What is post modernism and how does it reflect art of today? When I was reading the introduction, I began to think of the artwork of Robert Haring and his under movement in art. In addition, I began to think the way that he painted, lived and acted not just as an artist but a human.
When I began to read the article by Lyotard really made me think about who is right and who is wrong. This made me think how not one person and or group is right but the whole idea of different thought make since. I thought that the line what proof is there that my proof is true?” and this to me is what post modernism is all about. Also the idea that when one thought is made not everyone is going to agree with you. For instance, art work many people ask what is it and some historians say art and the you have the dialog back and forth how is it art and finally you say BUT ITS ART!
After reading this whole section, the two articles that I thought were good tool on debate were the first two. I like to think of them as postmodern ideology of what and who we are as a society. Some think that America is like Disneyland however, it is not. We are the exact opposite of what that culture phenomena is all about. These two reading really clarified what is postmodernism and how people look at it.
However, the articles that are post 9/11 resemble how now we look art the society and art as a whole. I think that it is interesting that people did not really know what the twin towers were until after the horrific event. In addition, this brings me back to the whole issue of what is right and what is wrong. How are we to say that art society and life are the right ones and how can we know for a fact that the people who make the discussion for us are a mkeing the right ones. To me post modernism is interesting form of art and society and how the people art out lashing in how we live.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Posting on Postmodernism
First I would like to begin by giving the basic dictionary definition of Postmodernism in the context of art. It is a late 20th-century style, and conception pertaining to the arts, architecture, and criticism, representing a departure from modernism and at the basis has a general distrust of grandiose theories and ideologies. But since we are reviewing literary critics than we shall look to Lyotard for analysis, and maybe some answers. His argument lays on the grounds (or my perception of it) that through knowledge as the key to ‘freedom’ or rather the ‘emancipation of the people.’ This is the ultimate truth, and as we see on bumper stickers today, ‘Knowledge is Power’ this is what pushes the human race forward. But I’d like to question of what kind of knowledge brings us power? Because what may be taught in schools is utterly useless, due to the fact that many ‘facts’ we learned as children only transform into truths, as we become adults. Lyotard uses science as the rights of passage for individuals to achieve this ultimate goal of liberation, and every person is entitled to this right. We use science as a ‘means to an end’ entrusting that through this method of action we will find the factual truth. But I particularly like how he questions himself by stating, ‘What proof is there that my proof is true?’ I concur; science is nothing more than another act of faith.
The statement above about proof, made me think about how we’ve been continually questioning these theorists on their theories. Such as Fried, and his conclusion on the Burial. But I guess its all just speculative thought; fun to play with in the mind, and without it so would be this course.
Jumping ahead to Derrida, and the meaning of moral and ethical responsibility. I particularly was fond of this one because I am continually questioning where, and how people come up with their morals. Which in most all cases stems from personal religions, and where did these religions come from? Well, people. And who is to say whose morals are better, or more ethically sound. Self-interest is the principle here, and the person that came up with that moral, or whatever had some sort of connection with their own self-interest in mind. I just want to say that within the consideration of morals, we all posses our own, and I don’t think there is one solid answer in the way humans must conduct their business, and I think Derrida stating somewhat the same.
All the readings enticed me, reiterating the way I think about how we function now, and how we functioned in the past, always in a continual path of movement, never quite the same, but always in a constant motion
The statement above about proof, made me think about how we’ve been continually questioning these theorists on their theories. Such as Fried, and his conclusion on the Burial. But I guess its all just speculative thought; fun to play with in the mind, and without it so would be this course.
Jumping ahead to Derrida, and the meaning of moral and ethical responsibility. I particularly was fond of this one because I am continually questioning where, and how people come up with their morals. Which in most all cases stems from personal religions, and where did these religions come from? Well, people. And who is to say whose morals are better, or more ethically sound. Self-interest is the principle here, and the person that came up with that moral, or whatever had some sort of connection with their own self-interest in mind. I just want to say that within the consideration of morals, we all posses our own, and I don’t think there is one solid answer in the way humans must conduct their business, and I think Derrida stating somewhat the same.
All the readings enticed me, reiterating the way I think about how we function now, and how we functioned in the past, always in a continual path of movement, never quite the same, but always in a constant motion
Oh no, it's PoMo
I had been looking forward to this week’s topic because I had first been introduced to PoMo in the Contemporary Issues in Photography class I took a few years ago. However, after reading the chapter and the summaries, I don’t know any more about PoMo than I did last week. Perhaps because the Contemporary Issues class focused on photography, my introduction to PoMo was limited. In that class we discussed appropriation most specifically the work of Sherrie Levine and the concept that “originality is impossible, anyway, given that there is nothing new under the sun. Therefore, invention and uniqueness are no longer essential in making art.” I suppose in some sense, the readings reflect this concept. For Lyotard, the post-industrial world is characterized by the loss of the narrative “which has served to guarantee the truth, or use-value, of knowledge throughout history.” So in essence, what Lyotard is describing is a loss of truth. This leads into the other discussions about truth and reality. The articles that intrigued me the most were the discussions about September 11. Because some of the events were captured on film, they became real to us. Would they have been less real if they had not been televised as they occurred or replayed in a continuous loop? For those of us who watched the events unfold on television, the reality was controlled by those reporting on the events and those individuals themselves became spectators as any informative information was lacking. How would we have reacted to the events if they had not been captured on camera? This discussion makes me wonder about the assassination of JFK. Would we view this event differently if we did not have the Zapruder film which provided us with a vantage point that virtually made us front row witnesses to the assassination? (One of the things that is appears to be missing in the historical recounting of the Kennedy assassination is noting when the film was first made public. Unlike 1963, we live in an age of immediacy which we take for granted.) Well, I seem to be digressing. I am looking forward to class when my classmates can help me get a better understanding of the readings and PoMo.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Postmodernism
I am presenting tomorrow so I will be distributing a handout in at the beginning of class
Looking forward to a class discussion on postmodernism.
Looking forward to a class discussion on postmodernism.
Postmodern Readings
For me, this blog was really difficult in the fact that I have absolutely no idea what to write. Because these writings are written in a postmodern style, everything is already so deconstructed and I feel like there’s nothing left for me to interpret or to rethink other than to rehash what was said. Like always, there were some readings I understood better than others, but even still, I felt like I had no jumping off point or inspiration in which to base a blog. I'll be anxious to here the comments in class.
I’m not sure I understand how the “real” is not in the images of the September 11th attacks that Zizek refers to. Is there no real because it’s symbolic, or are the events so symbolic that they lose the real? I would like to know what the “real” according to Zizek is so I can understand what he is referring to. At first I thought his real were the images of people fleeing from the smoke and debris, or the second plane hitting the WTC, but then he goes on to mention how these images are like those we’ve seen over and over again in Hollywood blockbusters. Does that make them not real? And then my other question is, shouldn’t there be some significance to the real? Zizek for me makes it sound like there’s the real and then there is the significance from the real. One or the other, and the significance experienced from the real is infact not real at all because it is derived from the symbolic of the real. Isn’t the purpose of something being “real” significant, if not significant just for being real?
I did enjoy Baudrillard’s use of semiotics in terms of understanding and deconstructing the War on Terrorism sparred by the events of 9/11 juxtaposed with America and what ideals it claims to withhold and “protect.” America itself is a symbol. It is a symbol for freedom and democracy. However, Baudrillard explains that the War on Terrorism fails to fully signify because it holds the claims that America is good and the “other” is bad, when in fact America is involved in a war at which under other circumstances would probably be opposed to as it is in contrast with its own ideals.
I’m not sure I understand how the “real” is not in the images of the September 11th attacks that Zizek refers to. Is there no real because it’s symbolic, or are the events so symbolic that they lose the real? I would like to know what the “real” according to Zizek is so I can understand what he is referring to. At first I thought his real were the images of people fleeing from the smoke and debris, or the second plane hitting the WTC, but then he goes on to mention how these images are like those we’ve seen over and over again in Hollywood blockbusters. Does that make them not real? And then my other question is, shouldn’t there be some significance to the real? Zizek for me makes it sound like there’s the real and then there is the significance from the real. One or the other, and the significance experienced from the real is infact not real at all because it is derived from the symbolic of the real. Isn’t the purpose of something being “real” significant, if not significant just for being real?
I did enjoy Baudrillard’s use of semiotics in terms of understanding and deconstructing the War on Terrorism sparred by the events of 9/11 juxtaposed with America and what ideals it claims to withhold and “protect.” America itself is a symbol. It is a symbol for freedom and democracy. However, Baudrillard explains that the War on Terrorism fails to fully signify because it holds the claims that America is good and the “other” is bad, when in fact America is involved in a war at which under other circumstances would probably be opposed to as it is in contrast with its own ideals.
Nothing is real and even if something is real, there is no point to it anyway
Lyotard presents us with two versions of narrative legitimation: the narrative of legitimation of freedom (or the autonomy of the will of freedom) and the narrative of legitimation of knowledge. Within the narrative of freedom humanity is the hero and all have the right to science. Within the narrative of knowledge science and other kinds of knowledge exist in and of themselves but speculate on themselves by using previously attained knowledge that also came from themselves. Knowledge here also exists to guide spirituality and morality and become a part of the master narrative or ideology of a society. Lyotard says that today we are in the midst of a narrative of the legitimation of freedom where knowledge comes from humanity and that humanity is perceived as self-managed through its own laws, which are also perceived as just in that the laws governing the people supposedly come from the people. In the narrative of knowledge, knowledge is the subject whereas in the narrative of freedom knowledge is the facilitator of morality and spirituality – at least that is what we believe.
Lyotard begins his second section titled "Delegitimation" with, “In contemporary society and culture...” He already said what is happening today is that we are reviving the legitimation of freedom, so I am a little confused by what he means by contemporary society and culture. Perhaps, this is a hypothetical or where he thinks we are headed. Maybe contemporary society and culture exist alongside of what is happening today ideologically speaking. In the contemporary, the grand narratives are no longer credible due to the techniques and technologies of the second half of the 20th c, which caused society to emphasize how we get somewhere rather than where we are going. The how is based on individual enjoyment of commodity culture. This arose from the rule of the legitimation of knowledge that says that knowledge has to legitimize itself in order to be true. However, the legitimation of knowledge with knowledge results in its ultimate suppression – the knowledge that came before is always undermined by the knowledge that comes after it. In this way knowledge appears to be pre-scientific or a vulgar (Clarke!!) narrative meant to exert control, as it exists in order to guide morality and spirituality. The result is delegitimation. Therefore, all that is left is what has already been established (although this is perceived as being untrue as well) because nothing new can be established. This reminds me of the postmodern as it applies to art in that the “original” as perceived by the modern is no longer possible (and perhaps never was).
Lyotard ends by saying that we are not doomed to becoming barbarians as long as we are mindful that we can only legitimate through linguistics and communication. Thus, we are “safe” as long as a discourse exists.
Yet, in his excerpt from “The Inhuman,” Lyotard refers to the pointlessness of discourse because we are all going to die along with our discourse anyway. But, we are in a sense still “safe” as long as we have our discourse because the discourse is a kind of simulation along with other forms of simulation that exist in order to keep a sense of chaos at bay – or barbaric behavior at bay – “for the benefit of humankind.”
In Baudrillard’s excerpt from Simulations he discusses the lack of “the real” based on the idea that all points of reference that we have to show us what is real, are in themselves unreal. His example is Disneyland. We believe that Disneyland is somehow imaginary in order to believe that the rest of the world is real, when the rest of the world is in fact a simulation. He believes that the children or childishness do not only exist in Disneyland, but are everywhere. This is also obscured by the existence of places like Disneyland because the perception is that these are the places where the childishness occurs – not in the “real” word. Before Baudrillard presents us with his notion of what Disneyland is for, he talks about maps. He says, “it is the difference which forms the poetry of the map and the charm of the territory, the magic of the concept and the charm of the real.” Simulation of the real has led to the disappearance of the real. How sad. Yet, here I am reminded of artists who now use mapping as a method in their art practices. Often, these “maps” occur on the Internet – a product that lends itself to simulation. But, these maps try to uncover what lies beneath the simulations.
Baudrillard’s discussion here is related to his discussion regarding terrorism in which images consume a real event due to the fascination with the image. Here he says that reality and fiction cannot be separated from one another – one depends on the other. In order to be fascinated by the attack, we have to be fascinated with the image. Thus, much in the same way that Disneyland is a tool to make us believe that simulations are real, the images of 9/11 are tools to fascinate us with the reality of the actual event and are a powerful tool, to be used by whomever controls them.
