I don't think that Paris Hilton is stupid at all, in fact I think she is completely the opposite which is what makes me so sick.
Why don't we ever see her doing any charitable work or thinking in the media? - It's not like they wouldn't cover it (she is Paris Hilton afterall).
Instead the imagery that she is painting for us youth is totally disgusting - and I believe that she knows it too! I really think that she has sold her soul to the devil and I'm not even religious.
And it is hard to believe that Paris could really be as stupid as she seems; but remember that she testified that she actually *is* just as stupid as she seems. Alas, merely calling something subversive doesn't make it so. I think the form of subversion you are 'celebrating' here is really a rationalization of your own bewitchment.
Additionally, I think discovering the accidental theories underlying otherwise idiotic activities is postivively revolutionary--in the Situationists sense of seeing the wonderful in the everyday. Good point on my own pop mysticism. It is less about Paris than it is about how the system of celebrity works--not as cynical marxist, but as a sympathizer with media industries. This is a unique approach in scholarship.
Actually, I think the way this works is that someone juxtaposes 'inappropriate' academic discourse with ditzy pop culture, and voila!, subversion. I know the game you're playing, but I'm not convinced. It *would* be funny if Paris turned out to be some kind of postmodern gadfly -- secretly reading Guy Debord in her (plentiful) spare time.
You make a good point about my method of juxtaposition. But, like a surrealist, I think the method is, while not scientifically sound, reveals connections otherwise not apparent. Also, we are talking about a media icon, a trash tv production company, and a group of activist theorists who developed theories about media spectacle. The connections are not that accidental.
Granted, resistence is quite early 90s. But in the continuing marxist affilations of most academics it is a rather subversive act to give a celebrating reading of a ditz. I wrote an article calling her an anthropologist, Borat too and got alot of flack. Two things, she and her people have some agency over capital media. How? And you'd have to get to know World of Wonder to understand the triptych I am relating.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean her official 'talent agency.' Cause otherwise, talking about 'agency' in the context of Paris Hilton is just silly. Subversive readings? Very early 90s of you.
We don't really need Paris for that. What I think she really does exhibit is how the cultural imagination of Americans continues to be colonized by the rich. For example, why oh why am I even thinking about her??? Why are you celebrating her? There's lots of cool shit out there -- flash mobs, culture jamming, faux celebrities, celebrity iconoclasm. But Paris is just not cool.
Frankly, I am no longer interested in culture jamming. Colloborative remixing and subversive readings is more interesting and useful than anarchistic resistence. I am not into changing mass cultures consumeristic patterns by subverting dominant icons. I am celebrating how popular culture is itself theoretical and giving it more credit than it deserves, I agree. But there is something about her agency to become a talentless celebrity which you are not crediting.
This notion is absurd on its face. Paris Hilton is exactly what she appears to be: a shallow, stupid heiress desperate for fame despite little talent. 'Plasticity' of identity? If by that you mean, literally, plastic: as in, boob jobs. But if you think Paris Hilton is somehow 'ironizing' mass media, commenting on the nature of celebrity, unmasking consumer ideology, or whatever, I guess I can only say, "Bitch, please."
Her existence is a comment on celebrity and exhibits the vapid nature of consumerism. She isn't aware of it but as an text produced by an industry and ideology she is a few things the situationists loved and hated.
But your friend in the video analogizes her to Karen Finley and claims she's a 'provocateur.' You can 'read' Paris lots of ways, but I really don't think you can read her as a performance artist. 'Consumerism' exhibits the vapid nature of consumerism.
Hilton is a spectacle.
AlaricxMalgraith 2 years ago
load of crap flung by pretentious academic clowns who have zero grasp of situationist theory, so self important that they film themselves
oleolo70 4 years ago
Paris Hilton is an antisituationist, as is Fenton Bailey.
xwsftassell 4 years ago
I don't think that Paris Hilton is stupid at all, in fact I think she is completely the opposite which is what makes me so sick.
Why don't we ever see her doing any charitable work or thinking in the media? - It's not like they wouldn't cover it (she is Paris Hilton afterall).
Instead the imagery that she is painting for us youth is totally disgusting - and I believe that she knows it too! I really think that she has sold her soul to the devil and I'm not even religious.
eniamrahc9 5 years ago
And it is hard to believe that Paris could really be as stupid as she seems; but remember that she testified that she actually *is* just as stupid as she seems. Alas, merely calling something subversive doesn't make it so. I think the form of subversion you are 'celebrating' here is really a rationalization of your own bewitchment.
strongthomas 5 years ago
Additionally, I think discovering the accidental theories underlying otherwise idiotic activities is postivively revolutionary--in the Situationists sense of seeing the wonderful in the everyday. Good point on my own pop mysticism. It is less about Paris than it is about how the system of celebrity works--not as cynical marxist, but as a sympathizer with media industries. This is a unique approach in scholarship.
adamfilmmaker 5 years ago
Actually, I think the way this works is that someone juxtaposes 'inappropriate' academic discourse with ditzy pop culture, and voila!, subversion. I know the game you're playing, but I'm not convinced. It *would* be funny if Paris turned out to be some kind of postmodern gadfly -- secretly reading Guy Debord in her (plentiful) spare time.
strongthomas 5 years ago
You make a good point about my method of juxtaposition. But, like a surrealist, I think the method is, while not scientifically sound, reveals connections otherwise not apparent. Also, we are talking about a media icon, a trash tv production company, and a group of activist theorists who developed theories about media spectacle. The connections are not that accidental.
adamfilmmaker 5 years ago
Granted, resistence is quite early 90s. But in the continuing marxist affilations of most academics it is a rather subversive act to give a celebrating reading of a ditz. I wrote an article calling her an anthropologist, Borat too and got alot of flack. Two things, she and her people have some agency over capital media. How? And you'd have to get to know World of Wonder to understand the triptych I am relating.
adamfilmmaker 5 years ago
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean her official 'talent agency.' Cause otherwise, talking about 'agency' in the context of Paris Hilton is just silly. Subversive readings? Very early 90s of you.
strongthomas 5 years ago
We don't really need Paris for that. What I think she really does exhibit is how the cultural imagination of Americans continues to be colonized by the rich. For example, why oh why am I even thinking about her??? Why are you celebrating her? There's lots of cool shit out there -- flash mobs, culture jamming, faux celebrities, celebrity iconoclasm. But Paris is just not cool.
strongthomas 5 years ago
Frankly, I am no longer interested in culture jamming. Colloborative remixing and subversive readings is more interesting and useful than anarchistic resistence. I am not into changing mass cultures consumeristic patterns by subverting dominant icons. I am celebrating how popular culture is itself theoretical and giving it more credit than it deserves, I agree. But there is something about her agency to become a talentless celebrity which you are not crediting.
adamfilmmaker 5 years ago
This notion is absurd on its face. Paris Hilton is exactly what she appears to be: a shallow, stupid heiress desperate for fame despite little talent. 'Plasticity' of identity? If by that you mean, literally, plastic: as in, boob jobs. But if you think Paris Hilton is somehow 'ironizing' mass media, commenting on the nature of celebrity, unmasking consumer ideology, or whatever, I guess I can only say, "Bitch, please."
strongthomas 5 years ago
Her existence is a comment on celebrity and exhibits the vapid nature of consumerism. She isn't aware of it but as an text produced by an industry and ideology she is a few things the situationists loved and hated.
adamfilmmaker 5 years ago
But your friend in the video analogizes her to Karen Finley and claims she's a 'provocateur.' You can 'read' Paris lots of ways, but I really don't think you can read her as a performance artist. 'Consumerism' exhibits the vapid nature of consumerism.
strongthomas 5 years ago