Spectacles

[Clarksist]

I'm reading Guy Debord's "Society of the Spectacle".

I'm reading and reading, and I realize I'm doing that reading where your eyes look over the words, but and you may be saying the words to yourself, but not actually thinking or compehending it.

So I read over and over. And the explanation of the "spectacle" is somewhat graspable, but I don't know if I have a true understanding of it. Before I continue I want to make sure I know exactly what it is. So if someone could clearly define it, I'd be much obliged. :)

Well... stop reading and start replying! :D

[Samuel]

Maybe its because I did not read the book, but your post isn't very easy to understand. Could you clarify your wordng for us?

EDIT: Spelling

[which doctor]

Well, situationist ideas really aren't that hard to grasp, they are just often rolled up in complex language that can sometimes make it look like a foreign langauge to you.

When I think of spectacles, I think of objects (both concrete and abstract) that give us some sort of entertainment or joy.

At least that's my definition of it, although I could be way off.

[Clarksist]

Well, situationist ideas really aren't that hard to grasp, they are just often rolled up in complex language that can sometimes make it look like a foreign langauge to you.

They have that quality about them, yes.

But some of their ideas are pretty fucken compelling.

Thanks for the explanation, btw.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 10:12 PM
But some of their ideas are pretty fucken compelling.
I am in love with sitautionist theory as well.

It's so artiulate and it describes such amazing ideas.

[Eleutherios]

Also, you have to remember that according to the situationists, there is no such thing as "situationism", which they deem as being a term made up by anti-situationists.