of 15
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
1/15
THE
ART OF TAKING
A
WALK
FLANERIE
LITERATURE AND
FILM
IN WEIMAR CULTURE
Anke
Gleber
FRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
Irtr
PRINCETON. NEW JERSEY
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
2/15
WalterRuttmann,scenes tom Berlin. Die Sirfonie
tler
Cnl3stotlr
(Berlin,
the Symphony
of
the City).
Courtesv
f J. DucllevAndrew.
CHAPTER
4
The Art of Walkins:
Reflections f Berlin
Wer-rBnBsNravrN'sessay
Die
WiederkehrdesFlaneurs" akes
as ts moclel
the writer FranzHessel.For Benjarnin,
Hessel,
close rie nd and
collaborator,
a child of Berlin and tenant of Palis, is the
exemplarymanif'estation f the
flaneur n Weimarculture.More explicitly
than
Benjamin,Kracauer, nd other
,
Weimar intellectuals,Hessel's exts both articulate
and llustrat e a theory of
{
flanerie n
the twentieth
century,
and
in
so
doing
suggesta
means or ap-
\
proaching
contemporaryWeirnarBerlin. Hessel's eflections n Berlin
form a
phenomenology
f fl anerie hat, n its orientation owardhis very
own moder-
nity, tangibly sulpasses enjami n'sstudies n the flaneur, specially
when he
latter merely reconstructshe flaneur etrospecti vely s an anachronisticype
of nineteenth-century aris street ife.1
Despite
he compellingaspects
f his
life
and
iterary practice,Hesselhas etumed only recently rom t he
margins
of German iterature o a certain measul'e f critical interest.2
is
personal
statllreas one of Benj amin's closest riends and his
professional
tatus
as an
eclitor
with
Rowohlt,
the
prominent
publishinghouse
of the 1920s,
avebeen
rediscovered long with his
intimate amiliarity with the city's literary
circles
of l.ris ime. Forced o leave
Germany
as
a
Jewish citizenunderNazi
persecu-
tion, the writer also had been obliterated rom the
pages
of German
iterary
encyclopedias,
is
life
reduced o the
fragments
of
an
oblique
existence.rn
revisiting someof the
stations
of
this
ife, this
account
of l{essel'sbiography
is i ntended ess as an exhaustive
enumeration
of his curriculum vitae than
as
an
outline of
the formative
places
and times contributi ng o
the flaneur's
development.a
Born
in
the
eastern russian
ity
of Stettin,
Hessel
and
his
well-to-do
bour-
geois
amily relocated
o
Bellin in 1888,a move to the city that introduced
the eight-year-old o the decisive
ground of the flaneur's
development,
is
knowledge
of urban spaces.
he fat her's death paradoxicall ypresented he
young
man with the opporlunitiesof instant
eisure:
he imrnediate
eave, i-
nancial ndependence,
nd reedom rom
professional
oncerns
nd
purposes
that s the
precondition
f any aimless lanerie, he
eisure
o
pursue
an
ndepen-
dent exisfence
s a
student
of
literary history,mythology,
and archeology-a
constellation f
subjects
hat
already
ircumscribedhe ocus
of
his metropoli-
tanobservations. hese studies"anticipatedhe urtherSrudium f cities, eal-
ity,
and history that moved him beyond Berlin to the major locationsof the
Europeanbohime of his times. Frequenting he literary circles
of
Munich,
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
3/15
64 cITAPTER
4
drawing on conversations
with Stefan George
and his
friends, with
Franziska
von
Reventlow and
her admirels,
Hessel began
editing his
first
publication'
the Schw,abinger
eobttchter
Schwabing
Observer),
ptly
predicting
he
pre-
dominantstance
of the
later
flaneur.s
n 1906, Hessel
moved on
to Paris
and
the Vlontparnasse
ircles
of Gertrude Steir.r
nd
Henri-PierreRoch6,
a
writer
who would
soon become
his close
riend and
ntimate
rival for the affections
of his ater wif'e,
Helen
Gr-und,
Berlin
expatriate
nd ashion
oumalist-
Their
literary and erotic
riangle
nspired
not
only
Roch6's
abled
novel Juleset Jim,
the
fictional foil
for Francois
Truffaut's
filmic adaptation,
ut also
Hessel's
earlier', y
rrow nearly
obsolete
novel
of Parisian
memories,
Pariser Romanze.
In 1993,
he
posthumous
ublication of Grund's
own diaries
rom this
period
presented
he final
angle
o
the mutttalmirroring
of relays
and conflicts
among
these hree
participants n
one of the more
remarkable
persoual
and
cultural,
literary and
enotional
constellations
f the
early
twentiethcentury.
The metropolitan
existence
of these strangers
n and
lovers of Patis
was
abruptly
suspended
hrough
Hessel's
shock-ridden
ncounter
with the
political
lealities of
World
War I, but
unfolded again
when-via
battles n
Alsace
and
Poland,East and West-he returned o his home city. Transferring he lan-
guage,
ulture,
and
mages
of Paris,
he begana
new lif-e n
Weimar Germany,
translating nd
editing
French
iterature
n Berlin-Stendhal,
Balzac,and
oth-
ers.
Foundinghis
oumal,
Verswtd Prosa,
n 1924,
he
presented o the
public
some
of the more
intriguing
German
authorsof
the era, among
hem
Robert
Musil and
Robert
Walser.
As editor
for Rowohlt, a
publishercentral o Wei-
rnar's iterary sphere,
Hessel
brmed
relationships
with the
intellectualminds
of his tirnes:he
rnet
Ernst Bloch, discussed
ities with
Siegfried
Kracauer, nd
entered nto a
close
riendship
with Walter
Beniamin.
This latter relationship
yielcled
long and
nspiring
collaboration:
as of 1925,
Hesselspent
he befter
part
of two
years n Paris
ranslatingMarcel
Proust's
A la recherche u
temps
pertln
witb
Benjamin.
Along the way,
but certainly
not as an
afterthought,
e
introduced
Benjamin
to
his senseof
the city, to its history and ts margins. t
was during
his tirne,
and
due to the inspiration
of their
mutual conversations
on Paris, lrat
Benjamin's
plan
of a
Possogen-Werk
egan o
evolve nto
the
project
hat would
occupy him
fbr the rest
of his life.6Hessel's
nfluence
on
Benjamin'sParisian
efleotions
s as ndisputable
as ts extent s only
surlnis-
able.
FIiso'*,nwork
during
this time shows
a significant
urn toward
cities and
their
cultures. his
work
includesa trilogy
of revelations
n t he city, beginning
with Der
Kranilttclen
cles
Gliicks, continuing
through
his Pariser
Romcuue,
antl
conclnding
witl'r
a return
o his childhood
n Heiniliches
Berlin.
Besides hese
poetic
exts
on
the
city, Hessel's
work inclLrdes
everalvolumes
of
poems,a
number
of novellas,
and a
few
shorter
plays.T
His most
ntliguing
text for our
purposes, owever, anbe found n a collectionof essayistic pproacheso the
city under
he itle
Spazieren
n Berlin.
Theseessays
onstitute
ne of
the rnost
important
contributions
o
the Iiterature
of flanerieand
ntellectual
hought
of
THE
ART
oF
WALKING
65
weimar
Germany.
Their
motifs
and
themes
are
revisited
hroughout
his
wrir
ings:
in
the
posthumously
discovered
ragment
Alrer
Man
,
and
in several
overlooked
ieces
of essayistic
riting-excursions
to the
iterary
market,
ec-
ords
of
his Parisian
mpressions,
nd
a
portrait
of
Marlene
Dietrich-all
of
which,
in
their
very fragrnentariness,
losely
reflect
he kaleidoscope
f this
ffaneur's
esthetics.
WALKING
IN
BERLIN
In contlast
o preceding
ineteenth-century
otions
of the
laneur,
Hessel
ug-
gests
hat
lanede
inds
a new
footing
n
modernity.
n a
number
of
the essays
comprising
spazieren
n Berlin,
he
understands
he
concept
of walking
as
a
metaphor
pot
only
fpp
this partieular
work.bul
fo1
his
works
in
general.s
n
its
central
heoretical
essay,
on
the Difficult
Art
of raking
a
walk," Hessel
deliberately
roposes
o
mobilize
apparently
obsolete
orn.rs
f
..walking"
to-
ward
an
aesthetics
hat
might provide
him
with
access
o his
own
era.e
aming
this process n "art" insteadof mere "action,"he accords he status f a new
artistic
movement
and heoretical
ignificance
o the
process
f walkins.
This
essay
ontains
n
nuce
some
f
rhepivoral
specrs
iound
which
Hessle l
il l
organize
is
thoughts
on the
movement
and notion
at
the
heart
of his
ambula-
191y.1h.oty f
ryo$ern
_fl_aqerie.
onsidering
movernent
o be
rhe primary
er14
of
his
itetature
and
philosophy,
e revisits
Fournel's
questions
bout he
ntri-
cate
net
of reflectiorrs,
hought,
and
ooking
from
which
a
,,theory,,
of
flanene
rnight
e ar l icu lared.ro
For
Hessel,
he
anachronistic
spects
f flanerie
are
what
rentJer
t
a fonn
$::-:ittulg-";
gividE-ir
ts
crifical-significance
n
an
ageof
moderr.r
apid
raniit.
The "airnlessness"
l' tlre
laneur's
motion
works
o
question
revailing
rotions
of
purpose
and
social
ationale,
n contradiction
o the
egulated
movernent fmodern raffic
and
he pragmatically
efined
era
of
"New
Functionalism,"
ne
possible
ranslation
nd nterpretation
f
Nette
sachlichkeit.n
with the
aimless
gaze
of the
flaneur,
Hessel
ntroduces
a ligure
of thought
nto
literature
hat
responds
o
some
of the
most
significant
heoretical
hought
of the
twentieth
century.
walking
the
streets
f the
city,
Hessel's
laneur
experiences
hem
as
a
"text."
Modem
reality,
br
the
flaneur,
consists
f
an
ncessant
er.ies
f en-
counters
hat
unfold
in
the
sheer
contiguity
of experiences
liat
describe
ts
"textuality."
Naming
he
relays
between
warking
and
seeing,
eading
and
writ-
ing,
I{essel
has
ecourse
o
an
analogy
between
he
street
and
he
t&t,
a rrope
that
had
irst
appealed
n
the
early
modern
perioct.
his
urn
oward
he
,legibil-
ity"
of
the world
allows
us
to approach
eality
as a continuum
n which
there
is nothing o be seenand experienced outsicle text," a continuum n whiclr
every
phenomenon
an
be
read
as
a
"text."
while
early
examples
n
Jacques
Derrida's
Grammatology
ocus
on
the
text
of
a "book"
that
depends
or
its
\
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
4/15
66 cIIAPTEI{
4
legibility
on authorities
beyond
the
reader,
he
figLrreof
the
flaneur
makes
the
cltrestiou f
legibility
a
rnodern
question.12
n German
iterature,
Borne
fbrmulates
he
flaneur's
metaphor
of
textuality
n
regard o
Paris.He
describes
the
place
hat Benjamin
will
interpret
as he
"capital
of
the nineteenth
entury"
as
"an
trrifoldecl
ook,
[and]
wandering
hrough
ts streets
means
eading."t3
Bolne's argument or an
extended,
eisurely
"reading"
of
the street
origi-
nates
n the nineteenth
entury,
an
era n which
modernity
only
graduallyaccel-
erates
ts ternpo.
The stroller's
eisure
s thus
defined
n terms
of a
preceding
age,with
its implicit
understancling
f
the walker's
sense f
the world
as hat
of
an artist whose
perception of artefacts,
scriptures,
words,
and
images
s
influenced
r,rlthel y
latently
omantic,
nineteenth-centuly
self-)definitions
f
the
artist as clreamer,
utsider,
and
genitls.
n
his reconstructions
f the nine-
teenth
century
as a
tbrmative
period
of
modernity,
Benjamin
returns o
this
walking figure
of leflection
and emphasizes
ts focus on the
essential
egibility
of
the
r,vorlcl.
He
postulatesan
equivalency
hat registers
he undellying
as-
sumption
of the
laneur's
extnal
fIetaphor
n the
city:
"Perception
s Reading."
In botlt
perceivingand
reading
Berlin's
Bottlevarcl,"ra
is friend
Hesseloffers
one of the nrore detaileddefinitionsof flanerie n Weimar modernity as he
pursues his feuilletonistic
reflections on
lbuentzienstraBe
and
I(urfiirsten-
damm.
Extencling
Benjamin's
apholism,
he
writes:
Flanerie
s a way of
leacling he
street, n
which
people's aces,displays,
shop
windows, caf6
terlaces,
ars, racks,
rees urn into
an entire series
of equivalent
lettels,which
together
brrn words,
sentences, nd
pages
of a book that
s always
new. n ordcr to lezrlly
stroll,
one should
not ltav e anything
oo specificon
one's
l l1I l1( l
-'"
Hessel's
extual netaphor
orms
atr
essential
part
of his essayistic heoly
of
nrodern
lanerie.As
he writes,
"The
real
city
stroller
s
like a readerwho
reads
a book simply to
pass he time and or
pleasure."'6 his
analogy
of book and
city, text aud street,
allows
us to expefience
n l{essel's writings
on Berlin
in
the 1920sa
cunenf and
significant
extual metaphor
hat has helped o
formu-
late
our
sense f
llrodernity
rorn its very
inception.rT
n
spite
of the seemingly
timeless
and hedonistically
airnless
character
of flanerie,
Hessel's
aesthetics
explicitly
pursues ts
objects n the newest
phenomena f modernity:
"There
is no newspaper
hat
one readswith
as mttch excitement
as the
glowing
let-
terings which
run along the
roofs in advertisements"
EG,
55).
To
the
open
gaze
of the
flaneur,
"shop
windows
[are]
no
longer obtrusive offerings
but
rather andscapes,"
commercial
art form that
he understands s he aesthetic
secoud
natul'eof
l.risera.
Hessel's
perception s
predicated
on an all-encom-
passing
isual
sensitivity,
seuse
f
seeing
hatcomprehends
he ascinations
of the city's past, he light eff'ectsof its real and metaphorical wilight, the
nuted shirnmer
of
its iron-glass
onstructions nd
nineteenth-century
nteriors
as n.llch
as he shliil
sensations nd neon
attractions
f modernity.With
partic-
THE
ART OF WALKING 67
ular
empl.rasis,he flaneur of
the
1920s
again and again etums o the
"light
advertisernentshiningup andvanishing,
wandering nd eturning"
FB,145),
viewing them as
the
pdvileged
signs of his times. Captivated
y
such novel
illuminations,
Hessel
promotes
he flaneur'sview as
an
expansion
f
vision,
of
previously
"uuseen
adventures f the eye." ndeed,
he frantic display and
crisis
of
capitalist henomena
nly further multiply the
varietyof
decipherable
signals hat the passerby ncountersn the street: Follow the biographies f
storesand small hotels n
passing
by . . . how much fate, success nd ailure
can be reacl . . from
the
displays
of
wares and
from the menus
posted or
inspection"
8G,51).
ApproachingBerlin's reaiities rom its rrargins, he flaneuranives to read
between he ines of these treet-text s. e
finds
he materialof
his
readings
n
the snrfaces f a cityscapewhose nflationary ncrease f nrarginalia orms a
vast
"wasteland"
of textual ragrnents,
"crowd
of
temporary
structures, f
demolition scaffoldings,construction encings,
board
partitions,
which be-
come
glowing
spotsof color in the serviceof advertising, oicesof the
city"
(EG,56).
These
voicesand signals. ignsand etters, ogether onstitute
metropolitan ext that
abounds
n countless
acetsand excessive i eroglyphs,
a text whose decoding s carr iedout by
Weimar laneurs n what Hessel
calls
the
"difficult
art of taking a walk."18 his version of flanerie ransforms he
textualmetaphorof the city into a mode of
perception
hat understands ll of
reality to be a
text.
