Post-post-modern celebrity and what it means

              

              The prophecy of Andy Warhol regarding fame and the future has become such a part of cultural literacy that one is unlikely to come across anyone who is unfamiliar with it. The prediction of Mr. Warhol, deceased since 1987, has a peculiar resonance in the age of the Internet, a medium of communication unknown to the general public in his lifetime.

               In today's world, if one is accustomed to charting the vicissitudes of celebrity and how it is regarded by the general public, one is aware of the gradations regarding celebrity itself. Tuning into a late-night talk show some time ago, I was treated to the spectacle of a Mexican-American comedian interviewing two teen idols of days past, those days being the early 1990s. What struck me in particular was how the host noted that the two men, now visibly situated in middle aged, had attained fame through "legitimate" means. In this case, the presenter was indirectly referencing television, not the Internet, to which he alluded seconds later.

               What I carried away moments later was a feeling that fame has its hierarchy of legitimacy. Hardly a new concept, but never before had I thought about how one "legitimizes" his fame by the medium of communication used to attain it.

                Seventy years ago, the concept of a television star was unknown. One hundred and twenty years ago, a movie star was an unknown. Twenty-five years ago, no one had heard of an Internet sensation. Popular culture analyzes the nature of celebrity; however, these analyses often detail the obvious: why that person is a celebrity and if his "talents" merit such widespread attention. What is neglected are the societal attitudes towards the methods of communication used to attain that celebrity itself.

               Is the Internet celebrity a lesser celebrity within the taxonomy? Perhaps. The reason for this designation is that the Internet is the most democratic form of communication we have. One must be engaged by the other to make an appearance in traditional film. The same strictures exist in regards to television. With the Internet, we have seen a democratization of information transmission. The Internet has allowed millions, if not billions, to voice their opinions, disseminate what they see as art, attack the viewpoints of others, promote themselves, and take part in criminal mischief. It has, above all, given a voice to those who crave adulation, a desire that has been part of human nature since our origin as a species. With the Internet, everyone is a star in his own eyes, everyone has the means to spread his message but, as is the case with television and film, one cannot force others to view it; thus, the means of broadcasting oneself may be more accessible to the general public, but it serves as no guarantee that their talents will be recognized and marketed for the masses.

              In conclusion, a person who attains celebrity via the Internet is kin to the television star and the cinematic luminary. And, as is the case with the stars of the big and small screen, their prominence is owed to an audience who choose to patronize them. Ultimately, it comes down to the audience, to whom a celebrity, whether he gained his start on stage, television, cinema or the Internet, owes his fame.