Gilles Deleuze's 'the Brain is the Screen' in Digital Culture

Image: Diffraction Grating. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diffraction_Grating.jpg

GillesDeleuze's'theBrainistheScreen'inDigitalCulture

LouiseMazet

Studentnumber:387740

DoubleDegreewithPhilosophy

DepartmentofPhilosophy

ErasmusUniversityRotterdam

Supervisor:Dr.SjoerdvanTuinen

Advisor:Dr.HenriKrop

11.25ECTS

31July2018

Wordcount:12286

2

ContentsIntroduction........................................................................................................................... 3 1. Cinema .............................................................................................................................. 6 Movement................................................................................................................................................7

Time.......................................................................................................................................................10

2. The Brain is the screen? .................................................................................................. 13 Plasticityofthebrain........................................................................................................................13

Betweenbrainandscreen:‘is’........................................................................................................15

3. Through the screens ........................................................................................................ 21 Nomadism............................................................................................................................................25

Diffraction............................................................................................................................................29Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 34 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 37

3

Introduction

InWhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?CatherineMalaboudiscussesdifferentmodels

thatareusedtounderstandthebrainandevaluatesthemintermsofplasticity,the

abilitytomold.1Rejectingthemetaphorsthatdepictthebrainasifitisamachine,

centraltelephoneexchangeorcomputer,shefindsthatDeleuzeoffersatakeonthe

brainwhichallowsforandisevendeterminedbytheplasticityitactuallypossesses.For

him,thebrainisanacenteredsystemcharacterizedbyitscutsandgaps.2Furthermore,

accordingtoMalaboutheplasticityofthebrainisalsothe“realimageoftheworld”.3

Thismeansthatalthoughwemightnotseeit,weexperience(brain)plasticityhereand

now.Theworlditselfisthusactuallyplastic,itcanbeshapedandcreatedinwayswe

havenotyetimagined,butaswearenotawareofitwemissoutongreatpotentialfor

change.MalabougivesexamplesofDeleuze’scinematicunderstandingofthebrain,but

alsooffilmsbyAlainResnaisandStanleyKubrick,whichhelptodemonstratethe

plasticityoftheworldanditsrelationtoourbrain.4

ThiswasthefirstacademicconnectionIencounteredbetweenfilm(art),

(neuro)scienceandphilosophyanditwasgrippingenoughformetodelvefurtherinto

thiscomplexinterdisciplinarymatter.Presently,IwillfocusonDeleuze’sfamous

statement“lecerveau,c’estl’écran”5(thebrainisthescreen).Thisintriguingsentence

waspublishedinaninterviewwithDeleuzeinCahiersduCinémainFebruary1986

whendiscussinghisbookCinema2:TheTime-Image.

The brain is unity. The brain is the screen. I don’t believe that linguistics and

psychoanalysisoffera greatdeal to the cinema.On the contrary, thebiologyof the

brain—molecularbiology—does.Thoughtismolecular.Molecularspeedsmakeupthe

slowbeingsthatweare....Thecircuitsandlinkagesofthebraindon’tpre-existthe

stimuli,corpusclesandparticlesthattracethem....Cinema,preciselybecauseitputs

theimageinmotion,orratherendowstheimagewithself-motion,neverstopstracing

thecircuitsofthebrain.6

1CatherineMalabou,WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?,1sted,PerspectivesinContinentalPhilosophy(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2008),6.2Malabou,36.3Malabou,39.4Malabou,38–40.5GillesDeleuze,‘TheBrainIstheScreen:InterviewwithGillesDeleuzeon“TheTime-Image”’,trans.MelissaMcMuhan,Discourse20,no.3,(1998),http://www.jstor.org/stable/41389498.6Deleuze;AsquotedinPatriciaPisters,TheNeuro-Image:ADeleuzianFilm-PhilosophyofDigitalScreenCulture,CulturalMemoryinthePresent(Stanford,California:StanfordUniversityPress,2012),3.

4

ThispassagereliesgreatlyonDeleuze’sphilosophicalworkonfilm,brainandworld,

andparticularlyonhistwoCinemabooks.Forhimcinema,scienceandphilosophyare

intrinsicallyconnected.Thisframeworkofthebraininfilmandfilminthebraincould

allowforthemuch-neededplasticitythatMalaboudiscussesandwhichotherbrain

metaphorslack.However,itdoesneedsomeelaborationandsinceover30yearshave

passedsinceDeleuzegavethisinterview,itisalsorelevanttore-contextualizeitwithin

today’ssocietyanditstechnologicalenvironment.

PistershasdonethisrecentlyinherbookTheNeuro-Image,whichoffersan

enlighteningtakeontheconnectionbetweenthephilosophy,filmandscience.7Notonly

doesshediscussDeleuze’sideasoncinema(themovement-imageandthetime-image)

andtheirrelationtothebrain,butshealsobringsforwardathirdtypeofimage,namely

theneuro-imagethatcharacterizescontemporarycinema.Sheseesthisasathird

dimensionoftheimages,justlikethetime-imagewasalsoadimensionofthe

movement-image.Furthermore,Pistersconceptualizesthethreedimensionsaccording

tothethreesynthesesoftime,aspast,presentandfuturerespectivelyandinsiststhat

onedoesnotexcludetheothers.8Althoughmanycharacteristicsoftheneuro-image

seemtoalsocorrespondwithDeleuze’sdefinitionofthetime-image,thequestionisnot

necessarilyifthisimage-typeisjustified,butratherhowthenewlyemergedneuro-

imageimpactstheconnectionbetweenbrainandscreenasDeleuzeoriginally

formulatedit.Therefore,thequestionIaimtoanswerinthisthesisisthefollowing:

Whatistherelationshipbetweenbrainandcinemaindigital(screen)culture?

Itisimportanttonotethatthisthesisdoesnotdealwiththedirecteffectsofdigital

cultureonthebrain.Insteadthefocusisonthepotentialfutureofcinemaindigital

screenculture,asIwillarguethatthishasanimpactonits’soul’,andthedeep

connectionofcinemaingeneraltothebrain.Inordertoanswerthis,Iusethetheories

ofDeleuze,MalabouandPistersasguidingconceptsthroughout.

Inthefirstpart,Ielaborateonthespecificchoiceoffilm.Inwhatway,according

toDeleuze,isitdifferentfromothermediaorartforms?Whataremovement-andtime-

images?InthesecondpartIproceedtodissect‘thebrainisthescreen’.Howshouldwe

7Pisters,TheNeuro-Image.8Pisters,137–38.

5

understandthebrain?Whatexactlydoesthisequivalencemean?Finally,inpart3I

discusshowtheDeleuziannotionofthescreenappliesnowthatweliveinaworld

dominatedbytechnologywithscreens?Iexplainanddiscusstheconceptsofnomadism

anddiffractionandtheirapplicationtocontemporarycinemainthehopeofshedding

morelightonthestatusoftherelationshipbetweenbrainandscreenindigitalscreen

culture.

6

1.Cinema

InhisbooksCinema1:TheMovement-ImageandCinema2:TheTime-Image,Deleuze

analyzespre-andpost-WorldWarIIcinemarespectively.9DrawingHenriBergson’s

theoriesonperception,Deleuzediscussestechnicalaspectsthatmarkdifferentperiods

inthehistoryofcinemaandtherebyobtainsaclassification.Deleuzeinsiststhatthe

booksarenotmeantasahistoryofcinema,butasataxonomy.Theyshouldberegarded

asanexplicationofatemporalcharacteristicsofcinema(somearemorepronouncedat

certaintimes)andcertainlynotashistoricalcategories.However,PaolaMarrati,who

haswrittenaclarifyingworkonDeleuze’stheoriesoncinema,remarksthatthe

historicaleventofWorldWarIIdoesmarktheswitchfromthemovement-imagetothe

time-image.10Sheexplainsthisseemingcontradictionbyinterpretingthepost-warera

asatimewhereourconceptionofhistorydifferscruciallyfrombefore.Thisreferstothe

notionthatbothimage-typesmustbeseenmoreasco-existingregimes,whereoneis

moredominantthantheother,ratherthanasseparatesuccessiveperiodsintime.The

time-imagethusexistedalreadybeforeWorldWarII,butthemovement-imagewas

dominantinfilmatthattime.Afterthewar,somethingchangedandconsequentlythe

dominanttendencyincinemadidaswell.

InCinemaandPhilosophy,MarratistressesthatDeleuze’saimwiththecinema

booksistograspthe“singularessenceofcinema”,11thequalitywhichdistinguishesit

fromotherartsorsciences.ItisimportanttonotethatDeleuzeanalyzestechnical

aspectsoffilmtodefineacategoryandnotthenarrative.ForDeleuze,narrativeisnota

maincharacteristicofimages,becauseitonlyensuesfromthecompositionofeither

movement-ortime-image,12inwhichmontage,frameandshotplayacrucialpart.

AccordingtoDeleuze,imagesneedtoberead.However,thisdoesnotmeantheyare

equivalenttolanguage.Forhim,usinglinguisticsisnottheproperwaytoreadthemand

heinsistscinematographicimagesneedtheirownconcepts.13Inordertobeableto

grasptherelationshipbetweenbrainandcinema,itisimportanttoexplainthisessence

9 Gilles Deleuze, Cinema I: The Movement-Image, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, Paperback edition, Cinema 1 (London ; New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013); Gilles Deleuze, Cinema II: The Time-Image, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta, Paperback edition, Cinema 2 (London ; New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013). 10PaolaMarrati,GillesDeleuze:CinemaandPhilosophy(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2012),65.11Marrati,5.12Marrati,48.13Marrati,21.

7

ofcinemaanditsconceptshere.Thepossibilityofsucharelationship(inwhichDeleuze

himselfobviouslybelievedwhensayingthat‘thebrainisthescreen’)givesawaythat

cinemamusthavesomethingspecialthatdemarcatesitfromotherimages,artforms,

media,scienceorindustries.

Movement

Whenitfirstwasintroduced,cinemawasconsideredtobe“neitherartnorscience”.14

Eventuallycategorizedasclosertoart,albeitapopularizedandaccessibleformofit,

cinemawasmoreambiguousinitsbeginningsduetoitsinnovativeindustrialcharacter

andusefortechnicalstudiesofmovement.15Thesecharacteristicscanstillapply,as

cinemaretainsatightbondwithtechnologyandcommercialaswellasindependent

workshavethemeanstorespondartisticallytothesocietytheyarecreatedby.16Asan

artform,cinemaismodernandaccessible,differingthefromtheclassicalartsduetoits

reproducibility,thereforeremainingan“industrialart”.17InhisfamousessayTheWork

ofArtintheAgeofMechanicalReproduction,WalterBenjamindiscusseshowfilmand

photographydistinguishthemselvesbytheirmechanicalreproduction.18Forhim,filmis

anart,however,itsfunctionhaschangedincontrasttopreviousartforms.Insteadof

beingdefinedbyacultvalue,rootedinritualsandreligion,theexhibitionvaluehas

takenoverandthisisincreasedbyitseasyreproduction.Toseeafilm,onedoesnot

havetogotoaspecificplacelikeamuseumanymore,wherethereisauniqueoriginal

workofartondisplay.Instead,filmscanbeseenincinemasallovertheworld(thisis

whatBenjaminrefersto),butnowadaysfilmisalsoreproduceddigitallywithDVD’sor

ontheInternet.Thefactthatfilmissowelladaptedtogainingthemostviewsmeans

thatithasahighexhibitionvalue.

ForDeleuze,whatdifferentiatescinemafromother(mechanicallyreproducible)

artformsisitsmovementinimages.Thisisnotjustanytypeofmovement,but

movementbetweenframes,anessentialpartforcreatingcontinuity.19Othervisualart

formsalwayscreatesomethingstatic.Evenifitisanimageofmovement(likeapicture

14 Deleuze, Cinema I, 7; Marrati, Gilles Deleuze, 9. 15 Deleuze, Cinema I, 6. 16 Pisters, The Neuro-Image, 7. 17 Deleuze, Cinema I, 7. 18WalterBenjamin,‘TheWorkofArtintheAgeofMechanicalReproduction’,inTheContinentalAestheticsReader,ed.CliveCazeaux(London ;NewYork:Routledge,2000),323.19Marrati,GillesDeleuze,8.

8

ofapersonrunning),itisnotamovement-image,becausetheimageremainsstill.20

Theatrewouldseemlikeanexception.However,itcannotvaryinframe,shotor

montage,meaningthatalthoughtheimagesareinmovement,theartformremains

attachedtooneperspectiveandmovementdoesnotemergeinthesame‘independent’

way.21Inournaturalperception,wearealsoconfinedtoourperspectiveandtherefore

whatmakescinemasospecialisthatitreleasesmovementfrombeingattachedtoour

ownbody,andcreatingmultipleperspectivesatonce.Inthissense,“cinema’s

particularityistoproduceimagesthatareirreducibletothemodelofsubjective

perception”.22Duetothisindependenceofcinematicimagesinrelationtothesubject,

wecanexpectthemtobemorethanmererepresentations.Instead,throughits

movementanditsplasticity,cinemaparticipatesina“becomingdifferent”23ofthe

worldintoimage.

Thepreviouslymentionedconceptionofhistoryasanarrativerelyingonhuman

agencyisoneofthedefiningfeaturesofmanymovement-images,intheformofthe

actionimage.InDeleuze’sfirstCinemabook,frame,shotandmontageofclassiccinema

arebrokendownandconceptssuchasaction-image,affection-imageandperception-

imageexplained.Whileaffection-imagesshowinternalfeelings,action-imageshavethe

character(s)changeasituation.Perceptionimagesshowhowacharacterperceivesand

isperceived.24AccordingtoDeleuze,montageisthecombinationofthesethreetypesof

images.25Thecinematographicaspectsofimagesdefinethetypeofimagetheycreate.

Forexample,MarratidiscussesAmericanorganicmontage,widelyusedinearly

Hollywood,wherethemontageformstheimagesintoanassemblage,likeanorganic

whole.26Thisisanactivetypeofmontage,meaningthatthemontageleadsthefilmtobe

drivenbyactionsofpeople.Onthelevelofshots,filmslikethisareprimarilyconstituted

ofmediumshots,atypeofshotwherebackgroundandcharactersareaboutequally

visible,similartomuchofourday-to-dayperceptionoftheworld.27However,thisdoes

20Marrati,7.21Marrati,24.22Marrati,3.23CliffStagoll,‘Becoming’,inTheDeleuzeDictionary,ed.AdrianParr,Rev.ed(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv.Press,2010),25–26.24DavidDeamer,Deleuze’sCinemaBooks:ThreeIntroductionstotheTaxonomyofImages(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2016),29.25Deleuze,CinemaI,70.26Marrati,GillesDeleuze,46.27Deleuze,CinemaI,70.

9

notexcludeperception-images(longshots)andaffection-images(close-ups)fromthe

film.Allarepresent,butoneisalwaysdominant.Althoughfilmsthataredominantly

perception-imagesoraffection-imagesalsoexistinpre-warcinema,theaction-imageis

clearlyprevalent.28ThisispartlyduetotheenormousinfluencesofGriffithand

Eisensteinwhowerepioneersinactivemontage.

TheSecondWorldWarmarksaturningpointforcinemaandtheemergenceofa

newtypeofimage.Asalreadyindicated,Deleuzebelievesthatthisisnotanewhistorical

eraofcinema,butmoreaswitchinperception,wherehistorythatwasdefinedby

humanactionisreplacedbyconceptsofbecomingandtheevent.Thenotionofa

universalhistory,onecoherentnarrationofthepastapplicabletothewholeworldbut

basedonhumanagencyasdescribedpreviouslybyHegel,29nowfadesawayafterthe

inexplicablehorrorsofWorldWarII.30ThisdevelopmentisinlinewithBenjamin’sidea

thatperceptionchangeswithhistoryashewrites:

During longperiods of history, themode of human sense perception changeswith

humanity’sentiremodeofexistence.Themannerinwhichhumansenseperceptionis

organized,themediuminwhichitisaccomplished,isdeterminednotonlybynature

butbyhistoricalcircumstancesaswell.31

Humanperceptionthereforechangedwithmechanicalreproduction,killingofftheaura

ofart(thespecificdistanceneededtoexperienceitssingularity),32butcinemaitselfalso

affectsperception,sinceitisdependentontechnology.Asdifferenttypesofimages,

includingdifferingmontages,shots,frames,emergewithadvancesintechnology,the

waywelookatthemandtheworldalsochanges.Contemporaryexamplesarethree-or

evenfour-dimensionalmovieexperiences,butalsotherecenttrendofvirtualreality,all

ofwhichchangeourperceptionliterallyalongwiththetechnologies,sincetheyarethe

mediumforit.ForDeleuze,however,technologyisnottheessenceofcinema.

Technologysimplymakescertaincharacteristicsofitemergemoreprominentlythan

others,butfundamentallytheaestheticsofcinemaarevirtual.33Thisiswhyheprimarily

28Marrati,GillesDeleuze,54.29GeorgWilhelmFriedrichHegel,PhenomenologyofSpirit,trans.A.V.Miller(MotilalBanarsidassPublishers,1998),17.30Marrati,GillesDeleuze,65.31Benjamin,‘TheWorkofArtintheAgeofMechanicalReproduction’,325.32CliveCazeaux,ed.,TheContinentalAestheticsReader(London ;NewYork:Routledge,2000),300.33Deleuze,CinemaII,274.

10

discussesdifferentcategoriesofimages,forinstanceaction,perceptionandaffectionin

themovement-image,andnotnecessarilytheirsupportingstructures.Bycreating

action,perceptionandaffectionfortheviewercinemashapesspectatorship,influences

oursubjectivityandthuschangesourperception.34AccordingtoDeleuze,cinemadoes

notreproducethereality,butrendersvisiblewhatwouldnotbeotherwise.35Itcreates

somethingnewandchangesperceptionby“undoingthatwhichourhabits,needs,and

lazinesshavedone,inordertomakevisible[…]theperceptions,affectsandrelationsof

thoughtthatcinemaitselfwasabletocreate.”36

Time

AfterWorldWarII,cinemafellintoacrisisandtheroleoftheimagechanged.The

setbackoftheAmericandream,thelargeuseofcinemaduringthewaraspropaganda,

andtheoverloadofimageswereallfactorsthatcontributedtothischange.Italian

neorealismemergedwhere,characters’(re)actionswerenolongerwhatdrovethefilm.

Insteadtheirenvironmentexistedregardlessofwhattheydidordidnotdo.AsMarratti

explains,theeventsofthewar“toreapartconfidenceinhumanaction:wenolonger

believethatanactioncanhavebearingonaglobalsituationorunveilitsmeaningeven

inpart;wenolongerbelieveinhumanbecomingoftheworld.”37

Withoutthenotionofuniversalhistorycinema’sspaceandtimeareaffected.

Spaces,suchasdemolishedpost-warcitiesseemdisconnectedandempty,hardto

describeanddifficulttoreactto.Consequently,theaction-imagelosesitsdominant

positionandinstead,“timeisnolongersubordinatedtomovement,butrather

movementtotime”.38Thismeansthatfilmsarenotsomuchfocusedanymoreonthe

actionsofthecharacters,butratherthattime‘happens’,nomattertheactionornon-

actionofcharacters.Therefore,timebecomesthefocusoftheimage,andnewwaysof

displayingitonscreenaredeveloped.Aneventofthetime-imagecanexistinmultiple

timestructuresandconcealedelementsoftimearevisualized.39Thetime-imagealso

exploresthenon-chronologicaldimensionsoftime,creatingacinemathatmakesthe

34Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,31.35Marrati,GillesDeleuze,38.36Marrati,41.37Marrati,63.38Deleuze,CinemaII,x.39Deleuze,xi.

11

viewerthink.40Examplesoftypicaltime-imagesthatDeleuzediscussesarefilmsby

Resnais,Antonioni,Ozu,GodardandTarkovsky.Inthesefilms,theactualandvirtualare

crystallized,showingtimethatisunlinkedfrom(bodily)movementmoredirectlyand

thereforelessorganicallythanbefore.41

Themovement-imageisrootedinhabitsofthepresent,basedonsensory-motor

action.42Thetime-imagehowever,issimultaneouslyinthepast/futureandinthe

present,oratleastbelongstoboth.Asaresult,thepresenthasbecomeadimensionof

thepast.43Sinceanobjectisnownotonlylinkedtoaction(notsensory-motor),an

opticalandsoundimageemerges,whichtouchesuponthesubjectivityoftimeitself,

whichnowhasbecomeouronlysubjectivityaswehavenomoreindividualagency.44

Thisimagehighlightsitsownactualandvirtualdimensions.Theactualimagehere

meansthe‘thing’existinginthepresent,suchastheprojectiononthescreen,whilethe

virtualimagepointstoitspastthatexistsatthesametime.45Byblurringthese

categories,thetime-imagecanbeperceivedasconfusing,fragmented,circular,

repetitious,different…Theconfusionarisesbecausesomeaspectsseemparadoxical.

Whatthetimeimagedoesis,inasense,breakingdowndichotomieswebelievedtobe

clear-cut.Itlinkstheactualimage(the‘thing’existinginthepresent)andvirtualimage

(thepresents’simultaneouspast)inacircularway.46Theprojectionofanimagewesee

onascreeninthepresentnowrelatesdifferentlytoitsvirtuality,itsintangible

happeningasan“incorporealevent”47anditspast/future.Thetime-imageisthusmore

closelylinkedto(virtual)thoughtthantoaction,asittouchesdirectlyupontheviewer’s

subjectivityinatemporalorspiritualway.48

ItisimportantatthispointtostressDeleuzeisopposedtoregardingcinematic

imagesasrepresentations(ofrealityforinstance).Athingisnotsimplyduplicatedon

thescreen,buttheimageisitselfathing,openingupnewtemporaldimensionsand

40Marrati,GillesDeleuze,76.41GregoryFlaxman,ed.,TheBrainIstheScreen:DeleuzeandthePhilosophyofCinema(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2000),26.42Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,137–38.43Pisters,138.44Marrati,GillesDeleuze,76.45Marrati,71.46Marrati,71.47ConstantinBoundas,‘Virtual/Virtuality’,inTheDeleuzeDictionary,ed.AdrianParr,Rev.ed(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv.Press,2010),300.48Marrati,GillesDeleuze,72.

12

mentalstatesthatamererepresentation(orreflection)couldnot.49Whatgoesoninside

themindisrelatedtotheoutside,butnotanexactreflectionofit.Infact,thereisno

suchboundarybetweenthementalandthephysicalworld,because“memoryand

thoughtarenotonlypsychologicalrealities‘inside’ourminds,orbrains:theyexist,or

insistintime”.50

49Deleuze,‘TheBrainIstheScreen:InterviewwithGillesDeleuzeon“TheTime-Image”’,53.50Marrati,GillesDeleuze,72.

13

2.Thebrainisthescreen?

Deleuzebelievesinthespecificityofcinema,meaningthatcinemadiffersfromotherart

formsandothertypesofmedia.Whenheexpressed‘thebrainisthescreen’inthe1986

interviewtoCahiersduCinema,thishardtograspsentenceepitomizedhisworkon

cinema.Apparentlyforhimcinemaisthusmorecloselytiedtoourbrainthananyother

art.Itisthereforeimportanttounderstandproperlyinwhatwayexactly,whichiswhatI

willdelveintointhissection.

Inordertofathomhowthebrainisthescreeninacontemporarycontext,Iwill

useMalabou’sideasonplasticityandalsorefertoPisters,whointroducesathirdimage-

typeinadditiontoDeleuze’sdistinctionbetweenmovement-imageandtime-image:the

neuro-image.51Pistersspeculatesthatifthemovement-andtime-imagearelinkedto

specificactivityareasofthebrain,theneuro-imagecouldbelinkedtootherareas.The

neuro-imageischaracterizedby,amongotherthings,closetiesneuroscientificbrain

processesandanomnipresenceofmediascreens.52Thesetwoaspectswillbediscussed

belowthroughoutbrainandscreen.

Plasticityofthebrain

AsPistersexplains,Deleuze’sviewsoncinemaarecloselylinkedtobrainprocessesand

neurologicalknowledge.53Whenstating“Thoughtismolecular,therearemolecular

speedsthatmakeuptheslowbeingthatweare.[…]Thecircuitsandlinksofthebrain

donotpre-existthestimuli,granulesorcorpuscleswhichtracethem.”54,Deleuzeoffers

ushistakeonthemind-bodyproblem.Thebrainisnotafixedphysicalentityimbued

withourthoughts(orsoul)andthereisnorealseparationbetweenthoughtandbrain,

becausebothinfluenceeachotherinadeeplyintrinsicway.Brainandthoughtarenot

elementsindifferentcategoriesandmaterialandimmaterialarenotseennecessarilyas

separateanddichotomous.

Malabousharesthisviewonthebrain.Morerelevantly,forherthequestionis

notaboutmonismordualismnecessarily.Rather,sheinsiststhatweshouldbecome

consciousofthebrain(thequestionthenshiftingto‘whatshouldwedowithit?’).Asshe

explains:“Thebrainisaworkandwedonotknowit.Weareitssubjects–authorsand

51Pisters,TheNeuro-Image.52Pisters,2–3.53Pisters,3.54Deleuze,‘TheBrainIstheScreen:InterviewwithGillesDeleuzeon“TheTime-Image”’,48–49.

14

productsatonce-andwedonotknowit.”55Callingthebrain‘awork’referstoits

continuousdevelopment,thewayitchangesovertime,likeaworkinprogress.This

workisthereforedefinedbyitsplasticity.Thereasonwedonotknowofthis

developmentalcharacteristicisthatwetakeitforgranted.Likeourhabits,brain

plasticityissoengrainedinusthatwepaynoattentiontoit.Theconceptofplasticity

entailstheabilitytogiveandreceiveform.56Thisprocessiscontradictory,becauseit

resultsincreationanddestructionsimultaneously.57WhenDeleuzestatesthatthebrain

doesnotpre-existthestimuli,thisisexactlywhatherefersto.Thebrainisconstantly

shapedbytheimpulsesthatitreceives,butatthesametimealsoplaysanactive,

formativerole.Neuronalconnectionsaremade,modifiedandrepairedwhennecessary,

allduetothebrain’splasticity.58

However,plasticityisnotonlysomethingdistinctiveofthebrain.Wearenot

consciousofourbrain’scapacitytomold,becausethatsameplasticityisalsoallaround

us,sowedonotnoticeit.59Theworldcanbeconfigured(thinkofenvironmental

impactsbyhumans),butweseemtotakethisforgranted,untilitistoolate.Inorderto

understandplasticitymoreprecisely,itiscrucialheretodistinguishplasticityfrom

relatedconceptssuchasrigidity,elasticityandflexibility.Rigidityistheoppositeof

plasticity,somethingrigidisfixedandcannotchangeitsform.Previousconceptionsof

thebrainallreliedonfixedstructuresandwhichcouldnoteasilychangeformandthis

rigidityiswheretheymisconstruedit.60Elasticityontheotherhandiscloserto

plasticity,butdiffersbecause,whileelasticityalsocauseschangeinform,italways

returnstotheoriginal.Plasticityismoresolidthanthat,inthesensethatitretainsits

newformandcannotnecessarilygoback.61Finally,flexibilityisthenotiondeceivingus

fromtrueconsciousnessofplasticityaccordingtoMalabou.62Whiletheworldaroundus

isplastic,weimposeonitasystemof(neoliberalist)flexibility.Butflexibilityisonlya

smallpartofplasticity.Itisapassivestate,inthesensethatonechangestoadapt

insteadofcreating.63Thetwoareoftenconflatedhowever,andflexibilitydominatesin

55Malabou,WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?,1.56Malabou,5.57Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,342-343n2.58Malabou,WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?,17.59Malabou,9.60Malabou,4–5.61Malabou,15.62Malabou,9.63Malabou,12.

15

society.Inneoliberalcapitalistsociety,officemanagementstructuresforinstanceare

followingthedevelopmentofneurologicalfindingsandarenowbecomingmore

decentralizedandhorizontalthanever.64Theindividualislefttothemselves,fully

responsibleforeveryactionandexpectedtoadapttoeverysituation.Intheneuro-

image,weoftenseeimagesofunusualbrainplasticity,unabletoadapttoflexibility.65

Neuro-imagesdealwithmentalinstability(powersofdelirium),itisunclearwhatisreal

orillusion(powersofthefalse)anddeepsensationsareprovoked(powersofaffect).All

oftheseareattributesthatarenotcompatiblewiththenotionofneoliberalistflexibility,

astheyareinasenseirrationalandirresponsible.

Themisplacedfocuson(rigid)flexibilitywhichisdiscussedbyMalaboucomes

partlyfromtheneurosciences,whichtendtodescribethebraintoomuchinthisway,

makingiteasytomisinterpretthemeaningofplasticity.Allthewhilehowever

capitalismproducesthesameflexibilityreinforcinginturntheneuroscientific

descriptions.Neuroscienceshaveuncoveredplasticityand,inthisregard,alsoholda

potentialpowerofresistancetoflexibility.However,sincetheytaketheirinspiration

fromworldphenomena(suchasmachines,algorithmsormanagementstrategies),66

theythusposenorealdangerforthecapitalistneoliberalsystem,exactlybecausethey

functionwithinit.Assuch,capitalismcontinuestoenforceamandatoryflexibilitythat

isproductivewithinitsstructure,butthisflexibilityisalsodestructivesincealotof

(plastic)potentialisdiscarded.Itisthismechanismthatprohibitsustounderstandthe

potentialofthebrain,ourpotentialfordifferenceandcreation.AccordingtoDeleuze

thisdynamiccanonlybetrulyresistedthroughart.67Indeed,manyfilms,andespecially

neuro-imagesuncoverthemadnessofbrainandworld,sometimesevendemonstrating

thatitisnotworthlesstobe“unemployable”68inneoliberalisttermsandthatunleashing

plasticitycanactuallygivegreatpower.

Betweenbrainandscreen:‘is’

ForMalabou,notonlythebrain,butalsotheworldhasplasticpotential.However,with

thedominanceofflexibilityweareblindtoit,andthereforealsoblindtoourownbrain

64Malabou,42–44.65Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,42.66Malabou,WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?,53.67Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,7.68Malabou,WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?,68.

16

capacities.Inthesamewayasshediscussestheworldingeneral,Deleuzediscussesthe

screenwhenhesays:“thescreen,thatistosayourselves,canbethedeficientbrainofan

idiotaseasilyasacreativebrain”.69Thescreenthereforehasacertainpotentialfor

creationthatcanalsobeleftunused.AccordingtoDeleuze,thisisthecasewith‘bad

cinema’whichsimplyfollowsthebrain(andscreen)circuitsthatarealreadypresent.

Ourbrainknowswhatweseebecausewehaveseenitbefore,itissimplya

representationofit.

Inturn,goodor‘true’cinemadoesworklikeacreativebrain.Itcantouchupon

themesmoredeeplyandthereforealsoreachesus(andourbrain)differently,creating

newpathsinsteadofsimplyfollowingthem.70Itisexactlythisuniquenesswhich

DeleuzeexplicatesinhisCinemabooks.Movement-andtime-imagescan,through

practicessuchasmontage,showwhatwecannotusuallysee(movementandtime)and

thereforehavethepowertomoveusdifferentlythanrepresentations.Inasense,what

heseemstomeanisthattruecinemaitselfhasalotofplasticityandthiscapacityto,

throughitsartificialcircuits,developourseemingly‘natural’waysofdoingandthinking

isthereasonwhyitissocloselylinkedtoourbrain.Boththeplasticfilmscreenandthe

plasticbrainarepartoftheworldandthereforehavepowertoformit.71Sinceweare

cloudedbythenotionofflexibility,wemusthopethatwecanbetriggeredthroughthe

screen,andthusthroughourownbrain.Inthisway,cinema’splasticitycanhaveits

impactontherestofsociety.

Thefactthatcinemashapesus,andhasarealeffectonourbrainstructure,

becomesclearinPisters’discussionofmirrorneurons.72Theseareneuronsthatare

activatedwhenweseesomeonedoingsomething.Ourneuronssubsequentlymimicthe

pathswhichtheneuronsoftheobservedpersontakewhenperformingthataction,

causingourbraintoduplicatetheperceivedactionorfeeling.Theneurological

connectionsforobservingarethussimilarlyusedforaction.Thismechanismworksjust

aswellwhetherthepersonwhodoessomethingisinfrontofusoronascreen.The

reasonwedonotgoaroundimitatingeverythingisthattheactualactionissomewhere

stoppedbythebrain.Inthissensethebrainitselfworksasascreen,filteringstimulithat

haveentereditandproducingresponsesthatdonotdirectlyrepresentwhatwesee,

69Deleuze,‘TheBrainIstheScreen:InterviewwithGillesDeleuzeon“TheTime-Image”’,49.70Deleuze,49.71Malabou,WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?,39.72Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,30,116–21.

17

althoughsometimeswemightnotbeabletohelpourselvesfromyawningorsmilingtoo

whensomeonedoesthis.However,evenifwedonotusuallymimic,wedo‘feel’withthe

actionsonthefilmscreen,creatinganewtypeofresponseratherthanacopy.Whatwe

seeaffectsusinasimilarwayasifweweretoexperienceit.Thismechanismisfurther

proofthatimagesarenotmererepresentationsandcanactuallyhaveaffectivepower,a

stancethatDeleuzedefendsaspreviouslyexplainedinpart1.

Consequently,itbecomesclearthat‘thebrainisthescreen’doesnotmeanthat

onerepresentstheotherorviceversa.Thebondbetweenthemismorethanasimple

reflectionoridentity,butratherreferstoatypeofcocreation,asharedplasticityanda

potentialto“formanddeformintotheworld”.73Spectatorshipisthusnotapassivestate

andimpliesabecoming(acreationofdifference)aswell,atleastinneurological

terms.74Therefore,thescreenisnota‘shield’betweentheworldandourmindanditis

situatedneitheroutsidenorinside.75Insteaditspositionisbothinaswellasout,making

itinherentlycontradictitself.Thiscontradictionaidsindeconstructingthedichotomy

betweeninsideandoutside.Deconstructionisaformofcritiquing(language)structures

wetakeforgranted,suchasbinaryoppositions,andwasoriginallycoinedbyDerrida.76

AsCazeauxexplains,thoughtboundariesarealways“indivisiblefromthekindsof

boundaryweencounterinvisualexperience”.77However,thesometimes

indeterminablenatureofsensoryexperiencesmakesitmoreapparentthatbinariesdo

notalwaysholdupthewaywebelievethemto.Thisiswhatthescreendoesinthiscase

withitsambiguous‘placement’,andwhatcinemafurthercarriesonregardingmindand

bodyorvirtualandactualforinstance.

Justasthescreeninfluencesanddeterminesthebrain,thebrainalsodetermines

thescreen.AsPistersnotes,thebrainis“acontinuouslychangingprocessandtherefore

fundamentallyconnectedtomovementandtime”.78Indeed,plasticityisamovement

happeningintime,bringingusbacktoDeleuze’stwoimage-types.WhenPistersargues

fortheneuro-image,shesaysthatcinemahasnowenteredthe‘brainspace’,sometimes

inquiteliteralways.Becauseitisalsocloselyanddirectlylinkedtothebrain,theneuro-

imageissimilartothetime-image.However,theroleofthebrainitselfhasnowblown

73Malabou,WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?,72–77.74Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,119.75Pisters,27.76Cazeaux,TheContinentalAestheticsReader,373.77Cazeaux,375.78Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,16.

18

upinit.ShegivestheexampleofthefilmFightClub,79inwhichthebeginningtitle

sequencesimulatesarollercoasterridethroughthebrain.Wefollowthecircuitsfrom

theperspectiveofaneuron,makingclear(orhinting)thatthefilmtakesplacefrom

withinthisbrain,thebrainofthemaincharacterplayedbyEdwardNorton.80This

includesseeinghishallucinationsandexperiencingitsmalfunctionsashedoes,andalso

notknowinguntiltheveryendofthefilmthattheywerehallucinationsand

malfunctions.Additionally,thesequencewasfashionedwiththehelpofactual

neuroscientificmappingimageryofthebrain,exemplifyingtheclosenessof

(neuro)sciencetocontemporarycinema.Inthissense,evenmoreobviouslythanbefore,

thebrainisthescreenandthescreenisthebrain,possiblyleadingusclosertothis

recognitionMalabouseeksfor.

Inthemovement-andtime-image,weexperiencecharactersandtheiractions

fromwithin,thedifferencebeingtheimpactoftheseactionsontheworld.Inthissense,

weseethroughthecharacters’eyes.Inaneuro-imagehowever,weseenotthroughthe

eyesbutthroughthebrain,experiencingtheirmentalworld.81Ofcourse,theeyesand

thestimulitheyreceivearecloselylinkedtothebrain,butwhatPistersmeansisthatthe

dichotomousdivisionbetweenbrainandthought(bodyandmind)isnowevenmore

thoroughlydismantledthanwiththetime-image.Time-imagesarecharacterizedbya

switchingfromactualtovirtual,from‘reality’tomentalworld.However,asweembark

intothementalworldinneuro-images,theswitchingitselfbecomesindistinguishable.82

InFightClub,wearenotevenawareofourperceptiveposition(throughthe‘brain’of

thenarrator)untiltheveryendofthefilm,andeventhen,muchisstillunclearofwho

andwhatwasvirtualand/oractual.83

Pistershintsthattherelationshipbetweenbrainandscreenisstrongerwithin

theneuro-imagethantheothertypes,oneofthereasonsbeingthatithasbecomeso

closetothefieldofneuroscience.84Thisseemstoimplyalargerplasticpotentialto

resistthecultureofflexibility.However,formsofresistancearefrequentlyabsorbed

intothesystemaswell,becomingalmostintrinsicallypartofitandmakingtheirtrue

79DavidFincher,FightClub,Drama,1999,http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/.80Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,15–16.81Pisters,14.82Pisters,58.83WilliamBrownandDavidH.Fleming,‘DeterritorialisationandSchizoanalysisinDavidFincher’s“FightClub”’,DeleuzeStudies5,no.2(July2011):286,https://doi.org/10.3366/dls.2011.0021.84Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,127.

19

resistanceobsolete.AccordingtoMarks,whohaswrittenaboutdocumentaryfilmsand

theirrelationtothenotionofreality,thisiswhatishappeningtothemental-image.85

Themental-imagefrequentlycomesupindocumentariesandemergedfirstaspartof

cinema’sadaptationwhenthemovement-imagesteppedbackforthetime-imageto

surface.Comingupbetweentheaction-imageandaffection-image,themental-image(an

elementofthetime-imagealsotermedrelation-image)createsimagesoutsideof

sensoryexperience.86Inthisway,mental-imagesareatooltomakeusawareofwhatwe

knowaboutouractions,piercingthroughprevioushabits.Thisawarenessreachesthe

filmitself,inthesensethatitmaybecomeawareofitself.Marksdiscussesthis

reflexivitythroughdocumentaryfilm,whereithasbecomecommonpracticetoinsert

shotsofthefilmingsetupandforthemakertorelatetheirownpositiontothesubject.

Pisterssimilarlydiscusses‘metafilms’(filmsaboutmakingfilms),whichcanevoke

certainfeelingsofdiscomfort,asboundariesbetweenrealityandfictionbecomeblurred

(inasimilarsensetothenarrator’sperspectiveinFightClub).87However,being

reflexiveorbeingametafilmisnotsufficientforafilmtobetruecinema.Marks

mentionshowDeleuze“remarkswearilythattheworldhascometoresembleabad

film;evenreflexivityhasbecomeacliché”.88Thereflexivemental-imageshavebecome

suchabigtrendthattheyarenowcausingcinematostagnate.

Onceacertainformofmental-imageshasbecomeestablished(becomeacliché),

itlosespowerasaformofresistance.Thisalsoimpliesthatitsactualmeaning,notasa

singleact,suchascertainmontagetechniquesorpracticestocreatethem,butasoneof

thephenomenathatletsusfosteracreativerelationwithourbrain,becomeslost.

Althoughmetafilmsandexplicitreflexivityarepartofthemental-image,theyareonly

someofitsmoreobviousexamplesthatappearonthesurface.Pistersnotesthistoo:

“Indeed,fictionandrealityintermingleinstrangewaysintheneuro-image;however,

thisinterminglingoccursnotonlyinmetafilmsbutalsointhewholeofcontemporary

imageculture.”89Truemental-images/neuro-imagesthusdoneedtobesohomogenous

ordirect.Followingthetruepowerofcinema,itcouldshinethroughafilminamore

85LauraMarks,‘SignsoftheTime:Deleuze,Peirce,andtheDocumentaryImage’,inTheBrainIstheScreen:DeleuzeandthePhilosophyofCinema,ed.GregoryFlaxman(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2000),199.86Marks,198.87Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,120.88Marks,‘SignsoftheTime:Deleuze,Peirce,andtheDocumentaryImage’,200.89Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,121.

20

implicitmanner,leavingourbrainfeelingtingledinawaywemightnotimmediatelybe

abletoexplain(butwhichIhaveexplainedherepreviously).Wecanalreadynoticenow,

whendiscussingsuchmisinterpretationormisuseofaresistantforce,aparallel

betweenthepopularizationofreflexivityinfilmandthatofflexibilitywhichMalabou

writesabout.Bothoriginatefromsomethingpowerfulandcreative,buthavebeen

reducedtoacliché,ahabitthattrapsusinitsways.Thisexamplethusillustrateswell

howthebrainandthescreenessentiallyfacethesameproblems.

Brainandscreenareone,arelationshipthatbecomesmoreapparentwiththe

riseoftheneuro-image.Theirconnectioncanserveasawayofresistingdominant

structures,butresistancecanjustaseasilybecomepartofthesystemtoo.Thequestion

nowariseswhattheneuro-imagecandospecificallytocounteraregimeofflexibility.

Thiswillbediscussedinmoredepthinthefollowingsection.

21

3.Throughthescreens

Inmanyregards,Pisters’neuro-imageisanintensifiedtime-image.90Bothhavethe

effectofmakingthevirtualvisible,althoughthetime-imagefocusesonthevirtualityof

filmandtheneuro-imageonthevirtualityofthebrain.91Bothsituatethe‘brainscreen’

betweeninternalandexternal,92butitcouldbearguedthatthetime-imageremains

closertothescreenandtheneuro-imageshiftsfurthertowardsthebrain.Aspreviously

discussed,filmandbrainhaveadeepintrinsicconnection.Whethertheneuro-imageisa

separateorsub-regimefromthetime-imageisaninterestingquestion,certainly

regardingthetaxologicalaimthatDeleuzehadfromthestart.Nevertheless,itisnotvery

relevantforthisthesis.Whatcannotbedeniedhowever,isagreatchangeinthecontext

ofcinema.WhenDeleuzediscussesthefilmscreen,thisisquitecertainlythebigscreen

atthecinema,whichwasprimarilytheplacetoseefilmsbeforeandaround1983and

1985(thepublicationyearsoftheCinemabooks).Today,technologyhasevolved,and

screens/displayshavemultipliedinourlives.Althoughtheyarenotsolelymeantforit,

wenowhavethepossibilitytoseefilmsonTVscreens,smartphonescreens,computer

screens,tabletscreens,smartwatchscreensandmore,nexttothetraditionalcinema

screen.Thisprevalenceofscreensandtechnologiescanbetermeda“digitalscreen

culture”.93Thedigitalcultureallowsfornewtypesofmediatoemergeamongthe

traditionalstructures,whichthemselvesarealsochanging(oftenbeingdigitalized)but

notnecessarilydisappearing.94SimilarlytothephenomenonofWorldWarII,

digitalizationofoursocietycouldbecontributingtoyetanothershiftinperception,and

thereforeitisimportanttore-evaluatecontemporarycinema.

Pistersarguesthattheneuro-imageisrootedinthesignoftimeofthefuture,

whereasmovement-andtime-imageareformedunderpresentandpastrespectively.95

Thisdimensionofthefutureconnectstothevirtualthrough,forexample,aninsistence

oncosmicthemes.Thecosmicispresentinallimage-typesandsignsoftime,butmore

explicitlyanddifferentlyinPisters’image-type.96Whereinthetime-imagetheemphasis

wasontravellingfrompast/presenttothefuture,awayfromhereandnow;inneuro-

90Pisters,136.91Pisters,71.92Pisters,306.93Pisters,6,25,148.94 Pisters, 68. 95Pisters,138–40.96Pisters,148–55.

22

imagesweincreasinglytravelfromthefuturebacktothepresent/past,undertaking

journeyswithin,orbacktoourselves.97

Anotherwayinwhichtheneuro-imagefocusesonthefutureisbyposing

questionsaboutthefutureofcinema.98Theneuro-imageisbothapartofandinteracts

withourtechnologicalanddigitalnetworks.Becauseofthis,astrugglearisesforcinema

todefineitsexistence.‘Thebrainisthescreen’,butwhichscreen(s)?Inherbook,Pisters

countersDavidRodowick’sviewthatfilmnowadayssurvivesonlyasinformationandas

‘regular’art,andinsteadarguesthatfilmasfilm(withitsspecificconnectiontothe

brain)isnotdead.However,thetraditionalconceptionofcinemaonthebigscreen

seemstobegone.Therefore,Pisterstermscinemaas‘undead’inordertoillustrateits

relivingthroughthetransmedialityoftheneuro-image.99Inaddition,Andrewnotices

the‘soulofcinema’,bywhichhemeans“whatthecinemaatanygivenmomentpermits

thosedevotedtoittothink”,asbeingonthemove.100Indeed,accordingtoFlaxman,the

screenwhichDeleuzediscussesisnotnecessarilyonlytheonewefindinthecinema.

“‘[T]hebrainisascreen’inthesensethatitisafilterthatextractsitselffromchaos.This

screenisaformofrelation,ofinterchange,ofmutualsynthesisbetweenthebrainand

theuniverse.”101Thefilmscreenisthereforemoredefinedbyitsvirtualitythanits

actualappearance.‘Empty’screenscannotattainthisbondwiththebrainbythemselves.

However,withtheexcessiveproductionofvisualmaterialfullofclichésandrepetitions

incapitalistsociety,itisincreasinglydifficulttodefinewheretofind(andwhatremains

of)truecinema.

AccordingtoDeleuze,cinemaandotherartshaveacertainpowertorespondto

theworldaroundthem.Hetermsthisabilitytoconstantlyrenegotiatetheirrelationship

asa“willtoart”.102Theswitchfromthedominanceofthemovement-imagetothatof

thetime-imagewasapreviousexampleofthis.Somethinghadtochangeincinemain

97PatriciaPisters,‘TemporalExplorationsinCosmicConsciousness:Intra-AgentialEntanglementsandtheNeuro-Image’,CulturalStudiesReview21,no.2(25November2015):6,https://doi.org/10.5130/csr.v21i2.4323.98Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,16.99Pisters,12.100DudleyAndrew,‘TheRootsoftheNomadic:GillesDeleuzeandtheCinemaofWestAfrica’,inTheBrainIstheScreen:DeleuzeandthePhilosophyofCinema,ed.GregoryFlaxman(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2000),215.101Flaxman,TheBrainIstheScreen,16.102ElizabethvonSamsonow,‘EgonSchiele:VitalistDeleuzian’,inArtHistoryafterDeleuzeandGuattari,ed.SjoerdvanTuinenandStephenZepke(LeuvenUniversityPress,2017),43;aconceptoriginallymentionedbyRieglasKunstwollen.

23

orderto‘keepup’withachangedperceptionoftheworld.Deleuzehimselfalready

speculatesonanotherwilltoartthatwouldcomewithdigitalculture:“electronic

imageswillhavetobebasedonstillanotherwilltoart,oronasyetunknownaspectsof

thetime-image.”103Thisisahopefulperspective,directlycounteredbyarecognitionof

theheavychoiceeveryfilmmakerisfacedwithwhentryingsomethingnew:“Iamafraid

thatallmethodsmayinvalidateallwilltoart,ormakeitintoabusiness,apornography,

aHitlerism…”.104Thewilltoartisthusnotnecessarilyeternalandcanbekilledoffby

subjectiontoforexamplecapitalismorfascism.Aspreviouslymentioned,Deleuze

believesinresistancethroughart,butgenerallyresistanceisnotmetwithopenarmsby

anydominantsystem,oftentimesassimilatedorannihilated.

Backtotheneuro-imageanditsmanyscreens.Howiscinema’strueformof

resistance(itswilltoart)survivinginourworldofscreens?Pisterstellsusthatthe

neuro-imagefollowsacertaindigitallogic,theverysametowhichtechnologiesadhere.

“[The]dominanttemporaldimensionoftheneuro-imageconnectstothelogicofdigital

screenculture.[…]Theneuro-imagemixesandreordersfromallthepreviousimage

regimes,ungroundingandserializingaccordingtoadigitallogic.”105Thisincludesfor

exampledatabaselogic,whichimpliesthatfilmsarestructuredlikeadatabase:(partof)

anopenarchiveoverflowingwithinformationfromwhichfragmentscanbepulledout

atrandom.106However,theselogics(andotherneuro-imagecharacteristics)were

alreadypresentincinemabeforetheriseofdigitalcultureinthesamewaythat

characteristicsofthetime-imagepreviouslyalreadyexistedinthemovement-image.107

Asweknow,theimage-typesdonotexcludeeachother.Inessence,theyconsistently

coexistthroughtheirvirtuality,eventhoughoneofthemwillalwaysbedominanttous.

Technically,onecouldsaythatthe‘next’image-typeisalreadypresentincurrentand

pastcinema.Screenmultiplicityispartofthecurrentdominantstructureandcinema

hasfounditswaytorespondtothis(ledbyitswilltoart)bylettingtheneuro-image

surface.Thus,theneuro-imageshouldbereadytofacethechallengesofthescreens

withardour;simultaneouslyadaptingtotheworld,whilealso‘arting’andoffering

resistancetoitsstructure.

103Deleuze,CinemaII,273.104Deleuze,273.105Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,148.106Pisters,8–12.107Pisters,26.

24

Nomadism

SimilarlytoPisters,Andrewarguesforasecondturningpointincinemadefinedbythe

newcontextsofitsexhibitionanddistribution,essentiallystartingwiththeintroduction

oftheVCR.108Eversincethisinnovation,theviewerhasacquiredmoreandmoreagency

inthecinematicsystem,throughforexampletheremotecontrol.Hestates:

LetHollywoodcolonizetheglobe[…];the‘soulofcinema’nowemergeselsewhere,in

moviesassembledinscatteredlocations,thenbicycledtooutlyingviewingsitesandto

diasporiccultures,thesymbolofwhichisthefilmfestival.Themoviesthattodaythink

thenational beyond thenation travel fromRotterdam toToronto toBerlin.Critics

literallyfollowthismovingcamptocatchtherumorofcinema—andarumoritis,for

the‘soulofcinema’ispassedaroundasthoughbywordofmouth,atransitionalidea

existinginpassage.109

Thisimpliesthatthereisnoepicenteroftruecinemaproductionsanymore,achange

thatisfurtherdevelopedbytheneuro-image’sgrowingdigitallogic,additionallymaking

theconsumptionoffilmincreasinglymobile.110

AccordingtoAndrew,truecinemahasbecome‘nomadic’,aDeleuzianmetaphor

basedonawayoflifeofnomadicpeoples,relatingtomobility,fluidityandasenseof

freedom,opposingtothefixedState.111Thisconceptisquiteproblematicandhas

receivedcritiquefrompostcolonialscholarssuchasSpivak,becausewhileitisinspired

byactualpeople’slives,Deleuzedisregardsthepoliticaldifficultiestheyfaceeveryday

regardingthislifestylebyusingitinapurelyvirtualway.112Indeed,theconceptof

‘nomadism’hasbeenusedprimarilytoenrichaveryEurocentricfieldofphilosophy,not

takingintoaccountitsactual(political)significance.However,asAndrewnotes,

nomadismisneverusedbyDeleuzewithregardtocinema.113Heremightlieawayto

usetheconceptmoreresponsiblythanthemetaphysicalwayDeleuzepreviouslywrote

aboutit,preciselybecausefilmcombinesvirtualandpoliticalaspectssodirectly.Cinema

hasthepotentialtotrulyinvolvenomadicpeoplesinitsnomadicways,therebymerging

108Andrew,‘TheRootsoftheNomadic’,216.109Andrew,226.110Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,237.111Andrew,‘TheRootsoftheNomadic’.112GayatriChakravortySpivak,‘CantheSubalternSpeak?’,inColonialDiscourseandPost-ColonialTheory:AReader,ed.PatrickWilliamsandLauraChrisman(NewYork:ColombiaUniversityPress,1994),66–111.113Andrew,‘TheRootsoftheNomadic’,217–18.

25

andmixingtheactualityandvirtualityoftheworld.

Consideringmodern-daycinema,itsvirtualityalreadyimpliesthatitcancome

fromanywhereandgoanywhere,givingvoicetomanywhoaremarginalizedandwho,

throughthepowerofcinemamightbeheardandlistenedto.Itsnomadicaspect

however,entailsthattheessenceofcinemahasbecomemoreacenteredthanever

throughthetransmedialnatureofourtime.114ForAndrew,thisentailsthattruecinema

nowoftenemergesas‘minorcinema’,atypeofcinemaalsotermed‘thirdcinema’in

referencetoitsshiftoffocusfromFirstCinema(classicHollywoodproductions)and

SecondCinema(Europeanauteurcinema)tothe‘restoftheworld’.115However,the

maincharacteristicofminorcinemaisitspoliticalresistanceandengagementwithits

ownminorityposition.116ThisdoesnotmeanthataHollywoodfilmcannotbetrue

cinemaanymore,butsimplythatHollywood’smovement-imagesorEuropeantime-

imagesarenottheonlyproductionstylesanymore.Minorcinemaallowsforverylocal

perspectivestoemerge,butthefilmsareconnected(andconnectus)throughtheiraim

toresistthestatusquo.117Aesthetically,thiscanbedistinguishedinaheavymixingof

establishedcinematiccodes,creatingworksthatdonotfitintoanythingfamiliar.118As

Flaxmannotes,nomadismimpliesto“conceiveofathoughtwithoutanoverarching

image”.119Whiletheneuro-imageadherestocertaincharacteristicsandwillalwayshave

thisstrongconnectiontothebrain,thefactthatthesoulofcinemaisnowproducedand

distributedallovertheglobealsosuggeststhattheimageitselfbecomesharderto

identifyassuch,sinceitlacksaconsistentaestheticstyle.

