One aspect of globalisation is the development of a worldwide network of technological standards and production. This production costs encouraged investment in new digital technologies, in general, the price of globalisation is standardisation: optimise existing formulas and freezes the process of technological and expressive experiments.
Three phases of the Transformation of classical cinema on the basis of apparatus
- Expanded cinema movement in the 1960s, with analogous means.
- The video revolution in the 1970s, electromagnetic basis allowed intensive manipulation and artificial construction of the image in a post production stage.
- Digital apparatus in1980s and 1990s
“The machine is always social before it is technical”
#De Lauretis, T. and Heath, S. (1985). The Cinematic apparatus. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
This book argues that function of the ideology is not so much to reproduce social structures or classes as primarily to reproduce subjects who mistake themselves and are therefore willing to reproduce the values and social order necessary for the survival of capitalism. The apparatus theory of film shows that the cinema is an ensemble of discursive, material, formal elements that construct not only a reality, but also a subject. Not aim for total reality but deconstruct the total apparatus of the cinema, to transform the cinematic apparatus, and create new technologies that allow different psychic mechanisms, that subjugate subjects in the cinema, that allow different relations between spectator and screen, different representations/constructions of reality and subjects, a critical relation to representation. The cinematic imaginary beyond film is the imaginary signifier in the digital field.
The history of cinema is a history of technological experiment, of spectator-spectacle relations, and of production, distribution and presentation mechanisms that yoke the cinema to economic, political, social and ideological conditions. Above all it is a history of creative exploration into the uniquely variegated expressive capabilities of this remarkable contemporary medium.
#Flusser understood that it was, therefore, necessary to “hold the apparatus and its products in contempt,” and that creative freedom “equals playing against the apparatus.” This approach underlies the achievements of last century’s “experimental” filmmakers.
#Flusser, V., 2000. Towards a Philosophy of Photography, Reaktion Books.
Eyes and Camera
In both instruments a lens projects and inverted image of the surroundings upon a light-sensitive surface: the film in the camera and the retina in the eye. In both the opening of the lens is regulated by an iris. In both the inside of the chamber is lined with a coating of black material which absorbs start light that would otherwise be reflected black and forth and obscure the image.
#George Ward, “Eye and Camera,” in Scientific American Offprints, no. 46, 1950, p. 2.
R. L. Gregory calls the “internal logic” of the brain’s visual system, a system based on collecting, comparing, and drawing conclusions from data that is both “stored” in the brain and constantly arriving for the first time via the retinal image.
#Richard. L. Gregory, The Intelligent Eye, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1970, pp. 24=25.
Shape, size, depth, movement, colour, texture — all the components of the visual world are really millisecond-by-millisecond configurations of electrical activity in the brain.
p60 #Timothy Druckrey, Fugnitive Realities, Situated Realities, “Situational Realities,” or Future Cinema(s) Past
The artificial image would have passed through three different modes of being in the Western brain — Presence (the saint present through his effigy); representation; and simulation (in the scientific sense), while the figure perceived exercised its intermediary function from three successive, inclusive perspectives — the supernatural, the natural, and the virtual.”
#Debray, R. & Rauth, E., 1995. The three ages of looking. Critical Inquiry, 21(3), pp.529–555.
Panorama & Diorama
PolyVision Theatricalized playing space
[Napoléon (1927 film) – Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napol%C3%A9on_(1927_film))
It transform the established spectator-screen relationship, filling the spectator’s field of vision and refiguring passive distractions as engrossing attractions, the heterogeneous tradition of multi-event presentations in the theatre continued to entertain audiences in pre-wide-film ways, and ‘distraction’ remained the dominant form of spectatorial engagement.
John Belton, Widescreen Cinema, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1992, p. 51.