Read სიმულაკრები და სიმულაციები by Jean Baudrillard Online

სიმულაკრები და სიმულაციები

წიგნის მთავარი ტექსტი ,,სიმულაკრები და სიმულაციები'' წიგნის ,,სიმულაკრები და სიმულაცია'' მოკლე/გადამუშავებული ვარიანტია, წიგნის გამოცემიდან 17 წელიწადში მომხდარი პოლიტიკური და სოციალური მოვლენების გათვალისწინებით და ოდნავ განსხვავებული სათაურით: ის 1998 წელს სტენფორდის უნივერსიტეტში გამოცემულ ჯან ბოდრიარის ტექსტების კრებულშია შესული ერთ-ერთ სტატიად....

Title : სიმულაკრები და სიმულაციები
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9789941181610
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 80 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

სიმულაკრები და სიმულაციები Reviews

  • Trevor
    2019-01-12 16:40

    When Plato spoke of the simulacra he meant it in a way that is quite different to how it is meant here, so, to understand what is meant here we probably should quickly look at what Plato meant. For Plato the world about us isn’t the ‘real’ world – it can’t be, not least because the ‘real’ world needs to be without contradictions and to be without contradictions there can be no change, no death (which is much the same thing). That means that the world we think we inhabit isn’t the ‘real’ world, but rather an apparent world, a kind of projection or copy. Behind what we can see and think we understand there is a deeper reality – and that reality is perfect, unchanging and without contradiction. This makes art particularly problematic. That is because, for Plato, what we take to be the ‘real’ world is, in fact, a kind of copy. So, art is a copy of a copy – a simulacra. How can that be a good thing? For Plato, it was a very bad thing and so artists needed to be directed away from his ideal Republic.Baudrillard isn’t exactly a Platonist, well, any more than everyone else is, if that English guy is right about the whole of philosophy being a series of footnotes to Plato. For me Baudrillard’s simulacra can best be understood by thinking about that girl from the Ukraine who has had plastic surgery to look like a Barbie Doll. You know, quite literally, a copy of something that never really existed.Baudrillard’s point is that this girl isn’t an exception in our modern world, but rather she is symptomatic of much of what our modern world actually means. This isn’t just a point about how we have made the world more ‘artificial’, although, it means that too. It is that what is ‘real’ and what is ‘fake’ now are much harder to tell apart. Not just that, but this is made even harder by the fact that we prefer the fake, whether this be in objects or in ideas or in ideologies. And it is actually even worse than this, for the fake is used to hide the fact that there is no reality behind it. Baudrillard makes this point by discussing Nixon and Watergate. The sacking of the President is supposed to show that the system works, that no matter how the true nature of the system is distorted by a single, corrupt man, the system’s fundamental reality comes through in the end and reasserts itself. Baudrillard says that process, and the comforting message it leaves us with, is the real simulacra. That in reality the comforting image of Western democracy (as symbolised ultimately by American democracy) is an image with no real substance behind it.Again, this point is possibly made clearer by thinking about that bizarre town Disney Corp built called Celebration. This is supposed to be where people live in a ‘real’ American town, but it is, again, a copy of something that never existed. Giroux makes much of this in his book The Mouse that Roared, but something I read about this town before reading Giroux’s book made the utterly stunning point that there is no advertising allowed in Celebration. Isn’t that something worth thinking about? There is something deeply un-American about a town with no advertising, it could only occur in a town completely ‘owned’ by a corporation. Baudrillard says, “Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the "real" country, all of "real" America that is Disneyland”.It is hard to explain Baudrillard’s point without constantly making reference to stuff that is obviously fake – but his point is that staying at that level (the level of the clearly fake) is to miss his point entirely. He wants to make it clear that our world itself is a simulacrum, that all of the institutions we hold as the foundations of our understanding of how the world works are, in essence, not real. So, Baudrillard is both like and unlike Plato – he is like Plato in so far as neither of them believed that the world we take as being real is anything like real. And he is unlike Plato in that for Baudrillard, there is no ‘real’ world sitting behind this apparent world waiting to be made understandable by the application of reason. As he says early in this book, “it is dangerous to unmask images, since they dissimulate the fact that there is nothing behind them”.This becomes a problem, and not just because it would be nice to have a reality out there somewhere lurking behind some of our idealisations – this becomes a problem because not only is reality condemned to be impossible, but so too does ‘parody’. Living in Tony Abbott’s Australia, I know what it means for parody to become impossible. But I’m sure everyone has experienced that feeling where you have finished reading an article, become outraged and then realises you have been reading the Onion? There was an Australian television series, a mockumentary, set around the organising committee for the Sydney Olympic Games. One of the episodes was based on the absurd idea that the 100 metre track was actually quite a bit less than 100 metres long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD-W_...Anyway, life went on to imitate art, when it turned out there had been a problem with the 100 metres track at the Olympic stadium and that it did need ‘fixing’. This isn’t exactly what Baudrillard means either, really. I think his point is that our desire for the world to mean things we want it to mean forces a kind of idealised vision of what the world is like over what we experience – but the problem is that this idealised vision is almost impossible (in Baudrillard’s view, actually impossible) to separate from what we take to be reality. In the end there are only our idealisations, the terrorist is a freedom fighter and a cynic and a madman and a confused victim of circumstance. Each reading is available, each reading is as real as the others.Once you hear about this idea of the simulacrum it is really hard to not see it everywhere. This is particularly true when you think about this idea of Baudrillard’s in relation to his ideas in The Consumer Society. There is a similar desire for the ‘real’ to be the ‘ideal’ in what consumption involves. More than this, consumer society wants there to be the real ‘us’ and that reality depends on how we will be transformed into our ‘true’ selves once we buy something that will help us become who we ‘already are’. We live in a world of mirrors – each reflecting back at us distorted images, and desire is the force that manipulates what we are so that we confuse what we want to become with what we already are in our essential selves. Baurdrillard’s point is that there is no ‘real’ image – no undistorted representation that is true. There is only these desires and these twisted representations.The idea that people inject botulism, a toxin that can (and does) kill, into their faces to make themselves look young strikes me as being essential to understanding this idea. We are prepared to risk death so as to look young. Except botox doesn’t really make you look ‘young’, it makes you look like someone who is trying to look young. And not even really young, there is no 60 year old with botox that looks like they are really 20 – instead they look, I presume, like an idealised version of what a 60 year old ‘should’ look like. This relationship between the ideal and the real – much the same as Plato’s – has now been turned on its head, because of the loss of reality the world itself suffers from. I can’t quite accept that there is no reality – but to the extent that the thing that defines humanity is that we make our reality fit our needs and wants (and desires), there is always something of a simulacrum about our worlds and these worlds are always somewhat ‘ideal’ – it is just that the ideal, too, has a dark side, and it is this dark side that Baudrillard is exploring here.

  • Toby
    2018-12-28 19:39

    Some authors have a gift of being able to explain complex matters in simple terms. Baudrillard, on the other hand, seems to have the complete opposite - explaining essentially simple (although nontheless interesting) concepts in overly complex terms. While the core message of his essays is thought provoking and engaging, the text itself is so full of jargon, unnecessarily convoluted language, and a fair amount of repetition. If you are anything like myself you will spend an hour reading, rereading, and digesting a couple of pages before reaching a point where you can explain what Baudrillard was essentially saying in a few simple sentences. Baudrillard also has a habit of making quite extravagant claims or suggestions with no proof, or even justification or much in the way of reasoning.All in all a difficult and unrewarding read, I feel that I would have been better off reading something written by someone else about Baudrillard's ideas.

  • Adam
    2019-01-14 15:57

    Basically the idea is just that people increasingly base their lives around collective ideas of things -- and those ideas can readily shift around and become something detached from reality -- rather than the things themselves. And that creates a free floating idea of society and the universe that supercedes concrete reality in its consequences.

  • Praj
    2019-01-18 15:39

    **(This review has been dedicated to the charitable literary contribution of Alfonso’s (a.k.a The Crimson Fucker) penis , an essential piece of conceptual art of penile architecture.)The simulacrum is never thatwhich conceals the truth-it isthe truth which conceals thatthere is none.The simulacrum is true. -EcclesiastesIt has been a week and Sammy hasn't stopped humping the cilantro or sucking the lonely grape. The dung beetle has left its profession for some weed. Since Martha’s (the pig) death, the Oedipal hamster has been spinning like Elmo on meth . Sammy sucked Martha to death as he merrily smoked a joint. Has the sorrow of Martha’s death made Sammy an inhabitant of hyperreality? Has the cilantro and the grape become a symbol of simulation; the deception of the hamster’s Oedipal reality? In all this simulacrum panic where does Fonso’s penile obsession stands or rather erects?Baudrillard states, “Simulation is no longer really the real, because no imaginary envelops it anymore. It is a hyperreal… It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real…perfectly descriptive machine that offers all the signs of the real and short- circuits its entire vicissitudes”Similar to someone who feigns an illness can make believe that he is ill and may even produce imaginary symptoms; is Alfonso’s assertion about the “largeness” a result of his penile obsession. Reminiscent to the television thrusting endless hours of Miley Cyrus’s twerking in your face and then you being to wonder whether it is your ass that gyrates on Robin Thicke’s crotch.Is it a simulated bulkiness or a generous contribution to penile literature? Furthermore, Baudrillard claims that Watergate was not a scandal but a mere trap set by the CIA and other governmental authorities to catch the adversaries. Are then Alfonso’s monstrous penile claims a mere trap to attract the unknown female species or a real scandalous sexual entrée? Is Alfonso’s penis an Enchanted Land with magic rides? Are the pompous claims “real” or a simulacrum like Disneyland? No matter how much fearless fun you might on those magical rides, at the end of it you have to pimp the goat for an ounce of weed. When the lines between the real and unreal blurs one enters the world of simulation. Is the celebrity status of Fonso’s penis moving into the same direction? And what would happen when the real is no longer stiff it used to be? Will nostalgia assume it flaccid meaning?For further literary probing:-1.The Ecstasy of Communication - Jean Baudrillard2.The Accident of Art - Sylvere Lotringer & Paul Virilio3.Forget Foucault - Jean Baudrillard ( Think Alfonso)4.I Love Dick - Chris KrausAdditional adventures:-1.Aliens & Anorexia - Chris Kraus2.The New Fuck You: Adventures In Lesbian Reading Eileen Myles & Liz Kotz, eds3.Leash - Jane DeLynn

  • Lit Bug
    2018-12-29 17:06

    To dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn't have. But it is more complicated than that because simulating is not pretending: "Whoever fakes an illness can simply stay in bed and make everyone believe he is ill. Whoever simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms" - LittréBaudrillard sometimes fascinates me. Examining popular culture and its signs as taking over reality and replacing it, leaving only an unreliable reference to the original which no longer exists, this philosophical treatise looks into the postmodern condition that leaves the line between the real and the simulation blurred.The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.In a vein very much similar to Walter Benjamin, who in his amazing, amazing essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (I was glad I wasn’t the only one who thought of Benjamin here, Baudrillard did too!), talks about the furor over the sanctity of the original work of art with new developments in photography – now that everyone could have a cheap imitation of Mona Lisa, who cares about seeing the original; the aura of mystery is lost with mechanical reproduction – Baudrillard too ruminates over the nature of simulation and reality.What is lost in the work that is serially reproduced, is its aura, its singular quality of the here and now, its aesthetic form (it had already lost its ritual form, in its aesthetic quality), and, according to Benjamin, it takes on, in its ineluctable destiny of reproduction, a political form. What is lost is the original, which only a history itself nostalgic and retrospective can reconstitute as "authentic." The most advanced, the most modern form of this development, which Benjamin described in cinema, photography, and contemporary mass media, is one in which the original no longer even exists, since things are conceived from the beginning as a function of their unlimited reproduction. I like Baudrillard’s concept of Hyper-real – a simulation that is more real than reality itself, which clouds reality and surpasses it to the extent that the real does not exist anymore, and the simulation becomes reality itself; it creates an impressive larger-than-life figure, whether in political or social scenarios, overpowering the real. (historical depictions in cinema, Jurassic Park, Disneyland, Watergate)I did enjoy this essay a lot, especially his deconstruction of how popular media saturates the mind so easily, clogging it with simulations, and his observations on war, architecture and science fiction with reference to simulations.However, I do have a bit of issues with Baudrillard, both stylistically and in terms of content.I do not really agree with everything he says – his reactions to some phenomena seem just as essentialist as those he critiques. Sometimes, he comes across as paranoid in his zeal to impress upon us how unreal the real world is – I agree with him on his ideas, but not to the extent he takes his ideas.While he acknowledges in the very beginning that the line between the real and the simulated is no longer clear as before, and what is real and what is not is now nearly inseparable – things can be both, and simultaneously. GR itself seems to be a wonderful example of this phenomena – it is a real world, for many of us. Impossible to think of a life without it. But then, do we really know anyone behind those avatars, photos and reviews? I bet some of us would not even have looked eye to eye in real life, no matter how wonderful reviews we wrote. And yet, it is all real and simulated at the same time.But Baudrillard, in the latter part of the essay seems to insinuate more and more that nothing we see is real, everything about our life is simulated, especially communication on virtual platforms. I really don’t think everything around and about us is unreal. I think it is real and simulated, all at the same time.Another issue I have with him are on his ideas of Fascism;Fascism can already be interpreted as the "irrational" excess of mythic and political referentials, the mad intensification of collective value (blood, race, people, etc.), the reinjection of death, of a "political aesthetic of death" at a time when the process of the disenchantment of value and of collective values, of the rational secularization and unidimensionalization of all life, of the operationalization of all social and individual life already makes itself strongly felt in the West. Yet again, everything seems to escape this catastrophe of value, this neutralization and pacification of life. Fascism is a resistance to this, even if it is a profound, irrational, demented resistance, it would not have tapped into this massive energy if it hadn't been a resistance to something much worse. Fascism's cruelty, its terror is on the level of this other terror that is the confusion of the real and the rational, which deepened in the West, and it is a response to that.I find it difficult to accept such simplistic explanations.If Althusser is too oblique, too opaque with his dense, technical style, Baudrillard is too colloquial, too disorganized. If Althusser condenses an unbelievable number of concepts in a short essay, Baudrillard lets his essay run watery, diluted. Couldn’t he just say we’re being interpellated? Or something easier on the mind if he doesn’t like this term?I was elated at first at his easy style. Soon, I grew tired of it – he takes too much time to say a little thing. Perhaps, as a live lecture, it might have not been so dry to read, but as a text, it needed to be a little tighter, a little denser, condensed.In fact, I rather preferred these two videos:Rick Roderick on Baudrillard (first 25 mins)Dr. Alan Howe on Baudrillard (1.5 mins)

  • Bradley
    2019-01-16 22:05

    Totally, completely rad. I can just see people smoking bongs not getting this completely, but postmodernism IS the dominant episteme in the West... according to Chela Sandoval however, Jameson was right that Postmodernism is complicit with various colonial ideologies, and we must we wary of it in 2011... but, Baudrillard wrote this in 1981 (yea, that's the year I was born! How cool to be born when such a rad thinker like Baudrillard was doing his best stuff!) anyway - sort of think that postmodernism was/is hip and relevant...sort of also think it fizzled out in the '80s amidst various theory circles in academia - however, it IS in my opinion THE dominant epistemology among the unwashed masses and misinformed proles (sort of always crops up into most of my philosophy classes unconsciously amonst my students..)... in fact, funny story, one of my students was sooo incredibly aware of the fact that everything was an illusion (except his greedy ego of course) that he nearly threatened to kill me once I posited - if you are an illusion, try jumping off a bridge to prove your life is not real... he succinctly told me to 'suck his c-ck' and then immediately dropped my class (after he gave me a death threat)... all I can say is Baudrillard you fucking amazing twat! Your influence has infected the unwashed masses even in a providential back water redneck area like rural Binghamton NY (where this student made his abode)Wish I could write a book that could change the world, or tap into the zeitgeist... best line of the book, "I am a nihilist. I observe, I accept, I assume the immense process of the destruction of appearances.." first line alone is worth the price of admission - The simulacrum is never what hides the truth - it is the truth that hides the fact that there is none...the simulacrum is true" - from f-cking Ecclesiastes (are you kidding me? that quote was plucked by Baudrillard from the f-ing BIBLE? and not just the Bible, but the freaking Torah... Jews think this far into postmodernism as well? Rad, its not just new, its olde tyme as well... great great stuff. My idols - Lyotard, D&G, Baudrillard, Derrida, Foucault, Butler, Kristeva (of the '60s, not when she became a Christian and shit), but these chaps really left the world a better, more mad place.

  • Adam
    2019-01-22 18:39

    Completely agree with everything said in Shiv's review, as quoted:"Some authors have a gift of being able to explain complex matters in simple terms. Baudrillard, on the other hand, seems to have the complete opposite - explaining essentially simple (although nontheless interesting) concepts in overly complex terms. While the core message of his essays is thought provoking and engaging, the text itself is so full of jargon, unnecessarily convoluted language, and a fair amount of repetition. If you are anything like myself you will spend an hour reading, rereading, and digesting a couple of pages before reaching a point where you can explain what Baudrillard was essentially saying in a few simple sentences.Baudrillard also has a habit of making quite extravagant claims or suggestions with no proof, or even justification or much in the way of reasoning.All in all a difficult and unrewarding read, I feel that I would have been better off reading something written by someone else about Baudrillard's ideas."Would add to this by saying that all this applies to much of the continental philosophy I have read, even some of the greatest (Gadamer, Sartre). Also would add that, perhaps mildly contradicting my agreement with the complaint about Baudrillard's language, Baudrillard and other (relatively speaking) great continentalists would probably have been better off as literary authors, communicating these worthy ideas through art instead of jargon-laden and obtuse 'philosophy.' In support, I submit some stunningly gorgeous and worthy sentences from this book, all from the same page (on which there also exists unbearable obtuseness and obscuritythat Baudrillard worsens through repitition, as he constantly fucking thinks it's a good idea to):"Los Angeles is surrounded by these imaginary stations that feed reality, the energy of the real to a city whose mystery is precisely that of no longer being anything but a network of incessant, unreal circulation--a city of incredible proportions but without space, without dimension. As much as electrical and atomic power stations, as much as cinema studios, this city, which is no longer anything but an immense scenario and perpetual pan shot, needs this old imaginary like a sympathetic nervous system made up of childhood signals and failed phantasms.""Everywhere today one must recycle waste, and the dreams, the phantasms, the historical, fairylike, legendary imaginary of children and adults is a waste product, the first great toxic excrement of a hyperreal civilization."

  • Alex Lee
    2018-12-26 17:00

    This is not an easy book to read, in part because Baudrillard starts off with his ideas in full development and then talks around them, to explain them. He will start off with an example, develop the idea within the example, and then end by wrapping the example around itself, rather than ending on continual applications of the idea. In any case, he doesn't do the historicity thing by telling you the past, where the idea may have come from, and then develop the series of thoughts that outline the form of the idea. Instead, Baudrillard plops you in the middle and makes you flounder. And unlike other thinkers, he doesn't quote too many philosophers; in fact, nearly none at all. Instead of giving you guide posts along the way, he’d rather you sink or swim. Get it or not.Baudrillard's basic idea is that we don't live in reality—that is, in the common sense use of the word, there is no thing-in-itself. He doesn’t even talk that way, as though the thing-in-itself is unnecessary. Following Quentin Meillasoux, Baudrillard is an absolute correlationist: the relationship we have with language is what also determinates any outside of language. Thus, for Baudrillard, we live in a world of simulacra. That's easy so far. But there's a catch. For Baudrillard, reality has already been exceeded because the processes that we buy into. These processes are unthinking, mechanical means that produce the simulacra which we then take for the actual thing. The easy examples of postmodern malls in America come to mind, or Disneyland. Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation (12 – 13).But such simulations only act to hide the fact that we can't get back to reality because we've lost it. So this explains why Baudrillard drops us into the mix. He can't explain why this happened. Once we've gotten sucked into hyperreality we're here. It's a traumatic event. The sheer force of hyperreality obscures any possibility of a central signifier. There is no metaphysics of presence; in fact he doesn’t even mention such a concept because it’s not important. Instead, he talks of what remains when the model has exhausted itself. “When a system has absorbed everything, when one has added everything up, when nothings remains, the entire sum turns to the remainder and becomes the remainder (144, original italics).” One of the key sections, philosophy-wise, in this book has to do with the remainder, which is another way of talking about emptiness as a thing. The remainder is the excessive real, “in a strict sense, it cannot be defined except as the remainder of the remainder (143)”—that is, left over after processes have stopped. You might say hey, wait, isn't everything real? And yes, that's how language is, but the model for what is real and what is hyperreal have become the same. For instance, in talking of diplomas, their ubiquity and the ease at which they can be acquired— for whoever goes through the process gets one—signifies nothing but their meaninglessness. What makes diplomas meaningless is that it's not about knowledge; it's about process. Diplomas connect in a system of simulacra that only point to other simulacra. Similar to Derrida, with Baudrillard, we end with a passed reference that is always missed. What's left over is the reality we deal with, the remainder that we must recycle back into a process for it to be what we think it is, which is a problem we have today with things that are “meta,” that the meaning of a thing today is often exactly what it is, a simulation, a context that determines our locus, not what it should be for us. For example, if we go to say, Paris, that trip will be like "a family trip," with all the clichés and potholes of a family trip, which might as well be a sitcom simulating a family trip. The process of going through replaces the reality of a family trip, so that really, you're just "doing" the "family trip.” You can't otherwise because we are trapped in hyperreality. This is like how fake internet money in a game treated like real money in an economy becomes real money. The caveat is that real money then is just as fake as fake money because it's just another simulation due to a formal process. Baudrillard notes that, like the Borges story, the territory itself decays when the map of the territory replaces the territory by being the territory itself. The simulacra of simulation, the pattern itself, the hyperreality has taken over reality by replacing reality. In hyperreality, the map meant to represent reality becomes a simulacra of reality itself so that we don't get real, we get the map qua real qua map.The fact that he is able to note the lack of a lack, as Zizek would say: the anti-philosophy at the heart of philosophy, so to speak, places Baudrillard with all the other philosophical greats of our time. He notices the void that persists throughout simulation: that which organizes simulacra and leaves only sense making in its wake.Meaning, truth, the real cannot appear except locally, in a restricted horizon, they are partial objects, partial effects of the mirror and of equivalence. All doubling, all generalization, all passage to the limit, all holographic extension (the fancy of exhaustively taking account of this universe) makes them surface in their mockery (108 – 109).Thus, the curve of meaning making is in fact what is created through the distortion of the absent remainder, leaving us only sensible sense, the trace that makes sense. In other words, when speaking of truth, or ideology, Baudrillard is able to show us how adding the unnameable nothing (the social totality, the remainder) back into the mix gets us the totality that we cannot exceed. The simulation always over-codes totality by naming its void, leaving us always within the wake of its own logic. Baudrillard writes: “As the social in its progression eliminates all residue, it itself becomes residue. In designating residual categories as ‘Society,’ the social designates itself as a remainder. (144, original italics).” This is another way of saying that in trying to split a totality like the social, we name parts of it also things, so as to make a thing out of its parts. But the social as a totality, as a bare named signifier, persists because the social always remains as a residue to mark the situation we are in. With the naming of any void, the absent remainder, we can never get away from conditions like being in society, whatever ideology or other kinds of hyperreality. Hyperreality is the kind of situation presupposes the very topography that we are trying to define, to get away from! If anything, what is confusing about Baudrillard is that he does not allow us any access, imaginary or real, to what we are talking about. What he calls simulation is also the very naming of a given set of the conditions that allow us to talk about anything at all, simply because such terms act as null reference points to its own generic logic.I am split on liking the reviews (through Goodreads and Amazon) where people obviously didn't get it, and thus didn't like it, and disliking such reviews by hurt readers who rebelled at feeling stupid, or having their time wasted (and it's hard to tell the difference when you're not sure what you are reading about). To be honest, I've read this book three times over the past 10 years, and each time I've come away with a fuller picture. This is one of the hardest books I've ever read, and that includes any of Zizek or Deleuze's works.Overall, I appreciate this difficulty because in making you work for it, the concept will stick with you. You'll make the concept your own, and you'll remember it better. It can inspire you, help you along. If the entire concept everything was handed to you, you'd lose the influence. In this sense, by stretching in a new way, you end up in the 'pataphysical, where the meaning stands on its own. Is this a site of resistance to the ubiquitous hyperreality? With 'pataphysics, you get something that can stand in for itself on its own by itself, in this case, each particular re-reading. Although, it is arguable that while there is the process of reading, if you read the good stuff, each time it will be different. This difference however, is really a pre-fabricated genre soaked simularca because it is different. We assume, in Baudrillardian terms, that what we are reading relies on a kind of perhaps, “naïve faith in a pact of the similitude of things to themselves.” We assume that what we are talking about is the same as what we are talking about, and this is where our conception, or model or map, gets in the very way of what we are so desirous to speak of.The real, the real object is supposed to be equal to itself, it is supposed to resemble itself like a face in a mirror—and this virtual similitude is in effect the only definition of real—and any attempt, including the holographic one, that rests on it, will inevitably miss its object, because it does not take its shadow into account (precisely the reason why it does not resemble itself)—this hidden face where the object crumbles, its secret. The holographic attempt literally jumps over its shadow, and plunges into transparency, to lose itself there (109, original italics).And in this way, you can say that each time you process Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation you’ve actually miss-encountered it. Whatever process of reading you have, you inevitably create a conception of it, and in that conception, blur the totality of everything else around it, to make room for this conception. So in a twist of Baudrillardian logic, perhaps we read Simulacra and Simulation in order to claim everything is a simulation. In finding simulacra everywhere around us—we dig extra deep in order to hide the fact that we already don’t really live in reality, that our very response in naming and determining differences around us for orientation—to get at reality creates the very condition we want to escape from.

