Celebrity Culture Is Burning: COVID-19 has reminded everyone how stupid celebs are

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
329,080
Reputation
-34,080
Daps
635,305
Reppin
The Deep State
Give this an award :blessed:




Celebrity Culture Is Burning


Celebrity Culture Is Burning
The pandemic has disrupted relations among the masses, the elites and the celebrities who liaise between them.



30virus-celebrity-articleLarge.jpg

30virus-celebrity-articleLarge.jpg

Credit...Cari Vander Yacht
America is in crisis, but the celebrities are thriving. They are beaming into our homes, reminding us to stay indoors and “stay positive,” as “we’re all in this together.” When I watch their selfie public service announcements, I find my attention drifting to the edges of the frame: to the understated wall molding visible behind Robert DeNiro’s shoulder; to the Craftsman beams on Priyanka Chopra’s balcony; to the equine wallpaper framing Zoë Kravitz’s crackling fireplace.

“Staying home is my superpower,” the “Wonder Woman” star Gal Gadot reported from her walk-in closet. Ryan Reynolds urged his fans to “work together to flatten the curve” from within his rustic loft. When Jennifer Lopez posted a video of her family sheltering in the backyard of Alex Rodriguez’s vast Miami compound, the public snapped.

“We all hate you,” was one representative response.

Among the social impacts of the coronavirus is its swift dismantling of the cult of celebrity. The famous are ambassadors of the meritocracy; they represent the American pursuit of wealth through talent, charm and hard work. But the dream of class mobility dissipates when society locks down, the economy stalls, the death count mounts and everyone’s future is frozen inside their own crowded apartment or palatial mansion. The difference between the two has never been more obvious. The #guillotine2020 hashtag is jumping. As grocery aisles turn bare, some have suggested that perhaps they ought to eat the rich.



So when Pharrell Williams asked his followers to donate to aid frontline responders, they virtually grabbed him by the pants and shook him upside-down, telling him to empty his own deep pockets. Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard have been “outed” as landlords. As Ellen DeGeneres lounged on her sofa, video-chatting with famous friends, the comedian Kevin T. Porter solicited stories from service workers and Hollywood peons who had experienced run-ins with DeGeneres, whom he called “notoriously one of the meanest people alive.”

The film “Parasite,” in which a poor South Korean family cleverly cons its way into the home of a rich one, has been converted into a well-worn social-media retort whenever celebrities offer glimpses inside their own manses; the reference succeeds partly because so many superrich people have such blandly similar minimalist homes.

It must be a very hard time to be so famous. Celebrities are not among the very wealthiest Americans — Lopez’s reported net worth is a fraction of a percent of Jeff Bezos’s — but they are the ones who are tasked with liaising with the general public, offering vicarious access to their lifestyles. Celebrity culture glorifies them not just for their performances or personas but for their wealth itself — their blowout child birthday parties, car collections, plastic surgeries and property ownership. From “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” to “My Super Sweet Sixteen” and “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” the ability to watch (or hate-watch) this spectacle of excess has functioned as a bizarre appeasement for inequality.


But this compact rests on the celebrity’s ability to seem to move easily between the elite and the masses, to be aspirational and approachable at once. And under normal circumstances, they are accustomed to receiving accolades for “using their platforms” to “raise awareness” in the service of bland initiatives for the public good.

But our awareness has never been so easy to rouse, and misuse. Celebrities have a captive audience of traumatized people who are glued to the internet, eyes darting toward trending topics for clues to processing the unimaginable horrors looming just outside, and instead are finding Madonna bathing in a rose petal-strewn bath.

Stunts like Gal Gadot’s crowdsourced famous-person cover of John Lennon’s “Imagine” are tone-deaf in more ways than one. Most of these people cannot even sing; their contributions suggest that the very appearance of a celebrity is a salve, as if a pandemic could be overcome by star power alone.

Gal Gadot on Instagram: “We are in this together, we will get through it together. Let’s imagine together. Sing with us ❤ All love to you, from me and my dear…”

One of the ironies of this moment is that though we feel less like stars than ever, they seem to feel more like us — or at least, what they think it must feel like to be us. DeGeneres is going “stir-crazy” from having to stay inside her enormous home; Katy Perry has lost track of the days she’s spent inside her enormous home.

Madonna has elevated celebrity delusion to a kind of performance art. In a series of oddly professional Instagram videos suggesting a perhaps dangerous concentration of staff members in her home, she can be seen undergoing a bizarre healing procedure at her personal health clinic and bending over a typewriter in a kimono, pontificating about the social effects of the virus.

For Madonna, performing for the public and holding fans in her thrall is yet “another luxury gone, for now,” she says in one video. In its place is the disturbing sensation of normalcy. “The audience in my house is not amused by me,” she says. Later, from the bath, she concludes that Covid-19 is “the great equalizer.”

Madonna on Instagram: “Quarantine diaries #4 #covid_19 #quarantine #staysafe #becreative #leemorgan”

And yet the antics of these celebrities, even as they are publicly shamed, still tug on our attention. I have never thought about Gal Gadot so much in my life. The coronavirus is the odd crisis where doing nothing actually does help — staying inside can save lives. And in addition to food and rent money and medical attention, people require sufficient entertainment to weather the lockdown.

But if I’m going to pay attention to celebrities at a time like this, their contribution better be charming or deranged enough to distract me from the specter of mass suffering and death. Even as the power of pure celebrity tanks, the value of a true entertainer rises. Give me Patti LuPone on the jukebox and Yo-Yo Ma on the cello. Give me Anthony Hopkins playing the piano for his purring cat. Give me January Jones boiling up a “human stew” in her bathtub and Wendy Williams showing off the 5-foot Betty Boop statue that she spray-painted to appear black. Give me the hand-drawn hearts on Stevie Nicks’s note reporting that she is ensconced with her assistant and dogs, self-soothing with the music of Harry Styles.



Give me Britney Spears, who has emerged from this crisis as the rare celebrity to tap into the need for radical social change. Spears recently posted a bright yellow manifesto on Instagram from the internet artist Mimi Zhu. “We will feed each other, re-destribute wealth, strike,” it reads. “Communion moves beyond walls.” Spears added three red roses to the caption, an ambiguous symbol reflecting either her support for the Democratic Socialists of America or perhaps her simple affinity for floral emoji.



Spears is an unexpected figure to lead us through quarantine, but a fitting one: She has been held under a conservatorship for 12 years, her movements and finances controlled by her father and overseen by the courts. When she posts about finding community in social captivity, she knows what she’s talking about.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
329,080
Reputation
-34,080
Daps
635,305
Reppin
The Deep State





Why Celebrities Are Losing Their Goddamn Minds in the Middle of a Pandemic
clarkisha x Mar 30, 2020

26178604-0-image-a-5_1584644762511-800x481.jpg

At the beginning of March, it became very clear that COVID-19 had finally reached the United States. And because this doodoo-ass country had spent the last, what, EIGHT decades chipping away at what used to be a robust social safety net, we were about to be in for the fight of our lives.

Around March 15, the CDC recommended gatherings of 50 or more be canceled to minimize its spread. Whole sports seasons and movie premieres were canceled. Mayors and governors (since the Orange Chump is not about to do his actual job) ordered bars, restaurants, and schools to shut down. Citizens were encouraged to cancel any pending travel plans and return home if they happened to be abroad at the moment. Millions of Americans were either ordered to work from home or laid-off entirely. Any business that wasn’t essential (i.e sanitation, service workers where groceries were concerned, the postal service, etc) was ordered to close as well. “Social distancing” was to be the new norm for a while and we were going to have to deal.

Sounds miserable and shytty right? You’d be correct. But nothing could have prepared us for what for an unseen variable that was going to exacerbate the already simmering anger of a collective that was quickly being herded toward mass poverty and death. And what is this unseen variable, you ask?

Well, it is what I call “the celebrity pandemic response”.

There are so many ways I could sum up this interesting phenomenon I’ve observed since “social distancing” has taken hold. But if I were to give it a definition, I’d call it the act of a celebrity doing completely nonsensical things that do not meet the immediate and/or material needs that a crisis like a pandemic calls for. And this is never to help. No. This is merely to gain the attention that has been deprived of them due to the crisis.

This includes things like, say, singing a song by a famous abuser, misogynist, and racist from your ivory tower in order to lift the spirits of us plebeians. Or asking these same plebeians to donate money to causes that you could fix just by writing a check. Or cruelly telling the general public that you do not care if they live or die, for you are above it all. Indeed, Gal Gadot (and her hoard of celebrity friends), Pharrell Williams, and Vanessa Ann Hudgens all learned this the hard way recently and were met with calls on social media to shut the fukk up, and as Rosa would say, open their fukking purses.



Some may have anticipated these celebrity antics as the pandemic worsened. But many others remain bewildered by them and are even more bewildered by the vitriolic responses that they’ve been met with. And while this definitely deserves its own thesis and research, here is one important reason that the backlash against these starlets (and their meltdowns) have been so intense.

A global crisis like COVID-19 renders celebrity nearly useless. And separates the people who have not lost touch with their humanity as celebrities from the ones who were clearly body-snatched years ago.

Or maybe, this is who they always were.

Why is this important to note? Well, in a true crisis, certain needs get prioritized—and mainly those that have to do with survival, safety, and if one has any spoons left, love. Abraham Maslow summarized such needs years ago in his 1943 paper “A Theory of Human Motivation” (see below) and while it’s been modified since then (in that certain needs don’t to be met 100% before you move on to the next level of needs that require fulfillment), the central point remains. Human beings, in particular, are always gonna try to meet needs that focus on survival, security and safety first (like food, water, shelter, clothing, health, order, and sex—in the “reproductive” sense) before moving on to more mental and emotional needs (like love, self-esteem, and self-actualization). Maslow referred to the former as D-needs and the latter as B-needs. And guess which group “love and adoration for celebrities—aka people you don’t really know, might never meet you, and wouldn’t care if you drowned in a puddle of your own mucus—falls into?
 
Last edited:

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
329,080
Reputation
-34,080
Daps
635,305
Reppin
The Deep State
Part 2:



06ccgyJx86Jhc223E7k2aApL60fm-3lzqUTANqOqgPCy4oTt3JZyBpSsWyznGysXxT_FhBAAIJdWsQ9o2yqmDUO1CFPmt41srQgZFfiubDWurqXXEaSoQeRZzVjl7cY3WJCd6hKH


Exactly. When shyt hits the fan, extraneous love and adoration for someone who doesn’t even meet your immediate survival needs are going to go out of the fukking window. And do you know what crucial social and societal currency is the first thing to get yeeted towards the sun when the general public decides to abolish extraneous love and adoration towards celebrities for the time being?

Attention.

It is truly as simple as that, my dear readers. Celebrities thrive on attention. And it’s not as simple as how we’ve made “clout” out to be. And it’s not merely to boost their self-esteem or stroke their already fragile egos (although that is most certainly a byproduct). No. You see, because celebrities and their existence fall into the extraneous needs category, their currency is nothing like ours. While we, the plebeians, deal in the currency of physical money, celebrities deal in the currency of attention. Attention is their “money” and it’s the economy they bow down to. This is because attention—or the amount of it—is converted directly into power, money, and bourgeoisie-level access. And the goal is to amass as much of it as they can and as quickly as they can. And the interesting thing about this “attention economy” is that it too, as my EIC Lara Witt explained to me, has its own hierarchies.


beyonce-800x452.jpeg


This refers to what people understand as A-List to the D-List (or rather, no-list) celebrities.

For celebrities (usually singers, musicians, actors, athletes, and the rare TV/reality TV personality) at the top (A-List), all the attention they have accumulated over the years through hard work (hopefully), talent (hopefully), likability (subjective), and sheer luck (occasionally) is maintained through measured appearances and work. These are the celebrities that have made a lasting cultural impact. Because they understand they can get a lot of attention with minimal work, while simultaneously understanding that too much positive or negative attention (overexposure) for nonsense things—like, I don’t know—clapping like a seal on your balcony—cheapens your celebrity and risks you descending into a lower class of celebrity. A good example of this? Beyoncé. The woman is beyond the A-List (A+) and she’s the famous person that even other famous people fawn over because she has her foot on the neck and heartbeat of the attention economy. And she has a key understanding that her measured and calculated secrecy and talented work mean that the public will never lose interest in her. :ohhh:

B-List celebrities are still usually actors, singers, musicians, athletes, and etc. and still pretty famous, and have managed to impart some cultural impact but their appearances—while welcome—are not as highly sought after for social functions. But they are still expected to make these appearances more often than A-List celebrities but in a similarly deliberate way to avoid overexposure.:ohhh: This is the difference between, for example, popular MCU actors (that is A-List celebrities like RDJ, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth) and lesser-known, lesser liked, or lesser-fawned-over actors (say, Mark Ruffalo, the inferior Chris, and—barely—Yeehaw Barton’s actor). C-List is the next step down. Entertainment Weekly once defined this as “that [person with] the easy-to-remember but hard-to-name character actor.” You are well aware of their skills and talents as an actor or singer or whatever and they pop up in your media a lot, but their name sometimes escapes you (think… Cillian Murphy for example. Bet you just went “That name sounds familiar… and yet…”). The type of celebrities have made minimal cultural impact and rely on paparazzi shots, walks, premiere appearances, and constant media attention. They are allowed to occasionally dip their toes in overexposure, as the alternative is a quick slide into obscurity… via the D-List.

And the D-List (and below) is where everyone else lives. Name that person and they’re probably a D-List celebrity. This class is reserved for “up and coming” singers, actors, musicians, reality stars and even some “influencers” who do have some type of talent or quirk that interests the general public, but haven’t amassed enough love, adoration, and goodwill to just coast on all of that. This list also includes has-beens and stars of yesteryear. They have made little to no cultural impact. This makes them, interestingly enough, the hyper-celebrity class. Overexposure is the name of the game here and if they don’t play it—they lose their place in celebrity hierarchy and are forced to start from scratch. A good example of this (and who straddles the fine line between the C and D lists) is singer Camila Cabello. While she has her share of musical bops, the singer needs constant media attention and audience interaction because she has yet to leave the type of cultural footprint that A-List celebrities have and receiving no attention would mean the death of public interest in her and the death of her celebrity status. Which likely explains her (alleged) PR relationship with fellow singer Shawn Mendes. And I’m sure the racism doesn’t help. But of course, death of celebrity is not something that is just reserved for the D-Listers.


cc-800x600.jpeg


Everybody on these lists is subject to the attention economy and celebrity death based on time, trends, and the changing attitudes of the public—in an assorted amount of ways.

Unless, again, you are beyond A-List. This means that without “on the ground” attention like film sets, paparazzi attention, regular interactions, celebrities are rendered “lost” or “forgotten”. Because their very self-worth is measured by attention and their livelihoods are quite literally funded and powered by it. Without it, who are they? How will they be able to make money? And what value do they bring to popular culture and the world-at-large in the absence of “on the ground” vehicles for attention?



So this, dear readers, is why you see celebrities like Gadot, Hudgens, and even Williams and others losing their fukking minds and willingly throwing themselves and their reputations into the fray and leaving their fates to the will and whims of an angry proletariat.
The negative attention they receive for such things is technically not great (and sustained negative attention can definitely erode celebrity over time), but negative attention for them is certainly better than no attention. Because no attention—not a pandemic—is the celebrity’s version of a global crisis. Which is why we have all these dikkheads singing, dancing, and clapping at us. But the interesting thing about this is that those celebrities who have retained their humanity recognize both the importance and reverence that would be ascribed to them as well as the attention that would be given to them if they were to act in this moment and, as previously stated, open their fukking purses to assist in fulfilling the survival, security, and safety needs of the general public. Those who don’t recognize this are the ones who have attached their personalities to celebrity, rather than using it as a means for money and adoration.

And they are the same celebrities who will not survive such pandemics. Not COVID-19. And not the collapse of the attention economy either.
 
Last edited:

Unknown Poster

I had to do it to em.
Supporter
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
53,149
Reputation
27,484
Daps
284,509
Reppin
SOHH Class of 2006
This was bound to happen.
Nobody wants to be told to "stay at home" from some bullshyt celebrity who can afford to get themselves and their families tested from the comforts of their multi million mansions while they just lost their job, have no insurance, and don't know where the next check is coming from to keep their lights on and their rents paid.
 
Top