The metaphor
applies
as mnch to Benjamin'sexpedition
into thedecaying
rcades fParis as t does o Hessel's eception fan evolvi ng
modernity n Berlin.
t suggestshat he faneurwalks n order o uncover races
of the
past
and o read
hese
eflections
ssymptomatic f their espectiveime,
be it the nineteenth entury
or Weimar modernity
n all its
seusatious.ru
This aesthetics, ith its focus on
subtle
variations n
light, coloq and
struc-
ture, s
prone
o perceiving
hese isible
sensations
nder he
aspect
f a mild
idealization-a
sense f Verkltintng hat
surrounds
ll of its
appearances
ith
theveil of a benevolent aze.Hessel's ersionof flanerie, search or memory
through he beauty and harmony of images,
off'ers
he
moderrist a refuge
n
the relic
of
an
aesthetics riginating n the ate nineteenth entury
but
present
in the 1920s.n an earlierBerlin, heodor
Fontane's ritingsalso ocused n
the particular
quality
of light in the city, on the ight eff'ectshat enveloped is
likelise muted
depictions f tl.re ery real dynamicsand conflicts
of
his soci-
ety.20
esselseeksa similar
VerklArwtg,
quasi-ethical
ffirmationof life in
which, exceeding
sirnple
"beautification,"
he advises he
nclvice
laneul to
abandonhimself
to
the
light and atmosphere f the street:
Also
let
youlself
be deceived ndseduced ittle by
the
ighting,
he ime of day,and he hythm
of
your
steps.
he
artificial ight,
particularly
n
competitionwith a
residue f
daylight and dusk s
a
great
magician, t makeseverythingmore manifold."2l
Dusk s the natural
analogue o Verklcirung, n aesthetics f
indirect
llumina-
tion in which everything
appears n more shining, mysterious, uminescent
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
5/15
68
CTTAPTER 4
hues. {essel'sway of seeing
nclows he
metropolitan
world of
modernitywitl-r
a
"veil
of
beauty"similar
o that
which
Fontane
ad envisioned s befitting
the
artisticdepiction
of an experienced
world.2z
his carefuland
attentive
gaze
lends
a
new aesthetic
ngle o any
of the
objects"
hat
Hessel
erceivesn his
writings:
By
loclkingat
t in a friendly
manner,even he
ugly
is impartedwith
a lraceof beauty.The aesthetes
o
not know that,
but the flatneur
xperiences
ir"
(EG,60).
Hessel's
ptical
philosophy
perceiveseverything hat
can be seen
hrough
the ens of thi s
harmonious
aesthetics.
ts corollary
is an equally-benevolent
and eserved
oetics:
lf
the street
s
therefore
a
kind of leading, hen
r'ead t,
btrt do not criticize t all too much"
(EG,59).
The flaneurcalls
for
a
kind of
lvriting
that might reflect
his open
way of seeing,
a
kind
of writing that
off'ers
"Preferably
omewhat ess
udgment
and
more description
besprechenf."
his
poetic
statemcnt eveals
a host of
dangers hat might
arise
rorn
he exhortation
of
"valuefiee"
discussion
and
epic depiction, he
lack of an
explicit critical
perspective
eing only the
most obviotts
one. On the other
hand,however, he
vel'y
openness
f this
maxim suggests
ts virtues.
The somnambulatory
tate
of flanerie nd ts reveries ivesaccess,n its very undecidedness,o an entire
spectnln of
insights hat awaken
new
senses
f the
familiar ways of
observ-
ing the world. In the
clream tatewithin which
he moves
hrough he exteriors
of his
society, he
flaneur enters
ealtns hat may
not be accessible
o more
consciorrs, ontrollecl, nd
controlling approaches.
xperiencingand
express-
ing aspects f
leality
in a nonjudgmental,
momentary-minded
mmediacy
e-
nroves
he
ilter
hat
would block
certain evelations.
n t his way,Hessel
ar -
takes n the sensorymetaphors
of flaneurs ike
Benjarnin and
Kracauerwho
speak f drifting along n
the ntoxication 1'atmospheres
nd
objects. enja-
rnin'sanalysis f what
he calls he
"dream-sleep"
f capitalism, state
hat
hi s
I'assagen-Werk eeks o
both chronicle
and criticize,
testifies o the signifi-
cance o[' reverie as an
epistemological
concept. Similarly,
the multiple
in-
sights n Kracauer'sDenkbiltler-for example, n "Erinnerungan eine Pariser
StraBe"
Remembrance
f a ParisStreet)
or "Schreieauf
der
StraBe"
Screams
in the
Street)-result
firm
various states f
hypnotic rance.23
Within their characteristically
Weimar
modesof thinking,
heseauthors
ig-
ule
walking
as
a
pivotal processwhose novement
ransmits
ts owu sensitivity
as a clistinctclreamstate,a
kind of
"gentle
tiredness
Ermiidmrg
and
Ernmt-
tungf"
(8G,60).
In Hessel's
exts, hi s ongoing
rance
of contitruous
ove-
lneut, ol'consecuti ve houghts
and steps,
n
the
mind and
n the stleet,
guides
the
rvalker and thinker
along the sensory
stimuli of
his rnovement,back
into a
past
omprised f
individualaud
collectivememories.
n Hessel's
xpe-
lience, his spnce
most often
gives way to a
pleasant everi e, a daydream
of
the ongoingmemory of a happychildhood. his reverie tandsn sharp on -
trast o rnanit'estationsf
the city trance hat
do
not
always ratrsport
restful
TI{E
AR.I.oF
wALKING
69
dream.
n
Kracauerls
writings,
for
exanrple,
his
unconscious
ondition
more
often
translates
nto
a
psychie
nightqlare.
While Hessel
waiks safely
within
the comforting
borclers
f
a
quiet
"sensory
pleasure,"
Kracauer
s overcome
by the
dangerous
spects
nd torrnenting
memories
of the
streets, is
short,
piercing "Screams
n the
Street"
clr
"Remernbrance
f
a
paris
Street,, onsis-
tently
overshadowed y a forebodingsenseof omnipresent oror. As if he
shoulddefend
his
walking pleasure
gair.rst
uch ntrusions,
Hessel
warns
the
aspiring
walker
[not
to be]
led too
far astray
nto
the unconscious"
EG,
60),
unless
he
would have
his
bourgeois
dentity
disscllve
nto complete
ntoxrca-
tion. For Hessel,
he laneur's
writing follows
slow
and ranquil
orms,
nclivicl-
ualist and
nostalgicpaths,
and
proceeds
t a
gradual
pace
back o the airytales
of his
chilclhood.
I}OTILEVARD
SUSPECTS
Hessel'sessay
The
Difficult
Art
of Taking
a Walk"
forms he
cornerstone f
liis theory of flanerie. t articulates retrospective oetics hat aims o collect
every acet
of the
city, tracing
he
steps
of a
philosophy
of the ffaneur
n such
significant itles
as
"Der
Verdiichtige"
The
Suspect),
Ich
lerne"
I
Am
Learn-
ing),
and
Berlins
Boulevard"
Berlin's
Boulevard).
iguring
imself
as
a
,sus-
pect"
of his
times,
he offers
a theory
of flanerie
n the
anthology,s
irst
sen-
tence:
It
is
a specialpleasrtre
o
walk slowly
through
ively
streets.',
essel
wishes o discover
a measure
f slowness
within
the
malginsof
society's
ectic
activities,
within
the
space
of individual
perception.
I
want
to
gaill
or {incl
again," he
writes,
"the
first
gaze
upon
the city
in which
I live."2a
his
,,first
gaze"
nalnes
a
fictitious
nstance
f
perception-entirely
open o
impressions,
uncompromised
y prejudicial
udgments,
and free of
routines
and conven-
tions.
t looks
upon
the exterior
world with
the curiosityand ascinationof ir
child,
but also
with
the historical
awareness
nd
experience
f the rnodern
ity
dweller.
This
"first
gaze"
s not
the tourist's
stare: t
overlooks
obvious attractions
and
inds
ts
objects
on the edges
of metropolitan
pace,
eading ts
insights
as
"a
piece
ofcity
and
world history"
which hasbeenpreserved
recisely
n those
very
locations
of the
city that
seem
o have
been orgotten.
This
flrst
gaze
s
suggestive,
ot intrusive;
t does not
enter
aggressively,
t lingers
entatively
upon
he surfaces
t touches.25
t does
not
seek o reveal,
nncover
or inqui|e;
t
is
not voyeuristically
nvested
n pursuing
gratification-it
merely
returns
a
cautionary,
relirninary
rnpression;
t is
a first oundation
or the collection
of
rnernory.
within the
city's
crowds,
he singular gaze
of the
flaneurenanates
frorn heperspective f a kind of self-chosenexile" thatnames notherbrma-
tive f'eature
f
modernity:
He
is the
native
who has e moved
himself
n
order
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
6/15
70 cItAPTER
4
to see,
y neans
of this
distance,
he
physiognomy
of
the city
at close
ange."16
This is
rvhy, fol
Hessel,
he
flanenr
is
potenfially a-critisal-obrser-ve(
f-his
,,,'
society.
'Iis seenringly
imless
search
or the
airra
of
the city
pulsues n time
,,"
what Benjamin's
definition
situates
n space-the
appearance
f a distance
even
at closest
proximity.2T
he flaneur
ries
to
reconstitute
he
primacy
of
his
irnpressionability, distanceof vision evenwithin the close amiliarity of his
hometown.
Emerging
ront
the
attention
of his tentative
and slow
gaze,he
fbnnulates
he suspicion
of
other
Berlin
pedestrians:
In
this city,
you
have
o
'have
o,'
othel'wise
ou can't.
Here
you
don't
simply
go, but
go
someplace'
It
isn't easy or
someone
of our
kind."28
The
flaneur n
Weimar
Berlin trans-
gresses
he
city's empo
and
unctionalisrn
ith
each f
his steps.
he suspicion
of
a society
of
"New
Objectivity"
is directed
against
he
flaneur's
privileged
"waiting
without
an object,"
against
a figure
who
is neither
a
consuttter
of
cornrr-rodities
or a regnlar
pedestrian.2e
xperiencing
himself as a
"suspect,"
Hessel
subjects
hirnself
o
a time
that
encompasses
oth
the enforced
waiting
of
unemployment
and
the
disorientation
of intellectuals,
a contemporaneous
experience
f those
whom
Kracauer
efers
o as
"Die
Wartenclen."
While Kra-
cauer eflectson tl.risphenornenonn the medium of the detectivenovel,and
Benjarnin
n his
portrait
of the
artist
as Charles
Baudelaire,s0
esselarticulates
the
t'eatures
f these
dispositions
n the
context
of the
reality of
Berlin.
The
flaneurencountefs
ublic
perception
n the age
of
photography
with every
step
he takes
hrough
he streets
f Berlin.sL
f Hessel's
lanerie
s
"suspicious"
o
his cgnterrporaries,
t
is also
because
t
questions
he
prevailing
airns"
an d
f-ulctions
of this
society
by
introducing
he
possibility
of a
mere
airnlessness"
that
would be
ree of
the usual
purposes nd
conventions
f seeing.
He declares
tSis
ainless
clrifting
o be
an exemplary,
didactic
approach
o the
history
and
nrodernity
f lhe
city.
In his
essay
Ich
lerne,"
he
discnsses
he flaneur's
painstakingattention
o
detail, embarking on a search
br the
traces
of a lost
childhood, hat
of
the
individual
as well
as
of a
culture
that occupies
he space
of a
"home"
in the
nroclern
ity.
This
position
s informed
by a
notion
of Biltlung
that
preserves
traditional
knowledge
and
eruclition,
even as
t takes
ts departure
r-onr
Hes-
sel's
persclnal
ffinity
lor the
slowness
of
past
eras.
Hessel's
prevalentsense
of space
ets
hirn realize
he
flaneur's
concept
of a
"home"
in the street,
an
extenclecl
otion
of the
public sphere
hat
Benjamin
sees
as central
o the
fla-
neur'sexperience.3r
essel
himself
views the
"house
and street
as]
one unit
lEinheitl"
FB,
146), ignaling
r-rhis
way the
elatedness
f all
public
spaces.
i
llis insistence
n
the relations
amollg
history,
home, and
childhood
directs
his
gaze
ntost
otien toward
phenomena
hat seem
obsolete
and
anachronistic,
about o
be discarded
y
modernity,
a fbrgotten
part of those
ascinations
hat
used o attracthis "first gaze" n the city dweller's chi]dhood.rrn this way,
Hessel's
sSaVSepeat
a
movetllent
and
method
hat
nforms Benjamin's
under-
THE
ART oF wALKING 7I
standingof
the nineteenth entury's
heuristic
value for the
present,
or the
Jetzt-Zet of modemity.
Hessel's. redilection or
historical shifts
guides
his aesthetics
o foc us on
the
ransient
eflections
f transitory
spaces, uchas hose
offeredby the scenes
of old-fashioned
vari/td theaters.
These heaters
are characterized y their
intense
atfinities o the
very
process
of
seeing,a
prirnary
affiliation
hat inks
the vari6t6s o flanerie.Like fairyrounds,markets,streets, nd cinerna, hey
too belong
to the traditional
haunts of scopophilia.
n moving through the
varidtis
of
Berlin,
the flaneur s most
vividly
affectedby the effects of light
on display:
an enthusiasm
or visual shocks
hat relateshis
spectatorshi p ncl
the scenes e views
to the
spacesandLichtspiele
of earlycinema.
During his
visit on ocation,
he extols he
"heaven"
hat
he inds epresented
n the
"ceiling
painting"
(FB,
150) above
he stage.He
admires he stature
f
the
"light
com-
mandant"
(the
director
responsible
or these
lluminations)
and of all the
"marginal
and unnamed
igures"
(FB,
153) who forrn
an essential
art
of the
visual
spectacleof
any veritable
vari4td. The
flaneur's search
or marginal
and nearly
obsolete
etails eplicates
he mpulseof
his movement
owald the
"aimless"
and "purpose-free," oward anything hat would be "transparent"
enough o transmit
everything,
oward
any viewer
who would
be
sufficiently
"invisible"
to
perceive
everything.
The
variety of objects n
the
vari6t6,
n all
of
its metaphorical
enses,
orms the focus
of a flanerie
whose
experiences
analogous
o that
of the many objects
and pheuomena
hat the street
presenfs
on its daily
stage.Hessel's
laneriecorresponds
o
an aesthetics f
marginal
phenomqpa
hat
s no longer
marginal
o the modernity-of
Weimar Germany,
a
plurirnedial
ime
n which
culture
and
perception
ppear ncreasinglyn
mul-
tiple
perspectives.sa
f{essel demonstrates
is
new
4gsthetics
f the everyday
n the essayistic
principle
of
his
'Rundfahrt'l
Sightseeirrg
rip),
transfonning
bus our
of
the
city into
a flaneuristic
ext
of his Berlin
anthology.The
flaneur nfiltrates
he
organized ightseeingour with subversive iews hatunderstandt asarecenl-,
functionalized
henornenon
f the
shared abor
and eisure
of modernity.Hes-
sel refers o this process
y its
original English
name:"Sight
seeing.
What a
forcible pleonasml"
F8,51),
he writes.
He converts
his event
nto a subjec-
tive walk through
the
Berlin of the
Weimar Republic,
ror-rically roceeding
against
he
grain
of
the city's presumecl
ttractions.
or Hessel,
any effort
by
a tour
guide
to
direct
or filter
our
perception
s highly
suspect; e calls this
guide "trip
steward"
Wanderwartl,
or
"our
Ftihrer."
"The
Explainer,"he
sug-
gests, now
forces
our
gaze"
owatd
national
monuments,
r
"tears
our
gaze"
over
o the
"palace
of
justice."
Hessel's
wn
gaze
esists
uch
guidance,
efr,rs-
ing
to surre nder o
any
predetermined
nterpretation
f the
sightsbefore him.
The
"bus
travels oo quickly"
for the flaneur,
he writes,
"we
must put it off
until
a
ounrey
through he
streets
n
Joot."t5
Organized
nd motorized
sight-
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
7/15
72
cIIAPTER
4
seeing
llows
neither
he
ree
space
or
the
tnencumbered
ime
necessaty
or
his
detective-style
bservations:
There s no
time
to resealch
he
native
secl'ets
lHeintlit.hkeitenl
f
the
area
rom
this
tourist
bus."
The
native
laneur
ocuses
rather
on
he
"secret" aspects
f
his
"home" in
the
city,
secrets
hat
are
ntrinsi-
cal ly locatecl int lre imaginaryplaceofamagicalchi ldhood'Hesselletshis
guz",
"rpl",ldent
of
personal
ncl
ultural
memories
and
histories,
oam
reely
itong
tt-r"
dges
of
the street.He lingerson the hiddensightsandunexplained
details
of
what
s officially
presented
o
him:
"The
tourists'
attention
s directed
toward
he
Prr-rssian
tate
Bank,
meanwhile
glance
over
to
the
f'amous
wine
cellar
which
E.T.A.
Hoffmann
used
o frequent"
(FB,
63)
(it
is
no accident
that
he
looks
for
Hoffmann's
spaces,
he
haunts
of
another
strolling
writer
obsessed
ith
viewing
he
city).
Ric l icu l ingal l- too-guidedWeimaraucl iences,hesuggests:, .Sometimesit is
worthwhile
to enjoy,
rather
han
the
antiquities,
he
entertaining
presence
f
tlre
loolman
of the
arts
and
ords
fKtutst-
md
Ftirstenportier]
and
his
carpet-
slipper-shuffling
erd"
(F8,92).
Along
with
this
mildly
ironic
admonition
or
a
critical
examination
of
this
authority,
Hessel's
flaneur
advises
his
"dear
stranger nd ellow tour member" hat t would
be
better
o
"come
back
o this
area
and
have
in.re
o
get
ost
a
little."39
Hessel's
aleatory
approach
evokes-
as
t
predates-Benjamin's
sense
of
Vn
ftykinsl,
an
art
of erring
and
getting
lost
that
is translated
nto
reality,
that
is
lived
in
Hessel's
understanding
f
flar.rerie.
or
both
Benjamin
and
lessel,
the
flaneur's
perception
deviates,
e-
liberately
and
decidedly,
rom
pre
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
8/15
74
cITAPTER
4
HISTORIES
OF
HEIMAT
Thestopstlrat lresuggestsarestat ionsfromthelocalh istoryofhishomeand
city.
He directs
his
leader,
br
example,
o
the
Gasthaus
zum
NuBbaum'
a
prototypical ocale of the
pub(lic)
sphere
hat
also
happens
o
be
situated
n
i.the
oldest
house
of
Berlin"
(F8,61). What
appears
o
the
flaneur
as
a
"piece
of the
best
of
old
Berlin"
contains
he
essence
f
the
"historical
charm"
that
he
seeks
o
discover
on
his
historically
guided
excursions'
As
moments
of
epiphany,theseinsightsoccurinatrancelikestatethat ' transportedbycalm
wanderings,
raverses
he
passage
of
time,
as
when
"in
the
late
light'
with
Fuchvverkancl
ables,
n
entirely
old
Berlin
can
arise
here"
(FB'
70)'
Hessel's
flanerie
presents
xcursions
nto
'loga-l
istory
as
a history
of
its
locations,
n
which
stories
and
anecdotes
re
released
y
the
sight
ofits'sites:"IfesS1
alls
this
project
"Heimatkunde
reiben"
(F8, 75),
a study
of
Heimat
by
way
of
flanerie.
The
flaneur
pursues
knowleclge
by
walking
and
drifting
in
a stleam
ofperception
hat
understands
he
streets,
he
rnuseums,
nd
he
neighborhoods
of
everyday
Berlin
as
significant
ocations
of history andmemory' He renders
imagesoftheconter lpo.u 'yc ity intheminorofp icturesfromitspastand
superimposes
ne
ayei
upon
he
other
n order
o
"construct,"
'
his
mind
and
in l',is
wiiting,
"a
bygone
city
amidst
he
present
one"
(FB'
96)'
For
Hessel,
a
kind
of
"home"
is
constructed
hat
fuses
hese
arious
ocales
' with the
distinct
notations
of
a
forgotten,
yet familiar
cityscape.
Each
of these
locales
evokes
a
cluster
of
personal
ssociations
inked
to
the
laneur's
pastand
chiiclhood,
nd
he
registers
ts
historical
significance
n
anecdotes,
itations,
ot'
other
passing
exts.
"Heirnat"
clr
"home" are
herefore
nterpreted
s
autobio-
graphical
and
ntellectual
spaces.
f Hessel's
eflections
overtake
he
tourists'
iudirn"ntury
perception,
t is
because
is are
defined
by
the
space
and
ime
of
these ived experiences, y the reminiscences f this city that so remarkably
enters
nto
his description.3e
n
the
Alte
westen
area
which
figures
nhis
lleim-
liches
Berlin,
Hessel
emembers
his
lif'e
as
a
child,
oining
it
with
a sensory
memory
of the
city
that
includes
hose
long-familiar apartments"
FB' I54),
those
museum-like
spaces,
nd
abyrinthine
bourgeois
nteriors
of
his
beloved
,,Berlin
rooms,"4o
he
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
9/15
l
\
i
i
I
-.
1
76
crIAP'r 'ER
sors
ancl o their
obsessions
ith
irnages
of the
street.
Renrinding
us of Jules
Laforgue's
otations
n
"Berlin
streetboys n
idnant"
(FB,
106),Eberty'sob-
servationson
the nineteenth
century's culture of oil lamps, and Ludwig
Pietsclr'seports
on the
stateof "the
pavement
of the 1840s"
F8,253),
Hessel
signals
he specific iterary
and cultural rames
hat underlie
his
own
perspec-
tive
on the
streets f Berlin.
Onestreetncident n particular llustrateshow Hessel's lanerieseamlessly
and luicllypasses
ight over nto literature.
An episodeof his city essays inds
the lanetrr
tanding
amidst
he bustling Leipziger Stra8e
facingfangesichts)
tlte nirroring
asphalt
n shining ighf'(FB, 249).He
chooses his unlikely,
yet
predetermined
ocation
n
order
to
reread seminal passages
nd descriptions
fi'om
Gustav l-angenscheidt's
1878 Naturgeschichte
les
Berliners
(Natural
I{istory
of the
Berliner).Even
hough hese eading
practices
makehim a
possi-
ble obstacle
o traffic,
Hessel nsists
on
his
all-aroundexperience f reading:
"but
want o enjoy his
text acing
he
new Leipziger
StraBe."Hessel's extual
experience
nd enjoyment
s central to his view
of the world. The flaneur
returns
sa reader
of
street-texts, trolling hroughexterior
worldsas f through
interiorsof the magination, eadingbooks as he readscities. Reading or the
flaneur
s in fact
a lneans
or casting mages
on the screenof his
mind, for
pr:ojecting
nto his imagination
an
intense
perception
of reality.The
world is
given
to us in
a f'ew
significant activities, he
suggests-walking, looking,
thinking, eading,
and retllrning to look
again. n Hessel'sunderstanding,
he
essential
eature
of flanerie s the tlansfol'mation
f
perception
nto
a text that
transcribes
ts
process
of seeing nto
a sceneof writing. The flaneur
author's
vierv
of space,
his
reading
of its
history, of its spatial and visual presence,
becomes
ynonymous
with his writing about
hat
space.
That Hessel'sexcur-
sions
ale not imited
to any
specific
medium
makes t
possible
or him
to speak
of
"also
having
songht
fcnngehen
ufl adventures f chance .
.
in libraries
and collecti ons"
FB,
214').
The
flaneur
comes
across
discoveries
n the city's
pastas well as n its modern present,n a plocess hat valorizesa variety of
texts l'om
ditferent
erasand diverse
meclia.
MODERN
MYTHOLOGIES
Hessel'spronouncecl
istorical nterest
nsists hat we understand
modernity
as
a series f new
texts at
a specificstageof historicity.Wherever
he flaneur
finds himself
in the city,
he is always
"most
interested
n the
placards
and
inscliptions
above
and
on the
shops"
(F8,202).
Ranging from
"newspaper
announcements
nd
posters
canied
by sandwi chmen" o shop windows
and
advertisements,
hese exts are interpretedas
"a
specific kind of advertising
literature"
F8,243)
that s characteristic
f n-rodernity.
or Hessel,
ll of mod-
ern lif'e s
at once flanerie
and literature,a vast text
that
provides
an instant
THE
ART
OF
WALKING
77
mixture
of
theory
and praxis,
a
lived
and perceived
nterpretation
f
everyday
experience,
n
enactment
f
modemity
in
its
various
mythorogies.
his
ex-
change
of
writing
and
reading
nalnes
a
dynamic
process
f
seeing
hat
rooks
back
o
the
childhoocl
xperiences
hat
have
herpeJform
his
visualiisposition.
Looking
at
a
group
of
stone
grazias,
moving
and
monumentar
ight
that
touches
he young flaneuras if they were living women,he writes: ..They
followed
our
path
with
their
white
stone
eyes,
and
it
has
become
a
part
of
ourselves
hat
hese
heathen
irls
have
ooked
at
us,'
FB,
r-56).
his
exchange
of
gazes
between
Hesser
nd
he
"heathen
giris"
continues
o
inspire
he
ater
flaneur's
pagan
pursuit
of pleasure
nd
sets
nto
motron
a
gaze
hatfollows
he
silhouettes
f passersby,
hat
traces
he
shadows
of
other
strllctures
with
the
sarne
desirous
eyes.
The
walking
writer
imagines
himserf
bei'g
viewed
by
a
world
of objects,
ubjected
o
the gaze
f those
very
mages
haiare
presumed
to
be
not
o'ly
the
objects
of
his gaze
but
arso
he
rnaterials
f
his
writing.ar
Returning
his gaze,
he
figures
ancl
objects
of reality
ofTer
he
onlooker
heir
own
nvisible
ext,
eading
him
to
enter
nto
a
mute
visual
diarogue
with
them.aa
I'
Hessel's
endering
of
the
exterior
world, the fla'eur,s aesihetics mergesvia
an
empathetic
escription
f
what
he
sees-not
by
a
process
f
udgment
and
evaluation.
This
way
of
looking
at
the
world
preserves
childrike
affinity
with
things,
what
Hesset
alls
rhe
child's
llRlli;targ.
gp
e"
fMciiihenbtickl_ii,
in.irnotion
to go
beyond
historical
anecdotes,-to
mbue
objects
and
mages
with
an
aura
of the
miraculous,
mysterious,
n
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
10/15
78
cHAPTER
4
val ariimal
cults
ancl
he
n'rodern
stage
props"
of
collective
exotic
fantasies,
thehidden
uncot]scions
limensions
f
society
and
ts
public
spaces.
I
The
flaneur
cliscovers
is
critictrl
perspective.
i:C"Ili:g
the collective
py-
j
thologies
of
everyday
ife
in the
Weimar
Republic.
This
critical'perspective
i n.tnn-ot
o the
Weima
Denkbittl
hat
nterprets
both
surf'ace
nd
essence,
myth
t
ar.,driodernity,as visual anclsensoryphenomena.At one point
in'Hebsel's
.
essay,
lre
genesis
f tl-tis
enkbilcl,
as
a
genre
of observation
nd
eflection,
s
',.
in
l'a.t attribtrtecl
o
the ext
of flanerie.
The
observer
trolling
n the
zoo
notlces
in
passinghe
striking
affinities
etweeu
decoratiye
ea nemone
n the
aquar-
ium ancl
he
fashionable
abric
flowers
in modern
shop
windows.
Under
his
critical
gaze,nothing
is any
longer
"pure
nature."
nstead,
culture
assumes
seconcl
ature
s
commodity,
nimals
ake heir
places s
accessories
f
fash-
ion,
and their
palacesset
the
stage
or collective
myths
and fantasies'
For
Hessei,
verything
encls
tself
to
be read
and
egarded
y
the eye
as structure,
pattern
of decor.
Viewing
Weifirar
flanerie
as
a
mode
of
theoretical
hought
that
ernphasizes
ensory
eflection,
his
fascination
with
phenomena
nd heir
surtaces
s
inspireil
by a
complex
sense
of distraction
hat
connects
is child-
like viewing pleasurewith the desire or socialand historical nsight-45s he
suggests,
the
Thousancl
ncl
One
Nights
ancl
he
thousand
nd
one
egs
of the
big revues
. . these
magnificent
chilclren's
dreams
or
grown-ups"
(FB,
238)
are
perfor.ured
laily
n the
"fairy-tale
palaces"
of Berlin
theirters
nd
cabarets
of the
Weirnar
era.
Tl.ris lanettr's
walks
through
he
city
are characterize d
y
an ef'fbrt
o
join
a
kind
of
naive
viewing
pleastlre
with
the
criticai
scmtiny
of
his society.un
N0netheless,
t coulcl
be saicl
hat
Hessel's
project
presurtres
boglgeots
Lrtopia
l'halmony
hat
n
turn
presupposes
contented
Childhood:
The
tuurble
of chiltt.en,"
he explains,
is
in or-rr
alking
and
n the
blissful
loating
eeling
wlrich
we
call
balance'
(8G,53).
This
emphasis
n
"balance"
s
what
distin-
guishesHessel's lauerie from the often
traumatic
ntoxication
that
delines
kro.utr..'r,
Benjamin's,
and Aragon's
versions
of
flanerie.
Despite
his
prevail-
ing
fascination
with
tlre
visible,
Hessel's
lanerie
works
to
maintain
an
inner
balance
hat
prevents
him
I'rom
becoming
ully
absorbed
y the
phenomena
he encounters.
n
other
words,
Hessel's
laneur
s always
guidedsecurely
back
into a
chilclhocicl
hat
is
deliberately
devoid
of
honols.
If these
walks
into
his
past, is
history
and
childhood,
eadhim
to
his
version
of
flanerie,
is
pa|ticular
biography
and
privilegecl
backgt'ound
allow
him
to
enjoy
this
process
n
a
relalively
ighthearted
manner
ather
han
suffer
hrough
t
psychoanalytically.
Wl.rereas
more
despairing
sense
of
flanerie
eads
Benjamin
o view
Baude-
laire's
Paris
aliegorically,
or evokes
he traumatic
shock
n Kracauer's
Etin-
nerung
an
eine
PariserStraBe,"
Hessel's
lanerie
s induced
by
a rnild
rather
lhan desperate enseof melancholy.His insistenceon harmony and balance
allows
him
to direct
his
steps
way
ron'r
himself'
This
clistance
t imes
enables
him to
off'era
nore
detailed
and
attentive,
ince
ess
anxiety-ridden,
erception
i
i
I
I
TI{E ART oF wALKING 79
of
the
city and ts history.As this flaneurputs
t,
"One
has
o
forgetoneself o
be
able o stroll happily"
(EG,
59). Hessel's oundation
n bot h a happychild-
l.rood
nd
bourgeois
ense f Bil dung facilitateshis
steps nto the urban
past,
away fiom the abyssof hi s own unconscions , o
an otherwiseoriginal and
idiosyncraticHeintatktmcle
f his city and its history:
"Visit
your
own city,
stroll n
your quarter,
romenade
ergehe
ichl in the stony
garden.
. . Experi-
ence n passing he curioushistory of a coupleof dozens f streets."aTessel's
move toward local history
is determinedby this
search or an idyllic exile
amidstmodernity,
he stone
garden
arnidst
he city. In search f
"curiosities,"
it signals an ongoing
pursuit
of the exceptional,
he unusual, he different,
one that may lead to a mole extende d
understanding
f what a text
is,
to the
possibilities
of a
textual metaphor hat everywhere
opens
new
avenuesof
insight.
DENKBILD.CRITIQT]I.]
All too often, however, he almostnaive enclenciesf Hessel's estheticse-
vea.l
heir
irnits,
especiallyn
their
at
tifnes
uncritical
nd evennebulous t-
tempt o-considei
he;eaLties
of
labor anclpoiiti.r.
For example,Hessel's
premises
ncourage
he laneur
o view women workersof
the
Berlin
proletar-
iat
as
"cheerf'ul"
and
"quiet"
sights,or to regarda calculated
ilm arrangement
as a naturally
"charming"
site.
Such
emporary
blindnessoccursmost
strik-
ingly
when,
n spite
of-or because
f--his being overwroughtby emotion,
Hessel ails to recognize
hat an dyllic scene
on the Landwehrkanals
also,
andntore mportantly,
he scene f RosaLuxemburg's
murder.Flessel's armo-
nious lanerieoverlooks
he expiicitly political
aspect f this murderous
lace
in favor of the
quiet
melancholy
of
bygone
private"
suicides hat hereplays
on his
imagination.When he
does recall this inf'amous olitical
murder, he
refers o it merelyasa "desecration" f the "stillnessof this bridge"(FI], 167).
I
For Hessel'sWeimar
flaneur,
politics
often remains
ust
another
spectacle,
J
a
world that
he regards
as
"somewhat
oreign"
(FB,
124).
Con'ring rom a
spectatorwho, casting
his
"fairy-tale
gaze"
on the
"Palliarrent
Building,"
views t as
a
"huge
animal ying
growling,"
this
confession
omesas no
sur-
prise.
Observing he Reichstag lenum,
he even el ls
us hat he s in dangerof
confusing ight with
left, of mistaking
Communists or nationalist riilkische.
He accepts
he
first public
speeches f the National
Socialistswith the same
/
tolerance, ttributing o
their
Sportpalast
ocation
"a
kind of
gigantic
cheer-
/
fnlness"
F8,266).
As everything
else or Hessel, olitics
s.above ll a
yisual,
spectacle. ut his tranquil, unintrusive
magnanimity
cannof see lir:ough he
Corriplex ealities
of a new political
fanaticism-instead
he understandshese
realities
as simply
"the
excess
of the sarneunbroken
hrst or lif'e." Here
Hes-
sel'sharmonious
aze
ecluces
erions ifferences nd eal
dangers
o
a
purely
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
11/15
80
cHAPTER 4
r,isual nd
naivelyhumanistic
way of seeing.Overlooking
he actual
onditions
of
a world of labor
by
perceiving ts
processes
nerely as aesthetic
tructures,
pleasingly
egularand repetiti ve
motions,he suggestshat
Berlin-"when
and
where
t is at wolk"
(FB,2|)-radiates
nothing
if not a
"special
and
visible
beauty."As
he
"visits"
factories, or example,he
pays attentionnot only
to
"temples
of
the machine" and
"churches
of
precision," but also to workers
rvhornhe views as the autonomous guards . . . of the machines."Hessel's
unreflected
erception
of a flanerie hat simply
passes
y
its objectsmirrors
the
etishismof technologyevident
n the New
Functionalism, fetishism
hat
fails to regard
ts economicand
political implications.a8
In regard
o the
world
of labor, he impressions
f an idle observerdistort
reality, onning
an idyll of the city which
no longer corresponds
o the
actual
conditions
of working. For the strolling
viewer,
"sacks
of cement shimmer
with spring
green
shades n the autumnal
street"
F8,203);
workers unction
mostly
as color accents ,wearing
ackets
"of
a
green
hat
s illuminatedby the
gaslight
next to the machine,
ike the
park greenery
by the
candelabra f ele-
gant
avenues."
Regardless f the
subtlety
with which the observer
enders
the respective hades
n
question,
he supposedly emocratic
rnpetus n such
irnpressionistic
laneriemisses ts mark as a recorder
of social eality,
particu-
lariy in view
of the
very real
exploitation at work
in
Hessel'sBerlin.
The
pleasure-seeking
laneur understands
aborers
pouring
cement
to be per-
forming
a
"spectacle
f work," a Schauspiel hat
he
perceives
s
spectacular,"
as
"playful"
or
"dramatic."
He underestimates
he
extent
of the
present's
n-
folding drama, the
politically
catastrophicconsequences f the Reichstag's
increasingly
olarized
olitics.
While
I{essel
perceives
he
reality
of
his Berlin in images, n a manner
characteristic f the many flaneurswho wish to
"remain
with the nere sight
of tlre
presenr"
FB,
120), he at the same ime see ks
o
prevent
his balanced
forn-r f flanerie rom being disturbedby the unpleasant ocial
details
of this
present.Walking in the newspaper istrict of Berlin, he flirts with the feuille-
tonistic
airiness hat ofien marks
the self-imposed
imit of efficacy n many
essayistic
enres f
Weirnar
iterature.
Let's
not
go
into the serious reas," e
tells us,
"where
politics,
trade, and local affairs are canied
out.
We
belong
below
his
straight ine and n the entertainment ection"
F8,257).
This delib-
erate ut
potentiallyproblematic
abstinencerom theory and social
criticism-
what
re ef'erso as all too much
udgingr.'
@G,59)-aligns
his
sociological
el'forts
with a naivet6 hat borders on an involuntary
cynicism
whose only
recommendation
s that, n these
serious
imes,"
we
should
all simply take a
walk. The
serious imes to which he refers-the Berlin of 1929-are relativ-
ized by a
definition of flanerie whose
"aimless"
pleasure an
be experienced
iu the
presumably alue-neutral paceof society,and this without reflecting
on the social
conditionsof such eisu re and idle walking.
"It
is certainly he
cheapest
leasure,"
e says fhis walking,
really
not
a specifically ourgeois-
THE
Al i r
ot 'wALKING
81
capitalistic
enjoyment.
t
is a
treasure
of the poor
and
nowadays ractically
theirprivilege" EG,54).
This
attempt
o
dispel
he suspect
ir of elitism
an d
luxury
surrounding
is leisurely
strolls
akes
on
an nvoluntarily
cynical one.
Seeking
o
popularize
is pastime
by
emphasizing
ts democratic
haracter,
e
diminishes
he
reality
of
unemployment,
phenomencln
hat ie
rornanticizes,
il he
doesnot
gnore
r.
Kracauer,
n
he
otherhand,
s more
sensitive
o
the
situation
f unemployed
workers
n
Berlin.
In
his 1932
essay
on tl'recontemporary
ealities
of
"idle
walking"
fMiifiiggang],
or
example,
he describes
scene
hat
Hesselwo'ld
I
prefer
o
overiook:
The
crowd
.
. s in
no hun
y.
Slowly
t drags tself
brward,
one
perceives
hat
unemployment
weighs
t down."ae
Rather
han
dealizing
"idleness"
by
neglecting
ts
conditions,
Kracauer
ecognizes
hat
the
audience
on
MiinzstraBe
s
a
slave
o enforced
dle
walking,
one
hat s
less
a
pleasur-e
than
a way
to expel
he ghosts
of
evil
times."
In
janing
contrast
o Hessel's
utopia
of a public
flanerie,
he
enforced
dle strolls
of unemployrnent
uffocate
the
sensory erception
f
weimar
reality,promoting
much
more
sombcr
pros-
pects.
As
Kracauer oes
on
to
note:
The
awareness
f
uselessness
louds
heir
glances . . the sun s shining,but what do thesepeoplecareabout he sun?"
Hessel
sidesteps
he
material,
economic,
and
political
privileges
hat
distin-
guish
he
pleasure
f freely
chosen,
eisurely
walks
rom
the
despair
f a
state
of
waiting
that s
imposed
by
unemployment.
His naively
democratic
topia
certainly
wishes
o
see
everyone
appy,
able o
walk
freely,
o
enjoy
his
"plea-
sur-able
rocess"
and ts
capacity
o
skip over
severalsteps
on the latlder
of
political
rights
and
social progr-ess.
If Hessel's
esthetics
f
flanerie
emains
probleniatic,
e still
owes some
of
l.ris
most
subtle
rlages
of
the
city
to
precisely
his
visual
emphasis.
eyond
all suspicious
evity,
he
same
seemingly
imless
trategy
manages
o
lead
him
to
observations
hat,
n
the shape
f Denkbitder,
provide
elling
and
significani
.
portraits
of his tirnelln-a
sensory-and
ntellectual-opeiation
haracteristic
f
.
"' weimar flanerie,Hessel
eads
he
modernity
of
his era precisely
n
the
most
banal
aspects
of
its
mass
cr-rlture.
s cloes
Kracauer
n
his
remarks
on the
weimar
detective
novel,5.
nother
contenporary
eflection
on
the
public
but
cryptic
spaces
f his
society,
Hessel
experiences
he
caf6
of
a central
hotel
n
the city
as a
"mystery-inducing
wilight
assembly
riitselaufgebentle
citt-
tnerne
sanlnlltmg)"
FB
242).
Even
though
Hessel
cloes
ot
proceed
o
solve
the
mysteries
f the
weimar
hotel
obby
n
an extended
xcursus
f its theor-eti-
cal
implications,
he s
still
ready
o perceive
he
signature
f
his time
in even
its
most
nsignificant,
eemingly
ephemeral
lements.
s
he
notes
of the
acute
boom
n gold-frarned
il prints:
"Ever
since
he days
of the
nflation,
he
Ger-
rnan
hasbeen
n
need
of
some
glitter
n his
shack"
F8,25).
As
framed
collec-
tions of family picturesare replaced n the 1920sby the singleportrait, he
individual
s isolated
n
space
as well
as n popular
crafts.
Following
the
ten-
dencies
of this period
to
promote
iberal
br.rt
uperficial
mages
of
wornen,
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
12/15
82
cl{APTER
llessel
reflects
on a
trend
he observes
n
actresses
ho
portray
he
repentant
Magdalena
with
the
bobbecl
airdo
of
the 1920s
Bubikopfl:
"How
many
Mag-
dalenas
oes
Magdeburg
need?
. . I
am beginning
o
get nterested
n
statis-
tics."
Hessel
consciously
understancls
uch
"trivial" culture
n terms
of the
"intellectual
sustenance"
t offers
the
people.
The
oil
print for
him
always
signifies
mgch
more
than
mere
ktsch:
"It
lurnishes
an
endless
nttmber
of
rooms
and souls"
FB, 26).
Like
Kracauer
and
Benjamin,
Hessel
also
sees
a connection
between
pace
and
ashion.
He too
views
"extemalities"
and
"interiors" as collective
disposi-
tions.
n
contrast
o
his
contemporaries,
owever,
he
often
imits
himself
to
atmospheric
ortrayals,
and hereby
bypasses
heir ensuing
critical
nterpreta-
tions.
For
exan-rple,
hen
his snbtle
ntuition
for latent
dispositions
ecognizes
the distraction
n the dance
halls
around
Alexanderplatz
as an
expression
f
despair,
as
if there
urked
misery
or danger"
(FB,
208),
he does
not
proceed
to contextualize
hese
observations
within
the
terrain
of
a
prefascist,
etit-
bonrgeois
population.
Nevertheless,
ven
Hessel
occasionally
moves
n the
direction
of social
commentary.
Remarking
on
the
poor districts
of
nofthern
Berlin-on how ttrispoverty s "written" in "lightlessbackbuildings,"
misera-
ble backyards,
anri
n the
lines
of despairing
aces-he
notes:
Whoever has
the
opportunity
o feel
his way
up the
stifling
flights
of stairs,
p
to the
misera-
ble
ittle apartments
ith
their
coal
vapor and
he
bedchambers
ith
their
sour
smell
of nursing
nfants,
can
'learn' "
(FB,22O).
Yet
this
passage ay
also
appear
as a
lbrm
of
practiced
alienated
eisure,"
with
the
writer
becoming
a
tourist
o a
reality
of
iiving ancl
working
situations
hat ultimately
emain
alien
and
ncottrprehensib le
o him.5r
In
other
wofds,
f Hessel
sometimes
ractices
a flanerie
of social
awareness
and
critical
contexts,
e seeks
ut
these
opportunities
ll
too rareiy.
A declalg$
aesthete,
his
hedonistic
city stroller
n
the
long run
pret'ers
o renounce
any
didactic
protocolsabout
what might
be
"learned" rom such
critical
practices.
If Hessel's laneriedisplaysan obvious ack of political engagement,his dif-
ficulty
derives
at
the same ime
from
the
unconditional
aesthetics
o which
he
owes his
very
insights,
hat
s to say,
rom
what
elsewhele
we
might
view as
a virtue:
his
wish
to accept
everything
hat
he sees
without
passingaesthetic
or
icleological
udgement.52
t
is in this
acute
but sometimes
imiting
focus
of
perception
hat we
can
begin o read-within
the
process f Weimar
lanerie-
the ambiguity
hat
often
preventedWeimar
ntellectuals
rom taking
nore
ex-
plicitly
political stances.
ven
given a
certain
amount
of
empathy
or
Hessel's
project,an
engaged
uthor such
asKurt
T\rcholsky
here
dentified
a dangerous
negligence-one
that
he
pointed
out to
Hessel
n 1932
when
he
asked
n a
review:
"
'Is
not
our aimless
mpartiality,
which
twelve
years
ago
was
still a
privilegeand icense, oday guilt and
emptiness?'
Yes, Franz
Hessel-that
is
what
it is.
Guilt
and emptiness."53
evertheless,
Hessel
continued
o drift
through
he
city as
a flaneur
along
the
lines
of
his most
cherished
rinciple:
THE
ART
OF
WALKING
83
"It
is
not
necessary
o
understand
verything,
one
only
needs
o
look
at
t
with
one's
eyes" FB'23).
within
this
affirmation
of
the pii.u.y
of
visio.,
it
is
nor
essential
o
"interpret"
everything;
ather
he
task
s
to
peiceive
he mage
of
exterior
eality
n
its
entirety
ancl
with
the
utmost
ntensity
hat
ore
can
bring
to
it .
This
visual
ocus
s accornpanied
y
Hessel's
ppear
o the
hedo'ist
prirnacy
of pleasure, o the enjoymentof any diversity,styre,and
distraction
'hu,
rruy
arise
i'om
the
multiple
forms
of
metropolitan
mpressions.sa
ith
the
end
of
the
weinar
Republic,
Hessel's
mplicitly
political
and
subversive
lanerie
would
rapidly
confront
he
harsh
onr.qo.n"",
of
a reaiity
punctuated
y-an
unimagined
degree
of
cynicism
and
bruiality:
Benjamin
was
drive'
to
death,
Kracauer
chased
nto
exile,
a'd
Hessel,
he
serene
laneur,
o'tinued
,.invisi,
bly"
to
pursue
his
observations
f
Berlin
until
october
193g,
when
he
became
increasingly
endangered
nd
persecuted
as
a
Jewish
citizen.Finalry,
ri,
,i;;;;
as
a strolling
"suspect"
was
concrefized
n
intolerable
ways:
his
expursion
nd
subseq,ent
exile
in
France
wourd
come
at
a
time
when
he
state
tself
wourd
occupy
he
streets,
when
the
state
would
begin
ro
er.ase
culture
marked
hv
the
"return
of
the
flaneur,,
n WeimarGernaiv.
7/25/2019 Gleber Art of Walking Ch.4
13/15
228
NorES
'I 'o
cHAPTER
4
96. Ben.janrin,
us.utgatt-We
k, 535.
L)7
.
I' rr.r.s
g
c -lYe k, 536.
98. Benfanrin,
Zentralpark,"
n l l luminationen,
38 .
99.
JLrst s (racauer ndBenianiin
escribehe
1
20s
asa
periodof slrch
ransit it tns,
a
post-
968 genelation
f wliters and ilmn- rakers
xperiences
similar
phase f stagna-
tion
and waiting,
accorcling
o PeterSloterclijk,
ur Kritik
tler
zyttischert
ernwft,
and
l\'lichae
Rn
schky,E
cr
un
g
shun
g
e and Wo
te
.e
. E
n
S
tenb d.
100.Benjamin, On SonreMotif i in I laudelaire," 80 .
l0l.
Benjanrin,
On
SomeMotifs
n Baudelaire,"
69 .
102.
lenjamin,
Palis
of
the
Second
Ernpire,"
6.
103.
Benjanrin,
[ 'alis
of
the Second
Empire,"
50
104.
13enjanrin,
Zentlalpalk,"
n l l lLminationen,
33 .
105.
Benjanrin,
Palis
of
the
Second
Ernpire,"
7.
106.
Bcnjaniin,
Palis
ol' t lreSecond
mpire,"97.
Rob Shields
iscusseshe
savage
nrohicans"
n analogy o the ulban adventurers
f the
city's new
"wildemess-like
space
o1'adventtrle."
ee
Fancy
botwolk: Walter
Benjamin's
otesonJldnerie."
Chapter
4
Ihe Art of \4/alking
l. Many of Benja min's wlitings on flanelie in English are collected n Charles
Bttutleluire.
A Lt,rit: Poet in tlrc Ero oJ-
ligh Capitalisnr.
A
recent critic has
incleed
t'entalked
ponhis liscoveryof Hessel's
writings:
"Benjan'rin
iffers
sharply
rom Fles-
sel in
his filteling of impressions hrough
clialectical
analysis,
often fascinating
but
at
tilres seerning
'orced
antl contrived." Cf.
Neil H. Donahue,
Expressionist
Prose.
Erperinrenf
n ir New Spilit," in his Fonrs
of Disntption.
Abstractiott
n Nlotlem
Ger'
rtuut
Pnne,
154.
,.
Hessel's
if'e and writings are
gradually
eceiving
some
attention n recent
criti-
cisrn,
ncluding
he first iterary
rnonograph bout
motifs of eros
and death
n Hessel's
rrrrvcls
r)'Ji irg Plath.entirlc(l . iebltt tberer Crt 'JJst,rdt.
srhetisclte
ottpptionen
n
WerkFrunz.
lessel:;.
l'hese
aesthetic
onceptions"
nclude categories
ttchas he
ones
surrrrralizeil
n
"chapter
2.2.3.4.:Der Flaneur,
der Liebhaber,"
with specitic
considet'-
at ion
o['
2.2.3.4.1:
nr Int6rieur"and
2.2.3.4.2.:
m Ext6rieur."
hey do not
eugage
reading
ol'lianelie as an aesthetics f literary
scopophilia
and the
early rnanifestation
o1. protocinernaticaze.
Among
previous nvestigations
f Hessel'sworks-along
with Benjanin
ancl Kracauer-figur es
prirnarily
the
part
of one
chapterdedicated
o
his
writings in Eckhardt Kdhn's sur vey of German
flanerie,
StratJenrrutsch,
53-L)4,
Also
cf.
Neil FI. DonahLre, orns of
Disruption, 148-60,
and Michael
Bienert,
Dle
eingebiltlete
Metroltole.Berlin im FeuiLleton
er
Weimarer
Republik,TS-82.
{essel's
