Search Results
Abstract
The film avant-garde of the interwar period is characterised by a geographical centre-periphery relation that affects the places in which it manifested itself: France, the Netherlands, Germany and Russia were the central network nodes where people, discourses and institutions would meet and converge. Moreover, Belgium, Switzerland, Scandinavia, the Czech Republic, Poland and some other territories played a role in these developments. Yet again, even within these countries a slope is visible from the large centres – Paris, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, Berlin, and Moscow were the hubs, while smaller cities and rural areas in the respective countries played only subordinate roles. These relations were articulated through discourses, institutions, conduits of exchange and other material as well as immaterial channels that made up the topography of the film avant-garde as it unfolded over time and space. Examples of this chronotopic analysis are the travels of the various Soviet filmmakers (Eisenstein, Vertov, Pudovkin) who invariably followed the same path, the significance of special events (Werkbund exhibition in Stuttgart and CICIM meeting in La Sarraz in 1929), the networks of film exhibition (Filmliga in the Netherlands, Film Society in Great Britain, Volksbund für Filmkunst in Germany, various initiatives in France), and the general fashion in which ideas, objects and people circulated.
Abstract
The film avant-garde of the interwar period is characterised by a geographical centre-periphery relation that affects the places in which it manifested itself: France, the Netherlands, Germany and Russia were the central network nodes where people, discourses and institutions would meet and converge. Moreover, Belgium, Switzerland, Scandinavia, the Czech Republic, Poland and some other territories played a role in these developments. Yet again, even within these countries a slope is visible from the large centres – Paris, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, Berlin, and Moscow were the hubs, while smaller cities and rural areas in the respective countries played only subordinate roles. These relations were articulated through discourses, institutions, conduits of exchange and other material as well as immaterial channels that made up the topography of the film avant-garde as it unfolded over time and space. Examples of this chronotopic analysis are the travels of the various Soviet filmmakers (Eisenstein, Vertov, Pudovkin) who invariably followed the same path, the significance of special events (Werkbund exhibition in Stuttgart and CICIM meeting in La Sarraz in 1929), the networks of film exhibition (Filmliga in the Netherlands, Film Society in Great Britain, Volksbund für Filmkunst in Germany, various initiatives in France), and the general fashion in which ideas, objects and people circulated.
Abstract
The Swedish artist Viking Eggeling (1880–1925) is a curious case in avant-garde studies. Even though his filmic oeuvre is small and he is overshadowed in retrospect by protagonists such as Hans Richter and Walter Ruttmann, he nevertheless has a firm place in cinema history. In this essay we evaluate Eggeling’s contribution to European avant-garde cinema and look more closely at his legacy in avant-garde film culture during his lifetime and especially after his untimely death. The central question is how a film-maker with such a minuscule oeuvre could become in retrospect one of the central film-makers of the non-figurative avant-garde in the 1920s. In what way, and for what reasons, did Eggeling become part of the canon of avant-garde film and film history, which has been practically unchanged since the late 1940s?
Abstract
The Swedish artist Viking Eggeling (1880–1925) is a curious case in avant-garde studies. Even though his filmic oeuvre is small and he is overshadowed in retrospect by protagonists such as Hans Richter and Walter Ruttmann, he nevertheless has a firm place in cinema history. In this essay we evaluate Eggeling’s contribution to European avant-garde cinema and look more closely at his legacy in avant-garde film culture during his lifetime and especially after his untimely death. The central question is how a film-maker with such a minuscule oeuvre could become in retrospect one of the central film-makers of the non-figurative avant-garde in the 1920s. In what way, and for what reasons, did Eggeling become part of the canon of avant-garde film and film history, which has been practically unchanged since the late 1940s?