This article examines the relationship between technology and aesthetics in contemporary Hollywood, using experiments with frame rates and shutter speeds to show how deep, systemic changes in cinematic technologies can alter our relation to the image’s referential functions. For eighty years, cinema’s registration of movement relied upon a standardized frame rate and shutter speed, meaning that cinema’s sense of motion was constant. With the proliferation of ever more powerful digital capture systems, however, these formerly inflexible options are (...) made variable and put into question. By changing the registration of movement, the high frame rate experiments in The Hobbit and the open-shutter cinematography of Miami Vice offer an estranged relation to cinema’s presentation of worldly motion. I argue here that this altered sense of the image’s referentiality is well suited to depictions of our contemporary reality, which, being profoundly bound up in digital technologies, seems similarly disorienting, estranging, and aesthetic. In the first section of the article, I trace out the origins of this style of movement in the logics of the corporate tech industry, which rolls out continual upgrades in audio-visual technologies in order to justify new product lines. According to industry rhetoric, these upgrades ostensibly lead to a heightened sense of realism, but viewer response has been torn over whether this new sense of motion is realistic or unrealistic. In the second section, I closely analyze The Hobbit and the recent work of Michael Mann to show how established film form shifts in relation to this problem in digital cinema’s representation of worldly movement. In The Hobbit’s case, film form is altered in order to assimilate the HFR’s unfamiliar sense of motion, but the cinematography in Miami Vice embraces a productive aesthetic estrangement which is both realistic and hyperaestheticized, leaving the divide between immanent experience and technologized disorientation an open question. (shrink)

This paper proposes to read cinema in the digital age as a new type of image, the neuroimage. Going back to Gilles Deleuze's cinema books and it is argued that the neuro-image is based in the future. The cinema of Alain Resnais is analyzed as a neuro-image and digital cinema.

Der Beitrag schlägt vor, das Kino des digitalen Zeitalters als einen neuen Typus des Bildes zu lesen: als Neuro-Bild. Im Rückgriff auf Gilles Deleuzes Kino-Bücher sowie sein Werk Differenz und Wiederholung argumentiert der Beitrag, dass das Neuro-Bild in der Zukunft begründet sei. Abschließend wird das Kino von Alain Resnais als Neuro-Bild und digitales Kino avant la lettre vorgestellt. This paper proposes to read cinema in the digital age as a new type of image, the neuroimage. Going back to (...) Gilles Deleuze's cinema books and it is argued that the neuro-image is based in the future. The cinema of Alain Resnais is analyzed as a neuro-image and digital cinema. (shrink)

Introduction. Going digital: cinema's new age -- The reality of the index, or where does the truth lie? -- Physical presences: reality, materiality, corporeality -- Spatial coordinates: in between celluloid strips and codified pixels -- Rediscovering cinematic time -- Tracing an ethics of the movie image -- Conclusion. change: a point of constant departure.

Since cinema has entered the digital era, its very nature has come under renewed scrutiny. Countering the "death of cinema" debate, Film History as Media Archaeology​ presents a robust argument for cinema's current status as a new epistemological object of interest to philosophers, while also examining the presence of moving images in museum and art spaces as a challenge for art history. The study is the fruit of twenty years of research and writing at the interface (...) of film history, media theory, and media archaeology by one of the acknowledged pioneers of new film history and media archaeology. It joins the efforts of other media scholars to locate cinema's historical emergence and subsequent transformations within the broader field of media change and interaction as we experience them today. (shrink)

This article examines popular cinema’s interactions with digital culture, focusing on cinema and social structure. A product of technological and social developments, digital culture has introduced the creation of cyberspace, the emergence and spread of social media, and the formation of virtual communities. This article focuses on a specific period (1980 – 2010) to examine the evolution in cinema of portrayals of digital culture. The analysis includes four influential films: WarGames (1983, by John Badham), (...) Perfect Blue (1997, by Satoshi Kon), Pulse (2001, by Kiroshi Kurosawa), and Life in a Day (2011, by Kevin Macdonald, Loressa Clisby, and Tegan Bukowski). The article provides a guide to popular cinema's interaction with and use of the possibilities offered by digital culture, revealing how the four selected films reflect digital culture themes. Each film demonstrates different aspects and dynamics of digital culture at a particular time, offering a unique look at that period's social and technological landscape through its portrayal of technological developments, human relations, cultural values, and social norms. Each film evaluates the impact of the digitization process on cinema from different perspectives, depicting how cinema adapts and responds to technological changes. (shrink)

This updated edition of Cinema in the Digital Age takes a fresh look at the state of digital cinema. It pays special attention to the ways in which nostalgia for the look and feel of analogue disrupts the aesthetics of the digital image and examines how recent films have disguised and erased their digital foundations.

