Screen culture ontology: towards the problem statement
https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2022-10-2-57-68
Abstract
We regard the screen phenomenon as a formative principle of modern culture. We have modeled the cultural concepts sequence representing the evolution of screen ontology: water – mirror – surface – shield – glass – portal – implant. The article covers (1) the issues of developing an integrated methodological approach to the interpretation of the formative, transmitting, and sense-making roles of the screen in modern culture; (2) systematic conceptual prognostications of screen transformational influence on cognition, corporeality, the aesthetic worldview of a modern man; (3) establishment of the “screen culture man” anthropological project formation in the contemporary world. A screen as a cultural phenomenon evolves and acquires expanded functions, revealing its own modes, the list of which is open-ended. Despite the fact that the formation of a screen phenomenon has not been completed, it is already obvious today that it is moving in the direction of a series of transformations of a screen-means into a screen-substance, a screen-object into a screen-subject, which inevitably levels out the value of a person looking at this screen, whose transformation occurs in the opposite direction to the screen.
About the Author
S. L. Grigoryev
Russian State Agrarian University – Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Grigoryev Sergey Leonidovich – CandSc (Philos.), Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy
127550, Moscow, Timiryazevskaya st., 49.
References
1. Baudrillard J. (2002). L’espirit du terrorisme. Editions Galilee.
2. Bataille G. (1976). La Souveraineté. Paris: Nouvelles Éditions Lignes.
3. Galkin D.V. (2001). Virilio. In: Postmodernism. Encyclopedia / ed. A.A. Gritsanov, M.A. Mozheyko. Minsk: Interpresservice; Knizhny Dom. P. 117-121 (In Rus.).
4. Huhtamo E. (2004). Elements of Screenology: Toward Archaeology of the Screen. ICONICS: International Studies of the Modern Image. No. 7. P. 31-82.
5. Kurtov M. A. (2019a) Whence the Means? Ludwig Feuerbach and the Origin of Media Theory. Russian Studies in Philosophy. Vol. 57. No. 2. P. 128-154. DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2019.1628570 (In Rus.).
6. Kurtov M.A. (2019b). Godly Media: Christianity’s “Technicality” and the Fate of Contemporary art. Technologos, No. 4. P. 101-113. DOI: 10.15593/perm.kipf/2019.4.08 (In Rus.).
7. Manovich L. (2013). Media after Software. Journal of Visual Culture. No. 12 (1). P. 30-37. DOI: 10.1177/1470412912470237.
8. Manovich L. (2016). The Science of Culture? Social Computing, Digital Humanities, and Cultural Analytics. Journal of Cultural Analytics. Vol. 1 (1). DOI: 10.22148/16.004.
9. Manovich L. (2017). Teorii soft-kul’tury. Nizhny Novgorod: Krasnaya lastochka (In Rus.).
10. McLuhan M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
11. Negodaev I. A. (2003). Informatization of culture. Rostov-on-Don: Kniga (In Rus.).
12. Ogurchikov P.K. (2008). Screen culture as a new mythology (on the example of cinema): author’s thesis (cult. sc.). Moscow (In Rus.).
13. Polyektov V. (1998). Will a person disappear or be reborn in screen culture? Saint Petersburg University. No. 10. P. 3-10 (In Rus.).
14. Seydashova A.B. (2018). The space-time continuum of V. Pelevin’s novel “Generation P” as virtual reality. Bulletin of the Yakovlev ChSPU. No. 4. P. 98-104 (In Rus.).
15. Virilio P. (2002). Information bomb. Strategy of deception. Paperback, Verso Radical Thinkers.
16. Virilio P. (1988). La machine de vision. Éditions Galilée.
17. Yatsenko N.E. (1999). Explanatory dictionary of social science terms. St. Petersburg: Lan (In Rus.).
Review
For citations:
Grigoryev S.L. Screen culture ontology: towards the problem statement. Communicology. 2022;10(2):57-68. https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2022-10-2-57-68
Views:
292
Email this article 
