Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Culture and Art
Reference:

Becoming an image in the cinema: from Lessing and Hegel to S. Eisenstein

Popova Liana Vladimirovna

ORCID: 0000-0002-9766-7535

PhD in Cultural Studies

Senior lecturer, State University of Management

109542, Russia, Moscow, Ryazan Avenue, 99, office U-404

pliana@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0625.2024.2.69723

EDN:

VMRVHA

Received:

31-01-2024


Published:

03-03-2024


Abstract: The object of the study is the formation of an image in cinema. S.M. Eisenstein defined cinema as a comparison of two methods: the method of image and the method of figurative formation. The image in the cinema is the "image of becoming". The purpose of the study is to trace the evolution of views on the "image of becoming" from G. E. Lessing to G. V. F. Hegel and S. M. Eisenstein. The author refers to the origins of the formation of the "image of becoming", the teachings of G.E. Lessing and G.V.F. Hegel, who had a great influence on S.M. Eisenstein. G.E. Lessing determined that the methods of studying spatial and temporal arts are different. The method of image is a method inherent in spatial arts, the method of becoming is inherent in poetry as a temporary art. G.E. Lessing gave primacy to the method of becoming. G.V.F. Hegel dealt with a similar problem, he formed the doctrine of the "image of becoming" that arises in time. The research is based on the principle of image birth, developed by S.M. Eisenstein, according to whose teaching, an image is born in a montage. Comparative and semiotic methods are used in the study. The scientific novelty of this study lies in the research of the continuity of the doctrine of the "image of becoming", in the study of S. M. Eisenstein's innovation in this matter. According to S. Eisenstein, cinema is a synthetic, space-time art. It is associated with spatial arts, fine arts, architecture, sculpture, as well as with temporary ones: music, poetry. Cinematography is based on the "Dionysus method", which makes cinema related to other forms of play. According to S. Eisenstein, a movie frame is an assembly complex, it has its own design and composition, which makes it related to spatial types of art, as well as rhythm, which makes it related to the arts. Cinema is a complex system of images and signs. S.M. Eisenstein defines cinema as a field of language. The formation of an image in a movie takes place in time.


Keywords:

Eisenstein, Florensky, Lessing, Hegel, cinema, space, time, shot, music, montage

This article is automatically translated.

 

 

Introduction

 

By the beginning of the XXI century, Russian and foreign science had accumulated a lot of experience in studying various aspects of the art of cinema. The purpose of our research is to understand the birth of an image in cinema. The study is based on the principle of image creation, developed by S. M. Eisenstein [1],[2]. The aesthetic concept is based on the "principle of becoming", as it was considered by G. E. Lessing [3] and G. V. F. Hegel [4], who influenced S. M. Eisenstein with his "way of becoming". The work of S. Eisenstein attracted the attention of many researchers: V. B. Shklovsky [5], N. I. Kleiman [6],[7], V.P. Podorogu [8],[9], N.A. Khrenov [10],[11], S.I. Freilich [12] and others. This study is devoted to the study of the "image of becoming", which remains little studied at the present time.

 

The formation of an image in cinema: from Lessing and Hegel to S. Eisenstein

 

According to S. Eisenstein, cinema is a comparison of two methods — the method of image and the method of imaginative formation [2, p. 211],[13, p. 244],[14, p. 69]. In his opinion, the topic of two methods was well consecrated by G. E. Lessing in his work "Laocoon, or On the Boundaries of Painting and Poetry" [3], published in 1766, where it is not so much about the conflict of painting and poetry, as about the conflict of two methods: the method of image, as a method of reality and the results, and about the method of images as a method of formation and process [1, p. 430].

Laocoon is a polemic between Lessing and his opponents, who defend the position that the laws of poetry are the same as the laws of painting and sculpture: the English classicist Alexander Pope, the art critic Caylus and the English antiquarian Spence. Lessing refers to the ancient poet of the VI–V centuries BC. Simonides of Keos, who determined that painting is silent poetry, and poetry is talking painting, but at the same time he notes that painting in its imitation of nature uses means and signs completely different from the means and signs of poetry: painting — bodies and paints that taken in space [3, p. 105], poetry is articulate sounds perceived in time [3, p. 105]. Bodies exist not only in space, but also in time. Their existence has a duration, at every moment of their existence they can appear in one form or another, in various combinations, each of which is a consequence of previous forms and combinations. So they can cause subsequent changes, that is, become the center of action. Painting can also depict action, but only indirectly, with the help of bodies. Actions cannot be performed by themselves, but must proceed from  from any creatures. Since these beings are real bodies (or we consider them as such), poetry should depict them, but only indirectly, with the help of actions [3, p. 106]. At the same time, Lessing admired Homer, who depicted nothing but actions [3, p. 107]. The poet, according to Lessing, strives to make his ideas so vivid that we imagine that we get sensual pleasure about the depicted objects, while forgetting about the means used for this, that is, the word [3, p. 116]. Lessing does not deny speech such an ability as to depict any material whole in parts, since speech signs are arranged in a temporal sequence, while being arbitrary signs, but any image of material objects with the help of words violates the illusion, the creation of which is one of the tasks of poetry. This illusion is broken by the fact that the juxtaposition of bodies in space collides with the sequence of speech in time. Combining spatial relations with sequential-temporal ones makes it easier for us to decompose the whole into parts, but the final restoration from the parts of the whole becomes an incomparably more difficult, almost impossible task [3, pp. 119-120]. Lessing referred to Mengs's reasoning about Raphael, who believed that Raphael's folds showed how the parts of the depicted body were located at the previous moment. [3, p. 125]. At the same time, Lessing noted that the artist thus combined two separate moments into one [3, p. 125].

What is the difference between a painter and a poet? And what are the advantages of a poet? First, it is the freedom to extend one's description to what precedes and what follows the image of a certain single moment that can be shown by the painter. Secondly, the resulting opportunity to depict what the artist makes us only guess at. It is this freedom and this opportunity that balance the poet and the artist. Their works should be appreciated and compared only by the vividness of the impression they make on us, and not by the number of objects and moments they reproduce" [3, p. 135]. S. Eisenstein believed that Lessing's strictness in distinguishing painting and poetry into two irreducible opposites was explained by the fact that by his time Lumiere and Edison had not yet provided him with the most perfect apparatus for aesthetic research and revision of the principles of art ? cinematography [1, p. 430]. Lessing divided the question into two methods, localizing them by regions, removed the enslaving function of the visual from poetry and highlighted the principle of dynamic formation [1, p. 432]. Taking into account the experience of cinema, according to S. Eisenstein, the problem should be understood more broadly as a comparison of the possibilities of two methods ? the method of image and the method of imaginative formation. He believed that in any art both methods are possible, that the second is the leading one, that the point is their unity, the usurpation of all functions by one leads to insolvency and collapse [1, p. 432]. Lessing's proclamation of the method of becoming in poetry is an anticipation in the history of art of a principle that was formed almost simultaneously in philosophy. According to S. Eisenstein, along with Lessing, G. V. F. dealt with similar issues. Hegel, who gave the principle of becoming a comprehensive philosophical meaning [1, p. 433].

G. V. F. Hegel forms the doctrine of the "image of becoming." The purpose of art, according to Hegel, as with Lessing, is the imitation of nature. Art should be edifying, that is, beneficial, but only the figurative form makes a work of art a work of art [4, p. 123]. The content of art is an idea, and its form is a sensual, imaginative embodiment [4, p. 140]. The task of art is to connect these two sides into one whole. The content of art should not be abstract in itself, but quite concrete and sensual in contrast to everything spiritual, which is simple and abstract within itself. The sensual form and image must be individual and specifically singular [4, pp. 140-141]. The idea is the truth in itself and for itself, but it is the truth only from the side of its not yet objectified universality [4, p. 143]. An idea, as an artistically beautiful one, is an idea with a specific property, it is an individual formation of reality that has the specific property of "manifesting an idea through itself" [4, p. 143]. An idea, as a reality, which has received a form corresponding to its concept, is an ideal. The first form of art, where the idea is still vague and does not have the clarity that the ideal requires, Hegel calls symbolic. This form of art presupposes only the search for embodiment in a figurative form. He calls the second form classical, it represents the embodiment of an idea in an image [4, pp. 145-146]. In classical art, the proportionality of the concept and reality to each other should not be understood as a formal correspondence of the content to its external formation. The content in classical art is a specific idea and, accordingly, a spiritual principle. To embody such content, an appropriate form is needed and this form is the human form. The image appears here as a temporary phenomenon. [4, p. 147]. In classical art, the human body is not only a sensual being, but is considered as an external being and a natural image of the spirit. However, the spirit is defined here as a partial, human, and not an absolute and eternal spirit. The classical art form requires a transition to a higher, third form ? romantic. The romantic art form removes the complete unity of the idea and its reality and returns, at a higher level, to the difference and opposition of these two sides [4, pp. 147-148]. The true reality of the content is not the sensual direct existence of the spiritual, the bodily appearance of a person, but an independent inner life. In romantic art, the idea as spirit and soul life should be complete within itself, but due to this higher completeness, it does not lend itself to an adequate connection with the outside world, since it can seek and generate its true reality and phenomenon only within itself [4, p. 150]. The image is a detailed metaphor. An image arises when two independent phenomena or states are combined in such a way that one state represents a meaning comprehended through the image of another state [4, p. 442]. That is, the image arises in time, it can have as its meaning a whole cycle of states, activities, achievements, ways of existence, etc. [1, p. 443].

Cinema has turned photography, the art that stops the moment, the moment, into an "image-movement", as defined by J. Deleuze [15]. In his opinion, in cinema, the visual image comes from Apollo [15, p. 505], the musical image is "Dionysian" [14, p. 66],[13, p. 243],[15, p. 505]. S. Eisenstein came to this conclusion much earlier. In his opinion, the basis of cinematography is "Dionysus in its purest form" or "the method of Osiris" [2, p. 241]. The mysteries of Dionysus, the tearing of Dionysus into pieces, according to Eisenstein, is the threshold beyond which "the actual cult action gradually turns into a symbol of the rite in order to then become an image in art" [2, p. 223]. The forms of the ceremony, Eisenstein believed, were preserved in various forms of culture, including games and rituals: bullfighting in Spain followed by eating a "totem beast" in restaurants, as well as in such types of games as solitaire, crossword. Dionysism is reflected in sports festivals ? the creation of a certain figure from the bodies of gymnasts (pyramid). The "Osiris method" is also present in the literature. Eisenstein sees it in the centon, an essay composed of poems or prose passages taken from one or different authors, detective novels, especially in novels about Sherlock Holmes (creating the image of a criminal based on evidence). The Greek theater traces its origins to Dionysus. The chorus of tragedy is born out of the ritual lament for Dionysus. The "Osiris method", as we can see, is related to the game. The image is created by combining certain "pieces", in cinematography ? by combining frames [16, pp. 301-302],[13, p. 243].

The film frame, according to S. Eisenstein, should be considered as an assembly complex, and not a separate plastic unit [1, p. 393] [14, p. 69],[13, p. 245]. S. Eisenstein's reasoning largely echoed P. Florensky's views on composition and perspective. P. Florensky defined composition as the form of the depicted image as such, as a way of interrelation and interaction of the visual means of the work in question [17, p. 128],[13, p. 245],[14, p. 70]. Construction, unlike composition, is a way of interrelation and interaction of the forces of reality perceived through this work [17, p. 128],[13, p. 245],[14, p. 70]. That is, it is not the work that is subordinated to the construction, but the reality depicted by this work, the composition is the work itself. In this case, we are talking about a painting. S. Eisenstein believed that it was in painting that one should look for the "ancestors" of the film frame. Paintings, in his opinion, already contain movement, but in order to see it, you need to decompose the still image into separate phases. The artists of the XI–XIII centuries have not yet been able to express the dynamics. Perfection in dynamics, in the transmission of movements, was achieved, according to S. Eisenstein, by his idol Leonardo da Vinci in the XV–XVI centuries, then Tintoretto, he sees further development in the work of O. Daumier in the XIX century. A classic example of dynamics, according to Eisenstein, is A. Watteau's "Journey to the Island of Cythera". It is noteworthy that P. Florensky gives a similar example.: "All these pairs are completely combined both plot-wise and picturesquely, so that all this movement from right to left seems to be a continuous stream..." [17, p. 248],[13, p. 246],[14, p. 70]. In the paintings of El Greco, S. Eisenstein also sees a cinematic technique. For example, in the "Toledo Plan" we see an architectural and landscape ensemble, where all the height ratios are given in reality, and not in perspective [2, p. 409],[14, p. 69-70],[13, p. 245-246].

Similar thoughts are found in Lessing. He believed that the true perspective in paintings arose through scenic painting, when it reached its highest stage of development. Lessing saw the proof of his assumption in later paintings found between the antiquities of Herculaneum, in which there were still such gross errors in perspective that during Lessing would not have forgiven the student [3, p. 140].

Sculpture, according to S. Eisenstein, uses an installation technique even more widely than painting. Michelangelo, in his opinion, such a technique is hidden by anatomical deformation and hypertrophy of human body forms [2, p. 162]. S. Eisenstein turns to the research of the French neurologist G. Duchene, who conducted experiments on electrical irritation of individual human muscles and described it in his work "The mechanism of movement of the human physiognomy or electrophysiological analysis of expression in 1876, G. Duchene presented the head of the "corrected Laocoon", and it turned out that in the "anatomically possible" Laocoon there is not even a fraction of the dynamics of suffering that "achieved by the film reception made Laocoon immortal for centuries!" [2, p. 163],[13, p. 246]. S. Eisenstein came to the conclusion that antiquity knew this method of installation, and not only along the line of raising the intensity of expression of the suffering person [2, p. 163], but also used the same technique to increase the expressiveness of the characteristic [2, p. 163]. The contractions of the muscles of the "Laocoon" were taken at different time intervals, which is a cinematic technique [14, pp. 70-71],[13, p. 246].

Lessing compared two ways of serving the same "Laocoon". The poet has more advantages here than the painter. The whole field of perfection is open to Him to be imitated. When we look at the sculptural image of "Laocoon", we see his suffering. In Homer, the Laocoon "screams" [3, pp. 31-32], but one cannot condemn the poet for this. Lessing believed that if the artist did well by not allowing his Laocoon to scream, then the poet did just as well by making him scream [3, p. 33].

According to P. Florensky, sculpture, if it is an imitation of an external object, then imitation is internally musical [17, p. 84]. In music, according to P. Florensky, the spatial characteristics are tempos, rhythms, accents, meters, harmony [14, p. 71],[13, p. 246]. Like Eisenstein, he saw the connection between music and poetry. Nevertheless, P. Florensky believed that all arts grow from the same root [17, p. 61]. A pictorial work, in his opinion, is nothing more than a recording of some rhythm — images, and in the recording itself the keys to its reading are given [17, p. 231]. A three-dimensional image gives a spatial shape. To read a work of art, one more coordinate is needed — time. Time is introduced into a work of art "by a cinematic technique, i.e. by dividing it into separate moments of rest" [17, p. 233]. The deeper the image is in the "fourth coordinate", i.e., the more noticeable the movement in it, the more pronounced the anatomical and physical inconsistency of distorted images should be..." [17, p. 258]. Instant photography does not convey distorted images [14, p. 71],[13, p. 246], but the real state of things, but this, according to P. Florensky, is the contradiction: instant photography of a moving image is not able to convey movement and is a spectacle of frozen bodies [17, p. 55]. The artwork contains a number of distortions, but it contains a number of time intervals and therefore is able to convey movement [14, p. 71],[13, p. 246-247].

According to J. Deleuze, cinema is a system of "pre-linguistic images and signs" [15, p. 532]. This system includes the readable image of a silent movie, the audio component of a visual image, and the audio image itself. The gap between silent and sound cinema seems to be Deleuze is insignificant, but he divides two types of images ? visual and sound - into "images-movement" and "images-time" [15, p. 532]. "Film structures and chronogenesis", according to Deleuze, are "two consecutive chapters of pure semiotics" [15, p. 532].

