Why Do We Idolize Athletes, Musicians And Actors?

[Seil]

So I'm finally over my New Years Hangover or (NYH for short) and I've got some time off. So, I decided to do what I missed out out on during the school semester and work schedule bogged me down: watch TV and movies. What with the one sock hanging off the foot and the potato chip crumbs down my front. I watched ParaNorman (which is great) and MiB3 (Alice Eve (http://www.straitpinkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/alice_eve_gq_magazine_june_2010_2.jpg) is hot) and I was watching MiB where they pull into the empty stadium parking lot, and there's that over head shot that really shows the emptiness, and I was like, wow. That's a big lot for a stadium.

Then I thought, no, actually, that stadium holds thousands of sports fans. I then thought of how many sports fans could fill that lot and crowd that stadium. Not really being a sports fan, I remembered going to see Leonard Cohen live in concert during his North American tour a few years back, and how close the seats were jammed together to fit as many people in as possible.

I thought to myself - because thinking to other people is impossible - that it's amazing that so many people can come to see a musician perform. Then I thought that there are musicians performing every day and nobody pays any attention, because some of them are crazy homeless guys and some of them perform with Rowan Atkinson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee4LV0IDxIw). So there's certainly a measure of talent involved here.

But to the question; we sell out sports events, movies, music performances to catch a glimpse of a favored artist. Why? Why do we put these people on a pedestal? Is it mainly because it's what we're told to do? Are we actually appreciative of the person? Joshua Bell (http://www.getthefive.com/articles/the-in-crowd/joshua-bell-performs-in-the-subway-as-a-social-exp/), one of the finest fiddlers around played in a subway station and got little to no response. So what's my - remember, I've got one sock and potato chip crumbs down my front (illustrating a definitive difference here, people) - excuse for hero worship here?

[Nique]

It's not always about hero worship. You're describing cultural experiences here (going to concerts, sporting events etc).

In a way we're not watching dumb movies to see Will Smith, we're watching dumb movies so that we can talk about Will Smith with the people who are actually in our lives.

[synkr0nized]

I don't.

They're just people with a job that puts them in a spotlight. While I enjoy their work, I think there's a plethora of evidence to support that they are no better or worse than anyone else.

I don't think it's fair to say any of those things you mention are sold out for these people as much as they are sold out for the enjoyment of the product and the time spent with others attending.

[Bells]

The pedestal is not for their performance is for everything before and after.

Most of these people, Artists, Athletes and the like... they deserve genuine praise, some of these people have true skills and abilities and a passion for what they do. Actually, most of the time, people idolize the attitude and the passion surrounding an artist more than their art.

What is true though in those business, and that has been proved again and again, that a good artist that gets himself surrounded by the wrong people, enablers of bad behavior, will develop dysfunctional attitudes and personas. Those that keep their feet to the ground, they are just like everybody else, just with a talent that require them to gather attention from large groups.

You can see in the media that overall praise and criticism of musicians for example, mostly comes and goes from their attitudes and what they say or do off stage. Hardly ever anymore is about their work or the quality of their craft. Which is presented as a plus...

Similar cases are there for comedians, tv show hosts, actors and actresses and of course Athletes...

In a sense, even Book Writers have gone that route lately... hardly anymore can someone make a good living with just their craft without the byproducts. You need the by products... you come for the Football, you stay for the Deodorant commercials.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Because they have bums that just won't quit.

[Bells]

little known fact: Smarty is a big fan of Bono, see above.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

He doesn't have a nice butt. You would think with his google-worthy tax avoidance he would have enough money to buy a new butt.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Apparantly every british olympian recently recieved a knighthood for competing in the games last year. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that's a bit much?

[Amake]

Part of it is the mysterious allure of fame, which I think is the least understood of all social constructs we have. We want to know what it is that these people have or do or are that makes so many people care about them. Maybe just so we can do the same, but I think it's mostly curiosity.

