So, I just watched this guy talking about Baudrillard. After a few minutes in he begins to talk about B’s perspective on “signs,” that because of their prevalent usage they’ve confused the “real.” He gives an example of an Italian restaurant in the Lake District. Inside the restaurant is a large mural of Marlon Brando. And he then begins the exposition of this image in the idea of Baudrillard - that it’s a confusion because MB was an American who played an Italian in a movie. The usage of the mural then is picking up on the symbol, the fictional moment, rather than the actual, factual of him being an American etc. etc. and therefore not representing Italy in the slightest, in actualtiy.
But this seems like a lot of BS. This dialogue, this erroneous thinking and supposed confusion merely exists because of the presumtpions beforehand - the context, the framing. He thinks that we should think that because we’re in an Italian restaurant everything inside should be reminiscent of Italy. But, suppose that mural was merely a flower instead, a daffodil, would we even take a second glance? It’s just a daffodil, not an Italian daffodil, just a daffodil. It’s just decoration in a restaurant. However, one would of course raise an eyebrow if they were to see the Spanish flag in there, as the contrast would be greater…
So, basically, is there anything to all this stuff he’s saying about “signs” or is it all just in our presumptions?
Or is there any confusion at all in the Marlon Brando example? Taken as The Godfather he was Italian (Italian-American) and as such, that is sufficient enough for him to be representative of Italy…shit, the restaurant isn’t even Italian in that sense because it’s in England. Is it not an English restaurant merely serving Italian recipes…
Probably should’ve just watched porn…here’s the video anyway:
There’s not much to it, no. Some preconceptions, implicit bias and assumptions, as you allude to. These “philosophers” think everything that pops into their brain as some sort of contrast or potential for difference is fucking philosophical gold and truth itself. Pretty funny stuff, actually. Take a spin through the philosophy section of any bookstore and it’s always good for some laughs.
To be trapped within a narrow perspective fated to believe that the little pieces of reality one happens to see are THE reality, without recourse to anything greater or more objective/powerful… how unfortunate.
Baudrillard was merely saying that the things that you believe represent history cannot be any real history, if for no other reason, simply because everyone’s memory and reports are inherently corrupted. A fictional version of history becomes what everyone believes to be “real history”.
And in that regard, he was far more right then you will ever know.
There are plenty of restaurants that offer the (stereotypical/idealized) Italian experience (think Olive Garden). The interior design, background music, silverware, etc, may all be Italian, or idealized rustic Italian. For someone who has been to a real Italian or Mexican restaurant in Italy or Mexico, the difference may appear obvious. For someone who has not experienced the real thing, it may not matter that much and maybe the closest thing to the real thing that he may experience. For him, it may as well be real. Whether a person prefers idealized or real experience is another matter. I, for instance, always notice fake/plastic flowers in a restaurant, but that’s probably because I grew up with a belief that fake flowers are a sign of bad taste. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t give it much thought and would probably treat them as another piece of furniture (even while knowing that they are imitation of something they are not). Sometimes, though, the real is not wanted, or “good enough”. I will admit that I am not fond of real Italian food. Real Italian pizzas are too thin, doughy and chewy. The toppings are either scarce, or just pain weird. (I do believe Americans have perfected Italian pizza and American-Italian pizza is 1000X better than the real thing—so shoot me). Seafood is too small and tastes like burned rubber. Calzones are too sloppy and fall apart after first bite (same thing with Greek gyros). I have had numerous arguments with Italian food purists over this (the food is organic, real, rustic, etc.). Fine. It’s all that. In the end, though, I don’t think I particularly enjoy the ‘real’ Italian food that much. I would eat it if I’m hungry, but to exalt and complement it in public (something which I had to do) would be an exercise in hypocrisy. Maybe I am unable to appreciate the real thing like it’s supposed to be appreciated, or, who knows, maybe the “real” experience of a “real thing” as taught by others takes a more ‘refined’ and open mind (whatever that means). Maybe there is more to it. I don’t know. Maybe you have to have grown up in an Italian farm to really appreciate it. (and would Italians appreciate McDonalds the same way Americans do? What does eating a hamburger mean to them?)
A restaurant experience may not be all about food, it may have to do with an individual aesthetic experience. Some people may want to relieve past experiences (like in the Ratatouille scene where critic samples Remy’s food), and then, maybe other (environmental) variables may come into play that cannot be recreated easily.
I see this in tourism also: do tourists see local attractions the same way as locals? Does a Statue of Liberty symbolize the same idea to, say, a Bangladeshi, as to an American?
Brando had a role in Last tango in Paris, where he appeared much more jaded, and he was nailed into the framework of the older American typed into awareness of the ecstasy of the moment which Maria Schneider so soon reminded him as the dawn came i For Baudrillard’s, signs point toward the sacred. The reduced content of which becoming immaterial, the bracketed pictures always salvageing. What little is left in the old nagle. It was a bitter pill to swallow for brando, the black leather forrunner of easy rider. And also for Maria, whose intelligence,a skin deep hereditary charm, devalued her uniqueness.
In the sense that he’s an idiot with what are evidently idiotic students. You may have noticed that he said almost nothing in that video. Except that his students don’t know the difference between an actor and a role. He also has only a superficial understanding of humor, which is not surprising, I guess, given that he is British.
Yes, I guess, but it was this prof who asked his own students about Marlon Brando. Of course, we have to take his word that he is retelling the story accurately.
He claims that the picture, the portrait, is a symbol of the “italinan-ness” of the restaurant. Would it be if the cuisine served was Polish or Chinese? I don’t think he understands Baudrillard at all, and I guess I’m not surprised then that his students don’t. Like others of his ilk, B has a point, which he takes waaaaay too seriously, as he clearly does himself.
This is what I meant myself. That its the context moreso than the sign (Brando mural) that’s defining how one interprets it. The context raises expectations, to a degree. Like questionable post-modern art in an art gallery. Why’s it art? It’s in a gallery.
However, there is a certain legitimacy in the context having a say in what something is. One would raise an eyebrow if they were dining in a Chinese restaurant and it had Japanese flags scattered about the place. It would be a contradiction. There’s a gradient of acceptable images and Brando (as the Godfather) is an acceptable one of Italian-ness, for some…but I’m sure a few Italians object to being personified by gangsters on such a regular basis.
To be fair, he does suggest a bit of obscurantism on B’s part at the end of the interview and I don’t believe he’s advocating the ideas at all.
I just don’t see how it does. I have been to a local italian joint that has a mural depicting many italo-american celebrities. It didn’t affect my expectations at all. I’m not sure why it would.
The Japanese flags might give rise to questions, but I’m not sure I’d elevate it to the level of contradiction. There are chinese restaurants all over the world, presumably some in japan, although I do not know that. My favorite local chinese joint is owned by a nice couple from Albany. If they had a picture of downtown Albany in their place, I might ask why - in fact, when they first opened, being from Albany, they didn’t have french fries on the menu, or lobster sauce without the shrimp, which you have to have where I live. I advised them that they needed to do that. They adapted and included these items on the menu. There are different styles of chinese-american food. There must be a japanese style.
I’m not claiming that this guy agrees with B - I am saying that, by the evidence presented, he’s not a very good teacher. That may not be the case - maybe’s he’s just a lousy interview.
I meant expectations in the sense of what you would expect to find in the restaurant, decor for example. So, the italian-american celebrities would be perfectly consistent with the italian restaurant. Whereas, an image of Jackie Chan might be more questionable, as the link between the two (the mural and the restaurant) would be more strenuous. But not a big deal either.
No, it’s not. I don’t think that a restauranteur’s decorating tastes are a good barometer of how we experience reality in any important way. Mountains and molehills…
I mostly agree, although I do think the aesthetics of a place do affect the experience one has there. For instance, I’ve been to restaurants that have been fantastically decorated and as a result my experience there was much better for it.
But then the same can’t be said for other examples. Some post-modern art that’s exhibited in a gallery is in itself indistinguishable from stuff lying on the street, literally, which to me, suggests that its the being-in-the-gallery, that is making the art “art”.
Sure. But was the food more “authentic” for it? Did you seriously take the decor as an influence on how you perceived reality as a whole?
This goes back to Duchamp, who was more of a politician, or critic, than an artist.
Politicians have forever been masquerading as artists or philosophers. What makes post-modernists of all kinds offensive is not that they do this, it’s that they do it with such hypocrisy.
In Lady descending the stairs there is an allusion of expectancy, a breaking down of the continuum of movement into the different aspects of signification. Although the usual association is an upward movement, so a contrary effect is attempted.
Expectations are usually heightened by having nice pictures on the wall of a restaurant, to me some magical way, the food tastes better. But this is an illusion.
The food is probably the same, but the pictures have signs written all over them meaning the restaurantor expects to make more money by this placing the picture above the table.
So Baudrillard may be more of an economist. He realizes the limited value of his oft repeated meal, so he thinks it makes a difference by putting the picture up.
Decamp's is not the politician, he is more of a psychologist, and Baudrillard being more of a politician then a teacher? Has he succeeded. To exempt himself from the context? Could he enjoy the meal regardless of the context? Has his descent been overcome? (In the Nietzchean sense).
That's a very good question. Just weighing in.