Baudrillard introduces the concept of reality even in the heading by using the pun, 'Irreference' rather than 'Irreverence', suggesting that images and reality are not on the same level, and reality is in fact on a higher level to images. Something that images cannot portray.
The text begins by defining the difference between absence and presence in terms of dissimulation and simulation. Dissimulation is described as pretending not to have what you do have, which would imply absence. The falseness would be in the absence, as you are disclosing something that you have. Dissimulation holds strong connection to the principle of reality; this suggests that there is a reality, that it can be referred to, represented and distinguished from the artificial and imaginary. Simulation is then the opposite; pretending to have what you don't have. Which would, in turn, imply a presence. The falsity is in the presence, as you are alluding to some sort reality that isn't real. In the example, in order to feign an illness you would have to produce symptoms, thus simulating aspects of the real. So for an example of dissimulation, someone with psychosomatic illness actually experiences symptoms of the "real" illness. By producing these 'symptoms', representations or simulations, it can cause assumed presence of reality. This simulation threatens the distinction, as it distances the distinction between true and false, real and imaginary.
To expand upon Baudrillard's reference to simulation within the military, if a man were to feign illness or homosexuality in order to be discharged from the battlefield, would it be distinguished? Say, if the man were to perform a homosexual act and be caught, does that intentional act mean he is homosexual? The simulation destabilises the principle of reality, and of truth as the truth of the principle is submerged.
He goes on to write about the "Simulacrum of divinity", in this, he uses God as an example to show how visual imagery is removed, the presence withdrawn, but the power of the simulacra that fascinates and dominates is not affected. An icon isn't just a symbolic representation of the real; it's a simulation. Iconoclasts destroyed religious iconography as simulacra are capable of erasing God and destroying the truth that they simulate, and they insinuate a detrimental truth that there is no God, but only the images of God – and so by destroying them, you preserve the idea of God. This differs from icon worshippers, who assume God can be manifested in the simulacrum, thus making God disappear behind the representations (dissimulating) the fact that there is nothing behind the image of God.
From a viewpoint of representations, to simulate is to represent falsely; the simulacra pretending to be something it is not - the copy, the image, the clone. However, from the viewpoint of simulation, all representation is nothing but simulation. Therefore there is no escape from the process of simulation. This would lead us to question the power of imagery, as images remove reality and take away the thing that they model. However, opposing thoughts imply the idea that images have a dialectical power, that they mediate reality; making it visible and intelligible. Reality would then be established as equal to the representation; the sign given is equal to that reality, and what is shown.
The text begins by defining the difference between absence and presence in terms of dissimulation and simulation. Dissimulation is described as pretending not to have what you do have, which would imply absence. The falseness would be in the absence, as you are disclosing something that you have. Dissimulation holds strong connection to the principle of reality; this suggests that there is a reality, that it can be referred to, represented and distinguished from the artificial and imaginary. Simulation is then the opposite; pretending to have what you don't have. Which would, in turn, imply a presence. The falsity is in the presence, as you are alluding to some sort reality that isn't real. In the example, in order to feign an illness you would have to produce symptoms, thus simulating aspects of the real. So for an example of dissimulation, someone with psychosomatic illness actually experiences symptoms of the "real" illness. By producing these 'symptoms', representations or simulations, it can cause assumed presence of reality. This simulation threatens the distinction, as it distances the distinction between true and false, real and imaginary.
To expand upon Baudrillard's reference to simulation within the military, if a man were to feign illness or homosexuality in order to be discharged from the battlefield, would it be distinguished? Say, if the man were to perform a homosexual act and be caught, does that intentional act mean he is homosexual? The simulation destabilises the principle of reality, and of truth as the truth of the principle is submerged.
He goes on to write about the "Simulacrum of divinity", in this, he uses God as an example to show how visual imagery is removed, the presence withdrawn, but the power of the simulacra that fascinates and dominates is not affected. An icon isn't just a symbolic representation of the real; it's a simulation. Iconoclasts destroyed religious iconography as simulacra are capable of erasing God and destroying the truth that they simulate, and they insinuate a detrimental truth that there is no God, but only the images of God – and so by destroying them, you preserve the idea of God. This differs from icon worshippers, who assume God can be manifested in the simulacrum, thus making God disappear behind the representations (dissimulating) the fact that there is nothing behind the image of God.
From a viewpoint of representations, to simulate is to represent falsely; the simulacra pretending to be something it is not - the copy, the image, the clone. However, from the viewpoint of simulation, all representation is nothing but simulation. Therefore there is no escape from the process of simulation. This would lead us to question the power of imagery, as images remove reality and take away the thing that they model. However, opposing thoughts imply the idea that images have a dialectical power, that they mediate reality; making it visible and intelligible. Reality would then be established as equal to the representation; the sign given is equal to that reality, and what is shown.
Baudrillard describes the successive phases of the image:
1. Image as reflection of a profound reality (naive equivalence of representation with divine truth - image incarnates or animates the reality). The image is a good appearance. It represents the sacramental order. No simulation is really suspected, just signification.
2. Image then masks and denatures this reality (false representation - it doesn't or cannot represent truth - it pretends to equivalence). The image is an evil appearance. The awareness that images can lie, can be manipulated.
3. It masks the absence of a profound reality (it covers up the fact that the profound reality - God / Truth / Reality - doesn't exist). It plays at being an appearance. The image as illusion.
4. It bears no relation to reality at all (pure simulacrum). Leaves off the order of appearances and enters the order of simulation.
Eventually all of life takes place within a reality made up entirely of simulacra, a reality in which the images permanently take the place of the originals. Everything becomes a copy, and there is no distinction between what is true and what is false. With reality no longer as reliable as it used to be, nostalgia assumes greater value. The order is reversed between the original reality and its simulation. The simulacra become hyper real, serving as the model for the real.
No comments:
Post a Comment