Walter...

Errrrr...  I sure hope you got the express written permission of EACH
individual and entity you've quoted in your post, 'cause without that, you've
broken every copyright law in existence and have subjected the List Owner to
the possibility of being hit with lawsuits all over the place by the various
individuals and entities that are quoted.

Copyright laws extend to Cyberspace, m'friiend....

Barb Mallut
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From:   Parkinson's Information Exchange  On Behalf Of Walter O. Huegel
Sent:   Monday, May 26, 1997 4:20 AM
To:     Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN
Subject:        Celebrity/Walter

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------554838E8707B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Celebrity As Simulacrum
>
> Joshua Gamson, Claims To Fame: Celebrity In Contemporary America,
> (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).
>
> Deena Weinstein
>
> Celebrity exists as a product of the media-net to seduce bodies into
> the Net. The celebrity is the way that cyber-space invades perceptual
> space: the celebrity's body is the media body, cloned in every
> possible way (tv, photo, radio, ad nauseum). And then in "personal"
> appearances the image is made flesh, invades the world of perception
> as a living hologram, becomes virtual. Finally, the flesh is
> sacrificed to the image in rituals of criminal justice (O.J. Simpson).
>
> Joshua Gamson does not approach the celebrity through the media-net
> and, therefore, fails to understand why celebrity looms so large in
> the life of people, who consume celebrities via tv, radio, and
> magazines in the "privacy" of their homes (that is, when they are
> wired). What Gamson does understand, and this is no mean
> accomplishment, is the capitalist structure that both generates and
> parasites off the Net.
>
> We are more than waist deep in the big mud of commercial culture. It
> is the environment in which we swim, and like those apocryphal fish,
> we would be the last ones to discover water. In this culture of hype,
> celebrity is king.
>
> Celebrities, those known for "well-knowness," are walking commercials,
> advertisements for their selves/personae and for any product to which
> they are (via agents) connected. But celebrity is more than a noun; it
> is a form, in Simmel's sense, of social interaction. The analysis of
> celebrity needs, then, to consider not only the famous but also their
> fans and the mediators of the celebrity-fan interaction.
>
> Gamson nicely details the history of this interaction, and the
> celebrity discourse in which it is embedded. In the early modern era
> fame was "deserved and earned." "By the seventeenth century the
> pursuit of fame was clearly becoming democratized." (p.17) The
> "talented and virtuous" rose to the top, at first without, and later
> with, the aid of promotional machinery. Heralding the 20th century the
> first independent publicity firm began in Boston in 1900, signalling
> the crystallization of promotional culture.
>
> During the 1930s the mediator between the famous and their fans came
> to dominate the relationship, bringing the phenomenon of celebrity to
> the third order of simulation. Gamson indicates how the publicity
> apparatus churns "out many admired commodities, called celebrities,
> famous because they have been made to be." (p.16) That is, in
> Simmelian terms, a famousness as a pure form is produced.
>
> During this time of the triumph of mediation the celebrity text also
> changed: "...celebrities were being demoted to ordinariness in
> narratives" (p.34) and from posed photographs to "candid" shots. Also
> changing was "the audience [which] was being promoted from a position
> of religious prostration." (p.34) Enter the weak polytheism of
> postmodern culture where the worshipper can glean abuse value from the
> celebrity, in addition to cheap grace. Gamson provides few clues as to
> why the changes occurred. For example, how has the form of television,
> whose celebrity-crammed shows dominate its content now more than ever,
> influenced the celebrity discourse? He does provide assistance to
> active readers, such as: "Sitting in the dark under a movie screen,
> watching Charlton Heston as Ben Hur, a viewer might feel as if Heston
> could reach right down and pull her in; sitting in front of a
> television screen watching Heston in a sweat shirt chatting with Joan
> Rivers, the viewer could almost reach down and pluck HIM out."
> (pp.43-44) Gamson does not realize that the relation of the viewer to
> the TV image, which he describes correctly, is ironic : it only seems
> that we could "pluck" the celebrity off the screen; in fact we are
> wired to the screen.
>
>      Its a helluva start,
>      it could be made into a monster
>      if we all pull together as a team.
>      And did we tell you the name of the game, boy, we call it
>      Riding the Gravy Train.
>
>      - Pink Floyd, Have A Cigar
>
> In the famous-fan interaction Gamson is clearly most interested in the
> mediators, the element of capitalism, the virtual class. He has
> interviewed and read about those who "...form support industries
> around the development of celebrity products: personal publicists and
> public-relations firms handle the garnering of media coverage and help
> manage the packaging of celebrity: agents, managers, and promoters
> handle representation, affecting the pricing and distribution of
> celebrity; coaches and groomers of various sorts help with the
> presentation." (p.62)
>
> Gamson is especially good at showing how media journalists are fully
> coopted into the publicity machine. Celebrity writers are sucked in as
> they suck up to publicist-scripted celebs in order to maintain their
> meal-ticket to access. Going further, Geoffrey Himes, a rock
> journalist writes: "Pressured by celebrity-driven record companies,
> encouraged by gossip-hungry readers, and seduced by the fact that it's
> easier to write about personalities than art, we spread the lie that
> music is the inevitable result of the way musicians lead their
> lives."1 Of course it is a "lie," but when it comes to celebrity the
> "life" is part of the image and so is the "music".
>
> Gamson appreciates the irony that it is the sleazy tabloids, with
> their army of papparazzi (who shoot actual, rather than staged,
> candids) that produce the only uncoopted celebrity journalism.
> Refusing to go along with the expensively crafted fakery they are
> refused easy access to the celebs and become their genuine
> antagonists, the agents of sacrifice.
>
> Had Gamson extended his frame to include politicians as celebrities,
> he could have noted that the White House press corps is in the same
> position as the non-tabloid journalists are - either they file stories
> that further the narrative constructed by White House publicists or
> they are denied access to their material of production.
>
> When politicians appear on talk shows and play saxophone to late night
> TV viewers, or respond to questions about underwear preferences to an
> MTVidiot query, they are (playing at) celebrity. And of course they
> also garner votes and "public opinion" ratings as celebrities.
> Celebrity has become the currency within all areas of society
> (politics, education, religion etc.), a fully generalized medium of
> exchange, comparable to money as Simmel conceptualized it. That the
> rhetoric of persuasion replaces epistemology in a third-order
> simulacrum takes on a significance that Gamson misses by confining
> himself to the arena of entertainment and failing to venture into
> political economy.
>
>      Living in the limelight
>      The universal dream
>      For those who wish to seem.
>
>      - Rush, Limelight
>
> The types of celebrity can also be historized. Prior to this century
> and paralleling the changes in the economy, Gamson indicates that "by
> the 1920s the typical idols in popular magazines were those of
> consumption (entertainment, sport) rather than production (industry,
> business, natural sciences)." (p.28) Rationalization, in Weber's
> sense, has also affected fame: "...people known for themselves rather
> than for their achievements are more commercially useful because they
> can be attached to any number of products." (p.78) (Floating
> signifiers, generalized media.) "Celebrity itself is thus commodified;
> notoriety becomes a type of capital. Famous people are widely referred
> to within the entertainment industry simply as 'names'..." (p.62)
> (Reduction to the pure self-referential sign.)
>
> Because he privileges those entertainers who are interchangeable
> between TV talk shows and sitcoms, Hollywood movies, and any
> advertisement, Gamson fails to analyze the relationship between the
> person and his/her persona. Had he broadened his scope to include rock
> stars, who are self-scripted, the discourse of this relationship with
> the master name Authenticity, would need to be part of Gamson's work.
> He would have had to accept the sacrificial or even "tragic" side of
> celebrity, understood by Neil Peart and other "serious" rockers.
>
>      I feel stupid and contagious
>      Here we are now, entertain us.
>
>      - Nirvana, Smells Like Teen Spirit
>
> The audience too can be historized. In "...early celebrity texts ...
> the 'public,' modeled as a unified, powerful near-person forever
> casting its votes for its favorite personalities, became a crucial
> character in its own right. The notion of the public as an entity that
> 'owned' both space and the public figures inhabiting it runs
> consistently though both general and fan magazines." (p.34) (Again we
> see the reversal in which what seems to be empowerment of the
> (democratized) possessive individual is actually the production of the
> possessed individual.)
>
> Gamson notes that the publicity industry is not knowledgeable about
> its audience, despite its dependence on that audience. He concludes
> that for them it is "...not necessary to know, while working on a
> project by project basis, WHY certain performers appeal, only THAT
> they do, for the moment." (p.118) That is, the celebrity is a
> throwaway currency - endless supplies can be generated on the Net,
> later to invade the world.
>
> Unfortunately Gamson shares much of the mediator industry's ignorance
> about the audience. His research includes participant observation with
> studio audiences and autograph hounds at awards ceremonies. He details
> these activities but understands the celebrity-mad audience no better
> than does the publicity machine. Gamson notes that "the amount of
> energy constantly poured into 'warming up' and monitoring live
> television audiences is stunning." (p.110) He fails to wonder why
> people want to be cheerleaders for celebrities. He is still in the
> second-order simulacrum of production, rather than the third-order
> simulacrum of the sign economy, of the triumph of culture over "man".
>
> Celebrities are the gods (or at least god simulacra) of our
> polytheistic pomo pantheon. In the aftermath of the death of god, we
> worship celebrities. Is that all we need to know about fans of the
> famous?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Deena Weinstein, Professor of Sociology at DePaul University, is a
> cultural theorist and sociologist, and a rock critic. She is author of
> Heavy Metal: A Cultural Sociology and Postmodern(ized) Simmel.
>
> 1. Himes, Geoffrey. "Why it doesn't matter if Kurt Cobain, Snoop Doggy
> Dogg, and Axl Rose are jerks in their personal lives (and why it does
> if they're jerks in their songs)", Request (41: May 1994).
>
> (Up to CTHEORY)
http://www.ctheory.com/r-celebrity_as_simulacrum.html

