当前位置: X-MOL 学术Russian Studies in Philosophy › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
From the Photogeny of Poverty to the Cinegeny of Money
Russian Studies in Philosophy Pub Date : 2019-03-04 , DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2019.1628571
Oleg V. Aronson

This article analyzes changes in the relationship between society and money that are not yet reflected in economic and social theory but have already manifested in cinematic images. Interpreting the railway-station theft sequence from Robert Bresson’s Pickpocket, the author highlights money as a special privileged object in cinema, where two concepts of cinematic photogeny converge. The first understands photogeny as an object’s attractiveness manifesting exclusively on the screen (Louis Delluc), and the second as the eradication of the object and the disclosure of speed, movement, and impulses generated by the very nature of cinema (Jean Epstein sometimes called this “photogeny” and sometimes “cinegeny”). This article shows that early cinema dealt constantly with money, which, being an unphotogenic object, nevertheless revealed a “photogeny of poverty,” expressed in sentimentality (sympathy for the oppressed) and in cruelty (injustice manifested in the world of capital). Moreover, “poverty” was inherent in the very earliest cinema, which was characterized by a lack of visual aids (sound and color). Once cinema acquires its pictorial plenitude (what Gilles Deleuze calls its optical-aural situation), the attitude toward money changes. It ceases to be a sign of poverty or injustice, becoming instead an attraction that introduces the viewer to the cinematic world of deception, theft, and fraud. The cinegeny of money establishes its imprescriptibility from the world of modern media, which prompts us to view money neither as an object nor as an economic tool, but as an element of the modern world, not unlike the pre-Socratic fire, air, or number.

中文翻译:

从贫困的摄影到金钱的电影

本文分析了尚未在经济和社会理论中反映但已在电影图像中体现的社会与货币之间关系的变化。作者从罗伯特·布雷森(Robert Bresson)的扒手(Pickpocket)解读了火车站的盗窃序列,并强调指出金钱是电影中特殊的特权对象,电影摄影的两个概念在此融合。前者将光子学理解为一种物体的吸引力,而魅力仅在屏幕上体现出来(路易斯·德卢克),其二是将物体的消灭和电影的本质所产生的速度,运动和冲动的揭示(让·爱泼斯坦有时称为“照片”,有时是“电影”)。本文表明,早期的电影院一直在处理金钱,金钱是一种无法上镜的物品,然而,它揭示了一种“贫穷的照像”,以感性(对被压迫者的同情)和残酷(在资本世界中表现为不公正)表示。此外,“贫困”是最早的电影院所固有的,其特征是缺乏视觉辅助(声音和色彩)。一旦电影院获得了图像上的饱满度(吉尔斯·德勒兹(Gilles Deleuze)称其为光学听觉状态),人们对金钱的态度就会改变。它不再是贫穷或不公正的标志,而是一种吸引观众的方式,将观众带入了欺骗,盗窃和欺诈的电影世界。金钱的电影学在现代媒体世界中确立了其不可解释性,这促使我们将金钱既不视为客体也不作为经济工具,而是视为现代世界的要素,这与苏格拉底前的大火,空气或战争不同。数字。以感性(对被压迫者的同情)和残酷(在资本世界中表现为不公正)表示。此外,“贫困”是最早的电影院所固有的,其特征是缺乏视觉辅助(声音和色彩)。一旦电影院获得了图像上的饱满度(吉尔斯·德勒兹(Gilles Deleuze)称其为光学听觉状态),人们对金钱的态度就会改变。它不再是贫穷或不公正的标志,而是一种吸引观众的方式,将观众带入了欺骗,盗窃和欺诈的电影世界。金钱的电影学在现代媒体世界中确立了其不可解释性,这促使我们将金钱既不视为客体也不作为经济工具,而是视为现代世界的要素,这与苏格拉底前的大火,空气或战争不同。数字。以感性(对被压迫者的同情)和残酷(在资本世界中表现为不公正)表示。此外,“贫困”是最早的电影院所固有的,其特征是缺乏视觉辅助(声音和色彩)。一旦电影院获得了图像上的饱满度(吉尔斯·德勒兹(Gilles Deleuze)称其为光学听觉状态),人们对金钱的态度就会改变。它不再是贫穷或不公正的标志,而是一种吸引观众的方式,将观众带入了欺骗,盗窃和欺诈的电影世界。金钱的电影学在现代媒体世界中确立了其不可解释性,这促使我们将金钱既不视为客体也不作为经济工具,而是视为现代世界的要素,这与苏格拉底前的大火,空气或战争不同。数字。
更新日期:2019-03-04
down
wechat
bug