The Fame Motive

[intellectualammo]

I have a little extra time tonight and have been suddenly interested in fame, fame, as such - why some poeple want, seek, fame, having mass appeal, being visible, as visible as possible. I've been studying and looking at reclusive writers for a little while now, and Salingers recent death has gotten me interested in fame, as such, and thought I'd see what all I could find in regards to it. So I did a little searching, hard at first, but then I found somethings along what I am looking for, but before I post quotes from an article, I wonder if anyone knows any more articles, research on culture, culture studies I guess you'd call them?, books, anything that goes into detail about fame. Thank you . Being popular, too.

here is an article I found

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/health/p...ogy/22fame.html

but it's show here too:

http://www.wehaitians.com/the%20fame%20motive.html

and some quotes to give you more of an idea of what I am looking for:

For most of its existence, the field of psychology has ignored fame as a primary motivator of human behavior: it was considered too shallow, too culturally variable, too often mingled with other motives to be taken seriously. But in recent years, a small number of social scientists have begun to study and think about fame in a different way, ranking it with other goals, measuring its psychological effects, characterizing its devoted seekers.

People with an overriding desire to be widely known to strangers are different from those who primarily covet wealth and influence. Their fame-seeking behavior appears rooted in a desire for social acceptance, a longing for the existential reassurance promised by wide renown.

“It’s a distinct type, people who expect to get meaning out of fame, who believe the only way to have their lives make sense is to be famous,” said Tim Kasser, a psychologist at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill. “We all need to make meaning out of our lives, and this is one way people attempt to do it.”

Given this awareness of our mortality,” said Jeffrey Greenberg, a psychologist at the University of Arizona, “to function securely, we need to feel somehow protected from this existential predicament, to feel like we are more than just material animals fated only to obliteration upon death.

We accomplish that by trying to view ourselves as enduringly valuable contributors to a meaningful world. And the more others validate our value, the more special and therefore secure we can feel.

There is a work mentioned in this article, seems like the article is from like 2006, so the book mentioned's probably out!

Took a few minutes to track this book down. It is completed, but it's called Look At Me! the Fame Motive from Childhood to Death by Orville Gilbert Brim PhD about it can be found on this page:

http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=872207

About the Book

Four million adults in the United States say that becoming famous is the most important goal in their lives. In any random sampling of one hundred American adults, two will have fame as their consuming desire. What motivates those who set fame as their priority, where did the desire come from, how does the pursuit of fame influence their lives, and how is it expressed? Based on the research of Orville Gilbert Brim, award-winning scholar in the field of child and human development, Look at Me! answers those questions.

Look at Me! examines the desire to be famous in people of all ages, backgrounds, and social status and how succeeding or failing affects their lives and their personalities. It explores the implications of the pursuit of fame throughout a person's lifetime, covering the nature of the desire; fame, money, and power; the sources of fame; how people find a path to fame; the kinds of recognition sought; creating an audience; making fame last; and the resulting, often damaged, life of the fame-seeker.

In our current age of celebrity fixation and reality television, Brim gives us a social-psychological perspective on the origins of this pervasive desire for fame and its effects on our lives.

"Look at Me! is a fascinating in-depth study of society's obsession with fame. If you ever wondered what it's like to be famous, why fame comes to some and is sought by others, it's all here . . ."

—Jeffrey L. Bewkes, Chairman and CEO, Time Warner

"In a voice filled with wisdom and insight, daring and self-reflection, Orville Brim masterfully traces the developmental origins and trajectory of fame. Look at Me! lets us see—with new eyes—the cultural priorities and obsessions that feed our individual hunger and appetites. A rare and rewarding book."

—Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot, Emily Hargroves Fisher Professor of Education at Harvard University and author of Respect and The Third Chapter

Orville Gilbert Brim has had a long and distinguished career. He is the former director of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Midlife Development, former president of the Foundation for Child Development, former president of the Russell Sage Foundation, and author and coauthor of more than a dozen books about human development, intelligence, ambition, and personality.

Here are some words from the author about the book from here:

http://umichpress.typepad.com/university_o...alloon-boy.html

Has our completely wired world caused more people than ever before to seek fame? Or has it just caused those driven by the need for fame to surface more easily?

Seeking the answer to these questions let me to write a new book, just published by the University of Michigan Press titled: “Look at Me—The Fame Motive from Childhood to Death.” For my entire career I have studied the mysteries of human development. When I decided to search for what it is that drives people to seek fame—often doing things well beyond what might seem reasonable—I thought there would be plenty of information.

That did not turn out to be true. There is plenty to be found on primary motivations like the search for power, sex, money, or the urge to create great art or literature. But fame as a primary motive? Almost nothing.

You will not find the word “fame” indexed in any of the leading texts on personality development, in comprehensive books on human motivation, or in the “International Handbook of Psychology.” There is no test for the fame motive, nor have there been any experiments designed to detect it. While there are literally thousands of studies on how to change behavior—stopping addiction or smoking for example—there is nothing about how to eradicate the desire for fame.

Never heard of this before:

For a person with the fame motive, whatever level or strength of fame may be achieved, it is never enough to either satisfy the fame seeker or to cause the fame motive to disappear, leading to what has been called the “16th minute of fame,” the desire to live on in people’s minds after death.

Do or does anyone here want to be famous, well known? Is it a primary goal, and then you seek to achieve it? Or seek to acheive a goal, and would love to have fame as the side effect of it? I wonder how self-esteem relates to this, too.

[Eiuol]

I have a little extra time tonight and have been suddenly interested in fame, fame, as such - why some poeple want, seek, fame, having mass appeal, being visible, as visible as possible.

I like that you brought this up, fame is a topic that I have been thinking a lot about the past few months. One issue about analyzing fame is that most who talk about speak of the person who is famous and ignore the ones who make them famous, the fans. Why do people decide to go to such extremes that they form crowds, ask for autographs, desire to even TOUCH the famous person, or imitate clothing the famous person wears? It is a form of hero worship, but on essentially an irrational level. There are some obvious reasons why a person seeks fame, it's either second-handedness or a desire to have a cultural impact. If you wanted to convince people of how good capitalism is, you need visibility, which means fame. Or the person is trying to validate their existence *through* others, and the more 'validation' they receive, the better they feel (like Peter Keating in The Fountainhead)

I think fame as we know it today in its irrational form is due in part to consumerism (NOT the same as capitalism) and secularization of culture. If god isn't your main concern, you will worship the good elsewhere, as in man. Whether that worship is rational or not is another question, but most go the irrational route.

I have some suggestions.

http://www.wellesley.edu/Sociology/syllabi/SOC249%20F06.pdf a syllabus for a sociology class on Celebrity, Fame and Fortune

http://blake.intrasun.tcnj.edu/celebritycu...ibliography.htm list of books and articles on fame

Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America, by Joshua Gamson (I haven't read this, but it looks like it is worth reading)

Also, research Andy Warhol. I don't care if you like his art (or junk, whatever you prefer to call it), everything he ever did was about fame.

Do or does anyone here want to be famous, well known? Is it a primary goal, and then you seek to achieve it? Or seek to acheive a goal, and would love to have fame as the side effect of it? I wonder how self-esteem relates to this, too.

I do, but it is a secondary goal. Fame (extreme visibility) is necessary for my more important goals. The problem is though I'm very introverted so I wouldn't like the attention, at least attention of massive crowds and people imitating me.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Eiuol

[intellectualammo]

I like that you brought this up, fame is a topic that I have been thinking a lot about the past few months. One issue about analyzing fame is that most who talk about speak of the person who is famous and ignore the ones who make them famous, the fans. Why do people decide to go to such extremes that they form crowds, ask for autographs, desire to even TOUCH the famous person, or imitate clothing the famous person wears? It is a form of hero worship, but on essentially an irrational level.

