Vertov: Between the Organism and the Machine

Author(s): Malcolm Turvey

Source: October, Vol. 121, New Vertov Studies (Summer, 2007), pp. 5-18
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40368478 .
Accessed: 25/02/2014 16:37

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 support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to October.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BetweentheOrganism
Vertov:
and theMachine

MALCOLM TURVEY

In everyliving being,wefind thatthosethings

whichwe call partsare inseparable
fromtheWhole
tosuchan extent,thattheycan onlybeconceivedin
and withthelatter;and thepartscan neither
bethe
measureoftheWhole,northeWholebe themeasure
oftheparts.
- Goethe

The standardreadingof the workof Dziga Vertovarguesthat,due to his

groupofavant-garde
withtheConstructivist
affiliation artiststhatemergedin the
SovietUnion afterthe BolshevikRevolutionof 1917, Vertovemployedthe
machineas the modelforbothhis filmsand the newSovietsocietydepictedin
them.In TheMaterial Gilberto
Ghost, Perezwrites:
[Vertov's] Man witha MovieCamera[1929] picturesthe cityas a vast
machineseen bytheomnipresent seeingmachinethatis thecamera.
The structureofVertov'sfilms,theiraggregatespace pieced together
in thecuttingroomout ofall themanifoldthingsthemechanicaleye
of the engineerso prizedin [the]
can see, suggeststheconstructions
newSovietsociety.1
of themachineto Constructivist
The centrality theoryand practice,as wellas to
work,is beyonddispute.However,
Vertov's it has obscuredtheinfluenceofother
modelson Vertovas he cameto makeMan witha MovieCamera in thelate 1920s,
includingone thatis oftenthoughtofas antithetical to themachine,namely, the
organism.
Mostobviously,Man witha MovieCamera is structuredaccordingto thedaily
cycleof a complex livingorganism such as an animal or humanbeing- sleep,

1. Filmsand TheirMedium(Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkins
GilbertoPerez,TheMaterialGhost:
Press,1998),p. 159.
University

2007,pp. 5-18. 2007 October

OCTOBER 121, Summer Magazine,Ltd.and Massachusetts
Institute
ofTechnology.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 OCTOBER

waking, work,and relaxation - a structure establishedin earliercityfilmssuchas

WalterRuttmann's Berlin,Symphony ofa Great City(1927). More importantly, as
AnnetteMichelsonhaspointedout,themodelforthenewSovietsocietydepicted
in thefilmis an organism, nota machine:
This film. . . joins the humanlifecyclewiththe cyclesof workand
leisureof a cityfromdawnto duskwithinthe spectrumof industrial
production.That productionincludesfilmmaking . . . mining,steel
production, communications, postalservice,
construction, hydro-electric
powerinstallation, and thetextileindustry in a seamless,organiccon-
tinuum.. . . The fullrangeof analogicaland metaphorical readings
thereby generatedsignify a generaland organicunity.2
Michelsondoes not explain whyshe uses the term"organic"as opposed to
"mechanical"here.What,precisely, do theseconceptsmean,and is Michelson
Ifso,why
correctto applyone ratherthantheotherto Man witha MovieCamera}
wouldVertovhaveemployedtheorganism as a modelforthenewSovietsociety,
andwherein Sovietcultureand societyofthe1920smightithavecomefrom?

II

The terms"organic" and "mechanical" are oftenappliedto artworks, as well

as to manyotherphenomena,buttheirmeaningsare rarelymadeclear.In order
to clarify
theseconcepts,it is helpfulto examinebriefly thedebatebetweentwo
scientific-philosophical
paradigms, which I willlabel, for the sakeofconvenience,
machinism or mechanism on theone hand,and organicism on theother.It is in
large part the insistenceof the organicistparadigm that thereare essential
differences betweenthe organicand the inorganicthathas shapedthe opposi-
tionalmeaningsof the terms"organic"and "mechanical." Althoughthe debate
betweenthesetwoparadigms hastakenplacesincetheend oftheeighteenth cen-
turyprimarily amongphilosophers and scientists,it is part of the much larger
debateaboutthepolitical,social,ethical,and existential ramificationsofmodern
sciencethathasbeen sucha fundamental featureofWestern culturesincethesci-
entificrevolution.
Bytheend oftheeighteenth century, theconceptionofthenaturaluniverse
as a causalmechanism, a "blindwatchmaker," to use RichardDawkins's felicitous
was in
analogy,3 firmly place.According to this conception, nature has no teleol-
or
ogy,purpose, meaning, but insteadconsists of elementary of
particles matter

2. Annette Michelson, introduction to Dziga Vertov,Kino-Eye:The Writings ofDziga Vertov, ed.

AnnetteMichelson,trans.KevinO'Brien (Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress,1984), p. xli.
3. Richard Dawkins, TheBlind Watchmaker:WhytheEvidenceofEvolutionRevealsa Universe without
Design(1986; NewYork:Norton,1996). Dawkinsis, of course,appropriatingand correctingeighteenth-
centurytheologianWilliamPaley's "argumentfromdesign" that the natural universeis like a watch
made bya (sighted)watchmaker.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Between
Vertov: andtheMachine
theOrganism 7

meaninglesslyand purposelessly
interactingin space accordingto physicallaws.
AlfredNorthWhiteheadreferred to thisconceptionas "scientific
materialism"
in
andtheModern
hisclassicworkScience World,and describeditas follows:
materialism]
[Scientific presupposes theultimate factofan irreducible
brutematter, or material,spreadthroughout spacein a fluxofconfigu-
It
rations.In itselfsucha materialis senseless,valueless,purposeless.
just does what it does,followinga fixedroutine imposedby external
relationswhichdo notspringfromthenatureofitsbeing.4
One ofthescientific-philosophical paradigms thatemergedoutofthismaterialist
conception of nature is whatphilosophers historians
and of sciencecommonly
referto as mechanism. According mechanism, chief,and indeedformany
to the
theonly,valid method of explanationis reductive.
scientific It consistsofexplain-
ingthenatureand behavior ofsomething in terms of the nature and behaviorof
itsconstituent all
parts, the if
waydown, necessary, to the elementary particlesof
matter outofwhich itis made.5
Needlessto say,mechanism has generateda greatdeal of hostility overthe
last twohundredyears,in part because it appears to reduce all phenomena,
includinghumanbeingsand otherlivingorganisms, to meaningless, purposeless
interactions betweenparticlesofmatter. Manyhavearguedthat,becauseof this,
mechanism has been responsible forcreatinga profoundexistential and ethical
crisisin modernity. Schillercalledtheexistentialemptiness putativelyopenedup
bymaterialism and mechanismthe "disgodding" of nature,and a century later,
Webercoined the phrase "the disenchantment of the world"to describeit.
According to thehistorianofscienceAnneHarrington, Weber's
assessmentofscienceas a "disenchanting" forcein the modernworld
wouldhardlyhavesurprised[hisaudience].Sincethe 1890s,an inten-
streamofGerman-language
sifying articlesand monographs had been
the
identifying riseof a certainkind ofmechanistic thinking thenat-
in
offailedor crisis-ridden
uralsciencesas a chiefculpritin a variety cul-
turaland politicalexperiments. Sciencehad declaredhumanity's life
and soula senselessproductofmechanism, so peoplenowtreatedone
anotheras meremachines.6
The hostilereactionto mechanism has takenmanyshapesoverthelasttwo
hundredyears,and is muchtoovastand complexto describe.Whatis important
claimthatliving,
hereis thatone formithas takenis theantireductionist organic

4. Alfred
NorthWhitehead, Science (NewYork:FreePress,1967),p. 17.
World
andtheModern
5. Thereis stillmuchdebateaboutreductionism. critique,seeJohnDupre,
Fora contemporary
Foundationsof theDisunityofScience(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
TheDisorderof Things:Metaphysical
Press,1993).
University
6. Science:Holismin GermanCulture
Anne Harrington,Reenchanted II toHitler(Princeton,
fromWilhelm
N.J.:Princeton Press,1996),p. xv.
University

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 OCTOBER

phenomenaare fundamentally differentfromdead, inorganicphenomenasuch

as particlesof matteror machines,in thattheirnatureand behaviorcannotbe
explainedbybeingreducedto thenatureand behavioroftheirparts.According
to thisargument, mechanistreductioncan onlyexplaininorganicphenomena,
whichcan be reducedto the meaningless, purposelessmechanicsof elementary
particles.Organicphenomenacannotbe explainedin thiswaybecauseof their
meaningful, purposive designand behavior.
The rootsof thisclaimlie in Kant'sCritiqueofJudgment.There,Kantargues
thatthe a prioricategories, suchas causality,
thathumanbeingsbringto their
cognitionof nonliving phenomenaare deficient withrespectto livingphenom-
ena. In cognizinglivingphenomena,Kantargues,humanjudgmentis forcedto
postulatea principleof teleologicalcausalitythatKantcalls "naturalpurpose."
According to thisprinciple,
thepartsofa livingorganism haveto be explainedby
appealingto the teleologyor purposivefunctioning of the organismas a whole.
Whereasthe partsof a mechanicalmodel cause theireffectsindependently of
each otherand can be explainedseparately, thepartsofa teleologicalmodelare
bothcauseand effect ofeachother:
The firstprinciplerequiredforthenotionofan objectconceivedas a
naturalpurposeis thattheparts,withrespectto bothformand being,
are onlypossiblethroughtheirrelationship
to thewhole.. . . Secondly,
itis requiredthatthepartsbindthemselves
mutually intotheunityofa
wholein such a waythattheyare mutuallycause and effectof one
another.7
Thisargument hasbeenveryinfluential overthelasttwohundredyears,and
hasbeentakenup bya numberofphilosophical and scientific
movements. Almost
it
immediately,inspired Goethe to claim that nature'steleologyis revealedin the
smallnumberofbasicformsor Gestalten thatall naturalphenomenaare theprod-
uct of,as wellas the waythesemetamorphose intoevermorecomplexforms.
Kant'sargumentwas also used as one of the foundationstonesof nineteenth-
century vitalismin biology.Associatedwithfigures suchas JohannBlumenbach
andJohannesMullerin theearlynineteenth century, vitalismarguedfortheneed
to postulateirreducibleteleologicalprinciplesat workin livingorganismsthat
could explaintheirseemingly purposivedesignand behavior.Meanwhile, Kant's
argument aboutteleologicalcausalitywasalso takenup, in different ways,bythe
antimechanistic and antimaterialist,
idealist,so-callednaturalphilosophers ofthe
nineteenth centurysuchas Schlegel,Fichte,Schelling, and Hegel,and hascontin-
ued to exertan influenceintothetwentieth century due to philosopherssuchas
HenriBergson,as weshallsee.

7. Immanuel Kant, CritiqueofJudgment,

quoted in TimothyLenoir, TheStrategy and
ofLife:Teleology
Mechanicsin Nineteenth-Century
German Biology of Chicago Press,1982), p. 25.
(Chicago: University

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Vertov: theOrganism
Between andtheMachine 9

The arguments ofthesevariousscientific and philosophical individuals

and
movements differ in manyimportant ways.The reasonI referto themcollectively
as organicistis thatrepeatedin themagainand againare twobasicclaimsabout
the differencebetweenlivingorganismsand inorganicphenomenasuch as
machines, claimsthatare used to criticizemechanistic reductionwithrespectto
organisms.First,organicistsargue thatthe partsof an organismcannotbe
explainedwithout appealingto thepurposeoftheorganism as a whole.Unlikean
inorganic phenomenon such as a machine, whose partsinteract purposelesslyand
therefore blindly and can be explainedindependently of each other, the partsof
an organism worktowardthepurposeoftheorganism as a whole,as ifintention-
ally,as ifpossessedofknowledge aboutwhatthatpurposeis. Second,organicists
claimthata livingorganism interacts withitsenvironment,
creatively adaptingto
it in orderto survive,whileinorganicphenomenasuch as machinesinteract
blindlywiththeirenvironments. The environment playsan essentialrole in the
lifeof an organism, sinceorganiclifeconsistslargelyof adaptingto an environ-
mentin orderto survive;but the environment is extraneousto an inorganic
phenomenon such as a machine. If an organismis removedfromone environ-
mentand placedin another,itwilladaptto it;a machine,however, willkeep on
functioning the same wayregardless of whateverenvironment itis in.
Of course,all of thisis open to disputefroma scientific and philosophical
point of view.What is important here is notwhether the arguments oforganicists
are trueor not,but ratherthattheyhave shaped the meaningsof the terms
"organic" and "mechanical."

Ill

Withthisconceptualclarification in mind,itbecomesclearwhyMichelsonis
correctto describethenewSovietsocietydepictedin Man witha MovieCamera as
an "organiccontinuum" ratherthanas a machine.First,and mostimportantly,
Vertov does notrepresent thepartsofthissocietyas interactingpurposelesslyand
blindly,independently of each other, in the manner of the partsof a machine.
Instead,he constantlyshowshoweach partis working towardthepurposeofthe
as ifpossessedofknowledge
whole,as ifintentionally, aboutwhatthatpurposeis.
Almosteverypartof thissociety, to paraphraseKant,is bothcause and effect of
every other part.ThisVertov does bydepicting Sovietcitizensengaged in differ-
ent activitiesin differentplaces at differenttimesin orderto give"everyone
working behinda plowor a machinetheopportunity to see hisbrothersat work
withhimsimultaneously in different partsof the world,"therebyovercoming the
blindnessthatartificially separates them.8 He then links them together,as
Michelsonpointsout,through"strategies ofvisualanalogyand rhyme, rhythmic

8. Vertov,"Kino-Eye"(1926), in Kino-Eye,
pp. 73-74.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 OCTOBER

patterning, parallel editing,superimposition, acceleratedand deaccelerated

motion,cameramovement - in short,theuse ofeveryopticaldeviceand filming
strategythenavailableto filmconnection."9 The mostfamousand obviousexam-
ple of this is the exhilaratingsequence in which filmmakingand textile
production are connected throughediting,graphicmatches,and thensuperim-
position. But the film as a whole,as Vlada Petrichas shownin his meticulous
is
analysis, replete with more subtlelinkingtechniques,such as the circular
motionofthecameraman's handas he cranksthecamera,whichis rhymed byvar-
ious otheractivitiesand objectsthroughout the film,includingthe concluding
superimposition ofcircularhumaneyeovercircularcameralens.10 AsVertovhim-
selfputsitin hisarticleon thefilm,
Each itemor each factor[in the film]is a separatelittledocument.
The documents havebeenjoined withone anotherso that,on theone
hand,thefilmwouldconsistonlyof thoselinkagesbetweensignifying
piecesthatcoincidewiththevisuallinkagesand so that,on theother
hand,theselinkageswouldnotrequireintertitles; thefinalsumofall
theselinkagesrepresents,
therefore,an organicwhole.11

Bywayofthesevisuallinkages, Vertovemphasizes theessentialonenessofthenew

Sovietsociety,thefactthateveryhumanbeingand humanactivity, whether itbe
steel or is an
mining, production, filmmaking, indispensable part ofa larger whole
in whichit participates and to whichit makesan essentialcontribution, rather
thana separatepartthat,likethepartofa machine,functions independently of
thelargerwhole.In thisway,accordingto Michelson, hisfilmsattempt to instillin
hisSovietviewersthebeliefthattheyareall interdependent on each otherand all
equallyowners ofthe means of "the and
production, euphoric intensified senseof
a sharedend: the supercessionof privateproperty in the youngsocialiststate
underconstruction."^
Furthermore, unlikea machinethatwill,accordingto organicists, blindly
on
keep functioning regardless ofitsenvironment, humanbeingsin thisfilmare
showncreativelyinteractingwiththe new industrialenvironment emerging
around them,includingmachines.In an earlymanifesto, Vertovdeclaredhis
desireto "introduce creativejoy intoall mechanicallabor. . . causingtheworker
to love his workbench, the peasanthis tractor, the engineerhis engine,"13 and
throughout Man with a Movie Camera, workers exhibit thiscreativejoy in their
laborand the technology theyuse, includingthe Kinoksthemselves, whosecre-
ativeuse of themachinesof cinemais one of themajorthemesof thefilm.The

9. Michelson,introductionto Kino-Eye,p. xxxvii.

10. See Vlada Petric, Constructivism
in Film: The Man withtheMovie Camera,A CinematicAnalysis
(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987). chaD. 3.
11. "
Vertov, TheMan witha MovieCamera"(1928), in Kino-Eye, p. 84.
12. Michelson,introductionto Kino-Eye,p. xl.
13. Vertov,"We:Variantof a Manifesto"(1922), in Kino-Eye,
p. 8.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Vertov:
Between
theOrganism
andtheMachine 11

film'sviewersare also implicatedin thiscreativelabor.For as Petrichas shown,

through theuse of"disruptive-associative
montage," whichconsistsof"theapposi-
tion of oftenunrelatedand contradictory themes,"the vieweris requiredto
inferwhattheconnections
creatively betweenmanyshotsare,connections which
are onlyrevealedbythe filmretroactively.14For thesereasons,Michelsonis cor-
thissocietyas an organic,ratherthana mechanical,
rectin describing one.

IV

Fromwheremightthisorganicmodelhavesuggesteditselfto Vertov, and

whymight he have used it?As is well the
known, standardview of Sovietculture
and societyin the 1920s is thatit was sweptup in a "cultof the machine."15
However, scholarshaveshownthattherewereotherinfluential, antimechanistic
paradigms in the '20s, an
including organicist one. BorisGasparov, forexample,
hasclaimedthat
Bythesecondhalfofthe1920s. . . [themechanistic] frameofthought
waschallengedby another trend,which couldbe called "exis-
"organic,
tential," or "neoromantic." Based on a sharpdistinctionbetweenwhat
is and is not"life"... itapproachedphenomena of theformerorder in
a wayradically different fromthatfitfordescribing of
phenomena the
latterorder.The "organic" phenomenon's wholeness,itsdynamic,ever-
evolving nature,and itsabilityto interact withtheenviron-
"creatively"
mentwereacknowledged as itsmostfundamental characteristics.16

Gasparovcitesa numberofexamplesofthisorganicist paradigmin thelate1920s,

including Trofim
thebiologist Lysenko'stheory whichwon
ofbiologicalevolution,
favoroverso-calledmechanisticgeneticsunderStalin;and thelinguistic
theories
of MikhailBakhtinand his disciples,whichtreatlanguage as an organism.
Meanwhile, Christina pointsto
Lodder,in herclassicworkRussianConstructivism,
trendin Constructivism
an organicist itself,
representedmostclearlybyTatlinand
Miturich.Accordingto Lodder, these artistsself-consciously eschewedthe
machineas a modelforat leastsomeoftheirartworks,and attempted tofindways
tocreateartworkswithorganicrelationstonatureand theenvironment.17
AnotherpossiblesourceofVertov's has been pointedto perhaps
organicism
unwittinglybyGillesDeleuze,whoarguesin TheMovement ImagethatDzigaVertov
programmeof the firstchapterof [Henri Bergson's]
"realizesthe materialist

14. inFilm,pp. 95-107.

Petric,Constructivism
15. RichardStites,Revolutionary Lifein theRussianRevolution
Dreams:UtopianVisionand Experimental
Press,1989),chap.7,pp. 145-64.
(NewYork:OxfordUniversity
16. BorisGasparov,
"Development ViewsofAcademician
orRebuilding: in theContext
T. D. Lysenko
in Laboratory
of the Late Avant-Garde," ofDreams:TheRussianAvant-Garde
and CulturalExperiment,
ed.
Calif.:Stanford
JohnE. BowltandOlgaMatich(Stanford, Press,1996),pp. 147-48.
University
17. Christina (NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversity
Constructivism
Lodder,Russian Press,1983),chap.7.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 12 OCTOBER

Matterand Memory throughthe cinema."By this,Deleuze seemsto mean that

Vertov's filmsdepictsocialreality verymuchlikematerialrealityas describedby
a
Bergson'smetaphysics,ceaselessly changingreality in whicheverything interacts
witheverything else. As Deleuze puts it, "Whetherthereweremachines,land-
scapes,buildings or men [beingfilmed]wasoflittleconsequence:each- eventhe
mostcharmingpeasantwomanor the mosttouchingchild- was presentedas a
materialsystem in perpetualinteraction."18 In Vertov'scinema,claimsDeleuze,
"everything is at the service of variation and interaction."19
Deleuze's interpretation ofVertov's filmsaside,it is notimplausible to link
Vertovto Bergson.As HilaryFinkhas shown,Bergson'sphilosophyexerteda
majorinfluenceon Russianmodernists fromthe 1890sthroughthe 1920s,and
she arguesthat"Bergsonian ideaswereso muchin theairduringthesecondand
thirddecadesof thetwentieth century thatmostRussianintellectuals werelikely
to be familiar withthe basic themesof Bergson'sIntroduction toMetaphysics and
CreativeEvolution."**WhileBergsonmostlikelydid nothavea directinfluence on
Vertov,echoes of some of his ideas can be heard in Vertov'swork,especially in his
conceptionof Sovietcitizensas beinginterconnected in a largerorganicwhole
thatmustbe revealedbyartdue to thelimitations ofhumanperception. Whether
or not thismeansit is the "materialist of
program" Bergson'sphilosophythat
Vertov "realizes,"as Deleuze argues, is another question.
Russianmodernism fromthe 1890suntiltheascendancy ofsocialistrealism
in the late 1920sconsistedof a numberof individuals and movements who dis-
agreed with each other, often vehemently, and who pursued differentartistic
and
strategies objectives.Nevertheless, Fink and others have argued,theywere
unifiedby"thetheurgic impulse to transform realitythrough art."21By"theurgic
impulse"is meantthe idea, inheritedfromRussianorthodoxreligion,that"one
continually strives touncoverand to buildwhatis alreadypresentall around- the
kingdom of God."22 Russianmodernists, of course,transformed and, in many
cases,secularized this idea, but it survives in their theoriesand practices.All
tendedtoarguethatthetruenatureofreality washiddenfromhumanbeingsand
neededtobe revealedbythecreativeactoftheartist.Byrevealing thetruenature
ofrealitythrough art,theartist wouldenablehumanbeingstoparticipate in reality.
The divisionbetweenartand lifewouldtherefore be overcome.It is thisshared,
theurgic conceptionofart,Finkclaims,thatexplainstheappealofBergson'sphi-
to
losophy otherwise verydifferent artistsand artisticmovements withinRussian
modernism, forhisworkgavethisconceptionphilosophical legitimacy.

18. Gilles Deleuze, Cinema1: TheMovement Image,trans.Hugh Tomlinsonand Barbara Habberjam

(Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress,1986), p. 39.
19. Ibid., p. 80.
20. HilaryFink,Bergsonand RussianModernism, 1900-1930 (Evanston,111.:NorthwesternUniversity
Press,1999), p. xiv.
21. Ibid., p. xv.See also Bowltand Matich,introductionto Laboratory
ofDreams,pp. 8-9.
22. Fink,Bergson and RussianModernism,p. 27.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 : Between
Vertov andtheMachine
theOrganism 13

As is wellknown,thepointofdeparture forBergson'sphilosophy is hiscon-

ceptionoftimeand hiscritiqueofWestern philosophy and scienceforconceiving
of timespatially. Bythis,Bergsonmeansthattimeis reducedbymostWestern
thinkers toa seriesofseparate,staticstatesmuchlikea seriesofstillphotographs.
In reality,he arguesthattimeis duration,"thecontinuousprogressof the past
whichgnawsintothefuture and whichswellsas itadvances."23 Timedoes notcon-
sistof the replacement of one statebyanother,but ratherone stateconstantly
changing. The pastenduresintothepresentand thefuture, likea "fluxoffleeting
shades[ofcolor]merging intoeach other," or the"flow"ofa river.24 The reduc-
tionof timeto a seriesof separate,staticstatesis due to theintellect's practical
need to measuretimeand predictthefuture. Geometry exemplifies thistendency
oftheintellect, and thisis whyphilosophers suchas Descartespraisegeometry as
thevalidmethodforachievingtrueknowledgeof reality. Bergson does not dis-
misstheintellect becauseof itsimportant practicalfunction,buthe does argue
thattheknowledge ofreality itproducesis relativebecauseitdispenseswithtime
as duration,whichanyabsoluteknowledgeof realitymustincorporate. In addi-
tion,the natureof timeas durationentailsthatrealityis fundamentally unpre-
dictable,for"toforeseeconsistsofprojecting intothefuturewhathas been per-
ceivedin thepast."25 Becausetimedoes notconsistof a seriesofseparate,static
statesbut one statechanging,thereis no such thingas one staterepeating
anotherin the future.Hence, one cannotpredictthefutureprecisely fromthe
past,and "duration is irreversible."26"Duration means invention, the creation of
forms, thecontinualelaboration oftheabsolutely new."27
On thebasisof thisconceptionof time,Bergsonmakesa numberofother
claims.First,he arguesthatrealityis notcomposedof separateentities,suchas
particlesof matter,interacting in predictableways,as mechanistic physicaltheo-
riesargue.Rather,realityis an indivisible, continuouswholethatis constantly
changingin unpredictableways.Everything is connectedto everything else
throughout time and space, and is
reality mobile.As Bergsonputs it in Matter and
Memory, "Matter thus resolves itselfintonumberless all
vibrations, linked together
in uninterrupted continuity, all boundup witheach other,and traveling in every
direction likeshiversthrough an immense body."28
Second,Bergsonclaimsthathumanbeingscannotperceivethe mobility
of realitywiththeirsense organsbecause "to perceivemeansto immobilize."29

23. Henri Bergson,Creative trans.ArthurMitchell(Mineola, N.Y.:Dover , 1998), p. 4.

Evolution,
24. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
25. Ibid., p. 6.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., p. 11.
28. Henri Bergson,Matterand Memory, trans.N. M. Paul and W. S. Palmer (New York:Zone Books,
1988), p. 208.
29. Ibid.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 14 OCTOBER

Perceptionsubtracts everything thatthe thingbeingperceivedis connectedto

throughout time and space.30Hence, Bergsontalksaboutperceptionas an actof
isolatingwhat is perceived from its surroundings, bywhichhe meansthe larger
spatialwholeand temporal becoming ofwhich itis a part:
I shouldconvert[objective reality]intorepresentation ifI couldisolate
it,especiallyifI couldisolateitsshell.... It [is] necessary, notto throw
morelighton theobject,but,on thecontrary, to obscuresomeofits
aspects,to diminish it bythegreaterpartofitself, so thattheremain-
der,insteadof being encased in its surroundings as a thing,
should
detachitselffromthemas a picture. . . . [Objects]becomes"perceptions"
bytheirveryisolation.31
In Creative Evolution, Bergsondescribestheobjectswe perceiveas being"cutout
ofthestuff ofnaturebyourperception," as ifperception werea pairofscissors.32
It is forthisreasonthatBergsonbelievesthat"toperceiveis to immobilize" and
thathe useshisfamousanalogybetweenperception and photography. Perception
cutsout objectsfromtheirtemporalbecomingand the spatialwholeof which
theyarea part,muchlikea stillcameradoes.
Third,artistsin particularpossessa specialmentalpower,whichBergson
calls "intuition," thatenables themto overcomethe epistemiclimitationsof
perception and achieve absoluteknowledge ofreality. Through"an effort ofintu-
ition,"theartistis able topenetrateto theinnerbecomingofthings, restoring the
spatial and temporal connections between things that human perception sub-
tractsand thereby revealingthatanyone thingis partof a largerwholethatis
constantly changing in unpredictable ways.33
Finally, bypenetrating to theinnerbecomingofthings,theartistrevealsto
humanbeingsthattheythemselves arepartofa reality thatis constantly changing
in unpredictable ways. Hence, human beings are revealed to be freeto participate
in thisever-changing reality,to evolvecreatively."Weare creatingourselvescon-
tinually," Bergson claims, and he likensthis self-and world-creation to artistic
creation,therebylegitimizing the theurgicconceptionof art,the idea that,
through artistic
creationand revelation, theartistis participating in reality,
which
itselfis one greatworkofartin progress.34
Thesearguments wereappropriated and transformed in a variety ofwaysby
Russianmodernists, not least the Futurists, to whomVertovwas exposed as a
youngman priorto the revolution. How aboutVertovhimself? At firstsight,it
mightappear thatVertov would rejectmost ifnot all of these arguments, as did

30. Ibid., pp. 35-36.

31. Ibid., p. 36.
32. Bergson,Creative p. 12.
Evolution,
33. Ibid., p. 177.
34. Ibid., p. 7.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 : Between
Vertov theOrganism
andtheMachine 15

SovietMarxistsin generalduringthe 1920s.To beginwith,the claimthatit is

intuition thatenablesus to accessthetruenatureofreality is antithetical to the
Marxistfaithin reasonand science.So is the argument thatrealityis constantly
changingin unpredictable ways,whichrunscounterto the Marxistbeliefin a
Communist Utopia as the inexorable telosofhistory conceivedofas a dialectical
process.Bergson'sphilosophy was also accused by Marxists of being,likeKant's,
tooidealist,as allowingthehumanmindtoogreata rolein ourknowledge ofreal-
ity.It is forthesereasons that it was increasingly attacked by Soviet intellectuals in
the 1920s,and that,as the Communist party increased its control over artistsin
thelate 1920sand socialistrealismbecametherulingartistic orthodoxy, itsinflu-
enceon artists waned.35
Nevertheless, thereare severaltantalizing similaritiesbetweenVertov's argu-
mentsand Bergson's, whichsuggestthatVertov, whether consciously or not,tried
to finda rapprochement betweenMarxism and thetheurgic conceptionofartas
filtered through Bergsonianism byhis Futurist Like
predecessors. Bergson, Vertov
and
emphatically repeatedly argues that the true nature of reality is hidden from
humanbeingsdue to the limitations of humanperception,particularly vision.
And he conceivesof theselimitations in muchthe same wayas Bergsondoes,
arguing thatthe fundamental problem with humanperception is thatitis "immo-
bile," confined to one spatial-temporal section of Meanwhile,
reality. thecinemais
"freeof the limitsof timeand space,"36and Vertovrepeatedlyemphasizesits
greatermobility in comparisonto the humaneye:"The positionof our bodies
whileobserving or ourperceptionofa certainnumberoffeatures ofa visualphe-
nomenonin a giveninstantare by no means obligatorylimitationsforthe
camera."37 In termsofspace,thecinemacan "puttogether anygivenpointsin the
universe, no matter where [it has] recorded them."38 And just as it can traverse
of
largeexpanses space quickly(though camera movement)or instantaneously
(throughediting), so it can move backward and forwardin time.This can be
achievedbywayof editing:"The coffins of nationalheroesare loweredintothe
grave(shotin Astrakhan in 1918); the graveis filled(Kronstadt, 1921); cannon
salute(Petrograd, 1920); memorial service, hats are removed (Moscow,1922)."39
Or it can be achievedbyfast,slow,and reversemotion:"[The camera]experi-
ments,distending time,dissecting movement, or,in contrary fashion,absorbing
timewithinitself, swallowing years, thus schematizing processesoflongduration
inaccessibleto the normaleye."40Because of its mobility, the cinema,Vertov
asserts, allowsfor "the of
possibility seeing without limits
and distances."41

35. See Fink,Bergsonand RussianModernism, chap. 5, pp. 101-11.

36. Vertov,"Kinoks:A Revolution"(1923), in Kino-Eye,p. 18.
37. Ibid., p. 15.
38. Ibid., p. 18.
39. Ibid., p. 17.
40. Ibid., p. 19.
41. Vertov,"The Birthof Kino-Eye"(1924), in Kino-Eye,p. 41.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16 OCTOBER

Whatthe mobility of the cinemareveals,accordingto Vertov, is precisely

whatis hiddenthroughtheimmobility ofhumanperception, namely, connec-
the
tionsbetweenthingsthroughout timeand space.However, becauseofhisMarxist
beliefs,Vertovconceivesof theseconnections as socialin nature,and it is in this
way that he reconciles Marxism and the theurgicconceptionofart.AsVertov puts
the
it, cinema, due toitsmobility,"opens eyes themassestotheconnection
the of ...
betweenthesocialand visualphenomenainterpreted by the camera."42 In other
words,thecamera(or cinema)revealsvarioussocialconnections betweenthings
thattheeyeis tooweaktosee becauseitis immobile.
In general,as Michelsonhas shown,thesesocialconnections comein many
different shapes and sizesin Vertov'sfilms:relationsof economic interdependency
betweentownand city,betweendifferent typesoflaborand sectorsof theecon-
omy,and betweendifferent ethnicities,regions,and nationalitieswithinthe
SovietUnion.The cinemais able to revealthesesocialconnections becauseofits
its
mobility, capacity to move through space and time between citizensengagedin
different activitiesin different places,at differenttimes throughout the Soviet
Union, and to linkthem together.43
It is preciselythisdimension ofVertov'sworkthatis so important toDeleuze,
whofollowsVertovin arguingthatthe cinemais moremobilethanthe human
eye.According to Deleuze,Vertov's filmsare able to represent theceaselessinter-
action betweenthingsat the core of Bergson'smetaphysicsbecause of the
cinema'smobility, itscapacity, throughcameramovement and editing,to move
from"a pointwherean actionbeginsto the limitof the reaction,as it fillsthe
intervalbetweenthe two,crossingthe universeand beatingin timeto itsinter-
vals."44FollowingBergson's theoryof the epistemiclimitationsof human
perception,thiscapacityto revealactionsand reactionsthroughout space and
timemeansthatthecinemain Vertov's handsescapesitslimitations and is there-
fore"superhuman.""This is not a humaneye- even an improvedone. For,
althoughthehumaneyecan surmount someofitslimitations withthehelpofcon-
traptions and instruments, thereis one whichit cannotsurmount, sinceit is its
ownconditionofpossibility."45 Thisconditionis ofcourseimmobility because,as
we have seen, forBergson"to perceiveis to immobilize." Vertov'scinema,in
Deleuze's view,revealswithinthe domainof socialrealitythe surroundings that
are of necessity subtractedwhenhumanperceptioncutswhatit perceivesout of
reality:
everything itinteractswiththroughout theuniverse and temporally.
spatially
Whereone could perhapsdisagreewithDeleuze is overhis earlierquoted
claimthat"Whetherthereweremachines,landscapes,buildingsor men [being
filmed]wasoflittleconsequence:each- eventhemostcharming peasantwoman

42. Vertov,"On the FilmKnownas Kinoglaz" (1923), in Kino-Eye,

p. 35.
43. Ibid.
44. Deleuze, Cinema1: TheMovement
Image,p. 40.
45. Ibid., p. 81.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Vertov:
Between andtheMachine
theOrganism 17

or themosttouching child- waspresented as a materialsystem in perpetualinter-

action."Withoutgettingintothevexedissueofprecisely whatDeleuze meansby
materialism, whatthiscommentimpliesis thatVertovis muchmoreconcerned
withthe interactionbetweenthe humanbeingsin his filmsthan the human
beingsthemselves, whichare simply"attheserviceofvariationand interaction."
Butis it reallyof"littleconsequence"whatVertovdepictsas interacting through-
out time and space? Does Vertov'sreal interestlie in a "materialsystemin
perpetualinteraction"? I thinknot.Aswehaveseen,Vertov depictsthesocialcon-
nectionsbetweenhumanbeingsthatarerevealedbythemobility ofthecinemaas
an organic continuum, and it is in thisnotionofan organiccontinuum or whole
thatwecan onceagainhearechoesofBergson'sphilosophy. ForBergsonalsocon-
ceivesof reality, "thetotality of the materialuniverse," as an organicwhole,a
The
"livingorganism."46 breaking down of reality separateentitiesbymecha-
into
nisticphysicaltheoriesin order to measureand predictit is a principleof
organization thatis externalto reality, arguesBergson,one imposedon itbythe
humanintellect. In truth, reality,like an organism, is a wholethatconsistsofparts
thatareinternally and
organized interdependent rather thanseparate.47
Vertov's use oftheorganism as a modelforSovietsocietypointstoan impor-
tantdimensionof his work,whichis its propagandistic function, its attemptto
makecitizensof thenewSovietsocietywantto participate in itsconstruction. In
"ArtisticDrama and Kino-Eye," a textfrom1924,he arguesthat"to followthe
growth oftheyoungSovietorganism, to recordand organizetheindividual char-
acteristicsoflife'sphenomenaintoa whole,an essence,a conclusion - thatis our
immediateobjective"because of its "highpropagandistic pressure."48 In other
words, Vertov sees the task of revealing to his Soviet viewers that they indis-
are
pensable parts of a largerorganic whole as a of
way making them wantto
participate in the building of the new Soviet society. Rather than beingdispens-
able cogsin an indifferent, impersonalmachine,theyare indispensable, organic
partsof the newsociety.Hence,Deleuze is wrong,I think,to arguethat"every-
thingis at theserviceofinteraction" in Vertov's films.It is precisely theopposite.
Interaction, the revelation of the social connections between human beingsand
humanactivities the
throughout organic continuum of the new Soviet society,is
in theserviceofmakinghumanbeingswantto participate in itsconstruction, to
overcomethe divisionbetweenartand lifebyengagingin creativelabor and
becomingartists, to "buildwhatis alreadypresentall around,"namely, thegreat
workofartoftheMarxist Utopia.
Butregardless ofDeleuze's interpretation, thereareechoesofBergson'sphi-
losophy in Vertov's work, which suggests thatVertovwas in some sense a
not

46. Bergson,Creative Evolution,p. 15.

47. Ibid., pp. 12-15. See also RuthLorand, "Bergson'sConcept ofArt,"British
JournalofAesthetics
39,
. no. 4 (October 1999), p. 402.
48. Vertov,"ArtisticDrama and Kino-Eye"(1924), in Kino-Eye,pp. 47, 48.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
18 OCTOBER

Bergsonian, but thatBergson'sideas,includinghis organicism, wereverymuch

"intheair,"as Finkputsit,in Russianmodernism, and thattheymighthavecon-
stitutedone sourceoftheorganicmodelthatwasexerting an influence on Vertov
by the end ofthe 1920s.49It wouldbe to
wrong argue thatthe machine and mech-
anismwerenot also continuingto playa vitalrole in Vertov's workduringthis
period,50or thattherewerenotothersourcesfortheorganicmodel.51 Not only
wouldsuchan argument attribute too muchcoherenceto Vertov's work,a com-
moninterpretative fallacycommitted routinely
byscholarsand ofart,butit
critics
woulddo a disservice to Vertovhimself, whoseartisticbrilliancelaypartlyin his
abilityto creatively
synthesize a numberof different, even contradictory para-
and the
digms models,including organism and themachine.

49. This confirmsBowltand Matich'sobservationthat,althoughthe post-revolutionary generation

of artistsostensiblyrepudiatedmuch of theirpredecessors'workas "bourgeois"and "reactionary," in
facttheyinheritedmanyof theirideas, even as theyadapted them to the needs of revolutionaryart.
See Bowltand Matich,introductionto Laboratory ofDreams,p. 4.
50. I examine the role of the machine and mechanismin Vertov'sworkin my"Can the Camera See?
Mimesisin Man witha MovieCamera?October $& (Summer 1999), pp. 25-50.
51. Another source might be the poetry of Walt Whitman,as Ben Singer demonstratesin his
"Connoisseursof Chaos: Whitman,Vertov,and the Toetic Survey,'"Literature/FilmQuarterly15, no. 4
(1987), pp. 247-58.

This content downloaded from 194.27.149.45 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:37:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions