Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 10:09:35 +1000
From: Edwin Coleman <edwincoleman-AT-mail.bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: art/capital


Robert Janiga wrote

>I'm not sure the kind of "simulation" being discussed here actually
>simulates some tangible reality.  If I understand the contours of this
>discourse, it would seem that "simulation" is a Baudrillardian-inspired term
>dealing with copies that have no original.  "The real is not only what can
>be reproduced, but that which is always already reproduced: That is, the
>hyperreal ... which is entirely in simulation."  Computer graphics, then,
>have everything to do with simulation.  That is, if sign value is take into
>consideration, it could make sense to articulate that computer graphics do
>not refer, within a milieux of meaning, to anything except themselves (i.e.
>self-referential).  Again, Baudrillard argues that simulation "is the
>generation by models of a real without origin or reality."  Thus the
>"geometrical forms" mentioned, according to this understanding of
>simulation, are simply models without and use or exchange value.  Anyhow, is
>this how some of you have been understanding the term "simulation"?
>


I would question if one can "understand" simulation in this way : a 'copy
without an original' is a contradition in terms.
The only reason for caling Baudrillard's examples "copies" is to create
semiotic confusion.

edwin coleman