Looks

The Situationists were a radical movement active from the 1950’s to 1970’s. Fifty years on and their views, particular on the power of the image, still resonate. One could argue that due to technological advances what they had to say is even more pertinent now.

The core messages from the movement were delivered by the philosopher Guy Debord, in his 1967 book ‘The society of the Spectacle’. To set out, what at times may appear a willfully obscure ideology. Here is a Situationist quote:
Just as early industrial capitalism moved the focus of existence from being to having, post-industrial culture has moved that focus from having to appearing.
The shift to how we appear, indeed 'looks' as heavily curated, for pictures, but also through AI texts, dominates now far more than it did in the 1960’s. We increasingly live our lives, one could argue, through representations of it, rather than first-hand experience of it. The whole meta experiment of living a life almost completely in a computer-generated on-line world being one example.
Many may say, so what? The Situationist response to this is hinted at in the following quote.
The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation between people, mediated by images

Bear with me while I go on what may appear a short diversion to offer an example.
I was at a few festivals this summer, where you expect the grittiness of camping, seeing bands live, making use of sub-par bathroom facilities etc to be direct and visceral. Yet even here the ‘Spectacle’ was mediated. Crowds largely performed their crowd roles in the way bands performed their sets. The programme clearly used AI write-ups for bands that the programme editors hadn’t seen. The flags, even the ‘wacky’ ones, were largely based on, or directly stolen from, existing culturally-significant imagery. Everyone dutifully took selfies showing themselves in front of the structures set up with the purpose of people having selfie opportunities. In short, the festivals, and those taking part, were a step away from the direct experience. They were less about being and more about appearing to be. The ‘image’ remaining essential to how everyone chose to feel about the event and everyone there. The 'look' had become the experience. Attendees were performers and how they related to each other was on this basis. Actions were dictated by the situation and amplified by the array of mediated images expected at a festival.

The Situationist ideology, though it was never clearly and consistently articulated, did also side heavily on a version of nurture rather than nature. Take this quote –
You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid, monotonous work, chances are you\'ll end up boring, stupid and monotonous.
Situationists were appalled by the way work and indeed leisure was increasingly commodified into a set of limited activities.
Taking another leisure example, ‘wild swimming’. Two decades ago those who jumped into random outdoor watercourses were mostly oddball thrill seekers. Now clubs with all-on-one matching dry robes meet regularly at established swim spots in a way that is as far from ‘Wild’ as it is possible to get. There are endless media offerings setting out advice, kit and locations to try. Something niche and un-named became absorbed into a set of defined expectations, turbo-charged by the repeated images that doing the activity represents. Not an issue perhaps, even a way to increase accessibility to the outdoors?
The Situationists would likely ask: When ‘wild swimmers’ go swimming, are they feeling the cold water on their skin; the weeds, mud and rocks under their feet etc. Or are they just reveling in fitting an image, dominated by a spectacle, of health and adventure?

Last quick point. Why is it that advertisers rarely now tell us details of the product? Instead they present an image of a celebrity or perfect family, with the implication that we should look 'like them'. Is this not the power of the Spectacle controlling us?

So, to some philosophical questions.

1. Are second hand (metaphysical?) relationships to the world, and to others in it, as meaningful as directly experienced and/or unmediated encounters?

a) Do we think in images?
b) Are images reference points to aid thinking?
c) Do images dictate behavior and stop us thinking and acting for ourselves?

3. How much is the situation we are in defined for us rather than shaped by us?

This is a social event where we explore topics together. You don't need to be a philosophy expert, just ready to join in, and enjoy.