What Does It Mean to Build Bauhaus -Residence - Tài liệu tham khảo | Đại học Hoa Sen

What Does It Mean to Build Bauhaus “On Brand”?     Save this article Save
What Does It Mean to Build Bauhaus “On Brand”? Save this picture! The Bauhaus
Museum Weimar, designed by architect Heike Hanada, holds a vast collection of works dating
from the school’s first period (ca. 1919–23). Courtesy Thomas Müller/Klassik Stiftung Weimar 
Written by Samuel Medina  about 4 hours ago
in 2019, the Bauhaus turned 100 and a crop of museum buildings sprang up for the celebration.
In 2019, two museums bearing the name Bauhaus appeared on the German
culture circuit. Angling to capitalize on the design school’s centennial,
the Bauhaus Museum Weimar was first out of the gate, opening in early April;
a few clicks behind, the Bauhaus Museum Dessau followed suit in early
September. A third project, the much-delayed extension to Walter Gropius’s
1979 Bauhaus- Archiv/Museum für Gestaltung in Berlin, did not manage to
keep pace and isn’t expected to open for a couple more years yet.
At the moment in Berlin, kapitän Gropius’s keel is shipwrecked in a sea of
muddy ditches, its programming relocated to a temporary annex. The
building, which broke ground in 1976, the same year the kapitän’s Dessau
campus was restored by the German Democratic Republic, opened in 1979
and was never much loved, although footfalls dramatically increased after
the Wall came down. It is visibly the result of compromise: Gropius’s original
plans, drawn up in 1964 for a sloped site in the small city of Darmstadt near
Frankfurt, were waylaid by local politicians; only in the following decade,
after Gropius’s death, did the project find a site in then–West Berlin. The
dislocation did violence to the original scheme, however, requiring extensive
modifications by Gropius’s acolyte Alex Cvijanovic (not least among them
translating the building to flatland).
Whatever verve there was in that first project was methodically snuffed out
in the pallid final version. It is modular without the conviction for its logic,
and subtractive “without a flaming desire for new potentialities,” to borrow a
line from the critic Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, who seized every chance to
antagonize Gropius in his elder-statesman years. The surfaces—which,
contrary to the school’s reputation, were a source of much craftsmanly
anxiety for architects at the Bauhaus—are dull. The trademark shed roofs,
and the jaunty winding ramp added by Cvijanovic, strive for loftier heights
but don’t reach them. It was, and remains, not very Bauhaus.
The case of the Bauhaus-Archiv is instructive because it highlights the
problem of building “on brand,” especially a legacy brand like BAUHAUS. The
magic simply cannot be recaptured, as surely as tragedy passes into farce,
farce into memetic nihilism. While plenty of “modern” buildings are going up
in every city in the world, they have more in common with IKEA and the
lobotomizing virality of Alucobond than with the 20th century’s most famous design school. Save this picture!
The 24,000 square feet of galleries at the Bauhaus Museum Weimar are arrayed around a primary
off-center staircase. The cubic building, whose smooth concrete is articulated in striations,
anchors the northeastern edge of a park in central Weimar. It is steps away from a former
administrative complex built and used by the Nazis. Courtesy Thomas Müller
The genius of the Bauhaus, such as it was, lay in the combustible political
situation that forced it into being. From the magma of world war emerged a
new spirituality, to which Gropius gave voice in his 1919 manifesto while
founding the school in Weimar. “Crystallization” is the key term, as in his
memorable exhortation: “Art must finally find its crystalline expression in a
great total work of art. And this great total work of art, this cathedral of the
future, will then shine with its abundance of light into the smallest objects of everyday life.”
It is no coincidence, then, that the most reproduced image of the Bauhaus’s
initial Weimar period was Lyonel Feininger’s depicting a prismatic woodcut
“cathedral of socialism.” This socialism was of the William Morris sort, earthy
and fraternal, bowing to sensuous feeling and species essence before
instrumental reason. Art, that is to say crafts, would be a prophylactic
against the mechanized terror of war prosecuted by the bourgeoisie at home and abroad.
What was required to face down this opposition was a surplus of feeling and
humanity, and what better place to take such a stand than in Weimar, the
nerve center of the German Enlightenment, home of Goethe and Schiller?
But soon, the expressionist Esperanto that wafted through
the Bauhaus workshops morphed into another design theodicy, more angular
and staccato, partly based on the work of the De Stijlist Theo van Doesburg.
Neither influence found particular purchase with the architect Heike Hanada,
who designed the Bauhaus Museum Weimar. A squat concrete cube, it
evinces a little of the angst that was latent in expressionism, but denies its
redemptive vector. Appropriate, given the importance of Weimar to the
Nazis’ machine-abetted policy of extermination, and the site’s proximity to
both the Gauforum (the administrative building where that policy was drawn
up) and the Buchenwald camp (where it was implemented). The museum’s
massing is leavened by only a few windows, giving off a feeling of intense
solidity. The strategy would appear to be one of internalized negative
enlightenment, if not for the airy interiors, which nonetheless suffer from an
overemphasis of the central, very narrow staircase. Save this picture!
The second Bauhaus museum opened in Dessau this fall. The building was designed by the
Barcelona, Spain–based addenda architects. Courtesy Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau/Photo: Thomas Meyer/OSTKREUZ, 2019
For all this compression and heavy bearing, a “bunker” it is not, as some
critics have claimed. Architectural criticism has always had an uneasy pact
with simile. In this case, the temptation is understandable—being so close to
the Gauforum and its adjoining courtyard, which once bore the honorific
“Adolf Hitler-platz”—and, if anything, it points to a version of Godwin’s law:
Any discussion of the Bauhaus will lead to Nazism.
The school was first pushed out of Weimar when rankled provincial
authorities pulled its funding. It moved to Dessau, where the school had its
Golden Years on Gropius’s campus (1926), incubating. Gropius passed the
baton to the grinning communist (and architecturally his better) Hannes
Meyer. The school turned a profit, while at the same time, students began
more fully engaging with the world outside their workshops. This became a
problem and Meyer was forced out, with Mies van der Rohe stepping into the
breach. He gutted the curriculum and turned the focus away from workers’
housing—and advertising, painting, sculpture, and theater—to plateglass
Platonic villas. Student explorations into the riddles of industry and of history
were rechanneled into finger-to-lip probing of architectural form. But it didn’t
matter, because the brownshirts came, some even infiltrating the
Bauhäusler. They called the school the “aquarium” and booted it up to Berlin,
where it finally acquiesced to Kulturkampf browbeating.
The Bauhaus was among the first victims of the fascists, prompting the
dispersal of its leading lights across borders and hemispheres. (Again,
Moholy-Nagy: “In 1933 Hitler shook the tree and America picked up the fruit
of German genius.”) By the end of the decade, Gropius, Breuer, and others
had been welcomed into the heart of the American intellectual firmament,
and “Grope”—the obtuse nickname his new companions gave him—
preemptively began expunging the record. The Weimar period was binned in
toto, and the school’s socialist undercurrent was retconned. What was left
was his Dessau Bauhaus, an institution too modern for the Old Continent.
That Bauhaus was a linchpin in the CIA’s soft-power strategy to chip away at
the elevated status afforded to the Soviets after World War II. Dessau, both
the campus and the city, fell under Soviet control, but the real Bauhaus, like
democracy, lived on in the First World. As scholars such as Kathleen James-
Chakraborty have shown, the various modernities that existed up to,
alongside, and even after the Bauhaus in Germany—Neues Bauen,
expressionism, Weimar Lichtreklame—were formally subsumed into
BAUHAUS, a brand to be imported throughout the NATO bloc. Save this picture! The new
museum stands in the heart of Dessau at the edge of a public park, a few miles away from the
famous Walter Gropius–designed campus. Courtesy Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau/Photo: Thomas Meyer/OSTKREUZ, 2019
But what counted for echt Bauhaus architecture in its homeland could be
counted on two hands. Apart from the school campus, there are textbook
buildings, like the totalizing villas Gropius built for Bauhaus masters
(variably, Kandinsky, Moholy-Nagy), and non-textbook, stucco-less works—
namely, Gropius’s Employment Office (1929) and Hannes Meyer’s
deceptively straightforward Houses with Balcony Access (1930). In Weimar,
the 1923 Haus am Horn was a first stab at the genre. Farther from the
Mitteldeutschland beat is Meyer’s 1930 ADGB Trade Union School in Bernau
outside Berlin; like the Dessau campus, it is chock-full of ideas—and
eminently usable ones at that—while not giving a fig about Gropius’s Sachlichkeit signaling.
Even a century on, these buildings still crackle through their sheer force of
example. Of course, one could do without the Lutheran purity, which was
subverted by the Bauhäusler anyway in their everyday social relations. Or
the flighty conceptual afflatus (“a new unity”) or technophilic hymning (art-
and- technology, technology-and-art, amen).
Thanks be given, then, to addenda architects, the Barcelona, Spain–based
studio behind the Bauhaus Museum Dessau. It has done away with the most
cloying proclivities of the Dessau gang, while keeping the hard lines and
modish typography. Which isn’t to say that the building is a standout. The
diagram is exceedingly simple, a classic void-solid relationship: A continuous
clear-span exhibition hall is suspended over a continuous clear- span mixed-
programming hall. The upper half is tinted black to conceal its contents,
while the bottom leaves the translucent envelope untouched.
So far, so self-effacing. But the glazing is not transparent as it should be,
given the building’s prominent siting in a large park in the town center. The
architects had imagined dematerializing the facade (very Bauhaus) to the
extent that inside and outside were blurred, but short of this, the museum’s
presence in the otherwise public space feels intrusive. Save this picture!
The extension to the Bauhaus-archiv in Berlin, by Staab Architekten, is due to open in
2021.Courtesy Staab Architekten Gmbh, Berlin
The museum extension in Berlin, meanwhile, is the most elegant design of
the new crop. The majority of the project will be concealed underground,
with a five-story towerlet being the only obvious superstructure in the plan. It
features gossamer-thin, parametrically ruled columns on the exterior, leaving
the interior floors (for a museum café and shop) completely open. Staab
Architekten, which was awarded the commission in 2015, was wise to put
some distance between the extant building and its own, the better to
disavow any outright influence.
It is ironic that the Bauhaus’s claim to history largely hinges on the
architectural works imputed to it. Apart from Meyer’s buildings and the
Dessau campus, “Bauhaus architecture” is something of a misdirection. It
was the school’s other spheres of activity, from weaving to wallpaper design,
painting to advertising, that were pioneering, the ones that still manage to
capture our imagination. (Indeed, the Bauhaus lacked an architecture
program for much of its existence.)
If the Bauhaus were reconstituted in 2019, what would keep its students up
at night? Such is the question asked by the new book Bauhaus Futures (MIT
Press), and among the many diverse and timely responses, architecture—i.e.,
buildings—is nowhere to be found. But you can’t mount a massive tourism
campaign on living ideas—risky new IP—only on ossified ones.
Nor can you, prospective traveler, walk around inside an Albers tapestry. You
can’t inhabit a Klee painting or press up bodily against the contours of a
Brandt teakettle. But you can get on a plane, fly to Berlin, jump on a train to
Dessau, hail a taxi to 38 Gropiusallee, walk through those (redder-than-) red
doors and pose for photos on the staircases, buy picture books in the gift
shop, mourn your lost youth in the canteen. You can even spend the night. This article was on Metropolismag.com. originally published