I quite agree re. there being no alternative system, and given what little I know about Debord, it seems that that problem is something he missed. And I also agree re. that there are alternative choices for individuals, which is why I found that quote interesting - particularly "...the adult, master of his life, does not exist...". Did he ever explore the reason why adults (in a general sense) seem to exist in inverse proportion to the control society imposes on individuals, or even what mastery over one's life means? Cheers; Chris
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, I agree with you here but my issue with Debord is that there's no > alternative system that remedies his critique. There are alternative choices > for individuals, maybe, but the evil of a system is not inherent so much as in > how it's applied. I could be wrong, of course. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: caldwell-brobeck <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, June 4, 2012 9:47:14 AM > Subject: Re: "I think anything done super-well is art." > > I don't know Debord well at all, but there are things he writes worth > thinking about. For example, his section 62 from The Society of the > Spectacle seems to be a pretty good pricis of modern, first world > life. > > "False choice in spectacular abundance, a choice which lies in the > juxtaposition of competing and complimentary spectacles and also in > the juxtaposition of roles (signified and carried mainly by things) > which are at once exclusive and overlapping, develops into a struggle > of vaporous qualities meant to stimulate loyalty to quantitative > triviality. This resurrects false archaic oppositions, regionalisms > and racisms which serve to raise the vulgar hierarchic ranks of > consumption to a preposterous ontological superiority. In this way, > the endless series of trivial confrontations is set up again. from > competitive sports to elections, mobilizing a sub-ludic interest. > Wherever there is abundant consumption, a major spectacular opposition > between youth and adults comes to the fore among the false > roles--false because the adult, master of his life, does not exist and > because youth, the transformation of what exists, is in no way the > property of those who are now young, but of the economic system, of > the dynamism of capitalism. Things rule and are young; things confront > and replace one another." > > Cheers; > Chris > > > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM, William Conger <[email protected]> > wrote: >> It's not an ad-hominem to say that a comment is pedantic. Maybe Cheerskep > is >> super sensitive because he's in the performing arts where critics are > notorious >> for ad-hominems when they lack insightful prose. And I didn't say the >> words Cheerskep attributes to me with his quotation marks. Falsely quoting >> someone is at least an ad-hominem, but I know Cheerskep wouldn't waste time >> doing that and I accept that he was just inaccurate in remembering my > words. >> So I'm not offended by his remarks, even if makes them up for me. Also, If > he >> wants to defend Debord, I really wish he would. I can't find anything in > Debord >> to like or learn from. Why is it such a big deal to say that society > imagines >> itself with dehumanizing signs and commodities? Is there any society worthy > of >> the name that has not done that? I'm not saying Debord is wrong but in his >> critique but if all human conditions are faulty why is it intelligent to > focus >> on only some of those faults as if the others are acceptable? Debord's > remedy >> for the degradation of society by the spectacle was communism, as if the >> replacement of the dehumanizing commodity with the dehumanizing state was > any >> improvement. >> >> I don't have any idea whether or not Hirst would adopt a philosophical > language >> if he were to comment on this list. I suspect he's not so dumb as to not > know >> the difference between philosophical discourse and newspaper talk. Hirst is > an >> artist lots of people love to hate. People who are hated for being famous > and >> rich are usually not as hateful in person as their public profiles suggest. >> Incidentally, I'm not a fan of Hirst's work. It doesn't excite my > feelings. >> It's not personal expression. He clearly represents the society of the > spectacle >> wherein the authentic identity of a human being (if there is such a thing > and >> I'm not sure there is) is replaced by the commodities and constructs > society >> produces -- not for itself but for the simulacrum. Again, what is the >> alternative to the corruption of humanity by means of its symbols and > economies? >> It comes down to a matter of power within the corrupting system, some it > it >> predatory and some of it victimized. Hirst is a happy predator, for now. >> Debord ended up a victim, an alcoholic who shot himself dead. (Now maybe >> that's an ad-hominem). >> wc >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Sun, June 3, 2012 5:53:40 PM >> Subject: Re: "I think anything done super-well is art." >> >> In a message dated 6/3/12 5:17:09 PM, [email protected] writes: >> >> >>> "My sense is that the interview with Hirst is fine. He comes out OK, >>> pragmatic >>> and honest. However, Cheerskep..." >>> >> Oy. I can hear it coming. "Hirst is a pragmatic and honest man. In >> contrast, pedantic Cheerskep once again..." But, hey, I get off easy under >> William's >> habitual ad hominem indictments. DuBord is "angry, ridiculous, paranoid, >> gloomy, and stuck with a fixation." >> >>> "with his pedantic comment about ontology, Cheerskep once >>> again asks too much of everyday talk." >>> >> This is a philosophy of art forum. The awful truth "ontology" necessarily >> comes into it. On such a forum I don't feel Hirst has the "prerogative" of >> asserting that a given effort IS "art". Even in everyday kitchen talk I > reject >> that. In philosophy, it's essential to see the difference something's >> allegedly "being" evil and just being CALLED "evil", a difference that > William >> tacitly honors when he rejects DuBird's saying capitalism is "evil".
