经济学:走向形象的政治经济学

Giles Fielke
{"title":"经济学:走向形象的政治经济学","authors":"Giles Fielke","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2023.2222384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ed as ‘videodeath’, Smith wends his way only partly towards the images of executions for dissemination via video, like those used by Islamic terror organisations to shock and instil fear in their audience-enemies. The 17-year-old woman who filmed the police killing of Floyd, for nine unflinching minutes, was perhaps unwittingly participating in the structure of our spectacle culture that not only incites but in some sense always produces more violence. George Holliday, who used his Handycam to video LAPD officers beating Rodney King in 1991, and who died of COVID-19 on 21 September 2021, was in some ways responsible—or perhaps more pointedly, the video camcorder he used was responsible— for the 63 deaths that followed the trial of the officers, in the rioting that occurred when they were acquitted of wrongdoing in their arrest of King. (King himself died tragically in 2012 at age 47 after years of addiction and violence following the 1991 event that made him a globally famous victim of police brutality.) Yet even as Smith considers these possibilities (113–17), he skirts the existing arguments about media and violence already made so well by contemporary commentators such as Groys (‘we all know bin Laden as a video artist first and foremost’), in preference for the vague idea of ambient images as the more suitable vector for establishing the effectiveness of these recorded killings within the iconomy. The reader is left asking: why? This incongruence leads to a question that Smith seems reluctant to ask: what is it that mediates what he has gathered here in the section titled ‘Iconoclash’? As the central part of the text, there remains a very demanding debate to be had about the so-called ‘image-complex’ attributed to Meg McLagan and Yates McKee (61)—one that recapitulates the arguments against the medieval bans on the use of images made by the iconophile Nikephoros (via Mondzain’s thesis arguing for its contemporary significance). Is the answer to the question of iconoclash too much for Smith to bear? When the French philosopher Alain Badiou intervened into this question of the clash of contemporary images in a lecture from 2013 titled ‘Images of the Present Time’ (translated and published as The Pornographic Age), he argued, typically provocative, that ‘the emblem of the present age, its fetish, which covers with a false image naked power without image, is the word “democracy”’. What we have in reality is the unsolicited distribution of images by market-based, algorithmic, and visual regimes. In revealing the political contents Smith is aiming at, the anarchic solution that appears seems too difficult to fathom. Enter Donald Trump, the eventually successful presidential candidate announcing his campaign in 2015, initially as an independent, and initially distinct from the GOP. Trump’s interest in, and most often successful interventions into the media-sphere as a montage of attractions is closer to Soviet-style propaganda than the d eclass e liberal media strategies preferred by the art world, but Trump’s self-image bordered on the uncanny for its media literacy during this time. The palpable disdain Smith feels for Trump and his followers throughout the book makes the bias of his inquiry too pronounced, however (99). Even so, now that President Biden is in charge, his casting as the architect of ‘the dawn of a genuinely equitable mode of governance’ shows that what Smith has feted him to be Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art, vol. 23, no. 1","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Iconomy: Towards a Political Economy of Images\",\"authors\":\"Giles Fielke\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14434318.2023.2222384\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ed as ‘videodeath’, Smith wends his way only partly towards the images of executions for dissemination via video, like those used by Islamic terror organisations to shock and instil fear in their audience-enemies. The 17-year-old woman who filmed the police killing of Floyd, for nine unflinching minutes, was perhaps unwittingly participating in the structure of our spectacle culture that not only incites but in some sense always produces more violence. George Holliday, who used his Handycam to video LAPD officers beating Rodney King in 1991, and who died of COVID-19 on 21 September 2021, was in some ways responsible—or perhaps more pointedly, the video camcorder he used was responsible— for the 63 deaths that followed the trial of the officers, in the rioting that occurred when they were acquitted of wrongdoing in their arrest of King. (King himself died tragically in 2012 at age 47 after years of addiction and violence following the 1991 event that made him a globally famous victim of police brutality.) Yet even as Smith considers these possibilities (113–17), he skirts the existing arguments about media and violence already made so well by contemporary commentators such as Groys (‘we all know bin Laden as a video artist first and foremost’), in preference for the vague idea of ambient images as the more suitable vector for establishing the effectiveness of these recorded killings within the iconomy. The reader is left asking: why? This incongruence leads to a question that Smith seems reluctant to ask: what is it that mediates what he has gathered here in the section titled ‘Iconoclash’? As the central part of the text, there remains a very demanding debate to be had about the so-called ‘image-complex’ attributed to Meg McLagan and Yates McKee (61)—one that recapitulates the arguments against the medieval bans on the use of images made by the iconophile Nikephoros (via Mondzain’s thesis arguing for its contemporary significance). Is the answer to the question of iconoclash too much for Smith to bear? When the French philosopher Alain Badiou intervened into this question of the clash of contemporary images in a lecture from 2013 titled ‘Images of the Present Time’ (translated and published as The Pornographic Age), he argued, typically provocative, that ‘the emblem of the present age, its fetish, which covers with a false image naked power without image, is the word “democracy”’. What we have in reality is the unsolicited distribution of images by market-based, algorithmic, and visual regimes. In revealing the political contents Smith is aiming at, the anarchic solution that appears seems too difficult to fathom. Enter Donald Trump, the eventually successful presidential candidate announcing his campaign in 2015, initially as an independent, and initially distinct from the GOP. Trump’s interest in, and most often successful interventions into the media-sphere as a montage of attractions is closer to Soviet-style propaganda than the d eclass e liberal media strategies preferred by the art world, but Trump’s self-image bordered on the uncanny for its media literacy during this time. The palpable disdain Smith feels for Trump and his followers throughout the book makes the bias of his inquiry too pronounced, however (99). Even so, now that President Biden is in charge, his casting as the architect of ‘the dawn of a genuinely equitable mode of governance’ shows that what Smith has feted him to be Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art, vol. 23, no. 1\",\"PeriodicalId\":29864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2023.2222384\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2023.2222384","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

史密斯被称为“视频死亡”,他只是部分地通过视频传播处决的图像,就像那些被伊斯兰恐怖组织用来震惊和灌输恐惧的观众-敌人一样。这位17岁的女孩用九分钟的时间拍摄了警察杀害弗洛伊德的过程,她可能无意中参与了我们的奇观文化结构,这种文化不仅煽动,而且在某种意义上总是会产生更多的暴力。1991年,乔治·霍利迪(George Holliday)用他的Handycam拍下了洛杉矶警察殴打罗德尼·金(Rodney King)的视频,并于2021年9月21日死于COVID-19。在某种程度上,他对警察审判后63人死亡负有责任——或者更确切地说,他使用的摄像机负有责任——在警察逮捕金的不当行为被宣告无罪后发生的骚乱中。(马丁·路德·金于2012年不幸去世,享年47岁。1991年的事件使他成为全球知名的警察暴力受害者,此后他多年沉迷于毒品和暴力。)然而,即使史密斯考虑了这些可能性(113-17),他回避了格罗伊斯(Groys)等当代评论家已经很好地提出的关于媒体和暴力的争论(“我们都知道本拉登首先是一个视频艺术家”),更倾向于将环境图像作为更合适的媒介来确定这些记录在经济中的杀戮的有效性。读者不禁要问:为什么?这种不一致导致了一个问题,史密斯似乎不愿意问:是什么调解了他在这里收集的标题为“偶像冲突”的部分?作为文本的中心部分,关于梅格·麦克拉甘(Meg McLagan)和耶茨·麦基(Yates McKee)(61)提出的所谓的“图像情结”(image-complex),仍有一场非常激烈的辩论有待进行。这场辩论概括了反对中世纪禁止使用由亲像者尼基弗罗斯(nikkephoros)拍摄的图像的争论(通过蒙赞的论文论证其当代意义)。偶像冲突问题的答案是否让史密斯难以承受?当法国哲学家阿兰·巴迪欧(Alain Badiou)在2013年一篇名为《当代的图像》(翻译并出版为《色情时代》)的演讲中介入当代图像冲突的问题时,他提出了典型的挑衅,“当代的象征,它的恋物,用虚假的图像掩盖了没有图像的赤裸裸的权力,是“民主”这个词”。在现实中,我们所拥有的是基于市场、算法和视觉机制的未经请求的图像分发。在揭示史密斯所瞄准的政治内容时,无政府主义的解决方案似乎难以理解。唐纳德·特朗普登场了,这位最终成功的总统候选人在2015年宣布参加竞选,最初是作为一名独立人士,与共和党截然不同。特朗普对媒体领域的兴趣,以及最成功的干预,作为一种蒙太奇式的吸引力,更接近于苏联式的宣传,而不是艺术界喜欢的阶级自由主义媒体策略,但在这段时间里,特朗普的自我形象因其媒体素养而近乎不可思议。然而,贯穿全书,史密斯对特朗普及其追随者明显的蔑视,使得他的调查的偏见过于明显(99)。即便如此,现在拜登总统掌权了,他作为“真正公平的治理模式的曙光”的建筑师的角色表明,史密斯对他的评价是澳大利亚和新西兰艺术杂志,第23期,第6期。1