Zizek continues with the discussion of the image as spectacle in relationship to reality in Welcome to the Desert of the Real, a title taken from the film the Matrix where people only live simulated lives. She argues that the explosions were not a reality that broke apart our simulations, but rather that the images and simulations of 9/11 broke apart our reality. This is not to say that what happened wasn’t real, but the images and the spectacle “shattered” our realities. Her point that the images that we saw on 9/11 were in a sense sanitized relative to the images we see of other horrors in other countries was the most interesting. She says that, “the real horror happens there, not here.” The “there” is the realm of the Other in relation to Americans, and therefore somehow doesn’t matter so we can view the atrocities in other countries with more comfort than we would be able to view those occurring here.
Lyotard begins his second section titled "Delegitimation" with, “In contemporary society and culture...” He already said what is happening today is that we are reviving the legitimation of freedom, so I am a little confused by what he means by contemporary society and culture. Perhaps, this is a hypothetical or where he thinks we are headed. Maybe contemporary society and culture exist alongside of what is happening today ideologically speaking. In the contemporary, the grand narratives are no longer credible due to the techniques and technologies of the second half of the 20th c, which caused society to emphasize how we get somewhere rather than where we are going. The how is based on individual enjoyment of commodity culture. This arose from the rule of the legitimation of knowledge that says that knowledge has to legitimize itself in order to be true. However, the legitimation of knowledge with knowledge results in its ultimate suppression – the knowledge that came before is always undermined by the knowledge that comes after it. In this way knowledge appears to be pre-scientific or a vulgar (Clarke!!) narrative meant to exert control, as it exists in order to guide morality and spirituality. The result is delegitimation. Therefore, all that is left is what has already been established (although this is perceived as being untrue as well) because nothing new can be established. This reminds me of the postmodern as it applies to art in that the “original” as perceived by the modern is no longer possible (and perhaps never was).
Lyotard ends by saying that we are not doomed to becoming barbarians as long as we are mindful that we can only legitimate through linguistics and communication. Thus, we are “safe” as long as a discourse exists.
Yet, in his excerpt from “The Inhuman,” Lyotard refers to the pointlessness of discourse because we are all going to die along with our discourse anyway. But, we are in a sense still “safe” as long as we have our discourse because the discourse is a kind of simulation along with other forms of simulation that exist in order to keep a sense of chaos at bay – or barbaric behavior at bay – “for the benefit of humankind.”
In Baudrillard’s excerpt from Simulations he discusses the lack of “the real” based on the idea that all points of reference that we have to show us what is real, are in themselves unreal. His example is Disneyland. We believe that Disneyland is somehow imaginary in order to believe that the rest of the world is real, when the rest of the world is in fact a simulation. He believes that the children or childishness do not only exist in Disneyland, but are everywhere. This is also obscured by the existence of places like Disneyland because the perception is that these are the places where the childishness occurs – not in the “real” word. Before Baudrillard presents us with his notion of what Disneyland is for, he talks about maps. He says, “it is the difference which forms the poetry of the map and the charm of the territory, the magic of the concept and the charm of the real.” Simulation of the real has led to the disappearance of the real. How sad. Yet, here I am reminded of artists who now use mapping as a method in their art practices. Often, these “maps” occur on the Internet – a product that lends itself to simulation. But, these maps try to uncover what lies beneath the simulations.
Baudrillard’s discussion here is related to his discussion regarding terrorism in which images consume a real event due to the fascination with the image. Here he says that reality and fiction cannot be separated from one another – one depends on the other. In order to be fascinated by the attack, we have to be fascinated with the image. Thus, much in the same way that Disneyland is a tool to make us believe that simulations are real, the images of 9/11 are tools to fascinate us with the reality of the actual event and are a powerful tool, to be used by whomever controls them.
Zizek continues with the discussion of the image as spectacle in relationship to reality in Welcome to the Desert of the Real, a title taken from the film the Matrix where people only live simulated lives. She argues that the explosions were not a reality that broke apart our simulations, but rather that the images and simulations of 9/11 broke apart our reality. This is not to say that what happened wasn’t real, but the images and the spectacle “shattered” our realities. Her point that the images that we saw on 9/11 were in a sense sanitized relative to the images we see of other horrors in other countries was the most interesting. She says that, “the real horror happens there, not here.” The “there” is the realm of the Other in relation to Americans, and therefore somehow doesn’t matter so we can view the atrocities in other countries with more comfort than we would be able to view those occurring here.
The Paradox of Postmodernism
In doing the readings this week I’m reminded of my son who as a toddler was fascinated with butterflies. He caught them and tore them apart trying to discover what they were made of and how they worked. He was disappointed when he found no secrets and cried inconsolably when he was unable to put the pieces back together and make them fly again. On the one hand I am mourning for a world where humans believed they could communicate directly with nature and where there were simple overriding narratives that explained the world and one’s place and purpose within it. On the other hand, I think it is good for people previously left out of universal narratives to have a voice and for the underlying and unspoken assumptions behind those discourses to be exposed. I am just afraid that through the constant and unrelenting process of exposing, deconstructing and critiquing, exemplified by this week’s readings, that I’ll end up like my son, inconsolable if I am unable to mentally put the parts back together again and get on with life.
Lyotard tells us that the postmodern condition is one without an overriding narrative. There is no single story that makes sense of the value of knowledge throughout history, whether it is a political story of emancipation of the people through scientific knowledge, or a philosophical one where knowledge is an end in itself.
Baudrillard says we are so far from reality that we have created a hyperreality instead, a third level simulation in which any reference to “reality” has been replaced with signs. In “Theory for Art History,” Jae Emerling defines a 1st level simulacrum (an image or representation of something) as something that masks reality like Baroque art that valued artifice over realism. Second order simulacra appeared in the modern age of mass production. In postmodernity, 3rd level simulations appear that have no intrinsic or causal connection with what was previously considered to be reality. The simulacrum supercedes the real so that we live in a world of representations of representations (89). Baudrillard cites Disneyland as an example. Interestingly, although Disneyland is based on the founder’s memory of the small town of his childhood, Marcelina Missouri, Salvador Dali was actually important in its creation. It is a constructed space of social control meant to teach American values in which the past is presented as fantasy. Baudrillard goes so far as to say that Disneyland is the “real” America. Its presence conceals the fact that what is outside its gates is in fact a simulation and is not “real” at all.
Lyotard in “The Inhuman” presents us with a real event beyond human intervention, thought and control. The explosion of the sun would end life as we know it and would thus make all other discussions moot. So how do we deal with this eventuality? Do we ignore it and continue to live our human-centered lives of the mind and the body or do we plan for an unknowable and unforeseeable future in which the systems we have created allow “thought” to remain possible after a disaster that destroys humans?
Lyotard introduces the word sublation. “There is no sublation, no deferral if nothing survives” (222). Sublation means to destroy and to preserve. It unites something with its opposite. This term is instructive in understanding Derrida’s essay on “The Gift of Death.” Derrida introduces another unthinkable situation: that of a father, Abraham, who would sacrifice Isaac his irreplaceable and beloved son to God because he is asked to do so without explanation. He would do it keeping his intentions a secret to prove his absolute duty to God. Derrida describes is as an aporia, a paradox that unites binary opposites. In the instant that the act would occur, the boundary between love and hate dissolves. Abraham’s love for his son becomes hate allowing the act to occur although the character of love never wavers. The gift to God loses its reciprocity. Abraham expects nothing in return for this sacrifice. Duty, responsibility and human ethics are all transcended. Derrida ends by saying: ”An infanticide father who hides what he going to do from his son and his family without knowing why, what could be more abominable, what mystery… more frightful… vis-à-vis love, humanity, the family, or morality?” The paradox is how to act morally, ethically, responsibly, without self-interest in relation to the Other (here God) within a Hegelian and Kierkegaardian system. Perhaps it is an impossibility.
Baudrillard and Zizek discuss another unthinkable situation, the bombing of the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001. For Baudrillard it is the impact of the images of 9/11 that we retain. Although the destruction of the Twin Towers was unimaginable, that was not enough to make it “real.” Although it created havoc and destruction, Baudrillard sees it as a symbolic act. (Are we back to Lacan’s Real, Imaginary and Symbolic?) Its repercussions are that the distinction between the crime and crackdown has disappeared. He says the Western ideology of freedom has been replaced with police state globalization, law and order measures that the US and others are implementing, internalizing their own defeat in the name of security. He sees no remedy. The war on terrorism and conventional warfare are rhetorical rehashings of the past. Zizek calls the repetition of 9/11 images “jouissance” beyond the pleasure principle. The real has been emptied from these iconic symbols. We have seen them so many times before in movies. Your worst nightmare, envisioned through the cinema has come to pass in New York so we look to Hollywood (part of Althusser’s ISA, ideological state apparatus) to know how to deal with it. With 9/11 reality was not shattered by the image. Instead the image shattered our fiction of reality. Welcome to “The Matrix” and the desert of the real.
Lyotard tells us that the postmodern condition is one without an overriding narrative. There is no single story that makes sense of the value of knowledge throughout history, whether it is a political story of emancipation of the people through scientific knowledge, or a philosophical one where knowledge is an end in itself.
Baudrillard says we are so far from reality that we have created a hyperreality instead, a third level simulation in which any reference to “reality” has been replaced with signs. In “Theory for Art History,” Jae Emerling defines a 1st level simulacrum (an image or representation of something) as something that masks reality like Baroque art that valued artifice over realism. Second order simulacra appeared in the modern age of mass production. In postmodernity, 3rd level simulations appear that have no intrinsic or causal connection with what was previously considered to be reality. The simulacrum supercedes the real so that we live in a world of representations of representations (89). Baudrillard cites Disneyland as an example. Interestingly, although Disneyland is based on the founder’s memory of the small town of his childhood, Marcelina Missouri, Salvador Dali was actually important in its creation. It is a constructed space of social control meant to teach American values in which the past is presented as fantasy. Baudrillard goes so far as to say that Disneyland is the “real” America. Its presence conceals the fact that what is outside its gates is in fact a simulation and is not “real” at all.
Lyotard in “The Inhuman” presents us with a real event beyond human intervention, thought and control. The explosion of the sun would end life as we know it and would thus make all other discussions moot. So how do we deal with this eventuality? Do we ignore it and continue to live our human-centered lives of the mind and the body or do we plan for an unknowable and unforeseeable future in which the systems we have created allow “thought” to remain possible after a disaster that destroys humans?
Lyotard introduces the word sublation. “There is no sublation, no deferral if nothing survives” (222). Sublation means to destroy and to preserve. It unites something with its opposite. This term is instructive in understanding Derrida’s essay on “The Gift of Death.” Derrida introduces another unthinkable situation: that of a father, Abraham, who would sacrifice Isaac his irreplaceable and beloved son to God because he is asked to do so without explanation. He would do it keeping his intentions a secret to prove his absolute duty to God. Derrida describes is as an aporia, a paradox that unites binary opposites. In the instant that the act would occur, the boundary between love and hate dissolves. Abraham’s love for his son becomes hate allowing the act to occur although the character of love never wavers. The gift to God loses its reciprocity. Abraham expects nothing in return for this sacrifice. Duty, responsibility and human ethics are all transcended. Derrida ends by saying: ”An infanticide father who hides what he going to do from his son and his family without knowing why, what could be more abominable, what mystery… more frightful… vis-à-vis love, humanity, the family, or morality?” The paradox is how to act morally, ethically, responsibly, without self-interest in relation to the Other (here God) within a Hegelian and Kierkegaardian system. Perhaps it is an impossibility.
Baudrillard and Zizek discuss another unthinkable situation, the bombing of the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001. For Baudrillard it is the impact of the images of 9/11 that we retain. Although the destruction of the Twin Towers was unimaginable, that was not enough to make it “real.” Although it created havoc and destruction, Baudrillard sees it as a symbolic act. (Are we back to Lacan’s Real, Imaginary and Symbolic?) Its repercussions are that the distinction between the crime and crackdown has disappeared. He says the Western ideology of freedom has been replaced with police state globalization, law and order measures that the US and others are implementing, internalizing their own defeat in the name of security. He sees no remedy. The war on terrorism and conventional warfare are rhetorical rehashings of the past. Zizek calls the repetition of 9/11 images “jouissance” beyond the pleasure principle. The real has been emptied from these iconic symbols. We have seen them so many times before in movies. Your worst nightmare, envisioned through the cinema has come to pass in New York so we look to Hollywood (part of Althusser’s ISA, ideological state apparatus) to know how to deal with it. With 9/11 reality was not shattered by the image. Instead the image shattered our fiction of reality. Welcome to “The Matrix” and the desert of the real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)