quote:Originally posted by Liliesfair:
Therefore, can a celebrity simultaneously be a non-celebrity? Does LM manage to strike a balance between the two?
I've been thinking on this theme for awhile, and while I still can't fully gel my thoughts into a cohesive argument, I'll try.
I understand that Loreena's dislike of the cult of celebrity is more or less directed at the circus that is Hollyood with the current obsession over weight, hair color, latest scandals in the magazines, who did what to do who, and the like. I get that. I think a lot of us get that. No question there.
I also understand that Loreena would prefer us not to care or ask what shampoo she uses, nor would she prefer to endorse it, as a result of her selling however many albums she's sold. I get that, nor do I want to ask. As Donna said, I think a lot of us get that on the MB here too.
However, I wonder if the "celebrity" gaze has been transferred (since it's not about shampoo or scandals at this rate) to more or less what Loreena does choose to do with her time - travel and interviews and such. I've come to worry that such interest in such matters is delving into a bit of a celebrity like interest because (in my mind) we're still following along at the same intensity others might follow the latest Britney saga. I am interested to learn her preferences as to where she might travel next or what she really thinks about the current affair overseas of the week. I say this not because she is a celebrity, but more because this is what she does. Who better to want to know this from than someone who's been there? However, I can see where Loreena could hold sway with her experiences over people who look up to her as a reference - doesn't that still fit the bill as being a celebrity?
Where does the line stop between being influenced by someone and their ideas to being described by the Wikipedia quote Donna listed?
For example, Marjane Satrapi came out with a beautiful book, Persepolis. I read the book, saw the movie, and, intrigued by her thoughts, did an internet search and watched a fascinating hour long lecture/Q-A session. Now, everytime I see an article about Marjane Satrapi does that make her a celebrity because now she's getting a following she might not otherwise have due to the exposure? How much am I, as a consumer and viewer of her work, feeding into that exposure, and how much of it positive, and negative? Does the line stop as being in that "cult" when it becomes about using your newfound status to hawk wares or give your personal opinion on current events that otherwise everyday folk don't necessarily have the means to do? (which is changing nowadays with the advent of blogs - as we've seen in Greenslade's case, almost anyone can become viewed or heightened due to how many readers you have). Does Loreena see speaking about current events an abuse of her status, and would I be wrong to be curious to see what she thinks about it?
I think Loreena balances her personal life fine as seen by the reaction to the book settlement, by the by people are for her protecting her everyday privacy. However, my questioning deals more with the type of status she already has, and whether or not we as fans are contributing (indavertantly) by having such an interest that we do in what she does.
I wonder another reason why the commentary on this "cult of celebrity" comes up because she worries she is falling into that trap, both pre-and-post Niema's book, or more of a generalized sentiment.