Amfiteater, letn. 13, št. 1, 2025
UDK 821.09:792  
DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2025-1/262-281
Abstract
The article discusses the essay “Naples” (1925), co-authored by Asja Lācis (née Anna 
Liepiņa, married Lācis or Lāce, 1891–1979) and Walter Benjamin (1892–1940). This case study 
reflects flânerie used as a creative strategy. The narrator, a figure of urban wandering 
and detached observation, was implemented by the co-authors stressing the differences 
in the interpretation by a man and a woman – flâneur and flâneuse. They portray Naples 
through contrasting perspectives: Benjamin, the philosopher, views the city as a system, 
examining its structures and categories, while Lācis, the theatre director, approaches it 
as a dynamic performance. This convergence of viewpoints creates a unique narrative 
voice. The article sheds light on the theatrical implications used in urban exploration and 
proves the input of Lācis by exploring parallels in her educational experience, creative 
works, letters and publications. Under the influence of collaboration with Lācis, Benjamin 
developed the signature philosophical style and initial impulse in this essay by introducing 
metaphors of porosity and constellation, later developed as concepts. The paper concludes 
that flânerie, used as a strategy of exploration and narration, integrates the vitality of 
lived experience with theatre and philosophy to inspire fresh perspectives on seeing and 
being in the world, thus embodying the revolutionary avant-garde pursuit of transcending 
boundaries, whether artistic, ideological or cultural and reinforcing its innovative and 
transformative intent.
Keywords: Naples, lived experience, urban theatricality, porosity, constellation, creative 
collaboration, flâneur and flâneuse, narrative voice
Sanita Duka is a doctoral student at the Art Academy of Latvia, and her dissertation on the 
Riga Workers’ Theatre (1926–1934) continues the topic of her Master’s studies. Recently, 
she has been involved in the project Walking Through Time: Flânerie and Modernity in 
Latvian Interwar Culture led by ILFA. Previously, she studied philosophy at the University of 
Latvia and culture management at the Jāzeps Vītols Music Academy of Latvia. She follows 
the multidisciplinary approach in her theatre studies. 
sanita.duka@gmail.com
262

Flânerie as a Strategy: Revolutionary Ideas 
of Avant­Gardes in the Co­Authorship of Asja 
Lācis and Walter Benjamin
Sanita Duka  
Art Academy of Latvia (AAL), Institute of Literature, Folklore and Art of the University of 
Latvia (ILFA)
Introduction
This article
1
 is dedicated to a close reading of the travel essay “Naples” (“Neapel”, 
published in Frankfurter Zeitung in 1925), indited in co-authorship by Asja Lācis 
and Walter Benjamin. The text interpretation exemplifies the concept of flânerie as 
a creative strategy. The argumentation highlights the intellectual input that can be 
addressed to Lācis, considering her professional education and experience as an 
avant-garde theatre director. Through content analyses of the essay, it is possible to 
highlight theatrical metaphors and references to directing methods of the time, as 
well as ongoing discussions about revolutionising theatre practices, which include 
performing in the streets and engaging the audience. 
Furthermore, the article explores how the authors use flâneur and flâneuse figures. 
The figures of idle strollers and observers conceptualised in literary and cultural 
theories (Comfort and Papalas; D’Souza and McDonough; Tester) embody a detached 
yet engaged perspective. The flâneur initially originated in the urban environments 
of 19
th
-century Paris (Gluck; Wrigley) but later developed as a metaphorical figure 
and strived to embrace a global perspective (Edmond; Mathew). Walter Benjamin 
redefined the flâneur as a critical observer who navigates the tensions between 
modern capitalism and cultural production (Buck-Morss). As a theatre director and 
revolutionary artist, Lācis introduces the flâneuse as an equally potent observer 
and interpreter of urban life, challenging the gendered limitations traditionally 
imposed on the flâneur as a solely male figure. This unique co-authorship captures 
the intersection of philosophy, urban observation and theatrical innovation, blending 
their distinct perspectives. 
1 The article is supported by the Latvian Council of Science within the project Walking Through Time: Flânerie and 
Modernity in Latvian Interwar Culture, No. lzp-2022/1-0505.
263

Other travel articles by the authors prove the strategy of flânerie as a tool for exploring 
modern urban life. Benjamin wrote about various eponymous locations in his essays 
“Moscow Dairies” (1926–1927), “Weimar “(1928), “Marseilles” (1928–1929), “Paris, 
the City in the Mirror” (1929), “San Gimignano” (1929), “North Sea” (about Bergen) 
(1930), as well as in the book One-Way Street, inspired by Riga and dedicated to Asja 
Lācis; the book itself was constructed like a street (Gilloch 24). Lācis published her 
travel notes on exploring Berlin and Paris in the Latvian leftist radical newspaper 
Darbs un maize (Labor and Bread) and the literary journal Domas (Thoughts) (Lācis, 
“Berlīnes teātru iespaidi”; “Parīzes ikdiena un teātri”). The initial dialogue between 
the two co-authors started when Walter Benjamin and Asja Lācis met in Capri in 1924 
and shortly visited Naples. The fruitful collaboration integrated philosophical inquiry 
with performative expression. After the article was published, Benjamin visited Lācis 
in Riga and Moscow. In 1928, Lācis, as a Soviet official propagandist, visited Berlin and 
worked with Benjamin on educational theatre topics. 
In this context, examining flânerie as a mode of engagement highlights its ability to 
bridge lived experience with theatre and philosophical practice. It creates a fluid 
space where observation and performance intersect, turning everyday encounters 
into reflective acts of inquiry and meaning-making. The article leads to the conclusion 
that the act of literal and intellectual wandering becomes a narrative device for the 
dissemination of avant-garde ideas.
Flânerie in Naples
By situating their observations within the streets of Naples, Lācis and Benjamin 
offer a vivid exploration of the city. The stylistics of the essay blend travel notes and 
descriptive picturesque illuminations with philosophical reflections, capturing 
the dynamic interplay between two gazes. The essay’s text consists of small 
scenes like the montage of cinematic footage capturing controversial experiences 
in Naples. The flânerie as a form of research is presented in the text as a visually 
vivid cinematic montage. The description of the insights by idle wanderers reveals 
several layers of observation and losing awareness, understanding and confusion, 
reasoning and contemplation. The stream of selected scenes is like a chaotic 
jumble of impressions, which nevertheless succumbs to an internal dramaturgy, 
similar to a dream that leads forward, to reveal meaning not through rational 
argumentation and a clear sequence but through an internal necessary logic. The 
encounter of the two intellectually brilliant professionals as co-authors indicates 
that the text presents the observation of city life as philosophical flânerie or 
theatrical analysis through action.
264

