Foucault & Deleuze by Alex, Alexina & Emmanuel

In the early 17th century, the soldier (and man) was still as individual as he wanted to be. By the late eighteenth century, however, the soldier was starting to become shaped into a machine by the ruling bodies. They were chosen by those who ruled because of their agility, strength and abilities so that they may be as less unique as possible and as uniform as possible. Foucault refers to humans as docile bodies which can be moulded like a building material. In order to establish power over groups of people, the author suggests the use of disciplines (domination) in order to subtly orient the decision process. This method is effective because it is seen as useful by the trained individual. Each individual is able to choose which discipline or task they wish to accomplish. This becomes a feeling of individuality while being created by a higher power. This becomes a programming of the mind where we are not asked to think individual thoughts, but to learn specific information which we will be tested on later (such as in Bible school, where children are disciplined into learning prayers and later tested on their knowledge of them). However, while they are given the impression that they are strong in unity, they are less so in political terms, that is, they do not have individual political strength. It is often said that God is in the details. In Foucault's (and Napoleon's) opinion, control over a mass public is achieved by not allowing details to be overlooked. Each aspect of a discipline's environment must be controlled rigorously. These details are of such little importance on their own that the disciplined individual does not notice it, and therefore easily mould the individuals into the desired mass shape. A successful scenario would include a system which invites the disciplined to observe each other. They therefore manage each other in an effort to maintain the desired order. Details become intertwined and include the design of the Establishment that is no longer built to be seen or to observe geometrical external space, and which encapsulates the subjects, rendering them visible from the exterior of their cells to the large spaces of the cafeteria or the courtyard. To ensure rules are respected a strict system of punishment is also created. A substructure of the court system which seeks to punish according to the offense must be established. Foucault's ultimate architecture is that which enables the governing powers to observe anyone at anytime. Finally, Foucault presents his thoughts as an apparatus which means a system of observation, punishment, architecture and discipline.

Today, society seems to be in the middle of a junction between war and peace. Police officers are socially acceptable because they are the "peacekeepers" in our cities and towns, yet they wear guns and ammunition in case of a scuffle with thugs. Soldiers are also socially acceptable "peacekeepers", but can turn into "warriors" at an instant's notice when peace has broken. Is that so right? Why do we feel safe with these double agents in our "peaceful" society? Can't they turn rogue? Can't they shoot us by accident or otherwise? What makes us feel so safe with them around? What makes us somewhat revere them? The answer is: because they're supposed to keep us safe. And yet... Changing topics: in college, we were told not to become a jack-of-all-trades but to specialise in one trade or to freelance in one trade, therefore, Foucault's theory of applying apprenticeship instead of examination in order to specialise in one discipline is true to this day. In universities, however, it seems like all thought diverges to the same ideology. The students become docile; they think they are learning exactly what they want to learn. Teachers do not encourage, but want us to believe that we all want a job strictly as coders or performance artists. When stragglers stand out of the group, it seems they want to rein us in with: "You all want to be coders / performance artists". We are aware that most of our actions are observed. Be it by cameras or wire taps or online tracking. It is not an issue of privacy, for Foucault it is a way to discipline. This omnipresent observation creates a feeling of ignorance. To think freely and to develop individuality and personal skills, we must avoid the all seeing eye of the leader. This is because when we are observed we can be disciplined to act the way the leader wishes. A group environment promotes the loss of individuality. Although we can communicate with each other, our opinions become worthless.

Foucault says that grouping individuals makes them more docile. Would we become stronger without a punishing, and therefore normalising, power?

Re: Horkeimer and Adorno, The Culture Industry - Angela and Matthieu

Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno describe the culture industry. This is the industry responsible for mass producing modern-day culture across different media. They argue that a technological rationale (society has consistently adopted new technologies) is the rationale of domination. The culture industry is not concerned with works of art, but with standardization and mass production; its goal is to provide needs for every class of citizen (and 'connoisseurs' perpetuate the idea that citizens/consumers have choice). The authors point to the sound film as having a drastic stunting effect on mass-media consumers. The technical emphasis of works are now more important than the content. The entertainment industry determines its own language, resulting in the negation of style, the aesthetic equivalent of domination. The argument goes on to mention that dissidence in mass media is part of the ideology of business, and is the only source of originality in the culture industry. We come to Tocqueville and how exclusion from the masses is today's form of tyranny, which leads to the fact that today's consumers are self-defeating when they are captivated by the myths perpetuated by media, leading to the reproduction of the same "content", i.e. the same crap on TV/in movies/in books/on the radio... The consumer must put up with what's offered. They argue that amusement/entertainment/culture industry is the antithesis of art. The fusion of culture and entertainment is responsible for the depravation of culture.

We started questioning ourselves as to how applicable the authors' arguments are in our personal daily lives. Though very dense and difficult, once the text has been broken down, most of their arguments make a lot of sense, and we found that it's still applicable in 2008, even with the proliferation of the Internet. In our eyes the net is like radio and telephone and movies; a gross amalgamation of all media, multi-media, one might say! Horkheimer and Adorno, we suspect, would not be phased by the Internet, though we can't help but wonder if their approach to individuality might change given its undeniable power of expression. They wouldn't be surprised, either, at how many crappy movies and TV shows are being produced. We agreed that, as media artists and media students, we are part of the mass-media consumers that Horkheimer and Adorno describe, but with a level of self-awareness that most of the populace doesn't have. After all, we're reading their texts, are enrolled in a university program that deals with these issues, so not much of this comes as a surprise. We also brought up the fact that users and consumers of mass media ought to read this text; it should come with the user manual of today's media appliances!

"... this [movie theater] bloated pleasure apparatus adds no dignity to man's lives. The idea of 'fully exploiting' available technical resources and the facilities for aesthetic mass consumption is part of the economic system which refuses to exploit resources to abolish hunger." (83) First, is the cinema exclusively a pleasure apparatus? What about dignity? Should media even be concerned with dignity?! And finally, what's the connection with the economic system and the hungry?!

The Culture Industry - Morgan, Peter, JS and Nick

This segment of The Culture Industry by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno circumscribes the idea that manipulation of the masses happens through the production of standardized cultural artifacts (or mass media) . They mention how capitalism is used to mold the masses in creating false needs, and more importantly the feeling of satisfaction that follows them. The industry has control over what these 'needs' are and the proposed solutions for satisfying them are specifically designed and optimized for specific and labeled types of people (the 'deceived masses' , p.80). This culture system creates the illusion of tolerance and acceptance towards all people, but really dictates what one should be consuming, and subtly excludes people who don't fit in the mold.

Because the capitalism-based system creates a massive spell that shuts down all 'undesired' entities, it is interesting to notice than even a published book criticizing the role of the industries in relation to the creation of mass culture has been 'filtered' and accommodated to the economic rules, so that it can be distributed and sold. That 'adaptation' is done without contestation because we know that this is what is needed for a manuscript to become a sellable book. So why isn't it the same thing with mass media, why don't we all agree the (mass) media are never going to be in their purest form (untouched) , as their always going to be adapted by distributors in orders to squeeze as much juice as possible out of them, and as much money as possible out of us. This is probably the price to pay to be able to massively distribute media in a capitalist society. In the end, the consumption of such culture allows the masses to feel content but also never entirely satisfy the real needs which is why people keep coming back for more.

"The deception is not that the culture industry supplies amusement but that it ruins the fun by allowing business considerations to involve it in the ideological clichés of a culture in the process of self-liquidation." (p. 85) How, if possible, can we retrieve our agency in a system of deception that has dominated and permeated our society and culture?

Duy, Ben, Kevin, Scott - The culture industry

In ‘the culture industry’ Horkheimer and Adorno explain that all people have an equal chance of achieving, but not by effort. Ideal types are stripped of details, and of individuality so the public can identify with their similarities. The culture industry is a self-feeding machine, which produces content that is designed for its own needs. Everything is calculated in advance, never going too far, always staying within it’s own pre-set bounds. The authors also explain how popular culture is constantly recycling ideas while convincing the public that they are new. ‘True art’ is defined as the art of the bourgeois class, which was withheld from the lower classes of society. Instead they have been presented with unlimited amounts of ‘untrue art’—popular culture and it’s mediums such as television. Until the 18th century, the artists’ creativity depended on their patrons and their objectives; now high art is available to everyone for free. Art became a species of commodity, marketable and interchangeable. The ones in power create trends, which establish the norms of the industries, but they do serve the products in different qualities so that they can make it seem like a need to every social classes of a society.

Fellowship and the abolishment of individuality were pointed out as elements of social control, discussion of these led to the instance of a fellowship exhibiting “individuality,” contrary to the larger system. Advertising becomes Art: The Art of Advertising. Big corporations with big budgets can afford advertising for its own sake and as an expression of power in the attempt to monopolize the market and create barrier to newcomers. Fight club might be a good modern example of a film which criticizes society while at the same time being appropriate enough to be marketed to the masses (specifically, as a not-so-successful in the box office but cult hit in DVD sales). Realism is usually depressing and this text is no exception. It is certainly wonderful to be enlightened of the hideous sides of western existence, but it would be advisable if solutions could be brought up to the table and let the reader finish on a good note which could then lead to a prosperous extrapolation of a possible solution.

Question: Would this text cause the same reaction on the part of the reader if it didn’t have a Nihilist approach or is this approach necessary?

L'industrie culturelle et le mythe de l'individualité Par Audrey, Chris et Éric

 Adorno et Horkheimer traitent de l’industrie culturelle dans leur texte du point de vue de l’école de Frankfort et de la théorie marxiste. Beaucoup d’emphase est mis sur le fait que l’individualité humaine est un mythe et que cela ne peut exister. L’industrie culturelle fonctionne en conditionnant l’humain à agir à l’intérieur de l’idéologie dominante du capitalisme. Cette dernière a transformé le monde de l’Art en un domaine mercantile où les œuvres sont traitées comme des marchandises.  Parce qu’il y a une hiérarchie établie au niveau des produits de consommation culturelle, chaque individu doit se comporter en lien avec le niveau prédéterminé pour sa classe sociale et il doit choisir le produit culturel qui convient à son niveau (le pauvre va au cinéma et le riche à l’opéra). Les messages que soutient cette idéologie à travers l’art permet de conditionner et de contrôler l’auditoire pur faire en sorte qu’il obéisse à la structure sociale dominante. Ainsi est soutenu le système économique capitaliste qui bénéfice principalement à la classe bourgeoise. La possibilité pour l’industrie culturelle de fabriquer des désirs et des besoins essentiellement artistiques et de divertissement, lui permet d’inculquer à ses commodités des codes et des significations idéologiques précises. C’est à travers ce même divertissement qu’est enseignée l’attitude d’acception passive si essentielle au bon fonctionnement du système en place.

Notre compréhension de l’amusement est aujourd’hui est principalement dû à l’acceptation de ce que définit pour nous l’industrie culturelle. L’auditoire est régit par l’obéissance sociale et recherche l’opportunité de devenir plus ( gagner le tirage de la loterie par exemple), en autant bien sûr que nous soyons soumis au système. Peut-être l’avènement de la technologie (Internet, Télé réalité) est-elle en train de changé la donne, ou bien est-elle programmé par un changement de code du système? Car justement, cette même industrie nous fournit juste assez d’incitatifs à combler nos désirs et nos besoins que l’on se satisfait de cette forme de contrôle social. Nous croyons encore à la possibilité de changement et sommes convaincus que nous sommes des acteurs de ce changement, qui somme toute a déjà été planifié par l’industrie. Cette dernière a mise en place une hiérarchie où les rôles  sont socialement assignés pour s’assurer du bon fonctionnement du système mis en placer par l’industrie culturelle. Ainsi, l’idée de l’individualité est perçu comme un mythe dans ce système où l’homme agit de façon conditionné à servie un large rôle social dans un but bien précis.

Nous pouvons nous comme question quel est la part de responsabilité nous avons dans le fonctionnement de ce système  et individuellement, pouvons-nous choisir dans faire partie ou non?

Étude sur La dialectique de la raison : La production industrielle de biens culturels. Raisons et mystification des masses

par Jean-François Duval, Jonathan Desjardins et Julien St-Yves

"Ce qui est nouveau ce n'est pas que l'art est une marchandise, mais qu'aujourd'hui, il se reconnaisse délibérément comme tel, et le fait qu'il renie sa propre autonomie en se rangeant fièrement parmi les biens de consommation confère son charme à cette nouveauté" (p.165-166). Ce passage traduit avec force éloquence le propos général de Adorno et Horkheimer dans La dialectique de la raison. Héritiers d'une grande tradition philosophique allemande, la dialectique, ils abordent ici la culture moderne comme étant l'enfant légitime de son époque, celui de l' "Aufklärung", et de son organisation sociale, le société industrielle capitaliste. Ils montrent que c'est naturellement que l'Art c'est adapté au modèle de la business. Que la production artistique c'est transformée pour se conformer aux processus de production de masse, se moulant aux phénomènes de l'organisation technologique et du marketing. Peu a peu, la valeur d'usage de l'oeuvre s'éfface derière la valeur d'échange. L'oeuvre d'art devient publicité, héraut de la consommation. Au bout de la chaîne de production, l'esthète n'est plus, il ne reste que le consommateur; Une coquille vide. La production de masse a finalement produit une masse d'individu identiques se caractérisant par leurs "[...] dents blanches, l'absence de taches de transpiration sous les bras et la non-émotivité. Et voice le résultat du triomphe de la publicité dans l'industrie culturelle : les consommateurs sont contraints à devenir eux-mêmes ce que sont les produits culturels, tout en sachant très bien à quoi s'en tenir" (p.176).

Selon Adorno et Horkheimer, il semble se produire un renversement dans le rapport de valeur qui définit l'oeuvre d'art sur le marché. Jusqu'à ce qu'elle soit "[...] si totalement soumise à la loi de l'échange qu'elle n'est même plus èchangée; elle se fond si aveuglément dans la consommation qu'elle n'est plus consommable. C'est pourquoi elle se fond avec la publicité [...]" (p.170). Il est claire qu'ils soulèvent là la pierre d'achoppement sur laquelle bute le "modèle classique" de la culture. Cette métamorphose, cette traversée du désert, est-elle la négation obligatoire et nécessaire au renversement dialectique du capitalisme? Et, l'artiste en est-il responsable, où était-ce inévitable?

réf : T.W. ADORNO et M. HORKHEIMER, La dialectique de la raison, Gallimard, coll. Tel, Paris, 1974, 281 p.

Response To Culture Industry by Chris, Tomer, John

This text to us was like all the previous texts combined. It contained all the elements of the other texts. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer explain how the media is like poison to our society and that all that it is now is somewhat of a fetish, because of its controlling nature. People, without realising it, are sucked into it and continue to be while constantly being bombarded with advertisements. That’s not exactly what was said, but that is what was implied, that media is business, that it all revolves around money and that art has lost its integrity and has sold out.

It has become unbearable due to the fact that these advertisements have spread like a virus and are now found practically anywhere and everywhere. Television probably being the biggest source around followed by film and videogames, magazines and billboards and even on the packaging of food products. Television can’t be viewed without seeing a ton of advertisements repeatedly. Films used to be about performing and telling a story in a very artistic and emotional manner and now it can only be viewed as a product, a form of entertainment which is primarily used for advertisers and placeholders to invest upon. The same can be said about videogames these days. They contain cinematic attributes and compelling storylines, yet they have the same business elements as films but with far more ways to expand. It’s no wonder that games like halo 3 are raking in more money than big Hollywood hits. It’s inevitable and it can’t be stopped because society has grown accustomed to it and it seems as though people thrive for it more and more. It appears somewhat comical that people are probably aware of all this by now but no one really cares; they enjoy the way things are and continue to feed the industries. That been said, we agree that media is in a way a huge and very profitable industry but then again this is a capitalist society, and obviously entertainment will generate an industry at its backbone. Of course some of the artistic integrity could get lost when thinking of profits, but that is natural, and it is possible to find a middle ground. Independent films do exist and so does independent music, which means that not all media is intended for the sole purpose of creating industries and generating money.

Can there be art or entertainment in a society without an industry evolving around it, which suppresses artistic integrity for profit? And was this ever the case?

The Culture Industry - YinYin, Sam , Manuela, John

It is obvious from the tone of the writing in the text, that Horkheimer and Adorno have a very pessimistic view of the technological world and what they call the "culture industry". Not only do they present it as a means to control the masses, they also explain how the masses are slowly led into servitude. This act is done through subconscious consent when those whom mass culture is directed at accept and welcome their new way of life with open arms: in other words, conform to the system or be excluded. We are perpetually promised things and yet we do not receive them and linger on waiting. Everything is downgraded to less elegant state. Beauty and even talent can be manufactured: for example, when those in power decide that some actress will become the next hit. Movie plots are generalized to feed the consumers needs, Horkheimer and Adorno state that one can see the beginning of a movie and predict it's ending because everything is the same. The masses are fooled into believing that it is in control, yet that is not the case. In the culture industry, the masses merely become its object. By pretending to have concerns for the masses, culture industry strengthens its grip on the mentality of the flock.

It seems to be rather alarming that we do not have any say in how the world flows. We learn what we are told, we see what we are shown, we buy what is given to us. It is because of this that we trust so much in our current system. It is the system we grew up in, we are defenseless against it, and everyday that we continue to live in it, we are hammered deeper and deeper into the culture industry. A good example of how this system strikes us is propaganda. Take for instance the United States in the past few years. Everyone is grinded into patriotism purely because of how the media showcases certain events (namely 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and Irak, terrorism against the US, security alerts, etc.). There is no longer a personal thought, it is the thought of the masses. Citizens are taught what opinions to voice through fear and terror, yet they feed on that kind of stimulation as an ever consuming group. Those who do not follow the rest are branded as "traitors" to their country or lacking in sympathy towards their own kind. Those who are weak of mind then silence their own views on the issue and join the cause because they do not wish to be exiled. In the same line of things, the creature of brand names also have created a sense of belonging. It is the illusion of fitting into a clique, being in style or out of season, having the best garments or simply not in the cool scene. Entertainment and politics both charm us into some mental state that we do not necessary need to abide by, but cannot resist. It is not in all cases that we fall into the trap, but at times we only realize much later that we are stuck in the spider's web.

Although Horkheimer and Adorno warn us about the dangers of this system, now that we are so deeply rooted into it, if eventually it is removed, would we not be lost or confused by its downfall? Or rather, would we not simply run back to it because it is the only truth that we know?

Culture Industry Response: Charles-Antoine, Charlotte, Jos

Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno write about culture, the culture industry, and society. They begin by defining a great artist and they denounce the meaningless styles of « non-serious » music (like Big-Bands, swing-era pop-dance-Jazz-music, which they call Jazz). (p.76-78) When they say « Anyone who resists can only survive by fitting in », they summarize briefly their main idea. In order to « touch » anyone that is receiving passively from this same industry, one must « fit in » by diverging only so little from the mass, otherwise will be shunned as « it is part of the irrational planning of this society that it reproduces to a certain degree only the lives of its faithful members ». Anyone who does disconnect from the dominance of he culture industry risks being accused of incompetency. The vicious circle as they describe is not yet closed: there is a huge problem issued by cheap massively distributed art (which is what the culture industry does best): « Pleasure always means not to think about anything, to forget even where it is shown. » The problem persists when those same passive persons create the demand for « culture-entertainment-art », because they actually want empty, meaningless, soulless culture. The public is not aware of its current situation, and fails to see that the promises the culture industry makes are always unfulfilled. We have only a few choices off the menu and they are never what we actually need as a society.

What the authors describe in the text as being the "culture industry" is essentially marketing. It is all carefully planned to appeal to as many people as possible, and has figured out how to manipulate people into choosing to desire the very thing it produces. "In the false society, laughter is a disease." (p. 84) Moviegoers and radio listeners search for something to clear their minds which is opposite to the way art was intended in earlier days; intellect and awareness were once required when viewing or listening, but now opinions are carefully formulated for them. The authors seem to fear that because of this, people have become unable to criticize the society in which they live. "Works of art are aesthetic and unashamed; the culture industry is pornographic and prudish." (p. 84). This is interesting: it seems the culture industry tempts people and taps into secretive desires which they are unable to actually satisfy--or it pretends not to be interested in such desires and plays the coy, innocent card. Is is possible however to say that works of art may do the same thing? Where do we draw the line between a work of art and a stylized reproduction of media force fed to us? The premise from which the authors of the text rule a work of art as such are a little unconvincing. One might question what kind of authority deemed Mozart and Michelangelo "real" and "authentic" artists in the eyes of Horkheimer and Adorno. Many of the arguments made could be applied to forms which are denounced in the writing (such as Jazz for example). Nonetheless, the text seems to describe what was discussed in the last class discussion: the culture industry is comparable to one of Leni Riefenstahl's films: meticulously organized to be manipulative.

Is the culture industry representative of the "banality of evil" as in a once fascist Germany? And if so, what sort of diabolical phenomenon should we be preparing for? According to Horkheimer and Adorno, what is the culture industry really hiding and why?

Culture Industry - Alexis, Ramy, and Sean

Summary :
Horkheimer and Adorno talk about how culture is now manufactured. A bit like the Ford Model Ts. Enlightenment as deception is seen when art is reproduced under the pretext of making it accessible to the public when really the art being distributed has little to no value. The public is fooled in it's understanding of art and therefor in the value of it.

Ideas :
The authors tackle few key issues in the text that try to build up their argument. Pleasure and amusement, when they talk about amusement itself becoming an ideal taking a place of higher things it is referencing the deception which is affecting all people as part of the culture industry.
The culture industry it self is nothing more than culture and it's reproduction. By systematically reproducing art (as an example) for the people it falls under the category of mass deception. An industry of any kind does what it does best, cheap affordable products for the masses. These characteristics hinder art as art becomes imprinted with them. The struggle for art as true value only becomes more difficult in this sense. As an industry, culture aims to please and according to the authors, to be pleased means to say yes, much like how business meetings are held on golf courses. Pleasure always means not to think about anything. This lays the groundwork for control and/or manipulation.

Questions :
Does the culture industry make it easier for powers to control the masses? Are we all generic fleshbags of emotionless pleasure being converged towards the continuation of nothing?

Response to Horkheimer & Adorno by Emmanuel, Alexina & Alex

Horkheimer and Adorno's text starts with an explanation of how capitalist systems harvest fellowship. They believe that culture is identical wherever such systems exist. The capitalist governments gradually integrate social beliefs into target groups using mass media and their techniques. The power of the government grows as consumers accept the new standards. The standards are accepted without question because they are presented as needs. The consumer believes he still possesses free will. In fact, this is only because they rationalize the messages transmitted to him or her by producers of culture, making them seem logical. They say that today's styles are no longer "new". They are prefabricated, no longer unique, no longer have to test themselves against their audiences. Therefore, there is no longer any style; we embrace a system of non-culture where every style converges. Any new style is forbidden, except for the few who know how to "confirm the validity of the system" by pointing out the style norms. The authors believe that, since liberalism is commonly known for its lack of categories, and that the culture industry, the most rigid of all styles, is its goal, we therefore shouldn't so easily categorise culture industry. Governments which are opposed to liberalism prefer to use techniques similar to those of marketing companies to sway the minds of their people. As soon as individuals live in ways not planned out by their governing body, they are treated as outcasts and aliens. This is an effective grouping strategy. Society turns to art in an attempt to escape the brainwashing of government. To counter this effect, governments mix what is considered high art with "light art". The effect of this juxtaposition is that consumers are no longer able to discern between actual art and what is propaganda. In a similar way, placing art which contains substance in a museum with free admission encourages consumers to disregard the latter. This is because the consumer is trained to believe that more expensive products have greater return. The culture industry is a structure, which systematically attempts to control masses by harnessing the power of media like an advertiser. Their effect is dissimulated as being part of cultural happenings. Anyone who refuses to conform is alienated and therefore encouraged to join the majority.

A famous song or a famous novel might be used for a film because it is already popular, because the producers know that the public will love it from the start. This is how producers create a cultural following for commodities. All products are generally created equal, yet it is possible to morph the masses' perception of such products. "Mad World" is a soothing, sad song used to promote a video game about war against machines called Gears of War (and, earlier, the film "Donnie Darko"). The song represents the grief that the character feels when his world shatters apart, but has no place in a "war" video game (though it does in the earlier film). It was used to target a certain crowd who would already have emotional ties with the song to make bigger profits off them. As the authors say, liberalism is ever present in the culture industry. For example, a TV show may be officially categorised as suspense, but there may as well be a large amount of tragedy as well, or paranormal content. Everyone may categorise that particular show a very different way. The few people who control the majority of the world's economy are a tightly knit group. Their influence is powerful. Governments are run as businesses which market their beliefs. All these parties collaborate to ensure their numerical objectives are attained. It is imperative for the consumer to act diligently. Artists must innovate to retain the little control the masses have left to regain free will.

Is it truly possible for individuals to choose whether they accept, reject or simply ignore the precisely controlled systems of marketing and government? 

Response to Walter Benjamin -- Angela and Matthieu

In "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", Benjamin argues that original art works have unique historical baggage defined by the artist, the context, among other factors. He refers to this uniqueness as the "aura" of art works, and argues that this aura, or authority, does not carry to reproductions of art. In today's age of "mechanical reproduction", that is, machine-aided means of duplication, the value behind the process of art making is reduced, and art is less about crafting "auras" and more about socio-political significance, i.e., through exhibitions.

As with most other groups, our discussion was centered around Benjamin's concept of the aura. His opinion regarding massively reproduced art (i.e. multiple copies of the same painting) and of aura-less art forms (i.e. film) is grim and his reasoning behind it is quite clear. On one hand, we feel that the concept of aura still exists today, because original art works are still in high demand, and auctions generate enthusiasm from collectors to the mass media. We discussed how artists today run limited-edition sales of their art works. In this case, is the aura being divided up in equal parts, or is it gone altogether as soon as it's copied? Can a digitally-created art piece even have aura, if it's composed of 0s and 1s? And then we flipped the coin and we started questioning whether the concept of an art work's aura even has significance today. We see art arise in unpredictable ways, from mixing, mashing, sampling, computing, and other digitally-aided modes of creations, and in such an astounding volume, that we felt divided on the issue.

There exist artists who use algorithms (mathematics) to produce generative art. Can this type of art be said to carry an aura, say, if it is never reproduced and its secret recipe is never revealed?

The work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.* (Chris, Eric and Audrey).

Walter Benjamin composes his argument based on the notion of reproduced art; he develops multiple examples on the different art matter such as movie, theatre, painting and photography, always pointing out the fact that there is a draining aspect to art when it is mechanically reproduced. It is not proposed that this idea is new, but it as become more and more of an alarming state were art doesn’t have its own value and tradition. Art has a contextual position and an “aura”, according to what, every piece as a meaningful place in time and space. Therefore mass reproduction can not convey this element to art because the essence of the “aura” goes against our social bases among with mass acceptation of the massive art reproduction. He then applies our cultural values in explaining the differences of the “authenticity” and the “authority” in art, adding to what our sense of “cult” of art has transformed in looking at an “exhibition”.

The uniqueness of a piece of art always includes the components of its original creation; reproduction breaks the idea of contact with conception. Mechanical reproduction detaches art from its authenticity, but it goes along with our contemporary aesthetic where as mass industrial produced art does not interfere with the lack of attachments to things. Contemporary art is ephemeral, an article of Arthur Danto explains how artist create in our days, being in conflict with the “cult values” of our society. “The power of the contemporary comes from the insecurity of being ephemeral rather than from building on some illusory historical foundation -- a hypothetical but always crumbling permanence -- as though that will make ones automatically meaningful and of enduring value. No art is historically important forever: the historical staying power of past art depends on contemporary creative needs -- on contemporary emotional and cognitive necessity. It is permanent and necessary only because the contemporary creates the temporary illusion that it is.”

The “aura” of an art piece can be defined in different ways; somehow, even if the artist had a significant explication to his art, the reproduction fact blurred the elements that communicated it. People consume and possess reproductions, they assume they are, know thousands of other people have seen them, bought and enjoy them. Today a piece of art is a "thing" for to many people, reproduction of art is like production.
However, is it because it is socially accepted to own copies and reproductions that it makes that piece of art less of what it is, does the “aura” disappear when it’s reproduced or does it just change of nature dependently of what it became and where it stands in space and time ?

The work of Art in the age of mechanical reproduction: Jos, Charlotte, Charles

Walter Benjamin talks about the notion of Art through time. From architecture to paintings, to photography, metal casting, movies, etc. He explores different types of creation and their reproduction procedure, while investigating the link between how the mass of viewers interact with those mass reproduced creations. He then delves into the concept of uniqueness and authenticity, using many different examples, amongst others cinema, and showing that they can't be exactly compared. Through history, he observes how methods of reproduction [of art], have modified the way we create and the interaction of the proletariat with art (for example, someone who can afford to paint can't necessarily make movies and someone who bought paintings can't necessarily make a movie!).

"A man who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it"... "In contrast, the distracted mass absorbs the work of art." His example is architecture: it is a work which is "[received] by a collectivity in a state of distraction. The laws of its reception are most instructive." This relates to the way film is received by the public, which unlike architecture can be a very dangerous thing. It is not realistic to predict every kind of response from viewers of an artwork, but it is an artist's responsibility to keep this in mind. What the artist intends is not always the reaction intended. But this can go the other way: if someone means to project a particular kind of information onto the public, it is possible to manipulate the way people perceive political issues, for example. Once new technology is available for use and manipulation, it will be both used for good and for evil, this we cannot control. It is a difficult subject to ponder, as technology evolves exponentially. All kinds of mechanical reproduction seem to help us in terms of communication, but also hurt us in terms of propaganda, which is still true today. It seems that its reflection revolves around whether or not it is good to have mass communication(mass reproduction) if the majority of the population (or a large part) are unable to criticize or have a "more objective" point of view on what we show them. Even without mass communication, the problem still persist, too few people have a grasp on the "real" of what they are shown. He references Aldous Huxley saying, at that time, artistic talent is becoming very rare if we observe the ratio of "good artists"/population... However, he could only have imagined that, because he didn't verify the numbers he used and good or bad is very subjective. True, capitalism uses mechanical reproduction to sell whatever is profitable in term of capital, so what is sold is what most people want(And what they want can be modified, but that's something else). Maybe more "trash" is in circulation, but we only need one good work to be massively distributed to be as effective as if many good ones were distributed in small quantities. Indeed, in the former scenario there is still less variety than in the later, but where many persons worked individually on fairly good books, big crews worked "together" on a movie, to produce a greater result(maybe). This way of propagating art works to the masses has its downsides, if we have less variety of works, less directions are taken, which means less potentially merged ideas that would have created new ones in return. However, Internet changed this, as anyone can have access to authorship, and everyone can possibly look for what he wants. If the public still is an absent minded-one, which could still be possible with Internet (if you go on you-tube, you can simply click on the main page's thumbnails and keep going, watching what we propose to you), then we might have to look somewhere else [than in the media] to find a solution for this... education problem...? Art is a product of it's time. Every art work produced in a certain context cannot be fully reproduced without losing a certain quality. Every unique piece of artwork is intricately weaved and embedded within the fabric of it's tradition. Art is always valued and viewed on two different planes: one of cult and one of exhibition. For example, ceremonial art was only meant to be exposed within a specific context, whereas a statue in the town square represents an entirely different approach. It is this emphasis that causes art to have distinctive functions, which may not be (originally) what the creators of these arts intended, but it became so with time. So should all art be treated equally? Would one compare the utter uselessness of art in Dada to a "Masterpiece" from the renaissance? Do both have the same reproductive value? By being able to reproduce these pieces of art, we remove them from their contexts and give them a whole new meaning, readily available to be consumed by whoever willing. Film, on the other hand, creates a whole different conundrum. Static art (ie: paintings) were meant to be absorbed, contemplated upon and thought of. Whereas, film, no one image is static, it is a constant influx of moving pictures, that are but a glimpse in one's mind eye. It is a bastardized and perverted version of simplicity. One moment is is there, the next, gone. Film creates an experience without contact, where the viewer is nothing but a critic of it's whole. Film is a representation of reality (Beaudrillard would say), nothing is ever what it truly seems. The actors within it are performing for an invisible and unknown audience, simulating their presence in their performance, and eradicating their auras from the cameras, baring nothing for us to see nor feel. By creating this reproduction of an altered reality, Western Society capitalizes on spurned interest from the masses through the illusion of film. It recreates a form of Dada, for it brings nothing to an individual but fleeting images that have no content and that will be forgotten in a moment's time.A painter and a cameraman create very differing images. One paints a whole, with soul and aura, the other assembles a sequence through fragments, leaving it's viewer to assemble them themselves or through their own hegemonic position. Painting was never meant as a simultaneous collective individual experience. It is to be absorbed by individuals, at different times in different ways. Film merges the critical and the receptive, in thus, causing the individual reaction to be influenced by the mass reaction.In some respect, the approach that both Benjamin and Duhamel have towards film is the same kind of reaction photographers or the clergy have had towards new technologies. "That will kill this" in reference to Hugo's Hunchback of Notre-Dame. Fear of this new technology and the unknown that it brings along with the changes that it procures us. For is it not technology that allows for advancement, for metamorphosis of what we know? That it allows us to explore new regions and give it new meanings?In his analogy of war, he dictates that we are not able to properly integrate these new technologies in our society and that their mass production draws similarities with war. That the more they happen, that the least we utilize them properly the more they are more likely to destroy us.

With more and more labour geared towards simulations and in "virtuality", can we still say that auras can only truly exist through the real physical world? Is this a rigid concept, that will never evolve from it's roots?

Walter Benjamin: Group response from Natalia, Fernando, Mike, and Martin.

The central argument of Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” stipulates that the authenticity and authority of works of art diminishes as they are massively reproduced. He does not suggest that this is a new phenomenon, as art has always been reproducible, but its scale has never been as wide. He equates “authority of the object” with its “aura”, which is based on a number of external factors that do not carry over into the work’s reproductions, such as its history, ownership, and uniqueness. As art is reproduced, and the aura fades out, the ritual aspect of art is overpowered by its political and social value. Making a distinction between the “cult” and “exhibition” value of the work, Benjamin suggests that the “exhibition” value increases with reproductions, draining art of its “cult value”. He further goes on to apply this model to the distinction between film and theatre, arguing that the non-auratic nature of film is a result of the production method which is aimed at reaching a non-specific audience.

Our group discussion focused on trying to develop a definition of “aura” which could be applied to contemporary art production, drawing a distinction between "aura" and "status" of objects. In Benjamin’s argument, this term is used very specifically to describe the sense of awe and admiration for the singularity and authenticity of a work of art. In contemporary society, especially due to the advancement of post-modernist definitions of art, the singularity and authenticity become blurred and deliberately challenged. In a way, this is the very core of Benjamin’s argument. However, many questions arise as to whether the “aura” is really fading or merely mutating to a different form. As definitions of art shift, does the aura follow? We attempted to apply Benjamin’s concepts to a number of contemporary phenomena, such as open source software (does it become an “authentic object”, if it is worked simultaneously by many people?), computer graphics (could it be the ultimate non-auratic work, in Benjamin’s sense?), and designer objects. Also, we discussed whether the flip side of Benjamin’s argument could also hold true. Making an example of New Yorker cartoons, we discussed whether the original drawing, which is often sold for thousands of dollars, acquires a stronger aura if it is reproduced in multiple copies.

Question: If the aura is composed of history and authority of the object (both of which are socially and culturally-constructed factors), then how does its definition shift as a result of reproduction and how does this change affect further cultural production?

Réponse à Walter Benjamin

Selon M. Benjamin, l'aura est le sentiment que l'on ressent quand on est en contact avec quelque chose d'unique, qui est lié à un endroit précis. Comme exemple, il prend l'effet qu'on ressent en regardant une lointaine chaîne de montagne ou l'ombre d'une branche tombant sur nous. "La manifestation d'un lointain quelle que soit sa proximité"(einmalige Erscheinung einer Ferne, so nah sie auch sein mag). Voilà les termes exactes qu'il emploi pour expliquer l'aura d'une oeuvre. Avec l'avènement de la reproduction technique, les relations que l'homme entretient avec ces oeuvres ont bien sûr changées. Le caractère unique ne s'applique plus de la même façon qu'autrefois. Maintenant, l'aura tel qu'il la présente n'est plus la source d'émerveillement de l'oeil sur l'oeuvre, sans l'aura, la barrière s'est effondré laissant place a la délectation pure, sans voile.

Je vois l'aura de M.Benjamin un peu comme l'effet qu'a un Idole sur une foule. Savoir qu'il n'y en a seulement qu'un, vouloir le voir à tout pris et le contempler chaque minute qu'on a l'occasion de passé en sa présence. De la poudre aux yeux et rien de plus. Pour pouvoir apprécier la pièce, il faut la dénuder de toute notion lui donnant une valeur soit rituelle, divine ou autre que les qualités originelles qu'elle est supposé détenir. Si l'oeuvre survit et est apprécié même reproduite par milliers, c'est que sa qualité en tant que peinture par exemple est reconnue et appréciée.

Bien sûr, il faut le prendre dans son contexte qui est la modernité, les gens ont un très large éventail de "produits" qu'il leurs sont proposés. Ils aiment ou n'aiment pas une oeuvre pour toutes sorte de raisons, parfois bonnes parfois moins bonnes, mais l'art n'est pas mort pour autant, l'aura non plus d'ailleurs. Ce que M.Benjamin craignait c'est que la reproduction technique tue l'aura, ce qui ne s'est pas passé. La coexistence est là et selon moi y est pour rester. L'aura est ancré au plus profond de notre société en tant que rapport privilégié à l'art. L'original est, et sera toujours authentique car les reproductions, même les plus réalistes, resteront des copies de l'original. Dans notre société contemporaine, la valeur que l'on porte à un original n'est rien de plus qu'une valeur marchande, donnant un sentiment d'unicité et un statut au détenteur de l'oeuvre qui peut se flatter lui-même en se disant "c'est moi qui l'a". Cet effet est beaucoup plus fort maintenant qu'avant la venue de la reproduction technique car l'image est maintenant disponible et par dessus tout abordable à la masse et donc, n'est plus la raison même de la possession d'une oeuvre originale, la valeur marchande de l'image est ainsi annulé et l'homme en quête de prestige s'est rabattu sur une caractéristique différente qui est passé de "objet unique" à "premier d'un nombre infini". C'est un peu le souffle fatigué d'une croyance élitiste qui perdurera encore longtemps, même lorsqu'il n'y aura plus de différence physique entre l'original et la copie.

La reproduction technique a permis de démocratiser l'art. Il est vrai que sans son aura, l'oeuvre est banalisé, mais n'est-ce pas une bonne chose de pouvoir avoir un regard éclairé et l'accès à des opinions diversifiés sur les oeuvres? C'est en quelque sorte sortir l'homme de sa cave.


Est-ce que la reproduction technique a éteint l'art, ou a-t-elle réinventé, reconfiguré l'art selon les besoins de la modernité?

Response to Walter Benjamin by Kevin, Ben, Scott and Duy

Walter Benjamin starts off by mentioning the notion of reproduction of artwork. He differentiated between manual and process reproduction. He then discusses the one element that is lacking in reproduction, which is the context of the artwork; it’s presence in time and space. Following this, the decay of the aura is talked about. This decay depends on two factors: the desires to “bring things ‘closer’ spatially and humanly,” and to abolish the uniqueness of realities by accepting their reproductions.
He outlines the parasitic relationship that art once maintained in relation to ritual, and believes that mechanical reproduction gives independence to art. He states: “Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art.” As an example, he compares painting and film, which can be described as hot and cold art.

Mechanical reproduction abolishes uniqueness, thus theoretically increasing supply; and therefore, value of such artwork would be less. In contrast, however, mechanical reproduction provides artists with access to a much larger audience, which can result in more reputable artworks. Some mediums, such as painting, still have original versions that are worth much more than copies due to their context, but prints still expose the work to a larger audience. One concern is that aggressive reproduction would result in bulk information. As art breaks its ties with ritual, artists are still dependent on funding, which is generally provided by outside sources. The motives of these sponsors may not necessarily be art for the sake of art. By having art distributed to a larger population, the quality of art is continually being pushed, as artists are more likely to be inspired and challenged by their peers.

Question: In the future, would it be a possibility to not only reproduce artwork but to imbue the reproductions with context?

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction: Peter, Morgan, Nick, JS

In this 1936 text, Walter Benjamin discusses the authenticity of a work of art, its “aura”, the mediums of photography and film, Dadaism and fascism. The text begins by exploring the modes of art reproduction from man-made replication, to lithography, to photography and finally to film, which can capture images as fast as speech. Reproductions however lack the history, authenticity and overall presence, or “aura”, of the original version. This aura is directly related to the piece’s ritual function and the traditional context to which it belongs. With the revolutionary (for the times) reproduction methods of photography and film, there is no authentic, original version and therefore its aura and ritual function are nullified. Art begins to be no longer based on ritual but on politics. Benjamin goes on to discuss the effects of film on the art world and then the relentless destruction of aura in Dadaist creations. In the epilogue Benjamin packs in all his political messages stating how fascism seeks to introduce aesthetics into politics while “Communism responds by politicizing art.”

Our discussion began by trying to solidify a definition for “aura” as it pertains to an art piece. We concluded that the aura of a work of art was based on the belief that it was the authentic version as well as the environment that surrounds it. So the Mona Lisa seen in an art gallery behind plates of glass would inspire awe but no one would care if they saw it in a garage sale, although it could be the authentic version. We also discussed Benjamin’s assertion that we have a desire to bring things “closer” spatially and humanly thus overcoming its uniqueness and destroying its aura. This led to a discussion on micro-sculpture which are sculptures created on the tip of a pin or in a strand of hair. This is interesting because to view these works we must surrender to the representations of the microscope which adjusts reality through magnification. The aura of these works lies not in viewing them in their natural environments, which is impossible to the naked eye, but in the thought of how minuscule they truly are. The discussion suddenly jumped to the futurist movement, which is quoted from in Benjamin’s epilogue. According to Nick, one of the desires of the futurists was to give birth to mechanical cyborgs. Would the aura of these human reproductions be less than their homosapien original? After further discussion on the possibility of splicing genes from three parents together to conceive a baby we returned to Benjamin’s discourse on film. One interesting question about film developed in the text is if the aura of an actor carries through in a film. It is obvious how people back then were still grappling with how the medium of film differs from that of theater. Today we have accepted that film and theater can coexist because the experiences are entirely different. Our discussion continued by asking whether web-based art is inherently devoid of aura. If the original version of an artwork is located on the web then is the artwork being reproduced every time that we visit that website or are we just visiting it like we would visit art in a gallery? Finally we attempted to come to grips with the politically motivated ending to the text but were quite confused by its statements. I was left wondering whether aesthetics has completely permeated our political system today, with PR and advertising firms managing our political candidates and writing their speeches. His predictions that war is the only way of technological advancement while keeping with the capitalist system seem eerily familiar today, but surely we aren’t living in a fascist regime…

Is this loss of aura necessarily a bad thing? And how can we reclaim art’s aura in this era of digital representation?

Response to Walter Benjamin by Alexis, Ramy, and Sean

The texts talk, very elaborately, about how mechanical reproduction changes the meaning of art. It begins by telling us how an original piece of art is authentic, and what makes it authentic is it's relevance for it's time and it's process through time and how that process give it it's authority. This authenticity is regarded to come from ritual, it's original use value relevant only to the context and time in which it was created. A copy, however, does not hold this ritualistic value. Quite the opposite, it is discarded of a valuable context and of the process that an authentic piece would go through; it looses it's aura. By loosing it's aura it stops becoming a piece of private contemplation and becomes a piece of a political message. This transformation of purpose, from ritualistic to political, is pushed along extremely efficiently through the advent mechanical reproduction which also brings about new art forms such as photography and film. The text ends up with a comparison of art in communism and fascism how these governmental bodies affect art and it's value(ritualistic vs political).

The discussion of this text was fairly odd, we did not feel the author take a solid stand yet we understood the points he was traveling across. His only arguable arguments come either at the very beginning, in the preface, or at the very end, in the epilogue. His stands are so subtle that the text is read largely in a "this is how it is" context. It is only at the very last 2 sentences that we found a final stance taken by Benjamin. It took an insight into communism and fascism to understand what his point was. First, it's important to understand that fascism works by unifying a country and claiming it's superiority over all else, it encourages class structures by pushing a type of super corporate attitude in all who live under it, and most importantly, it uses a lot of propaganda. Communism on the other hand is the opposite in several ways, gearing towards removing class structures and etc and yet, still using art to it's own political ends. So what Benjamin comes to say is that Fascism uses the authority of art to propagate a message, while Communism does so by politicizing art. Both of which are the controlled reproduction and distribution to control political discourse.

With a super communication structure like the internet, reproduction, or more appropriately, DISTRIBUTION, is the name of the game. Keeping this in mind, we think it's important to question the relevance of reproduction, since it is so common, and how that effects the control of political discourse; who has it(the control)? and how relevant is it(the art)?

Response to Benjamin Walter by John, Tomer and Chris

The word art has different meanings. That is what Benjamin Walter discussed in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction".
He criticises the mass-production and commoditization of modern art.
He discuses how technology becomes more and more advanced, and how it could be the answer in duplicating an art work.
Art could always be re-produced, there is always a way to re-create something already done.
What Benjamin Walter is trying to say is that mechanical tools make producing art much easier, and faster.
For him, the aura of each art is the meaning, the understanding of its piece in our society, including its production date and its creator.
We arrived to a world where artist create art that is accessible to consumers.
Benjamin Walter makes a lot of comparisons between the mechanically reproduced work such as movies to unique work such as a painting.
We all have the tools today, to reproduce anything but it is impossible to get the same aura as the original. It is never going to be the same.

In the past, everything that was art formed was always compared, because the original always had a certain trait that no other piece could have. It is unexplainable. It was in a way magical.
We can not compare Leonardo Da Vinci's pieces to someone else that re produces his work because the original paintings contain much more, such as history.
Reproduced art is the reason why the original has more value.
Technology gives more opportunities to reproduce, but in the end, it is not the same effort involved in creating original art.
Walter has many criticisms which could be true:
He believes that an actor on stage can better identify with their roles, and create a better performance then an actor on film.
In a way, Benjamin Walter is correct but, we do not agree whole-heartedly with this criticism.
Actors could be edited later on, but they still have to give a high standard, believable performance to make movie real.
Both have differences: one has live audience, and the other has a camera filming, but for me as a director, my actors do have to give me their 100% for me to be happy with each given scene.
They are not acting for the camera, they are acting for my approval. Until I say the word "cut" or "next", we won’t stop filming.

We live in a world, where anything could be found over the internet. We live in a world, where anything is found where ever and whenever.
Internet has become a tool where we can just research and find any information needed. For us artists, it is a guide, a helpful tool to make us better artists.
Technology is ever evolving, and the computer has been a tool used by many people. Computing has become a part of art because there are so many people out there reproducing art.
Is it fair that people reproduce art created by computers. Is it real, or is it fake?
Does "computing" replace the old fashioned way of creating art? Does it take away the pen and paper?
I believe that it takes a place in our world but I find that it does not have the same representation as work made by a true artist who creates paintings, or something that has value. Computing is just a way to reproduce work, and nothing more.
Does "computing" replace the old fashioned way of creating art?
Computing is also a way to manipulate an image, giving it different content and making it into something new.
In the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction written by Walter Benjamin, he talks about how technology gives opportunities to reproduce, and how it is not the same effort put in to create these works.
He says that fake art gives the original more value, which we believe is true.
More people recognize other works through remakes. Internet opened a door, easy for us artists to find other work and re produce them.

There are so many questions that could be asked. Everything is changing around us.
Are we still living in the age of mechanical reproduction, or are we living in the age of digital reproduction where everything is all digitally made, where everything is passing through the internet? Is computing replacing the old fashioned way of creating art?
Is it ultimately taking over the role of the pencil and paper?

Response to Walter Benjamin by Emmanuel, Alexina & Alex

It has always been possible to reproduce art, whether it be paintings, writings, clay pots, etc. For Benjamin, the significant difference is that mechanical (or technological) tools, render the process easier and faster. Industrialisation made reproduction much more accessible trough the use of mechanical tools. This made human manipulation nearly obsolete. That represents what the new society wants, why mass reproduction of art exists. Nowadays, the Mona Lisa can be seen outside of the museum, in the comfort of our own house. The aura of each object is defined, for Benjamin, as the latter's significance within society, including its production date and producer. Reproduction of such objects brings about an equality among them. The value of each reproduction is the same, as is the experience of the audience. With the reproduction comes the word "authenticity". This authenticity comes from the creation of the object. The copy can be used in a different manner than the original, like a Mona Lisa on fire or under water. This gives new possibilities to the use the art work. The concept of aura is that which gives historical value to objects. For instance, one may desire to acquire an object, knowing that it has a value well above average. The removal of certain unique aspects to artworks destroys their religious aspects. Instead, art is appreciated for the art alone, not the aura. Cult value is now lost, for to be valuable religiously or spiritually, such objects would need to remain hidden. Today's society loathes to see objects remain unseen (we are too important for that). Religious, ritualistic, or spiritual objects have almost always fallen in the trap of exhibitory value. By using the medium of film, the performers seen on screen are not affected by the audience. This empowers the audience to become a critic without having had any contact with the actor(s), as opposed to a type of participant. They "take the position of the camera; its approach is that of testing." Instead of spawning a quality perceivable trough time and space like stage actors, Benjamin suggests that film actors must become the character to evoke similar success. Everybody who sees a movie or watches TV is somewhat of an expert on the matter, as they can, at any point, become movie extras, or be interviewed to give (personal or professional) opinions. Benjamin poetically compares a magician and doctor to a painter and cameraman. He establishes that the painter creates through his unique perception of the world, leaving a discrepancy between that and reality. On the other hand, the cameraman is able to pierce society's appearances and portray true aspects of life. We need to know that artistic reproduction changes our perception and our collective reaction toward art. The exhibition of art work like paintings organize and control our reception. If you see a reproduction of this art in different situation the reception is not the same. Technology such as the film camera allows humans to analyse more closely their lives. This is because reproduction makes aspects of the world readily available. The point of creating art is to fulfill a later satisfaction. However, mechanical reproduction "kills" the aura effect of the object in that it is no longer unique. "I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images." Personal taste no longer drives us to buy a work of art, but the fact that we create needs for that which others may already own. The author writes that art has the ability to ignite a social consciousness. Innately, humans are not willing to reconsider their beliefs. Art is an attractive way to stimulate audiences.

Paul Valéry says : "Two different manifestations - the reproduction of works of art and the art of the film". Can we also say a third manifestation: a new technology, like internet?
Today, the internet is not a glorious reproduction haven. Ultimately, data will only have to be placed in one location for the entire world to access. Although reproduction has permitted the world to communicate (like with the use of the printing press or movies), a new, more efficient technique is available. Benjamin says that the reproduction of art is able to stimulate reconsideration of social realities. Today, situations like the YouTube site essentially "pushes" content to the viewer. This is an evolution of Benjamin's proposed state. Individuals do not even need to make an effort to view the art in question. Reproduction becomes difficult when the subject is a type of artistic installation. This art form is dependant on time and space. These factors, along with the audience, are part of the art. This makes video reproductions of the work ineffective regarding their ability to ignite thought in the audience. Previously, it was easy to copy works and distribute them to the masses. Currently, copyright and authorship laws hinder the ability of artists to reproduce works or re-encode them to promote a new message. Humans are habituated to observing reproduction. Seeing a Hollywood actor in a local shopping mall excites most people because of the aura surrounding the star. This is the difference between simulation and reality. Who's to know that an object is not a reproduction? If you do know that the piece is real, then it's a reproduction; if you don't know that it's real, it's a simulation. If one is aware that what they are experiencing is a representation, then that fact is reality. As for mechanical production, nowadays, authors abound, brought on by the low cost of computers, publishing, etc. Previously, author circles were very small, very exclusive. Writing in and of itself was exclusive in that very few people knew their letters. Then came the advent of the Guttenberg's printer, which opened those circles. Then came the typewriter, then the personal computer. Nowadays, the publishing industry thrives, but is very selective because of huge masses of would-be writers.

Can we consider Benjamin's text as still relevent today, as it concentrates on the reproduction using video? That is to say, with the proliferation of the internet and other mixed new media, which tend to organize art in a way that is easier to access rather than to revert to reproduction to broadcast the message, is Benjamin's point of view still accurate?

Related Links:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x4kWTjsr_nQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jdErqHlPw3A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqa4LpdtOD8&feature=related

Baudrillard - Angela and Matthieu

In The Precession of the Simulacra Baudrillard argues that the reality no longer exists. He explains that the relation between representations and reality has been fundamentally altered, producing a state in which signs and symbols no longer related to reality but rather interact to create the Simulacra. All referentials have been liquidated. It is hyperreal -more real than reality. Generated from models of the real without a reality, like a map without a territory. The simulacrum is characterized by folding and meshing of the binaries of true and false, real and imaginary. Representations within the simulacra are never exchanged for the real, they are exchanged for themselves ( eg. Atomic bombs, capital). Because representations within the simulacra no longer relate to reality laws of logic no longer hold.
“Deterrence machines” (eg. Disneyland, Watergate) reinforce the simulacrum by providing an “imaginary” instance, which suggests that everything else is real. Baurillard uses Marx’s analysis of commodity to explain the emergnece deterrence. Capital was the first deterrent because the use-value of commodity has become irrelevant.
The simulacrum results from successive mutations in the relation between representation and reality. In the first phase signs reflect reality, in the second phase signs mask reality, in the third phase they mask the absence of reality and finally in the simulacra signs no have no relation to reality.

Questions:
Baurillard says that we now live in the era of “Murder by simulation”. The 2006 movie “Death of a President” in a fictional documentary about the assignation of George W. Bush constructed from archival (real?) footage. How does this simulated death function in the simulacrum? Is it a deterrence machine? Does it reinforce the simulacrum or does it subvert it? How does it relate to Baurillard discussion of past assignation attempts of political figures?

( I know we have not cover Debord, but I would like to ask this anyways…)
Baurillard analysis chronologically follows Guy Debord’s works on the Society of the Spectacle. Baurillard says we no longer live in the spectacle and that the simulacrum is decidedly different. How do these two paradigms differ? Is the Society of the Spectale a precursor to the simulacrum?

The Precession of Simulacra - Kevin, Ben, Scott and Duy

The precession of simulacra discusses about how the border of the real and unreal has gradually disappeared. Eventually, it is the simulacra, the imitation of the real world become what makes sense for us and what makes up our mentality about the world. Disneyland was an interesting example of how a commercial imaginary world persuades us that the man-made world out there is the real world. We went from having something original to a culture of counterfeiting, and finally reaching a point where the duplicate replaced the original. The example of a crazy person who faked being crazy was an example of simulation removing the impact of reality. Because craziness could be faked, some may believe all crazy people are taking it. One example is of a historical cave, which was reproduced in order to leave the original intact, but the two caves might as well have been the same because the impact of the simulated cave is the same.

War footage has in many cases replaced the reality of war; we believe war is what is represented in the images/videos in the media but the footage is typically sanitized to remove the reality of the violence (Americans banning footage of dead Iraqis and soldiers in Iraq). Once simulated, a situation goes through a process of interpretation which may involved removing (censoring) and/or adding (overemphasizing) certain elements. A faked illness could appear real, including all symptoms, however it is not real in that the source is not real. Baudrillard talked about how the simulacra starts as the imitation of the real and becomes the real itself. Someone said that words are dangerous because they make up what doesn’t exist. It is all our idea about the universe. By simplifying this world and its diverse body of elements through language as the simulacra, we lost contact with the nature of things and are attached to the abstract world of the mind. Language is a powerful yet dangerous tool: communication organizes the world, but it also takes away the divinity of the real things and leaves us with the abstract ideas about the world that only exists in our mind. Through a distinct environment like politics, such as the Watergate example, “some would say” that if a system is corrupted, it works because actions are taken to denunciate it! Hence, the simulacrum/existence of democracy is then reinforced, but deceitfully hides it defects.

If humankind was able to perceive things by their essence and not through their symptoms/effects. Would simulations replace reality? How would people base their understanding?

The Precession of Simulacra by Chris, Eric & Audrey

In The Precession of Simulacra, Baudrillard discusses many important issues regarding the way people perceive the true reality of things to this present day, i.e. visuals and how they tactically affect our minds in order for us to live a "simulation of reality". The involvement and interaction between semiotics, symbols and society are present with us each and every day; they are all linked with one another. Media, as we know it today, is built up on distorted images and false interpretations. He believes that these signs have transformed society in a way that all reality is no longer a true reality but rather a simulation of "human experience".

The text begins with Baudrillard's analogy, a fable written by Jorge Luis Borges where cartographers draw an exact representation of the Empire, so detailed, that it covers the entirety of the Empire's 'real' territory. Baudrillard states that there is no longer a simulation of a "territory, a referential being, or a substance" but rather the real has no more origin or reality whose consistently being generated by "models". The map, in this case, is where people live, this simulacrum of reality, and it is the reality of the human world that is gradually fading because of the consequences of hyperreality.

Baudrillard talks about Disneyland as an example of hyperreality. He describes the Californian theme park as a perfect model of all the entangled orders of simulacra. In his analysis of the Disneyland ideology, Baudrillard pretends that all the American values and those life styles are put forward in a transposition of a contradictory reality. Thus, this is used as a blanket to cover the simulation of the third order; the hyperreality. Disneyland is there to cover the fact that the world is Disneyland. In clear, it appears that we have to cover that the real doesn’t exist; we have the preserve the reality principle. It is no longer a question of true of false. It’s here that the copy replace the original.

The hyperreality is characterized by the way the conscience interact with the reality, in particular when the conscience loose its capacity to distinguish the reality from the imaginary and thus it drills with it without understanding it. The hyperreality tries to give life to the past and lost reality.

Baudrillard describes photography as a tool used to destroy the world; all the dimensions of the real world are canceled by the moment the subjet is froze on the pellicule. Like death, photography fixes the end of real and the object can rebirth with a new identity totally new and autonomous.

Hyperreality examples:
Television and Cinema in general due to the way they create an imaginary world and the addictive relation that the audiance engage in. Specially, reality shows and pornography ( more sexual than the real sex)

The Precession of Simulacra: Morgan, JS, Nick, Pete

Baudrillard's "The Precession of Simulacra" sets up a critical discourse in which the Real no longer exists and has been replaced by a "generation by models of a real without origin or reality". The omnipresence and precession of simulacra, simulation (as contrasted with representation) with no grounding in the real, implies a world with unintuitive dynamics that Baudrillard goes on to explain using a handful of real-world examples: Watergate, religion, ethnology, the Vietnam War, the Cold War and the Space Race... He leverages these established dynamics to explore a number of concepts from (the "murderous") science to McLuhan's media itself, turning popular and traditional rational analysis on its head and imparting a sense of despair in the face of the incomprehensible, contradictory multiplicity 'of it all'.

First thing's first: what's simulacra and how can there be simulation with no underlying reality? Some of us elected to push down right into the discourse, another failed to pop it out exclaiming, "the whole thing is ridiculous". Understanding the basic concept certainly constituted the majority of our discussion. We found ourselves employing Baudrillard's Mobius strip metaphor, watching videos of morphing GL textures, and imagining trippy paintings; turtles all the way down. We concluded that while Baudrillard's poetical prose was confusing, the images and aesthetics he conjures ("...a whole panoply of gadgets magnetizes the crowd in directed flows...", or "...produced from a radiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere") help grease the concepts. We remained still confused, however, about what he meant by "phases of the image", though his phases helped ground the notion of extra-reality in a more concrete conceptual framework. Watergate was lost on the Canadians, so the American had to explain how the Left uses Watergate to signify the inherent evil of the Right; but, coming from a Left ourselves, it was shocking to read how, given this framework of understanding, the Left sabotages itself even in its moments of righteous glory. The Watergate example helped us to comprehend the notion of artifical counterpoint to establish the artificial real; the anti to "rediscover a glimmer of existence and legitamacy" of the real (though, not really). From politics we moved to Capital, seeing how Baudrillard enables his theory with Marx's Fetishism of Commodities. While on the topic of context and inter-text relations, we found that the framework embeds into and extends McLuhan's ideas nicely and we were left asking, 'is media, the extension of the senses responsible for all of this?' And, in all honesty, we just couldn't make sense of the last section. The satellite and nuclear metaphors were mostly impenetrable, and the concept of a, for instance, war's end contained in and occurring before the event (the war) itself occurs was comprehendible but outlandish. Finally, still disoriented by the very idea of the precession of simulacra, we formulated the metaphor of a chaotic system, given real initial conditions and left to spiral and fractal into chaotic catharsis.

What are we to do with this "no longer [even] ambiguous" situation? Baudrillard is denying the possibility of the real, yet he is implicitly claiming a God's eye view. How can he, like a scientist, study (the ethnology of) our social world without some degree of corruption (surfacing of the real; an island onto which to crawl from the sea) in his perfectly chaotic, double-abstracted system? Is the loss of the real good or bad, how can we have an opinion, and on what ground is Baudrillard standing?

The Precession of Simulacra: Group Response from Natalia, Fernando, Martin

In this essay, Baudrillard focuses his argument on the distinction and relationship between reality, simulation, and representation. He suggests that today’s society has been absorbed into a system of simulations that hide the fact that reality behind it is disintegrating. The main characteristic of simulation, according to Baudrillard is its ability to replicate the real, blurring the line between the two states. For example, a person who is simulating an illness has all the same symptoms as a truly ill patient; he is not “hiding” that he is not ill, he becomes ill himself. In simulation, everything becomes a sign, and achieves a state of much higher malleability, as it is no longer real. As such, it is much easier to shape and manipulate a simulated world, than a real one. In order to hide this fact, society creates things that emphasize distinction between reality and simulation, such as Disneyland, which exists only to hide the fact that its surroundings are just as false.

Our group discussion focused on drawing interesting examples from contemporary culture that further support the points made by Baudrillard. The list quickly became very long and varied, including such things as Las Vegas, Guitar Hero, Reality TV, and Starbucks. Starbucks, particularly, is an excellent example of Baudrillard’s ideas. Its design and marketing strategies are aimed at simulating neighborhood coffee shops, with their couches, warm light, cozy atmosphere and light music. Because of its popularity, the spread of Starbucks has pushed many smaller coffee shops out of business, thus eliminating the very model on which it was based. Another interesting point that arose during our discussion is the relationship between Baudrillard’s theory and post-modernism. Where does it fit into his ideas, and how can his critique of today’s society be applied to a critique of post-modernist art practices?

Question: Is Baudrillard suggesting that we need to escape the simulation, similarly to Plato’s model of the cave which had to be exited? If so, what can we do to re-establish our connection to reality?

Precession of simulacra -Alexis Ramy & Sean

The text by Jean Beaudriad explorers simulation and lays out his ideas quite clearly from the very beginning on how simulation has evolved to become it's own reality; detached from an original. He goes on to site specific examples of different types of simulacrum, such as that of Disneyland VS the real world, and explorers it's manifestation. It later becomes evident that reality itself is only a simulacrum.

The author made some very interesting points, one of which was how we prove our past by destroying it. The struggle between cultures(past or present) versus science as a destructor, the discovery of those cultures caused by science therefor changes that reality while science is still trying to simulate it to others. This concept of culture VS science was very interesting. Other points of interest were reality TV and how fake they actually are compared to TV, that was even closer to reality, as well as his points on reality and simulation intertwining like space and time. Some arguments, however, we did not feel held their own when reading them. We are referring to the weapons of mass destruction argument. The author said that having them only proved that they(U.S.A.) would not use them. Yet they did and as he tries to explain this outcome, the argument itself just seems to fall short which brings into question the entire text. However his points on war being a simulation and it's outcome already decided is very interesting. Some of his arguments we found very disturbing, such as that of presidents only being copies of an original "great" president, a simulation that can only be complete through a simulated death, practically making them martyrs.

It seems that, according to the author, we can only prove our reality when we put it in contrast to a simulation and then effectively destroy that reality. With that idea of everything being a symbol of an authentic reality, how do we go about creating new, original, realities? Is the fact of living constant simulations of past realities so terrible? or does it just sound bad?

Baudrillard - Simulacres et simulation - réponse à -- La précession des simulacres -- par Jonathan, Julien et Jean

À partir de la fable de Borges (le territoire précède la carte), puis de l'ethnologie ("sacrifice simulé de son objet afin de sauver son principe de réalité"), Disneyland ("cacher que le réel n'est plus le réel, et donc de sauver son principe de réalité"), Watergate ("effet d'imaginaire cachant qu'il n'y a plus de réalité au-delà qu'en deça des limites du périmètre artificiel"), la TV-vérité ("frisson du réel, esthétique de l'hyperréel, frisson d'exactitude vertigineuse et truquée, jouissance d'un excès de sens, de la simulation microscopique qui fait passer le réel dans l'hyperréel") ("Vous êtes le modèle, la majorité, l'information, l'événement, la parole"), le nucléaire ("la mise au point du système maximal de contrôle qui ait jamais existé"), et autres "événements" ou "objets" social, politique, scientifique ..... Baudrillard nous explique sa notion de "disparition du réel" d'où vient percuter, jaillir et substituer celle d' "hyper-réalité" (la carte précède le territoire): série de simulacres qui ne cessent de s'auto-engendrer. L'abstraction moderne qui est "la génération par les modèles d'un réel sans origine ni réalité" porte la valeur de toute chose à devenir auto-référentiels. Abandon du miroir (instance de mesure), de la métaphysique, "mort de la représentation comme puissance dialectique, médiation visible et intelligible du réel", donc mort du symbolique. La grande ouverture lyrique du simulacre est une liquidation de tous les référentiels. Baudrillard nous dit alors que par cette opération de dissuasion, qui est la substitution au réel des signes du réel (son double opératoire); le réel devient impossible. Et parce que "tout se métamorphose en son terme inverse pour se survivre dans sa forme expurgée" ( la preuve d'un existence par son contraire); l'illusion elle aussi n'est plus possible, car il est devenu impossible de faire la preuve du réel. Et alors comme "tout les événements sont à lire à revers; Baudrillard s'en donne coeur joie à utiliser ce principe dans la forme et la syntaxe même de son texte: "l'équilibre de la terreur, c'est la terreur de l'équilibre". Nous invite-t-il a le lire a revers comme il nous invite à lire le monde à revers?

Diriger sans diriger, sacrifier sans sacrifier, être marier et célibataire à la fois, avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre, .... regarder un feu de foyer à la TV, ...... ou de fausses bûches au propane, ..... faire semblant de mourir, et mourir pourtant, ... "vers une résorption de tous les enjeux sans une goutte de sang." C'est donc la liberté qui est devenu impossible. "Les énergies se congèlent à leur propre feu, elles se dissuadent elles-mêmes."

Le cadeau au réel du sacrifice: l'invitation de revenir à un système symbolique passe-t-il alors par l'acte du sacrifice?
"Le sacrifice considéré dans sa phase essentielle ne serait qu'un rejet de ce qui était approprié à une personne ou ou à un groupe. C'est en raison du fait que dans le cycle humain tout ce qui est rejeté est altéré d'une façon tout à fait troublante, que les choses sacrées interviennent au terme de l'opération: la victime affalée dans une flaque de sang, le doigt, l'oeil ou l'oreille arrachés ne diffèrent pas sensiblement des aliments vomis. [...] Le sacrifiant est libre - libre de se laisser aller lui-même à un tel dégorgement, libre, s'identifiant continuellement à la victime, de vomir son propre être, comme il a vomi un morceau de taureau, c'est-à-dire libre de se jeter tout à coup hors de soi comme un galle ou un aïssaouah." Georges Bataille, La mutilation sacrificielle et l'oreille coupé de Vincent Van Gogh, p.30

C'est ainsi que le pouvoir tente d'injecter partout du réel, du référentiel, du rationnel pour nous persuader de la réalité du social: monde entier recensé, analysé. Baudrillard nous invite à répondre à ce défi selon la règle symbolique. Mais la règle symbolique est-t-elle toujours possible si l'on suit la logique de cette théorie? Est-il toujours possible d'être des suppliciés que l'on brûlent et qui fond des signes sur leur bûcher?

Baudrillard Response: Charlotte, Charles-Antoine, Jos

In this politically flavoured text, Baudrillard talks about three distinctive "things": the Real, the Imaginary and the Simulation. The real is true, the imaginary is false and the simulation is neither true nor false but can be interpreted as the reality for some. He explores the hazards of hyper reality and metaphysics and how they relate to our historical context. He consider simulations to be dangerous as they are systems very close to the real and can affect it and interact with it, but are sustained by artificial means, they are not real. As complex as it may sound, his concept of simulation either comes back to lies and deterring or to over-rationalization (over-quantization) and this is what he warns us about.

One of the most interesting points Baudrillard makes is about Disneyland. He says, “Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the ‘real’ country, all of ‘real’ America that is Disneyland”... “It is there to make us believe” that the rest of America is real. This is a scary point when thinking of many other aspects of American culture, and the information we are fed. One might ask (or “some people” ask) if all information (or extreme/controversial/far-fetched information) forced upon us in the media, as described in Outfoxed is fed to us merely as another attempt to convince us that everything around us must be real. Without the crazy things we see on the news, we may not believe the crazy things all around us. Except simultaneously, Disneyland is reality, only it is caged up and masked as a childhood fantasy in which we all unknowingly live. We found it interesting to have pointed out to us that after all sorts of previously natural activities and habits have diminished in American cultural practice, we have decided to “reinvent” such activities and habits, remarketing them and making them new. For example, we have now come up with yoga, organic foods, and natural food products; as discussed in class last week, these new labels may be becoming the reason for the participation and purchasing of such goods, instead of the actual reason behind their creation. Baudrillard also touches on the idea that American culture is fascinated with past and dying cultures, and archaic articles, taking pride in the fact that they(we) have been able to restore them, and put them into a glass case to slow their decomposition. Is this a chauvinistic act of pride, as if to say that because of our superiority, we are able to better preserve and restore a dying culture? He asks. Once a culture is dead, it is only then we are even interested, and once it has died, it seems to possess power over us. "In order for ethnology to live, its object must die; by dying, the object takes its revenge for being 'discovered' and with its death defies the science that wants to grasp it." Baudrillard explains American requires a vision of death because "We require a visible past, a visible continuum, a visible myth of origin, which reassures us about our end."


In this digital age of repetition, reproduction, appropriation, and of replication, how can we apply Baudrillard’s theory? Can we say: simulacra is reality, therefore the medium is the message? Is this affecting computation art in a good way?

Jean Baudrillard - Simulacra and Simulations; John, Chris and Tomer

The main idea in this article is the comparison between "Simulacra" (simularities) and Simulations, the comparison between the real and the "hyper-real", and how these comparisons affect our society.

Baudrillard begins with a story about Borge's map, which , allegedly, covered the whole empire in much detail. Baudrillard states that such a feat would not be possible in this day.
Baudrillard explaines this allegory by comparing "real" and "hyper-real", whereas "hyper-real" is characterized by the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from fantasy, especially in technologically advanced postmodern cultures like our own.
We live in an era full of advanced simulations.
Baudrillard believes that simulation threatens the difference between the "true" and the "false," the "real" and the "imaginary."
Baudrillard argues that there are four phases of the image: one that reflects a basic reality, one that masks or perverts a basic reality, one that masks the absence of a basic reality, and one that bears no relation to any reality.
Baudrillard discusses these phases, in relation to Religion, Disneyland and Watergate.

Out of all of Baudrillard's examples we found the aspect of "simulating god" to be most interesting:
Baudrigard asks about the posibility of god being simulated. In our opinion this brings up the question of a simulation that is not of god, per se, but creation, in regards to technological advancements achieved with cloning.
Cloning gives man the ability to "simulate" god, with all the philosophical problems that arise therof.
This in turn raises the question, if a "simulated" human being is as real as a naturally born one.
If not, is the cloned a simulation of the real?

"an image always kills the truth, for the image can never represent the truth in its entirety."

If we adhere to this quote from Baudrillard, then a simulation can never be the same as the real thing.
Is this truely the case? or can technological advancements blur the line between "real" and "hyper-real" to a point beyond recognition?
Can a simulation fully represent the truth? Is it possible for us to reach a state of technological advancement full of simulation, where one cannot tell truth from simulation?