Another concept pertinent to my research practice is the one of Appearance illustrated by Marxist Theorist Guy Debord.
In his book Society of the Spectacle is a critique of post-war capitalism that sits in a Marxist theoretical tradition. Debord makes this clear in the opening line of his manifesto stating:
“In Societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles” [3]
This phrasing is nodding at Marxes introduction in Das Kapital.
“The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities” [4]
Debord recognised that the systems had changed since the publishing of Das Kapital, arguing capitalism had “Produced a level of abundance sufficient to solve the initial problem of survival - but only in such a way that the same problem is continually being regenerated at a higher level” [3]. In its search of new markets, capitalism had simply redefined what surviving meant. A sort of augmented survival where consumers no longer ‘just want’, but consider consumption ‘necessary’ for their augmented survival. He's not talking about society needing to be content with food, shelter and water but the change from ‘wanting’ to ‘needing’ that this mode of production creates. Even though we may have a perfectly serviceable product that fulfils its function, the consumer is described by Debord to think he needs another ‘better’ one. [5] Function dislocated from aesthetics.
These ideas then expand in what shifts this basic Marxist critique of capitalism to something more significant. Debord argues that capitalism in his time of writing was bringing about a “shift from having to appearing” [3]. Rather than the ‘need’ for newness coming from a place of functi
on, we are guided by the thinking that it will improve our appearance. Basically, late capitalism has made the general intellect obsessed with appearances above all else.
Although this conceptualisation and critique of capitalism is amazing we must take it from an anti capitalist perspective and antiquated… he was a marxist after all. Let's remember the great atrocities of the Starlin and Lenin eras.
Modern advertising largely relies on this function of appearance, selling us not the idea that a product may be outdated and need be replaced, but as the social function it holds and the effect it may have on our appearance. Apple’s 2006 to 2009 advert “Get a Mac” [9] didn't try to sell us a technologically superior computer but the image and lifestyle of the respective brands. Coolness. Illustrated by the advertiser is a shorthand for the kind of people that use Mac as being creative, young and cool. If you also are seen with this product you will too be seen that way.
I'm interested in this, ‘need’ and it's dislocation from function and its marriage to appearance. Even more importantly this phenomena is an indispensable cog of the mass production machine. A production that force feeds the appetite of consumers and therefore creating waste.
Comments