Digital Afterlife of Industrial Film. Weak Dispositives, Choice Architecture and the Distribution of Industrial Cinema (original) (raw)
Related papers
Cinema as dispositif: Between Cinema and Contemporary Art
Cinémas: Revue d'études cinématographiques, 2008
Recent upheavals in the media landscape raise two major issues. First, how is new media changing the cinematographic dispositif1 in its primordial dimensions: architectural (the conditions for image projection), technological (production, transmission and distribution) and discursive (cutting, editing, etc.)? How does experimentation in the field create new shifts or deviations with respect to the institutional mode of representation? Unlike the dominant cinema, some films reshape cinema’s dispositif by multiplying screens, exploring other durations and intensities, changing the architecture of the screening room or entering into other relations with spectators. In fact, cinema’s dispositif underwent variations such as these during three particular moments of film history, as we will discuss here: the cinema of attractions, expanded cinema and cinema of exhibition,2 whose differences will be analyzed through the notion of dispositif. While technological transformations are obvious i...
Film – understood here as succession of still images on a material support designed for projection, which results in a perception of movement – is an ephemeral medium. To show a film, as Paolo Cerchi Usai argues, is to destroy a film. Perhaps more than any other medium, film requires special efforts of preservation to save its storage technology from what appears to be an irreversible material decay. Yet at the same time, a film only lives for and through audience. One could argue that film is a four-fold object: First, a film is a given print; second, a film encompasses the entirety of prints (and versions) in which it is available; third, there a film is a projection, an ephemeral event on a screen; and fourth, a film is the memory and record it leaves in the form of shared experiences and written texts. For its cultural meaning to come alive, a film must be projected and performed, but for that to be possible, its material base must be preserved. To elaborate on Cerchi Usai’s point, a film is an ephemeral medium in the senses that it. Link: http://synoptique.hybrid.concordia.ca/index.php/main/issue/current/showToc
University of Groningen - Faculty of Arts / Ma Arts, Culture and Media, 2016
This research takes part in the current debate about the “cinema effect”— the relocation or borrowing of the cinema cultural institution into other media spaces. While some have argued that the movie theatre is the appropriate way of approaching a film: the only actual “cinema;” my approach comes from a perspective that “looks at the evolution of cinema as part of a broader, non-linear and ongoing history of technology.” This is a view that understands that cinema is no longer exclusive to a platform or technology and that each of its appearances possesses a unique identity that should be subjected to careful study since it is the difference between one appearance an another what shapes our viewing practices. The particular thread I follow is the presence of Hollywood cinema in the film museum, the production of an othered cinema through the creation of a positive defamiliarised viewing experience in setups in which defamiliarisation occurs due to experimentations with the uses of the screen. My case studies come from exhibitions at the Deutsches Film Museum in Frankfurt and the EYE Film Museum in Amsterdam.
Post-cinema, 2020
Contributing to the cinema death topic while focusing on national film institutes, Giovanna Fossati and Annie van den Oever observe that, while it can be said that processes of digitalization (which raise the question as to whether the notion of film is still relevant in this new technological context) have deeply affected the world of film and cinema, some of the film institutes remain-an index of the cinema persistence. Digitalization concerns reproduction and creation. The exchange of views between Fossati and Van den Oever provides a useful perspective on the issue of digital archiving. It also deeply enriches the idea of post-cinema, more precisely, the idea of "a new post-cinematic ecology."
Post-cinema Book Subtitle: Cinema in the Post-art Era, 2020
Contributing to the cinema death topic while focusing on national film institutes, Giovanna Fossati and Annie van den Oever observe that, while it can be said that processes of digitalization (which raise the question as to whether the notion of film is still relevant in this new technological context) have deeply affected the world of film and cinema, some of the film institutes remain-an index of the cinema persistence. Digitalization concerns reproduction and creation. The exchange of views between Fossati and Van den Oever provides a useful perspective on the issue of digital archiving. It also deeply enriches the idea of post-cinema, more precisely, the idea of "a new post-cinematic ecology."