Deutscher Werkbund and Bauhaus: Modernism in Germany

Introduction

The Deutscher Werkbund and the Bauhaus are two architectural and design movements that played central roles in the evolution of Modernism as a whole and in the development of German culture in particular throughout the first half of the twentieth century. While a proper comparative analysis of the two is difficult, if not impossible, to undertake — owing to the fact that the latter essentially grew out of the principles of the former — this paper explores the goals and aesthetic principles of each movement in order to illuminate their similarities and inconsistencies. Landmark architectural works belonging to each movement are also examined in support of the central hypothesis: that the principles laid out by the Deutscher Werkbund would not receive their full apotheosis until they appeared in the work of the Bauhaus.

The Deutscher Werkbund: Origins and Principles

The German association known as the Deutscher Werkbund (German Work Federation) was to play a pivotal role in the development of architectural Modernism. It was formally established in Munich after being instigated by Hermann Muthesius, who had been sent to England in the early years of the twentieth century by the German government to study that country's arts, crafts, design, and architecture. One of the results of Muthesius's time abroad was The English House, a three-volume study of the English Arts and Crafts movement.

By the time the Deutscher Werkbund was founded, Muthesius was a key proponent of the idea that traditional German folk craftsmanship had to be abandoned in favor of an objective functionalist design that would fuse the latest developments in technology with a comprehensive understanding of the tectonic possibilities of available materials. Rather than looking to the past, Muthesius believed it was vital to pay close attention to scientifically objective, machine-based forms. This, he felt, would be the defining goal of the twentieth century — not for artists to discover new styles, but to meld form and function into a new approach to designing useful objects and buildings.

It has been argued that the Deutscher Werkbund was not so much an art and design movement as an attempt by the German nation to integrate its tradition of craft making with modern mass production techniques. In this respect, the ultimate goal of the organization was to place Germany on the same competitive footing as other industrialized nations, such as the United States and England.

With its melding of form and function, the Deutscher Werkbund took as its focus everything from sofa cushions to the building of cities (Vom Sofakissen zum Städtebau). The launching pad of the organization was a series of controversial remarks Muthesius made in early 1907, in which he denounced everyone who did not take up the call of "objective functionalism" and abandon the traditional design practices of the past. He asserted that shoddy materials and an old-fashioned approach had made the words "'German' and 'tasteless' into practically identical concepts," thereby angering a number of craftsmen. Muthesius's remarks incited the Association for the Economic Interests of the Crafts to call for his removal from his post with the German government. While his supervisor refused to dismiss him, a group of his colleagues and supporters broke away from the Association to found the Deutscher Werkbund that same year.

Key Werkbund Architecture and Internal Debates

Peter Behrens was one of the chief architects of the Deutscher Werkbund. His design for the Delmenhorst Linoleum Company exhibition pavilion of 1906, built for the Third German Applied Arts Exhibition in Dresden, is an exemplary piece of Werkbund architecture. The building, which resembled a temple more than a conventional meeting hall, took the standards of monumental classicism and abstracted them through a thoughtful exploitation of contemporary building materials such as concrete, steel, linoleum, and glass. The exhibition pavilion was a remarkable fusion of classical, traditional ideals with the spirit of Modernity that Muthesius sought for his homeland. Behrens's work struck an immediate chord with the general public, as well as art critics and business executives from across Germany.

Frederic Schwartz has identified the main principles of the Deutscher Werkbund as corporate symbolism, architectural imagery, and commercial expedience. Such qualities can be readily assessed in the building Behrens designed in 1909 for the Moabit district of Berlin: the AEG Turbine Factory. This building represented a major transition in Behrens's career — the moment when the architect finally subordinated his modern choice of materials to a penultimate corporate image, an image that would ultimately serve to emphasize "corporeality and classical expression," in the words of Stanford Anderson.

Behrens's intent was to create a feeling of both monumentality and substantiality in the building, while simultaneously contrasting these qualities with the lightness that people at the time would not typically expect from a structure featuring an iron frame and glass infill. The building's main feature was a concrete pediment bearing the AEG logo in hexagonal patterning — a logo also designed by Behrens, who is considered the father of today's concept of "corporate identity."

Another prominent architect affiliated with the Werkbund was Henry van de Velde of Belgium. Van de Velde is responsible for one of the Werkbund's most famous creations: the Werkbund Exhibition Hall for the Cologne Exhibition of 1914. With its signature flattened Jugendstil curves, this building was criticized during the fierce debates at that year's Werkbund congress for being too "individualist" and departing from the "lightness, impersonal rectilinear geometry, and standardization of forms" seen to characterize the work of Behrens and other Werkbund architects.

The debate between Muthesius and other prominent Werkbund members centered on his argument in favor of standardized "types" over individual expression in design. Practicality was the design standard all Werkbund designers and architects had espoused from the outset, conceived as the antithesis of the ornamentality that had characterized earlier, more traditional approaches. Beauty, argued Muthesius, was rooted in forms — not decoration — and the path to beauty lay in forming national types through standardized designs. This position offended many designers and architects who felt that Muthesius was threatening their individuality as creative beings and artistic freedom in general. Van de Velde led this opposition. In the end, Muthesius tempered his argument to allow that artists retained personal freedom in the creation of types, but he nevertheless adhered to his theory of the "typical." Despite internal tensions, Muthesius essentially prevailed in the debate; his position was significantly bolstered by the governmental support he enjoyed throughout this period — a fact that angered many in the opposing party, who felt he was behaving autocratically.

Muthesius's position was essentially nationalistic, while others in the Werkbund strove for an internationalist stance that celebrated the ideals of Modernism emerging in other countries during this period — chiefly those of individualism. These debates were interrupted by the outbreak of the First World War. During the war, Muthesius's desire for standardization on a national level was in many ways satisfied, as the DIN format (Deutsche-Industrie-Norm) was introduced in the military, following British military standards of the time. This move launched standardization on a massive scale in Germany and provided the inspiration for the standardized building components of the Bauhaus movement that would emerge after the war. This form of standardization also initiated the trend toward modularity — a trend that would become intrinsic to Modernist architecture and design throughout the following decades.

Conclusion

While the Deutscher Werkbund and the Bauhaus both shared similar visions of a twentieth-century architectural and design standard that would attain aesthetic purity by doing away with ornamentation in favor of an objective functionalism — harmonizing form with function — the architectural products of the two movements appear quite distinct from a contemporary standpoint. The key to this distinction lies in the inconsistencies within the Werkbund project that came to light in the debates of 1914, inconsistencies that were later resolved by the Bauhaus projects of the subsequent decades.