Abstract
In this first of two articles the use of iconography in film will be utilised to examine the ways in which nostalgia and/or retro-aesthetics are represented in the medium of film. Nostalgia not only has a general use in daily discourse, but as a phenomenon also has been subject to theoretical conceptualisation from a variety of perspectives – perspectives that have undergone their own historical development. In order to analyse its use and applicability in film it therefore becomes important to achieve a working definition that not only acknowledges the various theoretical perspectives on nostalgia as concept, but also takes into account the historical trajectory of the concept within the work of scholars from various disciplines. In the first section of the article the focus is on some of the most important conceptual contributions that have been made towards understanding the phenomenon of nostalgia. These aspects are discussed broadly in order to provide some orientation for the working definition that will follow.
Two of the aspects to take into account at the outset relate to the estimation of nostalgia as having a positive or negative value and the question whether nostalgia refers only to the past or includes allusions to the present and future, whether directly or indirectly. If nostalgia were to be seen as harking back to a selectively chosen version of the past in order to contrast it with the discontent of the present, by its very nature it could be judged as the product of a conservative present, thereby underlining its contribution to a negative mindset not conducive to an engagement with current challenges. However, nostalgia potentially could also be used as the driving force to create or recreate a promising version of the past in the future – whether for better or for worse. Accordingly, the ambivalence of the concept seems to be one of its most distinctive traits.
Within the paradigm of postmodernism and late capitalism the views of Jean Baudrillard and Fredric Jameson on nostalgia are of utmost importance. In his work on simulacra, simulation and hyperreality Baudrillard focuses on the loss of historical consciousness, but posits nostalgia as the wish to attain the unattainable: authentic historical meaning. Hyperreality inevitably becomes nothing more than a placeholder to arrest the nostalgic momentum of the subject in pursuit of the past. Jameson, on the other hand, is less positive in his views of nostalgia in film, focusing for the most part on the stylistic filmic devices used to evoke historical authenticity, without establishing it as such. For him nostalgia is not present beyond hyperreality, but is hyperreality.
Another aspect concerns the role of media, which becomes very important in how nostalgia is presented and mediated to an audience. One of the most important issues here is the ways in which different media have managed to blur the lines between private and collective experiences of nostalgia: Creating collective identities and a sense of belonging by virtue of a shared nostalgic attachment to the past depends to a great extent on the mediation of collective images and narratives pertaining to a past that was not necessarily experienced directly by the individual subjects. However, nostalgia in media refers not only to the different ways in which nostalgia is mediated, but also to the fact that there can be nostalgic attachments to the very forms of media in and of themselves. According to this point of view, analogue media forms can as easily evoke nostalgic responses as the content mediated by them. It therefore becomes clear that both mediation and the mediated have nostalgic potential. Lastly, media are crucial for the ways in which nostalgia is commodified: Exploiting the affective investment of consumers through the creation of nostalgic attachments remains one of the best ways to sell cultural or consumer products.
The last aspects included in this overview of the scholarly work on nostalgia take into consideration the work of Fred Davis and Svetlana Boym. Both of these scholars emphasise the role of the subject in the experience of nostalgia, thereby considering the subject as the variable element in the ways in which nostalgia will manifest itself. Davis makes distinctions between “simple nostalgia”, “reflexive nostalgia” and “interpreted nostalgia”, whereby the affective investment of the nostalgic subject in the object of nostalgia veers from a largely unexamined belief in the authenticity of the object and the subject’s relation to it, to a rigorous self-reflection on and problematisation of the affective relation between subject and object. Boym takes a similar position in her distinction between “restorative” and “reflective” nostalgia, whereby the subject and his or her affect takes a central position in how the nostalgic experience will take shape. The role of affect in this regard is further explored with reference to the work of Brian Massumi.
Against the background of these various points of view a working definition of nostalgia is presented with reference to the work of Sabine Sielke and various colleagues of hers participating in a project on nostalgia. She defines nostalgia as “an affective mode of perception that aligns imagined time-spaces, mediated in retro aesthetics, with processes of commodification”. Central to this definition is the role of the subject: his or her mode of perception defined by its affective status, through which time and space are aligned and mediated. This mediation operates according to the vicissitudes of “retro-aesthetics” that can always be commodified in one way or another. The relation between nostalgia and retro-aesthetics (i.e. stylistic and other forms of mediation) can be summarised as follows: All nostalgia is retro, but not all retro is nostalgic. The affective investment of the subject will determine the feasibility of nostalgia to manifest itself in the interaction between subject and object. How this working definition addresses the various issues raised in the first part of the article is discussed extensively in this section of the argument.
The article concludes with a discussion of the ways in which nostalgia and/or retro-aesthetics manifest themselves in film. Iconography is identified as the way in which and through which retro and nostalgia are mediated in film. With reference to Erwin Panofsky, who defines iconography in terms of content, and Rick Altman, who refers more to iconic forms in terms of stylistic devices, the primary role of the subject in the reception of the visual work of art remains crucial. Filmic iconography becomes possible only through the role played by media and media technologies, since the condition for the materialisation of iconography is convention and the familiarity of the viewer with conventions – whether these are associated with elements and aspects of the mediated (i.e. content) or the stylistic ways in which content is mediated. It is the subject as viewer who will determine whether filmic convention or iconography is grasped and understood, and if so, whether it will lead to an affective, nostalgic response. Lastly, reference is made to two films that will be used to explore nostalgia and retro-aesthetics through filmic iconography in the second article that forms part of this study: Panos Cosmatos’s Beyond the black rainbow and Steven Spielberg’s Ready player one.
Keywords: affect; Svetlana Boym; Vera Dika; film; iconography; Fredric Jameson; commodification; media; nostalgia; postmodernism; retro-aesthetics; subject
- The photo on this article’s featured image was created by Jeremy Yap and obtained from Unsplash.
Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans
Oor nostalgie (en retro-estetika): ikonografie in film – Deel 1