Alan Moore has compared fame to the sea, which up until about when radio became widespread was the basic great adventure facing anyone brave, desperate or stupid enough to try it. It was another world you could go to by hopping on a boat, and you'd have no idea what it would be like or if you would come back, other than what those who came back might be able to tell you, if you could trust their unlikely stories, and if you had enough of a common frame of reference to understand them at all.

Now we have enough quick and reliable modes of travel and a tight enough map of the world available that there's not much mystery left to us on the surface of the world, but instead we have fame going in another, largely untried direction. Almost no one gets to know what it's like to see the world from where Madonna is standing. We can understand she doesn't necessarily have a better, more fulfilling or important life than anyone else, but that's not the point. It's different from ours, so we want to try it. This is why the expression about the grass on the other side of the fence was invented.

[Aerozord]

Fame and wealth breeds fame and wealth.

Though personally, while I can respect the acheivement of physical performance to be an athelete I do not believe they deserve to be grouped with artists which alter (admittedly not always advancing in the positive) culture and creative thinking especially when physical capabilities matter little in modern society.

[Bells]

Apparantly every british olympian recently recieved a knighthood for competing in the games last year. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that's a bit much?

Clearly the Queen is plotting to create a Highly skilled Knights to overtake the British parliament!!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Sports are evil, so I can think of no more suitable reward for athletes than giving them a knighthood- a trifling facade of an award thrown down from the corrupt overclass which they prop up.

[Amake]

physical capabilities matter little in modern society. Tell that to the people who spend most of the winter sitting in their house because trudging through the snow in heavy clothes is completely exhausting to them. . .just to take a first world example.

I like that we celebrate athletes, if only so we don't completely forget that we have bodies and should take care of them in our mad dash to pursue artistic and intellectual achievements.

[Magus]

They create things that are enjoyable in and of themselves and make life more than just about survival and work.

Like there are business scions making zillions of dollars but the dollars are basically worthless except for the things they buy, such as 1. necessities and 2. artistic or entertaining things. And I mean Carlos Slim never personally bought me anything, either.

I think we should also put at a higher tier people who genuinely help others through their actual work, though, such as people building orphanages or emergency room doctors or EMTs or firefighters. They certainly deserve more accolades than artists. But artists deserve more accolades than, whatever, guy doing data entry at Whatever Corporation, Inc.

[Aerozord]

Yea thats what I'm saying. Athletes deserve some respect for their abilities. Just not as much as artists, scientists, and engineers. Sorry but I feel taking part in creating a piece of art that helps define a moment in our culture is abit more important than being good at throwing a ball.

Admittedly there is tons of crap in art, but even the crap still affects cultural representation and movements of a medium. Exploitation movies of the 70's were mostly, well exploitative movies, but they still give insight to the culture which created them and influenced the medium.

[Lumenskir]

Sorry but I feel taking part in creating a piece of art that helps define a moment in our culture is abit more important than being good at throwing a ball.
But what about the fact that sports is also a contributor to culture? The narrative of sports aren't as planned out as other things in 'culture' (pro wrestling aside), but I was as moved by my Rays going from the worst team in baseball to beating the Red Sox and becoming champions as pretty much any piece of entertainment that year. And I'd hazard a guess that sports represents a much bigger entertainment/cultural influence than pretty much anything else you could care to list, seeing as it's the closest thing we have to a pancultural ideal of "Something frivolous to talk about with others."

But getting to the point(?) of the thread, we tend to 'idolize' the best examples of a particular thing. Sports, movies, and concerts tend to represent/showcase only those examples that have survived the winnowing process of their respective fields (i.e., you only get to go pro if you have the skills to rise above your college/high school peers, you only get to play in front of crowds if you have the musical/comedy skills to draw those crowds in, you only get to be an actor on the movie/television screen if you out perform all those who tried out for the same spot, etc.)* I mean, I'm sure there are people out there who 'idolize' their ability to sleep around or get rich or whatnot, but usually it's an extension of the "I wish I could do [X] as well as that" mindset.

*Of course, the free market/capitalism also plays a role in this, since usually only that which sells (which doesn't necessarily equal that which is best) get to the position in the first place...well, excepting for sports, where raw ability is usually more important that ostensible crowd appeal (barring exceptions like Tim Tebow).

