reading

Authors: Michael Siebenbrodt and Lutz Schöbe

Layout:

Baseline Co. Ltd

61A-63A Vo Van Tan Street

4th Floor

District 3, Ho Chi Minh City

Vietnam

Image-Bar www.image-bar.com

Photographical credits:

Abbreviations:

BHA Bauhaus-Archiv, Museum für Gestaltung, Berlin

SBHD Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau

SWKK Stiftung Weimarer Klassik und Kunstsammlungen

Photograph Louis Held

Photograph Hugo Erfurt

Unknown photographer

Photograph Lucia Moholy

Unknown photographer

Photograph Emil Theiß, Stadtarchiv Dessau

Photograph Howard Dearstyne

Unknown photographer, BHA

Photograph Umbo (Otto Umbehr)

BHA

Unknown photographer, BHA

Photograph Louis Held Workshop

Unknown photographer, BHA

Photograph Wolfgang Kleber, HOCHTIEF Essen / Anhaltische Gemäldegalerie Dessau / Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau

Photograph Gunter Lepkrowski, BHA

Unknown photographer

Unknown photographer, BHA

Photograph Edmund Collein or Heinz Loew, BHA

Unknown photographer, SBHD

Photograph Gunter Lepkrowski, BHA

Photograph Heinz Loew or Joost Schmidt

Unknown photographer, BHA

Photograph Erich Consemüller

Unknown photographer, SBHD

Photograph Walter Peterhans

Unknown photographer

Unknown photographer, BHA

Unknown photographer, SWKK

Reno/Foto-Atelier Louis Held, Bauhaus-Museum, Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar (KW)

Unknown photographer, BHA

Photograph Marburg

Unknown photographer, BHA

Photograph Gunter Lepkowski, BHA

Unknown photographer, BHA

Kicken, Berlin/Phyllis Umbehr, BHA

Unknown photographer, SWKK

Unknown photographer, BHA

Unknown photographer, SWKK

Unknown photographer, BHA

Unknown photographer, SWKK

Photograph Erich Consemüller

Unknown photographer, BHA

Photograph Jost Schilgen, BHA

Photograph Marianne Brandt

Universität zu Köln/Theaterwissenschaftliche Sammlung

Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Puppentheatersammlung, 1957

Unknown photographer, SWKK

Unknown photographer, BHA

Universität zu Köln/Theaterwissenschaftliche Sammlung

Harvard Art Museum

Germanisches Nationalmuseum

Universität zu Köln/Theaterwissenschaftliche Sammlung

Photograph Erich Consemüller,

Photograph Lux Feininger,

Photograph Erich Consemüller, © -Bühnen-Archiv Oskar Schlemmer, Sekretariat, I- 28824 Oggebbio

Photograph Marianne Brandt, BHA

Unknown photographer, BHA

gta archives / ETH Zurich: bequest of Hannes Meyer

Junkers-Luftbild, BHA

BHA

SWKK

Photograph Paula Stockmar, BHA

Unknown photographer: SWKK

Photograph Lucia Moholy, BHA

Photograph Hajo Rose, BHA

Photograph Edmund Collein, SBHD

Photograph Irene Bayer, SBHD

Photograph Erich Consemüller, BHA

Photograph Erich Consemüller, private collection

No parts of this publication may be reproduced or adapted without the permission of the copyright holder, throughout the world. Unless otherwise specified, copyright on the works reproduced lies with the respective photographers. Despite intensive research, it has not always been possible to establish copyright ownership. Where this is the case, we would appreciate notification.

ISBN: 978-1-78310-705-6

1919-1933 Weimar-Dessau-Berlin

Michael Siebenbrodt

& Lutz Schöbe

Contents

Preface

History of the Bauhaus

Forerunners, Roots and History

Art School Reform

Ruskin, Olbrich and Others

Deutscher Werkbund (German Association of Craftsmen)

De Stijl, Blauer Reiter (Blue Rider) and Der Sturm

The Staatliches Bauhaus in Weimar (1919 to 1925)

Between Vision and Reality: The 1919 to 1920 Construction Phase

On the Way to [Becoming] the Modern Academy of Design: The 1921-1922 Formation Phase

“Art and Technology–A New Unity” and the 1923 Bauhaus Exhibition

Bauhaus Dessau: Academy for Design (1925 to 1932)

The Bauhaus Becomes an Academy

Laboratories for Industry – Workshop Work

Planning and Building

The Hannes Meyer Era

The Ludwig Mies van der Rohe Era

The Closure of the Bauhaus in Dessau

Bauhaus Berlin: Free Education and Research Institute (1932-1933)

The Closure of the Bauhaus in Berlin

Preparatory Course and Basic Design Education

The Preparatory Course

Wassily Kandinsky’s Course

Paul Klee’s Course

Oskar Schlemmer’s Course

Joost Schmidt’s Course

The Workshops Pottery Workshop

Bookbinding

Stained Glass Painting Workshop

Graphic Print Shop

Typography/Printing and Advertising Workshop

Mural Painting Workshop

Stone Sculpting and Woodcarving/Plastic Workshop

Weaving Workshop

Carpentry/Furniture Workshop

Metal Workshop

Theatre Workshop

Architecture/Building Studies/ Building Department

Photography/Photo Workshop

The Photography Workshop

Fine Arts

Life and Work

Effect and Reaction

Bauhaus and the Third Reich

The Bauhaus and the United States

The Bauhaus and the Soviet Union

The Bauhaus and the Federal Republic of Germany

Bauhaus and the GDR (German Democratic Republic)

Bauhaus in Reunified Germany

Bauhaus: A Creative Method

Chronology

Bibliography

Bauhaus – Archives, Collections and Museums

Index

Notes

Preface

The Bauhaus was one of the most important and momentous cultural manifestations of the twentieth century. There is no doubt about it. It is more than ever a phenomenon of global dimensions. Today, the Bauhaus is embedded in the public consciousness; it is held in high esteem and, depending on one’s interests, occasionally glorified or denounced. But recognition and positive esteem are prevalent. The work of the Bauhaus artists enjoys universal admiration and interest in the great museums of the world. Their creative theories, if often taken out of their complex context, received and continue to receive attention in many renowned architectural and art education institutes, as well as in basic art lessons in education facilities. Bauhaus products – such as Marcel Breuer’s famous tubular steel furniture – proceeded to become highly-traded design classics. Bauhaus buildings, such as the sites in Weimar and Dessau, are considered pieces of architectural history, and today they are part of Germany’s cultural heritage. The Bauhaus went down in art history as the original modernist art school.

Now, almost a century after its foundation, it is still current. This is evident not only in the increased institutional interest in the school’s work, an exhibition boom that hasn’t worn off, and a multitude of new publications and unending media interest, but also in the area of theoretical architectural research, in which investigations into functionalism, a design concept closely connected to the Bauhaus, are on the increase. The creation of a new man for a new, more humane society was the Bauhaus’s true goal. It remains historically unfulfilled. Are we to understand the intervention by philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas regarding “modernism as an unfinished project” in this way, too?

This book limits itself to portraying the history of the Bauhaus in a more or less rough overview. The authors can thus make reference to a multitude of existing publications as well as to their own published writings on the subject. The claim is not to subject the Bauhaus to criticism on principle from a twenty-first century perspective but rather the intention simply to portray what was, in an objective argument of the most important points and with no claim to exhaustiveness, for this book is intended for the interested reader and not the knowledgeable expert. If this leads to the break up of unilateral ways of viewing the Bauhaus, that harmonious, consistent, conflict-free, “progressive” and non-traditional organisaton, the authors will consider themselves lucky.

The portrayal begins with references to the forerunners of the Bauhaus, places it in the context of the events of its time and describes the circumstances leading up to its foundation. In a brief overview, the authors present the internal structure of the school and its individual sites in Weimar, Dessau and Berlin, as well as the conceptions of its three directors, Walter Gropius, Hannes Meyer and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. The following chapters inform the reader about the teaching and training structure of the Bauhaus and present the teaching concepts of its most important teachers. Attention is given to the Bauhaus workshops, their respective structures, the spectrum of achievements and the modifications by the different directors. These are followed by short chapters on general matters such as architecture, photography and visual arts in the Bauhaus, as well as on life and work at the school. A short overview of the effects and reception of the Bauhaus from its beginnings to the present forms the conclusion.

Special emphasis is placed on promoting the comprehension of connections, consequences, mutual influences and developments in a sequence of selected and matched images. In this way, the reader may have visual access to the Bauhaus through the language of its time.

The appendix, with its compressed chronology summarising the history of the Bauhaus and evoking parallel events in culture, politics, technology and science, allows for individual conclusions and the identification of links and references not included in the text.

A bibliography, with information about the most important literature on the Bauhaus in general, as well as on select topics, offers opportunities for further in-depth study of the subject.

History of the Bauhaus

Forerunners, Roots and History

The artistic and pedagogical achievements of the Bauhaus were revolutionary in Germany as well as in Europe as a whole. Its intention to renovate art and architecture was in line with other similar efforts, from which it drew numerous ideas for its own work.

Still, the school’s historical significance cannot be overestimated. The Bauhaus did not develop in empty space. On the one hand, one of stereotypes of Bauhaus history is that the school broke with all traditions and started from scratch. On the other hand, there is a general trend to omit hardly any art movements or important artists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when discussing the sources of the Bauhaus.

The conditions leading to the development of the Bauhaus are, indeed, complex and widely ramified. Its sources in humanistic and social history reach back into the nineteenth century. Furthermore, the issue addressed by the Bauhaus has its roots in the Industrial Revolution, that lasting cataclysm beginning in England in the middle of the eighteenth century and resulting in industrial manufacturing and industrial society. This modernisation process had led to tensions in almost all areas of life: a radical change occurred when mechanical tools replaced age-old tools of the trade. For lack of new concepts, art and architecture reverted to a historical vocabulary of shapes, which increasingly led to contradictions. The changed conditions for the production of articles for daily use required a new design, now aligned with machine production. It took until the middle of the nineteenth century for the attempts at solving this problem to take concrete shape. The Bauhaus was part of a traditional line of initiatives and efforts called “modernism,” which issued from here and strove to re-establish unity between the areas of artistic and technical production, which had been separated by emerging industrial production. The resulting social separation of the artist, his isolation and the fragmentation as well as the segregation of different types of art, was to be reversed. This led to the idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk (synthesis of the arts, unified work of art), a thought which, with different accentuation in earlier centuries, strove to synthesise in reality all the arts involved in construction and manual trades. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk was allied with the utopian claim that it could further the solution of society’s social and cultural problems on the basis of a unified aspiration.

Art School Reform

The Art School Reform, which was concerned with the transformation of art academies into unified art schools, based artistic training on the manual trades and a general artistic elementary education. Gropius himself eventually saw the Bauhaus as a part of “reform ideas typical of the time”, and as a new kind of school, whose fundamental pedagogical concept was based on reform ideas.

There were other attempts, before the Bauhaus and parallel to it, to implement in practise the goals of Art School Reform. Among these, the Art School in Frankfurt am Main must be mentioned, as well as the Obrist-Debschitz School in Munich, the Breslau Academy for Arts and Crafts, the Düsseldorf Arts and Crafts School, the Arts and Crafts School Burg Giebichenstein in Halle, the Reimann School and the Itten School in Berlin, the Folkwang School in Essen, the Arts and Crafts School in Bratislava, and finally the Higher Artistic-Technical Workshops (Vkhutemas) in Moscow.

Like the school in Moscow, the Bauhaus was an institution implementing the ideas of the Art School Reform in a unique way, consistently, imaginatively, completely, rigorously and in a sustained manner. According to Gropius, the Bauhaus was a matter of life for the people. In this comprehensive claim, which went far beyond architecture and design, lies inter alia its historical importance.

Ruskin, Olbrich and Others

In his 1923 essay “Idea and Construction of the Staatliches Bauhaus (State Bauhaus)”, Bauhaus founder Walter Gropius himself points to the sources which directly influenced him and the foundation of the Bauhaus. Gropius lists “Ruskin, Olbrich, Behrens, (Darmstadt Artists’ Colony) and others in Germany, then finally the Deutsche Werkbund (German Association of Craftsmen)”. In his own writings, John Ruskin (1819-1900), the English painter, art historian and social reformer, opposed the cluttered adornments of the past but also industrial production; he juxtaposed the alienating work on the machine with the ideal of the creative artisan of the Middle Ages. In his restoration efforts, which were extremely influential in England, especially in the second half of the nineteenth century, he postulated the production of things that did justice to the material, that were largely unadorned but still expressive, following the model of the Gothic style. Products made by machines, however, were “surrogates” according to him, soulless, “dead things”. It was left to the writer, designer and founder of the Socialist movement in Great Britain, William Morris (1834-1896), and the Arts and Crafts movement associated with him, to put Ruskin’s critical thoughts into practise and give further momentum to the arts and crafts reform. Morris designed novelties and interior furnishings, avoiding the misled ornamentation of the past. He and the Arts and Crafts movement saw the return to the qualities of manual trades as a way to react against the product design challenges of the Industrial Revolution. The products thus made in specially-founded arts and crafts companies were marked by simplicity, robustness, rusticity and great esteem for the material. Morris, himself a dedicated socialist, connected his design work and the associated reactivation of craftsmanship with a forced, yet illusory social assertion, which consisted of counteracting the decay of society by encouraging communal life, through joyful, manual and largely self-controlled work and the resulting good form. As a result of this, a conflict-free, blissful society should emerge, free from the rule of the machine.

Ruskin, Morris and the English Arts and Crafts movement are closely connected to the beginnings of modernist design in Europe, due to their criticism of the aesthetic appearance of machine-made products and their art reform based on the quality of the products of the manual trades. Allied with this movement were the efforts of the Scottish artist and architect Charles Rennie Mackintosh (1868-1928) and the Secession Movement in Austria with artists like Otto Wagner (1841-1918), Josef Hoffmann (1870-1956), Koloman Moser (1868-1918) and the architect mentioned by Gropius, Josef Maria Olbrich (1867-1908). Olbrich, architect of Vienna’s Secession Building, rejected the traditional, conservative concept of art, which was founded on historicism, and tested, among other things, the idea of the unified work of art by designing new, futuristic buildings and living spaces.

Shortly thereafter, Olbrich also pursued this claim with the members of the Darmstadt Artists Colony, founded in Germany in 1899, of which German architect and designer Peter Behrens (1868-1940) was also a member. Behrens was one of the most influential founders of modern industrial design and modern functional industry culture. Walter Gropius, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Swiss architect Le Corbusier were among his collaborators. Peter Behrens is regarded as one of the most important forerunners of functionalism, which developed into one of the most important design principles of the Bauhaus.

In Germany, Richard Riemerschmid (1868-1957) and Bruno Paul (1874-1968) were also part of the group of artists becoming industrial designers by means of their Typenmöbel (batch production furniture) designs for the Dresdner Werkstätten für Handwerkskunst (Dresden Craftsmanship Workshops). The artist Henry van de Velde (1863-1957) followed suit in Belgium and later in Germany. He tried to renew art through manual trades without rejecting technology, then turned to arts and crafts, designing functional objects for industrial production and building houses as an expression of highly-cultivated artistic individuality. Free from the ballast of historic forms, using a system of lines sensitively calculated and derived from nature in order to demonstrate in a subtle manner the structure of an object or house and its functions, the objects designed by van de Velde still did not live up to the design requirements of batch or mass production. Van de Velde, whose Grand-Ducal Saxon School of Arts and Crafts, founded in Weimar, was one of the immediate forerunners of the Staatliches Bauhaus, was regarded, like the artists previously mentioned, as one of the most important representatives of Art Deco, a movement of artists who were aware of their responsibility towards society and wanted to avoid the advancing separation of artistic and consumer culture by melding them together into a new unity. The result was an original, yet exclusive concept, which eventually could not live up to the needs of a highly-developed industrial society.

Deutscher Werkbund (German Association of Craftsmen)

Walter Gropius repeatedly emphasised that the Bauhaus emerged from the spirit of the Deutscher Werkbund. Founded by Hermann Muthesius (1861-1927) in Munich in 1907 as an association of artists, architects, businessmen and experts, and carried by designers like Peter Behrens and Walter Gropius, the Deutscher Werkbund tried to create a practical, effective connection between commerce, craftsmanship and industry, and the designing artist. On the basis of a positive assessment of social and technical industry potential and new products such as aircraft, fast trains, washing machines and automobiles, aesthetics were developed which emphasised usefulness and functionality as well as material appropriateness in architecture and consumer devices, in the spirit of an industrial culture for all. Emphasis was also placed on sustainable marketing of the Werkbund products in the media. Despite fundamental agreements among the members of the Werkbund, accord was never reached on specific questions, which ultimately can be traced to the processes of exploitation, alienation and objectification in a modern industrial society, closely connected to the production of goods.

De Stijl, Blauer Reiter (Blue Rider) and Der Sturm

The Dutch artists’ group De Stijl, founded in 1917 with constructivist design principles that were propagated in Weimar by painter Theo van Doesburg (1881-1931), immediately influenced the artistic development of the Bauhaus. The Bauhaus’s study of technology and industry was accelerated by De Stijl, and Gropius’s and other Bauhaus artists’ use of forms was in part aligned with the group for a sustained period of time. In the area of visual arts, the most important artists for the Bauhaus were those whose work was grouped around the Blauer Reiter and the magazine and gallery Der Sturm, founded by musician and art critic Herwarth Walden (1878-1941). These included the painters Paul Klee (1879-1940) and Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944), who were later appointed Masters at the Bauhaus. These painters’ specialities lay in the great sensitivity and vividness with which they reacted to the changing society and profound transformation of the scientific view of the world. Design methods considered appropriate responses to the contradictions of the time usually involved the rejection of the outdated concept of faultless rendering as well as a focus on abstraction and expression, cubism and futurism. An in-depth analysis of the artistic means of design as well as an exploration of their innate laws assisted in the search for a new intellectuality by means of cognitive progress on the basis of an enlightened rationality.

Politically, the Bauhaus developed after and in reaction to the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, the 1918 November Revolution in Germany and the end of World War I. The situation after the war and the radical political changes were general premises for the intended renewal of art and architecture. It is evident from Gropius’s programmatic texts that the Bauhaus founder was clearly aware of this connection and that he himself, as many of his contemporaries and later comrades-in-arms, wanted to make a contribution to the creation of a new, democratic society. For Gropius, World War I was more than just a lost war. For him, his world had ended and in 1918, he was looking for radical solutions to the problems of his time. In the end, he was credited with making an attempt in his thinking to unify some of the most important cultural influences, impulses and trends of the past and present and to develop an image of the new world in synthesis. The Bauhaus was solidly anchored to this concept.

The Staatliches Bauhaus in Weimar (1919 to 1925)

Probably no other school in Germany was so closely connected to the cultural, political and socio-economic developments of the Weimer Republic as the Bauhaus. The Bauhaus foundation date of 1st April 1919 coincided with the negotiations of the constitutional assembly in the Weimar Hoftheater, which adopted the so-called Weimar Constitution on July 31st. Only a few weeks after Hitler’s seizure of power, on 30th January 1933, police searched the Bauhaus for Communist materials and closed it down, before the Academy was dissolved on 19th July 1933 in a final act of freedom of decision.

In between lay two site changes, in 1925 to Dessau and in 1932 to Berlin, as well as two changes of directorship, in 1928 to Hannes Meyer and in 1930 to Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, which were all politically motivated. Local parliaments always played a part in the development of the Bauhaus, the Thuringian Landtag in Weimar until 1925 and the Dessau City Council until 1932, and even longer with political activities and legal proceedings.

As early as March 1920, extremist right-wing military personnel and politicians led by Wolfgang Kapp (1858-1922) and Walther Freiherr von Lüttwitz (1859-1942) tried to destroy the young republic with a military coup (Kapp Putsch). This coup d’état was put down by a general strike during which numerous demonstrators were shot by the rebels. For those killed in Weimar, Gropius created the Memorial for the March Victims in the Main Weimar Cemetery in 1922, and in that same year he also designed a memorial plaque on the German National Theatre for the Weimar Constitution. The memorial for the murdered Karl Liebknecht (1871-1919) and Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919), created by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and commissioned by the KPD (Communist Party of Germany), was inaugurated in Berlin’s Friedrichsfelde Cemetery in 1926. The poverty of the post-war years, which was dramatically increased by the reparations ordered by the Treaty of Versailles, led to the economic collapse of 1923. While the exchange rate for the Dollar to the Mark was still at 1:8 in January 1919, the figure fell to 1:50 at the beginning of 1920, to 1:200 in 1922, to 1:7,000 at the beginning of 1923, and until the currency stabilisation at the end of 1923, it was 1:4.2 billion! The period of economic upswing and relative stability–”the Golden 20s”–in Germany lasted from 1924 to 1929, when “Black Friday” at the New York Stock Exchange started a worldwide economic crisis on 25th October 1929.

The Bauhaus became the focal point of the avant-garde in education, design and architecture: in 1923 with the large Weimar Bauhaus Exhibition and Attached Exposition of International Architecture, in 1926 with the Bauhaus buildings in Dessau, in 1929/1930 with the Travelling Bauhaus Exhibition, and in 1930 with the German section at the Exposition de la Société des Artistes Décorateurs, led by Walter Gropius in Paris.

Discussions and conflicts within the Bauhaus in Weimar and the programmatic and structural changes often dramatically mirrored these connections: the Groß Case in 1919, the secession of former Art Academy professors and the refoundation of the Weimar Academy of Fine Arts in 1920/1921, Theo van Duisburg’s De Stijl course and the Constructivist Congress in Weimar, the Gropius-Itten conflict and the foundation of a Bauhaus development co-operative in 1922, a Bauhaus limited company and the Society of Friends of the Bauhaus in 1924 up to the politically forced change of site to Dessau on 1st April 1925.

Building of the former Grand-Ducal Saxon Academy of

Fine Art in Weimar, architect: Henry van de Velde,

1904/11 (UNESCO World Heritage Site)

Building of the former Grand-Ducal Saxon School of

Arts and Crafts in Weimar, architect: Henry van de Velde,

1905/06 (UNESCO World Heritage Site)

Between Vision and Reality: The 1919 to 1920 Construction Phase

After Belgian artist Henry van de Velde had submitted his petition for release from his post as Director of the Großherzogliche Kunstgewerbeschule (Grand-Ducal School of Arts and Crafts) to the Weimar Grand Duke on 25th July 1914, just a few days after the outbreak of World War I, his contract finished on 1st October 1915, the date that the school closed. As his successors, Van de Velde recommended to the Grand-Ducal Saxon State Ministry the German architect August Endell (1871-1925) and Walter Gropius, as well as the Swiss sculptor Hermann Obrist (1863-1927). Since October 1915, a lively correspondence had developed between Fritz Mackensen (1866-1953), the painter and director of the Großherzoglich Sächsische Hochschule (Grand-Ducal Saxon Academy of Fine Arts) in Weimar, and Walter Gropius regarding the attachment of an architecture and visual arts department, of which Gropius was to be the head. He was staying in Weimar in December and was granted an audience with the Grand Duke to discuss the appointment. On 25th January 1916, Gropius, at the request of the Weimar State Ministry, submitted his Suggestions for the Founding of an Educational Establishment as an Artistic Advice Centre for Industry, Trade and Crafts[1]. One year later, the professorial staff of the Academy of Fine Arts submitted a list of reform suggestions to the State Ministry, particularly asking that the educational programme be extended to include architecture, arts and crafts and theatre arts.

On the 3rd November 1918, revolution began in Germany and reached Weimar five days later. On the 9th, the social Democrat Philipp Scheidemann (1865-1939) proclaimed the “German Republic” in the Reichstag, and two hours later Karl Liebknecht proclaimed his “Free Socialist Republic” at Berlin Castle. The Kaiser and all the German princes abdicated without any far-reaching radical social changes.

On 3rd December 1918, the first meeting of the November Group took place in Berlin. It was an association of artists and architects such as Lyonel Feininger (1871-1956), Wassily Kandinsky, Walter Gropius and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, and also included Max Pechstein (1881-1955), Otto Dix (1891-1969), George Grosz (1893-1959) and Hans Poelzig (1869-1936), who wanted to make their contribution to the building of the young republic. Parallel to this gathering, the Working Council of the Arts was formed, including a group intent on reforming the education system led by architect Otto Bartning (1883-1959), with whom Gropius also collaborated. A central question was the creation of equal opportunities for all students by means of a unified school, in connection with the idea of a working school. Special emphasis was placed on the reform of fine arts academies. The results of these discussions were also expressed in an only slightly modified form in Walter Gropius’s Bauhaus Programme and Manifesto, which appeared in April 1919 with Lyonel Feininger’s woodcut on the cover. The reunification of all artistic principles in building, in combination with manual trades and workshop as educational fundamentals were the focal point of its aims and objectives. The Masters, Journeymen and Apprentices of the Bauhaus were to be closely in touch with industry and public life and strive for friendly relationships amongst themselves outside of classes as well as in them, with theatre, lectures, music and “ceremonious merriment at these gatherings.”[2]

The first Bauhaus signet, the “matchstick star man”, which led student Karl Peter Röhl (1890-1975) to win the student competition, was a special symbol of this departure from convention. It its centre is an abstract line drawing of a man with his arms raised, consciously following Leonardo da Vinci’s (1452-1519) Vitruvian Man in a circle and square, but reminiscent at the same time of the Old Germanic double-rune “man-woman” with a circular head, which with its black and white halves represents the highest degree of abstraction of the Chinese yin and yang. This Bauhaus man carries a pyramid as the antique symbol of the unity of society, art and religion. He is orbited by the sun as a swastika, the Buddhist symbol of love, and the moon and stars–world cultures and world religions form the humanistic backdrop for the Bauhaus’s visions of the future.

The foundation of the Bauhaus coincided with the first elections in the newly founded Free State of Saxony-Weimar-Eisenach on 9th March 1919, and the formation of a new provisional republican government by the Social Democrats (SPD) and the German Democrats (DDP). In February and March, Gropius travelled to Weimar on several occasions for negotiations and gained support for his appointment as Director and the new name Staatliches Bauhaus in Weimar (State Bauhaus in Weimar) from the Fine Arts Academy staff. On 1st April 1919, the Weimar Lord Chamberlain’s office signed the contract with Gropius and also agreed to the institution’s renaming on 12th April.

In the merger of the former Academy of Fine Arts and the Academy of Arts and Crafts, Gropius had to take on the remaining professors of the Academy of Fine Arts, Richard Engelmann (1868-1957), Otto Fröhlich, Walther Klemm (1883-1957) and Max Thedy (1858-1924). The appointment of the new international faculty of avant-garde artists took all of four years. In 1919, Lyonel Feininger, Gerhard Marcks (1889-1981) and Johannes Itten (1888-1967) joined, then one year later Georg Muche (1895-1987). In 1921 came Paul Klee (1879-1940), Oskar Schlemmer (1888-1943) and Lothar Schreyer (1886-1966), then Wassily Kandinsky in 1922 and László Moholy-Nagy replacing Itten as late as 1923.

As early as the autumn of 1919, Bauhaus opponents in Weimar–conservative craftsmen, academic artists, members of the right-wing conservative educated class and politicians–formed the Free Association for City Interests and publicly attacked the “… Spartacist and Bolshevist influences” in the Bauhaus. At one such meeting the Bauhaus master student Hans Groß lamented the lack of a nationalist, “German-minded” leadership personality at the Bauhaus. The “Groß Case” led not only to the withdrawal of more than a dozen students and a complaint to the state government against the Bauhaus by forty-nine right-wing conservative Weimar citizens and artists, but also to the first mobilisation of Bauhaus supporters in the Deutsche Werkbund and the Berlin Working Council for the Arts. Walter Gropius countered the pamphlet against the Bauhaus by Emil Erfurth, chairman of the nationalist Bürgerausschuss (Citizens’ Committee), with his own leaflet in the spring of 1920, supported by the Ministry of Education and the Arts.

On 30th April 1920 eight previously independent Thuringian free states joined together to form the district of Thuringia with Weimar as the capital. On 20th June the first state elections took place, which resulted in a coalition between SPD, USPD (Independent Social Democratic Party), and DDP led by August Fröhlich. The Bauhaus was put under the control of the Ministry of Public Education, Art and Justice. On 9th July Gropius gave a speech in front of the Thuringian parliament and participated as an expert in budget discussions. He took advantage of the opportunity to present the development of the Arts Academies into the Bauhaus, to reject political attacks and to lobby for the expansion of the completely insufficient Bauhaus budget.

Lyonel Feininger, Cathedral of the Future,

title page for the manifesto and programme

for the Staatliches Bauhaus in Weimar, 1919