The reception of the merzbau

Yüklə 155,54 Kb.

Pdf görüntüsü

tarix	24.12.2017
ölçüsü	155,54 Kb.
	#17370

THE RECEPTION OF THE MERZBAU

(For details of the references and citations in this article, please e-mail the author at

g.webster@t-online.de

Introduction

To begin with, I must explain that in this lecture I will focus less on the

reception of Kurt Schwitters' Merzbau as a whole than on a few of the many

legends and misconceptions that have arisen in descriptions and analyses of

the Hannover Merzbau since the artist’s death in 1948.

First of all, I‘d like to recap briefly on the history of this most enigmatic of

20th century art works. The beginnings of what has come to be known as

the Hannover Merzbau can be traced to a number of sculptural assemblages

in Kurt Schwitters’ studio dating from the early 1920s. In its later stages the

Merzbau took the form of a sculptural environment that during the 1930s

expanded into various areas of the family home in Hannover. Despite the

labelling of Schwitters’ abstract work as ‘entartet’ [degenerate] from 1933,

and despite the threats Hitler issued to the former avant-garde at annual

Nuremberg Party conferences, Schwitters remained in Hannover until 1936.

By this time, however, he had become highly concerned not only about his

own future, but also about that of the Merzbau. He bombarded friends in

exile with letters in an attempt to gain a commission to build a Merzbau in

the US, and also contacted the Swiss collectors Annie and Oskar Müller-

Widmann, evidently in the hope that, as friends and patrons, they would

permit him to construct a Merzbau in the grounds of their house in Basle.

All these efforts, however, were in vain. Schwitters left Hannover in January

1937 and in autumn, began on a second Merzbau in Oslo that was almost

complete when he fled from invading Nazi troops in 1940. During his time in

Norway, he also inhabited a hut on the Norwegian island of Hjertoya, for

which he designed an interior that displayed many of the characteristics of

the Merzbau, though he never referred to it as such. In England in mid-

August 1947 he began on a third Merzbau, the Merz barn, which was left

incomplete on his death. Schwitters regarded the Merzbauten as his

Lebenswerk [life work] and even a new domain of art, and in their time they

certainly represented an unprecedented idea that preoccupied him for nearly

thirty years, that is, most of his working life.

Fig. 1.The ruins of Waldhausenstrasse 5 after the bombing. Kurt Schwitters Archive,

Sprengel Museum Hannover,

Sadly, little remains of these works today. In exile in wartime London,

Schwitters was distressed to hear that the Hannover Merzbau had been

destroyed in an Allied bombing raid in 1943.

'My studio and the work of my

life does no more exist,’ he wrote. ‘For what did I actually live? I don't know.’

In 1951, three years after his death, the Oslo Merzbau was destroyed by fire.

The third Merzbau in the English Lake District now stands empty, as its

original contents were either destroyed or removed to other locations. The

hut in Moldefiord has more or less been left to rot since 1940.

Fig. 2. The hut on Hjertoya.

Photo: author.

In any discussion of the Merzbauten, we are faced with a number of special

difficulties. Standard methods of investigation and critical appraisal remain

problematical because so little remains of their original substance; we seem

to have no point of reference by which we can analyse these works or judge

the analyses of others. While the example of Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’ show that

art works do not have to survive to be open to fruitful discussion, the

Merzbauten present a different case in that they were continually changing.

In Hannover, a sculptural assemblage developed into a complex of columns,

then into a single-room - later multi-room – environment over a period of

thirteen years, and in exile, Schwitters continued to explore various concepts

of the original work. In effect, the term Merzbau applies to a series of works

erected in various countries over three decades. Bearing in mind the

problems of timescale, the lack of originals and a body of written and visual

evidence that is imprecise, patchy and frequently contradictory, I’d now like

to focus on some of the legends that have grown up round the Hannover

Merzbau in the post-1945 reception.

Early Reception

Up to the 1960s most references to the Hannover Merzbau were tucked away

in notes, asides or at the back of exhibition catalogues. Early commentators

evidently found themselves at a loss for terms to define the work or locate it

in some kind of recognizable context. We find vague phrases such as ‘open

sculpture’, ‘a sculpture, which sprouted from the inside outwards’, ‘a series

of strange grottos built by Schwitters at the rear of his house’, ‘a sculptural-

painterly collage construction’, ‘an utterly new medium of tremendous

impact and bizarre fantasy’, ‘a cathedral of things for things’, or simply

‘Schwitters’ house is said to have been very strange’. One rather longer

account speaks of ‘a model of a project for a monument to humanity, in

which all sorts of materials were to be used helter-skelter: wood, plaster, a

corset, musical toys and life-size houses in the Swiss style. Parts of the

monument were to move and emit sounds’. Another relates that ‘Schwitters’

house in Hannover was a maze of mining shafts from top to bottom [with]

tunnels spiralling from the cellar to the roof’.

Little wonder that it seemed almost impossible in these years to make any

sense of the no longer extant Hannover Merzbau, and with few exceptions, it

was dismissed as a bygone historical curiosity until the advent of the neo-

Dada movement in the 1960s brought a new interest in Schwitters’ work.

With it came the beginnings of a Merzbau mythology that freely exploited the

work’s obscurity. As an example, an article of 1960 entitled ‘The Merzbau,

Pantheon of Dadaism’ described it as a work that had hardly even been seen,

a mixture of ‘abstract hermitage, ghost’s playroom, atomic witches’ kitchen

and space ship interior,’ featuring ‘rescued secret photos’ that were in fact

neither rescued nor secret. In addition, Schwitters’ contemporaries began to

publish their own very hazy recollections of the Hannover Merzbau, adding

to the confusion that already existed.

Schmalenbach, Elger, Elderfield.

The art historians who first tried to make sense of the burgeoning Merzbau

mythology were Werner Schmalenbach, Dietmar Elger and John Elderfield,

who all undertook detailed research (now often forgotten) into the

Merzbauten. One of their most important tasks, as they saw it, was to clear

away the many legends surrounding the Merzbau, and Elderfield’s statement

in his major study of Schwitters (1985) may be seen as representative of the

aim of all three art historians:

Once the development of the Merzbau is removed from the realm of myth

and fanciful exaggeration, what it loses in fantasy it gains in credibility. To

learn the facts of its development is to make the Merzbau fully available

for analysis and evaluation.

Schmalenbach, Elger and Elderfield all realised that to recover the

Merzbauten for analysis, it was of fundamental importance to establish as

neutral a framework as possible - i.e. a temporal and spatial chronology - by

which to clarify the contours of their development. With regard to the

Hannover Merzbau, the first question they raised – and one that at first may

seem almost simplistic - concerned its location. Certainly it was situated in

the Schwitters’ family home in Waldhausenstrasse 5, Hannover, but exactly

where it began and its final extent have, surprisingly, not been satisfactorily

determined even today. If we examine the reports of eyewitnesses (the

majority of whom were writing many decades after the event), they are

unanimous that the first columns were situated somewhere in this house,

but they locate them variously in the cellar, in the attic, on the ground floor

(which was the apartment of Schwitters’ parents), on the first floor and on

the second floor (whose front apartment was occupied by Kurt and Helma

Schwitters and their son Ernst).

Fig. 3. Waldhausenstrasse 5, c. 1926.

Kurt Schwitters Archive, Sprengel

Museum Hannover.

The façade of Waldhausenstrasse 5 is perhaps deceptive, for this was far

more than just the family home: during much of the 1920s and 1930s, six

families lived here, not including resident maids whose rooms were in the

attic. Plans and documents relating to the house in Hannover City archive

show that the amount of space available for an artist’s studio was in fact

very limited. There was no room for a Merzbau on either the first or second

floor, and there is not the remotest foundation for Hans Arp’s tongue-in-

cheek declaration that Schwitters ‘succeeded in totally merzing his house’,

(although even today, variations of this tale regularly appear in descriptions

of the Merzbau).

Schmalenbach, Elger and Elderfield tackled many of the problems

surrounding the Merzbau’s extent, presenting sufficient evidence to show

that it originated on the ground floor of the family house, that is, not in

Schwitters’ own apartment but in that of his parents. From here it spread to

a second room, to an adjacent balcony, to the space under the balcony and

to one or two rooms in the attic. (There may also have been subsidiaries in

the cellar, although this was vehemently denied by Ernst Schwitters in later

years.) It did not break through the ceiling (as Hans Richter and Kate

Steinitz had maintained), and no tenants were ever ejected to enable

Schwitters to extend the work to another floor. It also emerged from their

analysis of Schwitters’ construction method that the layering process of the

Merzbau involved far more than simply concealing objects within geometrical

plaster casing; grottos and formal structure were created in parallel.

Fig. 4. A letter from Schwitters showing

his parents’ apartment on the ground floor

of Waldhausenstrasse 5. The hatched

sections represent the Merzbau. Kurt

Schwitters Archive, Stadtbibliothek

Hannover.