Flânerie, as a strategy of observation and interaction, remains highly relevant to 
transnational models of culture, particularly when viewed through the lenses of 
“liquid modernity” (Bauman) and “travelling theory” (Said). Flânerie models a 
transnational approach to culture that embraces the complexity of cultural exchange, 
making it a vital lens for interpreting contemporary global dynamics. A “veil of 
ignorance” or “invisibility cloak”, which could also be the “iron curtain” (Bauman 106), 
illustrates the attitude towards strangers. These metaphors reflect the complexities 
of cultural barriers, ranging from voluntary ignorance and enforced invisibility to 
outright exclusion, emphasising the need for strategy – like flânerie – to enable more 
fluid, inclusive exchanges. Nevertheless, this strategy points out the transformative 
potential of migration and displacement experienced by the Wanderprolitariaat or 
revolutionary vagabonds of the interwar period, displaced persons after World War II 
and the political refugees of nowadays.
The exploration of Naples by the flâneur and flâneuse challenges gender bias to 
approve equal and creative mutual complementarity benefits. Benjamin approaches 
the city with a philosopher’s precision, dissecting the architecture with social 
structures and emphasising the systemic and symbolic dimensions of the city. In 
contrast, Lācis’s viewpoint is informed by her experience as a theatre practitioner. 
For Lācis, Naples is not merely a city to analyse but a performance where life unfolds 
in spontaneous and transformative ways. 
The Opening Scene: Prologue
The essay is introduced with a vivid portrayal of a social situation in an urban 
environment:
Some years ago a priest was drawn on a cart through the streets of Naples for indecent 
offences. He was followed by a crowd hurling maledictions. At a corner, a wedding 
procession appeared. The priest stands up and makes the sign of a blessing, and the 
cart’s pursuers fall on their knees. (Benjamin and Lācis 163)
An opening scene that sparks intrigue, immediately drawing the audience into its 
world, is like an anecdote told for ice-breaking (Taurens 93). The story begins with a 
theatrically driven introduction, which can be compared to the prologue of a historical 
tragedy. The protagonist is captured and paraded through the streets of Naples, 
followed by a hostile crowd of shamers. A wedding procession moves from the corner, 
and a clash occurs, where two different atmospheres collide – hateful humiliation 
and festive joy. Both processions can be imagined as two chorus groups in a theatre 
performance. A peripeteia occurs in the action. The priest blesses the newlyweds, and 
the accusers join in receiving the blessing.
265

The opening scene reveals the shared theme of theatricality between the two 
co-authors despite their vastly different approaches to it. At that time, Benjamin 
was writing what he hoped would be his habilitation academic work, The Origin 
of German Tragic Drama (Ursprung des deutschen Trauerspiels), while Lācis was 
already an experienced theatre director who had mastered the theory of staging 
in the St. Petersburg Bekhterev Psychoneurological Research Institute (1912–
1915), Shanyavsky Moscow City People’s University (1915–1917), and Fyodor 
Komisarzhevsky Theatre Studio (1917–1918). She had received an exceptional 
education and immersed herself in the atmosphere of history-making discussions on 
the revolutionary renewal of theatre, exploring its political, ideological and educational 
significance. Her work with drama studios in Orel (1918–1920), Riga (Riga People’s 
University 1920–1921, Central Bureau of Riga Trade Unions 1925–1926) and in 
Berlin and Munich (1921–1924) with Bertolt Brecht (1898–1956) and Bernhardt 
Reich (1894–1972) emphasised collective creation in improvisation and mass open-
air performances. Her focus on street life and lived experience resonates with her 
interest in pageant performance as a spectacle with the involvement of auditory. In 
Europe, she was seen as an emissary of the new proletarian state, embodying the 
successful revolution and delivering fresh insights about the Theatre October directly 
from its origins. The subsequent encounters between Lācis and Benjamin in Capri, 
Riga, Moscow and Berlin continued to evolve their shared interest in theatre and 
educational experimentation.
The opening scene highlights the intricate interplay between individual agency and 
public opinion. The priest, embodying the individual or a hero, stands at the centre of 
a dramatic tableau, surrounded by the community – represented as chorus groups of 
shamers and wedding guests. Much like the chorus in Greek tragedies, this collective 
voice reflects societal norms, expectations and reactions to unfolding events. The 
narrative juxtaposes scenes of public punishment with a ritualistic festive procession, 
revealing the duality of societal rituals.
This scene not only captures the theatricality of everyday life but also highlights the 
implicit demand for participation in societal performances. Religious processions, 
deeply rooted in the fabric of Catholic cities, remain a visible expression of communal 
identity. Similarly, public shaming, once confined to physical spaces, finds a 
contemporary parallel in the phenomenon of cancel culture. Whether on the streets or 
digital platforms, these performances prescribe roles for all involved, drawing every 
passer-by – literal or virtual – into the unfolding drama. The city functions as a stage 
for performances – religious rituals, social gestures and power-play interactions.
266

The Philosopher’s Gaze
The dynamic and cinematic opening scene transitions into a sociological analysis that 
delves into the intricate interweaving of formal and informal power structures within 
the body of Naples – namely, Catholicism and the criminal organisation Camorra. 
Catholicism, while offering spiritual structure, also legitimises excesses through a 
dual moral code. This duality is juxtaposed with a model of parallel justice rooted 
in informal networks and the authority of criminal groups rather than formal legal 
institutions. This framework explains the sense of insecurity often experienced 
by travellers in Naples. Furthermore, this sociological exploration reflects the 
broader context of the unstable political climate and the tension between legislative 
pragmatism and the theoretical principles of justice, blurring the lines between 
legality and moral ambiguity.
The next scene in the text depicts the Congress of Philosophers and the anniversary 
celebrations of Naples University. The city streets are alive with a cheering crowd admiring 
the magnificent fireworks, while pickpockets take advantage of the chaos to relieve the 
philosophers of their money and documents. The 5
th
 World Congress of Philosophers, 
which was held in conjunction with the university’s anniversary celebrations, took place 
in Naples from 5 to 9 May 1924. Through a masterful display of feuilleton stylistics, the 
gaze of the philosopher captures an ironic scene: a group of philosophers dissolves into 
oblivion amidst the chaotic vibrancy of Naples. The raucous festivities overshadow their 
intellectual pursuits, leaving the disoriented scholars – robbed and bewildered – no better 
off than hapless tourists thwarted by locked museums, elusive historical landmarks and 
the mannerism of the city’s artistic treasures. 
Nothing pleases the lonely stranger: “Nothing is enjoyable except the famous drinking 
water. Poverty and misery seem as contagious as they are pictured to be to children, 
and the foolish fear of being cheated is only a scanty rationalisation for this feeling” 
(Benjamin and Lācis 164). Overwhelmed by the lively bustle around him, frightened 
by the poverty and numerous beggars, and uneasy about the potential for fraud, the 
philosopher perceives the city as “the shock given to day-dreaming passers-by” (165). 
This provokes a sense of childish insecurity and inability to survive in the face of the 
greedy and agile local crowd.
Encounter
During the days of the congress, on 8 May 1924, Asja Lācis wrote a letter from Capri to 
her friend Elvīra Bramberga, a member of her drama studio in Riga: 
267

I liked Naples for real – a crazy city: eternal movement, sharp, cutting noises from 
street vendors, donkeys and children. Street musicians play every night and sing in a 
completely oriental style. Hundreds of children with black mouths and fingers in their 
mouths are eager to gather around; their big black eyes shine with joy at the sounds 
they hear. All life is on the street – the doors of the narrow rooms are open. Huge wine 
barrels with sweet “Frisante” juice can be seen in the trattorias. I drink a lot of wine. 
I have great approval among the cavaliers, I think like all northerners, but I don’t like 
Italians. [...] Reich just left for Munich – now I’m alone with Daga. But there are many 
familiar faces in Capri, the sun, roses, wine, and it’s good. I am adding one orange 
blossom bud for you. (Lācis, 8 May 1924)
Lācis travelled to Capri for a vacation via Roma and Naples. Bernhard Reich, 
mentioned in the letter, had generously offered this retreat to her and her daughter 
Daga (Dagmāra Lācis, married Ķimele, 1919–1998) to help improve the child’s health.
Lācis’s letters from Capri prove that she visited Naples several times: “ At the end of 
this week, I want to go to Naples for a day – I am drawn to this crazy city with its 
insane pace and the dull emptiness of its places. The street is wonderful. The street 
has more power than a house” (Lācis, 30 June 1924). She also mentions collecting 
materials about Naples: 
I am still in Capri, although I travel around. I have been to Naples. It is never too long 
to see that city. I have been to Sorrento, Castella di Maris, Pompeii. I saw two theatres, 
the ancient arena. [...] I am now writing about the New Theatre Directions in Germany 
and collecting material about Naples. [...] The Strunke couple [Latvian artist and stage 
designer Niklāvs Strunke (1894–1966) and his wife Olga Strunke (1899–1986)] are also 
here; we live in the same house. Here at the moment are Marinetti and Vasari, Italian 
futurists. I met them. But their doings are already outdated. Writing in Italy is about to 
emerge – Pirandello – you must have heard of it. (Lācis, 18 August 1924)
Her correspondence with the editor of the journal Domas also confirms her 
involvement in writing about Naples: 
Now I hasten to send you New German Theatre Direction. Naples is also ready, but in 
German, because I have to write several travel descriptions for a German publisher. I 
would like to publish it in yours first. I am sending it in German for you to read. If it 
is okay, send it back with a note, then I will rewrite it in Latvian. Or, perhaps, you can 
rewrite it in Latvian yourself. Now I am writing about the Paris Theatre and Drama. 
(Lācis, 1924)
One of the letters hints at collaborative intellectual pursuits “together with a philosopher”: 
“Then I got an invitation from a publishing house to go to Spain because they liked how I 
wrote about Naples together with a philosopher. We will see if I can go. Because of Daga, I 
probably won’t” (Lācis, 1925). This shared project highlighted their creative partnership 
268

and the broader resonance of their reflections on Naples, which led to the invitation to 
Spain – a journey Lācis hesitated to take due to her familial obligations.
The letters of Asja Lācis serve as compelling evidence of her fruitful collaboration 
and co-authorship with Walter Benjamin. Her reflections on the city’s chaotic vitality, 
theatricality and insane pace closely align with observations reflected in “Naples”, 
proving her significant influence that shaped their writing. Lācis’s correspondence 
reveals not only her active engagement in collecting material about Naples but also 
her keen awareness of cutting-edge cultural and artistic movements, such as Futurism 
and Luigi Pirandello’s theatre. Her descriptions of Naples as a city where “the street 
has more power than a house” resonate with the tone and ideas that are deeply 
intertwined in her input to the co-authorship.
Under the influence of the collaboration with Lācis, Benjamin developed his signature 
philosophical style, with the initial impulse evident in this essay, as proven by 
researchers of Benjamin’s work (Buck-Morss, Ingrem, McGill, Mittelmeier). “Naples”, as 
a seminal text, introduced the ideas of porosity and constellation, which later evolved 
into key concepts. “Not only did they write about porosity; they did so in a porous way” 
(Mittelmeier 36). The essay enacts the phenomenon of porosity as much as describes it 
(Gilloch 36). The mutually overflowing and permeable scenes serve as visual imprints 
to develop Denkbilder (thought images). Benjamin’s “theatrical turn” proceeded from 
primarily taking drama as a literary object of study and interpretation to enacting a kind 
of improvised theatre in constructing his texts (McGill 64). The argumentation is not 
causally arranged but rather forms a random set or a constellation of thought images 
akin to walking through a labyrinth of streets, entering passages, taking sidewalks or 
participating in a pageant spectacle. The perfect order of sense-making is achieved 
through other tools – drama and theatre-making.
The Theatre Director’s Entrance
A symbolic encounter between the two authors, as depicted in the text of “Naples”, 
could be likened to a scene from a film script. At first, the footage shows a deserted 
cityscape: “The city is craggy. Seen from a height not reached by the cries from below, 
from the Castell San Martino, it lies deserted in the dusk, grown into the rock. Only a 
strip of shore runs level; behind it, buildings rise in tiers” (Benjamin and Lācis 165). 
The philosopher’s perspective is panoramic, with an alienated position as secure as a 
fortress. From this vantage point, the city and everyday life are invisible, as if deserted 
or grown into the rock. However, as the texture of the text unfolds, the city begins to 
move, rise and climb. The city itself comes alive and assumes its agency: “Building and 
action interpenetrate in the courtyards, arcades, and stairways. In everything, they 
269

preserve the scope to become a theatre of new, unforeseen constellations” (165–166). 
This creates a metaphor of a laboratory, where objects, relationships, emotions and 
attitudes are reassembled and reimagined – much like actors on stage, collaborating 
to create new and unforeseen constellations of meaning and interaction.
Naples is built on a volcanic cliff. The porous tuff stone is formed by eruptions, when 
magma splashes into the air and hardens, preserving the breath of evaporating 
processes. Porosity is a feature of the raw material but also the central concept of this 
essay. The cinematic montage of textual images allows us to see the city as a constantly 
evolving structure shaped by volcanic tuff stone. The cellular cliff has created houses, 
streets and squares resembling a network of settlements. The buildings are animated 
by inner movement, guiding their inhabitants along the streets and arcades, through 
courtyards and up and down stairs. Architecture is like the art of staging, a scenario 
for action and a condition for free improvisation.
The jointly created experience in “Naples” provides lively scenes saturated with 
philosophical insights and steeped in theatricality. The gazes of the director and the 
philosopher are intertwined, complementing each other. The philosopher sees the 
city as a system of unexpected juxtapositions: “the jumble of dirty courtyards” shifts 
to “the pure solitude of a tall, whitewashed church interior”. The encapsulation of the 
private existence within “four walls among wife and children” is contrasted with “the 
baroque opening of a heightened public sphere” (166). 
In turn, the director’s perspective reveals the city through theatrical terminology. 
The city is a theatre, and not a court or bourgeois one, but the people’s theatre. Just 
imagine – as if – a director of agitational and educational theatre gave a task to actors: 
the challenge of breaking the fourth wall. This technique, where performers directly 
address the audience, involves an awareness of the presence and dissolution of the 
imaginary barrier that separates the stage from the spectators. Different worlds exist 
side by side and simultaneously. “Translating cities” as a metaphor (Taurens 15) 
exchanges the cognitive value of the experience of difference. The way to reflect this is 
not through rational argumentation but by forming imagelike descriptions to create a 
constellation, arranging a kaleidoscopic montage. 
The City as a Theatre Stage
The expressions such as “a passion for improvisation”, “a high school of stage 
management”, and “simultaneously animated theatres” (Benjamin and Lācis 167) are 
adopted from theatre terminology and practice to describe city life. Gateways resemble 
stage arches, and staircases and roofs function like multilevel scenography sets. Lācis, 
in her articles about theatrical life in Germany, mentions the revolving stage that 
270

makes it possible “to change scenes one after another at kaleidoscopic speed” (Lācis, 
“Berlīnes teātru iespaidi”). The director’s gaze captures the city as a multiplicity of 
simultaneous stages for action throughout the urban space. Moreover, balconies 
and windows reveal what is happening in the pores of apartments, reminiscent of 
theatre lodges, where someone watches the action unfold. At the same time, acting 
and watching – “dual awareness of participating” (Benjamin and Lācis 167) – also 
refers to theatre methodology. Actors play roles to embody characters, but they must 
also be aware of their position and able to step out of character to pose a question to 
the audience. This double awareness is also crucial in group improvisations – actors 
improvise and lead the scene to its outcome, collaborating without prior arrangement.  
Asja Lācis, educated in pre- and revolutionary Russia and experienced in directing 
German political theatre, recognised the need to revolutionise theatre. The idea of 
proletarian theatre, which emerged from the popular theatre in Tsarist Russia (Swift), 
is based on a radical amateur approach – not mimicking professionals but developing 
simple and demonstrative acting (Milohnić 106). One of the authorities of Proletkult 
theatre, Platon Kerzhentsev (real name Lebedev, 1881–1940), in his influential book 
Creative Theatre (Tvorcheskij teatr, 1918), argued that theatre should cease to be a 
place of entertainment and inaction for the audience. The proletariat must seize the 
opportunity to display its theatrical instinct. “It is not so much necessary to play for 
the popular audience as to help this audience play itself” (Kerzhentsev 68). 
“ Art on the streets!” was the slogan of revolutionary artists. Another important figure, 
Nikolai Evreinov (1879–1953), derived his theatre philosophy from concepts such 
as theatrocracy, will to the theatre, director of life, and actor for themselves, forming 
its theoretical, pragmatic, and practical parts in his Theatre for Oneself (Teatr dlja 
sebja, 1915) (Evreinov 114–408). As a result, there is an expressive affirmation of 
the theatrical instinct of human beings: everyone plays theatre for themselves. 
Human beings orient themselves in the world, mimicking the environment. The 
power that moves the individual is the aspiration to transform into the better self. 
The revolution demanded that, along with a passion for acting, directing and drama, 
avant-garde aesthetics should not be a privilege of the elite (  Kleberg). This pathos 
echoes in “Naples”, asserting that everyday life in the streets is “a high school of stage 
management” (Benjamin and Lācis 167). Life itself is a great school of directing.
The Porous Labyrinth
“Naples” conjures up theatrical scenes of street life: an artist draws with crayons, and a 
moment later, this work of art has already disappeared into the stream of pedestrians; 
vendors’ carts offer music, sweets and toys like small mobile stages; someone makes 
271

money by performing tricks with pasta; newspapers sellers recite loudly; vendors 
advertise their products and play out the auction as the art of haggling (Benjamin 
and Lācis 169–170). Mundane life becomes a show with the participation of artists, 
passers-by, buyers, sellers, cheaters, beggars and tricksters. Trade borders on a game 
of chance, with the excitement of buying and selling, side by side with playing tricks 
and lottery addiction. A toothpaste seller, with a mysterious gesture, wraps sold items 
in green or pink paper as if presenting a good fortune lot. Bazaars with jumbled 
piles of goods seductively laid out, while department stores display tightly packed 
multiplicity: “Only in fairy tales are lanes so long that one must pass through without 
looking to left or right if one is not to fall prey to the devil” (170). The more precisely 
the details of the scenes are described, the more the real becomes permeated with 
magical bliss as if participating in an enormous theatrical pageant.
The authors deeply immerse themselves in the porous flesh of the city. They peer 
into overcrowded apartments in working-class quarters and rooms crammed with 
beds. They wander through streets full of carts, people and fires. They linger in 
gateways, observing the household bustle in front yards and spectators leaning out 
from windows and balconies. They savour fresh seafood amid the hustle and bustle of 
the market, hastily drink espresso in taverns and acquire skills in the local language of 
gestures (171–173). Towards the end of the essay, like awakening from a vivid dream, 
the much-repeated saying “Vedere Neapoli e poi Mori” – is humorously reinterpreted 
as a misunderstanding. The expression, “To see Naples and die”, paraphrased in 
the essay (173), hints at an expanded horizon of interpretation. While traditionally 
romanticised as an affirmation of the city’s beauty, the essay invites readers to 
consider it in an ironic light.
Conclusion
In a world increasingly defined by challenges of migration, the concept of the 
flâneur and flâneuse remain relevant as symbols of engagement and creativity. The 
collaborative journey of Lācis and Benjamin offers a model for reimagining the 
relationships between the centre and periphery, artist and audience, and tradition 
and innovation. Their work proves that when intertwined with the dynamism of lived 
experience, art and philosophy can inspire new ways of seeing and being in the world. 
The dual perspectives of Lācis and Benjamin do not dilute the effectiveness of their 
analysis; instead, they introduce dramatism and conflict, creating a deeper and more 
immersive experience by confronting the ignorance of uncomfortable social realities. 
A close reading of “Naples” illuminates the extent to which Asja Lācis contributed 
to the conceptual and thematic foundation of Benjamin’s reflections, positioning her 
272

as an influential figure in his work and reinforcing the collaborative nature of their 
study of Naples. Flânerie, as a practice of involvement in the city and a strategy for 
writing, also helps with interpreting and understanding. The process of walking and 
descriptive visualisation of street life scenes are used as textual form. The pace of the 
written text reflects the buzz of streets – stopping points of the contemplation process 
mark cells of the explored system – and includes not only descriptions of mundane 
events but also an analysis of the functioning of society. A panoramic picture for 
understanding opens up behind the sudden stops. The habits of Neapolitan citizens 
are captured through conscious involvement and, at the same time, the observation 
of this immersive experience. The descriptive part of the essay is closely intertwined 
with the authors’ gazes, reflecting on the visible, tangible and contemplated reality. 
The kaleidoscopic structure of the text evokes a cinematic quality, resembling a 
flowing and crumpling video sequence.
Dramaturgically, the essay’s structure follows a classical principle of form with a 
prologue, a conflict outline and a challenging path, which leads to an open ending 
without a didactically expressed morality. The text reexamines and reviews the tangle 
of impressions, arranging them in a constellation of mutual relationships. The thought 
images are linked to the events of everyday life in the city and the visual impressions 
of wandering. The porous volcanic rock on which the city is built represents a fractal 
structure that transitions from material – its natural physical form – to architectural, 
social habitat and textual forms. 
Furthermore, porosity is more than a metaphor but a system of exploration to merge 
philosophy with lived experience. The fluid nature of boundaries in the interior and 
exterior of architecture, private and public social life, day and night time, leisure and 
labour, trade and gambling reflect habits and social structures of constant interaction. 
The city functions as a stage for performances of religious rituals, processions, social 
acceptance or public shaming gestures and for interactions of trade and cheating.
Public spaces resemble theatre sets, blending reality with spectacle. Improvisation 
permeates daily life, from theatrical street performances to spontaneous celebrations. 
The performance of urban life is highly relevant for contemporary discussions on 
urbanism, social cohesion and cultural resilience.
This interdisciplinary approach to urban observation, in the broader sense of avant-
garde projects, foresees breaking boundaries, be they artistic or ideological. The 
avant-garde of the early 20
th
 century sought to dissolve distinctions between high 
and low culture, centre and periphery, and theory and practice. The text of “Naples” 
embodies this ethos by presenting the city as a fluid and hybrid space. The intertwined 
gazes of flâneur and flâneuse mark the co-created liminality of the cityscape, enabling 
fluid transitions and transformations. The revolutionary avant-garde implications 
273

involve the contributions of other artistic movements or figures who also influenced 
the cultural landscape of the time by challenging the traditions and opening up 
boundaries. The essay’s mosaic-like structure reflects this hybridity, combining 
philosophical musings with vivid descriptions of everyday life. This method aligns 
with the avant-garde’s commitment to fragmentation and polyphony.
274

Bibliography
Bauman, Zygmunt. Liquid Modernity. Polity, 2000.
Benjamin, Andrew. “Porosity at the Edge: Working through Walter Benjamin’s Naples.” 
Walter Benjamin and Architecture, edited by Gevork Hartoonian, Routledge, 2009, 
pp. 107–118. 
Benjamin, Walter. The Origin of German Tragic Drama. Translated by John Osbourne, 
introduction by George Steiner. Verso, [1928] 1985.  
Benjamin, Walter, and Asja Lācis. “Naples.” Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, 
Autobiographical Writings, edited by Peter Demetz, translated by E. F. N. Jephcott, 
Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018, pp. 163–173.
Buck-Morss, Susan. The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project. 
The MIT Press, 1991.
Buck-Morss, Susan. “The Flâneur, the Sandwichman and the Whore.” New 
German Critique, no. 39, 1986, pp. 99–140. [JSTOR] (https://www.jstor.org/
stable/488122?seq=14). 
Comfort, Kelly, and Marylaura Papalas, editors. New Directions in Flânerie: Global 
Perspectives for the Twenty-First Century. Routledge, 2022.  
D’Souza, Aruna, and Tom McDonough, editors. The invisible flâneuse?: Gender, public space 
and visual culture in nineteenth-century Paris. Manchester University Press, 2010. 
Edmond, Jacob. “The ‘Flâneur’ in Exile.” Comparative Literature, vol. 62, no. 4, 2010, 
pp. 376–398. Duke University Press, [JSTOR] (https://www.jstor.org/stable/
pdf/40962925.pdf).  
Evreinov, Nikolai. Demon teatralnosti [The Demon of Theatricality]. Edited and 
annotated by A. Zubkov and V. Maksimov. Letnii Sad, 2002.
Gilloch, Graeme. Myth and Metropolis: Walter Benjamin and the City. Polity, 1996. 
Gluck, Mary. “The Flâneur and the Aesthetic: Appropriation of Urban Culture in Mid-
19th-Century Paris.” Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 20, no. 5, 2003, pp. 53–80. 
Kerzhentsev, Platon. [Lebedev, P . M.]. Tvorcheskij teatr [Creative Theatre]. 5th ed., 
revised and expanded, Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo, 1923. Available at Teatr 
Lib, http://teatr-lib.ru/Library/Personal/Kerzhentsev_Platon_Mihailovich.htm. 
Accessed 2 December 2024.
Kleberg, Lars. Theatre as Action: Soviet Russian Avant-Garde Aesthetics. Macmillan 
Education UK, 1993.  
Lācis, Anna. “Berlīnes teātru iespaidi” [Impressions of Berlin Theatres]. Darbs un 
Maize, no. 6, 1922, pp. 189–190. https://www.periodika.lv/periodika2-viewer/?la
275

ng=fr#panel:pa|issue:175021|article:DIVL179.
---. “Parīzes ikdiena un teātri” [Everyday Life and Theatre in Paris]. Domas, no. 9, 1 
Sept. 1925, pp. 285–291. https://www.periodika.lv/periodika2-viewer/?lang=fr#
panel:pa|issue:191433|article:DIVL430.
Mathew, Shaj. “Global Autofictional Flânerie.” Modernism/Modernity, vol. 29, no. 2, 
2022, pp. 219–239. [Project Muse](https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/131). 
McGill, Justine. “The Porous Coupling of Walter Benjamin and Asja Lacis.” Angelaki, 
vol. 13, no. 2, 2008, pp. 59–72.
Milohnić, Aldo. “Radical Amateurism.” Parallel Slalom: A Lexicon of Non-aligned 
Poetics, edited by Bojana Cvejić and Goran Sergej Pristaš, TkH and CDU, 2013, pp. 
104–113.
Mittelmeier, Martin. Naples 1925: Adorno, Benjamin, and the Summer That Made 
Critical Theory. Yale University Press, 2024.
Said, Edward W. “Traveling Theory.” The World, the Text, and the Critic, Faber and Faber, 
1984, pp. 226–247. Originally published in Raritan, vol. 1, no. 3, 1982, pp. 41–67.
Swift, Anthony E. Popular Theater and Society in Tsarist Russia. University of California 
Press, 2002.  
Taurens, Jānis. “ Asja Lacis and Walter Benjamin: Translating Different Cities.” Critical 
Latvian Perspectives on Anna (Asja) Lacis, special issue of The Canadian Review of 
Comparative Literature, edited by Susan Ingram, vol. 45, no. 1, 2018, pp. 15–30. 
University of Alberta Journals, https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/crcl/index.php/
crcl/article/view/29469. 
—.  “Neapoles pasāžas” [The Passages of Naples]. Culture Crossroads, vol. 8, 
2015, pp. 93–99. https://www.culturecrossroads.lv/index.php/cc/article/
download/165/146/253.
Tester, Keith, editor. The Flaneur. Routledge, 1994.
Wrigley, Richard. “Unreliable Witness: The Flâneur as Artist and Spectator of Art in 
Nineteenth-Century Paris.” Oxford Art Journal, vol. 39, no. 2, 2016, pp. 267–284.
Unpublished Correspondence
Lācis, Anna. Letter to Elvīra Bramberga. 8 May 1924. Latvijas Nacionālais Rakstniecības 
un Mūzikas Muzejs (Latvian National Museum of Literature and Music), RTMM 
322744, Vīli. K 6/5.
Lācis, Anna. Letter to Elvīra Bramberga. 30 June 1924, resent to Eleja 10 July 1924. 
Latvijas Nacionālais Rakstniecības un Mūzikas Muzejs (Latvian National Museum of 
Literature and Music), RTMM 322745, Vīli. K 6/8.
Lācis, Anna. Letter to Elvīra Bramberga. 18 August 1924. Latvijas Nacionālais 
276

Rakstniecības un Mūzikas Muzejs (Latvian National Museum of Literature and 
Music), RTMM 322746, Vīli. K 6/10.
Lācis, Anna. Letter to Andrejs Upīts. 1924. Latvijas Nacionālais Rakstniecības un 
Mūzikas Muzejs (Latvian National Museum of Literature and Music), RTMM 322737, 
Vīli. K 7/18.
Lācis, Anna. Letter to Elvīra Bramberga. 20 March 1925. Latvijas Nacionālais 
Rakstniecības un Mūzikas Muzejs (Latvian National Museum of Literature and 
Music), RTMM 322748, Vīli. K 6/14.
277

Amfiteater, letn. 13, št. 1, 2025
UDK 821.09:792  
DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2025-1/262-281
Povzetek
Tema članka je esej »Neapelj« [orig. nem. »Neapel« – op. prev.] (1925), ki je nastal v soavtorstvu 
Asje Lācis (roj. Anna Liepiņa, por. Lācis ali Lāce, 1891–1979) in Walterja Benjamina (1892–1940). 
Gre za študijo primera, ki uporablja flanerstvo (fr. flânerie) kot strategijo pri ustvarjanju. 
Pripovedovalca, torej figuro pohajkovalca po mestu in oddaljenega opazovalca, sta soavtorja 
zasnovala tako, da pridejo do izraza razlike v interpretaciji s strani moškega in ženske – 
flanerja (fr. flâneur) in flanerke (fr. flâneuse). V eseju je Neapelj prikazan s protistavo dveh 
vidikov: filozof Benjamin mesto obravnava kot sistem ter pri tem preučuje njegove strukture 
in kategorije, gledališka režiserka Lācis pa na mesto gleda kot na dinamično predstavo. 
Pogleda se zlijeta v edinstven pripovedni glas. Članek osvetljuje pomen raziskovanja mest 
za gledališče, prispevke s strani Lācis pa dokazuje z raziskovanjem vzporednic iz njenega 
izobrazbenega ozadja, ustvarjalnih del, pisem in publikacij. Pod vplivom sodelovanja z Lācis 
je Benjamin razvil svoj značilni filozofski slog; zametke najdemo v tem eseju, saj je v njem 
uvedel metafori poroznosti in konstelacije, ki ju je pozneje razširil v koncepta. Članek se 
zaključi z ugotovitvijo, da flanerstvo kot strategija raziskovanja in pripovedovanja združuje 
vitalnost žive izkušnje z gledališčem in filozofijo, cilj pa je navdihniti sveže poglede na to, 
kako videti in bivati v svetu. Z drugimi besedami, utelešati revolucionarni cilj avantgard – 
preseganje umetniških, ideoloških oziroma kulturnih meja – ter jih s tem podpirati v njihovih 
inovativnih in transformativnih prizadevanjih.
Ključne besede: Neapelj, živa izkušnja, gledališkost urbanega okolja, poroznost, konstelacija, 
ustvarjalno sodelovanje, flaner in flanerka, pripovedni glas
Sanita Duka je študentka doktorskega študija na Latvijski akademiji umetnosti. V 
disertaciji o delovanju Delavskega gledališča v Rigi (1926–1934) nadaljuje raziskovanje teme 
magistrskega študija. Pred kratkim se je pridružila projektu Walking Through Time: Flânerie 
and Modernity in Latvian Interwar Culture [Sprehod skozi čas: Flanerstvo in modernost v 
latvijski kulturi med obema vojnama], ki ga vodi ILFA. Pred tem je študirala filozofijo na 
Univerzi v Latviji ter kulturni menedžment na Glasbeni akademiji Jāzepsa Vītolsa v Latviji. 
Pri gledaliških študijih uporablja multidisciplinarni pristop.
sanita.duka@gmail.com
278

Flanerstvo kot strategija: revolucionarne ideje 
avantgard v soavtorstvu Asje Lācis in Walterja 
Benjamina
Sanita Duka  
Latvijska akademija umetnosti (AAL), Inštitut za literaturo, folkloro in umetnost Univerze 
v Latviji (ILFA)
Članek »Flanerstvo kot strategija: revolucionarne ideje avantgard v soavtorstvu 
Asje Lācis in Walterja Benjamina« obravnava esej »Neapelj« (1925), ki sta ga skupaj 
napisala Asja Lācis (roj. Anna Liepiņa, 1891–1979) in Walter Benjamin (1892–1940), 
in sicer kot študijo primera, ki uporablja flanerstvo kot strategijo pri ustvarjanju. 
Pripovedovalca, ki ga pooseblja figura pohajkovalca po mestu in opazovalca, soavtorja 
v svoji interpretaciji oblikujeta s protistavo pogledov flanerja (moškega) in flanerke 
(ženske), pri čemer pride do izraza različnost njunih gledišč. Posledica te dvojnosti je 
inovativen esejski pristop, pri katerem filozof Benjamin preučuje Neapelj kot sistem 
struktur in kategorij, gledališka režiserka Lācis pa mesto interpretira kot dinamično 
predstavo. Pogleda se zlijeta v edinstven pripovedni glas, v katerem se prepletata 
analiza in imerzija. Dejstvo, da Neapelj raziskujeta tako flaner kot flanerka, omogoča 
enakovredno in ustvarjalno dopolnjevanje v obojestransko korist in s tem pomeni izziv 
spolni pristranskosti. Interdisciplinarna metoda eseja sledi načelom avantgardnih 
gibanj zgodnjega 20. stoletja, ki so si prizadevala za preseganje starih in ustvarjanje 
novih tradicij pa tudi za brisanje ločnic med visoko in nizko kulturo, teorijo in prakso, 
centrom in periferijo. 
Pričujoča raziskava osvetljuje pomen raziskovanja mest za gledališče, s poudarkom na 
pomembnih prispevkih s strani Lācis. V argumentaciji namreč izpostavi intelektualni 
prispevek, ki ga lahko povežemo z Lācis glede na njeno strokovno izobrazbo in izkušnje, 
ki jih je pridobila kot avantgardna gledališka režiserka. Z analizo vsebine eseja članek 
izpostavlja gledališke metafore in omembe režijskih metod tedanjega časa, vključno z 
razpravami o revolucioniranju gledaliških praks, na primer z uprizarjanjem na ulicah 
in vključevanjem občinstva. Ključno vlogo Lācis pri oblikovanju esejskega pristopa 
dokazuje z raziskovanjem njenega izobrazbenega ozadja, ustvarjalnih del, pisem in 
publikacij. Citati iz njenih pisem, ki jih hrani Latvijski narodni literarni in glasbeni 
279

muzej, jasno kažejo na plodno sodelovanje in soavtorstvo z Walterjem Benjaminom. 
Njena razmišljanja o življenja polnem kaosu, gledališkosti in norem tempu mesta 
so zelo podobna refleksijam v eseju »Neapelj«, kar dokazuje, da je močno vplivala 
na njuno skupno pisanje. Njen prispevek je očiten tudi iz dejstva, da je za opis 
dinamičnosti mesta uporabljen gledališki okvir, v katerem se Neapelj preobrazi v oder 
za rituale, geste in predstave. V eseju je mestni prostor prikazan kot živi spektakel, 
v katerem se prepletajo verski obredi, ulične procesije, interakcije pri trgovanju in 
spontana praznovanja, realnost pa se prepleta z gledališkostjo.
Članek za preučevanje pripovedovanja zgodb v eseju uporablja analizo opisanih 
prizorov. Začetni prizor je podoben uvodnemu delu predstave; primerljiv je s prologom 
zgodovinske tragedije, odraža pa gledališkost vsakdanjega življenja. Benjamin in Lācis 
flanerstvo uporabita za transformacijo pohajkovanja in opazovanja v pripovedno 
strategijo. Z ritmom zapisanega besedila odslikavata hrup neapeljskih ulic, pred 
ključnimi trenutki refleksije pa uporabita kontemplativne premore. Premori delujejo 
kot celice poroznega sistema in nam omogočajo panoramski vpogled v življenje 
Neaplja. Posledica hibridnega pristopa je kinematografska in kalejdoskopska struktura 
eseja, ki mesto prikazuje kot fluidno in fragmentirano sekvenco živih izkušenj. Članek 
raziskuje flanerstvo kot način angažiranja; izpostavlja, da flanerstvo lahko poveže 
živo izkušnjo z gledališko in filozofsko prakso ter tako ustvari fluiden prostor, kjer se 
prepletata opazovanje in predstava, vsakdanja srečevanja pa postanejo refleksivna 
dejanja raziskovanja in ustvarjanja pomena. Mozaična esejska struktura, ki združuje 
živahne opise vsakdanjega življenja s filozofskimi vpogledi, ponazarja avantgardno 
vizijo preseganja meja – umetniških, ideoloških oziroma kulturnih.                
Ključna tema eseja je poroznost, metafora za strukturo Neaplja od njegovih 
vulkanskih temeljev do arhitekturne in družbene ureditve. Poroznost označuje 
konceptualno in fizično realnost, v kateri se odraža igriva interakcija med zasebnim 
in javnim prostorom, dnevom in nočjo, delom in prostim časom ter trgovanjem in 
hazardiranjem. Zaradi poroznosti mesta jasnih ločnic ni več; poraja se polje nenehnega 
stika in improvizacije. Ta okvir ne predstavlja le temeljev za filozofske vpoglede v 
eseju, temveč tudi za njegov gledališki slog, saj so javni prostori podobni odrskim, 
vsakdanje življenje pa se odvija kot predstava. Neapelj je predstavljen kot hibriden 
in fluiden prostor, v katerem nam soavtorska pogleda flanerja in flanerke razkrivata 
liminalne prostore tranzicije in transformacije.
Etika sodelovanja, ki prežema skupno delo Benjamina in Lācis, je prispevala k 
transnacionalnemu širjenju revolucionarnih avantgardnih idej; poleg tega je izzivala 
asimetrije med periferijo in centrom ter različne oblike spolne pristranskosti. Članek 
izpostavlja tudi, kako je njuno sodelovanje vplivalo na Benjaminovo intelektualno pot. 
Pod vplivom Lācis je Benjamin razvil svoj značilni filozofski slog, saj je v »Neaplju« 
280

prvič vpeljal metafore, kot sta poroznost in konstelacija, ki ju je pozneje razvil v 
temeljna koncepta. V jedru teh idej je povezanost fragmentov – odraz zavezanosti 
avantgarde polifoniji in hibridnosti. 
Članek se konča z ugotovitvijo, da flanerstvo kot strategija raziskovanja in 
pripovedovanja združuje dinamično živo izkušnjo z gledališčem in filozofijo, 
cilj pa je navdihniti sveže poglede na to, kako videti in bivati v svetu. S tem 
uteleša transdisciplinarni pristop, pri katerem se prepletajo umetnost, filozofija, 
gledališkost in živa izkušnja. Ne gre torej le za metodo, ki ji uspe ujeti bistvo 
Neaplja, temveč tudi vzpostavlja okvir za sodobne razprave o urbanizmu, 
odpornosti kulture in družbeni koheziji.
Prevedla Urška Daly
281