Insteadofexistingwithinasetterritory,thepossibilitiesoftechnologyserveas

toolsforcinematocreatenewterritory.120Thisisexemplifiedbychangesincinema’s

archivalqualityasaddressedbyPisters.Filmhasalwaysbeenpartof(creating)an

archive,shapingourmemoryofhistory.121Withdigitaltechnologyhowever,archives

arenowvirtualordigitaldatabasesandarebecomingincreasinglyaccessibleand

114Andrew,216.115Andrew,225;Flaxman,TheBrainIstheScreen,34Iwillfurtheruse‘minorcinema’here,aswhatIwanttoemphasizeismoresothevirtualdimensionofresistancethantheactualgeographicalprovenanceofnomadicfilms.116 Pisters, The Neuro-Image, 229. 117 Pisters, 264–65. 118Pisters,257.119Flaxman,TheBrainIstheScreen,53n138.120ClaireColebrook,‘Nomadicism’,inTheDeleuzeDictionary,ed.AdrianParr,Rev.ed(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv.Press,2010),186.121Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,222–23.

26

diverse.Asthecontentskeepchangingandtheygrowmoreandmoreopen,today’s

archivescanbetermedas“alive”.122Complicatedhistoriesareconstantlycontested

fromallsides,whichnowhavetheopportunitytocontribute,keepingourcollective

memoriesconstantlyunfixed.Thisresultsinafuturethatisjustasopenasthepast.123

Throughfilm,andespeciallytheneuro-image,asalivingarchive(whetherfictionalor

not),realityofpast,presentandfutureisconstructedandconstantlyremixedand

changed.124Beingsocloselyrelatedtotechnology,neuro-imagesfollowadigitallogic,

inherentlyentailingsucha“deepremixability”.125Nexttomixingandcreating

heterogenouscinemastyles,onecanconcretelyalsothinkoffilmsbeingreleasedin

differentversions,withalternativeendings,orfeaturingextrascenes,offering

alternativesfortheviewertochoosefrom;butevenmoreso,ofthepossibilityfor

anyonetodirectlyinteractandinterferewiththefilm,forinstancebyaddingand

uploadingownversionsofmontagesorvoice-oversontheWeb,therebypotentially

changingmeaningandmemorythroughthedigitalarchive.126

Cinemanowinhabitsterritoryinanomadicway.Thismeansthatitsexisting

structuresandthedigitalspacewhichourtechnologyprovidesdonotdetermineit,but

ratherthatcinema“fillsthespacefromwithin”.127Insteadofadaptingtotechnological

innovation,cinemausesthesetechnologiestorecreateitselfthroughitswilltoart.

WhileforDeleuzefilmtheaterswerethehomeofcinema,Andrew’sdiscussionof

cinematicnomadismdatesbacktotheyear2000,wherefilmfestivalsandDVD’sare

relevantadditionstoexemplifyitsworkings.Onecanthereforenotignorethatthe

nomadicaspecthasonlygrownfurtherinrecentyearsthroughtheenormousspreadof

theInternet.ManyofthefestivalsthatAndrewmentionsforinstancenowhavealso

createdtheirownstreamingservices,makingtheircontentavailableyear-roundin

literaldatabases.128Inthissensethe‘soulofcinema’andits‘space’isdigitalizedfurther

andfurther,whilestillcomingtousfrommanydifferentactualplaces.

122Pisters,222.123Pisters,221.124Pisters,253.125Pisters,8.126Pisters,10.127Colebrook,‘Nomadicism’,187.128e.g.:InternationalFilmFestivalRotterdam,‘IFFRUnleashed-NotYourEverydayFilms’,accessed6June2018,https://www.iffrunleashed.com/;GöteborgFilmFestival,‘DrakenFilm|StreamaHundratalsHandplockadeFilmerFrånHelaVärlden-79KrperMånad’,accessed6June2018,https://www.drakenfilm.se/.

27

AsColebrookwrites:“nomadicspaceisproducedthroughitsdistribution”.129Itis

createdthroughitsoccupationwhichrevealswherepeopleorentitiesaccumulateand

remainsalwaysinmovement.130Naturally,thefieldofcinemaemergesinpartfromthe

actualdistributionoffilmsaroundtheworld,butshouldbeemphasizedishowitinfact

originatesfromitsvirtualdistribution.Thenomadicshiftintheconceptionofspaceis

firstandforemostfelt‘virtually’infilms,seeingasthisvirtualityiswhatdefinescinema.

Thistranslatesintoneuro-imagescomingfromminorcinemausuallynotprovidingus

withthechronicleofonehero,orauniversaltypeof(hi)storyrelatingtoageneral

humancondition.131Instead,they‘create’apeople,throughasortof“personal

fiction”.132Thisresultsinfilmsaboutpeople(s)thataremissingorfragmented.133Such

imagesarespecific,sospecificthattheyactuallymightnot‘represent’anyoneatall.

Althoughtheycanbepoliticalonalocallevel,nomadicfilmsoftheneuro-imagealso

remainwithoutfixedcinematicidentity.Variousfilmsmightshowunconnectedplaces

andpeople,134theymightfunctionastheirownmicropoliticalacts,buttheycannotbe

determinedordelineatedastheyhavenoguidingprinciple.135

Nevertheless,regardlessoftheir‘non-universal’nature,nomadicfilmsarenow

accessibletomanypeoplethroughthemultiplicationofscreensanddigitalization,

fosteringarelationtotheoutsideoftheirdirectterritory.136Sucharelation

automaticallycreatesarelationinresponse,fromtheviewerontheoutsidetothe

nomadic.Inthissense,allnomadicfilmsdocontributetothecontinuouslymoving

dynamicsofcinemaregardingthequestioningofvirtual/actual,fiction/reality,and

personal/collectiveforinstance.137Eachfilminhabitsthecinematic,nowdigitalor

digitalizedspaceinitsownway,changingandenrichingitforpreviousandpresent

cinema,butalsoforfilmstocome.Withitsdatabaselogic,theneuro-imagecontributes

tothedigitalizationofthearchive,makingourcollectiveworldmemoryasslipperyas

ever.Furthermore,thearchivalcharacteristicoffilmnownotonlybringpasttothe

129Colebrook,‘Nomadicism’,187.130JamesWilliams,GillesDeleuze’sDifferenceandRepetition:ACriticalIntroductionandGuide:ACriticalIntroductionandGuide(EdinburghUniversityPress,2013),71.131Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,229.132Pisters,254.133Pisters,229.134Pisters,227.135Williams,GillesDeleuze’sDifferenceandRepetition,71.136Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,258–59.137Pisters,254.

28

present,butalsotothefuture.138The‘soulofcinema’hasbecomecompletelyunfixed:139

itisnotlinkedtoaplaceortimeanymore,butinsteadwandersthroughaworldof

screensasithasbeendeprivedofanyoriginal‘land’butgainsnewterrainasitgoes.

Diffraction

Nowthatspecificitiesofcinema,brainandscreenshavebeenestablished,Iwantto

continuemyanalysisofcinemaandthebraininthislastsectionbyposingthequestion

howthespecificpowerofcinemahaschangedindigitalscreenculture.Inordertodo

this,recenttheoriesbyKarenBaradofferusefulinsights.Baradisoriginallyaphysicist

whohasdevelopedatheoryofagentialrealism.Shehaswrittenaboutthephenomenon

ofdiffractionasamethodtotheorizedifference.140Iwillshortlydiscussthesehereand

demonstratehowconnectingtheseconceptstocinemaandDeleuze’scrystalimageis

helpfultoevaluateitspower.

AccordingtoBarad’sagentialrealism,notonlyhumansorlivingbeingshave

agency,butmatterdoessotoo.‘Things’imposecertainlimitations(they“kickback”)141

andareactivelypartofthebecomingoftheworld,affectingandshapingphenomena.142

Inthissense,Baradurgesustonotseetheworldthroughclearbinaryboundariessuch

asselfandOther,subjectandobject,matteranddiscourse,insideandoutsideorscience

andsocial.143ThisissomethingDeleuzeseemstoagreewith,asheattributesapowerto

filmformakingusconsciousoftheconstructionofthesetypeofconceptsasoppositions

andprovidinguswithnewwaysofperceivingthem.144AsIhavearguedbefore,cinema

allowsusthinkdifferently,questioningtherelationbetweenbrainandthought,actual

andvirtual,orpresentandpast/future.

Indeed,Pistersnotes:“ForDeleuze,thevirtualisalwaysconnectedtotheactual

butinafarmoreintimatewaythanbyopposition.”145Itisthroughthecrystal-imagein

itspurestatethatthisentanglementhappens,as“theactualandthevirtual,without

138Pisters,227.139Andrew,‘TheRootsoftheNomadic’,216.140KarenMichelleBarad,MeetingtheUniverseHalfway:QuantumPhysicsandtheEntanglementofMatterandMeaning(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2007).141Barad,214–15.142Barad,136.143KarenBarad,‘DiffractingDiffraction:CuttingTogether-Apart’,Parallax20,no.3(3July2014):169,https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623.144ConstantineVerevis,‘Cinema’,inTheDeleuzeDictionary,ed.AdrianParr,Rev.ed(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv.Press,2010),49.145Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,248.

29

beingconfused,havenonethelessbecomeindiscernible”.146Thecrystal-imageemerged

withthetime-imageandreferstothe‘crystallization’oftheactualimagewithitsown

virtuality.147Thisisaconfusingexperiencefortheviewer,asitforcesustothink

differentlyandcreatenewcircuits.148Crystal-imagesthussimulateandstimulatethe

plasticityofourbrainand,inthisway,helpuscomeclosertowhatBaradtermsa“non-

binaryconceptionofdifference”.149AsPistersexplains,withtheneuro-image(whichcan

beconsideredverycloselyrelatedtothecrystal-image)theviewercannoteven

distinguishtheswitchingbetweenactualandvirtualanymore.150Inthissense,crystal-

imagescanhelpusunderstandthateverythingiswithintheworld,butalsoalwaysan

activepartofitandwecanneverjustpositionourselvesontheoutside.151Different

agencies,actualandvirtual,areentangledtogetherandshapeandcreateeachother.152

Baradexplainshowobjectsandtheiragencies“emergefrom,ratherthanprecede,the

intra-actionthatproducesthem.”153Thismustimmediatelyremindusoftheconceptof

plasticityandthewayDeleuzestatesthatthebraindoesnotpre-existstimuli,butis

shapedbythem.154Infact,whatIwanttosuggestisthattheseideasarecloselylinked

andIbelieveBaradcanhelptoshedlightonthequestionofthebrainandscreenin

contemporaryscreenculture.

LambertandFlaxmansuggestthatthefutureofcinemaliesinthedevelopmentof

thecrystal-image.155Thenewlysurfaceddigitallogicofcinemaencouragesthecrystal-

imageasitswilltoartaswell.Thisispreciselybecausedigitaltechnologiesalready

intrinsicallyblurourconceptionofvirtualandactual.ForDeleuze,thecrystal-imageis

mostclearlyexemplifiedthroughthemirror:“[T]hemirror-imageisvirtualinrelationto

theactualcharacterthatthemirrorcatches,butitisactualinthemirrorwhichnow

leavesthecharacterwithonlyavirtualityandpusheshimbackout-of-field.”156Deleuze

146Marrati,GillesDeleuze,73.147Deleuze,CinemaII,72.148Marrati,GillesDeleuze,72.149Barad,‘DiffractingDiffraction’,170.150Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,58.151Barad,MeetingtheUniverseHalfway,37.152Barad,33.153Barad,128.154Deleuze,‘TheBrainIstheScreen:InterviewwithGillesDeleuzeon“TheTime-Image”’,48–49.155GreggLambertandGregoryFlaxman,‘TenPropositionsontheBrain’,inDiagramsofSensation:DeleuzeandAesthetics,ed.DarrenAmbroseandWahidaKhandker(Coventry:UniversityofWarwick,2005),124.156Deleuze,CinemaII,73.

30

citesthefilmTheLadyFromShanghai157asaperfectcrystalimage,whereinonescene,

thecharactersareimpossibletodistinguishfromtheirvirtualreflectionsinmirrors,and

enduphavingtosmashthereflectingsurfacestoendeachother’slives.158

Currenttechnologieshavethepotentialtotakethisindiscernibility

(crystallization)evenfurther.AnoteworthyexampleofthiscanbefoundinHarryPotter

andthePrisonerofAzkaban,159thefilmadaptationofthethirdHarryPotternovel

directedbyAlfonsoCuarón.Here,wefindascenewheretheyoungwizardslearntocast

aspellagainsta‘boggart’,acreaturethattakesontheformofone’sbiggestfear.The

boggartiskeptinamirroredwardrobeandasthescenebegins,weseethewardrobe

fromtheperspectiveofthestudents(weseetheirreflections),untilthecamera(which

‘magically’isnotreflected)passesthroughthemirrorandwerealizethatour

perspectivemightactuallyhavebeenonthevirtualside,theoneofthestudents’

reflectionsbefore.However,thesceneendswithanothersuchpassagethroughthe

mirror,leavingtheviewerdazzledastowhichsideofthemirrorwasthevirtualand

whichtheactual.Thisremainsimpossibletofindout.Suchascenecouldonlybe

producedwiththehelpofcomputergeneratedimagery(CGI).Whatweseeonthe

screenisthusbroughttousbythepowerofdigitalscreentechnology,whichisnow

profoundlyentangledwithcinema.Bygoingthroughthemirrorthatopensuptoour

fears,weareprovidedwithmorethanarepresentationandinsteadgettolookinto

ourselves.160Itisinthiswaythatwethusdirectlyexploreourownactualandvirtual

dimension,orinotherwords,ourbrainanditsplasticity.Thisdemonstrateshow

throughtechnology,cinemahasthepowertocreateandtocomeevenclosertoour

brain.

Baraddiscussesreflection,notonlyasaphysicalphenomenoncreating

representations,butalsoasprevailinginthewayweact,takingtheformof

reflexivity.161Asdiscussedinpart2,weincreasinglyfindsuchreflexivityinfilm(e.g.in

theformofmentalimages),andalthoughitisaninterestingpractice,inasenseithas

becomeoutplayedalready.This‘meta-effect’justkeepsbeingmirroredoverandover

157OrsonWelles,TheLadyfromShanghai,Crime,Drama,Film-Noir,1948,http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040525/.158Deleuze,CinemaII,73.159AlfonsoCuarón,HarryPotterandthePrisonerofAzkaban,Adventure,Family,Fantasy,2004,http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304141/.160Nerdwriter1(EvanPuschak),HarryPotter&ThePrisonerofAzkaban:WhyIt’sTheBest-YouTube,2016,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hZ_ZyzCO24.161Barad,MeetingtheUniverseHalfway,71.

31

again,producingnothingtrulynew.Itcanthereforenolongerbeintegraltocinema’s

trueformorpartofitswilltoart.

ItisinterestingthatDeleuzereferssospecificallytomirrorsforthecrystal-

image,especiallysinceBaradmakesapointtorejectreflectionasaproductive

practice.162Reflectionsarerepresentations;theydonotmakeadifference,theydonot

createandthustheyarenot‘plastic’.Therejectionofrepresentationisanimportant

similaritybetweenBaradandDeleuze,163butwhatweseeinamirrorisareflection.

Despitethis,Deleuzeactivelypraisesmirrorsfortheirabilitytogeneratedifference.

However,hismirrorscanalsobeoblique,concaveorconvex,creatingadistortedimage

oftheactual.164Inthissense,theydotaketheirreflectionsfurtherthanarepresentation

thatwewouldjudgeas‘truthful’.ThisresolvesoneofBarad’sobjectionsto

reflection/reflexivity,asshearguesthatreflexivitysupposesthatrepresentationsreflect

reality.Baradcriticizesthepracticeofreflectinguponrepresentation,therebyputting

“mirrorsuponmirrors”165withoutcreatinganythingnew.AsMalaboustatesasthefinal

answertoherquestion:“Nottoreplicatethecaricatureoftheworld:thisiswhatwe

shoulddowithourbrain.”166Bynow,itshouldbeclearthatDeleuzeandPistersargue

exactlyforsuchpotentialincinema,asthisiswhatmakesitsuchaspecificartform.

Baradproposesdiffraction,whichdoeshavethispowertocreate,incontrastto

thedominantpracticeofreflection/reflexivity.Diffractionisanotheroptical

phenomenonthatisproducedwhenanytypeofwave(water,light,soundetc.)under

therightconditionsencountersabarrier,suchasawall,screenorcrystalofwhichthey

havethepossibilitytotravelthrough.167Thismightinvolvetheobstructiontohaveone

ormoreslits,orthetypeofwavetobeabletogothroughtheobstructionmaterial.

Insteadofgoingthroughtheobjectinastraightfashionasonemightexpectatfirst,the

waves‘diffract’,meaningthattheyformapatternthatspreadsthemout,asiftheir

bundlewasslicedandrearranged.168Diffractionthushastodowithmanifoldcutting

andreconfiguringwhichresultsinexpansionofthewaves.169Inthissense,diffraction

conflictswiththenotionofopposingdichotomies,becausetheseareformedbyasingle

162Barad,29.163Pisters,‘TemporalExplorationsinCosmicConsciousness’,1.164Deleuze,CinemaII,73.165Barad,MeetingtheUniverseHalfway,88.166Malabou,WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?,78.167Barad,MeetingtheUniverseHalfway,74.168Barad,74–79.169Barad,‘DiffractingDiffraction’,168.

32

cutintwo.170WhatDeleuzeisleadinguptowiththecrystal-imageanditsfurther

developmentincontemporarycinemaisinfactatypeofdiffractivecinema,cinemathat

makesachange,inourbrainsandthereforeintheworld.Thisalreadybecomesclearin

histerminology,sincecrystalsarecharacterizedbytheirqualityasdiffraction

gratings.171Thecrystal-imagethusimpliessomethingmorethanavirtualcopyofthe

actual.

Baradusesthephenomenonofdiffractionas“atoolofanalysisforattendingto

andrespondingtotheeffectsofdifference”.172Inthissense,itismorethanamere

metaphororanalogy,indicatinganothershiftawayfromrepresentation.173Byusingit,

oneisnottryingtocompareseparateentitiestofindrelationships,butinsteadlooksat

veryspecificentanglements,wheremoreisatstakethanjustonethingcollidingwithor

relatingtoanother.Everyphenomenonisacomplicatedknotandhasitsownspecificity.

Diffractionisacriticalpracticeformakingadifferenceintheworld,becauseitisnot

onlyaboutunderstandingthedifferencesbetweenphenomena,butalso“howthey

matterandforwhom”.174Inthissense,diffractionisalsocloselytiedtothepolitical.Ina

recentarticle,PistersconnectsDeleuzianideasoncinemawithBarad’sdiffraction:

“Using[diffraction],wecanseehowourcontemporarydigitaltoolsintra-actwithour

conceptionoftime.”175Throughtheneuro-image’sorientationonthethirdsynthesisof

time,andthenewtransmedialityofcinema,wehavetheapparatustocreatea“future

thatdiffersfromthepast”,176becauseitisthroughdigital(screen)technologiesthatwe

cantakethedeconstructionofdichotomiesfurtherthanever.AsPistersremarks:“not

onlycancontentberemixedandrecombined,butalsodifferenttechnologies(suchas

design,animationandliveaction)canberecombined.”177These‘cuttingandcombining’

techniquesencouragediffractionincinemaandstimulateitsplasticpower.Diffraction

thusexposesthecloserelationsbetweentechnology/science,cinemaandphilosophy.

Combined,theseagenciescanbediffractedintoendlesspossibilities,workingtowardsa

differentbecomingoftheworld.178

170Barad,168.171Barad,MeetingtheUniverseHalfway,83.172Barad,72.173Flaxman,TheBrainIstheScreen,36.174Barad,MeetingtheUniverseHalfway,90.175Pisters,‘TemporalExplorationsinCosmicConsciousness’,4.176Pisters,4.177Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,10.178Pisters,‘TemporalExplorationsinCosmicConsciousness’,3.

33

Throughtruesoulofcontemporarycinema,wemightstartdisentangling

challengesofthepresentandfuture.Timeintheneuro-imageisrecutmorethanever,179

howeverthisrecuttingdoesnotmoveusawayfromentanglementsbutmanagesto

bringusclosertothem,closertotheirmateriality.Pistersmentionscontemporary

neuro-imagesciencefictionwhich,insteadofmovingintospacetowardsthefuture,

movesusbacktoearth,througha“futurethatisnow”.180Thisallowsustonotonly

reflectonearthfromaspaceperspective,butrealizeourintrinsicpartinits

entanglementinadiffractiveway.Ourpastandpresentarenowdimensionsbasedon

ourvisionsofthefuture.181“Thedigitalimpliesadatabaselogicthatallowsforallkinds

ofreconfigurations,remixings,andre-orderingsofpastandpresentevents.”182These

cinematicdiffractionscreatedifference,andsuchdifferencecannotgounnoticedbyour

brain.

179Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,303–4.180Pisters,‘TemporalExplorationsinCosmicConsciousness’,8–9.181Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,304.182Pisters,‘TemporalExplorationsinCosmicConsciousness’,4.

34

Conclusion

Thepurposeofthisworkwastoidentifythecinematicrelationshipbetweenbrainand

screenindigitalscreenculture.Tothisend,IhaveexaminedDeleuze’sideasoncinema

andcombinedthemwithseveralmorerecentworksonthetopic.Startingwiththe

movement-image,pre-warcinemashowedmovementthroughprimarilytheaction-

image.Thishadnotbeenrecreatedbeforeoutsideofourown‘natural’perspective.After

WorldWarII,thetime-imageemergedwithitsinsistenceondisplayingtimeonscreen

throughinnovativecutsandmontages.IwanttoemphasizeagainthatwhenDeleuze

writesaboutcinema,heusuallyrefersto‘good’or‘true’cinema.Forhim,thistrueform

isthesoulofcinema,atypeofidealizedformofitwhichcarriesitswilltoart.183This

meanstheyarenotnecessarilythemostpopularormostcommonlymadefilms.Instead,

thesearethefilmswhichmakevisibletheinvisibleatthetimeitbecomesnecessary.For

thetime-andneuro-image,this‘invisible’isthevirtualdimensionofreality,184which

crystallizeswiththeactualinthecrystal-image.

Cinema’sessenceisitsconnectiontothebrain,asithastheabilitytofoster

thought-creatingcircuits.185Therefore,thebrainisthescreenandthescreen(cinema)is

alsoabrain.Filmisthuscharacterizedbythesameplasticitythatourbrainpossesses.186

Inaway,Deleuze’scinemabooksaremoreonthebrainanditsimagesthancinemain

theclassicalsense.187Pisters’thirdimagetype,theneuro-image,introducesaneven

moreexplicitbondbetweenbrainandcinemabylinkingcontemporaryneuroscience

findingstothescreen.188Wefindourselvessurroundedbyplasticpotential,but

unfortunately,weareunabletoutilizeitbecausewedonotknowofit.189

Especiallyintheformoftheneuro-imagecancinemahelpustoreclaimthis

creativepower,asitcombinesafocusonthefuturewithareturntoourselves.190The

neuro-imageshowsusanexceptionallyplasticbrainandworksinthesameway.191This

extremeplasticityemergesthroughitscontextinacultureofdigitaltechnologieswhich

aredeeplylinkedtothevirtual.AsIhaveargued,theplaceofcinemahasshiftedas

183Flaxman,TheBrainIstheScreen,34.184Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,21.185Pisters,193.186Malabou,WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?,39.187LambertandFlaxman,‘TenPropositionsontheBrain’,120.188Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,18.189Malabou,WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?,1.190Pisters,‘TemporalExplorationsinCosmicConsciousness’,8.191Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,52.

35

cinemahasbecomeacenteredinactualaswellasvirtualspace.192Themultiplicityof

screenstoseeandcreatefilmsonandthedatabaselogicthatinfluencescinema’s

archivalfunctionhavecausedanomadicaspecttosurfaceincinema.193Thisentailsa

qualitativechangeincinema,whichhascometoshowveryspecificsituations,peoples

orplaces.Viewersmightrelatewithmoredifficultytothesefilms,becausethesearenot

universalnarrativesanymore.Additionally,therearenospecificvisualtraitsthathold

thenomadicneuro-imagetogether.However,itremainspoliticalsince,bycreatingor

discussingapeoplethataremissing,itenables“thetransformationofestablished

visionsoftheactualworld”.194Aspecialtypeofthoughtisthusstillcreatedwithoutthe

needforacoherentaesthetic.

Finally,IhavediscussedBarad’sconceptofdiffraction,becauseitbringsmeto

thefinalanswertothequestionof‘whatconstitutestherelationshipbetweenbrainand

cinemaindigital(screen)culture’.Ibelievethatthiscanbetermedadiffractive

relationship.Thedigitalscreencinemaoftheneuro-imagehasthepowertomakeus

consciousofourbrainbecauseitcombinescinema,philosophyandneuro-

/technoscience,proceedingtocut,remixandrecombineaspectsofallimage-typesand

timesyntheses,therebybringingusclosertoanundecidedandplasticfuture.195The

practiceof(re)cuttingcreatesdifference,orhelpsustoconceptualizedifference

differently.196Openingupthepastbykeepingit‘alive’andmovingopensupthefuture

foradifferentbecomingoftheworld.InBarad’swords:“The‘past’wasneversimply

theretobeginwith,andthe‘future’isnotwhatwillunfold,but‘past’and‘future’are

iterativelyreconfiguredandenfolded.”197

Itisinthiswaythatweareabletocreatenewbraincircuits,realizingthe

plasticityofourbrain.Thebrainisthescreenand“[t]hescreenitselfisthecerebral

membranewhereimmediateanddirectconfrontationstakeplacebetweenthepastand

thefuture,theinsideandtheoutside,atadistanceimpossibletodetermine,

independentofanyfixedpoint[…].”198Keepingusundetermined,thescreenthus

192Andrew,‘TheRootsoftheNomadic’,216.193Pisters,TheNeuro-Image,24.194Pisters,264.195Pisters,‘TemporalExplorationsinCosmicConsciousness’,4.196Barad,‘DiffractingDiffraction’,170.197RickDolphijnandIrisvanderTuin,‘InterviewwithKarenBarad’,inNewMaterialism:Interviews&Cartographies(OpenHumanitiesPress,2012),66,https://doi.org/10.3998/ohp.11515701.0001.001.198Deleuze,CinemaII,130.

36

establishesdifferencewithinourbrain,adifferencethatgivesuspowertochangethe

world.

37

Bibliography

Andrew,Dudley.‘TheRootsoftheNomadic:GillesDeleuzeandtheCinemaofWest

Africa’.InTheBrainIstheScreen:DeleuzeandthePhilosophyofCinema,editedby

GregoryFlaxman,215–49.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2000.

Barad,Karen.‘DiffractingDiffraction:CuttingTogether-Apart’.Parallax20,no.3(3July

2014):168–87.https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623.

Barad,KarenMichelle.MeetingtheUniverseHalfway:QuantumPhysicsandthe

EntanglementofMatterandMeaning.Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2007.

Benjamin,Walter.‘TheWorkofArtintheAgeofMechanicalReproduction’.InThe

ContinentalAestheticsReader,editedbyCliveCazeaux,322–44.London ;New

York:Routledge,2000.

Boundas,Constantin.‘Virtual/Virtuality’.InTheDeleuzeDictionary,editedbyAdrian

Parr,Rev.ed.,300–302.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv.Press,2010.

Brown,William,andDavidH.Fleming.‘DeterritorialisationandSchizoanalysisinDavid

Fincher’s“FightClub”’.DeleuzeStudies5,no.2(July2011):275–99.

https://doi.org/10.3366/dls.2011.0021.

Cazeaux,Clive,ed.TheContinentalAestheticsReader.London ;NewYork:Routledge,

2000.

Colebrook,Claire.‘Nomadicism’.InTheDeleuzeDictionary,editedbyAdrianParr,Rev.

ed.,185–88.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv.Press,2010.

Cuarón,Alfonso.HarryPotterandthePrisonerofAzkaban.Adventure,Family,Fantasy,

2004.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304141/.

Deamer,David.Deleuze’sCinemaBooks:ThreeIntroductionstotheTaxonomyofImages.

Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2016.

Deleuze,Gilles.CinemaI:TheMovement-Image.TranslatedbyHughTomlinsonand

BarbaraHabberjam.Paperbackedition.Cinema1.London ;NewYork:

BloomsburyAcademic,2013.

———.CinemaII:TheTime-Image.TranslatedbyHughTomlinsonandRobertGaleta.

Paperbackedition.Cinema2.London ;NewYork:BloomsburyAcademic,2013.

———.‘TheBrainIstheScreen:InterviewwithGillesDeleuzeon“TheTime-Image”’.

TranslatedbyMelissaMcMuhan.Discourse20,no.3,(1998).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41389498.

Dolphijn,Rick,andIrisvanderTuin.‘InterviewwithKarenBarad’.InNewMaterialism:

38

Interviews&Cartographies,48–61.OpenHumanitiesPress,2012.

https://doi.org/10.3998/ohp.11515701.0001.001.

Fincher,David.FightClub.Drama,1999.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/.

Flaxman,Gregory,ed.TheBrainIstheScreen:DeleuzeandthePhilosophyofCinema.

Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2000.

GöteborgFilmFestival.‘DrakenFilm|StreamaHundratalsHandplockadeFilmerFrån

HelaVärlden-79KrperMånad’.Accessed6June2018.

https://www.drakenfilm.se/.

Hegel,GeorgWilhelmFriedrich.PhenomenologyofSpirit.TranslatedbyA.V.Miller.

MotilalBanarsidassPublishers,1998.

InternationalFilmFestivalRotterdam.‘IFFRUnleashed-NotYourEverydayFilms’.

Accessed6June2018.https://www.iffrunleashed.com/.

Lambert,Gregg,andGregoryFlaxman.‘TenPropositionsontheBrain’.InDiagramsof

Sensation:DeleuzeandAesthetics,editedbyDarrenAmbroseandWahida

Khandker,114–28.Coventry:UniversityofWarwick,2005.

Malabou,Catherine.WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?1sted.Perspectivesin

ContinentalPhilosophy.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2008.

Marks,Laura.‘SignsoftheTime:Deleuze,Peirce,andtheDocumentaryImage’.InThe

BrainIstheScreen:DeleuzeandthePhilosophyofCinema,editedbyGregory

Flaxman,193–214.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2000.

Marrati,Paola.GillesDeleuze:CinemaandPhilosophy.Baltimore:JohnsHopkins

UniversityPress,2012.

Nerdwriter1(EvanPuschak).HarryPotter&ThePrisonerofAzkaban:WhyIt’sTheBest-

YouTube,2016.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hZ_ZyzCO24.

Pisters,Patricia.‘TemporalExplorationsinCosmicConsciousness:Intra-Agential

EntanglementsandtheNeuro-Image’.CulturalStudiesReview21,no.2(25

November2015):1–12.https://doi.org/10.5130/csr.v21i2.4323.

———.TheNeuro-Image:ADeleuzianFilm-PhilosophyofDigitalScreenCulture.Cultural

MemoryinthePresent.Stanford,California:StanfordUniversityPress,2012.

Samsonow,Elizabethvon.‘EgonSchiele:VitalistDeleuzian’.InArtHistoryafterDeleuze

andGuattari,editedbySjoerdvanTuinenandStephenZepke.LeuvenUniversity

Press,2017.

Spivak,GayatriChakravorty.‘CantheSubalternSpeak?’InColonialDiscourseandPost-

39

ColonialTheory:AReader,editedbyPatrickWilliamsandLauraChrisman,66–

111.NewYork:ColombiaUniversityPress,1994.

Stagoll,Cliff.‘Becoming’.InTheDeleuzeDictionary,editedbyAdrianParr,Rev.ed.,25–

27.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv.Press,2010.

Verevis,Constantine.‘Cinema’.InTheDeleuzeDictionary,editedbyAdrianParr,Rev.ed.,

49–51.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv.Press,2010.

Welles,Orson.TheLadyfromShanghai.Crime,Drama,Film-Noir,1948.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040525/.

Williams,James.GillesDeleuze’sDifferenceandRepetition:ACriticalIntroductionand

Guide:ACriticalIntroductionandGuide.EdinburghUniversityPress,2013.