| Explain and evaluate Jean Baudrillard�s concept of hyperreality. The first part of essay will focus on the concept of hyperreality, charting the various theoretical positions Jean Baudrillard held leading upto his arrival at the perspective. His foundations as an orthodox Marxist, moved beyond through studies of signs and Simulacra, before extending the premise to the concept of hyperreality, where the world is seen as a montage of representation with no underlying meaning. The second part of this essay places hyperreality in an evaluativative framework, playing it against alternative theorists such as Jurgan Habermass. Striving to evaluate what hyperreal gives to the world and consider criticisms levelled at the key work of Jean Baudrillard to finally evaluate the essence of his ideas. I will argue that the way to interpret reality is through our senses, combined with the metaphysical domain of thought. Jean Baudrillard �prefers to be without a background � but clearly has one. Born in 1929 in the French city Reims, he was the first from his peasant background to engage in the world of academia, spending a decade teaching German while contributing a number of reviews to Les temps modernes. He then studied sociology under the guidance of Lefebvre and Barthes, before teaching the subject at Nanterre in from 1966. His thesis attempted to unravel the language of objects, arguing we �interact with them not so much in terms of their ostensible use value or function but as a way of communicating with others �. He extracted four logic�s of the sign: (1) Practical operations, which refers to use value; (2) Equivalence, which is exchange value; (3) ambivalence, which corresponds to symbolic exchange; and (4) difference which refers to sign-value. Baudrillard sees humans selection and rejection of commodities combining to form an image of prestige and social standing. Through the blitz of so called �lifestyle� advertisements in which products are tied inexplicably to a marketed image, commodities signify status. Baudrillard terms the projection of meaning onto products as �codes�, as there is no syntax to the language of connotation. The codes group humans, putting according to their patterns of their consumption. This can be translated to the world of fashion, where the label communicates status which can be detached from the use value or quality of the product. Arguably the world of art fits under this umbrella as it is the painter not painting that often indicates social standing, the differences indicating status. �What we buy is not so much the product as its sign value, which then differentiates us from others� This �object of the sign� brings in the question of needs as part of ideological backdrop that constructs our life, drawing influence from the structuralist theorisation of Louis Althessur. Baudrillard distances objects away from needs, seeing nothing beyond the ideological imposed signs of cultural status. The assumed meanings associated are not based in reality. Language forming the meanings of the object. The next turn in Baudrillard theoretical approach sees him move beyond Marxism in the critique �The mirror of production�. He argues that Marx is representative of the structure of capitalism, reflecting it�s key assumptions drawing the conclusion that it �is only the disenchanted horizon of capital� Baudrillard saw Marxism as only accounting for the economic considerations, excluding social practices outside the logic of production. Capitalism has moved from the exploitation of workers to the designed market of consumption. �The problem with Baudrillard, however, is that he makes capitalism too symbolic and not material enough� In consumer societies rampant search for signs, their necessity being left behind like a non-existent shadow. While the physical structure of trainers can be loosely grouped together as a fashion statement with the meaning coming from the promoted symbolic production; practical commodities such as irons and toasters are required to function on an operational level. While their may be kitsch attached to the Dyson, it has to be capable of performing its operation. I would point to that, in the basic hunter gatherer sense of humanity, there is the need for nutritional input, with elaborate systems of symbolic exchange built over this universal need. The other forms of commodity can be set apart from the primitive requirement of a sustainable food source, as it is evident in all known forms of life. The next phase of Baudrillard�s theory is �simulation�. The modern bombardment of media images collapses the division between facts and construction, presentation and representation, forming an artificial production of reality with no reference outside itself. This is influenced by the theorisation of Umberto Eco who believes �TV is so absorbed in itself that it has now virtually turned it�s back on the external world� . This refers to television programmes about television celebrities, television programmes about the making of television programmes and out take shows, - television programmes about the bits left out of television programmes. Television is seen as a medium that feeds on itself, forever congratulating its achievements (100 best TV moments) rather than being concerned with the expression of anterior images. Baudrillard takes this to extremes. Through endless representations the media is �an image without an original� like a mask without a face. �In Baudrillard�s scheme of things, representation is now in automatic pilot. In it�s