## Luka Arsenjuk (2018). *Movement, Action, Image, Montage: Sergei Eisenstein and the Cinema in Crisis*. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[&]] > Title:: Movement, Action, Image, Montage: Sergei Eisenstein and the Cinema in Crisis > Author(s): [[Luka Arsenjuk]] > Year:: 2018 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: arsenjuk_movement_2018 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Movement, Action, Image, Montage: Sergei Eisenstein and the Cinema in Crisis](zotero://select/items/@arsenjuk_movement_2018) > ReviewedDate:: [[2022-12-05]] ## Citation ```latex [@arsenjuk_movement_2018] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@arsenjuk_movement_2018]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary ### Introduction > "적절하게도, 그는 대부분의 정경 인물에게 수반되는 운명이기도 합니다. 대부분의 사람들은 그들을 만나지 않고 존경하고, 자세히 읽을 필요도 없이 참조합니다." > > “Appropriately, his is also the fate that accompanies most canonical figures: most people revere them without encountering them, refer to them without assuming the need to read them closely.” (Arsenjuk, 2018, p. 2) > "그러나 거의 동시에 아이젠슈타인은 현대 영화의 선구자가 아니라 현대 영화의 출현으로 인해 부정되는 인물이라는 정반대의 역할을 수행했습니다." > > “Almost simultaneously, however, Eisenstein managed to fulfill an opposite role—not as the harbinger of modern cinema but as a figure negated by modern cinema’s emergence.” (Arsenjuk, 2018, p. 3) > “in the case of André Bazin, whose interdiction of montage, the crucial gesture of his neorealist project, treated Eisenstein as its main target and enemy” (Arsenjuk, 2018, p. 3) > "'포스트 컨템포러리'는 고전적 장르 체계의 이질성이나 모더니즘 제스처의 자율성, 나아가 이 둘 사이의 변증법이 더 이상 영화의 시대와의 동시대성을 보장하지 않는 상황을 의미합니다."라고 설명합니다 > > ““Postcontemporary” designates a situation in which neither the heteronomy of the classical genre system nor the autonomy of the modernist gesture—nor, for that matter, the dialectic between the two—any longer guarantees cinema’s contemporaneity with its own time.” (Arsenjuk, 2018, p. 4) "Postcontemporary" refers to when cinema's relevance to its time is no longer ensured by the classical genre system or the modernist gesture. Arsenjuk (2018, p. 4) > "이러한 새로운 조건으로 인해 예술가와 연구자 모두 인류학, 고고학, 미디어 이론 등 점점 더 다양한 발전의 절충적 조합으로 구성된 학문의 렌즈를 통해 이미지에 접근해야 하며, 불연속적이고 차별적으로 중첩된 일련의 장치 또는 분배 내에서 이미지를 파악하려고 노력합니다." > > “These new conditions force both artists and researchers to approach images through the lens of a discipline increasingly composed of little more than an eclectic combination of advances—anthropological, arthistorical, media-theoretical, and so on—that try to grasp images within a set of discontinuous and differentially overlaid dispositifs or dispensations.” (Arsenjuk, 2018, p. 4) > “fundamentally experimenting with and transforming the very dispositifs that determine the limits of such work” (Arsenjuk, 2018, p. 4) “the modernist Eisenstein and Eisenstein the not-yet-modern; Eisenstein the antithesis of postmodernism and Eisenstein the postmodernist avant la lettre.” (Arsenjuk, 2018, p. 4) > 그러나 최근 아이젠슈타인은 자신의 작품에서 오늘날 우리가 처한 영화의 '탈현대적' 상황을 결정적으로 예시한 사상가로서도 부상하기 시작했습니다. "탈현대"는 고전적 장르 체계의 이질성이나 모더니즘 제스처의 자율성, 나아가 이 둘 사이의 변증법이 더 이상 영화의 시대와의 동시대성을 보장하지 못하는 상황을 의미합니다. '탈현대적' 상황은 영화가 처한 조건의 구성적 이질성을 특징으로 합니다. 이러한 새로운 조건으로 인해 예술가와 연구자 모두 불연속적이고 차별적으로 중첩된 일련의 장치 또는 분배 내에서 이미지를 파악하려는 인류학, 고고학, 미디어 이론 등 점점 더 절충적인 진보의 조합으로 구성된 학문의 렌즈를 통해 이미지에 접근해야 합니다. [[@bellour_between_2012]] > 아카이브의 발견으로 그의 단편적인 글쓰기 프로젝트가 점점 더 많이 공개되면서, 아이젠슈타인은 항상 이런 종류의 지형을 탐색한 것처럼 보이는 사람으로 보이기 시작했습니다. 그의 사례는 영화 이미지 제작을 위한 동질적인 조건에 맞서 끊임없이 투쟁한 것으로 재해석할 수 있습니다. 그는 영화가 이미지와 사운드를 끌어들이고 배열하는 것뿐만 아니라 더 근본적으로 그러한 작업의 한계를 결정하는 장치 자체를 실험하고 변형하는 것을 의미했던 인물로 보입니다. 아이젠슈타인의 영화에 대한 이러한 생각은 할리우드가 영화의 고전적 성향(그리피스의 극복, 몽타주 범주로서의 사운드, 역동적이고 변형 가능한 사각형으로서의 스크린)을 점진적으로 통합하는 것에 대한 저항에서 가장 잘 드러나지만, 예술과 인류 문화의 전체 역사를 일종의 원시 영화적 패치워크, 영화가 자신의 표현 능력을 개발하면서 새롭게 풀고 얽을 수 있는 영화의 '선사 시대'로 취급하려는 그의 열망에서도 중요한 역할을 합니다. [[@eisenstein_notes_2016]] > > Recently, however, Eisenstein has begun to emerge also as a thinker who in his work crucially prefigured the “postcontemporary” situation of cinema in which we find ourselves today. “Postcontemporary” designates a situation in which neither the heteronomy of the classical genre system nor the autonomy of the modernist gesture—nor, for that matter, the dialectic between the two—any longer guarantees cinema’s contemporaneity with its own time. The “postcontemporary” situation is characterized by a constitutive heterogeneity of cinema’s conditions. These new conditions force both artists and researchers to approach images through the lens of a discipline increasingly composed of little more than an eclectic combination of advances—anthropological, arthistorical, media-theoretical, and so on—that try to grasp images within a set of discontinuous and differentially overlaid dispositifs or dispensations. [[@bellour_between_2012]] As archival discoveries make more and more of his fragmented writing projects publicly available, Eisenstein has begun to appear as someone whose work seems to have always navigated a terrain of precisely this sort. His case can be reinterpreted as one of continuous struggle against any homogenous set of conditions for the production of cinematic images. He appears as a figure for whom cinema meant not only engaging and arranging images and sounds but more fundamentally experimenting with and transforming the very dispositifs that determine the limits of such work. This dimension of Eisenstein’s idea of cinema is most visible in his resistance to Hollywood’s progressive consolidation of cinema’s classical disposition (the overcoming of Griffith; the insistence on sound as a category of montage; the screen as a dynamic and transformable square), but it also plays a crucial part in his desire to treat the entire history of art and human culture as forming a kind of proto-cinematic patchwork, a “prehistory” of cinema that cinema can disentangle and entangle anew as it develops its own expressive capacities. [[@eisenstein_notes_2016]] #### Dialectic and unity - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 71 > he is “ not an author one cites , he is an author one summons , not so much for the purposes of debate as for the sake of struggle . ”^[Franç ois Jost, “Á quoi sert Eisenstein?,” in Eisenstein: l’ancien et le nouveau, ed. Dominique Chateau, Franç ois Jost, and Martin Lefebvre (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2001), 10.] - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 79 > however, begins to reveal itself if we consider how he appeared as crucial also for the poststructuralist project of cinematic écriture—the intramodernist reversal of structuralist semiology that set its aim at undoing the primacy of the linguistic metaphor . - 에이젠슈테인의 유연성은 그기 포스트 구조주의자들의 시네마틱 글쓰기 écriture 프로젝트에서도 중요한 사람이었다는 것을 보면 알수 있다. - cinematic écriture — 인트라모더니스트의 구조주의 기호학, 즉 언어적 은유의 우위 취소(원상태로 만드는)하려던 것을 다시 그 전으로, 즉 파기하려는 것을 목표하는 프로젝트 - 이 접근은 New Wave의 as a tertium quid(제 3의 것, 중간물)—combines "language" and "style" and is "written" with a Camera-stylo, fulfilling Astruc's wishes and solving Barthes's theorem. ^fc7ed9 - 여기에 예시 인물들 Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol, Rohmer, Rivette - James Monaco, _The New Wave: Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol, Rohmer, Rivette_, Oxford University Press Paperbacks (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 19 - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 93 > according to Deleuze, was no longer a classical cinema of movement ( not even of dialectical movement ) but rather a cinema of the direct presentation of time.^[Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2: The Time-Image (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), 156–88.] - 들뢰즈의 경우 2차세계대전 이후로 그리고 Copernican revolution(태양중심설) of postwar cinema 이후로 클래식 시네마의 movement (dialectical movement도 아니라고) 주장하며, direct presentation of time이라고 이야기 한다. > Here Eisenstein is not seen as someone who any longer contributes to cinema’s modernity but rather as a great figure whose idea of cinema had to run the historical course of its exhaustion before a different existence of cinema, a truly modern one, could be actualized . - 포스트워 시네마에서 에이젠슈테인의 위치는 모더니티에서 벗어나 진실로 모던한 것이 나타나기위해 도망가야 할 지점이 되었다. (마치 클리쉐 처럼?) - ==이를 통해 들뢰즈는 아마도 베이컨 식의 클리쉐를 벗어나 새로운 mark를 만들기 위해 타임 이미지에 대해서 그렇게 말한 것일 지도 모른다. 그는 타임이미지에서 영화의 다른 형식을 그리고자 한것이 아니라 미래의 타임이미지의 potential virtuality를 그리고 있는 것이다.== - In the eyes of the postmodern judgment, which privileges the plural and the multiple, Eisenstein appears too totalizing, too systematic a thinker. - 포스트모던의 판단에선 에이젠은 너무 totalising too systematic. > 그의 경력 내내 아이젠슈타인을 점령했던 종합의 과정에서 차이의 구조는 모든 차이를 유토피아적 통일 전체로 용해시키는 것으로 대체되며, 이는 단지 원래 상태를 복원하려는 시도일 뿐 변형을 통해 달성되지 않는 전체, 변증법적 의미에서 거짓 전체, 그리고 확실히 거짓 변증법으로 대체됩니다. 변증법과 차이의 구조를 낭만화된 전체에 포섭함으로써 아이젠슈타인은 자신의 탐구와는 정반대의 경향을 보였습니다. 즉, "자아에서 벗어나" 정지된 상태로 나아가는 대신, 실제로는 "타자"를 제거하면서 자신을 나머지 세계에 고독주의적으로 투사하게 되는 것입니다. 그의 글에서 이러한 경향이 강할수록 그의 이미지는 더욱 과도하고 바로크풍이 됩니다. [@salazkina_excess_2009, 12] > > In the process of synthesis, which occupied Eisenstein throughout his career, the structure of difference is replaced by a dissolving of all differences into a utopian unified whole, a totality that is merely an attempt to restore the original state and that is not achieved by means of transformation; a false totality in the dialectical sense, and certainly a false dialectic. By subsuming the dialectics and the very structure of difference into a romanticized whole, Eisenstein tends to the opposite of his quest: instead of “going out of one’s self” in ex-stasis, he in fact ends up solipsistically projecting himself onto the rest of the world, eradicating “the other.” The stronger this tendency in his writing, the more excessive and baroque his images become. [@salazkina_excess_2009, 12] - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 111 > his resolute pursuit of the problem of form and synthesis is much too severe for the dispersive passion for the informal ; his insistence on the inseparability of affect from reason , body from signification , the particular from the general , all embarrassingly idealist and outmoded . - 에이젠의 주장이 너무 affect/reason, body/signification, particular/general 을 중요시했고 그로 있해 idealist적이었다. - 아마도 포스트모던들에겐 - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 117 - 이하 포스트컨템에 대한 설명 ^[See, e.g., Raymond Bellour, Between-the-Images, trans. Allyn Hardyck (Zurich: JRP/Ringier, 2012).] - 하지만 이 지점에 대해선 고민해봐야 할 것 같다. 둘 사이의 변증법이 더이상 동시대를 보장하지 않는다는 의미는 무엇인가? - 만약그렇다면 에이젠을 다시 불러오는 것은 무엇을 의미하는가? > Recently, however, Eisenstein has begun to emerge also as a thinker who in his work crucially prefigured the “postcontemporary” situation of cinema in which we find ourselves today. > “Postcontemporary” designates a situation in which neither the heteronomy of the classical genre system nor the autonomy of the modernist [[Gesture and Thought|gesture]]—nor, for that matter, the dialectic between the two—any longer guarantees cinema’s contemporaneity with its own time. - 포스트 컨템포러리(Post Contemporary)는 클래식 장르 시스템의 타율성 heteronomy나 모더니즘적 제스처의 자율성, 또는 둘 사이의 변증법도 더 이상 영화의 동시대를 보장하지 않는 상황을 뜻한다. > The “ postcontemporary ” situation is characterized by a constitutive heterogeneity of cinema’s conditions . - 포스트컨템포러리의 상황은 구성적인 이질성의 영화의 조건으로 특징지어진다. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 123 > He appears as a figure for whom cinema meant not only engaging and arranging images and sounds but more fundamentally experimenting with and transforming the very dispositifs that determine the limits of such work . - 에이젠은 이미지나 사운드를 구성 arranging 하는 것 뿐만이 아니라 디스포지티프에 대해서 다른 시도를 하는 figure로 나타난다. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 150 > According to his own statements , the question of unity occupied a crucial position in his work . In his autobiography , for instance , Eisenstein retrospectively characterizes the intention of his entire project as “ the realization of the ultimate goal — the attainment of unity.”^[Sergei Eisensteinp, “The Author and His Theme,” in Selected Works, ed. Richard Taylor, trans. William Powell, vol. 4, Beyond the Stars: The Memoirs of Sergei Eisenstein (London: British Film Institute, 1995), 792.] - 결국 질문은 이것이다. 에이젠이 transforming 하는 방법 methods들이 무엇이 있는가 그것은 여전히 적용 가능한가. 그것은 unify를 어떤 방식으로 시키는가? - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 154 > for Eisenstein , the possibility of a new unified place for the plurality of arts. - 즉 그에게 unified place는 다수성의 예술이 함께할 수 있는 새로운 장소를 의미한다. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 157 > Cinema could become the testing ground for the human being observed in the act of configuring a new relation between thought and sensuousness, consciousness and drive, thus arriving at a new ground from which the multiplicity of expressive forms in art and culture could be grasped as manifestations of a unified human subjectivity. > 영화는 사고와 감각, 의식과 추진력 사이의 새로운 관계를 구성하는 행위에서 관찰되는 인간에 대한 시험대가 될 수 있으며, 예술과 문화에서 표현 형식의 다양성을 통일된 인간 주관성의 표현으로 파악할 수 있는 새로운 지평에 도달할 수 있습니다. - 에이젠이 과연 시네마를 테스팅 그라운드로 생각했을까? 그가 실험을 한 것은 맞지만 시네마를 테스팅 그라운드로만 생각한 것은 아니라고 생각한다. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 168-172 > Is it not also the case that, through the process of its realization , the unity of any intention at all turns into the binomial of the “ negation of negation ” ? Something that could plastically be drawn as a shift from a two-point into a three-point schema. ![[Screenshot 2021-03-08 at 16.05.22.png]] > And precisely not into a “logical” pair: the point of departure and the point of the aim; but rather into a dynamic triad: the point of intention, the point of its negation, and the sublation of the latter by a new negation on the path towards realization? ^[Sergei Eisenstein, “Chet-Nechet” \[Even-odd\], *Metod*, vol. 2, *Tainy masterov*, ed. Naum Kleiman (Moscow: Muzei Kino and Eizenshtein tsentr, 2002)., 174–75. And see, on a similar theme, a remarkable text by Eisenstein titled “Razdvoenie edinogo” \[The division of the one\], ibid., 178–91.] - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 205 > “the smallest indivisible unit always consists of two things, not one . . . . Not only Eisenstein’s vision of things, but also his image of himself, were predicated on the paradox of indivisible duality . ”^[Yuri Tsivian, Ivan the Terrible (London: British Film Institute, 2002), 29–34, emphasis added.] - ==Is this what Bergson's idea abbout the time?== > The dialectic of division considers division (or self-division) the primary and irreducible moment of thought, whose movement must for this reason be seen as simultaneously destructive and constructive of unity. [[@nesbet_savage_2003]]^[Anne Nesbet, Savage Junctures: Sergei Eisenstein and the Shape of Thinking (London: I. B. Tauris, 2003)] - 위의 책에서 Anne Nesbet 은 에이젠슈테인의 가장 기초적인 생각 'figurative philosophy'가 유니티/통합 에 움직인 것이 아니라 surprising, impossible, "savage juncture"의 미디엄을 통해서 움직이는지 주장한다. - “Eisenstein’s approach to philosophy (and to political thought) was figurative: he mined Hegel, Engels, Lenin, Freud (and Stalin’s speeches, too) for their figures, their images, which he then threw into sometimes blasphemous conjunction with images borrowed from literature, folklore, popular culture and myth” (2). - 그녀의 책은 개념적 통일에서 상상적이고 비유적인 figurative 비단합 disunity로의 루트를 통해서 진행된다. - 하강하는 움직임, 즉 컨셉에서 이미지와 figure로, 를 통해서 그로테스크 몬스터가 만들어진다. - 생각은 좋은 취향에 대한 모욕을 시작으로 세련되고 포르노적인건, 스탈린과 디즈니, 헤겔과 보로로 인디안을 한데 (갑작스럽게) 모은다. - In this sense, Nesbet’s book shows to what remarkable extent Eisenstein’s thinking depends not simply on synthesis or unity **but on organizing disjunctions**. - [[202103081639—앤 네스벳, picture-thinking, disjunctions]] - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 249 > As we know , this militantly oriented idea of unity gives rise to a conception of montage very different from [[D. W. Griffith|Griffith]]’s parallelisms . - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 251 > On the contrary , it is necessary to start from the division of a single shot .^[Sergei Eisenstein, “Dickens, Griffith, and Ourselves,” in Selected Works, vol. 3, Writings, 1934–1947, ed. Richard Taylor, trans. William Powell (London: I. B. Tauris, 2010), 223-6.] - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 257 > Art is a divided object , an object whose unity appears in Eisenstein’s theoretical construction only through the acknowledgment of a more basic split . - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 258 > In “The Dramaturgy of Film Form” from 1929, perhaps the best known of his texts, Eisenstein describes art as ontologically (that is, “Because of its nature”) constituted by the conflict between nature and human praxis, between the passivity of the organic and the activity of the rational, between inertia and productivity.^[Sergei Eisenstein, “Dramaturgy of Film Form,” in Selected Works, vol. 1, Writings 1922–1934, ed. and trans. Richard Taylor (London: I. B. Tauris, 2010), 161–62.] #### 아트와 시네마 - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 262-4 > According to this later perspective , art remains divided and projects thought simultaneously in two opposite directions: the “progressive” direction of reason , rationality , and logic and the “regressive” direction of sensuousness, irrationality, and the “prelogical.” > Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, the work of art remains for Eisenstein determined as an internally split object , a dual unity or a “ bi-unity ” (dvoedinost’): - 위의 분열되는 unity (에이젠의 후기)컨셉에 따르면 아트는 동시에 두가지 반대적 방향을 가지고 있다. 진보적인 'reason, rationality, and logic' 그리고 후퇴적인 sensuousness, irrationality, and 'prelogical' - The dialectic of a work of art is constructed upon a most interesting “dyad” \[dvoedinost’\]. The effect of the work of art is built upon the fact that two processes are taking place within it simultaneously. There is a determined progressive ascent towards ideas at the highest peaks of consciousness and at the same time there is a penetration through the structure of form into the deepest layer of sensuous thought. The polarity between these two tendencies creates the remarkable tension of the unity of form and content that distinguishes genuine works. All genuine works possess it.^[Sergei Eisenstein, “Speeches to the All-Union Creative Conference of Soviet Filmworkers,” in Selected Works, 3:38.] - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 283 > Eisenstein indeed proposes an evolutionary view of cinema as the “synthesis of all arts,” the crucial and the most advanced moment in the history of the total (perhaps it is better to say collective) work of art. - 에이젠의 synthesis에 대한 다른 의미들에 대해서는 그리고 시네마가 “synthesis of the arts,”라는 의미에 대해서는 [[@somaini_cinema_2016]] > More precisely, cinema finds its historical mission as a response to the disintegration of “ the arts as a whole into sharply differentiated compartments . ” > effects not only dismember the idea of art as a whole but repeat their destructive path also “within the various arts themselves.”^[Sergei Eisenstein, “Unity in the Image,” in Selected Works, vol. 2, Towards a Theory of Montage, ed. Michael Glenny and Richard Taylor, trans. Michael Glenny (London: I. B. Tauris, 2010), 275.] - Highlight (pink) - loc. 291 > Yet it is possible to question the smoothness of this evolutionary narrative of cinema as the historical completion or unification of art ( s ) . - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 295-8 > Alongside considering it the evolutionary heir and unifier of other classical artistic forms , which have by the end of the nineteenth century suffered their terminal crisis , Eisenstein thinks of cinema as a radically new beginning. > cinema is said by Eisenstein to “begin from level zero”^[Sergei Eisenstein, “The Heir,” in Notes for a General History of Cinema, 109.] - 즉 에이젠은 시네마를 모든 아트들이 합쳐지는 unifier가 아니라 새로운 시작을 위한 통합이라고 보았다. 아마 그것은 러시아의 통합과 다르지 않았을 것이다. 하지만 문제는 이러한 unifier를 통해서 모든 가능성이 절단될 수 있다는 것이다. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 301 > There exist in Eisenstein’s thought not one but two images of the historical emergence of cinema at the turn of the twentieth century , which means that the unity of cinema as a historical phenomenon can itself be seen as divided . - Highlight (pink) - loc. 305 > In other words , cinema finds its orientation not only in disclosure and recollection of the fragmented past but also in the void — in the discontinuous interval of a cut . - 역사적 개념과 시네마를 연결하는 것은 어느정도 위험성이 보인다. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 314 > Eisenstein presents the history of different arts as though each of them already carried within itself the principle of cinema — which is to say , the idea of montage—making cinema the place where this principle finally reaches its fulfillment and becomes fully conscious of itself: > “It is well-known that, in historical terms, art first becomes acquainted with the principle of montage to its full extent at the cinema stage.”^[Sergei Eisenstein, “An Attack by Class Allies,” in Selected Works, 1:264.] - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 322 > but this act of completion is essentially continuous with all of art’s history and fulfills what was already there in its origin . - 이건 들뢰즈와 푸코와 매우 다른 면이 아닌가? [[지속되는 아트 역사와 단절]] - - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 323-4 > Eisenstein’s statements, however, also suggest that he sees cinema not merely as a fulfillment of some originary principle of art, a historical coming-to-consciousness of art's transhistorical essence, but as a fundamental modification of the very essence of art , the appearance of something that is precisely not originally there . - montage-thought seems as old as art - "in no way diminishes the fact that montage is at its *most specific and significant* as a method of influence in the field of cinema." ^[Eisenstein, “An Attack by Class Allies,” 264, emphasis added.] - 어쩌면 에이젠에겐 몽타주 그 자체가 whole이었을지도 모른다. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 325 “ montage - thought ” seems as old as art — and perhaps even older — “ in no way diminishes the fact that montage is at its most specific and significant as a method of influence in the field of cinema . ” \[ - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 331-8 > The instability of cinema’s teleological status in Eisenstein’s imagining of the history of art ( s ) produces a peculiar effect... > undoes any such figure of historical order and unity... > The attainment of telos retroactively desutures the artistic phenomena in this history from any such holistic impression... > Arriving at an end carries a sense of completion, but it also functions as a break... > The end is not simply a peaceful conclusion ; it is also an imposture. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 348 > The assumption of a telos as something already arrived at therefore has the effect not of rigidifying time into an actual unity but of **“possibilizing”** the received unity of time, of loosening time's actual sedimentations and opening its repressed virtualities. ^[The idea of “possibilization” comes from Robert Musil’s Man without Qualities. Franco Moretti discusses it in relation to both Musil and James Joyce’s Ulysses (an important influence on Eisenstein) in his Modern Epic (London: Verso, 1996), 145–49.] - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 354 > On the contrary , the positing of a *telos* as something achieved or arrived at might be one of the most striking ways of freeing time and history from precisely such constraints . - 모든 아트를 영화안에서 완성시키므로서 혹은 도착시키므로서 과거는 모든 비동시적인 순간들, 즉 역사의 비동시적인 흔적과 거대한 동시대의 공간 속에서 이동할 수 있게된다. - By completing itself in cinema, the artistic past becomes available in the simultaneity of all its nonsimultaneous moments—a vast, contemporaneous space of combinatory play with the noncontemporaneous traces of history. - 즉 텔로스는 (as simplistic critiques often do) 선형성과 통합성과 동일하다고 오해하는 것이 아닌, 시간과 역사를 freeing time and history from precisely such constraints. 시간의 제약을 해방시킨다. 이걸 들뢰즈식으로 말한다면 그리스 식으로 시간이 더이상 손에 쥘 수 없는 그 상태로 돌려놓는 것이다. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 357 > It does not pacify the history that led to it but introduces into this history a sense of possibility—or better said, it introduces the sense of history as possibility. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 362-3 > As [[Marie-Claire Ropars]] puts it , “ Eisenstein . . . wishes to at the same time reintegrate cinema into the cultural field as a whole and to use it as an instrument for the critique of this culture . ” - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 382 > “‘operational’ problem” of pathos , the question of an “operational aesthetic”: “how to do it . How to ‘do’ pathos clearly.” ^[Sergei Eisenstein, “Monsieur, madame, et bébé,” in Selected Works, 4:500.] - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 383 > It is, in other words, not the question of an evolutionary-historical nature that motivates; he is after the procedure of pathos, of ecstatic form as it is deployed in these various artistic and nonartistic constructions. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 389 > and in which the “ keyword of Eisenstein’s approach , ” as François Albera puts it , “ is the one of ‘ circulation , ’ ‘ passage , ’ ‘ exchange , ’ rather than ‘ specificity , ’ ‘ influence , ’ ‘ filiation . ’ ” - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 399 > Throughout his career Eisenstein was no less prescriptive in his aims than his contemporaries . . . . In supporting his claims , however , he seldom tried to locate the essence of cinematic representation or to determine its sharply unique relation to physical or perceptual reality . He did not try to demarcate film sharply from other arts . His main effort was to unite his practice with a theory that would provide a wide-ranging , detailed reflection on film form , material and effect. ^[Bordwell, Cinema of Eisenstein, 112.] - ==다른 이들이 시네마만의 특별함을 통해 시네마를 정의하려했다면 에이젠은 다른 프랙티스에서 리플렉팅 하는 시네마를 보았다== - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 405 > What makes Eisenstein singular and rather striking within the field of film theory is that he indeed sought the essence of cinema but was only able to conceive it as something nonspecific and nonsubstantial . - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 411 > In positing Eisenstein’s lack of interest in the essence of cinema, Bordwell thus neglects to theorize something a bit more radical taking place in Eisenstein’s thought, namely, a reconfiguration of the very question of essence, which has been divorced from the notions of specificity and substantial unity and has instead become linked by Eisenstein to the dynamic and constructive movements of what we may call the process of cinema’s eccentric self-constitution. - 보드웰이 지적했든 에이젠은 시네마의 에센스에는 별로 관심이 없었다. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 416 > cinema’s essence can come into being only through a moment of self-estrangement(소원) or self-division . - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 448 > Instead, Eisenstein presents the idea of cinema as a process of ceaseless division. Movement, Action, Image, Montage thus proceeds by treating these Eisensteinian concepts as unities concretized through the form of contradiction . - 이 글에서 그러한 synthesis를 통한 무한 division을 movement, action, image, montage를 통해서 알아본다. - Highlight (yellow) - loc. 450 > The concept of movement is discussed in terms of the contradiction between Eisenstein’s assertion of movement as both something absolute, a pure figurability or indeterminacy of things , and something that must necessarily take the shape of a determinate visible figure. - 이 책에서 움직임의 개념은 모순에 대한 관점에서 논의된다. 에이젠슈타인의 움직임의 주장 사이의 절대적인 것으로서 순수한 형상화 혹은 사물의 결정성, 반드시 결정적인 가시적 형상의 형태를 취해야 하는 것 사이에서의 모순. [[@arsenjuk2018MovementActionImage/contradiction]] - Highlight (pink) - loc. 452 Movement for Eisenstein is, in other words, divided between a nonfigurative force and a figurative appearance. ### 1. Figure-in-Crisis #### Flux of the Movement, Figure - (loc. 544) 들뢰즈가 에이젠슈테인을 paradigmatic figure of the entirety of the classical, prewar cinema of movement 의 중심에 놓은 것도 우연이 아니다. > It is no coincidence that, for Gilles Deleuze, Eisenstein could stand as the paradigmatic figure of the entirety of the classical, prewar cinema of movement. > > "We will take the example of Eisenstein because the dialectical method allows him to decompose the nooshock into particularly well-determined moments (but the whole of analysis is valid for classical cinema, the cinema of movement-image, in general)" - Deleuze, Cinema 2, chapter 7 "Thought and Cinema"([[@deleuze_cinema_1989]], 157) > - (loc. 547) 에이젠슈테인이 movement에 대하여 통괄적 유닙버셜한 이론을 내 놓았는가? > Does saturating all phenomena with movement and turning it into a sort of universal explanans not constitute an ingenious strategy of imposing on movement a certain form of stability, of disciplining movement and thereby avoiding any concrete confrontation with it? - 에이젠슈테인에게 시네마는 author and spectator의 unify시킨다. 이것은 in relation to the work of art. - “The strength of montage lies in the fact that it involves the spectator’s emotions and reason. The spectator is forced to follow the same creative path that the author followed when creating the image. The spectator does not only see the depicted elements of the work; he also experiences the dynamic process of the emergence and formation of the image in the same way that the author experienced it.” ([[@eisenstein_sergei_2010]], 309) - (loc. 563) 모든 컨셉은 생각의 운반 수단이다. > Such has, however, always been the judgment leveled against the dialectic, namely, that despite its claims to unleash thought in its universal restlessness, it merely captures movement and erects it as a fetish. - (loc. 565) > because dialectical thought always knows in advance how it will proceed and where it will ultimately find itself. - (loc. 567) > What is lacking in the dialectic—the image of which would therefore be confirmed also by Eisenstein, the most avowedly dialectical of all filmmakers—is a certain intuition or vitality of real movement. - loc. 578 > For this “late” Eisenstein, movement seems to be placed in a vision of a uniformly evolving and self-completing whole (the organic spiral), whose carefully maintained proportionality stages outbursts of movement (leaps of pathos) at the same moment it tightens control over them. - 에이젠슈테인의 두가지 stages in installs a fetish of a general form or Law of movement - the “early” dialectic of conflict - [[Late Sergei Eisenstein]] the “late” organic dialectic of the Whole - but not movement itself, its force, its singularity. - (loc. 582-5) - 중요한 질문은: ==how does a certain powerful intuition of movement come to assume its dialectical form in Eisenstein’s idea of cinema?== > Our purpose here will be to unsettle somewhat this impression of movement as virtually fetishized in Eisenstein’s thought. > Though he seems to wish to produce its universal formula, Eisenstein never firmly settles the question of movement. > he never succeeded in finding movement a stable or proper form. - (loc. 591) - 변증법은 운동의 변칙적이고 비정상적인 측면의 대가를 치르고 주장되는 보편적인 역동성의 법칙에 대한 속기로서 아이젠슈타인을 섬기지 않는다. 반대로, 비정상적이고 비정상적인 움직임을 그렇지 않았다면 그들이 가질 수 없었을 정도의 지능을 부여하는 것은 바로 사고의 요소이다. > It is, to the contrary, the very element of thought that grants anomalous and aberrant movements a degree of intelligibility they would otherwise not possess. - (loc. 593) > **The drama of movement in Eisenstein’s thought takes place within a tension between a vital intuition of movement and the famous “dialectical approach to form.”** - 이 문장안에서 tension이란 다른 이름의 force 인 것일까? 텐션도 분명 force 중에 하나일 것이지만 tension 이란 단어는 오히려 정지상태처럼 느껴진다. - (loc. 594) > Understanding Eisenstein’s thinking of movement means understanding how one might **pass from an intuitive experience to a dialectical grasp of movement**, and how each of the two approaches, without being simply subsumed by its opposite, interferes with and modifies the other. - loc. 597 **Intuition and Dialectic** ^fc30be - 글쓴이는 에이젠슈테인을 두 철학 집단 사이에 놓으므로서 movement에 대한 질문을 하려고 한다. - 니체, 들뢰즈, [[Henri Bergson|베르그송]]의 경우 According to the **intuitionist** position, 움직임은 변증법의 컨셉으로 축소 시킬 수 없다. movement cannot be reduced to the dialectic of concepts, because conceptual distinctions and mediations follow from the intuitive immediacy and vitality furnished by thought. - 헤겔이나 다른이들에겐 직관적인 직접성은 항상 개념적, 형식적 매개 작업에 의해 이미 포착되고 비판적으로 대체된 것으로 파악되어야 합니다. - For the **dialecticians**, any intuitive immediacy must itself be grasped as always already caught and critically displaced by the work of conceptual and formal mediation. > a philosophical quarrel that separates those thinkers for whom thought’s movement follows the force and the vital method of *intuition* (Nietzsche, Bergson, Deleuze) from those who, on the contrary, assert that thought takes place in the dialectical movement of the concept (Hegel and others). - (loc. 603) - 글쓴이는 에이젠슈테인을 테크닉관련 인물에서 철학과 method로 이끌고 나오고자 한다. > It treats him, in other words, as more than a glorified craftsman or an empirical explorer of cinematic techniques, which he has unfortunately become for much of contemporary film studies. - loc. 607 > **“First the movement, and then what moves.”** Eisenstein, S. M. (1988) ‘Conspectus of Lectures on the Psychology of Art’, in _The Psychology of Composition_. London: Methuen. p. 21. - loc. 613 > Eisenstein closely relates the intuition of the primacy of movement to the question of the intelligibility of artistic form. - loc. 623 > Engels here describes a general intuition of movement that, he goes on to explain, belonged to the Greeks and found its expression in the philosophy of Heraclitus, who was the first to formalize its metaphysical attitude. - 이 문장에서 에이젠과 엥겔스를 연결시키고 엥겔스에서 헤라클리터스를 연결시키고 - loc. 630 > The world is a totality in movement; it is nothing but dynamic process. But this intuition is also false, because it does not furnish the dialectical laws of the world’s dynamism and neglects to think the totality in the concrete form of its movement. - 이거랑 [[Henri Bergson|베르그송]]의 운동이랑 뭐가 다르지? 다른 곳에선 스토아학파의 시작점이라고 하고 메타피직의 첫 시작이라고 하는데? 좀더 알아봐야할까? 에이젠이 플럭스를 break down하기 위한 목적으로 dialectic을 사용헸다고 했을때 들뢰즈도 dialectic같은 툴을 써서 break down 해야한다고 생각했을까? 시간 이미지의 목적은 뭐지? 분명 운동이미지에서는 break down하긴 했아 이건 에이젠의 영향이 있었던 것일까? [[들뢰즈와 변증법, 시네마에서 변증법의 영향]] #TODO/writing - loc. 637 > The *Grundproblem* exists, to put it schematically, in the conflict within any work of art between two tendencies of thought: - loc. 638 > the prelogical, naïveté, primitiveness, all suppressed forms of mental life left behind by the civilizing process. - ==logical and pre-logical. 사실 이 두개의 전, whole이 있는걸까? 그럼 [[Frame|프레임]]은 어느지점으로의 whole일까?== - (loc. 640-52) - 앵겔스의 글에서 가져왔지만 (앵겔스에게 world is flux라는 관점은 나이브하고 이성적이고 자각하는 문명화를 뒤로하고 사람을 primitive하게 만드는 위험성이 있었다.) 예술적 사유의 이러한 분리된 도식에서, 예술적 형식과 구성에 대한 에이젠슈타인의 논의를 지배하는 관능성과 사전 논리의 문제입니다. 따라서 엥겔스의 진화적 내러티브에서 감정의 시대에 뒤떨어진 구조 또는 보편적 운동의 원시적 변증법으로 취급되는 것은 에이젠슈타인에게 절대적으로 동시대적이고 현대적인 가치를 가정한다. > And thus what is in Engels’s evolutionary narrative treated as an outdated structure of feeling, or a primitive dialectic of universal movement, assumes for Eisenstein an absolutely contemporary and modern valence. > which is why Eisenstein eventually condenses the passage from Engels into a single sentence that provides him with an effective and practicable principle of his artistic intuition of movement. > Eisenstein responds that the force of the intuition demands a sentence in which “the description of movement and action (the verb) precedes the description of who is moving or acting (the noun).” ^[Eisenstein in “Speeches to the All-Union Creative Conference of Soviet Filmworkers,” in Selected Works, 3:35.] - (loc. 653-8) > the intuition of movement can be registered by subverting the structure of the ordinary sentence...while the substantive term in turn loses its fixity and firmness. - 예시: Die Gä nse fl ogen (The geese flew) and Es fl ogen die Gä nse (There flew the geese) [[@eisenstein_speeches_2010]] - (fn. 9) > We may pause here for a moment to remind ourselves that sentence comes from the Latin sentire, “to feel.” The etymology of the word itself therefore suggests what Eisenstein attempts to demonstrate with his example: namely, that a new intuitive disposition will have to register its efficacy by appropriating for itself the form of the sentence as the elementary unit of [[discourse]]. The artistic intuition of movement must apply poetic pressure to and put into crisis the discursive form within which we make sense of our experience. (움직임에 대한 예술적 직관은 우리가 경험을 이해하는 담론적 형식에 시적 압력을 가하고 위기에 처하게 해야 합니다. )We find a confirmation of this intimate link between the intuition of movement and the problem of the sentence in [[Henri Bergson]]’s Creative Evolution (New York: Cosimo, 2005), where the French philosopher of intuition relies on a similar overturning of the sentence—a “molding of language,” he calls it— to demonstrate the difference between, on one hand, the intuitive grasp of reality as becoming and duration and, on the other, the commonsensical form of representing and perceiving reality: “When we say ‘The child becomes a man,’ let us take care not to fathom too deeply the literal meaning of the expression, or we shall find that, when we posit the subject ‘child,’ the attribute ‘man’ does not yet apply to it, and that, when we express the attribute ‘man,’ it applies no more to the subject ‘child.’ The reality which is the transition from childhood to manhood, has slipped between our fingers. We have only the imaginary stops ‘child’ and ‘man,’ and we are very near to saying that one of these stops is the other, just as the arrow of Zeno is, according to that philosopher, at all the points of the course. The truth is that if language here were molded on reality, we should not say ‘The child becomes the man’ \[l’enfant devient homme\] but ‘There is becoming from the child to the man’ \[il y a devenir de l’enfant à l’homme\]. . . . In the second proposition, ‘becoming’ is a subject. It comes to the front. It is the reality itself; childhood and manhood are then only possible stops, mere views of the mind; we now have to do with the objective movement itself” (339–40). - ==어떻게 보면, 현재의 데이터의 세상 속에서는 what은 있지만 verb가 없다. 끊임없는 what들의 연결은 분산적이다. 또한 [[References/Concepts/diagram|다이아그램]]의 경우, 관계망을 그린다고 한다. 하지만 들뢰즈는 오히려 지도와 비교한다. 지도란 무엇들을 그리는 센텐스와 같지 않은가? 다르다면 어떤식으로 다를 수 있는가? [[디지털안에서 몽타주, What and Doing]] == - ==즉 주위해야할 것은 [[References/Concepts/diagram|다이아그램]]이 명사들의 집합이 아니란 것이다. [[References/Concepts/diagram|다이아그램]]을 이루고 있는것은 각각의 [[becoming]]들일 것이다== - ==이 글을 통해서 말할때, 들뢰즈가 에이젠슈테인의 몽타주에서 처음 생각한 것은 명사들의 (멈춘 혹은 분할된) relation이었을 것이라고 생각한다. 혹은 movement가 noun이 된 후의 연결들이라고 생각했을 것이라고 생각한다. **there (frame) flew (movement) the geese (image, figure)** - loc. 666 > the movement of flight as an impersonal and neutral event or action: “Movement is registered before the object is recognized.” Eisenstein, [[@eisenstein_conspectus_1988]] “Conspectus of Lectures,” 239. - (loc. 693) - Eisenstein은 플라즈마를 "아직 안정적인 형태를 갖지는 않았지만 모든 형태를 취할 수 있는 원시 원형질"의 행동으로 설명합니다. 플라즈마 현상은 "형태의 다양성에 대한 무한한 가능성"을 나타내며, 따라서 플라즈마성은 움직임과 변화의 절대성, "전능성", 즉 '당신이 원하는 것이 무엇이든 될 수 있는 능력'을 의미합니다. > Eisenstein describes the plasmatic as the behavior of “primordial protoplasm, not yet having a stable form, but capable of taking on any and all forms.” Plasmatic phenomena exhibit “the endless possibility for diversity in form,” and [[plasmaticity]] therefore implies an absoluteness of movement and change, an “‘omnipotentiality,’ i.e. the ability to become ‘whatever you want.’” ^[Sergei Eisenstein, Disney, ed. Oksana Bulgakowa and Dietmar Hochmuth, trans. Dustin Condren (Berlin: Potemkin Press, 2012), 15.] - 여기서도 들뢰즈가 말한 기운이 느껴진다. Virtuality, potentiality of the movement - (loc. 695) > [[plasmaticity]] therefore implies an absoluteness of movement and change, an “‘omnipotentiality,’ i.e. the ability to become ‘whatever you want.’” ^[Sergei Eisenstein, Disney, ed. Oksana Bulgakowa and Dietmar Hochmuth, trans. Dustin Condren (Berlin: Potemkin Press, 2012), 15.] - loc. 698 > ==no figure can be fixed and isolated as external to movement. Instead, crucially, it is now “the movement which describes the figure.”== ^[Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 1: The Movement-Image (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), 5.] > It is worth noting that Eisenstein reads Disney as purely lyrical. He seems uninterested in how Disney’s movement, once emancipated from the figure, might turn on the figure and become its torturer. Movement freed from the figure can compel and enslave the figure. This is the ambiguous nature of lyrically emancipated movement—escape and violence—which Disney thematizes in the films of the 1930s. The extraction of pure lyrical movement from figures is often represented as a way of organizing and disciplining them (military marches, torture, etc.). Eisenstein was certainly not unaware of this troubling dimension of liberated movement—a kind of lyrical nightmare. As we will try to show, it was crucial for him to present the figure as something that suffers movement, something that becomes impassioned and at times broken by the emancipated movement. Yet when it came to Disney, Eisenstein insisted on a more innocent type of lyricism. #### 에이젠슈테인의 그림, 멕시코 시절, Movement and Figurability - (loc. 705) > ==His understanding of movement as, foremost, pure figurability offers perhaps the most straightforward means of defining Eisenstein’s relationship to the revolution of modern art.== - 이 지점은 다시한번 읽어봐야겠다. #TODO/Read - loc. 713 > In all of Eisenstein’s work, such intuition of movement may be seen most acutely in his drawings. - loc. 715 > But it was not until his time in Mexico (1930–32) that Eisenstein discovered what he considered his original approach to the practice of drawing. - loc. 717 > he identified an intimate link between the graphic line and the dynamic process. > “Drawing provided Eisenstein with a veritable laboratory of movement, and in his experiments, he identified an intimate link between the graphic line and the dynamic process.” (Arsenjuk, 2018, p. 31) > This was influenced less by Diego Rivera who drew with a heavy, broken stroke, or my much-loved ‘mathematical’ line, which was suitable for the whole diversity of expression which it achieves by the mere variation of its continuous outlines. [@eisenstein_how_1995, 579] > > 이것은 무겁고 끊어진 획으로 그린 디에고 리베라나 제가 좋아하는 '수학적' 선의 영향을 덜 받았으며, 연속적인 윤곽선의 단순한 변형으로 표현의 다양성을 구현하는 데 적합했습니다. > In my early films I was also fascinated by the mathematically pure course of montage thought and less by the ‘thick’ stroke of the accentuated shot. > > 초기 영화에서는 강조된 샷의 '두꺼운' 스트로크보다는 수학적으로 순수한 몽타주 사고의 과정에 매료되었습니다. - loc. 722 > In Mexico, Eisenstein discovers the “paradise of drawing,” which for him meant the introduction of a liberated and spontaneous graphic line. ([[@eisenstein_how_1995]], 578) - loc. 727 > This time in a proper linear way,” adding that this was the moment in which his “drawing underwent an internal catharsis, striving for mathematical abstraction and purity of line.” ^[Sergei Eisenstein, “How I Learned to Draw (A Chapter about My Dancing Lessons),” in Selected Works, 4:579.] - loc. 730 > ancient Chinese philosopher Wang Pi: “A line speaks of movement.” ^[Sergei Eisenstein, “How I Learned to Draw (A Chapter about My Dancing Lessons),” in Selected Works, 4:576.] - loc. 732 > because only after the line exists as a record of movement can it become a means of disclosing a certain something—a what, or a figure. > The line, we may say, speaks of the process of pure figurability. It is a record of movement capable of becoming any-figure-whatever, but it is not in itself necessarily figurative. In the line, there exists always a surplus of movement over the stability offered by the figure. - 즉 그에게 라인은 any-figure-whatever 의 figurative한 것을 figure로 고착시키는 process of pure figurability 이다. - loc. 736 > All drawing is animation. - loc. 737 > Eisenstein to compare drawing to dance. “Drawing and dancing are branches of the same tree, of course; they are just two varieties of the same impulse.” ^[Sergei Eisenstein, “How I Learned to Draw (A Chapter about My Dancing Lessons),” in Selected Works, 4:578.] - 생각해보면, [[References/Concepts/diagram|다이아그램]]이 힘에 대한 지도라고 할때, 즉 the map of the purely virtual power. 시간은 지도가 될 수 없지 않을까? 시간에도 power가 있나? 만약 그것이 미래에서 점점 다가오는 방향이라면 분명 힘이 있을테지만 과거에서 미래로 향하는 힘에는 flow가 있을 뿐이지 않을까? flow에도 힘이 있는가? 물론 그것을 가하는 힘 자연적 힘에서는, 즉 반대방향이 될때에만 밖에서 오는 힘과 분리되어 그것이 반대로 흐를때만 안의, 내적인 힘으로 보여질 수 있을 것이다. 같은 의미로 시간이 멈추는 것또한 re-posing the power, 가 되지 않을까? 내가 마노비치의 새로운 프로젝트에 긍정적이지 않았던 것은 그가 figures를 통해서 시네마를 보여줄 수 있다고 생각했기 때문이다. 하지만 만약 movement의 파워가 시네마를 지탱하는 힘이라면, 데이터의 움직임은 어떻게 보여야 하는가? 모든 것이 데이터라고 할때, 디지털 내에서 movement는 다른 의미여야 하지 않을까? 또한 [[References/Concepts/diagram|다이아그램]]이 지도라면, 그리고 시네마안에서의 지도가 된다면 그것은 방향성이어야할 것이다. 연결성이 아닌, 방향성을 통해 연결되는 동-서, 서-동 으로 움직임으로서 그 힘으로서 연결되는 지도가 되어야할 것이다. 두 방식이 있을 수 있다. 음식물이 썩어가는 것을 보여준 그 작업에서는 보이지 않는 힘을 expose시킴으로서 움직임을 극대화시켰다. 하지만 에이젠의 경우 보이지 않은 힘을 충돌시킴으로해서 움직임을 극대화시켰다. [[다이아그램과 지도]] #towrite - loc. 753 > François Albera discusses Eisenstein’s graphic work as sharing in the notion of drawing as a self-engendering process first suggested by Paul Klee, who, more soberly than Eisenstein, took his lines for walks. - loc. 757 > This is drawing not through vision, but through ‘being.’” The drawing happens not through the perception of a figure but through an intuition of movement prior to it. “Without seeing, the hand begins to draw.” ^[The statements come from Eisenstein’s diary, quoted in Bohn, Film und Macht, 246.] - 이거야말로 베이컨의 손이 행하는 것과 연결된다.오히려 반대되는 것이라 할 수 있지 않을까? - loc. 762 > The blind and intuitive freedom of movement, the improvisatory character of the line, emancipates us from the rigid rule of pregiven figures or poses but does not at the same time slip into a complete dissolution of form. - loc. 765 > Crucially, deformation is distinct from formlessness: it “does not liquidate the form but allows for its overcoming.” ^[Franç ois Albera, “Eisenstein dans la ligne: Eisenstein et la question graphique,” in Eisenstein: l’ancien et le nouveau, ed. Dominique Chateau, Franç ois Jost, and Martin Lefebvre (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2001), 83.] - loc. 776 > when it is more correct to say that disfiguration comes first: if a figure might still be experienced in all of this, it will exist only as an effect, the consequence of disfiguration rather than its support. - loc. 788 > Eisenstein seems to be aware that to replace the substantive figure with an exercise of the pure figurability of movement would cause us to miss the very dimension of movement itself. - loc. 798 > Eisenstein asks us to imagine a figure marked by a movement that exceeds the limits of figurative imagination, #### The Figure-in-Crisis 파토스와 액스터시 - 하지만 그림이 멈춘 형태, 즉 emancipated movement and blinding abstraction이 되지 않게하기 위해선 moments of [[disfiguration and deformation]]을 살펴봐야한다. 그가 예시로 든 것은 바로크 [[Alessandro Magnasco]]의 그림이다. ([[@eisenstein_beyond_1995]], 304) 이 그림들은 [[Ivan the Terrible Part I (1943)]]에 영향을 끼치기도 하였다. - ![[wosac5qVTC.jpg]] >movement of a figure caught by a brush, but a voluntary, affected movement of the brush, hastily disguising itself with the bones and flabby frames of ascetics with outstretched arms, bizarrely folded hands with long fingers. More often still it seems as though these ornate and fanciful flourishes are scattered among the monks’ robes in order to warm up their own swirls and curlicues, loops and intersections, around the hearth. ([[@eisenstein_beyond_1995]], 304) - (loc. 821) > It is as though in a moment of self-limitation, perhaps to ward off the threat of formlessness and empty abstraction, movement takes temporary refuge in the figure. - (loc. 833) - figure는 움직임, 즉 movement in figurative disguise 움직임을 숨긴다. 그림에 그려지기 위해서 움직임은 형태 안에 그 자신을 숨겨야만 한다. 그렇기에 그림은 언제나 끝나지 않은 그림들이다. > There is therefore something tentative about the figure, which must, even when seemingly finished, remain incomplete. ![[Screenshot 2021-10-03 at 15.15.56.png]] Apple from the series Gifts, December 19, 1947. Lead pencil on paper. Russian State Archive for Literature and Arts (RGALI), f. 1923, inv. 2, doc. 1573, s. 2. - ==만약 그림이 언제나 움직임을 잡아내지 못하는 손에 닿지 않는 사과를 원하는 여인과 같다면 사실 그 이미지의 비완성성이야 말로 그 openness 를 구성하는 것이 아닌가? 그렇다는 것은 사실 time-image에서 disguise or a mask는 시간인 것이 아닐까? 실제로 movement-image가 figure 뒤로 숨고 있는 것이라면 time-image에서 movement는 다시 한번 시간의 뒤로 숨고 있는 것이라고 보아도 되지 않을까?== #towrite - loc. 852 > The primary relation the figure maintains to movement is that of *suffering*. A figure is above all what suffers movement. - loc. 855 > Nicole Brenez has something similar in mind when she writes that, in Eisenstein’s case, “the capacity of a body to find itself affected by the violence of the world is affirmed as the condition of its representation.” ^[Nicole Brenez, De la figure en général et du corps en particulier: l’invention figurative au cinéma (Paris: De Boeck Université , 1998), 144.] - ![[4XgnwTvjqd.png]] - Apple from the series Gifts, December 19, 1947. Lead pencil on paper. Russian State Archive for Literature and Arts (RGALI), f. 1923, inv. 2, doc. 1573, s. 2. - (loc. 863) - 즉 거의 모든 경우에서 because pathos belongs first to movement in its absolute dimension, 움직임이 pleasure principle을 넘어서는 케이스를 발견한다. 그리고 그것이 바로 [[ecstasy]]이다. ecstatic figure는 most basic sense of > **Eisenstein finds the limit case of pathos**—of movement beyond the pleasure principle, we could say—in the experience of ecstasy (ex stasis), *==because an ecstatic figure is in its most basic sense a figure seized by movement to the point of breaking, at which it divides and steps outside itself==*. ^[On the question of pathos and figure, see Vicente Sánchez-Biosca, “Eisenstein: une figuration, des corps pour le pathetique?,” in Chateau et al., Eisenstein, 131–45.] - loc. 869 > Brenez points out that the Eisensteinian figure, characterized by the fact that it is fully exposed in movement, can be distinguished not only from the self-possessed classical figure but also from the “reserved, latent, undecided body in modern cinema.” ^[Brenez, De la figure en général, 149.] - loc. 879 > Through this coincidence, the ecstatic disfiguration of the figure—the ecstatic loss of any figurative measure in the figure-in-crisis—provides a “measure” of absolute movement. #### Groundlessness 있을 곳의 사라짐 - loc. 904-6 > “a single destructive pulsion pervades everything. Violence . . . is a given.” but "not all bodies bear equal relation to the appearance of the figure and that some distinctions do matter. ^[Sánchez-Biosca, “Eisenstein,” 139.] - ==이게 정확히 무슨 의미일까. 그리고 이정도면 거의 베이컨의 그림이 추구하는 것과 같은 수준 아닌가?== - loc. 958 > For if the figure is produced out of a self-limitation of absolute movement, as a disguise taken on by movement that in itself is not figurative, then it is also the case that the figure can no longer be primarily related to its figurative environment and must therefore lose its link to the relative dimensions of the figurative space it would otherwise inhabit (left–right, up–down, foreground–background). - loc. 930 - 에이젠슈테인의 "absense" of a proper placement of bodies that accompanies the appearance of the Eisensteinian figure--again, it is not that bodies do not have a place: they have it precisely where there should not be a body. - 즉 그의 경우 신체의 비존재 혹은 신체의 비공간적 형상이 아니라 신체가 아니어야할 곳에 있는 신체를 말하는 것이다. - 에이젠슈테인은 그의 형상 figure들이 언제나 "womb"에서 떠다니거나 "hover" in space 라고 묘사했다. - “‘hover’ in space; that is, the atavism in them belongs to the period before being set upon solid ground.” - fn.40 - Eisenstein, “[Notes on Drawing],” in Eisenstein Collection, 194. Eisenstein develops the topology of this type of impossible space, a space “before” the divisions that create space, most notoriously in his writings on Mutterleibsversenkung—the drive for the return or the sinking into the mother’s womb, which he adopts from the heretical Freudian psychoanalysts Otto Rank and Sándor Ferenczi as one of the fundamental drives at work in all forms of human expression. The maternal womb is imaginable for the subject, who is traumatically separated from it, only in the form of a fiction of an impossible place that makes indiscernible a series of binaries otherwise constitutive of our experience: birth and death, emergence and return, origin and end, temporal duration and absence of time, gravity and levitation/weightlessness, fullness or plenitude and negativity, nonbeing or not-yet-being. Though Eisenstein is certainly not always immune to psychologizing, it is crucial to note that the problem of the psychological drives, such as the one for the return to the maternal womb, is posed by him primarily in terms of formal questions. However fascinated by the psychological hypotheses Eisenstein might be, he is always interested in exploring how the psychological hypothesis interacts with and is mediated by the work of artistic form—how, for instance, a topology of an impossible place (womb) hypothesized by psychological research might be used to haunt and disorganize, unsettle and transform, the world of figures. For Eisenstein’s writings on Mutterleibversenkung, see the section “MLB (Obraz materinskogo lona)” [MLB (the image of the maternal womb)], in Metod, 2:296–348. See also Sergei Eisenstein, “Pre-natal Experience,” in Selected Works, 4:507–9. Eisenstein’s fascination with the drive for a return to the womb is usefully discussed in Bohn, Film und Macht, 128–42. - loc. 966 > Insofar as the figure may only be localized or placed in relation to the absolute movement of the line, it is essentially groundless. - loc. 972 > In other words, if we miss the negative element of groundlessness, we may be convinced that a certain recovery or recomposition of the figure remains possible, that even in the midst of the figure’s ecstatic transgression, the figurative space itself may have somehow remained unaffected and might thus once again provide a proper place for the figure. But this is not the case. - loc. 979 > Eisenstein associates the dimension of groundlessness, the abyssal background of the figure, with despair, delirium, and terror. These affects signal an anxious realization that, while the disfigurations of pathos and the ecstatic transgressions of the figure might indeed establish some kind of human measure for the inhuman violence of the movement of the world, there may at the same time be no measure, no clear limit, to suffering and ecstasy in themselves. - loc. 991 > The act of humanizing the inhuman violence of movement must itself be understood as a form of violence. ^d5a3da - loc. 1010 > According to Eisenstein, such literalization is always a comic procedure: “Literalization—literalization of metaphors or anything else—as a ‘technique of the comic.’ Wonderful!” ^[Sergei Eisenstein, “Zametki k ‘Grundproblem’” (Notes on the Grundproblem), in Metod, 2:381.] - loc. 1020 > It is therefore possible to oppose in Eisenstein two modes of thinking the relationship between absolute, emancipated movement and the figure, two ways of thinking the figure-in-crisis: - 에이젠슈테인의 완전함 (자유로운 움직임)과 형체의 관계에 대한, figure-in-crisis에 대한 두가지 관점이 존재한다. - 첫번째는 절대적인 움직임에 의한 유한한 숫자의 변형을 통해 작용하는 비극적인 휴머니즘. a tragic humanism that operates through the disfiguration of finite figures by absolute movement (1021) - 두번째는 그의 그림시리즈 Nichts가 마주하는 그리기의 비유적인 공간에서 마주하는 형태의 groundlessness 의 움직임의 코믹 비인간미. the series Nichts counters the tragedy of the figure with a comic inhumanism that figures the groundlessness of movement literally, within the figurative space of the drawing. (1022) #### Perceiving the Figure, Reading the Gesture (Dialectic) - (loc. 1030) > Eisenstein sees artistic intuition as intimately related to the emancipation of movement from what moves, the individuation of movement for itself, which amounts to an absolutization of movement. - (loc. 1036) > A lyrical immersion in movement (as pure figurability or [[plasmaticity]]), simply opposed to what moves (the plastic figure), leads by itself only to formlessness and a kind of blindness. It is thus necessary to posit along with emancipated movement a certain resistance of the figure. - 움직임은 what moves의 반대로 이렇게 자유롭게된 움직임은 stable이 되기 위해선 반드시 새로운 타입의 형태가 되어야 한다. only through the work of disfiguration -> figure-in-crisis, 그리고 이 figure-in-crisis는 예술적 움직임에 대한 경험에 접근할 수 있도록 해준다. it lets us “see” movement (1038) - loc. 1038 > Eisenstein’s claim is that such a figure-in-crisis gives us access to the artistic experience of movement; ==it lets us “see” movement==—or perhaps it would be better to say that it allows us to see what the blind movement itself sees—by allowing us to avoid both the absence of movement (classical, static figures) and its abstraction and emptiness (found in cases when a certain lyrical purity of movement is simply opposed to everything figurative). - ==그 자체로 movement 가 아니고?== - loc. 1040 > If there is an Eisensteinian invention in the thinking of movement, it is this: the absoluteness of movement, its nonfigurative dimension, is best thought from the perspective of the figure-in-crisis. - ==이건 뭐 거진 제 2의 베이컨이네?== - loc. 1101 > Eisenstein conceives of the two types of movement Flusser identifies (visible, causal, perceivable versus gestural, uncaused, legible) as dialectically related, forming a unity of opposites or an internal division within the concept of movement itself. According to Eisenstein, who speaks of the “readable-perceptible form” - loc. 1120 > The dialectic is that strange species of nonfigurative thought that requires the figure as a sort of unavoidable obstacle, without which the thought would itself become arrested on the path of its [[becoming]]. - loc. 1124 > that his conception of the [[close-up]] presents the face not only as something that increases the visibility of figures but as an operation that must disturb the world of visible causes and introduce into it a new quality, which is the becoming-expressive, becoming-gestural, of the face. #### Kinematography to Cinema (제스처 2부) - loc. 1148 > How does the elementary Eisensteinian dialectic of gestural and visible movement at which we have arrived relate to cinema and the problem of cinematic movement? - loc. 1158 >We can indeed see how Eisenstein is able to establish Ma Fen’s The Hundred Geese as a place for the exploration of the nature of cinematic movement. - loc. 1189 >According to Eisenstein, Ma Fen’s picture mimics the rudimentary mechanism of the kinematographic apparatus, which is distinguished by its ability to create a synthetic perception of movement out of a set of successive immobile instants. ![[oGdUceCtZc.jpg]] ![[Screenshot 2021-10-04 at 13.04.37.png]] Eisenstein’s drawing of the detail of the turn from The Hundred Geese. The drawing appears in the edition of Eisenstein’s essay “El’ Greko i kino” (El Greco and cinema), published in Sergei Eisenstein, Montazh, edited by Naum Kleiman (Moscow: Muzei kino, 2000), 427. - loc. 1197 > For him, the description of the kinematographic effect, identified in this case in a distant Chinese predecessor, does not yet properly address the question of cinematic movement. - loc. 1200 > **Importantly for Eisenstein and his idea of cinema, the kinematographic transformation of punctual instants into a vector of movement is in itself not enough to explain the dramatic or properly artistic effect of the turn of the goose in the Chinese scroll.** - loc. 1202 > **What makes the fragment of Ma Fen’s painting expressive and artistically effective is that it allows us to sense another kind of turn, the turn as it exceeds the visibility of the unified figure and** - loc. 1203 > ==Ma Fen’s painting expressive and artistically effective is that it allows us to sense another kind of turn, the turn as it exceeds the visibility of the unified figure and takes place in the domain of gesture.== - loc. 1218 > In addition to the perceived movement of the figure’s turn, there appears “another movement,” which arrives with a slight delay, after we have already (kinematographically) recomposed the turn of the goose. ^[Eisenstein, “El’ Greko i kino,” 426–27.] - loc. 1232 > Now, however, as we perhaps no longer feel the pressure to maintain the perceptual integrity of the figure, the detail jumps at us from the picture with an undeniable punctual force. - loc. 1256-59 - ==If the task of kinematography lies in the accomplishment of a passage from punctuality to vectoriality, from a series of momentary instants to a perception of continuous movement, then the task of cinema lies in knowing how to interrupt or punctuate the continuity of the kinematographic movement, opening it up to the possibility of a different kind of vectoriality than the one kinematography offers to our perception.== - Arsenjuk의 주장에 따르면 에이젠슈테인은 메테리얼을 시작으로 kinematography apparatus를 정의하지 않았다 오히려 cinematic movement (the superstructure), metaphysics of gesture, that determines and gives meaning to the "physical" apparatus of kinematography에서 kinematography의 아이디어를 가져왔다. 그리고 시네마틱 아이디어가 바로 kinematography에 crisis를 가져온 것이다. - 그러므로 시네마는 imposes kinematographic figure에 스스로의 materiality of its own gesture ### 2. Form-Problem - 여기서 주로 인용되는 것은 [[Fredric Jameson]]의 Form의 대한 해석과 [[Vsevolod Meyerhold]]의 naturalism에 반대되는 theatrical movement에 대한 것이다. - "If there is no cabotin, there is no theatre either." ([[@meyerhold_meyerhold_2016]], 123) - loc. 1636 - In *Strike* (1925), At stake in the arrangements of a montage of attractions is action organized according to a schematism (operations of selection and reduction, impoverishment and formalization) - loc. 1676 - While [[D. W. Griffith|Griffith]]’s “parallels” ultimately meet on the plane of represented reality, Eisenstein’s series run in an infinite parallelism. - 에이젠슈테인의 unity of sense는 delinked from representational totality에서 나온다. - sense of action = attractional schema produced by the work of montage - loc. 1694 - Eisenstein’s development of the method of attractional schematism reaches its limit in the late 1920s in his famous idea of intellectual montage (or, as he also calls it, montage of intellectual attractions): - But in my view montage is not an idea composed of successive shots stuck together but an idea that DERIVES from the collision between two shots that are independent of one another (the “dramatic” principle). ([[@eisenstein_dramaturgy_2019]], 163-64) - loc. 4572 > The artistic intuition of movement must apply poetic pressure to and put into crisis the discursive form within which we make sense of our experience. - 어떻게 보면 베이컨의 경우 저렇게 센텐스로 완성시키지 않기 위해서 노력한 것이 아닐까? #TODO/Idea - Eisenstein’s drawing of the detail of the turn from The Hundred Geese. The drawing appears in the edition of Eisenstein’s essay “El’ Greko i kino” (El Greco and cinema), published in Sergei Eisenstein, Montazh, edited by Naum Kleiman (Moscow: Muzei kino, 2000), 427. ## Annotation Extracted Annotations: 09/03/2021, 15:15:01 09/03/2021, 15:15:01 he is “not an author one cites, he is an author one summons, not so much for the purposes of debate as for the sake of struggle.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=8 ) The remarkable plasticity of the figure of Eisenstein, however, begins to reveal itself if we consider how he appeared as crucial also for the poststructuralist project of cinematic écriture—the intramodernist reversal of structuralist semiology that set its aim at undoing the primacy of the linguistic metaphor. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=8 ) according to Deleuze, was no longer a classical cinema of movement (not even of dialectical movement) but rather a cinema of the direct presentation of time. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=9 ) Here Eisenstein is not seen as someone who any longer contributes to cinema's modernity but rather as a great figure whose idea of cinema had to run the historical course of its exhaustion before a different existence of cinema, a truly modern one, could be actualized. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=9 ) . In the eyes of the postmodern judgment, which privileges the plural and the multiple, Eisenstein appears too totalizing, too systematic a thinker. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=9 ) Recently, however, Eisenstein has begun to emerge also as a thinker who in his work crucially prefigured the “postcontemporary” situation of cinema in which we find ourselves today. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=10 ) his resolute pursuit of the problem of form and synthesis is much too severe for the dispersive passion for the informal; his insistence on the inseparability of affect from reason, body from signification, the particular from the general, all embarrassingly idealist and outmoded. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=10 ) The “postcontemporary” situation is characterized by a constitutive heterogeneity of cinema's conditions. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=10 ) He appears as a figure for whom cinema meant not only engaging and arranging images and sounds but more fundamentally experimenting with and transforming the very dispositifs that determine the limits of such work. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=10 ) According to his own statements, the question of unity occupied a crucial position in his work. In his autobiography, for instance, Eisenstein retrospectively characterizes the intention of his entire project as “the realization of the ultimate goal— the attainment of unity.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=12 ) for Eisenstein, the possibility of a new unified place for the plurality of arts. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=12 ) Cinema could become the testing ground for the human being observed in the act of configuring a new relation between thought and sensuousness, consciousness and drive, thus arriving at a new ground from which the multiplicity of expressive forms in art and culture could be grasped as manifestations of a unified human subjectivity. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=12 ) “the smallest indivisible unit always consists of two things, not one.  .  .  . Not only Eisenstein's vision of things, but also his image of himself, were predicated on the paradox of indivisible duality.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=15 ) . The dialectic of division considers division (or self-division) the primary and irreducible moment of thought, whose movement must for this reason be seen as simultaneously destructive and constructive of unity. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=15 ) As we know, this militantly oriented idea of unity gives rise to a conception of montage very different from Griffith's parallelisms. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=17 ) Art is a divided object, an object whose unity appears in Eisenstein's theoretical construction only through the acknowledgment of a more basic split. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=17 ) In “The Dramaturgy of Film Form” from 1929, perhaps the best known of his texts, Eisenstein describes art as ontologically (that is, “Because of its nature”) constituted by the conflict between nature and human praxis, between the passivity of the organic and the activity of the rational, between inertia and productivity. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=17 ) According to this later perspective, art remains divided and projects thought simultaneously in two opposite directions: the “progressive” direction of reason, rationality, and logic and the “regressive” direction of sensuousness, irrationality, and the “prelogical.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=17 ) Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, the work of art remains for Eisenstein determined as an internally split object, a dual unity or a “bi-unity” (dvoedinost'): [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=17 ) Eisenstein indeed proposes an evolutionary view of cinema as the “synthesis of all arts,” the crucial and the most advanced moment in the history of the total (perhaps it is better to say collective) work of art. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=18 ) More precisely, cinema finds its historical mission as a response to the disintegration of “the arts as a whole into sharply differentiated compartments.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=18 ) effects not only dismember the idea of art as a whole but repeat their destructive path also “within the various arts themselves.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=18 ) Yet it is possible to question the smoothness of this evolutionary narrative of cinema as the historical completion or unification of art(s). [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=19 ) cinema is said by Eisenstein to “begin from level zero” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=19 ) Alongside considering it the evolutionary heir and unifier of other classical artistic forms, which have by the end of the nineteenth century suffered their terminal crisis, Eisenstein thinks of cinema as a radically new beginning. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=19 ) There exist in Eisenstein's thought not one but two images of the historical emergence of cinema at the turn of the twentieth century, which means that the unity of cinema as a historical phenomenon can itself be seen as divided. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=19 ) In other words, cinema finds its orientation not only in disclosure and recollection of the fragmented past but also in the void—in the discontinuous interval of a cut. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=19 ) Eisenstein presents the history of different arts as though each of them already carried within itself the principle of cinema—which is to say, the idea of montage—making cinema the place where this principle finally reaches its fulfillment and becomes fully conscious of itself: [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=20 ) Eisenstein's statements, however, also suggest that he sees cinema not merely as a fulfillment of some originary principle of art, a historical coming-to-consciousness of art's transhistorical essence, but as a fundamental modification of the very essence of art, the appearance of something that is precisely not originally there. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=20 ) The instability of cinema's teleological status in Eisenstein's imagining of the history of art(s) produces a peculiar effect. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=21 ) The attainment of telos retroactively desutures the artistic phenomena in this history from any such holistic impression of meaningfulness or linear, developmentally sequenced totality. 텔로스의 성취는 이 역사에서 예술 현상의 의미나 선형적이고 발달적으로 순차적인 총체성에 대한 총체적인 인상을 소급하여 소멸시킵니다. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=21 ) Arriving at an end carries a sense of completion, but it also functions as a break. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=21 ) The end is not simply a peaceful conclusion; it is also an imposture. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=21 ) The assumption of a telos as something already arrived at therefore has the effect not of rigidifying time into an actual unity but of “possibilizing” the received unity of time, of loosening time's actual sedimentations and opening its repressed virtualities. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=21 ) On the contrary, the positing of a telos as something achieved or arrived at might be one of the most striking ways of freeing time and history from precisely such constraints. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=22 ) It does not pacify the history that led to it but introduces into this history a sense of possibility—or better said, it introduces the sense of history as possibility. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=22 ) As [[Marie-Claire Ropars]] puts it, “Eisenstein  .  .  . wishes to at the same time reintegrate cinema into the cultural field as a whole and to use it as an instrument for the critique of this culture.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=22 ) e “`operational' problem” of pathos, the question of an “operational aesthetic”: “how to do it. How to `do' pathos clearly.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=23 ) It is, in other words, not the question of an evolutionary-historical nature that motivates; he is after the procedure of pathos, of ecstatic form as it is deployed in these various artistic and nonartistic constructions. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=23 ) Throughout his career Eisenstein was no less prescriptive in his aims than his contemporaries. . . . In supporting his claims, however, he seldom tried to locate the essence of cinematic representation or to determine its sharply unique relation to physical or perceptual reality. He did not try to demarcate film sharply from other arts. His main effort was to unite his practice with a theory that would provide a wide-ranging, detailed reflection on film form, material and effect. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=24 ) What makes Eisenstein singular and rather striking within the field of film theory is that he indeed sought the essence of cinema but was only able to conceive it as something nonspecific and nonsubstantial. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=24 ) In positing Eisenstein's lack of interest in the essence of cinema, Bordwell thus neglects to theorize something a bit more radical taking [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=24 ) place in Eisenstein's thought, namely, a reconfiguration of the very question of essence, which has been divorced from the notions of specificity and substantial unity and has instead become linked by Eisenstein to the dynamic and constructive movements of what we may call the process of cinema's eccentric self-constitution. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=25 ) cinema's essence can come into being only through a moment of self-estrangement or self-division. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=25 ) Instead, Eisenstein presents the idea of cinema as a process of ceaseless division. Movement, Action, Image, Montage thus proceeds by treating these Eisensteinian concepts as unities concretized through the form of contradiction. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=26 ) The concept of movement is discussed in terms of the contradiction between Eisenstein's assertion of movement as both something absolute, a pure figurability or indeterminacy of things, and something that must necessarily take the shape of a determinate visible figure. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=26 ) Extracted Annotations: 10/03/2021, 19:48:34 10/03/2021, 19:48:34 he is “not an author one cites, he is an author one summons, not so much for the purposes of debate as for the sake of struggle.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=8 ) The remarkable plasticity of the figure of Eisenstein, however, begins to reveal itself if we consider how he appeared as crucial also for the poststructuralist project of cinematic écriture—the intramodernist reversal of structuralist semiology that set its aim at undoing the primacy of the linguistic metaphor. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=8 ) according to Deleuze, was no longer a classical cinema of movement (not even of dialectical movement) but rather a cinema of the direct presentation of time. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=9 ) Here Eisenstein is not seen as someone who any longer contributes to cinema's modernity but rather as a great figure whose idea of cinema had to run the historical course of its exhaustion before a different existence of cinema, a truly modern one, could be actualized. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=9 ) . In the eyes of the postmodern judgment, which privileges the plural and the multiple, Eisenstein appears too totalizing, too systematic a thinker. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=9 ) Recently, however, Eisenstein has begun to emerge also as a thinker who in his work crucially prefigured the “postcontemporary” situation of cinema in which we find ourselves today. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=10 ) his resolute pursuit of the problem of form and synthesis is much too severe for the dispersive passion for the informal; his insistence on the inseparability of affect from reason, body from signification, the particular from the general, all embarrassingly idealist and outmoded. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=10 ) The “postcontemporary” situation is characterized by a constitutive heterogeneity of cinema's conditions. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=10 ) He appears as a figure for whom cinema meant not only engaging and arranging images and sounds but more fundamentally experimenting with and transforming the very dispositifs that determine the limits of such work. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=10 ) According to his own statements, the question of unity occupied a crucial position in his work. In his autobiography, for instance, Eisenstein retrospectively characterizes the intention of his entire project as “the realization of the ultimate goal— the attainment of unity.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=12 ) for Eisenstein, the possibility of a new unified place for the plurality of arts. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=12 ) Cinema could become the testing ground for the human being observed in the act of configuring a new relation between thought and sensuousness, consciousness and drive, thus arriving at a new ground from which the multiplicity of expressive forms in art and culture could be grasped as manifestations of a unified human subjectivity. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=12 ) “the smallest indivisible unit always consists of two things, not one.  .  .  . Not only Eisenstein's vision of things, but also his image of himself, were predicated on the paradox of indivisible duality.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=15 ) . The dialectic of division considers division (or self-division) the primary and irreducible moment of thought, whose movement must for this reason be seen as simultaneously destructive and constructive of unity. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=15 ) As we know, this militantly oriented idea of unity gives rise to a conception of montage very different from Griffith's parallelisms. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=17 ) Art is a divided object, an object whose unity appears in Eisenstein's theoretical construction only through the acknowledgment of a more basic split. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=17 ) In “The Dramaturgy of Film Form” from 1929, perhaps the best known of his texts, Eisenstein describes art as ontologically (that is, “Because of its nature”) constituted by the conflict between nature and human praxis, between the passivity of the organic and the activity of the rational, between inertia and productivity. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=17 ) According to this later perspective, art remains divided and projects thought simultaneously in two opposite directions: the “progressive” direction of reason, rationality, and logic and the “regressive” direction of sensuousness, irrationality, and the “prelogical.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=17 ) Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, the work of art remains for Eisenstein determined as an internally split object, a dual unity or a “bi-unity” (dvoedinost'): [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=17 ) Eisenstein indeed proposes an evolutionary view of cinema as the “synthesis of all arts,” the crucial and the most advanced moment in the history of the total (perhaps it is better to say collective) work of art. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=18 ) More precisely, cinema finds its historical mission as a response to the disintegration of “the arts as a whole into sharply differentiated compartments.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=18 ) effects not only dismember the idea of art as a whole but repeat their destructive path also “within the various arts themselves.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=18 ) Yet it is possible to question the smoothness of this evolutionary narrative of cinema as the historical completion or unification of art(s). [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=19 ) cinema is said by Eisenstein to “begin from level zero” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=19 ) Alongside considering it the evolutionary heir and unifier of other classical artistic forms, which have by the end of the nineteenth century suffered their terminal crisis, Eisenstein thinks of cinema as a radically new beginning. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=19 ) There exist in Eisenstein's thought not one but two images of the historical emergence of cinema at the turn of the twentieth century, which means that the unity of cinema as a historical phenomenon can itself be seen as divided. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=19 ) In other words, cinema finds its orientation not only in disclosure and recollection of the fragmented past but also in the void—in the discontinuous interval of a cut. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=19 ) Eisenstein presents the history of different arts as though each of them already carried within itself the principle of cinema—which is to say, the idea of montage—making cinema the place where this principle finally reaches its fulfillment and becomes fully conscious of itself: [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=20 ) Eisenstein's statements, however, also suggest that he sees cinema not merely as a fulfillment of some originary principle of art, a historical coming-to-consciousness of art's transhistorical essence, but as a fundamental modification of the very essence of art, the appearance of something that is precisely not originally there. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=20 ) The instability of cinema's teleological status in Eisenstein's imagining of the history of art(s) produces a peculiar effect. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=21 ) The attainment of telos retroactively desutures the artistic phenomena in this history from any such holistic impression of meaningfulness or linear, developmentally sequenced totality. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=21 ) Arriving at an end carries a sense of completion, but it also functions as a break. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=21 ) The end is not simply a peaceful conclusion; it is also an imposture. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=21 ) The assumption of a telos as something already arrived at therefore has the effect not of rigidifying time into an actual unity but of “possibilizing” the received unity of time, of loosening time's actual sedimentations and opening its repressed virtualities. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=21 ) On the contrary, the positing of a telos as something achieved or arrived at might be one of the most striking ways of freeing time and history from precisely such constraints. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=22 ) It does not pacify the history that led to it but introduces into this history a sense of possibility—or better said, it introduces the sense of history as possibility. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=22 ) As [[Marie-Claire Ropars]] puts it, “Eisenstein  .  .  . wishes to at the same time reintegrate cinema into the cultural field as a whole and to use it as an instrument for the critique of this culture.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=22 ) e “`operational' problem” of pathos, the question of an “operational aesthetic”: “how to do it. How to `do' pathos clearly.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=23 ) It is, in other words, not the question of an evolutionary-historical nature that motivates; he is after the procedure of pathos, of ecstatic form as it is deployed in these various artistic and nonartistic constructions. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=23 ) Throughout his career Eisenstein was no less prescriptive in his aims than his contemporaries. . . . In supporting his claims, however, he seldom tried to locate the essence of cinematic representation or to determine its sharply unique relation to physical or perceptual reality. He did not try to demarcate film sharply from other arts. His main effort was to unite his practice with a theory that would provide a wide-ranging, detailed reflection on film form, material and effect. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=24 ) What makes Eisenstein singular and rather striking within the field of film theory is that he indeed sought the essence of cinema but was only able to conceive it as something nonspecific and nonsubstantial. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=24 ) In positing Eisenstein's lack of interest in the essence of cinema, Bordwell thus neglects to theorize something a bit more radical taking [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=24 ) place in Eisenstein's thought, namely, a reconfiguration of the very question of essence, which has been divorced from the notions of specificity and substantial unity and has instead become linked by Eisenstein to the dynamic and constructive movements of what we may call the process of cinema's eccentric self-constitution. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=25 ) cinema's essence can come into being only through a moment of self-estrangement or self-division. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=25 ) Instead, Eisenstein presents the idea of cinema as a process of ceaseless division. Movement, Action, Image, Montage thus proceeds by treating these Eisensteinian concepts as unities concretized through the form of contradiction. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=26 ) The concept of movement is discussed in terms of the contradiction between Eisenstein's assertion of movement as both something absolute, a pure figurability or indeterminacy of things, and something that must necessarily take the shape of a determinate visible figure. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=26 ) It is no coincidence that, for Gilles Deleuze, Eisenstein could stand as the paradigmatic figure of the entirety of the classical, prewar cinema of movement. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=30 ) �� [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=30 ) Does saturating all phenomena with movement and turning it into a sort of universal explanans not constitute an ingenious strategy of imposing on movement a certain form of stability, of disciplining movement and thereby avoiding any concrete confrontation with it? [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=30 ) Such has, however, always been the judgment leveled against the dialectic, namely, that despite its claims to unleash thought in its universal restlessness, it merely captures movement and erects it as a fetish. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=31 ) because dialectical thought always knows in advance how it will proceed and where it will ultimately find itself. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=31 ) For this “late” Eisenstein, movement seems to be placed in a vision of a uniformly evolving and self-completing whole (the organic spiral), whose carefully maintained proportionality stages outbursts of movement (leaps of pathos) at the same moment it tightens control over them. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=32 ) Our purpose here will be to unsettle somewhat this impression of movement as virtually fetishized in Eisenstein's thought. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=32 ) Eisenstein never firmly settles the question of movement. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=32 ) —he never succeeded in finding movement a stable or proper form. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=32 ) The drama of movement in Eisenstein's thought takes place within a tension between a vital intuition of movement and the famous “dialectical approach to form.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=33 ) Understanding Eisenstein's thinking of movement means understanding how one might pass from an intuitive experience to a dialectical grasp of movement, and how each of the two approaches, without being simply subsumed by its opposite, interferes with and modifies the other. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=33 ) Eisenstein in relation to a fundamental theoretical dispute, a philosophical quarrel that separates those thinkers for whom thought's movement follows the force and the vital method of intuition (Nietzsche, [[Henri Bergson|Bergson]], Deleuze) from those who, on the contrary, assert that thought takes place in the dialectical movement of the concept (Hegel and others). [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=33 ) It treats him, in other words, as more than a glorified craftsman or an empirical explorer of cinematic techniques, which he has unfortunately become for much of contemporary film studies. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=33 ) The world is a totality in movement; it is nothing but dynamic process. But this intuition is also false, because it does not furnish the dialectical laws of the world's dynamism and neglects to think the totality in the concrete form of its movement. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=35 ) The Grundproblem exists, to put it schematically, in the conflict within any work of art between two tendencies of thought: [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=35 ) the prelogical, naï veté , primitiveness, all suppressed forms of mental life left behind by the civilizing process. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=35 ) And thus what is in Engels's evolutionary narrative treated as an outdated structure of feeling, or a primitive dialectic of universal movement, assumes for Eisenstein an absolutely contemporary and modern valence. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=35 ) which is why Eisenstein eventually condenses the passage from Engels into a single sentence that provides him with an effective and practicable principle of his artistic intuition of movement. First the movement, and then what moves. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=35 ) Eisenstein responds that the force of the intuition demands a sentence in which “the description of movement and action (the verb) precedes the description of who is moving or acting (the noun).” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=36 ) the movement of flight as an impersonal and neutral event or action: [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=36 ) “Movement is registered before the object is recognized.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=36 ) His understanding of movement as, foremost, pure figurability offers perhaps the most straightforward means of defining Eisenstein's relationship to the revolution of modern art. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=38 ) In all of Eisenstein's work, such intuition of movement may be seen most acutely in his drawings. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=39 ) In Mexico, Eisenstein discovers the “paradise of drawing,” [16] which for him meant the introduction of a liberated and spontaneous graphic line. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=39 ) This time in a proper linear way,” adding that this was the moment in which his “drawing underwent an internal catharsis, striving for mathematical abstraction and purity of line.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=39 ) ancient Chinese philosopher Wang Pi: “A line speaks of movement.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=39 ) Eisenstein to compare drawing to dance. “Drawing and dancing are branches of the same tree, of course; they are just two varieties of the same impulse.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=40 ) Franç ois Albera discusses Eisenstein's graphic work as sharing in the notion of drawing as a self- engendering process first suggested by Paul Klee, who, more soberly than Eisenstein, took his lines for walks. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=40 ) This is drawing not through vision, but through `being.”' The drawing happens not through the perception of a figure but through an intuition of movement prior to it. “Without seeing, the hand begins to draw.” [ [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=41 ) Crucially, deformation is distinct from formlessness: it “does not liquidate the form but allows for its overcoming.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=41 ) when it is more correct to say that disfiguration comes first: if a figure might still be experienced in all of this, it will exist only as an effect, the consequence of disfiguration rather than its support. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=41 ) Eisenstein seems to be aware that to replace the substantive figure with an exercise of the pure figurability of movement would cause us to miss the very dimension of movement itself. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=42 ) It is as though in a moment of self- limitation, perhaps to ward off the threat of formlessness and empty abstraction, movement takes temporary refuge in the figure. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=44 ) Nicole Brenez has something similar in mind when she writes that, in Eisenstein's case, “the capacity of a body to find itself affected by the violence of the world is affirmed as the condition of its representation.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=46 ) Eisenstein finds the limit case of pathos—of movement beyond the pleasure principle, we could say—in the experience of ecstasy (ex stasis), because an ecstatic figure is in its most basic sense a figure seized by movement to the point of breaking, at which it divides and steps outside itself. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=47 ) Brenez points out that the Eisensteinian figure, characterized by the fact that it is fully exposed in movement, can be distinguished not only from the self-possessed classical figure but also from the “reserved, latent, undecided body in modern cinema.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=47 ) “a single destructive pulsion pervades everything. Violence . . . is a given.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=49 ) For if the figure is produced out of a self- limitation of absolute movement, as a disguise taken on by movement that in itself is not figurative, then it is also the case that the figure can no longer be primarily related to its figurative environment and must therefore lose its link to the relative dimensions of the figurative space it [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=54 ) would otherwise inhabit (left–right, up–down, foreground–background). [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=55 ) In other words, if we miss the negative element of groundlessness, we may be convinced that a certain recovery or recomposition of the figure remains possible, that even in the midst of the figure's ecstatic transgression, the figurative space itself may have somehow remained unaffected and might thus once again provide a proper place for the figure. But this is not the case. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=55 ) According to Eisenstein, such literalization is always a comic procedure: “Literalization—literalization of metaphors or anything else— as a `technique of the comic.' Wonderful!” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=58 ) the series Nichts counters the tragedy of the figure with a comic inhumanism that figures the groundlessness of movement literally, within the figurative space of the drawing. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=58 ) lyrical immersion in movement (as pure figurability or plasmaticity), simply opposed to what moves (the plastic figure), leads by itself only to formlessness and a kind of blindness. It is thus necessary to posit along with emancipated movement a certain resistance of the figure. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=60 ) Eisenstein's claim is that such a figure-in-crisis gives us access to the artistic experience of movement; it lets us “see” movement—or perhaps it would be better to say that it allows us to see what the blind movement itself sees—by allowing us to avoid both the absence of movement (classical, static figures) and its abstraction and emptiness (found in cases when a certain lyrical purity of movement is simply opposed to everything figurative). [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=60 ) If there is an Eisensteinian invention in the thinking of movement, it is this: the absoluteness of movement, its nonfigurative dimension, is best thought from the perspective of the figure-in-crisis. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=60 ) Ma Fen's painting expressive and artistically effective is that it allows us to sense another kind of turn, the turn as it exceeds the visibility of the unified figure and takes place in the domain of gesture. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=70 ) In addition to the perceived movement of the figure's turn, there appears “another movement,” which arrives with a slight delay, after we have already (kinematographically) recomposed the turn of the goose. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=71 ) Now, however, as we perhaps no longer feel the pressure to maintain the perceptual integrity of the figure, the detail jumps at us from the picture with an undeniable punctual force. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/YQ942ZM3?page=72 ) Includes bibliographical references and index ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@arsenjuk_movement_2018]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```