Page 287 - Cyberculture and New Media

278 Desistant Media
______________________________________________________________

41
Cf. Ulmer 1989, 14145-147.
42
Cf. Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy 1988, 44-48.
43
Lacoue-Labarthe 1994, xvii.
44
Silverman 1996, 16.
45
Ikonen 2000, 9-10.
46
Hintsa 1998, e.g. 32 and Kaarto 2003, 31.
47
Lacoue-Labarthe 1989, 194, 195 and 201.
48
See www.ssla.soc.usyd.edu.au/conference/Walker.html
49
Lacoue-Labarthe 1990, 82-83.
50
In Lacoue-Labarthe 1989, 24.
51
Derrida 1978, 289 & 292.
52
To view a certain trail from Zerseher to more contemporary media
installations, see Le Meur 2002, 71-74, where she has also elaborated the
fertility of seeing by wondering “if I can destroy by looking, can’t I then
create by looking as well?”.
53
Rötzer 1995, 37; Cf. Hardison, passim.
54
Silverman 1996, 168.
55
Zapp 2002, 80. According to her, majority of dramatic forms follow the
Aristotelian idea of mimetic narration: the presentation of a dramatic action is
understood as a copy or imitation (mimesis) of reality, in which the author
talks through the figures that are the actors. The fictional action is represented
by these personae, being either a character as an individual being or a type as
a representative of a certain social group. They are put into a constellation, in
which their specific and characteristic attributes are arranged in opposition to
each other to show the different dimensions of the conflict and story.
Protagonists, antagonists, main and sub-characters lead to a personification of
story content and also of representative social behaviours. Most importantly
they are all the author’s creatures. The viewer is taking on the role of a
voyeur, witness or emotional judge. He or she is immersed in the story by
emotional means of identification, as the plot aims to provoke sympathy or
antipathy with the characters or draws possible parallels to the viewer’s
subjective reality. Ibid. 78.
56
Cf. Jay 1997, 42- 46. Poststructuralism, I argue – after many premonitions
of modern and modernity in the discourse – ought to be understood here as a
timeline and not so much as a philosophical paradigm.
57
Lacoue-Labarthe 1999, 48-49.
58
Lacoue-Labarthe & Nancy 1997, 73-74. Allobiography should not be read
as a material notation system as is Kittler’s polygraph as a solid proof of the
madness of the media systems. Allobiography is a system occupied with the
unfamiliar of ourselves, whereas autobiography produces unity, the very
Heimlich of man.