Thursday, April 30, 2009
[Les Miserables] 10th anniversary - One Day More!
gets me every time i listen to this. more to come.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
前生回溯
一直心思思想試下，又擔心發現一d唔想知道的前世瓜葛…上下心中。以我今世的積習喜惡來說，即管估計下前世可能係以下時空生活過：
- 民國年代中國
- 中世紀意大利
- 維多利亞/愛德華時期英國
- 羅馬/十字軍時代地中海/以色列
- 唔知幾時摩洛哥
- 四五十年代荷里活
暫時想到咁多。
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Epilogue
During the course of the paper, I have tried firstly to illustrate Baudrillard’s theory of the “hyperreal” and “simulation” with the example of James Cameron’s film Titanic and secondly assess the validity of his claim. It is hoped that by now it would have been demonstrated that his assertion, though was first formulated about twenty years ago, still has some significance in helping to understand the world in which now live in. His contribution lies specifically in his acute observation of the image-oriented culture in the late 20th century, which seems to be growing in a yet more speedy and dominant way than ever before.
However, this aspect of Baudrillard’s theory does not carry enough weight to compensate its blind spots and gaps, which are most evidently illustrated by his insensitivity to difference. The diversity of the masses, the media, the consuming public are all flattened in favour of a highly generalized and universalized tentative assumption which confuses observation with philosophical hypothesis. His rejection of the reality principle is so poorly grounded in both philosophical and sociological terms that the pertinence of his works is discredited. His suggestion of adopting a strategy of indifference is also challenged vigorously by subcultural theory, cultural text theory, audience research and other theoretical positions such as Feminism. All of these offer an alternative view of the masses as actively involving in meaning negotiation and resistance, rather than being just a plain surface of depthlessness which uses silence as their only weapon to fight against the bombardment of the media world as Baudrillard imagined.
Perhaps it is out of this obsession with imagination did Baudrillard start off with his project of refuting its exclusive “other’ – the real. Nevertheless, as with any other discursive practice, the theoretically repressed “other” always lurks behind, waiting to unfold itself. The irony is that by endorsing the unreal, the real is enforced more firmly each time, pushing the unreal to its dead end.
However, this aspect of Baudrillard’s theory does not carry enough weight to compensate its blind spots and gaps, which are most evidently illustrated by his insensitivity to difference. The diversity of the masses, the media, the consuming public are all flattened in favour of a highly generalized and universalized tentative assumption which confuses observation with philosophical hypothesis. His rejection of the reality principle is so poorly grounded in both philosophical and sociological terms that the pertinence of his works is discredited. His suggestion of adopting a strategy of indifference is also challenged vigorously by subcultural theory, cultural text theory, audience research and other theoretical positions such as Feminism. All of these offer an alternative view of the masses as actively involving in meaning negotiation and resistance, rather than being just a plain surface of depthlessness which uses silence as their only weapon to fight against the bombardment of the media world as Baudrillard imagined.
Perhaps it is out of this obsession with imagination did Baudrillard start off with his project of refuting its exclusive “other’ – the real. Nevertheless, as with any other discursive practice, the theoretically repressed “other” always lurks behind, waiting to unfold itself. The irony is that by endorsing the unreal, the real is enforced more firmly each time, pushing the unreal to its dead end.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Part III_The Unsinkable – Titanic or Baudrillard? (cont'd)
Even within the realm of the media, Baudrillard does not acknowledge the difference in separate media forms, On the contrary, he sees modern media as a single powerful force which dominate the world today. His preoccupation with the image might be of some significance in relation to those media forms that are predominantly visual, such as photography, cinema, TV and computer technology. Yet, as far as other forms are concerned, his theory of “hyperreality” and “simulation” would be reckoned problematic. For instance, how far are these concepts, as developed by Baudrillard, useful in understanding such media forms as music, radio and theatre? It might be postulated that simulation is playing an increasingly important role in present day music production, especially with the technology of sampling and computer generated sounds of limitless varieties. This does not, however, mean that reality would inevitably disappear under our eyes. How does simulated sound defeat the reality principle? What kind of “hyperreality” is there in this kind of music? What mechanism might have been at play in achieving this ultimate phrase of the hyperreal, if there is anything as such? Baudrillard could not possibly give us a hint. He would be equally speechless when his claim was confronted by the case of radio, which affiliation to the imaginary in fact provides a strong support for the reality principle, thus disabling Baudrillard’s thesis on the fusion of the two. To complicate the issue further, how far is Baudrillard’s hypothesis applicable to a theatre performance? How are the real and the imaginary at play in the theatre? The “reality” of the performance can be sensed if it is successful in drawing the audience’s identification. If done impressively, it might be argued that the “hyperreal’ is exactly the moment when the audience is totally absorbed into the performance, which is more “real” than the real. But still, the real is very much alive outside the performance. Some practices of the theatre arts even tend to destroy the identification that is sought after by “normal” performance. Brechtian theatre would be an example of smashing the effect of the “real” produced by the performance. Audience is reminded of the fact that they are constantly watching something “fake” on stage by the effect which Brecht called “alienation”. Prevented from identification, the audience is told to recognize that there should be no reason in believing the “reality” on stage is more “real’ than their reality on the auditorium. In a subtle way, this practice destroys, on the one hand, the notion of the imaginary as “real” and by so doing, reinforces the existence of the real on the other through denying the possibility of the imaginary. All that is left is reality, which presence so immediate and overwhelming that there is no escaping it, not even in watching a play when it is supposed to be escapist to be certain extent. The reality principle is retained not because there is no more “real” as Baudrillard suggested, but precisely because it is a fact of life.
No matter how hard he tries to do way with reality, it haunts him still as a ghostly presence. If Baudrillard did go down to the Atlantic with Titanic, he would encounter nothing more than just a despicable experience he called “hyperreality” and all he need to do is just to be indifferent to whatever come to his way as a strategic resistance. Hopefully he would not sink that badly as the other 1,500 people for if not, he would be left bewildered by foundering in the icy water – a reality which horror and vividness could perhaps never be simulated with however advanced digital process.
No matter how hard he tries to do way with reality, it haunts him still as a ghostly presence. If Baudrillard did go down to the Atlantic with Titanic, he would encounter nothing more than just a despicable experience he called “hyperreality” and all he need to do is just to be indifferent to whatever come to his way as a strategic resistance. Hopefully he would not sink that badly as the other 1,500 people for if not, he would be left bewildered by foundering in the icy water – a reality which horror and vividness could perhaps never be simulated with however advanced digital process.
Part III_The Unsinkable – Titanic or Baudrillard? (cont'd)
Another point that paralyses the potency of Baudrillard’s proposition would be his insensitivity to difference. According to Baudrillard, the explosion of media messages results in the implosion of meaning. Too much to see in too much detail does not mean that one can see clearly. There might have some truth in this assertion when it is put into the context of advanced, industrialized (or post-industrialized to be precise) societies when such “explosion” and “implosion” belong to those who can “have” it all. It is in fact a privilege to experience this incredible process described by Baudrillard since there are not many who can afford to do it. To be able to have a taste of this media frenzy, one has to have at least a basic TV set, (preferably one that is good enough to enable clear reception from the numerous channels brought about by Satellite and Cable TV), a computer with modem which should at least be fast enough to transfer data from the information highway called the “Internet”, not to mention a reserve of money which would be used for paying the alarming phone bill at the end of each month. If one has none of the above, he/she can still have a glimpse of what it is like to be in the hyperreality by going to the cinema. If it proves to be something unaffordable, then stroll along the high streets to see those massive advertisements and infinite newspapers and magazines. But if that too is too much to ask for, then the world Baudrillard described is a highly exclusive arena which members would be those who already have it all. Those who are struggling with more immediate deprivation such as the lack of clean water, disease and starvation could never be included in Baudrillard’s “Hyperreal Club”, so are those who constantly live along and under the poverty line.
For those who “have”, Baudrillard claims that they adopt a strategy of “disappearance” as a resistance to the “capture, networking and forced identification”[1] dictated by the tyrannical media. By over-accepting and hyper-conforming to the bombardment of media messages, the masses “turn themselves into an impenetrable and meaningless surface”[2], cut off from any connection to meaning and speech. This refusal to react and interact is proved redundant by “cultural text” theory and audience research. John Fiske (1987) and Stuart Hall (1973, 1980) respectively claims that media messages can be read differently according to both the code inherent in the media text and the recipients themselves. “Interpellation” is the term employed by Fiske to describe the relationship between the implicit discourse of the media text and the subject position taken up by the addressee. Hall utilizes the concept of “encoding” and “decoding” to suggest that recipients of media text interpret it differently according to the form of cultural capital at their disposal. Dick Hebdige (1979) suggests that different groups interpret given text by taking it out from its context in order to juxtapose it to their own right (the concept of “bricolage”). All these theories suggest that the recipients of media messages are not as indifferent as Baudrillard argued. It is not within the scope of this discussion to examine the above claims in depth but they are used as examples to illustrate the big gap that Baudrillard has left behind in his assumption, namely a homogenous, undifferentiated mass which is very much similar to what the Frankfurt School (T. Adorno and M. Horkheimer specifically) refers to as a bunch passive dupes. In this respect, Baudrillard commits more or less the same mistake made by the Frankfurt School in flattening the mass as a universalized, generalized, classless, stateless, ungendered and non-ethnic sum total to which, of course, Baudrillard himself does not belong. Such elitist assertion is doomed to fail especially when certain marginal positions such as Feminism and Postcolonialism have long been challenging the validity of such eccentric hypothesis.
[1] J. Baudrillard, ‘The Masses’ in Jean Baudrillard Selected Writings, Mark Foster (ed), Oxford, Polity Press, 1988, pp. 213.
[2] Ibid. pp. 213.
For those who “have”, Baudrillard claims that they adopt a strategy of “disappearance” as a resistance to the “capture, networking and forced identification”[1] dictated by the tyrannical media. By over-accepting and hyper-conforming to the bombardment of media messages, the masses “turn themselves into an impenetrable and meaningless surface”[2], cut off from any connection to meaning and speech. This refusal to react and interact is proved redundant by “cultural text” theory and audience research. John Fiske (1987) and Stuart Hall (1973, 1980) respectively claims that media messages can be read differently according to both the code inherent in the media text and the recipients themselves. “Interpellation” is the term employed by Fiske to describe the relationship between the implicit discourse of the media text and the subject position taken up by the addressee. Hall utilizes the concept of “encoding” and “decoding” to suggest that recipients of media text interpret it differently according to the form of cultural capital at their disposal. Dick Hebdige (1979) suggests that different groups interpret given text by taking it out from its context in order to juxtapose it to their own right (the concept of “bricolage”). All these theories suggest that the recipients of media messages are not as indifferent as Baudrillard argued. It is not within the scope of this discussion to examine the above claims in depth but they are used as examples to illustrate the big gap that Baudrillard has left behind in his assumption, namely a homogenous, undifferentiated mass which is very much similar to what the Frankfurt School (T. Adorno and M. Horkheimer specifically) refers to as a bunch passive dupes. In this respect, Baudrillard commits more or less the same mistake made by the Frankfurt School in flattening the mass as a universalized, generalized, classless, stateless, ungendered and non-ethnic sum total to which, of course, Baudrillard himself does not belong. Such elitist assertion is doomed to fail especially when certain marginal positions such as Feminism and Postcolonialism have long been challenging the validity of such eccentric hypothesis.
[1] J. Baudrillard, ‘The Masses’ in Jean Baudrillard Selected Writings, Mark Foster (ed), Oxford, Polity Press, 1988, pp. 213.
[2] Ibid. pp. 213.
Part III_The Unsinkable – Titanic or Baudrillard? (cont'd)
Yet, this does not mean that his argument cannot be pushed to its dead end, as what he suggests as a strategic resistance in ‘Symbolic Exchange and Death’ and ‘Fatal Strategies’. Take his concept of simulation for example, rendering there should be no reality whatsoever, the survivors’ stories about Titanic would be nothing other than a simulated experience of the real, an experience which is more “real” than the real. By extension, the sinking of the actual Titanic might as well be no more than a simulated event. The 1,500 people that were lost might as well be just a simulated figure unfolding over the myths and stories about the event. In other words, lived experience of historical happenings has no place in Baudrillard’s analysis. Nothing real exists outside the gigantic simulacra. The food shortage in North Korea and the nuclear weapon developed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq are but “sites of the disappearance of meaning and representation, sites which are caught apart from any judgment of reality, thus sites of a fatal strategy of denegation of the real and of the reality principle.”[1] In short, the “real and present facts of experience-inequality, deprivation, urban squalor, unemployment, massive and increasing differentials of wealth and power” make “nonsense of Baudrillard’s sophistical case that nothing exists outside the endless circulation of ungrounded arbitrary signs.”[2] It is unimaginable to render lived experience just as some signs (without knowing exactly what that means) “exchanging in itself and in an uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference.”[3] Perhaps except Baudrillard, it would be quite something to hear people saying, “my famine is but a sign of famine, a sign of bread is all I need.”
Moreover, does the technique of simulation employed by present day media necessarily upset the reality principle? One example would be virtual reality games. The selling point of simulated visual and physical experience lies in their characteristic of being comparable to the “real thing”. It is at the same time self-evident that all it is about is an unreal experience, one that is presented as if it is the real one. The fact that it labels itself as “real” as or even more “real” than the real, confirms rather than destabilizes the reality principle. As in the case of Disneyland, the boundary between the real and the unreal is not so much eroded, but rather intensified by technologically advanced tools. There is no reason why simulation and reality should be mutually exclusive and incompatible as Baudrillard argues. Instead, they are reciprocal. After all, people know that they are watching a film, or playing a computer game, or surfing the “Net”, as opposed to their real, factual daily existence such as eating, sleeping, walking, working, playing, daydreaming. To claim that the latter is not reality at all compared to the former is to overlook too carelessly the bodily existence of day to day living. Baudrillard’s argument, however appealing it might be at the first glance to fit into the media-saturated world, fails to explain those lived and real experience happening at each moment outside the realm of the media. This omission is just too important to be ignored in accessing the creditability of Baudrillard’s hypothesis.
[1] Ibid. pp. 194.
[2] Ibid. C. Norris, pp. 147.
[3] Ibid. ‘The Evil Demon of Images and the Precession of Simulacra’, pp. 96.
Moreover, does the technique of simulation employed by present day media necessarily upset the reality principle? One example would be virtual reality games. The selling point of simulated visual and physical experience lies in their characteristic of being comparable to the “real thing”. It is at the same time self-evident that all it is about is an unreal experience, one that is presented as if it is the real one. The fact that it labels itself as “real” as or even more “real” than the real, confirms rather than destabilizes the reality principle. As in the case of Disneyland, the boundary between the real and the unreal is not so much eroded, but rather intensified by technologically advanced tools. There is no reason why simulation and reality should be mutually exclusive and incompatible as Baudrillard argues. Instead, they are reciprocal. After all, people know that they are watching a film, or playing a computer game, or surfing the “Net”, as opposed to their real, factual daily existence such as eating, sleeping, walking, working, playing, daydreaming. To claim that the latter is not reality at all compared to the former is to overlook too carelessly the bodily existence of day to day living. Baudrillard’s argument, however appealing it might be at the first glance to fit into the media-saturated world, fails to explain those lived and real experience happening at each moment outside the realm of the media. This omission is just too important to be ignored in accessing the creditability of Baudrillard’s hypothesis.
[1] Ibid. pp. 194.
[2] Ibid. C. Norris, pp. 147.
[3] Ibid. ‘The Evil Demon of Images and the Precession of Simulacra’, pp. 96.
Part III_The Unsinkable – Titanic or Baudrillard?
In the previous section, the phenomenon brought about by the film Titanic is used as an example to illustrate the four phrases of the image in becoming what Baudrillard called the ultimate “hyperreality” or “simulacrum”. According to Baudrillard, once the last phrase is reached i.e. the simulacrum, the image would be void of any connection with the reality principle and become copies of its own. In other words, this hyperreal needs no referent of reality whatsoever but goes on to reproduce itself, superimposing constantly one level of simulacrum over the other. But does reality or the reality principle can be that easily and readily disposed of by Baudrillard?
The film Titanic does not in any way hide the fact that it is about simulating a reality called the experience of a sinking ship through the aid of computer technology. It knows, as much as the audience, that it is a simulation. If it is anything, it would be but a re-creation of a referent, one that is believed to have happened in reality back in time. Baudrillard might argue that it is necessary for the film to advertise and sell itself as an imaginary re-creation of the real, a strategy reinforcing the belief that it is outside this cinematic world that is real, thus saving the reality principle. This sounds very much similar to his analysis of Disneyland, in which he argues that the enclosed world of Disneyland is the defining “other” of the rest of America by its virtue of being the imaginary as opposed to the “real” out there. Yet, this argument reinforces the distinction between the real and the imaginary, something Baudrillard tries hard to refute but finds himself caught in irreconcilable contradiction. On the one hand, he claims that there is the “impossibility of the real and of the imaginary”[1] as a result of the proliferation of modern media images as signs. On the other hand, his notion of the imaginary, as exemplified by both Disneyland and the film Titanic, serves paradoxically to uphold the boundary he so desperately trying to destroy. How can the imaginary be so without relying on the real to define itself and vice versa? How can the imaginary “rescue” the reality principle without first being confirmed as such by the very existence of the real? Reality cannot just simply be talked away by Baudrillard, especially in such vague and unverifiable way as this,
“It is now impossible to isolate the process of the real, or to prove the real’.[2]
Since it is impossible to trace and prove the process he describes, Baudrillard conveniently wipes out the possibility of rebuttal. What more can be refuted if the subject of refutation is something comprehensible only to Baudrillard.
[1] Ibid. ‘The Evil Demon of Images and the Precession of Simulacra’, pp. 194.
[2] Ibid. pp. 198.
The film Titanic does not in any way hide the fact that it is about simulating a reality called the experience of a sinking ship through the aid of computer technology. It knows, as much as the audience, that it is a simulation. If it is anything, it would be but a re-creation of a referent, one that is believed to have happened in reality back in time. Baudrillard might argue that it is necessary for the film to advertise and sell itself as an imaginary re-creation of the real, a strategy reinforcing the belief that it is outside this cinematic world that is real, thus saving the reality principle. This sounds very much similar to his analysis of Disneyland, in which he argues that the enclosed world of Disneyland is the defining “other” of the rest of America by its virtue of being the imaginary as opposed to the “real” out there. Yet, this argument reinforces the distinction between the real and the imaginary, something Baudrillard tries hard to refute but finds himself caught in irreconcilable contradiction. On the one hand, he claims that there is the “impossibility of the real and of the imaginary”[1] as a result of the proliferation of modern media images as signs. On the other hand, his notion of the imaginary, as exemplified by both Disneyland and the film Titanic, serves paradoxically to uphold the boundary he so desperately trying to destroy. How can the imaginary be so without relying on the real to define itself and vice versa? How can the imaginary “rescue” the reality principle without first being confirmed as such by the very existence of the real? Reality cannot just simply be talked away by Baudrillard, especially in such vague and unverifiable way as this,
“It is now impossible to isolate the process of the real, or to prove the real’.[2]
Since it is impossible to trace and prove the process he describes, Baudrillard conveniently wipes out the possibility of rebuttal. What more can be refuted if the subject of refutation is something comprehensible only to Baudrillard.
[1] Ibid. ‘The Evil Demon of Images and the Precession of Simulacra’, pp. 194.
[2] Ibid. pp. 198.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Part II_The Hyperreality of Titanic (cont'd)
However, might it as well be the case that his prophecy is but a poetic literary practice, which replaces sociological validity with descriptive complacency? Christopher Norris (1990) points out precisely the mistake made by Baudrillard in his otherwise seamless account of some of the most acute observation of the late 20th century. Norris suggests that,
“Baudrillard’s mistake is to move straight on from a descriptive account of certain prevalent conditions in the late twentieth-century lifeworld to a wholesale anti-realist stance which takes those conditions as a pretext for dismantling every last claim to validity or truth.”[1]
Where does Baudrillard go wrong in his analysis? What might have been forsaken in his generalization of the media? What could be refuted in his theory, especially now when the 21st century is approaching fast? How could his claim be understood differently from it first appeared about twenty years ago? The following section aims to negotiate these problems, if not necessarily providing an answer.
[1] C. Norris, ‘Lost in The Funhouse: Baudrillard and The Politics of Postmodernism’ in R. Boyne and A. Rattansi (eds) Postmodernism and Society, 1990.
“Baudrillard’s mistake is to move straight on from a descriptive account of certain prevalent conditions in the late twentieth-century lifeworld to a wholesale anti-realist stance which takes those conditions as a pretext for dismantling every last claim to validity or truth.”[1]
Where does Baudrillard go wrong in his analysis? What might have been forsaken in his generalization of the media? What could be refuted in his theory, especially now when the 21st century is approaching fast? How could his claim be understood differently from it first appeared about twenty years ago? The following section aims to negotiate these problems, if not necessarily providing an answer.
[1] C. Norris, ‘Lost in The Funhouse: Baudrillard and The Politics of Postmodernism’ in R. Boyne and A. Rattansi (eds) Postmodernism and Society, 1990.
Part II_The Hyperreality of Titanic (cont'd)
The image becomes “its own simulacrum” when “it bears no relation to any reality at all”. It seems to be the case for the film Titanic. On the level of technical sophistication, passengers and crews on board the ship are digitally simulated by computer, so are the ocean and the iceberg that it strikes. They bear no relation to that initial reality of the real thing other than being the components of a simulacrum called Titanic. On another level, simulation seems to be working as well, in a larger scale. The legacy of the film reproduces itself by the endless stories about its over-budget cost, prolonged shooting, dangerous working environment for the crew and among all these, a thread linking them together – the obsession with its own perfection as a simulacrum through endless digitalization (many of the fuss is about numbers, figures, statistics) and genetic miniaturization (everything is reduced and deduced to the finest possible detail for replication and simulation). Commodities of numerous kinds (posters, postcards, costume, menu, soundtrack, books, websites and perhaps the most exemplary of all, pirate copies of the film which has not yet released its video and laser disc) help to solidify the (hype-perreality) of Titanic. It has become not only a phenomenon but also what Baudrillard refers to as a “reality of its own sake, the fetishism of the lost object: no longer the object of representation, but the ecstasy of denial of its own ritual extermination: the hyperreal”.[1]
Up to this point, it seems that what Baudrillard argued more than twenty years ago still has significance even today. His contribution lies in his providing a framework, however loosely formulated it might be in its theoretical and philosophical skeleton, for making some sense of a media-saturated world, especially in the late 20th century when modern media images are becoming increasingly digitized, computerized and simulated. Visuality has a definite role to play across media forms and has become part of daily experience (e.g. the dress code for work and play, consultants making over for both personal and corporate image, music video, the Internet and virtual reality games and tricks). It seems that given the level of technological sophistication of the present, the time when virtually everything can be reproduced and produced will come in the not-too-distant future (e.g. proposition of crooning human beings after the success of ‘Dolly’ has been going on for a while, a recent film called Gattaca depicting a world when human beings can be all genetically composed according to endless possibilities of combination). Baudrillard seems to have long anticipated such trend and his prophecy will have to be confirmed soon.
[1] Ibid. ‘Symbolic Exchange and Death’, pp. 145.
Up to this point, it seems that what Baudrillard argued more than twenty years ago still has significance even today. His contribution lies in his providing a framework, however loosely formulated it might be in its theoretical and philosophical skeleton, for making some sense of a media-saturated world, especially in the late 20th century when modern media images are becoming increasingly digitized, computerized and simulated. Visuality has a definite role to play across media forms and has become part of daily experience (e.g. the dress code for work and play, consultants making over for both personal and corporate image, music video, the Internet and virtual reality games and tricks). It seems that given the level of technological sophistication of the present, the time when virtually everything can be reproduced and produced will come in the not-too-distant future (e.g. proposition of crooning human beings after the success of ‘Dolly’ has been going on for a while, a recent film called Gattaca depicting a world when human beings can be all genetically composed according to endless possibilities of combination). Baudrillard seems to have long anticipated such trend and his prophecy will have to be confirmed soon.
[1] Ibid. ‘Symbolic Exchange and Death’, pp. 145.
Part II_The Hyperreality of Titanic (cont'd)
The film is not fixated to this version of realism, though. It “marks and perverts a basic reality” by introducing fictional characters, who are on the same ship together with those “really” there. The fictional is connected to the “real” in a naturalized way i.e. to let them have a bit of conversation or brief encounter, even exchanging a glance or use the “real” as a background, something to refer to at times by the fictional. The two reinforce the presence of each other by virtue of their being apart in diachronic historical time on the one hand but together in synchronic cinematic space. This reality is no longer a “faithful” reflection of the real but a fictional creation which undermines the realism expressed by the set, costume and all the historical research which is claimed to have been undertaken by the filmmakers for years.
Perhaps there has never been a basic reality of the real Titanic at all. After all, all that is left is numerous testimony, contradicting tales and stories from various sources, images, artifacts, myths, ruins, bits and pieces which could never come together as a concrete whole to present an organic reality. But then who would know that there is an absence of reality? Maybe only Baudrillard who is quick and smart enough to point out that it is exactly the third phrase of the image which “marks the absence of a basic reality”. The whole set of the film has achieved a level of reality so real and immediate of its own that somehow it has become an enclosed world. The film has its own reality, as historian Ken Marschall remarks, “It’s like watching a picture from the Illustrated London News come to life”[1], referring to his experience of watching the shooting on set. To live and act in that reality becomes the ultimate concern. To get things right to the slightest possible detail means that it has to take on a reality of its own in order to let it out. This process comes to be separated with the initial phrase of the image, which still prioritize the real/referent/reality as its defining other. However, in the third phrase, as Baudrillard suggests, reality drifts away beneath its own image imperceptibly and it is in the fourth phrase that the image sweeps away any traces of the reality principle.
[1] Ibid. pp. 88.
Perhaps there has never been a basic reality of the real Titanic at all. After all, all that is left is numerous testimony, contradicting tales and stories from various sources, images, artifacts, myths, ruins, bits and pieces which could never come together as a concrete whole to present an organic reality. But then who would know that there is an absence of reality? Maybe only Baudrillard who is quick and smart enough to point out that it is exactly the third phrase of the image which “marks the absence of a basic reality”. The whole set of the film has achieved a level of reality so real and immediate of its own that somehow it has become an enclosed world. The film has its own reality, as historian Ken Marschall remarks, “It’s like watching a picture from the Illustrated London News come to life”[1], referring to his experience of watching the shooting on set. To live and act in that reality becomes the ultimate concern. To get things right to the slightest possible detail means that it has to take on a reality of its own in order to let it out. This process comes to be separated with the initial phrase of the image, which still prioritize the real/referent/reality as its defining other. However, in the third phrase, as Baudrillard suggests, reality drifts away beneath its own image imperceptibly and it is in the fourth phrase that the image sweeps away any traces of the reality principle.
[1] Ibid. pp. 88.
Part II_The Hyperreality of Titanic (cont'd)
This proposition has significant implications. One of which is the obsession with nostalgia, which is in tune with the “proliferation of myths of origin and signs of reality; of second-hand truth, objectivity and authenticity”, “an escalation of the true, of the lived experience” and “a panic-stricken production of the real and the referential, above and parallel to the panic of material production.” All of which become “a strategy of the real, neo-real and hyperreal” [1], as Baudrillard puts it. Perhaps it is a well-fitted description of the making of James Cameron’s Titanic, which as a cinematic form, suits “the very definition of the hyperreal.”[2]
In many ways, the film seems to be an ideal example of the realization of the four phrases of the image, which is the prerequisite for becoming the ultimate simulacrum of hyperreality. According to Baudrillard, the first phrase of the image is a “reflection of a basic reality”[3]. For the sake of this discussion, let us suppose there is a basic reality of an ocean liner called Titanic, which actually sank on her maiden voyage on April 15, 1912. In order to “reflect” this reality, a near full-size exterior ship set modeling on the real thing was built for shooting and it is re-created “with unprecedented accuracy and detail” with the help of the “original designs”[4] from the company which built the real thing. “Creating exact replicas of the furniture and countless other items unique to the ship”[5] is part of this project of “reflecting” the reality of Titanic. Not to mention the restoration of 1912 evening gowns for the production and numerous other attempts in re-creating the reality of that period. Footage of the present-day wreckage is added to heighten the sense of reality, making the film almost pass for a docu(mentary)-drama. If that is not enough, the whole film set is literally “sunk” in a hydraulic tank for re-creating the actual sinking of the ship…All these can be seen as examples of clinging to the reality principle by being as “realistic” as possible. A kind of “realism” is key to uphold a version of reality, a past-ness which is on the one hand unreachable but on the other hand, retrievable.
[1] J. Baudrillard, ‘The Evil Demon of Images and the Precession of Simulacra’ in Postmodernism: A Reader, Thomas Docherty (ed) London, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993, pp. 197.
[2] Ibid. pp. 196. The subsequent quote of the other three phrases of the image comes from the same page.
[3] Ibid.
[4] James Cameron’s Titanic, New York, Boxtree, 1998, pp. 16.
[5] Ibid. pp. 34.
In many ways, the film seems to be an ideal example of the realization of the four phrases of the image, which is the prerequisite for becoming the ultimate simulacrum of hyperreality. According to Baudrillard, the first phrase of the image is a “reflection of a basic reality”[3]. For the sake of this discussion, let us suppose there is a basic reality of an ocean liner called Titanic, which actually sank on her maiden voyage on April 15, 1912. In order to “reflect” this reality, a near full-size exterior ship set modeling on the real thing was built for shooting and it is re-created “with unprecedented accuracy and detail” with the help of the “original designs”[4] from the company which built the real thing. “Creating exact replicas of the furniture and countless other items unique to the ship”[5] is part of this project of “reflecting” the reality of Titanic. Not to mention the restoration of 1912 evening gowns for the production and numerous other attempts in re-creating the reality of that period. Footage of the present-day wreckage is added to heighten the sense of reality, making the film almost pass for a docu(mentary)-drama. If that is not enough, the whole film set is literally “sunk” in a hydraulic tank for re-creating the actual sinking of the ship…All these can be seen as examples of clinging to the reality principle by being as “realistic” as possible. A kind of “realism” is key to uphold a version of reality, a past-ness which is on the one hand unreachable but on the other hand, retrievable.
[1] J. Baudrillard, ‘The Evil Demon of Images and the Precession of Simulacra’ in Postmodernism: A Reader, Thomas Docherty (ed) London, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993, pp. 197.
[2] Ibid. pp. 196. The subsequent quote of the other three phrases of the image comes from the same page.
[3] Ibid.
[4] James Cameron’s Titanic, New York, Boxtree, 1998, pp. 16.
[5] Ibid. pp. 34.
Part II_The Hyperreality of Titanic
II. The Hyperreality of Titanic
Jean Baudrillard theorized the scenario of hyperreality first by destabilizing the sign/signified/referent trio relationship. In ‘The Mirror of Production’ (1973), he argues that “the signified and referent are now abolished to the sole profit of the play of the signifiers, of a generalized formulation in which the code no longer refers back to any subjective or objective ‘reality’, but to its own logic.” [1] Baudrillard goes on to claim that all that is left is the floating of signifiers, a kind of depthlessness he referred vaguely to as the “hyperreality of floating values”.[2] In other words, the sign-as-value is negated in favour of the sign-as-real. The sign of the real substitutes the real itself and it is from here that the process of simulation starts. “Reality itself founders in hyperrealism” and therefore as a result it is only possible now for “the meticulous repudiation of the real, preferably through another, reproductive medium”[3]. This reproduced reality is even more “real” than the real which according to Baudrillard, results in the blurring of boundary between the real and the imaginary. It is no longer possible to distinguish one from the other since according to the logic of simulation, the real is “that which it is possible to provide an equivalent representation”.[4] If this is the case, then this equivalent representation can only be so when it is as real, if not more real, than the real itself.
[1] J. Baudrillard, ‘The Mirror of Production’, trans. Mark Foster, St. Louis, Telos Press, 1975, pp. 127.
[2] J. Baudrillard, ‘Symbolic Exchange and Death’ in Jean Baudrillard Selected Writings, Mark Foster (ed), Oxford, Polity Press, 1988 pp. 122.
[3] Ibid. pp. 144.
[4] Ibid. pp. 145.
Jean Baudrillard theorized the scenario of hyperreality first by destabilizing the sign/signified/referent trio relationship. In ‘The Mirror of Production’ (1973), he argues that “the signified and referent are now abolished to the sole profit of the play of the signifiers, of a generalized formulation in which the code no longer refers back to any subjective or objective ‘reality’, but to its own logic.” [1] Baudrillard goes on to claim that all that is left is the floating of signifiers, a kind of depthlessness he referred vaguely to as the “hyperreality of floating values”.[2] In other words, the sign-as-value is negated in favour of the sign-as-real. The sign of the real substitutes the real itself and it is from here that the process of simulation starts. “Reality itself founders in hyperrealism” and therefore as a result it is only possible now for “the meticulous repudiation of the real, preferably through another, reproductive medium”[3]. This reproduced reality is even more “real” than the real which according to Baudrillard, results in the blurring of boundary between the real and the imaginary. It is no longer possible to distinguish one from the other since according to the logic of simulation, the real is “that which it is possible to provide an equivalent representation”.[4] If this is the case, then this equivalent representation can only be so when it is as real, if not more real, than the real itself.
[1] J. Baudrillard, ‘The Mirror of Production’, trans. Mark Foster, St. Louis, Telos Press, 1975, pp. 127.
[2] J. Baudrillard, ‘Symbolic Exchange and Death’ in Jean Baudrillard Selected Writings, Mark Foster (ed), Oxford, Polity Press, 1988 pp. 122.
[3] Ibid. pp. 144.
[4] Ibid. pp. 145.
The postmodern hyperreal – when Jean Baudrillard goes down with Titanic_Part I
I. Introduction
Recently, a phenomenon has been formed since James Cameron’s Titanic was launched at the end of 1997. Apart from all the fuss about its $200 billion production cost and tremendous box office success, there is a craze for almost everything related to the film. From the replica of the ocean liner as the film set to the re-creation of a menu served on board by high street restaurants, Titanic comes to signify a reality of its own – one that has little to do with that historical event happened on April 15, 1912 which took away 1,500 lives. Rather, it is its own simulacrum, a process described emphatically, though not entirely convincingly by Jean Baudrillard in his essays ‘The Mirror of Production’ (1973), ‘Symbolic Exchange and Death’ (1976), ‘Simulacra and Simulations’ (1981) and ‘The Devil Demon of Images and The Precession of Simulacra’ (1993).
This essay is an attempt to evaluate Baudrillard’s contribution in analyzing postmodern culture. The goal of the first section of the analysis is to illustrate with a contemporary example – the latest hype fostered by the blockbuster Titanic, the significance of certain concepts introduced by Baudrillard in understanding the form of mass media which we call cinema. Then, it would be followed by a discussion of what might have been ignored and missed out in Baudrillard’s underlying theoretical assumption. The relevance of his theory in relation to other forms of media such as music, radio and theatre would also be questioned. By so doing, it is hoped that his theory would at least be assessed, if not defeated
Recently, a phenomenon has been formed since James Cameron’s Titanic was launched at the end of 1997. Apart from all the fuss about its $200 billion production cost and tremendous box office success, there is a craze for almost everything related to the film. From the replica of the ocean liner as the film set to the re-creation of a menu served on board by high street restaurants, Titanic comes to signify a reality of its own – one that has little to do with that historical event happened on April 15, 1912 which took away 1,500 lives. Rather, it is its own simulacrum, a process described emphatically, though not entirely convincingly by Jean Baudrillard in his essays ‘The Mirror of Production’ (1973), ‘Symbolic Exchange and Death’ (1976), ‘Simulacra and Simulations’ (1981) and ‘The Devil Demon of Images and The Precession of Simulacra’ (1993).
This essay is an attempt to evaluate Baudrillard’s contribution in analyzing postmodern culture. The goal of the first section of the analysis is to illustrate with a contemporary example – the latest hype fostered by the blockbuster Titanic, the significance of certain concepts introduced by Baudrillard in understanding the form of mass media which we call cinema. Then, it would be followed by a discussion of what might have been ignored and missed out in Baudrillard’s underlying theoretical assumption. The relevance of his theory in relation to other forms of media such as music, radio and theatre would also be questioned. By so doing, it is hoped that his theory would at least be assessed, if not defeated
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)