Bataille and Eisenstein: In Defense of Michelson's View.

In October 188's "Visceral Economies, Queer Dialectics: Eisenstein Meets Bataille," Elena Vogman argues that there is an "affinity" between Sergei Eisenstein's and Georges Bataille's views, thereby contesting Annette Michelson's verdict that any similarities between them are "superficial." This arti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:October no. 189; pp. 169 - 189
Autor principal: Turvey, Malcolm
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: MIT Press Summer2024
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=179811748&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 179811748
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        01622870
        OCT
      jtl: October
      issn: 01622870
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Summer2024
      iid: 189
      pid: 776
      pub: MIT Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        179811748
        10.1162/octo_a_00528
      ppf: 169
      ppct: 20
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 412KB
      tig:
        atl: Bataille and Eisenstein: In Defense of Michelson's View.
      aug:
        au: Turvey, Malcolm
      su:
        Eisenstein, Sergei, 1898-1948
        Bataille, Georges, 1897-1962
        Michelson, Annette, 1922-2018
        Dualism
        Materialism
        Idealism
        Film studies
        Erotica
      sug:
        subj:
          Eisenstein, Sergei, 1898-1948
          Bataille, Georges, 1897-1962
          Michelson, Annette, 1922-2018
          Dualism
          Materialism
          Idealism
          Film studies
          Erotica
      ab: In October 188's "Visceral Economies, Queer Dialectics: Eisenstein Meets Bataille," Elena Vogman argues that there is an "affinity" between Sergei Eisenstein's and Georges Bataille's views, thereby contesting Annette Michelson's verdict that any similarities between them are "superficial." This article contends that Michelson is right, and that Vogman provides no evidence of an affinity between Eisenstein's and Bataille's thinking. In doing so, I defend the important methodological principle, exemplified by Michelson's work, that theory should not be applied, top down and a priori, to art as if it were mere grist for the theory mill. Eisenstein was a deeply original thinker and filmmaker, and while he might have shared some of Bataille's interests, he did so for reasons antithetical to Bataille's. His work should not, therefore, be appropriated by what Michelson called the "veritable Bataille industry ... [that] has proliferated to the point of generating a grille through which the reading of the Eisensteinian text is now proposed."
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of October is the property of MIT Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: October
      holder: MIT Press
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2024
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N