# Atmosphere and Eisenstein - [!] Atmosphere와 aesthetic을 연결시킨후에 atmosphere를 통해 얻을 수 있는 장점 쓰기 ## Cinema and Eisenstein ### Intro For a long time, Sergei Eisenstein has been seen as a great figure in cinema history with his conceptualisation and philosophisation of the practice of montage in moving image, but he also represents totalising and systematic idea in cinematic practice and montage, for some, no longer contribute to a new path due to its outdated and too idealist ideas. Gilles Deleuze identifies Sergei Eisenstein as a director of the interval between all components who is a paradigmatic figure of the classical and prewar cinema of movement in his second book of Cinema. For Deleuze, ”**This interval propels what is called thinking, but only insofar as it is preparatory to action**: in the interval, **a momentary delay**, perception is transformed into action, which is to say, a re-action to a given set of images (situation).” ([[@flaxman_brain_2000]], 35) Eisenstein’s dialectical method determines particular moments by decomposing irreducible time, ( ([[@deleuze_cinema_1989]], 157)) to produce a shock to thought and touching or punching the nerve system directly, thus triggering thought that was only a possibility into potential. (151) In doing so, cinematic image unifies author and spectator in forms of communication of movement. Jacques Aumont further notes that “there is no unitary ‘concept of montage’ that comes to theoretical fruition over the course of his career—at least not in the limited, rationally defined, and constant form by which one could characterize a true concept” ([[@aumont_montage_1987]], viii–ix). Thus, Aumont considers the more general “principle of montage” in Eisenstein’s writing. ([[@aumont_montage_1987]], viii–ix). (여기에 그의 시네마를 아트로좀더 확장시키자) At the same time,” writes [[Peter Wollen]], “he moved away from the role of montage as the agent of reason (as exemplified in his project of filming Marx’s Capital) toward its capacity for arousing emotion, toward ecstasy as the final goal” ([[@wollen_perhaps_1999]], 46). Following Eisenstein’s unrealised projects *Glass House*, CAPITAL, and VIVA MEXICO, his ambition of theoretical and practice aims are towards to the non-hierarchical floating sensations of time, space, and forms and their artistic representation, therefore implying the unity of the logical and the prelogical. (글래스 하우스에 대해서는 여기서 더 [[@bulgakowa_eisenstein_1996]] [[Oksana Bulgakowa|Bulgakowa]]의 경우 경우 에이젠의 프로젝트는 **In a broader sense, [[Sergei Eisenstein|Eisenstein]]’s project could be seen as a comment on the project of the Enlightenment, or of modernity.**([[@bulgakowa_eisenstein_1996]], 115) However, the unity of cinema, the unity of logical and prelogical, I would like to suggest, not only in the 60’ to 70’ pscyhological approach with semiotic ‘read’ the film, [[Cristian Metz]], [[Jean-Louis Baudry]] and [[Stephen Heath]]가 이러한 움직임에 가장 근접해 있었다. 즉 즐거움을 주는 오브젝트로 [[Freudiansim]]과 언어적으로 읽는 필름 이론은 [[Saussurean]]의 기원을 두고 있었다. 또한 정치적 ideology또한 이러한 결합에 빠지지 않았다. [[Peter Wollen]]은 필름 아파라터스를 > the product of a variety of historical determinations, at the interface where the economies of capital and libido interlock’. ([[@wollen_cinema_1980]], p. 21) Or as in the 80’, in the sociopolitical context production and consumption, whoes ideas focuses on the culturalism towards [[Pierre Bourdieu]]에 따르면 취향에 대한 질문은 클래스에 대한 질문이 되었다. > in the ways in which issues of taste produce not only different readings of a text within a given historical period, but conflicts between the proponents of these different readings...Articles and reviews can most use- fully be understood as one of the ways in which people learn to position themselves within hierarchies of taste. ^[Jancovich 2002, p. 154.] [[Noëll Carroll]] [[David Bordwell]] 이 가장 특징적이다. 4. [[David Bordwell]]의 경우 인포메이션으로 필름을 읽는 이러한 방식은 개인의 경험 안에서의 필름의 부분에 집중한다. (특히 네러티브) 그리하여 클래식 헐리우드 내러티브와 아방가르드의 '아트 시네마'로 나뉜다. 또한 그러므로 필름의 status는 관객의 문화, 보여지는 문맥 혹은 physical nature of the medium에 따라 달라진다. ### New Eisenstein But reading [[Sergei Eisenstein|Eisenstein]] should be the study of aesthetic, as Bulgakowa suggests, consideration of Eisenstein as a film theorist must simultaneously engage with his films, which provided a working laboratory for developing and testing ideas while also later serving as objects for critical selfreflection and self-investigation,” (Solomon, 2015, p. 78) of the perception. (**여기 미학이란 지각에 관한 공부이다 설명**) Anne Nesbet points out, this is a unfinished, irreducible moment of thinking (screen is a brain (Deleuze) simultaneously destruct and construct a unity, [[@nesbet_savage_2003]] to start a new beginning. In