Talk:Expressionist architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Expressionist architecture has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Taking stock

I'd like to try to resolve a few things which I'm still not happy with if possible and instigate a review of the article.

  1. Originally I'd seen the article structure as beginning with a description of the Expressionist movements proper - encompassing the German/Austrian strands and then the amsterdam school. and then leading on to a discussion as to how the term came to mean something wider. - Currently, the article is seemingly predicated on a different structure and DVD has attempted to write the article without mentioning specific countries, explaining he doesn't want the article "too nationalistic". I think we need to talk about this. I don't have a clear sense of what he thinks expressionism actually is, if it's origins weren't in a germanic/dutch utopian movement and the first "context" paragraph seems out of place unless it's clear why we're suddenly talking about germany/austria.
  2. We keep ending up with references to Gaudi - I think once we've communicated our views as to what we think the sources are saying expressionism is, then we'll be able to agree on the inclusion or otherwise of gaudi as an expressionist. I think the problem might be that Pehnt cites him as relevant whilst the other sources don't mention him. I don't have Pehnt or Sharpe some I'm a bit blind on that. Can we discuss it?
  3. I'm quite happy to junk the timeline as it stands, but I'd like to see the article rewritten with more of a chronological narrative style.
  4. The list of characteristics at the beginning - I worry it needs more citations and more context for the lay-reader to understand. eg "Often hybrid solutions, irreducible to a single concept" - solutions to what, why is it significant to reduce the building to a single concept - isn't this true of a lot of architecture? and "Tendency more towards the gothic than the classical. Expressionist architecture also tends more towards the romanesque and the rococo than the classical." perhaps the gothic, classical, romanesque and rococo need more explanation than just the links.

--Mcginnly | Natter 17:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crosspost

Crossposted from user talk pages

He DVD, I notice we've both revived editing the Expressionist architecture article, prior to it's impending GA review. I've archived the talk BTW, because most of it was used as a scratch sheet for translations etc. - hope that's ok. I'd like some discussion about the article though if you wouldn't mind, because there's still a few fundamental things that I think we disagreed on at the time and I'd like to us reach some sort of agreement on. I've started a thread at Talk:Expressionist architecture#Taking stock. Cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Mcginnly, I think you are asking about whether Gaudi made expressionist architecture, I see it as common knowledge, here are some quick examples of other peoples deductions:

Shannon Ricketts, Leslie Maitland, Jacqueline Hucker. A Guide to Canadian Architectural Styles. Published 2003 Broadview Press. ISBN 1551115468

p. 211

"This style had its roots in the European Expressionist movement of the early twentieth century. At that time, architects such as Antonio Gaudi, Hans Poelzig, and Eric Mendelsohn were experimenting with the ability of new materials, especially concrete, to produce dramatic and often eccentric structures."

Faia Wertheimer, Lester Wertheimer. Architectural History. Originally published: [S.l.] : Architectural License Seminars, c1985. Published 2004 Kaplan AEC Architecture ISBN 079319380X

p. 117

Casa Mila

"This fine example of Expressionist architecture, perhaps even late-blooming Art Nouveau..."

Ernest E. Burden. Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture Published 2002 McGraw-Hill Professional ISBN 0071375295

p. 124

Expressionism

"A northern European style (1903-1925) that did not treat buildings only as purely functional structures, but as sculptural objects in their own right. Works typical of this style were by Antonio Gaudi in Spain, P.W. Jensen Klint in Denmark, and Eric Mendelsohn and Hans Poelzig in Germany."

Sufficient? Now that the thread is there, I'll take a look - but I've been up late so probably won't answer 'till tomorrow. While I'm here, what is your opinion of this [1]? DVD+ R/W 17:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

I've done some digging and I think I've found the root of the problem:-

"Expressionism - a widely applicable term used since 1910 of al the arts in three main senses. (paraphrasing now)

Type 1. A certain type of expressive emphasis found in all the arts, throughout history across the globe - examples are cited such as Dostoevsky, Strindberg, El Greco, Van Gogh.
Type 2. All the modern movement in Germany and Austro Hungary between 1910 and 1924 which flavoured the local variants of Fauvism, Cubism and Futurism and formed the basis of both Dada and Neue Sachlichkeit. It was later extended backwards to Munch and the early works of Die Brücke. The term entered Germany through France in 1910. It's trademarks were distortion, fragmentation and the communication of violent or overstressed emotion. Pacifist and socialist political agenda etc.etc.
Type 3.Any 20th century work of art in other countries or continents which reflect the influence of German expressionism. eg Laethem-Saint-Martin, some of the Ecole de Paris and abstract expressionism."[1]

So firstly, with reference to the above citations:-

  1. Shannon Ricketts - appears to be confusing and merging type 1 expressionism with type 2. See Frampton p66 "Seen in retrospect, the Casa Mila seems to anticipate something of the ethos of the Expressionism that was soon to emerge in Central Europe."
  2. Faia Wertheimer - type 1 expressionism
  3. Ernest E. Burden - type 2 expressionism extended backwards to include the work of Gaudi.

I'm keen to rewrite the lead to include these 3 distinctions.

Curl elaborates further "Artistic movement in Northern Europe, especially in Germany and the Netherlands from c1905 to 1930, it was concerned in architecture not to emphasise function but to create free and powerful sculptural forms, often crystalline, sometimes sharply angular, and occasionally stalactitic." He then cites examples in the netherlands and denmark (Jensen Klint as above) and then says "In Germany, however there were several outstanding article......"

I think the article needs to be structured with a chronology that reflects the growth of the umbrella term "Expressionism" and can't really shy away from it's northern european roots - we can then deal with "later scholars broadened the term to include both works of architecture before 1910 and works outside of northern europe such as Gaudi.

Regards. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked the lead quite a bit to reflect some of this. What do you think?--Mcginnly | Natter 02:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused, carry on though. DVD+ R/W 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Which bit is causing the headache? --Mcginnly | Natter 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A RL headache. Like I said though, please carry on. DVD+ R/W 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Gaudi and expressionism

James M Richards, Nikolaus Pevsner, Dennis Sharp. The Anti-Rationalists and the Rationalists. Architectural Press. Published 2000. ISBN 0750648155

p.75 (Casa Vicens)"The Gaudi building contains the germ of all the later Expressionist developments..."

  • here's another, one more in a sec. DVD+ R/W 02:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Frampton, Kenneth (2004). Modern architecture - a critical history. Third edition. World of Art.

p.66

"Prominent among Guell's enthusiasms were Ruskin and Wagner, and Gaudi seems to have been as much affected by the theories of the one as the music-dramas of the other."

and

"Seen in retrospect, the Casa Mila seems to anticipate something of the ethos of the Expressionism that was soon to emerge in Central Europe."

from the same page. DVD+ R/W 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] replies to ==Taking stock==

  1. The people involved in expressionism and expressionist architecture were not germanic/dutch but were pretty diverse. Nationalistic might not be the word I should use for when they get called this, but you keep saying germanic about people and ideas that were not really, I still don't know why.
  2. About Gaudi and expressionism- I have brought for you a few cited passages from other writers, do you see now that other sources mention him?
  3. I don't mind the timeline, here is another format to consider though, Template:Cgtimeline. I guess I still favor sections based on topics rather than chronology, or worse maybe, countries, I don't think this article is about that or chronology.
  4. I don't know what the lay-reader will understand. Do you? I think characteristics are very important, and that they should be concise, whether or not I outlined them well, I don't know.
signed
DVD+ R/W 03:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, in retrospect Gaudi can be seen as anticipating expressionism. Doesn't make him part of the movement, and the mood is very different. Nikky Pevsner (Outline of European Architecture, pre ISBN) is clear that "the troubled mood of 1919... twisted the new architecture into an Expressionism in some ways more akin to Art Nouveau than to the style of 1914". He states the Expressionist tendency was strongest in Germany, but "not entirely absent in some other countries", citing Copenhagen, and the best known international contribution being Dutch. Sounds rather germanic to me. .. dave souza, talk 10:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
David, I paraphrased a 3 part definition of expressionism above, here it is again:-

