1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What passes as celebrity ...

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Gator, Jan 4, 2012.

  1. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I doubt there are too many of us that don't have at least 1-2 reality-type shows that we watch.

    I mean, there may be a difference between watching Amazing Race and watching Jersey Shore, but most of us have something that we're a little embarrassed to admit that we like.
     
  2. Mystery Meat II

    Mystery Meat II Well-Known Member

    Yes and no.

    It's better for your purposes. If Billy Madison gives you more pleasure than Citizen Kane, then you are subjectively saying Billy Madison is better than Citizen Kane for you. It is an opinion that may run in stark contrast to conventional wisdom or the consensus of a blue-collar panel of movie critics, but that shouldn't matter. For you, Billy Madison is a better movie experience. All they can do is make you feel kinda guilty about it for not liking the "right" movie more.

    And not everything can be compared and contrast by the same standards. Billy Madison and Citizen Kane are different movies with different goals. The only thing they have in common is their medium. The Porsche 911 is a better car by most standards than the Ford Explorer, but if I'm going to the Home Depot, I know what car I'm taking.
     
  3. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    The danger lies in low art crowding out high art entirely. Or in creating a culture that takes art or aesthetic intelligence as a personal affront - a sense of resentment I see expressed pretty frequently.
     
  4. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    That's only a danger if you can prove high art beyond debate.

    And I do take it as an affront when others don't allow for the possibility that the other guy's opinions may be equal to their own.
     
  5. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    The Mona Snooki?
     
  6. Mystery Meat II

    Mystery Meat II Well-Known Member

    Great. But what's high art? What we like? What we do?

    We lift up what we consider the most compelling of our works on this board and the journalism community, bestowing upon them plaudits and awards and reverence and self-aimed barbs that if only we could be so eloquent and deep and worthy, we'd be better for it, and if only our readers truly understood good journalism, they'd be better for it. But there's a segment of the population that thinks we're enablers by expending our talents and energy on a bunch of Cro-Magnons who play with a ball for a living, keeping the proles dumb and blissfully unaware.

    It's a sword that cuts as effectively coming and going. It's good to be mindful of that when we swing.
     
  7. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    That debate's always relative, subjective, impossible to prove - but can be pretty stark. Jackie Collins v Toni Morrison, ie.

    It's also unlikely that we'll ever find ourselves in a world where high art ceases to exist entirely.

    The second phenomenon I describe is already long since upon us, however.
     
  8. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  9. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I had an argument with a friend about five years ago when he said, "What are your three favorite movies?" I said, "Reservoir Dogs, Scarface and the first two Godfathers"

    He said, "What are the three movies you watch the most?"

    I said, "Fletch, Fight Club and Fast Times."

    He said, "See, those are your real favorite movies. You just say the other three because you're worried if you give your real answer that you'll seem stupid."

    I said, "No, I say the other three because they are my favorite movies, but two of them are about three hours long and the other is violent as shit and I can't watch that as often..."
     
  10. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    Your three is four.
     
  11. Gator

    Gator Well-Known Member

    I watch American Idol, but like I said when I started this thread, that show is predicated on talent. Not some assholes plucked out of a crowd to do dumb things and get famous for us. I understand what Meat is saying, but I think it reflects poorly on us as a society to watch this nonsense.

    Like Tosh.O .... it's a huge, huge, huge hit, but I find it troubling that so many people are into watching the misfortune (and often grotesque misfortune) of someone just so they can feel better about themselves.
     
  12. Mystery Meat II

    Mystery Meat II Well-Known Member

    The Romans watched Christians get eaten by lions for sport. The closest we have to that is Tebow getting his ass kicked by Detroit a few weeks ago. Shakespeare made a cottage industry out of peddling tragedy for entertainment. There's probably not one society ever that doesn't or didn't have elements that made part of its citizenry blush in shame. ]

    It doesn't have to be Sodom and Gomorrah and Thunderdome and the Pauly Shore Film Festival Presented by Four Loko, Wal-Mart and 16 And Pregnant. But I think we way overreact to what we find to be the less desirable elements.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page