Jason Gardner comments

Jason Gardner

It was 60's art icon Andy Warhol who said that one day everybody would be famous for fifteen minutes. Well it was the sixties; didn't they only have one TV channel back then? Weren't phones still attached to cables? Weren't video cameras the size of the Isle of Wight?

He couldn't have foreseen that come the 21st century we'd all have video cameras the size of fag packets, umpteen 'DIY' TV channels in the form of websites and an endless appetite for distraction.

Now fifteen minutes isn't enough, now we can upload ourselves 24/7 for the world to see. We can film every detail, every egg we fry, every tooth we brush, every prat fall deliberate or other wise so that all and sundry can chortle or marvel at our antics.

As one journalist from The Independent puts it:

'I could document it all. I'd be the star of my own life instead of being (as is the reality) just a walk on. And it wouldn't matter a jot that everyone else was famous too.'

And there's the problem: when everybody gets to be famous, no one gets to be famous.

And isn't this a good thing? That the limelight isn't reserved for a chosen few? Are we 'democratising' fame? Viewing habits are evolving to the extent that today's generations don't tune in to mainstream media anywhere near as much. They're too busy uploading themselves or dreaming up the next stunt, dance craze or gross out act that will get them noticed on 'Youtube'.

Bizarrely enough when we do gather round the telly it's only to watch high gloss versions of the type of amateurism youtube or idiotvid celebrate. Isn't Saturday night TV studded with talent shows of one variety or the other? Aren't we utterly obsessed with the drive to become famous?

And so maybe the big scale 'find as star' formats prove that we're not content with 'amateur' fame. After all aren't our contributions to public video sites just attempts to enter a fame lottery? That maybe, just maybe our clip might go global like the chubby kid practising lightsabre battles?

Of course there's a narcissistic element to ensuring our mug is up on the internet. And isn't this just an extension of an obsession with our own image? Who hasn't flicked through friends wedding photos patiently feigning interest but secretly waiting for the 'friends of the groom' shot that we're in?

What is it about seeing ourselves that excites or comforts us? Is it the prospect of 'acceptance' on a mass level, if people are watching or viewing us then we must be at least vaguely entertaining, vaguely interesting?

Or is it that we've spent literally years watching other people's images on TV. We connect the telly with enjoyment and 'good' family times - whether we were watching Morecambe and Wise, Cannon and Ball or Little Britain. To see ourselves up there on the screen is to tie ourselves into the wonderful world of 'light' entertainment and all the positive associations that go with it.

So what's the future hold? Six billion TV channels? Will we go the whole hog and install CCTV in every room of the home and sign away our privacy so that street cameras can happily capture us too? Will we be able to tune in any time or day to watch anyone on the planet, any time, anywhere? Or, for that matter watch ourselves, anywhere any time? Will I be staring at a live feed in the corner of my laptop screen watching myself and wondering what I'm going to type next?

Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious. Well I didn't see that coming.