CO

NFI

GU

RA

TIO

NS

OF

FILM

MEDIA MEDIA

PANDEMIC

KEIDL   

MELAMED   

HEDIGER   

SOMAINI   

Pandemic Media

Configurations of Film Series

Editorial Board Nicholas Baer (University of Groningen)Hongwei Thorn Chen (Tulane University)Miriam de Rosa (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice)Anja Dreschke (University of Düsseldorf)Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan (King’s College London)Andrea Gyenge (University of Minnesota)Jihoon Kim (Chung Ang University)Laliv Melamed (Goethe University)Kalani Michell (UCLA)Debashree Mukherjee (Columbia University)Ara Osterweil (McGill University)Petr Szczepanik (Charles University Prague)

Pandemic Media: Preliminary Notes Toward an Inventoryedited by Philipp Dominik Keidl, Laliv Melamed, Vinzenz Hediger, and Antonio Somaini

Bibliographical Information of the German National LibraryThe German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche ­National­bibliografie­(German­National­Bibliography);­detailed­ bibliographic information is available online at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Published­in­2020­by­meson­press,­Lüneburg,­Germany­ with generous support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft www.meson.press

Design­concept:­Torsten­Köchlin,­Silke­KriegCover design: Mathias BärCover­image:­©­Antoine­d’Agata,­reprinted­with­permission­from­the­artistEditorial assistance: Fabian Wessels

The­print­edition­of­this­book­is­printed­by­Lightning­Source,­ Milton­Keynes,­United­Kingdom­­

ISBN­(Print):­­ 978-3-95796-008-5­ISBN­(PDF):­ 978-3-95796-009-2DOI:­10.14619/0085

The PDF edition of this publication can be downloaded freely at www.meson.press.

This­publication­is­licensed­under­CC­BY-SA­4.0­(Creative­Commons­Attribution-ShareAlike­4.0­International).­To­view­a­copy­of­this­license,­visit­https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

FACE

VIDEOCONFERENCING

CLOSE-UP

WORK

SELF

[ 1 9 ]

Zoom in on the Face: The Close-Up at Work

Guilherme da Silva Machado

Recent configurations of the workplace have revealed the face as an indispensable medium for the organi-zation of labor. An attempt will be made here to show how such configurations rely on a cinematic ideal of human expression to operate as a streamlined space of interfacial communication with perform-ance-regulating effects. The cinematic close-up, which historically embodied this ideal, then assumes a new function in contemporary organizations: that of pro-viding an expanded semiotic system of the face for an accurate communication of psychological traits and states of mind beyond verbal exchanges. The facial close-up, in this perspective, instead of a close range between the camera and the “facial object,” defines a relationship to the figurative space according to which its totality takes on a physiognomic significance.

196 Pandemic Media

A­notable­effect­of­the­recent­pandemic­has­been­the­sudden­expansion­of­public­presentations­of­self­at­work­by­cinematic­means.­For­a­significant­number­of­workers­who­had,­up­until­the­pre-pandemic­period,­stood­in­the­position­of­pure­spectators­of­cinematic­public­figures,­the­constraint­of­tele-working has compelled them to acknowledge the fact that techniques such as the­close-up,­which­usually­heighten­the­emotions­and­beauty­of­film­stars,­TV­and­Internet­personalities,­are­now­tools­for­their­own­public­magnifi-cation.­What’s­more,­so-called­videoconferencing­apparatuses­used­for­work­meetings generate situations where workers can both contemplate and be contemplated­by­all­of­their­interlocutors­at­will,­and­from­such­a­distance­that the slightest reactions of each person can be equally distinguished by any other. The visual arrangement of these apparatuses enables everyone to enjoy a­voyeuristic­experience­of­their­colleagues,­collaborators,­and­clients­quite­similar­to­that­one­enjoys­while­watching­a­film­character.­This­is­due­to­a­blind­spot between cameras and screens that makes it possible for everyone to stare at whomever they want without anyone knowing exactly who’s watching whom.­From­this­perspective,­the­pandemic­has­hastened­a­reconfiguration­of­human­interactions­at­work,­while­making­it­clear­that­one­indispensable­medium of productivism today is—alongside the computer—the human face.

