“Reified people proudly display the proofs of their intimacy with the commodity. Like the old religious fetishism, with its convulsionary raptures and miraculous cures, the fetishism of commodities generates its own moments of fervent exaltation. All this is useful for only one purpose: producing habitual submission.”

Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, p.33

My first question was what exactly is a ‘reified person’? “In Marxism reification is the thingification of social relations or of those involved in them, to the extent that the nature of social relationships is expressed by the relationships between traded objects,” I found that definition in Wikipedia, it made an impression on me once before and I wondered if it would shed light on what Debord might mean as a ‘reified person’.

Some possibilities perhaps:

1. a person who worships someone in the public eye turning them into an idol and collects all manner of idol memorabilia

2. a person who takes on the attributes of a worshipped idol in the projection of a personal identity

3. a person who expresses personal identity through the outward display of status brands

4. a teenager

5. each and every one of us in the Western World (I cannot speculate here on other cultures)

As I wrote the first three, I realised the fourth and fifth. Some of these possibilities present themselves through the work of Cathy Lomax and other artists in This ‘Me’ of Mine such as Annabel Dover and Kate Murdoch, though, in their work, not as idol worship but the simple expression of social relationships through objects or the exchange of objects. This idea of ‘reified people’ is implicit throughout my interview with Cathy Lomax, The Perfect Wrapper.

Jane Boyer: Your work often deals with pop idols (Sixteen Most Beautiful Men, Dead Filmstars) and iconic film imagery (Film Diary, The Count of Monte Cristo). Curiously though, it’s not pop culture which is your subject, but the fascination, escapism, hero-worship and fan-love we’ve all experienced. What fascinates you about our psychological propensity to fascination and ‘longing for something unobtainable’?

Cathy Lomax: I think that pop culture in general is just a wrapper for supplying the things that the market demands – i.e. what we want. These things do not change much; they are excitement, desire, escapism etc. So with this in mind I let myself lead the direction of my work by following what it is that I am drawn to. I do not like to think that I am in any kind of elevated position in my commentary on my subjects; I am in and amongst the subject matter. Looking deeper into what it is I am interested and fascinated by, it is apparent it is something that I do not actually want but rather that it is something I can think about and live out in my head – probably because this is the safest way to do it. This is what led me to the Film Diary as film for most people is the most intense way to experience other lives and worlds.

Read more of our interview here.

“The concept of ‘the spectacle’ interrelates and explains a wide range of seemingly unconnected phenomena. The apparent diversities and contrasts of the phenomena stem from the social organisation of appearances, whose essential nature must itself be recognised. Considered in its own terms, the spectacle is an affirmation of appearances and an identification of all human social life with appearances. But a critique that grasps the spectacle’s essential character reveals it to be a visible negation of life – a negation that has taken on a visible form.”[1]

Guy Debord from Society of the Spectacle

I didn’t have to delve far into Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle to find what I was hoping to find. This quote by Debord states the nature of the spectacle as an affirmation of ‘appearance’, while a critical look at spectacle reveals the spectacle to be a ‘negation of life’. This is the very essence of what Edd Pearman explores in his work. “Duality has a strong influence throughout my work, each work maintains a two-fold characteristic in its content i.e. Humour and horror, life and death, hope and despair.  All initially appear to embody one intention, yet possess in equal measure, opposite qualities,” says Edd.

Appearance is seductive – and deadly. Is that a hyperbolic statement for effect? Possibly, but think of all the little deaths you’ve experienced for the sake of appearance and you may find you agree with me.

Read more of our interview, False Together, for This ‘Me’ of Mine.

“It is undoubtedly continuity which defines the compossibility of each world; and if the real world is the best, this is to the extent that it presents a maximum of continuity in a maximum number of cases, in a maximum number of relations and distinctive points.”                                                      Gilles Deleuze

This quote by Deleuze is a very complex statement on a very natural state of continuity and it is a state we are becoming readily familiar with through social media communication. Simply put, at the centre of each ‘world’, which is each of us, is collected a series of things (perceptions, object, memories, experiences etc.) which expands in all directions colliding and mingling with other worlds, (everyone else). This mingling is compossibility and we are fast becoming experts in it without really realising it.

This statement also suggests that our perceptions now are being formed by more than direct sensory experiences but also by data input in a compossible world, a world we don’t actually experience first-hand, but by proxy through the experience of others. The trouble with this is we are easily fooled, as discussed in ‘How fake images change our memories and behaviour’ by Rose Eveleth for the BBC’s Future magazine.

In my interview with Sandra Crisp, Memory Surfaces, I asked her about the implications of Deleuze’s statement:

JB: “It is undoubtedly continuity which defines the compossibility of each world; and if the real world is the best, this is to the extent that it presents a maximum of continuity in a maximum number of cases, in a maximum number of relations and distinctive points.”[1] This quote by Gilles Deleuze from Difference and Repetition suggests it’s a collective consciousness in perception which allows us to comprehend our world, do you feel our digital age helps or hinders our sense of continuity (memory) and ultimately our sense of self when information appears and disappears so rapidly online?  Is it possible this rapid change in information thrusts us back into the ‘truth’ of physicality?

SC: What we have online at the moment is the continuous and rapid shift of information: Text, images, video and even entire web pages suddenly appearing then disappearing. Deletions with no warning – error 404 messages: ‘Page not Found’. Continual updates; all these create a sense of fragmentation and impermanence, and discontinuity. Printed books in the physical world are fixed and unchanging, we can rely on their information stability, each time we take them from the shelf they are the same as before. So this state of information transience is very much a modern phenomenon connected to the information age. In the past, a shift from oral to book cultures required people to process information differently; today many people now communicate and receive information via TV, radio, and Internet, electronic media rather than books. Therefore, I am not sure that any more ‘truth’ can be said to reside in the physical world than virtual, that this is any more contiguous. As with any new technology, it will change us and we need to learn how to use such new communication media wisely, to adapt to the apparent discontinuity, to interact with, and process the information bombarding us in meaningful ways. At the moment digital online communication is nascent, we are living in really interesting times where things are still developing. At the moment it may thrust us back into the continuity of the physical world but eventually in the future it may not.

You can find this exchange with Sandra in the full version of our interview, available in the This ‘Me’ of Mine companion book. Find out more about the book on our blogsite. Read our excerpted interview here.