Art as a trigger for Modernism in Architecture

From what I learned so far is that Modernism has different variation of aspects, different kind of movements under the term of Modernism. Architecture in itself is art, how to design is art, but rather than using paintings, architects moved to the third dimension.

Kazimir Malevich, Black Square, 1915

Kazimir Malevich was the initiator of the so called Constructivism art movement. He wanted to express feelings through colors. It was the change of the political regime that triggered artists to come up with a new artist movement, to symbolize the new era after the death of the Zar family.
So why am I mention that? Well it was also the time of Wassily Kandinsky who is one of the most important and well known artist. Like Malevich, Kandinsky was very abstract.

 The Bauhaus in Dessau, Germany

Keyword Bauhaus. Kandinsky was a teacher at the Bauhaus till the closure of the Nazis in 1933. There he came in contact with the Constructivism, which affected then his way of expression through more geometric forms. Another famous artist who worked as a teacher at Bauhaus was Paul Klee, well known for his works in Expressionism, Cubism, Constructivism and Surrealism.

So there are two famous, well known artist which worked at the Bauhaus, whose Manifesto proclaimed :"the ultimate aim of all creative activity was building." It may sound like a joke despite the fact that in the first years of Bauhaus, there was actually no Architecture class at all. Nevertheless the idea was to combine crafts and fine art together, which eventually then manifested itself in the expression of architecture.

Walter Gropius intended to create a "total work of art in which all arts, including architecture, would eventually be brought together."

So to sum up my conclusion. Art is not just paintings on Canvas, it is the creativity which manifests itself in different, various aspects. Various art movements, craftsmanship, architecture, there are all part of what we call art. I think that art triggered the way architect thought about designing as space immensely. After all movements like Constructivism go with abstraction and simplicity, like Adolf Loos wanted architecture to be as well. So the idea, to create a new sort of expression through logical simplicity, swapped from one part of art to another. It is more of an exchange network, paintings affect architecture, architecture affects painting.

I agree with Walter Gropius, that art in the should be brought together and combined, to achieve the ultimate design. And the era of that time made this all easier in my opinion. Before architecture was all about the classic architecture, do it like the Roman and Greeks, and then again and again and again. Like a never ending loop. So with the start of the new art movement there was a chance of change of the way architects thought about architecture. Like i mentioned before, Adolf Loos claimed ornaments to be a crime and that architecture should stop copying and rather come up with a new ideology.

And here is where art also comes into the game, as many variations of 'Modernism' are spread, like Constructivism in Russia or De Stijl in the Netherlands, who came up with there own language and way of expression, but with the ideology of change and new ways. This all generated the machine of the Modernism in Architecture.

In a way i want to say that inspiration can come from anywhere, but to get inspiration we have to know different kinds of aspects of art, understand intentions of artists as well as the historical worth behind it. If we understand all those aspects better, I think that then we are able to understand and make better design.


Link to Documentary Bauhaus in Dessau

Ornament and Crime by Adolf Loos

Well I was reading the manifesto of Adolf Loss and it was shocking, how much he hated ornaments. It sounds like a child who doesn't want to eat his broccoli and thus things they should vanish.
But I agree with him, simplicity is what makes me look at modern architecture and don't get sore eyes.

Truth is beauty - beauty is truth

I think that especially the radical comparison between ornament and crime, or also ornament is crime, made such an huge impact on Modernism. Loos stated that the child is amoral as well as the Papuan, who tattoos his skin, but is not an criminal due to the fact that he slaughters his enemies and devours them. But the modern man tattooing himself would, on the other hand then, be a criminal.

To make it short, he states that if criminals wear tattoos on the skin as part of ornamenting themselves, then making ornaments on buildings would be the same. The architect would be a criminal, the building he designed would become crime against humanity. And I have to agree with Loos. I understand that, as an architectural student, we should learn about the history of architecture, to grasp the idea of their concepts at that time. But going into detail like knowing the Greek orders? That is not what I want to memorize. 

Unfortunately like all others who were masterminds and first to do some changes, Loos wouldn't get the agreement of what he stating. The Building Goldman and Salatsch Store in Vienna by Adolf Loos for an example was an attempt to get rid of useless ornaments and show functionality. The clear language of the upper housing floors with is contrast of the white painted facade and the minimal held windows had been totally disrupted by some ridiculous window sill, which Loos had to put on, because the emperor was afraid, the building wouldn't correspond with the neighboring  buildings. So he had to scar his own creation.

But what made his manifesto now having such huge impact on the way how architects thought at that time? Well throughout the world, there were others, who like Adolf Loos thought about the idea of an simple, functional style. In Italy the Futurists were fascinated by speed and movement as well as into industrialization, forms of cars, boats, planes, objects which show technical progress and that the design / form follow answers to the functionality.

That is what Peter Behrens did with the AEG Turbine Factory in Berlin. A building, which had a strong influence on the so called revolution of architecture, initiating the time of Modernism. Its a building, so simple held, we can understand by following the forms and shapes, what the purpose of the building is, to enclose the huge turbines of the so called company. It expresses what is inside.

In a way it is understandable why there was the desire of a change. It is now a 100 years ago when the world was at war; the World War I. Cities burned down to the grounds, a new era of architecture had to come, one which wouldn't anymore be unnecessary decorative, but responding to the needs of the people. Building which were functional, serve the purpose and could be mass fabricated. Like for example the Dessau Törten settlement by Walter Gropius

As a rational guy I always saw beauty in simplicity and forms. I can feel the intense hate rate that Adolf Loos had on the ornaments, all though I have to disagree with him under the term that not all tattooed men are criminals as I call myself one of those few who "decorated" themselves.

But it is this full of passion, simple wording and exaggeration that made the people thoughts shake. And it is this manifesto that made the ideology of architecture finally crumble and rebirth into Modernism, a more simple, functional and clean architecture I really appreciate. An appreciation because I think, that beauty comes from within, and a building is just an empty shell without what happens inside. And only a functional building can respond, in my opinion, to beauty.

Link to Adolf Loos Ornament and Crime