Insofar­as­this­reconfiguration­of­work­interactions­is­part­of­a­regular­trend­unexpectedly­brought­to­a­paroxysm­by­a­force­majeure,­one­can­draw­evidence about a shift in aesthetic regimes sustaining labor organization and productive performance. If companies today can dispense with the body as an­object­of­knowledge—and­with­the­architectural,­ergonomic,­and­mon-itoring systems that make it visible in order to better control it (Rabinbach 1992;­Hediger­2009;­2013)—but­less­so­with­the­face,­this­suggests­that­inter-facial relations remain crucial for industrial productivity in many sectors. One could then argue that since at least the mid-twentieth century and the rise of technological­bureaucracies,­an­aesthetic­regime­of­work­discipline­focused­on­the­body­and­the­scientific­gaze­seems­to­have­given­way­to­another­focused­considerably on the face and the day-to-day interfacial gaze.

While the convenience of facial observation in work interactions can be simply interpreted­as­a­matter­of­communicative­efficiency,­this­efficiency­is­arguably­due­to­a­surfeit­of­events­perceived­on­faces­that­allows­workers­to­recognize,­beyond­verbal­communication,­zones­of­psychological­resonance,­fluctuations­in­the­mood­of­their­interlocutors,­reasons­for­admiration,­impatience,­dull-ness,­and­disappointment;­that­is,­a­series­of­conscious­and­unconscious­phys-iognomic­motions,­the­reading­of­which­enables­workers­to­identify­general­expectations,­factors­of­satisfaction­and­discontent,­grounds­for­laudable­performance,­and­their­own­levels­of­fitness. Such daily observation practices at­work­were­described,­from­the­1950s,­by­sociologists­like­Erving­Goffman,­who was particularly interested in the way workers try to control and keep

Zoom in on the Face 197

track of the impressions they convey to their co-workers and other audiences (Goffman­1956).­In­the­field­of­anthropology,­and­based­on­communication­theory,­Gregory­Bateson­introduced­the­concept­of­“injunction”­in­1972­to­refer­to­rules,­motivational­and­inhibiting­factors­transmitted­by­non-verbal,­albeit­effective­means­in­what­he­called­secondary­levels­of­communication­(Bateson­1987).­Following­Bateson’s­concept,­the­organizational­apparatus­of­companies­can­be­seen­as­a­combination­of­different­layers­of­communication­aimed at regulating performance. These layers are not all at the same level of­explicitness.­While­at­the­verbal­level­typical­cordialities­are­maintained,­a­range­of­injunctions­can­be­routinely­deployed­through­non-verbal­channels,­and­in­particular­through­dramaturgies­of­the­face.­Interfacial­exchanges­can,­therefore,­be­understood­as­a­secondary­communication­channel­through­which injunctions to daily productivity circulate. Its existence and its potential importance depend on both a certain knowledge to interpret faces as signifiers­of­concealed­judgments­and­feelings,­and­a­particular­concern­with­the design of the public image of self.

