Abstract
The interwar aesthetic context was shaped by a range of tendencies that severely undermined the dichotomist approach to culture as “high” and “low,” and created an unprecedented challenge to artists who still conceived of their trade as a sacred ritual. Among all the arts, literature was possibly most vulnerable to the pervasive acceleration of life, the insatiable desire for entertainment, and the all-consuming celebration of the physicality of the world and the vitality of the human body. All of these tendencies could potentially suppress readers’ interest in introspection and spiritual exploration. In a world of unbridled consumption, where the artist was progressively losing his autonomy and becoming more dependent on public tastes programmed by the commercialized environment, intellectuals questioned the very possibility of original creative activity. New means of reproduction contributed to the rise of mass culture, which was rapidly dislocating art from its elite position. In his seminal essay, Walter Benjamin argued that the most critical element that “withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.”1 The decay of this aura and the loss of authenticity are caused by the increasing role of the masses as consumers of art and their desire to make artwork easily accessible, “to bring things ‘closer’ spatially and humanly, which is just as ardent as their bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction.”
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
W. Benjamin (1969) “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in Illuminations. ed. H. Arendt, trans. H. Zohn (New York: Schocken), p. 221.
S. Nichols (2003) “The End of Aura?,” in Mapping Benjamin: The Work of Art in the Digital Age, eds. H. Gumbrecht and M. Marrinan (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), pp. 257–8.
R. Iangirov, “’Sinefily’ i ‘antisinemisty’: polemika russkoi emigratsii o kinematografe v 1920-kh gg. (Po stranitsam emigrantskoi pressy),” Ezhegodnik Doma russkogo zarubezh’ia 1, (2010), 349.
R. Régent, “O kinematografe,” Chisla 2–3 (1930), 234–8.
Cf. M. Rubins, Ecphrasis in Parnasse and Acmeism: Comparative Visions of Poetry and Poetics (New York: Palgrave, 2000), pp. 7–29.
V. Khodasevich, Selected Poems (New York: The Overlook Press/Ardis, 2013), p. 149.
M. Collomb, Littérature Art Deco (Paris: Méridiens Klincksieck, 1987), p. 141.
J. Auscher, “Sous la lampe. Irène Némirovsky,” Marianne 13 Feb. (1935), 5.
B. Cendrars, L’Or (Paris: Gallimard, 2004), p. 119.
I. Némirovsky, Œuvres complètes, vol. I (Paris: La Pochothèque, 2011), p. 465.
P. Drieu la Rochelle, Le Jeune Européen suivie de Genève ou Moscou (Paris: Gallimard, 1978), p. 35.
P. Morand, France la doulce (Paris: Gallimard, 1934), p. 364.
P. Morand, Lewis et Irène (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 2011), p. 36.
“Nonoche au ciné,” in Némirovsky (2011), p. 73.
For example, Jean Prévost’s Plaisir des sports (1925)
Jean Schlumberger’s Dialogues avec le corps endormi (1927).
This analogy was made explicit in the album of painter Willi Baumeister, Sport and Machine (1929).
A. Bezobrazov (1930) “O bokse,” Chisla 1, 259–61.
I. Némirovsky (1957) Les Feux de l’automne (Paris: Albin Michel), p. 243.
André Maurois’s Bernard Quesnay (1926) shows traditional business practice.
Cited in S. Sarkany, Paul Morand et le Cosmopolitisme littéraire (Paris: Editions Klincksieck, 1968), p. 82.
Some critics even evoked Ecclesiastes when discussing Némirovsky’s protagonist B. Crémieux (Les Annales, 1 février 1930), A. Thérive (Le Temps, 10 janvier 1930), and A. Maurois (Le Spectacle des Lettres, mars 1930).
Steven Zdatny discusses short hair as a 1920s generational credo (“The Boyish Look and the Liberated Woman: The Politics and Aesthetics of Women’s Hairstyles,” Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body and Culture, vol. 1, issue 4 (1997)).
M. Collomb (2007) Paul Morand. Petits certificats de vie (Paris: Hermann Editeurs), p. 77.
(R. Iangirov, “’Chuvstvo fil’ma.’ Zametki o kinematograficheskom kontekste v literature russkogo zarubezh’ia 1920–1930-kh godov,” in Imperiia N. Nabokov i nasledniki. Sbornik statei, eds. Yu. Leving and E. Soshkin (Moscow: NLO, 2006), p. 399).
G. Gazdanov, “Zerkalo,” Russkie zapiski, 15 (1939), 196.
I. Odoevtseva, Zerkalo. Izbrannaia proza (Moscow: Russky put’, 2011), p. 470.
S. Sternau, Art Deco: Flights of Artistic Fancy (New York: Smithmark, 1997), p. 78.
D. Trotter, Literature in the First Media Age: Britain between the Wars (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), p. 23.
K. Elita-Vil’chkovsky, “Irina Odoevtseva ‘Zerkalo,’” in Odoevtseva (2011), pp. 639–40.
V. Yanovsky. “Irina Odoevtseva. Zerkalo. Roman. Izd. Petropolis (Bruxelles),” in Yanovsky (2014), p. 514.
E. Triolet, Zashchitnyi tsvet (Moscow: Federatsiia, Krug, 1928), p. 160).
E. Proskurina, “Kinematografichnost’ i teatral’nost’ romana I. Odoevtsevoi ‘Zerkalo’,” Ezhegodnik Doma Russkogo Zarubezh’ia, (2011), pp. 265–79.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Maria Rubins
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rubins, M. (2015). Art Deco Fiction: Literary Reflections on the Seventh Art. In: Russian Montparnasse. Palgrave Studies in European Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137508010_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137508010_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-57175-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-50801-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Media & Culture CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)