really want to put people on pedestals, they should be people that have actually accomplished something and people that can be real role models. Media sources like TMZ and E News thrive off the public’s lust for drama and juicy stories about rich people. Like you said, if we stop watching their TV shows, buying their magazines, and talking about their lives, they become less notable like the rest of us and get out of the spotlight.
DeleteHey guys
DeleteI thought you both made very good points about how we are the cause for celebrity, both good and bad. I would like to see more recognition for innovators and technicians while taking attention away from these self-proclaimed celebrities (a la Kardashian, Snooki, etc.)
But, ultimately, we are a small percentage of the general population. The people who actually invent and spread ideas aren't "celebritized" most of the time because they deal with things that do not grasp the general public's attention.
I'm sure there's someone out there right now helping an underprivileged community get the education it wants or the food and water it needs. I think that they deserve more recognition than any celebrity out there today, because they are truly making a difference.
But the problem is, that isn't easy to relate to. Sure, it's remarkable to the few people who have been to that particular village, or Africa in general, but for the majority of Americans, those people are halfway around the world. They don't impact their lives in America, right here, right now.
So I believe our modern celebrities are based off of our own lives in that we could see ourselves in that role. We played baseball, we've been to California before, we went to school to study business, etc. They are the epitome of perfection in what we once hoped to be, and, unfortunately, many kids don't see themselves in African villages growing up.
the author is making the argument that it is getting to the point where it doesn't matter what the masses of the consumer thinks, and that the upper classes have become almost self sufficient. This means that if you have connections you can be famous even if nobody gives half a $hit about your pathetic life.That is why the author found it necessary to write this artice.
Delete"Their superficial diversity dangles before us the myth that in America, anything is possible — even as the American dream quietly dies, a victim of the calcification of a class system that is nearly hereditary."
DeleteSam, I think that quotation really supports where you're going with your post.
Nowadays, you don't need a legit talent to be famous… people are just famous for being famous…or because they are related to someone who's kind of famous. So, the author classifies it as almost "hereditary." Truly talented celebreties are becoming rare, but at the same time, it's our faults for admiring the mediocre celebs and allowing them to get so famous. We can't really complain because we give into their "institutions." We buy their products, we watch their lame tv shows, and we are constantly intrigued by their ups & downs in the headlines. So, to an extent, their self sufficient because they can establish themselves for almost no reasons, but their followers support them no matter what; whether they realize it or not.
Brianna,
DeleteI agree with your view that we are to blame for making these celebrities made famous by “heredity” so popular. The first people to come to mind are Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. They haven’t done anything to earn them their stardom they have. Personally, I find the show Keeping Up With the Kardashians pointless yet entertaining at the same time….so yes I can say I have fed into it. However there are some celebrities, Zuckerberg, for example that have worked to achieve every ounce of attention they get. So in a sense, the world of celebrities balances itself out in the end between the ones that have worked to achieve fame and those that haven’t.
~Rachel
The problem I had with this article, was I felt like it was very, derogatory towards some of the greatest and brightest innovators of our time. Zuckerberg founded the biggest and most lucrative social media platform of our generation thus far, to try to look down on that is ridiculous. The American Dream has always valued innovation and progress, it's been part of our culture since the beginning, anyone who can count understands that when someone makes money, someone else is losing it, that's part of the game. Economically, those who creative, thrive and innovate should make those huge, lucrative sums of money, it's part of the appeal, otherwise why would they do it? It's a reward for transforming the world, no matter what anyone says, money is power, and that is the ultimate motivator for anyone.
ReplyDeleteI think we should celebrate the inventions of some of our celebrities, focus on the positives more than the negatives; but it seems that nowadays, we only have either nothing to say, or only bad things to say, until they die. Take Michael Jackson and Steve Jobs are prime examples. Both changed the music and technology industries (respectively) forever, yet Jackson was plagued with negative media attention for scandal, and Jobs was rarely mentioned until his death from cancer.
We watch as child stars spiral from stardom into hell for fun, nobody is concerned with their well-being, we just want the laughs. So it seems awful selfish for those same people to complain about how much money they have at the same time. There will always being economic disparity, you can't fix that. Maybe if we all accepted that and worried about our own lives, some of that disparity would go away though.
I agree with you Chance, but I don't think it's being derogatory towards just innovators and inventors. I feel that this article is being derogatory towards all celebrities in general. They speak of these "landmark" celebrities in a way that gives a hint of mockery towards the celebrities' careers, and themselves as people. It is true that unfortunately some people can become huge celebrities with no talent at all (Ex: Kim Kardashian, Snooki, etc.) However, this doesn't apply to every celebrity. In fact it only applies to a few. Celebrities today worked extremely hard to get to where they are, and bringing up blunders like Jay-Z selling crack and Martha Stewart's jail time just reminds us that they are actually people and diminishes the gap between the mortals and the Gods. They are people that have worked extremely hard and can occasionally make mistakes. When Jay-Z writes about his dog days involving selling drugs, he exemplifies his enormous climb from a bad place at the bottom all the way to the top where he is right now.
DeleteChance, the author isn't saying that all that success is a bad thing. The author is scared that the upper celebrity class has gotten to the point where it is separating from the rest of society and is becoming self sufficient, with increasingly narrow paths to the top for regular folks
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe other day I read that Time article about the "Me Me Me Generation," and it goes into self sufficiency when it talks about how people are all going to be entrepreneurs in the next few generations, because there is less of a need to interact through large companies. People can use technology to market themselves. So, even if it may seem right now that celebrities are the only ones becoming self sufficient, the rest of everyone is sure to follow. For example, in the last few years, no-name random people have turned into film producers and household names through Youtube. It's easy to get your name out there now, so celebrities wont be the only people standing on their own two feet,
DeleteAnother really interesting counter argument to this article you might like Ariel is a book called "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell (http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017930/ref=sr_1_1_ha?ie=UTF8&qid=1369941193&sr=8-1&keywords=outliers). It chronicles the most successful people in recent history, Bill Gates, The Beatles and shows that it was the circumstances of those individuals that made them successful, not only the person them self. It shows why hockey players born in January are more likely to make it to the NHL etc. I think if you take it in that regard, celebrities have nothing to be celebrated for, because they just 'lucked out'. It's a very good read, and relates to the discussion. It's required reading for Loomis freshman year.
DeleteChance, I can see what you are saying about the media but this is no surprise. The media is notorious for bringing extraordinary people into the limelight and then putting them down with news of scandals or imperfections. People like Michael Jackson and Steve Jobs, like you mentioned, were instrumental in our growth as a nation and people, and that’s why they were portrayed by the media. However, the majority of the American people will not stay interested in good people continuing to do good things because that is not dramatic or surprising. People look to the media for excitement and the only way the media can provide for this need is to create scandal or show the celebrities’ imperfections. Not everyone is perfect but the American public does not understand this fact because they want to believe that their celebrities are gods, people they want to be most like. The American people will not change this attitude because it is human nature to lust for money, power, and love and the perfect outlet for the average person to get their fair share of excitement is through the media. It is also human nature for the average person to praise a rising businessman or celebrity for their fortune and fame but later bring them down because of jealousy and greed. The case for child stars, however, is entirely our own fault. We bring these kids to the limelight because we think it embodies the American Dream and something everyone wishes they could have done as a kid. However, we don’t realize that these children are not ready for the fame, constant attention, and life-changing decisions. We let them fall because we think they are to blame, even though it really is our fault. If we put more emphasis on the betterment of our own lives and the people around us, the celebrities would disappear and we would become our own celebrities, our own role models.
ReplyDeleteWow Nick I almost agree with pretty much everything you said. The media likes to show the every celebrities imperfections because it creates drama that sells the papers and allows the newspaper companies to make money. And yet there are so many shows like Jersey Shore and Real Housewives where you can clearly see everybody's imperfections and audiences watch these shows week after week. I'm not sure about whether people believe that their favorite celebrities are gods, I think that the American people enjoy watch these celebrities on those shows because it makes people feel better about themselves. I know that after I watch an episode of Jersey Shore I'm like, "Wow, I sure glad I'm not as crazy and stupid as those people, they got into so much trouble." I also think that people watch these shows because there is so much drama that people can forget about their own problems.
DeleteBecca,
DeleteI completely agree with your last comment, "Wow, I'm sure glad....". I find that I watch some reality television shows to make me feel like I'm not as much of a loser as the people on the show. TV shows people in the extremes, so that regular people will see it as totally crazy and be drawn in to watch it. For example, the "Honey Boo Boo" series shows a redneck family doing and saying some pretty dumb things. Most people in America are more educated than that family, so watching it makes the viewers feel smarter. People are naturally attracted to outragous things, so what's going to do better on TV, "Dance Moms", or a classical ballet performance?
That's pretty spot on. I don't think a single person can really disagree with any of that, because when you take a second to stand back and look at everything with a neutral perspective, it all boils down to what you just said. People need to role models and the easiest way to do that is with celebrities. You don't really know THEM, you know who they appear to be in public. So since you don't know what they are really like, you make them into the perfect person you hope they are. I mean any one of us could become a celebrity in a few weeks if we had a reality show about our lives, and we aren't perfect. We are just normal people, like them. All a celebrity is, is just a normal person that everyone knows and whose life is made public by some sort of media. Actually that's more for like reality tv stars. Most celebrities earn their fame whether it be from a talent (athletics or music, etc) or from their minds or creations (anyone from Einstein to Zuckerberg).
Delete"We know our stars aren’t inviting us to think we can be just like them. Their success is based on leaving the rest of us behind."
ReplyDeleteThis quotation from the very end of the article is a massive generalization. The author has no right to make this statement about all celebrities. In fact many celebrities (I'm thinking of songwriters here) tell all of us "regular people" that following your dreams is one of the most important things you can do. They encourage the ambition of their followers. If the quotation was true, every single celebrity would be walking around driving in fancy limos saying 'I'm better than you so don't even try'. Think of all the celebrities that start their own foundations, and give back for charity, and have fundraisers for bigger causes. Celebrities today are not the big pompous dirt-bags that this article is making them out to be.
Also, Take a look at almost every single award ceremony on TV involving celebrities being awarded for their talents. IF the world was like the quotation summarizes it, this would be the typical acceptance speech: "Wow, thank you. Well it's really no surprise because I am the best at what I do. I'd like to thank myself for all of my talent that got me here, and I'd like to advise no one to do what I have done." In reality, almost every celebrity gets up on stage and thanks God. Thanks their parents. Thanks their own idols. But most of all, they thank their fans. If it weren't for fans and users of the innovators' creations, and listeners, and consumers, and all of the little people, these celebrities would not be where they are. Celebrities do not "leave us behind", we take them where they want to go. And the majority of the time, they thank us, and advise us to write our own destiny and follow our ambition.
I think that celebrities are in a place that it is hard for us to speculate on as non-celebrities in terms of mindset and intention. While many songwriters do tell people to follow their dreams, I think it would be unwise to take just believe that they are being earnest at face value. I think that many celebrities simply tell clichés like that for ratings and because it is what celebrities do. I do agree that at first some may truly believe it when they say that, but the further they move away from regular society the more alienated they become by their own newfound culture. I also agree with the statement that their success is based upon leaving the rest of us behind. Sure they tell us to "follow our dreams" and we can become celebrities too one day if we want to. Yet if this was really true and they really wanted it, they wouldn't exist. Everyone would become a celebrity, meaning, by the definition, no one would be. It reminds me of the quote from The Incredibles, "everyone's special, which is another way of saying no one is". Celebrities can't actually want everyone to become a celebrity, so to simply choose to believe them because you want to is misguided.
DeleteCorey, I agree with you it would be a jerk move of the author to say that celebrities are all selfish and dirtbags, but I don't think that's what he was getting at here. If anything, he's putting us American citizens to blame for being so caught up in celebrities. He's criticizing us for feeling like we are going to be squeezed out of society if we don't buy into what these "famous" people are calling their movement. Sure there are celebrities out there (cough cough Donald Trump) that are pompous assholes and act like they are above everyone else, but who wouldn't want to have as much money as Donald Trump? I don't think it's neccessarily our fault; that is we are raised to understand that success means money, and money means power.
Delete"The person evolves into a persona, then a brand, then an empire, with the business imperative of grow or die — a process of expansion and commodification that transgresses boundaries by substituting celebrity for institutions" When I came to this quotation I realized how true and sad it was. It's an interesting way of describing a celebrity but it's completely true. To describe a person as a thing is besides me. It sounds awful to describe someone this way, as being an empire or brand. As if they are a business, but no they are a person. I think the world we live in treats celebrities wrong. They are people just like the rest of us. The thing is we, the other people, buy into it too. We buy all the magazines and follow them. It's like we are all stalkers but yet it's ok because they are a celebrity. If they start some sort of clothing or something line we want to buy those things because it's made my that person. If a normal person was being stalked this much or someone was that obsessed with them a restraining order would probably be out in place. But yet because they are celebrities they are treated differently. They are "things" not people, therefore all this is acceptable and normal. It's just not right in my opinion. They are people not things or empires or brands, just people.
ReplyDeleteThis quote also stood out to me. I think it was the "grow or die" part because it shows how desperate celebrities can get to gain attention even if that means doing something appalling in order to lose their moment of fame. But I don't think it is always the celebrities that want attention, but instead their agents and publicists. I think celebrities don't always want to be in the spotlight but because of who we have made them to be, their actions can be interpreted unjustly and exaggerated greatly to fit the brand we have given them. I think once you gain the status of "celebrity" you can never be yourself again because people try to get you to act differently or interpret and present you differently.
DeleteHey Jackie
DeleteThis quote stood out to me too. I began to follow the same line of thinking that you had. "Why do we put them under so much scrutiny?; Why treat them differently than we treat 'normal' people?; etc."
But now I think that they have to evolve this way to become these figures, and at some point along their journey, they have accepted that public insight on their every move, on every aspect of their lives. If they were not these massive corporations or brands, we would not be able to place them as highly as we do. We see their names everywhere, from TV to billboards to magazines, and that gives them an omnipresent feeling, while still being an intimate figure in our lives, because they talk to us, write news articles that we read, or play in the games we watch.
Phoebe,
DeleteI agree that celebrities don't always want to be in the spotlight either. I hadn't ever thought about how it could be their publicists or agents pushing them into it but that is a really good point. These people are forever changed to become these brands and stuff whether that's what they want or not. It's what people like us like to see from them and publicists know that and make them become someone we will want to follow and look up to.
As for you Garret, I agree with you but also don't. I don't see why we have to place them so highly as we do. I know and get that we all look up to them and want them to always be there. But why do we have to de-humanize them? We want them to be people that we look up to not these big corporations and brands that they become.
I agree that with celebrity people tend to change into things. I think another unfortunate aspect of the celebrity business is the “grow or die” mentality that is taken on as an empire. Celebrities are forced to constantly come up with newer crazier clothing and lifestyles or risk being tossed out and left behind by society, and replaced mindlessly by the thousand waiting in line to take the spotlight. Unfortunately as well, I think both choices, grow or die, can be potentially dangerous for the celebrity being now treated as an object. The rapid and uncontrolled growth celebrities are forced to undertake often lead to dangerous choices, especially with drugs, something seen very often in the celebrity business. Yet refusing to "grow" in this way means to be left behind. Unfortunately this can lead to depression and even suicide by ex-celebrities who no longer remember how to live normal lives. This is why I find that particular cycle in the celebrity business-"grow or die" to be particularly tragic. There are rarely happy endings.
DeleteI agree when you say celebrities are things not people. How many of us idolize someone who is famous? Now out of that, how many of us actually know that famous person, not just what they do or what they make? Probably only one if any at all. It's almost like we fall in love with the idea of someone and not the actual person. We fall in love with their music, things, ideas. I had never really noticed before how much celebrities are made out to be "things" instead of people, but it is everywhere.
DeleteThis idea that celebrities are things and not people is fascinating and continued to come to my mind as I read the article and attempted to formulate responses. I confess that I am obsessed with the show Downton Abbey and I impatiently await its return in the winter. I love everything about its characters: their clothes, their hair, their ways of speaking, their lives. But take away the set and the script and I don't really follow the actors and actresses. Their real lives don't interest me and their real clothes aren't as fabulous as those in the show. To sum it all up, I think that included among the "things" that make celebrities, is the roles they play. To me, Anne Hathaway will always be Princess Mia from Princess Diaries and that is one of the reasons I love her. Michelle Dockery will always be Lady Mary from Downton Abbey. Not only do we idolize celebrities for their money and their clothes, but the parts they have played in the movies we love. That is part of the reason we love them.
DeleteJackie-
DeleteThis quote also struck me because I never even realized how true this is! We build celebrities up and they are "the next big thing" and then they are on top and we call them cocky and that starts their downward spiral and then everyone starts to hate them. This is very unfair to the celebrities because they can't help being put on the pedestal and then they are pushed right off of it. I wish that that was different but I really don't see society changing in any way, anytime soon.
"they offer themselves for worship by ordinary people searching for a suitable object of devotion."
ReplyDeleteThis quote immediately stood out to me because I find that there is a sort of cult following for some celebrities. I remember when "Hannah Montana" was a popular show on the Disney Channel, and that year the show blew up, every single little girl was dressed as her for Halloween. Those little girls also waited in line for hours at the movie theator to see her 3D concert movie, if they weren't lucky enough to get tickets to the actual concert. I think it's human nature to want to devote yourself to something, whether that be religion or Hannah Montana. It gives one purpose and the feeling that they are apart of something. There's a special feeling you get when you're in church surrounded by people praying to the same God, or standing in the audience at a Hannah Montana concert amongst thousands of fans all screaming for the same person.
~Meera
This is true with all the fans for people. The one thing that struck me is that you only mentioned the "little girls" and younger society. This can though be seen in older people with adults fllowing actors and actresses and teens follwing bands or novel writers.
DeleteMeera,
DeleteI reallylike the point you made how celebrities help people reach common ground. Its crazy how people find such admiration in celebrities. I can't deny that I look up to celebrties and their almost perfect lives. From being seen on TV, in magazines, owning mansions, having either great acting skills, career skills, or musical talent I envy them. Like you said how people often devote themselves to things to feel they are apart of something is spot on.
-Tori
and now everyone is talking about how slutty she became and what a trainwreck she's turning out to be. It's so weird that in 5 years someone can go from every 10 year old girl's idol to sex-pot cyrus with a bad reputation
DeleteThis is a great comment on human nature, Meera. Though vastly different on the surface, Religion and Hannah Montana are great examples. It is definitely true that people in general feel some sort of need to devote themselves to something or be a part of some larger thing. Its too bad legions of people willingly devote themselves to people like Miley Cyrus - at least religion attempts to guide people and set moral codes.
DeleteI love that you pointed this out Meera, because I was thinking the same thing throughout this article. Another thing I could add to this is the similarities between opposing religions bashing each other and Justin Beiber fans bashing bands like Of Mice and Men and Sleeping With Sirens and bands with fanbases like that. Both religious and celebrity/music conflicts give off the same impression in my opinion.
DeleteI think it is really interesting that you say this. I agree with you, of course. People don't like feeling like outsiders and it's natural for us to want to stick together and feel like we're a part of something. It's also natural for people to try to find someone they idolize for the sake of looking up to that person and using them as a role model in society. Almost everyone wants to be rich and/or famous. By using a celebrity as a role model, it is like we are subconsciously studying that person to try and figure out how to end up like them (rich and famous). I definitely think that idolizing celebrities is another way for people to feel like they're part of group and like they belong.
DeleteMeera, when I saw this quotation I immediately though of Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamozov where he talks about how human need something to worship. I like how you related established religions to celebrities because they both do make you part of something bigger. I agree and think that everyone just wants to belong, even if that means becoming a diehard fan of some person they will probably never meet.
DeleteCaroline,
I like how you mentioned the bashing that goes on between opposing groups. Every fan/worshiper needs to convince everyone else and themselves that they are following the right person or religion and this does lead to hate. In the end, whoever has the most fans doesn't win because it doesn't work like that.
"We know our stars aren’t inviting us to think we can be just like them. Their success is based on leaving the rest of us behind."
ReplyDeleteThis line is just so creepy. It's like a cult of superhumans planning to suck out our life essences (or wait, is that what being a celebrity means? - yes...?) But I'd like to draw the comparison between the two kinds of celebrities. The ones who are famous for doing something important for the world, and the ones who are kind of just idols for no real reason. Don't get me wrong, Bradley Cooper is a talented and beautiful actor, but just because he's good at his job and gorgeous doesn't make him worship-worthy. If that were true, then at least a fifth of the developed world's population would be celebrities. But then there are people who make amazing medical advances or lead a country out of poverty or end a fued between nations. And yet you'll hear about them once in the news and think 'whoa, that's pretty cool' and go back to watching "keeping up with the kardashians".
I like the point that Richter is making. Although we are often quick to say that all celebrities are corrupt, there are a large number that are generally good people. Take Oprah, she is extremely famous and incredible rich but is constantly helping other people. I believe the main problem is we give more fame to the ones who don't deserve it. As we discussed earlier in the year we like to put people on pedestals so we can tear them down. That is not as easy to do with an upstanding person, so we go after people we believe we can do this to.
Deletewhoa thats so true about the "not being able to tear down upstanding people" idea. whoa. so. true.
