Comments on: Crimes of the Near Future: Baudrillard / Ballard http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:59:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anna Zannella http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/comment-page-1#comment-10726 Anna Zannella Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:02:11 +0000 http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/#comment-10726 This was going to be credible reading until I scrolled down and saw the Koons. This was going to be credible reading until I scrolled down and saw the Koons.

]]> By: Adrian http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/comment-page-1#comment-725 Adrian Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:22:03 +0000 http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/#comment-725 Transgression being boring, now of course social and sexual transgression that exploit others is replusive, and I would argue banal, but to use the word boring is far too passive word to use, and I would say far from Ballard's intention on the matter. Repulsive transgressive acts are anything but boring. Now what about positive transgression, people taking control of their essential power in how they live against authorities, external authority which can never take that last inch from you as the prison sequence in 'V for Vendetta' shows so beautifully. Transgression being boring, now of course social and sexual transgression that exploit others is replusive, and I would argue banal, but to use the word boring is far too passive word to use, and I would say far from Ballard’s intention on the matter. Repulsive transgressive acts are anything but boring. Now what about positive transgression, people taking control of their essential power in how they live against authorities, external authority which can never take that last inch from you as the prison sequence in ‘V for Vendetta’ shows so beautifully.

]]> By: Benjamin Noys http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/comment-page-1#comment-724 Benjamin Noys Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:59:36 +0000 http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/#comment-724 Dear Umberto, Thank you for your criticisms. I feel rather hurt that the piece should make "dull" reading, however I wanted to provide a close reading of the theoretical conjunction of Ballard / Baudrillard. In relation to the previous points on the comments thread I would argue, Rex Butler and Meaghan Morris excepted, that there has often been a failure to read Baudrillard at all. I'm glad you identified the key point of the article as regards transgression is boring. Obviously another article could have been establishing this via close reading; although I would say there is a close reading of JB (hence the "repetition" of negativity, transgression, alterity). Certainly I would concede the closing section would benefit from further development. I did revise it for this site but certainly I would like to say more about this. As for identifying a strategy for art, well aren't Ballard / Baudrillard artists? As well as conceptually inventive thinkers - the level I addressed their texts. I'd be interested to hear more on "good old hermeneutics" in this regard and I take some small crumbs of comfort from the fact that I encouraged a re-reading of Super-Cannes. Ben Dear Umberto,
Thank you for your criticisms. I feel rather hurt that the piece should make “dull” reading, however I wanted to provide a close reading of the theoretical conjunction of Ballard / Baudrillard. In relation to the previous points on the comments thread I would argue, Rex Butler and Meaghan Morris excepted, that there has often been a failure to read Baudrillard at all.
I’m glad you identified the key point of the article as regards transgression is boring. Obviously another article could have been establishing this via close reading; although I would say there is a close reading of JB (hence the “repetition” of negativity, transgression, alterity).
Certainly I would concede the closing section would benefit from further development. I did revise it for this site but certainly I would like to say more about this. As for identifying a strategy for art, well aren’t Ballard / Baudrillard artists? As well as conceptually inventive thinkers – the level I addressed their texts.
I’d be interested to hear more on “good old hermeneutics” in this regard and I take some small crumbs of comfort from the fact that I encouraged a re-reading of Super-Cannes.
Ben

]]> By: Umberto Rossi http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/comment-page-1#comment-723 Umberto Rossi Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:28:30 +0000 http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/#comment-723 It talks about Ballard and Baudrillard yet it is not stylistically persuading. The countless repetitions of "negativity", "alterity", and "transgression" make it a slightly dull reading. Not to mention the fact that it isn't a reading of Ballard fiction or some examples of it, but rather an example of theory... which is not philosophy, no criticism, no hermeneutics, but something in beteen (can one say "in among"?). We're in the same league of Luckhurst. I suspect Noys' real main aim of is to theorize a strategy for modern art, and he doesn't interpret Jean or Jim, he USES them to support his basic idea. What's it? Well, I'll quote his article: "The account that Baudrillard and Ballard give of simulated alterity suggests that transgression is not actually transgressive: it is rather that transgression is boring." Well said. That's the best part of the article. It's a pity he didn't use this to read both Jean and Jim, but rather used them both (but with no in-depth analysis or hermeneutical approach) to get to this. One cannot deny it's true. Transgression is now a deadly bore. It's something you often find in car advertising, and when something is in car advertisting it means it ain't transgressive anymore. What transgression can there be in a world whose aesthetics is based on the counterculture of the 1960s, be it its US or EU version? On the one hand you have transgression preached on the media, on the other you have the inhuman system of globalised economic transaction which is never transgressed (well, almost never) and which is quickly bringing humankind to extinction (let's be honest: there is a thanatoid drive in big business... and the drowned world isn't inhabitable, pace da Man). Look at this example of transgression and its neutralization. First you have two jet liners smashing against the Twin Towers (terrifying transgression!), then comes the invasion of Iraq so that Halliburton and other US corporations may grab some contracts and some oil (it doesn't matter if the operation wasn't successful: that what it was meant to be, so that the disruption of business could be quickly turned into business-as-usual...). So what? Well, transgression is boring. So Noys proposes "pushing through and completing the banality of transgression". He realizes that "this hyper-conformity can easily fall back into plain conformity"; but when he tries to explain of such a hyper conformity could be carried out without turning it into plain conformity he gets confused. Which means, as usual, that style and thought are not two different things, and that graceless writing often amounts to muddled thinking. However, it might be considered as a good starting point to discuss da Man, so that we can turn Noys upside down, and turn theory into good old hermeneutics... At least it made me read my copy of Super-Cannes... It talks about Ballard and Baudrillard yet it is not stylistically persuading. The countless repetitions of “negativity”, “alterity”, and “transgression” make it a slightly dull reading. Not to mention
the fact that it isn’t a reading of Ballard fiction or some examples of it, but rather an example of theory… which is not philosophy, no criticism, no hermeneutics, but something in beteen (can one say “in
among”?).

We’re in the same league of Luckhurst. I suspect Noys’ real main aim of is to theorize a strategy for modern art, and he
doesn’t interpret Jean or Jim, he USES them to support his basic
idea.

What’s it?

Well, I’ll quote his article:

“The account that Baudrillard and Ballard give of simulated alterity suggests that transgression is not actually transgressive: it is rather that transgression is boring.”

Well said. That’s the best part of the article. It’s a pity he didn’t use this to read both Jean and Jim, but rather used them both (but with no in-depth analysis or hermeneutical approach) to get to this.

One cannot deny it’s true. Transgression is now a deadly bore. It’s something you often find in car advertising, and when something is in car advertisting it means it ain’t transgressive anymore. What transgression can there be in a world whose aesthetics is based on the counterculture of the
1960s, be it its US or EU version? On the one hand you have transgression preached on the media, on the other you have the
inhuman system of globalised economic transaction which is never transgressed (well, almost never) and which is quickly bringing humankind to extinction (let’s be honest: there is a thanatoid drive in
big business… and the drowned world isn’t inhabitable, pace da Man).

Look at this example of transgression and its neutralization. First you have two jet liners smashing against the Twin Towers
(terrifying transgression!), then comes the invasion of Iraq so that Halliburton and other US corporations may grab some contracts and some oil (it doesn’t matter
if the operation wasn’t successful: that what it was meant to be, so that the disruption of business could be quickly turned into business-as-usual…).

So what? Well, transgression is boring. So Noys proposes “pushing through and completing the banality of transgression”. He realizes that “this hyper-conformity can easily fall back into plain conformity”;
but when he tries to explain of such a hyper conformity could be carried out without turning it into plain conformity he gets confused.

Which means, as usual, that style and thought are not two different things, and that graceless writing often amounts to muddled thinking.

However, it might be considered as a good starting point to discuss da Man, so that we can turn Noys upside down, and turn theory into good old hermeneutics…

At least it made me read my copy of Super-Cannes…

]]> By: FJ Torres http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/comment-page-1#comment-722 FJ Torres Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:04:01 +0000 http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/#comment-722 "There’s been a great raft of shit written about Baudrillard since his death..." Not to mention the tons of trash people wrote about Baudrillard when he was alive. Or all the rubbish said about Lyotard, Deleuze and Guattari both pre and post mortem. Such is the "intellectual" climate of our time. Oh well. “There’s been a great raft of shit written about Baudrillard since his death…”
Not to mention the tons of trash people wrote about Baudrillard when he was alive. Or all the rubbish said about Lyotard, Deleuze and Guattari both pre and post mortem.
Such is the “intellectual” climate of our time.
Oh well.

]]> By: Mountain*7 - a blog about music, books and culture http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/comment-page-1#comment-721 Mountain*7 - a blog about music, books and culture Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:24:47 +0000 http://www.ballardian.com/crimes-of-the-near-future-baudrillard-ballard/#comment-721 <strong>Baudrillard/Ballard...</strong> Jean Baudrillard There's been a great raft of shit written about Baudrillard since his death - similar in tone to the ridiculous snickering that went on after Derrida's death a couple of years back. Thankfully there's enough informed opinion ab... Baudrillard/Ballard…

Jean Baudrillard

There’s been a great raft of shit written about Baudrillard since his death – similar in tone to the ridiculous snickering that went on after Derrida’s death a couple of years back. Thankfully there’s enough informed opinion ab…

]]>