Okay, I'll be honest. My mind feels like mushy Jell-O right now and I'm not sure of too much Baudrillard said in his article here. The Disneyland example, however, turned my previously liquid Jell-O into halfway solid Jell-O, partly refrigerated but not quite fully solid yet.
Here's what I think I understand: (And the only reason why I'm typing it all out, and not quite interpreting it all yet is because I'm hoping by writing it out, it will make more sense in my mind.)
1. A hyperreal isn't a representation, mimic, or opposite of the reality - it's more of a simulation of the reality... but it's different from it, because it's not the same. So, like a fake real. (I'm imaging the Matrix movies with this.)
2. In a hyperreal, the reality has been replaced with symbols and signs. Like if all of our stop signs were magically replaced with red octagons, we'd probably still stop at most busy intersections. (I also feel smart because I'm learning about symbols and signs in Culture and Communication right now, so I have a very remedial understanding of semiotics!)
3. There are phases which the symbols go through, which Baudrillard called the "precession of simulacra," where within each phase, the symbols get more and more "simulated." The order goes: faithful copy, perverted copy (we think it's a fake copy), pretends to be a faithful copy but really has no copy (first hidden simulation), everything is completely simulated.
So, right now, I'm trying to compare The Maxtrix (which I read was very influenced by Baudrillard's thought process) to the example of Disneyland. I can see the Matrix example very clear, the computer program world is the simulated world that people have lived in their whole lives and believe is real, and the world that is actually real, has become cumbersome and a complete wasteland. The real and the hyperreal are completely different - so different that they aren't even contrasts of each other, they are in fact two completely separate worlds. People however, don't realize that they aren't living in the "real" world. The hyperreal conceals that the real world is no longer the "real" world.
When I think of Disney, I think of how I know everything there is fake. Most of the buildings are merely cardboard cutouts and those cardboard cutouts aren't even to scale. They're cut and lined up to make us think that the world goes on forever, when in reality, it's only a few acres. What makes this a hyperreal, however, is the fact that Disney survives on the fact that it goes on as if those lies are real. They want us to think that we're in a dreamland, and life there is scripted and "roboticized", but of course, that script and those robots would never be admitted. (I think of the difference between Disney jungles where the animals are friendly and out in the open, compared to a real jungle, where if you were as close to an animal as Disney would suggest, you would have been dead for three minutes already.) Which leads us to question, are the animals real and tamed to the point that they're no longer a real representation of themselves, or are they completely robotic, which also isn't a proper representation of itself either. The point of it all isn't to have us question the differences though, it's to mindlessly believe that they fake lion is real. We're not supposed to know the difference.
The examples are now pretty solid in my mind, and of the info I think I know, I think I know fairly well. But I am looking forward to class tomorrow to solidify everything else Baudrillard said. The examples, solid. Baudrillard as a whole, still a little mushy.
