end
The televisual experience, unlike cinema, is ever-lasting.* You can leave a cinema and that will be the end of the film. You can leave a theatrical performance or come to the end of a televisual “single play” and that will be the end of that performance. But a television show, especially the long running, never quite 'end', as the conclusion of each episode is never quite 'concluded' but simply awaits the arrival of a new installment.
The mechanisms by which this machine is able to compress and manipulate time and space through editing, much akin to cinema again, has the added component of a prolonging, providing the possibility of greater depth, evolution, complexity, and a repetition and prevalence that creates stronger attachments with its audience and instills more life.
Whether it be the ontogenetic (the universe of the particular serial) or the phylogenetic (the macro evolution of the idea of a serial), we can shape this into the notion of becomings (Guattari, cited from week 3 lecture), the transfer of energy in the encounter between these universes, and the affects of emotional attachment, engagement and commitment (to view a show “religiously”). This flow of energy between the self-contained universe and the external universe is a flux sustained by the “domains of alterification”.
* I will acknowledge that cinema too is being infected by the idea of serialisation, Creeber citing examples such as Star Wars (Lucas, 1977-), Kill Bill (Tarantino, 2003-4), Lord of the Rings (Jackson, 2000-3) and Harry Potter (Columbus, 2000-).
The televisual experience, unlike cinema, is ever-lasting.* You can leave a cinema and that will be the end of the film. You can leave a theatrical performance or come to the end of a televisual “single play” and that will be the end of that performance. But a television show, especially the long running, never quite 'end', as the conclusion of each episode is never quite 'concluded' but simply awaits the arrival of a new installment.
The mechanisms by which this machine is able to compress and manipulate time and space through editing, much akin to cinema again, has the added component of a prolonging, providing the possibility of greater depth, evolution, complexity, and a repetition and prevalence that creates stronger attachments with its audience and instills more life.
Whether it be the ontogenetic (the universe of the particular serial) or the phylogenetic (the macro evolution of the idea of a serial), we can shape this into the notion of becomings (Guattari, cited from week 3 lecture), the transfer of energy in the encounter between these universes, and the affects of emotional attachment, engagement and commitment (to view a show “religiously”). This flow of energy between the self-contained universe and the external universe is a flux sustained by the “domains of alterification”.
* I will acknowledge that cinema too is being infected by the idea of serialisation, Creeber citing examples such as Star Wars (Lucas, 1977-), Kill Bill (Tarantino, 2003-4), Lord of the Rings (Jackson, 2000-3) and Harry Potter (Columbus, 2000-).
No comments:
Post a Comment