"Expressionism - a widely applicable term used since 1910 of al the arts in three main senses. (paraphrasing now)

Type 1. A certain type of expressive emphasis found in all the arts, throughout history across the globe - examples are cited such as Dostoevsky, Strindberg, El Greco, Van Gogh.
Type 2. All the modern movement in Germany and Austro Hungary between 1910 and 1924 which flavoured the local variants of Fauvism, Cubism and Futurism and formed the basis of both Dada and Neue Sachlichkeit. It was later extended backwards to Munch and the early works of Die Brücke. The term entered Germany through France in 1910. It's trademarks were distortion, fragmentation and the communication of violent or overstressed emotion. Pacifist and socialist political agenda etc.etc.
Type 3.Any 20th century work of art in other countries or continents which reflects the influence of German expressionism. eg Laethem-Saint-Martin, some of the Ecole de Paris and abstract expressionism."[1]
When you say "The people involved in expressionism and expressionist architecture were not germanic/dutch but were pretty diverse" can I assume you are refering to type 1 or 3? We can agree on this I think. But there was a definite germanic/dutch movement from 1910- ca.1930 called expressionism - I've provided referenced citations for that in the article lead. The diversity which you talk about might be understood as applying too broad a definition to what expressionism was. My contention remains that the term was first applied to describe the germanic/dutch movement and then broadened in scope to describe pretty much any architecture with a non-functionalist, non-sachlichkeit expressive emphasis throughout history. I think the article would be better structured, dealing first with the germanic/dutch movements and then, if you like, using gaudi as an example to illustrate how the term was redefined. I'll have a look at the other timeline and respond later. No, I've no idea what the lay-reader will understand - maybe we should get some feedback from the great unwashed. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Yes there are many definitions, why this 3 part one? The architecture critics I cited you say are confused about the term then you cite political scientists, shouldn't this definition be from an architecture or an art critic? Expressionism was an art movement- not a national, political, or racial one.

Some more definitions, still not art critics as such, but still poignant:

Columbia encyclopedia, [2]. Note- it is all about individuals and art groups, no mention of what you are talking about.

The New York Times Guide To Essential Knowledge: A Desk Reference for the Curious Mind p. 99 [drastically paraphrased]

The first expressionist movement was the fauves, then the Vienna Secession, then Die Brucke.

Note this same book places Modigliani under symbolism, though he seems expressionist to me. Also, why put a Poelzig building in the lead, I'd suggest one by Taut or Mendelsohn, why not the Einstein Tower? If you really want to make this chronological, it should go Gaudi, Vienna Secession (which we haven't really mentioned), then Mendelsohn, the Glass Chain and so on. We also need to brush up on the sources- the most primary, the middle ones (Pehnt, and Sharpe) that discuss this extensively, and the later surveys. DVD+ R/W 08:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm happy to discuss pre-'expressionist movement' developments in art and architecture - including gaudi, fauvism, cubism, theories of perception etc before we get into the germanic/dutch movement proper. What political scientists? - the authors of The Dictionary of Modern Thought? - it's a book that encompasses everything from anarcho-syndicalism through general relativity to brutalism. The point is, if there are many definitions then this should be discussed in the article. Curl's definition also talks about german, dutch and danish expressionism. Also, here's a partitial review of Pehnt's book. [3]. It suggests his net is cast too wide. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Here an art definition from the Tate stating Van Goch as a starting point for the 'movement'[4]. I've also read expressionism defined as a reaction to impressionism ie. an attempt to express the viewers inner reaction to a subject rather than the surface imression of it. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The poelzig building is in the lead because it's early and has that slightly scary gaping mouthed quality that some of expressionism was about - I put it there as an alternative to Mies's skyscraper - in itself also interesting to demonstrate how the visionary, utopian idealism of expressionism did actually later translate and feedback into later modernist buildings. I'm happy to include the einstein tower - it's certainly the most recognisable building of the movement. You say "Expressionism was an art movement- not a national, political, or racial one" I'd agree with this to a point, but art movements in those days usually did have a geographic neucleus - in this case it was germany - most of the proponents were german or certainly northern european and most of them did have political agendas. There are so many sources that refer to German Expressionism and the Amsterdam school I'm struggling to understand why you don't want to make it explicit in the article, it's like taking the Prairie School and removing it's geographical and political context and looking at all long, low, craftish buildings through history. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another county heard from

