The Empty Stage
With the death of another entertainer, social media is filled with emotional people from around the world pouring out equal measures of heart-wrenching agony and abusive vitriol. This behavior just brings more questions than it does answers. What is it about celebrity or talent which makes people this emotional?
Cult of Celebrity
Each of us has inherent worth. Others may or may not see that worth as applicable in their day-to-day existences, but it does not diminish the presence of that worth. When groups can gather and share the appreciation of someone’s worth as a common ground between them, celebrity is born.
In this version of idolatry, groupies elevate a celebrity to a plane of existence on which mere mortals cannot exist in their natural state. The object of worth is less the person than it is the talent the celebrity possesses. In the exaltation of talent, confusion sets in when the talent is seen as the definition of who the celebrity is. The idolatry becomes jealousy.
The Green-Eyed Monster
Definitions by…
Jealousy is also defined as zealous vigilance. This is not the widely accepted version jealousy (which is envy, not jealousy) of the schoolyard where someone has one better than the one we have, but it is the intellectual jealousy of the celebrity holding a responsibility for maintaining the connection we have to the talent. It goes hand-in-hand with being a fan, which is short for fanatic:
marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion” ~Merriam Webster.
The recognition of a talent is laudable; however, when we associate ourselves with the talent in terms of its influence over us, we create jealousy.
Stalking
It is the neurosis seen in stalkers who create a bond with the object of their stalking. They imagine relationships where none exist and read into their objects messages which simply are not there. A stalker will take a direct look into the camera as the object communicating directly.
The romanticized image of the celebrity emerges because the only access the fan has to the celebrity is through the talent. A fan cannot identify with the mundane humanity of the celebrity solely on a lack of access.
Example
Athletic talent is no indicator of character or lack thereof.
Athletes are often celebrities. An athlete’s talent on the field is recognized, publicized and draws fanaticism. Fans only associate the celebrity, the person, with the athletic achievements. The fan ceases to see the athlete as a human or creates a paragon of virtue built entirely on athletic ability. In failing to see the human frailty which the athlete innately possesses, jealousy is exercised: zealous vigilance.
To invest emotional capital into celebrity, a person with whom no meaningful personal contact is realized, fans substitute performance for personality.
Introspection
The vigilance is as much about the fan as it is about the celebrity. The fan sees in Self either a connection or a division between Self and Celebrity.
- Celebrity represents what Fan was/is/wants to be.
- Celebrity has talent in excess/less than Fan.
- Celebrity has been recognized where Fan has not.
- Fan sees a desire fulfilled in Celebrity’s talent which Self knows is unfeasible for Fan to pursue.
Celebrity’s talent makes Fan look at Self. Sometimes, Celebrity’s talent allows Fan to not look at Self.
Surrogacy
All of us live vicariously through others. Since we each possess different talents or varying degrees of similar talents, we observe others and revel in, or despise, the experiences of others. Celebrity has something Fan does not: Advantage.
Whether it is the discovering agent, money, entourage or merely recognition, Celebrity has an advantage Fan does not. Enter classic definition of jealousy. In an effort to mask the pettiness of schoolyard envy, Fan exercises fanaticism. Rather than be willing to accept Celebrity is just as human, Fan creates an unreasonable perception of the person Celebrity is to explain the advantage without disparaging Self.
Instead of attributing the recognition of talent as a simple (or intricately orchestrated) set of circumstances where talent was positioned to be recognized and promoted, Fan creates a person free of all obstacles Fan sees to Self being Celebrity:
- Inadequacy of formal training
- Lack of devotion to pursue talent
- Fear of rejection
- Lack of ambition
- Fear of failure
- Emotional immaturity
- Uncertainty
- Guilt
Fan sees Celebrity free of the foibles of Self, crediting Celebrity with the inhuman feat of overcoming human frailty.
often intense uncritical devotion”
In the failure to be critical, Fan fails to recognize Celebrity has the same potential as Self to fail at pursuits beyond the talent.
Reality
No one is free of human frailty. No one is single-faceted. No one is defined merely by one of their talents. No talent can supersede humanness. No recognition for talent can satisfy the human need for acceptance… not for the fan or for the celebrity.
How can we more realistically recognize talent without substituting it for genuine self-realization? Why do we, as a society, fail to see the human nature present in the most talented among us? If not merely self-preservation, why do we fail to assign celebrities human frailty?
Author’s Note: Please forgive the train wreck. This is a series which is still in development, but which has become timely. It is not the author’s intent this series be associated with any celebrity in particular, but rather Celebrity be the public figure to which the reader feels most closely associated.
The outline above is the basis for an exploration into identity security in the face of human frailty. In no way, has the topic been adequately or thoroughly defined or discussed.
Please explore and ask questions as they occur, rather than the ones you believe are 100% relevant. You will help best determine where this series will ultimately end.
prenin
/ February 13, 2012Hmmmm… Given that I have no talents of the sort recognised by society as worthy of devotion I feel safe from most nut-jobs who can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality – And I’m a Paranoid Schizophrenic who was severely ill for seven years so I’ve been the nut-job in question, so I can see both sides of the delusional boundary!
John Lennon’s Nut-Job killed him to gain fame as did the nut-job who tried to kill Pope John Paul, but both have become foot-notes in history and so will not be forgotten.
In this you could say they succeeded, but at what price?
As for stalkers – they seem to go from devotion to a determination to kill the object of their miss-affection as they realise that they will not succeed in their fantasy and resort to murder to prevent anyone else having a chance to gain the object of their delusional obsession.
This is not only a problem for the famous, but also for the common man and woman in the street who receive such unwelcome attention, but it is not taken as seriously until they are murdered, or survive terrible injury, by which time it is too late…
Until this disorder is recognised and action taken before the ultimate act of destruction is acted upon, not just for the famous, people are going to continue to suffer and die from the acts of those who claim to love them to the point they would rather see them dead than walk away…
Love and hugs!
Your Stalker! 🙂
Prenin.
Red
/ February 13, 2012Those willing to destroy in order to be attributed fame are disturbed at the basest level…to answer your question. All assassins have a misguided view of reality. They believe the destruction of a single person can stem the tide of society. Most often, the result is one opposite, as the polarization which follows the assassination is even more compelling because it now has a martyr.
You have touched on a myth. Stalkers turn to kill their objects most often when they perceive their object has betrayed the relationship, not because they cannot fulfill the fantasy. The fantasy is self-fulfilling. It is only when the (imaginary) subliminal message is one of rejection that destruction becomes a solution. It is a classic escalation of domestic abuse. This is something I will cover in much greater detail.
Truly, the law has not evolved with the neurosis. The laws which cover stalking are broad (or horrifically specific, to the point of being exclusionary). Invasion of privacy is not considered a crime, but is a mitigating factor when other crimes are committed. I find it a disappointing statement of our society.
{HUGZ}
Red.
Rachael Black
/ February 13, 2012I’ve spent periods of my life as ‘famous.’ in a large fish in a small pond type of way. Never nationally, but regionally and cyber-wise nationally as well. All of these brushes with fame date back at least 8 years, but peaked in the early to late 90’s.
Yet it did not keep me from wanting to have the talent Truly held by others.
No matter how good others may see you, you will never see yourself as anything better than low mediocrity. At least I never did. Pretty sure it runs through most artist’s psyches judging by the self-abuse, suicides, drug abuse and on.
enjoyed your dissection of jealousy versus envy. just to inject; there are a lot of talented people who are surely envious of another’s talent. they do not wish to stalk them but DO aspire and work harder to become anywhere as good as their idol.
Not that I don’t keep framed signed pics given to me over the years by my own idols -grin-.
Sadly jealously can turn to paranoia then to darkness. The man I love(d) has been cyber-stalking me for months. Just found out. I didn’t know. It has destroyed everything.
Now here I am. Unable to write, read, wishing for death rather than February 14th and deleting virtually all email that hits the inbox. Dealing with the day to day, because of jealousy, envy and the rest -and from another person, not just a solo neurosis- destroys a life.
Until I can find something viable about myself again -and not via the talent or enjoyments of others- it will remain this way.
Good piece. Synchronicity. am going to read it again to try and pull something from your writing to keep me going. Just for today.
Thank you Red.
Red
/ February 13, 2012Rachael, you are very talented. That is not on the relative scale of setting you against anyone else, but merely the observation of what you do, have done and are capable of accomplishing.
The artist is poised for self-abuse when they are exalted. As in all scenarios, the more you do, the more you are expected to do. This expectation is external, but truly talented people often internalize it looking for the next exaltation to come on a feat MORE than the last one: more beautiful, more creative, more humorous, more polarizing, just more.
Yes, it is an addiction. The only balance comes when the artist steps away from the talent as the single definition of identity. True treasure is not found in one facet. The depth and scope of the aggregate of all qualities, both positive and negative, create worth.
Think of it as a image: Without contrast, you cannot appreciate the depth of the black nor the crisp of the white without an internal reference.
The inbox is always open.
{HUGZ}
Red.
El Guapo
/ February 13, 2012Just a few hours ago, I was wondering how you were, Racheal.
Sorry this has affected you, but from what (little) I know of you, hoping you’ll come back swinging and stronger than ever.
Hang in there. You are very and sincerely appreciated in my part of the world.
El Guapo
/ February 13, 2012I wonder about this thread. How much responsibility for this attitude is caused by the Celebrity themselves?
Yes they are elevated and accoladed, but how many of them give access to every last bit of their private lives to everyone?
Also, how many of them become addicted to the attention and go to whatever lengths are necessary to stay in the public eye?
for your 3 questions, I guess my thoughts are as follows:
3 – Celebrities that don’t claim the space of Individual Humanity for themselves often let themselves be blown up by the hype of how great they are, buying into it, and then (for whatever reason), contradicting it with their own behavior.
2 – Interesting question. I think individuals can make that distinction, but society refers to a mass. Or a mob. I think it is the confluence of coverage and celebrities to some degree buying into it
1 – I realize that even the artists who suck (except the ones with nothing but a drum-machine and auto tune) are probably more skilled than me.
Since I made a conscious decision to put down my guitar at one point, I have no desire to insert their accomplishments into my own. Unless I bought one of the tickets that gave them the fastest sold out show in history.
I’m totally taking credit for that.
Red
/ February 13, 2012I like your explanation of #3. #2 does liken mob mentality when it comes to celebrity (think standing in ticket lines {Do ppl still do this?} or rushing a stage). I read laziness into your answer.
So, the consumption of the product is your example of recognition. Entirely reasonable.
Red.
raymond alexander kukkee
/ February 13, 2012I tend to NOT harbour envy for the famous, the rich, or the talented at all, since with that lot in life, great troubles are often precipitated.
Being musical in nature myself I very much admire high-grade musical talent. The music world’s most recent tragedy was the loss of a wonderfully-talented songstress, an incredible artist and beautiful woman,– yes, but she was also a vulnerable human being with self-worth, however frail or imperfect she may have become emotionally.
The world of music is lessened by the tragic loss of extreme talent. Her beautiful voice was easily capable of demonstrating HUMANITY itself. I find it intrinsically sad that “living vultures” should dissect the woman’s life. She deserves respect -as an ordinary, vulnerable human being, regardless of habit, talent, fashion, foibles or foolishness. ~R
Red
/ February 13, 2012“since with that lot in life, great troubles are often precipitated.” Ray, this sounds like an excuse. I cannot buy this. I do buy the inconveniences created by the public consumption of personal data, the infringement of media to feed that consumption and the ill-mannered reactions to the intrusion. However, I do not feel any of that is intrinsic to wealth, fame or talent. It is the train wreck of society failing to cope with the perceived imbalance of advantage.
As you have been moved to emotion, can you explain why this death stands out above any other? In the last hour, more than 300 people have died of an overdose. Is this a matter of deeming them less human or less valuable?
Red.
raymond alexander kukkee
/ February 13, 2012Red, weak-mindedness in human beings is NEVER an excuse. I observe humanity. (and perhaps erroneously ) I have concluded that with fame and fortune often comes trouble. Fame and fortune isn’t an excuse to generate vulnerability, stupidity or weak-mindedness, -that is a given.
But let’s never mind Whitney, take any average, vulnerable , sensitive, artistic type person – i.e. -one in obscurity, normally vulnerable without fame –and assign to them the pressure and demands and expectations and excessive lifestyle of public life, fame and/or extreme wealth-putting them under the public microscope 24/7/365 for years –and they will inevitably become far more vulnerable. Some will become jaded to ever more excess–to the point of self-destruction.
I agree It is NOT necessarily intrinsic to wealth, fame, or talent as individual and specific values–but the combination can be totally destructive to very sensitive individuals–and clearly, it does happen.
The main problem is the excesses of THE lifestyle one may allow himself or herself — but that really is..another issue detailed in “strength of character” vs. weak-mindedness, is it not? A strong-minded person would live in moderation regardless of wealth or fame.
This death stands out to me only as a musician—and the love of music as an art form — because the woman’s voice and talent was a treasure which is now lost.
IMHO losing Whitney Houston and asking society to kindly respect her as a human being does NOT,—in any way, shape or form, demean or diminish the worth of any other human dying from drugs, alcohol, or otherwise killed off in society. To hypothesize and emphasize such an inequality would be worthy only of a cheap, deviant media looking for sensationalism. ie. Vultures.
Bottom line, to assign one human being “a greater social value” than any other, was, –and remains –the furthest from my mind.
Hundreds of thousands of people die every day, every one of them a precious human being–and their worth should not diminish her worth either.
Red
/ February 13, 2012Interesting. Let me clarify: Your plea for respect was not under attack nor was this post an attack. This is a foray into the cult of celebrity and how it relates to the security of identity in the face of human frailty (the topic of a series following this post). It was designed far in advance of today (and Saturday, for that matter).
Did you read my comment to Rachael? I discuss the addiction to exposure and performance. So, with your answer here and the one I gave Rachael, what is your answer to the first question?
“because the woman’s voice and talent was a treasure which is now lost.” Pick up your shield, Ray.
This exact phrase is precisely what I mean by “the more is expected of you”. In fact, the treasure is not lost. Millions of people around the world watched videos and listened to CDs of her music over the weekend. It is not lost. All that is lost is the potential she will contribute anything further. To me, the implication is mourning the dry spout while the fountain remains full.
Personally, know I am not picking on you singly. These questions are simultaneously being asked in other arenas (and have been in person). I am exploring a phenomenon I do not experience, so therefore have no personal knowledge on which to form an opinion. Please, take my requests for what they are…seeking information.
Red.
ansuyo
/ February 13, 2012Idolatry says it all. Rather than appreciate talent (and we all have some form) people elevate the person as somehow above others. This places them in an untenable position, setting them up for failure and the idolized up for disappointment at best. The idol starts believing in his/her idol status and his/her life goes to hell. Human beings should never be placed on the pedistal of idol status; it only leads to destruction. I can’t wait to see where this goes:)
Red
/ February 13, 2012There is a fine line between the vicarious living and the worship…very fine.
Ahmnodt Heare
/ February 13, 2012I think people tend to mourn a loss of a celebrity is because a celebrity is a part of people’s lives. Almost every wedding reception plays “I Will Always Love You.” We don’t mourn most of the people in the obituaries because we don’t know most of those people.
Red
/ February 13, 2012This is interesting to me because I see how the product (the talent) is a part of someone’s life, but I cannot fathom the emotional investment necessary to become attached to the vessel. For an example, I will have to search that song on YouTube to even know what it is. I am quite a miser when it comes to emotional capital.
skbeal
/ February 13, 2012Interesting piece, Red. I’m a professionally trained musician, as was my father. I attended a music conservatory, and I can’t begin to tell you how many of my classmates had this idea in their heads, that they were going to be the next great violinist, vocalist, pianist, or whatever. The truth of the matter was that yes, these people were talented, but musicians like us are a dime a dozen. It’s not enough to be good. To join the big leagues, you’ve got to be GREAT! I often wondered what would happen to these people after we graduated. My father and I had long talks about life as a professional musician. One day, after discovering that he’d discouraged someone from trying to be a performer to spare them a life of heartbreaks, I asked him why he never said the same thing to me. I think he felt kind of proud when he told me that he knew he didn’t need to tell me anything because I was grounded enough to figure it out for myself. It became obvious to me that I couldn’t perform when as an adult, I developed incapacitating performance anxiety. I wasn’t good enough anyway, but I am good enough to write about it, review it, analyze it and all that stuff.
Either you have it or you don’t. Some people are lucky enough to be discovered. This was the case for Whitney Houston, She had a great mentor who was willing to take huge gambles on her. Most people don’t have that.
It always pains me to see people, and I’ve seen many, including the nearly 50 year old son of some dear friends of my mom, who believe that they are great enough to play in big league orchestras, and that the only reason they aren’t is because of this or that. Orchestras hold blind auditions. He just can’t face the fact that he’s just okay…not good, and definitely not great.
Maybe part of the reason that people are so distraught over the death of Whitney Houston is because for one thing, she gave people hope. The other thing is that they felt as though they knew her, (although they obviously didn’t,) because her songs spoke to them. I often wonder why the world makes such a big deal out of the deaths of pop stars, actors, and other celebrities, but they never do that for musicians whose appeal is far more limited.
Maybe we’ve become a society of people who are so used to losing things — losing love, losing jobs, losing family members, losing money, and on….that we live vicariously through celebrities, so when they die, those people who invest so much into living through these celebrities that their death forces us to face the even more tragic reality of our own lives.
People need to stop using the lives of famous people to escape their own undesirable or overwhelming reality. This kind of obsession with stars isn’t that different than an actual chemical addition. Perhaps the mourning that people go through is akin to withdrawals. I’m just hypothesizing here….
Red
/ February 13, 2012I like the hypothesis. Based on the comment I left for Ahmnodt, I think I shall go back to my position on the wall. Hmm.
raymond alexander kukkee
/ February 13, 2012Red, “:) haha…. I’m not feeling picked on, not at all, have no fear. Clearly we can listen to any “voice from the past” where a rich legacy of recordings and videos has been made, and unless we are basket case lunatics, logically have no expectations of anything “more” from the source. In some ways as you outlined, those endless, higher expectations are an addiction –both on the part of the audience and the performer–but the living, breathing source of that beauty is gone regardless of legacy.
I do not, and never have bought into fanatical performer idolatry, the extreme hype, $500.00/ticket concerts or performer worship, ie Beatlemania, Elvis Presley mania, or in this instance “Whitneymania “.
Normal people usually acknowledge the talent of any living person, and I was referring only to the living aspect of that treasure which is now gone . The ‘living’ aspect is gone. Life, whether it be that of one individual, one of 300 in the last hour by O.D. or one thousands,– is a treasure that is gone when snuffed out.
As far as the recordings, sure, we can listen to ghosts of Elvis and Frank Sinatra too— talents from the past,–and now we can listen to Whitney , a talent from the past, –and equally remember her with kindness and respect too. Thanks Red “:)
Red
/ February 13, 2012We are definitely going to continue this discussion. You have touched on something which is to come later. Hmm.
skbeal
/ February 13, 2012How can we more realistically recognize talent without substituting it for genuine self-realization? Why do we, as a society, fail to see the human nature present in the most talented among us? If not merely self-preservation, why do we fail to assign celebrities human frailty?
Because people look at these celebrities, envy what they have, and develop the sort of obsession for them that is tantamount to addiction, in order to escape their own realities. People are unwilling to face the circumstances of their own lives, or to admit that they alone have the power to change their situations.
When celebrities are put on this type of pedestal, people don’t expect the to be human, or to have the same frailties that you or I have. What would the purpose be in living through celebrities if they weren’t as nearly perfect as is possible — even when there is no such thing as perfection.
To sum it up in one word, it’s escapism. People want to escape their own lives, and the easiest way to do it is through famous people. The fact that Whitney Houston just died makes her the perfect candidate…because “the world” is mourning her death.
Red
/ February 13, 2012So, it is the self-preservation theory. The envy is borne of the perceived advantage and shattered when the reality is exposed. Sad it takes a death to see the truth. And I am not talking about sad for the celebrity, but sad for the society. Hmm.
bear
/ February 13, 2012Why is it nessesary to idolize a pedophile, a drug addict, an alcoholic? In days gone by, these behavior patterns would have been shunned. Now because they do die of an accidental poisoning or just are generally being an ass, we put them on pedestals.
Sports, there is a good example, the more they act out, the more people idolize them. Where is the punishment for bad behavior? I know plenty of good entertainers and football players, who do well with no bad habits. I believe for the most part that it is a “look at me” problem. Once the spotlight fades, the person gets drunk, does drugs, runs over a kid just to get the rush of being famous again.
These people NEVER suffer or are made to do penance. Maybe, if they were made to do some hard time for their actions like loss of revenue, fan loss, just maybe they would get the message…….or not.
Red
/ February 13, 2012Interesting. The lack of discipline begins with the celebrity, which is in turn tolerated by the society. Very interesting.
El Guapo
/ February 13, 2012Very well said, Bear. Leaves me wondering how Tim Tebow will be in a few years. He seems to have shaken off any pretensions this season. Though I’m not a fan, it would be nice to see him maintain his morality throughout his career and beyond
bear
/ February 14, 2012Lets talk about Tebow. Why does everyone make fun because he thanks God? Would they rather him take out a crack pipe and take a hit? I don’t get it. Then there’s King James. Wow great ball player, was recruited in high school by non other than MJ. He went every summer to MJ’s place for 1 on 1 training…not that this is a bad thing, but here’s someone who folded in a playoff game not once but twice. Causing the loss and everyone says the team let him down! Ok, where was I?
Our children should not hold these overpaid drug and alcohol abusers in high esteem. It gives them the idea that they can do the same thing and be famous, but most haven’t got the talent to go anywhere or better yet the connections. The thing is the famous people who die by their own inability to govern their own actions should not be in any way, shape or form idolized. Ok, now following with a moment of Tebow …..