## [[Noël Carroll]] (2021). *Eisenstein's Philosophy of Film*. New York: Oxford University Press. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[&]] > Title:: Eisenstein's Philosophy of Film > Author(s): [[Authors/Noël Carroll]] > Year:: 2021 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: carroll_eisensteins_2021 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Eisenstein's Philosophy of Film](zotero://select/items/@carroll_eisensteins_2021) > ReviewedDate:: [[2022-12-06]] ## Citation ```latex [@carroll_eisensteins_2021] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@carroll_eisensteins_2021]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary ### 에이젠슈테인의 문제점과 질문 challenge **[[Montage|몽타주]]는 모든 아트에서 공유되면서 시네마의 에센스이다 라는 모순적 진술** - Like so many of his contemporaries, Eisenstein was committed to demonstrating that film, or at least certain types of film, could be art. (Carroll, 2021, p. 1) 에이젠슈테인을 포함한 그 시대의 필름메이커들은 필름이 아트라는 것을 증명하기 위해 노력했고 it was a main theme, ([[@carroll_philosophical_1988]] , chap. 1) 그것은 필름으로 to be proven 되어야 했기 때문에 became a major burden of film theory in general and of Eisenstein’s theory of film in particular. 에이젠슈테인에게 있어서 몽타주는 시네마틱 메카니즘에 의해서 built된다. ([[@eisenstein_dramaturgy_2019]], 173, #pagecheck) projector beam은 spectator의 마음 안에 apperance of movement. two discrete still frames bring with it to **movement** = new things. 시네마에서만 가능한 새로움 [[Gotthold Ephraim Lessing|Lessing]]의 Lacoön에 의해 영향을 주었고 특히 필름 이론에 영향을 줌 → 레싱에 의하면, 어떤 것이 예술이 될 수 있는 능력을 가지고 있다는 것을 확립하기 위해서는, 그 매개체 덕분에, 그것이 독특한 방식으로 예술의 일반적인 기능을 발휘할 수 있는 잠재력을 가지고 있다는 것을 보여주어야 한다. > According to this view, in order to establish that something possesses the capacity to be art, one must show that, in virtue of its medium, it has the potential to discharge the general function of art in a unique way. 시: in virtue of its medium (words in sequence) → rendering events 페인팅: in virtue of its medium (adjacent daubs of pigment 인접한 안료의 얼룩) → representing states of affairs. 이러한 방향은 마치 에이젠슈테인이 medium specificity 를 강조하던 [[Rudolf Arnheim]], [[André Bazin]], [[Siegfried Kracauer]] 등등과 같은 이론과들과 결을 같이 하는 것처럼 보이지만 이러한 해석은 에이젠슈테인의 다른 이론들과 not sit well. 에이젠슈테인은 몽타주를 is analogised to the strategies of particular writers, [[Joyce]], [[Dickens]], [[Alexander Pushkin|Pushkin]], Balzac, Zola, Whitman, Homer, Mallarmé, Gogol, and Tolstoy. 그리고 literary genre, haiku, whole written languages, Japanese ideographic writing. To the ostensibly cognate practices, kabuki, music(Scriabin and Debussy), painting(Serov, Leonardo), sculpture(the Stations of the Cross in Amecameca, Mexico, Bernini’s Barberini, coats of arms, Greek statue Laocoön), architecture(Acropolis and Hagia Sophia), acting(Geoge Arliss), Choreograph (The Last conversation → 에이젠슈테인 1947년 안무를 구상함 → 이 안무는 The Last Conversation: Eisenstein's Carmen Ballet 으로 Sally Banes에 의해 복원됨 ) ![[wvulwjlpajjziowoyije.jpg]] [[Montage|몽타주]]는 feature of all the arts뿐만 아니라 common feature of human thought. > Quite simply, for example, if montage is the recommended principle for arranging objects in the pictorial space of a single shot, then it should obtain in static as well as moving arrays—such as paintings […] it hardly specifies cinema. So how can Eisenstein claim that "montage is at its most specific and significant as a method of influence in the field of cinema?" ([[@eisenstein_attack_1988]], 264 #pagecheck ) ### 예술 철학 **문제점** 1. 필름 이론들은 예술 철학을 전제로한다 → 시네마는 아트 형태이므로 2. 더 중요한 것은, 필름 이론은 예술 철학의 구조를 모방한다. **예술 철학의 형태** - the differentiation approach (=definitional approach)→ 역사적으로 더 흔함 - 아트의 정의를 다른 모든 것들과 구별하는 properties 혹은 property로 정의함 - [[Clive Bell]] - 아트만 가지는 significant form → necessary condition (all artworks possess) and a sufficient condition (only artworks possess) - [[Aristotle]]이 처음 주장함→인간은 동물의 종에 속하지만 Rationality로 특별하다 - species - rationality = significant - [[Leo Tolstoy]] - communication - communication of feeling, feeling = significant - 주로 예술 철학에서 쓰이는 방법으로 - Optimistically, this may also yield an account of the special or unique value of art in contradiction to that of other practices, such as religion, politics, morality, science, and so on. But in any event, an indispensable goal of this strategy of analysis is to differentiate art from other things. 낙관적으로, 이것은 또한 종교, 정치, 도덕, 과학 등과 같은 다른 관행의 그것과 모순되는 예술의 특별한 또는 독특한 가치에 대한 설명을 산출할 수 있다. 그러나 어쨌든, 이 분석 전략의 필수적인 목표는 예술을 다른 것들과 구별하는 것이다. - 예술철학을 모방하는 클래식 필름 이론 또한 같은 방식을 사용한다. - [[Lev Kuleshov]], [[Vsevolod Pudovkin]] - the exemplifying approach - shares but heightened clarity and intensity - placing art roots in common human nature - 20세기 - [[Benedetto Croce]] → art as intuition [[@croce_aesthetic_1995]] - our faculty of intuition, we forge representations of this buzzing confusion, imbuing it with a particular form. - The painter, employing the same faculty of intuition that nonartists possess, gives the chaotic stimuli of a storm-tossed sea a particular, unified, and unique form in his representational painting. […] [but] the painter is not doing something categorically distinct from what the rest of us are doing all the time. - **aesthetic activity = fundamental capacity of the human mind** - [[John Dewey]] 또한 비슷한 입장 - [[Friedrich von Schiller|Schiller]] - art as play = freely giving form to nature [[@schiller_aesthetic_2012]] - **Eisenstein’s exemplifying approach** > the thesis that the principle of montage is common to all the other arts. ([[@eisenstein_attack_1988]], 264) Montage is the essence of art, 그리고 에이젠슈테인이 보기에 가장 중요한 general feature of art. Cinema는 몽타주 principle에 의해 governed되고 모든 아트는 montage에 의해 governed 되므로 시네마는 아트다. **그렇지만 왜 그렇게 몽타주가 중요한가? 그리고 몽타주는 무엇을 exemplify하는가?** → operation of human mind → reconstruction of the thought process ([[@eisenstein_pantagruel_1988]], 249) → "montage thinking is inseparable from the general content of thinking as a whole" ([[@eisenstein_dickens_1977]], 234) > "Cinema seems to us by its specific character to reproduce phenomena according to all the indications of the method that derives from the reflection of reality in the movement of the psychic Process." > 우리에게 영화는 영적 과정의 움직임에서 현실의 반영으로부터 파생되는 방법의 모든 표시에 따라 현상을 재현하는 특정한 성격으로 보인다. ([[@eisenstein_pantagruel_1988]], 248) [[Sergei Eisenstein|에이젠]]이 분석해온 [[Montage|몽타주]]와 관련있는 characterisation of the thought process - dialectical reasoning - inner monology (stream of consciousness) ^[([[@eisenstein_film_1977]], 84-107), [[@michelson_reading_1977]], Reading Eisenstein Reading Ulysses Art & Text 34] - inner speech - primitive thinking (Lévy-Bruhl) - unconscious association (Freud) ([[@bordwell_cinema_2005]], 특히 챕터 3,4와 5) **왜 정신 과정을 예증하는 것이 중요한가?** > For Eisenstein, it is a way of directing the thought processes of the audience […] like Tolstoy, **Eisenstein believes that the spectator, in viewing the work, recapitulates the artist’s mental process of making it**. […] the artist can engender in the audience that same mental states—both cognitive and affective—that sh underwent in shaping her material, thereby in vesting the viewer with a certain way of thinking about and feeling toward whatever the theme in question might be. 아이젠에게 있어서 몽타주가 중요한 이유는 > 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. This is obviously as close as it is possible to get to conveying visually the fullness of the author's thought and intention, to conveying them 'with the same force of physical perception' with which they faced the authorin his momentsof creativevision. ([[@eisenstein_montage1937_2010]], 309) ## Annotation ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@carroll_eisensteins_2021]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```