Stars are ambiguous – both ordinary and special – especially inhistory – their behaviours were modelled and lifestyles desired.Stars could stand for whole segments of society. However, stars alsotap into the ordinary and more recently perhaps, the notion of thedream life of a star has died.Nietzsche ‘announced’ that ‘God was dead’ and it has almostbecome like society doesn’t have anything to believe in any more –those extravagant lifestyles of the rich and famous have fallenbefore our eyes – they have been ‘deconstructed in their ownlifetime’ (Mrs T quote). They do sell a lifestyle we think is ordinary – all selling relies on thisto some extent.Conspicuous consumption may not be as acceptable as it oncewas….how do stars deal with this? Have they all adapted or aresome ‘genres’ or stars still very conspicuously consuming? The music industry/rock business has been seen as a destroyer aswell as a kind of ‘dream factory’Has the industry become more or less rebellious? Destructive?
Stars can be political. Stars can serve legitimate interests.
Love is a predominant theme, with heterosexuality still the norm.Are stars typed – are there ‘good guys’, ‘bad guys’, ‘rebels’ albeitwith different labels – can we categorise them by ‘image’ ratherthan by genre or label? (And some have multiple images – e.g.Madonna, Kylie)STAR IMAGE
PROMOTIONPUBLICITYBODY OF WORK CRIT/COMMENTSWho is the author of a star?
INDIVIDUAL – do
decide?2.MULTIPLE – many authors can be seen in one piece of work -plurality3.COLLECTIVE – the author is the sum of a team’s work 4.CORPORATE – the author is actually thecompany/business/institutional structure(s)What do you think?And from the AUDIENCE point of view…How do
view a star?