Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 09:48:07 -0400
Subject: Re: art/capital
From: "Robert Janiga" <rjaniga-AT-yorku.ca>


>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.

Could this be expanded on?  It isn't clear that "contradiction" plays a role
(unless, I guess, you're an adherent to symbolic logic, or something) here. 
Sure, to say that a particular cultural artefact "copies" something that
doesn't even exist sounds bizarre.  But it seems to me that it points to the
circular predicaments of reason.  Secondly, take a dance track, say, from
the genre of acid jazz.  When Djs like Kruder and Dorfmeister mix various
musical genres from different decades, add in samples, and employ other
technological manipulations, how does one even begin to speak about
"originals"?  A particular track on their CD might pay homage and credit to
an artist (Depeche Mode, for instance), but is this a copy of something
original?  What are the specific conditions for originality?  Nonetheless,
it is a "copy" since it can be re-produced ad infinitum by major record
companies, as well as with CD burning technologies.

Robert