THE COMEBACK 7 The books and work carried out by the German ar- Y HE RETURN chitect Heinrich Tessenow (1876-1950) were largely re- covered and used at the end of sixties decade by part of OF TESSENOW the European architectural critics. One of the main rea- sons for this was the publication in Italy in 1974 of the JOSEP MARIA MONTANER works of Tessenow, with a prologue written by Giorgio Grassi, one of his main supporters.1 Grassi had already referred to Tessenow in his first book, La coslmzione lógica dell'architettura, written in 1967. Other books and works were also published at the same time as part of the vindication movement of this figure.2 These books, especially those by Grassi, though accepting some of the links that he no doubt had with the reactionary ar- chitecture of nazism, used the figure of Tessenow as that of a valuable architect whose work and ideas were of key importance for the project of reformulating the discipline of architecture in which many of the Europe- an architects of the sixties were involved, especially the Italians. Thus, it began to be spoken once again of a person who had been very uncomfortable to most and who, logically, had been left out in much of the historiogra- phy linked to the Modern Movement. Pevsner, Zevi, Giedion, and also Benevolo and Tafuri, and even Frampton, had avoided referring to this architect whose work spanned the first three decades of the xxth Century. An architect who had been dedicated to an essencialist architecture, defending the trade and craft- work involved in it and who still believed in the stanr dard components of classicism. Tessenow will always be an unclassifiable and uncomfortable individual, as were others at the end of the xixth and beginning of the xxth centuries: the team formed by McKim, Mead and White, Erik Gunnar Asplund, Sigurd Lewerentz, Jozef Plecnik, Willem Marinus Dudok and others. All these architects did not fit well within typical evolutive inter- pretations, the optimistically Hegelian interpretations of conventional historiography; these individuals were the ones who mostly created the crisis of the ob- solete traditional categories. When speaking of Tes- senow, Grassi had already written: If we try to put him within the suggestive frameworks of the official critics of the Modern Movement, there is probably no other individual who is more uncom- fortable.3 JOSEP M. MONTANER Tessenow's ideas on architecture, very critical towards Doctor in Architecture. Official pro- the Modern Movement, and certain points of contact lessor ol Composition at the School between his architecture and the architecture later pro- of Architecture in Barcelona. Author ol the hooks L'ojlci de l'arquitectura. 19H3; Arquitectura industrial a Cata- lunya, del 1732 al 1929. 1984. and Los 1. See the text by Grassi, G., «Introducción a Tessenow». in La ar- museos tic la última generación. 1986. quitectura cunto oficio. Ed. Gustavo Gili. Barcelona. 1980. Awarded «Lluís Domènech i Monta- 2. In 1976 Tessenow's complete works were published care of Wan- ner». Contributor to the Universal gerin. Gerda, and Weiss, Gerhard, in the book Heinrich Tessenow, 1876- Encyclopaedia Espasa and to the 1950, Richard Bacht GMBM Publishing, Essen. 1976. newspaper El País. 3. Grassi, G., op. cit. Temes de ttssenv, 19)1/5. pp. 205-211 moted by the nazi era —a defense of traditional hous- democrats. Later he simply began to move away from ing, the activity of his pupil Albert Speer, the erection any outlook that had to do with politics. I used to see built in 1936 titled Strength through Happiness, etc.— him frequently but by then, logically, he was very have made him especially uncomfortable to deal with. careful. If he had said what he probably thought, that Recently, Tessenow has begun to be spoken of once would have been the end of his career as a professor.6 again. The most outstanding result of this is the article published by Michael Hays, of Northamerican na- During the twenties in Berlin, the two project profes- tionality, which simultaneously appeared in 9H and As- sors at the Berlin Polytechnic were Tessenow and Poel- semblage.4 In this case, in 1989, Hays's interpretation is zig. The students could choose either one or the other. completely opposed to that of Grassi. While Grassi's If they opted for Poelzig, this meant choosing experi- interpretation is of a disciplinary and culturalist nature, mentation, the study of all possibilities, in other words, using Tessenow in order to promote his defense of the doubt. If they chose Tessenow, this implied opting for permanent value of architecture, its statute as a collec- his line of thought based on considering craftwork es- tive factor, the value of tradition and the laws of craft- sential and trying to understand tradition, underlining work, Hays's interpretation is more ideological and cri- the importance of simplicity and repetition, trying to tical, and Tessenow serves to explain the reactionary understand the infinite difficulty of having to consider values of all those architectures whose pretense is to the demands of everyday life and considering even the recover the elements and reasons of times gone by, in smallest details meaningful. According to Julius Pose- an attempt to deal with the divisions and contradictions ner, that are already manifest in society at that time. his projects for small houses for workers, which seem so simple, were really studied in great depth, from the THE CELEBRITY proportions of the windows to the house as a whole. For him it was a difficult task, but he thought that it In the case of Tessenow, as with many other artists was just as necessary to dedicate so much attention to and thinkers of the xxth Century, it is difficult to sepa- the houses for the poor as to the palaces for the very rate ideological factors from architectural factors. The rich.7 fact that Albert Speer, Hitler's official architect, worked with him has been used many times to attack him. In a Nevertheless, both Tessenow and Poelzig had in com- interview carried out in 1977, Speer himself greatly cla- mon the fact of not being openly committed to the prin- rified the extent of his collaboration with Tessenow: ciple of functionalism, thus generating at the School of Architecture a generation of people who were very criti- I wasn't with him in his study for very long; more or cal of functionalism, even at a time when the latter was less nine months. 1 did a few drawings, but not inde- at its prime. Posener explains: pendently. I only did what had already been previous- ly decided by Tessenow and his closest collaborators. Among the young people, around 1930, there were Later I was named his assistant at the University. This many who were very critical of functionalism, a move- meant that I had to assist him in teaching his ideas to ment in which I also participated. But, where were we the students. I wasn't, therefore, involved in any of his heading? Many of them returned to German traditio- projects since they were all carried out in his study. nal architecture when this step backward was offi- That was his job.5 cially demanded. Tessenow's students were probably more exposed to this virus than Poelzig's pupils, be- Tessenow was a professor at the Berlin Politechnic cause it was easier to exchange Tessenow for a proto- until 1934. Since it was a wellknown fact that he did not nazi architect. Many of Poelzig's students left Ger- sympathize with the regime, he was withdrawn from many after 1933. In his group there were more Jews, teaching by the nazis. One of the reasons that he was left wing liberals and socialists than in Tessenow's. given for this was his participation in the circle of friends Undoubtedly, therefore, Tessenow's ideas were easily of the editor Cassirier. After some time, nevertheless, usable by reactionary ideology. Nevertheless, there is Speer managed to have him admitted once again but also no doubt about Tessenow's aversion towards na- Tessenow did not accept. In the aforementioned inter- zism.8 view, Speer explains that Tessenow was, Proof of this is that during the last years of his life, in a certain sense, very much committed to and inspi- since 1945, he was especially well treated and welcomed red by socialism. (...) His first loyalty was to the social by the soviets. 4. Hays, M., «Tessenow's Architecture as National Allegory: Criti- 6. Extracted from Dal Co, F., and Polamo, S., op. cil. que of Capitalism or Protofascism?», Assemblage, n° 8, New York, 7. Extracted from Posener, J., «Hans Poelzig e Heinrich Tessenow February, 1989. alia Technische Hochschule in Berlin - Charlo Henburg», Lotus. n° 16, 5. Extracted from Dal Co, F., and Polamo, S., «Interview with Albert Italy, September, 1977. Speer», Oppositions, n° 12, Spring, 1978. 8. Posener, J., op. cit. THE DIFFERENT VISIONS already lost and splintered. Tessenow defends the bour- geois objectualworld as a.whole. Tessenow insisted on ideas that had specific value Therefore, the commonplace that is always applied during the 1910's and 1920's; these same ideas had a in reference to Tessenow is true, that is, his conservative different value during the sixties and seventies, and attitude towards preserving the formal qualities of a another different one today. Tessenow did not trust the specific world, that of the bourgeois of the end of the formal slogans of the architects of the Modern Move- xixth Century and the standard components of classi- ment. As many other members of his generation, he did cism.