Baudrillard - Simulacra, Simulation and Reality
Zygmunt Bauman
In Simulacra and Simulation Baudrillard analyses what happens in a world that is ultimately denied all access to the real and in which only simulacra and simulation exists as a way of not only obscuring reality, but as a replacement of reality and as a determinate of reality. For Baudrillard, this is, in fact, the world in which we now live. He argues that simulations take over our relationship with real life, creating a hyperreality which is a copy that has no original or at least a completely severed relationship to something that if it did exist, certainly exists no more. This hyperreality happens when the difference between reality and representation collapses and we are no longer able to see an image as reflecting anything other than a symbolic trade of signifiers and layered referents that refer only to themselves.
Baudrillard also argues that the contemporary world is not dictated by reality but completely by simulation and simulacra. Simulation is different than a simple representation. A representation is our way of communicating and abstracting a “real” entity. Simulation, according to Baudrillard, is the negation of the “real” thing. A simulacrum does not represent a real thing, it only seeks to be exchanged with other simulacra and itself. Baudrillard states that, "simulation...stems from the...radical negation of the sign as value" (6, italics in original).
In the chapter "Precession of Simulacra" Baudrillard describes four orders of simulacra. The first in which reality is represented by the image (map represents territory). The second order of simulacra is one in which the distinction between reality and representation is blurred. The third order of simulacra is that of simulation that masks the absence of reality or even a connection to reality. The fourth order completely replaces the relationship between reality and representation and becomes pure simulation. According to Baudrillard, when it comes to postmodern simulation and simulacra, “It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real” (2). His point is that we have lost all ability to make sense of the distinction between nature and artifice. There is no longer such a thing as the "real" only simulations that have taken over for reality. Baudrillard claims that simulation is a "perfectly descriptive machine that offers all the signs of the real and short-circuits all its vicissitudes. Never again will the real have the chance to produce itself" (2). With these thoughts in mind, here are the four orders of simulacra explained in a little more detail. In the first order of simulacra, associated with the pre-modern period, the image is a clear counterfeit of the real. The image is recognized as just an illusion or a marker (sign) for the real. In the second order of simulacra, associated with the industrial revolution, the distinctions between the image and the representation begin to break down because of mass production and the proliferation of copies. This (re)production misrepresents and masks an underlying reality by imitating it so well, threatening to replace it (with photography or ideology), however, there is still a belief that one can still access the hidden fact of the real. In the third order of simulacra the absence of reality is obscured and it becomes unclear whether or not it even matters if there is a relationship to long lost truth or reality. In the fourth order of simulacra, which can be associated with the postmodern age, we are confronted with a precession of simulacra, that is, the representation precedes and determines the real. There is no longer any distinction between reality and its representation, there is only the simulacrum.
I feel like the concepts outlined above have a particular relevance to my ongoing analysis of the Woodward's development and Abbott & Cordova. As architecture, Woodward's II can be placed within the context of Baudrillard's four orders of simulacra. The building is a collection of self-referencing referents that imply a reality that does not exist, or at least has not existed for a very long time. You could also argue that it conceals the lack of reality, the reality of the neighbourhood and its residents. The architecture positions itself as maintaining the heritage traditions (non-existent) of the DTES, maintaining the connection to the original Woodward's through the stylistic and design choices employed in the wrought iron and stone and brick facades as well as the "storage"/presentation as artefact of the original roof-top "W" in a box in the outer courtyard of the complex. The complex has also co-opted the activist history (on panels in the windows of the stores and shops on all sides of the ground, retail level of the building) and contentious story of the site by incorporating these "realities" into the contemporary narrative surrounding the development of the site to include social housing, public art, an "inclusive" character and an edgy, cool, hip vibe for condo consumers. This is complete simulation. The simulation, as in the fourth order, is constructing the reality.
Abbott & Cordova itself can also be argued to be a simulacrum. The referents employed in the narrative of the image have a very tenuous relationship with the truth of the moment depicted. Again, the photographic image (representation) is preceding and altering (constructing) the reality of the situation. The method of production of the image is also very far removed down the symbolic chain from the original event. Every detail was recreated on a "set" meant to represent a space that presently exists. There seems to be a disconnect there that is worth exploring in greater detail. Can the hyper-focus and impossible clarity of the massive image be seen as a sign of the state of hyperreality that we, as Baudrillard claims, live in today. Abbott & Cordova attempts, according to Douglas, to foster a dialogue with history. The image attempts a conversation containing the history of activism, police violence, oppression/marginalisation of local residents and claims to question the role of public institutions and public space. This unstable dialogue masks at best, replaces at worst, the present truth and reality of continued state and institutional violence directed at the neighbourhood's most vulnerable, and prevalent, residents. The attempt of Abbott & Cordova to address these issues gives the developers/marketers of Woodward's II, as well as some of the condo owners, the impression that a different reality than the actual one exists. As I mentioned in the essay this fact functions as a way of allowing the developers/residents/marketers to feel as if they have fulfilled some social obligation. The inclusion of the "socially conscientious art" in the development functions as a point of pride as well as an apology.
Woodward's II masks and obscures the reality of the DTES. It even goes so far as to present and promote an alternate reality that is more comfortable for prospective new residents and consumers. It does this by obscuring the truth of the ongoing segregation, oppression and marginalisation of the people that have lived in the area for years as well as the ongoing gentrification of the neighbourhood. The development does so by positioning itself as a symbol of community, connection to the history of the DTES and as a space of inclusiveness all the while actually being none of those things.