Talk:Bauhaus/Archive 1

"Biggest influence for modern design"

Does no one think the statement "The Bauhaus art school had (and still has) undoubtedly the biggest influence for modern design in architecture and interior design in modern times" is opinion approaching hyperbole? Does this belong in an impartial article? I'd agree with a broad ranging statement about the extraordinary influence of Bauhaus on and for modern design but "undoubtedly the biggest"? Loafsta 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Something has to be the biggest - can you suggest an alternative? --Mcginnly | Natter 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On reflection though, perhaps "The Bauhaus art school had a profound influence upon subsequent developments in architecture and interior design" might be a better and more cautious way of putting it." --Mcginnly | Natter 11:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Would not the following phrase -- "In 1917 in the midst of the carnage of the First World War, the Russian workers’ and soldiers’ Soviets seized power in Russia." -- be more accurate if it read "In 1917 in the midst of the carnage of the First World War, the Russian Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia."? Doug1943 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Doug1943

Well spotted. be bold and make the edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wandering bullet list under "Art and Architecture"

In the "Context" section, under "Art and Architecture," there's a somewhat aimless list of various items, some of them dated. Some not—some are specifically to do with Bauhaus figures, and for others the relevance is not clear. Also there is a mysterious sentence fragment quoted from Gropius in the middle, and it's not clear why that's being used in the "Context" section of the article. And finally there's an external link to a 1999 news article, with no accompanying prose—do we need that link at all?

It looks like the whole section may have been put in when the article was in a more inchoate state. Perhaps the whole bit (now titled "Other Milestones") should be removed? If not, here are some particular ways it could be improved:

Could someone

• vouch for the importance of the first two items (about Poelzig and Behrens), which are perhaps subsumed by the rest of the article,
• supply dates for, or otherwise contextualize, the items beginning "Gropius argued for..." and "Mackenson argues for...",
• provide more of the Gropius quote, and/or find a better home for it elsewhere,
• justify the isolated external link?

Ezrakilty 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ezrakilty -- yes, you're right, that was messy. I cleaned up that list and put in some better paragraphs about the wider context of German modernism, and I hope that helps. Other suggestions always welcome of course --Lockley 17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry chaps, they were my aid memoirs I'd left in rather than commented out. I went off to edit something else a while ago and didn't come back. The section about german modernist context is good - but I'm a little worried about "The Bauhaus was founded in 1919, the same year as the Weimar Constitution, and at a time when the German Zeitgeist turned from emotional Expressionism to the matter-of-fact New Objectivity." Actually, what frampton and Jencks argue is that the direction of the bauhaus in the early years - especially whilst Johannes Itten was in charge of the basic course - was expressionist - it was the arrival of moholy nagy and the constructivist influence that put paid to it in '23 I think. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations

All illustrations show historical DESSAU sites (I am not sure if there actually are any in Weimar). The big illustration right beside the article "Weimar" shows the Dessau Bauhaus, but that is not indicated anywhere. This will confuse the reader, --dunnhaupt 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gropius as founder

Earlier today user GearedBull revised the article to indicate the Gropius was not the founder of Bauhaus. I believe that's incorrect as a matter of fact, and wanted to make sure. According to Elaine S. Hochman's well-researched book on the school, on March 20 1919 Gropius proposed to the local government council that the two existing civic art schools, the Weimar Art Academy and the recently defunct School of Arts and Crafts, be combined under new leadership (his), with new vision, new academic focus, and the new name. So there was a certain evolution from existing organizations, sure, but it's clear (if only from the name) that Gropius was the founder and initial leader. Further comments welcome. --Lockley (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

you are entirely correct. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Error in Weimar History paragraph

The last sentence states "This school was eventually known as the Technical University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, and in 1996 changed its name to Bauhaus University Weimar."

Obviously, 1996 was not the intended year. I think it was 1926, but am not sure so I'll leave it as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.85.38 (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1996 is the correct year. the schools name was changed back to bauhaus following the reunification. please consult the bauhaus university weimar page for more information. and if you are able to read german, you can find greater detail on the german language page.--82.113.106.100 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Bauhaus still alive?

It seems such a shame if such a nice architetural movement died due to Naziism. Is Bauhaus still alive? Are there schools that still teach Bauhaus? Is it possible for someone to buy/build a Bauhaus-influenced house nowadays? Are new buildings being built based on Bauhaus principles? The article seems to suggest that the movement is dead. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.8.49 (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Modernism still has it's proponents, but the missionary zeal of the modernist has largely died out, and justifiably so. The modernist ideal was largely washed away by postmodernism. Many modernist ideas are still prevalent today, though. UnkleFester (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember there was a revival of the school in the US after the war. The building itself at Dessau is now open for visits since the reunification. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep here you go - the chicago new bauhaus eventuall became the IIT Institute of Design. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

the bauhaus university in weimar is an active university. the university in dessau has been and continues to be restored and serves as the bauhaus historical foundation.--82.113.106.100 (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming of article and Disambiguation

I had a look at the articles that link to Bauhaus and need their link Disambiguated, and 99% of them link to "Bauhaus" as in "Staatliches Bauhaus". I think the disambiguation was done with good intentions, but not finished... is there a way to disambiguate all links automatically (there are a lot)? To be honest I am not convinced that the disambiguation was necessary, as "Bauhaus" in most cases refers to "Staatliches Bauhaus", in this context "Bauhaus" is used to describe a style and school of thought, whereas "Staatliches Bauhaus" is the proper name of the original school from which the Bauhaus school of design emerged (i.e. Bauhaus is used like "Art Deco" to describe a style). I will rename the article "Bauhaus", but maintain the dismbiguation... In any case, can anybody help sort out the disambiguation in the internal links??--SasiSasi (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have renamed this article "Bauhaus (design)" which I think works better, still need help with the diambiguation of the all the articles that link to "Bauhaus" --SasiSasi (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Logo

This article misses the bauhaus logo. (german wikipedia) --80.156.44.52 (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dessau

Perhaps someone can resolve this: An editor included this line about Hannes Meyer back in 2007. It looks bogus, any opinion as to whether it should remain or be deleted from the article would be helpful...Meyer was also compromised by a sexual scandal involving one of his students, and Gropius fired him in 1930. An IP has claimed that the edit has no merit, I would appreciate clarification...Modernist (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Modernist, I'm the editor who included the fact about the circumstances of Meyer's dismissal from the directorship. It is no "joke", it's not "bogus", and I'm not a casual vandal. Gropius had lots of reasons to fire Meyer in the summer of 1930 but the one that probably resonated best with the Dessau city officials was his affairs with students. The one I can identify at the moment was Lotte Beese. Early in 1930 Beese left the school -- voluntarily or not, I don't know -- and went to work for Meyer & Wittwer. On July 31 1931 Beese gave birth to their illegitimate son Peter. He was raised by Beese and Mart Stam, who was Meyer's friend, who became Beese's husband, and who had been Gropius's first choice as successor. So much for 80-year-old gossip, and so much for this micro-dispute. --Lockley (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your clarification, I did not think you were a vandal, and I appreciate your input...Modernist (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lockley, do you have a reliable source to back up your statement, so that it can comply with our core policy of verification? Tan | 39 18:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

source on Meyer being fired: Art, culture, and media under the Third Reich, Richard A. Etlin, page 291, which anyone with a browser can see for himself. source on Meyer's affair with Beese: Lotte Stam-Beese 1903-1988, Hélène Damen & Annemie Devolder, published by De Hef, Rotterdam, 1993, don't have a page number, sorry. --Lockley (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Curl gives "....began teaching at the bauhaus in 1927, succeeded gropius as director 1928-1930. Meyer's collectivist approach alienated many people (he made Marxism and Leninism essential studies) and his insistence that architecture had nothing to do with formal aesthetics caused friction with other teachers. Dismissed in 1930, he went to the soviet union where he was heaped with honour and privilege until the Stalinist demands for classicism made him return to switzerland." Nothing in my sources about an affair, but I've no reason to doubt lockley's sources if he's checked them.--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it's possible that Gropius fired Meyer in 1930, as Gropius had resigned from his position in 1928. Further, Magdalena Droste's (semi-definitive) history of the Bauhaus "Bauhaus: 1919–1933" mentions nothing about Gropius firing Meyer and says on p. 166 that it was Dessau's municipal authorities who fired him. In addition, I was unable to view page 291 of the Etlin source as it's not on Google Books. --Studip101 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

While it [Bauhaus] has now come to mean "building supplies superstore"?

That statement in the current version of the text is nonsense! However, I think the original author was refereeing to the German company Bauhaus, which operates hardware superstores. But that "Bauhaus" is no generic word for hardware stores (the German word for these stores is "Baumarkt"), it's just a brand. And it has nothing to do with the Bauhaus school. It seems it is possible to confuse the school and the company, somehow. I will change that sentence to clarify this. 188.192.105.116 (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the mention altogether as there is a disambiguation link at the top of the page for those who are looking for info on the store. There is no apparent connection other than the name, so it really doesn't need to be mentioned in the lede. freshacconci talktalk 16:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

File:The New Bauhaus logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The New Bauhaus logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 7 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The New Bauhaus logo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bauhaus museum

from what I know, in Tel Aviv there has a small museum dedicated to the Bauhaus that opened in 2010 with the help of Israeli architect Ron Arad. פארוק (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Bauhaus Telephone

There actually was a Bauhaus telephone, the designer of which I can't remember at the moment, but I can easily find out. It was amazingly compact by the standards of the time, and very functional in design. This might go beyond the scope of this article, but it had the misfortune of being manufactured by a Jewish-owned company (W. Fuld & Co. of Frankfurt A/m). I have an example in my personal collection, and would gladly contribute a copyright-free photograph of it if it is deemed to be appropriate. Fuld was forced to merge with another manufacturer and in the last year of its existence (1935) it couldn't even put its name on its products. This is veering off into speculation, but there are hints that the particular example I have underwent a rebuild or repair in 1937 or 1938, and the identification tag carrying's Fuld's name and address was turned over so it couldn't be seen unless the phone was opened. Anyway, to try to get back on track, would adding the story of the telephone to the article be helpful, with or without a photo?

Thanks.

RogerInPDX (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Typography

Why are Typography and Jan Tschichold related to Bauhaus? (They were added by 217.233.107.72, but there's no response from him yet.) Adam Bishop 01:14, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Typography was one of the important products (amongst other industrial design and handiworks) of the Bauhaus. --mgream 09:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Typography is important to Bauhaus. Bauhaus created a typeface entirely without capital letters, since they serve no functional purpose, only aesthetic ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Or British Airways ethnic liveries. Its been over a year with no response so I am deleting these. Justinc 00:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Modern Bauhaus in Dessau

I am not clear about what, beyond the physical plant, it has in common with the Bauhaus described here, but there is again a technical school operating in its Dessau facilities as of the mid- to late 1990s, with architecture as part of the curriculum and which appeared to have been operating under the DDR. This included live stage productions in the Bauhaus theater, IIRC under the name of Bauhausbühne (literally, "Baushaus Stage"). The same building contains a Messe (a cafeteria serving students), where an interest in the history of the the facility was evidenced by about a square inch on one wall of a stairwell, that had been painstakingly and exceedingly neatly "dissected", one layer of paint at a time, to show strips of about a 1/8-inch strip of each phase in that history. A snackbar also operated in the basement of the other end of this building from the cafeteria; this room had distinctive lighting fixtures, appearing to be both physically supported and powered by uninsulated electricity-conducting metal rods anchored to the concrete ceiling; i inferred these were a preserved feature of the original Bauhaus design of the room.

Is there perhaps a proper place in the article Bauhaus for a section on the ways in which the current institution does and doesn't have a relation to the original? --Jerzy(t) 05:08, 2004 Apr 13 (UTC)

The new school in Dessau (which I visited in 1999) is indeed in the same building, but is an entirely different school from that under Gropius et al in the early 1920's. The new school does offer courses, promote the history and generally springboard off the original school. The building suffered much lack of care, but still has some original fixtures and features, and I gather much work is being done to bring it all back to proper state. There is a website with all the information (Foundation Bauhaus Dessau website) --mgream 09:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Though I'm not competent in this area, I thought the material here in Talk needed to be selectively worked into the article. I've edited in some of the above, crediting User:Jerzy in the Edit Summary. --Wetman 05:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UNESCO

I think this article should at least mention that recently UNESCO declared the city of Tel Aviv, Israel as a World Heritage Site, because it has the largest amount of Bauhaus buildings in the world. Is there anybody with sufficiant knowledge that might add this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidless Eye (talk • contribs) 4 September 2004 (UTC)

first principles

Could someone add a clairification of the first principles vs. precident thing? Is the first principles in this context related to First_principles? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattBowen (talk • contribs) 25 October 2004 (UTC)

A Group of Removals & Changes

Die Wohnung

At a Met Museum of Art "met museum". page on a Bauhaus work, the fundamental sense of "Wohnung" as "dwelling is translated in this context, despite the fact that "flat" ("apartment") is more familiar and in context also applicable. Other underinformed translations in the article dictate caution in the absence of another professional translation of this exhibition's name. --Jerzy(t) 00:27, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

Situationists?

Removed:

The Bauhaus school inspired the International movement for an imaginist Bauhaus which existed from 1953 to 1957.

So what, especially in this context? On Google

"International movement for an imaginist Bauhaus"

has "121 of about 1,020" hits, "the top one". saying in relevant part

International movement for an imaginist Bauhaus is not available in the medical dictionary.

--Jerzy(t) 00:27, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

Joint Factory 718 reference

Is this, "an example of Bauhaus-influenced industrial architecture is Beijing's Joint Factory 718, built by East German experts from 1951 to 1957," significant to Bauhaus? It is almost an orphan within WP, and looks like it was added to Bauhaus mainly to deorphan Dashanzi Art District.

--Jerzy(t) 00:27, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

Bauhaus in exile

The dispersal of the Bauhaus by the Nazis sent many in exile to New York, with revolutionizing effects on american design that need to be discussed. --Wetman 09:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) There is also an interesting connection between Bauhaus and the Black Mountain School in North Carolina. A lot of the exiles found a home there... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.143.239.78 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 September 2006.

I'm a bit wary of this Black Mountain Schools thing- We've got some citable sources talking about the New Bauhaus in Chicago with a lot of the staff and students - doubtless some would have gone to New York, (But we need to know who) - Gropius went to Black Mountain apparently - Where did Mies go? or Breuer? I don't think we can trace everyone who went anywhere and call them all the bauhaus in exile. I'm not saying it's wrong I'm saying I think we should get some conrete citation for it before inclusion. Other than Gropius and Albers was there anyone else who went there --Mcginnly | Natter 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw an exhibition about the Black Mountain College at Kettle's Yard earlier this year [1] which was quite illuminating, and tied in with an exhibition at the Tate on Albers and Moholy-Nagy. As I recall, Albers was the primary influence at Black Mountain - Gropius and Breuer drew up designs for new college buildings, but a cheaper alternative by A. Lawrence Kocher was actually built. There seemed to be quite a strong emphasis on visiting teachers during the summer months, so it is quite likely that Albers drew on his contacts from the Bauhaus for some of those summer teachers, but I can't find a list.

Interesting aside; John Cage is said to have drawn inspiration and courage to publish 4′33″ in response to having seen Robert Rauschenberg's white canvases on one of his summer visits to Black Mountain College. -- Solipsist 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Another connection was apparently Xanti Schawinsky who was a student of Oskar Schlemmer at the Bauhaus, and taught theatre at BMC. - Solipsist 19:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What is a Breuer chair, exactly?

Just a question for Lockley or anyone who wants to chime in. The reference in the article is to "the Breuer chair". I know practically nothing about this topic, but surely Marcel Breuer designed many different chairs. The only thing that tripped me up was the fact that many of the results on Google point to a chair[2] that is most definitely the same cantilevered design that Stam seems to be known for. Is it one of these other chairs that Breuer is better known for? If so, I think it would be worth pointing out, as anyone who is curious enough to poke around on Google will probably end up similarly confused. HorsePunchKid 22:53, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Yes, the "Breuer chair" is pop shorthand for just one much-imitated design, as famous as the "Barcelona chair" of Corbusier. A better descriptive mention could surely be found. --Wetman 00:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the Barcelona Chair was Mies - from the Barcelona Pavilion--Mcginnly | Natter 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the article from 'Breuer chair' (you're right of course) to 'Wassily Chair', which is more exact and the subject of an existing article. The Wassily Chair is the best-known of Breuer's chair designs and reportedly has been in continuous production for almost 80 years, although I couldn't verify that on the web. cheers --Lockley 21:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah hah! Thanks for clearing that up. It'd be great to find some decent-quality photos for this section of the web page. I'll keep an eye out for relevant furniture... HorsePunchKid 03:44, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Some idiot has decided to put in some... 'inaccurate' facts in the article, about various swear words for human excretion. I'm not too sure how to edit pages, so... it could do with fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18 November 2005 (talk • contribs)

A quick fix: the well known Barcelona chair with quilted face and criss cross legging is actually a design of Mies van Der Rohe's (final director of Nazi era Bauhaus) for the Barcelona pavilion of the world's fair. Buildthree 03:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

adds

in the impact section, there should be mention of the Black Mountain College (b/c so many ex Bauhaus folks taught there & it was kind of the American bauhaus, or at least the next generation in america...) a link could be made to the black mountain college Wikipedia article...

also, bayer did more at/for the bauhaus than just head the printing thing. if you could, please add that he was an early student and also a teacher at the bauhaus.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.104.58 (talk • contribs) 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nazi era

Could we get a clarification of the Nazi era impact on the existence of the Bauhaus? The wiki article has the Nazi's as being opposed to the Bauhaus; my understanding was that Mies was opposed to the Nazi's attempt at influencing the Bauhaus, and therefore decided to close the school... Buildthree 03:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the History section contains the sentence, "Consequently, many Weissenhof architects fled to the Soviet Union, thus strengthening the effect." It is not clear from the context which "effect" was strengthened. Can someone clarify? I'm guessing that it strengthened the perception that the Bauhaus was communist. --Speedarius 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation key

could someone provide a pronunciation key? Funkyj 23:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Where's the NPOV under the politics section? Only "conservative, aristocrats" are militaristic and imperialistic? Granted I reserve such conduct to any brand of Statism, but I think a more NPOV stance would leave the reader to choose how to interpret the facts. As written is too leading and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.73.52.194 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Context paragraph

