woocommerce-shipping-per-product domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /var/www/staging.esse.ca/htdocs/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131complianz-gdpr domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /var/www/staging.esse.ca/htdocs/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131\u201cIn all of its particular manifestations\u200a\u2014\u200anews, propaganda, advertising, entertainment\u200a\u2014\u200athe spectacle is the model of the prevailing way of life. It is the omnipresent affirmation of the choices that have already been made in the sphere of production and in the consumption implied by that production.\u201d In 1967, when Guy Dubord wrote these words in The Society of the Spectacle<\/em>, it was difficult to imagine what proportions this \u201cmodel\u201d would take in the twenty-first century. Yet, although not everyone necessarily endorses Debord\u2019s idea that the spectacle is synonymous with alienation of the individual, an examination of its various forms in society today\u200a\u2014\u200aand particularly in the field of contemporary art, where the appeal of the spectacular is increasingly unrelenting\u200a\u2014\u200ais nevertheless relevant.<\/pre>\n\n\n\nIn preparation for putting together this issue (which, in fact, bears some similarities with No. 58, Extimit\u00e9 ou le d\u00e9sir de s\u2019exposer<\/em>, published in 2006), we explored the phenomenon of reality television, which has recently extended into the field of art\u200a\u2014\u200anotably with the American program Work of Art<\/em> and its Qu\u00e9bec version on this fall\u2019s TV schedule, Les contemporains<\/em>\u200a\u2014\u200aand the growing abundance of international art fairs, biennales, and \u201cblockbuster exhibitions,\u201d all with the goal, admitted or not, of expanding the audience for art. In an era in which proliferation itself abounds, with competing cultural offerings and multiplying means of communication, managing to stand out has become a huge accomplishment. In this environment, there is pressure in cultural fields to develop new strategies for promotion and dissemination. But at what price? Is the imperative of expanding publics and circulation (ratings, numbers of visitors and collectors, sales made, number of website visits, and so on) influencing artists\u2019 choices and orientations? For instance, were it not for the instant popularity of TV shows such as Work of Art<\/em>, the works produced during that series might not have justified an exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When it comes to publishing art criticism\u200a\u2014\u200aparticularly in newspapers and journals\u200a\u2014\u200athe spectacularization of culture and transformed expectations associated with new reading habits have led to changes in direction that, though sometimes obviously positive from the point of view of opening new markets, nevertheless create the risk of dumbing down content (articles shortened to \u201cfriendlier\u201d formats, taking inspiration from the model of mainstream magazines such as People<\/em>, more glamorous content, and so on). A categorical refusal to operate this way might lead ineluctably to isolation. Such deliberate isolation would no doubt affect critical discourse by encouraging prefabricated thought about art. And so the question arises, who actually controls art production? Do artists and presenters succumb too easily to market demand or to the desires of the masses or of publics more interested in entertainment? Will political leaders, with their priorities oriented toward productivity, success, and financial autonomy, win out over artists and organizations privileging more comprehensive, more conceptual, or less conventional analyses, risky art practices, and profound reflection?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although the leisure society is now a thing of the past (work having gradually regained its title as supreme value), the fact is that behaviours and tools initially linked to entertainment are now infiltrating all spheres of production and dissemination. In the name of communication and promotion, the use of social networks and the Internet 1.0 is now integrated into all cultural enterprises. These days, it\u2019s all about outreach. Given this perspective, could new modes of communication be envisaged as vectors of social emancipation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The spectacular in art could be the subject of many thematic issues, as it raises many questions. At this moment, we thought it would be a good idea to offer, among other things, a reinterpretation of The Society of the Spectacle <\/em>in view of current social and artistic debates, and to take a fresh look at new communications networks in the era of globalization. Thus, while reflecting on the utopia of the end of art announced by the Situationist International, we examine the potential that the spectacle might have to create social links and initiate mediation, especially in participatory practices and political projects. But in observing the different facets of the spectacular through the prism of a number of the artworks and analyses included in this issue, we must admit that not all positions are optimistic, and that criticism of the spectacle is still among the preoccupations of contemporary art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In our last issue, Michel F. C\u00f4t\u00e9 wrote his final Affaires de zouave.<\/em> He returns, in tandem with Catherine Lavoie-Marcus, for a new column, Schizes, <\/em>which presents an interview with a \u201cspecial guest\u201d (alive, dead, or fictional) related to our theme. In this issue, Guy Debord has been invited to give his comments on the Quartier des spectacles de Montr\u00e9al.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[Translated from the French by K\u00e4the Roth]<\/p>\n