--------------554838E8707B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="r-celebrity_as_simulacrum.html"

<BASE HREF="http://www.ctheory.com/r-celebrity_as_simulacrum.html">

<TITLE>Celebrity As Simulacrum</TITLE>

<H1>Celebrity As Simulacrum</H1>

Joshua Gamson, <CITE>Claims To Fame: Celebrity In Contemporary
America</CITE>, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).<P>

<A HREF="#bio">Deena Weinstein</A><P>

Celebrity exists as a product of the media-net to seduce bodies into the
Net. The celebrity is the way that cyber-space invades perceptual
space: the celebrity's body is the media body, cloned in every possible
way (tv, photo, radio, <I>ad nauseum</I>). And then in "personal"
appearances the image is made flesh, invades the world of perception as
a living hologram, becomes <B>virtual</B>. Finally, the flesh is
sacrificed to the image in rituals of criminal justice (O.J. Simpson).<P>

Joshua Gamson does not approach the celebrity through the media-net
and, therefore, fails to understand why celebrity looms so large in the
life of people, who consume celebrities via tv, radio, and magazines in
the "privacy" of their homes (that is, when they are <I>wired</I>). What
Gamson does understand, and this is no mean accomplishment, is the
capitalist structure that both generates and parasites off the Net.<P>

We are more than waist deep in the big mud of commercial culture. It is
the environment in which we swim, and like those apocryphal fish, we
would be the last ones to discover water. In this culture of hype,
celebrity is king.<P>

Celebrities, those known for "well-knowness," are walking commercials,
advertisements for their selves/personae and for any product to which
they are (via agents) connected. But celebrity is more than a noun; it
is a form, in Simmel's sense, of social interaction. The analysis of
celebrity needs, then, to consider not only the famous but also their
fans and the mediators of the celebrity-fan interaction.<P>

Gamson nicely details the history of this interaction, and the
celebrity discourse in which it is embedded. In the early modern era
fame was "deserved and earned." "By the seventeenth century the pursuit
of fame was clearly becoming democratized." (p.17) The "talented and
virtuous" rose to the top, at first without, and later with, the aid of
promotional machinery. Heralding the 20th century the first independent
publicity firm began in Boston in 1900, signalling the crystallization
of promotional culture.<P>

During the 1930s the mediator between the famous and their fans came to
dominate the relationship, bringing the phenomenon of celebrity to the
third order of simulation. Gamson indicates how the publicity apparatus
churns "out many admired commodities, called celebrities, famous
because they have been made to be." (p.16) That is, in Simmelian terms,
a <I>famousness</I> as a pure form is <I>produced</I>.<P>

During this time of the triumph of <I>mediation</I> the celebrity text
also changed: "...celebrities were being demoted to ordinariness in
narratives" (p.34) and from posed photographs to "candid" shots. Also
changing was "the audience [which] was being promoted from a position
of religious prostration." (p.34) Enter the weak polytheism of
postmodern culture where the worshipper can glean <I>abuse value</I> from
the celebrity, in addition to cheap grace.

Gamson provides few clues as to why the changes occurred. For example,
how has the form of television, whose celebrity-crammed shows dominate
its content now more than ever, influenced the celebrity discourse? He
does provide assistance to active readers, such as: "Sitting in the
dark under a movie screen, watching Charlton Heston as Ben Hur, a
viewer might feel as if Heston could reach right down and pull her in;
sitting in front of a television screen watching Heston in a sweat
shirt chatting with Joan Rivers, the viewer could almost reach down and
pluck HIM out." (pp.43-44) Gamson does not realize that the relation of
the viewer to the TV image, which he describes correctly, is
<I>ironic</I> : it only seems that we could "pluck" the celebrity off
the screen; in fact we are wired to the screen.<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
Its a helluva start,<BR>
it could be made into a monster<BR>
if we all pull together as a team.<BR>
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy, we call it Riding the
Gravy Train.<P>

- Pink Floyd, <CITE>Have A Cigar</CITE><P>
</BLOCKQUOTE>

In the famous-fan interaction Gamson is clearly most interested in the
mediators, the element of capitalism, the virtual class. He has
interviewed and read about those who "...form support industries around
the development of celebrity products: personal publicists and
public-relations firms handle the garnering of media coverage and help manage
the packaging of celebrity: agents, managers, and promoters handle
representation, affecting the pricing and distribution of celebrity;
coaches and groomers of various sorts help with the
presentation." (p.62)<P>

Gamson is especially good at showing how media journalists are fully
coopted into the publicity machine. Celebrity writers are sucked in as
they suck up to publicist-scripted celebs in order to maintain their
meal-ticket to access. Going further, Geoffrey Himes, a rock journalist
writes: "Pressured by celebrity-driven record companies, encouraged by
gossip-hungry readers, and seduced by the fact that it's easier to
write about personalities than art, we spread the lie that music is the
inevitable result of the way musicians lead their lives."<A NAME="text
1"></A><A HREF="#note 1">1</A> Of course it is a "lie," but when it
comes to celebrity the "life" is part of the image and so is the
"music".<P>

Gamson appreciates the irony that it is the sleazy tabloids, with their
army of papparazzi (who shoot actual, rather than staged, candids) that
produce the only uncoopted celebrity journalism. Refusing to go along
with the expensively crafted fakery they are refused easy access to the
celebs and become their genuine antagonists, the agents of sacrifice.<P>

Had Gamson extended his frame to include politicians as celebrities, he
could have noted that the White House press corps is in the same
position as the non-tabloid journalists are - either they file stories
that further the narrative constructed by White House publicists or
they are denied access to their material of production.<P>