this process of simultaneity, the montage is “most specific and significant as a method of influence in the field of cinema” ^[Eisenstein, “An Attack by Class Allies,” 264, emphasis added.], and through montage, cinematic image generate a space that is a collective synthesis of all nonsimultaneous artistic past moments as in a battleground with organic communication, whether it is visual or sound, their relations are conflictual and atmospherically surround human’s body. [[Antonin Artaud]] argues, “Thought has never had any other problem than the problem of thought itself, which is what remains unthought, unthinkable, and above all outside. This is the kind of cinema for which, contra Eisenstein, Artaud had hoped: "It might be said that Artaud turns round Eisenstein's argument: if it is true that thought depends on a shock which gives birth to it (the nerve, the brain matter), it can only think one thing, the fact that we are not yet thinking, the powerlessness to think the whole and to think oneself, thought which is always fossilized, dislocated, collapsed."”([[@flaxman_brain_2000]], 41) - [!] As I proposed in the previous chapter, the screen and brain, chaos and order are the main ideas of the diagrammatic relation in Deleuze’s philosophy. However, ==난 이 지점에서 생각과 행동이 양분되어 있다는 말에 동의할 수 없다. 생각과 행동은 함께 하고 행동이 생각 이후에 나오는 것만은 아니다. 난 행동이 먼저되고 생각이 이후에 되는 지점을 지적하고 싶다.== The question of unity and dialectic occupied a crucial position throughout his work and writing ([[@eisenstein_author_1995]], 792). His main concern points to a sensorial place (synthesis of all arts) that can unifies plurality “within the various arts themselves”. [@eisensteinunity_2010, 275] 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 . ” “The Dynamic Square” is a lecture at a meeting organised by the Technicians Branch of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences in Hollywood on 17 September 1930, after he arrived in New York on 12 May 1930. (여기에 에이젠 fist에 관련 쓰기) Therefore, this chapter suggests, rereading on Eisenstein with Atmospheric ideas and diagram recontextualising Eisenstein’s montage and ecstasy in terms of betwenness and surrounding. ## Main ### Architecture and Cinema, montage Of all the arts, the practice of architecture has had the most privileged and difficult relationship to film as a spatial art. “one that stretches back to the first investigations in time and motion studies by Etienne-Jules Marey, through the first motion pictures and into the movie era.” ([[@vidler_eisenstein_2019]], 57) From Georges Melies’s careful description of the proper spatial organization of the studio in 1907 - Eric Rohmer’s reassertion of film as “the spatial art” some forty years later, (Eric Rohmer, "Cinema: The Art of Space" (1948), in Eric Rohmer, The Taste for Beauty, trans. Carol Volk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 19-29.) - the architectural metaphor, if not its material reality, was deemed essential to the filmic imagination. - 필름메이커의 건축으로의 또는 건축가의 필름으로의 움직임은 함께 진행되었다. 한때 건축은 fundamental site of film practice로 여겨졌으며 동시에 필름을 모던 아트의 공간을 위한 par excellence로 보았다. A vision of the fusion of space and time. - 역사학자 Elie Faure는 Fernand Léger에게 영향을 받아서 *cineplastics* 란 단어를 사용했다. - “The cinema…is first of all plastic. It represents, in some way, an architecture in movement that should be in constant accord, in dynamically pursued equilibrium, with the setting and the landscape within which it rises and falls.” - 여기서 플라스틱의 의미는 “Faure’s terms, “plastic” art was that which “expresses form at rest and in movement,” a mode common to the arts of sculpture, bas-relief, drawing, painting, fresco, and especially dance, but that perhaps achieved its highest expression in the cinema. - 그에게 있어서 시간은 공간을 위한 veritable instrument 이 된다. - 그리하여 다른 방식의 건축적 공간을 만드는데 - akin to that imaginary space “within the walls of the brain.” Those interpretations mainly concern investigations of space and body, time and movement, and psychology of individuals and crowd that is only in the possibles to the potential relations. [[@vidler_explosion_1993]] 여기서 레퍼런스 가져와서 컨축과 필름에 대해서 이야기하기 The biggest challenge in the translation of invisible is the problem of flat surfaces, and Eisenstein searches for multidimensional capacity from the architecture. For him, as [[Victor Hugo]] called Notre-Dame de Paris “books in stone”, Acropolis is the oldest film of Athens, especially its shot design, change of shot, and shot length (duration of a particular impression) 아이젠슈타인에게 있어서 두가지의 ‘걸음’ - ~the cinematic~, where a spectator follows an imaginary line among a series of objects, through the sight as well as in the mind - - "diverse impressions passing in front of an immobile spectator" - and the architectural, where "the spectator moved through a series of carefully disposed phenomena which he absorbed in order with his visual sense." - 스테이징 무브먼트 에이젠슈테인은 [[Auguste Choisy|Choisy]]의 그리스 건축 본석을 통해 성당과 Mexico의 피라미드 위에 있는 성당들에서 나타나는 골고다 언덕으로 올라가는 예수의 이미지 전시를 통해 걷는 거리와 각 몽타쥬의 길이를 이야기한다. 그리고 마지막으로 로마 St. Peter의 canopy를 이야기하며 몽타주가 Impression을 의미한다고 주장하고 또한 그 Impression의 길이는 다음 Impression으로 향하는 거리와 비례한다고 이야기한다. ![[2560px-The_Acropolis_of_Athens_viewed_from_the_Hill_of_the_Muses_(14220794964).jpg]] [[@eisenstein_montage_1989]] 에에서 더 분석 적을 것 Despite Eisenstein concerns artistic method in cinema practice, his fascination on the relationship between sensory and invisible is expanded to the translation from sensorial invisibility, including linguistic and metaphoric relations, movement, eruption, and ecstasy to the image. Eisenstein asks: > “Now why should the cinema follow the forms of theater and painting rather than the methodology of language, which allows wholly new concepts of ideas to arise from the combination of two concrete denotations of two concrete objects? Language is much closer to film than paint- ing is.” Eisenstein, “A Dialectic Approach to Film Form,” in Film Form, 60; [[[@eisenstein_dramaturgy_2019]], 178] [[@eisenstein__2020]] 자본에 대한 노트 ## Architectural Atmosphere [[@bulgakowa_eisenstein_1996]] ### Atmosphere The relationship between cinema and architecture is related to their interest in the atmospheric space. Eisenstein visited German in 1926 to screen his film The Battleship Potemkin (1925). In this time, he not only found architectural vision in cinema from Metropolis (1927) but also made Le Corbusier acquaintance in terms of their understanding on the spatialisation and sensation to the body.  [Le Corbusier] insisted on the medium specificity of the two arts, at a moment when film was in his words "positioning itself on its own terrain ... becoming a form of art in and of itself, a kind of genre, just as painting, sculpture, literature and music are genres:' ([@abel_french_1988](bear://x-callback-url/open-note?title=%40abel%5Ffrench%5F1988&x-error=bear%3A%2F%2Fx%2Dcallback%2Durl%2Fcreate%3Ftitle%3D%2540abel%255Ffrench%255F1988), 113) [Sergei Eisenstein](bear://x-callback-url/open-note?title=Sergei%20Eisenstein&x-error=bear%3A%2F%2Fx%2Dcallback%2Durl%2Fcreate%3Ftitle%3DSergei%2520Eisenstein)과 [Le Corbusier](bear://x-callback-url/open-note?title=Le%20Corbusier&x-error=bear%3A%2F%2Fx%2Dcallback%2Durl%2Fcreate%3Ftitle%3DLe%2520Corbusier)아 만난 것은 1928년 Moscow. [Centrosoyuz building](bear://x-callback-url/open-note?title=Centrosoyuz%20building&x-error=bear%3A%2F%2Fx%2Dcallback%2Durl%2Fcreate%3Ftitle%3DCentrosoyuz%2520building)을 디자인하기 위해서 방문한 것이었다. The sense of atmosphere has a long history in philosophy, science, art, literature, and sociocultural studies, but its conceptualisation is relatively new in scholarly use. In a general sense, “atmosphere” grounding in Latin, Atmos (vapour) + Sphere (sphere), means a feeling (relaxed, oppressive, gloomy, etc.) that is not private and internal but poured out into the perceiver’s pericorporeal (lived, predimensional) space, and “tinges” their situation to the point that it felt-bodily influences their attitude, behaviour and (even) thought.” ([[@griffero_is_2019]], p. 24) However, given the fact that the notion of atmosphere is slippery and diffusing, it allows us to through questions on flexible subsequent clarification, both sensible and cognitive in terms of "grasping a feeling in the surrounding space," [^@griffero_atmospheres_2014, 5].  Many philosophers, researchers, and architectures recontextualised it in various paths. [[Juhani Pallasmaa]]’s essay ‘Space, Place, and Atmosphere: Peripheral Perception in Existential Experience’ focuses on the notion of atmospheres from an existential and experiential point of view. Compared to classical approaches, which start from Kant's approach based on judgement and determination,  Tonino Griffero questions what is perceived as an atmosphere is not a union and solid perception but a perception of felt-body in chaotic-multiple situations at the environmental level. The felt-body, therefore, refers to the epitome of anything that a human being can feel as belonging to his body without relying on the five senses. The atmosphere generates comprehensive ground for a complete or partial surfaceless space that is experienced as present.   In the 1990s, a soft but much more internationally in"uential version of this anti-projectivist and anti-introjectionist conception of atmospheric feelings and their felt-bodily resonance was provided by philosopher Gernot Böhme.62 By compensating (so to speak) for the Schmitzean underestimation of sociocultural factors and overcoming the intellectualism of classical aesthetics and its restriction to art, he places atmosphere at the centre [#rst](bear://x-callback-url/open-tag?name=rst) of an ecological aesthetics63 and then of a new aesthetics (or Aisthetik), now understood as a general theory of affective and involving perception. Unlike Schmitz, Böhme places staging atmospheres at the centre of an “aesthetic work” (art in the strict sense, but also cosmetics, advertising, design, scenography, interior decoration, acoustic furnishing, etc.) and sees stage design as an emblematic character of late-capitalist “aesthetic economy”. [@Griffero, 2019, p. 17] Atmospheres are quasi-things with no secure ontological status, "namely they are out there; you can enter an atmosphere and you can be surprisingly caught by an atmosphere." [@bohme_aesthetics_2017, 2] This quasi-thing can appear and disappear and relatively (perceptually) amendable as the influence itself, which as a sui generis spatiality of social characteristics, synaesthesias, moods, communicational characteristics, and motor affordances.  The phenomenological analysis of the atmosphere does not follow the sensational data-based and judgemental perception of a thing as independent of its existence ultimately by the cognitive subject who posits the thing, but this new aesthetic analyses the communication in synaesthetic and sensorimotor unity and recognises the quality of the environment as a quasi-thing rather than a property of things. More precisely, it radiates outwards into space, to their output as generators of atmospheres. [@bohmeaesthetics_2017, 32] Finally, taking a positive theory of certain phenomena, it offers is fruitful and prepares the ground to be applied in many fields, including art, theatre, curatorial, advertising, commodity aesthetics, architecture and design, politic, and sensorial, into a new humanism. [@bohmeaesthetics2017, 7] Most importantly, from the studies on conditions of the atmosphere, generators. In her book Atmospheres of Projection: Environmentality in Art and Screen Media (2022),[@brunoatmospheres_2022] Giuliana Bruno expands the notion of the atmosphere by connecting the concept of projection as a modulator in art practice. For her, an “atmosphere” is "generated in the variable assemblage and aggregation of bodies of multiple types in forms of mixing and intersections that affect their very boundaries." [@bruno_atmospheres_2022, 58] She explores projection's qualities in medium, spatialised and multilayered fluctuation by tracing the connection between milieu, ambiance, and atmosphere. The word ambiance first appeared in the French dictionary in 1896 and expanded from the milieu—the empirical scientific context to the aesthetic, philosophical, socio-political, and anthropological based on the Greek philosophy of "what goes around" in space, such as air, energy, and orbit. Following this change, the concept of the atmosphere changed in scientific circles in more fluid ways after the 17th century. As the calm before the storm, the wind, and the rain, atmospheres are supersubjective and superobjective feelings poured out into space. It allows us to explore variable assemblage and aggregation of felt-bodies of multiple types in forms of mixing, including human and nonhuman, in-between life dimensions that affect their very boundaries.  As this term does not aim at clear and distant measuring and calculating living but steps forward to vague and subjective phenomena, it offers new perspectives for every subjective and aesthetic event and performance in the situation of being spatialised corporeal and also social and symbolic multimodal modes of communication.  “In summary, it is possible to state that the humanities use the notion of atmosphere as an heuristic device to empirically research affects whenever an invisible effect seems disproportionate as compared with its visible causes and it proves necessary to pay attention to the vague and qualitative “something-more” that one experiences—in short, when it is necessary to focus more on expressive qualia and phenomenal nuances of appearing reality than on the detailed material reality.” ([Griffero, 2019, p. 15](zotero://select/library/items/6KBMN5GQ)) ([pdf](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/4AXEBQKK?page=5&annotation=YZY8QCL3)) Each [[actant]] is not an element or entity as environmental philosophy might have it, but rather an agent of ambiance—of that active, conductive force that affects perception.