Gropius House

Contents 06 Gropius House || Contemporary ( Image Gallery ) 34 Living as Function ( Claudia Perren ) 40 Right in the Middle of This Architecture ( Alexia Pooth ) 50 Vibrant Relationships ( Michael Diers, Magdalena Droste, and Ariane Beyn in Conversation with Julia Rosenbaum and Alexia Pooth )

60 From Residential Building to Showcase ( Katja Szymczak ) 68 Bauhaus Residents 2016–2018 Artist Documentation 136 Chronology of the Masters’ Houses ( Compiled by Caroline Jansky and Alexia Pooth ) 142 Author Biographies 143 Image Credits 144 Colophon

[ I ]

[ II ]

[ III ]

[ IV ]

Exhibiting, alongside curating, is one of those broad topics to which various discourses have meanwhile been dedicated.01 We are familiar with objects being exhibited in cabinets of curiosities, in museums, in the independent salons of the nineteenth century, in galleries and white cubes, as well as in the less charming foyers of banking institutions or as temporary, interim use in empty buildings. There are also various special shows—such as biennials, triennials, or fairs—and, for some years, even collectors themselves have been opening the doors of their private living spaces so as to give interested guests insights into a life surrounded by art.

The fact that not only exhibitions, or the exhibits themselves, but also the places where they are presented have attracted everincreasing attention was something that Walter Gropius already espoused during his time at the [ I ] Bauhaus.02 He always understood the exhibition space as a place for transferring knowledge, a place where questions regarding the present time are supposed to be raised and answered.

Since 2016, the Masters’ Houses have once again become a place where art is produced. The semi-detached Muche/Schlemmer House has hosted the artists in the Bauhaus residency program these past few years. The works that are created on site in the artists’ studios are brought together in the Gropius House and presented to the public there. The Gropius House has thus once again become a place for innovating, producing, and presenting. What is generated here year after year is a space in which the historical is negotiated by means of contemporary artistic and creative exploration, making reference to the future. The origin of this idea is suggested if one considers the history of the Masters’ Houses estate and the intention with which Gropius realized them [ fig. I ].

It was first with the urban planning reconstruction of the Masters’ Houses ensemble in 2014, when the two buildings that had been de- [ II ] 62

stroyed in the Second World War—the Gropius House and the semi-detached Moholy-Nagy House—were re-erected with their cubic volumes and proportions, that it became possible for visitors today to experience the concept of the site as a whole. In order to understand the Director’s House, its embedding within this framework is necessary, for the basic concept of a site surrounded by a wall and its buildings to some extent resembles the way that dif­ ferent building typologies are arranged in a building exhibition.03 Such architecture shows, for which the Internationale Bauausstellung (International Building Exhibition) in Darmstadt served as the pre­ lude, were first presented in Germany at the turn of the twentieth century. Later, the Deutsche Werkbund also initiated such shows, which attracted considerable at- [ III ] tention because they again and again addressed the most urgent questions with respect to housing construction, especially in the time after the First World War.04 Even before his time as director of the Bauhaus, Walter Gropius had participated in several building exhibitions; he was familiar with the format and had suffi­cient experience in this discipline.05 He knew about the procedure of exhibiting buildings for the purpose of familiarizing people with them and the associated ‘setting-in-motion’ of habitation. Gropius intentionally used such measures at the Bauhaus in order to propagate his future-oriented ideas and to introduce and market the innovative products from the Bauhaus and its workshops.

The Masters’ Houses ensemble with the Di­rector’s House fit smoothly into the debate about ‘Neues Wohnen’ (New Living), since the question so relevant at the time— one that was also ad-

dressed at the Bauhaus—was indeed reflected there: ‘Wie wohnen wir gesund und wirtschaftlich?’ (How can we live healthily and economically?).06 The Director’s House was also intentionally staged as a showcase, as an exhibition display. Instead of the practice of decontextualization—which was the approach to exhibiting adopted by museums—the ‘Wohnhaus’ or residential building contributed to transferring the ideals of ‘Neues Wohnen’ to day-today life and opened up a real, existing space of experience for visitors. Hence, from the very beginning, the historical Director’s House was designed as a hybrid: as a residential dwelling on the one hand and a demonstration object and exhibition building on the other. Aesthetics, production, and use were combined in a paradigmatic way there.

