Hi Douy - apologies - I only just became aware of this...
So - my response to your proof of concept is to seek a bit of further clarification - so I'm just going to write what I think it is you're exploring.
So - the question seems to be ...
Do we need to worry about Virtual Realities (what we might call usefully the 'Baudrillardian anxiety' in which high-tech hyper-real simulations 'untether' the human race from its own reality to our sociological/psychological detriment) - or is the worry about VR simply another expression of our ambivalence towards technology and therefore can be challenged?
If so there are a number of possible structures/approaches...
There's the one where you look at the history of 'Hyperrealism in Cinema' as a body of evidence that speaks to our 'distrust' of realities that are 'too good to be true' or which are simulations; this might give you a Chapter 1 where you introduce Baudrillard's theory of simulation and simulacra in rich and historicised detail - and by that I mean you situate Baudrillard's ideas of hyperrealism within the broadest context of the idea of the simulacrum (which is an idea that predates Baudrillard's use of the term):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum
Your Chapter 2 could then look at 'The Simulacrum on Screen' - and look at how science-fiction etc has treated the idea of simulated realities etc. Chapter 3 could then look at contemporary examples of Virtual Reality 'in reality' and explore what people are saying about it, doing with it, and worrying about it. This final chapter could include its practical applications, but also what fine artists are doing with it, or what marketing/film companies are planning to do with it etc.
The sophisticated thing is to demonstrate that you're able to put the debate around virtual realities into its proper context - which will be much older than the technology we associate with it - hence starting your dissertation with a chapter that doesn't take Baudrillard's ideas to be the beginning of the debate, but rather another turn of an older, more established wheel.
Hi Douy - apologies - I only just became aware of this...
ReplyDeleteSo - my response to your proof of concept is to seek a bit of further clarification - so I'm just going to write what I think it is you're exploring.
So - the question seems to be ...
Do we need to worry about Virtual Realities (what we might call usefully the 'Baudrillardian anxiety' in which high-tech hyper-real simulations 'untether' the human race from its own reality to our sociological/psychological detriment) - or is the worry about VR simply another expression of our ambivalence towards technology and therefore can be challenged?
If so there are a number of possible structures/approaches...
There's the one where you look at the history of 'Hyperrealism in Cinema' as a body of evidence that speaks to our 'distrust' of realities that are 'too good to be true' or which are simulations; this might give you a Chapter 1 where you introduce Baudrillard's theory of simulation and simulacra in rich and historicised detail - and by that I mean you situate Baudrillard's ideas of hyperrealism within the broadest context of the idea of the simulacrum (which is an idea that predates Baudrillard's use of the term):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum
Your Chapter 2 could then look at 'The Simulacrum on Screen' - and look at how science-fiction etc has treated the idea of simulated realities etc. Chapter 3 could then look at contemporary examples of Virtual Reality 'in reality' and explore what people are saying about it, doing with it, and worrying about it. This final chapter could include its practical applications, but also what fine artists are doing with it, or what marketing/film companies are planning to do with it etc.
The sophisticated thing is to demonstrate that you're able to put the debate around virtual realities into its proper context - which will be much older than the technology we associate with it - hence starting your dissertation with a chapter that doesn't take Baudrillard's ideas to be the beginning of the debate, but rather another turn of an older, more established wheel.