La imagen a des-tiempoanacronismos y heterocronías para retomar la historia (Georges Didi-Huberman y Mieke Bal)

Resumen

This research aims to address the current temporal crisis afflicting our society. This phenomenon transcends mere inadequacies in traditional historical narratives; it strikes at the very core of our ability to conceive of a future ripe with transformative possibilities. It manifests as a profound depletion, impacting not only our physical bodies but also our subjective experiences, worn down by the relentless pressures of capital-driven temporality. It is imperative to engage with the scholarly discourse that has occupied thinkers across diverse disciplines, particularly since gaining prominence since the late 1970s and early 1980s. We delve into the diagnosis of a severe situation that has led to proclaiming the end of history, the end of temporality, and even the end of politics and the end of the future from various disciplinary perspectives. However, our objective in delving into these debates is not to succumb to fatalistic pessimism but rather to discern the underlying conditions precipitating this crisis within the explanatory framework of modernity, while simultaneously elucidating the potential opportunities that arise from this rupture. The exhaustion of the paradigm of progress also appears as a symptom of the artificiality of a model of time that would have constrained the understanding of historical relationships. It is necessary to differentiate between an outdated historicism and a critical historicity capable of generating thought through a fresh approach to the present, the past, and the future. In the second part of this thesis, we will turn to the revisionist proposal put forth by Georges Didi-Huberman and Mieke Bal. Through the methodological review of the historical discipline that both authors undertake, we approach a much more creative way of addressing history, which begins with the recognition of the plurality of times that inhabit each present. For these authors, the past reappears in the present as an opportunity to attend to times that were forgotten, to heed their warnings, but also to rediscover the present and the possibilities contained within it, to produce novelty and future: “anachronism” becomes the conceptual tool to address such temporal mobility. In addition, the experience before the image unfolds into a complex temporal texture, despite those who condemn the present to a total emptiness of experience: “heterochrony” becomes the conceptual tool to address such irreducibility of time. However, what began as an urgent need to revisit the temporal models operative both in our everyday lives and in discursive context, now yielding to an exhaustion of possibilities, has also evolved into a call to reconsider the ways in which we engage with the world at large. In conclusion, this investigation provides the framework not only for politics of time and politics of history, which must henceforth be conceived as heterogeneous entities, but also for politics of image and politics of subject, necessitating equally thorough reformulations that inquire into their respective potentials. We need to intervene at the very core of the dynamics that underlie the modern project, of that instrumental and systematizing perspective that distances us from the world. The epistemological reformulation undertaken by our authors, which places affective dimension at the forefront, ultimately emerges as an urgent path that ought to be addressed across all realms of knowledge.