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Iconomy: Towards a Political Economy of Images
ed as ‘videodeath’, Smith wends his way only partly towards the images of executions for dissemination via video, like those used by Islamic terror organisations to shock and instil fear in their audience-enemies. The 17-year-old woman who filmed the police killing of Floyd, for nine unflinching minutes, was perhaps unwittingly participating in the structure of our spectacle culture that not only incites but in some sense always produces more violence. George Holliday, who used his Handycam to video LAPD officers beating Rodney King in 1991, and who died of COVID-19 on 21 September 2021, was in some ways responsible—or perhaps more pointedly, the video camcorder he used was responsible— for the 63 deaths that followed the trial of the officers, in the rioting that occurred when they were acquitted of wrongdoing in their arrest of King. (King himself died tragically in 2012 at age 47 after years of addiction and violence following the 1991 event that made him a globally famous victim of police brutality.) Yet even as Smith considers these possibilities (113–17), he skirts the existing arguments about media and violence already made so well by contemporary commentators such as Groys (‘we all know bin Laden as a video artist first and foremost’), in preference for the vague idea of ambient images as the more suitable vector for establishing the effectiveness of these recorded killings within the iconomy. The reader is left asking: why? This incongruence leads to a question that Smith seems reluctant to ask: what is it that mediates what he has gathered here in the section titled ‘Iconoclash’? As the central part of the text, there remains a very demanding debate to be had about the so-called ‘image-complex’ attributed to Meg McLagan and Yates McKee (61)—one that recapitulates the arguments against the medieval bans on the use of images made by the iconophile Nikephoros (via Mondzain’s thesis arguing for its contemporary significance). Is the answer to the question of iconoclash too much for Smith to bear? When the French philosopher Alain Badiou intervened into this question of the clash of contemporary images in a lecture from 2013 titled ‘Images of the Present Time’ (translated and published as The Pornographic Age), he argued, typically provocative, that ‘the emblem of the present age, its fetish, which covers with a false image naked power without image, is the word “democracy”’. What we have in reality is the unsolicited distribution of images by market-based, algorithmic, and visual regimes. In revealing the political contents Smith is aiming at, the anarchic solution that appears seems too difficult to fathom. Enter Donald Trump, the eventually successful presidential candidate announcing his campaign in 2015, initially as an independent, and initially distinct from the GOP. Trump’s interest in, and most often successful interventions into the media-sphere as a montage of attractions is closer to Soviet-style propaganda than the d eclass e liberal media strategies preferred by the art world, but Trump’s self-image bordered on the uncanny for its media literacy during this time. The palpable disdain Smith feels for Trump and his followers throughout the book makes the bias of his inquiry too pronounced, however (99). Even so, now that President Biden is in charge, his casting as the architect of ‘the dawn of a genuinely equitable mode of governance’ shows that what Smith has feted him to be Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art, vol. 23, no. 1
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Responses to Charles Esche, The First Exhibition of the Twenty-First Century—Lumbung 1 (Documenta Fifteen), What Happened, and What It Might Mean Two Years On Three Projects Peripheral to Documentas 7, 8 and IX The First Exhibition of the Twenty-First Century—Lumbung 1 (Documenta Fifteen), What Happened, and What It Might Mean Two Years On Defunct Infrastructure: On the 60th Venice Biennale, Stranieri Ovunque–Foreigners Everywhere Unorchestrated Symphony: documenta fifteen as a Site of Resistance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1