Within our society, the idea of situation and spectacle has been a phenomenon. It has slowly consumed our society to the point where we don’t even notice it anymore. In Debord’s reading, “The society of the Spectacle”, he states “The spectacle, understood in its totality, is simultaneously the result and the project of the existing mode of production. It is not a supplement to the real world, its added decoration.” Taking phones as an example, its understood that its main purpose is communication, but society has taken the concept of a phone to the extent that its a device that takes time from you and it’s a “decoration” for a person. Debord emphasizes heabily in his readings about how the idea of spectacle has consumed our society in a way that it became the “heart” of our society. Although, comparing a situation and a spectacle, a situation is understandable a collection of spectacles.

In Lucy Suchman’s reading, “Plans and Situated Actions”, she discusses the idea of human-computer interaction. “That is to say, machine operation becomes less a matter of pushing buttons or pulling levers with some physical result, and more a matter of specifying operations and assessing their effects through the use of a common language.” The advancement in technology has allowed humans to interact with their machines utilizing common language, and machines responding back with common language. These complexities within the machines can be beneficial to our society and yet very destructive. It has come to the point where humans rely so heavily on the interactions with the machines/computers, that they have become engulfed into them, similar to how a spectacle would.

These sets of readings offered an interesting approach to the notion of spectacle and its relationship to daily life. I found in Debord’s “Society of the spectacle”, his interpretation of spectacle is often accurate to what I see in society. Spectacle is used as a driving member to an illusion of everyday life. Society easily advertises so much and puts on a front that we lose a sense of ownership. “Judging a book by its cover” has become a norm. It’s interesting in this carried over to “Preliminary Problems in Constructing a Situation.” We often read society as a whole, but if its broken down to the individual, people often construct their own daily situations. People interpret and its all to an individuals benefit. I found that constructing a situation relates to the idea of an interaction between machine and man as seen in “From Plans and Situated Actions.” A computer is situation designed to benefit its user. The situation established by man influences the actions that are carried out day to day.

From the three articles, the words ‘situation’ and ‘spectacle’ proved to have a different dimension than its general use.In ‘preliminary problems in constructing as situation’ the author sees situations as a set of frames (process) where they can be collectively prepared and developed. In relation, a ‘spectacle’ is defined as a constructed false reality that may or may not show the real nature of a particular society.

Debora further explains that spectacle as an inaccessible actuality where people thrive to believe it to be the best of the reality. In his words “The spectacle reunites the separate,but reunites it as a separate” is an intriguing sentence. This proves that even though spectacle could have negative effects there might be a positive dimension that could achieve unity through separation.

Lucy Buchmann further elaborates about the implementation of situations in real world. she mentions about the difference between plans and situations. This could be related back to feedback in cybernetics. Where situations could be understood as feedback that needs to be addressed in order to reach an objective. Maybe our machines just need to be like the Trukese.

“Society of the Spectacle” – Guy Debord

In the essay “Society of the Spectacle”, Debord lays out a series of definitions, or statements in numerical order to describe what spectacle is. He states that spectacle is the “heart of unrealism of the real society”. Different forms of spectacle; propaganda, advertisements, or consumption of entertainment define what spectacle is in the “present model of socially dominant life”. I believe Debord’s statement to be true. Spectacle often is used as a veil or distraction from everyday life. This veil is used to cover up the fact that separation is the alpha and the omega of spectacle. Debord states “the institutionalization of the social division of labor, the formation of classes, had constructed a first sacred contemplation, the mythical order with which ever power covers itself from the beginning.

“Preliminary Problems in Constructing a Situation” – Guy Debord

In the article “Preliminary Problems in Constructing a Situation”, Debord finds interest in what he calls a “new reality” that is engendered by situationist constructions. He explains how each person must discover their own specific ambiances in or to fulfill themselves. Elements of these things could then be dynamized in or to construct situations. The idea that one person is the “director” of a situation is fairly interesting. The term director is used across a wide spectrum of professions, specifically movies. A person who directs a movie is responsible for constructing many situations. Many of these situations are fake, but are shot in a way that would make us believe that they were real.

“From Plans and Situated Actions” – Lucy Suchman

In the article “From Plans and Situated Actions”, Lucy Suchman describes the interaction between people and machines by stating that these “artifacts” are interactive. The shared understanding between the two implies that there is mutual intelligibility. The computer as an artifact is designed for a purpose. That purpose is for interaction with a user, where the computer reacts in real time to each users actions.

In ‘From Plans and Situated Actions’ Lucy Suchman is proposing us situated action which is about finding meanings in action and understanding the portrayal of those actions. To illustrate, she provocatively critiques the human and machine interaction and the lack of machine intelligence at times making poor gestures towards the user end of communication. The programs are thus being systems interacting with people but are not expert in functioning due to lack of self-governance and which at times need some kind of human input for better performance and interaction.