In this article I propose the concept of ‘non-cinema’. The term points to that which is excluded from cinema, and accordingly I seek to explore the various reasons for these exclusions, in particular the political/ideological ones, together with how these exclusions are manifested on an aesthetic level. Instead of André Bazin's founding question regarding what is cinema, therefore, this essay asks what cinema is not – and why. This question is of redoubled importance in an age (...) of technological change: not only are nearly all films now not made using the traditional equipment of filmmaking (analogue cameras, linear editing systems, polyester film stock), but nor do they get exhibited in traditional theatrical venues (instead circulating on DVD and related formats, and online). On a related note, increasing numbers of filmmakers actively are moving away from feature filmmaking, e.g. into television. The essay focuses in particular on ‘non-cinematic’ works by Philippine director Khavn de la Cruz and American director Giuseppe Andrews. Formally, I argue that their films deliberately embrace that which is perceived as non-cinematic in order to put forward what Argentine philosopher Enrique Dussel might define as a ‘barbarian’ film-philosophical vision of the world, which is reminiscent of Antonio Negri's concept of multitude, and which also has an ethical dimension in that it proposes the inclusion of the overlooked and the dispossessed, and of the darkness that necessarily accompanies the light. (shrink)

Philosophical and technoculture studies surrounding the existential understanding of the human–technology–world experience have seen a slow but steady increase that makes a turn to material hermeneutics in the second decade of the twenty-first century (Ihde in Postphenomenology: essays in the postmodern context. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1993; Capurro in AI Soc 25(1):35–42, 2010; Romele in Digital hermeneutics: philosophical investigations in new media and technologies. Routledge, Abingdon, 2020; among others). This renewed focus makes sense because human–technology–world experiences need to be (...) interpreted. And many of these are more complicated to study, precisely because technology is at the root of the experiences. One interesting subset of technologies is media technologies, also called digital media, which intertwines the device and the content to mediate together in the world (Irwin in Digital media: human-technology connection. Lexington Books, Lanham, 2016). Visual media technologies and media content, together, through what is called moving image technologies, create virtual role-playing, virtual and augmented reality, video games, and social media focused worlds that have become central experiences in contemporary culture. Just as image-based scientific instruments read the world in different ways, so to do these visual mediated experiences. How might this comingled “reading” of technology explain the digital film language and experience? I contend that understanding the existential “early” film experience helps understand the new age of cinema, with implications for digital media, digital representation of the visual, and technoscience and technoculture studies. The material hermeneutics perspective called postphenomenology is one way to study these visually focused human–technology–world perceptual and interpretive experiences. Don Ihde’s methodological framework (1990, 1993, 1996, 2002, 2010, 2012, 2016, 2019) is both an idea from technoscience studies and a set of nuanced vocabulary that helps to explore and reveal variations, patterns, and trajectories of the whole-body experience of technology. This use case will first explore traditional cinema and then the “new age” term “moving image”, to learn more about this complicated and radically transforming technological experience. Work by Don Ihde and Vivian Sobchack is considered. (shrink)

The digital surface in cinema has, throughout its relatively brief history, been subject to a familiar “iconophobic” tendency, documented by Rosalind Galt, to denigrate surface decoration as “empty spectacle”. In early scholarship on computer generated images in cinema, the digital surface's alleged seamlessness and “new depthlessness” frequently became an overdetermined nexus of loss: of material presence, of an indexical relation to the world and lived experience, and of the continuation of older traditions of narrative cinema. (...) Today, digital visual effects sequences in mainstream cinema continue to be framed by film reviewers in negative terms: as variously lacking imagination, realism, narrative depth, and affective power. Digital visual effects and digital media scholarship have done much to reclaim the cultural significance of mainstream digital visual effects sequences and their capacity to speak to a rapidly evolving and increasingly encompassing digital media ecology. Yet the f... (shrink)

My principal concern in this paper is to determine how fundamental are the implications, for the moving image as a medium for works of art, of the loss of indexicality consequent upon the move from a photochemical medium to a computational medium. I begin by examining the bearing of indexicality on the status of still images as photographs, or as photographic art. I then consider whether, where indexicality is lost through the use of digital technology, this has the same (...) significance for still and for moving images. I argue that indexicality does not have the significance for cinema that some have claimed, and that the loss of indexicality does not affect in any essential way the identity of cinema. (shrink)

Video games, YouTube channels, Blu-ray discs, and other forms of "new" media have made theatrical cinema seem "old." A sense of "cinema lost" has accompanied the ascent of digital media, and many worry film's capacity to record the real is fundamentally changing. Yet the Surrealist movement never treated cinema as a realist medium and understood our perceptions of the real itself to be a mirage. Returning to their interpretation of film's aesthetics and function, this book reads (...) the writing, films, and art of Luis Buñuel, Salvador Dalí, Man Ray, André Breton, André Bazin, Roland Barthes, Georges Bataille, Roger Caillois, and Joseph Cornell and recognizes their significance for the films of David Cronenberg, Nakata Hideo, and Atom Egoyan; the American remake of the Japanese _Ring_ ; and a YouTube channel devoted to Rock Hudson. Offering a positive alternative to cinema's perceived crisis of realism, this innovative study enriches the meaning of cinematic spectatorship in the twenty-first century. (shrink)

Review of Paolo Cherchi-Usai _The Death of Cinema: History, Cultural Memory and the Digital Dark Age_ Preface by Martin Scorsese London: British Film Institute, 2001 ISBN 0851708374 (pb) 0851708382 (hb) 134 pp.

Sean Cubitt _The Cinema Effect_ Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2004 ISBN 0-262-03312-7 456 pp.

In The Flesh of Images, Mauro Carbone analyzed Merleau-Ponty's interest in film as it relates to his aesthetic theory. Philosophy-Screens broadens the work undertaken in this earlier book, looking at the ideas of other twentieth-century thinkers concerning the relationship between philosophy and film, and also extending that analysis to address the wider proliferation of screens in the twenty-first century. In the first part of the book, Carbone examines the ways that Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Lyotard, and Deleuze grappled with the philosophical significance (...) of cinema as a novel aesthetic medium unfolding in the twentieth century. He then considers the significance of this philosophical framework for understanding the digital revolution, in particular the extent to we are increasingly and comprehensively connected with screens. Smart phones, tablets, and computers have become a primary referential optical apparatus for everyday life in ways that influence the experience not only of seeing but also of thinking and desiring. Carbone's Philosophy-Screens follows Deleuze's call for "a philosophy-cinema" that can account for these fundamental changes in perception and aesthetic production, and adapts it to twenty-first century concerns. (shrink)

It is estimated that about one and a half billion hours of moving images were produced in 1999, twice as many as a decade before. If that rate of growth continues, one hundred billion hours of moving images will be made in the year 2025. In 1895 there were just above forty minutes of moving images to be seen, and most of them are now preserved. Today, for every film made, thousands of them disappear forever without leaving a trace. Meanwhile, (...) public and private institutions are struggling to save the film heritage with largely insufficient resources and ever increasing pressure from the commercial world. Are they wasting their time? Is the much feared and much touted Death of Cinema already occurring before our eyes? Is digital technology the solution to the problem, or just another illusion promoted by the industry? In a provocative essay designed as a collection of aphorisms and letters, Paolo Cherchi Usai brings an impassioned scrutiny to bear on these issues with a critique of film preservation, an indictiment of the crimes perpetuated in its name, and a proposal to give a new analytical framework to a major cultural phenomenon of our time. The Death of Cinema is published in Italian as L'ultimo spettatore . Sulla distruzione del cinema 1999, Editore Il Castoro. (shrink)

Malcolm Le Grice _Experimental Cinema in the Digital Age_ London: British Film Institute, 2001 ISBN 0-85170-872-0 (pb) 0-85170-873-0 (hb) 330 pp.

Glitches pose expressive challenges for digital motion pictures. These problematics reveal a “material function” that determines their identification and prescribes their semantics on-screen. These issues of materiality are familiar from the ideological critiques of avant-garde film in the 1970s, but have not been explored in relation to the semiotics of digital cinema. Developing an understanding of these problematics shows the complex problematics of using glitches for critical and expressive purposes in motion pictures.

Shard cinema tells an expansive story of how moving images have changed in the last three decades, and how they have changed us along with them, rewiring the ways we watch, fight, and navigate an unsteady world. In a set of interrelated essays that range from the writings of early factory workers to the distributed sight of contemporary surveillance, Williams argues for deep links between the images we see and the hidden labors frozen into them, exploring how even the (...) apparently trivial or spectacular carries unique opportunities to detect and process the social frictions of their making. Spanning film, video games, radical history, architecture, visual effects, and war, the book crosses the twentieth century into our present to confront a new order of seeing and making that slowly took shape: the composite image, where no clean distinction can be made between production and post-production, filmed and animated, material and digital. Giving equal ground to costly blockbusters, shaky riot footage, disaster photography, and early cinema, Williams leads us from computer-generated 'shards' of particles and debris to the broken phone screens on which we watch these digital storms, looking for the unexpected histories lived in the interval between"--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

This essay examines Gaspar Noë's film, Enter the Void, in light of the work of both Gilles Deleuze and Alain Badiou. Arguing that the film shows to viewers the 'void' that separates subjects from objects, the essay also considers Noë's film in the light of drug literature and the altered states induced by cinema and describe by Anna Powell. Finally, the essay proposes that Enter the Void is a work of 'unbecoming' cinema, which in turn points to expansion (...) of cinematic form through the use of digital technologies. (shrink)

Cinema and the automatic sweetheart. The work of art as an automatic sweetheart. Automatic sweethearts without names: the place of films in the world of art -- Cinema and new realism. Realism and trasparency in film. What is new in realism? Cinema, philosophy and the rediscovery of reality -- Cinema and documediality. The movie theatre of Babel. Toward a new ontology of film. The digital secret of the moving image -- Cinema and the ontology (...) of the cell phone. Double signature. An ontology for mobile movies. Film me, stupid. On Eco on mobile phones and stupidity -- Cinema and animality. Humans, animals, machines. Anthropocentrism and science fiction cinema. (shrink)

The preoccupation with "depth" and its relevance to cinema and media studies.

Global airspace, global cinemaspace -- Aerial perceptions: the visuality of the airplane -- Airborne cinema: the emergence of inflight entertainment -- Executive flight: attention, gender and the seatback screen -- Networked transport: neoliberalism and digital entertainments -- Disastrous speed: thrill rides, screens and fear of flying -- Live in air: aerial circuits of television -- Conclusion: cinema as infrastructure.

Film theory and its emphasis on political and ideological readings of films dominated much of cinema studies in the '70s and '80s. Since then, in response to what some view as the shortcomings of theoretical approaches, a variety of other methods have emerged or reemerged. In many ways, as Nico Baumbach argues, "Anti-Grand Theory" has won the day but its victory is, in part, based on misreadings or simplifications of '70s film theory. In particular, Baumbach views contemporary critical approaches (...) to film as abandoning the crucial and productive ways in which theory understands the relationship between cinema, politics, and art. Baumbach does not advocate a return to the orthodoxies of the seventies but rather reads the work of Ranciere, Badiou, and Agamben as providing new ways of thinking about the history of film theory and how film creates its own way of thinking about politics. Moreover, at a time when digital technologies are asking us to think of film and the film image in new ways, the work of these thinkers once again asks, "What is Cinema?" but in a more expansive sense that can help us account for transformations in how moving images are produced, distributed, and exhibited in the twenty-first century. (shrink)

Introduction : schizoanalysis, digital screens and new brain circuits -- Schizoid minds, delirium cinema and powers of machines of the invisible -- Illusionary perception and powers of the false -- Surveillance screens and powers of affect -- Signs of time : meta/physics of the brain-screen -- Degrees of belief : epistemology of probabilities -- Powers of creation : aesthetics of material-force -- The open archive : cinema as world-memory -- Divine in(ter)vention : micropolitics and resistance -- Logistics (...) of perception 2.0 : multiple screens as affective weapons -- Conclusion : the neuro-image : brain-screens from the future. (shrink)

Introduction -- Chapter 1: Digital cinema's conquest of space -- Chapter 2: The nonanthropocentric character of digital cinema -- Chapter 3: From temporalities to time in digital cinema -- Chapter 4: The film-spectator-world assemblage -- Chapter 5: Concluding with love.

