Date: 20 Oct 95 19:20:58 PDT
From: Ryan.Schram-AT-directory.Reed.EDU (Ryan Schram)
Subject: Re: Visuals (fwd)


I wish I had my JB to cite, but alas.

I think Flan's last post takes one on an interesting track towards the
simulacra. I believe JB skims this question, but I'd like to pose it again:
Where is the camera? That is, how does one view a simulacra? Or does the
simulacra view you? What is the "viewer's" position in relation to the
simulacra (and at this point I don't even know if I'm discussing the simulacra
or the simulation. Seduced, again.) Or how does the simul-ation-acra position
the viewer?

Viewing implies that representation can be discerned from the real. They are
always separate, and the representation naturally follows the real. This is
evaluated by a third position, the viewer. Presumably someone of adequate skill
to accomplish the feats of mind like finding the counterfeit. The simulacra
takes that responsibility away from the viewer. Flannon is right on when s/he
says:

[I]t inscribe[s] a flat surface across which each plain of existence 
(viewer, painting, and the world outside the window) maintains an 
identical mode of being?

The key concept for me here is "maintainence." The viewer does not rationally
judge which is real and which is fake. The simulacra sustains itself. It
incorporates a camera to create a martix of viewing which preserves its
superiority as a representation.

My question needs revision. It would be better to ask now: What is that which
once was the camera, its power usurped? (an odd way to put, to be sure.) The
simulacra sees/is seen by itself. How do we view it? Or do we even view it at
all? What's going on between me and Memorex? I think its an interesting
question to ask, given that our commodity culture is populated with
simulations.

This all sounds very Lacanian. Its good for me though, because I didn't
understand Seminar X until now, sort of.

Ciao,
Ryan

     ------------------