Lucy Suchman Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle is an essay which elaborates society in the realm of false reality. Spectacle revives the past in the human eye and lets the society live a tomorrow based on the representational images of the past. It is about materialism and advertising’s artificial dominance over the minds of people where consumerism sets its pace. Debord is trying to point out the fact that we humans are irrationally just working towards a certain system grown with the idea of consumerism holding to the clauses of past economy. Social relations are mediated and governed by mere products or commodities which aim for more of a modern capitalist state of living as he rightly points out ‘The spectacle is the other side of the money: it is the general abstract equivalent of all commodities.’ So as, Debord in ‘Preliminary problem in constructing a situation’ also is implying that time plays a major role in creation of situation as in spectacle. The fact that having the situation foreseen in mind when working on an objective which helps in being aware of the possible causes and consequences holds true.

In “Society of the Spectacle”, Guy Debord provides a rather emphatic commentary on the development of modern society, where he states, authentic social life has been replaced with merely its representation. “All that once was directly lived has become mere representation.” — Debord views the chronology of social life as, “the decline of being into having, and having into merely appearing.” As a result, he states, our social lives are being slowly but inevitably consumed by commodity. One would be hard-pressed to argue against Debord’s statements here. These themes are, in all likelihood, more relevant today than when first written nearly 50 years ago, and their relevance in our lives will only continue to strengthen. The logical question, then; now what? How can we break the cycle? Debord goes on to write;

“The spectacle is not a collection of images… it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.”

Debord urges the reader to wake up as spectator who has been drugged by spectacular images, and views the ‘construction of situations’ as the medium to do so. As architects, we have this ability, and perhaps even the responsibility to construct such a medium. Unfortunately such social obligations are frequently overshadowed by more immediate, and often commodity-driven, obligations.

—-

Debord goes on to describe the construction of situations in the subsequent text, “Preliminary Problems in Constructing a Situation” —  The concept is not about merely the creation of ambiance, but rather an integrated ensemble of behavior in time…a temporary field of activity favorable to our individual desires.

Pursuant to the omnipresent iPhone discussion (yet written 65 years before Apple began running our lives); “In our time functionalism (an inevitable expression of technological advance) is attempting to entirely eliminate play. The partisans of “industrial design” complain that their projects are spoiled by people’s playful tendencies. At the same time, industrial commerce crudely exploits these tendencies by diverting them to a demand for constant superficial renovation of utilitarian products.”

What Guy Debord wrote 40 years ago has hardly dated at all. Guy Debord’s theory is Marxism and it is a criticism of the contemporary capitalist society. This theory holds that market economy will finally become the eyeball economy. At that time, our society will turn into the society of spectacle through the social media. In the society of the spectacle, the vision is the most important communication tool. People no longer need to pursue the truth and they only need the simplest way of communication. Debord states that “The entire life of societies in which modern conditions of production reign announce itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.” He believes that in this type of society truth does not exist because people only pursue the apparent and superficial things. I think Debord actually has accurately described a social phenomenon of today’s society. For example, the Internet has turned everyone into a spectacle.

For the public, the eyes are a substitute for our mind. Vison is of great importance in society. Images are the most simple and direct way of human cognition. Spectacle society emphasizes the vision and it focuses on the city space and daily life. The purpose of the spectacle revolution is to destroy the spectacle in daily life and to make people’s life becomes a real life. That requires us to take the initiative to build a new life situation. Moreover, to construct the liberation of the individual living space and urban public space. In these strategies, the role of art is decisive.

Through the different views of human intelligence and directed action between Trukese and the European navigators, Suchman proposed the idea that all actions are situated actions in “Plans and Situated actions”. The difference in acting is favored by the culture and the European culture favors the abstract things. The view of action by the European navigation is reified in the design of intelligent machines. She further sets forth the views of human-computer interaction. Some researches want to clarify the differences between human conversation and computer use. For example: robustness, sensitivity to user expectation, resolve ambiguity about input from questions, limited knowledge of the domain.

From my perspective, the biggest challenge of human-computer is the human. People are complex but the computer is simple. Its functions are closely related to the people who have the ability of program. Interaction imposes the new idea that intelligibility of an artifact is not just a matter of the availability to the user of the designer’s intentions for the artifact, but of the intentions of the artifact itself. Obviously, the situated action is so important in the analysis of human-computer interaction. We need to know how people perceive the environment and what kind of emotion and intention people have. So as to help the computer apperceive the environment and understand the user’s intention and emotion. Therefore, computer could make a proper decision. Human-computer’s interface “intelligence” should not only has high cognitive intelligence, but also has high emotional intelligence. Apparently emotional communication is a complex process. It is not only influenced by time, places, environment, characters and experiences, but also has the expression, language, action or physical contact. In human-computer interaction, the computer needs to capture the key information and to detect the changes of people’s emotion. After that, it needs to respond quickly and makes adjustments.

Guy Debord creates a distinction in the societal timeline. A point in which humanity moved away from the authentic experience of social life to its representation. Images have supplanted genuine human interaction. Debord frames his argument through a Marxist lens where the wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails presents itself as immense accumulation of commodities. Advanced capitalism has pushed this further where the decline of being into having, and then having into merely appearing. Therefore, the actual function of an object has lost its prestige to the socially applied appearance of the object. Thus spectacle has created a cyclical model of consumption (“The spectacle is both the outcome and the goal of the dominant mode of production”), where the objects of consumption control the consumer. According to Debord the object of this fueled consumption is the social relationship between people that is mediated by images.

“It is not something added to the real world — not a decorative element, so to speak.” If the spectacle is explicitly linked to capital, yet is not added to the real world than it is something whose production alters our understanding of the real world, “-the spectacle epitomizes the prevailing model of social life.”

People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

                                                                                                                         -Banksy?

The Society of the Spectacle article by Debord carefully investigate the world ‘spectacle’. Debord states that the society of spectacle is a society of false reality. Since it is everywhere, anywhere we are- we are disconnected from the actuality, separated from the truth. The elements of the surrounding setting become the victim of spectacle and so the tools to reproduce it. As a result we tend to believe on this rendered image (of false reality) as the way the world is. Moreover author also states that it is not just a misinterpretation of the world but it has lead people building a world based on a logic of false reality. Who we are is determined by spectacle hence who we are becomes the product of spectacle – product of false reality.  Furthermore Debord adds that capitalism generates spectacle as its growth is dependent on spectacle – a world where demand would remain always greater than supply.

I can sense some relation of the text by Lucy Suchman with this reading. Here the world of spectacle is the other end on interaction: Human-false reality communication. Because of spectacle’s attractive nature we lose our grip over our planned and controlled actions, cognitive science and our actions get augmented in virtual reality meaning we behave in a strange way. Manipulation and diplomacy dominates our original behaviors. In our society, we are not connected to the product we make and to our work in a way that we are removed from its creation. More than just a situation, spectacle becomes a partner with asymmetry of goals and objectives. Because of the density of spectacle around us, it has made its way to intelligence. Spectacle as an artifact understands the actions of user rather manipulate them in order to render the image of being self-explanatory.

In the reading the “Preliminary Problems in Constructing a Situation”, Guy Debord explains a situation is a population or series of people or objects that behavior in a certain manner in time and a space. These temporal moments of situations have each participant understand their agendas or desires in the moment of time and space which in turn provides feedback or input into a large organizational system of the situation. To move the situation in this time-space environment, Devord states that there must be a leader and a subset of followers which in relation can not become permanent. These situations question reality in a way that theatre and cinema was able to explore in the past. This is similar to how Debord argues that architecture and our ability to construct environments has replaced religion and its interpretation of our natural and built world.

In a second Debord piece from the text “The Society of the Spectacle”, he speaks to the situation of a spectacle we oh he argues that life has turned into a reproduction through anonymous media sand mediums. This reproduction is defined as a spectacle which is a superficial image and deception of reality. The origin of the spectacle according to Debord is the loss of unity in the world or divisiveness. Spectacle is communication that reunites separated populations, but reunites hierarchy and division between said populations. Further Debord states, “Spectacle within society corresponds to a concrete manufacture of alienation” showing how separation unities society between reality and image to create a truth of falsehood in situations.

As a continuation of thought from the idea of the image in culture translated into a conceived notion of reality, Lucy Schman in the text “From Plans and Situated Actions” explains about “acting”. She states that acting in a situations environment is a learned ability. This ability varies and is designed for particular cultures and desires. For example she speaks about the analytical thinking of European society to Turkish culture. She desires Europeans as analytical and Turks as explorational. While the Europeans used maps to traverse new areas during the colonial period, Turks indiscriminately moved from one area to another. However, contemporary our society is joined together through globalization and merges these separations into a single mode of “acting”. Schman explains that while we act like the Turks we communicate in ways of the Europeans. Overall, she views situated actions as “circumstances of our actions are never fully anticipated and continuously change around us… Plans are best viewed as a weak resource for what is primarily ad hoc activity. Reconstructed in retrospect, plans systematically filter our precisely the particularity of detail that characterizes situated actions, in favor of those actions that can be been to accord with the plan.”