Jean Baudrillard was a French sociologist, philosopher and poet, with interest in cultural studies. He is best known for his analyses of media, contemporary culture, and technological communication, as well as his formulation of concepts such as hyperreality. Baudrillard wrote about diverse subjects, including consumerism, critique of economy, social history, aesthetics, Western foreign policy, and popular culture. Among his most well-known works are Seduction (1978), Simulacra and Simulation (1981), America (1986), and The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991). His work is frequently associated with postmodernism and specifically post-structuralism. Nevertheless, Baudrillard had also opposed post-structuralism, and had distanced himself from postmodernism.
This is certainly an easy read of one of the last writings of Baudrillard. I can only imagine this was salvaged posthumously as there is an incomplete feel to the slim book. It reads appropriately for this post-modernist perhaps as just some musings that made it into book form. The argument is essentially stated as the antithesis of Leibniz's statement, "why is there something rather than nothing". The argument is supported with detail then given as two examples, one conceptual and one concrete. For anyone unfamiliar with post-structural thought, I would imagine this being a very appropriate departure. There is not much ground-breaking here; however the concrete example of the digital image as symbol of the death of the real is timely and impressionable with young readers who may just be learning of his work. Similarly, some of his points in the conceptual example of death of the real by the model are taken from modern problems such as the discussion of the death of globalization upon its positing or the modeling of marketing's effect on the brain by Parisian officials. The imagery associating this text, the work of Alain Willaum, strikingly captures the concepts presented in the book. In typical post-modern context, the images are not meant to illustrate them, though, but merely to provide an artistic backdrop along the journey. The technique as usual is effective and appreciated in this situation. It lends the notion that the text is not just a philosophical text for consumption, but a work of art to be appreciated.
I happened to read Barthes鈥� 1980 Camera Lucida and Baudrillard鈥檚 2007 Why Hasn鈥檛 Everything Already Disappeared? at the same time and thought they were complementary enough for a dual review.
Barthes denies the photograph the capacity for conveying meaning, comparing it to haiku where 鈥渆verything is given, without provoking the desire for or even the possibility of rhetorical expansion.鈥� Baudrillard鈥檚 claim (twenty-seven years later) is that photography is no longer capable of meaning. Who鈥檚 right? In that Barthes鈥� analysis seems even at the time of publication bordering on sentimental and Baudrillard鈥檚 is purposefully provocational (he鈥檚 almost talking about the Singularity here鈥攊n some ways it鈥檚 already happened, and in some ways it will never happen), the answer is somewhere in the middle.
It isn鈥檛 precisely that Barthes disallows meaning in the photograph, only that the photograph is foremost an authoritative witness of something past, so overshadowing meaning that meaning is effectively not present. 鈥淭he power of authentication exceeds the power of representation.鈥� Writing falls short of this authority even with additional effort and appendages like logic and sworn testimony. Photography is the opposite, requiring much more effort to fictionalize it. Why Hasn鈥檛 Everything Already Disappeared? strips the photo of any such authority, pointing us to the paradigm where 鈥渇ictional鈥� images are nearly as easy to author as authoritative images were in the past. It鈥檚 authenticating the photo that now requires lots of additional effort.
Reading Camera Lucida I was never able to shake the feeling that Barthes too quickly dismissed meaning. For one thing, he omits advertising photography from his investigation on the grounds that 鈥渢he meaning must be clear and distinct only by reason of its mercantile nature.鈥� It seems that if meaning could be approached in this kind of 鈥渒id鈥檚 version鈥� why not catalog its telltale signs and experiment with scaling up to trickier cases?
Second, Barthes is strictly interested in the phenomenon of viewing the isolated photograph, but this seems to limit the scope of the search to a scale too small to nurture meaning鈥攍ike how time is explained just fine on the macro scale but falls apart at the quantum level. In this sense CL is the work of a paleontologist who instead of taking out his chisel, pounds the rock into dust with a sledge hammer and concludes from the remnants that there are no fossils. And so it鈥檚 no wonder that the photograph remains perpetually inexplicable.
