I tend to assume that the things I’m interested in (like Chris Crocker) aren’t going to have a mass audience, especially of uncool teenagers. I’m not being a jerk saying that- its just thats what these teenagers at the Crib are- they are the ones who had a great time in high school.

But, I was totally wrong. Chris Crocker does have a mass audience, and the kids at the Crib LOVED him. They were a pretty emotional crowd, and they were expressive- when the guy from the Real World was on stage doing the costume contest, they could hardly get anyone to pay attention- but when Chris came on, the crowd went nuts. They were screaming and clapping and enthralled with him. When Chris got close to the edge, people reached there hands to touch him.

Chris was surrounded by fans. I had always seen something arty in Chris Crocker that I don’t think these people saw in him. I think they deeply identify with him, and him with the kids in the crowd. I was definitely the outsider.

If anything, the internet has changed one vital pre-requisite for celebrity- you no longer need an “artistic” medium to replicate yourself with. In a world without Youtube, you had to have a record or a movie to spread your celebrity- some sort of mass market object.

I think the Youtube video is not even exactly art in the way that music or film or whatever is, because it does not require the mastery of a set of technical skills. You don’t have to ‘play guitar’ or ‘light the scene’. You just turn on and go dumb.

I think it might be better than art to, a purer expression of whatever we’re trying to create. It’s not ‘formal’ like any of the other mediums.

P.S.: Myles, I think your post is really good.