The Barcelona Pavilion: Mies' Building or Political Manifesto?

2016-17

THE BARCELONA PAVILION: Mies’ Building or Political Manifesto?

Lukas Virketis

Lukas Virketis The Barcelona Pavilion: Mies’ Building or Political Manifesto?

Tutor: Constance Lau BA (Hons) Architecture CC3A Extended Essay 2016-17 4ARC630 The Extended Essay is the main piece of course work for Cultural Context in semester 1 of the 3rd year. This was an opportunity for me to work on a subject of my choice and produce an original piece of work, which, as an important piece of work, can really influence the direction of my career as a designer or academic.

University of Westminster, Department of Architecture

The Barcelona Pavilion: Mies’ Building or Political Manifesto?

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract

6

Introduction

8

Pavilion as the Building

10

Pavilion as the Performance

14

Pavilion as the Manifesto

26

Conclusion

30

Bibliography

32

Illustration Credits

33

ABSTRACT

T

he extended essay is a ref lection based on my last year essay, par ticularly my interest in political architecture. To be able to understand the research area on how political meanings and symbols inf luence one or another piece of architecture, this essay examines one of the most significant str uctures of the interwar period, Mies van der Rohe’s Ger man Pavilion, built for the Barcelona Inter national Exposition in 1929. Even though it stood only for seven months before it was dismantled, its g reat inf luence for several g enerations of architects, as well as numerous research about the building’s g enesis reveals complex and limitless architectural inter pretations. Besides the pavilion’s architectural significance, the essay aims to inter pret its actual pur pose through its ar-

6

chitecture, historical and political aspects sur rounding the pavilion. T he research examines the physical elements such as columns, the free-standing walls, fur niture, etc., as well as the e phemeral qualities like transparency and ref lections, thus leading to the main question of the study – was the Barcelona Pavilion designed as a building or rather a political statement?

Primarily, to identify the argument, I had to look at the material and immaterial qualities of the Pavilion, which supposedly would set a discourse for a search of political manifesto. For this reason, the main body of the essay is composed out of three parag raphs – Pa vilion as the Building, Pa vilion as the Perfor mance, and Pa vilion as the Manif esto.

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

Pavilion during construction work.

Mies van der Rohe Archive, the Museum of Modern Art, New York.

7

INTRODUCTION ‘’WE MUST UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVES AND FORCES OF OUR TIME AND ANALYSE THEIR STRUCTURE FROM THREE POINTS OF VIEW: THE MATERIAL, THE FUNCTIONAL, AND THE SPIRITUAL. WE MUST MAKE CLEAR IN WHAT RESPECTS OUR EPOCH DIFFERS FROM OTHERS AND IN WHAT RESPECTS IT IS SIMILAR.’’ 1 - Mies van der Rohe (1938)

T

he Barcelona Pavilion is considered to be one of the most significant structures of the interwar period. Also known as the German Pavilion it was designed for the Barcelona International Exposition of 19292 by the German architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe3. Even though it stood for only seven months before it was dismantled at the end of the exhibition, it was rebuilt on its former site more than fifty years later. After it has been exhaustively studied and interpreted as well as having inspired several generations of architects, existing and new research about the 1929 pavilion’s genesis reveals complex and limitless architectural interpretations, which made the building so relevant in the eyes of its contemporaries. Besides the pavilion’s architectural significance of interesting spatial situations, semi-precious materials, and the luminous play, it also proposed the overall impression of a carefully calibrated composition - its symbolic and political role.

In the years following World War I, Germany began to turn around and the economy started to recover, although its influence and reputation in the region was diminished due to its role in the war as the main initiator of aggression. The Weimar Republic4, which was responsible for the pavilion, was very hesitant to accept the invitation to participate in the World’s Fair in Spain, mostly because of the financial

reasons. However, after postponing the project for a few times, it finally agreed to participate and hired a German industrialist, Georg von Schnitzler, as the General Commissioner who entrusted Mies with the artistic management and erection of the Barcelona Pavilion in less than a year before the opening ceremony. The importance of this project stemmed not barely from its symbolic status within modernist architecture, but more relevantly as a stage set of international diplomacy and an object of an act of statesmanship that was desperately in need.5 Even though the Pavilion itself was only meant to be a German Repräsentationsraum, a word best translated as a space of formal or ceremonial purpose as distinct from utilitarian function,6 the official reception had to place the arrival and inauguration of King Alphonso XIII and Queen Eugenia Victoria of Spain to the exposition. Therefore, the Weimar Republic witnessed an increased politicization of the architectural discourse of the building, due to some of the formal choices that were made by the architect without government’s recognition, which were widely understood as signals of a new political ambition, however, such political intentions did not rely on its predecessors, likewise Prussian Militarism.7 In the late 1920s the Weimar Republic was no longer revolutionary and hopes for a new and better world had dimmed. For this reason, Germany’s symbolic

Inaugural speech as director of the ITT, 20 November 1938, manuscript, LC, published in: Fritz Neumeyer, Mies van der Rohe, das Kunstlose Wor t: Gedanken zur Baukunst, op. cit., pp. 380-81. Translation: Fritz Neumeyer, T he Ar tless Word, op. cit., p. 317 (in Philip Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, (London: Secker and Warburg, 1978), p. 199).

2 1929 Barcelona Inter national Exposition (20 May 1929 – 15 Januar y 1930) – a second World Fair, held in Barcelona, Spain. 20 European nations par ticipated in the exposition which called for a g reat deal of urban development within the city, and became a testing-g round for the new architectural styles developed in the early 20th centur y.

3 Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (1886-1969) – a Ger man-bor n architect and educator, widely acknowledg ed as one of the 20th centur y’s g reatest architects. By emphasizing open space and revealing the industrial materials used in constr uction, he helped define moder n architecture.

4 Weimar Re public – an official historical designation for the Ger man state between 1919 and 1933.

5 Jonathan Hill, Occupying Architecture: Between the Architect and the User, (London: Routledg e, 1998), p. 103 6 Franz Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biog raphy (Chicag o; London: University of Chicag o press, 1985), p. 153 7 Pr ussian Militarism – highly centralized and militarized regime of the Ger man Empire in the 19th and 20th centuries, followed by ag g ressive policies which provoked the First World War. 1

8

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

and economic intentions,8 as noted by the General Commissioner, Georg von Schnitzler, had to represent the new democratic nation and its ‘’desire to be absolutely truthful, giving voice to the spirit of a new era.’’9 Along with its material qualities, the paper tends to explore the ephemeral properties of the pavilion which would eventually lead the study towards the political statement and its embodiment in the structure. Such approach claims the existence of three architectural entities, the material, the immaterial and the manifestational, within a single project of the 1929 Barcelona Pavilion. However, since the reconstruction of the building, many have questioned the authenticity of the rebuilt structure. According

to Walter Benjamin’s essay on The Work of Art in The Era of Technical Reproducibility, where he argues the fact that art, when reproduced, loses its aura, in other words authenticity, ‘’even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space.’’10 Although the 1929 pavilion no longer exists, its material and ephemeral qualities are tied back to the magazine images (original black and white photographs, montages, technical drawings and sketches made by Mies), while the idea of the manifesto itself, implemented by the various critics, remained in a number of publications and textbooks up to this day.11 For the reason to argue that the pavilion was a political manifesto rather than a building, the study will be based on the limited archival information of the 1929 Barcelona Pavilion.

Departure of the King and Queen of Spain from Barcelona Exposition’s opening ceremony (Mies in top hat centre right, striding away from pavilion).

Mies van der Rohe Archive, the Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Terence Riley, Bar r y Bergdoll, Mies in Berlin (New York: Museum of Moder n Ar t, 2001), p. 236 Walter Benjamin, T he Work of Ar t in the Ag e of Mechanical Re production, (Cambridg e: Har vard University Press, 2008), p. 25 B. Colomina, ‘Double Exposure: Alteration to a Suburban House (1978)’, in, B. Pelzer, M. Francis and B. Colomina, Dan Graham (London, Phaidon Press Ltd., 2001), p. 85 8 Ger many knew about the potential new markets in Spain and Americas, thus the successful adver tisement of a newly democratic countr y through a pavilion would act as a socio-political framework.

9

10 11

9

PAVILION AS THE BUILDING ‘’CREATE FORM OUT OF THE NATURE OF THE TASK WITH THE MEANS OF OUR TIME. THIS IS OUR WORK.’’ 12 - Mies van der Rohe (1923)

W

hile other nations of the exposition worked hard to show what they were made of through rich and eclectic displays of art and design, the Weimar Germany chose to represent itself through four varieties of stone, tinted glass, and chromed metal - its minimalist pavilion alone.

The erection of the pavilion took place on the west end of the transverse axis of the Grand central plaza where it was crossed at halfway point by the main axis of the Barcelona fair grounds, culminating in the domed Palau National (National Palace).

Flanked mainly by exposition pavilions, the grounds

View of principal façade of the Barcelona Pavilion from the street, with German flag and the Palau de Victoria Eugenia in the background. 1929. 16.3 x 22.4 cm.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

12

10

Philip Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, (London: Secker and Warburg, 1978), p. 189

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

itself were located on the hill known as Montjuich and were arranged in a classical Beaux-Art13 manner.

While the back of the German Pavilion was linked with Pueblo Español (Spanish Village) through a gentle slope covered with shrubs and the south side, where a massive wall of the palace of Alfonso XIII acted as the background, the front of the building appeared to be perpendicular to the plaza. However, its classical arrangement was opposed by facing another pavilion (representing the city of Barcelona) in the distant far end, through past formal composition of trees, fountains, and freestanding classical columns.

It was achieved by designing a pavilion, longer on its front than on its sides, and raised on a high plinth, which visually and physically blocked the front and back profiles of the narrow site.14 The building itself was mainly constructed out of various types of stone. The base and its principal walls were executed in slabs of Roman Travertine.

While the pavers was laid in square slabs measuring roughly 1.10 x 1.10 meters, the vertical walls had a double dimension of approximately 2.20 x 1.10 meters. This allowed to base the pavilion’s design on a formulaic grid system which was not only used for travertine paving, but also as the framework that the partition systems worked within. The free standing wall by the main access staircase at the entrance to the interior of the pavilion was of green marble from Tinos, while the long, three-segmented wall which enclosed the outer part of the small pool was of green Alpine marble. However, the most precious stone wall, the Onyx Dore, which was a central wall on the basis of four pieces for each face.15 Together with the several types of stone, we have to consider the sheets of glass of different colours and grand dimensions used in the building’s plate glass walls: clear, bottle green, mouse grey and milky white. The last one contained a light source within its double panels.16

As far as the loadbearing structures of the walls and two planes of the roof are connected, these were based on a framework of standard-section laminated steel beams. The X-sectioned shape forming a cross constituted the system defining the eight chrome-plated columns bearing up the roof of the Pavilion.17 The only furniture that existed in the Pavilion was a pair of metal-framed lounge chairs and a number of ottoman stools with a table in-between. The ivory-coloured pigskin was attached on the seats and back of the chairs, while the table bore the king’s golden book. Specifically designed by Mies van der Rohe for the occasion, the furniture was placed in front of the onyx wall on a black rug and next to the red silk curtains in central areas of the pavilion.18 There were two pools in the pavilion. The large pool which was more open and exposed, and a more enclosed smaller pond. The basis of these ponds was covered with boulders (small stones). The large pool was planted with water lilies, while the smaller pond contained the only solitary figurative element that existed in the pavilion - a bronze sculpture by Georg Kolbe, entitled Alba (the Dawn), that Mies positioned it in the corner of the pond.19 The main physical objects being only steel columns and independent rectangular planes placed vertically as walls or horizontally as roofs, while the only decorative elements besides the richness of materials being two rectangular pools and a statue, as well as prestigious furniture specifically designed for the building, defines the material qualities of the building which are disposed in a such a way that they become inseparable components, in order to understand the immaterial and symbolical side of the pavilion.

Beaux-Ar ts – a theatrical and heavily or namented neoclassical architectural style.

Franz Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biog raphy (Chicag o; London: University of Chicag o press, 1985), p. 154 I. Solà Morales, C. Circi and F. Ramos, Mies van der Rohe: Barcelona Pavilion (Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993), 16 I. Solà Morales, C. Circi and F. Ramos, Mies van der Rohe: Barcelona Pavilion (Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993), 17 I. Solà Morales, C. Circi and F. Ramos, Mies van der Rohe: Barcelona Pavilion (Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993), 18 I. Solà Morales, C. Circi and F. Ramos, Mies van der Rohe: Barcelona Pavilion (Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993), 19 I. Solà Morales, C. Circi and F. Ramos, Mies van der Rohe: Barcelona Pavilion (Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993), pp. 19-20 13 14 15

p. p. p. p.

13 14 15 18

11

Pavilion as the Building

Aerial view of the exposition grounds from the north. 1. The Barcelona Pavilion; 2. Site originally set aside for the Pavilion; 3. The French Pavilion; 4. Alfonso XIII Palace; 5. National Palace; 6. Pavilion of the City of Barcelona; 7. Location of the remaining national pavilions. The ‘Spanish Village’ lies outside the frame of the photograph to the west of the German Pavilion.

Mies van der Rohe Archive, the Museum of Modern Art, New York.

12

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

13

PAVILION AS THE PERFORMANCE ‘’LESS IS MORE.’’ 20 - Mies van der Rohe (1947)

M

ies has always been guided by his personal motto, ‘’less is more,’’ Such concept also appears in his design of the pavilion, which tends to be simple, at the same time it introduces complexity within the used materials, which enriches the physical side of the building with the theatrical vistas of transparency, layers of spatial

depth using reflective materials, illumination of stone and water surfaces through daylight, etc., creating a composition of ephemeral qualities.21 Ephemeral22 architecture can be achieved either through nature or using human actors to set a specific temporary scene of the performance.23 It com-

Drawing by Mies Van der Rohe showing the interior perspective of the Barcelona Pavilion. Pencil and conte crayon on drawing board, 99.1 x 130.2 cm.

Mies van der Rohe Archive, the Museum of Modern Art, New York.

20 21 22 23

14

Philip Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, (London: Secker and Warburg, 1978), p. 189 Philip Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, (London: Secker and Warburg, 1978), p. 60 Ephemeral – lasting for a ver y shor time; shor t-lived; transitor y or momentar y.

Brian D. Chappel, ‘Ephemeral Architecture: Towards a Definition’ (unpublished PhD thesis, 2005).

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

View from street.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

bines both spatial and visual perception of the built environment, thus creating poetical plays which might embody symbolic values or politically engaging messages.24

its canonical relationship of three elements: stylobate (horizontally-oriented podium), cella (the inner chamber), and peristyle (perforations) covered with the flat-roofed structure.27

The performance of the pavilion begins within its placement, as it was surrounded by its greenery, the tall back wall of the palace, and the line of ionic columns, which accentuated its horizontality and dominance in its long approach bedded into a narrow slope.25 ‘’[It appears] virtually obvious,’’ wrote the critic Walter Genzmer, ‘’that the main orientation of the pavilion should be perpendicular to the palace wall, that in contrast to the considerable height of that wall the pavilion be quite low, and that in contrast to the calm unbroken surface of the wall it be kept open and airy.’’26 Seen from its axial approach, it was perceived as an isolated stage between those barriers and the spectator, therefore resembled the architecture of the Doric temple, because of

To anyone who was approaching there was no sign of entry, because the platform acted as a continuous plinth thus hiding the stairs to the pavilion. The visitors were not meant to be led in a straight line through the building, but rather to take continuous turnabouts: ‘’no matter how he visited the pavilion and even if he passed the central space, he was obliged to describe a circuitous route.’’28 Instead of giving the walls a structural function, these were separated in order to show their role as purely those of enclosure and spatial division which created space and also directed visitor’s movements. As the roof was independent of the walls, it was part of the columns’ purpose to hold it up. However, the row of slender columns resembled more of the ‘’ceremonial

Renato Cesar F. Souza, ‘Ephemeral Spaces’ (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, unpublished PhD thesis).

Franz Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biog raphy (Chicag o; London: University of Chicag o press, 1985), pp. 154-55 Walther Genzmer, ‘’Der deutsche Reichspavillon auf der inter nationalen Ausstellung Barcelona,’’ Die Baugilde 11 (25 October 1929) pp. 1654-57 27 Jose p Quetglas, Fear of Glass: T he Barcelona Pavilion, in B.Colomina (ed.) Architecture production (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988), p. 125 28 Franz Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biog raphy (Chicag o; London: University of Chicag o press, 1985), p. 156 24 25 26

15

Pavilion as the Performance

guards attending the sarabande of the wall planes’’29, as Mies intended to express the ordered structure, through the contention of objective and subjective orders which was held in balance.30 The various reflective and transparent finishes, such as walls and glass, established oppositions and interplays with each other by enclosing the limits of a single space.31 While the glass panels drawn the continuous outer boundary, they also declared reflectiveness and transparency, which confused the spectator, as he was able to see himself standing outside the pavilion within the reflected surroundings, at the same time find himself lurking inside of it.32 But as soon as the viewer entered the pavilion, his previous

perception have changed, and the solid marbles now appeared transparent due to the high specular reflectance. Such visual transformation during the experience allowed to discover and rediscover the same space in a different way, offering new details and perspective views that previously were invisible. If we include the reflective chromed steel frame of the windows and the chromed steel cruciform columns, which makes them nearly transparent through its surfaces, this propagates the sensation of the floating roof, which freed the interior to allow an open floor plan and formed an exceptional impression of the pavilion that was at the same time substantial and ethereal.

View from office annex. Barcelona Pavilion with interior space in distance.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

Franz Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biog raphy (Chicag o; London: University of Chicag o press, 1985), pp. 155-6 Franz Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biog raphy (Chicag o; London: University of Chicag o press, 1985), p. 158 I. Solà Morales, C. Circi and F. Ramos, Mies van der Rohe: Barcelona Pavilion (Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993), p. 14 32 B. Colomina, ‘Double Exposure: Alteration to a Suburban House (1978)’, in, B. Pelzer, M. Francis and B. Colomina, Dan Graham (London, Phaidon Press Ltd., 2001) p. 84 29 30 31

16

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

View of main entrance area (north side) with doors removed. 1929.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

17

Pavilion as the Performance

View towards office annex and the route to the Spanish Village on the right.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

18

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

Interior of the Barcelona Pavilion.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

View of secondary entrance looking toward attendants’ lodge. 1929. Gelatin silver photograph, 16 x 22.3 cm.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

19

Pavilion as the Performance

The gleaming walls, offset from a travertine plinth, created subtle spatial illusions of the territorial demarcation, transforming the pavilion into one continuous entity rather than separate volumes. Furthermore, the building seemed to be merged with its natural surroundings through the polished stone, glass and water which produced shimmering and sparkling effects when illuminated by the sunlight, moonlight and artificial lighting. The ponds were designed to contrast each other, as the larger one was open and airy, and its surface was continually ruffled by the wind, while the smaller pool, which was enclosed by the tall walls of stone, controlling

the amount of daylight, created a dark and gloomy space, distant from any kind of natural vitalism.33 Such reflective ability of the water in the pools juxtaposed mirrors, allowing light to filter through and supplement the interior volume, illuminating the marble and travertine pavers. The water reflections, seen on the interior walls and underside of the roof, combined with the breeze, circulating throughout the rooms of the pavilion, made it difficult to define interior from exterior. As architectural theorist Jose Quetglas has asked, ‘’could it be that the pavilion has no interior, or that its interior is an exterior?’’34

View from the edge of the large pool.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

I. Solà Morales, C. Circi and F. Ramos, Mies van der Rohe: Barcelona Pavilion (Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993), p. 19 Jose p Quetglas, Fear of Glass: T he Barcelona Pavilion, in B.Colomina (ed.) Architecture production (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988) pp. 128-31 33 34

20

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

Small pool with sculpture in the Barcelona Pavilion.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

21

Pavilion as the Performance

Small pool with sculpture.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

22

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

The daylight illumination played a very important role towards the sculpture, which was reflected in water, travertine and marble, giving the feeling of multiplication in space and contrasting curved lines with geometric clarity of the building. Moreover, the statue of a woman was in a position to block the morning’s sunlight with its arms creating a theatrical action within the static planes of reflections.

At night, the only illumination was a milky-white glass wall lit with fluorescent light from within.35 Enclosed from the visitor, it declared itself as the heart of the pavilion through radiating the mystical God-

like essence and at the same time its nonexistence (as there was no access to it).36 The room next to it, where the furniture was placed, was marked and protected from the visitor through the scarlet curtain and the black carpet, as it was intended to accommodate the Spanish Royalty.37 The form of the chairs and stools was designed as a royal throne, because it was inspired by the Ancient Roman folding chairs as the Curule seat – upholstered stools used by Roman aristocracy. Such combination of furniture and materials created a ritualistic or sacred space inside the building.

View of secondary entrance from garden (west side) with illuminated light-wall. 1929. Gelatin silver photograph, 16 x 22.6 cm.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

Franz Jose p tectural 37 Franz 35 36

Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biog raphy (Chicag o; London: University of Chicag o press, 1985), p. 156 Quetglas, Fear of Glass: T he Barcelona Pavilion, in B.Colomina (ed.) Architecture production (New York: Princeton ArchiPress, 1988) pp. 144-5 Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biog raphy (Chicag o; London: University of Chicag o press, 1985), pp. 156-9

23

Pavilion as the Performance

We begin to understand that Mies’ creation can be described not so much as in the modern materials, but as in the radical manner of their combination in order to achieve a harmonious play of light, including propagation-reflection, transmission, diffusion, emission and refraction.

Essentially, the stage, on which the described performance took place, loses its boundaries and the visitor becomes part of the performance needed to execute the immateriality of the pavilion. Together with the material, the ephemeral qualities are what give the Pavilion its true architectural essence which reveals political manifesto that the structure embodied.

Barcelona Chair, 1929.

Mies van der Rohe Archive, the Museum of Modern Art, New York. Gift of Knoll Associate, Inc., U.S.A.

24

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

Interior.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

Interior.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

25

PAVILION AS THE MANIFESTO ‘’ARCHITECTURE IS THE WILL OF AN EPOCH TRANSLATED INTO SPACE.’’ 38 - Mies van der Rohe (1923)

O

swald Spengler in his two volume books The Decline of the West, very popular amongst architects at the time after the First World War, presented architecture as the main indicator of the nation’s culture. The author stated that the greatest cultures and civilizations of the world had their very own and fundamental driving philosophy – their ‘Destiny Idea’ which was most visible in the ways those nations understood and managed the space, in other words architectural composition and planning of their buildings.39 Many architects were influenced by the powerful Spengler’s arguments. And Mies himself wrote in 1924, ‘’Greek temples, Roman basilicas and medieval cathedrals are significant to us as creations of a whole epoch rather than as works of individual architects… Their true meaning is that they are symbols of their epoch.

Architecture is the will of the epoch translated into space.’’40 This suggests the argument of the Barcelona Pavilion being a political manifesto translated in architectural form. The manifesto of the pavilion is related to how Western civilisation, and particularly Weimar Republic, could have achieve the ‘Destiny Idea’ through its expression of space in architecture, as it had been striving for the period after WWI. Whether or not that political ambition was ever met, the impact made by the Barcelona Pavilion on the following generations of architects shaped their design strategies, as the pavilion stood as an example of fluid spatial composition as well as minimalist detailing using highly finished materials, but most importantly - as an example of how an individual architect can propagate ideas, through the medium of architecture, that pursue philosophical suggestions.41 Mies van der Rohe set intentions to aspire the ‘Destiny Idea’ of a new political discourse of the new age

German Republic, through filling up the design of the pavilion with political meaning. I will analyse previously mentioned physical and ephemeral elements and their compositions of the pavilion, however, this time examining them through a political lens.

Mies’ first considerations and formative decisions of the pavilion have started with its siting –‘’a critical decision for this contextual, site-dependent building.’’42 Initially scheduled to build the structure on the main passage of the exposition site, across the axis from the French pavilion,43 the architect negotiated to choose a particular site in preference to the one originally offered by the Spanish authorities, because it did not include a clear axial layout. The site he did choose was advantageous in respect of a very clear axis, sliding in between two existing elements of the symmetrical scenery: a screen of Ionic columns in front, and a flight of steps behind.44 The reason for this was his vision to incorporate the site as part of the overall composition of the pavilion, as the site he chose had the qualities he needed.45 Nevertheless, the composition of the building itself was asymmetrical: the platform was not centred on the axis of the Gran Plaza, neither the access to it, as the stairs were situated avoiding the axis. Such decision when the pavilion did not follow the authority of the axis had to be related to the site not through similarities, but odds with it. Under these circumstances the asymmetry had to be considered aggressive, not accommodating.46 On the other hand, according to J. P. Bonta, at that time the pavilion’s asymmetry was associated with the conciliatory political stance of the Weimar Republic.47 The pavilion, read as a metaphor for nation’s penalty of causing the conflict in Europe, was transformed

Philip Johnson, Mies van der Rohe (1947, 1953), (London: Secker and Warburg, 1978), p. 188 Oswald Spengler, T he Decline of the West (London: Georg e Allen & Unwin, 1932) Philip Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, (London: Secker and Warburg, 1978), p. 191 41 Simon Unwin, Twenty Buildings Ever y Architect Should Understand, (London: Routledg e, 2010), p. 26 42 Terence Riley, Bar r y Bergdoll, Mies in Berlin (New York: Museum of Moder n Ar t, 2001), p. 236 43 Franz Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biog raphy (Chicag o; London: University of Chicag o press, 1985), p. 154 44 Robin Evans, ‘Mies van der Rohe’s Paradoxical Symmetries’, AA files, no. 19, Spring (1990), p. 56 45 Simon Unwin, Twenty Buildings Ever y Architect Should Understand, (London: Routledg e, 2010), p. 27 46 Robin Evans, ‘Mies van der Rohe’s Paradoxical Symmetries’, AA files, no. 19, Spring (1990), p. 57 47 Juan Pablo Bonta, Architecture and its Inter pretations: A Study of Expressive Systems in Architecture (London: Lund Humphries Publishers Ltd., 1979), pp. 131-224 38 39 40

26

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

into something associated with humiliation, or rather into a thing of disarming beauty. Robin Evans, in her essay, describes the pavilion as the architecture of forgetting, because disarming beauty of the pavilion, arising from the combination of material and immaterial qualities, creates a distraction which helped Mies forget politics and violence caused in WWI by German Empire. It becomes clear that the pavilion tries to soothe a troubled conscience by displacing it. This is how ‘’the Weimar Republic’s stance of conciliation towards the other nations of Europe was expressed in a violent repudiation of symmetry, because symmetry was an architectural convention associated with imperiousness, authority, and national aggrandizement.’’48 Jose Quetglas in his essay ‘Fear of Glass’ states that the Pavilion was supposed to represent the new remodelled Germany: peaceful, prosperous, culturally productive, and international-minded society;49 a self-portrait through architecture after a decade of the Treaty of Versailles50 and the carnage of WWI. And this seems to be evident, as Mies even refused to put the German eagle on the green marble wall facing the axis, as well as keeping the structure absent from any national insignia, suggesting his apolitical stance,51 or at least having no relation or political indoctrination through symbols of Prussian militarism or uprising Nazism, which eventually takes power in the following years.52

Because the pavilion was absent from a traditional programme, it ‘’became an exhibit about exhibition.

All it exhibited was a new way of looking.’54

The rejection of axial symmetry, not only as a symbol of authoritarianism, but also as a key characteristic of neo-classical architecture (which was prominent throughout exposition buildings), was crucial to project the pavilion as the new, modern Germany, contrast to the old one. The pavilion also discards the traditional way of constructing the building, which can be observed in the reconstructed folk architecture in the Pueblo Español located nearby. In contrast to the traditional house, the Barcelona Pavilion did not portrayed itself in a clear and unambiguous structure and construction, as it was more of a visual confusion caused by whether the columns or the walls are supporting the roof – ‘’they are not both necessary; either could support the roof alone.’’53

Reflection in the Barcelona Pavilion, as an ephemeral quality, is one of the crucial elements in describing the political manifestations throughout the building. Reflections confuse user’s visual experience and makes it complex through overlapped images on reflective surfaces. It is also crucial to mention that they, as stated by Robin Evans in ‘Mies van der Rohe’s Paradoxical Symmetries’ present symmetries that are not evident in the pavilion’s structural arrangement.58 However, the majority of symmetries in the Barcelona Pavilion are literal as they can only be seen through central axis where mirrored vertical and horizontal planes of reflective stone, glass and water meets. Thus reflective surfaces recreates the space and its value from the interior of the other

Such a ‘new way of looking’ can also be observed in the main space of the pavilion, which is also referred as the centre of it. Visually it was defined by the carpet that marked the place of honour in front of the two chairs, thrones of the king and queen of Spain in the inauguration ceremony, while to the right the onyx wall, to the left, by the full-height window, was the curtain mounted behind the glass. Mies decided to distribute them over three separate planes, employing the different colours for the symbolical meaning. It is a composition of the red curtain and black carpet, which combined with the golden onyx wall, made the colours of the national German flag.55 Moreover, the placement of the chairs worked as a throne, and the table in between would have been an altar against the wall on its central axis which clearly identified the ritual space.56 The set scene of inauguration of the monarchy is represented through symmetry, which, again, was associated with the authority. Most likely, Mies’ idea was to use the furniture with symbolical means, such as one found in antiquity, in order to create an opposition between the concept of monarchy and the antimonarchic left government of Berlin.57

Robin Evans, ‘Mies van der Rohe’s Paradoxical Symmetries’, AA files, no. 19, Spring (1990), p. 57 Franz Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biog raphy (Chicag o; London: University of Chicag o press, 1985), p. 152 Treaty of Versailles - the peace treaty signed by the Allies and Ger many at the end of the First World War, on 28 June 1919.

51 Georg e Dodds, Building Desire: On the Barcelona Pavilion (London: Routledg e, 2005), p. 25 52 After the economic de pression, caused by the collapse of the American Stock Exchang e in 1929, the Nazi par ty g athered enough electoral suppor t to become the larg est par ty in the Reichstag and by the 1933 Hitler legitimately became the chancellor and later a dictator.

53 Simon Unwin, Twenty Buildings Ever y Architect Should Understand, (London: Routledg e, 2010), p. 34 54 B. Colomina, ‘Double Exposure: Alteration to a Suburban House (1978)’, in, B. Pelzer, M. Francis and B. Colomina, Dan Graham (London, Phaidon Press Ltd., 2001) p. 88 55 Jose p Quetglas, Fear of Glass: T he Barcelona Pavilion, in B.Colomina (ed.) Architecture production (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988) p. 145 56 Juan Pablo Bonta, Architecture and its Inter pretations: A Study of Expressive Systems in Architecture (London: Lund Humphries Publishers Ltd., 1979), p. 208 57 Franz Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biog raphy (Chicag o; London: University of Chicag o press, 1985), p. 160 58 Robin Evans, ‘Mies van der Rohe’s Paradoxical Symmetries’, AA files, no. 19, Spring (1990), p. 65 48 49 50

27

Pavilion as the Manifesto

side of themselves, at the same time being ‘’empty by virtue of being uninhabited.’’59 Jose Quetglas summarises such effect into a statement that the pavilion represents a house without a master. The emptiness of the building and unoccupied chairs demonstrates a house with no ruler, but rather a free man without qualities and property - a pure and liberated subject, freed from materialistic possessions represented through the reflected infinite planes of luxurious walls. He continues that ‘’only in an empty house, occupied by no one, by an inhabitant of absolute neutrality, by an empty inhabitant, a house in which there is nothing left to lose, can richness reveal itself.’’60 This meant to represent Germany’s neutrality, transparency and having no hidden political agenda – ‘’the house without doors, the house of fragile walls that can hide nothing.’’61 In terms of the circulation, the pavilion offers the spectator to uninterruptedly move throughout the whole space by establishing a set of rules for a certain type of movement. It is completely different to the one of Grand Plaza and existing flight of steps, as it forces people to explore the space of the pavilion like a labyrinth with a possibility to choose their own pathway, rather than follow the already established axis.62 This can be seen in the arrangement of walls and windows, which offered the absolute spatial fluidity and the ability to freely circulate through the pavilion. This had to represent the idea of freedom and progress of the New Germany.

