Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theories on memory[edit]
Siegfried Kracauer's theories on memory revolved around the idea that memory was under
threat and was being challenged by modern forms of technology.[6] His most often cited
example was the comparison of memory to photography. The reason for this comparison
was that photography, in theory, replicates some of the tasks currently done by memory.[6]
The differences in the functions of memory and the functions of photography, according to
Kracauer, is that photography creates one fixed moment in time whereas memory itself is
not beholden to a singular instance. Photography is capable of capturing the physicality of
a particular moment, but it removes any depth or emotion that might otherwise be
associated with the memory. In essence, photography cannot create a memory, but rather,
it can create an artifact. Memory, on the other hand, is not beholden to one particular
moment of time, nor is it purposefully created. Memories are impressions upon a person
that they can recall due to the significance of the event or moment.[6]
Photography can also work to record time in a linear way, and Kracauer even hints that
floods of photographs ward off death by creating a sort of permanence. However,
photography also excludes the essence of a person, and over time photographs lose
meaning and become a "heap of details."[6] This isn't to say that Kracauer felt that
photography has no use for memory, it is simply that he felt that photography held more
potential for historical memory than for personal memory. Photography allows for a depth of
detail that can be to the advantage of a collective memory, such as how a city or town once
appeared because those aspects can be forgotten, or overridden throughout time as the
physical landscape of the area changes.[6]
Reception[edit]
Although he wrote for both popular and scholarly publications throughout much of his
career, in the United States (and in English) he mainly concentrated on philosophical and
sociological writings. This attracted some criticism from American scholars who found his
style difficult to penetrate.[7] At the time of his death in 1966, Kracauer was somewhat
marginal in both American and German intellectual contexts. He had long ago abandoned
writing in German, yet his research remained difficult to place within American scientific and
academic categories.
In the decades following Kracauer's death, translations of his earlier essays and works,
such as "The Mass Ornament," and the publication of his letters in German, revealed a
fuller portrait of Kracauer's style and gradually brought greater recognition in the United
States. His former colleague from Frankfurt, Leo Löwenthal, expressed pleasant surprise at
the newfound fame that seemed to accumulate around Kracauer in his death.[8] Since the
1980s and 1990s a new generation of film theorists and critics, including Gertrud
Koch, Miriam Hansen, Tom Levin and Thomas Elsaesser have interpreted and introduced
his work for a new generation of scholars.[9][10]
Works[edit]