EXHIBITION CHECKLIST project, Atelier Warmbronn, ca. 1970 FREI OTTO AT WORK Soap bubble model, Three drawings by Frei minimal surfaces of mem- Models, Otto, Atelier Warmbronn, branes with low-lying points, ca. 1969 Atelier Warmbronn, 1963 Three images of Frei Otto Soap bubble model, photographing a model, minimal surfaces of Media, and Atelier Warmbronn, ca. 1971 membranes with low-lying Two images of Frei Otto points, photograph, 1963 taking photographs of Four photographs of Methods the model of the canopy for Frei Otto, suspended chain the temp­ ­orary stand of the model, Atelier Warmbonn swimming pool in the EL (Develop­ment Center for Two models of pneumatic Olympic Park, STRUCTURAL DESIGN Lightweight Construction), structure, plaster Atelier Warmbronn, ca. 1970 Parabolic pavilion, contact sheet, , 1956 Design for intersecting Frei Otto with his team, Entwicklungsstätte für den Membrane (L. Stromeyer, wave pavilions, Internationale Atelier Warmbronn Leichtbau EL (Develop­ment Kostanz), Entwicklungs­stätte Gartenbauaustellung (IGA), Center for Lightweight­ für den Leichtbau EL model, marble, wood, metal, NATURE STUDIES Construction), plan and photo (Dev­el­op­ment Center for plaster, 1963 Nature studies, detail of a collage, Berlin, 1952 Lightweight Cons­truction), Hanger design model for spider web, Atelier Warmbonn High low study, Entwick- Berlin, plan, 1956 a church, wood, metal, textile, Nature studies, feather, lungs­ stätte­ für den Leichtbau Tent for the BUGA horticul­- stones, dried plants, 1964 Atelier Warmbonn EL (Development Center tural show, , Entwick­- Nature studies, plant, for Lightweight Constructio­ n), lungsstätte für den Leichtbau EL BERLIN Atelier Warmbonn photograph, Berlin, 1954 EL (Development Center Exterior view, Entwick­ Nature studies, wing, High-low study, Entwick- for Lightweight Construc­tion), lungsstätte für den Leichtbau Atelier Warmbonn lungs­stätte für den Leichtbau photo collage, Berlin, 1957 EL (Development Center for EL (Development Center for Tents for the “Interbau,” Lightweight Construction), FORM FINDING WITH PNEUS, Lightweight Construction), Berlin, photo collage, 1957 Berlin, plan and drawing, 1959 SOAP BUBBLES, SUSPENDED plan, Berlin, 1954 Model of the “Tanzbrunnen” Interior view, Entwick­ CHAINS, AND SAND Variations of different Three photographs of structural designs, Entwick­ Frei Otto experimenting with lungsstätte für den Leichtbau pneumatic models, Atelier EL (Development Center for Warmbronn Lightweight Cons­t­ruc­tion), Frei Otto’s Soap-bubble model drawing, Berlin, 1961 with contour lines, Atelier Structural design studies, Warmbronn Entwicklungsstätte für den Three soap bubbles Leichtbau EL (Development Architectural of equal size join together Center for Lightweight Cons­- to create a regular form, t­ruc­tion), drawing, Berlin, 1960 Atelier Warmbronn Four images of Frei Otto, Research Small soap bubbles fundamental concepts of of different sizes surround construction, collage, 1961 a large bubble, Atelier Entwicklungsstätte für den (dance pavilion), Entwick­ lungs­stätte für den Warmbronn Leichtbau EL (Develop­ment lungsstätte für den Leichtbau Leichtbau EL (Development Soap bubble model, Center for Lightweight Cons- EL (Development Center for Center for Lightweight Atelier Warmbronn truction, Berlin), plan, 1961 Lightweight Construction), Cons­truction), Berlin, plan Soap bubble models, Berlin, 1957 and drawing, 1960 Institute for Lightweight TENT PROJECTS Three images of soap Structures (IL) at the Different tent designs, bubble model of the “Tanz­ HOUSING PROJECTS University of , Entwicklungs­stätte für den brunnen” (dance pavilion), Housing project for 12 contact sheets Leichtbau EL (Development Entwicklungs­stätte für den families, colored drawing, 1951 Fill model packed with Center for Lightweight Cons­- Leichtbau EL (Development Two images of housing sand in a wooden frame truction), Berlin, drawing, 1953 Center for Lightweight project for 12 families, plan with regular drill holes Temporary tent for a Construction), Berlin, 1957 and drawing, 1951 Fill model packed theater (“Sternwellenzelt”), “Tanzbrunnen” (dance Housing project for Berlin- with sand for a convertible , drawing, Entwick­ pavilion) tent at night, 1957 Waidmannslust, Entwick­ tent, Regensburg project, lungsstätte für den Leichtbau Two images of “high-low- lungsstätte für den Leichtbau Atelier Warmbronn, ca. 1970 EL (Development Center for point structural model,” 1964 EL (Dev­elopment­ Center for Fabric model of the conver- Lightweight Construction), Lightweight Construction), tible tent, Regensburg project, photo collage, Berlin, 1955 MODELS Berlin, plan and drawing, 1952 Atelier Warmbronn, ca. 1970 Four-point tent, Entwick­- Four-point surface, Sand model, Regensburg lungs­stätte für den Leichtbau model, wood, marble, metal, Continued on back cover

Models, Media, and Methods

Frei Otto’s Architectural Research

Curated by Georg Vrachliotis

Yale School of Gallery February 20–May 2, 2020

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 1 2/5/20 1:24 PM Frei Otto, suspended chain model, Atelier Warmbronn, photograph

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 2 2/5/20 1:24 PM Frei Otto, suspended chain model, Atelier Warmbronn, photograph

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 3 2/5/20 1:24 PM Director’s Statement As an architecture student, I recall Dean’s Preface happening upon Frei Otto’s IL Bulletin and discovering a treasure trove of ideas and prompts to experiment with that opened my eyes to new methods and muses. The occasion of this exhibition and the way it delves into the archives of IL has given me the opportunity to reflect on that gift. Much of that stems from Otto’s savvy use of media. Photography and publications were vital to his working process, aiding directly in form-finding while drawing together a community of like-minded seekers. Before he was able to realize his ideas in built form, he put them out into the world through his teaching and through IL, which operated like a perpetual exhibition. It should come as no surprise that I was thrilled when Georg Vrachliotis approached me with the idea to mount this exhibit on the sixtieth anniversary of Otto’s stint in New Haven. I am grateful for his energy and enthusiasm for sharing Otto’s legacy. I also appreciate the resources and generosity of the Südwestdeutches Archiv für Architektur and the Institute of Technology to lend us the work. At the School of Architecture, I wish to thank Dean Deborah Berke for her support and direction. I am grateful to Alison Walsh, exhibition coordinator; Eric Sparks for the exhibition fabrication; Erin Kim for graphics; Brian Hopkins for titles; and our installation team. Finally, I wish to thank graphic designer David Reinfurt of O-R-G inc., and Nina Rappaport, editor of this publication.

Andrew Benner, Director of Exhibitions

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 4 2/10/20 12:41 PM As an architecture student, I recall Dean’s Preface It is a pleasure to welcome this exhibition happening upon Frei Otto’s IL Bulletin on Frei Otto to the Yale School of Architec- and discovering a treasure trove of ideas ture nearly sixty years after he first arrived and prompts to experiment with that to teach as a visiting professor. One of opened my eyes to new methods and the privileges of being Dean is identifying muses. The occasion of this exhibition and and cultivating talented teachers who the way it delves into the archives of IL we can invite into our midst to expose our has given me the opportunity to reflect on students to new and often challenging that gift. Much of that stems from Otto’s perspectives. This must have been what savvy use of media. Paul Rudolph had in mind when he invited Photography and publications were Otto to our school in 1960. Models, Media, vital to his working process, aiding directly and Methods: Frei Otto’s Architectural in form-finding while drawing together a Research allows us to revisit his legacy and community of like-minded seekers. peruse materials from his archive. Before he was able to realize his ideas in While Otto went on to a distinguished built form, he put them out into the world and prize-winning career, what is most through his teaching and through IL, remarkable is the prescience of his teach- which operated like a perpetual exhibition. ing in 1960, reflected in the publications It should come as no surprise that I that form the backbone of this exhibition. was thrilled when Georg Vrachliotis His pursuit of material and resource approached me with the idea to mount this efficiency led to elegant designs, but also exhibit on the sixtieth anniversary of Otto’s prefigured many of the tenets that now stint in New Haven. I am grateful for his fall under the umbrella of sustainability. energy and enthusiasm for sharing Otto’s He was an early advocate of bio-mimicry legacy. I also appreciate the resources and fostered a culture of material, and generosity of the Südwestdeutches structural, and formal experimentation Archiv für Architektur and the Karlsruhe that was well ahead of its time. That spirit Institute of Technology to lend us the work. of experimentation is one that I hope At the School of Architecture, I wish our current students absorb and take up to thank Dean Deborah Berke for her with a new set of tools. support and direction. I am grateful to I am thankful to Georg Vrachliotis Alison Walsh, exhibition coordinator; and the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Eric Sparks for the exhibition fabrication; for opening Otto’s archive to us. At Yale, Erin Kim for graphics; Brian Hopkins I would like to thank our director of for titles; and our installation team. Finally, exhibitions, Andrew Benner, for working I wish to thank graphic designer David with Georg to bring the show to our Reinfurt of O-R-G inc., and Nina Rappaport, gallery. My gratitude extends also to our editor of this publication. installation crew, led by Alison Walsh, exhibitions coordinator. Andrew Benner, Director of Exhibitions Deborah Berke, Dean

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 5 2/10/20 12:41 PM Frei Otto, installing the dome for the pneumatic model of the Arctic City project, Atelier Warmbronn, 1971

Frei Otto photographing a model for the Munich Olympic Park, Atelier Warmbronn, ca. 1970

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 6 2/5/20 1:24 PM Frei Otto, installing the dome for the pneumatic model of the Arctic City project, Atelier Warmbronn, 1971

Frei Otto, soap bubble model of the “Tanzbrunnen” (dance pavilion), Frei Otto photographing a model Entwicklungsstätte für den Leichtbau for the Munich Olympic Park, Atelier EL (Development Center for Warmbronn, ca. 1970 Lightweight Construction), Berlin, 1957

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 7 2/5/20 1:24 PM Models, Media, and Methods: “Dr. Otto’s presence on the campus was a Frei Otto’s Architectural Research very important moment in the history of the school, and his contribution was extremely Georg Vrachliotis valuable. He is not only considered one of the finest of teachers but his knowledge of his broad field of specialization is perhaps unmatched by anyone in the Western World. [. . .] His series of books which contains ideas and the results of his research are unique documents and unmatched so far as I know for their thoroughness and their originality.”1 With these lines begins a letter, dated August 16, 1963, written by Gibson A. Danes, then dean of the School of Art and Archi- tecture at Yale University. In 1960 Frei Otto was invited to New Haven as a visiting professor and apparently made a very good impression on students and colleagues. Together, with King-lui Wu, a long-time professor at the school, he taught the course “Structures: Traditional and Lightweight,” an unusual topic for the time. At the begin- ning of the 1960s, lightweight construction was an innovative and interdisciplinary branch of research, but it still occupied a rather marginal position within architecture. Even on the Yale campus, when Otto was discussing floating tents and light mem- brane architecture of filigree models made of soap bubbles with the students on the top floor of the Yale Art Gallery, something almost contradictory was being created on the opposite street corner. The new building for the School of Art & Architecture, de- signed by Paul Rudolph, was monumental poetry in its Brutalist concrete aesthetic.

Research as Cooperation and Discourse

Danes’ letter is also remarkable because instead of describing Otto’s teaching methods at Yale, or individual building projects, it explicitly refers to Otto’s publish- ing activities. Otto’s books are not only “unique documents” of research, but also “unmatched [. . .] for their thoroughness and their originality.” By the mid-1960s, Otto had published over one hundred essays,

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 8 2/10/20 12:41 PM “Dr. Otto’s presence on the campus was a reports, and books; some of them bilingual, very important moment in the history of the some even trilingual. The topics ranged school, and his contribution was extremely wide—from questions about certain materi- valuable. He is not only considered one of als and special construction methods the finest of teachers but his knowledge of to detailed and occasionally critical reports his broad field of specialization is perhaps on individual projects in housing and unmatched by anyone in the Western World. urban planning. [. . .] His series of books which contains ideas For Frei Otto, knowledge production and the results of his research are unique meant both its creation and circulation. documents and unmatched so far as I know Science, to him, was not a cult of genius, but for their thoroughness and their originality.”1 communication, cooperation, and discourse. With these lines begins a letter, dated This is particularly evident in the nine EL August 16, 1963, written by Gibson A. Danes, Bulletins, which he published at his Institute then dean of the School of Art and Archi- for Development of Lightweight Construc- tecture at Yale University. In 1960 Frei Otto tion in Berlin between 1958 and 1963. was invited to New Haven as a visiting The EL Bulletins are simply bound pages; professor and apparently made a very good the texts formulated in clear language impression on students and colleagues. and typed with a typewriter, and they are Together, with King-lui Wu, a long-time illustrated with drawings, photos, and professor at the school, he taught the course collages. With their thematic editions, “Structures: Traditional and Lightweight,” the nine EL Bulletins are not only among an unusual topic for the time. At the begin- the most remarkable testimonies to young- ning of the 1960s, lightweight construction er Otto’s publishing activity, but also formed was an innovative and interdisciplinary the basis for the much broader book series branch of research, but it still occupied a of the Institute for Lightweight Structures in rather marginal position within architecture. Stuttgart, which he founded in 1964. Even on the Yale campus, when Otto was Between 1969 and 1995 a total of forty-one discussing floating tents and light mem- issues of the IL Bulletins were published. brane architecture of filigree models made Each issue was devoted to a particular of soap bubbles with the students on the top theme, such as: Minimal Nets (IL 1, 1969), floor of the Yale Art Gallery, something Forming Bubbles (IL 18, 1988), or Bamboo almost contradictory was being created on (IL 31, 1986), reflecting the huge range of the opposite street corner. The new building Otto’s research and interests. Otto’s intellec- for the School of Art & Architecture, de- tual image as a research architect arose from signed by Paul Rudolph, was monumental the interplay of two important leitmotifs: poetry in its Brutalist concrete aesthetic. The consistent documentation of his experi- ments and findings as well as the search for Research as Cooperation and Discourse publicity. His publications would become one of the most innovative, long-lived, and Danes’ letter is also remarkable because also most remarkable publication projects instead of describing Otto’s teaching of twentieth-century architectural history. methods at Yale, or individual building projects, it explicitly refers to Otto’s publish- Thinking by Modeling ing activities. Otto’s books are not only “unique documents” of research, but also When Otto came to Yale, he was still at the “unmatched [...] for their thoroughness and beginning of his career, but he already had their originality.” By the mid-1960s, Otto had some practical experience as an architect.2 published over one hundred essays, In the 1950s, he had begun to address

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 9 2/5/20 1:24 PM 6

Frei Otto, “Tanzbrunnen” (dance pavilion) tent at night, 1957

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 10 2/5/20 1:24 PM Frei Otto, “Tanzbrunnen” (dance pavilion) tent at night, 1957

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 11 2/5/20 1:24 PM issues of social and ecological housing with designs for smaller residential buildings. However, these designs were usurped by his innovative and systematic research into lightweight construction.3 Otto’s gracious lightweight structures, such as the so-called “Tanzbrunnen” pavilion (dance pavilion), which seemed to float above the ground, embodied the collective desire for an open society thus representing the new self-image of ’s fledging Federal Republic.4 Against the ideal of eternity, monumentality, and prestige was his search for structural perfection in minimal form. He sought out adaptability, and temporariness at the interface of architecture and engineering—as an artistic, technical, and social form. In 1964, Frei Otto was appointed to an institution founded in his behalf: the Institute for Lightweight Structures at the . Here, in collaboration with architects, engineers, biologists, physicists, and artists, he quickly forged a world-class hub of interdisciplinary research.5 It was in this period too that he won the competition for the design of the German Pavilion at , in . Together with the architect Rolf Gutbrod, Otto conceived an open exhibition landscape, composed of spacious visitor terraces beneath a seem- ingly free-floating yet meticulously structured tent-like roof. Otto designed not only the tents of the pavilion, but also all the requisite models, tools, measuring instru- ments, media, and visualization equipment for its design, planning, and implementation. Their venture was therefore nothing less than an apparatus-led rewrite of the cultural techniques of design; the will to build revealed in an inventor’s guise. And that, in a sense, is what made it a star attraction.6 One way to decipher not only the technical but also Otto’s social code of research is to question the epistemological dimension of the way he thought with models. Belonging equally to the spheres of art and science, his filigree models often

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 12 2/5/20 1:24 PM issues of social and ecological housing with appear to be spatial installations with which designs for smaller residential buildings. he attempted to make the invisible measur- However, these designs were usurped by able and the visible calculable. From the his innovative and systematic research into first improvised grid models to complex lightweight construction.3 suspended models, each state confirms and Otto’s gracious lightweight structures, simultaneously questions perceived know- such as the so-called “Tanzbrunnen” pavilion ledge. One of the most fascinating of these (dance pavilion), which seemed to float models is the Multihalle in above the ground, embodied the collective suspended model. According to Otto, it desire for an open society thus representing “corresponds to the tasks, but at the same the new self-image of Germany’s fledging time possesses that special characteristic Federal Republic.4 Against the ideal of of increased quality which is necessary to eternity, monumentality, and prestige was lead a building from the area of the only his search for structural perfection in functional, only economic, only technical minimal form. He sought out adaptability, without impairing these advantages into that and temporariness at the interface of area where perhaps architecture begins.”7 architecture and engineering—as an artistic, Otto thus understood models as cultural technical, and social form. indicators. In their theoretical potential In 1964, Frei Otto was appointed to an and cultural significance, they go beyond institution founded in his behalf: the Institute the purely physical haptics of the individual for Lightweight Structures at the University object and can become a symbolic zero of Stuttgart. Here, in collaboration with point of an architecture freed from con- architects, engineers, biologists, physicists, straints. It may sound paradoxical, but much and artists, he quickly forged a world-class of the epistemic potential of these models hub of interdisciplinary research.5 It was in lies in the many small inaccuracies and this period too that he won the competition resistances of the material. The productivity for the design of the German Pavilion at and usefulness of these experiments is EXPO 67, in Montreal. Together with the based on the fact that they do not exclude architect Rolf Gutbrod, Otto conceived an the dysfunctional but allow failure to open exhibition landscape, composed of become an integral aspect of their function. spacious visitor terraces beneath a seem- ingly free-floating yet meticulously Experiment Between Artistic structured tent-like roof. Otto designed not Imagination and Technical Reason only the tents of the pavilion, but also all the requisite models, tools, measuring instru- The experimental dimension of Otto’s work ments, media, and visualization equipment is difficult to demonstrate in the built objects. for its design, planning, and implementation. Rather, it is expressed in the technical Their venture was therefore nothing less processes, the media, and social practices. than an apparatus-led rewrite of the cultural Otto’s design originality is an originality techniques of design; the will to build of processes. Even in the late 1950s he had revealed in an inventor’s guise. And that, discovered that very thin and relatively in a sense, is what made it a star attraction.6 stable membranes can be formed from One way to decipher not only the distilled water with a few drops of dishwash- technical but also Otto’s social code of ing liquid. If you dip a closed frame of research is to question the epistemological bent wire into the soapy water and pull it out dimension of the way he thought with again, a thin soap skin is created. If the frame models. Belonging equally to the spheres of has the shape of a space curve, i.e. a three- art and science, his filigree models often dimensionally curved surface, the soap skin

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 13 2/5/20 1:24 PM Frei Otto and Carlfried Mutschler, Multihalle Mannheim, 1975

Frei Otto, suspended chain model, Atelier Warmbronn

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 14 2/5/20 1:24 PM Frei Otto’s team conducting wind tunnel measurements on the model, Multihalle Frei Otto and Carlfried Mutschler, Mannheim, scale: 1:200, with Ove Arup & Multihalle Mannheim, 1975 Partners London, 1974

Frei Otto, suspended chain model, Frei Otto, suspended chain model, Atelier Warmbronn Atelier Warmbronn, photograph

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 15 2/5/20 1:24 PM also forms such a curve. In countless experi- ments Otto had observed that a membrane constructed in this way is mainly deter- mined by its edges, i.e. the high and low points, and has specific geometric and physical properties. The surface tension on such a membrane is the same at every point and in every direction, resulting in particular stability and efficiency and the formation of so-called minimum surfaces. “During the development of the . . . tensioned skins it was fascinating to see how, in the search for construction forms with a minimum of building materials, forms of great clarity and captivating beauty were created. These were forms that could not be designed.”8 Here it becomes clear that Otto’s turn to experiment was not based on a science of architecture in the narrow sense. The experiments served both as an exploration of causal relationships and as a form-gener- ating part of the design process. Modeling, drawing, and measuring techniques along with his evaluation method formed the basis for a new experimental culture.9 Focused on the continuous calibration of eye and hand, it emphasized scientific observation and technical skill, and a craft-intellectual self-adjustment, in which designing can mean both the production of knowledge and a starting point for a collective discourse about the future. The idea of being able to roof over forests, valleys, lakes, and even entire cities with the help of climatic shells, pneumatic roofs, or huge lattice shells is not only a question of technology, it also refers to the longing and the dream of cultivating the earth. Thus, it is not primarily a rhetoric of feasibility, but about the sphere of the history of ideas and the social imagination to think about an alternative world. Otto’s idea of an interior space that integrates everything, functions as a symbol for a world as an open system—ecologically, socially, culturally. Openness here is not understood as a universal principle, but as a civil society ideal whose value one has to renegotiate over and over again.10 Within the

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 16 2/5/20 1:24 PM also forms such a curve. In countless experi- more standard Modernist architecture, ments Otto had observed that a membrane the “fantastic line” would no longer have any constructed in this way is mainly deter- strength, Otto wrote in a 1962 essay entitled mined by its edges, i.e. the high and low “Imagination et Architecture” in L’Archi­ points, and has specific geometric and tecture d’Aujourd’hui.11 It is for this reason physical properties. The surface tension on that his experimental architecture focused such a membrane is the same at every point on showing alternatives to the func- and in every direction, resulting in particular tionalist design imperative. With the term stability and efficiency and the formation imagination, Otto wanted to recall the of so-called minimum surfaces. “During the optimistic narratives of the 1920s Express- development of the . . . tensioned skins it ionist movements, the poetic power of a was fascinating to see how, in the search for Paul Scheerbart or Bruno Taut, the literary construction forms with a minimum of and artistic inventiveness, and the spiritual- building materials, forms of great clarity ity in the world. In his experiments, Otto and captivating beauty were created. These touched an intellectual core of design and were forms that could not be designed.”8 architectural thinking: the constant attempt Here it becomes clear that Otto’s turn to to keep artistic imagination on the one hand experiment was not based on a science of and technical reason on the other in a simul- architecture in the narrow sense. The taneously creative and effective balance. experiments served both as an exploration of causal relationships and as a form-gener- Architecture as Social Innovation ating part of the design process. Modeling, drawing, and measuring techniques along Frei Otto’s architectural research was remar- with his evaluation method formed the basis kable as a social innovation. He continually for a new experimental culture.9 Focused succeeded in questioning and overcoming on the continuous calibration of eye and the traditional claim to autonomy of hand, it emphasized scientific observation architecture. For instead of just focusing on and technical skill, and a craft-intellectual design, he was also interested in artistically self-adjustment, in which designing can elaborating on the material dimension mean both the production of knowledge of architecture. For him, materiality was not and a starting point for a collective discourse something that had to be forced, for better about the future. The idea of being able or worse, into an already established form, to roof over forests, valleys, lakes, and even but rather something that could serve as entire cities with the help of climatic shells, a starting point for the design process itself. pneumatic roofs, or huge lattice shells is What at first sounds like an academic not only a question of technology, it also gimmick turns out, on closer inspection, refers to the longing and the dream of to be an elegant attack on nothing less than cultivating the earth. Thus, it is not primarily the historically established hegemony of a rhetoric of feasibility, but about the geometry. Otto was therefore not only sphere of the history of ideas and the social concerned with rebuilding architecture, imagination to think about an alternative but also rethinking architecture. If one wants world. Otto’s idea of an interior space that to tell the history of architecture, tradition- integrates everything, functions as a symbol ally understood as the history of building for a world as an open system—ecologically, and style, also as a cultural history of socially, culturally. Openness here is not experiments and research, i.e. of the models, understood as a universal principle, but as a media, and methods of design, then Frei civil society ideal whose value one has to Otto’s architectural research is a substantial renegotiate over and over again.10 Within the starting point.

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 17 2/5/20 1:24 PM Frei Otto, sand model, Regensburg project, Atelier Warmbronn, ca. 1970

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 18 2/5/20 1:24 PM Frei Otto, sand model, Regensburg project, Atelier Warmbronn, ca. 1970

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 19 2/5/20 1:24 PM NOTES

1 Gibson A. Danes, letter, August 16, 1963, Stuttgart University Archive.

2 In 1950 Otto received a scholarship to the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. During this time he visited , , , and . He also met with engineer Fred Severud who worked on the Dorton Arena, Raleigh, designed by Matthew Nowicki (1953); the House of World Cultures in Berlin, designed by Hugh Stubbins (1957); and the David S. Ingalls Hockey Rink of Yale University, designed by Eero Saarinen (1959). See: Frei Otto, Das hängende Dach. Gestalt und Struktur, (Bauwelt Verl: Berlin, 1954).

3 Some examples here of structural typologies of the modern tent construction are the “four-point tent” for the horti- cultural show in (1955), the “Tanzbrunnen” (dance pavilion), and the “arch-supported tent” for the entrance area of the horticultural show in Cologne (1957), and the “Hump Tent” for the International Building Exhibition (IBA) in Berlin (1957). See Conrad Roland, Frei Otto: Spannweiten; Ideen und Versuche zum Leichtbau (Ullstein: Berlin, 1965).

4 See: Irene Meissner, “Lightweight Construction Versus a Display of Prestige. From Montreal ’67 to Munich ’72,” in: Georg Vrachliotis et al., Frei Otto. Thinking by Modelling, (Spector Books: Leipzig, 2017): 41–53.

5 Cf. Daniela Fabricius, “The Spinner Experiment: Frei Otto and the Institute for Lightweight Structures,” European Architectural History Network Meeting, , May 31 to June 3, 2012.

6 Rudolf Leonhardt, “Swinging Germany,” Die Zeit, May 12, 1967.

7 “Frei Otto: Thoughts on the Construction of Grid Shells at Mannheim,” in: IL Bulletins of the Institute for Lightweight Structures (IL) 13, University of Stuttgart (1978): 10.

8 Frei Otto, “Peter Strohmeyer: Frei Otto, Zelte,” in: Deutsche Bauzeitung 7 (1960): 352.

9 See Gilbert Simondon, Die Existenzweisen technischer Objekte (Diaphanes: Zurich, 2012). See in particular, the section, “Die technische Erfindung: Grund und Form beim Lebewesen und im erfinderischen Denken,” 52–55. Originally published in French as Du mode d’existence des objets techniques (Aubier: Paris, 1958).

10 Regarding the relationships of architecture and society, see for example: Frei Otto, “Wie werden wir weiterleben?,” in: Frei Otto: Schriften und Reden 1951–1983 (Vieweg +Teubner Verlag: Wiesbaden, 1984), 72–76, (originally published in Dokumentation der Referate und Diskussion, 42, Bundestag des BDA Hannover, 1967).

11 Frei Otto, “Phantasie und Architektur,” db deutsche bauzeitung 69 (1964): 543–4; here p. 543 (French original: “Imagination et architecture: essai d’une vision d’avenir,” L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui 102 (1962): 89–93.

14156_YSA_FreiOtto_txt.indd 20 2/10/20 12:41 PM Yale School of Architecture Frei Otto Archive 2020 saai | Archive for Architecture and Civil Engineering ISBN 978-1-7333908-2-8 Karlsruhe Institute for Technology CURATOR Georg Vrachliotis Prof. Dr. Georg Vrachliotis Doris Gadinger CURATORIAL TEAM Claudia Iordache Dr. Joachim Kleinmanns PROJECT ASSISTANCE Dr. Gerhard Kabierske Senay Memet Martin Kunz Astrid Piaskowy EXHIBITION DESIGN Isa Strunk Lukas Bessai Florian Bengert All images are courtesy of Marcel Schaaf saai | Archive for Architecture Georg Vrachliotis and Civil Engineering, Andrew Benner (’03) Karlsruhe Institute for Tech-­ no­logy unless otherwise noted. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Claudia Iordache PUBLICATION Nina Rappaport, Publications RESTORATION OF Director ARCHIVE MATERIAL David Reinfurt and Isa Strunk Bryce Wilner, Designers

REPRODUCTION OF This is number 62 in a series ARCHIVE MATERIAL of Yale School of Christoph Engel Architecture publications. Bernd Seeland The Yale School of GRAPHIC DESIGN Archi­tecture’s exhibition Floyd E. Schulz, WTHM— program is supported in part Büro für Gestaltung Berlin by the James Wilder Green Dean’s Resource Fund, VIDEO EDITOR the Kibel Foundation Fund, Iden Sungyoung Kim the Nitkin Family Dean’s Discretionary Fund in DIRECTOR OF Architecture, the Pickard EXHIBITIONS Chilton Dean’s Resource Andrew Benner Fund, the Paul Rudolph Publication Fund, the Robert EXHIBITIONS A. M. Stern Family Foundation COORDINATOR for Advancement of Archi­ AND REGISTRAR tectural Culture Fund, Alison Walsh the Rutherford Trowbridge Memorial Fund, the Fred EXHIBITION FABRICATION Koetter Exhibitions Fund, Eric Sparks and the School of Archi- True Line Productions tecture Exhibitions Fund.

INSTALLATION TEAM Ryan Cyr Alyse Guild Jaime Kriksciun Lauren McNulty Matthew Shopshire Charlie Taylor

YALE EXHIBITION GRAPHICS Hyelin Erin Kim (’19) The growing city, drawing, View into the model of January 1958 Archi­tecture, 1975 1953 the Arctic City project, Gibson A. Danes, letter, No. 15, Air Hall Handbook, Social housing complex Atelier Warmbronn, ca. 1971 August 1963, courtesy of the 1983 for the Alexandra Stiftung, Frei Otto with journalists Archive of the University No. 16, Tents, 1976 Berlin, drawing, 1956 in front of the model of the Stuttgart No. 17, The work of Frei Otto Two photo collages of Arctic City project, Atelier Protokoll über die and his Team 1955–1976, 1978 social housing complex for the Warmbronn, ca. 1971 Arbeiten des Instituts für No. 18, Soap Bubbles, 1987 Alexandra Stiftung, Berlin, 1956 Leichte Flächen­tragwerke No. 19, Growing and Wohnhäuser für New York MUNICH OLYMPIC PARK an den Modellversuchen­ Dividing Pneus, 1979 (Housing for New York), EL Two photographs of Frei und Auswertungen am No. 20, Tasks, 1979 Bulletin No. 6, Entwicklungs­ Otto and his team discussing Projekt “Deutscher Pavillon,” No. 21, Form-Force—Mass, stätte für den Leichtbau the complete model of 1967, Weltausstellung Part 1 (Basis), 1979 EL (Development Center for the Munich Olympic Park, Montreal, typescript, 1967 No. 22, Form-Force—Mass, Lightweight Const­ruction), Atelier Warmbronn, 1968 Part 2 (Form), 1988 text, Berlin, March 1959 Three images of Frei Otto EL BULLETIN, BERLIN No. 23, Form-Force—Mass, Model of the project photographing a model EL Bulletin No. 2, Bauwerke Part 3 (Construction), 1992 Wohnhäuser für New York for the Munich Olympic Park, mit senkrechten Bögen, die No. 24, Form-Force— (Housing for New York), Atelier Warmbronn, ca. 1968 Seilnetze oder Membranen Mass, Part 4 (Principle of Institute for Lightweight Model with contour lines tragen und durch diese Lightweight), 1998 Structures (IL) at the University of the tent for the swimming abgespannt werden, Entwick­ No. 25, Form-Force—Mass, of Stuttgart, contact sheets pool in the Munich Olympic lungs­stätte für den Leichtbau Part 5 (Experiments), 1990 Park, Atelier Warmbronn, EL (Development Center for No. 26, Youth Competition— GERMAN PAVILION EXPO 67 ca. 1970 Lightweight Cons­t­ruction), Nature and Architecture, 1979 MONTREAL Munich Olympic Park, 1972 Berlin, February 1958 No. 27, Natural Building— Frei Otto and Rolf Gutbrod, EL Bulletin No. 3, Das Symposium Report, 1980 competition model of the MULTIHALLE MANNHEIM Eingangsdach für die No. 28, Diatoms: Shells in German Pavilion Expo 67, Frei Otto’s team Bundesgartenschau m Nature and Technics, Part 1, Montreal, ca. 1965 conducting a photogrammet- Köln 1957, Entwicklungs­ 1984 Carl Mertz and Rolf ric measurement of the stätte für den Leichtbau No. 29, The Tent Cities of Gutbrod, model of the German suspended­ model, Multihalle EL (Development Center for the Hajj, 1980 Pavilion Expo 67, Montreal at Mannheim, Atelier Lightweight Construction), No. 30, Awnings, Vela, the airport in , Warmbronn, 1973 Berlin, March 1958 Toldos and Sheet Metal Tents, Germany (photograph: Frei Frei Otto’s team conducting EL Bulletin No. 6, Entwick­- 1984 Otto), ca. 1966 wind tunnel measurements­ on lungsstätte für den Leichtbau No. 31, Bamboo Structures, Construction of the the model, Multihalle Mann-­ EL (Develop­ment Center for 1985 measurement model, Institute heim, scale: 1:200, with Ove Lightweight Construction), No. 32, Lightweight for Lightweight Structures Arup & Partners, London, 1974 Berlin, March 1959 Structures­­ in Architecture (IL) at the University of Construction of the and Nature, (Exhibition Stuttgart, ca. 1966 wooden supporting frame and IL BULLETIN, STUTTGART “Natural structures” Moscow, Rolf Gutbrod and Frei process of transfer­ring the No. 1, The Experimental 1983), 1983 Otto, form-finding model of suspended form to a structure Determination of Minimal No. 33, Radiolarian, the German Pavilion Expo 67, made from Plexiglas strips Nets, 1969 Stuttgart, 1990 Montreal, 1966 and brass supports, contact No. 2, City in the Arctic, 1971 No. 34, The Model, 1989 Two photographs of Frei sheets, Institute for Light­ No. 3, Biology and No. 35, Pneu and Bone, 1995 Otto and Rolf Gutbrod, wood- weight Structures (IL) at the Building, part 1, 1971 No. 36, Subjective en model in the wind tunnel University of Stuttgart, ca. 1973 No. 4, Biology and Stand­points in Architecture Frei Otto and Rolf Gutbrod, Frei Otto and Carlfried Building, part 2, 1972 and Science, 1984 construction of the German Mutschler, Multihalle No. 5, Convertible Roofs, No. 37, Ancient Architects, Pavilion Expo 67, Montreal, Mannheim, 1975 1972 1994 1967 No. 6, Biology and Building No. 38, Diatoms: Shells in PUBLICATIONS & RESEARCH 3, 1973 Nature and Technics, Part 2, ARCTIC CITY DOCUMENTATIONS No. 7, Shadow in the 2004 Five photographs of Two contact sheets of Desert, 1972 No. 39, Non-Planned ins­talling the dome for model­ing studies for the No. 8, Nets in Nature and Settlements, 1992 the pneumatic model of the Dis­ser­tation Das hängende Technics, 1975 No. 40, Branches, 1995 Arctic City project, Atelier Dach, Entwicklungs­stätte für No. 9, Pneus in Nature and No. 41, Building with Warmbronn, 1971 den Leichtbau EL (Develop­ Technics, 1977 Intelligence, 1995 Two photographs of Frei ment Center for Lightweight No 10, Gridshells, 1974 Otto working on the model of Construction), contact sheet, No. 11, Lightweight and PUBLICATIONS ABOUT OTTO the Arctic City project, Berlin, 1953 Energy Technics, 1978 Architectural Design, Frei Atelier Warmbronn, ca. 1971 Das hängende Dach, No. 12, Convertible Pneus, Otto at work, special issue, 1971 Frei Otto photographing Gestalt und Struktur, (Bauwelt 1975 Ludwig Glaeser, The Work the model of the Arctic City Verlag: Berlin, 1954) No. 13, Multihalle of Frei Otto (exhibition project, Atelier Warmbronn, “The Congress Hall Mannheim, 1978 catalog), The Museum of ca. 1971 Debate,” Archi­tectural Forum, No. 14, Adaptable Modern Art, New York, 1971