Sachlichkeit is deadly for the essence of art. Functions of the debate about Nieuwe Zakelijkheid in the Dutch literary field of the 1920s and 1930s from a field theoretical perspective

1925年在曼海姆举办展览后，Neue Sachlichkeit迅速从绘画传播到其他艺术形式，如文学、建筑、音乐和摄影，但也传播到其他国家。正如Nieuwe Zakelijkheid直译的那样，荷兰在这些动态中表现突出。然而，文学史学家对这种文体概念(穆勒-塞德尔：如果它是一种)的意思在德国和荷兰仍然不清楚，除了其他因素外，与它相关的作者和文本的意识形态和诗学上的异质性，以及事实证明许多学者被它同时代对手的规范所偏见。在此背景下，通过分析Nieuwe Zakelijheid作为定位战略(Sensu Bourdieu)的概念，提出了一种创新的方法。这种方法在不同的试点研究中经过测试(见Grüttemeier，Beekman&Rebel 2013)后，应系统地应用于本项目中描述良好的荷兰案例。更具体地说，它将集中于这一概念和Nieuwe Zakelijkheid概念在20世纪20年代和30年代荷兰文坛上争夺地位的斗争中的作用。尤其是Delpher-Tool(KB Den Haag)将被用于分析，因为它的目标是为大量的荷兰报纸提供全文在线搜索，而且数量仍在不断增加。这一术语和概念在新闻文学和艺术辩论中的用法和功能应加以分析，并与公认的最有影响力的批评家(其中包括布拉克、马斯曼和范·弗里斯兰)和《扎克利赫德》的作者(其中包括拉斯特、雷维斯、斯特罗曼和瓦格纳，但也包括波尔德维克和库伊尔)的著名观点相联系。中心假设是，对Nieuwe Zakelijkheid的负面判断，它很快在文学领域(但也在其他艺术领域)占据主导地位，可以用文学领域在不久前才变得相对自治的事实来解释(参看。Dorleijn/van Rees，2006年)。上述试点研究(Grüttemeier，Beekman&Rebel 2013)为这一假设提供了证据：根据文学领域的主要参与者的说法，Nieuwe Zakelijkheid似乎反对日益自主化的趋势，尤其是因为它接近新闻、纪录片写作和时尚等。因此，Nieuwe Zakelijkheid可能已经成为文学领域自主化倡导者的主要目标。拟议项目取得的系统成果将在第三年与来自德国的同事举行的一次国际会议上讨论，以反映这些成果在国际视角中的相关性。

After its launch with an exhibition in Mannheim in 1925, Neue Sachlichkeit spread quickly from painting to other art forms such as literature, architecture, music and photography, but also to other countries. The Netherlands were prominent in these dynamics, as the literal translation Nieuwe Zakelijkheid indicates. However, what literary historians mean with this stylistic notion (Müller-Seidel: if it is one) is still not clear in both Germany and the Netherlands, due among other things to the ideological and poetic heterogeneity of the authors and texts that were generally related to it and the fact that many scholars turned out to be biased by the norms of its contemporary opponents. Against this background, an innovative approach is suggested here by analysing the notion of Nieuwe Zakelijheid as a positioning strategy (sensu Bourdieu). This approach, after having been tested in different pilot-studies (see Grüttemeier, Beekman & Rebel 2013), shall be systematically applied to the well delineated Dutch case in this project. More specifically, it will focus on the functions of the notion and the concept Nieuwe Zakelijkheid in the fight for positions in the 1920s and 30s in the literary field of the Netherlands. Especially the Delpher-tool (KB Den Haag) will be used for the analysis, since it aims at offering a significant and still growing number of Dutch newspapers for a full-text-online search. The uses and functions of the term and the concept Nieuwe Zakelijkheid in journalistic literature- and arts-debates shall be analysed and related to the well-known views of the supposedly most influential critics (among others ter Braak, Marsman and van Vriesland) and authors of the Nieuwe Zakelijkheid (among others Last, Revis, Stroman and Wagener, but also Bordewijk and Kuyle). The central assumption is that the negative judgement on the Nieuwe Zakelijkheid, which quickly became dominant in the realm of literature (but also in other arts), can be explained by the fact that the literary field had grown relatively autonomous only shortly before (cf. Dorleijn/van Rees 2006). The pilot-studies mentioned above (Grüttemeier, Beekman & Rebel 2013) gave evidence for this assumption: according to central actors in the literary field, the Nieuwe Zakelijkheid seemed to oppose tendencies towards growing autonomization, among other things by its closeness to journalism, to documentary writing, to fashion etc. Therefore Nieuwe Zakelijkheid might have become the prime target for the advocates of the autonomization of the literary field. The systematic results gained in the proposed project will be discussed in its third year in an international conference with colleagues from Germanistik, in order to reflect the relevance of the results in international perspective.