The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXXI

[Traitorfish]

I mean, Miley Cyrus can act and sing, and millions of people buy the things she is in. Right? I mean I'm a bit ignorant about her career, but I think those are the things she does, and I do think she helps sell millions of.. things.

That's just it, though: nobody asks why Miley Cyrus is famous because we can gesture to a bunch of what media types call "content", content that corresponds to archetypes of "actor" and "singer" that are assumed to warrant fame. Miley Cyrus isn't really famous for being an actor or a singer, in the sense that her performances are widely acclaimed or admired, she's famous for being a famous actor and a famous singer. At no point do we have to assume any particular artistic merit, and at no point do most of the people who have heard of have to directly experience, let alone enjoyed, her work in anything more than passing.

The Kardashians et al. are only puzzling because they treat these archetypes as secondary and optional, and the fact that they are successfully able to do so shows how flimsy popular ideas of deserved celebrity really are. The reason there aren't more Kardashians is not that our society values artistic merit over fame-for-the-sake-of-fame, it's just down to the dynamics of the popular attention span, that acquiring and sustaining fame requires the public to be continually reminded that you exist, and that's harder to do when your reputation is mostly self-referential. Audiences appreciate novelty, or more charitably an overarching narrative of personal and professional growth, and discrete blocks of "content" like songs or movies are a better source of novelty/framework for a narrative than celebrity drama, which all tends to run together after a while.

 

[Farm Boy]

Cyrus had her name made for her by her daddy. That got her a long-running stint(4 years, I guess? TIL) on children's programming. She was super-popular, I gather, on that. Then once that got weird for her to be doing since she got too old, she transitioned into competing with Madonna/Gaga/whoever for the singing shmexy-shock-performer market. Right?

 

[Traitorfish]

The Disney princess-turned-bad girl device is really its own thing, Cyrus is just more direct than most. Gaga is more a mainstreamed version of art school drag queening. (Madonna is... still alive, somewhere? I presume?)

 

[Farm Boy]

Madonna is pretty badass, like her or not!

 

[warpus]

That's just it, though: nobody asks why Miley Cyrus is famous because we can gesture to a bunch of what media types call "content", content that corresponds to archetypes of "actor" and "singer" that are assumed to warrant fame. Miley Cyrus isn't really famous for being an actor or a singer, in the sense that her performances are widely acclaimed or admired, she's famous for being a famous actor and a famous singer. At no point do we have to assume any particular artistic merit, and at no point do most of the people who have heard of have to directly experience, let alone enjoyed, her work in anything more than passing.

I disagree. She's famous because her image helps sell a lot of stuff. You don't necessarily need to be good at acting or singing or performing to do that, so I agree that those things are not prerequisites for being popular. She's famous because her stuff sells though, so you can definitely say she is famous for being an actor and/or singer (or whatever else she does). Whether she's good at it or not, people know who she is due to the success of her music and acting gigs, even if she might actually suck at all of it (I have no idea really either way)

 

[Traitorfish]

I disagree. She's famous because her image helps sell a lot of stuff. You don't necessarily need to be good at acting or singing or performing to do that, so I agree that those things are not prerequisites for being popular. She's famous because her stuff sells though, so you can definitely say she is famous for being an actor and/or singer (or whatever else she does). Whether she's good at it or not, people know who she is due to the success of her music and acting gigs, even if she might actually suck at all of it (I have no idea really either way)

But, by the same token, Kim Kardashian is famous because her image sells a lot of stuff. The stuff might be magazines rather than songs, but the principle is the same, both women have crafted a strong brand, and like all brands these are self-referential, operate on the assumption that you already know who they are. Cyrus brand involves the roles of singer and actress in a more central way, but that's just part of brand-construction, it's not indication of artistry.

 

[Takhisis]

Anyone Disney sticks into a show sells.



The only things I can watch on Disney Channel are Phineas & Ferb and Miraculous Ladybug.

 

[warpus]

But, by the same token, Kim Kardashian is famous because her image sells a lot of stuff. The stuff might be magazines rather than songs, but the principle is the same, both women have crafted a strong brand, and like all brands these are self-referential, operate on the assumption that you already know who they are. Cyrus brand involves the roles of singer and actress in a more central way, but that's just part of brand-construction, it's not indication of artistry.

Yeah, she released a sex tape (or it was leaked or whatever), she was already in a famous family (her dad defended OJ I think, right?), and so she was cast into the spotlight, made the most of it, and is now able to sell stuff using her image and make money off it.

I don't think that contradicts that Miley is famous for being a singer and actress.

 

[Takhisis]

As long as she's been put in front of a camera she's an actress, giver her a microphone and she's a singer.

Step 2) people are idiotitc → they fill in ‘good’ before her stated ‘profession’ → fame

Step 3) Profit!

 

[timtofly]

The Hilton and Kardashian lot were famous because they were first on the social media scene. If not first, a few of the first, but Hilton and Cyrus are past the radar now, unless either find something "newsworthy" to bring them back to the front of the pack.

 

[Gori the Grey]

They say sitting for extended periods of time is not good for your health. Sitting is the new smoking.

But does anybody know if that includes recliners? I mean, I know the inactivity would still be a problem as opposed to getting out there and getting some exercise. But does the posture of sitting in a recliner do all those bad things to your body that sitting in a straight-backed chair is supposed to do?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They say sitting for extended periods of time is not good for your health. Sitting is the new smoking.

But does anybody know if that includes recliners? I mean, I know the inactivity would still be a problem as opposed to getting out there and getting some exercise. But does the posture of sitting in a recliner do all those bad things to your body that sitting in a straight-backed chair is supposed to do?

Completely anecdotal but I do not find recliners are good for my back. I pinched a nerve a couple of months again which disabled me for a few days. My back has fits ever since then and I find that I do best if I am standing or laying down. I own a recliner and loved to use it but it leaves me just as sore as sitting in an office chair.

Although given I have a specific ailment, my anecdote is probably not general enough to be applicable.

 

[Farm Boy]

They say sitting for extended periods of time is not good for your health. Sitting is the new smoking.

But does anybody know if that includes recliners? I mean, I know the inactivity would still be a problem as opposed to getting out there and getting some exercise. But does the posture of sitting in a recliner do all those bad things to your body that sitting in a straight-backed chair is supposed to do?

I think... think... that it is sitting as opposed to standing, walking, and fiddling around with stuff. You body is adapted for moving around and fiddling with things all day long, rearranging pixels seems to not be adequate to be optimal.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Can confirm, it is the sitting. It's the inactivity sitting causes, essentially (not to mention it puts a ton of stress on your lower back). For an experiment, try laying in bed all weekend. If you're lucky you'll feel ok Monday, but a lot of people (myself included) will cite bad back pain.

Just get up and walk a bit every 45 minutes. Go grab some water, loiter, use the bathroom, something. Sitting all day is absolutely horrendous and it's not an exaggeration to compare it to smoking.

 

[Hygro]

Sharks keeping moving

 

[Lohrenswald]

Sharks keeping moving

that's because they can't stand still and breathe

it's pretty lame tbh

 

[Hygro]

Sucks to be a shark

 

[Farm Boy]

Unless you think they like swimming.

 

[Hygro]

Definitely more than sitting

 

[Terry D. Destefano]

http://imgur.com/a/xIydC
The answers is b) ab≠1, but I have no clue how to get to that answer... Can someone help me?

Moderator Action: Moved from new thread. FP.