That is such a good point on brining the fans up in this, and hero worship. I have only thought in terms of the fame motive, not the other side of it, the people that judge that person. Those that want to be famous and popular as a primary goal, certainly would have to keep them in mind, when writing, playing music, or whatnot. But those with it as a lesser goal, or not a goal at all, would be concerned with the actual music, words, themselves, caring more about that than an audience. I might be a rare writer, for I do not write for a "target audience", I write to write, because I like to write, writing in and of itself. I still have a profound concern over what's going to happen to and with all of my words. But anyways.

There are some obvious reasons why a person seeks fame, it's either second-handedness or a desire to have a cultural impact.

Also good points. But I think the latter really is not wanting fame themselves exactly, just their views, position, ideas - to be well known. I'd like to think that with prominent Objectivists in our culture. I doubt Lisa VanDamme wants to be famous, but wants to head a pedogogical revolution, which she's at the very forefront of, but would want her methods, curriculum, teaching - to become well known, appreciated, used - not for her to be known, primarily. This is the way I see the cultural impact part of what you said, in a more rational way. Getting ideas out there in the culture, what ARI is all about, but not for them, the speakers, intellectuals, etc to be famous, but what it is that they are putting and trying to get out into the culture today - ideas. Fame for them, as in popularizing ideas, like laissez-faire capitalism.

If you wanted to convince people of how good capitalism is, you need visibility, which means fame.

Visisability of your ideas. I do not see that fame as such is the motive - I see popularizing ideas, is. But I have only just begun to explore fame and it's relationship with goals, so forgive me if I am mistaken in any of this.

Or the person is trying to validate their existence *through* others, and the more 'validation' they receive, the better they feel (like Peter Keating in The Fountainhead)

Right. He was the person who I had in mind as exemplary of that. Just how much the fame motive can be rational or not having to do with some sort of lack of self-esteem, is what I still have to look further into.

I have some suggestions.

http://www.wellesley.edu/Sociology/syllabi/SOC249%20F06.pdf a syllabus for a sociology class on Celebrity, Fame and Fortune

http://blake.intrasun.tcnj.edu/celebritycu...ibliography.htm list of books and articles on fame

Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America, by Joshua Gamson (I haven't read this, but it looks like it is worth reading)

Thanks, I'll look at them. One person who I think from way back when he even developed his name persona till this very day who really has a great handle with American Culture, media, celebrity, put forth in his music the lyrics with their beautiful use of figurative language - would have to be - Marilyn Manson. Portmanteau's of his - connecting this hero worship - like Holy Wood - and much more - speak so much. He's one it's very hard for me to explain his use of figurative language, but I have a sense of understanding of it, perhaps not a good enough handle on it, to really discuss it. But anyways, he's the one, I thnk that understands it, exploits it, mocks it - you name it.

Also, research Andy Warhol. I don't care if you like his art (or junk, whatever you prefer to call it), everything he ever did was about fame.

I'm hardly familiar with him, and his art. Even though there is a museam or sometihgn in my city named after him.

Fame (extreme visibility) is necessary for my more important goals.

I'll have to see the defintitions of fame, popularity, in regards to people and people and thier ideas and the relationships between them.

The problem is though I'm very introverted so I wouldn't like the attention, at least attention of massive crowds and people imitating me.

I am very introverted as well. Ever read any books on it? I did. I can recommend some. One in particular a new one, The Loners' Manifesto by Anneli Rufus (see book here)is an important work, because it finally tries to distinguish between loners, that is , people who LIKE TO BE alone, or by themselves, with that of the misfits, social outcasts THAT DON'T WANT TO BE left out, want to be around with others, but aren't because they are rejected in some way. The latter are the ones can end up shooting up schools, or being serial murders because they are upset - and they are MISLABELLED as being loners, when many many of them are not true loners, that like and prefer to be left alone or work alone. Very important book in regards to this. I am definately a loner, and if it wasn't for court orders or having to support myself financially by working, I wonder just how reclusive I would be. But anyways, this is off topic.

Thank you so much for your response. I appreciate it and the links.

Edited January 31, 2010 by intellectualammo

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Why do people decide to go to such extremes that they form crowds, ask for autographs, desire to even TOUCH the famous person, or imitate clothing the famous person wears? It is a form of hero worship, but on essentially an irrational level.

Jesus Christ... I'm amazed at the things you can find here sometimes. Do you really think it's irrational to ask for an autograph?? Seriously??

Edited January 31, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Eiuol]

Jesus Christ... I'm amazed at the things you can find here sometimes. Do you really think it's irrational to ask for an autograph?? Seriously??

An autograph is generally an irrational thing. "Oh my god, s/he wrote her name on my object!" What is the use of that?

[intellectualammo]

An autograph is generally an irrational thing. "Oh my god, s/he wrote her name on my object!" What is the use of that?

It plays into hero or heroine worship, idolatry. I remember how young Werther, from Geothe's THe Sorrows of Young Werther keep something (can't remember actually as much as I have read that story) of Lotte's (name shortened from Charlotte, from Goethe's real life) and it was sacred to him, because she touched it or given it to him. I can understand this idea of sacredness, perhaps it has a lot to do with sentimentalism or something, but I have done this in my real life, not with an autograph, but with a pencil, with teeth marks imprinted into it, from the writer who'd used it to write with. What I keep has much meaning to me, I could probably retire from selling that pencil, once the author becomes famous, but anyways, I'm saying more than I should, only that I can understand the significance of such things, because of how a fan feels about the idol, hero, heroine, or whatnot in their lives. Irrational or not, I don't concern myself with, only with what is - how I feel about it. But if someons motive is to have adoring fans that beg and pleadd to have your autograph, and then seek to do something to attain, reach that goal, that's what the fame motive is all about, and different than in this context, but on the other side of it, I guess you could say.

[edit to add quotes from TSOYW by Goethe, had to find my copy I makred off passages in, of the three copies I have (two of which are different translations)]

"I want to be buried, Lotte, in the clothes I have on. You have touched them and made them sacred."

Edited February 1, 2010 by intellectualammo

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

An autograph is generally an irrational thing. "Oh my god, s/he wrote her name on my object!" What is the use of that?

RIGHT, I know EXACTLY what you mean, like these two insignificant worthless pages from The Fountainhead manuscript that were hanging on Dr. Peikoff’s wall, I mean, WHAT’S THE USE OF THAT?? Dr. Peikoff must be sooo stupid. I mean, keeping and hanging just some ink on some stupid piece of paper like an autograph?? MY GOD. How about value? Contemplation? Personal meaning? Commercialization? Now, you say "generally", so, I would like to hear those exceptions if you don't mind.

[Eiuol]

RIGHT, I know EXACTLY what you mean, like these two insignificant worthless pages from The Fountainhead manuscript that were hanging on Dr. Peikoff’s wall, I mean, WHAT’S THE USE OF THAT?? Dr. Peikoff must be sooo stupid. I mean, keeping and hanging just some ink on some stupid piece of paper like an autograph?? MY GOD. How about value? Contemplation? Personal meaning? Commercialization? Now, you say "generally", so, I would like to hear those exceptions if you don't mind.

I probably assumed too much understanding about what I would mean. What is the *rational* reason? I said generally, but I can think of no situation where an autograph is a rational value. It would make sense to get an autograph in order to sell it to someone else, but that's about it.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Eiuol

[Iudicious]

RIGHT, I know EXACTLY what you mean, like these two insignificant worthless pages from The Fountainhead manuscript that were hanging on Dr. Peikoff’s wall, I mean, WHAT’S THE USE OF THAT?? Dr. Peikoff must be sooo stupid. I mean, keeping and hanging just some ink on some stupid piece of paper like an autograph?? MY GOD. How about value? Contemplation? Personal meaning? Commercialization? Now, you say "generally", so, I would like to hear those exceptions if you don't mind.

The example you're using seems rather loaded.

An autograph being rationally useful in any way? Doubtful, in most cases.

However, those autographed manuscripts? That's art. Writing is art, it is an expression of values, and the Fountainhead surely had a lot of heroic, rational values in it. I can imagine hanging that manuscript on my wall too, for the same reasons that I'd hang a painting, so that I could admire the rational, heroic values contained within. The signature is even a part of it, because it proclaims that THIS is MINE (the author's), that it was her work, her values, that created that.

That's far more than just an autograph.

Also, would you mind toning yourself down? Eiuol asked a question and made a claim, one that you could have responded to and refuted without the need for sarcasm or textual eye rolling. Your responses so far have had no content, nothing to speak of, just the aforementioned sarcasm and textual eye rolling.

Edit: To Eiuol, I can imagine a case where an autograph is a rational value, and it is similar to hanging a piece of art on the wall. If you know that Ayn Rand, for example, holds rationals values and is a heroic and productive human being, than you might want an autograph, as a reminder of the values expressed by the person who made it. So it is similar to the art piece in a way.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Iudicious

[Eiuol]

To Eiuol, I can imagine a case where an autograph is a rational value, and it is similar to hanging a piece of art on the wall. If you know that Ayn Rand, for example, holds rationals values and is a heroic and productive human being, than you might want an autograph, as a reminder of the values expressed by the person who made it. So it is similar to the art piece in a way.

Hmm, yes, I see what you mean. I guess I'm dropping the context I was suggesting even, where hero worship *can* be rational. Some view their relationship to a famous artist to be on a mystical level, similar to how there was a value to the Holy Grail. It was because Jesus touched it, unrelated to actual productive values. It's as though one can imbue an item with power and energy. I think if you actually interacted with a famous person, then an autograph would be appropriate, as it is probably the only way to *have* a piece of the moment. If you disagree with me or not on that point is one issue, but the relationship between the famous and lovers of the famous is one of worship. Oftentimes, worship goes an irrational route.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

The example you're using seems rather loaded.

An autograph being rationally useful in any way? Doubtful, in most cases.

However, those autographed manuscripts? That's art. Writing is art, it is an expression of values, and the Fountainhead surely had a lot of heroic, rational values in it. I can imagine hanging that manuscript on my wall too, for the same reasons that I'd hang a painting, so that I could admire the rational, heroic values contained within. The signature is even a part of it, because it proclaims that THIS is MINE (the author's), that it was her work, her values, that created that.

That's far more than just an autograph.

No, I don’t think so. Those manuscripts were hanged there precisely because of what you indicated in the last part of your response. They have a personal meaning to him, and he wanted to keep them as a reminder of whatever he values, in the same way that someone would like to keep and display an autograph or a photograph or whatever of somebody he admires. Now, incidentally, yes, it’s art. Writing is art, and it’s more than an autograph, so what? He could’ve just nailed down a copy of The Fountainhead to the wall. He knows the story quite well, he doesn’t need to read it from his wall every time he wants to admire the rational, heroic values contained within, etc. So, no, I don’t think this has anything to do with what I said.

Edited February 1, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[whYNOT]

Never heard of this before:

Do or does anyone here want to be famous, well known? Is it a primary goal, and then you seek to achieve it? Or seek to acheive a goal, and would love to have fame as the side effect of it? I wonder how self-esteem relates to this, too.

The "16th minute" thing must relate to Andy Warhol's claim that in future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes, (said in the early 70's, I think) and about the only thing he ever said of any importance I believe.

Eioul nailed most of what I would add, but this is a fascinating topic; the two sides to it are a. those who hunger to get, and keep, fame, b. those who are not just willing, but eager, to give it .

And why.

As an aside, this reminds me of what I've read on Narcissists. Apparently, such people rely heavily on attention to the degree of using everything (and everyone) around them to obtain their "Narcissistic Supply."

Is seeking fame related to this? At it's most extreme, probably; but otherwise it may only be the cult of the 'second-hander', O'ists are familiar with.

Interesting post, 'ammo.

[LaVache]

I probably assumed too much understanding about what I would mean. What is the *rational* reason? I said generally, but I can think of no situation where an autograph is a rational value. It would make sense to get an autograph in order to sell it to someone else, but that's about it.

When I was young I collected Baseball Cards, not as means to profit although that collection I have stashed is probably worth something, but as an end in and of itself. I would research the players, study the stats, watch old baseball games, study the history and rules of the game and spend hours looking through my collection. Autographed cards with documentation were a collectible step up from non-autographed cards and I found it interesting to look at the actual signatures. Everyone signs their name differently and it was a curiosity to me at the time. I was never hugely into that aspect as it was either expensive or travel intensive to build a large collection of autographed cards and I had very limited resources since I was so young. Still, I did derive some pleasure out of attaining the small number of autographed cards that I did. So for me the personal pleasure I got was the end and I found it quite rewarding.

*EDIT* Hank Aaron and Bob Gibson were my favorite players if anyone cares.

Edit: To Eiuol, I can imagine a case where an autograph is a rational value, and it is similar to hanging a piece of art on the wall. If you know that Ayn Rand, for example, holds rationals values and is a heroic and productive human being, than you might want an autograph, as a reminder of the values expressed by the person who made it. So it is similar to the art piece in a way.

My Grandfather was always a big fan of Mickey Mantle's play and recently got a very handsome autographed photo to hang on his wall. It serves as art and a reminder of bygone days.

Edited February 1, 2010 by LaVache

[Eiuol]

The "16th minute" thing must relate to Andy Warhol's claim that in future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes, (said in the early 70's, I think) and about the only thing he ever said of any importance I believe.

Yes, it's probably the only "true" statement he ever made. I believe he meant it in the sense that given the current state of affairs and ever increasing visibility of individuals, at some point, everyone will be famous for a little while. How that changes a person's desire to be famous, I don't know.

I think the majority of what Warhol said and did was an exploitation of fame. He never gave serious answers to interviewers. I don't think he believed the things he said. But based on how people reacted to him, you can see how "worship" of the famous is often irrational. Make a stack of boxes, call it art, and people believe you. Make a picture of Marilyn Monroe funky colors and everybody wants it for no reason other than that it's Marilyn's face.

[intellectualammo]

Eioul nailed most of what I would add, but this is a fascinating topic; the two sides to it are a. those who hunger to get, and keep, fame, b. those who are not just willing, but eager, to give it .

Yes, and it's about the evaluation the judgement fans make upon you or your work. It's good to make such judgements, according to O'ist ethics, and how many of us here when we find a work, painting, writer, artist, are EAGER sometimes really eager to give recognition to a work, artist, becaus eof how we feel about it, judge it, and how others might enjoy it as well, we feel like this: "LOOK AT THIS PAINTING, OMG!!!" or "YOU HAVE TO READ THIS BOOK!" This is how it gets going, once to put something out there. This happens to music too, people think they support bands by making them more known and so forth. Is that bad? But many of the artists, made these works in and of themselves, I'd like to think, instead of just doing something, anything to "make it" they only want to make it, their art. These are loose thoughts here, mind you all.

As an aside, this reminds me of what I've read on Narcissists. Apparently, such people rely heavily on attention to the degree of using everything (and everyone) around them to obtain their "Narcissistic Supply."

Last year I researched heavily, narcissism. I thought it applies to me, but not really, I'm just self-centered (which is different than being selfish) and Narcissus is just onlefigure I relate to and use in my writing. There are degrees of narcissism as well, from healthy to malignant. Some if they have the fame motive, want to be famous, "the right way" by you know, making something or getting ackowledgement for some achievement or whatnot, but if that doesn't work, notoriety will do. Fams, as such - being famous or infamous, doesn't quite matter to them. Attention is attention regardless of why the eyes are on you. But this is for the pathological, or NPD ones, that can be driven that way, it can vary greatly amoung narcissists because fame isn't really a main motive at all, other issues, not just getting attention, are involved. But I'll just cover what applies to this topic here on it. But good point in bringinng it up.

Is seeking fame related to this? At it's most extreme, probably; but otherwise it may only be the cult of the 'second-hander', O'ists are familiar with.

Yes, and fandom, is "cult of celebrity", idolitry

Interesting post, 'ammo.

That's I think the first time anyone here's called me "ammo". All my lit people do.

One thing to add is a question I read on a blog post from a San Diego O'ist group:

Is "fame" an objective value?

Edited February 1, 2010 by intellectualammo

[Grames]

Is "fame" an objective value?

It can be.

Fame itself is objective enough to measure, just count people who are familiar with a certain subject. We know what value is and what makes it objective, so the equivalent question with its parts unpacked would be:

"Does there exist a person to whom the awareness of that person in the minds of many other people is a benefit in a rational life-affirming sense?"

I think it is easy to answer 'yes' for psychological and commercial reasons. But this question assumes fame can be a means to an end. Do those people motivated by fame regard fame as instrumental to an end of a good life or do they desire fame as an end in itself, an irrational and even neurotic obsession? Fame and the desire for fame are two different things. Any desire can be well or ill-founded, healthy or unhealthy.

For any famous person, remembering that fame is just a means to an end of a good life is the essence of "keeping things in perspective" or "keeping it real."

[spaceplayer]

PINK FLOYD THE WALL is a compelling, first-hand take on the dangers of fame, from a rock star's point-of-view. The rock-star as fascist dictator whose fans will do anything to be in the "presence" of their idols, to the point of stampeding like a herd of cattle (sometimes fatally.) The movie scene for the song "In the Flesh" culminates in a Fascist rally where "Pink" becomes a dictator as the crowd applauds, even as he turns his ire against them ("If I had my way, I'd have all of you shot!").

Roger Waters wrote THE WALL after he grew disillusioned with the stadium touring, the loss of connection with the audience (the "wall" itself), while watching people get smashed and smash each other, screaming mindlessly. He certainly captured the "dark side" of idol-worship (I can't call it hero-worship) and the second-hand appeal of that "warm thrill of confusion, that space cadet glow..." (Marilyn Manson picked it up with ANTICHRIST SUPERSTAR...)

Edited February 2, 2010 by spaceplayer

[whYNOT]

Well hey, spaceplayer, I've enjoyed "The Wall" since the days of vinyl*, and I hadn't heard this before.

While Waters alluded to a mass of fans - also, what a brilliant metaphor against the collective, and Socialism:

"All in all, you're just another brick in the Wall".

(Vinyl*, a grooved plastic disc embedded with a musical recording, utilizing a needle to ... ah, never mind.)

[whYNOT]

Back to Fame, particularly the cult of fame, and imo, this is one more example of the devolution of something that is rooted in the fine, honest, and rational things in life, that we are constantly seeing through O'ism.

A for instance is 'altruism'; a proud, productive person takes pleasure in viewing other people doing well, "flourishing"; they pose no threat to him, economically or 'spiritually', but can be an inspiration to his own life, and he values them.

Extended in one direction, however, we arrive at a place where that pleasure becomes a responsibility to one to ENSURE that other people do well. And those others become entitled to one's dedication to their lives. Value disappears into duty and sacrifice.

So with Fame. After, well after, I think, the satisfaction of achievement in one's own right, comes the satisfaction of recognition by one's peers, or clients, or maybe all those un-named rational people out there who you are glad to appeal to, and connect with. These are the people who's respect you value.

Being visible to such people is something you earned.

Somewhere still, in the core of fame, this always exists, but it has been diluted, debased, beyond recognition.

[intellectualammo]

So with Fame. After, well after, I think, the satisfaction of achievement in one's own right, comes the satisfaction of recognition by one's peers, or clients, or maybe all those un-named rational people out there who you are glad to appeal to, and connect with. These are the people who's respect you value.

