SERGEI M EISENSTEIN

cinema, but its scope is also wider. Indeed, these Notes involve a genuine historio-graphic
project, 8 which is set in a “place,” an institution, has a purpose, assigns
itself an object, and raises issues of methodology and writing, so as to
establish this history on the basis of socio-aesthetic-anthropological beliefs
about art in general and, more specifically, about cinema. This historical as well
astheoreticalmodelnotonlyoutlinestheplaceofcinema,butalsothedefinition
of it that may be given. At stake in this “historiographic operation” is a renewal
of the understanding of “cinema” as an object (of knowledge) to construct, not
as an (empirical) object to describe. This explains why this history is not that of
filmsandauthors,classifiedaccordingtogeographicalareasandstylisticschools
–asmostfilmhistoriesare,startingastheydofroma“fatal”distinctionbetween
cinemaasaninventionandtechnicaldevice,andfilmsasworksofart. 9 Rather,it
is clearly a history of cinema in the more general sense of the term (an expanded
sense), of which Eisenstein’s aesthetic thought had provided a “structural” version
of sorts with the notion and instrument of “cinematographism” [kinematografizm]or“cinématisme.”
10 TheprogramremainedembryonicandEisenstein’s
death brought it to an end, yet its echo may be heard to this day, in a delayed
manner, within historical research on cinema as it has developed over the past
thirtyyears.
Let us not dwell ontheinstitutional dimension, about which we still know too
little at this time: Eisenstein, who had taught at the State Institute of Cinematography(GIK)since1928andhadputalotofeffortintothistaskinthe1930sand
the 1940s, was also appointed head of the Cinema Section of the Institute of Art
History of the USSR Academy of Science in June 1947, after being awarded the
title of Doctor in Art Science in 1939 based on his personal works. The Institute,
founded in 1944, was directed by the painter, art historian, and museum curator
Igor Grabar (formerly director of the National Institute of Fine Arts, of the Academy
of Fine Arts and of the workshop for the restoration of works of art). The
Cinema Section opened in October, and in November Eisenstein was developing
theplansforacourseinthepsychologyofartfortheUniversityofMoscow,after
includingtheissueofthecreativeprocessinhiscurriculumatGIK. 11 Thisstrong
contribution to teaching should be analyzed with regard to Eisenstein’s situation
in the field of Soviet cinema after World War II; the condemnation of the second
partofIvanthe Terribleandthestateofhishealth weretokeep him awayfrom the
studios for a long time. Was it a social strategy on his part? Furthermore, what
should be made of the entry of cinema into the institution in question? As early
as 1925, the Leningrad Institute of Art History had created a cinematographic
committee, then a faculty of cinema, offering a four-year course of studies under
the direction of Yuri Tynyanov. Yet its missions were tightly related to needs for
professional training (scriptwriters, critics, film club organizers, technicians)
and its framework was that of a “poetics of film.” 12 Eisenstein’s project was of a
differentnature,itsobjectbeingcinema,asIalreadypointedout.Theshort-term
268 françois albera