Elderfield in particular succeeded in differentiating between the Merzbau (a

word first invented by Schwitters in 1933) and the initial section known as

The Cathedral of Erotic Misery, or KdeE. While this is often regarded as

synonymous with the Merzbau itself, Elderfield discovered that the KdeE

constituted only part of the main room, i.e. the section to the left of the

entrance, between the doorway and a large window that took up much of one

wall. In addition, Elderfield revealed that most of the constructions in the

first Merzbau room were not flush with the walls, so that they had an

exterior, accessible by means of hidden stairs and ledges. In the light of new

evidence, the Catalogue Raisonné has now provided us with a more accurate

plan of the main room that confirms many of Elderfield’s findings.

Fig. 5. Plan of the main Merzbau room. Above, John Elderfield, Kurt Schwitters, London

1985, p. 167. Below: revised plan from the Kurt Schwitters Catalogue Raisonné.

It might be assumed that there is little remaining research to be done on the

chronology of the Hannover Merzbau. Yet if we look at the accounts of

Schmalenbach, Elger and Elderfield more closely, their theories on the

spatial and temporal evolution of the Merzbau in the 1920s vary

considerably, so that despite their investigations, they did not succeed in

drawing up a standard chronology that provides a reliable framework for

interpretation. If three art historians can come up with such different

versions of the development of the Merzbau, then it seems pertinent to

examine the reliability of the sources on which they based their conclusions.

Eyewitness evidence

One of the most problematical areas of Merzbau reception is what precisely

constitutes evidence. More than once, we find the memory of one brief visit

treated as a definitive account, one vague reminiscence taken at face value

as an authentic report, one art historian’s supposition becoming another’s

indisputable fact. It is, moreover, often forgotten that visitors witnessed the

Merzbau at various stages of its development. What is usually regarded as

eyewitness evidence is better understood as interpretation, for most of

Schwitters’ contemporaries did not write about the Merzbau till many years

later, in an entirely different (i.e. post 1945) context and often enough not

even in the writer’s native country or language.

As there is only time here to quote a few examples, I have chosen just three

- those of Hans Richter, Kate Steinitz and Alexander Dorner. Richter’s

account, one of the most important eyewitness reports in terms of its

subsequent impact on Merzbau reception, appeared in the mid-1960s in his

book ‘Dada – Art and Anti-Art’. Resident in the USA since 1941, Richter had

experienced professional difficulties in the McCarthy era

and was concerned to play down both the political

dimension of Dada and his own role in the revolutionary

politics of his time. Given this background, it is not

unexpected to find that his chapter on Schwitters (under

the misleading title of Dada Hannover) presents him as

an ideal example of a Dadaist, harmless, amiable, but nonetheless authentic

- ‘in reality,’ he writes, ‘HE was the total work of art’. In Richter’s account,

recorded about forty years after the event, the Merzbau features as a bizarre

but basically innocuous work, with ‘caves’ (he uses neither the term grotto

nor Cathedral of Erotic Misery) mainly containing tiny, bizarre souvenirs

‘pilfered’ from Schwitters’ colleagues and acquaintances, so that in effect, he

portrays the Merzbau as little more than a mischievous, if occasionally

repellent, documentation of friendship. Richter’s statements are inconsistent

with what is known of the early chronology of the studio, yet his description,

the most innocuous of all those by Schwitters’ contemporaries, is one of the

best-known passages on the Merzbau, perhaps because it is in easily

accessible form and is available both in German and English. Its credibility

and evident lacunae are seldom questioned, as is the fact that it bears little

relevance to the 1933 photos of the work. Richter’s account is also the

primary source of one of the most durable Merzbau legends, the

Deckendurchbruch, i.e. the column’s supposed penetration of the ceiling.

Kate Steinitz’s memoirs, likewise published in the 1960s and translated into

English, have also become one of the standard sources of information on the

Merzbau. Steinitz’s chapter on the Merzbau rapidly drifts off into

speculations about Schwitters’ affairs with other women, but before this, she

makes tantalising mention of ‘very secret caves’, mysterious interior

compartments of the column that she describes as ‘probably’ seen only by a

few friends. She draws her own conclusions that these contained dubious

sexual material, although also admits that she never saw them. Although

three early visitors to Schwitters’ studio also record him as behaving

strangely about some of the column’s content, the idea that he actually

concealed certain grottos from visitors can clearly be traced to Steinitz’s

vague account. I will return to this point later.

As a final example, I’d like to cite the memoirs of Alexander Dorner, first

published in English in 1958 and later translated into German. These are an

often-quoted source, but again, are not as clear-cut as we are frequently led

to believe. Dorner, who had publicly criticized Schwitters in the early 1920s,

probably visited his studio at about the same time as Richter, but his verdict

was very different (and, incidentally, does not seem to have been shared by

any of Schwitters’ contemporaries). As an avowed supporter of the

Constructivist movement, Dorner condemned Schwitters’ Merz column

outright, claiming that:

the free expression of the socially controlled self had here bridged the gap

between sanity and madness. The Merzbau was a kind of fecal smearing -

a sick and sickening relapse into the social irresponsibility of the infant

who plays with trash and filth.

If we look at this account more closely, however, it is not as straightforward

as it might seem. Dorner did not write this himself, and his opinion is not

quoted but reported by Samuel Cauman, whose biography of Dorner

appeared in 1958, shortly after Dorner’s death. Cauman, who makes an

arcane reference to Schwitters as 'one of the seven founders of Dada’,

attaches no date to this episode, but claims it took place after Dorner

attended a Nolde exhibition in Braunschweig (an event of which I have found

no record to date). Cauman twice uses the word Merzbau, although Dorner

must have seen it at a relatively early phase, well before it became a

sculptural environment and well before Schwitters invented the term

‘Merzbau’ in 1933; according to this description it was no more than a tower

located in the cellar and had hardly progressed beyond the stage of a large

sculptural assemblage.

The gaps in the evidence

If the eyewitness reports of the Merzbau present a number of anomalies,

then the gaps in the evidence, equally neglected in the reception history, are

even more problematical. Schmalenbach, Elger and Elderfield assume that

the first Merzbau room was more or less complete in the 1920s, even

considering it may have been modelled on the kind of Constructivist

Demonstration Room advocated by Theo van Doesburg and El Lissitsky in

the early 1920s. Indeed, the majority of analyses of the Hannover Merzbau

consider it in terms of early 20

century avant-garde movements (mainly

Dada, Expressionism and Constructivism), either in terms of the impact of

these movements on the Merzbau or with regard to its perceived deviations

from avant-garde models.

Fig. 6. Sophie Täuber-Arp, Hans Arp, Theo

van Doesburg, Aubette, Strasbourg 1927-

8, reconstruction. Schwitters saw the

Aubette as a work in progress in early

April 1927.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c

ommons/a/a1/060611_006.jpg)

Yet one of the most puzzling aspects of the Hannover Merzbau, commented

on solely by Elderfield, is that in the 1920s (as far as I have been able to

ascertain) Schwitters made no reference to it at all. As Elderfield remarks, for

such a keen self-publicist as Schwitters, this was truly remarkable. It is even

more remarkable when we draw up a list of the opportunities available to

Schwitters to publicize his columns. In the late 1920s, the eminent architect

Hans Hildebrandt corresponded with Schwitters and also gave him an entry

in the second edition of his comprehensive Handbook of 19th and 20th

Century Art (1931). It would have been a unique opportunity for Schwitters

to advertise his studio constructions, but there is no allusion to them in

Hildebrandt's book, and none in the Hildebrandt-Schwitters correspondence

until 1933. His correspondence of 1926 with the collector and gallery owner

Galka Scheyer, whom he had known personally before she moved to the

USA, included no attempt to interest her in his studio (as happened four

years later). Between 1928 and 1930, Schwitters gave illustrated lectures on

contemporary design in art, architecture and typography, but nowhere in his

slides and lecture notes, which show Constructivist interiors such as

Lissitisky’s Abstraktenkabinett and several examples of his own work, is

there a reference to his studio or to any columns.

Fig. 7. A leaflet of 1930 advertising one of

Schwitters’ lectures on design in art,

architecture and typography, with (above)

some of his slides. Kurt Schwitters

Archive, Stadtbibliothek, Hannover

Even if Schwitters wished to conceal the work from the public for some

reason (difficult in itself, as it stood in his studio), we find nothing on it in

his personal letters, even those to his patron and especial confidante

Katherine Dreier. Throughout the 1920s, Schwitters sent Dreier detailed

accounts and explanations of current projects, future plans and personal

and professional difficulties, but made no mention of a column or anything

similar.

If, is as generally assumed, the Merzbau was an avant-garde work that was

more or less complete by the end of the Twenties, Schwitters’ own Merz

periodical, which appeared between 1923 and 1932, would surely have been

an ideal outlet to make it known. Yet even here Schwitters refrains from any

allusion to it until the last but one Merz magazine, Das Veilchenheft,

appeared in 1931.

Das Veilchenheft

It is, then, not until the start of the new decade that Schwitters decided to

make the existence of his studio constructions public, in a text that for many

art historians serves as the ultimate guide to the Merzbau and the key to the

aims of its creator. This passage, however, requires as much caution as

other sources. It appears in Merz 21, Das Veilchenheft, an anthology of

Schwitters’ literary work entitled ‘A Collection of Merz Poems of All Kinds’.

At the end of this anthology appears an essay entitled ‘Ich und meine Ziele’

[Myself and My Aims], whereby it is unclear if this is an appendix or yet

another Merz poem. Here Schwitters alludes to a single discrete column that

he calls the Cathedral of Erotic Misery, although on examination, this text is

Fig. 8. Das Veilchenheft, cover. Kurt Schwitters Archive, Sprengel Museum Hannover.

primarily concerned with quite different topics. Ostensibly it reads as a kind

of manifesto in which Schwitters focuses on abstract art, typography and

political developments in Germany in the crisis-ridden year of 1930, so that

the relevance of the passage on the column to the remainder of the essay is

not at all apparent. In this lengthy documentation of Schwitters’ aims and

attitudes in 1930, we may also note the extraordinary omission of his own

art movement of Merz, used only once as a suffix. In its professed rejection of

all dogma, Merz had provided Schwitters with a resilient aesthetic framework

that he identified with his own person: as he had written succinctly in the

previous issue of his Merz magazine, ‘Now I call myself Merz’. Indeed, the

very title of this essay conflicts with his statement that ‘Merz has no

programme with predefined aims, on principle’. It might at least be expected

that he would introduce his column, whose development, he states, parallels

his aesthetic maturation over seven years, as the epitome of the structural

equilibrium and dynamic adaptivity of Merz. Instead, the KdeE is presented,

not in terms of the Merzgesamtkunstwerk that Schwitters had once declared

his goal, but, albeit ambivalently, as an incongruous combination of Dada,

Cubism and the Gothic.

In many art-historical accounts of the Merzbau, this passage is not only

discussed entirely out of context, but also very selectively. Some elements

such as Persil advertisements, the insignia of the city of Karlsruhe and the

piece of lignite have seldom been subjected to analysis, while it is not

uncommon for the bottle of urine, the Great Grotto of Love and the sex-

murder cavern to be taken as representative of the supposedly macabre and

repulsive aspects of the whole. Schwitters’ disclaimer is likewise often

ignored; having listed part of the column’s content, which he attributes to

the year 1923, he then expressly distances himself from it on the grounds

that it is outmoded and ‘literary’. Within its overall context, then, the

passage on the KdeE turns out to be more resistant to interpretation than is

generally assumed.

Fig. 9. The Blue Window in the Merzbau

as photographed in 1933, showing the

table for the guest book below right and

above it, a section of the Cathedral of

Erotic Misery. Kurt Schwitters Archive,

Sprengel Museum Hannover.

It may be surprising to find that although this description of the Cathedral

of Erotic Misery has been the subject of much art-historical theorizing, we

have no evidence to show what it looked like in 1930. In 1983, Harald

Szeemann commissioned a reconstruction of the Hannover Merzbau, now in

the Sprengel Museum Hannover, on the basis of photos taken in early 1933,

and this at last has given us some idea of the appearance of the Cathedral of

Erotic Misery at that time, but even today, it remains the least photographed

section of the Merzbau.

The passage on the column in ‘Ich und meine Ziele’ was not Schwitters’ last

word on his studio constructions, but when, in 1933, he published a further

text on them, he seems to be talking about a quite different work. This is a

more sober piece, with no mention either of grottos or a column or a

Cathedral of Erotic Misery.

The Merzbau is the construction of an interior from sculptural forms and

colours. In the glazed grottos are Merz compositions arranged as a cubic

volume and which blend with the white cubic forms to form an interior.

Each part of the interior serves as an intermediary element to its

neighbouring part […] sometimes I have taken a form from nature, but

more often I have constructed the form as the function of different lines,

parallel or crossing. In this way I have discovered the most important of

my forms; the half-spiral.

This text, taken in conjunction with the evidence of contemporary

photographs and letters, indicates that it was not until 1931/32 that

Schwitters transformed the constructions in his studio into a unified

structure that absorbed the original columns almost entirely into what we

might now call a sculptural environment. In 1933, Schwitters removed his

studio to the adjoining room and gave this work the name Merzbau. While

his studio had never been a private place – he issued printed invitations,

colleagues were invited to contribute grottos to the columns and there were

two guest books to record visitors’ reactions - it nonetheless seems that

during the early 1930s, his sculptural interior enters an entirely different,

more public phase. Schwitters has the room photographed by a professional,

adds an art exhibition and employs three or four workmen to help him. He

builds a library in a corner, uses the Merzbau as a theatre, publishes an

article on it in a French journal and invites gallery owners, dealers, patrons,

and anyone else potentially interested in giving this unsaleable work some

publicity, with all the difficulties this involved after 1933. It is a remarkable

anomaly of Merzbau reception that most commentaries concentrate on the

period when Schwitters did not mention it at all, and most disregard the

decade when it took shape as a coherent work and he began to publicize it in

earnest. Ironically, Schwitters fled Germany at the point when the Merzbau

reached the height of its fame – that is, when photos of the work were

exhibited in the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

Merzbau legends

Despite the researches of Schmalenbach, Elger and Elderfield, Merzbau

legends continue to be disseminated and even embellished, both in general

and in specialized publications. Two of the most resilient are Richter’s long-

disproved story of the Deckendurchbruch, which still features in numerous

commentaries, and the location of the Merzbau in Schwitters’ living quarters.

These legends often appear in tandem, as in the assertion that Schwitters

‘built within his home the Merzbau [...] a Constructivist assemblage of

discarded junk that eventually pierced the ceiling’, or are further

embroidered, as in the following passage from a book on Installation Art:

Growing from an earlier assemblage, Cathedral of Erotic Misery, which

Schwitters constructed in his living room, Merzbau was literally a living

installation, occupied as it was by Schwitters, his wife and his children

[sic], who must have devised inventive ways to become one with

assemblage. Merzbau’s walls were carved into and then plastered over,

doorjambs were extended, and runways for a guinea pig were constructed

under ceiling planes that had been lowered at jarring cubist angles.

Cubist collage and Expressionism cohabited somewhat precariously in

Schwitters’ domestic experiment. Thwarted by lack of space, at one point

he moved the upstairs tenants out, cut the ceiling free and extended the

Merzbau through the floor above.

It is in the anecdotes and legends surrounding the grottos that it becomes

most difficult to separate fact from fiction. Many accounts of the Merzbau

emphasize their fetishist and sadistic nature, and in recent times their

content, or rather the little that is known of it, has been described in

increasingly macabre terms; according to some recent interpretations, the

Merzbau apparently contained little else than flasks of urine, hair,

fingernails and miscellaneous body parts. Needless to say, such statements

are based on a highly selective use of source materials that in themselves are

open to dispute. As just one example of excessive authorial licence, I’d like to

quote an article from a fine art journal that portrays the Merzbau as a

monstrous collection of material amassed by a Frankenstein-like Schwitters:

furtively collected and avidly displayed […] the violent and obscene images

of the Merzbau looked like the exposed viscera of the mind in a Freudian

textbook. Schwitters …was an excremental mystic […] his nocturnal

wanderings enabled him to feed the Merzbau more titbits […] it grew as

Schwitters’ coprophagous imagination fed it more blood […] Schwitters

must have relished the similarity of Merz to the French ‘merde’.

Here I’d like to return to Kate Steinitz’s memoirs and her mention of ‘secret

grottoes’. Given the ambivalent nature of her account, their existence is at

least open to question, but they nonetheless appear in countless analyses of

the Merzbau, and it is above all around these supposedly hidden grottos

(which presumably were not identical with those publicized by Schwitters in

‘Ich und meine Ziele’) that many improbable legends have accumulated. How

concealed they were remains matter of debate. Often they are described as

having been seen only by a few of Schwitters’ friends, if at all, though the

supposition that they were kept secret rarely acts as a deterrent to a detailed

examination of their content.

Fig.10. Kurt Schwitters, untitled assemblage. This grotto,

measuring 9.3 x 16.8 x 7.2 cm., was said by Ernst Schwitters to

have been part of the Merzbau. It was badly damaged during

transport in 1956 and was reconstructed in 2004. Kurt

Schwitters Archive, Sprengel Museum Hannover.

At this point it is worth remembering Hannah Höch’s completely different

version of the secret grottos:

You could regard it as a special honour when Kurt Schwitters allowed a

guest to design a cave in his Merz column. Then he would put the whole of

his material at your disposal. Built-in secret depots opened up and he let

the material flood out all over the place to allow you as much freedom as

possible in your choice.

Höch, then, writes that the secret caves that she (in contrast to Steinitz)

actually saw, were no more than storage space for the rubbish Schwitters

collected at every available opportunity, his ‘Merz material’. As all her

reminiscences accentuate personal friendships, her omission of the

‘souvenir’ caves as described by Richter and Steinitz seems remarkable.

What Höch does emphasize is the idea of Schwitters’ constructions as a

socio-political and above all collaborative work, to which she and other

colleagues were allowed to contribute. Höch’s descriptions have, however,

been ignored in Merzbau reception to date, possibly because her memoirs

have not been translated into English and did not appear in book form, and

it is not her prosaic hoards of hidden, as yet unsorted rubbish, but Steinitz’s

erotic grottos that have become a widespread feature of the Merzbau

reception, generally in conjunction with their presumed ‘perverted’ content.

