Francesco Mazzaferro. Lights and Shadows of the Two Versions of the Anthology "Artists on Art" by Hans Eckstein (1938 and 1954). Part Four

CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

History of Art Literature Anthologies
Click here to see all the anthologies reviewed in the series

Francesco Mazzaferro

Lights and Shadows of the Two Versions of the Anthology "Artists on Art" by Hans Eckstein (1938 and 1954)

Part Four 

[Original Version: April 2017 - New Version: April 2019]

Fig. 59) Claude-Nicolas Ledoux, Project of a Spherical House, 1770

Go back to Part One

Herewith, we are concluding the analysis of the two anthologies by Hans Eckstein, and displaying, one after another, his two introductory texts on architecture, in the 1938 and 1954 versions. As commented in the second part of this post, variations between the two versions may mark both the different spaces of freedom after the end of the war and the mutation of the author's views over time. Common parts are marked in italics.

Hans Eckstein
Architecture in the XIX century (pages 232-236) [18]

1938 Version

The architect is not a free former in the same way as a painter or a sculptor. He is much less the creator of the forms in which he builds than their organizer and administrator. And in fact the forms of construction are not the work of one man only, but the result of thousands of well-established experiences and of the sensitivity of many generations. Only within narrow boundaries, the system of forms which we call style is flexible. Yet this residual space of freedom, which still remains available to the artistic talents in architecture, is what really counts: that is where we affirm the strength of personality.

The creative will of the architect is also limited from another point of view. The architect alone cannot choose his tasks by himself. He needs a commission, and each commission is linked to practical and ideal requests that limit the artist's freedom. Every building is subjected to the constraints of the requirements resulting from construction, material, formal tradition and the technical capacity of the time and also from the circumstances that derive from the consideration of existing buildings of previous ages. Thus, in that way, the architect's personality stands out in his work much less clearly than for a visual artist, and his thoughts are much more directed to meta-artistic, social, economic, technical, scientific and generally organizational factors, and are defined by them.

The architect shares his fame with his builders, and with the time, society and nation, for which he creates. For his art is - among all other arts - the most public, the most social, and the most connected to the needs.

Fig. 60) Franz Heger and Georg Moller, Projects of certain buildings, either realized or to be realized. First Dossier: The Grand Ducal Court Theatre in Darmstadt, 1826

Since the end of the eighteenth century, the ideal creative will of architects and the factual needs moved further apart. The neoclassical construction was defined by cultural principles often going in the direction of ideal needs. In theory, it was felt necessary that the building be adequate to the end, and even Franz Heger (a pupil of Georg Moller) formulated the very modern postulate that the interior of a building be determined by the exterior. "As, in a building, the design of the exterior derives from the layout, the necessity and the absolute purpose of the interior, likewise the exterior is somehow the expression of the interior." But the attraction to the ideal was, in almost all neoclassical architects, stronger than the desire to be rooted in the needs. The architect preferred to be led by a "pure idea", "set up in a pure way, by himself, and completely independent of the world" (Schinkel). Buildings should, in fact, give a form to precise conceptual contents, to true "characters". Similarly, the painter Carstens wrote that "the choice of contents and the invention of poetry are the main factor" in art and the Nazarene Overbeck intended to "make an idea perceptible". Buildings – Schinkel wrote – must arouse deep feelings or even create moods that are the basis of higher moral tendencies, which lead to moral points of view, and which can originate their own moral expressions origins. The architect felt to be like "the ethical educator of the mankind", as Friedrich Schlegel called the most excellent architect [Prachtbaumeister], i.e. a moral educator. For the neo-classical Frenchman J. N. L. Durand, "most of the ancient temples, rather than being places devoted to public worship, were monuments to represent some virtues."

 

Fig. 61) Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand, Texts of lessons on architecture, given at the Royal School of the Polytechnic, 1805

Certainly, even in the case of buildings of previous centuries, ideal needs played a key role. These ideas, however, were less abstract and programmatic, and were always part of general vital impulses, offering a form to life in all its forms. Anyway, in previous centuries huge projects of churches, cloisters or castles were often not executed due to lack of means. The stereometric use of simple shapes, with spheres, cylinders, pyramids, cubes, like in the pure architectural fantasies of a monumental order by Ledoux, Boulée, and the Monument for Frederik II by Friedrich Gilly (who planned it as a means to promote great moral and patriotic goals) embedded fantastic ideas, but were never put into practice because they neither matched practical ideas nor the ideals of the time.

Fig. 62) Jacques Ignace Hittorff, The Northern Train Station (Gare du Nord) in Paris, 1861-1865 (engraving dated 1864)

Both requirements of classicism - an architecture incorporating ideas and an architecture pursuing an end – and therefore the requirements of a 'spiritual' goal and a 'physical’ goal thus came into conflict with each other. It was a contradiction that the nineteenth century never managed to overcome. The facades were organized on the basis of the idea, while the utility often had a secondary role only, even in the neoclassical era. What the architect J.I. Hittorf said as President of the Académie des Beaux-Arts in his commemorative talk on Schinkel (1781-1846), who was a corresponding member of the academy, applied to neo-classicism in general. "Schinkel's critics reproached him that, too often, his buildings were renowned not only because of their masses but above all because of their theatrical effects, which were equivalent to designs of ephemeral architectures, in which very high plinths and giant scales were connected, without any purpose, with huge rooms surrounded by columns. Schinkel's buildings would lack the indispensable relationship between interior and exterior, between their appearance and their purpose. The absence of these necessary features would result from Schinkel's inclination to disconcert... Privately Schinkel has often been the best critic of himself, and has repented of this irresistible tendency of his imaginary will." In the effective activity of this extraordinary talent, which only time (and certainly not the inadequacy of creative ability) has made an imitator, contradictory aspects arose: side by side, he conceived romantic dreams of interiors of Gothic churches, medieval castles for knights (Neuabelsberg Castle), the imaginative architecture of a royal Greek palace, which has to overcome the ruins of the Parthenon, but also buildings which do not lack their own character and have clear and noble dimensions and simple forms (Neue Wache, Opera, museum of the New Gallery, pavilion in the park of Charlottenburg) and even projects that have been able to anticipate times, such as the design of a supermarket."

Fig. 63) Carl Emanuel Conrad, Round of the Altes Museum by Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Watercolour engraving, 1830

Neoclassicism did not just want to repeat a phenomenon that was 'historically closed', but also intended to create a new world of forms. This succeeded only partially. The historical reflections of that romantic optimism, enveloping the illusory spiritual and civil foundation of the nineteenth century, set forth the basic obstacles to the creation of an architecture which would be the engine for the change of social structures in the early 1800s. The reason why neoclassicism did not become a true style with autonomous creative abilities was indeed not the fact that it derived its forms from previous models (the same was true for the forms of Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance), but because it refused to consider a restructuring and a re-foundation of that language, which would be in line with the broader needs. In this way, it did not create a new convention which would be intinsecally vital. There was no lack of talents worthy of attention, but no formal system was created, which would be binding and have a real tradition. Without such a system, even talented architects were able to rely solely on their personality, on their own subjective feelings. Yet any form of arbitrariness is a violation of all the supreme principles of any architectural form. Neoclassicism had all forms of each style at its disposal. And already neoclassicism looted the treasure of the forms of universal history. "The field of history - says Johann Georg Hamann - is like an endless expanse full of bones, and – not surprisingly - they are all dried."

Fig. 64) Gottfried Semper, The Dresden Opera, 1838-1841

The second part of the nineteenth century did not get rid of the neoclassical conception that a building can acquire a 'character' only thanks to the 'dress' it wears, and thus independently of its functions. Semper called the architect a 'student of all times'. The consideration of historical styles was, in his view, "all the more necessary, the more the impression that a building provokes in the masses is, in part at least, based on reminiscences. A theatre must always remember a Greek theatre, if it wants to have character. A Gothic theatre would be unrecognizable, while churches designed in the style of the early German Middle Ages and even in Renaissance style ... would not have any ecclesial aspect for us. This is our essential point of view."

And thus all style battles turned into battles on the choice of the historical traditions to be adopted, while at the same time - as a result of the industrialization of every aspect of society, which was already manifested at Schinkel's era - new materials and constructions were emerging, and the architect was asked from day to night questions about which he had no answer.

Fig. 65) XIX century street lamps in Paris

For obscure reasons, partly due to self-constraint to certain artistic forms and partly to embarrassment, the technical forms were masked in a historicist manner: iron supports like fluted columns with Ionic-Corinthian capitals, light poles as a Renaissance candelabrum, train stations as Medicean palaces.

Fig. 66) Anatole de Baudot, Section of the Church of Saint Jean de Montmartre, Paris, 1897-1904

Engineers then gained ground against architects in many respects. Anatole de Baudot (1834-1915), a pupil of Labroust and Viollet-le-Duc (the restorer of cathedrals) wrote in 1864: "Should  we think that the public is satisfied, since we hear people complaining every day, and we indeed see how much engineers are preferred to architects? Why this preference? Simply because engineers do not take any rigid position and concentrate on fulfilling the tasks they are given, while architects often violate the legitimate demands and needs of the client, for the benefit of what they consider beautiful."

Fig. 67) Gabriel Davioud (architect) and Jules Bourdais (engineer), Trocadéro Palace for the Universal Exposition,
Paris, 1878. Demolished in 1937.

Davioud, the architect of the Trocadéro Palace wrote 1877: "The solution will really be perfected, when architect and engineer, artist and scientist will be the same person .... We have long lived in the underlying conviction that art is something differing from any other form of human intelligence; independent of it, it would have its origins in the artist's capricious imagination."

Fig. 68) Julius Vischer and Ludwig Hilberseimer, Concrete as a Form Creator, 1928

Semper's theory, which aimed at explaining artistic forms from the material, was born under the impression of modern engineering and new machinery. It contributed to the origin of the modern error, by which new style forms can be simply derived from new material. But there was no style of iron or concrete construction. The essay "Concrete as a Form Creator", as titled by J. Vischer and L. Hilberseimer, is a non-sense. A form does not convince, because it is in line with the materials or the purposes of the constructions, but only when - beyond such aspects - it develops according to its own creative logic. Purpose and materiality cannot be the universal law of architecture, but only its basis. And yet the teaching that the engineer gave to the architect was more useful than any deduction of style from already extinct formal worlds. Only when confronted with the achievements of machinery and the engineering constructions, architects realized with horror that historicist architecture had been laying on the void and that art can never be simply an ingredient, which is added to a successfully-completed construction (as cast iron ornaments were added to iron pillars), but has its own autonomous law, which must be made visible by putting it in a proper relationship with the purpose and the necessity of construction.

Fig. 69) Neri Foundation - The Italian Museum Of Cast Iron, Parma
Source: http://www.museoitalianoghisa.org/#/home

Only up to a limited extent did the 19th century succeed in solving the architectural problems which he was confronted with. But it recognized them largely. Everywhere,voices were raised to refer to the new tasks, and the architects sought to clarify new constraints stemming from material, construction, and necessity. Only if we ask them to talk about their theoretical conceptions, we can fully understand the issues that lie behind the pot pourri of 19th-century styles. As theoreticians, these architects were often the best critics of their own architecture.

Hans Eckstein
On the Destiny of Architecture in the XIX and XX Centuries (pages 215-218) [19]
1954 Version

Fig, 70) Joseph Paxton, The Crystal Palace, London, 1851.

The architect is not a free former in the same way as a painter or a sculptor. He is much less the creator of the forms in which he builds than their organizer and administrator. And in fact the forms of construction are not the work of one man only, but the result of thousands of well-established experiences and of the sensitivity of many generations.

The creative will of the architect is also limited from another point of view. The architect alone cannot choose his tasks by himself. He needs a commission, and each commission is linked to practical and ideal requests that limit the artist's freedom. Since every construction is subjected to the constraints of the requirements resulting from state of necessity, construction and material, formal tradition and technical capacity building of the time, the architect's personality stands out in his work much less clearly than for a painter or a sculptor, in a painted, drawn or plastic form. Yes, in the awareness of contemporaries and posterity, his personality ends up in the background, compared to his work. Instead, the architect shares his fame with his builders, and with the time, society and nation, for which he creates. His contribution to the creation of a general feeling of the form and to the coining of a visible environment is, however, much greater than that of painters and sculptors. In fact, his art is, among all, the most public and social art. But this is reflected on him, the architect himself. His thoughts are much more directed to overarching issues, including essentially many social, economic, technical, scientific and generally organizational factors, and are defined by those factors.

Despite all these limitations to creative freedom, any building is also a manifestation of an impetus to create forms. The building, whether it is a temple, a palace, a simple farmhouse or an industrial warehouse, is a work of art insofar as constructive elements simply do not add up to it but are combined into a unity between body and space which is aesthetically meaningful. Yes, as long as  buildings meet these requirements of art, architecture is art in a very narrow and absolute way. And precisely for the sake of this absoluteness and purity, the architect must sacrifice the arbitrariness of his own imagination.

Fig. 71) Portrait of architect Ludwig Catel (1776-1819), without author and date

Even among 19th century architects there were great talents. But none of them could give a new direction to the course of architecture. From neo-classicism to the new century and still until the first part of our century, every building was dominated by a romantic nostalgic fantasy of the past. In a letter to architect Ludwig Catel, Goethe wrote: "The more we come to know in historical-critical terms the characteristics of those old buildings, the more the desire is fading to use those forms that belong to a by now long passed past by now for designing new buildings. The recent tendency in this sense was aroused by a wrong instinct: that of wanting to reproduce what one likes and appreciates even in very different conditions." Exactly the opposite happened, compared to what Goethe had expected in 1815. Neoclassicism and the whole of the nineteenth century did almost exclusively build in forms reflecting their interest and passion for archaeology. Thanks to those forms, it was believed to give buildings a precise character. This greed for history, created by cultural reasons, was also accompanied by a deep subconscious fear for the new emerging, which - as Goethe wrote - threatened to dethrone "pure human sentiment". It was a symptom of fear for the world of technology.

And so, while exploring the field of history (of which Johann Georg Hamann said that it is like an endless expanse full of bones, and - not surprisingly - all dried ones”) and while the treasure of historical forms was plundered like a stone quarry, with a colossal naivety that could only recalls barbarians, a free world of forms started to be built, free from any fantasy addressed to the past, beyond this pot-pourri of styles. This new world gave expression to the constructive thought of the era of technique, which became dominant with the start of industrialization processes around 1930. There appeared a new artificial material for buildings - more artificial and more distant from nature than bricks: first iron, and then reinforced concrete. The engineer took over tasks that until then were reserved for the architect, and seemed to put him in the shade.

Fig. 72) Charles-François Viel, Principles of arrangement and construction of buildings, 1797

With iron architecture, theory and mathematical calculus replaced pure empirics; this is the reason why the masters of classical architecture seemed to see the decadence of construction art. For example, Fr. Viel, a student of the School of Fine Arts, warned of the "flawed effect of mechanics" and the abuse of science. In his writings he mocked the "crazy pretence of mathematics to assure the reliability of buildings", for which "cold equations, full of numbers and algebraic formulae, do not serve".

For obscure reasons, partly due to self-constraint to respect the handed-over forms of art, also the engineers decorated the new technical forms with historical ornaments (Paxton did it with the Crystal Palace in London in 1851), articulated iron architecture in the classical stone building art, built iron supports like fluted columns with Ionic-Corinthian capitals, light poles as a Renaissance candelabrum, train stations as Medicean palaces. The iron buildings of the train stations, markets and trade fairs were concealed with a stone mantle, which in most cases depicted historicising motives. This was the case, still at the beginning of the twentieth century, with Friedrich Thiersch's Festhalle (festival hall) at the Frankfurt Fair and with the circle in the reinforced concrete building of the Planetarium in Dusseldorf.

Fig. 73) The inauguration of the Festival Hall of the Frankfurt Fair (designed by Friedrich Thiersch) on 19 May 1909

Fig. 74) Friedrich Thiersch, Interior of the Festival Hall of the Fair, Frankfurt am Main, 1907-1909

Fig. 75) Wilhelm Kreis, Planetarium, Dusseldorf, 1925-1926 (photo of 1938)

In front of some Roman ruins in Terni, Goethe wrote in 1786: "A second nature, acting for human purposes, is the art of building by the Romans: it is where the amphitheatre, the temple and the aqueduct are born. And now I just know how rightly I hated everything arbitrary, such as the Winterkasten on the Weissenstein, a building from nothing to nothing, a huge decorative bundle, and that's also true for thousands of other things. These buildings are born dead, since what has no inner vitality has no life, and it can neither be nor become great." The arbitrariness of historicizing architecture and traditional choices of the 19th century and the 'real internal existence' of the buildings erected with the means of modern mechanical mechanics are today becoming increasingly clear, even if still only by single individuals. Considering the iron architecture of Veugny, Labrouste (Bibliothéque Sainte-Geneviève in Paris at the Gare du Nord) and others, the romantic Théophile Gautier wrote in 1850, revealing capacity to foresee future: "At the same time, a new architecture in its own right will be born, using the new tools which the new industry offers. The use of cast iron allowed and forced new forms, which can be observed in railway stations, suspended bridges and veranda arches.”

Fig. 76) Henri Labrouste, Sainte-Geneviève Library, Paris, 1851

Davioud, the architect of the Trocadéro Palace wrote 1877: "The solution will really be perfected, when architect and engineer, artist and scientist will be the same person .... We have long lived in the underlying conviction that art is something differing from any other form of human intelligence; independent of it, it would have its origins in the artist's capricious imagination."

Fig. 77) Louis Sullivan and Dankmar Adler, Wainwright Building, Chicago, 1891 (picture of 1960s)

Fig. 78) Louis Sullivan, Cornice detail, Wainwright Building, Chicago, 1891

The acknowledgment that modern technology created a new and only true tradition and that, as Otto Wagner wrote in 1900, "everything modern which is created with a new material (and therefore iron and reinforced concrete) must meet the needs of the present, if it is to adapt to modern humankind", and finally the belief that - as Louis Sullivan explained (1850-1924) - the form has to follow the function, created the mental conditions to reject the carnival of historical forms and to build in new forms, which would be in line with the constructivist thinking of new times, i.e. with the thinking of technique. Evidently, strong impulses also derived from the applied arts reform movement, whose spiritual head was John Ruskin (1819-1900), who predicted that the truth was the foundation, and the imitation was the destruction of every art. With Art Nouveau, which was called 'Jugendstil' in Germany, architecture finally took on that healthy feeling for modernity, which had long wakened in painting (and also in literature) with Manet and the Impressionists, and which had made the nineteenth century a great era of painting, at least in France. Thus at the beginning of the century, the belief prevailed in the groups of avant-garde architects, that there could be no other artistic conception outside of the constructivist thought of 'technique' and its new possibilities. And so the expressive forms of architecture and painting (the so-called cubism and the so-called concrete or neoplastic art of Mondrian and van Doesburg) have met again as expressions of a similar feeling of form and structure.

NOTES

[18] Eckstein, Hans - Artists on art. Letters, reports, writings of German painters, sculptors and architects [Künstler über Kunst. Briefe, Berichte, Aufzeichnungen deutscher Maler, Bildhauer, Architekten], Ebenhausen – Munich, Wilhelm Langewiesche-Brandt, 1938, 267 pages.

[19] Eckstein, Hans - Artists on art. Letters and writings of painters, sculptors and architects [Künstler über Kunst. Briefe und Aufzeichnungen von Malern, Bildhauern, Architekten], Berlin and Darmstadt, Deutsche Buch-Gemeinschaft, 1954, 278