this is stupid. this is not what baudrillard is arguing. his arguement is contingent to current material conditions.
with debord, the spectacle had taken precedence over reality, participation in life impossible etc etc, but this was all due to current conditions of capitalism and would be destroyed through (marxist) revolution, and through this we would access "Real life" and become masters without slaves.
baudrillard WAS a situationist but moved on from debord in the 80's arguing that our signifiers had completely replaced "the real" and become a hyperreality, and there was no potential for revolution reversing this development.
Andrew Reyes
Because at least with other obscurantists you can eventually work out what the fuck their talking about though repetitive symbolism and concepts, terminology and (sometimes historical) context (like Deleuze) etc but Baudrillard doesn't do any of that to insulate himself from criticism.
Owen Ross
(this is that OP)
even then, this stuff, the debord, baudrillard, barthes, lacanian mirror shit as looking at people as being essentially swarmed, attacked, and rendered passive consumers of images is elitist and stupid
read "the emancipated spectator" by ranciere and "its crazy how many things dont exist" by jp voyeur
Matthew Ward
Fuck off Berkley
Hudson Smith
>a historical outline of how the relationship between images and the real has changed. I'm well aware, but he never made a mention of the Real being replaced by that image, but that the image has become its own Real itself. >terminology and (sometimes historical) context (like Deleuze) ironic since I'm actually gonna read capitalism and schizophrenia next.
Sebastian Russell
>"its crazy how many things dont exist" by jp voyeur what
Zachary Peterson
Though most of his shit was already established by the Situationists, there is still some value in how he analyzes the 'spectacle'. Go back to his essay on the role of communication in the Media -- He's claiming more than a divorce between an event and it's imaginary counterpart; the imaginary is what constitutes the event. In so far as this relates to simulation it implies a completely self-referential simulation which no longer NEEDS a reality to exist -- it merely re-manufactures it's own ad infinitum.
With the advent of mass distributed information, communication between bodies is severed. You watch the TV and it watches you. Where Debord predicts the end of the social, Baudrillard foreshadows the end of humans. Still very useful.
Jace Wood
The shit he says about Watergate and JFK was cool Probably been said before but I'd never thought of it
Jeremiah Hill
>Someone sends me Simulacra & Simulation >He's also trying to get into my pants
