Talk:Bauhaus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Bauhaus as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Portuguese language Wikipedia.
Old door from Isfahan

Bauhaus has been nominated for Selected article, at the Architecture Portal. For more information, visit WikiProject:Architecture
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Israel Portal
Bauhaus is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Bauhaus: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Add In-line citations and footnotes
  • Convert book citations to {{cite book}}
  • Convert web citations to {{cite web}}
  • Add more references
  • Paragraph about the early expressionistic phase. The mystic direction of Johannes Itten and his eventually forced resignation by Gropius.

Why are Typography and Jan Tschichold related to Bauhaus? (They were added by 217.233.107.72, but there's no response from him yet.) Adam Bishop 01:14, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Or British Airways ethnic liveries. Its been over a year with no response so I am deleting these. Justinc 00:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not clear about what, beyond the physical plant, it has in common with the Bauhaus described here, but there is again a technical school operating in its Dessau facilities as of the mid- to late 1990s, with architecture as part of the curriculum and which appeared to have been operating under the DDR. This included live stage productions in the Bauhaus theater, IIRC under the name of Bauhausbühne (literally, "Baushaus Stage"). The same building contains a Messe (a cafeteria serving students), where an interest in the history of the the facility was evidenced by about a square inch on one wall of a stairwell, that had been painstakingly and exceedingly neatly "dissected", one layer of paint at a time, to show strips of about a 1/8-inch strip of each phase in that history. A snackbar also operated in the basement of the other end of this building from the cafeteria; this room had distinctive lighting fixtures, appearing to be both physically supported and powered by uninsulated electricity-conducting metal rods anchored to the concrete ceiling; i inferred these were a preserved feature of the original Bauhaus design of the room.

Is there perhaps a proper place in the article Bauhaus for a section on the ways in which the current institution does and doesn't have a relation to the original? --Jerzy(t) 05:08, 2004 Apr 13 (UTC)

Typography was one of the important products (amongst other industrial design and handiworks) of the Bauhaus.

The new school in Dessau (which I visited in 1999) is indeed in the same building, but is an entirely different school from that under Gropius et al in the early 1920's. The new school does offer courses, promote the history and generally springboard off the original school. The building suffered much lack of care, but still has some original fixtures and features, and I gather much work is being done to bring it all back to proper state. There is a website with all the information (Foundation Bauhaus Dessau website) --mgream 09:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Though I'm not competent in this area, I thought the material here in Talk needed to be selectively worked into the article. I've edited in some of the above, crediting User:Jerzy in the Edit Summary. --Wetman 05:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this article should at least mention that recently UNESCO declared the city of Tel Aviv, Israel as a World Heritage Site, because it has the largest amount of Bauhaus buildings in the world. Is there anybody with sufficiant knowledge that might add this info?

Contents

[edit] Error in Weimar History paragraph

The last sentence states "This school was eventually known as the Technical University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, and in 1996 changed its name to Bauhaus University Weimar."

Obviously, 1996 was not the intended year. I think it was 1926, but am not sure so I'll leave it as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.85.38 (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] first principles

Could someone add a clairification of the first principles vs. precident thing? Is the first principles in this context related to First_principles? Thanks!

[edit] A Group of Removals & Changes

[edit] Die Wohnung

At a Met Museum of Art [page on a Bauhaus work, the fundamental sense of "Wohnung" as "dwelling is translated in this context, despite the fact that "flat" ("apartment") is more familiar and in context also applicable. Other underinformed translations in the article dictate caution in the absence of another professional translation of this exhibition's name. --Jerzy(t) 00:27, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

[edit] Situationists?

Removed:

The Bauhaus school inspired the International movement for an imaginist Bauhaus which existed from 1953 to 1957.

So what, especially in this context? On Google

"International movement for an imaginist Bauhaus"

has "121 of about 1,020" hits, the top one saying in relevant part

International movement for an imaginist Bauhaus is not available in the medical dictionary.

--Jerzy(t) 00:27, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

[edit] Joint Factory 718 reference

Is this

An example of Bauhaus-influenced industrial architecture is Beijing's Joint Factory 718, built by East German experts from 1951 to 1957.

significant to Bauhaus? It is almost an orphan within WP, and looks like it was added to Bauhaus mainly to deorphan it.
--Jerzy(t) 00:27, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi era

Could we get a calirfication of the Nazi era impact on the existence of the Bauhaus? The wiki article has the Nazi's as being opposed to the Bauhaus; my understanding was that Mies was opposed to the Nazi's attempt at influencing the Bauhaus, and therefore decided to close the school... Buildthree 03:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the History section contains the sentence, "Consequently, many Weissenhof architects fled to the Soviet Union, thus strengthening the effect." It is not clear from the context which "effect" was strengthened. Can someone clarify? I'm guessing that it strengthened the perception that the Bauhaus was communist. --Speedarius 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bauhaus in exile

The dispersal of the Bauhaus by the Nazis sent many in exile to New York, with revolutionizing effects on american design that need to be discussed. --Wetman 09:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


There is also an interesting connection between Bauhaus and the Black Mountain School in North Carolina. A lot of the exiles found a home there... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.143.239.78 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 September 2006.

I'm a bit wary of this Black Mountain Schools thing- We've got some citable sources talking about the New Bauhaus in Chicago with a lot of the staff and students - doubtless some would have gone to New York, (But we need to know who) - Gropius went to Black Mountain apparently - Where did Mies go? or Breuer? I don't think we can trace everyone who went anywhere and call them all the bauhaus in exile. I'm not saying it's wrong I'm saying I think we should get some conrete citation for it before inclusion. Other than Gropius and Albers was there anyone else who went there --Mcginnly | Natter 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw an exhibition about the Black Mountain College at Kettle's Yard earlier this year [1] which was quite illuminating, and tied in with an exhibition at the Tate on Albers and Moholy-Nagy. As I recall, Albers was the primary influence at Black Mountain - Gropius and Breuer drew up designs for new college buildings, but a cheaper alternative by A. Lawrence Kocher was actually built. There seemed to be quite a strong emphasis on visiting teachers during the summer months, so it is quite likely that Albers drew on his contacts from the Bauhaus for some of those summer teachers, but I can't find a list.
Interesting aside; John Cage is said to have drawn inspiration and courage to publish 4′33″ in response to having seen Robert Rauschenberg's white canvases on one of his summer visits to Black Mountain College. -- Solipsist 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Another connection was apparently Xanti Schawinsky who was a student of Oskar Schlemmer at the Bauhaus, and taught theatre at BMC. - Solipsist 19:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a Breuer chair, exactly?

Just a question for Lockley or anyone who wants to chime in. The reference in the article is to "the Breuer chair". I know practically nothing about this topic, but surely Marcel Breuer designed many different chairs. The only thing that tripped me up was the fact that many of the results on Google point to a chair[2] that is most definitely the same cantilevered design that Stam seems to be known for. Is it one of these other chairs that Breuer is better known for? If so, I think it would be worth pointing out, as anyone who is curious enough to poke around on Google will probably end up similarly confused. HorsePunchKid 22:53, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Yes, the "Breuer chair" is pop shorthand for just one much-imitated design, as famous as the "Barcelona chair" of Corbusier. A better descriptive mention could surely be found. --Wetman 00:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the Barcelona Chair was Mies - from the Barcelona Pavilion--Mcginnly | Natter 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the article from 'Breuer chair' (you're right of course) to 'Wassily Chair', which is more exact and the subject of an existing article. The Wassily Chair is the best-known of Breuer's chair designs and reportedly has been in continuous production for almost 80 years, although I couldn't verify that on the web. cheers --Lockley 21:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah hah! Thanks for clearing that up. It'd be great to find some decent-quality photos for this section of the web page. I'll keep an eye out for relevant furniture... HorsePunchKid 03:44, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Some idiot has decided to put in some... 'inaccurate' facts in the article, about various swear words for human excretion. I'm not too sure how to edit pages, so... it could do with fixing.

A quick fix: the well known Barcelona chair with quilted face and criss cross legging is actually a design of Mies van Der Rohe's (final director of Nazi era Bauhaus) for the Barcelona pavilion of the world's fair. Buildthree 03:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] adds

in the impact section, there should be mention of the Black Mountain College (b/c so many ex Bauhaus folks taught there & it was kind of the American bauhaus, or at least the next generation in america...) a link could be made to the black mountain college wikipedia article...

also, bayer did more at/for the bauhaus than just head the printing thing. if you could, please add that he was an early student and also a teacher at the bauhaus.

thanks.

could someone provide a pronunciation key? Funkyj 23:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Where's the NPOV under the politics section? Only "conservative, aristocrats" are militaristic and imperialistic? Granted I reserve such conduct to any brand of Statism, but I think a more NPOV stance would leave the reader to choose how to interpret the facts. As written is too leading and biased.

