Does the liminal simulacrum make the absurd feasible? This sounds rather grand but portrays the lack of significant grounded integrity in everyday life and indeed in the perception of performance/art has led me to investigate this dilemma. It has taken me 5 months (possibly longer) to come to the conclusion about the direction of the work. The ideas have been present, and indeed, raging through my head in a personal philosophical problem. The answer? I have no idea.
My starting point has been Murphy by Samuel Beckett. Beckett was, and is, considered an existentialist, but Murphy is a Cartesian character – although, this isn’t the direction I wanted to lead. Throughout the novel (Section Six especially) talk of the shift from the actual – the physical world – to the virtual world – the mental one. “Nothing ever has been, was or would be in the universe outside it but was already present as virtual, or actual, or virtual rising into actual, or actual falling into virtual, in the universe inside it.” (Beckett, S. Murphy, p. 63.).
Where does the boundaries exist between the virtual – in Beckett’s case, the mind – and the real? These are the questions that Baurdrillard asked throughout his career into the media culture. So can the novel, no longer, be only about the Descartes philosophy but merely the dualism that his philosophy proposed? This dualism is present in the hyper real, in a post-humanist manner. (Avatars provide a representation of the physical self, online, so it exists in the first order of simulacrum. It has also been well documented avatars have taken the world of fantasies where alter egos are exhibited for the world to see (Second and third orders of simulacrum). Albert Camus stated in his Myth of Sisyphus, “a man defines himself by his make-believe as well as by his sincere impulses” (p.18). The being has placed his attention in a world other than the one he inhabits; a philosophical suicide.) Have we begun to realise the dualism that Descartes talked about in this meditations through mediated technology? The dualism, in this instance, doesn’t necessarily occur towards the axiom of human existence but towards an existential existence of being – being-in-the-world. Does being-in-the-world mean suggest being in a virtual world?
Identity online in the past couple of years have exploded out of all proportion that the simulacrum of the physical reality is believed in the same respect as the virtual. Or maybe this should be the other way round; that the virtual is believed in the respect of the physical, however our need to communicate to the world that we exist is every more present. I do not exempt myself from this, only last night I posted the following on the micro-blogging site twitter:
@FrankenBeaumont Adam Bee
Feeling like I’m in Raskolnikov’s apartment (but slightly brighter) with similar prospects. #crime&punishment #dostoyevski
Why do I, among many millions, do this? By the fact you have accessed and read this has determined that you, also are included in this phenomenon and there is no getting away from the fact that we’re influenced by the ‘net community’ and its content. The BBC, New York Times, and Google have websites that promote content that claims to be factual but we have no way of accrediting it as fact. Journalists have been using Internet articles to ‘factualize’ their own article; in this instances facts are build on information, upon information, upon information, in short Chinese whispers. Events are built on the simulacrum of the report of the event, so where are the mind and the real defining towards one another?
The cybernetic world, has given ambiguity towards the growth to claims of disguise, to claims of truth. Baudrillard argued this through his orders of simulacrum, whereby the images move further from the real representation until the reference of the real is completely based upon the virtual and virtual references it has presented before. The virtual is compiled from the virtual, is compiled by the virtual. Where does it end?
This is what makes the absurd possible. Although Camus thought about what the absurd was prior to the direct infliction of technology and the media on the culture, the relevance has not been lost. The fast pace of contemporary life has meant that we are never leaving the liminal world Victor Turner and Arnold van Gennep discussed, staying within the transitional stage of the rite of passage. There are no fixed points of departure and there isn’t a destination to arrive at (other that what Camus, and I would argue is death) – thus living with the Absurd.
We present ourselves as an inauthentic being by living by this Cartesian habitation of the real and the virtual. Not only do we live in the Absurd but also we live as Sisyphus, immortal and no longer able to find purpose. Direction is placed in front of our screens, albeit ambiguously, towards a simulacrum of ambiguous definition of its own structure and purpose. We are absorbed in the cyber-media that we can no longer live without it. I am reminded of it daily with the influx of Smart phones, whereby Facebook, Twitter, Email and ‘tradition’ texts are able to convey events – sometime better than being there (Philip Auslander in Liveness, gives a great account of The Doors watching a performance of themselves on a variety show while performing in another concert) – in a manner that is utterly dependable.
Comments
In line with the third paragraph of this blog, I am commenting, about the nature of the absurd. It is common place for academics (I am not an academic, but felt this necessary) for The Myth of Sisyphus to be reread – there is nothing like a bit of absurd thinking to influence your practice and to gain a perspective of a larger picture.
The Actor. Camus suggests that he is an absurd character (or series of characters). It is argued, and I agree to a large extent, our character, our identity influence the actions that we carry out,what happens therefore with a performer that plays a multiple of characters from Shakespeare’s King Lear to Joe Orton’s Cauldfield in Funeral Games. Where does this leave the integrity of the actor themselves?
In the duration of the theatrical performance, a character’s life is in the temporality of said performance. One the performance as concluded the identity no longer exists. I am going to use the word ‘identity’ in replacement of character because the word character has associations fixed towards the fictional world of the event. Identity on the other hand is a term that has real world application to the construction of the character in the fictional work. Having said this one could assume that while one’s outside identity (identity of the actor) has dramatic influence of the fictional character. This is well assumed as we well know, audiences will visit a performance or event on the naming of particular celebrities that are appearing. David Tennant’s appearance in the title role of Hamlet
I am commenting after a meeting with a producer at Curve theatre, leicester and I have come away very much of the thought that she spoke of. I have had some time to reflect on the themes (and more importantly) the way that I am presenting them in the work itself. I am dealing with something that has a great deal of complex, intellectually, and never much in favour with the popular. I have to recognise this in the presentation; my thought of dealing with this was to concentrate on the concepts, instead I need to simplify the conceptual approach. I have come to this conclusion as I found it hard myself to describe what the project was about in the terms of ‘selling’ the project.
What do I really want to say in simple terms?
Am I wanting to show Murphy’s story? Am I wishing to concentrate on the technical overlay? The word, Narrative, was discussed a great deal in the meeting, is that the way to go – a quick response to this would be the post dramatic nature to the work shies away from narrative in the strict sense. Does this mean the frame, the concept of the work? Is it an interactive piece, do I show the film along side it, and what kind of things do I need in place to do this?
I have (all but) decided that I should devise 2 versions of the project. It is important that the concepts must be consistent between the two versions, however, the approaches have to change. I am close to production on the project. I am working with techniques, the scenic elements are in place but questions still arise in the devising process have to be considered.
A term that I have coined towards the project has been the liminal simulacrum. I have approached this as the theme that is pushing the project forward. Liminal Simulacrum describes the constantly changing images that begun to define the hyper-existence. Facebook and Twitter, I have already mentioned, are environment that we inhabit and have begun to define ourselves by. The social image that is presented as ourself changes as quick as the news feeds change on the home page. In the case of Twitter it can be second and likewise on Facebook new messages can be uploaded within minutes. Last week I was ask why had I deleted a friend from Facebook, and I felt obliged to answer in a very human way. “You were annoying me”, I said. I have chosen to allow only specific items of information into my domain. I therefore have adapted what I have got on Facebook into more of a Twitter account (of people I know). I have said to myself, ‘I am going to be this person online.’ A lot of followers or friends allow for a multitude of arenas to shows through.
In trying to adapt myself towards this mode of existing online, I have attempt to exist (as much as possible, in my own activity) to remove myself from a liminal simulacrum for of living. I have made a constant decision that my online presence is a chosen one.
I must explain what I mean by a liminal simulacrum is reflecting on the terms of Marvin Carlson, Arnold van Gennep and Jean Baurdillard. I have mentioned all three in previous blogs but the break down is quite simple. Liminality is seen as something quite important in anthropology when the form of ritual is key towards as development. The graduation of students is seen as very important in todays culture (this remains to be seen with the price hike of tutorial fees).
The process of moving from a undergraduate to a graduate is a ritual that hopefully all students go through. This will be the process of revising for the final exam, where they are still categorised as an undergraduate. They have not received their final results and can exit without a degree.
The final exam is a scary time for students but is a significant because is the start of a motion towards the graduate standpoint. “Pens down please” marks the completion of their final exam. They can be on longer seen as undergraduates because they have completed all the necessary requirements to be called a graduate. However the formal ceremony of graduating has yet to take place, the student is in limbo as to the finite classification of their social status. This is where the term Graduand becomes relevant: the period of time where the all necessary criteria has been completed and the ceremony has yet to take place.
The ceremony is a culturally significant event in the academic calendar. It is formal ritual that demonstrates the completion of study and the formal act of acknowledging that a certain level of academic achievement has been attained. After this process, the student is no more and has become a graduate and can be assured all the privileges that a graduate can have.
This process of liminal change is constant in a digital age. Is the change necessary significant? I would argue that this is not the case because to coin the Baudrillardian phrase, we live in a disappearing world of significance. Images present our existence and are important when histories are built. Baurdillard would argue that we have eradicated history with the instantaneous of constantly changing images. The meaning that we can apply to these has become next to nothing. This has been perpetuated by the online hyper-textuality of the Internet and cyber-culture. There is no time for things mature and develop to become important from a personal perspective. Are the things that are on Facebook really say who you are? Questionable.
Everything that I have done with this project has reinforced this constantly changing paradigm of defining oneself. My current question (after all this) is what is the significance of the chess game from Murphy?