If you don't know who John Updike is, you should. He is one of the
most important American writers, living or dead. (He's dead.) He has
been famous for a long time, for his writing of course, but also for his
reclusive daily life in a quiet Massachusetts town. Although he was very private, he certainly collected himself. Any mention of him, artifacts bestowed upon him, letters from famous people or lovers, degrees, knickknacks, pictures, doodles, notes, slides, home movies, were saved by him. He hoarded any mention of himself.
Until he threw it all away at the curb shortly before his death. Read the linked article and answer the following questions.
What should happen with this collection?
Should this guy be allowed to sell it? (Or charge people to view it?)
When do our lives become fair game?
This issue raises other big questions about privacy and celebrity:
What restrictions should be put on paparazzi? (Do you have a problem with them? Or would you ever want to become a paparazzo?)
React to the argument some have made that since a celebrity's celebrity is given to them by the public, the public has a right to the life of that celebrity.
Celebrities and their privacy is not a clear cut, black and white topic. Regarding whether it is ethical to swarm celebs with paparazzi and basically stalked everywhere they go is difficult to decipher. I believe everyone, even people who choose to be in the limelight, are given the right to whatever degree of privacy they desire and their choices should be honored. Even the famous don't want to be constantly on guard for pictures being snapped of them and reporters asking them questions while they wait in line to purchase groceries. I believe that the paparazzi should not bully celebrities and give them the common decency of personal space and privacy when told to back off. The argument the the public makes the celebrity famous so they should be more than obliged to the paparazzi for their services can be flipped on its head. The celebrity also give a paparazzo their job and entertains the public. There should be a mutual relationship of respect and decency that goes both ways. Regarding John Updike's trash memorabilia, I have this to say. Yes he was famous, and no it is not a crime to take someone's discarded trash. But Updike purposefully removed himself from a famous lifestyle. He wanted to be a recluse and keep his affairs private. His wishes to be left alone should be respected and the possessions Moran kept their confiscated and destroyed as Updike had wanted or let Moran keep his findings for himself.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Paul Moran. I think he should have left Updike's discarded items on the curb. He invaded Updike's privacy, and as an artist and person Updike should be allowed to throw away whatever he wants without fear of someone hoarding those items and disclosing them to the public. It's an intimate, symbolic act to throw away old manuscripts, doocuments, and photos. It's a way for the person to let go of the past and move on to a new stage in their life. If Moran were to sell the collection to a curated museum or library, I think that would be a smart idea. But I definitely don't think he should keep them without a definitive statement of consent from the family.
ReplyDeleteI personally would want my life to remain private unless I chose to share certain things with other people. Realistically though, the paparrazzi pays little attention to the desires of a celebrity when it comes to privacy. They invade every area of their life that they can. But receipts and old photos is kind of extreme and creepy. I could not invade someone's privacy on such an intimate level without feeling uncomfortable and guilty about it. I think each celebrity's privacy level should be respected because it is not their obligation to share their lives with us.
I am in the middle. In the beginning, I was outraged that Paul Moran stole Updike's discarded manuscripts, photos, and documents. However, they were just that: discarded. There is no law against taking someone's abandoned trash. It is a violation of privacy to a degree but the general public is intrusive and to think someone is not going to do through an artist's trash is laughable. Like Paul Moran said, "The immediacy made it seem so wrong, but longterm, if you flash back on virtually any major author or historical artist, you would think, 'I wish I had Mark Twain’s stuff or Andy Warhol’s stuff.' The only morality, as somebody said to me, is if you could focus more on the culture than the vulture aspect ... I just hope that it enhances his legacy.” Anything that Moran has collected, before he is to sell books or artifacts, I think he should ask the family of Updike first. Like Miller acknowledged, "sometimes things are thrown away that later generations find fascinating.”
ReplyDeleteOur lives become fair game when we die. What does it matter to us, who are dead? Everyone, yes everyone, wishes to have their lives immortalized, remembered. The paparazzi are a different story. The paparazzi are greedy and in their greed they twist the truth of celebrities' lives to fit what they think the public will be most interested in. Those type of journalists are disgusting. In fact, they aren't journalists at all... The public does not have a right to the life of celebrities but in the 21st century, we do by fault of people like the paparazzi.
I don't have an issue with Moran taking the trash because that is exactly what it was- garbage. If Updike was truly concerned about who would see any of his stuff, he should have disposed of it better. It is now Moran's property so it is up to him what he does with it. If there is a problem with Moran, it is just that he is a creepy stalker who kept going by a man's house waiting for him to throw stuff out, it got a bit excessive.
ReplyDeleteAs for paparazzi, it is just the cost of being in the public eye and the celebrities who have a problem with them probably should have thought of that a little sooner and decide for themselves if privacy or fame was better. However, paparazzi should not be allowed on private property or to take pictures through windows of a house. The last argument that the people who gave the celebrity fame have a "right" to know everything about that person is insane. Now one has a right to that but as demand for information about their lives increases, it becomes a lucrative business with accessible information.
Since Updike purposefully threw away his manuscripts, photographs, and documents, I don't think Moran did anything wrong by collecting Updike's trash. Once you throw away something, it isn't your property anymore. So, it can be up for grabs. Our lives become fair game when we die. Our legacy will remain on this earth, but our spirit will lie in heaven. Paparazzi strive to represent people in their worst way possible so that they can get a big cover story. If they get a huge scandal, they get a lot of money. Driven by money, paparazzi invade the privacy of others for their own personal benefit. The public doesn't have the right to the life of a celebrity, because every celebrity's private life should be respected. As for the argument that a celebrity's celebrity is given to them by the public, sure, celebrities' fans support them, but they didn't contribute to their original success.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to decide if the man was crazy or genius. But he already made the decision to take his trash. It would be interesting to make a museum of his trash as a sort of testament to looking at people from what they deem trash. He shouldn't be allowed to sell his things or charge people to see it, because there is a line that must be drawn. There should be a line drawn for paparazzi also. What is the difference between a stalker and paparazzi? Merely the photographed's celebrity status? Regulations should be across the board.
ReplyDeleteI see both sides of the argument. As far as Updike's awards, they had been thrown in the trash. They were going to be taken to the dump. I can see why Updike was mad, but if he was worried about his trash, he should have been smarter about the way he threw them away. Moran should have just left the trash alone. Who collects years of someone else's trash? People do things like this to benefit themselves or to make a name for themselves. If you throw something away, it is trash. If someone else picks it up, then it becomes their stuff.
ReplyDeletePaparazzi is a different deal. That's an invasion of privacy. It's stalking. They are trying to get too close, and that's too much. Celebrities are bothered and irritated by paparazzi. It is dangerous for celebrities. There is nothing wrong with legitimate photography. But spying on someone, hiding out, or coming on their property is wrong.
I have to side with both sides of the argument. I don't think the awards should have to be kept if they were already in the trash. Plus it's kinda weird that he went digging in someone's trash. I would be creeped out and a little mad about someone doing that because it's not only minor things you throw away in the trash. Sometimes there are very valuable things in your personal trash that are meant for the dump. As for the writeing and Scholarly pieces those are part of history and everyone who would read them would be fit form them so it's kinda selfish to throw away greatness. I believe are live become free game when we blatantly put it out there like on the Internet for example.
ReplyDeleteThis whole story is just weird. A creep digs through another man's garbage just to find valuable documents. The saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure" definitely describes such a scenario as this one. Updike's trash became Moran's treasure. If Updike wanted his trash to stay trash, he should have disposed of it better. The paparazzi is a bunch of creeps who will do anything to expose even the smallest details of the personal lives of celebrities. Celebrities should be left alone to some degree and be able to have personal lives away from the spotlight.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the guy should be able to sell it because he then would make profit in which he didn't deserve. The paparazzi I think should not be able to be in such private property, including the yard of the celebrity or even the neighbors yard. Although many people find it fascinating to be in others business putting myself in the celebrities shoes, I would not like that at all. I don't think that a celebrity should have to surrender all to their fans and if the fans have an issue with that then they aren't true fans.
ReplyDeleteI believe everyone has the right to privacy. Paparazzi don't really care about people's privacy and would ignore the laws put in place. Like most hollywood people also probably have a lot of lawyers to help them get out of issues when they get in trouble. I personally think it is ok for him to collect and than chuck. He probably saw them as trophies. When he neared death he didn't see them as that anymore and saw them as just taking up spave so he chucked them
ReplyDelete