Is a movie about the Spectacle really just another Spectacle?
Thursday, April 30, 2020
Day 41: The Situationists in about 3 minutes of pseudo-cyclical time, un film de Don Shearn
The Situationist International was a primarily European movement of avant-garde artists, intellectuals, political theorists and occasionally activities from 1957 until 1972. Guy Debord was their most prominent member and the only one I ever heard of. He wrote Society of the Spectacle in 1967, It begins, "In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation."
Is a movie about the Spectacle really just another Spectacle?
Is a movie about the Spectacle really just another Spectacle?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If I have to watch this time after time to uncover its meaning does that mean the spectacle becomes routine and the antithesis of itself? And what do I mean by that?
ReplyDeleteYour question is in itself a contradiction. If you 'have' to do something, does that not imply a lack of intentionality and thus coercion? If you are being coerced are you also being oppressed? Regarding meaning, as I'm sure you'll remember from "Society of the Spectacle" #210 'Only the real negation of culture can preserve its meaning. It can no longer be cultural. Thus it is what in some way remains at the level of culture, but with a completely different meaning.' And is it bedtime yet?
ReplyDelete