What do you think?
Rate this book
Πανηγυρικός
"Σ' όλη μου τη ζωή δεν είδα παρά καιρούς ταραγμένους, οξύτατους σπαραγμούς μέσα στην κοινωνία και τεράστιες καταστροφές· συμμετείχα στις ταραχές αυτές. . . Θα σας πω όσα αγάπησα, κι όλα τα υπόλοιπα θ' αναδειχθούν κάτω απ' αυτό το φως και θα γίνουν επαρκώς κατανοητά. . . Δεν προτίθεμαι διόλου ν' αποκρύψω τα ίχνη αυτής της ζωής τα οποία γνωρίζω πως είναι παραδειγματικά. . . Ο τόνος αυτού του κειμένου θ' αποτελεί από μόνος του μια επαρκή εγγύηση, αφού όλος ο κόσμος θα καταλάβει ότι μόνον έχοντας ζήσει με τον τρόπο αυτό μπορεί κανείς να είναι ικανός για τέτοιου είδους έκθεση απόψεων. . . Αν και διάβασα πολύ, ήπια ακόμα περισσότερο, έγραψα πολύ λιγότερο απ' τους περισσότερους ανθρώπους που γράφουν, αλλά ήπια πολύ περισσότερο απ' τους περισσότερους ανθρώπους που πίνουν. . . Μπορεί να πει κανείς ότι αγάπησα πάντα ξένες. . . Ενδιαφέρθηκα ιδιαίτερα για τον πόλεμο, για τους θεωρητικούς της στρατηγικής, καθώς επίσης και για τα ενθυμήματα των μαχών. . .". (ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΣΗ ΣΤΟ ΟΠΙΣΘΟΦΥΛΛΟ ΤΟΥ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΥ)
80 pages, Paperback
Published May 1, 1995
1 person is currently reading
152 people want to read
About the author
Guy Debord
88 books819 followersGuy Ernest Debord was a French theorist, writer, filmmaker, hypergraphist and founding member of the groups Lettrist International and Situationist International. In broad terms, Debord's theories attempted to account for the spiritually debilitating modernization of the private and public spheres of everyday life by economic forces during the post-WWII modernization of Europe. Alienation, Debord postulated, could be accounted for by the invasive forces of the 'spectacle'—"a social relation between people that is mediated by images." Central to this school of thought was the claim that alienation is more than an emotive description or an aspect of individual psychology; rather, it is a consequence of the mercantile form of social organization which has reached its climax in capitalism. Debord committed suicide, shooting himself in the heart at his property on November 30, 1994.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
July 3, 2022
„Od malo stvari koje su mi se sviđale i koje sam znao dobro raditi, piti je ono što sam zasigurno znao najbolje. Koliko god sam puno čitao, pio sam još više. Pisao sam puno manje nego većina ljudi koji pišu: ali pio sam puno više nego većina ljudi koji piju.”
Gi Debor je intelektualna faca, retko inteligentna, boemska zverka, puna revolucionarnih ideja. A i kako da ne bude kul neko kome su uzori Lotreamon i Artur Kravan. Čist pank! Uprkos tome, njegov „Panegirik” je iznenađujuće neraspričan, gotovo vazdušasto usputan pokušaj da se kroz nekoliko poteza da višeznačna panorama rasula subjekta. Bez obzira na suptilnosti na koje mi je ukazivano u okviru prevodilačkih komentara i za koje sam uveren da zaista postoje, meni su one ovde trenutno ostale nedostupne, što ne znači da neću nastaviti da preporučujem „Društvo spektakla” kao ključnu knjigu za političko opismenjavanje.
Ovo je, inače, prvi tom „Panegirika”, drugi se sastoji od citata, mapa i fotografija, dok je treći, po izričitoj piščevoj želji, spaljen na dan kad se ubio. Naravno, odmah sam se setio Gogolja. Rukopisi ipak gore?
Gi Debor je intelektualna faca, retko inteligentna, boemska zverka, puna revolucionarnih ideja. A i kako da ne bude kul neko kome su uzori Lotreamon i Artur Kravan. Čist pank! Uprkos tome, njegov „Panegirik” je iznenađujuće neraspričan, gotovo vazdušasto usputan pokušaj da se kroz nekoliko poteza da višeznačna panorama rasula subjekta. Bez obzira na suptilnosti na koje mi je ukazivano u okviru prevodilačkih komentara i za koje sam uveren da zaista postoje, meni su one ovde trenutno ostale nedostupne, što ne znači da neću nastaviti da preporučujem „Društvo spektakla” kao ključnu knjigu za političko opismenjavanje.
Ovo je, inače, prvi tom „Panegirika”, drugi se sastoji od citata, mapa i fotografija, dok je treći, po izričitoj piščevoj želji, spaljen na dan kad se ubio. Naravno, odmah sam se setio Gogolja. Rukopisi ipak gore?
October 8, 2010
Guy Debord is distinctly an all-or-nothing kind of man. As a writer and artist he attempts to convince his audience that HUMANITY WON’T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST CAPITALIST IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST BUREAUCRAT. This is a pretty exciting and "all-or-nothing" exclamation. It suggests a program for action, and what we might expect should the program be fulfilled- happiness for all of humanity. But this suggests too that we won't be happy until the whole thing is finished. No half-measures; and straight away in his autobiography, Panegyric, gives the reader a taste as he berates early admirers of his art-work for lacking the will to follow him to the end of his conclusions.
"I must likewise admit, for nothing can remain unalterable in the course of time, that after twenty years or so an advanced fraction of a specialized public seemed to begin to no longer completely reject the idea that I might have several genuine talents, talents that were especially remarkable in comparison with the great poverty of the trivial discoveries and pointless repetitions that those people had for so long felt worthy of admiration, and this despite the fact that the only use of my gifts had to be regarded as entirely nefarious. And then, of course, it was I who refused to agree, in any way, to recognize the existence of these people who were beginning, so to speak, to recognize something of mine. It is true that they were not willing to accept everything, and I have always clearly stated that it would be all or nothing..."
I am no radical, which bums me out. I am too easily swayed by well argued but conflicting points that my brain always reverses itself. And I couldn't navigate this (where do I stand?) until I discovered through my economic investigations, one central lesson- that everything matters at the margin, which re-frames debates from "should one act like this or like that?" to "should one act more like this or more like that?" Now I don't have to reverse my entire brain at each conflict, I just take things "a la carte", which Christopher Hitchens is always busting people for but oh well, and to mix metaphors, compose a sort of patchwork quilt world view.
I am no radical, but all of my favorite figures are. Deep seated convictions enable people such as Debord to fuse politics, art, intellect, and personality into a Nietzschean "grand style". All of the coolest people in history have basically had one idea, an "overbelief", and the self-assuredness to follow it to the end. I've got no center. But Debord is sure of himself and wholly integrated- his politics nest in misanthropy and a profound dislike of pop culture, his art blurs with his writings, and this is his strength, that there are no visible seams- "Panegyric" is half prose, half visual scrapbook, "Society of the Spectacle" is both a book and a movie. All this to say he has made himself an interesting character, which is why I read Panegyric. Unfortunately this work, though an appealing object, did not leave an impression as an intellectual autobiography. The above quote is represtentative of the tenor throughout- bold posturing, aggressive yet baroquely passive sentences, frustratingly contentless, and strangely apologetic. He claims that this will be the definitive book on his life and also on the 68' revolution. He is totally wrong, there is nothing definitive about it. To equivocate, he might argue that the lack of "definition" is precisely its strength. One of the highlights of the book is a note to future translators in which he demads that potential translators take a test run on a couple of his more ambiguous (or in his eyes, pregnant with meaning) passages in order to be considered a potential candidate. Unfortunately instead of leaving the reader rich metaphors that spark multiple interpretations he just leaves vagaries.
He often brings up topics that he has no real intent of exploring- such as Capitalism's total failure. If he avoided this topic altogether I would give him a pass, because a lot of his other works deal with this, but why bring up such a huge topic if you don't want to talk about it? His entire critique of capitalism is extremely short and based on one quote claiming that "exchange-value has replaced use-value." and that this has lead to all kinds of debasement, general ugliness, and the dissintegration of Paris into some kind of hideous and un-fun trash pit. Since he forgoes a critique of Capitalism based on the problems of inequality and focuses on the aesthetic, I feel I must meet him in the realm of aesthetics. And I feel like "Come on Guy, you must have had some fun and enjoyed something, right? Right? Maybe even a little due to the rise of exchange-value?" I read a book called "To Hell with Culture" by Herbert Read, claiming that culture is but the dressing up of use-objects with fancy styled exteriors to try to increase exchange-value and extract profits from consumers; gone are the days of hearty useful boots, and here are the days of Uggs. I think he's mostly right but will I follow him to the end? I have received a lot of pleasure from things with no use-value, and I don't doubt that Debord has as well. This is not to absolve Capitalism of all guilt, but rather to say, should Guy be a little more or a little less of a Bureaucrat/Capitalist?
"I must likewise admit, for nothing can remain unalterable in the course of time, that after twenty years or so an advanced fraction of a specialized public seemed to begin to no longer completely reject the idea that I might have several genuine talents, talents that were especially remarkable in comparison with the great poverty of the trivial discoveries and pointless repetitions that those people had for so long felt worthy of admiration, and this despite the fact that the only use of my gifts had to be regarded as entirely nefarious. And then, of course, it was I who refused to agree, in any way, to recognize the existence of these people who were beginning, so to speak, to recognize something of mine. It is true that they were not willing to accept everything, and I have always clearly stated that it would be all or nothing..."
I am no radical, which bums me out. I am too easily swayed by well argued but conflicting points that my brain always reverses itself. And I couldn't navigate this (where do I stand?) until I discovered through my economic investigations, one central lesson- that everything matters at the margin, which re-frames debates from "should one act like this or like that?" to "should one act more like this or more like that?" Now I don't have to reverse my entire brain at each conflict, I just take things "a la carte", which Christopher Hitchens is always busting people for but oh well, and to mix metaphors, compose a sort of patchwork quilt world view.
I am no radical, but all of my favorite figures are. Deep seated convictions enable people such as Debord to fuse politics, art, intellect, and personality into a Nietzschean "grand style". All of the coolest people in history have basically had one idea, an "overbelief", and the self-assuredness to follow it to the end. I've got no center. But Debord is sure of himself and wholly integrated- his politics nest in misanthropy and a profound dislike of pop culture, his art blurs with his writings, and this is his strength, that there are no visible seams- "Panegyric" is half prose, half visual scrapbook, "Society of the Spectacle" is both a book and a movie. All this to say he has made himself an interesting character, which is why I read Panegyric. Unfortunately this work, though an appealing object, did not leave an impression as an intellectual autobiography. The above quote is represtentative of the tenor throughout- bold posturing, aggressive yet baroquely passive sentences, frustratingly contentless, and strangely apologetic. He claims that this will be the definitive book on his life and also on the 68' revolution. He is totally wrong, there is nothing definitive about it. To equivocate, he might argue that the lack of "definition" is precisely its strength. One of the highlights of the book is a note to future translators in which he demads that potential translators take a test run on a couple of his more ambiguous (or in his eyes, pregnant with meaning) passages in order to be considered a potential candidate. Unfortunately instead of leaving the reader rich metaphors that spark multiple interpretations he just leaves vagaries.
He often brings up topics that he has no real intent of exploring- such as Capitalism's total failure. If he avoided this topic altogether I would give him a pass, because a lot of his other works deal with this, but why bring up such a huge topic if you don't want to talk about it? His entire critique of capitalism is extremely short and based on one quote claiming that "exchange-value has replaced use-value." and that this has lead to all kinds of debasement, general ugliness, and the dissintegration of Paris into some kind of hideous and un-fun trash pit. Since he forgoes a critique of Capitalism based on the problems of inequality and focuses on the aesthetic, I feel I must meet him in the realm of aesthetics. And I feel like "Come on Guy, you must have had some fun and enjoyed something, right? Right? Maybe even a little due to the rise of exchange-value?" I read a book called "To Hell with Culture" by Herbert Read, claiming that culture is but the dressing up of use-objects with fancy styled exteriors to try to increase exchange-value and extract profits from consumers; gone are the days of hearty useful boots, and here are the days of Uggs. I think he's mostly right but will I follow him to the end? I have received a lot of pleasure from things with no use-value, and I don't doubt that Debord has as well. This is not to absolve Capitalism of all guilt, but rather to say, should Guy be a little more or a little less of a Bureaucrat/Capitalist?
November 13, 2007
A really nice anti-memoir of sorts from Guy Debord. I am also convinced that Bob Dylan read this book before writing his own great memoir. I hear Debord's voice in Dylan's book. But at the moment I am writing my own memoir - and I go back to Debord's "Panegyric" for inspiration.
February 20, 2023
(2.5)
Toute ma vie, je n’ai vu que des temps troublés, d’extrêmes déchirements dans la société, et d’immenses destructions ; j’ai pris part à ces troubles.
Toute ma vie, je n’ai vu que des temps troublés, d’extrêmes déchirements dans la société, et d’immenses destructions ; j’ai pris part à ces troubles.
May 13, 2012
A mix of quotes from Debord's favorite authors and of personal iconographic documents (many of which making their first appearance here), Panegyrique will be meaningless to those who don't know and appreciate Debord. Others will read (or rather, experience) this work with great interest.
October 12, 2021
Es, con diferencia, el escrito más infame de Debord. Y mira que ese hombre ha escrito cosas infames.
March 22, 2018
Como a vida, perfeito enquanto dura, mas incapaz de se transcender, curto e de fim abrupto.
Read
June 13, 2019Jamais Plus Nous Ne Boirons Si Jeunes
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews