On Thursday kenneth Feinstein Professor of interactivity from Nangyang Technical University's Art Design and Media Department participated in the critique of student work (for those present online) and held a discussion on Jean Baudrillard. I feel that this was one of our most successful classes so far as we are becoming more and more comfortable using technology that while good and extensive is not really designed for the uses we are doing. Yet in pushing it to the limits we are really doing some exciting stuff. Overall it is getting better and better I hope we can continue to raise the bar with each online session. I would encourage each of you to try to attend one or more in the future as in future as the opportunity for direct interaction iis always best.
Please post a combined response to the lecture as well as the reading (PDF) that was sent, yes you had to read it.
11 comments:
I thought that this lecture was very interesting, and there is most definitely a difference between watching the lectures online and actually being there in person. The simulation of watching them online, as discussed, sort of alienates you from the communication experience.
When questioning "what is reality", I began to really think about how much our reality is actually limited. Right now, my reality is basically limited to the 180 degrees I can see and experience. My roommate is down the hall taking out the trash, but I cannot see her, and therefore I cannot really prove she exists; she might have suddenly died, yet in my reality she is still alive, because I don't know it yet. Discussing this in class, the hyper-reality and the different ways to experience reality, really got me thinking about how flexible "reality" actually is.
One analogy I really liked was the one where the nation made the one-to-one scale map of their entire land, and laid it out over everything, and eventually the people wore through ti and could not distinguish between the two realities. I think that it's important to distinguish between realities, but at the same time I really do believe that reality is very limited, and also quite subject to change based on the person experiencing it.
From this lecture it was brought to my attention that what when you communicate you are creating simulacrum- which is basically something that lacks the qualities of the original. So, as we start to transfer a message we lose bits of information.
I look at it in this way- say someone takes a photograph and then someone takes that photograph and replicates it by painting. Now, each time you create something out of the previous event you are losing information. The viewer of the orignal event (person who took the picture) has a greater understanding of that event because they were there. They have used all their senses to understand that event. The observers of the painting think they have an understanding of what it was like to be their because of the way the artist portrayed that event, but they obviously have no idea.
As for our culture being more accepting to this simulacrum hyper-reality- I start to question whether this is a good or bad thing? If you take for example, Second-Life- this hyper-real virtual world where you have obtainable goals like getting a house, a car and artificial friends. You walk around and do things that are possible in the real world (minus super-man flying). Their are some great things that this Second-Life allows, for example going to galleries and talking with people from other parts of the world. Now, if you had money and resources you could do that in real life- but many of us are in debt and will soon be working to live.
Hyper-reality can lead to many extremes, it could be a state of mind that reality could not reach or it could be used as a shield from direct communication.
I think that art takes the "state of mind that reality can not reach" because our perception of reality has been decided for us (like Keith had mentioned).
Elana- I had similar questions running through my head. For the rest of the day I analyzed my life and the decisions that I have made and tried to figure out how I came to make those decisions- from clothes, to books, movie collections- everything. Is there ever a time in my life where I actually made those decisions? Or was my subconscious bombarded by events or people that convinced me that this new gadget or this new shirt is what I really wanted.
Are we living a hyper-reality (to a certain degree?)?
I really enjoyed the lecture. It wasn't about the tools, it wasn't about the cool art that is created, but more about the philosophy going on around a theme. That theme being hyper-reality. One of my favorite parts was the talk about how art is supposed to mimic life and now life is mimicking art. The way we perceive what is the normal human reaction versus what the media or art shows as normal human reaction. Like how we smoke, how we dress. We are mimicking art now instead of just living.
what is reality? how do we make reality understandable? the hyper-real. Where's reality? How can we redefine reality. Re-defining people through electronic means, such as X-Box or computer or myspace.
Stephen - I totally agree with you about what you said about the photography and painting. How the photographer or painter uses all their senses to understand a certain emotion, or space in time, and how if anyone was to replicate it, the meaning would be lost.
I really like how this class is coming together. Having a new interesting guest speaker each week makes it feel a lot like you are inside that movie "Waking Life." It fantastic that we have the opportunity to hear from these people and I would love to come to the classes in person but I have two daughters who just started school. They are getting on the bus about 15 minutes after class starts.
Todays class was one of the best although it seemed to get too broken up with "does anyone have a question"s and sound problems. The subject matter for this weeks class was perfect. It makes you wonder, where do we draw the line between reality and simulation and will this line even exist in 50 years. When Kenneth talked about the nation with the life size map, it made me think of virtual environments such as Second Life or World of Warcraft. Granted these online computer "games" are not nearly as all engrossing (yet) to make users forget they are not in the real world, but when these environments look more like the realistic HoloDecks of Star Trek, that may not be far off.
Wow I've definitely decided to start coming to this class instead of watching from home. While you can still catch everything that went on in the Podcast, it's much more fun to be there so that you can be interacting and not just watching. I enjoyed the discussion about placing yourself into alternate realities such as video games or movies. Like if we watch "Schindler's List", do we really know what the Holocaust was like? Or doing a video podcast even - is that really close enough to a classroom experience? My argument was that it is quite similar, because it involves the audio and visual stimuli, which is mostly what a lecture involves (unless a teacher smells really bad, and when I mentioned that idea Raph proceeded to sniff our guest speaker...then gave us a thumbs up).
Aside from the connection issues we sometimes experience (and having to mute/unmute the audio), I'm really enjoying this class. Though it is really early (8am is rough in my book), there's something nice about gathering with a small group of people and having a surprisingly intimate conversation with Raph and sometimes a guest speaker. I also like that we're still able to do critiques through the video conferencing, and also that we can view other people's work again later if we didn't catch it before. Hopefully I'll drag myself out of bed again next Thursday so I can be part of the discussion again!
Stephen- Telephone game for the win? I agree entirely, we are losing bits in translation from one medium to another, or one person to another as I suggested with the juvenile communication game.
Now, to press further on the idea that we are losing bits and pieces of everything as we pass it along, what are we missing from viewing our lectures online? Well, we are losing out on a lot of emotion driven responses from interacting 1 to 1 with Raph. Also we may be losing context from dropped frames in the stream. All possibilities, not probabilities.
Kory mentioned what is reality? I say perception is reality. We all have our own sense of what is real, and no one can truly deny us that. A schizophrenic individual has a far different grasp on "reality" than I do, but that does not make either them or I any less credible.
World of Warcraft definitely came to my mind as well James, and I can almost disagree with you. Do you truly believe that individuals do not forget where they belong because of this game? I have seen so many individuals lose themselves to virtual items, and set their lives AROUND raid schedules. Its quite frightening that anything can be that engrossing besides drugs. Remember the play on Everquest when in the early 2000's it was referred to as EverCRACK? Heh, I do. Thankfully I never got involved.
is our idea of who we are reality to other people? if you look at world in its most broken down form, what is it that we are actually seeing, the words we hear, where we stand in relationship to the surroundings. the atoms, the electrons, everything broke down to its simplest form is a form of reality. perception is everything, and with out our own idea of what life is in our experiences, removed to become something more than how we as a social able public look at all our moments as a collective understanding, or one right meaning rather we need to think more about what it means to have an individual idea of a personal meaning of reality.
The lecture it was discuses a lot about what makes up the simulacra and a simulation, the two are similar in a lot of ways but are still different, perception again is key. another thing that makes up a huge difference in the meaning is the idea of time and how it works. Perception drives our understanding of reality, another is the security of the place in which you are currently existing in time and space and the relationship to you and everything around you.
so over all i found that the discussion of reality and the hyper real to be very interesting, it opened a few doors that i feel were before close to many people because they did not know how to understand what it was that they are experiencing on a daily basis. can the hyper real and the real exist in the same place and time , not cross overs but rather places where you see the level of thew two combine to become a thing that would allow us to understand more about the world we are in, by showing us what would change it over time.
Stephen, I really like the anaglogy you used with the reality > photograph > painting scenario...and I do agree with you, I'm not sure if there's one thing in my life which has been done without some sort of outside influence. Maybe then, attaining ultimate reality - a place where we can be totally in tune with ourselves - is an illusion, and we truly are living in a hyper-reality. A little bit scary to think about that.
Jean Baudrillard in the most basic sense presents the idea that the distinction between the real and the imagined has been removed. He further states that this creates a type of simulation that is hyperreal. I would assert that the capacity to imagine has existed as long as the ability to distinguish between the self (internal individualized consciousness) and the other (external phenomena). To imagine even without tools but those of pure thought alone, is to create a “simulation,” much as dreams even are a form of simulation to use Baudrillard’s term.
Today we use amazing technologies to simulate and create “alternate realties.” But these are no greater then the oral “technology” of the Bard in ancient society who could conjure up simulations in the minds and hearts of those to whom tales were recited. In fact, the best orators use words as rhetorical tools to create simulations in the minds of the listener. And it is not just the oral alone that can do this the fixed image (painted, drawn, carved, sculpted etc.,) was once very powerful in creating simulation. An example of this would be the paintings of Michelangelo’s on the ceilings of Sistine Chapel’s paintings that could evoke a feeling (read simulation) of God in the Renaissance viewer. These new technologies are only the tools of the time. And they are tools that were developed out of our innate capacity to dream and imagine.
I assert that’s the ability to imagine is and has been one of the most powerful tools of thought or, more simply put, abilities that we as humans posses. Imagination can act in several forms from the dream to the reflection to the most uniquely human ability to create. Not only just to create but when faced with a situation, obstacle or problem to use the tools of imagination to discover creative solutions to any manner of the afore mentioned blocks. The ability to creativity to problem solve as well as to create even when not faced with a problem is by far the most important and powerful gift we as a species have.
There is perhaps both an underlying danger and a problem with this gift when reason is slack. What Baudrillard does do in his Simulacra and Simulation is, I think, indicate a pervasive kind of decadence of thought that occurs when as he states:
“Nor is military psychology mistaken in this regard: in this sense, all crazy people simulate, and this lack of distinction is the worst kind of subversion. It is against this lack of distinction that classical reason armed itself in all its categories. But it is what today again outflanks them, submerging the principle of truth.”
First, I most point out that I myself to not believe there to be a thing that is “true.” I incline towards the notion that there is only opinion, both good and bad. What makes opinion good (and therefore in the minds of some true) is when it is as informed and as reasoned as it can be. Opinion is subject to change as experience of the new and of that as of yet unknown alter it. But this is a topic for another discussion as I think it is more important to focus on the idea of how unchecked simulation is a sign if decadence.
Many indigenous peoples, such as American Indians, traditionally do not distinguish between the dream state and the real (I define the dream as a form of simulation). What they do distinguish is between those dreams that are “true” and dispensed by Gods, Spirits or Ancestors (true in this sense being a kind of vision that leads or guides the individual’s life choices in a healthy way) versus visions that can lead to madness and come from an entity metaphorically named the “Trickster.”
Dreams are, I think, an important thing to consider. I would put dreams that happen while asleep in the same grouping as imagination and fantasy. Especially so, when one uses imagination or fantasy to guide ones life choices, behaviors or problem solve. When used much to make choices or solve problems in a healthy way or perform the creative act, as in the art maker, the dream, fantasy or imagination is a useful and deft tool. To do so it is important to realize that there is a distinction between the tool and the hand that uses it for purpose or with intention. When the distinction is lost, when fantasy is allowed to become real then decadence becomes a norm.
I am of the opinion that is best to keep fantasy out of reality, as the distinction between the two makes each respectively richer and allows us to engage in the unique experience of the contrast of self and other. When one blurs between the real and the imagined; fantasy and reality; it acts as a kind of intellectual incest. I would venture to think that this done culturally for too long a time might even diminish our ability to create new and unique things from our internal imaginings, dreams and fantasies.
Baudrillard suggests that we have come to this state of the hyperreal and the blur of simulation because the narrative canvas of our lives has become desolate in our modern world. I would agree with to some extent, that this is true. In most developed nations we try to exert types of cultural controls and norms that in essence either remove or contain extremes of behavior in our society. The most obvious of which are violence and aggression. Just reflect that not too long ago within a mere 100 years a argument could be settled by duel and now we do so through the detached process of litigation. This leads to much safer lives but in agreement with Baudrillard, ones that are equally less exciting. Further, we try at every step to remove all manner of travails, pains, and discomforts from our everyday experience. Just think how we have a pill for every ill even one that can be as benign as headache.
But I digress. The ability to creatively problem-solve or engage in useful imagination, fantasy or dreaming to modify Baudrillard a bit; to simulate without detachment and to maintain the distinction between the real and the imagined. In other words to deny his notion of the hyperreal is crucial to maintain original-highly creative thought and output.
I actually came to class for this lecture and I am really glad I did. Since then I have not been able to get the concepts and theories of simulacra out of my head. The other day I was singing a song in my head, and thought "when a person sings a song in their head, that is pretty much simulacra". My rationale in this was that a person writes a song, which is their original thoughts and feelings, then they record those thoughts and feelings, which simulates what happened prior to the writing of this song, so when you are listening (and relating) you are really living through simulacra. I guess the same could be said for reading a book. It is very deep and philosophical stuff, but I definitely have not been able to shake it from my brain.
We talked a bit about my body modifications, and one thing I wanted to say then, that I did not think of until after was a note about perception. Like I said in class, people perceive me a certain way because of my piercings, and part of that is intentional because I really think there is a problem with our societal norms, and I feel like I am changing some of those perceptions but not just by looking the way I do, but because there is a certain stigma that is associated with the subculture I choose to be part of - CRIMINALS. I break that stereotype just by being in college, but also by working 5 jobs, getting dean's list each semester, and just generally being a nice person (who has never been in trouble with the law). The thing I wanted to add was that environments can change perceptions as well. My example is WINTER. In the winter, I wear long sleeves which cover my wrist piercings, a scarf that covers my neck piercing (and lip piercings sometimes), a hat that covers my ear piercings, and sunglasses that cover my bridge piercing. I think it's interesting to think how we are changing other's perceptions, but how environments can change our self-perceptions as well. Just a neat thought...I thought.
Back to Jean and Kenneth though. I think a lot of the concepts that Ken spoke of related well to things like film because we often feel like we are living something, that we truly are not, but in our culture we try so hard to relate to people that we feel like we fall short if we cannot. This creates a giant facade when we feel like watching a movie about the Holocaust gives us some kind of life relation to it, but as Kenneth said, in reality, it does not. I thought about the film "What the Bleep Do We Know" a lot while thinking of simulacra and simulation for the mere fact that quantum physics and reality are closely related. Reality is a funny concept because no one truly knows what reality is. There is "virtual reality" which is just an image what what reality is supposed to be, but even the reality it is projected may not be reality. The life we are living may truly not be reality, and this could just be one plane of existence that is bouncing off what reality truly is. It's deep stuff, but it's good to get deep every now and then about the life we are living because if we are only going to be here once (presumably) then we should question life's greatest questions like "why are we here?"
I thought of a fun little quote when I was walking back home..or rather just a notion. I thought "I don't want to live my life in simulacra" because it seems to be a projected reality of another true experience, and I think as humans we should thrive to get as much "TRUE EXPERIENCE" as we possibly can. Of course, we will live simulacrums life each day, but if we try to be creators (like we do in new media) maybe we can cut down some of that simulacra and create genuine experiences.
One thing I want to respond to was something that will said when talking about MMORPGs. ADDICTION. It's interesting to think that most things you become addicted to are things of addiction. Simulation is based on addiction, and Simulacra...almost illusions of grandeur. I think it's a safe way to escape reality. Drinking, drugs, video games, porn, anything that can be addictive is pretty much simulation of other worlds. I guess I haven't really thought about addictions as escapism , but it all connects when thinking about this material! good point will!.
Post a Comment