The cinema as a graphic art : on a theory of representation in the cinema (1959)

THE CINEMA AS A GRAPHIC ART Moving photography [says Lange], can be recognised as an art only to the extei that it is photography. But, as everybody knows, photography is not a genuine art. We have already considered the reasons for this negative attitude to phot( graphy. The same reasons apply in regard to the cinema. But in the cinerr the gutter influence was even more striking ; vulgarity was even better equippec And so there was more justification for this highly learned aesthetic hypocris1 This juxtaposition of the cinema and photography, the view of the cinema merei as ' moving photography ' is of interest to us in two aspects. In the first plac< this attitude later led to the estimate of the camera-man's role as that of a technia executant, passively photographically fixing the object filmed : an attitude whic has to be combated even at the present day. Secondly, while not denying th essential distinguishing features of movement and dynamism, Lange denied an qualitative distinction of cinema from ' moving photography '. In fact, it is thi very qualitative distinction, the result of definite internal processes, which con stitutes the specific feature which transforms the cinema into an art of quite special kind, different in principle from the theatre and painting. Snatched away from the scientific laboratory and put into the grip of com mercial exploitation, the cinematograph was transformed into a means of mas amusement. With extreme realisticness the photographic lens represented what ever came within its field of vision. To the indignant eyes of the art expert i provided a genuine, completely unadorned spectacle of ' art for the masses ', ar of the ' fairground and show-booth '. The simple juxtaposition of these twj * types ' of new art with the classic productions of painting and the theatre con /vinced the bourgeois aesthete that they had nothing and could have nothing ii common.1 If the cinema does not want to be painting or theatre, then cinem is not an art. It belongs to a second class outside the bounds of art, to thi class mechanical, ' hostile to culture by its very nature ' (Benno Ruttenauer) And, on the other hand, the attempts to ' ennoble ' the cinema, to make it a ' real art ' followed the lines of mechanically imitating the theatre, and painting, wit! cinematographic resources. Photography and cinematography are essentially realistic. In representing that which it least of all ought to represent, i.e. no' reality itself but reality passed through the treatment of another art, the cinem; is indeed transformed into a non-artistic phenomenon. The further development of the cinema can be conveniently divided int( two periods. At first it was subjected to theatrical culture, owing to whicl elements of the organisational and creative structure of the theatre were intro duced into cinema production. During this period the film director strength ened his hegemony, and so dammed any possibility of creative growth for the camera-man. The second period, which brings us down to the contemporary Westerr cinema, was distinguished in its beginnings by the flourishing of scenario treat ments expressed as a literary form. Departing from the tradition of the stage the cinema borrowed from literature the construction of things as a whole, endea 1 It is interesting to note that for a number of years even such an artist as Meyerhok maintained the attitude of bourgeois aesthetics, denying that the cinema was an art. Ir his book On the Theatre published in 191 2 he wrote : " The cinema, that heathen temple of the modern cities, is given too much importance by its defenders. The cinematograph has undoubtedly great importance for science, b) serving as an auxiliary in descriptive demonstrations. The cinematograph is an illustrated newspaper (Events of the Day) for some it replaces travelling. But there is no place for the cinematograph on the plane of art, even where it desires to occupy only an ancillary role." 148