When politicians appear on talk shows and play saxophone to late night
TV viewers, or respond to questions about underwear preferences to an
MTVidiot query, they are (playing at) celebrity. And of course they
also garner votes and "public opinion" ratings as celebrities.
Celebrity has become the currency within all areas of society
(politics, education, religion etc.), a fully generalized medium of
exchange, comparable to money as Simmel conceptualized it. That the
rhetoric of persuasion replaces epistemology in a third-order
simulacrum takes on a significance that Gamson misses by confining
himself to the arena of entertainment and failing to venture into
political economy.<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
Living in the limelight<BR>
The universal dream<BR>
For those who wish to seem.<P>

- Rush, <CITE>Limelight</CITE><P>
</BLOCKQUOTE>

The types of celebrity can also be historized. Prior to this century and
paralleling the changes in the economy, Gamson indicates that "by the
1920s the typical idols in popular magazines were those of consumption
(entertainment, sport) rather than production (industry, business,
natural sciences)." (p.28) Rationalization, in Weber's sense, has also
affected fame: "...people known for themselves rather than for their
achievements are more commercially useful because they can be attached
to any number of products." (p.78) (Floating signifiers, generalized
media.) "Celebrity itself is thus commodified; notoriety becomes a type
of capital. Famous people are widely referred to within the
entertainment industry simply as 'names'..." (p.62) (Reduction to the
pure self-referential sign.)<P>

Because he privileges those entertainers who are interchangeable
between TV talk shows and sitcoms, Hollywood movies, and any
advertisement, Gamson fails to analyze the relationship between the
person and his/her persona. Had he broadened his scope to include rock
stars, who are self-scripted, the discourse of this relationship with
the master name Authenticity, would need to be part of Gamson's work.
He would have had to accept the sacrificial or even "tragic" side of
celebrity, understood by Neil Peart and other "serious" rockers.<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
I feel stupid and contagious<BR>
Here we are now, entertain us.<P>

- Nirvana, <CITE>Smells Like Teen Spirit</CITE><P>
</BLOCKQUOTE>

The audience too can be historized. In "...early celebrity texts ... the
'public,' modeled as a unified, powerful near-person forever casting

its votes for its favorite personalities, became a crucial character in
its own right. The notion of the public as an entity that 'owned' both
space and the public figures inhabiting it runs consistently though
both general and fan magazines." (p.34) (Again we see the reversal in
which what seems to be empowerment of the (democratized) possessive
individual is actually the production of the possessed individual.)<P>

Gamson notes that the publicity industry is not knowledgeable about its
audience, despite its dependence on that audience. He concludes that
for them it is "...not necessary to know, while working on a project by
project basis, WHY certain performers appeal, only THAT they do, for
the moment." (p.118) That is, the celebrity is a throwaway currency -
endless supplies can be generated on the Net, later to invade the
world.<P>

Unfortunately Gamson shares much of the mediator industry's ignorance
about the audience. His research includes participant observation with
studio audiences and autograph hounds at awards ceremonies. He details
these activities but understands the celebrity-mad audience no better
than does the publicity machine. Gamson notes that "the amount of
energy constantly poured into 'warming up' and monitoring live
television audiences is stunning." (p.110) He fails to wonder why people
want to be cheerleaders for celebrities. He is still in the
second-order simulacrum of production, rather than the third-order
simulacrum of the sign economy, of the triumph of culture over "man".<P>

Celebrities are the gods (or at least god simulacra) of our
polytheistic pomo pantheon. In the aftermath of the death of god, we
worship celebrities. Is that all we need to know about fans of the
famous?<P>

<HR>

<A NAME="bio">Deena Weinstein</A>, Professor of Sociology at DePaul
University, is a cultural theorist and sociologist, and a rock critic.
She is author of <CITE>Heavy Metal: A Cultural Sociology</CITE> and
<CITE>Postmodern(ized) Simmel</CITE>.<P>

<A HREF="#text 1">1.</A> <A NAME="note 1">Himes, Geoffrey. "Why it
doesn't matter if Kurt Cobain, Snoop Doggy Dogg, and Axl Rose are jerks
in their personal lives (and why it does if they're jerks in their
songs)", Request (41: May 1994).</A><P>

(Up to <A HREF="ctheory.html">CTHEORY</A>)

--------------554838E8707B--