Analysis Paul Paroli, Bachelor of Philosophy, Honorary Collaborator
Transformation Project of Mediation: the conflict between tradition and transmission
In Chapter 1 the author uses a passage from Homi Bhabha which displays how establishing the "otherness", leaving no place established as an opposite to me, but from his refusal "Otherness should be seen as a necessary denial primary identity, cultural or psychological" (p. 28). In relation to the production of that otherness, says that communication networks is generated from a "no-time and non-place ', from which observes a war of identity vs otherness "without specific historical references or representative." Paroli Paul
Analysis, Bachelor of Philosophy, Honorary Collaborator Transformation Project Mediation: Conflict between Tradition
On Air and the media, later used the characteristics attributed to the truth by Paul Virilio and says there is a change of the royalties from which something is designated as true. Objectivity is passed to the present (p. 29). On the next page continues the theme of the live broadcast, said: "This apparatus produces a dramatic turn as an epistemological radical someone telling the truth when he says may indicate the complete opposite of this, just to utter a coherent and credible: the only requirement to go to be true. "
By the apocalyptic passage of the closure of the reference seems there is almost no distance, "the correspondence between word and thing, typical of the oral stage, which had been replaced by the notion of representation of the thing by the word the later stage of the invention of printing, now gives way to the creation of simulacra. " And here is the conclusion which has already been anticipated "The world is looking more and more drills that broadcast television or computer screens, that is, it seems encapsulated around a hidden message without references or representative patterns that can serve as a holder of it "(p.29).
i) The statement of the resemblance between the simulation and the world settles the absence of reference attributed to the drill. When we speak of a "similar" is trying to establish a relationship that links both domains. Is no longer talking in the plane of the symbolic system then will be reflected in a monitor, but it is a relationship between two different conujuntos: it displayed in the monitor and what exists outside it. Removed the idea of non-referentiality (because it actually comes into existence as a duo sign-reference) will have to discuss the degree of conventionality that can be attributed to the relationship and where it occurs.
ii) It is a fact that the world seems increasingly to broadcast on TV screens. And it looks as reflected in the photographs, film, in the drawings, sketches, etc. .. This statement is outrageous. Gombrich recalls Oscar Wilde, who said "there was no fog in London before Whistler painted it," or the "unrealistic and self-Goodman scandalous" nature is a product of art and discourse. " But here we can not infer that the world impose some correction to the representations it made. It is true that "almost anything can represent any other" (Goodman), but once you set a reference system, the objects that have a certain type of characters "automatically" be incorporated under a certain concept or representation. The conventionality of the sign does not imply relativity.
iii) The problem with questions like that of "closing the reference" which are critical means of production materials (digital) at the time of establishing the truth of representation, left in a dead end himself argument. If transmitted from digital media, then you should attach all of the proposals with these transfers, which means that any images presented on the basis of these media will become a sham, including own representations. Everything becomes a simulacrum. All that matters is that the logic of representation is consistent, so we "lose" the world to everyone (including the "Other").
What seems to be then? PURE FACTS. To counter the mediation of information in the book is constantly resorts to the "pure fact" as opposed to what is transmitted by means, for example when comparing reported by international chains during the Iraq war and what "really" happened. So as you can not accept that a transmission is "true" to be "live" can not accept that an observation is "real" for being "live." The observation is not neutral (Arnheim. Gombrich. Hoschberg, etc. Etc. Etc..)
0 comments:
Post a Comment