It depends on what are we exactly talking about. Is there any distinction in the hormonal processes between what you call "infatuation" and "love"? If the two emotional states are the same, why use different words, unless 'love' is just a different kind of 'infatuation', or 'infatuation' different kind of 'love'?
The distinction between the two seems to me blur even in literature. We don't call the "greatest love story" Romeo and Juliette the "greatest infatuation story", even though the two characters supposedly 'in love' did not even really speak to each other that much.
Love is a weak word to express an amazingly complex psychological process. The greeks had love cut up into 6 or 7 distinct ideas with words of each. English has never been so thoughtful.
Love is, I agree, something that is very self defined. It also has a number of culturally agreed upon 'symptoms'. Using a mix of the two we can get a pretty good read on if something is Love, or one of it's sub classes; infatuation or obsession.
In the case of a celebrity, what a person sees is a 'figment' which in short is a projection of the real person through a media lens. This figment is often very much different from the real person, and is also very 'blurry' to allow maximal viewer participation in it's definition. A figment is a tool a media person both projects and uses as a defense and attractor.
Our OP has observed Ms. Carter's Figment, and has gained a feeling of connectivity to it. He defined it as a 'crush' and that term, crush, is a very very good definition of what he feels. He saw something that appeals to him on multiple psychological points. So he wishes to possess it (Note possess in this use does not mean 'own' it means gain time with, build intimacy, form connectivity, in short "get to know, or possess more knowledge of") This is natural attraction behavior. And in its more intense forms is called infatuation or puppy love. Both commonly used terms for a feeling toward an individual whom little real info is known. Very correct in the terms of a figment.
Odds are it's not love. The connectivity for love is not there yet. It's a lesser love.
Ultimately I think it's up to the person concerned to decide whether she feels 'in love' and not to others. On that matter I would like to quote one of my favorite movies: Matrix "Being the one is just like being in love. No one can tell you, you are. You just know it."
I have a specific distaste for the smear the Matrix left on the philosophies that relate to the how we see and relate to reality. The film was like a box of fortune cookies randomly cracked and applied.
We have a guy in my city who is damned sure that he is Christ. He walks around dressed like Christ, preaches like Christ and tries to do miracles like Christ (success is still pending alas) If you tell him he is not Christ he gets REAL pissed. Because he KNOWS he is.
and there is the problem with the Matrix provided fortune cookies. Often what we KNOW is dead wrong. Oh we believe it with all our hearts but it's not there, we've fooled ourselves, and created it. The stare at it so long and hard how could we think it not true and real?
Love is a emotion that is super good at being slippery like that. We think we see it, have it, possess it. We wish for it, long for it, and crave it. Many end up projecting it onto others, and seeing it everyplace. Many deceive themselves.
Just because one thinks they KNOW, doesn't mean they know reality.
The OP has formed a highly positive one way connection to a figment of his youth. Then, and perhaps now it represented many things he finds attractive and appealing. Having such a crush is normal and fine. It's part of the learning to relate process we all go through. But is it love? I say no.
It is a good though. And I personally find it nice that he treasures the feeling and memories. Rememering our childhoods and the bits that helped us grow is valuable beyond words.
Myriads
