El cine como arte

by Rudolf Arnheim

Entendiendo el cien como una forma cultural pura, y no como un simple espectáculo, Arheim lanza una tesis provocativa. En una primera época, las virtudes del cine como arte son el producto de las propias limitaciones del medio (ausencia de sonido y de color, falta de profundidad tridimensional), convertidas por cineastas mudos en una nueva y distinta expresión artística. Como consecuencia, la introducción de ciertos medios mecánicos en una segunda época cinematográfica -que Arnheim analiza según las normas estéticas generales para la combinación de diferentes palabras, imagen, sonido- produce sin duda un mayor realismo, pero también una pérdida de valor artístico. He aquí, pues, uno de los textos clásicos de la teoría cinematográfica de los años treinta indiscutiblemente básico para comprender la evolución y el carácter de los filmes en un período muy concreto y sin duda el de finales del mudo y principios del sonoro. De este modo, el libro no sólo se basa en el bagaje teórico de Arnheim, sino que también refleja toda una época, como un crónica de primera mano transcrita en el lugar de los hechos.

Genres: Film, Nonfiction, Art, Theory, Art History, Essays, 20th Century

Paperback

First published January 1, 1932

About the author

Rudolf Arnheim (1904–2007) was a German-born author, art and film theorist, and perceptual psychologist. He learned Gestalt psychology from studying under Max Wertheimer and Wolfgang Köhler at the University of Berlin and applied it to art. His magnum opus was his book Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye (1954). Other major books by Arnheim have included Visual Thinking (1969), and The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts (1982). Art and Visual Perception was revised, enlarged and published as a new version in 1974, and it has been translated into fourteen languages. He lived in Germany, Italy, England, and America. Most notably, Arnheim taught at Sarah Lawrence College, Harvard University, and the University of Michigan. He has greatly influenced art history and psychology in America.

Reviews

[Tyrone_Slothrop (ex-MB) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dove andava il cinema ?

Raccolta eterogenea di scritti dello psicologo della Gestalt, che vanno dal '32 al '38 (quindi dai 28 ai 34 anni dell'autore). L'importanza di questo testo è nota e la difficoltà di lettura (Arnheim è estremamente analitico nella sua descrizione del processo filmico e adora le schematizzazioni e le categorizzazioni) è ripagata da alcune intuizioni davvero felici ed interessanti.
In particolare, mi conforta sapere che già agli albori del cinema c'era chi incoraggiava lo sviluppo creativo del cinema e stigmatizzava le derive corrive, consumistiche e commerciali di questo mezzo espressivo. Inoltre ci sono alcuni spunti validi ancora oggi, nella riflessione sul mezzo televisivo, nell'immaginare una assoluta libertà del cinema quando potrà liberarsi dalla tecnica fotografica (cioè, oggi), nello scandagliare le varie possibilità espressive del mezzo.
Ovviamente, il rifiuto del sonoro e la sua previsione di una decadenza artistica del cinema per effetto di questa innovazione tecnica è stata (per fortuna) non azzeccata - ma si tratta di una piccola parte un poco anacronistica in un volume tutt'oggi ancora interessante e valido.

[Hrafnkell Úlfur · Rating 4 out of 5]

Áhugaverð, en að miklu leyti úrelt bók. Upprunalega þýska útgáfan kom út árið 1937 en breytta enska útgáfan sem að þessi þýðing er byggð á kom út árið 1957. Bókin vísar nánast aðeins í þöglar myndir og Arnheim meiri segja óttast tilkomu hljóðs og lits í kvikmyndagerð þar sem að hann telur að kvikmyndir verða þá of raunverulegar og þar af leiðandi ólistrænar. Einnig telur hann að tilkoma hljóðs muni gera myndfléttur (montage) að hætti rússnesku leikstjóranna á borð við Eisenstein og fleiri ómögulegar. Hann virðist því vanmeta myndfléttur gífurlega, því að varla eru til kvikmyndir í dag sem að styðjast við aðferðir rússnesku leikstjóranna þegar að það kemur að klippingu.

Eitt af vandamálunum sem að Arnheim minnist á er erfiðleikinn við að taka upp andlit tveggja leikara á sama tíma. Mér fannst það áhugavert vandamál þar sem að myndir eins og The Magnificent Ambersons eftir Welles, Persona eftir Bergman, Paris, Texas eftir Wenders og The Social Network eftir Fincher gera allar áhugaverða tilraunir til að leysa eða komast framhjá þessu vandamáli.

Annað sem vert er að minnast á er að Arnheim hatar með ástríðu The Passion of Joan of Arc eftir Dreyer. Hann telur myndina vera lélega vegna ofnotkunar hennar á andlitsskotum og nánast engu öðru. Það er áhugavert þar sem það er oft litið á sem einn af helstu styrkleikjum myndarinnar. Leikstjórinn virðist hafa treyst leikurum sínum blindandi til þess að bera þessa mynd á herðum sér og það heppnaðist eins vel og mögulegt var.

Að lokum myndi ég aðeins mæla með þessari bók til þeirra sem hafa mikinn áhuga á myndum Eisensteins, Chaplins og Langs. Aðrir munu ólíklega finna eitthvað sér við hæfi í þessari bók.

Gagnrýni seinni lesturs: Kunni að meta hana betur í þetta skiptið.

[Mark Crouch · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5

As much as this book likes to think it's relevant today (see opening of book), it's really not. The reason Arnheim wrote this was to disprove claims at the time that film was not art because it was mechanically imitating reality (or something similarly stupid); which today holds no ground and was something I wasn't even familiar with. Not to bring down Arnheim because he does a good job of disproving these claims very thoroughly. I have to gripe at his indictment of the future of cinema and bemoaning the "death of cinema" or whatever, with the coming of sound and color; his views here seemed kinda pretentious and closed-minded. That being said I appreciate his love and admiration of silent film. I mainly rated this low because I disagree with his predictions/musings on non-silent film and the mechanics in the second part of the book were pretty dull, at least for me.

[Mark Barber · Rating 2 out of 5]

Arnheim's anatomical survey of how film form differs perceptually from the then-hegemonic contention that "film is a mechanical reproduction of reality" merits some praise for its counter-hypothesis to realist film theory. Regardless, he makes generalized statements about what constitutes an 'art'. He also relies heavily on assumptions of what the future cinema might entail - this leads him to make false claims about the (lack of) artistic merits of sound film, colour film, 3D film, and other types of engaging cinematic and expanded cinematic experiences. He also assumes a very homogenized audience. He accounts only for a singular perceptual response to film images, making for a very uncomplicated look at how cinematic images are perceived.

[B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of the things Arnheim put out may have been outdated, but it is really nice to revisit some of the classic sentiments from the art of film. It actually gives me a fresh perspective, especially if I'm thinking about making a movie myself.

[Bill Sirius · Rating 1 out of 5]

Extremely narrow-minded and dogmatic.

[Rajhesh Panchanadhan]

“More than half a century since its initial publication, this deceptively compact book remains among the most incisive analyses of the formal and perceptual dynamics of cinema. No one who cares about film can afford to remain ignorant of its insights and wisdom. As digital technology fundamentally alters motion pictures, the lessons of Film as Art commend themselves as excellent insurance against reinventing the wheel in the new media landscape and hailing it as progress.”—Edward Dimendberg author of Film Noir and the Spaces of Modernity “After more than eight decades, Rudolph Arnheim's small book of film theory remains one of the essential works in defining film art, understanding film less as reproducing the world than as opening up new possibilities for formal play and unexpected imagery. Anyone serious about film, whether scholar, filmmaker or simply a lover of cinema, must take Arnheim seriously.”—Tom Gunning, author of The Films of Fritz Lang and D.W. Griffith and the Origins of American Narrative Film “An aesthetic theory based on the formal ‘limitations’ of the medium, Arnheim’s Film as Art always provokes students in an age of few limits and less formality, and they argue and engage this classic text with unparalleled passion. Written in the wake of sound’s transformation of the cinema, Arnheim’s essays are not only central to understanding a major historical moment in theoretical debates about what constitutes the ‘essence’ of film, but also are a must read for anyone seeking a lucid, detailed, and rigorous argument about how works of art emerge from expressive constraint as much as expressive freedom.”—Vivian Sobchack, author of Carnal Thoughts

[Péter Horányi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Arnheim 1930-as években írt tanulmányainak gyűjteménye. A szövegek a filmnyelv sajátosságait és a többi művészettől való disztinktív jellegüket vizsgálja. Központi állítás, hogy a fotografikus rögzítés soha nem pusztán mechanikus reprodukció, mert mindig tükrözi az alkotója nézőpontját. Ebből kiindulva, számomra azok voltak a könyv legérdekesebb részei, ahol arról ír, hogy a jó dokumentum- és oktatófilm sem csupán ábrázolja a világot, hanem értelmezi azt.
A modern világ képáradatában könnyen esünk bele abba a tévedésbe, hogy meglátni valamit egyenlő annak megértésével. Szépen tükröződik ez a turizmusban is, ahol mindent mániákusan le akarunk fótozni. De miért is? Talán azért, mert szorongást nyújt ennyi újat és szépet látni, miközben tudjuk, hogy csak apró szeleteit tudjuk ténylegesen befogadni a látványnak a rövid idő alatt, amíg vakáción vagyunk. Fotóval próbáljuk elmenteni és értelmezni az újdonságot.
Izgalmas állítás a könyvnek, hogy a televízióval magányosodott el a kultúrafogyasztó ember. Amit Arnheim a tévével kapcsolatban leír, az az előképe az internetnek és a digitális kultúrának.
A könyv legtöbb állítása mára evidens és egyszerű, néhol ezért vázlatosan futottam át, de nagyon tetszett Arnheim tapasztalata és éleslátása, ahogy a filmekről ír.

[renee]

Even though Arnheim’s writing has been criticised as outdated and narrow-minded, it’s a valuable exercise to consider how the change of filmmaking technology and theoretical direction revises Arnheim’s valid concerns about sound and colour. Not many writings today might still look back to consider abandoned possibilities of the film medium before we took the road of sound sync, technicolor, 3D production etc. These possibilities are not lost forever, we have just put aside the train of thought that leads to them.

However, I admit Arnheim’s absolute arguments and sweeping statements made this book much less enjoyable than it could have been. Rather than blaming the commercial motivations that drove sound and colour film productions to a creative standstill, he decides to blame sound and colour, which completely baffles me.

Still, I believe I may have misread or misinterpreted some of his arguments. I find it hard to believe that Arnheim would be so blatantly biased, so I try to give his essays a benefit of doubt. Hope to revisit them one day and see if my opinions change.

[Aron Steinn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gott að lesa svona þurra greiningu á sérstöðu kvikmyndamiðilsins. Fannst Arnheim stundum of upptekinn af sérstöðunni frekar en samspilinu og einbeitir sér að mínu mati of mikið á “brellugildi” kvikmyndaformsins.

[Noodles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid arguments on using film as a means to enhance what is commonly expressed in paintings. Blatantly outdated but nonetheless, a fine point of reference.

[Isa · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 - More engaged with the philosophy and evolution of technical film making than writing but many useful insights.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Aber mit dem Film, wie er ist, widerlegt man nicht den Film, wie er sein könnte."

Technisch gesehen ist das Buch natürlich extrem veraltet, es kann jedoch trotzdem helfen ein besseres Verständnis fürs Filme schaffen zu bekommen, da es Film als solches auf seine elementaren Teile herunterbricht. Besonderes Augenmerk wird dabei auf den zu diesem Zeitpunkt bereits mehr ausgereiften Stummfilm gelegt, wobei auch der Tonfilm sehr detailliert durchgearbeitet wird, da sich aufgrund dessen Neuheit, viele teils noch unrealisierte Möglichkeiten ergeben.
Davon abgesehen ist das Buch hauptsächlich als Zeitkapsel interessant, da es zu einer Zeit geschrieben wurde als Film eben nicht selbstverständlich Kunst war und die Erfindung des Tonfilms gerade die gesamte Branche auf den Kopf gestellt hatte. Dinge wie Farbfilm, Fernsehen und gar 3D Filme werden als wage Zukunftsideen erwähnt.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Indispensable reading, though Arnheim doesn't really make the case for film as an art. Rather he assumes it is an art and spends most of his time in the area of medium specificity. He doesn't define art and doesn't adequately refute the claim that film cannot be art because it does nothing but reproduce reality mechanically. Despite these failings, Arnheim is spot on on most every idea relating to medium specificity.

[Amanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the classics of classical film theory, Film as Art outlines Arnheim's rather specific but interesting view on how film mediates reality and how film should use its medium specific limitations to create art. His distinctions between what is just film and what is film art are quite interesting, though I don't agree with the limitations he imposes on sound and color.

[Mark W. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Every truth Arnheim presents concerning the nature of film as art (and there are many) is nonetheless irreconcilably tainted with a lament of color and sound in film, thereby attacking progress in the beginning of the book, where he later praises progress that led to the development of film in a later chapter.

[John]

Classic early theory of film. Arnheim's approach is anti-realist: It argues that film is art precisely and only to the extent that it is different from reality. He therefore emphasizes the role of uniquely cinematic effects in the creation of film art.

[Kevin Lucia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Only read assigned chunks of this, but what I did read nudged my perceptions of film. Although older and a little dated, it pushes the casual movie viewers perceptions into directions that change how we view movies in general...

[Tom Newth · Rating 4 out of 5]

very clear, concise and comprehensive which, despite the occasionally overstated claim and a deep mistrust of colour and sound, makes his explanation of how film works barely less relevant today than it was in the 30s

[Kimberly · Rating 5 out of 5]

A poignant and powerful book of film criticism that envisioned the death of cinema.

[Tori]

Film as Art by Rudolf Arnheim (1957)

[Franz Schuier · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great resource and read even today. Made me revisit some gorgeous old film.

[Rebecca Timberlake · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had to read this for a class, and I made it a little over halfway through, but it's so wordy and heavy that it's hard to understand. Not to mention some of the content is more than outdated now.

[Lenhardt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read for anyone interested in film making.

[Noah]

es verdad que se ha quedado viejito pero es muy tierno