The Cinematic Mode of Production: Attention Economy and the Society of the Spectacle Ann B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Cinematic Mode of Production interfaces: studies in visual culture Editors: Mark J. Williams & Adrian W. B. Randolph, Dartmouth College This series, sponsored by Dartmouth College Press, develops and promotes the study of visual culture from a variety of critical and methodological perspectives. Its impetus derives from the increasing importance of visual signs in everyday life, and from the rapid expansion of what are termed “new media.” The broad cultural and social dynamics attendant to these developments present new challenges and opportunities across and within the disciplines. These have resulted in a trans-disciplinary fascination with all things visual, from “high” to “low,” and from esoteric to popular. This series brings together approaches to visual culture—broadly conceived—that assess these dynamics critically and that break new ground in understanding their e¤ects and implications. Jonathan Beller, The Cinematic Mode of Production: Attention Economy and the Society of the Spectacle Ann B. Shteir and Bernard Lightman, eds., Figuring It Out: Science, Gender, and Visual Culture Anna Munster, Materializing New Media: Body, Image, and Interface in Information Aesthetics Luc Pauwels, ed., Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication Lisa Saltzman and Eric Rosenberg, eds., Trauma and Visuality in Modernity dartmouth college press hanover, new hampshire published by university press of new england hanover and london The Cinematic Mode of Production Attention Economy and the Society of the Spectacle Jonathan Beller dartmouth college press Published by University Press of New England, One Court Street, Lebanon, NH 03766 www.upne.com © 2006 by Jonathan Beller Printed in the United States of America 54321 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer, who may quote brief passages in a review. Members of educational institutions and organizations wishing to photocopy any of the work for classroom use, or authors and publishers who would like to obtain permission for any of the material in the work, should contact Permissions, University Press of New England, One Court Street, Lebanon, NH 03766. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beller, Jonathan. The cinematic mode of production : attention economy and the society of the spectacle / Jonathan Beller. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn–13: 978–1–58465–582–4 (cloth : alk. paper) isbn–10: 1–58465–582–8 (cloth : alk. paper) isbn–13: 978–1–58465–583–1 (pbk. : alk. paper) isbn–10: 1–58465–583–6 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Motion pictures—Philosophy. I. Title. pn1995.b336 2006 791.4301—dc22 2006024629 For Neferti, Who inspires more than words contents Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xiii introduction: The Political Economy of the Postmodern 1 part i chapter 1: Circulation: Dziga Vertov and the Film of Money 37 chapter 2: Production: The Spectatorship of the Proletariat 88 chapter 3: The Unconscious: The Unconscious of the Unconscious, or, the Work of Consciousness in the Age of Technological Imagination 150 part ii chapter 4: Inspiration of Objects, Expiration of Words: Cinema, Capital of the Twentieth Century 193 chapter 5: The Pyrotechnics of Control: Numismatics of the Sensual, Calculus of the Image 243 chapter 6: Proprioception: Killer-Eye, Killer World: The Media-Environment for Natural Born Killers 265 epilogue: Paying Attention 283 Index 315 acknowledgments Thanks, many of them belated, to the following people for helping to make this book: Fredric Jameson, Barbara Herrnstein-Smith, Kenneth Surin, Cathy Davidson, Ariel Dorfman, George Yudice, Edward Said, Ramón Sal- divar, Jay Schecter, Denis Wood, Michael Diamond, Lucho Marcial, Kevin Dalton, Valerie Beller, Carlo Tadiar, David “3000GT VR-4” Thompson, Eva-Lynn Jagoe, Sara Danius, Stefan Jonsson, Cesare Cesarino, Saree Mak- disi, Xudong Zhang, Richard Dienst, Mark Simpson, Michael Hardt, Re- becca Karl, Eleanor Kaufman (tee-hee), Renu Bora, Imre Szeman, Sandy Swanson, Priscilla Lane, Joan McNay, Gail Hammer, Sandy Mills, Jose Muñoz, and Brian Selskey. Also to Vicente Rafael, Sean Cubitt (thank you, Sean!), Christopher Connery, Gopal Balakrishnan, Gail Hershatter, Jen- nifer Gonzalez, Warren Sack, Jody Greene, Anjali Arondekar, Lucy Burns, Gina Dent, Angela Davis, Jim Cli¤ord, Nobi Nagasawa, Carla Freccero, Rob Wilson, Paul Bové, Donald Pease, Jonathan Arac, Meg Havran, Wimal Dissanayake, Brian Massumi, Michael Hardt, Eyal Amiran, John Unsworth, Steven Shaviro, Sheila Peuse, Nicholas Rhombes, Hugh Culik, Wayne Lesser, Lisa Parks, Jon