Oskar Schlemmer,(1923). Observed that Bauhaus was
founded after the catastrophe of the first world war. In the midst of the
revolution and the flowering emotion, arts became a rallying point for those
with belief in the future and enthusiasm to build an alternative system to
capitalism. The triumph of industry and technology before the war and the
destruction during the war called to life the impassioned romanticism which was
a flaming protest against materialism and the mechanization of arts and life.
It was in this scenario that the then Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimer founded a
school of arts and crafts in Weimar Germany in1906 and appointed Van de Velde
as the first director, who was generally believed to be interested in teaching in workshops
rather than in studios. When Velde left Germany , amidst
controversy, he suggested Water Gropius as his successor. It was Gropius who
re-organized the school for the artist, craftsmen and architects to train and work together in unity and
called the school, Staatliches Bauhaus in Weimar .
The school became a comprehensive art institution, collecting all artistic
creativity such as sculpture, painting, design and handicraft into a
architectural unity. He was able to keep together such dissimilar artists like
Kandinsky, Feininger, Klee and Schlemmer for a long time. This led to the
expressionist vision which did not last long due to external pressure and was
replaced by industrial design and stark cubic simplicity to accommodate the
capitalist movement. Angered by the development, in 1924, Gropius issued a memo
called, Art and Technology- A New Unity.
This stirred a political movement which led to the dissolution of Bauhaus in Weimar . A more governmental control led to the recognition
of Bauhaus as a states school in Anhart
through Dessau ’s
activity. This seemed to secure the future of the school as a department of
architecture was established with Hannes Meyer as its head. A year later
Gropius resigned as the director and suggested Hannes Meyer as his successor.
As Hannes was politically more radical than Gropius, he was dismissed in 1930
for political reasons and Mie Van Der Rohe succeeded him. Rohe unlike his predecessors had no formal
education but only was an apprentice to his father ,a mason However, the growth
of national socialism in Anhalt led to Mie’s dismissal in 1932 and the school
was closed down. An attempt to carry on the Bauhaus principle in Berlin as a private
enterprise was resisted by the Nazis in 1933. The Bauhaus however was closed
down after six (6) months by the forced
voting of the board in an abandoned
telephone factory in Berlin-Steglitz where it operated.
Although, the
Bauhaus had about 1250 trained pupils, it influence was geometricall in
proportion to this number. The testimony to this was that the dispersal of its pupils and masters led to the widespread of its principles all over
the world. Consequently, Gropius and Brener at the Harvard university in U.S.A,
Moholy-Nagy at the New Bauhaus in Chicago,Mies Van Rohe in Hilberseimar, Walter
Peterlians at the Armoured Institute now Illionois Institute of Technology and
Albers at Black Mountain College in North Carolina, continued its principles
and programmes. Finally, the exhibition between 1938-9 at the Museum of Mordern Arts
in New York
and its numerous publications spread its fame worldwide like a wildfire, from
where other architectural schools took their root.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF BAUHAUS: Oskar
Schlemmer,(1923), claimed that Bauhaus called upon the creative forces of fine
arts to become influential. The establishment of workshops founded upon the
crafts ,to unite and productively stimulate and combine the arts, community
crafts, humanities, science and technology
into architecture, was a turning point in history. The convergence of
abstract, scientific and philosophical principles created the idea of old but
its rendering loaded with the will to style, animating and being animated made
the intellectual and political history of Bauhaus contemporary. Thus Bauhaus
affected the psyche of its society in all aspects. This Gropius described as
the ‘idea of universal unity’.
Architecture thus became a unifying art.
The training of the architect therefore made him a wielding force of many arts
and movements. Realizing that human achievement depends on the proper
co-ordination of all the creative faculties, the training must be holistic.
Summing up the basic requirement of training gifted persons as architectural
education needs, Gropius, claimed that a ‘ thorough practical manual training
in workshops actively engaged in production coupled with sound theoretical
instruction in the laws of design, the knowledge and mastery of the physical
laws of statics, dynamics, optics and acoustics to give life and shape to his
inner vision must be emphasized. In any work of arts, the laws of the physical
world, the intellectual world and the world of the spirit function and are
expressed simultaneously’. The need to explore other areas of study for the
creative mind has been part of the historical development of architectural
education, Gropius at Bauhaus agreed to this when he observed thus, ‘ in as
much as the Bauhaus curriculum does not provide for advanced courses in
engineering such as construction in steel and reinforced concrete, statics,
mechanics, physics, industrial methods, heating, plumbing, technical chemistry,
it is desirable for promising architecture students in consultation with their
masters to make their education complete with courses at technical and
engineering schools.’ He also suggested as a matter of principle exposure in
manufacturing industries and workshops outside the school. This is why it is possible
to feel at times certain training or
faculty is missing. This is the essence of formal and informal continuous
training for the architect.
THE CURRICULUM AND PROGRAMME OF BAUHAUS:
The goal of Bauhaus curriculum is the demand for a new and powerful working
correlation of all the entities and
processes of creation. The gifted student must regain a feeling of the
interwoven strands of practical and formal work. Architecture unites in a
collective task all creative workers, from the simple artisan to the supreme
artist, Gropius observed. This was why the foundation of the Bauhaus education
was called, ‘ Collective Education’ to
sufficiently permit the broad development of every kind of talent. The
importance of this lies in the fact that over the years, there has not been found any standard or universal
method of talent discovery. The individual therefore in the course of his
progressive development discovers by himself in the field creative activities and processes best suited
to him within the circle of creative community. This Bauhaus achieved, through
the courses on practical and formal instruction being followed by independent
research and experiment. The outline of Bauhaus according to Course Gropius is
as follows;
(a).Preliminary course: This was a six (6)
month’s intensive course simultaneously involving both practical and
theoretical courses aimed at realizing the creative power of the student for
him to grapple with the physical nature of materials and the basic laws of
design in nature. The course breaks down the conventional pattern of thought to
make way for personal experiences, means of expression, expose individual
potential and limitations with a view to cultivating subjective and objective
observations through individual works. The course is broken into the following;
1. Instruction in Crafts: This was
undertaking under two masters; one a craftsman and the other an artist took the
student through a series of workshop based trainings. The aim was to train the
hand of the students and ensure proficiency and reduces the possibility of
stifling the student’s creative ability which could in sole dependence on
machines. By this course the Bauhaus was able to make craftsmanship and use of
machine approach one another for eventual blending with the student as the main
tool. This productive union which gives the individual the understanding and
desire for co-operation is actually needed in this machine age propelled by
computer.
2.Instruction
in Form: The emphasis here was on team and co-operative work by the
students .They did the study of nature, analysis of materials, theory of space,
colour composition, technical construction, instruction in materials and tools.
The aim of this course was to assist the student evolve and shape his intellectual
form from the forms and ideas generated from experimenting with natural and
man-made forms. The course also helped the student develop in his mind the vocabulary and language of creativity and through the
control of his hand creative work was
achieved. Although form can help develop theory and is essential for collective
construction, Gropius believed that the most important function of theory is to
provide the common basis on which individuals could create together a superior
unit of work, thus making theory not the achievement of the individual but generations since it evolves. Therefore in
Bauhaus, experiment in forms provided opportunity for a conscious process of
formulating theories. Forms also provided avenues for new co-ordinations and a
means of construction and expression of the inner being of the artist. Real
unity is therefore achieved in the construction of forms while individual
expression, labour and identity within the the group is not lost. The elements
of form which constitutes the grammar in Bauhaus are colour, rhythm,
proportion, light values, full or empty space, materials such as stone, wood,
clay glass textile and metals. Since practical training in form is based on
observation which gives the exact representation or reproduction of nature
directly or indirectly, art and nature
are antithetical with art trying to triumph over nature. However,
Bauhaus was able to resolve this conflict and
bring them into perfect unity in this course.
(c). Instruction in Architecture: This was the
next stage for an experienced journeyman as the student or pupil was referred
to, who had graduated from the instructions in craft and form and the properly
exposed. The training was both in the research department, actual construction
sites and workshops to study crafts
other than that produced by Bauhaus students. The students in addition took
part in actual planning, design and construction of building projects under
Bauhaus commission for on the spot experience of co-operating with other trades
and at the same time earn their living from the exercise
A GENERAL
OVERVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION : The master-apprentice
relation, through instructor-student to the present lecture-student relation,
has painstakingly over the years
attempted at combining academic and professional (or theory and practice) but
the gap has not been effectively reduced. The conflict has been how to strike
an effective balance since at any point in time one tends to dominate the
other. Even in the present two tier system which includes a period of
industrial attachment, close to attaining a balance has not been easy. This is
compounded by the irregular academic calendar, time and the ever increasing on
the curriculum content in order to meet the increasing demand of the society.
Even the use by some schools in the Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.), academic
period of 4 and 5 years could not help matters.
Commenting
further on this conflict,Donald, (1999), said, ‘university based-studios and
practices strive to establish a basis for their teaching in scholarship and
research to fit into the system. With
the growing crises of confidence in professional knowledge and education,
educators are beginning to value the kind of artistry professional schools are
least equipped to teach, since they realize they have much to learn from
educational tradition of studio and practice. In a bifurcated system of
professional education, schools of architecture occupy a troubled intermediate
position, claims, Donald A. Schon.
Apart from
the demands of the profession, Donald A. Schon continues, ‘some educators feel
that the scope of the applied sciences should include; energy-related
engineering and design, soil mechanics, structural engineering, building
materials and technologies, geology, topography, solar energy engineering,
acoustics, wind effects, earthquakes and earthquake harzard reduction, building
economics, building finance, building diagnostics, urban development and
design, building and architectural law, group dynamics and team functioning,
architectural anthropology, urban politics, architectural history, the
structure of the building industry and computer science’. The problem he
observed is that the applied sciences as it concerns architecture by way of
knowledge and teaching is alien to conventional research tradition of the
university system.This is a major issue in architectural education.
LESSONS FROM BAUHAUS: That Bauhaus was
a foremost architectural educational institution and the legend in educational
modernism and functionalism is unarguable. However, the following are a few of
the lessons which contemporary architectural education in Nigeria may learn from its programme namely;
1.Community Architecture; In the midst
of the conflict and confusion in social,
economic, cultural, educational, dysfunctional system, globalization and
neo-colonialism, that architecture principle and programme as propounded by
Bauhaus and her stakeholders under their community architecture, is the
philosophy of what we need to build on is not in doubt. Thus as attempted by
Bauhaus , will bring the much needed unity in the system. It will also make
our architectural education community
and context based, the embodiment of our historical experience and development.
It is here important to mention the direction of the Integrated Research Survey studio work of the Architecture departments
of the, Abia State
University , Imo
State University
and Anambra State University
2. The
Integrated Survey; In the midst of time overrun, high failure
rate and dropping in architectural schools the need for organized and
systematic academic counseling should be a matter of concern to us.
3.
Private Sector Partnership; Integration of the private sector partnership workshops, laboratories,
craftshops and industries into our curriculum, to argument whatever exists in
our schools by encouraging the establishment of workshops, draughting offices
and laboratories if possoble under a private sector arrangement to receive
commissions and work with the departments of architecture.
4. Specialization at Students Level;
Structure the curriculum to encourage specialization from the undergraduate
level through the creation of clear directions in their training.
5. Involvement of Practising professionals; Draw up a strategic plan to draw in
practicing architect and other professionals into academics. Although the
strategic programme of ARCON recognizes this but its practical implementation has been almost
impossible due to the fact that the existing university operational policy
discourages it.
6. Executing Organ; Formation of policy,
implementation, monitoring and strategic committee to lobby, package
appropriate bills and follow up communique of our conferences, at the
appropriate government and non-governmental levels.
7 Quantitative Techniques in Research;. A
strong quantitative, operational research, statistical and valuation techniques
need to be infused into the research aspect of the curriculum at strategic levels
to actually develop a research base needed for this age.
8.Re-introduction
of Bachelor of Architecture, B, Arch. Although some schools presently have the
Postgraduate Diploma, PGD, programme with the present two-tier system, it is necessary to strengthen the system with
the B.Arch. to reduce the looming problem of turning out more quacks in order
not to further complicate the alarming
problem of quackery already in the system.
CONCLUSION: That we need the spirit and
philosophy of Bauhaus from which the modern architectural education evolved is
a fact of our situation. Prominent in this is the unlimited desire to explore
new areas and build these into the curriculum. Although, Bauhaus had its
critics, its contribution is unmistakable. Permit me to end this paper by
quoting Gropius,(1923), when he alluded on the need to delve into other areas such as planning when he said,‘ every architect must
understand the significance of the city in order to be able to engage activity
in city planning, all the building parts should be functional limbs of the
comprehensive organism which depends simultaneously on building, street and
means of transportation in the city, an architect engaged in only academic
aestheticism is a slave to convention and the planning of cities where his
creation situates, could no longer be his interest.
REFERNCES:
Agoha B.O. (2006), Raising
Architecture from department to Faculty level; a Framework For a Sustainable
Architectural Education in Nigeria
John Fleming, et al,(1980), The
Pengium Dictionary of Architecture, U.K. Pengium Books.
Donald A. Skon(1999),Towards a
Marriage of Artistry and Applied Science in Architectural Design Studio, in
Readings in Architecture by Kent . F.Spreckelmeyer,New York ,McGraw Hill.
Ehmcke F.H.(1924),The Bauhaus in
Weimer, in Form and Function, p. 127-8.
Oskar Sclemmer,(1923),The Staatliche
Bauhaus in Weimer in Form and Function, p. 128-9.
Tim and
Charllotte Benton Dennis Sharp,(1975), Form and Function, a source Book
for the History of Architecture and Design, 1890-1939, London; Crosby
Lockwood Staples in association with the open University Press.
Vittorio Magnago.L.,(1997), Thames
and Hudson Dictionary of 20th Century Architecture,London , Thames and Hudson .
Walter Gropius,(1923),The Theory and
Organization of Bauhaus, in Form and Function
P.119-127.
No comments:
Post a Comment