Phenomenology of Film: On Siegfried Kracauer's Writings of the 1920s

Author(s): Heide Schlüpmann and Thomas Y. Levin

Source: New German Critique, No. 40, Special Issue on Weimar Film Theory (Winter, 1987),
pp. 97-114
Published by: New German Critique
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/488134 .
Accessed: 10/02/2015 10:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to New German Critique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PhenomenologyofFilm:
On Siegfried ofthe1920s
Kracauer'sWritings

by Heide Schlhipmann

Anyone who thinksthat Theory of Film contains everything that

Siegfried Kracauer had to say about filmis quite mistaken. In fact,the
opposite is true:the specificity of thisfilmtheoretician can only be
gleaned through a reading of his writingsfrom the 1920s. Besidesnu-
merousreviews,thisbody of workconsistsprimarily of essayswhich
firstappeared in theFrankfurter Zeitungand weresubsequentlyrepub-
lishedin a collectionassembledbytheauthorin 1963entitled Das Orna-
ment derMasse[TheMassOrnament].' Amongthewide rangeofmaterial
included in thisvolume are essayssuch as "Kult der Zerstreuung"
["Cultof Distraction"], "Die Photographie," and "Die kleinenLaden-
madchengehenins Kino" ["The LittleShop GirlsGo to theMovies"],2
whichcontainfundamental reflectionson filmrivallingin importance
thoseofthemorevoluminousFromCaligari toHitler
and theTheory ofFilm.
Indeed,in his essayon thephysiognomy of Kracauer'sthought,"Der
wunderlicheRealist"["The Curious Realist"],3Theodor W. Adorno
goesso faras tosaythatall ofKracauer'sworkproducedafter1933bears
theundeniablescarsofemigration, sinceforsuch"thinking withpencil
in hand" workingina foreign languagewasthemostdecisivehindrance
[Eingrjif]:

1.- SigfriedKracauer, Das OrnamentderMasse:Essays(Frankfurta. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag,

1963)(paperbackedition,1977);hereafter referred to as Ornament.An Englishtransla-
tionofthiscollection,TheMassOrnament, translated and editedbyThomasY. Levin,is
forthcoming fromHarvardUniversity Press.
2. Translation of"KultderZerstreuung" in thisissue;hereafterreferredto as "Cult";
"Die Photographie," Frankfurter #802and 803 (October28, 1927),reprinted
Zeitung in
Ornament pp.21-39; hereafter referredto as "Photography"; "Der Kleinen Laden-
midchengehenins Kino,"Frankfurter Zeitung(March11-19,1927)underthetitle"Film
und Gesellschaft" ("Film and Society")reprintedin Ornament, pp. 279-294.
3. "Der wunderlicheRealist.tOberSiegfried Kracauer."A lecturebroadcastbythe
HessischeRundfunk on February7, 1964;publishedin TheodorW. Adorno,Noten zur
III (Frankfurt
Literatur a.M.: SuhrkampVerlag,1965), pp. 83-108; compare also the
Frenchtranslation, "Un &trangerealiste:SiegfriedKracauer,"in TheodorW. Adorno,
trans.SibylleMuller(Paris:Flammarion,1984),pp. 263-283;the
Notessurla Littirature,
followingtwocitationsare frompp. 87 and 100,respectively.

97

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98 Kracauer'sWritings
ofthe1920's

thatdue to the imperativeof

How verytragic[Bitterschade]
in and
writing English, certainly also as an expressionofout-
rage againstall thathad occurred,Kracauerchose to re-
nounce his own linguistic
artduringhis mostmatureyears,
an artwhichwas inseparablefromtheGermanlanguage.

In FromCaligaritoHitlerand Theory ofFilm,Kracauer's tendencyto gen-

eralize, to subsume particularswithinconceptual constructs,presents
an obstacle to the expression of his ideas. The strengthof the essays of
the 1920s lies in theirphenomenological procedure, theirtakingup of
individual manifestationsof daily life and dwelling upon them reflec-
tively.The influenceof phenomenology was decisive forKracauer. The
historicaland social experiences of his generation,however,led him to
turnthismethod in a critical,materialistdirectionwhichdistinguishesit
from that of his teacher Max Scheler. In the essay "Die Wartenden"
["Those Who Wait"],4writtenin 1922, Kracauer describes the experi-
ence ofculturaldisintegrationas marked bythe absence ofmeaning and
coherence, of absolute values and of objective truths.What is striking
here is not only the portrayal of the attempts by intellectuals to
reconstitutemeaning, but also the depiction of the reactionsof "those
who wait," because in the latterone can alreadyrecognize the author of
TheoryofFilm. Here, Kracauer takes up his later stance only tentatively:

In anycase itshouldbe saidthat,amongstotherthings, as re-

gards the people being consideredhere,we are engagedin
theattemptto shiftthefocusfromthetheoretical I to theI of
theentirehumanbeingand tomoveawayfromtheatomized
unrealworldof formlessforcesand magnitudesdevoid of
meaning,inordertogetbacktotheworldand realmsofreali-
ty. Due to the exaltationof theoreticalthinkingwe have
moved away fromrealityto a horrifying degree,a reality
whichisfilledwithincarnatethingsand people and therefore
demandsto be seen concretely. ["Those Who Wait,"118]

Although in the 1920s Kracauer avoids making the "essence" of film

his centralconcern, in his excursions into the realityof the medium he
stilltouches upon the question of an aestheticsspecificto film.But his
focus is on the externallayersand themarginalphenomena; themoving

4. SiegfriedKracauer,"Die Wartenden," Zeitung

Frankfurter #191(March12, 1922);
pp. 106-119;hereafter
reprintedin Ornament, referred
to as "Those Who Wait."

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HeideSchliipmann99

picturepalacesin Berlin,theUFA studios,an old photograph- these

are thethingswhichpromptKracauer'spen.
It is significant
forAdorno'sviewof Kracauerin "The CuriousReal-
ist"thatout ofthewiderangeofKracauer'swriting on filmhe concen-
tratesabove all on the 1928 essay"The LittleShopgirlsGo to theMov-
ies." Foritis inthistextthatKracauerengagesina critiqueoftheideolo-
gyof filmwhichresemblesthatarticulated yearslaterbyAdornoand
Horkheimerin the "Culture Industry"sectionsof the Dialecticof
Enlightenment: undertheruleofcapital,filmproductionnecessarily be-
comes a mirroroftheexistingsocietyand servesto maintainitsstruc-
turesof domination.It revealsrepressedwishesand daydreamsbut
onlyinan alienatedformwhichatthesametimereproducestheirdeni-
al. Indeed, Kracauer'sjournalisticworkanticipatesthelaterDialecticof
Enlightenment notonlyin thisessayon thecinemabutalso,forexample,
in the conceptof "disenchantment" as itis developedin theessayon
"The Mass Ornament."5Yet,besides Kracauer'scriticalapproachto
filmAdornoalso notesanotherattitudeto the mediumwhichstrikes
himas somewhatpeculiar:

He himselftosomeextent sharesthenaivevisualpleasure
of
themovie-goer;eventhelittleshopgirls who amusehim
manifestsomethingofhisownreaction tofilm.Thisis cer-
onereasonwhyhisrelationship
tainly tothemassmedianev-
erbecameas harshas hisreflection
ontheireffect
wouldhave
ledone toexpect.6
Kracauer'sreflectionson theeffect offilmare more complicatedthan
Adorno'sremarksimply.Still,thelattersuggestthatKracauershould
have givenmore consideration in his workto thequestionof his own
fascinationratherthandisplacingitontotheclicheoffemalestupidity,
as he does in "The LittleShopgirlsGo to theMovies."
Upon leavinga movietheaterin 1912,thewriterPeterAltenberg for
one did not hide behindthewomanaccompanyinghim:

Mytender15-year-old and myself,

girlfriend 52 yearsold,

5. "Das Ornamentder Masse," FrankfurterZeitung #420and #423(June9 and 10,

1927),reprintedin Ornament,
pp. 50-63;trans.BarbaraCorrellandJackZipes as "The
Mass Ornament,"NewGerman 5 (Spring1975) 667-76;hereafter
Critique referred to as
"The Mass Ornament."
6. Adorno,"Der wunderlicheRealist,"op.cit.,p. 94.

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
100 Kracauer's ofthe1920's
Writings

criedbitterly duringthescenicsketch"Unterdem Stern-

enhimmel" ["Underneath theStarry Sky"]inwhicha poor
Frenchshiphaulerslowlyand laboriously pullshis dead
brideupriver through infullbloom.Woetoyouwhose
fields
we'ofdryheart'aresupposedly
'dryspirit' meanttoenthusi-
astically
enjoy. We do not haveto and do notwantto!
A 'famous writer'
saidtome:"Between youandme,what
do you reallyfindso specialabout the movingpicture
shows?!?""No," I said,"youarenotwithme butbeneath
me!"7
Kracauer'sunwillingness to shareAltenberg's open attitudetowardthe
cinemais due nottopersonalrepression, butrathertothegeneraltrans-
formation ofthecinemawhichno longerallowssuchunmediateden-
thusiasm.ForKracauer,devotiontothecinemacan onlybe maintained
ifmediatedbycritique.Thus hisattempt toworkoutan aesthetic theory
offilmgrowsoutofa vigilantconcernwithsocialconditions.The voca-
tionof the moving-picture houses,Kracauerwritesin his 1926 essay
"Cult ofDistraction,""is an aestheticvocationonlyto theextentthatit
is in tunewithitssocialvocation."("Cult," 96)
Thistextmarksa shiftin Germanwriting on thecinemafromthelyri-
cal impressionist
stylecharacteristic ofworkproducedduringthe1910's
towardstheconcernsofBenjamin'sessayon "The Artwork intheAgeof
itsTechnicalReproducibility." It is in "Cult ofDistraction,"and notin
"The LittleShopgirlsGo to theMovies,"thatKracauertakestheaudi-
ence seriouslyas a productiveforceand developselementsof an aes-
theticofreceptionthroughobservations on themoving-picture palaces
ofBerlin.The masseswhichthrongto theBerlinmovietheaters- the
"homogenous cosmopolitanaudience" to which,afterall, Kracauer
himselfbelongs- are no longersatisfied withthetraditional cultural
heritage;instead,they themselves "also developproductivepowersin
thespiritualand culturaldomain." ("Cult," 93) So-calledhighart,on
theotherhand,has lostitsclaimtolegitimacy, sinceitdoes nothingbut
distractfromtheactualproblemsofthesociety:

sense,Berlin
In a profound audiencesacttruthfully
whenin-
creasingly shun
they theseartevents
(which,for
goodreason,

7. PeterAltenberg,"Das Kino," cited in FritzGiittinger, ed. KeinTagohneKino:

denStummfilm
ilber
Schriftsteller (Frankfurta.M., 1984),p. 64. Altenberghereplayswiththe
expressions"unteruns" (betweenus) and "unter mir" (beneath me).

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Heide Schliipmann 101

remaincaughtin mere pretension),preferring insteadthe

surfaceglamorofthestars,films,revuesand productionval-
ues. Here,in pureexternality, theaudienceencountersitself;
its own realityis revealedin the fragmentedsequence of
splendidsense impressions. Werethisrealityto remainhid-
denfromtheaudience,theycouldneither attacknorchangeit;
itsdisclosurein distraction is theretoreofmoralsignificance.
However,thisis thecase onlyifdistraction is notan end in
itself.Indeed theveryfactthattheshowswhichaimatdistrac-
tionare composedofthesame mixtureofexternalities as the
worldoftheurbanmasses;thefactthattheseshowslackany
authenticand materially motivatedcoherence,exceptpossi-
bly theglue of sentimentality whichcoversup thislackbut
only in order to makeitall the more visible;thefactthatthese
showsconveyin a preciseand undisguisedmannerto thou-
sandsofeyesand earsthedisorder ofsociety- thisis precisely
whatenablessuch showsto evokeand maintainthattension
which must precede the inevitableand radical change.
["Cult,"94f.]
Numerous documents dating from before the Weimar period ex-
press a solidaritywiththe lower artin opposition to itseducated detrac-
tors. Of centralimportance in these debates was the issue of the needs,
drives, and instinctswhich were satisfiedby the cinema. These im-
pulses were considered not merelyas natural but also as socially prod-
uced: the desire fordistraction,forexample, was explained as the prod-
uct of the "continual stateof occupation" and the "nervous unrest" of
modem times."Kracauer shiftsthe discussion of the controversialform
of amusement away fromthe termsof the contemporarydebates which
consisted primarilyof professionsofloyaltyto, and literaryimpressions
of, the new medium. He does so, however,withouteithersubjectingit
ofempirical
totheobjectivity scienceortakingrefugeinsystematic
phil-
Kracauer
osophicalreflection. transforms thecinemafroma familiar
siteofexperiences
andlocusofreflection
backintoa strangephenome-
non whosemeaningremainsto be established. Thisdistanciation
is
grounded inthe of
effect
alienating it
capital.Penetrating his
with critical
gaze,Kracauerdiscerns,in thenewlyconstructed cinemapalacesin
Berlin,thecontoursofa newformofspirit[Geist].

8. Emile Altenloh,Zur Soziologiedes Kino:Die Kino-Unternehmung und die sozialen

Schichten
ihrer
Besucher a Sociology
(Towards oftheCinema:TheCinema andtheSocial
Enterprises
Classesoftheir (Jena,1914),p. 56; reprintedin facsimilebytheMedienladen,
Audiences)
Hamburg,1977.

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 ofthe1920's
Kracauer'sWritings

It is no longera matterofsimplybeingforor againstthecinemaas a

placewheretheneedsofthemassesaresatisfied. Rather,itis a question
ofwhetherthecinemawillbe establishedas a toolofsocialdomination
or whetheran aestheticoppositionfrombelowwillbe able to assertit-
self.Such an oppositionis embodied in the addictionto distraction
whichis obliviousto traditional artistic and culturalvalues. It is in dis-
tractionthat Kracauer systematically traces the constructive forces
whichcontradict the norms of bourgeoisaesthetics.Everyattemptto
resurrect traditional artisticpracticesin thecinemamustbe considered
reactionary. The moraltaskofthemediumis no longerthesymboliza-
tionof theethical,but ratherthemirroring of theenslaved,damaged
quality of life.Illusion has aesthetic significance notas theveiloftruth
of
but in theuncovering a realitywhichlacksanytruecoherence.Dis-
traction goes beyondthemerecultivation ofsuperficialglamor;itpres-
entswhatis incoherent anridchaotic as suchto theeyesand earsoftheau-
dience. Insteadof conveyinghumane ideas, distraction sharpensthe
sensesforan antagonistic reality.
Similarly, Benjamin laterreadthesen-
sationof shock[Chockerlebnis] produced by filmas a rehearsalof new
formsofapperception.
Kracauerdemonstrates an even greatersensitivity to theemotional
sideofthecinematicexperience.Althoughhe condemnstherestoration
of'artistic unity'in thecinemaas reactionary, he condonestheglue of
sentimentality as thesubjectiveresidueoftheneedforsuchunity.Thus,
according to Kracauer, distractedreceptionnotonlyentailschangesin
the cognitiveapparatusbut also engendersemotionaltensionswhich
can turnintoactions.Nevertheless, Kracauerdoes notassumethatthe
merepublicationof"Cult ofDistraction"in theFrankfurter Zeitung will
suffice toagitatethemasses.The focusoftheessayis moreon theorgan-
izationofthecinema- fromitsarchitecture toitsprogramming - be-
causetheseaspectsmightwellbe influenced throughthemediumofthe
liberalpublicsphere.
In itstreatment of the cinema,the essay"Cult of Distraction"also
outlinesan aestheticoffilm,butthisonlybecomesclearinthe"Photog-
raphy"essaywritten one yearlater.Whilethelattertextconsistsprima-
rilyof observations and reflectionson twoverydifferent photographs -
a privateone ofa grandmother and a publicphotoofa diva- italso si-
multaneouslydevelops a sub-discourseon film.This is not surprisingto
those familiarwithTheory ofFilmwhere the photographicelementoffilm
is accorded such a centralrole thatmost of the aestheticdeterminations

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HeideSchliipmann103

offilmaresimplyinherited fromphotography. Still,whatis astonishing

in thisearlyessayis themannerin whichthisrelationship is presented:
whatthetwomedia shareis nottherepresentational qualityofphotog-
raphy but ratheritsinherentnegativity.
Photography medium- butagainsta
is introducedas a positivistic
background ofmetaphysical questions posedbyhistory.Itisnocoinci-
dencethatKracauer's lastworkHistory: TheLastThings
beforetheLast9be-
ginswitha reference
to the on For it
earlyessay photography. isherethat
Kracauer the
develops specificity ofthephotographic mediumthrough
a comparison withhistoricism ontheonehandandtothememory-im-
age on theother.In contrast to historicism,photography reproduces
thespatial(notthetemporal) continuum and,incontrast
tothememo-
ry-image,thisspatialcontinuum isdevoidofmeaning. Theessenceofa
person or thetruthof a moment is to
unavailable photography. Itde-
rather
stroys, thanbestowing afterlifeas do bothindividualmemory
andcultural traditions.Old photographs, Kracauerwrites,

depictnottheknowledge oftheoriginalbutthespatialcon-
of
figuration an it
instant;is notthepersonwhostandsforth
inhisorherphotograph,butthesumofthatwhichcanbeab-
stracted
fromhimor her.The photograph annihilatesthe
personbyportraying him or her,and werethetwoto con-
verge,thepersonwouldceasetoexist.["Photography," 32]
Reproducingneithertheinnerconnectionsnortheoutwardtemporal
flowofhistory photographyportrays onlythatwhichhistory is constant-
lyevadingand continuously passes over:theremnantsof naturein it.
The objectivityofphotography is notnaturein a positivesense,i.e. the
of
immediacy physis, but rather natureas the negativity of history.
Whenphotography recordshistory itsimultaneouslyannihilatesevery
historicalcontext.
The photographicmediumprovidesKracauerwitha means of re-
spondingto the positivistic
spiritof the time in a way whichis not
conservative:
culturally tothesurface
bysticking heexposesthepresent
initslackofmeaningandhistorical a fragmented
stasis;byreading na-
tureinthecultural he theideology
detritus, challenges ofhistorical
om-
nipotence.Thisdoes not,however,in principle
absolvephotography

9. SiegfriedKracauer,History:
TheLastThings theLast(New York:OxfordUni-
before
Press,1969); hereafter
versity referred
to as History.

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104 Kracauer'sWritings
ofthe1920's

frompositivism.But Kracauer is not interestedin makingjudgments of

principlebut in developing a capacityofjudgment which can grasp the
ambivalentmeaning of social phenomena. This is alreadyevidentin the
treatmentof cinema in "Cult of Distraction,"and, even more so, in the
"Photography" essay,which combines the essentialtraitsof both a cri-
tique of ideology characteristicof the DialecticofEnlightenment and the
avant-garde attitude of Benjamin's Artwork Essay. A society which
to
strenuouslyattempts appear ahistorical uses the photographic me-
dium to obstructthe perception of the historicityof reality,instead of
fosteringa perceptionofhistoricity preciselywhere itis usuallynot men-
tioned at all - in nature. Kracauer alreadydevelops a critiqueofthecul-
ture industryin the contextof historical-philosophicalconsiderations:
history,understood as a process of increasing distanciation of con-
sciousness fromnature,has reached a point where eithera recklesscon-
sciousness blindlyrevertsto natureor returnsto natureas emancipated
reason. Behind society'sattemptto give itselfthe appearance of nature
lie fearand repression of death. Photography,by comparison, because
it reveals the previously unseen residuum of nature, creates the
preconditionforan alternativerelationshipof consciousness to nature.
The turn to photographyis the "go-for-brokegame [Vabanque-Spiel] of
history"("Photography," 37):

The imagesof the stateof naturebrokendown intoitsele-

mentsare surrenderedto consciousnessto do withas it
pleases.Theirprimordialorderis lost,theyno longeradhere
to thespatialcontextwhichlinkedthemwithan originalout
of whichthe memory-image was selected.However,ifthe
remnantsofnatureare notorientedtowardthememory-im-
age thentheorderwhichtheyaregivenin theimageis neces-
sarilyprovisional.Itis therefore
incumbenton consciousness
to identifythe provisionalstatusof all givenconfigurations
and,perhaps,evento awakenan inklingoftherightorderof
thestateof nature.In theworksof Franz Kafka,a liberated
consciousnessabsolvesitselfofthisresponsibility bydestroy-
ing naturalrealityand jumblingthefragments againsteach
other.The disorderof thedetritusreflected in photography
cannotbe elucidatedmoreclearlythanthroughsuchsuspen-
sionofeveryhabitualrelationship amongtheelementsofna-
ture.The capacitytorearrange naturein thiswayis one ofthe
offilm.Thispossibility
possibilities is realizedwheneverfilm
relatespartsand sectionsand thereby producesa strangecon-
struction.Whilethedisarrayof theillustrated newspapersis

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HeideSchliipmann105

simply confusionthegamefilmplayswiththepiecesofdis-
jointed is
nature reminiscentofdreamsin whichthefrag-
mentsofdailylifebecomejumbled.Thisgameindicatesthat
a validorganization
ofthingsis notknown,
an organization
whichwoulddesignate theproperpositions
fortheremains
ofthegrandmother andthedivastoredinthegeneral
inven-
tory.["Photography,"39]
Kracauerelevatesthemasses'addictionto distraction to thestatusof
an aestheticforceofproduction.His definition ofthespecificity offilm
as a montageofdistraction - whichcombinesthereality fragments of
in
photographicimages a dream-like,surrealistmanner - recalls
tendenciesoftheavant-garde. Whatseparatedhimfromthecontempo-
raryavant-garde intheorbitoftheBauhauswasitsaesthetic ofmaterials
which
[Materialdsthetik] was foreign to him. Even though concerned with
the innermostorganizationof film,Kracauerapproachesit entirely
fromthe outside,fromthe margin,by means of historicaland social
manifestations suchas theBerlinmoving-picture palacesor thephoto-
graphs of the grandmother and thediva.
Photography annihilateshistory- but as such it is an ambivalent
product of an eschatological time[Endzeit].Consideredfrombotha so-
ciological and historical-philosophical perspectivethis means that
photography makestimestandstillevenas itis itselfa 'function oftheflow
oftime" ("Photography," As
29). long as theobjectis still
presentoutside
thephotograph,thelatterwillbe read as a signofa reality.Onlywhen
eventhememoryofthisreality hasdisappeareddoes themimeticaspect
ofphotography come to thefore;itbecomesan archiveoftheresidues
ofnaturewhicharedevoidofmeaning,unintelligible, and indeed,have
neverbeen perceived.As a function oftheflowoftime,photography is
predisposed to be the vehicle ofmeaning forfilm.And as a medium of
communicationfilmstrengthens the semioticcharacterof photogra-
phy.It adds time to the representation ofspace,and thusdepends,for
theintelligibilityofitsstory,upon thememoryofthespectator.As an
aesthetic construct, on theotherhand,filmhastensthedestruction ofall
the familiarconnectionsof realityin the spectator'shead in orderto
bringto light,throughthephotographic medium,thetraitsof a soul-
less, fragmentary nature,the way it would appear at the end of the
world.Iftheworldoftheillustrated magazinerepressesdeath,theaes-
theticof filmbringsit back to consciousness.The latterno longer
counts upon an understandingof historybut ratherprovokes redemp-
tive reason, a sensitivityto nature. This concept of time specificto the

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106 Kracauer's ofthe1920's
Writings

aestheticof filmdoes not stem fromthe philosophyof life[Lebens-

rather,
philosophie]; in itsconnectionofutopianand nihilistic elements,it
is closerto thedialecticofJewishMessianism.
The Theory ofFilmnot onlygave rise to the misunderstanding that
Kracauersubscribedto a naiveconceptofrealism.'0 Its systematic ap-
proach,whichmakesdeductionsbased on the"fundamental character-
isticsofthemedium,"also obscuresan aspectofKracauer'sthoughts on
filmwhichis genuinely orientedtowardsa theory ofreception. The later
work,History, bringsthisaspectbackto lightagain.Indeed,itis onlyin
thislatterworkthatKracauer'slife-long occupationwithfilmis finally
consolidatedand broughtto a close.ForhereKracauerdevoteshimself
exclusively to thatwhichhad moved him as a criticfromthestart.As
Inka Muildernotesin herbook-length studyof Kracauer'searlywork,
"hisinterest infilmis atrootan interest in thephilosophyofhistory.""
Kracauer'sessayson filmwritten in the 1920sapproachtheeffect of
themediumthroughan ideologicaland culturalcritique.The "Photog-
raphy"essaygoes further, addingtheeschatological [endzeitliche]
recep-
tionofphotography as theimaginary perspective which determines the
aestheticconstruction offilm.In History thisdialecticalidea oftheprod-
uctivity ofreceptionis bothechoed and simultaneously givenitsactual
raison d'etre.Kracauer's notions of are
history guided not byNietzsche's
pragmatic interest in history in the service of the present, of engaged
'life',butrather,muchmoredecisively, by Burckhardt's conceptionof
history and Proust's"nostalgia forlost causes" (History,79).The writing
ofhistory is producedthrougha devotiontothepastand eventheideas
whichdirecttheinterpretation ofhistory ariseout ofa "surrender[ing]
to thefacts."(History, 96)
Kracauerhimself consideredhisbook on history as thefurtherdevel-
opment and rearticulation of thoughts from Theory of Film.The writing
on filmand aboutfilmshavingbeen broughttoa close,hisfocusshifts
to thepresentation and interrogation oftheinsights intohistorygained
through the study of the medium: "I realized in a flashthe many exist-

10. Forexample,DudleyAndrewremarksthat"Bazin and Kracauerrepresent the

realistcamp [...].[..]Bazin's notionsof standardperceptionderivefromBergsonand
Sartreand are substantially morecomplicatedthanKracauer'snaiverealism[...]." Con-
in
cepts Film Theory (New York: Oxford, 1984), p. 19.
11. Inka Millder, SiegfriedKracauer- Grenzgiinger zwischenTheorieund Literatur:
Seine
1913-1933 (Siegfried
friihenSchriften Kracauer:CrossingtheBordersBetweenTheory and Litera-
ture:His Early Writings
from1913-1933) (Stuttgart:J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuch-hand-
lung 1985),p. 16.

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HeideSchliipmann107

ingparallelsbetweenhistoryand thephotographic media,historical re-

alityand camera 3-4).History,
reality"(History, however, not onlyuses
ideas fromTheoryofFilmbutalso castsa lighton thefoundationsofaes-
theticsthroughthecomparisonbetweenthetwodomainsof filmand
history.Likethepracticeoffilm,theworkofthehistorianis also gov-
ernedbytwotendencies:"therealistictendencywhichpromptshimto
getholdofalldataofinterestand theformative tendency whichrequires
him to explain the materialin hand" (History, 47). In TheoryofFilm,
Kracauer baseshisargument forthepriority onthe"fun-
oftherealistic
damental aesthetic
principle" ofthemedium. Witha similaraim,History
refers toa different
aspectwhich infacthadsurfaced inthe epilogueto
Theory There,
ofFilm. in thecontext ofa of
discussion film as an "artwith
a difference,"thefilmartist is compared withan "imaginative reader"
whoiswellversedinreading from"thebookofnature"(Theory ofFilm,
300 & 302).In thecontext ofthelaterhistorical-philosophicalmedita-
tion,thereisthecorresponding ontheclaimthatitisthetask
reflection
ofthephotographer tosubmitformal tothedocumentary
imperatives
impulse: "This implies thathe resembles notso much theexpressive ar-
tistas theimaginative and
readerbenton studying deciphering elu- an
sivetext"(History,55). All thatremainsofthe"artwitha difference" in
late Kracaueris thesubjectivity whichconstitutesit.
Productionappearsintheformofreceptivity. As thefollowingobser-
vationby Kracauerregarding a specifictypeofdocumentary indicates,
thisappearancecould be understoodas a sociallyimposeddisguise:"A
fewdocumentariesI knowpictureappallinglivingconditionswitha
sobernesswhich,as I havelearned,resultsfromthedelib-
matter-of-fact
eratesuspensionof theirauthors'creativepowers" (History, 90). The
power and deepermeaning of theartist's resides
representation in the
relinquishingoftheartistic willto expressionin viewofreal suffering:

Humansuffering, itappears,
isconducive
todetached report-
ing;the artist'sconscienteshowsin artlessphotography.
isfullofhumansuffering,
Sincehistory similarattitudes
and
reflections
may be atthebottom ofmany a fact-oriented
his-
torical
account,deepening ofitspaleobjec-
thesignificance
tivity.
[History,
91]
The withdrawal formofartistic
ofcreativewillas a self-imposed or in-
existenceis also reminiscent
tellectual oftheabovementionedbehavior
of "Those Who Wait" which Kracauer described in 1922 based on his

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
108 ofthe1920's
Kracauer'sWritings

post-warexperience.The nostalgiafora plenitudeofmeaningcannot

allowitself toignoretheobjectivelackofmeaningnormayitresignitself
to an a prioriskepticism. The stancewhichthepresenttimecallsforis a
waiting, a "hesitantopenness,"theanticipation oftheMessianic.When
writing, Kracauer did not yield to thefascination ofthe cinema,since
thiswould have meant"thoughtlessly [entrusting]oneselfto a flowof
desirewhich[...] could lead to who knowswhatillusoryfulfillment"
("Those Who Wait," 118). WhatKracauerfindsreallysignificant and
of
worthy interrogation is not the immediate of
experience film,but
the
rather visittothe movie theaters consideredas a highlymediatedac-
tivity,as a formofwaiting.As a writerKracauerwas notconcernedwith
thestatusofdistraction as an amusementand could thusavoid having
toeitherenthusiastically celebratethispleasureor tocritically condemn
it.Rather,facedwiththecrisisofmeaningand thesocialsuffering which
to of
was intensifying the point destruction, he considered the active
passivity ofthecinemaspectatorto be theappropriateexertionofthe
aestheticcapacity. Given the particularhistoricalmoment, every
unblemishedartistic or intellectual productioncouldonlybe false.This
insight finds expression both in Kracauer'sexistenceas a criticand in
theoscillationofhiswriting betweenvariousgenreswhichMilder calls
his "CrossingtheBordersbetweenTheoryand Literature."12
If,on theone hand, Kracauer'smove towardsthecinemais motiv-
atedmostemphatically bytherecognition ofthesocialcrisis,on theoth-
erhandhe no longerseesinfilmthepromisethatitwill"turntheworld
upsidedown."13It is notthespiritofutopiawhichsustainshisfilmaes-
thetic.On the contrary,Kracauer'sfocusis less on the actual films
shownin thetheaters, thanon thesignificance ofgoingto themovies,
that is, of filmreception.This focus is not merelya functionof
Kracauer'sconceptionof himselfas a criticwhose taskis enlighten-
ment,i.e., "to expose ideologiesand thereby, wherenecessary,check
theinfluenceofthefilmsthemselves";'4 themoreprofoundreasonfor
Kracauer'sconcernis thatforhimreceptionina profoundsensehasbe-

12. Miilder, Siegfried op. cit.

Kracauer:Grenzgdnger,
13. "Wer das Kino hat,wirddie Weltaushebeln,"is theconcludingline of Carlo
MierendorfPs essayof 1920 entitled"Hatte ich das Kino." Reprintedin
expressionist
Anton Kaes, ed. Kino-Debatte:Literaturund Film 1909-1929 (Tfibingen: Max Niemeyer
Verlag,1978),p. 139-146.
14. SiegfriedKracauer,"Uiberdie Aufgabendes Filmkritikers," Zeitung
Frankfurter
76:378 (May 23, 1932); reprinted in S.K., Kino.Essays,Studien,Glossenzum Film,Karsten
a.M.: Suhrkamp,1974),p. 11.
Witte,ed. (Frankfurt

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HeideSchliipmann109

cometherealactofproduction.Eventheworkofthefilmmaker is inthe
end conceivedintermsofreception, filmpresupposes
i.e. thesuccessful
therenunciationofthefreereignofthecreativewilland thusoftradi-
tionalformsofartistic
production.Thispositionis reminiscent ofavant-
gardeconceptions such as thoseofthe Dadaists who, before and during
thefirstworldwar,engagedin a radicalcritiqueoftheartwork and the
hierarchybetweenartistand audience.However,itavoidsthedilemma
gesturewhichhas once againossifiedintoart.Ratherthan
ofan anti-art
attempting gain new access to thedailylifeof societyby privileging
to
thedemolitioninsteadoftheproductionoftheartwork, thewriter him-
selfbecomespartoftheaudienceand championstheaestheticproduc-
ofthisseeminglypassivecomportment.
tivity
More thanmereenlightenment is at stakehere;thisis an attemptto
whichis thelifebloodofanyart.Insteadoffocus-
rescuethereceptivity
ingon thegeniusoftheartistwhichprovidesthemeasurefortheart-
workaccordingto classicalaesthetics, Kracauerdefendsthemasses'ad-
producedbymodemworking
dictiontodistraction conditions.The lat-
terare characterized
by

anessentially
formal tensionwhichfills
theirdayfullywithout
it Such
making fulfilling. a lackdemands tobe compensated,
interms
butthisneedcanonlybe articulated ofthesamesur-
facespherewhichimposedthelackin thefirst place.The
formofentertainment necessarily
corresponds tothatofen-
["Cult,"93]
terprise.
demandsfilmswhichno longercontainany
The addictiontodistraction
The perceptualstructure
conceivedsignificance.
artistically oftheaudi-
ence,whichlegitimatelydetermines be
whatappeals,mustnevertheless
distinguishedfrom Both
taste. theclassical
conceptof theartworkand
theconcept oftasteintraditional havebecomereac-
aesthetics
reception
if
tionary:anyone, it isthefilmindustry speaks thetasteoftheau-
that of
dience.
EvenKantdidnotwanttoleavethedetermination oftheaesthetic
up
tothetasteofempirical but
subjects thought insteadthatitwaslocated
ina transcendental - thatofjudgment.
capacity Similarly, Kracauer's
on reception
reflections depend theneeds
infilmdo notultimately on
and experiencesof empiricalsubjects- neitherhis own nor thoseof
others.Insteadhisworkbeginswiththeassumptionofa 'transcenden-
eventhoughthistranscendental
tal'subjectivity structureis recognized