Simons, W.J.T. Mitchell, James Elkins, Chip Lord, Maggie Morse, Cathy Sousslo¤, Bill Nichols, Judith Butler, Toni Oliviero, May Joseph, Jim Elledge, Paul Narkunas, Ethan Spigland, Suzie Verderber, Sameetha Agha, Amy Lesen, Miriam Greenberg, Ann Holder, Amy Gug- genheim, Edel Garcellano, Manny Garibay, Elmer Borlongan, Ellen Pag- linauan, Ivan Zatz-Diaz, Roland Tolentino, Hugh Ra¤els, Seth Goldstein, Coco Fusco, John Landrigan, Gloriana Russell, Sina Najafi, Edy Mcwilliams, Linda Holiday, Hal Lehrman, mom and dad. My heartfelt and eternal gratitude to Nicholas Mirzoe¤, without whose support this project would not have seen the light of day. And my thanks to Luna and Neferti, who not only inspire but bring joy to my days on Earth. abbreviations MM Regis Debray, Media Manifestos, trans. Eric Rauth (London and New York: Verso, 1996) FFCP Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: W.W. Norton, 1981) Vertov Dziga Vertov, Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov, ed. Annette Michelson, trans. Kevin O’Brien (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984) Grundrisse Karl Marx, Grundrisse, in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Collected Works, vol. 28 (Moscow: Progress, 1986) Wurzer Wilhelm S. Wurzer, Filming and Judgment: Between Heidegger and Adorno (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1990) Writings Sergei Eisenstein, Selected Works: Writings 1922–1934, vol. 1, ed. and trans. Richard Taylor (London: BFI Publishing, 1988) CR Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, Conditioned Reflexes, ed. and trans. G.V. Anrep (New York: Dover Publications, 1960) SM Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Norton Library, 1967) The Cinematic Mode of Production Introduction The Political Economy of the Postmodern But all the story of the night told over, And their minds transfigured so together, More witnesseth than fancies images, And grows to something of great constancy; But, howsoever, strange and admirable. —A Midsummer Night’s Dream (the movie) The Cinematic Mode of Production The Cinematic Mode of Production remands to the reader the follow- ing idea: Cinema and its succeeding (if still simultaneous), formations, particularly television, video, computers, and the internet, are deterritori- alized factories in which spectators work, that is, in which we perform value-productive labor. It is in and through the cinematic image and its legacy, the gossamer imaginary arising out of a matrix of socio-psycho- material relations, that we make our lives. This claim suggests that not only do we confront the image at the scene of the screen, but we confront the lo- gistics of the image wherever we turn—imaginal functions are today im- bricated in perception itself. Not only do the denizens of capital labor to maintain ourselves as image, we labor in the image. The image, which per- vades all appearing, is the mise-en-scène of the new work. What is immediately suggested by the cinematic mode of production (CMP), properly understood, is that a social relation that emerged as “the cinema” is today characteristic of sociality generally. As Pierre Boulez says, “Art transforms the improbable into the inevitable.”1 Although it first ap- peared in the late nineteenth century as the built-in response to a techno- logical oddity, cinematic spectatorship (emerging in conjunction with the clumsily cobbled together image-production mechanisms necessary to that situation), surreptitiously became the formal paradigm and structural template for social organization generally. By some technological sleight of hand, machine-mediated perception now is inextricable from your psycho- logical, economic, visceral, and ideological dispensations. Spectatorship, as the fusion and development of the cultural, industrial, economic, and psychological, quickly gained a handhold on human fate and then became decisive. Now, visuality reigns and social theory needs become film theory. At the moment, in principle at least, that is, in accord with the principles of late capitalism, to look is to labor. This is not to say that all looking is nec- essarily productive for capital, but looking first was posited as productive by capital early in the twentieth century, and currently is being presup- posed as such. The cinematicization of the visual, the fusion of the visual with a set of socio-technical institutions and apparatuses, gives rise to the advanced forms of networked expropriation characteristic of the present period. Capitalized machinic interfaces prey on visuality. As Raul Ruiz re- marked, “Cinema in its industrial form is a predator. It is a machine for copying the visible world and a book for people who can’t read.”2 Noting the power exercised through