Paris Hilton: Can't sing, can't dance and can't act, but she's gone a long way
It is no mystery why we want to be stars, with all the attention, riches and admiration such status gives its anointed few.
But though there are millions who aspire to stardom, only an elite group is chosen. Why and how does it happen?
Undoubtedly, some stars possess charisma, beauty, intelligence or acting skills. On the other hand, Paris Hilton or Katie Price cannot sing, dance or act, yet have earned millions for just posing in front of the camera.
More than anything, celebrities are famous because they conduct themselves differently from the rest of us. They are created by the unique social behaviours they engage in.
To understand the mechanics behind celebrity, I undertook a major research project at the University of Southern California looking at stars' social behaviour.
Of course, I knew it would be impossible to get Paris Hilton, Victoria Beckham or Cheryl Cole to fill out a survey of what they did at the weekend.
But because celebrity status hinges on reporting in the media and a visual documentation of their lives, there was another way to attain information about how stars act compared to everyone else: by looking at the thousands of pictures taken of them as they go about their lives.
Getty Images is the most comprehensive photographic agency in the world. By looking at the caption information accompanying Getty photos - who was in the picture, and when and where it was taken - I was able to work out a few basic principles about the makings of a celebrity.
The first has to do with geography - stars need to show up in key locations. By studying Getty photos over 12 months, my colleague Gilad Ravid and I found that 80 per cent of more than 600,000 images were taken in just three places: London, Los Angeles and New York.
And within these cities, photographs were taken in just a few neighbourhoods. Take Los Angeles, for example: it's a city measuring 500 square miles, yet nearly all the photographs were taken on a narrow corridor along Sunset and Hollywood Boulevards.
Talent and celebrity: Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2007
But it's not simply showing up in the three hubs. Real stars are aware that part of their appeal is also occasionally stepping off the beaten track.
Events such as the Sundance Film Festival in Utah act as specialised niches of celebrity during certain times of the year. Thus the media - the ultimate gatekeeper of celebrity status - travel in packs to these places.
And by extension, so do the stars, which is why we see Paris Hilton looking ever the ski bunny on the slopes of Park City even if she's not starred in any films showing at Sundance (and possibly doesn't really know how to ski). Nevertheless, she is captured hanging out with other A-listers, thus perpetuating her star power.
But it's even more complicated than that. We know that stars have a ratio between talent and fame. It is the difference between these measures that explains celebrity status.
Stars such as Paris or Katie Price are 'all celebrity', their fame driven by the ink spilled about them in gossip columns. At the other end of the spectrum are actors like Dame Judi Dench and Daniel Day-Lewis, who are pretty much all talent; in other words, their fame and talent produces a 1:1 ratio.
Angelina Jolie, Kate Winslet and Keira Knightley have a combination of both serious talent and celebrity. Yes, they are very good at their day jobs but they also possess fame that transcends their talent. Despite Jolie winning an Oscar (her talent), we are far more fascinated with her personal life (her celebrity).
When we ran statistical analysis on the photos, we found that particular places drove particular types of celebrity. In other words, it's not enough to just show up in the three major hubs. Talent-driven stars were associated with certain places while media-driven stars went to others.
Top talent - those who generate box office receipts - tended to show up in far-flung places such as Tokyo. Those who drummed up gossip were most likely to flit about LA and New York. And London may be the best of all worlds: a capital city in the geography of stardom, but statistically associated with increases in both media volume and industry prestige.
The second important factor is celebrity networks. Stars penetrate the social networks of those who will uphold their status. Celebrities are celebrities partially because they are invited to the most exclusive events and spend time with particular people, which is why penetrating the celebrity network may help make up for lack of talent.
Hollywood A-listers and even the popular kids in school cultivate elite networks of individuals similar to themselves
When we looked at the A-list network, we found the same 20 people (Will Smith, Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Tom Cruise and Angelina Jolie among them) tended to just spend time with each other at events such as the Vanity Fair Oscar party.
This means that any aspiring Blister has little chance of breaking into the A-list unless they suddenly win an Oscar or marry an A-lister. Interlopers are not encouraged among the elite.
Celebrity networks produce really powerful advantages for their members. On a Friday night, I may meet friends for supper, and the most beneficial outcome of this meeting is that I get to spend time with people I really like. Celebrity networks produce a very different outcome. For those who go to the Vanity Fair Oscar party, it's not just a chance to hang out with friends but also to hobnob with acclaimed directors.
Sociologists call this 'preferential attachment' but more simply it is the 'rich get richer' model of social networking. In other words, celebrity begets celebrity.
Statistically speaking, celebrity networks are much more connected than other social networks. Most people in the world are connected by 'six degrees of separation' - the idea, which has been mathematically proven, that everyone on Earth is six steps away from any other person. But by analysing our celebrity database, Gilad and I worked out that stars exhibit just 3.26 degrees of separation.
Finally, and perhaps most important, celebrities project an image of themselves on to their respective public that we aspire to, identify with and fascinates us. This image requires action on behalf of the star. It is not enough to win an Oscar, for that simply makes you famous for being a good actor.
Celebrities, remember, cultivate a collective obsession with their personas which requires making themselves available - whether through Twitter or allowing the paparazzi to take seemingly invasive photos.
We, the public, need to feel we are getting more than just Angelina in a great dress at the Oscars, but also see her having a private moment with Brad on the beach. We need material that transcends her contributions as an actress. This explains why Paris Hilton or any other 'famous for being famous' person maintains their celebrity despite a lack of talent.
Ultimately, celebrity hinges on whether we, the public, decide to pay attention or not. Thus, stars need to engage in the aforementioned activities simply for us to take notice. What the public does with this can be arbitrary, which is why Paris Hilton may have become the ultimate celebrity but other reality TV stars are soon forgotten.
Why the public cares about its celebrities can be superficially explained easily - gossip is fun.
But actually there is more to it. It is also the glue that enables an increasingly globalised and anonymous society to bond together. Paradoxically, we may also seek to invest in other people's lives to avoid thinking about our own.
In a world filled with deep uncertainty about the future, celebrity is a sugar-coated outlet of distraction.
One thing has become abundantly clear: with the billions of pounds backing it, the millions of jobs created and society's seemingly unyielding desire for more, celebrity is a social and economic phenomenon worth taking seriously.
Starstruck, by Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, is available at amazon.com
source:dailymail