DeleteI agree with both of you. There are some people out there with real talent, and yet we get idiot people on reality TV shows just for our entertainment. I think if we focused on more of the good hearted celebrities, we would set a better example for our kids instead of the people on “Jersey Shore” or “Big, Rich Texas.” I have to agree with Brenda that we do put people that are more powerful than us on a pedestal to tear them down because we are jealous of their “perfect lives.” If we took the time to focus on the positive influences those celebrities have on charities and visiting kids with cancer, instead of one small mistake that the media blows up, kids would have an easier time choosing their idol and sticking with that one person. I think partially the fact that we tear celebrities down so easily is because they are famous and people look up to them. When Michael Phelps smoked weed, it was the biggest deal in the world— I mean we all know kids in our school that smoke weed, but when it’s a celebrity, the media goes crazy. Maybe instead of looking at the corrupt celebrities, we should focus on how corrupt our news is.
DeleteTo branch off of you Anna, I think corruption of the news is very prevalent in our society today. We can't exactly blame the "supermarket tabloids, gossip Web sites,and reality TV" mentioned in the article. It is after all their job to make sure people buy into their product and generally what we Americans want is news, juicier the better. I once watched a TED talk (this foundation was actually mentioned in the article)and the speaker was a street photographer in New York. The talk was lengthy and I wish I could find the link to it so you all could watch! Essentially he was speaking about how he's photographed the "bad" streets of New York, that the people he meet were great and very cooperative in letting him photograph them. But we would have never expected this because all over the news in New York is about a murder that went on on that same street, or a robbery or a rape. The thing is, all those things happen everywhere in America. The speaker's point was that the media feeds us stereotypes because that's what we're interested in, or even if we're not interested- it catches our attention. The same concept goes with the famous/infamous celebrities. It's pretty disappointing that we've let "Dance Mom's" and "Jersey Shore" to become so encouraged, but I think it's our own doing not just the media because people do actually watch those shows no matter what their moral opinions on it are.
Deletejust curious, what do you think would happen if one of these "idols" that are famous for no reason teamed up with somebody doing amazing world-changing-life-saving-unsung-hero type things? would they gain the recognition they deserve? would they maintain that recognition?
DeleteCaroline, I think it may draw more attention to that person and maybe put them in the limelight for a bit, but I think eventually they'd sink back into the background again. Brenda I LOVE what you said about why we target the people with less going for them. It makes so much sense; why pick on good people when it's so much easier to attack the others? Brilliant!
DeleteI'm not just jumping on the bandwagon..I really feel Richter brought up a completely valid point. Celebrities in today's day and age are people who are rich, famous and have done far less to deserve the title of a "celebrity." The real celebrities out there are everyday civilians who are changing the world one step at time. Whether it be a local man who saves children from a fire to a doctor who finds a cure for a disease. These are the people who deserve to have their faces broadcast for all to see. However, since these are not exhilarating or drama filled stories they are just swept aside. The doctor may get a brief mention but that's it. There one minute of fame.
DeleteKaty also brings up another important point which is the medias part in celebrities. Back to the mention of everyday celebrities- the news focuses on the negative much more than the positive. Amanda Bynes, who is an ongoing, downhill train wreck gets more coverage than a "real" celebrity because she will bring in the viewers. It's really such a shame.
"One virtue of those hated things called bureaucracies is that they oblige everyone to follow a common set of rules, regardless of station or background; they are inherently equalizing. Books like William H. Whyte’s “Organization Man” and C. Wright Mills’s “White Collar” warned of the loss of individual identity, but those middle-class anxieties were possible only because of the great leveling." I found this interesting because when you think about it it is (for the most part) true. But then again there are always stories of the ultra rich who can afford to pay off politicians and bureaucracies to do their bidding. But I found another quotation that is an interesting juxtaposition to this one: "Their superficial diversity dangles before us the myth that in America, anything is possible — even as the American dream quietly dies, a victim of the calcification of a class system that is nearly hereditary." This intrigued me because the first quotation essentially states that people were worried that the world would come to a screeching halt because of bureaucracy and then goes on to say they were wrong (duh). But then the author make a shockingly similar claim. I have found that predictions of societal collapse to become the laughing stock of future generations.
ReplyDeleteIndeed they have become. Though the claims are not TOO similar. The "class system" the author talks about is not really bureaucratic (and obviously not equalizing.) It is apparently "hereditary" and there is no equality in that.
DeleteThe first quote is true, though the giant bureaucracy doesn't really exist in our society. So that seems a like a bit of a hypothetical to me.