Being visible to such people is something you earned.

Right.

I want to add, that ever since I was able to disentangle myself (writing my way out) from the web of someone's written lines, not necessarily written purposely to ensnare readers, grab their attention, catch them - but I was totally caught up in them all, regardless - I found other poets on my own, like Emily Dickinson and Sara Teasdale, who are my most prized findings. One poetess that I find obsessively fascinating is Emily Dickinson, who was selective in those that she wanted to know her, her poetry. She didn't want an "admiring bog" or be like the croaking frog in this poem, which I think I'll link to it an a cool analysis of it, to place it in this thread on fame (although the version of it, the way they typed it, is no where near like the way she did, editors through the years, their decisions to exclude her dashes or whatnot piss me the fuck off, if I had time I'd type out the way that it looks, but the words are the same regardless):

http://www.beyondbooks.com/lit71/1f.asp

This is the way it should look, I found it #288 Johnson numbering:

I’m Nobody! Who are you?

Are you — Nobody — Too?

Then there’s a pair of us!

Don’t tell! They’d banish us — you know!

How dreary — to be — Somebody!

How public — like a Frog —

To tell one’s name — the livelong June —

To an admiring Bog!

she was selective, in the sense of the following poem, of which these two poems I think fit nicely with one another, I don't know where they sit in her fascicles at this point, but I'm just doing this now, as I relate the two (poem #303 Johnson numbering):

The Soul selects her own society -

Then - shuts the Door -

To her divine Majority -

Present no more -

Unmoved - she notes the Chariots -pausing -

At her low Gate -

Unmoved - an Emperor be kneeling

Upon her Mat -

I've known her - from an ample nation -

Choose One -

Then - close the Valves of her attention -

Like Stone -

and an analysis that's great on it over on Sparknotes for both the first and second poem:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:-q8IVs...=clnk&gl=us

http://www.sparknotes.com/poetry/dickinson/section4.rhtml

Edited February 2, 2010 by intellectualammo

[spaceplayer]

Well hey, spaceplayer, I've enjoyed "The Wall" since the days of vinyl*, and I hadn't heard this before.

It comes out quite a bit stronger in the movie, but also, a lot of this is mentioned in interviews with Waters. The famous incident that started THE WALL concept itself stems from the '77 Animals tour. A drunken fan was up front, yelling and screaming "play Money!" Waters called him over, and spit in his face. Waters was so horrified at what he had done, how he started to see himself, that he started to visualize the wall going between him and the audience.

There's a scene that didn't make it into the film, at the end of "In the Flesh"...originally the concept was to have the audience "blow up," even as they cheer their own destruction. Waters thought that might be too over the top...

Fame...is it any wonder?

[dadmonson]

The "16th minute" thing must relate to Andy Warhol's claim that in future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes,

I think I have experienced this. While on the internet I recently tried to spark other people's curiosity in Ayn Rand's ideas. However, little did I know that people were going to start snooping around 'on me' and I don't like it at all. I value my privacy very much so, but ultimately I know it's my fault; I should've known that nothing on the internet is private, and that there would be snoopers. Why someone would want to be famous...I have no idea.

[intellectualammo]

I think the Fame Motive, Attention Getting, whether through achievement or destruction, fame or notoriety, famous, infamous is a case in point, in this news story I just saw on my local news website:

Nearly a million people and counting have watched a YouTube video that shows Justin Kocott destroying a brand new iPad.

Channel 11 News first told you about the viral video on Monday. Since then, more and more people have clicked on the link to see it for themselves.

Kocott, 19, said after seeing similar videos on the Internet involving other kinds of electronics, he wanted to be the first seen destroying an iPad.

But according to Professor Bob Thompson of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture, that doesn’t matter, because it isn’t about being first, but rather about getting the attention.

“Getting to 10 million hits is like being a rock star a generation ago,” explained Thompson.

http://www.wpxi.com/news/23069759/detail.html

Edited April 6, 2010 by intellectualammo