Adolf Loos and Peter Behren of the Werkbund

Coming out of a time period that was being influenced by the Art Nouveau and Jugendstil movements, Adolf Loos certainly changed the perception and progression of Modern Architecture. With much of his work centered around Vienna, he brought something totally new and original to the scene of architecture and refused to be a part of any of the movements going on at the time.  Through his writing and critique, Loos opened up a very important debate which questioned the necessity of ornamentation and the role of art in design.

                Another important group that operated at the same time as Adolf Loos, and with the same influence on modern architecture, was the Werkbund. They shared similar ideas with Adolf Loos of form without ornament, and through their “Weißenhofsiedlung” exhibition in 1927, they helped to define the international style of the modern house. Among the architects and members of the Werkbund who built at the exhibition included Mies Van der Rohe, Peter Behrens, and Bruno Paul.

Aerial of Weißenhofsiedlung exhibition, Stuttgart, Germany

http://www.weissenhof.ckom.de/01_allgemein/pics/01_luftbild.gif

                This blog will look at and compare plans of Loos’ Muller house and Peter Behrens' house from the Weißenhofsiedlung exhibition.

Adolf Loos' Muller House, 1929-30, Prague

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/villamueller/mueller3.jpg

Peter Behrens' Terrassenhauses, 1930-32, Stuttgart

http://www.weissenhof.ckom.de/02_gebaeude/bild.php?id=434

 Looking at both houses it is easy to see that both architects stuck to the use of simple geometric forms in their designs. From the exterior we see the form expressed in plain white surfaces with simple windows put in. Loos co-owned a construction company that specialized in applying new construction techniques, such as use of reinforced concrete, while architects of the Werkbund were also trying to find universal and modern materials with which their new international style would incorporate. I think that because they both abandoned ornamentation and stuck to such simple geometric forms, Behrens' and Loos’ houses (along with the other Weißenhofsiedlung houses) were quite limited and apt to looking similar.

Figure 1: Geometric stacked and intersecting forms of Behrens's house

                Now, when it comes to the plan and orientation of space in each of these houses; that is where the two begin to differ. Loos is well known for the use of his Raumplan. In the Muller house, I think Loos took a quite innovative approach (as opposed to the more traditional notion at that time) to looking at how spaces in a house relate. The Raumplan set each room at a different level where they were connected by a series of short stairs. Here Loos is transforming the floor plan into space where he is changing the notion that each room must sit on the same plane and share the same ceiling height (Colquhoun 81). From this he creates some unique diagonal views that are framed through openings in the walls.

Figure 2: Loos's Raumplan concept in the Muller house: note stairways (Colquhoun 80)

Figure 3: Muller house room floor height and highlighted stair corridors

                Behrens took almost the same idea, but not to the same degree as Loos. We can see that Behrens is experimenting with volumes (specifically a modular volume) and positioning and intersecting them in space. However, unlike Loos, Behrens does this on a set plane for each floor. From the floor plans it is possible to see that Behrens is taking a simple rectangle that is subdivided into 2-3 bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, and dining (also with access to a terrace) and then arranging it to the orientation that he chose.  The orientation had to do with providing occupants access to light and fresh air to reduce the risk of spreading tuberculosis and disease which was a pertinent threat in older cramped industrial city housing blocks.

Figure 4: Modular square/rectangle of apartments intersecting and transposed

                Ultimately I think each house takes an interesting look at volumes in space and how they relate to one another. They both take material into account and discuss the relationship between form and function. These notions of the modern house were truly unique for that time and certainly influenced future architects.

Sources:

Colquhoun, Alan. Modern Architecture. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.

Curtis, William J. R. Modern Architecture Since 1900. 3rd ed. New York: Phaidon, 2011. Print.

http://www.weissenhof.ckom.de/00_startseite/index.php?flash=4.

Art Nouveau: Horta, Van de Velde, Guimard.

Art Nouveau was a brief but very influential and unique period of time in the history of architecture. It was a time spent in the exploration of new ideas and was very much influenced by the work of Viollet-le-Duc and the Arts and Crafts movement going on in England, while also drawing from the technological and industrial advances of the late 1800’s. Art Nouveau was a definite break from classical style and the debate of eclecticism. It was a truly innovative style of the times where men such Victor Horta, Henry Van der Velde, and Hector Guimard paved the way for new modern architecture.

Illustration in Art Nouveau style by Alphonse Mucha showing the 

nature of organic curves and ornament

Victor Horta was a prominent figure in Art Nouveau as it emerged in Belgium in the 1880’s. The beginnings of Art Nouveau came out of mediums such as illustration, fabrics, and ceramic works. They had a certain specific tie to organic shape and form and also the naturalistic spirit of the Romantic Movement. According to William Curtis, “Victor Horta…seemed a three-dimensional equivalent to the painters’ two-dimensional linear inventiveness” (54). Perhaps Horta’s most significant work in the Art Nouveau is his Hotel Tassel built in Brussels in 1892. It is here we see his use of the modern material and the ideas of Viollet-le-Duc regarding the exposed iron beam and its synthesis with stone. “The principal innovations lay in the frank expression of metal structure and in the tendril-like ornamentation which transformed gradually into the vegetal shapes of banisters, wallpaper, and floor mosaics”(Curtis, 55). It was this focus on structure integrated with organic themes that defined Art Nouveau as an iconic architectural style.  

Victor Horta, Hotel Tassel, Brussels, 1892

  Another Belgian prominent on the scene of Art Nouveau was Henry Van de Velde. Van de Velde started as a painter and was very much influenced by the work of Impressionists and the theoretical teachings of William Morris. From painting, Van de Velde moved into the applied arts of furniture making and interior design, and then from there moved into designing buildings. He was very interested in the idea of ‘the total work of art’ where every part of a building, down to the smallest detail, would carry the same aesthetic character as the overall building (Curtis, 57). Van de Velde was very much a forerunner of functionalism with his view on ornament. He broke the formerly held conception that structure and ornamentation are supposed to occupy two separate spaces.

Example of Van de Velde furniture design

Similar to the work of Horta and Van de Velde in Belgium, Hector Guimard sought to demonstrate the decorative principals of Art Nouveau through architecture in France. He too was influenced by Viollet-le-Duc’s Gothic rationalism and was also familiar with the works of Horta. According to Colquhoun, “His alliegiance to Viollet-le-Duc was even stronger than that of Horta…the Maison Coilliot was based on illustrations in Viollet’s Entretiens and the Dictionnaire”(23). His Paris Metro (1900) is also significant display of Art Nouveau’s natural forms put into ironwork and detailing. Many of Guimard’s designs in iron were able to be mass-produced using molds due to the available industrial capability at that time.

Paris Metro, Guimard, 1900

Overall the work of these three men helped to create a brand new sense of architecture that carried over to influence the thinking of future architects of the 20^th century. Their use of form and structure where tightly controlled by functionalist thought and rationalism handed down by Viollet-le-Duc. It is also their use of material and natural ornamentation that created such a unique style that should never been forgotten. 

Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc

Gottfried Semper, John Ruskin, and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc, were three very important men that helped shape the early movement of Modern Architecture in the 19^th century. Through their publication of theory and practice in architecture, they each portrayed unique ideas and elements in regards to built and restored architecture. It is in these differing elements of architectural theory that lead to debate and criticism surrounding their work. Even though some their ideas were disputed against one another, their contributions were significant to the development of Modern Architecture.

Semper was responsible for many key writings, which started with his Four Elements of Architecture in 1851. It is in these writings that Semper conveys his belief that architecture is a reflection of socio-political conditions while also trying to systematically classify architectural forms as a typology. In The Four Elements of Architecture, divides all built form into four categories: the hearth, which represents the central social element, the platform, which serves to elevate the hearth, the roof, which protects the hearth from the rain, and the enclosure, which keeps out the rain and the cold. Semper favored Classical Greek style because he thought that it embodied social values that his Four Elements could be constructed upon. Semper did not appreciate Gothic as Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc. Semper was very much interested in craftsmanship and the technical arts and was later criticized for discounting technological innovation (such as steel). In his famous work of the Semperopera in Dresden, Germany, his style of Eclecticism can be seen in his use of Renaissance, Baroque, and Greek features. In regard to Semper’s view on built and restored architecture, he was not against the restoring of buildings as he approved of his son updating the Semperopera after it burned in 1869.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dresda_Semperoper.jpg

                Unlike Semper, Ruskin was a strong admirer for Gothic architecture. In Ruskin’s The Seven Lamps of Architecture, he describes the seven moral values that he believes are necessary for all pieces of architecture to hold. Ultimately, Ruskin believed that Gothic architecture provided these moral values in its strong connection to religion. Much like Semper, Ruskin also was against mechanization and the innovative uses of iron. Ruskin believed in the importance of nature and its ability to cater to the creative expression of artists and craftsmen. Through this, Ruskin is often characterized as being very emotional in his view towards architecture, that Gothic is the “architecture of life”. These charged feelings also carried over into his view on preservation of old buildings. Ruskin believed that buildings should be left in their original form and to decay in order to properly portray the time period in which they were built for.  

                Viollet-le-Duc was much like Ruskin in his adoration for the Gothic style, but different from both him and Semper in their distaste for the use of iron. Viollet-le-Duc was very much a rationalist when it came to architectural form and style. It was the structure and tectonics of the Gothic style that Viollet-le-Duc was interested in. Viollet-le-Duc believed that true architecture should have a clear purpose and function, as opposed to Ruskin who believed that the ornamentation made good architecture. In his works, Viollet-le-Duc used a mixture of elements and materials which lead to his conceptualizations in material joinery and tectonics.

                                   Conceptualization of stone and steel  Viollet-le-Duc (1864)

 Viollet-le-Duc not only disagreed with Ruskin in the use of iron, but also in his view that architecture can and should be restored. His well-known restoration of the Medieval Carcassonne fortress was controversial and would have been seen as a horrible slight by Ruskin. Viollet-le-Duc was mainly criticized for using material and style not native to the particular region he was building in.

 

                                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carcassonne-vignes.jpg

                

Even though these men shared differing views on style, material, and preservation, they each provided a unique commentary on the issues in architecture during that time period. Their observations, theories, and practices ultimately paved the way for the future of Modern Architecture. 

Welcome

My name is Jon Lain and I am a third year architecture student at Ball State University.
I am currently enrolled in the course of Architecture History (Arch329) and this blog site will consist of posts dealing with ideas, discussions, and readings for this class.
Please feel free to comment on anything here!