DVD asked me to weigh in on this. Two first impressions:

  • I think we should say very early that the term refers originally to a time-bound European movement but also more loosely to earlier and later works related to that movement by influence or even merely by resemblance, beginning at least as early as Gaudí and continuing at least as far as Frank Gehry, the latter of whom is currently not mentioned at all.
  • The list of ten characteristics of expressionist architecture might be strengthened by mentioning for each characteristic an aspect of a specific building or structure that exemplifies it.

- Jmabel | Talk 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel - we need some wider opinions like this. I attempted some of what you suggest in the lead (I've yet to include it in the body text until we've resolved the structure) - I'm scratching out an alternative structure for discussion at Expressionist architecture/Structure redesign sandbox. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I've placed this article on hold because I feel it's a little short of meeting the Good Article criteria, but I'm also confident that these issues can be addressed quickly. Namely:

  • The article could use a copyedit for grammar and style. Italicization of published works' titles, for instance, is not always present, and there are some issues regarding usage of commas, semicolons, and colons. The text of the article is well-written, though it could be tightened up a bit, but errors like these detract from it and make it more difficult to read.
  • A few unsourced/OR statements, such as "The name of Ferris' 1929 book The Metropolis of Tommorrow, seems inspired by the 1927 Film, Metropolis." Wikipedia cannot draw possibly-controversial conclusions; we can only cite conclusions others have drawn. "Seems" is a word to be wary of, if it's not inside a quote. (This example also shows some of the style and punctuation issues I referenced above; "film" should not be capitalized, and there's no need for the comma before the film's title.)
  • The large whitespace gap at the bottom of the "Materials" section, caused by the second photo, is distracting; it interrupts the reader. Could the images be rearranged so that it doesn't exist? This is a matter of personal preference, and wouldn't stand in the way of the article becoming a GA, but I do believe it would improve the article.
  • The "Timeline" is long and very list-y. Perhaps it could be split into two sections, a shorter "Timeline" summarizing events in one sentence and a prose "History" covering in depth the more significant events, such as the Bauhaus phase ending in 1923? I would not personally see this standing in the way of the article becoming a GA, but it might for an FA, and I presume you'd like to take it to that level.
  • The article is cited pretty thoroughly, but the vast majority (about 75%) of the citations point to the same reference, Pehnt. I don't dispute that it's a reliable source, but I think it would be better to draw more evenly from several sources, rather than to rest so much of the article on a single source.

I'll review the article for GA status in a week, or when I receive notice (here or on my talk page) that an editor believes the article is ready. Shimeru 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments Shimeru, but I withdrew the GAC. DVD+ R/W 05:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • We've been having argument after argument at WP:GA. Really, you should buy some popcorn and watch the show. :-)
  • The direction it seems to be going in is this: watch out for WP:LEAD, Wikipedia:Embedded list and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I don't think this particular article needs to worry about how broad its coverage is, or WP:NPOV. All matters of writing style are under debate (or will be soon), and so... are far less important, at least.
  • Cheers--Ling.Nut 07:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

Someone removed this image - I'm leaving it here until we can determine a) if it is a Hans Poelzig building b) if it is the upper silesia tower.

it is certainly expressionist by inspection.
Image:Poelzig-water tower 1911.jpg
Upper Silesia Tower in Posen, designed by Hans Poelzig in 1911 - Built as an exhibition building it was later to become a water tower.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Vorgeschichte feininger.jpg

Image:Vorgeschichte feininger.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)