Celebrity life.

[Bala Perdida]

I know the media likes to use celebrities as a form of distraction, and they are over-glorified in ads and such. That being said, outside their intended purpose (acting, singing, etc) I'm basically mostly apathetic over what celebrities do. However for many people this isn't the case.

What exactly are the thoughts about taking interest in the personal life celebrities? What about obsessing over a celebrity's personality or physical appearance?

EDIT: Also can someone move this to non-political. I just realized it would fit much better there.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I absolutely hate most celebrities.

Think about what types of celebrities are glorified by the media. Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Snooki… They are parasites. They have SEVERE narcissistic personality disorder. And since the media glorifies these people, they encourage this narcissism and it has become a collective mental disorder in countries like the U.S.

Many celebrities are famous for contributing nothing to society. I do see music as a contribution, but people such as Kanye West are also glorified for their narcissism and misogyny. Then people such as Paris Hilton are famous simply for being a parasitic socialite.

Madonna and Brad and Angelina like to publicize the fact that they shop for children in third world countries. Tyra Banks has a show dedicated to talking about herself. They have teams of propagandists that they alert every time they go do one of these things such as shop for clothes.

The fact that these people are actually looked up to by portions of the population is disgusting. It is why we are plagued with narcissism as a culture. Look at these bourgeois gods paraded around by the media who people want to emulate. There is a serious problem with that.

[Sinister Intents]

I know the media likes to use celebrities as a form of distraction, and they are over-glorified in ads and such. That being said, outside their intended purpose (acting, singing, etc) I'm basically mostly apathetic over what celebrities do. However for many people this isn't the case.

What exactly are the thoughts about taking interest in the personal life celebrities? What about obsessing over a celebrity's personality or physical appearance?

EDIT: Also can someone move this to non-political. I just realized it would fit much better there.

I'd say this thread can belong here.

The state owns the media and therefore they put out media from their point of view and to get their words across. The marketing companies utilize celebrities as a way of not only selling products, but ideas. Entire IMC campaigns get built around one person to market a commodity or service. Take Ellen Degeneres for example and the Easy Breezy Beautiful Covergirl trash. It's utilized to maintain a standard of beauty within bourgeois culture, not only to sell a commodity that is designed to be mass produced, creating a lot of waste.

I've always looked at this celebrity culture bullshit to be akin to cult of personalities. Many people have personality cults, take Stalin as an example, or Bob Avakian, J.F. Kennedy for example, Gandhi as well, so many more...

[roy]

yeah celebrities are actually just people and there's no reason to get obsessed over them either way. hating celebrities is just as dumb if not more nauseating at times (see psycho p's post above), but of course there's money to be made by milking people's interest in celebrities so i'd say celebrity obsession is more a symptom than it is a problem in itself. so i don't really get annoyed at all if someone has an interest in a celebrity separate from what that celebrity is famous for (film, music, etc.) because it seems to be one of the more benign side effects of the culture that we live in and there are muchhhh more important things to get worked up about.

and kanye west is dope

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Many celebrities are famous for contributing nothing to society. I do see music as a contribution, but people such as Kanye West are also glorified for their narcissism and misogyny. Then people such as Paris Hilton are famous simply for being a parasitic socialite.

Madonna and Brad and Angelina like to publicize the fact that they shop for children in third world countries. Tyra Banks has a show dedicated to talking about herself. They have teams of propagandists that they alert every time they go do one of these things such as shop for clothes.
You're painting celebrities as the arbiters of narcissism in American culture, perhaps even malicious. This doesn't sound one-sided to you at all?

Just as the bourgeois media dolls celebrities up, they also tear them down. Michael Jackson is a prime example of such victimization by the media. Paris Hilton was a target herself at one time, after being briefly jailed for a DUI. George Clooney got plenty of mean-spirited flak for starring in Syriana. Trashy magazines like People help to create a toxic atmosphere that encourages ordinary people to vicariously live through celebrities, which enables celebrities to be treated as scapegoats for their every mistake, especially during a time of economic strife and war.

