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

THE CINEMA AS A GRAPHIC ART decoration was erroneously attributed to the action of the machine itself. But later, having accepted the machine, instead of organically perceiving it as a new subject for aesthetics, bourgeois aesthetics ascribed to it a * pure ' objective beauty of its own. Bourgeois aesthetics only changes its fetish, but by no means changes the standpoint of its aesthetic estimates. But if even objects and things evoke in us aesthetic impressions not ' in them selves ', but only as the result of our specific estimate of them, in relation to their function and purpose, this applies in still greater measure to living objects, and especially to man. We need not go further into the psychology of aesthetic per ception, but note only that it is always conditioned socially and historically. The sphere of visual perception is still insufficiently studied to enable us to talk of an immediate estimate of operative elements. Even when we take as our starting-point not a single shot, but an edited episode or scene, we can predetermine the character of the spectator's perception of any particular section of the film only very approximately, and then only granted a number of conditions, chief of which is that the social composition of the audience shall be known beforehand. Consequently it would be a great mistake to consider associative perception as a kind of unconditional reaction, corresponding to the simplest type of reflexological scheme. However, all this does not diminish in the least the possibilities of applying a single guiding criterion in estimating cinematic expressiveness. The whole problem consists in determining what particular association we have to deal with. If the orientation is fixed on a single, individual association, a preliminary estimate of the influencing elements in cinematographic shots is quite unthinkable, for, despite the uniformity of line of the majority of people, such an associative perception is the actual source of an endless variety in the character of impressions and tastes. But if we are speaking of association more or less generalised, in other words, peculiar to a definite group of people occupying a definite place in the social system — which association inevitably has a social tinge — a preliminary estimate becomes more possible. Formal properties are not the main criteria in the artistic estimate of the expressiveness of an object. At the basis of perception is an involved ideological complex, which cannot be excluded from aesthetic perception, although of course one cannot completely reject the possibility of looking at so-called characters of beauty from a certain standpoint with a measure of objectivity. Consequently, any selection of expressive characters, made only with the aid of aesthetic recipes and abstract laws laid down once for all, will be fundamentally wrong, and will only lead to the superficial type of a ' standard of beauty '. It is extremely interesting to investigate the evolution which the theory of photogenics has accomplished in the conditions of the American cinema. Here we meet with a peculiar theory of ' sex appeal ' which is in every respect a consistent development of the theory of photogenics. Speaking of the selection of actors in the American cinema, the director G. V. Alexandrov says of the ' expressive characters' on which the selection is based : The choice of actors for the cinema is made first and foremost on the basis of the given actor or actress possessing ' sex-appeal '. Consequently, when the actor or actress applies to the producer, he engages them only if, in his opinion, he or she is capable of exerting this erotic influence. Nothing else matters, so long as money can be made out of the appeal of the given actor.1 1 G. V. Alexandrov, " American Film Production ", in the journal Proletarian Kino, Nos. 15-16, 1932. 176