ch 21 Baudrillard: Simulacra and Simulations

When we make an image (a simulation) we at first use that image to represent something real. But after a time the line between which is real and which is a simulation becomes distorted. Sooner or later it is the simulation that we treat as the real object and by treating it as the real object it becomes real (the simulacrum).

The first section of this excerpt was so abstract to me that I couldn't entirely follow. It wasnt until I got to "divine irreference" that things started to make sense. Here Baudrillard introduces us to a bit of philosophy that flows throughout the piece. If we treat things as if they are real, are they not real? For instance a person who believes they have an illness to the point that they develop symptoms. If they have symptoms dont we consider that person to be sick? I thought about the movie Patch Adams. There's the crazy guy who sees killer squirrels everywhere. No one else sees them, they're not "real", but to him they *are* real so it is ridiculous to expect him to act as if he cant see them.

Then Baudrillard dives in. His comparisons include, the medical field, the military (which apparently got him into hella trouble in the 90's and early 2000's before his death), and religion. Take for example the crucifix. We create the crucifix to represent Christ. But after a time the line between the divinity in Christ and the divinity in that statue are blurred. (Consider the argument that the crucifix is idolatrous. Are people praying to Jesus or to the statue of Jesus?) Here Baudrillard makes a point that loses me for a bit. He suggests that by embracing the simulation (the crucifix) we are masking that the real object (Christ) does not in fact exist. Doesnt something original have to exist for there to be a simulation? It seems rather circular, but I could understand if we'd merely forgotten that a real existed. Baudrillards final point is that eventually we lose the original object and the simulation is embraced as and becomes the real.

He does elaborate on that middle point (the one that confused me). He says that we often embrace a simulation, a fantasy, in order to prove to ourselves that what came before is real. His example....Disney Land (that section is kind of a mind trip it's fun. If you didn't read it you should). We have this disgustingly idealogical fantasy land and we're there and it's oh-my-god-awesome and then we get into the parking lot and we're back in the real world. But the real world isnt real, it has become itself a simulation (This is where I decided Baudrillard was being philosophical to the extent of pointlessness.)

So a final example I got from a friend. The Cave Paintings in Lascaux France. We have this cave full of neolithic(?) art- it is real. But we dont want the paintings to be damaged from exposure so we close up the original and make a fake cave a little ways away. When a tourist goes inside of that recreation *it is the reality for them*. If that is the experience that everyone has, if all people just know the recreation of the cave, then it is that recreation that is the reality and the real cave (supposedly) ceases to have meaning.