In my opinion, you've fallen right into this trap. I suggest you escape as quickly as possible. Since celebrities are constantly sandwiched between a dissatisfied public on one side, with the bourgeoisie and their media on the other, they are not undeserving of sympathy. That you treat them as monsters is, to be blunt, idiotic.

P.S. Do you know for a fact that the celebrities you mention actually have narcissistic personality disorder? Did you psychoanalyze them all recently?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

You're painting celebrities as the arbiters of narcissism in American culture, perhaps even malicious. This doesn't sound one-sided to you at all?

Just as the bourgeois media dolls celebrities up, they also tear them down. Michael Jackson is a prime example of such victimization by the media. Paris Hilton was a target herself at one time, after being briefly jailed for a DUI. George Clooney got plenty of mean-spirited flak for starring in Syriana. Trashy magazines like People help to create a toxic atmosphere that encourages ordinary people to vicariously live through celebrities, which enables celebrities to be treated as scapegoats for their every mistake, especially during a time of economic strife and war.

In my opinion, you've fallen right into this trap. I suggest you escape as quickly as possible. Since celebrities are constantly sandwiched between a dissatisfied public on one side, with the bourgeoisie and their media on the other, they are not undeserving of sympathy. That you treat them as monsters is, to be blunt, idiotic.

P.S. Do you know for a fact that the celebrities you mention actually have narcissistic personality disorder? Did you psychoanalyze them all recently?

Aww, those poor poor people with millions of dollars which they get from being narcissists :( Yeah, they get no sympathy from me. Although I do have sympathy for Michael Jackson because he was severely abused as a child but that is an exception.

And yes, I am aware that the bourgeoisie exploits them. I really still don't give a fuck because they are millionaires. Zero sympathy.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Aww, those poor poor people with millions of dollars which they get from being narcissists :( Yeah, they get no sympathy from me. Although I do have sympathy for Michael Jackson because he was severely abused as a child but that is an exception.

And yes, I am aware that the bourgeoisie exploits them. I really still don't give a fuck because they are millionaires. Zero sympathy.
"I don't care" and "because I said so" are not valid counterarguments.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

"I don't care" and "because I said so" are not valid counterarguments.

Huh, well I don't know what else to say. I mean I laid out my point by saying that they are parasites who contribute nothing to society and are paid millions for it. So I guess I just don't know how else to articulate my point.

[roy]

^how do they contribute nothing to society? That is such bourgeois tripe, 'contribute to society'. What cappie do you have to work for to be making a sufficient contribution? Are film, music, etc not valid societal contributions? Megamantrotaky hit the nail on the head, you're totally sucked into the whole cult of personality that's built around celebrities by the trashier side of the media

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Huh, well I don't know what else to say. I mean I laid out my point by saying that they are parasites who contribute nothing to society and are paid millions for it. So I guess I just don't know how else to articulate my point.
The problem is that your "point" is not articulate in the slightest. All you espouse are broad generalizations, making partial truths so one-sided that they become as false as they are true.

You indict celebrities for their wealth. But this is a superficial criticism. But what is the overall function of a celebrity in the context of class society? And how are celebrities themselves affected by it? Why would ordinary people find this "narcissism" appealing in the first place? No one held a gun to their heads while they were tweeting for or against a particular actor. Celebrities experience alienation, although in much different circumstances than the proletariat. No one is above alienation in capitalist society, not even the capitalists. And not once did you even bring up the film or sports industry's role in all of this.

Because you never raise the discussion to this level, you end up sounding like a preacher who, like Pat Robertson, does nothing but rail against the "evils" of our culture. So, celebrities are Evil. Why? Because they have a lot of money. Do you really expect that they spend their lives with so much money, with absolutely no contradictions? If that's really the case, then you have no concept of psychology, American culture, or the institutions involved. I guess all the divorces, alcoholism, and suicides don't really affect them.

I now have a serious question for you. Are you a revolutionary, or an opportunist? Based on your performance, I'm leaning towards the latter. You have no idea what you're talking about, and it's painfully obvious.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

The problem is that your "point" is not articulate in the slightest. All you espouse are broad generalizations, making partial truths so one-sided that they become as false as they are true.

You indict celebrities for their wealth. But this is a superficial criticism. But what is the overall function of a celebrity in the context of class society? And how are celebrities themselves affected by it? Why would ordinary people find this "narcissism" appealing in the first place? No one held a gun to their heads while they were tweeting for or against a particular actor. Celebrities experience alienation, although in much different circumstances than the proletariat. No one is above alienation in capitalist society, not even the capitalists. And not once did you even bring up the film or sports industry's role in all of this.

Because you never raise the discussion to this level, you end up sounding like a preacher who, like Pat Robertson, does nothing but rail against the "evils" of our culture. So, celebrities are Evil. Why? Because they have a lot of money. Do you really expect that they spend their lives with so much money, with absolutely no contradictions? If that's really the case, then you have no concept of psychology, American culture, or the institutions involved. I guess all the divorces, alcoholism, and suicides don't really affect them.

I now have a serious question for you. Are you a revolutionary, or an opportunist? Based on your performance, I'm leaning towards the latter. You have no idea what you're talking about, and it's painfully obvious.

Fair enough, you have your opinion and I have mine, you know?

I mean I just don't know how else to articulate what I'm saying.

And of course I never said they were "evil" lol. They aren't bad because they have money, that's just why I don't have sympathy for them. They're "bad" because they promote narcissism. Quite simple concept. I have nothing more to explain, really. Yeah I get it, the context of class society, blah blah I know. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, that's preaching to the choir. My point still stands.

[Creative Destruction]

For a bit more storied view on the issue of "celebrity" and these people making "millions," I think Dave Chappelle's story is a good one.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

(Might have double posted by accident, but can't see it here.)

Fair enough, you have your opinion and I have mine, you know?
Loosely translated, you're saying "I care nothing for the truth." You have added nothing to the argument. By relativizing our positions as simply being our "own", you've effectively rendered this entire discussion as meaningless. No right or wrong, just us attempting to outstretch the hubris of the other. Brilliant. You have just floored me.

I mean I just don't know how else to articulate what I'm saying.
You don't know how to articulate your argument because you have nothing to support it besides your libidinal ties with the excesses of celebrity life.

And of course I never said they were "evil" lol. They aren't bad because they have money, that's just why I don't have sympathy for them. They're "bad" because they promote narcissism. Quite simple concept.
When you present a person, place, or thing as having no contradictions and being nothing more than its immediate appearance, you are resorting to such religious adjectives, whether you intend to or not.

I have nothing more to explain, really. Yeah I get it, the context of class society, blah blah I know. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, that's preaching to the choir. My point still stands.
[laughter]

[Jimmie Higgins]

I know the media likes to use celebrities as a form of distraction, and they are over-glorified in ads and such. That being said, outside their intended purpose (acting, singing, etc) I'm basically mostly apathetic over what celebrities do. However for many people this isn't the case.

What exactly are the thoughts about taking interest in the personal life celebrities? What about obsessing over a celebrity's personality or physical appearance?

EDIT: Also can someone move this to non-political. I just realized it would fit much better there.
I'm not that big on celebrities as a thing itself, but I am pretty interested in the phenomena of celebrity so I've often wondered this too.

I think like many cultural things this phenom exists on many different and sometimes intersecting levels.

First, celebrity is pretty old and was arguably more important in older times. In Europe, both classical and pegan societies were big on celebrity, it seems like that was their take on immortality. People live on through songs by bards, having a rep in life meant that people would know who you are outside of you local area or band and so it had currency in a world without official documents. People were spread out and so if you were a trader or warrior or someone who traveled, you wanted your name to sing out so that people knew your deeds, if you were trustworthy, cunning, fierce or brutal.

I don't know anything really about fame in feudal Christian Europe or in other cultures. I get the impression that caste and rank probably did the social job of celebrity in assigning you a reputation. Maybe for the nobles it was still important and many were very famous and the subject of poems, songs, and gossip and later plays and media celebrity in the modern sense. And feudal Christianity seems to have a low opinion of vanity and celebrity for common people... Stay in your place!

In the modern context, I think celebrity predates the "celebrity-machine" so there is definatly an organic social aspect to it IMO. But celebrity is also sustained by the entertainment industries where celebrity actors, fine artists, and musicians make investing in a rather subjective product (movie, book, music, high-art as an investment) more quantify able and reliable. In the Hollywood studio era, movies weren't generally made unless there was a popularly known source material and then an identifiable face, generally in an identifiable persona. So studios all had farms to develop celebrities, crafted their personas as actors but also off-set and paid writers and owned magazines to make star actors into more: celebrities. They began to take up the social space that aristocrats and high society filled in the early industrial era.


I think there's also a sort of influence of rising bourgeois culture creating it's own sort of aristocracy of merit by promoting professionals at the same level as (or morally superior to) old blood... So Oscar Wilde, mark twain, dickens, and then people like Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford all became hugely popular and followed and idolized/demonized in the press.

Why do people like following celebrities? On one level I think it's the atomization of capitalist society: we need common points of reference. I do it with movies or game of thrones or occasionally sports... Something you can talk to a stranger about that you might have in common. But celebrity as opposed to a movie or sports events, to an extent, are real people and humans are social beings with a lot of our brains devoted to how to navigate social situations. Celebrities are a big focus of that evolutionarily conditioned mental obsession... This is why we love them and hate them and gossip about them. In a large and atomized society, they can be the focus for our tendencies to want to cheer what we see as admirable and shame what we see as bad behavior.


P.s. People should read the blog "celebrity gossip academic style". Not always that great, but often very interesting to me.

[Thirsty Crow]

Think about what types of celebrities are glorified by the media. Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Snooki… They are parasites. They have SEVERE narcissistic personality disorder. And since the media glorifies these people, they encourage this narcissism and it has become a collective mental disorder in countries like the U.S.

Do you really think that mental disorders form this way, media image dissemination and poof a collective mental disorder?

I don't particularly care for those people (although as jimmie points out the cultural and social phenomenon is interesting) and take no interest in such stuff, though I must say I despise some unconditionally.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

obsessing over celebrities amounts to about the same as obsessing over brand-names. they are constructs - constructed by the various organizations which construct them (PR, marketing, sponsorship etc.). they are a part of the ideological state apparatus and do a good job of keeping people complacent and docile. they aren't human-beings, merely holograms.

[Creative Destruction]

oh, i was also going to suggest to the OP: read The Society of the Spectacle. kind of required reading for Marxists now if you want to understand celebrity, entertainment, culture and how it all fits into capitalism.

[Creative Destruction]

obsessing over celebrities amounts to about the same as obsessing over brand-names. they are constructs - constructed by the various organizations which construct them (PR, marketing, sponsorship etc.). they are a part of the ideological state apparatus and do a good job of keeping people complacent and docile. they aren't human-beings, merely holograms.

interestingly, this is why when anyone pipes up and says "BUT what about the millions of dollars that celebrities get!" you can readily dismiss them. the celebrities getting paid to be celebrities are dehumanized. as we've seen time and time again -- especially with child actors and musicians -- this can lead to some very anti-social and very difficult situations for the person. the industry will use these dehumanized people as props when they're going through psychotic breaks, as well.

it's an incredibly fucked up industry. you hear as much from insiders, but even as a bystander and one who doesn't really pay much attention to anything that is going on in that world, it is blindingly obvious how messed up it is. and no amount of money should mean that an industry has a right to take away someone's mental well being and humanity. in a way, it's like an in-your-face example of capitalism. if you're a child actor, and you're not "careful", it will ruin your childhood and they will profit (usually relative to what your brand makes for films, music or whatever, you typically receive very little... relatively); in adulthood, you'll be paraded around in front of cameras and told to maintain yourself, and they profit off of that. if you have a psychotic break, well, then, they denigrate you and then profit off of that. at nearly every step of the way, bits and pieces of you are being erased and sold off for money. and if you try to complain about this dehumanization, you're told to shut the fuck up about it by your peers and by the people who are participating in this rank spectacle.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

interestingly, this is why when anyone pipes up and says "BUT what about the millions of dollars that celebrities get!" you can readily dismiss them. the celebrities getting paid to be celebrities are dehumanized. as we've seen time and time again -- especially with child actors and musicians -- this can lead to some very anti-social and very difficult situations for the person. the industry will use these dehumanized people as props when they're going through psychotic breaks, as well.

it's an incredibly fucked up industry. you hear as much from insiders, but even as a bystander and one who doesn't really pay much attention to anything that is going on in that world, it is blindingly obvious how messed up it is. and no amount of money should mean that an industry has a right to take away someone's mental well being and humanity. in a way, it's like an in-your-face example of capitalism. if you're a child actor, and you're not "careful", it will ruin your childhood and they will profit (usually relative to what your brand makes for films, music or whatever, you typically receive very little... relatively); in adulthood, you'll be paraded around in front of cameras and told to maintain yourself, and they profit off of that. if you have a psychotic break, well, then, they denigrate you and then profit off of that. at nearly every step of the way, bits and pieces of you are being erased and sold off for money. and if you try to complain about this dehumanization, you're told to shut the fuck up about it by your peers and by the people who are participating in this rank spectacle.

that's how i see it. in effect, celebrities are little more than commodities to be bought and sold. the fact that they are human beings is tragic more than anything else.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

that's how i see it. in effect, celebrities are little more than commodities to be bought and sold. the fact that they are human beings is tragic more than anything else.

This is an incredibly reductionist viewpoint. Taking your logic, celebrities are little more than their trade, whether it be sports or acting. They do, within certain limits, possess their own degree of agency. They are human beings that have been commoditized, not commodities that happen to be human. One could substitute the word "celebrities" with "slaves" and see what kind of response that would get with a mass audience. I invite you to try.

[synthesis]

I know the media likes to use celebrities as a form of distraction, and they are over-glorified in ads and such. That being said, outside their intended purpose (acting, singing, etc) I'm basically mostly apathetic over what celebrities do. However for many people this isn't the case.

What exactly are the thoughts about taking interest in the personal life celebrities? What about obsessing over a celebrity's personality or physical appearance?

I think you're sort of feeding into it just by making a thread about it. I don't mean that in a personal way, it's just that there's sort of a feedback/echo loop when it comes to the backlash against pop culture.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

This is an incredibly reductionist viewpoint. Taking your logic, celebrities are little more than their trade, whether it be sports or acting. They do, within certain limits, possess their own degree of agency. They are human beings that have been commoditized, not commodities that happen to be human. One could substitute the word "celebrities" with "slaves" and see what kind of response that would get with a mass audience. I invite you to try.

They are human beings that have been commoditized, I never said anything different. You're just being a pedant and not appreciating the metaphor.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

They are human beings that have been commoditized, I never said anything different. You're just being a pedant and not appreciating the metaphor.

You said, and I quote, that celebrities are "little more" than commodities, and you mentioned their humanity almost as an afterthought. This is not mere pedantry. It's hardly my fault that you don't proofread the formulation of your "metaphors".

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

You said, and I quote, that celebrities are "little more" than commodities, and you mentioned their humanity almost as an afterthought. This is not mere pedantry. It's hardly my fault that you don't proofread the formulation of your "metaphors".

They are little more than commodities, that doesn't change the fact that they were human beings beforehand. What's your problem? Are you a fan of celebrities? They are constructs and would be nothing without the various agencies that provide their imagine to me and you. Everything you know about them amounts to zilch in terms of their character as human beings as opposed to public figures.