Forward-looking life was presented in an exemplary manner so as to be seen, touched, and experienced based on the example of modern technology, furniture, and furnishings—indeed, based on the building itself. In place of exhibition stands there were living spaces; products were presented not in display cases, but in use. All the tasks involved [ IV ] in keeping house and living took place there, where everyone could comprehend them in a practical way.

Today, as then, this experience already begins when people approach the house and the accompanying garage [ fig. III ],07 whose original substance remains largely preserved still today. Not only the house and how it was equipped assumed a communication function; the car also represented the Bauhaus belief in pro63

gress in a meaningful way. [ I ] Walter Gropius The car served as a bril(architect), Masters’ Houses, Dessau, liant symbol of modernity and was frequently used as site plan, photosuch later on [ fig. II ]. Based graph of a drawing, on the example of the Mas1926 ters’ Houses ensemble, the [ II ] Mercedes-Benz garage as a building strucmodel 8/38 PS Roadster, period of ture that protruded forward introduced the presentation construction: 1926 to 1928. Photoof modernity. No object referred more incisively to graphed in front Fordism, progressiveness, of the Le Corbusier and technology, which also House on the Weißenhof Estate played a clear role in the production of the products in Stuttgart, 1928 and buildings of the Bau- [ III ] Gropius House haus: ‘art and technolowith garage, view from the north, gy—a new unity’, as Walter Gropius had already 1926 [ IV ] Gropius House, postulated in 1923.08 southwest view The Director’s House, the only solitaire in the ensemwith terrace, 1926 ble, stood recessed, positioned behind the garage, and connected with it by a narrow, waist-high wall with a garden gate. It was positioned a bit closer to the street than the three pairs of semi-detached houses with artist studios for the masters and was a modern villa. With its reduced design vocabulary of white cubes with a flat roof, its lack of a base, and its asymmetrically arranged inset windows,

it was clearly identifiable as a Bauhaus building. The simplicity of the cubes—an easily recognizable form— made reference to the aspect of standardization that Gropius was pursuing and presented a variant of the playful principle of his ‘Baukasten im Großen’ or largescale building blocks.09 Based on the two building typologies—the pairs of semi-detached houses for the Bauhaus masters and the villa-like detached Director’s

House—Gropius was already demonstrating simplicity and systematization with variable modularity, along with possibilities for combining them in a serial manner at the same time.

The Director’s House as a Showcase for Progress The Director’s House was conceived as a showcase from both the outside and the inside. The Bauhaus workshops were responsible for the decor and also used the house as an exhibition display. Visitors were captivated by the rooms and how they were outfitted—above all

[ V ] the technical innovations—as a result of their practical benefits. The surfaces were smooth and easy to clean.

The use of new materials in the interior and exterior— such as the black glass cladding of the columns on the garden terrace, which thus absorbed the load of the extensively protruding upper story almost invisibly [figs. IV + V ]—was particularly impressive. The Director’s House was much more than merely a declaration of belief in typification, rationalization, and the use of innovative building methods; it also affirmed technical-scientific progress. Pleasure in experimentation was now transposed in a real and vivid way. Jurko slag concrete blocks, steel windows, and glass, as well as new construction methods, were used for the first time when the ensemble was erected. Gropius’s aim was to stan­ dardize building types with respect to construction methods and building materials. His residential house was regarded as an object of study for how the use of new materials could result in more profitable building economics and offer a high level of living comfort at the same time.

He derived the sequence of the rooms inside from the ‘forms for the activities of life’.10 Studies by various so64

ciologists provided him with information on needs, issues, and social differentiations related to how to live or reside.11 Like many architects, Gropius adopted particular aspects and findings of studies, such as those published by Martin Buber, Max Weber, or Emile Durk­ heim, but, as a designer of society, he felt obliged to find an equivalence to them in architecture. ‘The form of architecture does not exist for its own sake; it arises solely from the nature of the building, from the function it is supposed to serve.’ 12 Based on his desire to propagate this new understanding, Gropius decided to market the Director’s House and made use of very diverse media in order to ultimately popularize it. In addition to photography and advertisements, which made the house an icon of Junkers sanitary products and installations in housekeeping, Gropius intentionally utilized film as an advertising medium. This choice shows the progressive mindset at the Bauhaus.

Film was considered a highly developed industrial project with the ability to influence people suggestively.13 It was also a mass medium. In the multipart film by Humboldt-Film, which took up, in 1926, the question posed at the beginning, ‘Wie wohnen wir gesund und wirtschaftlich?’, the newest technologies and Bauhaus products were presented in the Director’s House by Ise Gropius and the family’s housemaid [ fig. VI ]. Its documentary character serves today as a unique testimony for understanding the role of the architect and the reformist ideas at the Bauhaus. The film itself has been analysed in depth many times over the years: be it the cupboard with the fold-out ironing board or the hot soda water dish rinser, all the things were meant to simplify housework tremendously. On another level, they make reference to the fact that household management was not only limited to monetary aspects but also implied time efficiency and, concomitantly, that the new products brought about an increase in ‘leisure [ VI ] time’. Leisure time was in turn an aspect of ‘Neues Leben’ that was given more and more importance.

What deserves particular attention is the fact that the film focuses mainly on the Director’s House and that nearly every room, from the basement to the living

[V] Gropius House, glazed veranda, ca. 1927 [VI] Scene from the documentary silent film Haus Gropius from the series Wie wohnen wir gesund und wirtschaftlich: a servant demonstrates dishwashing in the kitchen of the Gropius House, 1926 [VII] Gropius House, cupboard with ironing board, 1926

room, is presented quasi in detail, but that none of the Masters’ Houses are even mentioned at all. And what is more: it is not only the furnishings of the Di­ rector’s House that are shown; the Gropius family even made a public appearance. The insights into his home confidently present the architect Walter Gropius and the importance of his role as the ini­ tiator of the Bauhaus and as its director. Allowing his private sphere to be opened up was at the same time an uncertain step, since, by doing so, Gropius exposed himself personally to public criticism—a decision that once again underscores the seriousness of his actions.

Gropius was thus interested not so much in self-representation or a cult of personality, in the sense of staging himself, but very much in showing the achievements of the Bauhaus.

For him, film was a useful instrument for presenting the ideas of the school to a broad audience and for reaching a lay public as well.

People who did not know how an electrical tea-maker functioned received helpful instructions for using one from Ise Gropius. The personal note in introducing a modern technical product closed the gap between wary interest, mistrust, and awkward fascination. The modern house did not remain a mystery, an innovative and disconcerting ‘machine for living’. The everyday actions suggested authen- [ VII ] ticity and communicated trustworthiness and comprehensibility. With the medium of film, modern life could be propagated as being exemplary and desirable.

Demonstration based on the example of an inhabited house was not unusual within the framework of fairs or exhibitions. In many of the building exhibitions at the time, the houses were deliberately inhabited even beyond the duration of the exhibition, thus enabling exhibition visitors to experience the newly introduced formats and ‘Neues Wohnen’ in a direct and authentic way.14 One example here is the Haus Am Horn, which Georg Muche designed for the Bauhaus exhibition in Weimar in 1923. But the Director’s House was essentially created as a private household. Opening it up and giving the public views of the private sphere makes ref65

erence to Gropius’s pedagogical-reformist aspiration to plausibly communicate ‘das richtige Wohnen’ or the right way to live. Such an experience could only be enhanced by physical, personal encounters; and, as a matter of fact, the Director’s House was open to visitors like the Dessau homemakers association, whose

members were able to receive an introduction to the new household devices on site, or friends and acquaintances of the family.

According to the records of the mayor of Dessau, Fritz Hesse, a great supporter of the Bauhaus, some 20,000 visitors came to Dessau between 1927 and 1930. The German Reichsbahn (National Railway) also brought numerous foreign tourists to the school of design and the Masters’ Houses with its travel guides.15 All things considered, this is an impressive number, documenting the interest in the Bauhaus and its effective force at the time.16 A comparison with notes by Ise Gropius, which provide a long list of names from politics, trade unions, and industry, but also of architects, artists, cultural critics, musicians, and dancers in her journals for

the years 1924 to 1928, might provide even clearer evidence.17 The vision of modernity, the belief in technical progress, and the simplification of living conditions for everyone facilitated the staging of the Director’s House as a showcase for ‘Neues Wohnen’. Coinciding here was the ‘culture of showing’ in the Weimar Republic with the use of mass media for the purpose of presenting a vision at a real location. Based on the example of the Director’s House as a concrete exhibition location, findings in connection with hygiene, housekeeping, and living habits were [ VIII ] Marcel Breuer, addressed. Grofoldable double pius presented the functioning sofa bed in the living room of progress as of the Gropius more or less per- [ VIII ] sonally based on his own House, ca. 1926, unfolded modern life and that of his [ IX ] Marcel Breuer, wife. Then, as today, the foldable double Gropius House was a dem­ sofa bed in the onstration object, laboraliving room tory, and exhibition buildof the Gropius ing all at the same time—a place where new things House, ca. 1926, had been and would be folded created.

With the contemporary reconstruction of the Director’s House and its use as an exhibition space for contemporary art, the idea of presentation of that time is taken up in essence and continued in an up-to-date form. In its reconstructed form of a ‘precision of vagueness’, the

[ IX ] house is once again an exhibition object and place for (re-)presentation in one—very much in the sense of how Gropius staged it at the time.

01 Exhibiting became such a topic starting in 1976 at the latest, when the Irish artist and critic Brian O’Doherty questioned the white cube and determined that the exhibition space was obtaining more 66

and more importance and being elevated over the exhibition object itself at times; see https:// garagemca.org/en/publishing/brian-o-dohertyinside-the-white-cube-the-ideology-of-thegallery-space (all URLs accessed in December 2018). In particular with the art of the 1950s and 1960s, which left the traditional, right-angled, framed panel picture behind—for instance, the ‘Shaped Canvases’ of the American artist Frank Stella—and which entered into competition with the walls of the space, exhibition organizers and curators found themselves forced to take a close look at the space so as to avoid competition between object and space. Eva Nöthen, ‘Die weiße Zelle – Raum und Ort der Kunstrezeption: Eine Rekonstruktion von O’Doherty’s “Inside the White Cube”,’ Contents, p. 9, https://www.leuphana.de/ fileadmin/user_upload/PERSONALPAGES/ Fakultaet_1/Behnke_Christoph/files/literaturarchiv/ Noethen_Doherty.pdf.

02 One indication of this is provided by the Bauhaus exhibition in Weimar in 1923, in which Walter Gropius presented an exhibition of the school’s achievements not only in the school building itself or in the Haus Am Horn, which was designed specifically for the exhibition, but also at the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar (Weimar State Art Collections), with a supporting program at the Nationaltheater Weimar and the Stadttheater (Municipal Theatre) in Jena.

03 In her essay ‘Luxus, Produktion, Reproduktion’, Robin Schuldenfrei already makes reference to the fact that the Gropius House was used as an exhibition display. However, in her argumentation she singles out the aspect of Bauhaus products as luxury goods. See Robin Schuldenfrei, ‘Luxus, Produktion, Reproduktion’, in Anja Baumhoff and Magdalena Droste (eds.), Mythos Bauhaus (Berlin: Reimer, 2009), pp. 71–79.

04 Thomas Fietz, Architektur als Gegenstand medi­ aler Darstellung: Am Beispiel der INFO-BOX am Potsdamer Platz in Berlin (Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2009), p. 7.

05 For the Werkbund exhibition in 1914, Gropius designed and exhibited a model factory in cooperation with Adolf Meyer. See Klaus-Jürgen Winkler, ‘Building an Ideal Community: Plan for a Bauhaus Housing Settlement by Walter Determann’, in Bau­ haus: A Conceptual Model, exh. cat. Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin (Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2009), pp. 47–49.

06 This question was raised in the documentation of the same name by Humboldt-Film GmbH and the Filmausschuss für Bau- und Siedlungswesen (Film Council for the Construction and Housing Estate Industry), which was realized by Ernst Jahn in 1926, with the direct involvement of Walter Gropius, Bruno Traut, Ernst May, Adolf Behne, and Leberecht Migge. The film premiered at the Bauhaus Dessau on 4 December 1926.

07 Gropius was the only person on the Masters’ Houses estate to own an automobile. It was a model from Adler, an automobile brand from Frankfurt, for which he designed two models starting in 1929: the Adler Standard No. 6 and No. 8. On this, see Thomas Wagner, ‘Endspurt 01: Gropius und sein Adler’, Stylepark, 1 December 2015, https://www. stylepark.com/de/news/endspurt-01-gropius-undsein-adler. August Perret designed the first garage as modern utilitarian architecture in Paris in 1906– 07. Garages had previously not appeared or been formulated as a specific building typology. On this, see Thilo Hilpert, Century of Modernity: Architek­ tur und Städtebau – Essays und Texte (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 2015), p. 59.

08 Walter Gropius in his opening address for the exhibition in Weimar in 1923.

09 See Matthias Noell, ‘Des Architekten liebstes Spiel: Baukunst aus dem Baukasten’, Spiele / Games, 1/4, ed. Caroline Torra-Mattenklott (2004), pp. 23–40.

10 Walter Gropius first verbalized this consideration in 1927 in the article ‘Systematic Preparations for Rationalized Housing Construction’, which he published the same year in bauhaus, 2 (1927), cited in Hans M. Wingler, The Bauhaus: Weimar, Dessau, Berlin, Chicago (Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press, 2015), pp. 126–27, esp. p. 126.

11 See Martin Buber (ed.), Die Gesellschaft (Frankfurt am Main: Rütten & Loening, 1906).

12 Walter Gropius, cited in Wolfgang Thöner, Das Bau­ haus wohnt: Leben und Arbeiten in der Meister­ haussiedlung Dessau (Leipzig: Seemann, 2002), p. 8.

13 There have meanwhile been numerous examinations of the topic of film and media in the Weimar Republic, including: Helmut Korte (ed.), Film und 67

14

15 16 17

Realität in der Weimarer Republik (Berlin: Fischer, 2016) and Klaus Kreimeier, Antje Ehmann, and Jeanpaul Goergen (eds.), Geschichte des doku­ mentarischen Films in Deutschland, vol. 2: Wei­ marer Republik (1918–1933) (Stuttgart: Reclam, 2005).

See ‘1915: Grosse Industrie-, Gewerbe- und Kunstausstellung’ http://schaffendesvolk1937.de/ die-ausstellungen-von-1811-bis-1937/ausstellung1915.

Barbara Miller Lane, Architecture and Politics in Germany 1918–1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 117.

Fritz Hesse, Von der Residenz zur Bauhausstadt: Erinnerungen an Dessau (1963; repr., Bonn: selfpublished, 1990), p. 238.

See Schuldenfrei, ‘Luxus, Produktion, Reproduktion’, pp. 71–79, esp. p. 78.

â‘« Jakob Gautel

14.07.2017 – 11.08.2017 Muche House Born in: Karlsruhe (DE) Lives in: Paris (FR) Invited Artist Jakob Gautel, an artist and university lecturer, occupies himself with the question of how pictures are created. During his Bauhaus residency, he explored the traces of his own personal Bauhaus legacy: Corona Krause, his maternal grandmother, and Hermann ‘Sven’ Gautel, his paternal grandfather, both studied at the Bauhaus in Weimar and Dessau. They left behind drawings, photos, furniture, and clothing, whose hand­ over to the collection of the Landesmuseum Oldenburg and the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation prompted Gautel to approach his ancestors in a performative manner. In addition, he also opened up a discourse on presence and absence, past and present, based on photographs.

‘The light reflections and projections in the Muche House in the morning are a wonderful thing— fascinating shadow plays.

During the day, the house is like a camera obscura; it captures pictures from the outside . . .’

119

gautel.net

Corona und Sven, 2017 Presentation: 09.08.2017

Open studio and concluding performance,

Muche House Material/technics: 6 photos

on 2 tablet computers In his encounter with the Muche House, Gautel used the residency to take up contact with the past, after some historical research, in his original role as an artist. The performance Corona und Sven was hence an attempt to link the anecdotal level of the family chronicle with the site of the Masters’ Houses, and with the question of how and for what purpose pictures are created and how we project ourselves into them. The documents, which went from a state of being used into an archive, formed the material starting point for questioning his own life as an artist and for linking his artistic production to that of a preceding generation.

‘My grandparents look at me; they look from the past into the future, meaning from their present into our present in which the photo is being viewed.

Our gazes intersect over a period of time, over spaces and distances.’

Colophon Catalogue Published in conjunction with the exhibiton Gropius House || Contemporary 01.01.2019–14.02.2020 Bauhaus Dessau Foundation

Production and distribution Kerber Verlag, Bielefeld Windelsbleicher Str. 166-170 33659 Bielefeld Germany T +49 (0) 521/95008-10 F +49 (0) 521/95008-88 info@kerber.de

Edited for the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation by Claudia Perren and Alexia Pooth

Kerber, U.S. Distribution ARTBOOK | D.A.P. 75 Broad Street, Suite 630 New York, NY 10004, USA T +1 (212) 627-1999 F +1 (121) 627-9484

Bauhaus Dessau Foundation Director Claudia Perren Gropiusallee 38 06846 Dessau-Roßlau Germany

KERBER publications are available in selected bookstores and museum shops worldwide (distributed in Europe, Asia, South and North America).

www.bauhaus-dessau.de

All rights reserved, in particular the rights of reproduction, distribution, and translation. No part of this work may be reproduced or processed, duplicated, or distributed using electronic systems without written permission from the publisher.

Edition Bauhaus 56

Concept Alexia Pooth Editing, coordination, image editing Caroline Jansky Texts Ariane Beyn, Michael Diers, Magdalena Droste, Caroline Jansky, Claudia Perren, Alexia Pooth, Julia Rosenbaum, Katja Szymczak Design Daniel Ober for HERBURG WEILAND, Munich Project management, Kerber Verlag Claudia Voigtländer Translation German – > English Amy Klement Copyediting and proofreading, German Ilka Backmeister-Collacott, Caroline Jansky Copyediting and proofreading, English Dawn Michelle d’Atri The German National Library lists this publication in the German National Bibliography; detailed bibliographic data can be found on the website at http://dnb.dnb.de

144

© 2019 Kerber Verlag, Bielefeld/Berlin Bauhaus Dessau Foundation the authors and the artists ISBN 978-3-7356-0525-2 www.kerberverlag.com Printed in Germany The publication Gropius House || Contemporary is generously funded by:

Bauhaus Residency Programme and exhibition Gropius House || Contemporary Concept Claudia Perren Project lead Alexia Pooth

Acknowledgements Our gratitude is extended to all partners who have supported us in the preparation of the exhibition at Gropius House.

Cooperation partners:

Project management Valentina Buitrago Garcia Construction and building department Frank Assmann, Monika Markgraf, Martin Brück, Andreas Greiner Technical service, guards, cashpoint Firma Piepenbrock, Susann Weißhaar, Jens Einenkel, Sylke Graul, Torsten Stiftel, Thomas Weißhaar Restoration Rüdiger Messerschmidt, Angela Günther Exhibition-building Rüdiger Messerschmidt, Holger Ziolkowski Media technology/lighting Sebastian Czerny Technical service Jens Lütje, René Wollschläger, Sebastian Schima Copyediting and proofreading Petra Frese, Ingrid Reuter Finances Manuela Falkenberg, Catrin Brandt, Diana Sirp Communications Helga Huskamp, Ute König, Yvonne Tenschert, Sonja Vogel Artists’ portrait videos Michael Leuthner Cleaning Firma Limbach

The Bauhaus Dessau Foundation is a non-profit foundation under public law. It is institutionally funded by: