Ship of Fools: Celebrities. Do we need them?

Thread: Celebrities. Do we need them? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020411

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

This is a quiet week down here, where many businesses, including mine, shut down. So the news media seems to be scratching for stories as I'm hearing more and more about people I couldn't care less about.

Acquaintances I thought immune turn out not to be. The latest royal romance is on their lips, as is Prince Harry's bromance with Obama, as is any starlet or new hunk that comes on the scene. 2 friends practically live by the latest gossip magazines or showbiz tv programmes.

Whom did our modern celebrities replace? In the 1600s, who were people gossiping about? Neighbours? The queen?

Do we, generally, need such people to get through life? I personally find the appeal of the Kardashians or the Obamas in terms of knowing their personal life mystifying. That's not to say I don't have my idols...I practically worship my former boss given his traits. Is that any different?

Is knowing their lives escapism? Or is there some belief that interacting with them on Twitter or similar makes them like us, or us like them? What do they bring us?

I am really curious. Like sports, celebrities are a phenomenon that has passed me by.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Here is another thing where I find people odd.
I get not getting into celebrity, but I don't get not understanding why other people do.
It is vicarious thing, it is a community thing, it is fascination with things other/more than oneself, it is fantasy and distraction; the list goes on.
Whilst I think it can get a bit overdone, the reasons for why it exists are fairly simple.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Sorry to be odd. Or thick.

I suppose I got the vicarious nature, but you honestly helped me with some others. I have trouble sympathising with others, truth be told: it can make interactions hard.

I tend to talk about the news, foreign tv programmes and books with others. I live a sheltered life.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I think maybe polytheistic deities filled that job. (Still do, for some people.) And heroines/heroes.

There's a human tendency to want to look up to someone, maybe for good reasons and bad. But we also like to tear them down and stomp on them, especially if they're getting too big for their britches.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

I had a phone call one day. I was being offered, on behalf of the newspaper to which I subscribe, a few months' subscription to one of several magazines: Women's Day etc.
'Look,' I said, 'if you could offer me the New Yorker or New Scientist I'd be interested.'
'Oh,' said the (male) voice, 'intellectual.' and he hung up.

Frankly, if there's nothing in a waiting room to read but 'women's magazines' I turn the pages and, mostly, wonder who these people are. (The GP has the New Yorker, the Chinese fish'n'chipper has the New Scientist and National Geographic, the dentist has National Geographic (but you can go home and read the articles on line) and Time.)

GG

[ 28. December 2017, 07:19: Message edited by: Galloping Granny ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It's utterly beyond me. I don't know who most of these people are; they seem merely famous for being famous.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Victorian newspapers covered society weddings in great detail, describing the bride and bridesmaids dresses minutely. They also often listed the presents received and the donors of said gifts. I assume this was the forerunner of today's celebrity culture.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

lilBuddha pretty much nailed it. I would add also the importance of gossip, which strikes me as an important social lubricant. I am not really into the royal family or the Kardashians, but people like Bowie fascinate me. I saw a film about Leslie Howard yesterday, and found it completely fascinating. And did you know that Jeanne Moreau's mother was from Oldham? I am all agog.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

We have always had celebrities. They used to be the royals and their entourage, and before that, they would often be travelling people who could bring news from outside.

We just like the idea that other people are able to do things that we can't. I think they are important, because we need to have people we admire, people who are in a different place, where we wish we could be.

I guess it gives us dreams, hopes, that some magic might enable us to be in their world. Celebrities are people we cannot be like, but we wish we could.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Don’t celebrities distance us from life? We can all sing songs or act in plays, but are encouraged to fixate on a few professionals pumped up so high they are available to adore, but not to learn from.

The really interesting people in modern culture are often invisible: the writers, composers, directors, scriptwriters, arrangers, etc, but celebrity culture puts all the attention on the actor or singer, so our response to popular entertainment is different from our response to art: we don’t engage with the artistic intent, we passively receive the product as consumers who can like or not like and nothing more.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
fixate on a few professionals pumped up so high they are available to adore, but not to learn from.

One can, though, learn from them by watching them carefully. Youtube has made it possible to do that. In the case of singers or instrumentalists, for example, you can learn by watching how they perform -- including their body language. The conclusion often follows that they're not so great as people make them out to be after all.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think maybe polytheistic deities filled that job. (Still do, for some people.) And heroines/heroes.

There's a human tendency to want to look up to someone, maybe for good reasons and bad. But we also like to tear them down and stomp on them, especially if they're getting too big for their britches.

Not that I'm much for evolutionary psychology, but someone told me about an experiment in which they put monkeys in front of a TV screen equipped with a device that allowed them to switch channels between various types of films involving monkeys, and the most popular choices were films of other monkeys copulating, and films of monkeys who were high-ststus within the group.

I suppose the latter choice could be as simple as monkeys being comfortable watching individuals they were already familiar with. One wonders how they responded to films of familiar, but low-status, monkeys. Usual caveats about popular science-journalism apply.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The thought of monkeys watching porno for simians has quite spoilt my day.
[Projectile]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I read a biography of Charles Dickens which said that he was the first modern celebrity. He was widely recognized wherever he went, which had not happened to anyone before that, except royalty.

Moo

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Here is another thing where I find people odd.
I get not getting into celebrity, but I don't get not understanding why other people do.
It is vicarious thing, it is a community thing, it is fascination with things other/more than oneself, it is fantasy and distraction; the list goes on.
Whilst I think it can get a bit overdone, the reasons for why it exists are fairly simple.

But still, even after your explanation, still utterly inscrutable to me.

I don't even know who most of the people in these magazines and articles are, much less understand why anyone cares about the minutiae of their day to day lives. I know you explained it, but your explanation conveyed nothing to me, it really didn't. I just don't get it.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Isn't it rather difficult to defined what constitutes celebrity? I rather like its association with vacuity: "A celebrity is someone who is famous for being famous".

For me one of the earliest references to the importance of celebrity is a reference to David:

1 Samuel 18: '6 When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with timbrels and lyres. 7 As they danced, they sang:

“Saul has slain his thousands,
and David his tens of thousands.” '

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Here is another thing where I find people odd.
I get not getting into celebrity, but I don't get not understanding why other people do.
It is vicarious thing, it is a community thing, it is fascination with things other/more than oneself, it is fantasy and distraction; the list goes on.
Whilst I think it can get a bit overdone, the reasons for why it exists are fairly simple.

But none of that explains why this particular person is of interest. I understand, sort of, people caring about the personal lives of world-class athletes and whatever, but there's a large class of people who seem to be famous because they are famous.

Take the Kardashians, for example. They're clearly very famous, and have successfully built a number of business ventures on top of that fame, but I'm completely confused as to why they're interesting in the first place. They don't seem to be famous for any particular skill or talent, or for any notable achievement. Why does anyone care in the first place?

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The thought of monkeys watching porno for simians has quite spoilt my day.

But it wasn't porno. It was footage of monkeys copulating -- something which, presumably, groups of monkeys in captivity get to watch in real life on a fairly regular basis.

What they're actually watching, in either case, is other monkeys getting social rewards. Most simians (us included) form hierarchical social structures. Typically, those at the tops of these structures are those gleaning the most, and/or the most desirable) social rewards. We watch the other monkeys, then, in order to understand what rewards to compete for, and how; to reinforce our own social understandings of the hierarchical structure we're part of (even those of us who claim we're not) and our own place within that structure.

Which is why so many of us (myself included) who are not reaping these particular rewards like to claim they're not rewards at all -- utterly strange and repellent: within the extant social hierarchy, we are not the alpha monkeys.

[Biased]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Frankly, if there's nothing in a waiting room to read but 'women's magazines' I turn the pages and, mostly, wonder who these people are.

Me too. I usually take a book when I go to get my hair done, but if I forget to do so, I wind up looking through People Magazine. I have a game I play -- see how many pages it takes before I find some "celebrity" that I actually recognize. It's usually more than halfway through the magazine.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I suppose the top slebs are the royals. Do we need them? Well, opinions differ. I find them boring, but then tons of people wet their pants over them.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Sorry to be odd.

You'll get no sympathy for being odd from the reigning Monarch of Oddity (me).

quote:

Or thick.

I suppose I got the vicarious nature, but you honestly helped me with some others. I have trouble sympathising with others, truth be told: it can make interactions hard.

It isn't thick if your mind works differently, just if it doesn't work at all. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But still, even after your explanation, still utterly inscrutable to me.

I don't even know who most of the people in these magazines and articles are, much less understand why anyone cares about the minutiae of their day to day lives. I know you explained it, but your explanation conveyed nothing to me, it really didn't. I just don't get it.

Does thinking of it as extended family help? Because it sort of is. We are a gregarious species. And the concept that family ends with direct, blood relation is artificial to how our species and cultures have evolved.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
but there's a large class of people who seem to be famous because they are famous.

(I'd rather not)
Because they are famous. That is all it requires for some people.
Because they are a trainwreck. We like that.
Because it is famous people being stupid in a harmless way.
Because they are a distraction.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Having glanced through the odd issue of Hello or whatever, I ask two questions:

1. Why do male slebs have such weird hair?
2. Why do female slebs have such bony knees?

[Ultra confused]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

When I sit in the dentist's waiting room and leaf through the magazines, I realise that I don't know any of these celebs - and don't care.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

So do I, but I still wonder about the weird hair, and the bony knees.... [Ultra confused]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I am always interested in the Open University rounds where they ask for the names of famous people from pictures. I rarely get them, because I don't recognise them, even though I probably know their work.

These should be celebrities, but because they don't appear on the TV often, I - we - don't recognise them or give them "celebrity" status. Today, it seems that appearing on TV is one of the most important aspects of celebrity. If you appear of TV, you are a celebrity, even if you have done nothing worth while.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Alas, yes, and you MUST also have weird hair, and/or bony knees....as here.

IJ

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Alas, yes, and you MUST also have weird hair, and/or bony knees....as here.

IJ

Any idea who that might be?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

As a species we seem to need stories.

quote:
Storytelling is a human universal. From gathering around the camp-fire telling tales of ancestors to watching the latest television box-set, humans are inveterate producers and consumers of stories. Despite its ubiquity, little attention has been given to understanding the function and evolution of storytelling. Here we explore the impact of storytelling on hunter-gatherer cooperative behaviour and the individual-level fitness benefits to being a skilled storyteller. Stories told by the Agta, a Filipino hunter-gatherer population, convey messages relevant to coordinating behaviour in a foraging ecology, such as cooperation, sex equality and egalitarianism. These themes are present in narratives from other foraging societies. We also show that the presence of good storytellers is associated with increased cooperation. In return, skilled storytellers are preferred social partners and have greater reproductive success, providing a pathway by which group-beneficial behaviours, such as storytelling, can evolve via individual-level selection. We conclude that one of the adaptive functions of storytelling among hunter gatherers may be to organise cooperation.

The subjects of the most popular stories are always going to be famous ("celebrities" for lack of a better term), so if we posit a human need for stories and storytelling, there follows a consequent 'need' for celebrities. Of course such celebrities need not necessarily be currently alive (e.g. Achilles, Jesus of Nazareth) or have ever been alive in the strictest literal sense of the term (e.g. Sherlock Holmes, Luke Skywalker), but the need for celebrated persons seems intrinsic to the need for stories.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Any idea who that might be?

No. Should I?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Any idea who that might be?
No. Should I?

Well, if she's a "celebrity" I thought someone might recognize her.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Sorry, I assumed the image would also include a description. The lady is, I understand, presenter and model Alexa Chung, 32.

No, I'm no wiser, either, but I think she could do with subsisting for a while on Roast Beef, Potatoes, and Plum Pudding....

IJ

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Take the Kardashians, for example. They're clearly very famous, and have successfully built a number of business ventures on top of that fame, but I'm completely confused as to why they're interesting in the first place. They don't seem to be famous for any particular skill or talent, or for any notable achievement. Why does anyone care in the first place?

It's all part of the vicarious wish-fulfilment thing. If they can be famous despite having no discernible skills or talents then so can I. See also Big Brother, TOWIE, Love Island, and all the other reality shows that lift perfectly normal people into the limelight for no particular reason.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

No, I've never heard of her either. I looked her up on Wikipedia but I'm no wiser.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think celebrity's become more generationally determined these days. Reality shows and social media platforms have their demographic, and if you don't belong to that demographic you probably don't watch the show and you won't know the people.

Moreover, skillful self-promotion on the internet has become essential if you want to sell almost anything at all, including your personality, or your beauty, or your sexual allure, or even just your problems. Being able to offer some amazing talent beyond that is almost incidental, ISTM, because success depends on how well you can promote yourself. If you can do that then you'll reach the right demographic for you, and hence become famous.

[ 28. December 2017, 20:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Any idea who that might be?

No.

I watch next-to-no television, so I recognize almost no alleged celebrities. I was finally made aware of the Kardashians, and remain mystified by their fame. What do they do? And why should I care?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

It could be that we like looking into the window of someone else's life so we are momentarily distracted from looking into the window of our own. Furthermore if such selected people are placed on pedestals, displaying frailties which humble folk like to keep hidden, then the allure seems all the greater.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Second time it's been mentioned, so I'll bite -- I gather Kardashians are people? A tribe, or a family?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

BR--

Yes, an extended family--most of them famous for being famous, IMHO. The one legitimately famous member is Bruce Jenner, Olympic medalist, who married into the family. He later came out as trans, and is now Caitlin.

I don't know much about them, and don't really want to. But the media keeps spewing their latest spat or scandal.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Second time it's been mentioned, so I'll bite -- I gather Kardashians are people? A tribe, or a family?

To the final question, yes. The Kardashians are a tribe, or a family. To the first question about peoplehood, I think the jury is still out.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Sadly, I have not managed to avoid the Kardashians entirely, however much I've tried. Kanye West has a pretty good claim to fame in his own right, before he married Kim Kardashian, with whom he has had children, named North and Saint (I had to look up the second one, knew the first). They have a TV reality show that used to run in one of the homes I visited to tutor students.

I didn't recognise the photograph of Alexa Chung, but do know who she is, a model turned fashion designer. She turns up on the society pages of the Metro which is pretty unavoidable commuting on the tube, even if the avoidance is picking said rag from a seat and placing it elsewhere.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Didn't think of Kanye. He's not really on my radar, except when he does something seemingly weird and it makes the news. IIRC, he's the one who's twice complained at music awards, loudly, that the wrong person won. On stage. Just after the winner was announced.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I follow a different type of celebrity, such as David Mitchell, a British comedian, television actor and writer, and panel show regular. He is married to another celebrity, panel show regular, broadcaster and poker player, Victoria Corrin-Mitchell. Victoria is the brother of a celebrity food critic, Giles (?) Corrin. Giles Corrin did a wonderfully funny show with comedian and TV host Sue Perkins, the name of which escapes me, but which involved Giles and Sue dressing up in the costume of a particular time, and then only eating the food and drink eaten at that time and prepared for them by expert chefs who had studied the food of the period. They did this for a period of time, perhaps a week, all the while poncing about and cracking jokes. Giles and Sue are not a couple, but I rather hoped they would be in the early stages of my fandom.

I would not be interested in the Kardashians in a PINK FIT. I understand that they are famous because one of the ladies has an enormous bottom, so I suppose it appeals to fans of Queen. I consider the people who are interested in the Kardashians to be the SCUM OF THE EARTH (present company excepted) and REALLY REALLY stupid and not at all like me, because I am only interested in real celebrities who are British and who appear on the National Broadcaster and who sound clever and nice.

I am a hypocrite. Nice to meet you. In this post I only attack my own hypocrisy and nobody else's. While I do attack the taste of others, this is a device for attacking myself. That is all.

[ 29. December 2017, 09:28: Message edited by: simontoad ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
[The Kardashians are an] extended family--most of them famous for being famous, IMHO. The one legitimately famous member is Bruce Jenner, Olympic medalist, who married into the family. He later came out as trans, and is now Caitlin.

They also had a brush with fame before the TV show. Kim Kardashian's first husband, Robert Kardashian, gained national recognition as O. J. Simpson's lawyer. According to Wiki he'd also been Priscilla Presley's boyfriend at one point.

[ 29. December 2017, 11:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Didn't think of Kanye. He's not really on my radar, except when he does something seemingly weird and it makes the news. IIRC, he's the one who's twice complained at music awards, loudly, that the wrong person won. On stage. Just after the winner was announced.

I gather he's some sort of popular musician. Wouldn't be able to pick him or his music out.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I gather he's some sort of popular musician. Wouldn't be able to pick him or his music out.

A heck of a lot of other people would, though. As most adults tend to work out at some point, it’s perfectly possible and valid for someone to be a celebrity without their personal approval.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Giles Corrin did a wonderfully funny show with comedian and TV host Sue Perkins, the name of which escapes me, but which involved Giles and Sue dressing up in the costume of a particular time, and then only eating the food and drink eaten at that time and prepared for them by expert chefs who had studied the food of the period.

I enjoyed that show. "The Supersizers" IIRC. I'd make my usual complaint about such light entertainment shows that they aren't very good at distinguishing between things that are actual historical scholarship and things which are fond stories, but it was enjoyable none the less. I could have done without the comedy "medical" examinations before and after purporting to be able to measure anything relevant after a mere week.

I'm also an Only Connect fan. It's more entertaining than University Challenge, with more scope for groansome puns on the part of the question setters. I remain unconvinced by most of Mrs. Coren Mitchell's opening monologues, but on balance prefer her to the sarcasm that Mr. Paxman develops when someone mistakes Titian for Tintoretto.

I think they'd all be enjoyable people to have dinner with / spend an evening in the pub with, but I don't really care what they do in their day-to-day lives. As far as I understand the cult of "celebrity", I would be supposed to care when they bought a new house, redecorated a bedroom, or went to some party in the company of other well-known people. These are the kinds of things that I am happy to read about in a Christmas letter from friends and family. Is that the secret - people are pretending that these celebrities are their friends?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I gather he's some sort of popular musician. Wouldn't be able to pick him or his music out.
A heck of a lot of other people would, though. As most adults tend to work out at some point, it’s perfectly possible and valid for someone to be a celebrity without their personal approval.

Yeah, and there ate plenty of artists I could pick out. Probably ones many people have never heard of. What I find bizarre though is the idea that there are these celebrities that 'everyone' knows about, and the ones who appear to be famous for being famous. There'll be a front page on a tabloid saying "Claudia splits up with Harrison!" as if I'm somehow going to know who Claudia and Harrison (names random) are.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

People do things. They then get famous for the things they do, and become celebrities. Need them or not, I think they're unavoidable.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

[Roll Eyes]

How fast did this turn from an interesting topic on the psychology of celebrity to the vapid “Well, I’ve never heard of him”?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There'll be a front page on a tabloid saying "Claudia splits up with Harrison!" as if I'm somehow going to know who Claudia and Harrison (names random) are.

You're not supposed to know, because you're not the target audience for tabloids.

The celebs I'm most interested in are normally writers, and the interesting thing is that they too have a tightly defined target audience. Most people won't have heard of the average novelist, even though his or her fans may be very devoted.

Then there are the writers whose lives, personalities and fame transcends their books. Surely this makes them rather like the Kardashians. You don't have to watch this family's TV show to be interested in the phenomenon of their fame, and you don't have to read 'The Satanic Verses' to be curious about Salman Rushdie and the drama of his life and his significance in our culture.

[ 29. December 2017, 16:06: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

How fast did this turn from an interesting topic on the psychology of celebrity to the vapid “Well, I’ve never heard of him”?

Yes, I thought that it could become a competition in snobbery. Well, I'm sure I've never heard of the Kardashians, and Kanye West - he's a footballer, isn't he?

The obvious point psychologically is that we use projection in relation to celebs, so that we can look at aspects of ourselves out there, as it were. Talent, beauty, criminality, sexiness, and what have you. We seem to need hooks to hang things on.

[ 29. December 2017, 16:26: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

I suppose that my equivalent of celebrities is politicians, at least in terms of name and facial recognition. Oh, dear.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I suppose that my equivalent of celebrities is politicians, at least in terms of name and facial recognition. Oh, dear.

Politics is show business for ugly people.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

How fast did this turn from an interesting topic on the psychology of celebrity to the vapid “Well, I’ve never heard of him”?
Yes, I thought that it could become a competition in snobbery. Well, I'm sure I've never heard of the Kardashians, and Kanye West - he's a footballer, isn't he?...

LMFGTFY kinda takes the steam out of that sort of snobbery these days. [Devil]

One useful thing about celebrity gossip is that it is less harmful than gossiping about friends, family, coworkers, neighbours, etc.

Anyway, it seems it's natural to enjoy watching high-status monkeys. A more interesting question for this forum might be whether Christianity even remembers gossip is a sin. And why nobody complains about it if it is. Even if it's about people we don't personally know.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I’m not sure there is a hard border between gossip and community. So, at what point does it become a “sin”?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
...A more interesting question for this forum might be whether Christianity even remembers gossip is a sin. And why nobody complains about it if it is. Even if it's about people we don't personally know.

Good point. I try to remember it, although there's always a question - even for those of us who don't follow celebrities - of where gossip crosses the line into legitimate news.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Gossip is certainly a sin in the Bible, the question is whether gossip as we understand and practice it was the same thing as the gossip Paul condemns in the Letter to the Romans. I personally think we should punish all gossips by dunking them in ponds.

I'll get me togs.

Seriously though, I'm not sure that gossip is a part of community, unless (shit, can't think of a good simile) ... I intend to say 'unless something bad is an intrinsic part of something good.' Why is gossip a necessary part of community, especially when I reckon St Paul reckons that it is a destructive part of community and I reckon he's right.

Sorry, roleplaying Tennant's Dr Who I think.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

In simple terms, imparting information about members of a community is part of being a community. Think All Saints on SOF. There is no clean line between informing the community and spreading malicious information. Some things are obviously one or the other, but many fall somewhere in-between.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The obvious point psychologically is that we use projection in relation to celebs, so that we can look at aspects of ourselves out there, as it were. Talent, beauty, criminality, sexiness, and what have you. We seem to need hooks to hang things on.

Precisely the tactics dear Donald used to get himself elected. So the answer to the OP is an overwhelming yes, something his political opponents overlooked.

As for snobbery, it isn't that snobs don't need celebrities. No, far from it, snobs need celebrities who fit that particular pattern of thinking. Hence the enduring popularity of figures like Winston Churchill, or even fake celelebs like King Aurthur. Though I am probably crossing over into Hero worship on this tack.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

How fast did this turn from an interesting topic on the psychology of celebrity to the vapid “Well, I’ve never heard of him”?
Yes, I thought that it could become a competition in snobbery. Well, I'm sure I've never heard of the Kardashians, and Kanye West - he's a footballer, isn't he?

The obvious point psychologically is that we use projection in relation to celebs, so that we can look at aspects of ourselves out there, as it were. Talent, beauty, criminality, sexiness, and what have you. We seem to need hooks to hang things on.

I don’t think it is projection, or at least, since you may be using projection in a technical sense, I don’t think that we identify with celebrities or draw any strength from them. Heroes we do; we can model ourselves on them. Celebrities, though, are distant from us, inhabit a world disconnected from ours, they don’t even look like us or anyone we know. As a result they are disabling. We become consumers of the public image of celebrities, which is different from being inspired by the achievements of people who are basically like us: heroes, role models, prize winners, inventors, artists, etc.

This feature that many celebrities are famous for being famous is significant, because we can’t replicate it. Perhaps we could write a good novel or win the Tchaikovsky Piano Competition, unlikely, but we know the route to that. Celebrities are plucked from the privileged also rans by an irrational hand that is associated with a branch of the media, but which no one really controls. Fame is given by shows and magazines inviting the nearly famous on, because they want the fame to rub off on them.

It’s like the UK honours system. A tiny proportion of honours are given to people judged to deserve them because lifelong efforts are often unrewarded and unrecognised, but many are given in order to associate the honours system with the success of the recipients. I’m thinking not so much of the people who get gongs for being rich and powerful, but those, often sports stars, who increasingly get honours for being popular. It’s a tricky one, though, because popularity moves like bitcoin. Bradley Wiggins is, I guess, less popular now than when he was knighted, and not such a good tie-in for the honours system as he seemed.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
This feature that many celebrities are famous for being famous is significant, because we can’t replicate it. Perhaps we could write a good novel or win the Tchaikovsky Piano Competition, unlikely, but we know the route to that.

I think you've got that the wrong way round, actually. I can (and did) train as hard as I can to be the best cricketer I can be, but I'll never be a test star because I don't have the innate talent required to get to that level.

The average person can practice football for their whole life, but they'll never be Lionel Messi. They can practice the piano for 12 hours a day, but they'll never be Mozart. They can write stories until the cows come home, but they'll never be Dickens. It's just impossible to be that good at something unless you're born with the right set of talents.

But what talents do the Kardashians have that have put them where they are? None. They were just in the right place at the right time. Dumb luck. And the thing about dumb luck is that it can happen to anyone, anywhere, at any time. Which actually makes it more achievable (albeit not by much, but a tiny chance is infinitely better than no chance at all) than becoming famous for something that requires skill.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Celebrity can happen to anyone, but you can’t make it happen to you. You must just wait, which is why we are disengaged by celebrity.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

People do identify with celebrity and not necessarily at a distance. There is no functional difference between hero worship and celebrity worship. Famous for being famous and reality stars make becoming a celebrity appear more attainable, but serve the same purpose as “real” celebrity.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I find my thoughts putting together the celebrity wedding of a British royal and an American actress with monkeys copulating from the previous page, President Pervert wanting to hump Diana, Prince Charles talking of being a tampon with Camilla while still married to Diana. I want to tell myself they are merely flawed human beings and perhaps the perversion and psychopathology of every day life is just more public than private today due to electronic communication, but this doesn't seem to capture the depravity. I find myself recalling a line attributed to to Nietzsche from univ days about the inability to sweeten the smell of a manure pile with a bottle of perfume, and wonder if salvation is truly offered to all people of the world. On the other hand perhaps perception is skewed by the info from the internets and celebrity is only a few turds on the top of the pile.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Celebrity can happen to anyone, but you can’t make it happen to you. You must just wait, which is why we are disengaged by celebrity.

You can't make heroism happen to you either. That's my point. If unattainability makes us disengaged then it makes us disengaged from all of them.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

In this Country I think the two most bizarre celebrity happenings were:
1/ the mass outpouring of hysteria following the death of Diana
2/ the exposure of Sir savile as a career sex offender.
It is mildly incredible that the celebrity culture has continued despite two, (entirely unconnected), crazy/dark anomalies of celebritism.

ISTM that we, the net-curtain twitchers, are never discouraged from peeping no matter how absurd the stage act becomes.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Celebrity can happen to anyone, but you can’t make it happen to you. You must just wait, which is why we are disengaged by celebrity.
You can't make heroism happen to you either. That's my point. If unattainability makes us disengaged then it makes us disengaged from all of them.

You were engaged in cricket. Only one in a thousand becomes a professional, one in fifty thousand a test cricketer, but you can see your progress and measure yourself against the greats. It’s real. Joe Root averages over 50 which puts him in a very elite group.

People who are famous because the media have seized them and bestowed fame on them undermine all that. It’s like having sportstars who aren’t actually good at any sport.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

People who are famous because the media have seized them and bestowed fame on them undermine all that. It’s like having sportstars who aren’t actually good at any sport.

Paris Hilton, the modern Queen of the Famous for Being Famous, wasn’t seized by the media, she seized them. She used the tiny seed of being related to someone well known and worked that into a career. The Kardashian’s studied at her feet and work to keep themselves relevant.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is no functional difference between hero worship and celebrity worship.

This struck me as odd. Not saying you're wrong, but I would've thought there was a world of difference. Maybe because I engage in one and not the other! [Help]

I would've thought my (extreme) admiration of those I know is subtly different, given I know these people and admire a trait or traits that I think is useful and which I do not possess. I suppose celebrity worship could see being famous, or good at football, as an admirable trait too. But I, perhaps mistakenly, see admiring a friend for his intellect or a footballer for their skills as different to being so engrossed in what a celebrity wears or who they have sex with or where they go on holiday or ...

Or have I got the definition wrong?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

A celebrity is someone famous. Doesn’t matter for what. Choosing an attribute to admire is subjective. You admire footballers, someone else might think it rubbish to celebrate adults for playing a child’s game.
Intellect is an inherited trait, just as being beautiful.
I’m not placing anything on a particular scale, but illustrating the commonalities.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

People who are famous because the media have seized them and bestowed fame on them undermine all that. It’s like having sportstars who aren’t actually good at any sport.
Paris Hilton, the modern Queen of the Famous for Being Famous, wasn’t seized by the media, she seized them. She used the tiny seed of being related to someone well known and worked that into a career. The Kardashian’s studied at her feet and work to keep themselves relevant.

I just skimmed her Wikipedia entry. I knew a little about her. I saw an interview with her, her parents, and her sister. IIRC, P said she worked because she didn't want to just take what was handed to her (via Hilton hotel family wealth). From what that Wikipedia entry says, she's worked a *lot*. Films, TV, modeling, a couple of memoirs, entrepreneur many times over, pop music, etc.

From the interview I mentioned and from occasional clips on TV, I had the impression that she just wasn't very smart. But...when Dubya was president, he made some crack at her expense. She replied in a very short video. She was alert, awake, and well-spoken. (She'd often seemed half-asleep, to me.) Whatever is going on with her, she's clearly not of low intelligence. She did have some trouble in/with school, and dropped out. But she did get her GED (an alternative to a standard high school diploma).

Anyway, my perceptions of people can be very wrong, as this shows. Kind of like with Marilyn Monroe--beyond her physical attributes, I couldn't figure out why she was so popular. After she died, there was a news clip of her studio dressing room (?), and her bookshelves. I don't remember any titles; but, at the time, I thought she couldn't be as dumb as her persona if she read *those* books. I heard she was a foster kid, so another puzzle piece. Then there was an outtake film clip, where she was playing with a puppy at a studio. She seemed truly happy and very different, a Marilyn I'd like to know.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Trump is a 'celebrity' and he gets talked about a lot. No admiration, plenty of confusion and horror. But with it, for me, comes a morbid/confused/worried/amused fascination.

Can this person stoop any lower? (answer: yes he can). Will his actions affect my life? (Probably, but hopefully not involving nuclear winter)

But, at the other end of the scale I love Gogglebox. Watching ordinary people watching TV. Pleasant, kind, funny, clever, silly people. It restores your faith in humanity.

Both activities are looking through the bars of a zoo, are they not?

My niece has no TV, no iPhone or computer and indulges in none of this. She does visit the real zoo with her kids 'tho.

[Smile]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
People who are famous because the media have seized them and bestowed fame on them undermine all that. It’s like having sportstars who aren’t actually good at any sport.

Like Eddie the Eagle or the Jamaican Bobsled Team?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People do identify with celebrity and not necessarily at a distance. There is no functional difference between hero worship and celebrity worship. Famous for being famous and reality stars make becoming a celebrity appear more attainable, but serve the same purpose as “real” celebrity.

Yes, I think identification is an important aspect. Also idealization, which often goes with the opposite. For example, if you take a figure such as Joan of Arc, we get intense idealization by one side, and demonization by the other side.

As to why humans tend to idealize, this is pretty complicated. You can relate it to mana in the ancient world, well, humans seem to need a degree of charisma around them. The most obvious example, is the idealization of parents by children, which leads often to disillusionment, quite healthy of course.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

There is a difference between being good at something then going on to be well known or famous. Hemce we are inclined to say 'She or he is becoming quite the celebrity'. What causes this morph to happen is the grey area.
Some work hard to become celebrities yet are thrown out with the trash, OTOH sometimes them that fake it can make it.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
People who are famous because the media have seized them and bestowed fame on them undermine all that. It’s like having sportstars who aren’t actually good at any sport.
Like Eddie the Eagle or the Jamaican Bobsled Team?

Ah, the blessed Eddie! But he was no good at a particular sport. He was quantifiably bad (and better than the rest of us).

Imagine a sport star who gets interviewed to talk about her training programme and the emotional upset over her brother’s divorce, who is always in the studio for coverage of the Olympics, who is visited by journalists at her base in Madeira where she talks about the possibility of abandoning her attempt to qualify for the 100m relay team and instead focus on tennis, who came fifth in Sports Personality of the Year, who is greeted with squeals of audience delight and hostly hyperbole for her numerous chat show appearances to talk about the colour changes in her kit for 2018 (available at selected retailers), who interviewers take entirely seriously as she discusses diet, motivation, drugs or her new book about The Ashes (co-written with Mark Ramprakash and Mike Selvey), but who has never competed in any sport at any competitive level since her ‘did not place’ at the Surrey Schools Cross Country event where she fell over just before the tape and an apparently certain fifth place in 2008.

I dare say that the great royal courts a few centuries ago had familiar faces that, if they thought about it, no one could remember how they came to be there; people without high birth, wealth, or real connection. Centres of privilege have to bestow their blessing on someone, and it will often be the bland and unexceptional who are the manikins so dressed; the young and good looking, those who know how to behave in this place of privilege, but not necessarily much more.

As I watch celebrity this or that quiz or panel show over Christmas, with another eight celebrities I have never heard of and doubt I’ll hear of again, I am peering in through the windows of a place of money, privilege and status that appears to recognise and celebrate those things, but also manufactures them, and at its fringes, the C to F list celebrities, gives them away inappropriately.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Inappropriately. [Roll Eyes]

Look, I’m not a fan of the Kardashian’s and their ilk. But is this is going to digress into what one “approves” of, them it will miss the interesting psychology involved.
Kim Kardashian is no less “deserving” of approval than Christianity Ronaldo or Sir John Gielgud. And it was difficult or me to put the last name in the same sentence as the first.
Whilst there are gatekeepers/influencers, the public are the ultimate arbiters of what celebrity is.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People do identify with celebrity and not necessarily at a distance. There is no functional difference between hero worship and celebrity worship. Famous for being famous and reality stars make becoming a celebrity appear more attainable, but serve the same purpose as “real” celebrity.
Yes, I think identification is an important aspect. Also idealization, which often goes with the opposite. For example, if you take a figure such as Joan of Arc, we get intense idealization by one side, and demonization by the other side.

As to why humans tend to idealize, this is pretty complicated. You can relate it to mana in the ancient world, well, humans seem to need a degree of charisma around them. The most obvious example, is the idealization of parents by children, which leads often to disillusionment, quite healthy of course.

You know your parents and, when you get past the mum is magic and dad can do anything phase, you can plainly see they are just ordinary. Celebs can be perpetually held at a distance and avoid contact with reality.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It sounds like more snobbery. I like tasteful people like writers and opera singers, but apparently the plebs like trash like the Kardashians and that ghastly Mariah Carey.

By the way, Christianity Ronaldo is now shooting up the charts, not just a good footballer, but nearly a Christian saint.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People do identify with celebrity and not necessarily at a distance. There is no functional difference between hero worship and celebrity worship. Famous for being famous and reality stars make becoming a celebrity appear more attainable, but serve the same purpose as “real” celebrity.
Yes, I think identification is an important aspect. Also idealization, which often goes with the opposite. For example, if you take a figure such as Joan of Arc, we get intense idealization by one side, and demonization by the other side.

As to why humans tend to idealize, this is pretty complicated. You can relate it to mana in the ancient world, well, humans seem to need a degree of charisma around them. The most obvious example, is the idealization of parents by children, which leads often to disillusionment, quite healthy of course.
You know your parents and, when you get past the mum is magic and dad can do anything phase, you can plainly see they are just ordinary. Celebs can be perpetually held at a distance and avoid contact with reality.

Yes, although there is an interesting flip between idealization and denigration. The same person can be idealized by some and vilified by others - and this can even happen longitudinally. Yesterday I loved Cristiano Ronaldo, but today I hate him. But you could argue that the hate is as unreal as the love, although I'm not sure about this. What is real, blah blah blah.

[ 31. December 2017, 16:37: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0