![]() I can relate very easily, both humanistically and artistically, to this progression, but I recoil from the bleakness of his later assertion that “in a world completely cataloged and analyzed, then artificially resurrected under the auspices of the real, in a world of simulation, of the hallucination of truth, of the blackmail of the real, of the murder of every symbolic form and of its hysterical, historical retrospection”. In the fourth, it is no longer of the order of appearances, but of simulation.” 6 In the third, it plays at being an appearance – it is of the order of sorcery. In the second, it is an evil appearance – it is of the order of maleficence. In the first case, the image is a good appearance – representation is of the sacramental order. It has no relation to any reality whatsoever it is its own pure simulacrum. It masks the absence of a profound reality It masks and denatures a profound reality It is the reflection of a profound reality “Such would be the successive phases of the image: Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.”īaudrillard starts out by describing the nature of images: Simulacra are copies that depict things that either had no original, or that no longer have an original. I do not often quote directly from Wikipedia, but, having read the book, the Wiki description is at least as good as any I could devise: “1981 philosophical treatise by the philo sopher and cultural theorist Jean Baudrillard, in which the author seeks to examine the relationships between reality, symbols, and society, in particular the significations and symbolism of culture and media involved in constructing an understanding of shared existence. I have considerable sympathy with the sentiments in Bruce’s Song, Monty Python – Bruce’s Philosophers Song (Bruce’s Song) ![]() I am made suspicious by a non-communicative communication and less easily persuaded of the underlying message. Esoteric and infrequently seen words are a part of that show of knowledge, which at least in my case, is counter-productive. Baudrillard and some other philosophers seem to feel a need to prove the wisdom of their assertions by proving their intellectual strength, at least as much as by the strength of their arguments. The most important purpose of any piece of writing must surely be, to communicate. I was taught early in my career to write for my reader, not for my own self-satisfaction or self-aggrandisement. I have a good vocabulary and yet I found myself, time after time, having to consult a dictionary. Firstly and simplistically, it is unnecessarily difficult to understand. I have spent the last few days trying to decide why reading this book was so annoying! I think there are two reasons. Simulacra-and-simulation-by-jean-baudrillard.pdf (s.d.) At: ![]() This book was recommended by my tutor, with a health warning that it is difficult.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |