ABSTRACT

In recent years, it has become increasingly clear how damaging and virulent the obsessively ‘presentist’ orientation is that drives neoliberal and managerial ‘culture’. Its proponents abjure discourses of or on historicity, lest they encounter critical perspectives on our present situation. For that very reason we should be sustaining and promoting our historicisms as tenaciously as possible. This article argues that Foucault and Joyce, in their extremely different ways, did just that, attuned as they were to the subtleties of specificity and the vagaries of contingency. But there is a certain historicity of the body and affect that philosophy and literature, by their nature, cannot fully capture or communicate. We might rather turn, then, to European Art Cinema, approximately from 1955 onwards, and a range of cinéastes, from Godard and Melville to Varda and Huillet-Straub. The discussion brings out the highly nuanced ways in which they use cities and landscapes, and temporal and spatial anomalies, to construct both a historicity of affect and an aesthetic reflection or meditation on that historicity.

摘要

近年来，越来越清楚的是，强迫性的“现成主义”取向对推动新自由主义和管理“文化”的破坏性和毒性有多大。它的支持者放弃关于历史性的话语或关于历史性的话语，以免他们遇到对我们当前状况的批判性观点。正是出于这个原因，我们应该尽可能顽强地维持和促进我们的历史主义。这篇文章认为，福柯和乔伊斯以他们极其不同的方式做到了这一点，因为他们适应了特殊性的微妙之处和偶然性的变幻莫测。但是身体和影响有一定的历史性，哲学和文学，就其本质而言，不能完全捕捉或交流。那么，我们可能宁愿转向欧洲艺术电影，大约从 1955 年开始，以及一系列电影，从戈达尔和梅尔维尔到瓦尔达和惠莱特-斯特劳布。讨论提出了他们使用城市和景观以及时间和空间异常的高度细微差别的方式，以构建情感的历史性和对该历史性的审美反思或沉思。