own orbit, representation can now operate without ever having to land on the apparently solid ground of facts. � He traces history to three main stages: (1) the age of �counterfeit� ruled from the renascence and the industrial revolution, where objects signify rank and prestige; (2) �production� in the industrial age �doubling� and finally; (3) �simulation� in which �the present era governed by the code � The term �code� is loosely defined but turns into the storage of binary system of information exchange. The memory presented on computer screens, digital information on compact disks and the analogue messages, hidden in tapes. Through these methods the world is reproduced rather than produced, seen second hand through the vision of technology. �The code� is also implied with DNA, as Baudrillard theorises about the implosion of biology and technology. This takes the route of genetic design, artificial hearts and the possibility of cryogenic freezing. Just as the borders between reality and technologically reproduced images has collapsed, virtual reality and external reality are merged meaning �Culture no longer copies the real but produces it� . Baudrillard terms the interpretation of the world through detached signs of simulation the �hyperreal�. He points to Soap stars that are treated as their on-screen characters; people are afraid after �seeing� dramatic reconstruction�s of crime as well as the manufactured connotations of status that arise from the imposed image of advertisements. �This reality has not only displaced the original reality but has transcended it, has become more real than real � �We live everywhere in an �aesthetic� hallucination of reality� where meaning has vanished in a blaze of superficial images. This bleak Baudrillard outlook. is contested by theorists highlighting the potentially positive aspects of media interaction and audience engagement. The epitome of an alternatively poled position on the theoretical map is Jurgan Habermass of the Frankfurt school. His concept of �the public sphere� sees the media as a forum to exchange discourse and enlighten reality rather than an illusion of it�s disappearance. A key point is that information heads into the public sphere from several angles. While the debate about the restraint through the ingrained ideological network is fierce, there is undoubtedly a pluralism of opinion to work with and from. The virtual world holds many representations so there are many versions of reality. In relation to the simulation, critically there is no real point of reference, calling the distance of Baudrillard�s theorisation into question. I think they both have good points Baudrillard saying we view reality through manufactured signs, Habermas focusing on the potential impact of the signs. For me the nature of the representations is the key, they have the power to distort reality but also to accurately render impressions of events outside the room where the code is received. In this way it is the nature of the code that defines its content, the combination of pixels that form images determine which image is presented and meaning passed on. Baudrillard has been criticised by several angles including the way his writings wraps itself in mystery, using loose terms. This makes his thoughts difficult to engage in and analyse, Mark Poster states: �He fails to define his major terms, such as the code; his writing style is hyperbolic and decorative, often lacking sustained, systematic analysis when appropriate; he totalities his insights, refusing to qualify or delimit his claims.� While important consideration I would say that words don�t matter but meanings do. The developed form of language, however dictates that a main form of communication is through words, and for meanings to be fully interpreted they need to be fully expressed. If the input of information into the realm of consciousness appears distorted, clearly the process of consideration and abstracting meaning will be affected by this. I believe there is only one window to anterior reality and that is our senses. This is a source of input and the metaphysical domain of the mind, I believe, filters through a matrix of consideration where input is absorbed and meanings formed. People think things they don�t mean, these are dismissed by internal processing and not acted on. Equally meaning can only be expressed through actions and unacted on meanings can be crudely described as �things I meant to do�. Meanings are considered and evaluated by the brain. As their is currently insufficient theory explaining the composition of thoughts I have termed this �metaphysical domain�. This refers to creation of new ideas through the selection of language forms. Nobody ever planned an idea as it cannot exist before it�s creation. My theory sees Freud�s key ideas of consciousness and unconsciousness being met with the sensations of sensory input to form a version, or interpretation of reality. Meanings can then be formed and expressed through the body. Senses Metaphysical domain Perception of reality (Meanings are formed and signs selected) Signs and selection of language expressed (becomes sensory input to others) The traditional example of this is a dream which seems so real, the absence of some forms of sensory input from (usually touch, smell and taste) prevent it being absorbed as reality. In tandem with expectations formed from previous sensory input, considering the so called abstract nature of dreams. Signs act in ways disassembled from the common inputted logic of everyday experience, making us interpret dreams as a �surreal� encounter. But it cannot be claimed that dreams aren�t real, just that the are detached from our usual perception of reality. This calls into question the limits of the human senses in interpreting reality. To a blind person are the shapes of the world real? They may exist, but we suppose this because we can see. If everyone didn�t posses this sense then this would be an illusive layer of reality. Equally, there could be a deeper meaning beyond what we can see, or rather than we can�t see; the answers to life�s major questions more readily associated to spheres of philosophical thought. But an unanswered question could actually have no answer as well as several wrong ones. While its evidence remains transparent will it ever be asked or should it be seen a product of metaphysical wonder, born from a deep held (possibly ideologically programmed) desire for hidden meaning? With the possibility of the human senses being incapable to comprehend reality in it�s complete entirety, we can only react and respond to whatever input is received and metaphysical forces or created in our own space. The source of constructed media images is ultimately metaphysical in the sense that the process of encoding (in the semiotic term) means a selection has taken place, either in the brain of a programme director or via the constraints of �professional conduct�. Networks which themselves, must have originated from the human metaphysical zone before turning into structures to be adhered to. The whole ideology, arrangement and even idea of culture itself is human phenomenon. In that way the sensory input and through language may teach humans how to think, but it is in the selection of the code is linked to the considered filter of meaning and provides the basis of autonomous expression. Language cannot be seen as limiting human experience but as limited to human experience as every word has been created by the human. I think Baudrillard is useful to draw attention to the power of encoding and how greatly we rely on constructed images to make sense of the world. But I would place this sensory input with the metaphysical forum of ideas that influence our perception of reality, rather than in it�s own space of hyperreality. The human body is a machine of a biological nature, but while it could be said that forks are simulated limbs, all forks are the same and critically don�t seem to emit signs of their own. Although it�s conceivable the set physical properties of a fork may have social connotations; it doesn�t create or, considering the boundaries of language, select signs that can be identified by our senses. In this way it is thought not to possess consciousness. In this way Beethoven isn�t considered alive because he isn�t present in his conscious entirety. Although some of his thoughts (particularly musical) exist through the code, these are like a stagnant impression of smoke once the flame has been extinguished. In the world of the hyperreal there is no death, just an absence of new signs. Through the code life may be relived not lived although the emergence of live television further blurs this division. While the world can be reduced to that of physical movement in the sense that light waves are interpreted by our brains and feelings are chemically based, coming through the emission (or insertion) of physical bodily properties that effect the brain; I would stand back from Baudrillard�s vision of a world of code until humans fully unravel the mechanisms that form conscious and unconscious thought. Levering apart the mystery of creative discourse so the selection of signs (our expression of consciousness) can continue to exist in the detached world of hyperreality. The metaphysical brain or its sets of meanings, isn�t yet interchangeable like diskdrives, or transferable like the binary patterns of computer programmes. Each persons metaphysical domain is undoubtedly unique; shaped by the input �experienced� through signs received via our senses and the presently inexplicable patterns of new ideas. Whilst Baudrillard is useful in pointing to these convergence�s I would say the gap between reality and hyperreality would only collapse altogether if humanity reaches the stage where consciousness can be uploaded onto a machine. If it kept active through some yet unthought technology, the selection and expression of signs would not be restricted to the capacity of function of a body The body itself only �dies� because of physical malfunction such as disease. The boundaries between life and death would implode and the real could lapse into Baudrillard�s hyperreal whirlwind. Consciousness presented on the screen or in computer games by bypassing the physical need to press control panels to move simulated characters, it would be possible to live through the code. At the moment the brain is where information is processed and meanings formed, signs selected and then expressed through the physical movement of the body (sometimes via keyboards or video tapes) to other people�s minds. This system of exchange means brains are currently exposed indirectly to technology via the valves of sensory input rather than existing with the code as a merged whole. �The limit to Baudrillard is very possibly the to be found in the limit in modern science itself. And this is that the code is not yet uniformly dominant; the clone version of social reality that Baudrillard effectively presents is not yet true. We still live partly out of reach of the code.� |