J. Baudrillard: Ecstasy of communication

“The description of this whole intimate universe – projective, imaginary and symbolic still corresponded to the object’s status as mirror of the subject, and that in turn to the imaginary depths of the mirror and “scene” ”

“Certainly, this private universe was alienating to the extent that it separated you from others-or from the world, where it was invested as a protective enclosure, an imaginary protector, a defense system. But it also reaped the symbolic benefits of alienation, which is that the Other exists, and that otherness can fool you for the better or the worse …. We are no longer part of the drama of alienation, we live in the ecstasy of communication. ”

Baudrillard, Jean. “The Ecstacy of Communication.” The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodernist Culture. Ed. Hal Foster. Seattle: Bay P, 1983.

“There is nothing more mysterious than a TV set left on in an empty room. It is even stranger than a man talking to himself or a woman standing dreaming at her stove. It is as if another planet is communicating with you.”
― Jean Baudrillard, America
I like this quote because I feel it related well to my video piece at the end of second year. It flickered and flashed images of horror and was at it’s most interesting when left on in an empty gallery.




The previous work made me think about this work. This http://www.pogomix.net/contact/ artist remixes disney songs into dance music. I think it looks at why contemporary young adults are playing video games and participating in youth culture in some cases more than children. This extension of childhood in adults is an aspect to living in a fantasy virtual world. Within Second Life there are worlds which create child like fantasy. Within contemporary art these themes also emerge, comic book characters, fairytales and childrens fantasy with a perverse twist of the adult world. The way japanese manga and cartoon characters have also become part of the art world in recent years is also worth looking into.
Another point I have looked at is the idea that virtual worlds can include tasks and challenges. If real life challenges are becoming neglected to deal with virtual ones then what is the priority. The obvious choice would be reality but when virtual reality is being chosen regularly pehaps there is a reason. Why is virtually doing the washing up, creating artworks and feeding a virtual baby more important than actually doing these things. Have the virtual selves become more of a self than the real self. I would like to look at the idea of keeping my real house in check by the commands of the virtual world. When Sims tells me to talk to my husband or clean the shower then I will perform this task. Will this make my home part of the virtual world. Will I become more of a Sims character walking and talking in my own home.


Tell them you have anxiety problems, insomnia, but you aren’t depressed, almost like you have too many feelings and sometimes it makes you panic. That should get you some nice valium or something lol lol xxx

Found this statement in a conversation thread attached to this image. It has made me think about the application of real emotions, thoughts and feelings. Statements applying to these virtual worlds. In this image the statement questions how the viewer looks at the image. They look at the familiar in childhood and the complexities of a very adult response to drug taking and perceptions of self. I thought about removing the last sentance but feel that without it you don’t get the sense that it is a text message or statement made online. I am going to apply found statements like this to screen shots taken on Sims. I think Sims will work better than second life because the graphics are more childlike. It has also make me think about the authorship of these images. If I created the virtual world then am I the artist or is the computer programmer. Who is watching these. I also am thinking of creating the layout of my house in Sims along with the realities of my home. The broken things, the unclean things updating it as it happens to bridge the gap between reality and virtual.


I see myself there where I am not, in an unreal, virtual space that opens up behind the surface; I am over there, there where I am not, a sort of shadow that gives my own visibility to myself, that enables me to see myself there where I am absent:

heterotopias. I believe that between utopias and these quite other sites, these heterotopias, there might be a sort of mixed, joint experience, which would be the mirror. The mirror is, after all, a utopia, since it is a placeless place. In the mirror, I see myself there where I am not, in an unreal, virtual space that opens up behind the surface; I am over there, there where I am not, a sort of shadow that gives my own visibility to myself, that enables me to see myself there where I am absent: such is the utopia of the mirror. But it is also a heterotopia in so far as the mirror does exist in reality, where it exerts a sort of counteraction on the position that I occupy. From the standpoint of the mirror I discover my absence from the place where I am since I see myself over there. Starting from this gaze that is, as it were, directed toward me, from the ground of this virtual space that is on the other side of the glass, I come back toward myself; I begin again to direct my eyes toward myself and to reconstitute myself there where I am.

The space in which we live, which draws us out of ourselves, in which the erosion of our lived. Our time and our history occurs, the space that claws and gnaws at us, is also, in itself, a hetrogenous space.

This has made me think of Tracey Emin’s bed and the idea that it is in some ways a mirror, it is a real object but it does shape how you relate to it and how you see yourself. These virtual spaces appear to currently lack to gnawing and clawing in an asthetic way. Emotionally however they are becoming more like a home with people in them. Perhaps eventually the icons of facebook will become our living rooms.

In a still more concrete manner, the problem of siting or placement arises for mankind in terms of demography. This problem of the human site or living space is not simply that of knowing whether there will be enough space for men in the world -a problem that is certainly quite important – but also that of knowing what relations of propinquity, what type of storage, circulation, marking, and classification of human elements should be adopted in a given situation in order to achieve a given end. Our epoch is one in which space takes for us the form of relations among sites.

In any case I believe that the anxiety of our era has to do fundamentally with space, no doubt a great deal more than with time. Time probably appears to us only as one of the various distributive operations that are possible for the elements that are spread out in space,

Now, despite all the techniques for appropriating space, despite the whole network of knowledge that enables us to delimit or to formalize it, contemporary space is perhaps still not entirely desanctified (apparently unlike time, it would seem, which was detached from the sacred in the nineteenth century). To be sure a certain theoretical desanctification of space (the one signaled by Galileo’s work) has occurred, but we may still not have reached the point of a practical desanctification of space. And perhaps our life is still governed by a certain number of oppositions that remain inviolable, that our institutions and practices have not yet dared to break down. These are oppositions that we regard as simple givens: for example between private space and public space, between family space and social space, between cultural space and useful space, between the space of leisure and that of work. All these are still nurtured by the hidden presence of the sacred.

Michel Foucault. Of Other Spaces (1967), Heterotopias.
This text, entitled “Des Espace Autres,” and published by the French journal Architecture /Mouvement/ Continuité in October, 1984, was the basis of a lecture given by Michel Foucault in March 1967.

This has made me think about how other artists have been using space. How I might approach space when recreating my brothers flat virtually why there are rules about spaces what would happen if I changed his apartment. Or in the style of Sophie Calle what would happen if I examined his apartment. Where is the boundary for that kind of examination. What would happen if I changed it. Who’s apartment is it if I made it in virtual space. What are the rules for getting to know the space of someone else in a virtual world. I also understand the idea of an artist taking or removing objects a little more. I am wondering what would happen if I isolated my avatar self. Giving it only a computer as activity stopping it leaving a room virtually.