I felt that DeBord was definitely trying to critique on the contemporary consumer culture and the quality of life. The world we live in are much more divided that united and the mass media has definitely been fuelling to this problem. He suggests that there is a deviation in life, in a society that is always consuming, material, knowledge etc, life does not seem to be about “living” but about “having”. Then, the “job” of spectacle imagery ; to convey these messages, the people’s needs and wants, and just the societal progress in general.
In the passage “the society of the spectacle”, I agree with Guy DeBord when he stated that “the spectacle subjects living human beings to its will to the extent that the economy has brought them under its sway.”. A spectacle is suppose to be a scene that is visually striking and impactful, in my opinion, for it to be effective, I believe it should depict or comment on the situation in society. When situations in current society are being brought to light, viewers will be able to relate to it easier. Thus this might ignite a fire of situation reconstruction, and causing a revolutionary uprise of the reordering of life.
Although Guy DeBord states that “the spectacle cannot be set in abstract opposition to concrete social activity”, I feel like, if possible, the spectacle further venture and the opposite of what the universe depicts because it can be used to deliver ideal reality we are seeking but yet to have. This way, the spectacle does not have to be just a still image that has been frozen in time, it can be timeless and overturned through revolution.