Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1353/dis.2023.a907668
Damien Pollard
Embalmed Air: The Case of the Cinematic Bubble Damien Pollard (bio) Cinema and other forms of screen-based media have many ways of representing the air, of somehow rendering its presence in an image or a soundtrack palpable. The air’s kinetic interaction with solid objects in the form of wind, its saturation with liquid particles in the form of fog or steam, and its intimate implication in the movements of the breathing body all testify to its tangible profilmic materiality.1 One of the most complex and least attended of the air’s many onscreen revelations, however, is the bubble. Bubbles seem to have drawn the attention of both amateur and professional filmmakers from the medium’s formative days. Georges Méliès’ magical “trick” film Les Bulles de savon animées / Soap Bubbles (France, 1906) features a man using a pipe to blow bubbles that are, in fact, human faces before himself floating away in an animated bubble. A few years earlier in 1902, Alfred Ernest Passmore had recorded a one-minute film of his wife and three young children blowing bubbles (real ones, unlike Méliès’ performer) using pipes in their garden in London. The children embrace the task enthusiastically, blowing hard and staring intently at the bubbles coming from their pipes as the camera holds the scene in a static wide shot. The short film revolves around the elusive appearance of the bubbles, and they exert a visual gravity that is perhaps out of keeping with their ethereal and ephemeral nature. [End Page 95] Yet, in a sense it is unsurprising that the bubble should attract the nascent filmic gaze. Bubbles had been of great interest to the visual arts for centuries: in the seventeenth century, for example, painters seized upon the image of the bubble as a showcase for technical skill. Wayne Martin explains that this is due to “the painterly challenge bubbles present: how does one create, in oil, a convincing representation of a maximally transparent object? It is worth taking note of the technique that is used: a light circle conveys a visual edge. . . . In short, one paints a bubble by painting what it reflects.”2 The bubble in these paintings serves as a spectacular celebration of image making per se but has also often garnered important moral and allegorical significance. Angelica Frey explains that “interest in bubbles in the arts, literature, and sciences reached a high point in the seventeenth century, when they became closely associated with the concept of vanitas vanitatum, the fragility and transience of human life. Homo bulla (man is a bubble) was a concept dear to the baroque era.”3 Artists such as Hendrick Andriessen, Peeter Sion, and David Bailly often invoke bubbles in this way, depicting them alongside skulls, hourglasses, and decaying fruit so that they might lend their ephemerality to the works’ articulation of human existence’s fleetingness. In vanitas painting, the bubble thus serves two purposes. It is both a demonstration of a painter’s ability to give co
达米安·波拉德(Damien Pollard)电影和其他形式的屏幕媒体有很多方式来表现空气,以某种方式将其呈现在图像或配乐中。空气与以风的形式存在的固体物体的动力学相互作用,它与以雾或蒸汽的形式存在的液体粒子的饱和,以及它在呼吸体运动中的亲密暗示,都证明了它的有形的轮廓物质然而,在屏幕上曝光的众多空气污染事件中,最复杂、最不受关注的是泡沫。泡沫似乎已经吸引了业余和专业电影制作人的注意,从媒体形成的日子。乔治·姆萨梅斯的魔幻“魔术”电影《肥皂泡》(1906年,法国)讲述了一个男人用烟斗吹泡泡的故事,这些泡泡实际上是人脸,然后他自己漂浮在一个动画泡泡中。早在1902年的几年前,阿尔弗雷德·欧内斯特·帕斯莫尔(Alfred Ernest Passmore)录制了一段一分钟的视频,内容是他的妻子和三个年幼的孩子在伦敦的花园里用烟斗吹泡泡(不像msamli的表演者,是真的)。孩子们热情地接受了这项任务,努力地吹着,专注地盯着从他们的烟斗里冒出来的气泡,而相机则用静态的广角镜头拍摄了这个场景。短片围绕着气泡难以捉摸的外表展开,它们施加的视觉引力可能与它们空灵和短暂的本质不相符。然而,从某种意义上说,泡沫吸引新生电影的目光并不奇怪。几个世纪以来,气泡一直是视觉艺术的极大兴趣:例如,在17世纪,画家抓住气泡的形象作为技术技能的展示。韦恩·马丁(Wayne Martin)解释说,这是由于“泡沫呈现的绘画挑战:如何在油中创造出令人信服的最大透明物体的表现?”值得注意的是使用的技术:光圈传达视觉边缘. . . .简而言之,人们通过描绘泡沫所反映的东西来描绘泡沫。这些画中的泡泡是对图像制作本身的一种壮观的庆祝,但也经常获得重要的道德和寓言意义。安吉莉卡·弗雷解释说:“对艺术、文学和科学泡沫的兴趣在17世纪达到了一个高峰,当时它们与人类生命的脆弱和短暂的概念密切相关。”人是泡沫(Homo bulla)是巴洛克时代的一个概念。亨德里克·安德森、彼得·西昂和大卫·贝利等艺术家经常以这种方式引用泡沫,将它们与头骨、沙漏和腐烂的水果一起描绘出来,这样它们就可以用它们的短暂性来表达人类存在的短暂性。在虚空的绘画中,气泡有两个目的。它既展示了画家能够以最微小和最复杂的方式为一个本身具有可感知形式的物体赋予令人信服的视觉形式的能力,也是作品意义的象征性关键。泡沫吸引了人们的目光,但也总是超越了自身。当然,在远远超出虚空绘画的语境中,泡沫继续被频繁地用作隐喻。例如,(现在)常见的术语“金融泡沫”和“社会泡沫”利用了泡沫边界形式的脆弱性和短暂性,同时也利用了泡沫边界形式的不可否认的有形性。彼得·斯洛特戴克(Peter Sloterdijk)更广泛地使用了这个术语:《球体》三部曲的第一部《泡泡》(Bubbles),将泡泡作为人类为自己构建的偶然的社会和物理空间的隐喻在其他地方,生物学家Jakob von uexk (Jakob von uexk)用肥皂泡的图像来代表给定动物的感知范围;对他来说,泡沫代表着“现象世界或动物的自我世界”。与虚空绘画一样,这些简短的例子表明,泡沫的微妙和短暂的视觉形式不可避免地立即导致象征性。总的来说,泡沫似乎……
{"title":"Embalmed Air: The Case of the Cinematic Bubble","authors":"Damien Pollard","doi":"10.1353/dis.2023.a907668","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dis.2023.a907668","url":null,"abstract":"Embalmed Air: The Case of the Cinematic Bubble Damien Pollard (bio) Cinema and other forms of screen-based media have many ways of representing the air, of somehow rendering its presence in an image or a soundtrack palpable. The air’s kinetic interaction with solid objects in the form of wind, its saturation with liquid particles in the form of fog or steam, and its intimate implication in the movements of the breathing body all testify to its tangible profilmic materiality.1 One of the most complex and least attended of the air’s many onscreen revelations, however, is the bubble. Bubbles seem to have drawn the attention of both amateur and professional filmmakers from the medium’s formative days. Georges Méliès’ magical “trick” film Les Bulles de savon animées / Soap Bubbles (France, 1906) features a man using a pipe to blow bubbles that are, in fact, human faces before himself floating away in an animated bubble. A few years earlier in 1902, Alfred Ernest Passmore had recorded a one-minute film of his wife and three young children blowing bubbles (real ones, unlike Méliès’ performer) using pipes in their garden in London. The children embrace the task enthusiastically, blowing hard and staring intently at the bubbles coming from their pipes as the camera holds the scene in a static wide shot. The short film revolves around the elusive appearance of the bubbles, and they exert a visual gravity that is perhaps out of keeping with their ethereal and ephemeral nature. [End Page 95] Yet, in a sense it is unsurprising that the bubble should attract the nascent filmic gaze. Bubbles had been of great interest to the visual arts for centuries: in the seventeenth century, for example, painters seized upon the image of the bubble as a showcase for technical skill. Wayne Martin explains that this is due to “the painterly challenge bubbles present: how does one create, in oil, a convincing representation of a maximally transparent object? It is worth taking note of the technique that is used: a light circle conveys a visual edge. . . . In short, one paints a bubble by painting what it reflects.”2 The bubble in these paintings serves as a spectacular celebration of image making per se but has also often garnered important moral and allegorical significance. Angelica Frey explains that “interest in bubbles in the arts, literature, and sciences reached a high point in the seventeenth century, when they became closely associated with the concept of vanitas vanitatum, the fragility and transience of human life. Homo bulla (man is a bubble) was a concept dear to the baroque era.”3 Artists such as Hendrick Andriessen, Peeter Sion, and David Bailly often invoke bubbles in this way, depicting them alongside skulls, hourglasses, and decaying fruit so that they might lend their ephemerality to the works’ articulation of human existence’s fleetingness. In vanitas painting, the bubble thus serves two purposes. It is both a demonstration of a painter’s ability to give co","PeriodicalId":40808,"journal":{"name":"Discourse-Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532629","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1353/dis.2023.a907674
Kate J. Russell
