rebeccahedley

Burgess and Green argue that: ordinary people who become celebrities through their own creative efforts “remain within the system of celebrity native to, and controlled by, the mass media”

 Everybody knows of at least one YouTube celebrity. Whether it be Susan Boyle, whose shockingly good Britain’s Got Talent Audition went viral and thrust her into instant stardom, or the ‘Numa Numa’ guy and his unique dance moves. The two of the most successful YouTube celebrities, however, would have to be Charice Pempengco and Justin Bieber. Charice shot into world-wide fame when videos of her performances were broadcast on YouTube in 2007. To date, she has released 4 albums, been named ‘The Most Talented Girl in the World’ by Oprah Winfrey, and plays the character of Sunshine Corazon on the hit show Glee. Bieber was discovered in 2008, at the age of only 13, when a marketing executive discovered his videos on YouTube. To date he has 5 albums, has guest starred on various shows, starred in his own film, Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, was the winner of the 2010 American Music Award’s Artist of the Year Award and has a cult following of pre-teen girls.

 Not too shabby.

 The potential for YouTube as celebrity-maker is uncontested. “As recording labels and talent scouts increasingly turn their attention to online publishing opportunities, YouTube has been mythologized as literally a way to ‘broadcast yourself’ into fame and fortune” (Burgess and Green, 2009: 22). According to Burgess and Green, there are two types of celebrity resulting from YouTube; YouTube’s own, internal system of celebrity, “who are famous for being notorious, obnoxious, or annoying” and who’s “ongoing status as a ‘star’ YouTuber can only be achieved by ongoing participation in YouTube” (Burgess and Green, 2009: 24), contrasted with the wider-known media celebrities (Burgess and Green, 2009: 24). Charice Pempengco and Justin Bieber fall into the latter category. Before they were famous, both Charice and Biebs had videos on YouTube, however their it was only once they were discovered and thrust threw the system of the mass media that they became actual celebrities; their success is “measured not by their online popularity, but by their subsequent ability to pass through the gate-keeping mechanisms of old media – the recording contract, the film festival, the television pilot, the advertising deal” (Burgess and Green, 2009: 24).

 By this reasoning, Burgess and Green argue that viewing YouTube as a fast-track to celebritydom is false. When you look at the basic facts, Justin Bieber’s rise to stardom is no different than that of any other celebrity, such as Rihanna, the Veronicas – discovered by a talent scout, recorded some demos, offered a record deal. The rest, as they say, is history. What’s changed is the method of discovery. It would be wrong to assume that anyone who posts a video on YouTube does so with the desire to become a celebrity. I know I, for one, like to post stupid videos of my friends and I mucking around, not so we can be discovered, but so that we can share them together and remember the moment. YouTube culture has become more than just ‘broadcasting yourself’; it’s a “social network foundation” (Burgess and Green, 2009: 29) which “adds new dimensions to these circuits of ‘privatized media use’” (Burgess and Green, 2009: 26-27). YouTube is as much about sharing home movies, good laughs and fond memories, as it is an avenue for self-promotion. But as people find new ways to utilize the media, so too does the media find new material.

Ordinary people ‘discovered’ by YouTube “remain within the system of celebrity, native to, and controlled by, the mass media” (Burgess and Green, 2009: 23) because, ostensibly, nothing’s changed. All YouTube has really done is save the talent scouts some legwork; rather than trolling school plays for undiscovered creative genius, they can now do so from the comfort of their own living rooms.

References:

Burgess, Jean; Green, Joshua. ‘YouTube and the Mainstream Media’, YouTube: Online and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press (2009) pp. 15-37.