UCSD Science StudiesColloquium SeriespresentsAud Sissel HoelProfessorDepartment of Art and Media StudiesNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyUCSD Science StudiesColloquium SeriespresentsAud Sissel HoelProfessorDepartment of Art and Media StudiesNorwegian University of Science and Technology
UCSD Science Studies
Colloquium Series
presents
Aud Sissel Hoel
Professor
Department of Art and Media Studies
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
UCSD Science Studies
Colloquium Series
presents
Aud Sissel Hoel
Professor
Department of Art and Media Studies
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Monday, April 20, 20154:00 PM – 5:30 PMH&SS 3027, MUIR COLLEGEMedia as Differential ApparatusesAbstractIf we assume a dynamic and relational approach to knowledge and being, what would we make of the notion of medium? In this presentation I would like to sketch out an operational approach to mediation, suggesting that media, and mediating instruments and technologies more generally, be conceived as differential apparatuses. The presentation contributes to an emerging approach that could be called "new apparatus theory." While the new apparatus theory draws on the "old" apparatus theory of 1970s cinema studies, and further, on the Foucauldian notion of dispositif (including the interpretations of this notion by thinkers like Deleuze and Agamben), the prefix "new" marks a shift to a different conceptual framework. Karen Barad's treatment of apparatuses in Meeting the Universe Halfway (2007) exemplifies the new approach. What characterizes new apparatus theory is that apparatuses are now understood to have ontological import. While the formative powers of apparatuses are still fully acknowledged, they are no longer conceived primarily as oppressive social mechanisms or as distorting, arbitrary mechanisms productive of deceptive reality effects. Instead, apparatuses are assigned crucial interrogative and constitutive roles in knowledge and being; they are seen as productive of phenomena, and as specific material arrangements and reconfigurings of the world (Barad 2007, p. 142). I further develop the idea of apparatuses having ontological import by suggesting that apparatuses operate in a differential manner. Further, in contrast to Barad, I maintain that understanding the workings and functions of apparatuses requires an account of the perceiving body, which – or so I claim – also operate in a differential manner, and whose mode of operation is continuously displaced by the apparatuses at its disposal.For more information contact: 534-0491 or
[email protected], April 20, 20154:00 PM – 5:30 PMH&SS 3027, MUIR COLLEGEMedia as Differential ApparatusesAbstractIf we assume a dynamic and relational approach to knowledge and being, what would we make of the notion of medium? In this presentation I would like to sketch out an operational approach to mediation, suggesting that media, and mediating instruments and technologies more generally, be conceived as differential apparatuses. The presentation contributes to an emerging approach that could be called "new apparatus theory." While the new apparatus theory draws on the "old" apparatus theory of 1970s cinema studies, and further, on the Foucauldian notion of dispositif (including the interpretations of this notion by thinkers like Deleuze and Agamben), the prefix "new" marks a shift to a different conceptual framework. Karen Barad's treatment of apparatuses in Meeting the Universe Halfway (2007) exemplifies the new approach. What characterizes new apparatus theory is that apparatuses are now understood to have ontological import. While the formative powers of apparatuses are still fully acknowledged, they are no longer conceived primarily as oppressive social mechanisms or as distorting, arbitrary mechanisms productive of deceptive reality effects. Instead, apparatuses are assigned crucial interrogative and constitutive roles in knowledge and being; they are seen as productive of phenomena, and as specific material arrangements and reconfigurings of the world (Barad 2007, p. 142). I further develop the idea of apparatuses having ontological import by suggesting that apparatuses operate in a differential manner. Further, in contrast to Barad, I maintain that understanding the workings and functions of apparatuses requires an account of the perceiving body, which – or so I claim – also operate in a differential manner, and whose mode of operation is continuously displaced by the apparatuses at its disposal.For more information contact: 534-0491 or
[email protected]
Monday, April 20, 2015
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
H&SS 3027, MUIR COLLEGE
Media as Differential Apparatuses
Abstract
If we assume a dynamic and relational approach to knowledge and being, what would we make of the notion of medium? In this presentation I would like to sketch out an operational approach to mediation, suggesting that media, and mediating instruments and technologies more generally, be conceived as differential apparatuses. The presentation contributes to an emerging approach that could be called "new apparatus theory." While the new apparatus theory draws on the "old" apparatus theory of 1970s cinema studies, and further, on the Foucauldian notion of dispositif (including the interpretations of this notion by thinkers like Deleuze and Agamben), the prefix "new" marks a shift to a different conceptual framework. Karen Barad's treatment of apparatuses in Meeting the Universe Halfway (2007) exemplifies the new approach. What characterizes new apparatus theory is that apparatuses are now understood to have ontological import. While the formative powers of apparatuses are still fully acknowledged, they are no longer conceived primarily as oppressive social mechanisms or as distorting, arbitrary mechanisms productive of deceptive reality effects. Instead, apparatuses are assigned crucial interrogative and constitutive roles in knowledge and being; they are seen as productive of phenomena, and as specific material arrangements and reconfigurings of the world (Barad 2007, p. 142). I further develop the idea of apparatuses having ontological import by suggesting that apparatuses operate in a differential manner. Further, in contrast to Barad, I maintain that understanding the workings and functions of apparatuses requires an account of the perceiving body, which – or so I claim – also operate in a differential manner, and whose mode of operation is continuously displaced by the apparatuses at its disposal.
For more information contact: 534-0491 or
[email protected]
Monday, April 20, 2015
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
H&SS 3027, MUIR COLLEGE
Media as Differential Apparatuses
Abstract
If we assume a dynamic and relational approach to knowledge and being, what would we make of the notion of medium? In this presentation I would like to sketch out an operational approach to mediation, suggesting that media, and mediating instruments and technologies more generally, be conceived as differential apparatuses. The presentation contributes to an emerging approach that could be called "new apparatus theory." While the new apparatus theory draws on the "old" apparatus theory of 1970s cinema studies, and further, on the Foucauldian notion of dispositif (including the interpretations of this notion by thinkers like Deleuze and Agamben), the prefix "new" marks a shift to a different conceptual framework. Karen Barad's treatment of apparatuses in Meeting the Universe Halfway (2007) exemplifies the new approach. What characterizes new apparatus theory is that apparatuses are now understood to have ontological import. While the formative powers of apparatuses are still fully acknowledged, they are no longer conceived primarily as oppressive social mechanisms or as distorting, arbitrary mechanisms productive of deceptive reality effects. Instead, apparatuses are assigned crucial interrogative and constitutive roles in knowledge and being; they are seen as productive of phenomena, and as specific material arrangements and reconfigurings of the world (Barad 2007, p. 142). I further develop the idea of apparatuses having ontological import by suggesting that apparatuses operate in a differential manner. Further, in contrast to Barad, I maintain that understanding the workings and functions of apparatuses requires an account of the perceiving body, which – or so I claim – also operate in a differential manner, and whose mode of operation is continuously displaced by the apparatuses at its disposal.
For more information contact: 534-0491 or
[email protected]