[Magus]

It should just go like

Useful people > Artists > Athletes > Nonuseful people > Murderers.

[Aerozord]

But what about the fact that sports is also a contributor to culture? The narrative of sports aren't as planned out as other things in 'culture' (pro wrestling aside), but I was as moved by my Rays going from the worst team in baseball to beating the Red Sox and becoming champions as pretty much any piece of entertainment that year. And I'd hazard a guess that sports represents a much bigger entertainment/cultural influence than pretty much anything else you could care to list, seeing as it's the closest thing we have to a pancultural ideal of "Something frivolous to talk about with others."

Affecting culture isn't the same as contributing to culture. Anything with high societal visibility affects culture. I will use something else I find equally stupid but related to the arts. Award shows. They affect culture in the sense that many people are aware that they took place. Can also affect things tangentially since it carries some clout (this thread being about how warrented that is) but ultimately doesn't do much to evolve the culture save for it being an excuse to make oscar bait.

Whether or not team A beats team B has absolutely no baring on your life what so ever. It does not alter social mores, cultural paradigms, or philosophy. If anything its the opposite. Our cultures values is why sports are important to you. Because you want to be successful, to beat rivals, and share in that common mindset. Your team acts as an avatar for that.

Its why sports fans often use inclusive pronouns when talking about a team such as "we won the superbowl" or "I don't want to go against the cowboys" or "you need to change your defensive line"

[Nique]

Whether or not team A beats team B has absolutely no baring on your life what so ever. It does not alter social mores, cultural paradigms, or philosophy. If anything its the opposite. Our cultures values is why sports are important to you. Because you want to be successful, to beat rivals, and share in that common mindset. Your team acts as an avatar for that.


Maybe? I'd have to give this some more thought but this sounds like reductionist reasoning and I could kind of apply the same thing to fiction. ('There are only 7 stories').

[Aerozord]

Maybe? I'd have to give this some more thought but this sounds like reductionist reasoning and I could kind of apply the same thing to fiction. ('There are only 7 stories').

Its not the caring that bugs me. Its the fact a win or a loss can result in mass riots of no good reason. Or to be more exact its people finding this in any way socially acceptable. If someone gets in a fist fight over a love triangle in some fiction its treated as an issue. Someone gets in a fist fight over a football game and its "a heated rivalry".

Sports should be allowed to exist and those talented in them deserve recognition, but societies concern with them is vastly disproportional to their cultural relevance.

[Amake]

I'd say the cultural relevance of a given thing is exactly the same thing as how much society cares about that thing.

[Solid Snake]

This isn't exactly a new phenomenon in culture, though.

Back in the days of the Romans, gladiators were so much the rage that graffiti was sprawled across cities declaring women (and even men's) sexual desire for them and adoration of them. The best gladiators, like our A-list celebrities, lived lives that were better than anyone's but the Emperors'. Plebs and patricians had their favorite gladiators and favorite teams in chariot races.

For the medieval era, replace "gladiators" with "jousters" in western Europe and with charioteers in Byzantium. While there weren't similar written records to support a notion of celebrity in ancient 'Mexico', we know the Aztecs sure loved their ullamaliztli.

And of course, once theater picked up -- and there were variations of theatrical arts that all became popular in China, Japan, Europe, you name a corner of the world, they had it -- the more artistic sorts had their chance at celebrity, too. Shakespearian actors were the celebrities in Elizabethan England.

Back in Lincoln's day, he was so utterly obsessed with his favorite nineteenth-century actors and playwrights that his obsession literally led to his premature death. And, yes, famous actors from the more-cultured Europe would be paid amazing amounts of money to travel and perform in America -- kind of the opposite of what is stereotypically assumed today, because back then America was just a hillbilly backwater and Europe was the center of higher forms of culture.
(Which is...still true today, conceded.)

Everyone loves a bit of revelry in their lives because life has always been depressing, and so those who actually bring revelry have a chance at becoming revered. I don't see a major issue with that, it's been human nature since the dawn of time. And we all do it, too -- if not with the conventional celebrities those 'lesser' jocks and preps and conservatives love, then with our own dorky celebrities -- like Steve Jobs. We don't worship Steve Jobs for innovations that truly benefited mankind to the extent we appreciate him for our iPods, after all. Jobs' major success was adding stylistic flare and 'branding' to his products to ensure everyone's obsessions with Apple. (I know he's had greater objective successes than that, but those aren't what he's generally known for.)

And who else do we idolize? Video game developers, video game series and characters, producers and designers involved in the animes we like, voice actors. Hell, we'll cosplay as them, which is essentially akin to dressing like one's favorite celebrity.
...Even webcomic artists. I think we've talked more about Andrew Hussie here than anyone else.

We're not really any more enlightened than past generations or our less 'dorky' contemporary friends and family members. It's a historical phenomenon and it really isn't a terrible one. It's not like we have better role models in our more 'serious' vocations (capitalists or politicians.)

And while it would be great to see scientists and engineers get more love, truth be told it's actually better for scientists and engineers today than it was in past centuries when they'd be burned at the stake for heretical beliefs. These days many scientists and engineers have decent chances of becoming famous through accomplishments in sectors like medicine or IT. And, perhaps most importantly, minorities and women have a better chance than ever at achieving such fame and renown -- whether for legitimate or 'illegitimate' reasons.

We might erroneously assume, as many conservatives do, that history was 'purer' in the sense that all these historical scientists and philosophers are well-known and we lack similar contemporaries today, but truth be told history only seems filled with reputable men with the benefit of hindsight. Aristotle and Plato and whatnot. They're all great reads, but philosophers and scientists of yesteryears were spread thin through the passing of generations, if not centuries. It's not like there was ever a utopia where serious men with serious intellectual interests and no trivial hobbies (and back then, it'd be vastly disproportionately men) made up a larger share of the population.

Remember, in the eyes of the average American, our obsessions with (insert anime / Homestuck / videogame here) seems every bit as trivial as their obsession with (insert sports star / soap opera / reality TV star here.) That's a lesson I'm learning the hard way right now from my parents, who despise my obsessions with certain characters and voice-actors from Persona 4 Golden every bit as much as I despise their obsessions with random actors. A little bit of empathy from everyone from different parts and parcels of society could go a long way.

And, celebrity adoration can actually have positive effects! My mother's hatred towards LGBT families is constantly tested by her affiliation towards and respect for Ellen -- the Ellen who does the talk shows she loves. Indeed, celebrities often expose us to foreign cultures and lifestyles we otherwise wouldn't know anything about, and they can break down stereotypical assumptions we'd make about 'outsiders.' Black celebrities -- jazz players, sports stars like Jackie Robinson, etc. -- were major factors in instructing white Americans on their bigotry. Every time Ellen talks about marriage equality on her stupid show right now, it's the closest I've seen my mom to having serious doubts about her position against gay marriage -- Ellen's accomplished what no Democratic politician could there.

In short: The whole "Celebrities are terribad and a totally new phenomenon that show how society has disintegrated lately" bullshit -- disproportionately spewed by conservatives, though occasionally also by 'enlightened' holier-than-thou liberals -- is bullshit. Yeah, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian don't deserve shit. But for every Kim and Paris there's dozens upon dozens of celebrities with legitimate athletic or artistic talent who deserve accolades and who really aren't awful role-models. Even fictional characters can serve similar purposes.

/my two cents

[CABAL49]

Since Snake didn't use any of that small text that is degrading to my eyes, I read his post.

[Solid Snake]

Since Snake didn't use any of that small text that is degrading to my eyes, I read his post.

Shit
I need to start using that again, don't I? :smug:

[Professor Smarmiarty]

If it makes you feel any better I didn't read it.

[CABAL49]

You just wait, sooner or later I will go to an eye doctor so that I can get new seeing devices. Because who can afford to put lasers in their eyes? These rich fucks.