书籍介绍

This book approaches 21st-century globalized cinema through the new concept of the "neuro-image." Pisters begins with the premise that today's viewers no longer look through a character's eyes; instead, they move through his or her brain or mental landscape. Her book elaborates the threefold nature of the neuro-image by drawing on research from three domains?Deleuzian (schizoanalytic) philosophy, digital networked screen culture, and neuroscientific research?and is accordingly divided into three parts. The first reads

Patricia Pisters is Professor of Media Culture and Film Studies and Chair of the Department of Media Studies of the University of Amsterdam. Her publications include The Matrix of Visual Culture: Working with Deleuze in Film Theory (Stanford University Press, 2003), Shooting the Family: Transnational Media and Intercultural Values (ed. with Wim Staat, 2005) and Mind the Screen ...

(展开全部)

作者简介

Patricia Pisters is Professor of Media Culture and Film Studies and Chair of the Department of Media Studies of the University of Amsterdam. Her publications include The Matrix of Visual Culture: Working with Deleuze in Film Theory (Stanford University Press, 2003), Shooting the Family: Transnational Media and Intercultural Values (ed. with Wim Staat, 2005) and Mind the Screen (ed. with Jaap Kooijman and Wanda Strauven, 2008).

Introduction. Schizoanalysis, Digital Screens, and New Brain Circuits 1

PART 1. neuroscreens: principles of the brain 35

1 Schizoid Minds, Delirium Cinema, and Powers of the Machines of the Invisible 37

2 Illusionary Perception and Powers of the False 73

3 Surveillance Screens and Powers of Affect 98

显示全部

用户评论

传说中德勒兹在《电影1》和《电影2》之外，《电影3》始终没写，电影1 是运动-影像，电影2是时间-影像，电影3则是精神-影像。电影3是关于时间的第三综合：未来，其实这在电影2里面也有涉及的了。根据德勒兹这个逻辑写了一本《神经-影像》。神经-影像就是数码电子屏幕。

从《差异与重复》中借用第三种时间综合承接《运动-影像》和《时间-影像》的时间逻辑。最初对于本书选择神经科学来续写电影3报以质疑态度，但品斯特的逻辑缜密至极，从德勒兹大脑即屏幕的论断出发，可谓完全缝合了德勒兹的哲学思想。尽管德勒兹也许并不会真的写出这样的电影3，但这也绝不影响本书是极具学术价值的当代数字电影哲学。

望文生义派代表

所以会起标题还是很重要的。要是没有这个有“续写德勒兹”意味的标题，几乎也没什么真的有新意的见解。我觉得很多人忽略了一个事实。德勒兹在写电影的时候，他的一些观念可能还不落后于当时的电影技术发展和实践。但是2012年的书，你可能就是在写80-90年代已经在实践中被直接运用过的观念和技术了。

这里就遇到了Bordwell在Burch那里指出的问题，形式分析如果没有历史性，那还有什么意义吗？结果只会把电影的审美还原/消解为繁琐的符号分类，P.P似乎没有说明这个在我看来根本性的问题。德勒兹会说对符号分类的意义是apprehension，而符号本身是explication。按照这个思路，德勒兹可能不会单纯地在当代文化和影视作品内部指出powers of schizophrenia的representation，而至少是完全反过来说，the representations of schizophrenia explicate abc powers？

大脑就是屏幕。正是因为电影使图像处于运动状态，或者更确切地说，它赋予图像以自我运动，所以从未停止对大脑回路的追踪。好棒的一本书，提到了我喜欢的哲学家，而且好多举例片单，清晰明了。

神经影像的基础

Stanford University Press的其他书籍查看全部

The Neuro-Image