Jeopardy & Watson

(Deutscher Text im Anschluss!)

On February 16 to 18, NBC aired a three-part special edition of game show Jeopardy!. Two former champions, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, competed with a recently developed computer system.

The episodes can be seen here: part 1, part 2 (part 1 includes the episodes from the first two days, part 2 is the third episode, kindly without commercials).

The system is named after IBM founder Thomas J. Watson. Further involved in this IBM project were teams of Carnegie Mellon University (CMU, Pittsburgh PA), Massachusetts Institue of Technology (MIT, Cambridge MA), University of Southern California Viterbi School of Engineering (USC, Los Angeles CA), University of Texas (Austin TX), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI, Troy NY), University at Albany (Albany NY), University of Trento (Italy) and University of Massachusetts Amherst (Amherst MA).

The "Global Language Monitor" published the following list, showing what was needed to make "Watson" run:

• 90 IBM Power 750 servers
• Each of the 90 IBM Power 750 servers is equipped with eight processors
• A total 2,880 Central Processing Units (CPUs)
• 1 network-attached storage (NAS) cluster
• 21.6TB of data
• 15 full-time technical professionals, as well any number of advisors and consultants
• 5 years of development time
• ’1,000s’ of computer algorithms to run simultaneously
• 1 overlying algorithm to review the results of all the others
• 1 power robotic finger

The article names "a minimum of $100,000,000 funding for personnel, some $25,000,000 in equipment, as well as all the costs associated with cooling, administration, transportation, and the like."

The fight "man vs. machine" has always been popular; we all remember the chess game between IBM's "Deep Blue" computer and chess world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997. But not only is to ask what point is intended to be proven with comparisons like these. It has to be said that already the label "comparison" is misleading because it implicates a match of equal opportunities. But did such a competition really happen here?

Definitely it was not an easy job “Watson” had to do to win Jeopardy!. But the main problem is not (as often said) the idea of this game show that the contestants have to find the question to a given answer. This sounds complicated, but in fact it’s not as bad as all that. In fact, what happens in Jeopardy! is nothing more than a turnaround of a linguistic convention. Not a real question is in search, the contestant simply has to add “Who is…” or “What is…” to his answer. This is contrary to our language habits, but it’s easy to program and nothing a super computer like “Watson” would be needed for.

The problem with Jeopardy! is this: In, say, a chess game, the computer has to check a big number of possible moves to finally pick the most promising one. This is obviously a problem that can be solved by a mathematical algorithm. Computers are specializing in things like that. But in Jeopardy!, the computer first has to analyze a verbal question, which, in addition, sometimes is weird or spiced-up with puns, sometimes associative knowledge is needed. Questions one has to think outside the box to see the direction in which the answer may to be found.

„Watson“, as the game showed, is able to do this, but during the ongoing rounds one could see quite clearly how he does it. The secret seems to be pattern recognition and ­logic operation, and also the good old German saying “high speed is no wizardry” comes to mind. The computer scrutinizes the questions for keywords, their sequence and their combination and then checks what’s in his giant data stock about them. During the show it was visible (by superimposition) that “Watson” usually found more than one possible answer, and he used the maximum statistical likelihood to decide which answer he finally gave. Apparently “Watson” compares the keywords he found in his data stock with the question, so he can see between which of these keywords the most precise intersection shows up – and all this at an unbelievably high speed.

Is there any connection to intelligence now?

Since a while, the AI research differentiates between high-level and low-level AI. While there is no real progression in the first area, “Watson” is a good example to show that the latter is quite useful already. That “Watson” gave some grotesquely wrong answers during the show (for example he relocated Toronto to the U.S.) doesn’t change this – here is simply the GIGO principle at work: garbage in, garbage out.

Up yet, the question “what is intelligence” hasn’t been answered clearly. Also this blog has no reasonable answer to offer. But one thing can be said: Intelligence must include the possibility to make a willful choice, and there must be the chance to use failures or mistakes to narrow the possible solutions down in comparable cases.

„Watson“, quite surely, didn’t meet these criteria. Or would he have been able to decide not to give an answer that statistically he considered to be the correct one? We can take it for granted that this was not possible.

An even harder question is whether a system like this can work in a way that could be called “adaptive”. Up to now we don’t even know how our own brain does the trick to transform experiences into neuronal connections. We know that our brain stores our experiences, but we are still not able to (re-)locate them somewhere inside the brain. Experience becomes part of a self-regulating network, and we can neither tell where the information sits nor in which way it materialized. This is why it’s always again ridiculous when someone says: Our brain is something similar to a computer. It’s not.

So let’s not fool ourselves. “Watson” is related to intelligence as much as a canvas is related to the painting someone creates on it. “Watson” is a number cruncher without self-awareness or any idea about what he’s doing (and why). This is not meant to play down “Watson’s” performance. “Watson” is simply trained to simulate intelligent behavior, and within narrow confines this works quite well. A couple of useful applications are surely on the way now – especially if meaningful answers to verbally formulated questions are wanted. An internet search engine, for example, that won’t drag along simply a big number of more or less matching links after typing in a keyword but really answers questions – that could be a job for “Watson”. It’s easy to find several more possibilities to use such a system in real life – from time table information to analyses of errors to the point of medical diagnostic. And that’s a lot. At least a giant PR coup for IBM.

Vom 16. bis 18. Februar sendete NBC eine dreiteilige Sonderausgabe der Quizshow Jeopardy!, in der zwei frühere Gewinner, Ken Jennings und Brad Rutter, gegen ein neuentwickeltes Computersystem antraten.

Wer die Folgen nicht gesehen hat, hier sind sie:

Teil 1, Teil 2 (Teil 1 umfasst die Folgen vom 16. und 17., Teil 2 die Folge vom 18. Februar, dankenswerterweise werbefrei).

Das Computersystem ist benannt nach dem IBM-Firmengründer Thomas J. Watson. Außer IBM involviert in das Projekt waren Teams der Carnegie Mellon University (CMU, Pittsburgh PA), des Massachusetts Institue of Technology (MIT, Cambridge MA), der University of Southern California Viterbi School of Engineering (USC, Los Angeles CA), der University of Texas (Austin TX), des Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI, Troy NY), der University at Albany (Albany NY), der Universität Trento (Italien) und der University of Massachusetts Amherst (Amherst MA).

Der "Global Language Monitor" veröffentlichte die folgende Liste, die zeigt, was alles benötigt wurde, um "Watson" zum Laufen zu bringen:

• 90 IBM Power-750-Server
• Jeder der 90 IBM Power-750-Server ist mit acht Prozessoren ausgestattet
• Insgesamt 2800 Central Processing Units (CPUs)
• 1 an das Netzwerk angefügter Speichercluster (network-attached storage, NAS)
• 21,6 TB (Terabyte) an Datenbestand
• 15 Vollzeit-Techniker, dazu jede Menge Hilfspersonal und Berater
• 5 Jahre Entwicklungszeit
• Tausende von simultan laufenden Computer-Algorithmen
• 1 übergeordneter Algorithmus, der die Resultate der anderen überwacht
• 1 Robot-Finger

Ferner nennt der Artikel Kosten in Höhe von "mindestens 100.000.000 Dollar für Personal, ungefähr 25.000.000 Dollar für das Equipment, dazu kommen die Kosten, die mit Kühlung, Verwaltung, Transport usw. verbunden sind."

Der Kampf "Mensch gegen Maschine" wurde schon immer gern ausgerufen; man erinnert sich sicherlich noch an das Schachspiel zwischen dem IBM-Computer "Deep Blue" und dem Schachweltmeister Garri Kasparow im Jahr 1997. Aber abgesehen einmal von der grundsätzlichen Frage, was mit solchen Wettbewerben eigentlich unter Beweis gestellt werden soll, führt bereits diese Etikettierung in die Irre. Sie impliziert nämlich einen Wettkampf mit gleichen Mitteln. Hat ein solcher Wettkampf hier aber überhaupt stattgefunden?

Die Aufgabe, die "Watson" in Jeopardy! zu lösen hatte, war nicht einfach. Die Schwierigkeit lag dabei allerdings nicht so sehr in dem immer wieder herausgestellten Prinzip der Spielshow, auf eine vorgegebene Antwort die passende Frage finden zu müssen. Das klingt zwar schwer, ist aber in Wirklichkeit halb so wild. Tatsächlich nämlich steckt dahinter nichts weiter als eine Umkehrung sprachlicher Konvention. Es wird nicht wirklich nach einer Frage gefahndet, sondern es wird einfach nur gefordert, dass der Kandidat "Wer ist..." bzw. "Was ist..." vor seine Antwort hängt. Das widerspricht unseren Sprachgewohnheiten, ist aber leicht zu programmieren und insofern nichts, wofür man einen Supercomputer wie "Watson" benötigen würde.

Schwierig bei Jeopardy! ist etwas anderes: Bei einem Schachspiel etwa muss der Computer eine große Anzahl von Spielzügen durchrechnen und den meistversprechenden Auswählen. Das ist vorrangig ein mathematisches Problem, das mit einem Algorithmus gelöst werden kann. Und darauf sind Computer nun einmal spezialisiert. Bei Jeopardy! dagegen kommt es darauf an, zunächst eine verbale Fragestellung zu analysieren, die noch dazu oft verdreht formuliert oder mit Wortspielen verknüpft ist, oder die assoziatives Wissen erfordert. Fragen also, bei denen man "um die Ecke denken" muss, um überhaupt erkennen zu können, in welcher Richtung sinnvollerweise nach einer Antwort zu suchen ist.

„Watson“, das hat sich gezeigt, kann diese Aufgabe erfüllen; während der Spielrunden wurde aber auch sehr schnell deutlich, wie er es macht. Das Geheimnis dürfte in Mustererkennung und logischer Verknüpfung bestehen, und auch das gute alte Sprichwort „Geschwindigkeit ist keine Hexerei“ spielt eine wichtige Rolle. Der Computer klopft die Fragen auf Schlüsselbegriffe, deren Reihenfolge und ihre Kombination ab, um dann zu überprüfen, was er dazu in seinem enormen Datenbestand hat. In der Sendung war per Einblendung zu sehen, dass „Watson“ in aller Regel mehrere mögliche Antworten fand. Welche Antwort er dann tatsächlich gab, entschied der Computer anhand der größten statistischen Wahrscheinlichkeit. Letztere errechnet er offenkundig danach, zwischen welchen der gefundenen Lösungsstichworten sich die präziseste Schnittmenge herstellen lässt. Und das alles passiert wahnsinnig schnell.

Hat das nun irgendetwas mit Intelligenz zu tun?

In der KI-Forschung hat sich schon vor einiger Zeit die Unterscheidung zwischen starker und schwacher KI eingebürgert. Während man mit ersterer nach wie vor nicht wirklich vorankommt, ist "Watson" ein Beispiel dafür, dass letztere schon sehr brauchbar ist. Dass er in der Sendung einige grotesk falsche Antworten gab (so verlegte er u.a. Toronto in die USA), ändert daran nichts – hier gilt „GIGO“: garbage in, garbage out.

Die Frage, was Intelligenz ist, ist bis heute nicht eindeutig beantwortet. Auch in diesem Blog soll kein Antwortversuch riskiert werden. Was man aber sagen kann, ist dies: Zur Intelligenz gehört die Möglichkeit, eine bewusste Auswahl zu treffen, und auch die Fähigkeit, aus dem Scheitern bzw. aus gemachten Fehlern die Möglichkeit abzuleiten, in vergleichbaren Fällen die Suche nach einer Antwort anders einzugrenzen.

"Watson" hat mit Sicherheit schon das erste Kriterium nicht erfüllt. Oder hätte er tatsächlich die Freiheit gehabt, eine statistisch von ihm als wahrscheinlich richtig errechnete Antwort nicht zu geben? Man darf davon ausgehen, dass diese Möglichkeit nicht bestand.

Ob ein solches System so ausgebaut werden kann, dass man es als „lernfähig“ bezeichnen könnte, ist eine noch weit schwierigere Frage. Bis heute wissen wir ja noch kaum, wie unser eigenes Gehirn das eigentlich macht – Erfahrungen in neuronale Verbindungen umzusetzen. Bis heute sind wir nicht imstande, eine gemachte Erfahrung irgendwo im Gehirn zu lokalisieren. Sie wird Teil eines sich selbst regulierenden Netzwerkes, und wir wissen weder, wie sie entsteht, noch können wir sie greifbar lokalisieren oder sonstwie dingfest machen. Deswegen ist es auch immer wieder lächerlich, zu sagen, unser Gehirn sei so etwas ähnliches wie ein Computer. Mitnichten!

Bleiben wir also auf dem Teppich. „Watson“ hat mit Intelligenz soviel zu tun wie eine Leinwand mit dem Bild, das jemand auf ihr malt. „Watson“ ist ein Rechenknecht ohne Bewusstsein und irgendeine Vorstellung dessen, was er tut (und warum). Das soll seine Leistung nicht schmälern, es scheint mir nur sinnvoll zu sein, sie richtig einzuordnen. „Watson“ ist darauf dressiert, intelligentes Verhalten zu simulieren. Das immerhin klappt schon recht gut und lässt einige sehr nützliche Anwendungen erahnen: solche Problemstellungen nämlich, bei denen auf verbal formulierte Fragen sinnvolle Antworten gefunden werden sollen. Eine Internetsuchmaschine etwa, die nicht auf Stichwort einfach nur eine große Zahl mehr oder weniger passender Links anschleppt, sondern tatsächlich Fragen beantworten kann. Es fallen einem sofort etliche Möglichkeiten ein, solche Systeme in der Praxis anzuwenden, von der Fahrplanauskunft über Fehleranalysen bis hin zur medizinischen Diagnostik. Das ist nicht wenig. Und ein gigantischer PR-Coup für IBM sowieso.

Watch Children ...

... but better not too long, if you're male.

Super Bowl XLV

(Deutscher Text im Anschluss.)

 
Now that's a record: On February 6, 111 million people watched the game Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Green Bay Packers on TV; 4.5 millions more than last year when the New Orleans Saints met the Indiana Colts. And this doesn't even include the people who watched the online stream on their computers as well as the people who watched the game outside the U.S.

To call the Super Bowl media coverage a "hype" would be a friendly understatement. For at least two weeks the newspapers had daily supplements with ten or more pages, the local TV stations opened their news shows with daily "Steelers News". In many stores the shop assistants wore black and gold (the Steelers colors), on the day of the show many shops and offices closed already at 5 PM so that the employees could get home in time for the kickoff, and the day after the game, the students were allowed to arrive at school two hours later.

Was it worth it then? Well. Most critics and viewers considered the pre game show uninspired, Christina Aguilera shipwrecked the Star Spangled Banner, the halftime show acts Black Eyed Peas, Usher and Slash, to put it friendly, were not very good, and finally the Steelers lost (but that could have been the opposite just as well).

For Fox TV the show was worth the effort, that's for sure. The price for a commercial matched well with the number of viewers: $3M had to be paid for 30 seconds. A quarter of the airtime available was booked by the auto industry, twice as much as the previous year.

The commercials shown during the game and the pre game show are said to be especially creative, many of them are made especially for this event, in parts they are shown and discussed in news shows and other broadcasts. Besides this, the viewers could vote online for their favorite commercial; apparently a Volkswagen ad made it. There's another reason why the Super Bowl is popular with the ad agencies: It is a sort of national holiday, it has to be seen live, nobody wants to watch a recording - and that means: The commercials cannot be skipped.

I admit there are only two ads I remember: one by Coca Cola (nearly silent), the second one was made nicely nostalgic in the style of the fifties, but alas! I don't remember the product it was made for. Also I can't remember when the winning Volkswagen ad - with a young Darth Vader - was shown. What I remember mainly is the production style of many of the commercials: permanent screaming, martial sound effects like lifted from third-rate Hong Kong karate movies, and a sort of right-in-the-face humor that was as virtuosic as Christina Aguilera's singing. My granny probably would have said: See, even the Americans put their pants on one leg at a time.

See you next year then.

Das war Zuschauerrekord: 111 Millionen Menschen verfolgten am 6. Februar das Spiel Pittsburgh Steelers gegen Green Bay Packers vor dem Fernsehgerät; 4,5 Millionen mehr als letztes Jahr beim Spiel New Orleans Saints gegen Indianapolis Colts. Und da sind noch nicht die Zuschauer enthalten, die per Onlinestreaming an ihrem Computer zugeschaut haben, ebensowenig wie die Zuschauer außerhalb der USA.

Der Medienrummel um den Super Bowl ist mit "Hype" nur unzulänglich beschrieben. Seit rund zwei Wochen gab es tägliche Zeitungsbeilagen mit zehn oder mehr Seiten, ebenso lange machten die lokalen Fernsehnachrichten mit täglichen "Steelers News" auf. In den Läden lief das Verkaufspersonal in schwarz-gold herum (den Steelers-Farben), am Tag der Show wurden viele Läden und Büros schon um 5 Uhr nachmittags geschlossen, damit die Angestellten noch rechtzeitig zum Anpfiff zu Hause sein konnten, und die Schüler mussten am Tag nach der Show erst zur dritten Stunde in der Schule erscheinen. 

Hat es sich denn gelohnt? Nun ja. Die Pre-Game-Show wurde übereinstimmend als einfallslos angesehen, Christina Aguilera versemmelte live die US-Hymne, die als Halbzeit-Act angeheuerten Black Eyed Peas, Usher und Slash waren, freundlich gesagt, nicht besonders gut, und letztlich haben die Steelers knapp verloren (das hätte aber ebensogut auch umgekehrt ausgehen können).

Gelohnt hat sich die Show mit Sicherheit für Fox TV. Die Preise für die Werbespots waren den erwarteten Zuschauerzahlen angepasst: 3 Millionen Dollar waren für 30 Sekunden zu berappen. Ein Viertel der zur Verfügung stehenden Werbezeit hatte die Autoindustrie gebucht, rund doppelt soviel wie im Vorjahr.

Die Werbespots, die während des Spiels und der Pre-Game-Show gezeigt werden, gelten als besonders originell, sind oftmals speziell für dieses Ereignis hergestellt und werden vor dem Super Bowl tagelang ausschnittsweise in Nachrichten- und anderen Sendungen vorgestellt und diskutiert. Zudem konnten die Zuschauer online über den besten Spot abstimmen; gewonnen hat anscheinend ein VW-Spot. Der Super Bowl ist bei der werbungtreibenden Wirtschaft auch deshalb besonders beliebt, weil die Show als "recordersicher" gilt - er ist so etwas wie ein nationaler Feiertag, niemand will dieses Ereignis als Aufzeichnung sehen, und folglich können die Spots nicht übersprungen werden.

Ich gestehe, dass ich mich noch an gerade mal zwei Spots erinnern kann: einen (fast stummen) von Coca-Cola und einen zweiten, der fünfzigerjahrehaft-nostalgisch daherkam, aber leider weiß ich nicht mehr, für welches Produkt er warb. Wann der Gewinnerspot lief - der VW-Spot mit einem jungen Darth Vader -, erinnere ich leider ebenfalls nicht. Was ich hingegen noch immer im Kopf habe, ist die Machart der überwiegenden Mehrzahl der Spots: permanentes Gebrüll, martialische Geräuschkulissen wie aus drittklassigen Hongkong-Karateschinken und ein Haudrauf-Humor, der ungefähr ebenso virtuos daherkam wie Christina Aguileras Gesang. Meine Oma hätte wahrscheinlich gesagt: Da siehst du es wieder, die Amis kochen eben auch nur mit Wasser.

Na dann bis zum nächsten Jahr.

Fox News

Fox News on Egypt:

Fair, balanced, competent.

(Screenshot: Fox News, Saturday, January 29, 2011, 9:17 PM)

Source: I Love Everything

Electrifying RTL

As several German newspapers reported (for example here), on last Wednesday's edition of RTL TV's "Dschungelcamp" (which is the German version of I'm A Celebrity - Get Me Out Of Here) one of the contestants has been treated with electric shocks as soon as one of the other contestants made a mistake.

One wonders how long we will have to wait until RTL conducts the first mock executions or waterboardings.

Wie verschiedene deutsche Zeitungen schrieben (z.B. hier), wurde am letzten Mittwoch im RTL- "Dschungelcamp" (oder, wie die Sendung korrekt heißt, in Ich bin ein Star - holt mich hier raus) eine der Kandidatinnen mit Stromschlägen malträtiert, wenn eine andere Kandidatin irgendeinen Fehler machte.

Man fragt sich, wie lange wir wohl noch werden warten müssen, bis RTL die ersten Scheinhinrichtungen oder Waterboardings startet.

The Number One Street

Just to make clear what it's about in this country:

Damit klar ist, worum es hierzulande geht:

Happy New Year!

The Mask Dancers: Lavinia Schulz & Walter Holdt (English version)

 "Große Technik, männlich" ("big technics, male")

 "Kleine Technik, weiblich" ("small technics, female")

 

"Toboggan"

"Springvieh" ("jumping beast") 

 "Tote Frau" ("dead woman")

(Deutscher Text HIER)

Several times I passed by these wonderful strange life-sized objects at the Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe in Hamburg; there are twelve of them. I always liked them, but I didn't see them as very important because I thought of them as sculptures. But I was wrong, as I learned when finally I managed to read the explanation texts at the wall: In fact, these objects were not sculptures but costumes or rather full-body masks. Between 1920 and 1924, their creators Lavinia Schulz and Walter Holdt performed self-choreographed expressionistic free dances in these and some other masks. Without any doubt they were as creative as Oskar Schlemmer at the Bauhaus Theater with his Triadisches Ballett, and they were successful at times. But the story of this couple ended tragically, and today the both of them are nearly forgotten - reason enough to become curious.

 Probably Walter Holdt and Lavinia Schulz, 1922
(Photo: unknown)

This photo is a detail of a group photo taken on February 10 or 11, 1922, during the artist's festival Der himmlische Kreisel at Curiohaus in Hamburg. It's not definitely clear whether these two really are Lavinia Schulz and Walter Holdt, but if so, then this is the only known photo showing them unmasked and uncostumed, and the only known photo of Walter Holdt at all.

Lavinia Berta Schulz (born June 23, 1896, in Lübben/Lusatia) came to Berlin in 1912 at the age of sixteen, after having an ear surgery that took nearly one year of recovery. It's not possible to find out what she did and where she lived in Berlin, but for sure she must have studied painting; her works and sketches clearly show an academic background. Besides this, in all probability she studied acting and ballet dance.

She got into touch with the Sturm circle around gallery owner and publisher Herwarth Walden (1878-1941). The best-known artists arising from this circle were his wife Else Lasker-Schüler (she also invented his pseudonym; Walden's real name was Georg Lewin), as well as allround-dadaist Kurt Schwitters who published his first poems in Der Sturm magazine. Walden's dramatic advisor Lothar Schreyer (1886-1966) gave Lavinia a job at their Sturmbühne theater, first as a costumer and seamstress. But obviously it didn't take long that she also convinced him about her acting and dance talents. 

Lothar Schreyer

(Photo: unknown)

According to Schreyer's memoires, Lavinia Schulz generated a sort of theater scandal in October 1918 when in Sancta Susanna (a play by Sturm playwright August Stramm) she sang rather expressionistic (Schreyer called it "Klangsprechen", "tone speaking") and had a nude scene. One half of the audience was floored overwhelmed, the other half was disgusted at high volume, and the police had to safeguard the actors from furious demonstrators in front of the building.
  
What's true is that Stramm's 30-minute play dealt in a rather drastic way with the troubles of a young nun trying to practice celibacy, and the Military Supreme Commander did not allow any public advertising for the performance. But in fact, the "scandal" was not as big as Schreyer might have wished it to be. A slightly mocking review of this show in the Vossische Zeitung from October 16, 1918 ("Theaterstürmchen", which means something like "theater storm in a teacup"), makes clear that Lavinia was not completely nude but wore a sort of mini bikini. And the audience, due to non-existing public announcements, consisted mainly from members of the Sturmbühne support association, so they knew what to expect and remained patient and silent. - However, Schreyer's radical way of dramatizing the play must have been strange enough for the audience.

Nobody knows whether there really were demonstrators in front of the building at the evening of the performance. But it would have been well possible: When in Hamburg a different version of the play (set to music by Paul Hindemith) had been performed, conservatives and catholics protested and wanted it to be banned. This led to counterdemonstrations by communists, social democrats and members of the "Wandervogel" organisation.

Because Berlin was a politically very turbulent place at that time, Schreyer decided to move back to Hamburg. As he had worked from 1911 to 1918 as dramatic advisor at the Deutsche Schauspielhaus, he was well known there. Now he started his own Kampfbühne, organized as an association of actors and supporters. They had no own venue, they rehearsed and performed at the Kunstgewerbeschule am Lerchenfeld (today that's the Hochschule für bildende Künste, HfbK). He asked Lavinia Schulz to follow him. She did so in 1919. 

At Kampfbühne, Lavinia Schulz met Walter Holdt (born December 20, 1899, in Hamburg). He came from a merchant's family and had a trading apprenticeship. He had joined the Kampfbühne by recommendation of the Schauspielhaus and was a very gifted dancer. Besides this there's not much known about him. 

It must have been love at first glance. Apparently Lavinia as well as Walter feared that their parents wouldn't accept their marriage, and because they wanted to save themselves a white-bread wedding in presence of their complete kinship, they married secretly on August 30, 1921.

Lavinia Schulz as Angel of Annunciation in Schreyer's "Nativity Play",
Kampfbühne, 1919

(Photo: unknown; estate Schreyer)

Lavinia Schulz was a highly impulsive and emotional person. On and off, quarrels with her husband ended up in fisticuffs. As Schreyer said, working with her was "a serious test of nerves". In a letter, Lavinia wrote: "Since my 17th year I feel my life is nothing but purgatory, when will I be through?" Composer Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt, with whom they shared their apartment in 1921 and 1922, noted in his autobiography what Lavinia had told him when they first met: "Deprivation, hunger, coldness, nordic landscape with storm, ice, and catastrophes: That was her world, and she had found herself in it with Holdt." - That sounds pathetic, and probably it was exactly that.

 Lavinia Schulz: Two self portraits (pencil drawings, undated)

As art historian Athina Chadzis writes, the couple was mainly interested in 

• checking out new lifestyles that were triggered by the industry,
• the relations between arts and making money by being an artist,
• whether and how religion and cult should be the driving force or subject of arts,
• the Northern world of fables and ideas, which culturally they preferred (up to the degree of polemic) to the Christian and Jewish religions,
• finding new definitions for the national identity that had gone lost by the war. 

The couple didn't leave any theoretical essays or writings, but we know they saw the Edda as their Holy Book. We can derive their worldviews from letters and notes, as well from reports of their friends and collaborators. 

Although he said that Lavinia was his most gifted student, Schreyer finally saw no way anymore to go on with the collaboration at Kampfbühne. Lavinia's and Walter's "excentric conniptions", as he called it, could mount to brawls on stage. This was too much, and so he saw no other way but giving them the boot. (In 1921, the Kampfbühne era ended anyways when Schreyer was appointed to teach at the Bauhaus at Weimar - an adventure that unfortunately didn't turn out very well for him.)

Lavinia Schulz and Walter Holdt immediately teamed up then under the name Die Maskentänzer ("The Mask Dancers").

Letterhead

From now on, they allowed themselves absolutely no seperation anymore between arts and everyday life. They dedicated their life in a nearly religious and later self-destructive way to the expressionistic mask dances they developed.

They lived in the basement of a tenement block at Besenbinderhof near Hamburg's main station, without floor cover, warm water and bed, they slept in hammocks.

They started designing their own fantastic expressionistic costumes (they called them “full-body masks”) and also manufactured them. The masks were perfectly tailored and sewed; nobody knows where they had learned this. As the materials they used may show, the costumes had to be cheap: gunny, wallboard, cardboard, wire, gypsum, papier mâché and industrial garbage; several applications were made from household stuff. 

Of course Lothar Schreyer's work was a big influence on them, but as conservator Stanislaw Rowinski notes, the usage of colors sometimes also follows esoteric rules, and several mystic or esoteric symbols can be seen on the masks. Some of these symbols, like the four-elements-sign, were originated by Johannes Itten; Lavinia apparently corresponded with him.

Four-elements-sign after Johannes Itten 

(red = fire/spirit, yellow = air/person, green = water/word, blue = earth/human being);

on the face mask "Sie" ("She")

 Lavinia Schulz: Mask sketch (pencil, undated, probably never realized)

 

 

Lavinia Schulz: Sketches of mask heads (pencil, undated)

The insides of most of the masks were anything but pleasant. Sticking out nails, open wire endings and chafing seams made it inevitable for the dancers to bandage their heads. The costumes were heavy, and sometimes during their performances this became obvious. But this was a principle: Schulz and Holdt refused any relief. Art had to be exhausting, otherwise it couldn't be taken serious.

Mask head, unfinished

Schulz and Holdt developed their own choreographies and performed them, sometimes under collaboration of some ballet dancers. Lavinia invented a graphic notation system for the choreographies. (This makes it possible today to reconstruct at least some of their dances.) From these sketches, artist Heinrich Stegemann made a portfolio of woodcuts:

 Heinrich Stegemann: Tanzschrift Lavinia Schulz (cover, 1921)

  
Choreographic sketch from "Mann und Tote Frau" ("Man and Dead Woman")

Further choreographic studies by Lavinia Schulz (pencil drawings, undated)

According to contemporary critics, Lavinia seemed to be the more creative one; Walter, on the other hand, was the better and more disciplined dancer, he exactly knew his formal means and how to use them. Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt, with whom the couple shared the apartment for two years, wrote special music pieces for their performances, one of his compositions was called Expression violett - which clearly shows a synesthetic (one could also say: multimedia-based) perception the composer had in mind when working on this collaboration.

In 1921 at latest, the Mask Dancers Lavinia Schulz and Walter Holdt had become a well-known part not only of the "Hamburg Secession", as the Hanseatic city's expressionistic theater and arts scene was called, also nationwide they weren't unknown anymore.

Poster, probably 1922
(Woodcut, ascribed to Heinrich Stegemann)

(On posters, almanacs and invitations, Lavinia's name is sometimes also spelled "Lawinia Schultz"; Walter, for unknown reasons, sometimes used the pseudonym "Hold Omm".)

Lavinia Schulz' and Walter Holdt's unique performances climaxed at least two of the legendary artist's festivals of several days duration at Hamburg's Curiohaus, and these fests were not just a local event, they had fantastic mottos and were noted all over Germany. It's not quite clear whether the Mask dancers performed at Die Götzenpauke ("tin god's kettledrum") in 1921, but for sure they did in 1922 at Der himmlische Kreisel ("The heavenly whirligig") and in 1924 at Cubicuria - die seltsame Stadt ("Cubicuria - the strange city"); the latter was their last known performance. Visitors and organisers were famous and important artists - Fritz Kortner, Gustaf Gründgens, Paul Kemp, Klaus and Erika Mann, Willi Davidson, Hans Leip, Hans Henny Jahnn, to name just a few. 

The performances of Schulz/Holdt were among the most notable events the whole dance scene in the Weimar Republic had to offer. Seeing them was mandatory. And at this time expressionism was not just a fad anymore, at latest with the release of Robert Wiene's (still stunning) film The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari (1920) it had become an art movement that couldn't be ignored anymore.

 "Der himmlische Kreisel", festival poster, 1922

(Print after a linocut by Emil Maetzel)

It is interesting that Schulz and Holdt, although they were deeply influenced by and involved in the expressionism circles, never wanted to see themselves as a part of this movement. In a letter, Lavinia wrote to a friend: "Expressionism is no solution; expressionism works with industry and machines" – and this industrial touch was something they deeply abominated. This statement makes also clear the big difference between Schulz/Holdt and the "Schlemmer school" at Bauhaus: The latter came mainly from a much more architectural and formally technical point of view, although the results, up to a certain degree, were similar.

Schulz and Holdt, following their convictions about unity of life and art, usually didn't accept being paid for their performances. They would have seen this as a sellout of their artistic independency. As a note of Lavinia reads:

"Probably some among them [in the audience] were wondering that we offer our performances or events for free. You cannot sell spiritual ideas for money. Spirit and money are two antagonistic poles, and if you sell spiritual ideas for money, you sold the spirit to the money and lost the spirit."

Of course this attitude brought them into financial troubles for most of their lifetime. In all probability they manufactured and fixed costumes for fellow artists to make ends meet, in addition Walter had a day job as a merchant, probably in his parent's business. But in the long run this was inconsistent with their artistic projects, so he gave it up (he hated it anyways).

Holdt then formed a jazz band with Stuckenschmidt and (later composer and conductor) Victor Schlichter; they played the "Alkazar", a nightclub at Hamburg's red light district St. Pauli. Holdt played the drums. But the workload was intractable, and he got sick.

When in December 1922 Lavinia got pregnant, they were supported for a while by their friend, painter Emil Nolde.

But all that couldn't be a solution. The couple lived in more and more grinding poverty, their situation became desperate. In 1923, after their son had been born, they apparently cottoned up to the idea of developing more "folksy" performances to show them commercially at vaudeville and cabaret theaters. But it didn't work.

Lavinia also tried to do fashion designs. They are highly original, but none of them was ever realized.

Lavinia Schulz: Fashion design. Presentation drawing, undated.

A couple of surviving drawings and a miniature stage model suggests that they also thought about starting a puppetry (only because physical reasons it must have been clear to them that they wouldn't be able to go on performing their kind of extreme dances for more than a few years anyway). But it didn't happen.

Lavinia Schulz: Sketches of marionettes, probably never realized

They also planned on making a dance movie; not least with the idea in the back of their heads to send clippings of this movie as "demo" to impresarios, agents and music hall owners. Some of Lavinia's scene scribbles survived:

Film scribbles by Lavinia Schulz, 1923

All these plans failed. Probably due to increasing physical burnout and permanently being broke, their relationship turned more and more into an ongoing crisis. Unfortunately they had completely incompatible ways to deal with their troubles: Walter fell increasingly into depression up to a point that it was nearly impossible to get him out of his hammock. Lavinia buried herself more and more under mountains of pointless work. In addition, she apparently developed signs of persecutional mania; at least she told her mother that whenever she leaves the apartment, somebody would break in to steal her designs. As Lavinia's parents seriously feared her daughter could go crazy, they urged her to file for divorce from Walter. Their situation became intolerable. In 1924, Lavinia and Walter actually were going to die of starvation.

Most newspapers described what followed as "double suicide from privation". Probably this was what it looked like for the reporters; it was the high time of economic crisis and hyperinflation, so desperate deeds of this kind were on the agenda every day. But in fact the sequence of events does not look like a planned double suicide: On July 18, 1924, around 7 a.m., Lavinia killed her (probably still sleeping) husband with two shots in his head. After that she ran into the staircase, screaming that she had killed her husband and now were going to kill herself, then she returned into her apartment and turned the pistol against herself.

The police, called by neighbors, found Walter lying dead in his hammock, Lavinia in front of him on the bedroom floor. Their one-year old son (Hans Heinz, named after Stuckenschmidt) was found unharmed in his toddler bed. Lavinia, who was still alive, was taken to St. Georg hospital but died from her injuries the following day.


Fellow artists and colleages, of course, were completely taken aback when they heard about the death of Lavinia Schulz and Walter Holdt. Nonetheless, nobody seemed to be really surprised. Especially acquaintances and close friends like Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt always had predicted that this would turn out to be a story without happy end. Lothar Schreyer: "We saw it happen, far from us and unreachably near at the same time, and still today the burden of an oppressive guilt rests on us."

It's a moot point to speculate about their possible future in view of the approaching end of expressionism in the mid-1920s and the emerging influence of New Objectivity.

In 1925, the Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe staged an evening in memory of Lavinia Schulz and Walter Holdt. After this, the masks, photos and drawings went into a couple of "acrobat's baggage" boxes and fell into oblivion on the museum's attic. They were not even inventoried. Which turned out to be a stroke of luck because this way the objects didn't fall into the hands of the nazis, who probably would have seen these works as "degenerate art" and might have destroyed them.

The boxes on the attic

Hans Heinz, the couple's son, grew up with relatives of his father in Sweden and England. 

It's been not before 1988, that the works of Lavinia Schulz and Walter Holdt were finally rediscovered and carefully restored. Today these objects are surely among the most unique exhibits the museum has to offer. The son once came to Hamburg to visit the exhibition. He was interviewed by the curator, but of course he had no memories of his parents he could share.

The ensemble

Parts of Lavinia Schulz's and Walter Holdt's work could be seen from October 2010 to February 2011 at Mathildenhöhe Darmstadt in the exhibition "Gesamtkunstwerk Expressionismus - Kunst, Film, Literatur, Theater, Tanz und Architektur 1905-1925" ("The Total Artwork in Expressionism - Art, Film, Literature, Theater, Dance and Architecture 1905-1925"). The exhibition "Danser sa vie" ("Dance Your Life") from November 2011 to April 2012 at Centre Pompidou, Paris, dedicated a room to the work of the couple. Since in February 2012 the Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe in Hamburg re-opened its "Modern Arts" department, all works are back there.

Literature

• Ralf Beil, Claudia Dillmann (ed.): The Total Artwork in Expressionism - Art, Film, Literature, Theater, Dance, and Architecture, 1905-25. Ostfildern 2011.
• Kirsten Beuster: Gegen den Strom … - Die expressionistischen Masken-Tänzer Lavinia Schulz und Walter Holdt. In: Lichtwark-Heft Nr. 72. Hamburg-Bergedorf 2007.
• Athina Chadzis: Die expressionistischen Maskentänzer Lavinia Schulz und Walter Holdt. Frankfurt/M. 1998.
• Dianne S. Howe: Individuality and Expression - The Aesthetics of the New German Dance, 1908-1936. New York 1996.
• Nils Jockel, Patricia Stöckemann: Flugkraft in goldene Ferne... - Bühnentanz in Hamburg seit 1900. Hamburg 1989.
• Rüdiger Joppien a. o. (ed.): Entfesselt - Expressionismus in Hamburg um 1920.  Catalogue, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe. Hamburg 2006.
• Stanislaw Rowinski: Lavinia Schulz und ihre künstlerischen Inspirationsquellen. In: Joppien a.o., p. 51-55.
• Lothar Schreyer: Expressionistisches Theater - Aus meinen Erinnerungen. Hamburg 1948.
• Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt: Zum Hören geboren - Ein Leben mit der Musik unserer Zeit. München/Kassel 1982.
• Karl Toepfer: Empire of Ecstasy - Nudity and Movement in German Body Culture, 1910-1935. London 1997.
• Vossische Zeitung, 10/16/1918: Theaterstürmchen. 

A radio feature by Yours truly on the Mask Dancers (in German language), broadcast by Deutschlandfunk, November 18, 2016, rerun August 3, 2018. Audio stream, podcast and script available here.

This blog entry has been updated in March 2013. Photos by JR except noted otherwise.

Thanks:

Frank Böhme

Jürgen Döring
Nils Jockel
Jens Oestreicher

Stanislaw Rowinski