4 ms·

Yes, you can name shitty famous people of today. But when I was growing up, I don't think I ever followed a famous person who wasn't approved by a gatekeeper o

Yes, you can name shitty famous people of today. But when I was growing up, I don't think I ever followed a famous person who wasn't approved by a gatekeeper of some kind. Nor did I ever see an interview of them that wasn't presented by a major media company. But in both absolute and relative terms, the number of genuinely passionate famous people has increased. And the amount of hours people spend watching these people perform and reading their own words has increased. I'm using Jennifer Lawrence as an effect, not a cause. She wears this faux-accessibility because she's competing with less famous, truly accessible people. Earlier celebrities didn't have to appeal to this desire because there was no one flanking them on that dimension. Look at pictures of the highest grossing actors of 2016 [0]. Even in their facial expressions, they are miles away from John Wayne, Paul Newman, Humphrey Bogart, or Clint Eastwood in the golden age of Cool. [0] https://www.forbes.com/actors/#6e58a4d340fe https://www.forbes.com/actors/#6e58a4d340fe

coldtea 8y ago
>Yes, you can name shitty famous people of today. But when I was growing up, I don't think I ever followed a famous person who wasn't approved by a gatekeeper of some kind. And yet, there were more independent voices with actual influence back in the day (writers, poets, musicians, etc) than in the whole of the internet combined. Who weren't there for the money either. Those "passionate people" in vlogging have disintegrated into cheap salesmen very quickly. Those on Instagram even more so. >Look at pictures of the highest grossing actors of 2016 [0]. Even in their facial expressions, they are miles away from John Wayne, Paul Newman, Humphrey Bogart, or Clint Eastwood in the golden age of Cool. That's because everybody is as well. Styles change over time. We don't speak in a Transatlantic accent like actors of yore either.
- amsilprotag 8y ago
  Regarding absolute quality of output, that's an interesting thought. Maybe the interconnectedness and availability of immediate consumption feedback (likes, views) made things worse. People often talk of the monoculture eroding over the past generation, but you're proposing the exact opposite. Is there a way to measure diversity of output? I think 2018 me has found diverse people with small followings whom I genuinely connect to, but maybe I would have found even better creative output via print or in person in the past. It is my impression that youtube or instagram have a long tail of creators, appealing to niche interests, but maybe there is a falseness to this as well if everyone is playing by the same rules. Thanks for the exchange. I don't necessarily agree, but I'll be thinking about it.
perl4ever 8y ago
"Yes, you can name shitty famous people of today. But when I was growing up, I don't think I ever followed a famous person who wasn't approved by a gatekeeper of some kind." What if that reflects how you've changed, and not how society has changed?

coldtea 8y ago

>Yes, you can name shitty famous people of today. But when I was growing up, I don't think I ever followed a famous person who wasn't approved by a gatekeeper of some kind. And yet, there were more independent voices with actual influence back in the day (writers, poets, musicians, etc) than in the whole of the internet combined. Who weren't there for the money either. Those "passionate people" in vlogging have disintegrated into cheap salesmen very quickly. Those on Instagram even more so. >Look at pictures of the highest grossing actors of 2016 [0]. Even in their facial expressions, they are miles away from John Wayne, Paul Newman, Humphrey Bogart, or Clint Eastwood in the golden age of Cool. That's because everybody is as well. Styles change over time. We don't speak in a Transatlantic accent like actors of yore either.

amsilprotag 8y ago
Regarding absolute quality of output, that's an interesting thought. Maybe the interconnectedness and availability of immediate consumption feedback (likes, views) made things worse. People often talk of the monoculture eroding over the past generation, but you're proposing the exact opposite. Is there a way to measure diversity of output? I think 2018 me has found diverse people with small followings whom I genuinely connect to, but maybe I would have found even better creative output via print or in person in the past. It is my impression that youtube or instagram have a long tail of creators, appealing to niche interests, but maybe there is a falseness to this as well if everyone is playing by the same rules. Thanks for the exchange. I don't necessarily agree, but I'll be thinking about it.

perl4ever 8y ago

"Yes, you can name shitty famous people of today. But when I was growing up, I don't think I ever followed a famous person who wasn't approved by a gatekeeper of some kind." What if that reflects how you've changed, and not how society has changed?