The magic lantern and the emergence of cinema
The transformation of the magic lantern under influence of the arrival of cinema
in the Dutch East Indies
Josefien van Poppel
Student number: 10035524 Supervisor: Floris Paalman
Second Reader: Marie‐Aude Baronian Thesis Master Film Studies
University of Amsterdam Completion date: 10‐3‐2016
Index
Introduction 3
1. The pre-cinematic magic lantern (1657-1895) 12
1.1. The invention of the magic lantern: apparatus and early shows 13 1.2. Magical ghost show or scientific optical instrument? 16 1.3. Colonial magic lantern use in the Dutch East Indies 17 1.4. Change of function under the influence of new media 19 1.5. The lantern market of the Dutch East Indies 21
1.6. Conclusion 24
2. The age of showmen: transition and continuity (1896-1906) 26
2.1. Modernization in the Dutch East Indies 27 2.2. The magic lantern in the light of modernity 29 2.3. The arrival of cinema – the era of showmen (1896-1897) 31 2.4. Travelling companies: from fairs towards film theatres (1897-1905) 35
2.5. Conclusion 41
3. Lantern use: a new paradigm (1904-1910) 43
3.1. The magic lantern, new perspectives 44 3.2. The emergence of lantern use at lectures 48 3.3. Home use: a growing market 51
3.4. Conclusion 53
Conclusion 56
Introduction
“New media might be here and slowly changing our consumer habits, but old media never left us. They are continuously remediated, resurfacing, finding new uses, contexts, adaptations.” This quote by Jussi Parrika from his book What is media archaeology? perfectly sums up the qualities of the magic lantern: the subject of this thesis. This was an ubiquitous optical instrument invented in the late seventeenth century and it has been used around the world for almost three decades. I came across a picture of this device, which is presented on the cover of this thesis. The description on the website of the Dutch National Archive reads: “In the Indies there is still place for the cabinet of wonders with moving images. When the man with the magic lantern appears, the whole village is overcome by great excitement, especially the youth.” I was struck by surprise, as I had always thought that the magic lantern was a very old device which completely disappeared after the introduction of cinema. This picture proved me wrong. The description also raises other questions: where I had thought the magic lantern was a device for the projection of still images, this lantern shows moving images. How is that possible?
This thesis provides answers to these questions by looking at it in a media archaeological way as Parrika suggests: as a medium that is not monolithic, but that changed throughout the years, adapting to the market, the wishes of the customers and geographical and timely circumstances. For decades the lantern was primarily an object within the entertainment circuit: it was used by showmen within travelling companies to entertain the public with impressive projected images. In the late nineteenth century this function was threatened by another enormous invention, namely that of cinema. When cinema arrived the magic lantern might not have been of interest to the entertainment circuit anymore, because cinema offered moving or “living” images, while the magic lantern images were mostly still. It did offer the possibility of showing motion pictures due to the dissolving views camera, that was invented in the eighteenth century, which could make pictures dissolve, creating an effect of movement (possibly the camera on the picture). Nevertheless this technique did not nearly equal the possibilities for movement that film had to offer. With these possibilities and being the latest, most fashionable and most modern invention, cinema offered a major threat to the market position of the entertaining magic lantern show. This thesis addresses the
manner in which the magic lantern holders and creators responded to this invention and how cinema affected the use of the magic lantern.
The question that is central to this research is: why and how did the magic lantern persevere after the emergence of cinema in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century? In order to answer this question, the uses and developments of the magic lantern prior to the emergence of cinema will be looked at and the manner in which the magic lantern gained popularity in the Dutch East Indies will be sought out. Secondly, the transition from lantern show to cinematic show will be researched very closely in order to find out how the introduction of cinema proceeded in relation to the magic lantern, by looking at show companies in the cities of Java. Finally the uses of the magic lantern in the beginning of the twentieth century will be explored in order to to answer how the magic lantern developed after the arrival of cinema.
In this thesis the theories about lantern use provide a framework for a case study, which consists of lantern use within a specific geographical setting: that of the Dutch East Indies and particularly on Java. I have chosen for this environment, because of several reasons. In the first place: most academic literature about the magic lantern and about film is written about Europe and the United States. When it comes to the magic lantern most research is done about lantern use in the United Kingdom, because this medium was very popular in the Victorian Age. Asia is a relatively unexplored terrain which therefore might bring up alternative modes of lantern use. Secondly, the dynamics between the original population of the Indies and the Dutch on this colonial territory can play an important role within this research, because different lantern and cinematographic purposes can be derived from the relationship between the colonialist and colonized. And thirdly, and most importantly, the influence of modernity on the Dutch East Indies was very clear. Modernity is a concept that is often understood as a condition of the emergence of cinema, and is usually considered primarily a western phenomenon. Nevertheless, this research will show that modernity was inflicted in the archipelago very rapidly, which not only provided the inhabitants with modern aimed mindsets, but also offered very fertile ground for the quick emergence of cinema in this region. This dynamic can stress the context of the eighteenth century within which the lantern was created as a contrast to the modern environment of cinema, and the effects of these backgrounds on the use of these media.
Because the information about lantern use in this region is very limited, the core of this research will consist of more common studies about the apparatus and development of the magic lantern and zoom in on the use in the Indies as a case study to test and deploy these theories. When the transition of the lantern show towards a cinematic show will be discussed in the second chapter this process will completely be described within the context of the island of Java, in order to offer a very detailed account of this transformation, which took place in only a few years.
Two theoretical frameworks will serve as counterparts to this thesis: media archaeology and modernity. Parrika states some media archaeological premises in the same introduction the first quote was drawn from, and this research will build upon those. Firstly media devices do not follow upon each other, or at least not in an individually causal relationship; they can also exist parallelly (4). Different uses and technical aspects of media can be taken over by new media, but this takes the form of a branched tree rather than in a linear one to one relationship in line with Foucault’s idea of genealogy: media can be formed by many different aspects relating to media networks, such as cultural practices and discourses, creating non-linear, alternative histories (6). Next to that, new media devices are not necessarily better than old ones and newness is a very relative concept: old media used to be new as well (11). Hence new media can be faster, formed by the latest technology and therefore more advanced, but old media might be more solid or easy in use. But most importantly a medium is not something static and solid. Media devices can change over time due to environmental influences, such as new inventions or a new ‘Zeitgeist’. And even if the apparatus does not change, new purposes can be found for media devices by new audiences and uses within new geographical contexts or timeframes.
Modernity is often stated as the basis for the emergence of cinema and is mostly because of this a very popular concept in media archaeological theories, but it has rarely been linked to the magic lantern, despite the fact this concept is very fluid and has multiple approach angles. Therefore I seek to recover whether modernity was the sole or main condition for the emergence of cinema, and if the magic lantern also thrived on this development. Parrika describes the consequences of modernity as follows: “how new scientific and technological innovations influence the changing cultural landscape and even our basic ways of being in this world: seeing, hearing, thinking and feeling” (7). This quote suggests the magic lantern must also have been highly influenced by modernity, because it
was an optical medium connected to the way the people perceived the world. The emergence of modernity is situated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in most theories. Many non-media archaeological accounts of modernity have been written as well and I will therefore take a moment to explain how this research relates to these visions.
Early cinema investigators Simon Popple and Joe Kember link modernity primarily to industrialisation and urbanisation (4). Upcoming metropolises had better transportation networks such as electrical tram connections from one side of the city to the other. This made leisure life a lot easier: it was literally more accessible, but also in terms of money, accessibility was achieved because of the upcoming middle class in the nineteenth century. This is a technocentric notion of modernisation: it is directly linked to developments regarding industry and machinery becoming more accessible and present in society on a much larger scale. In that sense this view is also limited: these developments are superficial symptoms of what must have been an underlying process. These factors could have contributed to the popularity and quick spread of cinema, but they do not explain why cinema has become popular in the first place, especially not in the Dutch East Indies.
Elsbeth Locher-Scholten presents a somewhat more elaborated idea in her study regarding gender and modernity in the Dutch East Indies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century: she places modernity in a broader historical timeframe and with the addition of a particular way of thinking. In her point of view, modernity is “the application of rationality, the development of capitalism and industrialisation, including concomitant long-term processes, such as urbanisation, consumerism and individualisation” (32). In her work modernisation is a process, which has been going on for a longer time, namely since the Enlightenment. On top of that she adds a facet of rationality. In the Indies the enlightenment as a specific historical development never took place, because this was a western phenomenon. In that sense this definition of modernity might not be applicable.
Further on she adds to this notion a second type of modernity: “the longing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century for progress, development and ‘the modern’ as well as the attraction of twentiethcentury “modern” objects, like cars and telephones” (32). In this sense modernity is limited to a narrow timeframe, which captivates not only technical, mechanical and behavioural processes, but also puts the citizen in a position with agency while longing for “modern objects”. This “longing” existed in the Indies as well as in Europe. The consequences of this theory to colonial modernity are dual: on one hand the idea of
rationality since the Enlightenment suggests modernity wasn’t present in the colonies on the same level as in Europe. On the other hand the longing for modernity and integration of modern objects might have been present on the same level. This suggests modernity on the same level, but less deeply rooted and therefore of a different nature. This gives us a very complex notion regarding this research for additional reasons: the first chapter will point out that the longing for new media existed long before the end of the nineteenth century: other media had been popular as well for their newness, such as the magic lantern during the eighteenth and nineteenth century, which results in the question: was modernity or modernism, which refers to the modern mindset, a process that started before the late nineteenth century or is the longing for new media not always connected with modernity? And if the last is the case, was this aspect of modernity indeed a deciding factor for the popularity of cinema? This is a first hint towards the media archaeological notion that histories are more complex and there is not a simple causal relationship between modernity and the emergence of cinema.
Another point of view can be derived from Tom Gunning’s article “The World as Object Lesson: Cinema Audiences, Visual Culture and the St. Louis World’s Fair, 1904” in which he puts emphasis on yet another aspect of modernity. For the most part, his idea corresponds with Popple’s and Kember’s idea, to which he adds some facets. About the World Fair in St. Louis, he states:
“The world exposition, then, served as a site where not only the products of modernity were displayed, but the protocols of modern spectating were rehearsed within the context of a new consumer culture. In this site Capitalism, Industrialism and Imperialism stagemanaged a complex interaction among technology, commodity, spectacle and ultimately, new forms of popular culture, all of which shaped the emergence of cinema” (424).
Gunning makes a connection between earlier mentioned aspects of modernisation such as industrialisation and technology and a new facet: modern spectatorship. Like Locher-Scholten he places responsibility for the emergence of modernity on the side of the people, the spectator in this case. On the other hand he recognizes the emergence of a new consumer culture within the context of industrialisation as Popple and Kember do. But once again I ask myself: is this new spectatorial mode a crucial factor in the popularity of cinema?
It might have shaped the interaction between the spectator and cinematic text, but in line with Gunning’s idea of cinema of attractions, which I will return to later on, audiences seem to have been interested in the medium because it was something new in the first place, as they had been in so many media in the decades before.
The perspective of the relationship between modernity, cinema and the magic lantern I will bring forward in this thesis, is that these visions on late nineteenth century modernity did not form the primary condition for cinema to spread. However, both the magic lantern and cinema did develop under the influence of several aspects of modernity in a way that they could maintain their position in the twentieth century media landscape. The economic conditions that are often related to modernity such as the development of leisure life, the rise of the middle class, who had some money to spend and better transportation networks at their disposal, have undoubtedly contributed to the popularity of these media and to why they have sustained throughout the twentieth century. On the other hand, the interest in film was also for a large part made possible by other media such as the magic lantern, which had served a tradition of interest in new optics for decades and had already evoked a sense of interest in new products which clearly was not new when cinema spread. Moreover, as it comes to early cinematic practices, the second chapter will point out how the early cinematic show clearly fitted the tradition of magic lantern shows within the context of itinerary entertainment.
In addition to the more extensive visions on media archaeology and modernity, other theoretical concepts and premises will form the cornerstones of this research. In the first place there is a clear difference between private magic lantern use and public lantern use. Fellow media archaeologist Meredith A. Bak has focused on private lantern use, especially use as a toy, while other authors have written about the magic lantern within the context of shows (Daniel Raichvarg) or in science lectures (Jennifer Eisenhauer). While private use was not at all threatened by the spread of cinema, aspects of public use did. The developments within public and private use will both be discussed, but emphasis will lay on presentational and show forms of lantern projection, because these forms show a clearer relation to cinema. Within this public context in the last chapter, the idea of controllability will be introduced. The direction in which the magic lantern developed after the introduction of cinema mostly had to do with the fact that this device was so easy in use and that the agency of the lantern show, presentation or projection lay with the controller and not with the device itself. The opposite goes for cinema: the device and its attributes terminated the show. In order to find
out all the benefits and disadvantages for using one device over the other, the uses and gratifications model will be deployed to point out all public-related factors that could play a part.
Because this research is about the development of the lantern over a large period of time, an extensive role is reserved for trends and discourses relating to paradigms the magic lantern was placed within by the users and spectators during the different era’s of use. Daniel Raichvarg has related his magic lantern show research to the eighteenth century notions of science and magic, while Terry Castle elaborates on the rational and irrational effects of the phantasmagoria in the Post-Enlightenment period. These aspects help to explain why the lantern was popular and why it developed in certain directions. In the late nineteenth century, in the aftermath of the industrial revolution, science and magic were not the common trends anymore and this completely changed the way in which the magic lantern was perceived and advertised, partially under the influence of cinema. These paradigms help to point out the diverse ways in which the magic lantern functioned and to understand why it was so resilient. Finally, I will follow up on Malte Hagener’s practical adaptation of Gunning’s cinema of attractions in order to stress the continuity between the early cinematic shows and the lantern shows, by deploying his model of a dialectics between attractions and narrativity.
The context of the Dutch East Indies is chosen partially because it creates a clearer contrast between the late nineteenth century atmosphere of modernity and the period beforehand, and this context requires specific theory. The colonial context will be expounded by focusing on the relationship between colonizer and colonised. Within this specific relationship an important concept is featured: that of mission civilisatrice introduced by the work of Henk Schulte Nordholt, who is a specialist on Indonesia and orientalism. With the idea of spreading wealth and modernity in the colonies, the Dutch brought new technology and products to the Dutch East Indies in order to educate the local inhabitants. Media were implemented and transformed in the lines of this ‘mission’. The original inhabitants who were also influenced by and focused on modernity, were eager to pick up new forms of media and especially cinema became very popular within those groups of society. This can partially be explained with research by Karen Strassler, who researched the visual and consumer culture in Indonesia. Her research points out that the original inhabitants of the Dutch East Indies engaged with western products and customs by integrating them within their own traditional lifestyle. This way it did not cause much friction. Dafna Ruppin’s promotion
research forms a bridge from these accounts of colonial modernity, previous theories on modernity and the Dutch East Indonesian film Industry by focussing on the emergence of cinema on Java.
These theories along with literature research will form a framework to interpret source material consisting of paper articles and advertisements found on the online paper database Delpher. These articles come from papers from the Dutch East Indies in the eighteenth and nineteenth century on the islands of Java and Sumatra. I have chosen for paper articles because they reflect the trends in public culture and offer insights in different types of articles: advertisements for shows, sales and reports of shows in the form of public opinion. The papers I will use are the Javasche Courant and Java-Bode, about the whole island Java, Soerabaijasch Handelsblad, the paper from the city Surabaya, Bataviasche Courant, Bataviaasch Handelsblad and Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad from Batavia (former Jakarta), De Locomotief: Samarangs Handels- en Advertentieblad and Samarangs Advertentie-blad from Semarang, and the Sumatra Post from the island Sumatra. Most papers were from Java and Sumatra, which were the most densely populated and cultivated by the Dutch, and which is the reason why I will restrict this research to these islands. These sources provide information about how the magic lantern shows and early cinematic shows were advertised and perceived and about the lantern sales in the Dutch East Indies in terms of locations, prices, target groups and trends. They are on the other hand limited as well; these papers were written in Dutch by the Dutch colonizers and aimed mostly at a Dutch public. They provide relatively limited information about the use of these media by the original inhabitants and Asian immigrants. It is therefore hardly possible to make estimations of the scale of lantern use and cinema visiting by these groups based on selected papers, but with the help of theories and trends as described in the literature about colonial media use, some information can be extracted about the nature of the media use of these inhabitants.
In order to find out why the magic lantern remained in a stable position on the market a couple of benchmarks will be deployed, based on which a comparison between the two media will be made. The differences in apparatus between both media will be looked at to see if these are different in quality or if they make different kinds of use possible. Especially ‘usability’ is an important criterion I will investigate as it comes to the apparatus, because this can be an crucial factor in the popularity in private and public use. In addition, the functions and uses of the lantern and the early cinematic devices will be compared to see if the
possibilities the apparatuses offered were actually put into practice. Finally, emphasis will be put on promotion and audiences to find out what types of audiences were attracted to the magic lantern and early cinematic shows and in what ways. The most likely aspects to differ when looking at the way in which the magic lantern developed after the introduction of cinema are apparatus and function, as it mostly became a illustrational device at lectures. But looking at the front picture, audiences might have shifted as well.
This research will start off with a chapter about the pre-cinematic period about lantern use. I will begin by explaining how and when the lantern was invented and how it soon developed different functions within different social and geographical groups. Then, I will put emphasis on the use of the magic lantern within the context of the Dutch East Indies and find out how the lantern market developed in this region. In the second chapter I will reflect upon the emergence of cinema based on the concept of modernity. There will be shown how this medium arrived and spread in the archipelago. In this chapter emphasis is put upon the transition from the lantern show towards the cinematic show, and the similarities between these two entertaining modes will be stressed in order to find out why the lantern disappeared within this context and to what extent it influenced the cinematic show. In the third chapter I will point out how the magic lantern developed after the arrival of cinema. This chapter will show how the entertaining function decreased along with the raise in popularity of cinema and how the lantern thrived within the context of lectures by combining the theories on home and toy use as formulated by Bak’s and Eisenhauer’s theories on home use with the information derived from the Dutch East Indies’ paper articles.
Chapter one: The pre-cinematic magic lantern
The magic lantern was a Dutch Invention from the seventeenth century (Wagenaar-Fischer 15). In order to find out the qualities of the lantern and understand how the lantern functioned and developed in the Dutch East Indies at the time cinema arrived in the late nineteenth century, this chapter shows how the magic lantern was invented and how it spread throughout the world in the decades of lantern use previous to the time cinema was invented. Within this period from the late seventeenth to the late nineteenth century, the world changed immensely. The lantern was invented in a time, when society was at the start of modernization: the industrial revolution had yet to commence, many important things we associate with technology nowadays such as electricity were not yet invented and the world was in very early stages of globalization. Travelling went slowly, world trade was also in an early stadium. In this era science was quickly developing, partially due to the enormous wealth of Europe. Many inventions were done in the area of machinery and optical devices. Many of these have lost public interest soon afterwards, but the lantern persevered up to the 1950s. Why and how was the lantern able to stay on the market and what functions did it fulfill?
