Allkins 1 Alisa Allkins Wayne State University William Carlos Williams
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Allkins 1 Alisa Allkins Wayne State University William Carlos Williams and the Femininity of Destruction In his Autobiography, William Carlos Williams dedicates a brief chapter to the Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. In the chapter “The Baroness,” amidst his larger narrative, Williams describes how he came in contact with the New York Dada artist. His description of her vacillates between respectful and denigrating—he identifies her as “a protégé of Michel Duchamp” (Autobiography 165), “a woman who had been perhaps beautiful” (Autobiography 164). He describes a scene wherein “she had an intimate talk with me and advised me that what I needed to make me great was to contract syphilis from her and so free my mind for serious art” (Autobiography 165). Toward the end of the chapter, he juxtaposes her intellectual capacity with her apparent penchant for violence, writing, “We talked well and I was moved. But when later she went into her act, I put up a fight” (Autobiography 168). He describes how her violence toward him ended with his purchase of a punching bag to prepare for their next meeting, and a square punch to the Baroness‟s jaw on Park Avenue. While autobiographies should certainly be approached skeptically, Williams‟s discussion of the Baroness in his Autobiography is a helpful starting point to explore the fascination that Williams had with her, particularly the combination of overt sexuality and violence. While the autobiography seems to have an overall negative attitude toward the Baroness, the relationship between the Baroness and Williams produced fruitful discussions and artistic productions when Williams was in contact with the Baroness and directly after, during the period following World War I. The critique of Williams‟s Kora in Hell, written by the Baroness and published in part in The Little Review, precedes (and seems to inform) Williams‟s seminal poetry/prose hybrid work Allkins 2 Spring and All. Furthermore, the Baroness serves as an exemplary figure of bold feminine sexuality in Williams‟s reconstruction of American history in In the American Grain. The concept of “creative destruction,” which I argue is central to Williams‟s modernist project in Spring and All, can be tied to an investment in destructive sexuality which emerges from Williams‟s conflicted relationship with the Baroness. In this way, Williams‟s relationship with the Baroness can be seen as a central shaping force in his theorization of feminine destruction and poetic renewal which penetrates his major hybrid works, from Spring and All to Paterson. The Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven is an often-forgotten yet central figure in the New York Dada movement. The editor of The Little Review Jane Heap famously wrote that the Baroness “„is the only one living anywhere who dresses dada, loves dada, lives dada‟”(Jones 5). Tales of her public performances in the streets of New York became legend through the works of many modernist artists, including William Carlos Williams. While recent criticism by Amelia Jones in Irrational Modernism and Irene Gammel in Baroness Elsa: Gender, Dada, and Everyday Modernity—A Cultural Biography have brought the Baroness into the discussion of 20th century modernism and the avant-garde, particularly through the Baroness‟s performance artworks, their works have stopped short of examining the Baroness beyond her significance as a cultural studies figure. The recent publication of a collected works by the Baroness, edited by Irene Gammel and Suzanne Zelazo, entitled Body Sweats has made available a large body of the Baroness‟s poetry, photography (with her as the subject) and reproductions of her ready-mades, allowing for a further examination of the Baroness‟s work beyond her legendary status as a “living Dada” subject. It is from this collection of works that I draw the entirety of her prose/poetry hybrid work “Thee I Call „Hamlet of Wedding-Ring‟: A Critique of „Kora in Hell‟ and Why…”, a lengthy Allkins 3 work that was published in part in The Little Review. The poem, written in 1921, is a pointed critique of the American literary tradition, both through its content and its experimental approach to poetry. It is a significant departure for the Baroness, as many of her poems are in her particular Dadaist style. She writes in diverse forms, producing column poems, sound poems, parodies of logic, poetry/painting hybrids, and other innovative poetic forms. While “Thee I Call „Hamlet of Wedding-Ring‟” participates in such a critique of logic and traditional forms of poetry, the Baroness also lucidly attacks Williams for his seeming lack of direction or respect for words in his experimental work Kora in Hell. The Baroness‟s poem is chaotic and at times difficult to understand, fluctuating between a critique of the American tradition and Williams‟s writing, and conflating