Sanat, Tasarım Ve Bauhaus

Abstract

Endüstrileşme ve mekanizasyorı ile birlikte yaşanan köklü değişimler ve gelişmeler karşısında sanatçılar çağın gereklerine ve koşullarına uygun yeni çözümler arama çabası içine girmişlerdir. Bugün "modern" olarak tanımladığımız sanat ve tasarım anlayışı, kökleri 19. yüzyıla dayanan bu sürecin bir sonucudur. Bauhaus, 19. yüzyıldaki "modern öncesi" hareketler ile 1930'lardan itibaren belli bir form dili ve stil oluşturmuş olan "modern" sanatçı ve tasarımcılar arasında adeta bir köprüdür. Bu tezde, Bauhaus' un bu geçişi nasıl sağlamış olduğu, yani öncüllerinden ve çağdaşlarından nerede ayrıldığı ve "modern" sanat ve tasarım anlayışının temellenmesine nasıl katkıda bulunduğu incelenmiştir. Ayrıca "modern" sanat hareketlerinin ve bizzat Bauhaus içinde yer almış olan - "modern" sanatın oluşmasındaki katkıları tartışılmayan - ressamların Bauhaus' un düşünsel temelleri ve burada gerçekleştirilen uygulamalar üzerindeki etkilerini saptanmaya çalışılmıştır. Özetlemek gerekirse bu çalışmanın amacı, Bauhaus' taki sanat-tasarım ilişkisinin ve etkileşiminin analizine katkıda bulunmaktır.

Facing the drastic changes and developments which took place since the begin of industrialization and mechanization, the artists increasingly became involved in searching for new and appropriate solutions in order to meet the demands of the age. The so-called "modern" approach in art and design is an outcome of these 19. th century developments. Bauhaus is an intermediating phenomenon between the pre- modern trials and the established "modern" style in design since 1930' s. One of the aims of this study is to find out how Bauhaus could abridge these two ways of making art and design. A second approach in the study is to look for the role of the Bauhaus artists, whose works have undoubtedly contributed to the "modern" art, in the formation and application of the "Bauhaus idea". Arnold Toynbee used the term "Industrial Revolution" in order to describe the economic developments in England between 1760 and 1870. This term became very popular since then. Now, this term is generally used not just to refer to a period of time, but it means a process of social change caused by many inventions and discoveries, and their implications on the economic, political and cultural structure of societies. The application of the scientific discoveries and technological inventions within the process of production enabled the manufacturers to produce goods in larger quantities and for lesser time and money costs. The resulting rationalization of production, increasing division of labor and reorganization of labor within factories is coined by Siegfried Giedion as the "mechanization of the production". The growing number of urban population, and the challenge put on traditional ways of production brought many IX problems to be solved in order to reestablish the social order. There was not only an urge to improve the living and working conditions, but the cities which were emerging as centers of the "modern" life should be reorganized according to the needs of the people. And last but not least, the products themselves which are indispensable parts of the "modern* environment had to be redesigned in order to fit the new modes of production. The solution was to be found in maintaining the advantages such as new materials and production techniques and combating the disturbing results such as alienation of the worker from the work and of the artist from the society. All social theories of the period showed some degree of utopianism, but the important common denominator of these approaches was the accommodation of larger sectors of the society in the economic and political organization. This meant increasing democratization. And all the efforts to give the changes a controlled direction ended up in social modernization. Social modernization includes also transformations in the cultural sphere, i.e. a cultural modernization which implies the elimination of the past with its conventions and traditions. Accordingly, 19. th century academism, historicism and eclecticism had to be fought with in order to find new sources upon which the new - modern - art and design could be based. However, this could not be achieved overnight. The acceptance of the new materials along with the machines and their use in the production of new types of goods - as well as the conventional ones - took time. England was the first country to face industrialization. Hence the pioneer of the cultural modernization was the Arts and Crafts Movement which was flourished in this country and called for a new look on the objects of everyday life. This was a partly modern approach to the problem, because it was highly involved in crafts and labor intensive methods of production which were seriously endangered by mechanization. The Arts and Crafts Movement and its companion in the continent - Art Nouveau helped to replace the historicism with an original style, but didn't touch the form problems inherent in the mechanical mode of production. This was achieved by some architects who were moved by the success of the engineers in building some monumental works in iron and steel. Eager to apply new materials and methods, these architects opened up a new epoch in creativeness and helped to spread this throughout Europe and USA. Germany was the country which took the leadership in industrialization since the turn of the century thanks to the efforts of some civil servants, industrial entrepreneurs and intellectuals. One of these personalities, Hermann Muthesius, turned back from his mission in England with new ideas and initialized the developments which led to the formation of the German Werkbund - a team of industrialists and artists - in 1907. The aim of this organization was to bring artists, craft workers and manufacturers for their mutual benefit and for the prosperity of their country. This was a problematical starting point however, because it was in no way clear how the conflicting interests of different types of production should be reconciled and which role the artist had to play in this union. Nevertheless, until the outbreak of the First World War a certain portion of their goals became realized. The first attempts of bringing the production in rational terms and making standardized, vsachlich" goods led to interesting examples. A consensus could not be reached however, since the artists, who sensed the incompatibility of art with mass production, put the stress not on standardization, but on individuality. The technical reproduction had begun to interest the artists since the turn of the century. Some of them were fascinated by the technology and celebrated it as the major factor in shaping the future. Although representing different attitudes against the machine, technics and science, movements like Expressionism, Futurism, Cubism, Dadaism, Constructivism, Suprematism, Purism and De Stijl shared some common values and principles which united them being the XI harbingers of cultural modernity and gave way to a completely new perception of what art is. Bauhaus also shared these common features to some extend, and thus was closely related to the mentioned movements. However, being a school, Bauhaus differed from them. It was established in accordance with the pre-war reforms in art and design education, which became necessary in order to revive the arts and crafts which were challenged by mechanization as mentioned before. The primary idea was the unity of all types of creative performances, including art, design and architecture. Thus, these spheres should be combined within an educational institution. According to the broadly shared view the artist should leave his studio - where art is produced for its own sake - and enter the workshops where everything is produced for the sake of the people. Only in this way could the academism be abolished, and the unity of theory and practice, the wholeness of form and meaning regained. Other movements like Constructivism and De Stijl also called for the accommodation of artistic work within the life. However, Bauhaus was a school which had to be in close relation with the industry - therefore with the market forces - in order to be able to survive in an political environment which became increasingly hostile for such attempts which were belligerently called as "cultural bolshevism" by the opponents. Actually - and ironically - this opposition came from the broader sections of the society, which was not yet ready to accept the courageous solutions put forward by the members of Bauhaus. These solutions, however, including for example the tubular steel furniture, the abolishment of capital letters, pure colors and forms, etc. were proposed in order to design a better environment for the people. This environment should be rational, based on the real needs and affordable also for the common people. This could only be achieved by accepting rational ways of production, standardization and mass production. Otherwise, one would easily fall into the trap' - as Morris once did - to make beautiful products, however by hand, and therefore inevitably expensive, i.e.' costing not only money but also time. Xll Gropius, the founder of Bauhaus, believed that good design could abolish differences between people, save time and thus enable people to improve their life. He further suggested that mechanization was not a threat to the well-being of the people if tamed by the cultivating hand of the artist. There lies the reason why so many artists were given posts in Bauhaus in its first years. The artists should function as a counterweight against the technics in order to establish a new unity, as Gropius has formulated in 1923. Among the artists in Bauhaus there were very famous names like Klee and Kandisky, who played an enormous role in the formation of the 20. th century. Although they were appointed as form masters of the workshops, their main contribution to the education was founded upon their search for the basic principles of creative formation. They involved in a systematic approach to analyze these basic principles in order to be able to reach new syntheses. All these studies took place in the preliminary courses, which were compulsory for every Baushaus student. And some of the results were applied in the workshops. It must be stressed however, that these applications remained on a formal basis rather than structural. Artists in Bauhaus felt generally uneasy with the combination of arts with technics, since they were artists and wanted to remain so. Some of them left the school, and the ones who remained till the end - Klee and Kandinsky -were mostly involved in their artistic works and preliminary teaching. As some of the former students became teachers, the appointment of a form master along with a technical master became obsolete, because they were equally trained in arts as in technical matters. The preliminary course given by artist-designers Moholy-Nagy and Albers - a former Bauhaus student - was for example a real preparation for later workshop education, since the stress was on the materials, their properties and on the construction. Thus the Bauhaus increasingly became a school for design, if not yet a school of design and played a crucial part in the foundation of the modern design and architecture. The title of this study is wArt, Design and Bauhaus'