Promotions are getting longer, digital fame is more accessible than ever, but does it really matter now?
For many celebrities, the idea of being “cool,” messy and interesting is no longer desirable. For example, Taylor Swift is known for being consistently and particularly unfashionable and “awkward,” despite how much wealth she gains every day.
Appearing easygoing, quirky, or shy appears to be the goal of many current celebrities, relatability above all else. But how relatable can someone like Swift really appear when she still parades in huge concert venues? How interested can an audience be in a personality that is polite and nothing else?
“Being guarded, playing it safe, and always being concerned with controlling the narrative just isn’t compelling anymore,” said Chris Black, a reporter for GQ.
The popularity of the “unproblematic celebrity” persona likely comes from the very modern, very American idea of activism and change; the most effective way to make a difference is controlling what you consume.
The general population enjoys art, music, film, and fashion, and often they include the face behind the expression as a part of the act. Actors and singers especially are expected to submit their lives as part of the entertainment they provide. “If you can’t be a celebrity, don’t be an artist” is the underlying criticism towards those who reject the fame and paparazzi.
These artists are often included in the semi-valid concern of unproblematic consumption. For many Americans, there is a high concern in where every piece of music, food, clothing, and anything else to be purchased is coming from. So the current determination from artists is to have as clear a past as tofu.
But as previously mentioned, this clean slate, relatable persona can only go so far. Very rich people are very rich, and there is only so far they will go to appear not to be. Eventually they will, unintentionally or not, flaunt their wealth, and their actual contributions to society will be questioned.
“We just witnessed a presidential election where the liberal Democratic candidate had the cultural and social capital of Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Usher, Cardi B, Megan Thee Stallion, J.Lo, John Legend… These celebrities she employed to make rallies into policy-less spectacles were in part to thank for her loss,” argued Harmony Holiday, writer for LA Times. She maintains that most celebrities are not at all as collectively influential as they once were. Idolization is now a thing of the youth and youth alone, not powerful or mysterious.
The playing field of wealth and influence is now more divided than ever before. On one hand, anyone can open their social media account and get at least a few minutes of attention and, depending on what their content is, power. On the other hand, those with the most fame now possess an undeniable amount of wealth.
Taylor Swift is wealthier than she has ever been, and her jet usage is otherwise unexplainable, but her respectability as an artist depends entirely on those with opinions and a camera. A higher wealth gap is scary, and money can buy many, many things, but it can’t buy relevance. That will always be in the hands of the people.
Article By Story Frazier-Maskiell