Pokrewne
- Strona Główna
- Strach przed ciemna woda Craig Russell
- Rice Craig Roze Pani Cherington
- Craig Rice Roze Pani Cherington
- Thomas Craig Niedzwiedzie lzy
- § Thomas Craig Niedzwiedzie lzy
- Margret Kentgens Craig The Bauhaus and America, First Contacts, 1919 1936 (1999)
- Dav
- Anonim PieÂśń o Rolandzie
- Dominik Myrcik Na krawedzi prawdy
- Zajdel Janusz A. Lalande 21185
- zanotowane.pl
- doc.pisz.pl
- pdf.pisz.pl
- dmn.xlx.pl
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Increasing attention was paid to Mies after he organized the Weissenhof exposition inStuttgart in 1927, at which exemplary projects by European avant-garde architectswere realized.He himself built a multifamily dwelling at the exposition.In 1929,Henry-Russell Hitchcock made reference to precisely this building in his book ModernArchitecture, praising Mies as a highly promising pioneer of the Neues Bauen.In 1929, the German Pavilion for the Barcelona world s fair was built.It mightjustifiably be expected that Mies van der Rohe s seminal work, published more often inEurope than any of his other buildings, would have ensured his breakthrough in Amer-ica.It was, however, ignored in the United States.This is astonishing, in that mediainformation on the world s fair was anything but paltry.One might explain the fact bycontending that the American reporters were overwhelmed, or at least distracted, bythe elegance of the old city and its historic buildings.Moreover, there may not havebeen anyone among them ready to acknowledge the first major international represen-tation of German architecture since the First World War.One exception was Helen Appleton Read s article Germany at the BarcelonaWorld s Fair of 1929, which appeared in The Arts.She perceived the building s artisticquality, which, as she rightly recognized, completely removed Mies from the camp ofthe German functionalists.The contemplatively written text is accompanied by twophotographs of the buildings.In a more than two-page article, marked by insightfulobservations, the author builds an argument for considering the work to be a master-piece and a symbol of German postwar culture, characterized by clarity, objectivity,and integrity.Thus, the architecture of Mies van der Rohe is explicitly credited withexpressing artistic and cultural-political value, as had previously been the case with thework of Walter Gropius as architect of the Weimar democracy or with the Bauhaus asinstitutional symbol of Germany s new democratic social order.77 It was only in 1932,76 Lincoln Kirstein, introduction to the Arts Club of Chicago s Catalogue of an Exhibition from theBauhaus, Dessau, Germany, 3.77 Helen A.Read, Germany at the Barcelona World s Fair, 112f. 136 THE IMAGE OF THE BAUHAUS AS RECEIVED IN AMERICAin Johnson and Hitchcock s exhibition Modern Architecture: International Exhibi-tion, that the building was acknowledged and duly respected by the architecturalaudience.78Only after 1930, the year in which the Tugendhat house was completed in Brno,did the American reception of Mies gather speed.In contrast to the Barcelona Pavilion,this work was immediately acknowledged.Its flowing boundary between inside andoutside was among the qualities noted; an article in Architectural Review stated: [TheTugendhat House is] the consummate realization of the illusion of unclosed space: theenvelope is so unobtrusive as almost to be unnoticeable. 79 Ignoring the controversiesthat the building had triggered in German architectural circles, Philip Johnson calledit the best looking house in the world. 80 Almost instantly, the Tugendhat house be-came the work by Mies most often published in the United States, as it remained dur-ing the following six years.In 1932, at the Modern Architecture exhibition in NewYork, a model of the house was displayed and much admired.A space designed espe-cially for the house was illustrated in publications and received much attention, guar-anteeing Mies s reputation by the beginning of the thirties as a designer of interiorsand avant-garde furniture.This reputation sometimes developed its own dubious dy-namic, as a letter from the editor of the journal Modern Plastics makes obvious.The personal invitation asks Mies to submit as many entries as you possibly can to a Modern Plastics Competition, in the interest of better design and applicationthroughout the plastics industry. 81 Mies s reply is not known, nor are any efforts byhim to design in plastics.The organization of the German Building Exposition in Berlin in 1931 alsocirculated Mies s name in the American media.Helen Read s twelve-page article on theexhibition centered on Mies.She included illustrations of his work, wrote about hisartistic relationship to Bruno Paul and Peter Behrens, compared him with other avant-gardists, and dealt with such concepts as functionalism and Neue Sachlichkeit. Mies van der Rohe, the celebrated architect and director of the Bauhaus in Dessau, 82as she reported, was in charge of the installation and direction of the renowned Berlinevent.His own model house would be exhibited there.Unlike Gropius, Mies did not intervene actively in the American perception ofhis person and work.But he was undoubtedly concerned that he not be identified withwork and people who did not measure up to his standards.Thus, he warned PhilipJohnson, who apparently was planning an exhibition on Mies and his students, not tobe overly generous in defining the concept student : I thank you for your letter ofNovember 2 of this year and understand that you would like to mount an exhibition ofthe work of my former students.It is somewhat unclear to me whom you are consider-ing.But it is out of the question that anyone who spent only a short time at theBauhaus or worked in my office can be considered my student. 83Mies himself maintained a certain distance from the Bauhaus in the twentiesand, at least until the middle of the following decade, an ambivalent, if not critical, 137 THE DIRECTORSattitude toward Walter Gropius.In a letter to Theo van Doesburg, for example, hecriticized Gropius for the 1922 1923 curricular reorganization of the Bauhaus.Hefeared that the new constructivist position would favor a pseudo-artistic formalism.84Nonetheless, he accepted the invitation to participate in the Weimar Bauhaus exhibi-tion from 1 August through 30 September 1923.When the first Bauhaus book waspublished in 1925, Gropius asked him to write an essay for one of the following vol-umes, although Mies declined.85 On the other hand, Mies supported the Bauhaus dur-ing the preliminary negotiations between Gropius and the mayor of Dessau FritzHesse, when animosity in the city threatened to sway the decision of the city council.The mayor only agreed that the Bauhaus should move to Dessau after such prominentpersonalities as Peter Behrens and Mies van der Rohe as well as the Ring group hadtaken a stance in support of the plan.86 In 1928, Gropius offered the directorship of theBauhaus to Mies, who declined.87 Only after Gropius, alarmed by the increasing politi-cal attacks to which the school was subject under Hannes Meyer, offered it to him asecond time in 1930 did he accept.Mies had no experience with teaching at schoolsor universities, nor had he sought that experience.88 The engagement with which hereconceived the Bauhaus, coached its students individually, and led the school proveshis identification with the duties of the office.On the other hand, his interest in ad-ministration or in contact with the student body as a whole seems to have been mini-mal [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl agnieszka90.opx.pl
.Increasing attention was paid to Mies after he organized the Weissenhof exposition inStuttgart in 1927, at which exemplary projects by European avant-garde architectswere realized.He himself built a multifamily dwelling at the exposition.In 1929,Henry-Russell Hitchcock made reference to precisely this building in his book ModernArchitecture, praising Mies as a highly promising pioneer of the Neues Bauen.In 1929, the German Pavilion for the Barcelona world s fair was built.It mightjustifiably be expected that Mies van der Rohe s seminal work, published more often inEurope than any of his other buildings, would have ensured his breakthrough in Amer-ica.It was, however, ignored in the United States.This is astonishing, in that mediainformation on the world s fair was anything but paltry.One might explain the fact bycontending that the American reporters were overwhelmed, or at least distracted, bythe elegance of the old city and its historic buildings.Moreover, there may not havebeen anyone among them ready to acknowledge the first major international represen-tation of German architecture since the First World War.One exception was Helen Appleton Read s article Germany at the BarcelonaWorld s Fair of 1929, which appeared in The Arts.She perceived the building s artisticquality, which, as she rightly recognized, completely removed Mies from the camp ofthe German functionalists.The contemplatively written text is accompanied by twophotographs of the buildings.In a more than two-page article, marked by insightfulobservations, the author builds an argument for considering the work to be a master-piece and a symbol of German postwar culture, characterized by clarity, objectivity,and integrity.Thus, the architecture of Mies van der Rohe is explicitly credited withexpressing artistic and cultural-political value, as had previously been the case with thework of Walter Gropius as architect of the Weimar democracy or with the Bauhaus asinstitutional symbol of Germany s new democratic social order.77 It was only in 1932,76 Lincoln Kirstein, introduction to the Arts Club of Chicago s Catalogue of an Exhibition from theBauhaus, Dessau, Germany, 3.77 Helen A.Read, Germany at the Barcelona World s Fair, 112f. 136 THE IMAGE OF THE BAUHAUS AS RECEIVED IN AMERICAin Johnson and Hitchcock s exhibition Modern Architecture: International Exhibi-tion, that the building was acknowledged and duly respected by the architecturalaudience.78Only after 1930, the year in which the Tugendhat house was completed in Brno,did the American reception of Mies gather speed.In contrast to the Barcelona Pavilion,this work was immediately acknowledged.Its flowing boundary between inside andoutside was among the qualities noted; an article in Architectural Review stated: [TheTugendhat House is] the consummate realization of the illusion of unclosed space: theenvelope is so unobtrusive as almost to be unnoticeable. 79 Ignoring the controversiesthat the building had triggered in German architectural circles, Philip Johnson calledit the best looking house in the world. 80 Almost instantly, the Tugendhat house be-came the work by Mies most often published in the United States, as it remained dur-ing the following six years.In 1932, at the Modern Architecture exhibition in NewYork, a model of the house was displayed and much admired.A space designed espe-cially for the house was illustrated in publications and received much attention, guar-anteeing Mies s reputation by the beginning of the thirties as a designer of interiorsand avant-garde furniture.This reputation sometimes developed its own dubious dy-namic, as a letter from the editor of the journal Modern Plastics makes obvious.The personal invitation asks Mies to submit as many entries as you possibly can to a Modern Plastics Competition, in the interest of better design and applicationthroughout the plastics industry. 81 Mies s reply is not known, nor are any efforts byhim to design in plastics.The organization of the German Building Exposition in Berlin in 1931 alsocirculated Mies s name in the American media.Helen Read s twelve-page article on theexhibition centered on Mies.She included illustrations of his work, wrote about hisartistic relationship to Bruno Paul and Peter Behrens, compared him with other avant-gardists, and dealt with such concepts as functionalism and Neue Sachlichkeit. Mies van der Rohe, the celebrated architect and director of the Bauhaus in Dessau, 82as she reported, was in charge of the installation and direction of the renowned Berlinevent.His own model house would be exhibited there.Unlike Gropius, Mies did not intervene actively in the American perception ofhis person and work.But he was undoubtedly concerned that he not be identified withwork and people who did not measure up to his standards.Thus, he warned PhilipJohnson, who apparently was planning an exhibition on Mies and his students, not tobe overly generous in defining the concept student : I thank you for your letter ofNovember 2 of this year and understand that you would like to mount an exhibition ofthe work of my former students.It is somewhat unclear to me whom you are consider-ing.But it is out of the question that anyone who spent only a short time at theBauhaus or worked in my office can be considered my student. 83Mies himself maintained a certain distance from the Bauhaus in the twentiesand, at least until the middle of the following decade, an ambivalent, if not critical, 137 THE DIRECTORSattitude toward Walter Gropius.In a letter to Theo van Doesburg, for example, hecriticized Gropius for the 1922 1923 curricular reorganization of the Bauhaus.Hefeared that the new constructivist position would favor a pseudo-artistic formalism.84Nonetheless, he accepted the invitation to participate in the Weimar Bauhaus exhibi-tion from 1 August through 30 September 1923.When the first Bauhaus book waspublished in 1925, Gropius asked him to write an essay for one of the following vol-umes, although Mies declined.85 On the other hand, Mies supported the Bauhaus dur-ing the preliminary negotiations between Gropius and the mayor of Dessau FritzHesse, when animosity in the city threatened to sway the decision of the city council.The mayor only agreed that the Bauhaus should move to Dessau after such prominentpersonalities as Peter Behrens and Mies van der Rohe as well as the Ring group hadtaken a stance in support of the plan.86 In 1928, Gropius offered the directorship of theBauhaus to Mies, who declined.87 Only after Gropius, alarmed by the increasing politi-cal attacks to which the school was subject under Hannes Meyer, offered it to him asecond time in 1930 did he accept.Mies had no experience with teaching at schoolsor universities, nor had he sought that experience.88 The engagement with which hereconceived the Bauhaus, coached its students individually, and led the school proveshis identification with the duties of the office.On the other hand, his interest in ad-ministration or in contact with the student body as a whole seems to have been mini-mal [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]