Spectatorship’s Scenes beside the Screen Kate J. Russell (bio) Caetlin Benson-Allott. The Stuff of Spectatorship: Material Cultures of Film and Television. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2021. 354 pages. $85.00 hardcover. $29.95 paperback. Caetlin Benson-Allott’s The Stuff of Spectatorship: Material Cultures of Film and Television is an invigorating study of the material culture that surrounds spectatorial and cinephilic environments, recentering what is taken for granted in spectatorship studies to demonstrate how “stuff” shapes the viewing experience in fundamental yet unacknowledged ways. The book makes a significant intervention into spectatorship studies, arguing that what is often dismissed as peripheral in examinations of viewing environments actually influences and alters how viewers make sense of media objects. This approach accounts for diverse objects and experiences surrounding the scene of the screen, including the format of ephemeral programming listings, the food and intoxicants consumed and their centrality to cinema’s commercial interests, the industrial machinations that dictate accessibility, and the media coverage of violence that creates moral panics. In recentering these marginal [End Page 249] areas of study, Benson-Allott also carefully considers the different viewing subjects that are imagined and created by the material cultures surrounding media, attending to how racialized, gendered, and classed viewers respond to media and its offshoots and are in turn interpellated by them. It is an innovative approach that looks sideways as well as backwards in time, looking at what is beside (and inside) the viewer and the screen when consuming media and its auxiliary products. The introduction lays out the book’s intervention into a number of overlapping areas of study, namely media industry studies, spectatorship and reception studies, new cinema history, and material culture studies.1 This chapter teases out underexplored aspects of these fields of study and expands their parameters to conceptualize creative ways of making sense of media consumption and reception. For instance, The Stuff of Spectatorship is attentive to critiques of apparatus theory and its presumption of a universalized viewing subject, but it also pushes apparatus beyond the technologies through which films are exhibited, incorporating the surrounding material culture into its analysis. This material culture, the inanimate objects that lurk around the scene of spectatorship, have the potential to influence one’s experience of the text, to create distinct meanings, in ways that have not yet been fully explored in studies that attend to either the imagined transcendental subject of apparatus theory or the presumed individualized viewer of reception studies. Benson-Allott introduces her methodology through an exploration of television guides, the ubiquitous accompaniments to home viewing that were so central in deciding what to watch, but as Benson-All
{"title":"Spectatorship’s Scenes beside the Screen","authors":"Kate J. Russell","doi":"10.1353/dis.2023.a907674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dis.2023.a907674","url":null,"abstract":"Spectatorship’s Scenes beside the Screen Kate J. Russell (bio) Caetlin Benson-Allott. The Stuff of Spectatorship: Material Cultures of Film and Television. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2021. 354 pages. $85.00 hardcover. $29.95 paperback. Caetlin Benson-Allott’s The Stuff of Spectatorship: Material Cultures of Film and Television is an invigorating study of the material culture that surrounds spectatorial and cinephilic environments, recentering what is taken for granted in spectatorship studies to demonstrate how “stuff” shapes the viewing experience in fundamental yet unacknowledged ways. The book makes a significant intervention into spectatorship studies, arguing that what is often dismissed as peripheral in examinations of viewing environments actually influences and alters how viewers make sense of media objects. This approach accounts for diverse objects and experiences surrounding the scene of the screen, including the format of ephemeral programming listings, the food and intoxicants consumed and their centrality to cinema’s commercial interests, the industrial machinations that dictate accessibility, and the media coverage of violence that creates moral panics. In recentering these marginal [End Page 249] areas of study, Benson-Allott also carefully considers the different viewing subjects that are imagined and created by the material cultures surrounding media, attending to how racialized, gendered, and classed viewers respond to media and its offshoots and are in turn interpellated by them. It is an innovative approach that looks sideways as well as backwards in time, looking at what is beside (and inside) the viewer and the screen when consuming media and its auxiliary products. The introduction lays out the book’s intervention into a number of overlapping areas of study, namely media industry studies, spectatorship and reception studies, new cinema history, and material culture studies.1 This chapter teases out underexplored aspects of these fields of study and expands their parameters to conceptualize creative ways of making sense of media consumption and reception. For instance, The Stuff of Spectatorship is attentive to critiques of apparatus theory and its presumption of a universalized viewing subject, but it also pushes apparatus beyond the technologies through which films are exhibited, incorporating the surrounding material culture into its analysis. This material culture, the inanimate objects that lurk around the scene of spectatorship, have the potential to influence one’s experience of the text, to create distinct meanings, in ways that have not yet been fully explored in studies that attend to either the imagined transcendental subject of apparatus theory or the presumed individualized viewer of reception studies. Benson-Allott introduces her methodology through an exploration of television guides, the ubiquitous accompaniments to home viewing that were so central in deciding what to watch, but as Benson-All","PeriodicalId":40808,"journal":{"name":"Discourse-Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1353/dis.2023.a907673
Robert J. Mills
Sex, or the Illegible: AIDS Video Art and the Erotics of Abstraction Robert J. Mills (bio) A typeface “A” emerges from an empty black screen, its faded orange hues casting an extended glow across the otherwise impervious background. After a moment’s pause, this background is slowly eclipsed. A textured image of whites and purples fades in and takes its place; it might be marble, liquid captured in stasis (figure 1). Stasis is, however, shortly met by motion; a shadowed overlay of two men performing anal intercourse begins to play, at times taking on a glitch-like repetition, at times tending toward a rhythmic sensuality. As if responding to this newfound corruption, the once-prominent “A” fades out, absolving its engagement in the video’s graphic hedonism and resigning itself to a plane of total obscurity. For the remainder of the sequence, an aesthetics of the in-between endures; we watch a screen disorganized and afloat, left entirely uncoordinated amid these impressionistic layers competing restlessly for our attention. So begins André Burke’s A, a video experiment produced and first screened in 1986 that grapples foremost with the AIDS crisis as an epidemic of erratic miscommunication. Throughout this eight-minute work, an array of such hastily networked colors, textures, bodies, and voices converge in various constellations, staging a response to the ongoing plight that is replete with a number of embedded confusions. In the outlined opening, we watch a screen [End Page 223] rife with both visual accumulation and a respondent abstraction; although the image’s surface transforms insistently, unfolding across various planes and sites of action, meaning does not necessarily follow suit. Here, that is to say, the video’s fluid movement between discordant representative registers functions less to determine concrete figurations than to facilitate interpretive slippages. As the orange “A” gradually fades away, repositioning the graphic background as an abstracted foreground, a whole host of ordinarily guiding hierarchies, or means of orientation, are upturned. When narrative strands are elsewhere teased—more often than not through disembodied voices, echoes from an immaterial offscreen—they are similarly redoubled and refracted, set against one another and quickly dissipated. From the outset, then, A’s operative philosophy is introduced forthrightly: signification—be it linguistic, pictorial, or cinematic—is porous, insubstantial. The sanctified legibility of an ordinarily functioning symbolic system is frustrated and disturbed throughout, recasting our attention from the represented singular to the alien process of representation itself.1 Foregrounded in this way, A’s discursive surface emerges consistently as an explicit site of rhetorical constitution: an active, potent sphere of politicized negotiation. Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 1. In the opening moments of A (André Burke, 1986), standard hierarchies of signification ar
罗伯特·米尔斯(Robert J. Mills)(作者简介)一个字母“A”出现在空白的黑色屏幕上,它褪了色的橙色在原本不透光的背景上投射出一种延伸的光芒。在片刻的停顿之后,这个背景慢慢地黯然失色。白色和紫色的纹理图像逐渐消失,取而代之;它可能是大理石,静止状态下捕获的液体(图1)。然而,静止状态很快就会被运动所满足;两个男人进行肛交的阴影覆盖开始播放,有时呈现出类似故障的重复,有时倾向于有节奏的性感。似乎是对这种新发现的腐败的回应,曾经显赫的“A”渐渐淡出,使它不再参与视频中的图形享乐主义,让自己置身于完全默默无闻的境地。对于序列的其余部分,中间的美学存在;我们看着一个杂乱无章、飘浮不定的屏幕,在这些令人印象深刻的层次中,完全不协调地竞争着我们的注意力。安德烈•伯克的《A》就是这样开始的。1986年,这是一部制作并首次放映的视频实验,主要是把艾滋病危机作为一种不稳定的传播错误的流行病来解决。在这八分钟的作品中,一系列如此匆忙地网络的颜色、纹理、身体和声音汇聚在不同的星座中,对充满了许多嵌入式困惑的持续困境做出了回应。在概述的开头,我们看到一个屏幕充斥着视觉积累和回答抽象;尽管图像的表面不断变换,在不同的平面和活动地点展开,但意义并不一定随之变化。在这里,也就是说,视频在不协调的代表性音域之间的流畅运动,与其说是为了确定具体的形象,不如说是为了促进解释的滑动。随着橙色的“A”逐渐消失,将图形背景重新定位为抽象的前景,整个通常的引导层次结构或方向方式都被翻转。当叙事线索在其他地方被调戏时——通常是通过虚幻的声音,来自非物质的屏幕外的回声——它们同样被放大和折射,彼此对立,迅速消散。从一开始,A的操作哲学就被直截了当地介绍了:意义——无论是语言的、图像的还是电影的——是多孔的、非实质性的。一个正常运作的符号系统的神圣的易读性在整个过程中受到挫折和干扰,将我们的注意力从被表征的单一转移到表征本身的陌生过程在这种前景下,A的话语表面始终作为修辞构成的明确场所出现:一个积极的、强有力的政治化谈判领域。单击查看大图查看全分辨率图1。在A (andr Burke, 1986)的开篇,意义的标准等级受到质疑。在最早的(也是唯一的)关于A的学术文献中,罗杰·哈拉斯(Roger Hallas)认为,伯克的视频作品展现了许多同性恋群体在艾滋病流行的头十年中所经历的无力感。Hallas密切关注视频中作为过程的话语的审美化调用,他令人回味地写道,A使用“声音和图像的密集结合来表达内化意义流行病的心理影响”。在他的整个写作中,伯克的实验视频被认为是重要的,主要是因为它的代表性功能,因为它策略性地将其媒介的复合基础引导到一个不稳定的暴露时期衰弱的媒体经济的方式。“声音和图像的累积强度”在《A》中发挥作用,他继续说,“迫使我们认识到,在艾滋病的背景下,我们不是在说它的话语,而是它在说我们。”这样的分析构成了哈拉斯更广泛的项目的一部分,该项目追踪了在20世纪80年代末,艾滋病媒体以各种方式挑战“实验电影和录像作为主要个人和手工表达形式的想法”为此,这篇文章的关键干预在于,它将A定义为一种从早期先锋派的孤立提供到更集体具体化的表现的运动,后者据说通过这种转变获得了一种生成性的……
{"title":"Sex, or the Illegible: AIDS Video Art and the Erotics of Abstraction","authors":"Robert J. Mills","doi":"10.1353/dis.2023.a907673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dis.2023.a907673","url":null,"abstract":"Sex, or the Illegible: AIDS Video Art and the Erotics of Abstraction Robert J. Mills (bio) A typeface “A” emerges from an empty black screen, its faded orange hues casting an extended glow across the otherwise impervious background. After a moment’s pause, this background is slowly eclipsed. A textured image of whites and purples fades in and takes its place; it might be marble, liquid captured in stasis (figure 1). Stasis is, however, shortly met by motion; a shadowed overlay of two men performing anal intercourse begins to play, at times taking on a glitch-like repetition, at times tending toward a rhythmic sensuality. As if responding to this newfound corruption, the once-prominent “A” fades out, absolving its engagement in the video’s graphic hedonism and resigning itself to a plane of total obscurity. For the remainder of the sequence, an aesthetics of the in-between endures; we watch a screen disorganized and afloat, left entirely uncoordinated amid these impressionistic layers competing restlessly for our attention. So begins André Burke’s A, a video experiment produced and first screened in 1986 that grapples foremost with the AIDS crisis as an epidemic of erratic miscommunication. Throughout this eight-minute work, an array of such hastily networked colors, textures, bodies, and voices converge in various constellations, staging a response to the ongoing plight that is replete with a number of embedded confusions. In the outlined opening, we watch a screen [End Page 223] rife with both visual accumulation and a respondent abstraction; although the image’s surface transforms insistently, unfolding across various planes and sites of action, meaning does not necessarily follow suit. Here, that is to say, the video’s fluid movement between discordant representative registers functions less to determine concrete figurations than to facilitate interpretive slippages. As the orange “A” gradually fades away, repositioning the graphic background as an abstracted foreground, a whole host of ordinarily guiding hierarchies, or means of orientation, are upturned. When narrative strands are elsewhere teased—more often than not through disembodied voices, echoes from an immaterial offscreen—they are similarly redoubled and refracted, set against one another and quickly dissipated. From the outset, then, A’s operative philosophy is introduced forthrightly: signification—be it linguistic, pictorial, or cinematic—is porous, insubstantial. The sanctified legibility of an ordinarily functioning symbolic system is frustrated and disturbed throughout, recasting our attention from the represented singular to the alien process of representation itself.1 Foregrounded in this way, A’s discursive surface emerges consistently as an explicit site of rhetorical constitution: an active, potent sphere of politicized negotiation. Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 1. In the opening moments of A (André Burke, 1986), standard hierarchies of signification ar","PeriodicalId":40808,"journal":{"name":"Discourse-Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1353/dis.2023.a907667
Jeronimo Duarte-Riascos
Ways of Lying: Parafiction in Contemporary Latin America Jeronimo Duarte-Riascos (bio) In 2009, Carrie Lambert-Beatty noted the emergence of fiction as an “important category in recent art.”1 She was, of course, not referring to fiction as is traditionally understood in the humanities but rather to certain “unruly experiments with the untrue.”2 Her article “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility” dissected a number of such experiments,3 a group of interdisciplinary contemporary artistic practices that produced “fictions that [were] experienced, however briefly, as fact.”4 Lambert-Beatty proposed the term “parafictional” to refer to this phenomenon and explained that “with various degrees of success, for various durations, and for various purposes, these fictions are experienced as fact. They achieve truth status—for some of the people some of the time.”5 This truth status can be achieved through a variety of methods; sometimes stylistic mimicry is key, and at other times it is the consequence of a sort of conceptual trompe l’oeil.6 But perhaps most importantly, the truth status that is produced by a parafiction is always dependent on an operation of belief. Plausibility, Lambert-Beatty explains, is the attribute managed and produced by parafictioneers.7 The spectator of a parafiction encounters a work that is designed and structured to accommodate belief but belief about something that the work is not.8 A parafiction invites you to believe in a fiction while, at the same time, obscuring the fictional nature [End Page 65] of what is being presented. In other words, it is presenting art to convince you that what you are being presented is not art. The cases Lambert-Beatty studies vary immensely in format, location, and duration. They include a museum in Istanbul celebrating the life of Safiye Behar, a Turkish Jew, communist, feminist, teacher, and translator who was a close friend (perhaps lover?) of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder and first president of the Republic of Turkey; a BBC live interview in which the spokesperson for Dow Chemical accepts full responsibility for what has come to be known as the Bhopal disaster; and a marketing project by Nike Inc. to rename Vienna’s Karlsplatz as the Nikeplatz. All of these examples have an act of deception at their core. The museum existed, but Safiye Behar was a character created by Michael Blum on the occasion of the Istanbul Biennial in 2005. The interview took place on December 2004 and was aired on the BBC World network, but the interviewee was not Dow Chemical’s representative; he was Andy Bichlbaum, a founding member of the artist-activist collective the Yes Men. Karlsplatz was never really going to be renamed Nikeplatz, but the artists behind the work (Eva and Franco Mattes in collaboration with Public Netbase) mimicked and produced a real marketing campaign that successfully convinced many platz goers. All of these works’ fictiveness, however, was disguised even as it was also, most of th
2009年,卡丽·兰伯特-比蒂(Carrie Lambert-Beatty)指出,小说的出现是“当代艺术中的一个重要类别”。当然,她指的不是传统上在人文学科中所理解的小说,而是某些“对不真实的不守规矩的实验”。2她的文章《假装:虚构与似是而非》剖析了许多这样的实验,3这是一组跨学科的当代艺术实践,它们产生了“被经历的虚构,无论多么短暂,都是事实。”兰伯特-比蒂提出了“虚构”一词来指代这种现象,并解释说,“这些虚构在不同程度上取得了成功,持续时间不同,目的也不同,它们被当作事实来体验。”他们在某些时候对某些人来说达到了真理的地位。5 .这种真实状态可以通过多种方法来实现;有时,风格上的模仿是关键,而在其他时候,它是一种概念上的错视的结果但也许最重要的是,一个分区产生的真理状态总是依赖于一个信念的操作。兰伯特-比蒂解释说,合理性是由分析人员管理和产生的属性旁观的人看到的是一件作品,它的设计和结构都是为了容纳信仰,但信仰与作品本身不同一个故事让你相信一个虚构的故事,与此同时,它模糊了所呈现的事物的虚构本质。换句话说,它展示艺术是为了让你相信你所展示的不是艺术。兰伯特-比蒂研究的案例在形式、地点和持续时间上差别很大。其中包括伊斯坦布尔的一座博物馆,纪念土耳其犹太人、共产主义者、女权主义者、教师和翻译萨菲耶·贝哈尔(Safiye Behar)的一生,她是土耳其共和国创始人和首任总统穆斯塔法·凯末尔(Mustafa Kemal atatrk)的密友(也许是情人?)在英国广播公司的现场采访中,陶氏化学公司的发言人承认对博帕尔灾难负有全部责任;耐克公司(Nike Inc.)的一个营销项目,将维也纳的卡尔斯广场(Karlsplatz)更名为耐克广场(Nikeplatz)。所有这些例子的核心都是欺骗行为。博物馆是存在的,但萨菲耶·贝哈尔是迈克尔·布鲁姆在2005年伊斯坦布尔双年展上创作的一个人物。这次采访发生在2004年12月,并在BBC世界网络上播出,但被采访人并不是陶氏化学的代表;他就是安迪·比克鲍姆(Andy Bichlbaum),艺术家激进团体“Yes Men”的创始成员之一。卡尔斯广场从未真正打算更名为耐克广场,但作品背后的艺术家(伊娃和弗兰科·马特斯与Public Netbase合作)模仿并制作了一个真正的营销活动,成功地说服了许多广场游客。然而,所有这些作品的虚构性都是被伪装起来的,即使在大多数时候,它也是同时被暗示的。看到这些作品和兰伯特-比蒂所讨论的其他作品的大多数观众都不知道它们的虚构起源;也就是说,他们把艺术当作真实的生活来体验。兰伯特-比蒂的新词和它所包含的案例不仅让我着迷,而且听起来非常熟悉。在拉丁美洲艺术和文化传统的训练下,parpartional立刻让我想起了几件用欺骗作为创作媒介的当代作品。然而,这种现象,至少从它在该地区的表现来看,听起来几乎是历史性的,好像在今天之前就存在着一种拉丁美洲的特殊撒谎方式,并影响着人们今天接受选举做法的方式。在这篇文章中,我探讨了这种特殊性,认为在拉丁美洲,小说通常不是被理解为现实的对立面,而是作为其可能性的条件。在这里,虚构具有增强能动性的历史,并不是艺术的特权。因此,该地区及其文化和政治实践都熟悉将真相当作虚构的事情来处理。我的观点是,这种熟悉至少部分源于……
{"title":"Ways of Lying: Parafiction in Contemporary Latin America","authors":"Jeronimo Duarte-Riascos","doi":"10.1353/dis.2023.a907667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dis.2023.a907667","url":null,"abstract":"Ways of Lying: Parafiction in Contemporary Latin America Jeronimo Duarte-Riascos (bio) In 2009, Carrie Lambert-Beatty noted the emergence of fiction as an “important category in recent art.”1 She was, of course, not referring to fiction as is traditionally understood in the humanities but rather to certain “unruly experiments with the untrue.”2 Her article “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausibility” dissected a number of such experiments,3 a group of interdisciplinary contemporary artistic practices that produced “fictions that [were] experienced, however briefly, as fact.”4 Lambert-Beatty proposed the term “parafictional” to refer to this phenomenon and explained that “with various degrees of success, for various durations, and for various purposes, these fictions are experienced as fact. They achieve truth status—for some of the people some of the time.”5 This truth status can be achieved through a variety of methods; sometimes stylistic mimicry is key, and at other times it is the consequence of a sort of conceptual trompe l’oeil.6 But perhaps most importantly, the truth status that is produced by a parafiction is always dependent on an operation of belief. Plausibility, Lambert-Beatty explains, is the attribute managed and produced by parafictioneers.7 The spectator of a parafiction encounters a work that is designed and structured to accommodate belief but belief about something that the work is not.8 A parafiction invites you to believe in a fiction while, at the same time, obscuring the fictional nature [End Page 65] of what is being presented. In other words, it is presenting art to convince you that what you are being presented is not art. The cases Lambert-Beatty studies vary immensely in format, location, and duration. They include a museum in Istanbul celebrating the life of Safiye Behar, a Turkish Jew, communist, feminist, teacher, and translator who was a close friend (perhaps lover?) of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder and first president of the Republic of Turkey; a BBC live interview in which the spokesperson for Dow Chemical accepts full responsibility for what has come to be known as the Bhopal disaster; and a marketing project by Nike Inc. to rename Vienna’s Karlsplatz as the Nikeplatz. All of these examples have an act of deception at their core. The museum existed, but Safiye Behar was a character created by Michael Blum on the occasion of the Istanbul Biennial in 2005. The interview took place on December 2004 and was aired on the BBC World network, but the interviewee was not Dow Chemical’s representative; he was Andy Bichlbaum, a founding member of the artist-activist collective the Yes Men. Karlsplatz was never really going to be renamed Nikeplatz, but the artists behind the work (Eva and Franco Mattes in collaboration with Public Netbase) mimicked and produced a real marketing campaign that successfully convinced many platz goers. All of these works’ fictiveness, however, was disguised even as it was also, most of th","PeriodicalId":40808,"journal":{"name":"Discourse-Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1353/dis.2023.a907666
John W. Roberts
Dancing the Dance of Another: Allegory, the Diagram, and Suspiria (2018) John W. Roberts (bio) Nothing lets me think more clearly through a problem than reading and alternating between two mysteries at the same time. —Martha Graham, Blood Memory Introduction The climax of Luca Guadagnino’s 2018 adaptation of the 1977 horror film Suspiria presents the viewer with a mystery. Suspiria’s narrative follows Susie Bannion, an American ingenue who comes to Berlin in the autumn of 1977 to audition for the renowned all-woman Markos Dance Company. Susie’s audition is impressive, and soon she is preparing to dance the lead role in the group’s upcoming performance, a visceral exploration of postwar women’s experience titled Volk. The lead choreographer, Madame Blanc, invests Susie with confidence and more: it turns out that the dance company is a cover for a coven of witches led by Mother Markos, the company’s namesake. The witches groom Susie to participate [End Page 33] in a ritual transfer of Mother Markos’s spirit from the former’s ailing body to Susie’s youthful one, giving her magical dancing power in the process; one kind of training belies another. The witches’ previous protégé, Patricia, was believed to have run off to join the Red Army Faction (RAF)—whose terrorist hijacking of Lufthansa Flight 181 and subsequent violent implosion provide a narrative backdrop against which the film’s story unfolds—but in fact became suspicious of her matrons and conveyed her misgivings about the Markos group to her psychoanalyst before her disappearance. The analyst, Josef Klemperer, is a Holocaust survivor who still visits his country home in East Germany in the hope that his wife, Anke, who disappeared during World War II, will return. Josef investigates the company and becomes convinced that something is amiss. The witches eventually capture Josef and make him a witness to their grotesque ritual, but the ritual is itself derailed by the revelation that Susie is in fact Mother Suspiriorum, an ancient witch come to exact retribution against Markos, who has usurped Suspiriorum’s occult authority. At the film’s climax, Susie/Suspiriorum kills Markos and purges the coven of her followers, followed by a denouement in which she visits Josef to apologize for his ordeal and magically erase his traumatic memories of both the ritual and his wife. The mystery of the climax involves the bait and switch between Susie and the ur-witch Suspiriorum. The viewer is left pondering whether the ritual transferal worked as intended but with the unintended consequence that it is Suspiriorum who invades Susie’s body before Markos herself can do it or whether Susie was in fact Suspiriorum all along, and her infiltration of the Markos Dance Company was just a ruse in service to this act of sabotage against Markos. The film, for its part, withholds any clear explanation of a causal sequence leading to the eruption of violence. Either way, one thing is clear: the bloodbath is precipitated by
{"title":"Dancing the Dance of Another: Allegory, the Diagram, and Suspiria (2018)","authors":"John W. Roberts","doi":"10.1353/dis.2023.a907666","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dis.2023.a907666","url":null,"abstract":"Dancing the Dance of Another: Allegory, the Diagram, and Suspiria (2018) John W. Roberts (bio) Nothing lets me think more clearly through a problem than reading and alternating between two mysteries at the same time. —Martha Graham, Blood Memory Introduction The climax of Luca Guadagnino’s 2018 adaptation of the 1977 horror film Suspiria presents the viewer with a mystery. Suspiria’s narrative follows Susie Bannion, an American ingenue who comes to Berlin in the autumn of 1977 to audition for the renowned all-woman Markos Dance Company. Susie’s audition is impressive, and soon she is preparing to dance the lead role in the group’s upcoming performance, a visceral exploration of postwar women’s experience titled Volk. The lead choreographer, Madame Blanc, invests Susie with confidence and more: it turns out that the dance company is a cover for a coven of witches led by Mother Markos, the company’s namesake. The witches groom Susie to participate [End Page 33] in a ritual transfer of Mother Markos’s spirit from the former’s ailing body to Susie’s youthful one, giving her magical dancing power in the process; one kind of training belies another. The witches’ previous protégé, Patricia, was believed to have run off to join the Red Army Faction (RAF)—whose terrorist hijacking of Lufthansa Flight 181 and subsequent violent implosion provide a narrative backdrop against which the film’s story unfolds—but in fact became suspicious of her matrons and conveyed her misgivings about the Markos group to her psychoanalyst before her disappearance. The analyst, Josef Klemperer, is a Holocaust survivor who still visits his country home in East Germany in the hope that his wife, Anke, who disappeared during World War II, will return. Josef investigates the company and becomes convinced that something is amiss. The witches eventually capture Josef and make him a witness to their grotesque ritual, but the ritual is itself derailed by the revelation that Susie is in fact Mother Suspiriorum, an ancient witch come to exact retribution against Markos, who has usurped Suspiriorum’s occult authority. At the film’s climax, Susie/Suspiriorum kills Markos and purges the coven of her followers, followed by a denouement in which she visits Josef to apologize for his ordeal and magically erase his traumatic memories of both the ritual and his wife. The mystery of the climax involves the bait and switch between Susie and the ur-witch Suspiriorum. The viewer is left pondering whether the ritual transferal worked as intended but with the unintended consequence that it is Suspiriorum who invades Susie’s body before Markos herself can do it or whether Susie was in fact Suspiriorum all along, and her infiltration of the Markos Dance Company was just a ruse in service to this act of sabotage against Markos. The film, for its part, withholds any clear explanation of a causal sequence leading to the eruption of violence. Either way, one thing is clear: the bloodbath is precipitated by","PeriodicalId":40808,"journal":{"name":"Discourse-Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1353/dis.2023.a907675
{"title":"Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1353/dis.2023.a907675","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dis.2023.a907675","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40808,"journal":{"name":"Discourse-Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1353/dis.2023.a907671
Malaika Sutter
Hate Speech in Threads: Stitching and Posting a Resistance in the Tiny Pricks Project Malaika Sutter (bio) On February 24, 2020, President Donald J. Trump tweeted the following: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”1 The first sentence of this tweet was then shortly after reposted on the Instagram account @tinypricksproject, this time in red thread on a blue and white surgical mask worn by an elderly person (figure 1).2 The tweet is stitched on a mask, an object that has become indispensable since the COVID-19 pandemic, that acts as a textile canvas. The stitched words reach deep into the mask, thus rendering the object useless, an act akin to the words of Trump, who insisted that the virus will disappear “like a miracle.”3 The piece is part of the Tiny Pricks Project, created and curated by artist and activist Diana Weymar.4 Initially the project’s aim was to collect as many stitched Trump quotes as possible by the next presidential election in 2020, but the project has become larger, extending to other topics “with over 3600 Tiny Pricks and over a thousand participants globally.”5 It started on January 8, 2018, when Weymar stitched her first piece, an excerpt from Trump’s [End Page 170] tweet from January 6, 2018.6 “I am a very stable genius” is embroidered in yellow thread on top of a brown cloth displaying an embroidered bouquet of flowers, a needlework piece made by Weymar’s grandmother in the 1960s.7 Weymar collects, curates, and exhibits artworks made by herself and other artists from all over the world.8 Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 1. Diana Weymar, “This Is a You Problem,” Instagram photo, February 25, 2020, https://www.instagram.com/p/B8_sZoInLuv/. The quotes alongside ornamental images are carefully stitched on selected fabrics. The statements often feature tweets; thus, the digital form becomes a tactile form. Weymar then photographs the textile artworks and creates a post on her Instagram account, rendering the tactile form digital again. Sometimes the artworks are photographed in a particular setting or in a particular assemblage in which other objects enhance the embroidery’s statement or give it a different twist. Although the tactile is digitalized, the tactility nevertheless persists through the audience’s “immersion” that triggers memories of haptic experiences.9 Posting the artworks also [End Page 171] means that they are now more widely accessible. People can like and comment on them with words and emojis, tag friends, follow the individual artists, be inspired, and create new embroideries. The project is thus in this sense cyclic and creates both a material and a digital archive. While the project has received considerable media attention from the New Yorker, Vogue, and Financial Times, among other periodicals, it has not yet
{"title":"Hate Speech in Threads: Stitching and Posting a Resistance in the Tiny Pricks Project","authors":"Malaika Sutter","doi":"10.1353/dis.2023.a907671","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dis.2023.a907671","url":null,"abstract":"Hate Speech in Threads: Stitching and Posting a Resistance in the Tiny Pricks Project Malaika Sutter (bio) On February 24, 2020, President Donald J. Trump tweeted the following: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”1 The first sentence of this tweet was then shortly after reposted on the Instagram account @tinypricksproject, this time in red thread on a blue and white surgical mask worn by an elderly person (figure 1).2 The tweet is stitched on a mask, an object that has become indispensable since the COVID-19 pandemic, that acts as a textile canvas. The stitched words reach deep into the mask, thus rendering the object useless, an act akin to the words of Trump, who insisted that the virus will disappear “like a miracle.”3 The piece is part of the Tiny Pricks Project, created and curated by artist and activist Diana Weymar.4 Initially the project’s aim was to collect as many stitched Trump quotes as possible by the next presidential election in 2020, but the project has become larger, extending to other topics “with over 3600 Tiny Pricks and over a thousand participants globally.”5 It started on January 8, 2018, when Weymar stitched her first piece, an excerpt from Trump’s [End Page 170] tweet from January 6, 2018.6 “I am a very stable genius” is embroidered in yellow thread on top of a brown cloth displaying an embroidered bouquet of flowers, a needlework piece made by Weymar’s grandmother in the 1960s.7 Weymar collects, curates, and exhibits artworks made by herself and other artists from all over the world.8 Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 1. Diana Weymar, “This Is a You Problem,” Instagram photo, February 25, 2020, https://www.instagram.com/p/B8_sZoInLuv/. The quotes alongside ornamental images are carefully stitched on selected fabrics. The statements often feature tweets; thus, the digital form becomes a tactile form. Weymar then photographs the textile artworks and creates a post on her Instagram account, rendering the tactile form digital again. Sometimes the artworks are photographed in a particular setting or in a particular assemblage in which other objects enhance the embroidery’s statement or give it a different twist. Although the tactile is digitalized, the tactility nevertheless persists through the audience’s “immersion” that triggers memories of haptic experiences.9 Posting the artworks also [End Page 171] means that they are now more widely accessible. People can like and comment on them with words and emojis, tag friends, follow the individual artists, be inspired, and create new embroideries. The project is thus in this sense cyclic and creates both a material and a digital archive. While the project has received considerable media attention from the New Yorker, Vogue, and Financial Times, among other periodicals, it has not yet","PeriodicalId":40808,"journal":{"name":"Discourse-Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1353/dis.2023.a907672
Kodai Abe
Refoliating Vietnam in the Post-9/11 American Homeland: Debra Granik’s Leave No Trace Kodai Abe (bio) The spectacular images of terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, evoked a variety of cultural and historical memories in regulating the shock. For most spectators all over the world, the conventional aesthetics of the Hollywood film, an American product par excellence, ironically served as the handiest framework to register the sublime event. Most Americans remembered the recent domestic terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995. The 9/11 attack, some observed, was the worst intelligence failure and a cunning surprise attack ever since Pearl Harbor. Others immediately feared that it might be caused by nuclear weapons, and the collapses of the twin towers reminded them of the two mushroom clouds above Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The designation of “ground zero” soon followed. Thomas Franklin’s photograph of three firefighters raising an American flag on the rubble of the World Trade Center was shortlisted for a Pulitzer Prize, echoing Joe Rosenthal’s Pulitzer Prize–winning composition capturing US marines atop Iwo Jima during World War II. Such visual associations of 9/11 with other historical events often facilitated the reinforcing of American exceptionalism—the mythic idea that the United States is young, innocent, benign, and unique—through [End Page 199] strategic manipulation of the cultural contexts in which those images are represented to elicit specific affective reactions. Conjuring an array of traumatic American victimhood as well as its “good” and “just” use of military force, the United States secured national support for the reinvigoration of militarism under the aegis of the war on terror, thereby rationalizing, sanctifying, and perpetuating its violence. As Joseph Darda argues in examining 9/11 visual productions, the Bush administration manufactured “exceptionalist optics”; it succeeded in orchestrating our “unconscious optics” (per Walter Benjamin) when looking at 9/11 images such as Franklin’s so as to acknowledge and subscribe to American exceptionalism.1 National hegemonic discourses not only control how an event is mediatized but also condition and determine the ways in which we look at and react to events on the unconscious level. Against the post-9/11 resurgence of patriotism, many critics have made concerted efforts to exhume a buried national memory that most jeopardizes American exceptionalist discourse: the Vietnam War. Since the military defeat in Southeast Asia, the memory of Vietnam has remained a highly contested issue in talking about American politics and warfare. For conservatives, Vietnam is a trauma that Americans are suffering from, and it is imperative to forget or revise it in order for Americans to recover from it and move forward (to a new war); for liberals, the war must be remembered as nothing other than American violence inflicted upon people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, as
2001年9月11日世界贸易中心恐怖袭击的壮观画面,在调节冲击的过程中唤起了各种文化和历史记忆。讽刺的是,对于世界上大多数观众来说,好莱坞电影的传统美学——美国最优秀的产品——成为了记录这一崇高事件的最方便的框架。大多数美国人还记得1995年发生在俄克拉荷马城的恐怖袭击事件。一些人认为,9/11袭击是自珍珠港事件以来最严重的情报失误和一次狡猾的突然袭击。其他人立即担心这可能是由核武器引起的,双子塔的倒塌让他们想起了广岛和长崎上空的两朵蘑菇云。不久,“归零地”的称号接踵而至。托马斯·富兰克林拍摄的三名消防员在世贸中心的废墟上升起美国国旗的照片入围了普利策奖,与乔·罗森塔尔获得普利策奖的作品相呼应,该作品拍摄了二战期间硫磺岛上的美国海军陆战队。这种将9/11事件与其他历史事件联系起来的视觉效果,往往有助于强化美国例外论——即美国年轻、天真、善良和独特的神话观念——通过对文化背景的战略性操纵,这些形象被呈现出来,以引发特定的情感反应。在反恐战争的庇护下,美国为军国主义的复兴争取了全国的支持,从而使其暴力行为合理化、神圣化和永久化。正如约瑟夫·达尔达(Joseph Darda)在研究9/11视觉作品时指出的那样,布什政府制造了“例外主义光学”;当我们看到像富兰克林这样的9/11照片时,它成功地协调了我们“无意识的光学”,从而承认并赞同美国例外论国家霸权话语不仅控制了事件如何被调解,而且还决定了我们在无意识层面上看待和反应事件的方式。针对9/11事件后爱国主义的复苏,许多批评人士齐心协力,挖掘出一段被埋没的国家记忆,这段记忆最可能危及美国例外论的话语:越南战争。自从在东南亚的军事失败以来,在谈论美国政治和战争时,对越南的记忆一直是一个备受争议的问题。对于保守派来说,越南是美国人正在遭受的创伤,为了让美国人从中恢复并向前迈进(一场新的战争),必须忘记或修正它;对于自由主义者来说,这场战争只能被铭记为美国对越南、老挝和柬埔寨人民施加的暴力,这场战争雄辩地表明,自美国建国以来,美国例外论一直是证明其使用武力的明目无耻的手段。正如威廉·斯帕诺斯(William Spanos)在《全球化时代的美国例外论》(American Exceptionalism in the Age of Globalization)一书中所言,“越南的幽灵”仍在9/11后的美国国土安全状态中挥之不去2,尽管乔治·w·布什(George W. Bush)总统试图通过2001年的《爱国者法案》(Patriot Act)和2002年的《国土安全法》(homeland security Act)等立法来驱除它。如果围绕反恐战争的话语和影响是通过美国例外论的视觉遗产来规范的,那么如何通过反例外论的视角来看待9/11后的美国国土安全状况,就成为一个值得参与的挑战。但是,在伊拉克战争、阿富汗战争或其他地方的战争期间和之后,“记住”越南战争作为视觉上的反记忆是什么意思?玛丽安·赫希(Marianne Hirsch)所说的“后记忆一代”怎么可能一直记得1975年正式结束的战争,继续目睹“越南的幽灵”仍在9/11后的美国本土徘徊?在反恐战争时代,反例外论的视角在代表越南时,其文化和历史条件是什么?更广泛地说,我们如何谈论可视化反记忆的关键方法?带着这些问题,我审视了黛布拉……
{"title":"Refoliating Vietnam in the Post-9/11 American Homeland: Debra Granik’s Leave No Trace","authors":"Kodai Abe","doi":"10.1353/dis.2023.a907672","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dis.2023.a907672","url":null,"abstract":"Refoliating Vietnam in the Post-9/11 American Homeland: Debra Granik’s Leave No Trace Kodai Abe (bio) The spectacular images of terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, evoked a variety of cultural and historical memories in regulating the shock. For most spectators all over the world, the conventional aesthetics of the Hollywood film, an American product par excellence, ironically served as the handiest framework to register the sublime event. Most Americans remembered the recent domestic terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995. The 9/11 attack, some observed, was the worst intelligence failure and a cunning surprise attack ever since Pearl Harbor. Others immediately feared that it might be caused by nuclear weapons, and the collapses of the twin towers reminded them of the two mushroom clouds above Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The designation of “ground zero” soon followed. Thomas Franklin’s photograph of three firefighters raising an American flag on the rubble of the World Trade Center was shortlisted for a Pulitzer Prize, echoing Joe Rosenthal’s Pulitzer Prize–winning composition capturing US marines atop Iwo Jima during World War II. Such visual associations of 9/11 with other historical events often facilitated the reinforcing of American exceptionalism—the mythic idea that the United States is young, innocent, benign, and unique—through [End Page 199] strategic manipulation of the cultural contexts in which those images are represented to elicit specific affective reactions. Conjuring an array of traumatic American victimhood as well as its “good” and “just” use of military force, the United States secured national support for the reinvigoration of militarism under the aegis of the war on terror, thereby rationalizing, sanctifying, and perpetuating its violence. As Joseph Darda argues in examining 9/11 visual productions, the Bush administration manufactured “exceptionalist optics”; it succeeded in orchestrating our “unconscious optics” (per Walter Benjamin) when looking at 9/11 images such as Franklin’s so as to acknowledge and subscribe to American exceptionalism.1 National hegemonic discourses not only control how an event is mediatized but also condition and determine the ways in which we look at and react to events on the unconscious level. Against the post-9/11 resurgence of patriotism, many critics have made concerted efforts to exhume a buried national memory that most jeopardizes American exceptionalist discourse: the Vietnam War. Since the military defeat in Southeast Asia, the memory of Vietnam has remained a highly contested issue in talking about American politics and warfare. For conservatives, Vietnam is a trauma that Americans are suffering from, and it is imperative to forget or revise it in order for Americans to recover from it and move forward (to a new war); for liberals, the war must be remembered as nothing other than American violence inflicted upon people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, as ","PeriodicalId":40808,"journal":{"name":"Discourse-Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1353/dis.2023.a907670
Benjamin Crais
Cultivating History: Sergei Eisenstein’s The General Line and the Cinema of Agrarian Transition Benjamin Crais (bio) “There is no material more discredited in cinema than the village. There is nothing more difficult, nothing more frightening for the director. Yet there is nothing more necessary.”1 So begins an article published by Sergei Eisenstein in 1926 upon commencing work on The General Line (1929). Secured by the mythic status of the Lumière brothers’ Workers Leaving the Factory (1895), wherein the “first camera in the history of cinema was pointed at a factory,” cinema has often been taken to be the art of industrial modernity.2 Following what Inga Pollmann identifies as a “mutual definition of cinema as a modern medium and modernity as cinematic,” film scholars have often situated prewar European cinema within the context of urbanization, mass consumption, industrial production, and other hallmarks of modernity (of which, as Pollmann writes, cinema is understood to be emblematic).3 Yet, over thirty years after Auguste and Louis Lumière pointed their camera at the factory gates, Eisenstein would declare that the most urgent task facing cinema lay in peasant villages. Cinema, he exhorted, must “make images of agricultural character and chronicles” to compel the people of early Soviet Russia to face the “urgent” problem of peasant agriculture and its modernization. Three years later and under [End Page 138] a new title, Eisenstein’s agrarian film was released.4 “How might we write a history of cinema,” Brian R. Jacobson asks, that makes concerns with nature as “central to the narrative as technological and stylistic innovations or the worlds of machines, technologies, and urban life?”5 This essay considers The General Line—a depiction of the introduction of industrial technology and collective property relations to a rural peasant village—as opening onto such a history on the basis of industrial modernity’s unevenness. Indexing this unevenness is what in the history of Marxist theory has been referred to as “the agrarian question” (after Karl Kautsky’s book of the same name). “In its broadest meaning,” T. J. Byres writes, “the agrarian question may be defined as the continuing existence in the countryside of a poor country of substantive obstacles to an unleashing of the forces capable of generating economic development, both inside and outside agriculture.”6 At the time of the film’s production, the peasantry constituted around 80 percent of the entire Russian population and worked with agricultural equipment that, in the words of one observer, was “at least as old as the Pharaohs.”7 Leon Trotsky, surveying the conditions that had enabled the Bolsheviks to make the revolution of 1917, developed the concept of “combined and uneven development” to analyze the conjunction between the peasant countryside and the presence of heavy industry in the cities. Russia in the early decades of the twentieth century, he argued, was characterized by politi
培养历史:谢尔盖·爱森斯坦的《总路线》和农业转型的电影本杰明·克里斯(传记)“在电影中,没有比村庄更不可信的素材了。对导演来说,没有什么比这更困难、更可怕的了。然而,没有什么比这更有必要了。这是谢尔盖·爱森斯坦在1926年开始写《总路线》(1929)时发表的一篇文章的开头。在lumi兄弟的《工人离开工厂》(1895)的神话地位的保证下,“电影史上第一个镜头对准了工厂”,电影经常被认为是工业现代性的艺术根据因加·波尔曼(Inga Pollmann)所说的“电影作为一种现代媒介和现代性作为电影的相互定义”,电影学者经常将战前的欧洲电影置于城市化、大众消费、工业生产和其他现代性特征的背景下(正如波尔曼所写的那样,电影被理解为具有象征意义)然而,在奥古斯特和路易·卢米埃尔将镜头对准工厂大门三十多年后,爱森斯坦宣布,电影面临的最紧迫任务在于农村。他告诫说,电影必须“制作农业人物和编年史的形象”,以迫使苏联早期的俄罗斯人民面对农民农业及其现代化的“紧迫”问题。三年后,在一个新的标题下,爱森斯坦的农业电影上映了布莱恩·r·雅各布森(Brian R. Jacobson)问道:“我们怎样才能写出一部电影史?”它把对自然的关注作为“技术和风格创新或机器、技术和城市生活世界叙事的中心”?5本文认为《总线》——对工业技术和集体财产关系引入农村的描述——在工业现代性不均衡的基础上开启了这样一段历史。在马克思主义理论史上,这种不平衡被称为“土地问题”(以卡尔·考茨基的同名著作命名)。“从最广泛的意义上说,”T. J. Byres写道,“农业问题可以被定义为一个贫穷国家的农村继续存在着实质性的障碍,阻碍了农业内部和外部能够产生经济发展的力量的释放。”在这部电影拍摄的时候,农民占俄罗斯总人口的80%左右,用一位观察者的话来说,他们使用的农业设备“至少和法老一样古老”。列昂·托洛茨基(Leon Trotsky)考察了使布尔什维克能够进行1917年革命的条件,提出了“综合和不平衡发展”的概念,以分析农村农民与城市重工业之间的联系。他认为,20世纪前几十年的俄罗斯,其特点是政治、社会和经济落后,同时由于其融入全球资本主义市场,工业生产相对发达。“与此同时,直到革命以前,农民的土地耕作总体上还停留在17世纪的水平,”他写道,“俄国工业在技术和资本主义结构上与发达国家持平,在某些方面甚至超过了它们。在20世纪20年代,俄国的不平衡对新的布尔什维克政府来说尤其成问题,因为共产主义计划的成败似乎取决于俄国农民问题的解决。Sam Moyo、Praveen Jha和Paris Yeros写道,经典的农业问题“本质上是工业化的农业问题”,这就是早期布尔什维克政府所面临的问题的形式在德国革命失败之后,布尔什维克作为一个孤立的国家面临着工业化的问题,并经历了农村和城市之间农产品和商品流动的频繁中断(尤其是因为在新经济政策(NEP)时期,农民不再被迫供应粮食)。在约瑟夫·斯大林(Joseph Stalin)实施第一个五年计划之前,如何提高农业生产力的问题……
{"title":"Cultivating History: Sergei Eisenstein’s The General Line and the Cinema of Agrarian Transition","authors":"Benjamin Crais","doi":"10.1353/dis.2023.a907670","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dis.2023.a907670","url":null,"abstract":"Cultivating History: Sergei Eisenstein’s The General Line and the Cinema of Agrarian Transition Benjamin Crais (bio) “There is no material more discredited in cinema than the village. There is nothing more difficult, nothing more frightening for the director. Yet there is nothing more necessary.”1 So begins an article published by Sergei Eisenstein in 1926 upon commencing work on The General Line (1929). Secured by the mythic status of the Lumière brothers’ Workers Leaving the Factory (1895), wherein the “first camera in the history of cinema was pointed at a factory,” cinema has often been taken to be the art of industrial modernity.2 Following what Inga Pollmann identifies as a “mutual definition of cinema as a modern medium and modernity as cinematic,” film scholars have often situated prewar European cinema within the context of urbanization, mass consumption, industrial production, and other hallmarks of modernity (of which, as Pollmann writes, cinema is understood to be emblematic).3 Yet, over thirty years after Auguste and Louis Lumière pointed their camera at the factory gates, Eisenstein would declare that the most urgent task facing cinema lay in peasant villages. Cinema, he exhorted, must “make images of agricultural character and chronicles” to compel the people of early Soviet Russia to face the “urgent” problem of peasant agriculture and its modernization. Three years later and under [End Page 138] a new title, Eisenstein’s agrarian film was released.4 “How might we write a history of cinema,” Brian R. Jacobson asks, that makes concerns with nature as “central to the narrative as technological and stylistic innovations or the worlds of machines, technologies, and urban life?”5 This essay considers The General Line—a depiction of the introduction of industrial technology and collective property relations to a rural peasant village—as opening onto such a history on the basis of industrial modernity’s unevenness. Indexing this unevenness is what in the history of Marxist theory has been referred to as “the agrarian question” (after Karl Kautsky’s book of the same name). “In its broadest meaning,” T. J. Byres writes, “the agrarian question may be defined as the continuing existence in the countryside of a poor country of substantive obstacles to an unleashing of the forces capable of generating economic development, both inside and outside agriculture.”6 At the time of the film’s production, the peasantry constituted around 80 percent of the entire Russian population and worked with agricultural equipment that, in the words of one observer, was “at least as old as the Pharaohs.”7 Leon Trotsky, surveying the conditions that had enabled the Bolsheviks to make the revolution of 1917, developed the concept of “combined and uneven development” to analyze the conjunction between the peasant countryside and the presence of heavy industry in the cities. Russia in the early decades of the twentieth century, he argued, was characterized by politi","PeriodicalId":40808,"journal":{"name":"Discourse-Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1353/dis.2023.a907665
Mal Ahern
Climate Control, Modernism, and Mass Production Mal Ahern (bio) Air-conditioning (AC) made images modern. It enabled two of modernity’s paradigmatic and seemingly opposite visual forms: abstract painting and the mass-produced image. AC transformed art conservation, securing the field’s scientific authority and adapting it to the demands of modernist painting. AC also played a crucial role in the development of industrial mass production, including the production of “mass images” in newspapers and magazines and on film. In both cases, AC transformed the labor of image maintenance and production by de-emphasizing the roles of gesture and manual inscription in favor of environmental management. Rather than touch up a damaged canvas, the twentieth-century conservator preferred to prevent visible changes from happening in the first place; rather than manually align color impressions, the twentieth-century printer sought to control flows and atmospheres in the pressroom. Of course, printing and preservation alike continued to require manual touch-ups and corrections long after AC transformed these practices. But expectations changed with the new technology: manual intervention on the image surface became more the exception than the rule, conceived as an act of repair or quality control, rather than regular maintenance. Climate control thus helped secure romantic and modernist ideals of the image’s autonomy—the artist’s control over and ultimate responsibility for [End Page 3] the image—by restricting the hand of the craftsperson whose work it was to preserve and transmit that image to others. Every image has two realities: every image exists as both object and appearance. W. J. T. Mitchell has proposed that we call “pictures” those local manifestations of more fluid and intangible “images.”1 While the image-as-appearance appeals to the eye, the picture-as-object reacts to and interacts with its environment. Wood and fabric swell and contract, wet ink seizes up or runs faster and thinner, and pigments fade in sunlight or darken with oxidation. In Nicole Starosielski’s recent work on the role of temperature in media, she argues that all varieties of matter “have their own thermo sensitivities.”2 We can say the same for materials’ sensitivity to light, humidity, and the surrounding air. Everything tangible will react to the matter and conditions that surround it; every picture will inevitably change over time. The “image,” in Mitchell’s terms, transcends the specifics of the more tangible, contextually rooted “picture.” An image can survive the destruction of the individual pictures that host it; it can live on in reproductions or reinterpretations or even in verbal descriptions and memories.3 What counts as the “original” or “true” image—indeed, whether and how we separate appearance and object at all—is historically and culturally contingent. Consider, as do Alexander Nagel and Christopher S. Wood in Anachronic Renaissance, the shock of a Western visito
气候控制、现代主义和大规模生产Mal Ahern(生物)空调(AC)使图像变得现代。它促成了现代性的两种范式和看似相反的视觉形式:抽象绘画和大规模生产的图像。AC改变了艺术保护,确保了该领域的科学权威,并使其适应现代主义绘画的要求。AC还在工业大规模生产的发展中发挥了关键作用,包括在报纸、杂志和电影上生产“大规模图像”。在这两种情况下,AC通过减少手势和手工铭文的作用,转而支持环境管理,从而改变了图像维护和制作的劳动。比起修补损坏的画布,这位20世纪的文物保管员更倾向于从一开始就防止可见的变化发生;二十世纪的印刷工人不是手动调整色彩,而是试图控制印刷室内的流量和气氛。当然,在AC改变了这些做法很久之后,印刷和保存同样需要人工修补和修正。但随着新技术的出现,人们的期望发生了变化:对图像表面的人工干预更多地成为例外,而不是常规,被视为修理或质量控制的行为,而不是定期维护。因此,通过限制工匠的手,气候控制有助于确保图像自主的浪漫主义和现代主义理想——艺术家对图像的控制和最终责任——工匠的工作是保存和传播图像给其他人。每一个形象都有两个现实:每一个形象既是物体又是表象。米切尔(W. J. T. Mitchell)提出,我们把那些更流动、更无形的“图像”的局部表现称为“图像”。当图像作为外观吸引眼球时,图像作为物体会对其环境做出反应并与之互动。木材和织物膨胀和收缩,潮湿的墨水会卡住或跑得更快更薄,颜料在阳光下会褪色或因氧化而变暗。在Nicole Starosielski最近关于温度在媒介中的作用的研究中,她认为所有种类的物质“都有自己的热敏性”。材料对光、湿度和周围空气的敏感性也是如此。任何有形的东西都会对它周围的物质和条件作出反应;每幅画都不可避免地会随着时间的推移而改变。用米切尔的话来说,“图像”超越了更具体、更有背景的“图片”。一幅图像可以在承载它的单个图片被破坏后幸存下来;它可以在复制或重新诠释中存在,甚至在口头描述和记忆中存在什么是“原始的”或“真实的”形象——事实上,我们是否以及如何将表象和客体分开——是历史和文化上的偶然事件。正如亚历山大·内格尔和克里斯托弗·s·伍德在《错误的文艺复兴》一书中所做的那样,当一位西方游客意识到许多中国古迹每年都要重新粉刷一次,而且已经粉刷了几个世纪时,他会感到多么震惊这位参观者遇到了一种完全不同的历史性范式,在这种范式中,文物不是作为过去时刻不变的痕迹而存在,而是从它所接受的持续关怀中获得其历史真实性。保护措施随着时间和空间的变化而变化。代表和复制艺术品的惯例也是如此:修复的形式(手工复制,雕刻,照片,照相机械复制)让我们觉得我们真正看到了一件艺术品。我在这篇文章中描述的保护和繁殖的范例是针对20世纪的西方,特别是美国的。它们构成了一种“图像的意识形态”,我用这个短语来描述个人和机构如何理解图像的外观和物质性之间的关系。(值得注意的是,路易斯·阿尔都塞对意识形态的经典定义——“个人与他们存在的真实条件的想象关系”——将想象、图像置于其中心。)5图像意识形态决定了一幅画的“真相”,也就是说,在多幅作品的生产中,什么被视为“好”的复制品,或者在修复实践中,什么被视为“真实”的艺术品。这些意识形态决定了……
{"title":"Climate Control, Modernism, and Mass Production","authors":"Mal Ahern","doi":"10.1353/dis.2023.a907665","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dis.2023.a907665","url":null,"abstract":"Climate Control, Modernism, and Mass Production Mal Ahern (bio) Air-conditioning (AC) made images modern. It enabled two of modernity’s paradigmatic and seemingly opposite visual forms: abstract painting and the mass-produced image. AC transformed art conservation, securing the field’s scientific authority and adapting it to the demands of modernist painting. AC also played a crucial role in the development of industrial mass production, including the production of “mass images” in newspapers and magazines and on film. In both cases, AC transformed the labor of image maintenance and production by de-emphasizing the roles of gesture and manual inscription in favor of environmental management. Rather than touch up a damaged canvas, the twentieth-century conservator preferred to prevent visible changes from happening in the first place; rather than manually align color impressions, the twentieth-century printer sought to control flows and atmospheres in the pressroom. Of course, printing and preservation alike continued to require manual touch-ups and corrections long after AC transformed these practices. But expectations changed with the new technology: manual intervention on the image surface became more the exception than the rule, conceived as an act of repair or quality control, rather than regular maintenance. Climate control thus helped secure romantic and modernist ideals of the image’s autonomy—the artist’s control over and ultimate responsibility for [End Page 3] the image—by restricting the hand of the craftsperson whose work it was to preserve and transmit that image to others. Every image has two realities: every image exists as both object and appearance. W. J. T. Mitchell has proposed that we call “pictures” those local manifestations of more fluid and intangible “images.”1 While the image-as-appearance appeals to the eye, the picture-as-object reacts to and interacts with its environment. Wood and fabric swell and contract, wet ink seizes up or runs faster and thinner, and pigments fade in sunlight or darken with oxidation. In Nicole Starosielski’s recent work on the role of temperature in media, she argues that all varieties of matter “have their own thermo sensitivities.”2 We can say the same for materials’ sensitivity to light, humidity, and the surrounding air. Everything tangible will react to the matter and conditions that surround it; every picture will inevitably change over time. The “image,” in Mitchell’s terms, transcends the specifics of the more tangible, contextually rooted “picture.” An image can survive the destruction of the individual pictures that host it; it can live on in reproductions or reinterpretations or even in verbal descriptions and memories.3 What counts as the “original” or “true” image—indeed, whether and how we separate appearance and object at all—is historically and culturally contingent. Consider, as do Alexander Nagel and Christopher S. Wood in Anachronic Renaissance, the shock of a Western visito","PeriodicalId":40808,"journal":{"name":"Discourse-Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135532833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}