Talk:15 minutes of fame/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Recursion
In the future, everyone will have a Wikipedia entry.
Expression
It's also used as an expression for committing a crime just to get national attention.
- How about John_Mark_Karr
- Seems like it's the same idea! --Ludvikus 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if we can somehow make mention of YouTube regarding this statement...hm.. --65.33.167.86 09:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Prediction error. 12.196.0.50 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Example
Here is an interesting example. Look at the traffic stats for Julie Dubela for January[1] and February.[2] She appeared on American Idol on January 30. 199.125.109.116 (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
In Popular Culture
Ok, this is really bloated and almost none of it is really within the scope of the article. Can we delete this section? 97.117.7.181 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Origin
It seems to me that the original quote was somewhat longer, including something in the beginning about how more and more people were becoming famous for doing less and less. But I have never been able to find the longer version of the quote, and lord knows googling 15 minutes of fame will produce more noise than signal.
Famous to fifteen people
The Momus quote dates to 1991. I was quoted in the Village Voice by Dennis Cooper in September 1990 as saying "In the future we'll all be famous to fifteen people." (end of first page, top of second page of this pdf): http://www.holytitclamps.com/dcvv1990.pdf --Larrybob (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. (Assuming you're the Laurence Roberts mentioned.) I support updating this article to include this mention (without replacing the existing one); you should also write to David Weinberger and let him know. Shreevatsa (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060825/ai_n16700346
- In 15 minutes of fame on 2011-06-01 18:18:13, 404 This requested article does not exist.
- In 15 minutes of fame on 2011-06-20 05:20:03, 404 This requested article does not exist.
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Incomprehensible
It is believed that the statement was an adaptation of a theory of Marshall McLuhan, explaining the differences of media, where TV differs much from other media using contestants.
Do you mean: It is believed that the statement was an adaptation of a theory of Marshall McLuhan, explaining the differences between media, where TV differs greatly from other media IN WHAT SIGNIFICANT, NON-TRIVIAL WAYS?
"using contestants" is unMcLuhanesque, given its triviality. Radio shows certainly had contestants.
I think that what you mean is that television facilitates easy awareness ("celebrity") because it is a visual mass medium, so maybe:
It is believed that the statement was an adaptation of a theory of Marshall McLuhan, explaining the differences between media, where TV differs from other media because it facilitates mass visual awareness and recognition, but is fleeting and also feeds on an ongoing stream of new images.
Even better, find the putative McLuhan passage.
Dstlascaux (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Original meaning
Nothing in the article says what Warhol meant; was he ever asked; did he explain?
Did Warhol claim it; or did he acknowledge that the photographer was the “author” (originator)?
[If he did claim it] Did he (mostly) mean
- that people would be famous for less important reasons; or
- that (due to technology, population, whatever) that there would be less time available for each person to be famous; or
- egalitarianism; or
- something else?
NB: Similar comment in Archives1 (c2008).