Brief musings on Baudrillard, Carvaggio and other things.

Lately, I have been slowly and randomly reading "Fragments" by Jean Baudrillard. (I can see eyes being rolled as I type this) Its basically a collection of random thoughts and observations by the late thinker on a variety of different subjects and issues. None of the thoughts are longer than a page so I sort of enjoy it because wherever I am I can break it out and read a few, think about them and go on my way. A good portion of what he writes is actually pretty funny. However, overall B. can be pretty irritating. He seemingly attempts to strike down the validity of every argument, thought or discourse on any subject within contemporary society. He tries to expose the absurdity of EVERYTHING which mostly lies in the semantics which issues and topics are discussed, presented, etc. While I am not well-read on post-modernism, it seems to be that he is very representative of this. If anything, I think B. is very much a product of the last 50 years or so. He seems not so much a thinker who provides insight to the modern world but rather observes and discovers the absurdities of it. (as if we didn't already know...thanks for the reminder Jean.)

However, to give him credit, I do enjoy reading these "fragments". They are often times funny even if I don't agree with him. In addition, his theories on the simulacra are interesting and I find a lot of what he says to actually be supportive or if anything, inspiring for my creative writing endeavors.

"Oxymorons: a glimmer of despair- an élan récessif-the non-praying mantis-virtual reality"

I like that last one. "virtual reality". I have become increasingly interested in the idea of of dual realities or alternate realities. This has been spawned by the increased technological advances of our society. Our generation is so "connected" to various forms of media. Internet, advertisement, cell phones take up so much of our lives and our time. It really hit me when upon reading about the reactions from Virginia Tech students after the massacre, so many of them explained their experience by referencing film or television.

"it was just like a movie....or t.v...."

When did this occur? When did our reference to reality become representations of our reality?(i.e. television, movies etc.) To further spark my fascination, the discovery of the website 2nd Life almost makes me dizzy. Here we have an entire world on the Internet, through telephone wires and receivers, it actually doesn't exist other than our computer screens, where people buy and sell land, have sex, make families, create businesses all with real currency. Yes, REAL currency. Baffling? It shouldn't be anymore. Its hard not to think what kind of field day Baudrillard would have with this one.

My tendency with all this was originally to reject it. To decry the death of a bike ride, a walk in the park, a real-life lap dance in replacement of a 2nd virtual world. However, there is no non-reality...no virtual reality. Rather, it is just as real as anything else. I will not disagree on the negative affects of social world, social interaction how such mediums of media(reality?) are causing. I predict in less than 20 years there will be a world filled with adults who are extremely socially inept because they grew up on this. However, I will not reject it but rather I want to observe it.

This brings me to literature.

The novelist Christa Wolf spent a part of her life under the DDR.(that's former east Germany not the video game...) Obviously, working as a writer under such oppressive circumstances was trying and many of her fellow artists fled to the west. However, there was a small group of artists who stuck around. Wolf explains(i believe in an essay accompanying her novel "Cassandra") that she and her fellow artist friends decided to stick around because they knew they were living through and amidst something terribly unique. And while in hopes of obtaining freedom of complete artistic expression they could of easily escaped to the west, they chose to stick around because they wanted to watch and be apart of this important period. To see what art and literature they produced under such circumstances. To watch it crumble. To be apart as not only an observer but as apart of it as well. I feel similar to the current state of not only the United States but of our ever speedy and technological world. As I get older of course it is my tendency to scoff and the new and to shake my head at the young. Of course, with an intense love for Europe,travel and a disgust with our corruptness I want to run away from this country. Nevertheless, I choose to stay, observe and try not to be so ready to reject or run away.

That being said, when I write I am not trying to create a simple reenactment of our lives, as if I am a scribe recording the daily movements and words of our somewhat mundane days for nothing more but what it is. Literature seems to be overrun with the need for a good story equipped with a moment of epiphany and a coming of age experience all in 300 pages or less. What about interesting, fascinating and bizarre content? I want to create a million different realities which run from the insane and unexplainable to the mundane and simplistic. That is our world and the people that exist in it.

Nevertheless, this is dangerous. There is a small desire in me to still constantly recognize the existence of an objective truth. Where does this exist in today's world? Have we obliterated it completely? Perhaps, my writing endeavors can best be summed up under an oxymoron: "surreal-realism". And there I am...left in a bloated pile of irony.

Finally, Caravaggio. I am also slowly and randomly reading a collection of essays by Robert Hughes called "Nothing, if not Critical". Hughes, who as far as I can tell is a pretty main stream critic of art. By which I mean to say, he doesn't really offer anything too new or edgy to say. Nevertheless, his opening essay about how money and the desire to own art has ruined the museum and the exhibit revealed some leftist leanings which i enjoyed. The book is broken up into time periods, in which Hughes gives a brief biographical run-down of important artists from those movements, why they are important and what he feels about him. The reason for me reading this book is an attempt to get a basic understanding of what I guess could be summed up as "the canon of western art". I recently read his essay on Caravaggio. I have never really been able to appreciate art too much before the 20th century. However, Caravaggio has always fascinated me. There is an intense realism in his art that is dark and scary and powerful. Hughes questions where Rembrandt would be if it were not for C. After reading about his crazy life and his importance, I only like him better. I feel that he is a good representation of a sort of realistic depictions that still are important today. He reveals his subjects in all their faults and mistakes and ugliness. I like this and always have. I can almost always appreciate a reminder of our finite existence and the scars that we receive along the way. Caravaggio is an example of art which acts as a good balance for me between looking forward and learning from the past.

(image: st. jerome by caravaggio)