The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies van der Rohe’s German Pavilion

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies van der Rohe’s German Pavilion, Barcelona, 1929

With special thanks to Dr. Tanja Poppelreuter for not only her enthusiastically presented lectures each week, but also for the guidance she gave me during tutorial discussions. Also to Saul Golden, my Dad, Mum and brother for their support and feedback. Finally to the Erasmus+ programme, which provided me the opportunity to visit the reconstructed Barcelona Pavilion in October 2014.

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies van der Rohe’s German Pavilion, Barcelona, 1929

Peter Byrne | B00604720 Critical Reflections | ARC506 Module Coordinator | Dr. Tanja Poppelreuter Supervisor | Saul Golden Word Count: 6,015 09.12.2015

3

Abstract In the late 1890s it was widely accepted that the two disciplines of sculpture and architecture were interfering with one another. This paper focuses on the discourse that developed at the turn of 20th century, on the role of sculpture in architecture and what the relationship should be between an architect and sculptor and contrariwise.

The narrative takes the publication, ‘The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts’, written in 1893, by the German sculptor, Adolf von Hildebrand as central to the debate and examines how it was influential for not just sculptors but also architects, including Mies van der Rohe. The paper investigates Mies’ use of sculpture at the German Pavilion during the 1929 Barcelona International Exhibition as a contribution to the discourse, presenting why, in the pavilion’s context, Mies likely ended up including a single sculpture rather than the three sculptures as initially planned. Additionally, it demonstrates that there was an inconsistency in which sculpture Mies desired to use. Furthermore, it analyses how Mies may have made his final selection, between a standing and a reclining figure as well as between, German sculptor, Georg Kolbe’s ‘Der Morgen’ sculpture and its counterpart ‘Der Abend’. The resulting dialogue created between Mies’ architecture and his choice of the ‘Der Morgen’ figure is visually analysed and paralleled with Hilderbrand’s theories on ‘Vision and Movement’, ‘Form and Appearance’, ‘Ideas of Planes and Depth’ and ‘Form as Interpretation of Life’. The sculpture is recognised as evoking a spiritual presence within the pavilion, in light of a newly democratic Germany and the dawn of a new era. Mies’ response results in an exemplary dialogue between his architecture and Kolbe’s sculpture, demonstrating that the two disciplines, sculpture and architecture, do not have to interfere with one other, as had been the case with architectural sculpture that prevailed in the 1890s, but rather can be complimentary.

4

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German Pavilion, 1929 | 5

Contents Introduction

8

Sculpture and its changing role in architecture during the late 19th and early 20th century

12

Mies’ contribution to the discourse through the integration of Georg Kolbe’s ‘Der Morgen’ in the 1929 German Pavilion:

16

I.

Original plan for sculptures

16

II.

The choice of a particular sculpture

16

III.

Visual Analysis: Adolf von Hildebrand’s theories in practice:

25

Front view: Object in a plane Side view: Superposition

IV.

Spirit of a new era

33

Conclusion

40

Bibliography

42

Image Resource List

44

7

Introduction In July 1928, the German government appointed, architect, Mies van der Rohe to design the country’s pavilion at Barcelona International Exhibition in1929.

Mies’ selection likely resulted from his previous success at several exhibition designs including the 1927 Werkbund exhibition in Stuttgart, which had gained him a significant reputation amongst modern German architects.1 The German pavilion’s only apparent function was to host receptions, principally the opening ceremony of the World Fair, which would be overseen by King Alfonso XIII and Queen Eugenia Victoria of Spain in May 1929 (see Fig. 1).2 However, the pavilion’s underlying purpose was to be a representation room (repräsentationsraum), embodying the spirit of the new democratic German Weimar Republic, following World War I.3 An ensuing economic recovery meant uncertain funding accompanied the commission as well as a nearly impossible schedule.4 The commissioner, Georg von Schnitzler, wanted the pavilion to give “voice to the spirit of a new era” in which Germany had culturally advanced.5 The Barcelona International Exhibition was temporary, closing on the 15th of January 1930, and as such the German pavilion was disassembled and the parts were sold or sent back to Germany.6 Due to the pavilion’s ephemeral existence, many critics who praised the pavilion had not seen it in person.

Instead, basing their opinion on an extremely selective series of retouched black and white photos published in the ‘Berliner Bild-Bericht’.7 Thus, the pavilion’s agreed noteworthiness was, to a great extent, dependent on an intermediate source.

At the time, critics commended the architecture, with Justus Bier crediting it as the initiator of an “extraordinary moving change of feelings whilst strolling through the rooms.”8 The pavilion impacted architectural minds of the 20th century so much that it was rebuilt between 1983 and 1986.9 The reconstruction presently affords people the opportunity to experience it in person and colour.10 It has become, for many, an icon of modernism.11 However, the reason for this is thearchitecture alone.

By basing their opinions on published photographs, rather than a personal experience, many critics seemed to overlook the importance of, German sculptor, Georg Kolbe’s ‘Der Morgen’ (The Morning) sculpture in the pavilion’s overall 3D spatial experi-

8

ence (see Fig. 2). Through the integration of ‘Der Morgen’, Mies connected his own ‘abstract’, rationalised architecture with ‘figurative’ sculpture. However, the sculpture and its role was often not part of critical interpretations of the pavilion and received only a few brief acclaims. One commendation by Helen Appleton Read, in 1929, noted the use of ‘Der Morgen’ as an exemplar for the use of sculpture in modern arrangements. She believed Kolbe’s sculpture imparted energy to the scheme and, in turn, the pavilion setting bestowed grace upon the figure.12 Likewise, Paul Bonatz called it “the most beautiful interaction of sculpture and architecture.”13 Today, the outcome has become an admired composition for those in favour of collaboration between architects and sculptors.14 Yet, current literature by Penelope Curtis highlights that sculpture is a topic often excluded from “discussions of modernist architecture”, even though modernist architecture’s, abstract and transparent, characteristics provide sculpture with an elevated role.15 Curtis also stresses that Kolbe’s ‘Der Morgen’ is scarcely referred to and when it is, the sculpture is often misnamed as Night, Dawn or Dancer.16 This interpretation by Curtis gives validity for an investigation into the use of sculpture in the German pavilion, now referred to as ‘The Barcelona Pavilion’. As such, this paper will investigate the place of Kolbe’s ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German pavilion. In this research problem ‘place’, refers to the sculpture’s particular position in space, the conditions that it is placed under and the role that the sculpture plays within the pavilion. Additionally, what resulting standing did Mies take within the late 19th and early 20th century discourse on the role of sculpture in architecture, by associating Kolbe’s figurative sculpture with the abstract architecture of the pavilion?

The paper will now begin by examining the discourse and highlighting it is an influence on architects and sculptors, including Mies van der Rohe and Georg Kolbe, in the years preceding the design of the German pavilion.

Fig. 1: German Pavilion, International Exposition, Barcelona(1929), Mies (in top hat at middle right) accompanies King Alfonso XIII of Spain following the inauguration ceremony. May 26, 1929.

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German Pavilion, 1929 | 9

Fig. 2: News photograph of King Alfonso XIII of Spain conversing with Commissioner Georg von Schnitzler beside Kolbe’s ‘Der Morgen’ sculpture in the small pool during the opening ceremony.

10

1 Claire Zimmerman, Mies van Der Rohe, 1886-1969: The Structure of Space (Cologne: Taschen, 2006), 39.

Matilda McQuaid and Terence Riley, eds., Envisioning Architecture: Drawings from The Museum of Modern Art (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2002), 70.

Peter Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1964), 51.

Ursel Berger and Thomas Pavel, eds., Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture (Berlin: Jovis, 2006), 18–19.

2

Franz Schulze and Edward Windhorst, Mies van Der Rohe: A Critical Biography, New and Revised Edition (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2012), 117.

3 Detlef Mertins, Mies (London: Phaidon, 2014), 138.

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 18.

Zimmerman, Mies van Der Rohe, 1886-1969: The Structure of Space, 39.

4 Mertins, Mies, 138.

Zimmerman, Mies van Der Rohe, 1886-1969: The Structure of Space, 39.

Schulze and Windhorst, Mies van Der Rohe: A Critical Biography, New and Revised Edition, 117.

5

Richard Weston, Plans, Sections and Elevations: Key Buildings of the Twentieth Century (London: Laurence King Publishing, 2004), 58.

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 18–19.

6 7 8 9

Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure, 55.

George Dodds, Building Desire: On the Barcelona Pavilion (London: Routledge, 2005), 8.

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 26.

‘Barcelona Pavilion’, Bauhaus Online, accessed 18 November 2015, http://bauhaus-online.de/en/atlas/werke/barcelona-pavilion.

10 Mertins, Mies, 139.

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 102.

11

Peter Carter, ‘Mies van Der Rohe, Ludwig’, Oxford Art Online, accessed 8 November 2015, http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/grove/art/ T057875.

Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure, 51.

12 Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 34.

Victoria Anne, ‘Barcelona Pavilion: Techniques of Perception’, HubPages, accessed 18 November 2015, http://hubpages.com/education/Barcelona-PavilionTechniques-of-Perception.

13

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 14. Paul Bonatz was a leader of the Stuttgart School of Architecture.

14 15

Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure, 54.

Penelope Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture (London: Ridinghouse, 2007), 7–9.

16

Ibid., 11.

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German Pavilion, 1929 | 11

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies van der Rohe’s German Pavilion, Barcelona, 1929

Sculpture and its changing role in architecture during the late 19th and early 20th century For most cultures, architecture and sculpture have been related arts for thousands of years.17 The climax of these centuries of productive collaboration between architects and sculptors manifested itself during the 19th century.18 In the century’s second half, there was an unparalleled use of decorative architectural sculptures, including their appliance on department stores and residences throughout affluent cities.19 At this time, ornamentation had not yet been declared a “crime”, by Adolf Loos, and contrarily increased the popularity of a building.20 To cope with the increasing demand for ornamentation, sculptures were orderable from mail catalogues and serially produced by plaster specialists or stone masonry companies rather than by genuine sculptors.21 George Kolbe recalled, “[it was a] time…when one could order all available designs for interior and exterior decorations from a plasterer, including popular Caryatids - an offer which even fulfilled the needs of advanced master builders.”22 As such, sculptors had become subordinate and at the turn of the 20th century, there was an acknowledged predicament in the architectural sculpture field.23 The architectural theorist, Adolf Behne concluded that the category of so-called decorative architectural sculpture was leading to the disciplines of architecture and sculpture interfering with one another (see Fig. 3).24 Likewise, German sculptor, Adolf von Hildebrand was opposed to the “brutalisation” and believed the factoryproduced work was leading to a loss of appreciation for the manner in which a sculpture is made.25 In response to this situation, he published numerous essays, including ‘The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts’’ in 1893.26 The publication discusses human visual perception, building upon Helmholtz’s 19th century theories of vision and the psychology of visual perception, and the resulting rules for spatial configuration.27 Hildebrand was concerned not only with how to create an orderly, classicised and perfected sculptural form but also with how a sculpture should be framed in a private or public context.28 As such, his theories outlined on ‘Vision and Movement’, ‘Form and Appearance’ and ‘Planes and Depth’ and ‘Form as Interpretation of Life’, became relevant not only for sculptors but also architects.

The paper set in motion a debate on what should be the relationship between architecture and sculpture and vice versa? Also, how should architects and sculptors cooperate? While Hildebrand tried to fuse the spatial

12

configuration of architecture and sculpture into the role of an individual, Ludwig Hoffmann believed the two disciplines were complimentary and that an architect should be a sculptor or a sculptor an architect as to give decorated buildings a uniform image.29 Furthermore, Hildebrand believed the association architecture and sculpture could only be constituted architecturally, for instance, when architecture acts as a support for sculpture, e.g. a pedestal, or when a sculpture is used as a customised structural component.

Hildebrand’s philosophies on ‘The Problem of Form’ and others, such as from Loos’ “Ornament and Crime” in 1908, had an immense impact on the rationalist and formalist aesthetics of early 20th century modernism.30 The modern movement that developed in the 1920s and 30s repressed the retrospective application of sculptural ornamentation, favouring the explicit expression of a building’s materials and technology.31 For German sculptor Rudolf Belling, the abandonment of sculpture by this movement’s architects was “nothing more than…cultural poverty.”32 However, Kolbe understood architects’ regression and failed to detect a lack of complementary sculptures. The creations that he noticed were convincing and not grounded on “spiritual poverty”. He argued not every wall must be decorated, and that sculpture should only be used if it proves necessary as a door or window. This curtailment would aide sculpture as an independent art form rather than as a decorative element of architecture.33 In line with Kolbe’s judgments, some architects aptly integrated reliefs and freestanding sculptures in their architecture. For example, Erich Mendelsohn included a relief by Ewald Mataré in a private residence in 1930 (see Fig. 4). Also, Martin Elsaesser included a nude figure by Richard Scheibe in the Reemtsma Villa in 1932 (see Fig. 5).34 As visible in the villas’ swimming pool setting, spatially integrated freestanding sculpture can play a greater role than relief and is likely why this type of sculpture gained more attention.35 One such architect, who used freestanding sculpture as an essential piece of his buildings, was Mies van der Rohe.36 His use of sculpture in the German pavilion as critical to defining and understanding the pavilion’s design will now be the focus of this paper.

Fig. 3: Excessive architectural sculpture by Enrst Westphal on Tietz Department Store in Berlin , 1899/1900.

Fig. 4 (Top): Relief by Ewald Mataré in architect Erich Mendelsohn’s private residence, 1930.

Fig. 5 (Bottom): Nude figure by Richard Scheibe, in Martin Elsaesser ‘s Reemtsma Villa, 1932.

17

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 8.

18

Ibid.

19

Ibid., 8–11.

20

Adolf Loos, ‘Ornament and Crime’, in Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-Century Architecture, ed. Ulrich Conrads and Birkhauser Verl (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1975), 19–24.

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 8–11.

21

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 8–9.

22

Ibid., 9.

23

Ibid., 9–10.

24

Adolf Behne, ‘Bruno Taut’, Der Sturm, no. 198/199 (1914): 182, http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/306_Adolf%20Behne_Bruno%20Taut_55.pdf.

‘Adolf Behne’, Dictionary of Art Historians, accessed 29 November 2015, https://dictionaryofarthistorians.org/behnea.htm.

25

Adolf von Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts, trans. Max Meyer and Robert Morris Ogden (New York: G.E. Stechert & Co., 1907), 15.

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 9.

26

Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts, 10.

Mertins, Mies, 40–41.

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 9.

27

Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts, 10.

David Cahan, Hermann Von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 1.

Herman von Helmholtz was a German physician and physicist whose work had an influential role on European culture, including the fine arts, in the latter half of the 19th century.

28

‘Adolf von Hildebrand: Summary’, Adolf von Hildebrand, accessed 7 November 2015, http://www.adolf-von-hildebrand.de/seiten/summary.htm.

29

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 9.

Ludwig Hoffman was the Berlin municipal building officer.

30

‘Adolf von Hildebrand’, J. Paul Getty Museum, accessed 18 November 2015, http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/artists/849/adolf-von-hildebrandgerman-1847-1921/.

Jimena Canales and Andrew Herscher, ‘Criminal Skins: Tattoos and Modern Architecture in the Work of Adolf Loos’, Architectural History 48 48 (2005): 235.

Loos, ‘Ornament and Crime’, 19–24. After Loos published his paper, many architects began to abandon sculpture and ornament, thus beginning the styles of functionalism and modernism, like in the Bauhaus.

31

‘Sculpture and the Architectural Frame’, The Art Institute of Chicago, accessed 18 November 2015, http://www.artic.edu/sculpture-and-architectural-frame.

32

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 12.

33

Ibid., 10–12.

34

Ibid., 13–14.

35

Ibid., 13.

36

Ibid., 15.

15

Mies’ contribution to the discourse through the integration of Georg Kolbe’s ‘Der Morgen’ in the 1929 German Pavilion Throughout the pavilion’s early design stages, there was an “intensive discussion…about the route designation and flowing organic movements in space.”37 Mies wanted visitors to circulate through the pavilion on a particular path that ensured they would observe his predetermined focal points, including sculpture.38 To set about achieving this, Mies used a scale model consisting of a plasticine base into which planes, of celluloid and coloured cardboard, could be inserted and rearranged. This method allowed Mies to control and test the overall spatial sequence by observing the visualise effects made by differing horizontal plane positions.39 From this model, Mies, or one of his coworkers, would occasionally record the arrangement and produce sketches of the result (see fig. 6).40

Original plan for sculptures From the preliminary plans, drawn with pedestals, it can be observed that Mies’ considered, or intended, including three sculptures (see Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). Between Plan I and II, their positions vary slightly but they remain as three rectangular bases, suggesting reclining or kneeling sculptures were to be placed on them.41 One was to be placed in or beside the large, exterior pool in line with the main staircase, a second in line with the rear garden staircase and a third in the small pool of the inner, enclosed courtyard.42 The initial plans thus contain several centres of gravity, as each statue is arranged as a focal point at the end of a major viewing access.43 Between Plan I and II, a change to the boundaries of the large exterior pool and its surrounding wall almost makes the courtyard an extension of the street in front.44 Consequently, the sculpture placed there is shifted and hidden by an enclosing wall. Perhaps this iteration was Mies’ attempt at making the sculpture less visible and only noticeable upon ascending the front staircase. Supportively, a preliminary sketch of the street elevation is drawn with an enclosing wall much longer than on Plan II (see fig. 6). Likewise, the two initial plans indicate a change in orientation of the sculpture in front of a wall facing the back garden staircase. This staircase was to act as a continuation of the plaza’s axis that lay in front of the pavilion as suggested by the line drawn on the plan (see fig.7 and 8).45 Thus, this sculpture can be understood as the addition of further emphasis on this axis.

To the contrary, the positioning of the other sculpture in the small pool of the inner courtyard remained constant. As did the surrounding glass and marble planes, suggesting Mies had a definitive vision for this part of the pavilion (see fig. 7 and 8). Accordingly, Mies ultimately chose to include only the sculpture in the small pool, discarding the other two pedestals and leaving the large, exterior pool as an unadorned stretch of water (see Fig. 9 and Fig.10).46 This limitation to a single sculpture removed the three original centres and allowed a greater attention to be placed on one side of the pavilion. This side, previously prominent for the onyx wall, was now given an additional focus. The planar surfaces would create a framed view of the sculpture, leading a visitor along a sequence between the pavilion’s interior and the exterior enclosed courtyard. As such, it can be said, Mies’ decision to include only a single sculpture was significant to the pavilion’s conception.

The choice of a particular sculpture Whilst the position of the retained pedestal, in the inner courtyard, was coherent throughout the planning stages, the particular sculpture that Mies would use was not.

This discrepancy is firstly evident by a change of pedestal size, observable between the preliminary and final plans (see Fig. 7, 8 and 9) and thus demonstrates the final sculpture was different than originally planned. Secondly, a perspective drawing of the interior shows a reclining figure, rather than Kolbe’s standing sculpture, which Mies ultimately used.47 In this seemingly incomplete rendering, a view of the inner courtyard, through the glass wall of the pavilion’s interior, has been attentively depicted (see Fig. ?). Within the small pool, a reclining figure and its reflection can be observed.48 Similarly, the preliminary sketch of the pavilion’s street elevation depicts a reclining sculpture (see Fig. 6).

It should be noted that Mies often used the work of three particular sculptors, namely, Wilhelm Lehmbruck, Aristide Maillol, and Georg Kolbe. However, Mies was only personally connected with Lehmbruck, whom he was a friend of between 1915-16.49

16

Fig. 6 (Below): Street Elevation. Preliminary scheme showing a reclining figure and long enclosing wall.

Fig. 7 (Right): Plan I. Fig. 8 (Bottom): Plan II.

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German Pavilion, 1929 | 17

Fig. 9 (Top): Final Plan as constructed.

Fig. 10 (Bottom): Unadorned exterior pool.

18

It has been suggested by numerous authors, including Kenneth Frampton, Arthur Drexler, Jean-Louis Cohen, George Dodds and Peter Blake, that Mies intended on using the work of Lehmbruck and ended up using Kolbe’s work as a lately, decided substitute.50 For instance Peter Blake, in 1964, noted that Mies wished to borrow a Lehmbruck figure, but this could not be arranged. Consequently, a few days before leaving for Barcelona, Mies took a taxi and handpicked ‘Der Morgen’ from Kolbe’s studio as an appropriate substitute.51 If Blake infers that the original reclining sculpture, seen in the pavilion’s preliminary sketches, was an unobtainable Lehmbruck, it is disproved by the fact a ‘reclining female’ does not exist in this sculptor’s known works.52 Blake’s account also fails to provide a reason as to why Lehmbruck’s work was not available? Definitive evidence may be too late to discover; however, it is conceivable that Lehmbruck’s desired work, was destroyed by pre-Nazi attacks, as was the case with ‘Die Kniende’ (Kneeling Woman) in 1927 (see Fig. 11).53 Alternatively, as proposed by Curtis and Arie Hartog, such narratives, of Mies’ originally wanting a Lehmbruck, may have been created as a means of exonerating Mies from his final choice of Kolbe, due to Kolbe’s popularity during the Third Reich.54 This interpretation is supported

by Mies’ later work, in the 1950s and ‘60s, which no longer featured Kolbe but still used Lehmbruck and Maillol.55 It is, however, more likely that the reclining sculpture referred to a piece by Maillol. George Danforth, a student of Mies, recalled that the architect kept a postcard of a Maillol sculpture and had a fondness for this sculptor.56 Supportively, recumbent females were fundamental to Maillol’s work (see fig. 12 and 13).57 Similarly, the sculpture could have been drawn from memory or a photograph of a reclining sculpture, by Karl Albiker, situated outside Peter Behrens’ studio, where Mies worked between 1908-1911(see Fig. 14).58 Thus in both theses interpretations, the depicted reclining sculpture would have referred to an existing sculpture.

It is known that Mies did not like to commission sculptures but rather preferred selecting from existing ones. This preference would allow him to test and observe, the appropriateness of a sculpture, regarding scale and how this contained object would react to its container, before making a final decision.59 Thus in the case of the German pavilion, it is likely Mies tested the effects of different existing sculptures against the pavilion’s architecture. Perhaps doing so by using the theories of, the sculptor mentioned previously, Adolf von Hildebrand.60Jan Frohburg has indicated that Mies’ first client, Alois Riehl, introduced him to Hildebrand’s theories.61 Thus, Mies would have been aware of the Hildebrand since 1907 and likely read the well-known publication ‘The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts’ from 1893.62 By this assumption, it can be argued that Hildebrand’s publication would have provided Mies with a better understanding of the role of sculpture in architecture and possible relations that the two fields could have. Even if Mies did not read this particular paper, Hildebrand’s theories have been undoubtedly influential upon Mies as implied by remarks on the sculptor by Mertins’ and Hatton.63 Thus, it can be said, Mies final choice would have been informed and deliberated over rather than being for want of a better alternative or “a last-minute” choice, as has been suggested.64 This is supported by a technical section of the inner courtyard’s pool and a telegram that Mies sent to Lily Reich (see. Fig.15).65 The section, which is clearly outlined with ‘Der Morgen’, was likely completed before the beginning of February 1929 when the final drawings were given to the engineer. Also, the telegram from February 22, 1929, reads, “Give Kaiser the photo of the Kolbe sculpture and the book on the Lehmbruck so that [we can] negotiate with the appropriate gentlemen here.”66 Both artifacts suggest that Mies’, in fact, had Kolbe’s piece in mind from a relatively early stage.

From the telegram, it can be inferred that Mies must have possessed a photo of Kolbe’s work. Perhaps Mies had a photograph of the bronze cast, larger-than-life, female sculptures, ‘Der Morgen’ and its counterpart ‘Der Abend’, in Berlin’s Ceciliengärten, where they were initially placed in 1925 and caused some controversy (see fig. 16).67 Equally, it is conceivable that Mies saw the pair during a visit to Kolbe’s studio in Berlin (see fig.17).68 Alternatively, it is possible Mies was only familiar with ‘Der Morgen’. A tinted plaster version of this sculpture was used as the showpiece of the Kolbe room at the Munich Glass Palace in 1927, an event Mies likely attended (see fig. 18). Perhaps Mies recalled the sculpture’s captivating nature in Munich when making his final decision.69 It has been suggested a tinted plaster version was originally used in Barcelona and only after the pavilion’s reconstruction was a cast bronze replica made.70 As such, it is now appropriate to explore what resulted from Mies’ decision to include Kolbe’s ‘Der Morgen’ in the German pavilion? Also, what parallels can be drawn between the sculpture’s manner of integration and Hildebrand’s theories?

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German Pavilion, 1929 | 19

Fig. 11 (Left): Lehmbruck’s ‘Die Kniende’ Fig. 12 (Top Right): Maillol’s Seated Nude Fig. 13 (Bottom Right): Maillol’s Seated Female Nude with her left hand on her head. Study for the Mediterranean.

20

Fig. 14: Reclining sculpture, by Karl Albiker, situated outside Peter Behrens’ studio (Mies third from right)

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German Pavilion, 1929 | 21

22

Fig. 15 (Top Left): Cross section with clear outline of ‘Der Morgen’ Fig. 16 (Bottom Left): Kolbe’s sculptures in Berlin’s Ceciliengärten.

Fig. 17 (Right): Plaster versions of ‘Der Morgen’ & ‘Der Abend’ in Kolbe’s studio.

Fig. 18: ‘Der Morgen’ in the Kolbe room at the Munich Glass Palace, 1927.

24

Visual Analysis: Adolf von Hildebrand’s theories in practice Within the pavilion, a single pedestal and a minimum amount of planes and partitions are arranged with calculated precision to achieve their best individual and global effect.71 In this manner, Mies seemingly follows Hildebrand’s “Ideas of Planes and Depth”, which proposes our general movement into depth depends on a piece’s overall arrangement. If an object is placed at a distance, in the centre of an arrangement, it encourages the observer to move towards it to examine it more closely. Furthermore, individual planes can be grouped to give an effective two-dimensional impression that encourages a movement into the depth. This movement is achievable either by placing an object in one plane or by superposing planes.72

Front view: Object in a plane Consistent with the first method, Mies placed ‘Der Morgen’ within a vertically framed picture plane that is centred at the end of a major viewing access, along the garden edge (see fig.19). The planar surfaces converge, in one-point perspective, guiding the observer’s eyes and instructing them to focus on the figure. From this point of view, it may be understood, why Mies may have chosen Kolbe’s ‘Der Morgen’ over other sculptures, such as ‘Der Abend’ or the unidentified reclining figure?

Firstly, the standing posture of ‘Der Morgen’ provides verticality that a reclining sculpture could not. Thus, the sculpture better suits its frame, as Ludwig Glaeser stated, “Although Mies preferred reclining statues, he ultimately chose a standing figure… probably because all principal views were vertically framed.”73 Also, Hildebrand highlights the vertical as a naturally fundamental direction, given our standing upon earth’s surface, and also the horizontal, given the arrangement of our eyes.74 Therefore, when an observer sees these directions in the pavilion, a vertical sculpture placed in a horizontal plane of water, they gain a clear awareness of spatial relations.

Next, the posture of ‘Der Morgen’ appears to capture an interrupted moment within a greater flow of movement. Her knees are bent and arms are slowly unfolding above her head, which looks ponderously downwards (see fig. 20). In this manner, she simultaneously summons and dismisses the observer.75 Her outstretched motion encapsulates the space, in the inner courtyard, and is suggestive of a centrifugal force that pushes the air and undulates the pool below, as the female is ascending from the water’s surface.76 If Mies had already decided upon the sculpture’s position, he would have known the observer would not be able to view the sculpture from behind. Perhaps this is why he may have chosen ‘Der Morgen’ over its counterpart ‘Der Abend’? ‘Der Morgen’ reads unpleasantly monolithic from behind but is captivating if viewed from the front. The opposite is true for its counterpart, ‘Der Abend’, who is better viewed from behind, with her arms being lowered and held rigidly away from her body (see fig. 21 and 22).77 Similarly, it is noteworthy that the used sculpture has been wrongly referred to as, ‘Die Nacht’ (The Night), for example

by K. Michael Hays.78 ‘Die Nacht’ was created later by Kolbe between 1926-29 and has a centripetal force. The sculpture is captured enclosing herself with inward folding arms and thus contrasts the opening up of the human figure, as present in ‘Der Morgen’ (see fig. 23).79 Having now highlighted the beguiling nature of ‘Der Morgen’, Mies’ final choice can be seen as calculated and deliberate. The sculpture assists movement from one zone to another, between interior and exterior, and thus emphasises the pavilion’s insideoutside configuration, which is integral to the architecture.80 Mies was interested in the overlaying of indoor and outdoor spaces, as influenced by the work of Schinkel (see fig. 24).81 In the pavilion, the outside is brought in, through transparent panelling, yet any immediate surroundings are blocked by the courtyard’s enclosing wall (see fig. 25).82. With this green Tinian marble wall, Mies creates a German garden in front of the Barcelona landscape.83 Thus, instead of looking out at a view, the observer is forced to look at the view inside.

Within this abstract, “landscape garden” or “garden house”, as the pavilion has been described by Constant and English writers, McGrath and Tunnard, respectively, the figurative sculpture catches the eye.84 As such, Mies follows the tendency of early Picturesque gardens, to place greater emphasis on objects than the landscape. One such example is the 18th century garden design for Rousham House by William Kent, a leader of the English landscape movement.85 Kent made use of statues, ruins and temples, as ‘eye-catchers’, to attract visitors’ attention and draw them forward into the distant landscape on premeditated paths (see fig. 26 and 27).86 A behind view of an Apollo sculpture through ‘The Long Walk’ at Rousham can be paralleled to the view towards Kolbe’s sculpture in the pavilion, as in both images the figure itself becomes the focus of the environment (see fig. 28 and 19).

The latter view was the showpiece of the Mies exhibition at MoMA in 1947.87 Mies designed and installed the exhibition himself and used large-scale photographs, viewable from a distance, to present the effects of the dismantled pavilion.88 For Mies to designate such an elevated role to the sculpture, he must have considered ‘Der Morgen’ as synonymous with the architecture.

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German Pavilion, 1929 | 25

Fig. 19: Kolbe’s sculpture is a focal point along the major garden axis.

Fig. 20: Der Morgen looks ponderously downwards.

26

Fig. 21: Der Morgen reads as monolthic from behind.

Fig. 22: Der Abend is not captivating if viewed from the front.

Fig. 23: ‘Die Nacht’ closes in upon itself.

Fig. 24: Schinkel’s overlaying of interior and exterior spaces in his design for a Court Garderner’s house.

Fig. 25: The green marble enclosing wall blocks any immediate views of the outisde environment.

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German Pavilion, 1929 | 27

Fig. 26: Statues are used as ‘Eye-catchers’ at Rousham.

Fig. 27: Ruins and temples encourage movement further into the picturesque landscape.

Fig. 28: A behind view of an Apollo sculpture through ‘The Long Walk’ at Rousham can be paralleled to the view towards Kolbe’s sculpture in the pavilion.

28

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German Pavilion, 1929 | 29

Side view: Superposition Having examined the frontal view of ‘Der Morgen’ as an object in a plane, the side view will now be discussed in accordance with Hildebrand’s proposed second technique, superposition, which connects the appearance of objects in front with those behind. 89 Mies placed the patinated bronze sculpture against a background of green Tinian marble and vegetation (see fig. 29). 90 An observer can juxtapose the sculpture and wall, which are in planes of different distances, as to perceive them as two-dimensionally unified. This outcome is due to a stronger contrast between the figure and the background than the differences of depth within the sculpture’s modelling (see fig. 30).91 Thus following Hildebrand’s belief that to “attract the spectator’s attention to the details themselves…in rendering…texture, is to distract his attention from the unitary perception.”92 Mies has given ‘Der Morgen’, along with its backdrop, spatial value by allowing the female’s coarse surface blends into the marble’s rich grain. They are perceivable as “stretch[ing] hands to one another…without ever being…in actual contact.”93 However, Hildebrand suggests, ‘Perceptual form’ depends not only upon the sculpture’s ‘actual form’, previously imparted by Kolbe but also on illumination, the environment and changing point of view.94 Thus, light and shade can further unify planes of different distances.95 In the pavilion, the female appears, under certain conditions, to shield her eyes from the morning sunlight that streams into the courtyard (see Fig. 31). Perhaps the misinterpretations of the sculpture being a collaborative piece, between architect and sculptor, have occurred given the sculpture’s overall impression under this unifying lighting.96 Colour only emphasises such interpretations as visible in the reconstructed pavilion. As Hildebrand suggests, “colour contrast is stronger than light and shade contrast” and colouring is, therefore, significant for architecture and sculpture. Accordingly, Mies has used a limited palette as not to overpower the illumination, yet permit colour contrasts to occur between the differently distanced planes. Thus, the sculpture is highlighted and obscured by separating, and merging forces, respectively and an observer may read the sculpture as part of the wall or as standing independently in the pool.

By spatially integrating ‘Der Morgen’ in this manner, Mies appears to play on the two variants of sculpture, relief and freestanding.

This perception is interpretable as a response to the late 19th century discourse, mentioned earlier. Interpreting the sculpture as separate from the enclosing wall, would suggest Mies wished to distinguish between the roles of the sculptor and the architect, as Kolbe desired. Contrarily, reading the boundaries between the sculpture and architecture as blurred, would suggest that Mies considered his baukunst (building art) as closely related to the field of sculpture.97

Fig. 29: The side view allows for the sculpture to be juxtaposed with the planar surface behind it.

Fig. 30: The sculpture’s surface modelling echoes the grain of the marble.

30

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German Pavilion, 1929 | 31

Fig. 31: The female appears to shield her eyes from the morning sunlight.

32

Spirit of a new era Whichever the case, it is clear Mies was content to create a container that would give Kolbe’s existing sculpture an elevated role in space. He did so by not only deliberating over the position sculpture, and surrounding planar surfaces, but also by considering how the figure, as a human form, could evoke a spiritual presence within the pavilion.

If the pavilion were to be representative of the new German democratic government, it would have had to, in some way, incorporate the prevailing spirit and attitude of the German nation. To attain this spirit, Mies did not wish to include any symbols characteristic of Germany and refused to place an eagle emblem on the pavilion.98 He likely knew that an absence of traditional motifs would increase the pavilion’s acceptance amongst the hosts of the exhibition and other international participants.99 Instead, Mies used sculpture as a more gracious supplement to his architecture. Fittingly, Kolbe regarded corresponding “sculptural symbol as a commentary on the building” as a valid option for the use of sculpture in modern buildings.100 Kolbe’s sculpture, amongst others, had peopled Mies’ thoughts, as evident in the pavilion’s initial plans and sketches, and was not added merely to give a sense of scale, since the sculpture was oversized.101 The human figure, which resides in the pavilion, symbolising the spirit of the new era. Due to the manner of its integration, ‘Der Morgen’ enjoys a spatial freedom like that which would be experienced in the newly democratic Germany.

This analysis coheres with Mies’ changing view of technology in the years preceding his commission for the pavilion, between 1924 when he saw “the core problem of building in [his] time” as a “question of materials” and 1927 when he viewed it as “a spiritual problem.”102 This differing attitude becomes apparent in Mies’ notebook scripts of articles and lectures, which are translated in Neumeyer’s ‘The Artless Word’. A lecture, named ‘The Preconditions of Architectural Work’, held in February 1928, stresses, “the building art is not merely a technical problem nor a problem of organization…[it] is…the spatial execution of spiritual decisions. It is bound to its times and manifests itself only in addressing vital tasks with the means of it times.”103 Mies initially felt architecture was under the control of technology but subsequently believed more technology was needed, as it offered the possibility of freeing ourselves.104 Technology could be used as a means of achieving this spiritual purpose but technology itself should never be the goal.105 In this manner, Mies addressed his contemporaries at the Bauhaus whom he believed were focusing too greatly upon mechanisation, resulting in a mechanical message being conveyed, rather than a spiritual one.106 Thus, the pavilion’s technology and materials can be seen as providing their own practical visual effects, creating a neutral space cleansed of symbols. As each plane is kept as simple as possible, the pavilion stimulates our feeling for the third dimension and “the idea of a body in space is awakened in us.”107 Additionally, the bareness of the architecture, coherent with Mies’ motto “less is more”, asserts attention upon the sculpture, letting it play a central role in solving the spiritual problem, rather than technology.108 Kolbe’s, not discernibly ‘modern’, figurative sculpture, permitted Mies’ to create tension with his abstract, rationalised ‘landscape’ that would not have arisen with a more progressive piece by Lehmbruck or Maillol.109 ‘Der Morgen’ becomes the strong force compelling our thoughts into the distance, which Hildebrand deemed necessary.110 From afar, the observer is immediately drawn to the anthropomorphic form, seeing a representation of themselves. Beckoned by the female, they traverse the pavilion following Mies’ calculated trajectory. Crossing from interior to exterior, they reach the inner courtyard enclosure, where they are forced to a standstill, as the travertine tiles give way to the black glass tiles that line the reflecting pool (see Fig. 32).111 On this threshold, the observer is inescapably strained to stop and observe the sculpture. They stand between the tangible and the intangible, as the figure is placed inaccessible in front of them.112 Now perceiving from up-close, the observer is humbled, identifying the female as larger than life, similar to them yet different. It is suggestive of a spirit beyond them. The spirit that firstly beckoned the observer now withdraws itself, leaving a distance between them.113 Furthermore, the sculpture throws the viewer back a representation of their recent experience. Its pose captures the movement of a human in space, thus figuratively condensing the viewer’s longer journey throughout the ‘garden landscape’, which they could not have perceived for themselves, at the time. The observer can comprehend the female’s gesture as the expression of a mental process and thus may even interpret the movement themselves through imitation (see Fig.33).114 In this way, the sculpture continues Mies’ ideology of flowing open-plan movement, integral to the architecture.115 Although the figure initially attracts the observer, the architecture serves as an important backdrop.116 The enclosing wall and gently swaying trees behind provide a flattened version of nature, which is sufficient to add life to the sculpture.117 This ‘bare’ courtyard setting, merely containing the sculpture itself, initiates an extraordinary effect, which results in the sculpture withdrawing from its container and the observer, unwillingly, being represented to themselves.118 As such, the viewer then becomes the viewed and is the subject of the pavilion. This is visible in the reflective surfaces, of the water, glass partitions and marble wall, in proximity to ‘Der Morgen’ (see fig.34). The reflections obscure and enrich the viewer’s experience, allowing them to stand alongside the sculpture or even swap positions. Hence, the sculpture can be understood as simultaneously representing and interacting with humanity.

The Place of Georg Kolbe’s Sculpture ‘Der Morgen’ in Mies’ German Pavilion, 1929 | 33

Fig. 32: Threshold of the inner courtyard’s pool.

34

Fig. 33: Interpreting the pose of “Der Morgen’ through imitation.

35

Fig. 34: The reflections permit the viewer to stand alongside the sculpture or even swap positions.

36

37 38

Ibid., 20–21.

Anne, ‘Barcelona Pavilion: Techniques of Perception’.

39

Caroline Constant, ‘The Barcelona Pavilion as Landscape Garden: Modernity and the Picturesque’, AA Files, no. 20 (1990): 47, http://www.jstor.org/stable/29543706.

Wolf Tegethoff, Mies van Der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses, trans. Russell M. Stockman (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1985), 75.

40

Tegethoff, Mies van Der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses, 75. The sketches were often done by Sergius Ruegenberg.

41

Ibid., 80.

42

Constant, ‘The Barcelona Pavilion as Landscape Garden: Modernity and the Picturesque’, 47.

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 14.

Dodds, Building Desire: On the Barcelona Pavilion, 18.

43

Constant, ‘The Barcelona Pavilion as Landscape Garden: Modernity and the Picturesque’, 46–54.

Jean-Louis Cohen, Mies van Der Rohe (London: Taylor & Francis, 1996), 55.

Tegethoff, Mies van Der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses, 80.

44

Tegethoff, Mies van Der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses, 80.

45

Ibid., 86.

46

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 14.

47

Ibid.

48

McQuaid and Riley, Envisioning Architecture: Drawings from The Museum of Modern Art, 70.

49

Penelope Curtis, ‘The Modern Eye-Catcher: Mies van Der Rohe and Sculpture’, Architectural Research Quarterly 7, no. 3/4 (2003): 361.

50

Kenneth Frampton, ‘Mies van Der Rohe: Avant-Garde and Continuity’, in Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, ed. John Cava (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1995), 202.

Arthur Drexler, The Mies van Der Rohe Archive, ed. Franz Schulze (New York, 1986), 219.

Cohen, Mies van Der Rohe, 55.

Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure, 54.

Dodds, Building Desire: On the Barcelona Pavilion, 109.

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 11–14.

51

Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure, 54.

52

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 96.

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 14.

53

‘Wilhelm Lehmbruck’, Lehmbruck Museum, accessed 18 November 2015, http://www.lehmbruckmuseum.de/?page_id=871. Following Lehmbruck’s death, his wife held position of his work. She tried, with the help of others, to protect her late-husband’s work but Nazis, who regarded Lehmbruck’s work as “degenerate”, tried to eradicate it.

54

Curtis, ‘The Modern Eye-Catcher: Mies van Der Rohe and Sculpture’, 362–369.

55

Ibid., 362.

56

Ibid.

Phyllis Lambert, ed., Mies in America (Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA), 2001), 221.

57

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 14.

Tegethoff, Mies van Der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses, 81.

58

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 14.

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 95–96.

Tegethoff, Mies van Der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses, 76–79.

59

Peter Carter, Mies van Der Rohe at Work (London: The Pall Mall Press, 1974), 24.

60

‘Adolf von Hildebrand’.

61

Jan Frohburg, ‘Freiraum: Ideas of Nature and Freedom in the Work of Mies van Der Rohe’, in The Cultural Role of Architecture: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives, ed. Paul Emmons, Jane Lomholt, and John Hendrix (Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2012), 118.

62

‘Adolf von Hildebrand’.

Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts.

‘Riehl House’, Mies van Der Rohe Society, accessed 18 November 2015, http://www.miessociety.org/legacy/projects/riehl-house-o/. Alois Riehl was a professor of philosophy and the client of Mies’ first commission.

63

Mertins, Mies, 40–41.

Brian Hatton, “On Penelope Curtis’s Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture,” review of Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, by Penelope Curtis, Open Arts Journal, Winter 2013-14, https://openartsjournal.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/oaj_issue2_hatton_final.pdf.

37

64

Frampton, ‘Mies van Der Rohe: Avant-Garde and Continuity’, 202.

Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure, 54.

65

Tegethoff, Mies van Der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses, 81.

Frampton, ‘Mies van Der Rohe: Avant-Garde and Continuity’, 202.

66

Tegethoff, Mies van Der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses, 81.

67

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 34.

Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure, 54.

Curtis, ‘The Modern Eye-Catcher: Mies van Der Rohe and Sculpture’, 367.

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 7–27.

Anne, ‘Barcelona Pavilion: Techniques of Perception’.

68

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 44 & 115.

69

Curtis, ‘The Modern Eye-Catcher: Mies van Der Rohe and Sculpture’, 367.

70

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 17.

Dodds, Building Desire: On the Barcelona Pavilion, 18.

Gerrit Friese, ‘“Pavilion” by Karin Kneffel’, Fundació Mies van Der Rohe, accessed 23 November 2015, http://miesbcn.com/project/pavilion-by-karin-kneffel/.

71

Philip Johnson, Mies van Der Rohe (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1953), 49.

72

Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts, 70–72.

73

Tegethoff, Mies van Der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses, 81.

Ludwig Glaeser, Mies van Der Rohe: The Barcelona Pavilion 50th Anniversary. (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1979), unpaginated.

74

Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts, 74.

75

Gill Howard, ‘Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe At The Henry Moore Institute In Leeds’, Culture24, accessed 23 November 2015, http://www.culture24.org.uk/places-to-go/ yorkshire/leeds/art43542.

76

Curtis, ‘The Modern Eye-Catcher: Mies van Der Rohe and Sculpture’, 369.

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 16–17.

Anne, ‘Barcelona Pavilion: Techniques of Perception’.

77

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 16–17.

78

K. Michael Hays, ‘Critical Architecture: Between Culture & Form’, Perspecta 21 (1984): 24–25.

Curtis, ‘The Modern Eye-Catcher: Mies van Der Rohe and Sculpture’, 361–366.

79

Curtis, ‘The Modern Eye-Catcher: Mies van Der Rohe and Sculpture’, 369.

Ursel Berger, ‘Georg Kolbe in Der NS-Zeit: Tatsachen Und Interpretationen’, Georg Kolbe Museum, 10, accessed 23 November 2015, http://www.georg-kolbemuseum.de/georg-kolbe/forschung/.

80

Penelope Curtis, Sculpture 1900-1945: After Rodin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999 ), 233.

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion, 7 - 27.

Ken Powell, “Chiselling an identity,” review of Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, by Penelope Curtis, Building Design Online, April 11, 2008, BD Online, http://www.bdonline.co.uk/chiselling-an-identity/3110790.article.

Hatton, “On Penelope Curtis’s Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture.”

81

Susan M. Peik, ed., Karl Friedrich Schinkel: Aspekte Seines Werks (Stuttgart: Edition Axel Menges, 2001), 131–134.

82

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 16–17.

83

Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure, 54.

84

Curtis, ‘The Modern Eye-Catcher: Mies van Der Rohe and Sculpture’, 361.

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 20–23.

Constant, ‘The Barcelona Pavilion as Landscape Garden: Modernity and the Picturesque’, 46.

85

Simon Pugh, Garden, Nature, Language (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988), 28–30.

86

Ibid.

Gang Chen, Landscape Architecture: Planting Design Illustrated (California: ArchiteG Inc., 2011), 167.

87

Curtis, ‘The Modern Eye-Catcher: Mies van Der Rohe and Sculpture’, 365.

88

Museum of Modern Art, Museum Of Modern Art Presents Retrospective Exhibition Of The Architecture Of Mies Van Der Rohe, 1947, https://www.moma.org/ momaorg/shared/pdfs/docs/press_archives/1224/releases/MOMA_1946-1948_0098_1947-09-15_47915-37.pdf?2010.

38

89

Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts, 70.

90

McQuaid and Riley, Envisioning Architecture: Drawings from The Museum of Modern Art, 70.

‘Ludwig Mies van Der Rohe: German Pavilion’, MoMA, accessed 20 November 2015, http://www.moma.org/collection/works/87528.

91

Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts, 64.

92

Ibid., 64–65.

93

Ibid., 70.

94

Ibid., 36–37.

95

Ibid., 71–78.

96

Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts, 36–37.

Carter, Mies van Der Rohe at Work, 24.

Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure, 54.

97

Fritz Neumeyer, The Artless Word: Mies van Der Rohe on the Building Art, trans. Mark Jarzombek (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1991), 145–150.

98

A. E. Samaan, From a Race of Masters to a Master Race: 1948 To 1848 (Charleston, S.C: CreateSpace, 2013), 157.

99

‘Barcelona Pavilion’.

100

Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture, 166.

Curtis, Patio, 11.

101

Curtis, Patio, 11.

102

Neumeyer, The Artless Word: Mies van Der Rohe on the Building Art, 157.

103

Ibid., 299.

104

Ibid., 299–301.

105

Ibid., 250.

106

Ibid.

Christoph Brockhaus, Sculptures of the 20th Century: From the Wilhelm Lehmbruck Museum, Duisburg, trans. Stewart Spencer (London: The South Bank Centre, 1989), 11.

107

Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts, 63–64.

108

Johnson, Mies van Der Rohe, 49.

109

Anne, ‘Barcelona Pavilion: Techniques of Perception’.

110

Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts, 62.

111

Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure, 54.

112

Anne, ‘Barcelona Pavilion: Techniques of Perception’.

113

Constant, ‘The Barcelona Pavilion as Landscape Garden: Modernity and the Picturesque’, 46–50.Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 13.

114

Hildebrand, The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts, 102.

115

Carter, Mies van Der Rohe at Work, 23–24.

Kim Ransoo, ‘The “Art of Building” (Baukunst) of Mies van Der Rohe’ (PhD diss., Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006), 158.

116

Ransoo, ‘The “Art of Building” (Baukunst) of Mies van Der Rohe’, 158.

117

Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, 26.

118

Hatton, “On Penelope Curtis’s Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture.

39

Conclusion Conclusively, Mies added sculpture, as it provided the spiritual presence of the new era, which could not be attained through his architecture alone. In this way, Mies was able to answer the demand of the commissioner and give the new democratic Germany an opportunity for existence at the Barcelona International Exhibition. In turn, Mies’ use of ‘Der Morgen’ within the pavilion is a clearly articulated response to the late 19th and early 20th century discourse on the relationship between architecture and sculpture. It is indicative of the shifting role that sculpture played in architecture, no longer functioning as a decorative add-on but rather as an integral component within space. Likewise, Mies demonstrated that the two disciplines did not have to interfere with one another, as had been the case with architectural sculpture that prevailed in the 1890s, but rather could be complementary.

While searching for a manner in which to associate sculpture within the pavilion in a complementary manner, the issues of hierarchy, significance and specificity must have arisen to Mies. In response, he considered his architectural ‘landscape’ as an ideal frame and backdrop for displaying sculpture. It allowed the sculpture to remain independent of the structure yet be in dialogue with it through considerate placement in space. The positioning of ‘Der Morgen’ is respectful to the values Kolbe assigned to each view of the figure, as Mies did not give all aspects equal value.

Rather, he recognised the rear view as less captivating and placed emphasis on the front and side view, enhancing their pictorial effect. Thus, Mies conquered the earlier problems this sculpture and its counterpart faced when they were destined to stand in the middle of Berlin’s Ceciliengärten (see Fig. 16).

Furthermore, the unifying morning sunlight that streams into the pavilion’s courtyard makes the sculpture appear to belong within its setting, as it results in the figure’s suggestive act of shading her eyes (see Fig.31). Also, the planar surfaces encourage a movement towards ‘Der Morgen’ and the marble wall placed behind the female allows her to recede further into the depth. Hence, as was the case with the 18th century picturesque landscape, the sculpture seems to achieve a meaningful value because it acts directly upon the setting in which it is placed. Moreover, considering the vertically framed picture plane that the sculpture is placed in, ‘Der Morgen’ is interpretable as the most appropriate of the sculptures that Mies is known to have initially considered. Its choice is suggestive that Mies contemplated the total spatial impression a sculpture would have in the courtyard, which is judged important by Hildebrand.

Numerous similarities could be drawn with Hildebrand’s theories in this paper; thus it can be concluded that Mies decision was not haphazard but rather a calculated one. He knew the type of sculpture required. The selected sculpture encourages a movement towards it thus emphasising the pavilion’s interior and exterior relationship and animating the space with a human element. Hence, Mies must have considered the visual impression that the pose of ‘Der Morgen’ would have on the observer rather than being concerned with the sculpture’s expression.

The anthropomorphic form provides a reference point, catching and orienting the eye of the viewer while they move through the pavilion’s overall spatial experience. Once the sculpture is reached, there is a definite boundary between it and the observer. This threshold prevents a transition to reality and rather encourages imagination, as the observer visualises themselves occupying the space beside the human spirit, which is inaccessible to them (see Fig.35). If ‘Der Morgen’ was not there, the spiritual presence would not be aroused, and the impact of the pavilion would be diminished. It is questionable whether or not the pavilion could have been conceived without sculpture in mind since it dictated various iterations made to the pavilion, as evident in the initial plans and sketches. Correspondingly, it can be noted that Mies’ relationship with architecture and sculpture was never

40

truly eradicated, as was the case with his contemporaries who were arguably bound by the inflexible exclusion of ornament as a result of following Adolf Loos’ ‘Ornament and Crime’. In this way, the German pavilion can be recognised as a definitive work of the modernism movement despite being paradoxically out of step with it. The utilisation of sculpture suggests Mies wanted the two disciplines to co-exist and that he did not consider sculpture as subordinate to the architecture. Thus, by sympathetically placing Kolbe’s female figure within the pavilion’s frame and spatial sequence, Mies not only created an exemplary and harmonious dialogue between architecture and sculpture but also restored the strained relationship between Germany and its international partners.

Fig. 35: The observer imagines occupying the inaccessible space that lies in front of them.

41

Bibliography ‘Adolf Behne’. Dictionary of Art Historians. Accessed 29 November 2015. https://dictionaryofarthistorians.org/behnea.htm.

‘Adolf von Hildebrand’. J. Paul Getty Museum. Accessed 18 November 2015. http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/artists/849/ adolf-von-hildebrand-german-1847-1921/.

‘Adolf von Hildebrand: Summary’. Adolf von Hildebrand. Accessed 7 November 2015. http://www.adolf-von-hildebrand.de/ seiten/summary.htm.

Anne, Victoria. ‘Barcelona Pavilion: Techniques of Perception’. HubPages. Accessed 18 November 2015. http://hubpages.com/ education/Barcelona-Pavilion-Techniques-of-Perception.

‘Barcelona Pavilion’. Bauhaus Online. Accessed 18 November 2015. http://bauhaus-online.de/en/atlas/werke/barcelona-pavilion.

Behne, Adolf. ‘Bruno Taut’. Der Sturm, no. 198/199 (1914). http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/306_Adolf%20Behne_ Bruno%20Taut_55.pdf.

Berger, Ursel. ‘Georg Kolbe in Der NS-Zeit: Tatsachen Und Interpretationen’. Georg Kolbe Museum. Accessed 23 November 2015. http://www.georg-kolbe-museum.de/georg-kolbe/forschung/.

———, and Thomas Pavel, eds. Barcelona Pavilion: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architecture & Sculpture. Berlin: Jovis, 2006.

Blake, Peter. Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure. Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1964.

Brockhaus, Christoph. Sculptures of the 20th Century: From the Wilhelm Lehmbruck Museum, Duisburg. Translated by Stewart Spencer. London: The South Bank Centre, 1989.

Cahan, David. Hermann Von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Canales, Jimena, and Andrew Herscher. ‘Criminal Skins: Tattoos and Modern Architecture in the Work of Adolf Loos’. Architectural History 48 48 (2005): 235–56.

Carter, Peter. Mies van Der Rohe at Work. London: The Pall Mall Press, 1974.———. ‘Mies van Der Rohe, Ludwig’. Oxford Art Online. Accessed 8 November 2015. http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/grove/art/T057875.

Chen, Gang. Landscape Architecture: Planting Design Illustrated. California: ArchiteG Inc., 2011.

Cohen, Jean-Louis. Mies van Der Rohe. London: Taylor & Francis, 1996.

Constant, Caroline. ‘The Barcelona Pavilion as Landscape Garden: Modernity and the Picturesque’. AA Files, no. 20 (1990). http:// www.jstor.org/stable/29543706.

Curtis, Penelope. Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture. London: Ridinghouse, 2007.

———. ‘The Modern Eye-Catcher: Mies van Der Rohe and Sculpture’. Architectural Research Quarterly 7, no. 3/4 (2003): 362–70.

Dodds, George. Building Desire: On the Barcelona Pavilion. London: Routledge, 2005.

Drexler, Arthur. The Mies van Der Rohe Archive. Edited by Franz Schulze. New York, 1986.

Frampton, Kenneth. ‘Mies van Der Rohe: Avant-Garde and Continuity’. In Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, edited by John Cava, 159–207. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1995.

Friese, Gerrit. ‘“Pavilion” by Karin Kneffel’. Fundació Mies van Der Rohe. Accessed 23 November 2015. http://miesbcn.com/ project/pavilion-by-karin-kneffel/.

Frohburg, Jan. ‘Freiraum: Ideas of Nature and Freedom in the Work of Mies van Der Rohe’. In The Cultural Role of Architecture: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives, edited by Paul Emmons, Jane Lomholt, and John Hendrix, 114–21. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2012.

Glaeser, Ludwig. Mies van Der Rohe: The Barcelona Pavilion 50th Anniversary. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1979.

42

Hatton, Brian. “On Penelope Curtis’s Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture.” Review of Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, by Penelope Curtis. Open Arts Journal, Winter 2013-14. https:// openartsjournal.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/oaj_issue2_hatton_final.pdf.

Hays, K. Michael. ‘Critical Architecture: Between Culture & Form’. Perspecta 21 (1984): 14–29.

Hildebrand, Adolf von. The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts. Translated by Max Meyer and Robert Morris Ogden. New York: G.E. Stechert & Co., 1907.

Howard, Gill. ‘Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe At The Henry Moore Institute In Leeds’. Culture24. Accessed 23 November 2015. http:// www.culture24.org.uk/places-to-go/yorkshire/leeds/art43542.

Johnson, Philip. Mies van Der Rohe. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1953.

Lambert, Phyllis, ed. Mies in America. Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA), 2001.

Loos, Adolf. ‘Ornament and Crime’. In Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-Century Architecture, edited by Ulrich Conrads and Birkhauser Verl, 19–24. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1975.

‘Ludwig Mies van Der Rohe: German Pavilion’. MoMA. Accessed 20 November 2015. http://www.moma.org/collection/ works/87528.

McQuaid, Matilda, and Terence Riley, eds. Envisioning Architecture: Drawings from The Museum of Modern Art. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2002.

Mertins, Detlef. Mies. London: Phaidon, 2014.

Museum of Modern Art, Museum Of Modern Art Presents Retrospective Exhibition Of The Architecture Of Mies Van Der Rohe, 1947. https://www.moma.org/momaorg/shared/pdfs/docs/press_archives/1224/releases/MOMA_1946-1948_0098_1947-0915_47915-37.pdf?2010.

Neumeyer, Fritz. The Artless Word: Mies van Der Rohe on the Building Art. Translated by Mark Jarzombek. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1991.

Peik, Susan M., ed. Karl Friedrich Schinkel: Aspekte Seines Werks. Stuttgart: Edition Axel Menges, 2001.

Powell, Ken. “Chiselling an identity.” Review of Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architecture, by Penelope Curtis. Building Design Online, April 11, 2008, BD Online. http://www.bdonline.co.uk/chiselling-an-identity/3110790.article.

Pugh, Simon. Garden, Nature, Language. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988.

Ransoo, Kim. ‘The “Art of Building” (Baukunst) of Mies van Der Rohe’. PhD diss., Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006.

‘Riehl House’. Mies van Der Rohe Society. Accessed 18 November 2015. http://www.miessociety.org/legacy/projects/riehlhouse-o/.

Samaan, A. E. From a Race of Masters to a Master Race: 1948 To 1848. Charleston, S.C: CreateSpace, 2013.

Schulze, Franz, and Edward Windhorst. Mies van Der Rohe: A Critical Biography, New and Revised Edition. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2012.

‘Sculpture and the Architectural Frame’. The Art Institute of Chicago. Accessed 18 November 2015. http://www.artic.edu/ sculpture-and-architectural-frame.

Tegethoff, Wolf. Mies van Der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses. Translated by Russell M. Stockman. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1985.

Weston, Richard. Plans, Sections and Elevations: Key Buildings of the Twentieth Century. London: Laurence King Publishing, 2004.

‘Wilhelm Lehmbruck’. Lehmbruck Museum. Accessed 18 November 2015. http://www.lehmbruckmuseum.de/?page_id=871.

Zimmerman, Claire. Mies van Der Rohe, 1886-1969: The Structure of Space. Cologne: Taschen, 2006.

43

Image Resource List Cover Photo: ‘Morgen’ sculpture being placed on its plinth by workers in Ursel Berger and Thomas Pavel, eds. Barcelona Pavillon: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe: Architektur & Plastik/Architecture & Sculpture (Berlin: Jovis, 2006), 168.

Abstract Photo: Author’s own photograph, Barcelona, October 2014.

Fig. 1: German Pavilion, International Exposition, Barcelona (1929), Mies (in top hat at middle right) accompanies King Alfonso XIII of Spain following the inauguration ceremony. May 26, 1929 in Franz Schulze and Edward Windhorst. Mies van der Rohe: A Critical Biography, New and Revised Edition (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2012), 116.

Fig. 2: News photograph of King Alfonso XIII of Spain conversing with Commissioner Georg von Schnitzler beside Kolbe’s ‘Der Morgen’ sculpture in the small pool during the opening ceremony in Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavillon: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe, 51.

Fig. 3: Excessive architectural sculpture by Enrst Westphal on Tietz Department Store in Berlin , 1899/1900 in Ibid, 10.

Fig. 4: Relief by Ewald Mataré in architect Erich Mendelsohn’s private residence, 1930 in Ibid, 13.

Fig. 5: Nude figure by Richard Scheibe, in Martin Elsaesser ‘s Reemtsma Villa, 1932 in Ibid, 14.

Fig. 6: Street Elevation. Preliminary scheme showing a reclining figure and long enclosing wall in Wolf Tegethoff, Mies van Der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses. Translated by Russell M. Stockman. (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1985), Plate 10.3.

Fig. 7: Plan I. Drawing. Late 1928. In: MoMA The Collection, http://www.moma.org/collection/works/87529?locale=en.

Fig. 8: Plan II. Drawing. 1928-29. In: MoMA The Collection, http://www.moma.org/collection/works/101656?locale=en.

Fig. 9: Final Plan as constructed. Drawing. 1929. In Moma The Collection, http://www.moma.org/collection/ works/87530?locale=en.

Fig. 10: Unadorned exterior pool in Peter Blake, Mies van Der Rohe: Architecture and Structure (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1964), 53.

Fig. 11: Lehmbruck’s ‘Die Kniende’. 1911. In Sculptures Culture Site, http://sculptures.culturesite.org/pt/artist.php?Wilhelm_Lehmbruck.

Fig. 12: Maillol’s Seated Nude (Femme Nue Assise sous des Feuillages). 1927. In MoMA The Collection, http://www.moma.org/ collection/works/68494?locale=en.

Fig. 13: Maillol’s Seated Female Nude with her left hand on her head. Study for the Mediterranean. In: Petit Palais Collections, http://www.petitpalais.paris.fr/en/type-doeuvre/sculpture?page=2.

Fig. 14: Reclining sculpture, by Karl Albiker, situated outside Peter Behrens’ studio (Mies third from right) in Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavillon: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe, 95.

Fig. 15: Cross section with clear outline of ‘Der Morgen’ in Ibid, 29.

Fig. 16: Kolbe’s sculptures in Berlin’s Ceciliengärten. In: Kudaba, www.kudaba.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/skulpturMorgenKolbeCecil_ganz1.jpg.

Fig. 17: Plaster versions of ‘Der Morgen’ & ‘Der Abend’ in Kolbe’s studio in Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavillon: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe, 40.

44

Fig. 18:‘Der Morgen’ in the Kolbe room at the Munich Glass Palace, 1927 in Ibid, 44.

Fig. 19:Kolbe’s sculpture is a focal point along the major garden axis in George Dodds, Building Desire: On the Barcelona Pavilion (London: Routledge, 2005), Plate 8.

Fig. 20: Der Morgen looks ponderously downwards in Berger and Pavel, Barcelona Pavillon: Mies Van Der Rohe & Kolbe, 42.

Fig. 21: Der Morgen reads as monolthic from behind in Penelope Curtis, Patio and Pavilion: The Place of Sculpture in Modern Architectur (London: Ridinghouse, 2007), 16-17.

Fig. 22: Der Abend is not captivating if viewed from the front in Ibid.

Fig. 23: ’Die Nacht’ closes in upon itself. 1926. In: I Love Figure Sculpture, http://www.ilovefiguresculpture.com/masters/german/ kolbe/kol61.jpg.

Fig. 24: Schinkel’s overlaying of interior and exterior spaces in his design for a Court Garderner’s house in Susan M. Peik, ed. Karl Friedrich Schinkel: Aspekte Seines Werks (Stuttgart: Edition Axel Menges, 2001), 129.

Fig. 25: The green marble enclosing wall blocks any immediate views of the outisde environment. In: Barcelona Pavilion, https:// www.behance.net/gallery/18184997/Barcelona-Pavilion.

Fig. 26: Statues are used as ‘Eye-catchers’ at Rousham. In: Rousham House & Garden, http://www.rousham.org.

Fig. 27: Ruins and temples encourage movement further into the picturesqu. In: The Heggarty Webber Partnership, http://www. hegartywebberpartnership.com/garden-designers-roundtable-focal-points/.

Fig. 28: A behind view of an Apollo sculpture through ‘The Long Walk’ at Rousham can be paralleled to the view towards Kolbe’s sculpture in the pavilion. In: Rousham House & Garden, http://www.rousham.org.

Fig. 29: The side view allows for the sculpture to be juxtaposed with the planar surface behind it. In: Mies van der Rohe, https:// www.flickr.com/photos/vanneste/2414157251.

Fig. 30: The sculpture’s surface modelling echoes the grain of the marble. In: Fundacio Mies van der Rohe Barcelona, http:// miesbcn.com/the-pavilion/images/.

Fig. 31: The female appears to shield her eyes from the morning sunlight. In: Blind Bild, http://www.blindbild.com/barcelona-pavello-mies-van-der-rohe-oktober-2015/mies-pavillon-19/.

Fig. 32: Threshold of the inner courtyard’s pool. In: Arquizofrenia, http://arquizofrenia.tumblr.com/post/34820765942/georg-kolbedawn-pavelló-alemany-de-la-exposició.

Fig. 33: Interpreting the pose of “Der Morgen’ through imitation. In: Barcelona Photostream, https://www.flickr.com/photos/32160940@N06/4541117015.

Fig. 34: The reflections permit the viewer to stand alongside the sculpture or even swap positions. In: Transparency and Reflection, https://www.flickr.com/photos/89309825@N00/14257164769.

Fig. 35: The observer imagines occupying the inaccessible space that lies in front of them. In: Blind Blid, http://www.blindbild.com/ barcelona-pavello-mies-van-der-rohe-oktober-2015/mies-pavillon-17/.

45