Baudrillard's notion of simulation is wrapped tightly into a ball with other concepts, so I hope you'll indulge me to touch briefly on many of them.
Perhaps the best way to think of simulation, I think, is to think of sugar. People like sugar because it's sweet, generally. In ancient times for sweetness they ate honey or tree-ripened fruits - naturally sweet things. When sugar cane was found and cultivated, sugar began to be added to a lot of foods that weren't sweet, thus skewing people's idea of what was sweet and what was not. And now even sugar is being replaced by wholly artificial chemicals, and people's idea of 'what is sweet' is, for example, a Twinkie - an object entirely dissimilar to any real object.
This kind of process, Baudrillard argues, goes on with all things. People's desire for things can be super-stimulated and usually artificially concocted in far more intense varieties. It is likewise in the interest of those in power (companies and politicians alike) to divert interest in real things to interest in supposed things. And because of this, people end up desiring the artificial more than the real, and even end up being unable to tell between fantasy and reality. Baudrillard called this point the 'hyperreality' - when the new artificial reality replaces the old real reality.
Thus we see manicured lawns replacing nature, mythology replacing history, pornography replacing real sex, and demonstrations of power replacing real wars. Things become known only in terms of their attractiveness and ability to compel instead of their real qualities. The simulation is better than the real, so reality is discarded.
As with the sugar example, other eras were much closer to the real. This is in part because in the past there was not only less ability to change and simulate things, but also because people were more exposed to reality because it was their dwelling place and livelihood. Nowadays, people live in artificial communities, enjoy artificial entertainment, and consume artificial food. People see only the spin, and not what lies behind it.
2006-10-30 06:37:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Doctor Why 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Post-modernist twaddle; just as all his definitions of anything are. Please come back to reality.
2006-10-27 09:47:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