meant to show that technical images and traditional images arise from
completely different kinds of distancing from concrete experience. It is
meant to show that technical images are completely new media, even if
they are in many respects reminiscent of traditional images. They "mean"
in a completely different way from traditional images. (Flusser 2011
[1985], p. 7)
But what, exactly, does the difference between traditional and technical images
consist of? According to Flusser, traditional images aim to represent or mirror
a pre-given reality, thus generating meaning (was), while technical images aim
to project or simulate images on the basis of atomic or elementary particles
(Punktelemente), thus generating purely heuristic, or cybernetic, functionality
(wozu). Recall the quote from the introduction:
Traditional images are mirrors. They capture the vectors of meaning that
move from the world toward us, code them differently, and reflect them,
recoded in this way, on a surface. Therefore it is correct to ask what [was]
they mean. Technical images are projections. They capture meaningless
signs that come to us from the world (photons, electrons) and code them
to give them a meaning. So it is incorrect to ask what they mean (unless
one gave the meaningless answer: they mean photons). With them the
question to ask is, what is the purpose [wozu] of making the things they
show mean what they do? For what they show is merely a function of their
purpose. (Flusser 2011 [1985], p. 48)
A defining difference of traditional and technical images is the difference
in dimensionality. Traditional images, which originate at the third rung of
abstracting in Flusser's framework, are two- or three-dimensional physical
objects used to mirror and thus represent a meaning. On the other hand,
technical images, which only originate at the fifth rung of abstracting, consist of
zero-dimensional or dimensionless simple particles, out of which projections or
simulacra are constructed by means of technical processing. This difference in
dimensionality precisely defines the completely different nature of 'imaginieren'
and 'einbilden'.
13. The distinction between discursive or linear and dialogical, the third and last
distinction we discuss in this section, is illustrated and explained by Flusser
through a description of the nature of key usage on machines:
it is in the character of keys to link up with one another "in dialogue"
(e.g., through cables) to form networks, that is, to operate not as discursive
but rather as dialogical instruments [Vorrichtungen]. The difference
between sending and receiving, between productive and reproductive keys,
is therefore to be viewed as provisional. The typewriter is only a forerunner
of the telewriter, the control panel of the washing machine only a
forerunner of a feedback loop linking manufacturers and the users of
washing machines. And the current state of keys in general is only a
forerunner of a telematic society. (Flusser 2011 [1985], p. 30)
Again, the defining difference between the discursive and the dialogical is one
of dimensionality. The discursive or linear, originating at the fourth layer of
abstracting in Flusser's framework, is one-dimensional, for instance scriptural
and linear texts, which contain concepts and process them in order to represent
and exchange meaning. As to the dialogical, projections or simulacra are
algorithmically processed out of zero-dimensional or dimensionless simple
particles, as well as directly linked and made (ex)changeable through keys.
Thus, this difference in dimensionality also defines the different nature of
the discursive and the dialogical. In addition, at the dialogical level, there is a
feedback-loop of technical images and individual persons, which is different in
comparison to the discursive:
A feedback loop must appear between the image and the receiver, making
the images fatter and fatter. The images have feedback channels that run in
the opposite direction from the distribution channels and that inform the
senders about receivers' reactions, channels like market research,
demography, and political elections. This feedback enables the images to
change, to become better and better, and more like the receivers want them
to be; that is, the images become more and more like the receivers want
them to be so that the receivers can become more and more like the images
want them to be. That is the interaction between image and person, in
brief. (Flusser 2011 [1985], pp. 53-54)
A first after-effect of the technique of dialogical linkage is that it replaces
scriptural, discursive, texts. This implies at least a relativisation of the
historical, time-as-linear, mode of understanding and criticising. From the
zero-dimensional or dimensionless dialogical perspective, however, time is not
pre-given as a (one-dimensional, historical) line from past to future. In this
sense, the dialogical is strictly post-historical. This implies that, in the realm of
telematic society, historical 'Kulturkritik' becomes obsolete and another method
of critique or criticism has to be developed. Such a new form of critique should
take into account that technical images do not mean to represent, so that it
would be a mistake to criticise what they represent:
another look at the possibilities that lie dormant in telematic
equipment [Vorrichtungen], at the silly twiddling with telematic gadgets,
shows where most cultural critics go wrong. They try to criticize the
radiating centers to change or do away with them. But revolutionary
engagement has to begin not with the centers but with the silly telematic
gadgets. It is these that must be changed and changed in ways that suit their
technology. Should this be successful, the centers will collapse of their own
accord. No longer historical but rather cybernetic categories must be used
for criticism. (Flusser 2011 [1985], p. 86)
A second after-effect of the technique of dialogical linkage - or aftershock
as Derrida calls it and preludes to via the example of e-mail (see #8) - is the
disappearance of the distinction of, on the one hand, the private and, on
the other, the public and political space. The discursive or linear mode of
communication presumes a send-receive-save usage of keys: to send information
archives in liquid times
130
arnoud glaudemans and jacco verburgt the archival transition
from analogue to digital: revisiting derrida and flusser
131