In this text, my aim is to provide a reading of Mauro Carbone’s Philosophy Screens: From Cinema to the Digital Revolution in the context of his other writings. My claim is that in this most recent work, Carbone makes a decisive step from being an original interpreter of the work of Merleau-Ponty and Proust to making an original contribution to what I describe, following Merleau-Ponty and Carbone, the history of “a-philosophy”: an historical attempt to reverse the “official philosophy” (...) that has been with us since at least Plato. This reversal is staged through a series of concepts, created by Carbone, that I take up here viz à viz Plato’s allegory of the cave: the archescreen, the sensible idea, the screen, and philosophy-cinema. Together, these concepts illustrate what I call, borrowing a phrase from Jean-Luc Nancy, a philosophical partance: for Carbone, the work of “philosophizing” should no longer be conceptualized in accordance with Platonic imagery of ascent, illumination, conversion, and importantly, grasping and seizing upon the είδη but as “departure”: allowing the objects of thought their transcendence, a liquidity by which they slip through our grasp. (shrink)

Despite much excellent work over the years, the vast history of scientific filmmaking is still largely unknown. Historians of science have long been concerned with visual culture, communication and the public sphere on the one hand, and with expertise, knowledge production and experimental practice on the other. Scientists, we know, drew pictures, took photographs and made three-dimensional models. Rather like models, films could not be printed in journals until the digital era, and this limited their usefulness as evidence. But (...) that did not stop researchers from making movies for projection at conferences as well as in lecture halls, museums and other public venues, not to mention for breaking down into individual frames for analysis. Historians of science are more likely to be found in the library, archive or museum than the darkened screening room, and much work is still needed to demonstrate the major effects of cinema on scientific knowledge. Film may have taken as long to change science as other areas of social life, but one can begin to glimpse important ways in which ‘image machines’ were beginning to mediate between backstage experimental work and more public demonstration even around 1900. (shrink)

Cinema is, for Jacques Derrida, at once the “medium,” the “apparatus,” and the “experience” that proffers a historically unprecedented instantiation of the logic of spectrality. Of cinema, Derrida would almost exclusively have spoken, his remarks dispersed in a smattering of (nonetheless significant) interviews or, indeed, films, as though the written word was to withdraw into a rare resistance when it came to matters cinemato‐graphic. As Derrida's reference to two types of writing machine, indicates contemporary “teletechnologies” consisting of machines (...) like the cinema, the camera, TV, and photography, but also the internet, digital imaging, and so on. Derrida's reflections on the photographic image are of particular interest in the present context inasmuch as they persistently come up against the “objections” addressed to deconstruction, as it were, by Roland Barthes's highly influential Camera Lucida. (shrink)

The essay analyzes the transformations suffered from the cinema with the advent of digital technology and the theories that hypothesize the disappearance of film. The author affirms that cinema resists as model for new media and as experience of the spectator, despite these transformations. Finally, the essay suggests to abandon the ontological question for a phenomenological description. This description allows to identify some similarity between digital cinema and painting.

The essay analyzes the transformations suffered from the cinema with the advent of digital technology and the theories that hypothesize the disappearance of film. The author affirms that cinema resists as model for new media and as experience of the spectator, despite these transformations. Finally, the essay suggests to abandon the ontological question for a phenomenological description. This description allows to identify some similarity between digital cinema and painting.

Cinema and Machine Vision unfolds the aesthetic, epistemic, and ideological dimensions of machine-seeing films and television using computers. With its critical-technical approach, this book presents to the reader key new problems that arise as AI becomes integral to visual culture. The book theorises machine vision through a selection of aesthetics, film theory, and applied machine learning research, dispelling widely held assumptions about computer systems designed to watch and make images on our behalf. -/- At its heart, Cinema and (...) Machine Vision is an invitation for film and media scholars to critically engage with AI at a technical level, a prompt for scientists and engineers working with images and cultural data to critically reflect on where their assumptions about vision come from, and a joint recognition of the fruitful problems of working together to understand the algorithmic governance of the visual. (shrink)

