Guy Debord, in ‘Society of the Spectacle’ assumes that life is “an immense accumulation of spectacles” (1967, p.6). Several other authors analyse this idea of ‘spectacular’ culture : the omnipresence of visual spectacles with Harry Jamieson in ‘Visual Communication : More than Meets the Eye’ (2007); how these spectacles are mediated with Jonathan Bignell in ‘Media Semiotics’ (1997); and our reactions to it with Charles R. Garoian and Yvonne M. Gaudelius in ‘Spectacle Pedagogy’ (2008).

Guy Debord describes society as invaded by spectacles which reveal the omnipresence of consumption and its domination on life. He claims that spectacle is “the present model of socially dominant life” (1967, p.7). Pseudo-reality dominates the real world of people’s environments. “Through illusion a world of make-believe or of pseudo-reality is open to manipulation when the media is one that centres upon vision”(Jamieson, 2007, p.13). The media’s presence has increased significantly: Jacques Séguéla, vice president of the famous worldwide communications group “Havas”, states that ten years ago people had 300 daily opportunities to be exposed to an advertisement. Today, it is more than 3,000. That means that our daily life is nowadays absolutely surrounded by spectacles.

20 years later, Guy Debord published a new book: ‘Comments on the Society of the Spectacle’. He analyses with hindsight how his first book ‘the Society of the Spectacle’ has evolved and if its theories can still be applied. The author realized that his idea is even more appropriate than when he wrote the previous book, and that the phenomenon of a society surrounded by spectacles has increased in a very interesting way: “the spectacle has thus continued to gather strength, that is, to spread to the furthest limits on all sides, while increasing its density in the centre. It has even learnt new defensive techniques, as powers under attack always do.” (Debord, 1988, p.4) Debord describes the spectacles as a scourge, an incurable and expanding terrible disease which grows year after year and that we cannot stop or erase. An essential question the spectacle itself is then asked: “what is it doing with this additional power? What point has it reached, that it had not reached previously?” (Debord, 1988, p.5) The easy-understandable progress of spectacles is the amazing evolution of media. Its development allows to the creators of spectacles to achieve more and more, in the aim of invading the spectator environment as much as possible the spectator environment. Technological progress is also considered, and this makes spectacles more various, impressive and realistic. Images, sounds, quality, diversity and quantity have become so much more emphasized in spectacles and there has been a corresponding reaction from people. The reaction is the acceptation. By being more used to the omnipresence of spectacles, spectators just finish by accepting them. If we consider the fact that they could become more difficult to attract, more difficult to impress because of the huge amount of competition, the truth is that they are also more ready to understand it. The more spectacles that exist, the more new ones can exist.

One of the answers to Debord’s question about the secret of the spectacles’ progress could be that “the most important change lies in the very continuity of the spectacle.” (Debord, 1988, p. 7) Spectacles affect us permanently, and this was not the case at the time that Guy Debord wrote ‘the Society of the Spectacle’ in 1967. He had been sufficiently aware of the evolution of his society to recognize that spectacles’ invasion kept increasing for twenty years. It is interesting to consider the situation twenty years later.

In 2009 the French graphics and animation studio H5 created “Logorama”, a short animated movie entirely made of logotypes. The landscapes, the characters, the actions are all composed of more than 2,500 well-known companies’ logos and mascots such as Michelin, McDonald or Haribo. It narrates a typical Hollywood action story with policemen chasing a dangerous armed trafficker who hijacks children, all of this happening under terrifying natural disasters in the city of Los Angeles.

The animation received many nominations and awards; one of them is the Oscar for the Best Animated Short in 2010 and Best Animated Short César 2011. It was written and directed by François Alaux, Hervé de Crécy and Ludovic Houplain, and produced by Autour de Minuit. The creators explain in an interview for “LeMonde.fr” their fascination with promotional products, advertising objects and the diversity of logos. “On peut se permettre de caricaturer le président, le pape, Mahomet. Par contre, un logo d'une marque, il n'y a pas plus protégé.” (“You can caricature the President, the Pope, Mahomet. But nothing is more protected than a brand’s logo.”) The three directors wanted to make this contemporary bold caricature of logos and Trademark laws. They did not even ask for the right to use them, because “brands would have refused”.

Through logos and brand’s mascots, we are surrounded by spectacles but we do not realise it. “Ca fait partie de notre environement mais on ne peut pas y toucher. On a voulu se réapproprier un univers qui est le notre mais sur lequel on a aucune prise.” (It takes part of our environment but we cannot touch it. We wanted to reappopriate a universe wich is ours but over which we do not have any grip.) (interview for étapes.fr, 2009). H5 transformed the usual promotional use of logos and mascots into characters and elements of the decor. They reversed situations, deceived spectators and suggested a very interesting new kind of spectacle by considering logos themselves as obvious spectacles. Logos, spectacles in our real world, became components of the real world. “The domination of society by ‘intangible things as well as tangible things’ [...] reaches its absolute fulfilment in the spectacle. Where the tangible world finds itself replaced by a selection of images which exists above it, and which at the same time has made itself recognized as the tangible par excellence…” (Debord, 1973).  “Logorama” is a very interesting example of a relation between ‘tangible’ and ‘intangible’ things : the latter (the logos) are more than just dominant in the tangible world; they actually replace it. Guy Debord wrote that the spectacle “is the heart of the unrealism of the real society”(1967, p. 7). This sentence could perfectly describe logorama’s spectacle. “It covers the entire surface of the world and bathes endlessly in its own glory.” (1967, p.9)

H5 created a pseudo-reality with impressive 3D scenes, using scenarios that had been seen previously and the usual elements constructing a normal environment, which combined to suggest an illusion of real life. “Logorama” invites the spectator to trust in the logos as part of reality, to see them as a reality; the use of illusion is how they achieve this aim. Harry Jamieson writes : “The issue of illusion is central to much of visual representation” (2007, p. 13). Spectators have to let themselves be convinced by the logos’ world which should not be difficult considering our ability to trust all the kinds of spectacles around us. With advertising, commercials, movies and new media, we  know exactly when our brains have to switch onto ‘imaginative and entertainment modes’. “Through illusion a world of make-believe or of pseudo-reality is open to manipulation when the media is one that centres upon vision” (page 13). The danger for communicators is how to keep attracting the audience’s attention; the world being saturated by all sorts of spectacles. The originality and the interest of this short animation is to offer a new kind of illusion through the use of logos and mascots.

Guy Debord explains, in Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, that “the spectacle’s domination has succeeded in raising a whole generation molded to its laws.” (Debord, 1988, p.14) ‘Logorama’ uses spectacles codes that some older generations will not be able to recognize; the creators belong to a spectacle generation, one of the first generation which has been raised with spectacles.

H5 has been aware of the unreality conveyed by logos in everyone’s daily life, and thought about the need to transform them, to give them a second life. Logos invade environments but do not stop there. According to Guy Debord : “The language of the spectacle consists of signs of the ruling production” (1967, p.7). If brands rule the world, their logotypes are the signs, language of the spectacle. They are not neutral; they actually mean things as signs. Logotypes and mascots usually represent a brand, and the first goal of a brand is to make money. Consequently these signs exist to advertise by identifying the brand and therefore making money. Logos are essential to a brand’s development, and full of connotations. The semiotics attached to them is so strong that taking them separately to group them together in order to set up a decor must have been a complicated operation. “Linguistic, visual and other kinds of signs are used not simply to denote something, but also to trigger a range of connotations attached to the signs” (Bignell, 1997, p.16). H5 diverts logos’ original significations and attributes new roles. Used to promote brands and sell products, they now match with characters, atmospheres and actions. Film directors proclaim: “On ne vend rien, on s’exprime”. (“We do not sell anything, we express ourselves.”) (2009, étapes.com)

The most interesting things in this animation are the approach of the creators and the impact that the final result must have on the audience. H5 members realised they were surrounded by spectacles, identified by logotypes and mascots. They understood the issue, the roles and the impact on people’s decor. They decided to select and pickaxe some elements from these spectacles, and then to create a new spectacle from them. They changed all the meanings of logos from their ‘previous lives’, but the approach is similar by offering a new spectacle to the audience.

The impact that “Logorama” has on the audience is multiple : they are first interested by the idea, impressed by the result and entertained by the story. H5 enhanced our “desires to be consumed by and in images.” (Garoian and Gaudelius, 2008, p. 25) It can arouse some awareness of logos’ importance in their environment, and this consciousness does not let them remain indifferent. “Logorama’s” creators claimed that, although they used emblems such as logos and mascots which are associated with consumption, they did not wish to imply criticism of capitalism. Nevertheless, this has been the unintended result – or a giant advertising.

As Christopher Lasch states in “The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing expectations” (1991, p.122) : “No part of life can remain immune from the invasion of spectacle”.

Logorama English Version : http://vimeo.com/10149605

Debord, G. (1967) Society of the Spectacle. Paris : Editions Buchet-Chastel

Garoian, C. R. and Gaudelius, Y. M. (2008) Spectacle Pedagogy. Albany : State University of New York Press

Bignell, J. (1997) Media Semiotics. Manchester : Manchester University Press

Jamieson, H. (2007) Visual Communication : More than Meets the Eye. Bristol : Intellect Books

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g34XVscFkIs (film written and directed by Guy Debord, based on his book : “Society of the Spectacle”)

http://www.h5.fr/ (website of H5)

http://www.etapes.com/interview/interview-h5-logorama (interview for “etapes”)

http://eco.rue89.com/2010/03/08/logorama-le-bibendum-de-michelin-decroche-loscar-malgre-lui-141887 (interview for LeMonde.fr)

Debord, G. (1967) Society of the Spectacle. Paris : Editions Buchet-Chastel 
- how the society is surrounded by spectacles.

Debord, G. (1988) Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. Paris : Editions Gérard Lébovici 
- comments on the Society of the Spectacle by the author himself. He analyses and comments the evolution of his idea, its truth and its meaning nowadays.

Garoian, C. R. and Gaudelius, Y. M. (2008) Spectacle Pedagogy. Albany : State University of New York Press
- analyses of people's reactions to the spectacles in the society.

Bignell, J. (1997) Media Semiotics. Manchester : Manchester University Press
-  ways spectacles are mediated.

Jamieson, H. (2007) Visual Communication : More than Meets the Eye. Bristol : Intellect Books
- the omnipresence of visual spectacles in our environments.

Known as « one response to the environmental crisis » (p.1), the term ‘sustainability’ is also defined as “inter- and intra- generational equity in the social, environmental, economic, moral and political spheres of society.”(p.1) Sustainability is an idea to describe the fact that we have to live in a way which provides our own needs but which can also provide the needs of future generations. The original concept aims to convey the idea that we have to organize this and to work on it together, in groups, but the statement shows that it has nowadays “largely fallen to the individual” (p.1).

Capitalism is the idea of producing goods in order to get money: not only an amount of money sufficient to pay back the costs of production, but big enough to add a surplus value and bring profit. Its main characteristic is that “capitalism is constantly expanding”, always “looking for new things to commodify.” (p.1) Erin Balser assumes that “Capitalism is not a simplistic linear system which subsumes singular items” (p.1) but it takes everything to commodify from the world around and consequently has a big impact on it. Capitalism is a “diverse web that is continuously expanding and trapping things.”(p.1) Its system does not work as a simple and logical development: it grows and evolves by crisis.

“In ‘Empire’, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri declare that ‘crisis indicate[s] a passage, which is the turning point in every systematic cycle of accumulation, from a first phase of material expansion (investment in production) to a second phase of financial expansion (including speculation)’ (238)” (p.1). The authors distinguish the ‘realization’ part and the ‘capitalization’ one. A good current example could be the Fairtrade market. Producing products in a ‘fair’ way is not a new concept: it has existed for ages in certain parts of the market. But when the second phase of capitalism’s crisis came, people decided to capitalize on it. Consumers were ready to spend more for fair causes, so Fairtrade products became a consumption tendency. This really happened in several stages because buying Fairtrade is a new idea for an old process of production, highlighted by current consumption.

To answer the sustainability question, Bio-Diesel is an example of an offered solution. Producing fuel by using vegetable and animal fat shows the possibility of providing today’s consumers’ needs in a clean way. The problem with Bio-Diesel is the actual cleanness of its process : deterioration of the social environment for the inhabitants of the Bio-Diesel’s production area, and its lack of use among consumers due to its expense. The two groups of people affected by these factors represent the poor communities, who are being further disadvantaged by those who capitalize on this ‘clean’ product.