The Cinematic Mode of Production pdf epub mobi txt 电子书 下载 2025
- 电影
- 现代性
- 文化研究
- visual
- JonathanBeller
- theory:criticism
- theory
- film-studies
"Cinema brings the industrial revolution to the eye," writes Jonathan Beller, "and engages spectators in increasingly dematerialized processes of social production." In his groundbreaking critical study, cinema is the paradigmatic example of how the act of looking has been construed by capital as "productive labor." Through an examination of cinema over the course of the twentieth century, Beller establishes on both theoretical and historical grounds the process of the emergent capitalization of perception. This process, he says, underpins the current global economy.
By exploring a set of films made since the late 1920s, Beller argues that, through cinema, capital first posits and then presupposes looking as a value-productive activity. He argues that cinema, as the first crystallization of a new order of media, is itself an abstraction of assembly-line processes, and that the contemporary image is a politico-economic interface between the body and capitalized social machinery. Where factory workers first performed sequenced physical operations on moving objects in order to produce a commodity, in the cinema, spectators perform sequenced visual operations on moving montage fragments to produce an image.
Beller develops his argument by highlighting various innovations and film texts of the past century. These innovations include concepts and practices from the revolutionary Soviet cinema, behaviorism, Taylorism, psychoanalysis, and contemporary Hollywood film. He thus develops an analysis of what amounts to the global industrialization of perception that today informs not only the specific social functions of new media, but also sustains a violent and hierarchical global society.
具体描述
读后感
评分
评分
评分
评分
用户评价
希望可以再多讲一点attention theory of value这些。以后a考要再仔细读一遍
评分基顿开始电影就已经从“景观”转向“叙事”了，怎么可能只是影像的流通呢？要不然就没有古典好莱坞是否是浪漫主义之争了。只说影像就跟大卫.约瑟里特影像-货币没什么区别了。另外，爱森斯坦跟维尔托夫的蒙太奇也不是一回事，前者觉得后者非蒙太奇，后者属于苏联构成主义，本质崇拜崇拜实物，跟马列维奇反物质的至上主义不同，所以非物质化的倾向是怎么来的？理论部分的确很有趣，但是论证方法以及选用的文本都实在太可疑。
评分希望可以再多讲一点attention theory of value这些。以后a考要再仔细读一遍
评分基顿开始电影就已经从“景观”转向“叙事”了，怎么可能只是影像的流通呢？要不然就没有古典好莱坞是否是浪漫主义之争了。只说影像就跟大卫.约瑟里特影像-货币没什么区别了。另外，爱森斯坦跟维尔托夫的蒙太奇也不是一回事，前者觉得后者非蒙太奇，后者属于苏联构成主义，本质崇拜崇拜实物，跟马列维奇反物质的至上主义不同，所以非物质化的倾向是怎么来的？理论部分的确很有趣，但是论证方法以及选用的文本都实在太可疑。
评分基顿开始电影就已经从“景观”转向“叙事”了，怎么可能只是影像的流通呢？要不然就没有古典好莱坞是否是浪漫主义之争了。只说影像就跟大卫.约瑟里特影像-货币没什么区别了。另外，爱森斯坦跟维尔托夫的蒙太奇也不是一回事，前者觉得后者非蒙太奇，后者属于苏联构成主义，本质崇拜崇拜实物，跟马列维奇反物质的至上主义不同，所以非物质化的倾向是怎么来的？理论部分的确很有趣，但是论证方法以及选用的文本都实在太可疑。
相关图书
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息，本站不存储任何数据与内容，任何内容与数据均与本站无关，如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度，google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有