阿多诺、斯蒂格勒与工业经验图型

Adorno,Stiegler,and the Industrial Schemata of Experience

斯蒂格勒认同阿多诺和霍克海默所提出的康德式经验图型被捕获和扭曲、文化产业对个体的时间殖民等问题,但他认为其中技术的角色并未被充分认识。同样,胡塞尔对时间意识外化的忽视、海德格尔对技术的抽象化解读,都进一步加剧了人们对技术的教条理解。斯蒂格勒强调持存技术贯穿人类历史,人类心智本身就是某种技术秩序的产物。身处电影、电视及录制音乐等第三持存已然深度构成人们日常生活的时代,斯蒂格勒回顾了阿多诺提出的"艺术作品的技术化",认为应当理解技术作为"已在"在艺术作品时空生成中所发挥的作用。当关涉技术与艺术、技术与审美的问题时,更加多样的、差异性的关系应当被我们思考和探索。

Bernard Stiegler concurs with Adorno and Horkheimer’s basic diagnosis of the cultural industry’s capture and distortion of Kantian schemata of experience and temporal colonization of the individual, but charges their analysis with a failure to come to terms adequately with the role of technicity. Similarly,Husserl discounts the exteriorized dimension of memory, and Heidegger deploys a highly abstract, negative notion of technicity reduced to instrumentality. They both misread the integral role of technicity and strengthen the dogmatic comprehension. Stiegler articulates that technics of retention have structured human experience, individuation and community in variable ways throughout human history, and a psyche itself is a product of an order of technicity. In an era when the tertiary retention such as film, television and recorded music, have deeply constituted our daily life, Stiegler reviews Adorno’s th "technologization of the artwork"which introduces the artwork’s differential spacing and temporality, where technique constitutes an "already-there" external to the creative subject. When it comes to the issues of technology and art, technology and aesthetics, more diverse and different relationships should be considered and explored.