And here it is that I begin to embark on the long, arduous process that will eventuate in what will hopefully be a meaningful and unique blog that tackles the superfluous and superficial world of celebrity culture. Yet before I launch into the essay itself there are multiple contextual situations and technological implications that must be considered in order to provide an accurate analysis of the almighty celebrity. What has occurred to me whilst writing on this very pervasive medium is that the concept of celebrity is indeed one that is constantly shifting, and one that often escapes definition of even the most up-to-date essays and analysis. Although there are similarities and constants of being a celebrity it ultimately victim to external cultures and is in many respects susceptible to the pressures of time. It is tempting to assess culture within this current time, to cut a cross section of the 21st century celebrity. But in order to properly gauge how culture is ultimately manipulated it should be contextualised not simply within our own era, but with those of the past too.
Before my celebrity pseudo-autopsy, there are a few points to be constantly rehashed within your minds. In order to define the construct of a celebrity, we first must contextualize it socially, economically and technologically. The industry and even the concept of the celebrity industry is heavily susceptible to external influences. As a capitalist culture that feeds off technological advancements, the construction of a celebrity varies heavily not only on social and economic changes, but also largely on technological changes. It is a society, where disposable incomes are high, a digital age where we can 'choose' our celebrities and increasingly a voyeuristic age where it is not enough to simply to admire a celebrity's profession, but also their lifestyle down to the most minute detail. What I cannot stress enough is that in order to understand the inner workings and cogs of a celebrity, we must first separate the celebrity into two separate entities; the person and the deterritorialized, mass-marketed projected image. It is perhaps helpful to separate the dichotomy of celebrity as picturing the physical entity with the projected shadow or silhouette that can be easily distorted by the blinding public relations light.
This blog will largely be tackling the Hollywood celebrity, focusing largely on the impact of the Internet and how its impact have increased the celebrity construct where they are no longer seen exclusively as cultural workers and economic assets for Hollywood, but increasingly for the global consumer. The bite-sized cultural morsels of celebrity that I will begin to dissect are the paparazzi and voyeur culture, the effect of celebrity culture on the celebrities themselves, the effect of digital media and the degree to which celebrity fuels the commodity fetishism. By no means is this a comprehensive breakdown of celebrity construct but with these sections I hope to provide a snapshot and a brief overlook on the construction and creation of a celebrity and how it is manipulated, shared and consumed by several key groups (directly and inadvertently).
Consider all celebrities as robotic beings (that rule the world!). Then systematically disassemble them into manageable bite-sized pieces of culture, each segment of their existence different in size and nature to the next. That is the ultimate goal of this blog. To break down celebrity construct into manageable pieces of data that are directly and indirectly manipulated and consumed.
Within the theories of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari there are two concepts that I will address and apply to the almighty celebrity; that of the 'Anti-Oedipus' and the 'Culture (abstract) machine' (Guattari, 1972). The 'abstract machine' when applied to celebrity, maintains a concept of a cultural clockwork which are merely an extension of the 'human subjectivity' which creates 'a two-way bridge between human beings and machines... to herald new and confident alliances' (Guattari, 1995). If we focus on each celebrity not as people but rather as a monopolistic capitalist industry unto themselves, we can begin to see how their cultural labour are manipulated and consumed by the various groups and entities.
The business of celebrity revolves heavily on public image. It is the image that they and their PR team conjure up that will ultimately determine the success and longevity of a business. The degree of fame imbued on a celebrity largely revolves around mass media exposure and audience reception (good and bad). It is the creation of a commodity, the deterritorialization of the celebrity and placing of this commodity within the public sphere. Yet increasingly what captures the imagination of the general and global public are the personal and intricate details of their lives and subsequently we see a greater amount of becoming famous simply for being famous (see Tucker Max, Paris Hilton, Perez Hilton etc). It is the constant conflict of these two separate entities that ultimately determine which image ultimately lingers within the consumers mind. The increased voyeurism of today's society coupled with increasing disposable income of both celebrity and consumer leads to an increased desire to lead the 'dream life' vicariously through mimicking the lifestyles of the 'rich and famous'. We see how the carefully constructed public image of figures such as Mel Gibson can instantly be destroyed through a single drunken anti-Semitic outburst (try watching his Braveheart 'freedom' speech again... not the same), or how a leaked private sex tape can shoot Paris Hilton to the front page of almost every major gossip magazine (and probably newspaper) and become a household name. In order to successfully manage celebrity, it is not simply about managing the publicity, but also the person.
(the new, albeit exaggerated image of Mel Gibson)
"Our concept of desire was completely contrary to some ode to spontaneity or a eulogy to some unruly liberation. It was precisely in order to underline the artificial, "constructivist" nature of desire that we defined as a "machine", which is to say, articulated with the most actual, the most "urgent" machinic types"
-Guattari (Anti-Oedipus, 1972)
Celebrities play an integral part of consumer fetishism with their heavy-handed participation within the advertising and marketing world to the point where the image of the celebrity often exceeds the product itself within the advertisement (see Pepsi - Eva Longoria or Chanel - Nicole Kidman). Celebrity endorsements are one of the most common marketing tools and for a consumer; to buy into a celebrity-endorsed product is also to buy into the celebrities lives themselves. With sales in gossip and paparazzi magazines the highest grossing in Australia, it is not hard to see the effects and pervasiveness of the commodity of celebrity being sold throughout . It is not simply a case of celebrities promoting consumerism, but also a culture; a lifestyle. The idolization and celebration of the celebrity world has long been bordering the fetishisation and it is not simply a matter of celebrities pushing consumerism but also pushing a culture and a lifestyle. Celebrities are idolized, they often create trends for the sheep of the world. Adorno and Horkheimer (1944) theorise that as long as there is work, there will be an entertainment industry to cater for the desire of escapism for the masses. The entertainment industry often defines the 'ideal' and subsequently, the superficial qualities and trends for the masses, going as far as creating and defining concepts of beauty, gender and body to name a few. Adorno and Horkheimer emphasise the perpetuation of a standard set of desires, going as far as to claim that "anybody who doubts the power of monotony is a fool" (Adorno and Horkheimer, 2005). When we buy into their endorsements, mimic the fashion accessories, idioms and colloquialisms we are feeding the heavily intertwined celebrity and consumerist culture. It is an inherent part of our society to live vicariously through celebrities and let their culture seep into every aspect of our own .
What fascinates me about the celebrity-consumer relationship is that it is one of the few aspects that is maintaining, or even solidifying it's cultural hierarchy, that is the top-down nature of the celebrity-consumer relationship is if anything, strengthening. With the perpetuation of the internet and the increased globalization the separation between consumers and producers has substantially diminished (Henry Jenkins, 2007), yet within the celebrity universe a new paradigm has emerged, the fan communities or fandom. It is a new culture that builds off and enhances Adorno and Horkheimer's jaded take on the culture industry and mass deception. It is a culture that takes escapism to a new extreme level, one that takes the entertainment industry (and especially celebrity culture) into a lifestyle rather than a distraction. The internet has created the potential to expand niche marketing and narrow casting, providing the opportunity for fans to share, discuss and create worlds that revolve around the entertainment world. It is an interactive world where individuals can feel sheltered around the like-minded and communicate directly or indirectly with the idols they've put on their proverbial pedestal (check out my own personal favourite, Kevin Smith). It is a medium that erodes the role of consumers and producers and recreates the relationship between celebrities and societies. But rather than eroding the cultural power held by the two ends of the spectrum, the internet and the increased growth of fan communities and cultures has in many respects solidified the relationship.
As mentioned before the celebrity consists of two separate components, their actual, selves as defined and seen by themselves and the image put forth as dictated by pressures from media conglomerates, managers and PR representatives. With the rise of a voyeuristic culture in which the global eye is constantly focussed on their private spheres, the image that were (often) inadvertently put forth by their actions is often at odds to the image that is spun by their team of PRs. History dictates that the star system remains unchallenged as from the very birth of cinema (in the very early 1900s), "the public wanted to know the names of the performers", and there was "significant increases in journalistic discourse about the players' private lives" (Addison, 2002).
We have seen the affect of the star system on the general public, but the change and subsequent ripples it causes within their personal lives is also apparent. It is an industry where a clean image and maturity are not necessarily prerequisites and relevant to their career. But more importantly, the creation of their career is one often plagued by negative associations and experiences. The cultural power of the projected, deterritorialized 'image' of the celebrity often feeds into the egos (not to mention the bank accounts) of said celebrities. The exclusivity of the celebrity world is one that perpetuates into the personal lives of the celebrities themselves, changing attitude as much as behaviour. It is a culture where they are idolized and worshipped and more often then not surrounded by fans who unabashedly ask for signatures on their breasts or acts of... indecent proposals. The culture of the celebrity not only affects the consumers and direct beneficiaries of celebrity, but also the celebrities themselves, sometimes in debilitating ways (a balding Britney... sexy).
Director Kevin Smith, comments on the impact of creating a celebrity.
"It's a life of rejection. So often you see movies with the same people over and over and those motherfuckers aren't getting rejected anymore. But at one point they were. That's why so many of them go nuts when they go famous. Because the pendulum swings the other way and it goes from a world of 'no' to a world of 'yes'. Then there's all this residual anger beneath the surface. You wind up working with people who rejected you in the past"
-Kevin Smith (Smodcast 2, 2007)
To view celebrities through culture-coloured glasses is to view an industry that is almost entirely commodified. It is a world where every aspect of their lives can be exploited and profiteered, and often are. It is a world where almost every culture and trend that emerges is commodified and sold to consumers, manipulated by marketing and PR departments from the (dreaded) skinny leg jeans to religious choices (maybe not so much Tom Cruise's Scientology). Celebrity culture and the commodity (desiring) machine are virtually inseparable, where everything in Hollywood can be aspired to starting from looks and lifestyles. It is a culture that is far from neutral and heavily leans towards money-hungry capitalist industries. Yet with the introduction of the internet and subsequently globalization and consumer participation, the new paradigm in the celebrity world has been the rise of the fan communities and fandom. Graeme Turner reminds us that “celebrities are developed to make money” (2004) but with the rise of fandom, the paradigm of celebrities as an economic entity shifts slightly to celebrities as a cultural or even social entity. It creates a new entry into the cultural uses of celebrity and one where fans often reject associated consumerism if they don't conform to the ideology of a celebrity. There was barely contained outrage at Courtney Love's endorsal of a Kurt Cobain action figure, or the sale of Michael Hutchence lyrics on eBay by his sister. Fans have a vested interest in the celebrities themselves and in many instances create their own image of the celebrity which can differ from the projected image created by the PR industry. With fans that actively participate and are updated on the personal and professional life of the celebrity, the cultural power held by the capitalist industries is gradually eroded. Celebrity culture has never been neutral, yet the ultimate users has shifted slightly away from the industries that seek to profiteer to the more discerning fans.
References:
Addison, H. (2003)
Hollywood and the Rise of Physical Culture
Routledge, New York & London
Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. (1993).
The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. The Cultural Studies Reader,
ed. During, S. London & New York: Routledge
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, (1st pub 1972), chapter 1: 1-50.
Dyer, R. (2004)
Heavenly Bodies: Film stars and society
Routledge, New York & London
Ed. Holmes, S. and Redmond, S. (2007)
Stardom and celebrity: a reader
Sage Publications Ltd, London
Jenkins, H. (2006). 'Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide'. NYU Press
Ed. Ndalianis, A. & Henry, C. (2002)
Stars in our eyes: The star phenomenon in the contemporary era
Praeger, Westport Connecticut, London
Moses, A (2007)
Elton's War on the web
Sydney Morning Herald (SMH)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/eltons-war-on-the-web/2007/08/02/1185648044623.html
Oh no they didn't (2007)
http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/12078271.html
Smodcast no. 2: A Dubious Super-Power
Quickstop Entertainment
www.tuckermax.com
http://perezhilton.com
www.viewaskew.com
No comments:
Post a Comment