This article addresses the definition of cinema by focusing on the related ontological question of which basic category circumscribes cinematic works. According to Noël Carroll, the definition of cinema consists both of ontological conditions that treat the moving image as a type and of other conditions that treat it as a display. But following Carroll’s ontological conditions, the digital encoding of a moving image enigmatically ends up being both a type and a token. Solving such a puzzle (...) by clarifying the relation between the cinematic type and the digital type leads us to define the moving image in general as a type that specifies a spatiotemporal distribution of pixels. (shrink)

Bazin, Cavell and other prominent theorists have asserted that movies are essentially photographic, with more recent scholars such as Carroll and Gaut protesting. Today CGI stands as a further counter, in addition to past objections such as editing, animation and blue screen. Also central in debates is whether photog- raphy is transparent, that is, whether it allows us to see things in other times and places. I maintain photography is transparent, notwithstanding objections citing dig- ital manipulation. However, taking a cue (...) from Cavell—albeit one poorly outlined in his work—I argue this is not so much because of what photography physically is, but because of what “photography” has come to mean. I similarly argue digital tech- nologies have not significantly altered what cinematic media “are” because they have not fundamentally modified what they mean; and that cinema retains a photographic legacy, even when it abandons photographic technologies to digitally manufacture virtual worlds. (shrink)

Film Manifestos and Global Cinema Cultures is the first book to collect manifestoes from the global history of cinema, providing the first historical and theoretical account of the role played by film manifestos in filmmaking and film culture. Focussing equally on political and aesthetic manifestoes, Scott MacKenzie uncovers a neglected, yet nevertheless central history of the cinema, exploring a series of documents that postulate ways in which to re-imagine the cinema and, in the process, re-imagine the (...) world. This volume collects the major European ÒwavesÓ and figures ; Latin American Third Cinemas ; radical art and the avant-garde ; and world cinemas. It also contains previously untranslated manifestos co-written by figures including Bolla’n, Debord, Hermosillo, Isou, Kieslowski, PainlevŽ, Straub, and many others. Thematic sections address documentary cinema, aesthetics, feminist and queer film cultures, pornography, film archives, Hollywood, and film and digital media. Also included are texts traditionally left out of the film manifestos canon, such as the Motion Picture Production Code and Pius XI's Vigilanti Cura, which nevertheless played a central role in film culture. (shrink)

_Cinema Futures: Cain, Abel or Cable? The Screen Arts in the Digital Age_ Edited by Thomas Elsaesser and Kay Hoffmann Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1998. ISBN: 90 5356 282 6 Hb; 90 5356 312 1 Pb 312 pp.

Mauro Carbone’s most recent book, Philosophy-Screens: From Cinema to the Digital Revolution advances the work and thought of his Flesh of Images: Merleau-Ponty Between Painting a...

Exploring the modern category of history in relation to film theory, film textuality, and film history, Change Mummified makes a persuasive argument for the centrality of historicity to film as well as the special importance of film in historical culture. What do we make of the concern for recovering the past that is consistently manifested in so many influential modes of cinema, from Hollywood to documentary and postcolonial film? How is film related to the many modern practices that define (...) themselves as configuring pastness in the present, such as architectural preservation, theme parks, and, above all, professional historical research? What is the relation of history in film to other media such as television and digital imaging? How does emphasizing the connection between film and modern historicity affect the theorization and historicization of film and modern media culture? Pursuing the full implications of film as cultural production, Philip Rosen reconceptualizes modern historicity as a combination of characteristic epistemological structures on the one hand, and the social imperative to regulate or manage time on the other. Emphasizing a fundamental constellation of pursuit of the real, indexical signification and the need to control time, he interrogates a spectrum of film theory and film texts. His argument refocuses the category of temporality for film and cultural theory while rethinking the importance of historicity. An original and sustained meditation on the historiographic status of cinematic signs, Change Mummified is both an intervention in film and media studies and an argument for the continuing necessity of modern historical thinking in its contradictions. (shrink)

Bazin, Cavell and other prominent theorists have asserted that movies are essentially photographic, with more recent scholars such as Carroll and Gaut protesting. Today CGI stands as a further counter, in addition to past objections such as editing, animation and blue screen. Also central in debates is whether photography is transparent, that is, whether it allows us to see things in other times and places. I maintain photography is transparent, notwithstanding objections citing digital manipulation. However, taking a cue from (...) Cavell—albeit one poorly outlined in his work—I argue this is not so much because of what photography physically is, but because of what “photography” has come to mean. I similarly argue digital technologies have not significantly altered what cinematic media “are” because they have not fundamentally modified what they mean; and that cinema retains a photographic legacy, even when it abandons photographic technologies to digitally manufacture virtual worlds. (shrink)

오늘날 급변하는 영화적 환경과 디지털 기술의 발달 그리고 미디어의 다양화는 영화의 제작 환경과 시스템을 빠르게 변화시키고 있다. 또한 필름 시대의 종말은 영화의 ‘죽음’과 ‘진화’ 사이의 논쟁 속에서 새로운 이미지 시대를 개시하고 있다. 이제 더 이상 영화는 전통적인 방식으로 규정될 수 없으며 영화의 위상은 이러한 미디어 환경의 변화 속에서 새롭게 제고되어야 할 것이다.BR 질 들뢰즈의 영화철학은 21세기 영화의 총체적인 변화와 위기를 매체의 본질적인 차원에서 논증할 수 있는 이론적 토대가 된다. 물론 그의 영화철학이 더 이상 현대적인 산물이 아니라는 점은 치명적인 문제가 될 (...) 수 있다. 그러나 오늘날 영화가 직면한 위기와 현상적인 문제들은 다시금 영화의 본질에 대한 의미와 중요성을 각인시키며 현대의 수많은 영화의 논쟁들은 ‘영화란 무엇인가’라는 본질적인 물음으로 향하고 있다. 그것은 영화가 디지털 방식으로 전환되고 그것이 미적 체험과 지각에 심각한 변화를 초래할지라도, 여전히 영화는 이미지, 운동과 시공간, 내러티브 속에서 존재하며 이에 대한 관객의 정신적-심리적 경험은 지속되기 때문이다. 이러한 점에서 들뢰즈 영화철학적 문제제기는 시대적인 한계를 넘어서 현재적인 관점에서 적극적으로 확장하고 재론될 필요가 있다.BR 특히 그의 영화철학은 영화의 정체성에 대한 고전적인 물음을 ‘영화가 무엇을 생산할 수 있는가’라는 창조적이고 당위적인 차원의 논의로 확장시켰다는 점에서 혁신적인 의의를 갖는다. 이러한 점에 착안해서 본 논문은 현실적인 문제 속에서 영화의 잠재적인 역량에 주목했던 들뢰즈의 영화철학을 생산적인 관점에서 해명하고자 한다. 그가 영화의 고유한 창조 행위를 인간적이고 예술적인 저항 행위라고 규정했을 때, 그것은 바로 영화가 이미지의 창조를 넘어서 관객을 새로운 사유의 지평으로 이끌고 이로써 주체적인 인간형상을 구축하는데 기여해야만 한다는 어떤 생산적인 당위성을 의미한다. 따라서 들뢰즈의 관점에서 영화의 미학적인 운동은 새로운 영화 이미지가 얼마나 관객의 창의적인 사유 능력을 이끌어낼 수 있으며, 이것이 어떻게 주체적인 자각과 성찰로 귀결될 수 있는지의 문제와 긴밀하게 연관된다. 이러한 점에서 들뢰즈의 영화철학적 기획들은 ‘이미지’, ‘사유’ ‘주체’의 차원에서 적극적으로 해명될 필요가 있으며 이는 포스트-시네마 시대에 대중문화를 선도하는 영화의 위상과 역할에 많은 시사점을 제공할 것이다. (shrink)

The glowing light of cinema, which continues to claim supremacy as a collective site for evolving senses of time, has fundamentally changed since its inception, from exclusively projected light to primarily emitted light. Digital, rather than analog projectors, dominate in personal rather than public spheres. The physiological and behavioral effects of those technologies manipulate our biological clocks, creating an entanglement of time-sensing. Similarly, the art of cinema now relies far more upon energy-intensive materials and methods, from equipment (...) to image manufacturing and data flow. This essay takes the twelve-hour clock as a slanted optic to address those profound shifts, choosing a handful of moving-image artists to feature, including Deborah Stratman, Nikolaus Geyrhalter, and Mikael Kristersson, who are attempting to find alternative temporal modes of depicting the hyperobjectiveness of eternity, ecocrises, dystopias, and deep time on screen. (shrink)