I first encountered Situationist critiques when I was a student at Michigan State University, (1967-1971). Not amongst the faculty for sure, but amongst a few fellow students and friends. I've watched this film many times over the years and the more that I've matured in my thinking, the more I have discerned the underlying critique of Idealism inherent in both Debord's work and how much he owed to the materialist critique which Marx began in the 1840s all the way up until his death in 1883. When I saw it again this time via a Zoom discussion of it, the following thoughts came to my mind, even to be kind with my younger self, re-surfaced again: The split between the product and the producer. The commodity appears, the commodity is good. The commodity is the perception of the abstraction of labour time embodied in the use value of the commodity. The division of labour establishes bureaucratic top down political power within class ruled society. The alienated product of wage workers belongs to their employers. Separation is reproduced as the social relation of Capital is reproduced in everyday life. Words are abstract forms describing material content. Even God has material content within human belief that God is real. The living humans are the content of the concepts of their own creations. The images in the Zoom film are not corresponding in time with the dialogue as they would in the real film. Makes for interesting views for those, like me, who have seen this film a few times. Exchange-value is the perception of socially necessary labour time embodied in the perception of the use of the good or service. Debord was definitely 'in" to transgressive words and images.Bataille, another French writer. Banalisation goes hand in hand with the commodification of social relations between human beings. Why? Because the commodity must be produced with less and less labour time in order to become competitive in the market. The abundance of trash is not the abundance promoting the well being of human beings. Thee is no abundance of good education, good housing, healthy food and disposable time for the use of human desires. Planned obsolescence--analog to digital-to 2G-to 3G to 4g and on. Never forget that 'productivity' is measured by output of goods and services per hour. As productivity increases under the rule of Capital, so does the speed at which superficial life is lived. As Gandhi once quipped, “There’s more to life than increasing its speed.” Subjects create objects, including the images of women. The commodity is created by humans. The commodity is the image or perception of how much labour it took to produce something which you are willing to trade another commodity you own for. Money is the universal commodity used to trade all others. In the age of the Spectacle, images become commodities for sale with a view to profit. Interesting that viewers of this film get hung up about morality. Transgressive images are contrasted by Debord with the critique of political-economy. Transgressive behaviour is something Debord celebrated and used in his films and written work. Amazing how Debord's use of the transgressive acts are moralised by those who see his films or read his work. Images of burning cars are fine for the direct action, propaganda of the deed types, but the Puritan spirit of moral purity raises its voice in condemnation about sexualised imagery. The allegory of the cave is related to Plato's theory of Forms, according to which the "Forms" (or "Ideas"), and not the material world known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. Form is reality. Actually existing, sensuous human life is just a shadow of reality. The critique of this upside-down mindset is fundamental to grasping what Debord is getting at in his critique of the Spectacle.
1:22:51 I think Ed Stres is noticing a significant structural element of the text. My take on it is that the frequent inversions of cause and effect is DeBord providing a method for examining an event (to look at the negative, by that I mean something like a film negative) and highlighting the mutual dependence of ideas that the spectacle objectifies and commodifies. Since one of the goals of the spectacle is to separate and to bring people together in their separation, training our minds to continually discover mutual dependence is a way of seeing the spectacle as something other.
The student protestors in Bangladesh have pushed out their corporate dictator PM. A good situation to watch-their second independence-securing and stabilizing that freedom will surely be a challenge.
I first encountered Situationist critiques when I was a student at Michigan State University, (1967-1971). Not amongst the faculty for sure, but amongst a few fellow students and friends. I've watched this film many times over the years and the more that I've matured in my thinking, the more I have discerned the underlying critique of Idealism inherent in both Debord's work and how much he owed to the materialist critique which Marx began in the 1840s all the way up until his death in 1883.
When I saw it again this time via a Zoom discussion of it, the following thoughts came to my mind, even to be kind with my younger self, re-surfaced again:
The split between the product and the producer. The commodity appears, the commodity is good. The commodity is the perception of the abstraction of labour time embodied in the use value of the commodity.
The division of labour establishes bureaucratic top down political power within class ruled society. The alienated product of wage workers belongs to their employers. Separation is reproduced as the social relation of Capital is reproduced in everyday life.
Words are abstract forms describing material content. Even God has material content within human belief that God is real. The living humans are the content of the concepts of their own creations.
The images in the Zoom film are not corresponding in time with the dialogue as they would in the real film. Makes for interesting views for those, like me, who have seen this film a few times.
Exchange-value is the perception of socially necessary labour time embodied in the perception of the use of the good or service.
Debord was definitely 'in" to transgressive words and images.Bataille, another French writer.
Banalisation goes hand in hand with the commodification of social relations between human beings.
Why?
Because the commodity must be produced with less and less labour time in order to become competitive in the market.
The abundance of trash is not the abundance promoting the well being of human beings. Thee is no abundance of good education, good housing, healthy food and disposable time for the use of human desires.
Planned obsolescence--analog to digital-to 2G-to 3G to 4g and on.
Never forget that 'productivity' is measured by output of goods and services per hour. As productivity increases under the rule of Capital, so does the speed at which superficial life is lived. As Gandhi once quipped, “There’s more to life than increasing its speed.”
Subjects create objects, including the images of women. The commodity is created by humans. The commodity is the image or perception of how much labour it took to produce something which you are willing to trade another commodity you own for. Money is the universal commodity used to trade all others. In the age of the Spectacle, images become commodities for sale with a view to profit.
Interesting that viewers of this film get hung up about morality. Transgressive images are contrasted by Debord with the critique of political-economy. Transgressive behaviour is something Debord celebrated and used in his films and written work. Amazing how Debord's use of the transgressive acts are moralised by those who see his films or read his work. Images of burning cars are fine for the direct action, propaganda of the deed types, but the Puritan spirit of moral purity raises its voice in condemnation about sexualised imagery.
The allegory of the cave is related to Plato's theory of Forms, according to which the "Forms" (or "Ideas"), and not the material world known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. Form is reality. Actually existing, sensuous human life is just a shadow of reality. The critique of this upside-down mindset is fundamental to grasping what Debord is getting at in his critique of the Spectacle.
1:22:51 I think Ed Stres is noticing a significant structural element of the text. My take on it is that the frequent inversions of cause and effect is DeBord providing a method for examining an event (to look at the negative, by that I mean something like a film negative) and highlighting the mutual dependence of ideas that the spectacle objectifies and commodifies. Since one of the goals of the spectacle is to separate and to bring people together in their separation, training our minds to continually discover mutual dependence is a way of seeing the spectacle as something other.
The student protestors in Bangladesh have pushed out their corporate dictator PM. A good situation to watch-their second independence-securing and stabilizing that freedom will surely be a challenge.