It is interesting to refer to the works of Beaudriard in order to get a grasp on this phenonemen of ‘ trophy hunting’ which takes place in the Southern countries of Africa. That is why I d prefer to conceptualize this sort phenonemen of ‘ hunting’ postmodern. Simply summarized, Beaudriard sees the post modern area as an age of ‘ hyper reality’ That is, images, idea’s, behaviour – aspects of society – have become simulacra. These aspects of society, daily life, do no longer refer to ‘ reality’ but they refer to other ‘ images’ or concepts, that do not have any connection to ‘ reality’ so far. Modernity could be defined by realism in representation. The ‘ image’ – idea, concept and so on – had a direct link to what was to be found in reality. A painting for instance, depicted the ‘ real’ as it was. Philosophy and art choosed the reflection of reality as it highest aim. Thus: the ‘ representation’ – in whatever form, art, theory or behaviour – was nothing more than having a reference in reality.
With the coming of modern media, television and video, this dramatically changed. Art nor philosophy found it necessary to reflect reality. With Any Warhol, for example, the art of reproduction had its birth. (also, Duchamp). In stead of referring to real, Warhol preferred to refer to images itself. The images itself depicting the real. In stead of painting a real person, Warhol only reproduced the image of that person. We all know the Marilyn Monroe series. This is what Beaudriard calles “ hyper reality.’ Paitings for instance are now only merely images that refer to other images in staed of referring to something that is real. This trend is not only restricted to art. It goes beyond that. Beadriard has seen it in the States. The author states that there is no America. It is hyperreal. As an example Beaudriard describes Disneyland. This is an imaginairy world that functions to make people believe it surroundings are ‘ real.’ It tries to bring imaganition and fiction to what people have to perceive as reality. It is a machine, a set of images to distract form reality and to let the visitor buy the reversion from fiction into real.
Dysneyland is a simulacra: it is an infantile world where adults act as the child in order to simulate the rael childhood. This simulation of behaviour extends. It is not only in Disneyland of course. It is everywhere in the post modern consumtion society, enhanced by the new media. The image has become more important than the real. And what impact has the image. McLuhan already saw that in the sixties and it is horrifying how right he was as we recall the attacks of 9/11. It was the power of the image and not so much the impact of a given specific reality. It is the image of the plain hitting the twin towers, the collapsing of the towers, that the terrorists were having in mind. By taking advantage of the by these terrorist so much despised Western new media, they knew how effective the image can be, thus orchestrating an image with a ‘ real’ impact. If one talks about terrorism, it is that particalar image that prevails.
As the referring to images, and thus, to hyperreality is becoming so ‘ normal’ , people don’t anymore see that reality has been replaced by simalacra. It therefore good to now and then deconstruct so called ‘ reality.’ Just like all aspects of society – politics, arts, media, warfare – are hyperreal, also leisure has, as we see in Dysneyland.
Since years the rich have their new toy, which is the leisure of “ pleasure hunt” – also know as ‘ trophy hunting’. For an amount of several ten-thousands of dollars the wealthy can book a ‘ package’ at a travel operator in South African countries, specialized in ‘ hunting’ The fact that we have to deal with a ‘ package’ implies this sort of hunting is ‘ canned.’ And that is what makes the hunt as hyperreal as Disneyland. The ‘ behaviour’ of ‘ hunting’ does not refer to modernist reality. By the action of ‘ hunting’ a representation of the image is at stake, not so much the ‘ hunting’. To make it even more to the point: it is the image of the hunt the ‘ hunter’ seeks for. Not so much the activity of hunting itself. Ergo: the hunter hunts for the image of hunting.
Hunting as tourism: taking pretty pictures. Trophy hunting does not refer to ‘ real’ hunting. It is just simulation. Just like Dysneyland it has to serve to let the hunter believe his surroundings and behaviour is ‘ real.’ It’s a a imaginary world, where adults simulate their ‘ masculinity’: they imagine being real hunters just like the ancestors were ages ago. By providing them that ‘ image’ the adult can for a moment experience the nearly virtual satisfaction of being a ‘ real man.’ Not being able to fulfil the role of the primitive hunter in real life, one seeks to replace the hunt for food in the supermarket by a simulation of ‘ real’ hunting.