[edit] "Biggest influence for modern design"

Does no one think the statement "The Bauhaus art school had (and still has) undoubtedly the biggest influence for modern design in architecture and interior design in modern times" is opinion approaching hyperbole? Does this belong in an impartial article? I'd agree with a broad ranging statement about the extraordinary influence of Bauhaus on and for modern design but "undoubtedly the biggest"? Loafsta 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Something has to be the biggest - can you suggest an alternative? --Mcginnly | Natter 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
On reflection though, perhaps "The Bauhaus art school had a profound influence upon subsequent developments in architecture and interior design" might be a better and more cautious way of putting it." --Mcginnly | Natter 11:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Would not the following phrase -- "In 1917 in the midst of the carnage of the First World War, the Russian workers’ and soldiers’ Soviets seized power in Russia." -- be more accurate if it read "In 1917 in the midst of the carnage of the First World War, the Russian Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia."? Doug1943 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Doug1943

Well spotted. be bold and make the edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wandering bullet list under "Art and Architecture"

In the "Context" section, under "Art and Architecture," there's a somewhat aimless list of various items, some of them dated. Some not—some are specifically to do with Bauhaus figures, and for others the relevance is not clear. Also there is a mysterious sentence fragment quoted from Gropius in the middle, and it's not clear why that's being used in the "Context" section of the article. And finally there's an external link to a 1999 news article, with no accompanying prose—do we need that link at all?

It looks like the whole section may have been put in when the article was in a more inchoate state. Perhaps the whole bit (now titled "Other Milestones") should be removed? If not, here are some particular ways it could be improved:

Could someone

  • vouch for the importance of the first two items (about Poelzig and Behrens), which are perhaps subsumed by the rest of the article,
  • supply dates for, or otherwise contextualize, the items beginning "Gropius argued for..." and "Mackenson argues for...",
  • provide more of the Gropius quote, and/or find a better home for it elsewhere,
  • justify the isolated external link?

Ezrakilty 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ezrakilty -- yes, you're right, that was messy. I cleaned up that list and put in some better paragraphs about the wider context of German modernism, and I hope that helps. Other suggestions always welcome of course --Lockley 17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry chaps, they were my aid memoirs I'd left in rather than commented out. I went off to edit something else a while ago and didn't come back. The section about german modernist context is good - but I'm a little worried about "The Bauhaus was founded in 1919, the same year as the Weimar Constitution, and at a time when the German Zeitgeist turned from emotional Expressionism to the matter-of-fact New Objectivity." Actually, what frampton and Jencks argue is that the direction of the bauhaus in the early years - especially whilst Johannes Itten was in charge of the basic course - was expressionist - it was the arrival of moholy nagy and the constructivist influence that put paid to it in '23 I think. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illustrations

All illustrations show historical DESSAU sites (I am not sure if there actually are any in Weimar). The big illustration right beside the article "Weimar" shows the Dessau Bauhaus, but that is not indicated anywhere. This will confuse the reader, --dunnhaupt 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gropius as founder

Earlier today user GearedBull revised the article to indicate the Gropius was not the founder of Bauhaus. I believe that's incorrect as a matter of fact, and wanted to make sure. According to Elaine S. Hochman's well-researched book on the school, on March 20 1919 Gropius proposed to the local government council that the two existing civic art schools, the Weimar Art Academy and the recently defunct School of Arts and Crafts, be combined under new leadership (his), with new vision, new academic focus, and the new name. So there was a certain evolution from existing organizations, sure, but it's clear (if only from the name) that Gropius was the founder and initial leader. Further comments welcome. --Lockley (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Bauhaus still alive?

It seems such a shame if such a nice architetural movement died due to Naziism. Is Bauhaus still alive? Are there schools that still teach Bauhaus? Is it possible for someone to buy/build a Bauhaus-influenced house nowadays? Are new buildings being built based on Bauhaus principles? The article seems to suggest that the movement is dead. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.8.49 (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Context paragraph

The "context" paragraph is unacceptable as it stands. Its statements about what happened in both Russia and Germany are grossly politically biased. The stuff about "imperialism and militarism" is a political opinion. The statement that "workers and soldiers soviets" seized power in Russia is a political opinion. (Actually the Bolshevik Party seized power.) More importantly, there is no relationship shown between these events and the founding of Bauhaus. Was Bauhaus founded in response to the Russian revolution? Was it run by workers and soldiers soviets? Was Gropius a communist? No, no and no. So what was the connection? If you want to retain this paragraph, it must be fixed. If not, I will delete it again. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please leave your remarks on the article talk page. I would suggest that you - rewrite the paragraph. I'm moving these remarks there. Thank you. Modernist (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - If Mr. Toad wants to delete these paragraphs - my suggestion is for him to compose a more neutral contextual and historical milieu for the Bauhaus and Then add it. Lets see some better and more neutral information! Modernist (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This section needs sources and could use an edit, but the information is essentially correct. There is no implication that the Bauhaus was "founded in response to the Russian revolution", "run by workers and soldiers soviets" or that "Gropius a communist". It is setting a political context within Germany at the time that the Bauhaus was founded. It's valid, just unsourced. freshacconcispeaktome 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't correct, as I noted above, and it isn't valid. Why is what happened in Russia in 1917 more relevant to Bauhaus than what happened in, say, Paraguay? What was the connection between the failed communist rising in Germany and Bauhaus? No relevance, no connection, is stated or even suggested. Unless Bauhaus was founded by communists, I can't see any connection. I'm not an expert on the history of German architecture, but I know a non sequitur when I see one. If I am going to edit the paragraph, all it will say is that Bauhaus was founded in the context of the intellectual and cultural ferment of the early Weimar Republic, which I know to be true. (Most of that ferment had no connection to communism, although some of it did). Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is what happened in Russia in 1917 more relevant to Bauhaus than what happened in, say, Paraguay? With all due respect - are you kidding? Kandinsky? Russian constructivism? No connection to the Bauhaus and their German neighbors? Uh, Paraguay is in South America. I would suggest that You Do Not Delete anything but re-write what you think is a neutral context. As freshacconcispeaktome pointed out the paragraph is essentially correct. Modernist (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not an expert in this area. I know nothing about Russian constructivism. It is up to those who claim expertise in this area to write a paragraph which conveys this information to the non-expert reader, which is what an encyclopaedia is for. At the moment, it does not. All it says is, "there was the Russian Revolution, there was German communism, and then there was Bauhaus." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian avant-garde - read this article for starters and a few of the many related links, including this - Socialist realism. Modernist (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not incumbent on me to make myself an expert on these matters. As far as this article goes, I am a reader, not a writer. It is up to those who claim expertise in this area to write an article that is accurate, informative and comprehensible. "One does not need to be a carpenter to know an ill-made table": Dr Johnson. At the moment, this section is none of those things. (Actually I do know quite a lot about socialist realism and I know it has nothing to do with the foundation of Bauhaus, since it dates from the later 1920s at the earliest. At the time we are discussing, Proletkult was still the dominant aesthetic ideology in Soviet Russia. But as we have already established, Gropius was not a communist so that's not relevant.) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm we were talking about context. The Bauhaus was founded in 1919, by Walter Gropius in conservative Weimar the same year as the Weimar Constitution. - please explain what that has to do with communism? The entire paragraph is basically talking about the context in which the Bauhaus was first founded. The paragraph is fine and I suggest that you try another article if this one does not please your sense of good carpentry. Modernist (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please spare me cheap sarcasm - it is a much overused form of debate at Wikipedia and does not impress. The section in question reads as follows:

The foundation of Bauhaus occurred at a time of crisis and turmoil in Europe as a whole and particularly in Germany. Its establishment resulted from a confluence of a diverse set of political, social, educational and artistic development in the first two decades of the twentieth century.
The conservative modernisation of the German Empire during the 1870s had maintained power in the hands of the aristocracy. It also necessitated militarism and imperialism to maintain stability. By 1912 the rise of the leftist SPD had galvanized political positions with notions of international solidarity and socialism set against imperialist nationalism. World War I ensued from 1914–18. In 1917 in the midst of the carnage of the First World War, workers and soldier Soviets seized power in Russia. Inspired by the Russian workers and soldier Soviets, similar German communist factions—most notably The Spartacist League—were formed, who sought a similar revolution for Germany. The war provoked the German Revolution, with the SPD securing the abdication of the Kaiser and the formation of a revolutionary government. On 1 January 1919, the Spartacist League attempted to take control of Berlin, an action that was brutally suppressed by the combined forces of the SPD, the remnants of the German Army, and paramilitary groups (Freikorps). Elections were held on the January 19, and the Weimar Republic was established. Communist revolution was still a tangible prospect for many; indeed, a Soviet republic was declared in Munich, before its suppression by the paramilitary Freikorps and regular army. Sporadic fighting continued to flare up around the country.
The Bauhaus was founded in 1919, by Walter Gropius in conservative Weimar the same year as the Weimar Constitution.

As you can see, the whole section in italics is a polemic about German history, the Russian revolution and German communism. My original question was, and still is: what has this got to do with Bauhaus? We have established that Bauhaus was not itself founded by communists, so there must be some other connection. What is it? Was Bauhaus influenced by the aesthetic theory or practice of the Russian revolution? If so, by what means, or via which person? Did the Spartacists have a policy on architecture? What was it? Was Gropius influenced by it? By what means? If this section is going to mention the Russian revolution and/or the Spartacists, it must answer these questions, otherwise these statements are irrelevant. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I have done your work for you. Even with the limited sources I have, and even though this is not my field, I have considerably improved the opening section, and as well given the whole article a badly-needed copyedit, removing the excessively repetitive wikification. It turns out of course that the "background" section was complete rubbish. The dominant influences on Bauhaus were not communism or the Russian revolution at all, but the already existing German modernist movement and the aesthetic theory of William Morris. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)