![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
The “large conglomerate of changing ideas behind the name ‘Bauhaus’” (Kentgens‐Craig Citation1998, 67), provides an ideal ground around which to explore notions of art and oppression. The closure of the original Bauhaus in 1933 was among the first of the Nazi suppressions after Hitler came to power, a fact which certainly has contributed to the subsequent canonisation of the Bauhaus as the “crucible of modernism”. In the decades following its closure we find an increasing interest in the art and design generated by the individual artists associated with the Bauhaus. The reception history of the Bauhaus, which we will trace geographically to the USA and a divided post‐war Germany, contains the repression and virtual disappearance of its utopian humanistic‐social dimensions. We suggest that the ways in which the Bauhaus has been interpreted and used “posthumously” for various political and ideological ends, both includes and implicates us when making the Bauhaus idea “usable”.
Notes
[1] For more information and images of the building we refer the reader to the website: http://www.bauhaus.de (bauhaus‐archiv museum in gestaltung) [accessed March 13 2006].
[2] Kentgens‐Craig's book (Citation1998, 193–201) contains a delightful juxtaposition of almost identical looking photographs taken by Lucia Moholy in the 1920s and Dieter Rausch in the 1990s.
[3] It was rather easy for the Nazis to bring out their reproaches about the intellectual theories of the Bauhaus in the context of an uncomprehending perception of the Bauhaus among broad sections of the population. Paul Klee referred to this lack of a social anchor at the opening of an exhibition in Jena in 1924: “Uns trägt kein Volk” [the people are not with us]. To put the quote in its proper, less defeatist context: “We still lack the ultimate power, for the people are not with us. But we seek a people. We began over there in the Bauhaus. We began there with a community to which each one of us gave what he had. More we cannot do” (Klee Citation1966, 55).
[4] We can contrast this individualist utopia with an extract from Ise Gropius' diaries: “Spending a whole day with Bauhaus people gets on your nerves, and if you don't remind yourself that this eternal seething boiler has its good side and prevents any kind of stagnation, you could sometimes lose heart when faced with this constant discontent and touchiness” (quoted in Neumuellers Citation1998, 104).
[5] Interestingly, apart from a single reference to Marcel Breuer (referred to as “a British designer”) the text actually does not make reference to anyone associated with the Bauhaus. This is a prime example of the Bauhaus as “empty signifier”, simply standing for “modernist design”.