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 comments:
Post a Comment