Contemporary Article: Fame TV

I found this article as it was placed just after the one about Gavin Turk, but it caught my interest as I was very eager to learn what Fame TV is all about. Phrases such as 'are you kidding me?' initially come to mind, the pictures displayed show television screens with more advertising and messages upon them than actual images. Interactive television, the next annoying step on from reality television. I have seen programmes such as this before, gameshows where everyone can be involved (for a charge of course), usually shown in the middle of the night for people who actually have nothing better to do.

But in contrast to my disbelief, the article is quite completmentary about the channel. Fame TV is not a gameshow, but is still interactive, as the audience chose what to see from videos and messages uploaded from others watching. The pubic vote for what they want by texting into the channel, thus passing judgement on everyone taking part. This leads me back to ideas written in a earlier piece, entitled Art History Discussion, Friday 20th April. If we strive to acheive fame, do we have to put ourselves at the mercy of the general public? I would say the answer is yes, fame is a condition manufactured by society, in order to be succesful within it, one must comply to the wishes of the masses. The article suggests that perhaps it is a good thing that the 'every man' is judging who or what is seen on the channel, rather than someone supposably qualified for the position. It means everyone has an equal initial opportunity, and sucess is purely a popularity contest. This does seem like such an enticing prospect.

As the channel does broadcast all suitable material, there is a chance for all to receive their 15 minutes of fame, regardless of what occurs afterwards. Psychology lecturer Gerard Keegan, quoted in the article remarks:

'Maybe Andy Warhol was correct, everyone should have their 15 minutes of fame. As human beings we like to feel valued, which fuels self-esteem. We feel better about ourselves, we feel better within ourselves. Fame TV is an obvious conduit for this.'

So perhaps it is not all bad. I suppose merit lies with a creation for free expresion. It is not dissimilar to the world of youtube or myspace. Or even blogging for that matter. A forum where anything can be said, and anyone can read it. What am I doing?! Personally, I am not a fan of allowing the inner most secrets of my life to be broadcast to the nation, which is why this blog will remain as research and opinions. If something about me can be discovered from this, that's fine. They are your words, not mine.

And finally, I would just like to comment on the 'And finally' of this article. The phrase, 'Smells like 'post-modern' spirit (with apologies to Nirvana).'. First of all, it brings the question that keeps springing up in my mind once more to the forefront, what is postmodern? It seems to be a word that everyone uses, because it has become somehow 'cool', but no-one is quite sure what it means. My good friend Dictionary.com quotes it as:

1. noting or pertaining to architecture of the late 20th century, appearing in the 1960s, that consciously uses complex forms, fantasy, and allusions to historic styles, in contrast to the austere forms and emphasis on utility of standard modern architecture.
2. extremely modern; cutting-edge: postmodern kids who grew up on MTV.

So refering to point 2, free speech and the interest in it is just the brand new cool. I can see the appeal in knowing you have defined something you care about to the world, but why would others be interested in it? The writer of this article, Sergio Burns, says he found and became interested in Fame TV as there was nothing else on to watch. I can't imagine anything placed on here would be that much more interesting though. Perhaps I am being unfair. If I created something for one of these shows, I wouldn't appreciate it as being seen as less worthy than anything else on the television. But then, I probably wouldn't create something for the benifit of Fame TV.

So back to Nirvana, I find it quite amusing that this article should be linked with a band such as this. A band even after their demise, still at the height of fame and likely to stay their forever more. A band who are worthy of fame, acheived through talent and appreciation for what they do. A band who are not still with us, due to the pressure of fame that had been put upon them. It seems in starting out, a project like Fame TV would have been their worse nighhtmare, acting against all that they were striving for. The apologies to the band are most definitly needed. He'll be turning in his grave.

The article, 'Fame? Are We Going To Live Forever?' can be found in issue 90 of Contempoary magazine, from 2007.