Started this, the final part of the Course by reading the set passage in the Reader. Having struggled to understand the series of statements that appeared to be unsupported and not necessarily connected the thought occurred to me that perhaps this is the way that thinkers like Guy Debord establish their image. It is though they are driven to use language and its structure in a way that sets their works apart from the rest of the world. In this way they create an 'image' that they are deep thinkers and if you cannot understand what they are saying the fault lies with you and not with the writer. They create a very small group relatively speaking, of those that can, or pretend that they can, understand the dialogue. It is better if it is so obscure that any interpretation can be stated to be wrong. In that way the writer cannot be challenged and he can dismiss from his group of followers (as Debord was very quick to do - as evidenced by his actions with the Situationist International) on the grounds that they did not understand the nature of his argument or that their interpretation was subversive of the group and an unworthy attack upon the master by one of his disciples.
If this is the case then the the image is illusory and has no basis in reality; if there be such a thing as reality.
I was also puzzled by the statement in the text of the Course (p 61) that suggests that the obsession with image arose in the late 20th Century. Whilst it is the case that the technologies that came to fruition in this period allowed a greater and more rapid distribution of the 'image' it could be argued that the obsession with image has always been there. During the Course we have been asked to examine works of art for symbols that give a clue to the artists and the person commissioning the work message. The way that the family group is portrayed and the dress worn together with the background (often indicating the family estate and house) are clearly understood messages that underline the image that the family or individual wish to portray. Evidence can also be seen in the many grand houses that the aristocracy and then the nouveau riche built that were grandiose in the extreme and were a message that said "look how wealthy I am".
Fashion has always been a statement by the wearer and was designed to give to the wold the image that the wearer wished to convey about his status, wealth and daring. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that man has always been obsessed with the exterior he presents to the world and that advertising has simply used this phenomenon to make their wares more desirable.
I feel that the idea of image that the module document was thinking about was image for and of itself, a substitute for the person, their social status, wealth etc. Whereas in the days before the mass media, on the whole the images was a projection of the person or at least the perception of the person. A person of fashion in the 18th century was projecting themselves to a small group of more or less like minded persons as one of them. The image today is as substitute for all else, famous for being famous!
ReplyDelete