The Conspiracy of Art

Having a financial crisis is merely a crack in time compared to the way money dominates what happens in a society which has exhausted other motivations. I find some support in an interview printed in The Conspiracy of Art (2005) where Jean Baudrillard is quoted as saying:Money is obscene,but it's not all the financialand banking scandals that bug me most.. . . What I find most degrading reallyare discourses.The discourses of justification,of repentance.The people who use these kindsof arguments are completely dishonorable.For instance they said some really stupidthings about what happened to the old folks,the deaths, the heat wave.In short, they alleged that people todayare living too long.The latest poll, meticulously orchestrated,topped it all. They found that a vast proportionof the elderly who died were mentally diminished.I found that truly disgraceful.Not only did they die because they lived too long,but they were declared mentally incompetent as well.So they weren't really human.People who say those things should be shot.What you get to read in the papers todaymakes your blood boil. (pp. 81-81).Fans of the movie Bowling for Columbine have already concluded that the main purpose of the media is to make blood boil so the leaders have the opportunity to keep building nuclear submarines. Spelling it out so it is all so clear can make culture seem like a high horse eating its way through hair.

A collection of essays and interviews, it’s late Baudrillard at his best (or worst, depending on how you feel about late Baudrillard). Personal favorites include “A Conjuration of Imbeciles”, “Art Between Utopia and Anticipation” and “Towards the Vanishing Point of Art”. His early writing on Pataphysics is also helpful to better understand his later works. You also get his thoughts on The Matrix, which are interesting too. In sum, an enjoyable read for those who like the late works of Baudrillard.

I love reading Baudrillard, he always puts me in a defiant mood. If you can somewhat relate to his work, this book won't disappoint you.Disclaimer: i'm a 'casual reader' of philosophy, i don't appreciate long treatises very much, partly because i find it very hard to follow textbooks on this subjects (philosophy and psychology) and partly because i really don't care that much to follow through the treatises at all. If you feel this describes your reading habits, then all the better, journey onward!

A must read for artists

Reviews are null.

I always thought that Baudrillard's ideas were interesting. I always thought that they were an interesting way to look at certain issues, a new lens of sorts. However, upon reading this book, I finally understood Baudrillard and as a result found his theory to be inane. Baudrillard makes a lot of sense before you really read the evidence (oh, wait he doesn't use evidence) or rather analysis he provides.The first problem that I found with the book is its utter lack of defining terms. If a reader has not read Simulations and Simulacra, then this book would be completely unaccessible. However, Baudrillard just throws terms around, seemingly knowing the definition himself, but withholding it from the reader. Words like 'event' come to mind. Actually 'null' is also strangely ambiguous in this book. The 1970s seemed to pass over Baudrillard and this was written as though post-structuralism never happened (was that an event). So what does this come down to? A lot of Baudrillard's criticism is then nothing more than a linguistic problem... He says that a certain thing happens as a result of art, but then that is just a word, an undefined floating signifier that leaves me, and probably will leave you, uncertain as to what is the worth of anything written.Another gripe that I have is the sequence of the articles and interviews. (Actually I think many of the interviews could have been left out entirely, since many interviews were nothing more than the interviewers massaging Baudrillard's late-inflated ego.) Some of the essays make absolutely no sense until later essays are read. It seems as though they were thrown together randomly or perhaps intentionally in the most incomprehensible way possible.At the end of the day, I thought Baudrillard was cool. I thought his ideas were interesting, but upon reading this book I really lost faith. It isn't that I think that Baudrillard's ideas are irrelevant to current discourses, but rather that the analysis he provides is often questionable and so against the laws of logic and rationality. His ideas are interesting if you take them and attempt to formulate them into your own worldview, but otherwise I can't say that this conspiracy of an assertion-fest is worth reading.

()forget baudrillard(f)orget baudrillard(fo)rget baudrillard(for)get baudrillard(forg)et baudrillard(forge)t baudrillard(forget) baudrillard(forget b)audrillard(forget ba)udrillard(forget bau)drillard(forget baud)rillard(forget baudr)illard(forget baudri)llard(forget baudril)lard(forget baudrill)ard(forget baudrilla)rd(forget baudrillar)d(forget baudrillard)(forget baudrillar)(forget baudrilla)(forget baudrill)(forget baudril)(forget baudri)(forget baudr)(forget baud)(forget bau)(forget ba)(forget b)(forget)(forge)(forg)(for)(fo)(f)()

It a good read, and gives the perspective of Jean Baudrillard on various topics. Its not a very heavy read and can be read any time, or even for browsing from any page. I would recommend this book.

Great value