• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>PLATFORM : Journal of Media and Communication >The ontogenesis of cinematic objects: Simondon, Marx, and the invention of cinema
【24h】

The ontogenesis of cinematic objects: Simondon, Marx, and the invention of cinema

机译：电影对象的本体论：西蒙登，马克思和电影的发明

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The ideas of Gilbert Simondon have recently surfaced in debates on cinema and its development in modernity. Pasi V.liaho (2013) has considered early cinema in terms of individuation and a.ectivity; Thomas Lamarre (2011) has considered the magic lantern as technical object and "dark precursor" of animation; Bernard Stiegler (2010) has considered cinema as a "mnemotechnical object". This paper will evaluate the contribution of Simondon's ideas on technical objects and on individuation as a model or paradigm for the development of early cinema, while questioning the primacy in Simondon's analysis of the demands of technicity over economic questions. Such analyses in fact return us to the canonical work of André Bazin (1967) on the ontology of the cinematic image and the dream of pure cinema. Earlier "materialist" analyses of early cinema from a Marxist perspective criticised Bazin's "idealist" account of age-old fantasies of moving images finally realised thanks to the development of available technologies, proposing instead that economic factors were more likely to account for the development of new machines and technologies – and thus of the cinematic apparatus, film and consequent entertainment industry. The question considered in this paper is where an interpretation of early cinema as technical object, emerging via a process of individuation, sits in relation to these earlier debates. This will be considered particularly in relation to Simondon's Du mode d'existence des objets techniques (1958). Does Simondon's analysis expose the earlier materialist/idealist boundary as ill-founded. How do his concepts illuminate the development of early cinema in relation to ideas on invention, technology, culture and machines. Does a conception of the birth of cinema as individuation complicate or obfuscate questions about labour and machines familiar from Marxist analysis
机译：吉尔伯特·西蒙登（Gilbert Simondon）的想法最近在关于电影及其现代性发展的辩论中浮出水面。 Pasi V.liaho（2013）从个性化和积极性的角度考虑了早期电影。托马斯·拉马雷（Thomas Lamarre，2011）将魔术灯笼视为动画的技术对象和“黑暗先驱”。伯纳德·斯蒂格勒（Bernard Stiegler，2010）认为电影是“ mnemotechnical对象”。本文将评估西蒙登的思想对技术对象和个性化的贡献，作为早期电影发展的模型或范式，同时对西蒙登对技术性对经济问题的需求分析的首要性提出质疑。这样的分析实际上使我们回到了安德烈·巴赞（AndréBazin，1967）关于电影图像本体论和纯电影梦想的经典著作中。早期从马克思主义角度对早期电影的“唯物主义”分析批评了巴赞对运动图像的古老幻想的“理想主义”解释，这最终归功于可用技术的发展，相反，经济因素更可能解释了电影的发展。新机器和新技术-以及电影器材，电影和随之而来的娱乐业的新技术和新技术。本文所考虑的问题是，通过个体化过程出现的对早期电影作为技术对象的解释与这些较早的辩论有关。特别是与西蒙顿的《对象的存在的杜式存在技术》（1958）有关的问题。西蒙登的分析是否暴露了较早的唯物主义/理想主义边界是没有根据的。他的概念如何阐明与发明，技术，文化和机器有关的早期电影的发展。将电影的诞生归因于个性化的概念是否使马克思主义分析所熟悉的关于劳动和机器的问题变得复杂或模糊不清

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号