9th May 2019 Unit 8: History & Theory 2
Walter Gropius’ Bauhaus Building and the Theoretical Theme of Gender Aminata Fall In the world of design today, it is often questioned if the radical German art school, Bauhaus – also known as The Staatliches Bauhaus – was really as progressive and gender-equal as it was initially announced to be. In this essay, I explore the significance and impact of gender on the Bauhaus, and the relationship between the two. The Bauhaus’ founder, Walter Gropius was born into a wealthy family of architects based in Berlin in 1883. Gropius’s great-uncle was a well-known architect, who designed the Decorative Arts Museum in Berlin in a neo-Renaissance style. Walter Gropius’ selected buildings include The Fagus Factory (1910), Gropius House (1937) and the Office and Factory Buildings at the Werkbund Exhibition (1914). In his own buildings, he was a major supporter of light filled space and modernist architecture, and unlike many other modernist masters, he showed much greater interest in community and education projects than large-scale projects branded in his own name. Declaring equality amongst both male and female students in its 1919 opening by accepting both male and female applicants despite art schools denying women this right, the school was opened in Weimar, central Germany. The institution’s main objective was the “unification of the arts”, with courses that taught a combination of fine arts and theory of design, in order to produce professional artists and designers who were both practically and aesthetically equipped to create incredible works. These would be the designers that catered to the increasingly industrial 20th century world. In 1925, the school relocated from Weimar to Dessau, where Gropius designed the new building to house the art school. This new building was comprised of many features that later became the symbols of modernist architecture, including glass curtain walls, steel-frame constructions and asymmetry, making the Bauhaus arguably the most influential art and design school in history. The building was one of the first of the ‘International’ style and has since become so recognised and imitated that it is often forgotten just how radical the school was during its time. The building is in itself a manifestation of the new architectural and abstract language of modernism. During the first year of its opening, Bauhaus received more female applicants than male applicants (84 to 79) – many of whom applied for subjects typically viewed as ‘male’, such as architecture. An important question to ask here is “what is considered a ‘male’ subject?”. During the early 20 th century – and still to this day – there are a number of fields that are considered vastly more masculine than feminine, examples being the industrial, architectural, business-orientated and technological industries among others, despite many pioneering women in male-dominated industries proving that notion wrong. The majority of women who were accepted into the Bauhaus were encouraged to
1
9th May 2019 Unit 8: History & Theory 2 specialise in ‘feminine’ subjects such as weaving or ceramics, despite a large number of these female applicants showing interest in the architectural and industrial fields. (A. Rawsthorn, 2013) reported in an article titled ‘Female Pioneers of the Bauhaus’, that Gertrud Arndt in particular was one of the aspiring female architects of the Bauhaus with hopes of pursuing this career, but was instead redirected into weaving, a subject seen as more ‘domestic’ and therefore, more suited to Arndt. The controversial reason for this was that there supposedly were no available spaces for her on the course. The Bauhaus administration attempted to redirect another student, Benita Koch-Otte into studying more domestic subjects such as gardening (Müller, Radewaldt and Kemker, 2009), but Koch-Otte persevered to study and excel in her chosen field of art education and textile design. She became an influential figure in both fields. (A. Rawsthorn, 2013). The male ‘masters’ of the school’s workshops for metals, glass, printing and more so than anything else – architecture – essentially feared the competition that women represented in terms of employment and prestige. The solution to this was steering talented and established female artists in the weaving department with became mandatory. Understanding the social construction of gender is imperative to understanding the relationship between the Bauhaus and Gender as a whole. The theory exists within the subjects of feminism and sociology about gender differences in societies and how gender operates. According to this theory, gender roles have been created by human society and culture to prescribe roles as ideals or the ‘appropriate behaviour’ for the person of a specific sex. ‘Masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are merely gender categories – key word, “categories”. By the administration of the Bauhaus school attempting to redirect talented women into these constrained categories based solely on their sex, and not their talent is arguably very problematic and reinforces the stigma of females being the ‘weaker’ sex, and therefore limiting opportunities for girls and women. From the beginning of time, the patriarchy which by definition is ‘a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. E.g. “The dominant ideology of patriarchy.” – has always been at the forefront in society, which is largely the reason for having this conversation about sex, gender, equal opportunities and feminism in relation to the Bauhaus. “Histories of the Bauhaus tend to be disproportionately dominated by male protagonists.” – Catherine Slessor MBE. Slessor is an architectural writer, critic and the former editor of The Architectural Review. According to Slessor, “women are often edited out of the history of the Bauhaus” (C. Slessor, 2018). Despite the declarations of gender equality, Walter Gropius insisted there was in fact “no difference between the beautiful and the strong sex”, when the art school opened in 1919. The fact that Gropius casually described women as being the “beautiful sex” shows that there was still a very long way to go for gender equality. Women were being compared to men who were described as the “strong sex” – those very contradicting words underlining what we as a society have been taught all our lives. Gropius believed that women lacked the mental capacity to work and think in more than
2
9th May 2019 Unit 8: History & Theory 2 two dimensions. Architecture was barely a choice for women of the early 20th century, and was off the curriculum, evidently unless the student was a “strong” and much more able male. These men of the Bauhaus who were set up to thrive in the working world from the get-go include Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, László Maholy-Nagy, Gropius and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. The question we must now ask ourselves is if these bright young men and women entered the Bauhaus as equal students all wishing to learn and grow in the industrial world, why are the women so hidden today? There are many factors that could be the reason for this – the school’s short-lived existence (fourteen years), the anti-modern Nazi movement and the Second World War may have been contributing factors, but in different circumstances, would women of the Bauhaus have been treated the same way or given the equal opportunities, had these events not occurred? The truth is, despite the gender-equal façade, the Bauhaus was never an oasis of female empowerment and freedom. “Architecture is a notoriously egotistical profession. One person, usually an older man, often takes credit for a lengthy and multifaceted process of planning and construction. It does not help that many famous architects hardly eschew the mantle of amateur genius. Instead, they embrace their star status with gusto, downplaying the army of engineers, designers and junior architects who support them. Some of the biggest names in modern architectural history – Frank Lloyd Wright, Oscar Niemeyer, and Philip Johnson […] The abominable treatment of women in the profession, and the lack of class and diversity, do little to undermine the cliché of the tyrannical master-architect belting out orders to subordinates.” (M. Holleran, 2019). Whilst reading this extract from the New Republic, I cannot help but link this viewpoint of Holleran to the practice and structure of the Bauhaus. The building that was set up and run by one man at a time – at the top of the hierarchy – was inherently a building that was also driven by its students, many of whom had never had a voice of their own or had their work recognised. The reason the school was able to attain its status of being the most influential art and design school was because of the people operating within the space. A school does not simply thrive because of its leaders, in this case, Gropius and Mies van der Rohe – it thrives because of its students who are willing to put in the hard work that makes the space operate as an educational institution. By 1930, Mies van der Rohe had been newly appointed as director of the Bauhaus and as the institution increasingly became more of an architecture school, the opportunities for women to shine steadily decreased too. The few women who did, such as Anni Albers did so after they “abandoned the Bauhaus.” (J. Glancey, 2009). Albers was amongst the many women who were barred from their desired practice, unable to get into the school’s glass workshop class. With little choice, Albers deferred reluctantly to the weaving department, the only workshop available to women – again underlining the fact that the Bauhaus was in fact not the so-called ‘progressive’ school it had been advertising itself as. Before departing the school in 1933 during the permanent close of the institution, Albers became Head of the Weaving Workshop, one of the few women to hold such a senior role at the school.
3
9th May 2019 Unit 8: History & Theory 2 “It is interesting in this connection to observe that in ancient myths from many parts of the world it was a goddess, a female deity, who brought the invention of weaving to mankind. When we realize that weaving is primarily a process of structural organisation this thought is startling, for today thinking in terms of structure seems closer to the inclination of men than women.” – Anni Albers, 1957 In this extract, Albers reflects on the paradoxical “feminine role” of weaving in modern culture. Her statement affirms that the cultural definition of weaving is interlinked with the question of gender, through her experience and other women of the Bauhaus. Although Albers had hoped to distance herself from the association of femininity and weaving, she was never able to restore harmony between weaving’s apparent femininity and her own approach to the craft – technical and theoretical. Albers hoped to participate and contribute to the modernist movement and positively impact the world through design. The one factor that impeded this effort was institutionalised gender bias within the school. While the Bauhaus policy of administration very explicitly prohibited sexual discrimination, its structure did the opposite. When addressing Gender and the Built Environment, an important quote comes from Leslie Kanes Weisman in ‘Heresies: A Feminist Publication on Art and Politics’ (1981). “The man-made environments which surround us reinforce conventional patriarchal definitions of women’s role in society and spatially imprint those sexist messages on our daughters and sons. They have conditioned us to an environmental myopia which limits our self-concepts…which limits our visions and choices for ways of living and working… which limits us by not providing the environments we need to support our autonomy or by barring our access to them. It is time to open our eyes and see the political nature of this environment oppression!” Everything about this quote is relevant to the current topic of discussion. We need to look at Architecture as Icon and The Bauhaus as a physical, built environment, which evidently was in plenty of ways an oppressive one. A built environment is a “cultural artefact.”, and the Bauhaus is one of the many buildings shaped by “human intention and intervention”. The building itself is a microcosm of patriarchal societies that have existed to this day. As stated by Weisman, we can “extract the priorities and beliefs of the decision-makers in our society.” – We as designers, women and humans of the 21 st century can analyse the history of the Bauhaus and look closely at the priorities of the decisionsmakers by the likes of Gropius. The real priorities of the Bauhaus were of those of the male gender, and it is imperative to understand the impact of societal sexism in institutions such as the Bauhaus and what the rippling effects are years later for girls and women wishing to progress in male-dominated industries. To understand gender, space and representation in relation to The Bauhaus, what needs to be determined is what a feminine space is, what a masculine space is, and finally what a gender-neutral
4
9th May 2019 Unit 8: History & Theory 2 space is. Space can be gendered through representation as well as inhabitation. Historically, female spaces were private ones. these include the home – kitchens, bedrooms, living rooms, whereas male oriented spaces were typically offices, universities, factories, garages and other public industrial spaces. Men and women have often been separated in ways that “sustain gender stratification by reducing women’s access to socially valued knowledge. The fact that these spatial arrangements may be imperceptible increases their power to reproduce prevailing status differences.” – D. Spain (1993). For a space to truly be considered ‘gender-neutral’, these spaces need to be designed with the intention of banishing any hints of bias towards a particular gender. Gender-neutral architecture is therefore necessary to ensure that these aforementioned spaces will not in any way favour one gender over another and enforce gender roles onto people. Essentially it is arguable that the very school that fronted the image of inclusivity was the one that perpetuated stereotypes and gender roles, pushing women backwards, rather than forwards. The institution that catered to the academic progression and needs of the man therefore is what made the building a male space. The history of the Bauhaus is still incredibly relevant and reflects on the current gender inequality in architectural practice today. In 2009, only 28% of architectural staff in practices were women. Two years later, the percentage had dropped to 21% of female architectural staff, with 25% lower earnings than their male counterparts. (Rendell, J., 1999) Having explored and addressed the many ways in which gender impacts one’s personal, academic and professional progression in a built environment, I understand that the theory of Gender ultimately goes hand in hand with interior, spatial and architectural design. Every space – whether intentional or not – is in some way gendered, and the spaces that designed to be gender-neutral are what we as a society need to be working towards. Space is essentially an instrument of thought, inspiration and action which implements the struggle for power between genders. It is important to recognise that the spaces are not inherently powerful in this sense, but it is rather the politics of the use of space that determines this power. The patriarchal framing of built spaces undeniably benefits male power, in its representation of hierarchy, stereotypical gender roles and social order. Taking everything into account, differentiation between gender has always been a part of the architectural world. Whether or not this differentiation is conscious or not? That depends on the architects and decision-makers and the people who experience these spaces. Today, we as designers experience the built space around us in a very different way. Gender in art schools of the 21 st century is hardly separated in the same way as it would have been a century ago. As the Bauhaus celebrates its centenary, we are able to rethink the past 100 years and compare the ways in which we operate in these environments, as students, designers and human beings. Using University of the Arts London as an example of one of the most popular art schools in the world, I immediately identify my privilege being a member of the millennial society. I have been born in a much more forward-thinking society
5
9th May 2019 Unit 8: History & Theory 2 that takes into consideration the needs of women as well as men in creative fields. Of course, the architecture industry is still largely male-dominated, but as a woman, much less a woman of colour – I have a sense of hope for the future of design for minorities in built spaces. I am able to at the very least strive and work for a space in the architectural world, where I would not have been given the opportunity to do so a century ago. Spaces can amplify or limit, nurture or hinder. Have built spaces such as Bauhaus impacted architectural attitude toward gender and equality today?
6
9th May 2019 Unit 8: History & Theory 2 Bibliography:
A. Rawsthorn, (2013) The New York Times: ‘Female Pioneers of the Bauhaus’ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/arts/25iht-design25.html
Müller, Radewaldt and Kemker, (2009): ‘Bauhaus Women: Art, Handicraft, Design’
Catherine Slessor (2018), “Bauhaus histories tend to be disproportionately dominated by male protagonists” https://www.dezeen.com/2018/11/20/bauhaus-women-catherine-slessor-opinion/
(J. Glancey, 2009) The Guardian: ‘Haus proud: The women of Bauhaus’ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/arts/25iht-design25.html
Leslie Kanes Weisman, ‘Women’s Environmental Rights: A Manifesto’ in Heresies: A Feminist Publication on Art and Politics (1981) in Gender Space Architecture (2002).
Spain, D. (1993). Gendered Spaces and Women's Status. Sociological Theory, 11(2), 137-151. doi:10.2307/202139
Rendell, J. ‘Women in Architecture: What is a feminist aesthetics of space?’, Make Magazine (1999) https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/new-riba-stats-show-large-drop-in-womenarchitects/8625001.article
Anni Albers, (1957) ‘Weaving at the Bauhaus’ in 'On Designing' Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press
Max Holleran (April 2 2019), The Dean – ‘Out of the ruins of war, Walter Gropius made a vital political community.’ https://newrepublic.com/article/153281/walter-gropius-man-built-bauhaus-book-review
7
9th May 2019 Unit 8: History & Theory 2
Unit 8: History & Theory Group Project Appraisal This year, History & Theory studies in groups was highly advantageous. My assigned group and I were given the National Gallery to research and explore using the public archives available to us. Our main aim for the project was to produce an interactive, physical experience for anyone to use in order to be educated on the National Gallery as a public space. Initially, we researched interactive mediums such as 3-dimensional puzzles. As a group, we experimented by building blocks that were in the shapes of each room of the National Gallery, which would be the pieces of the 3D puzzle. After this experimentation we decided to explore a more educational route for the project. We decided to create a board game in which the user goes on a journal through the site and learns new facts about the building from its history, its architecture and various factors that make the building what it is. Essentially, the plan of action is as followed: The board game is made up of the rooms from the floor plan of the gallery – each room is colour-coded. The colours are each connected to a specific category of facts, which are presented in stacks of cards. The facts focus on the information on the space of the museum and are then organised and divided into four sub-categories. What I loved about our group was the ways in which we managed our time and tasks. Each member of the group had a task, so when everyone had contributed to the design and curation of the game, it came together amazingly. A lot of detail went into this: card curation and design, board game rules and design, National Gallery facts and archive research, box design to list a few. Overall, I would definitely say that this has been an enriching experience and I am grateful for being assigned the task with this group.
8