this issues at times. This conflation is most evident toward the beginning of the poem, when she invokes the recent World War to critique Williams‟s lack of clarity in his writing. She writes, “Quiet child of brain—logic: European war./Moral strength of scientist—surgeon—physician of degree. Vision./Brutality: child of denseness—inability to feel, think clean—lack/of vision—vulgar blood-fogged brain—run amuck!” (von Freytag-Loringhoven 293). The Baroness is critiquing logic here, more particularly a critique of enlightenment, as the “child of brain” is the European war, which annihilated much of Europe. She juxtaposes this with Williams—although she doesn‟t use his name, she creates associations between the scientist who created the technology, to the surgeon (perhaps on the battlefield), to Williams, a “physician of degree.” It is Williams who has a lack of vision, whose “blood-fogged brain” runs “amuck.” Although the Baroness has not invoked Williams yet (she will later in the poem, using the scatological “W.C.” to stand in for Williams), she has already drawn connections between Williams and the U.S., most Allkins 4 particularly the traditional structures that are simultaneously non-existent and threatening the American ability to create art. The Baroness‟s work goes on to critique the lack of tradition in American writing, and by extension the lack of significance or meaning in Williams‟s works. She writes, Americans not possessing tradition—not born within truth‟s lofty echoing walls—born on void—background of barren nothingness—handle such truth‟s coin—picked up— flippantly! (von Freytag-Loringhoven 294) The Baroness argues that Williams is attempting to stand on a foundation of artistic production that does not exist, that has either never existed or no longer exists because of the recent World War (or, as the Baroness is one to be ambiguous, both). She maps this critique of American tradition onto a pointed argument about his writing—she claims that Williams‟s words have no meaning, and therefore accomplish nothing. She writes, No rhythm—curves—science—conviction—background— tradition! Where your circus? Where do you stand? What do your words mean? Never to point—what point? Allkins 5 There is none—carry no meaning—aimed at blank!” (von Freytag-Loringhoven 295) Although the Baroness is playing a bit in this poem (after all, she claims that there is no tradition for Williams to stand on, and then critiques him for not standing upon it), she is also engaging in a serious critique of Kora in Hell. The sparseness and ambiguity of her poetry make it difficult to comprehend her meaning, but throughout the poem she interrogates Williams‟s lack of substance and authenticity throughout his work. Even as the Baroness‟s Dadaist poetry and artworks exist to evoke emotion instead of meaning, she pushes Williams to say something meaningful within his art. Later, she clarifies this critique of Williams and of the failure of American literature, and transitions to a claim about the productivity of creating in such a failed environment. She writes, “Around us result of family cave: encased legs—brains—in faulty/foundation‟s debris: America./W.C.‟s “art” faulty foundation—crumbling walls” (von Freytag-Loringhoven 300). The foundation of America, she claims, has made brains and legs immobile, and Williams is caught in this trap. However, according to the Baroness, it seems that there is an opportunity for escape—through the crumbling of this “faulty foundation”, a destruction which will set him free from the ideal of “tradition” and allow for the creation of better, new art. Shortly thereafter, the Baroness evokes yet another scene of creative destruction— through the seasons. She writes, “Winter: summer‟s logical successor—killer by necessity— for/advancement—new bloom./Nature sits in nature‟s lap: one two—two one—action—contra— /action—clash—new life” (von Freytag-Loringhoven 301). Through this passage, it appears that the Baroness does not look negatively upon destruction—instead, it is through this idea of Allkins 6 renewal through destruction that allows for artistic production. By evoking a cyclical system (the seasons), the Baroness advocates for an embracing of violence as a generative process. The emphasis on violence is especially important, as the winter does not only “naturally” follow summer, but the tension between “action” and “contra-action” creates a violent “crash” from which emerges “new life.” Similarly, the often-violent relationship between the Baroness and Williams bears fruit, as it facilitates the creation of her poetry/prose work, and perhaps stimulates Williams to create his own. It is the lines about winter‟s destructive force that most explicitly connects the Baroness‟s critique of Williams in her lengthy poem to Williams‟s own hybrid work published two years later. Spring and All, appearing as a poetry/prose hybrid work in 1923, embraces this concept of creative destruction that the Baroness advocates in her poem.