No need to be good at anything.

In addition to a Wikipedia page that explains the phenomenon, a Google search on "famous for being famous" brings up close to 200,000 hits. No, I didn't click beyond the third page, but I get the impression that most of these, rather than examining the phenomenon simply give us lists of people who fit that description ... and in that way add an additional layer of celebrity status to those whom simply by being identified in this way are supposedly not really worthy of that status, or at least didn't do anything significant in order to achieve it.

It turns out that just as I was about to finish this column I chanced upon reports of a very recently released film, Famous For Being Famous (it makes sense that a Google search would bring that up), and an interview with its director. That interview helped me, slightly, get some perspective on the phenomenon:

Given that Paris, Nicole, and the entire Kardashian/Jenner clan have created massive, successful business empires, does "famous for being famous" even exist anymore? 
No, social media has made that concept obsolete. “Famous for being famous” is now somewhat of a dated term, in my opinion, that was created to generalize a category of celebrities during the new Internet era of pop culture that occurred shortly after the new millennium. Living in New York City, I have seen so many YouTube campaigns on the subway, billboards, and buses. Being a recognized personality can be extremely profitable, and there are so many different categories and levels of fame now, so stars are classified by the media platforms they most frequently use to promote themselves, such as reality television, or even Vine.
In other words, the interviewer seems to be suggesting that perhaps once, way back in earlier days, certain celebrities didn't actually do anything to achieve their celebrity status, but if they're able to keep that status going then they must be worthy of it in some way. The director's response, which to my mind doesn't really relate to the question, is, however what's interesting here. Rather than relating to any specific abilities of "famous for being famous" people, he tells us that there are numerous platforms on which fame can be achieved. He also suggests that each of those platforms has its own hierarchy of fame, which to me seems to be an acknowledgement of the balkanization of fame. And perhaps the fact that I stumbled onto it, and onto a magazine I'd never heard of, is further proof of that.



Go to: It is to someone, or
Go to: Underexposure