The Shape of Spectatorship: Art, Science, and Early Cinema in Germany

2. The scholarship on “useful film” and educational film is growing. See, e.g., the special issues on “Gebrauchsfilm” in montage/AV: Zeitschrift für Theorie & Geschichte audiovisueller Kommunikation 14, no. 2 (2005), and no. 3 (2006); Vinzenz Hediger and Patrick Vonderau, eds., Films That Work: Industrial Film and the Productivity of Media (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009); Charles R. Acland and Haidee Wasson, eds., Useful Cinema (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2011); and Devin Orgeron, Marsha Orgeron, and Dan Streible, eds., Learning with the Lights Out (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

3. Max Weber, “Science as a Vocation,” in The Vocation Lectures, ed. and with an introduction by David Owen and Tracy B. Strong, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2004), 1–31, here 7 (emphasis in original). This and the following paragraph have been adapted from my essay, “Science Lessons,” Film History 25, nos. 1–2 (2013): 45–54.

4. See Norbert Bolz, Am Ende der Gutenberg-Galaxis. Die neuen Kommunikationsverhältnisse (Munich: Fink, 1993), 115, or chap. 3; or Thomas Elsaesser, “Die Stadt von Morgen: Filme zum Bauen und Wohnen in der Weimarer Republik,” in Geschichte des dokumentarischen Film in Deutschland, Band 2: Weimarer Republik (1918–1933), ed. Klaus Kreimeier, Antje Ehmann, and Jeanpaul Goergen (Stuttgart: Reclam-Verlag, 2005), 381–410; as well as Vinzenz Hediger and Patrick Vonderau, “Record, Rhetoric, Rationalization: Industrial Organization and Film,” in Hediger and Vonderau, Films That Work, 35–49; and Petr Szczepanik, “Modernism, Industry, Film: A Network of Media in the Baťa Corporation and the Town of Zlín in the 1930s,” in Hediger and Vonderau, Films That Work, 349–376.

5. On experimental systems, see Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1997).

6. Ludwik Fleck, “Some Specific Features of the Medical Way of Thinking [1927],” in Cognition and Fact: Materials on Ludwik Fleck, ed. Robert S. Cohen and Thomas Schnelle (Dordrecht, Netherlands, and Boston: Reidel, 1986), 39–46.

7. Ludwik Fleck, “Scientific Observation and Perception in General [1935],” in Cohen and Schnelle, Cognition and Fact, 59–78, here 60.

8. Fleck, “Scientific Observation and Perception in General [1935],” 61.

9. Sir James Paget, “An Address on the Utility of Scientific Work in Practice,” British Medical Journal (15 October 1887): 811–814, here 811.

10. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, How Gertrude Teaches Her Children [1801], ed. Ebenezer Cooke, trans. Lucy E. Holland and Frances C. Turner, 2d ed. (Syracuse, N.Y.: Bardeen, 1898), tenth letter, 220 (emphasis in original).

11. Ludwik Fleck, “To Look, To See, To Know [1947],” in Cohen and Schnelle, Cognition and Fact, 129–151, here 137.

12. Robert Vischer, On the Optical Sense of Form [1873], in Empathy, Form, and Space: Problems in German Aesthetics, 1873–1893, ed. and trans. Harry Francis Mallgrave and Eleftherios Ikonomou (Santa Monica, Calif.: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1994), 89–124, esp. 93–95. In art history, see Norman Bryson’s discussion of the terms in Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). For the use of “gaze” and “glance” in media studies, see John Ellis, Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video (London: Routledge, 1982); and Timothy Corrigan, A Cinema Without Walls: Movies and Culture After Vietnam (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1991).

13. Michael Hau, “The Holistic Gaze in German Medicine, 1890–1930,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 74, no. 3 (Fall 2000): 495–524.

14. Michel Foucault, The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith (New York: Vintage, 1973), 109.

15. See William Egginton, “Intimacy and Anonymity, or How the Audience Became a Crowd,” in Crowds, ed. Jeffrey T. Schnapp and Matthew Tiews (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2006), 97–110.

16. “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility (Second Version),” in Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, vol. 3, 1935–1938, ed. Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings, trans. Edmund Jephcott, Howard Eiland, and others (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2002), 101–136, here 116.

17. Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility (Second Version),” 104.

18. Representative interventions in the debate about the role of modernity in a history of film style include the collection Cinema and the Invention of Modern Life, ed. Leo Charney and Vanessa Schwartz (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995); David Bordwell, On the History of Film Style (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 141–46; Noel Carroll, “Modernity and the Plasticity of Perception,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59, no. 1 (Winter 2001): 11–18; Ben Singer, Melodrama and Modernity: Early Sensational Cinema and Its Contexts (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001); Charlie Keil, “‘To Here from Modernity’: Style, Historiography, and Transitional Cinema,” in American Cinema’s Transitional Era: Audiences, Institutions, Practices, ed. Charlie Keil and Shelley Stamp (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 51–65; Tom Gunning, “Modernity and Cinema: A Culture of Shocks and Flows,” in Cinema and Modernity, ed. Murray Pomerance (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2006), 297–315; and Frank Kessler, “Viewing Change, Changing Views: The ‘History of Vision’ Debate,” in Film 1900: Technology, Perception, Culture, ed. Annemone Ligensa and Klaus Kreimeier (New Barnet, U.K.: Libbey, 2009), 23–35.

19. Among many other surveys discussed in chap. 4, see esp. Sabine Hake, The Cinema’s Third Machine: Writing on Film in Germany, 1907–1933 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993).

20. André Gaudreault, Film and Attraction: From Kinematography to Cinema, trans. Timothy Barnard (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2011).

21. See, e.g., Kevin Repp, Reformers, Critics, and the Paths of German Modernity: Anti-Politics and the Search for Alternatives, 1890–1914 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000); Andrew Lees, Cities, Sin, and Social Reform in Imperial Germany (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002); and Dennis Sweeney, “Reconsidering the Modernity Paradigm: Reform Movements, the Social and the State in Wilhelmine Germany,” Social History 31, no. 4 (November 2006): 405–434.

22. Ben Singer names this ambivalence “ambimodernity” and brings it to the attention of the film studies community in “The Ambimodernity of Early Cinema: Problems and Paradoxes in the Film-and-Modernity Discourse,” in Ligensa and Kreimeier, Film 1900, 37–51.

1. Charles Cros, “Inscription,” in Oeuvres completes, ed. Louis Forestier and Pascal Pia (Paris: Pauvert, 1964), 135–136.

2. On the graphic method, see Merriley Borell, “Extending the Senses: The Graphic Method,” Medical Heritage 2, no. 2 (March/April 1986): 114–121; Robert G. Frank Jr., “The Telltale Heart: Physiological Instruments, Graphic Methods, and Clinical Hopes, 1854–1914,” in The Investigative Enterprise: Experimental Physiology in Nineteenth-Century Medicine, ed. William Coleman and Frederic L. Holmes (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 211–290; Soraya de Chadarevian, “Graphical Method and Discipline: Self-Recording in Nineteenth-Century Physiology,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 24, no. 2 (June 1993): 267–291; and Robert M. Brain, “Representation on the Line: Graphic Recording Instruments and Scientific Modernism,” in From Energy to Information: Representation in Science and Technology, Art, and Literature, ed. Bruce Clarke and Linda Dalrymple Henderson (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2002), 155–177.

3. Wilhelm Braune and Otto Fischer, The Human Gait, trans. Paul Maquet and Ronald Furlong (Berlin and New York: Springer, 1987). In addition to The Human Gait, Braune and Fischer’s human motion studies included Das Gesetz der Bewegungen an der Basis der mittleren Finger und im Handgelenk des Menschen (Leipzig, 1887); Über den Schwerpunkt des menschlichen Körpers mit Rücksicht auf die Ausrüstung des deutschen Infanteristen (Leipzig, 1889), translated as On the Centre of Gravity of the Human Body as Related to the Equipment of the German Infantry Soldier by Paul Maquet and Ronald Furlong (Berlin and New York: Springer, 1985); Bestimmung der Trägheitsmomente des menschlichen Koerpers und seiner Glieder (Leipzig, 1892), translated as Determination of the Moments of Inertia of the Human Body and Its Limbs by Paul Maquet and Ronald Furlong (Berlin and New York: Springer, 1988); and Fischer’s Theoretische Grundlagen für eine Mechanik der lebenden Körper (Leipzig, 1906).

4. Max Seddig, “Ueber Abhängigkeit der Brown’schen Molekularbewegung von der Temperatur,” Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der gesammten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg 18 (1907): 182–188; Seddig, “Über die Messung der Temperaturabhängigkeit der Brownschen Molekularbewegung,” Physikalische Zeitschrift 9, no. 14 (15 July 1908): 465–468; Seddig, “Messung der Temperatur-Abhängigkeit der Brown’schen Molekularbewegung,” Habilitationsschrift, Akademie in Frankfurt a. M., 1909; Seddig, “Exacte Messung des Zeitintervalles bei kinematographischen Aufnahmen,” Jahrbuch für Photographie und Reproduktionstechnik 26 (1912): 654–657; and Seddig, “Messung der Temperatur-Abhängigkeit der Brown-Zsigmondyschen Bewegung,” Zeitschrift für Anorganische Chemie 73–74 (1912): 360–384.

5. Hermann Braus, “Mikro-Kino-Projektionen von in vitro gezüchteten Organanlagen,” Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte 83, part 2 (1911): 472–475.

6. For a fascinating account of cinema’s relationship to time and science, see Mary Ann Doane, The Emergence of Cinematic Time: Modernity, Contingency, the Archive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002).

7. Examinations of the relationship between illustrative materials and the agendas of scientists are increasingly popular in the history of science; a good, representative example is Martin Kemp, “Temples of the Body and Temples of the Cosmos: Vision and Visualization in the Vesalian and Copernican Revolutions,” in Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science, ed. Brian S. Baigrie (Toronto and Buffalo, N.Y.: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 40–84. Two especially influential collections are Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar, eds., Representation in Scientific Practice (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990); and Caroline A. Jones and Peter Galison, eds., Picturing Science, Producing Art (New York: Routledge, 1998). Catelijne Coopmans, Janet Vertesi, Michael E. Lynch, and Steve Woolgar, eds., Representation in Scientific Practice Revisited (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2014) is an excellent recent collection.

8. For more on the relationship between motion pictures and scientific experiment, see the section on “The Multiple Functions of the Medical Film” in chap. 2 in this volume.

9. On experimental systems and “dislocation” or “differential reproduction,” see Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1997), esp. chap. 5. Generally speaking, experimental systems are designed to produce incremental differences, which ultimately produce new inquiries and systems. But the balance between old and new is not symmetrical; my theory of disciplinary appropriation accommodates both the correspondence between disciplinary ideals and film and the difference between them, but the history I tell in this book favors the former. For more on the latter, see the conclusion in this volume.

10. Gaston Bachelard, The New Scientific Spirit, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Boston: Beacon, 1984), 13. See also Davis Baird, Thing Knowledge: A Philosophy of Scientific Instruments (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).

11. Rheinberger, Toward a History of Epistemic Things, 21.

12. Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

13. For surveys of scientific uses of photography and film, see Karl Wilhelm Wolf-Czapek, ed., Angewandte Photographie in Wissenschaft und Technik (Berlin: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1911); Martin Weiser, Medizinische Kinematographie (Dresden and Leipzig: Steinkopff, 1919); F. Paul Liesegang, Wissenschaftliche Kinematographie (Düsseldorf: Liesegang, 1920); Anthony R. Michaelis, Research Films in Biology, Anthropology, Psychology, and Medicine (New York: Academic, 1955); Virgilio Tosi, Cinema Before Cinema: The Origins of Scientific Cinematography, trans. Sergio Angelini (London: British Universities Film & Video Council, 2005); Timothy Boon, Films of Fact: A History of Science in Documentary Films and Television (New York: Wallflower, 2008); and Kelly Wilder, Photography and Science (London: Reaktion, 2009).

14. The literature on this transition between chronophotography and film is vast, but one place to start is Deac Rossell, Living Pictures: The Origins of the Movies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998). On Janssen, see esp. the work of Jimena Canales, who describes the history of Janssen’s photographic revolver in the context of emerging cinematographic forms of representation in the following: “Photogenic Venus: The ‘Cinematographic Turn’ in Science and Its Alternatives,” Isis 93 (2002): 585–613; “Sensational Differences: The Case of the Transit of Venus,” Cahiers François Viète 1, nos. 11/12 (September 2007): 15–40; A Tenth of a Second: A History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 87–115; and “Desired Machines: Cinema and the World in Its Own Image,” Science in Context 24, no. 3 (September 2011): 329–359.

15. Jennifer Tucker, Nature Exposed: Photography as Eyewitness in Victorian Science (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005); or Tucker, “Photography as Witness, Detective, and Imposter: Visual Representation in Victorian Science,” in Victorian Science in Context, ed. Bernard Lightman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 378–408; see also Joel Snyder, “Res Ipsa Loquitur,” in Things That Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science, ed. Lorraine Daston (New York: Zone, 2004), 195–221; as well as Wilder, Photography and Science.

16. An excellent discussion of one scientist’s dissatisfaction with photography can be found in Sarah de Rijcke, “Drawing Into Abstraction. Practices of Observation and Visualisation in the Work of Santiago Ramón y Cajal.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 33, no. 4 (2008): 287–311. Ramón y Cajal found that photography could not capture the three-dimensionality of nerve cells as well as drawings.

17. Thomas Schlich, “‘Wichtiger als der Gegenstand selbst’: Die Bedeutung des fotografischen Bildes in der Begründung der bakteriologischen Krankheitsauffassung durch Robert Koch,” in Neue Wege in der Seuchengeschichte, ed. Martin Dinges and Thomas Schlich (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995), 143–174. See also Olaf Breidbach, “Representation of the Microcosm: The Claim for Objectivity in 19th Century Scientific Microphotography,” Journal of the History of Biology 35 (2002): 221–250.

18. On the similarities between the graphic method and cinema, see Lisa Cartwright, “‘Experiments of Destruction’: Cinematic Inscriptions of Physiology,” Representations 40 (Fall 1992): 129–152; and Cartwright, Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine’s Visual Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995).

19. On Germany’s research infrastructure, see, e.g., Margit Szöllösi-Janze, “Science and Social Space: Transformations in the Institutions of Wissenschaft from the Wilhelmine Empire to the Weimar Republic,” Minerva 43 (2005): 339–360.

20. Carl Cranz, “Über einen ballistischen Kinematographen,” Deutscher Mechaniker-Zeitung 18 (15 September 1909): 173–177. See also P. W. W. Fuller, “Carl Cranz, His Contemporaries, and High-Speed Photography,” Proceedings of SPIE, no. 5580, 26th International Congress on High-Speed Photography and Photonics (25 March 2005): 250–260; and Wilhelm Pfeffer, “Die Anwendung des Projectionsapparates zur Demonstration von Lebensvorgängen,” Jahrbücher wissenschaftliche Botanik 35 (1900): 711–745. On Pfeffer, see esp. Oliver Gaycken, “‘The Swarming of Life’: Moving Images, Education, and Views Through the Microscope,” Science in Context 24, no. 3 (September 2011): 361–380; and Gaycken, “The Secret Life of Plants: Visualizing Vegetative Movement, 1880–1903,” Early Popular Visual Culture 10, no. 1 (2012): 51–69.

21. The best overview of Comandon’s life and work is Béatrice de Pastre and Thierry Lefebvre, eds., Filmer la science, comprendre la vie: Le cinema de Jean Comandon (Paris: Centre national de la cinématographie, 2012).

22. On Messter, see Christian Ilgner and Dietmar Linke, “Filmtechnik: Vom Malteserkreuz zum Panzerkino,” in Oskar Messter: Filmpioneer der Kaiserzeit, ed. Martin Loiperdinger (Basel and Frankfurt: Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, 1994), 93–134, esp. 128–134; as well as Frank Kessler, Sabine Lenk, and Martin Loiperdinger, eds., Oskar Messter—Erfinder und Geschäftsmann, KINtop Schriften 3 (Basel and Frankfurt: Stoemfeld/Roter Stern, 1994). On Ernemann, see, e.g., the nod to the manufacturer in Hans Hennes,“Die Kinematographie der Bewegungsstörungen,” Die Umschau 15, no. 29 (1911): 605–606; as well as Hanns Günther, “Mikrokinematographische Aufnahmeapparate,” Film and Lichtbild 1, no. 1 (1912): 4–6; 1, no. 2 (1912): 13–14.

23. On popular scientific cinema, see Thierry Lefebvre, “The Scientia Production (1911–1914): Scientific Popularization Through Pictures,” Griffithiana no. 47 (May 1993): 137–153; Oliver Gaycken, “‘A Drama Unites Them in a Fight to the Death’: Some Remarks on the Flourishing of a Cinema of Scientific Vernacularization in France, 1909–1914,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 22, no. 3 (2002): 353–374; and Gaycken, Devices of Curiosity: Early Cinema and Popular Science (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2015). For an excellent account of popular science films in the United Kingdom, see Boon, Films of Fact. On the entwinement of scientific experiment, projection, popular science, and Victorian physics, see Simon Schaffer, “Transport Phenomena: Space and Visibility in Victorian Physics,” Early Popular Visual Culture 10, no. 1 (February 2012): 71–91. On popularization in science in general, see Roger Cooter and Stephen Pumfrey, “Separate Spheres and Public Places: Reflections on the History of Science Popularization and Science in Popular Culture,” History of Science 32, no. 97 (1994): 237–267.

24. Readers were asked to write the editor for details; see “Verzeichnis wissenschaftlich und technisch wertvoller Films,” Film und Lichtbild 1, no. 2 (1912): 16; or “An unsere Abonnenten!” Film und Lichtbild 2, no. 5 (1913): 84.

25. For reports of screenings, see “Wissenschaft und Lichtspiele,” Bild und Film 1, no. 2 (1912): 49–50; “Kino und Wissenschaft,” Bild und Film 1, no. 2 (1912): 55; W. Thielemann, “Kinematographie und biologische Forschung,” Bild und Film 3, no. 7 (1913/1914): 171–172; and “Wissenschaftliche Abende,” Film und Lichtbild 1, no. 3 (1912): 30–31.

26. “Ein neues wissenschaftliches Kino,” Film und Lichtbild 1, no. 5 (1912): 62. It is possible that the Fata Morgana was the only one of its kind.

27. See Thierry Lefebvre, La chair et le celluloid: Le cinéma chirurgical du Docteur Doyen (Brionne: Jean Doyen éditeur, 2004), for a discussion of the controversy surrounding the theft and possible unauthorized exhibition of Parisian doctor Eugène-Louis Doyen’s surgical films in the early 1900s. See also chap. 2 in this volume.

28. For example, Wilhelm Richter, a Berlin teacher and school reformer, often wrote on scientific cinema in the popular press, cheering all efforts to bring new views to public perception. See “Der Kinematograph als naturwissenschaftliches Anschauungsmittel,” Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift 12, no. 52 (28 December 1913): 817–820.

29. On the use of film in university teaching, see Franz Bergmann, “Der Kinematograph im Hochschulunterricht,” Bild und Film 2, no. 2 (1912/1913): 48; Wilhelm Richter, “Hochschulkinematographie,” Bild und Film 2, nos. 11/12 (1912/1913): 253–257; and L. Segmiller, “Das Skizzieren nach Lichtbildern bei Tageslicht und künstlicher Beleuchtung,” Film und Lichtbild 1, no. 4 (1912): 35–39.

30. One survey of the contemporary use of microcinematography notes, “Films of the latter [Ernst Sommerfeldt] are available commercially from Ernemann and depict crystallographic phenomenon,” so apparently whether a research film made it into theaters depended on both the researcher’s willingness and the manufacturer’s evaluation of its popular appeal. On this example, see Ernst Sommerfeldt, “Über flüssige und scheinbar lebende Kristalle; mit kinematographischen Projektionen,” Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte 79, part 2 (1907): 202. The survey of microcinematography is Engelhard Wychgram, “Aus optischen und mechanischen Werkstätten IV,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Mikroskopie und für mikroskopishe Technik 28 (1911): 337–361, esp. 351–361.

31. On “mechanical objectivity,” see Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, “The Image of Objectivity,” Representations 40 (Fall 1992): 81–128; and Daston and Galison, Objectivity (New York: Zone, 2007).

32. On the difference between instruments for experimentation and for demonstration, see Thomas L. Hankins and Robert J. Silverman, “The Magic Lantern and the Art of Demonstration,” in Instruments and the Imagination (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995), 37–71.

33. Bruno Latour, “Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands,” Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present 6 (1986): 1–40, here 5. Brian Winston has also considered Latour’s work in relation to film: “The Documentary Film as Scientific Inscription,” in Theorizing Documentary, ed. Michael Renov (London and New York: Routledge, 1993), 37–57.

34. Latour, “Visualization and Cognition,” 7 (emphasis in original).

35. See esp. Nicolas Rasmussen, Picture Control: The Electron Microscope and the Transformation of Biology in America, 1940–1960 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1997); Bernike Pasveer, “Knowledge of Shadows: The Introduction of X-Ray Images in Medicine,” Sociology of Health and Illness 11, no. 4 (December 1989): 361–381; and Edward Yoxen, “Seeing with Sound: A Study of the Development of Medical Images,” in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1987), 281–303.

36. Anne Harrington, Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996). For an account of earlier debates about mechanistic approaches in science, see Peter Hanns Reill, Vitalizing Nature in the Enlightenment (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).

37. Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution, trans. Arthur Mitchell (New York: Random House, 1944). Hereafter cited parenthetically. Bergson indicates in the opening footnote of chap. 4 that he began thinking about science and film during his 1902–1903 course on the “History of the Idea of Time” at the Collège de France.

38. The mechanistic approach to biology was represented in Germany by such “biophysicists” as Hermann von Helmholtz and Emil Du Bois-Reymond, who hoped to demonstrate that life operated under the same physical and chemical laws as other phenomena. See Helmholtz’s Über die Erhaltung der Kraft (Berlin: Reimer, 1847) for a comparison of muscles and mechanics, or Du Bois-Reymond’s Untersuchungen über thierische Elektricität (Berlin: Reimer, 1848–1884) for an exploration of life’s basic physical forces.

39. Henri Bergson, An Introduction to Metaphysics, trans. T. E. Hulme (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 52.

40. Bergson, Metaphysics, 51.

41. At this point we should note the influence of Bergson’s philosophy on film theory from the work of Jean Epstein to Gilles Deleuze. For Epstein, see representative selections in French Film Theory and Criticism, vols. 1 and 2, ed. Richard Abel (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988); for Deleuze, see Cinema 1: The Movement-Image and Cinema 2: The Time-Image, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1986 and 1989).

42. Michel Georges-Michel, “Henri Bergson nous parle au cinéma,” Le Journal (20 February 1914): 7; translated by Louis-Georges Schwartz as “Henri Bergson Talks to Us About Cinema,” Cinema Journal 50, no. 3 (Spring 2011): 79–82, here 81. See also Frank Kessler’s German translation and discussion of this article: “Henri Bergson und die Kinematographie,” KINtop 12 (2003): 12–16.

43. I want to thank Paula Amad, whose doctoral dissertation “Archiving the Everyday: A Topos in French Film History, 1895–1931” (University of Chicago, 2002) led me in this direction. See also Amad’s Counter-Archive: Film, The Everyday, and Albert Kahn’s Archives de la Planète (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010). For more on Bergson’s understanding of movement, see Jimena Canales, “Movement Before Cinematography: The High-Speed Qualities of Sentiment,” Journal of Visual Culture 5, no. 3 (December 2006): 275–294.

44. Walter Benjamin, “On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,” in Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, vol. 4, 1938–1940, ed. Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings, trans. Edmund Jephcott and others (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2003), 313–355, here 314.

45. This is not to say that Bergson had no effect in Germany. Georg Simmel, e.g., was impressed and influenced by Bergson. See Gregor Fitzi, Soziale Erfahrung und Lebensphilosophie. Georg Simmels Beziehung zu Henri Bergson (Konstanz, Germany: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 2002). For Bergson’s reception by such thinkers as Max Scheler, Roman Ingarden, Hans Driesch, Max Horkeimer, and others, see Rudolf W. Meyer, “Bergson in Deutschland. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner Zeitauffassung,” in Studien zum Zeitproblem in der Philosophie des 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. Rudolf W. Meyer et al. (Munich: Alber, 1982), 10–64; and Günther Pflug, “Die Bergson-Rezeption in Deutschland,” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 45, no. 2 (April–June 1991): 257–266.

46. Cited in Michael Ermarth, Wilhelm Dilthey: The Critique of Historical Reason (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 24.

47. Harrington, Reenchanted Science, 27.

48. Wilhelm Dilthey, “The Construction of the Historical World in the Human Studies,” in Selected Writings, ed., trans., and with an introduction by H. P. Rickman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 168–245, here 181.

49. My discussion of the science of work is indebted to Anson Rabinbach, The Human Motor: Energy, Fatigue, and the Origins of Modernity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990). Hereafter cited parenthetically. Closely related to this idea of fatigue was the modern notion of “nervousness”: see Andreas Killen, Berlin Electropolis: Shock, Nerves, and German Modernity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006).

50. In addition to Harrington’s Reenchanted Science, a good overview of the debate, from the vitalist’s point of view, is Frederick Burwick and Paul Douglass, eds., The Crisis in Modernism: Bergson and the Vitalist Controversy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). With regard to cinema and vitalism, see also Inga Pollmann, “Cinematic Vitalism: Theories of Life and the Moving Image” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2011).

51. Rabinbach, Human Motor, 181; see also Ernest Solvay, Notes sur le productivisme et le comptabilisme (Brussels: Misch and Thron, 1900) 2: 323. On the institute, see Daniel Warnotte, Ernest Solvay et l’Institut de Sociologie: Contribution à l’histoire de l’énergétique sociale (Brussels: Bruylant, 1946).

52. Rabinbach, Human Motor, 134; see also Angelo Mosso, Fatigue, trans. Margaret Drummond and W. B. Drummond (New York: Putnam, 1904); and Karen J. Fleckenstein, “The Mosso Plethysmograph in 19th-Century Physiology,” Medical Instrumentation 18, no. 6 (November–December 1984): 330–331.

53. See Leo Koenigsberger, Hermann von Helmholtz (Braunschweig, Germany: Viewig, 1911); as well as David Cahan, ed., Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993).

54. See especially Greg Myers, “Nineteenth-Century Popularizations of Thermodynamics and the Rhetoric of Social Prophecy,” in Energy & Entropy: Science and Culture in Victorian Britain, ed. Patrick Brantlinger (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), 307–338; Ed Block Jr., “T. H. Huxley’s Rhetoric and the Popularization of Victorian Scientific Ideas, 1854–1874,” in Brantlinger, Energy & Entropy, 205–228; and Degeneration: The Dark Side of Progress, ed. J. Edward Chamberlin and Sander L. Gilman (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985). The concept of degeneration will receive much more attention in chap. 2 of this volume.

55. Recent studies of Marey include Marta Braun, Picturing Time: The Work of Étienne-Jules Marey (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); and Francois Dagognet, Étienne-Jules Marey: A Passion for the Trace, trans. Robert Galeta with Jeanine Herman (New York: Zone, 1992). See also Marey’s La methode graphique dans les sciences éxperimentales et principlement en physiologie et en médecine (Paris: Masson, 1885); Movement, trans. Eric Pritchard (London: Heinemann, 1895); and La chronophotographie (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1899).

56. Étienne-Jules Marey, “Études sur la marche de l’homme,” Revue Militaire de Médecine et de Chirurgie 1 (1880): 244–46, cited in Rabinbach, Human Motor, 116.

57. For the culmination of this approach, see Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (1911; New York: Norton, 1947); and Frank B. Gilbreth, Motion Study: A Method for Increasing the Efficiency of the Workman (New York: Van Nostrand, 1911). On the use of motion pictures in this program, see Richard Lindstrom, “‘They All Believe They Are Undiscovered Mary Pickfords’: Workers, Photography, and Scientific Management,” Technology and Culture 41, no. 4 (2000): 725–751; Ramón Reichert, “Der Arbeitstudienfilm: Eine verborgene Geschichte des Stummfilms,” medien & zeit: Kommunikation in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart 5 (2002): 46–57; Philipp Sarasin, “Die Rationalisierung des Körpers: Über ‘Scientific Management’ und ‘biologische Rationalisierung’” in Geschichtswissenschaft und Diskursanalyse (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2003), 61–99; Elspeth H. Brown, The Corporate Eye: Photography and the Rationalization of American Commercial Culture, 1884–1929 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005); Florian Hoof, “‘The One Best Way’: Bildgebende Verfahren der Ökonomie und die Innovation der Managementtheorie Nach 1860,” montage/AV: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Geschichte audiovisueller Kommunikation 15, no. 1 (2006): 123–138; and Scott Curtis, “Images of Efficiency: The Films of Frank B. Gilbreth,” in Films That Work: Industrial Film and the Productivity of Media, ed. Vinzenz Hediger and Patrick Vonderau (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009), 85–99.

58. This tradition goes back as far as 1836, with the publication of the work of Wilhelm Weber, who with his brothers Ernst and Eduard investigated human motion using a variety of innovative visual and graphic technologies. See Mechanik der menschlichen Gehwerkzeuge: Eine anatomisch-physiologische Untersuchung, in Wilhelm Weber’s Werke, vol. 6, ed. Der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (Berlin: Springer, 1894), 1–305. (Wilhelm Braune and Otto Fischer were closely involved in the selection and editing of Weber’s works.) For a comprehensive history of human motion studies, see Andreas Mayer, Wissenschaft vom Gehen. Die Erforschung der Bewegung im 19. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt: Fischer, 2013).

59. Braune and Fischer, The Human Gait, 18.

60. Braune and Fischer, The Human Gait, 4.

61. Rabinbach, Human Motor, 189; see also Nathan Zuntz and Wilhelm Schumberg, Studien zu einer Physiologie des Marsches (Berlin: Hirschwald, 1901).

62. Rabinbach, Human Motor, 104; see also Étienne-Jules Marey, Animal Mechanism: A Treatise on Terrestrial and Aerial Locomotion (New York: Appleton, 1874).

63. Rabinbach, Human Motor, 144; see also Wilhelm Weichardt, “Ermüdungsbekämpfung durch Antikenotoxin,” Deutsche militärärztliche Zeitschrift 42, no. 1 (5 January 1913): 12–13.

64. Rabinbach, Human Motor, 135; see also Mosso, Fatigue, 121.

65. “Novel Uses for Moving Pictures,” Moving Picture World 1, no. 3 (23 March 1907): 39–40.

66. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1979), 136.

67. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 137.

68. Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

69. Michael Lynch, “Discipline and the Material Form of Images: An Analysis of Scientific Visuality,” Social Studies of Science 15, no. 1 (February 1985): 43–44 (emphasis in original). Daston and Galison, in their work on objectivity (cited in note 31), call it a “working object,” which has become the more common term in the history and sociology of science.

70. Some of the most notable early sociological studies of the scientific process include Harold Garfinkel, Michael Lynch, and Eric Livingston, “The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11, no. 2 (June 1981): 131–158; Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London and Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1979); and Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987).

71. Chapter 1 appeared as “Versuche am unbelasteten und belasteten Menschen,” Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Physischen Klasse der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 21, no. 4 (1895): 151–322; chap. 2 as “Die Bewegung des Gesamtschwerpunktes und die äußeren Kräfte” in 25, no. 1 (1899): 1–130; chap. 3 as “Betrachtungen über die weiteren Ziele der Untersuchung und Überblick über die Bewegungen der unteren Extremitäten” in 26, no. 3 (1900): 85–170; chap. 4 as “Über die Bewegung des Fußes und die auf denselben einwirkenden Kräfte” in 26, no. 7 (1901): 467–556; chap. 5 as “Die Kinematik des Beinschwingens” in 28, no. 5 (1903): 319–418; and chap. 6 as “Über den Einfluß der Schwere und der Muskeln auf die Schwingungsbewegung des Beins” in 28, no. 7 (1904): 531–617.

72. Herman J. Wohlring, review of The Human Gait, Human Movement Science 8, no. 1 (February 1989): 79–83. Aerial photography, the counterpart to close-range photogrammetry, also developed from military applications. See Teodor J. Blachut and Rudolf Burkhardt, Historical Development of Photogrammetric Methods and Instruments (Falls Church, Va.: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 1989); and Paul Virilio, War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception, trans. Patrick Camiller (London: Verso, 1989).

73. Eadweard Muybridge, Animal Locomotion: An Electro-Photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movement (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1887); or Muybridge’s Complete Human and Animal Locomotion (New York: Dover, 1979); and Albert Londe, Photographie médicale (Paris: Gauthiers-Villars, 1893). There also seems to have been surprisingly little crossover between Braune and Fischer’s work and that of other German chronophotographers, such as Ottomar Anschütz and Ernst Kohlrausch, but that is primarily a disciplinary issue; as the quotation above indicates, Braune and Fischer saw Anschütz’s decision to pursue the popular potential of his devices, rather than any research applications, as a markedly different path. A potentially interesting overlap might be the German Ministry of War, with which Anschütz worked in 1884, but more research needs to be done here. On Anschütz, see Deac Rossell, Faszination der Bewegung: Ottomar Anschütz zwischen Photographie und Kino, KINtop Schriften 6 (Frankfurt: Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, 2001).

74. Braune and Fischer, The Human Gait, 6. Hereafter cited parenthetically.

75. Lynch, “Discipline and the Material Form of Images,” 43.

76. Lynch, “Discipline and the Material Form of Images,” 42.

77. Edmund Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, trans. David Carr (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1970), 376.

78. Michael Lynch, “The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of Objects in the Life Sciences,” in Representation in Scientific Practice, ed. Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990), 153–186, here 170.

79. Bergson, Creative Evolution, 342 (emphasis in original).

80. Michaelis, Research Films in Biology, Anthropology, Psychology, and Medicine, 371.

81. Bergson, Creative Evolution, 238.

82. Jill Vance Buroker, “Descartes on Sensible Qualities,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 29, no. 4 (October 1991): 585–611.

83. Bergson, Creative Evolution, 240 (emphasis in original).

84. An earlier, shorter version of this section appeared as “Die kinematographische Methode. Das ‘Bewegte Bild’ und die Brownsche Bewegung,” montage/AV: Zeitschrift für Theorie & Geschichte audiovisueller Kommunikation 14, no. 2 (2005): 23–43.

85. Roberto Maiocchi, “The Case of Brownian Motion,” British Journal for the History of Science 23 (September 1990): 257–283, here 257. See also Stephen G. Brush, “A History of Random Processes: I. Brownian Movement from Brown to Perrin,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 5, no. 1 (1968): 1–36; Mary Jo Nye, Molecular Reality: A Perspective on the Scientific Work of Jean Perrin (New York: American Elsevier, 1972); Milton Kerker, “Brownian Movement and Molecular Reality Prior to 1900,” Journal of Chemical Education 51, no. 12 (December 1974): 764–768; Peter Clark, “Atomism Versus Thermodynamics,” in Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences, ed. Colin Howson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 41–106; Brush, Statistical Physics and the Atomic Theory of Matter from Boyle and Newton to Landau and Onsager (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983), 79–104; and John Stachel, “Einstein on Brownian Motion,” in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vol. 2, The Swiss Years: Writings, 1900–1909, ed. John Stachel (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989), 206–222. On the modern implications and theoretical offspring of Brownian motion, see Erwin Frey and Klaus Kroy, “Brownian Motion: A Paradigm of Soft Matter and Biological Physics,” Annalen der Physik 14, nos. 1–3 (February 2005): 20–50.

86. Clark, “Atomism Versus Thermodynamics,” 42.

87. For Mach’s objections to the kinetic theory, see Ernst Mach, Die Principien der Wärmlehre: Historisch-kritisch Entwickelt (Leipzig: Barth, 1896), 428–429; for a discussion of Mach and the historical context of the debate, see Stephen G. Brush, The Kind of Motion We Call Heat: A History of the Kinetic Theory of Gases in the 19th Century (Amsterdam and New York: North-Holland and American Elsevier, 1976), 274–299; for more on Mach, see John T. Blackmore, Ernst Mach: His Work, Life, and Influence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972). For Ostwald and other anti-atomists, see Mary Jo Nye, Molecular Reality; and Nye, “The Nineteenth-Century Atomic Debates and the Dilemma of an ‘Indifferent Hypothesis,’” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 7, no. 3 (1976): 245–268.

88. Brush, Statistical Physics, 97.

89. Louis-Georges Gouy, “Le mouvement brownien et les mouvements moléculaires,” Revue générale des sciences pures et appliquées 6, no. 1 (15 January 1895): 1–7.

90. Maiocchi, “The Case of Brownian Motion,” 260.

91. Felix M. Exner, “Notiz zu Brown’s Molecularbewegung,” Annalen der Physik 2, no. 8 (1900): 843–847.

92. Exner, “Notiz,” 844–845.

93. Albert Einstein, “On the Movement of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid Demanded by the Molecular-Kinetic Theory of Heat,” in Investigations on the Theory of the Brownian Movement, ed. R. Fürth, trans. A. D. Cowper (New York: Dover, 1956), 1–18, here 1–2.

94. The best explanation of Einstein’s use of Brownian motion as a statistical system is Martin J. Klein, “Fluctuations and Statistical Physics in Einstein’s Early Work,” in Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives, ed. Gerald Holton and Yehuda Elkana (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982), 39–58. Klein remarks, “Einstein had invented the Brownian motion. To say anything less, to describe this paper in the usual way, that is, as his explanation of the Brownian motion, is to undervalue it” (47, emphasis in original). See also Jürgen Renn, “Einstein’s Invention of Brownian Motion,” Annalen der Physik 14, supplement (2005): 23–37.

95. Maiocchi, “The Case of Brownian Motion,” 260 (emphasis in original).

96. Nye, Molecular Reality, 111.

97. Significantly, Brownian motion described an observable system in liquid, whereas up to this point discussions of random systems and fluctuations had focused only on gases. That is, the kinetic theory to this point applied only to gases, not liquids or solids. By removing that particular restriction in his focus on Brownian motion, Einstein also raised the stakes of the debate over the existence of atoms.

98. Einstein further simplified the system by limiting his mathematical derivations to two dimensions, thereby only taking into account the horizontal displacement of particles. In this way, Einstein’s theory corresponds to experimental practice in that the field of observation corresponds to the flat, two-dimensional field of the microscope.

99. Maiocchi, “The Case of Brownian Motion,” 263–264 (emphasis in original).

100. Brush, “A History of Random Processes,” 22–23.

101. On the invention and use of the ultramicroscope, see David Cahan, “The Zeiss Werke and the Ultramicroscope: The Creation of a Scientific Instrument in Context,” in Scientific Credibility and Technical Standards in 19th and Early 20th Century German and Britain, ed. Jed Z. Buchwald (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1996), 67–115.

102. Victor Henri, “Études cinématographique des mouvements browniens,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Academie des Sciences 146 (18 May 1908): 1024–1026; and Henri, “Influence du milieu sur les mouvements browniens,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Academie des Sciences 147 (6 July 1908): 62–65. For a later use of motion pictures to record the distribution of particles in a gaseous system, which builds upon Seddig’s and Henri’s work, see Richard Lorenz and W. Eitel, “Über die örtliche Verteilung von Rauchteilchen,” Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie 87, no. 1 (12 May 1914): 357–374.

103. For a critique of Henri’s results, see Aimé Cotton, “Recherches récentes sur les mouvements browniens,” La Revue du Mois 5 (10 June 1908): 737–741.

104. The most influential paper of many is Jean Perrin, “Mouvement brownien et molécules,” Annales de chimie et de physique 18 (September 1909): 1–114, translated by F. Soddy as “Brownian Movement and Molecular Reality,” in The Question of the Atom, ed. Mary Jo Nye (Los Angeles, Calif.: Tomash, 1984), 507–601. The best commentary on Perrin is Mary Jo Nye, Molecular Reality. For Perrin’s own discussion of Henri, Seddig, and others, see Atoms, trans. D. L. Hammick, 2d English ed. rev. (London: Constable, 1923), 109–133. On Perrin’s visualization techniques, see Charlotte Bigg, “Evident Atoms: Visuality in Jean Perrin’s Brownian Motion Research,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39 (2008): 312–322. See also Bigg, “A Visual History of Jean Perrin’s Brownian Motion Curves,” in Histories of Scientific Observation, ed. Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 156–180.

105. Nye, Molecular Reality, 97.

106. Seddig, “Messung der Temperatur-Abhängigkeit der Brown’schen Molekularbewegung,” 12 (emphasis in original).

107. Seddig, “Ueber Abhängigkeit,” 185.

108. Marey came upon this solution as early as 1891. See Braun, Picturing Time, 166.

109. Einstein to Jakob Laub, 30 July 1908, quoted in Stachel, “Einstein on Brownian Motion,” 220. We should also note that in 1907 there was another attempt to verify Einstein’s theories: Theodor Svedberg, Studien zur Lehre von der Kolloiden Lösungen (Uppsala: Akademische Buchdruckerei Edv. Berling, 1907). Einstein was not so kind: “The errors in Svedberg’s method of observation and also in his theoretical treatment became clear to me at once. I wrote a minor correction at the time, which only addressed the worst, as I couldn’t bring myself to detract from Mr. S’s great pleasure in his work.” (Einstein to Jean Perrin, 11 November 1909, quoted in Stachel, “Einstein on Brownian Motion,” 220).

110. Maryan Smoluchowski, “Essai d’une thèorie cinètique du movement brownien et des milieux troubles,” Krakau Anzeiger 7 (1906): 585–586, quoted in Maiocchi, “The Case of Brownian Motion,” 264.

111. Jean Perrin, Les atoms, 4th ed. rev. (Paris: Librarie Félix Alcan, 1914), 157; Atoms, 2d English ed. rev., 109–110 (emphasis in original). On Jean Comandon’s Brownian motion films, see Jean Comandon with Albert Dastre, “Cinématographie, à l’ultra-microscope, de microbes vivants et des particules mobiles,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des Sciences 149 (22 November 1909): 938–941. Perrin showed the films of Henri and Comandon to the Société des Amis de l’Université de Paris in 1911: Jean Perrin, “La realité des molecules,” Revue Scientifique 49, no. 2 (1911): 774–784, quoted in Nye, Molecular Reality, 153. See also Hannah Landecker, “Cellular Features: Microcinematography and Film Theory,” Critical Inquiry 31, no. 4 (2005): 903–937.

112. On the debate in the 1920s between Bergson and Einstein regarding this category mistake, see Jimena Canales, “Einstein, Bergson, and the Experiment That Failed: Intellectual Cooperation at the League of Nations,” Modern Language Notes 120, no. 5 (2006): 1168–1191.

113. Louis de Broglie, “The Concepts of Contemporary Physics and Bergson’s Ideas on Time and Motion,” in Bergson and the Evolution of Physics, ed. and trans. P. A. Y. Gunter (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1969), 45–62, here 49.

114. Suzanne Guerlac, Thinking in Time: An Introduction to Henri Bergson (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2006), 19.

115. Bergson was not alone in this stance; even Nobel Prize–winning Belgian physicist and chemist Ilya Prigogine argued that physics should account for the irreversibility of time. See, e.g., From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences (San Francisco: Freeman, 1980); and with Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature (Boulder, Colo.: New Science Library, 1984); and The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature (New York: Free Press, 1997). For an introduction to this contradiction between time in physics and time as it is experienced, see David Z. Albert, Time and Chance (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000).

116. For different interpretations of the instant and the point in photography and cinema, see Thierry de Duve, “Time Exposure and Snapshot: The Photograph as Paradox,” October 5 (Summer 1978): 113–125; and Doane, The Emergence of Cinematic Time, 208–230.

117. Henri Bergson, Matter and Memory, trans. Nancy Margaret Paul and W. Scott Palmer (Cambridge, Mass.: Zone, 1988), 247 (emphasis in original).

118. Bergson, Matter and Memory, 250 (emphasis in original).

119. Deleuze, Cinema 1.

120. Seddig, “Messung der Temperatur-Abhängigkeit der Brown’schen Molekularbewegung,” 36–37.

121. Marey, Movement.

122. Lucien Bull (Brussels: Hayez, 1967), 11.

123. For a representative sampling, see Charles François-Franck, “La chronophotographie simultanée du coeur et des courbes cardiographiques chez les mammifères,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances et mémoires de la Société de Biologie 54 (8 November 1902): 1193–1197; “Note sur quelques points de technique relatifs à la photographie et à la chronophotographie avec le magnésium à deflagration lente,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances et mémoires de la Société de Biologie 55 (5 December 1903): 1538–1540; “Études graphiques et photographiques de mécanique respiratoire comparée,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances et mémoires de la Société de Biologie 61 (28 July 1906): 174–176; and “Démonstrations de microphotographie instantanée et de chronomicrophotographie,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances et mémoires de la Société de Biologie 62 (25 May 1907): 964–967. Although many of his citations are incorrect, Thierry Lefebvre, “Contribution à l’histoire de la microcinématographie: De François-Franck à Comandon,” 1895 14 (June 1993): 35–43, is an essential introduction.

124. L. Chevroton and F. Vlès, “La cinématique de la segmentation de l’oeuf et la chronophotographie du développement de l’Oursin,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Academie des Sciences 149 (8 November 1909): 806–809.

125. Henri, “Études cinématographique des mouvements browniens.”

126. Isabelle do O’Gomes, “L’oeuvre de Jean Comandon,” in Le cinéma et la science, ed. Alexis Martinet (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 1994), 78–85.

127. Julius Ries, “Kinematographie der Befruchtung und Zellteilung,” Archiv für Mikroskopische Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 74 (1909): 1–31.

128. Henri Bénard, “Les tourbillons cellulaires dans une nappe liquide. II. Procédés mécaniques et optiques d’examens, lois numériques des phénomènes,” Revue générale des sciences pures et appliquées 11 (1900): 1309–1328; and Bénard, “Formation de centres de giration à l’arrière d’un obstacle en movement,” Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences 147 (1908): 839–842. See also José Eduardo Wesfreid, “Scientific Biography of Henri Bénard (1874–1939),” in Dynamics of Spatio-Temporal Cellular Structures: Henri Bénard Centenary Review, ed. Innocent Mutabazi, José Eduardo Wesfreid, and Étienne Guyon (New York: Springer, 2006), 9–40; and David Aubin, “‘The Memory of Life Itself’: Bénard’s Cells and the Cinematography of Self-Organization,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39, no. 3 (2008): 359–369.

129. H. Siedentopf and E. Sommerfeldt, “Über die Anfertigung kinematographischer Mikrophotographien der Kristallisationserscheinungen,” Zeitschrift für Elektrochemie 13, no. 24 (14 June 1907): 325–326; and Siedentopf, “Über ultramikroskopische Abbildung,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Mikroskopie und mikroskopische Technik 26 (1909): 391–410.

130. A contemporary overview of Braus’s career can be found in Walther Vogt’s eulogy, “Hermann Braus,” Münchener medizinische Wochenschrift 72, no. 8 (20 February 1925): 304–305. An assessment of his legacy in morphology is in Lynn K. Nyhart, “Learning from History: Morphology’s Challenges in Germany ca. 1900,” Journal of Morphology 252 (April 2002): 2–14.

131. A shorter version of this section appeared as “Science Lessons,” Film History 25, nos. 1–2 (2013): 45–54.

132. My presentation of these theories and the history of this debate is indebted to Susan M. Billings’s excellent survey, “Concepts of Nerve Fiber Development, 1839–1930,” Journal of the History of Biology 4, no. 2 (Fall 1971): 275–305.

133. Ross Granville Harrison, “Further Experiments on the Development of Peripheral Nerves,” American Journal of Anatomy 5, no. 2 (31 May 1906): 121–131. A brief overview of Harrison’s career can be found in J. S. Nicholas, “Ross Granville Harrison, 1870–1959,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 32, no. 6 (June 1960): 407–412.

134. Peter J. Taylor and Ann S. Blum, “Pictorial Representation in Biology,” Biology and Philosophy 6, no. 2 (April 1991): 125–134; and Nick Hopwood, “Producing Development: The Anatomy of Human Embryos and the Norms of Wilhelm His,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 74 (2000): 29–79.

135. Billings, “Concepts,” 293–294.

136. Santiago Ramón y Cajal, “New Observations on the Development of Neuroblasts, with Comments on the Neurogenetic Hypothesis of Hensen-Held (1908),” in Studies on Vertebrate Neurogenesis, trans. Lloyd Guth (Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1960), 71–76, quoted in Billings, “Concepts,” 294. See also De Rijcke, “Drawing Into Abstraction.”

137. Hannah Landecker, “New Times for Biology: Nerve Cultures and the Advent of Cellular Life in Vitro,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33, no. 4 (2002): 667–694, here 672.

138. Landecker, “New Times,” 673.

139. Landecker examines this formulation with regard to the rise of microcinematography in “Creeping, Drinking, Dying: The Cinematic Portal and the Microscopic World of the Twentieth-Century Cell,” Science in Context 24, no. 3 (September 2011): 381–416; and “The Life of Movement: From Microcinematography to Live-Cell Imaging,” Journal of Visual Culture 11, no. 3 (December 2012): 378–399.

140. Harrison, “Further Experiments,” 121.

141. Hermann Braus, “Experimentelle Beiträge zur Frage nach der Entwickelung peripherer Nerven,” Anatomischer Anzeiger 26, nos. 17/18 (1 April 1905): 433–479.

142. Ross Granville Harrison, “Experiments in Transplanting Limbs and Their Bearing Upon the Problems of the Development of Nerves,” Journal of Experimental Zoology 4, no. 2 (June 1907): 239–281, here 241.

143. Ross Granville Harrison, “Observations on the Living Developing Nerve Fiber,” Anatomical Record 1, no. 5 (1 June 1907): 116–118, here 116. Harrison describes the method and its results more fully in “The Outgrowth of the Nerve Fiber as a Mode of Protoplasmic Movement,” Journal of Experimental Zoology 9, no. 4 (December 1910): 787–846.

144. Leo Loeb is known to have accomplished in vivo tissue culture as early as 1897. See Lewis Philip Rubin, “Leo Loeb’s Role in the Development of Tissue Culture,” Clio Medica 12, no. 1 (1977): 33–56. See also H. M. Carleton, “Tissue Culture: A Critical Summary,” British Journal of Experimental Biology 1, no. 1 (October 1923): 131–151.

145. On this experiment, see the announcements by Alexis Carrel and Montrose T. Burrows, including “Cultivation of Adult Tissues and Organs Outside of the Body,” Journal of the American Medical Association 55, no. 16 (15 October 1910): 1379–1381; “Cultivation of Sarcoma Outside of the Body: A Second Note,” Journal of the American Medical Association 55, no. 18 (29 October 1910): 1554; “Human Sarcoma Cultivated Outside of the Body: A Third Note,” Journal of the American Medical Association 55, no. 20 (12 November 1910): 1732; and “Cultivation of Tissues in Vitro and Its Technique,” Journal of Experimental Medicine 13, no. 3 (1 March 1911): 387–396.

146. The definitive argument for this break in biological representation, to which I am indebted, is Hannah Landecker, Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007); see also her “Technologies of Living Substance: Tissue Culture and Cellular Life in Twentieth Century Biomedicine” (PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999).

147. This shift in the discipline’s attention was not just a result of representational issues but also to a certain extent due to philosophical discomfort as a result of Bergson’s critiques. For a good example of a biologist wrestling with these issues, albeit much later, see P. Lecomte du Noüy, Biological Time, with a foreword by Alexis Carrel (New York: Macmillan, 1937).

148. Billings, “Concepts,” 301–302.

149. Braus, “Mikro-Kino-Projektionen”; this was reprinted in slightly revised form in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift 61, no. 44 (1911): 2809–2812.

150. Braus, “Mikro-Kino-Projektionen,” 472–473.

151. Steven Shapin, “Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology,” Social Studies of Science 14, no. 4 (November 1984): 481–520. See also Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1985).

152. Braus, “Mikro-Kino-Projektionen,” 473.

153. Braus, “Mikro-Kino-Projektionen,” 474 (emphasis in original).

154. Braus, “Mikro-Kino-Projektionen,” 474.

155. Walter Benjamin, “Little History of Photography,” in Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, vol. 2, 1927–1934, ed. Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary Smith, trans. Rodney Livingstone and others (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1999), 507–530, here 512.

156. For another example of the statistical use of film frames, see Scott Curtis, “‘Tangible as Tissue’: Arnold Gesell, Infant Behavior, and Film Analysis,” Science in Context 24, no. 3 (September 2011): 417–442.

1. Paul Valéry, Idée Fixe, trans. David Paul (New York: Pantheon, 1965), 22.

2. For similar debates, see Michael Chanan, The Dream That Kicks: The Prehistory and Early Years of Cinema in Britain (London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980); Richard Abel, The Ciné Goes to Town: French Cinema, 1896–1914 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); Yuri Tsivian, Early Cinema in Russia and Its Cultural Reception, ed. Richard Taylor, trans. Alan Bodger (London and New York: Routledge, 1994); Lee Grieveson, Policing Cinema: Movies and Censorship in Early-Twentieth-Century America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).

3. Sir James Paget, “An Address on the Utility of Scientific Work in Practice,” British Medical Journal (15 October 1887): 811–814, here 811.

4. On physicians’ adoption of scientific method, see W. F. Bynum, Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); on the resistance of doctors to science, see John Harley Warner, “Ideals of Science and Their Discontents in Late Nineteenth-Century American Medicine,” Isis 82, no. 3 (September 1991): 454–478.

5. Michel Foucault, The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith (New York: Vintage, 1973); Michael Hau, “The Holistic Gaze in German Medicine, 1890–1930,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 74, no. 3 (Fall 2000): 495–524.

6. Scott Curtis, “Still/Moving: Digital Imaging and Medical Hermeneutics,” in Memory Bytes: History, Technology, and Digital Culture, ed. Lauren Rabinovitz and Abraham Geil (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2004), 218–254.

7. Like chapter 1, this chapter will focus on research films, but for more on the early medical education film in Germany, see Waldemar Schweisheimer, Die Bedeutung des Films für soziale Hygiene und Medizin (Munich: Müller, 1920). On early American medical education films, see Martin Pernick, The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of “Defective” Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures Since 1915 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); and esp. Kirsten Ostherr’s valuable studies, Cinematic Prophylaxis: Globalization and Contagion in the Discourse of World Health (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2005); and Medical Visions: Producing the Patient Through Film, Television, and Imaging Technologies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).

8. The most comprehensive survey of early literature on medical research films remains Anthony R. Michaelis, Research Films in Biology, Anthropology, Psychology, and Medicine (New York: Academic, 1955). Specific statistics about Germany’s output compared with other countries can be found on p. 326. See also Adolf Nichtenhauser, “History of Motion Pictures in Medicine” (unpublished manuscript, MS C 380, History of Medicine Division, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Md.). The definitive contemporary treatment of the subject is Lisa Cartwright, Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine’s Visual Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995).

9. A particularly vivid indication of the rise of German radiology is the change in the rosters of editorial board advisors of the major radiological journals. The Archives of the Roentgen Ray (London), e.g., had no one from Germany on its board in 1907, but it had seven members from Germany and Austria by 1913.

10. On Germany’s research infrastructure, see, e.g., Margit Szöllösi-Janze, “Science and Social Space: Transformations in the Institutions of Wissenschaft from the Wilhelmine Empire to the Weimar Republic,” Minerva 43 (2005): 339–360.

11. The best survey of the early literature in Germany is Martin Weiser, Medizinische Kinematographie (Dresden and Leipzig: Theodor Steinkopff, 1919). See also Karl Wilhelm Wolf-Czapek, Die Kinematographie: Wesen, Entstehung und Ziele des lebenden Bildes (Berlin: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1908; 2d enl. ed., 1911); and relevant sections in Wolf-Czapek, ed., Angewandte Photographie in Wissenschaft und Technik (Berlin: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1911); Hans Lehmann, Die Kinematographie: Ihren Grundlagen und ihre Anwendungen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1911); Oswald Polimanti, “Der Kinematograph in der biologischen und medizinischen Wissenschaft,” Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift 10, no. 49 (3 December 1911): 769–774; and Polimanti, “Die Anwendung der Kinematographie in den Naturwissenschaften, der Medizin und im Unterricht,” in Wissenschaftliche Kinematographie, by Franz Paul Liesegang, with Karl Kieser and Oswald Polimanti (Düsseldorf: Liesegang, 1920), 257–310.

12. Weiser, Medizinische Kinematographie, 62.

13. Robert A. Nye, Crime, Madness, and Politics in Modern France: The Medical Concept of National Decline (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984). See esp. his final chapter on the United Kingdom and Germany.

14. Robert Gaupp, “Der Kinematograph vom medizinischen und psychologischen Standpunkt,” in Der Kinematograph als Volkunterhaltungsmittel, by Robert Gaupp and Konrad Lange (Munich: Dürer-Bund-Flugschrift zur Ausdruckskultur 100, 1912), 9 (emphasis in original).

15. The definitive statement on the role of experiment in medicine is Claude Bernard, Introduction à l’étude de la médecine expérimentale (Paris: Baillière, 1865), translated as An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine by Henry Copley Greene (New York: Macmillan, 1927). See also Bynum, Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century; and Warner, “Ideals of Science.”

16. For overviews of the origins of medical photography, see Alison Gernsheim, “Medical Photography in the Nineteenth Century,” Medical and Biological Illustration (London) 11, no. 2 (April 1961): 85–92; Renata Taurek, Die Bedeutung der Photographie für die medizinische Abbildung im 19. Jahrhundert (Cologne: Hansen, 1980); Daniel M. Fox and Christopher Lawrence, Photographing Medicine: Images and Power in Britain and America Since 1840 (New York: Greenwood, 1988); Andreas-Holger Maehle, “The Search for Objective Communication: Medical Photography in the Nineteenth Century,” in Non-verbal Communication in Science Prior to 1900, ed. Renato G. Mazzolini (Florence: Olschki, 1993), 563–586; Monique Sicard, Robert Pujade, and Daniel Wallach, À corps et à raison: Photographies médicales, 1840–1920 (Paris: Marval, 1995); and Gunnar Schmidt, Anamorphotische Körper: Medizinische Bilder vom Menschen im 19. Jahrhundert (Cologne: Böhlau, 2001). On the impact of photography on medical practice, see Stanley Joel Reiser, Medicine and the Reign of Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).

17. Ludwig Braun, Über Herzbewegung und Herzstoss (Jena: Fischer, 1898). On Braun, see Nichtenhauser, “History of Motion Pictures in Medicine,” 35–38; Michaelis, Research Films, 133; Cartwright, Screening the Body, 20–24; and Peter Geimer, “Living and Non-living Pictures,” in Undead: Relations Between the Living and the Lifeless, ed. Peter Geimer (Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2003), 39–51. For other early attempts to film the action of the heart, see Étienne-Jules Marey, Movement, trans. Eric Pritchard (London: Heinemann, 1895), chap. 16; and Charles François-Franck, “La chronophotographie simultanée du coeur et des courbes cardiographiques chez les mammifères,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances et mémoires de la Société de Biologie 54 (8 November 1902): 1193–1197. For other uses of film in experimental physiology, see, e.g., Martin Philippson, L’autonomie et la centralisation dans le système nerveux des animaux: étude de physiologie expérimentale et compare (Brussels: Falk, 1905); and esp. the work of Oswald Polimanti, “Über Ataxie cerebralen und cerebellaren Ursprungs,” Archiv für Physiologie (1909): 123–134; and “Zur Physiologie der Stirnlappen,” Archiv für Physiologie (1912): 337–342.

18. On the nature of scientific experiment, see Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1997); Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosphy of Natural Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); and Hans Radder, esp. The Material Realization of Science (Assen and Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988), 59–69; In and About the World: Philosophical Studies of Science and Technology (Albany: State University of New York, 1996), 11–20; and his edited volume, The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003). See also Theodore Arabatzis, “Experiment,” in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, ed. Stathis Psillos and Martin Curd (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), 159–170.

19. On the notion of “working objects,” see Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, “The Image of Objectivity,” Representations 40 (Fall 1992): 81–128; and Objectivity (New York: Zone, 2007).

20. Steven Shapin, “Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology,” Social Studies of Science 14, no. 4 (November 1984): 481–520. See also Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1985).

21. See the bibliography in Otto Glasser, Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen and the Early History of the Roentgen Rays (Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1934).

22. Excellent reviews of the subject include Hans A. Jarre, “Roentgen Cinematography,” in The Science of Radiology, ed. Otto Glasser (Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1933), 198–209; and L. J. Ramsey, “Early Cineradiography and Cinefluorography,” History of Photography 7, no. 4 (October–December 1983): 311–322. See also Monika Dommann, Durchsicht, Einsicht, Vorsicht: Eine Geschichte der Röntgenstrahlen, 1896–1963 (Zürich: Chronos, 2003). For early cinema and the X-ray, see Cartwright, Screening the Body; and Solveig Jülich, “Seeing in the Dark: Early X-Ray Imaging and Cinema,” in Moving Images: From Edison to the Webcam, ed. John Fullerton and Astrid Söderberg Widding (Sydney: Libbey, 2000), 47–58.

23. John Macintyre, “X-Ray Records for the Cinematograph,” Archives of Skiagraphy 1, no. 2 (April 1897): 37; and the report of his screening for “Ladies Night” of the Royal College of Surgeons of England in “The Royal Society Conversazione,” Lancet 149 (19 June 1897): 1706.

24. P. H. Eykman, “Der Schlingact, dargestellt nach Bewegungsphotographien mittelst Röntgen-Strahlen,” Pflüger’s Archiv für die gesammte Physiologie des Menschen und der Thiere 99 (1903): 513–571.

25. Virgilio Tosi, Cinema Before Cinema: The Origins of Scientific Cinematography, trans. Sergio Angelini (London: British Universities Film & Video Council, 2005), 170.

26. C. Kästle, H. Rieder, and J. Rosenthal, “Ueber kinematographisch aufgenommene Röntgenogramme (Bio-Röntgenographie) der inneren Organe des Menschen,” Münchener medizinsiche Wochenschrift 56, no. 6 (9 February 1909): 280–283; “The Bioroentgenography of the Internal Organs,” Archives of the Roentgen Ray 15, no. 1 (June 1910): 3–12.

27. Lewis Gregory Cole, “The Gastric Motor Phenomena Demonstrated with the Projecting Kinetoscope,” American Quarterly of Roentgenology 3, no. 4 (1912): 1–11.

28. Franz M. Groedel, “The Present State of Roentgen Cinematography and Its Results as to the Study of the Movements of the Inner Organs of the Human Body,” Interstate Medical Journal 22 (March 1915): 281–290, here 290. Of his numerous texts on the topic, see esp. “Roentgen Cinematography and Its Importance in Medicine,” British Medical Journal (24 April 1909): 1003; and his three-part series “Die Technik der Röntgenkinematographie,” Deutsche medizinsiche Wochenschrift 35 (11 March 1909): 434–435; 39 (6 February 1913): 270–271; and 39 (24 April 1913): 798–799. See also W. Bruce Fye, “Franz M. Groedel,” Clinical Cardiology 23, no. 2 (February 2000): 133–134.

29. On diagnosis, see Carlo Ginzburg, “Clues: Roots of an Evidential Paradigm,” in Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method, trans. John and Ann C. Tedeschi (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), 96–125; or Caroline Whitbeck, “What Is Diagnosis? Some Critical Reflections,” Metamedicine 2, no. 3 (October 1981): 319–329.

30. On doubts about the clinical application of X-rays, see Andrew Warwick, “X-Rays as Evidence in German Orthopedic Surgery, 1895–1900,” Isis 96, no. 1 (March 2005): 1–24.

31. Friedrich Dessauer, Die neuesten Fortschritte in der Röntgenphotographie (Leipzig: Nemnich Verlag, 1912), 15. For a more optimistic view, see Carl Bruegel, “Bewegungsvorgänge am pathologischen Magen auf Grund röngenkinematographischer Untersuchungen,” Münchener medizinische Wochenschfrift 60, no. 4 (28 January 1913): 179–181.

32. André Lomon and Jean Comandon, “Radiocinématographie par la photographie des écrans intensificateurs,” La Presse Médicale 35 (3 May 1911): 359.

33. Jarre, “Roentgen Cinematography,” 202.

34. For a more complete survey, see K. Podoll and J. Lüning, “Geschichte des wissenschaftlichen Films in der Nervenheilkunde in Deutschland 1895–1929,” Fortschritte der Neurologie, Psychiatrie 66 (1998): 122–132; and Geneviève Aubert “From Photography to Cinematography: Recording Movement and Gait in a Neurological Context,” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 11, no. 3 (2002): 255–264. See also Juliet Clare Wagner, “Twisted Bodies, Broken Minds: Film and Neuropsychiatry in the First World War” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2009).

35. Paul Schuster, “Vorführung pathologischer Bewegungscomplexe mittelst des Kinematographen und Erläuterung derselben,” Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte 69, part 1 (1898): 196–199. For more on Schuster and his context, see Bernd Holdorff, “Die privaten Polikliniken für Nervenkranke vor und nach 1900” and “Zwischen Hirnforschung, Neuropsychiatrie und Emanzipation zur klinischen Neurologie bis 1933,” in Geschichte der Neurologie in Berlin, ed. Bernd Holdorff and Rolf Winau (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2001), 127–137, and 157–174.

36. Gheorghe Marinescu, “Les troubles de la marche dans l’hémiplégie organique étudiés à l’aide du cinématographe,” La semaine Médicale (1899): 225–228; see also Alexandru C. Barboi, Christopher G. Goetz, and Radu Musetoiu, “The Origins of Scientific Cinematography and Early Medical Applications,” Neurology 62 (June 2004): 2082–2086.

37. See Albert Londe’s report of his work with Richer in Albert Londe, Notice sur les titres et travaux scientifiques (Paris: Masson, 1911).

38. Walter Greenough Chase, “The Use of the Biograph in Medicine,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 153, no. 21 (23 November 1905): 571–572. See also Cartwright, Screening the Body, chap. 3.

39. Arthur Van Gehuchten, “Coup de couteau dans la moelle lombaire. Essai de physiologie pathologique,” Le Névraxe 9 (1907): 208–232. See also Geneviève Aubert, “Arthur Van Gehuchten Takes Neurology to the Movies,” Neurology 59 (November 2002): 1612–1618.

40. Emil Kraepelin, “Demonstration von Kinematogrammen,” Centralblatt für Nervenheilkunde und Psychiatrie 32 (1909): 689.

41. Hans Hennes, “Die Kinematographie im Dienste der Neurologie und Psychiatrie, nebst Beschreibung einiger selteneren Bewegungsstörungen,” Medizinische Klinik 6, no. 51 (18 December 1910): 2010–2014.

42. See Polimanti titles cited in note 11.

43. T. H. Weisenburg, “Moving Picture Illustrations in Medicine, with Special Reference to Nervous and Mental Diseases,” Journal of the American Medical Association 59, no. 26 (28 December 1912): 2310–2312.

44. This section on live demonstration draws from my essay, “Photography and Medical Observation,” in The Educated Eye: Visual Pedagogy in the Life Sciences, ed. Nancy Anderson and Michael R. Dietrich (Hanover, N.H.: Dartmouth College Press, 2012), 68–93.

45. Clare [Blake] to Dear Pater, Vienna, 9 November [1865], Clarence John Blake Papers, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard University, quoted in John Harley Warner, Against the Spirit of System: The French Impulse in Nineteenth-Century American Medicine (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998), 304.

46. Clare to Sister Agnes, Vienna, 29 March 1869, Clarence John Blake Papers, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard University, quoted in Warner, Against the Spirit of System, 311.

47. Hennes, “Die Kinematographie im Dienste der Neurologie,” 2012, quoted in Friedrich A. Kittler, Gramophone, Film, Typewriter, trans. and with an introduction by Geoffrey Winthrop-Young and Michael Wutz (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1999), 145 (emphasis in original).

48. See Cartwright, Screening the Body, chap. 3: “An Etiology of the Neurological Gaze.”

49. See Reiser, Medicine and the Reign of Technology. See also Joel D. Howell, Technology in the Hospital: Transforming Patient Care in the Early Twentieth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995).

50. For discussion of the projection of images in medical education, see A. Wassermann, “Die medizinische Fakultät,” in Die Universitäten im Deutschen Reich, ed. W. Lexis (Berlin: Asher, 1904), 146–147; or Erwin Christeller, “Die Bedeutung der Photographie für den pathologisch-anatomischen Unterricht und die pathologisch-anatomische Forschung,” Berliner klinische Wochenschrift 55, no. 17 (29 April 1918): 399–401; for broader overviews, see Sigmund Theodor Stein, Das Licht im Dienste wissenschaftlicher Forschung: Handbuch der Anwendung des Lichtes und der Photographie in der Natur- und Heilkunde (Leipzig: Spamer, 1877); Sigmund Theodor Stein, Die optische Projektionskunst im dienste der exakten Wissenschaften: ein Lehr- und Hilfsbuch zur unterstützung des naturwissenschaftlichen Unterrichts (Halle an der Saale, Germany: Knapp, 1887); see also Henning Schmidgen, “Pictures, Preparations, and Living Processes: The Production of Immediate Visual Perception (Anschauung) in Late-19th-Century Physiology,” Journal of the History of Biology 37, no. 3 (October 2004): 477–513.

51. Schuster, “Vorführung pathologischer Bewegungscomplexe,” 196–197.

52. See, e.g., Albert E. Stein, “Ueber medizinisch-photographische und -kinematographische Aufnahmen,” Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift 38 (20 June 1912): 1184–1186. For early reviews of the use of photography and cinematography for the study of pathological movement, with implications for therapy, see Ernst Jendrassik, “Klinische Beiträge zum Studium der normalen und pathologischen Gangarten,” Deutsche Archiv für klinische Medizin 70 (1901): 81–132; and James Fränkel, “Kinematographische Untersuchung des normalen Ganges und einiger Gangstörungen,” Zeitschrift für orthopädische Chirurgie 20 (1908): 617–646.

53. An example of a German report on Comandon’s work that stresses the importance of his films as both exploratory and documentary is “Die Kinematographie des Unsichtbaren,” Prometheus 21, no. 1054 (5 January 1910): 218–220.

54. J. Frey, “Report of the Photographic Department of Bellevue Hospital for the Year 1869,” in Tenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Charities and Correction of the City of New York for the Year 1869 (Albany: van Benthuysen, 1870), 85. www.artandmedicine.com/ogm/1869.html.

55. Hennes, “Die Kinematographie im Dienste der Neurologie und Psychiatrie,” 2014. For other calls for a central agency to handle medical or scientific films, see Robert Kutner, “Die Bedeutung der Kinematographie für medizinische Forschung und Unterricht sowie für die volkshygienische Belehrung,” Zeitschrift für Ärztliche Fortbildung 8, no. 8 (15 April 1911): 249–251; or Weiser, Medizinische Kinematographie, 4. This call was eventually answered after World War I with the formation of the Kulturfilm section of UFA. See Universum-Film A. G., Das medizinische Filmarchiv bei der Kulturabteilung der Universum-Film A.G. (Berlin: Gahl, 1919).

56. Franz Goerke, “Proposal for Establishing an Archive for Moving Pictures (1912),” trans. Cecilie L. French and Daniel J. Leab, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 16, no. 1 (March 1996): 9–12, here 10. Originally published as “Vorschlag zur Einrichtung eines Archives für Kino-films” in Der Deutsche Kaiser im Film. Zum 25 jährigen Regierungs-Jubiläum Seiner Majestät des Deutschen Kaisers Königs von Preußen Wilhelm II, ed. Paul Klebinder (Berlin: Klebinder, 1912), 63–68.

57. Goerke, “Proposal for Establishing an Archive,” 9–10.

58. Eugène Doyen, “Le cinématograph et l’enseignement de la chirurgie,” Revue critique de médecine et de chirurgie 1, no. 1 (15 August 1899): 1–6; partially translated as “The Cinematograph and the Teaching of Surgery,” British Gynæcological Journal 15 (1899): 579–586, here 581. On Doyen, see Robert Didier, Le Docteur Doyen: Chirurgien de la Belle Époque (Paris: Librairie Maloine, 1962); and esp. the work of Thierry Lefebvre, including “Le cas étrange du Dr Doyen, 1859–1916,” Archives 29 (February 1990): 1–12; “Le Dr Doyen, un précurseur,” in Le cinéma et la science, ed. Alexis Martinet (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 1994), 70–77; “Die Trennung der Siamesischen Zwillinge Doodica und Radica durch Dr. Doyen,” KINtop 6 (1997): 97–101; and La chair et le celluloid: Le cinéma chirurgical du Docteur Doyen (Brionne: Jean Doyen éditeur, 2004).

59. Although the films were not mentioned in the British Medical Journal’s proceedings of the July 1898 meeting, there is a letter to the editor that remarks on the strong impression they made: G. P. Coldstream, “The Cinematoscope as an Aid in Teaching,” British Medical Journal (3 September 1898): 658. On Doyen’s films, see Thierry Lefebvre, “La collection des films du Dr Doyen,” 1895 17 (December 1994): 100–114; and Tiago Baptista, “‘Il faut voir le maître’: A Recent Restoration of Surgical Films by E.-L.Doyen (1859–1916),” Journal of Film Preservation 70 (November 2005): 42–50. After 1907, French film manufacturer Eclipse distributed Doyen’s films throughout Europe (see Lefebvre, La chair et le celluloid, 67–76).

60. Doyen, “Le cinématograph et l’enseignement de la chirurgie,” 3.

61. For a catalog of Doyen’s films to that point, see Eugène Louis Doyen, L’enseignement de la technique opératoire par les projections animées (Paris: Société générale des cinématographes Eclipse, ca. 1911).

62. For Doyen’s detailed discussion of the medical case, the surgical technique, and its ethical aftermath, see Eugène Louis Doyen, La cas des xiphopages hindoues Radica et Doodica (Paris: Bourse de Commerce, 1904). This pamphlet also reprints a heated exchange of letters between Doyen and a Dr. Legrain, who accused Doyen of besmirching the profession with the film. See also Lefebvre, “Die Trennung der Siamesischen Zwillinge.” On the Parnaland incident, see Lefebvre, La chair et le celluloid, 39–59.

63. The concern about spectacle in medicine was more pronounced in France—probably due to the Doyen controversy—but there were grumblings from England and Germany as well, especially with regard to Doyen’s films. See “A Surgical Showman,” British Medical Journal (19 January 1907): 163, which reports from Germany and elsewhere about screenings of Doyen films that left doctors disgusted; at one of his demonstrations, “it is said that he was hissed at Brussels.”

64. See the report in “Verwandte Gebiete,” Zentralblatt für Röntgenstrahlen, Radium und verwandte Gebiete 1, no. 2 (1910): 78–80.

65. Kutner was a proponent of medical photography in general, having taken some of the earliest images from a cytoscope with famed urologist Max Nitze. See Max Nitze, Kystophotographischer Atlas (Wiesbaden: Bergmann, 1894). See also Harry W. Herr, “Max Nitze, the Cystoscope and Urology,” Journal of Urology 176, no. 4 (October 2006): 1313–1316. Kutner was also a strong advocate of continuing education for physicians, having founded the journal Zeitschrift für Ärztliche Fortbildung.

66. See also James Fränkel, “Kinematographische Demonstration,” Verhandlungen der freien Vereinigung der Chirurgen Berlins 20, part 1 (1907): 12–13.

67. Karl Reicher, “Kinematographie in der Neurologie,” Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte 79, part 2 (1907): 235–236.

68. See “Special Correspondence: Berlin,” British Medical Journal (5 March 1910): 598, for another report of the evening. In England, Dr. William Stirling was Kutner’s counterpart as a champion of the educational value of medical films. See reports of Stirling’s presentations of a variety of films in medicine and biology in “Medical News,” Lancet 177 (27 May 1911): 1470; and Lancet 182 (11 October 1913): 1083–1084.

69. Kutner, “Die Bedeutung der Kinematographie,” 250.

70. Alongside this discourse of “seeing as” (film as an extension of direct perception and the moving image as a substitute for the thing itself) there was another discourse of “seeing differently” (film as a technology for representing things in ways the naked eye could not perceive). Educators regarded both features of cinema to be pedagogically useful, while film theorists such as Jean Epstein and Béla Balàzs prioritized the latter. This difference also corresponds to the “documentary” and “exploratory” functions outlined so far.

71. Doyen, “The Cinematograph and the Teaching of Surgery,” 580–581 (translation modified).

72. A good overview is Jennifer Karns Alexander, The Mantra of Efficiency: From Waterwheel to Social Control (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008). See also Evelyn Cobley, Modernism and the Culture of Efficiency: Ideology and Fiction (Toronto and Buffalo, N.Y.: University of Toronto Press, 2009).

73. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic, 1982), 146.

74. George Rosen, “The Efficiency Criterion in Medical Care, 1900–1920,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 50, no. 1 (Spring 1976): 28–44; Margarete Arndt and Barbara Bigelow, “Toward the Creation of an Institutional Logic for the Management of Hospitals: Efficiency in the Early Nineteen Hundreds,” Medical Care Research and Review 63, no. 3 (June 2006): 369–394.

75. See the issue devoted to the “Conference on Hospital Standardization,” Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons 3, no. 1 (1917); or Frank B. Gilbreth, “Scientific Management in the Hospital,” Modern Hospital 3 (1914): 321–324.

76. My essay on “Photography and Medical Observation” (see note 44) likewise examines correspondences between formal features of still photography and practices/ideals of medical observation.

77. Ludwig Braun, “Ueber den Werth des Kinematographen für die Erkenntniss der Herzmechanik,” Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte 69, part 1 (1898): 185–186. This list is included and elaborated in his Über Herzbewegung und Herzstoss (Jena: Fischer, 1898).

78. Kelly Wilder, Photography and Science (London: Reaktion, 2009), 23.

79. Gernsheim, “Medical Photography in the Nineteenth Century,” 87.

80. Cartwright, Screening the Body, 38, 48.

81. Ludwik Fleck, “Some Specific Features of the Medical Way of Thinking [1927],” in Cognition and Fact: Materials on Ludwik Fleck, ed. Robert S. Cohen and Thomas Schnelle (Dordrecht, Netherlands, and Boston: Reidel, 1986), 39–46, here 39–40. Foucault also discusses the importance of the series in medical thinking in The Birth of the Clinic, 97. On the importance of comparing pathological states to find some sense of consistency, see Georges Canguilhem, The Normal and the Pathological, trans. Carolyn R. Fawcett in collaboration with Robert S. Cohen (New York: Zone, 1991), 51. On medical logic, see Friedrich Oesterlen, Medical Logic, trans. G. Whitley (London: Sydenham Society, 1855); Frederick P. Gay, “Medical Logic,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 7 (1939): 6–27; Lester S. King, “Medical Logic,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 33, no. 3 (July 1978): 377–385; and King, Medical Thinking: A Historical Preface (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982).

82. Bernike Pasveer, “Representing or Mediating: A History and Philosophy of X-Ray Images in Medicine,” in Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication, ed. Luc Pauwels (Lebanon, N.H.: Dartmouth College Press/University Press of New England, 2006), 41–62.

83. For an example of the use of series photography to track the development of smallpox in a patient over several days, see Samuel A. Powers, Variola: A Series of Twenty-One Heliotype Plates Illustrating the Progressive Stages of the Eruption (Boston: Samuel A. Powers, 1882). My thanks to Mark Rowland for pointing me to this text. For examples of different angles of a patient during the same session, see Albert Londe’s photographs of female patients documented in the journal Nouvelle iconographie de la Salpêtrière (Paris: Masson, 1888–1918).

84. For an interesting discussion of X-ray cinematography’s diagnostic value, see the exchange between Drs. Fränkel, von Bergmann, Levy-Dorn, Albu, and Kutner in Albert Fränkel, “Röntgendiagnosen und Röntgenfehldiagnosen beim Magenkarzinom; diagnostischer Fortschritt durch Röntgenkinographie.” Zentralblatt für Röntgenstrahlen, Radium und verwandte Gebiete 3, no. 4 (1912): 149–150.

85. Warwick, “X-Rays as Evidence in German Orthopedic Surgery, 1895–1900.”

86. Photographs were often used as illustrations exchanged between attendees of a lecture. An example, picked more or less at random, is Adolf Magnus-Levy, “Ueber Organ-Therapie beim endemischen Kretinismus,” Verhandlungen der Berliner medicinischen Gesellschaft 34, part 2 (1903): 350–357. See esp. the discussion of this presentation on 22 July 1903 in part 1, pp. 246–249. No photos are published with the paper, but they discuss the photographs that were passed around among the audience. Many such uses of photographs can be found in the Verhandlungen and similar proceedings.

87. Cartwright, Screening the Body, 36.

88. Georges Didi-Huberman, Invention of Hysteria: Charcot and the Photographic Iconography of the Salpêtrière, trans. Alisa Hartz (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003), 24–25.

89. For more on this topic, see Scott Curtis, “Photography and Medical Observation.”

90. Foucault, Birth of the Clinic, 109.

91. Foucault, Birth of the Clinic, esp. 107–123.

92. Neurologists such as Schuster needed movement to recognize the disorder—which would otherwise be lost in the individual frames—so they consistently slowed (but did not stop) the image in projection. See Schuster, “Vorführung pathologischer Bewegungskomplexe.”

93. Many researchers emphasized this feature of motion picture technology, but for an extended discussion of the applications of film’s temporal malleability, with interesting responses from the expert audience, see the report of Herr v. Grützner’s presentation at the Tübingen Society of Medical and Natural Scientists: “Medizinisch-Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein Tübingen,” Münchener medizinische Wochenschrift 56, no. 3 (19 January 1909): 154–155.

94. Thomas Laycock, Lectures on the Principles and Methods of Medical Observation and Research (Philadelphia: Blanchard and Lea, 1857), 64.

95. Rudolph Virchow, Post-mortem Examinations, trans. T. P. Smith, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1895), 12.

96. Foucault, Birth of the Clinic, xiv.

97. Foucault, Birth of the Clinic, xiii (emphasis added).

98. Foucault, Birth of the Clinic, esp. 107–122.

99. Theodor Billroth, The Medical Sciences in the German Universities: A Study in the History of Civilization, trans. William H. Welch (New York: Macmillan, 1924), 52–53. Originally published as Über das Lehren und Lernen de medicinischen Wissenschaften an den Universitäten der deutschen Nation nebst allgemeinen Bemerkungen über Universitäten; eine culturhistorische Studie (Vienna: Gerold, 1876).

100. Foucault, Birth of the Clinic, xiii.

101. Hau, “The Holistic Gaze in German Medicine, 1890–1930,” 503. For more on the resistance of clinicians to laboratory methods in medicine, see Russell C. Maulitz, “Physician Versus Bacteriologist: The Ideology of Science in Clinical Medicine,” in The Therapeutic Revolution: Essays in the Social History of American Medicine, ed. Morris J. Vogel and Charles E. Rosenberg (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), 91–107.

102. Foucault, Birth of the Clinic, 121.

103. Lorraine Daston, “On Scientific Observation,” Isis 99, no. 1 (2008): 97–110. See also Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck, eds., Histories of Scientific Observation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).

104. There are perhaps some connections here to be made between the glance of the connoisseur and theories of cinephilia. See Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History; or, The Wind in the Trees (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006).

105. Again, see Curtis, “Still/Moving: Digital Imaging and Medical Hermeneutics,” for more on the relationship between film and medical hermeneutics.

106. Which should remind us of similar patterns of showmanship in early entertainment film described by Tom Gunning in “An Aesthetic of Astonishment: Early Film and the (In)Credulous Spectator,” Art and Text 34 (Spring 1989): 31–45.

107. My thanks to Christian Quendler for stating this so succinctly for me.

108. Erwin Risak, Der klinische Blick, 7th and 8th eds. (Vienna: Springer, 1943), 4.

109. Carl F. Flemming, Pathologie und Therapie der Psychosen (Berlin: Hirschwald, 1859), 281–282.

110. For a good overview of the relationship between clinical observation and scientific methods, see Kenneth D. Keele, The Evolution of Clinical Methods in Medicine (London: Pitman, 1963). On the debates about clinical observation and the sphygmomanometer specifically, see Jeremy Booth, “A Short History of Blood Pressure Measurement,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 70, no. 11 (November 1977): 793–799; Reiser, Medicine and the Reign of Technology, 101–106; and Hughes Evans, “Losing Touch: The Controversy Over the Introduction of Blood Pressure Instruments Into Medicine,” Technology and Culture 34, no. 4 (October 1993): 784–807.

111. Paget, “An Address on the Utility of Scientific Work in Practice,” 811.

112. Karl Wilhelm Wolf-Czapek, “Die Kinematographie im medizinische Unterricht,” Jahrbuch für Photographie und Reproduktionstechnik 22 (1908): 58–59, here 58.

113. A close review of the primary literature on scientific film shows that analysis and synthesis were always considered two sides of the same coin. See Étienne-Jules Marey, Movement, trans. Eric Pritchard (London: Heinemann, 1895), esp. chap. 18: “Synthetic Reconstruction of the Elements of an Analyzed Movement.” See also Hannah Landecker, “Microcinematography and the History of Science and Film,” Isis 97, no. 1 (2006): 121–132; and Oliver Gaycken, “‘The Swarming of Life’: Moving Images, Education, and Views Through the Microscope,” Science in Context 24, no. 3 (September 2011): 361–380.

114. On the theoretical implications of experimental apparatuses, see Davis Baird, Thing Knowledge: A Philosophy of Scientific Instruments (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).

115. More could be said about the relationship between control of and submission to or pleasure in the scientific image. A good place to start would be Anne Secord, “Botany on a Plate: Pleasure and the Power of Pictures in Promoting Early Nineteenth-Century Scientific Knowledge,” Isis 93, no. 1 (March 2002): 28–57.

116. Claudia Huerkamp, Der Aufstieg der Arzte im 19. Jahrhundert: Vom gelehrten Stand zum professionellen Experten: Das Beispiel Preußens (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985). See also Ute Frevert, Krankheit als politisches Problem 1770–1880. Soziale Unterschichten in Preußen zwischen medizinischer Polizei und staatlicher Sozialversicherung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).

117. Huerkamp stresses this medicalization of culture in her essay, “The Making of the Modern Medical Profession, 1800–1914: Prussian Doctors in the Nineteenth Century,” in German Professions, 1800–1950, ed. Geoffrey Cocks and Konrad H. Jarausch (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 66–84.

118. On the social prestige and authority of physicians, see Alfons Labisch, Homo Hygienicus: Gesundheit und Medizin in der Neuzeit (Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 1992); Michael H. Kater, “Professionalization and Socialization of Physicians in Wilhelmine and Weimar Germany,” Journal of Contemporary History 20 (1985): 677–701; Paul Weindling, “Bourgeois Values, Doctors and the State: The Professionalization of Medicine in Germany 1848–1933,” in The German Bourgeoisie, ed. David Blackbourn and Richard J. Evans (London and New York: Routledge, 1991), 198–223; Charles E. McClelland, “Modern German Doctors: A Failure of Professionalization?” in Medicine and Modernity: Public Health and Medical Care in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Germany, ed. Manfred Berg and Geoffrey Cocks (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 81–97. For a discussion of this phenomenon from the viewpoint of medical ethics, see Robert M. Veatch, “Generalization of Expertise,” Hastings Center Studies 1, no. 2 (1973): 29–40.

119. On scientists, especially, as Kulturträger, see Fritz K. Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969), 6; and Russell McCormmach, “On Academic Scientists in Wilhelmian Germany,” in Science and Its Public: The Changing Relationship, ed. Gerald Horton and William A. Blanpied (Dordrecht, Netherlands, and Boston: Reidel, 1976), 157–171.

120. Paul Weindling, “Public Health in Germany,” in The History of Public Health and the Modern State, ed. Dorothy Porter (Amsterdam and Atlanta, Ga.: Rodopi, 1994), 119–131. See also Weindling, Health, Race, and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism, 1870–1945 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

121. Eric J. Engstrom, “Emil Kraepelin: Psychiatry and Public Affairs in Wilhelmine Germany,” History of Psychiatry 2, no. 6 (June 1991): 111–132. See also Engstrom’s Clinical Psychiatry in Imperial Germany: A History of Psychiatric Practice (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2003); and Emil Kraepelin, Memoirs, ed. H. Hippius, G. Peters, D. Ploog in collaboration with P. Hoff and A. Kreuter, trans. Cheryl Wooding-Deane (Berlin and New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987). Kraepelin was also swept up by the degeneration craze described below: see Emil Kraepelin, “Zur Entartungsfrage,” Zentralblatt für Nervenheilkunde und Psychiatrie 31 (1908): 745–751, translated as “On the Question of Degeneration,” History of Psychiatry 18, no. 3 (2007): 399–404.

122. According to Andreas Killen, as early as 1912 the Reich Health Office started to collect materials documenting the educational benefits of scientific films and the health risks of commercial cinema. Andreas Killen, “Psychiatry, Cinema, and Urban Youth in Early-Twentieth-Century Germany,” Harvard Review of Psychiatry 14, no. 1 (2006): 38–43.

123. Robert Gaupp, Psychologie des Kindes (Leipzig: Teubner, 1910), and “Das Pathologische in Kunst und Literatur,” Deutsche Revue 36, no. 2 (April 1911): 11–23. For an especially explicit statement of the physician’s duty to society, see Gaupp, “Der Arzt als Erzieher seines Volkes,” Medicinisches Correspondenz-Blatt 89, no. 32 (9 August 1919): 295–296. On Gaupp, see William Mayer, “Robert Gaupp,” American Journal of Psychiatry 108, no. 10 (April 1952): 724–725.

124. Max Nordau, Degeneration (London: Appleton, 1895), 43. Originally published as Entartung, 2 vols. (Berlin: Duncker, 1892–1893). Nordau, an Austro-Hungarian physician living in Paris, was a prolific writer of fiction and cultural criticism as well as a foreign correspondent for German-language newspapers in Berlin, Vienna, and Budapest.

125. For contemporary discussions of nervousness, see, e.g., Wilhelm Heinrich Erb, Ueber die wachsende Nervosität unserer Zeit (Heidelberg: Universitäts Buchdruckerei von J. Hörning, 1893); Auguste Forel, Hygiene der Nerven und des Geistes im gesunden und kranken Zustande (Stuttgart: Moritz, 1903); and Robert Gaupp, “Die Nervosität unserer Zeit im Lichte der Wissenschaft,” Medicinisches Correspondenz-Blatt 77, no. 31 (3 August 1907): 633–639. On nervousness and modernity in Germany, see Joachim Radkau, Das Zeitalter der Nervosität: Deutschland zwischen Bismarck und Hitler (Munich: Hanser, 1998); Andreas Killen, Berlin Electropolis: Shock, Nerves, and German Modernity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006); Michael Cowan, Cult of the Will: Nervousness and German Modernity (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008).

126. On Lombroso and Nordau, see Charles Bernheimer, “Decadent Diagnostics,” in Decadent Subjects: The Idea of Decadence in Art, Literature, Philosophy, and Culture of the Fin de Siècle in Europe, ed. T. Jefferson Kline and Naomi Schor (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 139–162. For more on Nordau, see George L. Mosse, “Max Nordau and His Degeneration,” in Max Nordau, Degeneration (New York: Fertig, 1968), xiii–xxxvi; Thomas Anz, “Gesundheit, Krankheit und literarische Norm: Max Nordaus ‘Entartung’ als Paradigma pathologisierender Kunstkritik,” in Gesund oder Krank?: Medizin, Moral und Ästhetik in der deutschen Gegenwartsliteratur (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1989), 33–52; Hans-Peter Söder, “Disease and Health as Contexts of Modernity: Max Nordau as a Critic of Fin-de-Siècle Modernism,” German Studies Review 14, no. 3 (October 1991): 473–487; Christoph Schulte, Psychopathologie des Fin de Siècle: Der Kulturkritiker, Arzt und Zionist Max Nordau (Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch, 1997); Céline Kaiser, Rhetorik der Entartung: Max Nordau und die Sprache der Verletzung (Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript, 2007).

127. To be fair, even those friendly to modern art and culture often saw it in similar, especially primitivist terms. See Doris Kaufmann, “‘Pushing the Limits of Understanding’: The Discourse on Primitivism in German Kulturwissenschaften, 1880–1930,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39 (2008): 434–443.

128. Söder, “Disease and Health as Contexts of Modernity,” 474.

129. Surveys of cultural pessimism in Germany include Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961); and Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins.

130. Ike Spier, “Die sexuelle Gefahr des Kinos,” Die neue Generation 8 (1912): 192–198, here 192 (emphasis in original). I will discuss the battle against Schundfilms (“trash films”) in chap. 3, but for representative works, see Albert Hellwig, Schundfilms: Ihr Wesen, ihre Gefahren und ihre Bekämpfung (Halle an der Saale, Germany: Waisenhaus, 1911); Max Grempe, “Gegen die Frauenverblödung im Kino,” Gleichheit 23, no. 5 (1912): 70–72; Malwine Rennert, “Die Zaungäste des Lebens im Kino,” Bild und Film 4, no. 11 (1914/1915): 217–218; and, for a reasonable rebuttal, Joseph Landau, “Mechanisierte Unsterblichkeit,” in Der Deutsche Kaiser im Film. Zum 25jährigen Regierungs-Jubiläum Seiner Majestät des Deutschen Kaisers Königs von Preußen Wilhelm II, ed. Paul Klebinder (Berlin: Klebinder, 1912), 18–22.

131. Paul Schenk, “Der Kinematograph und die Schule,” Aerztliche Sachverständigen-Zeitung 14, no. 15 (1 August 1908): 312–313. For an entertaining “experiment” in which a writer submits three men to hours of continuous, flickering projection with predictable results, see Naldo Felke, “Die Gesundheitsschädlichkeit des Kinos,” Die Umschau 17, no. 1 (1 January 1913): 254–255.

132. A survey of the (mostly French) discussion of “flicker” in early cinema can be found in Thierry Lefebvre, “Flimmerndes Licht: Zur Geschichte der Filmwahrnehmung im frühen Kino,” KINtop 5 (1996): 71–80.

133. For excellent surveys of this trend, see Killen, “Psychiatry, Cinema, and Urban Youth in Early-Twentieth-Century Germany”; and Killen, “The Scene of the Crime: Psychiatric Discourses on the Film Audience in Early Twentieth Century Germany,” in Film 1900: Technology, Perception, Culture, ed. Annemone Ligensa and Klaus Kreimeier (New Barnet, U.K.: Libbey, 2009) 99–111.

134. Albert Hellwig, “Über die schädliche Suggestivkraft kinematographischer Vorführung,” Aerztliche Sachverständigen-Zeitung 20, no. 6 (15 March 1914): 122; I will discuss Hellwig’s work in more depth in chap. 3, but for a taste of his reliance on medical terminology and audiences, see Hellwig, “Zur Psychologie kinematographischer Vorführungen,” Zeitschrift für Psychotherapie und medizinische Psychologie 6 (1916): 88–120; and “Hypnotismus und Kinematograph,” Zeitschrift für Psychotherapie und medizinische Psychologie 6 (1916): 310–315.

135. O. Götze, “Jugendpsyche und Kinematograph,” Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung 16 (1911): 418 (emphasis in original).

136. Thierry Lefebvre quotes a similar, French objection from 1913 to film’s temporal malleability: “The cinema, with its rapid unfolding, its somewhat brutal speed of images which follow one another, distort the slow and progressive work of nature. Here is a film showing a seed which suddenly sprouts, becomes stem, flower, fruit all in just a couple of seconds. Nature does not do this; nature ‘does not jump,’ as told to us by the old philosophy.” “The Scientia Production (1911–1914): Scientific Popularization Through Pictures,” Griffithiana no. 47 (May 1993): 137–153, here 145.

137. A good survey is Hartmut Rosa and William E. Scheuerman, eds., High-Speed Society: Social Acceleration, Power, and Modernity (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009).

138. Nordau, Degeneration, 40. For more on Nordau’s critique of the speed of modernity, see Günther A. Höfler, “La naissance de la ‘nervosité’ issue de l’esprit de la modernité technologique. Dégénérescence et nomadisation chez Max Nordau et Adolph Wahrmund,” in Max Nordau (1849–1923): Critique de la Dégénérescence, Médiateur Franco-Allemand, Père Fondateur du Sionisme, ed. Delphine Bechtel, Dominique Bourel, and Jacques Le Rider (Paris: Cerf, 1996), 149–160.

139. Nordau, Degeneration, 42.

140. Nordau, Degeneration, 55.

141. Jonathan Crary, Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle, and Modern Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999).

142. Crary, Suspensions of Perception, 25. See also Friedrich Nietzsche’s discussion of attention and the will to mastery in Beyond Good and Evil, sect. 19, in Basic Writings of Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Modern Library, 1966), 215–217.

143. Crary, Suspensions of Perception, 17. If “attention” were a difficult concept to define, at least it remained ideologically productive through the twentieth century; the same cannot be said for “will” or “volition,” which lost currency after around 1900. See G. E. Berrios and M. Gili, “Will and Its Disorders: A Conceptual History,” History of Psychiatry 6 (1995): 87–104.

144. Gaupp, “Der Kinematograph vom medizinischen und psychologischen Standpunkt,” 9 (emphasis in original).

145. Adolf Sellmann, “Das Geheimnis des Kinos,” Bild und Film 1, nos. 3–4 (1912): 65–67, here 66 (emphasis in original).

146. Wilhelm Stapel, “Der homo cinematicus,” Deutsches Volkstum 21 (October 1919): 319–320, here 319.

147. See the articles by Andreas Killen (notes 122 and 133 above), as well as Stefan Andriopoulos, Possessed: Hypnotic Crimes, Corporate Fiction, and the Invention of Cinema (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008); and Rae Beth Gordon, Why the French Love Jerry Lewis: From Cabaret to Early Cinema (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2001).

148. Stefan Andriopoulos, “Spellbound in Darkness: Hypnosis as an Allegory of Early Cinema,” Germanic Review 77, no. 2 (Spring 2002): 102–116, here 103.

149. Leopold Laquer, “Über die Schädlichkeit kinematographischer Veranstaltungen für die Psyche des Kindesalters,” Aerztliche Sachverständigen-Zeitung 27, no. 11 (1 June 1911): 221.

150. Laquer, “Über die Schädlichkeit kinematographischer Veranstaltungen,” 222.

151. The most famous of these was the case of the Borbacher Knabenmord, in which a young man accused of killing a little boy recounted the films he saw leading up to the crime. This case was a touchstone for medical and reformist literature on cinema through the 1920s. See Killen, “The Scene of the Crime,” 104; and Hellwig, “Über die schädliche Suggestivkraft kinematographischer Vorführung.”

152. Gaupp, “Der Kinematograph vom medizinischen und psychologischen Standpunkt,” 9 (emphasis in original).

153. Gordon, Why the French Love Jerry Lewis, 128.

154. Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (Atlanta, Ga.: Cherokee, 1982), 16. Originally published as Psychologie des foules (Paris: Alcan, 1895). Translated and published in German as Psychologie der Massen (Leipzig: Klinkhardt, 1908).

155. Le Bon, The Crowd, 21. For a version of this argument applied to film audiences, see Hermann Duenschmann, “Kinematograph und Psychologie der Volksmenge. Eine sozialpolitische Studie,” Konservative Monatsschrift 69, no. 9 (June 1912): 920–930.

156. Le Bon, The Crowd, 29.

157. Didi-Huberman, Invention of Hysteria.

158. Léon Chertok and Isabelle Stengers, A Critique of Psychoanalytic Reason: Hypnosis as a Scientific Problem from Lavoisier to Lacan, trans. Martha Noel Evans (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1992). For a detailed study of the historical relationship between hypnosis and psychoanalysis, see Andreas Mayer, Sites of the Unconscious: Hypnosis and the Emergence of the Psychoanalytical Setting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013).

159. Albert Moll, Hypnotism (London: Scott, 1890), 333 (emphasis added). Originally published as Der Hypnotismus (Berlin: Fischer’s Medicinische, 1889). To be fair, it should be noted that this particular application of hypnosis is relatively uncommon during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the therapeutic technique is used overwhelmingly for somatic ailments. For an example, see W. P. Carr, “Suggestion as Used and Misused in Curing Disease,” in Hypnotism and Hypnotic Suggestion, ed. E. Virgil Neal and Charles S. Clark (Rochester: New York State Publishing, 1900), 5–17. For more on the experimental and therapeutic uses of hypnosis, see Mayer, Sites of the Unconscious.

160. [Henri-Étienne] Beaunis, “L’expérimentation en psychologie par le somnambulisme provoqué,” Revue philosophique 10, no. 7 (1885): 2 (emphasis in original).

161. Immanuel Kant, “What Is Enlightenment?,” in German Aesthetic and Literary Criticism, ed. David Simpson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 29–34, here 30.

1. “Die Bremer Lehrerinnen und die Kinogefahr,” Die Lehrerin 30 (1913): 156, quoted in Albert Hellwig, Kind und Kino (Langensalza: Beyer, 1914), 71.

2. Stephen Kern discusses the bourgeois attitude toward sexuality in Anatomy and Destiny: A Cultural History of the Human Body (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975). Cf. Peter Gay, The Education of the Senses, vol. 1 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984); and Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1990).

3. Konrad Lange, Die künstlerische Erziehung der deutschen Jugend (Darmstadt: Bergstraeßer, 1893), 12.

4. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984), 190 (emphasis in original).

5. A more complete treatment of this theme can be found in Patrice Petro, Joyless Streets: Women and Melodramatic Representation in Weimar Germany (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989). Ann Douglas discusses a similar concern in the United States in The Feminization of American Culture (New York: Knopf, 1977).

6. See Josef Chytry, The Aesthetic State: A Quest in Modern German Thought (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989).

7. Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process, vol. 1, The History of Manners, trans. Edmund Jephcott (New York: Pantheon, 1978), 19. For other discussions of Kultur and Zivilisation in the German context, see Fritz Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969); and Jeffrey Herf, Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture, and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984). See also Jörg Fisch, “Zivilisation, Kultur,” in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, ed. Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, and Reinhardt Koselleck (Stuttgart: Klett, 1992), 7: 679–774.

8. Raymond Geuss, “Kultur, Bildung, Geist,” History and Theory 35, no. 2 (May 1996): 151–164, here 153.

9. Another dichotomy, Ferdinand Tönnies’s Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society), struck a similarly antimodernist tone. Contrasting the unity of the small, rural community, which he felt was disappearing in the modern industrial transformation, with the alienation and fragmentation of the metropolis, Tönnies was perhaps more elegiac than staunchly antimodernist. Still, the tendency to describe or criticize modern bourgeois society through reference to a precapitalist past was described by Georg Lukács as “romantic anti-capitalism,” capturing the deeply ambivalent, contradictory character of nineteenth-century reactions to industrialization. See Tönnies, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (Leipzig: Fues, 1887), translated by Charles Loomis as Community and Society (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1957); Georg Lukács, “Über den Dostojewski-Nachlass,” Moskauer Rundschau 17 (22 March 1931): 4; Robert Sayre and Michael Löwy, “Figures of Romantic Anti-capitalism,” New German Critique 32 (Spring/Summer 1984): 42–92. For a good, general overview of Germany’s ambivalent reaction to modernity, see Kenneth D. Barkin, “The Crisis of Modernity, 1887–1902,” in Imagining Modern German Culture, 1889–1910, ed. Françoise Forster-Hahn (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1996), 19–35.

10. Dennis Sweeney, “Reconsidering the Modernity Paradigm: Reform Movements, the Social and the State in Wilhelmine Germany,” Social History 31, no. 4 (November 2006): 405–434, here 406. See also Kevin Repp, Reformers, Critics, and the Paths of German Modernity: Anti-Politics and the Search for Alternatives, 1890–1914 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000); and Andrew Lees, Cities, Sin, and Social Reform in Imperial Germany (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002).

11. Repp, Reformers, Critics, and the Paths of German Modernity, 278.

12. This chapter began life as “The Taste of a Nation: Training the Senses and Sensibility of Cinema Audiences in Imperial Germany,” Film History 6, no. 4 (Winter 1994): 445–469.

13. On reform movements in general, see Norman Rich, The Age of Nationalism and Reform, 1850–1890 (New York: Norton, 1970), 103–122; Maureen A. Flanagan, America Reformed: Progressives and Progressivisms, 1890s–1920s (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); or Judith F. Stone, The Search for Social Peace: Reform Legislation in France, 1890–1914 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985).

14. See, e.g., such general surveys as Hans-Ulrich Wehler, The German Empire, 1871–1918 (Leamington Spa, U.K.: Berg, 1985); or David Blackbourn, History of Germany, 1780–1918: The Long Nineteenth Century, 2d ed. (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2003). See also studies of German urbanization, such as Jürgen Reulecke, Geschichte der Urbanisierung in Deutschland (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1985); or surveys of European modernity, such as Andrew Lees and Lynn Lees, eds., The Urbanization of European Society in the Nineteenth Century (Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1976); and Hans Jürgen Teuteberg, ed., Urbanisierung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: historische und geographische Aspekte (Cologne: Böhlau, 1983).

15. On reform in Germany, in addition to Repp (Reformers, Critics, and the Paths of German Modernity) and Lees and Lees (The Urbanization of European Society), see Rüdiger vom Bruch, Wissenschaft, Politik und öffentliche Meinung: Gelehrtenpolitik im Wilhelminischen Deutschland, 1890–1914 (Husum, Germany: Matthiesen, 1980); Jürgen Reulecke, Sozialer Frieden durch soziale Reform: Der Centralverein für das Wohl der Arbeitenden Klassen in der Frühindustrialisierung (Wuppertal: Hammer, 1983); and vom Bruch, ed., Weder Kommunismus noch Kapitalismus: Bürgerliche Sozialreform in Deutschland vom Vormärz bis zur Ära Adenauer (Munich: Beck, 1985). On educational reform in particular, see Christa Berg, ed., Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte (Munich: Beck, 1991); and Wolfgang Scheibe, Die Reformpädagogische Bewegung, 1900–1932: Eine einführende Darstellung, 9th ed. (Weinheim and Basel: Beltz, 1984). Some have rightly argued that, despite the implications of the concept of “reform,” we should be careful not to view the educational or social theories and practices that came out of this period as complete breaks with tradition. See Jürgen Oelkers, Reformpädagogik. Eine kritische Dogmengeschichte (Weinheim and Munich: Juventa, 1989).

16. A good survey of late nineteenth-century Kulturkritik is David L. Gross, “Kultur and Its Discontents: The Origins of a ‘Critique of Everyday Life’ in Germany, 1880–1925,” in Essays on Culture and Society in Modern Germany, ed. Gary D. Stark and Bede Karl Lackner (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1982), 70–97.

17. Verhandlung über Fragen des höheren Unterrichts, Berlin 4. bis 17. Dezember 1890 (Berlin, 1891), 770, quoted in James C. Albisetti, Secondary School Reform in Imperial Germany (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983), 4. For an especially compelling discussion of the debates about the value of Greek ideals in imperial Germany, see Suzanne L. Marchand, Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996).

18. See, e.g., Wilhelm Frei, Landerziehungsheime: Darstellung und Kritik einer modernen Reformschule (Leipzig: Klinkhardt, 1902); or Herbert Bauer, Zur Theorie und Praxis der ersten deutschen Landerziehungsheime: Erfahrungen zur Internats- und Ganztagserziehung aus den Hermann-Lietz-Schulen (Berlin: Volk und Wissen, 1961).

19. See Georg Kerschensteiner, “Begriff der Arbeitsschule,” in Die deutsche Reformpädagogik, ed. Wilhelm Flitner and Gerhard Kudritzki (Düsseldorf and Munich: Küpper, 1961), 222–238.

20. Essays expressing the themes of “the modern,” “the healthy,” and “the national” might be, respectively: Hermann Kienzl, “Theater und Kinematograph,” Der Strom 1, no. 7 (October 1911): 219–221; Robert Gaupp, “Die Gefahren des Kino,” Süddeutsche Monatshefte 9, no. 9 (1911/1912): 363–366; and Albert Hellwig, “Kinematograph und Zeitgeschichte,” Die Grenzboten 72, no. 39 (1913): 612–620. These and other representative essays can be found in Jörg Schweinitz, ed., Prolog vor dem Film: Nachdenken über ein neues Medium, 1909–1914 (Leipzig: Reclam, 1992). Essays from this period are also collected in Anton Kaes, ed., Kino-Debatte: Texte zum Verhältnis von Literatur und Film 1909–1929 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1978); and Fritz Güttinger, ed., Kein Tag ohne Kino: Schriftsteller über den Stummfilm (Frankfurt: Deutsches Filmmuseum, 1984). Among the numerous commentaries, see especially Kaes’s introduction, revised and translated as “Literary Intellectuals and the Cinema: Charting a Controversy (1909–1929),” New German Critique 40 (Winter 1987): 7–34; Heide Schlüpmann, Unheimlichkeit des Blicks: Das Drama des frühen deutschen Kinos (Frankfurt: Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, 1990), 189–243; and Sabine Hake, The Cinema’s Third Machine: Writing on Film in Germany, 1907–1933 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993), 27–42.

21. Repp (Reformers, Critics, and the Paths of German Modernity) and Sweeney (“Reconsidering the Modernity Paradigm”) emphasize imperial Germany’s diversity of approaches to the problems of modernity, as well as the deep ambivalence toward the modern that most elites felt. On the other hand, for histories of ideas that stress the retrograde elements of German society and the reactionary responses that, for some, foreshadow National Socialism, see Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1961); or George L. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1964).

22. Paul Schultze-Naumberg, Die Kultur des weiblichen Körpers als Grundlage der Frauenkleidung, quoted in Kern, Anatomy, 15. Schultze-Naumberg shifted easily from advocating “natural clothing” to supporting art fashioned after natural bodies; during the Third Reich he was an architect of the campaign against “degenerate” art. See Kern, Anatomy, 223–226.

23. Carl Heinrich Stratz, Die Frauenkleidung und ihre natürliche Entwicklung (Stuttgart: Enke, 1900).

24. See Schlüpmann, Unheimlichkeit, 8–25; Beth Irwin Lewis, “Lustmord: Inside the Windows of the Metropolis,” in Berlin: Culture and Metropolis, ed. Charles W. Haxthausen and Heidrun Suhr (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1990), 111–140; and the essays included in J. Edward Chamberlin and Sander L. Gilman, eds., Degeneration: The Dark Side of Progress (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985).

25. Along with Kaes (“Literary Intellectuals and the Cinema”), Schlüpmann (Unheimlichkeit), and Hake (Third Machine), see Miriam Hansen, “Early Silent Cinema: Whose Public Sphere?,” New German Critique 29 (Spring/Summer 1983): 147–184. On women and reform in Germany, see Christoph Sachße, Mütterlichkeit als Beruf: Sozialarbeit, Sozialreform und Frauenbewegung, 1871–1929 (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1986); and Ann Taylor Allen, Feminism and Motherhood in Germany, 1800–1914 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1991).

26. Susanne Asche, “Fürsorge, Partizipation und Gleichberechtigung—die Leistungen der Karlsruherinnen für die Entwicklung zur Großstadt (1859–1914),” in Karlsruher Frauen, 1715–1945: Eine Stadtgeschichte (Karlsruhe: Badenia, 1992), 171–256.

27. Eventually exemplified by Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West, trans. Charles Francis Atkinson (New York: Knopf, 1926–28). There are numerous commentaries, but see, e.g., Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins; Klaus Vondung, “Zur Lage der Gebildeten in der wilhelminischen Zeit,” in Das wilhelminische Bildungsbürgertum Zur Sozialgeschichte seiner Ideen, ed. Klaus Vondung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 20–33; or Charles E. McClelland, “The Wise Man’s Burden: The Role of Academicians in Imperial German Culture,” in Stark and Lackner, Essays on Culture and Society in Modern Germany, 45–69. An excellent expression of the perceived loss of cultural authority of experts in an age of mass culture and mediocre scientists is Ernst Meumann, “Wilhelm Wundt. Zu seinem achtzigsten Geburtstag,” Deutsche Rundschau 38, no. 11 (August 1912): 193–224.

28. On the vital role of feminist activists in shaping the direction of reform movements and the public sphere in general, see Allen, Feminism and Motherhood in Germany, 1800–1914; and Kathleen Canning, Languages of Labor and Gender: Female Factory Work in Germany, 1850–1914 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1996).

29. Mirjam Storim, “‘Einer, der besser ist, als sein Ruf’: Kolportageroman und Kolportagebuchhandel um 1900 und die Haltung der Buchbranche,” in Schund und Schönheit: Populäre Kultur um 1900, ed. Kaspar Maase and Wolfgang Kaschuba (Cologne: Böhlau, 2001), 252–282, here 255–256. See also Rudolf Schenda, Die Lesestoffe der kleinen Leute: Studien zur populären Literatur im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Munich: Beck, 1976).

30. Luke Springman, “Poisoned Hearts, Diseased Minds, and American Pimps: The Language of Censorship in the Schund und Schmutz Debates,” German Quarterly 68, no. 4 (Autumn 1995): 408–429, here 413.

31. Corey Ross, Media and the Making of Modern Germany: Mass Communications, Society, and Politics from the Empire to the Third Reich (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 66.

32. Kaspar Maase, “Krisenbewußtsein und Reformorientierung: Zum Deutungshorizont der Gegener der modernen Populärkünste 1880–1918,” in Maase and Kaschuba, Schund und Schönheit: Populäre Kultur um 1900, 290–342. See also his “Struggling About ‘Filth and Trash’: Educationalists and Children’s Culture in Germany Before the First World War,” Paedagogica Historica 34, no. 1 (1998): 8–28.

33. Professor Dr. Friß Johannesson, “Das Lesen der Jugend außerhalb der Schule,” Die Hochwacht no. 2 (November 1911), quoted in Kara L. Ritzheimer, “Protecting Youth from ‘Trash’: Anti-Schund Campaigns in Baden, 1900–1933,” PhD diss. (State University of New York–Binghamton, 2007), 25.

34. Class warfare, however, was not unknown in these campaigns, especially given the historical coincidence of the rise of mass entertainment and the rise of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), which many (such as Karl Brunner) saw as uncoincidental and fought both with equal vigor. For more, see Ross, Media and the Making of Modern Germany.

35. A fine articulation of Brunner’s position with regard to film (and the SPD) is Der Kinematograph von heute—eine Volksgefahr (Berlin: Vaterländischen Schriftenverbandes, 1913).

36. Other trade periodicals included Der deutsche Lichtspiel-Theater-Besitzer (Berlin, 1909–1914), Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung (Berlin, 1908–1920), Film und Lichtbild (Stuttgart, 1912–1914), and Die Lichtbild-Bühne (Berlin, 1908–1940). Helmut H. Diederichs provides a more complete survey of the trade press in his Anfänge deutscher Filmkritik (Stuttgart: Fischer, 1986). On Der Kinematograph in particular, see Thomas Schorr, “Die Film- und Kinoreformbewegung und die Deutsche Filmwirtschaft. Eine Analyse des Fachblatts Der Kinematograph (1907–1935) unter pädagogischen und publizistischen Aspekten,” PhD diss. (Universität der Bundeswehr, Munich, 1990). Hake also discusses the trade press in Third Machine, 3–26.

37. C. H. Dannmeyer, Bericht der Kommission für “Lebende Photographien” (Hamburg: Kampen, 1907), 27–28.

38. Hellwig, Kind und Kino, 22. Hellwig wrote much on Schundfilms and censorship, including “Die Beziehungen zwischen Schundliteratur, Schundfilms und Verbrechen,” Archiv für Kriminal-Anthropologie und Kriminalistik 51, no. 1 (24 January 1913): 1–32; “Die maßgebenden Grundsätze für Verbote von Schundfilms nach geltendem und künstigem Rechte,” Verwaltungsarchiv 21 (1913): 405–455; and Die Filmzensur: Eine rechtsdogmatische und rechtpolitische Erörterung (Berlin: Frankenstein, 1914).

39. See Eileen Bowser, The Transformation of Cinema, 1907–1915 (New York: Scribner, 1990), 37–52. See also J. A. Lindstrom, “‘Getting a Hold Deeper in the Life of the City’: Chicago Nickelodeons, 1905–1914.” PhD diss. (Northwestern University, 1998); Lee Grieveson, Policing Cinema: Movies and Censorship in Early-Twentieth-Century America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004); and Jennifer Lynn Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams: Travelogues and Early Nonfiction Film (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2013), esp. chap. 3.

40. Dannmeyer, Bericht der Kommission, 39.

41. “Die Eröffnung des Reform-Kinematographentheater,” Der Kinematograph no. 32 (7 August 1907). Der Kinematograph was not paginated. For more on the sometimes stuffy discussion of ventilation, see a translation of the American Society of Heating and Ventilation Engineers’ “Report of Committee on Standards for Ventilation Legislation for Motion Picture Show Places,” in Gesundheits-Ingenieur 36, no. 22 (31 May 1913): 409–410; and a German response, Konrad Meier, “Vorschriften über Lüftung von Kinotheatern,” Gesundheits-Ingenieur 36, no. 26 (28 June 1913): 483–484.

42. “Ein kurzer Rückblick auf die erste Woche des Reform-Kinematographen-Theaters,” Der Kinematograph no. 33 (14 August 1907).

43. “Kinematographische Reformvereinigung,” Der Kinematograph no. 43 (23 October 1907).

44. For more on Kino-Kommissions, see Sabine Lenk and Frank Kessler, “The Institutionalization of Educational Cinema: The Case of the Kinoreformbewegung in Germany,” in The Institutionalization of Educational Cinema: Educational Cinemas in North America and Europe in the 1910s and 1920s, ed. Marina Dahlquist and Joel Frykholm (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, forthcoming). See also Rudolf W. Kipp, Bilddokumente zur Geschichte des Unterrichtsfilms (Grünwald, Germany: Institut für Film und Bild in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 1975), 13–15.

45. “Kinematographische Reformvereinigung.” Oskar Kalbus, one of the driving forces behind UFA’s Kulturfilm division, later intimated that these donations were not uncontroversial: “Although this association was soon sharply criticized because of the close relationship between Lemke and the French film industry, it can nevertheless take credit for having given the first important impetus for the introduction of film in schools.” Kalbus, “Abriß einer Geschichte der deutschen Lehrfilmbewegung,” in Das Kulturfilmbuch, ed. Edgar Beyfuß and Alexander Kossowsky (Berlin: Chryselius’scher, 1924), 1–13, here 3.

46. Hermann Lemke, “Die Verwertung und Nutzbarmachung neuer Film-Ideen—Künstlerische Films,” Der Kinematograph no. 57 (29 January 1908).

47. Ludwig Brauner, “Die Kino-Ausstellung in Berlin,” Der Kinematograph no. 104 (25 December 1908).

48. Indeed, by this time the relations between the exhibitors and the reformers and trade journals were downright hostile. See “Die Kino-Austellung und ‘Wir,’” Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung 6, no. 50 (14 December 1912): 52.

49. Hermann Häfker, “Eine Reise an die Quellen der Kinematographie,” Der Kinematograph no. 163 (9 February 1910); and 172 (13 April 1910).

50. Hermann Lemke, “Volkstümliche Reisebeschreibungen,” Der Kinematograph no. 34 (21 August 1907).

51. Der Kinematograph no. 258 (6 December 1911).

52. Paul Samuleit and Emil Borm, Der Kinematograph als Volks- und Jugendbildungsmittel (Berlin: Gesellschaft für Verbreitung von Volksbildung, 1912), 23–24, quoted in Hake, Third Machine, 36 (translation modified).

53. Hake, Third Machine, 36–38.

54. Unwilling to rely just on production companies, by 1909 Lemke hoped to create a cost-sharing distribution cooperative among interested schools. See Hermann Lemke, Praktische Forderungen für die Verwertung der Kinematographie im Unterricht (Friedenau: Schule und Technik, 1909). Georg Victor Mendel agreed and followed up with a plan to open a “purely scientific [wissenschaftlichen] theater”: Georg Victor Mendel, Kinematographie und Schule: Plan zur Gründung eines rein wissenschaftlichen Theaters für Kinematographie und Projektion (Berlin: privately printed, 1909).

55. The legal discourse on cinema in Germany is far too vast to even attempt a survey here. Albert Hellwig’s reviews are the best place to start, however: Rechtsquellen des öffentlichen Kinematographenrechts (M. Gladbach [Mönchengladbach]: Volksvereins, 1913); and Öffentliches Lichtspielrecht (M. Gladbach: Volksvereins, 1921). Other contemporary surveys include Bruno May, Das Recht des Kinematographen (Berlin: Falk, 1912); and Hans Müller-Sanders, “Die Kinematographenzensur in Preußen,” PhD diss. (Badischen Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg, 1912). See also Gary D. Stark, “Cinema, Society, and the State,” in Stark and Lackner, Essays on Culture and Society in Modern Germany, 122–166; and Kaspar Maase, “Massenkunst und Volkserziehung: Die Regulierung von Film und Kino im deutschen Kaiserreich,” Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 41 (2001): 39–77.

56. Hellwig, Öffentliches Lichtspielrecht, 32–33. Not all regulations applied to the same theaters at the same time, of course. For an excellent case study of the variety of local tactics, see Amelie Duckwitz, Martin Loiperdinger, and Susanne Theisen, “‘Kampf dem Schundfilm!’: Kinoreform and Jugendschutz in Trier,” KINtop 9 (2000): 53–63.

57. My presentation of the GVV is indebted to Schorr, “Die Film- und Kinoreformbewegung,” 81–94; and Horst Dräger, Die Gesellschaft für Verbreitung von Volksbildung: Eine historisch-problemgeschichtliche Darstellung von 1871–1914 (Stuttgart: Klett, 1975), 226–237.

58. Dräger, Gesellschaft für Verbreitung, 236.

59. Willi Warstat and Franz Bergmann, Kino und Gemeinde (M. Gladbach: Volksvereins, 1913), 114–116.

60. Heiner Schmitt, Kirche und Film: Kirchliche Filmarbeit in Deutschland von ihren Anfängen bis 1945 (Boppard: Boldt, 1979), 41. For more on the role of Catholicism in this sphere, see Margaret Stieg Dalton, Catholicism, Popular Culture, and the Arts in Germany, 1880–1933 (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005).

61. The “monopoly” system, established in Germany between 1910 and 1911, allowed distributors to acquire sole rights to a film and pass this exclusivity to cinema managers in the form of local exhibition rights. The theater owner’s local monopoly enabled him to charge more and make, for the first time in Germany, a considerable profit. See Corinna Müller, Frühe deutsche Kinematographie: formale, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklungen 1907–1912 (Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler, 1994), 126–158; as well as her essay, “The Emergence of the Feature Film in Germany Between 1910 and 1911,” in Before Caligari: German Cinema, 1895–1920, ed. Paolo Cherchi Usai and Lorenzo Codelli (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990), 94–113.

62. The best survey of the role of the Lichtbilderei in the reform movement is Diederichs, Anfänge deutscher Filmkritik, 84–88.

63. Dräger, Gesellschaft für Verbreitung, 234–235.

64. Volker Schulze, “Frühe kommunale Kinos und die Kinoreformbewegung in Deutschland bis zum Ende des ersten Weltkriegs,” Publizistik 22, no. 1 (January–March 1977): 61–71.

65. Minutes from the meeting of the community representatives of Eickel, 14 May 1912 (archive of the City of Wanne-Eickel), quoted in Schulze, “Frühe kommunale Kinos,” 64.

66. Rudolf Pechel in Literarischen Echo 16 (1913/1914): 582, quoted in Ludwig Greve, Margot Pehle, and Heidi Westhoff, eds., Hätte ich das Kino! Die Schriftsteller und der Stummfilm (Munich: Kösel, 1976), 68. Pechel reviewed Willy Rath’s Kino und Bühne (M. Gladbach: Volksvereins, 1913).

67. Arthur Mellini, “Die ganze Richtung passt uns nicht!” Lichtbild-Bühne 5 (4 February 1911): 3–4, quoted in Karen J. Kenkel, “The Nationalisation of the Mass Spectator in Early German Film,” in Celebrating 1895: The Centenary of Cinema, ed. John Fullerton (Sydney: Libbey, 1998), 155–162, here 158.

68. Max Kullmann, “Die Entwicklung des deutschen Lichtspieltheater,” PhD diss. (University of Nuremberg, 1935), quoted in Hake, Third Machine, 27. Kullmann quoted a film theater owner.

69. Siegfried Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1947), 19.

70. Hake, Third Machine, 28.

71. Helmut Kommer, Früher Film und späte Folgen: Zur Geschichte der Film- und Fernseherziehung (Berlin: Basis, 1979).

72. Hermann Lemke, Die Kinematographie der Gegenwart, Vergangenheit und Zukunft (Leipzig: Demme, 1911), 24.

73. Many scholars have stressed the connection between “the masses” and “the feminine” as an indication of the anxieties and spirit of the age. This line of reasoning is indeed extremely significant, but the connection between “the masses” and “children” (as a similarly charged rhetorical construction) deserves a closer look. On the masses as feminine, see esp. Susanna Barrows, Distorting Mirrors: Visions of the Crowd in Late Nineteenth-Century France (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981). For another, parallel examination of German reformers on cinema, children, and the masses, see Karen J. Kenkel, “The Adult Children of Early Cinema,” Women in German Yearbook (2000): 137–160.

74. Lorenz Pieper, “Kino und Drama,” Bild und Film 1, no. 1 (1912): 5.

75. Georg Lukács, “Thoughts Toward an Aesthetic of the Cinema,” trans. Janelle Blankenship, Polygraph 13 (2001): 13–18, here 16 (emphasis in original). Originally published as “Gedanken zu einer Aesthetik des ‘Kino,’” Frankfurter Zeitung 251 (10 September 1913): 1–2.

76. This phrase and vom Kinde aus are attributed to Hamburg pedagogue Johannes Gläser, one of many who popularized and realized Key’s suggestions. See Scheibe, Die Reformpädagogische Bewegung, 1900–1932, 65.

77. Ellen Key, “Erziehung,” in Das Jahrhundert des Kindes (Berlin, 1905), in Flitner and Kudritzki, Die deutsche Reformpädagogik, 52–54, here 52.

78. Stephen Kern, “Freud and the Emergence of Child Psychology, 1880–1910,” PhD diss. (Columbia University, 1970), 264.

79. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (London, 1871), quoted in Kern, “Freud,” 212.

80. The importance of “primitivism”—of which Darwin was a prime but not uncommon example—for this connection between children (or the feminine) and the masses cannot be underestimated. For its role in shaping turn of the century cultural agendas in Germany, see Doris Kaufmann, “‘Pushing the Limits of Understanding’: The Discourse on Primitivism in German Kulturwissenschaften, 1880–1930,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39 (2008): 434–443. For examinations in relation to cinema, see Assenka Oksiloff, Picturing the Primitive: Visual Culture, Ethnography, and Early German Cinema (New York: Palgrave, 2001); and Beth Corzo-Duchardt, “Primal Screen: Primitivism and American Silent Film Spectatorship,” PhD diss. (Northwestern University, 2013).

81. Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (Atlanta, Ga.: Cherokee, 1982), 16. Hereafter cited parenthetically. Originally published as Psychologie des foules (Paris: Alcan, 1895). Translated and published in German as Psychologie der Massen (Leipzig: Klinkhardt, 1908). See also Robert A. Nye, The Origins of Crowd Psychology: Gustave Le Bon and the Crisis of Mass Democracy in the Third Republic (London and Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1975)..

82. Erika Apfelbaum and Gregory R. McGuire, “Models of Suggestive Influence and the Disqualification of the Social Crowd,” in Changing Conceptions of Crowd Mind and Behavior, ed. C. F. Graumann and S. Moscovici (New York and Berlin: Springer, 1986), 27–50.

83. See Walter Serner, “Kino und Schaulust,” in Schweinitz, Prolog vor dem Film, 208–214. Originally published in Die Schaubühne 9, nos. 34/35 (1913): 807–811. Chapter 4 will discuss Schaulust and this essay in more detail.

84. Dannmeyer, Bericht der Kommission, 27–28.

85. Emilie Altenloh, Zur Soziologie des Kino: Die Kino-Unternehmung und die sozialen Schichten ihrer Besucher (Jena: Diederichs, 1914), 91.

86. Altenloh, Zur Soziologie des Kino, 65.

87. Albert Hellwig, “Über die schädliche Suggestivkraft kinematographischer Vorführung,” Aerztliche Sachverständigen-Zeitung 20, no. 6 (15 March 1914): 122. Hellwig was reviewing and citing from an article by Italian psychiatrist Giuseppe d’Abundo, “Sopra alcuni particolari effetti delle projezioni cinematografiche nei nevrotici,” Rivista Italiana di Neuropatologia, Psichiatria ed Elettroterapia 4, no. 10 (October 1911): 433–442; for another German review, see “Kinematograph als Krankheitsstifter,” in Fortschritte der Medizin 30 (1912): 302. For more on Italian uses of cinematography in the human sciences, see Silvio Alovisio, L’occhio sensibile. Cinema e scienze della mente nell’Italia del primo Novecento. Con una antologia di testi d’epoca (Turin: Edizioni Kaplan, 2013).

88. Anson Rabinbach, The Human Motor: Energy, Fatigue, and the Origins of Modernity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 157.

89. Hermann Lemke, “Die kinematographische Reformpartei, ihre Aufgaben und Ziele,” Der Kinematograph no. 42 (16 October 1907).

90. Albert Hellwig, Schundfilms: Ihr Wesen, ihre Gefahren und ihre Bekämpfung (Halle an der Saale, Germany: Waisenhaus, 1911), 33, quoted in Hake, Third Machine, 39.

91. Friedrich Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man, trans. Elizabeth M. Wilkinson and L. A. Willoughby (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), 161.

92. “Die Kultur-Arbeit des Kinematographen-Theaters,” Die Lichtbild-Bühne 2, no. 41 (4 February 1909).

93. Erwin Ackerknecht, Das Lichtspiel im Dienste der Bildungspflege: Handbuch für Lichtspielreformer (Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1918), 66.

94. August Julius Langbehn, “Rembrandt als Erzieher,” in Die Kunsterziehungsbe-wegung, ed. Hermann Lorenzen (Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt, 1966), 7–17. Hereafter cited parenthetically. Stern’s The Politics of Cultural Despair provides the standard account of Langbehn’s place in history.

95. For more on the reverberations of Langbehn’s essay through Wilhelmine Germany, see Corona Hepp, Avantgarde: Moderne Kunst, Kulturkritik und Reformbewegungen nach der Jahrhundertwende (Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch, 1987).

96. Alfred Lichtwark, “Der Deutsche der Zukunft,” in Flitner and Kudritzki, Die deutsche Reformpädagogik, 99–110, here 104 (emphasis in original). Hereafter cited parenthetically. Lichtwark and Langbehn were acquaintances; Lichtwark introduced Langbehn to the work of Rembrandt in 1887. See Gisela Wilkending, Volksbildung und Pädagogik “vom Kinde aus”: Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der Literaturpädagogik in den Anfängen der Kunsterziehungsbewegung (Weinheim, Germany: Beltz, 1980), 79–85. For more on Lichtwark, see Julius Gebhard, Alfred Lichtwark und die Kunsterziehungsbewegung in Hamburg (Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, 1947); Hans Präffcke, Der Kunstbegriff Alfred Lichtwarks (Hildesheim, Zürich, and New York: Olms, 1986); Carolyn Kay, Art and the German Bourgeoisie: Alfred Lichtwark and Modern Painting in Hamburg, 1886–1914 (Toronto and Buffalo, N.Y.: University of Toronto Press, 2002); but esp. Jennifer Jenkins, Provincial Modernity: Local Culture and Liberal Politics in Fin-de-Siècle Hamburg (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2003).

97. Jenkins, Provincial Modernity, 76.

98. Konrad Lange, “Das Wesen der künstlerischen Erziehung,” in Lorenzen, Kunsterziehungsbewegung, 21–26, here 22. For more on the art education movement, see Peter Joerissen, Kunsterziehung und Kunstwissenschaft im wilhelminischen Deutschland, 1871–1918 (Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1979).

99. Lange, Die künstlerische Erziehung der deutschen Jugend, 10.

100. Lange, “Das Wesen der künstlerischen Erziehung,” 26.

101. Alfred Lichtwark, “Die Aufgaben der Kunsthalle: Antrittsrede den 9. December 1886,” In Drei Programme, 2d ed. (Berlin: Cassirer, 1902), 11–31, here 29.

102. Eckard Schaar, “Zustände,” in Alfred Lichtwark, Erziehung des Auges: Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. Eckard Schaar (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1991), 8, quoted in Jenkins, Provincial Modernity, 64.

103. Alfred Lichtwark, Die Bedeutung der Amateur-Photographie (Halle an der Saale, Germany: Knapp, 1894), 1.

104. Alfred Lichtwark, “Museen als Bildungsstätten,” Der Deutsche der Zukunft (Berlin: Cassirer, 1905), 89–107.

105. Alfred Lichtwark, Übungen in der Betrachtung von Kunstwerken (Dresden: Kühtmann, 1900), 17.

106. See, for instance, John Dewey, Art as Experience (New York: Putnam, 1984).

107. See, e.g., Walter Geisel, Wie ich mit meinen Jungens Kunstwerke betrachte (Glückstadt: Geisel, 1904); Paul Quensel, Meisterbilder und Schule: Anregungen zu praktischen Versuchen (Munich: Kunstwart-Verl, 1905); Leipziger Lehrerverein, ed., Bildbetrachtungen: Arbeiten aus der Abteilung für Kunstpflege des Leipziger Lehrervereins (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906); and Ulrich Diem, Bildbetrachtung: Eine Wegleitung für Kunstfreunde (St. Gallen: Fehr’sche, 1919). Bildbetrachtung was even more popular as a teaching method after World War II.

108. Heinrich Wolgast, “Die Bedeutung der Kunst für die Erziehung,” in Lorenzen, Die Kunsterziehungsbewegung, 17–20, here 19.

109. For a European history of the movement, along with a clear explication of the principles of Bild- und Kunstbetrachtung, see Ludwig Praehauser, Erfassen und Gestalten: Die Kunsterziehung als Pflege formender Kräfte (Salzburg: Müller, 1950).

110. Pestalozzi, How Gertrude Teaches Her Children [1801], ed. Ebenezer Cooke, trans. Lucy E. Holland and Frances C. Turner, 2d ed. (Syracuse, N.Y.: Bardeen, 1898), tenth letter, 220 (emphasis in original).

111. Clive Ashwin, “Pestalozzi and the Origins of Pedagogical Drawing,” British Journal of Educational Studies 29, no. 2 (June 1981): 138–151, here 146.

112. Keiichi Takaya, “The Method of Anschauung: From Johann H. Pestalozzi to Herbert Spencer,” Journal of Educational Thought 37, no. 1 (2003): 77–99, here 84.

113. Robert Ulich, “Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 6, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 121–122.

114. Melanie Judith Keene, “Object Lessons: Sensory Science Education, 1830–1870,” PhD diss. (University of Cambridge, 2008), 51–54.

115. Ulich, “Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich,” 122.

116. Ashwin, “Pestalozzi and the Origins of Pedagogical Drawing,” 146.

117. Christopher Owen Ritter, “Re-presenting Science: Visual and Didactic Practice in Nineteenth-Century Chemistry,” PhD diss. (University of California, Berkeley), 2001, 128.

118. W. T. Harris, editor’s preface to Herbart’s ABC of Sense Perception and Minor Pedagogical Works, by Johann Friedrich Herbart, ed. and trans. William J. Eckoff (New York: Appleton, 1896), vii.

119. Herbert Spencer, Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical [1861] (New York: Appleton, 1896), quoted in Takaya, “The Method of Anschauung,” 81.

120. The best survey of its dissemination in Germany is Gottlieb Gustav Deussing, “Der Anschauungsunterricht in der deutschen Schule von Comenius bis zur Gegenwart,” PhD diss. (Universität Jena, 1884).

121. On Anschauungsunterricht in the natural sciences, see Massimiano Bucchi, “Images of Science in the Classroom: Wallcharts and Science Education, 1850–1920,” British Journal for the History of Science 31, no. 2 (1998): 161–184; Lynn K. Nyhart, “Science, Art, and Authenticity in Natural History Displays,” in Models: The Third Dimension of Science, ed. Soraya de Chadarevian and Nick Hopwood (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2004), 307–335; Nyhart, Modern Nature: The Rise of the Biological Perspective in Germany (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), esp. chap. 5, “The ‘Living Community’ in the Classroom”; Henning Schmidgen, “Pictures, Preparations, and Living Processes: The Production of Immediate Visual Perception (Anschauung) in Late-19th-Century Physiology,” Journal of the History of Biology 37, no. 3 (October 2004): 477–513; and Schmidgen, “1900—The Spectatorium: On Biology’s Audiovisual Archive,” Grey Room 43 (2011): 42–65.

122. I have examined the trope of efficiency in visual education in “The Efficiency of Images: Educational Effectiveness and the Modernity of Motion Pictures,” in The Visual Culture of Modernism, SPELL: Swiss Papers in English Language and Literature 26, ed. Deborah L. Madsen and Mario Klarer (Tübingen: Narr, 2011), 41–59; and “Dissecting the Medical Training Film,” in Beyond the Screen: Institutions, Networks and Publics of Early Cinema, ed. Marta Braun et al. New Barnet, U.K.: Libbey, 2012), 161–167.

123. Carl Jacobj, “Anschauungsunterricht und Projektion,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Mikroskopie und mikroskopische Technik 36, no. 4 (1919): 273–314, here 275, quoted in Schmidgen, “1900—The Spectatorium,” 51.

124. Ashwin, “Pestalozzi and the Origins of Pedagogical Drawing,” 146 (emphasis in original).

125. For a contemporary assessment of the gap between reform ideals and actual practice, see I. L. Kandel, “Germany,” in Comparative Education: Studies of the Educational Systems of Six Modern Nations, ed. Peter Sandiford (London and Toronto: Dent, 1918), 121–130; or, to a lesser extent, the apologetic William S. Learned, An American Teacher’s Year in a Prussian Gymnasium (New York: Educational Review, 1911).

126. “Besuch kinematographischer Vorführung durch Schüler höherer Lehranstalten (Breslau 1910)” and “Besuch der Kinematographentheater durch Schüler und Schülerinnen sowie durch die Zöglinge der Seminare und Präparandenanstalten (Berlin 1912)” in Dokumente zur Geschichte der Schulfilmbewegung in Deutschland, ed. Fritz Terveen (Emsdetten: Lechte, 1959), 16–17.

127. Otfrid von Hanstein, Kinematographie und Schule. Ein Vorschlag zur Reform des Anschauungs-Unterrichts (Berlin: Lichtspiele Mozartsaal, 1911), 3. Other major statements about the educational use of film before World War I include Samuleit and Borm, Der Kinematograph als Volks- und Jugendbildungsmittel; Adolf Sellmann, Der Kinematograph als Volkserzieher? (Langensalza, Germany: Beyer, 1912); Friedrich Murawski, Die Kinematographie und ihre Beziehungen zu Schule und Unterricht (Dresden: Bieyl and Kaemmerer, 1914); Sellmann, Kino und Volksbildung (M. Gladbach: Volksvereins Verlag, 1914); and esp. Sellmann, Kino und Schule (M. Gladbach: Volksvereins Verlag, 1914).

128. For a friendly assessment, see Wilhelm Richter, “Der Kinematograph als naturwissenschaftliches Anschauungsmittel,” Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift 12, no. 52 (28 December 1913): 817–820.

129. K. Rüswald, “Der Film im Erdkundlichen und Naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht,” in Terveen, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Schulfilmbewegung in Deutschland, 43–44. A fine summary of the arguments forwarded against educational uses of film can be found in H. Graupner, “Unterrichtshygiene,” in Handbuch der deutschen Schulhygiene, ed. Hugo Selter (Dresden and Leipzig: Steinkopff, 1914), 174–321, esp. his section on “Kinematograph und Unterrichtshygiene,” 302–307.

130. Sellmann, Kino und Schule, 15 (emphasis in original).

131. Richard Kretz, “Die Anwendung der Photographie in der Medicin,” Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 7, no. 44 (1 November 1894): 832.

132. Paul Knospe, Der Kinematograph im Dienste der Schule. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des erdkundlichen Unterrichts (Halle an der Saale, Germany: Waisenhaus, 1913), 9. There are many more examples, but see also Bastian Schmid, “Kinematographie und Schule,” Die Naturwissenschaften 1, no. 6 (7 February 1913): 145–146.

133. Oskar Kalbus summarizes and quotes from such complaints in Der Deutsche Lehrfilm in der Wissenschaft und im Unterricht (Berlin: Heymanns, 1922), 6.

134. Mendel, Kinematographie und Schule.

135. “Zur Eröffnung des Ernemann-Kino in Dresden,” Der Kinematograph no. 134 (21 July 1909). It was not unusual for film equipment manufacturers in Germany to have exhibition storefronts that were open to the public in a quasi-museum-like setting. See Deac Rossell, “Beyond Messter: Aspects of Early Cinema in Berlin,” Film History 10 (1998): 52–69.

136. “Die Dresdner ‘Kosmographia,’” Bild und Film 1, no. 1 (1912): 19. See also Uli Jung, “Film für Lehre und Bildung,” in Geschichte des dokumentarischen Films in Deutschland, vol. 1, ed. Uli Jung and Martin Loiperdinger (Stuttgart: Reclam, 2005), 333–340.

137. Those venues were the Ernemann-Kino (1909) and the Kosmographia (1910) in Dresden; the Reform-Kino in Braunschweig (1910); the Reformtheater in Bremen (1911); the Gemeindekino in Eickel (1912); the Germania Saal in Hagen (1912); the Musterlichtbildbühne in Altona (1912); and the Urania in Stettin (1914).

138. Hermann Bredtmann, “Kinematographie und Schule,” Pädagogisches Archiv 56, no. 3 (1914): 154–163, here 161 and 163.

139. On Lemke, see Schorr, “Die Film- und Kinoreformbewegung,” 56ff; Müller, Frühe deutsche Kinematographie, 71–76; and Müller, “Der frühe Film, das frühe Kino und seine Gegner und Befürworter,” in Schund und Schönheit: Populäre Kultur um 1900, ed. Kaspar Maase und Wolfgang Kaschuba (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2001), 62–91.

140. See the technophilia of Hermann Lemke’s Durch die Technik zur Schulreform. Zwei modern-technische Lehrmethoden und Veranschaulichungsmittel in der Schule der Zukunft (Leipzig: Demme, 1911), in which he predicts that the combination of films and phonographs will make teachers obsolete. See also Sellmann’s vision of a “complete revolution” in teaching once projectors are universally installed; Kino und Schule, 39.

141. Hermann Lemke, Die kinematographische Unterrichtsstunde (Leipzig: Demme, 1911), 5.

142. Müller, “Der frühe Film, das frühe Kino und seine Gegner und Befürworter,” 75. Sellmann held similar workshops in Eickel, but they also did not last in the long run. See “Bericht über eine Besprechung der Kinokommssion des Westfälischen Landgemeindetages anläßlich der Eröffnungsfeier des Gemeindelichtspielhauses in Eickel,” Bild und Film 2, no. 3 (1912): 70–71. See also Lenk and Kessler, “The Institutionalization of Educational Cinema.”

143. Actually, Herbart was not this clear or consistent, so these steps are the result of refinements by later Herbartians such as Wilhelm Rein, esp. Pädagogik im Grundriß (1890), 4th ed. (Leipzig: Göschen, 1907), 109. For a helpful discussion of Herbart and Herbartianism, see Harold B. Dunkel, Herbart and Education (New York: Random House, 1969).

144. Miriam Hansen, Babel and Babylon: Spectatorship in American Silent Film (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991), 93.

145. Helmut H. Diederichs, “Naturfilm als Gesamtkunstwerk: Hermann Häfker und sein ‘Kinetographie’-Konzept,” Augenblick 8 (1990): 37–60. If Häfker is known at all to English-speaking readers, it is through Kracauer’s characterization of him in From Caligari to Hitler as the man who “praised war as the salvation from the evils of peace” (28). Häfker saw World War I mainly as an opportunity for the state to take control of cinema and put his plans into action. While there is no doubt that Häfker was conservative, nationalistic, and blind to the horrors of war, it would be unfair to depict him as a warmonger with the prefascist tendencies implied by Kracauer. Häfker earned a “heart attack” in a concentration camp for his resistance to the Nazi government. All biographical information comes from Diederichs’s article and his entry on Häfker in Cinegraph, ed. Hans-Michael Bock (Munich: edition text + kritik, 1984). My presentation of Häfker is indebted to these essays and my conversations with Diederichs.

146. Hermann Häfker, “Zur Dramaturgie der Bilderspiele,” Der Kinematograph no. 32 (7 August 1907).

147. Hermann Häfker, “Meisterspiele,” Der Kinematograph no. 56 (22 January 1908).

148. Häfker, “Zur Dramaturgie der Bilderspiele.”

149. Hermann Häfker, Kino und Kunst (M. Gladbach: Volksvereins, 1913), 5.

150. See, for instance, Robert Gaupp and Konrad Lange, Der Kinematograph als Volksunterhaltungsmittel (Munich: Callwey, 1912); R. Stigler, “Über das Flimmern der Kinematographen,” Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere (Bonn) 123 (1908): 224–232; or Naldo Felke, “Die Gesundheitsschädlichkeit des Kinos,” Die Umschau 17, no. 1 (1 January 1913): 254–255.

151. Rabinbach, Human Motor, 21.

152. Häfker, “Meisterspiele.”

153. Häfker, Kino und Kunst, 9. Hereafter cited parenthetically.

154. Ernst Schultze, Der Kinematograph als Bildungsmittel (Halle an der Saale, Germany: Waisenhaus, 1911), 118.

155. Max Brethfeld, “Neue Versuche, die Kinematographie für die Volksbildung und Jugenderziehung zu verwerten,” Neue Bahnen (1910): 422, quoted in Diederichs, “Naturfilm,” 41.

156. Häfker, Kino und Kunst, 61. Hereafter cited parenthetically.

157. On the Urania lecture hall influence, see Gerhard Ebel and Otto Lührs, “Urania—eine Idee, eine Bewegung, eine Institution wird 100 Jahre alt,” in 100 Jahre Urania: Wissenschaft heute für morgen (Berlin: Urania Berlin, 1988), 15–74. There are also structural similarities between Häfker’s presentations and the presentation of early cinema’s passion plays. See Charles Musser, The Emergence of Cinema: The American Screen to 1907 (New York: Scribner, 1990), 208–218.

158. Jonathan Crary offers a concise overview of the attention psychologists paid to attention in his “Unbinding Vision,” October 68 (Spring 1994): 21–44, and offers a more lengthy treatment in Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle, and Modern Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999). With regard to the perceived increase in sensual diversions, see, e.g., George M. Beard, American Nervousness: Its Causes and Consequences (New York: Putnam, 1881); and Tom Lutz, American Nervousness, 1903: An Anecdotal History (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991).

159. See Martin Jay, Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993).

160. Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man, 183 (emphasis in original)

161. Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility (Third Version),” in Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings, vol. 4, 1938–1940, ed. Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings, trans. Edmund Jephcott and others (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2003), 251–283.

162. Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man, 183.

163. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgement, trans. James Creed Meredith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), 150–154, §40.

164. Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man, 215 (emphasis in original). For my discussion of aesthetics and ideology, I am indebted to Terry Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1990).

1. Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility (Second Version),” in Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, vol. 3, 1935–1938, ed. Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings, trans. Edmund Jephcott, Howard Eiland, and others (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2002), 101–133, here 109.

2. For representative essays, see the following anthologies: Anton Kaes, ed., Kino-Debatte: Texte zum Verhältnis von Literatur und Film, 1909–1929 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1978); Ludwig Greve, Margot Pehle, and Heidi Westhoff, eds., Hätte ich das Kino! Die Schriftsteller und der Stummfilm (Munich: Kösel, 1976); Fritz Güttinger, ed., Kein Tag ohne Kino: Schriftsteller über den Stummfilm (Frankfurt: Deutsches Filmmuseum, 1984); Jörg Schweinitz, ed., Prolog vor dem Film: Nachdenken über ein neues Medium, 1909–1914 (Leipzig: Reclam, 1992); Helmut H. Diederichs, ed., Geschichte der Filmtheorie: Kunsttheoretische Texte von Méliès bis Arnheim (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2004); and Richard W. McCormick and Alison Guenther-Pal, eds., German Essays on Film (New York: Continuum, 2004).

3. The best overview of the early German film industry remains Corinna Müller, Frühe deutsche Kinematographie: formale wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklungen, 1907–1912 (Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler, 1994). On early German cinema in general, see the following anthologies: Paolo Cherchi Usai and Lorenzo Codelli, eds., Before Caligari: German Cinema, 1895–1920 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990); Thomas Elsaesser with Michael Wedel, eds., A Second Life: German Cinema’s First Decades, (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996); and Thomas Elsaesser and Michael Wedel, eds., Kino der Kaiserzeit: Zwischen Tradition und Moderne (Munich: edition text + kritik, 2002). On the Autorenfilm, see esp. Helmut H. Diederichs, Anfänge deutscher Filmkritik (Stuttgart: Fischer, 1986); Diederichs, “The Origins of the Autorenfilm,” in Cherchi Usai and Codelli, Before Caligari, 380–401; and Leonardo Quaresima, “Dichter, Heraus! The Autorenfilm and German Cinema of the 1910s,” Griffithiana 38/39 (October 1990): 101–120.

4. Anton Kaes, “Literary Intellectuals and the Cinema: Charting a Controversy (1909–1929),” New German Critique 40 (Winter 1987): 7–34, here 7–8.

5. Sabine Hake, The Cinema’s Third Machine: Writing on Film in Germany, 1907–1933 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993), 63.

6. Peter Jelavich, “‘Am I Allowed to Amuse Myself Here?’: The German Bourgeoisie Confronts Early Film,” in Germany at the Fin de Siècle: Culture, Politics, and Ideas, ed. Suzanne Marchand and David Lindenfeld (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2004), 227–249, here 247.

7. Helmut H. Diederichs, “Kino und die Wortkünste: Zur Diskussionen der deutschen literarischen Intelligenz 1910 bis 1915,” KINtop 13 (2004): 9–23. See also Diederichs, “Frühgeschicht deutscher Filmtheorie. Ihre Entstehung und Entwicklung bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg,” unpublished Habilitationsschrift (J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, 1996).

8. Stefanie Harris, Mediating Modernity: German Literature and the “New” Media, 1895–1930 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009).

9. Heinz-B. Heller, Literarische Intelligenz und Film: Zu Veränderungen der ästhetischen Theorie und Praxis unter dem Eindruck des Films 1910–1930 in Deutschland (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1985). See also Thomas Koebner, “Der Film als neue Kunst: Reaktionen der literarischen Intelligenz: Zur Theorie des Stummfilms (1911–1924),” in Literaturwissenschaft-Medienwissenschaft, ed. Volker Canaris and Helmut Kreuzer (Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer, 1977), 1–31. While they do not focus as much on the relationship between literature and film, Miriam Hansen and Heide Schlüpmann set the agenda for the study of this era in other ways, which will be discussed later in the chapter: Miriam Hansen, “Early Silent Cinema: Whose Public Sphere?,” New German Critique 29 (Spring/Summer 1983): 147–184; Heide Schlüpmann, Unheimlichkeit des Blicks: Das Drama des frühen deutschen Kinos (Frankfurt: Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, 1990).

10. This applies, of course, to descriptions of the beautiful, rather than to those of the sublime, which often emphasized an immediate overwhelming of the imagination. My thanks to Dan Morgan for reminding me of this distinction.

11. Friedrich Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man, trans. Elizabeth M. Wilkinson and L. A. Willoughby (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), 123.

12. See, for example, Robert Vischer’s description of the difference between Sehen and Schauen (“seeing” and “scanning”) in On the Optical Sense of Form (1873), in Empathy, Form, and Space: Problems in German Aesthetics, 1873–1893, ed. and trans. Harry Francis Mallgrave and Eleftherios Ikonomou (Santa Monica, Calif.: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1994), 89–124, esp. 93–95. See also Adolf Hildebrand’s elaboration of this idea in The Problem of Form in the Fine Arts (1893), in Mallgrave and Ikonomou, Empathy, Form, and Space, 227–279, esp. 229–232.

13. For a complete survey, see Steve Odin, Artistic Detachment in Japan and the West: Psychic Distance in Comparative Aesthetics (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2001).

14. Emilie Altenloh, Zur Soziologie des Kino: Die Kino-Unternehmung und die sozialen Schichten ihrer Besucher (Jena: Diederichs, 1914), 91.

15. William Egginton, “Intimacy and Anonymity, or How the Audience Became a Crowd,” in Crowds, ed. Jeffrey T. Schnapp and Matthew Tiews (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2006), 97–110.

16. Jacques Rancière, The Emancipated Spectator, trans. Gregory Elliott (London and New York: Verso, 2009), 2.

17. Carolin Duttlinger, “Between Contemplation and Distraction: Configurations of Attention in Walter Benjamin,” German Studies Review 30, no. 1 (February 2007): 33–54.

18. Dudley Andrew, “Film and Society: Public Rituals and Private Space,” in Exhibition: The Film Reader, ed. Ina Rae Hark (New York: Routledge, 2001), 161–172, here 165. Originally published in East-West Film Journal 1, no. 1 (1986): 7–22.

19. A good introduction to the broader social problem, minus cinema, is Hartmut Rosa and William E. Scheuerman, eds., High-Speed Society: Social Acceleration, Power, and Modernity (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009).

20. Georg Kleibömer, “Kinematograph und Schuljugend,” Der Kinematograph, no. 124 (12 May 1909) (emphasis in original in this and subsequent quotations).

21. Karl Hans Strobl, “Der Kinematograph,” in Kein Tag ohne Kino: Schriftsteller über den Stummfilm, ed. Fritz Güttinger (Frankfurt: Deutsches Filmmuseum, 1984), 50–54, here 52. Originally published in Die Hilfe 17, no. 9 (2 March 1911).

22. Ph. Sommer, “Zur Psychologie des Kinematographen,” Der Kinematograph no. 227 (3 May 1911).

23. Wilhelm Stapel, “Der homo cinematicus,” Deutsches Volkstum 21 (October 1919): 319–320, here 319.

24. Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man, 79. Hereafter cited parenthetically.

25. Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, trans. E. F. J. Payne (New York: Dover, 1966), vol. 1, §38, p. 197.

26. Josef Chytry, The Aesthetic State: A Quest in Modern German Thought (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989). See also David Aram Kaiser, Romanticism, Aesthetics, and Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), esp. his chapter on “Schiller’s Aesthetic State.”

27. Egon Friedell, “Prolog vor dem Film,” in Kaes, Kino-Debatte, 42–47, here 43. Originally published in Blätter des Deutschen Theaters 2 (1912): 509–511.

28. Hermann Kienzl, “Theater und Kinematograph,” in Schweinitz, Prolog vor dem Film, 230–234, here 231. Originally published in Der Strom 1, no. 7 (October 1911): 219–221.

29. Walter Hasenclever, “Der Kintopp als Erzieher: Eine Apologie,” in Kaes, Kino-Debatte, 47–49, here 48. Originally published in Revolution 1, no. 4 (1 December 1913): n.p.

30. Lou Andreas-Salomé, In der Schule bei Freud: Tagesbuch eines Jahres 1912/1913, ed. Ernst Pfeiffer (Zürich: Niehans, 1958), 102–103.

31. Hermann Duenschmann, “Kinematograph und Psychologie der Volksmenge. Eine sozialpolitische Studie,” Konservative Monatsschrift 69, no. 9 (June 1912): 920–930, here 924.

32. René Descartes, “The Search for Truth,” The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch, vol. 2 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984–1991), 400–420, here 406.

33. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. and with an introduction by Peter H. Nidditch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), 152, book 2, chap. 10, sect. 5.

34. Locke, Essay, 607, book 4, chap. 7, sect. 16.

35. Lex Newman, “Ideas, Pictures, and the Directness of Perception in Descartes and Locke,” Philosophy Compass 4, no. 1 (2009): 134–154.

36. Ulrich Rauscher, “Die Kino-Ballade,” in Güttinger, Kein Tag ohne Kino, 143–149, here 148. Originally published in Der Kunstwart 26, no. 13 (1 April 1913): 1–6.

37. Georges Duhamel, Scènes de la vie future (Paris: Mercure de France, 1930), 52, quoted in Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility (Third Version),” in Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, vol. 4, 1938–1940, trans. Edmund Jephcott and others, ed. Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2003), 267.

38. Georg Simmel, “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” in The Sociology of Georg Simmel, ed. and trans. Kurt H. Wolff (New York: Free Press, 1950), 409–424; Sigmund Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, trans. James Strachey (London: Hogarth, 1950).

39. Joseph Landau, “Mechanisierte Unsterblichkeit,” in Der Deutsche Kaiser im Film, ed. Paul Klebinder (Berlin: Klebinder, 1912), 18–22, here 20.

40. Max Brod, “Kinematographentheater,” in Kaes, Kino-Debatte, 39–41, here 41. Originally published in Die neue Rundschau 20, no. 2 (February 1909): 319–320.

41. “Neuland für Kinematographentheater,” in Kaes, Kino-Debatte, 41. Originally published in Lichtbild-Bühne 3 (September 1910): 3.

42. Strobl, “Der Kinematograph,” in Kein Tag ohne Kino, 51.

43. Juliet Koss describes the gentleman art historian in terms of a unified, stable subjectivity in “On the Limits of Empathy,” Art Bulletin 88, no. 1 (March 2006): 139–157; see also Koss, Modernism After Wagner (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010).

44. Harry Francis Mallgrave and Eleftherios Ikonomou, “Introduction,” Empathy, Form, and Space, 10–11. Herbart’s aesthetics were widely influential in the nineteenth century (but not as influential as his pedagogical ideas, as we saw in the previous chapter). See his 1813 Lehrbuch zur Einleitung in die Philosophie, third edition (Königsberg: Unzer, 1834) or his 1831 Kurze Encyklopädie der Philosophie (Hamburg: Voss, 1884). Robert Zimmermann later expanded Herbartian aesthetics into an equally influential comprehensive system devoted to the “the science of form.” See his Allgemeine Aesthetik als Formwissenschaft (Vienna: Braumüller, 1865).

45. Many of Schopenhauer’s arguments in “Supplements to the Third Book” take into account questions of perception and physiology, esp. chap. 30, “On the Pure Subject of Knowing,” and chap. 39, “On the Metaphysics of Music.” Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, vol. 2, pp. 367–375 and 447–457, respectively.

46. Looking for “laws” of beauty as a scientist might look for laws of nature, Fechner measured hundreds of paintings to find a statistical, scientific basis for the perfect format. See Gustav Fechner, Vorschule der Aesthetik (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1897 [1876]). Likewise, Wundt, the father of experimental psychology, tried to link pleasure in the perception of forms to the physiological structure of the eye by noting the ease with which the eye traced the contours of various forms. See Wilhelm Wundt, Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie, 5th ed. (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1902–1903 [1874]), 1: 486ff. For a discussion of the implications of the work of these and other researchers for modern subjectivity, see Jonathan Crary, Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990). For more on the relationship between the sciences, especially physiology, and aesthetics, see Robert Michael Brain, “The Pulse of Modernism: Experimental Physiology and Aesthetic Avant-Gardes Circa 1900,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39, no. 3 (2008): 393–417.

47. Mallgrave and Ikonomou, “Introduction,” 2.

48. Vischer, On the Optical Sense of Form, 89–124. Hereafter cited parenthetically.

49. Gustav Jahoda, “Theodor Lipps and the Shift from ‘Sympathy’ to ‘Empathy,’” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 4, no. 2 (2005): 151–163; and Susan Lanzoni, “Empathy in Translation: Movement and Image in the Psychological Laboratory,” Science in Context 25, no. 3 (September 2012): 301–327.

50. The early “formal-analytic” approach to art, so important for the formation of the discipline of art history, is exemplified by Conrad Fiedler, Über die Berurtheilung von Werken der bildenden Kunst (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1876). Translated by Henry Schaefer-Simmern and Fulmer Mood as On Judging Works of Visual Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949).

51. The Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft (Journal for Aesthetics and Art History), which began in 1906 under the editorship of Max Dessoir, was the leading forum in Germany for discussions of Einfühlung and its implications for aesthetics and reception.

52. These questions were not limited to Germany, as many ideas and approaches spread to the United Kingdom, France, and the United States during the nineteenth century. Representative English-language examples of psychological aesthetics include Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Psychology, 2 vols. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1855); Grant Allen, Physiological Aesthetics (London: King, 1877); James Sully, “Pleasure of Visual Form,” Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 5, no. 18 (April 1880): 181–201; and Vernon Lee and C. Anstruther-Thomson, Beauty and Ugliness and Other Studies in Psychological Aesthetics (London and New York: Lane, 1912). On Lee, see esp. Hilary Fraser, “Women and the Ends of Art History: Vision and Corporeality in Nineteenth-Century Critical Discourse,” Victorian Studies 42, no. 1 (Autumn 1998): 77–100. Applications of these ideas to film include Hugo Münsterberg, The Photoplay: A Psychological Study (London and New York: Appleton, 1916); Victor Oscar Freeburg, Pictorial Beauty on the Screen (New York: Macmillan, 1923); and Frances Taylor Patterson, Scenario and Screen (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1928). Contemporary analyses of this trend in English-language (film) aesthetics include Laura Marcus, The Tenth Muse: Writing About Cinema in the Modernist Period (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); Lynda Nead, The Haunted Gallery: Painting, Photography, Film c. 1900 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007); and Kaveh Askari, Making Movies into Art: Picture Craft from the Magic Lantern to Early Hollywood (London: British Film Institute, 2014), esp. chap. 3.

53. Joseph Imorde, “Einfühlung in der Kunstgeschichte,” in Einfühlung. Zur Geschichte und Gegenwart eines ästhetischen Konzepts, ed. Robin Curtis and Gertrud Koch (Paderborn, Germany: Fink, 2009), 127–142.

54. In addition to my own essay on “Einfühlung und frühe deutsche Filmtheorie,” in Curtis and Koch, Einfühlung. Zur Geschichte und Gegenwart eines ästhetischen Konzepts, 61–84, see Robin Curtis, “Einfühlung and Abstraction in the Moving Image: Historical and Contemporary Reflections,” Science in Context 25, no. 3 (September 2012): 425–446; and Robert Michael Brain, “Self-Projection: Hugo Münsterberg on Empathy and Oscillation in Cinema Spectatorship,” in the same issue, pp. 329–353.

55. Even when one of the preeminent names in aesthetic and Einfühlung theory, Max Dessoir, was given the opportunity to discuss the phenomenon of film from a theoretical standpoint, he chose, rather uninterestingly, to extol the virtues of words for literature and denounce the lack of words in silent film. See “Kino und Buchhandel,” in Schweinitz, Prolog vor dem Film, 284–285.

56. Walter von Molo, “Im Kino,” in Schweinitz, Prolog vor dem Film, 28–39, here 31. Originally published in Velhagen & Klasings Monatshefte 26, no. 8 (April 1912): 618–627.

57. Alfred Polgar, “Das Drama im Kinematographen,” in Kein Tag ohne Kino, 56–61, here 60. Originally published in Der Strom 1, no. 2 (May 1911).

58. Vivian Sobchack, The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992).

59. Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Fine Arts, 261.

60. Polgar, “Das Drama im Kinematographen,” 59.

61. Mallgrave and Ikonomou, “Introduction,” 23.

62. Ernst Bloch, “Die Melodie im Kino oder immanente und transzendentale Musik,” in Schweinitz, Prolog vor dem Film, 326–334, here 328–329. Originally published in Die Argonauten 1, no. 2 (1914): 84–85. This translation, while largely my own, borrows some phrases from Ernst Bloch, “On Music in the Cinema,” in Literary Essays, trans. Andrew Joron and others (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1998), 157–158.

63. See also Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Fine Arts, 229. Hildebrand further equates Schauen with Abtasten (“probing” or “touching”).

64. See Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Fine Arts, 261, for a concurring opinion: “What we simply call the life of nature is actually the animation of nature through the imagination.”

65. August Schmarsow, “The Essence of Architectural Creation” (1893), in Mallgrave and Ikonomou, Empathy, Form, and Space, 281–297, here 287 (emphasis in original). Hereafter cited parenthetically.

66. For a survey of his output, see Niels W. Bokhove and Karl Schuhmann, “Bibliographie der Schriften von Theodor Lipps,” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 45, no. 1 (January–March 1991): 112–130.

67. Theodor Lipps, “Einfühlung und ästhetischer Genuß,” Die Zukunft 54, no. 14 (20 January 1906): 100–114, here 101.

68. Lipps, “Einfühlung und ästhetischer Genuß,” 103.

69. Theodor Lipps, “Einfühlung, innere Nachahmung, und Organempfindungen,” Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie 1, nos. 2/3 (1903): 185–204, here 201, 202, 203. Translated as “Empathy, Inner Imitation, and Sense-Feeling,” in A Modern Book of Aesthetics, ed. Melvin M. Rader (New York: Holt, 1935), 291–304, here 302–303 (translation modified).

70. Theodor Lipps, Ästhetik. Psychologie des Schönen und der Kunst. Erster Teil: Grundlegung der Ästhetik (Hamburg and Leipzig: Voss, 1903), 148.

71. Other writers on Einfühlung explored the relation between empathy and bodily response, however tentatively. See Karl Groos, “Das ästhetische Miterleben und die Empfindungen aus dem Körperinnern,” Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 4 (1909): 161–182; Vernon Lee, “Weiteres über Einfühlung und ästhetisches Miterleben,” Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 5 (1910): 145–190; and later, Johannes Volkelt, System der Ästhetik, Erster Band: Grundlegung der Ästhetik, 2d ed. (Munich: Beck, 1927), esp. 186–201, in which he discusses motor sensations as way of facilitating Einfühlung. See also Christian G. Allesch, Geschichte der psychologischen Ästhetik (Göttingen: Verlag für Psychologie, 1987) for a complete discussion of this topic.

72. Schaulust has been translated as “scopophilia” by Freud’s translators, but this rendering gives it a clinical connotation that neither Freud nor Serner intended. It literally means “the desire to look” or “the sexual pleasure in looking,” but “voyeurism” tends to narrow its meaning as well. Not having an adequate English word at hand, I will simply refer to the concept in German. (On the inadequacies of the standard translation of Freud, see Bruno Bettelheim, Freud and Man’s Soul [New York: Knopf, 1983]).

73. Walter Serner, “Kino und Schaulust,” in Schweinitz, Prolog vor dem Film, 208–214, here 208. Originally published in Die Schaubühne 9, nos. 34/35 (1913): 807–811.

74. Serner, “Kino und Schaulust,” 210.

75. Serner, “Kino und Schaulust,” 211.

76. Tom Gunning, “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde,” in Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative, ed. Thomas Elsaesser with Adam Barker (London: British Film Institute, 1990), 56–62.

77. Lipps, “Einfühlung, innere Nachahmung, und Organempfindungen,” 195 (emphasis in original). Translated as “Empathy, Inner Imitation, and Sense-Feeling,” in Rader, A Modern Book of Aesthetics, 300–301 (translation modified).

78. Lipps, “Einfühlung und ästhetischer Genuß,” 113.

79. Charles Musser, “A Cinema of Contemplation, A Cinema of Discernment: Spectatorship, Intertextuality and Attractions in the 1890s,” in The Cinema of Attractions Reloaded, ed. Wanda Strauven (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 159–179.

80. Miriam Hansen, “Early Silent Cinema: Whose Public Sphere?,” New German Critique 29 (Spring/Summer 1983): 147–184; Heide Schlüpmann, Unheimlichkeit des Blicks: Das Drama des frühen deutschen Kinos (Frankfurt: Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, 1990).

81. Diderot, Salons, III, ed. Jean Seznec and Jean Adhémar (Oxford, 1963), 134–135, quoted in Michael Fried, Absorption and Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age of Diderot (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 125.

82. Richard Huelsenbeck, Wozu Dada. Texte 1916–1936 (Giessen: Anabas, 1994), 35, quoted in David C. Durst, Weimar Modernism: Philosophy, Politics, and Culture in Germany 1918–1933 (Lanham, Md.: Lexington, 2004), 48. Durst’s book was instrumental in crafting my argument about the politics of contemplation.

83. Siegfried Kracauer, “Cult of Distraction: On Berlin’s Picture Palaces,” in The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays, trans. and ed. Thomas Y. Levin (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995), 323–328. Hereafter cited parenthetically.

84. Walter Benjamin, “Surrealism: The Last Snapshot of the European Intelligensia,” in Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, vol. 2, 1927–1934, ed. Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary Smith, trans. Rodney Livingstone and others (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1999), 207–221, here 213.

85. Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility (Third Version)”; and Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility (Second Version),” 101–136.

86. Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility (Second Version),” 119.

87. Benjamin, “Theory of Distraction,” in The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media, ed. Michael W. Jennings, Brigid Doherty, and Thomas Y. Levin, trans. Edmund Jephcott, Rodney Livingstone, Howard Eiland, and others (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2008), 56–57 (emphasis added).

88. Of the many commentaries on Benjamin and Kracauer on distraction, see esp. Miriam Bratu Hansen, Cinema and Experience: Siegfried Kracauer, Walter Benjamin, and Theodor W. Adorno (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012); and Paul North, The Problem of Distraction (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2012).

89. The standard postwar discussion of this topic is Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958).

90. Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971), 319.

91. Lukács, “Preface to the New Edition [1967],” History and Class Consciousness, xviii.

92. Georg Lukács, The Theory of the Novel, trans. Anna Bostock (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971), 135.

93. Lukács, The Theory of the Novel, 118.

94. Georg Lukács, “Gedanken zu einer Aesthetik des ‘Kino,’” Frankfurter Zeitung 251 (10 September 1913): 1–2. There is also an earlier version, “Gedanken zu einer Aesthetik des ‘Kino,’” which appeared in the German-Hungarian journal Pester Lloyd (16 April 1911): 44–46. I will be using Janelle Blankenship’s excellent translation, “Thoughts Toward an Aesthetic of the Cinema,” Polygraph 13 (2001): 13–18. Hereafter cited parenthetically.

95. See especially Tom Levin, “From Dialectical to Normative Specificity: Reading Lukács on Film,” New German Critique 40 (Winter 1987): 35–61; and Janelle Blankenship, “Futurist Fantasies: Lukács’s Early Essay ‘Thoughts Toward an Aesthetic of the Cinema,’” Polygraph 13 (2001): 21–36.

96. Janelle Blankenship notes that this formulation recalls Bergson’s concept of durée, which might have decisively shaped Lukács’s later work. Blankenship “Futurist Fantasies,” 22.

97. Levin, “From Dialectical to Normative Specificity,” 35–61.

98. We must here note that this designation of cinema—or any form for that matter—as utopian is very provisional in Lukács’s work. Lukács’s early work sometimes endorsed the possibility of a glimpse in art of unalienated, authentic life and, at other times, foreclosed that possibility, depending on his mode of analysis, metaphysical or historical. See György Márkus, “Life and the Soul: The Young Lukács and the Problem of Culture,” in Lukács Revalued, ed. Agnes Heller (London: Blackwell, 1983), 1–26.

99. Franz Pfemfert, “Kino als Erzieher,” in Schweinitz, Prolog, 165–169. Originally published in Die Aktion 1, no. 18 (19 June 1911): 560–563.

100. Kurt Pinthus, Das Kinobuch (Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch, 1983), 27.

101. Benjamin, “Garlanded Entrance: On the ‘Sound Nerves’ Exhibition at the Gesundheitshaus Kreuzberg,” in Jennings, Doherty, and Levin, eds., The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media, 60–66, here 62.

102. Duttlinger, “Between Contemplation and Distraction,” 51.

103. Jocelyn Szczepaniak-Gillece, “Machines for Seeing: Cinema, Architecture, and Mid-century American Spectatorship,” PhD diss. (Northwestern University, 2013).

1. For a history of the Kulturfilm, see Oskar Kalbus, Pionere des Kulturfilms: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Kulturfilmschaffens in Deutschland (Karlsruhe: Neue Verlags-Gesellschaft, 1956).

2. For a clear explanation of dispositif as a historiographical concept, see Frank Kessler, “La cinématographie comme dispositif (du) spectaculaire,” CiNéMAS 14, no. 1 (2003): 21–34; and “The Cinema of Attractions as Dispositif,” in The Cinema of Attractions Reloaded, ed. Wanda Strauven (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 57–69.

3. Tom Gunning, “Systematizing the Electric Message: Narrative Form, Gender, and Modernity in The Lonedale Operator,” in American Cinema’s Transitional Era: Audiences, Institutions, Practices, ed. Charlie Keil and Shelley Stamp (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 15–50. See also Tom Gunning, “Film History and Film Analysis: The Individual Film in the Course of Time,” Wide Angle 12, no. 3 (July 1990): 4–19.

4. Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, ed. Thaddeus J. Trenn and Robert K. Merton, trans. Fred Bradley and Thaddeus J. Trenn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979); and Cognition and Fact: Materials on Ludwik Fleck, ed. Robert S. Cohen and Thomas Schnelle (Dordrecht, Netherlands, and Boston: Reidel, 1986).

5. Nicolas Rasmussen follows the development of a representational technology and its disciplinary conventions in Picture Control: The Electron Microscope and the Transformation of Biology in America, 1940–1960 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1997).

6. See my “Vergrösserung und das mikroskopische Erhabene,” Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft 5 (2011): 96–110. See also Hannah Landecker, “Cellular Features: Microcinematography and Film Theory,” Critical Inquiry 31, no. 4 (2005): 903–937.

7. Hannah Landecker, “Creeping, Drinking, Dying: The Cinematic Portal and the Microscopic World of the Twentieth-Century Cell,” Science in Context 24, no. 3 (September 2011): 381–416.

8. Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1997).

9. These ideas about linked solutions and mutant genes I owe to George Kubler, The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962).

10. A particularly compelling statement of this dynamic is in Andreas Gailus, “Of Beautiful and Dismembered Bodies: Art as Social Discipline in Schiller’s On the Aesthetic Education of Man,” in Impure Reason: Dialectic of Enlightenment in Germany, ed. W. Daniel Wilson and Robert C. Holub (Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1993), 146–165, here 158–159.