The Cult of Celebrity; Part un.
My initial posting was going to be a direct article on how the media and masses effect the psyche of celebrities they adore, but I felt it was more natural to ease into this topic rather than throw my non-existent readers into cold water. What I will be discussing today is "Why do we love Celebrities?"
To understand the craze surrounding Celebrities, we need to know when this craze began. The history of such things would be around the time societies began to form. Celebrities
existed in ancient civilizations, such as Socrates, Aristophanes, Plato many gaining fame from controversy (a topic I'll discuss later in this article) and their controversial philosophies. Then there is the celebrity leaders, Caesar most notably and his cadre of 'friends'. The celebrities of Roman times we don't quite hear about are the ones that are equivalent to Heidi Montag, the fading stars. These celebrities were the Gladiatorial Championships. Just to recap so all my nonexistent readers can keep up, the gladiatorial championships were basically the TV to the Roman Populace, two men went into the Colosseum with big weapons, one died, one didn't. The one who survived would h
ave a short boost in fame until the next match. After the next match, if he won again, the fame would increase. This little cycle of short lived fame carried on until his untimely death and the fame transfers to the next brute. Now this doesn't sound anything like Heidi Montag from the onset (sadly) but it represents the sort of celebrity she is. Think about it, Gladiators provided nothing to society but barbaric nonsensical entertainment. Heidi provides nothing to society except "controversy" and drama that people are enamored with temporarily until she can provide it again. But due to Ms. Montag being a 'fading' star, her days are numbered.
Many fading stars of our day rely on controversy to stay in the headlines while the true stars, people who have provided at least something to society that is substantial, such as Britney Spears who, whether you like it or not, dominated the Pop Genre doesn't need to work th
e wheel of controversy for fear of slipping under the radar. Infact with Ms. Spears its quite the opposite, she can't escape the media. Fading stars normally appear on MTV, see example in parenthesis (Tila Tequilla? What happened to her? Oh yeah, faded.) The true stars are essentially the ones who leave something behind. Elvis Presley in this case is our historical equivilant to Britney Spears. Another awkward example but try to see it in more of a sociological view. They both essentially did the same function for society at large, they effected a lasting form of entertainment that society still cherishes to this day.
Whenever I am forced to see fading stars in some form or another, it makes me lose a little faith in humanity, but when I stop seeing people like Tila Tequilla on the TV, I know it is because their fifteen minutes has burnt out, it raises my faith a little. In my next article I'll discuss the price that comes attached with fame, how celebrity's must cope with the negative effects of their lifestyle and what some possible solutions may be.
Exeunt.
To understand the craze surrounding Celebrities, we need to know when this craze began. The history of such things would be around the time societies began to form. Celebrities
existed in ancient civilizations, such as Socrates, Aristophanes, Plato many gaining fame from controversy (a topic I'll discuss later in this article) and their controversial philosophies. Then there is the celebrity leaders, Caesar most notably and his cadre of 'friends'. The celebrities of Roman times we don't quite hear about are the ones that are equivalent to Heidi Montag, the fading stars. These celebrities were the Gladiatorial Championships. Just to recap so all my nonexistent readers can keep up, the gladiatorial championships were basically the TV to the Roman Populace, two men went into the Colosseum with big weapons, one died, one didn't. The one who survived would have a short boost in fame until the next match. After the next match, if he won again, the fame would increase. This little cycle of short lived fame carried on until his untimely death and the fame transfers to the next brute. Now this doesn't sound anything like Heidi Montag from the onset (sadly) but it represents the sort of celebrity she is. Think about it, Gladiators provided nothing to society but barbaric nonsensical entertainment. Heidi provides nothing to society except "controversy" and drama that people are enamored with temporarily until she can provide it again. But due to Ms. Montag being a 'fading' star, her days are numbered.Many fading stars of our day rely on controversy to stay in the headlines while the true stars, people who have provided at least something to society that is substantial, such as Britney Spears who, whether you like it or not, dominated the Pop Genre doesn't need to work th
e wheel of controversy for fear of slipping under the radar. Infact with Ms. Spears its quite the opposite, she can't escape the media. Fading stars normally appear on MTV, see example in parenthesis (Tila Tequilla? What happened to her? Oh yeah, faded.) The true stars are essentially the ones who leave something behind. Elvis Presley in this case is our historical equivilant to Britney Spears. Another awkward example but try to see it in more of a sociological view. They both essentially did the same function for society at large, they effected a lasting form of entertainment that society still cherishes to this day.Whenever I am forced to see fading stars in some form or another, it makes me lose a little faith in humanity, but when I stop seeing people like Tila Tequilla on the TV, I know it is because their fifteen minutes has burnt out, it raises my faith a little. In my next article I'll discuss the price that comes attached with fame, how celebrity's must cope with the negative effects of their lifestyle and what some possible solutions may be.
Exeunt.
No comments:
Post a Comment