Contemporary society 6.0: The vicissitudes of fame…

Thomas Henry Huxley, recalling the life of Joseph Priestley in an address at the opening of what is now the University of Birmingham, wrote:

“No man, however, who is endowed with a fair share of common sense, and not more than a fair share of vanity, will identify either contemporary or posthumous fame with the highest good; and Priestley’s life leaves no doubt that he, at any rate, set a much higher value on the advancement of knowledge, and the promotion of that freedom of thought which is at once the cause and the consequence of intellectual progress.”

As I read those words this evening, I was plagued with a thought: does anyone still believe those words? In our haste to celebrate the mediocre, what added value are the objects of our awe bringing to contemporary society? The obvious answer would be “none.” Has Lisa Rinna given a command performance that will be discussed in the annals of thespian lore for generations? No, but she did give a gushing glimpse into the minds of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie which will stimulate millions of youngsters to…do…something or other. Did Lady Gaga pen a composition so ethereal that it threatens to unseat Gorecki’s 3^rdsymphony as the bridge between the hoi polloi and the cognoscenti? No, but she did find a way to attach sparklers to her breasts for a “performance.”

Unfortunately, while snide comments are obviously my strong suit, I am struck by a much more troubling issue. While no one (of any consequence) would uphold these people as a modern Aristotle, they nonetheless watch them. In so doing, they give, subconsciously or not, tacit approval to their vapidity. That is the greatest tragedy of all: when we celebrate the mediocre and encourage their endless pursuit of fleeting fame, we endorse a new, lower standard of that which is admirable. In our slouch towards cultural decay, the path may long and winding; but it nevertheless leads to the inevitable conclusion.