The second one relies on exaggeration, it is still possible to succeed even when you start from the bottom. The American Dream isn't dying, its just that no one is really paying attention to it anymore.
I chose a different quotation to post, but I liked when the article talked about how some people like Martha Stewart transformed from her real name into the persona she is. The same with Jay-Z, who is really named Shawn something-or-other. How do these people just up and decide, "I'm going to change my name to this and become famous!!" I guess I respect the creativity in making a new name because I know I could never make a name for myself that doesn't sound ridiculous, but what gives these people the ability to basically lead a double life? The transformation interests me!
ReplyDeleteCan I also just bring up the issue of Taylor Swift? Talk about dissolving into a fake persona. I actually liked her music back when she deserved the title of "country artist." Nowadays, I'm baffled at how she's even allowed to be present at Country Music award shows. During the superbowl (I think, could be wrong) she showed up on stage and until the song began I truthfully thought it was Lady Gaga up there. She had on this crazy white leotard thing with weird calf high boot and circus performers... Well uhm hello but that is definitely NOT country. One other celeb I'd like to point out, like I just mentioned, is Lady Gaga. I give her credit for being an excellent businesswoman. No doubt, that lady knows how to sell herself to the media and be wildly successful at it the vast majority of the time. What I question is how in the world it became entertaining, or even at all acceptable, to show up somewhere dresses only in meat. Excuse me, what? Meat? I really just don't see why people are such big fans of these celebrities when really all they're doing is making spectacles of themselves. Maybe it's just me, but that is not my idea of music.
DeleteSee, Hayley, in regards to Gaga, you wrote, "I give her credit for being an excellent businesswoman."… That's exactly what all these celebs are… they're glorified entrepeneurs. Whether they are branding themselves or actually creating goods for consumers, they're all just a big marketing campaign. The talent part is become less essential… If a celebrity can market themselves to the right people, in the right way, then they're golden. People won't care as much about their singing or their acting, or whatever they do, if they're represented in a way that catches attentions and makes people look up to them. People will just like the idea of these celebs, not the persons who they actually are. I don't mean to sound negative, there are definitely some super talented celebs out there, but those with pure talent don't need all the crazy marketing that some of these famous people have… those who are really talented will shine without all the bells and whistles, and people will notice them. This article we read was all about the "institutions" celebs create out of themselves, and I think that what you've mentioned above definitely supports the author's theory.
DeleteI was also fascinated about how celebrities transform into an a persona or a business. It is really funny because by doing this transformation these people become less and less human. Taylor Swift is the perfect example of this. When she first started, she just sang songs and was this adorable down to earth person. But now that she has this business surrounding her success and now she is more of a symbol of this new kind of countrish pop she has created instead of being a person. It is the same with all these celebrities like Martha Stewart and Jay-Z... they have all become a logo for a business instead of a person to admire. To me that is sad.
DeleteI agree with both of you, Rebecca and Brianna because I completely agree that every celebrity- or almost every celebrity- has an angle that they are working and have to be "business men and women" in order to succeed. Every move that a celebrity makes is calculated as they figure out the kind of cliché that they are going to fit in with. For example, a nice little cute celebrity might be seen visiting sick children in a hospital and never at a party. A rap artist would be completely different. (Keep in mind this is completely based on stereotypes). I think that it is terrible, though, because celebrities aren't able to live their lives as they wish- they have to live based on the rules of society.
DeleteI agree that it is sad Rebecca! I can actually tell when a voice is auto-tuned when a song is on the radio these days. Nothing is really based on talent these days, it's like an added bonus... what really matters is the persons ability to market themselves and act as machines. They do what their publicist says or what their friends say. It's pretty much peer pressure on an extreme scale because they also do what their fans want, their fans rule their life because of the desire to be popular and successful.
DeleteAnd Taylor Becchetti says: "In the second paragraph of this article Packer says that people honor celebrities because they are searching for an object of devotion, but I do not agree with this statement. I feel that some people do look for celebrities to worship, but the majority never wanted celebrities, and instead get caught up in the whirlwind of Hollywood and tabloids and feel that they must worship celebrities, at least to some degree, to fit in with the rest of society."