In order to find this out this chapter will zoom in on the purposes and ways of using the lantern from the invention of the lantern up to the arrival of cinema in the Indies. The development of these purposes and functions will show how the lantern developed, in what contexts the device was used and why in order to find out the importance and replaceability of the medium. The lantern’s journey commenced in the Netherlands from the workplaces of the scientists to the houses of the upper class civilians, but soon spread throughout Europe in the form of the lantern show. From the beginning, the magic lantern was used in different ways within different social contexts. I will show in this chapter in what paradigms the eighteenth century lantern users and spectators placed the medium and why and how they used the device based on literature about the lantern apparatus by Albert Wagenaar and scholars who followed up on his research, theories about public lantern shows in the eighteenth century such as Daniel Raichvarg’s article and discourse analysis of the phantasmagoria by Terry Castle. Because this research focuses primarily on the Dutch East Indies, in the second half of this chapter I will focus on lantern use within the geographical context of this area and show the additional modes of lantern use by studying Dutch East Indies’ paper articles.
The outlines of this research are media archaeological and this chapter fits within that framework: instead of seeing the magic lantern as a monolithic instrument and predecessor of the modern slide projector because of its very similar apparatus, this chapter will examine the different uses and possibilities of the lantern within the entertainment spectrum as well as its educational purposes. I want to emphasize on different perspectives of the lantern and focus on the different uses of the lantern throughout the centuries. I will do so by deploying different methods: I connect the source material consisting of the paper articles to a more common framework of literature and theory to find out the specifics about Dutch East Indies lantern use and how this colonial context relates to more western based research about this medium. I will also deploy discourse analysis by exploring the meaning of the words “magic lantern”, “scientific lantern” and “phantasmagoria” in the eighteenth and nineteenth century in order to research the different perspectives on the lantern and to find out what made this medium attractive to its audiences. Castle’s research for example, explains how it appealed to irrationality and the senses at the same time, which served as fertile ground for different forms of lantern use as this chapter will point out.
The invention of the magic lantern: apparatus and early shows
The magic lantern was invented in the seventeenth century. It was a projection instrument, which incorporated similar but reversed techniques to those of the Camera Obscura: the camera obscura projected the lit outside world through a lense or hole on the inside of a box, while the magic lantern projected an image lit by a flame inside the box on an outside wall through a lense. The original apparatus was a small box in which a small flame was placed, for example a candle or oil lamp. On top was a small chimney to release the smoke and a mirror was placed against the backside to reflect the light. In front of the flame one could place several small images painted on glass. Also similar to the Camera Obscura, the images had to be placed upside down to project the images the right way. In front of the image there was a lens, which projected the image on a flat surface. There have been disagreements about who has invented the device: Danish mathematics student Thomas Walgenstein and Jesuit Father Athanasius Kircher have both been indicated as possible inventors, but most scholars agree it was the Dutch mathematician and scientist Christiaan Huygens who invented the actual object around 1659 (Wagenaar et al. “The True Inventor” 23).
By the end of the seventeenth century, the magic lantern was no longer privileged to the scientific world and the lantern trade started to develop (Robinson 9). The lantern became a curiosity at that time, a toy for wealthy gentlemen. Scientists lost their interest in the device during the eighteenth century and most lanterns fell in the hands of traveling lanternists, who started a tradition of travelling lantern shows that would continue for nearly two centuries. They used the lanterns for shows throughout Europe in drawing rooms, bars and taverns (Robinson 9). The first lanternists came from the Savoy, a region in modern Switzerland, Italy and France, who had a rich tradition of street entertainment and adopted the lantern within their repertoire among a peepbox and a trained marmot (Loughridge 13). They often traveled with their families and other family members would provide different kinds of entertainment. From the early lantern days two modes of use are already brought to existence: public use and private use. Both were interesting for the public or owner for their newness, their association with science and magic and the sense of wonder the machine brought up. Also, the projections allowed the viewers to experience these sensations together and in that sense the lantern also fulfilled a social role.
The lantern soon spread throughout Europe along with these travelling companies. To cater the entertaining functions of the lantern the apparatus of the machine was changed: another type of lantern was created, which was called the Bull’seye lantern (Wagenaar et al. “Dutch Lantern Workshops” 27). This new apparatus was small, light and easily transportable. The lens could be shifted some inches to create the right angle for the projection surface. But the Bull’s Eye Lantern was only one variation in the first magic lantern of many to come. The ‘s Gravesande Lantern (invented between 1720 and 1742) was a larger projector with larger slides (Wagenaar et al. “Dutch Lantern Workshops” 47). Consequently the projections were larger as well. Several innovations were added to the apparatus in order to improve the illumination, image quality and usability. In the 1780s, a Swiss lanternist developed a “quinquet lamp”, which was a huge improvement on the terrain of illumination (Robinson 9). New models of the magic lantern were not only made in The Netherlands or even in Europe, also in Japan several magic lantern models were invented from the eighteenth century onwards (Wagenaar et al. “Dutch Lantern Workshops” 49). This meant the lantern was no longer exclusive to the European market. As a result, new forms of lantern use were invented in Asia as well, such as utsushi-e: a hybrid form between lantern projection and shadowplay that was invented in Japan and popular during the nineteenth
century (Willis 7). Another Japanese invention that was created after utsushi-e was furo: an incredibly light magic lantern made out of a light wood instead of European metal (Willis 7). There are no records of the use of these devices outside Japan, so there is reason to believe these types of lanterns were exclusive to the Japanese market, but the European magic lantern was spread to other parts of Asia as well during the nineteenth century.
Magic lanterns were not the only optical instruments on the market at the time: the wealthy seventeenth century citizens were fond of all kinds of optical toys and objects. Among those objects was the perspective box, which is a small box in which a painting was made against the backside creating the illusion of perspective. “Chinese Fireworks” were boxes with a perforated image in front with light shining through. Some other inventions of the founder of the magic lantern Christiaan Huygens were also quite popular, like the “Diaphanorama”: an optical toy, which created perspective in an image with a lamp and a mirror (Wagenaar et al. “Festive Illumination” 93). These objects made use of ingenious techniques involving light and perspective like the magic lantern. The magic lantern clearly did not have a monopoly position on the market and had to compete with all these other instruments. On the other hand, the magic lantern offered the possibility to paint your own lantern slides and many slides with different themes, such as biblical themes, “funny” portraits and landscapes were already made in several European countries in the early eighteenth century (Wagenaar et al. “Dutch Lantern Workshops” 40). Partially because of its many options and functions such as the possibility to paint your own lantern slides or buy standard packages the magic lantern was the only instrument that lasted throughout the decades.
