• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
625
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. It is already evident that inventions no longer are, as they had been inearlier times, means for warding off want and for helping consumption;instead, want and consumption are the means to market the inventions.The order of things has been reversed. …The abundance of means is thefirst serious danger with which art has to struggle. Where will thedepreciation of material that results from its treatment by machines, fromsubstitutes lead? –Gottfried Semper, 1852 How should designers deal with industrialization?6 years after German unification, thenation had the chance to show theirindustrial ability at the PhiladelphiaCentennial Exhibition of 1876.However, visitors commented thatthe German goods were “cheap andnasty.” The German governmentwas embarrassed and angry. How did Germany become the world leader in superior industrial design?
  • 2. 1890: resignation of Bismark rise of the demand for improved design in craft and industry Why did Germans see good design as their path to becoming an economic powerhouse?-raw material poor-no ready outlet for cheap goods (market already filled) Why did they embrace machine production?-only economically feasible way to manufacture and mass-market goods(unlike William Morris, Germans were not interested in one-off craftproduced pieces for a small, well-educated, upper-class. To build their GDP,they need to mass produce goods. The idea was to appeal to the middleclass’s desire to ‘buy up.’ Naumann reinforced this idea in his 1904 essay,“Art in the Epoch of the Machine.”)
  • 3. 1907: Muthesius, Naumann, and Schmidtfounded the Deutsche WerkbundThe English Arts and Crafts Movement had seen acontradiction between art and industrial methods ofart-production. The Werkbund aimed in the first placeto bridge this contradiction without denying the realityof industrial production. The Germans spoke "of theartist on the one, of the worker on the other side" -they accepted the reality of the division of labor(Pevsner 24). 1907: Behren (a Werkbund member) is appointed as AEG’s chief architect and designer Peter Behrens. Fan Model No. GB 1. 1908. Painted cast iron and brass, mfg by A.E.G., Germany. Behrens. Nitralampe. 1910. Mfg by A.E.G.
  • 4. Behrens’s accepted of industrialization as Germany’s destiny. He built “a temple to industrial power” while bringing to the workers a sense of common purpose that was lost when they moved from the farm to the city (Frampton 111-12).Behrens. AEG Turbine Factory. Berlin, 1908-09.
  • 5. “What is Monumental Art?” –Behrens, 1908Behrens argued that such art is an expression of the dominant power groupin any given epoch. He also rejected Semper’s theory that form comesfrom technical criteria in favor of Riegl’s theory that talented individuals areordained to design through their ‘will to form’ (note the Nietzschian influence).He fell on the Form (individuality) side of the Werkbund style argument (asopposed to the advocates of Norm, or type.)Schinkel. Altes Museum. Berlin, 1824-30. Behrens. German Embassy. St. Petersburg. 1912.
  • 6. Gropius and Meyer. Werkbund Pavilion. Van de Velde. Werkbund ExhibitionView from front showing Theater. Cologne, 1914.glass stairs. Cologne,1914. Norm Form Hermann Muthesius’s address at the Werkbund Exhibition advocated Norm. He argued that architecture and industrial design can attain significance only through the development of types that can be mass- produced and sold to the world. Van de Velde countered by rejecting that the goal of design is export products and proclaiming the creative sovereignty of an individual artist. He advocated Form, not Norm.
  • 7. 1. Feiniger. Zukunftskathedrale Woodcut for the Bauhaus Proclamation. 1919. 2. Van deVelde. Grand Ducal School of Arts and Crafts (Bauhaus). Weimar, Germany. 1904-1911. The Bauhaus resulted from the merger of the former Grand-Ducal Saxon Academy of Art (Mackensen) with the former Grand-Ducal Saxon School of Arts and Crafts (directed by Van de Velde, Behrens a teacher), and also was influenced by the Norm ideology of the Deutche Werkbund.
  • 8. The ultimate, if distant, aim of theBauhaus is the unified work of art – thegreat structure – in which there is nodistinction between monumental anddecorative art. –GropiusThe Bauhaus was founded with thevisions of erecting the cathedral ofsocialism and the workshops wereestablished in the manner of thecathedral building lodges.The artist was no longer “above” thecraftsman, but both were equals.
  • 9. 1. Fritz Mackensen. Der Säugling (Moor Madonna). 1892. 2. Itten. Horizontal-Vertical.1915. 3. Klee. Twittering Machine. 1922. Fritz Machensen thought that designers should be educated in a fine art academy. Gropius believed that designers and craftsmen should be educated together in a workshop-based program. Gropius prevailed, but Itten had the most influence during the first 3 years of the school. Heaimed to release individual creativity and enable each student to access his own ability. (A 1900s reformer like Dewey)
  • 10. Wassily Kandinsky. Improvisation 31 Theo van Doesburg. Counter-Composition XIII.(Sea Battle), 1913. 1925–26. Can the artistic mind grow in an institutional setting? Can creativity be taught?The emotive, mystical approach vs. the rational, anti-individualist aesthetic – the battles escalates in 1921 when these two artist join the faculty.
  • 11. Frank Lloyd Wright. Ward Willitts House. Highland Park,IL, 1902. As published by Wasmuth in 1910. Van Doesburg’s influence at the Bauhaus was immediately felt. He helped Gropius resolve his dilemma of desiring both continuity and spatial movement and a closed, hard, machined aesthetic. He did this through the influence of Wright (published in German by Wasmuth in1910-11). Van Doesburg’s painting is derived inpart from the linear pattern of the Willitts House. Theo Van Doesburg. Rhythm of a Russian Dance. 1918.
  • 12. Frank Lloyd Wright. Ward Willitts House. Highland Park, IL, 1902. Vantonerloo’s construction can be derived by concentrating on the George advancing and receding Vantongerloo. Construction of volumes. A Neo-Plastic Volume Relations. house if arrived at by reading 1921. the planes as forming hollow interlocked boxes. Rietveld and Van Doesburg. Project for a Private House. 1920.
  • 13. Frank Lloyd Wright.Ward Willits House.Highland Park, IL,1902. Rietveld’s Schroder House is arrived at by separating some of the planes even further. In all of these cases, a linear and planar clarity of separate parts has been combined with continuously shifting sets of spatial relationships. The result is a machined freedom.Gerrit Rietveld. SchroderHouse. Utrecht, 1924-25.
  • 14. Gerrit Rietveld. Schroder House. Utrecht, 1924-25.Café de Unie takes all of the prior experiments and smoothes them out into a single plane – combining strict linear and rectangular order with the flux and movement of calculated asymmetries. J.J.P. Oud. Café de Unie. Rotterdam. 1924.
  • 15. Gropius.Bauhaus.Dessau. Finally, by joining all the1925-26. planes firmly into boxes and interlocking their separate volumes into an asymmetrical composition like the continuous mechanical movement of a set of gears, Gropius’s Bauhaus emerges.
  • 16. Metal Workshop at the The form of the Bauhaus (Dessau) Bauhaus also reflects Van Doesburg’s influence on the pedagogy. In 1922, Gropius changed the focus of the school from craft to the understanding of industrial methods of production.Metal workshop1923 in Weimar
  • 17. The classrooms/administration officeswere built on oneside of the road,while the studioswere across thestreet.These two volumeswere connected bythe bridge where theprofessors had theiroffices.The teachers hadmastered both theintellectual andtechnical knowledgeneeded to produceartistically designed,economical goods.
  • 18. Moholy- Nagy. Light- Space Modulator. 1921-30. Albers. Skyscrapers on Transparent Yellow. 1927 Sand blasted flashed glass Itten left in 1923. His position was filled by Moholy-Nagy, who taught firstyear studio with Albers. They reworked the studio so that it concentrated onrevealing the statical and aesthetic properties of free-standing asymmetricalstructures, which portray both a machined purity and a modern continuity of space.
  • 19. Albers’s student’s work. 1927-28. The first year studies taught basic formal principles of design to all majors in the school. After first year, students chose a specific workshop. Each workshop was headed by both an artist and a master craftsman.
  • 20. Herbert Bayer and Joost Schmidt. Poster forthe Bauhaus Exhibition of 1923. Van Eestern and Van Doesburg. Model of their “artist’s house” for the Rosenburg Exhibition. 1923. Two examples of the changing Bauhaus design approach, whichacknowledges the change in the means of production and no longer searches to create a “total work of art” that emotively displays the singular creative force of its designer. This is work that is done collaboratively.
  • 21. Homogeneous professionalroles started to dissolve inpractice, or at least to changeradically.At the same time it seemednecessary for the student totake personal responsibilityfor his or her studies and thedevelopment of professionalskills.The Bauhaus workshops( metal, weaving, pottery,furniture, typology, wallpainting, and architecture[after 1927]) were thebirthplaces of new industrialdesigns.
  • 22. The Bauhaus was a socially orientatedprogram. "An artist must be conscious of hissocial responsibility to the community. On theother hand the community has to accept theartist and support him."Specialization together with solid basicknowledge was not a risk when the studentswere employed by the production. They wereable to follow the changes in technology andsociety in a flexible manner. Lazló Moholy-Nagy: Folio Cover, 1923.RT: Lucia Moholy, Bauhaus Herbertbuilding Dessau, Balcony of Bayer,the studio house, 1926. 1932.
  • 23. Much & Meyer. Marcel Breuer. Metal Tube Chairs. 1925-29. Experimental House. Bauhaus Exposition. 1923.The focus on craft continually gave way to the focus on deriving form from productive method, material constraint, and programmatic necessity. Breuer’s tubular steel chairs exemplified this approach to creative design solutions.“To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility.” (Benjamin 224)
  • 24. Bauhaus Pendant Lamp - Marianne Brandt and Hans Przyrembel, 1925.Josef Hartwig, 1880 - 1955, Bauhaus,manufacturer (Weimar), Chess set, 1923.
  • 25. Bauhaus light fittings of pressed metal. Mass produced under Meyer.Gropius. Main Hall with Breuer Furniture.Dessau. 1925-26.Their Dessau building became a showcase for their designs. The school was coming into its own aesthetic which joined a strong sense of composition with clean, modern designs easily mass produced in a factory.
  • 26. Gropius interest was to industrialize the building process for low cost housing. In the Bauhaus Exhibition of 1923, he and Adolf Meyer introduced prefabricated housing units to Torten estate, 1930. address Germany’s growingHaus am Horn. Georg Muche, 1923. housing crisis. Georg Muche introduced Haus am Horn that has no servants rooms, corridors, or staircases. It consists of seven small rooms and a living room in the middle. It reflects the socialist ideals held by the majority of the faculty. New spaces for the new unified German worker.
  • 27. 1933 - Police search the Bauhaus on the orders of the Dessau district attorney’s office, 32 students are detained for 1 to 2 days and an application made for the closure of the Bauhaus. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe dissolves the Bauhaus at the start of the summer semester with the masters’ consent.Yamawaki. The End of the Dessau Bauhaus. 1932.
  • 28. After the school’s closing in 1933,many of its artists moved to theUnited States.The New Bauhaus, founded in 1937 inChicago by Moholy-Nagy, was theimmediate successor to the Bauhaus.The complete curriculumdeveloped by Walter Gropius inGermany was adopted andfurther developed, aiming at theeducation of the widely oriented QuickTime™ and auniversal designer. TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.The methods which came fromthe German Bauhaus wereadopted in manifold modifiedform by other American schools.The Bauhaus is mainlyresponsible for the gradualreduction of the until thenunchallenged predominance in L�aszlo� Moholy-Nagy, School prospectus "thethe United States of the Beaux- new bauhaus", ChicagoArts tradition. 1937/1938
  • 29. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. The Bauhaus masters on the roof of the Bauhaus building in Dessau. From the left: Josef Albers, Hinnerk Scheper, Georg Muche, Las�zlo�Moholy-Nagy, Herbert Bayer, Joost Schmidt, Walter Gropius, Marcel Breuer, Vassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, Lyonel Feininger, Gunta Stolzl and Oskar Schlemmer.