The importance granted to the face as a text of the individual soul has a long history. In its recent theoretical articulations—especially after the intervention of­photographic­snapshots,­which­have­significantly­reframed­the­debate­on­physiognomy around issues of facial mobility1—one might consider the work of­Georg­Simmel­to­be­one­of­the­first­critical­accounts­on­the­modern­fas-cination with the face as the locus of visibility of personality and psychological processes.­In­a­famous­essay­on­Rodin­in­1911,­Simmel­argued­that­the­modern­preference for the face over the body relies on the fact that the former shows “man­in­the­flow­of­his­inner­life,”­while­the­latter,­prioritized­by­the­Ancients,­shows­man­rather­“in­his­permanent­substance”­(Simmel­1996,­103).­For­the­Berlin­philosopher,­“…the­essence­of­the­modern­as­such­is­psychologism,­the experiencing and interpretation of the world in terms of the reactions of our­inner­life,­and­indeed­as­an­inner­world,­the­dissolution­of­fixed­contents­in­the­fluid­element­of­the­soul”­(103).­Simmel­saw­the­face­as­a­scene­with­moving features forming countless units of meaning. On such meaningful and permanently­moving­surface,­the­restless­personality­and­emotional­life­of­man­would­thus­find­their­privileged­expression:­“only­the­face­becomes­the­geometric­locus,­as­it­were,­of­the­inner­personality,­to­the­degree­that­it­is­perceptible.­…­The­face,­in­fact,­accomplishes­more­completely­than­anything­else the task of creating a maximum change of total expression by a minimum change of­detail”­(Simmel­1965,­279).

1­ This­was­at­the­expense­of­essentialist­conceptions­of­the­soul,­which­favored­a­her-meneutics of stable features and human phenotypes.­For­a­survey­of­this­(significant,­but not conclusive) reframing of the physiognomic debate during the nineteenth century,­see­Gunning­(1997).­For­a­good­overview­of­the­discourse­on­physiognomy­before­the­nineteenth­century,­in­particular­since­the­Renaissance,­see­Magli­(1989).

198 Pandemic Media

This modern fascination with the face as the revelatory space of the soul was not without an associated pursuit of technical means to reveal the face. Tom Gunning­called­the­“gnostic­mission­of­cinema”­its­“potential­for­uncovering­visual­knowledge.”­For­many­early­film­theorists,­such­as­Bela­Balázs­and­Jean­Epstein,­“the­gnostic­potential­of­the­cinema­was­especially­evident­in­the­con-junction of the cinematic device of the close-up and the subject of the human face”­(Gunning­1997,­1).­According­to­Gunning,­one­of­the­key­impulses­in­the­nineteenth-century development of cinematic technologies was a multiple curiosity about the meanings of the face that propelled attempts to master its­reading­through­the­classification­and­archiving­of­its­signifying­moving­features. These attempts were carried out by scientists like Duchenne de Boulogne,­Charles­Darwin,­Jean-Martin­Charcot,­and­Georges­Demenÿ:­“The­desire to know the face in its most transitory and bizarre manifestations was stimulated­by­the­use­of­photography;­but­that­desire,­in­turn,­also­stimulated­the­development­of­photography­itself,­spurring­it­to­increasing­technical­mas-tery­over­time­and­motion,­prodding­it­toward­the­actual­invention­of­motion­pictures”­(Gunning­1997,­25).­In­the­early­days­of­the­motion­picture,­close-ups­offered­the­spectacle­of­magnified­facial­expressions­whose­attraction­derived­from­their­grotesquely­rendered­details.­The­“gnostic­impulse”­for­facial­reve-lation thus fueled the market of technological curiosities and entertainment.

With­narrative­cinema,­the­close-up­came­to­be­theorized­as­a­technique­to­give­the­spectator­a­clear­sense­of­the­moods­and­emotions­dominating­film­characters,­potentially­inducing­empathetic­attitudes.­For­a­film­theorist­like­Balázs,­a­former­student­of­Simmel­who­defended­the­art­of­filmmaking­on­the premise of the movie camera’s capacity to see more and better than the human­eye,­this­mechanic­power­of­vision­was­truly­“artistic”­when­applied­to­unveil the human soul. Balázs argued that facial close-ups communicate the psychological­complexity­of­characters­by­clear-cut­visual­means,­i.e.­by­mag-nifying minimal changes in detail that denote total changes in expression. This made cinema an ostensibly richer and more authentic form of expression than the conventional linguistic signs.­He­called­this­realm­of­cinematic­signifiers­of­the­soul,­micro-physiognomy,­and­its­application­in­film­narratives,­micro-dramaturgy­(Balázs­1977).­Inspired­by­German­classical­idealist­aesthetics,­he went so far as to extend the idea of physiognomy to the whole universe of­filmable­things­(Koch­and­Hansen­1987;­Iampolski­2010):­any­cinematic­matter was subject to assume a facial function as long as it was stylistically elaborated­to­take­on­a­subjective­signification­on­the­screen.­A­glimpse­of­a­city,­a­landscape,­or­an­object­may­all­express­a­personality­or­état d’âme. The close-up was the ideal technique to make these elements assume the expres-sive power of the face: “Close-ups … yield a subjective image of the world and succeed­…­in­showing­the­world­as­colored­by­a­temperament,­as­illumined­by­an­emotion”­(quoted­in­Koch­and­Hansen­1987,­170).­

Zoom in on the Face 199

Balázs’s theories testify to a reliance in the superior authenticity of the cinematic image in communicating subjective attributes. Faced with the close-up,­the­spectators­are­plunged,­he­said,­into­a­purely­physiognomic­dimension,­the­whole­screen­being­set­to­reflect­inner­movements­and­psychic­dramas.­He claimed that the close-up was an artistically designed situation of specta-torial complicity with the characters’ mind states and personalities. The crucial thing about this technique was that it gives visual access to even the uncon-scious truth of film­characters,­beyond­any­representational­“make-believe”­typical­of­bourgeois­theater.­Close-ups­of­human­faces,­because­of­their­power­of­subjective­revelation­belying­any­role-playing­attitude,­make­the­per-sonalities of characters inseparable from those of the actors who play them: “The­film­actor­is­the­sole­creator­of­his­figures­[Gestalten],­which­is­why­his­personality … means style and Weltanschauung. One sees in the appearance of­the­human­being­how­he­sees­the­world”­(quoted­in­Aumont,­1992,­86).

Curiously,­one­of­the­most­influential­works­on­the­modern­“intimate­society,”­Richard Sennett’s The Fall of Public Man,­also­speaks­about­a­demise­of­role-playing­in­favor­of­a­“more­authentic”­mode­of­individual­public­expression.­According­to­Sennett,­public­expression­is­nowadays­experienced­as­an­idio-syncratic­and­spontaneous­manifestation,­a­direct­reflection­of­individual­psychological­impulses.­The­expression­of­feelings,­for­instance,­no­longer­reflects­impersonal­presentation­models;­it­is­no­longer­derived­from­con-ventional­morphologies­and­significations­characteristic­of­the­“public­life”­which individuals learn to believe in and play with: “Expression in the public world­was­[once]­presentation­of­feeling­states­and­tones­with­a­meaning­of­their­own­no­matter­who­was­making­the­presentation;­representation­of feeling states in the intimate society makes the substance of an emotion depend­on­who­is­projecting­it”­(Sennett­2002,­314).­Insofar­as­any­public­action­is­now­experienced­as­a­direct­reflection­of­singular­personalities,­the­principle­of­“role-playing”­is­replaced­by­a­principle­governing­the­public­life­that­Sennett­calls­“narcissistic.”­According­to­the­latter,­both­social­and­material relations that an individual can have all bear a substantially deter-mined­relationship­with­the­self;­the­self­is­permanently­looking­for­its­reflection­in­experience.­Writing­in­the­1970s­and­taking­white-collar­workers­as­a­key­example,­Sennett­portrays­modernity­as­the­time­when­the­question­of­personal­identity­has­pervaded­all­modes­of­action,­extinguishing­role-playing as an attitude that preserves a gap between forms of expression and the­self.­Modern­narcissists,­he­claims,­“treat­social­situations­as­mirrors­of­self,­and­are­deflected­from­examining­them­as­forms­which­have­a­non-personality­meaning”­(327).­Instilled­by­modern­institutions­that­“mobilize­

200 Pandemic Media

narcissism”­(327),­they­see­all­public­attitudes­as­self-revelation,­as­expres-sions­of­their­singular­personality,­personal­ethics­and­motivations.2

The­“mobilization­of­narcissism”­typical­of­modern­institutions,­and­the­“gnostic­impulse”­of­cinema­to­reveal­the­face,­have­good­reason­to­find­a­privileged articulation in the current practices of self-branding at work. As practices designed to tie self-identities to personal potential for contribution to­business­achievements,­they­request­individuals­to­constantly­observe­the judgment of others in order to assess personal fitness. In terms of rules for­personal­success,­self-branding­doesn’t­involve­the­adaptation­to­imper-sonal­models­of­good­work­performance.­Rather,­it­requires­an­ongoing­self-revelation­attitude—revelation­of­one’s­creative,­charismatic,­motivated,­responsible,­etc.­personality.­On­the­other­hand,­it ’s­a­practice­of­monitoring­the­reception­of­“self”­by­others­(Hearn­2008).­If­such­practices­incite­narcis-sistic­concern,­it ’s­because­they­erase­the­boundaries­between­one’s­public­expression­and­the­assessment­of­one’s­innate­abilities,­character­strengths,­and other self-related attributes. Both from the point of view of self-exhibition and from the point of view of the inspection of impressions caused by the self,­self-branding­practices­require­a­network­of­signs­more­accurate­and­more­“authentic”­than­verbal­signs.­For­these­too­are­filtered­by­conventional­courtesy and decorum. It calls for a sign system that is able to communicate the­subtle­truth­of­inner­drives­and­personal­impressions,­to­provide­a­more­faithful picture of singular personalities and judgmental thoughts. The fact that­the­cinematic­close-up,­with­its­promise­to­transform­the­screen­into­a­space­of­pure­subjective­revelation,­is­now­substituting­interpersonal­relations at work—this should therefore come as no big surprise. It provides self-branders­with­greater­control­over­their­powers­of­persuasion,­as­well­as­greater visual accuracy in detecting meaningful expressions in their critical appraisers—they can thus become aware of the minute motives that trigger this expanded range of judgmental expressions.

Communicational apparatuses operating through facial close-ups and enabling inconspicuous stares do nothing but enhance the same phys-iognomic practices they capitalize on in the contemporary workplace. By excluding­bodies­and­the­environment­from­the­scope­of­attention,­they­intensify processes of facial scrutiny. They homogenize a scale of perception that­can­only­be­established­circumspectly­and­fitfully­in­ordinary­live­inter-actions.­Hence,­they­situate­groups­of­collaborators­in­spaces­of­more­rigid­interfacial symbiosis. By setting aside signs that don’t have a revelatory function­of­the­selves,­they­compel­reciprocal­uninterrupted­readings­of­intimacy.­Thus,­they­transform­spaces­of­human­interaction­into­spaces­of­pure­psychological­resonance.­At­the­same­time,­they­subject­individual­

2­ Boris­Groys­(2010)­has­recently­offered­an­insight­on­the­modern­aesthetics­of­the­soul­close­to­Sennett ’s­ideas­in­his­interesting­essay­on­the­“obligation­of­self-design.”

Zoom in on the Face 201

faces to a stricter and more meticulous responsiveness within micro-dramatic collective scenes. They sharpen and intensify meaningful corre-lations between faces. They cause faces to respond to each other in a more necessary,­urgent,­atomic­way,­because­of­the­proximity­of­their­reciprocal­frontal­exposure.­Their­effect­is­to­ensure­the­duplication­of­official­exchanges­complete with intense exercises of facial interpretation and dramaturgy. In this­way,­they­complement­the­regulatory­function­of­verbal­communication­by­securing­an­efficient,­but­undeclared­(and­thus­secondary)­level­of­communication.

In­such­spaces­where­the­gaze­can­only­be­interfacial,3 being able to look at one’s own face among others is of prime importance. Videoconferencing mirror images link the presentation of self at work with the aesthetics of social­networks,­where­self-branding­practices­are­well­established.­They­consequently­extend­to­the­daily­presentation­of­self,­one’s­view­of­one’s­own­self as an aesthetic object. The gesture that the mirror image provokes is inevitably­that­of­examining­the­outward­appearance­of­self­and­its­meaning,­for­verification­that­it­actually­signifies­what­it­is­supposed­to­signify—that­its forms are in conformity with the circumstances. Such gestures attest that if video communication apparatuses prove useful as substitutes for the con-temporary­workplace,­this­is­not­simply­because­they­support­efficient­first­level­team­communication,­but­also­because­they­support­processes­of­facial production.­They­are­efficient­faciality machines­(Deleuze­and­Guattari­1987):­they multiply opportunities to create and address meaningful surfaces of self­to­others.­Close-up­mirror­images­make­faces­proliferate;­everyone­is­given­the­chance­to­control­subtle­signs­emanating­from­the­self,­which­aim­to persuade and constrain others to take into account messages that are never­explicit­enough­to­be­stated,­and­never­hidden­enough­to­discount­their­effects.­The­space­constituted­by­the­close-ups­is­therefore­a­space­of­intensified­inter-excitation,­with­multiple­semiotic­agents­of­interpersonal­stress.

But it ’s not just about the human head’s face. All the elements within the individual­image­frames­in­videoconferencing­act­as­faces,­i.e.­they­give­rise­to­a view of the inner attributes and subjective states of their characters. In the context­of­the­home­office,­composing­one’s­video­background­and­choosing­the­objects­likely­to­enter­the­frame­requires­reflection­on­the­signification­one­wants to see attributed to one’s personality and psychological traits. All visual and sound forms become signs of inner features. At­this­level,­the­problem­of­whether­or­not­these­images­are­“close-ups”­is­in­no­way­a­matter­of­measuring­“shot­sizes”­of­the­human­body.­It ’s­the­fact­that­they­are­integrally conceived­as­signifying­surfaces­of­selves,­and­they­endow­their­figures­(even­

3­ For­an­original­theory­of­the­interfacial­gaze­as­a­generative­force­field­of­the­self,­see­Sloterdijk­(2011).

202 Pandemic Media

their­background­details)­with­a­physiognomic­function,­which­links­them­to­a­historical practice of the close-up. The cinematic close-up—the embodiment of an ideal of expression of the soul since the nineteenth century—after its drifts­in­the­market­of­attractions­and­film­narratives,­assumes­then­a­tele-pathic­function­in­the­world­of­labor,­where­its­new­configurations­become­the­default setting for the public staging of self.

In­pandemic­times,­companies­have­been­massively­testing­new­forms­of­social interaction that don’t fail to strengthen their organizational networks of physiognomic injunctions. Communication networks built on physiognomic knowledge­manifest­a­disciplinary­power­unlike­that­of­specialized­(scientific)­knowledge applied to bodies at work. They operate as opportunities of putting into practice a widespread hermeneutics that generates the voluntary normalization of productive behavior. One can always gauge the success or failure­of­videoconferencing­apparatuses­to­replace­live­work­interactions;­in­any­case,­these­apparatuses­deal­with­the­problem­of­the­reconstruction­of­an aesthetic regime that ensures productivity in contemporary bureaucratic systems of production. This regime is that of the interfacial gaze: a key channel for­the­practice­of­self-branding­and­the­reading­of­psychodynamic­effects­of­individual­actions.­Workers­today­care­a­great­deal­about­faces,­they’re­con-stantly­decoding­and­encoding­faces.­The­recent­cinematic­configurations­of­the workplace are the result of a situation of production where the body has been made disposable—accompanied by a demand for greater visibility of faces. They’re the ideal(istic) alternative for the production of a self-disciplined subject immersed in a physiognomic dimension.

References

Aumont,­Jacques.­1992.­Du visage au cinéma. Paris: l’Etoile.Balázs,­Bela.­2010.­Early Film Theory: Visible Man and The Spirit of Film. New York: Berghahn

Books.Bateson,­Gregory.­1987.­Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry,

Evolution, and Epistemology. Northvale New Jersey/London: Jason Aronson Inc.Deleuze,­Gilles­and­Felix­Guattari.­1987.­A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.

Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press.Goffman,­Erving.­1956. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of

Edinburgh Press.Groys,­Boris.­2010.­Going Public.­Edited­by­Julieta­Aranda,­Brian­Kuan­Wood,­and­Anton­Vidokle.­

Berlin: Sternberg Press.Gunning,­Tom.­1997.­“In­Your­Face:­Physiognomy,­Photography,­and­the­Gnostic­Mission­of­Early­

Film.” Modernism/Modernity­4­(1):­1–29.Hearn,­Alison.­2008.­“Variations­on­the­Branded­Self:­Theme,­Invention,­Improvisation­and­

Inventory,”­In­The Media and Social Theory,­edited­by­David­Hesmondhalgh­and­Jason­Toynbee,­194–210.­New­York:­Routledge.

Hediger,­Vinzenz.­2009.­“Thermodynamic Kitsch: Computing in German Industrial Films 1928/1963.”­In­Films that Work: Industrial Film and the Productivity of Media,­edited­by­Vinzenz­Hediger­and­Patrick­Vonderau,­127–49.­Amsterdam:­Amsterdam­University­Press.

Zoom in on the Face 203

— — — . 2013.­“Body­Rebuilding:­Körper­und­Arbeit­an­der­Schwelle­zum­kybernetischen­Zeitalter.”­In­Prometheische Kultur. Wo kommen unsere Energien her?,­edited­by­Claus­Leggewie,­Ursula­Renner,­and­Peter­Risthaus,­195–222.­Munich:­Wilhelm­Fink­Verlag.

Iampolski,­Mikhail.­2010.­“Profondeurs­du­visible:­à­propos­de­Der sichtbare Mensch de Béla Balázs.”­1895­62:­28–51.­doi:­10.4000/1895.3779.

Koch,­Gertrud­and­Miriam­Hansen.­1987.­“Béla­Balázs:­The­Physiognomy­of­Things.”­New German Critique­40:­167–77.

Magli,­Patrizia.­1989.­“The­Face­and­the­Soul.”­In­Fragments for a History of the Human Body: Part Two,­edited­by­Michel­Feher,­86–127.­New­York:­Zone­Books.

Rabinbach,­Anson.­1992.­The Human Motor: Energy, Fatigue, and the Origins of Modernity. New York: University of California Press.

Sennett,­Richard.­2002.­The Fall of Public Man. London: Penguin.Simmel,­Georg.­1965.­“The­Aesthetic­Significance­of­the­Face.”­1901.­Essays on Sociology,

Philosophy and Aesthetics,­edited.­Kurt­H.­Wolff,­276–81.­New­York:­Harper­Torchbook.—­—­—­­.­­1996.­Michel-Ange et Rodin.­Paris:­Payot­&­Rivages.Sloterdijk,­Peter.­2011.­Spheres. Volume I: Bubbles. Microspherology.­Cambridge,­MA:­Semiotext(e).

www.meson-press.com

ISBN 978-3-95796-008-5

Philipp Dominik Keidl, Laliv Melamed, Vinzenz Hediger, and Antonio Somaini (eds.)Pandemic Media: Preliminary Notes Toward an Inventory

With its unprecedented scale and consequences the COVID-19 pandemic has generated a variety of new con- figurations of media. Responding to demands for infor-mation, synchronization, regulation, and containment, these “pandemic media” reorder social interactions, spaces, and temporalities, thus contributing to a reconfiguration of media technologies and the cultures and polities with which they are entangled. Highlighting media’s adaptabil-ity, malleability, and scalability under the conditions of a pandemic, the contributions to this volume track and analyze how media emerge, operate, and change in  response to the global crisis and provide elements toward an understanding of the post-pandemic world to come.

konfigurationen-des-films.de