Alma Siedhoff Buscher and the Shipbuilding Blocks by Yuhua

Alma Siedhoff Buscher and the Shibuilding Game

Alma Siedhoff Buscher and the Bauhaus Shipbuilding Blocks

Yuhua Lee 170665807

A dissertation submitted for the degree of BA in Architecture, Newcastle University Tutor | Elizabeth Baldwin Gray January 2020

Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank Elizabeth Baldwin Gray for her expertise and guidance throughout the process of writing this dissertation. I am tremendously fortunate for her support. In addition to this, I would also like to thank my sister, Lauren Lee for her consultation. My thanks and appreciation also goes to my son, Wolfe Lee who has been supportive and thoughtful.

Abstract The Bauhaus (1919 – 1933) (Fig.1) was an art school that sought to bring arts and crafts as a whole unity, offering a new way to design based on form, function and simplicity, director of the school, Walter Gropius (1883 – 1969) (Fig.2) not only sought to change the way art, craft and architecture were taught, however, but also announced his aspiration for gender equality within the school. In his opening speech he stated that ‘there will be no difference between the beautiful and strong sex.’ 1 However, if the Bauhaus women (Fig.4) had such bright future, according to Gropius at the start of the Bauhaus, why were they not as credited as men in the industry during the time of the Bauhaus and after?

This dissertation, however, will not focus on the women weavers but on the Bauhaus toy blocks (Fig.6) which were also designed by a woman, Alma Siedhoff-Buscher (Fig.7) (18991944) (thereafter: Siedhoff-Buscher). Initially, she was placed into the weaving workshop just as the other females but made her way into the wood workshop which was unusual at the time. As she did not receive much recognition for these blocks over the years, this dissertation seeks to examine and acknowledge her work. The most obvious precedent for the toy blocks are the blocks designed by German pedagogue, Friedrich Fröbel, (Fig.9) (1782-1852). Siedhoff-Buscher’s Bauhaus blocks were created around 100 years after the invention of the leading educational Froebel Blocks (Fig.8), I will therefore focus in part on the influence of these Bauhaus toy blocks in response to the Froebel Blocks.

One needs to look no further than the much publicised picture of Gropius’s office to find work by women Bauhäusler: the geometric textile rug and the abstract tapestry that hung in Gropius’s office (Fig.5) were both designed by women: Gunta Stölzl (1897-1983) and Benitta Otte (1892-1976).

Fig.2 Bauhaus director, Walter Gropius

Fig.1 Student of Bauhaus sitting by the window of the school

Fig.3 Bauhaus Masters on the rooftop of the school during the opening of the school in 1926

Fig.4 Life at the Bauhaus Dessau: Students of the weaving class at the window of the Bauhaus canteen, 1927-1929.

Fig.5 Walter Gropius’ director’s office, 1923

Fig.6 (above) Alma Siedhoff-Buscher

Fig.8 (above) Friedrich Froebel Fig.9 (below) Froebelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gifts 1 to 4

Fig.7 (below) Shipbuilding game 1923

Table of Contents

Introduction Chapter I

History of Toy Blocks

1.1 Block as a Tool

Chapter II

The Bauhaus School

2.1 Emergence of Bauhaus 2.2 The Gendered Politics

Chapter III |

Alma Buscher Siedhoff 3.1 Life and Work 3.2 Shipbuilding blocks

Conclusion

Toy Blocks in the Contemporary

List of Figures Bibliography

Introduction When the Bauhaus opened in 1919, it was also when German women gained fundamental political rights in Weimar Germany 2and the right to work in a once ‘male-dominated’ jobs. The school offered a different lifestyle and education in comparison to other schools of that period, to both genders. Arty parties, bob haircuts, painting, chunky jewelry: the women from the legendary art school might have been as liberated as women today (Fig 10 to 13).

In Gropius’ opening speech, he stated that there is ‘no difference between the beautiful and the strong sex’, and there should be not only be ‘absolute equality but also absolutely equal obligation to the work of all craftsmen.’3 Gropius confirmed that both the genders would have equal access to all kinds of crafts alike. However, majority of the women were found in the handweaving workshop, serving the traditional female role (Fig.14&15). As shown in Fig.16, women participation in the weaving workshop is the second largest in the overall attendance.4

As we celebrate the 100th years of the Bauhaus, historians and scholars are analysing a new perspective of the women’s works who helped shaped the school. Elizabeth Otto and Patrick Rössler, authors of “Bauhaus Women: A Global Perspective” (2019), appraised the works of 45 Bauhaus female students. The study by author Anja Baumhoff, “The Gendered World of Bauhaus” (2001), delved into the power, politics and structure of the Bauhaus school.

When Siedhoff-Buscher began her education in the Bauhaus, she was assigned to the weaving workshop along with the majority of the women who studied there. With the support of the woodworking workshop masters, Georg Muche (1895-1987) and Josef Hartwig (18801955), she joined the ‘men’s department’ (wood workshop), which was quite unusual at that time.

Fig. 10 Women of Bauhaus

Fig. 11 Group photo of Gunta Stölzl’s (in tie) weaving class from around 1927

Fig.12 - Walter Peterhans, Margaret Leiteritz with oranges

Fig.13 - Marcel Breuer and his ‘harem’ (from left to right: Marta Erps-Breuer, Katt Both and Ruth Hollos-Consemüller)

Fig.14 - Maria Austria, Kitty van der Mijll Dekker at a loom, 1939.

Fig.15 - Weaving Workshop at the Dessau Bauhaus (1927)

Fig.16 -Workshop Attendance (Count of Individuals) by Gender and Student Status

These blocks, following the rational ideas at that time, present an uncomplicated and plain design. As this realist perception has influenced Siedhoff-Buscher’s on her ideologies on the elimination of fairytales and fables in her designs for children.

As a conventional female artist’s and a devoted member of the latest pedagogical trends, Siedhoff-Buscher shifted her focus from the weaving workshop to predominantly on children. However, she disregarded the belief of fairy tales and fables in her designs for children. She thought that they were ‘an unnecessary burden for a small brain.’ 5 Her toy designs were effortlessly clear and harmonious in their proportions. It features a clean and sleek design which represents the concept of Bauhaus, with bright cheerful colours which enhances amusement in a child.

“We must be a part of all the misery which is coming. We have to surrender our heart and our nerves ... It’s the only course of action which might give purpose to our superfluous and selfish existence (as artists) that we give people a picture of their fate.” - Max Beckmann

The German movement, ‘Neue Sachlichkeit’ (New Objectivity) (Fig.18) which popularised in the 1920s, features a society disenchanted by the havoc after the World War 1, where a group of artists approached art and design in an apathetic realism to the contemporary culture. The ‘Neue Sachlichkeit’ focused on the objective world, as opposed to Expressionism. Upon this realisation, the Bauhaus toy blocks mark a difference from the collection of other toy blocks from the previous times.

Fig.17 - Bauhaus student at the wood workshop 1928

Fig.18 - Max Beckmann, Family Picture (Frankfurt 1920)

This essay will thus begin with the creation of toy blocks in relation to other pedagogues and historians, specifically on the famous toy blocks designed by Fröbel in the 19th century. Fröbel was the founder of the kindergarten and was inspired by child education in a different period, while Siedhoff-Buscher herself was a student from the revolutionary early modernism school. The next chapter focuses on the emergence of Bauhaus. We will delve into the gendered politics as well as brief account of women repression during the period, more specifically, the women of Bauhaus.

Fig.19 (above) – Hans Poelzig’s department store in Breslau, Wraclaw Fig.20 (below) – Fagus Factory, Adolf Meyer and Walter Gropius, 1925

The discussion will be followed by the biography of Alma Siedhoff-Buscher in the third chapter, and her other contributions in children’s designs. This will focus on Bauhaus toy blocks, in relation to other earlier toy blocks made from the 19th century and after. The later chapters further explores anad conclude on the influence and impact these toy blocks has on architecture, and its affect on children of this generation.

Chapter I History of Toy Blocks A set of toy blocks is usually a child’s first toy, besides the soft-toys they owned as an infant. Stacking, re-arranging and toppling over them amuses and entertains them. It encourages children to think creatively while developing skills such as hand-eye coordination, spatial awareness, fine motor and engineering skills (Fig.21&22). The earliest account of toy blocks dates back to the 1600s when English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) introduced the ideas in his essay “Some thoughts concerning education (1693).”6 Locke proposed that children learn better through play, where a dice could be inscribed with alphabets/letters on each side. (Fig.23)

German pedagogue, Friedrich Fröbel (Germany, 1782-1852) is best known for his work on kindergarten and play. Born to a pastor father, he began to grow fond of nature after his mother’s death when he was an infant and was given little attention by his father and step-mother. His teaching on education emphasises the importance of children acquiring special needs and capabilities based on the idea that children perceive the world differently to adults. His principles include interaction with the child (recognising the child as part of the community), engaging with the world with the use of different materials for different stages (an integrated view of each child), encouraging self-discipline and to view each child’s potential rather than failure.

Four-hundred years later, toy blocks are one of the most popular early childhood education toys on the shelves. A nursery would not be complete without a set of building blocks, at the very least. This chapter studies on the history of toy blocks, mainly focusing on the Froebel blocks (Fig.24), the pioneer building blocks.

Fig.21 & 22 - Children playing with Froebelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s blocks in modern day kindergarten.

Fig.23 – Wooden Picture Block Sets

Fig.24 – The original Froebel Blocks

In summary Frobel’s principles focuses on the following three steps in order to achieve quality education: i) mental and physical health of the child ii) the environment of which learning takes place iii) knowledge and understanding the child acquires

Author Irene Lilley further theorised Froebel’s teaching, noting that ‘he uses his own limbs, to represent different things by putting fingers or hands together. Then he tries to express his ideas in solid, tangible objects.’ 8 Therefore, we see that children does not only learn through play, but also as a means of communication and expression.

In his career, Fröbel studied the natural sciences, mathematics and architecture, before becoming a teacher. When Fröbel tutored children, he came across the ideas of Swiss pedagogue and educational reformer, Johann Pestalozzi (1746-1827) and realised that they needed materials (Fig. 25&26) to motivate individual-activity. Fröbel’s philosophical and educational ideas embraced children as humankind in the natural world. He stated that “play is the highest expression of human development in childhood for it alone is the free expression of what is in a child’s soul.” 7 Fröbel regarded that the natural environment of a child has a significant impact on a person flowering their understanding on the unity and harmony of all things. According to him, children construct an understanding of society through direct participation in it.

Fröbel discovered that children re-create play and facilitate the games in what they learned in school or in their daily lives (Fig.27 to 29). Children generally do not choose to play because they have a desire to learn. (Children play because they enjoy it) Play is essential to education and a child’s development because it facilitates opportunities for the child to learn.

Fig.25 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Children discovering the Froebel Gifts sets

Fig.26 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Singaporean kindergarteners playing with the Froebel gifts

Fig.27 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; South Australian children using Froebelian method

Fig.28 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Scottish children using Froebelian method

Fig.29 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Artist in Dundee recreate KAPLA Planks in lifesize scale to explore with pattern and geometry in a three-dimensional space

In “Architecture in Play”, author Tamar Zinguer explained that “Pestalozzi was especially busy with breaking down the two-dimensional world”, 9“but what Fröbel did is break down the three-dimensional world.” Pestalozzi (Fig.30) believed that children would learn better at physical and active learning (e.g. the importance of drawing), while Froebel thought beyond drawing on paper, but rather, play on physical activities and objects.

He introduced ‘The Gifts’ in the 1800s as a special material to promote creative activity to children. The Six Gifts’ were meant to be introduced in a particular order, starting from an infant to a child aged six.

Fröbel encouraged children to explore and play with toys, which was unusual during that period. Before Fröbel opened the first kindergarten in 1840, children under the age of 7 (Fig.31) did not receive education as the society thought that they had no scope to develop emotional and intellectual skills. As Fröbel introduced the use of materials to help with children’s education, which further led to his inventions of educational toys that inspired toy-designers even until today. Sets of toy companies in current day came up with the different types of blocks that merely served the same functions.

Fig.30 – Pestalozzi with the orphan in Stans, painting by Konrad Grob (1879)

Fig.31 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Underprivileged Children receiving education in Adelaide,SA. 1905

As the name suggested, the ‘Gifts’ are to be presented as a gift to a child. For a child of a young age with limited experiences in life, all they will have is the opportunity to play, explore and create, through Fröbel’s framework: explore and create, through Fröbel’s framework: 10

Gift 4: Set of 8 small wooden planks (blocks) (for the 2-3 year old) 8 oblong blocks 2inches by 1, introducing bricks, tiles and steps. A form of fractions Gift 5: Set of wooden blocks that include cubes, planks, and triangles (blocks) (for the 3-4 year old) 21 one-inch cubes, 6 half-cubes, and 12 quarter-cubes.

Gift 1: Set of multi-coloured yarn balls with strings (for the infant) A soft ball with a string shows movements to the infant. Hand and eye co ordination

Gift 6: Set of more complex wooden blocks that include cubes, planks, triangles (blocks) (for the 4-5 year old) 18 oblong blocks, 12 flat square blocks (caps), and 6 narrow columns.

Gift 2: Wooden ball, cylinder, and cube (for the 1-2 year old) Showing differences and similarities in shapes Gift 3: Set of 8 small wooden cubes (blocks) (for the 2-3 year old) The 1 inch cubes, sorting and differentiating. Forms of life include re-arranging them as train tracks, towers or etc.

The system guides the student to perform the Froebelian puzzle of blocks of clay to endless possibilities: to make and unmake specific things based on the structure of a lesson. 11

Fig.32 – Froebel Gifts 1 to 9

Fig.33 – Froebel Gifts

Block as a Tool A child could use these tools to learn to be a good builder, through the form of an imaginary play (Fig.43). The knowledge from building-blocks could also be of use to them as a young professional when they grow up. 13From learning how to stack blocks, to learning the domino-effect of building blocks. Architect Frank Lloyd Wright recalled playing with the Fröbel Blocks as a child when his mother, a nursery teacher, bought them as gifts for him.

Alexandra Lange, in “The Design of Childhood”, described ‘the box’ as merely a “vehicle for building structures – real or imaginary – of increasing complexity.”12 The stacking and toppling of these blocks re-imagines and re-creates different forms and structures through the child’s imagination (Fig.34). An early childhood memory I shared with my cousins was building our very own fort from big parcel boxes. A block or box offers endless creativity to children and helps to develop creative brain activity.

Surely, we could only surmise what Plato implied in his dialogue “The Laws”, paragraph 643 that, “the future builder must play at building…and those who have the care of their education should provide them when young with mimic tools”. 15

As these blocks plays a major part in early childhood activities, it is worth noting that architects Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959) (Fig.35 to 39), Buckminster Fuller (18951983) (Fig.40), Bauhaus painter Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944) and Le Corbusier (18871965) (Fig.41&42), all grew up with Fröbel blocks.

Fig.34 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Stacking of boxes into a fort

Fig.34aâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Froebel Gift 1 , children learn through through holding, dropping, rolling, swinging, hiding, and revealing the balls

Fig.35 – Frank Lloyd’s Wright Larkin Building 1904

Fig.36 – Wright’s Robie House

Fig.37 (above) – Wright’s Robie House re-create in blocks

Fig.38 (left) - In Froebel’s Blocks alteration Fig.39 (below) – Unity Temple built in 1905 – 1908

Fig.40 (above) – Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic domes in reference to Froebel’s Gift no.19 Fig.41 (below) – Le Corbusier’s sketch and urban planning to Froebel’s Gift 10

Fig. 42 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Plan Voisin

To achieve different milestones, children learn by exploring, touching and observing for themselves. It is more enjoyable for children to learn through play, than as a duty to learn which would lower a child’s interest to learn. It was in the 19th century when toys became more popular and were mass-produced when the middle-class parents were eager to invest in their children’s education. 20

In the book, “Exploring Play for Early Childhood Studies”, author Mandy Andrews also noted that “Plato considered play to be important to the establishment of a cultured, creative and artistic society.” 16 A children’s play (blocks) can develop social skills, when engaged with other children, failure and resilience, to gain an understanding of how gravity works with the building blocks. Author Gwen Dewarr wrote in an article that, “cooperative construction play helps children develop social skills.”17 Research suggests that children who work (building blocks) on cooperative projects develop friendliness towards one another.

Swiss philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Swiss, 1712 – 1778) thought that ‘everything is good as it comes from the hands of the Maker of the world but degenerates once it gets into the hands of man.’ 21 He believed that nature is the best way of learning for young children and listed the three things that encourage learning: from nature, to men, and objects. In his book, “Emile” (1762), he described the four stages of education from infancy, childhood, adolescence to a young adult. His theory emphasised on educating a child based on the individuality’s interest and not on the needs of society.

In Locke’s texts of “Some Thoughts”, he proposed that in education, ‘a child’s mind must be educated before he is instructed, that the true purpose of education is the cultivation of the intellect rather than an accumulation of facts.’18 Locke wrote of a father who educated his child by making four wooden blocks stamped with letter of alphabets on each side, one for the vowels and the other three for consonants. 19 The creativity of Locke’s (ideal) father cultivated the love of learning in the child.

Similarly, to Swiss pedagogue Johann Pestalozzi, he expressed the same law as follow: ‘Nature only does us good; she alone leads us to uncorrupted and unshaken to truth and wisdom…Not art, not books but life itself is the true basis of teaching and education.’ 22 Children have the ability to learn from nature and interaction with physical things – so much that some countries today highly encourage outdoor learning. 23

Johann Pestalozzi believed that children grasp better at physical learning rather than through repetition and memorisation. His teaching’s method, modelled after Rosseau’s 1762 “Emile”, outlines his plan on how to educate children, which focussed on grouping students in specific interests rather than in age group. His theory on education assessed the four-stages of child development in accordance with their skills and paces. The first three stages are movements, imitations and dexterity. The final stages revolved around creativity and freedom. 24 Here, as with the aim of this discussion, Pestalozzi emphasises the exploration of toy blocks while at the same time, introducing the discovery of different sets of skills through playing with these blocks.

Fig. 43 - A child discovering and observing the stacking of wooden blocks

Fig. 44 - A child picking up gravels, interacting and learning with nature

Fig. 45 - A Baby at Play, Thomas Eakins 1876

Fig. 48 - Outdoor play in a nursery

Chapter II The Bauhaus School The Bauhaus is arguably the most prominent art school of the 20th century. Although it only lasted for 14 years, it significantly transformed arts and architecture in many forms. The School is most well-known for refining creativity and industry. The aim of Bauhaus was to reunite fine art and functional designs. 25 Director Walter Gropius welcomed a range of workshops including woodworking, painting, pottery, printmaking and etc.26 Although opened to both male and female, it was unconventional for females to attend schools at that time. 27 The education offered to women back then focused on being a good wife or mother. The traditional image of women is to be housewives or domestic helpers in richer families. The female of Bauhaus, or â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Bauhausmadelsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, sought to be different or new to the society, both in terms of education and lifestyle. This chapter seeks to analyse the gendered world of Bauhaus, politically and economically.

