“We are coming to a twenty-first-century crisis in America’s informal empire, an empire based on the projection of military power to every corner of the world and on the use of American capital and markets to force global economic integration on our terms, at whatever cost to others… What form our imperial crisis is likely to take years or even decades from now is, of course, impossible to know. But history indicates that, sooner or later, empires do reach such moments, and it seems reasonable to assume that we will not miraculously escape that fate.”—Chalmers Johnson – Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire
“How people themselves perceive what they are doing is not a question that interests me. I mean, there are very few people who are going to look into the mirror and say, ‘That person I see is a savage monster’; instead, they make up some construction that justifies what they do. If you ask the CEO of some major corporation what he does he will say, in all honesty, that he is slaving 20 hours a day to provide his customers with the best goods or services he can and creating the best possible working conditions for his employees. But then you take a look at what the corporation does, the effect of its legal structure, the vast inequalities in pay and conditions, and you see the reality is something far different.”—Noam Chomsky (via noam-chomsky)
I see it as a cultural criticism, even be ironic on your part.
Actually, publish on Tumblr is very fragmentary, instantaneous and convulsive. I´m the only one who blogs one subject area, 3 times a week.
There is no irony in détournement. There is no irony in a seriousness that laughs and sees irony as an outdated trend of advertising.
Consistency leads to totalizations of thought and that can be harmful. Fragments are the shards of anti-totalization. It is the way that we cut into the symbolic.
This issue is an exercise in media ecology that is paradoxically unnatural. Instead of assuming a natural connection to the established tradition of Media Ecology in the Toronto-school fashion of Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman, and the work of scholars involved in the Media Ecology Association (http://www.media-ecology.org/media_ecology/), our issue stems from another direction; its theoretical orientation is more inspired by the work of Felix Guattari and engages with several overlapping ecologies that are aesthetico-political in their nature. It stems from a more politically oriented way of understanding the various scales and layers through which media are articulated together with politics, capitalism and nature, in which processes of media and technology cannot be detached from subjectivation. In this context, media ecology is itself a vibrant sphere of dynamics and turbulences including on its technical level. Technology is not only a passive surface for the inscription of meanings and signification, but a material assemblage that partakes in machinic ecologies. And, instead of assuming that ‘ecologies’ are by their nature natural (even if naturalizing perhaps in terms of their impact on capacities of sensation and thought) we assume them as radically contingent and dynamic, in other words as prone to change.
Freud noticed this early on in his work and even formalized it initially by saying that analysis falls into two stages: one stage in which the analyst presents the patient with fine explanations of her symptoms, and a second in which change finally occurs, the patient taking up the material of her own analysis herself. Later, Freud formulated the problem differently, in terms of what he called “an economic factor”: a powerful force must be holding the patient’s symptom in place—the patient must be deriving considerable satisfaction from it (even if it is, as Freud qualifies it, a “substitute” satisfaction).
This brings up the fundamental distinction that Freud makes between representation and affect. For example, if we hypnotize a patient, we can elicit all kinds of representations from him—we can get him to remember the most minute details of events that he cannot remember at all while awake, we can get him to put into words many aspects of his history—but often nothing changes. When we wake him up from hypnosis, he remembers nothing more than before, and the symptoms that seem to be tied to those events often remain intact. It is only when the patient is able to articulate his history and feel something at the same time—some emotion or affect—that change occurs.
Representation without affect is thus sterile.This is one of the reasons for the sterility of so-called “self-analysis”: you tell yourself lovely stories about the past, you analyze your dreams and fantasies to yourself or on paper, but nothing happens, nothing changes. It is all very informative and interesting; you remember all kinds of things about your past, but there is no metamorphosis. Affect is rarely brought into play without the presence of another person to whom you address all of these thoughts, dreams, and fantasies.
FOCUS contains all key figures of the film industry in the most important countries. It provides a concise analysis of results and tendencies country by country, together with recent figures.
"The pace of cinema digitisation in Europe is undoubtedly quite surprising. Ten years after the unveiling of the first equipment, it seemed to be very slow but, to the surprise of many, accelerated in the latter half of 2009. According to Screen Digest, the number of digital screens worldwide went up by 89% in 2009 and represented about 15% of all modern screens at the end of December.
The role of James Cameron’s film Avatar in this development is undeniable. What is paradoxical about this pleasantly ecological film is that it is in fact itself, the terrible weapon of the logic that it illustrates: the destructive efficiency of technologies once blindly unleashed on traditional environments. At this point in time, many European cinema professionals suddenly feel just as threatened as the Na’vi in Avatar.”