In What Style Should We Build? the German Debate on Architectural Style
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TEXTS & DOCUMENTS A SERIES OF THE GETTY CENTER PUBLICATION PROGRAMS The TEXTS & DOCUMENTS series offers to the student of art, architecture, and aesthetics neglected, forgotten, or unavailable writings in English translation. Edited according to modern standards of scholarship and framed by critical intro- ductions and commentaries, these volumes gradually mine the past centuries for studies that retain their significance in our understanding of art and of the issues surrounding its produc- tion, reception, and interpretation. Eminent scholars guide the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humani- ties in the selection and publication of TEXTS & DOCUMENTS. Each volume acquaints read- ers with the broader cultural conditions at the genesis of the text and equips them with the needed apparatus for its study. Over time the series will greatly expand our horizon and deepen our understanding of critical thinking on art. Julia Bloomfield, Kurt W. Forster, Thomas F. Reese, Editors The Getty Center Publication Programs This page intentionally left blank IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD? This page intentionally left blank PUBLISHED BY THE GETTY CENTER DISTRIBUTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OE CHICAGO PRESS TEXTS & DOCUMENTSD IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD? THE GERMAN DEBATE ON ARCHITECTURAL STYLE HEINRICH HUBSCH, 1828 RUDOLF WIEGMANN, 1829 CARL ALBERT ROSENTHAL, 1844 JOHANN HEINRICH WOLFF, 1845 CARL GOTTLIEB WILHELM BOTTICHER, 1846 HEINRICH HUBSCH, 1847 INTRODUCTION TRANSLATION BY WORLFGANG HERRMANN THE GETTY CENTER PUBLICATION PROGRAMS Julia Bloomfield, Kurt W. Forster, Thomas F. Reese, Editors TEXTS & DOCUMENTS Architecture Harry F. Mallgrave, Editor In What Style Should We Build? The German Debate on Architectural Style David Britt, Translation and Manuscript Editor Margarete Kiihn, Editorial Consultant Lynne Hockman, Copy Editor Published by the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, Santa Monica, CA 90401-1455 © 1992 by The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities All rights reserved. Published 1992 Printed in the United States of America 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 7654321 Publication data for the original German texts may be found in the source notes following each translation. Cover: Heinrich Hiibsch, Polytechnische Hochschule, Karlsruhe (1833-1835). Drawing. Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is to be found on the last printed page of this book. TABLE OF CONTENTS xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 WOLFGANG HERRMANN INTRODUCTION LfI»r*vJl HEINRICH HUBSCH IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD? 103 RUDOLF WIEGMANN REMARKS ON THE TREATISE IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD? ilB CARL ALBERT ROSENTHAL IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD? A QUESTION ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ARCHITEKTENVEREIN 125 jOHANN HEINRICH WOLFF REMARKS ON THE ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS BROACHED BY PROFESSOR STIER AT THE MEETING OF ARCHITECTS AT BAMBERG 147 CARL GOTTLIEB WILHELM BOTTICHER THE PRINCIPLES OF THE HELLENIC AND GERMANIC WAYS OF BUILDING WITH REGARD TO THEIR APPLICATION TO OUR PRESENT WAY OF BUILDING 169 HEINRICH HUBSCH THE DIFFERING VIEWS OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IN RELATION TO THE PRESENT TIME 178 BIBLIOGRAPHIES 193 BIOGRAPHIES 199 INDEX This page intentionally left blank ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The five German texts presented here in English translation introduce the reader to a debate that preceded, and in scope surpassed, a similar English controversy. This debate was sparked off by the appearance of a book by Heinrich Hubsch entitled In welchem Style sollen wir bauen? (In What Style Should We Build?) in 1828. The title of Hiibsch's book was also used as the title of a study by Klaus Dohmer (Munich, 1976) in which he explored the wide range of contemporary journals on architecture and art for aspects concerning controversial stylistic topics. As his subtitle indicated, Dohmer widened his search to cover the entire interval between Klassizismus and Jugendstil, whereas I confine the inquiry to a debate lasting only two decades. Dohmer's book has nevertheless been invaluable in assisting me to sift through the material relating to this short period. I am most grateful to Harry F. Mallgrave for the fruitful discussions we had about this project and especially for the great care he took in reading the first draft of the translation and the many suggestions and corrections he made to improve it. The final text is to a consider- able extent due to the skill and experience with which David Britt undertook the comprehen- sive task of editing. I am greatly indebted to him. I am also very grateful to Professor Margarete Kiihn for her valuable advice on selecting and procuring illustrations of Karl Friedrich Schinkel's buildings. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Kurt W. Forster, Thomas F. Reese, and the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities for entrusting me with the execution of the project and especially to Julia Bloomfield for her help, encouragement, and friendship while guiding the work through its many stages. -W.H. This page intentionally left blank INTRODUCTION WOLFGANG HERRMANN HEINRICH HUBSCH CHOSE A STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION AS THE TITLE FOR THE FIFTY-PAGE BOOK THAT HE PUBLISHED IN 1828. Nevertheless, a complex of problems, con- flicts, and uncertainties underlay its seemingly simple wording, occupying the minds of those who, like Hubsch, were concerned about the unsatisfactory state of archi- tecture. Over the next few decades attempts were made to answer the question or at least to consider seriously its implications. Arguments and counterarguments were advanced in quick succession; traditional values were upheld against radical pro- posals, and a materialistic approach was opposed by an idealistic point of view. A lively debate, carried on in speeches and in print, arose among those whose profes- sions and predilections inclined them toward an interest in the controversy-architects and, quite frequently, art critics and academics. The main theme of the discussion-and the one on which this introduc- tory essay will focus-was the question of style. Naturally, many other factors were pursued in the course of often quite elaborate argumentation, but it is those that relate most closely to the concept of style-such as construction, material, customs, or religious and aesthetic values-that are of particular interest. Those men who were to take part in the style controversy were born around the turn of the century. During their formative years the mainly literary cur- rent of the Sturm und Drang period swelled into the full flood of Romanticism in all the arts; and in this movement they found the fulfillment of everything they longed for: escape from the confines of traditional rule and conventional order into a world that responded to their emotions. This generation chiefly owed its serious interest in medieval art and architecture to two men: Sulpiz Boisseree and Friedrich von Schlegel, the former through his collection of early German paintings, the lat- ter through a publication describing medieval art and the deep impression that the cathedrals of Cologne and Strasbourg had made on him.1 The enthusiasm with which the younger generation responded to the newly revealed beauty of Gothic churches led many to choose architecture as the subject of their studies. Naturally, their teachers, who belonged to the preceding generation, firmly believed in the universal validity of the architectural canon of antiquity. Sooner or later, this was bound to lead to conflict. The way in which Heinrich Hiibsch's professional life developed is a good example. Looking back to the day when, as a twenty-year-old, he had entere Friedrich Weinbrenner's studio, Hiibsch recalled how deeply impressed he had been by the "pointed-arch" style (Spitzbogenstil), "probably because the views of Goethe, Schlegel, and others had a strong influence on me."2 It is therefore not surprising to hear that even after two years of studying the classical canon under Weinbrenner, he still held to his first conviction "that ancient architecture was unsuitable for our buildings, even when applied in the freest possible manner, and that it deprived them, as works of art, of the organic correlation of their parts." He admitted, however, that he was still too immature to be able to suggest something else to supersede what- ever had been done hitherto.3 He still preferred the "vivid splendor of Gothic archi- tecture" to the "lifeless planes... of facades built in the antique style"4 when he decided two years later, as was then quite usual, to continue his architectural edu- cation by studying the antiquities of Rome. Moreover, as the center of the Romantic German Nazarene movement, that city had an additional attraction for him. 2. HERRMANN What interested him was not so much the ancient monuments as the medieval Italian churches and the manner in which their architects had simplified the Gothic forms. He adopted these simple forms in the first year of his stay in Rome, when he worked on designing churches in the Gothic style. During his second year, he traveled to Greece. His reaction to the important event of seeing Greek architec- ture in its pure form, and not in the corrupted interpretation presented by succeeding generations, is most revealing. "On my return from Greece to Rome," he recounted later, "I had completely changed my views. The prolonged contemplation of Greek monuments strengthened me in my belief as to the inadequacy of Greek architec- ture for our extensive needs... and at the same time convinced me... that in order to establish a new style, alive to the demands made by the present, I had to proceed more radically than I had done so far."5 Thus, by 1819 he already had a goal that from then on would guide all his thoughts: to overcome what he called the "crisis of present-day architecture."6 Hubsch felt that progress toward the aim he had set himself-the establishment of a new style-was impeded by the tenets of classical doctrine.