Eisenstein had asked himself this question even earlier. He believed that the symbolism of cinema should not be sought in a number of fine arts, i.e. spatial (painting and theater) [2, p. 479]. The understanding of cinema, according to Eisenstein, is now entering the "second literary period", the phase of approaching the symbolism of language, i.e. speech. "Speech that gives a symbolic meaning (that is, not a literal one), "imagery" to a completely specific material designation ? through an unusual literal contextual comparison, that is, by montage" [2, p. 479]. When compared unexpectedly or unusually, it acts as a "poetic image", that is, cinema has its own language, and the film frame is a certain "sign", a hieroglyph. The meaning is born in the installation, but the installation is not a thought composed of interlocked pieces, but a thought arising from the collision of two independent pieces from each other [2, p. 520]. S. Eisenstein draws an analogy with Japanese hieroglyphics, where two independent ideographic signs ("frames") placed side by side, they form a new concept. He gives examples: "eye + water = cry", "door+ear=listen" [2, p. 520], etc.

Cinema, according to Eisenstein, is a spectacular art [14, p. 73],[16, p. 304],[10, p. 248]. The viewer is included in the creative act, which is achieved by the power of editing. The individuality of the viewer is not only enslaved by the individuality of the author, but also revealed to the end in fusion with the author's meaning ... [1, p. 171]. That is, the image that the art of cinema shows us is an image that was conceived and created by the author, but this image was simultaneously created by the viewer's own act [14, p. 73],[13, p. 248].

 

Conclusion

The basis of the doctrine of the "image of becoming" was laid by G. E. Lessing. S. Eisenstein, based on the experience of Lessing and Hegel, deduces his theory of cinema as a comparison of two methods: the method of image and the method of figurative formation, emphasizing the method of becoming. The meaning in cinema is born in editing by connecting frames. The image in the cinema is the "image of becoming".

References
1. Eisenstein, S.M. (1964). Selected works: in 6 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ.
2. Eisenstein, S.M. (2000). Montage. Moscow, Museum of Cinema Publ.
3. Lessing, G.E. (2021). Laokoon, or On the boundaries of poetry and painting. Trans. With German E. Edelson, I. Felenkovskaya. St. Petersburg, ABC Publ.; ABC-Atticus Publ.
4. Hegel, G. V. F. (2007). Aesthetics: In 2 vols. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, Nauka Publ.
5. Shklovsky, V. B. (1973). Eisenstein. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ.
6. Kleiman, N.I. (1996). Eisenstein today. Conversation with O. Kosolapov, N. Sirivley. Iskusstvo kino, 5, 10-21.
7. Kleiman, N.I. (2017). Eisenstein on paper. Graphic works of the film master. Moscow, Ad Marginem Publ.
8. Podgoroga, V.A. (2017). Second screen. Sergey Eisenstein and the cinematography of violence. Vol. 1: Mirror support. Psychobiography materials. Moscow, BREUS Publ.
9. Podgoroga, V.A. (2020). Second screen. Sergey Eisenstein and the cinematography of violence. Volume 2: Prototelo. Fragments of visual anthropology. Moscow, BREUS Publ.
10. Khrenov, N.A. (2015). Cinema as an iconic system: from aesthetics to semiotics. Man. Culture. Education. Scientific, educational and methodological journal. Syktyvkar University named after Pitirim Sorokin, 2(16), 132-160.
11. Khrenov, N.A. (2015). Aesthetics S.M. Eisenstein in a semiotic perspective. Vestnik VGIK, 1(23), 8-25.
12. Freilic, S.I. (2013). Film theory: From Eisenstein to Tarkovsky. Moscow, Academic Project Publ.; Gaudeamus Publ.
13. Popova, L.V. (2017). Artistic image in the understanding of S. Eisenstein and P. Florensky. Vestnik slavianskikh kul'tur, 43, 242-250.
14. Popova, L.V. (2016). Silver Age and Russian cinema of the avant-garde era [Electronic resource ]. Scientific works of Moscow Humanitarian University, 5, 65-74. Retrieved from http://journals.mosgu.ru/trudy/article/view/340 doi:10.17805/trudy.2016.5.9
15. Delaise, J. (2013). Kino. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press LLC Publ.
16. Popova, L.V. (2017). Plot and montage in Russian cinema of the avant-garde era. Literature in the cultural system. To the seventieth anniversary of Professor I.V. Kondakov: Sat. articles on the results of the International Scientific and Practical Conference. Moscow, April 15, 2017/Ministry of Education of the Moscow Region; Academy of Social Management; comp. A.S. Baranov, A.V. Martynov, pp. 298-305. Moscow, ASOU.
17. Florensky, P. (1993). Analysis of spatiality and time in artistic and visual works. Moscow: Progress Publishing grupp Publ.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The author presented his article "The Image of Becoming" to the magazine "Culture and Art": from Lessing and Hegel to S. Eisenstein," which provides a cultural and philosophical understanding of the work of the famous Russian and Soviet director of the early twentieth century. The title of the article causes misunderstanding. As it is possible to determine from the text of the article, the author studies the process of creating an image in the cinema of S. Eisenstein and the philosophical views underlying it. In this case, we need to talk about the "formation of an image." If the "image of becoming" is a scientific term introduced by the author of the article, then he needs to focus in more detail on revealing the essence of this scientific phenomenon. The author proceeds in studying this issue from the fact that the image that the art of cinema shows us is an image that was conceived and created by the author, but this image was simultaneously created by the viewer's own act. The basis of the doctrine of the "image of becoming" was laid by G. E. Lessing. In G. V. F. Hegel, the doctrine of the "image of becoming" receives its development and completion. As the author notes, S. Eisenstein, based on the experience of Lessing and Hegel, deduces his theory of cinema as a comparison of two methods: the method of image and the method of figurative formation, focusing on the method of becoming. The meaning in cinema is born in editing by connecting frames. The image in the cinema is the "image of becoming". The relevance of the research is determined by the popularity of cinematography as a direction of modern artistic culture. The purpose of the study is to analyze the process and essence of the birth of an image in cinema. The subject of the study is the principle of image creation, developed by S.M. Eisenstein. The methodological basis of the research was an integrated approach, including both general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as content analysis of a scientific text, philosophical analysis. In the study, the author relies on the theoretical provisions of the works of such researchers as G.E. Lessing, G.V.F. Hegel, P. Florensky, J. Deleuze, etc. The scientific novelty lies in a comprehensive cultural analysis of the process of image creation in cinematography by S.M. Eisenstein. The practical significance of the research is determined by the fact that the research materials can be used in further study of S. Eisenstein's work, in teaching cultural studies, seminars and practical classes in specialized secondary and higher educational institutions. Based on the analysis of the scientific validity of the problem, the author concludes that by the beginning of the XXI century, Russian and foreign science had accumulated a lot of experience in studying various aspects of the art of cinema. The work of S. Eisenstein himself attracted the attention of many researchers, but the phenomenon of the "image of becoming" remains little studied at the present time. To achieve the purpose of the study, the author traces the influence of theories devoted to the concept of formation, the study of the creative process in art, such outstanding philosophers as Lessing, Hegel, Florensky, Deleuze on the formation of S. Eisenstein's unique directorial style. Having analyzed S.M. Eisenstein's ideas about the formation of an image in cinema, the author comes to the conclusion that according to S. Eisenstein, cinema is a comparison of two methods — the method of image and the method of imaginative formation. In his opinion, the topic of two methods was well consecrated by G.E. Lessing in his work "Laocoon, or On the Boundaries of Painting and Poetry", published in 1766, where it is not so much about the conflict of painting and poetry, as about the conflict of two methods: the method of image, as a method of reality and results, and about the method of images, as a method of formation and process. Given the experience of cinema, according to S. Eisenstein, the problem should be understood more broadly as a comparison of the possibilities of two methods ? the method of image and the method of imaginative formation: in any art, both methods are possible, violation of their unity, usurpation of all functions by one leads to insolvency and collapse. Having conducted the research, the author concludes with the key provisions of his research. It seems that the author in his material touched upon relevant and interesting issues for modern socio-humanitarian knowledge, choosing a topic for analysis, consideration of which in scientific research discourse will entail certain changes in the established approaches and directions of analysis of the problem addressed in the presented article. The results obtained allow us to assert that the study of the dynamics of the artist's work, the formation of his style, the influence of certain socio-cultural factors and philosophical views on his creative path is of undoubted scientific and practical cultural interest and deserves further study. The material presented in the work has a clear, logically structured structure that contributes to a more complete assimilation of the material. This is also facilitated by an adequate choice of an appropriate methodological framework. The bibliography of the study consisted of 17 sources, which seems sufficient for the generalization and analysis of scientific discourse on the subject under study. The author fulfilled his goal, received certain scientific results that allowed him to summarize the material. It should be stated that the article may be of interest to readers and deserves to be published in a reputable scientific publication after the specified drawback has been eliminated.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the article submitted for publication in the journal Culture and Art, as the author reflected in the title ("The formation of an image in cinema: from Lessing and Hegel to S. Eisenstein"), is the artistic method of image formation, taken by S. Eisenstein as the basis for film editing. The development of an artistic method based on the aesthetic concept of reflecting reality, accordingly, is the object of research. To implement the research program, which is briefly described in the introduction, the author chose the genre of a brief scientific report, which, in all probability, influenced the conciseness of the presentation of the material. A thematic selection of theoretical works by G. E. Lessing, G. V. F. Hegel and S. M. Eisenstein devoted to the artistic method of image formation provides an empirical basis for research. The author briefly traces the origins of objective idealism of the aesthetic concept of reflecting reality, which became the foundation of the artistic method of image formation in cinematography, by analyzing the foundation of the system of theoretical representations that make up the content of the empirical base. If we take into account that by reality both Lessing and Hegel, following Plato, understood the world of ideas that, due to the ideality of the corrosion of time, were not subjected and objectified by people in the form of ideals, including aesthetic ideals (standards), then Eisenstein's film editing technique, as the reviewer notes, contradicts his Marxist political beliefs. Nevertheless, the research presented in the article allows us to see the direct conditionality of the most important cinematic method by Plato's speculative concept, which makes a significant contribution to the problems of visualization of culture — a socio-cultural trend that is only gaining momentum with the advent of television and the Internet. An important addition to the scientific understanding of cinematography are the author's comments on the primacy of S. M. Eisenstein in determining the specifics of cinematography, taken half a century later by J. Deleuze for armament. The continuity of objective idealism traced by the author emphasizes the depth of the foundations of the aesthetics of Russian philosophy in terms of revealing the patterns of visual communication (Eisenstein, Florensky) — unfortunately, as the reviewer notes, experience is poorly integrated into the general field of modern theoretical discussions. Thus, the subject of the study was considered by the author at a high theoretical level, and the presented article is worthy of publication in the journal Culture and Art. The research methodology is based on a retrospection of the history of ideas, on the restoration of the theoretical and philosophical foundations of the artistic method of S. M. Eisenstein. The brevity of the presentation of the research program in the introduction did not become a problem in the logic of the presentation of the results obtained: the author's generalizations are well reasoned and logically fixed in the final conclusion. The author explains the relevance of the chosen topic by the need to understand the process of image creation in cinema, which was insufficiently covered until recently by domestic theorists. The reviewer notes that the principle of conciseness adopted by the author did not allow him to focus the reader's attention on the essential importance of the patterns of visual communication revealed by him through the analysis of theoretical literature. Meanwhile, the general context of the narrative contributes precisely to this most relevant area of understanding the transformations taking place in culture today. The scientific novelty expressed by the author in restoring the philosophical depth of the aesthetics of S. M. Eisenstein's artistic method is beyond doubt and deserves theoretical attention. The style of the text is scientific (hotel design blemishes in the form of separated by a separating hyphen for hyphenation are not significant and can be corrected by the editors). The structure of the article well reveals the logic of presenting the results of scientific research. The bibliography fully reveals the problem area of the study and is designed in accordance with editorial requirements. As a recommendation for the future, the reviewer notes that the author ignored the possibility of positioning the results of his research in a wider field of theoretical discussions by contacting foreign colleagues (there is no foreign scientific literature for the last 3-5 years). The appeal to the opponents is correct and sufficient. The article will certainly arouse the interest of the readership of the magazine "Culture and Art" and can be recommended for publication.