I apologize for this being late!! Ok, so did anyone understand Jean Baudrillard at all? I actually thought that this piece was up there with the really difficult ones. I read a few other posts and I see that I’m not the only one. I really could not tell his stand point on entertainment. I couldn’t tell if he liked it or not?? He did bash a few things and then it seemed like he liked a few others. I’m going to have to bring this one up on Wednesday.
Although I really didn’t fully understand this piece, I did find a few things that were interesting. On page 1732 Baudrillard says “Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.” When I first read this, I was so confused. I had to Wikipedia. Wikipedia says that:
“In semiotics and postmodern philosophy, the term hyperreality characterizes the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from fantasy, especially in technologically advanced postmodern cultures. Hyperreality is a means of characterizing the way consciousness defines what is actually “real” in a world where a multitude of media can radically shape and filter the original event or experience being depicted. Some famous theorists of hyperreality include Jean Baudrillard, Albert Borgmann, Daniel Boorstin, and Umberto Eco.” So, according to the definition of “hyperreal,” Baudrillard is saying that abstraction cannot be defined. It is hard to distinguish abstraction from reality and fantasy. It has no “map” or “mirror” to help you figure out what exactly it means. I think that he is trying to say that abstraction’s “value” or what you get from it all depends on the individual and what they think. There is no set idea or concept on what it should be or should not be.
Another thing that I found interesting was on page 1736. Baudrillard says “When the real is no longer what it used to be, nostalgia assumes its full meaning.” I think that he means that when something is no longer “real” or does not have a definition or no longer exists, then it is nostalgia (or remembering) that takes its place.
I think I pretty much got lost when he started talking about religion. I really have no clue what he means?? I’ll have to bring this one up in class as well.
April 18, 2007 at 2:49 am
I agree with you, this one wasn’t the easiest of reads. I thought he was overly critical of somethings, but I guess that’s his job. I also found myself looking up definitions of somethings as I read through this so you’re not alone.
April 18, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Cara,
The definition you provided kind of cleared things up for me a bit. I could be wrong (most likely) but I’m going to try and bounce an idea off of what you said. Michael Jordan- greatest basketball player in the world, most respected, accepted by all races, why? White people get the impression that they are actually intermingling with black people. They perceive a comfortableness that doesn’t actually exist because they get it from watching TV. The hyper reality in this case would be a homogeneous culture of the white and black populations. The value received is that ‘lack’ of racism. It is an intrinsic value- a felling that one is doing their part to create a utopian society by interacting with other racial persona(s) through the media. This comment is more than open to criticism.
April 22, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Baudrillard was hard…very very hard. I was pretty unsure about a lot of things being addressed. I am unsure about wikapedia…I have heard terrible things about that website. What I do when I get losted, I go look at other peoples blogs…but a lot of us write the same stuff like “well I din’t get this…” His whole idea of “real” was a mess to me. I thought he spent to much time questioning real…and it got me confused. I started to wonder if I was actually real and pinched myself…