There are many writers to whom clothing is dear. Sappho’s
poetry, or rather the fragments that remain of it, nearly always center on some
article of clothing. Oscar Wilde was a notorious clotheshorse. Virginia Woolf
maintained a kind of negative fixation. Edith Wharton, asked as a child what
she wanted to be when she grew up, replied, “the best dressed woman in Manhattan .” However for pure, melodious ravishment upon
clothing itself Thomas Mann is by far my favorite writer. If it weren’t for a
phrase in the short story “The Blood of the Walsungs” about a “Florentine
cinquecento frock of claret coloured velvet” I would never have fallen under
his beneficent spell at all.
Or consider this ensemble, worn by Madame Chauchat to a
picnic in the Swiss Alps in The Magic
Mountain. Madame Chauchat arrived, Mann writes, in “a belted coat of some
warm, fuzzy, large-checked fabric, and had even thrown a little fur over her
shoulders. The brim of her felt hat was pulled down on one side by an olive colored
veil she had tied under her chin, in an effect so charming that it was almost
painful for all present.” Almost painful.
Could a more perfect ensemble than M. Chauchat’s be
conceived of? Chauchat is one of these virtuosos who are still born among us,
who are evident from earliest childhood. There are perfect rakes even now in America
although they are most commonly four years or five years old and have not yet
had their style neutered. Mann was one of these virtuosos himself. See him at
eight years old in a striped sailor suit, forearm on a book and one thumb
nestling in the opening above the second shirt button, coal black eyes already
indicative of the earnest-ironic fusion he is destined to transform laboriously
into art. Unlike most children’s sailor suits this ensemble does not simply
mark him as the child puppet of a bourgeois family. The young Mann delights in
his ensemble. See him again in the 1940s posing for a photo in Vogue: his white patent leather shoes,
pale grey suit, bow tie, panama hat.
In the essay On the
Greatness of Richard Wagner, Mann explains that Wagner was incapable of
working without “palpable expressions of an extravagance of taste” which
included, “wadded silk dressing-gowns” and “lace-trimmed satin bed-covers
embroidered with garlands of roses.” Buttressed by these things, Mann writes,
Wagner “sits down mornings to the grueling job, by dint of them he achieves the
‘atmosphere of luxury and art’ necessary to the creation of primitive Nordic
heroes and exalted natural symbolism.”
Is this a tacit admission on Mann’s part that the artist cannot create
until first he is properly dressed?
Mann described the clothing of his fictional characters so
impeccably not out of empty volupté, but because he knew the world he described
was going extinct. His craftsmanship is an homage to another kind of
craftsmanship. The disappearance of handmade clothes and furniture as a result
of mass manufacture, and the erosion of the material culture of old Europe had in William Morris its utopian denialist, in
Thomas Carlyle its Jeremiah, and in Mann its quiet, bourgeois eulogist.
Mann was willing to fight for discernment in clothing, food,
manners, and furniture, all of which he grouped together in the phrase bourgeois competence in a June 1926 speech
given on the occasion of the 700 year anniversary of his home city, Lübeck.
“Bourgeois competence” as Mann deploys it signals a sort of spacious capacity
for the leisurely, deliberate prosecution of one’s affairs in a world where
appreciation for the arts is central. Bourgeois
is not offered to us in the way it appears in Marxist doctrinal disputes of the
period (as the vilest type of insult) nor to imply cupidity, avarice, and
mediocrity, as Godard used it after his conversion to Maoism (“I started making
films because I wanted to escape my bourgeois family but then I discovered that
the film industry was just another, bigger bourgeois family.”) It is presented
as a positive spiritual value (the speech itself is entitled "Lübeck as a
spiritual way of life.")
If this spiritualization seems overburdened or elitist we
might consider that the analogous (supply-side) vector to loss of bourgeois
competence is proletarianization. Erosion of style among the bourgeois is
concomitant with the destruction of a way of life for the artisan. An artisan
class denuded of traditional organizations and skills (that is to say, a
proletariat) cannot possibly produce objects that will please the possessor of
bourgeois competence. It is thus a tacitly anti-industrial stance albeit one
based less on fairness than on beauty. (Beauty is, in any case, an ideal place
to begin the fight for an ideal society. William Morris tread a direct path
from disgust for the British middle class interior design tastes to socialism.)
“Bourgeois competence” has more in common with the earliest iterations of
German labor theory than it does with either socialism or the late 19th or
early 20th century German liberalism that might seem to be the natural
political home for such a “bourgeois.” This early German labor movement, writes
historian Stefan Berger, “differed from its late nineteenth century variant in
that it was rooted not in a future utopia of classless harmony but in attempts
to fend off perceived threats to traditional lifestyles.” Mann’s argument was for stolidity and balance
against blind rapacity on the one hand and utopian fiction on the other. It was
also an argument for a system of labor relations that, though it did not create
perfect economic or political parity, extended opportunities for artistic
expression to a far wider range of citizens.
Clothing historian Carl Kohler notes that when one compares
the costumes and suits of Ludwig 1 of Bavaria with those of his grandson Ludwig
II, preserved alongside one another in the National Museum ,
“One cannot fail to be struck by the baneful effect produced by the sewing
machine as compared to skilled hand-sewing. By the year 1859 the sewing machine
had gradually replaced sewing by hand, and one grieves to have to say that
men’s clothes of this period make a sorry show when compared to the carefully
made garments of earlier times.”
In 1864, when Ludwig II ascended to the Bavarian throne,
only two garments were being mass-produced in any true sense: the corset and
the uniform of the American Union soldier. As early avatars of ready-to-wear,
however, both of these garments displayed what was to be its primary
characteristic: indifference to the individual body. The uniform’s function is,
after all, to submerge each body in a sea of like bodies, and the corset does
not accommodate the shape of its wearer at all, but rather assists her in
accommodating her body to the shape of clothing.
Mann’s bourgeois characters, by contrast, exist in amazing
specificity, each in a unique ensemble, each participating in the twilight of a
world in which individual people matter. Take the picnic scene in The Magic Mountain for an example, the
scene for which Madame Chauchat is dressed so ravishingly in fuzzy, large
checked fabric. Herr Settembrini (the book’s humanist pedagogue character) is
hoping the picnic will offer the opportunity for a “democratic chat” between
the guests. No such luck. Instead, the party is steered by its host, the
dominating Mynheer Peepercorn, to a spot at the very base of a waterfall, where
the “deafening, insane, extravagant roar…frightened and confused them, baffled
their ears.” At this peculiar location Peeperkorn rises to gives a speech to
the assembled company that of course, no one can hear. When the picnic is over
and the guests retreat, they can hear, “from behind, from above, from every
side-menacing, threatening trumpet calls and brutal male voices.” The scene
serves as a mythic signaling of the end of discourse. Goodbye to the old world,
goodbye picnics. Goodbye to olive colored veils, hello fascism.
In both Germany
and in America ,
the political and aesthetic consequences of mass production began to become
conspicuous in the celluloid forms of the 1930s. In Leni Riefenstahl’s
elaborately choreographed crowd scenes of 1934, the visual effect is nearly
identical to that produced in the four back-to-back blockbuster musicals
choreographed by Busby Berkely in America during the same year.
Berkely, like Riefenstahl, used the individual body as a minute pixel in an
enormous geometric diagram.
In the 1850’s, the British intellectual John Ruskin had
noted the trend towards diminishing opportunities for creative expression on
the part of the worker as a result of mass manufacture. As an art critic he
extolled the medieval European Cathedral, in whose asymmetries and
idiosyncrasies he claimed that it was possible to read a generous sharing of
creative control among many artisans. In the perfect symmetries of a classical
Greek temple, by contrast, Ruskin saw proof of a system of slave labor perfectly
executing the design of a single architect. The mass produced clothing emerging
in Ruskin’s time, establishing themselves in Mann’s, and ascendant in ours are
like the Greek temple of the Ruskin dichotomy not only because they are the
work of one intellectual laborer (a designer) and a fleet of manual workers
without artistic choice, but also because of the inconsistency of medium with
message. Just as the Greek temple is
intended to epitomize the democratic ideal but reveals in its mode of production
a system of authoritarianism, postwar western clothing is marketed as a system
of objects that provide an opportunity for expression, while in its actual mode
of production we can read a vast diminution in the opportunities for expression
on the part of the worker. One thing that can be said for Triumph of the Will is that at least it was the intended effect that we read in its sea
of uniform bodies a monopoly on human action of unparalleled intensity.
Sofi Thanhauser
studied history at Columbia University and got her MFA in creative writing at the
University of Wyoming
in Laramie , WY , where she now lives. She is currently
working on a book about clothing. You can listen to her weird music at
thisiscoldsnake.bandcamp.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment