andasymbolicconclusionofsorts.Moretothe
point,theyaremuchmoreexplicitlyperformative,
madeknowinglyforthecameraandtheeventual
viewer.Theyarenotreallyarecordofaneventso
muchasanimaginingofone.Thisdifferencehintsat
thesplitthathauntsphotographytothisday,between
the‘taken’andthe‘made’.Ofcourse,alltakenphoto-
graphsaretosomeextentmadeandviceversa.The
Chevreulpicturesaretheatricaldocumentary;the
Dreyfuspicturesaredocumentedtheatre.Thesplit
runsthroughcinemahistorytoo,fromtheLumières’
documentariesononesideandGeorgesMéliès’cinema
oftricksandspecialeffectsontheother.Intheformer
thereisrealisminthemagic;inthelatterthereismagic
intherealism.
Aswesawearlier,theriseofpopularcinemainthe
1920 sand’ 30 swasparalleledbytheproliferationof
printculturethatculminatedinamass-marketillustrated
press.Theircombinedeffect,asthecriticsSiegfried
KracauerandWalterBenjaminnoted,wasacumulative
conversionofallthingsintophotographicreproduction.
Nothingwasbeyondthescopeofthecamera,which
threatenedalevellingofexperienceand,forgoodorbad,anerosionof
traditionalcategoriesofknowledge.Disparatethingscouldbebrought
intoequivalenceviaphotographicreproductiononpageorscreen.
In 1932 AlvinTolmersummarizedtherapidchangesinpagedesign:
Theminglingofreallifeandimaginarylife,ofpresentandpast,
ofprobablityandimprobability,couldonlybeexpressedhitherto
insurrealistpoetryandbythetechniqueofcinema.To-dayitis
oneofthemostpowerfuldevicesoftheartoflayout.^3
Cinema’selasticconstructionofspace,timeandmovementprompted
afundamentalreconfigurationofthepage.In 1923 ElLissitzky,settingout
62 toredefinelayoutinSovietRussia,proposedthe‘cinematicbook’witha
50 Page fromLa Vie illustrée(22 June
1899)
