So 2005 has passed and it closed with quite the bang. I mean that literally for rapper Trice. I was actually surprised that more rappers weren't shot. Another big blow was directed not to an entertainer but to the paparazzi that stalk them.
In Cali, legislation was passed on the 31st that removes the monetary incentive that has driven the frenzy of private photographs of entertainers. Of course there are those that are protesting the new law as unconstitutional. Without shock it seems to be the paparazzi themselves are claiming that the law is unfairly biased. If it is not then it should be, in my opinion. Why? Because something needs to be done to reign in the money-hungry vultures whose only purpose is to invade the privacy of people who deserve at least some time to themselves. The fact that publishers can also share in the liablity doesn't hurt either.
I agree that public personalities trade some of their right to privacy for the fame and wealth they attain. I too find interest in a story of activism, or punishment for laws broken that involves a singer, actor, politician or other entertainer. I don't care a shred about what they wore (or didn't wear) to a private beach, who they are surrounding themselves with during an evening of merriment, or if their marriages are in trouble. If Joe average were to have such photos or stories made public there would be an outcry of enourmous levels.
The public does not deserve to know intimate details about any entertainer. They are people and deserve respect for that reason alone. If they choose to divulge information, like Mr. Tom Cruise did about his lady love, then that is different but unsolicited intrusions should not be allowed. The right to freedom of speech and therefore the Press does not exceed or supplant a persons right to privacy nor does any right extend where it causes, directly or indirectly, harm to someone else. Not being able to shout fire in a movie theater, when there is none, is the same line of thought. Intrusive actions on children need to be verbotten.
Thus the year ended, with cries of pain and cries of anger for income streams that have been threatened. [No I am not, nor do I believe I will ever be, sorry or upset that some rapper has been shot/injured/killed especially if it is in any way related to the lifestyle they promote.] The new year has started with less of a roar, but with a statement of its own. Increasingly it seems that entertainment is becoming something not shared but experienced alone. That trend is both alarming and deeply saddening.
The proliference of portable devices that provide entertainment media directly to one individual has taken another step forward. Starz now provides a movie download service. I can not say that having music available is a bad thing; nor that I can't appreciate the ability to view movies as I travel. The technology is not the issue, its how we use that technology that troubles me.
Entertainment has always been about the shared experience of whatever medium. Movies (as an example) are meant to be seen with the masses, and I feel lose something when viewed individually. The spark of creativity ignited by the medium dies quickly when there is no one around to express the compelling and/or divergent thoughts with. Movies, music or whatever becomes that much more when a group of social beings are there for the experience at the same time.
As it becomes more available to individualize the experience, more is lost. The appreciation and impact is lessened each step we take from the masses. How this might affect us as a collective whole I cannot say, that is not my area of expertise. But I am aware enough to know that there was a reason why singers and painters and actors and entertainers have always existed in some form in every society and culture, on every part of the globe, since there have been humans. What happens when social being stop being social? What is the impact of the loss of a shared experience? Perhaps one of you, my readers, knows but I do not.
Thus ended 2005 and begins the year 2006. I like to be a bit philisophical from time to time.
This is what I think, what about you?
No comments:
Post a Comment