Bauhaus and the Design School - Essay Example

Throughout the 20th century,the link between design and industry strengthened. This phenomenon had its roots in the Bauhaus school of design that first developed early in 20th century Germany under the enlightened patronage of the Wiemar Republic. This school of design and architecture attempted to marry the arts to the practical aspects of life. The school enjoyed a remarkable success in the rapid industrialization of Germany that followed the war. The success was tempered by the criticism it received from the fascist government that rose to power in the 1930s. The schools principal innovators were driven out Germany by Nazi persecution and in the aftermath of the war there was a sense of disillusionment with Germanys past, a past that had led to the terrible excesses of the Nazi party . After the war the reincarnation of the Bauhaus school of design at Ulm did much to reinvigorate the sense of design and industry in Germany while at the same time asserting the importance of the Bauhaus philosophy in forging a new German identity separate from its Nazi past. It is important to retrace the context of the development of the Bauhaus School of design at Ulm in terms of its past and the vital role it played in presenting a new definition of Germany quite apart from its Nazi legacy and how this helped industry in Germany. The Bauhaus school of design underwent three different phases of development In the wake of World War I and all troubles it revealed there was a need to tap into the more rational aspects of everyday life. The sentiment was seized upon by famed architect Walter Gropius who opened the school in Wiemar. Gropius in a way was forwarding the area where Germany would seek an advantage in production, that is by producing common place article with an artistic aesthetic and remaining competitive relative to other economies with more resources. Whether this was the intention of Gropius and the early architects of Bauhaus is not entirely clear but it is perhaps specious to separate the Zeitgeist of the time from the ideas of the innovators. The Bauhaus School went through three different phases in its early history influenced by the philosophical leanings of its directors. Gropius was followed as director by Hannes Meyer when the school moved to Dessau in 1928. Meyer more of a formal thinker removed much of the aesthetic underpinnings of Gropius and became more concerned with the influence of science and its translation into a greater sense of function. This turned the pendulum toward the functional aspect of products and perhaps subverted the original aim of the school; however, the school in retrospect was to go through this cycle of thesis and antithesis between function and form throughout its history. Meyer was succeed by Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe who once again reasserted the importance of aesthetics over function. Under increasing pressure from the Nazis the school closed in 1930 but the ideas of the movement where disseminated throughout the world by its prominent leaders. Walter Gropius and Meyer moved to America and taught at the highly influential Harvard School of Design and essentially laid the basis for the American Bauhaus movement. Others moved to Russia and the United Kingdom and other parts of the world. The persecution by the Nazis and the spread of ideas did much to rescue the high achievements of German design from the stigma of association with its Nazi past. The opening of a design School in the Bauhaus model in Ulm in 1951 did much to reserect the the special achievement of the Bauhaus movement and in turn it did much to offer a new face to German design. Following the horrors of World War II there was a reaction to the the association between science and society as this had been a feature of the rationale for Nazi expansionism as it is put eloquently here: it is crucial to recall that the Ulm project to forge a new post fascist “industrial culture” diverged markedly from the more general postwar cultural pessimism about the potentially redemptive powers of science and industrial technology. Much of this postwar sentiment was a response to the Nazi legacy of industrialized mass death and destruction, in which the West German right and left joined hands in denouncing Germanys 1930s theology of technology as a central element of the “German catastrophe. (Betts, 2004, p. 157) There was a fear of the past and it was logical, “ it is crucial to recall that the Ulm project to forge a new post fascist “industrial culture” diverged markedly from the more general postwar cultural pessimism about the potentially redemptive powers of science and industrial technology. Much of this postwar sentiment was a response to the Nazi legacy of industrialized mass death and destruction, in which the West German right and left joined hands in denouncing Germanys 1930s theology of technology as a central element of the “German catastrophe”. (Betts, 2004, p. 157) The Bauhaus School and its innovators and thinkers were a way to distance German National image away from the horrors of the Nazis and reassert what had been good about the rationalism of that early design movement. Rationalism then became the guiding force for the New Bauhaus school at Ulm. The school was successful in bringing back the area in where Germany excelled in design at a time when there had been the reactive impulse to withdraw from that tradition. This achievement was important to reassert and benefited Germany enormousally much in the way it had in post World War I, at a time of rapid industrial growth. This connection to its economic driving force was exemplified in its reassociation with Braun Industries. The company was founded in 1921 by Max Braun as a small electronics company that gradually grew. Following the war and after the company had been inherited by Brauns sons, it adopted much of its design patterns in collaboration with the Bauhaus school at Ulm in 1951 and carved a unique niche with its highly distinctive designs in shaving products, so distinctive that it is today a household name. The Bauhaus School also made great innovations in the area of furniture design. Hans Gugelot introduced the idea of “visual efficiency” to the area of furniture design. Prior to his intervention furniture seemed to take on a haphazard approach to many different forms in a jumble of styles. Gugelot introduced a lean look that emphasized a minimalist functionalism without ornamentation which pleased the eye with the clarity of its lines. Gugelot took his innovation further into the design of cabinets and drawers that were adaptable to the restrictions of space with attachments and slots that allowed the interchange of parts in an easy way. The Bauhaus school at Ulms influence on the style of photography was to have implications on more than the aesthetic quality of the form as had been its tradition to that point. The Ulm style of photography emphasized the informative and objective qualities rather than the appeals to sentiment that had become widespread in the area. They highlighted a style of black and white pictures with often blank or muted backgrounds. The intention was to do away with the excess of emotion. The logical outcome of this new emphasis was a focus on objects in a new previously unexplored way. This did much to lay the ground work of the cornerstone of the new marketing strategies of industry. Introducing familiarity with objects in an informative way created an sense of expectation for the new products of design and in this way the influence in this area was important as any in the increasingly intimate relation between design and industry. The stylistic convention of the Bauhaus School of Ulm was heightened by the differences between its different directors This occurred in the earlier schools as already mentioned and it continued with the reincarnation at Ulm. The first director of the school at Ulm Max Bill much like Gropius before him stressed the importance of aesthetics. His motivations were grounded in the immediate postwar responsibility to carve out a new area of German design, distinct in every way from the legacy of science and social progress that had marked the justification of the Nazi regime. It was a difficult path to negotiate and it was necessary for the well being of Germany as a whole. Any reflexive rejection of the the past tradition of linking design with industry would have dampened the emerging flame of industrial expansionism that was taking place again in Germany after World War II, because this had been the nations area of advantage. Under the strict guidance of Max Bill a former student of Bauhaus in its old days, the development of design rapidly improved without any stigma of previous association. Inevitably the pendulum did start to turn again. Thomas Moldanado raised criticism of the strict concern with aesthetics that pervaded the Ulm school and made a call for a consideration of the importance of science in the formulation of design principles. This was a re-emergence of the form versus function argument that had marked the early Bauhaus school. The conflict seen in this light became in a sense a marker of growth. In 1958 Bill left the school and with his departure the Bauhaus School started to embrace the importance of allying itself with industry in larger sense. In this light it should not be necessary to view Bills tenure as failure for he reasserted the importance of the design in industry, managing to secure a hold on Germanys domain of strength at a time when the reflexive impulse had been to distance itself from all aspects of its dark history . The Bauhaus School at Ulm carried the new German post industrial expansion through its difficult postwar days by demonstrating to the world and in many ways itself all the areas that had been great about that past. In this sense the Bauhaus School of Design at Ulm successfully not only managed to link the ideas of art and design to industry but also played no small role in the resurrection of area of its greatest strength: design. References Aldersey-Williams, H. (2000, February 14). Bauhaus: Design or Dogma?. New Statesman, 129, 41. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001178392 Banham, R. (1960). Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. London: Architectural Press. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=86046252 Bayer, H., Gropius, W., & Gropius, I. (Eds.). (1938). Bauhaus, 1919-1928. new York: Museum of Modern Art. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97586695 Betts, P. (2004). The Authority of Everyday Objects: A Cultural History of West German Industrial Design. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105361054 Findeli, A. (1991). Design Education and Industry: The Laborious Beginnings of the Institute of Design in Chicago in 1944. Journal of Design History, 4(2), 97-113. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96546954 Sanabria, S. L. (1999, November). Architecture of Science Rests on Creaky Foundation. American Scientist, 87, 558. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001830783 Sparke, P. (1987). An Introduction to Design and Culture in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100808120 Stennott, R. S. (Ed.). (2004). Encyclopedia of 20th Century Architecture (Vol. 2). New York: Fitzroy Dearborn. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108549831 Read More