The (De)Generation of Society; The Celebrity-Status
For most of time the celebrity has been described as
“…people of talent (who) would work to create something–something written, something painted, something sculpted, something acted out–and it would be passed on to audiences.†(Bob Greene).
The modern day definition of a celebrity has shifted greatly. A Celebrity today is defined by Wikipedia as
“a widely-recognized or famous person who commands a high degree of public and media attention.â€
Publicity and media attention is all it takes to become a celebrity today. Gone are the requirements of creation, of worth, of value behind the celebrity status. The substituted now is promotion through any stunt at any cost. It does not matter what you have done, if you make the media, you’re a celebrity, able to demand fee for appearances. The best player at the modern celebrity game is Paris Hilton.
Paris is the epitome of the Celebrity Status Generation, where an extravagant living is made by being outrageous and obnoxious. We live in a time where the difference between a “someone†and a “no one†is how much of a scene you make in front of the media.
Sydney was recently lucky enough to have Paris in town, where she was paid the tidy figure of ~$1,000,000(AUD, ~$800,000USD) to endorse a beer. As a true testament to the modern day celebrity, The media jumped at her presence, the amount and her purpose, with Paris making the front page of 3 day’s worth of papers.
How, when and why did the old definition of celebrity die, and how/when/why did this new one take place? It boggles to see a woman getting paid to advertise a product as front page news at all, let alone for 3 days. (Please leave a comment if you can figure out the shift)
American Economist/Philosopher Adam Smith, in the early 18th century said
“To superficial minds the vices of the “great” seem at all times agreeable”.
Society seems to be generally be in total agreement to Paris’ vices. Von Dutch was first worn by Hilton, and now, even after the brand has collapsed it’s everywhere. It has merit due to association at one point by her. They support her by allowing her to have her own TV show. They grow her influence by allowing her on talk back shows, cameos in movies and whatever else she can find to infect.
The Celebrity is one of the primary role models for youth. With Paris at the helm of celebrities, what sort of future are we creating? Look around you, Paris is being emulated extensively by children, teens and even those in theirs twenties and above. They all want to be Paris, someone who lives the most wild and out of control life. Drinking all night like, making sex tapes, binging, and barley wearing clothing are traits commonly associated with Paris.
Idiocracy, explores what will happen if society continues the emulation of celebrities. The movie paints a ghastly picture where instead of progress, regression is what happens in the future. This comes about as virutes such as justice, morality and truth are no longer seen as important and vices of vanity, envy, sloth and greed become the foundations of society.
I feel that if society does not wake up soon, it will go beyond the point where it can save itself. Smith in the 18th century saw this coming, and it only appears to be getting worse as we progress to the future. Why oh why, won’t “someone think of the childrenâ€.
Thoughts and feedback? - Leave a comment
2 Comments