Simulation / Simulcrum
Media theorist, especially Jean Baudrillard, have been intensely concerned with the concept of the simulation in lieu of its interaction with our notion of the real and the original, revealing in this preoccupation media’s identity not as a means of communication but as a means of representation.
the unmediated sensation is indistinguishable from the mediated, and the simulation becomes confused with its source.
The term SIMULATION and SIMULCRUM is subtly different meanings. Simulation is defined first as “the action or practice of simulating, with an intent to deceive.” Simulation is usually of a set of actions, and furthermore is deceitful in its display of some situation or process.
In comparison, Simulacrum is defined as a material image, made as a representation of some deity, person or thing, as something having merely the form or appearance of a certain thing, without possessing its substance or proper qualities.”
Simulacrum bears a resemblance to the thing that it imitates only on the surface level, but as opposed to simulation’s mimicry of a process or situation, the simulacrum is defined as a static entity, a mere image, rather than something that imitates the behavior. – 시뮬레이션과 시물라크럼의 차이점. 시뮬레이션은 현상이고 시뮬라크럼은 그 결과물. 정도?
Simulations are now a part of everyday life. a simulacrum is almost impossible to distinguish from a representation. But we can see that the simulacrum supersedes representation in terms of the accuracy and power of its imitation. It is only when the viewer of the simulation penetrates the surface that he can tell that it differs from the thing it imitates.
–> 따라서 그것을 수용하는 receptor의 역할이 중요해지는 것이다.
in Critical Terms for Art History, Michael Camille analyzes Plato’s opinion of the simulacrum in The Repulic; “The simulacrum is more than just a useless image, it is a deviation and perversion of imitation itself-a false likeness”.
Jean Baudrillard writes in Simulations that an effective simulation will not merely deceive one into believing in a false entity, but in fact signifies the destruction of an original reality that it has replaced. The simulation for Baudrillard brings us into a circular world in which the sign is not exchanged for meaning, but merely for another sign.
–> 보드리야르와 달리 들뢰즈는 시뮬라크르에서 가능성을 찾았다. 긍정적으로 해석했다.
According to Baudrillard what is simulated is what is mediated and vice versa. For Baudrillard, the explictly mediated betrays us in its suggestion of an unmediated system outside of it. As there is nothing that is not simulated, out everday exeperience is mediated through simulacra.
Hyperreal world is one despersed around us, in all forms of experience. There is no longer any medium in the literal sense: it is now intangible, diffuse, and diffracted in the real. ant the diffuseness of the medium means that what the individual still believes to be the real is never unmediated. We know that we are living in a mediated world, but in result of the ubiquity of the simulation life is now spectralised, the event filtered by the medium.
–> 이 부분은 chapter 4 space로 가도 될 것 같다.
Gilles Deleuze agrees with Baudrillard’s conception of the simulacrum as a system of empty signs.Deleuze this destruction is brought about because the simulation of the original is so perfect that it is no longer clear where or what the original is.
reveal new possibilities of interpretation in a critical realm where sensation is the focus instead of meaning. “Signs are not about the communication of meaning but rather about the learning of the affects, perceptions, and sensations to which we can be subject.
–> 들뢰즈는 시물라크르 긍정적 가능성 발견.
Michael Camille: “The simulacrum is not a degraded copy. It harbors a positive power which denies the original and the copy, the model and the reproduction…There is no longer any privileged point of view except that of the object common to all points of view” (Camille, 33).
The simulation changes the way that we view a work of art or experience a sensation, disposing with an earlier hierarchy that valued the original work highest, and what we are left with is exactly what Plato condemned, a system.
–> camille도 들뢰즈와 동일한 입장.
we can see by contrasting the philosophies of Baudrillard and Deleuze, can be interpreted in nearly opposite ways, as either the death knell for meaning and the “real,” or conversely as an avenue to new methods of interpretation.
For Deleuze, the simulation raises the work of art beyond representation to a level where it is on equal footing with the original, and hence the original is destroyed.
The terms simulation and simulacrum are important to media study, as the simulation is total mediation without meaning. The content is shifted to a surface level, into the realm of experience rather than communication of truth, and the way that the medium affects us becomes our main interpretive focus.
–> 이 보드리야르와 들뢰즈의 차이나는 입장에 주목하자. 예술에 있어서 시뮬라크르가 어떠한 긍적적 기능을 하는지 특히 디지털 미디어에 있어서.
그리고 따라서 결국에는 reception / receiver의 역할이 중요해진다.
According to contemporary critical thought, the world has become composed solely of simulations. Theses simulations exist in layers and therefore cannot be traced back to their original subjects.
simulations have become based on other simulations, therefore the element of the real that they originally represent is unknowable. . It is simulation that mediates reality. These multiple simulations give rise to the notion of simulacra. Simulacra refer to the layers of simulation present in the world.
Jean Baudrillard. The orders of Simulacra.
The orders of simulacra increase as it becomes less and less possible to trace the origins of the simulations. In effect the orders of simulacra functions as a process whereby total simulacra is achieved. They are orders of simulation that progress until the difference between the true and false has collapsed. Ultimately the simulacra is indistinguishable from the real. This is a historical process.
According to Baudriallard, the world is constructed on the representation of representations.
“Simulacra and Simulation” breaks the sign-order into 4 stages:
The first stage is a faithful image/copy, where we believe, and it may even be correct, that a sign is a “reflection of a profound reality” (pg 6), this is a good appearance, in what Baudrillard called “the sacramental order”.
The second stage is perversion of reality, this is where we come to believe the sign to be an unfaithful copy, which “masks and denatures” reality as an “evil appearance—it is of the order of maleficence”. Here, signs and images do not faithfully reveal reality to us, but can hint at the existence of an obscure reality which the sign itself is incapable of encapsulating.
The third stage masks the absence of a profound reality, where the simulacrum pretends to be a faithful copy, but it is a copy with no original. Signs and images claim to represent something real, but no representation is taking place and arbitrary images are merely suggested as things which they have no relationship to. Baudrillard calls this the “order of sorcery”, a regime of semantic algebra where all human meaning is conjured artificially to appear as a reference to the (increasingly) hermetic truth.
The fourth stage is pure simulation, in which the simulacrum has no relationship to any reality whatsoever. Here, signs merely reflect other signs and any claim to reality on the part of images or signs is only of the order of other such claims. This is a regime of total equivalency, where cultural products need no longer even pretend to be real in a naïve sense, because the experiences of consumers’ lives are so predominantly artificial that even claims to reality are expected to be phrased in artificial, “hyperreal” terms. Any naïve pretension to reality as such is perceived as bereft of critical self-awareness, and thus as oversentimental.