The sculpture, standing on a plinth in the small pond and visible in many photographs framed in ‘’doorway’’, provides a focus of attention, and a symbolic representation of ‘the person’ to whom this ’temple’ is dedicated.63 Likewise the new modern German Republic, the Dawn rises up from the pool, as even the statue’s very name suggests such interpretation.64 Although at first the sculpture seems to appear frag-

ile because of its protective stance and shielding her eyes from the sun, the Dawn expresses the notions of illumination and hope, the beginning of a new day and thus a chance for happiness and improvement. Perhaps ‘the beginning of the new day’ was not an easy transition for Weimar Republic after WWI events and that is why the statue is not radiating this light yet, rather crushed and oppressed by the weight of it.65 Sunrise indicates a symbol of birth and rebirth, of awakening. The coming of light, resurrection, as well as the unconscious broadening into consciousness correlates with the democratic aspirations and culturally progressive society. Similarly, the water lilies, that supposedly were planted in the largest pool, are also associated with rebirth, peace, purity and spiritual enlightenment, which can be easily related to the new democratic political discourse that the New German Republic chose.

It becomes clear that Mies’ exceptional approach to architecture, space and circulation suggests the absence of a domestic setting, as one of the architectural critics, Justus Bier, states that the pavilion was ‘’a building without function, or at least without apparent, tangible, or obvious function – a building dedicated to representation.’’66 The ephemeral qualities, such us reflections, transparency and illumination redefined the spaces made by the building’s physical boundaries as well as transformed the experience of them, thus the Barcelona Pavilion ‘’could not have adequately represented a building,’’67 but rather a political manifesto.

The words of Georg von Schnitzler, who was responsible for commissioning the pavilion, perfectly summarized building’s political significance on the opening ceremony: ‘’The hard times that we have gone through have led us to consider simplicity as essential and to reject anything that is not precise as superfluous. To be able to show such simple forms

Jose p Quetglas, Fear of Glass: T he Barcelona Pavilion, in B.Colomina (ed.) Architecture production (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988) p. 143 60 Jose p Quetglas, Fear of Glass: T he Barcelona Pavilion, in B.Colomina (ed.) Architecture production (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988) p. 143 61 Jose p Quetglas, Fear of Glass: T he Barcelona Pavilion, in B.Colomina (ed.) Architecture production (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988) p. 148 62 Simon Unwin, Twenty Buildings Ever y Architect Should Understand, (London: Routledg e, 2010), p. 33 63 Juan Pablo Bonta, Architecture and its Inter pretations: A Study of Expressive Systems in Architecture (London: Lund Humphries Publishers Ltd., 1979), p. 208 64 Terence Riley, Bar r y Bergdoll, Mies in Berlin (New York: Museum of Moder n Ar t, 2001), p. 323 65 Jose p Quetglas, Fear of Glass: T he Barcelona Pavilion, in B.Colomina (ed.) Architecture production (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988) pp. 145-148 66 Phyllis Lamber t, Mies in America (New York: H.N. Abrams, 2001), p. 25 67 Terence Riley, Bar r y Bergdoll, Mies in Berlin (New York: Museum of Moder n Ar t, 2001), p. 344 59

28

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

under the blue sky of your Mediterranean country, amidst its natural beauty, has emboldened us… We wanted to be able to demonstrate what we want, what we can do, who we are, what we feel and see today. We want nothing but clarity, decency, honesty…

Here is the spirit of the New Germany: simplicity and clarity of means and intentions – everything is open, nothing is concealed. It is a piece of work honestly done, without arrogance. This is a quite home of a peaceful Germany.’’68 This concludes the overall

impression of the pavilion which was of a carefully calibrated composition of political demonstration – a new-born state, democratic and peaceful, with a desire to become an equal member among the international community of nations along with its leadership in the world’s economy, technology, culture and arts.69 It was Mies’ artistic expression of the Weimar Republic and its political ideology, as he once said ‘’I don’t want to change the world. I only want to express it. That’s all I want.’’70

View towards Georg Kolbe sculpture, the Dawn, in the small pool of the Barcelona Pavilion.

Berliner Bild-Bericht, Berlin, Germany.

Quoted by L.S.M. (Lilly von Schnitzler), ‘’Die Weltausstellung Barcelona,’’ Der Querschnitt 9 (August 1929), p. 583 Dietrich Neumann, ‘T he Barcelona Pavilion’, in Barcelona and Moder nity: Picasso, Gaudi, Miro, Dali, ed. William H. Robinson, Jordi Falg as, Car men Belen Lord and Josefina Alix Tr ueba (Cleveland, Ohio: Cleveland Museum of Ar t in association with Yale University Press, 2006), p. 391 70 Philip Johnson, Mies van der Rohe (1947, 1953), (London: Secker and Warburg, 1978), p. 188 68 69

29

CONCLUSION

R

egardless of its short life-span, as it had stood for no more than a few months before it was pulled down, the memory of the Barcelona Pavilion lived on, however, only through the black and white photographs. Perceived as the reinterpretation of a Greek/Roman temple, as a picturesque landscape, and as an instrument simultaneously creating and destroying symmetry, the pavilion, after all, reveals itself as the manifestation of political aspirations implemented by the architect.

While the Barcelona Pavilion remains arguably the only constructed political manifesto in the known history, there were many other architectural attempts to embody the political message of the time, however, none of these have ever been actually realised.

For example, Tatlin’s Tower,71 as the headquarters and monument of the Comintern after Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, had to represent the aspirations of its originating country and a challenge to the Eiffel Tower as the foremost symbol of modernity. Similarly, the Russian avant-garde artist and architect, El Lissitzky72 and his designed Wolkenbügel (the Cloudiron), a unique horizontal skyscraper for Moscow, meant to work as a propaganda design for a vivid contradiction to America’s vertical building style trend at the time. Although, invested with a similar type of political ideals, the German Pavilion, was unique in that it could transmit political intentions to people of different times, cultures and interests,

and do so in ways other art forms could not. This contributed in strengthening and allowing full experience of the ideas embodied into a physical form.

Nevertheless, according to Robin Evans, ‘’buildings are not always better than pictures show them to be, nor are they necessarily more significant than the theories that spring up around them,’’73 because buildings are able to distract the visitor from the purity of the physical conviction of the manifesto, as one is capable of examining the building’s flaws that are unavoidable when turning drawings into buildings, or not fully experiencing the presumed manifestation as it could have been highly exaggerated before it was actually realised. Despite that, its scrupulous reconstruction, completed in 1986, had added a new dimension to the modern perception of the building,74 thus diluting the original intentions of the architecture, as it was meant to serve as the representation of a specific time of the history, in Mies’ words – the will of the epoch: ‘’one cannot walk forward while looking backward, and one cannot be the instrument of the will of the epoch if one lives in the past.’’75 And because the 1929 pavilion theoretically still exists as the original piece of work, even though it was dismantled, architectural theories of Walter Benjamin concludes, that the 1986 replica does not maintain the authenticity of the original political manifesto as its not valid any more.

Vladimir Yevg raphovich Tatlin (1885-1953) – a Russian painter and architect, one of the most impor tant figures in the Soviet avant-g arde ar t movement of the 1920s. He is famous for his design for T he Monument of the T hird Inter national, more commonly known as Tatlin’s Tower, which he beg an in 1919.

72 Lazar Markovich Lissitzk y (1890-1941) – a Russian ar tist and architect, an impor tant figure of the Russian avant-g arde, suprematism, and propag anda of the Soviet Union.

73 Robin Evans, ‘Mies van der Rohe’s Paradoxical Symmetries’, AA files, no. 19, Spring (1990), p. 56 74 Jean-Louis Cohen, Mies van der Rohe (London: Spon, 1995), p.52 75 Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, ‘Building Ar t and the Will of the Epoch’, published in Der Querschnitt, 4, no 1 (1924), pp.31–32; translated in Fritz Neumeyer, T he Ar tless Word, Mies van der Rohe on T he Building Ar t (Cambridg e, Mass./London, T he MIT Press, 1991), p. 245.

71

30

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

Drawing of Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion exploded into three architectural qualities (material, immaterial, and manifesto), illustrating the Pavilion as the Building, Pavilion as the Performance, and Pavilion as the Manifesto.

Personal drawing (exploded axonometric).

31

BIBLIOGRAPHY Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008) Terence Riley, Barry Bergdoll, Mies in Berlin (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2001) Phyllis Lambert, Mies in America (New York: H.N. Abrams, 2001) Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1932) Jonathan Hill, Occupying Architecture: Between the Architect and the User, (London: Routledge, 1998) Franz Schulze, Mies van der Rohe: a critical biography (Chicago; London: University of Chicago press, 1985) Jean-Louis Cohen, Mies van der Rohe (London: Spon, 1995) Philip Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, (London: Secker and Warburg, 1978) George Dodds, Building Desire: On the Barcelona Pavilion (London: Routledge, 2005) Josep Quetglas, Fear of Glass: The Barcelona Pavilion, in B.Colomina (ed.) Architectureproduction (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988) J. P. Bonta, Architecture and Its Interpretation: A Study of Expressive Systems in Architecture (London, Lund Humphries Publishers Ltd., 1979) Simon Unwin, Twenty Buildings Every Architect Should Understand, (London: Routledge, 2010) I. Solà Morales, C. Circi and F. Ramos, Mies van der Rohe: Barcelona Pavilion (Barcelona, Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1993) B. Colomina, ‘Double Exposure: Alteration to a Suburban House (1978)’, in, B. Pelzer, M. Francis and B. Colomina, Dan Graham (London, Phaidon Press Ltd., 2001) R. Evans, ‘Mies van der Rohe’s Paradoxical Symmetries’, AA Files, no. 19, Spring (1990) W. Tegethoff, Mies van de Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses, W. Dyckes, ed., R. M. Stockman, trans., (New York, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1985) Dietrich Neumann, ‘The Barcelona Pavilion’, in Barcelona and Modernity: Picasso, Gaudi, Miro, Dali, ed. William H. Robinson, Jordi Falgas, Carmen Belen Lord and Josefina Alix Trueba (Cleveland, Ohio: Cleveland Museum of Art in association with Yale University Press, 2006) Dietrich Neumann, ‘The House That Mies Built: A luminous architectural gem becomes a black box for political fantasy’, The Berlin Journal, n. 25 (Fall 2013) Ioana Vierita, ‘Mies van der Rohe and Montage: Influence and Relevance’ (London: University of Westminster, unpublished essay) Brian D. Chappel, ‘Ephemeral Architecture: Towards a Definition’ (unpublished PhD thesis, 2005) Renato Cesar F. Souza, ‘Ephemeral Spaces’ (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, unpublished PhD thesis) Lecture by Dietrich Neumann ‘Politics and Architecture: Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in the Context of Weimar Germany’, American Academy in Berlin (http://www.americanacademy.de/home/program/past/politics-and-architecture-ludwig-mies-van-der-rohe-context-weimar-germany)

32

CC3A | Lukas Virketis

ILLUSTRATION CREDITS All photographs and illustrations are from The Mies van der Rohe Archive in The Museum of Modern Art (New York), which owns a large collection of original photographs used in this essay, with the exception of the following: Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Kunstbibliothek (Berlin) and Berliner Bildbercht (Berlin).

33