Your mention of status being considered more important than actual skill reminds me of the art world. Or more specifically of the modern ‘anti-art’ art world where cans of literal ‘artists shit’ (no that is not a euphemism) are valued by the elites because of the extremely high socioeconomic status the person who, um, filled them had when he first started calling himself an ‘artist’ or where an ‘artists’ recreates her messy bedroom in a museum and the elites allow her to call it a sculpture, again, because she also held an extremely high socioeconomic status when she first started calling herself an ‘artist’. Seeing how successful such people have been many people have tried to emulate them and to create their own ‘anti-art’ but the success eludes them because, unlike with real art which rewards hard-work and merit, in order to succeeding the ‘anti-art’ world one must have already risen to the highest heights of wealth and society society before one even becomes an art novice.
really good example, thanks! certain labels (that of an 'established artist') have attained so much power and influence, the reality under them (their sh*t) does not matter. labels mean so much in certain communities, particularly elitist or traditional ones, that from an outside perspective it makes no sense and is hard to understand. but it highlights how much of our life and our social success is dependent on labels which seem objectively arbitrary, but have been injected with meaning from certain groups and institutions
@@FeelingPhilosophical thank you. That was coming from an artist by the way. Mostly I do Impressionism but I am working to improve my skills and break into classical painting. But what is traditional art? Many people will point at the impressionists and say they are traditional. Yet they were rejected from the Paris academy of arts exhibition in their day because they were not considered traditional by the realist and the realists themselves were once considered odd and non traditional. Even cubism, modernism, surrealism, minimalism, post modernism and post Impressionism which are all considered traditional arts were new and untraditional at one time. I personally wouldn’t lump anti-art in with any of these. Love them or hate them each of these art forms speak to some section of the huddled masses in some way - some to the extent that they choose to become creators of the art form - but anti art only speaks to the self important in their ivory tower. I used to dream about reaching that level of art but then I discovered 2 things 1) the glass ceiling separating them from us lesser artists who actually labor at our craft every day and continually seek to improve our skills and them is shatter proof and 2) when I looked through it I realized that as nice as it would be to make that kind of money a larger paycheck isn’t worth being like the ‘artists’ on the other side.
basically just an extensive study on semiotics, and how far abstracted we have made the minutiae of life through repeatedly de-rezzing the semiotics of life through cliched reproduction. Thus, making life a "Simulation" as the minutiae is so heavily divorced from reality, and added together, the minutiae functions effectively to make up all aspects of life. Thus creating the: "Desert of the Real"
yep exactly, the omnipresence of simulations makes the real world forgotten, barren, and deserted - an empty 'desert of the real'. Thanks for raising this quote, I want to explore it more in the next video on the hyperreal
I believe Baudrillard hated the matrix because it attempted to explain the simulation within the media of the simulation which is basically impossible and contradictory.
It is referenced by the Matrix! It's what initially made me aware of the book's existence haha. Although Baudrillard wasn't a big fan of the film since he thought it oversimplified his ideas: for example, it made the distinction between reality and simulation very obvious, but in the later stages of simulation (phase 3 and 4), reality and simulation become almost impossible to break apart also money is certainly a simulation. old forms of money like gold were phase 1 - they had a clear connection to the real world and their value was based on their physical availability. paper money like banknotes (used in the past, before digital currency) was phase 2 - as it still was used in place of gold. it still had a link to a basic reality, but was distorted. digital currency and fiat money are examples of phase 3 simulation. they have no intrinsic value and real-world backing. they operate based on symbolism and a mutual trust that there's a substance behind the monetary symbol phase 4 money would be cryptocurrency since these are not backed by any government. cryptocurrencies don't pretend to represent something real. similar with stock market speculation. the value of the money here is based upon demands/trends/predictions. it is becoming self-referential, removed from any real-assets, where value is generated within the system
I think simulation (and simulacra, if I understand it correctly) is not a negative phenomenon, because it includes every abstract process of thought, which is needed for evolution and growth. How would we know anything if we haven't created written words - a phase four of a simulation, same with numbers, art, culture and science. Having a model is needed if you want to level up in anything. Also I want to refer to book - "The case against reality", which doubts our understanding of almost any reality at all.
It becomes negative once the model is mistaken for reality instead of as what it is…a model and a simplification. I’m currently experiencing an issue with higher-ups doing exactly this and it’s creating problems for everyone in that they think solutions are as easy as their 1-2-3 diagrams on a ppt slide, when reality has so much more detail and background to it.
hey thanks, this was a good listen
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it
This so-called reality has always been a simulation and/or 0s & 1s …The issue is people are just recognizing it.. Keep going and growing lil bro!!!
Thanks will!
Your mention of status being considered more important than actual skill reminds me of the art world. Or more specifically of the modern ‘anti-art’ art world where cans of literal ‘artists shit’ (no that is not a euphemism) are valued by the elites because of the extremely high socioeconomic status the person who, um, filled them had when he first started calling himself an ‘artist’ or where an ‘artists’ recreates her messy bedroom in a museum and the elites allow her to call it a sculpture, again, because she also held an extremely high socioeconomic status when she first started calling herself an ‘artist’. Seeing how successful such people have been many people have tried to emulate them and to create their own ‘anti-art’ but the success eludes them because, unlike with real art which rewards hard-work and merit, in order to succeeding the ‘anti-art’ world one must have already risen to the highest heights of wealth and society society before one even becomes an art novice.
really good example, thanks!
certain labels (that of an 'established artist') have attained so much power and influence, the reality under them (their sh*t) does not matter. labels mean so much in certain communities, particularly elitist or traditional ones, that from an outside perspective it makes no sense and is hard to understand. but it highlights how much of our life and our social success is dependent on labels which seem objectively arbitrary, but have been injected with meaning from certain groups and institutions
@@FeelingPhilosophical thank you. That was coming from an artist by the way. Mostly I do Impressionism but I am working to improve my skills and break into classical painting.
But what is traditional art? Many people will point at the impressionists and say they are traditional. Yet they were rejected from the Paris academy of arts exhibition in their day because they were not considered traditional by the realist and the realists themselves were once considered odd and non traditional. Even cubism, modernism, surrealism, minimalism, post modernism and post Impressionism which are all considered traditional arts were new and untraditional at one time. I personally wouldn’t lump anti-art in with any of these. Love them or hate them each of these art forms speak to some section of the huddled masses in some way - some to the extent that they choose to become creators of the art form - but anti art only speaks to the self important in their ivory tower.
I used to dream about reaching that level of art but then I discovered 2 things 1) the glass ceiling separating them from us lesser artists who actually labor at our craft every day and continually seek to improve our skills and them is shatter proof and 2) when I looked through it I realized that as nice as it would be to make that kind of money a larger paycheck isn’t worth being like the ‘artists’ on the other side.
basically just an extensive study on semiotics, and how far abstracted we have made the minutiae of life through repeatedly de-rezzing the semiotics of life through cliched reproduction. Thus, making life a "Simulation" as the minutiae is so heavily divorced from reality, and added together, the minutiae functions effectively to make up all aspects of life. Thus creating the: "Desert of the Real"
yep exactly, the omnipresence of simulations makes the real world forgotten, barren, and deserted - an empty 'desert of the real'. Thanks for raising this quote, I want to explore it more in the next video on the hyperreal
Interesante 👍this book is as referenced by the matrix right? Would you say money is a simulation?
I believe Baudrillard hated the matrix because it attempted to explain the simulation within the media of the simulation which is basically impossible and contradictory.
It is referenced by the Matrix! It's what initially made me aware of the book's existence haha. Although Baudrillard wasn't a big fan of the film since he thought it oversimplified his ideas: for example, it made the distinction between reality and simulation very obvious, but in the later stages of simulation (phase 3 and 4), reality and simulation become almost impossible to break apart
also money is certainly a simulation.
old forms of money like gold were phase 1 - they had a clear connection to the real world and their value was based on their physical availability.
paper money like banknotes (used in the past, before digital currency) was phase 2 - as it still was used in place of gold. it still had a link to a basic reality, but was distorted.
digital currency and fiat money are examples of phase 3 simulation. they have no intrinsic value and real-world backing. they operate based on symbolism and a mutual trust that there's a substance behind the monetary symbol
phase 4 money would be cryptocurrency since these are not backed by any government. cryptocurrencies don't pretend to represent something real. similar with stock market speculation. the value of the money here is based upon demands/trends/predictions. it is becoming self-referential, removed from any real-assets, where value is generated within the system
I think simulation (and simulacra, if I understand it correctly) is not a negative phenomenon, because it includes every abstract process of thought, which is needed for evolution and growth. How would we know anything if we haven't created written words - a phase four of a simulation, same with numbers, art, culture and science. Having a model is needed if you want to level up in anything. Also I want to refer to book - "The case against reality", which doubts our understanding of almost any reality at all.
It becomes negative once the model is mistaken for reality instead of as what it is…a model and a simplification. I’m currently experiencing an issue with higher-ups doing exactly this and it’s creating problems for everyone in that they think solutions are as easy as their 1-2-3 diagrams on a ppt slide, when reality has so much more detail and background to it.
So God could be a simulacra? 😱
Yep, from a secular/atheistic viewpoint, that could certainly be the case