The Bauhaus is one of the most easily recognized design schools in the world, but with the fame it holds it is also riddled with ghosts. It was established in Weimar in 1919 and existed up until it was forced to close in 1933 due to the Nazi party’s control over Germany and their concerns with the school’s communist and socialist perceived associations[1]. The Bauhaus is often curated and framed in a manner that upholds an idolized white building on a hill that opposed Nazi ideas to the point of its demise. This opposition of the Bauhaus by the Nazis has led many people to believe that the Bauhaus was a safehouse for race, sexuality, religion, and ideologies[2], but to equate these two things is quite misleading and has led people to misunderstand some of the Bauhaus’ most iconic ideologies.
The history of the Bauhaus is not as clear as many expositions and books make it seem. The nature of the school was complex and not a utopia as they would have us believe. A large piece of Bauhaus history that we must look at to clear this haze is Johannes Itten’s beliefs within the Bauhaus and color theory. Itten was a Swiss expressionist painter who became a Master at the Bauhaus from 1919-1923, he developed and taught the Bauhaus’ Preliminary Course which was taken by all students during their first few semesters[3]. He was a devout follower of Mazdaznan and his extreme loyalty to his ideologies created a very loyal group of followers within the Bauhaus[4]. This link between his art ideologies and religion is often overlooked when talking about the lasting impression of the Bauhaus color theory and design methods.
Itten’s color star was one among many variations on the standard color wheel that Bauhaus masters and students developed to study and justify color use within their designs. His color star was a reinterpretation of artist Philipp Otto Runge’s color sphere[5]. Itten’s star formed the basis of color instruction in the Preliminary Course, and since all students were required to take this course, his influence on students is undeniable and very evident with the school’s legacy of work. Besides Itten being such a strong figure of design within the school he also became a religious figure for many within Mazdaznan and converted many students within the school[6].
Itten’s Mazdaznan ideologies included belief in the evolution of an ultimately transparent race. Mazdaznans believed in 8 races, each more evolved than the last with darker skin colors as the least evolved and more connected to the earth, and the Aryan race being the 7th and best group on earth. All of these races were superseded by the 8th and ultimate race, which is a heavenly transparent race[7]. This race was believed to be the goal for humanity and interracial relations were a step back in the improvement of race and our collective goal of reaching the 8th race. These racist beliefs were a large part of Itten’s color theory and design ideals and his devoutness to his religion caused his teachings in art to be linked to these racist thoughts. Itten’s followers within the school followed him very devoutly, so far as to adapt his way of life, including being celibate and vegetarian[8] in attempts to reach the ultimate destiny of humanity.
In addition to these troubled roots within the Bauhaus’ core teachings the ideologies which they withheld and identified with were quite misleading. During Walter Gropius’ era at the Bauhaus, he continually denied the existence of a Bauhaus style and insisted that the visual result was simply a culmination of technique and methodological problem solving[9]. He pushed for design that came from thoughtful tackling of everyday problems and construction obstacles. Despite these claims, it is clear that the Bauhaus developed a style that evolved and penetrated through popular culture in the early 20th century. This style became so prolific that it was heavily mimicked and copied throughout the century and well into the 21st century. For many people in Germany the Bauhaus style was aligned with the socialist left and the rejection of ornament was the rejection of the bourgeoise[10] and the conservative political ideologies aligned with them. It was meant to represent a “new middle class” that arose from the recession, but despite the school’s attempt to relate to this class the objects that were made at the Bauhaus were extraordinarily expensive and very difficult to reproduce[11]. The creation of these minimalist objects started a trend that was obsessed with simplicity and light colors, or lack of color.
In addition to Itten and Gropius’ design philosophies which were taught to the incoming Bauhausler, we must also consider the economic atmosphere in which the Bauhaus was existing. The school came about after the first world war and Germany was in a deep recession due to this. Materials and resources were scarce, and poverty prevailed throughout the country, leaving many people dire to create their own solutions to everyday problems. This economic situation left the Bauhaus and its masters desperate to create with minimal materials. It led to the Bauhaus courses creating very straight forward objects that were true to the material properties of the mediums being used[12]. A great emphasis was put on the intelligent conservation of resources and time at the workshop. Despite this emphasis and need to preserve materials, many objects began to distance themselves from this affordable nature as the Bauhausler manipulated the materials in an irreproducible manner that required hours of labor.
The first case we can study to dissect the Bauhaus ideologies is the Wassily Chair by Marcel Breuer, it is also known as the Club Chair (model B3). It is made of chrome-plated tubular steel and canvas or leather[13] and designed in 1927. This chair is meant to be a replacement for the traditional overstuffed club chair, leaving behind a sleek and elegant outline traced in steel, allowing the body to float in space. The design for this chair was originally made in 1925 while Breuer was teaching at the Bauhaus.
Despite this chair’s extremely straightforward design and composition, it is still quite arduous to make, especially at the time in which it was made. The tubular steel is inspired by the tubular steel used in bicycles, but it is bent into a chair and polished to a point of refinement[14]. As it was meant to replace the stuffy club chairs often seen it can be said that it is meant to oppose the bourgeoise, but the design and way in which it was produced made the chair unattainable to the middle class they were trying to cater to. The Wassily chair is just as unattainable for the middle class now as it was a century ago as it is now sold by Knoll for over $3,000[15], maintaining itself as a luxury product and contradicting the entire philosophy of the Bauhaus’ “new middle class.”
This chair has become an art piece and has alienated itself from the “everyday”, so much so that it is a part of MoMA’s prominent collection and is currently on view in The David Geffen Wing on the fifth floor. It separates itself from the everyday objects by placing itself in such a luxurious and fine art bubble. As the Wassily chair fails to cater to the Bauhaus’ target audience it also reinforces the ideals set out by Itten and his color theory, distancing itself from colorful traditions previously seen in art and design. This chair remains a clear example of Bauhaus style while contradicting the school’s outward philosophy of designing for the middle class.
Another example of Bauhaus style that fails to become a piece of everyday design is the Farnsworth House by Mies van der Rohe. It is a house he designed for Dr. Edith Farnsworth between 1945 and 1951, and it was meant to be a weekend getaway that created a strong relationship between the house and the surrounding nature[16], blurring the lines of interior and exterior living. This glass box of a house is a single-story home that rises over five feet above the forest floor and redefines what a house is meant to be. Despite the iconic impact that Mies had on architecture with this design, he was ultimately sued for having created an “unlivable” house[17]. His attempts to redefine the everyday object of a house caused the house to be quite difficult to live in. The point of everyday objects is for them to serve their purpose and go unnoticed, but when you radically change them in such a way, they can no longer be ignored and become a part of the background of our lives.
This house is notable for its reduction of domesticity into a home that hardly resembles other homes, especially ones being built during the mid-20th century. This house again, succeeds in recreating the Bauhaus style but fails in the practical application of its philosophy and ideologies that surround this idea of a “new middle class.” The house has many problems with insulation and privacy as well as functional problems like flooding and leaks. With this new information about the true nature of these Bauhaus designs we are left to wonder if they are failures in what they were meant to accomplish or if their success due to their beauty trumps this practical failure.
The curatorial problem surrounding these Bauhaus objects points to a larger issue that surrounds institutionalized biases when it comes to art and design. The racist history of the Bauhaus ideologies along with the designs’ failure to accomplish what they set out to do are completely erased when we talk about their aesthetic success. These objects are said to be idols of modernity and examples of minimalist beauty despite their conflicting history and purpose. For us to truly understand the art that we admire, we must consider the historical context in which they were made and the intent of the artist while they were making it. Institutions like MoMA should frame these objects in a more honest manner in order for people to grasp the true nature of these designs. The audience that they were meant for is not the one that adopted them, and the function of these objects was redefined by this switch. Bauhaus objects like the Farnsworth House and the Wassily Chair are far from everyday objects and have turned themselves into pieces of fine art. They are things that you see but do not touch, admire but will probably not afford to buy.
These issues are centered around a misleading curation of the objects as well as a push of cultural supremacy. The Bauhausler designed objects for a middle class that was not receptive to their expensive designs, failing to accomplish what they set out to do. In order to create objects that are successful within a group of people, one must study the people and understand their needs and desires when it comes to such objects. Creating chairs that are unaffordable yet create this idol of what the middle class should be is a dictatorial mess. As designers, we must take a step away from thinking “we know what is best for them” and a step towards adapting ourselves to create functioning designs for our target audience. Many Bauhaus designers were simply out of touch and failed to follow the philosophy set out by Gropius and the Bauhaus Masters.
The Bauhaus, among many other styles of design, is complex and we should study its philosophies and goals within the context of 20th century Germany. The curation of these designs should not ignore this context as it can become a fountain of disinformation and clouding of not very favorable ideologies. We must study art and history as clearly as we can, not ignoring the theories that we do not agree with that pertain to designs or objects we like.
Bibliography
Breuer, Marcel. "Marcel Breuer. Club Chair (model B3). 1927–1928: MoMA." The Museum of Modern Art. Accessed May 15, 2021. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/2851.
Droste, Magdalena. Bauhaus 1919-1933. Köln: Taschen, 2019.
"History of the Farnsworth House." Farnsworth House. April 16, 2020. Accessed May 15, 2021. https://farnsworthhouse.org/history-farnsworth-house/.
"Knoll." Knoll. Accessed May 15, 2021. https://www.knoll.com/product/wassily-chair.
Otto, Elizabeth. Haunted Bauhaus: Occult Spirituality, Gender Fluidity, Queer Identities, and Radical Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019.
Otto, Elizabeth, and Patrick Rössler. Bauhaus Bodies: Gender, Sexuality, and Body Culture in Modernisms Legendary Art School. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2019.
Owen Hopkins "Dezeen's Guide to Bauhaus Architecture and Design." Dezeen. November 14, 2018. Accessed April 01, 2021. https://www.dezeen.com/2018/11/01/bauhaus-100-guide-architecture-design/.
Perez, Adelyn. "AD Classics: The Farnsworth House / Mies Van Der Rohe." ArchDaily. May 13, 2010. Accessed May 15, 2021. https://www.archdaily.com/59719/ad-classics-the-farnsworth-house-mies-van-der-rohe.
[1] Droste, Magdalena. Bauhaus 1919-1933. Köln: Taschen, 2019. [2] Otto, Elizabeth. Haunted Bauhaus: Occult Spirituality, Gender Fluidity, Queer Identities, and Radical Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019. [3] Droste, Magdalena. Bauhaus 1919-1933. Köln: Taschen, 2019. [4] Otto, Elizabeth. Haunted Bauhaus: Occult Spirituality, Gender Fluidity, Queer Identities, and Radical Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019. [5] Droste, Magdalena. Bauhaus 1919-1933. Köln: Taschen, 2019. [6] Droste, Magdalena. Bauhaus 1919-1933. Köln: Taschen, 2019. [7] Otto, Elizabeth. Haunted Bauhaus: Occult Spirituality, Gender Fluidity, Queer Identities, and Radical Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019. [8] Otto, Elizabeth, and Patrick Rössler. Bauhaus Bodies: Gender, Sexuality, and Body Culture in Modernisms Legendary Art School. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2019. [9] Droste, Magdalena. Bauhaus 1919-1933. Köln: Taschen, 2019. [10] Otto, Elizabeth. Haunted Bauhaus: Occult Spirituality, Gender Fluidity, Queer Identities, and Radical Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019. [11] Droste, Magdalena. Bauhaus 1919-1933. Köln: Taschen, 2019. [12] Droste, Magdalena. Bauhaus 1919-1933. Köln: Taschen, 2019. [13] Breuer, Marcel. "Marcel Breuer. Club Chair (model B3). 1927–1928: MoMA." The Museum of Modern Art. Accessed May 15, 2021. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/2851. [14] Droste, Magdalena. Bauhaus 1919-1933. Köln: Taschen, 2019. [15] "Knoll." Knoll. Accessed May 15, 2021. https://www.knoll.com/product/wassily-chair. [16] Perez, Adelyn. "AD Classics: The Farnsworth House / Mies Van Der Rohe." ArchDaily. May 13, 2010. Accessed May 15, 2021. https://www.archdaily.com/59719/ad-classics-the-farnsworth-house-mies-van-der-rohe. [17] "History of the Farnsworth House." Farnsworth House. April 16, 2020. Accessed May 15, 2021. https://farnsworthhouse.org/history-farnsworth-house/.
Comments