Guy Debord writes about sight being the sense with the highest potential to abstract us from reality. I think this is relevant to my project in two ways:
- I’m thinking about sensorial (or sensual, haven’t quite decided what word yet) experiences of data sets and the lack of connectedness to information and ways of doing this through ornamentation and how personal and intimate ornamental embodiment practices are/have the potential to be… ie; touch, hearing, taste etc – places to interrogate engagement
- SECODNLY – I studied Graham Harmens tripple O during lock down and our practice viva and came to some interesting conclusions on what it means to touch something when in the contact of consumption… ie; the local market vs. the online experiences of purchasing something. I concluded that touch was necessary to access the real qualities of an object.
- I now wonder whether using a sensory perception of ‘sight’ (which in Debords view is a weakest and most easily manipulated sense) may merely allow us to access the sensual object… whilst the metaphorical and/or aesthetic experience alludes to the real object (essence of) that is the subject matter.
- Should this be something I discuss with Sean? ACTUALLY first, in order to answer this question i think look up ‘real qualities’ section in a new theory of everything book… (below are the diagrams I redrew for the essay that helped me understand the practical nature by which harman thinks the aesthetic experience happens)
Quote from medium website: https://medium.com/@mdowns1611/commentary-on-debords-the-society-of-the-spectacle-chapter-1-37b2e105614a (has good definitions of marxist terminology)
Other website that helps translate issues spoken about in the spectacle
‘Alienation is separation — separation from ourselves — and the spectacle is the perfection of this sort of separation’
- nice summery of what the issue of the society of the spectacle really is
18. For one to whom the real world becomes real images, mere images are transformed into real beings — tangible figments which are the efficient motor of trancelike behavior. Since the spectacle’s job is to cause a world that is no longer directly perceptible to be seenvia different specialized mediations, it is inevitable that it should elevate the human sense of sight to the special place once occupied by touch; the most abstract of the senses, and the most easily deceived, sight is naturally the most readily adaptable to present-day society’s generalized abstraction. This is not to say, however, that the spectacle itself is perceptible to the naked eye — even if that eye is assisted by the ear. The spectacle is by definition immune from human activity, inaccessible to any projected review or correction. It is the opposite of dialogue. Wherever representation takes on an independent existence, the spectacle reestablishes its rule. We live in an inverted world. If the real world becomes images, then images become the most real of things. These images attract and entrance us precisely because we take them to be real. We cannot experience the real directly anymore. The real is not something we can reach out and touch. The “real” is only visible in spectacular images. This is why the spectacle puts all the emphasis on visual experience. This is a very McLuhanite insight. McLuhan pointed out that different media-forms produce different types of societies as well as different types of subjectivities. For Debord, sight is the most abstract of the senses, that is, the one most capable is distancing itself from concrete experiences. Consider how we use the word “see” to refer to understanding abstract truths, for example, “I see why the circle cannot be squared”. We often say we can “see” these truths, but never that we can touch, hear, taste or smell them. Thought and seeing have long been associated. Given how abstract things have become in the consumer society, it’s no wonder the spectacle puts us in a sensory mode wherein visual experience is dominant. This is also no coincidence, since sight is the most easily tricked of all the senses and the spectacle is in the business of deception. However, the spectacle is not itself visible to the eye. This sounds strange, but what he means is that the spectacle is ultimately the way in which images are arranged and configured in relation to one another and, more importantly, how human beings are brought to relate to each other in consumer society. Remember what Debord said in thesis 4: “The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.” The spectacle is a social system, a social network, and not just a huge stockpile of images. I mean, it is a stockpile of images but one that mediates social relations among people. To say that the spectacle is “immune from human activity” means that any effort on our part to get control of the spectacle, to bend it to our will instead of to capital’s, is an effort in futility. The spectacle is far too pervasive and elusive for us to regulate it. Our simple concrete activities cannot correct it. When it comes to the spectacle, our activities do not factor in. Baudrillard was always quick to highlight the unilaterality or irreversibility of the code, of the simulation. Debord is getting at this as well. Average human activity cannot force the spectacle into a dialogue. If “dialogue” enters the equation, then it’s a simulated type of dialogue like that of a call-and-response format. If the dialogue is scripted, then it’s not really a dialogue at all — it’s a monologue in the simulated guise of a dialogue. Think about how scripted and predictable arguments on the internet are. No one is really engaging in active dialogue. Monologue is the structural default setting of the spectacle. If flows into us, it gives to us, and nullifies every attempt we make to give something back to it. It does not want us to be able to openly challenge it, reverse it, actively problematize it. It wants us to shut the fuck up and simply enjoy what it gives. This is precisely the issue with representation taking on a life of its own — the spectacle, imagistic capital, is like Ultron. Once representation usurps reality, real referents, once it has become unmoored from concrete things, it makes all the rules.
- The types of aesthetic experiences I am interested in simulating aren’t specifically un reified… they still entirely intend to have an mystic aura but I guess one that is ‘speculatively more real’
19. The spectacle is heir to all the weakness of the project of Western philosophy, which was an attempt to understand activity by means of the categories of vision. Indeed the spectacle reposes on an incessant deployment of the very technical rationality to which that philosophical tradition gave rise. So far from realizing philosophy, the spectacle philosophizes reality, and turns the material life of everyone into a universe of speculation. The spectacle is not just the zenith of capitalism but also has a deep connection to Western philosophy. The Western philosophical tradition has all sorts of blindspots in it. These have been pointed out by Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze, etc. The spectacle inherits all of these weaknesses. Western metaphysics has always been visucentric (based on sight). Think about how substance ontology describes everything in terms of visual properties. Substance ontology is visual ontology. This is one of it’s presuppositions. It never argued that reality itself is structured in the way that visual experience is, but, instead, blindly presupposed it. Why isn’t reality like hearing or touching? Why must it be like our experience at all? Don’t get me wrong. There have been philosophers that have challenged the validity of our experience, but I don’t really know of any that approached this in something like a McLuhanite manner. Activity, both nonhuman and human, might not be reducible to the parameters of visual perception. Just a thought. The spectacle is the technological outgrowth of the technical rationality that grew out of Western metaphysics (this is something Heidegger, Horkheimer, Adorno, etc., would agree with). Debord claims that the spectacle doesn’t realize philosophy — it philosophizes reality. But what does this mean? What’s important is not that the spectacle is the purest realization of the technological rationality of Western philosophy, but, rather, that the spectacle comes to undermine what philosophy took reality to be. Put differently, the spectacle inverts reality and representation. It makes images into realities and realities into images. This is what it means for the spectacle to philosophize reality. This also involves negating concrete human reality by turning us into detached speculators of images. The spectacle turns all of us into “philosophers” insofar as it distances us from reality and forces us into never-ending contemplation of the consumer world. You’re not concretely living when you’re abstractly contemplating.
- Also I like the word visucentric!!! (based on sight… Im interested in anti-visucentricity)
- Also the idea of pseudocyclical time – is also applicable to data visualisations as well as commodified goods
Quotes from the actual texts: (in order that they appear in the text)
“But for the present age, which prefers the sign
to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence, …truth is considered profane, and only illusion is sacred.Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be seen as the highest degree of sacredness.”
- thinking about ‘what people engage with’ and how representations are key… how can I prove that they are more key when they are more illusionary, representationally visceral as opposed to ‘trunfullinessly’ allured to via data and graph
But due to the very fact that this sector is separate, it is in reality the domain of delusion and false consciousness: the unification it achieves is nothing but an official language of universal separation.
- things such as false consciousness align with anthropocentric/cosmological confusion confusion
The society based on modern industry is not accidentally or superficially spectacular, it is fundamentally spectaclist. In the spectacle-the visual reflection of the ruling economic order-goals are nothing, development is everything. The spectacle aims at nothing other than itself.
- good argument / reference for neoliberalsim’s void of forwards thinking yet has ‘development and progress’ (Ie GDP growth) stamped all around this void’s rim. Doughnut economics esque argument for the necessity of visualisations due to the power of them.
(17) The first stage o f the economy’s domination o f social life brought about an evident degradation of being into having human fulfillment was no longer equated with what one was, but with what one possessed. The present stage, in which social life has become completely occupied by the accumulated productions of the economy, is bringing about a general shift from having to appearing – all “having” must now derive its immediate prestige and its ultimate purpose from appearances. At the same time all individual reality has become social, in the sense that it is shaped by social forces and is directly dependent on them. Individual reality is allowed to appear only insofar as it is not actually real.
The spectacle keeps people in a state of unconsciousness as they pass through practical changes in their conditions of existence. Like a factitious god, it engenders itself and makes its own rules. It reveals itself for what it is: an autonomously developing separate power, based on the increasing productivity resulting from an increasingly refined division of labor into parcelized gestures dictated by the independent movement of machines and working for an ever-expanding market. In the course of this development, all community and all critical awareness have disintegrated; and the forces that were able to grow by separating from each other have not yet been reunite
- the spectacle creating a lack of community and unconscious – a bid for why the opposite to the spectacle – the sensual and the connectedness – may allow for a reversing of this and an engendering of COLLECTIVE ACTIONS
(28) The reigning economic system is a vicious circle of isolation. ….. From automobiles to television, the goods that the spectacular system chooses to produce also serve it as weapons for constantly reinforcing the condi tions that engender “lonely crowds.” The spectacle is simply the common language ofthis separation. Spectators are linked solely by their one-way relationship to the very center that keeps them isolated from each other. The spectacle thus reunites the separated, but it reunites them only in their separateness.
- this I think holds true to ‘connectedness’. Different terms but this ‘language of separation’ is contemporary communication and comparison that exists on social media platforms and the way in which we interact with news and upsetting yet equally distant and temporally elongated information
(153) like all spectacular commodities, at a distance and as desirable by definition. These commodified moments are explicitly presented as moments of real life, whose cyclical return we are supposed to look forward to. But all that is really happening is that the spectacle is displaying and reproducing itselfat a higher level ofintensity. What is presented as true life turns out to be merely a more truly spectacular life.
155) While the consumption of cyclical time in ancient societies was consistent with the real labor of those societies, the pseudocyclical consumption of developed economies con tradicts the abstract irreversible time implicit in their sys tem of production. Cyclical time was the really lived time of unchanging illusions. Spectacular time is the illusorily lived time of a constantly changing reality
161) As Hegel showed, time is the necessary alienation, the ter rain where the subject realizes himself by losing himself, becomes other in order to become truly himself In total contrast, the current form of alienation is imposed on the producers of an estranged present. In this spatial alienation, the society that radically separates the subject from the activity it steals from him is in reality separating him from his own time. This potentially surmountable social alienation is what has prevented and paralyzed the possibilities and risks ofa living alienation within time
163) The revolutionary project of a classless society, of an all embracing historical life, implies the withering away of the social measurement of time in favor of a federation of independent times-a federation of playful individual and collective forms ofirreversible time that are simultaneously present. This would be the temporal realization ofauthentic communism, which “abolishes everything that exists in dependently of individuals.”
^ Translation: Citizens of the Spectacle are estranged from the present through spatial alienation that separates them from their own time. What is needed is a federation of independent times all simultaneously present: the authentic temporal realization of authentic communism which “abolishes everything that exists independently of individuals”
- I find this interesting because he not only identifies this spacial alienation that separates us from our own time. He claims under authentic communism there would be no grand order of time (what he calls pseudocycical time) because everyone would have the fulfilment and consciousness to be able to have ‘playful individual and collective’ forms of time (that he calls irreversible time that is simultaneously in the present
- maybe the idea of the spectacle is too dated and reductionist in lots of way but it does nicely align itself with temporality dictation which is almost exactly what slow violence speaks to. we all live on pseudo cyclical time and therefore find it next to impossible to see the perspective of / care about metabolism that are vastly distant in both relational spectrum of time frame and distance from the souse the information is reaching us via. (eg phone screen, graph, data, factoid)
169) The society that reshapes its entire surroundings has evolved its own special technique for molding its very territory, which constitutes the material underpinning for all the facets of this project. Urbanism-“city planning”-is capitalism’s method for taking over the natural and human environment. Following its logical development toward total domination, capitalism now can and must refashion the totality of space into its own particular decor.
(170 The capitalist need that is satisfied by urbanism’s con spicuous petrification of life can be described in Hegelian terms as a total predominance of a “peaceful coexistence within space” over “the restless becoming that takes place in the progression of time.” )
- This could be a useful quote if I mention the ‘conservation’ dialogue of certain environmentalist movements – something that is irrational and un ecological in Peter Frase’s opinion as evolution in defined by the forwards notion of time and therefore there is no retracting to a previous form of ‘the environment’ and should therefore maybe gun to think more thoughtfully about the choice of ‘environmental decor’.
171) While all the technical forces of capitalism contribute toward various forms of separation, urbanism provides the material foundation for those forces and prepares the ground for their deployment. It is the very technology of separation.
179) The most revolutionary idea concerning urbanism is not itselfurbanistic, technological or aesthetic. It is the project of reconstructing the entire environment in accordance with the needs of the power of workers councils, of the antistate dictatorship of the proletariat, of executory dialogue.
- he wasn’t very hung up on planetary needs, those beyond society
192) The spectacular consumption that preserves past culture in congealed form, including co-opted rehashes ofits negative manifestations, gives overt expression in its cultural sector to what it implicitly is in its totality: the communication of the incommunicable …….. The critical truth of this destruction-the real life of modern poetry and art-is obviously concealed, since the spectacle, whose function is to use culture to bury all historical memory, applies its own essential strategy in its promotion of modernistic pseudo innovations
- feel these phrases have some poetic utility.
- also the spectacles function as
215) The spectacle is the material “expression �f the separation and estrangement between man and man.”
220) In contrast to the logic of false consciousness, which can not truly know itself, the search for critical truth about the spectacle must also be a true critique. It must struggle in practice among the irreconcilable enemies ofthe spectacle, and admit that it is nothing without them. By rushing into sordid reformist compromises or pseudo-revolutionary collective actions, those driven by an abstract desire for immediate effectiveness are in reality obeying the ruling laws ofthought, adopting a perspective that can see nothing but the latest news. In this way delirium reappears within the camp that claims to be opposing it. A critique seeking to go beyond the spectacle must know how to wait.
- Im not sure I agree or at least my project is to prove why this might not be true. I guess I”m not attempted to our throw capitalism, merely exploring strategies to outstretch an arm of understanding across and through the thicket of thorns that is the society of the spectacle…