Experiments II
I'm very interested in Baudrillard's choice to begin Simulations with the story of a map. What's in a map? A route to somewhere, a border to cross, a claim to discovery and of being "first?" All right, but how does a map have "the discrete charm of second-order simulacra" and why are the simulacra of today no longer comparable to maps? (Baudrillard 1, 2) I'm reflecting on this partially because I'm drawn to maps and I find their use as a metaphor in this text engaging. However, I'm also trying to think of my artistic process as if it were a map, and wondering how deep that gets me down the list of successive phases of the image. The idea generation stage of making something usually references something in real life, unless it's a concept I've made up or synthesized from multiple sources, in which case it seems to me to be masking the absence of a basic reality. On the other hand, doesn't the fact that it exists make it a real thing? Or does the "realness" of it come later, after I've started working on it or after I've finished? What about an idea or project that "masks and perverts a basic reality"? (Baudrillard 11) Does that have to do with content, or execution? Does it have to do with interpretation, and if so, on whose part does the interpretation take place? If I create something I feel is a reflection of reality, but another person sees it and interprets it as a distortion, does that mean I've communicated poorly or that I've left my idea open to interpretation? What if the goal of my art was to confuse or deceive the viewer into thinking it means something other than it does? I don't have concrete answers to many of these questions, but I think they're useful as a space for reflection and investigation. The map as an attempt to make linear sense of something that is decidedly more convoluted is striking, and I think that as I'm making progress on my project (which I haven't done much of except for thinking about it) the idea of what the map means is going to occupy my thoughts. I want to complicate Baurdillard's "successive phases" because it strikes me as too linear a system to apply to something as volatile and disturbed as the dissolution of our world into simulacra. It's a good reference, like a map should be, but it doesn't get quite complicated enough for real life.
I think you are talking about a lot of great ideas here, specifically when mentioning, "The idea generation stage of making something usually references something in real life, unless it's a concept I've made up or synthesized from multiple sources, in which case it seems to me to be masking the absence of a basic reality." I found this to be an intruiging thought because can you actually, truly make up anything? Isn't anything that you come up with a representation of and reference to who you are, who you want to be seen as, how other people see you and how you view the world? And the world still exist when you die. Shouldn't then be anything within existence and reality, whether it is touched or created by you or not? Just some more thoughts. I love thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteI love thinking about this too! Does it all boil down to a self-referential simulation? What is real? Very existential but very interesting.
Delete