In the catalogue for a 1968 art exhibition in Stockholm, Andy Warhol wrote, "In the future everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes." Scant interest has been shown in determining the prospects for this prophecy coming true. Remarkable changes in telecommunications technology in the past few years, however, make this question worth pursuing seriously.
While universal fame might seem to be an unachievable goal, it is important to distinguish between an individual's being recognized for a specific accomplishment and mere celebrity. With regard to the latter, Daniel J. Boorstin noted that "a celebrity is a person known for his well-knownness." Clearly, universal fame requires only meeting the Boorstin standard of well-knownness. The current exemplar of such celebrity is Paris Hilton. (To be fair, Ms. Hilton is young and could well achieve something of note in years to come.)
To evaluate the fifteen-minutes-of-fame standard, it is important to shift attention away from the prospective celebrity and toward the observers of that celebrity. Being known requires someone to do the knowing. Because Andy Warhol predicted world-wide fame, the audience, then, is the population of the world.
To determine the potential for world-wide celebrity status for all humans, a mathematical measure is proposed that will be called the Paris Hilton factor — pH factor, for short. The pH factor calculation is based on the following assumptions:
- World-wide fame does not require being known by everyone else but by just 5% of the world population which is considered a fairly high level of recognition.
- The time available for members of the population to know a celebrity are the years in the average human lifespan after the age of 15. In addition, the time available is limited to 18 hours of each day of the year.
- During each 15-minute fame segment, humans are capable of knowing 3 celebrities. This assumption is based on recent research into the cognitive limits of human attention and memory that suggests humans cannot process more than 4 variables at one time. One variable is reserved in calculating the pH factor to allow for other human activities such as work, recreation, etc.
Article comments
1 - Matthew T. Sussman
Way. Over. My. Head.
2 - Greg Smyth
Piece of class...
3 - RJ
Pretty neat post. I love statistical analysis of inane hypotheticals... ;-)
4 - miriam
Excellent post. Good sense of humor!
5 - Gregg Guetschow
Inane hypotheticals, RJ ??!!! I was completely serious.
6 - Victor Plenty
I think RJ was calling Warhol's "15 minutes of fame" thing the inane hypothetical, Gregg.
7 - Gregg Guetschow
And by my exclamatiom, I was only pretending to take offense.
8 - Gregg Guetschow
I really do know how to spell "exclamation." Sorry.
9 - dietdoc
Greg writes: Based on processing 3 variables at once, each person can know 78,840 celebrities per year.
Reply: Can we voluntarily opt out of "being famous?" That would be my only question.
Well, on further review, I have a second question: Can we somehow block the number of neurons required dedicated to keep the names, faces and "achievements" (admittedly, the last category of "fame" should not require that much thought) of 78,840 celebrities out of our cerebrum? Will aluminum foil or some other metallic, reflective material around the cranium work?
I truly hope the answers to both questions are "yes."
Cheers,
Ron
10 - Gregg Guetschow
dietdoc, that's the real benefit of the 15 minutes of fame approach, particularly considering the limited amount of mental capacity required to produce fame. One need not keep track of 78,840 celebrities each year, but just the three that are on the "current list," so to speak. During their 15 minutes, one need only acknowledge that they are famous. Knowing more than that is a waste of brain-power. That being the case, it is likely that the vast majority will quickly fade from memory. If not, they exceed their 15 minutes and it completely screws up my calculation of the pH factor.
11 - Eric Olsen
interesting, funny and informative - super job on this and the Anne Bancroft. Thanks and welcome, Gregg!
12 - Nancy
Great piece. Stats CAN be fun! BTW, if I know more than 3 famous people, does that mean I get 20 minutes of fame? Is there any kind of speculation on when one gets this fame, or whether it's positive or negative? I mean, one thing to be famous for 15 minutes for having discovered an original of the Dec. of Independence at a garage sale, but another if it's because you killed someone and then ate them for dinner.
13 - Matthew T. Sussman
The author tried way too hard for a joke and I didn't even crack a smile during the entire piece. Sorry. Try less hard.
14 - DrPat
Celebrity includes both notoriety and fame. Paris Hilton and Jeffrey Dahmer are notorious (although to different degrees).
Ad for many, many people, the only time their names appear in a newspaper is when their obituaries are printed.
If that's to be MY fifteen minutes, I'll pass...
15 - Marcia L, Neil
STATEMENT: Telephone call-demand strategies and word/phrase elicitation maneuvers waste time and health. Never rule out a police complaint if threatened through the telephone or scheduled without consent. 'Freedom of speech' telephone misuse has become epidemic. > beadtot@aol.com
16 - Verone
PARIS HILTON IS UGLY AND SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM THE TV!! SHE LOOKS LIKE A LITTLE BOY!
SOmeone behind the scenes is shoveling money towards the tv networks, because this chick is butt ugly and has no talent.
She is just a whore.
17 - DrPat
She's blonde, slim and willing to do whatever it takes to stay in the camera's eye, Verone. Plus she has oodles of money...
18 - Enkil
Paris Hitlon is kewl and fun! She's not just another celebrity. And we need someone fun who makes us laugh once in a while in this celebrity world!
http://celebrityparishilton.atspace.com
19 - User
Enkil is just the admin of that site. Kewl is not a word. Verone is right, she is really unattractive and does not contribute to intellectual development. If you are not a stockholder and still like her, then I pity you.