Bauhaus and Vkhutemas: The Two Schools of Radical Design
The Modern period began in in the late 1900s with the spur of rapid industrialization that continued to swept West from its traditional labor force to a giant super power economy fueled by capitalist merchants who popularized the use of machines in order to produce more goods for the public. The term modernization has been coined throughout history to mark the beginning of the society's grand transition into highly globalized economy providing equal opportunities for the people. In this age, the Modern artists tried to create new architectural styles that abandoned the traditional notion of hierarchy especially the favor towards elegance and outlandish irregular curves and opulent designs all of which were the once characteristics of the Baroque and the Romantic period. For instance, this age brought the emergence of architects such as Le Corbusier known for his international style and The Crystal Palace in London known for its revolutionary style that used only wrought iron bars and glass fitted together to form lattice works. In other words, the repercussions of the period gave the artists an equal opportunity to explore various styles and materials which are revolutionary and simple. This paper argues three points: the Industrial Revolution became the catalyst for the Modernist era to appear on the scene and the growth of the modernist popularity became the models for various artists to create new and revolutionary designs that offer functionality and simplicity rather than opulent designs. The purpose of this essay is to map the how the Modernist period brought out the two distinct art schools such as Bauhaus of Germany and the Vkhutemas of Russia into the industry manufacturing materials that were quite strange in its utter simplicity and at the same elegant in a way that these things never fail to hurt the observer’s eyes with its lavish designs. Simply put, the paper intends to reconnect the fragments of Modernism to the emergence of new designs that became the signature of the early 20th to 21st century designs.
The Philosophy of the Modernist Period
It was due to the Modern period that many avant-garde artistic movements emerged in Europe by the early phase of the 20th century. Unlike the previous art movements such as the Romanticism and the Baroque period, the Modern Period rejected the old preference towards opulent architecture that offer nothing more than a pleasant albeit a chaotic retreat due to the fact that the buildings made predating the Modern period were nothing more than bizarre edifices created out of insane artistic passions. With the Modern period, the artists and the craftsmen who worked under this new revolutionary style became aware of the new trends and changes in the philosophies brought by the changing world. In the field of art, the modern age began the movement of limiting the images into simple rough sketches of lines and reducing ‘humanization’ in painting so as to make them appear as more than replicas of the real world satirized by the artists. In the field of architecture, architects such as the celebrated Le Corbusier argued for a pure art styles and called for the rejection of the traditional art forms that only heighten the divide in the society. As Kinney (1999) had pointed out, the artists from this period valued timelessness, speed, functional and uniform designs, elegant simplicity, and most of all proportionality that reflects the greatness of the architectures from the antiquities. (p. 475). The Modern period argues eloquently the necessity of rejecting the old lavish designs of the Baroque and Romantic period as impure and corruption of the classical styles that arrived before them. The credo of sticking to what is simple and functional is the main gist of the Modern period that was reflected on the new art institutions that emerged during this period: The Bauhaus and the Vkhutemas, both schools that spearheaded radical art activism by creating functional and simple work of art with styles that certainly affected the latter art styles onwards.
Modernism and Repercussions to Bauhaus
Along with the growth of the Modern societies, the early 20th century was a dynamic period of exploration and quest towards anything that is functional. The concept of functionality was not fully addressed in the older artistic movements but in the Bauhaus movement, there was a less focus on the aesthetic presentation; the main focus of the movement was to emphasize functionality and minimalism. The Bauhaus movement was an ideology that translates to the Modernist principle of making something functional and the rejection of grandiose designs. Walter Gropius’s pragmatic idealism of combining arts and crafts materialized upon the establishment of the Bauhaus School in 1919 with its headquarters located in Weimar, German. Gropius was a prominent German architect whose pedagogical views were hailed by the West German culture because of its abstractness, simplicity, and uniqueness which contrasts the traditional art styles of Europe. Bauhaus was pedagogical because it practiced its teachings; indeed, the school was hailed as the producers of great modernist styles exploring the use of other materials and combining arts and crafts in order to produce a product that can support the consuming public. In fact, Gropius (1963) reiterated that the style of his school focused more on the craft and not the aesthetic display of the products. “Since the machine is lifeless and since the independence of the modern worker had to be limited to a minimum, the necessity has arisen to guarantee the artistic quality of the machine product right at the start and to ask the artist to conceive the fitting form for the product to be multiplied. Only such a teamwork between the technician, the artist and the businessman might perhaps replace permanently all the factors of the individual work of old.” (31). For many years, the debate against the Bauhaus whether it should be classified as craft or industry became so intense that the founder of the school explained that Bauhaus was more than of an industry; the notion of industry is to just manufacturing of goods which do not have any artistic elements on them but in the case of the Bauhaus products, the goods manufactured both combines pleasantness and functionality so brilliantly that the movement was labeled as the artistic utopia of all the art departments. Bauhaus crafts combine the knowledge of artists, architects, and craftsmen in order to manufacture goods that might not be considered as a fashionable work of art but rather a functional tool to support the needs of the public. Betts (1996) described the German movement as the style that eradicated traces of cultural discrepancies and artistic mysticism and favored the scientific construction of commodities according to their use; for instance, chairs from the Baroque and Romantic periods have curved cushioned seats, restrictive in their form, as well as in their designs but in the Bauhaus design, the chairs became simplified structures of curved metals and mixed materials such as rattan and cushions. These strange combinations offered a great deal of liberation or secularism from the traditional art. Bauhaus popularized the combination of organic design and following the scientific principles and the evidence of this can be found on their products such as chairs, lamps, vases, and many other items. (79). The Bauhaus’ preference over the simple was explained by Barnhisel (2015): “Modernist values such as speed, simplicity.” In other words, Bauhaus was a modernist artistic movement and the pragmatic influences of modernism helped shaped the style into something economical and simple; a style which can transcend the boundaries of race, religion, culture, and social status. In this way, the Bauhaus created an art style that is revolutionary and rational at the same time. The typical example of the Bauhaus design was the MR Armchair (see fig. 1) designed by the former Bauhaus director, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in 1927. The materials he used in this chair was a combined steel while the seat was made of hard woven bamboo strips arranged to form a lattice work to support the weight of the seated person. The curved design of the armrest, legs, and chair structure is unusual but it provides a through support for the seated person and the body.
Vkhutemas and the Russian Modernization: The Search for Living Space
Compared to the Bauhaus, its Russian counterpart called Vkhutemas was also a school that practices artistic pragmatism wherein they competed with Bauhaus to produce items that are functional without caring for its appearance. Founded in the 1920s, the Vkhutemas shares the the same vision of Bauhaus movement; however, their style was not that well-known in the Western nations but only within the borders of the Russian mainland. The characteristics of the items produced by the Vkhutemas are simplified and way more abstract in physical appearance. Despite the fact that both Vkhutemas and Bauhaus emphasize on abstract models of their products, the Bauhaus movement never concerned itself on social issues unlike its Russian counterpart. The Bauhaus was simply a rebellion and a response to the elaborate designs of the previous centuries; however, the Vkhutemas was rooted in its communist ideals. For instance, in the early 20th century, the Soviet Union faced a dwelling crisis due to the rise of city dwellers; as a result, the spaces to house them became narrow and rigid that cites cannot contain all the tenants in one place. In other words, Russia the avant-garde art of Russia was the response on the issue; the artists of this movement made their products suitable for the city dwellers to use. This movement emphasized more on functional aspects rather than aesthetic preferences. Bauhaus rejected fine arts because of the corruption of the structure due to the presence of over-design; yet the Vkhutemas rejected the fine arts due to its stationary feature; an immobile object that consumes a lot of space in the dwelling; as their argument goes: “Pure art was useless because it didn’t [sic] have a practical purpose, and production art or design was useful because it did.” (Margolin, 1997, 85). From the Vkhutemas philosophy, it seemed that the sole purpose of their school is to make items that reflect the utilitarian ideals; items that can be used easily, and can be mass produced cheaply for the public. By the 1920s, the Vkhutemas addressed these concerns by manufacturing items that are economical, safe, and most of all convertible so that the objects does not consume too much space and that the space will be utilized for other purposes. Folding furniture were among the common types of items produced by this movement. (Margolin, 1997). As a whole, there is a minimal difference between Bauhaus and Vkhutemas styles since these two schools were the pioneers of modernist arts and crafts designs but perhaps the only thing that differentiates them apart was the latter was founded under the Russian dictatorship. The main purpose of the existence of the faculty was to promote socialism in art wherein the rejection of lavish designs from the previous reigns was highly encouraged but its main goal was to link art with the Russian politics. (Hudson, 1994; Museum of Modern Art, n.d.).
As a conclusion, the Modernist era’s preference towards scientifically and pragmatic items led to the birth of two new art movements: the Bauhaus and the Vkhutemas. The Bauhaus focused more on simplifying the objects like pieces of metal and other materials because these art movement wanted to combine arts and crafts together to save the dying economy of artisans; in other words, this style only seeks new perspectives of expressing new idealism through art but in the case Vkhutemas, it was rooted on the communist idealism of making the community available to everyone and thus, by manufacturing objects that are useful and convertible, they transformed Russian into a futuristic city that utilizes the space effectively. It is undeniable that without the Modernist era, none of these two schools would ever exist and the society would still remain tied to the unjust art and architecture of the bygone age based on hierarchy and social status.
BAUHAUS ART
VKHUTENAS ART
REFERENCES
Barnhisel, G. (2015). Cold War Modernists: Art, Literature, and American Cultural Diplomacy. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brandt, M. (1924). Tea Infuser and Strainer. [image] Available at: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/2000.63a-c/
Breuer, M. (1925). "Wassily" Armchair. [image] Available at: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1988.256/
Betts, P. (1996). The Bauhaus as Cold-War Legend: West German Modernism Revisited. German Politics & Society, [online] 14(2), pp.75-100. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23736445 [Accessed 17 Apr. 2016].
der Rohe, L. (1927). "MR" Armchair. [image] Available at: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1980.351/ [Accessed 17 Apr. 2016].
Gropius, W. (1963). The Bauhaus: Crafts or Industry?. Journal of Architectural Education (1947-1974), [online] 18(2), pp.31-32. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1423824 [Accessed 17 Apr. 2016].
Hudson, H. (1994). Blueprints and blood. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Kinney, L. (1999). Fashion and Fabrication in Modern Architecture. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, [online] 58(3), pp.472-481. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/991541 [Accessed 17 Apr. 2016].
Margolin, V. (1997). The Struggle for Utopia: Rodchenko, Lissitzky, Moholy-Nagy, 1917-1946. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. [Online]. Available at: https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=q93LHoimzjcC&pg=PA82&dq=vkhutemas+art&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwmfPIvJXMAhWBwJQKHS1GBpUQ6AEINDAF#v=onepage&q=vkhutemas%20art&f=false
Morozov. I. (1927). Universal Convertible Table. [image] Available at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/i/image/image-idx?view=entry;subview=detail;cc=ummu;entryid=05-02543;viewid=05_02543
Museum of Modern Art. (n.d.). VKhutemas. [online] Available at: https://www.moma.org/interactives/objectphoto/schools/15.html#objects [Accessed 17 Apr. 2016].
Rodchenko, A. (1925). Lenin Workers’ Club Chess Board. [image] Available at: https://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/05/29/aleksandr-rodchenko-lenin-workers-club-in-paris-1925/#jp-carousel-19967
Rodchenko, A. (1925). Lenin Workers’ Club Tables and Chairs. [image] Available at: http://hyperallergic.com/54302/exploring-moscows-temple-of-modernism/
Tatlin, V. (1923). Cantilevered chair. [image] Available at: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9c/1c/9b/9c1c9bbe6aed89377bee228502442f62.jpg [Accessed 17 Apr. 2016].
Wagenfeld, W. (1938). Kubus stacking containers. [image] Available at: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1986.412.1-16/ [Accessed 17 Apr. 2016].
