Friday, January 19, 2007
Blog #1: How do you interpret Baudrillard's concept of the simulacra? Can you identify other simulacras?
Hi all- it's been a pleasure having all of you in class. For your first blog entry, please respond to the question posed above as you also read through your peers' responses. When you respond, please identify who you are, though I believe by signing in, it will automatically show up. To reiterate, the question for Blog #1 is: How do you interpret Baudrillard's concept of the simulacra? Can you identify other simulacras?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Just checking to see if this works.
Since I recently joined the course, the whole simulacra concept is still a little bit new to me, but I'll do my best. From what I gather from it, simulacra more or less is conveying what are false images, whether through our television, films, advertising, etc, but tricking it's audience in believing that is in fact real. If this is true, then our rituals that we practice at holidays such as Christmas could be perceived as a simulacra as well in regards to Santa Claus. Santa is considered a figure that exists only because we see him on cards, holiday specials, story books, etc. The same can be considered for the Easter Bunny as well.
A good quote from Baudrillard: " It [a simulacra] is no longer a question of simulation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real...". One way to look at simulacra is the example of a blind person. Dr. Miller had briefly mentioned about the perceptions of a blind person in class; but my sister rose some good questions to me. Beauty for instance. What is a blind person's perception of beauty, since beauty is a term established by the seeing, for the seeing. Of course, we could argue over what beauty is, but nevertheless a seeing person's view of beauty would vary greatly from that of a blind person's. So in relation to a simulacra, beauty either exists or it does not. And have we substituted the reality of "beauty" with a false pretext of the idea only to believe that this idea, this concept of beauty, is reality. And then, does it therefore not exist for the blind, thus making it a simulacra? I guess what i'm saying is, can a strong belief in something make it true, whether in actuality it is real or not? And if there are consequences that follow such manifestations, how can we say it is not real?
Simulacra: it's like having a mask without a face to wear it, or that the mask is the face itself.
In response to Sara's post, let me first declare that I cannot state this deep enough with words as she has because I am not completely understanding the concept of simulacra, however, the beauty example is very true. Beauty is not real. Ugliness is not real. Middleground between ugly and beautiful is nonexistant as well. It is a false pretense we have misconstrued throughout time. As a society we have created a make believe image of what "hot" is. Cultures all over the world do this as well. Depending on your confidence, strength, surroundings, artifacts, what "spaces" you are in , etc. your idea of beauty is different. We all have a false idea of beauty and most of the time in reality as well.
I agree with everyone else so far on the definition and interpretation of a simulacra. Another subject that can be posed is the concept of coolness and popularity. These concepts which society uses are all subjective. I mean who determines what is popular? Most people just go along with the crowd they are followers who just want to be accepted. Who determines fashion, music, etc? The who charade is a simulacra just as beauty is.
We'll according to class, a Simulacra is a copy without an origional that no longer measures itself against something else. My understanding of simulacra is that it is a fresh concept that has never been addressed. This concept or idea is original and can not be compared to anything else. Overall I am not exactly clear about simulacra. But I also feel it is the idea of understanding where reality ends and fiction begins.
I totally agree with what my classmates are saying and their perceptions/interpretations of what a simulacra is helps me understand it better. From what I gathered from in class discussions and readings, a simulacra is a copy of an original so that you know the original is real such as a mirror. A mirror reflects the object that is in front of it. The image portrayed in the mirror is the copy(the simulacra) that proves that whats in front of it is real. A picture is also like a mirror in the sense that it reflects an image of something thats real whether it be a person, place or thing. It takes a moment in time and keeps it preserved to reflect on the past in rememberance of something that "was" real.
I agree with many people's interpretations thus far of what a simulacra is, especially caralovespurple's interpretations of the simulacra in regards to Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. To me, a simulacra exists as an (imperfect?) copy of an original, but only to prove that the original does exist. In class we discussed why Disneyland is a simulacra. It is because it wants to simulate a perfect and fantasy world. However, because the copy is "imperfect" we notice things such as fees, emergency exists, wires, garbage cans, and security guards. I'm not sure about this, but perhaps movies could be considered simulacras as well. There are millions of movies, yet they are all trying to fit into the specific categories of action, romance, comedy, etc. Many of them could be applied to real-life situations or situations that could happen in the future. However, because they are only movies, they are therefore only copies of real-life and imperfect in the sense that real-life does not always work out in the end like it does in the movies.
This discussion is awesome- I am getting chills just reading the dialgoue. Keep it up- Bravo to all of you, :)
I am also unsure of the concept of simulacra but I am going to give it a shot. Perception is the key to the world and everyone has his or her own version. The world that we live in isn’t the same for everyone and simulacra is just the many interpretations of it. Simulacra refers to a copy of the original. The original is the world that we all live in but the copy is how each of those people interprets it. My world isn’t the same as a person who lives in a rainforest without any technology. I can be totally wrong but from discussions I think I might have the concept. As I said in class, I think that Disney is the perfect simulacra, especially Disney World. It includes parks, restaurants, spas, shops and shows all within Disney property. It is the perfect version of one’s own world. In this case it’s Walt Disney’s world. It is a completely different world that even uses different vocabulary. For example, all cast members (employees) must wear costumes (uniforms) even if they aren’t “friends with a character.” I think the other references to Santa Claus, beauty, popularity and the mirror are also great examples of simulacra.
I agree with many of my classmate’s perceptions and interpretations of what simulacra is. I really think Sheenas example of the “mirror” is a very clear way to explain what simulacra is. But when I think of simulacra I think of nature. All the faces and figures that appear in the natural world around us. For example in rocks, mountains and trees. I am still kind of uncertain if I am grasping this concept correctly.
To be honest, I'm still trying to interpret this simulacra concept but I'll give it a shot. To me this concept is very vague. In class we defined a simulacra as a copy without an original. I interpret this to be something that can not be duplicated, as well as compared to anything else out there. Because a simulacra ceases to be real, I think a simulacra can be anything that is worth debating over whether or not its real or false. Each individual believes in something different, rather it's real or false. For instance,look at us as human beings. Are we real? Who is to say that we were not copied and we are all false images of society. Sometimes I wonder if I'm real, and what I'm doing on this earth. I dont know though, it's just some food for thought!
Like everyone said before, simulacra is defined as a copy without an original. After reading over the notes a few more times I sort of agree with sara's definition of simulacra being like a mask. I think media, money and corporations are all responsible for simulacra and the loss of reality. we are so bombarded with images and messages every day and its nearly impossible to get away from so we are being pushed farther and farther away from reality. To me simulacra is like a wall thats been painted over so many times with so many colors that no one remembers what the original color was and no one cares because the newest color is so appealing.
If a simulacra is an image, or a representation, or a vague sembblance of some thing else it has to be of something that is real or tangible. Baudrillard puts forth the concept that in the postmodern era the simulacra has been able to overpower the tangible and become more real than the original. This may be true about a lot of things, but I believe that he is wrong about nuclear weapons. He writes that a country is less likely to engage in a nuclear war if they posess the weapons necessary to do so. It's hard to imagine simulated nuclear weapons, but it's not hard to imagine nation's attempting to being perceieved as having a nuclear arsenal.
After reading through everyone else's blog posts the thing that made me think the most is the concept of beauty. We take for granted what society tells us is beautiful and accept it as a truth, when beauty is in fact not real. Beauty is not a reality, it is a concept and we take what other people tell us is attractive and think that ourselves. The whole simulacra concept it still a little confusing to me, but it makes more sense in the context of thinking of it as images and ideas that aren't real but are perceived as real.
After reading the material and the blogs people have posted I feel I am developing a better sense of what Simulacra is trying to say. What is real? Simulacra is a concept that people have accepted in their lives. People need to make interpretations and representations so we know that we are real. Things such as Disney World, beauty, and holiday symbols are forms of Simulacra. We need Disney World to allow us to travel to a fantasy world so we can escape the problems of reality. A holiday symbol such as a Santa Clause people actually think really exists because it is on TV, cards, floats, and everything else we see during the holiday season. Beauty is a term that someone came up with to describe something. What does it really mean; don't people have their own idea of what beauty is? Someone came up with beauty and ever since then we accept what beauty is from someone else's point of view. Simulacra is a concept that means nothing is real and everything we know we know because someone else told us.
I'm still kinda confused on this whole simulacra concept. But basically its how we perceive whats real, well its not real. How do we know whats real, are we real? Media protrays a reality, but is that actually real. Basically I feel that nothing is real except for what we ourselves feel is real.
I too, am having a hard time figuring out what all of this means. But after reading the blogs I am getting a better idea. The concept of beauty really helped me alot. I think that media protrays what beauty is suppose to be so we in turn believe what they believe, but thats not really what beauty has to be. I think that the media makes us believes what they want us to believe and that what we beleive to be real isnt actually real becasue we are made to think certain things are real.
I'm still a little lost of this whole subject, but after reading the notes and a few blogs I understand it a little better. It seems like it has been tought to you as a small child with the tooth fairy, santa,Elfs, Easter bunny, and soo on. We are forced to believe certain because of traditions, and we don't make the connect what is really real until later in life.
Simulacra are false images that are conveyed through individuals and especially the media. The best example I read was caralovespurples' respond. For anyone who didn't read it, she was saying that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are false images. I wanted to add that the Tooth Fairy is another example of how Simulacra is used to mark or cover up social, moral, and cultural issues as stated in our class notes for chapter 1.
All of these previous comments have assisted in my better understanding simulacra, as well as sparking my own brainstorm and thought regarding these concepts. Personally, simulacra, as I have come to understand it, can be defined as the way that in our modern world, there is no division, no understanding between what is real and the symbols, signs, etc. that code for or are associated with that reality. Reality has become masked by those symbols that we, as people, are bombarded with daily. The media, in particular, seems to be in great control of manipulating and molding American's sense of reality. American's have become consumed with desires and wants rather than simply focusing on things that are necessary in order to live, thrive, and survive.
As far as identifying other simulacras, everyone's suggestions seem right on point. I love the mirror example, and the holiday characters. And if a place like Disney World-where once you step into it, the real world becomes separate and hidden-couldn't college then be considered a simulacra? Although college serves as a place where students are taught the skills necessary to survive in the "real world," a community such as a dorm can certainly protect someone from dealing with reality. For instance, in the dorms, the bills are payed, the toilet paper is restocked, and the hallways are cleaned by some anonymous person, and yet parents or guardians are absent. That is not real life.
After reading the blogs, I think very many of us have similar interpretations for Baudrillard's concept of the simulacra. I think the main concept Baudrillard is trying to get across is that we are surrounded by so many different symbols and signs that we cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not real. The media has such an impact on our society, and the views/opinions we form. Everything around us influences our perceptions of people, places, etc. Beauty is a great example to use, because everyone does have their own personal definition of beauty. Years ago, Marilyn Monroe was physically one of the most beautiful woman at a size fourteen. Today, models are so skinny that their bones show through their skin. This is teaching the young women in society that this is how they should look. To me, skin and bones do not represent beauty, but to others it may. There are endless examples of what simulacra may mean to different people.
Simulacra can be defined as a copy without the original, or also as in the notes, reality immitating the model. For me the concept relates to how people in today's society treat money and the idea of exchange value. Everything is measured by how much wealth we have forcing people to lose touch with the the material. People are not interested in anything about the product except how much it is worth. Many different things may contribute to this idea that everything is broken down to capital.
After reading everyone elses blogs, I started to understand this concept much better. The whole interpretation of a simulacra is endless. I agree with jamie8 when she previously compared a simulacra to a wall that has been painted over so many times and no one knows what the original color was, and no one cares to know. This shows reality being dominated by the media and our surroundings.
I am still trying to understand simulacra myself. I think my classmates did an excellent job thusfar on describing what it is to them. I really liked the examples about Santa and the blog about beauty. To me Simulacra means that we are hidden from the reality of everything because so many other things are distracting us. I start to question everything. Beauty is a good example. Who defined beauty in the first place? What was the first definition of beauty and we can then see how many things have changed that definition. There are so many examples. I think school is another example. Looking back and thinking what my teachers told me in any of my classes, is that information true? Is that the "original" information or did it get copied somewhere. Thanks to everyone for helping me understand this concept a little better!
ok so.. from what i gather from class disscussions and my attempts to understand Baudrillard, i believe that a simulacra is when the real world goes beyond our reality and becomes its own reality, creating a "hyper-reality" a world of its own, where make-belive can become our reality if we so choose to belive it.
I still haven't completely grasped the concept of simulacra but I agree with others in that beauty is a good example of a simulacra. Another example can be the many masks that people wear in different situations... when people were a multitude of masks it's easy to confuse or forget who we really are. However, if we all do wear these different masks all the time, what/who is our "real self"? Do we really have a "real self"? A intesting example involving unfamiliar signs & images can be found in street artist Shepard Fairey's work & manifesto. Shepard Fairey is the creater of the "Obey Giant" campaign, which is a simulacra for nothing really if i understand it correctly.
http://www.obeygiant.com/
Although I am not completely sure what simulacra is, the concept of creating an exact copy of the original interests me. When I saw the title of the book I wondered to myself "What the hell is this about?". I had no idea what simulacra was, but when I thought about simulation a car simulator came to mind. These simulators are computer programed to look exactly as the original track; to ride as if you were on that track. But this program was never programed before, are these simulators simulacra when they are created for the first time?
This is the second week of class, and I can tell you guys, that this whole Simulacra is still alittle confusing. But I consider myself an intelligent person, so ill take a stab at the meaning of it. If I had to guess on what the word Simulacra mean't, I would have to agree with everyone else by saying that it is kind of up to us, as to what the meaning should be. It's kind of like an opened ended statement. I say this because I feel that the meaning of this word, is what we feel are the truths, or what we consider false images, or false interpretations on what ever the topic maybe. I really didnt understand what the word mean't until we talked about "Disney world" and how it is runed on fake beliefs, or atmospheres, or even how it is telling us how the world should be runned within it walls of fun. To me Simularca is a word, based on truths, and false beliefs. It's what we make of it, and what we believe. It's what we as humans beings consider real or not real. I kind of think of it as the "Twilight Zone", were false images are made real, dreams become reality, and for a second in time, we are asked to questions ourseleves and our beliefs.
Wow, I'm really impressed by all of your discussions! They are so well-written! Well, I'm just gonna go ahead and try my 'best' to put my thoughts into words...
The discussions on 'beauty' made me nod. Then they got me thinking “How about ‘self-confidence’ or ‘self-satisfaction?’” “What's doing one's ‘best?’”
Being seniors, I bet many of us have headache from worrying our future plans-- getting jobs and such. And I’m one of them. I keep thinking to myself “I gotta do my ‘best’ to get an ideal job” so that I can gain self-confidence and satisfaction. But the ways and levels of gaining one’s confidence and satisfaction greatly vary depending on the person. Doing one’s ‘best’ certainly varies in the approach, time-span, dept, and so on. But a lot of people just say “I’ll do my best” as if there is a certain point in the process of making efforts, where the ‘best’ is defined.
“Simulacra is a copy without an original (that no longer measures itself against something else).”
‘Best’ in oneself is up to the person. It is not easy to reach one’s limit, or ‘best,’ but when one feels that he/she has done his/her ‘best,’ that’s what it is. It’s intangible and not defined exactly in words. One needs to face him/herself to know his/her ‘best.’ In this sense, there has never been an original of ‘best,’ while people keep thriving for their ‘best.’
…I hope this makes sense…!
The class has come up with some great interpretations of simulacra. I can strongly aagree with the ideas of beauty, mirrors, Disneyland and the painted wall as representations of simulacra. The idea of school being a simulacra was also brought up. Can we then say that our workplace causes us to be a simulacra? In most cases we are not our full selves in the workplace. We take on an image, just as Dr. Miller expressed in class, we all take on different images all the time. So when are we real? Are we real? Society forces us to believe that we have to take on certain images to be accepted in different settings. None of us let our full selves be seen all time, instead just a small representation of our whole self. I don't know if i'm thinking correctly but i gave it a shot.
Like most of my classmates, I was unsure of the meaning of sumulacra, but after reading the other posted blogs, I am now understanding it a little bit better. Simulacra is defined as a copy without an original. As I read through the blogs, I came upon and agree with Kelly Swigart, the thought of college being a simulacra makes a lot of sense. In the last 4 years we have all lived in our own little protective bubble of college, and for the most part, our only responsibilities are going to classes and working the occasional part time job. I am lucky because my parents are able to help me out financially, and I know that this is not how the real world works, I am not always going to be able to run to mommy and daddy when I am in jam and need money. But I do know that this is not the real world, we are all seniors and the real world is going to be upon us sooner than we think, and we are going to have to stand on our own two feet whether we want to or not.
You guys are amazing.....:)
Alright, so far so good on what my classmates have posted. I absolutely loved the quote comparing simulacra to wearing a mask as the face itself or not having a face to put it on. I think that this idea can directly apply to Teresa's comment about popularity and "coolness" if you will. The entire idea behind society and fads is basically like wearing a mask. How many celebrities do we see doing things for shock value or just to get publicity. I feel like celebrity life is a sort of "disneyworld" in and of itself. It is like this giant imaginary world where nobody can do anything wrong because nothing is real to begin with. It was just a comparison that made a lot of sense to me.
(sorry this is so late. My imail account was hating me, and posing many problems to get school stuff done)
I thought I had somewhat of an idea of what a simulacra was, but I wasn't completely sure. After reading the comments from everyone, I definitely feel like i understand it a little more. The fact that it's supposed to be a copy without and original and it cannot be measured against something, it makes me think of a "created in the image of" type deal. We have something real (well as real as it can be these days) and create a simulacra in response to it. The media seems to create simulacras a lot by taking something that we (as a collective) understand to be real. They change it so it isn't so different that we can't understand it, but it still isn't real. In all honesty, it seems that simulacras could be dangerous if used the wrong way. If I'm grasping the concept correctly, propaganda for war could be a simulacra.
So far we've had some interesting examples. Sara mentioned the blind person's concept of beauty and wearing a mask without a face. Jessica brought up popularity as a similar concept. Sheena gave an intresting example with the mirror.
So reality is a copy without an original. If it is no longer possible to discern reality from simulation, is it possible to ever have known the difference in the first place?
Take food for example. We have continued to add chemicals and preservatives to our food, which change the chemical composition of the cells. What happens if there are no more organically grown tomatoes? We are left with the copies that no longer have an original. All of the new tomatoes are 'enhanced' tomatoes. It is impossible to reproduce a real tomato because all we have to go on is the flawed copy. So the real is replaced by the simulation.
So how do we reconnect with the real world that preceeded the copy? If we destroy the copy to see the real, we could be left with nothing.
The more I read about this, the more unanswered questions I have. It is as difficult as understanding the scientific explanations of time travel.
I am still kind of iffy on the whole concept of the simulacra, but I shall do my best. I think simulacra is the completely false. Television, films everything that we see in the popular media is completely false. Documentaries included. The thought that Disneyland is a perfect example of a simulacra is right on, however, I have one other theme park that I would like to offer up as a suggestion. Busch Gardens Williamsburg, and Tampa. These parks are deliberately formed to give the tourist the illusion of the countries in Old World Europe, and the countries in the plains of Africa. Baudrillard says "It is no longer a question of simulation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real." Well, if that be true, then this is an example of substituting signs for reality. Within these parks the signs of these countries are all there. The music, the architecture, the clothes. The signs are there, and I know that there are some people who take that reality for truth, as sad as that seems.
This blog has really helped me understand the idea of simulacra, and I agree with everything that's been written. I think this concept goes hand-in-hand with the idea of the mediated reality that dominates our world. What I mean is that the media often determines what the general public perceives to be real. Those perceptions are generated in the news, TV, film, advertising, magazines, etc. All of these media influence what we perceive to be beautiful, cool, normal, or ideal, influencing our vision of reality.
Here is the website for our Wiki. We went to the Japanese Shogun restaurant...hope this works!!
http://digitalwriting.pbwiki.com/Shogun-Japanese-Restaurant?doneSave=1
Here is our Wiki for our first event. We went to the Shogun Japanese Restaurant. Hope this works!!!!!!
http://digitalwriting.pbwiki.com/Shogun-Japanese-Restaurant?doneSave=1
here is our WIKI address for our first observation presentation. We went to the Sheesha King.
http://digitalwriting.pbwiki.com/Sheesha%20King
I agree with what most of the class is saying about the concept of beauty and ugliness. We are told what is beautiful and what is popular mainly from media. Some peoplpe may not follow the medias example and go by what they believe themselves what is beautiful in a person. They can do this by sharing simular values and beliefs with the object of beauty, but who is to say that the objects and beliefs themselves are not simulacras? My favorite part of this reading is how nature now is known as protected land. People are destroying rainforest, forest for paper and towns, Alaska for oil, ect.. and if we want nature to still be around in the future we have preserve it by purchasing it and marking it as protected. In future generations national parks may become the new Disney worlds, because they will be the non-realistic part of life. They will be so used to urbanization.
I guess this whole idea of a mirrors and pictures being like a simulacra puts me in mind of Dorian Gray. If we can't see the original, does that then make the copy real to us? How do we know which one is the real Dorian Gray? I guess it's like the saying that in order to appreciate winning, you have to have once lost. Only the opposite makes something true. When Dorian sees himself in the painting, he realizes that he has in fact aged. When the copy looks upon the original it must suffer the realization that it is only a copy. Like when Buzz Lightyear realizes that he is one of a million copies of the original. He's distraught and loses all knowledge of himself because he is not an original. I guess its like the first time you realize that the world can go on with or without you because you are one of billions. This makes us ask ourselves if we are real. Is our social circle real? Is there that chance that I would walk into my house tomorrow and my family would have no idea who I was. It's a scary thought, but so far I'm thinking that's what the simulacra is all about.
Post a Comment