So we have this definition that the spectacle is a social relation that is mediated by pictures.
But I can't grasp what are those pictures Debord talks about. Are they pictures on the TV? The ads? The facade of politics which has became straight out a reality show? A facade of civic activism?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
leuven.pagesperso-orange.fr
twitter.com
bump
in my view its all the shit that is ever-present in your life but isn't actually the real world.
its all of this you listed, in the film, he illustrate his thesis with fashion ads, tv news, and he even portraits fidel castro as a spectacular figure iirc
(i never read the book, just watched the film)
I think it's when pretty much everything is being replaced with a picture.
What is meant by this? Anomie.
You know that feeling when you're looking at something but it feels like you're an outsider?
Like "I defend this because I think I should, not because I myself feel a relation to it".
It's like that.
Memes.
It means memes.
It is a material image but also not really. It all starts with Kant and his notion of appearance. Sprinkle in a generous helping of Hegel and follow the bouncing ball–
"The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,” its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity…"
everything turns into a picture user.
Memes is an evolution of the spectacle. True.
Everything stops being itself and becomes the image of it.
Trump is not Trump, but what we percieve as Trump through pictures. What he realy is saying or does doesn't matter. All that matters is what we see him doing and saying.
You aren't understanding it m8 but you're close. Debord is saying that literally all life has been replaced with spectacle.
He isn't saying life is lived THROUGH the spectacle but that life=spectacle. The Spectacle is all that you said and more and is what happens when Capitalism reaches a level where capital accumulation creates a situation where commodities still must be generated and rents collected by capitalists from consumers but that due to the luxury created through capitalism commodities lose their use value and gain value BECAUSE they are commodities, which in turn creates a world where life (which is determined by the modes of production) ceases and evolves into an endless series of brief scenarios devoid of content determined by the collection of commodities for their own sake rather than utility or leisure.
This means that everything is turned into a commodity or potential commodity and thus ceases to be "real" in the sense that it has value beyond being turned into something marketable.
The Ruling Class then maintains its control (as Zizek often points out) not through direct oppression of the workers but through creating ever more clever forms of alienation and consumerism.
There is no more spirituality. Get down on your knees and worship Prada, BMW, and Nike. Now listen to me! Once, you have this Gucci bag and that nice BMW your pathetic life will be complete and ideal, but you lack the money to get these things. So, go out and work hard in order to consume these products that will complete your life. Once, you had this bag with a big ass G on it you can give off the image that you are elite, better then everyone else. I ask you OP, what gives life to this bag made out of a dead cow?
Like?
PoMo garbage is an enemy of proletariat
down to the gulag my pomettes
"Society Of The Spectacle" isn't getting anything profound across, it's just puffing up very self-evident concepts with a bunch of esoteric language to impress, even 12 year olds with the slightest critical thinking skills can come to more profound understandings of society than Debord ever did
Don't listen to this, read SoS for yourselves, read Situationist texts yourselves. If you read even the first 3 chapters of SoS you would realize how woefully inadequate the greentext block is. Situationists also accuse the CGT of hampering the May 68 strike, what do you have to say for yourself Stalin stache?
Try reading the first pdf from >>>/freedu/1160 (Holla Forums won't let me post it here)
I can't post a single fucking pdf and it's pissing me off.
I think it ties in to our obsession with status. I don't think Debord meant images in the most literal sense, although they would definitely be included.
Take like sitcoms for instance. They usually portray a really loving, if not at times frustrated, family that ultimately comes out on top after every pitfall.
It's all the stuff that's shown to people but really doesn't exist. The way I understand it is the spectacle is a mirage of an oasis for a thirsty man.
Or simply…
They Live.
Could you please explain how it differs from the other texts the /lit/ gang like?
"Modern capitalist society is an organisation of spectacles: a frozen moment of history in which it is impossible to experience real life or actively participate in the construction of the lived world. The alienation fundamental to class society and capitalist production has permeated all areas of social life, knowledge, and culture, with the consequence that people are removed and alienated not only from the goods they produce and consume, but also from their own experiences, emotions, creativity, and desires. People are spectators of their own lives, and even the most personal gestures are experienced at one remove. This is also a world which insists that every moment of life must be mediated by the commodity form, a situation which makes it impossible to provide anything for oneself or act without the mediation of commodities. A spectacle can only be watched and enjoyed at a distance, from where it appears glamorous and desirable; participation may be possible, but its form and extent will be predetermined by the context in which it appears. The promises of self-fulfilment and expression, pleasure and independence which adorn every billboard are realisable only through consumption, and the only possible relation to the social world and one’s own life is that of the observer, the contemplative and passive spectator. The commodity form places everything in the context of a world organised solely for the perpetuation of the economic system; a tautological world in which the appearance of real life is maintained in order to conceal the reality of its absence." - Sadie Plant, The Most Radical Gesture
That "tautological world" is The Spectacle.
...
I'm french & the CGT is actually using its small para-police to contain insurgees & give them to the actual police when shit goes down in manifestations. And they gaz people. The CGT should be eradicated.
Also :
Hahaha oh my god how fucking retarded… This shit sounds like pseudo-analyticians saying continental philosophy is gibberish because they just don't get it.
Also, I'm French & Voyer is constantly mocked here. He is widely regarded as a ridiculous asshole, and he is the perfect example of someone who is making big statements saying nothing at all. He was a friend of Debord and stole most of his ideas, and he hates Debord because that's his way of hiding the fact he stole everything from him. There even was a famous argument between him and a group a leftist theoricians (the Observatoire of Théologie) where this group proved his definition of economy as a religion was totally inconsistent, and he only resorted to insults.
I mean the fact that you're quoting this resentful old man (who, I would like to say, had a few good ideas but only when he was a situationnist) is really sad.
I've only watched Žižek's documentaries, but does he ever argue that the Bourgeoisie is consciously producing alienation among its consumers, or does he claim it's a more unconscious and unintentional consequence of the system of which they are a key driver? For example the urban planning that is financed and mapped out by the Capitalists often leads to a situation of alienation as Debord argues in his writing, yet I doubt these people go out with the conscious intention to create alienation in their society.
Where is this from?
The argument is that the Ruling Class creates alienation simply by existing so yes you could say it's "unconscious" but it's more that "So long as Capitalism is what determines the material relations of society alienation will exist and be in favor of the Ruling Class who in turn, through their rule, create more alienation". Debord is simply saying that "material relations" begin to evolve into relations between images after the production of commodities for the use value reaches its end
So one thing I was wondering is what sort of situations did the SI actually construct? Are there any written records of their situations?
Goddamn, it sucks to have such horrible things confirmed. Stay safe.
Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, written by Debord 20 years after the book. Worth a read. It's where you find the quote on the image of Beaker the muppet that says something like 'science is used to immediately justify everything that happens'
They did not construct any situations and they did not consider themselves situationists for this reason. They were trying to figure out how to do it, especially in the early years (drifting was supposed to be a way to collect data for future situations), but later they mostly gave up on art and focused more on politics.
I'm reading SoS right now. It's rather unsettling.
So, I get what he means, that everything is already infected by the spectacle and the mass media is just a tool. But if Debord were writing today, he would be forced to admit that the spectacle is now powerful enough to wrap everything in a spiderweb layer of media, allowing no escape. Digital images are literally in our face 24/7.
Oh hey, Debord namedrops Stirner as one of the people who kicked Hegel in the balls. Seems quite the compliment. I might actually read Stirner now.
Debord wrote his Comments on SoS in '88 so yes he wrote that the spectacle had already raised a whole generation and that the 'diffuse' and 'concentrated' spectacles of America and the USSR respectively had sort of resolved themselves into a unity merging attributes of the two which he termed the 'integrated' spectacle.
Thank you kindly.
There's even a Stirner détournment in the book.
...
That means that the "concrete" image is actually only the foam of an entire society mediated by representations of its ordering concept, capital.
If Debord were alive today, he would say that they internet is only the most superficial layer of the spectacle.
Again, you have to read Kant, Hegel, and Marx to actually get what he's saying beyond just thinking its about capitalist fooling and spooking everyone with movies and ads.
How did this thread end up on page 12 in a single night?
Gentle bump.
autism-fuelled shitposting
Well jeez, where do I start?
Here: Should give you a nice "quickstart."
bumping for May 68
...
Let's all love Lain.
Fuck.
this