The "context" paragraph is unacceptable as it stands. Its statements about what happened in both Russia and Germany are grossly politically biased. The stuff about "imperialism and militarism" is a political opinion. The statement that "workers and soldiers soviets" seized power in Russia is a political opinion. (Actually the Bolshevik Party seized power.) More importantly, there is no relationship shown between these events and the founding of Bauhaus. Was Bauhaus founded in response to the Russian revolution? Was it run by workers and soldiers soviets? Was Gropius a communist? No, no and no. So what was the connection? If you want to retain this paragraph, it must be fixed. If not, I will delete it again. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please leave your remarks on the article talk page. I would suggest that you - rewrite the paragraph. I'm moving these remarks there. Thank you. Modernist (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - If Mr. Toad wants to delete these paragraphs - my suggestion is for him to compose a more neutral contextual and historical milieu for the Bauhaus and Then add it. Lets see some better and more neutral information! Modernist (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This section needs sources and could use an edit, but the information is essentially correct. There is no implication that the Bauhaus was "founded in response to the Russian revolution", "run by workers and soldiers soviets" or that "Gropius a communist". It is setting a political context within Germany at the time that the Bauhaus was founded. It's valid, just unsourced. freshacconcispeaktome 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't correct, as I noted above, and it isn't valid. Why is what happened in Russia in 1917 more relevant to Bauhaus than what happened in, say, Paraguay? What was the connection between the failed communist rising in Germany and Bauhaus? No relevance, no connection, is stated or even suggested. Unless Bauhaus was founded by communists, I can't see any connection. I'm not an expert on the history of German architecture, but I know a non sequitur when I see one. If I am going to edit the paragraph, all it will say is that Bauhaus was founded in the context of the intellectual and cultural ferment of the early Weimar Republic, which I know to be true. (Most of that ferment had no connection to communism, although some of it did). Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is what happened in Russia in 1917 more relevant to Bauhaus than what happened in, say, Paraguay? With all due respect - are you kidding? Kandinsky? Russian constructivism? No connection to the Bauhaus and their German neighbors? Uh, Paraguay is in South America. I would suggest that You Do Not Delete anything but re-write what you think is a neutral context. As freshacconcispeaktome pointed out the paragraph is essentially correct. Modernist (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not an expert in this area. I know nothing about Russian constructivism. It is up to those who claim expertise in this area to write a paragraph which conveys this information to the non-expert reader, which is what an encyclopaedia is for. At the moment, it does not. All it says is, "there was the Russian Revolution, there was German communism, and then there was Bauhaus." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian avant-garde - read this article for starters and a few of the many related links, including this - Socialist realism. Modernist (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not incumbent on me to make myself an expert on these matters. As far as this article goes, I am a reader, not a writer. It is up to those who claim expertise in this area to write an article that is accurate, informative and comprehensible. "One does not need to be a carpenter to know an ill-made table": Dr Johnson. At the moment, this section is none of those things. (Actually I do know quite a lot about socialist realism and I know it has nothing to do with the foundation of Bauhaus, since it dates from the later 1920s at the earliest. At the time we are discussing, Proletkult was still the dominant aesthetic ideology in Soviet Russia. But as we have already established, Gropius was not a communist so that's not relevant.) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm we were talking about context. The Bauhaus was founded in 1919, by Walter Gropius in conservative Weimar the same year as the Weimar Constitution. - please explain what that has to do with communism? The entire paragraph is basically talking about the context in which the Bauhaus was first founded. The paragraph is fine and I suggest that you try another article if this one does not please your sense of good carpentry. Modernist (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please spare me cheap sarcasm - it is a much overused form of debate at Wikipedia and does not impress. The section in question reads as follows:

The foundation of Bauhaus occurred at a time of crisis and turmoil in Europe as a whole and particularly in Germany. Its establishment resulted from a confluence of a diverse set of political, social, educational and artistic development in the first two decades of the twentieth century.

The conservative modernisation of the German Empire during the 1870s had maintained power in the hands of the aristocracy. It also necessitated militarism and imperialism to maintain stability. By 1912 the rise of the leftist SPD had galvanized political positions with notions of international solidarity and socialism set against imperialist nationalism. World War I ensued from 1914–18. In 1917 in the midst of the carnage of the First World War, workers and soldier Soviets seized power in Russia. Inspired by the Russian workers and soldier Soviets, similar German communist factions—most notably The Spartacist League—were formed, who sought a similar revolution for Germany. The war provoked the German Revolution, with the SPD securing the abdication of the Kaiser and the formation of a revolutionary government. On 1 January 1919, the Spartacist League attempted to take control of Berlin, an action that was brutally suppressed by the combined forces of the SPD, the remnants of the German Army, and paramilitary groups (Freikorps). Elections were held on the January 19, and the Weimar Republic was established. Communist revolution was still a tangible prospect for many; indeed, a Soviet republic was declared in Munich, before its suppression by the paramilitary Freikorps and regular army. Sporadic fighting continued to flare up around the country.

The Bauhaus was founded in 1919, by Walter Gropius in conservative Weimar the same year as the Weimar Constitution.

As you can see, the whole section in italics is a polemic about German history, the Russian revolution and German communism. My original question was, and still is: what has this got to do with Bauhaus? We have established that Bauhaus was not itself founded by communists, so there must be some other connection. What is it? Was Bauhaus influenced by the aesthetic theory or practice of the Russian revolution? If so, by what means, or via which person? Did the Spartacists have a policy on architecture? What was it? Was Gropius influenced by it? By what means? If this section is going to mention the Russian revolution and/or the Spartacists, it must answer these questions, otherwise these statements are irrelevant. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I have done your work for you. Even with the limited sources I have, and even though this is not my field, I have considerably improved the opening section, and as well given the whole article a badly-needed copyedit, removing the excessively repetitive wikification. It turns out of course that the "background" section was complete rubbish. The dominant influences on Bauhaus were not communism or the Russian revolution at all, but the already existing German modernist movement and the aesthetic theory of William Morris. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've seen this discussion rather late. I think its important that the wikipedia article on the Bauhaus does not simply regurgitate the Pevsnerian conclusions that 1. The Bauhaus was apolitical and 2. It arose as an inevitable point to point progression, as the subtitle suggests "from William Morris to the Bauhaus", these are rather outdated conclusions. Pevsner originally omitted mention of Gaudi and St Elia entirely in his book, and its a rather blinkered view of architectural history in general (as argued by Banham, Frampton and particularly Charles Jencks in "Modern movements in Architecture". The point here is that there was a sea of events, groups and personalities surrounding the creation of the Bauhaus, which in addition to those mentioned in the contextualising paragraph also include, the radical artists groups The Glass Chain, Arbeitsrat fur Kunst, Novembergruppe - at the time expressionist in leaning and radical in their politics. Most published manifestos, and all seemed comfortable with the idea of revolution to assert change.

Take the Arbeitsrat fur Kunst's (Art Soviet) for example. Established by Gropius, amongst others, with the manifesto aims -

"In the conviction that the political revolution must be used to liberate art from decades of regimentation, a group of artists and art-lovers united by a common outlook has been formed in Berlin. ......the Abeitsrat fur Kunst hopes in the not too distant future to be able to push through its aims, which are outlined in the following programme - Recognition of the public character of all building activity, both State and Private. Removal of all priveledges accorded to Civil Servants. .....people's housing as a means of bringing all the arts to the people. ...Dissolution of the Academy of arts - replacement of these bodies.....Freeing of all training in architecture, sculpture, painting and handicrafts from State supervision. Enlivenment of the musuems as educational establishments for the people. ....just distribution of State Funds for the acquisitions of old and new works. Destruction of artistically valueless monuments as well as of all buildings whose artistic value is out of proportion to the value of their materials which could be put to better usess. Establishment of a national centre to ensure the fostering of the arts within the framework of future lawmaking" (Conrads, Ulrich (ed) 1971 Programs and manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture)

Now it may not be overtly, died in the wool communist, but it's certainly socialist, and to suggest that such an approach exists in a vacuum that is unaware of the Spartacists or the Bolsheviks isn't true - the various Arbeitsrater und Soldatenräter were directly modelled on the Russian 1917 revolutionary soviets. Gropius was a director of the Arbeitsrat, and I'll have to check, but believe he wrote that manifesto as well as the Bauhaus's in the same year. Benson's "Expressionist Utopias" explains that Gropius's Bauhaus declaration was expounding the ideas of the Arbeitsrat. German politics was in utter turmoil at the time and revolution or huge social change was considered a tangible possibility by these groups. I'll see if I can find sources linking these ideas with notions of a form of German Proletkult, but my hopes aren't high - my argument relates to the idea that these groups established themselves in the mould of some socialist organisations, and the manifestos and declarations are political as well as artistic in intent - some thought for a time, they were the avant garde not just of art, but a new potential social order.

• 
  Mies's memorial to the Spartacist leaders Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, commissioned by Eduard Fuchs, built by Wilhelm Pieck, and inaugurated on 13 June 1926, later destroyed by the Nazis
• 
  1921/2, Walter Gropius's Expressionist Monument to the March Dead

Both Gropius and Mies, pursued by the Nazis and working later in the US, denied the political leanings of their youths as it was expedient for them to do so. Jencks argues that Gropius was always prepared to compromise principle with pragmatism. It was clearly in Gropius's interests to distance himself and the institution after the political sea change to the right started to manifest itself in the mid to late 1920s and the move to Dessau. Furthermore the Neues Bauen und Sachlichkeit were rather later developments - Key is, at the moment of its inception, the Bauhaus was expressionist in intent and leftist in politics, Gropius had moved away from the Fagus Factory and was designing expressionist works such as the "Monument to the March Dead" to honour the fallen Kapp Putsch. Mies, by the way, normally considered apolitical, designed a monument to Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg in 1926 commissioned by Eduard Fuchs, president of the German Communist Party at that time.

In summary it's all rather simplistic to suggest the Bauhaus has nothing at all to do with the politics and events of the time, and much of what is commonly ascribed to the Bauhaus is about the changes that occurred after it moved to Dessau - the Weimar Bauhaus was in part politically motivated, radical and expressionist in character, and the sources for that aren't thin on the ground - if someone would restore the section on the talk page here, I'll dig out some supporting sources (or is that the whole of it in italics above?). The problem with the article is much less the inclusion of a contextualising paragraph, but more that it doesn't explain how these events relate to the Bauhaus - in that I agree with Mr Toad, and I'd be happy to see him remove any bias he sees there - what's really required though is a better section regarding the formation and character of the Weimar Bauhaus and how those ideals were changed and modified after the move to Dessau. Cheers --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Apropos above, I'm concerned about this section "Such influences can be overstated[are we overstating them?]: Gropius himself did not share these radical views[not sure about that at all], and said that Bauhaus was entirely apolitical.[to whom, when and why?] Just as important was the influence of the 19th century English designer William Morris, who had argued that art should meet the needs of society and that there should be no distinction between form and function.[3] Thus the Bauhaus style, also known as the International Style, was marked by the absence of ornamentation and by harmony between the function of an object or a building and its design."[international style was a much later development - we need to talk about expressionism first and how the neue sachlichkeit moved away from it.] Gropius might well have told the Nazis the Bauhaus was apolitical, but that doesn't mean it was. I'll come to Morris later.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent input, finally someone who knows the subject and also knows how to edit an article, Kudos...Modernist (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to have someone who actually knows something about the political background to Bauhaus edit the article in a way that explains it properly. As I said in my comments last year, I do not claim any expertise in this area. My objection was to a section of text which asserted that there was a connection between Bauhaus and the Russian revolution without demonstrating what that connection was. I objected also to Modernist's resort to vulgar sarcasm when I asked him/her to justify this assertion. Eventually I did a quick patchup based on whatever sources I could find. If Joopercoopers wants to rewrite the article based on expert knowledge, that's fine by me. (Assuming of course that all the above assertions can be properly referenced.) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Logical positivism linked to bauhaus here, [3]. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Influence on the arhitecture of Eastern Bloc

In Hungary for example 20% of the population are living in block of flats. --80.98.242.95 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition to external links

I am new to Wikipedia and am not technically minded. I came across the WP article on the Bauhaus and think that the following link will be useful.

• "Modern Art in New York".

This links to a site from the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which currently has an exhibition on the Bauhaus. Please evaluate its appropriateness and add if deemed so. Cinoue (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

More clarity where places are

For example, where is this?

It would be helpful for geographic locations to be included with some of the pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macgroover (talk • contribs) 10:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• that is in dessau, and we should add some images of the original bauhaus in weimar.--Extrabatteries (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Le Corbusier?

What is the relation -if any- of this style/school to Le Corbusier? From what I know the two seem similar so I think they must have had a certain influence on each other...

Also, the articles fails to cite clearly what are the most defining features of "Bauhaus" and its principles...How and when can we describe a building as Bauhaus? Tachfin (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Le Corbusier's theories were enthusiastically read in the Bauhaus design school in Germany.""Le Corbusier (1887-1965)". Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to have a look at the offices of Peter Behrens where Corb worked as well as Gropius and Mies in the early 1910s. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Tachfin (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

yw. you might also take a look at the Weissenhof Estate. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bauhaus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929012710/http://www.paulkleezentrum.ch:80/ww/en/pub/web_root/act/wissenschaftliches_archiv/werkphasen/am_bauhaus_in_weimar_1921_1924.cfm to http://www.paulkleezentrum.ch/ww/en/pub/web_root/act/wissenschaftliches_archiv/werkphasen/am_bauhaus_in_weimar_1921_1924.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605095415/http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/objects/pages/PrintArticle.jhtml?itemNo=350188 to http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/objects/pages/PrintArticle.jhtml?itemNo=350188

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Bauhaus sites

The map and the description of the Bauhaus sites are misleading in the case of Bernau. The Bauhaus art school was located in Weimar, Dessau and Berlin. Please refer to the German Wikipedia article. In Berlin there's a memorial plaque for the last site of the Bauhaus art school: File:Gedenktafel Birkbuschstr 49 (Lankw) Bauhaus Berlin.jpg. The original locations of the Bauhaus art school are important for a first glance, not any design results or similar. The UNESCO World Heritage Site descriptions should be moved to another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.3.214.107 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't change the official name of the World Heritage Site and the location of the listed sites. The Bernau site is a remaining building from the period, the Berlin one is just a Plaque. The article deals with the Berlin history, but the infobox is about the World Heritage Site. Fram (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, infobox is about the World Heritage site, but this article is about the school. The article should have a "university" infobox, because that's what the Bauhaus essentially was, with a map showing where the school's three sites were, as the original poster indicated. The World Heritage site infobox should be further down the page alined to a section about the WHS, or better still, on a separate article about the WHS.

Someone has created a "Bauhaus and its sites in Weimar, Dessau and Bernau" page, but this is simply a redirect to this article. There is a big difference between an organisation and a group of historic sites - they are not the same thing at all. Furthermore, the WHS consists of six separate sites, only two of which were on Bauhaus campuses - the Weimar and Dessau Bauhaus campus buildings; the Haus am Horn, Weimar; the Meisterhäuser, Dessau; the Laubenganghäuser, Dessau; and the ADGB Trade Union School in Bernau.Unesco. Bauhaus World Heritage Site. The site of the former Berlin campus, of course, isn't part of the WHS. It looks really confused to equate this article about the school with the Bauhaus WHS.14:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Felixkrater (talk)

Discussion for Women of the Bauhaus merged into Bauhaus

I came here looking for the discussion @Beland:, I am not understanding why it was even tagged. Women of the Bauhaus is a substantial article, can you please elaborate. Jooojay (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Motion to not merge Women of the Bauhaus with Bauhaus

The article meets GNG, I do not see a reason to move it. It should/could be improved however. Beland? Shameran81 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Shameran81 that this article should NOT be merged into Bauhaus. The subject deserves an independent article. The women involved with the Bauhaus were admitted to the school, but segregated to workshops and steered into "crafts". Significant artists emerged from the workshops and the products produced in the workshops actually were a profitable arm of the school. There is a 2019 article available online Frauhaus: Gunta Stölzl, Walter Gropius, and the Women of the Bauhaus ("The women of the Bauhaus, attracted to the school by a lie, were marginalised by its male masters and forced into a single workshop. Under the leadership of Gunta Stölzl, they turned the weaving workshop into the financial cornerstone of the Bauhaus.") Interesting read. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in WomenArtistUpdates. I removed the template for now, since the article as it is meets GNG and the proposal is months old. Shameran81 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Shameran81! Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Women of the Bauhaus deserve to be more than a footnote

"Women of the Bauhaus" are discussed on a separate Wiki page, the link to that page found at the very bottom of this article. There are many things wrong with this. Many highly influential artists, who happened to be women, attended the school and produced iconic Bauhaus works of art and design. However, these women were and are regularly overshadowed by the men who attended and led the school. While its founders also preached a dubious message of inclusion, most women who accepted were forbidden from studying anything other than what was considered suitable for them by those same men, weaving. Despite this misogyny, those artists elevated weaving to the status of art and made the weaving department one of the school's most successful. A Wiki article about the Bauhaus school today should attempt to remedy the second class status that "women of the Bauhaus" were given, not perpetuate it with treating their contributions to its success as a footnote in history. 2603:6000:A400:6F13:5D88:5677:483B:F069 (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No mention of the weaving workshop

This article has no mention of the weaving workshop in the Bauhaus, which was the most profitable school. The textile designs made there were a large part of the furniture production. With mention of the weaving workshop, it would also be necessary to mention the exclusion of women from the other schools which led to the weaving workshop being the only specialty for women to enroll in after the basic courses. Summer162435 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)