Hellerau As a Product of Heinrich Tessenow’s Writings
Stefanie Opitz Cultural Inquiry II Kimberly Elman Zarecor May 8th, 2006
In the summer of 1909, the corner stone for the first garden city in Germany was laid. Striving to propagate new forms of communal living, “Au am Heller” was founded based on an artistic foundation. The German architects Richard Riemerschmidt, Hermann Muthesius, and Heinrich Tessenow were the key forces in designing this community. Focusing on an architecture that would be cohesive with nature and fit into the hilly landscape, small houses, workshops, and markets were connected by winding roads (see figure 16). At the center of this town is the Festspielhaus, designed by Tessenow and built in 1912. Placed at the northwestern-edge of the town, the Festspielhaus is the cultural center of the garden city, housing the Institut Dalcroze as well as being the location for community festivals. This paper will evaluate the continuity between Heinrich Tessenow’s extensive writings and his built projects. During his lifetime, Tessenow wrote profusely on various matters concerning the built environment and established himself as a life-reformer. However, in actuality Tessenow built very few projects, and most of those were not of a magnitude that would reform society. Whereas his writing focused on forward-thinking notions for life and the built environment at large, his few built projects were rarely the sort that would carry such a reformative impact. In an effort to compare Tessenow’s writings with his built projects, I have broken down his writings into various sections, to then collect the pieces with comparisons to photographs of his built projects. Heinrich Tessenow (1876 – 1950) was a German architect, who has been praised to be one of the great architects of the 19th century. Starting his education as an apprentice carpenter and later studying at the School of Building in Leipzig, he became a teacher. Descendent from a long line of farmers and craftsmen, he had a strong sense for
1
nature and an understood sense for the simplistic. This is the origin for what is generally viewed to be the basis of his all encompassing thinking of the visible as well as the invisible (that which is easily comprehended, but difficult to explain). As an architect, Tessenow built only a few projects, but focused his energy on writing about the topics that concerned him. Described as a loner, he concentrated on the question of the ideal form for houses and furniture. He also worked on determining a form for housing schemes that would provide the setting for lives lived with a purpose. Especially so after World War I, Tessenow was focused on how the built environment could return society to a cohesive whole. He strove to define a living environment that would lead the younger generation to finding a coherent meaning in the future. In his writings, Tessenow discussed a myriad of things and focused on some very specific details. Living in a time period of extreme turmoil –impacted by the First as well as the Second World War – his concerns for the built environment did not exhibit a significant change, however, a new sense of urgency seemed to infiltrate the latter writings. First published in 1916, Hausbau und Dergleichen (House-building and the Like) explores the manner in which people inhabit space and what he considers to be key aspects of buildings. In the midst of the World War I, Tessenow discussed his views on middle-class housing and industrial work.1 Considering the importance of this aspect of life, he strove to appraise its input in our daily life. What he considered to be the general
1
It is important to note here that when Tessenow discusses the “industrial,” the German word “gewerblich” is rather loosely translated, as it is meant as an all-encompassing statement for trade, business, manufacture, professions, crafts, as well as the mechanization of production. Note: all translations are made by the author, unless noted otherwise. 2
lack of knowledge and understanding that permeates all aspects of our life, he saw to be leaving a destructive imprint on our living and working culture. Declaring that every object entails far too many unnecessary details, he demands that we must cut down everything except that which is essential and most dear. This, however, is what we can no longer adequately identify.2 Focusing on order, symmetry, and the cleanliness and neatness as primary aspects, Tessenow endeavored to re-focus society on what he views as the essential aspects of life. Evaluating the necessary order – this Tessenow stated as a freestanding noun, simply referring to order as a surrounding aspect of life – he linked it to uniformity and regularity (or repetition). Quoting Friedrich Nietzsche to have said, “there must be chaos so that a star can be born,” he declared that the “world can expect the largest, most beautiful star to form from our lives and work, for here the requisite chaos is very well developed.”3
4
This theory carries over into Tessenow’s discussion of order. Order is most effectively shaped through uniformity, and just as industrial work requires order to prosper, so it also requires uniformity. In order to cope with the world, or in order to recognize it when dealing with uniformity, it is necessary to concentrate our senses on the finer details. By recognizing the uniformity of our work and the less we require our work
2
Heinrich Tessenow, House-building and the Like, trans. by ME (Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1986), 15. 3 Ibid., 20. 4 Tessenow carries this same thought through to other aspects of his thinking as well. In The Small and Large City, he discusses this same quote in relation to world-culture. Stating that the more passionate a world-culture is in believing in the coming of a shining world-culture, it knows or senses that first chaos must be present in order to give way to this shining, new world-culture. 3
to be entirely new, the more refined it will become in its formation. This refinement will cut away all the unnecessary factors that currently inhibit our life. Tessenow also considered the economical facet of order, which would be an immense material benefit: imagine setting apart the essential recurrent aspects of the design of a house and doing without any of the individual specialties that characterize our dwellings. The economic effect of creating just a few types of houses would be extensive. The idea of widespread uniformity in industrial work is not as extreme as it might at first seem. Earlier works are a good testament to equality and prove that it is possible on practical terms. Furthermore, uniformity is already an accepted aspect for items such as tools, lighting fixtures and the like. Tessenow insisted that repetition can be a powerful tool for an effective sense of uniformity (and therefore order). Though it is important that the repetitive element touches on something powerful – a sentiment to give it richness. The challenge is to determine what this “correct quality” in buildings pieces is.5 Another important aspect of the built environment is symmetry. Following along the same lines of repetition and regularity, Tessenow associated symmetry with endowing strength to an object. Symmetry, however, is not something that becomes part of a building by itself. If the designer of a house considers only practical factors such as environmental impacts, the design will come out asymmetrical. Tessenow saw this as the inevitable result for most objects where only practical and sensible solutions were desired – “lop-sided and crooked. Symmetry is, in every respect, a matter of the centre line or the axis of symmetry and, so to speak, it knows it. At any rate it always ensures that we take
5
Heinrich Tessenow , Hausbau und Dergleichen (House-building and the Like), (Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1986), 15. 4
a special interest in it, just as, amongst other things, a circle is always eager to have us search for its centre.” 6 (see Figure 1a) An unwanted side effect of symmetry is its inherent rigidity that c an appear unpleasant. Tessenow evaluates varying degrees of complexity concerning symmetry, concluding that combining various elements enlivens the symmetry: “If we side-step the demands of the axis slightly, and propose new images to the side of the axis, then our interest in the axis remains alive, but it is divided into interest in the axis, and interest in the new elements of the image, with the effect that our eyes will oscillate, so to speak, between the axis and the new elements, so that the overall plane is set in motion and becomes alive.”7 Tessenow concludes that the greater the difficulty in finding its axis, the better the symmetry. (See figure 1b) Cleanliness (or purity) relates directly to ornamentation – the piling on of additional, unnecessary features.8 In 1916, Tessenow discussed the positive aspects of the cleanliness of industrial work and how it clearly communicates on a daily basis. This sort of thinking operates along the same lines as Adolf Loos, who wrote his “Ornament and Crime” in 1908. The parallels can be drawn even more clearly when considering Tessenow’s chapter on ornaments, where he states: “Our thinking and feeling which deliberately allow us ornamentation are, it has been said, tired. They are not serious. Thus ornamentation is not for children; it is altogether un-childish. A child always takes its work very seriously indeed. When it (the child) is tired, it will, if possible, stop working and go to sleep. The child wants the sensual, and thus ornament 6
Heinrich Tessenow, House-building and the Like, trans. by ME (Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1986), 28. 7 Ibid,. 26. 8 These same points on building are described in 9H on Rigor (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989), 27. Here it is used to describe Tessenow’s traditional training as the foundation of the development of his own style. 5
can be pleasant for a child; but equally a child desires the factual, it will draw a house with a very red roof, or a tree with very green leaves. But a child never wants ornament out of some original impulse, or it will never unless badly educated - love ornament as such, quite the reverse. Old established people of high rank love ornament. People who are half done with the world, old cultures, all those who altogether lack progress, or do not believe in progress but still work. Today we have more of our intentions rooted in the childish and beginnings than we want to think. We believe strongly in an improvement, and for this reason deliberate ornamentation is particularly offensive to us.” 9 Tessenow continued to re-evaluate these same topics of order, symmetry, and cleanliness and persists in stating their importance. His “Geschriebenes: Gedanken eines Baumeisters (Writings: Thoughts of a Building Master)” re-iterates the same points as discussed above, but relating it towards the relation between a village, small town, and city (see Figure 10). Having written this book after the war, Tessenow linked his thoughts to the human obsession with progress, nature and culture, and communal living at varying degrees of density. He also discussed Germany after the war and the impact of an artisan community such as Hellerau. All of Tessenow’s built projects entail these key aspects, most notably exhibited in the Institut Dalcroze at Hellerau (see figure 11). A school of rhythmic gymnastics founded by Emile Jaques-Dalcroze, it is the focal point of the Hellerau community. Tessenow’s design focused on the utopian notion that through rhythm the inhabitants of Hellerau could be transformed into men of the future, culminating in a design that evokes the image of “a tall, white temple,”10 wherein all the details necessary to shape the new community were incorporated. Tessenow expressed his wish for a harmonious 9
Heinrich Tessenow, Hausbau und Dergleichen (House-building and the Like), (Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1986), 41. 10 Vicki Bilenker and Marco De Michelis. “Theater, Theatricality, and Architecture.” Perspecta , Vol. 26 (1990): 168.
6
community through the purely symmetrical layout of the building and leaving its façade devoid of ornaments. Capturing the spirit of this first Garden City, “With the realization of Hellerau, the birth of a new religion was announced, one that professed ‘that happiness should be useful’ and that inaugurated ‘an era of good with Dalcroze, an era of utility with Tessenow, the builder of houses.’ In the new religion of modernity, a city arises like a work of art and, at the same time, like an army, under the reign of order.”11 About Tessenow’s building style, Karl Scheffler said, “If other architects of our time seek ambitiously to be classicists, then Tessenow with his buildings is, silently, a classicist of discretion. That is: he has fundamentally investigated the living sense of construction of our time, to the point at which the necessary becomes beautiful, the useful is transformed into song.” 12 This quotation captures the intention of Tessenow’s building style, making the building stand as the artwork, without need for ornamentation: “…Tessenow planned a complex of extraordinary simplicity. The main body, dominated at the ends by two steep pediments and by two lower wings, each as wide as the central nave. The two steep pediments contain yin and yang medallions at their center which symbolizing dance and equilibrium. Simple geometric figures constitute the façade – the square, the rectangle, the triangle – their proportions under rigorous control and with almost imperceptible irregularity. The intrados of the grand portico forms a perfect square. The tympanum is half the height of the square as are both side wings. The large horizontal windows that illuminate the two entrance wings and the two small halls for exercise are interrupted exactly at the center of the two elongated triangles. ...”13 (See figure 12)
Dalcroze himself reacted enthusiastically to design, exclaiming that with its “harmony and simplicity are perfectly adapted to the style of the rhythmic gymnastic exercise… For
11
Marco De Michelis; Vicki Bilenker, “Modernity and Reform, Heinrich Tessenow and the Institut Dalcroze at Hellerau,” Perspecta Vol: 26 (1990): 147. 12 Ibid., 148. 13 Ibid., 161. 7
the art that I intend, a renewal of the collaboration with space is absolutely indispensable…”14 Hellerau itself was designed with a specific community plan in mind. Separated into production, low-cost housing, collective services, and a section of villas and singlefamily housing zones, part of Tessenow’s challenge for the design of the buildings is having the Garden City community take shape and character through these buildings. Both designed in 1911, the Einfamilienhaus (one-family home) and the Patenthaus (Patent-home) demonstrate the same strict symmetry and lack of ornamentation. (see figure 2, 3) His general outlook towards spatial relations is probably best represented with the example of the “ideal chair” (see Figure 4), as described in “Die Kleine und Grosse Stadt (The Small and Large Town).” In this book, Tessenow posed a wide range of questions to further explore that, which is our home. The home as a whole in itself is a creation, which many people worked on. Made up of an innumerable amount of different objects, a list of questions pages long could be compiled, trying to determine where each part originated, what it derived from, who made it, etcetera. This myriad results in a whole world of itself, a scaled down version of all that surrounds us. Therefore, with the number of professions that strive to understand the world around us, equal energy should be put into understanding our dwelling and our interaction with it. 15
14
Marco De Michelis; Vicki Bilenker, “Modernity and Reform, Heinrich Tessenow and the Institut Dalcroze at Hellerau,” Perspecta Vol: 26 (1990): 165. 15 Heinrich Tessenow, The Small and Large City (Munich: Georg D.W. Callwey, 1961), 34.
8
Tessenow strove to do just that – exploring in order to understand what it is that makes our home, and how it contributes to living. As part of this, Tessenow designed his ideal chair: “It appears to me that the most important aspect here is to develop the correct chair for all the rooms of the house; it may be just a chair, that with some sympathetic modesty still has something cozily comfortable and is equally suitable for the various rooms, such that, for example, one could move all the chairs of the house into the dining room, when such is used as an auditorium and a large number of chairs is required, and having them all fit well together. Furthermore do the chairs provide an unquestionably important factor for the appearance of all the rooms depicted here. After such and similar considerations, I recommend this chair which I have especially drawn here, as the main chair; I have already had a prototype built for myself, and it is in every way absolutely good and it is also relatively light and cheap to produce. As a side note, it is assumed that the wooden-seat receives a thinly padded pillow, that is connected to the chair with the simplest binding and whose covering (lightly colored linen) is accommodated so that it is easily taken off and (in larger timeframes) may be washed.” 16 With this short passage, Tessenow’s careful attention to the details of all the parts of an object is exhibited. Written in 1923, it appears that the war did not change his outlook on craft and building. He viewed the home décor (more accurately translated from the German “Wohnkultur” as “culture of living”) as one of the answers to the most important questions of building. Home décor is part of what makes a house livable, and inversely, as these questions on building become more numerous the building becomes less livable.17 Furthermore, this passage offers an insight into Tessenow’s reasoning. Aside from having us recall his background as an apprentice carpenter, this meticulous attitude clearly demonstrates his penchant for that intangible aspect that shapes the built space. He spent an enormous amount of time on creating this chair, from which point on the 16
Heinrich Tessenow, Die Kleine und Grosse Stadt (The Small and Large Town) (Munich: Georg D.W. Callwey, 1961), 36. 17 Ibid., 37. 9
shape and comfort of the chair would be taken for granted. But the look that a uniform collection of chairs produces must have been key to him. The different psychology behind collecting a number of random chairs from about the house versus having a large number of the same chair carries a distinct image with it. This uniformity, order, and repetitiveness are key aspects to building, which he also analyzed carefully. It is also worth considering the implications of the concept of a Gesamtkunstwerk, which is implied in the above paragraph. Interwoven with Tessenow’s discussion on ornamentation, his demand for the objects to be a form of artwork in themselves emphasizes the whole of the creation as a work of art. Focusing on the chair as an integral part of his Kunstwerk along with his tendency for bare walls and specific furniture placement (see figure 5-7), his Gesamtkunstwerk resulted in a very specifically designed space. This space – mayhap even over-designed space – does not mesh with his image of the German vernacular. Simplifying the forms and spaces, and appealing to that simple drawing of a child (see Figure 3), Tessenow creates a look of a simplistic building. What this building entails (and hides), however, is extreme attention to detail, which is juxtaposition to its seemingly effortless façade. Evaluating Tessenow from a more political standpoint, his anti-Nazi stance was the cause for loosing his teaching post at the Berlin Technische Hochschule when Hitler came to power. Before his teaching post was taken away, his most infamous student Albert Speer attended his seminars. Adopting the look of Tessenow’s German nationalism, small-town style, Speer is the reason for why most associate Tessenow with the Nazis. With historians returning to re-evaluate the value of Tessenow’s work, the stance is that Tessenow strove “to maintain architectural and cultural continuity by
10
appealing to the ‘memory’ that is said to be lodged in essentialization of traditional architectural typologies.” 18 Hays also compares Tessenow’s architecture to that of Adolf Loos. In his texts, Tessenow separates architecture from art and proposes the elimination of ornament. These ideas corrolate closely with Loos’ 1908 essay, “Ornament and Crime.” Loos built his Steiner House, which demonstrates the same “typological reduction of the house to geometrically simple volumes” as Tessenow’s single-family house project of 1913.19 Hays goes on to argue that both Tessenow and Loos employ “employ traditional construction techniques and suppress any idiosyncratic expressiveness.”20 Hays further compares Tessenow’s architectural style of the Hellerau Institut Dalcroze where in both his preliminary schemes as well as the final building the combination of classical and vernacular references are obvious. “In the final building, which can be understood as a synthesis of the previous two projects through allegorical procedures: first, the appropriation of the depleted classical image – the portico and the columns; second, the superimposition or doubling of the visual text by a second text – the vernacular roof and the details – resulting in a double patrimony of the classical and the communitarian. Consequently, there is a shift in attention away from the original signified – the classical or the vernacular – to a new allegorically framed meaning, a total system of communication affiliated with both the authority of the classical and the vernacular, but presented as something new. While Loos’s operations of appropriate and radical discontinuity emphasize the multiple levels within the cultural field of the modern, and while, at the same time, the object’s mute existence makes apparent the extra-objective, external factors determining the work and the conditions under which it is used and perceived, Tessenow’s appropriation is a liberal reconciliation and successful mastery of the conflict between high mimetic art and popular vernacular images. The function of Tessenow’s allegory is to dispose of 18
K. Michael Hays, “Tessenow’s Architecture as National Allegory: Critique of Capitalism or Protofascism?,” Assemblage No.: 8 (Feb., 1989): 105. 19 Ibid., 106. 20 Ibid;, 107. 11
the very ground for conflict between divergent signifying practices and orders of knowing, to naturalize representation, to present constructed and disputable meanings produced in a special and partial social practice as if they were self-evident and inherent in everyday life.” 21 (see figure 13,14) Although Tessenow’s specific ideas for the built space did not change with the First World War, his later books demonstrated a much more intense desire to reform society. With his writings, Tessenow depicted his vision of an architectural reality that would return society to the “organic” small towns – away from villages as well as large cities. He established himself as a humanist, and with his own background as apprentice carpenter argued for an architectural style driven by craft. In his book Handwerk und Kleinstadt (Craft and Small town) Tessenow reasoned out his call for the return to small
towns. Written in 1918, he considers the recent war and it’s ramifications on the built environment as well as the human intellect. He sums up the relation between humans and craft in that if the craft flourishes, society flourishes. Going back to the medieval times, the focus of craft was on the church and castle: in the center of town. As the artisans have moved to the perimeters of cities, the center of towns (and life) has turned to commercial and materialistic concerns. According to Tessenow, this causes hu mans to turn to war. He further argues against sprawling cities, as they are not the right type of environment for the arts to flourish. According to Tessenow, this demands the return of the artisans with their craft to the center of living, so that society can return to a peaceful and balanced state of living. This balanced state of living depends on the balanced being of a person, for which Tessenow uses the analogy of a sphere (the form that appears as the most complete) for the human intellect: 21
Ibid., 116-117. 12
The sphere has the resilience of a soap bubble, which is still as it is in balance and simply radiates its colors. However, as other factors surround the sphere it loses its balances and starts to react.
This relationship is worsened as the sphere searches for more outside (earthly) forces in order to rediscover its equilibrium. This is how Tessenow sees individuals: having lost their balance in the world, each one strives to find particular pieces to balance out the other impacts. This situation further develops with the human intellect as she is torn between the intellectual and the emotional, depending on the type of person.
Generally speaking, the current society resembles a soap bubble being pulled in many different directions,
whereas the ideal is to simply live harmoniously.
22
22
Heinrich Tessenow, Craft and the Small Town ( Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1919), 52. 13
Understanding the human being in this form, Tessenow saw World War I as the evidence that we must change the way in which we live and work. The theoretical, utopian desire for world peace resulted in a strife that reduced individual nation’s independence, and ultimately tried to force this peace through weapons. The world peace that was so characteristically discussed was based on materialistic concerns and based on one nation who could dictate with force upon the others. Tessenow argues that what is missing is a world peace theory that focuses on a way of life and working that is applicable to the largest portion of humans, one that balances out all the opposing differences.23 This returns Tessenow to his initially stated point: the return to crafts and the small town. He saw the craftsman as an individual whose work satisfies his individual thinking, desires, and ability. In the metropolis one can only work intellectually and in the village one can only work physically. It is in the ‘heimlich’ (homely) small town setting where the craftsman can work with ‘Leib und Seele’ (body and soul), only the ‘Handwerk’ (craft) can fulfill the whole psyche. 24 Furthermore, the small town, as compared to a village or large city, is mainly self-sufficient and does not rely heavily on the “outside” forces. As it is capable of building it’s own little world, it views individual freedom as self-evident and in that same way is active in the world and politics at large. The important aspect is that together, the craft and the small town, complete each of the individually important needs and eliminates the need for war.25
23
Heinrich Tessenow, Craft and the Small Town ( Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1919), 61. K. Michael Hays, “Tessenow’s Architecture as National Allegory: Critique of Capitalism or Protofascism?,” Assemblage No.: 8 (Feb., 1989): 114. 25 This is a stance toward the small town Tessenow takes repeatedly, primarily so in his book Craft and the Small Town but also in Writings: Thoughts of a Building Master . 24
14
In Die Kleine und Grosse Stadt (The Small and Large City), Tessenow explores a similar train of thought, discussing the impact of culture versus nature o n a person’s being. In sketches of various dwellings, Tessenow demonstrates a desire for simplicity. In most of his drawings, he includes a bit of nature, as his writings also reflect upon his desire for balancing between nature and the built environment. He poses a wide range of questions to further explore that, which is our home. This discussion recalls the point earlier stated of the different pieces that make up a house. Evaluating the apparent appeal of Tessenow’s architecture, Hays asserts that “Tessenow’s anti-industrial, anti-metropolitan polemic, ‘Handwerk’ (craft) and the ‘Kleinstadt’ (small town) were highly regarded because they seemed to guarantee subjectivity, interiority, and contact with the Völkisch (folkish), the soil from which the culture of the future would spring. Indeed Tessenow’s houses were said to be like “fold songs” at a time when an increased use of dialects and an increase in provincialization were regarded as positive. Tessenow sought to reconstruct meaning in architecture by claiming rarefied bits of the outside world, pressing them into service inward, and fabricating a unified image of reality for the individual bourgeois self in the house in the “Kleinstadt” (small town). 26 Further evaluating Tessenow’s style, Hays finds that “redemptive and romantic capitalism that provides an initial characterization of the architecture of Tessenow. We will come to see that Tessenow’s modernism, but also his protofascism, can be
Tessenow also evaluated the differences between the village, small town, and city in his book I followed certain thoughts… Village, Small Town, City – what now? (SEE FIG $) 26 K. Michael Hays, “Tessenow’s Architecture as National Allegory: Critique of Capitalism or Protofascism?,” Assemblage No.: 8 (Feb., 1989): 113. 15
understood as just such a protest against the reified experience of an alienated social life, in which the human subject, against its will, remains locked.” 27 Another built project that did carry some reformative impact with it was Tessenow’s design for the Landesschule in Klotzsche, built in 1925. For this school building, his design was driven by symmetry and order. Integrated with some natural features (such as trees in the courtyard), this clearly reflects Tessenow’s intention of reforming society with the built environment as his tool. (see figure 8-9) Although this appears to be a more effective attempt than Hellerau, the overall impact on society would still be minimal. This could imply that Tessenow was in fact a realist and chose to rely on his writings to carry forth his ideas, however, the assertive nature o f his writings does not support this. Seeing this school as Tessenow’s endeavor to reform society starting with the school children, it stands to reason that what prevented him from accomplishing more of these projects was the Nazi party coming to power. Ultimately, with Hellerau as the primary example, this demonstrates that Tessenow never succeeded in carrying over his ideas from his copious writing into his built architecture. Hellerau as the first German Garden City, inhabited by artisans, was strongly influenced by his architecture; however, it did nothing to further his ideals. Therefore, whereas his primary theoretical concerns for the appearance of the built environment – order, symmetry, and purity – were thoroughly integrated into his few built projects, his over-lying concern for returning society to the small town setting was never realized.
27
K. Michael Hays, “Tessenow’s Architecture as National Allegory: Critique of Capitalism or Protofascism?,” Assemblage No.: 8 (Feb., 1989): 107. 16
Bibliography: Bilenker, Vicki and Marco De Michelis. “Theater, Theatricality, and Architecture.” Perspecta , Vol. 26 (1990): 143-170. 9H on Rigor. Ed. by Richard Burdett and Wilfried Wang. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989.
Hays, K. Michael. “Tessenow’s Architecture as National Allegory: Critique of Capitalism or Protofascism?” Assemblage , No. 8, (Feb., 1989): 104-123. Heinrich Tessenow – Ein Baumeister. 1876-1950. Leben – Lehre – Werk (Heinrich Tessenow - a Building-Master. 1876-1950. Life – Teachings – Works). HeinrichTessenow-Gesellschaft. Essen: Richard Bacht GmbH, 1976.
Krieger, Jan. Das Kleine Haus – eine Typologie. (The Little House – a Typology). Sulgen, Switzerland: Verlag Niggli AG, 1995. Tessenow, Heinrich. Geschriebenes: Gedanken eines Baumeisters (Writings: Thoughts of a Building Master). Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1982. Tessenow, Heinrich. Ich verfolgte bestimmte Gedanken… : Dorf, Stadt, Grosstadt – was nun? (I followed certain thoughts… : Village, Town, City – wha t now?). Schwerin, Germany: Helms, 1996. Tessenow, Heinrich. Die Kleine und Grosse Stadt (The Small and Large City). Munich: Georg D.W. Callwey, 1961. Tessenow, Heinrich. Hausbau und Dergleichen. Reprint der 4. Auflage von 1953. (House-building and the like. Reprint of the 4th Edition from 1953). Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1986. Tessenow, Heinrich. Handwerk und Kleinstadt (Craft and the Small Town) Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1919. Gutschow, Kai K. “Moderne Architektur in Deutschland 1900 bis 1950, Reform und Tradition” (“Modern Architecture in Germany 1900 until 1950, Reform and Tradition”). The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians , Vol. 52, No. 3 (Sep., 1993): 347349. Muthesius, Stefan. “Deutsche Gartenstadt-bewegung/Kulturpolitik und GesellschaftsReform” (“German Garden city-movement/cultural policy and Community Reform”). The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 37, No. 2 (May, 1978): 120121.
17
Figure 1 a and b: Symmetry
Figure 2: Einfamilienhaus (one-family home)
Figure 3: Patenthaus
Figure 4: the chair
Figure 5-7: room interior
Figure 8-9: Landesschule in Klotzsche, Dresden
Figure 10: Village / Small Town / City
Figure 11: Institut Dalcroze at Hellerau
Figure 12: Institut Dalcroze
st
Figure 13: Institut Dalcroze, 1 design
nd
Figure 14: Institut Dalcroze, 2 design
Figure 16: Plan of Hellerau