Fig.49 Bauhaus School 1919

Fig.50 Bauhaus party at the restaurant Ilmschlรถsschen near Weimar on 29 November, 1924, photo: Louis Held

Emergence of Bauhaus The Bauhaus emerged after the First World war in 1919 and was a rather revolutionary school that changed art history and architecture. Similar to other European movements, like Dadaism, Surrealism, Russian Constructivism and the Dutch De Stijl movement, it was seen as a threat to the conservative Nationalists party at that time. However, the threat was only short-lived, between 1919 to 1933, when it was shut down by the Nazis who were in power. However, the influences of Bauhaus are still highly intact in today’s art and architecture. When Gropius (1883-1969) took over the remains of Weimar Academy of Art and Van de Velde Weimar’s School of Applied Arts, he united it into a single institution. 28 Gropius promoted the Bauhaus as a ‘proliferation of the crafts and industry in the state of Weimar as a result of the re-moulding of the schools in accordance with a craft-oriented, practical approach.’29 He brought together a fusion of fine arts, the decorative arts, architecture and industrial design.

In the Bauhaus manifesto (Fig.55), it was noted that it welcomed “any person of good repute without regard to age or sex.”30 However, the female students of Bauhaus had to be contented in the weaving workshop, regardless of their skills and interests in other areas. Characterised as the most well-known female of Bauhaus, Gunta Stölzl (1897-1983) (Fig.58&59), an affluent weaver, became the only female director of the school. She was then succeeded by Anni Albers (1899-1994) (Fig. 56&57) in 1930, who was also regarded as one of the successful Bauhaus women that made a career for herself. Albers later migrated to the United States and is known for her textile art. Likewise, metal designer, Marianne Brandt, did not have the desire to delve into the weaving workshop along with the other women, she instead went into the metal workshop. Her elegance performance in designing flat teapots marked her spot. However, all these talented women including Alma Siedhoff-Buscher (1899-1944), were not credited as much as their male counterparts.

Fig.51 Our Game. Our Party. Our Work, author: Rudolf Lutz, 1919

Fig. 53 Indefinite Divisibility by Yves Tanguy, (1942)

Fig. 52 The Equivocal Woman (The Teetering Woman) by Max Ernst 1923

Fig. 54 Small Worlds, author: Wassily Kandinsky, 1922.

Fig.55 Bauhaus Manifesto 1919

Fig. 56 Bauhaus students at costume party

Fig. 57 Gunta Stรถlzl

Fig. 58 Marianne Brandt

Fig. 59 Coffee and Tea Set, author: Marianne Brandt, 1924 / photo: Lucia Moholy

Fig. 60 Anni Albers Textile at Black Mountain College, 1937

Fig. 61 Anni Albers, Anni Albers in her weaving studio

Fig. 62 Gertrudâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Artwork

Fig. 63 Gertrud Arndt. Untitled (Masked Self-Portrait, Dessau). 1930

The revolutionary art school was largely dominated by male protagonists (Fig.65). In the earlier days of Bauhaus in Dessau, there were a number of 84 women and 79 men. To keep the school’s repute from the public, Gropius decided to reduce the number of women. He asummed that the society might not take the school seriously, where the faces of female would weaken its reputation. Design curator and author of the book “Women Design”, Libby Sellers, noted that Gropius was “fearful of the impact women might have on the school’s professional reputation with industry, not only did Gropius subsequently place restrictions on the number of women permitted entry, but the increasingly reduced few were directed towards what was deemed more suitably feminine subjects, such as fine art, ceramics and weaving.”31

Gropius thought that women can only work in two-dimensions while men can grapple three.32 He believed that men were more intellectual and creative than women however, when the Bauhaus Haus am Horn exhibition took place in 1923 the weaving work produced by the women was more profitable and successful. It was also that case with the children’s furniture produced by Siedhoff-Buscher. Gropius’s expression about equality abstained from the ‘powerful sexes’ (Fig.70) of the school. 33 The ideas of gender were later reviewed by the teaching of the late Enlightenment by Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and further support by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) on the approach of modernism: man was the intelligent bearer of culture; women a creature of nature defined by feeling. 34

Fig.65 Bauhaus masters on the schoolsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rooftop

Fig.66 Bauhaus wood workshop

Fig.67 Bauhaus weaving workshop 1927

Fig.68 Weaving Students with Gunta Stölzl in her studio apartment 1927

Fig.69 Weaving Workshop Graduation Party The students are holding the “diplomas” made by Stolzl

Fig. 70 Ise and Walter Gropius a few years after their marriage on 16 October 1923. (Photographer unknown/Courtesy Bauhaus-Archiv, Berlin)

With the patriachal world in the 1920s, many contributions women made were neither documented nor credited. Women had limited spaces outside of weaving classes. Whereas, men had boundless opportunities involving painting, carving, and more. The desires of women to choose their own artistic discipline were highly controlled and limited. (Fig. 71)

Contradicting the aim of the school to promote the admission of female into education, on the notion that women will not be treated any less than men, analyses by author Patrick Rossler (“Bauhaus Mädels”, 2019) revealed that power structures at Bauhaus were clearly male-dominated. 36 Oskar Schlemmer (18881943) (Fig.73), an associate of the Bauhaus, commented, “Where there is wool, there is a woman who weaves if/it only to kill time.”37 The power struggle that the women went through in the 1920s was clearly documented in these archives.

The approach of the early Bauhaus prioritized craftsmanship (Fig.72) over anything constructed as handicrafts, and men discriminated the works of women, as noted by Baumhoff (2003) in “The Gendered World of Bauhaus”. 35 Bauhaus student of the metal workshop, Johanna Hummel, was banned from selling her works herself as the men feared the women would eradicate their employment rate.

Fig.71 Lotte Beese: Group photo in the weaving workshop, Dessau Bauhaus, 1928

Fig. 72 A woman in a Breuer club chair, wearing an Oskar Schlemmer mask, circa 1926.

Fig. 73 Schlemmer Family Christmas 1927, Gunta Stรถlzl, standing on the left

The Gendered Politics It was 1919 when Germany’s New Constitution law approved of women’s rights to vote during the Weimar Period. Women workforce in Germany changed after the First World War in 1918, where many war veterans were left physically or mentally wounded. Economically, the jobs available were broader for women, as they could fill in jobs that were once dominated by men. Women took up jobs such as a store clerk, tram conductor or factory worker. Aside from that, they also moved into professions such as teaching or social work.

In total, 462 women attended the Bauhaus between the year 1919 – 1933. The avant-garde women disclosed a new perception of self-portrayal and self-representation. The Bauhaus women were seen as something of significance to the broader public. The article “Mädchen wollen etwas lernen” (Girls want to learn something), published in the 1930 magazine Die Woche (The Week), highlights the Bauhaus-women; as an enthusiastic and creative role model for young women of that period. Ulrike Miller writes, “casting off the bluestocking image of earlier decades, this modern type of female student cultivates, rather than neglects all the freshness and gentleness of femininity.”

Alice Ruhle-Gerstel, a psychologist in the 1920s era, noted that the new generation of women went on into the public economic life and new political figures: attending parties, demonstrations, parliaments and gatherings. They strived to be ‘out of the fog’ of traditional ideologies of a woman’s role and marked towards the objective of the world. However, there were barriers against all odds, it was not all victorious. Politicians and business leaders proposed that these women to return to the ordinary role of a mother and wife. 38

With the influx of new women in the industry, their demands began to rise. As Simone de Beauvoir integrated into her text, “they were to make themselves heard at the very centre of the bourgeoise” women flourished from being in a household to working in industries.39 At the Bauhaus, women finally had prospects to pursue their passion in a professional manner.

Fig. 74 Women and Work in World War 1

Fig. 75 Women working in a motor company in Germany 1947

Fig. 76 MĂ¤dchen wollen etwas lernen 1930

Fig. 77 Unidentified Women Weavers at Bauhaus c. 1927, Bauhaus Archive, Berlin

Bauhaus Crafts

Fig. 78 Barcelona Chair by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Lilly Reich

Fig. 79 Wagenfeld Lamp by William Wagenfeld and Carl Jakob Jucker

Fig.81 Door handle by Walter Gropius

Fig.80 Nesting tables by Josef Albers

Books on Bauhaus Women

Part of the Bauhaus’ ideology, aside from bringing in function, technology and art, it also adverts the integration of women artists in the community.40 However, the number of workshops a woman was allowed to take part in was limited. Baumhauff argued that the early Bauhaus year prioritizes on craftsmanship over handicrafts, which was effectively working against women, as they were mainly in the weaving department, working in ‘2 dimensions’.

Elizabeth Otto and Patrick Rössler in Bauhaus Women: A Global Perspective, wrote: “Stölzl paved the way for a series of weavers and textile designers who went on to achieve international success, she elevated improvisation and experimentation […] and consistently motivated her students to grab hold of the ‘rope of industriousness’ with team spirit and passion.”42 The workshop was successful in producing some of the school’s most prolific products during the 14 years of existence. On the other hand, Margarete Heymann-Loebenstein of the ceramic workshop proved her talent of pottery-making under the wing of Gertrud Grunow’s teaching on “Theory of Harmonization” famously quoted, “dance to the colour blue”, Loebestein anticipated the theories into her studies on materials. Her unique, linear and geometric aesthetics had successfully characterized the Bauhaus movement.

Art curator, Catherine Ince expressed that the repression of women in Bauhaus reflects the prejudices of the time.41 They were overshadowed by their husbands who worked on similar fields and were altering between domestic responsibilities and their career. The Bauhaus only female’s master, Gunta Stölzl, altered the obscure weaving-workshop into one of the most progressive ones, reaching a stage of productivity previously not noticed at the Bauhaus.

With the increasing influence of the German Nationalistic party in 1932, many professionals at the Bauhaus were forced to leave owing to thier Jewish roots or because of their political views. At the same time, being a woman was challenging too. Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) believed women’s life should revolve around the three ‘K’s: Kinder, Küche, Kirche (Children, Kitchen, Church). 43 The Bauhaus women being a significantly newer group to the culture had a difficult time finding a safe haven. Gunta Stölzl had to leave in 1931 after her marriage to a Jew; Siedhoff-Buscher was killed in a bombing raid in 1944 and textile artist Otti Berger (1898-1944) a Jew, had a similar unfortunate ending. In an article by Josenia Hervás, she claimed that at the high time of unemployment, the law targeted towards married women to give up their jobs, and the couple would be remunerated for the vacancy promotion. In addition to that, new births would add to an inventory fiscal. As such, in this scenario, women at the Bauhaus had to work harder to proved their worthiness.44

Chapter III Alma Siedhoff-Buscher Siedhoff-Buscher was born on 4 January 1899 in the low mountains town of Kreuztal, about 10 kilometres north of Siegen in Germany. Apart from Gunta StĂślzl, Marianne Brandt, Gertrud Arndt and Anni Albers, Siedhoff-Buscher was one of the few legendary women from Bauhaus that were successful in their career. Before Bauhaus, Siedhoff-Buscher studied at the Margarethenlyzeum (school for girls) in Berlin, and did a year of vocational training at the Elisabeth Frauenschule (Elisabethâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s women school). As not all women went to school in the early 20th century, her education indicates that her parents were radical to the new ways of schooling for young women. At the age of 18, Siedhoff-Buscher entered a three-year course with reformists Klara and Albert Reimann in the Reimann-Kunstschule (The Reimann Art School). The outstanding art school was the first in Berlin to establish the workshop system.

Fig.85 Alma Siedhoff Buscher Self Portrait 1923

Later, she joined the Kunstgewerbemuseum (State Arts and Crafts Museum) in Berlin which was one of the most powerful school of the avant-garde at that time.45 Her artistic development varies from a different period of her works in Berlin (Reimann) and Weimar (Bauhaus). As cited by Ulrike Miller in Bauhaus Women, “On the wall representing her time in Berlin appeared the comprehensive subject list from the Reimann School: nature studies, free painting, life drawing, and graphic techniques. On the Weimar wall were works from Siedhoff-Buscher’s classes with Johannes Itten (1888-1967) which were exemplary of the teaching concept for the preliminary course.” Miller claimed that Siedhoff-Buscher’s artistic approaches earlier in Berlin were comprehensive and strict whereas her time in Bauhaus allowed her to be freer and more experimented with different techniques of an art form. Siedhoff-Buscher, even with her artistic background and training before, like most of the other females, was admitted into the weaving workshop. However, a year on, she left on her own volition and proceeded her studies in the wood-carving workshop.

Fig. 88 Postcard of Siegen, Germany

Fig. 89 Elizabeth School for Girls, the first class of 1898 in their Sunday

Fig. 90 Reiman School in Berlin

It was rather peculiar for a woman to enter the wood-carving workshop at a time when many of the women stayed on as weavers in Bauhaus. Although Gropius was not keen to have a woman at the wood workshop, Siedhoff-Buscher main intention was focused on toys. We can only envisage the atmosphere of Siedhoff-Buscher’s presence in the men’s workshop. After all, her focus was primarily on children.

Fig 91 – Paul Klee’s notebook

Aside from working with Georg Muche and Josef Hartwig from the wood-carving workshop, Alma was previously in Johannes Itten’s preliminary course as well as Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky. 46Paul Klee’s ideas on design, pattern and colour can be seen on the application of Siedhoff-Buscher’s designs. Kandinsky was known by many of his students to paint his art by expressing his feelings and music. On the other hand, Klee’s methods were highly influenced by Cubism, Expressionism and Surrealism. Michael Siedbenbrodt, director of Haus am Horn and curator of the Bauhaus Museum, explained that in Alma’s letter games, seating cubes, or her large sailing boat exposed the artistic correspondences of Paul Klee’s form and colour teaching. 47

Fig. 92 - Preliminary Course studies by Alma Buscher in charcoal

Fig 93 Wassily Kandinsky

Fig 94 Black and Violet 1923

According to Gertrud Grunow (1870-1944), the school’s first and only woman teacher during Bauhaus years in Weimar who taught Siedhoff-Buscher in ‘form and colour’, mentioned that Siedhoff-Buscher was a talented and intelligent individual – “…following a few good work sessions, she wrestled greatly with releasing her natural strengths. She appears commendable.”48 Inspired from the teacher herself, Siedhoff-Buscher wrote in her diary in 1923: “Grunow recently spoke to me about vision. Vision (to behold nature or art) should never be a single occurrence, there has to be a first, a second, a third, assimilation, empathy and processing into its own shape if it is to endure and not be superficial.” Following her views from Grunow’s, the ideas were reflected upon her design concept on children’s toys and furniture. The three-step logic, “assimilating, empathizing, processing” assists children to use them (toys or furniture) accordingly and to have the ability to pick up, understand then process. 49

Fig 95 Gertrud Grunow 1919

The school was first exhibited in the Haus am Horn 1923 which was only a 14 minutes walk from the Bauhaus campus in Weimar. Siedhoff-Buscher contributed to designing the children’s room, situated next to the kitchen where the mother could observe their children while performing household tasks. She designed the furniture in a way to maximize its usage while minimising the spaces provided. The modular designs of the cabinets allowed flexibility to the arrangements of the furniture for a specific purpose in accordance with the child’s play/ imagination. As stated by author Michael Siebenbrodt of “Bauhaus 1919-1933”, “This modular system is older than Le Corbusier’s Modulor.

Fig 96 Haus am Horn 1923

Fig. 97 Le Modular

The lowest box is just at the correct height for the child. The big boxes can serve as adult seats. The unit with a closed door and window is not a single-function display case, but becomes, on opening, a puppet theatre. The combinations were almost endless. And you don’t have to explain it to children, they understand it intuitively.” Hans.M Wingler, a critique of the child’s furniture outlined Siedhoff-Buscher as a person who would always reflect on the psychological and pedagogical findings.50 These cabinets were designed so that children could ‘build’ and play them similarly to the ideas of blocks.

Fig. 99 Siedhoff Buscher’s Haus am Horn Furniture

Apart from the furniture, Siedhoff-Buscher also designed the walls of children’s rooms which allows them to draw on. She received international recognition on her children’s furniture designs. Her successful and practical designs was then introduced and furnished in several kindergartens across Germany. Her furniture represented a part of Bauhaus’ official visual identity. 51

From the year 1923 onwards, Siedhoff-Buscher designed several toys including the Bundle Toys (Butzlespiel), Ball Toys (Kagetspiel), Action Dolls (Wurfpuppen), Puppet Theatre (Puppentheater) and Paper Toys (Papierspielzeug). Siedhoff-Buscherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Shipbuilding Game (Schiffbauspiel) was one of the most well-known. It comes in two sizes, the Little ship-building game (Kleine Schiffbauspiel) produced in 1923 and Large ship-building game (GroĂ&#x;e Schiffbauspiel) made in 1924. In the year 1924, Siedhoff-Buscher married her partner, an actor and dancer, Werner Siedhoff. They had two children together, son Joost Siedhoff, and daughter Loore Siedhoff. Siedhoff-Buscher later graduated from Bauhaus in 1927. Her career soon shifted off as she became a full-time housewife and never produced any more toys. However, she continued making furniture for her home.

Fig. 100 Ball Toys, 1924 Fig. 101 Throw Dolls, 1924

Fig. 102 Kinderspielschrank, 1923 Kidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s closet w/built-in puppet theatre

Fig. 103 Paper Toys, 1924

Shipbuilding Blocks “If at all possible, children should have a space in which they can be what they want to be […] everything in it belongs to them, their imagination forms it, no inhibition from the outside disturbs them, like the warning ‘leave it alone’ – everything accommodates them […] practical goals should not hinder the opportunity to play.” Alma Buscher-Siedhoff The toy-making business began in Bauhaus during the Weimar Christmas market period in 1923. 52The material used was donated by locals in the early Weimar years. 53 As the Bauhaus’ allowance did not cover materials, students were often foraging at the Weimar dump to scavenge bits of metal, broken glass, wood and wire. 54 The toy market sales were the most successful compared to other workshops. At the same time, Bauhaus designers such as Lyonel Feininger, Oskar Schlemmer and Gunta Stölzl also made toys for their children. Namely other notable Bauhaus toys are the Spinning Top by Hirshfeld-Mack and the Wheelbarrow by Rietveld.

Fig.109 Paul Klee “Untitled” (Big Eared Clown) 1925

Fig.112 Oskar Schlemmer Jointed Dolls 1923

Fig. 110 Bruno Taut “Dandanah. The Fairy Place” 1919

Fig.111 Lyonel Feininger “Toy Town”

When Siedhoff-Buscher created the shipbuilding blocks in 1923, there were other construction toys designers such as the German brand Bing with the ‘Structator construction set’, ‘Lott’s Brick’ by John Lloyd Wright, Liverpool designer Frank Hornby for ‘Meccano’ and Danish manufacture ‘Lego’ which was introduced a decade later. The difference in her design as Siedhoff-Buscher described was: “It doesn’t want to be anything, not cubism, not expressionism, just a fun game with colour, made of smooth and angular shapes based on the principle of old building blocks.”

Fig. 118 Meccano Construction Set, 1920 Fig. 117 Lotts Bricks , 1918

Fig. 119 Lego Promo Brick set 1920

Siedhoff-Buscher’s blocks used all the primary colours: red, yellow and blue, and two secondary colours green and white. Siedhoff-Buscher was also influenced by the teaching of Johannes Itten’s preliminary class in his Colour Theory. He introduced the different contrast effects in colours, the pure colour contrast, light and dark contrast, cold and warm contrast, complementary contrast, dull and bright contrast, and lastly the contrast of quantity. 57

She further wrote in her article ‘Kindermöbel and Kinderkleidung’ (children’s furniture and children’s clothing), ‘our toys; the form – simple and not confusing, clear and defined, variety and stimuli are created by the child itself by assembling, building a constant development the proportions: defined by a feeling, as harmoniously as possible, colour only the primary colours, yellow, red, blue perhaps also green by above all white in order to increase the colourfulness and thereby the child’s joy, a powerful factor in educational games.’ 55 Siedhoff-Buscher’s chose the primary colours on the blocks. In a study by Nicola Pitchford on The Developmental Acquisition of Basic Colour Terms, it was shown that preschool children comprehend and conceptualised the primary colours better than the non-primary colours.56 As children are able to easily differentiate between blue and green than grey and brown. Fig.120 Johannes Itten’s Colour Wheel 1925

The shipbuilding game altered the theory between Itten’s, the autonomy of artistic expression and Gropius’ engagement in art into design. Professor of Art History Christine Mehring quoted that, “the abstract shapes suitable to formal explorations of relations and proportions dominate the set, while three elements with rounded edges hint at suitability for hull and sails.”58 She also revised on Kantian’s theory of freedom, “the difference as to the time between sensual forms of intuition and expressive form of transcendental imagination.” 59 Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) perception of freedom revolves around the ability to choose on the basis of an individual’s desire. In this segment, the shipbuilding game stimulates the child’s cognitive development serving individualistic freedom of creativity.

Fig. 121 Girl playing with Shipbuilding Blocks

A note by Siedhoff-Buscher’s reads, “The games I have built for children I call free games, in contrast to the Froebel and Pestalozzi games which were created out of purely educational ideas. I proceeded in the opposite direction almost without thinking, out of the joy of creating, from colourful shapes and with knowledge of my own desires, which I noticed in children and with which I emphasised.” This provides an idea onto the mindfulness and approach to her toys designs. In comparison to the early 19th century Froebel’s blocks (1850), Crandall’s blocks (1866), Klipit sets manufactured by J.H. Skinner (1910) and Lego by Danish Ole Christiansen (1930) – the shipbuilding blocks were more free-thinking in terms of expanding a child’s imagination. Siedhoff-Buscher emphasized her designs on a child’s level of artistry and innovation. Simple, minimal and functional designs, just as the Bauhaus’ aphorism.

Fig. 123 Klipit Sets 1918

The shipbuilding blocks came in two sets. The large set had 39 pieces, and the smaller set had 22 pieces. As for the small shipbuilding blocks, they consist of five thin cubes, three thick cubes, four thin rectangles, one thick rectangle, one thick half-size rectangle, four triangles, one short cylinder, two pie-shaped pieces and a larger rounded quarter slice of a circle. While these blocks can be arranged in all kind of styles, they form a closed rectangular block corresponding to the packaging, similar to a jigsaw. 60Similarly, to the Froebel Gifts, the five-block sets were to be returned to a cube into the original box. The narrow box mirrored a precise economical way of design. As Siedhoff-Buscherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s had declared that her ideas were mainly designed for fun and play, her shipbuilding game and furniture play cabinet (refer to the previous section) functioned at both space planning and how a child would unclutter the space once ending the play.

Fig. 125

Fig. 126

Fig. 127 Children in action of the furniture in Haus am Horn 1923

Author of pedagogical books, Julie Fischer identified that when a play is in full flow, the request to clean and tidy up space could come across as an intervention with the children’s action and activity. She also claimed that there is a prospect for children to learn from an early stage to tidy up space at the end of the day. In resulting this matter to both the furniture play cabinet and the shipbuilding game, Siedhoff-Buscher’s designed them to fit into the original packaging/form when finished with the play. Not only refining a child’s motor skills but also encouraging them to tidy up when finished.

Siedhoff-Buscher cited that, “the linoleum was attached to seats and stepping areas and allows it to appear at purchase somewhat more expensive, but during the use, it saves both children and parents much trouble – the constant new coat of paint and the really unnecessary scolding on account of little scratches.” 62

As for the choice of material, Siedhoff-Buscher used wood. No account on the sources have documented what type of wood was used but under the conditions that children handmade wooden toys are mostly safer and more durable made of birch, beech, maple or walnut. It was not until after World War II that plastic toys were firmly made, metal and wood were the main materials for toy-making.61 Consequently, the material used for her furniture play cabinet designs is coated with smooth, white, linoleum veneer.

Fig 128 Children in the playground 1930

An essay by Amanda Boyaki stressed that German consumers abide by the quality of materials, there is an old saying that “the best is the most expensive.” 63 Alternately, a researcher in University of Minnesota Amy F. Ogata said that wooden toys are the symbol of timelessness, authenticity and refinement among the educated middle and upper-class families. 64

Endless talents can be made, explore about balance, construction and shapes. Similarly to her furniture designs, she attached wheels to the crates to allow children to pursue their own innovation. Equally to a train set from Ikea, the worldwide famous Swedish furniture retailer, they do not come with a manual or instructions, children opt to arrange the train tracks freely. Perhaps the Ikea Train Set is an adaptation of Siedhoff-Buscher’s concept of free play. As author Sarah Wilson’s wrote in an article that Bauhaus’ concept had a major impact on designs today such as machinery Apple store or furniture retailer Ikea.

When the blocks were first marketed in Switzerland, author Anna Rowland noted that a spokesperson requested that the colour be changed and some sort of instructions to be issued along with the blocks. Siedhoff-Buscher then answered by attaching a label on the top that displays her name and presented four ways to build/play with the blocks: a sailboat, a mountain, a valley and a bridge. When in reality, Siedhoff-Buscher encouraged children to play towards an endless form of creativity. She proposed the idea that was “not something finished, as offered by those luxury stores. The child develops, in fact, it pursues, it searches.”65 The shipbuilding blocks can learn about colours, form and texture as the building blocks for an imaginative innovation.

Fig. 129 Child with Ikea Train Set

Fig. 129a A child playing with the Bauhaus Bauspiel in the 21st century

Toys blocks in the Contemporary era Today, we find all kinds of building blocks from wooden blocks to bristle blocks to soft blocks. Leading construction toy brand, Lego by Danish toy producers have 183 stores throughout the world. The success of Lego is evident in the fact that 18 toy block companies worldwide have created replicate versions of Lego which are so similar that they are even compatible with the original Lego blocks. This has caused outrage and legal issues with the toy companies but Lego do not hold the patent design as it was also copied from a toy designer from Britain in the 1940s, Hilary Page who owned the Kiddicraft toy company and was the first to invent the self-locking building blocks.

Fig. 130 Lego Store

Toy blocks has been such a success in childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s toy and education sector, that it would be undoubtedly noticeable that nurseries, schools and childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s space are usually equipped with these blocks.

Fig. 131 Lego Architecture Series

Fig. 132 Lego Architecture Series Frank Lloyd Wright

Author of Inventing Kindergarten, Norman Brosterman noted that “The kind of art that was being made in the 19th century is really different than the kind of art that was made after kids went to kindergarten.”

The Haus am Horn in Weimar, Germany designed by Georg Muche for the Bauhaus 1923 exhibition. The adaptation of the rooms can be seen interconnecting blocks as highlighted on Fig.136.

Walter Gropius was first a kindergarten teacher, painters Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky attended early kindergartens and De Stijl’s founder Piet Mondrian came across the teachings of Fröbel.

“Kijk Kubus” (Cube House) designed by Piet Blom in 1977 represents 39 hexagon-shaped pylon houses. Similar to the 1inch cubes in Froebel Gifts 2 and 3

World-renowned famous architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier and Buckminister Fuller all went to kindergarten as a child and we can see their adaptation of works to the Fröbel’s blocks (Fig.35 to 41). Leeds based Artist Pippa Hale, created the Play Rebellion at the Baltic in Gateshead. The exhibition brings together children to play with these soft blocks, reconsidering and re-creating their space.

Fig. 133 Kijk Kubus in Rotterdam

Fig. 134 Habitat 67, 1967

Fig. 135 Play Rebellion, Pippa Hale 2020

Fig. 136 Play Rebellion, Pippa Hale 2020

Conclusion In terms of the relation between the Fröbel’s blocks and the Bauhaus shipbuilding game, the shipbuilding game was perhaps one of the many variations of the Fröbel’s blocks developed a hundred years after Fröbel’s invention. Siedhoff-Buscher focussed on producing a free and fun play for children whilst Fröbel invented the blocks to encourage children to learn while playing. These development over a 100 years period have resulted in the variety of toy blocks that continue to be produced today with the same purpose in mind but one big difference is the range of choice and branding associated with these toy products.

Although, it was not acknowledged in the past, the work created by the female artists in the Bauhaus has made a great impact on the values of the Bauhaus and as can be seen in their work. She named the toy blocks, “Shipbuilding Game” but really does it only represent a ship? Siedhoff-Buscher wanted to expand a child’s creativeness and freedom in play. The achievement of her toy blocks is still in production today. Swiss company, Naef, market them at 149,00 €.

There are similarities between these two blocks which fundamentally aim to enhance a child’s development but the shipbuilding game pared back the terms of design and simplified the idea which is in line with the Bauhaus era and movements of this period. Changes in toy blocks design have been affected by the advancement of society over the years.

Endnotes 1 Walter Gropius declared in the Bauhaus School’s opening speech that there will be equality between the two genders. Where German women at that time only had art education from home, the Bauhaus school welcomed women. The administration of the Staatliche Bauhaus in Weimar, April 1919. Maria Buszek, Walter Gropius, “Bauhaus Manifesto and Program” (1919) [online] http://mariabuszek.com/mariabuszek/kcai/Constr Readings/GropBau19.pdf [accessed on 16/01/2020] 2 Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution stated that men and women have the same fundamental rights. Rayna Breuer, “How German women obtained the right to vote 100 years ago” [online] https://www.dw.com/en/how-german-women-obtained-the-right-to-vote-100-years-ago/a-46256939 [accessed on 16/01/2020] 3 Ulrike Miller, Bauhaus Women (Rizzoli International Publications, Incorporated, 2015) p.9 4 90.8% of the total female students of 128 were in the weaving workshop. Elizabeth Otto and Patrick Rössler, Bauhaus Bodies: Gender, Sexuality, and Body Culture in Modernism’s Legendary Art School (Bloomsbury Visual Arts 2019) 5 Maammo. (2019). Bauhaus: Modernist Toy Icons. [online] Available at: https://maammo.com/blogs/stories/bauhaus-modernist-toy-icons [Accessed 16 Jan. 2020]. 6 Locke explained in his book that children should not be lecture hardly and learning can be a form of recreation. He wrote, “Thus Children may be cozen’d into a Knowledge of the Letters; be taught to read, without perceiving it to be anything but a Sport” Frederick Eby, Charles Flinn Arrowood, The Development of Modern Education in Theory (Prentice-Hall, Incorporated, 1946), p.412 7 Margaret Lowenfeld, Play in Childhood (Cambridge University Press, 1991) , p.19 8 Irene M. Lilley, Friedrich Froebel: A Selection from His Writings (Cambridge University Press, 1967), p.113 9 Tamar Zinguer, Architecture in Play: Intimations of Modernism in Architectural Toys (University of Virginia Press, 2015) 10 David W. Nicholson, Philosophy of Education in Action: An Inquiry-Based Approach (Routledge, 13 Jan 2016) p.83 11 Kurt Kohlstedt, “Froebel’s Gifts - 99% Invisible”, 99% Invisible, 2018” <https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/froebels-gifts/> [Accessed 17 November 2020]. 12 Alexandra Lange, The Design of Childhood (Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2018), p.12 13 R C Lodge, Plato’s Theory of Education (Routledge, 2014), p.18 14 Penny Fowler, Frank Lloyd Wright, Frank Lloyd Wright: Graphic Artist (Pomegranate, 2002), p.2 15 Dorothy Justus Sluss, Supporting Play in Early Childhood: Environment, Curriculum, Assessment (Cengage Learning, 2018), p.13 16 Mandy Andrew, Exploring Play for Early Childhood Studies (Learning Matters, 7 Sep 2012), p.41 17 Gwen Dewarr, “The benefits of toy blocks: The science of construction play” (2008-2018 Gwen Dewar, PHD) [online] https://www.parentingscience.com/toy-blocks.html 18 Helen Demetriou, Empathy, Emotion and Education (Springer, 2018), p.284 19 John Locke, Some Thoughts concerning Education (A. and J. Churchill, 1693), p.180 20 Karyn Wellhousen, Judith E. A Constructivist Approach to Block Play in Early Childhood (Kieff, Cengage Learning, 2001), p. 4 21 Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile (BookRix, 14 Jun 2019), p.11

22 David W. Nicholson, Philosophy of Education in Action: An Inquiry-Based Approach (Routledge, 13 Jan 2016) p.83 23 Bob Stremba, Teaching Adventure Education Theory: Best Practices (Human Kinetics, 2009), p.112 24 Arthur Brühlmeier, Head, Heart and Hand: Education in the Spirit of Pestalozzi (Open Book Publishers, 2010), p.147 25 Barry Bergdoll, Leah Dickerman, Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity (The Museum of Modern Art, 2009), p.64 26 Ibid, p.65 27 In 1906, Saxon, Germany firstly opened universities to women. Although during the Bauhaus period, women were denied admittance to other art schools. Bauhaus in Weimar Germany was the first to welcome women. 28 John V. Maciuika, Before the Bauhaus ( Cambridge University Press, 2005), p.2 29 Ulrich Conrads, Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-century Architecture (MIT Press, 1971), p.34 30 Barry Bergdoll, Leah Dickerman, Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity (The Museum of Modern Art, 2009) p. 64 31 Dominic Lutyens, (2018). Anni Albers and the forgotten women of the Bauhaus. [online] Bbc.com. Available at: http:// www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180919-anni-albers-and-the-forgotten-women-of-the-bauhaus [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020]. 32 Alexxa Gotthardt (2017). 10 Forgotten Female Pioneers of the Bauhaus. [online] Artsy. Available at: https://www.artsy.net/ article/artsy-editorial-women-bauhaus-school [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020]. 33 Walter Gropius regarded men as the powerful and women the beautiful. 34 Nietzsche.holtof.com, n.d. 35 Elizabeth Otto & Patrick Rössler, Bauhaus Women: A Global Perspective (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019), p.13 36 Ibid, p.10 37 Magdalena Droste, Bauhaus 1919-1933 (Taschen, 2002), p.72 38 Facing History and Ourselves. (2019). Women in the Weimar Republic. [online] Available at: https://www.facinghistory.org/ holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-4/women-weimar-republic [Accessed 11 Dec. 2019]. 39 Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (Random House, 1997), p. 152 40 Jillian Billard . The Other Art History: The Forgotten Women of Bauhaus. [online] Artspace. Available at: https://www. artspace.com/magazine/art_101/in_depth/the-other-art-history-the-forgotten-women-of-bauhaus-55526 [Accessed 11 Dec. 2019]. 41 Alice Rawsthorn. (2013). Female Pioneers of the Bauhaus. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes. com/2013/03/25/arts/25iht-design25.html [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020]. 42 Elizabeth Otto & Patrick Rössler, Bauhaus Women: A Global Perspective (Bloomsbury Publishing, 21 Mar 2019), p.22 43 Dagmar Reese, Growing Up Female in Nazi Germany (University of Michigan Press, 26 Jun 2006), p.209 44 Josenia Hervás, Bauhaus Connection, p. 166 45 Ulrike Miller, Bauhaus Women (Flammarion-Pere Castor, 2015), p.113 46 Ibid, p.115 47 Ibid, p.112 48 Ibid, p.114 49 Ibid, p.115 50 Amanda Boyaki, Alma Buscher Siedhoff: An Examination of Children’s Design and Gender at the Bauhaus during the Weimar Period (Texas Tech University, 2010), p.119

51 Connox, Alma Siedhoff-Buscher products in our design shop (Accessed 19 Nov. 2019) 52 […] to alleviate the poverty of the Bauhauslers, someone had the idea of opening a‘‘dada-stall’’ on the traditional Weimar Christmas market. Everyone began to make things. Decoration, toys, cloth animals, dolls, paper games, wooden games,especially pretty were the animals of briar-wood, slightly whittled and gaily painted. […] We were very successful especially with the children, to whom we gave our berets in the end, having nothing left for sale, in spite of all obstacles, there were friends in Weimar(Arndt, 1922, in Whitfordand Engelhardt, 1992, p. 118). 53 Amanda Boyaki, Alma Buscher Siedhoff: An Examination of Children’s Design and Gender at the Bauhaus during the Weimar Period (Texas Tech University, 2010), p.128 54 The New York Times, Revisiting the Bauhaus (Aug, 1983) 55 Amy F. Ogata, Designing the Creative Child: Playthings and Places in Midcentury America (University of Minnesota Press, 2013), p.70 56 Nicola Pitchford, Progress in Colour Studies: Psychological Aspects (Bucknell University Press, 2002) p.151 57 Stephanie Przybylek, Study.Com, 2018 <https://study.com/academy/lesson/bauhaus-color-theory.html> [Accessed 21 January 2020]. 58 Barry Bergdoll , Bauhaus 1919-1933 Workshop for Modernity (Museum Of Modern Art, 2017), p.156 59 Zhang Xianglong, Frontiers of Philosophy in China (Brill, 12 Jul 2018), p.145 60 Bauhaus100.com, 2019 61 bricks et al, 2019 62 Amanda Boyaki, Alma Buscher Siedhoff: An Examination of Children’s Design and Gender at the Bauhaus during the Weimar Period (Texas Tech University, 2010), p.129 63 Ibid 64 Make it Wood, 2019 65 Alma Bushcer, Kind,Marchen,Spiel, Spielzueg (1924) 66 Sarah, Wilson. (2019). “How Bauhaus designed the world as we know it” [online] Thelocal.de. Available at: https://www. thelocal.de/20190117/bauhaus-how-the-revolutionary-school-designed-the-world-as-we-know-it [Accessed 12 Jan. 2020].

List of Figures Fig.1 – Forgotten Bauhaus. (1931). [image] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/923837/newbook-tells-the-forgotten-histories-of-bauhaus-women/5d6626e7284dd13e1100019d-new-book-tellsthe-forgotten-histories-of-bauhaus-women-image [Accessed 3 Jan. 2020]. Fig.2 – The Unthinkable Modernist. (1922) [image] Available at: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/09/26/walter-gropius-bauhaus-unsinkable-modernist/ Fig.3 & 4 - Erich Consemüller, Bauhaus women: From Design Object to Subject (1927) [image] Available at: (https://www.bauhaus100.com/magazine/discover-the-bauhaus/bauhaus-women-fromdesign-object-to-subject/ Fig.5 – N/A (1919) [image] Available at: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3a/f3/8d/3af38d95312aa96a7515ec0bdffcd245.jpg Fig.6 & 7 – N/A (1919) [image] Available at: https://www.bauhaus100.com/the-bauhaus/people/students/alma-siedhoff-buscher/ Fig.8 - ) N/A [image] Available at: https://www.amblesideschools.com/main/library/kindergarten-avant-garde Fig.9 – Friedrich Froebel, 19th-century wood engraving. [image] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Friedrich-Froebel Fig.10 & 11 - The Bauhaus Weaving Workshop (1928). [image] Available at: https://www.harvardartmuseums.org/article/women-and-weaving-at-the-bauhaus Fig.12 - Walter Peterhans, Margaret Leiteritz with oranges (1930). [image] Available at: https:// news.artnet.com/art-world/forgotten-women-of-the-bauhaus-1500265 Fig.13 - The Masters on the Roof of the Bauhaus Studio Building in Dessau, during the opening of the Bauhaus (1926) [image] Available at: https://www.bauhaus100.com/magazine/discover-the-bauhaus/bauhaus-women-from-design-object-to-subject/ Fig.14 & 15 - Maria Austria, Kitty van der Mijll Dekker at a loom. (1939) [image] Available at: https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/frauhaus-gunta-stolzl-walter-gropius-and-the-women-of-thebauhaus/

100

Fig.16 - Bauhaus Bodies (2019) [image] Available at: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/ book/bauhaus-bodies-gender-sexuality-and-body-culture-in-modernisms-legendary-art-school/ ch1-soft-skills-and-hard-facts-a-systematic-assessment-of-the-inclusion-of-women-at-the-bauhaus?from=search Fig.17 - Workshops: Joinery [image] Available at: https://www.bauhaus100.com/the-bauhaus/training/workshops/ Fig.18 - Max Beckmann, Family Picture (1920) [image] Available at: https://www.artmarketmonitor.com/2016/12/02/max-beckmann-in-new-york-a-true-citizen-of-the-world/ Fig.19 – N/A [image] Available at: https://www.tuwroclaw.com/pliki/duze_zdjecia/wiadomosci/odkrywamy/Poelzig_przedwojenne1.jpg Fig.20 - Fagus Factory / Walter Gropius + Adolf Meyer [image] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/612249/ad-classics-fagus-factory-walter-gropius-adolf-meyer Fig.21 & 22 - Annan, The Froebel School. Froebelian Education [image] Available at: http://www. annanschool.co.uk/froebelian-education/ Fig.23 - Beatrix Potter Peter Rabbit Wooden Picture Blocks Set, 16 Pieces [image] Available at: https://www.johnlewis.com/beatrix-potter-peter-rabbit-wooden-picture-blocks-set-16-pieces/ p2233721 Fig.24 - Norman Brosterman, Inventing Kindergarten [image] Available at: https://www.kickstarter. com/projects/1335652536/inventing-kindergarten-0 Fig. 25 - Rediscovering Kindergarten: The Life and Legacy of Friedrich Froebel [image] Available at: http://www.communityplaythings.com/resources/articles/2015/rediscovering-kindergarten Fig.26 -Fröbel Preschool: What Is The Fröbel Method? (2015) [image] Available at: https://thenewageparents.com/frobel-preschool-frobel-method/ Fig.27 - SA History Club: Kindergarten (1912) [ [image] Available at: http://sahistoryhub.com.au/ subjects/kindergartens Fig.28 & 29 – Kenny Smith, The World of Play Brought to Life by Clever Design [image] Available at: https://www.scottishfield.co.uk/culture/whatson/the-world-of-play-brought-to-life-by-clever-design/

101

Fig.30 – Konrad Grob, Pestalozzi with the orphans in Stans (1876) [painting] Available at: https:// www.art-prints-on-demand.com/a/grob-konrad/pestalozzi-with-the-orpha.html Fig.31 - SA History Club: Kindergarten (1912) [image] Available at: http://sahistoryhub.com.au/ subjects/kindergartens Fig. 32 - FROEBEL Gifts 1-9 Set Spielgaben Eunmul [image] Available at: https://www.wantitall. co.za/toys/froebel-gifts-1-9-set-spielgaben-eunmul__b00hs2m7hc Fig.33 - Inventing Kindergarten and Architecture in Play (2019) [image] Available at: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/froebels-gifts/ Fig.34 – Mappy Oakley [image] Available at: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/47006327985118713 4/?lp=true Fig.35 & 36 - Training Aesthetes [image] Available at: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/froebels-gifts/ Fig.37 - Prairie House Blocks [image] Available at: https://store.redhentoys.com/prairie-houseblocks-p541.aspx Fig.38 - Did A Childhood Toy Inspire Frank Lloyd Wright? [image] Available at: https://q-ba-maze. typepad.com/content/2007/07/did-a-childhood.html Fig. 39 - Unity Temple, view of west elevation, Unity Temple Restoration Foundation [image] Available at: https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2015/02/02/listpix-wright-buildings-could-become-official-world-treasures/flw-01/ Fig.40 & 41 - Training Aesthetes [image] Available at: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/froebels-gifts/ Fig.42 - 2013 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York [image] Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/le-corbusiers-plan-voisin-for-paris-2013-7?r=US&IR=T Fig.43 - EYFS Best Practice: Learning from Froebel… Nature [image] Available at: https://www. nurseryworld.co.uk/Features/article/eyfs-best-practice-learning-from-froebel-nature Fig.44 -Baby at Play, by Thomas Eakins, 1876 [image] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Toy_block#/media/File:Thomas_Eakins_-_Baby_at_Play.jpg Fig. 45&46 – Author’s own image

102

Fig.47 - [image] Available at: https://www.starschildcaregroup.co.uk/blog/benefits-of-outdoor-play-nursery-children Fig. 48 - How Outdoor Play Can Improve Children’s Sleep [image] Available at: https://www.pentagonplay.co.uk/news-and-info/how-outdoor-play-can-improve-childrens-sleep Fig. 49 to 51 - Bauhaus Weimar, 1919–1925 [image] Available at: https://www.bauhaus100.com/ the-bauhaus/phases/bauhaus-weimar/ Fig. 52 - The Equivocal Woman (also known as The Teetering Woman), (1923) [painting] Available at: https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/The-Equivocal-Woman--also-known-as-The-T/ 3524C1A714535232 Fig. 53 - Estate of Yves Tanguy / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York [image] Available at: https://www.albrightknox.org/artworks/rca19452-divisibilit%C3%A9-ind%C3%A9finie-indefinite-divisibility Fig. 54 - Small Worlds I (Kleine Welten I) from Small Worlds (Kleine Welten) 1922 [image] Available at: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/68437 Fig. 55 - “Cathedral,” Title Page by Lyonel Feininger for Walter Gropius’ Bauhaus Manifesto and Program (April 1, 1919) [image] Available at: http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_ id=4314 Fig. 56 - 2018 The Josef and Anni Albers Foundation/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/ DACS, London [image] Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/anni-albers Fig. 57 - Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. Courtesy of Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. [image] Available at: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-bauhaus-master-anni-albers Fig. 58 - [image] Available at: https://kayteterry.typepad.com/kayte_terry/2012/07/gunta-st%C3%B6lzl-textile-design.html Fig. 59 - Stolzl Bauhaus Ausweis [image] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunta_ St%C3%B6lzl#/media/File:Stolzl_bauhaus_ausweis.jpg

103

Fig. 60 – Marianne Brandt était une photographe et designer allemande [image] Available at: http:// www.en-noir-et-blanc.com/Marianne%20Brandt%20%C3%A9tait%20une%20photographe%20 et%20designer%20allemande-id9150.html Fig. 61 - [image] Available at: https://www.bauhaus100.com/the-bauhaus/people/masters-and-teachers/marianne-brandt/ Fig. 62 - [image] Available at: https://www.moma.org/interactives/objectphoto/artists/24581.html Fig. 63 - [image] Available at: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/89/0e/0c/890e0c389e501b6e7e244b083550bb72.jpg Fig. 64 - [image] Available at: https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/whats-on-tv-tonight-guide-listings-bauhaus-100-bbc-4-495461 Fig. 65 - [image] Available at: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/c6/73/a7c673560b9c7b2f5bafc0c640ec475b.jpg Fig. 66 to 69 -[image] Available at: https://www.guntastolzl.org/Works/Bauhaus-Dessau-1925-1931/Bauhaus-Dessau-Photos Fig. 70 - [image] Available at: https://archpaper.com/2019/09/walter-gropius-biography-bauhaus-goes-west/ Fig. 71 - [image] Available at: https://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/11618/these-fiveoverlooked-women-changed-the-bauhaus-movement-forever Fig. 72 - [image] Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/16/bauhaus-rules Fig. 73 – [image] Available at: https://www.guntastolzl.org/Works/Bauhaus-Dessau-1925-1931/ Bauhaus-Dessau-Photos/i-cwMw4Gt Fig. 74 - [image] Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/women-and-work-world-war-1-1222030 Fig. 75 -[image] Available at: https://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/nydailynews. com/?pmSlide=1.2557197 Fig. 76 –[image] Available at: https://www.kunst-archive.net/en/wvz/t_lux_feininger/works/karla_grosch_probiert_ein_kostuem_fuer_metalltanz/type/all Fig. 77 - [image] Available at: https://pinsndls.com/2012/09/13/mystery-monday-solved/ Fig. 78 to 83 - [image] Available at: https://gregcookland.com/wonderland/2019/02/12/bauhaus/

104

Fig. 84 - [image] Available at: https://www.find-more-books.com/book/isbn/3631379455.html Fig. 85 - [image] Available at: https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Bauhaus-Mdels-by-Patrick-Rssler-author/9783836563536 Fig. 86 - [image] Available at: https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Global-Bauhaus-Women-by-Elizabeth-Otto-author-Patrick-Rssler-author/9781786750587 Fig. 87 - [image] Available at: http://www.librairiedesarchives.com/bauhaus-women-art-handicraft-design/ Fig. 88 - [image] Available at: https://oldthing.de/Ansichtskarte-Siegen-Oberes-Schlo ss-1920-0029840035 Fig. 89 - [image] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reifenstein_schools#/media/File:RSOfleiden1898vonSchenckzuSchweinsbergunbek.jpg Fig 90 - [image] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reimann_Art_School_Berlin.jpg Fig. 91&92 – Images from Bauhaus Women, Ulrike Muller Fig. 93&94 - [image] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/917977/paul-klees-bauhaus-notebook-is-now-online Fig. 95 - [image] Available at: https://www.wassilykandinsky.net/work-234.php Fig. 96 - [image] Available at: https://www.virtosuart.com/artists/wassily-kandinsky Fig. 97 - [image] Available at: https://media.timetoast.com/timelines/the-staatliches-bauhaus Fig. 98 – [image] Available at: http://socks-studio.com/2016/05/31/a-prototypal-house-at-the-bauhaus-the-haus-am-horn-by-georg-muche-1923/ Fig. 99 - [image] Available at: http://www.cultural-heritage.weber/haus-am-horn Fig. 100 - [image] Available at: http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbuweb/morpheus.aspx?sysId=13&IrisObjectId=7837&sysLanguage=en-en&itemPos=82&itemCount=215&sysParentId=65&sysParentName=home Fig. 101 - [image] Available at: https://www.houzz.com.au/photos/bauhaus-haus-am-horn-weimarmodern-kids-berlin-phvw-vp~50938535 Fig. 102 –[image] Available at: http://mondo-blogo.blogspot.com/2011/01/toys-of-avant-garde. html

105

Fig. 103 -[image] Available at: https://www.curt.de/nbg/inhalt/schubse/12574/50/1 Fig. 104 - [image] Available at: http://www.artnet.com/artists/alma-siedhoff-buscher/kinderspielschrank-ti24-set-of-9-OL-Ml0auxWAJ8VcF9wo3_Q2 Fig. 105 -[image] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Bauhaus-Bauspiel-by-Alma-Siedhoff-Buscher-Deutsches-Museum-Collection_fig23_309174985 Fig. 106 - [image] Available at: https://www.design-is-fine.org/post/45764589002/alma-siedhoffbuscher-bauspiel-1924-designed-to Fig. 107 -[image] Available at: https://artloversnet.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/alma-siedhoff-buscher.jpeg?w=768 Fig. 108 - [image] Available at: https://www.thueringer-allgemeine.de/kultur/baukunst/bauhaus-gestalterin-alma-siedhoff-buscher-in-jeder-trostlosen-zeit-gibt-es-heitere-stunden-id224805075.html Fig. 109 to 111 -[image] Available at: http://mondo-blogo.blogspot.com/2011/01/toys-of-avantgarde.html Fig. 112 - [image] Available at: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0f/ae/a0/0faea04b3fd6a02ac092817f648c7c8a.jpg Fig. 113 - [image] Available at: https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/celebrating-100-years-ofbauhaus-the-most-influential-school-of-the-20th-century Fig. 114 -[image] Available at: https://maammo.com/products/bauhaus-spinning-top Fig. 115 - [image] Available at: https://designaddict.com/produit/venduehuis-auction-a-childs-wheelbarrow-designed-by-gerrit-rietveld/ Fig. 116 - [image] Available at: https://www.elcoleccionistaeclectico.com/en/wooden-interlocking-building-construction-set-berbis-germany-1940s-p23011 Fig. 117 - [image] Available at: https://www.vam.ac.uk/moc/collections/lotts-bricks/ Fig. 118 -[image] Available at: https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/lacy-scottand-knight/catalogue-id-srlac10088/lot-fc8f12f2-52ef-4a56-bfb8-a447016e5811 Fig. 119 - [image] Available at: https://brickset.com/sets/1920-1/Promo-Basic-Set Fig. 120 - [image] Available at: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/143828?locale=en Fig. 121 - [image] Available at: https://issuu.com/jargota/docs/anexo-1-appendix-1

106

Fig. 122 - [image] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/madisonhistory/30185773461 Fig. 123 -[image] Available at: https://www.knex.com/lincoln-logs Fig. 124 - [image] Available at: https://www.brightontoymuseum.co.uk/index/Category:Klipit_Construction_Outfits Fig. 125 -[image] Available at: https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/biksady/ catalogue-id-biksad10006/lot-2899b1fd-32d9-4025-9e0b-a5b100c0b5b2 Fig. 126 - [image] Available at: https://www.taliesinpreservation.orG/product/froebel-gift-3-cubes/ Fig. 127 - [image] Available at: https://bigsta.net/tag/almabuscher/ Fig. 128 - [image] Available at: http://www.brooklineconnection.com/history/Facts/Play1930/Playgrounds.html Fig. 129 - [image] Available at: https://www.amazon.com/21005-LEGO-Architecture-Fallingwater/ dp/B003TNPB5O Fig. 130 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; [image] Available at: http://socks-studio.com/2016/05/31/a-prototypal-house-at-the-bauhaus-the-haus-am-horn-by-georg-muche-1923/ Fig. 131 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; [image] Available at: https://mandala-montessori.eu/en/froebel-gifts/464-froebel-dar-4fingers.html Fig. 132 - [image] Available at: http://www.theparentszone.com/child-development/building-blocks-child-development/

107

Bibliography Andrew, Mandy, Exploring Play for Early Childhood Studies (Learning Matters, 7 Sep 2012), p.41 Bauhaus: Modernist Toy Icons, Maammo, 2019 <https://maammo.com/blogs/stories/bauhaus-modernist-toy-icons> [Accessed 2 January 2020] Beauvoir, Simone, The Second Sex (Random House, 1997), p. 152 Bergdoll, Dickerman, Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity (The Museum of Modern Art, 2009), p.64-65, p.156 Billard, Jillian. The Other Art History: The Forgotten Women of Bauhaus. [online] Artspace. Available at: https://www.artspace.com/magazine/art_101/in_depth/the-other-art-history-the-forgottenwomen-of-bauhaus-55526 [Accessed 11 Dec. 2019]. Boyaki, Amanda. Alma Buscher Siedhoff: An Examination of Children’s Design and Gender at the Bauhaus during the Weimar Period (Texas Tech University, 2010), p.119 Breuer, Rayna, “How German Women Obtained The Right To Vote 100 Years Ago | DW | 30.11.2018”, DW.COM, 2018 <https://www.dw.com/en/how-german-women-obtained-the-right-tovote-100-years-ago/a-46256939> [Accessed 2 January 2020] Brühlmeier, Arthur, Head, Heart and Hand: Education in the Spirit of Pestalozzi (Open Book Publishers, 2010), p.147 Bushcer, Alma. Kind,Marchen,Spiel, Spielzueg (1924) Buszek, Maria Elena, Mariabuszek.com, 2010 <http://mariabuszek.com/mariabuszek/kcai/ConstrBau/Readings/GropBau19.pdf> [Accessed 2 November 2019] Connox, Alma Siedhoff-Buscher products in our design shop (Accessed 19 Nov. 2019) Conrads, Ulrich, Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-century Architecture (MIT Press, 1971), p.34 Droste, Magdalene, Bauhaus 1919-1933 (Taschen, 2002), p.72 Demetriou, Helen, Empathy, Emotion and Education (Springer, 2018), p.284 Dewarr, Gwen, The benefits of toy blocks: The science of construction play (2008-2018 Gwen Dewar, PH.D) [online] https://www.parentingscience.com/toy-blocks.html

108

Eby, Frederick, The Development Of Modern Education, In Theory, Organization, And Practice” (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1946), p. 412 Facing History and Ourselves. (2019). Women in the Weimar Republic. [online] Available at: https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-4/women-weimar-republic [Accessed 11 Dec. 2019]. Fowler, Penny, Frank Lloyd Wright, Frank Lloyd Wright: Graphic Artist (Pomegranate, 2002), p.2 Gotthardt, A. (2017). 10 Forgotten Female Pioneers of the Bauhaus. [online] Artsy. Available at: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-women-bauhaus-school [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020]. Hervás, Josenia, “Bauhaus Connection” (Diseño Editorial Ed., Buenos Aires, 2015), p. 166 John V. Maciuika, Before the Bauhaus (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p.2 Kohlstedt, Kurt, “Froebel’s Gifts - 99% Invisible”, 99% Invisible, 2018 <https://99percentinvisible. org/episode/froebels-gifts/> [Accessed 17 November 2020] Lange, Alexandra, The Design of Childhood (Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2018), p.12 Locke, John, Some Thoughts concerning Education (A. and J. Churchill, 1693), p.180 Lodge, R C, Plato’s Theory of Education (Routledge, 2014), p.18 Lutyens, D. (2018). Anni Albers and the forgotten women of the Bauhaus. [online] Bbc.com. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180919-anni-albers-and-the-forgotten-women-of-thebauhaus [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020]. Lowenfeld, Margaret, Play in Childhood (Cambridge University Press, 1991) , p.19 M. Lilley, Irene, Friedrich Froebel: A Selection from His Writings (Cambridge University Press, 1967), p.113 Müller, Ulrike, Ingrid Radewaldt, and Sandra Kemker, Bauhaus Women (Paris: Flammarion, 2009), p. 9, 112, 114, 115 Nicholson, David W, Philosophy of Education in Action: An Inquiry-Based Approach (Routledge, 13 Jan 2016) p.83

109

Ogata, Amy. Designing the Creative Child: Playthings and Places in Midcentury America (University of Minnesota Press, 2013), p.70 Otto, Rössler, Bauhaus Women: A Global Perspective (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019), p.10-13 and 22 Pitchford, Nicola. Progress in Colour Studies: Psychological Aspects (Bucknell University Press, 2002) p.151 Rawsthorn, Alice. (2013). Female Pioneers of the Bauhaus. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/arts/25iht-design25.html [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020]. Reese, Dagmar, Growing Up Female in Nazi Germany (University of Michigan Press, 26 Jun 2006), p.209 Rousseau, Jean Jacques, Emile (BookRix, 14 Jun 2019), p.11 Sluss, Dorothy Justus, Supporting Play in Early Childhood: Environment, Curriculum, Assessment (Cengage Learning, 2018), p.13 Stremba, Bob, Teaching Adventure Education Theory: Best Practices (Human Kinetics, 2009), p.112 The New York Times, Revisiting the Bauhaus (Aug,1983) W. Nicholson, David, Philosophy of Education in Action: An Inquiry-Based Approach (Routledge, 13 Jan 2016) p.83 Wellhousen, Karyn, Judith E. A Constructivist Approach to Block Play in Early Childhood (Kieff, Cengage Learning, 2001), p. 4 Wilson, S. (2019). “How Bauhaus designed the world as we know it” [online] Thelocal.de. Available at: https://www.thelocal.de/20190117/bauhaus-how-the-revolutionary-school-designed-theworld-as-we-know-it [Accessed 12 Jan. 2020]. Xianglong, Zhang. Frontiers of Philosophy in China (Brill, 12 Jul 2018), p.145 Zinguer, Tamar, Architecture in Play: Intimations of Modernism in Architectural Toys (University of Virginia Press, 2015)

110

111