Surprisingly or not, it is the narrow-minded ‘ hunter’ - simulating the ' primitive' - who needs a conformation that he is indeed a ‘ real’ man. Where other people find other ways to get such conformation, the ‘ hunter’ needs that image of the trophy. This image, once enlarged in portrait and in the middle of the livingroom in his suburbian house, will prove that we indeed have to do with a ‘ real’ man. But is it? Lets take a look how ‘ real’ the hunt is. The participans in the expedition contact the operator who, for special prices, offers several ‘ packages.’ If you are in a hurry, for example, and have only 3 days in mind for the ‘ hunt’ the tour operator will give you a nice deal. The operator gives you a 100 percent guarantee you will shoot 4 animals in these 3 days. So that, you are garanteed that you will finally have these images of yourself, posing with a dead bison, zebra or antelope.
That is at least already suspicious. Did the ancient hunter got full security that he will shoot 4 animals in 3 days? This is already a first clue how much this hunt is a simulacra. But, in order to make sure the hunter will get his 4 animals, these animals have to be ‘ delivered’ in controlled conditions. So, lets take a look at the ‘ hunting grounds.’ Its is a not too large territorium, maybe it is as large as a range. Here the hunter goes hunting. He hides in a prepared cabine (caviar and champain of course) and waist like a real hunter: when the animal arrives at the drinking pool. But in order to make sure the animal ‘ does arrive’ at that drinking pool - because the hunter has not time for all day waiting. There is sightseeing on the program next- ‘ fate’ is given a small help.
Perhaps a van should now arrive at the range, letting out a few targets, who are forced into the direction of the drinking pool. Now the real hunting can start. By the way, the animals are of course all tame. It is like playing soccer without a goal keeper. Then it is the moment what the hunter has paid for: shooting the scary animal. No shooting lessons have to be taken for this. If you pay well enough even your 5 old son can have the experience of shooting down the animal. The animal is that tame, that it will not even notice that some hunter is shooting at it. They use crossbows for that. Silent. If not succesfull, the instucter will help you a bit pointing at the animal.
And then it is the moment where you came for: the animal is finally, after many times trying, shot down on the ground: Photo time. After the ' preperation work' (' shooting the animal' ) now its time for the ' real' shootings: the shooting by the camera. Already imagining the reactions of family and friends once they see the image of this brave enterprise. After the photo shooting, there is still time left to hunt 3 more animals, before the range closes. Standard phantasies about the perfect image are already circuling in the minds of the hunters before they leave for Africa They have seen already other ‘ images’ of the trophies to purchase. Espcially hot are the animals with big horns, and of course the larger the animal the more imposing the ‘ photo.’ Fortunately elephants are protected…still..
The post modern consumption society has marketed the image of the trophy hunt perfectly well and it appeals to the narrow-minded man, who happends to be willing to pay. But in order to keep this hyperreality going on, producers of this sort of services need to find justifications that are based in the ‘ real’ And the ‘ real’ is post modern economics combined with a flavour of anti-modernist evolution theory. Whereas Darwin saw nature as the selection meachanism, nowadays consumer society takes over the role of natural selection.
Reports ‘ prove’ that the trophy hunt leads to better species. The selection is not done by nature, but by organisation. By breeding animals for the purpose of pleaseure hunt that is. A farmer breeds the zebra’s: the best product will be conserved whereas the less perfect examples are sold for the trophy hunt. In that way ‘the best species will survive’ just like the Darwian survival of the fittest. Yes, a breeder farmer is a noble man, because he ensures the survial of the species. Its only a question of selecting commodities. Animals that are produced for the hunt in the consumtion society is comparable to producing cars on a assembly line.
The ultimate justification is then not so surprising: what makes it more immoral than keeping chickens and cows in a production process to produce food? Not to forget: ‘ otherwise than chickens in a chickenfarm, the animals for hunt can walk free around until they get shot’ But there is indeed a difference. Whereas food is dictated by the laws of nature, trophy hunt is dictated by the laws of the market. This market itself is ruled by the need for simulation. Food is not. The market for simulation it self is again a product of the need to replace reality by the image. A need driven by a sense of lost of masculine identity in a world in which traditional roles are changing fast.
So, can we then conclude, that feminism and women emancipation is the cause of the popularity of this phenonem called ‘ trophy hunt.’? If Western women would still fulfil the role of housewife and stay near the kitchensink, would the process of natural selection in South Africa still prevail? That is, not getting destroyed by the rules of economical driven selection. It would be an interesting conclusion, but not quite acadamic. Is it then other forces keeping trophy hunt alive? Producers will argue, the trophy hunt is good for South African economy, because it brings tourism. In my perception, tourism is about seeing the real, and not about simulacra. I don’t like Disneyland either.
It is interesting to refer to the works of Beaudriard in order to get a grasp on this phenonemen of ‘ trophy hunting’ which takes place in the Southern countries of Africa. That is why I d prefer to conceptualize this sort phenonemen of ‘ hunting’ postmodern. Simply summarized, Beaudriard sees the post modern area as an age of ‘ hyper reality’ That is, images, idea’s, behaviour – aspects of society – have become simulacra. These aspects of society, daily life, do no longer refer to ‘ reality’ but they refer to other ‘ images’ or concepts, that do not have any connection to ‘ reality’ so far. Modernity could be defined by realism in representation. The ‘ image’ – idea, concept and so on – had a direct link to what was to be found in reality. A painting for instance, depicted the ‘ real’ as it was. Philosophy and art choosed the reflection of reality as it highest aim. Thus: the ‘ representation’ – in whatever form, art, theory or behaviour – was nothing more than having a reference in reality.
With the coming of modern media, television and video, this dramatically changed. Art nor philosophy found it necessary to reflect reality. With Any Warhol, for example, the art of reproduction had its birth. (also, Duchamp). In stead of referring to real, Warhol preferred to refer to images itself. The images itself depicting the real. In stead of painting a real person, Warhol only reproduced the image of that person. We all know the Marilyn Monroe series. This is what Beaudriard calles “ hyper reality.’ Paitings for instance are now only merely images that refer to other images in staed of referring to something that is real. This trend is not only restricted to art. It goes beyond that. Beadriard has seen it in the States. The author states that there is no America. It is hyperreal. As an example Beaudriard describes Disneyland. This is an imaginairy world that functions to make people believe it surroundings are ‘ real.’ It tries to bring imaganition and fiction to what people have to perceive as reality. It is a machine, a set of images to distract form reality and to let the visitor buy the reversion from fiction into real.
Dysneyland is a simulacra: it is an infantile world where adults act as the child in order to simulate the rael childhood. This simulation of behaviour extends. It is not only in Disneyland of course. It is everywhere in the post modern consumtion society, enhanced by the new media. The image has become more important than the real. And what impact has the image. McLuhan already saw that in the sixties and it is horrifying how right he was as we recall the attacks of 9/11. It was the power of the image and not so much the impact of a given specific reality. It is the image of the plain hitting the twin towers, the collapsing of the towers, that the terrorists were having in mind. By taking advantage of the by these terrorist so much despised Western new media, they knew how effective the image can be, thus orchestrating an image with a ‘ real’ impact. If one talks about terrorism, it is that particalar image that prevails.
As the referring to images, and thus, to hyperreality is becoming so ‘ normal’ , people don’t anymore see that reality has been replaced by simalacra. It therefore good to now and then deconstruct so called ‘ reality.’ Just like all aspects of society – politics, arts, media, warfare – are hyperreal, also leisure has, as we see in Dysneyland.
Since years the rich have their new toy, which is the leisure of “ pleasure hunt” – also know as ‘ trophy hunting’. For an amount of several ten-thousands of dollars the wealthy can book a ‘ package’ at a travel operator in South African countries, specialized in ‘ hunting’ The fact that we have to deal with a ‘ package’ implies this sort of hunting is ‘ canned.’ And that is what makes the hunt as hyperreal as Disneyland. The ‘ behaviour’ of ‘ hunting’ does not refer to modernist reality. By the action of ‘ hunting’ a representation of the image is at stake, not so much the ‘ hunting’. To make it even more to the point: it is the image of the hunt the ‘ hunter’ seeks for. Not so much the activity of hunting itself. Ergo: the hunter hunts for the image of hunting.
Hunting as tourism: taking pretty pictures. Trophy hunting does not refer to ‘ real’ hunting. It is just simulation. Just like Dysneyland it has to serve to let the hunter believe his surroundings and behaviour is ‘ real.’ It’s a a imaginary world, where adults simulate their ‘ masculinity’: they imagine being real hunters just like the ancestors were ages ago. By providing them that ‘ image’ the adult can for a moment experience the nearly virtual satisfaction of being a ‘ real man.’ Not being able to fulfil the role of the primitive hunter in real life, one seeks to replace the hunt for food in the supermarket by a simulation of ‘ real’ hunting.
Surprisingly or not, it is the narrow-minded ‘ hunter’ - simulating the ' primitive' - who needs a conformation that he is indeed a ‘ real’ man. Where other people find other ways to get such conformation, the ‘ hunter’ needs that image of the trophy. This image, once enlarged in portrait and in the middle of the livingroom in his suburbian house, will prove that we indeed have to do with a ‘ real’ man. But is it? Lets take a look how ‘ real’ the hunt is. The participans in the expedition contact the operator who, for special prices, offers several ‘ packages.’ If you are in a hurry, for example, and have only 3 days in mind for the ‘ hunt’ the tour operator will give you a nice deal. The operator gives you a 100 percent guarantee you will shoot 4 animals in these 3 days. So that, you are garanteed that you will finally have these images of yourself, posing with a dead bison, zebra or antelope.
That is at least already suspicious. Did the ancient hunter got full security that he will shoot 4 animals in 3 days? This is already a first clue how much this hunt is a simulacra. But, in order to make sure the hunter will get his 4 animals, these animals have to be ‘ delivered’ in controlled conditions. So, lets take a look at the ‘ hunting grounds.’ Its is a not too large territorium, maybe it is as large as a range. Here the hunter goes hunting. He hides in a prepared cabine (caviar and champain of course) and waist like a real hunter: when the animal arrives at the drinking pool. But in order to make sure the animal ‘ does arrive’ at that drinking pool - because the hunter has not time for all day waiting. There is sightseeing on the program next- ‘ fate’ is given a small help.
Perhaps a van should now arrive at the range, letting out a few targets, who are forced into the direction of the drinking pool. Now the real hunting can start. By the way, the animals are of course all tame. It is like playing soccer without a goal keeper. Then it is the moment what the hunter has paid for: shooting the scary animal. No shooting lessons have to be taken for this. If you pay well enough even your 5 old son can have the experience of shooting down the animal. The animal is that tame, that it will not even notice that some hunter is shooting at it. They use crossbows for that. Silent. If not succesfull, the instucter will help you a bit pointing at the animal.
And then it is the moment where you came for: the animal is finally, after many times trying, shot down on the ground: Photo time. After the ' preperation work' (' shooting the animal' ) now its time for the ' real' shootings: the shooting by the camera. Already imagining the reactions of family and friends once they see the image of this brave enterprise. After the photo shooting, there is still time left to hunt 3 more animals, before the range closes. Standard phantasies about the perfect image are already circuling in the minds of the hunters before they leave for Africa They have seen already other ‘ images’ of the trophies to purchase. Espcially hot are the animals with big horns, and of course the larger the animal the more imposing the ‘ photo.’ Fortunately elephants are protected…still..
The post modern consumption society has marketed the image of the trophy hunt perfectly well and it appeals to the narrow-minded man, who happends to be willing to pay. But in order to keep this hyperreality going on, producers of this sort of services need to find justifications that are based in the ‘ real’ And the ‘ real’ is post modern economics combined with a flavour of anti-modernist evolution theory. Whereas Darwin saw nature as the selection meachanism, nowadays consumer society takes over the role of natural selection.
Reports ‘ prove’ that the trophy hunt leads to better species. The selection is not done by nature, but by organisation. By breeding animals for the purpose of pleaseure hunt that is. A farmer breeds the zebra’s: the best product will be conserved whereas the less perfect examples are sold for the trophy hunt. In that way ‘the best species will survive’ just like the Darwian survival of the fittest. Yes, a breeder farmer is a noble man, because he ensures the survial of the species. Its only a question of selecting commodities. Animals that are produced for the hunt in the consumtion society is comparable to producing cars on a assembly line.
The ultimate justification is then not so surprising: what makes it more immoral than keeping chickens and cows in a production process to produce food? Not to forget: ‘ otherwise than chickens in a chickenfarm, the animals for hunt can walk free around until they get shot’ But there is indeed a difference. Whereas food is dictated by the laws of nature, trophy hunt is dictated by the laws of the market. This market itself is ruled by the need for simulation. Food is not. The market for simulation it self is again a product of the need to replace reality by the image. A need driven by a sense of lost of masculine identity in a world in which traditional roles are changing fast.
So, can we then conclude, that feminism and women emancipation is the cause of the popularity of this phenonem called ‘ trophy hunt.’? If Western women would still fulfil the role of housewife and stay near the kitchensink, would the process of natural selection in South Africa still prevail? That is, not getting destroyed by the rules of economical driven selection. It would be an interesting conclusion, but not quite acadamic. Is it then other forces keeping trophy hunt alive? Producers will argue, the trophy hunt is good for South African economy, because it brings tourism. In my perception, tourism is about seeing the real, and not about simulacra. I don’t like Disneyland either.
ger mennens