Talk:Spectacle (critical theory)

message: In the legacy section this is said: 
"Andrew Hussey claims in his biography of Debord that the term spectacle began life not in a Marxist context, but was first borrowed from Nietzsche and his concept of the mass secret."
I can't find any information about this concept online. Is it more commonly known as something else? 128.250.5.246 (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche's mass secret? 

message: Removed clean-up tone label, as there are no reasons given here.KD Tries Again 18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: tag

message: the book itself (La Société du spectacle) is not in the references by choice? PedroCarvalho (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: As "Situationism" is widely held not to have existed, I suggest a renaming of this article. Spectacle (Situationist International) is unwieldy and misses the point. Spectacle (critical theory) or Spectacle (philosophy) seem more succinct and consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. Any other ideas? скоморохъ 00:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just over a year ago, Recuperation (situationism) was moved to Recuperation (sociology), which is, undoubtedly, an improvement, but still misses the mark somewhat.  It does, though, point toward the problem of naming, renaming, and categorizing Situationist ideas.  Lumping everything under "Situationism," though, makes the situation, if you will, worse.  "Critical theory," I would argue, is the best of the choices proffered, especially considering its continued use by Lyotard, Baudrillard, etc. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but isn't critical theory what Adorno, Habermas, Butler etc. do rather than what Vaneigem, Jorn, Debord etc. do? скоморохъ 02:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes... but, my take on the matter is that, though "critical theory" was a creation of the Frankfurt School, the term is now used to describe a wide array of Marxist and post-Marxist social, cultural, and literary criticism.  Indeed, though many would disagree with me, I would argue that Debord & Co. are closer to Adorno & Horkheimer than to Baudrillard and the postmodernists.  But, this may not be the place for that discussion.  The point is, critical theory may be the best term, not ideal, but the best we can come up with. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: How is Spectacle (Situationist International) unwieldy or missing the point? Rorysolomon (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming 

message: This article makes no sense.  What is the spectacle it's nominally about?  There's a lot of indirect references and handwavery but no actual definition. 164.55.254.106 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These secondary sources may be helpful in improving the article: What Debord can teach us about protest, Guy Debord predicted our distracted society. AV3000 (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second this. I come back to this article frequently to use as an example of absolute nonsense. I badly want to see it rewritten to be understandable, but I am in no way qualified to try. Liastnir (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What 

message: The third paragraph of the Marx and Lukács section departs from these foundations of the spectacle theory and regurgitates, almost word for word, a few sentences from the first chapter of Society of the Spectacle. Frenzyface (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd paragraph of Marx & Lukács