¹ Avenarius, Ferdinand, “Vor Weihnachten,” Der Kunstwart, 16, no. 5 (12 1, 1902): 287.Google Scholar

² Repp, Kevin, Reformers, Critics, and the Paths of German Modernity. Anti-Politics and the Search for Alternatives, 1890–1914 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ See, for example, Barkin, Kenneth D., The Controversy over German industrialization, 1890–1902 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 131–85.Google Scholar

⁴ See Nordau, Max, Degeneration (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1993).Google Scholar Another example is Sombart, Werner, Luxury and Capitalism (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1967).Google Scholar A fuller examination of this discursive tradition can be found in Breckman, Warren G., “Disciplining Consumption: The Debate About Luxury in Wilhelmine Germany,” Journal of Social History, 24 (1991): 485–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Campbell, Colin, The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987).Google Scholar

⁶ The best account of consumerism as self-expression is Douglas, Mary and Isherwood, Baron, The World of Goods. Towards an Anthropology of Consumption, rev. ed. (London and New York: Routledge, 1996).Google Scholar Campbell's discussion of dandyism is enlightening in this respect.

⁷ Taylor, Charles, Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modem Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 368–90Google Scholar and Taylor, Charles, Hegel and Modern Society (Cambridge, MA and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 1–14.Google Scholar

⁸ Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Dritter Band, 1849–1914 (Munich: Beck, 1995), 595–99.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid., 612.

¹⁰ Simmel, Georg, Philosophy of Money (London and New York: Routledge, 1990), 76.Google Scholar

¹¹ On the modernization of retailing, see Spiekermann, Uwe, Basis der Konsumgesellschaft. Entstehung und Entwicklung des modernen Kleinhandels in Deutschland 1850–1914 (Munich: Beck, 1999)Google Scholar, as well as Spiekermann, Uwe, “Display Windows and Window Displays in German Cities of the Nineteenth Century: Towards the History of a Commercial Breakthrough,” in Advertising and the European City. Historical Perspectives, ed. Wischermann, Clemens and Shore, Elliott (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000)Google Scholar and Gellately, Robert, The Politics of Economic Despair: Shopkeepers and German Politics, 1890–1914 (London and Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, 1974).Google Scholar On the aesthetics of shopping, see Schwarz, Jürgen, Architektur und Kommerz. Studien zur deutschen Kauf- und Warenhausarchitektur vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg am Beispiel der Frankfurter Zeil (Frankfurt a.M.: Kunstgeschichtliches Institute der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, 1995)Google Scholar; Frei, Helmut, Tempel der Kauflust. Eine Geschichte der Warenhauskultur (Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 1997)Google Scholar; and Creutz, Max, Olbrich, Joseph M.. Das Warenhaus Tietz in Düsseldorf (Benin: E. Wasmuth, 1909).Google Scholar For more general accounts, see Sennett, Richard, Flesh and Stone. The Body and the City in Western Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton, 1994)Google Scholar; Sennett, Richard, The Fall of Public Man (New York: Knopf, 1976), 141–49Google Scholar; Miller, Michael B., The Bon Marché. Bourgeois Culture and the Department Store, 1869–1920 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; and Bowlby, Rachel, Just Looking: Consumer Culture in Dreiser, Gissing, and Zola (New York: Methuen, 1985).Google Scholar

¹² Wernicke, Johannes, Warenhaus, Industrie und Mittelstand (Berlin: E. Ebering, 1911), 16–21, 26Google Scholar; Wiener, Alfred, Das Warenhaus. Kauf-, Geschäfts-, Büro-Haus (Berlin: E. Wasmuth, 1912), 16–19Google Scholar; Colze, Leo, Berliner Warenhäuser (Berlin: Fanneit Walz, 1908, 1989), 17Google Scholar; and Sennett, , The Fall of Public Man, 141–49.Google Scholar

¹³ Baudelaire, Charles, “The Painter of Modern Life,” in The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays, trans, and ed. Mayne, Jonathan (London: Phaidon, 1964), 9.Google Scholar See also the analyses offered in Tester, Keith, ed., The Flâneur (London and New York: Routledge, 1994)Google Scholar, particularly the articles by Rob Shields and Zygmunt Baumann.

¹⁴ “Schaufenster-Revue über Spielwaren,” Deutsche Spielwaren-Zeitung, no. 25 (December 1, 1913): 9.