  • Magdelanye
    2018-12-30 22:52

    In spite of the difficulties I had with this challanging work, I believe I get it.We are living in end times and we're screwed by our notions of and distance from reality.From the premises "Reproduction is always diabolicalin its very essence....simulation...is still and always the place of a giagantic enterprise of manipulation, of control and of death..."p153we get the conclusion:"there remains only a demand linked to the empty form of the institution- perverse demand,and for that reason all the more obstinate" p155sounds like a truth.

  • Stephanie
    2019-01-09 15:52

    This is the kind of book that you find yourself bringing up in conversations all the time. It is applicable on so many levels; once you grasp the concept, it really grasps you back. It is relevant to me as an anthropologist, archaeologist and psychologist, but I would classify it more as a philosophy book. Bottom line: This book will do you good.

  • Iain
    2019-01-08 16:42

    This book is only so highly rated because it is utterly incomprehensible. Baudrillard revelled in using hundreds of words to write what were really quite simple and flimsy arguments. Responsible for inspiring a lot of impenetrable 'art-speak' which is unfortunately common at a lot of art school degree shows nowadays.

  • johan _5179
    2019-01-20 15:53

    This book has simply managed to put me off all things post-structuralist and French at the same time. And has introduced a measure of disgust which I now feel towards both these subjects.There are things you come across when you read a lot, things which sound profound and deep and wide-ranging before you realise that they are neither profound nor possess the all-encompassing grandeur which they make you think they do. Simulacra and Simulation is such a work.The self-serving circular logic of self-referential meaning sounds like it is an amazing and complex concept, its not. It is a denial of reality, and not just a denial but an outright perversion of the concept of things happening. It is a snobby, first-world centric discourse which denies importance to the lives and shared histories of the under-developed world. Baudrillard may put on airs of being a visionary, but his vision falls woefully short. I will not lie, the book is very well-written and is very beautiful despite being a very difficult read. But this isn't a novel, to be judged on presentation, but a philosophical tract, to be judged on the basis of its ideas. Not only do I disagree with these ideas, I find myself having a rather strong reaction to them, and I think that anyone willing to look beyond the reputation of the thinker will understand just what it is that this man speaks of.

  • David
    2019-01-07 19:57

    The Man Who Hates Everything helps define the hopelessness and helplessness of the postmodern world. He succeeds brilliantly; or, considering his goal, horribly.He starts off strong, putting forth some stunning ideas while taking on God, Disneyland, Watergate, journalism, cinema, and advertising. He starts to stumble when he moves on to technology, and totally loses his thread when he tries to bring in sexuality, animals, and his ridiculous gender politics. He finishes by writing about the subject I suspect he was most interested in all along: himself.The translation leaves much to be desired, though I can't criticize too strongly: anyone tasked with translating this dense doom-and-gloom psychobabble deserves our empathy.Warning: plodding finish, rampant sexism, and a laser-like focus on Western white male subjectivity. If you don't need your books to be pleasant, highly recommended.

  • Steven Peterson
    2019-01-17 20:40

    Jean Baudrillard, postmodern thinker, despairs; he claims, in "Forget Foucault," that there is an "impossibility of any politics" in our current situation. An important part of this context are media simulations, of reality so obscured by the play of images completely unrelated to any "reality" which might be out there that we are hopelessly incapable of arriving at any judgments on which to base political decisions and actions. Images on television and in the movies and in other media are "floating signifiers," having no real connection to concrete referents. The key concept associated with Baudrillard is simulations and the simulacrum. He begins by quoting Ecclesiastes: "The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth--it is the truth that conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true" (by the way, this quotation may be a simulacrum; I could not find it in Ecclesiastes!). Simulations began historically as replicas of the real, as reflections of "reality." However, with time, simulations have become increasingly detached from concrete "real" references. Simulations do not have reference points or substance or any tie to "reality." Simulations have become "a real without origin or reality"--a hyperreal. We face a procession of images and simulations, and lose sight of the simple fact that they are "floating signifiers." The simulacra become real for us. Put in post-structural (or postmodern) terms, the models created are floating signifiers (simulations in Baudrillard's terms) which structure people's discourse with one another and shape their behavior. Images become crucial in politics. After presidential debates or major policy speeches or elections, the "spin patrol" gets going. These are the spokespersons of the parties or candidates who try to convince the audience that their simulations of the event are better than their opponents' simulations. In the process, no one particularly cares what actually happened or what was said. It is the simulations pushed by the various actors that become the news. Baudrillard's writing is challenging; many will write him off as an unreadable crank. Nonetheless, the underlying concept of the simulacrum is fascinating and generates much reflection. This is a postmodern work that may actually speak to some real world issues. . . .

  • Ellen
    2019-01-21 23:00

    Not so much a review as an illustration of why I like his thinking so much. A couple of excerpts from his book:If we were able to view the Borges fable in which the cartographers of the Empire draw up a map so detailed that it ends up covering the territory exactly (the decline of the Empire witnesses the fraying of this map, little by little, and its fall into ruins, though some shreds are still discernible in the deserts—the metaphysical beauty of this ruined abstraction testifying to a pride equal to the Empire and rotting like a carcass, returning to the substance of the soil, a bit as the double ends by beings confused with the real through aging)—as the most beautiful allegory of simulation, this fable has now come full circle for us, and possesses nothing but the discrete charm of second-order simulacra. Today abstraction 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. (1)Refers to Disneyland and then states: Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle. (13)

  • Jeremy
    2019-01-24 17:43

    I read part of the first half back in college. Going through it again I find myself having the same reservations, Baudrillard's style is overly dependent on these really repetitive, almost cheekily nihilistic assertions. And while his in-your-face style is provocative, ultimately, it just amounts to an aweful lot of empty rhetoric about how totally empty everything is. A lot of it just seems like stuff he read and regurgitated from Deleuze and Foucault and then mixed up with his own sense of cheap posturing. Also, the second half feels incredibly dated with its cheap analysis of late cold-war tensions and half-assed attempts to synthesize a 4th grade level understanding of genetics and emerging cybernetic jargon into his broader system of thought, or anti-system of thought, or whatever it is he thinks he's doing here. If your going to read it, take it with an especially big grain of salt.

  • Tyrran
    2019-01-08 20:41

    This book cannot be read like a Haruki Murakami novel, one to enthrall you during relaxation. This book is more like study material, each sentence of Baudrillard's can be heavily read into and some sentences require extended knowledge on the subject (to my dismay it forced me to endure a Jorge Luis Borges short-story). What piqued my interest to this book initially was from another book I read "Taking the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy and Religion in The Matrix" by David Gerrold (I should however note that this book on The Matrix is made up from a collection of essays from novelists, academics and just important people in their fields) who is actually a member of Goodreads, there was a lot of Baudrillard work mentioned in that book and so I decided to expand my knowledge and source out "Simulacra And Simulation".

  • LunaBel
    2019-01-15 16:44

    I finished this a couple of days ago and I still think of things that I've read in the book. It is, the least to say, an original book. I appreciate how Baudrillard conceives a whole new level of reality. Hypereality is that which is more real than the real. It is getting rid of representations mirrors and keeping the empty simulations to rule and guide us. However, to what extent is this real? have we really given up on our traditional reality in favor of simulations, and are ads, junk TV, and media that influential?

  • Erik Moore
    2019-01-18 21:05

    I just finished Jean Baudrillard’s “Simulacra and Simulation” published in the original French in 1981, but I had to wait for Sheila Faria Glaser to publish the translation in 1994. In it, Baudrillard sets up Hegelian dichotomies or “dialectics” like the observer and the observed, the real and the simulation, McCluhan’s media and message, and so on. He takes each of these and spins them out of control, bemoaning their loss as a loss of meaning. In his analysis of everything Baudrillard bemoans the destruction of everything we assume to exist as it is replaced by a simulation that undercuts the authenticity of the real. He usually follows the dialectic with a repudiation of his own findings, so that there is nothing left of his own position to critique, just a dark feeling of loss. The most vivid example he uses is that of the Tasaday, the isolated tribe in the Philippines that was supposedly the last humans to be discovered living in a tribal situation that did not know about the rest of the world. As anthropologist and game show hosts interacted with them, they ceased to be authentic, that is, ceased to be the Tasaday. It is still a question whether they were real, or how much of it was a hoax. But this insight of Baudrillard is interesting. In the same way, he analyzes the Watergate scandal as a planned media event, showing how the release of pressure through complicity of reporters actually allowed a deeper and more violent round of political espionage to ensue once the American people had achieved intrigue burnout. Both of these examples can be rolled up into Baudrillard’s idea of the Simulacrum, of which the archetype might be Disney’s Epcot Morocco theme park attraction. As Epcot Morocco gains popularity, as things like it grow around the world, the Authentic Morocco reflects it, imitates it, must be judged against it, until there is no authentic Morocco that it was derived from. There is only a place on the map where it was and people that live there that have inherited the mixed messages and lived with the image management problem. Baudrillard’s notion’s though spin out of control themselves as he analyzes science. Sure, science is looking for empirical facts (the dichotomy of real versus imaginary), but he only puts up a straw man when he says that science has lost its foundation of absolute truth in the empirical. Sound science at its best has never claimed to have absolute facts, but instead claims to have identified patters, to have tested theories, and to have demonstrated levels of surety. While corporate dollars, career interests, and the malleable models of sociology have all skewed many a result as Thomas Kuhn well points out, Baudrillard cannot use his centrifugal force of nihilism to blow apart either the accumulating meaning of scientific findings, nor the optimism of engineering that allows us to address broader and broader scopes of understanding with broader and broader tools of empowerment. Fortunately science was not based on Hegelian dialectics, that for all practical purposes were formulated as ways of making essences, forms, and other social conjecturals seem unassailable in a debate of limited choices.As I read this book I visited the Kalinago, (the tribe from which the word “Cannibal” was derived) and found them recovering from being hunted for slaving down to 500 people and making a recovery using, yes, a tourist center to get their message out. They were managing their message and image in as authentic a way as anybody can day to day. Then I traveled to New Zealand as the chapters rolled on, living with a Maori healer who was exchanging ideas about healing with those of Hindu, Native American, and many other cultures in such an earnest way based on his own cultural background, literally making authentic culture with each step. As I finished the book I ended up in Japan, witnessing a musical “Le Comtesse de Cagliostro” with music composed by Kuni Murai. In this uniquely Japanese lens a European pseudo-history steeped in years of [manga/anime]-sation poured out a creative new turn in which the actors moved through a digital semi-staged sparse steampunk world of brass and wooden trunks and the background rendered a cyberpunk lens on a world of romantic charcoal drawings. The music would have been as at home in Europe, but the subtle lilt of Japanese popular music refrains would have been lost to those ears. Had the Tasaday been dancing the day before the anthropologists arrived, truly isolated, it would have had no greater authenticity that the hearts of these creative artists.Experiencing all this as I read and understanding that authentic culture comes from being creative instead of remaining static. I understood that the real simulacrum was Baudrillard himself, posing as a Cassandra, a Jeremiah, and needing to write so that we would feel his nihilistic world falling apart in order to gain our attention, and his own notoriety. While Baudrillard does have many deep insights into the transformation of modern society, his dark world is in his own admissions a choice and indeed a choice to live in his own dark simulation. I choose the brighter world I see in the scattered tribes of the world coming together and in the transforming technologies I see revolutionizing our experience and our potential.Our scientific understanding and our technologies are giving us a world to inherit instead of just a village, and it is all of our legacy to use as authentically as we can. Indeed, that technology is also giving us the capability to come together as a global species to solve the great challenges of our situation, like asteroids, viruses, our environmental stability, and more. We have this opportunity and can use it to rise up above nihilism to new possibilities of survival, expansion, and transformation.

  • Cameron Black
    2019-01-12 20:01

    Daha iyi çevrilmeliydi.

  • Rob
    2019-01-15 00:06

    (8/10) Baudrillard is one of those guys who getts dismissed a lot as an obscure French academic, and he is all three of those things. But I think there's a kind of beauty to his writing that makes it more than just jargon. Baudrillard describes the world around us in terms of apocalyptic science fiction, drawing our eye to the way the horrific and the banal intersect in a world of illusion. The kind of juxtapositions and forceful rhetoric that he uses remind me more than a bit of J. G. Ballard, who Baudrillard explicitly cites as a prophetic author.As far as the actual theory goes, it isn't much more than a rearticulation of Guy DeBord's ideas, but Baudrillard goes a bit further in describing the implications of the simulacrum in our contemporary society. Simulacra and Simulation is a series of essays, but it manages to both avoid redundancy and come together as a coherent work. Each essay refracts the core idea of simulation in a different context, ranging from the military-industrial complex to sci-fi novels.Now's the point where I feel like I should disclaim that this book will probably be too difficult for those not used to the jargon of the humanities, but I'm not sure that's true. The language has a kind of beauty that meaning hides behind, but that makes it all the better. Baudrillard's core theories can be summed up in a paragraph. It's the journey to them that's entrancing.

  • Iryne
    2019-01-08 15:42

    To say that reading Baudrillard would give one a different way of looking at things would be an understatement. On the surface the words are understandable, the use of simple/accessible and direct to the point manner of elaborating ideas made the experience easier. I find this work as an engaging read, vacillating from deductive and inductive methods of exposing his concepts. Engaging as it may be, some concepts are, for now, too abstract and difficult for my mind to wrap around. I have decided to read it again and again until I be confident in saying that I have truly digested the things he said in this book. After reading this the first time, I found myself recognizing the things he meant in "real life" and found myself nodding in schizophrenic agreement, as little by little my own views are pushed to the "sphere of psychosis."I will have to get my hands on Mcluhan's books to be able to grasp the full context of McLuhan's formula, as well as Walter Benjamin and Jacques Monod's works mentioned in the second essay of this book.

  • Algirdas Brukštus
    2019-01-18 23:43

    "Postkultūrinė filosofija? Kažkokios naujos būties apraiškos, ar naujo būties pjūvio aprašymas? Manau, kad antra. Kažkodėl man išnyra akmens įvaizdis: akmuo, su viduje slypinčiais intarpais, gyslelėmis. Jie buvo visą laiką, tačiau akiai atsiveria tiktai tiktai padarius akmens pjūvį. Tai, ką autorius aprašo savo knygoje, visą laiką slypėjo būtyje, tiesiog autoriaus dėmesio skalpelis būtent taip per ją praslydo. Tokie žodžiai kaip "fraktaliniai objektai" (109 p.), "holograma" (123-128 p.) nerodo į kažką, ko nebuvo iki šiol, o tiesiog tai nebuvo pastebėta ir aprašyta. Visa gamta yra fraktališka, bet tik 20 a. atsirado žodis šiai savybei aprašyti. Kitas dalykas, kaip keičiasi visuomenė, mūsų būvimas pasaulyje atsiradus naujam žinojimui, naujam būties pjūviui? Matyt, keičiantis kartoms visada atsiras žmonių, teigiančių kultūros žūtį, nors ta kultūra niekur nedingsta, tiesiog keičiasi ir prisitaiko prie naujo laikmečio. Tikrai patiko skyriai "Simuliakrai eina pirma" ir "Gyvūnai: teritorija ir metamorfozės".

  • Tasniem Sami
    2019-01-10 20:05

    يلجا الكاتب لعرض مشاهد- - مقاطع تبدو وكانها مشاهد متلفزة عشواءية (تجديد مومياء رعمسيس ، فضيحة وترجريت ، مشاهد المفاعلات النووية ،حرب الكويت.... يستهل عرض فكرته بنكران وقوع الحادثة -هذا الفوق واقعكيف اصبح هذا الفوق واقع واقعا ً؟ لماذا لا تكون الحروب حلماً ؛حلماً من الدمار والنبالم و حرق الاشجار حيَّة ؟! ثم تمر من خلال السلوك والترانزستورات وانبوب الكاثود لتكون "حرباً " هل هذا يعني ان حرب فايتنام او حرب الكويت لم تقع ؟لماذا يمثل المُفاعل النووي ما يمثله -كارثة الانفجار ، خطر حرب نووية مقبلة ؟

  • Hibou
    2018-12-31 19:39

    The further I get from college and my cultural criticism days, I find it harder to believe in jargon, at least in the absence of humor. That is perhaps why I prefer Roland Barthes, Terry Eagleton, even Jean-Francois Lyotard to Baudrillaud. This is my second attempt at Baudrillaud and while he is a provocateur, he sacrifices clarity and coherence in the name of apocalytic and somewhat absurd pronouncements (such as there can be no wars that we accept as wars but rather in today's age, it is merely a simulation, organized and arranged in a sense by the warring nations - well, okay, but you're wrong).

  • Bickety Bam
    2018-12-24 23:44

    About two-thirds of the way through, I started to wonder if the whole book wasn't intended to be some sort of sick academic joke. While there were a few interesting points in it, I can't imagine a worse presentation of them.

  • Arina Sydorkina
    2019-01-13 00:07

    Такое впечатление, что по этой книге снимали не только "Матрицу" (что заявлено официально), но и "Черное Зеркало". Книга Бодрийяра - очень концентрированный юппи (если вы достаточно стары, чтобы помнить, что это такое), который можно разводить водой до бесконечности.

  • Ian
    2019-01-14 23:58

    "Ramses does not signify anything for us, only the mummy is of inestimable worth because it is what guarantees that accumulation has meaning. Our entire linear and accumulative culture collapses if we cannot stockpile the past in plain view" (Baudrillard, pgs. #9–10)."… Los Angeles is surrounded by these imaginary stations that feed reality, the energy of the real to a city whose mystery is precisely that of no longer being anything but a network of incessant, unreal circulation—a city of incredible proportions but without space, without dimension. As much as electrical and atomic power stations, as much as cinema studios, this city, which is no longer anything but an immense scenario and a perpetual pan shot, needs this old imaginary like a sympathetic nervous system made up of childhood signals and faked phantasms" (Baudrillard, pg. #13)."That is, we are in a logic of simulation, which no longer has anything to do with a logic of facts and an order of reason. Simulation is characterized by a precession of the model, of all the models based on the merest fact—the models come first, their circulation, orbital like that of the bomb, constitutes the genuine magnetic field of the event. The facts no longer have a specific trajectory, they are born at the intersection of models, a single fact can be engendered by all the models at once. This anticipation, this precession, this short circuit, this confusion of the fact with its model (no more divergence of meaning, no more dialectical polarity, no more negative electricity, implosions of antagonistic poles), is what allows each time for all possible interpretations, even the most contradictory—all true, in the sense that their truth is to be exchanged, in the image of the models from which they derive, in a generalized cycle" (Baudrillard, pgs. #16–17)."Because what, ultimately, is the function of the space program, of the conquest of the moon, of the launching of satellites if not the institution of a model of universal gravitation, of satellization of which the lunar module is the perfect embryo? Programmed microcosm, where nothing can be left to chance. Trajectory, energy, calculation, physiology, psychology, environment—nothing can be left to contingencies, this is the total universe of the norm—the Law no longer exists, it is the operational immanence of every detail that is law. A universe purged of all threat of meaning, in a state of asepsis and weightlessness—it is this very perfection that is fascinating. The exaltation of the crowds was not a response to the event of landing on the moon or of sending a man into space (this would be, rather, the fulfillment of an earlier dream), rather, we are dumbfounded by the perfection of the programming and the technical manipulation, by the immanent wonder of the programmed unfolding of events. Fascination with the maximal norm and the mastery of probability. Vertigo of the model , which unites with the model of death, but without fear or drive. Because if the law, with it aura of transgression, if order, with its aura of violence, stills taps a perverse imaginary, the norm fixes, fascinates, stupefies, and makes every imaginary involute. One no longer fantasizes about the minutiae of a program. Just watching it produces vertigo. The vertigo of a world without flaws" (Baudrillard, pg. #34)."All around, the neighborhood is nothing but a protective zone—remodeling, disinfection, a snobbish and hygienic design—but above all in a figurative sense: it is a machine for making emptiness. It is a bit like the real danger nuclear power stations pose: not lack of security, pollution, explosion, but a system of maximum security that radiates around them, the protective zone of control and deterrence that extends, slowly but surely, over the territory—a technical, ecological, economic, geopolitical glacis. What does the nuclear matter? The station is a matrix in which the absolute model of security is elaborated, which will encompass the whole social field, and which is fundamentally a model of deterrence (it is the same one that controls us globally, under the sign of peaceful coexistence and of the simulation of atomic danger)" (Baudrillard, pg. #61)."After the fantasy of seeing oneself (the mirror, the photograph) comes that of being able to circle around oneself, finally and especially of traversing oneself, of passing through one's own spectral body—and any holographed object is initially the luminous ectoplasm of your own body. But this is in some sense the end of the aesthetic and the triumph of the medium, exactly as in stereophonia , which, at its most sophisticated limits, neatly puts an end to the charm and the intelligence of music" (Baudrillard, pg. #106)."Nothing resembles itself, and holographic reproduction, like all fantasies of the exact synthesis or resurrection of the real (this also goes for scientific experimentation), is already no longer real, is already hyperreal. It thus never has reproductive (truth) value, but always already simulation value. Not an exact, but a transgressive truth, that is to say already on the other side of the truth" (Baudrillard, pg. #108)."The Accident is no longer this interstitial bricolage that it still is in the highway accident—the residual bricolage of the death drive for the new leisure classes. The car is not the appendix of a domestic, immobile universe, there are only incessant figures of circulation, and the Accident is everywhere, the elementary, irreversible figure, the banality of the anomaly of death. […] It is the Accident that gives form to life, it is the Accident, the insane, that is the sex of life. And the automobile, the magnetic sphere of the automobile, which ends by investing the entire universe with its tunnels, highways, toboggans, exchangers, its mobile dwellings as universal prototype, is nothing but the immense metaphor of life" (Baudrillard, pg.# 113).

  • Danica Stojanovic
    2018-12-27 18:04

    Da li ce Bodrilard unistiti Diznilend? 😂

  • Tash
    2019-01-14 19:45

    I I didn't understand a single gotdamned thing