VCS

i have to say, i think the whole idea of the flaneur is...well...trite. i understand the role they played in society and that they grew out of a place of grand ennui, but come on. it's such a priviledged occupation, to wander the streets and observe, and suck up the gossip, and become a local icon, while occasionally writing articles in the newly popular journals...what did they really do? the flaneur-artists were interesting, and the sections of Robert Herbert's article that dealt with Manet and Degas as flaneurs were especially interesting. I understand artists gathering their inspiration from what they see around them in daily life. The fact that Degas incorporates his friends in his paintings and comments on their talents (or lack thereof) is pretty hilarious. paintings that have become famous and renowned were perhaps just a flaneur making fun of his friends. That's how art is created. From what the artist knows. But the flaneur that was more of a dandy just sort of annoyed me. I feel like I know those people today and I always wonder what they really do. I thought it was interesting that the flaneur emerged directly after the bohemian society began fading away. for society to depart from a place of intense creativity and idolation of poverty (in an artsy sort of way), and arrive in the flaneur's world of superficiality, detachment, and reserve, is a pretty interesting journey. I have to agree with Simmel, that that change can be largely attributed to the power of the money society. With that money society came detachment within urban societies. passion was replaced by reserve, and involvement was replaced by commentary. With the emergence of the popular journal to more of the population, it became easier to read what a few people thought of culture than to actually go out and experience culture, and the energized objectivity that Simmel discusses began to take hold.

More interesting to me than the flaneur was Elilzabeth Wilson's text about women's place in society. THe articles were interesting together. looking at the freedom of the flanuer compared with the restrictons placed on women, it became clear that even though there were some female artists, a woman would never be able to roam the streets and call herself a flaneuse. men wanted to keep most single women at home, or at the very least out of the city, which seemed threatening and offered all sorts of temptations that women should not be allowed to witness. therefore, the priveledges reserved for the flaneur (sitting in cafes all day, roaming the streets, shopping- to a degree)were the exact priveledges that were kept from women.

A point of confusion in all this, for me at least, was the relationship between london and paris. i didn't quite catch where this detached urban society originated. i think london, because there is a mention in the Herbert article of the anglomania of the French. but i couldn't totally pin down a time line as far as which society was transforming and when.

and now, i am running over to class, and will most likely be a few minutes late!

When I first started reading Elizabeth Wilson's The Invisible Flaneur, I was not sure what direction she was going in. As a women, I felt angered when I read about the restrictions women endured in the nineteenth century. Not that this is new information, but I guess I can't imagine ever living that way. I don't consider myself a feminist, but the truth is women are still a minority in our society today, though we have come a long way in the past 100 years. Some of Wilson's quotes, such as, "The development of the bourgeois suburb as a haven of privacy was particularly marked in Britian, serving to 'protect' middle-class woman from the rough-and-tumble of the urban street... And these woman...were closely guarded," remind me of a song by "No Doubt." (I'm Just A Girl)
Anyway, I didn't intend to focus on women's lib.
When I first read Wilson's definition of flaneur - ("The proliferation of public places of pleasure and interest created a new kind of public person with the leisure to wander, watch and browse: the flaneur, a key figure int the critical literature of modernity and urbanization"), I couldn't help to think that all New Yorkers could be considered a flaneur. And I also questioned the gender of a flaneur, could it only be a man? (Of course I already was thinking of my argument for woman flaneurs) But as I read on I realized there were a few opinions stated as to the gender of a flaneur. At first of course I thought a flanuer could be man or woman, but the powerful closing paragraph has caused a new thought process!

The connection between yesterday’s Flaneur and today’s Metrosexual is very interesting. I think in any day, but especially today, we need to find labels for things. This is the curse of language. As T.R.Q. suggests, VCS is really about language. In order to understand something new, we must first be able to verbally acknowledge it. And then, we must be able to hold a discourse of why this new thing, be it art, fashion, kind of person etc. is valid. Even the phrase that is used to describe understanding, to “come to terms” with something, is imbedded with idea of making something speakable. In the same way that it is hard to understand neo-realism, without having a definition, discourse, and context for neo-realism, it is equally true of the Flaneur. In most cases the trendsetter also has to be the trend definer. In other words, someone needs to write the manifesto, and “come to terms with it. It is usually a person involved in it in someway, like a Baudelaire. When there is not vocal figurehead, or a proper critic, a movement can come and go under the radar not to be seen until the later hindsight of historical context.
For me, the most interesting example of the detachment of the Flaneur was the story of Manet experiencing the city workers as a “symphony of white”. Manet’s non-involvement, with what is actually happening is very interesting. As an urbanite myself, I can think of numerous occasion of this same distance. I had not thought that this was exclusive to city folk, but I can see how the citizens developed what at first was a defense mechanism, but then became a life statement; a mind shift to the observational from the participatory.
I enjoyed Herbert’s insight into Degas. It was especially nice to have all the images he was talking about conveniently in our images library: much thanx T.R.Q. I was really amazed by all the details that would have overlooked if it were not for Herbert. Besides the social context (gossip) that I didn’t know, Herbert pointed out some interesting physicality’s that I just didn’t notice, like the floating easel in James Tissot’s portrait. The real enlightening points are the ones that highlight Degas as a Flaneur himself. For example his subjects often were Flaneurs. By painting them, Degas is in a way giving us clues to what his definition of a Flaneur is. This is very visible in his painting Place de la Concorde, 1875. The Flaneur is not easily distracted from his own thoughts (maybe paradigm). When we come to the table with a little more info, it becomes easier to see "a kind of sign-language" with which these Flaneurealists (for lack of a better word) use to flex their wit. Degas was really “dissing” Tissot. But he did so in such a clever and subversive way, as to attract just the right amount of attention so that Degas would know that Tissot would know but all would pretend not to be in the know.
I love the whole interplay between the caricaturist and the painter. I find it fascinating to think of the both sets of “sign language” influencing and being influenced by the other. I guess this type of symbiosis is prevalent today but it seems to be more important (I guess everything old does). But the sketchy quality adopted by painter from the fellow cartoonists of their day is probably one of the most significant exchanges. Herbert explains, “it is so easy to accept the illusion of a natural incident that we have to concentrate our attention if we are to see the devices of this shrewd tactician.”

It's amusing that Judith Butler sees, the "pride" and "happiness" of the subjects of Diane Arbus's photos. She sees, the "eyes expressing triumph before the camera"; a woman "fending off" the camera; "homoerotic tangles" of legs; people having "plans"; "sorrow" in someones eyes; etc, throughout her essay.

And then, she points out, at the end, that "we never get behind any of these surfaces".

Tom

Ok, the more I read Herbert's Impressionism and Naturalism, over the more I seem to get a sense of what is going on, though I am still a little confused. Who is this flaneur, Is he simply someone that looks upon the world or does this man add to the world. I get the sense that he does add more to the world. He makes speculations in his art about the daily lives of those that live in this city. From my point of view this someone is worthwhile, we need someone to make the speculation of others, criticizing others, or simply showing the beauty of others.

I simply like the idea that the flaneur's home is the street, it is the street in which everything occurs and this is where a flaneur should live his life. The flaneur is there to speculate, to watch over and during this to also look good. Tell me is there anyone more perfect?!? You know the writer that comes to mind is Ernest Hemingway and the character's in his book, The Sun Also Rises. I imagine Hemingway and his friends in Paris sitting outside drinking and smoking their cigarettes and gazing at the world looking and watching, though in the meanwhile talking to each other about what they thought was amusing and smart. Though this word flaneur seems to be used only for men, I imagine Gertrude Stein a flaneur in her own way.

I like that Herbert describes the flaneur , "like a policeman, he had acute powers of observation and could deduce much from external details." I mean anyone who is always interested in the lives of others can do that. This is not merely a description of those who like to look good, BUT it is a description of someone who writes as a living or paints as a living, that is what I got from it. Then Herbert goes on to say that the flaneur is also all of, detached and unruffled, though the unruffled description may be towards the flaneur's fashion, the other two words describing the flaneur seem to be the opposite of what the flaneur represents.
Looking at Beraud's Paris, On the Boulevard, I do get a sense from the man in his top hat recording his surroundings though seemingly entrapped in his paper.

But I thought that the flaneurs of the world were the artists, but it seems that the artists used flaneur attitudes in their art. O dear I feel like I am going in circles.

On Monday, I inadvertently posted the beginning of my reflection. Here’s the rest of it! I’m going to back track a little and comment more on the readings from last class and also a little on the handouts we received in class because in the spirit of interdisciplinary studies they serve to inform the essays on the flâneur.

Simmel and Pietz invite/immerse us into the sociological and philosophical theories of what I'll call the "enter at your own risk" intellectual culture. I say risk only because, so far, these readings (and re-readings) demand/challenge us, in a peculiar excessive yet engrossing way, to simultaneously place and see ourselves as part of a larger constellation, a term used by Butler to describe how the photographs in "Revelations" relate to one another and in turn, what they reveal (124). As I navigate and sift through the vocabularies of constructed belief and visual culture, I experience a reversal in the senses - my eyes learn to think and my mind wants to see.
How Simmel describes the consequences of over-stimulation in the metropolis is analogous to what happens to someone who overthinks. Or maybe when I say overthink, I really mean critical(?) “The immoderately sensuous life makes one blasé,” writes Simmel, “because it stimulates the nerves to their utmost reactivity until they finally can no longer produce any reaction at all”(14). When this happens to me, (which I now kind of expect with these readings) I know I have to take a break from reading. Otherwise, my thoughts end up sailing away to the Bermuda Triangle or the 19th century, for that matter! Anyway, here is where I am right now with the readings. A lot of it, take this very paragraph, for example, is still fresh out of the margins.

First, let me say something about how I feel about the 19th C. My first reflex is to associate this time with slavery, racism, and colonization. So, when I read about all these sociologists/philosophers back in Europe, like Simmel and Comte, I resist the impulse to unequivocally dismiss them for being 19th C. Social-Darwin-bred, privileged, Euro-Chauvinistic intellectuals of whom I can’t/don’t want to relate. It would equally be immoral and unjust for me not to acknowledge these parallel realities, especially as they relate to one another. Okay, so maybe I’m over-thinking here… but too late, I made the connection and I can’t go back. Basically, in broad terms – my gut feeling is to say that this is all related to race theory, identity formation – identity politics, gender theory, etc. etc… whether I can articulate that connection without diluting the significance of each discipline – I dunno. But, hey – I am a child and product of globalization, global-Americanization… it has become second nature to me, although culturally it’s really my first – to believe that everything is connected. Okay – think constellation here…all these theories and practices connect in the end…

Simmel respectably provides a model discourse for understanding the construction of beliefs by individuals and the social structures that perpetuate those beliefs. Herbert makes this point when he says that [Simmel’s] “analysis is of great value for the interpretation of Impressionism. According to Simmel, modernity and the sum of its parts took root as a result of a shift towards a money economy and a more calculating, rational quantitative mind. Money increasingly substitutes for direct human interaction, as described by Herbert. Yes, Simmel is (…this white 19th Century male from Germany) talking about the metropolis and mental life, but his investigation of the individual and his/her environment is coming from the same “impersonal place” of the flâneur as described by Herbert. The flâneur may animate things through art of writing while Simmel’s metropolitan man, though appearing aloof behind a newspaper, is also busy observing and mentally recording, like Degas on a café terrace, the details of his environment. I wonder, did Simmel and Degas ever have coffee and talk with one another? Although now that I think of it, they’d probably just sit there and analyze each other’s eyes, facial expressions, and movements and have the conversation telepathically or something…I bet Diane Arbus would have loved to get that shot – a piece that be entitled: Ode to the 19th Century: Nearness and Remoteness.

Alright, so I’m reading/writing also from the perspective of a documentary photographer…this nearness, remoteness dualism – the close attention and uninvolvement of the close urban observer describes also the process of seeing involved when I make a picture. I read/see with both eyes what is in front of me – I’ll see something, a movement, a gesture, an angle, an interaction – then I’ll bring the camera up and compose… okay, that’s the close attention part. The uninvolvement part is that when I look through the viewfinder, it’s as if I have to let got of what I saw before and what I thought it meant because now I’m seeing it differently. I may be looking at the same subject but now I’m seeing it is totally different. This is not a linear process- more circular, so I hate to even categorize experiences like that. Well, it was worth trying to describe anyway.

Finally, and before I become grossly nostalgic over Simmel’s ideas, let’s be real here – again – 19th C philosophies and ideas – okay, 19th C. discourse – is so seriously seen and constructed by white male eyes. So, as much as I can follow their reasoning and see how it is applicable to some of things that concern me – race, gender, politics, perception – I reserve the right as someone living in 2004, to at least question these guys as much as I accept them. So on that note, Wilson, in her essay on the invisible flâneur, adds some very complex re-constructions of her own.

The two fundamental questions that she asks are: Does Lacan provide the most helpful available source of theory for feminists? And - Is urban space structured at some fundamental level by gender difference or are the constructions contradictory and shifting? She argues from and builds a new narrative that deliberately resists the gendered-based ideological discourse that has served as a blueprint for categorizing 19th C. social groups. Like – if women internalize the Lacanian discourse, then we run the risk of maybe accepting too quickly that we are by default the other and unconsciously, or maybe even some cases – consciously recreating new glass ceilings. Great- as if we didn’t have enough to work with. I say that in the most light-hearted way, of course. I expect that Wilson’s ideas are a sign for similar readings to come. I’ll stay tuned for more shifting. See ya in class-

Robert Herbert’s description of the flaneur looks like a Daumier caricature. He is its roaming phenomenon, the quintessential figure of the urban dweller. The flaneur can only be considered in the city’s context. Our “Bonhomme” is a fashionable dandy in a commodity oriented society. Money shields him from qualitative values or personal attachments. His dispassionate eye lifts him up above the city’s streets emotional puddles. His face is trapped between an expression of loneliness’ cynical indifference - to no expression at all. Like a hologram the flaneur is unintelligible and impenetrable from most angles. He is a voyeur and reporter of the city’s theater, posed anxiously on a balcony or the cafes. He is to be looked at - not to be approached. His reports/paintings of the city’s visual culture are swift, objective interpretation done in an abbreviated “sign language”.
Elizabeth Wilson’s article brings for our consideration a much more multifaceted flaneur as well as a feminist perspective of the city. Although the flaneur is still at first glance the paid star entertainer of the city, who plays his role with a ‘blasé attitude, internally he is a marginalized, impotent tragic figures in the “city labyrinth” (Benjamin). Wilson challenges Wolff’s account that being a flaneur is only tied to gender. While acknowledging the male’s masterly gaze over his public domain (where the women’s steps are restricted and her sexuality commodified and exploited), Wilson credits the ‘shopping revolution’, with many establishments catering to the comfort of the female, and the driving opportunities for the city’s women beginning independence . George Sand and Delphine Gay, masquerading in male drag, are the first symbols for future city flaneuses. The female prostitutes are viewed (with reservation) as a metaphor for the urban flaneusse mass product. The flaneur’s detachment and anonymity finally obliterates his individuality and the metropolis disorienting nature renders him invisible.

“All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their own peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their own peril”
Preface,
"The Picture of Dorian Gray"
Oscar Wilde

Thanks to Matt, Tony, Jonathan, and Kristian for making the connections. The link between the Flâneur and the Metrosexual is a nice illustration of the way subjects are created as part of a social formation and discourse on gender identity and how these categories are shaped and re-shaped, often in contradictory and surprising ways. This is precisely the point that Elizabeth Wilson makes in her article "The Invisible Flâneur".

The ways in which we think of and "project" ourselves is determined to a large extent by the type of society in which we live. There are lots of factors and forces involved, one of which is certainly the fashion industry which picks up on emerging interests (and anxieties) and develops commodities and "looks" that appeal to indivduals within the "niche".

For more on the metrosexual, here's a seminal article by Mark Simpson of Salon.com, and an article from the Australian press. And here's a series of short takes and definitions from Word Spy and a more extended account from the Wikipedia.

Robert Herbert writes that Parisians treated their city as a theatre, and that the flâneur occupied a stagelike space appropriate to the idea that Paris was a theatre in which one must always take a role. Herbert mentions that Baudelaire, in poems and essays, expresses that one of the key concerns for the flâneur is the excitement of Paris crowds and the ability to move anonymously among them, and better yet; the power of cool observation when supported by underlying passion. This brings two quite different thoughts to mind:

1. Does this “underlying passion” Baudelaire speaks of, contradict with Georg Simmel’s notion of unavoidable metropolitan blasé?

First thing first; I must say Simmel is very persuasive in his elaborate language. Thankfully, Herbert and Wilson write more understandably, yet no less convincing. I find that often while reading such articles, I am much impressed with how something is put, thus paying less attention to, or being less critical rather, to the content. I am on the verge of saying that I like many of the thoughts Simmel presents, but, nah, I don’t follow him all the way to the finish line. I need more time on this though, as every time I look at “The Metropolis and Mental Life” there’s something new to it. But I should think New Yorkers would have strong views on the Simmelian accusation of inescapable blasé? Such a dark outlook! Surely, the “underlying passion” marking the flâneur must exist in some form even today?

2. A Shakespeare quote that popped into consciousness:

“All the world’s a stage,
and all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
and one man in his time plays many parts.”

Viewing the city life as a theatre stage; a city of which you yourself are a citizen. Keeping your distance, making yourself a stranger; yet not being unknown to those around you. The flâneur was not anonymous, as I understand it; they made sure to dress well, they had wits and charm – but these things do not exclude being a stranger nonetheless. Right? Thank you Matt, for the comparison between the flâneur and the Metrosexual. It may be true that today’s metrosexual doesn’t walk around as much as 19th century flâneur did, but isn’t much of today’s image and popularity tied together with showing yourself, being seen, being noticed, and admired?

Luckily I’m taking a course on Urban Life this semester that seems to be complimenting this one quite nicely. In that class we’ve studied much of Baudelaire, Poe, and the dynamic of living in an urban environment. In these pieces the element of the “spleen” (that I posted last week) seemed to come up again this week in regard to “The Invisible Flaneur” it came to mind when reading Kracauer’s argument about the commercialization of sexuality. I’ve found that if ever a new theory about art or anything for that matter becomes a popular way of thinking it inevitably becomes gentrified and mainstream which is what seems to be the case in this situation. Because Baudelaire’s new ideas on aesthetic beauty were picked up by the renegade culture of the late eighteen hundreds I’m speculating that the ideas of prostitution, crowds, and bohemianism became somewhat glorified with in a social context.

As far as the Visual and cultural world we’re dealing with I couldn’t help but associate Art Nouveau as a product of this progressive transformation of Paris as a cultural Mecca. With in this revolution not only was it the mentality of the citizens that began to change but also the world of art and architecture in reference to the arcades and boulevards that began to inform the dynamic of the society. With their glass windowed rooftops, which were intended for people to look in, a forum for the latest fashions was created, which I think, became a venue for achieving status with in the culture.

Another benefit of the connection between these two courses lies in the complimentary readings I’ve had. When trying to visualize the Flaneur with in a group I was able to revert to a poem from “The Flowers of Evil” by Baudelaire called “To a Woman Passing By” which perfectly defines that moment that we’ve all experienced when on a subway or in a park that your eyes meet with someone else’s and a kinetic, even intimate relationship with a stranger is formed.
Here it is…

“Around me roared the nearly deafening street.
Tall, slim, in mourning, in majestic grief,
A woman passed me, with a splendid hand
Lifting and swinging her festoon and hem;

Nimble and stately, statuesque of leg.
I, shaking like an addict, from her eye
Black sky, spawner of hurricanes, drank in
Sweetness that fascinates, pleasure that kills

One lightning flash…then night! Sweet fugitive
Whose glance has made me suddenly reborn,
Will we not meet again this side of death?

Far from this place! Too late! Never perhaps!
Neither one knowing where the other goes,
O you I might have loved, as well as you know!"

Are you familiar with term Metrosexual? I think it has, over the past year or so, become a fairly common word. I equate the flâneur as being very similar to metrosexual. Reading through Robert Herberts' piece and Elizabeth Wilsons' description in the first half of her piece, it became clear to me that there are striking similarities. I see the similarites as being: concern of appearance, interest in metropolitan life, gossip, aesthetics and more. Rather than name them all the similarities, it may be more notable to point out what I see as two main differences between the terms.

In the descriptions of flâneur the "walking" seems to be very important to the defintion. Maybe it is because of the extraordinary achievements in public transportation since the 1800's, but I don't think the average day metrosexual walks as much as the flâneur did. He is more apt to hop into his car or hail a taxi cab.

The other difference is that of the observation. Herbert goes into great detail on how the flâneur is like a detective. Analyzing and Inspecting everything. He sees life as theatre, a show put on for his entertainment, and he watches it all. I am not sure if the modern day metrosexual has that much attention on the outside world - posibly he is more interested in himself?

So, thats my take on the flâneur. Regarding Wilson's piece, I found it very interesting. I have never taken a course, nor really read any essays on feminist topics. I am pretty sure though that the term flâneur is a "gendered concept" and I found her essay very eye-openeing in many aspects.

I wanted to take a moment to thank James-Carlton for writing what he did in his last post regarding my question of Andre's work. That was very helpful to me -- especially the part about it bring up questions to the viewer.

After last weeks class, I have decided that Andre's work is art. I am not such a hypocrite after all. I also think it is not esthetically pleasing. But who says that art must be aesthetcially pleasing? Well, I did last week. And that seems to be the view of Greenberg and Kant. However, I am not (at least not yet) ready to agree with them. I'm hoping we are going to get some other views of what art is during the course and hopefully I will find some philosopher or art critic with whom I agree more deeply

I've decided to just use this space, as Tim suggested, to let my thoughts run without feeling too constrained to make things perfect. In this case some of it doesn't even make sense on the surface. But I've decided to post it anyway as a tool to get my thoughts out where I can see them, and perhaps to find some common ground by which to continue the narrative.

"...and so on." - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

RE: Robert Herbert, "Impressionism and Naturalism" & Elizabeth Wilson, "The Invisible Flâneur"

Well this personage of the mythical flâneur by which a generation of men based their outward personalities has been quite an interesting read. It appears to me that at the heart of this movement were men who perhaps were already on the fringes of society in terms of social interaction. This pose of being the wanderer, the observer, and the investigator (as stated by Herbert) was at the very least convenient. When this same character is described by Wilson he is described as someone who does not do ordinary work, spends his hours window shopping, looking for books and novelties of all kinds. This sounds like a beatnik of the 50's melded together with a Barbie doll. If one can give relevance to one's own actions and make the trait of standoffishness into a quality called detachment then that natural part of the solitary gentleman becomes mysterious. His loneliness is thus observed as dispassion. A nice turning of a phrase. These qualities in an artist are perhaps more desirable than in others and I am persuaded that these things served Manet and Degas very well indeed. I would even go so far as to infer that this style was inspired by the artists themselves in much the same way that the rock musicians influence so many people - who emulate their dress, hair, mannerisms, etc. Clearly the Beatles came before the Hippies. Culturally there is always a spark to ignite the creative desire in those who are not so creative in their own right. I've noticed a trend of sorts lately. This one was probably inspired by a creative marketing director from the Gap or some such: men and women are wearing a specific scarf, tan in color with a plaid design. It's really not all that attractive, but it is, for some reason or other, "the thing to wear." That the most powerful people (the men) of an era would take on an artificial mannerism is really nothing all that different than the trend setters/followers of today.

Beyond all this discussion of the flâneur I've noticed within the writing of Herbert a way of writing about art that is more expressive and descriptive than we've seen up until this point. He has a way of speaking about a work of art that is not about how he feels about the piece, but rather, what he can surmise from looking at it, what it inspires by its use of color and form. It is close observation. What-do-ya-know? A trait of...you guessed it, the flâneur.

I've posted the midterm paper assignment to the website. The paper is due on March 17. The document which describes the assignment is here.