![]() Reader will encounter certain decoys, like the very hallmark of the era. Some elements will be intentionally omitted and the plan will have to remain rather unclear. Our unfortunate times thus compel me, once again, to write in a new way. Above all, I must take care not to give too much information to just anybody. I obviously cannot speak with complete freedom. For example, in introducing his 1988 amendment on the development of the spectacle, Debord forewarns his reader that, ![]() It is of little curiosity then why Debord’s writing has always proceeded with the caution and meticulous precision of a war strategist. Any chatter surrounding the work or its author, Guy Debord, bears uncoincidental pertinence to the book’s central protagonist – a society for which the public relations industry affirms a priori models of commensurable social discourse at odds with acccommodating perspectives decidely intent on its abolition. As a book whose reputation tends to eclipse its actual content, The Society of the Spectacle has always, since its original 1967 publication, bitterly contended with its interpreters and the society that its two hundred and twenty-one short theses diagnose. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |