This Blog is not taking place

It seems that the spectacle of this blog is already much more important than the reality of it....

People have been talking about it for a while. I've been talking about it for, oh, nearly a year.

And now, as it goes through a difficult birth (and premature - thanks Doug), it's already undergone a few christenings, changes of clothes and is having a pre-school identity crisis - defined by the spectacle of what others think it ought to be, before it has uttered it's first few words to become a reality.

So why these mixed metaphors? Well, I read with great sadness at the passing away of one my heroes last week - Jean Baudrillard. Controversial in his writing, he is perhaps most infamously known for his writings on the first Gulf War (it won't take place, it is not taking place, it did not take place) and essays on the twin towers 9/11, where he described the horrors as 'a fusion of history, symbolism and dark fantasy - the mother of all events'.

I'm not going to deconstruct his arguments, primarily as they have been examined beforehand by excellent scholars more qualified than I. However it seems strange to me that I picked up the 'Gulf War did not take place' only a few weeks ago, and he then goes and dies.

I had decided to re-read this book, not because of a particular interest in the Gulf War, but because recent thought on brands (e.g. Grant's view on brands as molecules of real, authentic ideas) seemingly goes against Baudrillard's central thought that the spectacle (i.e. people's perceptions, influenced by media commentary) is becoming more important than the reality (i.e. what is really going on).

[Ok - Baudrillard's argument on the Gulf War, was that it was entirely constructed through the media for the purposes of both the West and Sadaam; the 'war' was won before it started and did not involve proper conflict - so how could it be called a war?; and it took place mainly on CNN rather than in the Gulf]

So, in our 21st century, Internet-dominant, convergent world, Baudrillard is surely wrong. We are no longer at the mercy of what the behemoth media companies want to tell us about the world as spectacle. We can check out real-time live feeds and blogs for the 'reality' - as we have seen in blogs from the front line for the Iraqi 'war'.

But as Henry Jenkins has succinctly argued, our culture is necessarily an interplay between the large media players and those who wish to participate. And listening to Al Gore on the radio this morning, Current TV, (for all of it's 'democratic' intentions of participatory culture and user generated content), has a 'review panel' of people who decide what is interesting / acceptable for popular consumption. Democratic??

However, surely the best measure of what is interesting / acceptable / influential / authoritative on the Internet and in the blogosphere is the number of links / downloads and views. In other words, popularity.

Does popularity mean reality and truth???!

I think it is dangerous to be swept away by the fantasy that the democratization of the Internet has opened up reality for everyone and swept spectacle under the carpet.

The spectacle has pulled off its greatest trick (again) by convincing the world that it doesn't exist.

I hope Jean is smiling.