My definition of celebrity is someone who is famous for being famous. All of the Kardashians, for example, who have apparently never done anything actually noteworthy in their collective lives. There seem to be an endless parade of people who have never done anything artistic, athletic, intellectual or accomplished but are “famous” for nebulous reasons, and then are… famous for being famous.
There are also people who may have accomplished something at one time, but then become more “famous for being famous” than for their original vault to fame. Madonna and Michael Jackson come to mind, along with a raft of “supermodels” (another question-begging term). Then there is the huge list of forgotten celebs who populated game shows in the 1970s and 80s.
Famous for being famous. And no, we shouldn’t give a rat’s ass about them.
I understand that what I described is not the same as following the love lives of the Kardashians.
But there have been threads here before that (apparently) argued that it was similarly silly or pointless to care about, say, a musician’s political views.
I do find celebrity watching baffling in its intensity, but to me it’s just gossip. People are naturally inclined to interest in other people’s affairs, and I suppose one can enjoy criticizing celbrity habits, mores, and especially appearance (this last seems to be a hobby in itself for many people) with an impunity not possible iin discussing neighbors or relatives.
It’s likely also a distraction for many from more significant, more troubling things going on in the world. Whether that is a good thing is a different question I suppose.
What should we do? Some people believe in a religious, philosophical, or intellectual mandate for all human beings, which determines what all should and should not do. For those, I’d wager at least the great majority would say that we should not indulge in celebrity-worship since it’s a waste of time, a violation of the privacy of others, and a wallowing indulgence in negativity.
On the other hand, some people are proud of rejecting all or almost all moral standards and see now broad demand that humans should do anything much, and most of those would presumably see no problem with a person devoting hours each day to celebrity worship.
Speak for yourselves. I personally have no interest in the private lives of anyone other than family members whose private lives are part of mine. I don’t care about what celebrities do in private, nor about what my neighbors and friends do in private. I’d go out of my way to avoid seeing into someone else’s private life.
No, offense, intended, ITR. I didn’t say “all people,” but I think the majority of us are interested in stories of other peoples’ activities, else why would there be gossip at all, or for that matter novels or plays?
But I am also made very uncomfortable by knowing or hearing about very private things inthe lvies of real people, whether I know them or not. I think that’s why I detest reality t.v. so much, or the kinds of shows that portray real human misery in real time (don’t know the names of the shows but you know what I mean, the ones that show arrests, police raids on private homes, real ER visits, etc etc etc)
Yes, we should care. They have gone to great lengths to be objects of entertainment for us and all they ask is that we laugh at their every personal flaw, mishap, and unintelligent and ill-informed statement. Some are even entertaining on purpose, in movies and on TV, but that’s so rare that it’s hardly worth mentioning
If by “celebrity” we mean somebody who has done something worth celebrating, then by definition yes we should. But we apply the word in an odd way to glamour stars. I can’t think of a reason to care about the Kardashians if you don’t have a direct relationship with one of them.
Honestly, what a weird question. “Should” doesn’t enter into it at all. Following celebs is a morally neutral thing to do, so do it if it amuses you and don’t if it doesn’t. Like any indulgence, it can be bad if taken to excess, where you get creepy obsessive borderline stalker behavior, but it’s fine in moderation. There’s an implied contract people have with celebs, where they get to make a lot of money being famous, but have to put up with reduced privacy. It seems to suit most of them fine. Kim Kardashian not liking attention would be like a zookeeper not liking animals.
Following celebrities and gossiping about the famous is pretty old behavior. It predates film though of course it was film, television, and high-speed presses that made it really take off. Look up Florence “the vitagraph girl” Turner to see the beginning of celebrity obsession, which caught the studios by surprise.
At any rate I realize this board is way to intellectual for this hoi polloi nonsense, and prefers to discuss weightier matters like whether a Borg Cube could defeat The Death Star, but loudly proclaiming that because you don’t care for something no one else should doesn’t make you look smart. It makes you look like a self satisfied ass.
I pretty much don’t care anything about celebrities. If I am not hanging out with them, screwing them or financially profited by them, I really don’t give a shit about their personal life. I will admit I have this picture popping up as wallpaper, as I find him attractive, but I have no idea if he is married, has kids or is gay.
No, I don’t care about them in the slightest. Honestly, for the most part, I don’t even think they’re the best at what they do. They’re mass-manufactured and dumb down stifling true originality. I mean how many Justin Bieber, Beyonce, Jay-Z, etc… must we go through.
There’s another, darker, nastier service it provides. We set them up on pedestals…then heave rotten tomatoes at 'em when they fail in any way. It lets us feel good about ourselves (in a nasty way) when our idols show their mere flawed humanity. We (many of us; obviously not all) take a wicked joy when we see the rich, famous, powerful, and idolized take a big pratt-fall onto their keisters.
This particular dynamic is not a nice one in any way, and I hope that few of us, here, engage in it.
(A variant of the variant is when someone is famous for being a stinkard. Fred Phelps comes very readily to mind. When he comes a cropper, we can all take some kind of joy – the schadenfreude thread in the Pit comes to mind – in their comedownance.)
If we’re only supposed to care about the personal lives of our friends and family, I guess that means I should start caring about Paris Hilton, since she’s a (very distant) cousin of mine. You may all now pay your condolences to me.
Well, I do have problems with “Should we” instead of the more Catskills Comic “We should.” Yes, it changes the meaning of the sentence, but to one that more-accurately reflects your beliefs.
I prefer her mom, but yes, Paris is cute. And puts out, which I have difficulty believing her Ice Queen mom ever, ever did.
I say Yes and No.
Yes:
Take the guys in Rush. For a geek such as myself, these guys gave me such a tremendous amount of self worth (??) and identity, as well as 30 years of **continuous **entertainment (just listened to Moving Pictures while driving home from work tonight)that they most certainly deserve much good at my hand. I also like to hear of their good/happy lives because people who do you good are people that you want to see good done to. Also, if they are happy in their personal lives, they may continue providing me with a service that I enjoy and am willing to pay for.
No:
OK, say, for instance, that I was at some club, and any of the guys from Rush and I were competing for a girl. (Let’s pretend they aren’t married. This is hypothetical), Let’s be real: Chris Farley could beat the guys in Rush in a looks contest, so I feel that I would win on that score. I’m definitely taller than any of them. So, they have talent and money. BUT, the hot babe we’re competing for is so into looks, and height, that even their money only gets them to almost equal with me. Well, any of them would happily have one of their bodyguards beat me to death, just to boink her. Both she and I would be forgotten the next day. Hmmmm…perhaps I need only appreciate them, rather than care about them…
No, we should not care about celebrities, as it is a waste of time and effort.
Sure. And since sugar and fat were scarce in the ancestral environment, we are inclined to stuff our faces with food that will cause us to die from obesity. Bad idea.
Consider these two types of thinking. We know immediately what 2+2 is. But for most of us it takes a moment to add up 34 + 48. I believe Daniel Kahneman called this level one and level two thinking. We should do less of the automatic kind if it doesn’t serve our interests.
Granted, interest in celebrities is less harmful than obesity, smoking and driving without a seatbelt. And if someone seriously wants to be a celebrity hobbyist… well they are welcome to share their views. But I suspect that these sorts of habits generally are not especially constructive.
Now if you excuse me, I’m off to catch up on the Oots thread at Cafe Society.
When it comes to many singers/musicians I care about their lives outside of their work because the two overlap so much. While I *can *make up my own meaning for a song, it’s more satisfying in most cases to know what the author’s intent was. In many cases you need to know about the author’s beliefs and history to be able to comprehend that.
So in the case of singers, directors or politicians, I can understand the desire for a degree of personal knowledge. But for actors? Who gives a shit? They are performing other people’s material. I would much rather know about Chuck Lorre’s personal life than Charlie Sheen’s (although Lorre’s wok is so disposable that I don’t care much about him either).
