Scan barcode
tsharris's review against another edition
4.0
Splendid short book that reviews the major themes of the cultural effervescence of the Weimar years, highlighting the ways in which it intersected with Weimar's politics. More introductory than exhaustive.
kiperoo's review against another edition
4.0
Interesting take on the Weimar Republic through some aspects of the culture at the time (the Bauhaus, Mann's Zauberberg, Rilke's poetry etc.).
gabesteller's review against another edition
3.0
A decent and short introduction, but so surface level I wish I‘d read something longer. Also the author has a weird vendetta against the movie Metropolis which he thinks is dull and immoral.
ya know we love a book thats both strange and boring.
ya know we love a book thats both strange and boring.
spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
3.0
Excellent introduction to and overview of Weimar Germany, specifically the socio-political aspects of the era, but what did Fritz Lang ever do to Peter Gay?!
rmardel's review against another edition
4.0
My copy of Peter Gay's Weimar Culture was given to me by my father when I was in high school. I read it at the time, but it was perhaps a little more scholarly and dense than what I was looking for at that time. I read it again in college and then I appreciated the fact that it although it is quite scholarly there are times in the book when it is quite imaginative and gripping, unlike many historical tracts I had to read for coursework. I read it again this time after encountering a quote from Mr. Gay in Alex Ross's The Rest is Noise which I am still reading. I was happy to read the book again and it reminded me of aspects of Weimar culture that I had forgotten, or missed the first time around. Well worth rereading.
laurenzokro's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
This book is incredible in its ability to capture every different dynamic and perspective seen in the years of Weimar Germany. I think to appreciate the nuances that it gets into, it does require a bit more familiarity with the period than even the "Short History" section that the tail end of the book supplies (though it does provide a fairly impressive summary that condenses a lot of important information into just a few pages.) Gay is able to incorporate commentary, direct quotes from leading culture practitioners of the time period, and examine the general trends that played out in an incredibly unified fashion for a time that was in many ways characterised by its disarray and the obscurity faced by the general population.
Perhaps what Gay's book contributes most is a variety of incredibly appropriate sources that you would never otherwise encounter, even if having taken in the past a course that focused on 20th century Germany (which I did in university). It was undeniably rich in terms of content from leading historians, literary practitioners, and other creatives from the time period while also examining sources that would likely be a bit more challenging to come across today.
My main gripe was the fact that the references and examples were much more historian and political/economic theory-heavy than I would've liked it to be - I personally would've enjoyed more discussion about the progression of the fine arts over this time period (sculpture, painting, theatre, etc), which I had assumed would be much more present in the book based on the novel's cover and the blurb I read when I initially purchased it. While such topics were present, they were referenced more in passing rather than being explored in the depth and detail I would've appreciated to see.
Nevertheless, I think that the framing of Gay's analysis of Weimar culture was executed well. While the language and general semantics could be a bit more elaborate than I felt was necessary at times (perhaps reflective of the time in which it was written), its content was largely accessible in terms of how Gay explicitly defined his central thesis in the into and kept referencing it with direct phrasing (namely "outsider" and "insider") that appeared all throughout the book. It kept the analysis unified without being simplistic, and I felt was really able to get at the complexity and shifting nature of Weimar that remains so characteristic of the political period and the culture within it.
Perhaps what Gay's book contributes most is a variety of incredibly appropriate sources that you would never otherwise encounter, even if having taken in the past a course that focused on 20th century Germany (which I did in university). It was undeniably rich in terms of content from leading historians, literary practitioners, and other creatives from the time period while also examining sources that would likely be a bit more challenging to come across today.
My main gripe was the fact that the references and examples were much more historian and political/economic theory-heavy than I would've liked it to be - I personally would've enjoyed more discussion about the progression of the fine arts over this time period (sculpture, painting, theatre, etc), which I had assumed would be much more present in the book based on the novel's cover and the blurb I read when I initially purchased it. While such topics were present, they were referenced more in passing rather than being explored in the depth and detail I would've appreciated to see.
Nevertheless, I think that the framing of Gay's analysis of Weimar culture was executed well. While the language and general semantics could be a bit more elaborate than I felt was necessary at times (perhaps reflective of the time in which it was written), its content was largely accessible in terms of how Gay explicitly defined his central thesis in the into and kept referencing it with direct phrasing (namely "outsider" and "insider") that appeared all throughout the book. It kept the analysis unified without being simplistic, and I felt was really able to get at the complexity and shifting nature of Weimar that remains so characteristic of the political period and the culture within it.
iwb's review against another edition
2.0
Gay’s book, "Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider", is a chronological study of the artistic and intellectual life of the Weimar Republic that emphasizes the contributions of Wilhelmian era “outsiders” and their rise to influence as Republican era “insiders.” Drawing his sources from various autobiographies, memoirs, and diaries; numerous written records, letters, and correspondence; and personal interviews and recollections, Gay documents the creative culture that flourished in the Weimar Republic. Gay includes both an annotated bibliography and, even though his focus is on the creative spirit of Weimar culture, an appended synopsis of the history of Weimar politics.
Gay states his thesis to be the following: In the Weimar Republic outsiders became insiders. Now, allow me a bit of pedantry for the moment. His key terms, while not defined precisely, are understood to apply broadly as follows: “Outsider” denotes a kind whose members are typically marginalized due to their perceived identity by the imperial elites (e.g., the Emperor, university professors, artistic directors, and the like). These outsiders can be identified politically, ethnically, and artistically; thus, for example, the democrat, the Jew, and the avant-garde artist are outsiders, respectively. A person, furthermore, is not delimited to just one kind—one might be a Jewish democrat who supports modernist trends in literature and music. The constitutive feature of an outsider thus is a relative identity condition. “Insider” denotes a kind whose members have relatively significant cultural influence due to their respective positions of authority and power—“decision-makers” as Gay calls them; e.g., curators of museums and galleries, directors of orchestras and theatres, chairs of private centers of scholarship. While not explicitly stated, Gay treats the membership between outsiders and insiders in the Weimar Republic as a one-way relationship—outsiders may become insiders but not conversely.
According to Gay, his thesis—that outsiders became insiders-- implies the claim that these outsiders had already been active in the late Empire. As Gay sees it, this claim is a necessary condition for the plausibility of his thesis statement. Gay’s thesis, then, is really the following conditional statement:
(T) If in the Weimar Republic outsiders became insiders, then these outsiders had already been active in the late Empire.
Gay argues for this claim throughout the book. Chapter one, however, is particularly devoted to establishing the consequent. In this chapter, Gay provides compelling evidence that not only were outsiders present in imperial Germany but also the corollary claim that their political and artistic sentiments made the ruling classes sick. For instance, German artists had moved from impressionism to expressionism well before the foundation of the Republic—Kadinsky wrote Uber das Geistige in der Kunst in 1910—as had German composers from the brooding romanticism of Brahms and Bruch to varying degrees of atonalism and serialism—Schoenberg completed the twelve-tone system in 1912. In 1908 the Emperor dismissed Hugo von Tschudi, the director of the National Gallery in Berlin, for having subversive modernist tastes; similarly, Richard Strauss’s Der Rosenkavalier, while musically still in the style of late romanticism, portrays the Baron as a dumb ox, which prompted the Empress to prevent its opening in Berlin.
The subsequent chapters follow a similar argumentative format. Each chapter consists of a simple enumeration of evidence for the thesis. With each chapter focusing on a different aspect of Weimar culture, the result is a sweeping account of the rise of outsiders whose influence as insiders is virtually undeniable. For instance, in a number of chapters Gay discusses Walter Gropius and the significance of the Bauhaus. Chapter three sketches the innovations and influence of poets and novelists, such as Stefan George, Rainer Rilke, and Thomas Mann. Gay adeptly reveals the importance of cinema and its relation to artists; hence, Gay reveals the impact that the 1920 film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and the three expressionist painters—Warm, Rohrig, and Reimann-- who designed the sets, had in the Republic and particularly in Berlin. In chapter six, Gay demonstrates the flourishing of modernist composers, such as Alban Berg and Paul Hindemith, and those conductors with whom they collaborated, such as Erich Kleiber and Wilhelm Furtwanger, who could finally raise their batons in full musical license. While not pretending to give a rigorous analysis of theoretical developments in philosophy, literary criticism, and history, Gay does discuss the cultural and political impact that arose from Ernst Cassier’s interpretations of Kant, Martin Heidegger’s magnum opus of ontology, Sein und Zeit, and Leopold von Ranke’s ideological historiography.
Gay succeeds in giving a cogent argument for his thesis—it is, indeed, the case that in the Weimar Republic outsiders rose to an unprecedented level of prominence within the Weimar Republic. This success, nevertheless, has some difficulties. Gay’s project is opaque at times, for a number of reasons. First, Gay frequently inserts rhetorical flourishes that, instead of motivating the argument for his thesis, merely serve to misdirect the reader’s focus. For instance, it is one thing to demonstrate the developed, modernist creative culture of Weimar, quite another thing to merely assert that “ the Weimar Republic was a breathless era of cultural flowering that drew the world’s attention….” Phrases likes this occur throughout the text and leave one with the impression that perhaps Gay is tacitly arguing for something more; namely, that Weimar culture is unique in the history of the twentieth century. Suppose Gay intends this. Such an argument seems prima facie false. The Weimar Republic certainly can boast a significant number of impressive individuals, such as Gropius, Schoenberg, and Heidegger, as well as influential movements, such as logical positivism, serialism, and expressionism. But having a number of influential persons and movements seems to be a general feature of a number of European states at this time, such as France, where there were a number of important composers, philosophers, and writers; and Russia, which also had a number of important writers and an extraordinary group of modernist composers that included Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Mosolov, and Shostakovich.
Another difficulty with Gay’s project is that his thesis argument is not the most interesting aspect of the book. Far more interesting are Gay’s chapter-by-chapter psychoanalytic speculations about the cultural mindset and spirit of the Republic itself. This is most palpable in specific discussions. For example, Gay attempts to explain why various intellectuals engaged in ‘revivalism’ in which scholarly research erupted in Holderlien and Kleist studies. Gay refers to this need for revivalism as a German “hunger for wholeness.” Or when, for instance, Gay attempts to psychoanalyze why the ‘community of reason’- –the various intellectual institutions—were often divided amongst themselves, yet united in the pursuit of modernism. Lastly, Gay gives a psychoanalytic explanation for the German artists, philosophers, and psychologists’ love affair with poetry during the Weimar period. While Gay’s psychoanalytic musings are more interesting than the historical thesis, they are hardly as demonstrative. For this reason, Gay’s book lacks rigor and often results in shallow explanations and claims. For instance, without any citations, Gay makes the following claim:
"What Gropius taught, and what most Germans did not want to learn, was the lesson of Bacon, Descartes, and the Enlightenment: that one must confront the world and dominate it, that the cures for the ills of modernity is more, and the right kind of modernity."
Anyone who has seriously studied the philosophies of Bacon, Descartes, and the Enlightenment, recognizes this, at best, to be sophomoric, if not simply false. In Gay’s defense, however, he never claims that his book is a rigorous, exhaustive account. Had it been as such, much of the charm that this book possesses would be lost. In short, though, Gay makes a convincing case for his historical thesis, but his account is often confused by irrelevant rhetoric about the greatness of the culture of the Weimar Republic, and by speculative psychoanalytic explanations.
Gay states his thesis to be the following: In the Weimar Republic outsiders became insiders. Now, allow me a bit of pedantry for the moment. His key terms, while not defined precisely, are understood to apply broadly as follows: “Outsider” denotes a kind whose members are typically marginalized due to their perceived identity by the imperial elites (e.g., the Emperor, university professors, artistic directors, and the like). These outsiders can be identified politically, ethnically, and artistically; thus, for example, the democrat, the Jew, and the avant-garde artist are outsiders, respectively. A person, furthermore, is not delimited to just one kind—one might be a Jewish democrat who supports modernist trends in literature and music. The constitutive feature of an outsider thus is a relative identity condition. “Insider” denotes a kind whose members have relatively significant cultural influence due to their respective positions of authority and power—“decision-makers” as Gay calls them; e.g., curators of museums and galleries, directors of orchestras and theatres, chairs of private centers of scholarship. While not explicitly stated, Gay treats the membership between outsiders and insiders in the Weimar Republic as a one-way relationship—outsiders may become insiders but not conversely.
According to Gay, his thesis—that outsiders became insiders-- implies the claim that these outsiders had already been active in the late Empire. As Gay sees it, this claim is a necessary condition for the plausibility of his thesis statement. Gay’s thesis, then, is really the following conditional statement:
(T) If in the Weimar Republic outsiders became insiders, then these outsiders had already been active in the late Empire.
Gay argues for this claim throughout the book. Chapter one, however, is particularly devoted to establishing the consequent. In this chapter, Gay provides compelling evidence that not only were outsiders present in imperial Germany but also the corollary claim that their political and artistic sentiments made the ruling classes sick. For instance, German artists had moved from impressionism to expressionism well before the foundation of the Republic—Kadinsky wrote Uber das Geistige in der Kunst in 1910—as had German composers from the brooding romanticism of Brahms and Bruch to varying degrees of atonalism and serialism—Schoenberg completed the twelve-tone system in 1912. In 1908 the Emperor dismissed Hugo von Tschudi, the director of the National Gallery in Berlin, for having subversive modernist tastes; similarly, Richard Strauss’s Der Rosenkavalier, while musically still in the style of late romanticism, portrays the Baron as a dumb ox, which prompted the Empress to prevent its opening in Berlin.
The subsequent chapters follow a similar argumentative format. Each chapter consists of a simple enumeration of evidence for the thesis. With each chapter focusing on a different aspect of Weimar culture, the result is a sweeping account of the rise of outsiders whose influence as insiders is virtually undeniable. For instance, in a number of chapters Gay discusses Walter Gropius and the significance of the Bauhaus. Chapter three sketches the innovations and influence of poets and novelists, such as Stefan George, Rainer Rilke, and Thomas Mann. Gay adeptly reveals the importance of cinema and its relation to artists; hence, Gay reveals the impact that the 1920 film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and the three expressionist painters—Warm, Rohrig, and Reimann-- who designed the sets, had in the Republic and particularly in Berlin. In chapter six, Gay demonstrates the flourishing of modernist composers, such as Alban Berg and Paul Hindemith, and those conductors with whom they collaborated, such as Erich Kleiber and Wilhelm Furtwanger, who could finally raise their batons in full musical license. While not pretending to give a rigorous analysis of theoretical developments in philosophy, literary criticism, and history, Gay does discuss the cultural and political impact that arose from Ernst Cassier’s interpretations of Kant, Martin Heidegger’s magnum opus of ontology, Sein und Zeit, and Leopold von Ranke’s ideological historiography.
Gay succeeds in giving a cogent argument for his thesis—it is, indeed, the case that in the Weimar Republic outsiders rose to an unprecedented level of prominence within the Weimar Republic. This success, nevertheless, has some difficulties. Gay’s project is opaque at times, for a number of reasons. First, Gay frequently inserts rhetorical flourishes that, instead of motivating the argument for his thesis, merely serve to misdirect the reader’s focus. For instance, it is one thing to demonstrate the developed, modernist creative culture of Weimar, quite another thing to merely assert that “ the Weimar Republic was a breathless era of cultural flowering that drew the world’s attention….” Phrases likes this occur throughout the text and leave one with the impression that perhaps Gay is tacitly arguing for something more; namely, that Weimar culture is unique in the history of the twentieth century. Suppose Gay intends this. Such an argument seems prima facie false. The Weimar Republic certainly can boast a significant number of impressive individuals, such as Gropius, Schoenberg, and Heidegger, as well as influential movements, such as logical positivism, serialism, and expressionism. But having a number of influential persons and movements seems to be a general feature of a number of European states at this time, such as France, where there were a number of important composers, philosophers, and writers; and Russia, which also had a number of important writers and an extraordinary group of modernist composers that included Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Mosolov, and Shostakovich.
Another difficulty with Gay’s project is that his thesis argument is not the most interesting aspect of the book. Far more interesting are Gay’s chapter-by-chapter psychoanalytic speculations about the cultural mindset and spirit of the Republic itself. This is most palpable in specific discussions. For example, Gay attempts to explain why various intellectuals engaged in ‘revivalism’ in which scholarly research erupted in Holderlien and Kleist studies. Gay refers to this need for revivalism as a German “hunger for wholeness.” Or when, for instance, Gay attempts to psychoanalyze why the ‘community of reason’- –the various intellectual institutions—were often divided amongst themselves, yet united in the pursuit of modernism. Lastly, Gay gives a psychoanalytic explanation for the German artists, philosophers, and psychologists’ love affair with poetry during the Weimar period. While Gay’s psychoanalytic musings are more interesting than the historical thesis, they are hardly as demonstrative. For this reason, Gay’s book lacks rigor and often results in shallow explanations and claims. For instance, without any citations, Gay makes the following claim:
"What Gropius taught, and what most Germans did not want to learn, was the lesson of Bacon, Descartes, and the Enlightenment: that one must confront the world and dominate it, that the cures for the ills of modernity is more, and the right kind of modernity."
Anyone who has seriously studied the philosophies of Bacon, Descartes, and the Enlightenment, recognizes this, at best, to be sophomoric, if not simply false. In Gay’s defense, however, he never claims that his book is a rigorous, exhaustive account. Had it been as such, much of the charm that this book possesses would be lost. In short, though, Gay makes a convincing case for his historical thesis, but his account is often confused by irrelevant rhetoric about the greatness of the culture of the Weimar Republic, and by speculative psychoanalytic explanations.
hilaritas's review against another edition
3.0
This is a decent if arbitrary history of Weimar Germany. Gay clearly wrote it as a passion project, and it's littered with interesting observations of the root causes of the political and cultural turmoil that characterized the brief period, along with plenty of hot takes on figures of both enduring popularity (Gay really doesn't like Fritz Lang), and more obscure (he's got Thoughts on how well certain ladies' magazines were edited back in the day). Even driven by Gay's enthusiasms, it's a bit of a slog at times, as long portions of the book consist of lists of the cultural figures prominent in the Weimar milieu; some of these are still well-known, and other names meant little to me. Gay rarely stops to explain who these people are. This is definitely not a book for someone totally unfamiliar with the period. Even his appendix summarizing the political history of Weimar presupposes a great deal of existing knowledge from the reader. If you come to it with some passing familiarity with the subject, there are some gems to be gleaned here.