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
110 ofthe1920's
Kracauer'sWritings

as an historicalfigureof consciousness.Kracauer'scriticalgaze, thor-

oughlyschooledin historical saw throughtheidealistpa-
materialism,
thosoftranscendental philosophyearlyon,'5leadinghimtorecastitas a
stage in the of
development consciousness, namely,thepointatwhichit
becomesdisentangled fromthetiesofnature.But,atthesametimethe
emancipationfrommythalso leadstoan extremeestrangement ofman
fromthe"realworld"("ThoseWhoWait,"118).Kant'sphilosophyrep-
resentedan unreflected formalization
ofknowledgeat thepriceofdis-
tancefromreality;in thisrespectitcorrespondsto modem scienceand
itsrelationshipto reality.ButsinceKantithas become evidentthatthe
natureabandonedbyconsciousnessdoes notremainunchanged'in it-
self,'but ratherpenetratessocietyand transforms itintoa 'second na-
ture.'Thisputsintoquestion theKantian concept ofscienceas Kracauer
attempted toshow as early as 1922 in his study alsWissenschaft:
Soziologie
Eineerkenntnistheoretische
Untersuchung [Sociologyas A
Science:Study intheThe-
oryofKnowledge].
The"Photography" essayspeaksofthedanger posedbythepossibili-
tythatnature,impermeable to consciousness, "wouldsitdownat
thetableabandonedbythelatter"("Photography," 37).Thefunda-
mentalquestionoftheCritique ofJudgment regarding thepossibili-
tyofa reconciliation between nature andthehumanworld- thatisbe-
tweentheworldofrule-governed appearances and thatofthetruths
governing actions, between science and ethics- is transformed by
Kracauer froma transcendental philosophical query(committed to a
prioriknowledge andabsolutetruths) intoan issuewhichishistorically
and sociallyvariable.It is thelatter whichgoverns theaesthetic reflec-
tionsintheessaysfromthe1920sregardless ofwhether theirfocusis
photography ortheTillergirls. Whatisatstakeisthe"bringing oftruth
intotheworld"("MassOrnament," 71). In the end, film is of interest
notas a technological orartistic mediumbutinterms ofitssignificance
fortherelationship ofhumanbeingstoreality. Thiscanbe seenonce
again in the epilogue to Theory ofFilm which is subtitled,indicatively,
"The Redemption ofPhysical Reality." Thus, in "ThoseWhoWait,"
Kracauer writes: "Due totheexaltation oftheoretical thinking wehave
becomedistanced from thisreality toa horrifying a
degree,reality which
isfilled
withincarnate things andpeopleandwhichtherefore demands
to be seen concretely"
("Those Who Wait,"118). In thesocialspace of

und Erkenntniskritik,"
15. Cf. thechapter"Wissenschafts- in Miilder,op.cit.

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HeideSchlfipmann111

themovietheater,theintellectual who is tiredofabstractions encoun-

terstheworkersand white-collar employeeswho seekdistraction and,
among them, also the and
artists literatiwhose existence is threatened
by technologicalreproducibility. In the "homogeneouscosmopolitan
audience" thebarriersimposedbythedivisionoflabor are dissolved.
Atmoments,filmpresentsthecontoursofthewholehumanbeing-
physisand mind [NaturundGeist].It is notthecinematicobjectin itself
whichis significant totheextentthatitprovidesrelieftobothidlingreas-
on and to a deformedwill; instead,it is in solidarity, in the coming
together, thatthere resides hope for a new stateofthings.Thiscan per-
be
hapsonly expressedby a writerwho himself betweenan in-
vacillates
terestin knowledgeand an interest in production.As a critiche posits
his own 'waiting'as themeasureforeveryone'samusementand criti-
cizes themistakenassumptionthatgoingto thecinemais simplya way
to occupyleisuretimewhichonlystabilizesreigningintellectual atti-
tudesand materialrelationsofproduction. Atthe same time, Kracauer
countersthe threatof cinema reverting to blind naturalinstinctsby
insistingon thepoweroftheaudiencewhichis pressingtowardsa new
of
type subjectivity and a new relationshipof societyto nature.
Beginning with BalAtzs and up throughAdornotheaffinity offilmto
the beauty of nature has
[Naturschiinen] often been pointed out. When
Kracauer'saesthetic offilm(whichis notonlynota systembutalso is not
reducibleto theTheory ofFilm)makesthispointitis notintermsofan in-
heritedromanticism, butas a criticalclaimbased on Kant'sarticulation
ofthebeautyofnature.In the20thcentury, photographic reality has
the
taken place ofnature. The worldhastakenona "photographic face"
("Photography," 34) withwhichitconcealstheabyssbetweennature
and a consciousness whichhasgoneoffon itsown.Butphotography
notonlyconceals, italsobetraysa treatmentofnature whichdrainsitof
alllife;reproducibility isoneoftheresultsofthistreatment. This,how-
ever,iswhatenablesphotography to
also give to
rise a tempting illusion,
i.e.film,whichpromises theabolitionofall socialconstraints. Itis no
longer the stroll
"out in theopen"or thelandscape which isthe source of
aesthetic pleasurefor the metropolitanmasses but,rather,itis the visit
tothedarkmovietheater.

ofna-
Thefactthatfilmhasatitsdisposaltheboundlessness
turehas oftengivenriseto theincorrectassumptionthatthe
determining offilmlies in thereproduction
characteristic of
in general[...]
natureand in thisself-evidence

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
112 ofthe1920's
Kracauer'sWritings

But:

As soon as we photographnature,itis no longernaturebut

a transformation
a transsubstantiation, ofessencewhichtakes
overour capacityto innovateand therebychangestheorigi-
nal meaningofnature[...]It is thereforeunderstandablethat
such an unprecedentedmetamorphosis of nature- intoa
realmwherewe perceivethethingsofnaturewithnegative life
a kindof sterilebiodynamics- such a transformation
force,
mustbe evaluatedentirely thannatureitself.
differently 16

In these statementsfromDie Kunstim Film.[Artin Film],Hans Salmon

objects as earlyas 1921 to the idea thatnature is simplyreproduced in
film. Instead, what he sees at work in the photographic medium is a
transformationof nature which drains it of all life,an assessment not
unlike that developed by Kracauer in the later "Photography" essay.
However, Salmon immediately enlists the insights he has gained
through"criticalobservationsofcontemporarylife"in the serviceofthe
dwellson thisphe-
"capacitytoinnovate."Kracauer,incontrast,
artistic
nomenonof a changednatureand triesto understandit,ratherthan
once againsubordinatingphotographicreality inthework
toan interest
of art. His aesthetictheory,which grewout of a sociological scrutinyof
thephotographicmedium,is constituted firstof all by thedistinction
betweena separatephotographic reality an historical-social
and reality
and, second,by the of
definition thisdifferencenotas a qualityofthe
artwork butas a qualityofnature.Sincethe'remnantsofnature'are,as
such,notpresentedtoperceptionbya meaning-producing subjectivity,
theyreveala presence of humanity which is not realized by history.
The redemptivephotographicact applies primarilyto externalnature
which includes to some extenteven human nature. In Theory ofFilmthe
concept of 'realism' is tied to the documentarybeginnings the devel-
of
opment of film(a genealogy beginningwithLumiitre);yet,thisrealism
and the claims it makes are not permitted to exclude the fictional.
Kracauer's own fascinationwith the fictionfilm prevented him from
sharingthejudgmentofearlyopponentsoffilmdramathatthephoto-
graphicelementofthemediumcommitsittoexternalappearancesand
therefore ofmovingbeyondtheminto,forex-
preventsthepossibility
derreinen
16. Hans Salmon,Die KunstimFilm:Die Theorie FilmkunstaufderGrundlage
Kritische
Mittel:
ihrer Zeitbetrachtungen ofPureFilmArtontheBasisofits
(ArtinFilm:A Theory
Means:Critical Observations
Contemporary 1921),p. 72.
(Dresden-Weilb6hla,

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HeideSchliipmann113

ample,dimensionsofpsychological depth.The photographic element

actuallyoffersa criticaldimensionto the aestheticof the fictionfilm
since,emancipatedfromthe styleof illustrated newspapersas well as
fromthefetishization ofverisimilitude, itcontrasts withbotharbitrary
and
fantasy positivereality, i.e. with any kind of anthropomorphism.
AlthoughKracauerdoes depend on Kant'sCritique ofJudgment he re-
castsitfromtheperspective oftheconceptofthesublimeforwhichhe
has more sympathy than forthe conceptof the beauty of nature[das
Naturschiine], the
compromisedby triviality of the Rococo. Ultimately, he
is seekingnottorepudiatethebeautifulillusionthrougha critiqueofid-
eology,butratherto sublate[Aujhebung] thisillusionwithintheaesthetic
sphere by means of something which is alreadypartof thisaesthetic
sphere itself.The latteris alreadydesignatedby Kantin thephenome-
non ofthesublime.In itthereconciliating veilis tornand externalna-
tureis experiencedas an opposition- a threatening experienceand yet
atthesame timeone inwhichman reassureshimselfofhisownpowers
of reasonwhichlie outsidethe bounds of the powerof nature.If the
photographic mediumrevealsthe"realmofthedead in itsindepend-
encefromhumanbeings"("Photography," 38) thisrevelation contains
theterror thatarisesin theencounterwitha naturedevoidofsubjectivi-
ty.Yet,at the same time,natureultimately does presentitselfto con-
sciousnessonce again,and the subject,conversely, becomes awareof
hisor herseparationfromreality and experiencesthepossibility and ne-
of
cessity introducing reason (notnecessarily limited to a human or sub-
jectivekind) intonature. In Kant's Christian metaphysics, truth was con-
sideredto be beyondthe earthlyrealm,likethethingin itselfhidden
fromtheworldofexperiences.For Kracauer,truthoccurs- ifat all -
onlyintherealmofnatureand onlywiththeadventofa newtemporali-
tywhichis no longerthetemporality ofhistoricallinearity.
Atthevanishingpoint of Kracauer's radicalconstruction offilmaes-
theticslies notonlythedestruction ofnarrative structures but also the
annihilation ofwish-fulfilling dreams. The photographic representation
ofreality, likethefilmicreproduction ofdreams,merelyrepeatssecond
nature.Even the human unconscious,inner nature,is sociallyde-
formed.The dreamoftheradicallyothercan onlybe generatedthrough
thedisintegration ofthiscycleofthefantasy context, can constitute itself
only out of theconstellation of exploded remnants of nature, the dregs
of fantasy,but must not and cannot be derived immediatelyfromsub-
jective need and hope. Kracauer was, above all, ideologicallysuspicious

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114 Kracauer's ofthe1920's
Writings

oftherepresentation ofinstinctual
natureand humansexuality in film,
theconceptswhichmakeup thebasicstructure ofcinematicfiction: the
beautifulappearancereducedto a functional illusion.As demonstrated
toHitler,
in FromCaligari but rehearsedas earlyas theessay"The Little
Shopgirls Go to the Movies" and in itsnumerousfilmreviewsof the
1920s,suchfilmsprovidetheintellectual Kracauerwithan explanation
fortheregressive wishesofthemasses.Nevertheless, thepossibility of
makingthe audience aware of its own reason-lessnature,in other
words,thepossibility ofencountering one's ownlife-less desiresin the
cinema,is alreadysuggestedin "Cult of Distraction."

TranslatedbyThomas Y. Levin

THE INSURGENT SOCIOLOGIST

The Insurgent Sociologist publishes a wide range of

articles and reviews on social, political, and economic
themes- an indispensibletool for anyone interestedin the
developmentof radical social science.

Recent articles on:

Theoriesof Ideology
Marxism in AmericanSociology
Womenin Post-RevolutionaryCuba
Socialist-FeministTheory
Black Labor Migration
InterlockingOwnership

Subscriptions: Regular rate $15/year; Sustaining rate

$25/year; Students and unemployed$10/year; Institutions
$25/year. Send orders to The InsurgentSociologist, c/o
Departmentof Sociology, Universityof Oregon, Eugene,
Oregon 97403, USA.

This content downloaded from 200.16.16.13 on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:53:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions