* click here to download the file (.doc) format
Picture Perfect?
By
Hannah Goldberg
As I flip through my many photo albums of family and friends I think about all the production that goes into a photo. We all simultaneously stop what we are doing to look at a lens and smile for the camera. The photo captures a moment-a single second-a distant memory of a fond holiday or grand event. But it does not capture the fight in the car on the way to the graduation or the mess left after the party is over. Even our own photo collections are selective in how we want to remember a moment. There is also selectivity in the snap-shots that are eventually shown to the public, just like our own photo collection. And it comes to no surprise that we take that picture for face value-in the same way we value our personal pictures. Often we forget about the production that goes into a red carpet event. Most people do not look at a photo of Gwen Stefani and credit her fifteen stylists to the ambiance of her beauty. And when the stars skid away in their limousines, their photograph sticks to our psyches as a forever unattainable status, a somewhat modern-day mythic creature that we can never touch but yearn to typify.
In fact, if you were to look at many of the photographs taken of celebrities, the images translate fairly simply in my mind: happiness is a product of beauty, fame and money. However, we rarely make the connection between our need for cognition and the images that we see on billboards, magazines and television. Because watching television or reading a magazine are considered leisure activities, we generally think and listen less attentively than we might in a lecture hall for example. In other words, we tend to take the peripheral route of thinking, which is the process by which a person does not think carefully about a communication and is influenced instead by superficial cues (Brehm, Kassin, and Fein 195). This phenomenon might help explain why over five million people have viewed pictures of a pregnant Angelina Jolie while simultaneously are unfamiliar with the names of their own state senators. It is no wonder that people are intrigued with Jolie. After all, she is the staple of unattainable fame, beauty and wealth. But is there more to celebrity that we should know about? Through in-depth research I have found that people are intrigued by celebrities due to psychological as well as cultural influences.
It seems fairly simple-minded but one of the main reasons why people are fascinated with celebrities is because celebrities are beautiful. Whenever we see someone we find attractive, we naturally react. As Carlin Flora states: "Beautiful faces bathe our brains with pleasurable chemicals" (par.3). Intuitively, you might argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but research has found that across cultures men women and children have high levels of agreement on standards of attractiveness (Brehm, Kassin, and Fein 314). Even more astonishing is the research conducted by Game and colleagues. They conducted a study on babies who were far too young to have learned their particular culture's standards of beauty. Overwhelmingly, babies would spend more time looking at attractive (symmetrical) faces than unattractive faces regardless of age, race or gender (Brehm, Kassin, and Fein 315). Regardless of the research results, there is no doubt that standards of beauty have changed significantly over the years and will continue to evolve. There are no more Marilyn Monroe sized models on the cover of Playboy -not when the average supermodel is a size two and even Denny's has a low carb menu. Alternatively, in other areas of the world where food is scarce, voluptuous women are seen as beautiful creatures. However, it is rare that this typology is played out on American television unless you are watching a Dove commercial.
Another bizarre psychological phenomenon called the "mere-exposure effect" can help justify the sprouting career of Nicole Ritchie, who went from Paris Hilton's skanky side-kick to a Louis Vuitton model inside a year's time. As Flora point out "It is not surprising that gorgeous people wind up famous. What's less obvious is that famous people often wind up gorgeous. The more we see a certain face, the more our brain likes it, whether or not it's actually beautiful" (par. 17). This might come as a surprise to you. In fact, you might be thinking about a certain celebrity that you have continued to loathe ever since their first appearance on the tabloid circuit. Surely the mere-exposure effect has a certain degree of subjectivity, depending on how often you are exposed to the particular stimulus. For instance, I was extremely skeptical about my history professor for the several weeks at the beginning of the semester. But now I find myself quoting his lectures and telling my friends that I appreciate his style and enjoy the class. The mere-exposure effect helps explain my newfound respect for my professor. Inversely, the American public had a love affair with Jennifer Lopez in 2004. Now she can hardly make a dint in the box office with any of her movies. Jennifer Lopez's overexposure to the public is proof that the mere-exposure effect can be a double-edged sword.
Another plaguing research finding is the impact celebrities have on self-image and relationships. As many women in America scurry somnambulistly to the mall to buy the latest trend-setting handbag, what do you think they hope to achieve? Through the acquisition of material goods, many women hope to fulfill a void. However, the obsession with keeping up can often cost them their relationships with family and friends. As writer Norman Solomon concedes, "As we focus on the famous, other people fade into our peripheral vision. By an unspoken and unconscious logic, the world becomes populated with a few somebodies and a glut of near-nobodies.the danger is that when celebrities matter more, the rest of us matter less" (par. 4-5). It is important to note that pretension takes all forms: whether you are trying to dress like a celebrity or get plastic surgery to look like a celebrity, there is a continuum from healthy behavior like "talking with others who also admire your favorite celebrity" to more extreme unhealthy behavior like "feeling over-identification with and empathy for a celebrity" (Altman, 7). There are many examples of the continuum within our society: from the people casually picking up People magazine in the grocery line to teenagers appearing on MTV's I Want A Famous Face , a show devoted to people getting plastic surgery to look like their favorite celebrity.
It is important to acknowledge that humans are loving, admiring, gossiping and copying creatures. According to Francisco Gil-White, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, it is in our nature to "copy techniques from high-status individuals" (Flora, par. 12). It is no surprise that American culture reflects our obsession with status in many different ways. I am sure you can think of many status symbols walking around your neighborhood, perusing the halls at school or walking around the office. In the late nineties, it was very common for women to have a layered haircut. This particular craze is still frequently attributed to Jennifer Aniston's character, Rachel, on the show Friends . More recently it seems that adoption has become the latest celebrity statement. It might sound bizarre, but the more celebrities seem to be adopting, the more Americans think it is a fashion statement.
It is no surprise that Americans try to reflect status by trying look like or buying into a celebrity-obsessed culture. Research shows that "the percentage of pages in news magazines dedicated to celebrities and entertainment doubled from 1980 to 2003, while coverage of national affairs dropped from 35% of all pages to 25%" (Altman, 3). If hard news seems to be taking a back seat in America, how are we supposed to participate responsibly and accurately with a democracy? While the media continues to fill up space about the latest celebrity sighting, there are American soldiers dying in Iraq. What does that say about the interests of the American public? The media is not just innocently giving the people what they want; the media is perpetuating an unhealthy cycle of uninformed and delusional citizens. "Perhaps the biggest single dilemma for celebrities is the fact that the very vehicle that creates fame for them-the media-is also their tormentor" professor David Giles points out (back cover). But I would go further to say that the media is also the biggest dilemma for society as a whole. The media's coverage of celebrities' unattainable wealth calls us away from our true selves and implies that we are not good enough. If we get those "must-have" shoes, we might become a symbol of status. The images in the magazines beckon us to believe that we are not enough of who we are. And if you buy into that idea, you can achieve status through a façade. Many women in America find themselves seduced by the idea of achieving status by purchasing a celebrity-charged item. But what most people do not comprehend is that many celebrities do not personally pay for many of the brand name items they gallivant through town wearing. Many celebrities are given jewelry, handbags and even cars to drive because many companies believe in the psychological power of peripheral persuasion. The result: society follows suit accordingly.
But the media is not the Devil. In fact, everyone relies on the media every day-some to find out what is happening around the world, while others prefer to escape the redundancy of the daily routine and peek into a world full of beautiful people and lavish things. Certainly the life of celebrities can be seen as an escape route for many people. However, I do not think I am going to schedule any plastic surgery next week. Of course, I look at all the material goods and think it would be fun to strut around like a million bucks, but I am not going to lose sleep over not owning a three hundred dollar pair of Marc Jacobs pumps (even though that would be amazing) because I have to start thinking about the image not just looking at the image.
As Margaret Rogers Baker wrote "a picture speaks a thousand words." But you know better than to fall for that trick. Next time you are relaxing, watching television or flipping through a magazine, reflect back to your own photo album and ask yourself a critical question: Does that picture speak true to the memory or is it a production of sorts? In order to become a smart media consumer, begin thinking critically about the psychological and cultural influences that play a part in that image and recognize that the split-second picture on the red carpet is an entire production geared at enticing Americans to crave unattainable status, expensive materialistic goods and beauty. It is natural for human beings to be attracted to beautiful people. In turn, the media feed our attraction and even manages to seal the fate of many unforeseen stars by making them familiar faces. America is no doubt a celebrity obsessed culture-but it is equally important to recognize that the media certainly take advantage of the natural tendencies of humans to be social, find comfort in familiarity and conform to social norms. The psychological and cultural influences have helped cultivate the present day celebrity. "Talent has nothing to do with it," Joshua Gamson explains, "A [celebrity] is celebrated not for doing but for being" (1).
Works Cited
Altman, Howard. "Are Americans Too Focused On Celebrities?" CQ Researcher 15.11 (2006): 18 Mar. 2006.
Brehm, Sharon S. Saul M. Kassin and Steven Fein. Social Psychology . 6 th ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.
Flora, Carlin. "Seeing by Starlight: Celebrity Obsession." Psychology Today July-Aug. 2004. CQ Researcher . University of Colorado Lib., Boulder. 25 March. 2006.
Gamson, Joshua. Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America . Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994.
Giles, David. Illusions of Immortality: A Psychology of Fame And Celebrity . New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 2000.
Solomon, Norman. "Hidden Costs Of America's Celebrity Obsession." Alternet . 26 April. 2000. < http://www.alternet.org/columnists/2874/>.
Send your comments/feedback here!
sub.scribesasc@gmail.com
