The season is over, Miu Miu closed Paris Fashion Week and every fashion editor, designer, model, actress, musician and FROWster headed back to their retrospective homes.
Only to turn on the news and witness a horrific sight in Japan, normally I don’t like to join the masses in “praying for…” but when it’s another natural disaster in a long line in the past few years it becomes too frightening. Hopefully Japan can recover, being a marginally more developed country than say Haiti is, but will still need the help from its Western counterparts.
Celebrities will lend their fame to help raise awareness and money for the relief but why does it feel like they capitalise on something so tragic, as in Lady Gaga designing a wristband no sooner than a day after the event. I’m not condemning people trying to help but why does fame and celebrity have to be a part of it?
Do we only pay attention if a particular celebrity cares about it, retweets it or mentions it in their hourly update? Or is it genius on their part using their fame to bring awareness, only if they do it selflessly. Just confuses me that’s all.
Brilliantly thought-provoking, isn’t it?
I hate to seem a horrible cynic – and hope that my thinking is incorrect – but, invariably, these types of endorsement convey as being little more than tokens of PR.
I think the symbiotic relationship between celebrity and charity is disconcerting because – unlike donating in a discreet, anonymous manner – we know that the media personality will enjoy a secondary benefit in terms of their popularity. Or, to put it more crudely, they will ‘cash in’.
Could a celebrity really exploit a tragic situation – such as that unfolding in Japan – for reasons of self-promotion? Well sure, because dollar will always be king…
Sarah x
http://stylesouk.wordpress.com
Perfectly put. Much better than I did anyway! It’s easy to get into a debate about this and there would never be a right or wrong answer.
xx