Since earning celebrity
status means provoking our disgust, perhaps it's time for a new category
of fame.
February
17, 2007
WHY IS IT
THAT MOST celebrities in the culture today are people I've never
heard of? I always thought fame had to do with being well known
to the public, with being easily recognized on the street, with
being, you know … famous.
If you asked
me to name some famous people, I might offer up examples such as
Bill Clinton, Meryl Streep and Sting. If I spotted any one of them
at the supermarket, it would probably warrant a call to my best
friend to report what brand of peanut butter they were buying.
But these
are also people who'd never go to the supermarket. The reason is
that celebrities, at least according to my definition, don't buy
their own groceries. They have their assistants do it, or they
order special deliveries from organic farms or, more likely, they
don't eat at all.
That's because
they're not quite real people, which is exactly why we love them.
Or at least we used to. These days it seems that only crotchety
dinosaur types like me still harbor such provincial notions of
what it means to be famous.
I know what
you're thinking right about now: Here's another column about the
vulgarity of contemporary celebrity culture, with sentences that
start with phrases like "these days." Believe me, I feel
your nausea.
But I've
also been feeling something else lately that goes beyond my cluelessness
about who's on the cover of In Touch Weekly. Call it reverse indifference.
You know how you can walk into a room that smells like garbage,
initially be bowled over with disgust but eventually grow immune
to the odor? That's the opposite of what's happened to my celebrity
radar. Whereas I used to merely ignore news about the faux famous
and their tabloid-targeted exploits, I now notice it and feel repulsed.
And I'm pretty sure that's the whole idea.
Obviously,
celebrity repulsion has been in the air in recent weeks. I don't
need to name names, but suffice it to say that popular culture's
approval rating (and, in turn, that of the media that can't get
enough of it) is at an all-time low. Whether we're talking about
a deceased gold-digger or an apparently deranged astronaut (and,
be honest, we're still talking about both of them — all the
time) it's pretty clear that it's never been a worse time to be
famous. For one thing, the competition is stiff. (The Dixie Chicks,
celebs with some old-school fame value, swept the Grammys, but
we're still more interested in paternity claims and NASA-issue
diapers.) For another thing, celebrity is just not as valuable
as it used to be. By the look of things, just about anyone can
get it — or at least something closely approximating it.
NOT SO LONG
AGO, you had to make a pretty strenuous effort to become well enough
known to register as famous. If you were an actor, you auditioned
your butt off. If you were a musician, you played in clubs for
no money. Part of the allure of fame was that access was limited.
You pretty much had to show up regularly on network television,
in studio movies or on top-40 radio. However, because that playing
field was relatively small, once you got there it wasn't too hard
to become a household name — if only for the allotted 15
minutes.
Now I'm not
sure there's such a thing as a household name anymore. Instead
of 15 minutes of fame, we get personalities who are famous in the
eyes of maybe 15 people. Fame is no longer about reaching the masses
but about finding a niche audience somewhere.
This can,
of course, be a very good thing, since the masses have never been
known for their taste or intelligence. But there's a dangerous
flip side to the democratization of fame. The YouTube/ "American Idol"/MySpace regime may
be providing new opportunities for genuinely talented, less conventional
people, but it's providing even more opportunities for untalented,
often downright annoying people. "Celebrity" now connotes
a mundanity that borders on tedium, not to mention that smelly territory
of reverse indifference.
Merriam Webster's
2006 word of the year was Stephen Colbert's coinage of "truthiness," which
describes our inclination to believe in ideas without regard to logic
or evidence. Perhaps our definition of celebrity has taken a similar
path. Now that the mystique of so many celebrities is rooted less
in their accomplishments than in their ability to get our attention
by provoking our disgust, perhaps it's not fame they're offering
but "fame-iness."
Unlike actual
fame, which involves some talent and hard work, "fame-iness" requires
little more than a willingness to humiliate oneself. Instead of
a reward for a job well done, it's more like a punishment for cutting
corners. And guess what? The audience gets punished too.
Talk about
dirty work — no wonder only the unskilled seem to be applying.
Now if we could only stop reading their resumes.