Just as it rarely makes sense to consider the meaning of an isolated word, meaning is equally uncooperative within the lone photo. Meaning is relational and comparative. It certainly requires more than the one instance to emerge. Of course Barthes can dismiss meaning. Baudrillard鈥檚 analysis, on the other hand, makes as its starting point the ubiquity of the photograph鈥攁nd the years since his book鈥檚 publication it has only become more so鈥攕o that it took me a while to realize that there was some validity to Barthes鈥� claims after all. The very first photograph was entirely isolated鈥攐r at least its comparisons were only with preexisting media. Barthes wrote in a time when photographs were very much singular entities. When is a photograph anymore in isolation? It was a while into Camera Lucida that I was able to get into this more historical frame of mind. So Barthes isn鈥檛 wrong鈥攏ot quaint either鈥攂ut with the decades passed since its publication, at this point now CL should maybe be treated more as an anthropological work. (Amazingly his analysis is nevertheless intuitively appealing, often touching, even, in the way a memoir can be.)
Positioning Why Hasn鈥檛 Everything Already Disappeared? as a comparison really shows that ubiquity of the image is changing what photography is. This paired with the decreased interval between snapping the photo, developing it and viewing it. Speed contributes to ubiquity. But if ubiquity is the key factor, how does Baudrillard claim that the transition to digital has caused photography disappear? (Why Hasn鈥檛 Everything Already Disappeared? is only sort of ostensibly about photography鈥攑hotography is merely his primary example in illustrating this concept of 鈥渄isappearance.鈥�)
Disappearance is somewhat enigmatic, but it might be characterized (losing only a minimum of its subtlety) as passage into the state where a glut of context precludes meaning. Rather than additive, meaning might be more usefully conceptualized as a subtractive attribute. In a process of whittling away and omission, it emerges as a subset of a contextual whole. But as cracks are filled and contextual pools combine (and digitization here is the massive enabler), any potential denotative aspect that comes to the fore almost necessarily leaves contradictions embedded in its connotative substrate, in its omissions鈥攁lthough this is probably not at all obvious to the meaning granter (What is government?). And so disappearance is a symptom of glut and dispersion, not extinction.
These characterizations of context and meaning are useful for looking at CL. Barthes stresses over the act of posing for a photographer, and the photographer鈥檚 reaction is then to make the setting more 鈥渓ifelike鈥� (鈥渨retched notions: they make me pose in front of my paintbrushes, they take me outdoors (more 鈥榓live鈥� than indoors), they put me in front of a staircase because a group of children is playing behind me, they notice a bench and immediately (what a windfall!) make me sit down on it.鈥�). Posing formally is becoming less common with the growing ubiquity of cameras, but most people will still sympathize with the awkwardness of enduring it. But not for the reasons Barthes claims. Much of CL centers on the photograph鈥檚 predisposition to 鈥渕ortify鈥� or 鈥渆mbalm鈥� the subject. I don鈥檛 think it has anything to do with this at all. It鈥檚 not only in front of the camera that I strike a pose鈥攊t鈥檚 constant and everywhere. I鈥檓 at the library and I realize my mind wanders to something frivolous. Instantly I snap back with an almost caricatured expression of studiousness to convince everyone that I鈥檓 really on task (this is of course unconscious鈥攏ot like I鈥檓 actually trying to convince them, not in a calculated way at least). The funny thing is that I might do exactly the same thing if I were alone in my apartment. The poses we adopt are like the meaning we attribute to any number of contexts. But we cannot strike a pose that will cover all situations鈥攖here is no universal pose. It is not mortification that makes us squirm in front of the camera; it鈥檚 the (very high) likelihood that there will be a clash of contexts between the snapping of the image and the subsequent viewing. Not a fear of our image being reckoned, but of being misreckoned.
Again here, in a lot of ways there鈥檚 nothing wrong with what Barthes says. I can imagine death might be on your mind in the times when photography was so uncommon that you could count the number of times in your life you were photographed鈥攁nd Barthes鈥� investigation often took inspiration from photos where the subjects were certainly dead by the time he viewed them. So again, the ubiquity of the camera and time to development are playing a part in what photography is.
(And so how do people deal with this problem nowadays? By making the fact of the pose unquestionable. Theatrical expressions, the indie group that gets their band photos done at the Sears portrait studio, adolescents (mostly) throwing their hands up in what are the remnants of once culturally significant gestures (peace sign, number one sign, middle finger, thumbs up, (mock) gang sign) which now designate nothing in themselves but instead stand in to demonstrate only the obviousness of the pose. In front of the camera it is always Halloween. I can only imagine what a super-crank this is making me out to be, but I can鈥檛 help but including it, my point being that even this strategy of posing-in-excess-in-order-to-negate-the-pose, only a sucker would take this photo seriously doesn鈥檛 actually work since it is still a meaning which might later clash with the viewing context. Either that or most people realize that the fate of the image is so ephemeral that there is no 鈥渓ater viewing,鈥� and I鈥檓 narcissistically laboring under the outdated paradigm of permanence鈥�)
In Barthes鈥� world advertising photos are excluded from discussion due to their obvious stupidity, but now advertising stubbornly refuse exclusion. Look at advertising photos these days. They鈥檙e not the silly things they were in Barthes day鈥攚ell they are, but anyway. They seem more like art. We might say that contemporary advertisers are a wilier breed (in order to outsmart a public that have become experts at ignoring advertisements) and have learned to mimic art, but this is probably not what Baudrillard would say. It is precisely Art鈥檚 disappearance that allows advertising photography to be more artistic. 鈥淎rt today, though it has disappeared, doesn鈥檛 know it has disappeared and鈥攖his is the worst of it鈥攃ontinues on its trajectory in a vegetative state. And becomes the paradigm of everything that survives its own disappearance.鈥�
Again, when something disappears it persists in its own excess. And so Baudrillard takes us to CGI (鈥減hoto-synthesis鈥�) where the image precedes the referent. What do you have to say to that, Barthes! Nothing, eh? Well Baudrillard has something to say to you: 鈥淚n the virtual image there鈥檚 no longer anything of that punctual exactitude, that punctum [Barthes鈥� term for what indefinably grabs, 鈥減ricks,鈥� the viewer鈥攖he most subjective aspect of viewing photographs] in time which is the 鈥榩oint鈥� when the analogue image was made. In the past, in the days of the 鈥榬eal world鈥�, so to speak, photography was, as Barthes argued, witness to an insuperable absence, to something that had been present once and for all time. For its part, the digital photo is in real time and bears witness to something that did not take place, but whose absence signifies nothing.鈥�
There鈥檚 much talk about ubiquity of the image鈥攐r of its increasing ubiquity more confusingly since ubiquity seems like it should be a binary distinction. On the other hand, ubiquity is sort of an impossible state, so in some sense we can speak of the ubiquitous image if we understand that what approaches ubiquity becomes something else before it arrives: the ubiquitous camera is no longer a camera but a sensor. At some point before the transition is made the line is blurred. When the camera transforms into a sensor we see the disappearance of the pose and at the same time鈥攂ecause there is no space in which to unpose鈥攖he disappearance of an increasingly universal Hawthorne effect. I think Baudrillard鈥檚 concern that humans will also disappear is something like this. Computer generated images are born without the referent. In the same way, Baudrillard ultimately thinks an entire virtual reality is being digitized where humans are superfluous.
Following a certain trajectory Baudrillard has a legitimate concern, but I鈥檓 not convinced we won鈥檛 switch tracks before we reach that horizon. It鈥檚 too bad Baudrillard isn鈥檛 alive to comment on technologies like 3-D printing where the virtual feeds back into the physical. Here the physical and the virtual shift to a new equilibrium that puts the physical back on comparable footing with the virtual. Even so, I鈥檓 wondering how much of one of Baudrillard鈥檚 remarks still holds: 鈥淸CGI] puts an end to the imagining of the image, to its fundamental 鈥榠llusion鈥� since, in computer generation, the referent no longer exists and there is no place even for the real to 鈥榯ake place鈥�, being immediately produced as Virtual Reality.鈥� If the virtual starts coughing objects up into the physical, are they still not somehow virtual? I think we鈥檙e here going to see not a disappearance of the real, but its true extinction, where it鈥檚 no longer the case that the physical is the home of the real and the virtual the home of the imaginary. When the physical and the virtual fall into a self-reinforcing equilibrium the imaginary-real duality is destroyed. And so it isn鈥檛 the case that everything is at that point imaginary, but that there is no such thing as either the real or the imaginary. It isn鈥檛 clear that many of Baudrillard鈥檚 worries over the place of humans in a world of mass migration into the virtual do not still hold in this scenario, but I think humans have better luck in any scenario that preserves the significance of the physical. At a certain point even the distinction between physical and virtual drops out.
Barthes worries that we鈥檙e beating the 鈥渟candal鈥� and 鈥渕adness鈥� the photograph into submission by banalizing it. 鈥淟ooking around at the customers in a cafe, someone remarked to me (rightly): 鈥楲ook how gloomy they are! nowadays the images are livelier than the people.鈥� One of the marks of our world is perhaps this reversal: we live according to a generalized image-repertoire. Consider the United States, where everything is transformed into images: only images exist and are produced and consumed.鈥� 鈥淲hen generalized it [the Photograph], completely de-realizes the human world of conflicts and desires, under cover of illustrating it.鈥� Ultimately he asks that we 鈥渁bolish the images, let us save immediate Desire (desire without mediation).鈥�
Why Hasn鈥檛 Everything Already Disappeared? says too late. and takes as its starting point the fruition of everything Barthes was concerned about. Baudrillard fears that the problem is spreading beyond photography to all that is digitized. And so what is Baudrillard鈥檚 rallying cry? 鈥淎part from all phantasies we maintain around it鈥攁nd in the entirely justified hope of seeing a certain number of things disappear once and for all鈥攚e must give disappearance back its prestige or, quite simply, its power, its impact. We must reinvest it not as a final but as an immanent dimension-I would even say as a vital dimension of existence.鈥� We鈥檒l check back in with him in a couple decades.
鈥溍嚸糿k眉 insan 艧eyleri kafas谋nda canland谋r谋p, isimlendirip kavramsalla艧t谋rarak var ederken ayn谋 zamanda da onlar谋 ait olduklar谋 ham ger莽ekli臒in i莽inde kurnazca 莽ekip alarak yok olmalar谋na neden olmaktad谋r.鈥�
ARKADA艦LAR YA BEN FELSEFE OKUMAYI UNUTMU艦UM YA DA BU ZAMANA KADAR OKUDU臑UMU SANMI艦IM. 陌kincisi daha do臒ru gibi. Zaten sorsan ka莽 tane kitap okudun, 莽ok az. Ama okuma 莽ok yap谋yorum Allah var. San谋r谋m hep anlad谋m san谋yormu艧um asdfasdfasdf
Neyse biraz zor oldu benim i莽in.
Baz谋 yerlerde 'sence de teknolojiye biraz fazla y眉klenmiyor musun Baudrillardj谋m' desem de feci hakl谋. 脰zellikle teknoloji 眉zerinden yapt谋臒谋 imgenin d枚n眉艧眉m眉 ele艧tirisi. Tam da ai'谋n bu kadar pop眉lerle艧ti臒i, 'ele aya臒a d眉艧t眉臒眉' d眉艧眉n眉l眉rse hi莽 haks谋z de臒il. Biraz da distopik bir bak谋艧 a莽谋s谋, bizim a莽谋m谋zdan.
陌mge, nesne ya da kavram谋n k眉reselle艧me / teknoloji kar艧谋s谋nda kaybetti臒i 枚z ve anlam, bu 莽ok vurucu. Yazar Ebu Gureyb foto臒raflar谋ndan 枚rnek veriyor. Bu kitab谋n yaz谋ld谋臒谋 tarihten, yazar谋n 枚ng枚r眉s眉 gibi, 莽ok daha vahim bir durumday谋z hakikaten. Ya艧asayd谋, yapay zekayla 眉retilmi艧 ve 44 milyonun 眉zerine payla艧谋lm谋艧 'all eyes on refah' foto臒raf谋n谋 枚rnek verirdi bence.
Foto臒rafa, videoya dijitalle艧meye ba艧ka bir yerden bakan baz谋 kavramlar谋 yap谋 s枚k眉m眉ne u臒ratan nefis bir kitap. 脰zellikle ileti艧imcilerin okumas谋n谋 tavsiye ederim.
Baudrillard talks about the modern world which conceived the so called reality and about the modern human beings who have already disappeared. He explains how disappearance is different from extinction, extermination and exhaustion as the latter three happen to be natural processes, while disappearance is an invention of the modern man. He calls it an art akin to martial art (and art not in aesthetic sense) wherein the modern man employs disappearance as a defence mechanism.
With the modern age, man has invented science and analytical knowledge to define the natural world, in the process of which, the natural world gets alienated. Baudrillard says that when a thing is brought into concept, into our cognitive apparatus, we call it into the domain of reality and ironically,at the same time, reality begins to disappear. He quotes the example of class struggle having come into existence with Marxism and once it came into existence, class struggle no longer thrived as a reality. That is to say, the moment a thing is named, it loses its energy and risks becoming a truth or an ideological imposition.
