At the beginning of our presentation today, when I showed that clip from The Matrix I asked everyone to consider, in light of this week's readings, why films like it, suggesting the very fabric of our reality is an illusion, tend to be so popular. You'd think this kind of subversive idea would elicit the same kind of anxiety as what Baudrillard claims people trying to process the idea of there being no 'real' experience, but instead cultural texts like this tend to be rampantly popular (see: Total Recall, Vanilla Sky, etc.). Moreover, I pointed out with the Escher images and Bach's Neverending Canon that this kind of idea of infinite return, a-la simulacrum have tended to be popular in the past too, so this isn't even necessarily an unfamiliar idea. So why would this kind of idea in popular culture be such a hit when the concept itself seems to make people so uncomfortable and anxious?
I think Baudrillard would argue that overtly presenting such 'subversive ideas' in the context of entertainment (circa fantasy) would be the most overt way of distracting people from internalizing the ideas presented in reference to their own lives. Ironically, by explicitly stating that 'reality' might be a fabricated concept in favour of people living in a real of perpetual simulations in a film or novel, people would be less likely to apply such ideas to their own lives, due to the association of it with a fictional text. It's also worth pointing out that The Matrix in particular also contains the narrative strand outside the Matrix itself, thus still offering audiences a version of 'the real' as a concept to cling to.
With this in mind, I wondered: does Baudrillard's article itself, paradoxically, achieve the same effect (people read it, think "oh, it's only philosophy" to reassure themselves that reality is in fact concrete and tangible)? Is his a fundamentally self-defeating argument? Or does the change in medium and lack of a juxtaposition with fantasy or entertainment somehow help his claims ring true?
Finally, all three of the readings this week seem to imply that some widespread paradigm change is in order for people to deal with "the times" as they are. I also wanted to discuss, assuming such widespread shifts are even possible, who exactly would they be benefiting? Is a major shift towards embracing convergence culture helping the individual or strictly in the interests of big businesses who can make a killing selling their new gadgets (or both)? And what if we all did take Baudrillard at face value (I'm assuming most people don't...), and accepted that there is no 'real', but only a series of simulations. How exactly does this realization benefit the quality of peoples' lives?
Anyway, apologies for the dense post and for tacking this onto my presentation alike, but there are my two cents, and I'd love to hear what people think about any or all of this stuff. Discuss?
I think with the paradigm shift in regards to convergence culture, the benefit lies with the consumer/individual. The convergence culture that is emerging ever more prevalently only gives people the OPTION of buying into the newest gadgets and technologies. Although the newest release of something is usually the more fun version, the consumer is not forced into partaking in the capitalist notion of buying it.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the newest version of the iPad is being released in Canada on March 25th, less than a year after the premier version was unveiled. Each person that owns the premier version is not forced to purchase the "new and improved iPad 2" (yet, because of our capitalist economy, this is most likely what will happen).
Convergence culture and the ultimate paradigm shift that it entails has the CONSUMER/INDIVIDUAL seeking out new information, as Jenkins describes. Despite their perhaps capitalist intentions, corporations are fulfilling the wishes of the consumer/individual by making technologies more compatible and information easier to access.
It can still be questioned though who indeed possesses the power with this new paradigm that has evolved with convergence culture. Does the ease of information brought to the individual make it easier for power to exist in their hands? Or, because corporations are responsible for the technologies that grant individuals access to this information, does the power remain with them instead of the collective intelligence of individuals?