Summary - The Precession of Simulacra (Simulacra and Simulation)

Title of the book: Simulacra and Simulation
Title of the chapter: The Precession of Simulacra
Author: Jean Baudrillard
Publisher:  University of Michigan Press
Date published: April 1985

Theme: Hyperreality
Politics
Simulacra and Simulation
Society

Summary of text:

Jean Baudrillard within the first chapter of his book "Simulacra and Simulation" argues that that boundaries between the real and unreal have be come blurred and have created a new state that he defined as being hyperreal.

He uses an example from a Borges fable where an empire and a map of the empire has the same scale as each other, and as the empire reduces in scale and size so does the map reduced in size and becomes frayed at the edges with the remains being left in the deserts. Baudrillard argues that this is a perfect example of a simulation. However today the representation is no longer that of the map or the mirror and the simulation is no longer the territorial. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.

He goes on further to argue that the real and unreel or simulation have now lost the difference between one and the other and simulation has become real and the real has become the simulation. As Baudrillard puts it "in fact, it is no longer really the real, because no imaginary envelops it anymore. It is a hyperreal… It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real…perfectly descriptive machine that offers all the signs of the real and short- circuits all its vicissitudes." Baudrillard argued that the hyperreal therefore is sheltered from any imaginary and from any distance between the real and the imaginary, the simulation is the generation of differences.

Baudrillard put forth's the debate that dissemination is to pretend not to have what one has when simulation is to feign to have what one doesn't have. However simulation is not pretending. When one thinks of being ill one can simply stay in bed however when one is a simulation of illness they produce themselves the symptoms of the illness. Therefore the simulation transcends the difference between the "true" and "false" the "real" and "imaginary". He also argues at this point the known and understood is lost. For example if someone is a simulation of illness, medicine loses its meaning as it only knows how to treat the real illness instead of the simulated illness.

Baudrillard then argues that when this state is reached a new model is introduced entitled "simulacrum". A simulacrum is not unreal, that is to say it never exchanges from the real but exchanges from itself in an uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference. Whereas representation attempts to absorb simulation by interpreting it as a false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation itself as a simulacrum.

He goes on to argue that Disneyland is a perfect model of all the entangled order of simulacra, will all the illusions and phantasms that exist in the theme park. He proposes that Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the "real" country, all the "real" America that is Disneyland. Disneyland is presented as being imaginary in order to make us believe that it is real, where as all of Los Angeles and the rest of America is no longer real but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. The imaginary of Disneyland is neither true nor false, it is a deterrence machine set up in order to rejuvenate the fiction of the real in the opposite camp.

Baudrillard compared the Watergate scandal to that in Disneyland and he said that they are perfect to society in the same way. According to Baudrillard Watergate is not a scandal, because it is what everyone is busy concealing, this dissimulation masking a strengthening of morality, of a moral panic as one approaches the primitive mise-en-scène of capital: its instantaneous cruelty, its incomprehensible ferocity, its fundamental immorality - that is what is scandalous, unacceptable to the system of moral and economic equivalence. Watergate was thus nothing but a lure held out by the system to catch its adversaries - a simulation of scandal for regenerative ends.

Baudrillard goes a step further in his argument to consider people in power whether that be heads of state or politicians. He argues that for a long time now the people in power - no matter which one is nothing but a simulacrum of themselves, and only that gives him the power and the quality to govern. No one would grant the least consent, the least devotion to a real person. It is to his double, he being always already dead, to which allegiance is given.

The Loud family is one of Baudrillard's examples of a simulation. The Loud family in 1971 where exposed to 7 months of uninterrupted shooting, 300 hours of non-stop broadcasting, with out the script or a screenplay. The audience was exposed to the dramas, enjoys and unexpected events - in short a non-stop raw historical document. Baudrillard calls this a "TV vérité" (vérité is a French word which means truth and is used to define a genre in which realism and naturalism is portrayed within TV, film and radio.) He concludes by saying that "you are no longer watching television it is television that is watching you (live). You are the model, you are the majority. Such is the watershed of the hyperreal society in which the real is confused with the model…TV is watching us, TV alienates us, TV manipulates us and TV informs us." At this point is where the simulation begins where the two poles can no longer be maintained between passive and active, real and unreal, to inform and to entertain - is where the lines are blurred between difference - one enters into a simulation.


Key points of the text:

• It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.
• Simulation has become real and the real has become the simulation.
• Dissemination is to pretend not to have what one has when simulation is to feign to have what one doesn't have.
• A simulacrum is not unreal, that is to say it never exchanges from the real but exchanges from itself in an uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference.
• Whereas representation attempts to absorb simulation by interpreting it as a false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation itself as a simulacrum.
• Disneyland is a perfect model of a simulacra.
• Watergate is not a scandal, it was a simulation of scandal for regenerative ends.
• You are no longer watching television it is television that is watching you (live). You are the model, you are the majority. Such is the watershed of the hyperreal society in which the real is confused with the model…TV is watching us, TV alienates us, TV manipulates us and TV informs us.

Key Quote 2-3:
"To dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn't have."

"A hyperreal henceforth sheltered from the imaginary, and from any distinctin between the real and the imaginary, leaving room only for the orbital recurrence of models and for the simulated generation of differences."

"Whereas representation attempts to absorb simulation by interpreting it as a false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation itself as a simulacrum."

My Response:

Baudrillard's theory, is an intriguing and thought-provoking one that has inspired many other theorists and critics who have developed and based there work around he is philosophy. It is also a key theory within post-modernism however throughout the opening chapter of his book he doesn't provide any evidence for his assumptions and judgement and states his ideas as just been factual truth. He does propose his ideas on to reality in the form of Disneyland, Watergate and the Loud family and suggests that these are examples of his theory that he still doesn't give primary or secondary references throughout his chapter. Which leads me to question whether or not he's theory is just that a combination of ideas or if it does have any practical sense with in the world itself.

I think this is a good starting point for further investigation into Baudrillard's theory. And I would like to do more research into the idea of hyperreality with the use of both simulacra and simulation, refocus may be on Facebook in social Internet but also investigating further into the television programme with a Loud family. I also have decided to read other chapters of Baudrillard book to gain more and understanding and receive any other ideas are applicable.

Summary - Yes He Can – Barack Obama's Campaign Speech Analysed

Title of article: Yes. He. Can. How a speech and a video helped change the american presidency
Author: Adam Oliver
Publisher: MediaMagazine
Date published: February 2009

Theme: Hyperreality
Politics
Remixing

Summary of text:

The article explores and analyses Barack Obama's famous "Yes We Can" speech and the accompanying video by Will.I.Am, that supported and funded much of the Obama campaign for Presidentship in the USA.

Obama delivered the speech after losing the New Hampshire Primary election to Hillary Clinton in January 2008. Obama's speech was watched by many of the American citizens and the words that Barack Obama and his speech writers wrote were delivered with Obama's famous charisma and deliverance. However it was not the original speech or the original video that made internet sensations but a remix of the famous "Yes We Can" speech by Will.I.Am and accompanying artists that grew to Internet fame.

In February 2008 the musical artist Will.I.Am released a version of Barack Obama's speech onto the Internet through the use of Youtube and Dipdive. Will.I.Am put this speech to music and with the help from accompanying artists, spoke and sang the words for the speech, while Jesse Dylan directed the accompanying video. This video was not a direct production for the Barack Obama's official campaign. However, by the end of March the video reached over 17 billion hits from around the world. People were not just watching the video but also donating to Obama's campaign which lead to Obama's campaign being the richest to stand the for office that the USA has ever seen.

This video was nothing special, it was a very simple piece of work shot entirely with black-and-white, with limited range of shot types and notably lacking any special effects-driven glamour. The choice of black and white, for example, suggests a rejection of the glossy, sophisticated nature of most mainstream political broadcasts; conversely, the limited palette also cleverly implies this video, in contrast, is something rawer, with greater veracity: that this is the word on the street.

Will.I.Am is the first artist to appear in the video singing along with soft playing non-diegetic guitar music. Barack Obama is represented next in the video and he is featured alongside when I am with the use of a split screen. Obama is presented in this way through out the entire video. Oliver argues that this is a method in which to represent Obama as being equal to everyone and create unison with the audience. Oliver reinforces his argument by the fact that all the artists in the video look directly at the camera and thus engaging and connecting with the audience.

The phrase "Yes We Can" become chorus as well as core message and is repeated over and over again, Oliver argued that this is a method in which the message is shared to the audience and the sense of unison is created. Oliver also argues that Obama’s plurality is apparent in the cast: black, white, hispanic; men and women and a child as well asoOne segment of the montage is signed for the deaf, appealing to another potentially marginalised group, whilst the catchphrase Yes. We. Can is also rendered in Spanish: Si se puede.

Text is also used in the video to emphasise key elements such as "Change", "Yes We Can" & "Hope". The latter of which dissolves into the word vote, the change colour for white to red, the only colout that is use in the video. Oliver argues that this is used to emphasise the key action for the American electorate to take away from the viewing.


Key points of the text:

• Obama lost the New Hampshire Primary election.
• Obama's speech yes we can was watched by thousands.
• This speech was taken up by Will.I.Am who remix it and created an online sensation.
• This video was watched by 17 million people around the world and made Obama the richest campaign to ever stand for office.
• Oliver argues that the clever use of camera, editing, sound and mise-en-scene were used to manipulate and influence the American citizens to vote for Obama.

Key Quote 2-3:

"The memorable sound-bite, with its concise sense of positive affirmation (‘Yes’), its message of unity (‘We’) and the implied possibility of achieving change (‘Can’) is already acquiring a legendary status."

"The choice of black and white, for example, suggests a rejection of the glossy, sophisticated nature of most mainstream political broadcasts; conversely, the limited palette also cleverly implies this video, in contrast, is something rawer, with greater veracity: that this is the word on the street."


"Change, the central election message, also appears in this way, as does Hope. This latter is also repeated as the video finishes, the verbal noun Hope melting into the imperative verb Vote. That word slowly colour-shifts from white to red: the only colour in the entire sequence being used to emphasise the key action for the American electorate to take away from the viewing."

My Response:
I found this article very interesting as Oliver's interpretation of these events are similar to my own. I do believe the presentation within the media of a series of events can affect an audience in a passive or active manner. However I would argue that as Will.I.Am's video is a remix between his own creation of artists preforming and Obama's original speech therefor blurring the line between the real and the copied. This presents a hyperreal representation of Obama and his position as Obama's words were cut and reposition in the manner in which they were not spoken in the original video. This means that the message and meaning is changed along with the value and impact that it had on the audience. Also artists who are famous and in the eye of the public are presenting Obama's view, which are taken out of context and therefore do not played the original state in which they were delivered.

Therefore this leads the audience and the public into a false sense of representation and thus their decisions cannot be self decided, as other factors have introduced themselves to the audience to influence their decision. Therefore we are entering into a state in which control is taken away from the public and then are entering into a state which is similar to that of George Orwell's 1984.