Tuesday, January 06, 2009
The Sad State of Celebrity and other thoughts
I find it a little bit ironic that after struggling through all of the first semester to find something blogworthy, a couple of hours of watching CTV in December and a return to class has infused me with an abundance of inspiration... so without further ado:
Today's repeated referencing of Paris Hilton reminded me of a series of conversations I had during the break when it was brought to my friends' attention that I had never heard of Kim Kardashian. To my bemusement, they attempted to explain to me that very much like Paris Hilton, she was famous for, well, nothing, other than being rich. More research revealed the similarities between them to be dizzying.
So my first instinct was to theorize that in our modern day culture, high class alone had become a reason for fame. As we'd learned earlier in the course the middle class often strives to become high class, and this had clearly reached a level of desperation to the point where anybody rich was worth 'worshipping' to a level that enabled them to become even more rich by making otherwise vapid television shows feasible (see The Simple Life, Keeping Up with the Kardashians)
However, as Professor Kalmar is quick to point out one of the most 'appealing' (for lack of a better word) factors about Paris Hilton is the fact that she is vulgar and unrefined, whereas the opposite is usually expected of someone in her economic position. For someone who is in almost all respects 'Old Money' her behaviour can be seen as absurd.
Further inquiry and conversation lead me to the following options to the source of her appeal/fame:
1) She epitomizes consumption but does not have the behaviour that explicitly associates her with the high class. Like it was stated today in class she appeals to that instinct, perhaps even subconsciously - "she has whatever she wants but she's effectively trash - i'm better than her, therefore I could easily find myself in her position or better"
2) She is (pardon my brashness in the following paragraph) a manifestation of the carnivalesque. I mentioned previously her vulgarity. I noticed a lot of people who followed her were in shock and awe that someone so devoid of talent and charisma (at least in it's classical sense, denoting charm. It's undeniable that she has the ability to attract people) could indeed get whatever she wanted.
This was also reinforced by one of my friends who claimed she admired Anna Nicole Smith (prior to her death) because despite being trailer trash she had 'made it', even through questionable means.
Whichever way you look at it, two things are clear to me. The middle class is 1) striving to be high class through enabling these class-less people to reach celebrity status; 2) engaged in some sort of bizarre spectacle that, like a television show or a sporting event allows for conversation and in some cases heated discussion.
Sad as it may sound, Paris Hilton and other trashy celebrities may indeed be bringing people closer together, be it through shared admiration, indignation, or a mixture of both.
Before I ramble on much longer, other CTV induced thoughts:
So You Think You Can Dance: Take something traditionally associated with high culture, add flashing lights, drama, and seemingly ordinary people... voila! High culture into pop culture, but perhaps more rare, pop culture being educational? Fascinating.
Barbara Walters: This TV personality arbitrarily selects a list of the 10 most fascinating people of the past year every year. Take a look at her previous lists and it becomes clear that no one without celebrity status makes the list, and that many of these people disappear from the public eye. Hell, even Siegfried and Roy made the list a couple of years ago for being mauled by a tiger.
Disposable celebrities?
Today's repeated referencing of Paris Hilton reminded me of a series of conversations I had during the break when it was brought to my friends' attention that I had never heard of Kim Kardashian. To my bemusement, they attempted to explain to me that very much like Paris Hilton, she was famous for, well, nothing, other than being rich. More research revealed the similarities between them to be dizzying.
So my first instinct was to theorize that in our modern day culture, high class alone had become a reason for fame. As we'd learned earlier in the course the middle class often strives to become high class, and this had clearly reached a level of desperation to the point where anybody rich was worth 'worshipping' to a level that enabled them to become even more rich by making otherwise vapid television shows feasible (see The Simple Life, Keeping Up with the Kardashians)
However, as Professor Kalmar is quick to point out one of the most 'appealing' (for lack of a better word) factors about Paris Hilton is the fact that she is vulgar and unrefined, whereas the opposite is usually expected of someone in her economic position. For someone who is in almost all respects 'Old Money' her behaviour can be seen as absurd.
Further inquiry and conversation lead me to the following options to the source of her appeal/fame:
1) She epitomizes consumption but does not have the behaviour that explicitly associates her with the high class. Like it was stated today in class she appeals to that instinct, perhaps even subconsciously - "she has whatever she wants but she's effectively trash - i'm better than her, therefore I could easily find myself in her position or better"
2) She is (pardon my brashness in the following paragraph) a manifestation of the carnivalesque. I mentioned previously her vulgarity. I noticed a lot of people who followed her were in shock and awe that someone so devoid of talent and charisma (at least in it's classical sense, denoting charm. It's undeniable that she has the ability to attract people) could indeed get whatever she wanted.
This was also reinforced by one of my friends who claimed she admired Anna Nicole Smith (prior to her death) because despite being trailer trash she had 'made it', even through questionable means.
Whichever way you look at it, two things are clear to me. The middle class is 1) striving to be high class through enabling these class-less people to reach celebrity status; 2) engaged in some sort of bizarre spectacle that, like a television show or a sporting event allows for conversation and in some cases heated discussion.
Sad as it may sound, Paris Hilton and other trashy celebrities may indeed be bringing people closer together, be it through shared admiration, indignation, or a mixture of both.
Before I ramble on much longer, other CTV induced thoughts:
So You Think You Can Dance: Take something traditionally associated with high culture, add flashing lights, drama, and seemingly ordinary people... voila! High culture into pop culture, but perhaps more rare, pop culture being educational? Fascinating.
Barbara Walters: This TV personality arbitrarily selects a list of the 10 most fascinating people of the past year every year. Take a look at her previous lists and it becomes clear that no one without celebrity status makes the list, and that many of these people disappear from the public eye. Hell, even Siegfried and Roy made the list a couple of years ago for being mauled by a tiger.
Disposable celebrities?
# posted by Alex Di Noia @ 12:35 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I totally agree with you, sometimes it's even more sad that people become "celebrities" by simply making a spectacle of themselves, therefore becoming known for things like being the biggest bitch (Omarosa) or the guy who obviously can't sing and dance (William Hung), and yet we still buy into it.
Post a Comment
<< Home
