We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
4. THE THEORY OF PHOTOGENICS
The representational qualities of the object filmed, as a subject for artistic representation, by no means always coincide with its expressiveness, that is, its ability to evoke in the spectator the definite association indicated in the scenario and the director's instructions. That is why in practice cinema art resolutely rejects any kind of canonised aesthetic recipes. Is it possible in the cinematographic process to establish the existence of intrinsic expressiveness in any object ? With the aid of the famous theory of photogenics, for instance, by which was understood a peculiar ability of certain objects to create effective, impressive shots, owing to qualities intrinsic in their form or surface ?
Practically, in the conditions of the Soviet cinema, we can regard the theory, of photogenics as dead. Yet, despite several works by leading cinematographers disproving this theory, leisured theoreticians are still busily composing catalogues of photogenic and non-photogenic objects. Objects with a clear-cut contour and a characteristic texture, evoking an effective play of light and shade in the film, cityfied styles of buildings with rectangular construction, metallic objects with a smooth, polished surface are all recognised as photogenic owing to their innate beauty, and are recommended to the camera-man as * effective ' material for the screen.
The theory of photogenics is simply one of the manifestations of bourgeois formalism and worship of things for their own sake. When the photogenic theory is predominant the bourgeois cinema (and the Soviet cinema also for some time was under its influence) becomes a prey to lack of ideas, gives itself over to thoughtless delight in the forms and textures of the material. The specific peculiarities of the bourgeois entertainment cinema also had their share in this result. In the directorial sphere a slavish satisfaction of the petty suburban aesthetic requirements of the bourgeois spectator led to the creation of favourite cliches, and in the camera-man's sphere to the selection, on the grounds of superficial effect, of the objects most easily susceptible to photography. Instead of ensuring that with the aid of technical resources and a definite expenditure of creative energy the photographed material shall achieve maximum expressiveness in the required direction, the bourgeois camera-man prefers to limit his activity to objects which, from the viewpoint of the sugary aesthetics of the bourgeois cinema-goer, are sufficiently beautiful in themselves. This attitude tends to neutralise his role, for not only is he not master of the material, but he simply renounces all participation in the creative process of making the film. A bourgeois fetishism for things, plus suburban ' salon ' aesthetics concealed under a super
174