Something Has Changed
“We Live Within a Spectacle of Empty Clothes and Unworn Masks”
(John Berger, The Shape of a Pocket, p.12)
Just started to read John Berger, The Shape of a Pocket. The book (not surprisingly) resonates for me with the beginning of #ededc, our initial core / secondary readings and film fest! Empty clothes and unworn masks, idols, icons to Iconoclasm! The separation of the apparent and the existent in physical experience. Berger argues that “painting is an affirmation of the existent, of the physical world into which mankind has been thrown” and that the impulse to paint comes from an encounter, an encounter between the painter and model, an affirmation of the visible that constantly disappears and appears. Berger goes on to tell us that now “appearances are volatile” and that “technological inovation has made it easy to separate the apparent from the existent” indicating that the system in which we now live has a “mythology” that needs to continuously exploite that fracture “turning appearances into refractions, like mirages: refractions not of light but of appetite, in fact a single appetite, the appetite for more”, giving rise to false idols and a dystopian topology (Damien Hirst’s diamond skull and the postmodern?).
In my opinion Bell, Hand and Johnston echo Berger but from a less fundamental perspective. Johnston cites Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and tells us that “speech, thoughts and actions are based upon metaphors” and that “metaphors are so entwined in our lives that they are invisible to us”, indicating that ”our conceptual system defines our reality” and in that case “we only understand reality through metaphor”. If I accept Johnston’s argument and juxtaposition with Berger’s separation of the apparent from the existent, what cataclysmic dystopian culture will ensue? A culture where our conceptual system is founded not on the physical, but on refractions, mirages “not of light but of appetite”; false metaphor resulting in financial meltdown at the beginning of the 21st century perhaps? Yet people still flock to Art Galleries!
Are metaphor combined with the separation of the apparent from the existent defining the conceptual systems that now define reality and culture? Bell ‘Storying Cyberspace’ uses story and metaphor to define cyberspace for us, Bell cites Hayles ‘virtual creatures’ in chapter two to scaffold further understanding of cyberspace, a space that does not exist. Yet Berger hints at a definition of human reality outside of the existent, a mirage, a story; to what extent does this story shape our lives, our culture? I would argue that Hand attempts to identify these dystopian worlds by, in his words “map the dominant narratives of digital culture at the broadest level – including economic, social, and political dimensions – and identify their key metaphors and tropes”, by doing so Hand begins to define the consequences of worlds that have no existent, and the impact of the narratives that we/he has used to help map digital culture.
“technological inovation has made it easy to separate the apparent from the existent” – I am interested in this line of thought, and where it is leading you. Are you saying that it is our separation from the ‘existent’ that results in digital dystopias? This is a classic humanist narrative, and one that will be taken up later in the course (and in the EDCMOOC). I wonder whether it’s overly simplistic, though – it has been argued that existence is volatile as well, at least in terms of what can be known about it. Do we have access to anything but representation (of nature, reality, our own experiences)? You *might* like to do a bit of exploration of poststructuralism to get an alternative take on the notion of representation – maybe try this article by Bronwyn Davies, which I find accessible. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540259721259 . And I think you would really like this recent New Yorker piece about creating new languages: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/24/121224fa_fact_foer
I’m trying to explore (I think) the effect (and affect) of ‘the separation of the apparent and the existent’ as defined or propagated by the digital domain with resulting existent dystopias. This direction of thought seems to me to have a direct relationship with #ededc and the term culture in general.
How is culture defined/created? Maybe by the representation of experience through imagination and the production of artifacts (thinking of Babel Fish re learning). This includes language, but possibly not from a linguistic perspective, but from a metaphorical perspective. The sharing of artifacts (and ideas ‘linguistically’) then may define a culture as a value set; which I’m presuming is one reason why the development of language is messy and the resultant structure is borderline ridiculous.
In this direction of thought can I begin to see the ‘Web’ (as a whole) as a cultural artifact in its own right? If a painting is an affirmation of the existent, maybe the ‘Web’ is also an affirmation of the existent? A painting as an artifact is a cultural vehicle, if I walk into a gallery I encounter a physical response to the existent, so further defining my cultural bubble and identity. How is this replicated by/in the digital domain? Is the Web a mirror image of the existent (the physical)? If so, then what is it that we create when online, and what is lost or gained in the production of artifacts and propagation of culture in the digital domain?
The NewYorker article is excellent! I couldn’t get access to the first link, will try again later.
re: your first post: I wonder if Derrida’s writing on ‘différance’ is useful in the context of ‘apparent’ and ‘existent’? Through the internet, meaning is both suspended through space and time, attaching volatility.
I thought this web resource is quite useful
http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/differance.htm
Thank you Gina, interesting link to Derrida’s concept of ‘différance’. Berger has developed a great deal of his thinking with relation to Derrida and ‘différance’ ( < Spinosa < Descartes ). Berger, I would say is one of greatest visual thinkers of our time. I’ve read some Derrida, more Wittgenstein I would say… I think Derrida is possibly less important in this instant than Berger and/or Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein ‘Tractatus’ needs to be read ‘A logical picture of facts is a thought’, where Berger continues Derrida by grounding ‘différance’ in visual culture, visual culture being directly related to #ededc by generation of Digital Artifacts. Digital Artifacts I’m thinking is possibly a distraction? I’m starting to consider the Web ‘as a whole’ as an existent cultural artifact, this then repositions what is created online in mirroring psychology (back to Berger!).
“If a painting is an affirmation of the existent, maybe the ‘Web’ is also an affirmation of the existent” – I find this convincing!
If the web is all about content (web is content that resides on the internet), the web must be acting as a mirror – one step on from TV. The web maybe an affirmation of the existent, but what is it that is unique to the digital domain that defines digital cultures? And what is the relationship between digital culture and existent phenomena? For instance, the economic shift from production to spectacle (referred to in other posts).