A different kind of legend appeared in the 1960s when the focus shifted to

the extempore aspects of Schwitters’ working method. The Merzbau was

described as a spontaneous work in metaphors that ranged far beyond both

the pre-war avant garde’s use of chance to undermine aesthetic traditions.

Richter wrote that the column ‘burst the room apart at the seams’, and Arp

described constructions ‘forcing their way upwards through [...] abysses and

fissures’.

Even the artist’s son Ernst, whose vantage point was generally

more dispassionate, alludes to ‘free-standing works that suddenly “grew”

together’. Werner Haftmann claimed that ‘the intention [of the Merzbau] was

for things to create a space of their own’, Schmalenbach that its upper part

‘formed itself in varying heights’; William Rubin that ‘anti-art materials left

the surfaces of [Schwitters’] collages and began to form the components of

the Merzbau [...] freestanding objects [...] began to merge with the furniture’,

Rosemarie Haag-Bletter cited the anecdote of the evicted tenants to

embellish her dramatic portrayal of the Merzbau’s development in terms of a

‘cancerous growth’ with ‘twisted tentacles’, while Patricia Falguières

described the Merzbau as a monstrous parasite that penetrated ceilings and

eventually filled the whole of Schwitters’ house. Such renderings generally

sidestep the physical evolution of the Merzbauten; in effect, potential debate

about levels of meaning is circumvented by shifting the focus to the

supposed autonomy of the material and its control of the artist.

Berlin 1989, 210: Jahns 1982: Richter 1965/1978, 153: Arp 1972.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to Schwitters’ statement in the

Veilchenheft that the KdeE was ‘unfinished on principle’, a frequently quoted

catch phrase of Merzbau reception. On principle, Schwitters’ constructions

could indeed be extended indefinitely, but in practice, this was not an

essential criterion either of his columns or sculptural interiors. The

correspondence of Schwitters and his wife around 1932/33 often refers to

the ‘completion’ of the Merzbau, and Schwitters’ detailed listing of the

material, time and expenditure necessary for an American version, drawn up

in 1936, suggest that a Merzbau could indeed be finished. The importance

that Schwitters attached to this idea becomes even more apparent in his

period of exile, when he was gripped by ambitions for at least one of his

environments to pass down to posterity, making every effort to ensure their

completion in some form, even if, as in the case of Hannover, it meant

rebuilding the work from its ruins. The idea of a construction that is

‘unfinished on principle’ must therefore be qualified by Schwitters’ later

insistence on the desirability of completing at least one. That all remained

unfinished must be attributed to political and personal circumstance rather

than principle.

I’d also like to note that Schwitters’ remaining Merzbauten have likewise not

remained untouched by legends and misapprehensions. The most

unshakable of these is that the end wall of the Merz barn in Elterwater was

the only extant section when Schwitters died, a theory that John Elderfield

conclusively disproved as early as 1969.

Problems presented by translations

Some of the common misconceptions and uncertainties about the

appearance and location of the Hannover Merzbau may be traced to

inaccuracies and rephrasing in English renderings of German texts. These

inevitably augment the difficulties of reconstructing the Merzbau’s evolution

and of assessing Schwitters’ attitude towards the work. Again, there is only

time to give a few examples here.

Schmalenbach’s analysis of the Merzbau contains numerous errors in the

English version: for example the German Parterre [ground floor] is translated

as ‘above ground floor’, klare Farben [bright colours] as ‘pastel colours’ and

Boden [attic] as ‘ground floor’. Schmalenbach’s original ein weltoffener Eremit

in seinem weltfernen Gehäuse [a cosmopolitan hermit in his unworldly cell]

is translated as ‘a refuge [sic] from the world in his own drawing-room’ and

his ‘so sehr die einzige Raison d’être des Merzbaus, dass der Mensch in ihm

keinen Platz mehr fand, und Raum um Raum aus ihm verdrängt wurde [this

was so much the raison d’être of the Merzbau that people had no place in it

any longer and were driven out of it room by room] becomes ‘the man who

made it was driven out of it’.

The English translations of Steinitz and Richter also deviate in part from the

German originals. It is, for example, instructive to compare the original

version of Steinitz’s memoir of Schwitters (1963) with the English rendering,

published five years later, not only because the latter contains translational

errors but also because of changed phraseology and textual additions.

Steinitz’s quotation of Schwitters’ statement that ‘zum Schluss wird die Säule

mit noch zehn anderen Säulen als riesige Form im Raum stehen’ is translated

as ‘finally the column will stand with ten other columns as gigantic forms in

space’, although the German Form is clearly singular. The account of the

caves is augmented by a melodramatic sentence lacking in the German: ‘In

each cave was a sediment of impressions and emotions, with significant

literary and symbolistic allusions.’ In 1961 Steinitz had written that ‘the

Column was a repository of Schwitters’ own problems, a cathedral built not

only around his erotic misery but around all the joy and misery of his time’.

In her memoirs, the social component implicit in this last phrase is omitted,

so that the Merzbau is portrayed primarily as a personal drama and

projection of Schwitters’ inner strivings. Richter’s indistinct but impressive

picture of the Merzbau also differs in part in the English translation. The

latter doubles the amount of space the column occupied on his first visit, for

example; the German original states that it filled about a quarter of the

room, the English version about half the room.

My final example comes from a publication on the Merzbau in which the

author’s interpretation of Schwitters’ terminology occasionally leaves room

for doubt. Here, for instance, the analysis of the 1935 Erinnerung an Molde

grotto is dependent on a misreading of its name, which according to the

author refers not only to the Norwegian town but also to mould, referred to

here as a symbol of life, love, death, decay and rebirth and a reminder of the

‘exceedingly visceral’ material in Schwitters’ 1920 studio. Till now I have not

found any German dictionary which lists the word ‘Mold’.

Fig. 11. Hannover Merzbau, Grotte in

Erinnerung an Molde [Grotto in Memory of

Molde]. Kurt Schwitters Archive, Sprengel

Museum, Hannover.

The task of checking translated material is clearly an arduous one and in

many cases unnecessary. Nonetheless, if a theory about the Merzbau is to be

based on a translated sentence or phrase, it is, as I hope I have shown,

advisable to examine the original text beforehand.

Conclusion

As a result of the paucity of original documents and photos, eyewitness

reports, important as they are to any analysis, created from the first a

plethora of misconceptions about the Hannover Merzbau. Many anecdotes

and legends attached to the Merzbau, whether in original or modified form,

seem inconsequential in themselves, but taken together, they are of

considerable significance. Their cumulative effect has resulted in a mounting

fund of speculative material that bears little relation to what is known of the

Merzbau (and its creator) and that has made art-historical analysis of it

increasingly difficult. To start from one or more of the premises (despite all

the verifiable information to the contrary) that this was a largely

surreptitious and/or obscene artwork created by a half-crazed artist in his

private living quarters results in a picture of a work proliferating largely in

its own hermetic environment. This approach admits of few functional,

transformative or evolutionary processes and leads to a portrayal of the

Merzbau as a non-developmental, non-interactive construction. This in turn

largely obviates the need for chronological accuracy about the various stages

of its development. Thus the mountain of commentary that has accrued

since Schwitters’ death, while undoubtedly important in preserving and

evaluating the Merzbauten for posterity, has sometimes resulted less in

explanation and clarification than in the dissemination and fabrication of

considerable misunderstandings about these works.

Fig. 12. An unintentional misprint. Rudolf Jahns relates his memories of the Merzbau, FAZ.,

26.8.62.

Roger Cardinal was the first to undertake a comparative study of the

reception of the Hannover Merzbau. As one of the few commentators to

highlight the inconsistency of the sources, he also suggests that the Merzbau

has become its own reception, contrasting its actual fate with the robust

myths that proliferate ‘as a disparate amalgam of recollection, hearsay and

conjecture’. In contrast, Cornelia Osswald-Hoffmann is highly critical of

writings on the Merzbau, arguing that most are dominated by speculative

discussions about the grottos. She dismisses analyses that rely too heavily

on eyewitness reports that she refers to as ‘demonstrably pure invention’ and

maintains that because the Merzbau no longer exists, this has resulted in an

accumulation of readings that constitute mere re-interpretations of

interpretations, so that writing on the work has become an independent

activity with a dynamic of its own, creating a new discourse that has little

bearing on the original.

In theory at least, there has been no justification for the perpetuation of a

Merzbau mythology since the publication of the three-volume Kurt

Schwitters Catalogue Raisonné, which provides a mine of information about

all the Merzbauten, with numerous photos, original documents, plans,

chronologies and commentaries. Nonetheless, we may have to accept that

Merzbau legends will continue to flourish, and I’d therefore like to conclude

by quoting Ernst Nündel, who took an indulgent view of Merzbau mythology,

regarding it as integral to the nature of Merz and even in accordance with

the artist’s intentions.

The Merzbau, destroyed in 1943, continues growing, in the memory of

those who saw it [...] in the speculations of art historians. To each his/her

own (concept of the) Merzbau. In this state it approaches the idea of Merz,

the idea of continuous recasting, of an artistic process without bounds,

without beginning and without end.

* * * * *

Yüklə 155,54 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş: