Segregation among the Masters of the Bauhaus

Gropius opened the school with the promise to admit “any person of good repute, regardless of age or sex”. This made the Bauhaus an attractive opportunity for women who had previously been denied access to schools with such creative allure. As a result, when the Bauhaus opened, its student population was predominately female. As time went on, the leaders of the Bauhaus began to worry about the number of women enrolled. They were of the opinion that the women were not up to the academic rigor of the school and would “dilute” the creative output. Gropius in particular was “worried that the presence of so many women would give the institution an amateur affectation, infecting the atmosphere with something reminiscent of the arts and crafts movement that he was keen to avoid.” As a result, Gropius took away the women’s right to choose their artistic disciplines like the men could. Instead placing them all into the weaving department which later became known as the ‘women’s department.’ This was viewed as a better match for their abilities. A strong gender-bias was now engrained in the structure of the school and became an element of the internal culture.

This newly created divide led to a segregation of what was perceived as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine arts’ within the Bauhaus. Weaving was believed to be the only acceptable creative path for a woman, this perception is captured in a quote by Oscar Schlemmer “where there is wool, there is a woman who weaves if only to pass the time.” Gunta Stolzl herself did an interview with the Bauhaus Journal ‘Offset’, in 1926, and is quoted saying “weaving is primarily a woman's field of work. The play with form and colour, an enhanced sensitivity to material, the capacity of adaptation, rhythmical rather than logical thinking - are frequent female traits of character stimulating women to creative activity in the field of textiles.” This quote is very telling as her internal degradation comes to light. She suggests that women are incapable of logical thinking and instead strive while completing repetitive, menial tasks. Misogyny and prejudice did not just affect the recognition of Stolzl’s work but it also had a direct impact on her day-to-day life. After Stolzl gave birth to her first daughter, Yael, she felt the full capability of inequality in the