Once a thing is conceptualised, it becomes completely operational, devoid of any contradictions and no longer needs representation, that is it no longer needs us. The modern world, in this way, tries seeing its foreclosure by exhausting possibilities rather than by exploring them. This world has no place for the Other. But disappearance doesn鈥檛 mean extinction. Everything that disappears seeps back in 鈥榠nfinitesimal doses鈥�, ever more threateningly and imposingly than the visible. This is how human beings employ disappearance as a strategy to keep themselves relevant. This is their method to escape oppression and like Lewis Carrol鈥檚 Cheshire Cat鈥檚 grin, whose notorious grin remains even when its body has disappeared, human beings too remain like a spectre behind the disappearance.
The larger body of the text focuses on photography . Baudrillard compares photography with a camera against the modern digital photography. The former was about a radical distance between the camera and the subject. The photograph coming out through its realisation on the film, through its negative. On the other hand, digital photography, with proliferation & multiplication , erases this radical distance by manufacturing images. He makes a similar comparison of human beings with artificial intelligence, in the face of which the human being tends to disappear and the very act makes him immortal. The oppression of this artificial intelligence ,technology is that it effaces duality while human beings are naturally grounded in duality which permeates the entire world. Duality cannot be liquidated by the dictatorship of this integral reality.
This was my first Baudrillard and it鈥檚 quite a complex read. There were some interesting points that I could assimilate. A lot remains obscure though. This book deceptively appears nihilistic but nihilism is basically the denial of nothing.This book centres around Nothing and cannot in any which manner be nihilistic.
Sen T眉rkiye鈥檇e biraz 艧枚yle oldun. 鈥淭he end of social鈥漧a saha ara艧t谋rmac谋lar谋 ve baz谋 sosyologlar谋n can谋n谋 epey s谋kt谋n. Hi莽bir 艧ey ya艧amad谋n, ger莽ekten sahaya inmedin, hep 眉stten konu艧tun veya senin yazd谋klar谋n谋 ikinci s谋n谋f bir bilim kurgu gibi okunabilir dediler. Baz谋lar谋, 鈥渟anal ger莽eklik鈥�, internet de 艧枚yle k枚t眉, 鈥渂iz eskiden鈥� diyerek nostaljiye 枚vg眉yle sana referans g枚sterdi. Senden ekmek yiyen bir sanat tayfas谋 olu艧tu. Ben senin pe艧inden gidilecek bir 艧ey oldu臒unu d眉艧眉n眉yorum. Ke艧ke 陌stanbul鈥檃 geldi臒inde seninle g枚r眉艧ebilseydik. Sonra 枚ld眉n.
Y眉ksek b眉t莽eli her bilim kurgu filminin de bize g枚sterdi臒i gibi san谋r谋m d眉nyan谋n sonu gelmeyecek ya. Varolu艧莽ular neden kendilerinin tercihi olmayan bir hayata at谋ld谋klar谋na ve kendi 枚l眉mlerine bu kadar tak谋yor ki. Abi bitmiyor i艧te, insano臒lu bir 艧ekilde hep ya艧谋yor, ne dilerseniz yap谋n, hangi d眉zeni getirirseniz getirin insano臒lu tarihi bitmiyor. Bize b枚yle bir 枚l眉ms眉zl眉k verilmi艧 ve as谋l b枚yle lanetlenmi艧 olabiliriz. Baudrillard鈥檇a son diye bir 艧ey kalmad谋 diyor.
陌zin varsa 艧uraya bir 枚zet koyacam. Tarih boyu bildi臒imiz 莽eli艧ki 眉zerine oturan, olumsuz s眉recin itici g眉莽 g枚revi yapt谋臒谋 zaman谋 ge莽tik. 艦eyler var olabilmek i莽in kar艧谋tlar谋na gerek duymuyor. E臒er art谋k bir kar艧谋ta ihtiya莽 duyulmuyorsa, kar艧谋tl谋k itici g眉莽 g枚revini yapm谋yorsa, her zaman bir modeli 枚rnek alan insano臒lu bu modelin hem ba艧ar谋l谋 hem de ba艧ar谋s谋z olmas谋 i莽in elinden geleni yapm谋yorsa, s谋k谋nt谋.
Biraz 艧unlardan var: dualite ve insani 枚z olan dualitenin eksikli臒i, analog-dijital foto臒raf ve sahte gazetecilik 眉zerinden sanal imge 眉retimi 枚rnekleri.
Sim眉lasyon kuram谋n谋n kurucusu olan Baudrillard'y谋 okuman谋n tam da zaman谋 diye d眉艧眉nd眉臒眉m g眉nlerden ge莽iyoruz. Hiperger莽eklik d枚neminin bir sim眉lasyona evrildi臒i bug眉nleri, 2007'de vefat eden Baudrillard bile bu denli tahmin edebilir miydi bilemiyorum. Aslen bir Frans谋z sosyolog olan ve Fransa'da Almanca dersler verebilecek kadar derinlemesine bir Almanca e臒itimi alm谋艧 bu d眉艧眉n眉r眉n fikirlerini ve d眉nyaya bak谋艧谋n谋 ger莽ekten 枚nemsiyorum. Marksizm ve postmodern felsefe hakk谋nda ciddi bir birikimi olan Baudrillard'ye g枚re "her kavram televizyonlardan akmakta, insanlar teknolojinin onlara sa臒lad谋臒谋 bu rahatl谋k sayesinde herhangi bir 艧eyi derinlemesine d眉艧眉nememektedir". Kitapta 艧枚yle diyor yazar: "..Marx'谋n 枚ng枚rd眉臒眉 modern d眉nya 莽eli艧ki 眉st眉ne oturan, olumsuz s眉recin itici g眉莽 g枚revi yapt谋臒谋 bir yerken; zaman i莽inde giderek abart谋l谋 boyutlara ula艧an kusursuzla艧ma 莽abas谋yla 艧eylerin var olabilmek i莽in art谋k kar艧谋tlar谋na gerek duymad谋klar谋, 谋艧谋臒谋n var olabilmek i莽in art谋k g枚lgeye, di艧inin var olabilmek i莽in art谋k erile (ya da tersi) ihtiya莽 duymad谋臒谋, iyili臒in art谋k k枚t眉l眉臒e, d眉nyan谋n ise art谋k bizim varl谋臒谋m谋za gerek duymad谋臒谋 bir yer h芒line gelmi艧tir.." Ben ise kitab谋n bir b枚l眉m眉ne kendi d眉艧眉ncelerimden bir c眉mleyi 艧枚yle not alm谋艧谋m: Maksimum boyutta, maksimum alanda ve zamanda var olmak i莽in u臒ra艧arak, yok oluyoruz.
The desire to not exist anymore It's like the whole world exposing me to this idea of disappearance, to "the other " and backrooms and nostalgia of a whole another generation. It's v sauce (where do deleted files go) And Clark elieson Once you give something meaning or a name, you sentence it to be shredded into its most capacity, people analyze it to reach the perfection of an objective judgement. Same for us, human is challenging their utmost, until we drain every perspective we have to reach. And we do that by transforming the world into AI, people by that can fulfill their presence, but here's the turning point, the world then doesn't need us anymore, doesn't need the evil to distinguish good, because everything standby itself, in a 1 0 system. It's crazy he wrote that in 2007, the writer focuses on photography, on the no more need of the negatives which is the line connecting the picture with reality.
Baudrillard dans une coquille de noix, comme disent ceux qui roulent du mauvais c么t茅. La noix est bien m没re ici, moins la coquille. On y retrouve le Baudrillard photographe en th茅oricien, r茅p茅titeur de la d茅nonciation du mythe de la modernit茅 (illusion r茅gulatrice et pas moins n茅cessaire pour autant) avec cette coda : y aller 脿 fond les ballons, comprendre pour en jouir, dans un ultime frisson intellectuel, ultime parce qu'茅ternel. Bon, dit comme 莽a c'est pas terrible. Il y a les d茅fauts de Baudrillard en plus gros : beau-parleur, pr锚tant le b芒ton aux r茅actionnaires et le flanc aux lecteurs press茅s (脿 raison), jargonnant un peu mais finalement p茅dagogue par l'exemple. C'est bien l脿 l'avantage de cette petite vingtaine de pages, voir Baudrillard faire onduler la surface plane de la m茅taphysique plan-plan du r茅el, crever 脿 l'aiguille la baudruche du diptyque pr茅sence-repr茅sentation au profit de celui de pr茅sence-absence non plus du tout en docte (comme 脿 l'茅poque de "La soci茅t茅 de consommation") mais presque en ph茅nom茅nologue. Dans l'hyperquelquechose, quelque chose n'est plus sous le m锚me mode qu'auparavant. Et apr猫s on voudra croire que Descartes, symbole de la raison se fondant de mani猫re pr茅tendument autonome et symbole de la qu锚te du r茅el sous l'apparence, n'est, 脿 ce titre, qu'un symbole 脿 l'heure o霉 le symbole est tout, 脿 l'heure o霉 le symbole a bav茅 (presque, encore) enti猫rement sur le reste de la toile. (octobre)
I鈥檓 a postmodern fashion Baudrillard flips Leibniz question on its head. As soon as something is symbolized it disappeared or is already gone. Definitely one of Budrillards easier writings while still find myself having to reread but every other minute I get a sense of clarity and think I understand.
"IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD. It was only afterwards that the Silence came." "...it is clear that mankind exists only at the cost of its own death. It becomes immortal only by paying the price of its own technological disappearance, of its inscription in the digital order..."
Should we save absence from disappearance?
Very post-Benjamin to me, like the next step after his original: "the work of mechanical reproduction in the age of virtual reality". Essentially argues for a sanctity, an 'aura', of what Benjamin described as having no aura, in the face of the horror of total digital superreality. Maybe I'm just too far away in time for Benjamin but I find this "delirium of visibility at all costs" more convincing, and more terrifying.
Throwing pebbles into his reflection in a stream, having first-hand experience of his own disappearance, I can't help but wonder what the Baudrillard of around 1800 would have said about the camera obscura.
a dinosaur disappearing in a virtual sink-hole paradoxical points pointed to in paradoxical prose - or is it tautology? sounds of a stoner on a deathbed recommend to readers who like to go quote dipping
There is a lot of talk about the relationship of something and nothing here and of how by being expressed or by achieving its purpose a thing is already starting to fade away while at the same time every disappearance brings about something new. This reminded me of Hegel and of how Being and Nothing are not easily distinguished and what there is is really becoming, moving from one condition to another. There is also a lot of talk here about excess of everything and how it leads to even greater disappearance than disappearance itself. This reminded me of Nietzsche and how the ever greater excess of the Apollonian paradoxically leads to the death of God. And this made me wonder if Baudrillard can be seen as a sort of a synthesis of Hegel and Nietzsche which is an interesting thing to think about. Baudrillard wrote about these motifs throughout his life and I've read plenty of his books, but I am wondering this only now and I wonder why. Did the synthesis sort of click together at the end of his life or is it just my impression after reading so much of him. In any case it is interesting way of looking at his philosophy. But this all is not exactly new and it is not expressed in the best way. It is sort of style over substance and although I like Baudrillard for his style here it almost seems like he is trying too hard. And there is also this incredible feeling of despair throughout the whole text. This is Baudrillard's last book and him dealing with the question of why the process of disappearance he described is still going on feels like him dealing with his own legacy. Is the core idea correct? Will the process he was describing ever be finished? If it is finished, will his work still be relevant? This is an incredible contrast to The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact. There few years before his death he is taking a look back at the core ideas from his earlier works and presenting them in a more accessible form. Here just before his death he is unfocused and grappling with doubt. Oh, and he rejects dialectics. It's nothing new, I just don't like that one part of him and especially when he uses it to criticize Marx. That is all.
To the very end, attempting to show how the 鈥渘othing instead of something鈥� is just as valuable as the 鈥渟omething instead of nothing鈥�. A nail in the coffin of western metaphysics. Baudrillard showing how the negative is, at the least, identical, in nature, to the referent. The inherent duality of nature鈥檚 game that is sacrificed by the eradication of evil by good. The real always leaving a residual of its disappearance until there is no longer memory, let alone representation leading back to its inception. An immortal good permanently detached from all that was evil. An automatization of the subject. Representation dissolved by the information of the virtual. Liberating any choice between affirmation and negation. Objectifying all that might have been affirmed or negated. An absolute rational object.
鈥渢here is no finer analogy than that of the photograph that has become digital, being liberated at a single stroke from both the negative and the real world.鈥�
鈥渢here will no longer be any film, any light-sensitive surface onto which things inscribed themselves negatively.鈥�
鈥淏ut when, with the Virtual, the referent disappears, when it disappears into the technical programming of the image, when there is no longer the situation of a real world set over against a light-sensitive film (it is the same with language, which is like the sensitive film of ideas) then there is, ultimately, no possible representation any more..鈥�
How does nihilism feel? What are the limits of nihilistic philosophy? Why would a man want to get rid of his nothingness while complaining about his existence? Why dispose of the fundamental facts that have been discovered with an unending desire; tries to melt the time, the good, the bad, in the crucible of nihilism? Is there the idea that if the nothingness that lies at the core of our existence is destroyed, we will take control of the world?
The phenomenon of nothingness in this work cannot be subjected to a nihilistic interpretation, says Fran莽ois l Yvonnet. Because nihilism is the denial of nothingness. However, we need to protect our nothingness. Humanity must learn to live with its nothingness in its existence. Because we are now alone with nothingness rather than existence.
We took on modernism and post-modernism and set out on a path we didn't know where it led, we are going. But -still- we couldn't bring the end of the world...
We are fighting both against nature and what we do, that is, against ourselves... In this short work, Baudrillard says; 鈥淚n the beginning there was the word. silence ensued after that. There is nothing left that can be called the end now.鈥�
You ask why?
We haven't been able to end anything yet; because even that famous end that we know does not exist anymore. It's an amazing piece of work that tastes crazy.
in this essay, Baudrillard carries with what is left to explore in Marcuse's One-dimensional Man, and simply extends it further to the topic surrounding technology, digitalisation, photography, and temporality. the grand narrative is long gone, and Baudrillard focuses on this compartmentalisation of human in today's world. the hindsight is so much that the disappearance of analogue photography leads to a disappearance of time, and because time is lost, there is no point to create pictures, for they store the moments. he also elaborate this onto which the internet has made people's lives into data, as though their lives would forever be remembered as the data records all of it. this debate of immortality (in the digital/ virtual world) is separating human from distinguishing the false from the real, in the sense which you could still see pictures of someone on their insta even though they'd passed away. the points are quite inspiring, but not so creative really, that it falls into the typical spectrum of the leftist, or post-marxist ramblings of the modernised, digitalised, capitalist world which they cannot influence the mass with. insightful but not creative enough as critical theory.
Pareciera que en este libro Baudrillard estuvo ata帽iendo una nueva teor铆a adem谩s de la simulaci贸n. O pareciera que estaba puliendo lo que 茅l asum铆a como la desaparici贸n de la singularidad en el mundo por el automatismo de los simulacros. Es un libro un tanto desordenado y al mismo tiempo demasiado bello para tratarlo de ensayo. Es m谩s, me atrevo a decir que se siente como un libro de fragmentos en prosa. A la vez Baudrillard se coloca en una posici贸n apocal铆ptica, a la vez se sit煤a en el efecto po茅tico que esto conlleva; pues, 驴qu茅 es la desaparici贸n para el mundo contempor谩neo? Hay que verlo reflejado en la expansi贸n de la IA como sustituci贸n de los trabajos humanos, o en el campo del arte (que es, creo yo, donde m谩s abre debate). Hay que ver este propio efecto hacia otros paradigmas: el desligue de las voluntades por sustituci贸n de lo virtual. Por ejemplo, a Alexa ha hecho una tarea por m铆, pero fuera de esto soy capaz de reflexionar lo que Alexa ha hecho por m铆? Claro que no, pues de eso se encarga mi asistente virtual. Baudrillard lo coloca ya desde el punto de vista anal贸gico: mi videocasetera tiene la funci贸n de grabar la pel铆cula mientras no est茅 en casa, pero al llegar a casa, 驴a煤n siento la necesidad de querer ver esa pel铆cula grabada? Nada m谩s lejos de lo que se piensa. Este es un horizonte nuevo, y es que no hemos visto que realmente la misma desaparici贸n en el mundo es "funcional", desde alg煤n modo. El mundo ya no pesa sustancialmente, pero tampoco levita artificialmente (tomando la idea de Kundera), sino que ahora es un propio limbo. Los feed se actualizan, la informaci贸n prolifera, los contenidos se exceden, los live action se aprueban, el nuevo iPhone cada a帽o, el traslado de lo f铆sico a lo digital (libros, videojuegos, pel铆culas, obras, etc.). Es evidente, tomando lo que dice Baudrillard, el mundo estructural sigue funcionando a煤n sin nosotros.
reality is fast dissolving (in fact, has already consummated its dissolution, we discover all too late) in the proliferation of images, especially digital images which have no referent and are infinitely manipulatable. not anything especially novel or insightful, if you're already somewhat familiar with the themes of late Baudrillard's works, although as always the apocalyptic tenor of his writing is amusing to enjoy