Today I saw an “article” in US magazine (please don’t ask how or why I was reading US) about some guy playing guitar at a party held by some other guy in honor of yet another guy. I take great pride in not having the slightest idea who any of them might be. Maybe they are the 21st century version of the three stooges. No, that can’t be because at least Curley, Larry and Moe accomplished something to earn their fame. They made us laugh with their politically incorrect slapstick humor.
Today fame comes from being famous.
It is difficult for a 60s radical to comprehend giving someone a television show, constant coverage in the “popular press” and a fortune in endorsements and other perks just for having too many children. Back then if someone had eight children you just called them Catholic and if they were lucky they got their own pew in church.
I suppose that the current obsession with undeserved fame is understandable in a complex world that overwhelms many of us. It is an escape. Of course if it is an escape why call it “reality” television?
My concern is that it establishes a social norm for what constitutes fame, what deserves respect and worst of all, defines who should be heroes or role models. Sarah Palin? Really?
In the 60s it was a lot easier to distinguish heroes from villains and just plain folks. Not that there was agreement on the specifics of fame. To some the Chicago Seven were heroes. To others they were villains. Whatever anyone’s opinion of them it was because they actually did something with a purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment