000ooo000ooo 2/18

One idea that we talked about in class was the successive phases of images. Only one of these steps was seen by Baudrillard as a "good" phase. As an example Dr. Casey used a picture of an army vehicle that had been blown up and all of the soldiers who had been injured in the blast. I understand in the context of this war how seeing this image once in relation to the other images we often see can be understood as "reflecting reality". However, how many times can we see images like this before they no longer have a "realistic" effect on us? If we begin to get desensitized to this or view these things as just images and forget that they are actual people - as I think often happens with this type of picture - than we are not experiencing the "reality" of this situation at all. If this is true than I would ask, how can we get "honest" reporting and representations of the world? While I agree that the only way to fully understand a situation is to experience it, there has to be some other way for people to gain understanding. Eventually we all become used to hearing certain things and if we are going to follow the news closely than we are going to start seeing things happening over and over in the world. I agree with Baudrillard that there are varying levels of effectiveness and honesty within images, but I would challenge him to propose a new way of doing things that would be better. It is impossible to show all honest images all the time. Perhaps the problem is not with the representations but how consumers interpret them?
I would also like to add my thoughts to the question of: "Does reality outstrip fiction?"
Reality should outstrip fiction because it is real and actually happens and has direct effects on human beings. However, our culture has come to love fiction so much that we put it on a pedestal equal to reality and since fiction is often more aesthetically exciting, people prefer it.