Celebration: Architectonic Constructs of Space in the 1920S

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

Holt-Damant, Kathi (2005) Celebration: Architectonic constructs of space in the 1920s. In Leach, A & Matthewson, G (Eds.) Celebration : proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand. The Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, New Zealand, pp. 173-178.

This ﬁle was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/21217/

Copyright belongs to each individual author. Copyright of Volume belongs to SAHANZ. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, review or criticism, as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1994, no part of the volume may be reproduced without prior consent of th copyright holder or holders.

License: Creative Commons: Attribution 2.5

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identiﬁed by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. http:// www.sahanz.net/ conferences/ index.html QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

Holt-Damant, Kathi (2005) Celebration : architectonic constructs of space in the 1920s. In: Leach, Andrew and Matthewson, Gill, (eds.) The 22th Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand. SAHANZ. Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand, Napier, pp. 173-178.

Celebration: Architectonic constructs of space in the 1920s Kathi Holt-Damant The University of Queensland

[Abstract]

This paper will explore constructs of architectonic space through the celebration of early German cinema. It can be argued that these early constructs were crucial to the spatial development of modernity in Germany at that time. While architects were coming to terms with what German Aesthetic theory meant for architecture, the new discipline of cinema was forging ahead experimenting with the perception and illusion of space. Without knowing it at the time August Schmarsow, in theorising architectonic space, had in fact proposed the rudimentary properties of spatial perception in cinema. Carl Stumpf’s notion that the whole visual field is perceived in three- dimensions and built up out of incremental spaces to produce one continuous space led to a number of new expanded theories in cinematic space. This early period of filmmaking shared many constructs of space with architecture. In a political and cultural context like Germany or Russia, cinema was able to experiment with space where architecture could not. Architects, however, were critical to the development of cinematic space: Heinrich de Fries for Expressionism, Siegfried Kracauer for Realism, and Sergei Eisenstein for Russian Formalism. This paper will focus on two contrasting types of space that first emerged through German Aesthetic theory and later developed through German Expressionist cinema before finding form in modern architecture.

[Paper begins]

The idea that architectonic space is something to be celebrated is almost a forgotten pastime for architecture. Remembering though that the quality of architectonic space achieved during the early years of the Modern Movement, through architects like Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier or Gunnar Asplund, influenced the development of twentieth-century architecture globally, it is timely that ‘space’ as a significant idea in architecture is remembered and honoured.

The type of space epitomised in Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion (1928-1930), Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye, Poissy (1929-1931), or Gunnar Asplund’s design for the Stockholm Exhibition (1928-1930), created new directions for the definition of architectonic space. Indeed many theorists strove to find explanations for these new constructs of spatial form and experience. Sigfried Giedion became especially renowned for his book: Space time and architecture, which attributed these emerging directions to early avant-garde art movements. Whilst this has been a satisfactory explanation for decades, it must be noted that Giedion failed to acknowledge any of the significant German protagonists who had been instrumental in defining new constructs of space, and advancing spatial theory: August Schmarsow, Paul Frankl, Oswald Spengler, and even Hermann Muthesius who was considered one of the fathers of the Modern Movement. These omissions by Giedion, together with recent research, suggest that some conspicuous constructs of space have been overlooked. Whilst architects at that time appeared to be aware of these ideas, the history of architecture appears to have forgotten their source.i

Given the prominence of many spatial constructs that are still in use today, it is not surprising that a renewed interest in the origins of architectonic space is emerging.ii Architectural theorist and historian, Anthony Vidler argues that although it might seem contrived to connect contemporary architecture back to early twentieth-century modernism the evidence is overwhelmingly suggestive of these early influences. Vidler’s own interest deals with the new developments in digital space and the terms by which we read and understand space being based on the earliest three-dimensional perspective rules. He contends that only the method of production or simulation has changed, and, in relation to the canvas, the position of the viewer.iii

I wish to explore two key ideas about architectonic space that could be argued to have influenced the development of Early German Modernism. In the first instance I shall draw on German Aesthetic theory to establish the grounding for August Schmarsow’s treatise on architectonic space, and in the second, Heinrich de Fries’s theorisation of two types of space explored in German Expressionist cinema. These constructs of space occurred in parallel to architectural developments in the same the period.

German aesthetic theory: the history of architecture as a sense of spaceiv

Roughly translated as The Essence of Architectural Creation, August Schmarsow’s text was presented at his inaugural Professorial lecture (in art history) at the University of Leipzig in 1893.v He began with a critique of Semper’s ideas, and argued that architecture had been marginalised into mere decoration, and then passed off as an act of dressing (Bekleidung), Schmarsow contended that:

…[the] historical treatment of architecture had always followed two patterns—neither of which did it justice. The traditional aesthetic point of view did not consider architecture truly an art, for it was implicated with a purpose; it therefore had to be classified with tectonics and the handicrafts as an unfree art. The second perspective, that of ‘thoughtful architects’, saw architecture as the ‘art of dressing’. They view their activity as little more than superficial composition of a purely technical and decorative kind, the pasting up of inherited styles on the framework of a functional construction, during which process even the best of them is at a loss to summon up any creative enthusiasm…vi

Schmarsow’s thesis considers that architecture is both a science and an art. He compares the mathematical science of space (Raumwissenschaft) against the art of space (Raumkunst) to produce an idea about space that is experiential.vii He maintained that architecture could not be understood except from within, and so distinguished between the spatial idea and the spatial form of architecture. For Schmarsow, space was more than shelter that fulfilled a purpose. It was a ‘playroom’ (Spielraum) as well, which meant that it incorporated the tactile, mobile, and visual aspects of space.viii The ‘creatress of space’ (Raumgestalterin) was a composite idea that was able to fuse the viewer’s ‘sense of space’ (Raumgefühl) with their own cultural ‘spatial imagination’ (Raumphantasie) and the object of ‘spatial creation’ (Raumgestaltung).ix

Schmarsow’s text on the Creatress of Space occurred in the same year as Hildebrand’s Das Problem der Form in der bildenden Kunst, but made a more direct connection between space, form and architecture, where Schmarsow insisted: “the essence of every architectural creation since the beginning of time is not its form but the fact that it is a spatial construct.”x

Schmarsow’s key idea was that the art of architecture evolved as a history of space, as a growing history or ‘genetic explanation’.xi He offered ‘rhythm’ instead of Semper’s ‘direction’,xii and contrasted between architecture an external form, viewed stylistically, against an architecture that was a consequence of space.xiii Schmarsow’s theories of space realigned architecture with early phenomenology, and emphasised the individual subject (beholder) in the overall construct of space. He combined psychology, empathy, and cultural symbolism, to come the closest to offering a new direction for the history of architecture.xiv

An understanding of architecture was derived from either Gottfried Semper or Karl Bötticher, and many of these early aesthetic theories were proposed by non-architects: aestheticians, cultural philosophers, art historians, artists or sculptors. The inclusion of the new discipline of psychology meant that the role of the subject began to increase in importance; no longer was the object viewed in isolation. The location and the position of the viewer came to be considered equally, as well as the movement in relation to a static whole. Although space had previously been considered together with mass, many of these new propositions isolated either, space or mass (form).

Harry Mallgrave draws our attention to the work of Carl Stumpf (1848 – 1936), whom he believes influenced Schmarsow’s interest in space, particularly the earlier work of 1873: Über den psychologischen Ursprung der Raumvorstellung (On the psychological origin of spatial imagination).xv Stumpf argues that one perceives the whole visual field in three-dimensions, even if it is only experienced piece by piece. Through this process of acquisition (by movement) he concluded many spaces give way to one continuous space.xvi Stumpf’s theory would have enabled Schmarsow to form a physical connection between the subject, occupying a predominantly vertical axis, and space—although Schmarsow’s interest was not so much in the vertical dimension, but rather in the enclosure of the subject.xvii

Also underpinning the origins of German aesthetic theory were F. T. Vischer and R. Vischer’s: Lebensgefühl and Einfühlung, symbolism and empathy respectively, which established a basis for understanding spatial perception.xviii In his book, Der Symbol-Begriff in der neusten Aesthetik (The Concept of the Symbol in the most Recent Aesthetics, 1876), psychologist Johannes Vorkelt (1848- 1930) developed a translation of empathy using artistic symbolism.xix Although he did not further Robert Vischer’s position of empathy, Vorkelt acknowledged that Vischer had discovered the crucial condition that: “… objects are not perceived as ‘dead configurations of lines’ but as pregnant with movement and force.”xx

Vorkelt made the connection between the physical movement of the viewer and the viewer’s perception of space life-symbols. He showed how symbols were seen through movement, in relation to the body’s position, and formulated a two-fold process for the successful symbolisation of spatial form where: the spatial form first needed to be seen through movement, and secondly, the movement had to be recognised by the senses.xxi

The ‘will-to-form’: Heinrich Wölfflin xxii

Heinrich Wölfflin who is considered one of the most influential art historians of the twentieth century largely became widely known through the later architectural writings and doctoral research of Paul Frankl and Sigfried Giedion.

Building on Friedrich and Robert Vischer’s theories of symbolism and empathy in Prolegomena zu einer Psychologie der Architecktur (1886),xxiii Wölfflin attempted to explain all visual experiences in art history as a theory of artistic symbolism.xxiv Wölfflin thus proposed that empathy was an anthropometric form of symbolism and mass, and in this context, he saw corporeal form (mass) as the objective of architecture, and space as a consequence of the sculpted mass.xxv His use of empathy theory furthered the relationship between subject and object in architectonic space. Adopting Vorkelt’s question about whether pure forms were beautiful, he added the Kantian categories of matter and form to examine: “How can architectural forms express the character of a period?”xxvi Wölfflin analysed painting and sculpture without fully scrutinizing architecture, which received a brief commentary in the appendices.

Kenneth Frampton, in his introduction to Studies of tectonic cultures, cites three seminal works that first appeared in 1893: Lipps’s Aesthetics of space and geometric-optical illusions, von Hildebrand’s Das Problem der Form, and Schmarsow’s Das Wesen der architektonischen Schöpfung.xxvii Each of these texts represents a shift in the history of architectural development and thus altered the perception and experience of architectonic space.

Theodor Lipps expanded Vischer’s early theory of empathy to determine what it might mean in purely psychological terms.xxviii Also a psychologist, Lipps concentrated primarily on form, and referred to space as a bi- product of form (or mass). He showed how ‘empathy’ could be considered a resonance between the object and the viewer, at least in terms of the viewer’s sensory reaction and expectation.xxix Very usefully for architects Lipps established that: “[t]he shape of the object was its mass; and the form was what remained after moving the mass: an abstract spatial structure.”xxx

As Frampton has recognised, Lipps’s most significant contribution to the spatial debate came in 1893 when he identified two types of space: a geometric one and an aesthetic space. Lipps paved the way for the later abstract spaces and sculpted formal spaces of German Expressionism, having had the strongest influence on architects such as: Rudolph Steiner, Paul Stern, August Endell, Henry van der Velde, and Richard Streiter—whose architectural writings directly influenced Hermann Muthesius and the Deutscher Werkbund.

Kinaesthetic space

Adolf Hildebrand explored the role of movement in the perception of spatial form, concluding that movement was a key element in experiencing a form, be it sculpture or architecture.xxxi Hildebrand found that a spatial relationship between the object viewed and the viewer/beholder relied on two simultaneous methods of perception. Using the combined empathy theories of Robert Vischer, Vorkelt and Lipps, Hildebrand maintained that:

The artistic creation of form always entails [for him] a particular kind of spatial structuring of form, one that is built up in stages but ultimately strives for artistic unity.xxxii

Working predominantly with sculptural examples, Hildebrand formed degrees of distinction between views of three-dimensional forms. He found that there was a distant view, which he named ‘visual’ or Gesichtvorstellungen, and a near view, for which he coined ‘kinaesthetic’ or Bewegungvorstellungen. The ‘visual’ distant view presented a two-dimensional image on the retina, in a painterly tradition, whilst the ‘kinaesthetic’ near view produced multi-images of abstract three-dimensional experiences.xxxiii Through movement, the vision-in- motion (‘kinetic vision’) prevents the whole from being assimilated in one glimpse, but enables a series of successive impressions.xxxiv Hildebrand proposed that we use these two types of viewing simultaneously to conceive, and perceive, of form in three-dimensions. Separating the physical or actual form (Daseinsform) from the perception of that form (Wirkungsform), xxxv he argued that perception of form depended on variable factors such as illumination, the position and the context of the viewer.xxxvi Hildebrand declared space to be an intrinsic component of all artistic creation and that, together with time, delivered a complete image.xxxvii

Inspired by Schmarsow’s writings on space, Riegl’s ‘artistic volition’ (Kunstwollen) and Wolfflin’s lectures on polarity, Paul Frankl devised a new system for analysing the history of architecture that was not based solely on style. His book, Die Entwicklungsphasen der neueren Baukunst, in 1914 proposed a critical framework based on Wölfflin, but integrated the spatial theories from Schmarsow, Riegl, Hildebrand and Brinckmann.xxxviii

Frankl’s system considered each historical phase according to four categories: spatial composition, treatment of mass and surface, treatment of light, colour, and other optical effects, and lastly the relation of design to social functions. His framework of analysis related to his expanded view on moving perception—now including a range of kinetic experiences that an observer might have once their perception shifted between haptic and optic experiences:

To see architecture means to draw together into a single mental image the series of three-dimensionally interpreted images that are presented to us as we walk through interior spaces and round their exterior shell. When I speak of the architectural image, I mean this one mental image.xxxix

Frankl’s critique and process of understanding architecture was critical in bridging the gap between a theoretical but non-architectural base of German aesthetic theory and the practice of European Modernism. The celebration of architectonic space became most visible through another developing discipline: cinema.

New technologies and methods of capturing the moving image meant a new forms of exploration. This early period of filmmaking, before sound, shares many spatial constructs with architecture—elements like movement, space, time, form, colour, light and perception with architecture.

Since cinematic space relied on visual illusion it was categorised according to the type of space that could be achieved through such illusions. One group experimented with the raw filmic material through illusion to depict a fictitious space within the frame—producing a form of 'Expressionism'. Another group preferred to work directly with the raw footage to produce what would be called a documentary-like 'realism'.xl

German Expressionism

Although an architect, Heinrich de Fries (1887-1938) is remembered mostly for his text: ‘Spatial design in Film’ (‘Raumgestaltung im Film’ in 1920).xli De Fries argues that the political climate did not support the emerging modern architecture, either through building programmes nor opportunities for architects to experiment with ideas.xlii He felt that cinema offered architects a unique medium in which to explore theories about space, and would encourage further development in architectonic space conception.xliii

He distinguished between architecture and a film-architecture, which he described as a “kind of theatre”, since film-architecture shared components like acts, action, plots, transactions, and stories.xliv Maintaining that the action contained within film as part of the space construction was crucial to the perception of objects in these spaces.xlv

Expressionist films all shared a non-real existence, in that they were fantasies set in another time period—past or future—and each presented an extraordinary, exaggerated condition. Expressionist experiments favoured the spectacular over the banal. The choice of subject matter was irrelevant provided that the script would allow for illusionary effects and elaborate film sets, lighting and acting.xlvi

Two types of space

De Fries identified two different types of cinematic space that emerged in German Expressionist cinema: the first was a three-dimensional spatial mass, where space was considered a corporeal concept (such as in Robert Wiene’s Das Kabinett des Dr Caligari of 1919); the second was an abstract spread-out collection of spatial planes of a plastic and cubic space (typified by Karlheinz Martin’s Von Morgen bis Mitternacht of 1922).xlvii Although De Fries contrasts these two spaces, the illusionary nature of the two is similar. The placement of the actors in both spaces is as artificial as the space itself.xlviii

De Fries argues that two-dimensional images became three-dimensional only through such spatial illusions.xlix He explains that pictures/images in cinema become a series of spaces that unfold in time. These spaces contain the movement or action as it was frozen in time.l Cinematic space, as Henri Bergson discovered, further compressed space, time and movement within a single shot where: “…the image itself is the system of the relationships between its elements, that is a set of relationships in time.”li

In order to produce the illusion, de Fries found that the limits of the cinematic frame need to be fixed and understood by the viewer. The boundary, located through the width and height, meant that any movement had to take place in the depth of the shot—through perspective. De Fries classified two methods for creating spatial depth. The first method employed a system of geometric lines within the space to project out from the depth of picture plane, to produce an exaggerated perspective effect.lii The second method denied the viewer a complete perspective view, showing only the unconnected fragments of the whole space—such that points along a line might be marked but not the geometry of the line itself—the abstracted, fragmented space achieving its flatness through lack of detail, colour and form.liii

One effect of creating spatial depth produced a sculptured (active/becoming) space that became typical of ‘Expressionist’ cinema. This type of space was considered as much a part of the event as the actors and the script, where synthesis was achieved once “person, space and destiny were inseparable.”liv Expressionist space without people was a dead one.lv

The urban environment comprising the street, house, and square, and the interior spaces comprising the room, furniture, and staircase were sharply distorted in perspective. Space was seen to be enclosing, encompassing and containing—a convergent nature of two-dimensional space become three-dimensional.lvi Das Kabinett des Dr Caligari’s (Berlin, 1920) presented an overall effect of an active or evolving ‘Expressionist’ space—similar to being trapped in a middle zone where the floor and walls meet.lvii The space was modelled three-dimensionally to create a high degree of contrast in shadow and light. Even the qualities of night were accentuated presenting a ‘featureless, endless, concept of night’.lviii

Another example De Fries uses is that of a house presented as if it were an object. Like the actor, it occupies the middle ground with a distorted, convergent, perspective of ‘old laneways disappearing into themselves’.lix De Fries draws attention to the plasticity of the space that is being presented, now commonly recognised as typical of German Expressionism.lx Hans Poelzig’s space creations and set designs appeared to favour a ‘mass’ of plastic space that would be treated like a clay model—thus demonstrating that space was unlike painting which dealt only with surfaces.lxi

The second method for creating spatial depth produced an abstract space that was neither sculptured, nor contrasted, to create the illusion of space—it was a surface space.lxii The context of this space was not at all important. The space itself exists as a backdrop, offering no perspective devices and no theatrical effects, and cannot be considered a German space of ‘becoming’.lxiii De Fries describes a ‘black background of nothing’ where the only visibility occurs with the actors as they move forward and backwards in space.lxiv Von Morgen bis Mitternachts (From Morning to Midnight) Berlin, 1920 depicts this type of abstract architectonic space, as being passive, and not radiating a life of its own.

Unlike films from other countries, German Expressionist cinema exchanged time from one period to another: past and future. Realist cinema, by contrast could never be confused with reality.lxv The illusionary stage sets of the Expressionists had lost their appeal around the mid-1920s, when the technology had advanced sufficiently for the camera to vary what it captured on film.

While the sculptured, formal spatial sets gave way to the abstract fragmented space of modernism, the schism between Realism and Expressionism grew in Germany where experimentation in film exceeded written theory. Like Walter Benjamin, Siegfried Kracauer believed that the real filmic quality existed in the raw material that captured a fleeting glimpse of reality, in the temporal nature of the moment: a form of realism.lxvi He saw cinema as a counterpoint to theatre, where the small, unseen details of objects within crowds, spaces in the city or people on the street were captured.lxvii

The political context of a post-war condition contributed to this new medium’s capacity to capture and relay events, seemingly as they happened. No longer was there a captive market for the fictionary, illusionary world of Expressionism when reality contained its own horrors. The public applauded the fleeting glimpse of reality capturing the temporal nature of the moment.

Replacing the staged set design, the street with its many changing space forms became Kracauer's site and subject matter for theorising modernity.lxviii His photography fostered the freezing of time into single shots.lxix He argued that cinema could include a “limitless range of objects…the whole world in every sense” where theatre could not.lxx The surface condition of Realism corresponded to the flattening of space first explored in the abstract space of German Expressionism. During the Weimar years, Kracauer’s interest in the ‘surface reality’ of the material world enabled people to discover new things about their world.lxxi

Conclusion

I have shown that through these early constructs many characteristics of space are shared by architecture and cinema. What they further shared was an interest in surface reality—whether it was constructed on a film-set, existed in the urban environment or on an architectural site. Due to this shift towards realism, editing became an even more important process in the production of space. Even De Fries attributed the spaces in Von Morgen bis Mitternachts as being more a ‘matter of surface’ than about a depth of space. What separates the constructs of cinematic space from architectonic space are the processes of editing that the director and cinematographer have at their disposal to focus the viewer’s attention on a particular idea.

Contemporary film critic, David Bordwell argues that: “the spectator simply has no concept or terms for the textual elements and systems that shape responses...It is the job of theory to construct them, the job of analysis to show them at work.”lxxii

I have consequently attempted to celebrate some aspects of architectonic space that influenced the history of modern architecture. Three points stand out: Carl Stumpf’s notion that the whole visual field is perceived in three- dimensions and built up out of incremental spaces that produce one continuous perceived space was instrumental in framing space for modernism. Schmarsow’s view that the history of architecture is spatial: “determining at what historical stage the notion of space became a constituent factor in architectural development.”lxxiii And lastly, remembering that Lipps’s two types of space (geometric and aesthetic) influenced key modern architects, further indicates that these constructs were well known to architects at that time.lxxiv

I have shown that two types of space emerged from German Expressionist cinema that had their roots/beginnings in German aesthetic theory. These two ideas about abstract space and sculptural space formed part of mainstream modernism. While the ‘sculpted space’ had a slightly longer, but immediate lifespan in Expressionist architecture, the construct of ‘abstract space’ was progressed far further by European Modernism during the twentieth century. Ironically, recent decades has seen a return to the sculpted, plastic space of German Expressionism made possible by new technologies and computer programmes.

Similarly to the first forty years of cinema—where filmmakers were primarily concerned with how a film was made and the range of spatial effects that could be created through illusion—architects appear to have forgotten the breadth and scope of architectonic space established during the early years of modernism. Siegfried Kracauer recognised that the contribution of cinema, and cinematic space, to modernity lay in terms of its technological advancement over photography.lxxv Although the understanding of spatial constructs from this early period appears to have been forgotten by contemporary architects, a celebration of architectonic space may well hold the key to understanding some new directions in architecture.

i These ideas are documented in chapter 1 of the unpublished PhD dissertation: Kathi Holt-Damant, ‘Lines of Influence: Constructs of infinite space in architecture and cinema 1900 -1939’, RMIT University, 2004, esp. ch. 1, 3 & 6. ii Stefan Muthesius, in Das Englische Vorbild, München: Prestel, 1982 (1974); and Mitchell Schwarzer, in German Architectural Theory and the Search for Modern Identity, Cambridge: The MIT University Press, 1995. iii Anthony Vidler, Warped Space, Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 2000, pp 7-8. iv August Schmarsow, Das Wesen der architektonischen Schöpfung, in Harry Francis Mallgrave & Eleftherios Ikonomou (trans and eds), Empathy Form and Space, Problems in German Aesthetics 1873 - 1893, Santa Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and Humanities, 1994 (1893). v Mallgrave & Ikonomou [trans and eds], Empathy Form and Space. vi Schmarsow quoted by Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 59, p 282. vii Mallgrave & Ikonomou, in Empathy Form and Space, p 61. viii Cornelis Van de Ven, Space in Architecture, the evolution of a new idea in the theory and history of the Modern Movements until 1930, Amsterdam: Van Gorcam Asen, 1980, p 90. ix Schmarsow, in Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 287. x Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 59. xi After Darwin and Lamprecht. xii Van de Ven, Space in Architecture, p 90. xiii Kenneth Frampton, ‘Introduction’, Studies in Tectonic Culture, Cambridge: The MIT press, footnote 2 pp 1-5, 1996. xiv Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 2. xv Stumpf as a former student of Lotze, produced the ‘Psychology of Sound’ (Tonpsychologie) between 1883 – 1890. xvi Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, footnote 205, p 60. xvii Mallgrave & Ikonomou, in Empathy Form and Space, p 61. xviii The cultural symbol in 1866 (Lebensgefühl), and the theory of ‘empathy’ in 1873 (Einfühlung) respectively. xix Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 28. xx Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 42. xxi Wölfflin on Vorkelt, in Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, pp 153-154. xxii Heinrich Wölfflin, Prolegomena zu einer Psychologie der Architektur, in Harry Francis Mallgrave & Eleftherios Ikonomou (trans and eds), Empathy Form and Space, Problems in German Aesthetics 1873 - 1893, Santa Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and Humanities, 1994 (1886). xxiii Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 41. xxiv Van de Ven, Space in Architecture, p 94; and Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 28: xxv Van de Ven, Space in Architecture, p 94 also, Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 52. xxvi Wölfflin, in Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 41. xxvii Frampton, Studies in tectonic culture, pp 1-2. xxviii Theodor Lipps, Aesthetics of space and geometric-optical illusions, in Harry Francis Mallgrave & Eleftherios Ikonomou (trans and eds), Empathy Form and Space, Problems in German Aesthetics 1873 - 1893, Santa Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and Humanities, 1994 (1893-1897). xxix Van de Ven, Space in architecture, p 81: Lipps’s theory was translated twenty years later into actual visualisation in the paintings of Piet Mondrian, Paul Klee and Theo van Doesburg. xxx Van de Ven, Space in architecture, p 81. xxxi Adolf Hildebrand, Das Problem der Form in der bildenden Kunst, in Harry Francis Mallgrave & Eleftherios Ikonomou (trans and eds), Empathy Form and Space, Problems in German Aesthetics 1873 - 1893, Santa Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and Humanities, 1994 (1893). xxxii Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 38. xxxiii Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 229. xxxiv Van de Ven, Space in architecture, p 84. xxxv Van de Ven, Space in architecture, p 86: xxxvi The value of Hildebrand’s work for architecture was realised through Conrad Fiedler (1878) a short time later. xxxvii Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, pp 38-39. xxxviii Prior to this time, historical theory relied very much on the distinguishing features of different styles and usually based on Vitruvius's method of critique. xxxix Paul Frankl, Chapter 3, in James F O’Gorman (trans and ed), Principles of architectural history: the four phases of architectural style 1420-1900, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1982 (1914), p 142. xl Due to the political climate architects were building very little and consequently became increasingly involved in the development of cinematic space: Heinrich de Fries for Expressionism, Siegfried Kracauer for Realism, and Sergei Eisenstein for Russian Formalism. xli De Fries also wrote a monograph on Frank Lloyd Wright, published in 1926. xlii Dietrich Neumann (trans and ed), Film architecture: set designs from Metropolis to Balde Runner, München: Prestel, 1996, p 183. xliii Heinrich De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, (English translation Robert Woodhouse), University of Queensland, 2002 (1920-1921), pp 1-2. xliv De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, p 2. Excerpts from an older translation of the same article refer to ‘film as a kind of a stage’, in Neumann, Film Architecture, p 184. xlv De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 2. xlvi De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, pp 3-4. xlvii Van de Ven, Space in architecture, pp 197-174. xlviii De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 20. xlix Van de Ven, Space in architecture, p 173. l De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, pp 3-4. li Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2, The time-image, (Hugh Tomlinson & G Galeta trans), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989, p xii. lii De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 7. liii De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 7. liv De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 11. lv The ideas contained in this and the two following paragraphs are taken from: K Holt-Damant, ‘Constructs of space: German Expressionism, Mies van der Rohe and Yasujiro Ozu’, Progress, Conference Papers, SAHANZ 2003, Sydney. De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 11. lvi De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 13. lvii Bernard Cache, Earth Moves, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1995. lviii De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 11. lix De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 14. lx De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 15. lxi De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 23. lxii De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 17. lxiii De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 19. lxiv De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 18. lxv De Fries, ‘Spatial organization in film’, 2002, p 21. lxvi Sigfried Kracauer, Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997 (1960), p 218, and also: Vidler, Warped Space, pp 111-112. lxvii Miriam Hansen in Kracauer, Theory of Film, p xvii. lxviii Siegfried Kracauer was a contemporary of Walter Benjamin finding fame years later in the United States. lxix 'snapshots of reality' characterised his teacher, Georg Simmel. Vidler, Warped Space, pp 113-114. lxx Kracauer, Theory of Film, p xvii. lxxi Kracauer, Theory of Film, pp xxix – xxx. lxxii David Bordwell, Narration in the fiction film, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p48. lxxiii Mallgrave & Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space, p 64. Holt-Damant further notes that Riegl was influenced rather by Zimmerman than Vorkelt. lxxiv The writings of Rudolph Steiner, Paul Stern, August Endell, Henry van der Velde, and Richard Streiter directly influenced Hermann Muthesius and the Deutsche Werkbund. lxxv Kracauer, Theory of Film, p xi.