Author: ellannon

I’ve already written extensively for this class about Lil Peep’s death (which I think is one of the more interesting recent celebrity deaths in terms of what it did for his image),  and since that’s what I would’ve written about, I’ve decided to take a different approach and attempt to articulate a couple of questions and/or hypotheses related to celebrity deaths.

1. Q: Many of the stars discussed in the readings posthumously glowed-up. Superstars in life, they became legends in death. But where is the line? How do we know who might become more than they ever were and who might experience a more modest glow-up? H: Superstars are rare in life, as is enormous wealth. Shocking deaths are less rare but they are shocking. When an immensely wealthy superstar is one of the loudest voices in the loudest generation at the time of his/her shocking death, he/she becomes immortalized, vaulted to almost godlike heights.
2. Q: Many now-legendary individuals have died unrecognized. Is legend-status or even just fame still attainable for those that die unrecognized in today’s fast-paced celebrity culture? H: Today’s culture isn’t slowing down for a thing. Even becoming a celebrity seems to require some form of previous recognition and the only unknown-to-celebrity jumps we see anymore tend to reside in globally witnessed tragedies. Even posthumously becoming a B-list celebrity like Peep takes a lifetime loyal, even cult-like following and peer recognition. The inevitability of life moving on and more information flying in to replace the information about us as soon as we die could be playing a major role in our constant self-promotion (via social media, etc) and partially explain rises in anxiety and depression among young people.

I’m interested in how the dead are presented in preservations. The most obvious form of presentation would be in photographs like in ‘Taken from Life.’ That’s where I saw the most variance among the photographs. There is a general effort to beautify the dead that likely comes from our persuasion to deny death, however, its forms are many. In some photos, there is little effort to conceal the fact that the person is dead, they are simply made to look beautiful and the photographs are taken to preserve their likenesses. Other photos go to greater lengths, seeking to fool the viewer into believing the dead one is alive. In the article, all but one of this kind are group photos. It is as if the picture is aimed at preserving a past state of the group; a state where the deceased was a part of it. Even here, there are various approaches, as the young are presented as having fallen asleep while a kind of voyeuristic beauty is bestowed unto reclining young women. This isn’t to suggest that the Victorian era upper classes were full of necrophiles, but rather to postulate that the deceased were often presented in idealized states in these photographs, often going so far as to glow in crisper color than the others by nature of their stillness. This idealism is so contrary to death that it might ease the grieving process. Nowadays, there’s no need for it as most of us are photographed daily, and this has made us averse to the process, but I’d have a hard time believing that these photographs were taken because the people were more comfortable with death.

I’m not a fan of violence. It’s basically what we resort to when we have differences and decide communication is hopeless. We’ve gotten really good at that second part, looking for excuses to create the other, to ignore commonalities and kill whoever appears to threaten the status-quo, because it’s also efficient, and if they’re dead, they can’t threaten us again. But, when we resort to violence, we risk getting killed, too, we rob others of lives they’re just as entitled to as we are to our own, and we kill any chance at partnership. In a capitalistic society, that seems counterintuitive even if you ignore the significant humanitarian concerns. And yet, we’re conditioning our children to destroy the other, removing emotion from the picture and teaching them to kill this other simply because it is the other. That’s potentially helpful if we get invaded by aliens who want to destroy us, but chances are, if we do make contact with aliens, it won’t devolve into violence because they’ll be tiny organisms or plants or something of the kind. So, what are we doing, then? We’re teaching our children to destroy their fellow humans, breeding a lack of empathy and promoting blind slaughter of the other, whether these are people who don’t look like us, don’t sound like us, don’t share our views, or don’t come from the same place as us. Of course, this targets marginalized groups. It makes us worse. It magnifies our differences and drives us apart. I’m not sure who that helps. Let’s pay attention to humanitarian, economic, etc. concerns instead of finding the best ways to have fun and reduce video game violence, cut out the monsters, and move towards a healthier society. Our indulgence doesn’t need to cross every line.

i hope you’re well. i am. today, i woke up, texted some people, checked my email, made coffee, went to class, to the gym, showered, had lunch with a friend, talked to a counselor, texted some people, checked my email, hung xmas lights, and had a snack (pretzel crisps & roasted red pepper hummus). i’m doing that now, and listening to music, in my room. the blinds are closed,  as is the door, and i’m alone. but i’m not alone; i have you, the internet. we can go everywhere together. i can share today with you. i can share everything with you. you can be my best friend. oh wait, no you can’t. you’re just a medium, but people forget. people forget what you are and share everything with you because they go everywhere with you and you’re convenient and personal enough to say hello but not so personal it’s hard to look you in the eye and more people will sympathize with whatever’s going on in their personal lives if they share it with you and let you share it with them. and, wordpress, internet, guess what? you’re a good friend, occasionally. mostly, you’re not enough. i wouldn’t want to offend you, but you don’t have feelings. mostly, you’re apathetic, fake, quantitative, unpredictable, but again and again, people come back to you. you’re becoming the place where we talk about our personal lives, lives that are seeping out of conversations with the people who love us, that are replaced in those conversations by public things that were already out there, so we forget how to share and grow less personal, still. that doesn’t have to happen, but it’s happening. how is that relevant? look at what’s happening to the barrett family in a head full of ghosts. for more on this, check out ‘the man who married a robot / love theme,’ by the 1975.