LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for GERMAN-CFP-L Archives


GERMAN-CFP-L Archives

GERMAN-CFP-L Archives


GERMAN-CFP-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

GERMAN-CFP-L Home

GERMAN-CFP-L Home

GERMAN-CFP-L  April 2011

GERMAN-CFP-L April 2011

Subject:

CFP: Hanns Heinz Ewers & Modernism (Edited Volume, Deadline: June 30, 2011)

From:

"Schmidt, Olaf" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

German Studies CFP Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:08:34 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (57 lines)

Between Popularisation and Aestheticization? Hanns Heinz Ewers and Modernism

CALL FOR PAPERS

We welcome proposals for an edited volume which aims to reconsider and situate Hanns Heinz Ewers’ (1871-1943) literary, journalistic and filmic work within central discourses of social and aesthetic Modernism. We thereby hope to gain new insights into concepts and theoretical (re-)constructions of modernity and Modernism, in particular with reference to Andreas Huyssen’s thesis of the ‘Great Divide’, according to whom, the idea of a now canonical differentiation between – on the one hand – a ‘high’ literature of avant-garde Modernism and a ‘stunted’ popular literature aimed at consumption by the masses – on the other – must be reconsidered. Although Huyssen’s model itself requires critical re-evaluation, his objection to such binaries of high/low is based on the fact that it is in fact an a posteriori construction dependent on Horkheimer/Adorno’s model of the “Culture Industry” which is barely upheld by the actual cultural production since 1900. As such, one needs to question the generally uncritically deployed distinction between serious (i.e. formally complex) ‘Modernism’ and trivial (i.e. less form-intensive) ‘popular literature’ by consulting the actual texts and practices in the literary field after 1900. Contemporary frames of reference include, for example, Walter Benjamin’s proposed dialectics of a de-auratization of the artistic artefact (understood by Adorno as “dialectic self-annihilation of mythology”) which transcends the supposedly established dichotomy of authenticity versus artificiality (Gumbrecht).

Our proposed more critical view of these almost too clear-cut dichotomies demands reconsidering the field of the popular which according to Stuart Hall is constantly renegotiated by each successive cultural era, thus calling into question the concept of a solid, timeless ensemble of ‘trivial’ vs. ‘aesthetically valuable’. This does not mean that the categories associated with aesthetically complex ‘Modernism’ (defined with Baßler as being based on abstractness, self-reflexivity and style) and popularity (with an aesthetics based on comprehensibility, entertainment and reduced complexity) should be abandoned entirely as (historically deployed) frames of reference. Following Fredric Jameson’s idea of a fundamental connectedness of popular and aesthetic forms, we instead propose analysing how both emerged as different ‘control values’ in the discourses of literary production and analysis after the “breakdown of older realisms” in the wake of capitalist industrialisation and rationalisation in the 19th century. Thus Marshall Berman has argued that popular cultural artefacts should not be rejected as ‘mass-cultural’ trash, but should rather be re-interpreted as “Modernism in the streets” in order to compare their structurally similar – yet also different – models of social modernity more thoroughly (see Kiesel and Klinger on this definition of literary Modernism).

The advantage of Berman’s and Jameson’s models is that they define aesthetic Modernism as a perspective on the experience of modernity. This implies that the previously dominant critical construction of binary categories such as high/low, aesthetic/popular, good/bad, intelligentsia/masses become visible as only one possible response to the perceived difficulties in charting the historical totality of industrialized modernity. If Modernism is defined as a “reflective response” to modernity (Gumbrecht), then “popular practice” and “fetishism of style” (Daly) may both be considered as forms of Modernism. This means that the prioritizing of style or formal complexity is only one, highly random cultural option. Popularization and aestheticization need to be analysed in terms of this interconnectedness in order to trace the genealogy of the ‘great divide’, in order to subject this categorization to critical enquiry, and thus make it more useful as a critical concept to define Modernism.

The focus on Hanns Heinz Ewers has been chosen in order to reconstruct historically these discursive negotiations between 1900 and 1940 and thus to study (I) which constitutive factors influence these described processes of categorization and self-fashioning both within and beyond the volatile concepts of modernity and (II) how the dichotomy of popularization/aestheticization established itself as such a successful option. Ewers’ literary, journalistic and filmic work switches constantly between a desire for popularity and the claim to aesthetic innovation. While his position in the avant-garde of Expressionist cinema is commonly accepted, Ewers’ literary works were immediately criticised as ‘trivial’, tasteless and commercially oriented popular literature and thus expelled from the literary canon (see for example Albert Soergel or Kurt Tucholsky’s charge of “parfümierten Salonsadisten”). The modernist styles of Expressionism and New Sobriety are, however, unthinkable without the influence of the such literary programmes of popularity and aestheticism evident in Ewers early cabaret work with the “Überbrettl”-group or in his pioneering contribution to the early history of non-fictional popular-science writing. If one looks more carefully at Ewers’ career, then he seems to occupy a complex self-fashioning between forms of aesthetic and popular Modernisms which becomes increasingly dominated by the drive for popular acceptance as a result of almost non-existent critical approval. This is also one way of reconstructing – if by no means explaining – his early involvement with nationalist and indeed National Socialist positions.

We are absolutely not interested in ‘rehabilitating’ Ewers as an author in any form; such an interest can only be rejected on the basis of his early conservative nationalist mentality and his willingness to assist in National Socialist self-mythologizing with the deplorable Horst Wessel-project. We are, however, interested in looking more closely at the specific position of the author and essayist Ewers between the poles of popularization and aestheticization in order to chart the spectrum of literary and essayist forms of aesthetic modernization.
        We invite contributions which address one or more of the following questions:
•       the formal qualities of Ewers’ texts (narrative structures, characters etc.) in relation to attempts to formally categorize Modernism
•       Ewers’ fantastic literature and processes of canonization (e.g. in the encyclopaedia “Führer durch die moderne Literatur”)
•       Popular Modernism: how does Ewers depict social modernity in his works (e.g. urbanization, violence, science, popular-science writing)
•       Ewers role in early film history
•       Ewers and (literary) tradition: reception, translations, self-fashioning, cultural transfer (i.e. Ewers’ role in mediating and popularizing foreign (avant-garde) literature)
•       Contemporary patterns of critical reception as a key to the ‘great divide’
•       Ewers and the literary field (around 1900)
•       Ewers and the politics of modernity (political essays, nationalism, National Socialism, Ewers and futurism)

Abstracts of ca 500 words in length and in either English or German are kindly requested by the editors before 30th June 2011; final submission of essays is planned for 30th of March 2012. The editors will determine the successful proposals and inform their authors as soon as possible.

Contact:
Dr. Erdmut Jost: [log in to unmask]
PD Dr. Rainer Godel: [log in to unmask]
Dr. Barry Murnane: [log in to unmask]

Posted by

Dr Andrew Cusack
Department of Germanic Studies
School of Languages, Literatures and Cultural Studies
Trinity College Dublin
Dublin 2
Ireland

E. [log in to unmask]
T. 00353 1 896 1210
F. 00353 1 896 3762

on behalf of

Dr. Barry Murnane
Institut für Germanistik
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
06099 Halle an der Saale
Germany

*******************
The German Studies Call for Papers List
Editor: Stefani Engelstein
Assistant Editor:  Olaf Schmidt
Sponsored by the University of Missouri
Info available at: http://grs.missouri.edu/resources/gerlistserv.html

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager