I have to admit, this article was a little over my head. But the parts that I did gather I have some huge disagreements with. The first bit that I want to pick apart is the word simulacra. Simulacra is a word that he invented to mean image or representation. Why not just use those words? There are many examples where I feel he just throws out big words for the sake of using big words. They don't add anything to the conversation or meaning, just forces the reader to stop and look up the definition.
But I'm just nitpicking. In the section where he discusses Hyperreal vs. Real, he makes a ridiculous comparison of a concentration camp to Disneyland. He grounds this parallel in the fact that concentration camps have many gadgets inside and little outside. Disney land has this wonderful world full of gadgets inside, and only your automobile outside to go too. This is such a weak association it cant even be warranted to be part of the topic.
Along with Disneyland he goes onto say that its a represented as "Imaginary" and we are to believe the rest is real(rest being Los Angeles, America, The world). When in fact America isn't real but a exaggerated comparison, or simulation. I would fight this by saying no, America, or any other country is real. These things have to be real in a grounded state. If we have no definition or basis of what is real then how can we even begin to tell what is fake? Or what is an image? America is real because it is grounded. There is no imagination in the real. It is what it is.
I'll leave this work unfinished and post more about this later. I'm to pissed at reading this whole thing to reiterate myself typing.
Alright I'm back to finish what I started. After talking about this topic in class. I am still unsatisfied with his work and don't necessarily agree. What is the difference between a simulation and reality? I can clearly see the separation between Mario and myself while playing a game, yet when I die I still say, "Oh, I died." How ever a simulation in real life? like a "fake" bank robbery for example. It IS real to those who don't know that its only a simulation.
So that really puts into question. What is real? How do you define real? (Said first by Morpheus in the Matrix). Does it even matter? If you don't know any better or don't have the ability to know whats real and whats simulation, doesn't it all become real? I think you are forced to see it as real.
-Comrade Chris
No comments:
Post a Comment