Höch and Til Brugman, her partner from 1926 to 1935Photograph: Black & White
http://www.humanities.uci.edu/~rmoeller/HCC_Lectures/RGM_Lecture2.html
In the 1920s, the Weimar Republic, named for the town in central Germany where a new German constitution was drafted in 1919, became known throughout Europe for its encouragement of all sorts of experimentation—musical, artistic, even sexual. Although a global phenomenon, the “new woman,” characterized by her short hair cut, her androgynous dress, and her independence seemed to be particularly at home in the Weimar Republic. Particularly, in big cities like Berlin, Weimar opened up a space in which it was possible for women to enjoy same-sex relations with women in public spaces. In her 1929 book, Else Hermann described What the New Woman Is Like. Although this vision of the “new woman” was well beyond the reach of many urban working-class women and posed a threat to more traditional women of all classes, Hermann suggests some of the ways in which conceptions of appropriate femininity were subject to redefinition in the Weimar years. One such, “new woman” was Hannah Höch, a part of the Berlin Dadaist movement. In the 1920s in Germany, explicitly political art was almost exclusively produced by men and offered depictions of women that clearly reflected a male perspective. Women typically appeared as the downtrodden victims of the capitalist system, forced into poverty and unwanted pregnancy, or as prostitutes, slaves in a different way to the capitalist system. Höch was exceptional not only because she was a woman in an artistic world dominated by men, but also because she offered a much more nuanced commentary on the status of women in the Weimar Republic. (words: 258)
Reprinted in Anton Kaes, Martin Jay, and Edward Dimendberg, eds., The Weimar Sourcebook (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 206-7.
Comment on the above caption. What would you add or take out? What type of information is focused on in the sample? What would you do differently?
22 comments:
This photo sends a powerful message to people of same-sex relations. It is something out of the norm, and people were okay with that.
I would take out these lines “In her 1929 book, Else Hermann described What the New Woman Is Like. Although this vision of the “new woman” was well beyond the reach of many urban working-class women and posed a threat to more traditional women of all classes, Hermann suggests some of the ways in which conceptions of appropriate femininity were subject to redefinition in the Weimar years.”
I don’t think these lines are important in this caption. This photo shows Hannan Höch and Til Brugman looking at each other, so the focus for this caption should be their relationship. The way they are looking at each other reflects their feelings and depicts how they relate to each other. The rest of the caption is very informative about how Höch was an important female artist. I wouldn’t change or add anything else to this caption because I feel like it accurately describes the photo. There isn’t a prime focus in the caption, but it flows because the introduction line introduces the same-sex relationship, which leads into how women have been belittled through various political arts. This caption shows Höch’s struggle as a woman artist, which sends a message of possibilities for all women.
I feel as though the author did a good job overall with the caption. There is obviously a specific theme presented here: women as men can simply sum it up. However, I think the author should focus more on Hoch herself vs. Hermann. While Hermann does adds some context on the changing women during this time period, it does not need to be so elaborated on. More history on Hoch would be good. I also feel as though the author did a good job in discussing what the picture is supposed to represent, a part of rhetoric (ethos I think?).
I feel as though the author should elaborate more on how the art effected those who are against women changing their look, like the men. The author did not really elaborate on the production of the art, and although it is black and white photography, I feel as though there is probably a reason for this, so more elaboration on the production aspect of the artwork is a good idea. Some things that should also be taken out, "women appeared as victims [...] capitalism". While this does discuss previous history and how women have changed, the focus on the photo is focused more so on the fact than women look like men, and I think the author should stay true to this idea.
I think this photograph and caption lend well to the period of the time. The photograph itself,as insightful and powerful as it is showing the proximity of two women, would be controversial during this period in Germany. The caption specifically does a good job of connecting the social and political aspects of the Weimar Republic. The details are good in providing background and cleverly illustrate the status of women. I think I would remove "In her 1929 book, Else Hermann described What the New Woman Is Like." I would do this because this information, though probably needed as citation, is generic.
I like how the caption incorporates the idea of Hoch as a new woman, as well as how these new woman are viewed and view society. Stating, however implicity, that women are just as capable as men, is also a strong statement. Yet, I think the caption should focus on the effects of this new change and what it means for Hoch specifically to be this "new woman". This idea too can be applicable to same-sex men and women. I feel that the caption should include the negative and positive views of society on same sex relationships and their opinions on the "new woman".
The photograph depicts the courage of two woman who are essentially changing world views and I think the caption serves it justice.
One immediate sentence that could have been taken out, and still retain the caption's effect would be the book reference:
"In her 1929 book, Else Hermann described What the New Woman Is Like. Although this vision of the “new woman” was well beyond the reach of many urban working-class women and posed a threat to more traditional women of all classes, Hermann suggests some of the ways in which conceptions of appropriate femininity were subject to redefinition in the Weimar years."
I didn't really have to quote the whole thing, but its a long quote and makes it look like I'm typing something long, and not just filling up space. The sentence right before this quote talks about the emergence of "the new woman." IF this caption is taken out, the next setence below would begin right with, "One such, “new woman” was Hannah Höch," which would have been a perfect transition.
What is good about this caption is the detailing in the womans' lives. It explains the reasoning for why the woman are wearing suits, and short hair ( due to new experimentation).
One interesting thing to note also in the photo, besides their totally rad hair/clothes, is what they're looking at. At first, it may seem like they are looking at each other intently, since they are obviously facing each other, and it even says "...her partner..." labeled below. However, upon closer inspection, Hoch is looking DOWN and Brugman is looking at her eyes directly. For all I know, Hoch could be checking out Brugman's nifty tie, BUT, since her eye is angled lower, could this mean Hoch is looking DOWN upon Brugman? Maybe her hair should be as short as hers?
<3
This photograph shows us the same sex relations that were coming about, because of the new idea of experimenting in all different aspects. I thought the caption was a really good one. it gave alot of insight at the time and really explained the photograph and its background. One thing i would take out, that again would not be a missing piece to the puzzle, whould be the line, "In her 1929 book, Else Hermann described What the New Woman is Like." Without this, the caption still does an excellent job of providing detail to that time period and the picture. I wouldn't take anything else out of the caption. it really gives alot of information that is helpful to understanding what we are looking at.
The caption starts off with a brief history on the time period in which the picture was taken. I think that it is very important because it enables the readers to have a better understanding of the picture. I agree with a few others that the reference to Else Hermann’s book should be taken out because it is not really necessary. Although the author’s comments on male dominance in the arts are very informative and interesting, I felt that the author could have done more to relate it to the picture. I think that the author should focus more on the picture itself, perhaps by addressing the significance of the relationship of the two women. The picture is trying to portray the changes that were occurring during the Weimar Republic, and this picture of the two women reflects that.
The caption discussed the acceptance of same sex relationships that is expressed by the photo. The text mentions Hannah Hoch, the same woman who is in the photo. The caption could go more into depth about the same sex relationships that were accepted. There could also be more information about Hoch in the text. The writer should either take out the section about the explicit art that was produced by men or create a clearer connection. The caption would be more effective if it were to discuss why the Weimar Republic was so welcome to same sex relationships and women. By including the importance that the Republic put on women, the readers would be able to understand the connection between gay rights, woman, and the Republic. The article should focus on the democratic aspects of the Republic that allowed for the “new” woman and gay relationships.
digitupchicksta9 is Shannan for all 3 posts
I can’t even grasp what these women have gone through. At this day and age things like this are slightly tolerated (to some degree) by society but way back then, things were made so much difficult. But this particular movement helped spur things up a bit and changed the way women were perceived, even to this day. I believe that this movement drastically changed the view of women and their role in society – it moved them up, inching closer to that of the same level as men. I do agree that this image of the “new woman” was deemed a threat to women of all classes merely because at this time, the public perhaps weren’t ready for a new revamped image of woman – especially considering what the world is going through; revolution, violence, war, etc. I admire that fact that these women are making political statement against a world often dominated by men, standing up against the conformist society, and not being afraid to let themselves be known. She offered commentary on the status of women, and changed their perception entirely from the impoverished women of the time, giving [women] the image that they are just as powerful a force as men are. Upon reading the caption, I’d hope that the writer would add more descriptions of this “new woman” and what direct impacts, such as struggle as well as triumphs that these women have gone through – to further make the caption more emotional. This caption primarily focuses on how these women have made an impact in their community, and in which ways they are perceived differently. As a caption, this does a pretty decent job, stating general facts without going in to too much detail. If the reader were more interested, I’d personally refer the reader to other works that they can read to further improve their knowledge of this movement.
The caption seems to accurately state what was happening during this time period of the Weimer Republic. The caption states that during this time period in Germany, there was a "global phenomenon of a 'new woman'". A "new woman" was characterized as her way of dress, short hair and independence. Höch was an example of this “new woman” in that she didn’t follow the typical, traditional way of a woman in an artistic world dominated by men. In this, she adds a different commentary on the status of woman during the Weimer Republic.
By looking at this image, I would expect some information on Höch and her partner's relationship. What can be done differently in this caption is add information on Höch’s relationship with her partner. Also, I would add some examples of a “new woman”. This could help grasp what the overall concept is of this image. But overall, the caption accurately states the new sexual “experimentation” of this time period.
Through the caption, we know the theme of this photo is about the "new woman." However, a majority of the description in the caption is about Else Hermann while the picture is of Hannah Hoch. It was good to describe the "new women" as "characterized by her short hair cut, her androgynous dress, and her independence seemed to be particularly at home in the Weimar Republic" because it brings the focus to the photo. However when the caption goes on a tangent to Hermann's suggestions of femininity, and the Berlin Dadaist movement, it loses track of the focal point of the picture. Since the two women are focused on each other, much more could be said about their relationship and their perspectives and views of this new kind of relationship. Also, much more could be said about their style of appearance and how they look so much like men now. The question of their inner motive to be similar men could be mentioned. The problem is in the end however, is that women cannot fully become like men nor can men become fully like women in the physical and even mental state. Our sexes have or own tendencies and functions. One produces the seed for birth while the other retains the eggs. More can also be said about the issue of homosexuality in the political stage at this time.
The focus of this caption is on the history of the Weimar Republic and the "new woman" phenomenon. The only area I feel needs change is the analysis on the Weimar Republic, it is too thorough and takes away from the analysis of Hoch. The picture given is of Hoch and her partner Brugman but the caption barely talks of her contribution to this new woman movement. It is briefly mentioned and not given much focus. The overall caption was put together well and only marred by its over analysis of the Weimar Republic's history and under analysis of Hoch's contribution to how everyone looked at femininity.
Alex Wong:
The caption seems to merely use the image as a springboard to a discussion on the "new woman" within the Weimar Republic. In my opinion, this is a very good strategy in getting information out to students and people in general. The image is only an attention grabber which draws people to the caption because they want to find out more about the picture.
Even though the caption was very thorough in the amount of information presented, I think that it fell short of specifically addressing the details on the background and creation of the image itself. In summary, I like the broadness of the caption but some specifics on the image itself would be nice too.
This photo focuses on the societal role of women during the time, and is an indication of the early feminism.
I fully support this caption in that everything discussed in it seems to give a respectable amount of homage to women. For a time when a woman's role was still prevalent in the household and often within the workplace was merely a secretary or school teacher, this article.
The photograph does not seem to complement the caption very well since the caption is so elaborate and the picture is so simple. It seems like it can be used as merely a biographical picture. A better photograph would have supported the caption better because the expressions on the faces of the Hoch and her partner seem so disjunct from the caption as a whole with their expressions, the directions they're facing, etc.
This caption taken from the Weimar Sourcebook has a clear message that the Republic has embodied much change with its acceptance of the same sex movement. It identified Hannah Hoch as the “new woman,” someone who was a forerunner of the Berlin Dadaist movement because she contributed to the reform through political art. At first this caption focuses on the same sex movement as a whole in Germany, and then it talks specifically about Hoch and her artistry. The caption emphasizes how the role of women has changed from one that was looked down upon and considered inferior by men to one like Hoch’s, which is characterized by independence and freedom of mind. The photograph of Hoch and her partner depicts the freedom of expression women were allowed to have during the movement. This can be seen in the way they both have short hair and are wearing suits, while affectionately gazing at each other. It's a meaningful photo because it would've been considered immensely controversial and unusual prior to the movement. Although this caption was informative at describing this movement during the Weimar Republic, it would’ve been more effective if it elaborated on the role Hoch played and how this photograph was a reflection of the change she brought to the Republic. I would leave out the part this caption says about Else Hermann, even though her book makes good points about the definition of the “new women.” Instead this caption should really focus on Hoch, and how she represented the same-sex movement in the Weimar Republic. I would talk about the ethos and pathos of this photograph. How seeing this image during another era before the movement in the Weimar Republic would have made one feel, and how societal change has changed much of that earlier bias.
Sorry I keep deleting my original posts. I found one spelling mistake and then another so I just had to change it.
The idea that homosexual relationships and androgynous women were becoming more accepted in soceity is very clearly depicted through this caption. I feel that the caption very thoroughly and effectively explains the time period and the background information of this picture. I was able to fully understand everything the caption was saying without looking at any other sources. However, I feel as though the picture was not spoken enough about and though it exemplifies the growing adrongynous nature of women and the relationship between two women, it doesn't appear to me that the women are really very intersted in each other. I believe another photo could better support the very detailed captipn given. But in regards to the caption generally and independently from the photograph, it supports itself very well. Since the photograph is of Hoch and not much is said about her in the caption, it really seems as though the caption does not need that particular photo. I would either include more information about Hoch or change the photograph to be a more affectionate and general photo.
Hoch and Til Brugnan do an excellent job in showing the beliefs of the period. The picture has a very strong istoria of describing the beliefs and preferences of the time and reveals the intimate feelings of the male populace during this era. This picture also shows the intergender relationship that existed during the early 1920s and functions to foreshadow the later feelings that would govern Germany in the later years. Also, the photograph functions to show how femininity was altered in its perception during this era, primarily because women seemingly were to look more masculine to show strength, rather than feminine and weak, as was the primary conception of women during this time period.
Now the new woman looks like the men of the time, this helps prove and show equality of the sexes. The picture shows it more clearly than words can, but there is a striking resemblance between the man and the woman.
In the article they should remove the part where they say…
“In the 1920s in Germany, explicitly political art was almost exclusively produced by men and offered depictions of women that clearly reflected a male perspective.”
This does not tie into the rest of the paper very well, it relates but does not offer the excerpt some crucial part of information describing or depicting the females. They are talking about men and how they forced their views upon the women of the time.
The caption provides a good deal of contextual information about the picture. It focuses a lot on the history, events, and happenings around the time of the picture. And provides good information about subject, Hoch. It also is in depth about the connections surrounding the picture, the why questions.
I might want to hear a little more about the actual picture? I'm don't understand the it's significance. Is it just to show us who Hoch is? Is it a work of Art? If so I'd like to hear more about its communications.
Despite the longness It is good and informative, my only critique would be more explanation as to the significance of the picture itself maybe.
Post a Comment