The Show Part 5: Celebrities vs. The Greek Gods

by Jefferson Hansen

(This is a series of posts reflecting on the place of "the show" in contemporary society and culture.)

We can ask whether or not a tree falls in a forest when there is nobody there to hear it. But there is now a more relevant question: Does anything happen, in a meaningful way, if it is not filmed or photographed? Digitalized "film" is slowly being accorded more reality than that which is filmed: Something not filmed is becoming irrelevant and quaint. More and more, we live in the show, as spectators and participants.

In a previous post I defined a celebrity as a dialectic between masking and unmasking. A celebrity, his or her public relations people, and prying journalists work together to create a tension between the public presentation of the celebrity and his or her "real" self. Since this reality can never be firmly asserted, the celebrity is constantly unmasked and remasked. Sometimes, this occurs because of his or her intent and sometimes because of outside forces—i.e. news stories about them. 

Ours is not the only culture to be fascinated by representations of people or entities like people. The Greeks, after all, had their gods. The difference is that yarns were spun about the gods. With celebrity, the story attempts to identify the person. There is a teasing sense that a "real" person lurks out there who can be known. This isn't true, but it is what creates titillation and desire.

The gods only existed in narrative and performance. The whole point of celebrities is that they have a life outside performance.

However, that life is itself part of the show. 

In the time of the Greeks, the show with its gods was often part of ritual and religion. Think of Demeter and the festival that celebrated her. In this way, the show constituted belief. This parallels what happens today. The difference is that, with the Greeks, the show was connected to beliefs about a cosmic order. Today, celebrities and the show are wholly human constructions. Indeed, the fact that they are oh so human makes them more titillating. The Greeks sometimes used the show to communicate with another realm of being. The whole point of the contemporary show is that it is very much of the realm we live in—indeed, the part of it worthy of being filmed and then broadcast on a massive scale.

Everything a celebrity does is worthy of broadcasted photography or film. (We can all now become temporary celebrities if we can go viral.)

A celebrity is like a god because he or she is worthy of contemplation, obsession, and consideration. A celebrity is not like a god in that we can emulate them without seeming proud. To try to emulate a god would be the height of arrogance.

The role of a celebrity is to expand the show into the notions of the "real." The irony is that the show has already constituted much of the real. For instance, our clothes are not the result of weaving together raw materials available locally or through trade. They are constituted by desire for a look. Advertising and the fashion industry create this desire, not need or happenstance. 

In this way, we cloak ourselves in the show, and then look to celebrities to titillate us with something outside it—even as both we and they are part of it.

You can escape the show. But the only ones who would know are those immediately with you. So it would have no power.