ReplyDeleteI side more with Mr. MacArthur with this. Granted there are the few people that seek something to worship, I believe the majority of them are “bandwagon-ers” and just want to be a part of something. For instance, the One Direction fad right now. While their music may be enjoyable to some, others are just taking part in the newest obsession. Considering the mind of an eleven year old girl, if all of her friends like them they should too. One store in the mall, Delias, has just about everything One Direction a person can think of to wear. So upon entering the store, I even found myself considering picking up one of their t-shirts or bracelets. But am I looking for something to worship? No, the craze is just everywhere.
Delete~Rachel
Having scanned over what has already been said, I haven’t seen any mention of the idea of bureaucracies. This was defined as an administrative system that divides work into specific categories carried out by special departments, and the article referred to a bureaucracy as everyone having a common set of rules. This would serve as an equalizer. What I considered is how life would be different if we lived in a world where this was a way of life. Would there still be celebrities?
ReplyDeleteOr, conversely, do we already exist in a bureaucracy? We spend a good chunk of our day in school, and considering the definition of bureaucracy mentioned in the article does Tolland High School fit that?
~Rachel
"Martha Kostyra became Martha Stewart, and then Martha Stewart Living. The person evolves into a persona, then a brand, then an empire, with the business imperative of grow or die-" That author sure knows how to pack a punch in such a compact article. This quote really stuck with me as did this entire article. It is quite true that what once was an individual person evolves into so much more-Marth Kostyra is now a living breathing magazine, television show and brand. I myself have always loved Martha Stewart and all that she does. Her television show, brands, etc... are something I admire and now that it was brought up to me, I realized I didn't see her as a person but as a brand. Later on in the article it goes on to bring up how Martha Stewart did jail time and still came back afterwards. The people who followed her before she went to jail continued to follow her after. Why you ask? Because Martha Stewart is no longer a person to us but a celebrity turned corporation.
ReplyDeleteLet me just say, I love Martha Stewart. I walk through the Martha Stewart aisle in Michael's just so I can see what new and fabulous creations Martha has come up with. Did you know she even has a line for pets? You can find it in PetsMart right down the street from Michael's.
DeleteIt is so true that Martha is no longer a person, but a corporation. She is a paper flower craft, a dog collar, a TV show. "Martha Stewart's jail time for perjury merely proved that her will to win was indomitable." (a vocab word!) I think this quotation is interesting. Did Martha really have a will to win that could not be subdued, or did we, as her followers, give her that power to overcome?
"Their [Celebrities'] superficial diversity dangles before us the myth that in America, anything is possible — even as the American dream quietly dies..."
ReplyDeleteThis statement didn't make much sense to me once I first read it. I thought to myself, "wait, if anything is still possible in America, how is the American dream dying?" However, after thinking it over, it's more comprehensible. As Packer puts it, our obsession with celebrities "obliterates old distinctions between high and low culture," and diminishes a lot of what it means to be an American in my opinion. As mentioned in the article, a lot of celebrities we worship are people who have made mistakes in the past (mistakes that many people make) but are the ones lucky enough to be celebrated for overcoming their problems and becoming entrepaneurs. Then, they become this huge face of an ideal American and get rich and start a movement.
What happened to the ideal American being a hardworking, honest individual climbing the ranks of society through loyalty towards their country and to others? In my opinion, we give our attention to the wrong people, the Kardashians of society who are rich and famous because they are lucky. Unfortunately, it's only going to get worse for future generations because they are seeing the people that we put in the spotlight.
Preach it, girlfriend! I hate the celebrities that are only celebs because they are born into rich families or are good looking or something. There's plenty of extremely rich and attractive non-celebrities out there, why are people like the Kardashians famous? And it's not because they are entertaining, because they really aren't. I don't get it. Yet you have people out there discovering cures for fatal diseases and building the machines of the future, but they aren't celebrities. They may be in their own, personal world, but they aren't common household names for every American family.
DeleteAnd we'll let Taylor have the last word.
ReplyDelete'In the last paragraph of this article the author restates how we are at such income separation as the Gatsby time. I agree that this is true, that there is huge separation between the poor and rich. However he also says that this was eliminated for a time and this I do not agree with. There has always been and will always be an intense and very large separation in income between the "aristocrats" and the poor, it just becomes more noticeable when there are more "rich" than "normal".'
In response to the "Jersey Shore" thread. Some of these celebrities I would call "anti-celebrities". We don't admire or respect them, but we can feel superior to them. Whatever personal deficiencies we have, we aren't _that_ bad. (At the same time, they still have celebrity status, which places them ahead of us. One anti-celeb recentme!"ly told someone "Don't you know who I am? Google
ReplyDelete