
-Ecclesiastes
If once we were able to view the Borges fable (*1) 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 being 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. (*2) 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. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory - precession of simulacra - that engenders the territory, and if one must return to the fable, today it is the territory whose shreds slowly rot across the extent of the map. It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges persist here and there in the deserts that are no longer those of the Empire, but ours. The desert of the real itself. In fact, even inverted, Borges's fable is unusable. Only the allegory of the Empire, perhaps, remains. Because it is with this same imperialism that present-day simulators attempt to make the real, all of the real, coincide with their models of simulation. But it is no longer a question of either maps or territories. Something has disappeared: the sovereign difference, between one and the other, that constituted the charm of abstraction. Because it is difference that constitutes the poetry of the map and the charm of the territory, the magic of the concept and the charm of the real. This imaginary of representation, which simultaneously culminates in and is engulfed by the cartographers mad project of the ideal coextensivity of map and territory, disappears in the simulation whose operation is nuclear and genetic, no longer at all specular or discursive. It is all of metaphysics that is lost. No more mirror of being and appearances, of the real and its concept. No more imaginary coextensivity: it is genetic miniaturization that is the dimension of simulation. The real is produced from miniaturized cells, matrices, and memory banks, models of control - and it can be reproduced an indefinite number of times from these. It no longer needs to be rational, because it no longer measures itself against either an ideal or negative instance. It is no longer anything but operational. In fact, it is no longer really the real, because no imaginary envelops it anymore. It is a hyperreal, produced from a radiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere.
By crossing into a space whose curvature is no longer that of the real, nor that of truth, the era of simulation is inaugurated by a liquidation of all referentials - worse: with their artificial resurrection in the systems of signs, a material more malleable than meaning, in that it lends itself to all systems of equivalences, to all binary oppositions, to all combinatory algebra. 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, that is to say of an operation of deterring every real process via its operational double, a programmatic, metastable, perfectly descriptive machine that offers all the signs of the real and shortcircuits all its vicissitudes. Never again will the real have the chance to produce itself - such is the vital function of the model in a system of death, or rather of anticipated resurrection, that no longer even gives the event of death a chance. A hyperreal henceforth sheltered from the imaginary, and from any distinction between the real and the imaginary, leaving room only for the orbital recurrence of models and for the simulated generation of differences.
Helpful note:
Simulacra and Simulation identifies three types of simulacra and identifies each with a historical period:
- First order, associated with the premodern period, where the image is clearly an artificial placemarker for the real item. The uniqueness of objects and situations marks them as irreproducibly real and signification obviously gropes towards this reality.
- Second order, associated with the modernity of the Industrial Revolution, where distinctions between image and reality break down due to the proliferation of mass-reproducible copies of items, turning them into commodities. The commodity's ability to imitate reality threatens to replace the original version, especially when the individual person is only concerned with consuming for some utility a functional facsimile.
- Third order, associated with the postmodernity, where the simulacrum precedes the original and the distinction between reality and representation vanishes. There is only the simulacrum, and originality becomes a totally meaningless concept.[2] - Wikipedia
What a great concept, and way to perceive the world. I loved the breakdown of the progression of the three types of Simulacra. It's kind of a scary thought, but at the same time I can't help but feel like it's an exhilarating notion. If one were to be living in a simulation of reality, unable to distinguish it as un-real, due to the sheer repetition and magnitude of the simulated elements, then in a way, the reality is all about perception. On an individual level. How I see the world. And my perception is different from everybody else's. Life is what you make of it. If it's not real anyway, then what does it matter? Everything is only as good or bad as you make it. I wonder if people who have read this book feel more in control of their lives, with the knowledge that their world is ruled by how you perceive it. So you might as well perceive it in a way most beneficial to yourself.
ReplyDeleteAt first it seemed like a fairly pessimistic idea. But on the other side, it grants the individual a lot more power. That is, if I'm understanding the excerpt correctly. Either way, I'm absolutely going to read this book this summer.
-Daniel Edward Gerlach
Everyday life is a routine. you do the same things almost everyday without changing the pace. It gets to be robotic and feeling like it is real to us because we know when certain things happen and what those things are. Eventually that robotic routine will be noticed and you would want to change it but it is too engraved into life that it is hard to change right away.
ReplyDeleteOnce you get away from the routine and venture into the 'real world' it will be much more meaningful because you are stepping out into it for almost the first time and realizing everything else that is out there to be offered. We cant just close ourselves off to the same things everyday, having difference in our lives will make us more knowledgable and we wont take things for granted.
I love this concept and i think we as human question it constantly. Would it matter to us if we were living in a reality that was contrary to what we thought. Would a person only be upset or disrupted by it because they knew about it. Would I care if I lived as a common worker bee if i only knew of that reality. Or is the synthetic something we as humans can feel even if we were immersed into as much the world was in the " MATRIX".
ReplyDeleteOr would we as humans know there was something off. Would it be a kin to a movie that I thought to be asking a similar question.. In "Dark City" the people in the movie live in an alternate reality that is controlled by aliens that are dying and want to know why humans are so extraordinary in their memories. As the aliens only live as a collective. If they take one of us and move us into the life of a killer will we become that or can our reality be changed so easily if all else around us seems to make sense.
My biggest question is if given a choice to live in an alternate reality and be a rock star or instantly be a million air would a person do so. Would we as humans yearn for what is concrete real. i think we would want at some point to always experience the unknown - something new, a challenge. I believe we in the end yearn for it. i almost think that as our lives and routine become monotonous to us we look for even the smallest changes to create a difference. maybe this is our reboot system as humans that gives us an itchy feeling when we feel too much of the robotic self kick in. I believe that the creation of memories and the ones we hold on to is what truly creates our world.
Allison Pisack bumpkins124
In an article from Harpers the author argues that the Old Testament God is an artist, based on the words “And he saw that it was good” repeated in Genesis. This, he says, is an artist’s attitude; it implies that God didn’t know beforehand that his creation would be good. God’s pleasure in his creations is an artist’s pleasure. Later, when he forbids humankind to worship graven images and idols, he is displaying an artist’s vanity about his own work. It seems logical to add that if God is an artist, then an artist is a kind of God, creating something where nothing existed before. Like God, an artist calls up something out of nothingness.
ReplyDeleteI think this reading relates to Woods, the artist who is bewildered by viewers who see his paintings as allusion puzzles to solve. He’s creating his own world and has no expectation that we’ll enter exactly the one he creates. His “simulacrum” is based on his past and our view of it will be based on our own. At some point here it starts to be like looking in a mirror at a mirror and it becomes hard to tell where you are.
“There is only the simulacrum, and originality becomes a totally meaningless concept.” This is where they lose me. If originality is meaningless, why does someone pay $100 million for a Van Gogh but a couple of hundred bucks for a copy so like the original that it takes a high tech microscope to tell the difference? Of course that’s an “assigned reality,” a belief so culturally dependent that it might as well be a demon.
Barbara
This concept is one solution to the age long question "Who are we, why are we here, etc", and an unsettling one at that. While both fascinating and terrifying, this scenario would at least offer us some relief from our constant search for answers. As a society we have what we perceive to be a vast wealth of knowledge and understanding, that makes us a little cocky in terms of how we view our intelligence. However, there are those questions whose answers are so far out of our reach, that even a notion as outlandish as the one presented in Simulacra could very well be completely conceivable.
ReplyDeleteBrooke
This was a handful but I tried to digest it and I did find it fascinating. I think when applied to painting, the struggle to make a representational painting never truly threatens the existence of the reality. I personally believe that the substance or medium with which the artists paints creates a level of abstraction already. I think any type of painting, be a Rothko or a Chuck Close, can be measured in degrees of abstraction. Obviously the more nonobjective a painting gets the more abstract.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of reality and not just painting I find what Dan said to be captivating. The idea that repetition and reproduction in reality and everyday existence can threaten the 'territory' is quite intriguing. But when applied to art once again, the mass reproduction of reality in an attempt to be representation, or the second type of Simulacra,I find to be quite abstract. I've never really thought about this before and it is a lot to grapple with. I would love to find this book and read it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article was interesting and something I very much tend to think about. Life is a pattern of repetition and it's hard to break the mold and do something new, but when we do, it's inspiring and we desire to do more of it.
ReplyDeleteI found myself thinking about this article over and over and relating it to the people around me, art, and just the way the world turns in general.
- Jennifer Edgerton
It's impossible to read SIMULACRA AND SIMULATION and not relate it to Berardini's article on Aitken's work. For some lucky few, freedom of movement and will is a constant and tangible reality. If you are born under the right social sphere, traveling and seeing exotic places the way you see them in the James Bond films is a reality. On the other hand, these movies become a simulacrum for everyone else, a constructed reality, real to some and an illusion to others. It is all about perception.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find infinitely fascinating is how present and yet distant these perceptions are, and how incredibly simple it is to move from one to the other. It's easy for me to relate with this concept because I was raised in one culture and them developed in another. I perceive the world through different lenses which perhaps allows me to see a bit more than others... which in return becomes a double edged sword.
This article was very interesting n something to think about. The artist who is believe by viewers who see his paintings has allusion puzzles to solve it. Every artist has is own calls up to something to paint about.
ReplyDelete-Christina Galera