IN:\u00a0<\/strong>Partit\u00fara Irodalomtudom\u00e1nyi foly\u00f3irat, Volume XIII. \u00a0, Issue 2, 2018, p. 69-90.,\u00a0ISSN 1336-7307<\/p>\n DOI:\u00a0<\/strong>10.17846\/PA.2018.13.2.69-90<\/p>\n Abstract:<\/strong><\/p>\n My paper argues that positioning the anthropological difference as an ontological foundation is an act already dependent on techniques that construct the binary opposition between the animal and the human. Firstly, I suggest that scholars studying cultural techniques always presuppose all institutionalized practices as anthropotechnics, and they have to exclude animal actions en total, accordingly. secondly, I argue that it is exactly the movement of animals, however, which anticipated mechanisms exploited later on, in constructing optical media. Thirdly, through these media, I retrace the prehistory of film as moving pictures, and execute a comparison between two opposing media genealogies: one of them is the textbook history of the moving image with galloping horses; the other is a more rhizomatic and technical genealogy with partial differential equations describing human movement. Fourthly, I conclude that these two
\nmedia histories of film suggest conflicting concepts of the very medium, namely, they position it either as an optical or a computing apparatus depending on which side of the anthropological difference they emphasize.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n