The Society of the Spectacle

[Ex-User (9062)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoUIHBSiVAY

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Crap, the self-proclaimed intellectual elite is unable to speak.
As it happened countless times before.

 

[Fukyo]

What got sand into your vajayjay?

Be more thoughtful, post more information. Don't expect people will watch a hour and a half video at the drop of a hat just cause you posted it without any previous context.

Conspiracy theorists and other fringe believers have this conviction people will bend themselves over backwards to watch hours and hours of videos with fishy information or else they're just ignorant scum.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlQKPYfP0CM

Figure it out, kid.
You're 50-60 years behind, time to fasten your seatbelts.

 

[Fukyo]

Figure it out, kid.

What I had in mind was perhaps a textual digest version, perhaps written by the purveyor of information; including the most important points of the piece in the OP to allow the reader to get a grasp of it and decide whether he will spend time watching it, but I suppose if the extent of the effort you're willing to make is the 2 seconds that take to paste a YT link, you don't care all that much. Ah, the youth of today.


Unfortunately, no amount of condescension validates your opinion/worldview.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

What I had in mind was perhaps a textual digest version, perhaps written by the purveyor of information

There's subtitles, you know, as far as i know, they are exclusively textual.
You're free to read the book though,
but i'm slightly pessimistic about that,
as it seems, nobody on this forum reads books, but rather is very confident about representing themselves as having read a lot of books.

 

[Anktark]

There's subtitles, you know, as far as i know, they are exclusively textual.
You're free to read the book though,
but i'm slightly pessimistic about that,
as it seems, nobody on this forum reads books, but rather is very confident about representing themselves as having read a lot of books.

Wow, much reading comprehension. Very such amazed.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Anything else?
I mean, perhaps, like a real argument that had some substance?
You do realize that you are incapable of even formulating an argument, don't you?

 

[Kuu]

As the indispensable packaging for things produced as they are now produced, as a general gloss on the rationality of the system, and as the advanced economic sector directly responsible for the manufacture of an ever-growing mass of image-objects, the spectacle is the chief product of present-day society.

Debord's critique is both far-reaching and scathing, yet like other continental philosophers, the penchant for convoluted language hampers the spread of his message. One recalls his contemporary Baudrillard and his hyper-real spectacular simulacra as another unfortunate case of verbosity.

In any case, personally I prefer the book. The film is rather hard to follow. As if Debord's style wasn't cryptic enough for text, you have to follow such dense information with that monotone voiceover. Also many references, especially the visual references, are so dated that the majority are probably lost on the modern viewer.

Fortunately someone did us all the favor of updating it with more contemporary visuals and english voice:

The Society of the Spectacle on Vimeo

And yes, Fukyo has a good point. You want to spread information, or just be a pretentious asshole bitching because nobody has instantly replied to your thread? Get a grip.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Okay, can we meet back here when all of you read the book? Looking forward to it, many kisses, Salmuanne
But let's not kid ourselves, you're not gonna ever read the book.
Despite your videomotion version is very far from what the creator intended,
yes he made the movie i posted.
He payed it out of his own pocket.
I think you should respect that.

 

[The Gopher]

See you two (Fukyo and Kuu) are doing it wrong. You needed to post a video with no context or explanation about the psychology behind people who expect people to watch videos with no context or explanation. Then you can rant that nobody watched it.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

See you two (Fukyo and Kuu) are doing it wrong. You needed to post a video with no context or explanation about the psychology behind people who expect people to watch videos with no context or explanation. Then you can rant that nobody watched it.

Noone can ever be mad at the gopher.

 

[BrainVessel]

Noone can ever be mad at the gopher.

Aye.
but you on the other hand need to crack open that crusty old mind and let a little light in :3

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Aye.
but you on the other hand need to crack open that crusty old mind and let a little light in :3

Can't comprehend your point. Maybe it'd be more clearer to a dumb chap like me, in order to place a banana in your digestive system.

 

[Kuu]

But let's not kid ourselves, you're not gonna ever read the book.
Despite your videomotion version is very far from what the creator intended,
yes he made the movie i posted.
He payed it out of his own pocket.
I think you should respect that.

>implying I don't own and haven't read the book

Bitch pls.

To claim that the reworked version is very far from what he intended, without having even watched it, is a hollow and worthless statement. On the contrary, considering his thoughts on appropriation of art and images and détournement, I think he would have approved of the remix. Whether he suffered much to produce his film, and whether I respect him for it, are not things that in any way refute my criticism of its flaws.

So, we talking or are you just full of sound and fury?

See you two (Fukyo and Kuu) are doing it wrong. You needed to post a video with no context or explanation about the psychology behind people who expect people to watch videos with no context or explanation. Then you can rant that nobody watched it.

That's just petty and a waste of everyone's time. That's not the way of the Kuu. Lead by example, he must.

 

[BrainVessel]

Can't comprehend your point. Maybe it'd be more clearer to a dumb chap like me, in order to place a banana in your digestive system.

I saw you change your post by the way.
Aw, and now I see what you've been trying to tell us, are you a puer Salm? It's okay, we accept you for who you are. <3

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

What are you going on to capitalist pig?

 

[BrainVessel]

What are you going on to capitalist pig?

Huh?
Well I assume you mean "What are you going on about, capitalist pig."
Why, the sovereignty and truth of Carl Jung's words!
Oh let me tell you, he is our deliverer and his word will ever live on! Accept him, Salm! <3

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Capitalist mode of production, ftw.

 

[Puffy]

I think Debord's too absolute in how he expresses the spectacle's affect on the spectator, though I love the book. Figure I may as well summarise my understanding of it for those unfamiliar:

His thesis, as I understand it, is that the images of mass-media through the mediums of news, propaganda, advertising and entertainment have accumulated to the point that they have become their own autonomous pseudo-reality (similar to Baudrillard's hyper-reality Kuu referenced) that is alien to, and whose presence fragments, life as it is directly lived.

This pseudo-reality, what he calls the spectacle, has become the prevailing mode of social life to the point that its images mediate social relations between people, complicating the capacity for people to have authentic communication and relationships (i.e. 'divide and conquer.') Debord traces the history of the spectator (of the spectacle) as one from 'being, to having, to merely appearing', arguing that the spectator through being mediated by the spectacle is essentially colonised by and becomes a hollowed expression of their technological environment.

The spectacle hence manufactures alienation, false consciousness, and a permanant feeling of displacement.

I.e. the spectacle is an image of power that disintegrates/ fragments the life of its spectator into the separate image of its likeness -- it is 'separation perfected', 'the negation of life become visible'. It is a one way power-relation as while it affects and fragments the spectator, they cannot affect, relate to, or fragment the image of power that is the spectacle. Vaguely related to panopticism.

Moloch!

 

[redbaron]

Puffy you just earned yourself a gold star and a kiss on the cheek.

 

[Puffy]

Puffy you just earned yourself a gold star and a kiss on the cheek.

*disappears*

 

[OrLevitate]

commodities iz psychological too that's why i liked the theory.

it's kind of meta how the spectacle of the wiki of the society of the spectacle is perhaps more poignant, er i mean interesting heh

 

[Absurdity]

So, we talking or are you just full of sound and fury?

The latter, always.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

>implying I don't own and haven't read the book

Bitch pls.

No, implying that you wont ever read the book.
Because people on INTPf don't discuss and don't seem to read books.
Appeal to internet memes speaks for itself.

To claim that the reworked version is very far from what he intended, without having even watched it, is a hollow and worthless statement. On the contrary, considering his thoughts on appropriation of art and images and détournement, I think he would have approved of the remix. Whether he suffered much to produce his film, and whether I respect him for it, are not things that in any way refute my criticism of its flaws.

And your refutations are?
Nothing, to be precise.

So, we talking or are you just full of sound and fury?

It tells me more about you making that accusation than you realize.

That's just petty and a waste of everyone's time. That's not the way of the Kuu. Lead by example, he must.

Okay, show me some.

 

[OrLevitate]

Yeah, okay, I feel like I am wasting my time.

This is all crap, and you most likely know it.

How can salmonfuckfuckfuckfacefucker not see that this:

I think Debord's too absolute in how he expresses the spectacle's affect on the spectator, though I love the book. Figure I may as well summarise my understanding of it for those unfamiliar:

His thesis, as I understand it, is that the images of mass-media through the mediums of news, propaganda, advertising and entertainment have accumulated to the point that they have become their own autonomous pseudo-reality (similar to Baudrillard's hyper-reality Kuu referenced) that is alien to, and whose presence fragments, life as it is directly lived.

This pseudo-reality, what he calls the spectacle, has become the prevailing mode of social life to the point that its images mediate social relations between people, complicating the capacity for people to have authentic communication and relationships (i.e. 'divide and conquer.') Debord traces the history of the spectator (of the spectacle) as one from 'being, to having, to merely appearing', arguing that the spectator through being mediated by the spectacle is essentially colonised by and becomes a hollowed expression of their technological environment.

The spectacle hence manufactures alienation, false consciousness, and a permanant feeling of displacement.

I.e. the spectacle is an image of power that disintegrates/ fragments the life of its spectator into the separate image of its likeness -- it is 'separation perfected', 'the negation of life become visible'. It is a one way power-relation as while it affects and fragments the spectator, they cannot affect, relate to, or fragment the image of power that is the spectacle. Vaguely related to panopticism.

Moloch!

applies TO THE COMMODITY BEING AN EMOTION

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

How can salmonfuckfuckfuckfacefucker not see that this:



applies TO THE COMMODITY BEING AN EMOTION

Psychopathy much?

 

[Absurdity]

How can salmonfuckfuckfuckfacefucker not see that this:

Maybe he didn't watch his own video?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Maybe he didn't watch his own video?

Well, maybe you could contribute on anything i may have missed.
I'm pretty sure you are straight on topic and not just talking trash about anyone involved in the topic, amirite?
You got class, mate.
Like scavengers use to have.

 

[Reluctantly]

HAI GAIS

 

[OrLevitate]

Well, maybe you could contribute on anything i may have missed.
I'm pretty sure you are straight on topic and not just talking trash about anyone involved in the topic, amirite?
You got class, mate.
Like scavengers use to have.

The shit on you is empirical, punk

 

[OrLevitate]

Psychopathy much?

Can only expect the sort of misdirection you just displayed from the infinite videos you've posted :/

 

[Cognisant]

The thing is happiness itself is an abstraction, sure there is the direct experience of pleasure but emotions are such transitory things, the mind of an animal is usually nothing more than a reflection of its present circumstances, reptiles especially. A snake can experience pain and pleasure but a snake cannot celebrate or mourn, a snake is not changed by its experiences, from the day it hatches to the day it dies a snake remains mentally the same. A dog on the other hand can be taught things, to come at the sound of its name or to flee from the sound of a bathtub being filled, a dog can find joy in the anticipation of a reward and cower in fear of punishment.

Is it better to be a snake than a dog? Perhaps it would be easier but I doubt a snake having been turned into a dog would want to be turned back, just as an adult isn't as easily pleased as a child but it is a rare and miserable person that would want to revert back.

The point I'm getting at is that living in a world of spectacles is what makes us human and although it can be miserable it's undeniably worth it, I mean we're all perfectly aware of the pretentiousness of society but I challenge anyone to love without it, a world without success is a world with nothing to strive for and I don't think anyone could actually live like that. I think the real problem here is that our society is both modern and postmodern, half of us are taking it too far and the other half are in denial about the necessity of it, we're all conservatives and liberals while practicality is somewhere in between.

 

[Cognisant]

Being well dressed does indicate that you can afford to dress well and you have the awareness and intelligence to present yourself to others as you wish to be seen, y'know if someone came up to you on the street and asked for a few minutes of your time who are you more likely to oblige, someone in a tailored suit or a guy in a sailor moon costume?
Obviously the former.

But then you've got people buying name brand clothing which is just like normal clothing except it costs twice as much (or more) they're paying for the privilege of the branding on it and the prestige that apparently brings, that's just going too far.

So should we all strip naked and get back to nature?
Of course not, and anyone that disagrees gets a photo of my hairy ass

 

[Brontosaurie]

Crap, the self-proclaimed intellectual elite is unable to speak.
As it happened countless times before.

like, how u doin

man

 

[QuickTwist]

OP would either love me or more likely, hate me to death.

 

[whatstheMATTER?]

But first: Is the OP aware of the irony of his post?

This is an organic description of the natural progression of conscious reality, as it has always existed, now made more complex in the last two centuries by the introduction of methods for mass communication between people separated by geography who originally could not relate to one another, and are now practically forced to, in order to be a 'participant'. Mass communication, as a novel and inherently global phenomenon, had a tremendous impact on the world environment in that it introduced the concept of an information-based technology into the shared sphere that was before defined by what was (is) physical.

New technology is the distillation of an environment's complexity, useful for the explicit purpose of some particular aim. This distilled product or means, reintroduced to the environment in a 'purified' way, alters how the participants interact with the environment, of course, and alters also the inherent direction of the environment's continued evolution. As the environment grows in complexity, which is only natural, the participants will become mere 'spectators' if they don't acknowledge that they are the ones who make the tools--or at least they have the power to do so, as conscious entities (the spectacle (or mechanism), as Debord points out, also has the ability to make tools--but to focus only on this is a non-humanist way of looking at the mechanism of the whole, and the affect of conscious agents should not be so easily discounted).

A lot of pop or commercial culture of today has the awareness of this mechanism built into its message. This is a good thing, and a natural progression. We should thank Debord for describing the phenomenon so succinctly, embodying the spirit of his times in a work of art (this must be the French in him?), but the world after his book was printed is a new one, and, personally, I don't think I can fully recognize the doom and gloom of his reality at the start of 2015. I mean, I can, but I'm an optimist (or an 'adapter', even), who believes in the possibility of the moment. My only gripe is people who still cling to the past, when the complexity introduced only continues to make the world more interesting (beyond the values of good vs bad). Especially so, if we as a collective do not resist such growth.

This has all been said before in so many words. Now it's boring. But the above are my words, you lot can now talk to me, if you wish, and maybe we can get somewhere interesting, finally (I promise to do my best to hold up my side of the exchange). Let us rebel against the mechanism of the spectacle!