¹⁵ See, for example, Campbell, Joan, The German Werkbund. The Politics of Reform in the Applied Arts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Schwartz, Frederic, The Werkbund. Design Theory and Mass Culture before the First World War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; and Repp, Reformers, Critics. For elaboration, see Die Veredelung der gewerblichen Arbeit im Zusammenwirken von Kunst, Industrie, und Handwerk. Verhandlung des Deutschen Werkbundes zu München am 11. und 12.Juli 1908 (Leipzig: n.p., 1908), as well as Jahrbuch des deutschen Werkbundes 1912 (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1912). Consider as well, Waentig, Heinrich, Wirtschaft und Kunst. Eine Untersuchung über Geschichte und Theorie der Modernen Kunstgewerbebewegung (Jena: G. Fischer, 1909)Google Scholar; Sombart, Werner, Kunstgewerbe und Kultur (Berlin: Marquardt, 1908).Google Scholar A broad overview can be found in Hepp, Corona, Avantgarde: Moderne Kunst, Kulturkritik und Reformbewegungen nach der Jahrhundertwende (Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1987).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Friedrich Naumann, Neudeutsche Wirtschaftspolitik (Berlin-Schöneberg: Buchverlag der “Hilfe,” 1906)Google Scholar; idem, “Werkbund und Handel,” in Jahrbuch des deutschen Werkbundes 1913 (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1913); Jessen, Peter, “Der Werkbund und die Grossmächte der deutschen Arbeit,” Jahrbuch des deutschen Werkbundes 1912 (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1912)Google Scholar; and Heuß, Theodor, Friedrich Naumann. Der Mann, das Werk, die Zeit (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1937).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Muthesius, Hermann, “Die Bedeutung des Kunstgewerbes,” Dekorative Kunst (02 1907): 182–83.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Muthesius, Hermann, “Wo stehen wir?,” Jahrbuch des deutschen Werkbundes 1912 (Jena: E. Diedenchs, 1912), 19.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For an excellent analysis of Riegel's influence, see Schwartz, Frederic, The Werkbund, 67–71, 21–24.Google Scholar A quite limited review of articles featuring such a linkage would include Julius Lessing, “Neue Wege,” in Kunstgewerbeblatt (Leipzig: G.A. Seemann, 1895), 1–5Google Scholar; Fuchs, Carl Johannes, “Volkskunst und Volkswirtschaft,” in Kunstgewerbeblatt (Leipzig: G.A. Seemann, 1907), 19–21Google Scholar; Jaumann, Anton, “Kunst-Politik,” in Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration (Darmstadt, 1904), 23–32Google Scholar; von Hofmann, Adolf, “Stil und Mode,” Der Kunstwart 24, no. 8 (01 1911): 146–50.Google Scholar

²⁰ Schwartz, Frederic, The Werkbund, 22.Google Scholar

²¹ See Kratzsch, Gerhard, Kunstwart und Dürerbund. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Gebildeten im Zeitalter des Imperialismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969)Google Scholar; also Jenkins, Jennifer, “The Kitsch Collections and The Spirit in the Furniture: Cultural Reform and National Culture in Germany,” Social History 21, no. 2 (05 1996): 123–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Repp, , Reformers, Critics, 275–77.Google Scholar It is interesting to note that Kratzsch's discussion of Avenarius and consumer products tends to focus on the social misery and cultural ill-effects of capitalist production. A fascinating contrast is provided by examining another reforming cultural entrepreneur, Alexander Koch. See Randa, Sigrid, Alexander Koch. Publizist und Verleger in Darmstadt. Reformen der Kunst und des Lebens um 1900 (Worms: Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1990).Google Scholar

²² Avenanus, Ferdinand, “Unser Bedürfnis nach ästhetischer Kultur,” Der Kunstwart 19, no. 14 (04 1906): 53Google Scholar. I have translated “Menschheit” as “individuality” because “humanity” has potential implications of collectivity that Avenarius did not intend. Avenarius goes on to link explicitly the “harmonious individuality” with Schiller's work.

²³ Avenarius, “Unser Bedürfnis,” Der Kunstwart 19 (1906): 56–57.

²⁴ Schorske, Carl E., Fin-de-Siècle Vienna. Politics and Culture (New York: Knopf, 1981).Google Scholar See also Stern, Fritz, The Politics of Cultural Despair. A Study of the Rise of the Germanic Ideology (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1961).Google Scholar

²⁵ Avenarius, “Vor Weihnachten,” in Der Kunstwart 16 (1902): 287.

²⁶ Avenarius, “Dresdener Spielzeug,” in Der Kunstwart 16 (1903): 666.

²⁷ Rosenhaupt, Karl, Die Nürnberger-Fürther Metallspielwarenindustrie in geshichtlicher und sozialpolitischer Beleuchtung (Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta, 1907), 60Google Scholar; Estelmann, Georg, Die Nürnberger Spielwaren-Herstellung von den Ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart (Unpublished Ph.D. diss. for Universität Frankfurt a.M., 1923), 117.Google Scholar Stadt Archiv Nürnberg Av6463.4.

²⁸ Dressel, Hans, Die Entwicklung von Handel und Industrie in Sonneberg (Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1908), 98.Google Scholar

²⁹ Naumann, Neudeutsche Wirtschaftspolitik, 18–19. For a discussion of the relative strengths of the branches of the German toy industry, see Hamlin, David, “Flexible Specialization and the German Toy Industry,” Social History 29, no. 1 (01 2004): 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ See, for example, Avenarius, , “Gegen die ‘Kunst im Leben des Kindes,’” Der Kunstwart 20 (1906): 303Google Scholar and Avenarius, , “Gegen den Phantasiemord durch Spielzeug,” Der Kunstwart 23 (1909): 450–51.Google Scholar See also Lux, Jospeh, “Vom Spielzeug,” Der Kunstwart 21 (1907): 424–25.Google Scholar There were similar sentiments expressed in comparable periodicals, such as Dekorative Kunst and Kind und Kunst.

³¹ Avenarius, , “Spielzeug,” Der Kunstwart 19 (1905): 303–4.Google Scholar

³² Ibid., 304.

³³ For an exploration of this distrust, see Jay, Martin, Downcast Eyes. The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993), 106–10.Google Scholar

³⁴ For a discussion of the demoralizing impact of this orthodoxy and the strenuous efforts made by German thinkers to maintain the possibility of genuine individual freedom in the face of Enlightenment determinism, see Vopa, Anthony La, Fichte. The Self and the Calling of Philosophy, 1762–1799 (Cambridge, MA and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).Google Scholar Given his subject, La Vopa naturally emphasizes the allure of the moral autonomy posited by Immanuel Kant, but clearly the creative possibilities of the human imagination likewise exerted a strong attraction. For a discussion of sensationalist psychology and its roots in the thought of John Locke, see Cassirer, Ernst, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, trans, by Koelln, Fritz C.A. and Pettegrove, James P. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1951).Google Scholar

³⁵ Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, quoted in Jay, Downcast Eyes, 83.

³⁶ Richter, Jean Paul, Levana, or the Doctrine of Education (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1863), 83.Google Scholar

³⁷ Well-established for Avenarius. He received a classical humanist education and expressed particular affection for Schiller, as well as the inevitable Goethe. In 1905, he devoted an issue of Der Kunstwart to the work of Schiller on the centennial of Schiller's early death. See Kratzsch, Kunstwart und Dürerbund, 63–75, 87.

³⁸ Simmel, Georg, “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” in Classic Essays on the Culture of Cities, ed. Sennett, Richard (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969).Google Scholar

³⁹ Schwartz, Frederic, The Werkbund, 62–66.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Simmel, Georg, “Das Problem des Stiles,” Dekorative Kunst 11, no. 7 (1908): 313–14.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Mark Jarzombek refers to the influence which Schiller and his aesthetic education thesis exerted on the ideology of the Kunstgewerbereformbewegung and the Werkbund; “… it was also around this time [1905] that the Kunstgewerbe first began to reflect a sense of confidence in the possibility that Schillerian ideals of an enlightened society could be transcribed onto twentieth century industrialized modernity” in Jarzombek, Mark, “The Discourses of a Bourgeois Utopia, 1904–1908, and the Founding of the Werkbund,” in Imagining Modern German Culture, 1889–1910, ed. Forster-Hahn, Françoise (Washington, DC and Hanover, NH: National Gallery of Art; Distributed by the University Press of New England, 1996), 127–45.Google Scholar

⁴² Simmel, “Das Problem des Stiles,” 314.

⁴³ See Leek, Ralph Mathew, Georg Simmel and the Soul of German Culture, Geist-Politik: Fin-de-Siècle to the Great War (Ann Arbor, MI), 1995, 61–65.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Simmel, Philosophy of Money, 71.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 73.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 257.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 460. The exact same formulation may be found in “Persönliche und sachliche Kultur,” Neue Deutsche Rundschau 11 (1900): 708.

⁴⁸ Simmel emphasized the multiplicity of objects and styles in “Persönliche und sachliche Kultur,” 710. He emphasized the multitude of sensory inputs in “The Metropolis and Mental Life.”

⁴⁹ Simmel, “Persönliche und sachliche Kultur,” 708.

⁵⁰ Lange, Konrad, Die künstlerische Erziehung der deutschen Jugend (Darmstadt: A. Bergstraesser, 1893), 21.Google Scholar Alfred Lichtwark shared a very similar position, arguing that one could “form the whole human through art.” See Beckers, Edgar, Das Beispiel Alfred Lichtwark: Eine Studie zum Selbstvertändnis der Reformpädagogik (Cologne: Beckers, 1976), 32.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Lange, Künstlerische Erziehung, 26–29.

⁵² Ibid., 31–32.

⁵³ Lange, Konrad, “Ästhetische Bildung,” Enzyklopädisches Handbuch der Pädagogik, Band 1 (Lagensalza: Hermann Beyer & Söhne, 1903), 291–92.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Lange, Konrad, “Kunst und Spiel in ihrer erzieherischen Bedeutung,” Kind und Kunst 1, no. 1 (10 1904): 4–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Simmel, Georg, “The Berlin Trade Exhibition,” Theory, Culture, and Society 8, no. 3 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁶ Habermas, Jürgen, “Georg Simmel on Philosophy and Culture: Postscript to a Collection of Essays,” trans, by Deflem, Mathieu, in Texte und Kontexte (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1991).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Jay, Downcast Eyes, 149–209. See also the analysis of Marx in Ward, Janet, Weimar Surfaces. Urban Visual Culture in 1920s Germany (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001), 191–92.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ A similar exploration of the multiple cultural forms of Wilhelmine Germany can be found in Fritsche, Peter, Reading Berlin 1900 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996).Google Scholar