In 1803 advertisements started to report on a “new magic lantern” with “beautiful” and “coloured” pictures. This contributed to a new trend: the consumer and advertiser started to see the magic lantern as a toy. From 1806 to 1909 the magic lantern was advertised in several papers as a gift for small boys (Groninger Courant 26-12-1806). In The Leydse Courant from 1815 an article sums up “new, cheerful and educational St. Nicholas toys”. One of the toys was a magic lantern, lined up among some mathematic toys and a small pharmacy for “bourgeoisie children” (412). But the idea of the magic lantern as a scientific “toy” for wealthy gentlemen was also still in fashion: advertisements for “fine magic lanterns with additional catalogus” were still in the papers next to the toy advertisements (Leydse Courant 26-01-1824). Hence, there seem to have been two notable trends in the private magic
lantern use in The Netherlands of the nineteenth century. On one hand there was a continuation of the magic lantern use of the eighteenth century: wealthy men, who kept this object as a curiosity or a hobby among rare books, paintings and musical instruments and other optical toys such as “illumination closets”, Chinese fireworks and later on also burning glasses and electrical equipment. Most of these advertisements seem to be placed by booksellers, which suggests magic lanterns along with the other optical toys belonged to intellectual spheres at this time. On the other hand the magic lantern also became a toy for children. It is unclear whether it was the same type of magic lantern that was used as a toy.
Magical ghost show or scientific optical instrument?
Throughout the eighteenth century two discourses relating to the lantern became dominant: the lantern as an optical and scientific device, and -more often in show context- the lantern show was performed by a socalled “magician”. It is imaginable that the effect of the lantern projection was quite magical for the spectator in this era as the magic lantern was the first projection device. Daniel Raichvarg points out taht this trend of the magical on one hand and the scientific on the other went for all forms of optical entertainment at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century. In his article “Science on the Fairgrounds, from Black to White Magic”(585), he argues this is caused by the popularization of science and the existence of public science shows. The performers, who were not necessarily educated scientists but often showmen, optimized the effect of wonder and surprise by using magnetism and electricity (589). This explains why science and magic were often connected to each other without further notice.
A specific type of lantern show became particularly popular during the late eighteenth century: the phantasmagoria. This type of show fitted perfectly within the context of scientific magic as it was a ghost show made possible by modern science. Terry Castle connects the phantasmagoria to an even broader and more psychological development: that of the rational and the irrational. These states of the mind reinforced each other and were invoked by the ghost shows, which showed the technique to the spectators, but not entirely. The effect was a ghost projection was visible, the spectator saw a ghost while knowing ghosts did not exist (Castle, 30). This type of show was invented by Etienne Gaspard Robertson, a Belgian inventor and physicist. He made the projection surface translucent by treating a fine woven screen with wax or water (Robinson 10). By moving the lantern closer or further
certain effects would be created which made the images look like ghosts. The showmen of these shows were called magicians and physicists. While the background of this terminology is explained, it seems as though there is hardly a difference between these terms. However, calling the performer a physicist puts emphasis on the rational part of the lantern show and suggests the show can be explained as a scientific show. On the other hand calling the performer a magician leads the spectator away from this explanation towards a more irrational and entertaining perspective of the lantern show. While these discourses were interwoven during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, they split into different modes of lantern use afterwards. The rational idea of lantern use would later prove fertile ground for renewed scientific interest in the lantern, while the irrational magical discourse led to the emergence of lantern use within the entertainment industry.
During the nineteenth century the phantasmagoria remained very popular. Whereas the magic lantern was an object often used in the private sphere and owned by private individuals, the phantasmagoria was exclusively a public show. The newspaper advertisements reflect this: the magic lantern was mostly mentioned in advertisements of furniture sales and the phantasmagoria was labeled as a “spectacle”; these advertisements were for ticket sales. The first advertisement for a phantasmagoria show in Dutch papers was in 1805 in the Amsterdamsche Courant. This show was on the Imperial Golf Court on the Keizersgracht, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city. At first the spectators would see “a public representation of physic and mechanic pieces of art” followed by a phantasmagoria or ghost appearance and concluded by a “whole new ghost ballet”. These phantasmagoria shows from Amsterdam were promoted as physical and technological progress, which is completely in line with the theory. At a show in 1811 in Amsterdam (Courrier d’Amsterdam) the show starts with applying electricity on a human body and magnetic liquid. It ends with “hydraulic”, a science in the dynamics of liquid. These elements must have been appealing to the public considering that this aspect of the show was featured in the advertisement.
Colonial magic lantern use in the Dutch East Indies
The Dutch started to settle in the Indies at the time of the VOC (“Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie”; Dutch East Indies Company) in the seventeenth century (Ruppin 30). At first there were only a few trading posts on different islands. From around 1825 the island of Java
was almost completely under Dutch governance. In 1830 the Cultivation System came into operation, which meant all Indonesian companies had to pay twenty percent of their income and products to The Netherlands. The archipelago wasn’t officially Dutch territory until the ending of the nineteenth century. The settlement of Dutch colonists heavily increased when the Suezcanal opened in 1869. The traveling time reduced from several months to a couple of weeks, making the Dutch East Indies a more attractive place to settle.
Compared to the Netherlands, the magic lantern in the Dutch East Indies seems to have been used less in the sphere of optical toys for wealthy adults, but it was nonetheless a curiosity or hobby object at first. The first magic lantern advertisements started to appear in newspapers in the beginning of the nineteenth century, almost a century later than in The Netherlands, because this country was yet to be inhabited by a widespread Dutch society at that time. The first account is from the Batavische Courant (18-04-1818). It is an advertisement of a lottery at which several prizes are offered. These prizes consisted of a “very good magic lantern”, an English stagecoach, a French table lamp, English guns, a microscope and a Bengal palankin, which was a typical Asian carriage. The objects seem more international, useful and diverse than the objects that were sold in the Dutch papers, which shows that the households of the Indies were more internationally oriented and that the lantern was not necessarily associated with the world of optical toys in this setting. The second advertisement from the Javasche Courant twenty years later (17-05-1837) offers very similar products: English guns, carriages and a magic lantern. Magic lanterns were placed among somewhat exclusive and exotic (foreign) objects in the first half of the nineteenth century. In later advertisements however, the typography of advertisements for lanterns were relatively small in comparison with other objects such as a “fine music box” and “porcelain and glasswork” (Java-Bode 23-04-1881). Hence the magic lanterns exotic and exclusive status probably had declined at a quick pace and had become a normal useable object.
The phantasmagoria was also present at the entertainment market in the Dutch East Indies, although it seems like the word “phantasmagoria” was not necessarily associated with ghost appearances and horror shows. Most advertisements dealt with public magic lantern shows of all kinds with all sorts of images and for different types of public. The first advertisement of a show in this genre was in the Javasche Courant in 1839 (31-8), thirty years later than the first phantasmagoria show in a Dutch paper. The performer of the show was a “physicist” called Robertson, who came from The Netherlands and went back there
after 1839. It was a “catoptric and dioptric” (scientific optical terms, referring to the different kinds of light focus) experience and twenty-five images were shown. The subjects of the images were not advertised, which suggests the phantasmagoria of the physician should be interesting enough in itself. While the phantasmagoria was not advertised with ghost appearance, it did fit in the magic and science discourse as it did in Europe. Not only in Batavia, but also in other cities on Java, phantasmagoria shows took place. In 1855 there was a show in Semarang (Samarangsch advertentie-blad 16-03). Almost all paper advertisements were in Dutch, which shows it was directed towards Dutch or Dutch speaking citizens. Nothing is reported about an entrance fee. This show stood even further away from the association of the phantasmagoria with horror and ghost appearances which was neither in the Netherlands nor in the Indies a selling point of the show any longer at this time. Instead, this show would evoke some laughs and the images would exist of nature and art pictures.
From the 1850s, “phantasmagoria” became a popular word in Dutch East Indies newspapers. It meant something like imagination, hallucination, apparition or fantasy: all of which connected to the irrational state of mind. In a paper article of 1884 the word was used within the following sentence: “This was not his only phantasmagoria, because after he entered the club building he imagined the bag he saw was his own property” (De Locomotief 22-3). It is clear within this sentence the word phantasmagoria was used as a synonym for imagination. Taking the common use of the word in paper articles into account, the show had to have a great influence on the Dutch language and must have been commonly known in all parts of the Dutch and Dutch colonial society.
Change of function under influence of new media
From the introduction of the magic lantern in the early nineteenth century until the late nineteenth century the magic lantern has been used with different goals in the Dutch East Indies. The primary association with the magic lantern was entertainment. Within the spectrum of entertainment the magic lantern served different goals: in the private sphere it could show images to small groups. Some people placed advertisements to come to parties with their own magic lantern to show images to groups (Java-Bode, 26-4-1889). The magic lantern showed different pictures with different purposes: were always drawn or painted, until the invention of photography. Some contained moving elements. Because it was a relatively new medium, people used it to impress their guests. Similarly to the use in The Netherlands,
in the Dutch East Indies the device was also depicted as a toy. An example of this can be found in an advertisement of 1884, where the magic lantern was advertised as “a toy for kids” (Bataviaasch Handelsblad, 9-8).
Later on photographic pictures became fit for the magic lantern, thanks to the process of collodion: an 1850s invention of Frederick Scott Arker which made the attachment of photographs to a glass plate possible by adding a layer of collodion emulsion (Fresko 53). In the second half of the nineteenth century it became possible to print photographs on the magic lantern glass slides. Stereoscope pictures were initially also attached to glass and the production of these images continued for the magic lantern: the manufacturers simply cut the pictures in two in order to make them fit (Dellmann 14). There are various examples of photographic image views of Dutch cities printed on glass. These were originally meant as souvenirs for tourists visiting The Netherlands and they were manufactured and distributed by a Dutch company called Merkelbach & Co. (Dellmann 15). It is very likely that some of these pictures reached the Dutch East Indies, as the company Merkelbach & Co. also advertised in the newspapers of the Dutch East Indies as well with magic lanterns and additive pictures (Java-Bode, 21-12-1889). The pictures could have served as a means for a connection with the homeland, which became an important lantern function on colonial grounds in the late nineteenth century as further explained in chapter three, Most magic lantern shows advertised with pictures coming from Europe, indicating there was a notable trade in magic lantern equipment between Europe and the Dutch East Indies. There is some more evidence of photographic magic lantern pictures of The Netherlands in this country: a sale advertisement in the Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad from 1862 offered a device for home viewings and phantasmagorias (02-08). It specifically offered slides with pictures from Holland, Belgium, France and Italy along with the machine. This new lantern function made possible by the invention of photography enabled the Dutch inhabitants of the Dutch East Indies to watch pictures from home away from home on a big surface.
A second private magic lantern function that developed throughout the nineteenth century was showing pornography. The authors of Dutch East Indies newspaper articles mostly associated pornography with French sexual immorality. Nevertheless, different pornographic lantern pictures from the Netherlands have been preserved throughout the centuries (Wagenaar Dutch Perspectives 54). There is no evidence of these images being transported to the Indies, but that might be explained by the fact that pornography wasn’t a
publicly accepted phenomenon. Most traces of pornography would therefore be erased. It is still very well possible these pictures were shown communally in gentlemen’s clubs and brothels (Heard 180). Most pornographic lantern images were produced in France and some in Britain and the United States. These images varied from quite unrevealing and innocent pictures of somewhat daring half dressed women to pictures of naked women, nudes of concurred land and tribes, such as pictures of naked Zulu women and Indian dancing girls. The circulation of pornographic images was forbidden in Dutch territory but that seems to be a matter of terminology: in some papers even short soft erotic poems were published. Acceptable erotica was mostly associated with poetry, literature (women’s fiction) and dance, but there were also many erotic pictures and picture book sales in papers (Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 30-05-1891). From the late nineteenth century stereoscope images with multiple erotic pictures “exclusively for gentlemen” were also available (Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 08-04-1897). This could be an indication for the use of such images with the lantern as well, since stereoscope pictures were often also made for this device. Thus, pornography was a phenomenon that was exploited by different media: paper pictures, stereoscopy and the magic lantern. However, the projection of pornographic pictures is remarkable, because although the use of pornographic images probably took place in private circles, the act of projection made it accessible to a public. In the second chapter will be pointed out how film also took on pornography in the form of public projection. The nature of watching pornography consequently changed by means of the lantern from a private phenomenon to a public custom.
The lantern market of the Dutch East Indies
There were several types of magic lanterns in circulation in the Dutch East Indies, which served different purposes. They came in different materials and sizes. Many advertisements report “a large and beautiful magic lantern with sail” or “a very fine and extraordinarily big magic lantern with fortysix different items”, referring to lantern slides (Javasche Courant 17-05-1837). These types of magic lanterns were fit for public shows and home viewing in small companies. The “sciopticon” was a big and advanced type of lantern, which had special slides allowing images to fade in and out and to add colour filters. This lantern was vrey popular in the Dutch East Indies. The magic lantern types fit for kids were probably smaller as the bigger ones were quite expensive and therefore not very practical for them.
One of the first types of magic lantern that could show a form of motion pictures, was the “dissolving views” lantern: a specific magic lantern type with two lenses placed on top of each other that could merge two pictures by slowing stopping the light on one lense and gradually bringing it up on the other (Marsh 334). The dissolving views were solely used for entertainment, mostly for phantasmagorias: the dissolvement of the pictures formed the spectacle in itself. The idea of this type of camera arose under pressure of competing devices such as Daguerre’s diorama, which also showed moving images (Marsh 335). The possibilities of movement within the dissolving views lantern were very basic: it could make transitions from day to night or summer to winter. Different types of dissolving view cameras were on the market: a sciopticon could also be a dissolving views lantern if it had two lenses. A sale advertisement in the Bataviaasch Handelsblad from 1862 offered a device for showing “dissolving views” and phantasmagorias (0208). It was evenly suitable for private viewings as for public ones. It cost ƒ800, which was certainly not affordable for everyone. This does not have to mean all magic lanterns were this expensive at that time: this specific machine included a lot of images, as well as moving images and it was a very rare type.
The magic lanterns were basically present at all places where (somewhat wealthy) people lived and where trade took place. Most advertisements of magic lantern sales and shows were from the bigger cities, but an advertisement from 1889 specifically made clear the magic lantern could also be transported to the inlands (07-01-1889 Java-Bode). Places where the magic lantern viewings took place varied from homes of people to public buildings in the bigger cities on the island of Java, depending on the nature of the show. Most magic lantern shows (phantasmagorias and other entertaining shows) took place in Batavia (Jakarta), Semarang, Soerabaja, Buitenzorg (Bogor), but some also took place in the bigger cities of the island of Sumatra. Most shows were given in public buildings such as city theaters and comedy theaters, but there were also shows in society buildings and schools.
The magic lanterns were quite expensive, and therefore they were not affordable for everyone. The shows seem to have been somewhat exclusive and aimed at an upper class public at first, but became more publicly accessible as time passed and magic lanterns became ubiquitous. The first advertisement of a phantasmagoria show was written in French, which suggests the public was prosperous as only the aristocracy spoke French in the nineteenth century but it could also have been directed towards French colonists as this rubric in the paper also reports news from French cities (Javasche Courant 31-8-1839). It was
accessible for everyone, also children. The entrance price was ƒ3 per person; that is worth approximately €28, today. Tickets were a lot more expensive than in the Netherlands, so the show might have been more exclusive here or aimed at a wealthier public. Advertisements in November 1853 of phantasmagoria shows in the Java-bode announce the performance of another physicist, this time a very famous “optician” from Paris called Charles Chevalier. The show took place on Saint Nicolas day and was also accessible for children. It took place in Noordwijk, a neighborhood of Batavia. This show cost ƒ2 for officers, riders and ladies and ƒ1 for children. There were no prices mentioned for other male civilians (farmers or salesmen), which suggests they were not welcome and the show was only accessible to colonialist soldiers and officers.
Later on other phantasmagoria shows were advertised, which were accessible to a different (broader) public and not only to the wealthy Dutch speaking class. In 1856 a performance of puppets and phantasmagoria images took place in the house of a Chinese man in the Chinese camp (Java-Bode 16-02-1856). It was spoken in Malay, the language of the Indonesian and Chinese inhabitants. The latter formed a big part of the society of the Dutch East Indies as well. It is certainly possible that more shows for Malay speaking people were given, but there are no reports of these shows in the Dutch papers. They might have been advertised in another way, which would make sense since the papers were written in Dutch (and some parts in French), and those people didn’t always speak Dutch. Most phantasmagoria shows had special reduced entrance fees for children. Some phantasmagoria show advertisements mention prices for children who are brought by their maids, suggesting the advertisement actually aimed at the children as a target groups. But there were also magic lantern shows especially for children. These were often cheaper: ƒ0,50 a ticket (Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 28041889). Some children’s festivals with different activities (games, a wizard performing magic tricks, small Dutch pancakes and music) also offered a magic lantern show. Not only the rich Dutch children were welcome to attend the phantasmagoria shows, some shows explicitly offered free seats to orphans and children that did not go to school to offer them entertainment, as a form of charity (De Locomotief: Semarangsch Handels- en advertentieblad 28-04-1881).
Conclusion
There were different reasons to the magic lantern’s perceiving popularity during the eighteenth and nineteenth century I aimed to show in this chapter by means of the lanterns’ apparatus, its abilities to adapt to different purposes and markets and the fact that it incorporated new media instead of losing ground by their competition. I will explain shortly how these facets contributed to the duration of the lantern’s popularity.
The lantern’s apparatus, as explained by Albert Wagenaar and his followers, was presumably a Dutch invention from the late seventeenth century. It was invented within the context of science, but soon became available for a larger group of wealthy consumers and soon afterwards for travelling companies, who used the device for shows. Along with the change of audience the apparatus of the lantern changed to fit its purposes: the Bull’s Eye Lantern was small and therefore easy to transport, making the device ideal for itinerary companies, while the larger ‘s Gravesande lantern suited home entertainment. Other forms of lanterns were produced to fit local markets, such as the magic lanterns that were made in Japan and could be combined with local forms of entertainment. Later on, the dissolving view lantern and sciopticon lantern contributed to the demonstration of motion pictures, which kept the magic lantern interesting for an audience that had been familiar with lantern entertainment in the decades before. With help of its transformable and adaptable apparatus, the lantern was able to serve different geographical markets and to live up to the wishes of the changing times.
The abilities of the lantern to adapt to different purposes and markets is already partially explained by its apparatus. However, there were other qualities of the lantern and its promoters to suit these purposes and markets, such as new practices and ways of promotion. With help of the articles of Daniel Raichvarg and Terry Castle, I pointed out that the magic lantern in its public form suited the interests of the eighteenth and nineteenth century civilians in science and magic. As scientific shows were a trend at the time, the magic lantern appealed to the public with advertisements relating to these aspects. In order to cater this interest, the phantasmagoria was invented which was a ghost show, that was partially explained but nonetheless evoked feelings of fear and surprise. When the trend of science and magic had come to fade, the phantasmagoria shows obtained a more neutral connotation. At the same time, within private circles, the lantern was still deployed for toy use for kids and for private screenings. A particular purpose for men was that of showing pornography. But also diverse
local markets were served with the magic lantern. As Sarah Dellman’s article helped to point out, the use of photography as lantern slides allowed the civilians in the Dutch East Indies to look at pictures of the homeland together. By serving different goals, the position of the lantern diversified and thus its position on the market remained stable.
Finally, the magic lantern adopted important new inventions or the new possibilities new devices had to offer into the apparatus in order to adapt to new developments and remain interesting and useful. When photography was invented, techniques were created to attach the photos to the glass lantern slides, which gave the lantern an enormous boost by serving new functions, such as the projection of images of other countries and more functions to follow (these will be expounded on in the next chapters). Stereoscopy was not literally a technique that was adopted by the lantern, but it still contributed to the lantern market because the stereoscopy pictures were sold as lantern slides. The addition of techniques to project motion pictures arose under influence of other devices, such as the daguerreotype, as well. By responding to these devices and adopting them when possible, the magic lantern developed along with the society and lived up to the wishes of audiences and users of different ages. Moreover, it ensured the magic lantern was not threatened by other inventions. The next chapters will explained how the lantern developed under the influence of cinema, and how these aspects of the lantern helped the device to maintain its position on the market.
Chapter 2: The age of showmen: transition and continuity (1896-1906)
Introduction:
The first chapter explained how and why the magic lantern gained popularity in the Dutch East Indies throughout the nineteenth century. It also became clear what purposes the lantern had in this country: home use and public entertainment shows. An important observation in the first chapter regarding the transitional period from magic lantern to film, is that the entertaining lantern shows developed more and more in the direction of moving pictures: the dissolving views created transmissions in the imagery, effects were implied in order to create a sense of movement and passing of time.
While focusing on the period of showmen at the ending of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, the transition of showmen with lanterns at first towards showmen with filmic devices later on and eventually permanent cinemas, will be central in this chapter. While zooming in on the early cinematic shows on Java, the similarities and differences between these two media are pointed out. This chapter focuses on the public shows, the private media use will return in the third chapter. Three concepts will play a very important part in this chapter: the concept of modernity, an extension of this concept in the form of colonial modernity and of cinema of attractions. As I have explained in the introduction, modernity is very often stated as a primary condition for the existence of cinema. This chapter will put emphasis on the implications and consequences of modernity, such as the conditions created by modernity from the technocentric perspective as presented by Popple and Kember, as well as the development of the “modern mindset” or modernism, that came forward in the theories of Elsbeth Locher-Scholten and Tom Gunning. These theories will be deployed in order to find out what facets of this idea were crucial for cinema to arise and spread, and to what extent the early film show was simply a continuation of the magic lantern show. The latter would suggest modernity might not have been so deciding for the emergence of cinema after all.
Different views on and interpretations of modernity, combined with altered versions of the theory of cinema of attractions by Gunnings successor Hagener, who was also mentioned in the introduction, will provide a framework for the specific source material from the Dutch East Indies, which consists of paper advertisements and articles about magic lantern shows and cinematic shows on Java from several Dutch East Indies papers from the
database delpher. Information deriving from these articles will be interpreted and tested against theoretical guidelines and similar research such as Dafna Ruppin’s research about cinema in the Dutch East Indies, which functions as a touchstone as it comes to the nature of early cinematic practices in the Dutch East Indies. In order to sketch a continuation between the magic lantern shows and the cinematic shows several criteria will be used as points of comparison: apparatus, function, networks, viewing locations, modes of advertising and audiences. In terms of form this chapter goes from a macro-level: modernity in a broad sense, towards a micro-level: particular shows in the cities of Java in late nineteenth and early twentieth century in order to create a more global idea of the conditions of cinema and the development of the magic lantern in this era at first and illustrate and specify these ideas alongside the actual events in the Indies.
In the following chapter the concept of colonial modernity will firstly be explained based on the theories Schulte Nordholt and Strassler as previewed in the introduction, in order to form the most relevant idea of modernity and to investigate the integration of media in the Dutch East Indies. The use of the magic lantern and the use of cinematic devices in this geographical context will be connected to this idea of modernity. Subsequently, there will the developments relating to the magic lantern shows in the late nineteenth century when cinema started to spread will be pointed out. Afterwards cinematic shows will be introduced as a continuation of the lantern shows with few alterations, making it possible for this medium to keep on developing and gaining popularity. These developments will be expounded by focusing on the period of showmen and the period of travelling companies up to the final settlement of cinematic theatres around 1905. The idea of cinema of attractions according to Hagener will prove itself a guideline in order to sketch the continuation between the lantern shows and the cinematic shows, by focussing on the continuation of the dialectics between narrative integration and cinema of attractions in respect to cinematic practices.
Modernization in the Dutch East Indies
On Java at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century modernity was mostly associated with Europe and western modernity. According to Karen Strassler this resulted in the Indonesian and Chinese inhabitants adapting to Dutch standards by wearing Western-style clothes and giving their children Dutch education while maintaining their own cultural traditions and customs at the same time (196). The Dutch felt the need to bring
modernity to the archipelago as they had taken on a mission civilisatrice: a mission to modernize the colonies and to emancipate the local communities (Schulte Nordholt “Modernity and Middle Classes” 223). On one hand this was an idealistic movement: the education of the Indies with agricultural extension, expansion of irrigation, railways, education, healthcare and credit banking as key elements (van Doorn 111). But on the other hand it was a means to re-establish Dutch power in the Indies and therefore this mission went hand in hand with violence. The spread of Western modernity within the context of ‘civilization’ had multiple implications for local communities: in a political sense this oppressive behaviour of the Dutch ruler resulted in thoughts of independence, nationalism and the right for self-determination, but on the other hand as it comes to consumer culture the combination of cultural tradition and modernism caused for new modes of media use, in line with Strassler’s standpoint.
Although the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Dutch East Indies at the ending of the nineteenth century still belonged to the lower, working class (approximately 19,5 million of 20 million inhabitants), some of the features of modernity were clearly present in the society of the Dutch East Indies: transportation networks, growing welfare and the connection to a worldwide network of production, distribution and consumption. The inhabitants of the Indies were aware of and influenced by consumer culture spread by product advertisements such as Philips lamps, Lux soap or Colgate toothpaste (Schulte Nordholt “Modernity and Cultural Citizenship” 440). These advertisements were not only directed to the Dutch upper class, but also to the inhabitants of Indonesian origin; many of the advertisements were in Malay and referred to people in typical Indonesian clothes. The Indonesian and Chinese citizens took on the use of modern media as well, but they didn’t use them in the same manner. In photography for example Chinese pictures served as performative statements next to the use of documentary records in the tradition of western photography (211). Not only were there specific modes of photography, displaying photography seems to have been specific for some ethnical groups as well. Strassler refers to a comment of a Javanese man: “Don’t make your house like a Chinese person’s, with photographs all over the place” (214). Apparently the Chinese and the Dutch used to decorate the house with tons of pictures, which was something some Javanese people used to condemn. Different ethnical groups dealt with modernity in different ways and found
