DQ 7 - 7/11/17
Hi all,
Slight change of plans- because we're getting close to the Annotated Bibliography being due Wednesday, I'm assigning shorter readings due tomorrow and Wednesday. We'll save Zukofsky for Thursday, then start our new discussion format next week, starting with Pinter ("Mountain Language" and "No Man's Land", then finishing with "Dutchman" by Amiri Baraka). If you're interested in leading discussion for any of these, there are still spots available for extra credit on the final paper).
So for DQs tonight, please read the wikipedia article under the link "Baudrillard - Simulacra and Simulation" and the selections from "Guy Debord - The Society of the Spectacle", both in the Course Library, and post DQs. We'll also finish up "The Waste Land" in class and touch on "Ash Wednesday" and "The Hollow Men", so keep those DQs from today handy. Thanks for a great discussion today and see you tomorrow.
Slight change of plans- because we're getting close to the Annotated Bibliography being due Wednesday, I'm assigning shorter readings due tomorrow and Wednesday. We'll save Zukofsky for Thursday, then start our new discussion format next week, starting with Pinter ("Mountain Language" and "No Man's Land", then finishing with "Dutchman" by Amiri Baraka). If you're interested in leading discussion for any of these, there are still spots available for extra credit on the final paper).
So for DQs tonight, please read the wikipedia article under the link "Baudrillard - Simulacra and Simulation" and the selections from "Guy Debord - The Society of the Spectacle", both in the Course Library, and post DQs. We'll also finish up "The Waste Land" in class and touch on "Ash Wednesday" and "The Hollow Men", so keep those DQs from today handy. Thanks for a great discussion today and see you tomorrow.
Ethan Vaughan 7/10
ReplyDelete1. Baudrillard believes that in today's society has become saturated with simulacra that are "Significations and symbolism of culture and media that construct perceived reality...". It has to argue with him as we see even today countless remakes of movies with ideas that are no longer original, media that follows the same basic storylines, and narratives that are mindlessly repeated without new creativity that are pushed on social media. How much of a role has the rise of technology played in creating the problem that Baudrillard identifies?
2. Baudrillard lists the fact that the value of goods is based off of money value and not usefulness as one of the reasons that there is a lack of differentiation between reality and the simuclra. Does the money value of a good not normally reflect its usefulness in a manner that is relative to the value and usefulness of other goods?
Isaac Bendus
ReplyDelete7/10/17
While reading The Wikipedia article of Simulacra and Simulation by Baudrillard it left me with two questions. First, Baudrillard states that as society progresses our originality disappears. He states that over the years the original concepts have been reproduced and distorted so much that we can’t tell what is real and what is fake. What happens if a genuinely original and real idea does arise? Would Baudrillard argue that it is a distorted and/or reproduced idea of the past?
My second question is about Baudrillard’s ideas about capitalism and the way business is done in America. Baudrillard states that business blurs the line between products that are needed and products that are wanted by the consumer. Baudrillard gives his opinion about what the problem is but he does not give a solution. What do you think his solution would be?
Keagan Giblin
ReplyDeleteJuly 10, 2017
Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation came out in 1981. His book relocates on the relationships among reality, symbols, and society. Do you think that if Baudrillard were to publish his book for the first time in the 21st century his ideas would change? Do you think new technology has changed some claims that Baudrillard has made?
Baudrillard explains that contemporary media is responsible for “blurring the line between products that are needed (in order to live a life) and products for which a need is created by commercial images”. Since media heavily influences human culture could there be a logically way to make this line more clear that Baudrillard describes?
Daniella Alamo
ReplyDeleteBaudrillard writes Simulacra and Simulation in 1981 and examines technology and the media and how the value of goods is based on money. I wonder what Baudrillard would've written now with all the advances of technology we have today? Would his philosophies have changed in any way? Would they have changed for the worst?
Simulacra and Simulation by Baudrillard identifies the philosophies based on Simulacra and how our originality is not really original and has already been thought of before. What was Baudrillard's reasoning for writing this book? Does he feel as if there is no solution to this? Was the purpose of these philosophies to inform everyone that there work is not original and that with every passing day soceity repeats the same thoughts and ideas?
Peter Hoyt
ReplyDelete-My first question in the Baudrillard reading, is if the class agrees with him. I personally do, and can see especially in the 21st century how real the claims he is making are.
-If these claims are true, how bad is it? if we are losing reality from disuse, what is wrong with the new reality we have created?
ReplyDeleteBrieanna Graves
7-10-17
My first question relates to the meaning of number 9. Debord states “in a world that really has been turned on its head, truth is a moment of falsehood”. Falsehood is described as being untrue, so with that being said, what does the author mean by this statement.
My second question regards the article on wiki about simulacra and simulation. Beudrillard claims that our society we live in today replaced all reality and meaning with symbols. With this, I wonder how many people agree with this statement. Personally I feel as if this is true because symbolism is all around us.
“Simulacra are copies that depict things that either had no original to begin with, or that no longer have an original.” This relates to the discussion that we talked about in class today about authenticity. Why has Baudrillard said that “our current society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs.” Has our society actually lost connection to reality? Is this good or a bad thing?
ReplyDeleteHe brings up that “due to the proliferation of the mass reproducible copies of items,” that this breaks the connection of reality as well. In today’s world so many things are mass produced. Is the mass production of items ruining society?
Baudrillard says that “ our current society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs, and that human experience is a simulation of reality. “ It’s later said that language has become a simulacra, suggesting “ language becomes increasingly caught up in the production of power relations between social groups. “ Do you think Baudrillard would consider a tribal language a simulacra because it’s untouched by society?
ReplyDeleteBaudrillard claims that there is such a thing as “ pure simulacrum, “ where the symbol has no relationship or ties to reality at all. Do you agree that this is possible in our world? Or do you think symbols will always represent a part of reality and will never be artificial?
Sean Butler
ReplyDeleteBaudrillard states that signs can have false meanings, or even pretend to have meaning. But in reality, it has no meaning or original copy, people just accept it because they don't bother looking into the real meaning they just see the sign. Is Baudrillard trying to point out any specific "sign" or "symbol" in todays society?
It seems as if Baudrillard is making this simulacra sound like a bad thing, but in todays society could it be a good thing? People may not want to see a real/original copy in todays world or they may be afraid.
Carolyn Collins
ReplyDeleteJuly 10, 2017
Baudrillard states in Simulacra and Simulation, “Contemporary media including television, film, print, and the Internet, which are responsible for blurring the line between products that are needed (in order to live a life) and products for which a need is created by commercial images.” What type of products would Baudrillard consider needed in order to survive? With technological advances, there are probably more products considered as a need in today’s society, although people in the past have survived without them. If Baudrillard would have written this present day instead of 1981, would his opinion on what we need versus what we want be different?
Karina Amalbert
ReplyDeleteReading the wiki page on Simulacra and Simulation, I cannot wrap my head around something that has no origin as how would it be possible to create copies (simulacra). It honestly reminded me of whether the chicken or the egg came first but in a literary sense as it deals with signs and symbols. I understood the sense in society adapting the “thing” and it evolving but in a way couldn’t everything be traced back to an origin?
Another question that arouse was if Baudrillard had a solution to “precession of simulacra” as yes it has been evident the importance placed on “societal norms” but will we ever reach a solution to this phenomenon or will us as humans continue to create more meaning and lifeless symbols?
while reading the society of the spectacle, I couldn't help but think of the conversation we had during class about authenticity. Do you think Guy Debora would consider todays society as being authentic? Baudrillard says "our current society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs, and that human experience is of a simulation of reality." If the human experience is a simulation of reality, what would be considered our reality. Using the sign order what stage would todays society be in?
ReplyDeleteKylie Simmons
ReplyDeleteJuly 10, 2017
After reading the Wikipedia page on Simulacra and Simulation, I have come up with two questions. One being that our life experience is a sort of "simulated reality," and what difference it makes if it is all we know? Who is to say what is "reality" and what is not?
My second question is why Baudrillard believes contemporary media sources blur the lines of reality? I feel technology helps us further understand reality, not mask it.
Isabeau Cordes
ReplyDelete07/10/17
1.Baudrillard claims that “human experience is of a simulation of reality”. Is this saying that the human experience has never been of reality or that we have moved away from reality as the world became more modernized?
2.“Baudrillard claims that our current society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs”. What are some ways in which people have actually replaced reality with symbols, and if it is true, why do we as people do this? What purpose does it serve to move away from reality?
July 10th, 2017
ReplyDeleteMy first question is about the 4th part of “The Society of the Spectacle”. In this part Guy Debord says how, “ The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images”. I don’t really understand what Debrod means by this. I know he is talking about society but I don’t understand what he is trying to say when relating it to how society has changed.
After reading the Wikipedia article about simulacra and simulation, I had a question about when it is mentioned that, “society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs…”. What is Baudrillard referring to when saying this? I know Baudrillard doesn’t think society has a relationship with what is real; this makes me wonder how many people would actually agree with this statement in today’s society since this was written in 1981.
While reading the article on simulacra and simulation, Baudrillard's thesis is stated that "our current society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs, and that human experience is of a simulation of reality." What logic or evidence is this based around? Although you can not technically disprove this theory, it is equally as challenging to prove it in a scientific regard. What brought Baudrillard to form such an idea?
ReplyDeleteBaudrillard cites examples of Simulacra when the article states "The simulacra that Baudrillard refers to are the significations and symbolism of culture and media that construct perceived reality" is he referring to the media we most often view such as popular news outlets and reality TV shows? If so, what does he believe these things are symbolic of?
Simulacra and simulation is the replacement of all reality with the use of symbols. It also means that human experiences are the simulation of reality. Does this mean that our lives are based on the societal norms? In other terms, every decision we make is based on what the society believes is normal?
ReplyDeleteThe second question I have is why pure simulacrum is so different from the rest. It has no relation to reality where the others are reflections of reality or copies.
Kevin Cliffordf
ReplyDeleteJuly 10th, 2017
Baudrillard came up with these ideologies at a very earlier period of technology when it just started to develop. Would he believe his argument is even stronger now that we have so much deception in social media? People only post the best versions of themselves by trying to make it look like everything in their lives are going great, while that is not always the case.
My second question I have about Baudrillard is where did he stem these philosophies from? Was there a certain event that he saw or heard that made him passionate enough to bring up this abstract idea of us not living in the “real world” so to speak.
Kylie Rodriguez
ReplyDeleteJuly 10, 2017
So Baudrillard theorizes the lack of distinctions between reality and simulacra as several phenomenons, as stated in the wikipedia page. How does he suggest then we stay away from these distractions? What is the point of this theory other than to suggest that humans replace everything with signs and symbols? He doesn't so much suggest any help in avoiding this, unless I misread.
My second question is I did some research on Guy Debord and it seems like he was heavily influenced by Marx and Baudrillard when it comes to the idea of society being distracted by all these things like media and what not. So what do you think got him wanting to write like Baudrillard and on such a similar topic?
Olivia Longshore
ReplyDelete1. Baudrillard believes that society has become “so saturated with these simulacra and our lives so saturated with the constructs of society that all meaning was being rendered meaningless by being infinitely mutable.” Does this mean that Buadrillard believes he knows the true meaning of life? or is he just criticizing todays society with no grounds of what the true meaning of life actually is.
2. Towards the end of the passage on “Simulacra and Simulation”, the concept of war is brought up. The article claims that Baudrillard believed that “the image of war preceded real war,” meaning that war isn't actually war until the public is aware of it. this reminded me of the old saying “if a tree falls in the forrest and no one is around to her it, does it make a sound”. Is this the same concept Baudrillard is attempting to grasp?
1. After reading the Wikapedia article on "Simulacra and Simulation," I was confused about one statement in particular that he made, "The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true." What does he mean by this simulacrum is the truth which conceals that there is none?
ReplyDelete2. My second question is what led Baudrillard to think that "modern society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs, and that human experience is of a simulation of reality?" What is message is he trying to convey through this statement?
Julia Weisberg
ReplyDeleteJuly 10, 2017
In the society of a spectacle my first questions is what did guy debord mean by a representative experience versus a direct experience?
The second questions I have is as time goes on are becoming a more or less consumed with the spectacle of reality? If so is it because of social media and the Internet?
Tyler Crane
ReplyDeleteJuly 10th, 2017
I found it very interesting that Baudrillard wrote this treatise in 1981. Even back then, he puts stress on capitalistic modernity and new technology.How do you think he would feel about the emergence of new technologies like the Iphone? Would iphones also "blur the line between products that are needed (in order to live a life) and products for which a need is created by commercial images."
In The Society of the Spectacle, Debord states "The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images". Im having trouble understanding what he means by this. What images is he referring to?
Evan Smyser
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the wiki page 'Simulacra and Simulation' I began to think about how reality is skewed due to inventions and artificial realities. Video games, reality tv, and social media all give humans an escape from reality to participate in projected conversations and appearances. Will mankind follow the trend of participating in virtual reality to the point where reality is obsolete? In other words, will virtual society eventually 'outweigh' authentic society?
Also, from the same wiki page, I would like to question how multinational capitalism have an effect on the authenticity of life/artwork.
Anthony Duarte
ReplyDeleteJuly 10, 2017
As i was reading the wikipedia article on Baudrillard’s “Simulacra and Simulation” and questioned the following “Baudrillard claims that our current society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs, and that human experience is of a simulation of reality.” but what does he mean that we only live a simulation of reality? What are we doing or not doing that makes us seem as if we’re not living in reality and meaning?
Baudrillard also theorizes that people basically feel like they need something just because they see someone on any form of media or it seems like it’s the new trend. Therefore, in their eyes, it becomes a need instead of want. Do you think Baudrillard would still agree with this along with most of his beliefs if he were to write this today?
Parker Mealey
ReplyDelete7/10
Baudrillard states that reality has been obscured by symbols and signs, and that our experience is just a simulation of reality. In my opinion, this seems like a very bold statement to make, and one that must have taken a lot of personal thought and experience. My questions is, did something specific happen to Baudrillard to make him feel this way?
Both readings (the wiki article and the society of the spectacle) claim that life is no longer lived directly, but through abstract representation or symbols. This seems like a negative and slightly unhealthy word view. What made the authors believe this statement to be true? To what extent did they believe that this separation from society effected their lives, and how would their lives be different if this separation did not exist?
after reading the signed works, I has one obvious question about the wikipedia article. what is the meaning behind the quote ''The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.'' this to me is a very deep but confusing quote and I would like to know more about its meaning
ReplyDeletemy second question after todays reading is in regards to the '' society of a spectacle'', what is the difference between a representative experience and a direct experience? Although it seems self explanatory does the author have a deeper meaning to the two words?
Lauren Fiorito
ReplyDeleteJuly 10, 2017
The third stage in Simulacra and Simulation talks about the “absence of a profound reality, where the sign pretends to be a faithful copy, but it is a copy with no original.” If we were looking for the signs, how would we know if this sign is pretending to be real or not or if it’s a sign at all?
Also, it states “they simply hide that nothing like reality is relevant to our current understanding of our lives.” What does this mean and how does this apply to everyone if everyone is living in reality how does it not apply to us?