PDF(1514 KB)
PDF(1514 KB)
PDF(1514 KB)
“流”作为拓扑:流视频的媒介性断流与超级现代主义社会
“Stream” as Topoi: The Discontinuity of Streaming Video and Hypermodern Society
“流”作为一种拓扑,在传播技术、媒介形式与社会结构的激变过程中始终保持话语的持久性和流动性。“流”的话语拓扑在流视频时代得到了显性增强,但是从其媒介性及社会重构力量来说,流视频的“流”事实上发挥着“断流”的效果。流视频依托“界面流”“数据流”“刷看流”在编排、流通、接受三大层面上塑造了新传播秩序,也指向了其断流性的媒介实质。“即时性”“私人化”“交互性”是造成流视频断流的媒介性原因,其解构了此前由传统媒介结构起的社会时空和社会组织关系,塑造了现在主义时间与不稳定性主体,最终代言并加剧着超级现代主义的分隔与失衡。
“Stream”, as media topoi, has always maintained its conceptual persistence and fluidity in the transformations of communication technologies, media forms, and social structures. While the topological discourse of stream becomes increasingly pronounced in the era of streaming video, its mediality and societal reconstructive power paradoxically manifest as a form of disruption of flow. Through interfaces, data, and the practice of “binge-watching”, streaming video restructures the logic of media programming, circulation, and reception, thereby revealing the essentially discontinuous nature of the flow. The medial factors driving this disruption-namely, immediacy, privatization, and interactivity—dismantle the spatiotemporal and organizational frameworks once shaped by traditional media. In their place, they foster a presentist temporality and unstable subjectivities, ultimately intensifying the fragmentation and imbalance characteristic of hypermodernism.
Streaming video / media topology / streaming media platform / hypermodernism
| [1] |
大卫·赫斯蒙德夫(2013/2016). 《文化产业》(张菲娜译). 中国人民大学出版社.
|
| [2] |
吉尔·利波维茨基,塞巴斯蒂安·夏尔(2004/2005). 《超级现代时间》(谢强译). 中国人民大学出版社.
|
| [3] |
列夫·马诺维奇(2001/2021). 《新媒体的语言》(车琳译). 贵州人民出版社.
|
| [4] |
罗杰·西尔弗斯通(1994/2004). 《电视与日常生活》(陶庆梅译). 江苏人民出版社.
|
| [5] |
威廉·弗卢塞尔(1998/2022). 《传播学: 历史、 理论与哲学》(周海宁译). 复旦大学出版社.
|
| [6] |
乌尔里希·贝克(1986/2018). 《风险社会:新的现代性之路》(何博闻,张文杰译). 译林出版社.
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
What is the political impact of networked communications technologies? I argue that as communicative capitalism they are profoundly depoliticizing. The argument, first, conceptualizes the current political-economic formation as one of communicative capitalism. It then moves to emphasize specific features of communicative capitalism in light of the fantasies animating them. The fantasy of abundance leads to a shift in the basic unit of communication from the message to the contribution. The fantasy of activity or participation is materialized through technology fetishism. The fantasy of wholeness relies on and produces a global both imaginary and Real. This fantasy prevents the emergence of a clear division between friend and enemy, resulting instead in the more dangerous and profound figuring of the other as a threat to be destroyed. My goal in providing this account of communicative capitalism is to explain why in an age celebrated for its communications there is no response.
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |