B018952 Referring to at least three key examples, discuss what glass and crystal signified to the architects of the German Expressionist movement. To introduce, expressionism is more of a state of mind than a defined movement. It appeared out of the assumption that a building can communicate an individual idea or notion without being restricted or contained by architectural conventions or styles.1 The style was not characterized by a consistent architectural language, largely due to an extreme self-expression.2 The potential of dramatic gestures became obvious immediately after World War One, when expressionism became a gathering point for what later developed into modern architecture.3 This was a time of great deprivation for the entire German population, and consequently the architects confronted professional struggles relating to shortages and specific needs.4 Simultaneously, industrial buildings with their large volumes and lack of precedents gave architects reasons to experiment with dramatic shapes and designs. An early example was Hans Poelzig’s combination of water tower and exhibition hall in 1911. Starting in 1918, a great deal of architects, primarily from defeated Germany, experimented with irregular shapes and dramatic effects. The ideas were often intentionally unbuildable, like Mies van der Rohe’s skyscrapes in glass. Expressionism shares its forceful and sometimes odd shapes with both constructivism and functionalism. In its purest form, expressionism sought no justification apart from the existence of an idea from the architect.5 1 J. Melvin, Ismer: Att Förstå Arkitektur (Gothenburg, 2010), p. 98-99. 2 R.H. Bletter, ‘The Interpretation of the Glass Dream: Expressionist Architecture and the History of the Crystal Metaphor’ in D. B. Brownlee (ed.), Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Los Angeles, 1981), p. 20. 3 J. Melvin, Ismer: Att Förstå Arkitektur, p. 98-99. 4 W. Pehnt, Expressionist Architecture In Drawings (London, 1985), p. 8. 5 J. Melvin, Ismer: Att Förstå Arkitektur, p. 98-99. 1 B018952 This essay will discuss how glass and crystal were a method for expressionist architects in Germany to substantialize their dreams, visions and ideas of a social reform in general and an urban utopia in particular. To effectively structure this argument, this essay is going to revolve around three major examples, the Glass Pavillion by Bruno Taut, the Hohenhagen complex (partially by Taut) and the glass skyscraper design for Friedrichstrasse by Mies van der Rohe. Also, the influence of the poet Paul Scheerbart on the development of the enthusiasm of glass and crystal is to be outlined. Basically, what started the German Expressionism’s focus on glass was the vision of the poet Paul Scheerbart. In his Glasarchitektur (1914), he puts emphasis on architecture as a means of changing society, but also proposes how this should be executed. According to Scheerbart, in order to free ourselves, we have to free our rooms. In other words, to make them less enclosed and restricted. The means of this would be, he suggested, to use glass as a material for buildings. This notion of creating a culture with less repression derived from the foundation of ‘Neue Künstler Vereinigung’. This was a proto-Expressionist movement which acquired support from two anarchist publications, Der Sturm and Die Aktion. In turn, these journals offered an opposing side to the contemporary climate created by the Deutsche Werkbund. Seven years earlier, the same Scheerbart had put forward a utopian future that criticized the industrial state. In line with this, what emerged was a more organic and freely expressed way of designing.6 Hence, glass was not only a material, but had political associations and commanded the design of space. 6 K. Frampton, Modern Architecture: A Critical History (London, 2007), p. 116. 2 B018952 Additionally, Scheerbart’s visions of sapphire towers, emerald domes, diamond castles and crystalline stars induced people with a feeling of a home in the distance but also of certainty.7 The need for this was potentially larger in these turbulent times when the state was questioned. At the same time, other established critics of the German society contributed to the idea of utopia and urbanity. George Simmel had amongst others since the turn of the century proclaimed the introduction of an organic pre-industrial culture that emphasized spirituality and community to substitute the modern metropolis of materialistic economy and systematic anxious life. Karl Schefler said that every advanced architectural culture tends to inhabit an aggressive development of the democratic freedom. This inevitably includes individualism, industrialization, capitalism and urbanization.8 In conclusion, the society needed a radical revolution towards a more organic, humanistic and socialistic attitude. Following this notion of social reform, Bruno Taut formed a group of people to make art more accessible to the public; the ‘Arbeitsrat für Kunst’. However, the Spartacist Revolt in 1919 put an end to the public activities of this organization, forcing Taut and a few of his associates to communicate by means of letters. This exchange of letters between Bruno Taut, Max Taut (his brother), Walter Gropius and eleven other people is known as ‘The Glass Chain’ (Die Gläserne Kette). Taut called himself ‘Glass’ in these letters. The spontaneous and philosophical nature of this correspondence is evident in Taut’s declaration: ‘everyone of us will draw or write down at brief intervals of time, informally and as the spirit moves him… those ideas which he would like to share with our circle.’9 In this context, glass was symbolically adopted as an organizational keyword and possibly also as a mental stimulant to inspire free thought processes of the members. 7 W. Pehnt, Expressionist Architecture (London, 1973), p. 74. 8 K. James, Erich Mendelsohn and the Architecture of German Modernism (Cambridge, 1997), p. 108-109. 9 K. Frampton, Modern Architecture: A Critical History, p. 118. 3 B018952 Bruno Taut put this into practice with The Glass Pavillion (Cologne, 1914). Taut’s aim was to exploit the dramatic potential of glass as a material. Idealistically, Taut wanted to decrease repression by the use of a transparent material. Technically, the pavillion was rather formally organized. It consisted of a circular base made out of concrete and with a central stair founded upon an axis. On top of it all, a dome is to be found. Within the building, one finds a variety of elements made of glass. For instance, there are glass walls, glass threads and risers and glass panels. The purpose was to filter and reflect light and colour in order to create a space which in turn communicated glass as the product of industrial production and to give nutrition to the spirit of man.10 Taut was directly inspired by Scheerbart and even put his aphorisms on the facade of the Glass Pavillion; e.g. ‘Light wants crystal’, ‘Glass brings a new era’, ‘We feel sorry for the brick culture’, ‘Without a glass culture, life becomes a burden’, ‘Building in brick only does us harm’ and ‘Coloured glass destroys hatred’.11 Clearly, glass was utilized as an evocative and strong metaphor. Glass architecture was believed to be pure and to render the detachment of space from the sky obsolete. A connection to ‘heaven’ and disembodiment was interwoven into this approach.12 Inspired by this, Gropius looked for a building of the future. A building that would harmonize of architecture and sculpture in a socialistic way ‘from the hands of million of workers’, likened to a crystal element of a new faith. This was substantialized as the Stadtkrone (first proposed by Taut), a religious structure working to connect the creative energy of the society. This crystalline structure was to function as a kind of ‘spiritual radio receiver’. A receiver for mediating spiritualized, organic elements and abstract rationalist geometry. Effectively, the essence of the utopian dream with a 10 M. Moffett et al., A World History Of Architecture (London, 2008), p. 468-469. 11 K. Frampton, Modern Architecture: A Critical History, p. 116. 12 G. Kohlmaier et al., Houses of Glass: a nineteenth-century building type (Cambridge, 1986), p. 45. 4 B018952 modern city focusing on aesthetics. The purpose of the Stadtkrone was essentially to be the cathedral of the future. Ideologically, this conflicted with the Nazis, who considered the state itself to embrace this epithet.13 With this in mind, glass and crystal do not only have light filtering qualities. Taut considered his pavilion as a Stadtkrone (city crown), based upon Gothic cathedrals (making the functions of light and structure even more evident). Effectively, his crystalline structure transformed symbolically into a vessel to communicate his ideas of a universal paradigm of all religious buildings. This would elicit an urban element vital for the society and its radical new structure.14 Taut believed that in glass was the foundation of a new mentality and both he and Scheerbart quoted passages from the Bible (more specifically, Rev 21:18-21: 22:1) relating to glass and crystal.15 Taut was able to balance his practical beliefs of social reform with his visionary ones. The second example to aid in the understanding of the signification of glass and crystal to the expressionist architects is the Hohenhagen architectural complex, which was never built. Karl Ernst Osthaus had bought a piece of land east of Hagen and selected three architects for the construction; Peter Behrens, Henry van de Velde and J.L. Mathieu Lauweriks. Additionally, he included Bruno Taut and Walter Gropius on parts of the project. Taut’s most remarkable contribution was a plan for the highest point of the site. Here he wanted to add a new school complete with farm, workshops, observatory, offices and a towering crystal. The towering crystal was to be known as ‘The House of Prayer’.