The most similar soul i see so often. (Research was done)
The difference between a picture of a person and a picture of an object.
------------------------------------
Jean Baudrillard talks about the object in several of his books, a book which summarizes this very well is 'from Marxism to postmodernism and beyond'. - Kellner, D. (1991). Jean Baudrillard. Cambridge: Polity Press.
In this book, the author "Douglas Kellner" talks about Baudrillard theory about the object in terms of the modern world, corrupted by consumerism and capitalism in general. and even the first picture of our planet became something we could buy, an object filled with awe-inspiring possibilities, yet presented as a thing which for years humans will argue if real, so tell me, is the planet you live on and called earth, really real? and if real how much freedom do you have to explore it, to experience it, or do you just now see it as an object which you can see pictures of on your screens.
I wonder if the word ‘object’ used to mean something else before it became something we could consume, I wonder back then if it had a soul or a spirit, I mean of course the things we sensed not consumed, the songs of the trees and birds, a song sang in person just to you alone, would it be weird to say, as soon as something becomes a part of consumerism it seems to lose soul, the numbing of consciousness to create something just for the purpose of recreating/reproducing it, until it is just an object.
We see this corruption in all parts of art in present day, I will go as far as saying that it affects even my tutors, they themselves have to make a repetitive curriculum for whatever just reason…. they must to make sure that they can show that the students are doing work, valiant yet in its repetition the tutors themselves become objects (cogs in a machine), not maestros, the teachers of craft and stories and the world, they cannot motivate us to improve the world but only follow a curriculum, in which, sure we learn skill and techniques and create work, but for what purpose, only to finish university and put that same work on display to be judged or to be liked and turned into a commodity, something you can consume and therefore turning the body of work which the student sometimes put there hearts and souls into, into an object.
I think this irritation is present in all of my classmates and all artist I personally know who have done a, or who are doing an art degree.
The tutors, I am not saying I know the answer, but I think you should push us to become known before we leave university, known in a sense that we come up with ideas and develop them to a point that the world takes notice, I think that might help, but you know better.
------------------------------------
The study of the object.
Jean Baudrillard talks about the object in several of his books, a book which summarizes this very well is 'from Marxism to postmodernism and beyond'. - Kellner, D. (1991). Jean Baudrillard. Cambridge: Polity Press.
In this book, the author "Douglas Kellner" talks about Baudrillard theory about the object in terms of the modern world, corrupted by consumerism and capitalism in general. and even the first picture of our planet became something we could buy, an object filled with awe-inspiring possibilities, yet presented as a thing which for years humans will argue if real, so tell me, is the planet you live on and called earth, really real? and if real how much freedom do you have to explore it, to experience it, or do you just now see it as an object which you can see pictures of on your screens.
I wonder if the word ‘object’ used to mean something else before it became something we could consume, I wonder back then if it had a soul or a spirit, I mean of course the things we sensed not consumed, the songs of the trees and birds, a song sang in person just to you alone, would it be weird to say, as soon as something becomes a part of consumerism it seems to lose soul, the numbing of consciousness to create something just for the purpose of recreating/reproducing it, until it is just an object.
We see this corruption in all parts of art in present day, I will go as far as saying that it affects even my tutors, they themselves have to make a repetitive curriculum for whatever just reason…. they must to make sure that they can show that the students are doing work, valiant yet in its repetition the tutors themselves become objects (cogs in a machine), not maestros, the teachers of craft and stories and the world, they cannot motivate us to improve the world but only follow a curriculum, in which, sure we learn skill and techniques and create work, but for what purpose, only to finish university and put that same work on display to be judged or to be liked and turned into a commodity, something you can consume and therefore turning the body of work which the student sometimes put there hearts and souls into, into an object.
I think this irritation is present in all of my classmates and all artist I personally know who have done a, or who are doing an art degree.
The tutors, I am not saying I know the answer, but I think you should push us to become known before we leave university, known in a sense that we come up with ideas and develop them to a point that the world takes notice, I think that might help, but you know better.
"these affluent individuals are no longer surrounded by other human beings as they were in the past, but by objects" - Kellner, D. (1991). Jean Baudrillard. Cambridge: Polity Press.
The difference between a picture of a person and and picture of an object is that the picture of the person is just a lot more personal, in this world where everything is an object and us isolated souls yearn and seek, to communicate and feel other humans, who seem to have the best chance of having a consciousness most similar to our own. disconnected from nature especially the populous of the metropolis suffer most. People themselves have become object here. And we wonder why the populous is depressed, human nature says “The resistance of the individual to being leveled, swallowed up in the social-technological mechanism.” - Simmel, Georg. 1903. The Metropolis And Mental Life. but the way capitalism is continuing its transforming people into just that “Entirely unknown purchasers who never appear in the actual field of vision of the producers themselves.” - Simmel, Georg. 1903. The Metropolis And Mental Life. Objects.
Let me stop using other people's words and say openly, that you disgust me. By you I mean capitalism, it in its nature is transforming the world around us into an objective one, no wonder it leeches on to liberal societies, it is only there it has the freedom and not only freedom but cause, the cause being the goals of the enlightenment itself “the enlightenment “translated the ultimate question ‘how can I be saved’ into the pragmatic ‘how can I be happy?” (Porter, 22).
And capitalism appeared as the knight in shining armor to provide us everything that will make us happy and in its path to righteousness and a just goal which was human happiness, it turned all humans into happy objects, an unimportant statistic at best, no longer in control of their emotions or their subjective realities, the humans retaliated only to find out that it was too late, the sun will die in 8 billion years and there exist at present time, modern slaves, much different they say from pre-enlightenment times, they are willing to work not forced to…. Let me say it again,
“The modern individual is portrayed as a cybernetician” - Kellner, D. (1991). Jean Baudrillard. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Let me stop using other people's words and say openly, that you disgust me. By you I mean capitalism, it in its nature is transforming the world around us into an objective one, no wonder it leeches on to liberal societies, it is only there it has the freedom and not only freedom but cause, the cause being the goals of the enlightenment itself “the enlightenment “translated the ultimate question ‘how can I be saved’ into the pragmatic ‘how can I be happy?” (Porter, 22).
And capitalism appeared as the knight in shining armor to provide us everything that will make us happy and in its path to righteousness and a just goal which was human happiness, it turned all humans into happy objects, an unimportant statistic at best, no longer in control of their emotions or their subjective realities, the humans retaliated only to find out that it was too late, the sun will die in 8 billion years and there exist at present time, modern slaves, much different they say from pre-enlightenment times, they are willing to work not forced to…. Let me say it again,
YOU DISGUST ME.
Invisible people, who sell me things, who are you? What color are your eyes? Invisible people who sell me things, I hope I find a reason to live, in your things, because finding a reason to live is quite challenging they tell me.
“This discrepancy is in essence the result if the success of the growing division of labour. For it is this which requires from the individuality an ever more one-sided type of achievement which, at its highest point, often permits his personality as a whole to fall into neglect…. He becomes a single cog as over against the vast overwhelming organization of things and forces which gradually take out of his hands everything connected with progress, spirituality and value.” - Simmel, Georg. 1903. The Metropolis And Mental Life.
On multiple occasions from the start of this year (2019) especially while writing these thoughts I have, I was reminded of ‘the matrix’. It's weird how to present an argument with that movie as supporting text seems to belittle the argument because in a way that movie showed us a timeline which humans should be careful of, at least not strive for but the more I write the more parallels I find towards the film and its contexts. Maybe more on this in the next post.
Back to shitting on capitalism, “Unfortunately, policy makers and the citizenry of such countries, to borrow a phrase from Robert Lane, still succumb to the “economistic fallacy” – the “common belief that happiness is in some sense proportionate to income” (64).” - Gorton, W. A. 2008. Too much of a good thing? Freedom, Individualism, Autonomy And the Decline of Happiness in Liberal Democracies.
Let me be clear, unlike the 8k tv you stare at every night. Happiness is present in you, comes from you just like any other emotion, this augmented sense of happiness you feel from objects has damaged you in more ways than you think, one of the most severe examples is when one has unlimited choices of thing which they can conveniently buy (Amazon) or look (Instagram) at to be happy, this abundance of choice makes you blind towards what makes you naturally happy and yet it is not considered a drug.
Numerous recent studies have shown that the dominant effect of increased choices is often anxiety, regret or even paralysis, rather than increased satisfaction. This has been particularly well documented by Barry Schwartz in The Paradox of Choice: Why Less Is More (2004).
In other words, the infinite objects which can make you happy also make you forget about the happiness inside you, the happiness you experience living life and accomplishing goals, I am sure you are not a toddler and I don't need to carry on this list. In essence, the subject becomes an object, hence I guess the previous confusion over a picture of a person and an object.
In this case, it is not the fault of the people but the system which allows everything around us to be turned in to meaningless objects for the apparent potential betterment and happiness of the persons who inhabit the system, so tell me the powers that be, when did you forsake yourself to augmented happiness? for what purpose do you allow injustice and modern slavery? is it for national economic gain that you turn a whole country into an object by representing the people in that country as numbers and statistics in whats no better the low level, uneducated, classical theatre?
Invisible people, who sell me things, who are you? What color are your eyes? Invisible people who sell me things, I hope I find a reason to live, in your things, because finding a reason to live is quite challenging they tell me.
“This discrepancy is in essence the result if the success of the growing division of labour. For it is this which requires from the individuality an ever more one-sided type of achievement which, at its highest point, often permits his personality as a whole to fall into neglect…. He becomes a single cog as over against the vast overwhelming organization of things and forces which gradually take out of his hands everything connected with progress, spirituality and value.” - Simmel, Georg. 1903. The Metropolis And Mental Life.
On multiple occasions from the start of this year (2019) especially while writing these thoughts I have, I was reminded of ‘the matrix’. It's weird how to present an argument with that movie as supporting text seems to belittle the argument because in a way that movie showed us a timeline which humans should be careful of, at least not strive for but the more I write the more parallels I find towards the film and its contexts. Maybe more on this in the next post.
Back to shitting on capitalism, “Unfortunately, policy makers and the citizenry of such countries, to borrow a phrase from Robert Lane, still succumb to the “economistic fallacy” – the “common belief that happiness is in some sense proportionate to income” (64).” - Gorton, W. A. 2008. Too much of a good thing? Freedom, Individualism, Autonomy And the Decline of Happiness in Liberal Democracies.
Let me be clear, unlike the 8k tv you stare at every night. Happiness is present in you, comes from you just like any other emotion, this augmented sense of happiness you feel from objects has damaged you in more ways than you think, one of the most severe examples is when one has unlimited choices of thing which they can conveniently buy (Amazon) or look (Instagram) at to be happy, this abundance of choice makes you blind towards what makes you naturally happy and yet it is not considered a drug.
Numerous recent studies have shown that the dominant effect of increased choices is often anxiety, regret or even paralysis, rather than increased satisfaction. This has been particularly well documented by Barry Schwartz in The Paradox of Choice: Why Less Is More (2004).
In other words, the infinite objects which can make you happy also make you forget about the happiness inside you, the happiness you experience living life and accomplishing goals, I am sure you are not a toddler and I don't need to carry on this list. In essence, the subject becomes an object, hence I guess the previous confusion over a picture of a person and an object.
In this case, it is not the fault of the people but the system which allows everything around us to be turned in to meaningless objects for the apparent potential betterment and happiness of the persons who inhabit the system, so tell me the powers that be, when did you forsake yourself to augmented happiness? for what purpose do you allow injustice and modern slavery? is it for national economic gain that you turn a whole country into an object by representing the people in that country as numbers and statistics in whats no better the low level, uneducated, classical theatre?
Comments
Post a Comment