In contrast to the integral photograms of cinema, the images of a post-cinematic media regime are dividual, their forms discorrelated from molar subjectivity, their forces molecular, and their agencies of the order of metabolism rather than perception or cognition.1 It is in these terms that I have sought to understand the differences between cinematic and post-cinematic media (Denson 2016), and I have thereby made appeal to a somewhat Deleuzian framework—essentially situating the post-cinematic image as a medium, vector, or agent of the control society, complicit in the dividuation and modulation of subjects and their experiential and agential capacities under post-Fordist or neoliberal capitalism, as suggestively described by Deleuze in his famous “Postscript on the Societies of Control” (1992). But what are the means and mechanisms by which discorrelated, “dividuated” images are supposed to affect us?
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:DRESDEN/oai:qucosa:de:qucosa:71585 |
| Date | 29 July 2020 |
| Creators | Denson, Shane |
| Publisher | Universität Leipzig |
| Source Sets | Hochschulschriftenserver (HSSS) der SLUB Dresden |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, doc-type:article, info:eu-repo/semantics/article, doc-type:Text |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| Relation | urn:nbn:de:bsz:15-qucosa2-715979, qucosa:71597 |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds