Abstract
Abstract While Lenin considered human knowledge to be similar to a mirror-like reflection of the object, Aleksandr Bogdanov emphasized the creative role of the subject in organizing the world. On the basis of some textual evidence, it is possible to describe the epistemologies of the two most influential Russian Marxists at the beginning of the twentieth century using the two metaphors of photography, on the one hand, and cinema, on the other. In particular, while discussing Einstein’s relativity, Bogdanov considers sense organs, memory, and all the apparatus of human knowledge ‘as a certain kind of cinematographic device’. Sergei Eisenstein deems that cinema is ‘an excellent instrument of perception … for the sensation of movement’. Although it is difficult to find compelling proof of exchange and influence, this is an actual ‘tangential point’ between Bogdanov’s and Eisenstein’s ideas on human knowledge.
Highlights
In intellectual history, influence is a major topic, and a very difficult one
Bogdanov was interested in cinema long before the Revolution, and maintained that cinema could be used to educate the new proletarian class
This is not surprising since Bogdanov had a serious interest in science and technology
Summary
While Lenin considered human knowledge to be similar to a mirror-like reflection of the object, Aleksandr Bogdanov emphasized the creative role of the subject in organizing the world. Iushkevich concluded that ‘the theory of relativity is the rebirth of modern positivism, which receives here new confirmation and support’ (Iushkevich 1923: 155).4 In his discussion of Einstein’s relativity, Bogdanov states that ‘our sense organs, memory, and all the scientific auxiliary means for perceiving and recording facts, can be considered as a certain kind of cinematographic device’(Bogdanov 1923: 107). According to Bogdanov,‘our sense organs, memory, and all the scientific auxiliary means to perceiving and recording facts, can be considered as a certain kind of cinematographic device’ (Bogdanov 1923: 107) This may not provide evidence for a direct or mutually acknowledged exchange of ideas between Eisenstein and Bogdanov, but it can certainly be regarded as a tangential point of encounter
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
