hfg ulm René Spitz
The View behind the Foreground The Political History of the Ulm School of Design 1953–1968
Edition Axel Menges
René Spitz
hfg ulm The View behind the Foreground
hfg hf g ulm Edition Axel Menges
René Spitz
The View behind the Foreground The Political History of the Ulm School of Design 1953–1968
Edition Axel Menges, Stuttgart/London © 2002
ISBN 3-932565-1 3-932565-17-7 7-7 All rights reserved, especially those of translation into other languages.
Retouching Helmuth Flubacher, Waiblingen Thorsten Hesselink, Cologne Printing Druckhaus Münster GmbH, Kornwestheim Binding Ernst Riethmüller & Co. GmbH, Stuttgart
6 8 10 13 19 29 33
Preface Introduction What is meant meant here by political t ical history history of the the HfG? Characteriz Charac terizatio ation n and significance significance of the the HfG Statis Sta tistic tical al remarks remarks S ou ou rc rc es es Latest resea research rch about about the HfG HfG
38 Prehistory 40 The Scholls, Scholls, the the White White Rose, Otl Aicher Aicher 43 The American American policy policy of democrat democratizati ization on 44 Den Denazi azificati f ication, o n, JCS 1067 46 Dem Democr ocrati atization z ation 47 The founding founding of adult adult educatio education n centers centers 52 Zoo Zookk Commi Commis sion, o n, JCS 1779 53 Ree Reeduc ducati ation on under under OM GUS 56 Zero-hour literature, Zero-hour literature, Hans Werner Richter 58 Studio zero, zero , old and new universities 60 Reorientation e ntation with HICOG 6 3 M ax ax B il l 66
Founding November 1949 through April 1953
Editing Nora Krehl-von Mühlendahl, Ludwigsburg
136
Excursus Design in the Federal Republic during the 1950s
Translation Ilze Klavina, Minneapolis
152
The rectorship of Bill April 1953 through March 1956
Design Büro für Gestaltung, Christoph Burkardt, Albrecht Hotz, Oliver Wörle, Offenbach am Main
190
The governing boards March 1956 through December 1962
280
Excursus Education policies in the Federal Republic during the 1960s
302
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl December 1962 through December 1968 O tltl Ai Ai ch ch er er December 1962 through September 1964 Tomás To más Mald Maldona onado do October 1964 through September 1966 H er er b er er t Oh Oh l October 1966 through December 1968
3 05 05 339 3 60 60
404
This publication was supported by Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach-Stiftung
HfG publications
422 Index of names 426 Abbreviations 427 List of references 434 Bibliography 440 References
Preface
6
One recurrent theme in medieval philosophy is the individual’s sense of being a gnome compared to the great minds of the Fathers of the Church. However, the belief is that though a dwarf, one is still sitting on the shoulders of these giants and can therefore see a little bit further than they. Of course we are dwarves sitting on top of gigantic libraries. But we can see no further than those who sat here before us. We merely see different piles of books. Now a new addition to these piles lies before you. Rightly, you wonder: Was there a need for this book? Behind this question is a pragmatic one addressed to the author: “What makes you tick?“ I met Otl Aicher in the late eighties when I was running an advertising agency in Munich together with two friends. Those who had ever experienced the way Otl Aicher tended to treat his clients inevitably wondered how a person can reach such professional prominence that he can sacrifice personal considerations to the absolute quality of his work. How did Otl Aicher gain this prominence? When he was appointed chief designer for the 1972 Olympic Summer Games in Munich he was catapulted to the foremost ranks of international designers. Why was he given the job? This is how I stumbled upon the history of the Hochschule für Gestaltung (HfG), the Ulm School of Design. Why was the HfG established, why is it no longer in existence? In existing literature, these questions have hardly been asked or satisfactorily answered – an answer can be found only if one does not disregard the hard facts of life: money, position, power, the protective zones of institutions, spheres of influence. Every investigation develops a life of its own; in some cases it becomes drearier, while in others it remains exciting. In the course of the years I spent on this study I have learned a great deal – from people and about people. That is why this thick report about the results of my study is, for the most part, simply a putting together of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle handed to me by many people. I am much obliged to all of them, and it would only be polite if you, dear reader, rather than skip the list below of those who helped me, took note of it benevolently. First, let me thank my academic teacher and Ph.D. adviser, Professor Harm Klueting, who guided my compelling thirst for knowledge into disciplined, methodical channels and gently kept me from leaving them. Without his encouragement I might not have bowed under the yoke of scientific accuracy and levelheadedness. For years, at the humanities department of the University of Cologne, he was my adviser as I w orked on the dissertation on which the text of this book is based.
My thanks to Professor Jost Dülffer as well for his penetrating criticism. I thank all contemporary witnesses I was able to interview or correspond with for their interest and patience: the late Inge Aicher-Scholl, who twice took the time to tell me all the things she had so often told before; the late Max Bill, whose interest in my study I found very encouraging; John Boxer, who in a matter of minutes gave me a living demonstration of American helpfulness and hands-on determination; Hans Conrad and Hilary HatchConrad for their great help and for the many incomparable photos; Susanne and Gerhard Curdes, who in a long conversation opened my eyes to how much information is available in written sources if one knows how to read between the lines; Katja Dohrn; Charlotte Erbe; Hans Frieder Eychmüller; Günther Grzimek; Ernst Hahn; Erhard M. Löwe; Rolf Müller for his report from the perspective of an HfG student; Herbert Ohl for his report from the perspective of the last rector of the HfG; Harry Pross for a conversation with a broad horizon; Dieter Rams for a number of suggestions; Toni Richter for her memories, interest, and help; Thorwald Risler for the many conversations and for his wonderful moral support; Anneliese and Hannes Rosenberg for their photos; Johannes Rother; Claude Schnaidt for a stimulating conversation with unusual perspectives; Günther Schweigkofler for his report from the perspective of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung; Lothar Späth for his report from a political perspective; Manuela Tattenbach Thun. Also I would like to thank all my colleagues at various universities who have written academic studies on the HfG or related topics and from whom I received valuable suggestions: Elke Amberg, Jörg Crone, Michael Erlhoff, Hans Frei, the late Joachim Heimbucher, Beryl Natalie Janssen, Andreas König, Barbara Schüler, and Werner Zinkand. My special thanks to the staff members of the archives and institutions, of whose services, in almost all cases, I made excessive use: the staff of the HfG archive, especially Christiane Wachsmann and Marcela Quijano; the Bauhaus archive; Kurt Hochstuhl (Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart); Eugen Specker and Eva Herrmann (Stadtarchiv Ulm); Sabine Cofalla (Akademie der Künste Berlin); Margrit Brandel (Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung); Ms. Rebel ( Archive of the Technische Hochschule Darmstadt); Dr. Bradler (archive of the Landtag of Baden-Württemberg); Rudolf Kerscher (Fritz-Thyssen-Stiftung); the Bundesarchiv Koblenz and the branch office in Berlin-Zehlendorf, the former Berlin Document Center ; the archives of the Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, Landesverband Baden-Württemberg, the Landesgewerbeamt Stuttgart, Südwestpresse Ulm, the Technische
Hochschule München (Weihenstephan), the Historisches Institut of the Deutsche Bank, and the Stadtarchiv Recklinghausen. I’d like to thank tax consultant Elmar Frings for helping me to understand the audit reports of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. My thanks to the late Eberhard Stauß for his independent judgment. I’d like to thank Jakob Bill for his patience, Albrecht Hotz and the Offenbach Büro für Gestaltung for their patient and precise design work, Ilze Klavina for her patient and precise translation work and Axel Menges for his interest in this topic. Thank you to Olaf Kiel, Gerhard Curdes, Rainer Wick, Herbert Lindinger, Fritz Stuber, and Max Graf for additions they made and corrections they suggested after reading the dissertation. Thanks to Margret Stone-Macdonald for the two photos of her father. And who finances cultural freedom? These days, possibly only a patron such as Berthold Beitz. Without his interest and the support of the KruppStiftung, particularly of Horst Dieter Marheineke and Thomas Kempf, this book could not have been published. That would have meant that those to whom I begrudged victory would have been right in the end: I thank all those who resented my project and tried to thwart it, because through their arrogance and thoughtlessness they kept me alert and hard at work. I thank all the people who openly obstructed my work and prevented its publication, because they constantly spurred me on to increase my efforts and to find new ways of reaching my goal. I thank all those who responded to me with lack of understanding, beca use they forced me to focus on those passages that could still be misconstrued, and because they made me more aware of those statements that had not been formulated clearly enough. In conclusion, in a spirit of conciliation I should like to thank my friends, my family, and especially my parents for putting up with my eccentricity and providing me with the reassuring security that is imperative for such a study. Most of all I thank my wive Anke Landsberg. I dedicate this book to her. Anyone else would have sent me packing. In memoriam Fred Jaeger
Cologne, July 2000
7
Photo: Hans Conrad
Photo: Ulrich Rothfuss Archive: Rothfuss
Photo: Hans Conrad
Introduction
10
What is meant here by political history of the HfG? The Ulm School of Design (Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm) constitutes the subject, objective, and limitations of this study. The school gained international renown and became famous among cognoscenti under its acronym HfG , which is why it will be referred to that way in this book. The HfG was a unique institution. This opinion is merely trite unless it is made clear why the school was unique and what makes it different from other institutions that – for whatever reason – can be compared with it in an attempt to discover why each of them is special. We do not know much about the HfG. This study hardly alters that fact. Those who devote their time to studying the HfG soon arrive at an unpleasant conclusion: Facts are treated as though they were mere opinions, and vice versa: In lieu of an analysis of reality as the sum of hard, inescapable facts, there is instead a flight from reality. Until now, in discussion about the HfG, there has been a dearth of publications whose object has been to represent the hard facts of its history. There are several reasons for this, only one of which is the dispersal and inaccessibility of many sources. However, known statements by some former HfG members are – legitimate – expressions of opinion that in the final analysis cannot be refuted. The fact that there are no statements by the silent majority appears to indicate lack of interest. One of the simplest insights that were taught at the HfG is the fact that the result of an undertaking depends on the circumstances under which it was carried out. If external circumstances are changed, a different output is obtained, to adopt the jargon of the HfG. If we wish to grasp the unique nature of the HfG, we need to know about its external circumstances. That is why the central focus of the present study is on the framework within which the HfG carried out its work. Other questions are directly derived from this inquiry. Why was the HfG established (and what were the external circumstances)? Under what circumstances did it exist? Why is the HfG no longer in existence? Was it external circumstances, perhaps, that led to its “death”? Were there one or several murderers, to continue the metaphor and at the same time to quote one of the most frequently expressed verdicts, or was it suicide maybe? – A conjecture that is almost as frequently thrown into the ring of semi-public discussion and is then left there. Whereupon the participants in the debate attack each other. Wouldn’t a short paper in a pertinent journal have sufficed for a few figures and data regarding the external framework? What justifies such a long
study about the political history of a school that was concerned with design? Initial research showed that the few figures and facts published to date, whose sum total may be enough for a meager essay, are inexact. 1 One can rely neither on their exactitude nor on their completeness or their correctness. The complexity of the topic only evolved in the course of the study. For a better understanding of the HfG, simple facts need to be corrected, the complicated connection between the institutions that circled like planets around their sun, the HfG, must be clarified, the roots of the HfG’s founders and the motivating forces that moved them must be shown, and readers need to be reminded of political and cultural events in Germany at the time. It is not possible to differentiate sharply between politics and design at the HfG. This is because of the special way things evolved (here we touch upon one of the most important special features of the HfG, which distinguishes it from all other schools of design): Design, at the HfG, was understood as a means of influencing, i.e., improving, the individual and society as a whole. Design was considered to be a means – essentially prepolitical – of accomplishing political goals. Of course this study is by no means a complete history of the HfG. To put it metaphorically: What is of interest here is the a dministrative director of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung (Hans and Sophie Scholl Foundation), not the department head of the building department. However, this separation of interest was always abandoned if, say, the administrative director expressed his views on questions of design (which did not happen), or the department head spoke on questions of school administration (which happened very often). Therefore, in this study, the concept of the political encompasses several aspects of the history of the HfG viewed partly chronologically, and partly systematically. From this account of the political history of the HfG, readers may expect the history of an institution orientated by contemporary events and supplemented with sporadic references to connections with politics, society, and the culture of the time. The HfG is in the center, but is not the protagonist. The first part of the book will discuss the Scholls and the sociopolitical and humanistic views and motives of Otl Aicher and the Ulm circle around Inge Scholl; the founding of the Ulmer Volkshochschule (VH) (the Ulm Adult Education Center) as part of a logical and consistent continuation of the resistance against National Socialism; the reeducation policy of the United States of America, and, finally, the democratization of West German society.
The major part of this study is devoted to the HfG from its founding to its closing, and focuses on the following aspects: the inner organization of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung (GSS) – the sponsoring organization of the HfG – and its committees; the people in charge of the HfG, and its committees; the financing of the foundation (which financed the HfG with this money); ties to the city of Ulm, to the ministries in Stuttgart and Bonn, and to other sources of income. Finally, references to “politics at large,” events in the Landtag of Baden-Württemberg, in the ministries in Stuttgart, in the Bundestag, and in the Bonn ministries serve to place occurrences at the HfG in their sociopolitical context; the cultural, social, and politico-cultural and -educational background must not be omitted, even if it could be mentioned only briefly here. The study concludes with a reliable and accurate account – a few sections of which are even complete – of data and figures, an account that is vitally important for us to begin to appreciate the uniqueness of the HfG, and that may serve as a basis for future research by art historians and for a discussion of the significance of the H fG. The limits of the study were not fixed at the outset, but were only established in the course of doing the research. At its beginning the study extends beyond its time frame, because the history of the HfG does not begin with the first classes on 3 August 1953, and would be incomplete without its prehistory. The history of the founding of the HfG, starting with November 1949, is here portrayed as its immediate prehistory, because as of that time the actions and intentions of the founders aimed at an institution that more closely resembled the HfG than the Ulm Volkshochschule (Adult Education Center) from which it developed. Consequently this study is roughly structured as follows: the roots of the HfG – the history of its founding – the actual history of the HfG. Here, unlike most of the studies to date, where the individual phases of the development of Ulm design determine the account, division into periods is done acc ording to types of rectorship and rectors’ terms in office at the HfG: The rectorship of Max Bill was followed by a period of rectorship committees, and finally the periods when Otl Aicher, Tomás Maldonado, and Herbert Ohl were rectors. The study abruptly breaks off on 31 December 1968, for everything that follows from that point on is part of the immediate history of the HfG’s successor institution,
which, as the University of Stuttgart’s Institut für Umweltplanung (Institute of Environmental Planning), eked out a suspiciously short existence. The geographic boundaries of this study are those of the Federal Republic of Germany and are a given, at least if the reader takes into account the fact that there was neither time nor leisure nor the means for an in-depth comparison of the HfG with schools of design in other countries or continents, however instructive and productive such a comparison might be. The thematic limits of this study have already been indicated. Of necessity, there needed to be areas of focus, and consequently omissions as well. That is why no mention is made of the student self-government 2, the courses in filmmaking, or references to art history or a rchitectural history. Further remarks concerning the contents are not necessary if we keep in mind the following considerations regarding the method of the study. This history is not the history of the HfG, at least not in the sense of claiming to be the only valid history of the HfG. Such a history of the HfG could not be written, since everyone who was a student or teacher at the HfG experienced a different history. This is a platitude, but one that we keep forgetting. Architecturally speaking, the HfG was a cool and severe spatial installation on Kuhberg that was “included in historico-cultural studies as an icon of postwar modernism “. 3 In addition, the HfG was a living focal point at which many factors and lines came together: The lives of important international designers and thinkers intersected here and interwove with political, sociopolitical, and social ideas and ideals. Today, many people regard the HfG as the laboratory of quite a number of classic figures involved in modern product and information design – the part of it that endures. This history of the HfG, driven by interest in architecture, social psychology, or art history, is not the subject of this book. Perhaps it is astonishing that daily life at the HfG, of all topics, gets short shrift here, but those who want to read about that aspect of HfG history must wait for the book to be written – by former inhabitants of Ulm or in close collaboration with them. This, however, should not blind them to the fact that the history of the HfG is finished and that the stories of those who were part of that history can describe only one of a hundred perspectives. Authenticity must not be confused with truth. That is why the same insight is true for the history of the HfG as that which applies to the historiography of any institution: None of those who formerly belonged to the HfG will find their history in this study. To put it bluntly, one might think the history
11
Introduction
12
represented here never took place just this way. At any rate, none of those involved in the HfG (i.e., not only students, faculty, and staff, but also the large number of those who supported the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung) perceived it this way. This is the story of the HfG as reconstructed by a historian 30 years after its closing. It is the story of an abstraction. Then what still needs to be told? How does one legitimize the writing of a history that no one experienced in just this way? Much ado about nothing? Perhaps of all aspects it is the one chosen here that is particularly important, in that it allows new and brighter light to fall upon the many other perspectives on the HfG. Here, the HfG is looked at from the outside. If it is true that none of those involved in the HfG experienced the history portrayed here this way, then that implies that no one at the time had a comparatively comprehensive knowledge of events in and around the HfG, in the foundation, in the foundation committees, in the government
came available. But the simple fact is that behind it is the integral method of the science of history. The historian’s only achievement consists in integrating various – ideally all possible – pieces of information about the HfG. Those who belonged to the HfG and the foundation all spent only a limited time period at the HfG and working for it. No one was active and involved in it from 1950 until 1968, from start to finish. Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, and Max Bill are leading figures who were part of the project the longest, then faculty members such as Tomás Maldonado and Walter Zeischegg, and also studio heads such as Paul Hildinger and Josef Schlecker. No one had as profound an influence on the HfG as Otl Aicher. Yet the same is true of the trio of founders as is true to an even greater degree of the other former members of the HfG: They have (or had) detailed knowledge of some events that was not recorded in the sources, because they took part in the life of the HfG. And it is no doubt the abundance of such details that constitutes the history of the HfG as it Hans Scholl born 22 Sept. 1918, executed 22 Feb. 1943. Archive: HfG (59/0252/4)
Sophie Scholl born 9 May 1921, executed 22 Feb. 1943. Archive:HfG (59/0253/4)
Accordingly the historian has only one legitimate reason for his work: He reports on the entire duration of the HfG’s rise and fall. Moreover he does so from a perspective that none of those who belonged to the HfG have. And here again the information from scattered sources, from documents that are more or less secret or kept under lock and key, is so dense and complete that it enriches the stories of former members by adding an extremely important dimension – in all due modesty –, one that remains closed to them: that of politics, money, power, influence, decisionmaking power. Because this is a fundamental methodical problem for historians writing contemporary history, something that Rolf Schörken stated in technical jargon in the same context about a different topic is also true of this study: “What was perceived at the time must not be confused with the results of historiography; today, 40 years later, we know incomparably more about that period than contemporaries saw themselves. […] These reflections do not rule out the possibility that the contemporary, in some respects, always knows more than the historian. There are connections that are hard to establish when events are reconstructed later from sources, because sources only receive their true importance against the background of the total view that living in a given period provides.“ 4 An important example for this fundamental dilemma is given by Gerhard Curdes, who pointed out that while the dissatisfaction of many students with the reality of their academic studies in the early 1960s can hardly be documented, it was nevertheless one of the driving forces for the inner conflicts that began in 1961. When all is said and done, this history is there as a basis that makes it possible to discuss the HfG objectively. Facts must not replace opinions, but make it possible to form opinions in the first place. The fact that in the process a number of errors will be set straight without a lot of fuss may in the end contribute to demythologizing the HfG. But presumably the exact opposite will be the case: Perhaps the achievements of the HfG will seem even higher and more unattainable and distant once readers have learned about the difficult conditions under which they were accomplished.
departments, between those who belonged to the HfG. Only the sources that, to a large extent, have become available now (for the first time) make this perspective possible today. One might say the perspective was not possible until the sources be-
might be written by a former participant. Where individual short time periods and above all special areas of interest are concerned, the former members have a deeper knowledge than that presented here.
In other words, to bring this thought to its conclusion, this is by no means the truth about the HfG. There are as many truths about the HfG as there were people who experienced it and were committed to it. This is only the truth of the conditions and circumstances of the HfG that no one to d ate has been familiar with, and that only those who know how to read it can learn from.
Characterization and significance of the HfG The history of the HfG is a small segment of the advanced history of industrialization (seen from an economic point of view) or of the modern age (seen from a cultural and sociological point of view). 5 Industrialization made it possible and at the same time demanded that industrially manufactured goods in daily use be uniform, standardized. Objects that until then had been individually made by craftsmen were now mass-produced and increasingly designed exclusively by experts. Modern industry in its development was accompanied by utopias and reforms that created a close link between its social and its ethical mission: for example, the South Kensington movement in England that led to the founding of the original art industry schools; or the English arts and crafts movement . The champions of these movements were not just interested in bringing about an improvement of mass-produced goods. In the final analysis society was also to be improved in the process. Socialism was the preferred political stance of reformers such as John Ruskin or William Morris, who pursued their goal of “a socialistically aesthetic Gesamtkunstwerk of society“ 6. European movements like de Stijl in the Netherlands or the German Werkbund 7 in the early 20th century further developed ideas on shaping the modern world. They strove for the improvement of the quality of all consumer goods, demanding a rejection of fashionable design premises. And they looked for possibilities for factory-made products that would no longer look like those produced in a craftsman’s workshop (or rather: that would not look as though they had been produced in a workshop). From the simple demand “Form follows function” arose a complex edifice of ideas, functionalism, which adopted a moral undertone. The form of an article of daily use, claimed the reformers, should be developed out of itself, out of its function. The design tradition of craftsman-made objects should not be applied to industrial production. If form and function corresponded, and the object was manufactured so that the material and the production method were in harmony, they said, one could speak of the “truth” of the object. Products designed according to such criteria, without curlicues and ornamentation, not only arose from new, strict aesthetic concepts, but this new order of the world of forms was also supposed to represent the necessary consequence of an inner system of values: “The Werkbund believed in the humanizing effect of form. […] Their faith in a technological and positive reason , with utility writ large, was unbroken.“8 Leading designers of industrial products at the beginning of the 20th century simultaneously ran schools of what is now called design: Peter Behrens directed the Düsseldorf Kunstgewerbeschule (School of Arts and Crafts),
13
Introduction
14
Richard Riemerschmid headed the Cologne Werkschulen, Henry van de Velde was the director of the Weimar Kunstgewerbeschule (School of Arts and Crafts). I n 1919 his successor, Walter Gropius, transformed it into the Weimar Bauhaus, which later continued its existence in Dessau, and finally in Berlin, until it was closed by the National Socialists in 1933. 9 The Bauhaus is considered to be the place that has had the strongest influence on 20th century design. Here the political demand that society should be transformed through design was linked with the moral imperative that industrially manufactured products need to be good products. At the Bauhaus the idea of functionalism formulated by the Werkbund was put into action. As though there had been no tradition before the Werkbund, its leading designers tried to go back to zero where design was concerned, and to develop the form of an object primarily from its function. After World War II the idea of functionalism became the basis of the campaign Die gute Form (Good Design), which the Swiss Werkbund carried out, with good response, between 1949 and 1969.10 Switzerland’s Max Bill, a former student at the Bauhaus, who had made a name for himself as an architect, product designer, sculptor, painter, and publicist, gave a talk on beauty as function and based on function at the 1948 conference of the Swiss Werkbund. The Werkbund thereupon commissioned him to organize a special exhibit for the 1949 Schweizerische Mustermesse (Swiss trade fair) in Basel, combining two exhibitions: an assembly of high-quality Swiss products and an exhibit by Max Bill on the fundamental principles of design that would “show the principles of pure functional form organized systematically, and be directed at both producers and c onsumers.“11 The result was Max Bill’s photo exhibit Die gute Form. It gave its name to the prize Gute Form, which, starting in 1952, the Swiss Werkbund annually awarded to select products exhibited at the Swiss trade fair in Basel. The selection criteria for this prize represent the summation of functionalism, although an official nomenclature did not exist as yet. Peter Erni lists the essential characteristics of Good Design: The form and color of the object must be restrained; there must be no noticeable adherence to the principle that nature abhors a vacuum; embellishments or decoration and any unnecessary details at all must be rejected. “It has been manufactured with optimal operational economy and structured by economizing the means employed. When the object is used, there is no wasted energy. Prior to starting production, production methods have been analyzed, resulting in the object becoming what it is. In using this object there is to be no
sense of flaws or missing features. It promises the highest imaginable practical value. Nothing about this object is too much, nothing is too little. […] It is handy, practical, it promises if not happiness, then at least years of convenience and comfort. […] It makes no claim to be more than it appears to be, but neither does it claim to be less. […] I t embodies conscious asceticism and is an unremitting manifest demonstration against garish forms […]. This appliance is mass-produced and hence reasonably priced. It claims to be classless.“ 12 Practicality, sturdiness, materials made to last, and affordability had for a long time been the criteria used to evaluate technical equipment. Why should these criteria not be app lied to consumer goods as well? Other factors from the world of technology – engineering, to be precise – were methodical efficiency, measuring the economy of all means employed and thus producing, with minimum means, the largest yield – the best result. This efficiency was to be true both for the manufacture of the product and for its daily use: Keeping use of materials, production time, and phases of operation down to a minimum was considered to be a virtue. An additional aspect of use is that an object be what is now called “user-friendly”. This refers to clarity, organization, and ease of orientation presented by the surface of the product. Its operation is self-evident, and ideally it serves as its own operating instructions. Thus all aspects of Good Design are planned so as to optimize its utility. Even the strict aesthetics have utility, because the consumer can surround himself with his products for a long time since they do not go out of fashion. Then what is considered to be “bad design“, as the antithesis of Good Design? Here some key words are terms such as trash, kitsch, trendy, profiteering, or sham. First and foremost an object ought not to be trendy, strive for effect, be striking at all costs, flashy; on the other hand, it should not be rustic – belying its industrial origins, pretending to be handmade; a nd finally any resort to the past should be avoided. Styles that are typical of “bad design“ are such movements as neoclassicism , rustic style , or futurism, and the infamous Gelsenkirchener Barock (Gelsenkirchen Baroque) 13 is also included in the list of taboos. Behind the idea of Good Design is an openly expressed suspicion: Whatever is decorated on the outside conceals inner unsuitability and imperfection. It is a credo that ugliness on a small scale leads to ugliness and poor quality on a large scale. In the final analysis this worldview is based on an Enlightenment utopia that the beautiful, being good, produces good human beings; readers may recall Schiller’s Letter on the Aesthetic Education of Humankind . The social goal behind the ideal of
Good Design “implies an unspoiled social order, democratic, rational, clear, and transparent, without guile and tricks, knowing no misguided emotions. Typically the ideal is conceived shortly after the Second World War, just after the second social catastrophe of our century.“ 14 Max Bill, by the way, always set great store by his interpretation of functionalism: It is part of the function that “every object has an aesthetic component. […] Good design is something that, to all intents and purposes, is not contestable, let’s say, for practical and moral reasons.“ 15 Since he had left the HfG in 1957, he emphasized that the HfG now pursued a functionalism in which the aesthetic component had receded into the background, while he himself was convinced that “the totality of functions that needed to be fulfilled […] should form a harmonic whole and thus give an aesthetically flawless overall impression“. 16 The history of the founding of the Ulm School of Design directly coincides with the beginning of the campaign Good Design. (Incidentally it is striking that the HfG and Good Design are synchronous, they even end surprisingly simultaneously: merely a duplication of events or a clear sign of the times?) From the perspective of design history, and of art history in the broader sense, the HfG, like the campaign of the Swiss Werkbund, is classified as part of the tradition of functionalism. 17 Thus the HfG was referred to as “a new bastion of functionalism“18 or labeled with the term “neofunctionalism“.19 Bernd Meurer, a former student at the HfG, has pointed out that a number of approaches are subsumed under the term functionalism, while only one of these approaches predominated at the HfG: “Function was a central theme at Ulm […]. Art historians, however, use the term functionalism to denote mutually exclusive principles of design: Design that bases its formal laws on elementary geometry; design which regards function as the relationship between cause and effect; or, design that interprets function as the dynamic interdependence of facts and processes. Art historians place these three definitions in the same category. The first definition was of no importance whatsoever at Ulm, the second remained in c onflict with the third, which was the dominant interpretation of function in the school.“ 20 Possibly this way of formulating things is exaggerated a posteriori – the debate between the factions pro and contra Bill seems to be protracted as a result of such accounts. Thus another former HfG member, Margit Staber, a good friend of Max Bill’s, rejects such design-history distinctions in her comments and emphasizes the broad perspective: “The HfG, too, had its phases; yet no matter how violently the debate between different schools of thought fluctuated, they were all strictly speaking function-
ally determined stages, and only the opinions on how this functionality was to be implemented were at variance with each other.“ 21 – Whenever the term functionalism is mentioned in connection with the HfG, there is mostly an undertone that implicitly or explicitly indicates that the form of functionalism that developed at the HfG was particularly strict, rigorous, and radical. Thus Wolfgang Ruppert called the platform of the HfG “the cultivation of asceticism”. 22 Even earlier Abraham Moles, a former faculty member at the HfG, had referred to this way of improving the w orld through self-castigation: “The idea of functionality included a certain asceticism of function, first in the way it was implemented, but also in a refusal to encourage a proliferation of functions that would necessarily end up being unproductive.“ However, this theory and practice of censoring what was unproductive at the HfG, c laimed Moles, was “inevitably“ – a term that is puzzling to a historian – in conflict with a civilization of affluence and superfluity, so that it seems natural for him to transfigure the end of the HfG as well, blaming it on an automatic process and referring to the insurmountable power of trends of the times: “The theory of functionalism could no longer be heard in a society of overconsumption. This society was more interested in creating new needs than in satisfying the basic needs in a perfect way and directing its efforts toward analyzing what is truly fundamental. This is the philosophical basis of functionalism; through economic power play, the search for what is needless gains the upper hand over the search for function. […] In my opinion it is this crisis of functionalism, even more than the politico-economic struggle, that, in the historical context of the German economic miracle, contributed not only to the closing of the school, but above all to its breaking up into other institutions that are scattered all over the world, from Brazil to Japan, from the US to Israel, where it continues to exert its influence as an essential component of Western thinking.“ 23 The HfG was in existence from 1953 until 1968. It was an institution of learning outside the Federal German educational system: Firstly, the HfG had a private, not a public sponsor – the Geschwister Scholl Foundation, created in 1950. The latter financed the HfG, or, to be precise, it organized the financing of the HfG with funds that came from private industry and public moneys – and here city, Land, and federal funds gained decisive dominance as the years went by, creating a dependence that the founders had initially intended to avoid. Secondly, while the HfG called itself a Hochschule (College) of Design, its college status was disputed. At least, it was not an academic institu-
15
Introduction
16
One flew over Kuhberg: Otl Aicher on the road approaching Kuhberg from the direction of Ulm on 2 August 1955.
tion, though at times it did conduct academic research and development, which justified its status as an institution of higher learning in the eyes of those who determined cultural and educational policies and distinguished it from a technical college or a state school of engineering. In the sixties, the administration at the Stuttgart ministry of education and the arts considered it on the same level as the Baden-Württemberg colleges of art and music. Nevertheless, at the Ministry, it was the department for art, not the depa rtment for institutions of higher learning that was responsible for it. The HfG issued a diploma, which however was not recognized on a governmental level, although those who had the diploma were highly regarded by industry because of their qualifications. Thirdly, the HfG was neither a college or school of arts and crafts nor a college of art, although its most important sphere of activity – product design and information presentation – had been the domain of such institutions at the time of its founding and for a long time thereafter. Fourthly, for training in design, previous experience in the arts, or arts and crafts, was traditionally expected. However, the HfG expressly did not subscribe to this policy. Fifthly and above all, the HfG was different from all contemporary centers of design education in that here (with varying degrees of intensity) there was a striving to create design that was grounded in the liberal arts and natural sciences, instead of pursuing the traditional approach of intuitively artistic design. The work of the HfG concentrated on the visual and verbal presentation of information, including film, on designing industrially manufactured products, and on industrialized building. The significance of the HfG is due to the coming together of several factors: The combination of the subjects taught there was as unique as its instruction method, as the theoretical and practical results of its work, and as its influence on experts in the field worldwide. Unlike other institutions of learning, it thus pursued a wide spectrum of goals: It trained designers, it practiced design, it worked out theories of design, and it developed methods of design. Something that is appreciated today is that it shaped not only the modern professional image of the designer but also the professional image of the design teacher. In connection with the HfG’s instruction method and the teamwork involving designers together with technicians and business people, it is customary to speak of the Ulm model or Ulm concept . But the tangible results of the work at the HfG, in the form of product design and information presentation have also gained acceptance: They are said to have that special Ulm style.
17
Introduction
18
At the HfG there were four departments. The most influential ones were the two departments of product design (initially called product form) and visual communication (initially called visual design). The departments of building (called archi tecture until 1956/57, building until 1958/59 and industrialized building after 1959/60) and infor mation had secondary importance. Instruction in the information department did not begin until 1954 and stopped again after 1965; the department merged with the Institut für Filmgestaltung (Institute of Film Design). The depar tment of city planning had only been in the planning stage, but was never implemented. In the largest department, that of product design (249 registered students, an average of 42 students per academic year), the faculty and students were concerned with the design of products for industrial manufacture, for mass consumption, and for public institutions. Gui Bonsiepe, a student and later faculty member at the HfG, said of the work in this department that “technology qua technology“ had been made visible. Outstanding examples are the stackable tableware of the Rosenthal company, designed by Nick Roericht to be used in cafeterias and large-scale catering establishments, or the passenger cars of the Hamburg elevated railroad. “Functional design was to be the trademark of an appropriate relation to industrial objects, an outward image of the modern age, not merely a modish style, an image that clearly stood out amid the normalcy of the consumption landscape.“ 24 – The Institut für Produktform (Institute of Product Form), which, merely as a formality, in keeping with the nonprofit character of the foundation, had been declared to be the actual purpose of the foundation, became a reality in 1958, as the Institut für Produktgestaltung (Institute of Product Design). Here several faculty members – from the three departments of product design, visual communication, and industrialized building – worked in their development teams on private-industry and public commissions. The second largest department, building (170 registered students, an average of 28 students per academic year), focused on a very limited segment of architecture: Here the concern was primarily construction using industrially prefabricated components. Of course, hardly any of the projects were actually implemented by those who had commissioned them. One of the few exceptions is Max Graf’s diploma project, the Oberstufenschulhaus (upper-school building) of the Pestalozzidorf (Pestalozzi Village) in Trogen (Switzerland) of 1959/60. The visual communication department (158 registered students, an average of 26 students per academic year) was only slightly smaller than the department of building, but far more influential.
This is where, primarily, information systems were created and theoretical groundwork was laid for them. Typical of this work were projects that p rovided signs for a subway system to guide users, or created a unified graphic image for companies and agencies, from business cards and letterheads to the company’s motor vehicle fleet and advertising, e.g. , the concept created for Lufthansa. The department of information had the lowest number of students (an enrollment of 25, an average of 5 students per academic year for the period from 1954/55 through 1965/66). It admitted the last two students in 1962. This department studied the linguistic means of mass information, the profession of journalism, and mass media. Finally, a film studies program began in the academic year 1961/62 initiated by Alexander Kluge and Edgar Reitz in the department of visual communication (27 enrollees, an average of 12 students per academic year for the period from 1961/62 until 1967/68). This program developed into the autonomous Institut für Filmgestaltung (Institute of Film Design), an incorporated association that is still in existence today. The organization of studies changed as the years went by. The first entrance requirement was not graduation from secondary school, but for the most part training in a trade or equivalent skills and experience. Those who were interested in studying at the HfG had to fill out a lengthy questionnaire that would reveal the applicant’s personality and education level in detail. Those admitted to the school first had to complete a probationary quarter. When they had successfully met this requirement, they were still not definitely admitted, for it was not until the end of the first year of studies that the department heads decided which of the students were accepted into their departments. Modeled on the Bauhaus, studies up to and including the academic year 1960/61 began with the Grundlehre (fundamentals), a first year of studies during which basic knowledge of the individual subjects considered indispensable was taught. The basic courses had to be passed by all beginning students. “In the early days the basic course content was not specialized. The students were supposed to receive a sort of general education in design. In the late fifties, assignments that had direct practical application began playing an increasingly greater role; there was a clear tendency toward more specialized training.“ 25 In the 1959/60 academic year the school began to phase out the basic courses; on 30 January 1961 the inner senate of the HfG abolished the term Grundlehre in favor of the term first year of studies. By the 1961/62 academic year this d evelopment had led to the abolition of the concept of the funda-
mentals. After that, the first year for beginning students started in the departments from day one. The entire program was divided into quarters. The first quarter began on October first of each year. There were no classes during the fourth quarter, which was intended for the students’ practical work in industry. Attendance at events planned at the HfG was obligatory and was strictly controlled. The small number of students at the school and at events they had to attend over the school year made it easier to check attendance and increased pressure on the students. Studies could be concluded, but not necessarily, by completing a Diplomarbeit (thesis project leading to a diploma) that consisted of a practical and a theoretical section. Statistical remarks First, some remarks about enrollment: During the 15 years of its existence, a total of 637 students enrolled at the HfG. 26 Sorted according to the length of their studies, there are the following three categories: 238 did not stay more than 1 year, 173 were at the HfG for up to 3 years, 226 completed their studies within the expected 4-year period (in individual cases and, as a rule, in the film department, total time was 5 years). This means that the (bare) majority of students enrolled at the school studied at the HfG for a year at most. Two conclusions can be drawn from this fact: on the one hand a high fluctuation of students was typical for the HfG, while on the other hand it is debatable whether this majority can even be regarded as “former Ulm students“, and whether these students themselves identify with the HfG. Please note: Because this study focuses only on the history of the HfG, yet many students continued and often completed their studies at the HfG’s successor institute, the Institut für Umweltplanung (IUP), the figures quoted also include all those students who began their studies as of the academic year 1965/66 but were able to spend a maximum of 3, 2 or 1 year(s) at the HfG. This is how we get the seemingly inexplicable fact that 231 students enrolled at the HfG completed their studies with a diploma, but only 226 completed their studies in the prescribed period of time. If we ask how many students continued their studies at the IUP, we discover that 53 of all 231 diplomas were obtained by students who began their studies in 1965/66 or later, and therefore completed their degree at the IUP. Two additional footnotes regarding the enrollment: Firstly, only 97 women enrolled at the HfG. The women students at the HfG concentrated pre-
dominantly in the departments of visual communication (42) and product design (31). The department of building was downright shunned by the women – only 7 w omen students enrolled here. In the two small departments of information and film they were proportionally strongly represented. – Secondly, the enrollment figures show how very international an institution the HfG was. A total of 278 foreigners made up 44 percent of all those enrolled – an incomparably high proportion that enrollment figures at other German colleges or universities did not even come close to. Roughly speaking, the proportion of foreigners in the student body of Baden-Württemberg institutions of higher learning averaged between 5 and 10 percent for the Land as a whole, while at the HfG it was between 30 and 50 percent. This circumstance indicates that there was international interest in the HfG from the very first academic year, and also shows that the HfG was regarded highly throughout the world. Over the years, this brought an ever-increasing share of international students – 51 and 63 percent of total enrollment at the end – to the HfG. The predominant number of foreign students (219 out of 278) came from 10 countries: Switzerland (93), USA (25), Japan (20), Austria (16), Britain (13), the Netherlands, Italy (12 each), Brazil, Sweden (10 each), and Argentina (8). The dominance of Switzerland cannot be overlooked: Its nationals made up a third of all foreign graduates and 15 percent of all those enrolled. More often than average, the Swiss were interested in the building department, so that the number of Swiss students in that department represented something unique about the HfG. Another fact that is striking is that two-thirds of those enrolled in the building department (108 out of 170) came from foreign countries. With a 38 percent share each in total enrollment, the departments of product design and visual c ommunication were also characterized by the international atmosphere typical of the HfG. However, enrollment figures do not allow one to draw conclusions about actual conditions while studying at the school, as the distribution of length of time spent at the HfG shows. Thus from the number of students per academic year we see that five years after the first classes began, for the first time, 100 persons were studying at the HfG; the mathematical average was 107 per academic year. Only once, in the next to last academic year, the HfG reached the complete number of students, 150 (152, to be precise), for which it had been designed. The preponderance of the product design department continued for the entire 15 years and stabilized during the second half at roughly 50 students per year. The average number of students in the building department fluctuated at around 30, while enrollment in the visual com-
19
Introduction
20
munication department was slightly below that. No more than 10 students studied in the information department in any one year. – The proportion of women in the student body was around onefourth in the first three years, and then fell to an average value of below 15 percent, but never dropped below 10 percent. The proportion of foreign students was at its highest in the first academic year, with almost 50 percent (10 out of 21), but never dropped below 30 percent and on the average fluctuated around 40 percent. Thus these proportions roughly correspond to enrollment figures; there is no recognizable statistical significance. Now, a few remarks regarding the faculty at the HfG, who were called Dozenten (lecturers) and not professors. What was important for correctly assessing the students is even more true of the lecturers: A majority of them were at the H fG only for a short time, perhaps only on a single occasion. Guest lecturers came from all over the world for a lecture, a course lasting several weeks, or only one quarter. That is why it is incorrect to describe all lecturers who were employed on a regular basis along with guest lecturers as “former Ulm faculty“. Nikolaus Sombart, for example, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, Anton Stankowski, Richard Buckminster Fuller, or Johannes Itten surely did not immediately identify themselves as members of the HfG on the strength of their flying visit to Ulm, which was also true of short-term students like Ferdinand Alexander Porsche. But their presence and fluctuation in toto is an important characteristic of the HfG. The total of 282 lecturers – including only five women, Käthe Hamburger, Gisela Krammer, Helene Nonné-Schmidt, Helga Pross, and Elisabeth Walther – can be divided into roughly three groups, if we consider the uninterrupted term of their lectureship (which refers not to the sum of all quarters that a lecturer taught at the HfG, but simply the longest uninterrupted period). Over half of all lecturers were employed at the HfG, on an uninterrupted basis, for only one or two quarters. A second group of lecturers spent one continuous year at the HfG. That means that almost threefourths of HfG lecturers taught at the HfG for one year at most. Finally, the third group included the remaining 30 percent of the lecturers, who remained in Ulm for more than a year. This group included the exceptions Otl Aicher, who – except for a fivequarter sick leave in 1964/65 and 1965/66 – taught at the HfG without interruption; the specialists heading the workshops, Paul Hildinger a nd Josef Schlecker, who taught every year (not every quarter); Tomás Maldonado, who lectured continuously from the second to the next to last academic year; Herbert Ohl from 1955/56 until the end; Wal-
ter Zeischegg with two two-year breaks from the first through the last academic year. The number of lecturers who taught during any one academic year rose continuously from an initial 18 to 76 in the 1964/65 academic year, and then dropped to a final 63. A look at these statistics, which come closest to the reality in any one academic year, clearly shows that there were basically two groups of lecturers: those who taught the entire academic year, and those who taught only for one quarter (or once within a quarter). The proportion of one-quarter lecturers fluctuated between just under 30 percent and over 50 percent, while the proportion of those who taught all year was between 35 percent and over 70 percent. The proportion of lecturers who taught two quarters, on the other hand, was only between one percent and just over 20 percent. An additional characteristic of teaching reality at the HfG can be derived from the statistical ratio of lecturers to students per academic year. Thus in the first year a total of 18 lecturers were available for 21 students, a mathematical ratio of 1 to 1.2. And even if the number of students is compared only with the number of lecturers who taught at the HfG the entire year, the result obtained is 1:1.6. Of course, those values were no longer reached during the years that followed, but the least favorable lecturer-student ratio was 1:2.8. The mathematical average was 1:2.2. If one takes into account only the lecturers who spent any one year without interruption at the HfG, the highest ratio obtained is 1:7.2, and the average is 1:4.6. At 1:2.3 the fundamental ratio of all lecturers to all registered students (including the 17 previous HfG students who taught at the HfG after completing their studies) is extraordinary. In other w ords: The pedagogical concept planned at the founding of the HfG – establishing as favorable a teacher-student ratio as possible (so as to provide optimum training for a small number of students) – was actually turned into a reality. These numerical proportions, which were not attained at any other German institution of higher learning, become even better if one considers that many lecturers taught in several departments. For instance, the six students of the information department, during the 1957/58 academic year, had the good fortune of being taught by eight lecturers. Statements in this connection must, however, be regarded in the light of probability, for unfortunately the material on which these statistics are based does not indicate in which departments the lecturers actually taught during which academic year, only in which departments they taught altogether. To sum up, it is possible to conclude that a typical HfG student was either in Ulm for a short time or
held out to the end and graduated with a diploma. Figuratively speaking this is also true of the lecturers: Either they stayed for one or two quarters, or they stayed for years. That is why two trends were typical for the HfG: high fluctuation and, at the same time, stability and continuity. Those who think of themselves as former members and for whom the HfG was not merely an episode, whose life, thinking, and actions were influenced by their time at the HfG will probably recognize themselves in the two groups of students and lecturers who had staying power, a total of 314 persons – no doubt too “hard“ a standard for a group of people that can only be judged according to “soft“ criteria. Another piece of evidence to support the idea that, with all the typical fluctuation, more longterm developments must also have been characteristic for the HfG is the previously mentioned fact that 17 former students taught at the HfG after graduation. Here, the most prominent example is Claude Schnaidt, who began his studies in the building department in 1954/55, graduated four years later with a diploma and taught at the HfG the very next year – in fact, with only one interruption from that time until the end. During the school’s last two years he was deputy rector, and he would probably have followed Herbert Ohl as the rector if the HfG had still been in existence then. This example clearly shows that instances of hidden and unexpected continuity can be tracked down in the HfG’s history if a future opportunity presents itself to investigate such questions. In order to assess accurately the effect of the HfG on the theory and teaching of design, and design itself, it is necessary to compare it to national and international centers of education, to investigate its influence on these institutions, and to inquire into the biographies of members of the HfG. Because no such study exists, and it would have been unreasonable to undertake it as part of the present study, the following comments may be considered to be only the first rough outlines toward answering two questions on how to characterize the HfG: What was so special about the HfG? And what makes it the most important design institution in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, and one of the most influential worldwide? The special features of the HfG are concentrated in its educational theory. Here are five comments on this point: 1. Part of the educational theory of the HfG, for example, is the fact that from its very beginning it was conceived as a training center for a limited number of students, for a creative and dem-
ocratic elite that was to receive intensive attention. This consciousness of being an avantgarde shaped the entire institution and those who belonged to it. Nor was the concept abandoned as time went by, so that the consistently small number of students represented an oddity in the landscape of German institutions of higher learning. Moreover a large part of these select few came from all over the globe. The faculty was also consistently international in its orientation at a time when intellectuals lamented the national “stuffiness“ of the Adenauer era. Herbert Ohl, the last rector of the HfG, in this connection recalled “the consciousness that created Ulm“, and spoke about the fact that admission criteria alone ensured that only a special type of people were accepted to study at the HfG: “Free of the system, unbiased, task-, not prestige-oriented, committed to serving society as a whole and thus also the national economy“, is how according to him students and faculty felt from the day they first arrived at the HfG. 27 2. One result of the pedagogical convictions of the HfG founders, which can be experienced even today, was the college grounds, which Max Bill had modeled on the American campus, and which promoted a compact college life. Here, the apartments of students and faculty crowded around the core of the college: auditorium, bar and cafeteria, lecture rooms for theory, workshops for practice. The very architecture impressed the contemporaries “as a manifesto, as construction that proclaimed the policy of this college of design: transparent rationality, use of fundamental forms, clarity of structure, seriality. One feels that this architecture intends to organize relationships.“ 28 Moreover, the programmatic complex of buildings forced all those who belonged to the HfG to grapple continuously with the practical and theoretical questions of design, with current projects and controversies. This climate of mutual proximity was typical of life at the HfG and, depending on each personality, was perceived as stimulating competition, oppressive rivalry or unbearably provincial, monastic confinement. 3. When we speak of the HfG’s educational theory, what is usually meant is the so-called Ulm model or Ulm concept . 29 To put it in a nutshell, it is really an attempt to do away with the traditional division of higher education into research and teaching by combining it with a third component. Otl Aicher called this element development , and the essential points of this pedagogical model also go back to him. By development, he understood the manufacture of prototypes that were practical and ready to go into production, for government and private-industry cli-
21
Introduction
22
ents. In principle this pedagogical model would make it possible for “designers to work as a team with scientists, business people, and technicians“30 in the HfG and outside it, while hitherto design had been practiced in hierarchies: “The designer [is] no longer [to be] the artist as an authority, but an equal partner in the decision-making process of industrial production“. 31 Otl Aicher associated three goals with his concept: Firstly, a monitoring cycle was to be established which would be possible immediately to check whether the abstractions of theory worked in practice. The findings would allow corrections to be made and the theories to be developed further, and set the monitoring cycle in motion again. Secondly, development would be carried out together with students under the guidance of the faculty, so that the former did not receive a one-sided theoretical training. And thirdly, development work would help finance the school. Beginning in 1958, the implementation of projects for private and government clients was concentrated in the Institut für Produktgestaltung (Institute of Product Design), and within this framework several faculty members ran development teams that were referred to by numbers and abbreviations. Otl Aicher’s development team, called E5 , designed the visual image of Lufthansa, to mention one example. The development team led by the Dutchman Hans Gugelot, which worked for the Braun company, came to be the best known. These products became world-famous, and their progressive design made them very successful. However, this marriage of research and theory, usually thought of as opposites, had its price: The considerable sums of money that flowed through the hands of the faculty members who were involved gave rise to conflicts that spilled over outside the institution. This meant that the school played one more argument into the hands of its own opponents to be used against the constant trouble spot that was the HfG. The general public perceived only an inextricable tangle of financial, pedagogical, theoretical, and sociopolitical lines. That is the subject of this study. – The Ulm concept could be put into effect only with limitations; the practice did not agree with the beautiful theory: “Both for pedagogical reasons (the work on industry orders was not sufficiently varied) and because of the confidentiality that was required, the concept of the totally open studio that had been in effect until then – with all second- and third-year students working on such orders and learning in the process – was abandoned. The development teams had already become separate offices disconnected from teaching, with freelance or permanent staff, where, among other things,
students could perhaps be employed, although independently of their other studies“. 32 Hans Gugelot and his development team pulled out of the HfG in 1962 and founded an institute that was organized as an association and was connected to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung only in terms of personnel, not institutionally. – Tomás Maldonado, an important champion of the HfG, violently criticized the terminology that had become customary: “There was never such a thing as an Ulm concept, and above all there was never only one Ulm concept. There were a number of Ulm concepts, because Ulm was a very articulated assemblage of people of many different types. We had different opinions. […] Another element of this composite Ulm concept is the Bill concept. There is also an Aicher concept, a Maldonado concept, and so forth.“ 33 Without discussing this criticism and going into his motives, it is necessary simply to remind Tomás Maldonado of his own words: “There is a rule which, on this and other occasions, would be worth remembering: Do not force a protagonist to assume the role of the historian. In my opinion, the protagonist is at best, and not always, a useful chronicler of facts that he experienced first hand. It is, however, rare that an active participant be a reasonably trustworthy historian of the events he was part of.“ 34 4. From the start it was the goal of the HfG’s educational theory not only to train the students to be designers, but to strengthen and to refine the development of their personalities by means of wide-ranging ideas relating to the liberal arts and sociology. The last thing an HfG education aimed to turn out was a highly specialized expert without a horizon and with absolutely no interest in the minor and major problems of the world. At the HfG, the social responsibility of the designer for the products he had shaped and for the people who had to use them was central: “In contrast to the predominantly practical artsand-crafts programs offered at vocational arts and crafts schools, the Ulm model of studies, right from the start, went beyond the scope of a merely practice-oriented training program for designers.“35 If design and science were to join forces, there was a need for competent generalists who could grasp larger social connections and who therefore required “broad general knowledge embracing technical, industrial, historical, [and] sociological areas to an equal degree“.36 However, the HfG was only partially able to turn its long-range cultural and educational goals into a reality. The training of a democratic elite also remained “a utopia, which, to be sure, was never completely lost from the image that those involved in the HfG had of themselves“. It is likely that, as Wolfgang Rup-
pert believes, the reason the HfG did not attain these goals was the limited number of students at the school. 37 – In keeping with its comprehensive educational goal, the HfG avoided a direct confrontation with the consumer- and brand-name products industry. For instance, in visual communication attention was devoted not to advertising for fashions, detergents, or candy, but to campaigns for street traffic safety or healthy nutrition: “Things like nostalgia, planned obsolescence, pop art, advertising as secret seduction or disposable products were never a part of the Ulm platform.“ 38 Technological products and public commissions determined Ulm thinking, and much of what still eludes the arguments of the HfG because it is unabashedly a consumer or novelty item, or a throwaway article nevertheless does affect people’s daily lives. Claude Schnaidt, the last vice-president of the HfG, points out that there was definitely another life that contradicted the worldview of the HfG; of course, in his bitterness and disillusionment he sees a causal connection with the end of the HfG that grossly exaggerates the historical reality: “The fabulous profits made by selling kitsch help explain why this Ulm school needed to be liquidated: A school that was interested in raising utility value, in designing durable goods, in reducing waste.“39 5. In 1975 Otl Aicher first posited that the history of the HfG could be divided into eight phases, while the Institut für Umweltplanung (Institute of Environmental Planning) of the University of Stuttgart represented a ninth, concluding, phase.40 He structures the history of the HfG according to prevailing programmatic tendencies, but does not refer to specific time periods: After the founding (1) and collaboration with Max Bill (2), he claims, the Ulm model was developed (3). The phases that followed were dominated by technological design (4), cybernetic design and positivism (5), and by valuedetermined design (6). After the discovery of content (7) and program design (8) the HfG was closed, and in the aftermath (9) a model for academic pedagogy had perished at the same time. Since then, many accounts of the HfG’s history have been governed by Otl Aicher’s interpretation.41 Regardless of how this perspective is to be evaluated today, the bottom line is that the reason the HfG is so important to the history of design is that its p latform gave design a scientific foundation. The trend to move design from the artist’s studio into the lab has subsequently become a self-evident component of design teaching at colleges and universities for applied science: “Training in design-related sub jects was now seen more as ’education in both the arts and sciences’. […] Schools in the Fed-
eral Republic of Germany began to refer to themselves as ’(Fach-) Hochschulen für Gestaltung‘ [specialized colleges for design] ( Offenbach, Bremen, Schwäbisch Gmünd).“ 42 However, the curriculum of the HfG in individual years clearly revealed more offerings in the sciences than is customary today: Studies in perception or ergonomics were just as much part of the program as course offerings in sociology, psychology, mathematics, or statistics. Assuming that today we are living in the middle of a transition from an industrial society to a service and information society, then the HfG was at the beginning of this historical process, and made a significant contribution to the image of both forms of society. In an international survey of design since 1945 the HfG is introduced as follows: “The most important school of design of the decade, unequalled in significance even since its closing in 1968“, and a few pages later we read that the HfG was “the single most influential school of design in this century after the Bauhaus“. 43 Bernhard Bürdek sees the HfG (where he himself studied) as the “most important new institution founded after World War II“.44 Why was the HfG one of the most important and most influential design institutions in the world? Again, five explanations why this was so. Firstly, the members of the HfG did pioneering work as regards basic research, theory, method, and establishing the scientific framework of design 45: “The area of design methodology in particular is unthinkable without the work of the HfG Ulm. Systematic thought about ways of looking at problems, methods of selection and synthesis, justifying the choice of design alternatives – all this has today become the common repertoire of the design profession. The HfG Ulm was the first school of design that very consciously aligned itself with the intellectual tradition of modernity.“ 46 What is meant by this tradition of modernity is the attitude that each problem needs to be solved from within itself. Behind this is the conviction that the world is feasible, since the modern world is a technological one, created by human beings. The HfG kept to this principle so uncompromisingly, and so consistently bore in mind the social, technological, and aesthetic aspects of a task when seeking solutions that its profile was “clearer, more real, more radical and comprehensive “ than that of all other schools of design. 48 In giving design a scientific foundation it was far ahead of its time, and subsequently ran into the fundamental “longterm conflicts of the modern industrial age […] that [arise] as the real environment is given form and the material culture of the world we live in is industrially manufactured“. 49 Herbert Lindinger, a
23
HfG administrations 1953–1968 47
Rectorship 7.VI II.
1. IV. 1951
1952
1953
3.VIII.
Governing board 1 2 5.IX. 14.III.
18. IX. 1954
1955
1956
3 14.III. 1957
4 7.III. 1958
5 1.X.
6 1.X. 1959
Rectorship 9. 10 11. 12 13 1.X. 10.XI.25.IV. 30.V. 1.X. 20.XII.
7 8 7.VI. 1.X. 1960
1961
1962
1963
1. X. 1964
30. IX. 1965
14. XI I. 1966
1. X.
30. VI. 1967
6. X. 1968
............................................................................. Max Bill
Hans Gugelot
TomásMaldonado *
Otl Aicher
Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart
Hanno Kesting
Horst Rittel
Herbert Ohl
Gert Kalow
Rudolf Doernach
Christian Staub Rector or chairman of the governing board Vice rector or deputy chair of the governing board Member of the governing board .................... Planned * From 5 Sept. 1955 and 14 March 1956 Tomás Maldonado was both acting rector and chair of the governing board
Claude Schnaidt
1. X.
25
Leading schools of design in the 1950s and 1960s
Introduction
according to: Ulmer Forum 5/1968, 14
26
former student and later instructor, recapitulates the “search for foundations and systems“ undertaken at the HfG, and the predominance of reason in Ulm, arguing that mankind had just survived fascism, remembered as an attempt “to rob human beings of their reason, deliberately enslaving them by means of symbols and irrationality. We, on the other hand, believed in the feasibility of this world, in all that was rational, and in the possibility of reconnecting to the tradition of the Enlightenment. […] Basically the whole Ulm experiment is based in the Enlightenment movement, i.e., it is an attempt to create an organic connection between society and culture on the one hand a nd science and technology on the other. […] The fact that the rational was given preference in Ulm unavoidably led to a preference for mathematical thinking in designing as well.“ 50 The claim is made that this was another reason that the HfG favored subjects that allowed designers to indulge uninhibitedly in being rational, while fashion or fads could be excluded. Secondly, many of the products developed in Ulm influenced international design, and “until the end of the seventies former ’Ulm people’ determined what good design was supposed to be in the Federal Republic“. 51 This was evidenced even while the HfG was still in existence by the large number of international awards given to its faculty and students. The Ulm style was disseminated by this contemporary international recognition: Although it had been part of their policy that design would not be done from the point of view of style, the HfG (much as they hated to admit it) became a trendsetter where style was concerned. Ulm style is considered to be “an aesthetics of asceticism, of rejecting the ’superfluous’, ornaments (and gimmickry) in order to make visible the ’truth‘ of an object in its form. A radicalized functionalism“. 52 The reason for this might lie in the fact that what was taught at the HfG was a doctrine of design – design using scientific methods and subject matter, so that the quality of design, rather than being seen as something arbitrary, was taken to be something that could be very exactly determined. “Experiments involving factor and form analysis replace subjective judgment. Function and beauty, long after the closing of the HfG, are seen as measurable quantities. […] Henceforth high-quality design cannot revert to a minimum of rationally ascertainable design features, function categories, and checkable aesthetic effects.“ In the course of the HfG’s existence, the balance point b etween science and intuitive talent fluctuated between the poles. Ultimately Otl Aicher vehemently objected to the scientific method dominating over creative (or artistic) talent. The quality of a design, for him – at least since a bout 1960 – always proved to be in the design, not in the theory. 53
Thirdly, at the HfG the professional image of a designer as we know it today was created: “Around 1970, the emergence of degree courses in design at various German colleges is an indication of the fact that, finally, a professional profile had begun to evolve. This, in no small part, was one of the Ulm school‘s major achievements.“ 54 In addition to two other institutions in Chicago ( New Bauhaus, Institute of Design) 55 and London (Royal College of Art )56 until well into the sixties it was the only place worldwide where such a program was offered. Toward the end of the sixties, when the HfG dissolved, approximately ten schools in Germany (arts and crafts colleges and academies) also adopted the Ulm approach. Fourthly, the HfG appears to be a melting pot that produced a large number of design professors. 57 They found employment in their native countries, to which they returned after their time at the HfG, and in Germany, in the colleges and universities for applied science that arose starting in the late sixties in a wave of new foundations. About 80 former members of the HfG taught or are still teaching as professors in Germany, with approximately the same number teaching abroad.58 These roughly 160 former HfG associates correspond to about 18 percent of a total of 902 HfG members (637 students, 265 lecturers), even if this circle of persons is drawn as wide as possible, counting all registered students and guest lecturers. Former associates of the HfG in Germany, for instance, received professorships in design in Berlin, Hamburg, Hannover, Essen, Kassel, Offenbach, Darmstadt, Pforzheim, Schwäbisch Gmünd and Munich. Thus the significance of the HfG can also be deduced from the fact that the disciples who carried out its mission continued successfully to take its teachings further afield: “Through them, particularly during the curriculum reform of the seventies […], the ideas of Ulm were incorporated in the respective curricula“, molding German design education. 59 The result of this multiplication of Ulm teachings in Germany “is a uniform picture, rather rational in tone, of Federal German design“ 60 – at least until the late seventies. Abroad, Ulm influences were not reflected only in lectureships: Institutes and projected institutes in India, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, France, and Chile are mentioned that were founded or were supposed to be founded under the influence of Ulm. 61 This list is not complete. The Club off Ulm has taken it upon itself, among other things, to collect the biographies of former HfG members, and not until the work has been successfully completed can complete statements be made. 62 The account of what became of Ulm outside of Ulm is a story all to itself. And fifthly: Even if the former unity of German design disintegrated some time ago, the HfG still
Chicago
London
Ulm
exerts influence through the broadened concept people have today of the culture of articles in daily use and of daily life: Culture, the HfG believed, is not only something one puts on Sundays and that touches only few areas of life, b ut the sum total of all objects and daily activities. Indeed, today the entire world of products is permeated by design, even if the objects involved are often of a type that would not live up to Ulm criteria: “If you look at today’s reality, the fact is that we no longer have design only in the home, but also in sanitation, in farming, schools, computers. That’s partly thanks to the HfG.“ 63 Contemporary and present-day critiques of the HfG’s work culminate in a questioning of its high moral demands, which addressed more than the usefulness of the products. Behind the demands – or rather, in their center – were human beings, who had to live up to the same strict demands. In 1951 Raymond Loewy, one of the first w orldrenowned American designers (to be sure, his concept of design is diametrically opposed to the Ulm design concept) published his book Never Leave Well Enough Alone, which appeared in Germany in 1954 in German translation, titled Häßlichkeit verkauft sich schlecht (Ugliness doesn’t sell).This slogan has since become a hairsplitting argument for designers. It overlooks the fundamental problem that there is no generally binding idea of beauty. Ugliness in the sense of Good design, for instance, sells very well: A chair in Gel senkirchen Baroque style has a much larger market than Max Bill’s Ulm stool. In 1957 there were an awful lot more buyers for hi-fi systems disguised as living-room furniture than for the technical appliances of the Braun company. Inge Scholl, in a 1981 thank-you letter to Erwin Braun referred to their famous radio-phono combination Phonosuper SK 4 as a “signal“ to the public and as “proof“ that the HfG theory was correct: “Schneewittchen [the model was nicknamed ‘Snow White’s coffin’; transl. note] had stopped trying to make a good impression, had been stripped of all the dignified ponderousness of an imitative tradition of forms. The gentleman in white tie and tails had turned into a slim consumer item. It embodied cheery, practical casualness. […] The device was suddenly able to make visible the college’s intention. It brought public recognition and receptivity. This jettisoning of dead weight, this renunciation of prestige, this easygoing attitude in the face of middle-class ideas of interior decoration, where technology was disguised as something else, overcame the reproach that the HfG was g uilty of asceticism and purism.“ 64 Yet the very fact that Snow White’s coffin did not become a mass product and did not enjoy blanket distribution refutes the HfG’s design theory at least in its claim to
27
Introduction
28
democratize and improve society through design art. The world has lost its soul, and modernism has and to raise the living standard of the population at tried to respond in a cool, clear, linear art form. large. And so now we have people saying, ‘You’ve objec As soon as the living standard of the majority of tified the world.‘ Why, that’s completely untrue. the population had risen to undreamt-of heights The objectification has taken place, it is a fact. […] thanks to the Federal German economic miracle, Simplicity, reduction is not moral sterility, nor is it people had no desire for good design as the HfG dour, soulless monasticism; on the contrary, it’s defined it; also, the price they were expected to really an aesthetics of luxury. Many critics of modpay for the quality of good products was too high ernism have not understood this dialectic yet. […] for them. The HfG could not refute the criticism It just isn’t true that the rationalists have ruined that had already been laid at the door of the Bauthe world. The purveyors of kitsch have always rehaus: that paradoxically a small, educated, and mained in power.“ 69 well-to-do elite – usually called snobbish – inOne needs to take a step back, stop focusing on dulged in using products intended for the broad the HfG and look at the entire spectrum of design, mass of the population because they were in favor within which the HfG represents only one position, of the Enlightenment-based ideas of democratizato recognize not only its lack of importance to a tion that are behind this special type of design. large part of society, but also the presumptuous“The explicit social goal of historical functionalism ness of quite a few designers and design histowas to do away with social differences through rians. In an international design history, for examwell-designed products for everyday use that was ple, it says that functionalism triumphed in the fifelevated to a standard. This continued to be one of ties as the universal modern aesthetics: “Functionthe great utopias of the twenties of our century.“ 65 alism remained the dominant aesthetic standard of Christian Borngräber quotes an opinion from 1952 the postwar period until the 1960s“. 70 Unfortunatethat graphically illustrates the “reserve of the poply, that is not true – the converse is correct. Wolfulation“ as regards design, and specifically modern gang Ruppert rightly reminds us that after World furniture: “’It’s too severe. It demands too much of War II the representatives of aesthetic modernism a person who’s exhausted after a day’s work […]. were in the minority, “supported only by a small Modern man, who’d like to flop down in an armmiddle-class group who formed an elite in matters chair wearing his drab sports coat, looks pitiful in a of taste“. True, as leaders of public opinion they 66 severe modern space.‘“ The HfG pursued a social managed the trick of organizing “a counter-public goal that society could not live up to in reality; opposed to the prevailing taste“. But even within society certainly did not give up its need to create this modernism movement the HfG occupied only a good impression in favor of the “truth“ of a prodone position, albeit an important one. The stereouct. type that represents the fifties is not Snow White’s coffin or the Ulm stool, it is an arrangement conDuring a discussion at the Internationales Design Zentrum Berlin (Berlin International Design sisting of a kidney shaped table, cone-type lamp, Center) on the occasion of the 1987 HfG retroand asymetrical vase in front of a Picasso wallpaspective, this conflict erupted once more. The per, something to which the HfG was very strongly assistant editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeiopposed. And it was precisely “these forms, typitung, Clara Menck, who had cast a critical eye on cal of their period, [that] were in a hopeless outthe HfG in her articles, was quoted as saying “that sider role in the face of conventional perception a person who is not an ascetic and not a revoluand the buying patterns of the average consumtionary ’demands more of his environment than er.“71 Gert Selle is of the opinion that the design flawless functioning‚ that he needs the so-called of the fifties – he does not speak of the sixties – superfluous things as desperately as the essenin Germany “was not modern because it referred tials.‘“67 Herbert Lindinger acknowledged that, back to a large extent to old functional and aeswhile it was true that a rationally planned world thetic product models“. By and large, when refercould also lead to disaster, this only meant that ring to Germany in the fifties, says Selle, he is “setting up the methodical, the rational as an abforced to speak of a “stagnation or moratorium in solute“ should not be raised to the level of a dogdesign development“, characterized by a mixture ma – “but it is also quite certain that the reverse, of four elements: reverting to Bauhaus modernism, i.e., imagining and planning the world only in borrowings of American developments, internaemotional terms – leads to nothing but chaos.“ 68 tional avant-garde fashions, and the German deMathias Schreiber, assistant editor of the Frank signers’ own ideas. 72 furter Allgemeine Zeitung, again restored the corSurveys by the Allensbach Institut für Demoskorect sequence to the arguments and presented the pie (Institute of Public Opinion Research) begindefinitive justification of modern design: “I really ning July 1954 have repeatedly explored the opinmust say that it’s a lie that the world has been ion of the Germans on questions of taste. Those deprived of its soul by modernism, or by modern who were questioned were shown drawings of
armchairs, pots and cans, cabinets, tables, lamps, living rooms, and houses. Most interesting are the drawings themselves, which of course were selected with the purpose of recording a representative cross section through the Federal German repertoire of taste. Here, there is no design as defined by the HfG; instead, the respondents could state their preference by means of illustrations labeled with the attributes “modern“ (i.e., stylish), “Werkstätten-Stil“ (studio style) (relatively clear and functional), “altdeutsch“ (“German Renaissance”), and “Gelsenkirchener Barock“ (“Gelsenkirchen Baroque”) (equally ornate). Apart from the fact that the method was questionable, in that individual themes were chosen randomly and there were no real alternatives, a look at these q uestionnaires sharpens our awareness of how untimely the HfG was: far ahead of its time in theory and practice of design, methods and theory of education, but at the same time sociopolitically indebted to the utopias of the twenties. 73 Sources This study is essentially based on an evaluation of existing written sources. A few conversations with former members of the HfG, with the HfG’s champions from the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, government departments, politicians, and scientists were largely for information, for these were not interviews, conducted as a kind of oral history to be evaluated later in a methodically impeccable manner. The conversations (including some with Inge Aicher-Scholl, Max Bill, Hans Conrad, Susanne and Gerhard Curdes, Michael Erlhoff, Karl-Heinz Krug, Herbert Lindinger, Rolf Müller, Herbert Ohl, Harry Pross, Dieter Rams, Toni Richter, Thorwald Risler, Anneliese and Hans Rosenberg, Claude Schnaidt, Günther Schweigkofler, Lothar Späth, Rainer Wick, and Wilhelm Vossenkuhl) expanded my horizons and often prompted me to rethink previous interpretations. But my knowledge of the HfG’s history is fed by written, not oral sources. This written record is full of gaps, and that is surprising, for gaps would make sense in the case of much older institutions. The following five gaps are certain: 1. Even the Ulm sources on the founding history were not preserved at the HfG in their entirety, for two reasons: one, because the preliminary work of Max Bill and his secretary Eugen Gomringer was partly carried out from Zürich, and partly because Max Bill, after leaving the HfG in 1957, took back with him to Zürich, among others, files on the founding history. Secondly, there are also references to the fact that Otl Aicher and Inge Aicher-Scholl privately kept documents referring to the ear liest foundationrelated work. 74
2. It is possible that during the disputes in the years of rectorship by committee files were removed from the rector’s office. Possibly this is also true for 1963, when the Parliament of Baden-Württemberg accepted the motion to check into whether the HfG was eligible for aid. 75 3. In 1963, when in the Parliament of Baden-Württemberg the motion was accepted to check into whether the HfG was eligible for aid, the files in the rector’s office seem to have been “purged“. 4. As of the summer break of 1968, the HfG was in the process of disintegration. By then, the bookkeeping department and the administration had stopped working in an orderly fashion for some time. Starting in the latter part of 1968, most of the documents were taken down as trash to the basement, where water destroyed part of them. Fred Hochstrasser estimates that about half of all files up to the beginning of the seventies became unusable and were therefore trashed. 76 In about 1972 or 1973, Hans Eugen Specker, the director of the city archive of Ulm, drove to the HfG in order to take over the remaining files, drawings, and mock-ups for the city archive. There he discovered open cabinets, everything in confusion, and free access to all the things for which no one claimed responsibility anymore and that now became objects of desire for curio collectors and nostalgic passersby. 77 The files were just as accessible and could be purloined (demonstrably, this happened to the valuable library). Later, it was possible to transfer a considerable number of files to the Bauhaus archive; these came from the HfG’s rector’s office, and it is open to speculation how complete they are. 5. Hartmut Seeling’s years of activity looking through the HfG files are documented by the fact that ever since, in c ountless folders, slips of paper remind us that he “took out duplicates“. With a flourish, these slips of paper certainly do supply the date and signature, but make no reference to the documents that were removed; it is also not clear whether the originals of these documents are even still available in the HfG archive. The documents that were produced in the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, in the HfG, in the government ministries, in the Gesellschaft der Freunde der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung (Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung), and by individual participants represent the sum total of the sources. Most of these documents were stored at the HfG and constitute the basis of the collection of files in the present HfG archive. However, this collection has gaps (see above) that were only partially filled thanks to the circum-
29
Introduction
30
stance that documentation was stored in government offices and by private parties. Thus these gaps already occurred at the time of the transfer, or else before the setting up of the HfG archive in January 1989. Since the HfG archive has been in existence, this collection of files has been secured, examined, and made available to researchers. The collection regarding the political history of the HfG is still very extensive. Without the excellent and incomparable support of the archivists, Christiane Wachsmann and Marcela Quijano, and their staff, this study would have lacked its foundation. There are over 50 meters of files in the HfG archive.78 A large part, roughly half, refers to organizational, financial, and overlapping topics that are combined here under a political perspective. There has not yet been time to list part of the files. I used for my study; like the documents that have already been numbered, they have been listed in detail in the list of sources. As of the summer of 1996 – after I concluded my studies of the documentation – the HfG archive has also included the work contained in Otl Aicher’s estate. A large part of the files from the office of the rector of the HfG can be found in the Berlin Bauhaus archive – remarkable but true – and the circumstances under which the files came into the archive’s possession are extremely suspicious. Even though it is regrettable that this extensive collection of important resource material, much of which exists only at that location, is not part of the HfG archive, it is still very encouraging that these sources have been accessible to the public in such an exemplary manner. The collection in the Bauhaus archive that relates to the history of the HfG is divided into the actual c ollection that was listed in 1991 in a detailed systematized catalogue by Elke Eckert, and the collection of all the documents that the Bauhaus archive acquired after the catalogue went to press. 79 Of the collection, a total of 24,900 sheets of paper in 469 folders, I consulted groups 1 (in toto), 2.1 through 2.4, and 2.8 for this study, i. e., folders 1 through 170 and 419 through 465. In addition, I was able to refer to letters from Max Bill’s correspondence with Walter Gropius, which is stored in Berlin as a separate collection within the Gropius papers, numbered 68/1–18 (copies of the originals from the BuschReisinger Museum of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.). The Principal State Archive in Stuttgart contains the sources related to HfG history that originated in the Stuttgart government ministries. (Under the overall control of the ministry of education and the arts, the ministry of trade and commerce, the ministry of state, and the ministry of finance were also involved in financing the HfG.) 27 files (Nos. 62 through 87) refer to the history of the HfG or of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung – a total of 8 consec-
utive meters of files in collection EA 3/203 that I was able to make use of without restrictions after the administration of the archive of Baden-Württemberg generously agreed to shorten the waiting period. – A few HfG-related documents that originated in the Parliament of Baden-Württemberg, and many items relating to the pa rliament were patiently placed at my disposal by the archive in the Parliament building. The city archive of Ulm had originally taken over the document collection that has been kept there since the opening of the HfG archive. Initially the HfG archive was also incorporated into the city archive. More recently it became part of the Ulm Museum. Thus the city archive itself now has only a small HfG document collection of its own, numbered 310/21 and E410, as well as eleven folders, part of the Pfizer collection (the estate of Ulm Mayor Theodor Pfizer) relating to the history of the HfG. I had access to the essential documents contained in these collections, listed under H . Pfizer. The Bundesarchiv Koblenz (Federal Archive of Koblenz) has a handful of documents from the correspondence that developed between Inge Scholl and Hans Bott, as well as that between Hans Bott and Theodor Pfizer, kept in the collection of the papers of Federal President Theodor Heuss; I was able to study these few documents, listed as B 122/376. In addition, the documentary estate of Klaus Dohrn, once the chairman of the executive board of the Gesellschaft der Freunde der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung(GdF) (Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung), is presently being transferred to the Federal Archive of Koblenz. There is reason to look forward to this material with interest, but unfortunately among the documents that arrived in Koblenz by the time I concluded my study there was nothing from the period during which Klaus Dohrn worked on behalf of the HfG. The local branch of the Federal Archive in Berlin-Zehlendorf, the former Berlin Document Centre , helped me with a document relating to the biography of Inge Scholl. The sum total of the private a rchives represents an extremely valuable addition to the official archives, for in Ulm many carbon copies were made as a rule. Whatever has not been preserved in the files of the original institutions often survived as a copy in another location. The archives of the Südwest presse, the Südwestfunk , and Bayerischer Rundfunk gave me access to their extensive collection of newspaper reports about the HfG, allowing me to gather reliable information about the course of events. Furthermore, I tried to find sources that originated with members of crucial committees within the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung and those connected with it.
1. The mayor of the city of Ulm was an ex officio member of the Verwaltungsrat (administrative council) and the Stiftungsrat (foundation’s council). The president of the Land Central Bank of Baden-Württemberg was an ex officio member of the administrative council. Both Theodor Pfizer (the mayor) and Otto Pfleiderer ( the president of the Land Central Bank) were in office for the entire duration of the HfG. Theodor Pfizer’s estate has been secured, but Otto Pfleiderer’s estate was unfortunately destroyed a few years after his death. 80 The irreplaceable gap this caused is a particularly hard blow both because Otto Pfleiderer had been so painstaking and because he had continuously worked in support of the HfG over 15 years. 2. Up to 31 March 1959 founder Inge Scholl (I nge Aicher-Scholl after 6 June 1952) was the only Vorstand (managing chairperson) of the foundation. Her activity has been very well documented in the documents contained in the HfG archive, the Bauhaus archive, and the Hauptstaatsarchiv (Principal State Archive). – From 1 April 1959 on, Thorwald Risler was geschäftsführender Vorsitzender (managing chairman) of the three-member Vorstand (executive board), which also included Max Guther and Inge Aicher-Scholl. Thorwald Risler put his papers, about half a consecutive meter, at my unrestricted disposal. – Part of Max Guther’s documentary estate is being stored privately, while another part is in the archive of the Technische Hochschule Darmstadt (Darmstadt Technical College), where there are another six file folders (shelf mark 71/5), temporarily numbered 12 through 14, 16, 17, and 19, containing the later papers of Max Guther. The portion of the estate relating to the founding history of the HfG is unfortunately not among these documents, but perhaps it has been preserved in private hands. – After 24 February 1964 Inge Aicher-Scholl and Max Guther were no longer members of the foundation’s executive board. They were replaced by Walter Erbe and Hans Zumsteg. Walter Erbe’s posthumous papers are kept in the archive of the University of Tübingen (shelf mark 246) and comprise 358 items, adding up to a total of about 19 consecutive meters. 81 Because the archive found no documents referencing the HfG listed among these – in contrast to numerous other cultural and educational institutions and organizations – and therefore no extensive collection of documents about the history of the HfG with surprising discoveries is to be expected – and moreover since the active collaboration of Walter Erbe on the executive board of the foundation was quite limited, I decided not to search these papers for individual documents. – Hans Zumsteg remained a member of
the executive board of the foundation until the end of the HfG; finally, he was the sole board member. Privately none of his papers have come down to us 82 ; I did not succeed in finding out whether the foundation, which continued in existence after the end of the HfG, has in its possession documents relating to his activity as chairman of the executive board. – On 1 January 1965 Friedrich Rau replaced Thorwald Risler as managing chairman of the foundation’s executive board. He continued in office until 30 September 1967, and after him the position remained vacant. Friedrich Rau, too, has kept no documents from his HfG period. 3. The members of the Beirat (advisory board) (1951–1963) came from the close circle of founders and friends around Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, and Max Bill. Otl Aicher himself, like Max Bill, was a member of the advisory board. – Otl Aicher’s extensive estate has been kept in the HfG archive since the late summer of 1996. His papers relating to the history of the HfG represent only a fraction of the archive. – Max Bill’s even more voluminous estate is being taken care of by his heirs, but unfortunately the documents were still not in condition to be analyzed while I was doing my research. – Hellmut Becker, attorney for the foundation and a close friend of the Aichers, was a member of the advisory board, the administrative council, the foundation’s council, and the executive board of the Society of Friends until 31 December 1964, when he resigned from all his Ulm positions subsequent to moving from Kressbronn am Bodensee to Berlin and concentrated on planning the Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (Max Planck Institute of Educational Research). At this time he sent his files, which had accumulated since 1950, to Theodor Pfizer for the Ulm city archive, pointing out how happy people would be if researchers could go back to a comparable collection of source material on the founding history of the Bauhaus. 83 In spite of his departure, he was repeatedly consulted regarding the HfG even after 1964, and again a three-quarter shelf of files was the result. This source material was kept in Hellmut Becker’s office at the Max Planck I nstitute until his secretary, Margrit Brandel, allowed me to access it after his death on 16 December 1993, and I was able to have them transferred to the H fG archive. – Like Max Bill, Günther Grzimek was initially a member of the advisory board, then of the foundation‘s council until the end of the HfG. The papers in his estate are in the care of the Technische Hochschule München (Munich Technical College) in Weihenstephan; in folders 9, 10, and 11 there is some source material relating to the history of the HfG, which I was
31
Introduction
32
able to examine. – The papers of advisory board members Hans Frieder Eychmüller and Walter Zeischegg are part of the HfG archive and I was able to look through them there. – I was not able to get any reliable information about Marcia Kahn’s and Peter Wackernagel’s membership on the advisory board; if they were ever members, then only until 1953, for they were not invited to the foundation’s first general meeting on 24 April 1953. Because in the abundant source material after 1953 there has been no reference to their continued participation in the work of the foundation, I decided not to track down these sources. – Fritz Pfeil worked in Iran beginning in 1958, and died there in the sixties. He left no usable source material. 4. The Gesellschaft der Freunde der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung e.V . (Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung) was created in 1952 in order to organize the financing of the foundation through private means and projects commissioned by industry and by the public sector. Originally this was to be a way for industry to express its participation in the goals of the foundation. The Society of Friends appointed a few of the members of the administrative council and the foundation’s council. Roderich Count Thun was managing chairman of the Society of Friends from 15 December 1952 until 11 April 1961; he resigned from this position to move to Costa Rica, his wife’s native country. In the course of this move he destroyed many documents. These also include those documents that came about in connection with his support of the HfG. 84 This loss is as serious as the gap created by the destruction of Otto Pfleiderer’s papers. – On 11 April 1961 the executive board of the Society of Friends was increased to five persons. The banker Klaus Dohrn became the chairman. During the sixties the situation as regards source material about the Society of Friends deteriorates, and thus it is not clear when Klaus Dohrn resigned his position and the society was dissolved, but it was certainly not until after 31 December 1968. The documents in Klaus Dohrn’s estate have reached the Federal Archive of Koblenz only in part, and his widow was kind enough to put a few papers at my disposal, for which I am grateful; the documents came out of Klaus Dohrn’s activity on behalf of the Society of Friends regarding the foundation.85 No doubt in the future a few more details here and there can be cleared up when the part of his papers that deals with the HfG has been tracked down. In addition to Hellmut Becker and Roderich Count Thun, Erhard M. Löwe and Johann Dietrich Auffermann were members of the executive board of the Society of Friends starting 11 April 1961. The manager Erhard M.
Löwe, in spite of his office, did not become active in the Society of Friends, and therefore has no papers relating to the history of the HfG.86 Unfortunately the heirs of Johann Dietrich Auffermann have given me no information about his estate. 5. The foundation’s administrative council was constituted on 24 April 1953 and held its 22nd meeting on 11 November 1963, meeting for the last time on 28 November 1963 as part of the 3d general meeting of the foundation. In addition to the mayor of Ulm (Theodor Pfizer) and the president of the Land Central Bank of Baden-Württemberg (Otto Pfleiderer), the current chairman of the Baden-Württemberg federation of labor unions took part in its deliberations ex officio. Also at the meeting were five government representatives: officials of the federal ministry of the interior (Karl Gussone, Paul Hübinger, and Mr. Rothe) – occasionally observed by Helmut Döscher and Walter Weißwange of the federal ministry of housing construction; of the federal ministry of economics (Franz Frank and Walther Hinsch); of the BadenWürttemberg ministry of education and the arts (Wolfgang Donndorf, Günther von Alberti, and Hannes Rettich); of the Baden-Württemberg ministry of finance (Günther Boulanger); and of the Baden-Württemberg ministry of trade and commerce, observed by the current presidents of the Baden-Württemberg Trade Supervisory Office (Karl Hipp, Edgar Hotz, Adalbert Seifriz, Josef Alfons Thuma). Finally, the Society of Friends sent six delegates to this committee. – The Land chairmen of the German Federation of Trade (Otto Burrmeister, Wilhelm Kleinknecht, and Richard Knobel) have unfortunately left no documents relating to their membership in the administrative council. 87 – The federal ministries have kept no papers about the participation of their officials on the administrative council and the foundation‘s council. This too is regrettable, and means that many points will never be clarified. – The papers of the representatives of the Baden-Württemberg state ministries are stored in the Principal State Archive in Stuttgart. The Land Trade Supervisory Department has no separate documents of its presidents in their function as members of the administrative council. 88 – In addition to Hellmut Becker and Roderich Count Thun the following persons represented the Society of Friends on the administrative council: the publisher and assistant founder Brigitte Bermann-Fischer, the journalist Helmut Cron, the bankers Karl Max von Hellingrath, Karl Klasen, and Karl Schmölder; none of them have left papers specifically relating to the HfG. 6. The foundation‘s council was a result of a change in the foundation’s charter following
which the areas of responsibility of the advisory board and of the administrative council were reorganized and combined in the new committee. The latter included representatives of the same five ministries as those in the ad ministrative council, as well as the mayor of the city and six members nominated by the Society of Friends; all told they were the already mentioned Hellmut Becker, Max Bill, Klaus Dohrn, Günther Grzimek, Max Guther, Otto Pfleiderer, and Hans Zumsteg. The writer Hans Werner Richter was closely involved in Inge Scholl’s, Otl Aicher’s, and Max Bill’s founding plans. His widow has in her possession a handwritten copy of the documents gathered by the founders of the HfG as material for one of the most important meetings with the American staff of the High Commissioner’s office, on 12 July 1950 in Stuttgart. The main reason this copy is of interest is because, of the voluminous bundle of papers, Toni Richter limited herself to those sections that basically originated with her husband. – Following Ms. Richter’s suggestion, I turned to the Berlin Akademie der Künste (College of Fine Arts), where Sabine Cofalla was preparing an edition of selected texts from Hans Werner Richter’s correspondence. This allowed me to study Hans Werner Richter’s correspondence with Otl Aicher and Inge Scholl. – Ms. Richter also referred me to friends of hers, Anneliese and Hans Rosenberg, who happened to have written a report on Inge Scholl at the end of 1949 for the supplement of the Neue Zeitung. For this research they took several outstanding photos showing Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, and Hans Werner Richter in reconstruction-era Ulm. The former faculty and students of the HfG hardly ever came into contact with the foundation. Except in special cases, they have only a few isolated written documents relating to the political history of the HfG – as I indicated, I deliberately excluded oral testimony. Of course I was very interested in the contemporary photos of former members of the HfG, seeking to deepen visually the impression I gained from the history. As one of the first students at the HfG, Hans Conrad made it his hobby to photograph life at the HfG until well into the late nineteen fifties, recording countless details. His photos are of inestimable documentary value for those who wish to picture the HfG in retrospect. Very early on, Joachim Heimbucher sent me a copy of his dissertation. – Werner Zinkand and Hans Frei worked on the history of the HfG in the eighties. They focused on Max Bill’s role in the HfG. My conversations with them gave me valuable suggestions, and also they both p laced their collection of selected sources relating to the HfG’s history at my disposal. – Likewise, Johannes Ro-
ther let me have the results of his bibliographical research for a planned, b ut unfortunately unfinished study about the HfG. Latest research about the HfG Up till now research about the HfG has been prompted by a different interest than the present study. The first reflection on the history of the HfG after its closing is by Claude Schnaidt, who as early as 1969, in issue no. 143 of the French architectural journal L‘architecture d‘aujourd‘hui , dealt with the recent past and who, in this all but ignored article, sees the HfG as a victim brought down by repeat offenders, the very same people who 25 years earlier had been guilty of crimes against the young Scholls, whose tradition the HfG followed. 89 In 1975 and 1983 he was heard from again with a mixture of method-related demands and substance-related theories. 90 The next to work on the history of the HfG were Joachim Heimbucher and Peter Michels. 91 They had begun their studies at the HfG and completed them at the Institut für Umweltplanung (Institute of Environmental Planning) with an unpublished thesis about the Bauhaus, the HfG and that same IUP. In the final phase of the HfG Joachim Heimbucher appeared as a negotiator on behalf of the students, and his commitment found its expression in his judgments and the language he used in 1971 – only those who were not scarred by events at the time can afford to write about them sine ira et studio (without anger and partiality; transl. note). It is to the credit of the two authors that they published several important document s relating to HfG history as part of their thesis. In 1971 there was an initial attempt, by Wolfgang Pohl, to explain the influence of the HfG on the curriculum of the Hochschule für Bildende Künste Hamburg (Hamburg College of Fine Arts). 92 Individual aspects of the department of product design, the basic program and Ulm style were discussed by Petra Kellner and Holger Poessnecker in 1978. 93 1982 marked the appearance of an HfG synopsis organized as an exhibition by Nick Roericht, a prominent German product designer who had studied and taught at the HfG. 94 It was the first overall view of events in Ulm and the world outside, which deepened the entire body of knowledge about the history of the HfG: a direction, as I said above, that this study does not pursue. Some of the references contained in the HfG synopsis are like gems for a hunter of details, others are plagued by typos, for the lengthy publication lacks systematic accuracy. However, that hardly detracts from its significance for focusing attention on the HfG. Unfortunately there has been neither a continuation nor a corrected new edition.
33
Land governments in Baden-Württemberg and federal governments 1945–1968
1946
Land government
1947
24.IX. Appointment
1948
1949
24.XI. Elections
Reinhold Maier, DVP
Minister of education and the arts
Theodor Heuss, T he od or B äu er le , in de pe nd en t DVP Wilhelm Simpfendörf er, CDU
Minister of finance
Reinhold Maier, Heinrich Köhler, DVP CDU Theodor Heuss, DVP
Minister of economics
Josef Andre, Hermann Veit, CDU SPD Heinrich Köhler, CDU
Finance committee
Federal government
1951
19.XI. Elections
Minister-president
Politico-cultural committee
1950
1952
1953
1954
1955
9.III. Elections
1957
1958
4.III. Elections
Hermann Wild, DVP Robert Leibrand, KPD
Josef Harter, CDU Alex Möller, SPD
1961
1962
1963
Karl Frank, DVP
1968
Kurt Angstmann, CDU
Robert Gleichauf, CDU
Eduard Leuze, FDP/DVP
Hans-Otto Schwarz, SPD
Karl Brachat, CDU Gottfried Haase, SPD
Kurt Angstmann, SPD Hermann Person, CDU
Karl Brachat, CDU Willi von Helden, SPD
Fritz Helmstädter, , SPD Hermann Person, CDU ,
17.IX. Elections
Hans Frank, SPD Hugo Geisert, CDU
19.IX. Elections
Federal chancellor
Konrad Adenauer, CDU
Ludwig Erhard, CDU
Minister of the interior
Gustav Heinemann, CDU
Minister of finance
Fritz Schäffer, CSU
Rolf Dahlgrün, FDP
Franz-Josef Strauß, CSU
Minister of economics
Ludwig Erhard, CDU
Kurt Schmücker, CDU
Karl Schiller, SPD
Robert Lehr, CDU
Gerhard Schröder, CDU
35
Hans Filbinger, CDU
Hermann Müller, FDP/DVP
Alex Möller, SPD Hermann Person, CDU
15.IX. Elections
1967
26.IV. Elections
Karl Brachat, CDU Hans-Otto Schwarz, SPD
Alex Möller, SPD Franz Wiedemeier, CDU
6.IX. Elections
1966
Wilhelm Hahn, CDU
Karl Brachat, CDU Walter Krause, SPD
Alex Möller, SPD Eduard Fiedler, BHE
1965
26.IV. Elections
Gerhard Storz, CDU
Hermann Wild, DVP Franz Wiedemeier, CDU
1964
Kurt Georg Kiesinger, CDU
G ot th il f Sc he nk el , SPD
14.VIII. Elections
1960
15.V. Elections
Gebhard Müller, CDU
Edmund Kaufmann, CDU
1959
Hermann Höcherl, CSU
Kurt Georg Kiesinger, CDU Paul Lücke, CDU
Ernst Benda, CDU
Introduction
36
Shortly thereafter there appeared four dissertations95, two of which, in art history, are devoted to the Bill era; their authors consider the politico-historical aspect of the history worthwhile before giving their erudite and painstaking attention to the topics that actually interest them. Hartmut Seeling’s dissertation is only mentioned in order to warn all interested parties not to pay attention to it, for the author does not live up to the self-appointed task of writing the standard work on the HfG; the result of his decades of work in no way meets research standards such as care, accuracy, system, verifiability, method, and ability to write clearly. To add insult to injury, available source material has been impaired as a result of his activity. – Finally, it is necessary to mention Norbert Korrek’s Weimar dissertation 96 , a study whose area of interest is similar to the focus of this book. However, the very limited selection (for practical reasons) of documents utilized, and the author’s interpretation of the facts, biased by a rigid political outlook, limits the insights one might have hoped to gain, considering the conscientious treatment of the selected material. Today, the results of this study are out-of-date. It should be clear to all those who have come to be convinced of immanent progress in academic work that this is not a condemnation but a fact that overtakes every academic publication. That is why I hope that the many errors that also adorn my study as gnats do a candle will be tracked down and eradicated as soon as possible by future researchers. – The unpublished master’s thesis of Werner Zinkand, also investigating Max Bill’s role at the HfG, is interesting primarily because he was still able to study and describe material from the prehistory of the HfG that has since been lost without trace. 97 In 1987 Herbert Lindinger, also a prominent member of the HfG, published the catalogue for the important Berlin exhibition about the HfG. 98 Several editions were published and translated into many languages, which is why it is the most influential publication worldwide about the HfG. Here, the projects accomplished by the HfG are in the forefront, and the few politico-historical statements in the catalogue have been fertile breeding grounds for the myth that has formed around the HfG. It is this catalogue that includes a dictum that has since become widespread – the allegation that the Parliament of Baden-Württemberg closed the HfG in November 1968. This is a legend that could be tolerated with much good will as being the crass interpretation of former members of the HfG were it not for the obligation to be exact, and for the suspicion that when the blame is laid elsewhere the author builds up a myth whose radiance makes his own biography appear in a brighter light
– an enhancement that most of the personalities from the HfG era do not need. In addition to Claude Schnaidt, Joachim H eimbucher/Peter Michels, Nick Roericht, and Herbert Lindinger, several other former members of the HfG have made statements since 1968 regarding the history of the HfG. 99 Three journals – it is characteristic of the international interest that two are Italian and one is Swiss – devoted one issue each of their publication to the HfG: I n number 15 of Archithese (Niederteufen, 1975) there are contributions by Otl Aicher, Claude Schnaidt, Kenneth Frampton, and Herbert Ohl, who time after time influenced the interpretation of HfG history 100, and in number 19 of Rassegna (Milan, 1984) Tomás Maldonado and Martin Krampen among others published their premises. 101 – Martin Krampen, in 1986, published a volume in which, beside his own views, those of Harry Pross and Abraham Moles are also included. 102 – Heiner Jacob’s essay in the Journal of Design History influenced the master’s thesis of Dominic Stone. 103 – Also worth reading are the oral statements of former HfG members which are already documented in the above-mentioned proceedings of the symposium upon the opening of the Berlin HfG exhibition, even if these contributions cannot be treated as direct sources. 104 – Lastly, Rolf Müller and Peter von Kornatzki, with their succinct account of the department of visual communication (from Otl Aicher’s perspective) have provided an outstanding example – one that is proof in itself – for the quality of education at the HfG. 105 When, after reading the contributions of former HfG members, one has digested the many details of life at the HfG and the valuable insights gained as part of training at the HfG, one is often left with a stale aftertaste. Often one feels pride in the fact that the HfG was privately sponsored, but at the same time one senses, reading between the lines, hurt feelings because in the end there were not sufficient public funds. That is why the public backers are always the ones to be blamed. The assumption that the HfG was always a thorn in the side of the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts is absurd, and sometimes it seems that what is actually meant is the ministry of finance, so that polemically one might draw the conclusion from this confusion that many HfG members were basically inexperienced in the ways of the world and incapable of telling the difference between finances and culture. The Ulm jargon, which puzzled even contemporaries, is still in vogue, and it seems that the dividing line between finding the exact term for new facts, and self-adulation swathed in the befuddling vapors of insiderhood, has shifted in favor of the latter. This certainly does not illuminate the facts, and in the end it
turns out that the debate is ac tually not about anything as tangible as design, but about unassailable metaphysics. The problems, it is said, were brought into the school from outside. But no man is an island, and the founders of the HfG took up the cause of being active in the world without fear of conflicts. In what isolation from the world did many live on Kuhberg in Ulm, one wonders, if such a statement can be considered an argument for their own innocence? They retort that the times were opposed to the HfG – after all, the Zeitgeist is considered to be an invincible force that brought about the end of the HfG. But the times were also against Inge Scholl when together with Otl Aicher and Max Bill she founded the HfG. They did not submit but had their way, and the HfG came into being. What had happened to this will power when the HfG was closed, what caused it to falter? – In recent years young researchers’ interest in the HfG, its projects and supporters has increased a great deal. The HfG archive was largely used as the first and most important place to begin their search, but also as a center for distribution and exchange of information. 106 Moreover, under the direction of Christiane Wachsmann and Marcela Quijano, this was where important exhibitions as well as informative catalogues on various aspects of the HfG’s history were regularly created. 107
37
24 June 1948 Archive: AKG
6 Sept. 1946
15 Sept. 1949
Archive: Landesbildstelle Würt-
Archive: dpa
temberg (LBW 20/52)
1945
1949
4 -11 Feb. At the Yalta Conference, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill decide to partition Germany into four occupation zones and to set up an Allied Control Council.
1 April Unification of the three Western occupation zones. 4 April North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) is established in Washington.
20 June 1948 Archive: dpa
23 May Proclamation of the Federal German Constitution.
9 May Unconditional capitulation of Germany. 5 June The Allied forces take command of supreme governmental power in Germany, which is partitioned into four zones, while Berlin is divided into four sectors. 17 July – 2 Aug. Potsdam Conference between Stalin, Truman, and Churchill/Attlee; Germany loses its territories east of the OderNeiße Line.
7 Sept. The Bundestag and Bundesrat are constituted.
1946
5 March Denazification laws. 22 April Forced coalition between the SPD and the KPD in the Soviet Zone to form the Sozialistische Einheitspartei (Socialist Unity Party). 6 Sept. The Stuttgart address by U.S. Secretary of State Byrnes introduces the turnabout of the U.S. policy towards Germany. 1.Oct. End of the Nuremberg Trials of the chief war criminals. 23 Oct.-16 Dec. First general assembly of the United Nations.
1947
20 June 1948 Archive: AKG
1 Jan. The British and American zones are combined into one zone with a uniform economic administration. 11 Apr. The Saarland is economically incorporated into France, while remaining politically autonomous. 5 June Address by U.S. Secretary of State Marshall at Harvard, in which he expounds his plan to restore the European economy to financial soundness.
12 Sept. Theodor Heuss is elected federal president.
1948
20 March The Allied Control Council meets for the last time. 20 June Currency reform in the three Western zones; each inhabitant receives 60 deutsche mark. 24 June- 12 May 1949 Berlin Blockade by the Soviet military administration as all land and water connections to the city are closed off.
15 Sept. Konrad Adenauer is elected federal chancellor by the Bundestag. 21Sept. The statute of occupation for the Federal German Republic goes into effect. 7 Oct. The GDR is established.
Prehistory
40
The Scholls, the White Rose, Otl Aicher Like no other German educational center, the HfG was based on a moral justification. One, it was founded on the experience that even a society that had counted itself among the civilized nations had degenerated into barbarism and inhumanity, employing the technology of the modern age in a highly rationalized manner and with uncivilized cruelty. The moral to be derived from this shattering realization could only be that history must not be allowed to repeat itself. Two, the HfG was among the direct successors of the student resistance against National Socialism that centered in the group The White Rose around Hans Scholl: heroism that arose from youthful innocence, idealism, and the radical act of risking the utmost for one’s own convictions – and losing. The HfG was founded on the conviction that it was necessary to learn a lesson from the immediate past of National Socialism: A better society had to be created through educating each individual to be a good person, which would prevent a recurrence of German fascism. It was a moral obligation to the Scholls, if their death was not to have been meaningless. No one could call into question this obligation without being suspected of still subscribing to National Socialist delusions. At the same time there was the shining example of the Scholls, who with their lives had stood up for what was good and had fought against evil. The designers’ part in improving society was that they would improve human beings through good design. In addition to their eldest daughter Inge, Robert Scholl and his wife Magdalene had four other children: Hans, Elisabeth, Sophie, and Werner.108 From 1917 on, Robert Scholl was the mayor of Ingersheim-Altomünster an der Jagst; from 1920 until 1930 he was the mayor of Forchtenberg am Kocher. In 1930 the family moved to Ludwigsburg, and in 1932 to Ulm, where Robert Scholl ran a tax service and accounting agency. His daughter Inge received her training in his agency. In 1942 someone informed against the critical and independent Robert Scholl, and he was sentenced to four months in prison. The story of the White Rose has been written many times and in great detail. 109 One of its most important aspects is how deeply rooted its members were in the liberal and Christian, humanist educated middle class, which they expressed in appeals to the educated sections of the population. In Hans Scholl’s view, they were especially responsible because their mental horizon ought to extend far enough that they should not entertain any illusions about the unconstitutional National Socialist state. The silence and passivity of the intellectuals carried all the more weight: They
failed because there was no protest, no action, no commitment on their part. 110 Hans Scholl, the “leading figure“ 111 of the White Rose, had belonged to the free youth movement like most of its members; he himself had been a member of the D. J. 1.11., the Deutsche Jungenschaft vom 1.11. (founded 1 Nov. 1929, this German youth organization was similar to the Wandervogel and the Boy Scout movements and was dedicated to social change; transl. note), and had therefore been imprisoned for several weeks in 1937/38.112 One legacy of the worldview of the free youth movement was that Hans and Sophie Scholl saw their protest “not as a conspiracy but as a revolution based on convictions“. 113 Accordingly, in contrast to most other resistance groups, they were not interested in distributing power and influence for the period that would follow National Socialism. The motives for their resistance grew out of their need to defend values such as personhood, freedom, human dignity, individuality, and self-determination. “Christian and moral indignation at the violent crimes against Jews and Poles in the East, and at German occupation policies in the occupied countries“114 was just as much a part of their stance as their rejection of the totalitarian regime in Germany itself, which had suppressed all political, intellectual, artistic, and religious freedom and the autonomy of the sciences and of law. They fought against a perverted, totalitarian, unconstitutional state and against the forced pressure into collective thinking under National Socialism, but also against the way the nation had become identified with the state, against the political loyalty of the masses, against widespread opportunism and smug fellow travelers among the population. “Enthusiasm, adaptation, and partial resistance in daily life under the National Socialist regime had become fused into a multilayered complex, so that in 1945 hardly anyone, in good conscience, could advocate moral rigorism“ 115 – Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher were among the few who could and also regarded it as their duty. The “spiritual mentors“ (Christian Petry) of the Munich students are considered to be the Catholic publicists Carl Muth, the publisher of the Catholic literary-philosophical journal Hochland , which was banned in June 1941, and Theodor Haecker, a philosopher and Kierkegaard interpreter, the author of Was ist der Mensch? (What Is Man?), which has been shown to have deeply influenced the thinking of the young Scholls. 116 It was from them that the members of the White Rose received the motivation to combine the values of a living Christianity or, to be precise, of a progressive Catholicism, with familiar idealistic-philosophical ideals. They felt committed to the moral, Christian-Western responsibility of defending the freedom of the individual
“Hans thought as he talked. His was a rhetorical existence, one devoted to dialogue and dialectic. He gained insights like a revolving searchlight at the top of a lighthouse. He gained his insights in this shifting and reflected light. These insights were clear, but not categorical. He was an homme de lettres. And when he was not writing, he’d be reading; that, too, was something he did as a dialogue, and when he wasn’t reading, he’d be engaged in conversations.”
41
Otl Aicher, Innenseiten des Kriegs, p. 83. Photo:unknown Archive:HfG (59/0252 /3)
Enlargements of this and the following photograph of the executed Hans and Sophie Scholl hung in the HfG rector’s office.
against the totalitarian state. Their goal was the defense of the idea of Europe, “in other words, everything relating to the history of ideas and philosophy of religion that was evoked in the first four flyers (distributed by the group, transl. note) and that was implied in the term ‘Western culture’“. 117 Unquestionably the protest of the White Rose was highly political, not merely moral and idealistic, if we understand a political person to be one who reflects about the community in which s/he lives, and about the society of which s/he is a member.118 Law as the most important protection against despotism, order worthy of human beings, and language as a means of communicating about political matters had been corrupted by the National Socialists. That is why the Scholls’ resistance against the totalitarian state coincided with
“the ’defense of human beings as human beings’, [and] the restoration of the moral foundations of politics“119: “First and foremost they were concerned with saving human sovereignty, with defending a free society and its human achievements […]. They were concerned with resisting against the looming danger of a new barbarism, against the legalization of genocide, against a piratical, elitist doctrine regarding race and the state. […] What needed to be done was to defend that which the human race had in common, and place it above the interests of one’s own nation. […] In this rigorousness of thought, the discovery of Christianity had a decisive role. It came about for my sister and brother at the same time as they developed political autonomy. […] They felt that a dialogue between the modern world and religion
Prehistory
42
was possible. […] There could be a connecting He deserted from the Russian campaign and also line between Expressionist painters, modern theol- went into hiding in the Black Forest until the war ogy, and political action.“ 120 was over. 123 The resistance of the White Rose reached its peak at the moment when Hans, a medical stuThe White Rose was significant for the HfG from dent, and Sophie Scholl, a student of biology and three points of view: philosophy, flung the last copies of their sixth flyer First of all, Inge Scholl, the surviving sister of the into the air well from the top floor gallery of Muexecuted students, was one of the leading foundnich University on 18 February 1943; the building ers. The name Scholl had the best of reputations caretaker, Jakob Schmied, observed them in the in the circles who, for instance, wanted to promote act, detained them, met with no resistance, and “the other Germany“ 124 in the United States (John handed them over to the Gestapo (Geheime J. McCloy, Shepard Stone), or who had themStaats-Polizei ; Nazi‘s Secret Service). The so-called selves belonged to this other Germany. The proVolksgerichtshof (People’s Court) hurried to Mutective shield of the name Scholl meant that it was nich from Berlin; on 22 February 1943 the Scholls not expedient for the opponents of the project in and Christoph Probst were condemned to death by the years when the HfG was founded to attack the Roland Freisler and executed that same day. It is plans with arguments that were anything but obpresumed that Hans and Sophie Scholl had hoped jective. Anyone who lapsed into the realm of the that the spectacular, violent end of the White Rose personal, polemics, or slander could have been would set off an effective signal. They had been suspected of being a National Socialist sympathizconfident that a student revolt would break out, so er, for the White Rose has always been a perfect that their death would not be meaningless. Yet symbol of extreme personal and moral integrity. they proved to be mistaken – the students seemed This was shown by the 1951 denunciation camto be paralyzed, the islands of the spirit of resistpaign, as a result of which the suspicion of the ance were isolated. By going through with the exegovernment ministries and even of John McCloy’s cution the National Socialist state sent its oppocolleagues concentrated on Otl Aicher’s alleged nents an unmistakable message what the balance Communist leanings, while no suspicion was atof power in Germany actually looked like. On 27 tached to Inge Scholl’s name. February 1943 Inge Scholl, her parents, and her Secondly, Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher retained sister Elisabeth were arrested as jointly liable for the fundamental political stance and Christian conthe crimes of Hans and Sophie Scholl; the youngviction they had shared with Hans and Sophie est brother Werner was spared, as he was a memScholl. The original outlines for the Geschwisterber of the Wehrmacht. Elisabeth was released two Scholl-Hochschule are far more explicit in this remonths later for medical reasons, Inge and her spect than the later plans for the Hochschule für mother five months later. They retired to a farm in Gestaltung. The religious and ethical fire of the the southern part of the Black Forest; the father White Rose flyers and their humanistically formed remained in prison until November 1944, and then ideals also reappear in these first outlines, as does followed his family. the political unconditionality that a critic might call On the day of Hans and Sophie Scholl’s arrest, naiveté. Both the White Rose flyers and the early Otto Aicher 121, nicknamed Otl, the former classplans of the founders of the H fG characteristically mate of Werner Scholl, who had been the young combine a striving for political autonomy with a Scholls’ close friend since the fall of 1939, tried to Christian worldview, humanistic educational idewarn Hans Scholl that their cover would be blown. als, and rigorousness of thought; both link art, The Ulm informer Albert Riester had drawn the atintellectual history and pragmatic politics, and tention of the Gestapo to the students and bragged Christian principles. after the war that he would have had Hans Scholl Thirdly, there is yet another way the founding arrested on that very day, 18 February 1943, if of the HfG (as well as the earlier founding of the events at the university had not made this unnecUlmer Volkshochschule [Ulm Adult Education Cenessary.122 Otl Aicher was one of three Württemberg ter]) by Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher may be interuniversity students who had refused to join the preted: After the end of World War II they devoted Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth). This is why he had not their entire energy to demonstrate that the death been allowed to take his Abitur (graduation from of the sister and brother, of the friend had not secondary school). When he rang the doorbell been in vain. They d rew the obvious conclusion outside Hans Scholl’s apartment on 18 February from the lessons of the past and strove to educate 1943, Hans was already being taken into custody better human beings in the future, to help create a by the Gestapo. It was only by a lucky chance that society in which the crimes of National Socialism the Gestapo failed to discover Otl Aicher’s conwould no longer be possible. “The motto of the tacts with the young Scholls, for whose resistance ‘White Rose’ was to assume political responsibilhe had supplied important ideas and suggestions. ity“ – for the survivors their death continued to be
“Sophie’s face was the kind of face I like. Her haitstyle was the kind of hairstyle I like. Her body was the kind of body I like. […] Her dark, bobbed hair fell to the side toward which her head was tilted. Sophie was quieter than her sister Inge and maybe as shy as I was. That was why I hadn’t held her in such contempt and ignored her the way I had her dominant sister when they wore the dark brown vests of the Bund Deutscher Mädels [National Socialist organization for girls; transl. note]. Inge was the leader. Sophie, on the other hand, was self-assured and content, austere almost to a fault.”
43
Otl Aicher, Innenseiten des Kriegs, p. 57. Photo:unknown Archive:HfG (59/0252 /3)
a reminder to “assume their political responsibility in such a way that morals and politics would not diverge irreconcilably, that legality and legitimacy would not be played off against each other.“ 125 It is difficult to assess the exact meaning of the White Rose for the history of the HfG. One did not have to be a family member or close friend to share Hans and Sophie Scholl’s views – but certainly the personal motivation in Inge Scholl’s and Otl Aicher’s case could hardly have been more intense, and no doubt this was also a reason for their staying power, which in turn was one cause of their success. Presumably a college of design could have been founded if, for instance, someone like Max Bill had met someone like Otl Aicher who was not a friend of the Scholl family. But it would
have been incomparably more difficult to clear the first hurdles. It would definitely have been possible to run a college of design that had a political profile; but the specific authenticity for students and faculty would have been lacking – being part of an institution that had a direct connection with Hans and Sophie Scholl. In any event the HfG would have been different, and that means that the White Rose is not an arbitrary element in the HfG’s history, but an integral part of its identity. The American policy of democratization The United States had had to intervene by force of arms in World War II in order to safeguard the European balance of power, and peace and freedom in the world. German aggression must never recur again. How could the Allies prevent this? The
Prehistory
44
Ernst Baron von Weizsäcker (25 May 1882 – 4 August 1951), state secretary of the Foreign Office as of 1938. In the summer of 1939 he warned the British government in vain of Hitler’s war plans. In 1943–45 he was the German ambassador to the Vatican. In 1949 he was condemned to 7 years in prison at the “Wilhelmstraße Trial” in Nuremberg, then pardoned in October 1950. Hellmut Becker defended him at the trial, during which this picture was taken.
i.e., the elimination of National Socialist organizations and the removal of all National Socialists from every walk of public life, as they had already declared in February 1945, in the communiqué of the Yalta Conference, referring to one of their war objectives.133 The American military government for Germany (since 1 October 1945: Office of Military Government, United States , abbreviated as OMGUS , with headquarters in Berlin) basically carried out denazification 134 in three stages: First it ordered the dissolution of National Socialist organizations and the repeal of National Socialist laws. Secondly it sought to punish all persons whose individual guilt could be proven. 135 This is how the trial by the Allies of the chief war criminals before the international court in Nuremberg came about, followed by twelve subsequent Nuremberg trials by the Americans, and further proceedings before Allied military and special courts; German judiciary proceedings followed from this prosecution. Thirdly, OMGUS initiated the political purge that must be differentiated from these legal proceedings, for the purge “is the means power politics uses to establish a new ruling class; its function is at least to eliminate the representatives of the old regime and to place politically reliable people of their own persuasion in key positions.“ 136
A contemporary account is found in: Margret Bovari, Der Diplomat vor Gericht , Berlin/Hamburg 1948. Photo: unknown Archive: AKG
experience gained from the history of the Weimar Republic showed that a military defeat in itself did not guarantee future security. Politically and socially things must not go on as before in Germany; people had to become different, and society had to change for the better. That was why, since 1942, there had also been speculations in Great Britain and the United States as to what was to be done with a defeated Germany and how German society and politics would need to be changed for a fundamental societal transformation to occur after a military victory by the Allies. 126 It was in the Allies’ own interest that Germany should become a peaceful state, for there was a sense that an aggressive and troubled Germany could soon jeopardize world peace once more. Denazification, JCS 1067 The final version of the directive of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff JCS 1067 of 26 April 1945, the general guideline for American occupation policy up to 1947 is still informed, like the Potsdam Agreement 127 of 2 August 1945, with the views of U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr., and his president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, that the Germans should be severely punished and weakened so that no further danger could come from Germany. 128 Harry S. Truman, who became president on 12 April 1945 upon Franklin D. Roo-
sevelt’s death, did not, to be sure, adopt the infamous Morgenthau plan which had provided that Germany would be kept at the low level of a deindustrialized agricultural state in order to prevent a third world war caused by Germany. 129 Nevertheless the harsh tone 130 and punishing influences were clearly evident, particularly where sociopolitical and cultural matters were concerned. In Article 14, JCS 1067 ordered that in essence all educational institutions were to be closed immediately after the end of the war so that the entire educational system could be purged of all National Socialist and militaristic influences. “The transformation was purely negative: All vestiges of the National Socialist state were to be eliminated as an important precondition for democratic reconstruction.“ 131 In the Potsdam Agreement the four victorious powers established the goals they planned to pursue after their victory in Germany. 132 They summarized these in the formula, “Denazification, deindustrialization, demilitarization“. At the very least this summarized what would no longer be tolerated in Germany, since the Allies placed the major part of the blame for past German aggression on that configuration: no National Socialism, no industrial cartels, no militaristic society. By denazification the four victorious powers understood the eradication of National Socialism,
Initially the military government carried out the political purge at its own discretion and without German participation. In the first weeks this basically consisted of the local military commanding officers discharging top administrators (head officials, district administrators, and mayors). In the summer of 1945 they intensified their measures “in response to the strong pressure of public opinion in the US“ 137, so that the civil service in Germany threatened to collapse. With Military Law no. 8 of 26 September 1945 the political purge was extended to all sectors of the economy. Its terms, which led to the dismissal of the people involved, were henceforth completely undifferentiated. 138 “It excluded Nazi party members from private as well as public employment in any capac ity above the level of common labor.“ 139 As a result of expanding the categories of persons who faced dismissal, and of the cut-and-dried bureaucratic way dismissals were implemented, there was the danger that the intentions of the denazification process would be counteracted and that a personnel crisis would occur in the civil service and in the economy: “The conflict between the minimum requirements of a viable civil service and the all-inclusive grounds for dismissal that was already par alyzing the civil service to a large extent now threatened to overwhelm the entire economy.“ By the end of November 1945 the special branch of the military government that was in charge of these matters had processed more than three-fourths of a million
of a total of 1.39 million questionnaires. The result was that more than 160,000 dismissals were ordered and just under 60,000 more were recommended.140 But although these figures seem excessive, only a minority of NSDAP members on the whole was affected by these measures. Because the American directives (contrary to what happened in practice) threatened every NSDAP member, there was the danger that fellow travelers might show their solidarity with the punished activists because they had every reason to fear that the party members’ dismissals were only the beginning, and that their own existence was also at risk. Parallel to denazification the Americans began their first lesson in democratizing Germany: They organized the first local elections. Lucius D. Clay justified this to the undersecretary of state in the Defense Department, John J. McCloy, with the words, “If the Germans are to learn democracy, I think the best way is to start off quickly at the bottom.“141 This quotation gives the impression that at this early date the American commander in chief had a very simplistic understanding of democratization – as if, let’s say, an understanding of democracy could be learned and taught in a “crash course“ 142 like a language. Beginning with the late summer of 1945 the influence of Americans who criticized this denazification practice grew. With the law regarding the elimination of nationalism and militarism, referred to as the Befreiungsgesetz , OMGUS gave in to this pressure and transferred the implementation of denazification to German authorities, reserving only overall control for itself. On 5 March 1946 the law was promulgated. 143 Now the determining factors for a person’s guilt or innocence were no longer formalities, such as the fact that someone had been an NSDAP member, or the date he had become one, but rather each person’s individual accountability. The “free judicial discretion that the Germans were expressly granted“ 144 provided the necessary leeway to separate harmless fellow travelers from dangerous rabble-rousers. With the help of this law a denazification court procedure was created. The entire population had to be registered, because everyone over 18 years old had to fill out the infamous questionnaire. On the basis of this questionnaire, people were assigned to one of five categories (“main offenders” to “exonerated”). By means of this procedure “denazification and rehabilitation [merged] into one and the same process. […] In their judgment practice the courts granted most of those involved the often cited right to political error and without exception imposed mild sentences.“ 145 The second amending law relating to the Befreiungsgesetz of 25 March 1948 in the end resulted in something “like an amnesty for the heavily incriminated“. 146
45
Prehistory
46
Thus denazification in the American occupation zone in essence ended in 1948. Taking stock it needs to be said that the practice of political purging had developed into a large-scale rehabilitation: “In the lengthy process of denazification the personnel of the National Socialist dictatorship had more or less dissolved into nothing.“ 147 The idea behind the denazification policy and its high moral standards had not been able to hold their ground against reality. Clemens Vollnhals concludes unequivocally that denazification failed and sees the reasons for this in the fact that Directive JCS 1067 was initially too cut-and-dried, in the Americans’ grave political and psychological mistakes, and in the dilemma that only Germans could answer the crucial question as to who was a fellow traveler or an activist, while the military government did not want to leave the implementation of denazification up to the Germans. 148 Once the responsibility had been transferred to German authorities – the “fellow-traveler factories” (Lutz Niethammer) – the victims of National Socialism were left with their helpless indignation, because there was no intention to expiate the crimes. Instead of forcing a general catharsis and a sharp break with the past as a precondition for a new beginning, the many little and big wheels that were p art of the structure of the National Socialist state were rehabilitated and integrated in the new p olity. No doubt this was fundamental for a new stable state in which all energies concentrated on reconstruction, for it would not have been possible to found a democracy if millions of former Nazis had been branded as lepers for the rest of their lives. Yet under these circumstances not only actual National Socialists, but conservative and left-wing opponents of National Socialism as well refused to accept the comprehensive political purge. Anyway, those who were directly affected by the purge more commonly felt self-pity and scorn for the procedure than repentance and insight. Democratization The denazification of German society would only have made sense if the gaps it caused had been filled by positive counterparts. Even during the war, the U.S. Defense Department and State Department had had conflicts with the Treasury Department about the fundamental ways, means, and goals of occupation policy. In the end what prevailed was the missionary conviction that only a democratic Germany, with democratic forms of government and patterns of behavior, would be peaceful, because “democracy was the best and most humane form of society“. 149 This combination of business and pleasure – from the American perspective – required fundamental institutional and mental changes in a defeated Germany.
The complex of goals, plans, and actions that sought such fundamental and radical changes was referred to by U.S. and German officials by such terms as democratization, reeducation or reorientation; to make a clean semantic distinction, reeducation might be called the means the Americans initiated to achieve the intended democratization. At any rate these terms meant teaching an entire nation a new way of seeing itself as a society. 150 Apart from denazification, this initiative is considered to be the “most spectacular initiative of the entire occupation period“. 151 Germany, the latecomer among nations, was finally to b ecome a modern pluralistic constitutional state, with separation of powers, free and independent elections, and representative seats in parliament, a state in which public officials respected human rights. But that was only the institutional part of the d eliberations, for “in the widest sense this policy […] also included an examination of traditional norms, the elimination of nationalism and militarism, the eradication of authoritarian thinking, and the disintegration of other supposedly typical German behavior patterns through an overall reform of society analogous to [the Americans’] own democratic experience and traditions.“ 152 In other words: Democracy was to become so deeply rooted in Germany as a political culture and way of life that it could not be swept away by the next domestic crisis. The memory of the Weimar Republic had still been present in people’s minds when the majority of Germans rejected the parliamentary system and sought their social salvation in authoritarian patterns of behavior and in a leader figure. If after 1945 a repetition of this luckless republic was to be prevented, society must c hange: The Weimar period did not offer a positive orientation for the future. However, some Americans who later became important for the democratization policy had not forgotten that foreign policy-related and economic burdens during the interim between the wars had been a contributing factor in curtailing the Weimar Republic’s chances of developing, and in damaging the reputation of the unsuccessful democracy in its own country. The mistakes of 1918, they felt, must not be repeated. 153 The initial “punitive phase“ 154 of the American occupation policy lasted until 1946/47. The phases of transition depend on the observer’s perspective. The Cold War began. The Truman Doctrine gained a foothold, as a result of which the growing influence of the Soviet Union in Central Europe was to be checked and the Western European countries would have to remain the allies of the U.S. According to this conviction, however, Western Europe could be held only by means of Germany, or at least its Western occupation zones; suddenly yesterday’s enemies were needed as the allies of
tomorrow. As we saw, with the Befreiungsgesetz of 5 March 1946 the denazification policy slid into German hands. Soviet propaganda set in and wooed the public, particularly young people. On 21 August 1946 the State Department published the directive of the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee, SWNCC 269/5 , entitled Long Policy Statement for German Reeducation .155 This was to help open doors – for the first time after the previous restrictive handicaps – to “a positive, futureoriented democratization policy” that would make possible the rebuilding of the destroyed country. It is true that the directive appeared to have hardly any more of an effect on the actual occupation, but a first step had been taken in a new direction. Now there was also a comprehensive definition of the principles of reeducation (in the minutes of the
marily the work of the Germans […].“ 156 On 6 September 1946, in his legendary “Stuttgart speech”, Secretary of State James F. Byrnes publicly declared his support for these c orrections of American occupation policy, which were a reaction to the conflict with the Soviet Union. 157 He appealed to the population, asking them to participate actively in the democratic reconstruction of a free, independent German state. The founding of adult education centers The collaboration of the Germans with the military government that James F. Byrnes had called for in Stuttgart was perceived as an urgent need by educators. The first actions of OMGUS had, in accordance with section 14 of Directive JCS 1067 , been to Arne Torgersen in conversation with the queen of Norway, 1946. Photo: unknown Source:Arne Torgersen, … Nach ihnen, Herr General! Humanitä re Abenteuer eines Norwegers , Stuttgart 1971.
Potsdam conference and in JCS 1067 there are only set phrases and generalities), for SWNCC 269/5 demanded the “integrity and freedom of the individual, the right and obligation of all citizens to participate responsibly in the democratic administration of the polity, free exchange of views and information, and international understanding and tolerance toward other cultures and races as a basis for the reorientation of the German people. The directive also made it clear that the reestablishment of political and cultural life must be pri-
close all institutions of learning, to revoke all National Socialist Gleichschaltung (enforced political conformity), and to fire incriminated teachers. As a result the number of teachers dropped once more, for the third time, having been decimated by the National Socialists and the war. The next measures, as early as 1945, addressed the first steps toward rebuilding the educational system. In September 1945 Göttingen University was the first to open, with all schools represented. On 1 October 1945, 6,477 elementary schools
47
Prehistory
48
were opened again in the American zone; there, 14,176 teachers taught at least 1.2 million students. 158 The secondary schools resumed classes at the end of November. 159 The directive Reopening of Universities and Other Institutions (27December 1945) authorized the general reopening of the universities. Finally adult education centers, too, were reopened following the 28December 1945 order from OMGUS headquarters to the military governments of the Länder of Hesse, Bavaria, and Württemberg-Baden. 160 While this did mean that the legal prerequisites for people to study and teach at schools, universities, and colleges again had been met – that is, if the buildings could still be used and teaching materials were appropriate – , there was an acute shortage of teachers everywhere. What is more, the education departments of the American military government were hopelessly understaffed 161, so that the Americans had to rely on collaborating with Germans who wanted to create a new education system. One statement went so far as to say that “they [had] no choice but to rely on German initiatives. In the American zone, on 8 May [1945; author’s note], only ten education experts were available.“162 The soldiers of the 27th division of the US Army marched into Ulm on 24 April 1945, ending World War II for the town on the Danube. 163 The local commanding officer immediately appointed a mayor, Hermann Frank, who was replaced by Karl Eychmüller after only three weeks; four weeks later, on 7 June 1945, the position was given to Robert Scholl “at the suggestion of a few citizens of Ulm“ 164, and his term of office began on 9 June 1945.165 After the war Ulm was largely an expanse of rubble. “Where houses had stood at one time, there were now bomb craters filled with water; there were hardly any streets anymore, only paths through the rubble, but the 500-year-old Gothic cathedral had survived the severe bomb raids.“ 166 A total of about 9,000 homes were destroyed by Allied air raids on 17 December 1944, almost 50 percent of the prewar number; the old part of town in particular was hardest hit. In addition, only about 25 percent of industrial plants, w orkshops, and business premises survived the war. The town lay buried under about 1.2 million cubic meters of debris. 167 The Germans’ National Socialism had destroyed the inner and external values of their own society. “Nowhere in the autobiographies is there the slightest doubt that defeat was truly total. This was everyone’s direct experience, and there was no way to evade this insight. The defeat was so complete and the shock so lasting that reality in all its undeniability caught up with the world of delusion that Nazi propaganda had built
up in the last years of the war, and brought it crashing down.“168 In its Handbook for Military Government in Germany , dated December 1944, the military government had put together – to be used in cooperation with the Germans – white, gray, and black lists of persons who had worked in the German education system. Those who appeared in the white lists were considered suitable for responsible positions because of their strength of character, courage to stand up for their beliefs, professional experience, and political reliability. 169 Robert Scholl’s nomination as mayor of Ulm must be seen in a comparable context, transferred to a political plane. 170 Otl Aicher was one of the Germans who, directly after the end of National Socialism, by dint of tremendous efforts, wanted to begin a cultural initiative. Like many, he felt the time had come to enter into dialogue with his contemporaries about the recent past. He had a sense of mission and the ideal qualifications as far as the cultural and politico-educational ideas of the Americans were concerned: In spite of his youth he had an education in philosophy, and because of his past he had an impeccable reputation. He was the first person in Ulm 171 to receive permission to organize a public lecture on 16 August 1945 – only a few weeks after the end of the war – and to put up posters advertising it in the ruined city: “The two [Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher; author’s note] planned together to bring speakers to Ulm, to tell what they had been forbidden to tell during the deadening, wasted years of the Nazi reign. It was Otto who wheeled through the nightmarish wreckage of Southern Germany on a bicycle to find their first speakers. There was no hall in Ulm where such lectures could be held, but one church remained undamaged and in it was a meeting room.” 172 The first to speak in this meeting room of the Martin-Luther-Kirche (Martin Luther Church) was the theologian and philosopher Romano Guardini, whom Otl Aicher knew personally and who remained his and Inge Scholl’s friend for as long as he lived. 173 Romano Guardini’s lecture about truth and lies was followed by eight more in the series Religious Lectures on a Christian Worldview (with Werner Becher, Josef Bernhart, Gregor Lang, Felix Messerschmid, Theodor Steinbüchel, and Fedor Stepun). 174 The goal of the lectures was to inform the population about the past years of Nazi rule and to encourage them to seize the opportunity that now presented itself to make a new start as a society. In Ulm, as in many places in Germany, it was thus not political but cultural life that was the actual source of the new beginning ( though, contrary to the hopes of the initiators, there was no new beginning after all). The response on the part of the Ulm public was so great that the American
cultural officer proposed to Otl Aicher in the fall of 1945 that this series of lectures should be developed into a permanent cultural institution. The formation of a modern center for adult education in Ulm was in keeping with the politico-cultural interest of the military government that German society should reform itself on its own with American help and guidance and under American supervision. “During the occupation we were constantly reminded how important adult education was for democratization“175, for it was adults that had to educate the young in the ways of democracy if a democratic Germany was to have a continued existence in the future. In Ulm there had already been a night school for adult education from the end of World War I until 1933 176; of course this was basically a small group of what seem to have been a chosen few, and can hardly be mentioned in the same breath as the Ulm Volkshochschule (Adult Education Center) that was founded in 1946. The system of Volkshochschulen (community colleges), which in its function of providing a liberal education for adults had been destroyed in 1933, experienced an enormous boom after the end of the war. At the same time as in Ulm many ad ult education centers were opened all over Germany; in Berlin alone, for instance, 25 were started by April 1946, and even in November 1946 the trend of founding such centers still continued. 177 The first adult education center in occupied Germany was started in Nuremberg in December 1945. In the fall of 1947 the British occupation zone had over 205 adult education centers 178, and in the fall of 1949 there were about 250 of these institutions in the American zone. 179 As in Ulm, the initiative for developing the adult education centers all over Germany – even in the Soviet zone – came from individual Germans.180 But Otl Aicher refused an offer to found the Ulm adult education center because he wanted to study in Munich at the Akademie der Bildenden Künste (Academy of Fine Arts). He proposed to Inge Scholl that she should take on this task. After thinking it over for a month – she was planning to study history and sociology – she agreed. Nevertheless Otl Aicher remained very closely involved in the undertaking. Later Inge Scholl emphasized that he was the actual intellectual driving force behind the adult education center during these early years, while she went to w ork and translated the ideas into action 181: “Otl was the one who in the first years of the adult education center negotiated with the liveliest university professors, had discussions with them, awakened their curiosity and enthusiasm for our cause, and elicited the right topics from them.“ 182 He broke off his sculpture studies after two semesters because this form of cultural activity did not satisfy him. He asked
himself “whether a culture and an art did not compromise themselves if they ignored the real human problems of a postwar period”. 183 He rejected – partly because violence had been aestheticized in the Third Reich – preoccupation with “pure” aesthetics, aesthetics that was not for a specific purpose. Rather, it was his conviction that aesthetics, education, and democracy were closely connected. He was interested in creatively dealing with concrete tasks that presented themselves, for instance, in Ulm. Say, for example: How should the destroyed old part of town be designed again in an efficient manner? Was it right to reconstruct everything as it had been before the war, or should new paths be pursued and new solutions sought? It was to questions like these that he devoted himself on a city planning team he headed at the Ulm Adult Education Center, which had meanwhile been founded and opened on 24 April 1946. 184 The new Ulm Adult Education Center ran evening events focusing on the education of the adult population of Ulm. It was sponsored by an association. Inge Scholl was the director of the institution. She was assisted by a board of trustees that initially consisted, among others, of Elisabeth Walser, Helga and Herbert Wiegandt, Hermann Wild, Kurt Fried, and Otl Aicher. 185 In their first catalogue there are a few references to Inge Scholl’s, Otl Aicher’s, and their friends’ and comrades-in-arms’ “humanistic or Reform Catholic roots“ 186, their pedagogical views and their educational and sociopolitical goals 187: Because of the breakdown caused by National Socialism, they felt, it was necessary to take the risk of starting from the beginning again. The Germans, they believed, should not simply continue with what had been there before the Third Reich, for the society of that time had not known how to prevent the National Socialists: “We must pursue completely different paths if a spiritual reconstruction is to be successful.“ “The German catastrophe, from the start and at its core, was the result of wrong thinking, and a new future can therefore only begin by rethinking things. […] We are stripping away all that does not endure. Until now radicalism has been power-oriented, which is why it has been unobjective, destructive, and mendacious. We must counter this with the unconditionality of the objective, the genuine, and the true, an unconditional, scientific cleanness. […] The Ulm Adult Education Center would like to do its part in replacing false radicalism with the unconditionality of the beautiful and the good, the true and the healthy.“ “The vessel that is man has spilled its contents and wants to be refilled“. After the regime of inhumanity the meaning of a new educational institution did not consist in the accumulation of knowledge as an end in itself, but
49
Prehistory
50
rather – in addition to sharing university research results – primarily in education that led to a human attitude not oriented toward the kind of utility that can be directly put to practical use: “Instead of wisdom and scientific knowledge, far too many people seek nothing but information and skills that will help them be successful in making a living. […] I wonder if today it’s not the ordinary people, more than anyone else, who feel that we need the wisdom and knowledge for life, for ourselves, for our own growth, and not to make a living?” “The university serves research and teaches how to do research. The adult education center, on the other hand, wants to pass on the established results of research. […] The adult education center, as we said earlier, would like to connect academic learning, knowledge, and education with life.” Classes at the adult education center, according to the humanistic ideal, were to be comprehensive and help people deal with the present in order to establish a democratic culture that would keep alive some of the spirit that had given rise to the young Scholls’ resistance: “University comes from universitas . That means: universality, commitment to an all-around education that is at the same time an integrated whole and a bright light like an inner star that illuminates all thought and action for those who have received it.“ “An adult education center is not about job training but about education.“ “We, however, seek an education for the present, a new education – indeed, an education that is open to the future. In it we want to experience our time, our lives, and our history. At the same time we do not disregard the past; we are under an obligation to live with a heritage entrusted to us by Athens, Rome, Paris and Florence, Vienna and Weimar.“ It was a particularly important concern for Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher to join together culture and civilization, since they had observed that in the past a great difference had existed in society between how people regarded highly valued “afterwork and Sunday culture” and everyday “civilization” or "workaday culture”, which was held in low esteem: “When we speak of ‘civilization’, we mean things like electric light and express trains. But when we say ‘culture’, many of us think of an evening at a concert when everyone dresses up. […] Thus culture has become a religion for people who consider themselves to be especially smart and refined.“ Looking back in 1953, Inge Aicher-Scholl commented even more specifically on the gap she had observed “between life and culture, between material civilization and so-called ‘spiritual’ values”: “Right from the start, you see, we included areas like city planning, architecture, economics, technology, sociology, and politics in our work. Our idea of culture was the formation of life in all
its breadth, in the personal as well as in the social sphere, in the workaday world as well as in leisure time.“188
Otl Aicher with a model of the Ulm Cathedral at a meeting of the urban planning group at the Ulm Adult Education Center, circa November 1949.
51
Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (754/11)
The pedagogical plan behind the Ulm Adult Education Center was based on the following categories of offerings: 1. series of lectures on a specific topic, 2. courses offering general education and handicraft skills, and 3. teamwork. The strived-for combination of theory and practice was ideally achieved in the teams, which dealt with concrete tasks such as the aforementioned city-planning team working on the rebuilding of Ulm, or the manufacture of functional, inexpensive, and aesthetically appealing furniture. The lectures and their central topics were p articularly attractive and brought many listeners to the center in the first years. A list of temporary lecturers at the Ulm Adult Education Center includes, among others, Kurt Fried, Romano Guardini, Marie Luise Kaschnitz, Carl Orff, Gerhard Ritter, Carl Schmid, Franz Schnabel, Johannes Spörl, and the rectors of the universities of Munich and Tübingen, Karl Vossler and Theodor Steinbüchel. In 1950 Beth Burchard, quoted above, reported that the Adult Education Center had a very a mbitious catalogue “that reads like a German who‘s who“. 189 The immediate and widely noted success of the Ulm Adult Education Center was evidenced especially by the fact that an amazingly large number of prominent scientists, politicians, artists, and publicists gave presentations here. If one compares the Ulm center with other adult education centers, one finds that “nowhere else is there an education so effective and so thoroughly rooted in principles as in the Ulm Adult Education Center“. 190 The reason for this success must be sought for in the personalities of Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, and their colleagues 191, in “their political attitude toward the period of the Hitler regime, which was beyond all doubt“ 192, and even more in the authenticity of their commitment to a new societal b eginning and “political universalism, not mere tolerance, but cooperation“ 193. At any rate, other reasons, such as especially attractive pay, have to be ruled out. 194 Rather, the center's founders appear to have set in motion an interplay between first-rate speakers and critical, interested listeners, where visiting speakers felt drawn by the audience’s reputation for quality, and vice versa. Between 2,000 and 3,000 members financed the center up to 70 percent with their monthly membership dues, which allowed them to attend all events. In 1948 the currency reform caused a
certain drop in membership, but in 1953 Inge Scholl was able to express her pride that, after the labor unions, the center – with 2,500 members out of a population of 70,000 – represented the largest association in Ulm. The Ulm Adult Education Center was presumably the most important precondition that made it possible for Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher together with their friends to successfully found yet another educational institution, the HfG, later on. For one, by pointing to the Adult Education Center they
could demonstrate – especially to American authorities – that they were capable of running such an institution and of developing it into a city’s intellectual focus. 195 Secondly the center was also the institutional background upon which the HfG could fall back in its initial stages. The tasks related to the founding of the HfG were done in the rooms of the Adult Education Center, and in August 1953 the first HfG course was taught there. And thirdly, the work at the Adult Education Center was based on convictions that played just as
Prehistory
52
prominent a part in formulating the platform of the HfG. Eva von Seckendorff’s summary describing the first HfG catalogues is just as true of the Ulm Adult Education Center: “The central point of the educational plan was ‘universality’: according to the authors, specialization that was oriented exclusively toward practical needs, without universal education, led to the spiritual desolation of fascism. It was not that they were opposed to specialized professional education as a necessary prerequisite for the technological progress they aspired to – but all citizens were supposed to be able to reflect on the conditions and consequences of their actions with the help of as broad a knowledge as possible”.196 – Every time one looks at this topic, one is left with a feeling of amazement that the Ulm Adult Education Center, with views and goals that had been shared by many other cultural initiatives, was successful even after most of the others, which had started the same way, had again vanished from the scene. What is more, it is surprising that with the founding of the HfG, which was based on the same standpoint, it was possible to successfully establish an additional project. Zook Commission, JCS 1779 In the summer of 1945, when the German universities quickly reopened to get young people off the streets, many professors and assistants who were teaching were not “clean” enough for OMGUS, so that a thorough purge seemed to be urgently called for. This raised some dust among the American public because it showed up the deficits of the U.S. occupation zone’s education policy, which had been “notoriously neglected” 197up to that point. There were several reasons for this negligence. 198 For example, there were differences of opinion between officials in Washington and in Germany. The American cultural officers were inadequately prepared for their work, lacking motivation and qualifications. Their image of Germany was very sketchy, and in turn they took their bearings from a liberal American ideal of democracy and society: “The negative perception they tended to have of Germany, as an authoritarian, hierarchical caste society that was disposed to collectivism, strongly encouraged American reformers and reeducators to emphasize liberal and egalitarian aspects of their own traditions. Apart from a self-righteous moralizing rigorism, the reform program of [the] United States military government did have a strong accent of liberalism American style.“ 199 Wolfgang Benz offers the example of the Army’s 1945 political indoctrination film Your Job in Germany , where the following statements are made about German teenagers and young adults: “These are the most da ngerous, German youth. Children
when the Nazi party came to power, they know no other system than that one that has poisoned their minds, they are soaked with it.“ 200 – Moreover one must not forget how few positions were authorized, or that the military government had been repeatedly restructured both centrally and in the Länder. Until May 1946 the job of democratization was carried out by two separate subdivisions; not until after that date were they combined into an education and religious-affairs branch. However, under OMGUS this branch was merely ranked as a subdivision of the hierarchy: “The inability of the education staff to achieve division status until 1948 was a confirmation of the tendency of military government leadership to underestimate the importance and complexity of education reform“. Researchers reproach the American commander in chief, General Lucius D. Clay, in particular, for not recognizing the opportunities presented by demo- cratization until some time in 1947. The motivation of the higher-ranking officers to reform the education system, they claim, was still weak in 1945 and 1946, and it is said of Lucius D. Clay that in 1946, urged by the Department of Defense to request more money for teaching materials for 1947, he replied, “We still believe full bellies to be a first requisite to recapture minds.“201 It took until March 1948 for a separate education and cultural relations division to be set up “in accordance with Order no. 6, OMGUS, of 18 February 1948, effective 1 March 1948“. 202 This division was located in Berlin from March 1948 until the summer of the same year; then, until March 1949, it was in the Nuremberg Justizpalast (palace of justice), and finally moved to Bad Nauheim. The organization of the appropriate agency of the military government for Württemberg-Baden developed even more chaotically 203, for between September 1945, when the Americans set up six divisions that were the counterparts of the government departments in Stuttgart204 , and September 1949, when jurisdiction was transferred to the provincial commissioner’s office, the Office of Military Government for Württemberg-Baden changed its structure at least nine times. It was amazing, and probably lucky as well, that the director of the education and religion division remained the same from start to finish: Major John P. Steiner, who later played an important part in the founding of the HfG as well. 205 From an initial staff of three his division, contrary to the usual tendency, even grew to over 15 (30 June 1947), then to 20 (30 June 1948), and finally to 27 (30 June 1949). When the deficiencies of American attempts at democratization had become public knowledge, a ten-member commission, named the Zook Commission after its head, George F. Zook, toured the American occupation zone between August and
September 1946 and submitted its report, the soReeducation under OMGUS called Zook Report, to the State Department on 21 The terms reeducation and its German translation Umerziehung refer to the idea of redefining the September 1946.206 This report was a “stock-taking“ of the work done by the American military “spiritual and cultural values of the German peogovernment of Germany in the education system ple“ during the American occupation.216 The goal since the occupation of Germany. From the study of reeducation was to “make clear to the Germans, results, the authors drew conclusions that they on an intellectual and emotional level, the underlyformulated as recommendations “for the future ing ideas, principles, and a ttitudes of democratic organization from the special perspective of recoexistence“.217 The usage was not clearly defined, 207 education“. so that we might understand democratization to It doesn’t come as a surprise that these educarefer to the goal and reeducation to refer to the tors found the actual causes of German fascism means of getting there. Through reeducation the primarily in the following shortcomings of the Ger(adult or young) student was to be convinced by man education system: in the traditionally twohis American teacher that the democratic way of track school system; in the way students had been life was the one to be preferred. The lost demoeducated to trust authority and the state unquescratic tradition in Germany was a starting point for tioningly; and in the lack of liberal teachers, of a this process, though a weak one. liberal education leading to a democratic way of The idea that the population of a conquered life, and of a democratic school system, with parstate can be led to a democratic attitude and to ent participation. 208 The Zook Report “marked the a liberal/democratic form of society by means of start of a drastic change“ 209 in the education syspedagogical measures is based on the Americans’ tem of the American zone, because its authors, unshakable faith that the world can be changed, in essence, proposed that the policy of penalizing on their trust in the effectiveness of human educathe Germans should be abandoned and instead tion and on “the conviction that human beings are cooperation between the Americans and the Gerperfectible“.218 The missionary idea was that the mans should be increased. All educational institu“victorious [American] nation wanted to show the tions were to be organized democratically and vanquished nation the way to a better political were to teach their students “to participate in a future“.219 democratic society”.210 Adult education, too, was to be more strongly integrated in democratization There are interpretations which point out that one measures. should “by no means […] assume that occupation In January 1947 OMGUS rewrote the recommenpolicy developed in a linear fashion in the direction dations of the Zook Committee as directives. 211 The of reeducation“ 220, for “the Americans [gave] abso job description of the education officers changed lute priority to economic unification, lowering correspondingly when the new Directive JCS 1779 costs, collaboration with France, a market econowas passed on 15 July 1947 212: “In comparison my, anticommunism, and the containment of the with the vague statements of JCS 1067 , and folSoviet Union“. 221 Possibly this is an exaggerated lowing the recommendations of the Zook Report, viewpoint and the representation of an artificial the new directive clearly formulated [the policy], alternative, for a democratic Germany was the sine including the guidelines regarding reeducation, qua non for an economically stable Germany, recin accordance with the wishes of the Americans onciliation with France, a Western European [who advocated] reconstruction.” 213 Reeducation accord, and finally a limit to far-reaching Soviet was now considered to be a factor in the democinfluence. Without a doubt, however, one cannot ratization of Germany on a par with other factors, make generalizations about American reeducabut in the months that followed it was also intion, because during the occupation period the creasingly used as an instrument of anticommumotives behind U.S. policy changed and the nism: From then on reeducation measures were to Americans pursued a wide range of interests that immunize the Germans not only against National determined their actions and political goals. Some Socialist, but also against Communist ideology.214 of these interests dominated their actions only at If these reforms of the education system were to times, as the example of denazification shows. As have a chance to succeed, they needed to be sup- we know, that was contingent on the mood of the ported out of conviction by the Germans them American public and on the c onfiguration of forselves, and not be forced. Moreover they needed eign policy decisions. No matter how important to be “an integral part of a general program of reeducation was for US policies regarding reedureform that included a fundamental change and cation and Germany, the Americans did not lose improvement of the basic economic conditions, sight of their interests. John Gimbel sees a demofor, after all, it was considered to be self-evident cratic Germany as only one goal among several. that political democracy is viable only where the He explains that the reason people had the im215 basic necessities of life are guaranteed.“ pression that the reeducation policy had prece-
53
Prehistory
54
dence is that “the Americans gave reasons for and justified the principles and methods that were obviously meant to help them achieve fundamental American objectives in highly idealistic terms. […] Hence the persistent belief that the realization of American ideals is the actual goal of occupation policy.“222 The main attention of reeducation was aimed at the German education system. 223 The (failed) reform of the school system was one of the most notable attempts to adapt American expertise as regards democracy to German circumstances: “Especially in American discussions during the war, the education system played a central part. Hitler had proved that the success of an ideology largely depended, among other things, on its acceptance by young people.“ 224 That was why a radical reform of the entire education system was considered to be the pivotal point in the democratization of Germany. Only if the young, “who, in the opinion of the Americans, had been especially vulnerable to National Socialist ideology, [could be] won for democracy”, Germany would continue to be a democratic, dependable, and peaceful state within the Western world. 225 Before the Zook Report had been restated, in the spring of 1947, as new directives, the OMGUS reeducation specialists had limited themselves largely to closing, reopening, and denazifying institutions of learning. Now, for the rest of 1947, they increased their efforts. In Directive JCS 1779 reeducation is described as one of the primary means of creating a democratic and peaceful Germany. One of the central statements reads as follows: “They will see to it that the authorities in the German Länder accept and implement education programs intended to develop a healthy democratic education system, in which every student according to his talent has the same opportunities.“ 226 Reeducation was to affect not only curricula, but also teaching methods and the organization of both individual teaching institutions and the entire system. But as early as 1948 the fundamental position was revised once more: Instead of giving the Germans orders, they were now expected to convince them. 227 Not until July 1948 did OMGUS try to coordinate the activities of all divisions that were involved in reeducation. 228 By this time, however, it was much too late for a fundamental reform of the institutions and curricula of the education system: “The initial élan was gone, and so was the receptivity of many Germans for new ideas and concepts“229 ; the old German universities seemed to have been transported back into the time before 1933. 230 A 1948 American study, in a tone of resignation, speaks of the same difficulties and challenges that educators had
been complaining of in vain for the last three years: “But the reform of German education involves much more than the elimination of Nazism; it involves the creation of a democratic philosophy of education, a democratic plan of school organization and democratic practices, because German education never was democratic. […] There was before Hitler and now is a sincere minority of German liberal educational leaders who have the democratic point of view. They are the people who have supplied for the most part the leadership in the school reform movement, which is making increasing teachers [sic] and shows real promise for the future. […] Perhaps the basic d ifficulty in the reform of German education is in the fact that the philosophy of German education is inconsistent with democratic principles. It is also inconsistent with modern educational psychology. Since real progress is dependent upon changes in the philosophy and psychology of teachers, this conflict might be regarded as a basic difficulty. A second basic difficulty is involved in the lack of interest or concern about research on the part of the typical German educator. As a result, there is little inclination to submit their philosophical assumptions and psychological beliefs to objective investigation.“231 These special difficulties were intensified still more by the ba sic tendency of many Germans “to put the blame for the desperate postwar situation exclusively on the victors. There was a widely held view that everything would quickly improve greatly if only the Germans could take their destinies in their own hands ag ain. […] Confidence in the Western occupying powers continued to decrease. While in September 1946, according to American surveys, 43 percent still felt that the Allies were promoting the reconstruction of Germany, in January 1948 only 30 percent of those surveyed expressed this view.“ 232 In addition to the reform of the education system, the Americans devoted themselves to reeducation with the help of a profusion of programs: policies regarding the press, radio, and information, control of theater and music, exchange programs, information about modern American culture and lifestyle, and organization of political events, discussions, exhibitions, and questionand-answer sessions. The lectures organized by Otl Aicher from August through December 1945 on the immediate past and on dealing with the near future were possible only because, so short a time after the war, the Americans urgently intended to inform the German population about the last years, confront them with National Socialist atrocities, and prevent possible feelings of resignation and apathy. At the same time, in the late summer of 1945, “a movement began to spread in the Western zones that, under the aegis of the ‘cultural renewal’ program, advocated those same vol-
untary ‘cultural changes’“. 233 To be sure, the concerns of this movement were basically diametrically opposed to the interests of the Americans. In the face of the enormity of the catastrophe that lay behind them, these zealous proponents of culture retreated to a past that was sublime beyond all doubt. Goethe, Beethoven, Hegel, and Luther were very popular when it came to creating undisputable values and symbols. Hand in hand with this went a retreat from politics, back to the “inner” values. But “that type of ‘cultural renewal’ was not what the Americans had in mind. For one, this German cultural movement turned primarily to the past and created nothing new itself, and secondly and more importantly, it was not able to create the synthesis between culture and politics that the Americans had propagated, pointing to their own form of society as an example. That synthesis was to take place roughly as follows: Politics, for citizens, would become part of their personal culture“234 – their retreat from politics as part of a cultural movement of inwardness was exactly the opposite of what the Americans wanted to happen in Germany. OMGUS had established local liaison offices throughout the entire occupation zone. On 26 August 1945, 49 officers and soldiers were working in Ulm; their number quickly dropped to 38 by 6 January 1946; only 8 were left on 30 June 1946, and finally, in June 1948, there were 5. 235 From the very beginning the local liaison officers looked for “contact on all levels to local functionaries“. 236 It is true that initially this contact was strictly limited to persons whose politics and character appeared reliable to the Americans. Only later did they expand the circle of those whose ad vice they listened to. Because of his past and his personality, Otl Aicher was one of the few in Württemberg who had access to the officers immediately after the American invasion, although he was not a functionary. 237 The Americans’ contact with individuals to whom they transferred responsibility was in line with the idea that priority should be given to supporting the cultural projects of individual persons. In American discussions, the image was frequently used that over the past years the Germans had suffered from an illness. Thus therapy required not only the patient’s insight but also his voluntary and active cooperation. However, the American cultural officers were also confident “that the Germans themselves would spontaneously set in motion a process of democratization and reform in education. Therefore it was strongly recommended to the US officers involved in reeducation that they take up and support what the Germans themselves proposed.“238 The example of the lectures organized by Otl Aicher shows that the projects of individual, politically irreproachable persons were ap-
proved. If it turned out that the project was in accordance with the American reeducation policy and accepted by the population, there were no obstructions to continuing support, as can be seen in the case of the promotion of the Ulm Adult Education Center. As early as 1945 one of the discussion topics was that in the reeducation process, the Americans would have to rely on projects by individuals: “The American conviction that after a phase of ‘management by non-Germans’ reeducation would have to be taken in hand by the Germans themselves for it to have a lasting and deeper effect was first formulated for education and the arts on 4 September 1945.“239 It was clear to the responsible specialists that they could only offer suggestions and that as far as content and structure went the reform of the educational system had to come from the Germans themselves. 240 Incidentally, reeducation was one of the few measures upon which all four victorious powers could initially agree. 241 In the case of Directive no. 54 of the Allied Control Council of 25 June 1947, a binding education directive for all zones was even passed.242 While it no longer affected the actual policy, the fact alone that it had been accomplished is quite amazing, for “it is common knowledge that the views of the victorious powers regarding the substance and nature of democratic ideas diverged significantly“.243 To many Germans, any form of publicly decreed education seemed to lack credibility, since not very long ago they had been exposed to years of state Nazi propaganda. Another reason they were suspicious of the American measures was that the Morgenthau Plan was notorious and had met with inner resistance, even though it had hardly any effect on reeducation. Besides, Germans considered themselves to be superior to the Americans where culture was concerned (less so when it came to economic and technological, or political matters): “Only one out of three teenagers a nd, as it says in a report, even fewer adults were of the opinion that the Germans could learn very much from the Americans in the realm of education.“ 244 It is not surprising, then, that as early as March 1946 the general feeling was, “We’re sick and tired of anything that smacks of ‘education’ (or ‘reeducation’, for that matter).“ 245 Furthermore, reeducation had to struggle with a serious dilemma: Democracy had to be put into effect by a military government, in other words by means of methods that included compulsion or were sometimes undemocratic. The risk was that tolerance – typical for a democracy – would be reduced to absurdity. Also many Germans initially appeared to have become involved in reeducation not from a genuine interest, but only because they had the impression that the military government had ordered the population to participate in partic-
55
Prehistory
56
ular programs. OMGUS was only making a virtue of necessity when it concentrated on promoting the projects of individual Germans, referred to as a “Munchhausen trick”: “Through their own reeducation they were to grab themselves by the hair and pull themselves from the bog of National Socialism.“246 But there was still the fundamental contradiction: The military government gave with one hand what it took back with the other. A wellknown example is the revocation of Hans Werner Richter’s and Alfred Andersch’s publishing license for their periodical Der Ruf : “The goal of practicing democracy in public political debate presupposed the possibility of free speech. In principle Germans certainly were granted free speech, but this freedom was at the same time considerably curtailed: Those who dared to go too far in their critique of Allied policies risked losing their allotment of paper or at the very least risked having it curtailed. For the time being, democratic freedoms continued to be administered in careful d oses.“ 247 Zero-hour literature, Hans Werner Richter
One of the lecturers at the Ulm Adult Education Center248 was Hans Werner Richter. He will be remembered in postwar history as a political publicist and literary figure. Together with Alfred Andersch, from August 1946 until April 1947, he published the periodical Der Ruf – unabhängige Blätter der jungen Generation (The Call – Independent Paper of the Young Generation), whose objectives were primarily political and only secondarily literary. 249 Like the new foundation of the Ulm Adult Education Center, Der Ruf is another outstanding example of the atmosphere of change that characterized cultural life “particularly in the first years after the war“ and that “was an expression of a new – albeit often vague – political consciousness“. 250 Hans Werner Richter and Alfred Andersch condensed it into the unconventional political concept that in the future a humanistic socialism must find acceptance, an ideology based on the freedom of the individual: “strict opposition to the political and pedagogical mistakes of the occupying powers, use of criticism as a democratic weapon, a declaration of belief in a radical interpretation of democracy that in its yearning for freedom reached the utmost limits of individualism“. 251 They vehemently rejected traditional orthodox Marxism as op-posed to “socialism with a human face” (Alfred Andersch) that a new European elite was to create. At zero hour , one of the most widely used contemporary metaphors for the end of the war, all Germans saw the balance sheet of the past twelve years of despotism. In the face of the ruined cities and a society whose values and points of reference had been destroyed, the intellectuals had hoped that at zero hour the Germans would have
the strength for moral change and a radical renewal: “The moral, intellectual , and ethical heap of rubble that a truly ‘lost’ generation has left behind for them [for the young generation; author’s note] has been growing until it is insurmountable and appears to be larger than the one visible in reality. […] At the sight of it any possibility of establishing a link to the past, any attempt to start where an older generation left off in 1933 when it abandoned its continuous course of development to capitulate in the face of an irrational adventure, seems like a paradox. Today the younger generation feels that the only way out of the distorted view of life, the violent experiences they endured and were shaken by, appears to be spiritual rebirth by beginning, absolutely and rad ically, all over again.“ 252 Landscapes covered with rubble – the outward appearance of Germany – and a society produced by the breakdown – its inner image: This was the tabula rasa (another metaphor frequently used to characterize the situation). Germany, says one author, has reached rock bottom in every respect, and the point where “existence starts, is also where literature starts“. 253 From this point on, free from all burdens now that everything had been destroyed, there opened up the rare opportunity for a fresh start for Germany, a chance to develop into a country of freedom, humanism, science, culture, truth, and peace. All mistakes made in the past which had led to the catastrophe of National Socialism could now be corrected, the Germans could finally learn from history, could establish connecting links with the weak liberal and democratic traditions of the German past and critically question the motivation of all actions, while servility, faith in a uthority, unquestioning obedience to authority figures, militarism, and antisemitism must be eradicated once and for all. Many intellectuals who were published in Der Ruf or in Frankfurter Hefte hoped that Germany would find and follow the third way, that of a truly socialist democracy, between the two unloved superpowers. The fact that people abroad accused Germany and set themselves up as judges felt like a hypocritical diversion tactic to Hans Werner Richter and many other writers, meant to salve their own bad conscience, because for all those years the many reports by exiles and refugees that warned and asked for help had not been taken seriously. As Richter saw it, the Allies were to blame for not having intervened earlier against their own better judgment. If they now condemned the Germans with their thesis of the collective guilt of all Germans, there was the threat of meting out revenge instead of justice. Instead of lumping all Germans together with a conqueror’s arrogance and audacity, Hans Werner Richter de-
manded, the Allies should punish the guilty for their personal failure and for the crimes they had actually committed so that they would be ab le to have insight into their behavior. Der Ruf took a political position, in which “leftwing Catholic, reform socialist and critical liberal“ movements shared the common viewpoint "that with the Third Reich fascism, the traditional middle-class social order, and the capitalist form of production had been destroyed and must now be replaced by new, more humane forms.” Hans Werner Richter shared his reflections not only with many intellectuals 254 , but, as we have seen, with the founders of the Ulm Adult Education Center. But the members of the Ulm circle are the last people who can be accused of standing by and doing nothing, something most of the other spokespersons of “rock-bottom ( Nullpunkt ) thinking“255 were blamed for: “The existentially tinged, pompous image of a radical start from scratch often lifts the concepts of zero hour out of their actual social connections. The actual conditions under which actions take place and the interests of contemporaries are left behind; concepts move in the ahistorical space of what is universally human, calling for a ‘new mankind’. Hardly ever is there an attempt to connect concepts with present-day reality.“ 256 Here, the working teams at the Ulm Adult Education Center were an exception. From the very start, Der Ruf had been conducting a discussion about the renewal and reopening of the universities, from which, it was hoped, a spiritually reoriented elite would emerge within a few years to be the cornerstone of a new society. “It was everyone’s fondest hope that a renewed German university could at least help to show the way out of the omnipresent cultural and social plight; its reformed teachings could become the determining Zeitgeist of tomorrow and help shape an attitude of mind in future politicians, teachers, priests and clergy, and many p arents that would make it impossible for the past ever to be repeated again.“ 257 Karl Jaspers had started discussions when, in his keynote address at the opening of Heidelberg University’s school of medicine on 15 August 1945 he developed “the idea of a university whose objective was once again a ‘whole person’, a universally educated person“. 258 He published papers on the topic in Der Ruf as well, emphasizing that it was necessary to “take back the university to the original universitas litterarum , a university that represented universality“ 259 – an idea that Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher had of course been pursuing in the Ulm Adult Education Center. However, among students there was as little interest in reforms as among university teachers and among the officials of the ministries for education and the arts. What happened was that “the col-
leges and universities were revived following Weimar-period models“.260 One indication of the mood among students is the fact that on 2 November 1946 no more than 50 out of 7,000 registered students in Munich remembered the victims of the student resistance movement at a commemoration ceremony in the great hall of the Ludwig Maximilian University. 261 That is why Der Ruf demanded that middle-class students, “who so obtrusively [determined] the anachronistic scene at German universities“262, must be roused from their a pathy through competition, as young people from other classes of society were given access to the institutions of higher learning. At least temporarily, the article suggested, the Abitur should no longer be used as a university entrance requirement. But nothing at all was done along the lines of these reflections. In November 1946 Nikolaus Sombart noted with resignation that “German universities had gone back to the ‘old outdated models’“. In issue no. 12, February 1947, the editors of Der Ruf had “anachronistic hopes” that socialist counteruniversities would be founded 263 – a reference to the fact that Hans Werner Richter was willing to assist in founding an educational institution in which his sociopolitical ideas could be turned into a reality. The first issue of Der Ruf was published on 15 August 1946; there was a new issue every fortnight until 1 April 1947, a total of 16. Starting with issue no. 4 more than 100,000 copies were sold. With their mistrust of parties and ideologies, their own characteristic views regarding the form of the future economy and reparations, the authors of Der Ruf followed no party line. They criticized the Western Allies’ thesis of the collective guilt of the Germans and the “hypocritical undertones and contradictions of the American democratization program“264 , and also criticized “the socialist practices of the Russian military government’s dogmatic Marxism“265 . When, on 1 April 1947, Hans Werner Richter published “one of his sharpest attacks on the American occupation policy“ 266 and accused it of being primarily concerned with restoring the economy, the Information Control Division of the military government shortly thereafter temporarily withdrew Der Ruf ’ s publication license. 267 This ban has been condemned in the literature as a shortsighted subordination of the democratization program to the politics of the day, because the political tendency of Der Ruf had not changed since the first issue. 268 Again, in September 1947 Hans Werner Richter was denied permission to publish a new satiricalliterary magazine Der Skorpion, a successor of Der Ruf . "What was to be done with the many fine articles that no one would now get to read? Then a simple solution occurred to Richter: Why, the au-
57
Prehistory
58
thors could read their articles aloud to each other and then talk about them. The meeting, which Richter improvised rather than actually organized, was, as literary histories tell us, the ‘birth’ of ‘Gruppe 47’.“ 269 Subsequently, thanks to the organizational talent of Hans Werner Richter, Gruppe 47, considered “until its end in 1967 ‘the literary center of the avant-garde of those years’“, came into being.270 It should not come as a surprise that fifteen years later Hans Werner Richter set great store by the fact that it was not literary figures who had created a group so important for postwar German literature, “but rather politically committed journalists with literary ambitions“. 271 The members of Gruppe 47 also identified with the tradition of “zero-level” thinking. The emotional impact of a fresh start, of the zero hour, was part of “the liberal tradition that believed in human freedom of decision and action and in choice free from repression, led by reason.“ 272 In 1947 every one of these parameters was sadly restricted, and that is what constituted the challenging fascination, but also the hopeful naiveté of this utopia. The “third alternative”273 they dreamed about continues to be one of the biggest and longest-lasting sociopolitical illusions of the postwar period, and with the help of the Gruppe 47 forum it went on long after it was first formulated. Regarding the idea of a European humanistic elite, Hans Werner Richter in a brief summary said that he and the members of Gruppe 47 had started with the idea that before there was a democratization of German society, a “democratic elite needed to form in the area of literature and journalism”: “Their basic concept was that a democratic ‘elite’ would be formed. Their assumption was that democracy is a method of human social life that is most difficult to put into p ractice. […] First the teachers, then those they would teach; first the formation of democratic elites, then the reeducation of the masses. They believed that democratic thinking could only be passed d own from above to those below, not from below to those above, and especially not if people again felt subservient – this time toward the occupying powers.“274 This view was also advocated from the first plans for a Hans and Sophie Scholl College in the beginning of 1950 until the pedagogical rough draft for the HfG. Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher never denied, on the contrary, they defended as a conviction the fact that high educational standards depend on rigorous selection and a favorable faculty-student ratio. 275 Six weeks after their first meeting Gruppe 47 met on Saturday, 8 November 1947 and Sunday, 9 November 1947, in Herrlingen near Ulm. 276 The 17 participants included Inge Scholl. On Sunday eve-
ning her father, the mayor, invited the writers to dinner “in the town hall of the half-ruined city of Ulm, a building towering solitary above a wasteland of rubble“ 277. After the meal Alfred Andersch read his essay Literatur in der Entscheidung (Literature in the balance), the only essay ever read aloud to Gruppe 47. 278 Because the original reason for the meetings was to prepare Skorpion as the successor publication of Der Ruf , the hundred copies of the trial issue were distributed on these two days. 279 Gruppe 47 became the authority among critical voices warning that a historical opportunity had been missed. Its members saw themselves in a Federal Republic that had not had the courage to make a new beginning, but had instead chosen to continue questionable traditions, and they viewed the development of their society in the light of the dictum that “restoration [was] characteristic of the times” (Walter Dirks). In spite of everything, in spite of congenital defects and failings a nd the oppressive claustrophobia of the Adenauer era that made their life in the Federal Republic so unbearable, they felt they were the conscience of the nation and pointedly clung to the unrealized potentials of their zero hour. Studio zero , old and new universities
The merger of the three western occupation zones had been prepared by the agreement between the American Secretary of State and the British Foreign Secretary, on 2 December 1946, to establish the British-American Zone. 280 Half a year later, on 5 June 1947, the American Secretary of State, George Marshall, in a speech at Harvard University, discussed the essential features of the Mar shall Plan that were named after him. 281 Foreign policy after the beginning of the Cold War began to take to task the democratic reform of German society because Germany would now need to be tied to the West permanently and firmly in order to “strengthen the Western alliance in a possible confrontation with the Soviet Union and to prevent a return to circumstances between the wars. This meant that from the U.S. perspective a German seesaw policy or the neutralization of Germany that could only end in Soviet dominance had to be ruled out on principle.“ 282 On 3 April 1948, American President Harry S. Truman signed the Foreign Assistance Act, after which financial aid flowed to Germany via the Economic Commission Administration (ECA). Otl Aicher, Inge Scholl, and several of their friends who had already made their appearance when the Adult Education Center was founded – including Helga and Herbert Wiegandt, Elisabeth Scholl, her husband Fritz Hartnagel, Herbert Hohenemser – met in 1948 “in a small group, perhaps once a month, and discussed texts by individual
participants“.283 There are grounds for the assumption that the experiences of Gruppe 47 had occasioned this unusual type of private meetings. The group called itself Studio Null (Studio Zero).
because as early as February 1947 Der Ruf had expressed a demand that new institutions of higher learning should be founded and take a stand against the tendency to serve up a mere rehash of the old institutions. One other detail is remarkable because it played a role in the early planning stages of the HfG: Otl Aicher already had his eye on a site for the new school, the former Wehrmacht fort on Kuhberg, a short distance outside Ulm. Only Max Bill’s energetic protest made him change his mind about his intention to use the site and what was left of the building as the core of a new college, creating something new from the old.–
At least two sources document this group. One, probably the earlier of the two, emphasizes the “legacy of Hans and Sophie Scholl and their group“: “Studio Zero is simply an attempt to erect a completely new, better structure on the cleared site after the Scholls’ first objective, the elimination of despotism in Germany, has been achieved.“ 284 The tenor of the text is very general, and is worded as an appeal. Otl Aicher, Inge Scholl, and Herbert Hohenemser, in the face of “economic hardship This first tangible attempt by Inge Scholl and Otl and renewed flare-ups of nationalist and cultural Aicher to extend the sphere of activity of the Adult reaction“, aimed to fight against the growing resEducation Center institutionally failed as a result of ignation they observed in their fellow men. They the Allied currency reform on Monday, 21 June wanted to grasp the “positive opportunities of this 1948: “The devaluation thwarted [their] plans.“ 287 era”, translate new proposals into action, boost the No further details are known about this. Presumcourage of like-minded contemporaries with their ably the problems the adult education center energetic example, and not give way without a encountered because of Operation Dog first had struggle to the forces who believed in restoring old to be solved before it was possible to consider a models. This unpublished appeal gives some indisecond educational institution. Now what little cation of the Ulm mentality, their resistance to a money people had became valuable, because general disillusionment among German intellectuthey could use it to buy goods they had had to als in all areas of culture: “The initial optimism – do without for such a long time. Who could spare even though not really well developed – soon money for education if they could get butter for it? turns to resignation. The scope of action, which The adult education center lost 800 students, and people felt was there only recently, seems to have had to cope with the devaluation of its reserve disappeared again.“285 funds.288 The second document is dated 16 August 1948. The Soviet government reacted to the currency This is about a concrete concern: the setting up of reform in its own way: With the beginning of the an “educational institute”, a “cultural center” that is blockade of Berlin on 24 June 1948 it intensified to be called the new school . 286 An idea that had the East-West conflict. already made its appearance in Gruppe 47 around Hans Werner Richter served as the starting point The American educators who wanted to reform for the plans: Democracy, it was felt, could only German colleges and universities under the aegis become a form of government in Germany, and of OMGUS found fault with many factors that in over and above this, a way of life if it was not contheir view contributed to these institutions not structed from the top down as was happening at breaking with the state of affairs they had inherited the moment; rather, “a democracy […] must start from the Weimar Republic: c onservative profeswith the common people. Democracy is only gensors who yearned for the past; the world and the uine if it implies the self-government of the peoperspective of the ivory tower (i.e. distance from ple.“ The school would devote itself to “dealing reality and from practical experience); the numeriwith practical problems“, since this would be a cal weakness and lack of importance of the social way of awakening political consciousness, which sciences; overspecialization, and an emphasis on would “get rid of servility and give people confipurely technical competence; oligarchic rule of full dence in their own initiative“. Its scope was to inprofessors in the university senate; the isolation of clude four stages; the first two (technical college, students, and the distance between students and the natural sciences) were to deal with the world, faculty. At any rate, by the summer semester of while the last two (general education: from philos- 1947 as many as 77,507 students were registered ophy to art; culture, understood as a process of in Germany. For the most part they studied under formation and education) were to focus on the inadequate conditions:The buildings were in ruins individual. There was no attempt to deny the simor damaged; there was a total lack of student ilarity to the work of adult education. housing; while there was a general shortage of It is not certain whether Hans Werner Richter teachers, and many of those who did teach were was involved in this project. At the very least the superannuated to boot, there were too many sturesemblance to his ideas is striking, especially dents.289
59
Prehistory
Exposés for a Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule (Hans and Sophie Scholl College) 1949–1950
D at e
60
The report of the Zook Commission had already been the topic of discussions in June 1946 during the Marburger Hochschulgespräche (Marburg Discussions about Higher Education), and in November 1946 at the first gathering of university presidents of the American Zone, in Heidelberg. The modernization of curricula, changes in the student body, and the democratization of universities continued to be topics that had timeless relevance. Nothing could change that fact, not even the study commission for university reform in Hamburg – i.e., in the British Zone – which presented its expert opinion on university reform, the so-called Blaues Gutachten (Blue Report) in 1948. 290 While this summary of 95 recommendations triggered violent debates, the reform of the educational system continued to be a burden that the military government passed on to its successor, the High Commissioner’s department, for that agency to deal with in the years to come: “The founding of the Freie Universität Berlin (Free University of Berlin), the outstanding example of American university policy, should thus not be mistaken for an especially active overall university policy by OMGUS.“ 291 Reorientation with HICOG The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany was proclaimed on 23 May 1949, and took effect on the next day. A few weeks later, on 1 July 1949, John J. McCloy arrived in Germany to become the military governor, and soon thereafter took office as the American high commissioner. 292 John McCloy, married to the German American Ellen Zinsser (a distant relative of Konrad Adenauer – her grandfather had emigrated from Germany in 1848), was a man who believed in balance, personal dialogue, and mediation; not least he was a friend of Germany and an authority on European culture. He had studied at Amherst College, had gotten to know Germany in 1919 as a soldier of the Allied occupying forces, graduated from Harvard University Law School, and, since 1921, he had been practicing law on Wall Street. As a partner in a law firm he had spent 1930/31 in Paris and had then commuted between New York and many European countries until the outbreak of World War II. Because of the knowledge he had gained in the process, particularly of the German military and espionage system, he was appointed undersecretary of state in the Defense Department in 1941. In February 1947 he rose to the rank of the president of the World Bank. In July 1949 he resigned this post when US President Harry S. Truman asked him to become the first high commissioner in Germany. From the start John McCloy felt his function was to convince, not to dictate. 293 In the hotel on Petersberg, the seat of the Allied High Commission high above the Rhine, he and his
British and French colleagues, Sir Brian Robertson and André François-Poncet, handed the Occupation Statute to Konrad Adenauer, who accepted it as the Federal Chancellor of the civil government coalition elected on 14 August 1949. 294 At 12:15 p.m. authority for the American Zone p assed over from the US Department of Defense to the Department of State and thus from OMGUS to HICOG (High Commission for Germany). At the end of 1948 OMGUS organized a conference that partially initiated the transfer of authority to its successor institution HICOG. At this conference, which met in Berchtesgaden from 7 through 12 October 1848, representatives of the Education and Cultural Relations Division discussed the future of their reeducation program – and it was already obvious that this future was not in the hands of OMGUS. They arrived at ten general principles. These included a reemphasis of the idea that the reform could be carried out only by the Germans: “Education must not restrict itself to the cultural heritage of the past, but must also include teaching social behaviors. […] Instead of promoting a structural reform, as it had until then, the education program was to focus more strongly on intellectual, moral and spiritual renewal.“ 295 Finally, expressions such as reeducation (Umerziehung), which could be misunderstood and had no credit among Germans, were to be avoided: „In the days of OMGUS (military government) the objective was generally referred to as reeducation […]. The word had an arrogant and slightly naive ring to it. Under HICOG (high commission) it became ‘reorientation‘. It was more than a change of label. Reorientation terminated political and educational reform by military fiat. It not only permitted b ut called for the participation of men and women, and particularly of youth, throughout the whole spectrum of German society.“296 The directive of the Department of State to John McCloy of 17 November 1949 formed the basis of American policy in the Federal Republic; it remained in force until the Bonn Convention was signed in May of 1952 and superseded Directive JCS 1779. The objective continued to be the democratization of German society, but circumstances had changed.297 The new concept of reorientation suggested that the original, overly ambitious standards had been given up in favor of moderate and unpretentious expectations. Nonetheless what was important for the Americans was the whole person, a new attitude: “‘The reorientation of the German people towards democracy is the basic purpose of your government’s efforts to help develop and strengthen democratic government in Germany and to prepare the integration of Germany in the European community of nations‘. […] The new policy – ‘to advise and assist the German
8. Dec. 1949
Dec. 1949
Dec. 1949
4/26 Jan. 1950 Feb. 1950
20 March 1950 31 March 1950 April 1950 May 1950
May 1950
Spring 1950 2 May 1950 8 May 1950 12 July 1950 1 August 1950
7 August 1950 1950 1950 1950 1950
30 Sept. 1950
T it le
Die Ulmer Volkshochschule gilt als eine der besten Volkshochschulen in Deutschland [The Ulm Adult Education Center is considered to be one of the best adult education centers in Germany] Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung zur Errichtung einer Geschwister-Scholl-Schule [Hans and Sophie Scholl Foundation to establish a Hans and Sophie Scholl College] Exposé zur Gründung einer Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule (Arbeitstitel) [Exposé to found a Hans and Sophie Scholl College (working title)] Geschwister Scholl Hochschule [the yellow program] Geschwister Scholl Hochschule An active school for science, art and politics in Germany (a project) Geschwister Scholl Hochschule Geschwister Scholl Hochschule Geschwister Scholl Hochschule Entwurf Anhang zum Ausbildungsprogramm Beantwortung der Fragen von John P.Steiner [Draft Appendix of the educational program Response to John P. Steiner’s questions] Wie kann die Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule beim Aufbau eines freien demokratischen Volkes mithelfen? [How can the Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule help build a free democratic nation?] Suggested report for proposed Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule Geschwister Scholl Hochschule/Ulm Graduate School of Design Geschwister Scholl Hochschule (engl.) [incl. Ausgangspunkt/point of departure] Geschwister Scholl Hochschule [handwritten version incl. 3 diagrams] Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule Vorentwurf des Antrags an HICOM [!] [preliminary draft of application to HICOG] Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule Was will die Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule? [What does the Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule want?] Entwurf zu einem Exposé für das Forschungsinstitut [Draft for a Exposé for the research institute] Wissenschaftliche Arbeit an der Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule [Scientific work at the Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule] Merkblatt Auf welche Weise kann der Aufbau der Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschuleunterstützt werden? [Note How can the organization process of the Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule be supported?] Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule Entwurf für Werbebroschüre [Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule sketch for a promotional brochure]
people with respect to democratization‘ – by no means meant that the original objective had b een abandoned. McCloy fully agreed with this view and at the beginning of 1950 argued that now that the Federal Republic had been founded, in view of the East-West conflict, ‘a reorientation of the German mentality (mind) was necessary’.“ 298 To achieve this goal HICOG directed its efforts largely toward implementing political, social, and educational projects together with German forces for reform. These projects were to prevent the authoritarian, hierarchical social order of the German Empire and the Weimar Republic from finding a foothold in Germany once more. It was not yet possible to tell how lasting the first democratic beginnings would be; there was widespread doubt. – In the Occupation Statute matters related to education were not included in the reserved rights of the Allies: They became the sole responsibility of the Germans. In section 3 the Allies made a vaguely worded proviso: “The occupation authorities, however, reserve the right, acting under instructions of their governments, to resume, in whole or in par t, the exercise of full authority if they consider that to do so is essential to security or to preserve democratic government in Germany or in pursuance of the international obligations of their governments. Before so doing they will formally advise the appropriate German authorities of their decision and the reasons therefore.“ 299 Since the path to the legislative competences was thus blocked, HICOG could succeed in changing anything in the German educational system only by convincing the German authorities. HICOG consisted of eight agencies: one each for economic, political, public, and employmentrelated matters, and a legal affairs department; there was also the military security council, news service, and administration; and finally, the office of the managing secretary and the liaison office that maintained contact with the kreis resident officers. At the end of 1950 HICOG employed just under 900 Americans and 2300 Germans in its Frankfurt am Main headquarters; the total figure for Germany was around 1400 Americans and 6200 Germans. The majority of the German employees (1500) worked in the administration. 300 It was not only the structures of OMGUS and of HICOG that were different; official channels also differed considerably. OMGUS had primarily been a military organization, official channels took a long time, its way of w orking was cumbersome, and the bottlenecks were narrow. HICOG, on the other hand, was primarily a civilian organization with informal communication channels. Of the agencies in operation, the Office of Public Affairs was the largest with 142 American and 3345 German employees (at the end of 1950). It consisted of the following divisions: information services,
61
Prehistory
62
press and publications, HICOG publications, radio, film, exchange programs, education and cultural relations, community activities, American cultural institutes, government institutions, publicity. 301 From 1950 on, Inge Scholl’s proposal, discussed in detail below, was handled by the education and cultural relations division 302 , whose staff, in 1950–53, was very involved in supporting the Freie Universität Berlin (Free University of Berlin). During this period it received DM 7 million, almost half of the regular budget of the education branch.303 Its other responsibilities were
editor of the Sunday edition of the New York Times . In the fall of 1949, John McCloy wooed him away from this job; originally Shepard Stone was supposed to come to Germany for only three months. He was keenly interested in the issues of youth and media in the young Federal Republic, was very familiar with Germany and its culture, knew both the people and their mentality, counted among his friends influential personalities, intellectuals, and politicians, kept in contact with them, particularly those who were to the left of Adenauer. “McCloy and Stone quickly grew together into a highly efficient team. From then on, Stone’s to improve the quality of student life (student […] function was to be a close adviser to McCloy dormitories, student centers, job opportunities as well as his press secretary and media policy during semester breaks, student organizing in adviser, who had a considerable number of perthe general student council and in the student sonnel at his disposal.“ 306. administration); In August 1949 Dr. Alonzo Grace, later the first to improve relations between students and prohead of the HICOG division for education and culfessors (pilot projects, exchange program); tural relations, invited the West German university to introduce the study of political and social presidents to a conference in Bad Nauheim. He science in university curricula (in particular, sup- inquired as to the most pressing problems of the port for the Hochschule für Arbeit, Politik und universities and was told that there was a particuWirtschaft (University for Work, Politics, and lar shortage of student dormitories and a ssembly Economics) in Wilhelmshaven); rooms, scholarship funds, and exchange programs to spread the study of liberal arts at the univerwith institutions abroad. In the opinion of the sities: “The recent movement to educate man, president of Munich University at least 60 pernot merely as a professionally trained expert but cent of the 120,000 students lived in completely also as a cultured human being, is worldwide in unhealthy conditions, lacking clothing and food, scope but has particular significance for Germa- social contacts, and common rooms. Small groups ny. As has already been pointed out, the specialof reactionary student associations were trying to ized nature of German universities and course turn back the clock and reestablish traditional offerings did not encourage a broad underideas of isolated, antiquated, and anti-democratic standing of the problems of society or a deep organizations; moreover, East German propagansocial concern on the parts of the professors da accused West Germany of neglecting its stuand students“ 304 ; dents.307 to promote the study of American culture, lanJohn McCloy was impressed by this statement guage, and history. when he spoke to West German university presidents in Heidelberg on 4 November 1949. He These were the functions covered by the ordinary would try to raise money for dormitories and stubudget. In addition the division also took ca re of dent centers, he promised. This was the start of special projects that were not financed out of this the special projects program, and its first project budget but from the special projects fund. Support was the HfG: “When the high commissioner had for the HfG was one of these. ascertained that such capital expenditures were After a short term when Ralph Nicholson headed legally possible, he became enthusiastic; and, in the Office of Public Affairs, Shepard Stone became subsequent discussions with his staff, his original its deputy head at the end of 1949; after a few idea was broadened to include the possibility of months, he replaced Ralph Nicholson. grants for projects such as community centers and Shepard Stone, a graduate of Dartmouth Colyouth hostels. A general program aimed especially lege, had studied at the Friedrich-Wilhelm s-Uniat helping youth was soon visualized. DM 50 milversität in Berlin from 1929 until 1933; among oth- lion from GARIOA (Government and Relief in Ocers, he attended lectures by Theodor Heuss, and cupied Areas) counterpart funds and $1 million in mid-January 1933 received his doctorate after from funds which had been appropriated but not working with Hermann Oncken. 305 In Berlin he also committed were set aside. In order to find out married a German woman. As an American soldier more precisely what need there was for such he landed in Normandy and, for a brief period in expenditure in West Germany, the high commis1945, was given the job of licensing the first sioner asked John H. Boxer of the Office of Public newspapers in the OMGUS district information Affairs to make a survey at the beginning of Januservices command. Finally he worked as a deputy ary 1950.“308
John McCloy called together two more conferread as though Inge Scholl were carrying coals to ences in late 1949, where the agenda was the Newcastle, unwittingly of course. To an extraordilong-term objectives of American policy and their nary degree, the project that Inge Scholl presented implementation in Germany. On 12 and 13 Januin the weeks that followed satisfied the American ary1949 the kreis liaison officers met in Frankfurt. ideas of democratization that had been fostered John McCloy and Shepard Stone spoke to them and constantly promoted in past years, but hardly and emphasized how important they felt it was to translated into action. For that very reason alone win over the young to democracy in order to perthe Ulm project was a great exception: The school manently reform social structures. 309 – Also in that was being planned would bring politics into December a meeting of HICOG staff members was everyday life, teach democracy, provide a home, scheduled in Bad Nauheim to address education like an American college, to an international comand reorientation issues. A catalogue of 57 points munity of teachers and students, develop a model summarized the results of this conference as the of an academic institution that in terms of German objectives of the new HICOG education program; circumstances was completely reformed, devote 39 of these dealt with general elementary and itself intensively to social sciences and public secondary school education (“equalizing educaopinion research, participate in exploring the mass tional opportunities“, “democratizing the school media, information and the presentation of this structure“, “democratizing school administration“, information.– No matter which entry point you “broadening participation in school affairs“, “socialpicked, Inge Scholl and her friends were battering izing and enriching the curriculum“, “improving doors that were already open. While in the rest of learning materials, methods of instruction and Germany the Americans had doors slammed in guidance“, “adapting the schools to changing con- their faces whenever they spoke of a reform of ditions“), while another 18 were related to the unieducational institutions and curricula, in Ulm the versities and the training of teachers. embodiment of the American politico-educational These last 18 objectives included the following: ideal suddenly appeared on the horizon. While ensuring that students represented a broader sothere was widespread resignation because every0cial base, developing existing universities, creatwhere else there seemed to be a return to the old ing new institutions, greater flexibility of the eduorder, in Ulm a small group tried with great vigor cational system, scholarships, and support for gift- and a lot of commitment not to build on the same ed low-income students by the state and by priold past but to create something new at a time vate institutions and sponsors. 310 These points when there was a feeling that “the Germans were were not new by any means, they’d been around beginning to lose their receptiveness or had alfor years, and thus the outline documents one ready lost it“. 312 aspect of the continuity of American politics. All participants agreed that “the education program Max Bill was just as important for democratic renewal Hardly had the Ulm Adult Education Center opened toward creating a peace loving Germany as ecowhen, in May 1946, a special issue of the monthly nomic reconstruction. The heart of this program journal Werk , the mouthpiece of the Bund Schwei zer Architekten (Association of Swiss Architects), […] must be the creation of social structures that would cause people to reject a slavish trust in the Swiss Werkbund , and the Schweizerischer Kunstverein (Swiss Society for the Promotion of authority and in the state, and the promotion of individual abilities within the framework of a Fine Arts) published an issue devoted exclusively responsible education toward social community. It to “design in industry“. 313 The issue included a dewas imperative to support existing attempts at tailed report by Egidius Streiff about design in 311 Swiss industry ; Sigfried Giedion wrote about reform.“ streamlined style and industrial design in the US , It was precisely at this point, on 8 December 1949, that Inge Scholl wrote her first letter to and almost at the end a designer summed up, in Shepard Stone asking him to help her with the less than three pages, his experiences designing industrial products . The author of this article was founding of a new reform-oriented school that she and her friends were planning. The school, she the Swiss Max Bill, born in 1908, a student of the wrote, would be a liberal and modern adult educa- Bauhaus, architect, sculptor, painter, publicist, and tion center for young people and was intended to designer of exhibitions that dealt with the conneccounter the danger of renazification in Germany. tion of architecture, consumer goods, and daily Perhaps, she suggested, Stone was surprised that life. Among other things, he had been responsible a school of all places would take on such a task, for the Swiss pavilion for the 1936 Milan Triennale. but education, she felt, really did offer enormous In the front section of the issue there was a picopportunities. ture of the travel typewriter Max Bill had designed. If one looks at the train of thought being purHe explained his basic requirements regarding the sued in Shepard Stone’s very agency, these lines design of any industrially manufactured product
63
Prehistory
64
and how he applied these in designing the “body” of this particular typewriter. He wanted the object to be functional and in keeping with the material used; the products should be “not only technically correct and ‘beautiful’ according to some unmonitored taste”. The person who commissioned the project would have been happy to get a stylish streamlined form, but for Max Bill that was “out of the question, for all American toasters, cars, refrigerators, and kitchen appliances […] are forms superimposed on the mechanism that have precious little connection with what’s inside, a fashionably elegant extra, intended just for the season, that’s all“. These economical objections – that the design should not soon become obsolete again – convinced the customer, writes Bill, while he did not voice his “artistic and moral scruples“. With this and two other examples Max Bill showed his somber determination to “do what was most simple”. In the meantime his relationship to his Bauhaus experiences had become ambivalent, for “all that we valued as pure functionalism, what was then dubbed ‘technical style’” had in the meantime moved “far into the background [of his work], though without losing its fundamental importance. The primary interest, however, was in the aesthetic design of a functional form, or, perhaps even more to the point, in the design of a form that was not antifunctional, but as practical and as beautiful as possible. These are questions that have to do with experience and judgment, it’s a matter of tracing a harmonic curve, of balancing proportion and volume exactly, and these are just as important as pure function.“ At the same time Max Bill did not want to lose sight of his “social postulate“ that even the cheapest model of a hairbrush was to be technologically satisfactory and “beautiful and reasonably priced“. Otl Aicher reacted to the ar ticle with great interest and contacted Max Bill, for at the Ulm Adult Education Center there was also a team that was dealing with product design: “From the very beginning the VH [Adult Education Center] course offering had set store by practical design, based on the conviction that the design of articles in daily use needed to be improved in order to improve the taste of the uneducated public“. 314 But Inge Scholl’s and Otl Aicher’s first personal contact with Max Bill did not take place until two years later: When a delegation from the Ulm Adult Education Center traveled to attend a course for adult education teachers in Switzerland in May of 1948, Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher tried to engage Max Bill as a guest lecturer. 315 Shortly before, in March 1948, another article by Max Bill, this time on exhibition design, had appeared316; six months later, on 23 and 24 October 1948, the Swiss Werkbund held its yearly meeting in Basel and Max Bill addressed the plenary session on the topic of Beauty gener-
ated by function and as function .317 In his lecture
Design, “from pins to household furniture”, “in
Max Bill combined three concerns. Firstly, he presented his notion of design: “Almost in vain we look for the simple, functional, and beautiful chair, beautiful china, functional and generally usable door handle, the functional and beautiful lamp.“ He was not trying, he wrote, to justify the search for new forms and modes of expression after the fact as social responsibility. Nothing had ever been created merely out of a sense of social and moral responsibility. Concentrating on function alone was also no help in trying to achieve the “fusion of engineerlike rationalism and constructive beauty”: It was precisely in technology, “where functions are revealed in their purest form“, that forms often changed according to the taste of prevailing fashion even though the functions had remained unchanged. “We should no longer have to demand functionality, it ought to go without saying. Beauty, however, is less self-evident“, although of course it is on a par with function, “equally a function”. – Secondly, Max Bill pointed out how difficult it was to explain to industry clients “why it was necessary to give their products a beautiful form“. That is why he proposed that “within the Swiss trade fair the cultural factor of production should be represented by a special exhibit and by labeling exemplary items“. As a result of this suggestion he actually put together and designed a special exhibition for the Schweizerischer Werkbund at the next trade fair in Basel, entitled Die gute Form (Good Design), a summing-up of his thoughts on design and the designing of exhibits. Finally he commented on the training of professionals who even then, as industrial designers, were overlaying all products with streamlined forms, which happened to be the vogue at the time. This new profession, claimed Bill, would soon appear in Switzerland as well, so that there was still time to make every effort to organize the training in accordance with the views of the Werkbund. In principle such a profession was desirable in that basic consumer goods could be designed in such a way “that this beauty itself becomes function“. For “in the future mass-produced consumer goods will be the standard for a country’s cultural level. Thus, when all is said and done, the designers of these goods are responsible for a large part of our visual culture […]. We are faced with an education problem that may not be very extensive in terms of personnel, but is of extraordinary significance in terms of its cultural repercussions; an education problem that has never been solved in its totality and that the ‘Bauhaus’ had hardly begun to address. There is no school today that provides the kind of training we need to demand today […].“ At this time, Max Bill also had concrete ideas what the training of designers should look like if it were to meet his expectations and put into effect the idea of Good
every area of consumer goods production down to the house itself, including cars, trains, ships“. The existing colleges of applied art and technical colleges were unsuitable, could at best serve as foundations “for something new”, for Bill had in mind “the sort of mixture of academy and polytechnic school” that the ‘Bauhaus’ strived for. Yet in such a school the education of the personality would have to be emphasized much more, for it is obvious that the designers of industrial products, in addition to having extensive knowledge, must also be true artists, but also artists who are immune to the idea that painting pictures or making sculptures is more important or valuable than producing good appliances of perfect beauty.“ Max Bill’s versatility – his article on mathematical thinking in the art of our time appeared in March 1949 on the occasion of his exhibition with Georges Vantongerloo and Nikolaus Pevsner at the Kunsthaus Zürich 318 – also impressed Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher. Aicher’s father wanted to have Max Bill design a house for him, and the initial plans had progressed by October 1948.319 Otl Aicher discovered Max Bill’s residence in the It alian journal Domus : “The issue is now making the rounds at Studio Null.“ 320 In the 1949 calendar of the Adult Education Center Bill was praised for his versatility, but also for his “down-to-earth unconditionality“.321 A letter from Otl Aicher to Max Bill dated 9 February 1949 shows what a model he was to the people in Ulm at this time: „Bill has become a standard for us, like meters.“ 322 After13 March 1949 the range of topics in the correspondence between Max Bill and Otl Aicher expanded to include the efforts of the city planning team at the Ulm Adult Education Center. 323 But the two also exchanged letters on philosophy, particularly Heidegger, or jazz; Otl Aicher repeatedly asked Bill to visit Ulm again in order to discuss the various topics. On 10 May 1949 Max Bill sent Otl Aicher the sixteen-page prospectus of the photo show Good Design. 324 The photo panels hung at eye level as a continuous strip of pictures on a curved, spare lattice that formed four bays. Each addressed a separate topic: Forms in nature, science, art, technology , Forms of planning and architecture , Forms of vital commodities and forms of various appliances and utensils and of traffic engineering technology . A visitor got an overview of design, from everyday objects to the extraordinary: A painting by Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart, a sculpture by Max Bill, buildings by Henry van de Velde, traditionally woven household baskets, an Eero Saarinen armchair, folding chairs, a ski boot, a transmission tower, and the passenger steamship Prince Baudouin were exhibited.325 The exhibition continued
its tour to Bern, then to Constance, opening in the Ratssaal on 13 August 1949. 326 From there Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher took charge of the panels, to be exhibited in Ulm in October of 1949. August 1949 also saw the publication of the special issue of the journal Werk on Good Design ; in addition to Max Bill’s lecture from October 1948, there were three contributions by other authors on the same topic.327 Otl Aicher was no doubt particularly interested in the article in which the president of the Swedish Werkbund, Gregor Paulsson, spoke about social responsibility in teaching industrial arts .
65
1950
15Feb. The number of unemployed in the Federal Republic exceeds 2 million. 9 May Schuman Plan of the French government to establish a joint agency for German and French coal and steel production. 25 June-27 July 1953: Outbreak of Korean War, causing a growth spurt of the German economy: Many Western countries concentrate on arms production; the Federal Republic establishes itself on the world market as a producer and exporter of capital goods. 12July Transmission of the first German experimental TV program after WWII. 25 June 1950 9 Oct. Minister of the interior Gustav Heinemann resigns in protest against Adenauer’s rearmament policy.
Archive:AKG
1949
22 Nov. Petersberg A greement between the Federal German government and the High Commission regarding reduction of terms of occupation.
26 Oct. Dienststelle Blank, which will later become the Foreign Ministry, is established. 26 Oct. The French government’s Pleven Plan to establish a European defense community. 27Nov. Beginning of regular TV broadcasts (Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk, Northwest German Radio).
24 May 1952 1953
1951
18 April Founding of the European Coal and Steel Community (Coal and Steel Pool) with France, Italy, and the Benelux states: the next stage in the integration of Germany into the Western world. 2 May The Federal Republic becomes an equal member of the Council of Europe. 28 Sept. German Federal Constitutional Court is constituted in Karlsruhe.
1952
4 Jan. Broadcast of the first daily TV news program. 1 March Return of Heligoland to the Federal Republic of Germany. 10 March The Soviet Union proposes a peace treaty with a neutral Germany (Stalin memorandum). 26 May Signing of the Bonn Convention, which regulates relations between the Federal Republic and the Western Powers, replacing the Occupation Statute. 27May Signing of the Paris Treaties regarding the European defense community, an additional basis for German sovereignty. 24 June First issue of the Bild-Zeitung .
20 Jan. U.S. President Eisenhower takes the oath of office; he supports U.S. claims to worldwide leadership and does not shrink from a confrontation with the Soviet Union. 27Feb. The London Agreement on German External Debts regulates Federal German external liabilities in the pre- and postwar period. 5 March Stalin dies, and is succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev. .
Archive:AKG
Founding November 1949 through April 1953
68
In this chapter, more than in others, it will be necessary to speak of outlines, jottings of ideas, and rough drafts. That is because in the years1949 through 1953 the work of the HfG founders consisted primarily in creating ideas, developing, presenting, explaining them, negotiating, and convincing. The HfG founders, with their goal in mind, took different paths, doubled back sometimes, put up with detours, and left tracks that cannot always be interpreted with certainty today. The reason the outlines, notes, plans, and summaries left from the HfG founding days are interesting and are discussed in somewhat greater detail here is that they show how the HfG gradually became more concrete and approached completion. In them it is possible to recognize the founders’ original motives, incentives, convictions, and intentions
the fact that the line of development was direct must not, in hindsight, be taken to mean it was straight. In the section that follows I have traced the wavy line of historical development. Why did Inge Scholl turn to Shepard Stone? 329 Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher had evidently already been making efforts for some time to “broaden the starting points of the Adult Education Center by founding a new school“. 330 In order to implement this plan they jumped at every opportunity to find an anchorage for their project: “In order to launch our project, we had to be constantly on the lookout, evaluate all opportunities, start a large number of undertakings that might have seemed hopeless at the moment, all of which meant a lot of busywork.“ Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher were not discouraged by the failure of their Studio Null plans in the Hans Werner Richter at the Ulm Adult Education Center circa February 1950. HAP Grieshaber’s tapestry, the “Ulmer Tuch”, is in the background. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (753/36)
that were lost, covered up in later statements, or taken for granted as obvious. It is Inge Scholl’s first letter to Shepard Stone on 8 December 1949 that marks the phase of the prehistory which leads directly to the HfG. 328 This distinguishes that phase from preceding years, for while previously only vague objectives and plans that had no immediate consequences can be recognized, from the moment Inge Scholl contacted Shepard Stone, an uninterrupted series of actions led to the first day of classes at the HfG. However,
late summer of 1948 and these activities were a direct outgrowth of preceding events: “As early as spring 1949 an outline had to be worked out for Mrs. Bermann-Fischer; around Easter I brought it to her personally in Frankfurt before she left for the U.S., and went over it with her. She planned to keep a lookout in the U.S. for financial sources for us.“ Hans Werner Richter, in a shortened version of his memory of the founding history of the HfG, stated that the idea for a new institution of learn-
ing that would be devoted to political and cultural issues and the interconnection between them came up during a conversation between Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, and himself. 331 Since 18 October 1949 he had been the organizer of a series of politico-literary events at the Ulm Adult Education Center332, and after one of the first evenings they went to the Ulm pub Junger Hase , where the idea of a new college first developed – the suggestions of Gruppe 47 and Studio Null were still unresolved, of course. On 18 November 1949 – that is, shortly before or soon after this conversation at the pub with Hans Werner Richter – Inge Scholl met with Arne Torgersen, who was working for the relief organization Norwegian Aid for Europe.333 This organization ran an artists’ retreat in Höchenschwand near St. Blasien in the southern part of the Black Forest which was apparently to be transferred into other hands. Inge Scholl had been recommended for the job of running the retreat by the painter HAP Grieshaber, who had created the Ulmer Tuch (Ulm Tapestry) of the Adult Education Center. 334 The fact thatArne Torgersen actually met the director of the most interesting adult education center in Germany indicates that he expected she would also broaden the c ontent of the existing institution, or at least that he was open-minded regarding changes and new suggestions. Was there, then, an opportunity to widen the sphere of activity of the Adult Education Center? At the same time the Ulm Adult Education Center was still in a difficult financial situation; the consequences of the currency reform were a serious problem because “many members can’t even afford the minimal monthly fee and we have to waive our last source of income”. If no more money could be collected in Germany, “our only hope is to find people in the outside world who can help us”. 335 There was talk of preparing an “American project“, somebody mentioned the “spiritual ERP”, the European Recovery Program, which became famous under the name Marshall Plan. At any rate, Inge Scholl was interested. She first made it clear that she would be willing to take over the retreat center if it was moved close to Ulm. At the second meeting (20 November 1949) Alice Zuckmayer also took part, and now Inge Scholl proposed that “this retreat center should be combined with a kind of daytime adult education center that she had had her eye on for years. […] Mr. Torgersen immediately drops the idea of the artists’ retreat center. Ways to implement the plan are discussed.“ Inge Scholl’s account of the incident looking back some four weeks later seems very condensed. Presumably things did not happen quite
as suddenly. For a document by Inge Scholl records that the idea of an artists’ retreat center might also be very easily combined with the Ulm Adult Education Center. As late a s 18 December 1949 the conversion of the fortress tower on Kuhberg in Ulm into a retreat center is the subject of a conversation with the head of the Ulm city planning office, Max Guther. It is therefore likely, though not important, that the about-turn in the deliberations of the Ulm group and also for Arne Torgersen actually dragged on somewhat. The reflections that Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher put in writing in the period of just under three weeks from 18 November 1949 (first meeting with Arne Torgersen) and 8 December 1949 (first letter to Shepard Stone) show surprisingly many beginnings of ideas that were pursued further in the years that followed and were in part translated into action. First, however, some comments as to their intentions, their arguments, and their frame of reference. They took up an idea of Arne Torgersen’s that a place of rest and contemplation be made available to intellectuals and artists for several weeks at a time. From the very beginning the most striking characteristics of this retreat center were internationalism and the mutual exchange of ideas and stimulating suggestions with the Adult Education Center. The most important word they used in their presentation was the term “ crystallization (or focal) point ; on the one hand the Adult Education Center is presented as the only c rystallization point and the most hopeful enterprise in Germany, while on the other hand the planned retreat center is to become a “crystallization point of the anti-Nazi spirit of leading cultural figures and artists”, “where the true European and democratic spirit can find itself and regain calm and self-possession“. Other key concepts were mentioned: indebtedness to the resistance, and commitment to the objectives, of Hans and Sophie Scholl; a new Bauhaus was needed, and there was no better place for it than in the vicinity of the Ulm Adult Education Center, we read as early as November 1949; a foundation is to be established with two divisions, a representative and an executive one 336 ; a printing shop for training refugees 337 is to be turned into several workshops for industrial design (“commodities, textiles, architecture“) that could work together with industry and be self-supporting; the entire network of activities would provide the fertile ground for a new school that would educate an elite of young personalities in all professions for all Germany;
69
Founding
the fort on the upper Kuhberg, a former concentration camp, was felt by them to be the ideal place for the retreat center.
70
Finally, a note recording a conversation between Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, and Romano Guardini on 28 November 1949 is worth commenting on; it records that “this new school” must simply start out from the present: “no platform, no party line , and no big names“. If the plan was not too rigidly defined, this would guarantee “that youth would IngeScholl circa November 1949 in front of the logo designed by Otl Aicher for the Ulm Adult Education Center. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (752/22)
[find] its own style”. The most important thing was that the school would remain “the business of the younger generation”. Now, some brief comments on the planned financing of this complex plan, various versions of which emphasized different areas, such as an expansion of the Adult Education Center; the artists’ retreat center; workshops for industrial design; a new school, for it was the question of financing that forged the link to Shepard Stone. The initial sums of money were to be raised through benefit events by prominent artists (Wilhelm Furtwängler, Eugen Jochum, Carl Zuckmayer). This German self-help, the planners felt, would impress people abroad and inspire them to support the project. Arne Torgersen promised DM 20,000 toward the running of the retreat center in the first year, and Odd Nansen, the founder of the Norwegian Aid for Europe, is said to have authorized DM 180,000 from Norway for the workshops. The phrase spirit ual Marshall Plan was mentioned (again), meaning that international financial help must promote
not only material but also intellectual and a rtistic life in postwar Germany. And one must not forget that Brigitte Bermann-Fischer, the wife of the publisher Gottfried Bermann-Fischer (who had signed on the writer Carl Zuckmayer), “is at present doing her best in America to get funds that will help such an example of a viable type of school to materialize. She believes, as we do, that the universities at one time started just as modestly as this adult education center […].“ Brigitte and Gottfried Bermann-Fischer knew Shepard Stone from their exile in the U. S., when the latter was still acting editor of the Sunday edition of the New York Times . In 1988 Inge AicherScholl recalled: “In early December 1949 Mrs. Bermann-Fischer wrote from the US that we should immediately contact McCloy’s new adviser, Mr. Shepard Stone, who had been informed about us and our plans and was very interested. We were still thinking of getting private help, that is to say, a private foundation in the US.“ 338 At the same time it was probably important that Shepard Stone, too, had been briefed on the background of the Ulm group: “He knew our history“. 339 In her first letter to Shepard Stone Inge Scholl requested a personal conversation about her plan to set up a new, modern school that went beyond the limitations of the existing adult education center – there is not a word about the retreat center. What key phrases were used? First of all, the adult education center, whose sphere of activity must be expanded, not only to a “cosmopolitan international meeting place”, but to a “focal point for the Other Germany”; she conjured up “the danger of renazification” – a catchword that also described the fears of HICOG staff concerning the fragility of the young German democracy 340 – and in contrast to this menacing development pointed to her brother and sister’s spirit of resistance; the younger generation in particular, she said, demanded such a school; personalities such as Brigitte Bermann-Fischer and Carl Zuckmayer, and the connection with the Norwegian Aid for Europe would vouch for the earnestness and the practical implementation of the plan. The attached outline has so far not been definitely identified. It might have been a three-page untitled paper341 that develops a plan to establish an artists’ retreat center. But this center is by no means one of the foremost arguments, it only serves as a starting point for attaching add itional workshops for industrial design. More important is the objective mentioned at the outset, the founding of a “new Bauhaus” to be modeled on the Adult Education Center and will create a new international connection between industry, art, and political activism. Again, amazingly, after initial funding
with foreign help – to be exact, the Norwegian Aid for Europe – “the work” is to be financially selfsupporting. However, there are at least three other undated outlines that summarize similar statements regarding the planned institution and must have been written during the same weeks. 342 One includes the comment that the “foundation” of the school is to be built “from concerts by Wilhelm Furtwängler and Eugen Jochum and through lectures by Carl Zuckmayer, as well as an endowment of the Norwegian Aid for Europe“. 343 The above-mentioned “short summary of preparatory work for the founding of the Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule“, written at the end of December 1949, refers to the same intention, which was soon given up again, however. Like the other outlines on this subject, this one contains no concrete references to the planned project: “A type of daytime adult education center” is to be established which, as an “international meeting place”, is intended to help promote “activity that deals with present-day tasks and problems”; “the faculty is to consist of the most gifted writers, journalists [and] artists, particularly those of the younger generation”. From this one can deduce, firstly, the intended organization of the school as a continuation and extension of the successful Ulm Adult Education Center, a day-time adult education center. In the second place these statements allow us to draw conclusions about the focus of the curriculum, which can be deduced from the makeup of the faculty. Subjects relevant to the present, like publicity, journalism, and art were to be taught, though contents were not specOtl Aicher, Inge Scholl, and Hans Werner Richter in front of the ruins of the Ulm city hall, circa February 1950. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (756/07)
ified further. The authors understood education in the humanistic sense and expected it to be universal, exactly as they had demonstrated at the Ulm Adult Education Center. In the first part, whose tenor is very general and focuses on principles, Inge Scholl and her circle expressed their views on pedagogical methods in a nine-point statement: A cultural and political education relevant to present needs should “replace an academic education”; young people should be offered a model that made it possible to transform Hans and Sophie Scholl’s position into a way of d ealing with present-day problems; a “democratic elite” must be trained who would not be narrowly specialized but whose “ political, intellectual, and human outlook” would have integrity. They mentioned such subjects as “publicity, politics, sociology, city planning, industrial design“, “workshops, studios, and ateliers“ were to be attached to the college. In one of the out-lines this first section is preceded by an extra paragraph that comments on why Inge Scholl even wants to set up another educational institution after founding the Ulm Adult Education Center: It is because inquiries have poured in from young people all over Germany “who would like to study at this Adult Education Center“. 344 Each of the outlines has a second part with ideas on implementing the plan: The school is to be set up in stages – a printing shop would be built up as a focus point and meeting place with the money of the Norwegian Aid for Europe. This printing shop is to be the core unit of the school, from which it will evolve as more money is available. The school, which is “an experiment”, is to develop from a “meeting plac e”, the first thing to be p lanned, “modeled on the Ulm Adult Education Center“ and attached to the proposed printing shop, offering “artists and writers working space and at the same time provide an opportunity for refugees to be trained and to work”. There were also data ab out potential clients and about Otl Aicher’s office for visual communication. The school would admit as students those to whom academic education was denied. Lastly there was a statement that seems to be meant for American ears: “The political and intellectual situation in Germany creates a certain urgency, and it appears to be necessary to ask other countries as well for donations. A spiritual ERP is as important for Germany today as the economic one.“ This reference to the Marshall Plan in particular does not occur in any other outline or in later documents and indicates that the document must have been written at a very early date. Inge Scholl’s moral reputation, her pedagogical skill as the director “of one of the best adult education centers in Germany”, and the memory of her siblings’ resistance were brought to bear in
71
Founding
72
these and subsequent drafts as a shield against possible attacks. The organization, curricula, and educational theory of the p lanned institution would continue to be unclear, and not only for the American target group. 345 The Ulm planning team obviously followed the advice of Romano Guardini, who demanded that “the school must not have a rigid program, [but] the starting point must be today’s situation. It must not be restricted to a particular camp, but be open to everyone.“ 346
there was the high esteem in which he held all questions of education. But if it was not possible to carry out a fundamental large-scale reform of the educational system in Germany, then perhaps it was preferable to p romote individual pilot pro jects. This was the premise underlying the special projects fund, the so-called “McCloy Fund“: “He spoke of a fund that was intended for special things, and other resources; he plans to talk about it with another important American from the ministry of education (Mr. Read), whom he wants to What happened in the last three weeks of 1949? fill with enthusiasm for our plans.“ 350 How much Of course the Short summary regarding prelim- the project was based on personal relationships inary work toward founding the Geschwisteris clearly shown by the fact that Fred Boerner Scholl-Hochschule mentioned earlier dates from wanted to arrange a meeting with the high comthe end of December 1949, so that the developmissioner’s wife, Ellen McCloy. ment is described from the perspective at that In order to work on the project with John Mctime.347 However, several terse notes that resemCloy himself as well as in the Education and Culble the minutes of a meeting show that the project tural Affairs Division of the Office for Public Affairs, did not develop in a straight line. A series of perseveral documents were initially still needed: a sonal conversations by Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher report about the achievements of the Adult Educacontinued (18 November and 20 November with tion Center, a one-page biography of Inge Scholl, Arne Torgersen, 24 November with Theodor Pfizer an account of what had been undertaken to date and Max Guther, 28 November with Romano Guar- on behalf of a Geschwister-Scholl-Schule, and “a dini, 29 November with Clemens Münster, the very concrete and detailed outline“. Munich Radio culture and education editor). On 11 Possibly the Summary is one of the documents December 1949 they met the Zuckmayers, and it needed for this new, second outline, written at is then that they seem to have ad opted the name the turn of the year and based on the first outline Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule (Hans and Sophie already sent to Shepard Stone. At any rate, it is Scholl College) as the best title for the project. On surprising how strongly the Summary focuses on 18 December 1949 they again discussed their plan a new school, a Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule , with Max Guther, and the summary of this interbased on the Adult Education Center. The sumview mentions the artists’ retreat center as the mary hardly indicates the institution's objectives, only discussion topic. Presumably, then, before for its platform was that it was not fixated on a the first meeting with Shepard Stone the artists’ rigid platform. What mattered was the common retreat center was still part of the total plan. Howhuman element. The faculty was to include Hans ever, this part of their ideas was soon dropped. Werner Richter, who helped prepare the outlines, Inge Scholl’s first conversation with Shepard and members of Gruppe 47 (if it is possible to say Stone, followed by one with his colleague Fred that Gruppe 47 had members). Immediately after Boerner, took place on 20 December 1949 in her return from Frankfurt, Inge Scholl told Richter Frankfurt am Main, at the former headquarters of about the new prospects, which she felt were very the American military commander, which served promising: “Now we must definitely go full speed as the headquarters of the high commissioner until ahead in this matter. Construction has to start in that office moved to Bad Godesberg. Inge Scholl spring.“351 was accompanied by Irm L indström, who was involved in the Adult Education Center. 348 Ex post The new, second outline that Shepard Stone was facto this meeting may be regarded as the detopromised by 4 January 1950 is probably the yel low program named after the color of its cover nator that produced the igniting spark. In Inge Scholl’s “Summary”. However, possibly for tactical page.352 Max Bill received it on 26 January 1950, reasons, it is included as only one of many activand it is unlikely that Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher ities toward the realization and concretization of together with Hans Werner Richter and their asher plan for a school. sistants revised it again within a few days’ time. Inge Scholl, for her part, drew up minutes There is every indication that at first the yellow detailing conversations with the two Americans. 349 program was used as a working draft and sent Either she wrote these minutes in a euphoric out: The director of the department for w omen’s mood, or Shepard Stone and Fred Boerner were issues at the commissioner’s office for the Land simply “crazy“ about the plans. There was Stone’s of Bavaria received a copy of the second outline obvious despair “about conditions in German on 8 January 1950. If the yellow program was not schools and universities“, and at the same time identical with the second outline, then Max Bill
Romano Guardini (17 Feb. 1885–1 Oct. 1968), Catholic theologian and religious philosopher. In her book “Im Geiste der Gemordeten…” Die Weiße Rose und ihre Wirkung in der Nachkriegszeit ,
Paderborn/Munich 2000, 269 ff., Barbara Schüler describes his role as a mentor of the Ulm Adult Education Center. Photo: unknown Archive: AKG
would have received a third outline on 26 January 1950, and Inge Scholl would surely have noted it in her cover letter that he was receiving a completely new, just revised version. Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher wrote the yellow program at the turn of 1949/50 in close agreement with Hans Werner Richter, with whom they were still planning to discuss their revised and expanded plan in detail before giving it to the Americans353 . This program consists of 28 handwritten oblong pages. Inge Scholl herself included a very brief summary in her letter to Theodor Heuss, dated 27 January 1950, in which she also enclosed a copy of the program: “We’re talking about a free school for culture and politics that is to become a focal point for liberal German and European youth by offering a number of important subjects that have so far received too little attention. By working positively for peace it intends to continue developing resistance, as expressed by people like my brothers and sister, and to educate a young democratic elite“. 354 The yellow program sketches the basic ideas that had matured by the beginning of 1950 and were included in the plan by Inge Scholl and her circle. By way of a fundamental and comprehensive critique of current-day German society in general and its youth and educational system in particular, they propose a solution: the establishment of a free institute independent of state influence, because they intended to do without public funding. The institute was to be self-supporting thanks to donations and its own income. It was to have an international orientation against resurgent nationalistic forces that the authors claimed had regained strength, since even the universities – for lack of educational reform – had already turned into “cells of a new conservatism”. The outline does not make clear whether they were already thinking of a college or whether they still had in mind an adult education center. They planned that activities at the school would focus on a ll questions of politics and culture, and hoped that educating responsible professionals for politics, press, radio and film would have maximum influence on social development. These politico-journalistic subjects would be complemented by subjects in applied arts (photography, advertising, industrial design and city planning) in order to reconcile culture and civilization. In connection with this point the authors also wondered whether “possibly” a second Dessau Bauhaus should be established. The institute would educate only a few selected young people who qualified on the basis of their personalities, not on graduation from an academically oriented secondary school. Its educational objective – as with the curriculum of the adult education center – was to train cultured persons with a general education who shone on the hori-
zon of the educational firmament, their personality and character firm and resolute, their judgment critical and independent, trained in theory, in a specialty, and a craft. The young were to be instilled with liberal and upright views, like those of the young Scholls, in order to deal with contemporary issues. There was still no detailed curriculum in the form of a program that one would expect of a new educational institution's founders. Pedagogically the Ulm circle expected teachers and learners to work together, thus establishing a parallel with American educational ideals. Of course the Ulm group believed that the American reeducation program – and no wonder, considering Hans Werner Richter’s commitment – was a total “failure”, because, although well-intentioned, it was p erceived as the propaganda of the occupying forces, like an American schoolmaster armed “with the cane of the conqueror’s authority”. In reality many Germans also considered themselves to be culturally superior, so that, according to the authors, huge segments of society closed their minds to the objectives of democratization and political interest. The lack of concrete details and the outlines’ insistence on principles did not bother the Ulm group much in the months that followed either, but soon became a method. Writing to Hellmut Becker, for example, Inge Scholl made no secret of the fact that the yellow program said “hardly anything that was concrete” 355 . The common denominator of the planned canon of subjects was the intention to educate people in all the professions which “to a great extent shape and influence the general public“, but which had so far been neglected by educational institutions. However, they had by no means developed a feasible, appropriate pedagogical program based on this analysis, merely a manifesto. The 27 January 1950 letter, quoted above, from Inge Scholl to Theodor Heuss contains information on the planned financing. While the first plans only mentioned that the budget would be DM 200,000 and that the site would be put at the school’s disposal, the budget was now quoted as being about DM 1.2 million: “Both [Mr. and Mrs. McCloy; author’s note] were so impressed by the plan that McCloy promised me sizable financial support that might amount to approximately two-thirds of the required funds. I hope to raise the rest, about DM 400,000, through donations in Germany.” 356 This meant that the sum that had been envisaged only four weeks earlier had increased sixfold; thus the project – at least from the organizers’ point of view – moved into a completely new dimension. This must be seen in connection with the support promised by John McCloy, whose promotion of the project seems like a catalyst. The analysis of the outlines shows that the organizational increase of the project was by no
73
Founding
74
means paralleled by an expansion of its content – the project still involved the course offerings of the daytime adult education center, though now within the organizational framework of a college.
1950, the day of the founding of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. It makes sense to look at 1950, the year that will be examined now, from the perspective that the essential strands of the action result in the foundIn January 1950, it is thus possible to summarize ing of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung as the legal what Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, and their friends had sponsor of the HfG. First, it turns out that even by set in motion during the last six weeks of 1949: the end of 1949, the Ulm group had visualized cer After the first promising contacts with Arne Torger- tain unique organizational characteristics exactly sen they got in touch with Shepard Stone at the as they were later implemented when the founda American high commissioner’s office. In quick tion was established. Among these was the very From lower left, the succession they developed, from a suggestion idea of having a foundation as the sponsor of the inner circle of the Ulm made by the Norwegian Aid for Europe, a plan for planned institution, and the plan to divide the Adult Education Center: an educational institution whose sociopolitical foundation into two – an executive and a repreInge Scholl, Herbert foundation remained indebted to the adult educasentative division. Second, Inge Scholl and Otl Wiegandt, Sven Anker tion center, but whose work was to take place on Aicher actually began the work of establishing Lindström, Hans Werner a broader basis (w orkshops, internationalism). The the foundation in January 1950. Richter, Otl Aicher, Irm key word Bauhaus had been spoken, and industriIf establishing the foundation is seen to be the Lindström, Hans Rupp, al design had been envisaged as an objective. The determining process for 1950, this does not mean and Peter Wackernagel separate outlines, some of which cannot be relithat the curriculum component of the founders’ (circa November 1949). ably dated, weave a dense texture, and in the subplan fell into oblivion. On the contrary, it is necessequent year many threads can be followed up, sary to keep in mind that the foundation and the Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (753/03) some are dropped, a few remain until 5 December college (the planned Geschwister-Scholl-Hoch-
Inge Scholl and Hans Werner Richter in front of Ulm Cathedral, circa February 1950. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (754/32)
schule as well as the actual Hochschule für Gestaltung) represented two sides of the same coin, inseparably linked to each other from the very beginning. And it is not a far-fetched interpretation of the project’s development if we identify Inge Scholl with the foundation, while Otl Aicher is identified with the college. The role of the foundation would be to guarantee the independence of the college and protect it from undesirable outside influences. This idea was the core of the bipartite institution. – As they looked back, a number of contemporary witnesses may have been tempted to conclude that the implementation of this idea provided the explosives that caused later detonations and destruction. But I cannot help seeing a counter-argument. Regardless of how attractive the idea of two institutions with separate functions is, those who pursue it cannot overlook the fact that every institution develops a life of its own. To meet the goal of its founders, the foundation would have had to admit to its committees only persons who tend to be conservative, not people who continue to develop the institution. Fortunately that did not happen: The foundation and the HfG developed magnificently. The price was that in the course of historical progress an idea was destroyed through being implemented. The foundation was to serve the college. During 1950, the HfG founders put in concrete form plans regarding the HfG’s curriculum (to be used in negotiations with HICOG and German officials), for it was the college the founders were actually interested in, and they organized the foundation. And now, an account of progress in both matters in turn. First, I shall address plans for the college. The year began with the beat of a kettledrum, announced by a short roll of drums. It is simply amazing that Inge Scholl and her fellow fighters, with a proposal as vague as theirs, had such great success with the American officials. It was surely not the Ulm group’s good will alone – something the HICOGeducation experts missed elsewhere in Germany for the most part. Other important factors were Inge Scholl’s personal charisma, her persistence and steadfastness. Whatever the case may be, after Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher discussed their revised outline (the yellow pro gram) with the HICOG staff during the first week of January 357, the high commissioner became personally interested in the Ulm project. Shortly after the discussion of the yellow program in Frankfurt, during the first preparatory session of HICOG staff on 11 January 1950, the primary functions of the planned Mc Cloy Fund were discussed. 358 At the same time John H. Boxer, who worked for Shepard Stone’s division, informed himself as to which projects were worth promoting. 359 To do this he
contacted Ministerial Counselor Hans Bott, the personal adviser of President Theodor Heuss, who was to be the future German contact person for all projects that were to receive money from the McCloy Fund. On 17 January 1950 Inge Scholl met with Ellen and John McCloy, Shepard Stone, Fred Boerner, John H. Boxer, James Morgan Read, and John P. Steiner360 – that was the roll of drums. Shortly thereafter Inge Scholl informed Max Bill about this meeting: “He [Shepard Stone; author’s note] arranged an invitation to McCloy’s private home in Bad Homburg and also invited several influential people in public affairs and education. They asked questions, I replied – the mood was fantastic, and at the end people told me it was a w onderful thing, and said there was every reason to hope that financial help would be forthcoming.” 361 Now the beat of the kettledrum: The impression Inge Scholl made on John McCloy was so positive that he mentioned her in his Boston speech of 26 January 1950.362 In it the high commissioner spoke of the need for expanding support for Germany in order to bring to fruition certain hopeful beginnings that were already visible: “To succeed, however, we Americans must now redouble our efforts to solve the German problem. […] In particular, we need your support in the field of education and the spiritual development of the country.“ Here, John McCloy gave two examples to show there was reason for his hope that Germany would not relapse into Nazism: One example was the steadfastness of the population of Berlin during the Soviet blockade, to which McCloy devoted a short paragraph. Then he added five paragraphs about Inge Scholl. The way John McCloy presented Inge Scholl to his public is characteristic: He introduced her as the sister of the “two martyrs“ and as the woman who after the war had founded an evening adult education center that had proved to be very successful. Her success was based on her toughness and her charisma: “She had little or no money, there were no rooms available in that badly damaged city, there were no teachers. But the girl had an idea and she never gave up. […] By the power of her example and spirit she is able to find lecturers and teachers […].“ John McCloy concluded his remarks with three sentences that show how captivated the high commissioner was personally by the young woman from Ulm and her sense of mission: “Last week this girl with a mission came to my house near Frankfurt. At the dinner table she told us about her plans to expand the school to a day institution, where students would be welcomed from the rest of Germany. I have not the power to describe her voice and her manner.“ 363 In Germany the front page of the Neue Zeitung of Saturday, 28 January 1950 informed readers
75
Founding
listing all fields of specialization needed to be submitted to the Americans as soon as possible. The yellow program , she wrote, was still the basis for her negotiations, which did not have to be explained to Max Bill, for “besides you were often there when we discussed this“. 365 A few days later they met for a talk 366 , for Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher not only valued Max Bill’s experience and thoughts on pedagogy and on the project’s curriculum, they also wanted to persuade him to be the architect of the college buildings. Inge Scholl now introduced Max Bill to the people at HICOG, saying that he wanted to take an active part in the project: “He is a former Bauhaus student and was enthusiastic about our report on the development of plans for the school. I have persuaded him to come and teach industrial design, and I believe that’s a great success.“ 367 From then on Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher involved Max Bill in their founding plans much more. One cannot speak too highly of Max Bill’s importance to the founding of the HfG. I suggest that it is owing to Max Bill’s participation that the plan for a design-based college of politics, whose president was to be Hans Werner Richter, evolved into the design college with a political basis whose first rector became Max Bill. At the next meeting with several assistants of the HfG founders, scheduled for 16 December 1950 in Meersburg near Lake Constance, Max Bill was one of the participants. Here he stopped being one of the large circle of prominent consultants and became a member of the inner circle of the planning group.
76
The Podium , an open stage of the Ulm Theater, opened in February 1950 with a production by Peter Wackernagel and sets by Otl Aicher. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (759/08)
about Inge Scholl and her project. Other publications soon followed suit – though not always as benevolently. An editor of the Ulmer Nachrichten, Albert Riester, spread a negative mood in Ulm. That would not have been worth mentioning had it not been for the fact that an unchallenged accusation was brought against the same editor by Inge Scholl that the Gestapo had cheated him of the dubious fame of being a leading participant in the persecution of her sister and b rother.364 There are two reasons for writing about these facts. Firstly: About a year later the same man caused considerable problems for the entire Ulm project through a denunciation campaign, and permanently damaged the reputation of the foundation and the HfG. And what is interesting about this is, one, that when the plans first became public knowledge he torpedoed them and, two, that Inge Scholl at this early point in time was already able to state that the man had been a Gestapo collaborator and had participated in persecuting her sister and brother. This statement by Inge Scholl thus
gains a special credibility it might not have had at the later date, when everything was at stake in Ulm. Secondly: The history of the establishment of the foundation and the founding of the HfG is a success story. At the same time, people often overlook that success did not come automatically, but had to be fiercely contested; it wasn’t even merely a matter of clearing obstacles, but of finding their own way in the first place. The founders of the HfG blazed their own trail, often struggling on the brink of an abyss, and that is why such abysses need to be shown wherever they opened up – even if they were successfully overcome in the end. Max Bill was kept informed of what was happening. On the same day that John McCloy gave his Boston talk, which Inge Scholl had not heard about yet, she sent a stack of papers to Zürich. Here she summed up the results of her meetings with HICOG and estimated that building could begin in summer. For this to happen, a concrete curriculum
Perhaps it is chance: No sooner had Max Bill come to the fore than the estimated financial costs were raised. But on later occasions it can be proved that Max Bill raised the budget in order to assure that the institution would have an adequate financial basis right from the start. A short look back shows budget estimates up to that point: At first there was talk of approximately DM 200,000, a sum that would be raised by Norwegian Aid for Europe for the retreat center and the printing shop. 368 The sum rose by small increments: on 11 December 1949 Carl Zuckmayer mentioned a sum total of DM 300,000, and at the meeting with Stone on 20 December 1950 the sum in question was DM 250,000 as the American contribution, plus about DM 100,000 in German donations. 369 Then came the great leap, just over the DM 1 million, first mentioned on 17 January 1950 in a conversation with John McCloy 370; the figure given to Theodor Heuss was DM 1.2 million 371, and after Meersburg Max Bill expanded the framework by one decisive item. At DM 1,627,500, the new budget included, as Inge Scholl wrote to John H. Boxer, an additional half-million marks to guarantee operation for the first five years. 372 A few days later, on 2 March
1950, in a communication to Odd Nansen, she raised this sum for the first five years to DM 2 million. It seems almost ironic, or at least bitter that the Ulm group had proposed this item – the financing of operating costs – themselves. The item soon became the most important demand of the Americans. In later developments it proved to be the Achilles heel of HfG financing. An additional item is worth noting if we keep in mind how the HfG ended: Inge Scholl wrote to John H. Boxer, “If the school has proved its worth in this startup period [of five years; author’s note], it will be able to go on existing and be a ssured government assistance.“ In contrast with the outlines, a completely new point of view is revealed here: not the absolute freedom of an institution that supports itself by means of donations, sponsorships, and its own income, but a private school that also receives support from the public sector. While the idealistic starting point of an autonomous and self-sufficient school originated among the Ulm group, this pragmatic consideration that the state should be asked for support – including operating expenses – was no doubt Max Bill’s idea. In the founding history of the HfG, Max Bill does not only stand for a realistic view of financial matters. His name is also associated with the concentration of the curriculum on design-related issues. He personified the Bauhaus and brought it to Ulm. One must not overlook that the word Bauhaus had already been spoken before Max Bill was asked to come on board in mid-February. During the first deliberations in November 1949 arguments for a new Bauhaus were q uoted, how it could only be established in Ulm – modeled on the Adult Education Center, whose work was also aimed at the design of daily objects. 373 Also, Max Bill himself was familiar to the public of the Adult Education Center. 374 After Meersburg, Inge Scholl asked Max Bill for details of the organization of the Dessau Bauhaus, not as a model for her own foundation, but in order to get new ideas for her own project. 375 Max Bill answered that the Bauhaus had been a state school and therefore information about its organization was unnecessary. But “if things work out, it would be fabulous, and my only worry is whether people will want to be 20 years beyond the ‘Bauhaus’ (not behind it, mind you, but ahead of it!).“ 376 Thus it wouldn’t be Max Bill’s fault if the work of the Bauhaus was not continued. Inge Scholl urged him to help them with the program as quickly as possible: “There’s no way we can put together the curriculum without you […]. And what is more we have to give detailed particulars of estimated costs.“377 On 28 February 1950, at the HICOG headquarters in Frankfurt, the special projects board of the
77
A demonstrative Otl Aicher, circa November 1949.
Founding
Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (758/23)
78
McCloy Fund was constituted. 378 The fund had DM 50 million at its disposal – GARIOA (Government Appropriations for Relief in Occupied Areas) matching funds, or, to put it plainly: gifts from the American taxpayer. This money was to be distributed to projects that met four criteria: The projects should represent solutions to pressing German problems; they must receive at least an equal amount of money from German sources; there had to be a guarantee that they would continue in existence after receiving HICOG support; and finally the projects needed to be of inherent specific value in reeducation to justify the American contribution.379 The members of the board of directors of the McCloy Fund were, among others, John McCloy, Benjamin J. Buttenwieser, James Morgan Read (director of the Education and Cultural Relations Division), John H. Boxer (a staff member of the Office for Public Affairs and secretary of the board of directors) 380 and, later, Michael P. Balla (John Boxer’s successor as the secretary of the board of directors).381 They agreed that they were not interested merely in spreading the reputation of the United States as a benefactor by giving one-time donations. The Germans must be helped to help themselves. Therefore care should be taken that support by HICOG would simply help a project to stand on its own two feet – today this is called startup financing – but as soon as this had been done, it was supposed to run by itself. For this to happen it was necessary to have strong backing among the population. In the course of correspondence informing Max Bill about Inge Scholl’s and Otl Aicher’s publicity and organizational trips that took them to Frankfurt and the Rhineland (the governmental and industrial region of West Germany), he received a new draft proposal on 20 March 1950 with a request to correct it ruthlessly.382 Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher had drawn it up together with Hans Werner Richter and possibly with the help of others, during the past week.383 Soberly it is limited to barely three pages, so that many essentials are missing for lack of space alone: the long prehistory of the Adult Education Center, the criticism of the reeducation policy, the passionate and enthusiastic style. As a supplement Inge Scholl added a list of ideal candidates for the board of trustees, but more about that later. At the end of March 1950, where was the planned college as far as its curriculum was concerned? How far had it moved away from the yellow program in the past three months? The basis of the planned Geschwister-SchollHochschule für Politik und Kultur (the Hans and Sophie Scholl College of Politics and Culture) was still formed by the “experiences and points of departure of the Ulm Adult Education Center“.
The outline focuses on two educational goals: “Education toward independent civic thinking and cultural assimilation of technology“ – these did in fact continue to be the sum total of the HfG’s goals, and there is reason to think that both were achieved as far as possible. The students were to be trained in modern professions, not as specialists, but with a broad horizon; they were to learn not only theory, but also get their hands dirty in attached workshops; in a total of seven areas, which until then had not been taught at all, or taught inadequately in Germany, although they “are especially important for life in our times“: “press, radio, film, photography, advertising, industrial design, city planning.“ Hadn’t the Ulm group gotten something mixed up? What about politics as an area of specialization? In the yellow program – “College of Culture and Politics” – it was still listed in first place and described at length. Now, however, under the title "College of Politics and Culture” we find the first sign of a drastic change in the program, which could hardly be more explicit, namely that at a college of politics, politics was no longer to be taught as a separate subject – and no longer in a separate master class. This decision stemmed from Otl Aicher’s and Hans Werner Richter’s understanding of politics and of the educational goal of a political seminar: They wanted to teach individual social responsibility and independent thinking, which are expressed in everything people say and do. These objectives could also be observed as a subtext in the subjects listed above, which essentially already resembled the departments of the HfG. Moreover they wanted to remain concrete: “One reason we eliminated politics as a subject is because there is no such profession as politics. […] [ We do not want to] create institutions in which no concrete profession can be taught.“ 384 From then on we must consider the fact that the college of politics, at first formally and later for tactical reasons as well, gave way to the school of design, but that the politicization of the design courses actually meant that the original goals were continued in different circumstances. It was Hans Werner Richter, closely linked since the end of 1949 with Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher and the school project they shared, who was the originator of the general political ideas. Otl Aicher tried to condense them and to translate them into a plan that was feasible in his opinion. He looked for the solid ground on which political education at the school might be able to stand, one that would be more solid than a vague, general, political education, he looked for a profession “in which politics could be anchored as a general subject“. 385 Two solutions occurred to him. On the one hand he wanted to affiliate “something like a sociological lab” with the institution, an institute of social sci-
79
ences in which political questions would be fessional, were within reach combined in the perexamined “exactly”. The thought remained with son of Max Bill, ready to help implement the school him for a long time to come; soon he even added plans. Because we know that only a few years an institute that was to research design-related later there was a rupture between the Ulm group problems, and became highly important later, parand Max Bill we may well ask whether they only ticularly for tax reasons – the future Forschungsin - used Max Bill and his prestige or whether the endstitut für Produktform (Research Institute of Proding of their relationship had other causes. uct Design). Otl Aicher’s second idea was that stuThere is no doubt about it: Otl Aicher’s interest dents at the planned school might be trained as in all questions relating to designing a man-made “social work consultants”. He gave Hans Werner environment was genuine. The work teams at the Richter this suggestion to work on so that the lat Adult Education Center demonstrate that, as does ter with his wide expert knowledge could address his taking the initiative in meeting Max Bill. We the question as to what other job outline could be need only recall the admiring description introducused as an educational goal. They were under time ing Max Bill in the 1949 Adult Education Center pressure, and if Hans Werner Richter had no satis- calendar. Also, the idea of continuing the Bauhaus factory proposals to offer, the plan would simply tradition, in whatever form, probably came up in turn into “something that can’t be avoided – a culUlm before Max Bill was engaged. However, Otl tural school with a touch of politics about it – a Aicher was just as genuinely interested in the continuation of the Bauhaus […]“. Otl Aicher comprehensive political education of youth, the couldn’t have expressed things more clearly to domain of Hans Werner Richter, who remembered Hans Werner Richter.Under time pressure it was that Otl Aicher was originally to head the design more important to set up a school with concrete department, while he himself was to be in charge professional goals, even if it was limited to design of political subjects. Did Otl Aicher give priority to issues, than for the entire project to miss out on one subject over the other? Probably not, for he HICOG funding. still pursued the vision of a school that would be a kind of universitas , a place dedicated not only to It is worth considering what importance Inge educating the spirit, intellect, and character, but Scholl and Otl Aicher on the one hand, and Max also to practical training. An almost monastic Bill on the other hand, assigned to design and polideal! In his 25 March 1950 letter to Max Bill he itics for the project that was being planned. For demands that the school should rest on three even then the Bauhaus not only had the internapoles: “individual, society, design. […] I b elieve tional reputation of representing the Other Germa- that is the most striking thing about the whole ny that had resisted National Socialism, but it was thing. Not culture, nor politics alone, nor education considered to have prepared the way for modernalone. There are plenty of schools for each of ism – and both elements, the political and the prothese individual areas. What is new is their living
Founding
80
integration.”386 Today it is obvious: What was polit- the rank of the political at the new college, the latical about Aicher’s plans (on Richter’s foundation) ter made a comprehensive statement on the topic was later integrated in the HfG in such a way that at the end of March 1950.391 His 27 March 1950 design was “politicized”. The social significance of letter is a clear expression of the struggle to find design as well as the designer’s individual respon- the right way and the right goal, which all steps sibility continued to be the dominant themes of taken by the Ulm group had in common. Otl Aithe HfG, so that Otl Aicher’s idea with its three cher’s arguments, as always, were based on his cornerstones – character building, society/politics, zero-point thinking. He did not by any means feel and design – was actually implemented, though he was standing on firm ground; rather, he looked on an altered scale. The wealth of classes on politfor support in finding his bearings: How was he to ical, historical, and sociological issues at the HfG judge the present, and what conclusions could be speaks for itself. 387 drawn for the future based on history?. He was Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher had no intention of disturbed that many people had already returned using the good name of the Bauhaus for their purto things as usual and thought and acted as they poses merely as publicity. They pursued some, but had before the National Socialist period. He himby no means all of its goals and therefore wanted self was still questioning everything that people to complement the design courses with courses in had once considered to be right: “I believe we’re journalisms/politics. But this brought with it the faced with a zero-point situation; although we undeniable advantage that it was possible, by don’t know what is to be done, we do have good building on the Bauhaus reputation, to promote intentions to roll up our sleeves and get to work.“ their own project, even though it was to be disIn coping with the current situation he refused to tinctly different from the Bauhaus. President Theofollow past teachings, worldviews, or schools of dor Heuss, for instance, a prominent member of thought: “I think it’s a typically German difficulty the German Werkbund, sympathized with the aims that we start with theory first and then try to make of the Bauhaus. Inge Scholl wrote to him on 27 reality conform to it.“ He shared this pr agmatism March 1950: “The idea is to continue the Dessau more with Max Bill than with Hans Werner Richter. Bauhaus tradition in a form that meets the needs In view of his doubts and the way he seesawed of our situation today. That is why we want to add between searching for what was right and the politics and journalism to the design-related subneed to act, it comes as no surprise that Max Bill, jects (design, commercial art, city planning), and who knew exactly what he wanted, had the upper later, if this works, gradually introduce classes in hand over Otl Aicher at critical moments. Otl Airadio and film as well.“ 388 Requests for support at cher had already adopted Max Bill’s view of things first continued to be made in that particular seand defended it against Hans Werner Richter, sayquence: connection to the Bauhaus, a school ing that while the new school was not supposed based on the adult-education model, courses in to be a copy of the Bauhaus, “[w]e want to do for design, added courses in politics a nd journalism, our time what [the Bauhaus] did for its time. We’re with radio and film looming in the distance. 389 thirty years ahead.“ The result of this progress was Max Bill’s view of politics as a separate subject that design, politics, and personality building at the of instruction was clear: In spite of all the political future college became equally important means and social significance he attached to design, detoward the goal of understanding “life today” in all sign for him had priority over the political in eduits forms . cation.390 He wanted to educate designers who Hans Werner Richter now sensed that the politihad a political background and a sense of social cal element in the plan for the college – i. e., his responsibility – as did Otl Aicher – but certainly contribution – was coming under pressure, caused not political persons with skills in the ar ts, in comby Max Bill in the final analysis. Quickly Otl Aicher plete contrast to Otl Aicher. At the end of March sent a second letter in which he asked Hans Wer1950 Max Bill was not stating this view as firmly, ner Richter not to take his previous remarks perso that discussion of the ranking and role of polisonally and not to take offense. 392 But in actual tics as a subject of instruction at the Geschwisterfact there seems to have been an interval of silence. Scholl-Hochschule did not take place until June It was not until 24 June 1950, three months later, 1950. that Inge Scholl wrote again after they “hadn’t heard from each other for a long time”, but neverHans Werner Richter was still being considered as theless they were including Hans Werner Richter the future rector of the institution and as the head “in [their] plans as always” 393 – a remark that of a department that was to be devoted to (linmakes sense only as an apology, for if his particiguistic) information. That in itself indicates that he pation had been a fact and self-evident, this senhad a considerable influence on the plans for the tence would also appear to be superfluous. Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule . As a result of the Up till now it was assumed that his participawritten discussion between him and Otl Aicher on tion ended suddenly on 25 April 1950 when Shep-
Otl Aicher’s posters for the Thursday lectures at the Ulm Adult Education Center:
June 1947, December 1947, and April 1949. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (751/30, 751/22 and 751/12)
ard Stone had a cocktail party at his house in Bad Homburg, planned as an opportunity to discuss the college plans informally. In the literature there are accounts of how Hans Werner Richter was snubbed by the Americans to such an extent that they first negotiated with Otl Aicher and Inge Scholl while the other helpers (including Max Bill and Hans Werner Richter, between whom there was no love lost) had to wait elsewhere and were only asked to join the negotiations by and by – all except Hans Werner Richter, who understood this
vote against him very well and who felt bitter about his Ulm friends’ lack of support. 394 But the dates have been confused. 395 As will be shown, the sources clearly document that until 12 July 1950 Hans Werner Richter was actively involved in planning the Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule and it was not until shortly thereafter that he abruptly stopped participating396 ; not until then did Max Bill come to the fore with all his strength, and as of 9 November 1950 the baby was given a new name: Hochschule für Gestaltung(School of Design). 397 John P. Steiner, the head of the education branch at the Office of Public Affairs of the high commissioner for Württemberg-Baden in Stuttgart, recorded his thoughts on the 25 April 1950 meeting two days later in his letter to Inge Scholl. 398 He had proposed that the new project should grow out of the Adult Education Center instead of being set up directly as a separate institution. The Ulm group had rejected this proposal. In his letter John P. Steiner accepted this decision and continued to endorse support for the Ulm project, even though the design aspect of the plans for the college had become visible side by side with the political aspect. Today, it is difficult to understand how exactly one is to visualize the two aspects side by side; even the Americans found it hard to define the main idea behind the Geschwister-Scholl-Hoch-
schule, because the school’s founders had “until that time not yet described […] its nature and structure clearly”. Thus though there was as yet no clear definition as to what the Ulm group really wanted, John P. Steiner at least described for them what interest linked the office of the high commissioner with the founding of the college and what was expected of the project. In the context of the reorientation policy, the Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule, speaking in general terms, was to make a contribution to the democratization of the political consciousness of German society. Specifically the Americans hoped the specialization, which they had repeatedly criticized, and the competitiveness driven by jealousy and lone-wolf behavior existing in German institutions of learning would be overcome. “My government is interested in supporting projects that help build up a responsible government in Germany – a form of government in which citizens want to take on full responsibility for the actions of their government. We are looking for a government in which personal freedom and integrity are guaranteed for each individual. We are ready […] to help every institution in every way possible if this institution promises it will achieve these goals. […] We believe it is essential in creating a free society that problems should be solved with reference to other problems and in consideration of various problems that beset this society. I therefore ask: How will the institute you are planning help rebuild a free and democratic people? How would you achieve collaboration with already existing institutions? In what respect could your experiment bring about a change in the philosophy and practice prevalent in the German educational system?“ In addition to an answer to these q uestions, John P. Steiner wanted Inge Scholl to submit “a definitive, clearly argued application” together with evaluations of this pro ject by “well-known German education experts and influential citizens”, with commitments regarding donations, with a clear “definition” of the pro ject and with a curriculum. In the application “you are to state your contribution and the contribution you are requesting from my government”. This letter plainly and clearly places the Ulm plan within the coordinates of the American democratization program as a project meant to contribute to the reform of the German educational system, and not to serve only as a model institution. The staff at HICOG expected their promotion of the Ulm project to achieve other goals beyond this: the democratization of society, the education of democratically minded young people, the reconstruction of Germany. They expected contributions from the Ulm plan to most of the elements that were part of the democratization measures, and Inge Scholl did not contradict them. The following key phrases summarize American expecta-
81
Founding
82
tions: reformed curriculum, student dormitory, courses in sociology and political science 399 , college campus, community of teachers and learners, experience-based education toward democracy, model against renazification, new professions for the young. The democratization of Germany that was to result from all these (and more) measures was a very important goal for John McCloy. In the beginning of March 1950 he had had to defend his policy before Congress and the Senate when he presented a draft of the HICOG budget for the coming fiscal year: $18.5 million of a total of $30 million were slated for the Office of Public Affairs, and a lion’s share of that sum in turn went to the Education and Cultural Relations Division. “He considered this aspect of occupation […] to be so important that he gave the senators a detailed explanation of the primary goals of his program: democratization of German society, containment of communist and ultranationalist groups hostile toward democracy, support of the American policy of European integration and economic reconstruction, establishment of friendly relations between the US and a reconstructed Germany.“400 True, John McCloy’s draft was authorized to a large extent; however, he also experienced public pressure and the assessment by American observers “that developments followed an all too familiar pattern, that National Socialism was gaining prestige again, that the Germans would never change and that you couldn’t trust them“. 401 The New York Times published a confidential HICOG study dated February 1950 titled Report on Nationalism in Western Germany , in which the Germans were portrayed as politically apathetic and indifferent. 402 In rebuttal, McCloy expressed his conviction that positive, alternative forces in Germany had to be encouraged and strengthened, for the opportunity of the century to change the German mentality had arrived. He was determined to devote all his energies to that goal. Upon his return from the United States, on 20 April 1950, John McCloy passed Internal Directive P-1 , which summarized in twelve points the HICOG program up to the summer of 1952, which was at this point described in detail. 403 In his report on the second quarter of 1950 to the American secretary of state he wrote on the subject in his characteristic, realistic, but always confident way of putting things: “In the light of Communist pressure from the East, the problems of democratization needed special attention. While we were forced to realize that reorientation from a traditionally authoritarian to a democratic way of thinking in Germany was a slow process at best, we could nevertheless observe in the entire Federal territory signs of an awakening consciousness and a wish for civic rights, democ-
ratization of local government, education, employeeemployer relations and other spheres of life. In the US Zone this process was constantly promoted through exchange programs, incentives to civic action and through the information media. There were examples of regression, which shouldn’t come as a surprise in a country where twelve years of Nazi indoctrination have been followed by five years of occupation, only two of which have been spent under relatively normal economic conditions.“ 404 In the meantime the board of directors of the McCloy Fund had agreed that the entire sum of DM 50 million must be distributed among the various departments before funds could be allocated to individual projects. The largest share (12 million) was to be spent for youth projects, 10million each for education and universities, followed by West Berlin (5 million), health (4 million), public welfare (2 million), culture (2 million) and school children (1 million), as well as a reserve of DM 4 million. 405 The next significant conference between the founding team around Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, Max Bill, and Hans Werner Richter and the Americans took place on 12 July 1950. During the less than three months that had elapsed between the meetings in Bad Homburg (25 April) and Stuttgart (12 July), Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, Hans Werner Richter and Max Bill had continued working on the Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule project as a college of politics whose focus was still politics, though Max Bill urged that design be given equal prominence. It is pointless to go into all the details, for the principle that the Ulm group followed was expedient accommodation, which Inge Scholl described as follows: “To my mind the syllabus and the program will c hange from week to week, because it would be funny if we didn’t keep adding new ideas and eliminating old, outdated loose ends.“406 The correspondence with Walter Gropius that Max Bill began on 2 May 1950 regarding the college project and that he conducted with Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher dealt with politics in relation to design in the program of the planned school. 407 Max Bill introduced the project to Walter Gropius as a new Bauhaus, but one that would not be a repetition, but instead needed to go in new directions based on the experiences of the Adult Education Center. A foundation was being planned; the school would not be a state institution. Its goal was to educate an elite that would become politically effective on a democratic basis. “For us and also for the American authorities, political education, side by side with courses on technical sub jects and the humanities, is crucially important.“ And just as new and very real professions were to be created for those qualified in design, the found-
ers also tried to find, for students engaged in politics, the solid underpinnings of new job descriptions that did not yet exist. They also sought ways of connecting the individual subjects through new institutes that would teach the insights gained jointly: “For example, to the department of ‘political methodology’ we have added the ‘Institute of Public Opinion Research and Statistics’, in which architects, city planners, and advertising people etc. can work on their investigations. The enclosed outline represents a curious balance between the formal dominance of political subjects (“methodology of politics, press/ broadcasting, publicity, visual design, product design, architecture, town planning“; subjects with general educational value: sociology, economics, politics, psychology, philosophy, contemporary history), and the educational program that vehemently goes back to the Bauhaus.408 At the same time, on 8 May 1950, in her letter to Odd Nansen, Inge Scholl presented a variant of this relationship between politics and design: The main part of the letter consists of political reflecBrigitte BermannFischer, circa 1950. Photo: Oschatz
tions and rationale for founding a new college whose goal is “the creative person who thinks politically and is familiar with modern methods, and who with social responsibility and his own creative talents designs the lifestyles of our tech-
nological and industrial age “. 409 Indeed, this ob jective suited a college of politics very well, she said, but politics was to be merely the foundation and not the goal of the education: “In its educational goal the school limits itself to design-related professions inadequately developed by existing educational institutions or not taught yet.“ Putting things succinctly, during the same period, she wrote to another correspondent: “We want to pick up where the Bauhaus left off, though we intend to add modern general education, politics, and journalism to the purely design-related subjects.“ 410 Thus it comes as no surprise if even today as we weigh the arguments we are occasionally in the dark about what the Ulm group specifically imagined. Otl Aicher preferred to think concretely and always to stay close “to the object” 411 of his thinking, in order not to lose sight of reality while ruminating. He believed that political education should also lead to political professions. In March he conceded to Max Bill that politics as a subject of instruction would be cut, but simultaneously expressed his uneasiness about this decision, because political education without politics as an educational goal would lead to results that were as vague and had as little binding force as he had observed in arts education at the academies. The planning of a sociological institute was the compromise, as long as it was not possible to teach a concrete profession of “politician”. On 16 May 1950 Max Bill called into question these developments. 412 He could not bring himself to like the idea that the educational objectives of the planned college would be professions in politics as well as in design. “[The fact] that political training is necessary, not as a subject, but rather as general education“ was his biggest concession to the practicability of having design and politics side by side in the curriculum and faculty: “I am still convinced that we must train not politicians but citizens who have a profession and think politically.“ That is why he wrote to Inge Scholl that the planned departments of politics, press, and advertising were basically the same thing, and that he wanted to combine them in a new department of information.413 Otl Aicher defended his view with the image that people needed politicians just as much as traffic needed traffic police: “Social life does not function on its own. […] We need the politician as a kind of traffic cop, as a chairman who organizes societal life and allows it to function. […] Without a doubt a politician today needs to know just as much as a lawyer. Should he not learn it before even setting out on his career?“ 414 Max Bill refused to accept this and remained stubborn. He gave priority to design over the polit-
83
Founding
84
Basic course – training programs – general education
ical and knew he was in agreement with Walter Gropius, who had analyzed the situation from afar with keen insight. Walter Gropius doubted that the two could coexist side by side peacefully and productively at a college of politics and design: “There’s bound to be a struggle over who will be in charge, the teacher in politics or the teacher in the arts.“ 415 He clearly realized that the initiative to found a college “comes from political interest and not from artistic design.“ As an example of the functioning subordination of politico-journalistic subjects to design-related ones he mentioned the Institute of Design in Chicago. 416 Though this was grist to the mill of Max Bill, he felt he owed Walter Gropius an explanation that graphically portrayed the situation at the time as the tactical muddle it was: “I myself tend toward a general, not a specialized political Hans Werner Richter and Inge Scholl at Marktplatz 9, the address of the offices of the Ulm Adult Education Center, circa February 1950. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (760/27)
wise distribute to the outmoded schools, let’s not go out of our way to give extra emphasis to those things that they’d prefer not to see.“ 417 For this reason Max Bill, too, held on to a minimum of political and journalistic education, though it had less importance for him than the departments of product design, architecture, and city planning. This tactic of Max Bill’s – to submit to HICOG plans for a college where the teaching of politics predominated only until their subsidy had been authorized – was confirmed by Inge Scholl shortly afterward, on 5 July 1950: “There’s one thing you mustn’t forget, Bill: to make a distinction between things that definitively have to be taken seriously, and the documents that the Americans demand immediately. Of course time is too limited for us to agree, across a d istance of 150 kilometers, on the final plan in the form in which it will be implemented. […] That’s just it, you’d have to write volumes of letters in order to give an ongoing description of the situation here, which keeps changing constantly.“ Thus, she insisted that they hurry so that the first quarter-million, which was slated to be spent by HICOG by the end of that fiscal year, could be used for the first construction work as part of the step-by-step planning. 418
A week after this letter by Inge Scholl, on 12 July 1950, there was a meeting in Stuttgart that marks the high point and at the same time a turning point in the development of a Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule. It was a high point in that the plan for a college dominated by the political, which was fundamentally based on Hans Werner Richter’s collaboration, was articulated for this deadline in its most extensive and detailed form to date. At the same time this meeting was also a turning point, because shortly thereafter Hans Werner Richter left the group of college founders and the project was continued with design given precedence. It is impossible to determine how large a share tactics and conviction had at this point in Inge Scholl’s and Otl Aicher’s college plan, which proposed that courses in politics and journalism would predominate. From the briefing papers for closer collaborators it can be seen, however, that classes in the design-related subjects (visual deeducation […]. However, until now I haven’t paid a sign, product design, architecture, and city planlot of attention to this department of political ning), as well as the most essential workshops, methodology because I personally am convinced were to begin at once, while the political ad socithat it will fall into oblivion before it has even maological subjects were “for the time being” releterialized. However, the American officials have gated to the background of “general education” their hearts set on this political education, on p ress together with economics, contemporary history, and radio etc. That emerged very clearly at a conpsychology, and philosophy. 419 For the step-byference we had about 3 weeks ago in Frankfurt. step development of the college they expected Artistic design holds absolutely no interest for DM 600,000 in American funds over the next two these people. […] However, since we want the years, while DM 900,000 would be collected from money from the Americans that they would otherGerman sources.
politics
political methodology
sociology
press radio
urban planning
basic course architecture
product design
economics
advertising information
photo film
contemporary history
philosophy
psychology
In the Stuttgart home of John P. Steiner, Am Bismarckturm 4, on the evening of 12 July 1950, the gathering included, on the German side, not only Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, Max Bill and Hans Werner Richter, but also the attorney Hellmut Becker, Ulm city planning director Max Guther, the Stuttgart writer and a friend of Max Bill, Dieter Keller, and, as a token representative of German industry and commerce, a director of the Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik (a hardware factory). The Ulm group had assembled this rather heterogeneous circle of people because they wanted to convey to the HICOG staff that a broad spectrum of the German public was behind their plans. 420 No doubt the American “ideal of a nonpartisan interest group“ was also behind these expectations.421 HICOG was represented by staff members James Morgan Read and John P. Steiner, who appeared in Stuttgart with other colleagues. 422 Max Bill presented them with his architectural blueprints, and they received an extensive outline based on documents that had on 8 May 1950 been given to Odd Nansen as well, and that d iffered from the latter only in the finer points. The outline had been worked out in detail: from the general motives and rationale for the new college, to the political, cultural, pedagogical and professional goals in such sub jects as political methodology, press/radio, advertising/information, photo/film, product design, architecture, and city planning with the specific degree programs, and finally to the building, faculty, budget, and organization. 423 It was impressive. Judging by the sequence of the subjects and the sociopolitical and politico-cultural argumentation the Americans couldn’t help concluding that this was a political college of a new type, whose initiators wanted to provide their students with a comprehensive personal education and professional training. The proposed educational methods emphasized the rejection of specialization and hierarchy. Any remaining misgivings were to be eliminated by an enclosed list of pledged contributions, a total of DM 511,000, and expert’s reports by Carl Zuckmayer, by the state secretary of the Bavarian ministry of education and the arts, Dieter Sattler, and by Nobel Prize winner Werner Heisenberg. Education toward freedom, tolerance and democracy was a recipe that was to the taste of the HICOG staff, particularly given the political climate of the period 424. On one hand American discussions about the resurgence of nationalism in Germany put pressure on HICOG p olicy to show results; on the other hand a few weeks earlier, with the Pentecost gathering of Freie Deutsche Jugend (Free German Youth) – 400,000 young people had assembled on command for a largescale demonstration in Berlin to serve as a coverup for a Soviet attempt to capture Berlin – the
85
Founding
86
Organization
Lecture Authority of the teacher and of the material Mass processing Examinations Supervision Certificates of class attendance Rigid syllabus and scheduling From theory to practice Knowledge
Free community
Free form of instruction Discussion Teachers only in auxiliary capacity From practice to theory Working independently Personal interest Incentive Enjoying the work Going deeper Unfolding of personal talents Experientiallearning instead of dead facts Teaching framework in lieu of a syllabus Independent critical judgment
Various fundamental pedagogical principles
ensnarement of West German youth had started. On 25 June 1950 the Korean War began when North Korean troops crossed the 38th parallel. This attack plunged the West into a c risis of political and military self-confidence vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and its allies. This also marked the beginning of the controversy around the rearmament of Germany. In strategic considerations, the enemy of 1945 was needed as an ally against what was perceived to be superior Soviet strength, and therefore it was also crucial to win over the Germans themselves, especially the young, as friends and helpers. Of course it was the young, more than other age groups, who had “a considerable aversion to American policy. Forty-seven percent of fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds rejected it, and only 38 percent supported it. […] Mistrust and a ‘count-me-out’ attitude were prevalent.“ 425 One single page that came out of the Stuttgart meeting succinctly records the results, which turned out to be amazing enough. It was agreed that HICOG would make available DM 1 million to the project if its initiators succeeded in furnishing proof within the next three months of a second DM 1 million from German sources and assure that annual operating costs would be covered.426 Half of this German contribution was expected from the Land and the federal government, the site of the school was assessed at DM 300,000, and the city of Ulm was expected to contribute DM 100,000. The remaining DM 100,000 were to be raised through private donations and payments on the part of industry. This result, sober though it sounds, was actually to provide an excellent foundation not only for an immediate campaign to raise donations and subsidies, but also for legal, personnel- and construction-related matters. But now that HICOG was serious about the project and cleared the way to implement it on an international and not merely regional level, Max Bill, too, decided to do the job properly. On 18 July 1950 he gave Inge Scholl an ultimatum to accept certain conditions under which he was now willing to devote all his energies to their common cause. 427 Firstly, he objected to the college being named after Hans and Sophie Scholl, though he agreed that the foundation should be so named, and instead proposed “Bauhaus Ulm”. Hans Werner Richter, who had made himself responsible for the political program of a Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule, was also to be dropped from the project. Max Bill saw him as a “failure”, with poor command of the German language, full of resentment and lacking creativity. With this appraisal Inge Scholl was given an early example of how quick Max Bill was to pass judgment, something he did often and at the drop of a hat, and in slanderous terms. Honor where honor
Otl Aicher, circa November 1949. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (758/17)
was due: Max Bill now claimed the position of rec- dated 1 August 1950 and as an English-language tor in place of Hans Werner Richter, and also the original dated 7 August 1950. 429 It was much position of the chair of all design-related departshorter than the discussion outline that preceded ments and the position of head of the department it on 12 July 1950, for the extensive sociopolitical of architecture; we must not forget that he had rationale and arguments for the new college were also been designated as the architect of the buildabsent, as Max Bill had wished. Only a few senings. Inge Scholl as the head of a “board of directences remained to suggest the principles so tors“ (which means the head of the legal sponsorbeloved by the Ulm group, and in these stateing body) was to be responsible for “moral” leadments they argued primarily with regard to the ership and responsibility, while Otl Aicher as her pedagogical and politico-educational goals to be deputy was to maintain contact with local a uthorpursued by the project: The result of the specialities. Finally, two additional demands by Max Bill ization of “today’s schools“, which were oriented are remarkable. He wanted the program applica“one-sidedly either toward professional training or tion that had to be submitted to HICOG in a few general education or political education“, was that days to be purged of all “literary and philosophical education was geared to producing only p rofesfrills. The program must be boiled down to the sionals, intellectuals, or politicians, people “so limmost essential things.“ For him, essential meant ited that they kept society from developing in a concentrating on continuing and further develophealthy way”. ing the Bauhaus: “The more Bauhaus people are The Ulm group’s response to the self-imposed at the school, the sooner there is a guarantee that narrowness of the institutions of learning with their 1. there is agreement as regards ideas; 2. the basic mass operation was the model of a college in pedagogical principles are present; 3. the flaws in which “life is seen as an integral whole and relathe development of the Bauhaus are not repeated; tionships between professionally oriented, socio4. new ideas are generated based on old experipolitical, and cultural factors“ would be estabences.“ Finally he emphasized his position that the lished. The educational programs that together college, right from the start, was also, and espeformed “a self-contained complex of subjects cially in need of public subsidies. In this regard he referred to as design“ were the same eight as in had a different understanding than Otl Aicher of the earlier outline, and the statements on general the freedom and independence of an institution education, curriculum and educational goal had such as the planned college vis-à-vis the state. hardly been changed in the meantime. “The goal Max Bill’s views on this question were based on of the work and education at this school is the self-confidence and pragmatism rather than on creative person who thinks politically and is familprinciples and ideology. iar with modern methods, and who with social Inge Scholl’s response was amazingly independresponsibility and his own creative talents designs ent and free. 428 She would not accept his ultimathe lifestyle of our technological and industrial tum and pointed out to him how undiplomatic his age.“ By declaring that the political, literary, and behavior had been. Because of his experience and journalistic part of the program was a component ability, she said, he would be given everything that of the college’s mission to teach design they kept he demanded anyway. But his determination to all doors open. The HICOG staff recognized in the get his own way showed the Ulm group someoutline their ideas regarding urgent needs for rething questionable about him as a p erson: “I think form in the German education system and were we can continue collaborating only if there is a able to decide in good faith to promote a college basis of friendly, open teamwork […].“ The author- that intended to play a part in democratization and ity necessary at the college could not be demanded, political education. At the same time the founders she said, that was created as colleagues worked of the college were able to begin by setting up together in the formational phase. Up to this point, those departments that were necessary to form of course, Hans Werner Richter had also been part the college itself, because they made possible the of planning, and as for personnel decisions, which college’s own output (product design, architecmight later prove to be a hindrance, they didn’t ture, visual design). Further development could want to go into that at all. However, Inge Scholl’s help determine how political education would later introductory remark does show how far removed be implemented. Hans Werner Richter already was from the center In their studies, Eva von Seckendorff and Hans of the founding team at this time: “Up till now the Frei show that the program the founders of the school has been supported by you, by Otl, and by Ulm college presented in their application to the me.“ Americans resembled the New Bauhaus in Chicago far more than it did the Bauhaus in Dessau: The last proposal for a Geschwister-Scholl-Hoch“The overturning of the canon of subjects advoschule is the official application to HICO G, which cated by Gropius and Bill and the integration of has come down to us as a German draft version politics in general education correspond to a large
87
Founding
88
Inge Scholl, circa November 1949. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (758/04)
Politics and political structure
extent to the program of the ‘Institute of Design’ (ID) that Gropius had recommended as exemplary.“430 The budget was set at DM 1,986,000, as agreed on 12 July 1950. This figure comprised only the cost of building and setting up the college, whose campus was to consist of teacher residences, a student dormitory, classrooms, and workshops. This sum of just under DM 2 million would no longer include ongoing operating costs during the first years. There was no mention of the fact that initial operating costs had been guaranteed, but HICOG soon brought up the subject again and made it one of the basic requirements for paying out the American support. In lieu of a guarantee there was a financial plan for operation during the first years. It is based on the assumption that 150 students would register at the college. Expenses (for salaries, administrative and operating costs) were estimated at DM 433,000 as opposed to an income of DM 291,150, so that an annual subsidy of almost DM 150,000 was considered necessary. This sum was to be collected from the Land (DM 50,000), the city (DM 30,000), American funds (DM 40,000), and from the supporting association of the foundation (DM 25,000). The application clearly indicates how the complete freedom of the college the founders had initially strived for, a freedom that was to be expressed in economic autonomy as well, was given up in favor of a more realistic financing plan. While the latter offered the undeniable advantage of making possible large-scale planning, the founders also had to accept a fact that proved to be a disadvantage – the college became dependent on government financing. Again and again, the driving force behind budget increases was Max Bill, who was not satisfied with small solutions, neither in programrelated, nor organizational, nor architectural matters. The foundation envisaged as the sponsor of the college was to have four components: an executive board, an advisory board, an administrative council and a board of trustees. The list of candidates contains both the names of persons who actually did later become members of one of these bodies (Hermann Josef Abs, Otl Aicher, Hellmut Becker, Max Bill, Helmut Cron, Kurt Deschler, Walter Gropius, Romano Guardini, Karl Max von Hel-lingrath, Odd Nansen, Inge Scholl, Roderich Count Thun, Henry van de Velde, Walter Zeischeg g, Carl Zuckmayer) and of persons who no longer appeared later (advisory board: Fritz Hartnagel, Gustav Hassenpflug, Dieter Keller, Sven Anker Lindström, F.Neidenberger, Hans Werner Richter, Ernst Scheidegger, Vera Meyer-Waldeck; administrative council: Hanns Becher, Heinz Kluge, F. P. Hellin, J. Fr. Muth, G. Schmitz).
Following this description of the project’s program development, from its beginnings as a day-time adult education center, to the yellow program and the many others that succeeded it and variants thereof, to the official application to HICOG, here now is a look at the organizational side. The planned college would have needed no sponsor, but from the start Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher wanted to shield the new institution from undesirable external influences by means of a legal entity. The project itself, after all, was to be free and independent. Even in the early conversations that Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher had with Arne Torgersen, the word “foundation” is mentioned; the foundation was supposed to be provided by Norwegian Aid for Europe, and there would be two committees, one of them “executive” and the other “representative“. These preliminary plans contain the core of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung that was founded later, for its advisory board was the actual acting body and the board of trustees was intended as a committee in which prominent people in Germany and abroad would support the school. Of course, at this early date there was not yet any question of a college, but Carl Zuckmayer, Romano Guardini, and Herbert Read, who had been listed among others as ideal candidates as early as 20 November 1949, remained loyal to the project and became members of the board of trustees. Other prominent people on this list are Alvar Aalto, Prince Lennart Bernadotte, Albert Einstein, André Gide, Werner Heisenberg, Karl Jaspers, Eugen Jochum, Erich Kästner, Jules Romain, Eleonor Roosevelt, and Thornton Wilder. The funding that the Ulm group expected first from Norwegian Aid for Europe, then from the American high commissioner’s office and from German donors and companies needed a “receiving organization“. 431 That is why even at an early date the Ulm group linked its need for protection and ideal of freedom for the planned college with the practical consideration that the sums would be obtained in the form of endowments or were to be received by a legal entity that could guarantee that donations were tax-deductible. An added factor in the months that followed was the uncertainty of the financial backers, who wanted to give financial help only to an institution whose independence and practical reliability vouched that the funds would be used as intended. The first work on the legal basis for an association, and then a foundation, was done in early 1950 by Inge Scholl’s father together with Fritz Hartnagel, her brother-in-law, who was just concluding his term as a law clerk 432 , and Hans Jürgen Söhring, who was also teaching courses on everyday legal issues at the Adult Education Center. Inge Scholl asked Max Bill for all available information on the organization of the Bauhaus as a point
press radio
propaganda public education instruction
urban planning
information
contemporary history
sociology
politics
economics
image film
residentialbuilding
industrial products
All 3 diagrams based on a sketch by Otl Aicher in the memo for the 12 July 1950 Stuttgart meeting.
of departure433 , but he did not think much of this retrogression: “The Bauhaus was not a foundation, but a state school. The structure of the Bauhaus therefore doesn’t have much to do with our intentions, as far as organization is concerned. Besides I think a foundation is more appropriate.“ 434 Based on his experience and business a cumen, Max Bill recommended that a company be founded in addition to the foundation that would look after “the business transactions of the institute“ – no doubt because he had a premonition of the trouble that might be in store if the needed and hoped-for big industrial orders had to move through the entire institution – and also that a “circle of friends” be formed, an organization of supporters and benefactors. “The latter two institutions existed at the Bauhaus as well. They proved to be worthwhile.“ It shouldn’t be too hard to guess that these suggestions led to the later development teams and institutes at the HfGas well as the Gesellschaft der Freunde der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung (Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung). In his letter of 22 March 1950 to Inge Scholl, Max Bill criticized the development of the entire project up to that point, starting with the program, going on to the faculty, the architecture, the organization and the negotiations of the Ulm group, and concluding with the board of trustees as envisaged so far.435 With his energetic criticism, always touching the sore points, he pushed the entire project in the direction that has already been described. He did not want to found a college with “all the important and old gentlemen” Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher had introduced to him. He diagnosed the fact that the Ulm group relied too much on p rominent names that they had picked at random, assuming that if the spread was broad enough they would score a maximum number of hits, and he considered this state of affairs to be symptomatic of the current status of the project as a whole: “I don’t particularly like the composition of the board of trustees; in a number of places you could just as well have a completely different set of names. The committee comes from a period of development before the war […]. However, I don’t want to interfere in this matter, I’d just like to state that I would have gone about things very differently.“ Max Bill demanded that instead of the broad range advocated by the people in Ulm, they should envisage the goal as clearly as possible and work toward it carefully: “[…] Always remain clear and hard where your basic principles are concerned. If you start making concessions by even so much as a centimeter, you’ve lost and you might as well give up at once. […] And never be satisfied with doing something right, it’s always got to be the best, the most progressive. Anything else is not worth the trouble in this line of work.“
89
Founding
90
Otl Aicher did not accept this criticism and set Max Bill straight on 25 March 1950 about the sound and promising steps taken by the Ulm group: “[…] Don’t worry about the retrogression. In tactical questions Inge drives better than I can drive a car“.436 If they were forced to raise half the money from German sources, when it was urgently needed everywhere “for refugees, for housing construction, for a theater in crisis, for neglected and homeless youth, for the unemployed, for ski jumps, and God knows what“ by “a n industry that
ing : “For the school itself there is no need to create a good image. The work and its quality shall be our image. […] So once more: Don’t worry that old fuddy-duddies might interfere in our affairs.“ “Institutional structure“ was to prevent this interference in the day-to-day work of the planned institution. Otl Aicher wanted it to be completely autonomous. “The school is to be shaped by the faculty, students, and administration.“ He envisioned the decision-making and supervisory body of the foundation – still referred to here as the Circa November 1949. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (758/10)
has other worries“, and if they were then finally allowed to call on those people who could provide them with funds, then prominent names simply offered support and security and helped with the decision. “Of course that’s how you get a board of trustees that isn’t a political platform. But is that necessary? We need people who can evaluate what we’re doing to some extent and who approve. What we then do ourselves is our business.“ The quotation clearly and concisely expressed how Otl Aicher imagined the relationship of the planned college to the board of trustees as a miniversion of the foundation: The foundation was there to make possible the work of the independent college. On 30 March 1950, to help Max Bill understand this goal, he returned to the topic he had touched on in his preceding letter: “I think there are two things we need to keep separate: 1. the foundation and 2. the school.“ 437 In contrast to the Bauhaus the board of trustees was to be part of the foundation and not the college, and its sole purpose was to impress government ministries and industry and convince them of the seriousness of the undertak-
“foundation‘s council“ – as a group of like-minded and “trustworthy” persons, “in other words, the actual founders and sponsors of the school”, a circle of friends of the Ulm group who oversaw the budget and the purpose of the foundation, and supervised the faculty. Since the end of March 1950 Inge Scholl had been pursuing contact with the ministry of education and the arts in Stuttgart 438 , the supervisory agency that had to authorize the foundation. On 5 April 1950 she received the first draft of the foundation’s bylaws from Ferdinand Sieger, a Stuttgart attorney who was not only the attorney for Brigitte Bermann-Fischer, but also had his office near the Stuttgart Schloßgarten, so that he could occasionally “talk through the whole issue in detail with the minister of education and the arts [Theodor Bäuerle; author’s note] and the consultant in charge [Mr. Hochstetter; author’s note]”. He promised them that the bylaws would be authorized within two weeks of submission. However, the Ulm group were put off by Ferdinand Sieger’s demanding ways, and his views differed in essential points
from those of the founders: “It cannot be denied that if people have some say in an organization (though to a very limited degree), they might feel a lot more generous.“ That was precisely the kind of situation Otl Aicher wanted to prevent. Therefore Ferdinand Sieger’s further efforts did not preclude the Ulm group from looking for another legal advisor for their project. Who knows what would have become of the HfG if Inge Scholl had not met Hellmut Becker? Of course this question could be asked about all those who collaborated and helped with the Ulm project when we try to assess each person’s importance. In every case, the HfG would have been a different institution. However, this is particularly true in the case of Hellmut Becker. In the 18 years that followed, his personal interest in cultural matters, particularly in education policies, and quite specifically in educational institutions that enriched the bleak Federal German landscape with their free and wild blossoms, coupled with his extensive contacts, was to give the HfG legal backing that seemed to be custom-made for the Ulm group. Hellmut Becker was the son of Carl Heinrich Becker, the Prussian minister of education and the arts in 1921, and, between 1925 and 1930 during the Weimar Republic, a trendsetting and reformoriented politician who concerned himself with cultural and political matters. 439 Hellmut Becker attended secondary school at the boarding school Schulen Schloß Salem , studied law, and graduated in 1943 with a doctorate in law. Max von Baden, the last imperial chancellor, had founded Salem in 1920 together with his private secretary Kurt Hahn. 440 In the fall of 1945 he invited a number of prominent people to Salem to hear Friedrich Georg Jünger, who read a text by his brother Ernst, and to discuss, directly after the end of the war, a fresh start in cultural terms. 441 Hellmut Becker, who was involved in the reopening, was among the guests at Salem, as were Alexander Mitscherlich442 and Thorwald Risler. Hellmut Becker went on to make his name, in 1946, by defending the undersecretary of the foreign ministry, Ernst Baron von Weizsäcker, the father of one of his schoolmates, in the so-called Wilhelmstraßenprozeß (Wilhelmstrasse Trial), one of several trials OMGUS conducted following the Nuremberg Trials by the joint Allies against prominent leaders in trade, industry, and politics. 443 It is in this connection that Inge Scholl apparently first contacted him. 444 When Inge Scholl turned to Hellmut Becker in the spring of 1950 because she was looking for another attorney who could help her work out the bylaws of the foundation and channel their authorization through the ministry of education and the arts of the Land of Württemberg-Baden in Stuttgart, he was just beginning to work as a consultant
with cultural organizations, private schools, and scientific institutions. In subsequent decades he became an unrefuted specialist in this field, and went on to serve and advise cultural organizations until the mid-sixties. Among them were the boarding schools Salem , Birklehof and Odenwaldschule , as well as the famous zoological station of the Dohrn family in Naples 445 , and, last but not least, Alexander Mitscherlich’s Institut für Psychoanalytische Medizin . In March 1950 his first essay had just appeared in Merkur , titled “Who will finance cultural freedom?“ – a question that is terrifyingly prescient if one keeps in mind the history of the HfG. For some time Hellmut Becker had been the legal consultant of the independent Schule Birklehof in Hinterzarten, which was supported by two associations, one of which was the legal sponsor, while the other was an “association of founders and friends“. The Ulm group had something similar in mind for their foundation when they wanted to have it exist in an electric field between a representativ e and an executive pole. The exact legal relationship between individual entities – executive board, foundation‘s council, board of trustees, and administrative director – now needed to be defined in such a way that the college’s founders’ goals (autonomy of the college; engagement of prominent international faculty; administration of subsidies and donations reflecting financial and fiscal expertise) were fulfilled. Inge Scholl could take the time to change to a different lawyer because the project was first handed around from department to department at the Stuttgart ministry of education and the arts, and nobody felt responsible for it. The department of national education referred the matter to the department of colleges and universities 446 ; here the project was greeted with interest and approval, primarily because the project in question was neither a university nor a college 447; for a while, both departments dealt with the matter. Inge Scholl at first did not give in when Max Bill urged that the project be organized under the name of Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung448 . On 8 July 1950 she filed the foundation charter with the ministry of education and the arts and requested that it be authorized pursuant to Section 80 of the German Civil Code. 449 She expected the process to be concluded within a very short time. 450 This draft of the bylaws was not yet authorized by the ministry. Instead, corrections and reworked bylaws went back and forth; it was not until the fifth version of the bylaws, dated 5 December 1950, was submitted that the minister of education and the arts authorized the foundation. The versions can be divided very simply into two groups: The versions between 8 July 1950 and 25 October 1950 address the setting up of a Stif-
91
Founding
92
Hans Curjel, Henry van de Velde, Max Bill (and, outside the picture, Johannes Itten) at the opening of the exhibition Around 1900 at the Zurich Museum of Arts and Crafts; (28 June– 28 Sept. 1952).
tung Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule 451, while the last two versions of 9 November 1950 and 5 December 1950 aim at establishing the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung452 . Inge Scholl had three reasons for renaming the foundation: Firstly, she indicated that Max Bill had urged this change, secondly she had taken into consideration a suggestion by the department of “colleges and universities” at the ministry of education and the arts, who wanted to reserve the name “college/university” for the “ classical colleges/universities”. Thirdly – and this was the deciding factor – “the purpose of the foundation was expanded in Section 3“ for tax reasons. 453 More about this later. A detailed discussion of the development of individual drafts of the bylaws does not bring any insights that are worth noting. The basic intentions are stated from the very beginning, and there a re few substantial changes during the five months that follow, between 8 July 1950 and 5 December 1950. The foundation’s bylaws at first consisted of 18, then 20, and finally 21 sections. The purpose of the foundation (sections 1–3) 454 originally was to set up and r un the Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule. Against the wishes of the ministry of education and the arts, the Ulm group refused to work out a definitive school agenda for the b ylaws because they “envisaged the very opposite: a flexible development of the school“. 455 After 9 September 1950, as was mentioned above, the purpose of the foundation changed, so that the main focus as the primary purpose of the foundation on 9 November 1950 and on 5 December 1950 was the Institute of Product Design the group planned to found, while the school appeared only as an appendage of the necessary laboratories and workshops. – From the beginning an executive board, an advisory board, and an administrative committee were planned as entities of the foundation (sections 4– 11); the board of trustees, too, initially was to become an entity of the foundation, but that body lost this status in the course of negotiations. Instead, an additional foundation entity was introduced: the general meeting of the foundation. As for the details: The advisory board ( sections 6–9) was to be in control of the foundation and the college equally. It was intended to be the central body of the foundation, in which the Ulm circle around Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher was to institutionalize itself. The founder appointed the first members of the advisory board, which was to consist of at least nine p ersons including the executive board, from the circle of those who were substantially involved “in the planning and preliminary stage of founding” the college. 456 In the future only those people who identified with the goals and ideas of the college and its founders could become members of the advisory board. The ad visory
board determined the foundation budget and appointed the executive board, who belonged to the advisory board in any case. – The executive board (section 5), consisting of one or three members, was considered to be primus inter pares. It conducted the business of the foundation and could call on the services of an administrative director, who was, however, an authorized agent of the executive board and not p art of the foundation. The executive board submitted to the authority of the advisory board. – The administrative committee (section 10), according to the intention of the Ulm group, backed by Hellmut Becker, was to become a body in which at least nine representatives of the sponsoring association, which was yet to be founded, were to meet ab out once a year. The Ulm group intended this entity to provide pro forma supervision by generous donors from the private and public sector. The group would be vested only with the right to veto the b udget, making sure that finances were administered correctly. Nothing terrified the Ulm circle more than that the administrative committee would “be granted the right to have a say in the inner organization of the school” and “that the school would be subject to outside influences or even the interests of certain business circles”.457 To be sure, it was important for the ministry of education and the arts that the administrative committee have adequate opportunities to bring their influence to bear on the budget. The first authorized bylaws of 5 December 1950 did not provide for this, but in subsequent years the Stuttgart officials achieved more than that when the bylaws of the foundation were revised. The revision reversed the balance of power within the foundation, for the advisory board lost its dominant position, and was replaced b y the administrative council, the expanded successor of the administrative committee, with the decisive powers to intervene in matters that included, and specifically affected, the college’s inner structure . The delegates of the sponsoring association from the private sector also gradually became powerful representatives of their own interests; to what extent these were justified is a matter of personal opinion. – Lastly, the general meeting (section 11) was planned from the start as a joint meeting of the advisory board and the administrative committee, only initially not as an independent body. Its task was to decide on matters concerning the foundation itself, i.e., changing the bylaws and dissolution of the foundation. – The only and main responsibility of the board of trustees (section 12) consisted of representation; its members were selected with the expectation that their prestige as internationally renowned personalities would help the college gain recognition, and that they would express “their confidence” in the work of the college “by the fact that they belonged to the board
group and Hans Werner Richter had presented their curriculum plans to the Americans, the latter had not only promised their basic support, but had also agreed to pay half the estimated sum for the establishment of the college: “That was more than we had expected.“ After this, with the help of the comments of Walter Gropius, he torpedoed political methodology as a subject and with it, Hans Werner Richter. He was successful: Politics now became a subject included under general education. With Shepard Stone’s and John McCloy’s help, he felt, the decisive HICOG body would authorize the project. After the Ulm group had hurried to submit their request, the proposal at first remained in Ulm on the desk of the district liaison officer in charge, John F Capell. 460
Photo: Ernst Hahn Archive: HfG (Depositum 90/41.1)
of trustees”. – For managing the college itself separate college bylaws were promised (section 13), but in fact they were some time in coming. After these remarks on the authorized bylaws of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, which have somewhat anticipated the chronological course of events, I shall now return to the moment when Inge Scholl submitted the official request for American funds, back to 7 August 1950. Inge Scholl reported to Shepard Stone, her patron at H ICOG, why the Ulm group felt such a hurry about setting up a college program: They wanted a decision from the board of directors of the McCloy Fund at the earliest possible date, because, she said, the German funds could not be collected until American commitment was absolutely assured. 458 After the request had been submitted there was nothing to do but work on the bylaws of the foundation and hope. Max Bill felt optimistic about the situation. 459 He claimed he had the management of the project “almost completely” under control, after a “vehement“ confrontation with Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher – the letters of 18 July 1950 and 25 July 1950 may have been only the tip of the iceberg. He claimed that even earlier, in the very “animated” session on 12 July 1950 in Stuttgart, when he had presented his architectural plans and the Ulm
The board of directors of the McCloy Fund had placed the actual responsibility of funding the college in the hands of the HICOG personnel – the district liaison officers – who acted as liaison with the German population. 461 It was their job to help German applicants if they wanted their p rojects to be sponsored by the McCloy Fund. They also had to judge whether these projects met the important criteria. The procedure in the case of Inge Scholl’s application was atypical, because the initial idea had not come from the locality for which the Ulm officer was responsible, but from all the way at the top, and he was now supposed to give his expert opinion on the matter. A great deal of work was expected from him – as would be true for any district liaison officer in this situation. The type of local problem was to be described in detail with an underpinning of statistical data, in ad dition to information about the specific goals of the project, an impeccable financing plan, not to mention documentation of successes to date. There would also need to be legally binding commitments to finance the project from donors and fiscal authorities, statements on long-term goals from a German and an American perspective, and German references. Then the project (like every other project that wanted to be sponsored by the McCloy Fund) was to be passed on to the responsible Land commissioner, where boards of directors for the McCloy Fund were also being set up. The Ulm group had, of course, already drawn up most of these documents because it was in direct contact with HICOG headquarters, but they still needed a statement from John F. Capell. Perhaps he felt he had been passed over? It took him three weeks to produce his expert opinion. He interviewed 13 “leading personalities“ from Ulm to arrive at his opinion. On 28 August 1950, in a five-page paper, he compiled those statements that seemed essential to him. In his commentary on the project John F. Capell does not conceal the
93
Founding
94
fact that the expert opinion was too much for him. In the categories that were familiar to him of the American “reorientation program as far as organization of forums, public discussion of current topics, youth discussion groups, and town hall meetings are concerned“, he found no p igeonhole that fit exactly. 462 He also criticized the fact that Inge Scholl had not discussed her project with the Ulm general public, but had always consulted only a “clique“ of close friends from the Adult Education Center, and that the group of her advisers included no citizens of Ulm or of Württemberg. The persons introduced by her had no experience running a school. The prominent citizens of Ulm he had interviewed were for the most part not only skeptical toward the project, but opposed to it. This opposition did not stop at party boundaries: Members of the local council who belonged to the CDU (Christian Democratic Union), DVP (German National Party), FWU (Free Voters Association of Ulm, a local political party), and SPD (German Social Democratic Party) spoke in negative terms. Among them were Franz Wiedemeier, a member of the Württemberg-Baden Parliament and leader of the CDU in the Ulm local council, who referred to the plan as “absurd”, Guido Guendisch, who belonged to the finance committee of the WürttembergBaden Parliament, as well as Kurt Fried, who re jected Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher as unqualified for the job of running a school. 463 Only three of the people interviewed welcomed the project and felt it was worth supporting. Without exception, there were two reasons for rejecting the project. Firstly, the sponsors of the project, especially Otl Aicher but also Inge Scholl, were incapable of managing such an institution. Secondly, there was no need for such a college, or for a new college at all in Württemberg-Baden, let alone in Ulm; the universities had no money as it was, so that it was preferable to support existing institutions. After giving his expert opinion, John F. Capell, taking his time apparently 464 , passed on the application to his superiors in Stuttgart. There, too, people took their time so that the matter could mature in peace. It was not until the beginning of October that James Morgan Read at HICOG headquarters in Frankfurt am Main received the application of the Ulm group from Stuttgart. But in Frankfurt there were still doubts as to the earnestness and seriousness of the college project. Obviously the Americans did not completely trust Max Bill’s promise, for he felt compelled to declare that he had agreed to work on the project “definitively”, “through thick and thin”. 465 They wanted to have another talk with him, and a great deal seemed to hinge on this interview for the entire project. This attitude again clearly shows the extent to which HICOG staff made the implementation of the college project contingent on Max Bill’s participation.
It had already become evident to them that he was the man of action in the group of college founders, and that only his participation guaranteed that the plan would be p ut into effect permanently, while they regarded Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher more as idealists who had bitten off more than they could chew when they picked this project. On 1 October 1950 Max Bill again complained of how limited were the founders’ ideas, particularly those of Otl Aicher.466 On the one hand his criticism referred to the financial basis of the whole project: “Incidentally, we must be aware of the fact that Otl’s 1.7 million is no good to us, we need at least two million.“ On the other hand his criticism referred to the Ulm group’s ideas and intentions. He found fault in particular with the way Otl Aicher restricted himself to German problems without looking beyond German borders. Shortly before, in the September issue of the Ulmer Monatsspiegel, a publication of the Adult Education Center, Otl Aicher had published the short essay Education has its disadvantages , in which he contrasted his ideal of a culture of action with an education and tradition that had become fossilized and projected this view on modern youth. 467 Max Bill now reproached him for thinking extremely “nationalistically” and for not being able to leave the cage of his background, and to shake off “the whole pack of nationalist lies” as though it did not exist. “Why these eternal analyses of the German soul, why these sentimentalities, and then the comparisons? A positive piece of work has no need of that anymore […].“ Inge Scholl also felt the pressure of this burden of ideas, lugging the ballast of culture and education, unable to think simply in new ways, free from all assumptions: “With our tradition, we really do drag along all sorts of rubbish“.468 Perhaps it was not only cultural, educational and intellectual traditions that threatened to drain the energy of the Ulm group. Their activities also sidetracked them. For instance, on October 2 and 3, 1950, there was a Congress for the Social Education of Students and Liberal Arts in Tübingen469 , whose participants wanted to continue pushing for the reform of higher education and referred ba ck to the Blaues Gutachten (Blue Report) of 1948. According to them, new “political catastrophes” could only be avoided if higher education was made accessible to “parts of the population who were economically disadvantaged“ and if German colleges and universities no longer produced specialists, but rounded personalities. The Congress’s demands for more money for larger faculties, institutes, classrooms, and scholarship funds were linked with a recommendation that the college system of the Anglo-Saxon countries be established in some localities (“social education”) and
Posters by Otl Aicher: On the left, the theater playbill announcing the opening of the Podium in February 1950;
next to it, posters about the Thursday lectures at the Ulm Adult Education Center in December 1948 and November 1949 respectively. Photos:Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (759/30, 751/08 and 751/24)
that a fixed part of university studies be devoted to liberal arts. Among institutions that were exemplary in this respect, the Congress included the boarding school Birklehof . During these days, as the fall of 1950 set in, the rupture between Hans Werner Richter and the planning team around Inge Scholl must have taken place. The documents do not mention a specific date, but it was between 12 July1950, the Stuttgart meeting that Hans Werner Richter helped prepare in part and in which he also participated, and
26 September 1950. From the end of 1949 until 26 September 1950, Inge Scholl’s and Otl Aicher’s letters to Hans Werner Richter are written against the background of the work they share on the plans for the Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule. This correspondence ends as of 26 September 1950. Since the end of March things had gotten quieter, whereas in the past Otl Aicher, Inge Scholl and Hans Werner Richter had had long discussions. His participation at the Stuttgart meeting seems almost like a dutiful reminiscence of their beginnings. Looking back, Inge Aicher-Scholl and Hans Werner Richter emphasize different aspects as they recall their separation. According to Hans Werner Richter there was a meeting with the HICOG officials in the fall of 1950 at which besides himself Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, Max Bill, Brigitte Bermann-Fischer and Shepard Stone among others waited in the anteroom. While the others who were present went to the meeting, Hans Werner Richter remained behind: “He had not been asked in, and he probably also sensed that here something else was developing, a different concept than the one he had strived for. He returned to Munich. In the years that followed, the plan for a political college turned into the Hochschule für Gestaltung (School of Design), with which Hans Werner Richter had nothing to do anymore“. 470 Inge Aicher-Scholl, on the other hand, in a note
written on 2 July 1988 emphasizes that Hans Werner Richter remained in the lobby of Ritter’s Parkhotel in Bad Nauheim, while the others went on to the “party”, “and declared he had no business there, nor could he be of service; he preferred to stay away“.471 According to Inge Aicher-Scholl, others who took part in this meeting were Franz Josef Schneider, Carl Zuckmayer, Toni Wyss-Verdier, and Hans Jürgen Söhring. The lines written by Hans Werner Richter express the deep personal hurt of someone who was kicked out, a man who had been so deeply committed to his ideal of a school that combined politics, social science, and liberal arts, that was dedicated to the “education of young people into a democratic elite”; now, in the summer of 1950, he felt the strong opposition not only of Max Bill and the American staff of HICOG, but also of Brigitte Bermann-Fischer. In her reminiscence Inge Aicher Scholl chooses to deny this deep hurt; rather, she touchingly praises Hans Werner Richter’s human greatness, the way he tactfully and discreetly submitted and avoided all conflict in the spirit of a cause they had all believed in once: “He calmly, amicably, and without the slightest sign of anger tells me that the division of the college into two parts, a visual one with Bill and a verbal-political one with him at the head, has become a problem for him. He says he’s decided to withdraw completely, particularly since he certainly can’t get along with Bill in the saddle. It was a fair declaration, which I accepted. (Perhaps I subconsciously felt the same, possibly my turn toward the visual had already taken place, with or without Bill.) I still recall to this moment HWR’s [Hans Werner Richter’s; author’s note] noble and amicable attitude. He did not want to disturb something that was in the making.“ On 26 September 1950 Inge Scholl tried to maintain contact with Hans Werner Richter and informed him in general terms, as someone who was no longer involved, that they had redrafted their plans and were now climbing the bureaucratic ladder from the bottom: “Hans Werner, we definitely have to see each other soon and talk so we can stay in touch […].“ 472 On 5 October 1950, in a letter to Max Bill, Otl Aicher proposed that Walter Dirks should take “the still vacant position” that had opened up when Hans Werner Richter left. 473 Walter Dirks, the publisher of the monthly magazine Frankfurter Hefte , had just published an essay there that blazed the trail in the historical evaluation of the p ostwar era. Its title – the “restorative character of the [postwar] era” – has since become a slogan, leading topic, and grounds for discussion for many publications.474 Inge Scholl promptly begged Shepard Stone to read it and remarked that it expressed something like the philosophy of the school. 475
95
Founding
96
By “restoration“ Walter Dirks meant the “reestablishment of the old world“, a situation that was the very opposite of the expectations of the “disciples of the school of zero-point thinking“ 476: In 1945 “Germany’s intellectual and literary elite […] opted for a radical renewal, a rebuilding of the state, society, and economy from the ground up, and instead only saw a reconstruction, in which too much of the fatal past seemed to make itself felt.“477 In the nineteen fifties, all those who like Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, Hans Werner Richter, and Walter Dirks had advocated the goals of a democratic, humanistic, perhaps even socialist state felt that “the bourgeois-capitalist form of the Federal Republic was nothing but a car icature of their illusions at ‘zero hour’“. 478 Walter Dirks summarized this disillusionment in his thesis of the restoration and thus provided a handy slogan for all who shared the critical philosophy of the left-to-liberal intelligentsia. Regardless of what academicians say about the meaningfulness of this dictum, Walter Dirks with the term ‘restoration’ touched a raw nerve in the intellectuals and culturati of his time. That is why the fact that Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher so insistently urged Shepard Stone to read this article so that he could understand their own ideas better throws a bright light on the way they defined themselves. – However, Walter Dirks never did join the project; the documents do not provide further information on the subject.
of finance must then also recognize the foundation as an expanded nonprofit and special academic research institution. The Stuttgart ministry of finance must then (5) submit the foundation’s application with the ministry’s endorsement to the federal ministry of finance. The federal government must also approve the application (6), a nd so must the Senate of the Federal Parliament (7). The procedure must at long last be concluded by a notice published in the Bundesanzeiger (Federal Gazette) (8). The ministers of finance of the Länder had agreed that the status of nonprofit tax exemption was to be granted only to institutions in which academic activity consisted primarily of research. For example, universities were denied this tax-exempt status, for in the opinion of the ministers of finance, universities were primarily engaged in teaching. Of course, individual research institutes at certain universities were able to get tax-exempt status. The “senselessness of this separation of research and teaching by the financial bureaucrats“479, to quote Hellmut Becker, could, however, be circumvented in that individual research institutions were set apart from the institution as a whole, and were then – as institutions devoted to research – grantednonprofit tax-exempt status. This is the route Hellmut Becker proposed for the Ulm college as well. A short outline dated October 1950 on “Academic work at the ‘Geschwister-Scholl-HochOn 17 October 1950 Hellmut Becker informed the schule‘“ promptly lists a sociological-psychologfounders of the Ulm college in detail about the fisical institute of public opinion surveys and statiscal aspect of setting up a foundation. It was nectics, names the fields of research of the departessary to create a form of organization that would ments of product design, architecture and city make it possible on the one hand to receive the planning, and states that the focus of “academic American endowment of DM 1 million and on the research” is in the areas of sociology, psychology, other hand to collect the German donations and statistics, economics, and cultural history. 480 And subsidies from the private and public sector withthis fiscally tricky situation is no doubt also the out loss. Not only must the organization receiving reason that since the beginning of October the the money be exempt from corporation tax, but drafts, and finally the authorized version of the also contributions by the companies had to be foundation’s bylaws also, state that the purpose of completely tax-deductible. This was the most imthe foundation was to run a Research Institute of Product Design , which made the college appear to portant condition for guaranteeing that sufficient donations could be received from German industri- be merely an appendage of the research institute, alists. in contrast to the actual intentions and later reality. That is why the bureaucratic obstacle course As for their true intentions, Inge Scholl, Otl Aiturned out to have the following eight hurdles: The cher, and Max Bill listed these in two drafts of a bylaws of the foundation had to be such that after publicity brochure that documented the project’s they were authorized by the Württemberg-Baden status for its friends and potential donors. 481 Peominister of education and the arts it would (1) be ple they spoke to about the project attached imrecognized by the Ulm revenue office as an exportance to the list of regular faculty members panded nonprofit and academic research instituwho were expected to set the course of the future tion (2); the foundation would thus be exempt college. That is why Otl Aicher thought of putting from paying the corporation tax. This in turn was together a list of persons who would constitute the basic precondition for nonprofit tax exemption the organizing committee of the college. 482 (3) that must be granted to an institution so that The first internal comments on the college prodonations made to it would be completely tax ject by the ministry of education and the arts are deductible; (4), the Württemberg-Baden ministry similar.483 Even though it was imperative that “a
long-perceived gap in the educational system” should be filled by the planned GeschwisterScholl-Hochschule, Ministerial Counselor Rupp of the department of “universities and colleges” felt strongly that the faculty should be considered more important than the legal and financial aspects of the founding: “Inge Scholl alone can’t carry off the whole thing. Therefore we should find out at this point who is prepared to teach at the school. This would also make the school’s program much clearer to the public than any long written stateGotthilf Schenkel (SPD) (19 July 1889–10 Dec. 1960), WürttembergBaden and BadenWürttemberg minister of education and the arts, 1951–53. Photo: unknown Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (LBW 77/82)
ments.“ While his wishes for legal changes were met by the bylaws draft of 25 October 1950 and he in fact supported the app lication, there were still concerns regarding the name of the project. The ministry was anxious that the project not be referred to as a college, so as not to encroach on the rights of those institutions of learning that worked primarily in academic areas and so as not to raise any false hopes in “future visitors of the planned undertaking“ about their educational opportunities. In the years that followed, the officials then in charge had a different point of view and identified the HfG as a college of a special type. Inge Scholl seemingly fell in with these concerns when she stopped entitling the bylaws “ Stiftung Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule” (Geschwister Scholl College Foundation) and instead entitled it “Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung“ (Geschwister Scholl Foundation). She felt sure at any rate that “[i]f we feel like it, we’ll call the school a college all the same“.484 While the officials at the ministry of education and the arts approved most of the pro ject and welcomed it, they would have preferred to put it on an equal footing with the adult education centers, no doubt because they were uncertain of how to deal with this type of institution, which appeared to be “very much geared to American circumstances“ and went beyond the scope of the
usual categories. In any case, graduating from this school would not automatically permit “admission to regular state examinations”. Finally one must not overlook that it was because of the uncertainty about “whose responsibility [in the ministry] it was” that it took so long to process the authorization of the foundation in a timely manner. It was feared that the planned institution would “sooner or later have to be financed out of the public coffers” and that the plan “[would] end with great disappointment as soon as American funds dried up“. When the term college was removed from the submitted 5 December 1950 version of the bylaws and the sentence that students, by completing three or four years of study, would receive “training for a profession in the a bovementioned areas” had been struck, minister of education and the arts Theodor Bäuerle authorized the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung.485 This was done by official direction, dated 13 December 1950 with the express notation that it was not possible “ to subsidize the foundation or the school planned by it with government funds or to promise support for the future.“ The year ended successfully as the board of directors of the McCloy Fund, at its 19 December 1950 meeting, decided to grant Inge Scholl DM 1 million for the Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule provided that she accept two conditions: She had to establish proof that there were sufficient funds for the continuous operation of the college for the first three years, as well as public and private financial contributions of at least DM 700,000. Proof had to be produced by 31 March 1951.486 If one adds the plot of land to the sum, the sum total requested by the project was DM 2 million. Now the long period of waiting for a binding promise by HICOG was over. But that did not mean that the c ollege founders, headed by Inge Scholl, could relax. On the contrary, now that the Americans had defined the objective, the struggle for the German contributions began. At the same meeting the board of directors of the McCloy Fund also decided that the district liaison officers were to accept no new projects. 487 The entire sum slated for aid, a total of DM 50 or 54 million respectively was thus allocated within this one year. The sum funded 473 projects, including 36 student dormitories, 20 vocational schools, 13 elementary schools, 12 adult education centers, 10 boarding schools, 6 secondary schools, 4 research institutes, 3 teachers’ colleges, 2 libraries, 1 radio station, and 1 student loan institution. Over half of the expenditures went to educational projects, and John McCloy and the fund’s board of directors believed that one of the best ways to democratize the schools was to improve the students’ social life: “Except for members of the student corpora-
97
Founding
tions [sic] which were beginning to revive after the war, German students were lone wolves eating in restaurants and living in scattered rooms. It was felt that if the idea of residential community life were introduced into the German universities there would be a better chance of producing democratic leaders. Therefore first priority was given to student centers. Next came the provision of c ommon eating facilities and dormitories. The easiest idea to ‘sell‘ to the German universities was that of student dormitories because of the very bad living conditions.“488 Schools that followed a reformed curriculum received subsidies, as did institutes that focused on sociological issues, which in the opinion of the HICOG staff had been criminally neglected in Germany up to that time.
98
The DM 1 million grant given to the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung was the McCloy Fund’s fourth largest endowment. The HfG was listed as Special Project no. 1 – a reference to the fact that Inge Scholl had contacted Shepard Stone when the McCloy Fund was still in its infancy. One might also see this as an indication of the project’s high priority for John McCloy and Shepard Stone. It is remarkable how important these many individual projects and initiatives were for them, given John McCloy’s three overriding tasks during the next 18 months until his departure from Germany: the eco-
the Württemberg-Baden ministry of finance had to sell the plot of land on Kuhberg in Ulm, valued at DM 300,000, to the foundation; the foundation had to furnish proof of DM 700,000 in public and private donations and payments in kind. Inge Scholl was concerned whether HICOG would recognize all the payments in kind as meeting this sum; in order for private funds even to be contributed, the foundation needed to be recognized as being particularly worthy of p romotion and thus entitled to tax relief; lastly, it was necessary to find a way of guaranteeing operating expenses for the first three years. The delays of the previous year had, as Inge Scholl saw it, hurt the foundation, because – for instance – industry interest had in the meantime focused on the newly founded Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Formgebung des Bundesverbandes der Deutschen Industrie (Association for Design of the
Federal Union of German Industry) since it was believed that the foundation would not be established after all. 491 The idea of design was now in the air, and talked about more in public. In March 1951, for example, the Stuttgart Landesgewerbeamt (Württemberg-Baden Trade Supervision Department) opened the exhibition Industry and Artisans Create New Household Appliances in the U.S. with exhibits selected by New York’s Museum of Modern Art . The HICOG c ommissioner’s office
Reinhold Maier (DVP) (16 Oct. 1889–19 Aug. 1971), minister-president of WürttembergBaden, 1946–52, and Baden-Württemberg, 1952–53. Photo: unknown Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (54151)
nomic, military, and political integration of Germany in the Western, democratic community of states associated with the key words Schuman Plan , Ple ven Plan , and Bonn Convention/General Treaty . “Like a vast impassable terrain, 1951 lay before us“, Inge Scholl reported a year and a half later in her first circular letter to the friends and supporters of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung.489 Within the first ten weeks of that year, by 15 March 1951, four hurdles had to be cleared:
for Württemberg-Baden participated in organizing the event, which subsequently toured Europe. The president of the trade supervision department commented on the exhibition along the same lines as the founders of the HfG: “Not that we should copy these things. But we must recognize the spirit of functionality, usefulness and economy that results in a clarity of design and also represents the basic conditions and prerequisites for the design of our own modern c ommodity articles.“ 492 The HICOG deadline was quite urgent, and the fact that it was so soon gives rise to three conjectures. Either John McCloy’s colleagues felt the project had reached such a point of maturity that this period of time would present no problem. Or it was part of their modus operandi – something Inge Scholl had already criticized earlier – that they would first urge applicants to hurry, only to let the project mature on a desk later. Lastly it can be assumed that John McCloy was urging his staff in the background because his policy needed to bear its first fruit and time was running out. The college founders’ tasks in 1951 were closely interlinked. They depended on each other to such an extent that the hurdles could not be cleared separately, one after the other, but all had to be tackled simultaneously. The three federal minis-
tries involved not only made their subsidies contingent on the other ministries’ release of funds, but also on the fact that the Land and the federal government would support the foundation and that operating costs for the first years would be covered. The Württemberg-Baden Trade Supervision Department in Stuttgart had similar expectations: The prerequisite for its assistance was support from the ministry of education and the arts. Only the city of Ulm had no preconditions. This is when Inge Scholl became familiar with the modus operandi of the federal and Land ministries’ bureaucracy that was to rob her of a great deal of energy during the following years and was one reason that the whole project’s implementation was slowed down considerably: Every government agency demanded to see the preliminary work of another agency before it would take action itself. That year there was far less need than in 1950 for the group of founders to discuss the program of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung for the p lanned school of design. There was still internal agitation , but this hardly became public knowledge. They repeatedly had to present their program in closed meetings, and ventured into decisive parliamentary bodies: into the head department of the Ulm Municipal Council, into the politico-cultural committee of the Württemberg-Baden Parliament, and finally, in the form of minutes, into the fiscal policy committee, or rather into the Parliament itself. The result was a shifting of the guidelines for 1951. Whereas in 1950 discussion of the program and debates with HICOG were still in the forefront, attention now focused on pushing through the plans in the government agencies of the city of Ulm, the Land of Württemberg-Baden, and the federal government. The first hurdle for the year 1951 had been tackled by Hellmut Becker as early as 28 December 1950, when he applied to the German federal government to have the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung recognized as being entitled to special tax privileges. 493 This recognition meant that companies and private individuals could use their donations and payments in kind to the foundation as tax writeoffs – the sine qua non for the foundation. The procedure consisted of five steps: 1. the foundation needed to be recognized by the tax office of Ulm; 2. it needed to be declared a nonprofit by the Württemberg-Baden ministry of finance, which required a recommendation from the ministry of education and the arts; 3. an administrative order needed to be passed by the federal government; 4. the Senate of the Federal Parliament needed to give its approval;
5. a notice needed to be published in the Bundesanzeiger (Federal Gazette). This sequence of events had already been followed twice for other matters and had proved to be cumbersome and costly. A third administrative directive would therefore actually no longer be passed, and the entire procedure would be given up. But the foundation could not afford to wait until this complicated procedure was replaced by a simplified one. Fortunately the Ulm case was not the only urgent one. Thus the whole thing was resolved after all, and this was the good news: that the third administrative directive was in the offing. The bad news for the founders of the college, however, was that this process would not be finished by 15 March 1951. Hellmut Becker was already informed on 11 January 1951 that the meeting of tax experts from the various Länder would take place at the end of January, so that, if everything went smoothly, the federal government could pass the cabinet submission in February and the Senate could express its approval at the end of March. 494 It was impossible to meet HICOG’s deadline (15 March 1951). Inge Scholl’s next errand, in the middle of January, took her to the ministry of education and the arts in Stuttgart, because the Württemberg-Baden ministry of finance required an expert opinion in order to grant her foundation nonprofit status. Here, as in subsequent negotiations, the founders of the college pushed the school of design they were planning into the background while they emphasized the importance of the institute of product design. The foundation, they said, would set up a research institute and, solely to supplement it, establish a college as well. 495 In his 24 January 1951 expert opinion Ministerial Counselor Dr. Rupp approved the foundation’s objectives so that the ministry of finance could declare the organization a nonprofit in good conscience. 496 Thus nothing stood in the way of further proceedings until the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung – after the notice in the Bundesanzeiger for 6 June 1951 497 – finally gained special recognition on 30 June 1951 within the framework of the third administrative directive.498 At this point, the foundation was running ten weeks behind H ICOG’s ten-week deadline. The federal ministry of the interior also required a position from the ministry of education and the arts concerning the foundation’s plans, because on 8 January 1951 Inge Scholl had submitted an application for support with funds from the Federal Youth Plan. 499 On 21 February 1951 minister of education and the arts Gotthilf Schenkel (SP D, German Social Democratic Party), personally issued it. 500 Hellmut Becker provided backup through
99
Organs of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung and of the Society of Friends 1951–1968
490
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
24.VI. Executive board
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1.IV.
1964
24.II.
1965
1966
1.I.
1967
1968
3.VII. 1./4.X.
Inge Aicher-Scholl Thorwald Risler Max Guther Walter Erbe Hans Zumsteg Friedrich Rau Werner Ruch as authorized representative
Advisory board
1 24.VI.
24.IV. General meeting
Otl Aicher Inge Aicher-Scholl Hellmut Becker Max Bill Hans Frieder Eychmüller Günther Grzimek Marcia Kahn Roderich Count Thun Peter Wackernagel Walter Zeischegg
Otl Aicher Inge Aicher-Scholl Hellmut Becker Max Bill Hans Frieder Eychmüller Günther Grzimek Fritz Pfeil Roderich Count Thun walter Zeischegg
Administrativedirector
Board of trustees
Executive board of the Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung
2 6.III.
3 27./28.II.
4 5. 6Gen. 7 12.VI. 28.XI. Generalmeeting 17.X I. 29.IX. 19.VII.5.X.
+ Max Guther + Thorwald Risler
1.VII.
1. IV.
16. I.
Günther Schlensag
Günther Schweigkofler
Hans Jörg Gert Krappe Fischer interim
16. VIII.
24. VI.
3.X.
13. III.
30.VIII.
Hermann Josef Abs Otto Bartning Walter Gropius Romano Guardini Odd Nansen Herbert Read Ignazio Silone Henry van de Velde Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker Carl Zuckmayer
+ John J.McCloy
+ Max Bill
+ Inge Aicher-Scholl + Hellmut Becker
17.XI I.
11.IV.
Roderich Count Thun
Klaus Dohrn (chair) Erhard Löwe (deputy) Roderich Count Thun (deputy) Johann Dietrich Auffermann Hellmut Becker
1. VI. Klaus Fischer
101
Founding
Inge Scholl between her parents Robert and Magdalene, circa November 1949. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (747/09)
102
his contacts, which included people at the federal ministry of the interior. 501 Originally the sum the group of founders requested from the Federal Youth Plan was DM 500,000 for construction 502 , the total costs of which were to be just under DM 1.7 million. 503 In the beginning of March they raised their construction cost estimate to DM 2 million, pointing out that the rate of price increases had driven up costs since the plan was initially drawn up. 504 Estimated operating costs for the first three years provided for a yearly budget of DM 480,000 itemized as follows: DM 290,000 income by the institution itself, DM 100,000 from the Baden-Württemberg Trade Supervisory Office in Stuttgart, DM 80,000 from the federal ministry of economics, and DM 10,000 from the planned Gesellschaft der Freunde (Association of Friends). 505 Each student would then have required a subsidy of about DM 1,900 per academic year. Of course, this budget draft was based on the unrealistic assumption that 150 students would pay registration and tuition fees as well as rent from the first year on. That this was so was no secret to the officials in the ministries and to HICOG staff: Financing still had to be revised. However, in mid-April 1951 Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, and Max Bill were still sure that their financing plan would work out, believing that the backing of the Baden-Württemberg Trade Supervisory Office would assure funds for maintenance in the coming years. 506 Even when during a meeting in Bonn on 20 April 1951 they had to put up with the fact that the federal government did not want to participate in subsidizing operating costs, they were able to chalk up one success: Both federal ministries “are seriously considering giving us a one-time financial contribution”. The officials still clung to the reservation that “what is involved is a research institute. We simply still need concrete documentation. […] It makes no sense for us to say sensibly in private that the whole thing has to grow out of the experiment, out of the actual work. We’ll never get away with that at the government agencies.“507 Now a preliminary decision by the federal ministries had to be urgently submitted to scrutiny by the end of May, for on 15 March 1951 the deadline set by HICOG had passed and the second one, 30 May 1951, could also not be met. While the Americans still refrained from meting out the consequences, they urged that the conditions should be met in due form. Inge Scholl took seriously the risk involved if the agreed-upon requirements were disregarded.508 The American fiscal year, which
applied to HICOG as well, would end on 30 June 1951. 509 By that date the board of directors of the McCloy Fund had to have allocated its funds. The pressure also increased among members of the HICOG staff who had championed the extraordinary Ulm project that was now in danger of being crushed by the mills of German bureaucracy. As late as the beginning of April, in his quarterly report, John McCloy referred to how nerve-wracking it was to resist Eastern tactics to influence public opinion: “The communists continued their propaganda with unabated intensity. Bitter, primitive, extravagant, and subtle, it takes every imaginable form and at the same time continues to be forceful and pernicious.“ 510 He was not a man to admit so simply that he was beaten in the struggle for the minds and hearts of the Germans, but in order to go on with that struggle he needed bastions of democracy in Germany. On the other hand, his colleague James Morgan Read 511, the head of the education division at HICOG’s Frankfurt headquarters, sounded resigned in a radio address given at the beginning of May 1951. The Neue Zeitung of 9 May 1951 published his accusation against German universities that “they were not able to do justice to the ‘most urgent social and political problems of our time’. As a particular defect of the university system he mentioned the ‘conservative attitude of the universities, lack of contact with the public, and the absence of liberal arts programs’. The decline of the universities from their ‘worldwide pre-eminence’ in the 19th century was a result not only of National Socialism, but also of the fact that social and political changes in the 20th century had been ignored. He expressly regretted that proposals by the 1948 study group on the reform of higher education had not been implemented in the American Zone, since they could have produced a significant change in the university landscape and in relations between the university and the public.“ 512 A few days later, in the middle of May 1951, the situation seems to have reached crisis proportions as James Morgan Read’s tension was vented when he openly showed his deep distrust and personal dislike of Otl Aicher. Inge Scholl told Hellmut Becker of her deep disappointment at this behavior and considered putting a stop to the whole undertaking: “It’s not about my personal relationship with Otl, but about his basic position. The whole thing depends not on me, or in the final analysis on Bill, but on Otl, because in addition to his unusual talent he also has the human strength and greatness and the endurance that the school needs. […] I wonder if this is not a real warning to make a clean sweep, to distance ourselves from the Americans and the money, and to call it a day while we can still do it in a fair manner and while there’s still time.“513
Frank516, to obtain Land funding if the Trade Supervisory Office was behind the project. 517 At the next meeting on 13 June 1951 Gotthilf Schenkel even expressed his intention to let the foundation have the total subsidy needed for the first three years of operation.518 Now, after a long bleak period, light finally appeared at the end of one of the four tunnels through which the Ulm project had to be channeled.
Things did not come to that point. Inge Scholl swallowed her anger and, on 23 May 1951, received a third and last dead line for 31 August 1951 from the special projects committee.514 During these three months all negotiations finally had to be concluded with binding declarations. They could not count on the Baden-Württemberg Trade Supervisory Department for operating expenses, as Inge Scholl and Max Bill were to discover at their meeting with the agency’s president, Edgar Hotz, on 28 May 1951. Instead of the expected DM 100,000 annually they received only the weak promise that the office would come out in favor of this support with the Land – that is, if the ministry of education and the arts ap proved of the plans, if the 1.7 million could be collected for construction, and if the second half of operating costs was raised.515The college founders had to look for another source for the needed operating funds and took the direction suggested by Edgar Hotz: They turned directly to the Land of Württemberg-Baden. Max Bill met with Land minister of education and the arts Gotthilf Schenkel, and managed to win his sympathy for the college plans and to wring the first concessions from him. While the ministry of education and the arts, he said, could not give any money, he would bring his influence to bear on the difficult minister of finance, Kar l
Inge Scholl immediately tried to take the minister at his word and asked him to announce his intention to the federal ministry of economics. She had estimated the Federal subsidy for construction at a total of DM 300,000, the city’s subsidy at a magnanimous DM 150,000, and the share from the private sector at DM 250,000. 519 On 15 June 1951 the federal ministry of economics requested the binding declaration from the Land of Württemberg-Baden that they would pay the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung an annual sum of DM 190,000 for the next three years; if so, the federal ministry of economics would subsidize the construction of the college to the tune of DM 200,000 520; the additional DM 100,000 of the federal ministry of the interior also hinged on the letter of intent of the minister of education and the arts, which Inge Scholl, with utmost tactical skill, had transmuted into a guarantee by the Land. And on 25 June 1951 Ludwig Erhard indeed did receive the desired confirmation from Gotthilf Schenkel that he would “make every effort to get the WürttembergBaden Parliament’s consent to undertake paying a regular subsidy of DM 190,000 for a period of three years“. 521 What it all boiled down to more and more was that the entire financing packet depended on the consent of the L and where the institutions of the foundation would be located – a question of honor? In fact, in her negotiations and reports Inge Scholl also linked the financial offer of the McCloy Fund with the future location of the foundation’s institutions: She claimed that Frankfurt am Main in particular, but also Düsseldorf, Hamburg, and Stuttgart had made serious offers to set up the planned college along with the institute in their city.522 These offers gave her an opportunity to remind the Land of Württemberg-Baden of its moral duty toward the city of Ulm, and the Ulm Municipal Council also soon made this commitment its own. Over and above that, Theodor Pfizer drew attention to the fact that Ulm, a mediumsized town, needed such attractive institutions in order to hold its own a s the center of its surrounding area. Also one must not forget that compared to its competitor cities, Ulm was ab le to offer the right milieu for setting up the foundation, after the Ulm Adult Education Center had already done the groundwork for years. 523
103
Founding
The cabinet of Württemberg-Baden Minister-president Reinhold Maier (DVP, German National Party) first gave its attention to the plans of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung on 29 June 1951. In his submission the minister of education and the arts emphasized that the money from the McCloy Fund must be secured for the Land, because other Lands of the Federal Republic were trying to get it. He hoped that Ulm in particular, “a town severely destroyed, will be given considerable impetus by the work of the foundation“. The financing of one-
104
Hermann Wild (DVP) (27 Feb. 1884–15 Dec. 1962), chairman of the politico-cultural committee of the Württemberg-Baden Landtag, 1946–52. Photo: unknown Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (89/21a)
time expenses was more or less assured, so that the “McCloy million […] was dependent on the granting of the DM 190,000 for the first three years“ – a view that showed that the minister presented the hope of the college founders as though it were a fact. In a few short words he summarized the nature of the planned institutions and listed their characteristics in the following opportune sequence: “The research institute wishes to bring the design of articles of daily use into harmony with their material, their construction, their intended purpose, their affordability, and their social significance. The School of Design is to be devoted primarily to design problems of daily life and of industry and trade (the design of articles of daily use, advertising, packaging, photography, lifestyle, architecture, city planning). The planners have in mind an institution that is to take up the tradition of, say, the former Bauhaus of Dessau and continue it in accordance with today’s requirements.“524 However, the ministerial council’s basically positive attitude did not lead to the legally binding commitment that the Land would bear the costs of maintenance for the first three years. The reason given was that the constitutional branch for this was the Württemberg-Baden Parliament. So as not to fall out with HICOG, the ministry of education and the arts was of course to thank the American high commissioner politely for HICOG’s
generosity, but as for the rest it was to work out the plans with the foundation to a point where the government could hold its own with them in the Parliament.525 The Minister-president wanted to gain time, time that Inge Scholl no longer had. He feared defeat in the Parliament’s finance committee, for in those days everything in Land politics revolved around the question whether and under what circumstances the Southwestern state would be formed from the Lands of Baden, WürttembergBaden, and Württemberg-Hohenzollern. Every matter of concern to the government, as a basis for negotiations, could be misused and become clay in the hands of the disputing politicians. Inge Scholl had no choice but to take the bull by the horns. She pressured the Württemberg-Baden government: Because of the ministerial council’s basically positive attitude, she said, the foundation had now “refused other offers and committed itself completely to Württemberg”. If the cabinet were to change its position again, the project would be paralyzed for years to come, and John McCloy and the German and international personalities who were the project’s promoters would be compromised.526 It was now the turn of the city of Ulm. On 10 July 1951 Inge Scholl applied for support of the foundation, using the already familiar arguments and calculations that concluded with the economic consideration that “the institutions planned by the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung […] would eventually be of considerable importance for the economic development of Germany“. In addition to the social and cultural responsibility of the designers, who materialized the age of technology in its day-today details, she emphasized how far behind the times German products were in terms of exportability527: They had to be sold in a world market from whose development Germany had been cut off for 15 years. The main division of the Ulm Municipal Council reviewed Inge Scholl’s application on 24 July 1951. She had wisely refrained from naming a specific subsidy amount. Theodor Pfizer proposed that the construction of the college should be promoted by developing the construction site – a payment in kind estimated at a minimum of DM 245,000, almost DM 100,000 more than provided for in previous calculations. Moreover the mayor proposed that the college should be supplied with coal, gas, water, and electricity – at a cost of an estimated DM 40,000 annually – for the same length of time as the Land w ould subsidize the project. There were no objections to this motion. The financing did not worry the municipal politicians, because the city wanted to take advantage of a loan designated for a specific purpose by Württembergische Girozentrale (Württemberg Clearinghouse of Cen-
tral Banks) 528 and therefore did not have to put off foremost there were doubts whether the concerns any urgent expenditures. Also the development of of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung were of a type Kuhberg would have to paid for anyway if it was that could be financed with ERP funds.“ 534 Such identified as a development area. Thus it was seen being the case, it might even be considered a sucas an investment in the economic and cultural cess that Walther Hinsch was to ask HICOG for yet attractiveness of the city. But the Ulm municipal another extended deadline and to pass on to the council members also cited the international committee details regarding teaching, research, dimension of the project as a whole, its signififaculty, and proof of donations. 535 cance – possibly equaling that of the Bauhaus – and, last but not least, “a certain moral obligation HICOG almost never granted dead line extensions: toward the Scholl family” in their recommendation. Instead of Friday evening (31 August 1951) the folUnanimously they decided to recommend that the lowing Monday evening (3 September 1951) was municipal council support the Geschwister-Scholl- irrevocably considered to be the terminal date. The Stiftung.529 Americans were obviously tired of the inertia and undecisiveness of German officials, who for over With this dazzling, unexpectedly high subsidy by half a year had passed around in a circle the rethe city toward construction and operating costs, sponsibility for their decision. Three times HICOG the Ulm group again visited the federal minister of staff had moved up the deadline, but that had not economics. Ludwig Erhard had demanded that the made it easier for the Germans to come to a decicity pledge a subsidy of DM100,000 530 , and now sion, and a further extension would have caused he received a pledge of two and a half times that them to lose credibility without improving the situamount. The federal ministry of the interior togethation. They now forced the ministries in Bonn and er with the federal ministry of housing construcStuttgart to put their cards on the table. tion wanted to make available DM 100,000 if the There was a nerve-wracking race against time federal ministry of economics also supported the that would have been unnecessary under reasonfoundation.531 That meant financing was assured, able circumstances. The Committee of Eight did Hellmut Becker stated confidently, not mentioning not meet again until 1 September 1951. Seven that the subsidy of the Land was uncertain, adding members agreed to subsidize the foundation that now everything depended only on a declaraunder the conditions that in the future neither regtion by the federal ministry of economics that it ular nor exceptional federal budgetary funds would grant an additional DM 200,000 for conwould be asked for and that the remaining DM struction.532 1.5million would be collected for the construcThe plans were disputed within the ministry. tion. 536 Only the representative of the federal minLudwig Erhard himself probably could not quite istry of finance refused his assent, for he believed manage to work up enough enthusiasm for the that at the end of three years, operating costs matter. He doubted that the institutions of the would be up to the federal government. He was foundation would be self-supporting in the long only willing to release the DM 200,000 and thus run, and there was a risk “that because of the new get the project under way if the Württemberginstitute, funds available for research, already very Baden government would also make a commitlimited, would be further splintered“. In a survey ment to Parliament to give subsidies once the first of experts apparently only Otto Bartning, the presithree years were up. He demanded a resolution on dent of the Bund Deutscher Architekten (Associathe matter by the cabinet that was to meet on the tion of German Architects), and the manager of following Monday. 537 That Monday night, 3 Septhe Württemberg-Baden Werkbund , Heinrich tember 1951, HICOG’s deadline expired, so that 533 König, put in a good word for the foundation. the Old Maid had again been passed on to the The ministry had at its disposal a fund consistnext player; the government under Reinhold Maier ing of Marshall Plan moneys reserved for research. had to take it upon itself to decide the fate of the A subcommittee of the review board for the selecfoundation plans. However, the council of ministion of research projects, the so-called Committee ters did not want to be pinned down, and wriggled of Eight , had been formed. On 11 July 1951, at the out of the stranglehold imposed on them by the last conference to discuss the application of the federal ministry of finance by sending the ministry Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, the representative of a teletype message that the government of Württhe ministry, Walther Hinsch, dared to come fortemberg-Baden had no intention of using federal ward as a supporter of the foundation’s intentions funds for operating expenses incurred by the founand encountered considerable resistance. In the dation.538 That meant minister of education and reserved language of officialdom the minutes stated the arts Gotthilf Schenkel had had his way despite that the objections of committee members “rethe minister of finance, Karl Frank. While the g ovferred to the objective necessity of the enterprise ernment had given no guarantee for the foundaand above all to its financial security. First and tion, it was enough for the federal ministry of
105
Founding
106
finance to agree in good conscience to a one-time subsidy from ERP funds. HICOG received the cabinet’s statement that same evening and for the time being they contented themselves with the hodgepodge of provisos and stipulations. The deadline was considered to have been met; for the moment the first version of the foundation charter was accepted – the version issued on 28 June 1951 by General George P. Hays, the deputy of John McCloy. 539 An interim balance sheet after this partial victory by the founders of the college – and it must be considered a great success that they fulfilled HICOG’s conditions “by the deadline” in spite of resistance and obstructions – shows the following picture: construction of the college complex with classrooms, workshops, student dormitory, and teachers’ apartments was for the most part estimated at DM 1.7 million, and also at DM 2 million in communications with HICOG; the value of the land was set at DM 300,000; in addition to the DM 1 million from HICOG the foundation expected DM 200,000 from the federal ministry of economics and DM 100,000 from the Federal Youth Plan, DM 245,000 in payments in kind from the city of Ulm, DM 245,000 from unspecified private sources and DM 20,000 from Norwegian Aid for Europe, a total of DM 2.11 million (including the site). 540 The subsidy for ongoing operating costs totaling DM 190,000 was to be approved by the Württemberg-Baden Parliament, and the city would make available payments in kind of up to DM 40,000 annually. All those who were part of the founders’ group must have realized that their financial structure was supported by shaky columns. If a single column broke, the entire construction would collapse and presumably bury the plans under it, for the supports were tied to each other with ropes of interdependency. The Americans began to check whether the structure could bear the weight. The weakest factor was the subsidy from the Land, of which the founders were the least sure. The federal ministries would probably forget about their reservations. And above all the letter from the minister of education and the arts that the Württemberg-Baden government would support the subsidy before Parliament in the next three years was not enough for the McCloy Fund’s board of directors.541 If the government wanted to shift responsibility for the subsidy to the Parliament because it
was the appropriate constitutional branch, then Parliament must simply approve – or deny – the subsidy. The chairman of the politico-cultural committee was Professor Hermann Wild (DVP, German National Party), the retired teacher of an Ulm secondary school, a member of the board of trustees of the Ulm Adult Education Center who had already learned about the foundation plans as a member of the Ulm municipal council at the meeting of the main division on 24 July 1951. He introduced the matter to the committee: “He wants to do more for us personally – a success I couldn’t have imagined in my wildest dreams a year ago. Curiously enough, Wild is one of the most conservative people in Ulm, but especially in the last few years he has touchingly worked in support of modern development in Ulm […].“ 542 In the committee he met “considerable scepticism and also […] definite resistance“. The representative of the ministry of finance felt very negative about the matter, because the Württemberg-Baden government had agreed not to apply for any federal funds for maintenance costs after the first three years. 543 Immediately after this declaration the minister of finance stated “that unless the budgetary situation improves substantially, the Land of WürttembergBaden is not in a position to grant any subsidies for the above-named institute in this and in the next fiscal years“. 544 At the next committee meeting Hellmut Becker, Max Bill and Otto Bartning were to give reports in order to persuade the gentlemen. It was particularly the representatives of institutions of higher learning who had to be won over, because they could oppose the plans regarding one sensitive point: The crucial question in the committee was “whether a new school needed to be founded for our idea“. 545 When Hermann Wild left the meeting of the politico-cultural committee, he received a confidential report from the Land security office on 18 points that the office had adopted – unexamined. 546 The report concerned the copy of a libelous document that had now found its way to Parliament as part of a smear campaign. The fact that people were not always sympathetic to the plans of Inge Scholl and her helpers surprised no one. However, this defamation was not about her cause, but about the people who were behind it: the Scholl family and Otl Aicher. The denunciations were the work of Ulm resident Albert Riester who, as Inge Scholl reported 547, had bragged that as a student he had had a leading part in the persecution of her brother and sister, whom he would have had arrested on the same day if they had not fallen into the hands of the Gestapo on 18 April 1943 as a result of the leaflets they had distributed. It was reported that he had a
criminal record for continually receiving stolen goods and had worked with the American Counterintelligence Corps – not an isolated instance. Klaus Barbie, the head of the Gestapo , was the most prominent of the former National Socialist agents with whom this intelligence service had collaborated after the end of the war. In the summer of 1949 Albert Riester was appointed the editor of the Ulmer Nachrichten. He used this platform repeatedly to manipulate public opinion against the foundation’s plans, the last occasion being 14 December 1950, when in a long article he disseminated false figures and data and added fuel to fears “that the education provided at the college would be only superficial and that the planned institution would be overrun by amateurism“.548 By June of 1951, he had become unacceptable to the Ulmer Nachrichten after a criminal action by the Ulm department of public prosecution based on the suspicion that in 1939 he had caused a Jewish businessman to be judged by the [National Socialist] People’s Court. The smear campaign seems to have gone on for some time, for as early as January 1951 Inge Scholl had contacted the chief public prosecutor regarding this matter. 549 Now, in mid-September 1951, when the financing of the founding plans seemed to be assured to the point where HICOG Alex Möller (SPD) (26 Apr. 1903–2 Oct. 1985), chairman of the finance committee of the WürttembergBaden Landtag, 1950– 52, and of the BadenWürttemberg Landtag, 1952-61. Photo: unknown Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (LBW 73/15)
staff considered that their deadline had been met, the informer sent out reams of his papers to ministries and government agencies that were involved in Ulm, Stuttgart, and Bonn, as well as to industrial firms and associations. In them he disseminated a malicious demagogical mixture of calumny, halftruths, innuendoes, and invention that distorted reality. For example, in an aside he claimed that Otl Aicher was “the proposed second director of the ‘Hochschule für Gestaltung’ [School of Design] and of the research institute of production (cf. the
new ‘Technische Hochschule für Werkkunst’ [Technical College of Industrial Design] in Dresden, the Soviet Zone). Apart from the fact that there was to be no institute “for production”: For this sort of “comparison” with the Dresden college there was only one reason to mention an institution that was located in Communist East Germany, and that was to establish a relationship between it and plans for the Ulm college and to denigrate the latter solely through this alleged relationship, which, however, was nonexistent. 550 At the meeting of the board of trustees of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung on 26 September 1951 (incidentally, the only meeting of this body that ever seems to have taken place), Inge Scholl refuted all allegations. But that did not get rid of the accusations. In a second wave charges tended to be made against Otl Aicher and the Ulm Adult Education Center 551, because Inge Scholl and her father were more or less unassailable. In the months that followed, Theodor Pfizer, Hermann Josef Abs, and Hellmut Becker worked hard trying little by little to limit the damage. 552 At the time it was almost impossible to estimate the extent of the damage; even today one can only hazard a guess. The federal ministries recoiled and began to have objections on political grounds 553 , and industry kept its distance. 554 The first cost the foundation time, while the second cost them money because valuable contacts with the private sector, with Hermann Josef Abs as the intermediary, became useless. One example for this is the Wirtschaftsvereini gung Eisen- und Stahlindustrie ( Trade Association of the Iron and Steel Industry), which was enmeshed in the campaign in a very dubious way, as was shown in 1952.555 Inge Scholl had been very warmly welcomed when she first spoke to them on 15 June 1951, and on 15 August 1951 she was led to expect that she would get all the steel needed for the construction of the college building free of charge. Max Bill’s architectural blueprints after that were based on this promised donation, quoted as at least 365 metric tons. At the same time, however, the trade association instructed the private consulting firm for industrial safety, Rudolf Gosekuhl in Essen, to make inquiries. Through a middleman in the management of the Stifterverband der Deutschen Wissenschaft (Founders’ Association of German Science and Research) (an institution beyond all reproach), this firm happened to come across Albert Riester, who was working for an organization not otherwise specified, Erste Legion , in Cologne. Thus it happened that the Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen- und Stahlindustrie accepted Albert Riester’s slander as fact, that it printed warnings aga inst the allegedly Communist Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung in its Wirtschaftliche Nachrichten and moreover passed
107
Founding
108
them on to the federal ministries of economics and the interior as well. “These slanderous accusations would doubtlessly not have been believed, simply because of the way they were worded, if they had not been passed on by the Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen- und Stahlindustrie. At the time, representatives of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung were told that the accusations came from such a prominent authority that in spite of their obvious unlikelihood they had to be examined very carefully.“ The foundation found out about the denunciations only because some were also leaked to Hermann Josef Abs, and as a trustee of the foundation he immediately raised the alarm. – When Hellmut Becker resolutely found the source of the denunciation and demanded an official retraction by the trade association, the association, at the beginning of January 1952, pretended to be willing to cooperate, but asked the foundation not to initiate legal proceedings against the association and its informants. By August 1952 the anger had cooled, and the industry representatives were now surprised by the size of the requested donation, and also could no longer remember their promises and bluntly rejected all damage claims. The re- quired steel, they said, must be paid for at the normal rates. To the derision of the foundation, on 31 October 1952 the donations committee of the trade association approved a DM 2,000 c ontribution.556 The Ulm group decided not to sue, presumably since they were afraid that then they might become known as communists among the general public. From a long-term perspective, the smear campaign fueled the suspicion that was v oiced over and over again, explicitly or implicitly: The HfG, rumor had it, was a Communist or even “cultural Bolshevist” institution. For this reason, besides showing a lack of understanding for a different concept of culture, the defamations were a reason for the reluctance manifested in 1968 in the Baden-Württemberg Parliament and cabinet to allow an independent institution the freedom to do as it liked and to promote it. Accusing the foundation of communism masked the real reasons for rejecting the HfG. It is pointless to lament about the mood in a country and the spirit of an era that doubtlessly made it possible for the undermining activities of a shady person to succeed in rendering Inge Scholl and the foundation despicable in the eyes of various institutions. The informer knew his job: The Cold War only provided the setting. If his nasty assertions had not met with a response in an atmosphere permeated with the fear of communism, he would have invented other libelous accusations.557 Hellmut Becker later published a graphic memoir of these days: “At the federal ministry of finance the representatives of the Geschwister-
Scholl-Stiftung were supposed to sign a paper that they would never again approach the federal government with financial requests if they received the appropriate sum now. During the openly conducted conversation Otl Aicher asked […], ‘But what happens when the Russians come?‘ That was meant to be a joke to point out that the demand – never again – had something peculiarly irrational about it. But the statement was interpreted in a communist sense, and the misgivings on the part of the Germans that now suddenly appeared against the long-dead Hans and Sophie Scholl because of their alleged connections to communism were more than embarrassing. In this period of redbaiting only a man like Shepard Stone had the courage to push all that aside when he gave his authorization.“ Hellmut Becker told this anecdote as an example of Shepard Stone’s unbureaucratic, unideological help, but it casts light not only on the overwrought mood, but also on the anxiety and insecurity in Germany before the real background of the Korean War, Soviet aggression, the Berlin blockade, East German propaganda, and domestic unrest in the face of the conflict between reunification and rearmament, neutrality and orientation toward the West, pacifism and a European defense contribution. It is most important not to underestimate how persistent the suspicions were. As late as June 1953 someone told Hellmut Becker: “The campaign is in full swing. […] I’ve heard whispers from an American authority that Bill was a Red.“ 558 In this connection even the infamous American “Communist hunter” Joe McCarthy is supposed to have snooped around after John McCloy, which is why Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung files are said to have been sent to him. 559 While the foundation was rehabilitated as far as the ministries were concerned, it failed in many cases to be rehabilitated among the private sector. Even in 1954 the foundation’s administrative director, Günther Schlensag, had reason to complain that the Mannesmann group was not considering making a donation after all: “As I see it, the reason they give for their negative reply suggests that the Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen und Stahl is at the bottom of this again. With the other steel plants, too, we’ve observed time and time again that they first appear quite positive toward us, and then there’s a sudden refusal“. 560 Most of the firms in the iron and steel industry continued to be unimpressed by John McCloy’s demonstrative show of confidence when he presented the American check on 23 June 1952, just as they were not impressed by the statement of the Stuttgart chief public prosecutor and the results of the special investigation by the American counterintelligence corps that Shepard Stone communicated to the federal ministry of the interior on 24 March 1952.561
Shepard Stone, circa 1950. Photo: unknown A rchive:Moselle Kimbler
In the Parliament of Württemberg-Baden these machinations made no difference. Here two groups barred the way of the college founders. First, there were the opponents who rejected the plan for financial reasons. Therefore it was important, for instance, to refute fears that the foundation would incur a deficit, such as those voiced by the Ulm auditing office regarding the cost projections of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: “It is of crucial importance for the entire budget whether […] 150 students can be registered every year. […] If this does not happen, the expected income would fall significantly.“ Other points of criticism were the unusually generous teacher-student ratio – 26:150 – a result of the school’s educational philosophy; a rise in costs since 1950; and the fact that depreciations had not been taken, which would probably cause actual preliminary expenses to climb far above DM 2 million.562 Another argument related to financial policy was not really financial, but rather political in nature, because it cloaked a politico-cultural position, and had already been presented in Bonn:
a new institute would undermine existing (and therefore “proven”) institutions at a time when funds were already scarce. Behind this was doubt whether a new college was even necessary, regardless of all the promises that this college would be self-supporting. Alex Möller, the leader of the SPD (German Social Democratic Party) in the Württemberg-Baden Parliament and chairman of the finance c ommittee, was one of those who had to be persuaded that the HfG was a p olitico-cultural necessity. The retiring special advisor on higher education at the ministry of education and the arts, Dr. Rupp, launched an attempt to open doors for Inge Scholl: “What Miss Scholl wants is something totally new, for which only certain parallels can be found in history – at the Dessau Bauhaus and the Werkstätten Hellerau. […] What Miss Scholl and her group have in mind cannot be achieved by attaching a new institute to one of the existing colleges or academies of art.“ 563 The only opponents of the foundation whose cause was completely lost were those who made
109
Founding
110
Wilhelm Simpfendörfer (CDU) (25 May 1888– 4 May 1973), BadenWürttemberg minister of education and the arts, 1953–58. Photo: unknown Archive:Landesbilds telle Württemberg (LBW 83/29)
no secret of the fact that they rejected the fundamental beliefs of Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, Max Bill, and Hellmut Becker. This view was espoused by those representatives of established colleges and universities in Württemberg-Baden who believed that there was nothing about the new college plans that they themselves had not already put into effect, and if there was, then it was only because of lack of money, so that any new foundation would endanger existing colleges. These opponents believed funding for existing schools should be increased significantly before even considering a new foundation. Thus the president of the Akademie der Bildenden Künste Stuttgart (Stuttgart Academy of Fine Arts) was enviously concerned about status, finances, and autonomy, which added a personal note to his arguments: “In view of this situation we need to ask whether the Land of Nordwürttemberg-Nordbaden can afford 2 academies (Karlsruhe and Stuttgart), 2 technical colleges (Pforzheim and Schwäbisch Gmünd) and subsidies for the Ulm school when the first-mentioned schools are still not adequately equipped to meet their expenses. If the Land of Württemberg-Baden gives even part of the funds requested for the Ulm school, we must urgently demand that the school, like all other institutions of higher learning, be placed under the supervision of the state.“ 564 Richard Döcker, the head of the department of architecture at the Technische Hochschule Stuttgart (Stuttgart Technical College), added his thoughts to this view of things. The plans, he claimed, “by their very nature and content“ represented “a school of architecture“, and “everything that they show in their schematic diagrams has long been taught in the architecture departments of the technical colleges – and at least since the end of the war in Stuttgart and Karlsruhe – […] with the sole exception of the field of ‘product design’ (as they call it), and that hasn’t been taught up till now simply because no budget has existed for it.“ He added that pursuing the plans under these circumstances must be “described as thoughtless or amateurish, or as unnecessary“. 565 True, this was a bit much, but those who represented this view were not in the majority, even among the representatives of institutions of higher learning.566 That was why it was important to win over the wavering, the undecided, and uninformed to the college plans. Max Bill staked out the territory and followed up his reaction to Richard Döcker’s letter with criticism of the Ulm group: “[…] This embittered old grouch, who is totally untalented but extremely conceited and arrogant, shares the blame for the fact that architecture in Germany doesn’t amount to anything. Once again it just goes to show that the funny diagrams, if they get to the right place, that is, someplace where people know something about them, can
wreak tremendous havoc. I am seriously considering pulling out of this whole affair, because what we have now instead of financing is total confusion.“567 Let us return once more to the background of John McCloy’s policy in Germany, for the next important meeting for Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher took place in Ulm on 8 October 1951, when they again had to submit to more critical questioning by the H ICOG staff. The result of Parliamentary elections in Lower Saxony a few months earlier, on 6 May 1951, had aroused international consternation and uneasiness. The extreme right Sozialistische Reichspartei (Socialist Reich Party) had obtained 11 percent of the votes and had moved into Parliament with 16 seats. People might well wonder how democratic the Germans had really become. A few weeks later John McCloy took the sting out of these fears. In a 26 June 1951 radio address he explained the significance of Germany for the United States; he also described the position of Germany between Communist totalitarianism and democracy as well as the progress reached in democratizing Germany. 568 The Federal Republic, he said, had become the border zone of the free peoples of the West. In his opinion there was every indication that “the population of the Federal Republic regards itself as belonging to the West“. There was one thing he wanted to make really clear: “A democracy is not created by fiat, and does not take shape just because its formation is ordered by law. It must develop through education and, when you come right down to it, through self-education.“ Even if the traditional authoritarian way of thinking was still present in every sphere of life, even if democracy in the sense of “a living manifestation of social life” had not been established yet, a start had been made. That is why HICOG had “gone to a lot of trouble to promote this development at every level of German social life – in the schools and universities, in the labor unions, in church and private organizations, on the radio and in the press, as well as in the area of politics and administration. […] Increasingly in the press and radio, in schools and adult education centers, in civic associations and cultural clubs, and in some political parties and in the parliaments, courageous men and women are emerging who are trying to point the way toward a democratic life. Our policy is to help them.“ In conclusion John McCloy stressed that locally limited solutions could no longer be genuine solutions anywhere in the world; everywhere it was necessary to look for the international connection. – Back in Germany, on 17 August 1951, John McCloy handed Berlin Mayor Ernst Reuter a check for DM 5 million for the construction of a memorial library. It was by far the biggest
project within the Special Projects Fund. In the same city, two weeks later, there was the largest mass parade to date by the organized youth of East Germany. One and a half million uniformed blueshirts, members of the Freie Deutsche Jugend (Free German Youth), had been transported to Berlin for propaganda purposes. The high commissioner commented on the event with mixed feelings: “You feel discouraged at the thought that it’s possible to get so many young people to Berlin and then have them march in a parade as supporters of Communism and the Stalinist doctrine.“ 569 Again, a few weeks later, in October 1951, “McCloy worried about the political development of Germany as well. ‘If the stabilizing influence of Adenauer were no longer there and economic conditions changed for the worse in the next few years’, he feared, ‘it is not inconceivable that we could see a strong nationalism developing in Germany.‘“570 Here is another reference to the activities of the HICOG staff members who were involved with questions of education: Since John McCloy began to devote himself intensively to youth around the turn of the year in 1950/51 and redoubled his efforts to overcome the young people’s reserve and weariness with ideology in order to fill them with enthusiasm for American democratic ideals, the education experts of the Land c ommissioners’ offices, led by Shepard Stone, had been discussing plans for bringing this a bout. The result of this work was HICOGDirective M-4 , which was published on 26 October 1951. HICOG again declared its support of d emocratization, emphasizing three levels of youth activities: 1. educational and community programs, and civic activities, 2. economic assistance, and 3. ideological and political education programs. The goal of this policy was to work with youth organizations to discover the relationships between individual freedom and social responsibility, strengthen active resistance against any form of totalitarianism from the right or the left, and win over young people to active support of a defense of the Western world, foster interest in democratic organizations, institutions, and civic work, ga in an insight into the American way of life, strengthen connections between Germany and the West in all areas, and especially look after homeless and unemployed young people.“ 571 This is the background against which we must view the exhaustive questioning that Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher were once aga in forced to undergo on 8 October 1951. The HICOG staff wanted to know point-blank why American taxpayers should have to spend $1 million for the p roject. They questioned all relevant aspects of the project: the pedagogical concept, the canon of subjects, the curricula, the faculty, the professional prospects of
the future designers, the intended influence of the HfG on the political development of Germany, the inner organization of the college and the foundation, the financing. In short, they needed a justification of the whole application. 572 In the end HICOG was convinced, but it was obvious that even if the HfG was undoubtedly dear to John McCloy’s and Shepard Stone’s heart, the Ulm group, in spite of the fact that they were favored, did not have an easy time of it by any means. Back to the financial planning, which was not at all as confused as Max Bill feared; the only thing that was missing were legally binding commitments. Inge Scholl’s official application, on 22 November 1951, to the ministry of education and the arts for an annual subsidy of DM 196,000 was based on the (unaltered) figures she had been working with for months. These presumed total construction costs of DM 1,703,0 00, and a p lanned income of DM 1,810,000. Budget planning had become more realistic because now a first startup budget with 20 students for the period between 1 April 1952 to 1 October 1952 had been drawn up, to be followed by a second phase with 80 students (up to 31 March 1953). As of 1 April 1953, it is possible to infer, 150 students were to be taught at the college.573 The ministry of education and the arts included the subsidy by the Land in its supplementary budget, which Parliament had to pass after the third reading. By now, however, it was the end of November. HICOG still expected the declarations of intention to be followed by written documents; Parliament had to make the first move, but in the meantime the imminent formation of the south-west state prevented a regular parliamentary resolution. Franz Wiedemeier, who as chairman of the Württemberg-Baden parliamentary group of the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) and second chairman of the finance committee was the direct counterpart of Alex Möller – and familiar with the plans of the Ulm group because he was also the chairman of the Ulm CDU – explained the muddled situation to Inge Scholl: The politico-cultural committee was meeting in a few days, on 29 November 1951; if the committee was to support the foundation’s plan, the plan would have to be referred for discussion to the plenary session; the plenary session of the Württemberg-Baden Parliament would then have to pass the plan on to the finance committee, which, however, had its last meeting on 5 December 1951; on 9 December 1951 the Württemberg-Baden Parliament plenary session was scheduled to vote on the southwest state; Parliament would not convene again until March 1952, its compo-
111
Founding
112
sition changed by elections, as the constituent assembly of the southwest state Baden-Württemberg. The impasse was caused by the fact that between 29 November 1951 and 5 December 1951 no plenary session was scheduled. The finance committee could therefore no longer discuss the motion of the politico-cultural committee, if there should be one, during this par liamentary term. 574 The Ulm group had no choice but to take this road, even if it was a dead end. They held the Land government responsible for this delay and again stressed the government’s moral obligation, because the foundation had made a commitment to Ulm, although the city of Frankfurt am Main had again shown strong interest three weeks earlier. 575 This reminder achieved its purpose. At the session of the politico-cultural committee, on 29 November 1951 Edgar Hotz, the president of the Land trade supervisory office emphatically spoke up for the foundation plans and in particular emphasized the free and autonomous form of the institution’s organization.576 Max Bill had been prepared for the committee members to focus on four issues: “Aren’t other schools already doing the same thing? […] Isn’t the project too big […] and isn’t there a danger of spreading yourself too thin? […] Are you sure you have appropriate teachers? […] Isn’t the faculty too large as compared to the number of students?“ Knowing his pithy way of speaking, we can assume he found the right words to describe how necessary, conclusive, and novel their plans were. Concerning the last question Inge Scholl recommended that he respond with the pedagogical counterclaim that the number of teachers should be related not to the number of students, but to the desired result, and then, of course, the school would need as many teachers as had been planned. 577 His success can be measured by the fact that the politico-cultural committee made a motion, as had been hoped – and unanimously at that – that the government should propose to the Parliament that it promote the foundation and appoint representatives from the ministries for the “administrative council”. 578 That body, by which they probably meant the administrative committee of the foundation, had not convened yet. That whole trying year the organizing of the foundation had made little progress, but what little progress there was important. At the beginning of the year Inge Scholl drew up for Gotthilf Schenkel a list of p ersonalities proposed for the administrative committee of the foundation: the energetic attorney Hellmut Becker; Brigitte Bermann-Fischer, the publisher who had
become a personal friend; two influential bankers, Karl Max von Hellingrath from Munich and Karl Klasen from Hamburg; the president of the Landeszentralbank (Land Central Bank) of Stuttgart, Otto Pfleiderer; and Roderich Count Thun, a manufacturer and philanthropist who was a friend of hers. 579 It was the latter two in particular who grew to be strong supporters of the foundation in the first years of its existence. Since 1 June 1951 the close core group around Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher had been calling itself the organizing office of the Geschwister-SchollStiftung , including, among others, the product designer Walter Zeischegg and the graphic artist and photographer Ernst Scheidegger. They were part of the group of the first collaborators who became instructors at the HfG. The heart of the foundation was to be the advisory board. Inge Scholl, the founder, appointed its members on 22 June 1951. Beside herself the advisory board consisted of her circle of close friends and helpers: In addition to Otl Aicher and Max Bill there were Günther Grzimek, Marcia Kahn, Roderich Count Thun, Peter Wackernagel, and Walter Zeischegg.580 The advisory board convened on 24 June 1951. All members of the advisory board were present, and they appointed Inge Scholl the managing chairperson of the foundation. Then they approved the board of trustees as Inge Scholl had planned. Its members were Hermann Josef Abs, Otto Bartning, Walter Gropius, Romano Guardini, Odd Nansen, Herbert Read, Ignazio Silone, Henry van de Velde, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, and Carl Zuckmayer.581 Then, in September 1951, the foundation hired a secretary. Nothing unusual, one would think, but it is worth mentioning because Johanna Rösner stayed in her position until the end of the HfG and with her reliability and sound judgment represented one of the few calming influences in the entire ensemble up there on Kuhberg. It is thanks to her care, rectitude, and dependability that countless details of political life at the HfG and in the foundation have come down to us. On 31 December 1951 Inge Scholl thanked her benefactor Shepard Stone for his help with restrained optimism: “We won over (I almost said overcame) the federal government, the city of Ulm, and the Land of Württemberg-Baden and got them to support us financially and morally, and also got a considerable sum in private donations and a contribution from the Norwegian Aid for Europe. […] The fact that we a re setting up something completely new and also want to create new institutions, in a country where people stick to the good old ways, sometimes brought us almost insurmountable difficulties“. 582
The year had ended, as had the previous one, with successes, although they represented only a moderate harvest after an enormous amount of work, and a lot more remained to be done in the coming year. It is true that the federal ministry of the interior had given its definitive consent on 25 October 1951 to make available DM 100,000 for construction583 ; and Gotthilf Schenkel, on 3 December 1951, had recommended that his colleague, minister of finance Karl Frank (FDP/DVP, Free Democratic Party/German National Party) put Kurt Angstmann (SPD) (30 Jun e 1915–12 Feb. 1978), chairman of the finance committee of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1961–66, and minister of finance, 1966–68. Photo: unknown Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (LBW 73/7)
Regarding the first of these documents, the new program of June 1951 in standard-size oblong format was titled as follows: “Geschwister-SchollStiftung / School of Design / Research Institute of Product Design“. Otl Aicher’s diagrams on the canon of subjects elucidated the text, as did sketches of Max Bill’s planned architecture, Even the title makes it clear that Hans Werner Richter with his politico-literary concerns had missed the boat. He himself no longer appeared in the program, not even as an instructor. That Walter Dirks was intended for the moment to take the place vacated by Hans Werner Richter is explained by the reference that Otl Aicher, Inge Scholl, Max Bill, Hellmut Becker, and also Walter Dirks had agreed to meet on 17 and 18 February 1951, also inviting Theodor Pfizer to introduce him to the “closer circle of collaborators”. 589 Walter Dirks, however, did not fill the gap left by Hans Werner Richter’s departure; he does not appear in the source material at all. As Max Bill had already announced, with the person of Hans Werner Richter the socio-political ideas gradually vanished from the program also. He reported to Walter Gropius on 9 March 1951: “Above all, I’ve always wanted to get rid of ‘press/radio‘. That has now happened, so that in the future we shall have only ‘visual design/information’.“590 In that category, he included such subjects as visual design, product design, archithe former Wehrmacht terrain on Kuhberg in Ulm tecture, and city planning, while the liberal-arts at the disposal of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stifcomponent was put in the category “ information”, tung 584 ; while the federal minister for the Marshall and anything that had to do with press, radio, and Plan, Franz Blücher (FDP/DVP),on 28 December advertising was pushed into the background. 1951, finally petitioned the ECA special mission for “Political methodology“ was integrated with generGermany to authorize DM 200,000 for the foundaal education, where it was not to last very long eition from ERP funds of the 3d ERP phase. 585 But as ther. On the other hand this did not mean that they expected, the Parliament of Württemberg-Baden completely gave up the idea of working to improve in its plenary session on 5 December 1951 merely society. Quite on the contrary, the HfG retained referred the 29 November 1951 request of its polthis missionary zeal, although Max Bill had shifted itico-cultural committee to the finance commitits sphere of activity away from the theoretical to tee.586 Here it was put in cold storage, not to be the practical design of the material environment thawed out until the following spring. (based on theoretical knowledge). For of course the idea of Good Design defined an object not In conclusion, a few more comments on curricuonly in its aesthetic, but also in its moral dimenlum- and program-related development during sion, and Max Bill was convinced that one of the 1951. For the most part the Ulm group promoted two aspects implied the other, that there was its project with the help of two documents: “only a quantitative difference between ethics and aesthetics”.591 Otl Aicher made a last attempt in an outline from June 1951 587 and April 1951 to save the original range of the plans two consecutive pages, the first printed inforfor the college: “[…] And then I’d like to ask you to mation of the foundation. 588 think over the matter of press and radio one more time. I’m opposed to taking them out. […] We Here, they were acting contrary to the intentions shall regard your decision in this matter as definiof Max Bill, who would have preferred to distribute tive.“592 As a matter of fact, Max Bill definitively nothing rather than these documents, since he felt answered in the negative on 17 April 1951: “I am they were full of errors. Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher definitely against expanding beyond the program probably agreed with him, but needed printed pro- we shortened in Ulm [when Bill stayed there at the motional material for industry and government beginning of March; author’s note]. We would officials. get stuck in senseless dilettantism. That doesn’t
113
Founding
114
mean we couldn’t take the risk of expanding later.“593 With the June 1951 program and the tw o printed sheets the Ulm group intensively solicited donations, which were now tax-deductible, from trade and industry in the summer of 1951. Hermann Josef Abs arranged a number of contacts for them.594 In his accompanying letters Hellmut Becker emphasized four points: the views of Hans and Sophie Scholl that their sister Inge stood for; the success of the Ulm Adult Education Center, which was to be expanded; the importance of product design in order for German products to be internationally competitive; the Bauhaus tradition, which had set standards before the war that the new school now wanted to continue. 595 In this way he emphasized the economic necessity of the institutions, while hardly hinting at the politico-cultural mission. It should come as no surprise that the response to this solicitation was mixed, especially in the private sector, because its representatives for the most part had different ideas of what culture was and how it ought to be promoted. That is why it is interesting to hear the opinion of a critic who was less concerned with the economic arguments than the cultural ones. The reason the writer Erich Kuby gave for rejecting the plans was the fundamental argument that they were provincial, an argument the Ulm group specifically – not Max Bill – was to hear repeatedly from contemporary intellectuals and liberals as the years went by until 1968: “You’re not in tune with the times – that’s the sound of 1924, or an Ulm variant of it. […] It immediately sounds superficial, cheap, and smells of Mr. McCloy’s million. […] It’s improvised, and without talent. The German language has the words wursteln [muddle] and schlampen [do a lousy job] for untalented improvisations. – And then there’s something provincial about the whole thing – that’s in there too.“ 596 Quite different, naturally, was Walter Gropius’s reaction, and this was important for the whole plan, because the college founders in their interaction with HICOG primarily counted on his expert authority. But in March 1951 he reacted doubtfully to the organizational fanning-out of the original plans into a Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, a college, and a research institute. This led to intentional or unintentional misunderstandings and rumors that were reported to him and that he openly expressed to Max Bill: “It almost looks to me as though there are two parties wrestling with each other, one under Inge Scholl and the other under you.“597 Max Bill immediately successfully rejected this interpretation, but did not conceal the difficulties, or the advantages either, that resulted from Inge Scholl’s and Otl Aicher’s different mentality in implementing their shared intentions: “The ‘School of Design’ and the ‘Institute of Product Design’ are
to be under my direction, while Inge Scholl and her friend Otl Aicher are to manage the school externally, mainly as regards the financing. […] I am still in the process of negotiating another hurdle: The Ulm people (Scholl + Aicher) are Roman Catholic. They go to Mass. […] Well now, the negotiations she has to conduct at present, where the end result is supposed to be not just sympathy but real money, have one disadvantage: People want to know a bit more about the school. That’s why I must make my appearance fairly often so as to be better able to explain that we’re not talking about an ‘institute in memory of Hans and Sophie Scholl’. Naturally I’m the one who can explain that much better. On the other hand the combination of ‘sentimentality and reality’ is the basis of our appeal for financing.“ 598 Finally, I’d like to cast some light, dim though it may be, on an episode that will help us understand the HfG and its “myth”. In the course of his correspondence with Walter Gropius, Max Bill asked him on 22 November 1951: “Could we, if we wanted to, call the Ulm School of Design ‘Bauhaus’? Walter Gropius agreed on 28 November 1951 with one proviso, which he had gained from his experience with Laszlo Moholy-Nagy and with the New Bauhaus – Institute of Design in Chicago: “I know of a lot of people who stress the point publicly that they have been students of the Bauhaus, even if they went through it only for a very short time. For the best example close to yours, I give you the Institute of Design in Chicago. Against my warning, Moholy used the word Bauhaus for the institute first because he thought it might help him in this c ountry to have that bridge to the past. […] I would personally not be against your using the name Bauhaus Ulm […]. I leave it to your decision because you have to carry the brunt now, and I want to be helpful.“ 599 In March and April of the following year Max Bill tried to win over Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher for this name, but without insisting on it rigorously: “We had, as you know, discussed in Ulm that we wanted to use the term ‘Bauhaus‘. It’s true that we hadn’t clarified things completely; however, today I’m all for it. […] There would be only one other point in time where it would be possible for us to ‘rebaptize’ the school, namely on the day of its opening. That wouldn’t be bad either.“ 600 Inge Scholl was about to give in to him: “I very much lean toward your view that we should immediately decide on the name Bauhaus.“ 601 It was probably because of Otl Aicher’s resistance that the HfG did not call itself Bauhaus Ulm, and today Walter Gropius’s description fits both the situation of its former members and the name HfG. With the accentuation that was characteristic of him, Otl Aicher recapitulated the situation: “Naturally we also real-
ized at the time what sort of a political aura a school would acquire if it called itself ‘Bauhaus Ulm’. But ‘prestige’ was a word that had a rather negative sound. We wanted to do what was right without speculating on public effect and recognition. And our intention was not to create a second Bauhaus, no repetition. We wanted to be different from it, deliberately.“ 602
Gebhard Müller (CDU) (17 April 1900–7 Aug. 1990), minister-president of Baden-Württemberg, 1953–58. Photo: unknown Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (54152)
Bund der Heimatvertriebenen und Entrechteten – All-German Block/Union of Displaced Eastern Germans and of the Underprivileged) urged that the Land government should discuss the subsidy – DM 200,000 per year – as quickly as possible, so that the public should not get the impression that the ministry of finance wanted to delay the whole thing. They pointed out that otherwise the Land of Württemberg-Baden would indeed lose the AmeriIn the Landtag, 1952 began the homework for can million, because the city of Frankfurt am Main which there had not been enough time in the prewas already on its mark and that the McCloy Fund vious year. A reminder: On 9 December 1951 the money would then be spent for a student dormitoplenary session had voted whether the three ry there. The industry’s serious interest, as presouthwestern states Württemberg-Baden, Baden, sented to the politico-cultural committee by Edgar and Württemberg-Hohenzollern should join toHotz and the representatives of trade and industry, gether into a new Land, the southwest state Baalso convinced the deputies of the practical necden-Württemberg. What with all the parliamentary essity of the HfG plans. A year before, the Milan procedure in this affair, the foundation’s applicaTriennale had demonstrated to the entire world tion had reached an impasse, since the finance that Germany was a generation behind in the decommittee of the Württemberg-Baden Parliament sign of its export goods. Besides – the deputies was no longer able to discuss it before this vote. It were told – the majority of the representatives of was highly debatable whether the finance commit- the Land’s technical universities and academies tee delegates were willing to bring themselves to had indicated that they did not regard the HfG as make a clear statement by the end of January, competition, but as a valuable addition, as long as because in the spring of 1952 the Parliament of it was not supported with money that would be the new Land was to be elected, and hardly anysubtracted from their budget. However, it went one wanted to assume responsibility for a longwithout saying that the bylaws of the foundation term financial obligation at the eleventh hour. Thus needed to be changed in such a way that the mineven in 1951 there were fears that the binding istries would receive seats and v otes in the future consent of the Landtag would only be given under administrative council (still referred to as an adthe newly elected cabinet of the new southwest ministrative committee). Now, though, a decision state – and that is exactly what happened. had to be made, for in view of HICOG deadlines On 8 January 1952 the finance committee of and the approaching formation of the southwest the Württemberg-Baden Parliament dealt with the state, every delay meant the end of the project. – motion that the deputies of the politico-cultural But the committee merely agreed upon a weak committee passed on 29 November 1951 and in proposal that the government should study how which they demanded that the foundation be prothe foundation could be sponsored by the Land moted. The representatives of the DVP (German and industry. It was to report its findings to ParliaNational Party) opposed the Ulm project and thus ment. 603 dissented from the views of their parliamentary Kurt Angstmann (SPD) informed Parliament, at group colleague Hermann Wild, who as the chairits 16 January 1952 session, about the discussion man of the politico-cultural committee clearly and in the finance committee, and recommended that distinctly supported the plans. The opponents the proposal be accepted. A government study, he gave three reasons for objecting: firstly, money said, showed “what funds are actually available or was generally short; secondly, the need to rehabilmay be regarded as secured, how large are the itate the technical universities in Stuttgart and obligations the Land can incur and under what Karlsruhe as well as Heidelberg University, on conditions, and can then report to Parliament and which the scarce funds needed to be concentrated leave the final decision up to it.“ 604 The proposal before something new could be started; and third- was accepted, and immediately minister of educaly, because the subsidy would not remain at the tion and the arts Gotthilf Schenkel set about formlevel proposed at present, but would increase in ing a commission composed of representatives of the future. It was cheaper and therefore better to the private sector and of the ministries. 605 The support and develop existing institutions than to director of the museum Neue Sammlung (New take on a new burden. The foundation could only Collection) München, Günther Baron von Pechbe promoted if the Association of Friends guaranmann, wrote a vehemently approving testimonial teed to take care of financing the project. – Most for the Ulm group: “It is undeniable that here a of the representatives of the other parties (CDU, great idea, modern in every respect, is struggling SPD, and GB/BH E) (Christian Democratic Union, to materialize. […] Since the former Bauhaus in Social Democratic Party, Gesamtdeutscher Block/ Dessau was dissolved[…] nothing like it has been
115
Founding
116
undertaken in Germany.“ He saw the new and modern aspects of the pedagogical concept (the layout of the campus, the way teachers and students lived, studied, and worked; research and experiment on the one hand, practical w orkshops on the other; teachers who were at the same time researchers, practitioners and educators; background training and education as the basis for creative work; developing a sense of cultural responsibility in designing buildings, apar tments, and consumer goods). 606 In the opinion Günther Baron von Pechmann gave as chairman of the technical committee on education at the Association for Industrial Design of the National Association of German Industry , he had a very different, economic, focus. Together with Jupp Ernst, the director of the Werkkunstschule Wuppertal, and prominent designer Wilhelm Wagenfeld, he emphasized the importance of promoting export and the international competitiveness of German industrial products. At a time when in England the Council of Industrial Design (affiliated with the Board of Trade) had b een driving government promotion of schools of design since 1944, as had the Institut d‘Esthétique Industrielle in France (founded in 1951), the significance of these questions must be properly appreciated in Germany as well. 607 In contrast to these favorable opinions, there was the negative expert opinion of Richard Döcker, the head of the department of architecture of the Technische Hochschule Stuttgart (Technical University of Stuttgart), who hoped that he, not the HfG, would receive state funding for the teaching of design . 608 While he regarded the HfG as tough competition, the founders of the HfG strongly stressed how different their plans were from the Technische Hochschule. 609 In Ulm designers were not to specialize as heretofore in working with a small number of materials, but the entire field was to be taken care of by a team that worked together closely; theory, experimentation, workshops, development, and practical work were to be coordinated according to their ideas . Architecture was also an integral component of the overall concept. Finally, at the HfG, in contrast to the Technische Hochschule, they wanted to back up technical training with courses in sociology, economy, and social psychology and give students a sense of interrelationship, while the graduates of the Technische Hochschule were specialists. Even if the Technische Hochschule wanted to ac complish all this, expenditure in terms of material and personnel would be just as great. “Design is such a new field that it requires a new type of school and a pedagogical form of a special type.“ That is why they took the liberty of performing an experiment, with rigorous selection of the most talented people, low student-teacher ratio, close collaboration between students and teachers, communal
living and studying. They felt these pedagogical innovations were important for their patrons Henry van de Velde, Gregor Paulsson, and Walter Gropius, and that this was why the HfG would attract teachers who did not want to be restricted to one department of a technical university. All these arguments, like those that had been exchanged in the finance committee, were now no longer new. Nor did new a rguments for or against the HfG appear on the negotiating table in 1952. The political discussion was bogged down that entire year. Inge Scholl’s application, still not settled, outlasted the political transformation of the Land into the southwest state of Baden-Württemberg, and the handing over of the American check by John McCloy. Minister of finance Karl Frank (FDP/DVP) 610 remained unimpressed by this event and prevented the HfG from starting work in what was left of 1952. He would not be persuaded by anyone, not even a respected economic expert like the president of the Landeszentralbank 611. He would not accept the pedagogical, technical, and general reasons that had been presented for founding an autonomous new institution instead of affiliating it to the Technische Hochschule. At the end of the year he even had to be outvoted in the cabinet, and he did not give up his vehemently expressed rejection during the time that followed, which maneuvered him, in the spring of 1953, into the unpleasant situation of demanding that Parliament reject part of his own budget. However, it would be unfair to jump on his behavior. Karl Frank put his cards on the table. He did not conceal his conviction that, as he saw it, the HfG was superfluous, while he deeply believed the traditional universities of the Land, particularly the Technische Hochschule Stuttgart, could take on its tasks just as well if not better. But if this was his politico-cultural conviction, he also had the right to fight against the HfG plans as long as he did it according to democratic rules. Besides, as the minister of finance he felt it was his duty to submit the financial consequences of the project to rigorous scrutiny. And indeed, as an opponent he was more apt to notice the weak points of the financing than were the friends of the HfG. This must not be interpreted to mean that history proved he was right, for that would be like confusing cause and effect. The interpretation that the HfG closed because its financing collapsed did in fact encourage people to claim they’d known it all along, because it created the impression among HfG opponents that what happened in 1968 was precisely what the minister of finance had warned against back in 1952. This circular argument – a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy – was actually occasionally used in debates regarding the end of the HfG by its political adversaries.
In the meantime one must not forget that the representatives of trade and industry made things easy for the minister of finance: On the one hand they repeatedly affirmed their serious interest in the HfG plans, while on the other they refused to make funds available unconditionally. As long as the industrialists’ statements were not followed by action, Karl Frank refused to regard them as anything more than lip service. Two examples: During a conversation between the president of the Land Trade Supervisory Office and industrialists on 16 January 1952 no binding declarations were made. 612 A second instance: The joint venture group of the Württemberg-Baden chambers of industry and commerce, at their 56th plenary session on 29 January 1952 discussed an annual subsidy of DM 200,000 to DM 300,000, but put the decision off until “the associations, and the Land Association of Württemberg-Baden Industry in particular, have also declared they are ready to proceed correspondingly. Above all, they said, it was necessary to make it clear that the Federal Association of German Industry recognizes the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung as the institution that implements efforts already initiated by BDI (Federal Association of German Industry) to promote industrial design.“ 613 It was just as Gerd H. Müller, Dr. Rupp’s successor as the special university advisor at the ministry of education and the arts, had predicted at the beginning of the year: It was “practically impossible to obtain firm promises of a continuous subsidy from industry[…]“. 614 Finally a promoter of the Ulm project tried to persuade Federal President Theodor Heuss to act as an advocate of the HfG plans with the minister of finance: “Would it be possible for you to say something appreciative and encouraging to Dr. Frank for this synthesis of Werkbund and Württemberg, of Bauhaus and Guardini? […] Without a doubt an independent college with workshops and practical work has quite a few advantages as compared to the appendage of a technical university.“ 615 But here the Ulm group had reached the limits of their political support. Theodor Heuss responded on 22 February 1952: “Until I see the intellectual and artistic power that could create something similar to what Gropius managed to do in Dessau, with that strange mixture of romanticism and rationalism, I’ll continue to regard this business as more artificial than artistic.“ 616 A new variant of sitting things out and handing around responsibility was now on the agenda. Politically the trio of founders had cleared almost all the hurdles; the balance sheet of the financing of construction had been almost unchanged for half a year, as follows: 617
HICOG, Special Project no. 1 (letter dated 29 December 1950) federal ministry of economics, ERP funds 618 (letter dated 3 September 1951) federal ministry of the interior (letter dated 17 August 1951) development payments by the city of Ulm (resolution of the main department of 24 Jul y 1951) donations and payments by trade and industry (diverse legally binding promises) No rwe gi an Ai d f or Eu ro pe (letter dated 27 August 1951) total
DM 1,000,000 DM
200,000
DM
100,000
DM
245,000
DM
180,000
DM
2 0, 00 0
______________
DM 1,745,000
But the remittances were a long time coming b ecause, of course, the last obstacle – the government subsidy for ongoing operation – still needed to be overcome. Valuable time was lost. Not only was the credibility of the project damaged, but rising prices increased original cost estimates, and as a result there were renewed doubts as to the solidity of the financial planning. Moreover, the subsidizing ministries used the interruption to push through a change in the foundation’s bylaws that would ensure more influence for them. Basically the change involved two demands by the federal ministry of economics, which the other federal and Land ministries endorsed; if these demands were not met, the authorized funds would not be disbursed: An administrative director was to be hired for the foundation, and the existing administrative committee was to be replaced by a administrative council, which had a voice in hiring and in financial questions. 619 The demand for an administrative director was not new; for some time, Inge Scholl had already been negotiating with possible candidates. But as a result of the delays of the project as a whole, Friedrich Rau, with whom the foundation had already reached an agreement, no longer wanted to rely on nonbinding promises and instead accepted his election as the registrar of the University of Frankfurt am Main. 620 (After 1965 Friedrich Rau finally joined the foundation, but then as managing chairman of the executive board.) The constant uncertainty did not leave Max Bill cold either. On 11 January 1952 he asked for information: “I’d be interested in knowing why there
117
Founding
118
Otl Aicher’s posters for the Thursday lectures at the Ulm Adult Education Center:
September 1948, November 1948, and March 1949. Photos:Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (751/16, 751/18 and 751/11).
hasn’t been any headway after everybody acted as though things were in perfect order.“621 Told about what was going on, he warned of increasing government influence and urged haste without discussing the Land government investigation: “As for state supervision, we have to be very careful. I am also of the opinion that there’s already plenty of intervention when people discuss how much money they’re giving us and what for. However, I believe we’ll be able to get around this business once the state financial source makes up its mind,
power in the making of ap pointments, there would be no reason to fear that the HfG would need to give up its independence, while the d emands of the ministries would formally have been met. On 21 March 1952 Inge Scholl proposed just such a body to the Stuttgart ministry of education and the arts623 , and Hellmut Becker in the meantime reassured Max Bill: Now that the foundation is still fighting for the subsidy, it would be better not to “kick up a row”, “but rather try […] to outmaneuver the government agencies tactically. You can see that right from the start I have planned that the committee they want should be nonviable, by getting a whole lot of government agencies involved in it, who of course never come at the same time. As for the rest, the ratio of votes in this committee would virtually be 8:4, if we can assume that the representatives of free enterprise, specialists, and the city of Ulm can be counted as being on our side from the outset. […] For it is one of the peculiarities of Württemberg that every institution that’s involved in any kind of trouble arouses suspicion.“ 624 Shortly thereafter, on 27 March 1952, Inge Scholl also tried to get Max Bill to trust Hellmut Becker’s course of action: His way was the right one “to really achieve a degree of freedom […] especially since the Americans, of course, keep insisting that the school must remain independent.“
because both things are independent of each other […]. If they go on investigating for a long time, we’ll have beards and wigs the next time we meet.“622 A few weeks later, on 17 March 1952, he demanded that the plans finally be brought to a conclusion, even if it involved force, since government agencies had to be compelled to make decisions with press reports if need be: “What we need now is a forceful and exact blow.“ The shifting of responsibilities within the foundation committees caused him more and more headaches: “I’m a little worried about the new conditions from Stuttgart. We’ll never get anywhere on those terms. I’m of the opinion that we have to stick very firmly to our original intentions.“ Here, Max Bill overlooked the fact that his rejection of changes in the foundation’s bylaws, in view of the other delays at the time, could be misused as an excellent alibi that would permit state agencies to dissociate themselves from their promises again. Hellmut Becker, on the other hand, tactically skilled, recognized the opportunity offered by a change in the foundation’s bylaws to show the absurdity of the ministries’ objectives: If the foundation’s new entity, the future administrative council, was quite large, and its members were skillfully chosen, the representatives of the ministries might in actuality always be in the minority. If, moreover, the council only had veto power, but not initiative
In the spring of 1952 there was no longer any sign of progress. The ministries in Bonn were practically paralyzed, like a rabbit facing a snake that is spraying the poison of communism. The minister of finance insisted that only the future cabinet of Baden-Württemberg would be a ble to decide on the Land’s subsidy for the operating expenses of the HfG. 625 Then John McCloy took the initiative in order to bring the HfG plans to a satisfactory conclusion, or rather beginning. On 27 March 1952 Max Bill received news from Inge Scholl that the check would soon be handed over. The high commissioner’s motive, the reason he had encouraged the project despite all the d ifficulties, is again of interest: “Shepard Stone told me that McCloy would say a few words; the important thing about the whole thing for McCloy, he said, was the memory of my brother and sister, i.e., the fact that a living and future-oriented creation would now emerge from that. […] I have the impression that publicizing this handing over of the check will remove quite a few difficulties we are still struggling with, and that we will be off to a good start with another fund drive.“ 626 Before they got to that point, John McCloy gave his full attention to the Ulm group’s plans for one last time. In November 1951 HICOG headquarters had moved to Bad Godesberg (the suburb Mehlem). The HICOG staff had thus moved back into the
immediate proximity of the Federal Republic’s political center. In the second half of his period of office in Germany John McCloy wanted to accelerate the tempo once more and to effect as many practical results as possible, so that the direction Germany had taken toward a sovereign democratic, western state would become irreversible. The HICOG budget for 1952 was DM 102 million. Of this amount, 48 million were slated for the public affairs program, and here again the lion’s share was to go to education- and training-related work. 627 The major tasks of integrating Germany economically, politically, and militarily, as John McCloy saw it, could be permanently and successfully resolved only if a broad democratic b ase existed in Germany. On 21 January 1952, addressing the University of Freiburg, he unfolded his ideas on education, and reminded the students of their obligation to come up with new ideas. 628 He held up Ralph Waldo Emerson as a model for them, who more than a hundred years earlier taught that “both students and scholars need to learn to make the facts their own and to speak up fearlessly for truth, for freedom, and for the rights of the individual, and to participate in the daily life of the community. Emerson encouraged the young scholars of his day to develop new ideas, ga in new convictions, and then courageously and actively disseminate them.“ Certainly, he added, the present personal situation of most students was difficult and full of privation, but that did not mean they must forget their visions and their future or content themselves with trivial results: “It would be dangerous and regrettable if young European students and scholars, under the pressure of anxiety about profession and livelihood, were to neglect their higher obligations toward the community.“ German scientists, he went on, must leave the classic ivory tower and put away the specialist’s blinders in order to tend to societal duties. In place of national boundaries, they now had a European horizon: “European students and European scholars today have the important task of going beyond their specialized professional skills and recognizing their obligations toward the community. Accordingly they should be a living example of practicing democracy in thought and deed.“ John McCloy challenged the students and professors to remember humanistic values and at the same time become politically active in order to defend these values: “At a time when reactionary, nihilistic, and totalitarian forces want to put the human spirit in chains once again, the inactivity of young, free Europeans would not only, as Emerson said, be the opposite of freedom – it would be tantamount to suicide. […] The real danger according to our studies lies in the apathy of millions of Ger-
mans, in the fact that they don’t realize they have to be personally involved in defending their freedom.” Liberal arts, as introduced at Freiburg University with American help, was, he felt, an important step forward in German academia. The college campus made possible communal living and mutual learning by teachers and students, an academic community as a model for living in society. This structure of university studies combined the humanistic ideal of education with social community and prepared the students to be active citizens. John McCloy appealed to German politics not to let the reform of the German university system fail because of an alleged shortage of funds: “But if the universities clearly realize that they need such ‘colleges’ in order to carry out their tasks, then the German people and its government agencies must find the necessary funds.” The close contact between the university and the general public, the Landtag, churches, labor unions, chambers of commerce, and the p ress “is without doubt an excellent way of keeping the university from being isolated from the political and economic life of its surroundings.” For the American high commissioner, the greatest threat for the future of Germany lay in the indifference of the German population, in its political lethargy, although people no longer had reason to fear they would be punished for expressing their views. In contrast to this he was impressed by the selfless and unconditional involvement of young people who had risked everything for their convictions: “The memory of Hans and Sophie Scholl should inspire and spur on all students today.” In January 1952, like Max Bill, the HICOG staff must have had the impression that the Land’s subsidy was signed and sealed. On 15 January 1952 Inge Scholl had disseminated calculated optimism when she wrote to Michael P. Balla: “The La ndtag’s finance committee also recently showed a very positive attitude toward our cause. We can now rely firmly on the question of a continuous need for a subsidy being securely anchored.” 629 A week later minister of education and the arts Gotthilf Schenkel also professed to John McCloy that the contribution of the Land to continuous maintenance was already settled: “In the meantime, Mr. McCloy, I’d like to thank you with all my heart that through your generous endowment you made this project possible. I am convinced, as are the committees of the Landtag, that the project will be of great significance for our country and its future development.”630 Following this, it seems that at HICOG headquarters in Bad Godesberg-Mehlem a new staff member, George A. Selke, was assigned to work on the Ulm proposal. Inge Scholl regarded it as yet another step toward turning the HfG into a reality: “I have the impression that he regards our
119
Founding
120
An American in Ulm: The Wochenschau (weekly newsreel) spreads the news all over Germany.
cause as his own […]. Now the tempo of how we finish dealing with the Americans practically depends on Selke. Besides, he will be the American representative who will be one of the people investigating the financial administration as long as development and setting up are going on. […] After this meeting [on 29 February 1952 in Ulm; author’s note], if I understand correctly, I am supposed to come directly to McCloy to receive from him the closing words, document or something of the kind.” 631
public life in Germany? How would students be enabled to disseminate the skills they learned and the ideas of the foundation? What could one expect to gain from the curriculum for the working population’s standard of living? Could the foundation’s work help to close the gap between politically active people and intellectuals? Could one assume that the work of the foundation would have a pioneering effect on other institutes, the economy, politics, and mass media? Was it possible for a mere 150 students to exert such an
accuses him of having given money to a totally pointless institution in Germany. […] It seems important to me that he should get the impression that the things we want to develop in Ulm for daily use are very closely connected with raising the standard of living and creating a culture of the age of technology, and that these things alone have political significance.” A few days later, on 18 April 1952, Max Bill sent his answers to Inge Scholl and Walter Gropius. Inge Scholl was able to add “the foundation’s point of view” to this “personal perspective as the rector of the school”, before she sent on the documents to the high commissioner.637 Max Bill hoped that Walter Gropius would communicate his support to John McCloy. 638
John J. McCloy hands the DM 1 million check to Inge Scholl at the Ulm city hall on 23 June 1952.
Max Bill’s answers are very much to the point – a comprehensive school program that he formulated as the designated rector of the HfG and that documents his militantly presented demand that he alone is to be responsible for the curriculum and educational methods of the Ulm project. 639 In responding to John McCloy he argued that if the school were turned into a reality this would a bove contribute to raising the standard of living in Germany and as a result would influence public life. It was blue collar workers in particular who would profit from good housing conditions, furnishings
Photo:unknown
Inge Scholl actually did receive a new foundation charter632 from John McCloy at a subsequent meeting with him on 7 April 1952633, but its definitive version had not been drafted yet. Until that happened, the high commissioner again expected Inge Scholl and her friends and sponsors to completely convince him. This is why he handed her a series of questions 634 that had to be answered by 29 April 1952. 635 Obviously he wanted to make sure for the last time what the concept was so that he would be forearmed against attacks that would be directed against him as the one politically responsible if the wrong decision was made. Primarily he was concerned with the political level of the HfG in the tradition of the American reeducation themes. How and to what extent, he asked, could the educational theory of the school influence
influence? How could this type of an elite group be effective in the public sphere as designers and advertisers? What justified his giving one of the highest subsidies to the foundation? And finally: Couldn’t the project start with DM 500,000? 636 Max Bill was visibly indignant about this catalogue. He probably had the impression that the discussions of the last two years had passed by the high commissioner without a trace: “Mr. McCloy is apparently not very well versed in questions of art and culture. He c an’t imagine that culture and politics are very closely connected and that the influence does not go one way only, from politics to culture, but perhaps the reverse influence is even deeper. I’m trying to get him to realize that in the way I answer the questions. […] I think he simply wants to protect himself in case Congress later
Inge Scholl next to Ellen McCloy; in the picture on the right, Ulm Mayor Theodor Pfizer appears on the very left. Photos: unknown Archive center:City archive Ulm (53–40–83)
and appliances – products “that really meet their needs, in other words, that are good, functional, inexpensive, and beautiful”. Furnishings for small rooms should be adapted to these conditions, while at the moment they were designed for older, larger homes. The students were to disseminate the new concepts not only by their own example, but also by their participation in public life and by what they created – objects adopted as cultural products by leading strata of society, so that the latter would begin to think about the ideas behind them. Because it was the express platform of the school to educate a cultural elite that would be publicly active “for the benefit of the community”, this elite would cast its spell on other intellectuals. According to Max Bill, the institutions of the foundation were to exert influence on public life, while
he also aimed to have other institutes adopt the teachings of the HfG “if they don’t want to risk becoming superfluous.” He gave the Bauhaus as an example: Its basic course had been adopted in one form or another by every leading school in Germany, Holland, England, Switzerland, or in the US, though only from a decorative point of view. You could tell, he said, how progressive the HfG’s program was by just looking at the positive reactions or, for that matter, at attacks against it. He predicted that the number of students was not related to their influence. He pointed out how significant was the influence of the dozen former Bauhaus students in the US. By the way, the fact that many Bauhaus people had been taken in by communism showed how important a well-planned political education was, something the Bauhaus had lacked. Therefore he felt that a major goal of the school was to mobilize politically those cultural forces that had until now stood by passively. He strove to train designers as responsible citizens and designers of products that would be better, cheaper, and more beautiful, and that w ould enhance the quality of life; to educate advertisers and journalists who would live and work as responsible citizens and honest reporters. He summed it all up by saying, “The reason our technological age is so st rife-torn is that cultural responsibilities were not dealt with on the same premises and
with the same methods as technical problems. However, people do not live in the technical problems, but in houses, cities – they work in offices, workshops.” For him the American million was the absolute minimum in support; below that amount he saw no sense in starting the HfG. Therefore, with his answers, Max Bill took up the ultimate goals of the American democratization policy, looked for the international connection, and was very good at striking just the right note that met with the strongest American response. Two more of Inge Scholl’s and Otl Aicher’s outlines were used to prepare for the meeting with John McCloy. They complemented Max Bill’s visionary themes with other perspectives. One seems to be a cursory information sheet for those sponsors of
121
Founding
122
the HfG plans who were necessary as representatives of the public sphere. Here the Ulm g roup obviously stuck more closely to practical reality: In the foreground of this paper are the HfG’s place in the present situation of the Federal German educational landscape and a more detailed explanation of the teaching program and instructional goals of the HfG. 640 The second outline looks at the HfG plans against the background of Inge Scholl’s and Otl Aicher’s work at the Ulm Adult Education Center 641: Their high regard for the role of education in bringing about a change in German society; their attempt to arouse political interest and civic commitment in the population; their ability to see connections; their pedagogical flair; their love for questions involving practical design; their sense of “increasing cultural powerlessness”, a result of the separation of politics and culture in Germany and of the “political failure of the intellectuals”. The last important meeting between the HfG founders and its promoters at HICOG took place on 29 April 1952 at 1:00 p .m. at the home of John McCloy in Bad Godesberg. The Ulm g roup and its cohorts gathered two hours earlier at the Adler Hotel 642 . Max Bill, Hellmut Becker, and Inge Scholl (Otl Aicher was apparently not there) were accompanied by several representatives of the public: Hermann Josef Abs (the president of the Wieder aufbaubank (Reconstruction Bank), and foundation trustee), Otto Bartning (president of the Bund Deutscher Architekten , (the Association of German Architects), and trustee of the foundation), Arno Hennig (member of the Federal German Parliament, and chairman of the politico-cultural committee of the SPD), Heinz Küppers ( member of the federal board of the German Federation of La bor and chairman of the cultural affairs committee of the German Federation of Labor), Theodor Pfizer (the mayor of Ulm) and Otto Pfleiderer (president of the Baden-Württemberg Land Central Bank). The other side was represented by John and Ellen McCloy, Shepard Stone, George A. Selke (in charge of supervising the foundation’s finances), Max M. Kimental (in charge of financing projects in Shepard Stone’s office), and an American lawyer. “It was obvious that Mr. McCloy was impressed primarily by the fact that here political forces that are normally so divergent worked together to create something new.” 643 The result was satisfactory all around: The high commissioner informed Inge Scholl that he would now approve the entire sum and would finance the preplanning. She still saw one danger looming ahead – the American presidential elections, in which John McCloy as a Republican would take up office at the side of Dwight D. Eisenhower: “He’s going to fly to Washington soon to speak before Congress about his policy towards Germany. […] If the Democrats are al-
ready attacking him now, it is possible that he might have a fit of frugality for political reasons […].” But he was going to have all decisions finalized within a month, and then all they needed was the subsidy of the Land, “which had basically been promised by the cabinet”. 644 John McCloy kept his word. Not a month had passed when, on 27 May 1952, the American foundation document for Special Project no. 1a for DM 75,000 was issued. 645 The funds were urgently needed for organization costs and salaries incurred in setting up the HfG. The check reached Ulm on 7 June 1952, the HfG project was beginning to become a reality 646 – and on the same day Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher got married. 647 When, on 23 June 1952, John McCloy personally traveled to Ulm to solemnly present the check for the remaining DM 925,000 to Inge AicherScholl at the city hall and to sign the deed of donation, there was once more a flurry of excitement in the international daily press. Thus the history of the founding is framed by two actions by John McCloy that attest to his intention to work ac tively to bring about the desired changes in Germany: In January 1950 he expressed his sympathy for Inge Scholl and his interest in the experiment for which he had declared his support in his Boston speech, while now in June 1952 he handed over the check. Between these two events were the challenging yet at the same time supportive words of the high commissioner himself and of his staff. Inge Aicher-Scholl had already given the p ress a text of which one third dealt with her siblings’ resistance. The founding of the Ulm Adult education Center, it said, is “in a way a legacy of my siblings, far-reaching, as true enlightenment always is”. Out of this work, the document continued, arose the plans “for a place for work and teaching that views and deals with the cultural, social, and political tasks of our time in connection, and that imparts to its students a ‘humanitas’ that is appropriate for our mechanized world. Students should thus be offered thorough training in modern professions, combined with a contemporary general education. […] In this way we hope to help create a more hopeful and constructive attitude among the young and to use the moral impetus of the resistance to benefit the tasks we face today.“ 648 The high commissioner also alluded to these roots of the HfG plans. His first impression had had a lasting effect on how he viewed the Ulm project. Thus the memory of Hans and Sophie Scholl and the hope that their worldview w ould endure determined the tenor of John McCloy’s speech in Ulm: “During my three years in Germany I have participated in many extraordinary events. […] I am fully aware of what I am saying when I state that noth-
ing during these years has satisfied me more than the donation I am about to bestow. […] The American people love freedom and democracy, and honor those who risk their lives for freedom. […] Inge Scholl and her friends have now founded the School of Design. This school wants to teach ways of promoting democratic life in Germany. This school is an experiment. It is something new, with new ideas and new methods. Over it all, however, reigns the spirit of Hans and Sophie Scholl. […] The Federal Republic and the youth of this country can have no better tradition than that of the young Scholls. As long as their spirit shines in Germany, the German contribution to the European community will be democratic, liberal, and good” – an unmistakable sideswipe at the persistent opposition of government officials and politicians who believed that the weal and woe of Federal German education depended on going back to the traditional education system. 649 Anyone who sums up the work of John McCloy, Shepard Stone, and their staff at the office of the high commission cannot help being amazed how well the HfG project fit in with American ideas of reform. If one compares it with John McCloy’s statements in his address to the University of Freiburg, one is struck by the many points of correspondence: the courage to risk something new, the international orientation, the focus on humanistic values, aiming for political effectiveness, the community of teachers and learners. However, that cannot have been the only reason for John McCloy’s and Shepard Stone’s c ontinuous support. John H. Boxer, who had taken part in the meetings from the start, remembered Inge Scholl’s personal charisma, which cast a spell on all participants.650 However, the moral credit she was initially given was soon pushed into the background in view of the shared goals to transform through education the authoritarian, nonliberal, and slavishly submissive attitude in Germany into independent thinking and political discernment. In contrast the role of Max Bill seems ambivalent – as an internationally known expert, he enjoyed the confidence of the HICOGstaff, but at the same time as a visionary man of action he was good at interpreting the boundaries of the project more and more broadly and thus increasing its significance. – Taking stock of his work in Germany 651, John McCloy recalled the uncertainty: Had the Germans learned anything from their past or would they again decide on seesaw politics? With the Stalin note (10 March 1952) the Soviet Union had made the tempting offer to reunify Germany as long as it remained neutral in order to prevent the integration of Germany into the Western community of states, and thus presented to the population the fake choice between German and European unifi-
cation. John McCloy left Germany with some degree of optimism that it would withstand the Eastern threats of military strength and the advances of the propaganda offensive. On 26 May 1952 Konrad Adenauer and the foreign ministers of the US, France, and England signed the Bonn Convention that ended the Occupation Statute and meant “yet another stage on the road to integration in the West” “at the end of which stood complete sovereignty ”. 652 The 23 June 1952 document for Special Project no. 1 for DM 925,000 to the foundation spells out the terms of the donation: Essentially these were the German matching fund (at least DM 700,000 in German funds, payments in kind from the city of Ulm worth DM 245,000), and the government subsidy for one year’s operation costs, a minimum of DM 200,000. Also, the money was to be used by 31 December 1953, and any remainder was to be given back.653 A week later, on 30 June 1952, the Land commissions stopped their work – they were transformed into consulates general. The foundation was accountable to the head of the Division of Cultural Affairs (George A. Selke) in Bad Godesberg. John McCloy concluded his mission in Germany on 21July 1952, when he and his family returned to the United States. There he became the chairman of the board of directors of the Chase Manhattan Bank . Shepard Stone left Germany at the same time. From 1953 on, he was the director of the overseas section of the Ford Foundation (John McCloy was the chairman of its executive board during the same period). He retired in 1973, but returned to Berlin once more in 1974 to found the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies , which he directed until 1986. The appearance of the great sponsor John McCloy and his wife in Ulm was good publicity and provided Inge Aicher-Scholl with a welcome opportunity to send a circular letter to all the new friends she had made in the meantime and to the supporters of the college project. 654 This first circular, dated 30 June 1952, was also sent out in an English version (15 September 1952).655 It also served to prepare for the founding of an association of friends and supporters, and to hold together those who were interested. As she looked back at the work that had already been done, two aspects seemed particularly noteworthy to her as far as the reaction of German officialdom was concerned. First, it had been to the Ulm group’s disadvantage that they wanted to create something completely new and not continue an existing tradition. For in the few years that had elapsed since the end of the war the originally widespread acceptance of making a radical new beginning had vanished:
123
Founding
124
Isometric drawing of Max Bill’s architectural plan for the main building of the HfG
“If we had wanted merely to expand or reconstruct something that was already there, we would have been spared a lot of trouble. As it was, we could only refer people to a good plan and a couple of people who wanted to turn it into a reality.” In 1952, it had become a rare occurrence for somebody with cultural commitment to start all over again from scratch. In fact, Inge Aicher-Scholl had told Shepard Stone something similar half a year earlier. – Secondly, she spoke of the planned independence from government influence that the new institution would enjoy. With obvious satisfaction she reported about similar views represented in the Württemberg-Baden Parliament – for that was hardly ever to be the case again: “Asking for public funds for an independent institution required that the politicians and bureaucrats who were involved change their thinking. It was all the more encouraging that, for example, in the politico-cultural committee of the Stuttgart Landtag the representatives of all the parties wanted to make their approval of the state subsidy contingent precisely on the fundamental independence of the school. The deputies declared that in the hands of the state the institution would simply become an institution like others that already existed elsewhere. What was new, they felt, could only grow from a combination of free initiative and government financial assistance.” You’d have thought that the handing over of the million-mark check would have given the HfG plans in Stuttgart new thrust. Far from it. Inge Aicher-Scholl had warned Max Bill as late as 13 June 1952 against impatient actions: “Various people have been urging us not to take any action at the moment, since the government is totally preoccupied with itself.” 656 For the time being she had no choice but to thank minister of education and the arts Gotthilf Schenkel and his staff member Gerd H. Müller for their support and help 657 and to bide her time until the political climate in the Land allowed a last sally. The latest developments were that in April 1952 a discussion started up between the ministry of education and the arts and the ministry of finance about documents regarding the HfG that Gotthilf Schenkel had submitted to the cabinet. For the first year of its operation he w ould provide a subsidy of DM 200,000, and DM 300,000 each for the coming two years – i.e., a total of DM800,000. In return for this, representatives of the government agencies would have a right of veto for all financial matters regarding the foundation. 658 Because government circumstances were unresolved, the minister of finance used them as a pretext for refusing to decide about the HfG “until an overview of the southwest state’s 1952 budget [was] possible”. 659 On 23 April 1952 the Württemberg-Baden council
of ministers under Reinhold Maier adopted the same view and – two days later – postponed the decision to form a new Land government. 660 In the meantime, in fact, there had been no base for continuing to process the matter in Parliament, since the new Federal Land of Baden-Württemberg would be created in the foreseeable future.661 Section 118 of the Federal Republic’s Bylaws (the so-called Neugliederungsgesetz , or Reorganization Law) contained provisions established especially for the formation of the southwest state. According to these a plebiscite was planned in the four voting districts of North and South Baden, and North and South Württemberg. If the majority in all four districts as a whole and in each of three districts decided on the merger, the southwest state would be formed. The 9 December 1951 plebiscite actually did produce this result: 69.7 percent of those who were entitled to v ote, and the majority in each of the districts of North Baden and North and South Württemberg voted for the southwest state. Only in South Baden the majority (62.2 percent) voted against the merger. Following this, on 9 March 1952, the constituent Land assembly was elected (which at the same time assumed the function of a Landtag after adopting the Baden-Württemberg bylaws on 11 November 1953 and constituted itself as the first Parliament of the Land of Baden-Württemberg on 19 November 1953). The constitutive session of the constituent Land assembly took place on 25 March 1952. The Federal Chancellor lost his majority in the Federal Council through the election that resulted in a coalition of the SPD, FDP/DVP and GB/B HE + DP, which made up the first provisional government. This government formed on 25 April 1952. On the same day the constituent assembly proclaimed the law about the provisional exercise of state authority in the southwest state of the Federal Republic, the so-called transitional law. It regulated the dissolution of the Land Parliaments and governments of the three prior Lands, the transfer of the functions of a Landtag to the constituent Land assembly, and designated that the provisional name of the new federal Land should be Baden-Württemberg . Through the law, the new cabinet was constitutionally given freedom of action ending the constitutional existence of the Länder of Württemberg-Baden, Württemberg-Hohenzollern, and Baden. The new federal Land came into existence at 12:30 on 25 April 1952. Again Reinhold Maier was the minister-president in Stuttgart. His cabinet, with one ex-ception, was identical with the council of minis-ters of the Land of WürttembergBaden. For the HfG plans, this meant that the ministers in the crucial departments of education and the arts, finance, and economics had remained the same.
Photography
Metal workshop
125
Woodwork- Plaster ing shop workshop
Department of visual communication
Department of information
Connecting passage to student high-rise and to studios
Dining hall, bar
Administration, rector, library, lobby, foyer
Lecture hall
Department of product design
Department of industrializedbuilding
Heating/physical plant
Main entrance
Patio
Founding
126
In 1952 the foundation published the first printed brochure662 (the year before there had been only two printed standard-size pages 663 , but otherwise only outlines). Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher sent their rough draft to Max Bill in the spring and asked him to make changes as he saw fit. His alternative draft 664 of 12 April 1952 was, for the most part, adop ted for the final printed version, an additional indication of how much he dominated the program of the future HfG at this point – or at least its representation in public. The square brochure consisted of four pages made up of a sheet printed on both sides and folded in the middle. It did not give the HfG founders much room, and so the text was kept somewhat general and brief. The very second sentence of the introduction states that the HfG is a continuation of the Bauhaus, expanded by courses in those areas to which no importance was yet attached when the Bauhaus was in existence. This is followed by a very short overview of the teaching program: the basic courses, the departments (information, visual design, product design, architecture, city planning), and general education. Finally there were a few sketchy sentences on the Institute of Product Design: “The institute will take on orders from the private sector and carry out its own research and design work. It will work out the fundamentals for the design of technically correct, functional, and aesthetically pleasing products. Thus it will fill a need of the economy: Because of developments in the world market it is necessary to coordinate technical, aesthetic, and economic factors. […] Qualified designers will be trained in the course of collaboration between the college and its Institute of Product Design.” The statements regarding the “steering committee” of the foundation (Inge Aicher-Scholl, Otl Aicher, Max Bill) and the “administrative council” were not quite correct because the first committee was not a constitutional entity of the foundation (“steering committee” was merely a catchy name for the trio of founders) and the second group was still the foundation’s seven-member administrative committee, which was not transformed into the administrative council (14 members) until 1953. – On 10 July 1952 Inge Aicher-Scholl sent this brochure to Hans Bott, who as an assistant department head in the office of the federal president was in charge of HICOG special projects, with a note saying that it had “just c ome off the press”. 665 This brochure also includes Max Bill’s intention of setting up studios for artistic work (as a continuation of the departments of visual design and product design for particularly gifted students). In an unprinted outline, presumably also from the latter half of 1952, Max Bill spoke more plainly: “I am still convinced that art has primacy for creative design[…]. I am also convinced that the mass pro-
duction of consumer goods should not be a ccomplished by incapable painters and sculptors, ‘bad artists’, but that responsible, real artists should be part of the team working on producing these goods. […] Having said that, I have also indicated to a certain degree what the Ulm school is supposed to be about. We regard art as the highest stage of expression and strive to make life into a work of art. […] We don’t want to encourage socalled ‘freelance’ artists, but to train artists who, because of their own performance, are truly free. […] We hope that we can come up to the expectations people have of us: to give a permanent home again to the homeless Bauhaus spirit.” 666 But it was precisely this prioritizing of art over all other educational goals of the HfG that Otl Aicher rejected. Nevertheless, this is what happened, for in the foundation’s brochure, it was Max Bill’s views that were implied. In the fall of 1952 Inge Aicher-Scholl braced herself for the remaining hurdle in Stuttgart. On 4 October 1952 she sent Gerd H. Müller at the ministry of education and the arts a new budget, calculated for one school year with full enrollment (150 students). Because the state had raised teachers’ salaries by 20 percent and the foundation had to adapt to the change, the foundation’s subsidy requirements had also increased.667 However, a look at budget figures dated 4 October 1950 for a normal year with 150 students shows that this calculation still depended on full enrollment: Income S tu de nt f ee s (150 students at 9 months each at DM 30): R eg is tr at io n f ee s (50 new students at DM 50 each) Fees for material (150 students at DM 75 each C om mi ss io ns a nd l ic en se s Students’ rents (150 students at DM 30 each per month) Lecturers’ rents (1,000 sq. meters at DM 1.85) Miscellaneous Pa ym en ts i n k in d f ro m c it y Expenditures Teachers’ salaries M as te r cr af ts me n’ s sa la ri es Vi si ti ng l ec tu re rs ’ s al ar ie s Administration, library, custodian
DM
4 0, 50 0
DM
2 ,5 00
DM
11,250
DM DM
2 0, 00 0 54,000
DM
22,200
DM DM
16,720 5 0, 00 0
DM DM DM
190,800 5 2, 80 0 3 5, 00 0 DM 33,200
Miscellaneous nonpersonnel costs Sum total income Sum total expenditures Subsidy r equirements
DM
140,200
DM DM
217,170 452,000
DM
234,830
______________
The important items of income were affected by the number of students (fees and rents) and lecturers (rents). To generate this income, in turn, the HfG campus with its classroom and residential buildings needed to be completely furnished. The foundation’s lack of money may have started at this point. But it would be wrong to believe that the foundation’s later fundamental financial difficulties were caused solely by this miscalculation, which was based on optimistic assumptions. There is no doubt that Inge Aicher-Scholl was caught in a catch-22 situation between a realistic view of things which surely must have told her not to draw up such a budget, and the calculated optimism that wanted a functioning balanced budget. Also the entire project was burdened by the selfimposed claim, which had been elevated to a platform, that the school would largely forego government assistance, so that time and time again the ministries were pacified with only minimal subsidies. Otl Aicher and his wife still clung to their vision of “financing routine maintenance from private sources”.668 One should by no means assume that Inge Aicher-Scholl was frivolous when it came to finances. Thus, on 11 September 1952, she had already sent a private communication about the other financial problem, construction costs, to Max Bill, informing him that funds for the building were DM 200,000 short. DM 1,950,000 were available to them, while the building plus workshops and teaching materials would cost DM 2,150,000. She asked him to economize on building and equipment costs, while she would at the same time come up with additional donations, and try to increase the mortgage (previous projection: DM 300,000).669 At the end of 1952 she even got into a violent argument with Max Bill over her desire to economize. He wanted to limit the capacity of the HfG to a mere 100 students maximum “while keeping the same number of teachers! for that is an item we cannot economize on. […] To put it simply, we need that third million. […] We should definitely not cover up the situation.“ 670 Was that the brazen demand of an idealist? Probably not – just an assessment of reality, for a look at the statistics shows that it took the HfG eight years to admit more than 100 students. Nevertheless it was absurd for Max Bill to expect Inge Aicher-Scholl to rework the plans once more at this point. He had been at the helm long enough to have a good
measure of responsibility for seeing that they now managed within the estimated sum of money. Inge Aicher-Scholl told him so in no uncertain terms on Christmas 1952: “But when in your letter you mention a total construction cost that is far more than double your original figure, it’s completely beyond the limits of my comprehension.” She wanted him to plan the building in such a way that as many as 150 students would be able to study there one day, as it could be expanded step by step: “At any rate I would stick to 150 students as the optimal full enrollment. That way we’ll have a school that’s going to be under constant construction for the next few years and for which we have to continue begging from door to door in the name of God.” Maybe they could make virtue out of necessity and combine their need to economize with the need to produce, as quickly as possible, demonstrable and tangible proofs of success: “That is why I’d like to ask you to consider whether we shouldn’t regard the building even more than before as an area where the school can demonstrate its practical achievements. […] I could see where we could produce enough chairs, tables, furniture, sanitary facilities, fittings, light fixtures, etc., for the building alone that we wouldn’t need to be scared of justifying ourselves to the Land. But I’d like to point out that a man like Zeischegg can’t do this all on his own and that it won’t work at the pace he’s working at.” For the moment she saw no opportunities for coming up with new money in Germany: “We’ve become a lame duck that won’t get any moral credit until it shows it can swim.” The following February, she expected Shepard Stone as the representative of the Ford Foundation , and she was already beginning to dread this encounter: “I was perfectly aware of what he meant by teasing me that we were the first project of the McCloy Fund, but the last one to be concluded.“ 671 Back to the Stuttgart ministries. In his new cabinet presentation on 20 October 1952, Gotthilf Schenkel took over Inge Aicher-Scholl’s draft that a subsidy of DM 235,000 for regular maintenance was necessary for a normal school year. In the sixmonth startup period alone DM 80,000 would be needed. When the minister of finance expressed his fear that the subsidy would be necessary even after the first three years, Gotthilf Schenkel asked him to consider that “if the school is really to develop successfully, ongoing subsidies from industry can also be expected, but furthermore the school’s successful work will have such a positive effect on the development of our regional industry, especially on its foreign sales, that the relatively modest government subsidy can then be easily justified.” If this did not happen, the ministry of education and the arts would propose on their own accord that the state subsidy be cut. Gotthilf
127
Founding
128
Max Bill’s architectural model of the HfG campus still shows three high-rises with studio apartments between them. Only one highrise was actually built. Photo: Hans Conrad
Schenkel was against the school’s becoming affiliated with an existing institution (technical college or academy) or the HfG’s functions being taken over by another institution. 672 It should be no surprise that the minister of finance did not want to endorse this view: “I believe it’s definitely possible and attainable without major difficulties and expenditures for the functions in question to be dealt with within the framework of a technical college. […] The Land has 2 large technical universities, 3 state schools of architecture, and 3 academies of art. […] The founding of a new institution of this type would substantially add to the financial burden of this Land. […] First of all it is not certain that the required amount would not increase, because the foundation’s budget starts from the a ssumption that the institute and school would have maximum enrollment. […] It is by no means a proven fact that the work of the school w ould have such a positive effect on regional industry and export that the high government subsidy would be easily justified.” The loss of the American million and of federal funds (DM 300,000) would be regrettable, he added, but would have to be “put up with in order to protect the Land from expenses that in all probability would not achieve their purpose and that were so large they would not be justified by the previously mentioned contributions.” 673 Karl Frank was frankly opposed, not to the promotion of design in general, but to its realization in the form of the HfG. Now the founders paid for having constantly emphasized the economic aspect for the ministries. This argument invited their opponents to reduce the HfG plans to a simple cost-benefit
calculation. However, the crucial reason that even the minister of finance could not have evaded, and that so deeply impressed the HICOG staff, was absent from this calculation: the fact that the school was rooted in the resistance of Hans and Sophie Scholl, its holistic pedagogy, an education whose goals were to develop the personality, formation of free opinion and independent thinking in order to teach students to act responsibly and courageously. In the calculations of the minister of finance, which were driven by the idea of rebuilding the old institutions, this sort of commitment to draw morals from the past for the future was missing. Whether he would have agreed to discuss these politico-cultural goals is another matter. But if the purpose of the HfG was presented to him merely as the promotion of exports, he could afford to doubt the success of this undertaking: “I am well aware that the foundation raises problems that are worth discussing and may to some extent be of real significance. But I feel it’s a mistake to tackle this multitude of problems all at once and even to believe that addressing them can produce speedy and direct economic benefits for regional industry and export. The overall planning of the project that is laid out in the foundation’s publicity brochure lacks the sort of clarity and levelheadedness without which it is impossible to achieve economic success.” No doubt there were plenty of counterexamples to show that enthusiasm, idealism, and visions are the basis of economic success and cultural progress. On the other hand it was undeniable that up to that point Inge Aicher-Scholl could indeed show only meager assistance from German industry. Since October 1952, in addition to the donations for construction, she had obtained twelve full scholarships from the private sector, each financing the education of a student for three years (cost per student: DM 5,200). 674 The minister of the interior, Fritz Ulrich (SPD), corroborated Karl Frank’s suspicion regarding the financial prospects of the HfG. The development costs of DM 245,000, which were supposed to be defrayed by the city of Ulm, would not be sufficient, he claimed, and neither would the remaining DM 1.5 million for the construction of the HfG buildings – a calculation that Inge Aicher-Scholl also played up. Besides, the city would have to obtain a loan for this, although it was deep in debt as it is and had to raise DM 675,000 a year for interest and debt repayment. Finally, the annual DM 50,000 payments in kind could also not be delivered under these circumstances. If the city took on burdens like the HfG, “the Land would have to help out if no other public or private funds or foundation funds were available for this purpose.”675 His fellow SPD member Hermann Veit, the minister of economics, contradicted his fears as re-
gards financial policy and agreed with the views of the minister of education and the arts by pointing out how promising and inclusive the training at the HfG would be: “The […]syllabus in the area of design will represent only a relatively small segment of the school’s broad-based curriculum. […] However, I am of the opinion that because of the economic significance of its objectives in the areas of design and export, the planned school in Ulm should be granted a limited subsidy for a limited period. Also, in the interest of the Land, I feel it is indefensible not to take advantage of the sum of DM 1,745,000 that has been made available for the construction of the school.” In order to take the sting out of the sort of confrontation between the HfG and the Stuttgart Technical University's architecture department that Karl Frank was engaged in, Hermann Veit also demanded that chairs for design be established at a technical university of the Land and that an institute be attached for research contracts from industry and government, so firmly convinced was he of the importance of design for the economy. In this respect he regarded America and England as models, because design was promoted there with much more government funding. It would be best, he felt, that the person who held the chair at the technical university should simultaneously also teach at the HfG and at the foundation’s Institute of Design, so as to increase the mutual benefit. 676 The broad horizon envisaged by the HfG plans made the minister all the more determined not to change his mind, for that was precisely where he saw the crux of the project’s inefficiency and superfluity. Apart from design, there were already established colleges ready to take on all the other functions; meanwhile, the HfG-specific background in the humanities and social sciences would not directly result in promoting export: “In addition to the problem of design, you see, the foundation’s plan provides for a large number of other goals whose pursuit can neither be of direct economic benefit nor be described as irrefutably necessary and urgent in the interest of the Land. […] The attempt to check spiritual fragmentation and to create a new human being must in my opinion be left to the manifold already existing state cultural and teaching institutions.” On the other hand, if a chair was established at the Stuttgart Technical University in Richard Döcker’s department, “there would be a guarantee that the problem [of design; author’s note] would be addressed seriously and exhaustively from the perspective of its economic significance” – and for an unlimited number of students, in fact, while the HfG would be content with a maximum of 150. Incidentally, he was also not satisfied with the veto right provided for in the foundation’s new charter
making it possible to “take measures that seem necessary in the interest of the Land in the face of resistance by circles interested in the school.” He was confident that it would be possible for the Land of Baden-Württemberg to keep the American million and the federal government’s DM 300,000 through negotiations without having to found the HfG: “Of course, this solution would basically be limited to the problem of design and would thus require self-denial on the part of the initiators of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung.”677 It is superfluous, actually, to point out that the German agencies hardly paid attention to American deadlines anymore. This behavior of federal and Land officials was quite blatant and, because it was not an isolated incident but a permanent state of affairs, itwas a continual provocation and insolent disregard of respect for the donors. The cabinet should actually have submitted its final decision by Friday, 14 November 1952, because the federal ministry of economics needed to allocate its DM 200,000 subsidy, which it in turn had obtained from ECA (Economic Commission Administration) funds, by the end of October. 678 Walther Hinsch, the HfG’s friend at the federal ministry of economics, had sent a timely reminder that the Stuttgart ministers’ decision was due because he feared that otherwise the entire pro ject would fail if the promises came tumbling down one after another like dominoes . 679 But Stuttgart clocks ticked at a more leisurely pace, and so 18 November 1952 eventually arrived. About time – for on this day the council of ministers decided to back the HfG against the minister of finance, with the following proviso: 1. DM 800,000 were to be made available to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung to operate the HfG during the first three years as a one-time contribution and without entitlement to follow-up payments ; 2. after three years there would be a study to gauge the success of the HfG; 3. embodied in the modified bylaws of the foundation should be the veto right of the ministry of education and the arts regarding personnel decisions that extend beyond one year or that would cause an expenditure of more than DM 10,000; 4. the future charter of the foundation should include a clause that in case the foundation was dissolved 1/5 of its assets would go to the federal government, 2/5 to the city and 2/5 to the Land of Baden-Württemberg.680 The reasons the cabinet gave for its decision were that the HfG was to serve the objective of developing industrial production, and especially of en-
129
Founding
Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm , p. 23 ff.
130
“White boxes stacked on top of each other, spread out, with only one vertical accent, the high-rise. Delicate, slender against the dark clusters of trees, a slender fortress, its skeleton white concrete, lots of glass. […]
hancing the competitiveness of German export and “making up for the lead a number of other countries had gained in the last two decades in the area of working out functional and beautiful designs for durable consumer goods”.681 But the ministers did not share the view of the Ulm group that the exertion of government influence was incompatible with peak cultural performance. 682 Even minister of education and the arts Gotthilf Schenkel could not change that, even though the majority of the council of ministers followed his recommendations and he had championed the HfG’s cause with all his energy. Inge Aicher-Scholl thanked him for this and emphasized that it was primarily because of his efforts that the HfG could become a reality. 683 If the Landtag approved the budget, the foundation could finally receive money in the spring of 1953 to get to work on the HfG organization and buildings. But their real work would not begin until afterward, for in the spring of 1956 the three-year subsidy by the Land would run out, and if the Land’s subsidy was to be extended, the request already had to be submitted a year earlier: In other words, Parliament and the ministries would have to convince themselves of the success of the HfG’s work as early as spring 1955!684 Organization around the HfG was brought to a close when seven people in the Ulm circle – Ingela Albers, Kurt Deschler, Hans Frieder Eychmüller, Fritz Hartnagel, Irm Lindström, Roderich Count Thun and Herbert Wiegandt, all good friends of Inge Aicher-Scholl and Otl Aicher – met on 17 December 1952 to found the incorporated association Gesellschaft der Freunde der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung (Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung). Count Thun was elected managing chairman of the society. The society’s purpose was on the one hand to represent the foundation’s interests – in accordance with the wishes of the HfG’s founders these interests were identical with those of the HfG – in public and to promote them, to set up and maintain contacts with industry and politicians, to serve as a gathering point for like-minded people who were interested in design, and collect donations. On the other hand the Society of Friends designated those members of the future administrative council who were freely available and not representatives of the government agencies. These independent members were expected to be particularly united and firm in their support of the ideals and goals of the HfG and to defend them, if need be, against the representatives of officialdom. 685 The Society of Friends was registered in the Ulm register of societies on 30 December 1952. The ensemble that consisted of the foundation, the Society of Friends, the college, and the institute was now all set for the performance until 1968.
The buildings descend the slope step by step like terraces. Not one of the views resembles another. Walking around the buildings is like setting them in motion. There is not one point that is meant to be a central façade. […]
The dominant impression is one of graceful animation, of ambiguousness. […] From no point is there an overall view of this building. Even an aerial photograph hides the fact that it is on an ascending slope.“
The interim balance sheet at the turn of the year 1952/53 read as follows: months of total confusion. Hellmut Becker had been warning for weeks that if construction did not start by 1 March 1953 and the school building was not ready for occupancy by fall 1953, the foundation must presumably “lose even its most benevolent friends and supporters […], since they are beyond the culminating point of confidence in our startup w ork and therefore unfortunately to some degree in our cause as well.“686 Even if everything else was at a standstill, there was still something happening in the city of Ulm. Mayor Theodor Pfizer in particular again did his utmost to ensure that the founding phase could finally come to a close. Even prior to this time the municipal council had backed the project. The year before, on 7 January 1952, the main department of the municipal council had requested that a loan of DM 250,000 should be obtained from the Württembergische Girozentrale and the money used to support the foundation. 687 The municipal council agreed to this request on 15 January 1952. 688 Now, almost a year later to the day, on 13 January 1953, the main department again decided that a request to promote the foundation should be submitted to the municipal council. 689 Theodor Pfizer made it clear to the deputies that now it was really important to observe the American deadline, which was supposed to extend up to 20 January 1953, so that the foundation would not have to return the funds that had been app roved and received up to this point. What was required now were irrevocable and legally binding commitments. The proposal included the familiar items: first, to contribute DM 245,000 for the construction of the HfG buildings (in ac cordance with the main department’s decision of 24 July 1951), financed by a loan; second, to contribute to the ongoing operating expenses of the HfG with payments in kind for the same length of time as the Land also made money available for this – i. e. three years for the time being – up to DM 40,000 at the beginning and up to DM 70,000 per year later; also lesser subsidies to buy land on the upper Kuhberg, which were necessary so that the federal government could realign the boundaries of its adjacent property. Three days later, on 16 January 1953, Inge Aicher-Scholl had the opportunity to plead her case before the municipal council in person. 690 She chose fundamental arguments that explained her cultural and pedagogical ideas; on the other hand, the economic aspect was left out of consideration for the most part: “We began with the profound question whether it is possible to integrate technology into our culture. […] Will this world, the people of our century, be absolutely material-
131
Photo: Otl Aicher 2. 8.1955 A rchive: HfG (090/27)
ized by technology, turned into unfeeling robots or managers or officials – or shall we succeed in bringing into harmony the civilization created by technology with culture, with the human spirit, and in fusing them into a unified whole? […] From the very beginning we realized that we do not want to educate specialists, but human beings with broad horizons, who can see the connections in life. That is why general education is such a crucial part of our program.” Hence also the intention to educate the students in a way that corresponds to practical life: with workshops instead of lecture rooms. Finally she appealed to the local patriotism of the Ulm delegates: This experiment that was to be neither a college of commercial art nor a university was even now promoting the name of Ulm all over the world and would do so all the more once the HfG had finally started its work! Her appearance was a sweeping success – the municipal council accepted the main department’s proposal.691 The CDU in particular was committed to the plans, and that was important because one parliamentary party floor leader, Franz Wiedemeier, was also the second chairman of the finance committee of the Baden-Württemberg constituent assembly.692 Since 18 November 1952, when the cabinet decided to subsidize the HfG, the minister of finance was no longer the most important contact p erson for the HfG founders who had to be convinced of their cause; the contact person was now the finance committee chairman of the Land’s constituent assembly, Alex Möller, who, of course, was also the leader of the SPD faction in Parliament. 693 For now it was necessary quickly to take the cabi-
net’s consent at face value. Gerd H. Müller, as recently as Christmas Eve 1952, had asked the ministry of finance to have the first installment of the Land’s subsidy totaling DM 60,000 for the first quarter of 1953 included in the 1952/53 budget – the finance committee had to approve this money ahead of time, because Parliament had not yet voted on the entire budget. 694 But it would have been too easy – the minister of finance did not want to make even this concession. He persisted in his view that “these were one-time, not regular, expenditures”. That meant that the HfG was still not able to get any money, because the complete DM 800,000 subsidy had to be included in the 1952/53 Land budget. The Ulm group had to wait until the entire Land budget was adopted. It was hardly conceivable, but once more an American deadline could not be met. 695 January 20, 1953 passed by, George A. Selke was understanding, but at the same time requested that all the required documents should finally be gathered, for how was he to send a credible report to America that Project no. 1 was truly welcomed by the Germans in view of the whole complicated mess in Ulm?696 Although there was nothing to be decided, Inge Aicher-Scholl and her advisors felt it would be wise to have her project discussed in the finance committee in order to find out what the committee’s fundamental views were on approving the subsidy. Alex Möller, the chairman, had been the one who came up with this idea, and he wanted to make sure that this would not mean that the HfG
Founding
Again it was up to American influence, now personified by George A. Selke, to break down this resistance piece by piece. Inge Aicher-Scholl implored him for help: “I’d be very grateful to you if you would help us in this matter, and I’m sorry to trouble you, but you have held your helping hand over the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung for such a long time already that I thought I could take advantage of it one more time.” 703 By mid April 1953 this hurdle had also been cleared, and the federal funds could now be spent for the construction of the HfG. 704
132
Shepard Stone, Ralph A. Burns, John McCloy and Konrad Adenauer signing the Fulbright agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States to promote cultural and pedagogic exchange on 18 July 1952. Photo: unknown Archive: Dartmouth College (Neg. # Shepard Stone ’29)
would beard the lion in his den. 697 But regardless The news that reached Ulm from the ministries in of this precaution: This was the stamping ground Bonn was also only partly encouraging. It was true of the minister of finance, and he again demonthat on 26 January 1953 the federal ministries of strated his unmistakable stance by taking the uneconomics, housing construction, and the interior usual step of sending a detailed description of the had sent their final authorizations for a total of DM project from his perspective to all members of the 300,000 to be made a vailable to the foundation committee.698 for the HfG. 701 But now began the red tape: The The reason he gave for such extensive documoney could be used only for “research in the area mentation was that the cabinet had expressly told of consumer goods production”, or rather, to be him they would represent his disapproval in the precise, “to purchase scientific instruments and finance committee. In 13 pages he summed up laboratory equipment for the newly built Research the past year’s entire discussion, and with this text Institute of Design”. he almost managed to win over the committee to However, the crux of the matter was that Inge his way of thinking. When the discussion took Aicher-Scholl had arranged for almost all equipplace on 12 March 1953, there was a bitter strugment and apparatus to be donated, but urgently gle for votes, “and the pros and cons crossed party needed money for construction. The version of the lines”.699 With only a bare majority the committee federal minister of housing construction was to decided to support the government’s proposal: 10 give the foundation “a research contract in the members were for the project, 7 against, and 7 area of design (architecture, city planning, public abstained. The negative memorandum of the minhousing). Therefore my memorandum should by ister of finance had had an effect, “and presumno means be interpreted to mean that these funds ably it was difficult for wavering members to vote are being made available for the construction of 700 against the minister of finance.” the school.” 702
building site manager Fritz Pfeil, with C.W. Voltz as his second in command, left much to be desired, and once again it proved to be true that time was money. In Ulm they lacked both, and this pressure affected the working atmosphere.
Now to a completely different topic, the alteration of the foundation’s bylaws: It is placed at the end of this chapter, for at the end of this development the formal appointment of Max Bill took place; from being the designated rector of the HfG, he became the actual rector, and this is to be the topic of a new chapter. A brief look at the architectural situation shows The reason for changing the foundation’s bythat the estimates of the actual construction costs laws, of course, was the fact that on 18 November had started to fluctuate. The constant delays had 1952 the cabinet wanted to support the foundabeen costly. The development office and the first tion only with the proviso that the influence of the staff members finally needed to be paid, and beministries would be strengthened. Originally this sides costs were rising but subsidies were not. At had been the wish of the federal ministry of ecoleast the foundation was getting interest on the nomics, but soon the Baden-Württemberg minis American million. On 4 March 1953, according to try of education and the arts and ministry of ecoan internal financial statement DM 1,700,000 were nomics sided with the federal ministry. There was available for construction (of these, DM 1,1 16,000 even a discussion whether a new preamble should were for the actual building, i. e., not counting be written. However, Hellmut Becker firmly reworkshops, the outside plant, and salaries). 705 That jected the idea and also convinced the special means that during a good year the Ulm group had adviser in the ministry of education and the arts, over DM 50,000 less, while at the same time costs Gerd H. Müller to do so: “[…] In my opinion we had gone up. In the course of these days, as a should avoid anything that might give rise to the result of conversations with Max Bill, it turned out misinterpretation that we no longer believe the that if the school was built ac cording to existing sacrificial deaths of Hans and Sophie Scholl are plans, construction costs would be approximately relevant, or that we even want to d issociate ourDM 1,900,000 (the school building: DM 1,335,000; selves from them. […] It’s an unfortunate fact that student apartments in a high-rise tower, studios, even today wide circles of the population no longer a caretaker’s apartment, and 12 apartments for like to be reminded – and less so every day – of teachers: DM 511,760), while a little under DM the long years when our nation was bereft of free1,200,0 00 were actually available. 706 There were dom, when human dignity was held in contempt, only two solutions, both of which had to be impleand of how small was the number of Germans mented simultaneously: New money must be borwho were resolute in rejecting the tyranny of that rowed (as a mortgage on the residential buildings regime.”709 and as credit for their construction), and the exIn order to change the foundation’s bylaws, a pensive interior must be completed by the school resolution from the general meeting was required. as part of its work. 707 Max Bill did not see it in such This entity consisted of the members of the addramatic terms: “The sum for completing the inter- ministrative committee and of the advisory board. ior is enough to cover about 1/2 of the interior The advisory board had not met since it was conwork. If you add part of the installation costs stituted on 24 June 1951, and the administrative (maybe the printing shop), we still have a small committee had not even been constituted, for the reserve. I don’t see anything alarming about this Society of Friends had not yet nominated its mem708 calculation […].” bers. That had to be rectified now. On 20 April Even at this early date, in the spring of 1953, an 1953 the first meeting of the Society of Friends additional difficulty, which later had fundamental since the organization’s founding took place. 710 The consequences, was in the offing. Max Bill traveled sole purpose of this meeting was to designate the a great deal and had a lot to do, but he did not put nine members of the administrative committee so in an appearance in Ulm as often as the situation that the general meeting could convene: called for. At the time it meant that the foundation’s development office, but especially the conHellmut Becker (the foundation’s attorney), struction office, which was just taking shape, Otto Burrmeister (federal chairman of the lacked a driving and motivating head who could Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, German Fedsum up the situation at a glance. The working eration of Labor), pace of designer Walter Zeischegg and local Helmut Cron (journalist),
133
Founding
134
Max Guther (head of the Ulm planning department and building control office), Karl Max von Hellingrath (banker), Karl Klasen (banker), Theodor Pfizer (mayor of Ulm) Otto Pfleiderer (president of the Stuttgart Landeszentralbank), Roderich Count Thun (manufacturer and managing chairman of the Society of Friends). At the same time the meeting of the Society of Friends decided that the following seven persons were to represent the Society in the foundation’s administrative council if the general meeting should resolve to change the bylaws: Hellmut Becker, Brigitte Bermann-Fischer, Otto Burrmeister, Helmut Cron, Karl Max von Hellingrath, Karl Klasen, Roderich Count Thun. The invitation to the members of the general meeting poses a puzzle regarding the composition of the advisory board. 711 On 22 June 1951 Inge AicherScholl had appointed Otl Aicher, Max Bill, Günther Grzimek, Marcia Kahn, Roderich Count Thun, Peter Wackernagel, and Walter Zeischegg as its members. Now, on 20 April 1953, Marcia Kahn and Roderich Count Thun were no longer included on a hand-written list for invitation to the general meeting; there was a question mark next to Peter Wackernagel’s name, and the names of Hans Frieder Eychmüller and Fritz Pfeil had been added to the list of those invited. The same changes occur in the minutes of the general meeting, so that it must be assumed that in the meantime the composition of the advisory board had changed. However, there are no further details regarding the reasons for these changes; apparently no constitutional resolution was passed either, and because the documentation is not transparent we may safely assume that there was no prior advisory board meeting; presumably this was an oversight, because the Ulm group still lacked experience in procedural questions. The general meeting discussed a draft for a change in the bylaws that had been prepared as far back as 19 September 1952. This proposal was adopted almost in its entirety; in the interim, only three points had been changed, of which the two important ones were further concessions to the Land of Baden-Württemberg: in lieu of the chairman of the administrative council (old draft) it was now the representative of the ministry of education and the arts who could exercise veto power in appointments to office (new bylaws, Section 10.3);
where previously in the case of the foundation’s dissolution its assets were to be distributed in equal parts to the city of Ulm, the Land, and the Federal Republic (old draft), the Federal Republic was now to receive only one-fifth, while the city and Land would each receive two-fifths (Section 20.3). But the most important change in the bylaws was that the former administrative committee was transformed from a token body into the foundation’s controlling, initiatory body, the administrative council. Its power was based on the fact that vested in the council was the initiative to plan the budget; it would also control the executive board’s management of the budget (Section 17.1, formerly, this was the role of the general meeting). It was now up to the administrative council whether it took on the management of the foundation or confined itself to leaving day-to-day business to the executive board so that the administrative council could restrict itself to occasional monitoring. The administrative council was precisely the strong, external statutory body that Hellmut Becker and Otl Aicher had not wanted. Even its composition made no difference: According to Hellmut Becker’s theory the representatives of the ministries were always to remain in the minority, but in actual fact the members from the ministries were quite conscientious about their obligatory attendance, while those members from the private sector sent by the Society of Friends were absent much more frequently. Still, things never got to the point where the administrative council exhausted its possibilities; after 1963, the foundation‘s council was based on its powers, and in the end the members intervened in daily business to a far greater degree. – The administrative council, totalin g 14 members, consisted of the following: One representative each from the federal ministry of economics, the federal ministry of the interior, the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts, the Baden-Württemberg ministry of economics, the Baden-Württemberg ministry of finance; the mayor of the city of Ulm, the president of the Baden-Württemberg Landeszentralbank (Land Central Bank), and 7 representatives designated by the Society of Friends. The advisory board, intended to be an entity that would cover the executive board’s back and that consisting predominantly of Inge Aicher-Scholl’s and Otl Aicher’s friends, was now marginalized by the administrative council. It would have lost its significance altogether if it had not c ombined three additional powers:
It appointed the executive board (re-election of the executive board 1959), it passed the HfG bylaws (1962), and it was necessary for changing the foundation’s bylaws (1963). The ministry of education and the arts as the supervising authority did not find fault with the composition of the general meeting of 24 April 1953, and so the bylaw change passed b y that body went into effect on 6 June 1953. 712 Immediately after the general meeting the administrative council of the foundation was constituted. 713 Theodor Pfizer was elected chairman, and Otto Pfleiderer became his deputy. The administrative council asked to be informed about the progress of construction and about gaps in financing: Inge AicherScholl explained that close to DM 440,000 were still needed to cover construction costs, which were roughly DM 2.2 million. 714 The members of the administrative council seemed to be confident and trusted that this money could in fact be raised through donations, loans, and spending cuts. Effective 1 April 1953, Max Bill was appointed the school’s rector, head of the department of architecture, and temporary head of all other departments whose chair was vacant. 715
135
Excursus
136
Design in the Federal Republic during the 1950s
However important the HfG was for design in the Federal Republic, it was not the only institution that sought to “sharpen the aesthetic conscience of the nation”. 716 For instance, there was Die Neue Sammlung (The New Collection) in Munich, the most extensive design collection to date in Germany; or, beginning with 1950, there was the German Werkbund as an umbrella organization, and the Rat für Formgebung (Design Council), created as a foundation in 1951 following a resolution by the German Bundestag. But that just about exhausts the list of the most important institutions, and here the special position of the HfG becomes obvious. While the other institutions were concerned with indirect promotion and public acceptance of design (collecting design and awarding prizes), the work of the HfG created the foundations for design per se. Immediately after the end of the war the predominant theme in designing household articles, appliances, and furniture was, “First, let’s go for totally simple, makeshift stuff”. 717 But even in the early fifties more people could afford to exchange household articles designed in the style of “new simplicity” for objects manufactured from the new “stylish synthetics” that were “in almost provocative contrast
with the gray, dreary, monotonous furnishings immediately after the war”.718 The style of the notorious kidney-shaped tables and cone lamps quickly became a fashion that spread rapidly because many people felt a need to shed their memories of the postwar period, and because an in- crease in purchasing power allowed them to give in to this need. “During these years [after 1955; author’s note] not only solid, old-fashioned furnishings but also hardedge functional items were ‘out’” 719 The first stood for “a historicizing need for ornamentation that dates back to a bygone era”, while the second, with its reduction to the barest essentials, its rejection of the superfluous, and its “sheer technical functionalism”, reminded people of privation directly after the war. 720 Fashionable built-in obsolescence, the latest thing, also made its appearance in homes, not all of them, but in about a fifth of German households, as Jost Hermand estimates. 721 Synthetics were discovered as a sub-
137
Dieter Rams was a young architect when he joined Braun, Inc. in the summer of 1955. His first designs include the automatic slide pro jector PA 1 that was created in 1956 parallel to the Schneewittchen sarg (“Snow White’s coffin”). (Photo: advertising insert in form 6/1959)
Excursus
138
stance that could be easily molded, so that from now on the design of a door handle or of a table was no longer dependent on the object’s function and the limited moldability of the material, but solely on the message that people were trying to convey. In the fifties the message was, “Anyone, if only they worked hard enough, could afford ‘good taste’.”722 Stylish product design using plastics, however, also meant that the fashion could change. Then the old objects were thrown away, because their value was in their fashionable design and not in their usefulness and their durability. A “throwaway mentality” appeared. The HfG had nothing in common with this attitude. It espoused the no longer fashionable principles of a design that wanted to create durable, functional, and lasting articles for industrial mass production with modern but appropriate material. After 1958 the HfG devoted itself to systematizing design and to designing in systems. In actual fact it was unavoidable that the search for the function of products carried on in Ulm could also be seen as a style (i.e., an attitude), and that therefore at some point HfG products suddenly became part of a trend – and soon went out of fashion again.
Braun , Inc. was to Germany what Olivetti
was to Italy: the national figurehead for functional product design. Marcello Nizzoli made the largest contribution to Olivetti design. One of his early designs, an adding machine, Summa , circa 1940, became a big seller; this 1960 Summa prima 20 was one of its many successors, huge numbers of which clattered away in German offices as well. (Portrait eines Industrial Designers: Marcello Nizzoli , in: form 14/1961, 22 f f.)
The son of King Gustav VI. of Sweden, Prince Sigvard Bernadotte, ran a design agency in Copenhagen after 1949 together with Danish designer Acton Bjørn, and later in Stockholm and New York as well. One of their best-known designs is the typewriter Facit Pi , 1958, in direct competition with Olivetti . (form 8/1959, 41)
Swedish modern 1959: A laminated wood chair by Bruno Mathsson. “The average quality of Swedish interior design is higher than in other countries.“ (form 8/1959, 32 ff.)
139
Excursus
140
If a social history of industrial product design and advertising in the Federal Republic were to be written, no more than a brief digression would probably be devoted to the HfG’s role in that history. Even the kind of design that did not coincide with Ulm design concepts – for example, all that the Rat für Formgebung , the Werkbund , and the leading arts and crafts schools stood for – even this might get no more than a sidelong glance in such a study. The attempt by German manufacturers, after their first unsuccessful and mockingly received appearances at international trade fairs (New York 1949, Milan 1951), to return to the design standards of world markets, did not lead, in the fifties, to a boom of the type of product design that was practiced by the HfG. 723 At the beginning, I already pointed out that the market for all that is “poor” design – or rather, no design at all – but could merely be described as “styling” (Otl Aicher) to distinguish it from design, is far bigger than the market for those objects that are consistently and almost exclusively mentioned when we speak of the history of design. From a design perspective, styling is not even “a fashionable variant of giving a functional form to that which is use-
A wall clock by Max Bill without numerals, his solution of the problem “of combining easy readability and balanced proportions between surfaces and lines.“ 1957/58 design for Junghans , in collaboration with Eva Pfeil. (Margit Staber, Zu neuen Gestaltungen von Max Bill , in: form 4/1958, 21 ff.)
Industrial design education USA was the title
of an exhibition at the Stuttgart Land Trade Supervision Department from 24 Feb. through 9 March 1958 showing the work of eight American students on the topic Erziehung zum Entwurf (“Design education“). (form 6/1959, 33 ff.)
141
Excursus
The French exhibition room of the twelfth Milan Triennale made critics shudder: “In the display case there is craftwork, including a monstrance.“
142
(Margit Staber, XII Triennale Mailand , in: form 11/1960, 4 ff.)
The twelfth Milan Triennale (16July–4 Nov. 1960) addressed the topic School and home , “… and the premise is that all schools to date, including modern ones, are not the schools that children need.“ (Felix Beheim, Sechzehn Länder suchen ein Thema , in: form 11/1960, 2–3). Pictured are “questionable arts and crafts from Italy“.
ful – as it was occasionally called –, but its very opposite, because it invents sensational shock effects to stimulate the desire to buy while it subordinates serviceable quality.” 724 By fifties styling we might therefore understand all design whose objective was merely to change the exterior and not the structure or function of products: “Thus while ‘styling’ gave a boost to cosmetics, the Ulm objects – and the HfG itself – were meant to be a surgical intervention that would radically change the use, handling, concepts, ways of perceiving, and all contexts of these objects. Consequently they wanted to transform society, lead people to a self they had only imagined, and give rise to democracy.”725 It is in the nature of things that even the design stance of the HfG, which opposed fashions, could itself become a fashion. The Ulm school, too, was aware of this dilemma, because they were confronted with it as the work of the development teams met with increasing success, design grew in popularity, and b uyers became more sensitive. This is another factor that distinguished the fifties from the sixties. Hans Gugelot addressed this aspect, for instance, in his talk at the World Design Conference in Tokyo in June 1960: “The designer is a constructor who includes the human being as part of a system. This aspect is not a factor in commercial art, for there the product is given the latest fashionable appearance by styling it. Here lies the danger of the popularization of design that is taking place today. And we are all at risk to a large extent, that is, if we want to work primarily and full-time only with sales promotion in mind; and we’re especially at
Arne Jacobsen became famous because of his chair, nicknamed “ant“ (1951/52), (1 951/52), which is omnipresent today, and still light-footed. The 1957 design pictured here does not deny its relationship to its older brother, also made of laminated beech. The manufacturer Fritz Hansen presented it at the 1957 Milan Triennale. (Curt Schweicher, Undicesima Triennale di Milano, in: form 1/1957, 14 ff.)
143
Excursus
144
“Here there’s been an attempt to more or less get away from school furniture and provide children with something of the familiar environment of home. The classroom furniture is not a bunch of devices, but free-standing tables and chairs such as might be used by children at meals and for play. On the other hand in a classroom equipped in this way children must feel as though they were in an architect’s office.“
It used to take several devices to perform operations that a computer now combines into one. That is why calculators and especially typewriters were the bread and butter of industrial designers. Marcello Nizzolibegan designing a large number of models for Olivetti in 1948, including this 1953 Studio 44 . (Portrait eines Industrial Designers: Marcello Nizzoli , in: form 14/1961, 22 ff.)
(Margit Staber, XII Triennale Mailand , in: form 11/1960, 4 ff.)
risk when the name of a designer has become so popular that the quality of a product ceases to be a priority, that is, when the designer’ name is enough to sell this product.” 726 – This analysis is even more true today. In 1962, when the HfG had been in operation for almost a decade and had long since dedicated itself to systematizing design and making it more scientific, and began from this lofty standpoint to find the balance between art and mathematics, Inge Aicher-Scholl first took stock of various design trends that had invaded the Federal Republic: “In the postwar period, the collaboration between businessmen and artists produced a proliferation of commercial art – abstract wallpaper, “organic” flatware and vases, kidney-shaped tables and streamlined tools, brightly painted houses and ice-cream parlors, the whole flood of modern kitsch that has penetrated even farm kitchens and from which there is almost no escape. The students of Klee design the wallpaper, the students of Mondrian are in charge of typography, the
145
Excursus
Braun table fan HL1. Design: Braun design
department 1960/61. Cost: DM 44. What the critics said:“The appliance as a whole is very functional: Operating ratio, weight per unit of power, flow diagram, quiet operation – all that is outstanding. […] and it is only only in the frame that a clever production idea triumphs over all principles, no matter how noble; the result is irresistibly funny.“
146
147
(Günther Fuchs, Ein Meisterwerkchen mit liebenswerten Unvollkommenheiten , in: form 16/1961, 26–27.)
A wall clock by Max Bill with numerals. The “character of the exact timepiece“ is created by the fact that the “full hour can be indicated only when the hour hand is positioned at 60.“ Designed in 1957/58 for Junghans in collaboration with Eva Pfeil. (Margit Staber, Zu neuen Gestaltungen von Max Bill , in: form 4/1958, 21ff.)
students of Moore practice on flatware. Just a few years ago it was tradition that bothered us: the country house thatched with straw with its copper lanterns, Gothic madonnas, and Biedermeier furniture. Today the museum of modern art has expanded to include the department store. That’s the general situation.” However, all of this was no reason for her to give up her original intention to help improve society by means of improved design: “In a society where property conditions have been equalized, people’s tendency to puff themselves up with material objects becomes less attractive. [The opposite has happened; author’s note.] Possibly people will again be able to afford to be normal and make critical choices. Then the time would have come for the designer to carry out his social function. The designer’s standards would have social consequences. As long as there are still enough designers who are interested in the product and its utility value and commodity value instead of loading the objects with new artistic values as a first step in boosting sales. The designer would then be one of the many societal arbiters who work out scales of values without which all economic activities remain empty of meaning.” 727
If only five products could embody Scandinavian design, this chair would be one of them : The egg by Arne Jacobsen, designed in 1957/58 for Fritz Hansen , a shell made of light molded material, upholstered with foam and with a roller unit of polished aluminum. (form 8/1959, 22)
Excursus
148
149
In 1960 Hans Eckstein, the head of the Museum Die Neue Sammlung in Munich, put together a selection of exemplary German products that traveled as an exhibition through the United States “and that can be considered to be representative of the striving for form of German crafts and industry.“ One of these products was this folding chair by Egon Eiermann, “which thanks to its good and stable construction [has] already become worldfamous. It is comfortable and can be easily stacked.“ (Erich Pfeiffer-Belli, Gute Form aus Deutschland , in: form 10/1960, 38 ff.)
Primary rocks of electronic data processing, designed for Olivetti by Ettore Sottsass 1960. (In: form 11/1960, 4 ff.)
Today we wonder whether design can achieve this illusion that “you become civilized by using the good china” (Christian Petry): “Had the moral demand made on everyday objects been too exacting? Until late into the fifties, designers judged their work according to moral categories. Everyday things were expected to be efficient, without vanity, without trickery and deception. […] Werkbund designers saw themselves as the ‘conscience of the nation’.” 728 Not only because of the position it took on design, but also as an educational institution, the HfG stood outside what was normal in the Federal Republic of the fifties. The educational tasks addressed by the HfG were usually associated with the so-called Werkkunstschulen (arts and crafts schools). These, for the most part, became institutions of higher learning. The arts and crafts schools were a great deal more down-to-earth about their teaching of arts and crafts and visual arts than the HfG, which from the start had emphasized its difference. A clear indication for the fundamental distinction between arts and crafts schools and the HfG is the fact that in 1968 the question was raised whether the HfG should be incorporated in the Staatliche Ingenieurschule Ulm (Ulm State School
Excursus
150
151
of Engineering) – there was never any suggestion of an Ulm school of arts and crafts. At the same time the HfG insisted that it should be nationalized as a college – the arts and crafts schools did not claim to be colleges. They saw their task as “training a new generation of young people who were artistically talented and skilled in handicrafts and technical work for all design-related professions in the trades and industry, people who were independently capable of formally correctly designing products in commercial art, crafts, and industry in accordance with the respective specifications of the material, technology, and function of the product that was to be designed. In addition to providing advanced training in the trades and technology and in the principles of business management, the most important task of the arts and crafts school is to make students aware of what harmonious design is all about.” 729
Die Gute Form (“Good Design“), the Swiss Werkbund’s promotion campaign since 1949, gave an award in 1951 to this “desk lamp movable in all directions“. The reasons: “the simplest arrangement of reflector and holder for the incandescent bulb, movable arm, and heavy base. Stand or screw base.“ B.A.G. Bronzewarenfabrik Turgi , factory design. (Margit Staber, Die Gute Form, in: form 14/1961, 45 ff.)
Alexander Girard and Eero Saarinen could find no appropriate outdoors chair for their recently designed house. That is why they asked their friend, architect and designer Charles Eames, to design a chair that could be used both indoors and outdoors and mass-produced. Previously Eames had already developed a laminated wood chair and a plastic chair. His aluminum chair is today an icon of classic modernism for offices, reception areas, and formal home interiors – and, as he says himself, while it is an expensive outdoors chair, it is at the same time an inexpensive indoors chair. The illustration shows the photograph that originally introduced the chair to Germany. (Hannes Schmidt, Sitzmöbel aus Aluminium, in: form 9/1960, 58)
1954
1953
2 June A Eurovision broadcast shows the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. 17 June The popular uprising in East Berlin, triggered by the demonstrations of Berlin construction workers, spreads to large parts of the GDR, develops into a revolt against the government and occupation forces, and is suppressed by the Volkspolizei (People’s Police) and the Soviet military.
17June 1953 Archive: AKG
17 June 1953
26 Feb. The government coalition passes a constitutional change to justify Federal German military sovereignty and rearmament . 25 March The Soviet Union determines that the GDR has full sovereignty. 17 May Racial segregation is abolished in U.S. schools. 4 July Germany becomes the world champion in soccer. 17 July Federal President Theodor Heuss is reelected.
Archive: AKG
23 Oct. Signing of the Paris Treaties: The Federal Republic joins NATO, the Occupation Statute is lifted, and the Saar Statute is settled.
1956
1 Jan. The first volunteers of the Bundeswehr report for duty at the barracks. 1955
25 January The Soviet Union declares that the state of war with Germany is ended. 27Feb. The Bundestag ratifies the Paris Treaties. 5 May The Paris Treaties go into effect: Germany becomes a sovereign member of the Western European Union and of NATO. 14 May Warsaw treaty about the alliance of Eastern European countries (Warsaw Pact).
14 May 1955 8-13 Sept. In Moscow, Adenauer arranges the start of diplomatic relations and the release of about 10,000 prisoners of war.
Archive: AKG
17June 1953
12 Nov. The first officers of the Bundeswehr (West German Armed Forces) receive their commissions.
Archive: AKG
8 Sept. 1955 Archive: AKG
12Nov. 1955 Archive: dpa
18 Jan. The East German Parliament decides to convert the People’s Police quartered in barracks into the National People’s Army.
One of the first photographs taken by Hans Conrad of the early days in Ulm:
The rectorship of Bill April 1953 through March1956
Otl Aicher, Fritz Querengässer, and Walter Zeischegg before classes began at the HfG, taken on 21June 1953. It is debatable whether Max Bill’s rectorship began on 1 April 1953. What is indisputable is the fact that his contract of employment with the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung went into effect on 1 April 1953, and this formal criterion was the decisive factor in determining when his term in office began. In fact Max Bill had already been primus inter pares within the founding group for a long time. That is why there are also good reasons, from another, .e.g., a pedagogical perspective, to have the Max Bill era start earlier. Of course one could just as easily say that this phase did not begin until the first day of classes at the HfG on 3 August 1953.
154
The Bauhaus teaches in Ulm: Walter Peterhans (taken in October 1953), Helene NonnéSchmidt (beginning of 1955) and Josef Albers (20 June 1955).
Photos: Hans Conrad
At any rate it was symptomatic that Max Bill’s rectorship began with the rector’s absence. Between April and June 1953 that cosmopolite was traveling in the interest of art a nd design, a journey that took him to Brazil, Peru, the U.S. (2nd International Design Conference in Aspen, where Max Bill read a paper) and the south of France (the meeting of the Congrès Internationaux d‘Architecture ModerneCIAM in Aix-en-Provence). Perhaps Max Bill had intentionally chosen to be absent from Ulm during these days, but certainly he didn’t mind the fact that he could not be roped into doing diplomatic services yet. This was Inge Aicher-Scholl’s province, and now everyone would see whether her active lobbying of the Stuttgart Landtag deputies would pay off. The third reading of the Land budget for 1952 on 29 April 1953 was the plenary session of the constituent Land assembly of Baden-Württemberg that was critical for the HfG. 730 The budget draft
contained the first installment of DM 60,000 out of a total DM 800,000 ear marked for the foundation from 1953 through 1955. The minister of finance opened the discussion with his unusual request to Parliament to strike this item from its own budget. The former president of the Land Trade Supervisory Office, the Social Democrat Albert Pflüger, agreed with him: “If you want to raise the funds provided here for the support of trade and industry, you should use them in
the institutes that we already have in the La nd trade supervisory offices for promoting trade and industry, and not for some institution of which we’re not sure how it will develop.” The idea of cultural restoration obviously had both supporters and opponents in every party. But the minister of education and the arts was opposed to this position, and he urged people to support the promotion of new projects: “We’ve examined this matter very thoroughly, but today it has progressed to the point that the question is no longer whether this institute is coming or not, but simply where it will be built – in Frankfurt, if we’re foolish enough to reject it, or in Ulm. […] By the way, I want to stress that the mere prospect of this new Bauhaus has already had an extremely stimulating effect. Since this project was first mentioned, a sudden resurgence of interest in all questions related to industrial design has been observed in all the colleges and universities of the Land and elsewhere.“ Subsequent speakers again explained why the foundation must be supported: for the sake of the city of Ulm, in memory of Hans and Sophie Scholl, to give the experiment a chance, to take a limited risk for a new idea, to promote export, to make up for the design gap between Germany and other countries. Gotthilf Schenkel and the advocates of support didn’t exactly cover themselves with glory when they lowered themselves to the finance minister’s level of argumentation, pointing out almost greedily that there was a full million and three-quarters to be had for the asking, and if the Land did not act quickly, the project would simply be implemented in Frankfurt. The curriculum of the HfG was not under discussion (the Bauhaus was mentioned, but that, in the meantime, could be considered to be a traditional institution), and yet, of course, it was precisely this curriculum that was the reason the HfG was to be founded. A roll-call vote ended the debate. The advocates of the HfG, 42 in all, were in a clear majority compared to 23 opposing v otes and all of 16 abstentions. Had the silent majority allowed itself to be infected by Walter Erbe’s daring, or did it simply not want to give up the donations that were available? His colleagues from the FDP/DVP parliamentary party predominantly opposed supporting the HfG, while a large part of the SPD parliamentary party voted for it. It is true that 30 delegates were absent when this vote was taken, almost all of them belonging to the CDU or the FDP/DVP. If all had attended, this would have meant fewer votes or even a negative result for the HfG. Note also that the opponents of the HfG included not only the interim minister of finance, but also Kurt Angstmann (SPD), who was to be in office during Hans Filbinger’s first government between December 1966 and June 1968, i.e., in the HfG’s highly critical phase. It is equally noteworthy that the
155
minister-president himself, Gebhard Müller, was unable to decide on a clear position and abstained. At the final count, after almost four years of selfsacrificing and hard work by the Ulm group, the result was positive, and that was all that counted, at least until the next vote. On the following day the art division of the ministry of education and the arts took overall control of matters relating to the HfG within the Stuttgart ministries. What this meant for the Ulm group was that at the same time they gained an especially interested and committed champion of their cause in the person of Wolfgang Donndorf, the official in charge. 731 In the face of all resistance, Inge Aicher-Scholl, Otl Aicher, and Max Bill had now finally managed to push through the construction of the HfG buildings, so that classes could begin. Here are a few more comments on these two points – the pedagogical and architectural development of the school. Both were partly connected. At least a year earlier, on 17 March 1952, Max Bill had proposed that the Stuttgart designer Wilhelm Wagenfeld should be appointed head of the department of product form and the Institute of Product Design, so that he, an unconventional person with a mind of his own, would put no obstacles in the way of the Ulm project, and instead could be won over. 732 Hellmut Becker had supported this idea, surmising that Theodor Heuss would then be directly on the side of the foundation, for the federal president considered Wilhelm Wagenfeld to be the “only man who in his opinion could establish such a school in Germany”. 733 He was not appointed to that position; instead the Austrian Walter Zeischegg assumed this task. The HICOG staffer George Selke soon thereafter, in August 1952, proposed to Inge AicherScholl that she turn to HICOG in the near future and request that they assume financing for several teachers who would teach at the HfG for two to three months each as part of an exchange program from America.734 Max Bill had reacted promptly urging that the two former Bauhaus teachers Walter Peterhans of the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, and Josef Albers of Yale
University, New Haven, be engaged. 735 Another former Bauhaus member, Helene Nonné-Schmidt, was discussed as well. In the beginning of January 1953 Walter Peterhans agreed to be a guest lecturer in Ulm. Max Bill informed him about his reasons for employing the former Bauhaus teachers in Ulm: He wanted to make sure “the team does not consist of nothing but young, enthusiastic, unknown quantities. My idea is that there must be a few people there who know what happened [in the past] and what is supposed to happen.“ 736 And a few weeks later, on 13 March 1953, it was certain that the first basic course at the HfG would be offered starting in August: “Mr. Bill is thinking that the introductory course (basic course) should be structured in such a way that for the time being three persons – Peterhans, Nonné-Schmidt, Albers – take turns teaching the introductory course one after another, together with a teacher yet to be designated, who will then become the sole person to teach the introductory course.“ 737 During his travels abroad Max Bill looked for a suitable candidate for the position of teaching this introduction, because he was not willing to hand it over to Otl Aicher or to teach it himself. In Argentina he ran into Tomás Maldonado, whom he believed capable of doing the job and invited in 1954 to come work in Ulm. This man then played a central part at the HfG. The first students had already been ad mitted prior to 30 April 1953: three in the department of product design, whose workshops, together with the Institute of Product Design, were to be the first to grow and contribute to the development of interior design. Walter Zeischegg’s assistant during the development period was Josef Schlecker, who later managed the workshops. The same procedure was followed in the office of architectural development: Fritz Pfeil, who as the local site manager had been working since 1 February 1953 to implement Max Bill’s plans, was designated to be a future teacher; the first student, of course, one who already had a degree, worked in the construction site office, two or three others were to be taken on in May. Concerning studies in the ( still largely fictitious) departments of architecture and
The rectorship of Bill
Johannes Itten, the foremost champion of the early Bauhaus, director from 1938 to 1953 of the Zurich Arts and Crafts Museum and School, with student Max Graf (1954). Photo: Hans Conrad
156
product design at the Langmühle in Ulm, Inge Aicher-Scholl reported to HICOG: “The students are given tasks that arise from the building and furnishing of the school buildings on the upper Kuhberg. General education courses are temporarily being taught by the Ulm Adult Education Center.” 738 At any rate, after 14 May 1953 the HfG had guidelines for the length of postgraduate studies739 course . Accordingly Fritz Pfeil, Walter Zeischegg, and Otl Aicher were the temporary heads of the departments of building (architecture), product design, and visual design. The students paid an enrollment fee (a one-time sum of DM 50), a tuition fee (DM 90 per quarter), and DM 15 for their insurance and department-specific fees for their material; in turn they received DM 1 per hour for their assistance, a maximum of DM 200 a month. From faraway New York, on 3 July 1953, Max Bill intervened in the first negotiations as to who was to have the job of teaching the political sub jects: “Just now Harry Pross came to see me. He’s pretty impressive.” 740 Harry Pross appeared to be very interested in this job and described how he pictured the courses in sociology and political science: “I could imagine that besides dealing with basic political concepts and ideologies it would be necessary to give a lot of attention to the sociology of the city. I feel the sociological analysis of the great novels of the 18th and 19th centuries is an-
other way of preparing students like yours especially for their chosen career.” 741 In the summer of 1953 the Ulm group finally felt prepared to begin classes officially. As the core teaching units, the provisional curriculum for the first academic year (1 August 1953 through 30 June 1954) listed the first basic course of the HfG and, parallel to it, the work of the departments of building (architecture) and product design on the building and its interior. Under Rector Max Bill the following teachers worked as full-time lecturers: Otl Aicher, Hans Gugelot, Helene Nonné-Schmidt, Fritz Pfeil, Walter Zeischegg, and, of course, Max Bill himself; visiting lecturers were Josef Albers, Max Bense, and Walter Peterhans; master craftsmen in charge of the workshops were Paul Hildinger, Otto Schild, and Josef Schlecker. 742
Berlin) and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (the last director of the Bauhaus Dessau, Berlin) paid a visit to the budding HfG. 744 It was the beginning of August 1953. The HfG had started classes, but where was the school building that was supposedly fundamental for the unique, novel pedagogy of the HfG? The fact that classes had started might be interpreted as premature, and that suspicion might not be too far off, for the founders of the HfG finally had to d emonstrate that the HfG really did exist if they still wanted to appear credible. But the tangible proof that a c ollege exists, after all, is its building, and Ulm still did not have one. After a change of personnel at HICOG 745 new turmoil brewed for a few weeks, because the man now in charge of the project, James E. Hoofnagle, recognized hardly any of the previous proofs that the conditions for the foundation had been met. He told the foundation laconically: “In view of the situation you describe we believe that the foundation has not met the conditions – obtaining or securing funds from other sources – that are the prerequisite for using the grant.” 746 The new man first had to be acquainted with the situation, and this was naturally “a bad thing since we cannot begin construction before we produce the documents that are now demanded and
Classes at the HfG began with the first basic course, taught by the former Bauhaus teacher Walter Peterhans, on Monday, 3 August 1953, the traditional Ulm Schwörmontag (a local Ulm holiday; transl. note), in the Adult Education Center building at Marktplatz 9. As previously planned in March, after Walter Peterhans this basic course was directed by Josef Albers and Helene Nonné-Schmidt. 743 And as early as 11 August 1953, the two authorities Hugo Häring (the former director of the ReimannSchule für Gestaltung (Reimann School of Design, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a central proponent of modernism, and his friend Hugo Häring, the most important theoretician of organic design in Germany, during a visit on Kuhberg in Ulm on 11 August 1953 before ground had been broken for the first building. Photo: Hans Conrad
Günther Schlensag’s appointment. 750 As soon as the misunderstandings on the part of James E. Hoofnagle were cleared up, building on Kuhberg could finally begin. At its third meeting, on 7 September 1953 the foundation’s administrative council 751 repeated its resolution that the cornerstone must soon be laid if at least the school building exterior was to be finished by winter 1953/54, so that the interior work could then start. Even the DM 50,000 of the federal ministry of housing construction were available meanwhile: “The research assignment would be to build housing for the college’s teachers and students, and in the process to try out certain structural innovations. Contrary to customary conditions for research funds, these could be invested in toto in paying for construction.” 752 On the following day, 8 September 1953, construction began. 753 Not a week had passed before Günther Schlensag urgently asked Max Bill not to treat Ulm merely as one of his many worldwide way stations, but to stay there on a more regular basis and for longer periods. His presence was urgently required for practical and pedagogical reasons: “I feel the mood in the building department and in the department of product design is very tense. While that’s no reason for me to get into a panic, I have a growing sense that your continual presence in Ulm The first basic course: standing, Walter Peterhans (head of the Bauhaus photography department from 1929 through 1933) and Otl Aicher; seated on the left, Eva-Maria Koch, photographed on 27 Oct. 1953. Photo:Hans Conrad
Class at the Ulm Adult Education Center: front row, Almir Mavignier and an unidentified student; back row, Helene Nonné-Schmidt, Christine Sztankovitz and Gerhard Gehle, in the basic course of Helene Nonné-Schmidt, the widow of the head of the Bauhaus advertising department; June 1954. Photo: Hans Conrad
before the American funds are finally released .“ 747 To cast new light on this confusion was the first task of the administrative director of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. This position, which had been created as a result of Shepard Stone’s request in 1950, had been held by Günther Schlensag since 15 June 1953. The thirty-year-old lawyer had workedfor the Tübingen state chancellery of the Land of Württemberg-Hohenzollern from February 1946 through October 1951; subsequently he had edited the Juristenzeitung and read manuscripts in the legal administration of a publishing house.748 It was Stuttgart ministry officials who had recommended him to the Ulm group, who hoped he would provide them with good contacts to bu-reaucracy. 749 At its second meeting, on 8 June 1953, the administrative council confirmed
– if that is at all possible – now during the construction of the building does seem crucial. After all neither Mrs. Aicher-Scholl nor I can make decisions when there are practical differences of opinion between the building department and the department of product design: We cannot clearly see all the connections. We simply need a coordinating brain, something we always realize every time you leave. […] It is of utmost importance that you should be here.” 754 One must not forget that the students who enrolled at the college had already completed their professional training before they applied to study in Ulm. For instance, the job of site supervisor was taken on by the young architect Fred Hochstrasser.755 In other words, HfG students were
157
The rectorship of Bill
158
often autonomous personalities – and that had been the expectation, of course , but at the same time it implied that students needed to be treated more professionally than was customary. They expected precisely the high-quality advanced training they had been promised in the gray prospectus and that they had read about in newspa-per reports. By November 1953 there were al-ready 15 students, and they elected a three-member body from their midst, including Fred Hochstrasser, who would represent their interests. Toward the end of
absence from his college, unresolved questions piled up into a mountain that overshadowed all that the project had accomplished up to that point. Otl Aicher enumerated the school’s problems on 11 January 1954: The construction office needed Max Bill’s authority, and Fritz Pfeil’s work was not sufficiently independent; in organizing the pedagogical aspects of the school and in the basic course many flaws had to be ironed out; the students had too little instruction; there were still no blueprints for the residential buildings; and the
At the blackboard in an Adult Education Center classroom: Otl Aicher (18 May 1954), Josef Albers (1954), and Max Bense (31 March 1954).
Progress: The construction site on 25 May 1954.
Max Bense, who, from 1949, held the chair for philosophy of technology, theory of science, and mathematical logic at the Stuttgart Technical University.
Photo: Hans Conrad
Josef Albers, a student and later teacher at the Bauhaus, head of its basic program.
Photos: Hans Conrad
the year Inge Aicher-Scholl once more reminded Max Bill how important it was, now more than ever, to complete the architectural plans in order to meet the financing deadlines for the residential buildings: “Even if we were able to get an extension – which will be very difficult – we’ll lose our moral credit with the government agencies, which we need so badly right now. […] We can’t prod that slow Pfeil into action if you don’t let us have the plans soon. We’ve al-ready been putting off the government agencies from month to month as it is. Something that’s also urgent, maybe even more important than the Building plans, is who will be on the teaching staff.” While she was at it, she described the unpleasant atmosphere that prevailed in Ulm at the time: “Dear Mr. Bill, you do know, don’t you, that even without these problems your presence in Ulm can now no longer be limited to short visits. I hope you realize we still don’t have a team that can do without a driving force. The staff and students are very aware of your absence and are of- ten pretty worried. […] Gradually the mood here when you’re away has been causing me a great deal of concern.”756 At the turn of the year from 1953 to ’54 the situation in Ulm with Max Bill, or rather, without Max Bill was aggravated. Due to the rector’s continuing
government agencies were criticizing the snail’s pace at which the whole project was developing. Otl Aicher implored Max Bill to offer a major part of his creative energy to the HfG, not only in order to accomplish the work, but p rimarily to allow the wished-for atmosphere to unfold: “While the basic course of Peterhans and Albers probably does function, both believe that directing a school in this way is impossible, and even disastrous, because they themselves and the students too have no real contact with you and they exist without connection in a vacuum. You are the head of the school and represent in your person the school as a whole, its concerns and its responsibilities. If you are not here, this is just a lot of people, that’s all. […] Inge, Schlensag, and I do all we can to put a stop to internal criticism of you, but once the wave of criticism has flooded over these bar riers, something’s bound to happen. Either the people are going to run away or there’ll be an attempt to expel them. […] Moreover it is certain that people like Pfizer, Guther, Pfleiderer, even the ministries are easy to work with. We can count on their help. But their confidence in our cause d epends on you personally.” His proposal to Max Bill was as follows: “The extent of your presence here must not be dictated by the fact that ‘everything’s been discussed’. You’d also have to find enough time to maintain human contacts with staff and students
in such a way that a feeling of working for a common cause can develop.” 757 Max Bill shared Otl Aicher’s analysis of the situation and resolved to fulfill his obligations: “He said he knew that in the future he had to devote himself completely to his work as the rector of the school. He planned to be in Ulm for at least two weeks out of every month until 31 March 1954; after 1 April he would remain in Ulm permanently – except for about one week per month.” 758 The decision-making entity of the foundation, the administrative council, continued to be fairly active. The fourth meeting had been set the preceding year, on 27 October 1953. In connection with the teaching contract of Walter Zeischegg, the administrative council for the first time dealt with a problem that was to continue to haunt the HfG and that caused permanent conflict, especially in the last years of its existence. It concerned the lecturers’ share of foundation income that it received in the form of fees and royalties for work for the private and public sector. It is true that in the precedent of Walter Zeischegg the members of the administrative council had expressed considerable doubt whether the proposed apportionment – 45 percent each for the designer and the foundation, with the remaining 10 percent going to the scholarship fund – was not too advantageous for the designers. And furthermore Günther Boulanger, the representative of the Stuttgart ministry of finance, had voiced his misgivings that the nonprofit character of the foundation might be called into question under these circumstances. Nevertheless the administrative council had agreed to the con-
tract. 759 In subsequent contracts of employment with designers this arrangement for the lecturers’ share was adopted. However, they were not finished with the topic yet. Günther Schlensag asked around and, a few days later, came up with a comparable situation: The Max Planck Institute offered its lecturers a share of at least 33 percent of royalties. The administrative council defended the arrangement with the argument that the HfG needed it as an incentive in order to be able to hire particularly well qualified teachers, because they would not receive attractive salaries. 760 Wolfgang Donndorf added that teachers at a comparable level in Land universities and colleges earned about DM 1,200 to 1,300 a month plus civil service benefits, lecture fees, and additional family allowances. Fritz Pfeil on the other hand received DM 850, while Walter Zeischegg and Otl Aicher each got DM 760. That is why it was fair if the regular salary was low but the share each time turned out to be high: “If it was the other way around, the teachers would no longer have an incentive to do their own creative work. The more such creative work they do, the greater will be the income of the foundation.” 761 That this model might also give rise to interpersonal problems – envy, rivalry, c ovetousness – which could only poison the climate at the HfG, was apparently something they could hardly imagine at the time. At its fifth meeting, on 1 February 1954, the administrative council 762 confirmed Max Bill’s contract of employment 763; on 4 February 1954 the foundation also concluded an arbitration agreeThe former head of the Bauhaus’ typography workshop, Herbert Bayer, and his wife visit the young HfG at the Adult Education Center location in November 1953. Photo: Hans Conrad
159
The rectorship of Bill
160
Roofing ceremony at end of first construction phase, 5 July 1954.
Left: Hans Zumsteg, Inge Aicher-Scholl, and Hermann Josef Abs. Center: Part of the roofing ceremony. Right: Hermann Josef Abs, Otl Aicher, Arthur Roth (director of the industrial firm KlöcknerHumboldt-Deutz ) and Inge Aicher-Scholl. Photos: Hans Conrad
ment with the rector. 764 One can only speculate whether this caution in regulating relations with Max Bill was routine or whether it had come out of experience with his difficult personality. But in the spring of 1956 the foundation was glad it had concluded this arbitration agreement. Also the administrative council gave its approval to the contract of employment with Otl Aicher, as a result of which he was retroactively hired to be the head of the department of visual design starting 1 April 1953, and to teach the basic course starting 1 April 1954.765 And finally the members of the council found out to their regret that in spite of every effort (and contrary to many reports) financing for construction was short a whole DM 60,000. A goodsized donation of steel, for instance, would have come in handy, but it never materialized: “Above
all we did not succeed in gaining access to the Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen und Stahl (Iron and Steel Trade Association) and thus to the major iron industry, so that we had to purchase a ll the iron we needed, while, for example, the cement industry worked out a very generous arrangement with us.”766 Added to this there was the fear that the HfG’s own funding, which the Ulm group had listed in the building financing plan as an asset of DM 50,000, had in the meantime become questionable. Designs for fixtures such as sinks a nd faucets, which of course could not be manufactured in the school’s own workshops, had to be contracted out, whether they liked it or not, to commercial firms. 767 But this situation was still not dramatic, and there was no reason to criticize the financial planning of managing chairperson Inge Aicher-Scholl in principle, which is why the administrative council approved the budget she submitted for the past fiscal year, 1 April 1953 through 31 March 1954. 768 Inge Aicher-Scholl was als o able to show the council a successful balance sheet, having raised a total of DM 377,1 44 in private sector donations by 1 March 1954, of which DM 61,200 had been given for scholarships. 769 Let’s stay with the administrative council a little while longer, that entity of the foundation whose members up to that point had had to deal primarily
with sober figures and sobering crisis management. Hellmut Becker wanted to make more use of this circle of influential representatives of trade, industry, and government agencies. That is why he asked that at the next meeting Max Bill give a position paper about the college’s recruitment policy: “People keep telling me […] that the fate of a college depends on who gets appointed to teaching positions. […] It seems important to me that the administrative council be given an overview as to what kind of personalities are even considered for positions here. We must use the meetings of the administrative council to integrate the members of the council as propagandists for the college. But you don’t just tell them about some nice man who will be offered a position; they need to be informed about the totality of the personalities
that make good candidates, and also about the specific type of personality that does not.” Besides, he added, it wasn’t enough to say he wanted to appoint as many foreigners as possible, but he must give the members of the council valid reasons for such appointments, since otherwise they would simply allow any member of parliament to change their minds. 770 As winter drew to a c lose construction work resumed on Kuhberg on 15 March 1954. 771 At the same time Max Bill moved to Ulm – as did his secretary Eugen Gomringer (coeditor of the international art journal Spirale ) – and stayed almost continuously at the scene of the action. Actually he and his wife and son were supposed to be moving into the planned rector’s house, but the latter – like the other residential buildings – could not be built as part of the publicly assisted housing. That is why the rector’s house became a nother duplex for two teachers, and Max Bill couldn’t (or didn’t need to) move his permanent residence to Ulm as planned. 772 On 5 July 1954 the HfG founders celebrated the roofing ceremony of their school building. 773 Hermann Josef Abs and Theodor Pfizer were among those present who were offered two different perspectives in the addresses of the rector and of the foundation’s managing chairperson: Max Bill out-
Max Bill at the construction site with Brigitte BermannFischer, May 1954.
lined a vision and couched his dream in the oftencited words, “From a coffee cup to a housing development”, while Inge Aicher-Scholl looked back and spoke full of pride and satisfaction of their “victory over the resignation and weariness, over the pessimism and skepticism of our time”, which had largely been possible thanks to her own efforts. Verbatim, the short speeches read as follows774: Max Bill: “Not every year, not every deca de […], but at even longer intervals a new college or university is founded somewhere in the world. Whenever something new is created, it is because this new thing answers a need. That is true here. This college answers a need – the need to help young people to develop in the best way possible those things that are used in our day-to-day lives. In
Inge Aicher-Scholl: “Perhaps you remember how many fine plans were hatched after 1945, how many experiments in cultural and spiritual renewal were started – periodicals, societies with important goals, groups whose purpose was to turn a good cause into a reality, and so on. How many of these fine, hopeful experiments, which had started off with great vigor, failed or fizzled out. Why? Because there wasn’t enough confidence in personal initiative, because individual persons capitulated in the face of red tape and bureaucracies, because they did not use their power of resistance at the moment when their cause most needed it – at those times when their energy was at a low point, when they felt bitterness and resignation. Every task brings with it those most dangerous of moments. – And, you see, the fact that this school and its goals brought together many very different people and challenged their very personal initiative is what is special about it, what distinguishes it, makes it profoundly authentic and legitimate. This building is something of a victory over the resignation and weariness, the pessimism and skepticism of our time – of course, this is not the result of mere chance, but because it has to serve a present and future purpose.” With the roofing ceremony on 5 July 1954, i.e. with the completion of the school building exterior, the first phase of construction was completed. The second phase of construction would now be to erect the residential buildings (three duplexes for teachers, a five-story student residence, and a caretaker’s house) and to start finishing the school interior. And just as it had been part of the concept of the HfG founders that the school’s architecture
other words, everything, from a coffee cup to a housing development, that is there to make our planet as livable as possible. As livable as possible means beautiful and civilized, for we are convinced that we need a culture again today in which everyone can participate in order to create a counterbalance for our daily work. And we want to work for this culture; we can’t bring that culture down from the attic, because we live in a new era, an era with new and better possibilities. We hope our w ork will succeed.’”
should be programmatic and exemplary, the same was true of the finish work of the school. Walter Zeischegg in particular had been hired for this purpose, but with him in charge work dragged at such a slow pace that reinforcement was necessary. It came in the person of the Dutchman Hans Gugelot, nicknamed “Gütsch“. He was a polyglot, an engaging character. Born in Indonesia in 1920, he graduated from secondary school in Davos, studied for a year at the Lausanne School of Engineering, and obtained his architect’s diploma in 1946
Left: with Alfred Roth, Swiss architect and journalist, May 1954; right: with Hans Gugelot and the student Maria Viera, June 1954. Photos:Hans Conrad
161
The rectorship of Bill
Bronze plaque on the outside wall of the HfG building, missing since 1968.
Otl Aicher teaching: on 18 May 1954, in the basic course, still at the Adult Education Center location with Eva-Maria Koch; on Kuhberg with Maurice Goldring in 1955.
Photo: Rueß Archive: Südwestpresse
Photos: Hans Conrad
162
The closing celebration of the first basic course on the construction site, June 1954.
Left: standing, Fritz Querengässer, Günther Schlensag, and Helene Nonné-Schmidt. Right: Max Bill. Photos: Hans Conrad
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (Zurich Confederate Institute of Technolo gy). He was a member of the Swiss Werkbund and had become acquainted with Max Bill when they worked together between 1948 and 1950; it was at that time that he began designing furniture. These designs had been exhibited at the exhibition Wohnbedarf of the 1954 Basel Trade Fair. 775 Now, starting on 15 June 1954, he had been very successfully running furniture building and finish work at the HfG: “His skill in inventing simple, clear de-
signs, and indeed his initiative and his personality seem to have a stimulating effect on the work in his department.” 776 Hans Gugelot developed into one of the most important Ulm designers, becoming just as essential for the HfG’s product design as Otl Aicher was for visual design. Another important designer joined the HfG during those days in the summer of 1954: the painter Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart, 55 years old, an artist who also came to Ulm through Max Bill’s connections and contacts and taught primarily in the HfG’s department of visual communication. Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart had been involved in important movements of modern art during the first half of the 20th century. In 1924 he was the founder of Gruppe K in Hannover, a member of De Stijl in Leyden, a founding member, in 1930, of the group Abstraction-Création in Paris, and his work was exhibited all over the world, including at the Berlin show Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art) in 1936; since 1952 he had held a special teaching post at the Akademie Rotterdam, and since 1954 he had been a member of the international writers’ association PEN Club (PEN stands for p oets, essayists, novelists). 777 In addition, the last of the HfG’s prominent lecturers arrived in August 1954. Tomás Maldonado, an enigmatic personality, sophisticated and charismatic, who with his Latin American charm introduced an exotic element that took some time for the petty bourgeois population of Ulm to get used to. He was 32 years old when he arrived in Ulm from Buenos Aires accompanied by his wife. In Argentina he had attracted Max Bill’s attention as
a painter, graphic artist, and writer who had founded and published art journals and who in 1949 organized an exhibition about modern architecture; this had led to his being made a member of the Con grès Internationaux d‘Architecture Moderne 778, and in 1955 he published a monograph about Max Bill in four languages. 779 Inge Aicher-Scholl described him as follows in her quarterly report: “Tomás Maldonado will spend the next few weeks getting a firm grasp of the German language and then be part of a team teaching a seminar on design problems and designing the future basic curriculum. In Maldonado our teaching staff has gained not only a person with special talents but also someone they like as a person.” 780 Glancing at the list of p ermanent faculty at this time (Aicher, Bill, Gugelot, Maldonado, Vordemberge-Gildewart, Zeischegg), one is struck by the fact that one by one Max Bill assembled an international teaching staff. The German teachers (Otl Aicher and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart) were in the minority – surely an unprecedented situation for an institution of higher learning in Germany. It is not surprising therefore that Hellmut Becker was concerned about familiarizing the members of the administrative council with the rationale for this hiring policy, so that they could support it in public. Max Bill therefore gave the required short talk at the sixth meeting of the administrative council in the foundation’s office at Bahnhofstraße 1 on 3 August 1954. 781 Unfortunately we do not know what he said. But there is hardly a doubt as to how he said it if we read the letter Hellmut Becker sent him by return mail: “Your behavior at the last administrative council’s meeting has left a somewhat unpleasant taste in my mouth. […] If, after such a meeting, one after another, three people who have truly positive feelings toward the school and toward you, people like Mr. Pfizer, Mr. Pfleiderer, and Mr. Cron say that they felt your behavior was extremely hurtful and basically incomprehensible, then surely something must be wrong. You know that I really support the independence of intellectual and artistic work. But you can’t open a school in Germany if you don’t surround this school with a group of people that will d efend this school for you against a conformist or bureaucratic milieu. […] Finally, as for your own relationship to the administrative council, it’s simply childlike [to assume] that the school and the foundation have nothing to do with each other. […] The fundraising that the foundation, or rather the administrative council does assures the continuing existence of the school. The administrative council is not supposed to determine the intellectual or artistic direction of the school, but should and must be really well informed about it, and they ca n’t be
entertained with remarks to the effect that all that is no business of theirs. […] The political development in Germany is such that up till now the school only had lethargy and mistrust to contend with, but in the coming years it will have to contend with open rejection and the attempt to destroy it.” 782 This sermon by the prophet Hellmut Becker went unheeded on Kuhberg. Max Bill proved slow to cooperate with the administrative council in another matter as well: As of 1 August 1954 the Ulm municipal building surveyor, Max Guther, who had been an important supporter for Inge Aicher-Scholl and Otl Aicher in the municipal administration and had become a close friend of theirs, left for the Technische Hochschule Darmstadt (Darmstadt Technical College), where he accepted a professorship in urban planning. Inge Aicher-Scholl did not want to do without his advice and tried to bind him to the foundation. Max Bill resisted the idea that in the future Max Guther, as an adviser to the administrative council, might be allowed to take part in its meetings, because he was afraid of being observed and controlled by the other college. This suspicion was totally uncalled-for in Max Guther’s case; but the fact that Max Bill voiced it shows that he was jealously keeping watch over his autonomy from any outside influence, especially from the administrative council (which was outside for him). It is hard to believe, but only a few months had passed since surviving the big nail-biter before Parliament finally agreed to subsidize the HfG. At the same meeting Wolfgang Donndorf, the representative on the administrative council of the min-
A meal being served in the HfG student dining hall (1955). Photo: Hans Conrad
istry of education and the arts, declared that his ministry was already drawing up the budget for 1955/56. For the third and last time, he said, it contained a subsidy for the foundation (DM 265,000), and then the first three years would have elapsed and the Land’s DM 800,000 would be exhausted and used up. New negotiations thus loomed on the horizon, for “they mustn’t expect that the ministry of finance and Parliament would authorize as large a subsidy as this in the coming years, if at all. […] The administrative council is
unanimous that it is possible that subsidy requirements will decrease as of the beginning of fiscal year 1956/57.” However, this was a premature judgment, and damaging because the representatives of the ministries brought their superiors the reassuring message from the administrative council’ meeting that in the future the foundation would ask the state for less money than in the past. It would have been lovely, for it w ould have meant that the plan of the HfG’s founders to have increasing financial independence had been fulfilled, but it was not true, and no doubt someone like Hellmut Becker knew better. Here is another bit of incidental information about a long smoldering confrontation between the ministry of finance and the ministry of education and the arts: During a discussion about overall allowances for income-related expenses of HfG teachers an argument erupted regarding the status of the HfG. Wolfgang Donndorf (ministry of education and the arts) was of the opinion that the HfG was a college for teaching and research. It was a college because it had the following characteristics: 1. four years of study offering comprehensive training and a background in general education, as opposed to narrow specialization in one field, 2. the goal of the studies was to train architects, graphic artists, and designers, 3. it differed from other technology institutes in the length, scope, and depth of training; 4. there were no regulations governing examinations due to organizational problems, but this would soon be remedied; 5. while the secondary school Abitur was not an admission requirement, this was also true of academies and conservatories of music. As a result the HfG was considered primarily as a Land college with special status, but not from a fiscal point of view, at least not “in the narrow sense” like the Land’s seven science-oriented institutions of higher learning (the universities of Freiburg, Heidelberg, and Tübingen, the technical colleges of Karlsruhe and Stuttgart, the Agricultural College of Stuttgart-Hohenheim, and the Mannheim College of Business and Economics). As the ministry of finance saw it, what determined the status of an educational institution was whether it required its students to have a secondary school diploma and its lecturers to be qualified to teach at a college; whether it had the right to confer doctorates and bestow on its graduates the qualification to be university lecturers; and whether it governed itself through a senatorial charter.783 (In the sixties another criterion became important as well for the ministries and the members of the federal and Land Parliaments in distin-
163
The rectorship of Bill
HfG's attitude toward its members and toward the outside world:
164
“The booming sound of running footsteps in the reverberating concrete arcade under his white cell roused the reporter from his Cartesian meditations. He heard shouts of joy, whistling, singing. Something was up. In the distance, there was the muffled, regular beating of a drum. Snatches of jazz were audible. […] Later he realized that parties are not all that infrequent on Kuhberg.” Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm , p. 21. The picture was taken on 14 May 1955 at the HfG spring festival in its own building, and shows, from the left, Hans Frieder Eychmüller and Hans Zumsteg. Photo: Hans Conrad
guishing the HfG as a college from a higher technical school or a school of engineering – the fact that the HfG did research and development work.) The first recorded instance of a ruling by the foundation that limited Max Bill's absolute position – though very minimally – is 18 September 1954. Up to that point the development of the HfG had always been in danger of coming to a standstill whenever the rector was not in Ulm because Max Bill reserved the right to make or at least to confirm all decisions in person. Now the position of an acting rector was created to whom unlimited responsibility was transferred; at any rate the short statement contains no restriction of his authority: “During the rector's absence until the beginning of October Mr. Gugelot will carry out the d uties of the rector as his deputy.“ Signed: Inge Aicher-Scholl and Max Bill. 784 By the end of November 1954 the school building was finished, and the wood, metal, and plaster workshops had been fully equipped. After the beginning of December all HfG classes were taught on Kuhberg. 785 As the move into the new building took place, there was a first protest by an HfG student. Maurice Goldring, who was enrolled in the first basic course and was later involved in the development of the teachers’ houses by the department of architecture, complained bitterly about the egoism that predominated at the HfG and poisoned the atmosphere, instead of the expected team spirit around a common cause: “And thus enthusiasm has increasingly given way to a certain resignation. The situation today is such that our work suffers and that no problem is ac corded the concentrated attention it deserves.” 786 He refused to continue working in the department of architecture and demanded that a program and suggestions for solutions should be discussed. Four features of this first student flare-up are characteristic for the
1. After a short time at the HfG many students were disappointed in their expectations based on the promises of publications about the school; however, they did not simply accept the situation, but tried to eliminate discrepancies between expectation and reality; 2. in the process many students self-confidently stood up for their often radical demands and crossed boundaries that were often observed, almost as a matter of course, at state colleges and universities; 3. the formation and institutionalization of discussion and work groups and committees became a peculiar quirk of the HfG that reflected a deeply rooted, liberal, and naive faith in the power of words to convince people and to solve problems; 4. there was method in their madness. In Ulm documents were typed with multiple carbon copies: one for the writer's own records, two or three more for people who were to be kept informed about what was going on. Thus on the college campus, cramped and densely populated as it was, nothing remained hidden, and everything was included in one way or another in ongoing internal debates. Historians and archivists are Eugen Gomringer 1955. Photo: Hans Conrad
grateful for this. – Maurice Goldring sent carbon copies of his letter, which was addressed to Max Bill, to Inge Aicher-Scholl and Fritz Pfeil. Max Bill's energetic response was not long in coming: “If the work suffers, it's the fault of the people who should be doing it. And it's just the way I told you a little while ago: Those who demand more freedom must also take more responsibility for their actions. You have not wanted to understand what an opportunity you have in be-
165
Elke Koch-Weser and Max Graf in the woodworking shop in the 3d basic course, 1955/56. Photo: Hans Conrad
ing part of the team completing the teachers’ residences, and that’s why you’re giving up today. I admit that the mess on Kuhberg is partly to blame for the demoralization many are experiencing. But this is also a test of these people's ability to resist.” He gave the rebellious student a choice – either to return to his traineeship immediately or to withdraw from the university register. 787 HfG students had had no prac tice in effective protest; Maurice Goldring meekly went back to w ork, and the rector had firmly nipped the first mutiny in the bud.788 Maurice Goldring’s ideas may have been the cause or just simply a trigger for the forming, at the turn of 1954/55, of a small group that called itself the commission for organizational questions . Included in the group were two lecturers, one representative of the foundation (most likely Günther Schlensag), and two student representatives. Together they worked out a first, provisional version of the Ordnung für das Studium an der HfG (Studienordnung) (Regulations for Studies at the HfG), which did not go into effect yet. 789 The 8 January 1955 version was signed by Max Bill and Inge Aicher-Scholl and obviously did not correspond in a few points to what the students had in mind; a good week later, on 17 January 1955, they submitted their alternative draft. 790 (Student participation in organizing studies from the beginning was not only due to the fact that they were older than usual and had mostly already completed some kind of vocational training; it was also in keeping with a reformed, modern educational model where teachers and students collabo-
rated with each other.) On the following points the two drafts diverged: While in the first version the rector alone was to determine which students should be admitted to the HfG, the students demanded that the decision be made by a commission that included a student representative. In the first version, studies at the HfG for all students would extend over four years; in the alternative student version, the study period might be shorter, depending on prior experience and training. Unlike the first version, the student proposal suggested that only DM 90 per quarter in tuition fees were sufficient, and not the DM 120 currently required. The students also proposed that a four-week, tuition-free leave of absence, which would not count towards the total period of study, would be possible. There were important differences as to how rights in the students' work while studying at the HfG were interpreted. The rector and the foundation intended that student work created as part of class instruction would become the property of the foundation. In addition the foundation planned to reserve the exclusive right to register international patents and to exploit such patents. In contrast the student proposal was that the students as the originators were to keep proprietorship and all rights in their work. In exploiting this work they wanted to concede a maximum share of 55 percent of the proceeds to the foundation.
The rectorship of Bill
Max Bill and Charles Eames, who together with his wife Ray was an American design legend even during his lifetime, on Kuhberg in March of 1955. Photo:Ernst Hahn Archive: HfG (Depositum 90/41.3)
166
Admission and course of training Finally the students also proposed that the expected commissions by the private and public The studies took four years, and each year was sector to the HfG should be allocated by a comdivided into three academic quarters and one mittee that included a student representative. quarter of vacation; previous experience was taken into account; studies began with the first year in With this last proposal the students aimed at the the basic course and then continued in the departcore of the economic plan of the HfG’s founders. ment chosen by the student; both in the basic course and in the d epartment, the first three The proposal shows that from the beginning (and not only in the mid-sixties, when a number of months had to be completed on probation – only orders had already been completed and sizable then was it decided whether the student would be royalties had been channelled to Ulm) the studefinitively admitted; this decision was made by
167
Class at the HfG, 24 March 1955. From the left: Franz Bullrich, Rolf Mangold, Irmgard Philippi, and Claude Schnaidt, also Tomás Maldonado and Max Bill.
The main building on 11 Nov. 1954, 8 weeks before the first HfG classes were taught in the school’s own space. Photo:Hans Conrad
Photo: Immo Krumrey Archive: HfG (Depositum 19/1)
students had to observe confidentiality for all commissions with which they came into contact. Student involvement Three committees were formed with the goal of collaborating between the college directorship, administration, and students: 1. the committee for organizational questions, 2. the committee for personal concerns, and 3. the committee for quality questions.
dents recognized the most awkward point about the HfG construct. It is not possible to clarify whether their proposal meant they wished to participate in the hopedfor royalties in order not to be exploited as cheap labor or if it meant they wanted to defuse the implicit explosiveness of this construct by distributing responsibility on as broad a basis as possible. The HfG regulations went into effect on 2 February 1955.791 In essence they corresponded to the version that had been worked out by the committee for organizational questions and submitted to Inge Aicher-Scholl and Max Bill for final approval. That means that from the students' perspective they contained rather stringent passages. Only in counting previous experience toward the four years of study did the rector and foundation comply with the students' wishes. Here, in detail, are the most important points of the regulations:
the rector in agreement with the student's lecturers; upon graduation a diploma was awarded. Tuition fees A one-time fee of DM 50 was charged upon admission to the HfG; per quarter tuition fees were DM 120; extra fees were charged for material; in addition, students had to take out accident and health insurance at DM 15 per quarter. Proprietorship, exploitation, and publication of class projects Student work completed in class became the property of the foundation; the foundation had the exclusive right to apply for international patents on this work; the foundation also reserved the right of industrial exploitation, with students ineligible to claim compensation; private work by students completed while they were enrolled at the school but not connected to their classwork could be published and exploited only with the rector's approval; in that case the HfG could be mentioned by name only with the rector's permission. The
Each committee included two lecturers, one representative of the foundation, and two students, and helped the rector and the foundation‘s executive board prepare their decisions. From the students' perspective one might say that this meant they were always in the minority and that the foundation’s technically noncompetent voice tipped the scales; but this assertion would be an anachronism, for it is based on the idea of the so-called Drittelparität (equal say in decision-making for students), which did not appear on the scene at German colleges and universities until the mid-sixties and which presupposes the experience of confrontation between organized students and faculty, and the fear that they might be played off against each other – at the moment, however, we are in Ulm in a climate of cooperation. By the time these issues were discussed at institutions of higher learning, including the HfG, the committees had long since come to an end. On 10 January 1955 Max Bill opened the basic course for the second group of new students. At
the time, about 50 students were taught by seven lecturers and four workshop foremen as well as guest lecturers at the HfG building on Kuhberg. 792 Starting 1 January 1955 Tomás Maldonado was in charge of the basic course; he was also teaching as an instructor in the department of visual design.793 Before we turn back to financial q uestions again, here is a comment on the somewhat unpleasant relationship between Max Bill and Walter Zeischegg. This comment is appropriate because it is a graphic example of a few typical characteristics of the atmosphere at the HfG just after it be- gan operating. By the end of March 1955 Max Bill was no longer willing to collaborate with Walter Zeischegg. Under normal circumstances things could no doubt have been arranged so that no one would have had to lose face or be deeply hurt. When we read the following lines we can't help wondering what it was that Walter Zeischegg had done to his rector for the latter to write him such a letter, on 29 March 1955. Max Bill wrote to him: “I was asked by the foundation whether I could accept the responsibility for extending your contract beyond the planned period. That means I would have to assume responsibility for your continued work as an instructor at our college. I cannot assume this responsibility for the following reasons: 1) Your teaching has produced practically no positive results. […] 2) […] After three years of activity you have produced hardly any completed practical develop-
The rectorship of Bill
Left: Cornelius Müller in the basic course, 5 May 1955; center: Fritz Querengässer, 6 May 1955; right: Josef Albers on the first day of the second basic course, 22 May 1955. Photos: Hans Conrad
168
ment work except for the fluorescent tube mounting. […] 3) Several of my valuable colleagues have announced that it is impossible for them to work with you for a protracted period of time; they Max Bill’s class on the first day in the HfG building on Kuhberg, 10January 1955. Photo: Hans Conrad
say you create a mood that puts a strain on the working climate and makes people lose their enthusiasm for work.“ 794 If we bring to mind the fact that Max Bill and Walter Zeischegg were members of the foundation's advisory board, we realize how impossible this situation was. Walter Zeischegg was never dismissed from his position, he even continued working as an instructor longer than most of the others. But that is not what is interesting about this episode; r ather, it is the following features that in part became characteristic for life at the HfG: the looming interpersonal conflict is noticeable; it arose from the fact that the people who came together here were strong, independent characters (as the founders had wished); this frequent conflict was intensified by the pressure exerted on HfG members from three sides: the HfG immediately needed to be internationally successful and to come up to its own high standards, which it had raised itself; there was not the time or the money to tackle things calmly; and the crowded conditions on Kuhberg also intensified interpersonal relationships; another factor is style of communication that claims to be objective because it describes facts, but is so drastically sober that it can be very hurtful, namely when human beings are concealed behind the facts – and it was exactly this dubious way of expressing things that some HfG members had mastered to perfection. Inge Aicher-Scholl's agenda for 1955 was determined by the next step toward her goal – getting the Landtag, during the next negotiations, to renew the subsidies for regular maintenance. 795 Wolfgang Donndorf had already hinted, of course, that for the 1956/57 Land budget then being discussed government officials needed to submit
their documents as early as August 1955. The foundation's request was to considered in the council of ministers in October 1955, and the adoption of the budget was planned for January 1956. These deadlines hardly offered enough leeway, because the Landtag elections in BadenWürttemberg were scheduled for the first part of March 1956. In order to be as well prepared as possible for the looming marathon of negotiations, Inge AicherScholl had to rely on three sources of aid: Firstly, on the firm and matter-of-course support of the city of Ulm, secondly, on the HfG's first successes, which proved that it was fulfilling its promises from past debates, and thirdly, on as broad-based public approval as possible or at least on public interest in the HfG. A large-scale dedication ceremony of the HfG buildings in the coming year was supposed to create the publicity necessary for this . On 4 February 1955 the main division of the Ulm municipal council authorized the municipal administration's request (which meant that Theodor Pfizer was behind it) to increase the delivery of coke, water, gas, and electricity to the foundation for the half-year between 1 October 1954 and 31 March 1955 to an annual sum of DM 49,000. Originally, of course, the municipal council had decided, on 16 January 1953, on a subsidy that would amount to no more than DM 40,000. 796 In other words, here was another small but necessary victory by the foundation over its opponents in town. Up to this point it was not as obvious that the HfG had to defend itself against strong adversaries in its own town. While the difficulties during the founding phase were immense, they were not insurmountable, and the decisions of the municipal council had up till then marked brilliant successes for Inge Aicher-Scholl. Last but not least, in Mayor Theodor Pfizer the HfG gained an indefatigable fighter for its cause. But the more the HfG itself took shape, the more its opponents began to close their ranks. For Thursday, 21 April 1955, the municipal council announced it would visit Kuhberg. Inge AicherScholl insistently warned that this visit should not be taken too lightly, and that the opportunity for an impressive self-portrayal should not be missed: “This group is by no means as well-disposed toward us as the specialist advisors on art or the administrative council. As far as we’re concerned these people's barometer points to bad weather, or variable at best. Whatever else we do during this visit, which will probably not be repeated in the foreseeable future, we must try and change it to point to good weather, because unfortunately the municipal council is the background aga inst which Schlensag and I have to fight for the new
budget this fall when we go to the members of the Landtag and to the Land government agencies.” 797 Presumably during this visit there was neither a diplomatic catastrophe nor was the mood of the municipal politicians transformed into enthusiastic euphoria, for both would have been recorded in the documents. It would probably be an exaggeration to say that this was the adversaries’ first contact with the enemy; however, no details or results of this day are known.
Hosting the cultural bureaucracy: ministerial art and culture advisers of the Länder with Inge A icher-Scholl, Günther Schlensag, Otl Aicher, Walter Zeischegg, Hans Gugelot, and Tomás Maldonado.
Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
On the day before, 20 April 1955, the foundation's administrative council had had its seventh meeting. Its members were confronted with the dilemma that while construction on Kuhberg progressed sufficiently, financing was not keeping pace with it. As early as March, Inge Aicher-Scholl had blamed the delays on the fact that costs had risen by about 10 percent and a total of DM 250,000 were needed for the remaining construction. Hermann Josef Abs was again expected to help persuade the federal ministry of economics to pay at least part of these costs. 798 Inge Aicher-Scholl thought
the balance should materialize following an article by Helmut Cron in the Deutsche Zeitung und Wirtschaftszeitung. 799 Now she presented a new financing plan to the administrative council in which she had again made an extremely conservative estimate, i.e., without provision for unforeseen expenses. However experience showed that the only thing that was foreseeable was that there would always be unforeseen expenses. It's easy to say this today, but Max Bill had, of course, demonstrated it several times during the founding period: If your financial plan was somewhat more large-scale, at least you didn't lose credibility when the plans became outdated a short time later and you had to ask for more money. Meanwhile, on Kuhberg, by mid-February 1955 the administration had moved into the new build-
ing, the last part of the foundation and college to do so. Finish work on the new building was practically completed, and the exteriors of all residential buildings were almost finished. 800 Now the second stage of construction – finish work on the department of product design, the little lecture hall, and the outfitting of the synthetics workshop – could begin, but as of 31 March 1953 they were still DM 140,000 short. However, the HfG was not supposed to be fully equipped until the third stage of construction was finished (finish work of the basic classrooms and the department of architecture, installation of a printing shop, completion of all remaining buildings on the college campus), for which an additional DM 200,000 were required. The administrative council took note of this and hoped that a concerted fundraising campaign with the support of the bankers Hermann-Josef Abs, Karl Max von Hellingrath, Karl Klasen, and Otto Pfleiderer would remedy the situation. Finally the administrative council briefly discussed the subsidy from the Land. There was reason to fear that for 1956 the cabinet would provide only the remaining DM 65,000 that had not yet been used out of the existing DM 800,000 subsidy. It was quite clear that the foundation could not meet its next budget with this sum. That is why the administrative council (which of course included Günther Boulanger as the representative of the ministry of finance) did not want to rule out the possibility that it might again be necessary to be included in the draft budget of the ministry of education and the arts with a significantly higher amount. The representative of the federal ministry of economics, Walther Hinsch, informed Theodor Pfizer that same day how disillusioned he felt about the situation: “I didn’t know that things look as bad for the institution as the minutes show. I can only wish that there’s a way out of this situation. Unfortunately I can’t promise that we can help provide federal funds once again. […] In my opinion [the HfG] should do its utmost to get the private sector more interested in the institution and close the existing gap with their help.” 801 In mid-May 1955, Inge Aicher-Scholl still radiated calculated optimism regarding the expected Land grant for the HfG's ongoing operation: “After the conversations we've had so far with government consultants and members of parliament, we have the impression there won’t be any serious problems.”802 At the eighth meeting of the administrative council 803 on 4 July 1955 Günther von Alberti, the deputy of Wolfgang Donndorf at the ministry of education and the arts, once more pointed out that he and his colleagues had to submit their draft budget for 1956/57 to the ministry of finance by the end of the month. In the foundation's draft budget for ongoing operations in 1956/57 Günther
169
The rectorship of Bill
170
“An aerial picture. Like standing looking at the model of a city. In front, against a backdrop of black woods, white buildings, cubes, flat. Crystals with windows, many windows; like something from a construction kit, a right angle fits into the jigSchlensag reported that a subsidy of DM 325,000 was needed. The city was prepared to raise its contribution to DM 60,000, but at the final c ount it was still obvious that the Land would have to contribute DM 265,000 (and not only the remaining DM 65,000), because a normal budget was not possible in 1956/57 either, “since maximum enrollment figures would again not be reached this year”. That was certainly an inadequate reason, which only marginally described the foundation's financial difficulties. There was also the fact that Left: Hans Curjel, 6 September 1955. Right: Tomás Maldonado, 16 May 1955. Photos: Hans Conrad
Günther Schlensag had counted on an income of DM 80,000 from commissions and patents; in the preceding fiscal year (1954/55) the foundation had already generated DM 19,000 of such income, and for the current year (1955/56) DM 40,000 could be expected. On the other hand, faculty positions would be completely filled by the beginning of fiscal year 1956/57, and this meant expenses would rise. The industry's donations were urgently needed for continuing finish work on the buildings and for the scholarship fund. With Günther Boulanger abstaining, the administrative council resolved that the foundation would ask the ministry of education and the arts for a Land subsidy of DM 265,000. 804 At this meeting, the idea also came up that future financing of the foundation could be made easier by creating a body consisting of personalities from the private and public sector that would not exert influence on the college or the foundation – on the analogy of the board of trustees, which was closer to the c ollege in substance. For this purpose, it was felt, the advisory board could be changed. Günther Schlensag replied that the advisory board had the important function of electing the foundation’s governing board, and they could not thoughtlessly allow this to pass out of their hands. But for Otto Pfleiderer this was, in any case, the responsibility of the administrative council. 805 The discussion was not brought to a conclusion. But strangely enough no mention at all was made of the Society of Friends, which had been created precisely for the purpose of establishing contact with the private sector and with the public. Of course, up to this point, it had scarcely gone into action on behalf of the HfG.
saw puzzle of a slope. Behind it, in the haze, untidy, gray on gray, the maze of the city. Above it, like a silhouette before the glistening ribbon of the Danube, the massive shape of the cathedral, far away, vanishing. A past that is disappear-
ing. In the foreground, white, the building blocks of the future. A luminous castle of the future.“ Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 10.
In accordance with the resolution of the administrative council, its chairman, Theodor Pfizer, sent the foundation’s request for a 1956/57 Land subsidy of DM 265,000 to the ministry of education and the arts on 23 July 1955 806 ; the ministry granted the request and included the sum in its draft budget for the annual appropriations. 807 Wolfgang Donndorf now had to be careful that the promises of preceding parliamentary debates were not reduced to a simple formula and used against the foundation. On the one hand the gra vity, indeed the urgency, of the financial situation in Ulm must not be concealed so that the need for the state subsidy could be justified. On the other hand, in accordance with previous argumentation, this situation must be characterized as an exception. Finally, there was also a need for convincing reasons to explain that this exceptional situation still prevailed, although the financial situation should really already have been normalized. And in order to establish a connection between existing conditions and previous projections, Wolfgang Donndorf now had to clearly show that the foundation was moving in the right direction and would reach its goal as soon as possible. Here is his attempt to do so: “Without subsidies the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung cannot exist. As in the case of every school, expenses are considerably greater than income in spite of the most careful economizing. […]There cannot be the least doubt that the enterprise would fail if the Land were to refuse to grant a subsidy for ongoing operation. The Land cannot bear responsibility for its failure. At no time during or after the founding of the college has anyone claimed that in the future the foundation Helga Pross, 10 August 1955. Photo: Hans Conrad
can manage without subsidies.“ – This statement was accurate as to its wording, though not as to its meaning, for in its 1952/53 request the ministry of education and the arts had said that government subsidies would continue to be minimal if the HfG concept was successful. Wolfgang Donndorf went on: “Today it is possible to state with conviction that the present state of affairs at the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung justifies, indeed demands, that we grant it a regular subsidy. […] Here we need to take into account the fact that the
171
Photo:Otl Aicher 2 Aug. 1955 Archive: HfG (ohne Negativ-Aicher Luftbild)
HfG will not have a normal year until fiscal year 1957; not until that year will enrollment have reachedthe expected figure of approximately 180 and will income from patents and industrial c ommissions rise. In fiscal year 1957 the government subsidy can therefore be lower than DM 265,000.” Two points catch the eye: Firstly, the wording this time turned out to be a great deal more guarded than during the last negotiations with the Landtag. And secondly the ministry of education and the arts had adopted the view of the foundation’s administration that the HfG would basically defray its own operating costs once it was running as close as possible to capacity. We must ask ourselves why the representatives of the ministries always allowed themselves to be persuaded that this financial construct was viable and did not recognize its inherent fragility. How, for example, could the money be raised to defray costs caused by financing gaps in the budget a nd in construction, and all the consequences (such as interest on loans and redemption) until that ideal state was reached? Presumably they found Inge AicherScholl’s enthusiasm infectious, and perhaps the only possible way to get the HfG going was to have this kind of concentrated confidence. In any case, one can scarcely assume that the officials were fully aware of the inherent financial weakness
of the HfG draft budget and that they simply concealed this self-deception with cheery phrases. As the legislative procedure began, Inge AicherScholl and Günther Schlensag also needed to return to the Parliament lobby to work on the members of parliament. They were more concerned with informing members about the HfG’s program rather than with financial policy calculation. Theodor Pfizer helped as much as he could. One example is his letter of 2 August 1955 to the chairman of the politico-cultural committee, Walter Erbe (one of the two representatives of the F DP/DVP who voted for the HfG in 1953): “Anyone who looks at the circumstances without prejudice will no doubt subscribe to the HfG’s goals – designing a better environment and training the people needed for this purpose. He would also agree that an institution created to do this cannot come up with huge successes from one day to the next, but would give it the opportunity to do so regardless of a number of initial problems. One crucial question remains: Is the School of Design to continue receiving a subsidy from the Land?” He pointed out that the requested DM 265,000 were a modest sum compared with [those given to] other cultural institutions. 808 Incidentally, now that the question of future subsidies by the Land had been addressed, they were back at the old game where the other gov-
The rectorship of Bill
Anthropology class on the patio at the home of Stuttgart professor Erich F. Podach on 5 or 28 July 1955. Photo: Ernst Scheidegger A rchive: HfG (56/0085)
172
Tomás Maldonado and the painter Georges Vantongerloo during the official opening of the HfG buildings on 2 October 1955.
ernment agencies did not want to discuss their own financial support until the Land made its decision. Walther Hinsch’s standpoint, for example, was clear: It was not the job of the Federal Republic to support the HfG. Once the HfG's financial support was ensured, they could talk about selective points in which the Federal Republic could be of assistance. That is why it was not possible, he continued, for the foundation to receive a federal guarantee for the remaining construction costs. “As for
was inaugurated on 1 July 1955. The HfG had developed and built in its own workshops a bold, simple wooden platform without frills, which allowed visitors to experience the view from Ulm Cathedral down on the city. At this, the HfG’s first public appearance, a visitor found neither Swabian Baroque nor the aesthetics of the so-called economic miracle – the spare simplicity of the design was too much for the public. On Thursday, 14 July 1955, Norbert Wiener spoke at the HfG, one of four guest lectures he The students’ dissatisfaction was expressed in a memorandum addressed to Inge Aicher-Scholl (with carbon copies to the rector, the head of the committee for organizational questions and to the head of the committee for personal matters). On 12 August 1955 the students held a general assembly, with 24 of the then 43 registered students showing up; of those present, 21 students approved the memorandum in which they declared their distrust of the HfG’s leadership. 812 They gave three reasons for their vote of no confidence:
Right: Tomás Maldonado and Konrad Wachsmann giving Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart encouragement (26 August 1955). Leaning against the wall are VordembergeGildewart’s paintings. Photos: Hans Conrad
the rest, he says he believes we cannot expect any kind of payments until the Land has guaranteed ongoing financing.” 809 Back to the college. There, at the end of April 1955 the student dining room started operating, and four weeks later the first residential buildings (the caretaker's house and the two one-story studios) were ready for occupancy; the exterior of the duplexes for the lecturers was completed, so that finish work on these could now begin; the student apartments in the tower were already equipped with wardrobes, alcoves for beds, and washstands; development by the city was completed – the predominant part of the buildings was presentable to the point that they could risk scheduling the official dedication ceremony of the college campus three months down the road, at the beginning of October 1955. 810 In spite of all delays and cutbacks: the very fact that the HfG building stood on Kuhberg was an extraordinary success for the founders of the HfG, something they could be proud of. But at the dedication ceremony they had other interesting pro jects to boast about, projects that hinted at the HfG's future direction. Thus the HfG had been commissioned by the city to design the Ulm pavilion for the BadenWürttemberg regional exhibition. The exhibition
gave in Germany. Norbert Wiener was a professor of mathematics and is considered to be the founder of the science of information and communication he called cybernetics. Max Bill refers to this fact in his invitation: “It is the goal of the Ulm School of Design to integrate the field of design, and that is why we have been following the development of cybernetics with great interest and teaching its fundamentals in lectures as part of ‘cultural integration’. Cybernetics, particularly as the science of information and communication, is also one of the foundations of the college's department of ‘information’.” 811 By the way, cybernetics, communication, cultural integration (the word referred to general education) were terms that had little meaning for the public. Here, too, we see a characteristic typical of the HfG – its desire for a professional jargon that gave its work an academic aura and made initiation into this hermetic circle necessary in order to understand it. A few weeks before the planned dedication of the HfG buildings there was much tension within the HfG. At least slightly less than half of the students were still dissatisfied with the school leadership, and obviously Max Bill also felt uneasy, since he was the person who had to take care of every detail of college life, even if this situation was actually in keeping with his ideas of his rectorship.
1. “Events around the introduction of c ollege regulations, and the declaration that the ‘gray p rospectus’ because of which we came to Ulm ‘was actually already outdated when it was sent out’ (4 April 1955)”. (Presumably the first part of the objection refers to the fact that Max Bill and Inge Aicher-Scholl issued the college regulations without going into the essential demands of the students.) 2. “The school administration forgets that the students are adults who know why they are here (11 August 1955).”
Max Bense (partially shown), guest speaker Norbert Wiener, and Max Bill, 14 July 1955. Photo: Hans Conrad
3. The contradiction between the goals of the HfG's founders (briefly mentioned in the gray prospectus and other documents) and the high expectations of the students on the one hand, and reality on Kuhberg on the other hand. This criticism led to a clear demand which, however, was not met: “We feel that in this climate our common goals cannot be attained. We therefore demand democratic school bylaws (another rea-
son for that is the official opening of the school). These bylaws must reflect the ideals of those after whom the school was named, for we owe it to them.” In his cover letter, student representative Immo Krumrey urged Inge Aicher-Scholl not to take this student protest lightly: “Above all I’d like to emphasize that we are not talking about the juvenile obstructionism of a few grumblers – in actual fact, there’s no one like that among us; on the contrary, the degree of disapproval regarding these regrettable matters shows a genuine concern that should be taken seriously, a concern that is (unfortunately) only the negative expression of true conviction and enthusiasm.” 813 For Max Bill this campaign was possibly the straw that broke the camel’s back. At any rate the rector was just as d issatisfied with the situation within the HfG as the students. Obviously his daily duties were too much of a burden for him, and he felt restricted by duties that he regarded as distracting and that reduced his creativity. On 5 September 1955 Max Bill handed the initiative, the daily business of the rector, to a rectorship steering committee, reserving only veto power and representation of the HfG for himself. 141 This event actually came as a surprise – the resource material does not document specific motives – and it is hardly likely that the only reasons for Max Bill’s retreat were the recent c onflicts, for in dealing with them he had blithely disregarded the attacks, and this student storm in a teacup was hardly comparable with the difficulties he, as well as Inge Aicher-Scholl and Otl Aicher, had overcome during the founding of the HfG. In a short text titled “Structure of the rectorship”, Max Bill stated: The rector of the HfG was able to transfer his duties and authority to a governing body to which he himself did not belong; this governing body was to consist of a maximum of five members; the deputy rector, who was at the same time the chairman of the governing body, was appointed by the rector; the rector could take part in the meetings of the governing body; the decisions of the governing body must be approved by the majority; the decisions of the governing body needed to be authorized by the rector. One can only speculate, but it seems plausible that even in the early days Max Bill already had some idea about what types of issues the future rector of the HfG would have to deal with and what direction his daily work would take. Max Bill’s prior actions indicate that though he held democracy as
173
The rectorship of Bill
Official opening of the HfG buildings, 2 Oct. 1955. Brigitte BermannFischer next to Inge Aicher-Scholl and student Fred Hochstrasser.
The three architects Walter Gropius, Max Guther, and Max Bill. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg. A rchive: Rosenberg (345/08)
Photo: Hannes Rosenberg Archive: Rosenberg (345/05)
174
The speakers: Inge A icher-Scholl, Walther Hinsch, Walter Gropius, Dr. Christmann.
a form of government in high regard, he was not willing to organize “his” college along completely democratic lines. After all, for a long time he had been asserting the primacy of artistic talent over political mission. Also he seems to have lacked organizing and diplomatic ability (which he presumably did not regret), something that is particularly crucial for the rector of a newly formed aspiring college. His decision does not suggest resignation, it appears to be liberation from a heavy burden, for at the HfG every decision still needed his seal of approval. The documents give hardly any information about the members and activities of this governing body that depended on Max Bill's favor and had not been provided for in the college bylaws. It consisted of four lecturers: Tomás Maldonado,
the members of the HfG, but unfortunately the event lacked the luster that would have been provided by the names of a few prominent personalities. Ellen and John McCloy were unable to come815 , and so were Shepard Stone, Carl Zuckmayer, Herbert Read, and James Morgan Read, who had assisted at the institution’s birth. Absent, too, were a number of prominent federal and Land politicians: Neither Ludwig Erhard nor the prime minister or the minister of education and the arts managed to get to Ulm. They were represented by their senior officials, who were familiar with the foundation's day-to-day business in any case, and so the atmosphere was cultured and matter-of-fact. A few members of the federal and Land parliaments who were interested in cultural matters made their appearance, as did the Hessian “To experiment you need absolute freedom and support by farsighted government agencies, who look on benevolently as something new that is often hard to understand is born. Give the School of Design time to develop quietly; it will take years. I know how we at the Bauhaus suffered when every little thing we produced was dragged out to be inspected. That wasn’t good!“ Walter Gropius in his speech on 2 Oct. 1955.
In the auditorium: Left: Walter Erbe, Binia and Max Bill. Photo:Hans Conrad
Center: Walter Gropius on the podium. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg. A rchive: Rosenberg (346/09)
The principal figures from the foundation and college were surprised at the g reat public response to
Max Bense and Franz Wiedemeier (member of the Landtag, member of the Ulm municipal council, district chair of the CDU for Ulm). Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
Center: The guests also saw an exhibit of samples of work done at the young HfG. Right: Inge AicherScholl, Walter Gropius, and Max Bill. Photo: Hannes Rosenberg A rchive: Rosenberg (346/05)
who apparently was very much in favor of forming this committee, was the deputy rector and thus the chairman of the governing body, while Otl Aicher, Hans Gugelot, and Friedrich VordembergeGildewart were the remaining members. (With the same makeup, the constitutional governing body took up its work in March 1956.) The dedication of the HfG buildings on Saturday, 1 October 1955 and Sunday, 2 October 1955 turned out to be a successful self-promotion for
minister of finance, Heinrich Troeger, who had wanted the HfG to be built in Frankfurt am Main. Inge Aicher-Scholl was the first to address the audience: “I'm sure just about all the obstacles that can be imagined were placed in our path and nothing was handed to us on a platter. There was the lack of understanding people show everything that is new; and the discouraging, protracted difficulties that a world of red tape and bureaucracy offers in response to individual citizens; and finally,
there was the most incredible intrigue and political libel.”816 After Inge Aicher-Scholl’s address and a speech by Walter Gropius 817 , Max Bill confronted his guests with the standards he had set for work at the HfG, which were by no means modest: “We are clear about our goal: Everything we do at the HfG is directed towards working together to build a new culture, and the objective is to create a lifestyle that is in keeping with our age of technology. […] Present-day culture is too badly shaken for us to be able to continue building at the top of the pyramid, as it were. We have to start at the base and scrutinize the very foundations.” 818
Photos:Hannes Rosenberg A rchive: Rosenberg (346/07 and 345/10)
their celebration. All over Germany there were press, radio, and newsreel reports about the unconventional institution on Kuhberg in Ulm. As a rule the journalists chose architecture as the embodiment of the college's program in order to explain the goals and issues addressed by the HfG to their readers. Already a year earlier the Ulm newspaper Schwäbische Zeitung had showed itself to be very reserved: Under the headline Bi zarre new buildings overlooking the Danube Valley the editor was baffled by the “strange contrast with the undulating hills of the Danube Valley” and resorted helplessly to vague murmurs: “The outside shell seems alien and bleak, and the huge, empty window openings add to the eerie impression.“819 (This is just a foretaste of the quality of local journalism with which the HfG had to come to terms in the years that followed.) Three examples from press reviews of the dedication show the various views of opinion makers regarding the new college. The Stuttgarter Zeitung in its article Under the sign of asceticism had spoken ambivalently about the objectives of the HfG's founders, discussing them within the framework of their theoretical context: “The principles of the school are becoming clear. Both in its mentality and its education it recommends puritanism. It elevates economizing to a style, sees gain in re-
nunciation, and responds to the affluence of the nouveaux riches with voluntary poverty. Max Bill is Swiss – and a Calvinist to a certain degree. His forms appear in ascetic severity. […] If this college is marked by asceticism, if it acts in opposition to the arts-and-crafts movement, which today once more shows all the bad habits of whim, fad, and kitsch in the name of the ‘new daintiness’, it is on the defensive, as it were, against the style of an age that has gotten rich too quickly. […] We must take into account the fact that human beings have not only practical reason but also have aesthetic needs. […] What is correct is not enough to support and nourish us. That which is superfluous – that extra ingredient of a beautiful appearance – is an element of human nature, too. Does anyone have the right to etch it away, overlook it, eliminate
it?“820 Doubts were permissible as long as they stayed on the level of this sound article, but unfortunately this was the exception. – Regarding the effect of the horror vacui ( nature abhors a vacuum; transl. note) on the guests at the dedication ceremony, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung tartly commented: “If an Englishman spoke of the ‘new brutality’ of these cement blocks, which are painted a light gray, he was merely expressing the shock felt by many of the visitors.“ 821 – And the Handelsblatt finally came up with the label that was to be applied time and time again to members of the HfG: “The almost overemphasized puritanism of this architecture seems […] intent on educating monks of the technological age.”822 – But there were also other voices that had acquired a taste for the atmosphere of the college. For instance, there was Kurt Seeberger, who in the Tageschronik (Daily chronicle) of the Bayerischer Rundfunk (Bavarian Radio) described his impressions as follows: “A bold conception. At first I was taken aback: There is something severe about this group of buildings. I kept thinking: This is the architecture of puritans. Until, at the opening ceremony, I found out more about the intentions. […] That was when I was struck by the fact that these faces are far more world-oriented than one is used to seeing among the venerable writers of our
175
The rectorship of Bill
The HfG building seen from above, spring 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
As of 24 October 1955 building costs to da te were DM 2,634,000. The foundation had raised DM 2,165,000 mark and taken out a mortgage and a loan for a total of DM 400,000. There remained a deficit of DM 39,000. 825 Three aspects of the construction balance sheet are worth noting:
176
ber 1955 two members of parliament spent two hours at the college 826, and Inge Aicher-Scholl made every effort to convince them of the truth of the HfG concept. She based her arguments primarily on the most recent successes: on the one hand, the international response to the dedication ceremony, on the other hand the first industry commissions. For instance, at the recent Düsseldorf Radio Trade Fair the Frankfurt company Braun had introduced three new radios that “caused a sensation and represent a break with the outwardly ugly radios up to this point.” (One of these, the radio-phono combination Phonosuper SK 4 , dubbed Schneewittchensarg (Snow White's coffin) became the symbol of German design and an advertisement for the HfG. Moreover, Inge Aicher-Scholl pointed out that the HfG building had been designed by members of the HfG, and a major part of the school building, the residential high-rise, and the lecturers' houses had been produced in the school's own workshops. She concluded her remarks emphatically: They had succeeded in bringing the idea of the Bauhaus back to Germany and letting it to take root there. “Here, a focus point for an urgent cultural task of the 20th century is being formed; it has repercussions throughout the whole world, and in turn can gather the ideas and influences of the world and pass them on in concentrated form to the younger generation.”
1. Up to this point the foundation had had to borrow DM 400,000. It had to pay back this money with interest at a future date, and this sum had to come out of the limited budgetary funds. This pattern – borrowing and debt servicing – continued to grow and developed into an onerous mortgage for the foundation. 2. In spite of this there was not enough money, they were still DM 39,000 short. 3. In one part of the campus, finish work and furnishinghad not yet been completed, and the foundation still needed DM 140,000 for this as soon as possible and DM 200,000 by the end of 1957.
Looking up: Tomás Maldonado, the director of the Basel Museum of Art, Georg Schmid, and Max Bill in November 1955. Photo: Hans Conrad
academies.[There were] many architects, engineers, government officials, and men from industry and commerce. That is the circle that supports the objectives of the Ulm college. […] After I had taken the tour of the grounds, I knew what this architecture, which I at first considered to be puritanical, is all about. It is not puritanical but severe. It is severe because it restricts itself to essentials and needs no embellishments. There is none of that extravagant use of metal and precious wood that transforms so many of our businesses and office buildings into places of provocative luxury, on the contrary: Here is the cell of an architecture that will act in conscious opposition to the megalomaniacal and ostentatious style of the 20th century.” 823 The opening of the HfG buildings is a welcome opportunity to assess in a few w ords what had been achieved. The HfG campus now consisted of the following building components 824: the common rooms: auditorium, kitchen, utility rooms, and the student dining hall and terrace, the workshops (for work with plaster, wood, metal, and synthetics), including studios, art rooms, and a small lecture room, the rector’s office, with the library and a dministration offices, the five-story residential high-rise for students (35 single and double rooms; bath and shower rooms; the rooms of the dormitory matron), two ground-floor studio apartments (16 rooms) for students and assistants, three duplexes for lecturers (6 apartments), and the caretaker’s house.
In short, at the time of the dedication of the HfG buildings the foundation would have needed approximately DM 800,000 to act freely from then on. The HfG's financial difficulties in the years that followed are, in part, a result of the need to plug this hole and to keep it from expanding. In other words, the HfG was financially a premature birth. Inge Aicher-Scholl cold not afford to take a break. For two reasons, they needed to cash in on the success of the dedication ceremony immediately and turn it into financial aid . The outstanding bills for the construction of the college needed to be paid quickly, and she hoped that the Landtag would soon decide on additional subsidies to cover operation costs. In her efforts she had to concentrate primarily on simple members of parliament, for the HfG was no longer popular with most of the members of the Land government. That is why the cabinet had, by a large majority, rejected the request of the minister of education and the arts to provide not only the remaining DM 65,000, but a total of DM 265,000 in the 1956 Land budget for the upkeep of the HfG; that would have meant an a nnual subsidy of DM 200,000. But because the government's bill provided for only DM 65,000 for 1956, the foundation had to begin the laborious and uncertain march through official parliamentary channels: a motion by the politico-cultural committee, its approval by the finance committee, and adoption by Parliament in the readings of the budget. That is why Inge Aicher-Scholl had reason to be pleased that she soon had a new opportunity to give the members of the politico-cultural committee a better understanding of the HfG. On 31 Octo-
Günther Schlensag at the hat-and-beard party, end of November 1955. Photo: Ernst Hahn Archive: HfG (Depositum 90/11.1)
A few days later, on 9 November 1955, several members of the Landtag made a privileged intraparty motion that the politico-cultural committee should take a position regarding the foundation in connection with deliberations on the 1956/57 budget.827 The intention behind this was to get a clear overall view of the HfG a nd of the mood within Parliament concerning the foundation. The last time there had been a vote in Parliament about the HfG, on 29 April 1953, those who made the motion had voted partly for and partly against it; now, as a prerequisite for further Land support, they expected that the politico-cultural committee should by a clear majority adopt the foundation's request to pay a total of DM 265,000 to the foundation. Inge Aicher-Scholl was determined: “What we’re trying to do now is to talk to and inform those members of parliament who are not yet familiar with the work and the goals of our college, and win their support.” 828 One of them was Paul Binder, a retired undersecretary and a member of the finance committee, who until then had been barely informed about the HfG. He believed in principle that it was out of the question that an institution should be created on private initiative and the state should then be burdened with most of its regular maintenance. He believed that the right solution would be for the
Land to give an additional DM 300,000 subsidy and then contribute no more than 20 to 25 percent of maintenance costs. If the foundation could not manage on that amount, he believed the HfG should be put under government control. Günther Schlensag countered by saying that the budget draft for 1956/57 already planned on having over 50 percent of the institution's budget covered by its own income, but that probably in 1957/58, too, a subsidy would still be required, the same amount as the foundation had requested for 1956/57, i.e., DM 265,000. Later “there would possibly be a decrease, provided that the economy continued at its present level”.His argument for government support was as follows: “They say we believe the state should welcome private initiative; it is up to the state to investigate whether an institution of this type is worth subsidizing.” While Paul Binder showed understanding for the fact that the foundation needed Land support for one or two more years, he said that “later [financial aid] has to be reduced.” 829 In a detailed letter to Theodor Pfizer dated 28 November 1955 Paul Binder described the situation as he saw it. 830 This document sums up the latest developments shortly before the meeting of the politico-cultural committee. Also he graphical-ly showed how little the state's support of the HfG had to do with objective arguments; rather, it depended on party-line calculations, on an “I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine” attitude among Land politicians, with government officials careful not to step on each other's toes. (So we can understand why, during their visit a month earlier, Inge Aicher-Scholl asked the members of the politico-cultural committee for only two things – impartiality and objectivity.) “I can tell you in confidence that among the members of my party there is no inclination to grant a regular state subsidy. Mr. Wiedemeier is somewhat startled by this. He personally pleaded for the proposal of the minister of education and the arts that a state subsidy roughly equaling personnel expenditure be granted for a few years, and that only then should it be decided whether support for the School of Design ought to be continued. However this proposal was badly received. […] Rather the majority view was that at one time the finance committee approved the DM 800,000 by a majority of only one vote. This narrow majority came about only because Dr. Alex Möller voted as a favor to Mr. Wiedemeier, who at the time backed the college out of Ulm local patriotism. Now people rightly said that in this way the state is being forced to pay for the keep of children it has not begotten, and that a regular subsidy of this nature might possibly lead other groups to found similar institutes and then ask the state for help when they were in financial trouble. I d rew
177
The rectorship of Bill
178
Student life at the HfG, 1956.
Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 47.
Frau Aicher-Scholl's attention to this problem at the time. In particular, it was explained that at the time the DM 800,000 subsidy was requested, the state was told the school would not need a regular government subsidy in later years. Now things obviously seem to have changed, possibly because apparently Mr. Wiedemeier out of irritation has negatively influenced certain industrialists who’ve been making payments [to the foundation] so far.” Paul Binder went on to say that he would support the HfG only if the politico-cultural committee explicitly pronounced itself in favor of the HfG: “I would do it with a heavy heart because, on principle, I am opposed to institutes being founded without prior consultation, institutes which later require a government subsidy. […] Mr. Wiedemeier obviously has hopes of being able to buy the
“It’s remarkable – in the white building on Kuhberg, fear of the inexact, the vague, the rambling or, geometrically speaking, of swelling curves, undefinable turns, appears to have been replaced by worship of straight lines and right angles. […]
Could it be that a right angle is not only the basic architectural figure of the Ulm college, but also the symbol of their mentality?“
Max Bill 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
and minister of finance Karl Frank took part in this meeting. First, the result of the vote: With 10 to 7 votes (1 abstention) the committee voted for a one-time subsidy of DM 200,000 in the 1956/57 budget – this did fulfill the foundation's wish, but the vote was by no means decisive enough to definitively sweep away doubts. Up to that time the draft budget of the ministry of finance included only the remaining DM 65,000 to which the foundation was still entitled. If a larger sum was fixed upon, went the reasoning of HfG opponents, they would never get away from the subsidy. For the HfG would hardly be able to support itself, because it was a school and that is why they'd always have to reckon on subsidizing it. Doesn’t that also mean that if the HfG was no longer to receive a subsidy, but could not exist
179
1956 metal workshop: Left: In the 3d basic course, front left – Claude Schnaidt; Angela Hackelsberger on the right. Right: in the plaster workshop, far right – Oswald Glean Chase from Trinidad. Photos: Hans Conrad
buildings cheaply one of these days to be used as a city of Ulm vocational school. […] I completely agree with Mr. Becker that this type of school needs to be set up in a somewhat freer form than can be done at a state academy. On the other hand I can quite imagine that the CDU [= Christian Democratic Union] delegates are terrified of the somewhat romantic-looking artists with their cosmopolitan worldview, and that they are afraid that these efforts to create modern design may also produce monstrosities, except that their success or lack of success cannot be judged for another twenty years or so. On the other hand I can’t help thinking that it would be quite foolish to drop the experiment at this early stage of the game. For after all we could demand that the previous government or the then finance committee look into things thoroughly, so that the decision that was made then rightly still stands today. […] By the way, you did mention in your letter to the ministerpresident that by the end of the first three years the school would be self-supporting.” On Friday, 29 November 1955, in response to the 9 November 1955 privileged intraparty motion, the politico-cultural committee of the Landtag discussed the subsidizing of the foundation for 1956/57. Minister-president Gebhard Müller, minister of education and the arts Gotthilf Schenkel,
without subsidies, it would be forced to close? Thus, if the opponents of the HfG had been honest, they should have stated that they wanted the HfG to close. The supporters refused to evaluate the HfG from fiscal standpoints alone. They said the school was indispensable, for the technical colleges and the Stuttgart Trade Supervisory Office were not in a position to create an institution that promised to be as successful as the HfG. The HfG had a historic task – the continuation and development of the Bauhaus. New design methods were particularly important for industry. 831 – “At the same time new trends were stressed at the meeting. For example, Gebhard Müller was far more lenient and approachable, and Frank at least no longer insisted on his earlier reservations.“ 832 The HfG's controversial nature is shown by the result of the vote. Incidentally, it is amazing that Gerhard Storz (CDU), who later became the minister of education and the arts, voted against the HfG although only two days earlier he had personally assured Inge Aicher-Scholl of his support – “a change of heart I cannot understand, which can presumably be put down to some unpredictable minor detail.“ 833 Theodor Pfizer now did all he could to keep the high expectations placed in the politico-cultural
Left: workshop head Cornelius Uittenhout with students Franz Bullrich and Immo Krumrey. Right: Uittenhout with students Elke KochWeser and Dominique Gilliard. Photos: Hans Conrad
committee’s vote, which the latter had not fulfilled, from turning to disillusionment to the detriment of the HfG. The mayor did not shy away from somber admonitions: “We must not overlook the fact that many eyes in Germany and abroad look hopefully toward this institution, nor forget the political aspect that if this institution is cut back, people would say we are being reactionary – incidentally, a word that is otherwise used far too carelessly – and especially accuse us of being extremely conservative”.834
at the time, and besides the whole project was far too ambitious. Moreover, there was no evidence of positive achievements that might offer new approaches to home décor and to the formation of taste – as an example they recalled the discussion in the municipal council regarding the pavilion for the Baden-Württemberg Trade Fair. The FDP/DVP representative, who was committed to politico-cultural affairs, took up and presented Inge Aicher-Scholl’s argumentation that the predictions of three years ago would not be
Theodor Pfizer’s commitment was futile, at least for the moment. For the finance committee of the Landtag, at its 9 December 1955 meeting, re jected the request of the politico-cultural committee to make available to the foundation more than the remaining DM 65,000. 835 The result of the vote (11 to 10) may be regarded as a fluke, but for the foundation this decision was the biggest political defeat in its short history, even though that history consisted of a whole series of ups and downs. It meant that the majority of the finance committee endorsed the view of the cabinet and no longer wanted to help finance the HfG. The representatives of the government stated in their reasoning that their fears in 1953 had been confirmed. The interest of the private sector and popularity among students were not nearly as favorable as promised
true for matters that needed ten years to develop. Thus it was no wonder, he said, that these expectations had not been fulfilled yet. That had been the case with the Bauhaus, too, except that today it was obvious how important the Bauhaus had become for the modern world and what an impact it had internationally. This tradition, which Ulm had reconnected with, must not be broken off. The construction of the HfG was finished in the rough, and this construction had demanded every ounce of energy. That is why one could not expect the same achievements in commission work. Especially interesting is his reference to criticism which he claimed came from the “restorative” camp, to the effect that Inge Aicher-Scholl was no longer in charge of the HfG and that the spirit of the school was politically suspect. People must not
The rectorship of Bill
Visiting architects from Japan at the home of Tomás Maldonado, 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
180
“Those, then, were the myths about Ulm : the myths of purism, hostility toward art, snobbery, amateurishness, and the belief that the School of Design was unique. Everyone knew something, and no one knew anything precise.“ Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 10. Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
let this bother them, he said, for the motives of the White Rose continued to be relevant, and people should not rashly cast suspicion on personalities who were victims of National Socialism. But that was exactly what was happening, and it was disturbing. Parliament must not encourage such tendencies. – The majority of the finance c ommittee’s members were unimpressed by these remarks. It is true that the one last chance the Ulm group still had was to persuade the plenary session to support their cause and to gain its support in the second reading of the Baden-Württemberg Budget Law. The gravity of the situation must not be underestimated. The documents leave no doubt that the active members of the foundation – headed by Inge Aicher-Scholl and Theodor Pfizer – realized that once more it was a question of life and death. Where was the foundation supposed to get the needed DM 200,000 in budget monies if the Land did not take responsibility for them? The federal government still could not be considered as a sponsor, at least for 1956 – if at all, it would be able to make a smaller contribution distinctly less than DM 100,000. However, initial conversations with members of the Federal Parliament’s budget committee showed that it was just possible that in 1957 the foundation might be funded with federal monies, probably from the federal ministry of the interior. 836 Representative Georg Kahn-Ackermann (SPD) had been active in Bonn trying to obtain another DM 100,000 for 1956 from the federal government, but the budget had already been submitted to the cabinet and delivered to the Bundesrat. 837
The journalist Helmut Cron, a member of the foundation's administrative council, turned to Alex Möller on 11 January 1956 and asked his advice: How could the foundation's request once more be made acceptable to the Landtag after its defeat in the finance committee? 838 While Alex Möller was a dyed-in-the-wool friend of the cause, he did advise the foundation to arrange for a motion by coalition groups. He himself also intended to support the motion. He recommended that the foundation use different arguments. The Landtag's consent would probably be assured “ if the arguments state that the subsidy would be required for the beginning years, but that as the years went by the subsidy would decrease and finally be discontinued altogether”. Even if the foundation knew full well that the HfG would never be able to manage without a subsidy, in the present situation he could only advise that they “choose this form, because otherwise the entire request will be jeopardized”. The representatives, he said, would find the request easier to understand if it contained the whole financing framework at the same time. He recommended the following graduated schedule: DM 300,000 this year, DM 200,000 next year, only DM 100,000 in 1958, and nothing at all in 1959. At any rate he advised against requesting money for this year only: “For in that case the opponents of the project would immediately refer the matter to the finance committee with the intention that the issue would not be discussed during the last few weeks of Parliament and thus disappear from the scene.” Inge Aicher-Scholl followed half of Alex Möller’s advice. She refused to promise that the foundation would soon no longer need Land funds. If in a few years a different situation developed the foundation’s credibility would be undermined, and the HfG’s opponents could use the foundation’s own words to discredit the whole project. No doubt Inge Aicher-Scholl had a premonition that the HfG founders’ original intentions would not be fulfilled and that the HfG would b e dependent on substantial government subsidies for operating expenses in the future as well. Nevertheless it would be shabby to condemn Inge Aicher-Scholl for this. Rather, we must recognize that she apparently discovered that the politico-cultural reality in the Federal Republic of Germany put countless obstacles in the path of the HfG that the institution could not overcome. That was why the foundation needed to adapt to these circumstances as well as possible without allowing itself to be deflected, and a bove all keep the HfG in operation. The mere fact that the HfG existed was a great triumph. It would have been a defeat if the original idealistic financing concept had been uncompromisingly preserved with the end result that the foundation soon failed
Above: A class with psychologist Hans-J. Firgau, January 1956 Below: Gustav Hassenpflug, director of the Hamburg Landeskunstschule (in conversation with Max Bill), January 1956.
Photos: Hans Conrad
and the HfG had to close its doors. But at the time no one thought of this, perhaps not even the HfG’s opponents in the government. Probably they were speculating on adding a program and a complex of buildings to the existing technical colleges at a bargain price if the foundation had to close the HfG. – The foundation did pursue the other half of Alex Möller’s recommendation – to arrange for a motion by coalition groups. On 31 January 1956 this motion was handed over to Parliament. 839 The HfG promoters among the members of parliament introduced a motion that the politico-cultural committee’s resolution should be complied with and consequently the Land’s subsidy for the foundation should not be restricted to the remaining DM 65,000, but rather should be raised by DM 200,000 to a total of DM 265,000 for 1956. The motion by the HfG’s supporters was accompanied by a public appeal to the members of parliament, signed by the most prominent friends of the cause, including Hermann Josef Abs, Otto Bartning, Romano Guardini, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, and Carl Zuckmayer. 840 However, even more important for the mood among members of parliament was another signal received from Bonn at this very same time: At the end of January the cultural committee of the Bundestag had unanimously come out in favor of paying the foundation a one-time subsidy of DM 75,000 for 1956. 841 The head of the cultural division in the federal ministry of the interior, Paul Egon Hübinger, who later became a member of the foundation’s administrative council, supported this subsidy. (Of course the resolution still had to be authorized by the budget committee of the Bundestag.) The decisive debate in the Landtag took place at the end of the parliamentary term, on 2 February 1956.842 The members of parliament had less than three minutes to come to a decision about the HfG. In this HfG debate the finance minister, Karl Frank, was in a more pleasant situation than the last time, 1953, when he had asked the House to strike one item from his own budget dr aft. Now he was authorized by the council of ministers “to declare in the name of the government that we are in favor of the government bill and ask that the motion [he means the 31 January 1956 motion by the parliamentary intraparty group; author's note] be denied.”843 The concluding remarks by Johann Brandenburg (FDP/DVP) are typical of the attitude of the majority of members. Only three years earlier the mayor of Pforzheim had voted against the HfG because he had promoted the founding of a school of design in his town. Now he spoke the mind of presumably most of the undecided members of parliament: “I shall vote for it today, because we started this thing and we have to see it
through. I do it very reluctantly.” Because he was by no means convinced that the HfG was a good idea, but did believe that it was necessary to promote design, he demanded that the minister of education and the arts, Wilhelm Simpfendörfer (CDU), create chairs for teaching design at technical colleges and academies: “The school must not get a monopoly in this matter in Ulm […], for we cannot live from a single source alone in our Land, which relies on highly developed industrial design.” 844 – In Parliament there was a clear majority (no roll call vote) in support of the appeals to hold out that had been issued, i.e. in support of treating the HfG pragmatically. Behind these was neither conviction nor enthusiasm for the ideals of the HfG, and therefore the foundation could not count on a stable and solid majority (in case the latter should continue in the next legislative period), which would have been necessary for dependable planning. The coalition group’s motion was accepted (and thus the government bill was re jected), so that after the first DM 800,000 between 1952 and 1956 the HfG now received another DM 200,000 subsidy from the Land for operating expenses. It would be an exaggeration to describe early 1956 as welcome or successful. The foundation had withstood the acid test, but without bravura. However, it had not succeeded in developing a realistic financing scheme and in raising the necessary funds, the present budget contained too large a share of hope; as a result the foundation took the risk of again being dependent on subsequent corrections and emergency assistance, which bore out its reputation that its financial planning could not be relied upon. Now, as the spring of 1956 approached, there began a game of intrigue at the college that gave the damaged reputation of the entire project an added distinctive nuance. Even as Inge Aicher-Scholl focused her entire energy on getting the members of parliament to agree, in January 1956 the atmosphere at the HfG intensified. The general weather situation changed and weighed heavily on the mood at the college for a year until March 1957. It was not until then that the situation exploded, and depending on the observer's perspective this can be seen as a storm that cleared the air or as a destructive hurricane. At the end of the preceding year, on 17 December 1955, student representative Immo Krumrey went to Tomás Maldonado, the deputy rector, to demand that work on the college bylaws be continued. Apparently the three committees of the HfG undertook this job, but in the meantime the initiative petered out, and a few of the seats on the committees became vacant. Immo Krumrey therefore proposed that a special team be formed. 845
181
The rectorship of Bill
Inge Aicher-Scholl (to her left: administrative director Günther Schlensag) explains to students on 21 or 22 Feb. 1956 why the HfG is separating from Max Bill. Photo:Hans Conrad
182
At this stage Inge Aicher-Scholl described the objectives of the college bylaws from the perspective of the foundation: “These p rovisional bylaws are to clarify how the college leadership will be determined and what the areas of its authority will be. There should be no doubt that the leadership of the school makes completely independent decisions on all educational and school-related matters of importance. The college’s leadership shall form a governing body that on the one hand will be elected by the lecturers of the college, but on the other hand must be able to function. That is why there is to be a provision that after the initial election of the governing body part of the RK [RK was the abbreviation used at the HfG for the governing board; author’s note] should be reelected every year. Before making decisions on the most important questions this governing board will have to listen to a group that may be called the “kleiner Kon“Silence. Surrounded by vent” (inner council). Besides lecturers this inner space. Space – a stone council is also to include students and representaskin. It’s in the center. tives of the workshop foremen. At a general meetHalfway to the top. No ing, in which representatives of all personnel who wallpaper. No picture. support the college have a seat, there is to be an No scent. […] A cell, opportunity to express one’s opinion on all issues architecture that makes that concern the college. My hope is that such one focus on oneself. bylaws will prevent every kind of dictatorship and Architecture that reoffer a basis for trusting collaboration by all.“ 846 storesorder. That makes Here there was no longer any mention of a recone lonely, forces one tor, especially not an authoritarian and autonoalways to start anew.” mous rector like Max Bill. His position was to be replaced by the ideal of a collective, different variBernhard Rübenach, ants of which would be responsible for the various Der rechte Winkel von tasks of the HfG: the smallest group (the governUlm, p. 18 f. ing board) for day-to-day b usiness, the medium-
would be. It was probably Otl Aicher who brought this radically democratic idea into the HfG. And he was probably quite aware that these bylaws could only be realized without Max Bill. But how could the foundation get rid of Max Bill again? He still had the power to dominate the dayto-day affairs of the HfG if he was so inclined. And the only clause in his contract providing for a dissolution of this relationship that was not based on mutual understanding was the agreement to accept the verdict of an arbitration court. But Hellmut Becker did not want to let things get to that point. He had the following scenario in mind: Max Bill, he thought, would write the foundation a letter in which he explained that after developing the institutions of the foundation he now planned to devote himself to his free creative work once more. At the present stage of the college's development it was appropriate that responsibility would be shared, and therefore he wished to be involved in directing the HfG only in the capacity of a member of the governing board. His old contract outlining his position as the rector and head of the department of architecture was to be revoked. The new contract would be for one year, i.e., through 31 March 1957, and after that date a three-month period of notice was to be in effect. 847 This settlement would have allowed all those involved to save face, Max Bill to regain his personal freedom, and the HfG to have the independence to settle its own affairs. However, Hellmut Becker overlooked that Max Bill expected to be remunerated for retiring after his work founding the HfG into which he had put so much time and
183
had had the common goal of setting up the HfG, and as long as there had been enough obstacles they needed to overcome together, their view of each other’s character differences was obscured or enhanced by the enthusiasm of working on founding the school. Recently, however, it had become very obvious that Max Bill's ideas on how the HfG was to be managed were too different from those of the Aichers.
Student apartments in the high-rise from the outside and the inside (1956). foto links: ernst scheidegger foto rechts: Hans Conrad
sized group (inner council) for more basic issues, and the HfG at large for everything its members wanted to work on. In the governing board there was not supposed to be a primus inter pares, because the vote of the chairperson was not to be decisive when there was a tie. Moreover the members of the committee were to rotate every year. The idea behind this was that the HfG could implement its inner freedom by practicing equality and brotherhood – the more equal their positions and the more brotherly their attitude, the freer the HfG
energy, and which would not have prospered as it did if it had not been for his personal contacts. It went against his self-image to beat a retreat when he had just won a victory as the glorious leader of a small troop. All the same there was a possibility that he might have been exploited only b ecause of his reputation. So that he would not be left looking like a loser, he expected a high compensation. Another reason for wanting to separate was that it had become clear there was estrangement between Max Bill and the Aichers. As long as they
Friedrich VordembergeGildewart with packaging designs, February 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
In the events of the twelve months that followed, which intensified into the infamous Bill Crisis in March 1957, the protagonists appear to have communicated only in writing. The documents that came from Inge Aicher-Scholl and Hellmut Becker show disenchantment; in Max Bill’s letters there is also disappointment, while Otl Aicher’s express a sense that things were disintegrating. Max Bill’s dominance, and finally his mere presence at the HfG, was a thorn in his side. Up to that point, though, there had been only personal discrepancies and no material ones. In the course of that year, however, it was precisely these fundamental differences regarding design that became obvious, raising the atmosphere to a fever heat. Whereas in the spring of 1956 an amicable settlement with Max Bill represented the next stage on the road to final separation, a year later, in the spring of 1957, the situation escalated into a highly precarious crisis. On 5 January 1956 Inge Aicher-Scholl complained that the rector had an overly intimate relationship with a woman student. She said she had been approached regarding this matter by lecturers and students and had gotten the impression
“that this undermines trust both within and outside the college. I even feel that sooner or later people outside will try to use this against us. I also don’t think I’m exaggerating if I observe from a ll that I've been told that there is definitely estrangement and isolation between you and the lecturers, as well as between you and the students.“ 848 If Max Bill would no longer continue in office as the rector of the HfG because the atmosphere at the HfG had changed, it would be possible to have college bylaws that would really be to the taste of a lawyer like Hellmut Becker. In mid-January 1956 Hellmut Becker set to work creating ideal bylaws for the HfG. 849 For the leadership of the HfG he strove for a structure that would provide more continuity than one where the rector changed every year (the type of bylaws common in universities), but that would also allow more change than a structure where the rector's position was permanent (the type of b ylaws used in technical schools). His solution was collective leadership by the leading personnel of the HfG. He tried to make this solution palatable to Max Bill, for the rector w ould not leave office without knowing exactly how the HfG was to be run (after all, he had been one of the cofounders of the HfG): “The whole world knows that you are the school’s founder, but I would say that if the school is directed by a single person, this would be inconsistent with the whole philosophy of this novel school. Also I keep getting the impression that you do not enjoy representing the school in the outside world, or conferring with committees, which I can understand very well. I believe that at this point it would be important if you were not regarded, as
The rectorship of Bill
In the 4th basic course, 1956/ 57. Front row: Thomas Dawo; back right: Bill Huff.
Olivio Ferrari, Claude Schnaidt, and Maurice Goldring in a building department class (February 1956) taught by Max Bill. Photos:Hans Conrad
184
you have been up to this point, as being responsible, for better or for worse, but rather that a collective should run the school, so that you are to some extent removed from your present routine.” Hellmut Becker had other reasons for opposing the existing bylaws: For instance, because of the prestige involved, each lecturer would have the a mbition to be elected rector at least once, and as a result there would be wrangling that would cause trouble. Besides, he felt, it was difficult for independent-minded persons to subordinate themWalter Zeischegg, February 1956. Photos: Hans Conrad
selves to a rector. Also, based on his experience during the school construction, he felt it was better if a single person was not responsible for everything and everybody. And finally the existence of a rector promoted the undesirable attitude that those who were not part of the p ower structure did not feel otherwise responsible for the HfG. “That type of collective leadership would have the ad ditional advantage that we would be perceived as being different from the technical college with its permanent rector and the university with its annual change, and that it would become clear that here something new is trying to find its own form and internal regulations that are not based on traditionalism, antiquated ideas no longer appropriate for our present-day social reality.” It is hard to believe that Hellmut Becker was actually convinced of the validity of all his arguments. The reality, after all, was more complicated and human that his theories would have it. Max Bill was not ready to listen to Hellmut Becker’s proposals, and retorted that there was already a governing board in place to do the HfG’s day-to-day business: “You may be aware that last fall, at the urging of Mr. Maldonado a nd in order to be able to devote more time to the departments, with the approval of the foundation's executive board, I formed a governing board of which I am not a member, but whose resolutions need to be authorized by me.” 850 We have to imagine how impossible daily life now became and continued to be until 1968: The letters that circulated in the house became more and more aggressive – and whenever people met in the hallways, how were they to avoid each
other? After all, the HfG’s small campus meant not only that there was intellectual closeness but also that people were physically cramped, and there was no room to avoid interpersonal meetings. Then, on 16 February 1956, Otl Aicher took the initiative by writing to Max Bill. 851 He did not conceal his view that Max Bill’s temperamental behavior – moody, unpredictable, prone to tantrums – was as inappropriate for an educational institution as for someone who was the spokesman of a newly founded college in meetings with representatives of the public, the government, and the private sector. But he wanted to be assured that Max Bill’s expertise and prestige would continue to be a ssociated with the HfG. Otl Aicher argued that things had now developed to a “critical point”, and blamed the “present structure” of the HfG for the crisis. Max Bill had given the Aichers and Hellmut Becker a choice: Either he would continue to exercise all power as the rector of the HfG, or he would leave. Otl Aicher now proposed a third alternative: “to maintain your full practical influence, but to reduce the likelihood of interpersonal conflicts to a minimum […]. You say that the reason for the diminished trust in you is that you have too little authority. I, on the other hand, see the cause of the present crisis solely in your ‘congenital defects’, in the way you deal with people. This affects the attitude of the school toward both the outside and the inside. I don't want this observation to be seen as a value judgment; all I am interested in here is that the school should continue to function. And let’s face it, no life can thrive in a climate of fear where people are constantly wondering ‘what mood Caesar is in’. On the other hand I do know how much the school owes to your influence as an expert. My proposal is that you no longer continue teaching, but stand above it. Department heads would have to be found for the departments of architecture and product design, and you would have to take a position that allowed you to work on your projects in all departments with those students who are interested. The unique and special nature of this position would have to be explicitly emphasized. The advantage of such a free arrangement would be that you would always see what is happening in the individual departments. At the same time it seems to me that such a free way of working is more in keeping with your creative work than if you have to keep struggling with all the students of a department, which regularly leads to conflicts – I don't have to be a prophet to predict that. In running the school, too, I feel it is necessary to separate the functions into tasks that require dealing with people and practical management. The way I see it you should leave directing the educational operation and most of the work of repre-
senting the school in the outside world to other members of the administration. The free exchange of ideas and shared responsibility by all members of such a committee, on the other hand, seems to me to be a necessary requirement for the solidarity of the faculty and for the reestablishment of mutual trust.” Otl Aicher was too much of an “objectfocused thinker” (Peter Schubert), who sought concrete specifics, not to have known that Max Bill must lose his footing at the HfG the moment he was no longer involved with the students in concrete, daily classroom teaching. When he proposed that Max Bill should soar above things, that meant Bill was to break away from the HfG. This marked the beginning of the division of the core founding group. A few days later, on 20 February 1956, Max Bill answered him in detail and frankly. His letter to a large extent fell in with Otl Aicher’s hopes that Max Bill would allow himself to be persuaded by him: “There’s something tempting about your proposal.” But a new leadership structure for the HfG was only supposed to be tried out using an interim solution before it could be included in the college bylaws: “The governing board will be strengthened and will practically be in charge of the school (collective leadership!). It would still need to be decided whether I will then continue to be a ‘figurehead’ rector. At any rate I would not be a member of the governing board. […] I also believe that my effectiveness would improve as a result. […] I must say that this governing board has to a great extent taken the load off me and that therefore the functions on account of which I originally accepted the appointment are either outdated or at least c an be Psychology lecture in 3d basic course, 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
carried out independently of me personally. My prestige, which I brought to bear when I came to Ulm and which was necessary for many things we hoped to achieve when the work here began, is no longer essential today. I therefore believe that I could retire from the school today without detriment. I myself have such definite opinions about how a school I belong to should be run that I can’t accept changes in the course I have in mind. Under such circumstances it no longer makes sense for me to continue to be responsible for the
college. Unlike you I am convinced – and my experience here has only confirmed my opinion – that a school such as this, like all cultural things, should be run only with authoritarian means. What your proposal is really about – that is, if the existing structure of the school is to be changed – is that my contract, too, is to be automatically canceled. I would appreciate if this could happen as soon as possible, since cooperation locally is no longer possible even today, and mutual trust is rapidly dwindling. I think people in the foundation should get the problems I’ve raised here clear in their minds very soon and maybe, while they’re about it, discuss whether in the future my work at the school will even still be possible and welcome, and if so, in what shape or form. […] From my remarks you can see that I do not want to put any obstacles in the way of a structural change that according to you and many others who work here is more in keeping with p resent-day circumstances. It’s absolutely not a matter of prestige for me. I’d like to regain my freedom as quickly as possible, which would no doubt make Mrs. Aicher’s work easier as well.” 852 Otl Aicher was glad that Max Bill seemed to agree to his proposals. But in his answer to Max Bill on 24 February 1956 he said he was not prepared to have an initial preliminary trial period of collective management. This trial stage was to apply only to “the relationship between you and the school, which needs to be redefined.” On the issue of school leadership he urges Max Bill to make “a clear decision along the lines of a management committee that guarantees shared responsibility. Here we have experience, which, however, we lack as regards your new relationship to the school. […] I’d like to thank you in particular for the fact that there’s been no animosity in this matter“ – this was precisely what he had feared, and that clearly shows the attitude and relationship of the college's founders toward each other. 853 On 29 February 1956 Max Bill submitted to the foundation a 22-point agreement that would define his continuing cooperation with the college and be the precondition for annulling his contractual relationship of 4 February 1956.854 Otl Aicher had gotten his hopes up too soon, for in this outline Max Bill included quite a few demands that were his way of expressing “animosity”. The first four points concerned his position at the HfG, and clearly show that he had not the least intention of giving up his dominant position: the HfG was to be directed by a committee that had to report to Max Bill; the resolutions of the committee were to be subject to his veto; Max Bill reserved the right to initiate proposals in financial and appointment questions;
185
The rectorship of Bill
186
Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm , p. 37f.
“Admission to the college is an initiation rite. The students give each other haircuts. The haircut is the first stage of the initiation. A very short haircut. […]
the administration would need to have financial resolutions countersigned by Max Bill. Thus while Max Bill would have g iven up his rector’s rank, he would have kept his fundamental powers. And that wasn’t all. The foundation and college were supposed to pay for Max Bill’s withdrawal with some further substantial concessions: He was to be allowed to work together with students and staff and faculty of all departments, even with personnel from outside the HfG, in all college facilities; he would be entitled to three rooms that had been provided for him as the rector, as well as a secretary and an assistant who had to be paid for by the foundation; Günther Schlensag and Max Bill, 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
all facilities were to be at his disposal: office and apartment, including heat, telephone, postal charges, plus workshop services including material; finally the foundation was also to pay travel expenses and cover taxes on these; the foundation was to commission him with architectural designs of all future foundation buildings, while it would take care of supervising construction itself; from all German c ommissions the foundation assigned to him it would receive 30 percent, while it would receive nothing from all foreign commissions; Max Bill and his staff were to be exempted from contributions to the foundation for their work as writers and freelance artists; he was to receive a comprehensive right to organize social and educational events, to criticize the HfG and foundation publicly, and to visit classes; Max Bill wanted to reserve a right to veto the HfG’s promotional material;
The second stage is to stop using capital letters. Not for historical or linguistic reasons. It’s more expedient. […] The third stage is to drop last names, the burden of your origin. […]
The last stage: to change your way of thinking. To reassemble the way you think and feel. Especially because there’s constant pressure to give a reason for everything (everything!). Anyone who’s been in Ulm has gone through this initiation.
in return he would waive all reimbursement for his teaching; with this contract Max Bill was to be released from his responsibility; the contract could be terminated without notice and only unilaterally by Max Bill. Barely a week later, on 8 March 1956, Inge AicherScholl and Max Bill discussed the 6 March 1956 draft of the college bylaws (still called the “provisional bylaws”), which Max Bill opposed. 855 This draft provided for an organization of the HfG where responsibility would be divided among two groups: a governing board and a council. Overall, the radical-democratic ideas that had been talked about as recently as the beginning of the year had again been curtailed: The running of the HfG was to be in the hands of the governing board, which would comprise a minimum of three and a maximum of nine members. The first governing board was to be appointed by the head of the foundation (that is, by Inge Aicher-Scholl). Its chair was to remain in office for a year, head meetings, but not be able to cast the deciding vote when there was a tie. The members of the board would not be able to appoint proxies. The head and the administrative director of the foundation were to be advisory members of the board but have no vote. The extended council of the HfG was to take part in running the school in an advisory capacity. It was to comprise the head and the administrative director of the foundation, all lecturers, assistants and heads of workshops, two student representatives, the managing chairperson, and the administrative director, and had a right to make proposals for all matters that c oncerned the HfG. The governing board was to report to the council. The meetings of the council were to be convened and chaired by a representative of the governing board. On 14 March 1956 Max Bill and the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung concluded an agreement that canceled Max Bill’s previous 14 March 1954 contract as of 31 March 1956 “by mutual consent”. 856 The two parties did not establish a new employeremployee relationship with this contract: Max Bill was no longer an employee of the foundation and only on Kuhberg “as a guest”, i.e., as a “consultant” of the head of the foundation and of the HfG leadership, and as an “independent contractor” of the Institute of Product Design. The contract was a compromise for both sides, for Max Bill’s maximum demands were cut back while the foundation was forced to take a few steps in the direction of the former rector:
Anyone who’s been through it has received a sort of secularized holy spirit. […]Anyone who’s been integrated here will have a hard time getting readjusted to normal behaviors and circumstances.”
The pictures show the admission of the new students in October 1956. Photos:Hans Conrad
Max Bill had the right to make proposals in all matters that concerned the HfG; he had the right to work with all students “within the framework of the college's pedagogical program. This work was considered to be part of the students’ training and was to be done in the departments of the college itself or in venues available elsewhere, within the college as a rule”; he was allowed to employ his own staff, but at his own expense; he had access to all rooms and workshops; he was allowed to organize events as part of the curriculum; he received no remuneration for his activity; only an architect’s fee would be due as soon as he designed additional foundation buildings; the foundation undertook to pay the expenses for Max Bill’s activities on Kuhberg: It paid his secretary and assistant; it put its administrative services at his disposal; it paid travel expenses and the taxes for the latter;
The contract was supplemented by three documents dated the same day: an arbitration agreement857 and two letters from Inge Aicher-Scholl to Max Bill. In the first letter she confirmed that he was to continue as the architect planning all future foundation buildings. 858 In the second letter she informed him that he belonged to the governing board as an associate member: “That means you will regularly be invited with an agenda to the meetings, and have access at all times to the meetings of the governing board; you are to b e heard by them upon request. If a resolution is voted on, you have the same right to vote as the regular members. You are not obligated to participate regularly in the governing board meetings. The same is true by analogy of participation in the college's extended council.” 859 The entire contract still had to have the blessing of the administrative council. 860 The end of Max Bill’s rectorship offers a nother opportunity to assess this founding and development phase from a financial point of view. Here a “A hundred times, he’d look up and see the stool, that Platonic idea of a chair: two boards vertical and one horizontal, all firmly dovetailed, held together underneath by a round wooden dowel. Stools like the original building blocks for this building.“ Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 26. Photo: Ulrich Burandt Archive: HfG (Depositum 32/1)
from all of Max Bill’s commissions that were negotiated by the foundation, the foundation received 30 percent; for commissions that were not negotiated with the help of the foundation, Max Bill kept all rights and royalties, but he reimbursed the foundation for any costs incurred; the foundation received no royalties or rights in the journalistic and artistic work of Max Bill, his assistant, and his secretary.
distinction needs to be made between two items: The financing of the college construction on the one hand was a priority during this time. It was not completely successful and placed a burden on the future, though that burden was not oppressive enough to seal the foundation’s fate. The foundation had debts of over DM 400,000, but to offset this the value of its assets was considerable. Besides there was a short-term deficit of almost DM 200,000 mark and a medium-term deficit of an additional DM 200,000 for the com-
187
The rectorship of Bill
188
pletion of the campus on the planned scale. – On the other hand there was the financing of the HfG’s operating expenses. During this period, this political issue did not yet have the serious effect it was to have in subsequent years. – Of course both items depended on each other, particularly in midrange planning. According to the plan, income from student fees and rents in particular was to make up an important part of total income; however, this situation could only occur once there was adequate classroom and housing space for students, and therefore the foundation had to try to expand and supplement the buildings as soon as possible. This in turn cost money that was not available at the time. But Inge Aicher-Scholl was already counting on the planned number of students (150) being reached in the coming year: “It will be necessary to finish the uncompleted parts of buildings and to build the student dormitories we had planned; if that isn’t done we can expect problems as soon as maximum enrollment is reached in the fall of 1957 through annual new admission of students.” 861
An assembly in 1955, when Max Bill still sat at the head of the table, in the so-called bathtub: Max Bill, librarian Andrea Schmitz to his left, then lecturers Helene Nonné-Schmidt, Walter Zeischegg, Tomás Maldonado, and Friedrich VordembergeGildewart, student representative Fred Hochstrasser, architect W. Florian Thienhaus, then work-shop heads Cornelius Uittenhout, Josef Schlecker, and Paul Hildinger, construction manager Fritz Pfeil, also Otl Aicher, Inge Aicher-Scholl and administrative director Günther Schlensag. Photo: Hans Conrad
189
1958
1 Jan. The European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community are established. 10 March Publicatio n of “Fight nuclear death!”, a protest by intellectuals, politicians, and labor union members against the federal government’s plans to arm the Bundeswehr with nuclear weapons.
1956
25 July The Bundestag adopts the introduction of compulsory military service.
17 Apr.-19 Oct. Brussels World Fair. 13 May The coup by French officers in Algeria causes the end of the Fourth Republic.
17 Aug. The KPD is banned by the Federal Constitutional Court. 23/24 Oct. The Soviet military put down the popular uprising in Budapest. 1 Dec. Full employment in Germany.
1957
1 Jan. The Saarland becomes the tenth Land of the Federal Republic of Germany. 25 March The Rome Treaties confirm the establishment of the European Economic Community and the Atomic Energy Community with France, Italy, and the Benelux states.
1960
15-18 April The first nationwide Easter protest marches. 1959
2 Jan. Cuban guerilleros defeat the dictator Batista; Fidel Castro assumes power. 1July Heinrich Lübke succeeds Theodor Heuss as the federal president. 13 Nov. A special SPD party convention adopts the Godesberg program, thus becoming a national party .
The first riots by young rowdies.
1961
20 Jan. John F.Kennedy becomes the U.S. president. 17 March Franz-J osef Strauß becomes the chairman of the CSU. 11April The trial of SS head Adolf Eichmann begins in Jerusalem, ending on 15 December with Eichmann’s death sentence. 1June Birth control pills are approved in the Federal Republic.
1 Dec. One million TV sets are registered in Germany.
6 June The ministerpresidents of the Länder found the ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen).
21Dec. Charles de Gaulle becomes president of the 5th French Republic.
13 Aug. Since the beginning of the year, 150,000 refugees have registered at the Marienfelde transit camp in Berlin; in Berlin, co-lumns of Volksarmee soldiers and People’s Police begin to build the wall by putting up barbed-wire fences and barricades.
12 April Göttingen declaration by leading nuclear scientists against the plan to arm the Bundeswehr with atomic weapons. 4 Oct. The first manmade satellite, the Soviet sputnik, circles the Earth and causes sputnik shock.
In the course of the year, the SPD dissociates itself from its student organisation SDS.
4 Oct. 1957 Archive: dpa
13 Aug. 1961 Archive: dpa
1962
17 Aug. Peter Fechter is shot as he tries to escape to the West over the Berlin Wall; left lying in no man’s land, he bleeds to death. 26 Oct. The Spiegel affair begins that night as police search the editorial offices of the Hamburg news magazine. 28 Oct. End of the Cuban crisis after Khrushchev agrees to U.S. demands not to station Soviet mediumrange rockets in Cuba.
30 Oct. 1962 Archive: dpa
In class: Tomás Maldonado teaching his first basic course (15 March 1956), Hans Gugelot (30 May 1956), and Konrad Wachsmann (7 June 1956).
The governing boards March 1956 through December 1962
Photos: Hans Conrad
The members of the governing board did not wait until 1 April 1956, the date when, according to the contract, Max Bill’s term of office was to expire. The board was constituted as early as 19 March 1956. It consisted of the same members it had had since September 1955: Otl Aicher, Hans Gugelot, Tomás Maldonado, and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart; Max Bill was an associate member. 862 Tomás Maldonado was elected chairman for the period until the end of the current school year (30 September 1956).
192
Friedrich VordembergeGildewart surrounded by his paintings, 14 March 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
The board immediately (25 April 1956) passed a new version of college regulations, which differed from the preceding version only in two points: the rector was replaced by a governing board, and the quarterly tuition fees of the students were no longer a general DM 120, but fluctuated between DM 120 and 150. 863 Less than a month later, on 24 May 1956, the governing board passed the provisional bylaws of the HfG. 864 These bylaws were based on the ideas of Otl Aicher, which had been given legal form by Hellmut Becker. Because Max Bill had been a highhanded rector, who ran the HfG as a ruler and had imposed a hierarchy on its faculty, it seemed reasonable to establish exactly the opposite of these conditions. Despotism, the dependence of the HfG on the moods of one individual, even a genius like Max Bill, the fact that the foundation could be b lackmailed – the HfG’s bylaws were to prevent all this in the future. Otl Aicher’s vision of what the opposite of the previous rectorship would look like can be summed up by the ideals freedom, equality, and brotherhood. The HfG’s freedom from despotism and highhandedness was to be embodied in the basic equality of the lecturers, who were expected to act according to the principle of brotherhood. Cooper-
ation and collegiality were to replace hierarchy and hegemony. Anger about one person, however, was a poor guide in their search for new rules for running an institution. For the powerful rector was now replaced by a powerless governing board. The order of the HfG, which had only recently been seen as confining, was now broken up in the new bylaws. This breakup was not immediately noticeable, but that was because of the persons who made up the faculty in the initial period. But what if new lecturers joined the faculty and fell out with the senior lecturers, what if the faculty no longer lived up to the principles of collegiality and cooperation? Then the order of the HfG was at risk, and chaos loomed. If there is a point to the bylaws of an institution, then no doubt that point is that they lay down the rules for emergency situations. There is no need for bylaws when everything is coming up roses. But that means that bylaws cannot bring about the conditions they take for granted when push c omes to shove, namely when there is doubt, dissent, discord. The bylaws the governing board passed on 24 May 1956 took for granted the collegiality and cooperation of the HfG members because their regulations were based on these behavior patterns. That means that the bylaws were worthless as soon as the lecturers no longer saw each other as having the same rights and equal value, when they no longer cooperated with each other, and when they dragged the students into the maelstrom of their arguments. And that means that the bylaws were completely useless (because they were no help when they were needed).
new bylaws would not alter human nature. As a result Otl Aicher was suspected of not observing the rules of a game he had set up himself. The reason the HfG’s bylaws were called “provisional” was that they regulated only responsibility within the HfG for its operation as an educational institution. Additional sections were to regulate the HfG’s relations with the foundation and student affairs, but within the framework of the by-laws it never came to that. As announced, the college’s administration was now shared by two bodies: the governing board and the council, which was broken down into the inner and extended council in 1958. The governing board constituted the school administration and was accountable to the foundation’s managing chairperson: an aspect that was not without significance, for here, too, one fact had been forgotten – that Inge Aicher Scholl might leave this position and someone else might take charge. The governing board was to consist of three to nine members who would be replaced from among the regular faculty. The first four full members and the one associate member (Max Bill) were appointed by the managing chairperson of the foundation. The chair of the governing board was really only a primus inter pares, for his was not the deciding vote. Another thing that is interesting is the regulation that seems to be tailor-made especially for Max Bill: “The governing board, with a 3/4 majority, may ask any member to resign from the governing board; this request must be complied with.” One wonders why this distortion of the meaning of a “request” was found to be necessary.
Max Bill realized that he had been given a pretext when he was told that the “structures” of the HfG had to be changed in order to do justice to a changed situation. However, he saw that behind this assertion were human and, increasingly, professional differences. Otl Aicher also saw this, but he insisted on the argument that the “structures”, read: the inner order of the HfG, must be improved. Probably the simple truth – “Unfortunately we can’t get along with Max Bill” – would have met with more understanding among the public than was actually the case in 1957, for even though he was held in high esteem, Max Bill was known to be a difficult character. But Otl Aicher took the constitutional way, the one based on principles. He did not anticipate that this order could one day be directed against his own person. When this situation did arise in 1962, again it was not as though a clear separation was carried out by unpleasant persons. Again bylaws were called upon to provide a pretext for personal and professional differences. Of course, in 1962 everyone was aware what was really going on. In 1956 no one realized yet that
The council was to be the HfG’s parliament, which would meet every month and have the right to initiate measures “for all matters that concerned the college”. The governing board had to report to the council “about completing its tasks”. The council could have had a say in faculty appointments (because there was no express regulation regarding the question of appointments, it was naturally one of the matters that concerned the HfG) and could have taken the initiative itself, but in actual fact the council met only once, on 13 June 1956. The following persons had a seat in the council:
Detten Schleiermacher, 1 June 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
the permanent lecturers, the assistant lecturers, the heads of the workshops, one representative each of the students in each department and the basic course, the administrative director of the foundation, the business manager, and the executive secretary.
This list clearly shows that the council w ould have become a far too large and unwieldy body to be able to develop initiative power. By passing these bylaws on 24 May 1956, the governing board at the same time gave itself rules of procedure. 865 Incidentally, no one seemed to notice that these HfG bylaws were not passed in due form. The 1953 bylaws of the foundation had expressly determined, in section 13: “The structure and organization of the school of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung is regulated by special school bylaws that are worked out by the managing chairperson and are to be authorized by the advisory board.” However, in reality the initiative regarding these bylaws did not come from the managing chairperson, and they were also never authorized by the advisory board. Quite on the contrary we read: “Passed in the version on hand by the governing board at its 24 May 1956 meeting. Signed Tomás Maldonado (Chairman of the governing board)”. Certainly it was not discovered until 1962 that only a very small number of lecturers knew the bylaws of the foundation. If Max Bill, a member of the advisory board, had remembered this section, the HfG might have found itself in hot water. The new contract with Max Bill had financial consequences for the foundation. At its ninth meeting on 28 March 1956 the administrative council discussed these, and Max Bill put through another small change in favor of the students – later it became clear: in favor of his students.866 The share in commissions the foundation had granted him was now 65 percent for Max Bill (previously: 70 percent), 25 percent went to the foundation (instead of 30 percent), and the remaining 10 percent flowed into the scholarship fund of the foundation. The crucial clause read: “The decision as to how the scholarship moneys are to be distributed is yours” (i.e., Max Bill’s). 867 The representative of the federal ministry of economics, Walther Hinsch, expressed his astonishment and misgivings regarding the agreement with Max Bill: “Whenever we discussed the founding of the institution and its ongoing financing, we always assumed that the institution would support itself as fully as possible by means of paid commissions from industry. But if the person who has been the head of the institution to date, and to whom the institution no doubt owes many commissions it has received, now is given the right to continue accepting such commissions and to complete work on them in the institution while the greater part of the income goes to Mr. Bill, then this seems to me to be a fundamental change of previous intentions regarding the financing of the institution. Also I can’t quite see why Mr. Bill is to
193
The governing boards
Elisabeth Walther and Ernst Scheidegger, 7 June 1956. Photos:Hans Conrad
194
Max Bense and his panel “Freedom“, 6 June 1956. Photos:Hans Conrad
be allowed to enjoy such substantial privileges.“ 868 That was the financial price the foundation had to pay for ridding itself of Max Bill. Obviously this had not been made very clear to the members of the administrative council. They swallowed the bitter pill. Presumably this was not too hard for them, because at the same time a light appeared on the traditionally dark horizon. Paul Egon Hübinger, the head of the department of culture at the federal ministry of the interior, had been vehemently fighting to have a subsidy for the foundation included in the federal budget. Theodor Pfizer therefore invited him to terminate the interministerial agreement and to take the seat of the federal ministry of the interior, which had until then been occupied by Walter Weißwange on behalf of the federal minis-
DM 400,000 were necessary to complete all remaining construction at the HfG. 870 Of this amount, almost DM 90,000 had to be found as soon as possible in order to pay bills. Everywhere one looked, things still needed to be installed and built in: in the department of architecture, the basic course department, the cafeteria, the plastics workshop, the sanitary facilities, the rector’s office; the total deficit here was DM 300,000. It is true that the annual financial statement of 15 June 1956 included a good DM 75,000 in outstanding receivables and promises of donations, but the foundation tried to collect the major part of these items for years until the accountant wrote them off as a loss. In this situation the foundation was forced to economize ruthlessly. It did so, and successfully.
try of housing construction. In this letter there is also an example for the official version of Max Bill’s departure: The foundation, writes Theodor Pfizer, has made an agreement with Max Bill “[…] according to which Mr. Bill will in the future no longer head the college as its rector, but work as a consultant and freelance contributor. The school is now directed by a governing board […]. This change conforms to Mr. Bill’s wish to devote himself more intensively to creative tasks in the future (which was hardly possible for him during the last year of organizing the college), as well as to developing the college’s bylaws, a process that has been going on for some time. I am convinced that this new structure can do a great deal to help increase the school’s productivity. We all realize that by fall at the latest, new successes must be produced if the school is to receive the necessary subsidies from the Land and from the federal government.”869
A year later it turned out that the 1956/57 fiscal year had brought an increase in assets of almost DM 100,000.All told this was the second best result in the p eriod from 1953 through 1968. 871 Of course that did not mean that the foundation had liquid funds, but at least it had not created a deficit – on the contrary, it had increased its assets (an increase in investments and repayment of debts). How can this increase in assets be explained? Unfortunately it was not produced by additional receipts, but by the fact that the foundation spent less money. Personnel expenses had been a good DM 100,000 less than estimated, but at the same time that meant that the personnel situation was very tight. This, too, came home to them in March 1957, when many students started worrying that hardly any lecturers would remain if Max Bill and his faculty supporters left.
At midyear, the school’s financial situation remained unchanged: The foundation estimated that about
In the parliaments of the federal government and the Land, the foundation now had a better status. On 7 March 1956 the budget committee of the Bundestag resolved to increase support for cultural
activities by DM 450,000 to a total of DM 1.3 million. The HfG, too, profited by this, receiving a budgetary grant of DM 75,000. 872 A day before, on 6 March 1956, the topic of design or industrial design (referred to as Form gebung, since the term design had not yet been adopted into the German vocabulary) was on the agenda of a conference, in Darmstadt, of the Arbeitskreis für Industrielle Formgebung im Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (Association for Industrial Design in the Federal Association of German Industry). It was true, they said, that there was “a whole range of opinions about the best and most effective education and training for designers. At the Darmstadt conference the opinion was even voiced that a real training was not possible at all. […] In Darmstadt, arts and crafts schools in particular were described as made for the job of training designers“ – but this must not necessarily be interpreted as a dig at the HfG. For at this Darmstadt conference it was also decided to present a fundamental petition to the parliaments of all German Länder and to the Bundestag: “The good design of industrial p roducts in all areas – which must be achieved along with technical perfection – is of utmost importance for Germany’s reputation as a civilized country and for its position in the world market.” There was not enough young blood. That is why the members of the association urgently requested that existing institutes be subsidized and appropriate personalities be appointed to teach at technical schools, arts and crafts schools, or technical colleges. Only in North Rhine-Westphalia, they continued, the Landtag had worked on guidelines for arts and crafts schools in February 1956 and passed them, while there was a draft version of similar guidelines for Hesse. 873 Consequently the politicians in the Baden-Württemberg Landtag also addressed the issue of designer training, and that could only help the cause of the HfG, for this time the impetus came from a source that was completely above suspicion – from industry itself. The Landtag had, of course, authorized a subsidy of DM 200,000 to the foundation for 1956. During this debate the mayor of Pforzheim, Johann Brandenburg (FDP/DVP), supported the view that the HfG should not be the only place in the Land where design was taught. That is why he brought forward a motion that was subsequently enacted and decreed that the ministry of education and the arts was to work out proposals for the 1957 budget so that “personnel and the necessary material resources would be available for teaching design at technical colleges and/or academies of fine arts as well”. This motion had the same intentions as the petition of the Association for Industrial Design, and that is why Johann Brandenburg was
appointed as the parliamentary reporter for this topic. In mid-May 1956 Wolfgang Donndorf, the specialist adviser at the ministry of education and the arts, brought good news to Ulm. 874 He had called a meeting with representatives of the technical colleges and the academies of the Land in order to report to the Landtag which institutions of learning were interested in teaching design and what were their financial needs. In the process he “discovered that at the moment the technical colleges are not particularly interested in setting up professorships for design, i.e., designing machines or objects of daily use, and likewise the Karlsruhe State Academy of Fine Arts for the time being does not wish to set up a special department or classes in industrial design.” Only the Stuttgart Academy announced it was interested, and was accordingly asked to submit a memorandum to the ministry of educations and the arts. In other words, one might say that the result of this discussion was that the HfG was recognized by the technical colleges and the Karlsruhe academy as a training center for designers. This meant competition for Land funds was no longer as fierce, and an important argument of those who looked at the HfG skeptically was invalidated, for it was generally recognized that the HfG performed services that most traditional colleges of the Land did not offer. Of course, the memorandum of the Stuttgart academy did try to justify its own need for Land funds for design instruction by disparaging the HfG. For one, they said, there was already a tenyear tradition for what amounted to the teaching of design (meaning that in Stuttgart they also had Johann Brandenburg (FDP/DVP) (24 March 1905–3 March 1977), mayor of Pforzheim (1946–66), member of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag (1946–64 and 1968–76). Photo: unknown (ca. 1955) Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (LBW 73/41)
the necessary experience); for another, instruction in Ulm was limited by the fact that no courses in art were offered: “Occasionally the question has been raised whether setting up a department for industrial design at one of the existing colleges has not become superfluous with the founding of the Ulm school. The present remarks show that this subject already has a half-century tradition at the Stuttgart school, that industrial design has again been taught here, even before the founding of the Ulm school, since this school’s reestablish-
195
The governing boards
On Inge Aicher-Scholl’s birthday on 11 August 1956 several wellknown pictures were taken on the patio, including this one (dated by Hans Conrad).
ment in 1946, so that today all we need to do is to develop this area of specialization correspondingly by appointing a number of faculty and authorizing relatively minimal funds in order to add to workshop facilities and to carry out experiments. […] The type of training will be different in Stuttgart than in Ulm, because in Stuttgart the training of industrial designers goes hand in hand with training the students in the remaining aspects of the arts.”875
196
In order to defuse this description, Inge AicherScholl invited the special adviser of the Landtag on design questions, Johann Brandenburg, to visit the HfG. Up till then there had been no such reporter for design; only Walter Erbe (FDP/DVP) had taken on this topic because of personal interest and for the benefit of the HfG. As part of the yearly “mobilization” (Theodor Pfizer) for next year’s Land subsidy Johann Brandenburg’s vote had a particularly strong influence on the members of parliament. Theodor Pfizer described in graphic terms how important self-confidence and clear communication were in gaining supporters: “The deciding factor continues to be whether men like Brandenburg get a good and especially a concrete impression. False reticence, too much secretiveness, explanations that the average person can’t understand are out of place now. It seems the federal government will go along with us if the Land in turn takes a positive stance.” 876
Otl Aicher conducts the group photograph on his wife’s birthday. Photo: Hans Conrad
On 4 November 1956 Johann Brandenburg took the whole day to get to know the HfG. The visit was a complete success, as Inge Aicher-Scholl reported to Walter Erbe: “We were able to establish good rapport with Mr. Brandenburg, and I have a feeling that he is quite impressed with our work. Mr. Brandenburg said that he must now revise a few mistaken ideas about the work of the college. […] We’ve already told him that it’s not exactly beneficial for the work of our institute if year after
The complete picture appears in: Christiane Wachsmann (ed.), “Design ist gar nicht lehrbar“ , p.46. The date given there, however, is the goodbye party for Konrad Wachsmann in the summer of 1954.
The people in the photograph are identified in the HfG-Synopse . Photo: unknown
only if industry provided an adequate share of HfG financing. That is why Inge Aicher-Scholl worded her urgent request to Hermann Josef Abs as follows: “Provided that we are successful in getting DM 250,000 from the industrial federations with your help, I believe I can assure you with a clear conscience that, at least for the next three years, the college can do its work free from appreciable financial worries.” Four-fifths of this sum, of course, were still needed for the completion of the HfG building. “That would mean the end of all expenditures for the college building, so that only relatively minor, ongoing additions would be necessary.” As for the remaining DM 50,000, Inge Aicher-Scholl wanted to use them as the cornerstone for the construction of a second residential high-rise for students. However, she had learned from experiyear the same difficulties come up when the Land subsidy is granted, and if the ministry of finance keeps trying to cut back . This year we requested DM 200,000 hoping that we will get another DM 75,000 subsidy from the federal government.” 877 This hope was justified. The budget of the federal ministry of the interior for 1957 included an item for the foundation (as it had for 1956), a sum of DM 75,000. And the cabinet of the Land of Baden-Württemberg did provide for a subsidy of DM 180,000 in its 1957 draft budget at any rate. Inge Aicher-Scholl relied on the fact that with each authorized subsidy for the foundation, precedents would be increasingly set for the future. As a result the fundamental financing plan changed at the same time. In the plans up to this time there had been the promise that the financing shares that came from private donors and industry could be increased to the point where they would soon exceed the public share. In actual fact, however, the public monies were already the pillar that upheld the foundation. And in the meantime Inge Aicher-Scholl also began naming the public funds as the school’s chief source of income for the future. Hermann Josef Abs, for example, who had been very important in raising private and industrial funds up till then, declared that he would be willing to renew his support for the HfG at the Association for Industrial Design in the Federal Association of German Industry only if financing for the next three years was guaranteed. This continuous financing could be ensured only by the p ublic sector. Inge AicherScholl therefore tried to reassure him on reliable authority that the foundation had good chances of getting such financing: “Now that subsidies have been received several years in a row, we believe we may assume that they will b e granted in future as well.” On the other hand, we must not overlook the dilemma that federal and Land politicians could most easily be induced to grant subsidies
The Landtag politicocultural committee visits the HfG, 1 February 1957. Left: minister of education and the arts Gotthilf Schenkel (SPD). Right: Committee chairman Karl Brachat (CDU) (24 April 1901–24 May 1971). Photos: Hans Conrad
ence that this new building could no longer be paid for exclusively with donations, but with a mixture of the school’s own capital funds, monies from the Bundesjugendplan (Federal Youth Plan), American endowment funds, and a mortgage and loan. 878 Inge Aicher-Scholl’s hope that the foundation would be indefinitely endowed with Land subsidies was confirmed by the politico-cultural committee toward the end of the year. On 7 December 1956 the committee once more discussed the fundamental question as to how design should be taught and designers should be trained. The representatives of the ministry of education and the arts again submitted their draft, in which they described their experience, drawing the following conclusion as to how the Land was to promote design: “The ministry of education and the arts had emphasized that there were two ways designers were to be trained – firstly, in a special independent and comprehensive institute, and secondly in connection with an existing college of art. In the case of the former, the ministry was thinking of
the college in Ulm, while in the case of the second alternative they had in mind the Academy of Fine Arts in Stuttgart. […] Next the minister of education and the arts said that the question of designer training was linked to the competitiveness of industry, including its competitiveness with other countries. The rest of the world was far ahead of [Germany]. The issue was urgent, and industry had already seriously started doing something about it.” 879 In passing, a short digression to the debate shows the politico-cultural reservations that representatives of all parties had toward the HfG: “A member of parliament in the F DP/DVP thought people in Ulm should get away from the term ‘college’ . After all, the school was an arts and crafts school. […] A CDU member thought the name ‘school of design’ in Ulm had so far not been practically realized. The school must be given more time to get rid of structural defects. The overemphasis on theory and intellectuality could be explained by the period when the school was founded . […] An SPD member asked whether a designer should be trained according to Ulm notions, i.e., as an architect of doorknobs and engineer of chair legs; rather, wasn’t one forced to combine design and practice? Finally it was decided both to visit Ulm and to have a nonpublic information session in Stuttgart.” This visit by the politico-cultural committee took place on 1 February 1957. And just as a few weeks earlier Johann Brandenburg had been positively surprised, so now the members of the committee were convinced of the HfG’s promising development. Many politicians had already visited the HfG on 31 October 1955, of course, so that they could now venture a comparison. An SPD member said “his second tour [of the college] took a load off his mind, and he asked whether they should already begin gradually reducing the government subsidy by 10 percent.” The committee’s information session, which included representatives from industry and the Stuttgart Academy, the HfG (Otl Aicher 880), and the Pforzheim and Schwäbisch Gmünd technical institutes, was scheduled for 1 March 1957 in Stuttgart. The politicians asked for answers to the following questions: How important was design in increasing productivity and sales in Germany and abroad? How necessary was it to design articles of daily use? How many designers did industry need at the moment, how was this demand met, and how would it develop in the future? What recommendations did industry and trade have for the training of designers? and What institutions, in the opinion of industry and trade, were appropriate for [designer] training?
197
The governing boards
198
Joint meeting of the Swiss and BadenWürttemberg Werkbund, on 20 and 21 Oct. 1956. At the speaker’s podium in the auditorium:Max Bill.
The summing up was very encouraging for the HfG: Industry representatives felt that design offered an important prospect for increasing exports, but added that they had only a limited capability for training the necessary new designers. That is why specialized institutions for the training of designers were indispensable: “Designers are primarily artists, not technicians. Technical colleges and schools of engineering are not primarily there to train designers; that must be the task of specialized schools.” This is why the members of the Carl and Alice Zuckmayer visit the HfG on 14/15 Jan. 1957, shown talking with Inge Aicher-Scholl. Photo: Hans Conrad
politico-cultural committee took away with them from this meeting the realization that design should be subsidized in Baden-Württemberg, and that designer training at the HfG, the Stuttgart Academy, and the Pforzheim and Schwäbisch Gmünd technical schools should be supported and expanded. As a result of the meeting they settled on an appropriate sum, which they unanimously passed in their 20th session on 8 March 1957. 881 Today we know that the HfG’s many visits to various Land and federal politico-cultural offices and departments were thus over, for the time being. Inge Aicher-Scholl had reached her goal: Design had become a relevant topic that was regarded as an essential economic and cultural factor by all sides. She had not reached this goal on her own – let us remember institutions like the Association for Industrial Design, the Werkbund , or the Design Council, or politicians like Johann Brandenburg, who had originally been interested only in Pforzheim. But the HfG was in more or less close contact with all these supporters of d esign. For instance, Otto Bartning, one of the foundation’s trustees, was a member of the Design Council; other regular members of the c ouncil were members of the foundation’s administrative council: Walther Hinsch (federal ministry of economics) and Josef Alfons Thuma (Land Trade Supervision Office, Stuttgart). Through Hermann Josef Abs, the foundation had direct access to the Association of Industrial Design, and several members of the Werkbund were also members of the Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. On 20 and 21 October 1956 there had even been a
joint conference of the Swiss and the Baden-Württemberg Werkbund at the HfG at which all the prominent people in Good Design with the exception of the chairman (Hans Schwippert) had rendezvoused. Besides Max Bill and the philosopher Max Bense ( of the Technische Hochschule Stuttgart – Stuttgart Technical College – and g uest lecturer at the HfG in the introductory program and the department of information) Alfred Roth (chairman of the Swiss Werkbund) and Otto Haupt (chairman of the Baden-Württemberg Werkbund) had presented papers. 882 But the HfG had not only been instrumental in placing design on the agenda; at the beginning of 1957 it was now one of the recognized design institutions. The subsidy itself to the foundation for the HfG’s operating expenses was now no longer an issue in the Landtag and the Bundestag (it did not come up again until 1963); now the only focus of discussion was the size of the subsidy. After the unheard-of success represented by the very founding and establishment of the HfG, this parliamentary success was Inge AicherScholl’s second extraordinary achievement. From now until 1963 the political history of the HfG shifts into the HfG itself. After the battles with the outside world had been won for the most part, there followed a period on Kuhberg that may be perceived, depending on one’s perspective, as one of consolidation and development or of permanent crisis. If we look at the output of these years, these were the most productive in the HfG’s history. In every area – pedagogically, financially, and in terms of personnel and structure – there was expansion and intensification. Within a short time the HfG and the foundation developed into institutions that were considerably different from those that existed in 1956. This qualitative transformation is also made clear by the recollections of former students who, depending on when they studied at the HfG, experienced a completely different atmosphere. In the early part of 1957 one could assume that the HfG would develop along orderly lines. A breath of normality wafted over Kuhberg: The federal government and the Länder had agreed to provide continuous, modest subsidies; many previously skeptical politicians who were interested in cultural and educational policy had in the meantime become convinced of the HfG’s necessity; almost all the traditional colleges of the Land recognized that the HfG filled a gap in the education system of Baden-Württemberg – to say nothing of the first internationally noted successes involving products of the Braun company. This was the calm before the storm that was to erupt over Kuhberg in February 1957 with a vehemence that shook the HfG’s very foundations. I
199
Photo: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (56/0240)
have three reasons for describing this conflict in detail: First of all, the Bill crisis for a long time dominated the picture the general public had of the HfG, so that the memory of this crisis was a factor that influenced the later development of the HfG. Secondly, many events were symptomatic of the attitude at the HfG, which is why these patterns help to understand the school. And thirdly there is still lack of clarity about the immediate and deeper reasons that led to a separation between the foundation and Max Bill. To date only Eva von Seckendorff has given a brief summary of the Bill crisis, but in this connection her attention is focused chiefly on differences between design theories.883 The 14 March 1956 agreement between the foundation and Max Bill stipulated that he had the
right “to work [with a ll students] within the framework of the college's pedagogical program. This work is considered to be part of the students’ training and will be done in the departments of the college itself or in space available elsewhere, as a rule within the college.” 884 Thereupon, on 6 April 1956, Max Bill posted on the bulletin board a call to all students who were interested in working with him (instead of doing department work) to see his secretary Eugen Gomringer.885 Three-quarters of a year later, on 31 January 1957, people noticed that on the d oor of the room where Max Bill worked with students of the department of product design there was a sign saying, “No admittance except for members of the atelier”.886 No one knows exactly, but apparently Max Bill in conversation with Mia Seeger and Gregor Paulsson during the Werkbund conference. Photo: Hans Conrad
The governing boards
Braun‘s boothat the
The company’s booth at the German TV trade fair in Stuttgart, 31Aug.–3 Sept. 1956, with designs by Herbert Hirche.
German radio, TV, and hi-fi trade fair in Düsseldorf, 26 Aug.–4 Sept. 1955, when “Snow White’s coffin” was first introduced to the public.
200
“What is remarkable about Ulm are its taboos. Bill and the crisis are taboo, as are politics and expression, style and eroticism. And art. He recalled that missionary from Kuhberg, who said years ago that [at the HfG] there was still too much art. […] The most interesting thinkers at the college are artists, or former artists:Bill and Maldonado, his successor […].“
the sign had been put up only a short time ago. Presumably it bothered Max Bill and the students that the other lecturers also came into these rooms while instruction was going on. What did people find provoking? Was it the fact that they c ould not enter Bill’s rooms during class, or that Max Bill and his students cut themselves off by means of the sign? That’s a matter of perspective. The fact that either behavior could be seen as provocation implies that neither side was willing to take things calmly and to compromise. The following week, on 6 February 1957, the governing board (Otl Aicher, Hans Gugelot, Tomás Maldonado, Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart) had a discussion about this sign. 887 Max Bill was not in Ulm. The lecturers of the governing board decided on an energetic move: ”Recognizing a ‘Bill
Photos:Hans Conrad
this view.” 888 “Mr. Bill then stated that he no longer had personal confidence in any member of the governing board. The only thing that still interested him at this college were the students with whom he was working.” 889 Günther Schlensag went on to report that Max Bill had declared “he would leave the college if the resolution of the governing board was not revised”. 890 Max Bill thus took on the test of strength, trusting that the HfG could not do without him, the most renowned of its lecturers, under any circumstances. In fact the legal question of whether Max Bill was authorized to maintain his own atelier at the HfG was by no means the determining factor in the attitude of the governing board, nor in that of Max Bill. If this had been only about finding a form and a way of describing Max Bill’s work a t the HfG, Max Bill and Tomás Maldonado in December 1956. Photo:Hans Conrad
dents received class credit for this work. That was why the term ‘Bill Atelier’ was necessary; incidentally, the expression ‘atelier’ for a working team was absolutely normal at other colleges and universities. If he was forbidden to use the term ‘Bill Atelier’ by the governing board, he regarded this as a decision that no longer permitted him to continue working at the college; there was only one thing for him to do – leave.“ In contrast, the arguments of administrative director Schlensag were weaker: “I told Mr. Bill that there was no provision for opening a ‘Bill Atelier’ in his contract with the foundation. Also such an expression could not be introduced by him without authorization. A specific argument against the expression was that people might get the impression that this was an independent school within the college, and this should be avoided. The training of students was part of instruction in the departments, and in this respect Mr. Bill was also active as a teacher, even if he was not employed as one. The passage in the contract stating that work with Mr. Bill ‘ counted as instruction’ had been included because collaboration between him and students in each individual case was based on a free agreement.” 891 At its 12 February 1957 meeting the governing board affirmed its decision: It was “unanimous in its opinion that a ‘Bill Atelier’ must not be allowed to exist within the college, since this c ompromised educational unity”. 892 Otl Aicher informed Max Bill of this decision, but at the same time offered him the opportunity to give in: “The arrangements between you and the foundation laid down in the contract shall not be infringed upon by this. However, the governing board considers it advisable to clarify, together with you, any questions that have been left open. I have been asked by the governing board to inform you of our decision and at the same time to express the wish that you will continue to work at the college.” 893 It is hard to tell
Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 50.
Atelier’ might mean, in practice, that we accept a private institute within our institution. The executive board has decided to have said sign taken down and asks Mr. Schlensag to settle the legal side of the matter beyond all doubt with Mr. Bill.” As I said, no one was willing to compromise anymore. But perhaps this decision was merely intended to be a test of strength to put Max Bill in his place. The administrative director, Günther Schlensag, discussed the matter calmly with Max Bill on 8 and 9 February 1957. “Mr. Bill reasoned that the term was a logical deduction from the contract between the foundation and him. […] Mr. Bill stated that from various indications he already had the impression that there was the intention to get rid of him, whereupon I replied that I could not share
both sides would have reached an agreement. But that had already been the subject of the 14 March 1956 agreement. The point of the latter had been, on the one hand, to have Max Bill continue to teach HfG students, and on the other hand to keep him as far away from the HfG as possible. In essence this arrangement was thus based on two contradictory intentions. That was why Max Bill’s interpretation was legitimate: “Mr. Bill’s position was that according to the contract he had concluded with the foundation he was not a faculty member at the college when he worked with students of the departments on practical projects. While he was under an obligation to respect the curriculum, teaching schedule, and general educational goals of the college, his work with the students was not regular instruction, though the stu-
Herbert Pée at the opening of a Max Bill exhibition in the Ulm museum, 10 Feb. 1957. On the left wearing a scarf: Claude Schnaidt. Photo: Hans Conrad
how serious this offer that they continue working together really was. But if conflicting views on design were indeed the real reason for the clashes, as all those who were involved said a few weeks later, then this offer by the g overning board can
only be interpreted as a maneuver by the board to keep all their options open in order to be able to reassure the public that they had d one everything to keep Max Bill. The latter took the offensive and on 20 February 1957 wrote a letter threatening to resign: “I have taken a close look at your letter of 12 February 1957. I see in it the expression of such great distrust regarding my work at the college that I cannot help feeling that you believe it is better if in the future you bear the responsibility for directing the college yourself, and alone. I don’t see any possibility of continuing to work at the college if your decision is to be regarded as final. I regret that you have a mistaken impression about the meaning of ‘Max Bill Atelier’, but I am of the opinion that other reasons appear to be even more important to you and have induced you to use this expression as a pretext for getting rid of my inconvenient person.” 894 On the same day Max Bill had a conversation with administrative director Günther Schlensag and the foundation’s managing chairperson, Inge Aicher-Scholl. She explained that the governing board had made its decision, and therefore proposed a separation by mutual agreement. Max Bill asked for a week to think about it so that he could discuss the matter with his wife. Until then the two HfG founders agreed to observe the strictest silence. 895 Indeed there was every prospect of keeping the conflict restricted to the lecturers. But Max Bill did not keep his promise to remain silent. He probably felt his hopes were dashed and reckoned that his chances would be good if he were supported by the majority of the students and there was pressure from outside. That is why he broke the agreement and informed the student representative Walter Schaer of his imminent departure from the HfG. The latter immediately wrote a letter to the governing board that at the same time was posted by the student council, and asked for “a complete explanation regarding the following question […]: Is it true that Mr. Bill will definitively leave the School of Design in the near future? […] We therefore think it is important to state that we are merely asking a question on principle, just as we would do in any similar situation that could bring about a substantial change in the structure of the School of Design.” 896 The governing board still remained silent, paralyzed by Max Bill’s beginning offensive. The latter added fuel to the fire on 26 February 1957 with an answer that was also publicly posted: “In response I’d like to say that since my resignation in the spring of 1956 I have been a faculty member only in the capacity of visiting lecturer, and that I am responsible for part of the training only inasmuch as it takes place in the sector I called the ‘Bill Atelier’. Recently the governing board, during my absence, unanimously forbade
201
The governing boards
202
me to use this expression. […] For me the Ulm School of Design represents only one area within a far more extended cultural program. Not the school, but the personalities that come from it and are shaped by it are the reason that since the early part of 1950 I worked hard helping to organize this college and trying to attract suitable faculty members.”897 But that was not all. Up to this point Max Bill’s remarks could still be interpreted as parting shots and last justifications of someone who was stepping down. But on 28 February 1957, in a letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl, he reneged on the announcement of his resignation. If he had spoken of separation, he wrote, this was to be understood as a sharp separation within the HfG: “My atelier has a connection with training at the college, and thus with the college itself only in so far as the work carried out by students there is recognized as instruction, according to our agreement. […] The ‘Max Bill Atelier’ has nothing to do with the gentlemen of the governing board; their interference is unwarranted. My activities, referred to as the ‘Max Bill Atelier’, have no other purpose than that laid down in our agreement. The reason that a separation expressed by that term is necessary both for the college and me personally is that this way neither the college has to identify with my projects, nor I with the projects of the college. Added to this there is the fact that I am not an employee either of the college or of the foundation. All I want to do at the college is to be able to work in peace, with due regard to our agreement, without constantly being disturbed there by a few troublemakers and Left: Warren Robbins during a lecture on the history of American jazz, 26 Jan. 1957. Right: Sociologist Prof. Pollock as a visiting lecturer, 8 Jan. 1957. Photos:Hans Conrad
envious people. […] As I already informed the student representative, I wouldn’t dream of spending my old age in Ulm. That means that I intend very gradually to transfer my activities from Ulm back to Zurich again. The basis for this is the ‘Max Bill
Atelier’, as a result of which, in the course of time, I intend quite naturally to phase out my active work in Ulm. I believe that such a solution is in the interest of all those involved. I therefore request that you take the view with the governing board that we should fully adhere to our agreement; that the ‘Max Bill Atelier’ should ensure and maintain my independent work within the college at least for the time being, so that I can continue to contribute to and enrich the educational program at the college; and that the g entlemen of the governing board should not apply different standards to my work and their own, that is, that they should stop regularly judging the work of students who want to work with me negatively while they favor their own students and their special protégés, a phenomenon that strangely enough has become a habit of theirs recently.” 898 On the same date, 28 February 1957, the contracting parties Inge Aicher-Scholl and Günther Schlensag on the one hand and Max Bill on the other hand met for another conversation. But the positions were now unalterable. Max Bill insisted on remaining in Ulm, while Inge Aicher-Scholl wanted to remain in control: “You introduced the term ‘Bill Atelier’ on your own authority without consulting the management of the foundation or the governing board. By doing so you unquestionably overstepped the rights to which you are entitled , since this ‘Bill Atelier’ is supposed to comprise your activity and your work with students of the college within the college. […] Our agreement with you does not stipulate that you maintain a school of your own within the college; the students who work with you do not, for instance, get a leave of absence to do this work; rather, they are receiving their training within the framework of the college. […] Therefore I do not understand your remark, ‘The ‘Max Bill Atelier’ has nothing to do with the gentlemen of the governing board; their interference is unwarranted’. When you state that a separation between you and the college that is also expressed outwardly is necessary so that you do not need to identify with the work of the college nor the college with yours, and when I am forced to realize that you are making dispara ging remarks about the work of the college within the college and outside it, I cannot see the point of your continuing to work here. […] Under these circumstances one of the most important elements of our 14 March 1956 agreement no longer applies. It is completely out of the question that, with your attitude toward the college and its leadership, you can continue to be the consultant of the college administration and of the managing c hairperson of the foundation. […] Unfortunately I must insist that the matter be settled at once, since as a result of your statements the conflict has been publicized within and outside the college, and I
wish to give an explanation of what has been happening as promptly as possible.” 899 That night of 28 February 1957, Inge Aicher-Scholl made a statement, at first to the assembled lecturers and the heads of the workshops, and then to the students, giving a brief report about the situation from the perspective of the foundation and the governing board. Max Bill knew of this, but did not attend. 900 The faculty and the student body of the HfG began to drift apart into two factions. Even if the governing board was in the minority, they had a strategic advantage because together with the managing chairperson of the foundation they could legally create a fait accompli. The philosopher Max Bense, lecturer in the basic program and the department of information, who like the photographer Ernst Scheidegger and Elisabeth Walther (department of information) sided with Max Bill, defended his conduct and attacked the legal basis of the governing board: “At every academy and at every college there are such institutions [as the Max Bill Atelier; author’s note], and that includes Stuttgart. Over and above that, Bill is one of the school’s leading founders, and after all he did define at least the artistic and creative substance of the whole school. As far as I can see there are only two effective important contributions that were represented and became influential in the pedagogical objectives of the school and that supplemented the former program formulated by Bill: 1) the organization of classes and the distribution of subjects that was probably your work, Mr. Maldonado, and that gave and continues to give the school a firm curriculum, and 2) my own theorization of the established subjects and the scientific fixation of the terminology necessary for practicing design. My own theoretical goals, for instance, would not have been developed at the school had it not been for Bill’s theoretical goals and the productions of concrete art in general ( naturally I don’t want to make an exception of your own and those of Mr. Vordemberge-Gildewart). What I conclude from this is that the school cannot a fford, neither pedagogically nor ideologically, to allow Mr. Bill to leave or even to resign. […] It is a fact that Mr. Bill’s differences with the school, and my own differences as well, were caused by the failure or nonfunctioning of the governing board, whose task is to serve intellectual, not economic or internal policy interests […]. I believe that the continuing existence of the governing board is a mistake, indeed, out of the question, because in the board the administration and the foundation presumably play a more important part than the faculty, and unfortunately, as I was forced to observe, internal policy and economic interests have been better represented than intellectual
ones. […] There is no point in making a different contract with Mr. Bill unless the bylaws of the present board, which concluded the c ontroversial contract with Mr. Bill, are abolished and new rectorship bylaws are instituted (with a rector whose term in office is to be one or two years). […] This written statement is not intended to be posted on the bulletin board.” 901 On 5 March 1957 Inge Aicher-Scholl tried to get the situation under control by taking it out of the HfG’s reach and placing it in the care of the administrative council. 902 Max Bill on the other hand made it very clear by his letter to Inge AicherScholl on the same date that he was not willing to be forced out of the HfG: “Since I realize by what means people who are only too interested are planning to bring about the downfall of a cause that is good in and of itself, I see no reason and no possibility to resign. It would be irresponsible toward all those who are still under the impression that the college is intellectually a unified whole, and for whom my reputation and my name guarantees the direction of the college. […] I repeat, as far as I am c oncerned, all I want to do at the college is to be allowed to work in peace, with due regard for our agreement.” 903 Two days later “the students of the Bill Atelier”, in a memorandum about “the general crisis of confidence within the college” joined the offensive against the governing board. 904 This crisis of confidence, they claimed, had not only divided the lecturers among themselves, but also students on the one hand and lecturers on the other. At that time, it is true, a majority of students still seem to have pronounced themselves in favor of Max Bill Visiting lecturer Alexander Mitscherlich (on the left) next to Erich Franzen, 12 Dec. 1956; seated in front of them is Claude Schnaidt. Photo:Hans Conrad
remaining at the HfG, but in the final analysis very few were willing to risk a split in the HfG. Of course, Immo Krumrey, who had signed the letter for the students who supported Bill, was able to win on points: “In the written response of the governing
203
The governing boards
From the left: Hans-Günther Sperlich, Thomas Rago, Gerhard Eichhorn, and Hermann Haan in 1957. Photos: Hans Conrad
204
Konrad Lorenz during a visit to the HfG in 1957, in conversation with Otl Aicher.
board, there is a mention of Mr. Bill’s ‘school within a school’. In this connection we refer you to the wording of the school’s prospectus: ‘The structural organization of the college is similar to a free joining together of mutually complementary institutes, studios, ateliers, and labs, as well as the workshops that go with them, for the purpose of working together.’ The assertion that this must create a ‘school within a school’ can therefore be applied to every other team of the college. […] If Mr. Bill is forced to leave the school, we shall make the
made a new agreement that would not replace the old one of 14 March 1956, but amend it. 905 The most important stipulation was that the old agreement was to expire “before the start of the new school year 1957/58 at the latest”. Undoubtedly Inge Aicher-Scholl and the governing board had successfully had their way. But aga in they lacked the courage for a clear separation – the final date was postponed once again. From now on Max Bill was on the HfG faculty only as a visiting lecturer. All students in his atelier w ould be “The Ulm department of product design is probably unique in how sharply its members formulate [design] theory. The method practiced here is truly Cartesian: a method that is exemplary of procedures in this de-partment and the others as well. It is the Ulm ritual.“ Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 42.
Photo: Hans Conrad
school’s administration legally responsible for the fact that the prerequisites for studying here listed in the school prospectus no longer exist.” Immo Krumrey, too, used the situation as an opportunity to demand that the HfG’s bylaws, which according to him had caused the “crisis of confidence between the school’s administration and the student body”, should be revised: “One of the main reasons for the never-ending crises and the unnecessary internal politics that interfere with studies is without doubt the fact that the old demand of the students that bylaws appropriate for the school be established is constantly obstructed.” Less than a week later the situation seemed to be suddenly resolved. On Tuesday, 12 March 1957, Inge Aicher-Scholl for the foundation and Max Bill
able to continue to work with him in Zurich until they obtained their diploma; this counted as part of the students’ coursework. And all other students who had signed up to work with him before the agreement was concluded could decide by 31 March 1957 whether they also wanted to complete their diploma with him. Finally, Max Bill received all rights to the work he had done for the HfG. In an additional agreement Inge Aicher-Scholl and Max Bill agreed that he would step down from his position as associate member of the governing board, but in return was appointed to the board of trustees of the foundation. 906 The next day, at 5:30 p.m. on 13 March 1957, all lecturers, staff members, and students met in lecture room no. 4 of the HfG to find out the
205
details of the new agreement from Inge AicherScholl, Tomás Maldonado, Max Bill, Hellmut Becker, and the chairman of the administrative council, Mayor Theodor Pfizer. 907 A rough draft of this meeting’s minutes still exists. It records the discussion using direct quotes, and is especially interesting because it is an unfiltered version of the attitudes of the participants, and the concerns and expectations of the students. 908 Theodor Pfizer opened the meeting and immediately tried to pacify, to calm people down, and to reconcile opposing sides. He did not refer to concrete events, speaking instead of fate and inevitability, looking for meaning in all that had happened, but finally refusing to dwell on who was to blame: “At this time, it is important for us – even those of us who were not here in the initial phases – to remember that the name of Max Bill is intimately linked with the work here on Kuhberg; we will not offend anyone if we also remember at this moment that without his personality [this school] in all its breadth would not have been possible at all; that the work so clearly bore the stamp of his genius. No one would have expected anything else of such a personality. You all know (Bauhaus), that it is precisely strong personalities like him who at times inevitably leave the [work they have begun], outgrow it – organically, I would say –, but Students on the patio, 6 June 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
that this does not always happen pa inlessly. And we [the members of the administrative council; author’s note] realized that there was a meaning in all this; and that the word blame is completely beside the point. It would be a mistake to speak of
blame – this is about fate, about a development that claims its rights and confronts us with a situation we need to resolve.” However, one of the students replied that there was only one reason he had come to the HfG – to work with Max Bill, and that now he was being deprived of this opportunity: “I feel I’ve been cheated and betrayed.” He expected a person who was equally renowned to be appointed in lieu of Max Bill. Theodor Pfizer had no choice but to respond helplessly: “You wished to follow a personality – and that is each individual’s inalienable right. However, I believe no school will guarantee that this person will continue to be your teacher for the duration of your studies. So many students lose the person they have chosen as their model because he’s been hired b y another school, through death, illness, etc. […] And if I were you maybe in the next few days I’d think about whether instead of saying cheated I shouldn’t say ‘bitter fate’.” In addition to asking about the practical consequences for their studies, the students also wanted to know the reasons for Max Bill’s separation from the foundation: “One more thing, can you tell us quite clearly why it is necessary for Mr. Bill to leave? If you have a person of his stature, you should make sure he stays.” But the mayor could tell them nothing that made sense to them: “I f I read you an agreement signed by Mr. Bill and the college, there seem to be reasons on both sides that have made such a separation possible.” A third subject was discussed – the students’ doubt whether the situation that had now been created would be permanent. A student in the basic program remarked: “I don’t believe that these tensions [within the HfG during the last months; author’s note] will decrease significantly for the time being, because for us, the new students in the basic program, there are simply a lot of points that aren’t clear, and we can’t simply ignore them.” Regardless of the causes of the crisis and subsequent events, he criticized inadequate communication within the HfG, and was disappointed that the department of architecture now consisted only of two visiting lecturers (Konrad Wachsmann and Herbert Ohl), in glaring contra-
The governing boards
206
diction of the promises made in the gray prospectus , which spoke of the departments of architecture and urban development. So he wondered what studies at the HfG would be worth in the future: “Here’s the reason we’re worried: If Mr. Bill Käthe Hamburger, 1957 Photo:Hans Conrad
leaves, there will be too few competent teachers here, people who still give the school a good reputation.” Finally he complained the governing board did not treat students democratically: “Two meetings were held, organized by the school’s administration, and right from the outset discussion was cut off, we had no say in it […]. Those are the things where I seen tensions, and for the time being I don’t think this b usiness [the separation of the foundation from Max Bill; author’s note] will eliminate them.” And so discussion had moved to a general exchange of views about the situation at the HfG. For student representative Immo Krumrey (the author of the bulletin board notice on 23 February 1957 and a student of Max Bill) this was an opportunity to accuse the governing board that it had pushed through the college bylaws in the face of student reservations and, after the bylaws went into effect, had made no more efforts to keep the exchange of ideas about the bylaws going. That is why he felt the bylaws must be revised. One might have thought that the atmosphere on Kuhberg would have become less tense, especially since it seemed as though everything had b een settled in writing and expressed verbally. But Max Bill again took the initiative. He had changed his mind once again. He had allowed himself to be talked into signing the 12 March 1957 agreement, but how could he annul the whole thing? He wanted to start with the next higher level of authority, the foundation’s administrative council, to whom Inge Aicher-Scholl was accountable as managing chairperson. Max Bill had no objection to a signature campaign by his students, which some described as spontaneous, while others said it was planned. 909 The list of 52 signatures, not authorized by a student assembly, was sent to the members of the administrative council.
Soon thereafter, these gentlemen received a second list with the signatures of 29 students who were of a very different opinion: “Because of a campaign by some of the students, who are gathering signatures about the good qualities of Max Bill and his remaining at the college, we feel compelled to make a statement. We must assume that the list of signatures is to be used somehow to change the decision of the administrative council regarding Max Bill’s position at the college. Since in our opinion it is not the students’ job to interfere in the business of the administrative council, we would hereby like to express our confidence regarding the decision that has been made.” 910 The tone had again become sharper, and the conflict reached the outside world. The press, too, got wind of the dispute on Kuhberg and demanded statements. Inge Aicher-Scholl wanted to channel the information to the public and proposed to Max Bill that they make a joint announcement. But Max Bill was interested in causing as big a sensation as possible: “I am opposed to playing down this business, because nobody believed even the announcement that was made last year. At the time I felt I should comply with your wish for the sake of the goal we have aspired to. Today I know that this was a mistake and that I have always been far too tolerant of all those with whom I often did not agree.”911 It was important for Max Bill that the public should learn that he had resigned “because of irreconcilable differences of opinion” and at the urging of the administrative council and managing chairperson of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung and of the governing board of the School of Design”, both statements that Inge Aicher-Scholl would have preferred to do without. 912 She did not make comments that would have been effective publicity in the name of the foundation, and concentrated on winning over the influential politicians and lobbyists for her decision. Here she did not mince her words, as the following example, a letter dated 1 April 1957 to Günther Baron von Pechmann, the founder of the Neue Sammlung , member of the presiding board of the Rat für Formgebung (Design Council), and chairman of the Arbeitskreis für Industrielle Formgebung , shows: “At the time I still hoped that Bill’s egocentrism would become more bearable and not interfere with the development of the colleagues. I was quite aware that it wasn’t easy to make up for years of omissions, especially as regards hiring needed faculty, within six months or a year. I had always tried to conceal Bill’s flaws and difficulties from the outside world, and all my colleagues at the college had helped me do so and had for years stepped into the breach. The fact that in the end, over and over again, the only thanks they got were arrogance, blows below the belt, and patronizing
From the left: Bruno Horisberger, Bruce Martin, and Hellmut Becker, 1957. Photos: Hans Conrad
Werner Blaser and Max Bill in December 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
condescension gradually destroyed mutual trust to such an extent that at the end of this quarter I could have had letters of resignation from all the members of the governing board as well as from the administrative director on my desk. That would
parties at the HfG, but also outside the school, and that is at least an indication of the journalist’s independence. For a long time to come, this article influenced public opinion about the HfG. In it the HfG appears
have been the absolute end of this school.[…] During the five years we developed the school, my husband and I put up with Bill’s big personal problems, which came up again and again, and we defended him against the world hoping that the problems would be worked out once the team had been formed. But to my great disappointment the exact opposite happened. […] I realized that we were dealing with a brilliant loner who either took everything personally or else could not help having a destructive effect. […] My idea of this school is to gather a faculty of talented people and to bring out the best in each. It was hard for Bill to tolerate true talent next to him. Either they took him as their leader and became part of his loyal following – or he passed over them in silence, put them in the shadow, and quashed them with paralyzing criticism. […] None of us denied his skills as a specialist and his artistic qualities, on the contrary. I am sure we would not have kept trying for such a long time to retain these qualities for the school. But I have now become firmly convinced that the college can truly develop and live up to expectations people have of it only if there is a guarantee that those who are in charge of it can work together as a team.” 913
as a gathering of gifted and creative, but also eccentric and esoteric prophets of a technological age. Even the language used at the HfG is questioned, for Clara Menck finds terms like visual communication and cultural integration suspect: “To translate them as commercial art and general education is a sacrilege on Q-hill. They tend to use a secret language, the unavoidable teething troubles of all young schools – especially if they’re a twenty-minute walk from the end of the bus line [a reference to the fact that there was no bus connection to downtown Ulm; author’s note]. […] Infected by the arts-and-crafts movement as one is, one easily commits faux pas. The young man over there is working on a vase? No (eyes roll reproachfully), it’s a study on unorientable surfaces. (In such a case it’s best to act as if one understood.)“ Following this smug introduction, Clara Menck did offer a judicious and carefully considered description of the consequences of the Bill crisis, and she even concluded her remarks on an understanding note: “One may believe that Bill is a genius and still recognize that he is not the right person for teamwork; one can have a less high opinion of him and one will still recognize his contributions during the ‘pioneering days’ of the school. […] This experimental character – not the individual name – makes the school interesting to the public, and important, maybe even indispensable, for the economy. The crises and quarrels are an inseparable part of this character.”
Actually this could have been a beautiful and fitting closing speech on this topic. But now newspaper editors all over Germany really became interested in what was going on at the HfG. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung led the fray: On 6 April 1957 Clara Menck, in an ar ticle entitled Adventures on Q-berg , gave a long and detailed report of her impressions and tidbits she had managed to pick up during her visit in Ulm (what we have here is onomatopoeia: Q-berg in German sounds just like Kuh-berg – the name of the hill on the outskirts of Ulm on which the HfG buildings are located; literally: Cow Hill). This report caused a great sensation, not only with both opposing
The local Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung printed this article two days later and thus caused the conflict in Ulm to escalate to a new peak. 914 Otl Aicher, Max Bill, his friend Will Grohmann, and student representatives Walter Schaer and Immo Krumrey then contacted the Frankfurt and Ulm press. 915 The time had now come for a clear-headed outsider to point out to the squabblers that they were getting nowhere and would sooner or later even hurt
207
The governing boards
Tomás Maldonado, 20 April 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
208
Johanna Rösner, 1957. Photo:Hans Conrad
themselves if they washed their dirty linen in p ubsations with Karl Max von Hellingrath and other lic. Max Guther wrote to that effect on 7 April opinion makers from the Munich area: “Every1957 to Max Bill and the Aichers: “I therefore turn where the next question we are asked is what to both you and the Aichers with the request that ‘prominent person’ could replace Mr. Bill, and you stop fighting in public. You're hurting not only most people express concern for the future develyourselves, you know, but the good cause per se, opment of the school. […] Now that the students and not just here on Kuhberg. You’re gratifying the have made foolish ‘statements’ in the press, we petit bourgeois, those stick-in-the-muds who are now paying the penalty for not having told knew all along that this would happen, that things them clearly enough that the [school’s] new direcwould go wrong. You are serving and helping your tion is definitive.” 920 common enemies, the reactionaries, and you’re Max Bill did not realize that the ranks in the hurting all those (including me) who fight against foundation’s committees were closing around Inge reaction and restoration of the old order in Germa- Aicher-Scholl and were directed against him. Othny and other countries. […] And try, on both sides, erwise he would probably not have slandered, with not to make the students who came to Kuhberg a sweeping blow, the d evelopment of the HfG to full of confidence, often from far away and at great date, thus exactly confirming the accusations that sacrifice, suffer for the fact that your lives and Inge Aicher-Scholl had listed as the main reasons work have drifted in different directions. […] I am why a separation from Max Bill had become necshattered that the students are now beginning to essary: He was unjust and he exaggerated, inappear before the public with pro and con statesulted, offended, and disparaged as worthless ments to the press, I can see the exultation of my and harmful the work of lecturers he himself had former, your present, our constant opponents in appointed. Thus, for instance, he tried to convince the city council and among the citizenry of Ulm!” 916 the HfG’s mentor in America, Walter Gropius, of But since a public scandal was Max Bill’s only the correctness of his behavior and of the corruphope of returning to the HfG, he would have nothtion of the HfG, not knowing that Walter Gropius ing to do with Max Guther’s request: “What’s hap- had already pronounced his judgment. Incidentalpening at the college is not a family matter, but a ly, another thing that is interesting about this letpublic concern. The article in the Frankfurter Allter, dated 25 April 1957, is Max Bill’s statement gemeine Zeitung gives the point of view of a mithat the only financial future for the HfG would be nority at the college that’s trying to keep the mato nationalize it: “As was to be expected from the jority from being heard. I didn’t start this war, it very beginning (1950), the Aicher-Scholls began was unleashed upon me. […] Your suggestions their machinations to take over the college. They sound very wise when one hears them in the turcould never get over the fact that I thwarted their moil we’re in, and no doubt it would be the simintention to found a ‘Geschwister-Scholl-Hochplest solution – for everybody including me – to schule’ (Hans and Sophie Scholl College), that I keep silent. But that’s no longer possible; anybody declared I would have nothing to do with such an who keeps silent now is a coward and a horse enterprise. […] Now they’ve got an outbreak of a trader and has shady dealings in mind.” 917 pestilence that romanticizes technology, where everything is important except proper training in Reactions among the people who were important design. It is too complicated to list all the confusfor the foundation (members of the administrative ing ways the sensible golden mean is being abancouncil, trustees, design specialists) were mixed. doned, only to veer off into arts and crafts on the On the one hand most of them knew from personone hand, or the romanticization of technology on al experience that it wasn’t easy to get along with the other. In Ulm they’ve got the same forces at Max Bill. On the other hand they felt it was indiswork that always attacked the Bauhaus as ‘outpensable that the HfG should be headed by a moded’ […]. Some time ago I realized that the Ulm famous man whose reputation would help it and college in its present structure (especially when a who would determine the course the HfG was to lack of funds = a lack of good faculty and staff) follow. That was the reaction, for instance, of the must perish and that the only solution is regular 918 secretary of the Design Council, Mia Seeger , or senate bylaws, so that after a transition period the Walter Gropius. The latter wrote to Inge Aichercollege might be affiliated with the Technical UniScholl: “I am not surprised that the collaboration versity as an ‘Institute of Design’. That would mean with Bill has come to an end. I have seen that for there would be state guarantees, you could work a long time because his character simply doesn’t together with the other institutes and have more permit building up collaborating teams, and I think freedom than when you have to suck up to everyit is right that you separate from him altogether.” 919 body, the way it is now. It would also mean the Roderich Count Thun, the managing chairman of Catholic family conspiracy of the Aichers would be the Society of Friends, who was now also conexorcized. […] I’d like to hope that in spite of the cerned with limiting the damage, spoke of conver- conflict between the Aichers + school administra-
tion and me […] Mrs. Aicher would still bring the missing two million back from her trip to America in order to overcome the financial crisis. Yet I fear she will not get enough because of her sentimental twaddle, which has no practical meaning at all. […] Of course it is Maldonado who has the worst influence – with his ambitions to introduce the loftiest scientific methods he opens the floodgates to a wretched dilettantism. […] On the other hand the college has practically no commissions, except for the one from Braun and others connected with it. At the same time these Braun appliances are no better than they would be if they’d been produced by any old arts and crafts school.” 921 Walter Gropius would not accept these accusations and made it clear to Max Bill that he did not approve of his behavior: “I am convinced that it is the head of a team who is primarily responsible for the atmosphere in the team. […] To my knowledge you had a great deal to do with picking the faculty as it is today. You yourself recently paid tribute to Maldonado by having him publish a collection of your own work, yet now you accuse him of ‘wretched dilettantism’. Also it is really not appropriate to dismiss a personality like Inge Aicher as ‘sentimental’ – she supports her idealism with hard facts, and she has raised the money for the school and her buildings in an absolutely heroic fashion. I wish I had had this woman by my side when I organized the Bauhaus. The thing that was apparently most hurtful to your faculty – and I’ve been told this by various people – was your interference and your criticism of faculty members’ teaching in front of the students. Are you sure you were not too aggressive and sharp with your colleagues?” 922
Konrad Wachsmann, October/November 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
The disputes now went on continuously within the HfG as well. Now the occasion was the interpretation of the 1956 and 1957 contracts between the foundation and Max Bill. The idea was to gradually reduce Max Bill’s presence at the HfG and thus to make possible a painless transition to his departure on 30 September 1957. Max Bill, however, relied on a solid argument by means of which he wanted to make it possible for his work at the HfG to continue and expand. He had in mind the lists of students who had declared in 1956 that they wanted to continue their studies with Max Bill, so that it had turned out “that of a total of 41 students, with the exception of the graduating year and the basic program, 28 have voluntarily signed up for the Bill Atelier, while the remaining 13 are distributed among all the rest of the lecturers”. 923 There were now differences of opinion as to whether these students should be taught by Max Bill in the facilities of the HfG or whether they should travel to Zurich to see him. The foundation and the governing board were of the opinion that Max Bill, true to the sense of the contract, should
not work and teach at the HfG. If they had their way, the result would be that most of the students would probably not have Max Bill as their teacher, for who could afford not only HfG tuition fees, but also room and board in expensive Zurich? In this situation, in which to all appearances the discussion involved only minor contractual details because the separation itself was a fait accompli, a new campaign by Max Bill again ratcheted up the tension. On 8 May 1957 the Deutsche Studentenzeitung published a lengthy article about the HfG with detailed background information that could have come only from Max Bill. For of course Max Bill had interpreted the report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as a personal attack, although the governing board had also energetically protested against the report, and successfully made sure that his perspective on things was now published. The article College fires its creator was even more momentous than Clara Menck’s report a month earlier, because it provided the opponents of the HfG with ammunition for their future attacks. In his rage Max Bill had not shied away from passing on to the editor details from people’s private lives and the history of the school’s founding that appeared to have hardly any connection with the ongoing crisis. Thus, for instance, the article contains the following extremely strange remark: “Inge Scholl, who in the meantime had married Otl Aicher, borne three children, and converted to Catholicism, became the managing chairperson of the foundation.” Regardless of the fact that the derisive tone was totally inappropriate and the chronological sequence was wrong: What, one wonders, did religious faith have to do with all this? Perhaps it was a veiled response to Clara Menck’s report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , in which she had written – though in a completely different tone: “The material Tomás Maldonado drills in the ‘basic program’ (which all students take for one year) is ‘lucidité’ that contrasts with ‘Calvinist puritanism’ […].” The term Calvinist could refer only to the Swiss Max Bill or the Swiss students in the first-hour class. Two more excerpts from this article clearly show what kind of weapons Max Bill used when he aimed below the belt. One segment about the pedagogical structure says that Max Bill tried to organize a basic program like that of the Bauhaus and hired prominent Bauhaus people (Walter Peterhans, Josef Albers, Helene Nonné-Schmidt) as guest lecturers “with whom he wanted to apprentice his future teachers in order to start training the teachers for this basic course. […] The young man who was slated to take charge of the basic program after he had completed the lecture series of all these guest teachers was Otl Aicher, then an unknown young graphic artist who basically lived on [the sale of] posters he designed for the Ulm
209
The governing boards
210
Left: Tomás Maldonado circa 1957. Photo: Wolfgang Siol Archive:HfG (58/0269/2)
Right: Horst Rittel, 1958. Photo: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (58/0358/2)
Adult Education Center.” Because Otl Aicher subsequently decided to enter the department of visual communication, the article went on, another faculty member had to be hired for the basic program. On this occasion, Tomás Maldonado had elbowed his way in. He had appeared one day in 1948 at Max Bill’s home in Zurich because he had belonged to a group of young Argentineans “who idolized Klee, Kandinsky, and Bill from afar by the La Plata. Not blessed with worldly goods, he earned his living sorting cotton.” – In another part of the
There is no doubt that parliamentary officials naturally found this article “disagreeable”, and that was putting it mildly. 924 Because the student representatives had sent the article with a complacent commentary to everyone including the members of the administrative council, Roderich Count Thun could not help being surprised: “The ‘ student representatives’ don’t seem to disapprove of the article in the Studentenzeitung all that much if they are sending it to the members of the administrative council, as the enclosure says.“ 925
article the author speaks of the founding history of the HfG and of the a ttitude the HfG’s founders had in the meanwhile come to have toward it: For years “the members of parliament had kept [clinging] to the illusion that the school needed less money from year to year and would be able to be selfsupporting – an account they had been given at one time in order to worm the first funds from them. […] But stranger than all this was the fact that they were gradually beginning to distance themselves from their own beginnings. When Bill in a basic course gave a woman student the assignment to collect data on the college’s history, the young girl’s paper did not include the very first program that had been drawn up when the writers Richter […] and Soehring were still on board. When Bill made inquiries, Inge Aicher declared that such a program had never existed. In order not to be branded as a liar, the Swiss placed his own copy on the table.” – The reporter’s conclusion was obvious, and the way it was substantiated was incontestable : “Bill alone made the ‘School of Design’ what it is today. He condensed the unclear and vague, while certainly very noble but somewhat romantic plans of the circle around Inge Scholl into a concrete idea. The conception of this school is his idea. […] Inge Scholl began this work with the intention of creating a living monument for her murdered sister and brother. Bill kept her from doing so. […] A Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule with generally humanitarian and idealistic goals would have succumbed to the first onslaught of the economic miracle. On the other hand, an institute that could offer concrete results for good money had every chance of succeeding.”
Now it was time for the foundation to rally its energies and resolve to take the appropriate measures to stand up to Max Bill’s aggressiveness. The administrative director, Günther Schlensag, announced initial steps in his letter to Max Guther, dated 17 May 1957: “Even Professor Bense, who never approved of Mr. Bill’s leaving, is indignant at the style of writing, and Professor Franzen […] has […] condemned the ‘fascist style’ of this piece of writing. One wonders why Mr. Bill proposed appointing persons who are now characterized as know-nothings, cotton pickers, and dreamers. […] We assume that Mr. Bill will use the documentation for this article elsewhere as well. We must therefore probably go to the trouble of summing up in a memorandum the facts that led to Mr. Bill’s leaving the School of Design[…].” 926 Roderich Count Thun felt this did not go far enough. He had already been urging for some time that somebody should put a stop to the mudslinging – not only in the press – by means of a clear and hard separation of the inside and the outside: “But if we cannot immediately decide completely to resolve matters internally, we will elegantly, slowly but surely sink into the swamp of mutual declarations of worthlessness.“ 927 Incidentally, he wanted to withdraw from the Society of Friends because he could find less and less time for this commitment. Otl Aicher and Tomás Maldonado felt time took a wait-and-see attitude, for in less than six weeks classes at the HfG would be over and the summer break would begin. But Max Bill still firmly hoped that he would soon take charge of the HfG. Perhaps it was the calculated optimism he had spoken of on 22 May 1957 to Walter Gropius, but perhaps he quite simply underestimated the normative power of existing facts and the strength of the connections Inge Aicher-Scholl and Hellmut Becker had formed: “However, today I can tell you that the feet on which the others are still standing are becoming weaker and weaker. […] The college’s sole salvation is to be affiliated with the Technical University as an independent institute or to be financed directly by the government.That has been my experience over the last seven years. […] The school in its present form blocks the way
to the school I had really planned. That is the only reason that convinced me, along with the majority of the lecturers and all the heads of the workshops and 2/3 of the students, that we cannot let the work be destroyed by a few individuals. […] Not long ago I was ready to resign. There are so many other things I need to do. But it would be irresponsible.“928 Matters got even worse. In a notice he posted on 27 May 1957, student representative Walter Schaer demanded that Tomás Maldonado immediately publish detailed information about the continued tenure and the composition of the faculty, since it was customary at all colleges and universities to publish lecture catalogues and changes in the faculty at the end of the concluding semester, “since individual students could not make the decision whether they should stay on at the college or not until after the above questions were answered […].”929 When he received no answer and the summer break began, he sent a memorandum in the name of the student council, which he also posted at the HfG, to the minister of education and the arts. 930 Without even mentioning Max Bill, he adopted the latter’s arguments and claimed that the HfG’s bylaws were the main cause of the existing crisis, from which he felt it had become impossible since February 1957 for the HfG to extricate itself of its own accord: “The crisis, for one, is expressed by the fact that the students’ trust in the school’s administration – the four-member governing board – is shaken to a large extent, and also by the fact that only a fraction of the courses scheduled in the catalogue are actually offered and nothing is done to remedy existing shortcomings. The primary reason for this seems to be the bylaws of the school, which have not been sufficiently thought through. The four-member governing board decides not only the organization of classes but also faculty appointments or dismissals, while student representatives and lecturers who are not members of the governing board have no influence whatsoever.” Walter Schaer suspected that the members of the governing board were pursuing only personal interests. As a solution for the situation he demanded the following measures: the resignation of the governing board; college bylaws that would do away with the governing board; these bylaws were to be worked out by a five-member commission, with the students asking to be represented by two representatives who would have equal rights as other members, placing the HfG under government oversight and transforming the foundation into a sponsoring association.
Two aspects of this memo are of overriding interest. For one, now that Max Bill had raised the accusation of the family oligarchy, an important polemical catchword had been uttered, one that was used in the future by the HfG’s opponents as well. In order to defuse this accusation (but above all to professionalize fundraising and to improve contacts with industry), Thorwald Risler was soon brought into the foundation as the managing chairman of the foundation’s executive board. Secondly, those who found fault with conditions Herbert Ohl, October 1957. Photo: Hans Conrad
at the HfG always seem to have thought that (at least partially) the foundation was to b lame for the Bill crisis, for the cr ises of 1962 and 1963, and for the closing [of the college]. Isn’t it obvious to look for the reason why the HfG was so prone to crises in the very fact that the foundation existed at all – i. e., the legal construction that differentiates between the college and its sponsor? It is necessary to go one step further and to inquire into the motives that impelled the HfG’s founders to divide functions among two institutions. When I come to the crisis of 1962, I will return to the subject again. The open letter b y student representative Walter Schaer evoked the sharp reaction of the governing board, which was long overdue because of the board’s instinct of self-preservation. 931 With a notice on 5 June 1957 Tomás Maldonado made it clear he dissociated himself from all students who would no longer rally unconditionally and loyally around the HfG’s leadership: “This text attacks the college’s governing board in an unobjective and insulting fashion. Furthermore it demands that the School of Design be nationalized. […] The student representative and members of the student council have gone far beyond the framework of student self-government and assumed competences to which they have no right. The administration of the School of Design is not willing to go on tolerating this kind of provocations. The governing board has therefore decided no longer to recognize the incumbent student representative and the p resent student council, and to refuse to work with them. Their posted notices will be taken down and will no longer be tolerated on the college campus. The
211
The governing boards
“ Integration and grid and prefabricated element are basic ideas of the Ulm School of Design that appear in a large number of variations in all departments; these basic ideas make it possible to go beyond design based on “studying the essence of the
material” as taught at the Bauhaus, and to arrive at the mathematical combination and variation of objective dimensions. We need to clear up a misunderstanding: Grid , as used by Ulm designers, must not be confused with
the unimaginativeness and pseudomodernity that divides up the façades of insurance and bank high-rises with a ruler into identical little boxes.“
Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 49.
erning board, as before, consisted of Tomás Maldonado (chairman), Otl Aicher, Hans Gugelot, and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart.
212
The Bill crisis was thus over. It had taken up the entire year, and the sacrifices it had cost all those who were involved must have become obvious. But the end of the conflict did not mean it was finally laid to rest: It remained in the HfG’s memory as a traumatic experience. In contrast to Horst Rittel, who asserted in 1962 that the HfG did not have a collective memory, one might well state that all subsequent conflicts were compared to the Bill crisis and that this crisis was conjured up as the most dangerous phase in the HfG’s history. In 1957 the course of the HfG’s further development was set in a second, totally different area. This involved the financing of the HfG and the question as to how the foundation could obtain new money from private sources. This question had important consequences for the inner organization of the foundation and the HfG. Shortly after the worst of the Bill crisis was over, Inge Aicher-Scholl left on a five-week trip to the United States that had been in the planning for some time. Her goal was to collect money from large and small foundations. She also planned to make new contacts and to cultivate old acquaintanceships. That was why she visited many universities and private persons and gave lectures about the HfG. Well-known names such as Josef Albers, Fred Burckhardt, Walter Gropius, John McCloy, Herbert Tomás Maldonado, 1958. Photo: Christian Staub Archive: HfG (58/0429/2)
governing board reserves the right to undertake additional measures. The election of a new representative and council who represent more than unilateral interests is left to the discretion of the students of the School of Design. The governing board will continue to cooperate, as it has done to date, with all lecturers, staff, and students who are willing to work together on the continuing development of the School of Design.” One week later the governing board handed out questionnaires in which all students had to disclose definitively whether they intended to study with Max Bill and complete their diploma. 932 Only a fraction of the students – four – now decided for Max Bill; in the end, eight students finished their HfG studies with him in Zurich. 933 That settled the conflict. Now the matter still had to go through the maze of bureaucracy: On 28 June 1957 Wolfgang Donndorf and Günter von Alberti met with the new student representative, Bertus Mulder, the successor of Walter Schaer, who had been removed from office, Herbert Lindinger, and Immo Krumrey (the former had until
then sided with the executive board, while the other had been on Max Bill’s side). 934 The result was as objective as the tone of the conversation, and that left room for future conciliation: “All three students declared unanimously that they were no longer interested in the ‘Bill affair’, but solely in creating certain principles of order that had hitherto been lacking. […] To sum up, everyone realized that while opinions about the events of the past are divided, there is for the most part agreement about the direction we need to go in the future.” The Bill affair was thus no longer under discussion, and this could not be altered by the fact that Max Bill sank so low as to threaten Wolfgang Donndorf quite unnecessarily: “In cases where I’ m involved you must in the future find arguments that are less incriminating for you than the ones you’ve used up till now, or else I’ll be forced to put you on the list of those with whom I’ll have to unavoidably settle accounts one of these days.“ 935 The air had been cleared, and the new academic year (1957/58) began on 3 October 1957. The gov-
Hans Gugelot and Otl Aicher, 1958. Photo: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (58/0415)
Read, James Morgan Read, Shepard Stone, or the Zuckmayers surfaced again in this connection. If we think of the foundation’s chronic lack of money and expectations of a second American shower of donations Inge Aicher-Scholl may have had when she set out, this trip was a flop. At least, she said nothing about direct financial contributions. 936 The American funds would have been intended to provide fresh capital for the construction of the remaining residential buildings. Inge Aicher-Scholl had done the following calculations:
The second high-rise dorm for about 40 students: DM 290,000 , the third high-rise dorm for about 50 students: DM 350,000, 6 residential buildings for lecturers with families: DM 200,000. In toto, the foundation thus required DM 840,000 so that the HfG campus would be completed as originally projected by Max Bill and presented to all agencies. Here is how she imagined the financing of these buildings: DM 100,000 of the foundation’s own assets (still to be raised), DM 150,000 American and German donations, DM 130,000 Bundesjugendplan ( Federal Youth Plan), DM 280,000 mortgage, DM 280,000 loan from the Landeskreditanstalt (Land Bank). That was a total of DM 940,000. Thus the plan included a DM 100,000 reserve.937 But new construction was precisely what the American foundations did not wish to fund. Apparently the only chance of receiving a sizable sum was to add a new institute to the HfG. During her visit at Princeton Inge Aicher-Scholl among other things became acquainted with the Perception Demonstration Center. In her report to the administrative council this was the moment she first suggested that the HfG was planning to set up a comprehensive institute of communication and information: “The research done by Centril [Professor Hadley Centril, a social psychologist, head of the Perception Demonstration Center; author’s note] and the short contact we were able to have with it was one of the strongest and most interesting experiences of my US trip this year, particularly because the results of his research seem to be extremely important for the work of our visual communication department, but also for the department of product design. There is something so revolutionary about [this research] that a school involved in giving creative form to our environment and in modern visual means of communication should study it intensively and have a critical look at it.” When she visited the Ford Foundation, Shepard Stone again explained that his organization did not finance buildings. “On the other hand he was very interested in our plan of an institute of communication and information. We had several in-depth conversations about it, and he finally declared quite unmistakably that it might be possible to interest the Ford Foundation in the financing of the startup period of this institute (we spoke of 3–5 years). We gave him a memorandum about it, with a
213
The governing boards
214
financing plan […].” At the Rockefeller Foundation, too, Inge Aicher-Scholl’s request for financial support to build the high-rise student residence fell on deaf ears: “It was only when we mentioned the plan for an institute of communication and information that he became interested.” Inge Aicher-Scholl again faced a dilemma. Either she went along with the interest of the American foundations and agreed to expand the HfG by a new institute, for which the foundations presumably gave money. Or she did without this money and concentrated on obtaining the urgently needed funds for finish work on the existing c ampus buildings and new construction of the residential highrise and the lecturers’ apartments from other places. Both held opportunities and risks. A new institute whose financing initially cost the foundation nothing might open up new sources of commissions, increase the attractiveness of the entire HfG to the economy, and add to its significance in the view of politicians who dealt with cultural policies. But it might also divert energies from the already established departments, which of course were still growing. On the other hand it would have been a sign of solid financial planning first to complete what they had started, in other words, to take care of finish work and ongoing construction. Left: Dieter Östreich, 1958. Photo: Hans Conrad
Right: Siegfried Haenle, 1958. Photo: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (58/0312)
When the governing board met from 12 through 14 July 1957, it dealt with the following question that concerned the basic pedagogical and organizational structure of the HfG. Until that time the way things had been done was that the foundation passed on commissions from the private sector directly to the HfG; there, the governing board distributed them to be worked on by the corresponding departments and lecturers. That is, work on a commission was the subject of the classes of students who had successfully completed the basic
program and, with their second year at the college, had entered one of the departments. Such classes were called departmental work. Now the governing board decided on a new structure: “The work in the departments is being relieved of the burden of the commission system as it has existed to date. Instead, we are organizing the following institutes and development offices, which will at the same time be in a position to undertake larger projects (development pro jects, investigation and research projects):
Walter Zeischegg, 1958.
of Product Design when they were entitled only to part of the proceeds. 938 Still, as I said: The foundation was dependent on a share of the earnings of its lecturers for the work they did at the institutes. To keep the gap from widening, the administrative council decided at its 12th meeting on 25 July 1957 that the lecturers’ salaries needed to be raised as soon as possible. 939 But the money was simply not there, and in this situation the administrative council admitted it was helpless: “The a dministrative council is satisfied that the foundation is making every effort to increase its own income. However there are limits to what is possible.” That is why requests were again to be made for subsidies for the coming fiscal year of 1958/59 – DM 200,000 from the Land and DM 100,000 from the federal government. At the same time the administrative council gave the green light to the setting up of the Institute of Product Design: The institute could start work as long as it made the money to cover its own expenses, so that it would cost the foundation nothing: “This should make it possible to undertake research and development projects that cannot be handled as part of college classes and therefore make it necessary to hire additional people.”
Photo: Wolfgang Siol A rchive: HfG (58/0339)
a) Institute of Product Design: starting 1 October 1957 with the assistance of Gugelot, Leowald, Zeischegg, b) Institute of Communication: scheduled to begin work later, for the time being its work is being done by the c) Development Office (‘Development of Visual Communication’), which is later to continue in existence in addition to the institute. It is in charge of organizing the ‘Institute of Communication’, d) Institute of Industrialized Building: here the personnel question is still open, and thus its organization is still unclear. In addition to this there is e) the ‘Building Development’. All commissions go to the institutes and developments [this means the development groups; author’s note], detail commissions may be passed on from there to the departments in so far as they can be handled in the classes. All lecturers have the right to work in the ‘institutes’ and ‘development groups’. Orders are routed through the senate or possibly a special topic commission, which makes sure that only those orders are accepted that are of significance for the development of the college. Only students who have degrees work in the institutes and development groups, plus freelance contractors in exceptional cases.” This new organizational plan was in accordance with Otl Aicher’s old idea of combining theory and practice in development work. With the new plan the goal had now been defined: As the years went by a separate institute would be set up for each department and would be able to deal with commercial orders. The only function of the development offices, which were each headed by a lecturer and (as so-called development groups) were numbered consecutively, was to organize the institutes with which the groups overlapped. That also meant that several offices or groups could be combined in one institute. The reason this is important is that Inge Aicher-Scholl’s suggestion that an institute of perception phenomena be founded at the HfG with the help of American funds fit in perfectly with this overall plan.
Incidentally, not all lecturers agreed to this plan. For instance, while the governing board had hoped Konrad Wachsmann would set up the Institute of Industrialized Building, he was not willing to do so. He announced that he would leave if such plans were implemented. However, after laconically weighing the pros and cons in the governing board, members made the following decision: “Arguments against the plan: The risk of commercialism, teaching will suffer. For the plan: We’ve always wanted to have institutes alongside the school.” Subsequently, Herbert Ohl took care of issues related to industrialized building and the setting up of a corresponding institute. Behind this entire topic, of course, was the tiresome lack of money. The lecturers received from the foundation salaries that were considerably lower than those at state colleges and in the private sector. But the foundation needed the earnings from the commission work to finance the educational work of the school. That means that the aim of the foundation’s participation in the commercial success of a few lecturers was the concerted financing of the entire institution. Yet a gap opened between the lecturers who taught and were able to earn additional money with commissions, and those lecturers who did nothing but teach. Georg Leowald and Hans Gugelot were not willing to run a development group in the Institute
In his address at the start of the fourth academic year (1957/58), the chairman of the governing board, Tomás Maldonado, announced with a sweeping gesture that he would not remind the audience of the events of the past months. 940 He expressed his hopes for the future of the HfG and introduced an ambitious program to his colleagues and to the students. He demanded that design and design education must develop in the direction of science and technology and must be stripped of all artistic arrogance: “From time to time we come across the view that design is a magic formula that is supposed to help solve all the problems in the world around us, that is, design becomes a philosophy of life. However, the attempt to measure all human experience by the yardstick of design as a theory of existence is futile. […] Where […] design functions as a constricting ideology, the designer comes on the scene as a Grand Inquisitor who metes out mercy and justice. An example of this view is the designer’s relationship to industry. According to this view, the designer is supposedly someone who dictates the form of products from outside, the motto being, The designer commands and the engineer obeys. This attitude is not in keeping with the reality of our time. Rather, the designer must work in close and unassuming contact with the technician. In order for this dialogue to be possible, one condition must be met: The designer must know something about technology […]. For example, he must know what happens during manufacturing processes and what factors
215
The governing boards
216
need to be taken into account as far as production and materials are concerned. Also he must have a command of the laws of construction. That is why we have included science courses in our curriculum.”
Herbert Bayer during A new era now began: the use of scientific methanother visit, 6 February ods in design and in the teaching of design at the 1958. HfG. The signs of the new era were new subjects that were the last thing one would have expected Left: in conversation at a college of design. For example, starting immewith Friedrich Vordemdiately applied physiology, classes on manufacturberge-Gildewart. ing methods and materials, construction methods, as well as general mechanics, a seminar on the Right: Otl Aicher, Fried- history of design and one on sociology were rich Vordembergetaught in the department of building , which to Gildewart, and Herbert date had still been directed by Max Bill and had Ohl at the reception in been called department of architecture while he the rector’s office. was the department head. The new orientation showed that the HfG had settled accounts with Max Bill and had unequivocally dissociated itself Photos:Hans Conrad from all other design training centers (arts and crafts schools, institutes of technology, academies of art). I have already pointed out that two decisions in 1957 set the course of the foundation and the HfG in a new direction. One of these decisions was that in the future the HfG would constitute only the core of a conglomerate of economically interesting institutes. This idea originated in the intention during the founding phase that an institute of product design would be operated parallel to the HfG; this intention had been embedded in the bylaws, one reason being financial necessity. The ideas Inge Aicher-Scholl had brought back from her trip to the US now led the executive board to deal with the institute question. The second decision was closely connected with this complex of problems: It had to do with the curricular orientation of the HfG. The H fG’s separation from Max Bill, its adoption of method, science, and technology brought to light topics that were reflected not only in the coursework but particularly in new contents for new institutes. The School of Design with its four departments was to
turn into an institution – these were initial reflections – at which the entire process of industrial production would become the subject of research and teaching. The designer was to be trained to be the equal partner of the engineer and help determine the process of developing a new product from the start as a peer of the technicians. The prerequisite for this ambitious program, formulated chiefly by Tomás Maldonado, was theoretical and technical training, so that the designer could even begin to be taken seriously in the development departments of industry. At the same time the sociopolitical component of the training fell behind, though it was not abandoned. A third decision, which had not yet appeared on the horizon in 1957, linked these two elements of HfG history. All three elements together produced such a qualitative transformation of the foundation and the HfG during the next five years that they had only little in common with the 1957 institutions. The third decision was Inge Aicher-Scholl’s resignation from her position as an executive of the foundation (its sole managing chairperson); the reasons will be mentioned below. She was replaced by Thorwald Risler. In my opinion, his participation in the HfG’s history is as important as that of Otl Aicher, Inge Aicher-Scholl, and Max Bill, because by his work as the managing chairman of the foundation’s executive board he made it possible for the HfG to be raised to a qualitatively higher level. This quality was characterized by the medium-term safeguarding of the foundation’s budget, but at the same time by the expansion of the budget to a level that was realistic and offered the HfG prospects for the future. It is because of his work that the Land and federal subsidies to the foundation became a permanent component of the annual budget whose continuing existence no longer had to be debated. Of course Inge AicherScholl had prepared the ground for this, but it was not as if Thorwald Risler merely harvested what Inge Aicher-Scholl had sowed. Another characteristic of his achievement is the institutional expansion of the foundation: By the time he left the foundation in 1964, the HfG was at the center of a network of institutes and development groups. Thorwald Risler was an industrialist, but his heart was set on cultural and educational concerns. He had wanted to be an archaeologist, but the National Socialists had forced him to leave the German Historical Institute in Rome. After World War II he had put his parents’ factory, the Süddeutsche Isolatorenwerke in Freiburg, back on its feet. He had met Hellmut Becker at the gathering of a group of intellectuals at Schloß Salem in the fall of 1945. Subsequently he had worked on
behalf of the Schulen Salem and Birklehof , and had thus remained in contact with Hellmut Becker. Inge Aicher-Scholl, as a follow-up to Hellmut Becker’s recommendation, invited Thorwald Risler to visit the HfG on 15 January 1958. 941
October/November 1956. The lecturers Erich Franzen and Herbert Ohl, guest lecturer Hermann von Baravalle. Photos: Hans Conrad
Inge Aicher-Scholl wanted Thorwald Risler to start working for the HfG as early as the beginning of 1958, so that he could directly take over the most important annual job: to guarantee public sector subsidies for the coming year. On19 February 1958 the plenary session of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag discussed the results of the politico-cultural and finance committees’ lengthy preoccupation with ways and means of organizing and financing design and design education in Baden-Württemberg. In the course of dealing with the topic, the previously reserved members of parliament had spoken positively about the HfG and had reached the conclusion that the HfG was to be one of the pillars of design in the Land. That means that in 1958 there were basically no more reservations in the Landtag about subsidizing the foundation. But every year the respective amount did turn out to be an extremely contentious issue. For instance, a representative of the GB/BH E 942 stated that he had been very positively surprised by the fine equipment and facilities of the HfG compared to the Stuttgart Academy. But then he added that the subsidy should not be increased: “For one, it would give our trade and industry, who are of course the main reason the school is there, the opportunity and also the incentive to do their share for this School of Design”. 943 Though it isn’t clear whether this dubious reason had also been the decisive factor in the finance committee, its members refused to raise the subsidy for the foundation from DM 180,000 to DM 220,000. Therefore the same sum was approved in 1958 as the year before. In view of such twisted argumentation there was good reason to despair, for was it really an incentive that a college was constantly laboring at subsistence level? Besides it had become clear in the discussions of the politico-cultural committee that the HfG was not only an economic con-
cern, but particularly one of importance to a civilized country. The only chance that the HfG might still get something would be through the supplementary budget, and this is what Inge AicherScholl was hoping would happen: “We are now determined to take up the struggle again by way of the supplementary budget, as intensively as possible; in the long run we can’t base a large part of the regular subsidy on chance donations from the private sector.“ 944 Inge Aicher-Scholl had no choice – the income must finally rise. It had been discovered in the previous year that the foundation’s scope of action would have proved to be considerably greater and the Bill crisis would have had a far less serious effect if the HfG’s faculty had been more fully developed. This personnel development must now no longer be put off. In order to find someone to do Max Bill’s work and implement the expansion of the program, the foundation was now negotiating with new lecturers: with the architect and designer Georg Leowald, for instance (for the department of product design), with Anthony Froshaug (typography in the department of visual communication) and Christian Staub (photography in the same department), with Hanno Kesting (sociology for all departments), or with Bruce Martin, who was to teach in the departments of product design and building and set up the Institute of Industrialized Building, now that Konrad Wachsmann was no longer available for the job. If the foundation wanted to appoint all these lecturers, it was DM 90,000 short for this item alone in 1958, even with salaries a third lower than lecturers’ salaries at technical colleges and universities. Moreover, state institutions offered an old-age pension plan. The foundation could not even promise new lecturers the apartments on Kuhberg as advised. 945 Theodor Pfizer, the chairman of the administrative council, now recommended, quite contrary to his usual diplomatic reticence and indecision, that the Gordian knot should be cut by force: The foundation should conclude contracts with the lecturers even if there was no money, because he believed “that in spite of the financial situation, which was so unresolved at present, they must get the necessary and now available vital teachers in order to strengthen the college in this consolidation phase at least as far as faculty was concerned. […] Even though if truth be told I still don’t know how this faculty is to be financed, I do think this task is so important that somehow the ways and means must be found to do the job.” 946 Roderich Count Thun, the managing chairman of the Society of Friends, completely agreed with this view, but he expressed it more clearly: “[…] We must now get clear in our minds what level the school is to attain in comparison with other countries, measured by the lecturers who teach there. In view of
217
The governing boards
218
Georg Leowald, Hans Gugelot, and Nick Roericht on 13 March 1958. Photo:Hans Conrad
the fact that a year ago we decided we will not let the character of the school be determined by the dictatorial figure of one single ‘important name’, we must now see to it that the team from which the school is to derive its reputation is selected
accordingly. But in this day and age we’ll never be able to provide or maintain a viable leadership for the school if we keep lecturers’ salaries at the present level. […] But I believe we cannot put off the decision regarding lecturers’ salaries without risking a loss for the college that we will no longer be able to make good later. We all know the pleasing results of combining lecturers, students, and commissions from industry. If it is necessary, we will simply have to implement some of our plans in the certain expectation of those results, even if there are no funds to cover such expenditures for the time being. ” 947 Wolfgang Donndorf, the representative of the ministry of education and the arts in the foundation’s administrative council, believed the time had come for the foundation to ask the Land the sixtyfour-thousand-dollar question: “I feel it is crucial for the college to get something straight: whether it wants to decide the question of its existence once and for all by the end of this year, or whether – if the situation cannot be changed – the school and foundation are prepared to keep ‘muddling along’ somehow.” 948 And Thorwald Risler was the person Inge Aicher-Scholl expected to carry out this task – to work with political groups and raise the subsidy for the foundation to a level that would assure the school’s existence. Thorwald Risler sat in on the 13th meeting of the administrative council on 21 April 1958. What situation was he in when he came to the HfG, what did people expect of him? On the financial side Inge Aicher-Scholl expected, as described above,
that he would get the annual federal and Land subsidy raised to a level where the small college could operate as befitted an institution of higher learning. She also believed that through his industry contacts the school might obtain new commissions. From Tomás Maldonado, the chair of the incumbent governing board, he heard at this meeting in what direction the HfG administration visualized the school developing and the scope of this development. He also heard the objectives for which Inge Aicher-Scholl’s successor was supposed to create the financial and organizational conditions. The chair of the governing board made a policy statement about the HfG’s situation and prospects. Tomás Maldonado began by a nnouncing that, for the first time, he would tell the members of the administrative council the real reasons why Max Bill had had to leave: “The conflict was deeper than we ourselves thought at the outset. Basically the conflict involved the conception of the college. Before the crisis people believed that the questions addressed by the Bauhaus and its principles had remained unchanged over thirty years to the present day and were therefore binding and authoritative for us. People did not want to see that in reality the situation had changed completely […]. We cannot close our minds to the fact that scientific knowledge needs to be taught in a disciplined Richard Buckminster Fuller explains the world, 23 June 1958. Photo:Hans Conrad
way. In the next few years, industrial designers will definitely not be inspired ‘stylists’, a sort of ‘enfants terribles’ of industry, that is, people who are regarded with distrust in all engineering offices. On the contrary: A new type of industrial designer will emerge – industrial designers who are able to work as part of a team, whose function does not end with “giving products a form”, but who are capable of designing products using their basic knowledge of technology and in collaboration with specialists and engineers. As a result methodolog-
219
Horst Rittel in the rector’s office, 1958. Photo: Hans Conrad
ical questions acquire a central meaning for the education of industrial designers. […] The methodological aspect I am speaking of here and that in our view is of special significance was not only neglected in the past but even discredited. […] Because of these facts we are c onvinced we need to build a new d imension into our curriculum – we might call it the methodological dimension.” 949 – It would be w orth researching whether Tomás Maldonado’s prognosis about what a designer’s work would entail developed in the direction he predicted. Tomás Maldonado emphasized how much the HfG had changed during the past year since Max Bill had to leave Kuhberg: 90 percent of the sub jects that were now being taught were not yet part of the curriculum the year before. For example, methodology was taught in two disciplines – in mathematical operation analysis (such subjects as group theory, set theory, theory of p robabilities, statistics, theory of games, linear programming, theory of evaluative series, standardization, information theory) and in theory of science. They supplemented the technological subjects (production study, materials technology, general mechanics, technical design). Tomás Maldonado summarized this spectrum of sciences as follows: “You see that we’ve made every effort to place the college’s work on an exact foundation.” The next step for him was to found research institutes at the HfG. In doing so he would pursue two goals: One, he wanted to solidify the connection between the sciences and create links, a nd two, he wanted to review the canon of subjects as it related to practice and continue to develop it.
However, the institutes were not to be located within the HfG: “It is true that in terms of organization these research institutes would not be part of teaching, but would of their own accord come to be meeting places, especially for the faculty in different disciplines. […] After all, it is important to give lecturers the opportunity to work outside teaching, to experiment, and to exchange ideas. […] And lastly, an additional argument speaks for setting up such institutes: the difficulty in recruiting qualified lecturers who devote themselves exclusively to teaching without having the opportunity to continue working on their own and specific research projects.” Incidentally, Tomás Maldonado did not say a word about the fact that the lecturers and the foundation would be able to make money on commissions received by these institutes. Tomás Maldonado did mention two concrete examples to the administrative council: one, the Institute of Product Design which had always been planned, and which for a year now was being put into effect; however, in the meantime people had realized that, two, it was necessary to set up an Institute of Communication. On the one hand setting it up would extend department work to include mass media, while on the other hand the departments of information and visual communication would be extended by a research institute that addressed communication problems theoretically and empirically. He felt it made sense to divide this Institute of Communication into two laboratories, “one for optical, the other for acoustical perception”. And lo and behold, the HfG was now in a
The governing boards
220
An in-house exhibition in the students’ dining hall to document methods and results of work, 6 June 1958. Photo: Wolfgang Siol A rchive:HfG (58/0186)
“The Ulm college is not only spatially remote from the town, isolated from the usual social ties. Its stigma is exclusiveness. A self-chosen stigma, and a stigma imposed from outside, self-exclusion and being excluded. […] good position to set up precisely that one part – the Research Institute of Optical Perception – because the Ford Foundation was prepared to pay an colleague of social psychologist Hadley Centril for two years and make available 27 sets of equipment “with the help of which the most important perceptual phenomena could be demonstrated, but above all further studies and research could be carried out. I don’t have to say any more to emphasize the significance that this laboratory of optical perception can have for our work, let alone
This 13th session of the administrative council on 21April 1958 is informative with regard to the political history of the HfG for one reason; I would otherwise not have given it as much space. Thorwald Risler, the up-and-coming man of the years until the end of 1964, figuratively speaking here received his assignment book. That is, he was informed within the formal framework of the council meeting not only of the financial troubles but also the organizational and curriculum plans and goals of the HfG. These were the conditions under
the prestige that the School of Design w ould gain through its collaboration with the Ford Foundation and especially with Princeton University.” For it had become apparent that Princeton University – the leading institute of perception research in the U.S. – was planning to set up a research center for optical perception in Europe and that there was an excellent chance that the HfG could work in cooperation with the renowned American university. Tomás Maldonado closed his programmatic remarks as he said, simply, that the foundation had to make this course possible for the HfG, cost what it may: “Perhaps you might have some concerns after hearing me describe the process of expanding and enlarging our college. However, I see no possibility of consolidating the school other than to expand it and enlarge it as proposed.”
which he agreed to take on the position of managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board. Half a year later, in a circular letter, Theodor Pfizer officially introduced Thorwald Risler to the members of the administrative council in this connection as well. He mentioned the following: the push to foster relations with trade and industry, “the transfer of long-term and extensive development projects”, the HfG’s interest in issues related to “industrial production, including in particular the perspective of productivity and efficiency”. 950 It is worthwhile to recall these circumstances because Thorwald Risler subsequently went to
Thus, on Kuhberg people are always by themselves, in a ghetto, isolated from a day-to-day environment. […]
They live and work apparently without historical and social consciousness, as though in a vacuum, in an atmosphere of puristic lucidité and dangerous rationalistic hubris.“
Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 33.
work to accomplish the tasks that were connected with these expectations. And when he had partially accomplished them, and was well on the way there, he was, after 1962, criticized for it, then attacked, and finally discredited and repudiated. Another reason Tomás Maldonado presented his conception of the HfG to the ad ministrative council was that in the meantime the governing board was on its way to creating a number of faits accomplis. Inge Aicher-Scholl explained her position to the HfG’s administration: Although she would have been happy to a ccept the Ford Foundation’s tempting offer of funds and expertise, she was reluctant because, contrary to all promises, there might be new financial holes and because she felt the HfG’s previous pedagogical unity was at risk: “In principle I am of the opinion that one shouldn't do things by halves, but that one should keep the institute in mind and not think of carrying out that project until we have reached our next stage in stabilizing the college’s personnel situation and finances. I hope that we will have managed this for the most part by spring 1959. Prior to that it will hardly be possible for us to bring the space for a perception institute up to code. (We’ll need an estimated DM 25–30,000 for the project, and those funds will not be available before the spring of 1959 under any circumstances.) My personal opinion is that it would be a big plus for the college and a very exciting part of the Institute of Communication to have such a perception institute. Only I’m opposed to our taking step 5 before step 1.” 951
ther Mr. Maldonado nor I would immediately grab at the offer. Now, with DM 80,000 we could finance both Mr. Perrine for 2 years a nd possibly even use the rest of the money to pay to equip the facility and manufacture the test objects. […] I described our present worries to Mr. Slater and told him that this year, come what may, we must get to a point where the current budget is stabilized.“ 953 Thereupon, at its 11 March 1958 meeting, the governing board dealt with this matter. Only Otl Aicher sided with his wife in her cautious assessment. “Contrary to the view of the governing board that financial support for such an institute from the U.S. would serve as positive propaganda to influence German agencies and especially the Landtag, Mrs. Aicher-Scholl is skeptical based on her experiences and does not expect great fund-raising success when it comes to setting up an institute of communication. […] Mr. Aicher still believes that it is more appropriate not to set up the perception institute in a vacuum, but in connection with the institute of c ommunication.” 954 But in the coming months Tomás Maldonado had his way: On 15 July 1958 the governing board decided that Mervyn Perrine would be appointed as a lecturer beginning with the coming academic year (i. e., as of 1 October 1958), and that his contract would run through 31 March 1960. 955 For this period, the Ford Foundation would pay his salary. The governing board did not want to risk that this position would be continued at the expense of the other lecturers’ positions if in the meantime no other financing opportunity had presented itself. Thus the stipulation that the lecturer's position carried a On 8 and 9 March 1958, Warren Robbins, then still time limit was established right from the start, and the cultural attaché of the U.S. consulate in Stuttgart, and Mr. Slater of the Ford Foundation visited Giulio Pizzetti, 1958. Photo:Hans Conrad the HfG. Mr. Slater made it quite clear that he was interested only in the small and limited institute that was to work on perceptual issues and be within the tradition of Princeton University. The comprehensive institute of verbal and nonverbal communication that the HfG had in mind hardly concerned him. In this situation the cultural attaché, Warren Robbins, urged Inge Aicher-Scholl and Tomás Maldonado to accept the Ford Foundation’s offer and to appoint Princeton University instructor Mervyn Perrine as a lecturer at the HfG to set up the institute of perceptual issues: “After the only reason this is noteworthy is that Mervyn both Mr. Maldonado and Mrs. Aicher-Scholl emPerrine later ignored this fact and created a scanphasized that we want the perception institute dal at the end of his employment at the HfG. It was only in connection with an institute of communiregarded as a scandal that the newsmagazine Der Spiegel took up the topic – and this Spiege l article cation and that we have no funds for that right now, Mr. Slater declared that the Ford Foundation in turn did tremendous damage to the HfG. was not interested in supporting things that the Germans want, only those they wanted themThese first steps toward translating into reality selves, and that they were not interested in an inwhat would later be the Forschungsstelle für Optische Wahrnehmung (Research Center for stitute of communication.” 952 “Then Robbins said that he was surprised and disappointed that neiOptical Perception), as well as the Institut für Pro-
221
The governing boards
222
duktgestaltung (Institute of Product Design) came
about, as I said above, in connection with Tomás Maldonado’s plan to enlarge the HfG’s infrastructure institutionally and technically. That is why, in 1958, the HfG also began to get interested in radio and film. Bernhard Rübenach of the Südwestfunk Baden-Baden (a state radio station) visited the HfG and was so enthusiastic that, in January 1958, he offered his assistance because he saw a great opportunity for the HfG in doing research work for radio.956 It is true that this only directed attention
munication, just as ‘urban construction’ is a fifth year of study for students in the department of building.”957 It was from these plans that the Institut für Filmgestaltung (Institute of Film Design) later emerged; as of 1967, this was an independent organization, and it might also have been described as a school within the school. Now for the last part of the story of how the HfG came to terms with its own past after the Bill crisis: the HfG’s new bylaws. Charles Eames presents, on 24 April 1958, three experimental films he produced in collaboration with his wife Ray. Photo: Hans Conrad
eight versions in the period between 28 September 1957 and 7 March 1958. 958 In these individual steps the version that was finally decided on hardly diverged from the first one. The most serious change consisted in reducing the number of governing board members from four to three – and that was a proposal presented by a member of the administrative council (Otto Pfleiderer). 959 An additional correction by Otto Pfleiderer was included in the text of the bylaws: The governing board was now no longer responsible for fulfilling the mission of the foundation, but for making sure studies proceeded in accordance with the foundation’s mission. Of course the governing board d id reject a third proposal at its 24 February 1958 meeting: The student body did not have to d ecide, as Otto Pfleiderer suggested, which of the two students present in the inner council would be entitled to vote. The governing board was of the opinion that this was a matter the students were supposed to settle among themselves. During the 1962 crisis this decision was interpreted to mean that the students were to be divided – an interpretation that permits us to draw more conclusions about the situation in 1962 than the intentions of the writers of the 1958 bylaws. I have already pointed out that the 1958 HfG bylaws (like those of 1956) were not drawn up and passed according to the bylaws of the foundation. Under the title “school administration” section 13 clearly lays down: “The structuring and organization of the school of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung is regulated by special school bylaws that are worked out by the executive board and must be Hans Gugelot and Charles Eames. Photo: Hans Conrad
to the topic, and that it took a while for the information department to get to the point where they could work with their own equipment. But with this background Thorwald Risler in 1963 managed to persuade the company Siemens & Halske to give the HfG a large in-kind donation (the studio of electronic music) that caused considerable agitation at the HfG. In June 1958 the Munich film director Herbert Vesely had proposed that a film studio be set up in the department of visual communication whose expenses might be covered by commissioned work (documentary films): “Mr. Aicher and Mr. Schlensag like the idea of incorporating a film studio in the department of visual c ommunication. […] Possibly the subject ‘film’ might be c onsidered as a fifth year of study for students of visual com-
Wolfgang Donndorf and Günter von Alberti, the responsible officials at the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts, had, as we know, pacified the troubled students in 1957 by directing their attention and rebellious energy to working out new college bylaws. The 1956 bylaws of the HfG, which up to this point had been only “provisional”, were to be given a final form in order to regulate the inner organization of the HfG: the mission and goal of the HfG, faculty appointments, the HfG’s administration, the inner and extended council, the student body, administration, and rules and regulations regarding diplomas. For this purpose, a bylaws commission had been formed that worked without any to-do and supplied the governing board with at least
authorized by the advisory board. 960 But the initiative was up to the governing board, which together with student representatives and the executive board had worked out the bylaws. The fact that, in a highhanded gesture, the bylaws were given the blessing of the inner council of the H fG puts the crown on this situation. The impossibility of this procedure is in no way changed by the fact that Inge Aicher-Scholl as the foundation’s managing chairperson gave the bylaws the go-ahead. The most ingenious legal construction is worthless if it
is not put into practice – a realization that Hellmut Becker had to reckon with in 1963. The again “provisional” bylaws of the HfG of 7 March 1958 essentially contained the following regulations961: Ray Eames. Photo: Hans Conrad
The HfG’s administration was still in the hands of the governing board. The governing board was independently in charge of the pedagogical work of the HfG and was responsible to the administrative council only to the extent “that the operation of the college and the institutes affiliated with it is conducted in accordance with the mission of the foundation and that these provisional bylaws are observed”. In lieu of the previous four the governing board now consisted of only three lecturers with permanent contracts. The governing board was now elected by the inner council and by the executive board of the foundation; the administrative director of the foundation was the election officer; one of the members of the previous governing board would also belong to the next board for one more year and must be elected in the first ballot; it was possible for members to be reelected repeatedly. The term of office for the governing board was one academic year (1 October through 30 September). The governing board elected a permanent chairperson. The members of the governing board could not appoint a proxy. The essential difference between the old and new bylaws of the HfG was that the governing board was now elected by the inner council. According to the earlier bylaws the governing board could complement its own number. Now that they were elected the lecturers would be more deeply involved in the school administration. After all, the fact that most lecturers had no opportunity to participate, and the students’ dissatisfaction with the previous arrangement had been the reasons the bylaws were revised. It is true that because the governing board had to be elected, this institution was weak-
223
The governing boards
Friedrich VordembergeGildewart and Hans Gugelot at the opening of the Vordemberge exhibition at the Staatliche Kunsthalle Baden-Baden on 17May 1958. Photo: Hans Conrad
ened, because now it w ould only remain strong as long as the electing body was in agreement. Moreover now that the board was subject to election there was also the risk that election campaigns could erupt at the HfG.
224
The composition of the inner council was as follows:
Hermann von Baravalle in October 1956 or 1957. Photo: Hans Conrad
ballot; but because Otl Aicher was going to give lectures in the U.S. from 15 March through 25 May 1958, the inner council decided at the same time that the sociologist Hanno Kesting was to be designated as his deputy for this period. N. B.: Hanno Kesting had only been in Ulm for a week. 962 At the meeting that followed, the governing board again elected Tomás Maldonado as its chair.963
225
all lecturers with permanent contracts; all visiting lecturers who taught an average of five or more hours per week and had already been part of the faculty for one quarter; one elected head of a workshop, except in questions concerning faculty appointments; two elected students, except in questions concerning faculty appointments; only one student took part in the election of the governing board; the administrative director of the foundation (without a vote).
Back to the foundation: On Saturday, 10 May 1958, Thorwald Risler, Hellmut Becker, and Inge Aicher-Scholl met at the Restaurant Pelikan in Beuron at 10:30 a.m. in order to vote on the details of their future cooperation. 964 The result of this discussion was that Thorwald Risler would begin his work for the foundation as early as 1 July 1958, “his particular objective being to push through the new budget”. 965 Of course, this needed to be done gradually, that is, starting with one day a week. As of 1959 he would be fully at the disThe inner council’s most important powers were: posal of the foundation. Notice that Thorwald Risler, as mentioned previously, was an industrialist the election of the governing board; whose living standard could not be reduced to the a say in the HfG’s general organization, teaching level of the salaries of Ulm lecturers. It was necesschedule, college regulations, and rules relating sary to find a way of making it possible to pay him to examinations, as well as in faculty appointan appropriate salary, and a way was indeed found; ments. but when the HfG ended this circumstance was used against the foundation in a particularly painCompared to the governing board and the inner ful manner (the HfG was reprimanded by the Land council, the extended council was referred to a s audit division, which led to very unpleasant politithe HfG’s “parliament”. It consisted of the entire cal consequences), and only because the confaculty (lecturers with permanent contracts, perstruction put on the salary thus became politically manent visiting lecturers, assistant lecturers), the relevant, I shall explain it briefly: heads of workshops, the student representative, While Thorwald Risler appeared everywhere as and one representative each of the students in the managing chairman of the foundation’s execueach department and the basic program, the adtive board, he received only a meager remuneraministrative director, the business manager, the tion for expenses incurred, in all a quarter of his executive secretary, and the librarian. In its comfixed income. The foundation needed an industrialposition and powers (but also in its importance) it ist who was used to a salary that was normal in inessentially corresponded to the preceding council dustry, and therefore Thorwald Risler, too, needed of the HfG. to receive a considerably larger income. Thus he The inner council of the HfG met on 7 March was at the same time hired as the business man1958 and in accordance with the new bylaws ager of the Society of Friends, which was, of course, elected the members of the governing board for a legally independent association. It was in his the current academic year, 1957/58. In the first capacity as business manager that he received ballot they elected the member who was to be three-fourths of his total fixed income. Also he taken over from the present governing board. This received a percent share of the foundation’s earnboard included Otl Aicher, Hans Gugelot, Tomás ings that were to come from commissions by the Maldonado, and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart. private sector. These earnings were supposed to It was Tomás Maldonado who was elected. In the keep alive his motivation for steering industrial second ballot the two other members of the govcommissions towards Ulm, but at the same time erning board had to be elected. Only the lecturers they would make up for the fact that the foundawith permanent contracts, but not the visiting lection could not take on the expense of the company turers, were eligible. Thus the following were up pension plan he had had until then. On the whole for election: Otl Aicher, Anthony Froshaug, Hans the arrangement may appear to be incomprehenGugelot, Hanno Kesting, Herbert Ohl, Friedrich sible at first glance because it is so complicated, Vordemberge-Gildewart, and Walter Zeischegg. and that is why it might have aroused the suspiOtl Aicher and Hans Gugelot were elected in this cion that the foundation supposedly had some-
thing to hide. But this suspicion was unfounded. The only reason for this complicated arrangement is that for tax reasons the foundation could not pay anyone of Thorwald Risler’s caliber. Besides, a donation by the Braun company earmarked for specific purposes guaranteed the share of Thorwald Risler’s salary that the Society of Friends undertook to pay for the first three years (1 July 1958 through 30 June 1961). 966
Georg Leowald, 22 March or 28 April 1958. Photo: Hans Conrad
On 23 July 1958 Inge Aicher-Scholl gave the managing chairman of the Society of Friends, Roderich Count Thun, a report of the successfully concluded agreements. After all it was Count Thun who was now supposed to hire Thorwald Risler, whom he had not met at the time, as a business manager: “You know, dear Roderich, that the idea of a fulltime managing chairman for the foundation‘s executive board, who could slowly replace me here and who will above all fully take over the increasing responsibilities of the foundation, has taken root in me more and more strongly, and that I feel more and more that we need such a man, for various reasons. From the perspective of the school and also because of my situation here. […] He has good contacts in industry, especially to people in plastics, and he also knows a lot of politicians. I have the impression that he is a very outgoing person and that he will activate a most essential side in the foundation that has lain dormant up till now: a connection with industry that will produce orders. […] These latter steps had to be taken very quickly so that we could persuade the man to make a commitment, or else I’ d have informed you earlier, of course. But I felt I could assume that it is
something you’d approve of, for we have been in agreement about the need for such a person for a long time, haven’t we? We couldn’t pass up such an opportunity. Gradually, I’m beginning to feel the impact of an enormous, nonstop responsibility. There’s another thing, too – the business with Bill affected me so much that deep inside me I have not even begun to get over it. That is, outwardly I feel no reactions, but inwardly in my self-confidence and in my spirit of enterprise I’m pretty shattered and inhibited. It would do me good to step back, and it would have quite a positive effect on my continuing work for the college. I am infinitely glad and relieved about the new situation.” 967 However, Inge Aicher-Scholl rejoiced too soon, because the administrative council of the foundation was convened by the advisory board – and Max Bill as a member of the advisory board was not willing to give her proposals his blessing without having a hand in them. That is why the formal appointment of Thorwald Risler, in the course of the reorganization of the executive board, dragged on into the next year. One of Thorwald Risler’s first proposals was that he suggested applying for Land and federal subsidies not only for the HfG, but for the Institute of Product Design as well. This proposal was irresistibly simple and solved several urgent problems all at once. The foundation might receive more money, for in the meantime hardly anyone could bear to listen to the foundation’s complaints that the subsidies were too little to live on and too much to die. The
The governing boards
Otl Aicher, Theodor Pfizer, and Theodor Heuss in the rector’s office, Photo:Hans Conrad
226
institute would become a reality and could devote itself exclusively to work on orders and development. The virulent problems with outstanding payments for orders and reimbursement of students and independent contractors would be cleared up, because the institute was supposed to be run like a business. Work on orders for industry would be separate from the more restless business of teaching. It is true that nobody saw the danger inherent in what amounted to separating the pedagogical part of the HfG plan from the practical part, when
attracted on this basis.” Georg Leowald, for instance, refused to accept the current involvement of the foundation because this was not customary at state colleges and universities either. Tomás Maldonado and Günther Schlensag agreed with him, emphasizing that the institute could not be developed if the foundation did not first work out a new standard contract. But that meant the foundation had to find a way to cover the institute’s expenses (up to that point, there had been none, because the institute was only a plan). As an interTheodor Heuss visits the HfG on 28 July 1958. From the left: Theodor Pfizer, Georg Leowald, Theodor Heuss, Otto Pfleiderer, Horst Rittel. Photo: Hans Conrad
the regular cycle of theory, development, and practice might collapse. One question had still not been settled: The share of the foundation and lecturers in the profits of commissioned work. If the institute was now to concentrate on industry commissions and new lecturers were to be hired, a solution had to be found as quickly as possible. At the 13th meeting of the administrative council on 21 April 1958, Hellmut Becker admitted that the current arrangement could not be continued much longer: “During the stage of the school’s development that had now come to a close, he said, the idealism of the lecturers and staff had sustained the college, financially as well as in other ways. In the long run they could not be expected to go on in this fashion, however; also, new lecturers could hardly be
he saw only the choice between giving up the college or financing it in a way that did justice to the circumstances. […] He said he could imagine that the Land ministry of economics would decide to provide a subsidy, since it was in the Institute of Product Design that promising research p rojects to promote Land economy were being carried out. What they needed to do first was to ascertain the financial requirements for this institute for approximately three to four years, and obtain statements from the Land’s trade and industry regarding the need for this kind of projects. In this connection it was important to find out if the federal government would subsidize the projects.” 969 Because the representatives of the ministry of education and the arts and of the federal ministry of the interior agreed to this proposal, the administrative council decided that the foundation should apply for dual subsidies from the federal and Land governments, i.e., for both teaching and development carried out at the H fG and in the institute. The total they requested was DM 620,000. But, as always, the representatives of the Land ministries involved (finance and economics) dampened the expectations: “Both gentlemen [Josef Alfons Thumaand Günther Boulanger; author's note] stressed that it was of primary importance that efforts to grant subsidies should be supported by industry.”
im solution for a year, the administrative council accepted the compromise proposal that the foundation and lecturers would share the proceeds from orders at a ratio of 50:50. 968 At the following, 14th, meeting of the administrative council on 14 July 1958 Otto Pfleiderer, the president of the La ndeszentralbank Baden-Württemberg, proposed that because of the dual character of the HfG (development and teaching) they should apply for part of the required subsidy with the ministry of education and the arts and the other part should be requested from Land and federal research funds. “In response Mr. Thuma [the president of the Trade Supervision Department; author’s note] said that after debates at this and the last meeting and after a thorough investigation
ing developments and discoveries that would benefit the entire economy of the Land. That meant that gradually the institute would no longer develop individual products but comprehensive systems. This was the argument underlying the foundation’s 11 October 1958 application to the Trade Supervision Department: “Up till now the foundation has not received subsidies for research and development in the area of product design. Therefore it has also not been possible to create personnel-related and material conditions for the effective functioning of the Institute of Product Design. The institute began its work in the beginning of 1958 in response to industry needs when comprehensive long-term development projects had to be done that could not be incorporated in the instruction program of the College of Design. However, in order to be able to afford successful research and development work whose goal is not exclusively to create production-ready models for individual industrial firms, but that also passes on general discoveries to the industry at large, it is necessary to have financing that is not dependent on the companies that commission the orders.” 970 After the years of expansion (the currency reform had taken place ten years ago), producers now moved in saturated markets where growth could no longer be taken for granted. That is why, the application stated, increases in productivity, efficiency and automation of production, and improvement in quality were necessary if German industry was to hold its own on the markets – and with this in mind the foundation, together with the HfG and the institute, wanted to br ing to light and teach new knowledge. These were indeed very different objectives than merely the functional and aesthetic design of an object. Also from now on the German term Gestal tung was consistently replaced by the term design . And starting with this proposal, the foundation no On the terrace: Friedrich VordembergeGildewart, Inge AicherScholl, Theodor Heuss, Theodor Pfizer, Georg Leowald, Hans Gugelot. Photos: Hans Conrad
How could one justify the financing of an institute with public funds if it was engaged in work commissioned by industry with the intention of making a profit? The only imaginable legitimation was to argue that the institute was on the road to produc-
longer spoke of the Institut für Produktform (Institute of Product Form): The subject of this application was the Institut für Produktgestaltung (Institute of Product Design). This was the name it used from then on.
227
The governing boards
228
The first Großer Konvent , extended council, of the HfG took place on 9 June 1958 in the rector’s office (prior to this only one such meeting of the Konvent , council, had been held). Photo: Wolfgang Siol A rchives: HfG (58/0390/3)
Of course this did not mean that such cosmetic changes were enough to distract the officials from the substance. The Trade Supervision Department carefully studied the application although its president was a member of the administrative council, and arrived at a critical result: On closer examination the so-called first current research projects appeared pretty grandiose. Walter Zeischegg claimed he was working on ceramic magnets that were treated as top secret in the huge labs of Siemens , Bosch, and AEG; and even a lay person does a double take today on reading the assertion that the Institute of Product Design is at present “working with radioactive substances”, an area in which, in 1958, even the experts were beginners. Here is what the Trade Supervision Department said in its critique: “The pro jects and goals listed in the outline describe a program for the next 50 years. For a proposal covering the first year, more modest projects should be tackled where working teams can form first with a sufficiently strong background in physics, technology, and economics to create design that points the way.” 971 Therefore the foundation was not doing itself a favor with this sort of application; rather, along with the HfG and the Institute of Product Design, it was suspected of running an expensive playground for braggarts and dreamers.
Federal officials, on 10 December 1958, rated the foundation’s request for a DM 70,000 subsidy to the Institute of Product Design positively after four experts had given their opinions. I nterestingly enough, however – in contrast with the reaction of the Land Trade Supervision Department in Stuttgart – these opinions evaluated only the HfG, not the actual plan for the Institute of Product Design. In brief, all the experts felt the application should be approved, because the HfG “was doing work that was worthy of support and was considered to be one of the few important institutions of this kind.” 972 The differing focal points of individual opinions are worth noting for two reasons: first, because they took stock of the first five years of work at the HfG from the perspective of experts in the field at large and secondly, because the opinions represented the basis for regular future subsidies to the Institute of Product Design. The first expert obviously sympathized with the Werkbund and the arts and crafts schools, both institutions that eyed the HfG from a safe distance. He still recalled the Bill crisis: “Training in the basic course led to conflicts among the faculty and the departure of former rector Max Bill, who had strived to develop the creative abilities of the students in a non-goal-oriented way. Now Maldonado had organized the basic course purely as preliminary
studies leading toward professional training. His views are thus in contradiction to those of most arts educators, and doubts about the goal-oriented nature of this type of basic education should probably not be omitted in an opinion concerning the present application.” In keeping with the scheme of this evaluation, the designer Georg Leowald is characterized as “the strongest, most distinctive personality of the Ulm faculty”. At any rate this first expert measured everything that was done, or not done, in Ulm by the standards of Max Bill: “Opinions may vary about the advisability of the departments of “visual communication and information’. The subjects taught here […] are the same as at other arts and technical schools. What is new in Ulm, however, is the way they are combined and specifically oriented toward the goals of industrial design, and toward educating the public about design. When Max Bill left, the college received new bylaws, and the school is now administered by a governing board. This does not seem to be practical, for the college absolutely needs to be administered by an energetic individual who carries out the necessary changes resolutely and purposefully. It would also be such a person’s job to shed some ballast – an overemphasis on theory. The lack of direction that is noticeable at present is a sore point that needs to be healed soon if the college is to survive.” The second expert saw an even sharper contrast between the college’s beginnings under Max Bill and its present orientation, and therefore wrote that “[…] in comparison with the Bauhaus, on whose tradition the school is based, it lacks the influence and the weight of freelance artists, and Right: The extended council‘s chairman, Tomás Maldonado. Photo: Wolfgang Siol A rchive: HfG (58/0389)
hence the great stimulation, excitement, and charisma communicated by the teaching [of such ar tists]. One has the impression that Ulm is about abjuring anything that has to do with art, in favor of a curriculum in which science and research make up a considerable part of what is taught, for they get to the bottom of all things, measure, compare, and go in for statistics and market research.” Unlike his two colleagues, the third expert chose not the HfG’s origins but its plans as his starting point. He reported that “in connection with
its special teaching program the School of Design has developed methods in research and d evelopment that are extraordinarily important for the present and future because of their special objectives and their character. […] This is a very important and promising research institution that does excellent work […].” Like the third expert, the fourth was far more sympathetic toward the HfG than the first two. This fourth person sang what amounted to a hymn of praise to the HfG and represented the view “that Bernhard Rübenach, 22 March 1958. Photo: Hans Conrad
Ulm was the only place where people do practical work in the field [of design; author’s note] with obvious success. This was the only place, he wrote, where it made sense to invest funds in support of research on product design. One cause of critical remarks about the college was the personnel crisis, which seemed to have been overcome in the meantime, and another was the vocabulary of the technical designers that so disconcerted scientists and engineers and that people at the HfG also loved to use in the school’s catalogues. All the more impressive and truly persuasive, however, were the practical results and achievements the school had to show for itself […]. It was necessary to complement and to secure the practical work of the designers through a systematic grasp a nd evaluation of the technical and physiological premises. This seemed to be a true research opportunity. […] The expert ends by remarking that he was forced to realize that product design could not be incorporated in the giant machinery of a technical college or university. One needed smaller, more flexible institutions that were especially organized for this purpose, as independent as possible of government influences and as free from bureaucratic inhibitions as possible. Ulm had all the prerequisites for turning these wishes into a reality.” The fruit of the efforts to apply for Land and federal subsidies both for the HfG and for the Institute of Product Design could soon be harvested. At the end of 1958 Thorwald Risler got a notice that the application to the Land Trade Supervision Department had been successful, though with reserva-
229
The governing boards
230
tions: “Subject to approval by the minister, the ministry of economics would be willing to gr ant a subsidy for the following research projects: ‘office furnishings’, ‘scales’, ‘light fixtures’, and ‘kitchen equipment’, i.e., not a basic subsidy for the institute.”973 There are still three details from the internal life of the HfG in 1958 left to report. First, the inner council had assembled once more on 16 June 1958 in order to elect the governing board for the following academic year. The bylaws of the HfG stipulated that the g overning board for the next academic year had to be elected by the end of June. For the 1958/59 academic year it consisted of Tomás Maldonado (reelected in the first ballot) as well as Otl Aicher and Hanno Kesting (elected in the second ballot). 974 Then, on 30 September 1958, the new governing board again chose Tomás Maldonado as its chair. 975 Secondly, on 30 May 1958, the inner council introduced the new positions of department rep resentatives as connecting links between the departments and the governing board: “Mr. Maldonado listed the chief functions of the ‘D Rs’: 1. To free the governing board of organizational problems. 2. To establish better contacts between the departments and the school administration.” And thirdly, on the morning of 28 July 1958, President Theodor Heuss, on a tour of the departments, workshops, and the in-house exhibit of the H fG, received an impression of the school’s achieve-
1959 was a year of consolidation, a peac eful year during which the HfG and the foundation expanded in the dimensions laid down in 1957 and 1958. The folowing two focal points are of note: the definitive appointment of Thorwald Risler as managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board and secretary of the Society of Friends; increased Land and federal subsidies to the foundation for the HfG and for the I nstitute of Product Design, and – connected to the foregoing – plans to enlarge the HfG (Institute of Product Design, Institute of Communication). A few remarks in reference to point one, Thorwald Risler: The managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board, as previously stated, had to be discharged by the advisory board and reelected. Again, based on the sources, I am forced to conclude that the makeup of the advisory board had changed by tacit agreement, and that no resolution on the matter is known to exist. At any rate Hellmut Becker and Roderich Count Thun, who had been present at the last advisory board meeting on 24 April 1953, were no longer invited to the meeting that was to take place on 30 January 1959 with the purpose of electing the new executive board of the foundation. Since both were members of the administrative council, it is possible that their membership in the advisory board tacitly came to an end; in any case, no formal resolution exists. The new executive board of the foundation was originally supposed to consist of Thorwald Risler, The exhibition pavilion for the Braun company, part of the radio exhibition at the exhibition center of the 1959 Frankfurt Trade Fair. Photos: Hans Conrad
ments.976 Perhaps the tour changed the previously distant attitude of the federal president, but the HfG and the foundation profited by this visit only inasmuch as there were positive headlines in the daily press.
Inge Aicher-Scholl, and the Mannheim economist Johann Dietrich Auffermann. (The latter had apparently been brought on board by Karl Schmölder, the new member of the foundation’s administrative council who had joined it on 9 December
1958 to replace Karl Klasen and had been proposed for membership by Otto Pfleiderer; though Karl Schmölder kept in the background just as much as Karl Klasen. 977) Johann Dietrich Auffermann, however, withdrew his candidacy for member of the foundation‘s executive board before the advisory board meeting. 978 Inge Aicher-Scholl had decided to eat humble pie and, on 19 December 1958, informed Max Bill of the planned restructuring, because, after all, he was a member of the advisory board. 979 It is true Herbert Schober, 1959. Photo: unknown Archive: HfG (59/0065/4)
that he was of the opinion that only advisory board members could be elected as members of the foundation‘s executive board, because they belonged to the advisory board, but later he no longer insisted on this view. He proposed that Thorwald Risler should be elected to be sole member of the foundation‘s executive board, since he wished thus to document the fact that Inge Aicher-Scholl had failed as managing chairperson: “People should stop obfuscating the facts with flowery words.”980 Moreover he demanded that for the coming advisory board meeting a new item must be added to the agenda: “Discussion about the current direction and the so-called educational philosophy of the School of Design; decisions regarding appropriate measures to lead the college back to the original founding idea”. 981 Quite obviously the separation from the HfG was not over for Max Bill, just as Inge Aicher-Scholl had written that she had not completely overcome this crisis yet. But unfortunately Max Bill’s reaction, every time he was involved in foundation business for procedural reasons, was to opt for resistance and obstruction with every ounce of energy. Thus, on 6 February 1959, he wrote to Hellmut Becker: “I have now left the Ulm school alone for a while, something Mr. Maldonado wished for so much, and the reason why he made the students so many promises, which he said would be redeemed once I was ‘no longer there’. The result is more than pitiful; Mr. Maldonado has been practically running the school for 3 1/2 years, that is, this is his fourth academic year now. I myself only had the opportunity to direct the school a little longer than two school years, and under particularly diffi-
cult conditions, starting from scratch. Judging by everything I see and hear today, the school has not only developed very little, but above all in the wrong direction as far as principles are concerned. […] I can’t watch in silence what is going on there now; I cannot help protesting against what Mr. Maldonado writes. Today, there are only two alternatives left! Either Mr. Maldonado withdraws and I resume the position I held before the 12 March 1957 agreement was concluded, or I’ll be forced to attack Mr. Maldonado’s nonsense ruthlessly and unmask his machinations publicly, in the interest of the school and with a sense of responsibility toward the idea that underlies the school and toward its students. […] I regret having to write you such a long letter. But you are one of the people who are responsible for my no longer being in Ulm and who preferred to hand over to Mr. and Mrs. Aicher together with Mr. Maldonado a good cause that could have worldwide importance today and that might still regain it. Because of sentimental notions, the school is now on the b rink of dissolution, because they have given their support to these incapable people.” 983 In the same tone, Max Bill also addressed Walter Gropius: “[…] Primarily Maldonado is the one who wants to gear the whole pedagogy to accumulating knowledge and who tries to discredit ‘learning by doing’ in his speeches and writings. What is more, he’s infected by a mysticized awe of technology (I guess people always feel the most respect for things they understand the least!). Well, I’m just in the process of doing a thorough job of exposing the Ulm machinations in the press. For as I write, the oldest prop of the present system, Mrs. Aicher, is being forced to resign by the executive board (officially they use a d ifferent word, which doesn’t change the reality, though). [ …] Even the oh-so-loyal administrative council, which sacrificed me on Mrs. Aicher’s account, has now had enough and has realized that she is incompetent, since they haven’t been able to make progress in spite of the fact that I left. The school’s future is still completely dark, and the stuff you read about it in circulars is – if you know how to read it after long experience – the old method of throwing dust in everybody’s eyes. I’m just telling you this in passing; you’ll see soon enough how badly things will turn out even without Mrs. Aicher, for she is being replaced by an industry man who has no idea what he’s doing.” 984 Max Bill did not realize that he was discrediting himself by the way he spoke and by his wrong-headed interpretation of things, while to a large extent he and Walter Gropius were in agreement on design-related matters. Walter Gropius did report to Inge AicherScholl “[…] the irresponsible rumors Bill was writing” 985 , but then cautioned her not to neglect the
231
Administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung 1953–1963 982
Meeting
1
Date
24.IV. 8.VI.
2
3
4
Federal ministry
5
7.IX. 19.X. 1.II.
1953
1954
6
7
3.VIII.
8
20.IV. 4.VII. 1955
1956
9
10
28.III.
20.VII.
11
12
11.III.
25.VII.
1957
13
14
15
16
21.IV.
14.VII.
9.XII.
12.XI.
1958
1959
17
1960
5.XII.
18
19
12.IV.
30.X.
1961
20
Walther Hinsch
of economics Federal ministry
Mr. Rothe
Paul Egon
Hübinger
Karl Gussone
of the interior Federal ministry
Helmut Döscher
Walter Weißwange
of housing construction
Gerd H. Müller Baden-Württemberg ministry
Wolfgang Donndorf
of education and the arts Baden-Württemberg ministry
Edgar Hotz
Adalbert Seifriz
Josef Alfons Thuma
of economics Baden-Württemberg ministry
Günther Boulanger
of finance
City of Ulm
Theodor Pfizer (chairman)
Baden-Württemberg Land Central Bank
Otto Pfleiderer (deputy chairman)
Society of Friends
1
Hellmut Becker
2
Brigitte Bermann-Fischer
3 ( D GB )
Otto Burrmeister
4
Helmut Cron
5
Karl Max von Hellingrath
6
Karl Klasen
7
Roderich Count Thun
Klaus Dohrn
Heinz Küppers
Wilhelm
Kleinknecht
Richard Knobel
Karl Schmölder
21
14.VII. 1962
26.IV. 1963
22
11.XI.
233
The governing boards
Visit by the German Design Council, 18 and 19 Feb. 1959.
Photos: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (59/0174 and 59/0179)
Left: Mia Seeger and Stephan Hirzel; Right: Mia Seeger and Inge Aicher-Scholl.
234
Reyner Banham and Tomás Maldonado at the discussion after Banham’s lecture on Consumption and product design ,
13March 1959. Photo: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (59/0211)
artistic part of the HfG as against the theoretical part; also he pleaded – just as Max Bill had d one, but surely without having him in mind – for a rector in lieu of a governing board: “What seems to be of greatest importance to me for the school is that the artistic element should remain predominant, that problems of sociology, methodology and mathematics should remain at the margin and not become preponderant. Out of the chaotic intuition of the artistic element, all parts of the school must be fed. The other br anches are instruments of
(Inge Aicher-Scholl) was relieved of her position and the new three-member executive board (Thorwald Risler, Inge Aicher-Scholl, and Max Guther) was elected without incidents.
order for the inner substance. […] You know my doubts whether it will be possible to run the school permanently under a group leadership. […] I believe that an institute like yours in Ulm needs artistic leadership which ends in one decision-making personality.“ Though Max Bill had intentionally disseminated his intention “to fight the nonsense spread by Mr. Maldonado and his followers with all means at his command”986 , when there might have been an opportunity to do so he gave in: For the advisory board meeting on 6 March 1959, Max Bill sent his regrets. Another member who was missing was Fritz Pfeil, who had had nothing more to do with the HfG since 1956 and had been busy on an urban development project in Iran since the spring of 1958.987 Thus the Ulm circle, except for Thorwald Risler, now consisted of the old familiar group: Inge Aicher-Scholl and Otl Aicher, Günther Grzimek, Max Guther, Hans Frieder Eychmüller, and Walter Zeischegg were present at this meeting. It was in keeping with the makeup of this group that the old managing chairperson of the foundation
industry and thus also help promote the d evelopment of the institutes.” 988 Thorwald Risler returned to these key concepts in his address: “The new phase in the development of the School of Design – the emphatic turn toward industrial practice and thus toward an accelerated development of the institutes for research and development – first caused me to consider joining your circle. […] If in the near future we succeed in showing that we have new designs in current production that are the result of the teamwork of designers and engineers we strive for here and that owe their specific production engineering and their marketing advantages to this ‘teamwork from the ground up’, then it will also be possible – and this is a very essential point of view that aims at the sphere of pedagogy – to convince those technical designers and leading engineers that it is useful to have a designer work as part of the team from the very beginning of a project. So far engineers have thought they can manage to do the whole thing – correct construction plus the resulting correct design – much better if they work on their own; understandably,
In a ceremony on 7 April 1959, the new executive board introduced itself to the extended council of the HfG and then to the public. The direction and goal for which Thorwald Risler had been brought on board were announced quite clearly: “He will help us develop a more intensive relationship to
they obey only very reluctantly when the business have succeeded in winning Mr. Risler’s support manager, for marketing reasons, insists that the for these tasks to be a great advantage for the product be subsequently cosmeticized. H owever, college. That is why I am very grateful to you for we’d like to convince them of the usefulness of assuming personal responsibility for the text of the kind of designer who, in this college, has this contract as the chairman dealing with the learned to think and speak the language of the administrative council.” 993 engineer.”989 Now, no one could still claim not to know in what direction the foundation intended Apropos: The Society of Friends had become quite to steer the HfG. inactive during the past years, only making a brief One more factor made complete the new cirappearance three times. On 10 December 1956 cumstances within the foundation: On 31 March the first members’ meeting had taken place in 1959 the previous administrative director, Günther order to retroactively confirm the appointment of Schlensag, had exchanged his position for one in the members of the administrative council (at the the Scientific Council. 990 His reserve, which might time these still included Hellmut Becker, Brigitte have appeared to be colorless and weak, had Bermann-Fischer, Helmut Cron, Karl Max von Helalways surrounded him with the aura of a timid lingrath, Karl Klasen, Wilhelm Kleinknecht, and bureaucrat who waslacking in independence. Roderich Count Thun) and to correct the statutes Now he was replaced b y Günther Schweigkofler, of the Society of Friends to read that not six but a self-confident and consistent, sometimes enerrather seven persons had been appointed to serve getic colleague of Thorwald Risler's. 991 – Finally, on the foundation’s administrative council. 994 On 6 as of 1 April 1959, the foundation set up a budget June 1958 the first and only annual meeting of the of its own that was not part of the HfG’s budget. 992 Society of Friends took place. It included a detailed The contractual agreement between Thorwald account of the HfG’s development. 995 And on 20 Risler and the Society of Friends was delayed to September 1958 Inge Aicher-Scholl, through a letthe very end of the year. Roderich Count Thun, the ter to members of the society, obtained their conmanaging chairman of the Society of Friends, felt sent to having Karl Schmölder succeed Karl Klasen extremely uncomfortable about the financial scale as a member of the administrative council. 996 Obon which the foundation now wanted to run viously the Society of Friends had so far not even things, with money that would be handled as dobegun to fulfill the great expectations placed in it nations by the Society of Friends. He no longer as an organization that would raise funds and arwanted to assume the sole responsibility for this, range contacts with industry. Roderich Count apart from the fact that at the beginning of 1958 Thun, in his 27 October 1959 circular letter, ashe had begun spending about half of the year in cribed this partly to the fact that the Society of Costa Rica, his wife’s country of origin. That is why Friends had not yet begun to enjoy tax-exempt he felt it was important that Theodor Pfizer assume status. That meant that donations to the Society of Friends were not completely tax-deductible up Reyner Banham and to that point – a truly careless omission for a fundMartin Heidegger at the raising organization. This shortcoming was now to traditional Ulm ceremo- be remedied: “The Stuttgart internal revenue office ny in honor of Albert has, by a letter dated 31 July 1959, recognized the Einstein, 14 March Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stif1959. tung, a nonprofit organization, to be a scientific Photo: Christian Staub institution for tax purposes. Thus it is accorded Archive: HfG tax-exempt status for donations and other contri(ohne Negativ. Heidegger) butions.”997 As a prerequisite for this status, however, the statutes of the Society of Friends first had to be changed. To be precise, the purpose of the society in section 2 had to expressed more preresponsibility for the contracts with Thorwald Riscisely. At the same time, without any fuss, you ler, but also for future development: “I had excould almost say surreptitiously, a sentence was plained that I am willing to sign this contract as added to the statutes that made it possible for the the chairman of the Society of Friends only if Mr. Society of Friends to hire a full-time employee – Becker […] has approved the text: first, because meaning Thorwald Risler. It is very possible that the contract completely explodes the very narrow this represented the legal reaction of Roderich scale of our arrangements to date and second, Count Thun to his discomfort with the new organbecause the fiscal policy of the ‘Geschwisterization. He was now definitely covered as far as Scholl-Stiftung’ and the ‘Society of Friends’ cannot the consequences of future development were in practice be completely separated, though legal- concerned. – The new statutes were approved by ly they are separate. I still consider the fact that we the members and went into effect on 5 December
235
The governing boards
1959.998 This brought to a close the restructuring that had been set in motion by the hiring of Thorwald Risler. December 31, 1959 also marked the end of his transition period, and as of 1 January 1960 he worked only for the foundation.
236
Herbert Hirche, 1959. Photo: unknown Archive: HfG (59/0498)
Lucius Burckhardt, Frei Otto, and Joachim Kaiser, 1959. Photos: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (59/0017, 59/0069/4, 59/0144)
Now to the second focus point of 1959: the expansion of the HfG with new institutes, and the foundation’s attempt to obtain subsidies for operating expenses from the Land and the federal government both for the HfG and the Institute of Product Design. The fact is that in October 1958 the foundation had addressed the first such request to the Land Trade Supervision Department, but the application had been widely criticized. Thorwald Risler had revised these documents and again submitted them on 5 March 1959. This time he stressed that the Institute of Product Design must be expanded, because industry requirements had changed: The future did not lie in the designing of individual objects, but in projects with long-term development. This work could no longer be dealt with during class time, which is why it was necessary to have a separate institute for this purpose. At the same time technical emphasis had shifted: “The Institute of Product Design at the School of Design makes the complex problems of production and design into a unified subject for research. To solve the tasks resulting from this fact, which are listed below, the Institute coordinates the work of School of Design faculty and – if need be – outside specialists and research institutes. […] The tasks of the Institute of Product Design are as follows:
1. research and development of methods and procedures for designing industrially manufactured products; 2. exemplary application of these methods a) to the design or redesign of individual objects, b) to the design or redesign of series of related products; 3. developing areas for the ap plication of new technical data for product design; 4. research on the connections between design and use;
5. research on the connections between design and demand. In order to carry out these tasks there needs to be an organizational separation of the Institute of Product Design from the School of Design. The teams scheduled to do institute work have to be augmented by full-time specialists who, up till now, have been availably only for hours at a time, from case to case. 999 It is true that the Land Trade Supervision Department was reluctant to participate in financing the operating expenses of the Institute of Product Design. But it had no objection to doing so if the request contained added statements to indicate it referred only to the financing of four specific research projects that would continue for one and a half to two years. This subsidy was again intended only as start-up assistance: “By granting one-time financial assistance, we want to make it possible for the Institute of Product Design to initiate large-scale research pro jects.” 1000 With this in mind, on 3 December 1959, the foundation asked the Land ministry of economics (the sponsor of the Land Trade Supervision Department) for a DM 100,000 subsidy to the institute for fiscal year 1959/60. 1001 On the federal level the expert opinions of the previous year and the arguments presented this year had borne fruit: The federal ministry of the interior granted the foundation the requested DM 100,000 for the HfG and DM 70,000 for the Institute of Product Design in the current fiscal year.1002 At the 16th meeting of the administrative council on 12 November 1959, the representative of this ministry, Karl Gussone, spoke of his suc”
cessful work in support of the foundation in Bonn and promised that this subsidy might be continued in the future. 1003 That meant that Thorwald Risler had proved to be right: The federal government and the Land seemed to find the new plan by the HfG and foundation acceptable. In the same breath, Thorwald Risler tried to build up the capacity of the HfG. Now that there was industry interest and applications were coming in, it was possible to teach 150 students, but what stood in the way was a shortage of class-
rooms. That is why additional capital expenditures were necessary in order to enlarge the residential buildings. Thorwald Risler expected DM 300,000 to be made available from funds of the Federal and Land Youth Plan in order to build a second residential high-rise and new teachers’ houses. The foundation’s capital resources for this purpose consisted of a donation from the Braun company totaling DM 100,000. Finally Thorwald Risler told the members of the administrative council of an ambitious financial
basic salaries ranged from DM 900 and D M 1,800, and the foundation also paid extra depending on age, years of seniority, marital status, and for cases where lecturers had no opportunity or hardly any opportunities to take on commission work. 1004 Compared with the earnings that teachers at state art colleges of Baden-Württemberg received according to their salary regulations of 9 April 1959, the incomes of HfG lecturers were definitely almost always lower. 1005 Only in the department of information were the lecturers adequately paid; Max Guther, Inge Aicher-Scholl, and Thorwald Risler being introduced as the foundation’s new, threemember executive board, 7 April 1959. Photo:unknown Archive: HfG (59/0309)
perspective that was finally supposed to prepare a solid basis for the HfG: “In conclusion Mr. Risler finds that in the opinion of the foundation’s executive board an annual budget volume of approximately DM 1.5 million should be attained for operating the college and the institute. […] According to Mr. Risler it ought to be possible to raise the budget to DM 1.5 million within about three years.” This budget was to make it possible for the foundation on the one hand to hire a sufficient number of lecturers and assistants and on the other hand enable it to pay them salaries comparable to those at state colleges and universities. That is why at this meeting the administrative council adopted salary regulations retroactive to 1 April 1959. According to these regulations the
the biggest differences existed in the departments of product design and visual communication, where HfG lecturers earned around DM 600, or about 50 percent less than their colleagues in the academies! As the HfG’s organizational structure changed, a pedagogical transformation also continued in 1959.1006 The new students who registered at the HfG in the 1959/60 academic year no longer exclusively participated in the basic course as a set of classes all students alike had to take together during their first year at the school. After the first quarter partial separation began into the specialized fields of product design (for the departments of product design and industrialized building) and communi -
237
The governing boards
The exhibition pavilion for the Braun company, part of the radio exhibition at the 1959 Frankfurt Trade Fair. Photos: Hans Conrad
238
cation (for the departments of visual communica-
tion and information). The HfG also received a new workshop for processing plastics. And within the Institute of Product Design the individual lecturers began to form the so-called development groups, in which they completed their commission work. Up to that point there had been five groups, four of which were numbered; the group around Herbert Ohl was apparently not supposed to be permanently housed within the Institute of Product Design, but to form a separate institute; in fact,
working at the HfG for a long time, summed up this criticism in a proposal to the inner council that the HfG’s bylaws should finally be given a “definitive” form. 1008 They began this initiative at the very moment when the new direction of the HfG was obviously being affirmed : At the meeting of the inner council on 6 June 1959 the governing board for the coming academic year (1959/60) was elected by rotation, and for the first time no product designer was represented in the school administration. Tomás Maldonado was reelected, and in Architects and product designers of the Italian association ADI ( Asso ziazione per il Disegno Industriale ) in the plas-
ter workshop, 15 June 1959. From left: Herbert Lindinger, Tomás Maldonado, Gianfranco Frattini, Raffaele Crespi, Enzo Frateili, Pier Giacomo Castiglioni, F. Helg, Giancarlo Pozzo, Giulio Castelli, Joe de Pas, and Marco Zanuso. Photo: Wolfgang Siol Archive:HfG (59/0564)
however, it worked within the Institute of Product Design: e2: Hans Gugelot (product design), e3: Walter Zeischegg (product design), e5: Otl Aicher (visual communication), e6: Tomás Maldonado (visual communication), Institute of Industrialized Building: Herbert Ohl. 1007 Restructuring within the HfG and the foundation also preoccupied the faculty. Not all lecturers were in agreement with the new curricular direction of the HfG, and the internal organization of the H fG and its relationship to the foundation were criticized. The two lecturers Walter Zeischegg and Hans Gugelot, both designers who had already been
the second ballot Herbert Ohl and Horst Rittel were chosen. – Horst Rittel was a mathematician, taught in the basic program, and soon emerged as Otl Aicher’s fiercest opponent; embodied in these two persons were the extremes that polarized the HfG in 1962: the new lecturer, a theoretician on the one hand, and the HfG founder, a designer, on the other. – Walter Zeischegg gave the following reasons for his proposal: “In the interest of teaching and of work at the institute, the current provisional school bylaws must now be given a definitive form. The present form of school administration – the governing board – must be replaced by a rector who represents the school internally and externally, and the senate, which must be made up of representatives of all departments and a ssist the rector. Important decisions are only possible if
Günther Schweigkofler, circa 1959. Photo: unknown Archive: Schweigkofl er
the school’s present four departments have a right to make decisions, act in an advisory capacity, and have a say in school affairs. Furthermore, in the definitive bylaws the relationship between foundation and HfG administration as regards responsibilities must be demarcated more clearly than heretofore. According to the foundation’s bylaws, the administration of the HfG is responsible to the administration of the foundation for fulfilling the founding mission. Something that needed to be fundamentally clarified was the question: Whom do the institutes report to? These fundamental problems must be settled by the beginning of the next academic year.” In the course of the discussion that followed Walter Zeischegg indicated what it was he disliked about the present situation: On the one hand the departments of the HfG did not feel sufficiently represented in the HfG’s administration, and felt ignored on many issues. On the other hand he saw that the current bylaws of the foundation only insufficiently regulated the new structure of the institute. Tomás Maldonado suggested that the bylaws of the foundation needed to be changed first so that definitive HfG bylaws could also be passed. Thorwald Risler, however, said that the group should c onsider that the bylaws of the foundation could not be changed all that quickly, even if their flaws were obvious. But in any case one goal was certain: “The HfG is to have as much freedom as possible, and I shall not intervene either. But I am responsible for seeing that what is in the bylaws is carried out. I am making every effort to get a full budget – we’re in the middle of negotiations with the ministry of economics right now –, but again that would mean stricter government supervision. We must try to get funded – without government supervision.” To sum up this council meeting, they agreed that first the governing board must expand its r ules of procedure: All departments that were not represented in the governing board were to be invited through their elected department representatives to extended meetings of the governing board and be heard. Secondly a draft for a new provisional version of the bylaws was to b e submitted by Christmas, though it had not been determined who had the authority to do this. – Both proposals, however, were translated into action only halfheartedly or not at all. And even if this had happened, it would have made no difference to the uneasy design lecturers, because both proposals touched only the surface. But the situation had not yet reached the point where the underlying reasons could come to light. The next day the inner council continued its debate.1009 There was an initial confrontation between the lecturers of the theoretical and the design-related subjects. The mathematician Horst Rittel and the sociologist Hanno Kesting proposed
that a new department for planning and development should be organized in which the professional profile of the planner should be developed. They were concerned with comprehensive learning that would go beyond individual specialties, so that decisions could be made on a rational basis. The designers Hans Gugelot and Walter Zeischegg voted against it, while the architect Herbert Ohl supported the plan: It is true that in 1957 after the Bill crisis the lecturers had b een in agreement that methodology should be taught in each department and also be studied in courses that transcended individual departments: “We wanted to get away from a Bauhaus ideology and work more toward a technological level”, to quote Tomás Maldonado. But in the meantime they no longer felt comfortable about what was going on, because the new disciplines were getting out of control: “Today, for instance, the lecturers who have been recently hired come up with the project of founding a new department. If we ever hire a mechanical engineer, he, too, will want to set up a department of mechanical engineering.” The discussion was defused by the fact that Hanno Kesting and Horst Rittel were asked to describe their plan in more concrete terms. However, it never came to that in the next few months, and the entire p lan was not pursued further. The Institute of Communication, too, was discussed by the inner council. Tomás Maldonado reminded members of the resolution during a 4 July 1957 pedagogical meeting at the HfG that this institute was to be developed slowly. Since then, however, hardly anything had been done, and for material reasons this institute was still needed: “Experience has shown that the fact there is no such institute is quite detrimental to visual communication, and that therefore the position of the vc department [= visual communication; author’s note] also looks pretty critical. I n that department there is apparently a tendency to think in stereotypes and to choose schematic solutions, and apparently they still haven’t gotten over seeing their program in terms of commercial art here. And it is not enough to teach only certain fundamental ideas about typography, poster design, typesetting, etc. There is no other dimension there that takes into consideration other aspects of visual communication, not only in the area of film and television, but in a number of other areas that will significantly gain in importance in the coming ten years: the problem of the man-machine system.” (The latter aspect in fact conceals something that is today considered to be one of the most important tasks of design: creating so-called user interfaces.) Walter Zeischegg and Otl Aicher agreed with this analysis, which represented an implicit attack on the work of Friedrich Vordemberge-
239
The governing boards
World design conference in Tokyo, May 1960. Left: Christian Staub and Otl Aicher. Right: Tomás Maldonado. Photos:unknown Archive: HfG (60/0354/ 2 and 60/0353/3)
240
Opening of the Re-search Center for Optical Perception, 16Jan. 1960. In the foreground, Tomás Maldonado, Warren A. Robbins, and Mervyn W. Perrine; behind them, Herbert Ohl and Thorwald Risler. Photo: Sander Archive: Südwestpresse
Center: Mervyn Perrine. Right: Warren Robbins, Theodor Pfizer, and Thorwald Risler. Photos: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (60/0 011, 60/0052)
Gildewart: “If we go on like this, it won’t be long before we’ll come down to the level of traditional schools. And only the energy with which we go on to new problems will show us the right way. Another problem seems much more crucial: that it is only through the Institute of Communication that the Research Center for Optical Perception will find its true place within the school.” Tomás Maldonado envisioned that with concrete commissions the institute would now begin to grow. But the Institute of Communication was to be open to all lecturers. He himself had prospects of a project for the Italian company Olivetti that would involve display units (lettering, legibility, visibility, ease of identification): “The Ford Foundation gave the money to establish an institute of communication that is to consist of 2 laboratories, 1 sound studio, and 1 research center for optical perception. A start has already been made on the RCOP [ Research Center for Optical Perception; author’s note], and now we must start to develop the institute itself. For this purpose M. [Tomás Maldonado; author’s note] went in search of a very concrete project.” At the same time Tomás Maldonado realized that while institute work and teaching had certain commonalities, they were basically cast in a different mold: “In 1957 it was decided to separate the institute from the school for the most part; it could be included in the school as a whole only
guest lecturer, paid by the Ford Foundation, but this grant ran out on 31 March 1960. That is why at the end of 1959 Mervyn Perrine wanted to know whether the foundation was willing to pay his salary until the end of the 1959/60 academic year and whether the HfG was interested in having him work there after that time as well. 1010 The governing board (Tomás Maldonado as chairman, Herbert Ohl, and Horst Rittel) supported Mervyn Perrine’s intention to continue working at the HfG, but only as long as the budget allotted to permanent lecturers was not used. The Research Center for Optical Perception at the School of Design – part of the Institute of Communication that was being developed – officially opened on 16 January 1960, i. e., six weeks before the Ford Foundation’s grant ran out. 1011 Subsequently Mervyn Perrine continued working as a guest lecturer, and on 20 June 1960 the (new) governing board, which consisted of Gert Kalow (chair), Herbert Ohl, and H orst Rittel, resolved that Mervyn Perrine was to teach as a guest lecturer at the HfG in the coming academic year (1960/61) as well.1012 On the other hand, the finance and employment contract committee of the foundation’s administrative council decided on 5 December 1960 that no money was available for this position, and resolved that Mervyn Perrine’s employment as a guest lecturer would be terminated on 30 June
for partial problems, since the research work is supposed to have a certain d egree of independence from teaching. The institute is supposed to be an organism for continuing education, i.e., good students of the school may go on working in the institutes after completing their studies, so that potentially they could gradually be trained to be future lecturers. Thus the institute pursues two goals: one, to make it possible for lecturers to do research, and two, to provide continuing training for the students.”
1961 1013 – all this is not sensational news, and is recorded here only to complete the picture, because the Research Center was used as ammunition as trench warfare began and Mervyn Perrine distinguished himself as an unlucky second-rank fighter.
The HfG’s Research Center for Optical Perception, which was intended to be the first step toward the implementation of the Institute of Communication, had developed more slowly during the past year than had been hoped. Mervyn Perrine worked as a
In 1960, tensions appeared at the HfG, and only gradually those who were involved began to speak about the reasons for them. It all began with the so-called Hanno Kesting affair when the latter had words with Tomás Maldonado. Tomás Maldonado accused the sociologist of slandering him – Maldonado – in public. On 2 March 1960, Hanno Kesting tried to defend himself by averting attention from the truth of the accusation to the question of Tomás Maldonado’s
qualifications: “I've been accused of making disparaging, even – the word has been used here – ‘slanderous’ remarks about my colleagues. Well, here in the isolation of Kuhberg people talk a lot, gossip even more, and peddle rumors even more, if such a thing is possible. […] So if I say that the so-called Kesting case is in reality the Maldonado case, I know what I’m saying and I can prove it if need be. Gentlemen! The connection between the accusations made against me and my argumentation lies in the person of the accuser. What happened in fact was that I challenged his authority – and I still challenge it today; I’m prepared to explain the reasons, carefully thought out reasons, at any time; I’ve already announced that if need be I will take a closer look at the scientific and pedagogical abilities of Tomás Maldonado.” Thorwald Risler, who was just dealing with the question of how the budget of the foundation could be raised to a practicable level, could not condone trouble at the HfG that compromised his efforts. That is why he tried to nip things in the bud and decided to give a clear signal appealing to all lecturers not to take their disputes into the public sphere: “H aving studied and assessed the situation carefully, the executive board has become convinced that certain statements by Dr. Kesting have indeed not shown the necessary degree of loyalty toward the institution as a whole. […] The executive board most strongly disapproves of all such incidents and, aware of his responsibility for the institution as a whole, will not tolerate, now or in the future, violations against community life and work at the school, in relationships between lecturers among themselves, and between lecturers and students. Community life and work, to his way of thinking, need to be absolutely irreproachable. The foundation dismissed Hanno Kesting effective 30 May 1960. 1014
Haya Kawa gives a guest lecture, 28 April 1960. Photo:Wolfgang Siol A rchive: HfG (60/0214/2)
have decided to tender you my immediate, irrevocable resignation as chairman and member of the governing board of the HfG. For more than five years, during the often difficult and stressful phase of the pedagogical and organizational development of our school, I worked without interruption in the administration of the HfG – initially as vice president, later as chair and member of the governing board. […] I am convinced that at present I can be of more use to the students in teaching, research, and development than by participating in the administration of the school.” 1016 This began the temporary withdrawal of the “old” design lecturers from the governing board, who now left the direction of the HfG to the “new” lecturers on theoretical subjects for the two years that followed. The inner council was thereupon convened for 7 June 1960 in order to complete the present governing board. At the meeting Thorwald Risler again repeated his admonition to the lecturers: “Mr. Risler recommended that in principle all problems should be thoroughly discussed openly and fairly, which would mean that unnecessary tensions and unpleasant situations like the one that had led to Mr. Kesting’s leaving would be avoided.” 1017 Otl Aicher did not wish to be considered as a candidate – as I said previously, the design lecturers withdrew – and the writer Gert Kalow, who had distinguished himself as an independent lecturer and tried hard to bring about conciliation, was elected to succeed Tomás Maldonado. The governing board appointed him the chairman. 1018 Three days later, on 10 July 1960, the inner council met again in order to appoint the HfG administration for the coming academic year (1960/61) in accordance with the bylaws. 1019 Because the design lecturers did not want to be run for office, this meant that Otl Aicher, Hans Gugelot, Herbert Ohl, and Walter Zeischegg were Wheels had thus been set in motion. Horst Rittel, not available as candidates, and when the vote a member of the governing board, disregarded this was taken, six empty ballot papers were handed warning and announced that as far as he was con- in. cerned the matter was not closed yet, he would The people who were elected were Gert Kalow, “come back to it yet – in complete candor – in the Horst Rittel, and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart. inner council or in the pedagogical discussions”. 1015 Herbert Ohl gave his reason for not running for Horst Rittel accused Tomás Maldonado, the chairreelection: “The HfG’s present bylaws, its resulting man of the governing board, that he had “said of organization and the flow of its educational work himself: ‘I am the director of the school – and have has turned out to be unsuitable, as I have discovbeen for 5 years.’ Mr. Rittel felt this was a disered in the course of my work during the last four avowal of all the members of the governing board; years. […] I am not willing to offer my services to that type of slanderous statements were inapprodo administrative work at the School of Design priate and reprehensible. According to the bylaws until new bylaws of the school go into effect, and Maldonado was the chairman of the governing the various disciplines are fully represented.” Now, board, but not the actual director of the school.” we must not forget that the HfG bylaws had been These pinprick tactics did not miss their target: On worked out in 1956 and 1958 by the same lectur31 May 1960 Tomás Maldonado informed the gov- ers who now used its inadequacy as a pretext for erning board and the foundation that he was rerefusing to work in the HfG administration. Possigning from office: “After thorough deliberation I sibly it was a shortcoming that not every depart-
241
The governing boards
“In the monastery of rationalism. At the home of the disciples of Descartes. In the Abbey of the Right Angle.
The isolated location, the unconventional communal life, the initiation into this community, its deliberate exclusive-ness, the hermetic language, isolation by society at large,
the rigorous training, the sense of mission – really, the School of Design on Kuhberg out-
side Ulm could be called a monastery. A monastery for people who want to construct a world from its purest elements:from numbers and symbols.
The spirit of the age has chosen Kuhberg to be the outpost of this world. But what will it look like?
242
West view, 1960. Photo: unknown A rchive:HfG (60/0167)
ment was represented in the governing board; but if such an arrangement had been arrived at, it would have meant that the design lecturers ( product design, visual communication, industrialized building) would always have dominated the rest of the lecturers (information, basic program). And that was what the designers’ uneasiness amounted to. However, this goal was not yet openly expressed, but concealed behind a formula that appeared to be democratic, of how all departments should participate in the HfG’s administration.
This guise of democracy was, however, belied by the lecturers’ attitude: They were not exactly inclined to work constructively on changing the situation. After the new governing board was elected, Thorwald Risler asked the design lecturers to give up their include-me-out policy and to agree to cooperate with the new HfG administration. “It was imperative, he said, that the many tensions be eliminated, and that could only be done by making
a joint effort, regardless of what the makeup of the administration was. Mr. Risler urgently appealed to all those present that they should remember more often than hitherto that they were working on something together here at the school. They were all entitled to their own opinions, but this must not lead to tensions that put the school’s development seriously at risk.” The silent protest of the old guard was followed by the public protest of the representatives. In an open letter on 21 June 1960, six former students
What will things be like when this college has become part of history? Will people be more human, will they have the capacity to be more human?“
Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm , p. 57 f.
who now worked in the institutes turned to Thorwald Risler and to the governing board. 1020 Gui Bonsiepe, Klaus Franck, Herbert Lindinger, Helmut Müller-Kühn, Hans Roericht, and Claude Schnaidt represented the position of the design lecturers and argued in a spirit of objectivity that most members of the HfG could later no longer muster. Here are the reasons for the increasing tensions at the HfG from their perspective: It was a power struggle for leadership of the H fG between designers and non-designers, they said. And behind it, they felt, was the question whether theoretical subjects had the same rights as design subjects at the HfG, or whether design subjects should be given priority treatment, while science and technology were only supposed to be a designer’s tools. This conflict split the HfG into groups and was associated with personal animosities, and in the meantime a dangerous mixture was created that was every bit as explosive as the Bill crisis. “We are of the opinion that the internal cr isis of the HfG is obvious and that there’s no point in covering up this crisis. We believe that the tense situation at the HfG can be described in one sentence: At present there are no longer any material problems at the HfG, only factional ones. The politicization of thought and action is on the increase. Pedagogical discussion turns into political discussion; design problems are transformed into battlegrounds of political single combat; and a party turns into a potential conspiracy. An atmosphere of mutual distrust pervades the school. The general feeling of insecurity has infected the students. […] One symptom of the present crisis is the latent, if not openly demonstrated, split in the faculty. We are experiencing a crisis that is as serious as the one that occurred a few years ago. The reaction to the former lack of scientific methodology has produced a one-sided emphasis on science courses, whose integration into the overall curriculum of the HfG has been only partially successful. The inadequate coordination of the theoretical subjects and the objective facts of design, and the lack of understanding and distrust some lecturers feel toward these subjects cause the divergent tendencies within the pedagogical structure of the HfG. No one can deny that courses in science are essential for the comprehensive training of a designer. The introduction of this discipline was precisely what was supposed to raise the education of a designer to a level that meets the demands made on such a profession in today’s society. […] We believe that the inconsistencies between the demands of design pedagogy can be offset by striving for scientific rigor, but not by an authoritative claim to power that glosses over the problems with a false semblance of scientific rigor. […] Increasingly, people seem to forget that technological and scientific courses are a tool. […] For
243
The governing boards
Meetings of the inner and of the extended council of the HfG 1956–19621021
244
In 1960 the HfG was invited to take part in the Milan Triennale. Its introduction to the show was a photo panorama. Photos: Claus Wille Archive: Südwestpresse
the most part the institutes have deepened the gap between theoretical courses and practical activity, since their personnel was to some extent inadequately prepared to translate the newly introduced disciplines into practice. […] Thus, at the periphery of the school, almost without exception, a certain degree of commercialization has increased the distance between theory and practice, while the program of the school aims at decreasing this distance. […] In our opinion, things were politicized because as time went on one group of people working at the HfG – whether rightly or wrongly is an open question – increasingly felt excluded from the life of the institution at large. The cause of mutual animosity, we believe, is of a social nature; i.e., there is a lack of rational participation by individual members of the HfG in leadership and control, in the cultural and material profit of the HfG. Those employees of the HfG who did not have the opportunity to found an institute at the HfG run along the lines set out in the foundation’s bylaws turned to the pedagogical sector, so that one might have had the impression that they alone were the champions of a financially uncorrupted truth, and that all the heads of the institutes were nothing but profiteers who were not interested in the students.” This lengthy quotation shows not only how closely entangled the most dissimilar strands of conflict were, but also that at this point people were still able to give an objective analysis and account of their own attitude. Of course the authors were laboring under the misapprehension that this objectivity was possible for all those concerned. They expected that the situation would be
cleared up as soon as the bylaws of the foundation and the HfG were revised. This conclusion was tempting, but once that happened the conflict shifted to a different scene. The constitutional regularization of the HfG could be fought over as a bone of contention by the opponents without their having to settle their differences of opinion directly. The governing board (Gert Kalow, Horst Rittel, and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart, who had been caught in the crossfire) picked up the constitutional ball and, on 23 September 1960, demanded that the work in the institutes should also be regulated, or better still, that bylaws be drawn up for the institutes. 1022 If the institutes now increasingly worked on commissions, the cash flow really did have to be channeled according to regulations. On 28 October 1960 Thorwald Risler explained to the governing board the accounting system the foundation strived to use with the development teams of the I nstitute of Product Design. 1023 Thorwald Risler aspired to finance teaching (i.e., the HfG) largely from two sources: one, from subsidies by the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts and by the federal ministry of the interior, and two, from the HfG’s own income (rents and student fees). Then there were supposed to be pure research projects that would not be tied to commercial orders. In the case of the latter he was counting on subsidies by the BadenWürttemberg ministry of finance (Land Trade Supervision Department). A third part, which was independent of the other two, concerned the Insti-
Inner council
Extended council
1955/56
1
13. VI.1956 *
1957/58
2 3 4
7. III.1958 16. VI.1958 30. IX.1958
2
9. VI.1958
1958/59
5 6 7 8 9
3. X.1958 14. X.1958 19. III.1959 6.VI. + 7.VI.1959 20. VI.1959
3 4 5 6 7 8
3. X.1958 7. XI.1958 8. XII.1958 16. I.1959 7. IV.1959 15. V. + 19.V.1959
1959/60
10 11 — 12 13
12. I.1960 7. VI. 1960 8. VI.1960 10. VI.1960 22. VI.1960
9 10
11. XI.1959 14. XI I. 1959
1960/61
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
25. X.1960 17. XI.1960 15. XII. 1960 30. I. 1961 27. II.1961 23. III.1961 18. IV.1961 27. IV.1961 19. V.1961 26. V. 1961 9. VI.1961 29. VI.1961
11 12
17. XI.1960 29. VI.1961
1961/62
26 27 28 29 30 31
24. X.1961 10. XI.1961 26. I.1962 17. V.1962 30. V.1962 8. VI.1962
* At that time the meeting was called Konvent (Council).
tute of Product Design: “But something that must be seen as completely separate is commissioned research, i.e., ongoing development work for certain companies within the framework of the institute. The expenses resulting from this work could on no account be covered by public subsidies.” That meant the old model of always sharing the surplus did not work under these circumstances, for otherwise the foundation had to carry the burden of the entrepreneurial risk of design lecturers. From now on lecturers who wanted to maintain development teams had to think and act like entrepreneurs. Thorwald Risler worked out that the foundation had to collect a contribution toward expenses for proportional expenses that resulted from the work of development teams at the Institute of Product Design. This fixed rate was to be 100 percent of personnel costs. Consequently a development team had to take into account three factors when working on an order: personnel costs, the contribution toward the foundation’s expenses, which equaled personnel costs, and the designer’s salary. “If there is a surplus after settling accounts, it is to be shared between the designer and the foundation, taking into consideration all relevant perspectives.” However, the work on this regulation had not progressed to the point of producing the standard contract of employment that was expected by all and sundry. For the time being this plan was still shelved, not to be picked up again until the following year by Mervyn Perrine when he tried to obtain orders for the Research Center for Optical Perception. The five development teams that were working within the Institute of Product Design during the 1960/61 academic year, as they had the year before (Otl Aicher, Hans Gugelot, Tomás Maldonado, Walter Zeischegg, and Herbert Ohl), had, in the last year and a half that had passed since the foundation’s 5 March 1959 application to the Land Trade Supervision Department, blossomed into functioning units. 1024 They even had to refuse some orders: “We did not have enough personnel to deal with the jobs that were placed in our way. […] Technical design – that is, design that largely takes into account technical structural factors – is increasingly gaining in importance. At this time the Institute of Product Design is the only institution in Germany that focuses exclusively on this problem on a broad basis.” Thorwald Risler, in that year’s application to the Land Trade Supervision Department, told of training centers in Italy and Canada whose educational program had been developed in cooperation with the HfG; in the GDR a school of design and a development institute were to be set up modeled on the HfG and the Institute of Product
245
The governing boards
Design; at this point there were only four institutions worldwide comparable to the HfG:
246
the Pratt Institute (USA), the Institute of Technology, Chicago (USA), the Georgia Institute of Technology (USA) and the Royal College of Art, London (England).
Hans Gugelot designed the new lecturers’ residences that were built in 1960.
“We believe these facts underline how necessary it is to continue making every effort to promote the independence of the Institute of Product Design from projects that are too closely linked to a specific purpose, so that it can fulfill its central task of developing exemplary, technically designed products that benefit the general public.” For that reason the Institute of Product Design was justified in asking the Baden-Württemberg ministry of economics for a subsidy for the current academic year (1960/61) which was now to total DM 150,000 (in 1959/60 it was still DM 100,000); at the same time the foundation had requested DM 120,000 from the federal ministry of the interior (instead of DM 50,000, as in the previous year). The foundation expected that the institute would now have an income of its own of DM 145,000 (as opposed to a previous income of DM 100,000). Thus, for 1960/61, the foundation projected a total budget of DM 415,000 for the Institute of Product Design. In the previous year it had been only DM 250,000.
a lot out of the people involved and had damaged the credibility of the foundation. In his financing plan Thorwald Risler had gone back to Tomás Maldonado’s factual and organizational concept and had implemented it on the part of the foundation or rather had made implementation possible. The keystone of his financial structure was the fact that for 1962 (the first year in which the foundation’s fiscal year corresponded to the calendar year) he aimed at drawing up a total budget of roughly DM 1.8 million. That was an ambitious goal. On 5 December 1960 he consulted with the members of the administrative council at the council’s 17th meeting. 1025 At the moment certain questions still needed to be answered: How were they to make up for the presumable shortfall of DM 200,000 for the 1961 abbreviated fiscal year (1 April through 31 December) and how was the new construction of lecturers’ and students’ apartments to be managed? 1026 But above and beyond this daily business Thorwald Risler had every reason to assume he could reach his ambitious goal. For there was, on the one hand, the welcome news of the representative of the Land ministry of finance, Günther Boulanger, that the subsidy from the ministry of education and the arts for 1961 had finally been transferred from one-time to continuing expenditures. And there was the result of a conversation
1.9 million in income was to have the following components: 1. for the HfG: DM 600,000 from the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts DM 200,000 from the federal ministry of the interior DM 200,000 of the HfG’s own income (rents, student fees) DM 100,000 from the city of Ulm 2. for the Institute of Product Design: DM 400,000 of the foundation’s own income (commissions) DM 200,000 from the Baden-Württemberg ministry of economics DM 200,000 from the federal ministry of the interior.
With this grand-scale financial planning, Thorwald Risler opened a completely new perspective for the foundation. This planning was different from that practiced by Inge Aicher-Scholl in that Thorwald Risler no longer looked at the budget year by year, but had set his sights on a mid-range goal. This goal was referred to as budget consolidation. Inge Aicher-Scholl’s experiences had taught him that modest requests had produced only modest contributions. But the financial situation, which had previously always been precarious, had taken
between Thorwald Risler, Wolfgang Donndorf, the representative of the ministry of education and the arts, and minister of education and the arts Gerhard Storz (CDU). Gerhard Storz visited the HfG twice, first on 5 July 1959 – the minister on that day appeared to be skeptical and distant – and just recently, on 28 October 1960, when it was possible to transform his reserve into the conviction that the HfG was essential. 1027 Subsequently Gerhard Storz declared he was willing to support Thorwald Risler’s financial plan. The total of DM
Assembling the residences from prefabricated panels. Photo:Tomás Gonda A rchive:HfG (Depositum 129/2)
Thus the financing of the foundation was to rest on four pillars: the contribution of the Land of Baden-Württemberg (DM 800,000 = 42 percent), its own income (DM 600,000 = 32 percent), the contribution of the federal government (DM 400,000 = 21 percent), and the contribution of the city of Ulm (D M 100,000 = 5 percent). That seemed to be a realistic middle course between the pure doctrine of the foundation’s complete financial independence and the nationalization of the HfG.
Photo: Wolfgang Siol A rchive:HfG (61/0397)
berg (Heidelberg College for Music and Theater), Hohner-Stiftung Trossingen (Trossingen Hohner Foundation)) had been included in the group of colleges and universities to whom the Land of Baden-Württemberg made available as part of the state budget plan student stipends similar to student scholarships at regular universities, following the so-called Honnefer Modell (Bad Honnef model). This support was retroactive to 1 April 1960. In the two years up to 31 March 1962, at least 42 HfG students received such scholarships.
In order to understand this new financial dimension of the foundation, one must not forget that two political parameters had radically changed in the past five years since the official opening of the HfG buildings. On the one hand the state had more money available, and on the other hand education policy was well on the way to developing into a hot political topic. To give only two examples from the immediate vicinity of the HfG that found their way into the documents in the following three weeks: On 16 August 1960 the newly founded Arbeitskreis Universität Ulm (association Ulm University) tried to get support for its campaign to make the city into the seat of a Land university. The association’s efforts began with the attempt to put together a board of trustees, and among others they hoped to win over Thorwald Risler. 1028 And on 3 September 1960 it was certain that the HfG together with other established non-governmental colleges and universities (the Musikhochschule Mannheim (Mannheim College of Music), Musikhochschule Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe College of Music), Hochschule für Musik und Theater Heidel-
The policy speech of the chair of the governing board, Gert Kalow, to the administrative council at its year-end meeting also forges a link to this general politico-educational background. The term university reform, for example, which had fallen into oblivion for a decade, obviously again became a concept with current relevance: “Every-one knows how you train an architect or an electrical engineer, and there are whole libraries of specialized literature documenting this. But there is nothing written about how to train a designer in the most efficient way possible, i.e., with a focus on practical needs. We, as the first college of its kind in Europe, had to start from scratch, had to invent, design, and experimentally test this branch of education. […] Possibly in decades to come people will see the simple fact that we explored the best possible way to train designers as the most important achievement of the School of Design. That is our practical contribution to uni-versity reform. There are indications that the Ulm model, both from a pedagogical and a technical perspective, will one day be copied all over the world.” 1030 Thorwald Risler had based his financial plan on the premise that the HfG’s budget could not be consolidated – meaning, raised to a realistic level – step by step. As long as the foundation did not take a big chance, it was always in danger of getting caught up in petty struggles and lagging behind constantly rising prices. The new level could not be reached from one day to the next. But the coming fiscal year, which consisted of nine months, needed to be a big step in the right didirection.
247
Meetings of the HfG governing board 1955–1962 1029
248
Academic year 1955/1956
First governing board
1955
No in formations
1956
January: 24. 26.
Academic year 1959/1960
September: 30. October: 8. 15. 27.29.(spec .) November: 3.(ext.) 5.(spec.) 9.(spec .) 10. 11. 19. 24. 26. December: 8. 15. 23. 19 60
Second governing board
March: 19. 21. 22. 23. April: 6. 7.(spec.) 11. 18. 25. May: 2. 9. 24. June: 6. 13. 14.(spec.)+(ext.) 20. July: 11. A ugust: (date unknown) September: 4. Academic year 1956/ 1957
October: 3. 9. 23. November: 2. 6. 13. 22. 27.(ext.) December:4. 11.
1957
January: 8. 15. 22. 29. February: 6. 12. 20. March: 1.
June: 7.9 . 10. 14. 28. July: 12. 14. 27. August: 10. September: 21. 23. 28.
Academic year 1960/1961
Academic year 1957/1958
October: 9. 31. November: 5. 12. 19. + 22. 26 December: 3. 10. 12. 14. 18.
1958
January: 8. 14. 28. 29. February: 4. 11. 18. 24. 28.(spec.) March: 5. 6.
Academic year 1961/1962
Academic year 1958/1959
Ninth governing board
Tenth governing board
November: 21. 28. December: 5. 7.(ext .) 12. 19. 19 62
J an uary : 10 . 16 . 23 . 30 . February: 7.27. March: 15. 20. 27. A pril: 5.
Fifth governing board
September: 30. October: 7. 14. November: 4. 11. 18. 25. 28.(spec., ext.) + (spec.) December: 2. 19 59
January:12. 20. 27. February: 3. 10. 17. 24. March: 3. 10. 17. 24. April: 11. 18. 19. 25. 26. 27. May: 2. 9. 16. 18. 23. 30. June: 6. 13.(ext.) 20.(ext .) 27. July: 7. 13. 27. August: 2. 19.(spec.) 25. September: 13. 28.
October: 4. 13. 16.(ext.) 19. November: 2.
Fourth governing board
March: 7. 11. 17 April: 15. 29.(spec. ) May: 6. 20. June: 4. 10. 18. 24. July: 1. 10. 11. 15. 25.
Eighth governing board
October: 2. 4. 11. 18. 25. 28. November: 3. 8. 15. 23. 29. December: 6. 8. 13. 20. 22. 1961
J an ua ry : 9 . 13 . 14 . 21 27. 28 . + 29 February: 3. 9.(spec ., ext.) 24. March: 10. 11. 17. April: 9. 24. May: 14. June: (7.: first session of the sixth governing board) 9. 10.(ext.) 12. 23. July: 16.(ext.)
Eleventh governing board
May: 30. June: 1. 4. 12. 22. 26. July: 4. 18. 24. 26. September: 20. 25. 27. 29.
Academic year 1962/1963
spec. Special meeting ext. Extended group of participants
J an ua ry : 5 . 12 . 19 . 21. 2 7. February: 2. 9. 18. 19. 23. 25. 26. March: 8. 15. 22. 29. April: 8. 26. May: 5. 12. 13. + (ext.) 16.(ext.) 31.
Seventh governing board
Third governing board
March: 15. 19. 22. 25. 28. 29.(ex t.) April: 3. 12. 25. May: 7. 10.(spec.) 14. 16.(spec.) 21. 28. June: 4. 5. 13. 19. 25. July: 4.(spec.) 12. 13. 14. 15. August: 17.
Sixth governing board
Twelfth governing board
October: 4. 11. 25. November: 8. 20. December: 4. 12.
Minister of education and the arts Gerhard Storz during his visit at the HfG on 28 Oct. 1960, pictured with Gert Kalow. Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpre sse
The ministry of education and the arts had originally planned to raise the subsidy for 1961 by a modest DM 20,000 to DM 200,000. Prorated over nine months that would have meant DM 150,000. On 19 January 1961 the Ulm member of the Landtag, Hugo Roller (SPD), introduced a motion that the contribution of the ministry of education and the arts should actually be DM 300,000. 1031 The finance committee discussed this and then followed Walter Erbe’s (FDP/DVP) proposal that the foundation should receive DM 250,000 from the budget of the ministry of education and the arts. 1032 The ministry for economics had projected DM 150,000 for the nine months (corresponding to the sum of DM 200,000 for twelve months). There were welcome news from the federal government as well. The budgetary committee of the Bundestag had reversed the decision made the previous year to limit the subsidy to DM 150,000, and had already authorized DM 170,000 for the 1961 fiscal year, and also authorized the federal ministry of the interior to make additional funds available. Thorwald Risler counted on DM 190,000 for twelve months, corresponding to an actual sum of D M 152,000 for the fiscal year. All in all these were signs that indicated that the federal and Land members of parliament and government officials were listening to Thorwald Risler’s arguments and that his plan had realistic chances of being implemented in 1962. At the meeting of the finance and employment contract committee of the foundation’s administrative council on 15 February 1961 the representative of the federal ministry of the interior, Karl Gussone, stated something along the same lines: In the federal government, people were willing to increase their financial assistance. But this was on condition that the Land of Baden-Württemberg led the way. When the representative of the Stuttgart ministry of finance, Günther Boulanger, raised objections that the concept might be too risky, Thorwald Risler replied “that in his opinion they should not continue to approach the issue of consolidation in a step-by-step fashion. He again emphasized that minister of education and the arts Gerhard Storz had declared he was willing to put his whole weight behind a request of that nature, and that the response among the parliamentary parties in the Landtag was positive. The obstacles that had existed up to this point had been removed by increased subsidies for 1961. Now it was necessary to take advantage of the interest that had been aroused everywhere in the continuing development of the School of Design in order to push through a solution that would be as definitive as possible.” The representative of the Stuttgart ministry of economics, Professor Rembeck 1033, supported Thorwald Risler and recommended that a memorandum be worked out giving an account of
the HfG’s position and significance, its curriculum, and its difference from other institutions; the memorandum should also furnish proof that the Land would not be giving the HfG preferential treatment over government institutions if it were to subsidize it from the education and arts budget to the tune of DM 600,000 per year. When Thorwald Risler spoke of rising public interest in the HfG, this was an allusion to reports in the daily press about the completion of the first big project of the Institute of Product Design. The project involved passenger cars for the Hamburg elevated railroad, which were discussed, mainly positively, by journalists all over West Germany. For instance, the 20 January 1961 issue of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung had devoted a long article to this design project, and the article came just at the right time because Thorwald Risler could offer it as evidence of the HfG’s importance. It also made it clear in what way the HfG was different from other institutions of learning subsidized by the public sector: “Thus, for instance, it is the job of schools of engineering to train as large a number of engineers as possible, that is, to emphasize quantity. The goal of the School of Design, on the other hand, is to train highly qualified specialists. Here it is not so much the number that matters but the quality.“ 1034 What might be a reasonable price for this quality? Professor Rembeck of the Stuttgart Trade Supervision Department had, of course, already suggested that the HfG had the reputation of being an expensive institution and was treated better by the ministry of education and the arts than government institutions. Thereupon Günter von Alberti had gone to the trouble to determine the “correct” subsidy amount for the HfG by means of a comparison. 1035 Günter von Alberti’s premises were as follows: The state must not treat the private HfG better than it does public colleges and universities. The HfG was “a college of a special and unique type”, and because it was special it deserved support. Because the city of Ulm would not be a college town were it not for the HfG, the HfG deserved to be subsidized for that reason as well. The criterion of comparison was to be the numerical ratio of lecturers to students. At the HfG this ratio was about 1:10, and the public college of the Land that came closest to this ratio was the Staatliche Akademie der Bildenden Künste (State Academy of Fine Arts) in Karlsruhe (1:7). The result of his comparison was astounding. In 1961 the academy received a subsidy of DM 3,187
249
The governing boards
250
One of the best known design projects to be developed at the HfG: the cars of the Hamburg elevated railway (January 1961). Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
per student. At the same rate, the HfG ought to receive approximately DM 480,000 for 150 students. But there was more: The foundation’s budget contained many items that were not included in the normal budget of the academy, for pension payments for the permanently employed lecturers, building maintenance, and new construction were paid separately by the state. If one visualizes just the difficulties involved in setting up the school, and the mortgages that had weighed on the HfG ever since, the significance of this factor becomes clear. Günter von Alberti estimated it at DM 308,000. Also he calculated that the foundation had had to spend about DM 100,000 for its workshops, while the academy had no such workshops.At the final count Günter von Alberti came to the conclusion that if the HfG were to b e treated exactly like the academy, “the resulting subsidy would total DM 888,000”. As I said, this sum, just under DM 900,000, merely the amount the Stuttgart ministry of education and the arts would need to award to the foundation for the HfG, that is, for the teaching program, if it wanted to treat the HfG and state institutions identically. At this point there was as yet no mention of contributions by the Land Trade Supervision Department and the federal government to the HfG and to the Institute of Product Design. Whether equal treatment was something the foundation wanted was a political decision, as was the question whether the federal government wanted to take on its share of the financial plan. The remarks of the representative of the federal ministry of the interior at a meeting of the finance and em-
ployment contract committee on 12 April 1961 sounded encouraging: “Mr. Ludwig [the deputy for Karl Gussone; author’s note] declared that it was not unrealistic to expect to receive a subsidy totaling DM 400,000 from the federal ministry of the interior. The question was more on the political side. However, the mood in the budget committee of the Bundestag was good. But in any case the condition for success was still authorization by the Land of subsidies totaling roughly DM 800,000.” 1036 Again, all eyes turned to the ministry of finance, because the ministries of education and the arts and of economics had already signaled their approval. Although the representative of the Stuttgart ministry of finance in the administrative council, Günther Boulanger, respected Günter von Alberti’s calculation, he made the proviso that he would abstain from voting if the administrative council decided to request DM 600,000 for 1962 from the budget of the ministry of education and the arts for the HfG. With these financial dimensions Thorwald Risler was miles away from the idealistic concepts that people had had in mind when the foundation and the HfG were first planned. He had consistently and without deviating followed the road Inge Aicher-Scholl, Otl Aicher, and Max Bill had taken and Tomás Maldonado had changed. As some of those involved saw it, this was a mistake. Even if Thorwald Risler tailored the original goal – to run a private college as independently as possible – to the necessities of day-to-day business, he never called into question the organizational independence, the pedagogical freedom, the self-determination of the personnel. But with every day and every step on this road of making the school a reality, translating plans into action and making them possible, the HfG and the foundation moved further away from the initial dream of the HfG founders: from the wonderful dream of humanism practiced in seclusion, the dream of quiet selflessness, the dream of a focused core group of a few like-minded people, a modern interpretation of the motto ora et labora (lead a life of prayer and work; transl. note). The HfG and the foundation never succeeded in achieving enough power over circumstances for them to be able to devote themselves to this ideal completely independently of material constraints (apart from the fact that HfG members were only human, and only very rarely saints). Roderich Count Thun felt he had been passed over in this process. Perhaps there was even a touch of bitterness there, but I believe that his predominant feeling was one of serenity – a feeling that one must not delay travelers – when he wrote Inge Aicher-Scholl a lengthy letter in January 1961 about his “very personal attitude toward the goals of the ‘Geschwister Scholl Stiftung’”. 1037 Though he did not say it in so many words, there was a clear
sense that for him the direction they were going no longer felt right, and that was also the reason he became distant toward Thorwald Risler, who held the course: “Of the goals and the programs of the ‘Geschwister Scholl Stiftung’ that were published when it was founded, what personally interested me from the beginning was the human aspect of the work. I was thrilled that in this ‘college’, in close human contact between teachers and students, new upholders of the ‘technological age’ were to be trained at least in one area. As long as I lived in Jettingen, I also tried to participate actively to some extent in this human coming together. Unfortunately the so-called Bill crisis, of all things, showed that the sense of connection between the administrators, teachers, students, and the old circle of Ulm friends had dropped below an acceptable level. Many people believed that only Mr. Bill’s subversive influence was to blame. Even at that time I repeatedly pointed out that it was a fundamentally wrong orientation that was even more to blame. At the time people kept promising me that after Mr. Bill’s departure, in which I was very actively involved, people would devote themselves with renewed zeal to reestablishing this human connection inside and outside the school. The opposite is true. It is my impression that nothing at all has improved in that regard, indeed that this ‘orientation’ is now seen as the only right course to take. That means that for me personally the most important goal of this school has been lost.” As early as 1958, when Inge Aicher-Scholl first contacted Thorwald Risler, Roderich Count Thun had been trying to relinquish responsibility for the Society of Friends. 1038 His long absences in Costa Rica were only a pretext for this. On 10 April 1961 he addressed all the members of the Society of Friends in a circular letter. He asked them to agree to yet another change in the society’s statutes that would make it possible to expand the executive board of the Society of Friends from one member, as had been the case so far, to five. He wanted to be involved only as a member of the new board: “Recently the ‘Society of Friends’ has rapidly become more and more important for the further expansion of the institutions of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. To the same extent that the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung was able to increase its budget and thus broaden its basis, the potential of the ‘Society of Friends’ had to be utilized to the full for buildings, equipment, and other expenditures. The result was a considerable flow of funds. Moreover, step by step, the need becomes clearer to help maintain the private character of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung through becoming more active as its circle of friends.” This last appeal shows once more that he did not want to give up the old ideals. And yet it was an illusion that the Society of Friends, the foundation, and the HfG
were to become one big Ulm family. That it was an illusion becomes clear, if only because three of the four candidates he proposed for the new executive board were precisely not from the Ulm circle, but men of business. They were: Johann Dietrich Auffermann (the Mannheim economist whose interest in the HfG had been awakened by board member Karl Schmölder, and who had also already been considered for the post of the foundation’s executive board), Klaus Dohrn (owner of the Berliner HandelsGesellschaft (Berlin Commercial Company), who had been brought on board by board member Karl Max von Hellingrath), and Erhard Löwe (the then executive manager of Telefunken AG).1039 The fifth board member, the only one other than Roderich Count Thun to come from the Ulm circle, was to be Hellmut Becker. The members of the Society of Friends approved the required change in Gert Kalow gives a commemorative speech in honor of Hans and Sophie Scholl at the concentration camp memorial on upper Kuhberg on 22 Feb. 1961. Photo: Rueß Archive: Südwestpresse
the statutes in writing and accepted the personnel proposals. As of 31 May 1961 the new statutes went into effect 1040, while as early as 20 April 1961 the new board was constituted. Klaus Dohrn was elected to be its chair, with Roderich Count Thun and Erhard Löwe as his deputies, and Johann Dietrich Auffermann and Hellmut Becker as simple members of the board. 1041 The gentlemen immediately had to deal with a difficult question that had basically already come up some time ago, but now needed to be solved at short notice: “The development teams at the Institute of Product Design, whose success had been the chief argument in the efforts to increase public subsidies and obtain industry support, went beyond the foundation’s spatial, organizational, and economic scope as it had existed to that point. On the other hand, current regulations for particularly successful lecturers such as Mr. Gugelot, were unsatisfactory. In order to reach a solution that would on one hand keep Mr. Gugelot in Ulm, and on the other av oid problems within the foundation budget that were increasingly being
251
The governing boards
252
Gruppe 47 radio play meeting at the HfG, 27 March 1960. The group includes Hans Werner Richter.
Photo:Alfred Jungraithmayr Archive:Südwestpre sse
“Hans Gugelot is originally Dutch. You can tell. Because the Dutch have had the pressure of struggling with the sea, they have developed a pragmatic approach and an ingenious attitude toward their environment. […]
judged by government standards, a plan was developed with the help of the public accountant, Dr. Max Horn in Ulm. The essential points met with the provisional approval of attorney Becker. The plan provided for the Society of Friends to found a special registered, nonprofit association that would sponsor the institute that would be set up and hire Mr. Gugelot as the institute’s director.” To put it in plain language: Hans Gugelot, next to Otl Aicher the one designer who gave the HfG a distinctive image, was tired of the turmoil on Kuhberg and wanted to leave, and the foundation now had to try to keep him a t the HfG or at least the foundation in spite of his reluctance. Hans Gugelot was almost irreplaceable as a designer, and if he were to leave, he would have left a huge gap financially as well.
On 19 September 1961 it was certain that Thorwald Risler’s reaching for the stars had been largely successful. Wolfgang Donndorf, the representative of the ministry of education and the arts on the administrative council, informed the foundation that the council of ministers had passed the draft of the 1962 national budget, in which the ministry of education and the arts had earmarked DM 500,000 for the HfG. “With this subsidy the financial basis of the School of Design w ould already be consolidated in the coming fiscal year, which is why on 1 January 1962 the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung will ask the ministry of economics only for funds for individual research projects of the Institute of Product Design.” 1042 While these DM 500,000 were DM 100,000 less than requested, they’d managed to have a decisive breakthrough on two fronts: On one hand it was “tremendously important […] that the college be included in the regular government budget from now on”. 1043 And on the other hand the Baden-Württemberg minister of finance gave in for the first time in the fifteen-year history of the foundation: At the cabinet meeting he “basically recognized that a subsidy totaling DM 600,000 was justified, and promised that the remaining raise would be implemented in 1963”. Now the foundation could definitively count on receiving DM 600,000 as of 1963 for the HfG from the ministry of educa-
tion and the arts, and this did indeed happen. On 18 October Thorwald Risler gave a report on the latest developments to the members of the finance and employment contract committee of the administrative council: It was true that the federal ministry of the interior budget for 1962 also included DM 100,000 less, but it was possible to make up for this gap. In addition, the city of Ulm wanted to raise its contribution to DM 100,000. Thorwald Risler fought to keep his plan of consolidating the budget at one stroke from being undermined, and to prevent the missing DM 100,000 of the ministry of education and the arts for 1962 from having a domino effect. He wanted success for 1962 by hook or by crook. That is why he proposed that for the time being five lecturer positions should be left vacant and not be filled until 1962 when it was certain that the DM 75,000 that were still missing in his finance plan would come in after all. But he insisted on sticking to his plan: “Mr. Risler wants administrative council members to keep in mind that giving up the idea of consistent consolidation as early as 1962 will naturally have unfavorable internal and external consequences. Moreover, right now the overall situation is favorable for pushing through subsidy increases, while no one knows what political and economic conditions might turn out to be like a year from now.“ But the committee members did not go along with this: “When Mr. Risler suggests the finance committee should try to push through the definitive increase against all odds as part of the budget negotiations now beginning in the Landtag, the committee responds in the negative. On the other hand, in dealing with the federal government, they intend to refer to the Land’s pledge to give the full subsidy of DM 600,000 in 1963, and to point out that in former years the federal government lagged behind the Land subsidies.” So they left it at that: Consolidation had not been achieved at a single stroke, but they expected a deficit of only DM 75,000 for that purpose, with a budget of DM 1.9 million, and the members of the committee did not want to forfeit their chances with the government officials and members of the Bundestag on account of this minimal difference. 1044 Thorwald Risler would have preferred to have done with the whole thing once and for all. At this moment Thorwald Risler’s power base collapsed. The goal of permanently consolidating the foundation’s budget had almost been reached. But now events at the HfG escalated. In the process centrifugal forces were set free between the most important people involved, severely damaging the foundation at its core (namely the HfG). Thorwald Risler did not succeed in gaining control of the internal unrest from his outsider position. He also
In Hans Gugelot’s work there’s a lot of technical curiosity, but never pathos.”1045 Otl Aicher on Hans Gugelot.
the departments best be implemented? Ideologically: Could only the designers develop design, or could the scientists do so as well? Did design at the HfG consist only of science and method now, or did design at the HfG consist primarily of a blueprint based on scientific and methodological knowledge? Otl Aicher asked: Should design be value-free? Institutionally: What position should design lecturers occupy in the HfG, and what position should non-designers have? Constitutionally: How should the answers to these questions be reflected in the “definitive” bylaws of the HfG? Must the foundation also change its bylaws? Economically: What relationship should an institute (institutes) or development teams have to the HfG? What did this imply for those lecturers who could earn money with commissions, and for those who couldn’t? Historically: To what extent should the HfG and foundation be expanded in accordance with 1957 projections (institutes, development teams, radio, film)? What were the consequences of the collision with the interest rooted in humanistic goals (exponent: Roderich Count Thun)?
Photo:unknown (1959) Archive: HfG (59/0056/2)
did not succeed in maintaining his p ower over circumstances, because he himself became embroiled in the conflict. When, after two years of struggle, he was forced to realize that because of events at the HfG not only his efforts during preceding years were at risk, but also his personal credibility with the ministries and industry was at stake, he did not hesitate and left the foundation and the HfG to those who in their dispute paid no heed to losses. Events at the HfG up to that point – we are at a point between the end of October and the middle of November 1961 – can be summed up quickly. The Research Center for Optical Perception, FOW for short, represented a bone of contention. It could be used as a pretext for arguing about all unresolved problems – problems that were intertwined because they could be traced back to a crucial HfG issue: What should be the relationship between the new theoretical, scientific subjects and the old, practical design subjects? An answer to this question needed to be found ( even if it had to be done by force), b ecause many issues relating to daily work at the HfG depended on it: Pedagogically: Were the new subjects only auxiliary disciplines for design, or were both groups of subjects equally legitimate? How could the integration of scientific subjects in the work of
Mervyn Perrine, the head of the Research Center for Optical Perception and guest lecturer at the HfG, refused at the beginning of 1962 to accept the skeleton contract of the foundation that Thorwald Risler had drafted. 1046 The contract was to “establish the status of the RCOP [Research Center for Optical Perception] within the HfG, its relationship to the GSS [Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung], and methods of settling accounts for commissioned research”.1047 Essentially Mervyn Perrine did not wish to pay 100 percent of the personnel costs of the research center to the foundation as a lump sum contribution towards expenses. He argued that this factor made it impossible for the research center to obtain orders from industry or the public sector – the work would simply become prohibitively expensive. His annoyance was all the greater because he suspected that Otl Aicher and Hans Gugelot had already concluded these contracts with the foundation. In a roundabout way people tried to explain to him that demand was dictated not only by the price but also by the quality of the offer. In his search for allies he tried to make his case into a precedent: He warned that all other institutes or development teams who wanted to do commissioned work would then have to accept the skeleton contract, and it would no longer be possible to discuss it. During the meeting of the inner council on 22 June 1960, Mervyn Perrine had been forced to realize that in his search for like-minded lecturers
253
The governing boards
254
he had become embroiled in trench warfare. 1048 Partly he was drawn into it, partly he joined through sheer inertia, and his poor knowledge of German did the rest. He found himself at the front of the scientists and theoreticians, and here he was in the first row because the Research Center for Optical Perception had up to that time offered the only opportunity for non-designers to work on industrial orders and thus earn money. At this meeting Tomás Maldonado had reminded those present that in 1957 the intention had been
Perrine has assembled into the kind of research center we need here. […] What we need to do is to establish the connection between this institute and work in the departments.” Others besides Tomás Maldonado also sharply criticized this inability to integrate the research center in the pedagogy of the HfG: Otl Aicher, Hans Gugelot, Claude Schnaidt, Christian Staub, and Walter Zeischegg. Mervyn Perrine, they felt, had come to the HfG solely with an interest in scientific work, but with hardly any interest in design. Theodor Pfizer welcomes participants of a conference of the Industrial Design Team of the National Association of German Industry, on 30 November 1960.
Inge Aicher-Scholl, 1958. Photo: Hans Conrad
foto;unknown Archive:südwestpresse
for his appointment as guest lecturer for the 1960/61 academic year, which the governing board granted on 14 June 1960, was confirmed by the inner council after all. Originally, on 8 December 1959, the governing board decided to keep Mervyn Perrine as a guest lecturer at the HfG only as long as the foundation did not have to spend any of the funds designated for permanent lecturers. 1049 His appointment for the 1960/61 academic year meant that his contract was extended up to 30 June 1961. Because the financial situation of the foundation had not yet improved to the point that money would be available to expand the faculty over and above the budget, and because Mervyn Perrine could not establish proof of commercial orders that would have financed his presence at the HfG, it was clear in February 1961 that it would not be possible to extend his contract. 1050 This in turn appeared to all HfG lecturers to be tantamount to a decision in which the managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board had exceeded his powers. For this reason, the inner council on 18 April 1961 decided that the Research Center for Optical Perception was necessary for the HfG after all, and that its continued existence should be safeguarded. 1051 The student body protested on 20 April 1961 with a resolution against the fact that Thorwald Risler had repeated-
The governing board for the academic year 1960/61: Horst Rittel, Gert Kalow, and Friedrich VordembergeGildewart. Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
to create an institute of communication, but that because of lack of funds they had allowed themselves to be talked into setting up the research center and into specifying the details of the institute as a whole as it grew. It had not grown, and the inference had been obvious, though unspoken. The research center had become superfluous: “I‘ve never made a secret of the fact that while the Research Center for Optical Perception is valuable because it demonstrates scientific facts (and I have expressed my appreciation for Dr. Perrine’s important contributions), it is also useless in its relationship to our school’s main goal, which is design.” Tomás Maldonado could imagine that they might have to get in touch with scientific institutions of experimental psychology in order to “turn the valuable series of experiments and data
Walter Zeischegg expressed his uneasiness as follows: “If we want to do scientific work in every specialty that extends into our field of design or is tangential to it as a peripheral field or temporary area of specialization in terms of themes and the type of problem addressed, we'd have to have an institute as big as the Batelle Institute, with 500 to 600 staff members and the necessary equipment – which is a complete illusion. The fact is that you, Dr. Perrine, have worked here as a visiting lecturer for almost two years, and there’s been hardly any professional contact with you.” Gert Kalow, Horst Rittel, Georg Leowald, and Anthony Froshaug had not wanted to draw this conclusion at all. Further discussion about the continued existence of the research center was then supposed to be adjourned, but Mervyn Perrine protested. He was successful,
ly intervened in their education. They announced a token strike for 21 April 1961 and threatened that they might have to call an unlimited strike and inform the general public if the foundation were not willing to safeguard the future of the research center. 1052 Thorwald Risler refused to let this “provocation” and “rash action” (Inge AicherScholl1053) upset him and tried to remind everyone that Mervyn Perrine’s contract as guest lecturer had a time limit. Mervyn Perrine in turn complained to Inge Aicher-Scholl that he had not been given six months’ notice. “The fact that such statements are even possible gives us a significant insight into Dr. Perrine’s overall behavior[…], and on the other hand shows that the governing board, against its better judgment, was not in a position to make clear to Mr. Perrine in its endless discus-
sions with him even the most rudimentary preconditions of our present situation.“ 1054 Four days later, on 25 April 1961, Mervyn Perrine had the chutzpah to give the governing board the ultimatum that he be appointed to a position on the regular faculty. If this was not d one he would leave. The governing board agreed to do so. Naturally the gentlemen wereaware that the budget provided no funds for this purpose, i.e., that the new permanent position had to be financed at the expense of the guest lecturer positions: The result would be not enough guest lecturers to teach the courses. 1055 On 27 April 1961 the inner council confirmed this decision after a controversial debate, by a vote of seven to six. In the process it became obvious that the tug of war around the research center was merely a surrogate struggle: “Mr. Aicher warned aga inst the reasons the governing board had given for appointing Mr. Perrine as a regular faculty member, which were basically that the school needed the Research Center for Optical Perception, and that Perrine had already been at the HfG for three years. He said that we must not play appointment politics, but that it was qualifications that were the deciding factor. This sort of appointment would put the school’s reputation at risk, and the students would be inclined more and more to feel that our school provided a second-rate education. […] Mr. Rittel believes that it is too late now to enquire about qualifications.“ 1056 Subsequently the governing board ratified Perrine’s appointment as a regular lecturer effective 1 July 1961. 1057 This decision was made during Thorwald Risler’s absence. Günther Schweigkofler, the administrative director of the foundation, informed him that Otl Aicher, Hans Gugelot, Gert Kalow, Tomás Maldonado, and Walter Zeischegg had spoken against the permanent ap pointment, presumably Herbert Ohl as well, but they had been outvoted by Bruce Archer, Harald Berns, Rudolf Doernach, Anthony Froshaug, Horst Rittel, Christian Staub, and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart. The administrative director stated laconically: “The foundation is now stuck with the Old Maid. […] All in all, people are agreed on doing everything they can to work against the foundation. […] In the near future I am certain there’s a whole series of things heading our way that amounts to a power struggle. If there’s going to be a showdown anyway, I’d be inclined to take a chance in this case and not agree to Perrine’s appointment.” That means that circumstances slowly became more complicated. It was no longer just a matter of deciding whether the research center should be retained. Even the person of Mervyn Perrine was no longer the only focus. Sympathies and a ntipathies that went beyond these issues led to chang-
255
The governing boards
256
ing alliances, groups formed around Otl Aicher on the one hand and Horst Rittel on the other. There was also the oversensitivity of the lecturers to actions by the foundation, and their lack of sensitivity to the foundation’s financial problems: this lent each confrontation a tone that seemed to change at random from day to day. The lecturers had gradually become indifferent to financial issues. That was irresponsible, for the foundation’s budget was not supposed to be used as a tool for personnel policy. And finally, part of the student body now knew with certainty that the reality of studying at the HfG did not come up to the selfdescription of the school (as expressed in the questionnaires sent to applying students, for instance). Their discontent was reflected in a student paper they founded, Output , whose first issue appeared in March 1961. It addressed the reality and goals of the HfG, quoting documents since 1953, and also did a student survey. Gert Kalow, the head of the governing board, always levelheaded and conciliatory, became entangled during his many peacemaking efforts in the many traps set by the opposing parties. His personal call for help to Thorwald Risler after the appointment of Mervyn Perrine makes one aware of the tense atmosphere at the end of April 1961, as well as the fact that an objectively correct decision could be wrong in the wrong situation, and could cause damage: “The decision to appoint Dr. Perrine as a regular lecturer is not meant to be an attack against the foundation, as I would like to emphasize. […] Mrs. and Mr. Aicher and I spent two evenings in discussion, weighing the pros and cons. The debate ended with the realization that the decision is up to the governing board. […] The following alternative emerged: Either the wish for personnel change or for continuity of work at the Research Center for Optical Perception should be given priority. We chose the latter, and rightly so, I believe. […] In my opinion there is no ‘Old Maid card’ in this business that could be passed back and forth. The governing board bears full responsibility, as the bylaws prescribe for pedagogical matters. However, it would be a misfortune for the whole school, the most terrible of all misfortunes, if the foundation and governing board did not act unanimously. Particularly since there are spirits here in the house, just waiting for a conflict between the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung and the governing board, only to rise on the waves of a rapidly stirred up ‘popular movement’. I entreat you, dear Mr. Risler, I beg you sincerely and in the strongest terms, to side with us in this case – even if you still consider Perrine’s appointment to be a mistake. (Whether Perrine’s salary is paid from the guest lecturers’ or some other fund should make no difference.) If the foundation and governing board remain united, for which I beseech the help
of all the gods, then there is also every chance of long-term planning together, as regards both the HfG in general and filling future personnel positions; while an openly visible breach between the foundation and the governing board would benefit neither you nor us, only the obscurantists who would like to tear d own everything we've built up in the way of supporting structures.” – There it was again: the belief in structures, in constitutional regulation that might be able to determine human behavior even if it was against the will of the persons involved. However, the history of the HfG can be read as one continuous example proving that everything depends on the will of those involved: whether they wanted to adapt to the structures or to disregard them and create new ones. On 3 May 1961 the students again threatened to strike if the foundation did not immediately conclude a contract with Mervyn Perrine and put an end to the uncertainty of the research center’s future. One shouldn’t have to wait, they said, for Thorwald Risler to return from his vacation, because he was not the only one in the foundation who was authorized to sign. 1058 However, Thorwald Risler’s colleagues on the foundation‘s executive board, Inge Aicher-Scholl and Max Guther, no longer had an opportunity to react: On 7 May 1961 Mervyn Perrine took the martyr’s cross upon his shoulders and announced his resignation. He claimedthat in the meantime he had had another job offer: “The recent more favorable development comes too late.” 1059 The research center ceased to exist de facto as of 1 October 1961. Mervyn Perrine remained angry for some time because of the way events had turned out. One of the letters he later sent to various recipients explains his bitterness – a feeling he shared with several former HfG lecturers: “Now, however, I realize that the research center fell victim to the ideological and power-politics interests of a family oligarchy. It must be emphasized that it is by no means an exception: A large number of lecturers and many promising beginnings were its victims in recent years. Every attempt to limit the negative influence of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung on the pedagogical work at the HfG, the nearsighted dominance of the family and the ‘wheeling and dealing’ (exclusively commercial interests), and to focus on the training of students and on scientific work was systematically fought. […] Now that the only institution that did scientific work has been eliminated, the Ulm School can hardly claim to be a college anymore, and even less a full-scale academic institution. The good name Ulm surely once had is now only a thin façade consisting of a few Braun appliances, furniture, and cups. […] Up to this point, critics have again and again held back out of consideration for
257
Exhibition of Hans Gugelot’s designs, 4 November through 4 December 1960 at the Ulm Museum. Photo: Sander Archive: Südwestpresse
the honorable names of Hans and Sophie Scholl, who were killed in their struggle against dictatorship and abuse of power. But this will soon no longer be possible, once the public realizes the ill-use to which these names have been put.” On 9 June 1961 the inner council met to elect, by rotation, the governing board for the coming academic year (1961/62). First, council members had to decide on a privileged motion that was to annul the existing bylaws of the HfG: The present governing board, to quote the motion, was to remain in office until 31 December 1961 in order to make up for its omissions as regards the agreedupon change in the bylaws; until that date, in a joint commission with all department representatives, it was to work out a proposal, submit it to the council for approval, and have it confirmed by the foundation so that it would go into effect by 1 January 1962. (A reminder: According to the foundation’s bylaws a change in the bylaws was to be initiated by the executive board of the foundation, and there was no mention of the HfG being involved.) This motion was rejected. Thereupon
seven of the eleven eligible members of the inner council refused to run for office in the next governing board. Of the remaining members, Gert Kalow, Horst Rittel, Christian Staub, and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart, only Christian Staub was not elected. In order to induce the objectors to cooperate after all, a bylaws committee was to be formed which was actually to consist of four members. But when the election of these four members (Otl Aicher as the chairman, Horst Rittel, the student representative Klaus Pfromm, and the representative of the heads of the workshops, Otto Schild) failed to produce a clear majority for the representatives of the design lecturers, the latter rebelled against the result, and succeeded in expanding the commission by one more member (Walter Zeischegg) – so much for the importance of will as opposed to structures. 1060 Thorwald Risler also made one attempt to decrease the potential for discontent by clear structuring of the HfG. As I have mentioned, of course, the foundation fell about DM 75,000 short of the 1962
The governing boards
Bernhard Rübenach,
Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 51f.
258
budget. It is true that this deficit was not dramatic, in view of a total budget of DM 1.9million. But Thorwald Risler wanted to use the question as to where the governing board was supposed to economize until this money was raised in the course of fiscal 1962 as an opportunity to ask how the faculty was to be structured in principle. His 16October 1961 proposal read as follows: a total of 12 tenured lecturers (“chairs”), i. e., 3 tenured lecturers in each of the 4 departments (industrialized building, information, product design, visual communication); 3 tenured lecturers for theoretical subjects, e.g ., sociology, psychology, and natural sciences; it was around these tenured lecturers that the guest lecturers were to be grouped. To keep a hopelessly muddled debate around personnel issues from breaking out, he called upon the governing board to determine professional appointment criteria and qualifications as a b asis for negotiations between the foundation, governing board, and department representatives. 1061 They never got around to discussing this proposal. Gert Kalow resigned from his positions as a member of the governing board and as its chair on Students’ dining hall, 1959. Photo: Wolfgang Siol Archive:HfG (59/0038)
3 November 1961 – for a welcome reason. The Rockefeller Foundation gave him a grant with the proviso that he concentrate only on his research about The historical preconditions and present
possibilities of a democratic form of government in Germany for one year. He continued as a tenured lecturer in the department of information, but did not teach during that academic year or participate in school administration in hopes of helping to pacify the belligerent parties: “The great Ulm experiment, which is important for our whole present-day cultural situation, the start of a completely new college – which intends to be, and must be, not just a technical school but a college – can only succeed if all those involved renounce extreme measures and make sacrifices on the altar of common sense and willingness to compromise.” 1062
“One important reason for the exclusiveness and isolation of the School of Design is a terminology that sounds hermetic.
Three candidates ran for the by-election on 10 November 1961, at any rate – Hans Gugelot, Christian Staub, and Walter Zeischegg – but as always the flaws of the bylaws were put forward as a pretext, and the true causes of trouble at the HfG were not discussed. Hans Gugelot was elected, but he gave the HfG a deadline. “Mr. Gugelot declares that he is willing to serve as a member of the governing body until 31 January 1962 at the latest. He says he assumes the new bylaws will have gone into effect by then.” 1063 The new governing board consisted of Hans Gugelot (chair), Horst Rittel, and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart. 1064 I have reported that Thorwald Risler’s finance plan for the foundation for the year 1962 had almost succeeded, and that in mid-November 1961 there was every indication that consolidation would be completed in 1963. And I mentioned that at the moment when this was certain, his support ba se collapsed because the HfG entered a serious crisis. Otl Aicher had returned to the stage of action during the past months, having stayed away for about two years to do research. (Inge AicherScholl had for the most part also been able to withdraw as she had wished when the executive board was expanded two years earlier.) On 9 June 1961 Otl Aicher became the chair of the bylaws commission. This commission made no progress. Then, on 13 November 1961, he ended his restraint with a letter to Gert Kalow. This letter may be seen as a signal for the beginning of open confrontation. It came about for what was actually a trivial reason, but on the other hand the reason for Otl Aicher’s request was at the same time fundamental. One may also cr iticize that Otl Aicher made a human mistake when he turned full force against Gert Kalow at the very moment when the latter had just honorably left the ring, for he virtually stabbed him in the back. But I do not believe that Otl Aicher meant it personally. At any rate, Otl Aicher here for the first time called a spade a spade and named the reasons that had provoked the skirmishes of the past months. – On the occasion of an oral examination whose result he had considered to be pathetic, he formulated a fundamental position: “The positive evaluation surprised me for another reason as well: The triviality of the statement was embedded in neobaroque vocabulary, a pile-up of terms from cybernetics, games theory, information theory. However, I admit that the style of the delivery app eared very self-assured. Now, it’s not that I’m interested in dwelling on this case. I suspect that what we’ve got here is a general problem with education at our school. In contrast with colleges of science, training at the School of Design addresses skills
In the auditorium at the opening of the new academic year, 3 October 1960; in front, Hans Gugelot and Tomás Maldonado.
Photo:Sander Archive: Südwestpresse
Ever since the school opened, it has been pointed out how aloof its language is […].
People make impressionistic judgments because they are unaware that the terminology used in Ulm is not private at all, but involves the use of technical terms […].
and, coming out of that, intentional action and behavior. In lieu of knowledge that can be generally applied, training at the HfG is directed at concrete change. Acquirable knowledge is only a means to this goal. If you like, d esigners represent a political and a moral stance. They take up a position. They not only adopt an attitude, they act. Their position is not simply a resultant in an interplay of forces. They do not have compromise in mind, even when they have to make compromises. I assume that students in the department of information are not sent out into the world to seek their place within a social and economic system, but to push through principles. I know that little has yet been done at our school to guarantee education in this direction. Design policy happens only coincidentally. It is anchored only in persons, not in the curriculum. That wouldn’t really be such a tragedy if it weren’t for the fact that the view is obviously being spread that there is no such thing as design policy, and if people didn’t make the mistake of confusing design and science.” 1065 Now the eye of the cyclone had been given a name: Design was not a science – to quote Otl Aicher – and the School of Design was not a college of science. Those who did not like to accept the truth of this statement moved beyond the center and risked being seized by centrifugal forces and hurled outside.
The crisis of 1962 was a power struggle between the two factions into which the HfG had been split. It revolved around the question whether design at the HfG was to be pursued as an unbiased science or not. Depending on which view people held, they rallied around Horst Rittel or Otl Aicher. But if there had only been this one clear question with both fronts plainly aligned, the dispute could have been settled quickly. That was not so, however. The dispute dragged on torturously over all of 1962 because many additional parameters influenced the decision if and when a person leaned toward either faction or again turned away from it: personal sympathy and antipathy, envy and resentment, ignorance and uncertainty, loyalty and acting in the interest of the foundation, many small professional and pedagogical differences. A few
It is not just Ulm terminology that seems to be hermetic. The theories behind it are hermetic – because they are unfamiliar.“
students proved to be very active seconds, while many students apparently concentrated on their studies and were barely touched by the unrest. Horst Rittel was a member of the governing board – a good starting position within the HfG. Otl Aicher, who lay claim to moral responsibility for the HfG as its co-founder, was a member of the advisory board – the better position, as it turned out. For the foundation’s bylaws decreed that the advisory board should pass the HfG bylaws after the foundation’s executive board had drafted them. There was no mention in the bylaws that the HfG would be part of this process, and if circumstances had been the other way around when the two previous bylaws were passed, that was because of the presumptuous behavior of the governing board, which the executive board and advisory board had tolerated. These two starting positions corresponded to the venues where the struggle took place: on one hand the HfG, on the other the a dvisory board of the foundation. At the end of the year Otl Aicher was clearly the winner. It was a Pyrrhic victory, and the price of the victory was that the foundations of the HfG were permanently damaged. On 3 February 1962, 25 of 46 students in their first year of studies – formerly the basic program, but as early as the 1959/60 academic year this initial year of studies had been partly changed; on 30 January 1961 the inner council had officially done away with the name Grundlehre (basic program) in favor of Erstes Studienjahr (first year of studies), and as of 1 October 1961 students directly entered the departments 1066 – wrote a specific memorandum as well as a comprehensive one for each department in which they seriously criticized conditions at the HfG 1067 : “After four months of study we are deeply disappointed, for daily we see and experience anew that this school is not what it should and could be and does not keep its promises. […] Teaching and research are simply not connected, for the institutes, of course, are taboo for the students. Rather, we have the impression that the entire student and college setup is only a clever façade for the institutes. […] Also we are no longer willing to allow ourselves be stuffed full of book learning and to keep trotting like dumb school children from lecture to lecture, to cram the material into our brains only to regurgitate it during exams, like kids in grade school. We do not want to become sociologists, or physiologists, and certainly not structural theoreticians, statisticians, analytical thinkers, or mathematicians, but designers! The lectures only have value for us if the material refers to problems of design or at least is presented in such a way that we ourselves are capable of seeing the connections.” Otl Aicher took up the students’ request as evidence for his assertion that the HfG could not con-
259
The governing boards
260
tinue as it had so far, and that the cause of this trouble was the mistaken belief that design was a science. In his general attack he named names: “Until now I have avoided d iscussing this topic with any of the students. But after this massive protest, which brings the bankruptcy of the present administration’s pedagogical intentions to general awareness, I am no longer willing to exercise any sort of collegial restraint toward the faculty and administration of the school. In the last two years the HfG has been going d ownhill step by
steps that will allow the reputation of the HfG to be restored. The process will be laborious and lengthy. In my responsibility as co-founder of the HfG, I intend to do everything I consider appropriate to clarify the situation . The time for standing by and watching is past.” 1068 With the support of Tomás Maldonado, Herbert Ohl, and Walter Zeischegg, Otl Aicher demanded the resignation of the governing board – an affront to Hans Gugelot, the board’s chairman, who as the representative of the designers, that is, those very Paul Hildinger, Cornelius Uittenhout, and Otto Schild, 1958. Photos: Wolfgang Siol A rchive:HfG (58/0276/1, 58/0331 and 58/0348)
step. We who founded and developed this school had to stand here and watch, for reasons of solidarity, how through lack of ability and vanity, bit by bit, our work fell apart. After the present step by students in the first year of studies the time has come when continued passivity would be irresponsible. The students’ statement makes it clear to all that the HfG faces pedagogical ruin. The cause of this development is in the declared intention of Mr. Rittel and Mr. Kesting to replace design by science and, as they thought, thus to found a proper college at long last. I know that Mr. Rittel now denies that he took this view in conversation with me. I’ll be happy to take it upon myself that this means one of us has to appear as a liar. In accordance with this policy Mr. Rittel has gathered all the lecturers who are unimportant for design, and finally with the help of the election mechanism in the council he managed to bring about a situation where the designers had to pursue their activity almost illegally. There was no longer a legitimate place for design in the HfG. People were trained in abstract methods and, for the most part, taught irrelevant knowledge. […]The only obvious conclusion to be drawn from this wretched state of things is the resignation of those persons who are responsible for such a fiasco. If people are unable to see this, I think it would be best if the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung takes the appropriate
lecturers, had allowed himself to be pressed into taking part in the a dministration of the HfG because he hoped thus to make possible the necessary change in the bylaws. But Otl Aicher accepted the fact that as he struggled with Horst Rittel, Hans Gugelot was also compromised. Horst Rittel and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart passed on the memoranda of the first-year students, which were addressed solely to the executive board of the foundation, the governing board, and the tenured lecturers, to the student representatives. The reaction: The very next day five advanced students condescended to write a scornful response. Why, every entering group of students had had the same experience at the HfG – within the first weeks they’d been shocked out of their reverie and hope. Moreover the advanced students defended the teaching of theoretical subjects: “Whatever theory and science is taught here serves solely as a tool, as a method for working on and grounding design problems. Knowledge from a vast range of specialties is part of a designer’s general education. It’s the only way a designer attains understanding and supreme ease. In the view of the 30 protesting voices we see an idea borrowed from traditional art institutes that may be appropriate at such institutes. The fact that they insist on such ideas has an embarrassingly pro-
gressive character and represents a step backward with regard to the design concept that has already been elaborated at the HfG. We understand design as a creative ability that must be preceded by a methodical process – taking down the facts, taking into account and thinking through many different standpoints, and formulating logical inferences. We believe that because of this the HfG became a trendsetter even for institutions that have a rich tradition, and provided a model for the founding of new schools of design.” 1069 Thorwald Risler immediately tried to ensure that this matter remained the difference of opinion between two lecturers within the faculty and that it was kept from the students. 1070 At the same time, he said, he supported Otl Aicher’s position. At this point he was still in ag reement with Otl Aicher and Walter Zeischegg (also a member of the advisory board) that the foundation must now intervene and the advisory board must pass new HfG bylaws. He supported Otl Aicher’s request that “the HfG must be led back and reorganized in accordance with its original goals”, or to put it differently: that the concentration of the HfG on design must be reestablished.1071 At the 15 December 1962 meeting of the governing board Horst Rittel took up Otl Aicher’s gauntlet.1072 He had the support of Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart (probably only because he had for some time been in a personal confrontation with Tomás Maldonado, and Tomás Maldonado in turn was a bitter opponent of Horst Rittel). Thorwald Risler, who had spoken to the first-year students just the day before, insisted that all the items mentioned in the memorandum were matters that concerned only the faculty. It was not up to the students to make any decisions about it. He reminded Horst Rittel that he should not misuse the students as foot soldiers to reinforce his power base now, as he had done in the Mervyn Perrine affair. He was afraid, though, that it had in the meantime become impossible to clarify objectively all the issues and differences of opinion, because those who were involved no longer acted as though they were capable of negotiating: “They all say they have made an effort to dialogue with the others. But an objective discussion is no longer possible here. It is not the students’ letter that is critical, but the attitude of the colleagues on the faculty. I see no way out and no possibility of getting everybody around a conference table again.” Horst Rittel knew his own Achilles’ heel: There was only one possibility that he would no longer be able to maintain his position, and that was if the current bylaws were changed. The foundation could not suddenly dismiss all the lecturers who had elected him in the inner council without risking the collapse of teaching activity. And he knew that Otl Aicher aimed precisely at this weak spot:
He made every effort to change the bylaws in such a way that precisely this type of election would no longer be possible. Both Horst Rittel and Otl Aicher had of course been put under an obligation to cooperate when on 9 June 1961 they were elected to the committee of the inner council that was supposed to revise the bylaws by the end of 1961. Nothing came of that – the committee, in Otl Aicher’s opinion, had been disbanded because except for him no one had drawn up any proposals. 1073 Besides Otl Aicher did not want students to be part of this commission, or part of revising the bylaws in general, because he was convinced that the only students who participated in this work were those who were on Horst Rittel’s side. Now, Horst Rittel did not agree with Thorwald Risler that the situation could be resolved by giving the HfG new bylaws, because he believed “that the present situation was less about the bylaws than about the configuration of the personnel”. The HfG, he said, had “no memory, was not capable of learning”. Even as Thorwald Risler was conferring with the governing board, student representatives Karlheinz Allgayer and Klaus Pfromm entered the room and handed the gentlemen the latest issue of the student newspaper Output , which was devoted exclusively to the change in the bylaws a nd in which the bylaws of the HfG and the foundation, as well as changes proposed by the students, were printed in full. The students again wanted to use this opportunity to express their displeasure at the fact that the reality of their studies, because of personnel and curriculum shortcomings, did not live up to the claims made in the school’s publicity material.1074 Nevertheless Thorwald Risler was outraged at the student representatives’ behavior and at once sharply rebuked them for it as a flagrant breach of confidence, because he had expressly asked that the students’ proposal be given directly to the foundation and not be publicly discussed. “Mr. Pfromm says the reason the student government took this step is that it believes a change in the bylaws cannot take place behind closed doors, but must be made in full view of the public.” Hans Gugelot replied that the foundation as the sponsor of the HfG would approve the bylaws, a nd that it was a great show of trust if it asked the student body for a recommendation; the students’ attitude was all the more questionable if they published their recommendation in print beforehand. Thorwald Risler refused to consider using a n issue of the Output as a working basis for changing the bylaws. But that was not all: “If it is true that any of the lecturers knew of this publication, then this only adds to a very disrupted situation.” For Hans Gugelot this incident was the straw that broke the camel’s back. He announced his resignation: “Mr. Gugelot also emphasized that he considers the
261
The governing boards
262
current situation to be far more critical than the onetime Bill crisis, since the school administration is now no longer respected at all, and that there was no opposing group whose members ag reed with each other. He said Mr. Aicher in particular was very upset and disillusioned, and as one of the founders was seriously worried about the school’s future.” He stressed that “when he had run for office, he had only done so to allow the situation to simmer down to some extent. The present lack of consideration among colleagues, however, was a great breach of trust. […] Mr. Risler, shaken, also states that there is no more trust in the school, neither among the lecturers nor among lecturers and students. In conclusion Mr. Rittel admits that for two days he has known about the Output issue, but simply forgot to tell anybody. He says he only told Mr. Vordemberge-Gildewart.” Honi soit qui mal y pense! [Shamed be he who thinks evil of it!] On 19 February 1962 there was a meeting of those members of the advisory board who lived in Ulm: the Aichers, Hans Frieder Eychmüller, Thor-
that sometimes majority decisions have been made whose consequences for the college were extremely unfavorable. Another result has been that in the last two years governing boards have been elected that cannot represent the college in their current makeup. […] Since this is a college of design, it is primarily the design lecturers who ought to have the opportunity to run the school. The ancillary lecturers who are naturally necessary for the theoretical subjects ought not to be given too much influence over the course of the college.” Now, the crux of the c urrent situation was that Hans Gugelot had resigned from his position as the chair of the governing board, partly out of resignation in view of the hopelessness of the situation, partly because he had been hurt by the general attack of Otl Aicher, partly to go back to his work as a lecturer and at the institute. Actually it would have been advisable to have an immediate by-election in the inner council. But Thorwald Risler disregarded this, and “Mrs. Aicher agreed with Exhibition booth of the BASF at the Hannover Industrial Fair, May 1962. Photo:unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
wald Risler, Walter Zeischegg. 1075 It was not an ordinary advisory board meeting because there would not have been enough time to ca ll a meeting. Not until that point did p eople realize that the existing bylaws had not been formally correctly passed, but of course this was not about formalities but about the substance of the b ylaws: “The very democratic trend of the bylaws, i.e., the fact that student representatives, heads of workshops, and guest lecturers, who actually sustain the school, are able to join in all decisions has meant
him that [it would be a mistake] to set in motion the electoral mechanism prescribed by the provisional bylaws of the college in order to complete the governing board. This would lead nowhere.” That is why Hans Gugelot’s resignation was to be rejected out of hand. Otl Aicher together with Herbert Ohl and Walter Zeischegg had worked out a proposal for changing the HfG bylaws. Thorwald Risler basically wanted to have this text approved by the advisory board as soon as possible so that the HfG would get some
peace once more. It is true that Hans Frieder Eychmüller doubted “whether any constitutional change was a possibility or guarantee that these types of conflicts that concerned matters of substance would be avoided in the future. In his opinion, theoretical subjects would be needed in the future as well. Mr. Risler responded that in the new plan, too, in addition to practical training in design, scientific minor subjects would be taught. But these minor subjects would need to be evaluated and things must never again get to the point where the gradual differences between design courses and ancillary courses would become too blurred. In the present situation, however, he felt a discussion of this topic among the lecturers was unproductive.” Otl Aicher’s draft was aimed at setting up a “representative democracy” with a strong rector elected for a set term at its head. All those who were present understood that this meant the rights of individuals or groups would be diminished, and that the plan could therefore be expected to meet with resistance. To put it in different terms: If the foundation did not dismiss all the lecturers who did not accept Otl Aicher’s views on design, it had to demote them to mere yes men who automatically supported Otl Aicher. In conclusion, Thorwald Risler admonished those present “that the adoption of new bylaws and the mobilizing of the old lecturers, who would now have to try to do more for the school, represented a last attempt to renew the college from within.” If this attempt were to fail, of course, he saw only one other alternative – that the school be managed by someone else, that is, to put it plainly, that it be nationalized. At the moment, he felt it was the duty of the advisory board and of the executive board to support the ideas of the old lecturers which had after all sprung from the attempt at renewal. A look at the results of the constitutional commission shows two drafts: one is that mentioned above, by Otl Aicher, Herbert Ohl, and Walter Zeischegg, the other is by the student body and was published in Output . Two years previously, in May 1960, when tensions first appeared between the designers and the theoreticians, Herbert Ohl had drawn up a draft version for the bylaws of the HfG. It already contains the essential concerns that the designers, headed by Otl Aicher, associated with new HfG bylaws: a strong rector and the limitation of eligibility for this office to a “competent”, qualitatively limited select group. From the start, the criterion of this quality was whether one belonged to the design or nondesign departments. Interestingly enough, Herbert Ohl had at the time proposed an especially small electoral body (senate: the four department heads and the head of the basic course). 1076 Otl Aicher (who was attending a design conference in Tokyo)
had criticized the plan at that time: “I consider your proposal to be technically impracticable. Elections are based on statistical premises. You need larger numbers to have one. An election with two, three, four voters is an absurdity.” (On 20 December 1962, Otl Aicher himself would be elected rector by five colleagues.) Beyond this Otl Aicher’s letter explains the objectives he had pursued since by demanding a constitutional change: “The change in the bylaws ought to effect the following: 1. that competent persons are considered for leadership positions, 2. that the leadership becomes more viable, 3. that we do not have to live through another Bill case. Power makes people vain. […] Only, I tend to judge b ylaws by potential conflict situations. If all goes well, the bylaws will become almost redundant.” 1077 The previous November, Otl Aicher, Herbert Ohl, and Walter Zeischegg worked out several drafts of the new HfG bylaws for the commission of the inner council. 1078 The first version, dated 6 November 1961, shows the unvarnished intention of the designers to introduce a faculty hierarchy: “The faculty consists of the immediate faculty, the design lecturers, technical lecturers, guest lecturers, and the extended faculty, the lecturers, assistant lecturers, [and] teachers of specialized sub jects.” 1079 The rector was to be elected by the senate, which – as already outlined in Herbert Ohl’s proposal of 29 April 1960 – was to consist only of the rector, the department heads, and one representative of the “technical lecturers”. The classification of the faculty changed in name but not in substance in the drafts that followed. The 22 December 1961 recommendation of the student body (the member of the commission representing the students was Klaus Pfromm) also provided for the faculty to be divided into design and technical lecturers as well as a rector, but the latter was to be far weaker than in Otl Aicher’s proposal. The primary reason for this was that the rector was to be elected by a council that was basically made up of the same members as previously. 1080 The recommendation for change printed in Output sounded quite different: It essentially amounted to a continuation of the existing situation with a three-member governing board. On 27 and 28 February 1962 the advisory board discussed a revised version of the draft proposed by Otl Aicher, Herbert Ohl, and Walter Zeischegg.1081 With the introductory definition of their educational goal they wanted to commit the HfG to a focus on design: “The task of the School of Design is training designers in the fields of indus-
263
The governing boards
trial production and communication. In order to support this pedagogical goal, related subjects a re taught. The promotion of applied research and development in design-related areas is in the interest of the college.” Eligibility for the governing board was to be reserved for “tenured” lecturers. The rector was to be elected for a two-year term, be the pedagogical head of the HfG, and have the right to nominate faculty appointments; appointments were to be approved by the executive board of the foundation. The inner senate (rector, department heads, and a representative of the specialized lecturers) was to decide on the appointment of lecturers to tenured positions. The extended senate (tenured and non-tenured lecturers, one representative each of the assistant lecturers and technical teachers, two student representatives) was to elect the rector. The departments were to be constituted as a new body of the HfG (corresponding to the departments of traditional colleges and universities) with one department head each (a position attainable only by a tenured lecturer) and regular department meetings. In this draft, the crucial point of the b ylaws, namely, who could become a tenured lecturer, was not explicitly limited to designers. Rather, there was a n extremely vague circumlocution: “An appointment to a tenured lectureship is only permitted on the basis of special qualification and a lengthy teaching period at the college. Exceptions from these requirements are possible only in particularly justified cases and need the approval of two-thirds of the votes of the inner senate.”
264
Wolfgang Siol, 1958. Photo: Christian Staub Archive: HfG (58/0370/1)
working and to have a chance to react to them.1082
“The makeup of the governing board in recent years gave rise to fears that the school would develop contrary to the intentions of the actual founders, who had intentionally wanted a school of design. […] I, too, believe that new bylaws can fulfill their purpose if there is a trusting interplay of forces. On the other hand we must realize that the School of Design is not ‘supported’ equally by all the lecturers. And also we must not overlook the fact that such great differences have arisen within the faculty that it is no longer possible to achieve trusting cooperation through mediation alone. Thus we will have to decide who matters most. […] If we do not succeed in giving the school a new basis for work and development by means of new bylaws and through mediation among the teachers who truly support the school
The situation was not immediately cleared up, but not because of the authority the foundation’s executive board had received through these powers. What was called for now was resolute action, but the alliance between Thorwald Risler and Otl Aicher broke down.
Thorwald Risler had supported Otl Aicher’s initiative in the interest of the foundation: The foundation needed a peaceful HfG behind it that made concentrated work possible and radiated professionalism so that the confidence of industry and of the ministries would not be lost. In addition he respected the HfG founders’ goal of limiting the HfG to its original intentions. At the same time he demanded that these questions should be resolved in all openness and objectivity. He could not tolerate intrigues and tactical maneuvers. And he doubted that a constitutional change could do the job when actually a change in interpersonal relationships was required. Suddenly this difference of opinion between Thorwald Risler and Otl Aicher turned into an open quarrel – for a trivial reason. Thorwald Risler had referred the Badische Anilin-& Soda-Fabrik AG (Baden Aniline & Soda Factory) ( BASF ) as a client to Otl Aicher’s development team, and the team had developed an exhibition stand for the industrial fair in Hannover. On the opening day Thorwald Risler, in the presence of Otl Aicher and the chairman of the BASF executive board, Carl Wurster The crisis could have been over with this meeting (who was at the same time the vice president of of the advisory board on 27 and 28 February 1962. the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft ), expressed the critiMax Bill sent his regrets, and the foundation recism that this work, in his opinion, had not been ceived no response from Fritz Pfeil to the invitation, done professionally enough. 1083 Thorwald Risler so that except for these two all members of the felt obliged to voice this criticism to this influential advisory board were present: the Aichers, Hans captain of industry because he b ore the responFrieder Eychmüller, Max Guther, Günther Grzimek, sibility for the entire foundation and in any ca se Thorwald Risler, and Walter Zeischegg. They made wanted to avoid the impression that the HfG did it possible for the foundation’s executive board unprofessional work. Otl Aicher, however, inter(Thorwald Risler, Inge Aicher-Scholl, and Max preted this criticism as interference in the work Guther) to present the HfG with a fait accompli: of the designers and felt that it was substantially unjustified, expressed at the inappropriate time, The proposal of Otl Aicher, Herbert Ohl, and and a personal affront. He declared that his coWalter Zeischegg was adopted as the bylaws operation with Thorwald Risler was over and used of the HfG; the incident as an opportunity to grumble about the executive board of the foundation was the basic relationship between the foundation and authorized to give this proposal to Hellmut the HfG. What was disastrous was that he refused Becker for review, and later to make editorial to solve one question after the other; instead he changes; combined the two and thus slowed down the proin addition the executive board was authorized cess of clearing up the entire situation. to pass the bylaws at a time it deemed approThorwald Risler’s colleagues on the executive priate; board, Inge Aicher-Scholl and Max Guther, behalf a year after the bylaws went into effect a lieved out of deep conviction in the goals Otl Ainew meeting of the advisory board was to be cher associated with the reform of the bylaws. called to discuss how well the bylaws were Guther expressed them clearly on 16 April 1962:
Christian Staub and A nthony Froshaug, 1958. Photos: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (58/0315 and 58/0294)
and therefore are indispensable, then the School of Design has forfeited its right to exist. In that case it is better to put an end to the school once and for all rather than keep it alive artificially. […] As for who ought to be the rector, I think that only a tenured lecturer for design may become a rector. […] You can see that I intentionally wish to deny the technical lecturers any decisive involvement as a rector or member of the inner senate. I want to be quite frank about it and honestly admit that it was the behavior of Mr. Rittel in particular that made me choose this strict position. ” 1084 Reading between the lines, we can see the hand of Otl Aicher, who tried to use Max Guther to push through his maximum demands against Thorwald Risler in the foundation’s executive board. On 25 April 1962 the governing board was no longer able to withstand the pressure of its opponents at the HfG and resigned as a body. 1085 The HfG lapsed into a sort of paralysis because now, except for Christian Staub, no one was willing to run for a position on the governing board anymore.
This is why the inner council was not even convened in order to elect a new governing board in accordance with the bylaws. The alternative, for the foundation, would have been to take advantage of the moment and put the new bylaws into effect. But the dispute between Otl Aicher and Thorwald Risler blocked this option. Otl Aicher and Thorwald Risler could not agree on the position Horst Rittel (pars pro toto) was to be given according to the next bylaws. Risler’s concern was to go beyond the momentary agony and think of instruction at the school in the future. What good was all this if only half the faculty stayed on at the HfG? That is why he tried to “win over Mr. Gugelot and the lecturers who did not belong to the old group to work with him and implement the compromise proposal.” 1086 And that is why he clung to his demand that the provisions to regulate the transition from the old to the new bylaws would be formulated in such a way that “there is protection for everyone from Mr. Aicher’s and Mr. Maldonado’s doctrinaire endeavors.” These provisions for a transition were meant to establish, as agreed, the new positions of the lecturers that would be their starting line under the new HfG bylaws. Otl Aicher, Tomás Maldonado, Herbert Ohl, and Walter Zeischegg demanded that Horst Rittel, Gert Kalow, Christian Staub, and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart occupy positions from which they could not get into the school administration. Besides they demanded that Otl Aicher, b y an act of sovereignty of the foundation, be appointed as the rector for a two-year term. Otl Aicher concentrated on making any continuing work in the school administration impossible, particularly for Horst Rittel, because he believed this would jeopardize the attempt to renew the HfG. 1087 Thorwald Risler on the other hand insisted “that it was impossible to reduce Mr. Rittel in rank”. In the meantime three months had gone by since the advisory board agreed to approve the new bylaws. The advantage that a surprise coup would have brought about had dwindled with each day of hesitation. Now the members of the administrative council also realized what was happening. In a memorandum, student representative Gudrun Otto furiously complained that the students had not been informed of the resignation of the HfG administration, and that their arguments from issue no. 9 of Output had not been taken into consideration during the conference about the bylaws. 1088 Besides, Mervyn Perrine with the above-mentioned letter had returned to the stage of action for a short guest engagement, now that the tumult of battle was at its thickest. As the members of the administrative council saw it, if the HfG bylaws were to be changed, a legitimate sequence of steps must now be observed. If Otl Aicher had been “enthroned” by the foundation’s executive
265
The governing boards
266
board, exactly the opposite would have happened. And this situation did not exactly become clearer when Otl Aicher adamantly refused to be accountable to the foundation’s executive board “in any way whatsoever” once he would appointed rector by the foundation. 1089 This went on for a whole month until the entire executive board of the foundation decided to call another meeting of the inner council as the governing board’s electoral body, for Wednesday 30 May 1962. This election was actually an anachronism, because the new HfG bylaws could have been put into effect long before if Thorwald Risler and Otl Aicher had reached an agreement. But the HfG’s business, after all, had to be continued legitimately. Thorwald Risler’s hopes for the election were that at least circumstances within the HfG would be put in order if the new bylaws were passed: “The executive board expects the electoral body and of the eligible lecturers to cooperate loyally in order to elect a viable, competent, and representative governing board.” 1090 And lo and behold, the inner council elected a g overning board of designers: Otl Aicher ( visual communication), Tomás Maldonado (product design), and Herbert Ohl (industrialized building). 1091 Thus the administration positions of the HfG were filled exclusively by representatives of the three design departments. They held all the trumps, and it was up to them to win the constitutional poker game against department representatives Christian Staub (visual communication), Horst Rittel ( information and representative for the theoretical sub jects), and Paul Hildinger (representative for the workshops) . 1092 Now the foundation was also no longer under pressure to pass the new bylaws as soon as possible, for the situation that existed now was the very one that the new bylaws were to have brought about. Herbert Ohl, who was elected to be chair by his two colleagues, made a confident programmatic statement to the assembled lecturers and students two days later: “In spite of apparent breaches, change, and nothing but demonstrations, the growth of this college is characterized by a consistent sequence – foundation, development, and experience. […] The contributions of all members of the college are necessary and will be organized and used in accordance with the central task of this school of design. One of the special contributions of this school of design is the realization that only with all the creative forces of our industrial society – with science and technology playing a leading role – can we truly learn to grasp and solve our design problems and come up with design processes. […] Nevertheless, at this college, this very relationship of science and design has created differences of opinion whose cause can be found in the different ways the basic purpose of this col-
lege is evaluated. To solve our design tasks we need science and technology as applied sciences. […] The experiences relating to these problems that we have gained from the college’s d evelopment to date will help us to restore the proper order to the composite of teachers, learners, and problems that has lost its equilibrium and its ability to work as a unit.“ Herbert Ohl then presented a series of concrete suggestions to illustrate his remarks: The social and economic background of design should be represented by a tenured lecturer for economics. Film should be developed “as an essential communicative medium” and developed with money and lecturers “into an effective part of our teaching and research”. The interrupted experiment of the Research Center for Optical Perception ought to be continued; however, it should not only carry out demonstrations as heretofore, but rather design-related experiments. In addition the research center should also “extend its perception projects into the related branches of the other faculties of perception and thus attain an integral view of perception, contributing to opening up ‘human engineering’ for our objectives”. The institutes should continue to be an “indispensable precondition for lively and progressive teaching and thus be of functional importance for our school”. Finally, a warning in the direction of the student representatives: “The natural situation when the student government was founded was that in spite of many diverse views there was a common interest shared with all members of the college, and not the kind of unnatural, conflicting interest and polarity found in a labor union”.1093 Far less confident was Thorwald Risler’s memo of 5 June 1962 to the administrative council about constituting the new governing board: “Even if the basic problems and difficulties within the faculty and with the student government have by no means all been rectified, there has b een a noticeable easing of tension.” 1094 Three days later, on 8 June 1962, the inner council, as was customary, elected the governing board for the coming academic year (1962/63). It consisted of Otl Aicher, Rudolf Doernach, and Christian Staub and became the last governing board of the HfG. 1095 A week before the beginning of the summer break, on 24 June 1962, student representative Gudrun Otto, in a letter to Roderich Count Thun,
267
Visit by 32 British industrialists and representatives of the British Council of Industrial Design, 31 Aug. 1962. Photo:Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (62/0346)
once more explained that a long, hot autumn could be expected from some of the students if the HfG were to be restructured according to the will of the designers. Interestingly enough, as the student representative, she also mentioned nationalization as a last resort – an idea that Max Bill had of course held and that had been considered, or rather conjured up, by members of the administrative council, by Max Guther, and also by Thorwald Risler. “All factual debates are dragged down to the level of personal confrontations. […] We need to find out whether this school can still administer itself.[…] There should be a guarantee that personnel questions will no longer be misused to pursue ‘power politics’ and alter electoral relations.”1096 In the evening Thorwald Risler, Max Guther, and Inge Aicher-Scholl met with Otl Aicher, Hellmut Becker, Roderich Count Thun, and a colleague of Hellmut Becker, the attorney Johann Peter Vogel, who was editing the draft of the bylaws. Inge Aicher-Scholl put her finger on her husband’s conviction that “the coexistence of various different
directions” was impossible for a school as small as the Ulm college. Aicher’s direction was not easy to put into words, she said, and those who followed that direction simply knew it. That is why Otl Aicher’s position must be carried through: The HfG was neither an academic college where design was pursued as a science nor a school of arts and crafts at which design was seen as something that was value-free. As a reaction to past events, Otl Aicher announced that he wished to remove his development team from the Institute of Product Design and transfer it to an institute that would be separate from the HfG and the foundation. His reason was as follows: Hans Gugelot had already indicated in the preceding year that he was no longer willing to let himself be worn down between two fronts. He had seriously considered turning his back on the HfG. There were attractive offers. Thorwald Risler did not want to lose Hans Gugelot, a mainstay of teaching, the international reputation of the HfG, and the economic success of the Institute of Product Design. Together with the founda-
The governing boards
268
tion’s accountant, Max Horn, he drafted an organizational structure that on the one hand gave Hans Gugelot the desired independence from the HfG but at the same time tied him to the foundation. Outwardly the change was hardly noticeable – somehow Hans Gugelot still belonged to the HfG (as of 1 June 1962 only as a guest lecturer). This was the structure: On 31 January 1962 a new association was founded, called Institut für Produktentwicklung und Design e.V. (Institute of Product Development and Design, Inc.). The association consisted of the legally prescribed minimum of seven members, i.e., the five members of the executive board of the Society of Friends (Johann Dietrich Auffermann, Hellmut Becker, Klaus Dohrn, Erhard Löwe, and Roderich Count Thun) plus Thorwald Risler (chair) and Günther Schweigkofler, the administrative director of the foundation (deputy chair and general manager of the association). 1097 If Otl Aicher and his development team now wanted to break away from the HfG and the foundation completely, this meant that like Hans Gugelot he wanted to establish an institution of his own for his work, even at the risk that the second pillar that supported design at the HfG might collapse. For Otl Aicher, however, it was more important that – unlike Hans Gugelot – he wanted to act independently of the foundation, for this foundation had, of course, long been embodied by Thorwald Risler and not by his own wife. Otl Aicher saw the situation in terms of personnel, not of the institution, and Thorwald Risler, Hellmut Becker, and Max Guther had been warning people of this very thing: “Messrs. Risler, Becker, and Guther point out the risk inherent in a situation where all the
faculty and staff that set the tone of the college gradually break away into separate institutes. Above all only institutes that are under the direct control of the foundation should be formed. In these institutes students must take part in research and development. At all events the executive board of the foundation should continue to be the highest authority for the college and the institutes, since it also bears the highest responsibility.” Otl Aicher’s counterargument was that he wanted to be “independent of the foundation’s executive board and especially of Mr. Risler,” whom he no longer trusted. In view of this situation Hellmut Becker appealed to Otl Aicher’s sense of responsibility: “The financial situation of the school will become very precarious if the most important institutes leave the school, because then orders would no longer be met by the school, but by the institutes. Mr. Guther also remarked that the quality of the school would be diminished if it could no longer identify with the achievements of its best faculty and staff.” 1098 Otl Aicher did not let this argument affect him and continued planning the separation of his development team from the HfG. 1099 On 12 July 1962 Thorwald Risler reminded him that the foundation was the contractual partner of all companies and that a solution could not be effected from one day to the next: “Development team no. 5 has now been working under your direction since 1958/59 in an extended sense. Contracts for the orders were concluded between the customer and the GSS [GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung] as a legal entity.” 1100 He proposed a separation by common agreement as of 30 June 1963. In the same breath he defended his criticism Gert Kalow, 1958. Photo: Hans Conrad
at the Hannover industrial fair, which had triggered the discord between him and Otl Aicher: “For all the bigger customers, possibly with the sole exception of the Braun Company, it was definitely reassuring, and partly a prerequisite for working with us, that I made a commitment to those responsible to supervise the work and to act as a mediator during its completion.” At the same time, he said, until spring 1962 he had always placed himself protectively in front of the work of all the development teams, “since I was convinced that in time sensible and frictionless cooperation between the customer and development team could be reached. I didn’t express criticism until the cr isiswracked completion of the BASF exhibit stand, since here more than with all the other previous orders the actual reputation of the institution as a whole was also at stake.” The BASF , he said, had very sharply criticized not only the collaborative work of Otl Aicher and its staff members, but also his own staff. On the same date, 12 July 1962, Thorwald Risler informed Max Guther about the dilemma he was in: On the one hand, interests of the foundation forced him finally to clear the air. On the other hand, he was not prepared to use every available means to do so. Otl Aicher insisted uncompromisingly that there was no third way. In the process he also ignored rules of interpersonal conduct. Thorwald Risler claimed that once Otl Aicher was a member of the governing board, he wanted “to prevent precisely that which in years gone by had guaranteed him complete freedom to do his work – i. e., limiting the governing board to teaching only and giving the foundation’s executive board freedom in structuring relations with the individual lecturers and their areas of w ork. In the same breath with which he demands p owers […], he is energetically pursuing the separation of his development team from the context of the foundation.” The irony of the story was that Otl Aicher now demanded that he be given authority just as Max Bill had done formerly. And just a s Max Bill’s professional qualities had been emphasized by everyone, Otl Aicher’s outstanding abilities were now praised. And yet it was supposedly a fact “that all the members of the Landtag and Bundestag with whom I spoke about budget raises stressed unanimously […] that the funds were given in spite of the Aichers.” Thorwald Risler began to worry whether it made sense to go on working in Ulm: “I invested the only capital I actually had – my contacts in industry, and the name I had made for myself in this sector, as well as my political connections – fully in my work here without keeping anything back. Since it is clear that I will not be in Ulm forever, I cannot possibly risk the capital I invested here without reservation by losing both internal and external credibility.” 1101
At the same time Gert Kalow made one last effort to try and get Otl Aicher to understand, through an insistent letter, that the end does not justify the means: “You have made many mistakes in your dealings with people. You did not consider that one must not offend the innermost, personal dignity of one’s colleagues. […] Rittel is a tenured lecturer, brought to Ulm at least with your a pproval (if not actually at your wish); one can send him away again, as long as one has a nice and tidy reason for it […]. There must be no privileges among the tenured lecturers of the HfG.” Events during the year that had passed since Gert Kalow had accepted the grant of the Rockefeller Foundation and Otl Aicher had written him a harsh letter would have confirmed his statement “that all the fighting of the last years is basically simply about a war between the old lecturers about privileges. You, dear Aicher, are the main culprit; and the continuing existence of the school depends on you, you alone. You must make more spiritual sacrifices than ever before in order to make the HfG even viable as an institution. You must (without any diminishment of your ideas) pay greater tribute to the social value of manners. […] Otherwise you will (not only in the eyes of your evil contemporaries, but in actual fact) turn into a dictator. Otherwise you will soon be surrounded by only two types of people: bootlickers and (open or secret) haters. […] If we in Ulm go on collecting electoral majorities instead of working on transforming enemies into partners, we’re going to destroy the school. If you, dear Mr. Aicher, cling to the vision of an ‘integral’ HfG in which every little detail is strictly interrelated, you will destroy your own work. You will never get over the internal crises – not because you are a bad person (you’re not), but because your vision contains a fallacy. […] A school is […] not viable without an objective, concretized structure of regulations and rituals, without some sacrifice of subjectivity on the part of all those involved. There’s no help for it. We must learn to make a sharp distinction between the mission and the institution of the HfG.” Part of this sanctioned behavior, he added, was respect for giving students the right to make decisions, or the absence of privileges: “We’ve never succeeded in establishing the most fundamental rituals here in Ulm, not least because of your resistance.”1102 Gert Kalow went on with this argumentation in a
report on my experiences dated June 1962. 1103 One reason for the continuing internal crisis of the HfG, he said, was the absence of a generally accepted “canon of rules of the game”. While the bylaws were good, they were impaired by the fact that they were provisional: “Whenever anything is done according to the rules of the game of these
269
The governing boards
270
bylaws that is contrary to the ideas of one or more lecturers, this ‘provisionality’ is brought up as an argument in order to protest that the result (for example, the election of a governing board) is ‘intolerable’ or ‘actually illegal’. It’s happened not once, but several times, after the election of a new governing board, that one or several lecturers declared that it was impossible to work with this governing board. The inevitable consequence: a latent civil war. […] The HfG has still not been objectified as an institution: It is still predominantly a mere idea or ‘a genial improvisation’ , and only very minimally a concrete material form. […] We ought to think again about the HfG’s connection with the spiritual heritage of Hans and Sophie Scholl. In actual fact it is difficult to reconcile much that has happened at the HfG in recent years with the spirit of democratic freedom for which the two students sacrificed their lives.” Since a governing board had been elected in 1960 which for the first time included neither Otl Aicher, nor Tomás Maldonado, nor Walter Zeischegg, this “group of old lecturers more and more vociferously declared the bylaws (which they themselves had drawn up) to be ‘useless’ and demanded new ones. […] Only the old lecturers feel they are the patriarchs, only they may determine the general policy of the HfG, and to hell with the bylaws. […] In a certain sense the HfG suffers from the fact that it makes excessive idealistic demands on itself. If you put a friendly interpretation on the policy of the directorate [i. e., the above-mentioned “old” lecturers; author’s note], it was (and still is) based on the idea that the Ulm school, without the constraint of any kind of rules, ought to actually function as a close friendly alliance. (I consider such an idea to be criminal.) And then there is an even more criminal idea, so idealistic that it is truly a terrorist concept, that everything and anything that lecturers teach in Ulm must be ‘design-related’.” Presumably this statement by Gert Kalow was intended for a administrative council discussion. For Herbert Lindinger, Horst Rittel, and Otl Aicher summarized their view of things in voluminous papers during the same period. Herbert Lindinger addressed Hellmut Becker on 25 June 1962. 1104 He sent him a highly sophisticated exploration of the Ulm tangle of crises, a clear analysis from the perspective of the designers versus the scientists. Herbert Lindinger saw the causes of the crisis in the clashes over four topics (design theory, design as something value-free, the development teams or institutes, and the bylaws). He also dissected the different roles of the lecturers, students, and the administrative director of the foundation: “The foundation’s new administrative director was definitely a great gain for the entire institution. The fact that HfG financing today is secured at a very high level is due not only to the efforts of the
administrative council but also largely to the untiring energy and negotiating skills of our administrative director.” At the same time he criticized the fact that Thorwald Risler interfered in the self-government of the HfG – in the old days, when the governing board was not capable of making decisions, this had, in his opinion, been necessary, but not anymore. The role of the students, i. e., of the student representatives, was something Herbert Lindinger judged very critically: “In recent years, however, student participation has become a questionable institution. Increasingly college politics fell prey to demagoguery. All institutional or pedagogical intentions that were not acceptable to students were constantly under pressure that the press would be informed. […] More and more students […] come to the HfG only because the news has spread that design is a fine and lucrative profession. These students are committed neither to the cause nor to individual persons. […] The standstill and delay of the new bylaws seems to be largely due to the recent influence of these student representatives. Claiming to represent the student body as a whole (a plebiscite would embarrass this group terribly), the group uses a massive strategy of threats reminiscent of that used by labor unions, which has had quite an impact on the foundation. […] It is sad that things came to the point that this institution, which took so much energy to create, has today become a plaything for a few students who try to compensate for their lack of talent by labor union carryings-on or try to change the school into something that would correspond to their talents or their short-term preferences.” In conclusion he expressed his support for the designers’ demand for a new HfG bylaws: “While I don’t believe that good bylaws necessarily result in a well functioning community, on the other hand I don’t believe that a well functioning community could thrive if it is based on bad by-laws.” The biggest trouble with the bylaws was an overemphasis on the equality of persons and courses, a counteraction to Max Bill. “The new bylaws are certainly no panacea for Ulm, but they will again put the emphasis where our mission is.” Horst Rittel, in his report to Roderich Count Thun, disputed the logic of these arguments. 1105 Though the bylaws left room for improvement, they were not the cause of the crisis: “Any order is paralyzed if it contains members who, c iting privileges, are able not only to elude the order if necessary, but also disturb and attack this order without having to accept responsibility for this within the order. […] At the HfG these kinds of privileges are based on two types of claims: Some claim they have made contributions as founders and refer to their seniority, while others claim without justifying this claim that they are visionaries and apostles of
discipline within a period of ten years without producing intellectual sterility.” After the debate, during which Hellmut Becker, Max Guther, Thorwald Risler, and Roderich Count Thun informed the rest of the administrative council about the individual facets of the entire process, Otl Aicher was given the floor to present his policy statement. The idea for this presentation seems to have originated with Hellmut Becker, who was all for limiting the duties of the administrative council solely to a supervisory function: “However, it seemed wrong to him [Hellmut Becker; author’s note] to start out from new bylaws. He felt that they must first of all start out from the way things were. Therefore he felt it was necessary to inform the administrative council about the concept.” In principle he was supported by Max Guther: “At the moment all we’re concerned about is that people at the college again remember the school’s central purpose, namely training in design. The prevailing crisis was no doubt partly determined by the fact that the college’s bylaws were too democratic. He, too, believed that a change in the bylaws did not alter everything, which was why people ought not to focus exclusively on this issue, while on the other hand they should also not push it aside.”
Seated: Konrad Wachsmann, standing: Maurice Goldring, Claude Schnaidt, and Hermann Delugan, October/ November 1956. Photo:Hans Conrad
the ‘correct’ view of a ‘world of tomorrow’ by whose standards every quality must be measured, insisting on radically and simplistically categorizing all other viewpoints as positive or negative.” Horst Rittel therefore demanded that the school continue to assign equal status to designers and non-designers: “There must be no orthodox, official doctrine as it were if we don’t want to have a sterile sect instead of a college.” On 14 July 1962, during its 20th meeting, the administrative council devoted itself to the disputes at the HfG. 1106 Helmut Cron and Otto Pfleiderer regretted “that the intellectual consolidation of the college had not kept pace with financial consolidation.” Helmut Cron said there was still a critical undertone that there must be something wrong with the whole structure of the HfG: “Charges of oligarchic privileges were made too often to be able to simply ignore them. […] Moreover he [Helmut Cron; author’s note] believed that if there was the right kind of organization it ought to have been possible to create p eace, order, and
Otl Aicher’s lengthy talk about The future of the School of Design, remarks on the 1962 crisis contained his design theory credo. His analysis was limited to the consequences of the dispute between the designers and the theoreticians. 1107 At Hellmut Becker’s suggestion he reworked it by September 1962 into a more detailed account Zur Situation der Hochschule für Gestaltung 1962 .1108 Otl Aicher saw the causes of the Bill crisis and the present crisis in objectively based differences of opinion that according to him were not dealt with objectively: “We should make efforts to bring the intellectual disputes to a level that would keep them from being seen as scandals. Incidentally, they can be understood as signs of intellectual vitality.” – “The cause of today’s crisis is a classic argument about methods.” However, the gain in knowledge that resulted from this dispute was considerable. Even the result of the Bill crisis had shown that “only rational methods make intuition legitimate. The consequence was that a series of scientists were appointed. […] Overnight, the school was given a new ‘scientific’ program, markedly polemical in character. […] The goal was to found a ‘real’, i.e., a scientific college.” However, Otl Aicher distinguished between science and design: “Design reveals itself in the individual decision, in the individual object, not in finding truth. […] It has moral d imensions. Science, on the other hand, must strive to be value-free. […] How can you void methodical terror, a pedagogical misunderstanding, and a falsification of goals? […]
271
The governing boards
272
The existing bylaws promoted the tendency to deal with questions of quality by means of quantitative mechanisms. […] New bylaws must reflect the fact that the school is there to train students in design. […] The old bylaws must no longer be in effect in the new school year.” Eight weeks later, on 12 September 1962, a few days before the beginning of the new academic year (1962/63) Inge Aicher-Scholl turned shaken to her longtime friend and fellow fighter Hellmut Joseph Rykwert, February 1958. Photo: Hans Conrad Archive: HfG (59/0107/3)
Becker. She was paralyzed and realized with bewilderment that chaos had developed around her: “I am not the kind of person who can fight and speak up for her ‘cause’. I have antennae, not horns.” (But when the HfG was founded she had demonstrated what strength could radiate from her gentle power.) She had nothing but bitter sarcasm for the meeting of the administrative council, until she disclosed her husband’s and her own ultimate, unquestionable conviction: “The fact that at certain moments a student committee in such a small school simply holds in check the personnel who are actually in charge, such as the administration of the school and the foundation, by means of the local press, memoranda to the members of the administrative council etc., was, I am glad to say, not taken seriously. […] You can forget such things, especially since they sprang from a socially neurotic situation. The point where this gets dangerous, I think, is when there’s a tendency to believe in it and to build a future on it. And here I come to a p oint that most disturbed me: the clearly expressed wish, which various administrative council members support, that in this college a number of different opinions on teaching and views on the object of teaching supposedly have to exist side by side. Nothing poses such danger for the college as such an attitude. It would take
from the school the intensity and the power to influence style that it has retained until now. […] I have observed that what I am accustomed to call the ‘millimeters’, the painstaking attention to detail the college considers important and for which we are both hated and admired, is watched extremely sharply from a great distance and by trained eyes. We can’t get to the root of this with the concept of tolerance.” 1109 Implicitly this meant that she accused Thorwald Risler of precisely this sort of tolerance out of incompetence. In other words, she believed he was destroying her work. Hellmut Becker had moved away from Otl Aicher’s position in some of his views, as became apparent in the course of a discussion about details of the future HfG bylaws. On 9 August 1962 Hans Rettich (the representative of the BadenWürttemberg ministry of education and the arts), Günther Schweigkofler (the administrative director of the foundation), and Johann Peter Vogel (Hellmut Becker’s colleague) gathered to edit the text of the bylaws that had already been approved by the advisory board on 28 February 1962. As he compared the development of Otl Aicher’s proposals for changes with those suggested by others, Hellmut Becker noted in summary: “Aicher’s change of the bylaws, compared with the Rettich/ Schweigkofler/Vogel draft obscures the powers of the executive board and of the college. Moreover, the rights of the executive board are curtailed. Finally the sole control of the design lecturers is made into a norm to the disadvantage of the lecturers on technical subjects. At any rate clarifications that would have avoided conflict have been eliminated, and what is more new contentious issues have been created by one-sidedly favoring the design lecturers. We might as well have kept the old bylaws.“ 1110 Although Hellmut Becker so clearly cr iticized Otl Aicher’s and Walter Zeischegg’s previously approved bylaws text, Hans Rettich, Günther Schweigkofler, and Johann Peter Vogel proposed only minor changes. 1111 In all important aspects the original sense or wording was retained: in the way the mission of the HfG was defined; in the predominance of the design lecturers (tenured and non-tenured lecturers in one of the three departments of building, product design, and communication) as opposed to the technical lecturers (tenured and non-tenured lecturers of complementary subjects); in the fact that only tenured design lecturers were eligible to run for rector. Thorwald Risler explained to the chair of the administrative council, Theodor Pfizer, why Otl Aicher’s and Walter Zeischegg’s draft of the b ylaws was barely reworked 1112 : As you know, Mr.
Guther and I, like the members of the administrative council, felt that changing the bylaws would not solve the internal problems of the college. But since obviously salvation is expected from a new structure, the paths in that direction needed to be made smooth, the objective being to give Mr. Aicher a chance to implement his ideas. The foundation‘s executive board and Messrs. Becker and Donndorf therefore felt all they had to do was to make sure the new bylaws contained clear legal definitions, that instances of injustice were avoided, and incidentally that formulations could be found to define as clearly as possible the relationship between the executive board and the administration of the HfG, of which there is hardly any mention in the statutes of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung and in the present college b ylaws.” Otl Aicher made minor revisions in his draft and sent it to the advisory board on 5 November 1962 1113 – as opposed to the 28 February/9 August 1962 version that had originally been passed. The representatives of the foundation Hans Rettich, Günther Schweigkofler, and Johann Peter Vogel gave in on a crucial item, the dominance of the designers, because they hoped that this would actually help reestablish calm. Before the beginning of the new academic year (1962/63), on 26 September 1962, Otl Aicher resigned from his position as member of the governing board. Thorwald Risler did not accept this resignation.1114 Otl Aicher’s reason for resigning was that he was negotiating with Thorwald Risler and Max Guther about arrangements for his takeover at the HfG. On 2 October 1962 he delivered his demands in the form of an ultimatum to Max Guther; he would become rector under the new bylaws only if these were met 1115 : “I would join the school administration not only as the rector, but as the person who first had the idea for this school, who drew up its first program, who over the years put his personal professional work last in order to help turn it into reality.” Before he made his decision, he first wanted to know who would fill the tenured positions, i.e., tenured lectureships in accordance with transition regulations. “The relationship between the school and the foundation had so far been the subject of constant internal disputes. To this very day it is not clear how the weight is distributed or should be distributed. For my term as rector I require close cooperation between the foundation and the school administration in equal partnership.” The third item sounded as if the foundation had kept the HfG on a tight rein – which is debatable.
Otl Aicher knew very well why the bylaws of the HfG and the foundation were set up in such a way that the managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board had combined responsibility for day-to-day business, why the managing chairman had unrestricted responsibility for the entire institution, and why the managing chairman had also been given top authority, including last authority over the financial repercussions of the appointment policy of the HfG administration: because Inge Aicher-Scholl was initially the sole managing chairperson and then a member of the executive board. This fact was intended to be a guarantee that there would never be a development that was not in accordance with Otl Aicher’s views. And besides they had intended to prevent the p ossibility of a second Max Bill by weakening the HfG administration through collective leadership and eligibility rules. Otl Aicher neglected to say that he was now in the same position he had fought against during the Bill crisis. This object-focused thinker, who had such an outstanding ability to infer graphic and philosophical abstractions from concrete circumstances, repeatedly confused concrete and abstract levels during his time at the HfG. If he did not like the situation at the HfG, he did not clear up the situation by an open separation from the specific person he disapproved of, but the constitutional framework, the abstraction within which all this was taking place had to be shifted, reduced in size, restructured. This was the case with Max Bill and Horst Rittel, and now there were signs it was going to happen with Thorwald Risler a lso. Here was the reason for the ac cusation of a “family oligarchy”, for the foundation was identified with Inge Aicher-Scholl, and the foundation made possible Otl Aicher’s maneuver. He now again returned to the 1950 programs and made the following demands: “The school and the foundation are two sides of the same institution. The principle of their work is cooperation. It is difficult to delimit responsibility.” In a letter to Max Guther he stated more precisely that the foundation in his opinion was necessary purely as a supervisory body vis-à-vis the HfG administration, “but it would be wrong to see this superordination as indicating a higher authority. […] There is no reason to deduce that there is a direct hierarchy. […] The concept of hierarchy in my opinion is unsuitable in reference to the relationship between the foundation and the school administration.” 1116 In 1956 and 1957 Otl Aicher would have rejected this thesis because it would not have unequivocally curtailed Max Bill’s powers. Now, at the horizon of his demands, there were indications that areas of competency would merge: “Even if one concedes that the school governing board is responsible for the curricular side, for pedagogy and
273
The governing boards
274
direction of the enterprise, while the foundation is responsible for administration, finances, and supervision, this means little in terms of practice.” Thorwald Risler asked the group to consider that Otl Aicher had had considerable input in all the essential regulations: “He became part of the minority vis-à-vis the lecturers he had appointed himself.” 1117 As a matter of fact Max Guther would not agree to Otl Aicher’s ultimatum, but responded on 14 November 1962 with the arguments that Thorwald Risler had presented, for the new bylaws could not be tailored to Otl Aicher’s specifications: “But since you had a strong involvement in drawing up both the statutes of the foundation and the draft for the provisional bylaws of the School of Design, you are not entirely uninvolved in a development that I, like you, deplore, and in which you have become part of a minority vis-à-vis the lecturers you yourself appointed. […] I must also draw your attention to the fact that we should not grant you a different right as a rector and a different position with regard to the executive board than those that will (may) later be granted to your successor if the latter does not br ing the same human, professional and performance-related qualifications to the job as you. This can by no means be overlooked today. […] I am convinced that it will be easy for the managing chairman of Matthew Wallis, May 1958. Photo: Hans Conrad
the foundation‘s executive board and you as the rector to come to an exclusively personal and probably temporary agreement regarding the cooperation you describe and wish for. This agreement ought on no account to have ‘institutional’ significance. Otherwise you might again accuse us in a few years that we institutionally deprived you of influence!” Max Guther concluded his letter with an appeal for cooperation between Otl Aicher and Thorwald Risler: “I hope you will both come to an understanding without needing me.” 1118
On 14 November 1962 Otl Aicher discussed his ideas about the HfG bylaws with Wolfgang Donndorf at the ministry of education and the arts and submitted a new draft with two substantial changes to the members of the advisory board on 16 November 1962.1119 Firstly, spheres of responsibility of the foundation and the HfG management were to be left vague: “The spheres of competence of the college and the foundation could not be delimited exactly . […] On the one hand, Mr. Aicher accepts that the executive board of the foundation should be at the head of the institution, but at the same time he demands that in a whole series of issues the foundation is not to have a priority position, but only equal status with the rector.” Secondly he wanted to restrict he course content of the HfG: “[He said] the academic freedom guaranteed in the scientific colleges and universities could not readily be transferred to the School of Design.” On the next day there was a meeting of the foundation’s advisory board. 1120 When they voted, Otl Aicher’s last draft won through against the text of Hans Rettich, Günther Schweigkofler, and Johann Vogel. In addition, the advisory board passed the regulations governing the transition from the old to the new HfG bylaws. 1121 The mission of the HfG was now defined a s “the training of designers in the a reas of industrial production and communication.” The HfG concentrated on training designers. “Adjacent scientific areas” were taught at the HfG only to back up this pedagogical goal. A very basic question, which was controversial to the last, was left open: Which departments were to make up the HfG? For the more departments there were (except for those for design), the more qualified lecturers there had to be. The bylaws only laid down that the executive board decided whether to establish and dissolve departments. The entities at the HfG were now the rector, the inner and the extended senate, the depa rtments, and (this was new) the student body. The rector headed and represented the HfG, conducted day-to-day business, and reported on this only to the foundation. Cooperation with the executive board of the foundation was regulated by separate rules of procedure. The rector was elected by secret ballot for a two-year term by the extended senate by an absolute majority and confirmed (or rejected) b y the executive board of the foundation. The election took place a year before the beginning of his term in October; until he assumed office he functioned as vice rector. The inner senate consisted of the rector, the vice rector, the department heads, and a repre-
sentative of the technical lecturers. It met once a month, decided on appointments (which had to be confirmed by the executive board) and the curriculum; its chairman was the rector, who had the tie-breaking vote. The extended senate consisted of tenured and non-tenured lecturers, one representative each of the regular teaching assistants and the technical lecturers and a total of two student representatives. It offered advisory opinion in all pedagogical and organizational matters and elected the rector (from among the tenured lecturers). The departments held department meetings for their tenured and non-tenured lecturers, technical lecturers, and regular teaching assistants who had teaching certificates. The meetings were directed by department heads; this office rotated among the tenured lecturers; in case of doubt, the rector decided. As for the hierarchy of the HfG lecturers: When appointed to teach at the HfG, appointees “as a rule” became non-tenured instructors. “It is the executive board of the foundation which grants a lecturer tenure, proposed by the rector. Proposals for appointments are decided by the inner senate by simple majority. Only those designers may be granted tenure who have, by their special qualifications and teaching performance, demonstrated that they can set design tasks in the respective departments and can implement them pedagogically.” According to the bylaws, technical lecturers were those who taught “theoretical or practical complementary subjects as non-tenured lecturers”. Only “designers” could now be elected to the positions of department head and rector, because only they could become tenured lecturers as intended by these bylaws. The concept of the de- signer was central for the entire bylaws, but was not defined. Thus the foundation was again dealt the losing card, because in the transition regulations, it had to determine by name who was being promoted to tenure. To put it more precisely, the advisory board passed these bylaws and the transition regulations, and it took critics a long time to forget that Otl Aicher and Walter Zeischegg, as fellow originators of the bylaws, immediately interpreted them in their favor and thus determined their own status. The critical passage of the transition regulations read as follows: “When the new bylaws are passed, those permanent lecturers who were already teaching at the School of Design on 2 October 1955 will be granted tenure, namely Messrs. Aicher, Maldonado, Vordemberge-Gildewart, and Zeischegg.“ 1122 The classification of the lecturers in the new HfG bylaws made the atmosphere on Kuhberg oppres-
sive. Thorwald Risler explained to Theodor Pfizer why he felt the advisory board decision was a heavy burden 1123 : “According to the provisional bylaws that were in effect up till now, all lecturers with permanent contracts had equal rights. Regardless of what subject they represented and what educational background they had, they could be elected to the governing board after one year at the school. According to the new bylaws that have now been approved, only ‘designers’ may be granted tenure, only they can become rector and department head. The technical lecturers, i.e., the lecturers heretofore referred to as ‘theoreticians’, can only be non-tenured lecturers. […] Because of the decisions of the advisory board, from which I expressly dissociated myself by abstention, the executive board is now in the very unpleasant situation where the assurances made to the ‘oppositional’ lecturers and students after the July administrative council‘s meeting by Count Thun for the administrative council and by Prof. Guther and me lose credibility. At that time there was a d eclaration that the executive board was independent of group interests, that based on his employer status he felt equally committed to every lecturer regardless of area of specialization and subject, and that the students were guaranteed continuity in terms of curriculum planning, independent of factional disputes or personal conflicts within the faculty, and were assured of academic freedom. Even at the time, doubts were clearly voiced whether the lack of separation of powers and the way executive positions were filled in the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung would even make it possible for the executive board to take an independent position.” After the bylaws were passed, the advisory board began a general debate around the question of how the future relationship of the foundation and college management might be structured. Thorwald Risler had no illusions that the crises would automatically disappear now that there were new bylaws. He demanded plain language in the future, for he was not prepared to run the risk of another crisis: “Mr. Risler then reminded us that at one time he had been appointed to the executive board in order to secure the financial basis for the work of the School of Design and to achieve not only external but also internal continuity of development. The efforts of the executive board to reform financial conditions had been successful. Considerable funds were given because the college and those working there c ould demonstrate a number of successes. But equally important had been the fact that he had assured the responsible persons in the ministries and parliaments, and friends from the private sector, that there had been a consolidation internally as well, and that the stage of crises was over. […] However, the fact
275
The governing boards
276
that the executive board was exclusively accountable to the administrative council, financial donors, and the public did not allow a division of authority. It might therefore also be possible that in exceptional cases the executive board had to attend to pedagogical questions, since decisions in the pedagogical area also had financial consequences, of course. […] He was firmly convinced that only a strong position on the part of the executive board could prevent conflicts and crises. […] If it turned out that it was impossible to reach an agreement on the basic questions he had addressed here, then he might need to draw personal conclusions from that fact.” In his report to Theodor Pfizer, Thorwald Risler clearly voiced his fear that the powers of the foundation’s executive board were in jeopardy. He wanted to resist this tendency and planned to formulate the responsibility of the executive board unequivocally to include supervision of the rector. To do this he needed the support of the administrative council 1124 : “My success with old and new financial backers in industry and among members of parliament is due […] primarily to the fact that I assured them, referring to successful industrial orders, that after the ‘Bill case’ there had been a gradual consolidation, and that now that the executive board had been strengthened it would be possible to make sure there would be the necessary minimum of peace and order for some time to come. I don't need to go into detail when I say how much distrust there has been and still is for many reasons, including political ones. […] Just to clarify things let me repeat that the lecturers who are at the same time members of the advisory board feel that an independent executive board is contrary to the spirit of the charter of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung […]. As far as I’m concerned, being able to control internal crises within the college is a precondition for being able to continue to bear total responsibility externally. […] In my opinion the administrative council will soon have to thoroughly address the question whether it is able to share my basic views and whether it is prepared to help establish the necessary independence of the executive board both internally and externally.” 1125 Now that the advisory board had passed the new bylaws of the HfG, Thorwald Risler had to get it accepted in the interest of the foundation, although he himself rejected it. This meant that in the eyes of the lecturers and students, who felt they had been deprived of their rights, he became Otl Aicher’s accomplice. Therefore people did not confide in him, and he could no longer intervene in events as a mediator from outside. He had become a partisan himself. Where were students and lecturers who rebelled to turn when they were angry, to whom did they look for help?
They turned to the general public. I can only interpret it as a sign of uneasiness and a guilty conscience that the bylaws and the transition regulations did not go into effect immediately, but only four weeks later – on Saturday, 15 December 1962 – and that the extended senate of the HfG was convened for 20 December 1962, directly before the Christmas break. 1126 This tactical decision made the entire procedure look like a surprise coup. It was a sign of weakness that this seemed necessary to the members of the advisory board in order to push through the by-laws. Also on 15 December 1962 all future members of the extended senate of the HfG received the new bylaws, transition regulations, and a letter by Thorwald Risler in which he informed various lecturers of their new status. 1127 Now the faculty of the HfG consisted of the following categories: 1. lecturers with permanent contracts 1.1 . tenured lecturers (the right to vote and be elected in the election of the rector): Otl Aicher, Tomás Maldonado, (the critically ill) Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart, and Walter Zeischegg; 1.2. non-tenured lecturers (only the right to vote in the election of the rector): Rudolf Doernach, Gert Kalow, Herbert Ohl (the fall guy), Horst Rittel, and Christian Staub; 2. regular teaching assistants with teaching licenses: Gui Bonsiepe, Herbert Lindinger, and Claude Schnaidt (this group appointed Gui Bonsiepe to be their representative with the right to vote in electing the rector); 3. technical teachers: Paul Hildinger, Herbert Maeser, Peter Muthes, Wolfgang Siol, and Josef Schlecker (formerly head of a workshop; this group appointed Wolfgang Siol to be their representative with the right to vote in electing the rector). The student representatives also appointed one representative into the extended senate with the right to vote in electing the rector (Gudrun Otto). Two examples show the resistance of the demoted lecturers and of the students against the new HfG bylaws and the transition regulations. Gert Kalow, for one, addressed a letter full of indignation and disappointment to Thorwald Risler on 16 December 1962. 1128 His accusations culminated in the statement that this was a seizure of power by a dictatorial rector in the name of Hans and Sophie Scholl. In particular he complained that “this new bylaws has not turned out to be the result of a sensible debate by all those who are intimately concerned, but is the legally formulated manifesto of the will of a group of lecturers whose declared objective was and is to keep another group away from the management of the school.”
Hanno Kesting in May 1958 with students of the information department. Photo: Hans Conrad
Gert Kalow, who had been an HfG faculty member since 1 October 1957 and had been the chair of the governing board for almost one and a half years, now could not even become a department representative anymore: “Except for my imprisonment during the Nazi period, nothing more monstrous has ever happened to me in my entire life. […] I shall enlist all legal remedies that our democratic state makes available to us in order to correct such a manifest injustice. All the more so since I am convinced that by clearing up this situation in the public eye I also serve that governmental and social public sector that made millions of marks available to the HfG and definitely has a right to know what is being done with these taxes. […] The ‘report of my experiences’ […] c ulminated in the thesis that underlying the permanent crises
of the HfG was a battle for privileges in which the ‘old’ lecturers, who believe they are the only ones to be full lecturers, fight against all new colleagues. In the meantime my thesis has been confirmed by a number of occurrences.” Gert K alow understood the new bylaws of the HfG to be a breach of the foundation’s statutes: The “modern and universal education” that combines “technical skills, creating culture, and political responsibility into a unified whole” was not possible without an information department on a par with other departments, and in a school where the theoreticians had been demoted. The “lecturer who teaches political science at the HfG [is] the upholder of one of the foundation’s main intentions. However, the new bylaws of the HfG on principle categorize him as a lecturer with lesser rights.” Similarly, the technical lecturers were “upholders of one of the main pedagogical intentions of the GSS [Geschwis-ter-SchollStiftung].” The design lecturers’ accumulation of power was an anachronism: “While all those who support higher education reform in the Federal Republic are in agreement that the almost monarchic power position of tenured faculty is the greatest obstacle to change at the universities, the very opposite tendency is being practiced in Ulm, in the name of Hans and Sophie Scholl!” Because there was no clear regulation that w ould allow the foundation to influence the appointment and dismissal of faculty, he opined: “With these rules and regulations a rector doesn’t have to, but ca n certainly develop into a dictator without coming into conflict with the bylaws. Or is it a coup d’état? In all seriousness, are such bylaws democratic? […] This isn’t a seizure of power, or is it?” In contrast with the Bauhaus, he felt, the HfG lacked an integrating force like Walter Gropius; as a result there was, in the meantime, a long list of first-rate lecturers “who had been in Ulm and left Ulm again full of bitterness because the ‘old’ lecturers, who had installed themselves after Bill’s overthrow as a kind of directorate, were either unwilling or incapable of integrating the talents of these colleagues in their program. […] The ‘Ulm style’ which has be- come famous by now, and which characterizes the climate within the HfG, the exact opposite of Gropius’s style, consists of unfriendliness, jealousy, coldness, mutual hatred, inability to talk to each other – a long-time scandal, only barely concealed (but not much longer) by the names of Hans and Sophie Scholl. […] It certainly doesn’t take much to predict that the new bylaws will bring not peace (unless it is the peace of the graveyard) but an increase of the internal squabbles.” Now for the second example: On Sunday, 17December 1962 there was a student gathering with Harry Pross, Horst Rittel, and Christian Staub as guest speakers. Harry Pross, a guest lecturer in
277
The governing boards
On 19 December 1962 Friedrich VordembergeGildewart died after a long illness.
278
Friedrich VordembergeGildewart in February 1956. Photo: Hans Conrad
the department of information, picked to pieces the bylaws: “In general there are two kinds of bylaws: 1. the representative type and 2. the authoritarian type. Representative bylaws are those in which powers are delegated to certain groups. This delegation is based on the conviction that no single person knows what is the r ight thing to do. Supporters of the representative bylaws start from the premise that one cannot absolutely and once and for all determine what is wrong and what is right.” And that, he said, was precisely not the case here, for Otl Aicher c laimed to have exclusive knowledge of what was correct and incorrect design. Apart from individual criticisms that had already been discussed (dominance of the designers; definition of designers; absolute power of the rector) Harry Pross also drew the students’ attention to a practical angle: In view of the rector’s term in office and the combination with the d eputy vice rectorship he could only “advise [the students] to be on good terms with the man. For, you see, the man will be in office for four years, and besides he can be reelected. I would recommend
that you refrain from ever criticizing this man so that you get through your studies here successfully. […] The point about the dismissal of the rector by the foundation is a farce. If he violates general laws, he has to leave anyway, but even the most stupid rector will never manage to violate these particular school bylaws. […] All in all these bylaws are the caricature of a medieval rectorship bylaws transplanted into the 20th century. Since the number of students and lecturers is small, there’s something ridiculous about it, oligarchy and all.” A legal action by the lecturers who were demoted to non-tenured faculty status led to a settlement the following year at the labor court, which found that while this particular passage was not legally tenable, it would be judged as a notice of termination pending a change of contract effective 1 July 1963. As of that date the regulations of the HfG bylaws would be valid without restriction, and by then precedents had long since been created because the lecturers had chosen not to contest Otl Aicher’s election as rector. 1129
Only six of the eleven members took part in the first meeting of the extended senate, although attendance was obligatory. Rudolf Doernach and Gert Kalow had written to say they would not attend in order to document their rejection of the bylaws, and Horst Rittel and Christian Staub left the rectorate in protest before the meeting was called to order. The student representative, Gudrun Otto, handed the group a resolution by the students and also left the room before the election. Of the six people present, three were eligible for office as rector: Otl Aicher, Tomás Maldonado, and Walter Zeischegg. Otl Aicher was unanimously elected rector, and Tomás Maldonado was unanimously elected vice rector. 1130 After he was elected rector, Otl Aicher made a statement.1131 He expressed his thanks “for the confidence that has been expressed through this election.” The main flaw of the old bylaws, he continued, “was that they had certain idealistic traits. They would only have functioned if the basic assumption had remained intact that solidarity among the faculty is an essential prerequisite for work at the HfG.” (The concept of solidarity was given a completely new dimension in this use of the term.) Otl Aicher argued that “nobody at the time when the school’s first bylaws were drafted would have thought that the school would be inwardly torn and paralyzed by opposing groups.” The opposite is true: The old bylaws were passed for the sole reason that the school was split into groups for and against Max Bill, and Otl Aicher together with his wife, Hans Gugelot, and Tomás Maldonado no longer wanted to work with Max Bill. Then he formulated his program of design theory for the HfG: “The School of Design must become a true school of design again. The doctrine and pedagogy of design is concerned first and foremost with the process of design and with the resulting design. That sounds like a truism, but I believe we’ve lost sight of this fact. [ …] What I mean is, design and design theory can be developed and justified only by the outcome. […] To mistake design for a science was a huge misconception. Science looks for knowledge that can be generalized, while design looks for concrete, individual results. And that’s a fundamental difference. Design and science differ in the same way as an epistemological process differs from the process of planning.” The HfG “should also shift the almost forgotten items on its program back to the fore, so that design at the HfG is regarded as a social and cultural commitment”. At the end he indicated that in the future he would engage in every open debate: “I am a person whose inclination to discussion and talk has its limits. I think we need certain
decisions to be made. […] Each of you present here will possibly feel that some of the decisions are harsh. Nevertheless I shall take them upon myself. To get out of a crisis implies, right from the start, that you can’t please everybody.”
279
Excursus
Education policies in the Federal Republic during the 1960s
280
281
“The American kitchen on which European ones are modeled. Nothing is missing in this workshop: freezer and refrigerator, dishwasher, built-in oven, grill, and cooking plates set into the work surface, electromechanical aids of every kind.The design itself of this work space is not exemplary.“ (form 17/1962, 27)
In the late fifties and early sixties an upturn of the education system began in the Federal Republic. Associated with this upturn was a new language. Starting with professional educators and eventually adopted by society at large, this language focused awareness on individual factors that finally became catchwords: from Bildungsnotstand (the shortage of educational facilities), Bildungska tastrophe (the catastrophe of education), Bildungsmisere (the desperate situation of education), Bildungsgefälle (the gap in educational levels), and Begabten - or Bildungsreserve (the reserve of the gifted or of the educated), to Bildungsexpansion (education expansion) and Bildungs chancen (educational opportunities), Bildungsreform (educational reform), Bildungspolitik (education policies), Bildungseuphorie (educational eu-
phoria), and finally Bildungsmelan cholie (educational melancholy). 1132 New professions and occupations such as Bildungsforschung (educational research) and Bildungs planung (educational planning) emerged. The economic success of the Federal Republic made it possible in the late fifties for people to start thinking about how the future could take shape beyond the immediate satisfaction of basic and material needs. They began again to look at the old conviction of politicians concerned with culture and politics that the edu-
Excursus
Tables and chairs lined up to form a furniture system, linked by a knot that connects them. An idea and a design typical of their time. The design is by HfG graduate Ernst Moeckl, who also worked on Max Bill’s door handle for the HfG buildings. (form 22/1963, 63)
282
283
The electrification of life and work included writing. In the first half of the ’60s, businesses buy their secretaries preferably electric typewriters, whose forms are now distinctly cubical as opposed to the round shapes of their mechanical precursors. ( Olivetti Praxis 48 , advertisement in form 32/1965, 77)
The radio-phono combination SK 4 of Braun , Inc., nicknamed “Snow White’s coffin”, design: Hans Gugelot and Dieter Rams. Since their first introduction in 1956 (cost: DM 295.-) they have been the archetype of every hi-fi system. (form 23/1963, 8 ff.)
cation system ought to occupy “a key position in the distribution of life opportunities“ and that education defines an individual’s position and chances in later life. 1133 The legal basis for this – more strongly at the time than today – was that the German Constitution had given the Länder substantial freedom in dealing with cultural questions, and particularly with educational issues. There is a large political area in which the Länder are able to manage things autonomously as they see fit. According to the Constitution the only limitations of their autonomy are contained in article 5, in which freedom of science is expressly extended to institutions, including scientific institutions, having its roots in article 7 (religious instruction). The federal government had no (today: little more) jurisdiction, the competent legislatures being the Landtage. That means that according to the Constitution the education system could be centralized only within the Länder. However, in practice the education system was standardized, and this result is surprising in view of the legal premises.1134 There are two reasons for this: Firstly, the educational bureaucracy assumed great importance in everyday life. 1135 Secondly, in the Federal Republic an unusual feature developed as a result of the con junction of a centralist political culture on the one hand and the federal government’s lack of jurisdiction on the other hand. It was referred to as
Excursus
284
“institutionalized cooperation among the Länder and between the federal goverment and the Länder“. This cooperation took the form of over 20 central organizations that were, and partly still are, financed by the federal government and the Länder. 1136 That the education system became the concern of the Länder is an expression of the intention not to repeat the kind of c entralization in this sphere that had been implemented by the National Socialists in 1934 when they established the
285
Reich Ministry of Science, Education, and Adult Education . Directly after the war the Western occupying powers (with different weighting) tried to organize the German education system in such a way as to make its elements more interchangeable, giving equal access to all social strata and rendering the system more democratic. Yet the years between 1945 and 1960 are seen as the period when reforms were obstructed, although a few reform plans and beginnings were produced.1137 In these early years, the most important points of institutionalized cooperation that led to the standardization of the Federal German education system were: the first conference of all West German ministers of education and the arts in Stuttgart-Hohenheim on 19/20 Feb. 1948, which was later to turn into the Standing
Conference of Länder Ministers of Education and the Arts ;
Radio-phonograph HM4 of Braun , Inc., 1956, the year when “Snow White’s coffin” was introduced. An early stage of development on the way from compact radio furniture to the flexible hi-fi set. Design: Herbert Hirche, cost: DM 1430. (form 23/1963, 8 ff.)
When the word com munication was still associated with com munism , the German Federal Post Office was in charge of hooking up phones. The new type 611/612 telephon es offered improvements: “A very light, yet sturdy, practically maintenance-free telephone. The handset and phone base are light gray, the receiver, speaker and number plate are ivory, while the dial plate is Plexiglas. […] Cost: not for sale, one-time additional rental fee DM20.“ (form 21/1963, 51)
The miracle kitchen of 1962 was only a model. All the same, in addition to the household appliances customary today, it offered a cleaning robot (below right in the form of a bathroom scale), a serving robot, and an automatic food preparer. Also, there was the p lanning center housewife’s help, where we do not know whether it was named after a deep sigh or a housewife’s scream for help. (Traum oder Alptraum der Zukunft: Die Whirlpool-Küche, in: form 17/1962, 32 f .)
Excursus
286
the adoption of the Königstein Agreement on 31 March 1949,
287
whereby it was decided to jointly finance research institutions (above all, the Max-PlanckGesellschaft (Max Planck Society) and the Deutsche Forschungs gemeinschaft (German Research Council))1138 ; the founding of the Deutscher
Ausschuss für das Erziehungsund Bildungswesen (German Commission on the Education System) (constituted 22 Sept. 1953), which worked until 1965 as an advisory committee and submitted its Rahmenplan zur
Vereinheitlichung des Schulwesens (Outline plan on the standardization of the school system) in 19591139; the adoption of the Düsseldorfer Abkommen (Düsseldorf Agreement) on 17 Feb. 1955, which established the tripartite school system ( Hauptschule, Realschule, Gymnasium ). 1140 However, the fifties also saw developments that, though initially weak, grew into strong political factors by the sixties. For example, the Bundes ministerium für Atomfragen (federal ministry for nuclear issues) was founded on 20 Oct. 1955 (first minister: Franz Josef Strauß, CSU), working as the Bundesministerium für Wissenschaftliche Forschung (federal ministry for scientific research) after 14 Dec. 1962 (first under Hans Lenz, FDP, then, after 26 Oct. 1965, under Gerhard Stoltenberg, CDU), and renamed the Bundesministerium für Bildung (federal ministry of education) after 22 Oct. 1969. It is clear that there had been a shift of emphasis in education policy.
Ernst Moeckl designed this small alarm clock after his time working with Max Bill at the HfG. “For easy readability of the clock face one needs to clearly recognize which way is up and down, right and left. The circular motion of the clock hand results in a circular dial if the design is to be logical. […] All in all: a clock designed with mass production in mind, whose form is simple and convincing.“
Max Bill’s kitchen clock (in collaboration with Ernst Moeckl), 1956/57, the first of many models for the manufacturer Junghans . (Margit Staber, Zu neuen
Gestaltungen von Max Bill , in: form 4/1958, 21 ff.)
(Immo Krumrey, Der Produkt gestalter Ernst Moeckl , in: form 20/1962, 26 ff.)
“Design from the GDR: This floor vacuum cleaner is one of many exemplary designs that were recently developed by the Zentralinstitut für Formgestaltung (Central Institute of Design) in East Berlin for mass production.“ Design: Erich John for VEB Elektrowärme , Altenburg. (form 32/1965, 44)
Excursus
An interagency agreement between the federal government and the Land governments led to the founding, on 5 Sept. 1957, of the Wissenschaftsrat (Scientific Council), a body that helped shape education policy in the sixties through its varied expert advisory services. 1141 Thus politicians with a special interest in education referred to the recommendations of the Scientific Council when they made their first plans to expand scientific colleges.
288
Design from the GDR, presented at an exhibition in Warsaw from 11December 1967 through 14 January 1968 “that would be worth showing over here as well”, because it “is aware of social, cultural, and economic significance and makes the principles visible, supporting (them) with arguments.“ Its title
Function – form – quality would have at least evoked associations among people in the Federal Republic as well. (Design der DDR , in: form 41/1968, 30 ff.)
Once the chair had mutated into a seating accommodation and from there into a pneumatic function, traditional forms were dissolved in total transparency. Modern design had now attained one of its basic ideals – lightness –, and found itself again on Blow , to pick one example:“A big doll that hugs you and holds you in its lap.“ Design: Carla Scolari for Zanotta Poltrone. (Blow-up im Wohnzimmer , in:form 42 /1968, 16 ff.)
The date 4 October 1957 is considered as a factor in boosting the expansion of education in the Federal Republic: the day on which the Soviet Union sent the first satellite ( sput nik ) into space. The sputnik shock triggered by this event in the late fifties arose from doubts in the West whether its own education system was inferior to that of the Eastern Bloc and therefore in need of reform. Hellmut Becker, who became increasingly critical of educational research and planning and was appointed the founding director of the Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (Max Planck Institute for Educational Research) in Berlin in 1963, gives two reasons for the ending of this phase of creeping nonreform 15 years after the end of the war, when a new era of education policy began: economic pressure and pressure produced by the findings of social scientists. The economic pressure, according to Hellmut Becker, came from the fact that in the early sixties middle class Germans enjoyed higher incomes; they therefore pressed for more education, starting a chain reaction: People who would once have had a Hauptschule (elementary school) education now graduated from Realschule (junior high), former Realschule students thronged to a Gymnasium (high school), and those who once had only a few years of
289
Compared to dishes for private use, hotel tableware needs to be especially durable. The functional aspect predominates over the image. This was in keeping with the view of design held at the HfG. But it was not only at the HfG one met with this challenge. Heinrich Löffelhardt, too, had designed exemplary hotel tableware. Here is production series 598 , 1967, designed for the manufacturer Schönwald . (form 37/1967, 6 4)
Excursus
290
Olivetti is one of the European pioneers for data processing equipment. Two HfG graduates, Hans von Klier and Andries van Onck, were among the staff of Ettore Sottsass, whose company had been commissioned to work on the Olivetti project. A critic commented as follows on systems such as the pictured Recensor 20,000 : “Thus a feeling of the miraculous is created, making these electronic computer automats seem like mysterious metal furniture. They are machines whose cube-shaped bodies may posthumously recall certain cubist and expressionist characteristics of the Italian ‘Novecento‘ – thoughts of a style from the time of that radical neoplastic change in the distribution of fields of color, the organization of the quadrants, the handles, and the details.“
291
Enzo Frateili, Zwei Briefe aus Mailand , in: form 20/1962, 2 ff.
In 1965, the international designers’ association ICSID organized a conference on Design
and the general public The 1968 Hannover Trade Fair, the world’s largest “supermarket of industry“, drew 500,000 visitors to the fair’s pavilions. They were brought to the fair by 330,000 cars. Minister of finance Karl Schiller opened the fair and, at the special exhibit Gute Industrieform (Good industrial design), sat in a chair designed by Georg Leowald for Wilkhahn . Hannover-Reflexe, in: form 42/1968, 44 ff.
in Vienna. In the venerable Palais Liechtenstein, a design exhibition was shown parallel to the conference. form 32/1965, 15
Gymnasium now tried to get their Abitur . Economic development, too, it was felt, created an increasing demand for a qualified, trained work force.1142 Social scientists, headed by Ralf Dahrendorf, presented new studies showing that the Federal German education system did not allow equal opportunities for all: “Essentially the groups that could be shown to be significantly underprivileged were women, children from a workingclass background, the rural population, and Roman Catholics.“ Ralf Dahrendorf‘s focus was the Modernitätsrückstand of German society, the fact that it was not in step with the modern world. 1143 This second phase of Federal German education policy, which also lasted about 15 years (i.e., roughly from 1960 to 1975) and was charac-
Excursus
292
terized by a lively commitment to reform, began as professionals accepted the ideas of economists and scientists. The following factors were typical of this phase: In 1962 the conference of ministers of education and the arts resolved to draw up an assessment of needs, published 14 March 1963: It was the first official plan involving the education system and, among other things, advised that scientific colleges be expanded as the Scientific Council had recommended1144; on 14 and 15 Feb. 1963 the conference of ministers of education and the arts resolved to found the Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (Max Planck Institute for Educational Research); Federal Chancellor Ludwig Erhard (CDU), in his 18 Oct. 1963 government policy statement, declared that education, science, and professional training had the same existential significance for the 20th century as the social question had for the 19th century 1145 ;
Expo 1967 in Montreal on the topic Man and his world . At the largest world exhibition ever seen in the world, the Federal Republic presents itself in a pavilion as a tent landscape designed by architects Rolf Gutbrod and Frei Otto. (As a key image of this expo, however, what comes to mind is the U.S. pavilion developed by Richard Buckminster Fuller in the form of a three-quarter geodesic sphere 76 meters in diameter and 61 meters high.) The HfG introduced itself as one of 17 design schools with work on the topic transport facilities ; in the German pavilion an exhibit system by Herbert Ohl and Herbert W. Kapitzki was used. (Margit Staber, Expo-Steno gramm, in: form 38/1967, 40 ff.)
This electric razor of Braun , Inc. canonized the color combination black and silver for products that are technical in character and are intended to be seen as especially highgrade. Their effect has been heightened to assume representative value, so that they have become part of the corporate identity of Braun , Inc. Sixtant appeared on the market in September 1962 priced at about DM 80.–, and became an extraordinary success for the manufacturer. Design: Hans Gugelot and Gerd A. Müller. (Advertisement in
form 36/1966, 49)
293
Excursus
294
Who’d have thought that this chair could be described as the counterpart of the famous coffeehouse chair no . 19? “It is based on the same criteria – translated into the language of modern forms and technology: a chair that consists of three preformed parts of laminated wood that can be produced economically and that, with slight variations – can also be combined into stools or low armchairs.“ Design: Verner Panton for Gebr. Thonet AG . (form 36/1966, 31)
“In the beginning there is a fact that is as surprising as it is sobering: Our light bulb transforms only 4.7 percent of the current it receives into light. In other words, 95.3 percent are emitted as a waste product, as annoying heat in the air.“ At this main hall of the Com merzbank Düsseldorf the designer tried “to transform the waste product heat into a commodity and to regard the light merely as a byproduct: The roughly 800 square meter room is heated solely with the energy produced by the lightbulbs.“
In 1968, a good two years after Hans Gugelot’s death, Gugelot Design GmbH presented itself as one of the largest private design businesses in Europe; with business manager Malke Gugelot and technical manager Ernst Reichl, it had a staff of 32.
(Johannes Dinnebier, Licht als Wärme? , in: form 40/1967, 30–31.)
( EinDesign-Büromit32Köpfen, in: form 42/1968, 21 ff.)
at its 100th plenary session on 5 and 6 March 1964 the conference of ministers of education and the arts made the Berlin Declaration , which demanded a general rise in the educational level. 1146 In 1964, with a series of articles by Georg Picht in the conservative weekly Christ und Welt on “the catastrophe of German education“, the interest of the general public was drawn to the concerns of politicians who were involved in educational matters.1147 Georg Picht argues in his analysis that in the future German society would be backward, because Germany spent too little money on its educational system compared to other countries. Based on an OECD study, Germany was ranked last when it came to spending on education. 1148
295
Excursus
296
1958 Brussels World Fair. The German pavilion by Sep Ruf and Egon Eiermann presents to the world German respectability, with walls made of glass and supporting girders “delicate as bamboo“.
The conclusions drawn from the statistics now presented, which had quite a few repercussions in the midsixties, are in part considerably criticized today: “Spending on education in the FRG, as international comparisons showed, was quite modest, and the conclusions drawn from this fact were as far-reaching as they were unsubstantiated. Theories on connections between economic growth and educational expansion gained in popularity; admittedly, they did not stand up to an empirical test.“ 1149 A second series of articles, published in 1965 in the weekly Die Zeit , this time by Ralf Dahrendorf, placed educational reform issues squarely on the political agenda. The hopes of the politicians, who felt supported by general euphoria, extended far beyond the factual questions: “An idea that had a large number of supporters in the early sixties was that it was possible to determine the education of individuals and simultaneously affect the development of society.“ 1150 After Ludwig Erhard stepped down in 1966 and the Grand Coalition was formed, reform politicians felt their opportunity had arrived: They now tackled a comprehensive reform of the structure and curriculum of the educational system. The most important goals they had in
297
A lternative program: In 1965, stereo furniture and radio-phonographs were still being designed, manufactured, promoted. E.g., this
stereo concert cabinet KS 680 manufactured by Grundig . (In: form 32/1965, 65)
(CurtSchweicher: Flaneur durch die Belle Époque ‘58 , in:form 3/1958, 2 ff.)
Introduced at the 1967 Hannover Trade Fair: a hi-fi system by Verner Panton for WEGA. “On a pillar stand he installed a box with a studio record player, and a second swiveling one above it, containing a high-quality radio control unit. Together with the speaker boxes that formally go with these, the result is a novel, practical music system that takes up relatively little space.“ (form 38/1967, 52)
Excursus
298
299
Design from the GDR: hi-fi-modules by Cl. Dietel and L. Rudolph for the manufacturer Hempel , 1963/64. “Perhaps it can be regarded as a modified Braun production series, but even then it is at least on a par with competing West German products by Braun.“ (Design der DDR , in: form 41/1968, 30 ff.)
Cornelius Uittenhout designed this stainless steel men‘s wristwatch after he left his job as head of an HfG workshop and was appointed the technical director of the teaching department of industrial design in Kassel (form 19/1962, 18 ff.)
mind in order to create equal educational opportunities were to expand preschools and kindergartens, to replace the Gymnasium entrance examination by a trial orientation period, and the three-part school system by the Gesamtschule (comprehensive school). In 1966 every Land parliament discussed its own university and college act. The peak of this phase of expanding reform activities, however, is outside the time frame of this study. In 1969 the federal government took over responsibility for educational policies. The social liberal coalition adopted a skeleton higher-education law, became involved in building institutions of higher learning on a large scale, and established a federal ministry of education and science. In 1970 the federal government published its first report on education and created a joint federal and Länder commission that submitted the Bildungsgesamtplan (Overall Education Plan) in 1973. Science, which had helped to start the ball rolling, was closely linked with politics and
In the fall of 1965, at the Stuttgart radio exhibition, WEGA gave visitors a look at stereo systems of the future, designed by the Dane Verner Panton and Gerd A. Müller, whose designs for Braun , Inc. have become classics. A critic wrote the following about Panton, now celebrated as a visionary: “Unlike (the work) found at similar trade fairs, he keeps surprising usby novel, creative solutions that at first seem absurd but soon strike us as realistic and relevant.“ (form 32/1965, 54)
Excursus
300
the bureaucracy by way of the various organizations of federal and Länder cooperation. Scientists formulated the political parties’ education policy-related programs and profited from increased interest in questions of educational research and planning. For instance, between 1967 and 1974 expenditure for institutions for educational research increased from DM 22 million to DM 126 million. When we look at predictions made in analyses during those years, it is difficult not to laugh, even if ridicule in retrospect is cheap. Economic optimism, which was projected on the education system as a whole, also sustained the belief that the findings of educational researchers and planners were reliable. In spite of the countless multitude of pages that made up studies published at that time, the abundance of material, and the completeness and many-sidedness of the questions studied, it was not possible to grasp all the complexity of reality and to predict future developments. For example, the expansion of education also led to crowded institutions of higher learning, and an attempt by ministers of education and the arts to p revent crowding by introducing a numerus clausus policy (to limit university and college admissions) fell flat. Hellmut Becker, one of the most important protagonists of German educational research, felt he and his colleagues were not at fault, and blamed bureaucracy, for the goals of reform had fizzled out in the process of being implemented by the bureaucrats: “A decisive point for this whole period of reform and antireform is the fact that we were unable to extend the educational reform to include those who administered the education system, although here, too, there were enormous advances.“1151 The present assessment of the period of educational euphoria and the upswing of education between 1960 and 1975 can also turn out to be more withering. For instance, “ [e]ducational planning failed, and so did the academics who tried so hard to do something about it.“ 1152
301
The vision of office furniture manufacturing company Planmöbel for work in the year 1990, adapted for sale in 1968. Design: Arno Votteler. ( Allseits abgerundet: Programm Design ‘90 , in: form 42/1968, 10–11)
1968
4 April Martin Luther King, 1964 Nobel Peace Prize winner, is assassinated.
4 June 1967 Photo: unknown Source: HfG-Synopse
1 Dec. 1966
1967
21March The first imported Japanese car is introduced to the German market.
Archive: dpa
2 June The student Benno Ohnesorg is shot to death at a demonstration against the shah of Iran in West Berlin; student revolt escalates in Germany. 5 June Israel wages the Six-Day War against its Arab adversaries Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
1964
1963
22 Jan. In Paris, President Charles de Gaulle and Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer sign the Cooperation Treaty for Franco-German Friendship. 16 Oct. Ludwig Erhard takes over the office of federal chancellor from 87-year-old Konrad Adenauer. 28 Aug. With a march on Washington, 200,000 people demonstrate against racial discrimination in the U.S. 22 Nov. John F. Kennedy is killed in Dallas.
2 July The most important civil rights law since the abolition of slavery is passed in Washington; discrimination against people of color in the U.S. is prohibited.
9 Oct. Che Guevara is killed in Bolivia. 1966
The Vietnam War escalates. The picture of the naked, fleeing Vietnamese girl is seen all over the world.
3 Oct. Through a 140meter tunnel, 57 East Berliners escape to the West. 14 Oct. In the USSR, head of state and party leader Nikita Khrushchev is succeeded by 57-year-old Leonid Brezhnev.
1965
24 Jan. Winston Churchill dies at 90. 18 March The Russian Alexey Leonov is the first human being to float freely in space.
30 Oct. Protests in Frankfurt am Main against the Notstands gesetze (emergency laws) planned by the federal government.
1 Oct. This year the NPD gains seats in the parliaments of Rhineland-Palatinate, Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony, and Bremen.
13 May Student unrests peak in France. 21Aug. Soviet tanks roll into Czechoslovakia and put an end to reformer Alexander Dubçek’s Prague Spring. 11 Nov. Stanley Kubrick’s film “2001: A Space Odyssey“ is shown in German movie theaters. 7 Nov. Beate Klarsfeld slaps Federal Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger at the federal party convention of the CDU in order to draw attention to his Nazi past.
4 April 1968 Archive: AKG
21 Oct. Student protests in Berlin.
13 May 1968 6Nov. The NPD obtains seats in the parliaments of Hesse and Bavaria.
Archive: AKG
1 Dec. Ludwig Erhard steps down as federal chancellor; the CDUFDP coalition ends. He is succeeded by Kurt Georg Kiesinger, previously ministerpresident of Baden-Württemberg; his term is marked by the Grand Coalition with the SPD under Willy Brandt.
21Aug. 1968 Archive: dpa
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl December 1962 through December 1968
304
The last chapter in the history of the HfG starts on 20 December 1962, when the HfG was again headed by a rector. Today we know that the HfG closed at the end of this chapter. But it would be a mistake to look at these last years only from the perspective of the closure. For this was by no means an inevitable development – one that started at this point and that would have necessarily, as it were, led to the closure of the HfG. The school’s history could also have developed differently, and if we put forth theses about this it does not mean that we are trying to assign blame, or that we reproach the protagonists for not choosing such alternatives. However we cannot overlook the fact that the end of this chapter concludes with the end of the HfG. That is why we need to inquire into the causes that led to this development. Again, I would like my answers to this question to be understood only as theses and not as accusations. The conditions that caused the foundation to shut down the HfG at the end of 1968 essentially grew out of what happened in 1963. That year, the course was set in a direction that in retrospect turned out to be wrong. In 1968 those who were in executive positions at the foundation and the HfG were no longer capable of correcting this course. On the contrary, their behavior led from the serious crisis to actual collapse. Yet we must In class: Dieter Reich, Walter Zeischegg, Peter Emmer, Peter Beck, and Reinhold Beckelmann, 1962. Photo:unknown Archive:HfG (62/0479)
differentiate between this inappropriate behavior and the more remote events that led to the closure of the HfG. This is especially true of the financing of the foundation. Here is an example: The events of 1963 laid the foundation for the withdrawal of the federal government from subsidizing the HfG in the years that followed. The reason the government withdrew its funding was that the HfG (because of the events of 1963) was no longer regarded as a college, i.e., an institution that carried out research and development. Point-blank, the rule was: No research – no subsidy. The so-called Troeger expert opinion for the finance reform was merely a welcome pretext at the time for the federal government to stop its financing of the HfG. The federal government announced early enough that it would end subsi-
dizing the school. Thereupon, after Thorwald Risler’s departure in 1964, three mistakes were made at the foundation and the HfG that were the most important causes of the financial crisis of 1967/68. Firstly, they did not take the federal government’s announcement seriously. Secondly, they did not change course, that is, the HfG did not (as it had done before 1963) devote itself to research and development in such a way as to appear worthy of subsidizing to the federal government. And thirdly, they also neglected to look in a timely manner for a subsidy that would replace that of the federal government. Those are three alternatives that would have been possible for the protagonists in the foundation and the HfG. We need to examine each one to see how realistic these alternatives were at the time. The reason the federal government’s announcement was not taken seriously enough was that Friedrich Rau achieved the amazing political success, by division in the Bundestag, of setting the subsidy for 1966 at DM 200,000 – actually the subsidy should have been only DM 100,000. That is why no one wanted to believe that this victory could not be repeated once more in 1967. All the more painful was the realization in 1967 that the federal government actually completely discontinued its subsidy as announced. – Also, with the prevailing personnel and institutional situation at the HfG beginning in 1965 it was not possible to take advantage of the sweeping and successful circumstances before 1963: Hans Gugelot had died, Otl Aicher concentrated on the visual image of the Olympic Games in Munich, and there were no congenial successors. – It was also not easy to renew contacts with the private sector after pretty much all the damage that could be done in Ulm and Stuttgart had been done in 1963. When Thorwald Risler left, the connection between the foundation and the Society of Friends eroded – neither side derived any pleasure from the other anymore. And yet this would have been the right place for an energetic and imaginative new beginning. But no one in the foundation was able or willing to track down contacts to industry or to new financiers – especially no one at the HfG, where the industrialist and CDU member Thorwald Risler had been made the scapegoat in absentia (and out of ignorance), and the private sector was regarded with increasing distrust. The fact that after 1964 the foundation in particular no longer performed this, its original function, but simply administered the assets, must indeed be named as an important reason for the end of the HfG. Added to this is the fact that at the same time, the administration went downhill. Here is a second example, which was of course connected with the HfG’s change of course: After 1964 the foundation and the HfG concentrated almost exclusively on financing their budget from
public funds. This meant that they became dependent on politicians, primarily Land politicians. But as early as 1966 the latter quite unequivocally stated that the HfG would not be nationalized, and neither would the subsidy be raised. At this unmistakable signal from the Landtag there could again – from today’s perspective – have been a right or a wrong reaction: successful or unsuccessful. The foundation and the HfG, however, paid no attention to this signal, they ignored it and failed to act accordingly. One reaction that needs to be evaluated as a p romising alternative today might have been the attempt to develop new sources of funding. This attempt was made, only very halfheartedly, and brought no income to Ulm. An additional reaction might have been to move the HfG elsewhere in order to tie it to a different public sponsor who would have been willing to spend more money for the HfG that the Landtag in Stuttgart. This reaction took place in the spring of 1968, again too late and without success. The action the foundation and the HfG decided on was precisely to try to get the foundation nationalized and the subsidy raised, although both had been rejected in anticipation by the Landtag in 1966 when the topic was not even being debated, and when there would still have been enough time to g o in alternative directions. However, the foundation and the HfG decided on a road that was not exactly a blind alley, but that significantly contributed to their share of responsibility for closing the HfG. A third example: the decline of the administration starting in 1965. A large number of details that will be mentioned below show up enormous deficiencies in the way the foundation was administered. The HfG was left to itself, and self-responsibility did not agree with it. By their irresponsible behavior its members destroyed part of the resources the HfG lived on. The various successors of Günther Schweigkofler as administrative director failed when faced with this Augean organizational task. In the end the supervisory b ody of the foundation – the foundation‘s council – was responsible, for it should have exerted control over the administration; at least it would have been the council’s duty to appoint a competent administrative director and an energetic executive body, the executive board. In both instances the organization moved in the wrong direction. At the same time the influence on the HfG of the foundation‘s council, whose function was to formulate objectives, dwindled to such an extent that the HfG could openly oppose the council’s decisions without fear of sanctions. The members of the foundation‘s council hoped that they would succeed if they submitted to the will of the HfG. Today we know this was a mistake. Because 1963 was the decisive year for the development that led to the HfG’s closing, I shall
address the events of that year in somewhat more detail. For the years that followed from 1963 through 1968, an enormous number of documentation is available. The reason for that is not just the growing number of duplicating opportunities thanks to the new, modern technological achievements of the sixties. It is also characteristic of the behavior of HfG members that (out of d istrust, from the need to talk to other p eople, because they wanted to be published, because they enjoyed documenting events and discussing them) they put down a lot of thoughts on paper and also sent out a lot of copies. I am sure this pattern of behavior has become obvious by now, and it even intensified in the course of the coming years. The large amount of paper is also a result of a preference typical of the HfG to create special commissions, committees, or teams to deal with every imaginable matter; these would then produce minutes, working papers, and outlines en masse – a symptom typical of the time, incidentally, culminating in the familiar idea of the movement of ’68 that resolutions and statements to the press were their strongest weapons in the class struggle. The rectorship of Otl Aicher December 1962 through September 1964 At the beginning of 1963 the situation could have been a positive one for making a fresh start . The financial consolidation of the foundation was proceeding according to plan, the budget was close to DM 2 million, constitutional details at the HfG had been regulated as Otl Aicher wished, to the point that many of those involved had hopes that the situation would calm down over the Christmas break.1153 If things had calmed down, the personal relationship between Otl Aicher and Thorwald Risler could have been cleared up again. However, the fundamental dispute about how authority was to be shared between the foundation and the HfG concealed the fact that cooperation between the two protagonists had changed to mutual distrust. The more intense the disputes on Kuhberg became, the more their antipathies grew. To put it another way: Otl Aicher and Thorwald Risler were not the type of people who disregard circumstances in order to create a new order; no, they remained stuck in the existing circumstances. Directly after the election of the rector, on 20 December 1962, a public debate began about the HfG. It was triggered by those students and lecturers who were not in agreement with the new HfG bylaws. The student representative, Gudrun Otto, sent a protest telegram to minister of education and the arts Gerhard Storz (CDU) and to the chairman of the politico-cultural committee of the Landtag of Baden-Württemberg, Karl Brachat
305
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
306
“The HfG’s reputation, especially in international circles, is largely based on a rigorous conception of design and the pedagogical concept resulting from it.“ Otl Aicher in his memo “On the situation of the School of Design in 1962“, dated September 1962. The photo shows him in 1963. Photo: Wolfgang Siol A rchive:HfG (63/0291/3)
(CDU). 1154 On the following day the Stuttgarter Zei- could not understand how the federal government, tung published a report with the headline Riot and the Land, and the c ity could subsidize an institu protests. New rector at the Ulm School of Design tion whose leading personalities […] participated about the actions of those who felt they had been in such attacks. Treason was treason, and was districked: “Before and during the election there were gusting no matter how you looked at it. The effect student riots and protest rallies at the college. A Rector Aicher’s attitude had on the HfG students banner displayed outside in front of the building, could be gauged by the fact that the students also ‘Less cold war, more education’, was later remopublished a resolution in connection with the Spie gel affair.” – Subsequently the city councilors sevved by the caretaker. On Thursday, the students’ official representatives addressed a resolution to eral times expressed the wish that the HfG should the politico-cultural committee of the Parliament be more open to the city: “The HfG was far more of Baden-Württemberg, to the executive board and firmly anchored in international consciousness the advisory board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stifthan in the consciousness of the citizens of Ulm, tung, and to the chief election official for the elecand it was to be hoped that all those involved tion of the rector.” The Ulm paper S chwäbische would see to it that Ulm became more deeply Donau-Zeitung , which was always well-disposed aware of the college. However, if the city of Ulm towards the HfG, pointed out on 22 December could no longer cope with such an institution intel1962 that there had been a second banner: “ Not lectually, there was no point in the city’s troubling without democratic bylaws”. Also: “Only a group itself over the college anymore. […] They’d be on of about ten students clapped when the voting the wrong track if they were to regard an instituwas over and the members of the extended senate tion critically only because there were things hapleft the room.” A student declaration on the bullepening there that certain people weren’t very tin board must also not be overlooked, the article happy about. […] There was only one way for the went on: “We wish to point out that not all stuwish that the HfG should be more firmly anchored dents identify with the views and the protest acin the consciousness of the citizens of Ulm to be tion of the student representatives (‘in the name fulfilled – the city would need to practice tolerof the students’).” In the weeks that followed there ance.” were repeated newspaper articles with critical Public attention reached its pinnacle in an article statements.1155 published – where else? – in the Spiegel. On 18 The radio joined the press announcements: The Süddeutscher Rundfunk (South German Radio) Inge Aicher-Scholl, announced a late-night show for 7 February 1963 1963. with a report on college life at the HfG, entitled Photo: Wolfgang Siol A rchive:HfG (63/0354/1) The permanent crisis situation at the Ulm School of Design . Prior to the broadcast the rector, Otl Aicher, turned to the members of the HfG, asking them to listen to the program in order to judge for themselves whether this style of c onfrontation should be pursued in the future as well. 1156 As a matter of fact, the program was not a journalistic showpiece, and it spread further unrest in the city of Ulm. 1157 The Federal Republic had just lived through events around the so-called Spiegel affair: the search of the Hamburg Press Building on 26 October 1962, the arrest of Rudolf Augstein, a debate in the Bundestag from 7 to 9 November 1962, public protest, and demonstrations against censorship of the press. Together with his wife, Otl Aicher had signed a resolution by Gruppe 47 in defense of the Spie gel, but a few days later they dissociated themselves from their signatures, because they had not learned the exact wording of the resolution until they read the publication. The administrative committee of the Ulm municipal council, which was informed by Theodor Pfizer on 8 March 1963 about the situation at the HfG, took exception to this resolution. A local politician declared that “he
March 1963 the magazine devoted an article to the HfG that was not a credit to this journalistic authority. Otl Aicher now spoke of a press campaign kicked off by HfG members against their own institution. The result was the dissemination all over West Germany of biting criticism of the HfG whose tenor was etched in the consciousness of many politicians. The Spiegel editor summed up his verdict in one sentence: “However, no newly founded institution has made so many more promises than it has kept; to this day no other academic
In class. Photo: Wolfgang Siol Archive : HfG (63/0361/1)
arts institution devoted to teaching and research has been plagued by so many crises and disputes, or been so sharply criticized by co-founders and staff and faculty members as the enterprise on Kuhberg sponsored by the ‘Geschwister-SchollStiftung’.”1158 Otl Aicher urged the students and lecturers who had informed the journalists of the Bill crisis, the Perrine problem, and the new HfG bylaws to leave the HfG, since they felt that the HfG no longer deserved to be supported by the public sector. Vae victis (Woe to the vanquished), the journalists now exclaimed. 1159
Landtag finance committee, used the Spiegel article as an opportunity to call into question the HfG. In 1953 he had voted against continuing the subsidy to the foundation, and now, on 22 March 1963, together with eight colleagues of his parliamentary faction, he introduced a petition for review in the Landtag to study whether the HfG was worthy of being subsidized.1160 The mere fact that this petition was filed made everyone who was involved in the HfG and the foundation extremely nervous. Otl Aicher countered by publishing the address he had given at the end of the HfG academic quarter:
The words that would strike at the very roots of the HfG had now been spoken: Was the HfG worthy of being subsidized?
The petition of the parliamentary faction of the SPD, he said, was “the result of a press campaign whose point of departure was in our own ranks. The existence of our school is being jeopardized. […] The important fact is that via the Spiegel a distorted image was presented to the public – an image that originated in our own circles. […] I’m counting on the integrity of those who are responsible, and will advise them to leave the school. Without them we shall be able to put an end to the process of self-dissolution and self-undermining, if not of self-defamation.” 1161
Since the big debate at the constituent assembly of Baden-Württemberg on 29 April 1953, when a roll-call vote was taken regarding subsidizing the foundation for the operating costs during the first three years, there had been no more arguments worth mentioning with the plenum of the Landtag. The cabinet, which had wanted to let the initial subsidy run out, was outvoted on 2 February 1956. Since then, the HfG had been carried along by the general upswing of all that was associated with design. Probably another reason for the calm on the floor in Bonn and Stuttgart was that since 1959 many members of parliament had been relying on the presence of Thorwald Risler in Ulm and had put aside their misgivings a bout subsidizing the HfG. Kurt Angstmann (SPD), who had succeeded Alex Möller in October as the chairman of the
Wolfgang Donndorf, the representative of the ministry of education and the arts on the foundation’s administrative council, at once turned to Mayor Theodor Pfizer, the chair of the administrative council, and formally asked him to have the chair of the foundation put together as soon as possible exact data about the c urriculum, enrollment figures, income and subsidies, as well as international successes of the HfG. 1162 He had always strongly
307
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
“From the very beginning the School of Design was subject to pronounced internal changes that give an impressive picture of dynamic change and
supported the HfG at his ministry and was now afraid of a parliamentarian conflict. But also quite simply figures were needed, a few statistics to substantiate the HfG’s claims of success. The HfG and the foundation needed to realize that the petition by the SPD faction in the Landtag was an opportunity to demonstrate credibly and convincingly in public that they were worthy of financial support. On 18 April 1963, in answer to Wolfgang Donndorf’s questions, Thorwald Risler produced substantial documentation ( Dokumenta tion 1 ), representing an initial basis for evaluating the HfG’s achievements in recent years. It included the present curriculum, statistics on students, dissertations, graduates up to 1963 and faculty, data on research and development projects, awards, publications, and budget development. 1163 The most important data for argumentation in the political groups were at the end of the report: In the last five years the foundation’s budget had more than doubled, and yet the ratio of its own income to public subsidies had remained almost unchanged. In 1957/58, 48 percent of the budget had
308
At the opening of the exhibition. Pictured among others are Frank Hess on the left and next to him (wearing sunglasses) Claude Schnaidt. Photo:Bernd-Gunter Franck A rchive:HfG (Depositum 84 /1)
consisted of foundation income, while in 1962 it was 40 percent. In other w ords, industry had increased orders for the foundation to the same degree as the public sector increased its subsidies.1164 In effect the HfG had up to this time been far too restrained in its self-promotion – a shortcoming that many friends of the HfG could not understand. At the same time the Bill crisis showed that a handful of easily understandable facts and figures could have refuted many defamations. The local politicians in the municipal council, for example, welcomed the SPD’s Landtag petition, not because they actually questioned the HfG’s existence, but because they thought it would force the HfG to provide the public with fundamental information, including an account of the events of the past months. 1165 In the press the view gained ac- ceptance that it was a political necessity to straighten out circumstances on Kuhberg, because the HfG was receiving considerable moneys from public funds. 1166 The journalists and politicians found the lack of publicity on the part of the HfG
continuous improvement of the pedagogical concept. Without this process of constant reorientation it is impossible to understand the School of Design […].“
Otl Aicher in his address upon the opening of the HfG exhibition at the Stuttgart Trade Supervision Department, 24 April 1963.
all the more incomprehensible because the HfG departments of information and visual communication were made for the job, but also because the HfG could indeed be proud of the successes of its members. It is true that since the end of 1958 the HfG had been publishing ulm, promotional material that appeared sporadically with a circulation of 3,000 copies, which caused a sensation and aroused admiration everywhere, including professional circles – but it didn’t mean a thing to a Land politician. That is why the HfG now worked hard on putting together a traveling exhibition with examples of HfG work from the first ten years. Part of the annual budget had to be used for this unforeseen expense. On 26 April 1963 the exhibition opened at the Land Trade Supervision Department in Stuttgart, and its next stops were Ulm ( Kornhaus , 2 October 1963), Munich ( Die Neue Sammlung , 11 May 1964), and Amsterdam ( Stedelijk Museum , 7 May 1965). On the occasion of the exhibition the newspapers again turned their attention to the HfG with articles whose quality and message varied, and that did not help decrease tensions on Kuhberg. 1167 One paper printed a tendentious article entitled Not a college – a junior high , which reported that the argument around Max Bill’s “position in the school, and finally his departure and the fact that his friends also left preoccupied the general public for a long time. Since then, again and again, there’s been talk of the problems the lecturers have to deal with, of craving for power and the increasing predominance of the Aicher-Scholl family in the school, of trips to America, and of amateurism […]. It’s obvious that in addition to purely personal power struggles among the lecturers a factional dispute has also developed.” A student was quoted as saying: “In my graduating class, and I think in other years as well, there are a number of students drifting around who simply don’t meet matriculation requirements on account of their educational background, and who join the Aicher clique because they just can’t understand a man like Horst Rittel, who is trying to proceed on the basis of theoretical considerations.” 1168 The Stuttgarter Nachrichten adopted the same tone, but even louder: “The husband of Inge Scholl, graphic designer Otl Aicher, who has been doggedly working his way to the top, announced, against the will of the majority of the faculty, new bylaws that assured he would have power.” Regarding the exhibits at the Stuttgart show the author noted: “But this sort of ‘industrial design’ is pursued at other institutes as well. It has become an occupation for people of good taste. Does one need a college to do that? […] In other words, it would be important to have a scientific superstructure, even more than the infrastructure. Then one could rightly speak of a college. Then Ulm would deserve the
309
Thorwald Risler, Otl Aicher, and Paul Hildinger, 1963. Photo: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (63/0358/4)
international reputation it has acquired thanks to certain individual great minds who have in the meantime been gotten rid of again or who have left for some reason.” 1169 At the HfG, Herbert Lindinger and Claude Schnaidt responded to this report with an open letter, although Theodor Pfizer, on 16 May 1963, had requested in the extended senate of the college that no further steps be taken that might exacerbate the situation: “There are attempts to suggest to the public that the HfG is a corrupt bunch of amateurs, wheeler-dealers, and dishonorable characters, that the HfG is a place plagued only by intrigue and power struggles, that the HfG is a school where classes are now taught only sporadically, where every day there is reason to fear that whole departments might disappear, where undemocratic, power-obsessed minds constantly drive out people of great genius, and finally that the HfG acquired its international renown in some other way than by its achievements. […] This well-aimed campaign is not, as some members of the HfG think, a drama one can watch with interest but without involvement. […] We believe that one cannot allow these defamations to be out there in public without denying them. The silence that Mayor Pfizer recommends would in the long run be interpreted by the general public as acquiescence in these assertions that damage the school’s reputation.”1170 A week later the majority of HfG members (17 lecturers, 77 students, 9 institute staffers) expressed their disapproval of those colleagues and classmates who were supposed to have fueled the press campaign. 1171
At the same time as Otl Aicher opened the HfG exhibition at the Stuttgart Trade Supervision Department on 26 April 1963, the administrative council of the foundation arrived at the ministry of education and the arts, a few meters away, for its 21st meeting. At the meeting Thorwald Risler once more presented his view that the administrative council as the supervisory body of the foundation ought to agree on how to reestablish the inner order of the HfG, for “developments in recent months have shown that the college is not cap able of resolving the internal tensions of its own accord”. Otl Aicher, he said, simply always blamed the crisis on the factional dispute between designers and theoretician. “There was a great deal of truth in that, but on the other hand he, Mr. Risler, believed the crux of the difficulties was primarily personal inadequacies and unwillingness to permit a certain open-mindedness.” He urged the administrative council to find a regulation that prevented a dispute about approaches to teaching from immediately spreading to the foundation and jeopardizing the existence of the institution at large. At the same time he demanded that as the managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board he should be put in a position to “work with all members of the college regardless of the interests of individual members, as a neutral authority so to speak”. This made it clear that Thorwald Risler had once and for all taken a stand against Otl Aicher: firstly because as the managing c hairman of the foundation‘s executive board he demanded the same powers as those Inge Aicher-Scholl had during the Bill crisis when she intervened in the HfG’s affairs, and secondly because he represented an
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
310
institutional pattern of behavior, while Otl Aicher never saw the institutions, but only those persons who stood behind them. – The representatives of the ministries expressed their horror at the amount of public scandal during recent months, and at the events themselves that had given rise to this unrest: “Mr. Boulanger strongly believes that the administrative council must make it clear to Mr. Aicher what is meant by ‘creative unrest’. Even with the best of intentions, recent events at the college could not be described in those terms, and they must on no account be condoned. Now the very existence of the college is at stake. […] Summarizing, Mr. Pfizer says that by and large the administrative council is in agreement in its assessment of the situation.” When Otl Aicher hurried from the opening of the exhibition to the meeting in order to take part in it as a guest, the administrative council was just in the middle of the discussion. The representative of the federal ministry of the interior, Karl Gussone, had just informed the meeting that “in the relevant committees of the federal government the question had been raised whether continuing financial support, but particularly an increase of such support, made sense in view of the latent crisis that had prevailed for quite some time.” Wolfgang Donndorf, the representative of the ministry of education and the arts, then told Otl Aicher that
Ulm School of Design can even claim to be a college. In his opinion the present crisis was caused primarily if not solely by the downgrading of the scientists.” After the discussion, the administrative council decided that the bylaws of the foundation had to be changed in two stages: In one initial, quick step the advisory council would be eliminated to refute accusations of self-promotion and of family oligarchy; in a second step the entire bylaws would be reviewed. Also, an independent commission would study circumstances at the HfG. On 30 May 1963 the petition of Kurt Angstmann (SPD) that the HfG ’s entitlement to aid be reviewed was on the agenda of the plenary session of the Landtag of Baden-Württemberg.1172 At least equally interesting for the whole politico-cultural situation was the fourth item on the agenda: the memo of the Land government on establishing new colleges of science in Baden-Württemberg by 1978. A few figures will illustrate the dimensions of these plans: The Land government reckoned on construction costs for three new colleges of science totaling DM 1,160.5 million, and annual maintenance costs of DM 85.5 million. The breakdown of the expenditure is as follows: Detten Schleiermacher, Herbert Maeser, and Herbert Ohl, 1963. Photos: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (63/0299/4, 63/0311/4, and 63/0321/3)
“considering the many tensions within the college and especially among the faculty, and a ll the incidents that had become public knowledge, he [felt compelled to express] doubt whether from the pedagogical viewpoint the institution was still entitled to financial aid.” Otl Aicher defended his view that only a designer could be the rector of the HfG. Several members of the administrative council disagreed with him: “Mr. Donndorf declares that the question whether designers and scientists are equal in rank is crucial in deciding whether the
The planned new University of Constance was to receive DM 26.1 million a year for about 3,000 students, which would come to DM 8,700 per student per year, not counting construction costs (an estimated DM 524.7 million). The planned Ulm Medical College was to receive DM 50.7 million a year for operating expenses with 1,000 students (construction costs: DM 605 million), i.e., DM 50,700 per student (not counting construction costs).
Construction costs for the planned second medical school of the university of Heidelberg, which was to be affiliated with the Mannheim School of Economics, was estimated at DM 30.8 million, with annual operating costs of DM 8.7 million. Furthermore the cabinet planned to expand the existing seven colleges of science for an additional DM 1,900 million. The Land subsidy to the HfG at this time totaled DM 600,000; in 1963 the foundation received DM 4,650 per student, including all construction and construction-related costs. These figures were often distorted in the political debate of the years that followed, and the actual per-head subsidy was wrongly quoted by the HfG’s opponents. Now we come to the petition by Kurt Angstmann and his colleagues of the SPD Landtag faction: Once more Hellmut Becker’s and Otl Aicher’s suspicions from the time of the HfG’s founding that the state would want to exert influence on the HfG as soon as it g ave the school money proved to be correct. Kurt Angstmann expressed it openly: “We have chosen this form of petition because we want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a state institution, because actually we can only try to bring an influence to bear by authorizing the subsidy. […] Secondly, the good intentions that no doubt underlie the plans and their support should be brought before the public once more, because that too is necessary in order to judge things correctly.” This was surely a dubious argument for a petition that could cause considerable damage politically as well as financially. Thereupon Kurt Angstmann referred to the wealth of newspaper articles, starting with the ones about the Bill crisis in 1957 and going on to reports about the resignation of the governing board in 1962, the biased broadcast by the Süddeutscher Rundfunk (South German Radio), the Spiegel article, and finally the commentary on the “purging” of the HfG of undesirable lecturers and students. He quoted extensively from these accounts, and so the members of the HfG were now made to pay for the fact that over ten years they still hadn’t learned not to g ive their opponents weapons that could be used against them. Kurt Angstmann was able to list every one of a number of cheap accusations: never-ending scandals, incidents, and crises, an impenetrable entanglement of authorities, settling accounts with inflexible members of the college; he claimed that even the existence of a department was supposed to be a figment of the imagination (actually the department of information had been in a bad way ever since Gert Kalow accepted a study grant in the fall of 1968). He therefore demanded consequences – massive interventions in the pedagogi-
cal and organizational structure: “It seems to me that the safest thing would be if it was possible to have a close organizational connection with existing government institutions.” He felt the school’s right to exist was not the issue for him, while its right to an autonomous existence was: He suggested that after there was a review of the HfG’s entitlement to financial aid it might be advisable to think about affiliating the school with the Ulm Medical College then being planned. – Naturally there was another reminder of the old promise from the period of the HfG’s founding that the college would be completely self-supporting in a few years. Former minister of finance Karl Frank (FDP/DVP) insisted on pointing out with obvious enjoyment that not only his own misgivings, but those of much more “progressive” members of parliament as well had meanwhile been confirmed by what had happened: “But the friends of the college said at the time, Well yes, those are teething troubles, we’ve got to have time to get started. A few more years, and things will get b etter. And so we come to the third stage: Things haven’t gotten better. […] But, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the feud among the lecturers and the feud between a segment of the lecturers and a segment of the students, and another segment of the lecturers and students was carried on like this, out in the Peter Cornelius, 1963. Photo: Roland Fürst Archive: HfG (63/0579/1)
open, so that it almost took the adversaries before a court of law – why, that shows that all those years they really never got around to building a community within this School of Design. […] Compared with the great plans to found a new university and a medical school in Ulm, and to create a second medical school in Mannheim, of course, the downfall of the Ulm School of Design is a minor matter, small potatoes, as they say.” Nevertheless and precisely because of the comparatively minor contributions involved [in this case], it was
311
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
312
Bill Huff, 1963. Photo:Roland Fürst Archive:HfG (63/0457/1)
the Landtag’s duty to handle even small subsidies from taxes responsibly, and the money for the HfG had been “needlessly squandered”. That was certainly a bit thick, and one might have had the impression that this obfuscation was meant to conceal the fact that considerable sums were being slated to support state colleges of science. During the meeting the representatives of the Land ministries who were on the administrative council were sharply attacked because they had backed the HfG in the press. Although Walter Erbe (FDP/DVP) spoke on behalf of the HfG, he was not very convincing. Quite different on the other hand were the remarks of Erich Ganzenmüller (CDU), who picked up on the detail that currently the HfG needed an administrative staff of 29 to run a school with an alleged enrollment of 95 students. If the HfG was to continue to grow, steps must be taken “so we can find that this college is really entitled to receive the subsidy”. Finally there was a mood swing of 180 degrees as minister of education and the arts Gerhard Storz (CDU) threw his weight behind the HfG, and behind his department head Wolfgang Donndorf. And he showed ways in which the Landtag could intervene: “The Land can give its subsidy or cancel it, there’s not much it can do in between. […] But we are not in a position to give the college any kind of orders or to make any arrangements regarding the use of funds, curricula, or personnel schedules. The way things are structured now, we don’t have the authority to do that. […] There is a good reason for reviewing entitlement to aid as accurately as possible, particularly for the college’s own sake. However, I do hope that the result will be that Parliament, too, will confirm that the school is entitled to financial aid, at least in principle.” – The request was referred to the politico-cultural committee for discussion. It was to this committee that the ministry of education and the arts had to submit a report about the HfG. Parallel to the review of the HfG’s entitlement to aid, which the ministry of education and the arts began as early as April 1963, a committee of the so-called “Three Wise Men” (Hellmut Becker, Theodor Eschenburg, and Alexander Mitscherlich) was appointed to analyze the situation on Kuhberg and to provide suggestions on improving it. In addition, Hellmut Becker introduced the first steps in changing the bylaws. In an April 1963 discussion with Inge Aicher-Scholl, Max Guther, and Thorwald Risler (the foundation’s entire executive board) and Otl Aicher in Wasserburg, the group came to an agreement that the foundation’s advisory board would be eliminated and its powers would be transferred to a body that would replace the administrative council. Hellmut Becker gave the following two reasons for eliminating the advi-
sory board: Firstly, there was no clear delimitation of powers between the advisory board and the administrative council; secondly, the makeup of the advisory board was unsatisfactory. In part its members were simultaneously members of the HfG (Otl Aicher, Walter Zeischegg), in part they were former members of the HfG (Max Bill, Fritz Pfeil), in part they were members of committees of the foundation (Inge Aicher-Scholl, Max Guther, Thorwald Risler), and the rest were c ompletely independent (Hans Frieder Eychmüller, Günther Grzimek). As a result two intolerable situations had developed: Instructors monitored the administration to which they were subject at the same time; the executive board was an executive of the foundation and was at the same time expected to monitor the executive. Hellmut Becker reached a definite conclusion: “an unbiased resolution of disputes within the college by the executive board, or of disputes between the executive board and the college by the advisory board is pretty much out of the question because of the way roles overlap. […] The advisory board was intentionally given this makeup in order to preserve the tradition of the foundation. Once the above-named group of persons was removed, there would be no point to the advisory board, and it would be just one more superfluous committee. The present confusion of roles can therefore be remedied only by eliminating the advisory board.” Max Guther also endorsed this assessment: “I agree to the change in the charter of the foundation whereby the advisory board would be eliminated and its powers would be transferred to the administrative council. I also feel that the restructuring of the executive board that would be necessary if Mrs. Aicher-Scholl resigns is a good idea.” 1173 The administrative council concurred on 26 April 1963. Hellmut Becker, Günther Schweigkofler (the foundation’s administrative director), and Hans Rettich (Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts) then worked out a draft of the foundation’s charter on 13 May 1963. The general meeting had long been scheduled for 12 June 1963; it was to vote on replacing the foundation’s by-laws with a new c harter. 1174 There seemed to be one opportunity left for the disputes to be settled and for the former cooperation to have a chance of being reestablished. Inge Aicher-Scholl wrote about Thorwald Risler to Walter Gropius on 29 May 1963: “It is his special contribution that during the past years he succeeded in placing the college’s budget on a broad and secure foundation, so that the worst material worries have been overcome. However, he was less skillful at dealing with internal school problems,
perhaps because he saw them too much from the perspective of business and administration.” 1175 And at the same time Thorwald Risler saw the situation as difficult, but not past all hope: “Nevertheless I haven’t lost heart yet that it might be possible to make something out of the opportunities that exist on Kuhberg. What is clear to me, however, is that the difficulties lie for the most part in purely personal failings that are not present to this extent in every comparable institution. In other words, success is only possible here if the personal failings can be localized by the necessary pressure from outside and thus do not affect the institution as a whole. I must say I haven’t found the philosophers’ stone here yet. 1176 But by the end of May Otl Aicher changed his mind about dissolving the advisory board. On 29 May 1963 he told Hellmut Becker: “Suddenly everyone’s asking me about the dissolution of the advisory board. There’s a moral conflict for me here. In this matter I share the arguments of those who are against strengthening the position of the foundation, but feel obliged to keep quiet because of the discussion with Risler at your house. At the present stage, though, I’d like to remain free in my decisions and not commit myself, as I did all too spontaneously in our phone conversation yesterday. I might even have to vote against dissolving the advisory board. Let’s leave that open. […] After all, I did not come out in favor of eliminating the advisory board, did I? The version that’s making the rounds in Ulm: that I said yes to the deal; [but] that night the first thing I said was that I had to think it over […].“ 1177 For Hellmut Becker, this letter from Otl Aicher was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Enervated, he answered, on 1 June 1963: “I’m sure you must know yourself what it is you really want, but if Inge and you think it makes tactical sense always to leave every avenue open, the Ulm School will be destroyed very soon. The idea of eliminating the advisory board originally had nothing to do with the school-foundation relationship, but rather with the confusing structure, which must be clarified as a result of the crisis, or rather the constant crises. The change in the charter that is being planned is part of a multifaceted program – our attempt to help you straighten out your mess at least in part. Since I heard no objections at my house in Kreßbronn and at the Stuttgart meeting [of the administrative council on 26 April 1963; author’s note], I did assume that Inge and you would do anything to help move this thing forward. I can’t stand this constant back and forth anymore. And then when I hear you say you wouldn’t mind the institution being nationalized, I really ask myself just why we’ve been devoting our time and energy to this business.” Hellmut
Becker reminded Otl Aicher of the 13th meeting of the administrative council on 21 April 1958, when Tomás Maldonado presented the program of philosophical and pedagogical reorientation: “When the imagination and our own view of the college’s mission change so rapidly, so ra dically, there needs to be a clear separation of powers. I feel really funny to be writing this again, because we’ve discussed this so often. The change in the charter was the first start of an order about which we seemed to be in agreement. […] I can’t claim that your letter makes me feel eager to take part in the work of the Three Wise Men. […] Now it’s really up to you, nobody’s going to prevent you or your friends from doing the work. […] I don’t believe that focusing anger on Mr. Risler is a way out of the crisis, but I do feel that the misunderstandings have reached a level where it will be crucial to bring things out into the open soon. [ …] Please do not unnecessarily destroy whatever reserves of confidence the foundation still has.” 1178 At the same time Otl Aicher turned his irritation at giving up the advisory board into a personal attack against Thorwald Risler. This was not at all surprising, because the managing chairman of the executive board had made the d issolution of the advisory board his business. If Thorwald Risler had become impossible, the threat to the advisory board would have been eliminated along with his person. Otl Aicher believed that Thorwald Risler was acting and agitating against him. “It is clear what I think of the man and how I need to behave toward him when just recently he threw me the bait that I was the only person who could run the school, everybody else was incapable, he said (and that’s why he claimed we needed to change to bylaws that called for a rector). What kind of an idiot do people think I am? The way things are now I think it is truly lucky that we have the advisory board to act as a brake. I’ll do everything I can to preserve it. There can be no more question of restraint.”1179 No wonder the majority of the advisory board supported Otl Aicher’s view that the a dvisory board should be preserved (The exceptions were Max Guther, Hans Frieder Eychmüller, and Thorwald Risler). Even Max Bill, contacted b y Walter Zeischegg, had visited Otl Aicher, who was sick, in the sanatorium. In actual fact an open exchange of ideas developed between Otl Aicher and Max Bill in the coming months (regarding the opening, on 2 October 1963, of the traveling exhibit of the HfG in Ulm). In the course of this exchange Max Bill reproached Otl Aicher that the information he gave in a brochure about his development team e5, and in another one about the HfG ( Information 63 ) falsified history, because the dates and facts relating to the history of the school’s founding and
313
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
314
evolution were not correct. Moreover he found fault with the fact “that what you now c all the new direction of the HfG is something I’ve believed in for years; It’s something I formulated most clearly in the paper I gave at the HfG during the Werkbund conference in fall 1955 [the correct date is 1956;author’s note], ‘Umweltgestaltung nach morphologischen Methoden’ (‘Designing the environment according to morphological methods’), but nobody speaks about that. For at the time people felt it was necessary to shoot me down with all sorts of hyper-pseudoscientific hocus-pocus and to keep reminding everybody that I was an artist with my head in the clouds. But maybe you can see for yourself where your and Maldonado’s policy of misrepresenting history and persons has led to, now that I have had no influence on the development of the college for almost 8 years and have been gone from Ulm for over 6 years. Even the accomplishments shown at the Ulm exhibition, some of which are respectable, can’t hide that fact. I sometimes wonder what devil possesses you both; even today, when the school has a lot of positive stuff to show for itself, you feel you have to operate and let others operate with rhetoric and vague concepts.“ 1180 In the months that followed Max Bill even had hopes of returning to the HfG again with the same rights as he had had before his departure in 1957, but that didn’t suit Edgar Reitz, Alexander Kluge, 1963. Photos: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (63/ 0300/1 and 63/0337/3)
Otl Aicher. 1181 Still, Max Bill kept in touch until, in February 1964, he was quite unexpectedly appointed to the foundation‘s council. For the general meeting slated to meet on 12June 1963, the old members of the advisory board, headed by Otl Aicher, Max Bill, and Walter Zeischegg, threatened to abort the vote on the new charter of the foundation with their blocking minority (6 votes), for a change in the bylaws required three-fourths of a total of 22 votes. 1182 They
argued that an embarrassing situation could result for the representatives of the government agencies. In order to spare them this humiliation it would be better not to convene the general meeting at all. 1183 Otl Aicher implored Hellmut Becker along these lines: “Dear Hellmut, can’t you bring your influence to bear so that the advisory board business is put to rest once more? Besides, I don’t think it would be a good idea if the members of the administrative council were to be defeated in a vote (which I assume is certain).” 1184 But Hellmut Becker was outraged at the latest turn of events and the developing “grotesque campaign” against Thorwald Risler. 1185 He felt this was a red herring, because now “the whole internal dispute is suddenly being turned aga inst Risler and the continued existence of the advisory board is being made into the question on which the freedom of the school hinges. In the process a few psychological blunders by Mr. Risler were grossly exaggerated. On Whit Monday Otl told me on the phone that Risler is the first person in his life he truly hates.” 1186 Max Guther was just as indignant: “Prof. Guther is horrified at the Aichers’ zigzag maneuvers, and in view of the circumstances he is on the point of resigning from his position, even at the risk that this will jeopardize his friendship with the Aichers. […] He even refused to speak with the Aichers on the telephone, since the conversations would only lead to self-pitying reminiscences of their old friendship. He is transferring his vote to Risler: strict elimination of the advisory board.“ 1187 The general meeting of the foundation took place on 12 June 1963. The assembly was divided into two camps: One consisted of the members of the advisory board, almost all of whom were determined to defend their status; in the other camp were the members of the administrative council, who were equally determined to defend their conviction. They emphasized that they wanted to preserve the HfG whatever happened. In the face of the HfG’s crisis of confidence in the press and the Landtag, a sign of good will was called for now, however. Because the advisory board bore the brunt of the criticism, and because public sector subsidies depended on a clear foundation structure, the advisory board was now to be dissolved and the foundation would give itself a new charter as Hellmut Becker had proposed. The representatives of the ministries pointed out “unanimously that the situation was serious, and in this connection, criticized the lack of restraint of statements coming from the HfG, which are not fitting for a college”. The members of the advisory board, on the other hand, argued that “clarification and resolution cannot simply be achieved by eliminating a committee – namely, the advisory board. The HfG, they said, needed a committee that would monitor
curriculum development and advise the school in this.”1188 The general meeting ended with a compromise. It is true that the representatives of the ministries pushed through the decision on general principles that the advisory board should be dissolved. But the details were still to be negotiated. There was a unanimous resolution to revise the bylaws of the foundation in such a way that the foundation and the college would be clearly separated both organizationally and in terms of personnel. The duties of the advisory board were to be transferred to a newly constituted administrative council (the later foundation‘s council). A commission led by Hellmut Becker with representatives of the advisory board, the administrative council, and the executive board received the mandate to work out the new bylaws (the later charter) of the foundation.1189 Let us now follow the debate about the new charter of the foundation – one of the two decisive topics that year – to the end of August 1963. The advisory board was thus to be eliminated, but the majority of its members had to help support this resolution in the general meeting. In the face of this majority the foundation could not be restructured, and here was the means of exerting pressure the founding members of the advisory board used in dealing with Thorwald Risler, Max Guther, and the administrative council. They themselves formed their own constitutional forum in order to represent their interests as effectively as possible. The advisory board now met more frequently. At these meetings there was a widening of the rift between Thorwald Risler (supported without reservation by Max Guther, and with reservations by Hans Frieder Eychmüller) and Otl Aicher, the spokesman of the remaining members of the advisory board. On 29 June 1963 the first open argument took place: “In answer to a direct question by Mr. Aicher, Mr. Risler again states what concerns him most: Clear roles must be created so that internal conflicts do not affect the sponsor, thus leading to existential crises for the institution at large. The college, he says, must be autonomous and have its own means of regulation.“ 1190 That is why the entire advisory board could not come to a n agreement either at this or at the following meetings on 19 July and 5 October 1963. 1191 Four days later Otl Aicher summed up recent events in a letter to Thorwald Risler: “Two years ago we began developing ideas for a new school bylaws. That is when the first conflicts between us began. I felt the fundamental principle of new school bylaws was a par tner-type relationship between the foundation and the school. You on the other hand emphasized the foundation functioning
as an employer. […] I had never questioned certain sovereign functions of the foundation, but assumed that the precondition for a reasonable development might be daily cooperation between the school and the foundation on an equal level. Today the advisory board is to be dissolved. What is more, you are developing new ideas about the role of the foundation. The foundation is to be placed in a position where it is able to create new institutions apart from the school. Development and school are to be taken out of the school and placed under your control. […] In this connection I would again like to emphasize that the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung was never regarded by us who founded the school as anything but the legal and economic sponsor of the School of Design, and only the School of Design. It cannot become a separate enterprise without distorting the intention of its founders. […] You see the crisis in human inadequacies that can be remedied once order is established. I see it primarily in the fact that an attempt was made by means of a coup d’état to alter the original concept of the school. […] In the present situation I believe it is unfortunate, to say the least, that differences of opinion within the college are described not as a consequence of a pedagogical concept but as human incompetence. This form of argumentation, which you support, misses the point completely and leads us into a morass whose consequence can only be a call for a new power structure.”1192 In a letter to Otto Pfleiderer, Inge Aicher-Scholl used as an argument the same intention not to expand the purpose of the foundation in the new charter: “It is well known that at the time we had to choose wording that would guarantee us nonprofit tax status. In this respect I agree with you: we shouldn’t perpetuate a onetime tactical necessity. Still, I don’t think it is a good idea to plan for the possibility within the foundation of establishing other institutions in addition to the college. I would see this as a risk and a source of new crises. […] The Ulm School of Design was p rimarily founded for the sake of a particular idea. We did not have the intention of adding one more to the existing number of schools of product design, architecture, or graphic art. Rather, we were interested in developing a certain progressive cultural idea that we had hardly ever seen implemented. […] I would definitely not like to exclude the possibility that additional institutions will be founded with this cultural goal; on the contrary, I think it’s desirable. However, I feel the effect of such institutions would be to damage the original intention if they were set up independently of the college or even in opposition to it.” 1193 Here it becomes clear how closely the individual strands of actions and goals were interwoven.
315
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
316
On the one hand Thorwald Risler (and with him the administrative council) wanted to dissolve the advisory board, give the college administrative autonomy, and reformulate the mission of the foundation in such a way that the HfG would not be designated as the sole purpose of the foundation. Hans Gugelot’s institute with its outstanding reputation, and prestigious and lucrative orders, which had already pulled out of the HfG, should at least remain with the foundation and thus indirectly with the HfG – though only indirectly, of course. Every institute that was founded in accordance with the foundation’s expanded mission was to be just as independent of the HfG, so that trouble that broke out at the college would not be able to affect these institutions to their detriment. For example, should the HfG be able to exert influence on Hans Gugelot’s institute, he intended to leave Ulm for good, and it would be impossible to get equally qualified designers to come and work in Ulm.1194 Besides such a concept would have made it possible to set up an institute devoted primarily to scientific research and development, so that money would continue to come in (in increasing amounts) from the federal government, because the federal government had always made its subsidies strictly contingent on the academic work and research activities of the foundation’s institution(s). On the other hand Otl Aicher (and with him the majority of the advisory board and the HfG lecturers) regarded the college and the foundation as two sides of a coin that were there for the same purpose. The advisory board was to make it possible for the HfG to influence the foundation, the HfG was to be the sole purpose of the foundation, the purpose of the HfG consisted in concentrating on design and not in scientific work (this, at least, was the motto at this moment), and if new institutions were created, then only at the initiative of the HfG and with its express authorization. No connecting bridge could be built to link these two standpoints: One side had to give in. Klaus Dohrn, the chairman of the executive board of the Society of Friends, tried nevertheless, in a letter to Otl Aicher dated 9 August 1963, to soften the hardened positions: “I don’t believe that anybody intends to undermine the idea on which the foundation is based. The purpose of the foundation – at least in my opinion – should remain b asically untouched.” And he went on to formulate from the perspective of the financial backers what Thorwald Risler’s plan to expand the activities of the foundation was all about. According to Risler, the purpose of the foundation was “the legal basis for the granting of subsidies, voluntary donations, and other material contributions without which the life
of the college would not be conceivable. No doubt the ideas of the foundation as well as the artistic and intellectual achievements of the college lecturers motivate the granting of subsidies. However, the originators of the ideas would overrate themselves if they were to believe that the administrators of other people’s money – and that today includes not only all ministers of finance, but almost always the heads of large business enterprises as well – are willing to entrust them on a continuous basis with sizable subsidies unless certain material requirements have been met. Among those requirements are a clear organizational structure, clear-cut regulations regarding responsibility and competence, and an expert administration. According to my observations and based on the opinions of third parties I have heard, I believe that Mr. Risler dealt with the w orldly side of your Kuhberg enterprise, if I may say so, in an exemplary fashion. It is only since he first appeared on the scene that in the areas administered by him there’s been the kind of order that is indispensable with the present financial scale your institution has reached in the meantime. Particularly if you try, by bringing in more design commissions from private enterprise, to create a more balanced relationship between public subsidies and fees for work performed, you realize you cannot exist without a reliably run and functioning administrative system, and a partner of industry who understands the language of private enterprise and speaks it himself.” 1195 Klaus Dohrn did not convince Otl Aicher. For both factions envisioned two radically different concepts when they spoke of the “underlying” purpose of the foundation. Otl Aicher, Inge AicherScholl, and Max Bill claimed that as the founders of the HfG they were able, and had the right, to give the only definition of what they had “a ctually” had in mind when they established the HfG. The Three Wise Men (Hellmut Becker, Theodor Eschenburg, and Alexander Mitscherlich), who had been appointed as early as April 1963 to study the situation of the HfG from an independent perspective, conducted interviews with a few representatives of the college and foundation in Ulm on 3 July 1963. 1196 On 27 August 1963 they gave their report to the chairman of the administrative council, Mayor Theodor Pfizer. Their statement also included concrete proposals as to how the HfG and the foundation could be reorganized and how their bylaws should be changed. 1197 The Three Wise Men basically supported the goals and the work of the HfG: “The college definitely appears to be worth preserving. On the contrary, they warn against letting the college fold or limiting financial support of the college. Certain difficulties the college has had seem to us to result precisely from
the fact that it hasn’t been sufficiently consolidated. In order to preserve the experimental character of the college with its special values and advantages, they warn against nationalizing it. It seems to make sense to continue running the college as a free, nonprofit institutio n in whose financing public and private funds work together. […] Because of the special character of the college, whose work is in the area of design, there will be crises in the future as well. The only thing that matters is to mitigate these manifestations of crises and their effects by means of an appropriate administrative structure.” Essentially they recommended two improvements: 1. The bylaws of the foundation were to be changed with the intention of implementing the principle of incompatibility of offices in both institutions. This proposal meant the elimination of the advisory board (which was not surprising coming from Hellmut Becker), and this was put into effect. 2. The HfG was to receive a large degree of administrative autonomy: It was to draw up its own budget, which the foundation had to authorize. An administrator of the HfG was to work side by side with the rector: “The duties of the administrator are to process all personnel matters, to draw up the budget, to administer the budget, to assign apartments and rooms, to perform all organizational duties, to see to it that legal regulations are observed”. – This proposal was not implemented because the members of the administrative council felt this was a potential source of future conflict. Professor Kono giving a guest lecture on Design in the modern life of Japan in October 1963. Photo:Roland Fürst Archive: HfG (63/0456/2)
Now to the second dominant topic of 1963 – the Landtag’s request that the ministry of education and the arts review the eligibility of the HfG for financial aid. The ministry of education and the arts ga ve the politico-cultural committee of the Landtag an interim report on the status of its investigation at the Landtag’s 80th session on 18 July 1963. After a critical discussion the committee concluded that the documentation submitted up to that time (documentation of the foundation’s executive board
and a report of the Three Wise Men) were not quite sufficient to do justice to the uniqueness of the HfG. The HfG itself had not yet had a chance to speak. That is why the ministry of education and the arts sent Hans Rettich, Wolfgang Donndorf’s colleague, to Kuhberg with a long list of questions to all lecturers, to the representative of the regular assistant lecturers (Gui Bonsiepe), to the representative of the technical teachers (Wolfgang Siol), to the student representative (Gudrun Otto), and to the foundation (Thorwald Risler and Günther Schweigkofler).1198 From 25 to 30 July 1963 Hans Rettich gave them 25 questions by the politicocultural committee on pedagogical and organizational details, with HfG members mostly concentrating on the pedagogical, and representatives of the foundation concentrating on the organizational answers. Among other things the members of parliament wanted to know the following: “2) Is it true that faculty members often teach sub jects they were not appointed to teach and for which they therefore lack the professional qualifications? 3) Is it true that the lecturers announced in the publicity material frequently do not come? […] 4) Is it a fact that the school’s diploma only has significance within the school and does not entitle the graduate to be entered in the list of architects? […] 10)What is the relationship between permanent lecturers and guest lecturers like? […] 12)What about the scientific work of the HfG? […] 15)Is it possible or even advisable a) to incorporate the building department at a technical college or a school of engineering? b) to affiliate the department of product design with other technical colleges (e.g., the Vereinigte Goldschmiede-, Kunst- und Werkschule Pforzheim (the Pforzheim Comprehensive School of Gold Work, Art, and Arts and Crafts) or the Höhere Fachschule für das Edelmetallgewerbe Schwäbisch Gmünd (the Schwäbisch Gmünd Technical College of Precious Metal Work))? […] 17)As a result of the separation of the Gugelot Institute from the foundation does the money earned there by development work not benefit the foundation? Have there been plans to detach other development teams from the foundation in a similar manner and to run them on a private basis? […] 19)What is the nature of the factional dispute among the lecturers, and what are its effects? […] 24)Is the term college justified? 25)Are the lecturers qualified to teach at college level?”1199
317
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
To celebrate its 10-year anniversary, the HfG organized a traveling exhibition that made guest appearances in Ulm, Munich, and Amsterdam. Photo:Roland Fürst A rchive:HfG (63/0461)
The very fact that the politico-cultural committee even asked such questions, some of them suggestively, can already be judged as strong criticism. The answers were given to the members of parliament on 13 September as Dokumentation 2 .1200 This lengthy volume of reports, not surprisingly, was a faithful mirror image of the spectrum of beliefs that were behind events at the HfG.
318
That same day the Landtag faction of Free Democrats met at the Ulm city hall. The city had invited
The two photographs date back to the opening in the Kornhaus of Ulm, wherethe exhibition was shown from 1 through 27 Oct. 1963. Photo:Roland Fürst Archive:HfG (63/0461)
all the Landtag factions to visit the city and to discuss tasks facing local politicians; the p olitico-cultural caucus of the CDU faction had met earlier, on 24 July 1963, and Otl Aicher had responded to a barrage of questions from the politicians. 1201 Now at least the three Land ministers of justice (Wolfgang Haußmann), economics (Eduard Leuze), and finance (Hermann Müller) were present, as well as former minister of finance Karl Frank. Otl Aicher was glad to take advantage of the opportunity and give a talk to the faction, who, partly out of sympathy, partly out of antipathy, were very interested in the HfG’s current situation: “We could, of course, also have developed into a classically peaceful and well-tempered arts and crafts school, one that restricts itself to creating beautiful, modern objects for the home. But we felt our mission was to update the education level and to train students who would be capable of designing more complex technical objects on a par with engineers. For that we needed a new teaching concept. […] The type of designers that are called for
today have to be familiar with problems of construction, production, choice of material, and economics even if they cannot be creative in those areas. This was the reason we included a series of technological and scientific disciplines in the curriculum of the Ulm School of Design. This socalled ‘Ulm concept’ was much debated, but in the long run brought us international recognition that is also expressed in the international makeup of the student body. […] The development of such a curriculum can naturally not be concluded within a span of four to five years if one considers that industrial design is a relatively new area for which the pedagogical groundwork still needs to be gradually laid. The causes of the internal crisis of the School of Design can be traced to this fact. I am convinced there would be no crises, and the press would not deal with the school in such detail, if we had not gone beyond the pedagogy of the Bauhaus, which, as you know, did not deal with the problems of industrial production to the same extent and was far more closely related to the arts.” 1202 The responses of the Land politicians to Otl Aicher each focused on different points. On the one hand incumbent minister of finance Hermann Müller spoke in support of the HfG: “It had been subsidized by the Land up to this point and would continue to receive this subsidy in the future as well. The fact that some people did not approve of it and found things to criticize about it – a good sign of democracy – could not change that. The FDP, through its members of p arliament, had expressed the view that it definitely saw the value of this college and would certainly not stand its way in the future either.” On the other hand former minister of finance Karl Frank, who had been one of the opponents of the HfG even when it was founded and was still of the same opinion, persevered in his criticism of the HfG: “During the recent Landtag debate ab out the Ulm School of Design his language was quite blunt and harsh. […] Certainly there had been disputes at the universities as well, he said, and he knew important scholars who had been extraordinarily pugnacious. But his critical position was that disputes at the School of Design had assumed forms that went beyond tolerable levels. […] His second criticism was that the program of the college, its curriculum, the topics taught, and so forth, had not been adequately clarified. The third was that there had been an enormous turnover among faculty […]. During previous debates in the Landtag, when he had still been minister of finance, friends of the college had said that the way things were going, the school’s own income would basically cover expenses and that consequently subsidies from public budgets could be reduced.”
319
The ministry of education and the arts submitted the result of its study to the Land government on 11 October 1963. 1203 This report had grown to 39 pages; documentations and the expert opinions of the Three Wise Men totaled another 200 odd pages. In essence the HfG was found to be eligible for continuing government subsidies. For 1964 the plan was a subsidy of DM 600,000. At the same time, however, the ministry of education and the arts proposed ten recommendations: 1. a binding curriculum outline was to be set up. 2. All permanent full-time lecturer positions were to be filled. 3. An admissions test for applicants who had not graduated from a secondary school was to be introduced. 4. The publicity material and catalogue of the HfG were to state clearly that studies in the department of building represented only supplementary training. 5. Student representatives were to be excluded from electing the rector. 6. Pedagogical conferences should again be held with all lecturers, and the basic course should be reintroduced. 7. No more new lecturers’ housing should be built. 8. “By changing Section 14 of the college bylaws, all regular lecturers working at the School of Design must be given the same legal status. 9. By changing the foundation’s charter a clear separation of the foundation and the college in terms of organization and personnel must be implemented.“
10.Graduates and assistant lecturers should have prior teaching experience at other institutions before they could become lecturers at the HfG. It is striking that items 8 and 9 contained the word “must”. The ministry of education and the arts was of the opinion that the DM 600,000 authorized for 1964 should be disbursed only if these two stipulations were met. The Land government supported both the statement that the school was eligible for aid and the wording of the recommendations. It passed on the results of the study to the politico-cultural committee. The latter, at its 85th session on 25 October 1963 and its 87th session on 4 November 1963, discussed the government bill that included an information packet for the politico-cultural committee consisting of the documents from the foundation ( Dokumentation 1 ), the list of questions and answers ( Dokumentation 2 ), and the expert opinion of the Three Wise Men. 1204 At both these sessions the Land government represented the view that it was appropriate to force the HfG to conform to the ideas of the ministry of education and the arts. In order to maintain this pressure, it did not even shy a way from cutting off Land funding. By threatening to block funds, the government wanted to make sure the recommendations were followed. If the shortcomings they had complained about were c orrected, the government would consider the HfG eligible for aid. All that was new and unique about the HfG was explicitly acknowledged: Teamwork by engineers (traditionally trained at technical colleges) and designers (designers for industrial production
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
320
“If you want to know what kind of people live on Kuhberg, then go and sit as long as you can stand it on one of the stools with pipe legs at the coffee bar. The coffee bar’s counter is not the only wavy line in the building. The coffee bar is the human center, the agora of the college. […] And you will realize:Intelligence flows without interruption at the coffee bar.“ Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 30.
Photo:Michael Penck (25 Oct. 1963) Archive:HfG (Depositum 69/2)
who did not aspire to be artists [like those] educated at a college of art, but rather concentrated on series production). This, it was felt, was the basis of the HfG’s success, particularly outside Germany. Incidentally, the government felt that the ministry of education and the arts c ould not be responsible for everything at the HfG. People were tired of constantly being asked about an institution for which they were only partially responsible, but for which other ministries were also partially responsible. The government representative demanded that at the HfG and the foundation, the “ballast” of unnecessary staff and faculty should be jettisoned, even if the ministry did not have immediate jurisdiction. In agreement with the administrative council such people should gradually be dismissed. A representative of the SPD even felt that the funds should not be released until the necessary personnel changes had been made. Probably the politicians had Tomás Maldonado particularly in mind. The government representative did warn those present that the HfG and its entities should not be treated as though they were incapable of managing their own affairs. The representatives of the ministry of education and the arts protested against the personnel-related demands, pointing out that the moment the advisory board was dissolved and its functions transferred to the foundation’s new foundation‘s
council, the ministries would gain influence over the curriculum, hiring and firing practices, and the HfG’s bylaws. Thereupon an S PD representative responded that in that case the majority of the seats on the foundation‘s council should be filled by officials of the ministries. The HfG only had itself to blame for its p resent situation; he did not want a situation where the ministries could be outvoted, and when everything was consolidated, it would probably be possible to talk about a new board with fewer Land representatives. This strange college had stirred up more trouble in the press in the past two years than any other normally functioning college of science had in a decade. As long as the school demanded state funding, the Landtag had to deal with it. The SPD representative lacked confidence in the HfG’s senate, and as long
as everything in this respect had not been set right, he considered this college to be an ailing enterprise. It was these people’s own fault for constantly giving the press more scandals to write about. The tax moneys that were given to them, after all, were not chicken feed. He described the fact that former students had been appointed to teaching jobs as inbreeding. After this the discussion became heated at the questions whether the HfG should be called a college and whether the departments of building and information made sense. Without discussion, the group unanimously decided that students should not participate in the election of the rector. The committee agreed to petition the ministry of education and the arts to make sure that the foundation implemented the recommendations. And the Landtag was to include a notice in the budget for 1964 to the effect that the funds could be released to the HfG only through a resolution of the politico-cultural committee. This blocking notice transformed the government’s recommendations into the Landtag’s conditions (provided the Landtag agreed with the petition of the politico-cultural committee, but there was hardly any doubt about that). On balance the result of these two discussions of the politico-cultural committee was as follows: The uncompromising opponents of the HfG, of whom there were some in all the parties, had sharpened the tone of the conditions laid down by the ministry of education and the arts and the Land government somewhat and had added an eleventh item (the department of information was to be incorporated in another d epartment). The gist of this was unmistakable: If the foundation wanted to receive money for the HfG from the Land, it had to acquiesce in the ideas of Land politicians. Though the HfG’s development to date demonstrated its objective right to exist, organizational circumstances had arisen that the politicians did not want to accept. True, this was not the end of cultural freedom in Baden-Württemberg, but existing conditions at the school must have felt to the politicians as license to do anything it pleased. The only member of the politicocultural committee who stood up for the HfG unreservedly was Walter Erbe (FDP/DVP). Thus a new situation had developed on Kuhberg. Actually the foundation and college were satisfied with the basic result of the investigation: “The Land government has recognized that the School of Design is eligible for aid and has described it as a world-class institute. In the recommendations the Land government maintains that the so-called crises at the School of Design must not be overrated. In this whole business not much is left of the original charges against the School of Design.
The recommendations of the Land government seem to be acceptable; in part they have already been implemented.” But on 5 November Otl Aicher vehemently protested against the fact that the Landtag tied the continuation of subsidies to conditions (in doing so he made the false assumption that originally all ten points had been only recommendations, and that the blocking notice had not been added until later. Of course this blocking notice had been present in the documents submitted by the ministry of education and the arts from the very b eginning): “The politico-cultural committee has in the meantime made these recommendations into conditions – the agreed-upon subsidy to the School of Design will not be released until these conditions are met. Since the Land government explicitly confirmed that the School of Design is trustworthy, it is extraordinarily hard to understand why recommendations are transformed into governmental conditions. The state thus exposes itself to the suspicion that it is trying to exert direct influence on the school, a behavior that must ap pear unusual even in the case of state colleges, and all the more astonishing in our case, since we are a private college.” He felt he was arguing in accordance with Section 5 of Basic German Constitutional Law, which guarantees academic freedom. That is why he felt it was his right to move from
representatives of government agencies). The new conditions of the Landtag were not the precedent Otl Aicher made it out to be. The extended senate of the HfG discussed the conditions of the politico-cultural committee on 7 November 1963.1206 Otl Aicher reformulated his view: He was concerned “not so much about the substance of the conditions than about the fact that ‘conditions’ have been made. In the case of a college they represent interference with academic autonomy. A few points directly refer to teaching and jeopardize the sovereignty of committees. We’re faced with the alternative of accepting or rejecting these ‘conditions’.” The extended senate agreed that the HfG must take a firm stand and be prepared for a worst-case scenario. Firstly, the HfG was to try and have the conditions changed to recommendations. Secondly, “if the Landtag, plenum, and government did not dispense with the blocking notice and if public subsidies were not available after January 1964, they must now consider whether and how the school (possibly on a reduced basis) could continue operating. This situation, which promised to be difficult, must be examined without delay and in particular it is necessary to examine how much money would be absolutely required and could possibly be raised in other ways. Mr. Maldonado reported that regular lecturBaptizing the new academic year, 25 Oct. 1963. Photos:Michael Penck Archive: HfG (Depositum 69/5 and 69/6)
the objective level to the level of polemic: “This is the first time in the history of the School of Design that conditions are tied to the availability of funds, partially putting pressure on c onstitutional sovereignty within the school and the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. […] But as soon as recommendations are changed to conditions, it is no longer possible to argue freely and to ac t of one’s own free will in the spirit of the recommendations. The School of Design is placed under a pressure that is below the dignity of an educational institution. It is being placed in a dilemma where it has to bow to outside pressure.” 1205 Yet even at the time the HfG was founded, both the Landtag and the Land government made their subsidy contingent on the administrative committee’s being transformed into the administrative council (with seats and votes for
ers and technical teachers currently working at the HfG had met and unanimously declared that in the event that public funds were cut they were willing to take all consequences that affected them p ersonally upon themselves.” Günther Schweigkofler did draw attention to the fact that the conditions were only known to them from the press and that before the college advisory bodies took a stand they should wait for the official documents first; moreover the Land’s contribution was a voluntary payment that could very well be tied to conditions. 1207 However, the members of the extended senate believed quite the reverse: that the situation could be saved only by taking the bull by the horns – a press statement to the public at large in which the entire faculty strictly rejected the imposition of conditions. 1208 On
321
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
Otl Aicher, 1965.
322
for that. A commission was to look into what steps would be necessary. 1212 If we look at the events of the years that followed, this determination to get along without public subsidies if necessary, appears to be lip service that sprang from the euphoria of a shared defiance. It is scarcely conceivable that the three leading HfG lecturers were completely aware of the consequences that would inevitably set in if the Land’s subsidy and, a few weeks later, the federal and city subsidy as well did in fact fail to materialize. It was something like a poker game, and they were just practicing how to play a bad hand well. – Otl Aicher also turned to the members of the advisory board with the HfG’s statement in order to mobilize them for the imminent adoption of the new foundation charter, and announced that the HfG would defend itself against this interference with its autonomy.1213 The price the HfG had to pay for the touchy public declaration was promptly announced on 15 November 1963 in the Schwäbische Donau Zeitung: “With an extremely biting statement, the chairman of the Landtag’s finance committee, member of parliament Kurt Angstmann yesterday reacted, in an interview with our Stuttgart representative, to the HfG’s declaration regarding the resolution of the politico-cultural and finance committees […]. Angstmann commented that if this
Photo:unknown Archive: HfG (65/0143/4)
13November 1963 the Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung printed this Position statement by the HfG on the conditions of the politico-cultural committee . As a result the energies that had until then been engaged in intra-college disputes were now directed at common targets: the politico-cultural committee, the Landtag, the Land government. This public declaration regarding the Landtag’s conditions contained several punch lines. For one, it was extremely awkward to refuse, in uncompromising terms, the demands of the Land politicians of which the HfG had only hearsay knowledge. Not even the foundation had so far been officially been informed by the ministry of education and the a rts. Secondly, it was also premature to take the floor without being asked, because as agreed it was the foundation that was responsible for issues that concerned relations to the outside world. The senate and Otl Aicher should have waited until they were asked to make a statement. They had not even informed the foundation that they had approached the press. Because the administrative council had been passed over, government representatives on the council felt attacked by the HfG, while at the same time they had to defend themselves in their ministries because of the attack. What carried the most weight was that they had the impression that they had been intentionally deceived. For the administrative council had met as recently as 11 November 1963 and invited Otl Aicher as a guest. Theodor Pfizer had clearly pointed out to him “that he should prevent protest rallies on the part of the college in order not to aggravate the tense situation in the Landtag even more. […] Mr. Aicher responds that things are not entirely in his power – it is not he, but the senate that determines what goes on at the school. But he says he will make an effort to stabilize the situation at the college.“1209 This response by Otl Aicher was a game of hide-and-seek, however, for in actual fact, in the sessions of the inner and the extended sen-
ate, he had been the driving force for an immediate public reaction. And his efforts by no means helped to stabilize the situation. Thorwald Risler, whose responsibilities were internal (as an employer) and external (in dealing with clients and officialdom), was outraged by Otl Aicher’s behavior. He now wanted to take disciplinary measures. “In the past, when the interest situation was the other way around, if there had been similar violations of loyalty toward the foundation, a summary dismissal for good reason would have been demanded.” (Here Thorwald Risler’s stand again becomes evident. For Otl Aicher it was totally unthinkable that he could act against the common cause, because he identified himself with the cause – L‘état, c‘est moi). “The completely arbitrary actions of the rector, which moreover went against the repeatedly and clearly expressed opinion of two members of the executive board and the administrative council, have created a situation I myself as managing chairman of the executive board am no longer able to control.” 1210 On the same day that the declaration appeared in the paper, the internal council of the HfG (Otl Aicher, Gert Kalow, Tomás Maldonado, Herbert Ohl, and Günther Schweigkofler) had a meeting. The administrative director summed up the result: “As the discussion continued, Messrs. Aicher, Maldonado, and Ohl unanimously and firmly agreed that the college could not put up with having pressure exerted on it. The college was not willing to give in to this pressure, they said, it was determined to do without public funds if need be.” 1211 They realized that the moment the Land blocked its subsidy as of 1 January 1964, the federal government and the city would also not pay any subsidies. Otl Aicher suspected that the HfG would have to struggle for one to two years to get over such a situation without any public money. People were willing, he said, to cut back the HfG program
Claude Schnaidt, 1963. Photo: Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (63/0335/2)
condition was rejected, he would fight to have the subsidy cut. […] He and many other members of parliament felt the HfG was not exactly behaving like a college when it allowed the disputes to go on and on instead of now working in peace and getting the best out of the La ndtag’s resolutions. […] The seven higher institutions of the Land, he said, […] had not stirred up nearly as much dust in the years between 1946 and 1963 as the HfG in Ulm had managed to do within a very short period. […] The HfG had done the most foolish thing it could possibly have done”, because it had immediately brought its protest before the public instead of first airing the arguments in private. Every one of those involved at the college and foundation now realized that Kurt Angstmann (SPD) was the spokesman of the HfG’s opponents, Harry Pross, 1963. Photo: Wolfgang Siol A rchive: HfG (63/0333/4)
besides Erich Ganzenmüller, the deputy chairman of the politico-cultural committee (CDU), and Karl Frank (FDP/DVP). Theodor Pfizer pointed out to Otl Aicher what a disservice he had done the HfG. He was afraid the damage could hardly be made good, because the chances of getting the subsidy released by 1 January 1964 were very poor. “I must tell you categorically that in the opinion of the administrative council you exceeded your competence as rector of the college by making this public statement. When the Landtag’s recommendations have been adopted by the plenum they will be directed to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung as the legal sponsor of the college. […] You can see that the administrative council considers close and good cooperation with the college to be important, because the council invited you as the rector to take part in its 11 November meeting. Because of your unauthorized behavior there is again great danger that after 1 January 1964 no more funds will be available for the college. This forces the administrative council to examine the consequences of your actions. The administrative council feels that what you did was an affront to its unanimous opinion and intention. […] I don’t want to conceal from you that the executive manager, Mr. Thorwald Risler, en joys the full confidence of the administrative council.”1214
323
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
Members /sessions of the general meetings of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung 1953–19681220
324
One really wonders what the responsible people at the HfG hoped to achieve by bringing their dispute before the public. The reason seems to have been that they were incapable of settling their differences internally. The person who was temporarily the weaker one felt the urge to go public with his perspective – but one gets the impression that this was not done in order to gain allies, but in order to hurt the institution as a whole so as to unsettle what existed at the time, and because the weaker person hoped to gain by unsettling things; he expected, if not to become stronger, then at least to weaken his stronger opponent, so that both parties would become equally weak again. The result was a constant weakening of the the institution as a whole. At the same session of the inner senate on 13 November 1963, when the public statement of the HfG regarding the Landtag conditions had been decided upon, the majority of its members also passed a vote of no confidence in Thorwald Risler because of the so-called Siemens Studio of Electronic Music : For some time Ulm had been receiving suggestions that a department of film education should be established at the HfG. The tasks, organization, and goals of this department had for a long time been the focus of pedagogical discussions. On 6 March 1963 the inner senate finally authorized the inclusion of film education in the HfG’s program. 1215 Five lecturers were to begin the work; for the time being, film education would be taught as part of the department of visual communication. One of the film lecturers,Edgar Reitz, had turned to Thorwald Risler during the 1963 summer break because he had heard that the Munich company Siemens & Halske wanted to give away its studio of electronic music at short notice. 1216 The studio, which had become known through the sound tracks of avant-garde films and through new compositions, was considered technologically unique in Europe, and was to be given away for economic reasons. “It’s obvious that this equipment would be extraordinarily valuable for our film and television plans, to say nothing of the gain in prestige this expansion might bring with it.” Thorwald Risler pointed out to Edgar Reitz that this question must first be discussed with the vice rector, because Otl Aicher was on vacation. Reciprocal visits by the Siemens staff at the HfG and by Tomás Maldonado and Otl Aicher in Munich followed. “The film department and the school administration unanimously showed strong interest in taking over the studio […]. Because of the positive attitudes of the college and of the film department, which was primarily interested, I now began direct negotiations with Siemens.”
For fiscal reasons the company wanted to sign over the studio quickly. “Siemens feels it is important that the HfG continue developing the equipment technically in close cooperation with Siemens itself, that there be the possibility of research in related fields (psychology, physics, etc.), and that opportunities for sound recording in the areas of film, radio, and television continue to be fully explored.” Expenditure for the technicians who would have to be taken on was DM 87,500 per year, and to date, at 50 percent capacity, the studio had received orders earning roughly DM 96,000 per year. At the beginning of October 1963 Thorwald Risler informed Otl Aicher about the latest developments of the negotiations; the contract of donation was planned for 18 October 1963, and in the inner senate Gert Kalow appeared to be satisfied because he had been working for a year towards having a recording studio come to the HfG for the training of the information students. 1217 Subsequently, on 8 October 1963, Otl Aicher wrote to Thorwald Risler: “I happened to hear that you are negotiating with Siemens about the recording lab. May I ask that you conduct negotiations in such a way that no substantive decision that needs to be made by the school is anticipated in any form.” 1218 Again there was a talk between the two protagonists. “Mr. Aicher raised no objections in this talk either [against Thorwald Risler’s preceding negotiations with Siemens ; author’s note].” The contract of donation between the foundation and Siemens about the studio of electronic music, valued at DM 500,000, was concluded on 18 October 1963. 1219 It is difficult to understand Otl Aicher’s real motivation for the escalation that now followed. Did he actually feel steamrollered by the fact that Thorwald Risler had accepted the gift in the name of the foundation? Was he really convinced that only a formal resolution by the HfG authorized the foundation to do so? Did he consider the Siemens studio to be the acid test that would show who determined the purpose of the foundation? Or did he want to use these events to demolish Thorwald Risler at the HfG and to compromise him in the eyes of industry? No definite answer can be found in the research material. – At the meeting of the administrative council on 11 November 1963 he openly protested against the donation of the Sie mens studio: “In Mr. Aicher’s opinion, the initiative for incorporating this type of facilities had to come from the college.” 1221 Then, on 12 November 1963, a letter to the members of the advisory board followed. And, at Otl Aicher’s suggestion, Thorwald Risler had been scheduled for a week to report on the studio to the inner senate on 13 November 1963. However, on 12 November 1963, Otl Aicher took this item off the agenda, so that Thorwald
General meeting
1
2
3
Date
24 .I.IV. 195 3
12 .V .V I. 19 63
2 8. XI XI .1 .196 3
A i ch ch e r- S ch ch o l G u t h er Ri s l er
A i ch e r- S ch ch o l G u t h er Ri sl er
Ai c he r
Ai ch er
Bi l l E ych mü l er G r z i mek P f ei l
Bi l l E yc hm hmül ler G r z i m ek P f ei l
Ze is c heg g
Zei s ch egg
Be ck er Bo u la n ger
Bec k er Bo ul a ng er
Cro n Do h rn Do n ndo rf G u s s on e
Do hr n Do nn do rf G us s on e
v . He He l in in gr gr at at h Hi n sc h
v .H .H el el li ng ng ra ra th th Hi ns c h
Kn obel P f iz er P f le ide rer S ch ch mö ld er Th u m a Th u n
Kno bel P fi z er P fl ei derer S ch ch mö mö ld er er Thu ma Thu n
Executive board
Advisory board
A dministrativecommittee (19 5 3 ) resp.administrative council (19 6 3 )
Ai Ai c he he rr- S ch ch o l
Aic h er Becker Bil l Eyc hmü l e r G r z i m ek P f ei l Thun Zei sc h egg
Beck er Burrmeister Cro n
Guther v . H el el lili ng ng ra ra th th Klasen P f i ze r Pf l ei derer
Th un
Risler did not appear, but he took up the topic again during the meeting. Günther Schweigkofler, a non-voting member of the inner senate, protested against this action, but without success. 1222 While Otl Aicher and Tomás Maldonado were interested in the idea of a studio, they felt that it was first necessary to work out (preferably in a commission) how it could be integrated in the HfG – possibly in a comprehensive institute of communication (encompassing film, information, and sound). Thorwald Risler, they believed, had arbitrarily created a fait accompli. In Otl Aicher’s opinion Thorwald Risler was trying to sever teaching from development, create separate institutes through the foundation, and replace the old lecturers. But, they maintained, the cultural functions were anchored in the HfG, while the foundation had been created only in order to support the HfG and its institutions, but not to establish institutes of its own. The Siemens studio was the first attempt to implement this new concept of a foundation. “He believed that it was up to the administration of the school to decide which institute it wanted to have here and which one it did not want, but its job was not to determine what to do or not to do with an institute that was introduced (by the foundation). We are not a junk room, he said, for stuff that other people give away and that is just dropped off here and represent a burden.” Tomás Maldonado, referring to gifts accepted by the HfG, reminded the inner senate of the fiasco involving the Research Center for Optical Perception. The debate ended as the meeting disapproved of Thorwald Risler’s action: “The rector and senate thus feel there is no longer a basis for cooperation with the managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board.“ Gert Kalow voted against this, while the remaining three members of the inner senate who were entitled to vote accepted the resolution. 1223 In terms of labor law this vote was litigable, but the foundation never got to the point of instituting legal proceedings before a labor court. Without delay and in the tone of voice of someone who had won an important preliminary round, Otl Aicher informed Thorwald Risler of the inner senate’s vote of no confidence. “May I also mention that I told the senate that I do not feel your unauthorized action is an isolated case, but see it as a symptom of your efforts, which have been made clear to me, to found institutes independent of the school, to separate teaching and development in such a way that the rector is only supposed to be in charge of the teaching part, and to gradually replace the old lecturers. As you know I am a firm opponent of a new concept that would give the foundation a higher expert competence it has not had until now – the sort of competence you have
325
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
326
exercised in this case. I shall resolutely defend the founding intention.“ 1224 Thus, in mid-November 1963, the two main plot lines of the year converged: first, the conflict with the Landtag regarding the review of the HfG’s eligibility for aid and secondly, the struggle around eliminating the advisory board and reformulating the purpose of the foundation as the bylaws of the foundation was revised. The two strands converged at the general meeting of the foundation on 28 November 1963. All members of the administrative council had previously supported the view that the purpose of the foundation should be formulated in such a way that the foundation would also be able to found institutions that worked on design-related research and development. “This was meant to create a basis to allow new institutions (e. g., the electronic studio made available by the Siemens company and the Ulm film department of the planned film and television academy) to remain autonomous and organizationally independent of the HfG. In this way it would be possible to keep the planned new institutes and their faculty from being drawn into the internal disputes of the HfG. Besides, with the projected guarantee of autonomy, presumably Mr. Gugelot would have been willing to make a closer commitment to the GSS than is the case now.” 1225 Otl Aicher refused to expand the purpose of the foundation to design-related projects that could be handled independently of the HfG. If the foundation, as Thorwald Risler imagined, also founded institutes that would exist apart from and not within the HfG, “the executive board would gain an authority that would be superior to that of the college.”1226 As for the second important item, Otl Aicher also rejected the draft version that was to be passed as the foundation’s charter at the general meeting: The new controlling body (the former administrative council – the future foundation‘s council), was to be made up as heretofore of seven representatives of government agencies and seven persons who would be appointed by the Society of Friends. Otl Aicher believed that there would then no longer be a connection between the HfG and the foundation: “It must be possible for the school to bring an influence to bear on the appointment of the executive board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, on changes in the charter and objectives, as well a s on decisions about the by-laws of the school.” But it was precisely this incompatibility of college and foundation levels and functions that was the main reason for reworking the foundation’s bylaws. One of the demands of the Landtag had been a revision of the bylaws. Otl Aicher wanted to circumvent this incompatibility by having the HfG directly appoint
the seven “free” representatives of the foundation‘s council. At the 22nd and last meeting of the administrative council on 11 November 1963 he clearly expressed his views: The HfG, he said, was the sole purpose of the foundation; additional institutions such as a film academy, the Gugelot Institute, or a Siemens studio were, for him, imaginable only as part of the HfG, and if so, the HfG’s initiative was always a precondition. 1227 In a matter like this, he did not agree to a compromise. Besides, the HfG must be represented in the future foundation‘s council, “for the school was the sole purpose of the foundation.” Otto Pfleiderer, the president of the Landeszentralbank (State Central Bank) in Baden-Württ Baden-Württemberg, emberg, answered that this was unacceptable because it implied a crossover of functions, the very thing that was supposed to be eliminated. Thus the general meeting of the foundation on 28 November 1963 truly did not appear to be promising.1228 Its purpose was to pass the future charter of the foundation. In order to do so it was given a draft by the bylaws commission of the administrative council. 1229 After Otl Aicher’s 8 November 1963 letter to the members of the advisory board, the latter passed a resolution backing the rector: The purpose of the foundation, they stated, must not be expanded, an administrator of the HfG was to be appointed, and half of the foundation‘s council was to be elected by the extended senate. 1230 The representative of the advisory board (Günther Grzimek) stood alone in the bylaws commission while the majority pushed through its opposing views on these points. That was why the draft b efore the general meeting for a change in the charter was not acceptable: “The advisory board rejects this proposal by a majority.” The administrative council would in reality continue in existence, the advisory board would simply be dropped while its functions would not be transferred as appropriate, the foundation would be allowed to found independent institutes, and would thus in effect be in a position of superior authority to the HfG, which it must not be allowed to have “without entering into competition with the school”. 1231 The advisory board therefore demanded that a new commission be formed and the general meeting not be convened – playing for time. The majority of the advisory board was morally supported by both sides. On the one hand Walter Gropius had vehemently urged Inge Aicher-Scholl on 22 November 1963 on no account to give in to the plans of the advisory board and of Thorwald Risler: “You invited me to be on the foundation‘s council of a foundation whose sole purpose was to run the School of Design and its institutions. One of the important things I have learned as a
teacher is that in an institute that advocates a programmatic idea the administration must never be given a superior position. The influence of the Ulm college here and abroad depends solely on its creative development, its unhindered growth. Responsibility for defining goals, regulations governing instruction, and their observation must be unequivocally in the hands of the teachers, while the administration should remain merely an aid to maintain order. An administration that is a higher authority becomes the straitjacket of the idea. 1232 Secondly, three of the five regular lecturers turned directly to the general meeting: “The school was founded, like the Bauhaus, on the basis of a specific cultural idea. It is a programmatic school. All its institutions, the school as well as the institutes of development and research, must serve this goal. With this type of concept a unified authority is logical. […] This position, which concentrates on a clear-cut goal, is behind the school’s international reputation – the ‘Ulm concept’. In our opinion it is therefore absolutely necessary that potential new institutions of the foundation be created only within the framework of the school, and that the purpose of the foundation be clearly formulated with this in mind.” An administrator such as the one proposed by the Three Wise Men was just as essential as a lawyer in the executive board of the foundation – the bylaws c ommission Martin Krampen, 1963. Photo:Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (63/0356/3)
had rejected both. In a second letter to the general meeting signed by most of the permanently employed employees of the HfG (except for Horst Rittel and Gert Kalow, both on leave, and Otl Aicher), the latter emphasized that Otl Aicher’s views in the Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung had not been a personal statement, but the unanimous opinion of the “regular faculty” of the HfG. “There is no longer a crisis today within the faculty; rather, a latent crisis of confidence has developed between the regular faculty and the managing chairman of
the foundation‘s executive board.” 1233 This referred to the inner senate’s vote of no confidence in Thorwald Risler on 13 November 1963 and the announcement that it would no longer cooperate with him. The internal opposition at the HfG was also heard from. The student representative Gudrun Otto held the view that the resolution of the current crisis must not break down because of the issue whether students should take part in electing the rector: “The actual value of student participation in electing the rector is, according to the bylaws now in effect, nothing but a democratic gesture in the bylaws against which we protest. The student representative would like to urge the managing chairman of the executive board and the chairman of the administrative council to distinguish between the opinions of the present fragmentary faculty and of the students in all the decisions you are about to make.” 1234 Gert Kalow, in a letter to Thorwald Risler, sharply objected to the inner senate’s v ote of no confidence and the letter from the permanently employed lecturers to the general meeting: “The inner senate of the HfG consists of five members [and the administrative director; author’s note]; two of the five are Rittel and I. How is it possible that ‘the entire regular faculty’ comes out with statements if neither Rittel nor Kalow know anything about it? […] Of the twelve, or rather thirteen gentlemen [Otl Aicher, who did not sign, is meant to be the thirteenth; author’s note], only four are actually long-standing lecturers, who can refer to themselves as regular faculty: Aicher, Maldonado, Ohl, Zeischegg […]. A document in which the names of Bill, Wachsmann, Bense, Leowald, Franzen, Podach, Lucius Burckhardt, Rübenach, Harry Pross, Vordemberge-Gildewart, Gugelot, and so many others are not mentioned at all? […] Mr. Aicher accuses you of having accepted a gift valued at one-half million DM from the Siemens company as the managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board (which financially sponsors the HfG). This accusation is beyond the limits of my comprehension. Aicher’s cause of action is beyond what I consider to be rationally understandable. In so far as relations between the GSS and the HfG are concerned, I can say the following: 1.) In the ‘Ulm bylaws’, which may have been written by Aicher himself, in the official charter of the G SS, there is nothing at all to indicate that the college is the sole purpose of the foundation, but at the same time, and on a par with the college, an institute is mentioned; 2.) during my time as a rector, in the face of my resistance and Rittel’s, Aicher maintained that within the framework of the GSS there should be design institutes that would be independent of the HfG. If I have to sum up my position in
327
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
one sentence, I must say there is grave danger that Mr. Aicher is going to destroy his own school. In the long run no public corporation can withstand the type of frequent and abrupt changes of course the HfG’s founders have expected of it and continue to expect of it.” 1235 So shortly before the general meeting, Thorwald Risler and Günther Schweigkofler too joined the general mobilization of typewriters and duplicating machines and worked out two statements from the perspective of the foundation’s executive and administration. As he took stock, Günther Schweigkofler, the administrative director, was full of bitterness. For the first time in its history, he wrote, there was no internal HfG crisis but rather a dispute between the foundation and the HfG. He felt the college was represented by Otl Aicher, Tomás Maldonado, Herbert Ohl, and Walter Zeischegg, who claimed they had a right to interpret the founding idea and therefore believed they were legitimately entitled to make decisions in the foundation and college. In their opinion it was the HfG that took precedence: “In the eyes of the group of founders, the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung was founded merely to be a corporate shell for the college. The foundation acts for the college, though only according to the wishes of the college […]. The managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board thus becomes the director of the college.” Otl Aicher’s conduct, to quote Günther Schweigkofler, made it imperative to dismiss him, but that was unthinkable, for it would set off a smear campaign. Instead, Inge Aicher-Scholl should again take over Thorwald Risler’s post beside Rector Otl Aicher, so that the founders would have to bear full responsibility. 1236
328
Peter Matthes, 1963. Photo:Wolfgang Siol A rchive: HfG (63/0306/4)
In his statement, Thorwald Risler again recalled the spring of 1963 when he was supposed to have a reconciliation with Otl Aicher mediated by Hellmut Becker. At the time, he wrote, he had proposed that Otl Aicher should be installed as rector, for he felt it was a flaw of the new HfG bylaws that the rector had to be elected. “As for the question of research and development, I referred to my experiences during financing negotiations with industry and government representatives. Both the important new clients and the members of the Landtag and the Bundestag said they were going along with doing things on a new basis [he means Thorwald Risler’s financing plan; author’s note] only because I believed I could promise, in contrast with the past, that there there would be a guarantee of continuity in terms of who filled the positions of administrative director, members of the administrative council, and the executive board of the Society of Friends. All negotiations, wrote Thorwald Risler, began with a question about the Bill crisis, and it was possible to conclude them posi-
tively only by substantiating the institution’s renewed creditworthiness. The experiences of recent years have been bitter. I would be willing to put aside my reservations about the overly biased rule of a single group if it remained limited to the sphere of teaching at the college. As far as that goes, it is also possible for the college to focus intellectually on a single predominant concept [of design] as long as in turn academic freedom is allowed in the realm of research and development.” Lecturers who might come into conflict with the school’s administration would have to be able to change over peac efully into research and development; new lecturers could first be given a probation period there before they were appointed to a position at the HfG. The former was a reference to Hans Gugelot, while the latter referred to complications involving Mervyn Perrine and Horst Rittel. Then, there were the heads of teams (for instance, Hans Gugelot, Otl Aicher) who were automatically part of the HfG leadership independent of change. “If the college must be granted a certain amount of lack of continuity, that was all the more reason to guarantee continuity for research and development.” And it was precisely because of its research and development that the HfG was recognized as a unique college in West Germany and in Baden-Württemberg – not because of the training it provided. The foundation as an independent, higher corporate body was the condition for receiving funds to do research and work on pro jects. “Besides, the possibility of receiving available state funds independent of the college budget was, for reasons related to budgetary law, tied to the existence of separate institutions.” The thing was that as long as the foundation received money from the college budget, it was in competition with the colleges and universities. Ever since Thorwald Risler tapped the other budgets, the HfG had been funded. However, these other budgets were tied to research and development, which needed to be independent of the college’s crises. “Mr. Aicher raised no objections, so that I left, convinced that we had largely been in agreement. A few days later, to my complete amazement, Mr. Aicher told me that the conversation in Wasserburg had been one of the most depressing experiences he had ever had. Since then, he has been agitating against these ideas, which we should be discussing. He keeps referring to ‘machinations to undermine the founding idea’. This interpretation of my ideas is all the more outrageous since the idea of setting up separate research and development teams originated with Mr. Aicher himself. […] When I came to Ulm, development projects were already being handled on a basis that was completely detached from the school administration.” The development teams, he went on, had increasingly isolated themselves the more the governing
boards were dominated by the scientists. “Since the school administration is largely identical with the heads of the development teams, the development teams must be incorporated in the school. If, as a result of new appointments, there is ever a school administration that is outside this direct influence, then no doubt an isolating protection will be required again.” Otl Aicher, he wrote, had always taken the liberty of disregarding the liberty of others. – At the beginning of the general meeting, Thorwald Risler announced that he would step down at the end of the year if the HfG lecturers who were present (Otl Aicher and Walter Zeischegg) did not dissociate themselves from the inner senate vote of no confidence in him, and if “by that time a concept that was acceptable in content and form was not found for continuing work”: Responsibilities must be clearly distributed among the executive board of the foundation and the HfG leadership, and the purpose of the foundation must be expanded to include design-related projects. 1237 The members of the administrative council then expressed their confidence in Thorwald Risler and their disapproval of the inner senate’s conduct. In addition Otl Aicher gave a satisfactory explanation. The actual discussion of the charter of the foundation could begin.
Josef Schlecker, Peter Raacke, 1963. Photos:Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (63/0309/1 and 63/0357/2)
Now a heated debate about the purpose of the foundation erupted (Section 3). The members of the advisory board, Otl Aicher, Inge Aicher-Scholl, Max Bill (with power of attorney for Fritz Pfeil), Günther Grzimek, and Walter Zeischegg, with their blocking minority, prevented acceptance of the proposed text that expanded the purpose of the foundation (three-fourths of the 22 members of the general meeting would have had to vote for it). The draft included a provision that the foundation was to have the power to “‘create additional insti-
tutions apart from the HfG, or to participate in institutions that were appropriate for serving research and development in the field of design, in the spirit of the founding purpose’”. 1238 Instead, the meeting accepted Otl Aicher’s proposal ruling out the founding of new institutes by the foundation. “The g overnment representatives therefore abstained from voting on the planned charter. For the same reasons, the managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board, Mr. Thorwald Risler, also refused to approve the new charter and announced that possibly under these circumstances he would hand in his resignation in due course. A member of the advisory board, the architect Eychmüller, also declared he was resigning from the advisory board in view of the rigid stance of some of the board members.” 1239 The elimination of the advisory board it-self was no longer a contentious issue at all. But when the meeting voted on the second controversial section, which regulated the membership of the foundation‘s council (Section 7), the proposed version was put through. Instead of the former 14 members, the foundation‘s council now had 12 members, half of whom basically would be government agency representatives, while the other half would come from the Society of Friends “in agreement with the HfG”: one representative each of the city of Ulm, the federal ministries of the interior and of economics, the ministries of finance, education and the arts, and economics of the Land of Baden-Württemberg, and 6 representatives of the Society of Friends. The representative of the German Federation of Trade Unions and the president ex officio of the Stuttgart State Central Bank were no longer represented on the foundation‘s council. In a letter to the general meeting, Hans Frieder Eychmüller later gave his reasons for resigning from office during the meeting: “Contrary to our hopes, the new charter was not a promising new beginning. In spite of serious compromises we included in the charter related to what is presently a troubled relationship between the school leadership and the foundation, the deep distrust of the school leadership toward the managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board was not been resolved. […] And so there is reason to fear that the struggle of the school leadership ag ainst the foundation’s alleged greed for power will continue. […] Since in past advisory board meetings I have repeatedly and completely unsuccessfully tried to convince the members of the advisory board who are opposed to the foundation that it is necessary to have a sensible conciliation, I have no hopes at all that any further meetings would make a difference. That’s why I resigned.” 1241 The elimination of the advisory board fulfilled one of the two essential Landtag c onditions (item 9).
329
The network of Ulm institutions 1953–1968 1240
1954
Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung GSS (Hans and Sophie Scholl Foundation)
195 5
195 6
19 57
19 59
196 0
bylaws 24 April 1953
6 March 1959
1 managing chairperson 9 advisory board members 14 administrative council members general meeting board of trustees
3 executive board members (1 managing chairman) 9 advisory board members 14 administrative council members general meeting board of trustees
statutes 17 December 1952 Gesellschaft der Freunde der 1 managing chairman Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung e.V. GdF (Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, members of the society reg.)
Hochschule für Gestaltung HfG (Ulm School of Design)
19 58
Posted notice 18 September 1954
Structure of rectorate bylaws 5 September 1955 24 May 1956
rector
recto r
rector
vice rector
lecturers
students
lecturers
students
19 6 2
19 63
statutes 28 November 1963 3 executive board members (1 managing chairman) 12 foundation‘s council members board of trustees
statutes 10 December 1956
statutes 5 December 1959
statutes 31May 1961
1 managing chairman
1 managing chairman
5 executive board members
1 secretary
1 secretary
members of the society
members of the society
members of the society
classes begin 3 August 1953
1961
bylaws 7March 1958
bylaws 15 December 1962 rector
vice rector
vice rector
governing board (5 members)
governing board (3 members)
inner senate
lecturers
assembly
inner council
extended senate
guest lecturers
extended council
departments
students
students
students
students
.............................................................................................................................................................................. Institut für Produktform resp.Institut für Produktgestaltung der HfG IfP (Institute of Product Design)
1October 1957 Hans Gugelot
E2 Hans Gugelot
Georg Leowald Walter Zeischegg
E3 Walter Zeischegg
............................................................................ Institute of
E5 Otl Aicher
until 30 September 1964
E6 Tomás Maldonado
until 30 September 1964
Industrialized Building Herbert Ohl
.............................................................................................................................................................................. Institut für Kommunikation der HfG (Institute of Communication) (planned)
D ev ev el el op op me me nt nt t ea ea m
O tl tl A ic ic he he r Research center for Optical Per ception Mervyn Perrine
..................................................................................................................................................................................................
......................................... Institute of Acoustic Perception
film
film (in process)
. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... sound studio
sound studio (in process)
Institut of Acoustic Research (planned to begin October)
statues 31January 1962 Institut für Produktentwicklung und Design e.v. IPD (Institute of Product Development and Design, reg.)
2 executive board members 7 members of the society 1 institute director staff
331
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
In order to meet the second important demand (that the lecturers be given equal status), section 14 of the HfG bylaws needed to be changed. That is why, a week later, on 5 December 1963, at the second reading of the state budget for 1964, the plenum of the Landtag of Baden-Württemberg resolved that the blocking notice for the Land subsidy totaling DM 600,000 should remain in effect and the politico-cultural committee should decide if and when this blocking notice should be removed.1242 So that teaching would not come to a standstill on 1 January 1964, the politico-cultural committee released part of the subsidy, a sum of DM 150,000, at its 92nd session on 16 December 1963.1243 Otherwise the foundation would have had to give notice to the lecturers and staff on 31 December 1963 effective 30 September 1964. Otl Aicher was confident that because of this first release of funds, the Land and federal subsidies would in the future also be regularly included in the budget: “I no longer have any worries on account of the Land subsidies to the HfG. They’re as good as guaranteed.” 1244 This view, however, quickly proved to be mistaken. The Land and federal politicians very soon called into question the subsidies by the public sector. Thus, only a few weeks later, a second application for the federal contribution for 1964 had to be submitted for the first time in years, because the budget committee of the Bundestag had struck this item from the budget draft.
332
Gui Bonsiepe, 1963. Photo:Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (63/0328/2)
Otl Aicher had once more gained the upper hand in a tenacious dispute. In 1957 and 1962 the crisis had been based in the HfG itself. Now he had managed to get the majority of HfG members behind him and asserted himself single-mindedly against the majority in the foundation. In spite of all professions of support on the part of members of the administrative council, Thorwald Risler felt abandoned, for when it had been important for the ministry officials to stand up steadfastly for their own views, they had shied away from openly settling differences. The situation had become impossible for him, and that was why even at the general meeting he suggested he would be leaving Kuhberg – not only because he saw no chance of substantial improvement for the foundation as long as it was tied to the HfG’s apron strings, but also because most HfG lecturers were openly opposed to him, and a new type of conflict was developing, as evinced by the inner senate’s vote of no confidence. On the other hand, Otl Aicher had proved to be the one protagonist who, with all his might and determination, with tactical cunning and resolution, sometimes even ruthlessness, had remained successful. He had made peace with Max Bill, allowing him to go on hoping that he could again work at the HfG in a leadership role – Max Bill was
worth 2 deciding votes in the advisory board, his own and that of Fritz Pfeil, whose deputy he was in the latter’s absence. He had accepted the fact that old friendships, for example, his friendship with Hellmut Becker, Max Guther, and Hans Frieder Eychmüller, were badly impaired. What was the price Otl Aicher had to pay for this work? If we don't count p ersonal problems (Otl Aicher fell ill the following year; old friends kept their distance), there is the heavy burden that from now on made relations with ministry officials in Stuttgart and Bonn very difficult. The officials were convinced that the changes Otl Aicher had prevented were necessary. They found the person of Thorwald Risler, whom Otl Aicher continued to disparage, convincing. And they increasingly regarded Otl Aicher’s conduct since 1962 as inappropriate. Like Max Guther, they believed that since that time Otl Aicher had equivocated a great deal in order to push through his ideas at the HfG: “Prof. Guther is horrified at the Aichers’ zigzag maneuvers, and in view of the circumstances he is on the point of resigning his office, even at the risk of jeopardizing his friendship with the Aichers.” 1245 At the same time it was they who daily had to defend the subsidies of their ministries as correct. Their conviction and their enthusiasm about the HfG had now given way to disenchantment, resignation, and even disapproval. Perhaps as time went on Otl Aicher could have again won over the important officials – Karl Gussone, Wolfgang Donndorf, and Günther Boulanger – and persuaded them once more to support the cause of the HfG with all their energy. But up to 1965 he did not devote himself to this task, and when he subseWalter Jens, 1963. Photo:Wolfgang Siol Archive: HfG (63/ 0340/2)
quently pulled out of the HfG, there was a gaping hole into which the school then plunged. The network of helping hands created by Inge AicherScholl, Hellmut Becker, and Thorwald Risler began to tear, and the damage was so serious no integrating power could repair it. Exactly four years later, on 5 December 1967, the HfG was in a situation best described by Wolfgang Donndorf in the following two sentences: “The council of ministers of the Land of Baden-Würt-
the most important protagonists of the past years distanced themselves; the foundation‘s council took over the work of the administrative council; the foundation became increasingly embroiled in financial and organizational difficulties.
The Institute of Electronic Music. Photo: Ernst Stritzinger Archive: HfG (67/0420)
temberg, which wishes to preserve the School of Design because of its unique character and its significance, at its session of 5 December 1967 came out strongly in favor of the Ulm School of Design being affiliated or incorporated in the state School of Engineering in Ulm, and has petitioned the ministry of education and the arts to study at its earliest convenience in what form this can be implemented and what expenses it would involve for the Land. […] The Landtag of Baden-Württemberg, in the 2nd reading of the state budget for 1968 on 7 December 1967 adopted this resolution of the council of ministers and has requested that the ministry of education and the arts give its report by 1 March 1968 at the latest.” 1246 What brought about this sellout? It would be dishonest to offer a single handy answer. We will find a reasonable explanation when we understand the following main points of developments through December 1967: The dispute between Otl Aicher and Thorwald Risler continued;
Re item 1: The continuing debate between Otl Aicher and Thorwald Risler. With its vote of no confidence, the inner senate had erected a blockade between the leadership of the HfG and the foundation‘s executive board that was not cleared away in spite of all appeals and threats of sanctions. For reasons pertaining to labor law, Thorwald Risler felt the HfG lecturers were out of line, because as employees of the foundation they were under an obligation to be loyal to and cooperate with the foundation’s statutory bodies. Otl Aicher and the inner senate, however, delayed retracting their censure with endless discussions about the interpretation of shades of meaning, while Thorwald Risler finally broke with the foundation and turned toward a new career. This plot began to develop on 19 December 1963, when Otl Aicher demanded of Theodor Pfizer that a commission should first inquire into Thorwald Risler's conduct in connection with the Siemens studio before anyone thought of revising the senate resolution. 1247 For actually, said Otl Aicher, it had been Thorwald Risler who by his high-handed actions put an end to cooperation with the HfG. Theodor Pfizer responded that first the resolution had to be retracted and cooperation resumed before they could think of an inquiry. 1248 The bone of contention – the question whether the foundation’s executive board had had the authority to accept the Siemens gift without being formally sanctioned by the HfG – could easily have been cleared away. But this was not simply about a question of procedure. It concealed more farreaching consequences. By preventing the integration of the Siemens studio (also referred to as the Studio für Elektronische Ton- und Bildgestaltung (studio for electronic sound and image production), or Studio für Klangforschung (studio for acoustic research)), Otl Aicher achieved three objectives: 1. He succeeded in preventing the foundation from expanding by forming institutions. Moreover, the efforts of the film lecturers, whom this technical equipment could have helped considerably and who had tried for some time to organize an autonomous department (which would be financed independently of the HfG, because they did not want to become dependent on it), were aborted.1249 2. He prevailed over the foundation‘s council, the
333
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
Meetings of the HfG’s inner senate and extended senate 1962–1968 1253
statutory body whose actual function it was to develop objectives, and over the foundation’s executive board. At the same time he proved that his claim that the HfG should take precedence over the foundation was valid. 3. Thorwald Risler, who was under a moral obligation to Siemens , sustained damage to his personal reputation in the eyes of industry – to say nothing of future cooperation with the HfG.
334
Left: AbrahamMolesat a Wednesday seminar on the topic Is there an information theory of objects? on 10 June 1964. Right: Kohei Sugiura 1964.
Theodor Pfizer, the chair of the foundation‘s council, no doubt had this kind of independence above the tangle of circumstances, but lacked the courage and determination to bring about a powerful decision. He continued a policy of wrongly interpreted diplomacy and let things take their course. Hellmut Becker tried on 28 March 1964 to urge Theodor Pfizer to act: “If something about the behavior of the foundation doesn’t suit the rector or the inner senate, they can appeal to the foundation‘s council at any time, but it is legally indefensible that the necessary contact is blocked by selfhelp measures. […] If Mr. Aicher demands declarations from Mr. Risler for relations to be resumed once more, the answer must be no.” Only after the senate had retracted its resolution and relations were back to normal should the foundation‘s council deal with the HfG’s logistical reservations regarding the Siemens studio.1252 But de facto the foundation had become superfluous for the HfG as of 13 November 1963 because after that date its hardest-working functionary, Thorwald Risler, now carried on those of his activities that were related to industry, Land politics, and federal politics only at a low level. For he in turn felt that any effort under these circumstances was a waste of his energy. Back at the general meeting on 28 November 1963 he had come to the obvious conclusion and, on 12 December 1963, in a letter to Klaus Dohrn, he repeated his intention to wind up his work on Kuhberg sooner or later. 1254
On 15 January 1968 the HfG’s inner senate resolved to retract the vote of no confidence as soon as two conditions were met: Thorwald Risler would have to declare a) that the inner senate should have a say about the affiliation of the Sie mens studio, and b) that the sole purpose of the foundation was the HfG and the institutions affiliated with it. 1250 Thorwald Risler, on the other hand, like Theodor Pfizer before him, demanded that they do the opposite: “The 15 January senate decision does not permit a direct and fair settlement. One cannot link the retraction of a formally illegal measure with a demand for a declaration that contravenes the spirit and text of the bylaws. The material problems, I am sure, can be easily resolved if the formal violation represented by the 13 November 1963 senate resolution is recognized as such and is eliminated.” 1251 These pros and cons demonstrate the extent to which the two protagonists were trapped by circumstances. Thorwald Risler argued that the senate resolution was wrong. He demanded that the senate resolution should first be revoked so as to reestablish a comThorwald Risler brought about the final decision in mon basis and make it possible to discuss the April 1964. A meeting of the executive board of matter. Otl Aicher argued that it was Thorwald Risthe Society of Friends was scheduled for 27 April
inner senate 1 2 3 4
31. I.1963 16. II.1963 6. III.1963 19. VII. 1963
—
1963/64
5 2. X.1963 6 13. XI.1963 7 11. XII.1963 8 15. I.1964 9 4. III.1964 10 6.V., 12.V., 21.V. + 1.VI.1964 11 3. VI.1964 12 9. IX.1964
2
3 4
11. VI.1964 25. IX.1964
( reg. ) ( reg. )
1964/65
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
19. X.1964 3. XI.1964 27. I.1965 10. II.1965 17. III.1965 28. IV.1965 11. I.1965 9. VI.1965 21. VI I. 1965 27. VI I. 1965 9. IX.1965
5
15. X.1964
(reg.)
1965/66
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
6. X.1965 3. XI.1965 10. XI.1965 25. XI.1965 13. XII. 1965 2. II.1966 25. II.1966 27. IV.1966 17. V.1966 8. VI.1966 6. VII. 1966 8. VII. 1966 9. IX.1966
6
5. XI.1965
(reg.)
7
13. XI I. 19 65
( reg .)
8
29. IV. 1966
( reg. )
9
2 8. IX. 19 66 ( sp ec .)
37 38 39 40 — 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
7. X.1966 4. XI.1966 2. XII.1966 12. I. 1967 7.I I.1967 10. II.1967 20. II.1967 17. III.1967 5. V.1967 1 2. / 1 3. V I . 19 67 14. VI I. 1967 22. IX.1967
— 48 49 50 51 52 53
6.X.1967 18. X.1967 15. XI.1967 13. XI I. 1967 25. I.1968 19. VI.1968 11. XI.1968
1966/67
1967/68
Photos: Roland Fürst Archive:HfG (64/0479/4 and 64/0676/4)
ler’s conduct that was wrong. He d emanded that the matter should first be decided so that there could again be a basis for cooperation and the resolution could then be retracted. In other words, Thorwald Risler emphasized the basic procedure, independent of the specific occasion, while Otl Aicher focused precisely on the specific occasion, which exemplified the basic procedure. In other words, the head of the foundation thought deductively, while the rector thought inductively. Only an outside force could have untied this Gordian knot.
1964. This group represented Thorwald Risler’s power base, since the foundation‘s council had not taken the clear stance he would have wished. 1255 In the paper he prepared for this meeting he observed that the Society of Friends “had been badly affected for the last year and a half by the crisis caused by internal disputes of the School of Design. Every activity of the Society of Friends in initiating or continuing financing negotiations with industry has since then been made more difficult or completely stopped by inner insecurity as dis-
extended senate
1962/63
2 0. XI I. 19 62
( reg .)
16.V.1963 (spec.)
10 —
23. X.1963 (reg.) 7.XI.1963 (spec.)
23. I.1967 ( reg. ) 7. II.1967 ( spec. )
11
2 3. II .19 67
( reg .)
12
17. X.1967
( reg. )
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
13 . XI I. 19 67 12. I. 19 68 19 . II .19 68 2 0. I II .19 68 2 5. I V. 19 68 2 7. V. 19 68 12 . VI I. 19 68 2 3. V II . 19 68
( sp ec . ) ( sp ec .) ( sp ec .) ( sp ec .) ( sp ec .) ( sp ec .) ( re g. ) ( sp ec . )
reg. regular meetin g spec. special meeting
putes continued and by the loss of good will. As far as the income of the Society of Friends is concerned, the effects are so devastating that, for instance, expenses incurred by the society in employing me and activities related to that are no longer covered.” Because of this the foundation was not able to expand as planned in 1963, he said; the result was that there was a shortage of about DM 80,000 for the rest of the lecturers’ houses, money they had counted on. In 1963 the foundation had had a loss of about DM 160,000, because considerable expenditures that had not been provided for in the budget became necessary for HfG publicity (particularly relating to the traveling exhibition); but the foundation was able to offset this result against a profit of ca.DM 80,000, so that the books showed a debit of about DM 80,000. The current status of negotiations, he said, was that thanks to the “joint efforts of members of the foundation‘s council and the administrative director it was possible to save the state subsidies at least in principle”. When, in 1959, Thorwald Risler had b een recruited for the post of managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board, “the small circle of contributors in trade and industry consisted, except for the Braun company, of enterprises that had primarily responded to Mrs. Inge AicherScholl’s publicity for political and humanitarian, not for professional reasons. At that time one of the most important objections when the foundation attempted to secure state subsidies or increase them was that industry had a wait-and-see attitude or even a negative one.” That is why, said Thorwald Risler, he had pushed the soliciting of development projects instead of continuing to collect donations. “We did manage not only to successfully work on development projects but also to bring in donations, though with the express mutual proviso that the pedagogical sphere had to be financed by the ministry of education and the arts. […] The fact that we c ould prove that industry was involved on a practical level was, as you all know, the most important argument in winning parliamentary majorities for increasing subsidies by the ministry of education and the arts and the federal ministry of the interior.” His successes, he said, were not reflected in increased donations raised by the Society of Friends, but in commissions and subsidies that went straight into the foundation’s budget, or in gifts in kind ( Siemens ) that increased the foundation’s assets. Only Otl Aicher and Hans Gugelot had managed, because of their personal achievements, to keep development teams successfully occupied. “In connection with commission work, deep ‘social’ differences have developed, and the claim made by the so-called ‘old’ faculty members that they had exclusive rights to work on commercial orders was an even stronger
335
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
336
factor in the formation of castes.” The only one to be spared the crisis of 1962/63 had been Hans Gugelot, whose development team was separate from the HfG. “Thus the practical course of events has borne out the thesis once also held by Mr. Aicher that one of the most important conditions for successful development work is to be as far away as possible from events in the college.” The only “chances for external and internal development” he saw for the future were “in resolutely building up research and development. I feel such chances are realizable only if a structure is found that is protected from manifestations of crisis at the HfG – and those will keep recurring regularly as long as the existing core personnel structure remains unchanged.” He emphasized more strongly than half a year earlier that the HfG must stimulate the progress of research and development, because colleges of art and Werkschulen (arts and crafts schools) had developed their own design classes. If the HfG focused on advanced and postgraduate studies, it could provide new justification for its special position, which was now seriously at risk. “For this task a prerequisite would be a well developed, stable institute that would offer credible protection against new witch-hunts and full academic freedom. […] In order to get industry to make a complete commitment, however, a very attractive program with expanded course offerings would have to be developed over and above the safeguarding of the institute.” He proposed that this institute should begin with the tasks of the department of film design and of the Siemens studio, and that the facilities of the Research Center for Optical Perception should be integrated. The institute would have to be independent of the HfG, because the rector of the HfG (necessarily a designer) could have no right to give instructions to the scientists because he lacked the expert knowledge. According to Thorwald Risler, the Volkswagen Foundation and the Fritz Thyssen Foundation were interested in this farreaching concept. “But no doubt it is probably to be expected that the implementation of such a vast new plan would meet with the bitter resistance of the ‘founders’. There is the question as to what extent, from a purely legal standpoint, such a resistance would be relevant; but apart from that it will be difficult to persuade the foundation‘s council to support such a plan, since understandably there is fear of new complications. […] On the other hand, I believe new sources of financing cannot possibly be found without a new plant. If a new plan is not evolved, the activity of the Society of Friends and by analogy the work of the executive board of the foundation would logically have to be limited to preserving the existing state of affairs, which would be in keeping with the present ideas of the ‘founders’.” Thorwald Ris-
ler sent the same comments to the foundation‘s council for its 15 June 1964 meeting. 1256 The chairmen of the Society of Friends decided not to take on the HfG. Hellmut Becker had spoken with Otl Aicher the night before and advised against such a step: “The quintessence of Mr. Aicher’s remarks allegedly was that the only solution he could see was Mr. Risler’s resignation. In view of the totally muddled situation he, Mr. Becker, said he felt it was hardly possible to convince the foundation‘s council to make resolutions or engage in actions that would go against the declared intention of the Aichers. Since no one wanted to risk a new public scandal, he could only plead that they should jointly look for suitable work and a position for Mr. Risler and then as soon as possible, but by 31 December 1965 at the latest, to retire him from his position as the foundation’s executive board‘s managing chairman. Dr. Dohrn emphasized that considering the current attitude of the people who, in the final analysis, were “subsidized”, it was logical to discontinue additional help from the private sector.” Thorwald Risler, he added, should for the time being attend to obligations that had developed in connection with the institute of Hans Gugelot (an independent incorporated association, which soon had to be transformed into a corporation because of its profits), the Siemens studio, and the film department, until they were all able to stand on their own feet. 1257 The foundation‘s council was thus spared the unpleasant situation of having to decide on one of the directions in which the two ad versaries wanted them to go. Full of resignation, Hellmut Becker, who pulled all the strings, had given Thorwald Risler the signal for retreat. Now the leading lecturers (Otl Aicher, Tomás Maldonado, Herbert Ohl, and Walter Zeischegg) took the offensive again. In a memorandum to the foundation‘s council they demanded that the Institute of Product Design should be completely integrated into the HfG: “A separation of the HfG and the Institute of Product Design would cause irreparable damage. The design concept of the HfG becomes effective precisely within the framework of the Institute of Product Design in that the lecturers of the HfG carry out research and development work in this institute. […] According to the HfG’s founders, teaching and research should form an integrated whole that should be implemented in practice by having the same personnel employed in both institutions. If the Institute of Product Design were to be operated separately from the HfG and with different personnel than that of the HfG, this would be inconsistent with the original idea and the legal de facto situation.” In addition they defended their views on the Siemens studio and the inner senate’s vote of no confidence: “The decision of the
Ernst Bloch, 1964. Photo: Roland Fürst Archive: HfG (ohne Negativ. Bloch)
managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board to take over this lab was done on his own initiative and is thus contrary to practices a vailable to the managing chairman and the school direction for resolving this type of problem. The decision is also a violation of the foundation’s old and new bylaws and flouts the rules and regulations that govern relations between the managing chairman and the direction of the school. […] We believe that this detailed account was necessary in order to explain the reason for the vote of no confidence against Mr. Risler.” 1258 While the foundation‘s council, at its second meeting on 15 June 1964, objected to this behavior on the part of the HfG lecturers, it did not muster the energy to express its disapproval and take the appropriate steps. Theodor Pfizer and Hans
Zumsteg, the new member of the foundation‘s council, wanted to soothe Otl Aicher and Thorwald Risler and gain time. However, they misjudged the seriousness of the situation, because time was running out for the foundation. The longer the foundation, or rather the group that developed the foundation’s objectives – its foundation‘s council – was concerned solely with internal business and became embroiled in disputes with the HfG in the process, the less time remained to think about a promising financing plan, which really needed to be addressed. One could hardly expect this of Hans Zumsteg because he had just come on board, but Theodor Pfizer must surely have known what a huge share (from a psychological and argumentative as well as from a financial perspective) was constituted by the contributions of industry – donations and commissions – to the foundation’s budget. How was this money to be brought in after Thorwald Risler’s departure? Although the foundation‘s council had unanimously approved Thorwald Risler’s plan to expand the purpose of the foundation, its members were incapable of transforming their insights into action. With a tolerance worthy of a Solomon they noted that by exonerating the executive board for 1963, the gift of the Siemens studio had been approved. Also it was resolved that the inner senate had no authority to express a vote of no confidence. And since things that are not supposed to happen are impossible, the inner senate’s vote, they said, was also nonexistent. There was no longer any need to retract it. Both sides were admonished to resume cooperation at once. Also the foundation‘s council noted that “the statutes of the Geschwister-SchollStiftung leave every opportunity open in the question whether independent institutes should be created. The foundation‘s council reserves the right to make a decision of principle on how a possible dovetailing of independent institutes and the college might be implemented.” Otl Aicher, who sat in on the meeting as a guest, did not comment on these resolutions and took it upon himself to inform the inner senate so that they could give their position. 1259 The reaction of the inner senate came two weeks later: a complaint addressed to Theodor Pfizer as the chairman of the foundation‘s council demanding that a fact-finding commission be appointed. First of all, the inner senate stated, contrary to the foundation’s statutes, according to which no new institute could be founded, there was already a new institute of that type, namely, the Siemens Studio of Electronic Music. “The sole purpose of the foundation is the HfG and the Institute of Product Design, which on the other hand is linked in substance with the HfG and consists of its development teams and the Institute of Industrialized Building. An institute that stands outside
337
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
338
“A School of Design whose mission is to develop better products and better information […] is still in an isolated position today.
these institutions jeopardizes the pedagogical and cultural conception for the sake of which the foundation was created; it could, if appropriate, work only within the framework of the HfG or the Institute of Product Design. Its present status is inconsistent with the bylaws.” Secondly, they stated that in this connection Thorwald Risler had violated the HfG bylaws: “The lab for electronic music was attached to the foundation without consulting the inner senate.” And thirdly he was “planning to detach the Institute of Product Design from its
That was quite clear judging by the reaction of one segment of the press, though not so much of this city, to fairly normal disputes within our school. We find that people don’t understand us, misunderstand us.“
Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft in Essen. On 13 August 1964 he asked Theodor Pfizer to accept his resignation at year’s end. 1261 Thorwald Risler was not the only person who felt there was nothing holding him on Kuhberg anymore. One by one most of the leading figures of the past years gave up their commitment to the HfG, while the foundation did not find similarly committed and successful people to replace them. The long list of those who turned their back on The second stop of the traveling exhibit of the HfG: The Neue Sammlung in Munich, 11 May–17 June 1964.
Otl Aicher in his address at the official opening, 11 May 1964.
Visitors in Munich. Photos:Roland Fürst Archive:HfG (64/0403/1 and 64/0397/2)
had brought him to Ulm, was involved in this appointment as well. 1263 Along with Thorwald Risler, his closest colleague, administrative director Günther Schweig kofler, also left Kuhberg as of 15 January 1965 after an April 1964 announcement; one of the positions he held subsequently was at the Odenwaldschule.1264 On 23 October 1963, in the middle of the conflict with the rest of the world, Otl Aicher was elected rector for a second term (1 October 1964 Otl Aicher, 1965. Photo:unknown Archive: HfG (65/0135/3)
Photo:Roland Fürst A rchive: HfG (64/0393/4)
close substantial ties with the HfG. This, too, is inconsistent with the cultural and pedagogical conception that led to the founding of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, and would be a violation of a right established by years of tradition and decisions by the school’s direction, against which the foundation has never protested before.” 1260 Was the HfG really still the foremost concern of its members’ thought and action? One can’t help thinking that the development had been detached from the thing itself and had assumed a dynamic of its own, which should be described as demoralization, dogmatism, and stubbornness. Thorwald Risler at any rate no longer saw any sense in what he was doing for the HfG, and, at the end of July 1964, agreed to terms of employment with the
Ulm had begun with Hans Frieder Eychmüller, one of the Ulm friends who had been there from the very beginning. He resigned from the advisory board as far back as 28 November 1963. At the third meeting of the foundation‘s council on 13 July 1964, Thorwald Risler announced that he hoped to get a new job. He made one more recommendation, which was implemented, though unintentionally: “It seemed quite possible, he said, that the foundation could get along without a managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board if its activity was geared to consolidating what had been achieved and not on further expansion.” 1262 On 1 January 1965 he began working for the Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft as the association’s director and head of their central administration. Hellmut Becker, who
through 30 September 1966) by the HfG’s extend ed senate. (The election of the rector, according to the new bylaws, had to be carried out one year in advance, and the term was two years.) He did not decide to run until the morning of the election day, and received eight out of twelve votes. 1265 Tomás Maldonado received only three votes (1 abstention), and was extremely indignant about this result. After hoping earlier that he would become rector, he now had to get used to the idea of being vice rector for two more years. 1266 But then, unexpectedly and as if in answer to his prayer, it did happen, because Otl Aicher announced on 18 June 1964 that he could not serve his second term in office due to poor health. 1267 – One is struck by the fact that Otl Aicher announced he was resigning from office (18 June 1964) directly after it was definite that Thorwald Risler was resigning (15 June 1964). No doubt the health reasons were weighty. And yet, when Otl Aicher resigned, his struggle for all his ideas, to implement which he had even been willing to accept that the entire institution would be in jeopardy, became questionable. In the end it looked as though, in the lengthy dispute with Thorwald Risler, his only concern had been to prevail. Starting 30 September 1964, Otl Aicher also gave up his development team, the famous e5, and from then on only worked in his private office. 1268 He did continue working as a lecturer at the HfG until the end. In October 1966, he was chosen to be project designer for the 1972 Munich Olympic games. This new job was a novel, extremely satisfying sphere of activity for him, absorbing most of his energy (and the result of his work catapulted him to the international summit
of graphic designers). Though he still belonged to the HfG, he was apparently done with it after 1965. When he left, the HfG lost its most important driving force, stimulus, and motivator. 1269 The rectorship of Tomás Maldonado October 1964 through September 1966 After Otl Aicher’s resignation Tomás Maldonado was elected rector by the extended senate on 25 September 1964 for a term running from 30 September 1964 to 1 October 1966 (six votes for him, one invalid, three abstentions). 1270 In this election there was practically only the possibility of deciding in favor of Tomás Maldonado or Herbert Ohl, for Gerd Kalow and Horst Rittel left the HfG at the beginning of the new academic year, Otl Aicher automatically became vice rector for a year in accordance with HfG bylaws, and Walter Zeischegg had declared that he would not run for office – and those were all the design lecturers eligible for rectorship. “Mr. Kalow asked to make the following observation regarding the last time he had attended a meeting: He said he regretted that the HfG’s policy was now such that no larger electoral panel was available, that a number of lecturers had fewer rights, and there were no laws that stood above persons. […] He could not help remarking that he thought this election was almost a farce.” Thorwald Risler, who was still managing chairman of the foundation’s executive board until the end of the year, doubted whether the board would be able to confirm this election: “In the current situation the board’s approval of the election, which is necessary according to the bylaws, is especially important. In the intra-faculty disputes during the past years, in the attacks of lecturers who have left in the meantime and of some of the students, and in subsequent discussions in the press and in the Landtag the person of Maldonado played a special role. This role was also examined in statements made at confidential sessions of the administrative council […]. As one of the few personnel-related conclusions of their deliberations, the Three Wise Men recommended that Mr. Maldonado be dismissed. Both the new structure of a faculty hired because they met higher standards and the future human climate in the college will be greatly burdened in the near future by a Maldonado rectorship.” 1271 Thorwald Risler’s new colleagues on the executive board, Walter Erbe, the Land politician, and Hans Zumsteg, an Ulm businessman, shared his misgivings, for this and another reason: “The extended senate as the electoral body of the HfG, they said, had a total of 18 votes if all 15 plannedfor lecturer positions were filled. Because the positions had not been filled, only ten persons who were entitled to vote participated in the 25 September election. Therefore in the view of Messrs.
339
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
Erbe and Zumsteg, it did not make much sense to confirm Mr. Maldonado as a normally elected rector. They said they accepted the fact that Mr. Maldonado had been elected, but only in the sense that he carries on the business of the rector until a regular election can take place after all planned positions are filled. Along these lines, they said, they pleaded that no confirmation in the normal sense be expressed, but that Mr. Maldonado merely be confirmed as a managing rector on the basis of the election results.” 1272 But the executive
340
Left: Werner Wirsing, Tomás Maldonado, Rodolfo Bonetto at the board meeting of the Baden- Württemberg Werkbund at the HfG, 18 Jan. 1965. Photo:Klaus Werner Archive: HfG (ohne Negativ. Wirsing)
Right: The second Baden-Württemberg Werkbund meeting at the HfG. About 150 members attended events on 2 and 3 July 1965. Photo: Herbert Pée Archive: Südwestpresse
board had to put aside its misgivings. The confirmation of the rector by the executive board p rovided for in the HfG bylaws was intended to be merely legal supervision; the orderly carrying out of the electoral procedure could not be questioned.1273 Tomás Maldonado was confirmed as rector by the foundation’s executive board on 8 December 1964. 1274 It was only with great difficulty that Otto Pfleiderer, the president of the Baden-Württemberg State Central Bank, had been persuaded by Theodor Pfizer to agree – but just for a year – to be a member of the foundation’s council in spite of his reluctance. Now that the year was over, he was on the verge of resigning from office although in the course of the year the foundation‘s council had not managed to come up with a successor. Theodor Pfizer begged him to wait: “Of course you agreed to accept the appointment to the foundation‘s council of the School of Design for this year only. But for me it is not a very pleasant situation if Mr. Risler and Mr. Schweigkofler, both representing the administration, leave, Mr. Aicher resigns from his rector’s position – something he’s already done – and you, Mr. Becker, and maybe other people leave the foundation‘s council.” 1275 For Hellmut Becker, too, had definitively resigned all his foundation-related offices, effective 31 December 1964, on 3 September 1964 when he moved from Kreßbronn on Lake Constance to Berlin, where he had been appointed as the first director of the Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (Max Planck Institute of Educational research).1276 He resigned from the foundation‘s council, the executive board of the Society of
Friends, the Society of Friends itself, and from the Institute of Product Development and Design. “I don’t want to conceal from you personally that one contributing factor in this decision is the fact that cooperation between the a dministrative staff I introduced and the designers has proved to be impossible. […] My personal friendship with Otl Aicher and Inge Aicher-Scholl, too, remains unaffected by this step, although – as you were aware – I was very often not in agreement with Mr. Aicher’s behavior in recent years.” Hans Gugelot, who together with Otl Aicher (and initially, it goes without saying, with Max Bill) formed the first rank of the HfG designers, had of course already withdrawn into his institute, sickened by the turmoil of 1962, and had been concentrating on client orders. Effective 31 August 1965 he transformed this institute from a nonprofit association into a commercial company, because the nonprofit character of the association no longer applied. His business had already been officially accredited but had not yet been entered in the Neu-Ulm commercial register when Hans Gugelot had a heart attack and died on 10 September 1965 at the age of 45. 1277 The association (the Institute of Product Development and Design ) was disbanded by members of the association on 18 January 1966. 1278 Tomás Maldonado, the first in the second rank of the HfG, terminated his institute activity, the e6, which had been in existence since 1958, effective 30 September 1966. 1279 Nine months later, on 30 June 1967, he also ended his teaching activities as a lecturer and left the HfG. 1280
It had, of course, been passed by the general meeting on 28 November 1963 against his will. The new foundation‘s council, however, had to be constituted quickly so that the foundation would again become capable of acting vis-à-vis the Land and the federal government – after all, they needed to get the Land to release the funds for 1964 as soon as possible. On 10 December 1963, speaking to Klaus Dohrn, Otl Aicher insisted that the independent members of the foundation‘s council could be appointed by the executive board of the
of the Society of Friends, the executive board of the Society of Friends and Mr. Aicher or the inner senate this time confront each other without the buffering layer of municipal and ministry representatives, who usually soften in the long run.” 1282 And that is exactly what happened: Klaus Dohrn did not deviate from the wording of the foundation’s statutes and the minutes of the general meeting by one iota. Both documents clearly stated that the decision was up to the Society of Friends: “A right of the college to take upon itself the appointment Mia Seeger and Tomás Maldonado during a visit by the German Design Council in December 1964. Photo: Roland Fürst A rchive: HfG (64/0672/2)
Eberhard Schnelle at a Wednesday seminar on Information and organization , 1964. Photo:Roland Fürst Archive :HfG (64/0591/1)
Now, going back to December 1963, let us look at the foundation‘s council, the new supervisory body of the foundation. The foundation’s new statutes were authorized by the regulatory authority, the ministry of education and the arts, on 4 January 1964, effective on that date. 1281 In filling the six member positions of the foundation‘s council, which were to be appointed by the Society of Friends “in consultation with”, not in agreement with the HfG, Otl Aicher tried to circumvent this regulation of the statutes.
Society of Friends only “in agreement” with the HfG’s direction: “The term used in the statutes, ‘consultation’, was chosen for the optical effect.” In addition he demanded that the previous old members of the administrative council should not be appointed to the foundation‘s council. This meant there was once more the risk of a blockade, this time against the constituting of the foundation‘s council. Presumably Otl Aicher hoped that he would be able to interpret the crucial sections as he wished after all, because the advisory board and the administrative council would continue in a managing position until the foundation‘s council was constituted. But Thorwald Risler, who was able to watch the argument as an outside observer, prophesied that Klaus Dohrn would prevail for a simple reason: “In the dispute a bout the six seats
of members of the foundation‘s council, i.e., of an authority above the college, cannot be seriously discussed .“ 1283 It was, of course, precisely the higher authority of the foundation that Otl Aicher had always rejected, and yet he had not managed to prevent the hierarchy in this aspect. It was not until things had reached a point where the foundation‘s council lost all significance that the whole structure on Kuhberg collapsed so pitifully that none of those involved deserved what happened. Without further ado, Klaus Dohrn countered Otl Aicher’s delaying tactics with an ultimatum: If the latter had not named any names by 6 January 1964, he would not hesitate to appoint the six independent members of the foundation‘s council. 1284 And so, on 24 January 1964, he appointed the following:
341
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
Hellmut Becker, Max Bill, Klaus Dohrn, Günther Grzimek, Otto Pfleiderer, and Hans Zumsteg, an Ulm businessman whom Otl Aicher had brought into the dialogue. 1285
342
Tomás Maldonado and Theodor Pfizer during a visit of the Ulm municipal council, 23 Feb. 1965.
In the course of the years up to 31 December 1968, this front line of independent members of the foundation‘s council eroded considerably, for gradually members would resign, while no one saw to it that successors were found. In the end only Max Bill and Günther Grzimek were left. Incidentally, the statutes of the foundation stated that the six independent members of the foundation‘s council had a two-year term only, but later no one
Walther Hinsch for the federal ministry of economics, Theodor Pfizer for the city of Ulm, and Josef Alfons Thuma as the president of the Land Trade Supervision Department for the BadenWürttemberg ministry of economics. 1286 The foundation‘s council was constituted on 6 February 1964 and elected Theodor Pfizer as its chairman, and Klaus Dohrn as his deputy. 1287 All three members of the foundation’s executive board, Inge Aicher-Scholl, Max Guther, and Thorwald Risler, announced their resignation. It had been common knowledge for a long time, actually since the spring of 1959, that Inge Aicher-Scholl wanted to leave the foundation completely for personal reasons, but the members of the a dministrative council had been reluctant to let her go, and had been able to convince her to stay time after time. For the past two years Max Guther had also become tired of Kuhberg. Two weeks later, on 24 February 1964, the new executive board was finally complete:
Martin Walser and Inge Aicher-Scholl at a cultural event in the Ulm Schuhhaus in 1965 or 1966. Photo: Florian Fischer Archive: HfG (Depositum 98/6)
Max Guther (incumbent member of the executive board) and Hans Zumsteg ( incumbent member of the foundation‘s council) switched their positions, Inge Aicher-Scholl was replaced by Walter Erbe, the politico-cultural representative of the FDP/DVP who had done his utmost to support the HfG in the Landtag ever since its founding, and Thorwald Risler remained in office until the end of the year as the managing chairman of the executive board. 1288
Photo:unknown Archive: HfG (65/0066/1)
remembered that. – The representation of the government agencies was taken on by the same officials who had already been on the administrative council: Günther Boulanger for the Baden-Württemberg ministry of finance, Wolfgang Donndorf for the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts, Karl Gussone for the federal ministry of the interior,
The most serious aspect of the situation up to December 1967 was the organizational and financial plight of the foundation. The decline of the foundation’s administration was also due to the loss of personnel. The foundation was supposed to fulfill two important functions for the HfG: It was supposed to administer it and to take care of financing. These functions had been shared from the very beginning by the executive board‘s managing chairman and the a dministrative director. When Thorwald Risler and Günther Schweigkofler left the foundation, a successor had been found only for the managing chairman, while the position of administrative director remained unfilled for the time being. Subsequently there was a succession of a dministrative directors, and this lack of stability impaired the reliability of the foundation’s administration. It was Hellmut Becker who again made the deciding suggestion as to who should succeed Thorwald Risler: On 21 September 1964 he told Theodor Pfizer, the chairman of the foundation‘s council, about the lawyer Friedrich Rau. 1289 Fried-
Visit of the Ulm municipal council, 23 Feb. 1965. Photos: Roland Fürst Archive: HfG (65/0169/1 and 65/0175/1) and Südwestpresse
rich Rau was 48 years old at this point and had gathered considerable experience in college administration and university legislation working in the administration of the University of Tübingen and as a curator of the University of Frankfurt/Main, his final position had been as the permanent secretary of the municipal government of Berlin. The Social Democrats had nominated the university expert as a candidate for the 1965 Bundestag election. Theodor Pfizer asked him on 19 October 1964 whether he would be willing to assume the position of administrative director of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung effective 1 January 1965. 1290 To be sure, conditions were different than they had been during Thorwald Risler’s term: Friedrich Rau was to spend only one week a month in Ulm and receive a fixed remuneration directly from the foundation. (Thorwald Risler had received his variable salary from the Society of Friends as its secretary.) Friedrich Rau agreed, and the foundation‘s council appointed him at its fourth meeting on 5 November 1964, with a term that was to run from 1 January 1965 until 1 January 1970, but that was longer than Friedrich Rau could stand it in Ulm. 1291 He wanted to throw in the towel before the first year was out, but was gradually talked into going on with the job until 30 September 1967. Friedrich Rau’s experience in college administration and university legislation was based on his work at state institutions. As the curator of the University of Frankfurt he was the state administrator who worked closely with the university administrator. He was used to the university indicating its teaching-related needs to him. He would
essential. For the HfG his method was not a ppropriate because it had no government safety net – the HfG could not draw up a supplementary budget. For everything that could not be paid out of the operating budget, the foundation had to get loans. Up to 1964 this had been necessary only for the construction of the HfG (i.e., there was collateral pledged as a security against these outstanding liabilities), but never for items relating to teaching (without a corresponding value secured by property). In view of his history and his interests, we can also understand that Friedrich Rau limited himself in his perspective from the start to financing the foundation exclusively with public funds – as though he were completely unfamiliar with the history of the foundation. (Limiting his work to one week per month would, however, not have allowed him to canvas private industry to any extent.) After the first three months of working for the foundation he set up a financing plan in which three items are noteworthy:
then calculate what the university’s financial needs were and set up its budget. But other rules were in effect for the HfG: rules relating to private enterprise as compared to those relating to a planned economy. For the private foundation it had been a question of survival to use a vailable funds economically. Friedrich Rau started with the premise that professionally essential requirements had to be financed (by the state) at all events, but the history of the HfG from start to finish is a history of working on the edge of what was professionally
eral government and the Land rejected these nationalization plans. Nonetheless he clung to his concept.
Firstly, the nationalization of the HfG was a completely self-evident solution for Friedrich Rau in order to secure permanent financing of the foundation – as though the private, nongovernmental factor had never been in the foreground of the HfG’s history; secondly, nationalization for him was not just one direction among many that could be p ursued as naturally as any other; rather he felt nationalization was the only way out; Friedrich Rau never considered another a lternative; thirdly, from the beginning he saw that the fed-
He also repeatedly emphasized that he only wanted to work for the foundation and the HfG under the condition that his concept would be implemented. Consequently he packed his bags when it was clear that he had failed. It seems as though Friedrich Rau’s presence hardly did the HfG any good. He was not a stabiliz-
343
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
Theodor Pfizer, Kultusminister Wilhelm Hahn, Franz Wiedemeier, and Hans Lorenser, 30.11.1965. Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
344
Tomás Maldonado at the opening of the HfG’s traveling exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, 7 May 1965.
Photos: unknown Archive: HfG (65/0333/2) and Südwestpresse
ing factor, since his sporadic presence in Ulm was much too short for that. In reality the HfG was largely left to itself. Neither the foundation‘s council nor the executive board seriously interfered in matters that concerned the school. Breaking down the functions of the managing chairman of the executive board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung in the way Thorwald Risler had taken them over from Inge Aicher-Scholl and developed them turned out to be an illusion. This caused the entire structure of how responsibilities
were divided between the foundation and the HfG to fall apart. Otl Aicher, in his conflict with Thorwald Risler, had successfully undermined the constitutional significance of the executive board – to be a strong executive of the foundation‘s council (which developed objectives and acted in a supervisory capacity). The idea that the foundation should supervise and control the HfG seemed preposterous to Otl Aicher. Both institutions, he believed, should work together, and that is why both were on the same level. Thus, writing to Thorwald Risler, he said: “Two years ago we began to develop ideas for new school bylaws. That’s when the first disputes between us began. I felt the fundamental principle of new school bylaws was a partner relationship between the foundation and the school. You, on the other hand, emphasized the employer-employee function. […] I had never questioned certain sovereign functions of the foundation, but assumed that the prerequisite for reasonable development could be daily cooperation between the school and the foundation with both having equal status.“ 1292 Shortly thereafter, with satisfaction, Otl Aicher quoted a conversation he had had with Walter Gropius in a letter to Hellmut Becker: “His experiences at the Bauhaus a nd at Harvard had been that the administration must definitely be below the school. I had trouble explaining to him that the foundation here in Ulm was intended to be management on an equal footing.“1293 Somewhat later he explained his view in more detail: “The school and the foundation must be regarded as two sides of the same enterprise. Every attempt to raise the foundation to a status of higher authority falsifies, out of a single subjective
interest, the intentions that led us in founding the Ulm School of Design, and also in appointing Mr. Risler.“1294 As far as the substance of the work was concerned, Otl Aicher was certain that cultural responsibilities should be taken over exclusively by the HfG and the foundation should assume an ancillary function: “The school bylaws state that the foundation puts its services at the disposal of the HfG.” 1295 To be sure, Friedrich Rau was not a fighter who ran the organization on his own terms, but a mediator. He did not assert the will of the foundation‘s council against the resistance of the HfG, and as a result the foundation lost its executive power. Friedrich Rau practiced precisely the type of cooperation that Otl Aicher w ould have wished from Thorwald Risler and that implied that the HfG had to share the decisions of the foundation‘s council or could also block them. Now the foundation‘s council had lost its significance as a group meant to formulate objectives. This was shown by the example of the HfG bylaws. The period from 1965 on is thus characterized by a rapid decline of administrative achievements by the foundation. At the same time the control of the foundation’s supervisory branch – the foundation‘s council – over the administration waned. And furthermore the influence on the HfG by the foundation‘s council as a formulator of objectives was reduced to the point where the HfG was able to openly oppose the council’s decisions without having to fear sanctions. In what follows, I shall mention three examples of this development. Firstly, there was the unending story of changes in the HfG bylaws. There was not a trace left in the years after 1964 of the conditions laid down by the Landtag at the end of 1963, upon whose fulfillment further subsidies to the foundation were contingent. On the one hand the L andtag no longer cared whether the conditions it had imposed were actually observed, while on the other hand the foundation‘s council did not manage to ensure that all the conditions were fulfilled at the HfG. While the first condition – the elimination of the advisory board – had long since been fulfilled, the HfG, in changing its bylaws, successfully opposed every intervention until the end. The two Landtag demands in this connection were as follows: parity of the lecturers (section 14 of the HfG bylaws), so that non-designers could also be elected rector and termination of student participation in the election of the rector (section 6). From the start, even before the foundation was officially informed of these Landtag conditions, the HfG refused to give in on the last two points. 1296 The Landtag plenum put the decision whether the blocking of the authorized Land subsidy total-
ing DM 600,000 could be revoked in the hands of the politico-cultural committee, and there people were agreeable. As early as 16 December 1963 the request of the ministry of education and the arts to release a first installment totaling DM 150,000 was authorized. The HfG accepted the reason (foreseeably negotiations with the HfG would drag on, which is why they needed time), but how would the Landtag succeed in defending its interests without exerting pressure? 1297 The foundation was officially informed of the Landtag conditions on 17 December 1963. 1298 The ministry of education and the arts announced at the same time that it had been charged to work toward implementing the measures resulting from the conditions. On 15 January 1964 the inner senate was asked by the foundation to decide what would be the HfG’s position. 1299 It noted that the HfG agreed with the Landtag conditions on the first five points, and that two points still needed to be discussed (reintroduction of the basic course, former HfG students as lecturers). On the remaining four points the inner senate was fundamentally of a different opinion; among these were the two main demands that students no longer be allowed to participate in electing the rector and that all lecturers be eligible to run for rector: “The participation of a student representative in electing the rector is an old right at the Ulm School of Design that has parallels at other schools as well. A right, once given, should not be revoked. […] There is actually no reason why lecturers who teach supplementary subjects should not be able to become full lecturers. The school bylaws should be amended on this point. On the other hand it makes sense to elect the rector at a school of design only from among the designers. A school that represents a certain orientation must entrust its direction to the group of lecturers who are responsible for that orientation.”
Photo: unknown Archive : HfG (65/0183/4)
The executive board and the foundation‘s council used this as the basis for the foundation’s position statement addressed to the ministry of education and the arts on 6 February 1964.1300 The members of parliament could now expect that the foundation would work toward having the HfG change its bylaws on these last two points. And this weak declaration of intention was sufficient for the politico-cultural committee to release the remaining DM 450,000 in Land subsidies, at its 105th session on 13 March 1964. 1301 Also during this session, the issue surfaced whether reports from the Bonn ministries that the federal subsidy was to be blocked or cut were true. While the representative of the ministry of education and the arts claimed he did not know, obviously these first warning signals had already reached Stuttgart. – In fact, the HfG passed a version of its bylaws on 30 Septem-
ber 1964 that corresponded to the Landtag’s demands in both crucial points. The students were not to be involved in electing the rector, and all lecturers were to be equally eligible to run for rector. 1302 But at its fourth session on 5 November 1964 (against Wolfgang Donndorf’s objection), the foundation‘s council decided not to approve these bylaws because certain details still needed to be revised: “The School of Design has amended its bylaws in accordance with the recommendations of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag and submitted them to the foundation‘s council for authorization. The foundation‘s council, however, considers additional changes to be necessary a nd therefore intends to delay authorization until a fundamentally revised version is submitted to the council.” 1303 Despite this the member of the politico-cultural committee who submitted the year-end report stated that the Landtag recommendations had been “fully taken into consideration”. 1304 Now the Landtag conditions were finally cleared out of the way, but the foundation and the HfG were still preoccupied with the HfG bylaws. One year later things on Kuhberg were going wrong. The foundation‘s council, at its fifth meeting, was of the opinion that the HfG bylaws, long since approved, should finally go into effect, though “with the reservation that there had yet been no resolution by the extended senate of the HfG”. Moreover, a more far-reaching amendment of the bylaws was to be worked out in agreement with the college. 1305 Friedrich Rau, Thorwald Risler’s successor as the managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board, had transferred his experience at state universities to the HfG and presented the argument that the agreement of the extended senate to an amendment of the bylaws “was necessary in accordance with general law governing higher education”. 1306 Under such circumstances they could not even think about the special conditions at the HfG. Now he asked Tomás Maldonado, on 18 October 1965, to get the extended senate to agree to the amendment of the bylaws decided on by the foundation‘s council on 5 November 1964. In practice, cooperation between the HfG and the foundation was now on a friendly, inconsequential level where no decisions were made, or implemented once they had been made. The extended senate made a few more editorial changes in the text of the bylaws on 5 and 6 November 1965, and the foundation‘s council now intended to put into effect this version at its sixth session on 16 November 1965. 1307 However, Friedrich Rau did not want to act so precipitously and once more asked the extended senate for its approval of this version. 1308 Naturally, the student body was now made up of different students than two years earlier, when there had still been indications that they were in
345
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
Participants at the Manuel Villazon VasICSID conference: quez (Mexico), AlexanJosine de Cressonniere dre Wollner (HfG), (Belgium), André de Arthur Pulos (USA), Poerck (Belgium), Roger Gino Valle (Italy), MichiTallon (France), Basilio taka Yoshioka (Japan), Uribe (Argentina), Shinji Koike (Japan), Gui Bonsiepe (HfG),
Zvonimir Radic (Jugoslavia), Tomás Maldonado (HfG), Misha Black (Great Britain), Nathan Shapira (USA).
International designers and design teachers met at the HfG to discuss the teaching of industrial design at a conference of the international design association ICSID, 17 through 19 Sept. 1965;
By this point, of course, the Landtag assumed that the HfG had long since fulfilled all the conditions that had been stipulated exactly two years earlier. 1311 But a few months later, on 29 April 1966, the extended senate again passed a new version of the text of the bylaws that rescinded all previous changes. 1312 What is more, Friedrich Rau also suggested that the students should take part not only in the election of the rector, but also in the sessions of the inner senate. 1313 This did go too far for the members of the foundation‘s council; they rejected the HfG’s new statements: “The students are not partners of the college […], but part of the college. The students belong to the college. Student participation in academic self-government must be limited to consulting on factual questions. It is inappropriate to let students take part in personnel decisions. That includes electing the rector. Participation in factual decisions might, on the other hand, be more explicitly grounded in the bylaws.”1314 The request by the foundation‘s council that approval of the new bylaws be considered once again resulted in a Sibylline response by Tomás Maldonado, on 29 October 1966, that the rector and senate were “of the opinion that the vote [of the students in the election of the rector; author’s note] does not have political significance, but only symbolic value. Moreover it also appears […] to be difficult to take away from the students a right they have held for many years.” 1315 The unending squabbling between the foundation’s executive board, the foundation‘s council, the standing committee of the foundation‘s council, the inner senate, the extended senate, and the rector fizzled out because starting in 1967 changes in the HfG bylaws were linked with the revision of the foundation’s statutes, but both came to an end in the confusion of the year 1968. 1316
346
Photo: Nick Roericht Archive: Südwestpresse
sympathy with the amendment of the bylaws. Now, on 1 December 1965, the students held a one-day strike to protest the fact that their right to participate in electing the rector was to be revoked. 1309 The argument of the politico-cultural committee, they said, had been that the students had abused their right and had thus contributed to the politicization of the HfG. This was not true, however. “The student body of the Ulm HfG has d rawn the consequences from the behavior of the HfG’s extended senate and the foundation‘s council of the G SS, and has resolved, after its previous arguments were cited without success, to have a one-day warning protest strike on 1 December 1965 and to issue a communiqué. […] The student body did not abuse its constitutional rights. […] In the opinion of the student body the resolution of the extended senate has been based on the assumption that if the recommendations of the politico-cultural committee on point 5 are not complied with, the HfG’s Land subsidy is in jeopardy. The student body feels that this argument is irresponsibly speculative, in view of the fact that a guaranteed right is being taken away. […] In part, the foundation‘s council has used the arguments of the politico-cultural committee. […] Also their arguments are based on the belief that the students of the HfG have no right to something – the r ight to elect
the rector – that other universities and colleges, and newly founded institutions in Germany also do not possess. This argument, the students believe, is uncalled-for in this context. It is a concealed argument for taking away a right that was deliberately and intentionally given in an emphatically anti-fascist and democratic institution. […] However, the students of the Ulm HfG are not willing to be systematically deprived of their guaranteed rights. They protest against being deprived of their rights in this way, because they believe these rights are an essential part of what the school is about.” In addition, the students delivered an ultimatum: If by 8 December 1965 “no agreement has been reached with the school administration regarding the demands of the HfG’s students, the students have decided to begin a strike for an unlimited period. In the event that disciplinary measures by individual lecturers or by the school’s direction result from this concerted action for individual students or student groups, the students of the Ulm HfG declare that they will oppose such measures. The student council and student representatives of the Ulm HfG reserve the right to publish this communiqué in the press.” Tomás Maldonado, however, was able to pacify the students by assuring them that he would support their concerns before the foundation‘s council. 1310
Inge Aicher-Scholl, 17 Sept. 1965. Photo: unknown Archive: HfG (65/0671/2)
A second example of the organizational and financial decline of the foundation is the c haos into which the bookkeeping of the foundation was plunged. Thus, for example, as of 1 January 1965, there was no administrative director continuously at work there anymore. A random illustration of how this affected the school is the fact that the heating system of the HfG building was going to be replaced – but this conversion was based on an abstruse report with an incorrect calculation that it would save money. And the fact that this calculation was wishful thinking should have been no secret to the foundation’s administration, because the foundation’s auditor had also recognized the error. At any rate, the expert had to be paid, for one; secondly, there was the replacement of the heating system, and thirdly the foundation now saved no money on heating costs, but had to spend even more. Finally, the total cost to the foundation totaled DM 260,000, although the esti-
pictured, Zvonimir Radic, Tomás Maldonado, and Misha Black. Photo: unknown A rchive: HfG (65/0645/1)
mate had been for DM 200,000. This became one of the nails in the HfG’s financial coffin: For these DM 200,000 the foundation had already obtained an expensive, short-term loan, but because the costs had been exceeded, it needed an additional DM 60,000 in 1967 alone, and this in turn exacerbated the liquidity crisis of the foundation in 1967. The Land General Accounting Office brought to light what had been happening, so that an account of these events also reached the Landtag’s finance committee and created political havoc. 1317 – Again, when it was important, in a financially tense situation, to obtain DM 54,000 in Land subsidies, the foundation’s administration failed. The Land government had decided on a general 6 percent cutback of all budget items. An exception could be made only for those items where there was proof that this cutback would be an absolute hardship. Although the foundation needed this money urgently, the administration failed to observe the deadline by which it had to file its objection. A few lines would have been sufficient, for the administration could indeed substantiate the fact that the foundation needed every penny. Thus the Land subsidy for 1966 was needlessly cut by DM 54,000.1318 Finally, here is a third example that illustrates the mismanagement of the years beginning with 1965. In 1965 Friedrich Rau introduced a new method of setting up the foundation budget; the method can be explained by his history: Because the HfG was the only endowed institution and was supposed to be largely self-governing, he asked Rector Tomás Maldonado to draw up the desired budget of the HfG himself. The foundation would then make every effort to raise the necessary money. The procedure practiced up to that point, where the budget would not be drawn up until it was certain how much money the foundation was supposed to receive had the disadvantage that the HfG was always forced to make compromises when it came to teaching materials and facilities. But at the same time the procedure also had the undisputable advantage that basically only money that was really available was spent. To date there had also not been any deficits worth mentioning. However, in 1965, DM 420,000 were spent outside the budget plan, i.e.: without the authorization of the foundation‘s council. This sum corresponded to the subsidies of the federal government and the city of Ulm. In the same year the foundation’s books showed a deficit of DM 250,000. In order to close this gap, the foundation had to get a second expensive short-term loan. The joke was that it was not until the end of 1967 that the foundation‘s council could be informed by the rudimentary administration of the foundation of the full extent of these nonbudgetary expenses and of the deficit of 1965.
347
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
And so we come to the most unpleasant aspect of the HfG’s history after 1964: its finances.
348
In the past, the budget for the HfG had been supported by four pillars: subsidies from the city, the Land, and the federal government, and the HfG’s own income (primarily research and development commissions). During the founding period these four supports had not been erected one after the other, but had all had to stand at the same time. That means they were closely connected. If one
Memorial ceremony for Hans Gugelot, 23 Nov. 1965: Address by Hans Eckstein, head of the Neue Sammlung, Munich; he was preceded by Tomás Maldonado. Photo: Simon Resch Archive: Südwestpresse
column began to sway, it threatened to pull down the whole structure. The first of these pillars consisted of the foundation’s own income, which it obtained for commissioned work by the development teams. Formerly the foundation’s contact to industry had come about almost exclusively through the Society of Friends or had been arranged by it. The Society of Friends had been created for the simple purpose of having a pool of like-minded people who were willing to support the HfG. When Thorwald Risler came to Ulm, he ac tivated the then somnolent Society of Friends and became its general manager; its executive board was expanded to five members. When it became certain in 1964 that Thorwald Risler would leave Ulm, the executive board of the Society of Friends openly stated on 27 April 1964 that in the future the foundation could expect no additional funds from the society. The unanimous resolution read as follows: “Since under the given circumstances it seems impossible to implement the plan, which the executive board approves in principle, for a reorganization of
the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung and an expansion of its functions, the board has decided not to become active along these lines. That means it will no longer be possible to encourage supporters in the private sector to remain committed or to become recommitted.” 1319 When Thorwald Risler left the foundation’s executive board, the connection between the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung and the Society of Friends broke off. Friedrich Rau as a politician with a special focus on education was neither interested nor qualified to maintain contact with industry. While the Society of Friends was not liquidated until the end of the HfG, i.e., December 1968, it was no longer active on behalf of the HfG. 1320 Furthermore, the income of the foundation from industry orders had been an important factor in the financing plan since the HfG was founded. Certainly HfG lecturers worked on industry-commissioned projects after 1965 as well, but increasingly without the foundation’s help. The second pillar of support that b egan to teeter as a result of the 1962 crisis was the federal subsidy. Unrest at the HfG and in the press was reflected in the budget as early as 1963 in a cutback of the federal subsidy. This cutback was minimal: instead of DM 300,000 (1962), the federal ministry of the interior paid only DM 270,000 in 1963. But the Bonn ministry reacted to the tremors in Ulm like a seismograph: The creeping decline of the foundation was accompanied by the withdrawal of this federal subsidy. On 26 April 1963, at the first meeting of the foundation‘s council after the HfG bylaws were revised, the representative of the ministry on the council, Karl Gussone, had already openly expressed his doubts whether financial support of the HfG was d efensible in the future. But there was profound lack of concern on the part of the HfG; there was a belief that both the Landtag and the Bundestag would subsidize the foundation forever, and that it was just a question of how high the subsidies w ould be. However, a few weeks later, the finance committee of the Bundestag sent a clear signal to Ulm that pointed in a very different direction: It cut the subsidy from the 1964 budget estimate. Thus in spring of 1964 a new application for the federal subsidy had to be submitted, and that essentially depended on the situation in the Landtag or, in other words, on whether the contributions to the foundation were still blocked. The federal subsidy had always been contingent on whether the HfG was an institution of higher learning. It was precisely this status of the HfG that had been seriously questioned because of the crises of 1962 and 1963, the retraction of the concept of scientific research by the institutes, and by the fact that the theoreticians at the HfG had been discredited. 1321 The foundation did receive a federal subsidy for 1964 as well, but it had been cut back once more, to a mere DM
250,000. The trend that had begun a year earlier had not been arrested. On the contrary: During his negotiations with the federal ministry of the interior, Thorwald Risler learned that the ministry’s subsidy for 1965 and beyond was in serious jeopardy. “At least it can be expected that the subsidy will be steadily reduced in the years to come.” 1322 At the second meeting of the foundation‘s council on 15 June 1964 Karl Gussone reported again “on the very critical attitude of the federal government, which is seriously considering cutting or completely eliminating its subsidy to the HfG”. He energetically pointed to the reason why federal interest had waned: The HfG’s claim that it was a college required the inner senate to give up its rigid attitude and strengthen research work at the HfG, something that Tomás Maldonado had planned in 1965 and Thorwald Risler had publicized since then. “In the end the inner senate was responsible for the fate of the federal subsidy; if the inner senate decided to move forward, i.e., in particular to strengthen research, and to create a partnership between the film department and the Tonstudio München (Munich Sound Studio), there might be a certain hope that the federal government would also not refuse to provide continued assistance. But if the college persisted in its present attitude, further assistance by the federal government could hardly be expected for practical reasons alone.”1323 Thus the condition for federal support in the pa st – the development of the HfG into a center of far-reaching research interests, with institutes that corresponded to these – was no longer being met because the HfG no longer wanted to follow that road. The warnings that Karl Gussone expressed in 1963 and 1964 were unmistakable, but were not taken seriously. Yet as early as 21 December 1964 he informed the standing committee of the foundation‘s council that the federal government would give the foundation only DM 200,000 for 1965. 1324 Because, at the same time, the foundation had to take into account rising expenditures for additional permanent appointments in 1965, it was already clear by the end of December 1964 that there was the likelihood of a substantial deficit in 1965. The city could raise its subsidy by a maximum of DM 50,000, and even that was debatable and would by no means have made up for the decrease in income. The fact that the funds the foundation received from the government and from industry were quickly drying up is only one side of the financial crisis after 1965, however. The other side is that the foundation and the HfG responded to this situation in an irresponsible manner. When the first cutbacks appeared in the spring of 1964, Theodor Pfizer, the chairman of the foundation‘s council, informed Rector Otl Aicher that the council had
decided to cut the budget for the current year, 1964, by 15 percent. 1325 The HfG, he said, was to implement this cut on its own authority. The HfG’s reaction was characteristic: “The inner senate has decided to set up a commission, consisting of Messrs. Aicher, Kluge, Maldonado, and Ohl, as well as the head secretary, Mrs. Rösner, to work out economy proposals.” On 23 September 1964, a few days before the end of his term, Otl Aicher informed the foundation‘s council that unfortunately the HfG was able to cut down expenditure by only 8 percent this year. 1326 The foundation‘s council could not bring itself, either this year or in following years, to impose sanctions. After three months, on 13 April 1965, Friedrich Rau took stock for the first time of what he had done and presented his plan for the future financing of the foundation. 1327 He felt the financial base of the HfG “is not sufficiently large, and too vague in terms of legal commitment […]. The college budget to date is not nearly sufficient to deal appropriately with the tasks that confront the college.” The lecturers’ salaries, he said, were so low that first-rate faculty could not be hired. In order to safeguard the HfG’s financial base, he p roposed the following measures: “Up to this point the college was able to set up its budget only when it knew what subsidies the foundation can expect from the federal government, the Land of BadenWürttemberg, and from the city of Ulm [N.B.: Friedrich Rau does not mention the foundation’s own income; author’s note]. These subsidies were not calculated on the basis of need, but were a lump sum estimate. That is a method that doesn’t do justice to our cause. I think the federal government, Land, and city should agree that they will jointly cover the subsidy needs of the college according to a distribution code negotiated by them; subsidies will be provided based on a discussion of the budget by the foundation‘s council in which the three regional corporate bodies are represented. The way things have gone so far, it is to be expected that even if the teaching is kept to a minimum, and with severe economizing in every respect, the foundation’s deficit will grow from year to year. That’s a development I cannot be responsible for. That’s why I think that representatives of the three corporate entities that sponsor the school should conclude an interagency agreement on the joint financing of the college. The hardest part will be to convince the federal government to do things this way, because rumor has it that the socalled “Troeger Commission” will question federal participation in the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung and/or the Ulm School of Design.” The so-called Troeger Commission was a commission that had been instructed by the federal government to work out a financial reform. 1328 The
349
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
experts were to examine, among other things, all cultural institutions that were jointly financed by the federal government and one or more Lä nder. According to a conversation between Friedrich Rau and the commission’s chairman, Heinrich Troeger, however, the commission was not supposed to declare its position regarding individual institutions, but simply to develop guidelines for financing cultural institutions. “It is to be expected that if we apply the principles that are to be worked out by the Troeger Commission, the federal share of the college’s financing would probably be eliminated.” And in anticipation of this, the federal subsidy for 1965 was already cut by DM 50,000 as announced, so that the subsidy now totaled only DM 200,000. That means that from the start Friedrich Rau saw the difficulty of convincing the federal government to help support the nationalization of the HfG he strived for. Both the work of the Troeger Commission and the fact that the government had already begun gradually to phase out its financing of the foundation clearly showed upcoming obstacles that the federal government would put in the path of the implementation of his plan. This should really have caused Friedrich Rau some concern. But he did not look for alternatives. Quite the reverse, he came to a c onclusion that was unrealistic in view of the HfG’s history: “During the more than ten years the Ulm School of Design has been in existence, the appropriate authorities in the city, Land, and federal government must surely have realized that the privately run School of Design fills an important gap in the German education system and thus fulfills a public function,
350
Hermann Veit (SPD) (13 April 1897– 15March 1973), both NordwürttembergBaden and BadenWürttemberg minister of economics and vice minister-president, 1948–60, chairman of the parliamentary group of the SPD in the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1961–73, and first vice-president of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1962–73 Photo: unknown (ca. 1966) Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (54149)
and that because the training program of the college is unique it is crucial to have the highestquality equipment and faculty. […] The subsidy requirements could be shared at a rate of, say, 1:2:1 by the city, Land, and federal government.” The man who is speaking here is a politician concerned with cultural and educational matters, a higher-education reformer who had unfortunately not listened attentively in recent years to his colleagues in the Landtag and Bundestag. In Bonn and Stuttgart there was quite obviously consider-
able resentment against the HfG, as anyone in the Landtag could hear when the inquiry was launched into whether the foundation was eligible for financial aid. He made no mention at all of the private sources of income. Friedrich Rau felt that the public sector was the only sponsor of the HfG. Also the fact that up to that point the HfG had been successfully sponsored by a private foundation must have struck him as a curious and out-dated phenomenon. He pleaded that the federal government, the Land, and the city should conclude an interagency agreement that would once and for all establish public sponsorship of the HfG. Finally, on the question of research and development, Friedrich Rau was of the same opinion as Otl Aicher: Such work, he felt, should be completely integrated in the HfG. He considered the division between the HfG and the institute to be a mistake. It would be better, he thought, if the big development projects that were beyond the scope of the HfG were done by the lecturers in their private offices. In line with these ideas, he wanted to change the foundation’s statutes to reflect the idea that the HfG was the sole purpose of the foundation. On 14 May 1965 Karl Gussone reported to the ministry of education and the arts what arguments the Federal Audit Office had produced a gainst continued federal subsidies to the foundation: “‘Incidentally we […] doubt whether federal interest in the continuing existence of the Ulm School of Design is still so c onsiderable as to justify giving the school federal subsidies.’” The reason given for these misgivings was the college’s dubious academic status. It is true that the Federal Audit Office used as its supporting arguments the polemical statements made in the Landtag on 30 May 1963 that had slandered the HfG and had for the most part been disproved long since. But from this perspective the HfG was considered as a more or less ordinary technical college on a par with an arts and crafts school or a school of engineering: “‘ However, the federal government is not competent to sponsor such schools. […] Incidentally, another circumstance should cause restraint […]: the original intention was only to subsidize the school temporarily during its startup phase, because the school was supposed to gradually support itself with the income expected to be generated by orders from industry and commerce. […] After all this we have considerable misgivings for both legal and economic reasons whether granting additional federal funds […] to the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung, whose name ought to be its special commitment, is justifiable.’” 1329 If the Federal Audit Office dealt such sweeping blows, with no effective counterarguments offered, it is not surprising that the federal government took back its subsidy piece by piece and that
Karl Gussone held back his support in the federal ministry of the interior. The time when Inge AicherScholl and Hellmut Becker organized public appeals by prominent intellectuals and industrialists was long past. All that Wolfgang Donndorf was able to tell the Federal Audit Office in response was that a college did not have to be a scientific college to be an institution of higher learning. In the eyes of the ministry of education and the arts the HfG was on a par with public and private colleges of art and music. An unrelated question was whether both types of college should have the same status. 1330 Friedrich Rau never tired of repeating that the HfG closed a gap in the education system. He believed it was a fitting argument that if the school did not exist similar institutions of learning would need to be created by the federal government and the Länder. Also, because of its international reputation and faculty, it had a representative character for Germany. Finally, “the foundation […] was dependent on federal funds. Friends of Germany abroad would also react very negatively if the School of Design had to close.” 1331 Friedrich Rau overlooked the fact that the teaching of design in German arts and crafts schools and academies had meanwhile profited from the pacesetters in Ulm. That is why it was hardly possible to explain in a plausible manner to the politicians and officials that the HfG must be respected and supported as a unique institution, period. For lay people the differences had become smaller; the arguments would have had to be more sharply differentiated (or take place on a different basis). Friedrich Rau sent the budget for the current year (the first that had been drawn up according to Gerhard Storz (CDU) (19 Aug. 1898–30 Aug. 1983), literary scholar, educationalist, and politician. Baden-Württemberg minister of education and the arts, 1959– 64, president of the German Academy of Language and Literature since 1966. Photo: unknown (ca. 1966) Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (LBW 77/12)
his new method) to Theodor Pfizer, the chair of the foundation‘s council, on 2 July 1965. In spite of falling revenues and bleak prospects, this budget called for considerable increases in expenditure, because there were major shortcomings compared with the ideal condition of the HfG. The consequences of the increases in expenditure were additional demands for money. Sixteen full-time lecturers were now planned for, 12 assistant lecturers, and 6 technical teachers; the machine equipment of the workshops, which dated back for
the most part to the period when the HfG was founded, was in urgent need of updating; the costs of material for the students, who numbered 150 for the first time, had also increased; the library had announced it needed to buy additional books; student field trips and conferences attended by the lecturers needed to be taken into account; the house publication ulm was to be continued, in order to inform a worldwide public about the HfG; and the general inflation also left its traces on the budget. The budget contained a deficit of DM 100,000. However, this gap would not be filled immediately, but continue to exist “until it is possible to cover the amount with increased income” – a graphic example of the patterns of thought and behavior that reveal the difference between dealing with public and private funds. Up to that point it went without saying in the foundation that a budget must show no deficit, since that meant that more money was slated to be spent than was available. And it would have been completely unthinkable that not only was there no effort to make good the deficit a t once, but that the deficit was allowed to remain in existence, a burden for the years to come. 1333 While the foundation‘s council recognized the blind alley into which this budget led the institution, it chose not to look for a solution “because of lack of time”. 1334 Prospects for 1966 were not any b etter, quite the reverse. In his draft budget for 1966 Friedrich Rau tried “to estimate only what is necessary so that it will be possible to avoid closing the School of Design”. He feared that the development teams were causing considerable losses. But his conclusion unfortunately did not follow business management practices, for he demanded not economizing but growth: “In my opinion that would necessarily have the result that along with adding personnel in the college, enough auxiliary staff needs to be included in the budget so that development projects can be carried out independently of industry-commissioned orders.” He added that because nothing could be saved a nyway, and they were already operating at close to subsistence level, the idea of economizing made no sense. The foundation needed about DM 460,000 extra for the HfG in 1966 if the expenses planned in the budget were to be incurred and public funds remained stagnant at the same time. The gravity of the situation was unmistakable, and it was feared that a department would have to be closed. This had to be avoided under all circumstances. Today it is hardly possible to judge whether the public and the p oliticians would have seen the closing of an HfG department as the beginning of the end or as streamlining (if the HfG had agreed): “All thoughts of completely closing a department – even temporarily – are problematic, since this
351
Foundation’s council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung 1964–1968 1332
Meeting Date
1 6.II.
2 3 15.VI. 13.VII.
4 5.XI.
5 26.VII.
6 16.XI.
1965
Federal ministry of economics
Walther Hinsch
Federal ministry of the interior
Karl Gussone
Baden-Württemberg ministry of economics
Josef Alfons Thuma
Baden-Württemberg ministry of finance
Günther Boulanger
Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts
Wolfgang Donndorf
City of Ulm
Theodor Pfizer (chairman)
7 4.VII.
8 9 14.XI. 19.XII.
10 15.II.
1966
11 17.IV.
12 3.VII.
13 30.X.
14 18.XII.
15 12.II.
1967
16 1.IV.
17 18 19 8.V. 4.VI. 9.VII.
20 21 12.IX. 14.X.
22 18.XII.
353
1968
Franz frank
Karl Hipp
Society of Friends 1
Hellmut Becker
2
Max Bill
3
Klaus Dohrn
4
Günther Grzimek
5
Otto Pfleiderer (deputy chairman)
6
Hans Zumsteg
understaffed
Max Guther
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-3
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
354
At a meeting held in the building department from 12 through 21 April 1966, 42 British architects and teachers of architecture discussed Teaching design. Design methods inarchitecture . Photo: Schlitz Archive:Südwestpre sse
looks like downsizing and may shake the confidence of the college. Despite this we have seriously deliberated doing so. […] The only department that could be closed temporarily is the department of information. Its phasing out has already been prepared for. […] For the c ollege, this budget means […] there will be no development, but standstill, particularly because of the auxiliary staff, which has so far been paid out of income from industry commissions; I would have to insist that they be terminated if the positions are neither included in the budget nor covered by securely guaranteed industry commissions […]. The subsidy required from the public sector totals DM 1,475,000.” 1335 If we ask today whether there were alternatives to the public subsidies, we are inevitably referred to the commissions and donations of the private sector that helped finance the foundation for ten years. We must not forget that the commissioned work was an important proof of the HfG’s importance. But Friedrich Rau’s perspective did not include the private sector, and the members of the foundation‘s council took no initiative along these lines. At the sixth meeting of the foundation‘s council on 16 November 1965, Friedrich Rau presented the figures on which he had based his financing plan that would maintain the HfG in such a way
that there would be no need to close a department. 1336 According to the plan he aimed at the following subsidies for 1966: DM 825,650 from the Land (last subsidy DM 600,000), DM 412,825 from the federal government (last subsidy DM 200,000), DM 412,825 from Ulm (last subsidy DM 200,000). Even at first glance one can see that this was wishful thinking. The federal government, for example, as Friedrich Rau had explained himself, was about to phase out its subsidies to the foundation completely. Only DM 100,000 were planned for 1966, and actually Friedrich Rau’s greatest success, after the Bundestag agreed to his request, was getting parliament not to decrease the subsidy but to leave it at DM 200,000. In view of these facts it was irresponsible to draw up a budget that counted on over DM 400,000 from the federal government, and also expected the city of Ulm to double its subsidy. With such a frivolous budget the foundation risked losing credibility in Bonn and Stuttgart. After all, experience and the statements from the ministries spoke against every hope that the state would help out at the last minute; on the
Reyner Banham during a lecture on The residential machine: myth orfraud? on 25 March 1965. Photo: Roland Fürst Archive: HfG (65/0264/3)
contrary, in these moments of weakness the HfG’s adversaries had been able to gain in stature. That is why the representative of the Land ministry of finance, Günther Boulanger, observed “that the draft budget drawn up by the foundation‘s executive board is based on hopes for whose fulfillment there are presently no grounds. […] Dr. Pfizer reports on the difficulties he had obtaining the DM 200,000 from the city of Ulm for this year and does not believe that it will be possible to get an increase for 1966 from Ulm. […] The federal ministry of the interior declares that it is not competent and refers the applicant to the Land of BadenWürttemberg. Dr. Gussone declares that an increase in the subsidy cannot be expected under any circumstances.” Theodor Pfizer now helplessly conjured up “the example of America […], where patrons can always be found in industry and business in such a case. If the HfG closes today because of losing the federal subsidy, this is a great loss not only for Ulm, but all Germany is set back one more step in the field of design.” Walter Erbe proposed that they should blackmail the public donors: If it was made clear to them what the situation in Ulm was like, it would depend directly on them whether the HfG had to close or not. This is also how he felt they should proceed in the finance committee when requesting the desired DM 825,000 (as provided for in the draft budget). This was certainly not responsible behavior. Everyone was aware that blackmail is a sign of weakness and that pressure is followed by counterpressure. Matter-of-fact conviction, constructive search for alternatives, and the determination to get things done would have been called for at this time. Karl Gussone, the representative of the federal ministry of the interior, took a first look at how things were being handled at the HfG a nd asked for information:What would happen to the students if the HfG had to close a department, the department of building, for example? Friedrich Rau refused to consider this perspective: “If the subsidy by the public sector is not substantially increased, radical measures are the only way out. But from the point of view of educational and culture policy it is a mistake and it means the beginning of the end for the HfG.” The foundation‘s council then decided that the departments of building and information would be phased out if there was no other financing possibility for 1966. Friedrich Rau wanted to resign his position after just a year, effective 31 December 1965, because the situation appeared to be hopeless, but finally allowed himself to be talked into temporarily extending his commitment. “I will consider staying on longer only if the financial basis of the foundation is guaranteed through subsidies from the public sector.”
One of the factors that aggravated the financial crisis was that HfG members did not know what to do when faced with an empty till. It was disastrous for the operation of the entire institution that the foundation was given the ungrateful task of obtaining money and at the same time every effective economy measure was sabotaged. At the end of 1963, when the Landtag conditions had just been made public, there had still been heroic vows that the institution would get along without any public funding in order to a ssert its own autonomy. Kohei Sugiura and Otl Aicher, December 1965. Photo: Roland Fürst A rchive:HfG (65/0142/3)
Now Rector Tomás Maldonado wrote to Theodor Pfizer, on 14 January 1966: “The inner senate has decided to inform the foundation‘s council that the school direction and the inner senate can under no circumstances agree to any sort of amputation or restriction of the original idea and mission of the school. Such a measure would b e so fundamental an intervention in the substance of the HfG that it would be tantamount to the liquidation of the entire school. […] Such fundamental problems, in their opinion, can be solved only by the joint efforts of the foundation‘s council and the school’s direction.”1337 No doubt about it: There would have been a deep, pa inful cut in the HfG’s teaching program if it had closed a department. On the other hand we may get the impression that HfG members were not aware how serious the situation actually was. Today the answer to the question whether it would have been right or wrong to cut back the teaching program in 1966 due to lack of money is a matter of personal opinion. However, there are the facts: The HfG refused to show understanding for the recommendations of the foundation‘s council; the foundation‘s council was incapable of translating its decisions into actions; and the foundation‘s council and executive board did not look for alternatives to public funding. The foundation had to fill an impending financial gap totaling DM 460,000 for 1966 in order to be able to authorize the scheduled expenditure of the HfG’s teaching program. 1338 It was impossible to impose economy measures at the HfG. The school asked the ministry of education and the arts to double the Land subsidy for 1966 to DM 1.2 million. The Land was supposed to cover the entire
355
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
requested amount, for the city was not in a position to do so, the federal government was not willing, and other sources had dried up. But the Land government had considered an increase of only ten percent (from DM 600,0 00 to DM 660,000) and refused to double the subsidy. The minister of education and the arts defended the request in view of the financial emergency at the HfG, but the majority of the ministers was willing to accept the fact that the HfG might be closed.
356
In the Landtag’s finance committee the mood was no friendlier. The members of parliament discussed the foundation’s request at their 54th session, on 9 February 1966.1339 From their guests Friedrich Rau and Theodor Pfizer they got to hear a great deal that, while realistic, was hardly pleasant. It was imperative that lecturers’ salaries be raised and permanent positions filled; the buildings urgently needed to be renovated, and the library was greatly in need of updating its holdings. Though property- and personnel-related expenditure had been frozen since 1963, at the same time income had decreased – Otl Aicher’s and Hans Gugelot’s lucrative institutes had been separated from the HfG. Members of parliament perked up their ears when they heard that deficits had developed. One piece of the mosaic after another fell into place in a dubious overall portrait of the HfG Erich Ganzenmüller (CDU) (5 Jan. 1914–24 Aug. 1983), member of Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1960–80, and chairman of the parliamentary group of the CDU in the Landtag, 1968–72. Photo: unknown (ca. 1966) Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (k537/22)
and a foundation dangerously close to organizational and financial disorder, confusion, almost slovenliness. This impression was reinforced by the fact that there was a request to double the Land subsidy from one day to the next. The members of parliament felt that the deficit must surely have been foreseeable earlier. The draft of the Land government still stated DM 660,000, and now, suddenly, the foundation demanded so much more! Therefore the delegates asked that the government take a position on whether it considered the HfG to be eligible for further funding. It was absolutely clear to them: If they now released only DM 660,000, this meant that the HfG would c lose. And that is why the question needed to be asked whether the Landtag and the Land government really wanted the school to close. There were more
important things in the Land, they said. No matter how essential the work of the HfG was, it would be easy to integrate it in the other colleges of the Land or to have other institutions fulfill its functions. The HfG must die, demanded a representative of the CDU. The Land government also believed that the financing of the higher education program as a whole must be a priority. And besides, no one could be sure whether the HfG could manage to get by with its new subsidy, because there were many elements of uncertainty. What if demands rose to DM 1.5 million next year? Maybe the Land would sooner or later have to come up with the entire budget of the foundation? In spite of such sharp attacks from all the parliamentary groups, the committee decided, by an extremely narrow majority, in favor of the Social Democrats’ compromise proposal: The HfG was to receive DM 900,000 instead of DM 660,000 for 1966 (12 votes in favor, 11 against , 2 abstentions). The plenum of the Landtag needed to rule on this result. This happened in two stages. At first, on 15 February 1966, there was a lively debate about the far-reaching politico-education plans of the government.1340 Walter Krause recapitulated the discussion in the finance committee for the Social Democrat opposition: “At any rate that gave us an insight into what’s been developing – things are extremely serious not because of what this means financially, but because of the political implications. […] Mayor Pfizer and Dr. Rau d eclared before the finance committee that the purport of the government bill is that the college must be closed. […] It was very d isturbing, you know, to hear the minister-president declare in the finance committee that members should draw the logical conclusion. […] Ladies and gentlemen, it is an extraordinarily alarming policy that new higher education projects are started while Ulm and Constance are sacrificed. […] I am sure you are aware that the public would feel that the beginning of a new pro ject was seriously handicapped if this meant having to close another college first. (Indignant protests from the CDU. – Minister-president Dr. Kiesinger: ‘That’s not a college of science!’. – Member of parliament Dr. Erbe: ‘But it is an essential institution of our Land!’).“ Four weeks later, on 15 March 1966, there was a sharp controversy in the Stuttgart Landtag during the second reading of the government budget, the like of which had not happened for ten years. 1341 The draft budget included the DM900,000 that had been accepted as a compromise in the finance committee by a majority of only one vote. The Christian Democrats then made two motions. Firstly, the HfG subsidy by the Land was to be only DM 660,000 (as planned by the Land government). 1342 The government, headed by ministerpresident Kurt Georg Kiesinger, and the represen-
tatives of the CDU knew quite well that the foundation would have to close the HfG if their motion was passed.1343 Secondly, the HfG was to be told, “1. that it cannot expect to get higher subsidies from the Land in the future and must therefore Karl Frank (FDP/DVP) (9 Aug. 1900–3 May 1974), WürttembergBaden and BadenWürttemberg minister of finance, 1951–60. Photo: unknown (ca. 1966) Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (LBW 65/4)
make every effort to find additional funding just to be on the safe side, [and] 2. that the Land of Baden-Württemberg has no intention of taking over the sponsorship of the foundation.“ 1344 Walter Erbe (FDP/DVP), a member of the foundation’s executive board, gave a long speech against the four CDU motions, which, however, was too academic to be truly convincing. He accused the HfG’s opponents that if their motion was accepted they would destroy all the efforts undertaken since the founding of the HfG: “Why did we go to all this trouble in the past? Was it perhaps with the mental reservation that the first chance we got we’d ruin the institute? […] As for me, I believe […] that there have always been members of parliament who’ve had a lot of resentment toward the Ulm college. […] This resentment has hurt the college in the circles on whose financial support it depends. Who wants to invest money in an institution if he doesn’t know whether it will have gone bankrupt, so to speak, by the time an order he placed with it is supposed to be completed. […] At any rate, it is a utopian idea that you can get the private sector to help finance the college if the minimum it needs to survive has not even been safeguarded. […] The uncertain situation in recent years has brought the School of Design and therefore us members of parliament to the point where all we can do is play ‘double or nothing’, meaning that we either give up the whole business or increase the funding. I am convinced that the first alternative would be so stupid it would go down in the annals of history; you see, we would interrupt an act we would soon have to resume in order to maintain our connection with current international developments in the field [of design].” Raising the Land subsidy for the HfG, he said, was simply a necessity. A study by the ministry of education and the arts to find out if the functions of the HfG could be carried out by another institution had clearly shown, he went on, that the
HfG was irreplaceable. There was no evidence for the opposite assertion – that the HfG could be replaced. To believe that was to act according to the principle “It’s true because I want it to be true.” The Freiburg teacher Karl Person (CDU) tried to get support for his party’s motion because he believed that it was now necessary to “state how urgent it was to solve the situation by integration in another sponsoring organization […].” The opponents of the HfG said it openly: The HfG should not continue working as an independent institution if it demanded these subsidies from the Land. Hans-Otto Schwarz (SPD), who became the minister of economics at the end of the year, demanded that the CDU not put forward a fig-leaf motion but admit its intention: “It has become quite clear in our discussion with the gentlemen from Ulm that DM 660,000 mean the death of the college. And those who want that should immediately ask that the funds be cut. That’s something we’re not prepared to do.” Erich Ganzenmüller (CDU, the chairman of the Landtag faction of the party starting in 1968) had paid a one-day visit to the HfG as recently as 29 January 1966 and gathered detailed information. 1345 He was the referee of the finance committee and had for a long time considered the HfG to be superfluous. The HfG had blithely stated that “Mr. Ganzenmüller, whose previous opposition to Hans Filbinger (CDU) (*15 Sept. 1913), Baden-Württemberg minister of the interior and vice minister-president, 1960–66, minister-president 1966–78. Photo: unknown (ca. 1966) Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (k535/12)
the HfG is well known, [showed] no animosity, but [was] very receptive and positive in all teachingrelated questions. […] Mr. Maldonado emphasized that a clear decision had to be made whether the Landtag was prepared to generously support the HfG or to close the school once and for all. There was no middle way, he said.” And now Erich Ganzenmüller read aloud in the Landtag a seemingly endless list of criticisms regarding the situation of the HfG (library, construction, salaries, workshops, student dormitory, the lecturers’ pension entitlements, the foundation’s mortgages and loans). This list unfortunately largely corresponded with the facts, because it included all the wishes and defects the HfG lecturers had shared with him in the belief that he wanted to speak in support of the HfG. But all he had wanted to do was to get a
357
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
realistic picture of the situation on Kuhberg, and it was indisputable, after all, that buildings were in urgent need of renovation and classrooms had to be expanded if good basic conditions were to be created at the HfG. But the foundation lacked the funds, and Erich Ganzenmüller was now able to demonstrate how much the Land would have to spend on improvements if it intended to take charge of the HfG – and the politician had not invented these cravings for nationalization on his own; on the contrary, they were proposed to him on Kuhberg. The HfG had today “truly become a financial policy problem; and then there is another question: Must the Land of Baden-Württemberg really take on everything that needs to be done, at its expense? For that quite definitely means – and this is what they have in mind by submitting this
358
Herbert Ohl gives a group of German Design Council visitors a tour of the HfG (1967). Photos:unknown A rchive: HfG (67/0460/2 and 67/0465/2)
budget – the complete takeover of the School of Design. […] If you bear all this in mind, I ask you whether you’ve given enough thought to how large the budget volume will have to be some day so we can support this School of Design for the duration.” As he presented these arguments, it was not hard for him to give due credit to the achievements of the HfG, but “we’re talking about our concern: What long-term burdens are we agreeing to shoulder for the future? That’s why, to be on the safe side, we have also put forward a motion that there should be a clear understanding that we won’t have to expect higher subsidies at a future date. […] We don’t want to be faced with the same situation next year if the budget draft suddenly says DM 2.2 million, where we again give an extra DM 300,000 as we did this year, and thus find ourselves spending more and more money year by year.” Finally, it was easy to substantiate the motion that the foundation should not be sponsored by the Land: “Just now I heard that nobody was thinking of that. Ladies and gentlemen! If nobody is thinking of that, then please second this motion, and, at least for today, our minds will be set at rest!” The Landtag did decide by a majority against the original subsidy, which meant the closing of the HfG, and yet the result of the vote was depressing.
At any rate the foundation did receive DM900,000 for 1966, but in other respects the CDUmanaged to get its motions adopted. 1346 This increase in subsidy needed to be seen as an opportunity granted to the foundation for only a short trial period so that the situation on Kuhberg could be put back on an even keel as quickly as possible. That was precisely Walter Erbe’s argument. As a politician concerned with educational and cultural policies, he felt that anyone who wanted to promote design in Baden-Württemberg must promote the HfG. This argument, however, was always burdened by the pressure that design could not survive if it did not have the added utilitarian function of being a component of the promotion of trade and industry. Erich Ganzenmüller argued as a fiscal politician, warning that the HfG would yet prove to be very expensive for the Land. Both spoke of the Land’s future, but they were talking at c rosspurposes. There was the same cast of characters as there had been back in 1953, which only goes to show that the foundation and the HfG had since that time not managed to persuade the fiscal politicians, among others, of its cultural mission. It was the cultural mission and the promotion of trade and industry that together were the primary reasons why it was necessary to subsidize the HfG, and if the first argument was denied (with such assertions as that there were academies, technical colleges, arts and crafts schools for the same purpose) and the second had become redundant (because contacts to industry had broken off), then there was also no need to support the HfG. Thus, by March 1966, it was settled that the HfG could count neither on nationalization nor on increasing subsidies. Nevertheless the foundation’s executive board, the foundation‘s council, and the HfG direction persisted in their wishful thinking that the HfG needed higher subsidies from the Land, and should be nationalized as of 1967. The Landtag resolution was obviously not taken seriously. And in the same way the determination of the HfG’s opponents in the Landtag, who did not shy away even from the closing of the HfG, was underestimated. It would probably have been an exaggeration to say that they not only did not shy away from closing the HfG, but caused it. After all, the causes of the financial crisis could not be attributed to the HfG’s opponents. But now that the foundation had gotten into this difficult situation, they were prepared to make the HfG eat humble pie. Erich Ganzenmüller made no secret of this intention. The film department, which was legally independent of the HfG (a fact most members of parliament had not known), received a rebuff from the Landtag at the same time. Two weeks later, during the third reading of the government budget, the plenum once more discussed subsidizing it,
Hans Zumsteg, ca. 1967. Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
and in the process the subject of the HfG again came up.1347 The CDU representative regretted the Landtag’s decision regarding the foundation and indicated what it was about the HfG that actually disturbed him: “Why, it’s no surprise that [on 15 March 1966; author’s note] we supported the closing of the Ulm School of Design, because we have a very different idea of an operation that is truly essential. You see, if these people really pursue the ideals they’ve been talking about, they ought to set up a real college and do real work, by and large. […] All in all, we should have sorted things out here, especially in the interest of the people who are part of the institution and whose work we definitely do appreciate. That’s something we don’t even need to discuss. But that type of work needs a different facility and completely different technical equipment; it also needs a completely different study and teaching program than is possible in Ulm. […] I repeat: It would be in the interest of their cause – and I want to give credit to these people who are now affected by this situation, I want to emphasize that specifically. […] I feel we need to resolve these questions […] on a completely different level at some point […].” This “solution on a completely different level” did finally materialize at the end of 1968. But it doesn’t mean that Erich Ganzenmüller was the chief person who pulled the strings in the background. That would be to overestimate his role and the significance of his words at this point. Nevertheless his statement in the Landtag does reflect a mood of impatience, irritation, and intolerance of the HfG that in the meantime prevailed among many Landtag and federal government members and that did not change back to positive by the end of 1968. From now on (if not before) the majority in the Landtag and Land government took a negative attitude toward the HfG; the persuasive power of Inge Aicher-Scholl or Thorwald Risler was gone with nothing to take its place, and appearances by HfG representatives during 1968 on the floor of the Stuttgart Landtag hurt the HfG more than they prolonged its existence. Just a reference to some unfair arguments that were presented in these Landtag debates and that were probably an important reason why many Land politicians took a negative stance. Erich Ganzenmüller asserted that a German HfG student cost the land DM 27,000, and if you counted the total number of students, including those who were not German, the cost per student was still DM 14,000. He meant that German taxpayers paid a high price for foreign students registered at the HfG. These figures were wrong: In 1966 the Land provided DM 900,000 for 143 students of whom 50 were foreign. That is a total of DM 6,300 if one counts all the students, or DM 9,700 counting only the German students. Interestingly enough Erich
Ganzenmüller mentioned no comparative figures from the public education system. If we look a t the Land’s seven universities and colleges of science, for instance, we see that during the preceding year (1965) the Land paid DM 305 million in regular operating costs. 1348 With over 47,000 students this corresponded to a little more than DM 6,400 per student. In the current year (1966) this sum increased to over DM 6,700 per student. If we ad d Land expenditure for construction at the colleges/universities of science – which were included in the budget of the HfG – then the Land had spent around DM 10,300 per student in 1965, and in 1966 the total was DM 10,200. The implied reproach that the HfG was a particularly expensive educational institution for the Land (and moreover one that was not even under government control) is not only refuted by these comparative figures but also backfires against those politicians who used it in their arguments. 1349 In other words, dark clouds gathered over Kuhberg in the late spring of 1966, and the foundation was left out in the cold. The standing committee of the foundation‘s council discussed the situation on 9 May 1966. 1350 They had to address three devastating pieces of news: The federal government had definitively decided no longer to subsidize the HfG in 1967; 1351 the Land had imposed a general cutback of all budget items for the current year (1966); for the foundation this meant a shortfall of DM54,000; moreover, according to the 15 March 1966 Landtag resolution, it was definite that no more than DM 900,000 could be expected from the Land in 1967. Friedrich Rau commented with resignation “that the DM 54,000 cutback, the refusal to grant a 1967 increase, and the fact that the federal government intended to eliminate the entire federal subsidy for 1967 in combination make it impossible to keep the college operating. If things are the way they are described here, the subsidies authorized now can only be regarded as a liquidation sum. He himself, however, asks that under these circumstances the foundation accept his resignation effective 1 July 1966.” 1352 (Friedrich Rau stayed on as the foundation’s executive manager until 31 December 1966.1353) Theodor Pfizer knew of no alternative solution: “We should also definitely approach people in industry now, even though that can avowedly not be Dr. Rau’s job.” Since income had shrunk this year, since DM 200,000 had to be raised due to mismanagement alone in order to service debts (this was not capital expenditure, but debts for current expenses, i.e. to cover gaps in the budget), and since pros-
359
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
“And when the reporter sat in his studio this morning and happened to glance out the window, he discovered: trees, grass, meadows, clouds, air, mountains, river. […]
360
Tomás Maldonado, 1966. Photo: Roland Fürst A rchive: HfG (66/0024/1)
pects were as poor as never before, the committee recommended to the foundation‘s council that the building department be eliminated in order keep the rest of the HfG operating. However, the foundation‘s council and the HfG’s inner senate found it impossible to face reality. On 17 May 1966, the inner senate denied that the HfG shared the responsibility for the financial situation: “The important thing is that debts have to be paid off that the HfG has no part in, as they are chiefly attributable to the film [department], and that there must be an attempt […] to get at least part of these funds released for the school. Mr. Ohl is of the opinion that it should then be possible to continue running the school with its present structure.” 1354 The accusation leveled at the film department was a pure fabrication; being autonomous, it had nothing to do with the HfG budget. The inner senate then conjectured that one commission was no longer sufficient to deal with the situation, and decided to form two commissions: One for liaison with the foundation‘s council, the other to study budget-related problems.
The head-in-the-sand policy of the foundation‘s council was hardly more appropriate for resolving financial problems. True, Friedrich Rau had been able to achieve unexpected success for the foundation in the Bundestag when, due to a vote by division on 26 May 1966, a subsidy totaling DM 200,000 was decided on for the current year (the federal government had originally planned on only DM 100,000). 1355 Probably the trustees allowed themselves to be lulled by the hope that all future decisions in the political bodies would in the end let the foundation off just as lightly. But disillusionment followed at once. Herbert Ohl‘s rectorship October 1966 through December 1968 At its eighth session on 14 November 1966 the foundation‘s council discussed a budget for 1967 that projected DM 1.1 million in federal and/or Land funds, i.e., either the federal government paid a DM 200,000 subsidy after all (and the La nd kept to DM 900,000) or the federal government
How suspect it all is. How untidy. How inexact. How crude. […] Decorative chaos. Fossils that stimulate the senses. And now he could not see nature except with mistrust and impatience.“
Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 44 f.
paid nothing (and the Land had to raise its contribution).1356 Friedrich Rau thus again disregarded the unmistakable statements of the Landtag on 15 March 1966 (no increase of the Land subsidy) and of the federal minister of the interior, who had announced on 3 June 1966 that the foundation could expect no money from the federal government for 1967, using the findings of the Troeger Commission as an excuse. 1357 Friedrich Rau was still confident that he could convince the Bundestag that the subsidy was essential. He explained his planning as follows: The foundation had a right to public subsidies as it were, because of the HfG’s educational mission. Moreover the subsidies needed to be high enough to enable the HfG to work productively. If oneof the sources of public funds dried up, another source had the moral obligation to take over that burden: “Until the Federal Republic makes a decision to the opposite effect1358, it is not p ossible, for political reasons, to drop this demand toward the federal government. The federal subsidy is essential for the institution’s survival, and it is therefore not possible to c ut it […]. Dr. Boulanger asks members to note that it is not possible for him as a representative of the ministry of finance to continue to share responsibility if a completely dubious budget like the present one is drawn up. Dr. Boulanger asks the council to consider that the actual need is not the determining factor in authorizing a subsidy, so that in the case of the HfG the foundation should not count on the DM 200,000. […] Dr. Rau’s response to Dr. Boulanger’s remarks is that in his opinion subsidies should be contingent on the needs of a school’s program and not vice versa.” 1359 Wolfgang Donndorf, the representative of the ministry of education and the arts, shared the grave misgivings of his colleague Günther Boulanger and added that he feared that even the DM 900,000 Land subsidy might be cut. Even Theodor Pfizer expected that he could get the Ulm municipal council to agree to only DM 200,000, and not the DM 250,000 planned for in the budget. – At this session the members of the foundation‘s council were confronted with the full extent of confusion in the foundation’s administration. In previous years the capable team of Thorwald Risler and Günther Schweigkofler had saved them the trouble of making sure that indisputable order prevailed on Kuhberg. Now, for the first time, they learned about the nonbudgetary expenditure (DM 420,000) and the deficit (DM 250,000) for the past year alone. At the same time it was not possible to get information about the current financial status, and they were also unable to get a clear overview of the liabilities. How, then, were they to adopt a serious budget for 1967? Quite obviously they had badly neglected their supervisory responsibilities over the past two years: “Before resorting to a non-
scheduled and nonbudgetary expenditure totaling DM 419,804.56, in the opinion of the ministry of education and the arts […], the consent of the foundation‘s council should have been required, though obviously such consent was not obtained. At the 14 November 1966 foundation‘s council meeting it was not possible to ascertain completely whether and how the handling of the budget of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung is being effectively supervised.” 1360 To cover the deficit from the year 1965, a loan totaling DM260,000 had to be taken out. 1361 Four weeks later, on 19 December 1966, the foundation‘s council again tried to convince the HfG to close a department effective 1 October 1968.1362 But the inner senate entrenched itself behind its hubris: “The inner senate categorically states that the issue of the HfG’s organization, including the adding or closing of a department, is exclusively the responsibility of the HfG and the extended senate. It has already been repeatedly explained and is sufficiently well-known that the HfG with its departments represents an indivisible whole, no part of which can be amputated without destroying the school as a whole.” 1363 The HfG’s extended senate showed itself to be equally un- compromising and unanimously decided, on 23 November 1967: “The members of the extended senate are dismayed by this proposal. They are forced to point out that their sole sphere of responsibility is to decide on substantial and structural issues of the School of Design. […] The extended senate thus feels it is unable to follow the suggestion of the foundation‘s council to consider the possible closing of a department of the HfG.” 1364 We must respect the HfG’s decision, its refusal to continue operating on a limited basis. If it was necessary for members of the HfG for pedagogical reasons to preserve all departments of the HfG, then this decision was legitimate. But it was dishonest to refuse to deal with the c onsequences. The last resort would have been to close the HfG at once. The HfG repeatedly emphasized that the closing of one department would be tantamount to closing the entire institution. However, if both were out of the question, the HfG should have seriously considered a third alternative. The Landtag had already burst the dreams of nationalization like soap bubbles. What possibilities were left if to economize meant closing a department, if that meant closing the HfG, if nationalization was impossible, if contacts with industry had been broken off, if no generous contributor appeared, a deus ex machina, as John McCloy had done once? Even today I see no alternatives, and it seems as if the HfG was able to exist only if the filigree structure Inge Aicher-
361
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
362
Kurt Georg Kiesinger (CDU) (6 April 1904– 9 March 1988), BadenWürttemberg ministerpresident, 1958–66, and federal chancellor, 1966–69. Photo: unknown (1967) Archive: Archive für kultur und geschichte
Address by Herbert Ohl in the auditorium at the start of the 1967/68 academic year, 1 Oct. 1967.
Scholl had built when the school was founded held together. Still, the foundation‘s council and the HfG – especially the inner and the extended senate – should have started working together in a timely manner. Perhaps even at this point, in January 1967, a way out could have been found – that’s speculation –, but also things couldn’t have gone w orse than they actually did. Yet they did not work together, and the HfG barricaded itself behind a wall of denial, bureaucracy, and obstinacy. For a start, the inner senate decided to form a “commission for possible structural changes in the HfG”. 1365 And on 14 April 1967 the inner senate protested against the intention of the foundation‘s council simply to sell the right of first refusal for a plot of land adjacent to the HfG in order to get access to some badly needed money. The HfG believed that “this plot of land represents the only chance for the HfG to expand” – the HfG’s flight from reality had in the meantime assumed pathological proportions when, faced with sheer struggle for existence, utopian dreams of expanding the HfG campus made the crisis even more severe. 1366 In July 1967 the foundation was practically insolvent. At its 12th meeting on 3 July 1967 the foundation‘s council discussed the foundation’s illiquidity: It had overdrawn its advances on current accounts and had not observed repayment agreements for the short-term loans; the bank demanded securities for the necessary extension of the credit limit. The short-term outstanding liabilities were estimated by the administrative director to total around DM 640,000. 1367 The budget for 1967 still projected a Land subsidy of DM 1.1 million and increasing subsidies from the city. Both were illusions. Friedrich Rau persisted in claiming that the foundation had the right to demand subsidies large enough to cover HfG operating expenses. The representatives of the ministries could only shake their heads at this lack of judgment and turn away from the HfG. On 15 September 1967 Friedrich Rau definitively resigned effective 30 September 1967; an authorized representative of the executive board (Werner Ruch) was to continue to act for him temporarily. 1368 At the next, 13th, meeting of the foundation‘s council on 30 October 1967, Theodor Pfizer also announced his intention to resign at the end of the year (but he held out to the end); Max Guther left the council, Klaus Dohrn had stopped being a member of the foundation‘s council as of 17 April 1967, and member of the foundation‘s executive board Walter Erbe, who had energetically supported the HfG from the beginning in the Landtag, died on 3 October 1967. 1369 Not only was the personnel situation at the end of 1967 alarming, but so were the foundation’s finances:
First row: unidentified, Otl Aicher, Herbert W. Kapitzki.
For the current year the foundation‘s council again expected a budget deficit totaling DM 130,000 (the actual deficit was DM 110,000 ), and this gap could be closed only with new loans; at the time the foundation had debts totaling almost DM 1.9 million; debt repayment service totaled DM 155,000, of which DM 80,000 were slated for the two short-term loans (DM 520,000 in toto) that had been taken out since 1965 due to mismanagement on the part of the foundation’s administration; every month the HfG had a deficit of about DM 17,000, although a balanced budget had been adopted, which the HfG had helped to draw up. In other words, the HfG was spending more money than agreed, and the foundation failed to control the finances. 1370 Herbert Ohl had been the rector of the HfG since 1 October 1966. The HfG’s extended senate had elected him on 13 December 1965.1371 On 2 October 1967 he gave the opening address of the new academic year (1967/68) to the lecturers, students, and staff. Most members of the HfG were unaware of the ominous proportions reached by the financial deficit. We may assume that only a few members of the inner senate had even an inkling how serious the situation was. But the direct connection that had once existed between the foundation and the HfG was no longer there. That explains why HfG members increasingly thought of the foundation as something extraneous. When Herbert Ohl came to speak of the HfG’s future, he explained his vision as to how the HfG might be transferred to the care of the state. For since the imagination of all those involved, in the foundation and the HfG, had been restricted for years to stubbornly trying to obtain subsidies from the public sector, the imaginary step to nationalization was only a question of how the HfG could keep its autonomy: “The incorporation of the HfG’s structure in the encompassing structure of the overall higher education program of the Land of Baden-Württemberg […] is something the college itself and the Baden-Württemberg coordinated higher education plan have been considering. At present the HfG is a p rivate institution, though it is predominantly financed with public funds. It seems to be practical and necessary to nationalize the institution in the future as part of a stabilizing move, thus turning a de facto situation into a de jure one. The comprehensive higher education plan sees the differentiated coordinated university as a system of colleges that are interrelated and complementary. To quote from the plan: In the case of the Ulm School of Design, ‘becoming part
of larger academic units can substantially assist the development of the college.’ The HfG performs a vital task in Baden-Württemberg, in the other federal Länder, and in the rest of Europe that is not provided in this form by any other institution. Since its work is carried out in concerted action with other colleges anyway, it makes sense to consider whether the college could perhaps be integrated into the higher education system of Baden-Württemberg.”1372 In fact this integration had until then existed only on paper. And Herbert Ohl knew this, for Günther Boulanger had repeated it often enough in the foundation‘s council. For 1967 and the years thereafter it didn’t do much good for the foundation to concentrate on this HfG wish; what mattered now was to save the HfG itself. Also one must not forget that in 1966 the Landtag had unmistakably stated that it did not wish to nationalize the HfG. Herbert Ohl was thus grasping at an especially fragile straw.
Photos: Hartwig Koppermann Archive: HfG (67/0562 and 67/0567)
A few days after the beginning of the new academic year the foundation‘s council had a meeting. To prepare for it the new administrative director, Klaus Fischer 1373, had prepared a report in which he succinctly stated: “The GSS has no liquid assets of its own. Rather, all its financial obligations are made possible only through overdrafts on
and the coming years (DM 900,000 as before, the DM 200,000 loss of the federal subsidy, and DM 100,000 to wipe out the short-term debts). All members of the foundation‘s council knew that this plan had hardly any prospects of succeeding. Yet Günther Boulanger, the representative of the ministry of finance, expressed the hope of the despairing: “I told my minister that we have to close the school if we do not get the 300,000. It is clear to me that in that case we have to carry out what we said we would do. Then we have to start firing people etc. We have to state quite clearly: Either we get adequate subsidies or we close the school. At the moment the situation is incredibly favorable. The elections are coming up. There’ll be a public scandal. The press will back the school. That will have quite an effect. […] If the finance committee doesn’t authorize the 300,000, then we must start handing out notices.” 1375 Günther Boulanger would not be satisfied with a more modest increase of the Land subsidy: “We need the DM 300,000 – at least in order to survive. Partial successes would mean running into more debt. We government people can’t go along with this anymore.” A compromise was out of the question – that was the unanimous opinion of the foundation‘s council. Its members tried to make their resolution as determined and credible as possible: “If the Landtag is unable to comply with this
the Ulm Volksbank [industrial credit cooperative]. […] The GSS and the School of Design feel that to close a department – something that has been considered several times – is out of the question, since this would change the character of the college to such an extent that one could no longer call it a college organization.” 1374 The deficit created month by month would mount up, if nothing was done, to a total of DM 200,000 – an amount equaling the last federal subsidy. The HfG did not seem to want to admit this loss; it wanted to bring about a subsidy increase by force, b y the normative power of existing facts. The members of the foundation‘s council saw only one way out – to put themselves at the Landtag’s mercy for better or for worse: The Land was supposed to authorize DM 1.2 million for 1968 –
request, then the foundation‘s council will order that the school be close d at the end of the 1967/68 academic year. This is the foundation‘s council’ unanimous decision. The council has no other choice, since it can no longer assume responsibility for additional annual deficits.” 1376 Hans Lorenser (CDU), who had become Theodor Pfizer’s successor as the mayor of Ulm in 1972, asked the Landtag for DM 1.2 million in subsidy funds for 1968. 1377 But the finance committee, on 8 November 1967, refused to include this sum in the draft budget: “The discussion in the finance committee was to the effect that things must finally be settled once and for all.” And the only thing a final settlement could mean was that committee members were not willing to for the state to assume charge of the HfG – if the HfG could
Discharge of Tomás Maldonado in the rector’s office, 30 June 1967: With Herbert Ohl and with Otl Aicher. Photos: Gui Bonsiepe Archive: HfG (ohne Negativ Maldonado/Aicher and Ohl/Maldonado)
363
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
manage on the Land’s DM 900,000 and raise the other funds it needed on its own, nothing would have changed. 1378
364
Wilhelm Hahn (CDU) (14 May 1909–9 Dec. 1996), Baden-Württemberg minister of education and the arts, 1964 to 1978, and vice minister-president, 1972–78. Photo: unknown (ca. 1967) Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (k539/33)
Now it was the turn of Wolfgang Donndorf, the representative of the ministry of education and the arts on the foundation‘s council, to draw up a government bill so that the Land government would include the requested DM 1.2 million in the draft budget for 1968. In his 23 November 1967 bill he gave an exact, unvarnished view of the situation and of the consequences of possible decisions, and came to the conclusion that the Land should raise the subsidy to the foundation to the requested total of DM 1.2 million: “Because of its mission the School of Design has a unique position among German institutions of higher learning. At this time no other educational institution in the Federal Republic of Germany is capable of taking on this mission. The proof of its influence and its quality are its national and international successes and its international reputation. Closing a center that has such significance for the German economy would not only be misunderstood in Germany and abroad, but possibly misinterpreted politically as well. The ministry of education and the arts feels that because of the significance of the Ulm School of Design, it is imperative that the school be preserved.”1379 The cabinet discussed this item on the agenda on 5 December 1967. 1380 Of course, the foundation‘s council had announced that if its request for a subsidy increase were to be denied, the HfG would be closed at the end of the 1967/68 academic year. The members of the foundation‘s council hoped that the Land government would be deterred by a possible public outcry – after all, a new parliament was to be elected on 28 April 1968. But the minister-president, Hans Filbinger (CDU), gave no credence to this threat. He doubted that the foundation would actually have to close the HfG if it continued to receive a Land subsidy of DM 900,000 (plus DM 200,000 from the city). The minister of economics, Hans-Otto Schwarz (SPD), proposed an investigation to see whether the HfG could not become affiliated with the Staatliche Ingenieurschule Ulm (Ulm State College of Engineering). In response to the minister-president’s question how the Landtag would respond to this proposal, the ministers said that parliament would no doubt accept a motion to that effect. Thereupon the council of ministers declared itself in favor of the HfG becoming a ffiliated with or incorporated in the Ulm College of Engineering. The ministry of education and the arts was to study in what form this integration or affiliation could be carried out and how much this would cost. Therefore no proposal was made to the Landtag that the subsidy be raised as asked; the
draft of the Land government for the state budget contained DM 900,000 for the foundation as before and not the requested DM 1.2 million. And the cabinet, with its initiative to affiliate the HfG with or incorporate it in the Ulm College of Engineering assumed part of the responsibility that the foundation‘s council was so eager to hand over. The development that had begun four years previously when the Land blocked its subsidy had now reached a temporary low. Günther Boulanger, the representative of the ministry of finance on the foundation‘s council, who had not been part of this cabinet meeting, surmised the reason for the government’s negative attitude was old resentment against the HfG: “I’ve been wondering what could have caused the ministers not to follow the ministry of education and the arts a hundred percent. […] The council of ministers did not go along with the Ministry, but instead made counterproposals that the School of Design should become affiliated with or integrated in [another institution]. Personally I am of the opinion that if the council of ministers had made a show of strength, the Landtag would have a ccepted. The pre-election mood would have helped. You don’t really want to close a school just before an election. […] This is not just about the money. Some ministers would like to strengthen government influence on the school. All decisions that do not achieve that will not g o through if the intention is to get stronger control of the school. Certain influences are to be strengthened. If this institution is incorporated in the College of Engineering, they hope to reach that goal. This is not about money, there’s a lot more involved. It’s simply a question of influences. The eternal old struggles. Those are arguments that don’t have so much to do with this business. People don’t like the whole orientation of the school.” By this “orientation” of the school that the ministers did not like, Günther Boulanger did not really mean the cultural mission the HfG had set as its goal. He meant, for instance, the autonomy the HfG had enjoyed since its founding and that could now, in the inflamed general discussion around higher education reform, be transmuted into a shining example of the autonomy of institutions of higher learning. After all, HfG students had been participating in rectoral elections since 1958 and had successfully resisted the revocation of this right since 1964 in every way they could: strikes, resolutions, protests, disobedience. But he also meant the sum total of details that had since 1965 increasingly linked the HfG with political agitation. For instance, in July 1965 there had been a private collection for the victims of the Vietnam War that had caused quite a stir in the local press. There had been loud accusations that people at the HfG engaged in communist activities. Theodor
Herbert W. Kapitzki 1967 Photo:Eckhard Jung Archive: HfG (67/0610/3)
Pfizer had been sharply attacked in the municipal council for a while. He had to make a position statement in the municipal council, start an investigation of the incident, and defend himself against Landtag speaker Franz Gurk (CDU), who believed that the HfG represented the radical left. 1381 When the German studies student Benno Ohnesorg was shot on 2 June 1967 at a demonstration against the visit of the Persian shah in West Berlin, HfG students published a protest resolution in the press on 7 June 1967 and called for a demonstration in the center of town – but petit-bourgeois Ulm refused to support this show of solidarity. 1382 Another fact that did not go unnoticed was that the HfG student council gave the Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund (Socialist Association of German Students) ( SDS )1383 space on its own allotted share of the bulletin board, and that the (local) group of the SDS was permitted at the HfG. 1384 What is more, internally and externally the HfG continued to present a picture of disharmony amidst the poisoned atmosphere where personal character assassination was par for the course as long as it helped one reach one’s own goals. The graphic designer Herbert W. Kapitzki, brought to the HfG in 1965 by Otl Aicher for the department of visual communication, described his impressions a few months after his arrival in Ulm as follows: “In the meantime events have occurred that lead one to conclude that the whole faculty is made up of various interest groups that are presumably in competition with each other. The students, too, are affected by this putative situation. If you ask those who are involved, however, they claim they know nothing about it. Looking at the causal connections analytically, I believe that this situation has been becoming more embittered for years. […] But I’d like to criticize the way these events are handled here in the school; to my way of thinking, that is no basis for constructive and honest teamwork. […] It also seems to me that it is not proper for resolutions made in the senate that ought to be treated as confidential to be made public by those involved because matters are inappropriately handled. In this regard there are constant breaches of confidence. […] My idea of ‘good faith’ in such a community is different from what’s going on here. […] I w ouldn’t want to have to make a choice to join a group that is disapproved of by another group or described as reactionary, conservative, even radical right-wing. The above terms have been repeatedly used by students and lecturers.“ 1385 Two days after the meeting of the council of ministers, on 7 December 1967, the finance committee and the plenum of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag accepted the proposal that in 1968 the foun-
dation should not receive a higher subsidy and that affiliation with or integration into the Ulm College of Engineering should be studied. 1386 The ministry of education and the arts had to do this study and submit its report by 1 March 1968. 1387 Thus, on 7 December 1967, a turning point in the history of the HfG had been reached – the moment when its development hung in the balance, when it was by no means certain what direction it would finally take. Six factors had brought the HfG to this point: the resignation of qualified faculty and staff from the HfG and foundation; the simultaneous prevention of new opportunities for research and development; the end of federal interest in the HfG; the breaking off of relations between the foundation and trade and industry; the failure of the foundation’s supervisory and executive branches; and, finally, the break in ideology and action between the HfG and the foundation. The situation worsened in 1967 when the foundation was acutely insolvent. From then on the 1968 struggle for existence, in the eyes of most historians, is reduced to a financial crisis. But that would be confusing cause and effect. The oppressive financial difficulties were only the trigger, although they had reached a d imension hitherto unknown in HfG history. The foundation had always been plagued by financial worries, but now they had taken on a different character: From being unable to pay its bills, the foundation now became unable to act. The response to this paralysis was that the council of ministers assumed responsibility for what would happen subsequently, since the foundation‘s council forced it upon them. At the 14th meeting of the foundation‘s council on 18 December 1967, the views of the five groups who were involved were expressed. These were the Land cabinet, the Landtag, the Ulm municipal council, the foundation‘s council, and the HfG, represented by its rector Herbert Ohl, who was present at the meeting as an observer. 1388 By the end of the meeting it was agreed that the foundation would close the HfG effective 30 September 1968. First, Günther Boulanger reported on discussions in the council of ministers and the finance committee of the Landtag. In his report he came to the sobering realization that the HfG’s long-term adversaries had now gained the upper hand. Old allies had abandoned their own side, no new allies had been recruited, and now old resentments resurfaced: “I've been wondering what could have caused the ministers not to follow the ministry of
365
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
366
Robert Gleichauf (CDU) (4 April 1914–25 Oct. 1992), secretary of the parliamentary group of the CDU in the BadenWürttemberg Landtag, 1956–68, and BadenWürttemberg finance minister, 1968–80. Photo: unknown (1968) Archive: Landesbildstelle Württemberg (k527/5)
education and the arts a hundred percent. The school would have been able to manage on that [the requested DM 1.2 million; author’s note]. […] My personal opinion is that if the c ouncil of ministers had stood up for [the increase], it would have been accepted in the Landtag. The pre-election mood would have been favorable. People don’t like to close a school right before an election. But they [the members of parliament; author’s note] were not prepared to vote against the council of ministers. This is not about money. Some ministers are interested in strengthening a state influence on the school. All decisions that do not achieve that will not go through if the intention is to get greater control of the school. Certain influences are to be strengthened. If this institution is incorporated in the College of Engineering, they hope to reach that goal. This is not about money, there’s a lot more involved. It’s simply a question of influences. The eternal old struggles. Those are arguments that don’t have so much to do with this business. People don’t like the whole orientation of the school.” In this context, “orientation” can only mean the school’s current openness to the ideas of the student revolt: The participation of its students in selfgovernment, in setting up the curriculum, even in electing the rector were, of course, traditional cha racteristics of the private School of Design that went considerably beyond student rights at public colleges and universities. This why the HfG could be used as a prime example for more far-reaching student demands. At the same time it c ould now also be misinterpreted by leading Land politicians as a dangerous vanguard of rebelliousness close to the Land’s capital. Here was an opportunity to make this avant-garde a part of the government’s own ranks, the price being the loss of the school’s special constitutional character, paid only by HfG members, however. – We must not forget, however, that this interpretation by Günther Boulanger makes it easier to understand only the question why at the beginning of December 1967 the Land failed to noticeably increase its subsidy. It is by no means an adequate explanation of why the HfG no longer exists. Secondly, the mood in the Landtag’s finance committee seemed to be even chillier. The foundation‘s request of DM 1.2 million had been rejected by a vote of 9 to 16. Here, at first, it was felt that only a (subsidiary) affiliation with the College of Engineering could be considered if the HfG wanted to be nationalized. Günther Boulanger observed, “There are simply certain gentlemen who are absolutely against it [the HfG; author’s note].” His colleague from the ministry of education and the arts, Wolfgang Donndorf, added: “Discussion in the finance committee showed that people actually thought things ought to be finally settled once and for all.”
Thirdly, Theodor Pfizer had to acknowledge that the HfG’s opponents in the Ulm municipal council had also taken the initiative. In the finance committee of the municipal council a note was added for the city’s DM 200,000 to say that the funds should be blocked, so that the subsidy could be disbursed only once the situation was settled. The mayor of Ulm explained: “Well, there are serious opponents in the municipal council. […] Naturally that’s also an issue for Ulm. No doubt the majority would say: Finally we’re rid of this financial ballast. But still, every once in a while you’ve got to do something against the majority of the citizens for the citizens.” – Three days later, on 21 December 1967, the entire municipal council, at the request of the CDU faction, followed the recommendation of its finance committee and blocked the city’s subsidy. On 6 February 1968 Theodor Pfizer managed to unblock the funds again. 1389 Fourthly, Herbert Ohl, the rector, indicated that he was steadfastly pursuing his goal of nationalizing the HfG as an autonomous institutio n. That is why he also understood the resolution of the council of ministers to mean just that, although that was clearly not the intention of the ministers. The HfG, he said, must be preserved. And it must be preserved as a college. In the reference to the “subordination” of the HfG, he added the schools of his choice. He claimed that the term “affiliation with or integration in” did not go far enough: “The only way for it to be understood is that we should be able to use the Hochschulgesamtplan [Higher Education Coordination Plan, a plan by the ministry of education and the arts to structure higher education policy in Baden-Württemberg; translator’s note] . Only in that context can we see (possible) steps. […] Nationalization should be studied. A step toward this subordination can be visualized only within the framework of such an integrated university system. […] If all that is meant by affiliation is affiliation with a school of engineering, then that is not possible. […] Subordination goes without saying, but it should be primarily subordination to the state. […] It can’t be done at all with an engineering school. […] I only wish that the studies should be conducted with the Higher Education Coordination Plan in mind. If there’s to be nationalization, it should be from this perspective. Staying independent or nationalization – those are the only alternatives.” Herbert Ohl was aware that Ralf Dahrendorf’s plan of a coordinated university system would not be implemented for a few years. No doubt he even regarded this period of time as the greatest opportunity to preserve the autonomy and independence of the HfG. For as soon at is was certain that the HfG was part of the coordinated university system, there would be enough time and opportunities to assert the HfG’s interests. That is why Herbert Ohl did not miss a single
Theodor Pfizer at the HfG, 1968. Photo:unknown A rchive: city archive Ulm(11–5– 97)
opportunity to argue that his objective was not out of touch with reality. Only four days earlier, with this end in view, he had published a position paper: “The Ulm School of Design is determined to go on working fully and in its capacity as a college, and welcomes the decision of the council of ministers and the Baden-Württemberg Landtag to preserve it ‘because of its uniqueness and significance’. The School of Design awaits studies on the possibility of nationalization […]. The School of Design hopes the studies will produce a result that on the one hand will ensure the college continues to develop dynamically and on the other hand represents a starting point toward building a new, allencompassing system of higher education.” 1390 And fifthly, most of the members of the foundation’s council proved to be perplexed and helpless. The road they had taken at their previous meeting turned out not to be the clear way out they had been looking for. Again they saw themselves in a blind alley; their disappointment and resignation were unmistakable. Otto Pfleiderer, the president of the Landeszentralbank, who had supported the HfG ever since the first administrative council meeting, took the initiative and demanded that the council draw conclusions from his insights, from the situation, and from the last decisions: “Do we stick to the 30 October 1967 decision or not? On that day we presented our conclusions to the
Landtag, clearly formulated. The conditions in fact occurred. The first question for us: Do we want to stick to this decision? From a purely legal standpoint we can, but I see no possibility of going on. I see that we will continue to function as sponsors until the end of the 67/68 academic year at the latest. […] Then the next question is whether the GSS is still entitled to exist or not. I want to say, unless people here tell me differently, that the GSS would then have to be dissolved.” Günther Grzimek objected that first they must wait for the results from the ministry of education and the arts to see in what way the HfG could be affiliated with or integrated in the State College of Engineering. But his point did not persuade his listeners. At least there was agreement that the current academic year 1967/68 would be brought to a conclusion. And contrary to the misgivings of Günther Boulanger, the representative of the ministry of finance, the foundation‘s council did not give notice to all the faculty members and staff of the foundation. From a financial point of view, this would have been the correct and safest behavior, because it would have kept 1968 from ending with yet another fiasco. 1391 At the same time, however, and this was most important, it w ould have meant that negotiations about the future of the HfG would have to be c onducted from an even weaker position. And no doubt teaching would have instantly collapsed. Finally Otto Pfleiderer energetically got the group to accept his view, and so the foundation‘s council decided the end of a privately sponsored HfG – in the hope that a public sponsorship would seamlessly follow: „1. The 1967/68 academic year will be brought to a conclusion […] as planned. 2. As a result of the DM 300,000 cut in the requested subsidy the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung is no longer in a position to function as the sponsor of the School of Design beyond 30 September 1968. 3. The foundation‘s council in principle welcomes the intention of the Land government to keep the School of Design going and to have the Land take charge of it. 4. In this context the foundation‘s council emphatically requests that the Land government bear in mind the unique character of the School of Design and if at all possible maintain the college as a self-contained unit.” The king is dead, long live the king. Thus by the turn of 1967/68 it had been settled that the HfG was no longer going to be privately sponsored starting 1 October 1968. The dominant question emerged from that fact: What would a publicly sponsored HfG be like? All thoughts and
367
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
368
23 February 1968.
Smoking a cigarette: Walter Zeischegg. Herbert Ohl. Photos: Gloria Nauber-Gassmann A rchive: HfG (Depositum 96/9 and 96/1)
events circled around this center in 1968. In the course of that year one characteristic feature of development emerged; it can most strikingly be described as the clarifying of positions and variations thereof. At first, and almost like an eruption, confrontation between the HfG and all faculty and staff who supported the school’s affiliation with or integration in the Ulm State College of Engineering or even merely considered the idea (up to the middle of March 1968) grew in intensity. In this first phase
the HfG, with its stance of rejection, completely asserted itself against the passive foundation‘s council and the active Stuttgart protagonists in the ministries. In the course of the dispute there was also a process of mutual repulsion between the HfG and the foundation. On the one hand lecturers like Herbert Ohl and the students increasingly re jected the foundation’s claim that it was their sole external representative, because the foundation had forfeited its right to represent the HfG’s interests by a decision of its foundation‘s council, and because as time went on the students opposed any higher institution that arrogated authority to itself. On the other hand events were coming to light at the HfG that, to the members of the foundation‘s council, seemed to be evidence of irresponsible, short-sighted, and foolish behavior and stripped them of any vestige of patience, understanding, and interest in the college. As of the middle of March 1968, the members of the HfG had to change their behavior; they had to do more than simply reject proposals that came from outside. Now they themselves needed to formulate their own ideas as to what the future of the HfG would look like. In this second phase they no longer had an easily identifiable adversary, while up to that time all internal forces of the HfG had concentrated on warding off that adversary’s intentions. Now, within the HfG, opposing factions that had hitherto existed only in an embryonic stage became more pronounced. The HfG developed hardening of the arteries; it gradually became impossible for the school to respond flexibly to current demands. Very valuable time was lost in exhausting factional struggles. The factions,
though, did not develop merely because of the school’s own difficulties. Rather, they were to some extent fed by the latest issues raised by student unrest. As a result, students, assistant lecturers, and lecturers were divided into separate groups, so that by the end of the academic year (30 June 1968) the HfG was no longer recognizable as a unified whole, as a voluntary gathering of teachers and learners with the common interest of self-preservation. It was scattered in many directions. And only a very minimal number of its members returned to the college on 1 October 1968 at the end of the summer holidays. Kuhberg had lost its attractiveness, literally: its power to attract, as an international magnet of design education and personality training. Yet this was not enough to seal the fate of the HfG. The HfG did not dissolve itself, neither in an active sense (as resolved on 19–23 February 1968) nor in a passive sense (when students failed to re-register on 1 October 1968). Classes started for the new 1968/69 academic year, though on an irregular basis. Until November 1968 there was a real possibility that the HfG might remain in existence in the future. Not until November 1968 was its existence finally cut short when a degrading cannibalism set in among its remaining members. The starting position as of 1 January 1968 may be characterized as follows: 1. The value of the foundation’s real estate was approximately DM 4.3 million. 1392 The debit side, on the other hand, totaled almost DM 1.5 million, divided over nine loans with different Hans Lorenser (CDU) (6 Feb. 1916–19 July 1989), member of Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1964–72, and mayor of Ulm, 1972–84. Photo:unknown (1 May 1968) Archive: Südwestpresse
maturity dates – and correspondingly different scales of rates and charges. In part these were long-term mortgages secured by property, in part , however, they were short-term obligations that had been entered into in order to cover gaps in the budget to avoid imminent insolvency. Annual payments on these totaled about DM 150,000. 1393 2. The foundation’s personnel had been decimated. This exsanguination reflects the fact that those groups who could traditionally be counted on to
369
HfG meeting, 23 February 1968. Seated at the table (from the left): Johanna Rösner, Herbert Ohl, Claude Schnaidt, and Herbert Lindinger. Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpre sse
support the foundation disapproved of the events of the past years. There was now only a truncated foundation‘s council (three vacant positions, and four starting May 1968), and what is more there was only a truncated executive board (one member instead of three). The administrative director was pale and weak. Personnel and financial shortages meant that the foundation was incapable of acting – not inevitably, but de facto; it admitted this, and strove to shift the responsibility for the HfG to the Land of Baden-Württemberg, wherever anyone was willing to take charge of it: in the Landtag or in the Land government or in the ministry of education and the arts. Of the foundation’s previous financial sponsors, only the Land was left; only here could there be a faint hope, contrary to all statements up to this point, that it would make a stronger commitment after all. The federal government and the private sector were now definitely not willing to support the HfG, the city of Ulm would have been overtaxed, and there were no wealthy patrons in sight. 3. At the b eginning of the 1967/68 academic year the HfG was active and lively as always, unlike the foundation’s more passive foundation‘s council. For instance, it was the HfG that was responsible for the main German contribution to the 1968 Milan Triennale. The HfG’s design was the winner of a competition by the Rat für Formgebung (Design Council) on the theme “Design in public life”. It is true that recently the sociopolitical interests of HfG members appeared to supersede their interest in design-related problems. The slogans of the student unrests found a receptive soil at the HfG. In the sixties there had been a sudden burst of reforms in Baden-Württemberg educational policy, and specifically in higher education. In the ministry of education and the arts the HfG had always been recognized as a college with a unique character. However, it was not classed as a scientific university or technical college, just as it was not considered to be a technical school. For the sake of simplicity it could possibly be compared with one of the nine colleges of music
and art, but its technological orientation and equipment also suggested a comparison with the schools of engineering. There were also feeble comparisons with the Land’s two arts and crafts schools (Pforzheim and Schwäbisch Gmünd), which were ranked as state professional colleges. Today the HfG could be interpreted as being, for a few years, the realization of the old dream of a techno-humanistic college and from the point of view of objectives represented an alternative to technical colleges. The general goals of the Land government, as recapitulated by minister of education and the a rts Wilhelm Hahn (CDU) in 1965 for the biennial report of the Länder a t the conference of ministers of education and the arts, were to decrease the “education gap” between urban and rural areas and develop “educational reserves” in the country (a kind of intellectual fallow land). The minister placed himself on the side of politico-cultural reformers: The educational policy of the Land government of Kurt Georg Kiesinger (who had emphasized its importance in his government policy statement on 25 June 1964 1394) „stressed that educational policy today is the same as overall policy: The fate of a democracy largely depends on its education system. For democracy presupposes that citizens are politically mature and responsible. (...) The education system, which is indissolubly linked with social, economic, and financial policy, is therefore rightly considered to be part of a country’s infrastructure. (...) In the triad of educational research, educational planning, and educational policy each individual’s and the entire society’s claim to freedom must be safeguarded. (...) To prevent rising numbers of applicants to colleges and universities from being penalized by the restriction of admissions ( numerus clausus ), an overall higher education plan is worked out as part of educational planning that deals with higher educational programs and tries to coordinate individual educational institutions – scientific colleges and universities, teachers’ colleges, schools for vocational educators, teacher training courses, art and music colleges, schools of engineering and institutes of technology – in such a way as to have greater flexibility.“
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
“Again and again a reporter may hear someone say with proud resignation:
370
Voting on 23 Feb. 1968 on the resolution to disband. Wearing a scarf, partially concealed, Inge Aicher-Scholl is seated next to her husband. Photo: Gloria Nauber-Gassmann A rchive:HfG (Depositum 96/6)
This reform activity had begun, to choose an example, with the opening of eight teacher training colleges in the summer semester of 1962 (Esslingen, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Karlsruhe, Ludwigsburg, Reutlingen, Schwäbisch Gmünd, and Weingarten). The Land government also took under advisement the Recommendations of the Scientific Council on expanding scientific colleges and universities : Of the 204 additional professorships at the seven scientific colleges and universities of Baden-Württemberg recommended by the Scientific Council, a total of 99 were established in 1961 and 1962; the Scientific Council diagnosed a particular need for more teachers in the non-professorial teaching staff of higher institutions of learning (such as lecturers, assistant professors, teaching assistants); it advised that about 900 additional positions be established; the Land government included a total of 441 positions in the budget in 1961 and 1962; in 1961 the Land spent DM 44.4 million for the construction of colleges and universities; this represented 42 percent of expenditure for all building construction in the state; in 1962, as the budget increased generally, this grew to as much as DM 83.37 million (43 percent).
Two developments influenced the higher education policy of the Land of Baden-Württemberg beginning in the mid-sixties: The decision to add new colleges and universities, and the adoption of the University and College Act on 7 March 1968 by the Landtag. Minister-president Kurt Georg Kiesinger (CDU) intended Baden-Württemberg to have an eighth scientific college: “In September 1959 Ministerpresident Kiesinger, to the surprise of the general public, recommended the city of Constance as the location of a new, fourth Land university in BadenWürttemberg, and repeatedly confirmed this line of thinking.“ 1396 The city of Ulm also vied for the university – Ulm Mayor Theodor Pfizer supported the idea –, and later so did the city of Mannheim. But Kurt Georg Kiesinger prevailed: On 27 Feb. 1964 the Landtag decided to establish the University of Constance and thus put into effect a model of academic reform. So that the two other competitors would not come away empty-handed, it was decided on the same day to found a medical school in Ulm and to expand the Mannheim School of Business by adding a clinical complex that would become the second medical school of Heidelberg University. In August 1964 the ministry of education and the arts added an educational planning department that subsequently designed a comprehensive higher education plan for the
What’s to become of this school? Which way are we heading? Aren’t we a luxury? What will become of us once we graduate? Where will the next generation of students come from?
Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if the school were to fold in a year or two. It’s achieved enough already: It was there. The longer it exists, the greater the risk that it will become petrified or peter out.
Hasn’t it done enough just by being there? Doesn’t it already seem regulative, normative? It wouldn’t be a tragedy. This is the voice of an elite that feels misunderstood.“
Land to encompass all institutions of higher learning for purposes of reform. On 21 June 1966 Constance laid the foundation stone for the university. On 25 Feb. 1967 the Ulm medical school was officially opened; as of July 1967, it has had the right to call itself the Universität Ulm, MedizinischNaturwissenschaftliche Hochschule (University of Ulm, a School of Medicine and Natural Science). The disputes regarding whether and how the HfG was to be nationalized occurred in the middle of a period when the College and University Act was on the agenda. The reason for them was not only growing unrest among students during 1967 and 1968, when student protests increasingly moved out into the streets and no longer shied away from violence. 1397 One reason was also that the first College and University Act of the Land was discussed among much controversy right in the Landtag of Baden-Württemberg in the spring of 1968. On 7 March 1968 the Landtag passed a resolution: The self-government of the universities was to be strengthened and the dualism of state and academic administration to be eliminated; the so-called “power structures“ that were felt to exist in colleges and universities, (at the HfG, too, during that time, students examined the power structures in their college) were to be dismantled. 1398 They were to be replaced by a structure where members of the institution worked together as partners. The students’ criticism aimed at implementing equal say in decision-making for students in all university committees (at the HfG this policy became a reality in the committees to save the HfG).
This picture was probably taken at the HfG’s 19 Feb. 1968 meeting, when the resolution to disband was discussed. Photo:unknown Archive: HfG (0380/2)
A few figures illustrate the promotion of the HfG by the Land and the federal government as compared to another budget item of educational and cultural policy. For if we compare the sums provided by the Land for the operation of its seven scientific institutions of higher learning with contributions to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung for the HfG, it is striking that assertions by the HfG’s opponents, who claimed that the HfG was an expensive college for the Land, turn out to be groundless. They are es-
Bernhard Rübenach, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm, p. 57.
pecially unfounded if we remember that the HfG raised its own construction costs and that the latter were a substantial part of its budget, while state colleges and universities could fall back on the Land’s building construction budget. In 1965 the Land spent DM 185 million for construction at the existing seven colleges and universities; in 1966 it was still DM 165.5 million, not counting the cost of new construction at the three a dditional academic institutions. If these sums are brought into relation with numbers of students and the Gui Bonsiepe, 23 Feb. 1968. Photo: Gloria Nauber-Gassmann Archive:HfG (Depositum 96/2)
result applied to the HfG, then the HfG should have been able to receive an additional DM 575,000 in 1965 and an additional DM 500,000 in 1966 without receiving preferential treatment as compared to state academic institutions. This result is all the more bitter in that it illustrates actual proportions at the very point when the federal subsidy to the HfG failed to materialize and the foundation staggered into the fatal financial crisis. Of course this comparison is not meant to imply that the foundation had a right to receive such sums from the Land. The comparison merely indicates the regard in which the HfG was held by Land politicians as expressed in financial terms, and it shows the groundlessness of the assertion that the HfG was the most expensive school in the Land. The ministry of education and the arts had been asked to respond to the Landtag’s request and to study under what circumstances the HfG could be nationalized, with the reservation that only affiliation with or integration in the Ulm School of Engineering could be taken into consideration. The intention of the majority of the council of ministers, in which they followed Minister-president Hans Filbinger, was to achieve state supervision of the restless and unfathomable, and presumably messy HfG. The present director of the School of Engineering, Josef Hengartner, was considered to be an assertive, authoritarian, and straightforward personality. He was preceded by the reputation that he was capable of mucking out the proverbial stables of Augias – which is how people probably thought of the HfG. Also he was said to have the
371
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
372
Expenditure of the Land of Baden-Württemberg for the ongoing operation 1960 –1966 1395
the 7 colleges of science
HfG subsidy
HfG subsidy
actual (DM)
“debit“ (DM) * entsprechend
actual (DM)
1960
per student total amount
000.006,647.03 262,597,500.00
006,647.03 677,996.06
001,764.71 180,000.00
1964
per student total amount
000.005,091.13 236,243,800.00
005,091.13 656,755.77
004,651.16 600,000.00
1965
per student total amount
000.006,411.61 305,250,800.00
006,411.61 948,918.28
004,054.05 600,000.00
+ construction costs
per student total amount
000.003,885.82 185,000,000.00
003,885.82 575,101.36
000.000,0– 000.000,0–
1966
per student total amount
000.006,714.57 316,142,200.00
006,714.57 960,183.51
006,293.71 900,000.00
+ construction costs
per student total amount
000.003,515.07 165,500,000.00
003,515.07 502,655.01
000.000,0– 000.000,0–
ambition of wanting to upgrade the School of Engineering to an Institute of Technology. The enrichment of the programs that were currently offered by the broad canon of the HfG would presumably have been a welcome partial victory in reaching this goal. Three characteristics are typical of the activity of the ministry of education and the arts that began without delay: The HfG immediately refused even to consider being affiliated with the School of Engineering, to say nothing of being integrated in it; from the start, negotiations seem to have taken place in an atmosphere of aggressiveness and arrogance, and the representatives of the HfG and the School of Engineering probably pulled no punches, for just as Josef Hengartner no doubt looked down on the creative anarchists – a s he saw them – who had apparently been ruined by mismanagement, the designers doubtlessly wrinkled their noses at the supposedly provincially limited horizon of the engineering school’s curriculum; and finally, it is p ossible to recognize the positive and supportive attitude of the representatives of the ministry, striving for a constructive solution. In the first discussion at the Stuttgart ministry of education and the arts on 5 January 1968, Herbert Kapitzki presented the officials with three proposals, which, however, all differed from the instructions of the council of ministers:
to ensure that the citizens, who after all give money to such an institution through their taxes, should get a different, positive view of the college than has been the case so far. The citizens, he claimed, still thought that the HfG had a negative opinion of them and the state. […] Because of Dutschke the political situation has changed; there is now a negative attitude among taxpayers because they don’t see why they should make funds available for institutions where revolutionary ideas are promoted, especially today, when everyone is economizing.“1400 One result that was noted was that the School of Engineering and the HfG were to hand in their position statements on two possible solutions by 16 January 1968: integration of the HfG as postgraduate studies at the School of Engineering, or a merger of both institutions without
acter and significance of the HfG could not be preserved through affiliation with or integration into the State School of Engineering. The inclusion of both institutions under an umbrella organization made sense only as part of an association of institutions of higher learning that would include the university. “Such a fundamentally new solution should be implemented by changing the p rivate foundation status of the HfG to state sponsorship, with the proviso that after carefully and thoroughly planning the organizational structure of the association of institutions of higher learning, the HfG would be incorporated in this association.” 1403 There were no further negotiations between both Ulm parties until the end of the study by the ministry of education and the arts. Not till after its conclusion, on 15 February 1968, was there one
changing their curricula with a new, joint umbrella organization headed by the current director of the School of Engineering. This second variant, at least, was unanimously approved by the council of lecturers of the School of Engineering. As early as 11 January 1968 the council informed the ministry of education and the arts of its proposal that a future Ulm Institute of Technology with five depa rtments, one being the present HfG, would be the best solution. They did not exclude the possibility that the HfG would be farther absorbed into the departments of the School of Engineering – for financial reasons. 1401
more discussion, arranged by the Stuttgart officials. Josef Hengartner here pushed his attempt to preserve the unique character of the HfG to a large extent, as the council of ministers wished, expressing his intention to found an institute of technology that would comprise both the School of Engineering and the HfG. The rectorate bylaws would then have to be dropped because the smaller HfG had to adapt itself to the larger School of Engineering, and directorial bylaws were more efficient. The institute of technology, he added, meant not only a common umbrella for two different organizations, but shared regulations with the same rights and duties. Along these lines the HfG would become an added department of design in the present School of Engineering, and thus his proposal was in keeping with the instructions of the
1. the autonomous nationalization of the HfG without a change in its status resulting from the breaking up of the foundation; 2. the founding of an association consisting of the HfG, the School of Engineering, and the medical school, while preserving the autonomy of each institution; 3. the transformation of the private foundation into one governed by public law.
* This column shows the amounts of subsidies the Land of BadenWürttemberg would have paid to the HfG if it had supported them financially exactly like the Land's seven scientific colleges and universities.
Josef Hengartner, on the other hand, intended the HfG to be integrated in the School of Engineering in the form of a four-semester series of postgraduate courses. Another possibility he considered was a merger as part of an association of Ulm institutions of higher learning, but he knew quite well that this solution, which would have been the most agreeable and elegant for a ll the institutions concerned, had the least prospects of success. 1399 Three days later Herbert Kapitzki and Claude Schnaidt met at the ministry of state with minister of state Adalbert Seifriz, who was well acquainted with the HfG from having been a member of the administrative council from 1955 through 1958. Herbert Kapitzki's minutes show the predominant political problems faced by Land politicians at the time, which overshadowed the objective treatment of HfG issues: Adalbert Seifriz “had only one wish: that the HfG should help him and other politicians
Plenary assembly after voting, 23 Feb. 1968. Photo: unknown Source: L‘école d‘ulm
The extended senate met on 12 January 1968 and adopted the position statement of the HfG. 1402 Both proposals were rejected, for the unique char-
373
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
374
council of ministers. From the perspective of HfG representatives what this plan was saying was that “for the future of the HfG the motto will be, ‘If you don’t like it, you can lump it’.” 1404 Josef Hengartner’s remarks must have sounded completely alien to their ears, for hierarchic subordination and imbalanced adaptation were, for them, concepts from another world that needed to be overcome, a world whose sociopolitical ideas struck them as anachronisms. The HfG members rejected any constructive cooperation around the question whether the HfG and the School of Engineering could be merged in any way, shape, or form as long as the goal of such a merger did not involve an association of Ulm institutions of higher learning. The students in particular focused their energy on topics vital to the student movement and – applying these consistently – on the separation of the HfG from the foundation. On the weekend of 3/4 February 1968 they held a public seminar at the HfG on Higher education in the process of democratization . Michael Klar gave the introductory talk on The political and pedagogical situation of the HfG , with plenty of criticism of the current HfG, which he felt was far from coming up to the ideals of a nonauthoritarian college. 1405 The Stuttgarter Nach richten published a report about the seminar on 5 February 1968. – A few days later the HfG set up a committee committed to basic principles, with ideal, equal representation (three lecturers, three assistant lecturers, and three students, one from each department); the group would “study the Württemberg-Baden University and College Act as a basis for the nationalization of the HfG, and Signing the resolution, 23 Feb. 1968. Photo: Gloria Nauber-Gassmann Archive:HfG (Depositum 96/3)
resulting effects on the bylaws, rules of procedure, and other regulations of the HfG”. 1406 At the same time the students demanded, first, that a committee be formed to work out new HfG by-laws, “in which for the time being only the right of participation by students, assistant lecturers, technical teachers, and lecturers in the crucial committees of the HfG (extended senate, inner senate, department conference, pedagogical conference) would be newly regulated and laid down”. Secondly, to prevent the imminent affiliation of the HfG with the
School of Engineering, other alternatives for nationalizing the HfG as an autonomous institution were to be studied, “as long as nationalization is out of the question and cannot be implemented as part of a coordinated university system because the prerequisites are lacking (no interest on the part of the University of Ulm etc.)”. The commission was also to look into ways of continuing to operate the college privately. Thirdly, all negotiations regarding nationalization were to be conducted in such a way “that the HfG’s bylaws – which it has yet to develop – must be taken over and guaranteed by the new sponsoring organization so as to ensure the independence and progressive nature, and thus also the special teaching mission, of the HfG”. Obviously from the students’ perspective the uniqueness of the HfG, which the council of ministers was also striving to preserve, was expressed primarily in its bylaws. And the existing bylaws of the HfG seemed so questionable to them that they preferred that the HfG should be dissolved to its being nationalized with the existing bylaws. They summed up their demands as follows: “The students ask that the college administration examine whether the present bylaws of the HfG can guarantee that the institution will be truly progressive after being transferred into state hands, when it has become a pparent even now that the HfG as an organism uses up more energy to save itself from destruction than in attaining regeneration, something that has become absolutely necessary. It is precisely the existing bylaws that encourage such a diversion of energy.” By mid-February 1968 the determining factions had polarized. Affiliation with or integration in another school were out of the question. At the HfG, since the end of December 1967, people had been wondering out loud whether the foundation as the sponsor of the HfG could still justify its existence, since by its 18 December 1967 resolution it had already separated itself from the HfG. 1407 Moreover, the members of the HfG believed that what mattered most was not to preserve the HfG at all costs but to respect its unique founding idea. As early as 12 January 1968, the students demanded, at the meeting of the extended senate, that this be taken into account during the negotiations. 1408 But Herbert Ohl also emphasized in an open letter to the Ulm Südwestpresse that he was not prepared to make any concessions that would give up those hitherto undefined characteristics which together made up the famous unique character of the HfG: “The future of the HfG cannot be bought at the price of sacrifices by others or by ourselves that, while partially preserving our educational institution, deform, alienate, and undervalue the educational mission of the HfG. That is why the HfG is forced to point this out and propose that it can
only be preserved as an autonomous school of design, the only form appropriate, even if it becomes part of an association of institutions of higher learning.“ 1409 And finally, at the 15th meeting of the foundation‘s council on 12 February 1968, the distance between its members and the HfG increased. At this meeting Wolfgang Donndorf and Günther Boulanger, the representatives of the leading ministries in Stuttgart, discussed the result of the study by the ministry of education and the arts. 1410 The next day they planned to pass it on to the ministry of state to be submitted to the council of ministers. Wolfgang Donndorf's report recommended that the HfG and the School of Engineering be combined under a new joint umbrella into a new entity that would be open to a possible future development into a coordinated university system headed by the director of the School of Engineering, who was to take the place of the foundation: “Somehow – and that is intentional – Hengartner will be in a superior position. And that’s what the college is afraid of. There is Hengartner’s good will, but he is also saying quite clearly, and rightly so: Not next to me, but quite definitely under me.” There were no instructions for a study to see whether the HfG might be able to continue in existence in a (so-called autonomous) nationalized form. And Wolfgang Donndorf was pessimistic about any other continuing private future: “I’m afraid there’s a great risk that the DM 900,000 will also stop coming if the HfG continues to lead its independent existence as it has done so far. There’s no point in talking about it.” Theodor Pfizer agreed with him: “The mood among Land officials is no different than the mood in the city government. The only way it was possible to save the DM 200,000 was by pointing out that the institution would be nationalized. […] But I also had the impression that they [the members of the municipal council; author’s note] want nationalization. Just three or five years ago there was no such wish. After all the experience, a certain disillusionment has set in.“ That is why the foundation‘s council agreed with Wolfgang Donndorf’s conclusion and adopted his proposal. Herbert Ohl rejected this recommendation because it was not in keeping with the ideas of the HfG: “Our proposal was not acknowledged here at all. […] You say that the college should be kept going at all costs. I’m not so sure about that. It must be able to continue to determine its own curriculum in an appropriate form.” The two opposing views collided on this very issue. Theodor Pfizer contradicted the HfG rector: “You say you’re against preservation at all costs. You’d rather let the HfG break apart if the curriculum does not continue exactly as it is now. My opinion is that I’d rather change the curriculum a bit and save the college. Where there’s a will
there’s a way.” The foundation‘s council as the official negotiating partner of the ministry of education and the arts would really have liked to hear the position of the HfG’s extended senate first, but because the parliamentary term was ending in a few weeks and the Landtag would stop its discussions on 28 March 1968, there was no time. Also, based on experience, Wolfgang Donndorf feared the indiscretion of HfG members. At all costs, he wanted to prevent a situation where the government would learn about the bill it would be negotiating from the press. That is why the extended senate could not express its views on the official proposal of the foundation about the continued existence of the HfG – and in the HfG’s opinion the foundation thus committed a violation of the bylaws. From its perspective the foundation was once more acting against the actual interests of the HfG, as it had before on 18 December 1967, and what is more acting from a position of arrogated authority when parity-based cooperation would have been called for. This widened the rift between the two involved parties on Kuhberg. It is true that the HfG members were largely to blame for the widening of that rift. The college persisted in undermining attempts by the foundation to stick to the nonbinding budget. The only remaining member of the foundation’s executive board, the Ulm businessman Hans Zumsteg, spoke of the efforts of the administrative director: “Fischer wanted to clear up a lot of things; the reason he’s failed is that the college is being difficult – things that are unforgivable. […] That’s all because they’re so terribly overbearing. […] As far as conditions at the HfG are concerned, please forgive me for not telling you before today. […] A lot of things are still at sixes and sevens. It simply defies all description.” Hans Zumsteg gave several examples of the daily behavior of HfG members that proved they lacked a sense of responsibility in their own cause, the discipline necessary for a community, and, in view of the situation, good sense and the will to economize that was needed in order to overcome the financial crisis. Theodor Pfizer was stunned: “I didn't know just how glaring these cases [of inappropriate behavior at the HfG; author’s note] were, but I did suspect something. My many years of experience led me to predict something of the kind. Had I known, I don’t think I could have represented the cause [of the HfG] in the municipal council. […] It is humanly incomprehensible to me, now that the college is hanging by a thread, that people can be like this. […] To me that feels like ingratitude and horrible shortsightedness.” It was no wonder that the foundation found itself abandoned in its efforts by a college that had not only publicly cut itself loose from the foundation, but
375
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
376
also stabbed it in the back through its fiscally irresponsible behavior. On 16 February 1968 the ministry of education and the arts delivered its report to the ministry of state on the form and costs of the HfG’s affiliation with or integration in the School of Engineering. Its recommendation, in agreement with the foundation’s council, was to go with the so-called “cooperation model” (merging into a new organizational unit), to be implemented by 1 October 1968. The HfG itself, of course, aimed at being incorporated in a future Ulm coordinated university system ( Gesamthochschule). “[The HfG] thus anticipates a possible later solution. On the other hand a possible solution at present is at first to c ombine the Ulm State School of Engineering and the Ulm School of Design into an organizational unit […] in which the School of Design would constitute the ‘School of Design’ department with subdivisions for product design, building, and visual communication. This organizational unit would remain open for potential development into an Ulm coordinated university.” 1411 Immediately, the HfG organized a large-scale public campaign against this model. Posters, protests, resolutions, and public letters by HfG members produced an international wave of hundreds of expressions of solidarity, letters of indignation, and appeals by famous as well as unknown friends of the HfG that were for the most part sent directly to the Stuttgart ministry of education and the arts, and partly reached Stuttgart only by way of German embassies all over the world, the Foreign Ministry, and the office of the federal chancellor. The press took up the topic and often supported the perspective represented by the HfG that the existence of the HfG should be brought to an end. The result was a clear victory for the HfG: The ministry of education and the arts was impressed by the concerted campaigns and the HfG’s resistance and, in the middle of March, stopped working on implementing the cooperation plan. The foundation‘s council had decided on 15 15 February 1968 for reasons of financial urgency to give notice to the foundation’s staff. In part a year’s notice was given, while there would probably be enough money – if the HfG stuck to the budget – only until 30 September 1968. If there were no funds for the authorized salaries after 30 September 1968, the foundation‘s council would have been responsible for them. That is why these staff members had to be given notice, but in the eyes of many HfG members the foundation took the last step toward a final separation by doing so. This is expressed in the pamphlet Observations regarding the HfG , dated 16 February 1968, which states that it is the foundation that is in debt, not the HfG:
On 4 May 1968, Walter Gropius had actually only planned to open the Bauhaus retrospective in Stuttgart. – The demonstrators’ posters say: “Weep over the Bauhaus and protect the HfG“; “Words for the Bauhaus are good, deeds for the HfG are better“; “In 1968 buried during the excavation of the Bauhaus: the HfG“. Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
377
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
378
HfG protests during the opening of the Stuttgart exhibition on the Bauhaus, 4 May 1968.
What’s the difference between 1943 and 1968, asked these posters, immediately providing an answer: answer: There is none. There was no need to mention specifically that Hans and Sophie Scholl were executed in 1943. – The posters say: “1943 / 1968 execution HfG“. Photos:unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
“Those are two different things.” While the reasons for the notices are financial in nature, the pamphlet goes on, political motives are involved as well. Politicians are said to dislike the whole orientation of the HfG and feel it is necessary to get control of the HfG (a quote from the 18 December 1968 foundation‘s council meeting, when Günther Boulanger reported conversations in the finance committee and the council of ministers, asking HfG representatives to observe absolute secrecy): “Truly clear opinions and wishes that give us rea-
In the same tone of voice, in letters to the Land ministers, Herbert Ohl explained why HfG members were definitely not willing to accept the cooperation plan: The results of the study by the ministry of education and the arts, he said, had not taken into consideration the proposals of the HfG, and the proposed solution by the ministry of education and the arts was contrary to the educational mission of the HfG. “If those who did the study for the government continue in the direction that has been evident so far, the educational mission of the
son to regard all rehabilitation, rescue, and consolidation plans, in so far a s they come from outside, with serious reservations”. At any rate, the text continued, the decisions had already been made, and besides nowadays it was to a school’s disadvantage that “it was founded in memory of the revolutionary action of two students who were murdered because of this action by the fascist regime”. That is why the HfG would resist all outside pressure: “Well-meaning offers to ‘save’ the HfG, and kindly advice that the HfG should just get down off its high horse contradict each other, for looming in the background is the menacing alternative, ‘Do or die!’ Not all the p eople at the HfG will ‘do’. At that point free decision becomes a farce where financial backers and pressure groups have the upper hand. Members of the HfG here unmistakably show that they are under no circumstances prepared to accept the p roposals that have in part already been discussed in public – attempts to undermine the free democratic bylaws of this institution.” 1412
HfG will be destroyed. The faculty, assistant lecturers, and students of the School of Design will then no longer be willing to continue the task of the college. That would mean the existence of the college is over.” 1413 Rumors began to circulate that the end of the HfG was being brought about by outside forces or was being deliberately provoked. And for the first time Herbert Ohl openly said that the foundation‘s council was no longer felt to represent the “educational mission” of the HfG – a smoke screen that suggested that the mission could be defined only by HfG members; however, the content of this mission had not been determined, and moreover the word evoked a genuine social task that could supposedly be fulfilled only by the HfG. That is why society’s postulated but vague mission for the HfG to train its members could be produced every time there was an unwelcome comment, a suggestion, an objective argument, with the implicit message that contradiction might lead to the destruction of the very basis of the HfG. From this perspective, the HfG was identified exclusively with (all?) its members. Ultimately
this meant that any action against the intentions of HfG representatives was directed against the HfG itself. And if the HfG ceased to exist, it would mean not only that an institution had been destroyed, but that society itself, which had supposedly given the HfG that mission had been irreparably damaged. At any rate what was at stake was more than just the HfG, this was about warding off an insidious attack against democracy in Germany, period. It sounded as though people within the HfG were deployed primarily to ward off attacks
members of the highest administrative level of the GSS. […] Debts were incurred by the GSS, and in the process the HfG was either ignored or the foundation even acted against its express protest. Thus a clear separation must be made between the GSS and the HfG. These are the reasons that we can no longer regard the majority of those who presently make up the GSS as being representative of the interests of the HfG.” A file on The case of the Ulm School of Design – a classic example of political development in the Federal Republic of Germany , which was presumably written by students, illustrates the extent to which the new patterns of thought and language borrowed from the student movement had taken hold of the heads of HfG members. 1415 A lecture by the students in memory of the 25th anniversary of the execution of Hans and Sophie Scholl on 20 February 1968 corresponds with it almost verbatim. 1416 In the text, criticism of contemporary society and modern sociological jargon have been compressed to a miniature of the 1968 universe. The file and the lecture are important for three further reasons. For one, they show how the students distanced themselves from the existing HfG, but also from a possibly nationalized (“technocratic”) HfG. Instead they place their hopes in a third, democratic HfG, although they are already aware that it will continue to be a Utopia because society stands in its way. Secondly they clearly reveal the divergence and disintegration of forces within the HfG. And thirdly the texts suggest an infamous parallel: Just as Hans and Sophie Scholl were executed in 1943, the HfG is being executed now, 25 years later. Published opinion about the HfG never recovered from this obscene provocation. on society at large, so that the concrete instituDuring the Ulm commemoration ceremony, the tion HfG could be sacrificed on the altar of its students protested with placards that repeated this principles. suggestion: “1943–1968 “1943–1968 execution of the HfG”. At the same time the Neu-Ulmer Zeitung pub At the opening of the Bauhaus retrospective on lished an open letter by HfG members. 1414 In the 4 May 1968 in Stuttgart, Walter Gropius was reletter all lecturers, students, and staff of the HfG ceived with the same placards. Here is an excerpt supported the views expressed in the Observa from the texts: “‘Nothing is more unworthy of a tions regarding of the HfG , the Report of a murder , civilized nation than allowing itself to be g overned and the manifesto Exodus 1 – Exodus 2 : “Nowwithout resistance by an irresponsible ruling clique adays there is only one unanimous view at the given to base instincts.’ That is the beginning of HfG: The HfG must carry on while retaining comone of the fliers of the White Rose, which was plete autonomy; if need be it should be nationalwritten by Hans Scholl in 1942. Twenty-five years ized in association with the University of Stuttgart. ago, Hans and Sophie Scholl were executed. SevWe strictly reject any connection – regardless of ven years later a foundation bearing the name of its form – with the Ulm School of Engineering, the brother and sister was founded. […] The since no provisions exist for incorporation into a School of Design, originally the political expression cooperative university plan for Ulm, and none are of this foundation, is now being unconditionally planned for the near future. […] The financial c risis handed over to the state by the foundation’s repof the HfG is a crisis of the Geschwister-Schollresentatives. Its independence, the lifeblood of a Stiftung, and the teaching sector of the HfG should progressively democratic educational institution, is not be blamed for it. […] This financial crisis rebeing cut off so that without resistance it will obey flects more on the majority of the present and forthe private sector’s calls for uncritical, specialized mer members of the foundation‘s council than on professionals. What was formerly concealed as a
379
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
380
financial crisis now turns out to be a critical element that is increasing by leaps and bounds. The attack on the autonomy of the School of Design goes hand in hand with other efforts by the same groups to replace fundamental civic rights with structures involving nothing but command and obedience. […] The case of the HfG is not an isolated phenomenon. It exemplifies the transition from a liberal, pluralistic society to a regimented one. […] The technical colleges and the universities are turning into branches of industry. The demand for highly specialized technicians and scientists definitely dominates attempts at reform at all educational centers. […] The fact that we reject a future technocratic School of Design does not mean we approve of or even defend the present HfG, since for the students the only difference between it and the technocratic school is that it is more chaotic and leaves a larger number of students in the dark. Our criticism of the technocratic HfG, a school that has not yet been implemented, must be implied in the cr iticism of the existing HfG and its present structure. As things stand at present, the students are studying at a college which is already stagnating; neither can they expect a better school from the state. In other words, they have nothing to lose. […] At the same time this criticism inevitably becomes a criticism of society, which prevents a democratic HfG from becoming a reality.” The commemoration speech concludes as follows: “In this process enforced by the regimented society [concentration on economic expansion; author’s note] lie the actual root causes of student protests and criticism in general. In Berkeley and in Berlin, in Tokyo and in Brussels, wherever the
of rule that tries to push through its interests by ever more sophisticated – i.e., more brutal – means. To resist these interests and methods is in keeping with the founding idea of the Geschwister-SchollStiftung and the School of Design. The meaning of this memorial ceremony should be to point that out. Hans and Sophie Scholl in their time fought against the fascism of the Third Reich. The students of the School of Design are presently fighting against authoritarian measures that threaten to destroy the liberal and democratic structure of their institution and, over and above that, of their society.” For the moment the politicians seemed unimpressed by this agitation. On the same day, 20 February 1968, the council of ministers was looking into the documents submitted by the ministry of education and the arts. 1417 The unanimous opinion of the members of the government was that the HfG was in need of a strict, capable administration that would eliminate the many things that were wrong and could be assumed to be intolerant of the kind of rebellion against the higher institution – at this point, the foundation – that was being experienced just then and that everyone had been aware of for years. They recommended that the HfG’s resistance should be disregarded in order to save the HfG. There was no interest in giving up an institution that had a fine international reputation and had cost the Land a great deal of money. In view of the school’s freedoms up to this point members of the cabinet even expressed understanding for the fact that HfG members had rejected a stricter administration. The council’s Another vote: On 18July 1968 the Stuttgart Landtag decided to continue subsidies to the foundation, contingent on conditions accepted by the HfG. Photo:Simon Resch Archive: Südwestpresse
late capitalist economic system has to maintain its hold by means of authoritarian measures, the very groups that are not yet integrated in the production process of society are resisting. The international student movements fight against a system
decision was that the proposal of the ministry of education and the arts be accepted and instructions be given to work out a cooperation plan for the HfG and the School of Engineering. The two institutions were to be merged “into a new organ-
izational unit, to be called ‘Ulm State School of Engineering and College of Design’”, “in which both the Ulm State School of Engineering and the Ulm School of Design represent separate centers of education, each preserving its own unique character. This organizational unit is to be transformed into a Comprehensive University of Ulm [Gesamthochschule Ulm] in due course. […] However, the new organizational unit would have a joint direction and administration. After appropriate adjustment to the new organizational unit the School of Design will also retain its academic self-government. […] The details of cooperation […] on the basis of equal rights will be regulated by a cooperation plan. The council of ministers has instructed the ministry of education and the arts to work out this cooperation plan together with the two educational institutions.” If there was still time in the expiring parliamentary term, the Landtag was to instruct the ministry of education and the arts accordingly. The following day, at the Land press conference, minister of education and the arts Wilhelm Hahn explained that it was not a question of a merger or incorporation, but merely of a joint a dministration. The HfG was to keep its educational objectives, curriculum, and academic self-government. Incidentally, he added, the HfG was mistaken when it asserted that an “autonomous nationalization” was cheaper. The HfG had been in a permanent state of crisis that threatened to have a fatal ending. “The government’s offer was ‘generous’. One couldn’t demand, as the college had done, ‘Pay for everything, but don’t interfere!’ If someone had used the word ‘murder’, they must really mean suicide.” 1418 “Suicide” was the cue the members of the HfG picked up on. On 23 February 1968 they unanimously decided, with four abstentions, on a resolution stating that the HfG would cease to exist on 30 September 1968 if the Landtag did not agree to nationalize the HfG “autonomously”. 1419 – Their very choice of words indicated the utopian nature of their ideas, since the whole history of the HfG had shown that an autonomous existence – that is, one where the rules of living together were set by the school itself – was only possible if undesirable outside influence could be warded off. The influence of the state was always undesirable in this context. An “autonomous nationalization” can only be understood as a self-contradiction. Hellmut Becker in his long years of commitment had always worked for the preservation of as much freedom as possible for cultural organizations, and when, in 1963, he heard suggestions from Otl Aicher that it might be better after all if the HfG were to be nationalized, he had firmly rejected this notion with complete lack of understanding, be-
cause it shook the deepest foundation of the Ulm project. In case the Landtag did not comply with the demand for “autonomous nationalization”, continued the HfG resolution, there would be the following consequences: “The undersigned members of the HfG are […] not willing to obey the government’s dictate. The members of the HfG have resolved that the HfG as an international center for teaching, development, and research in the field of environmental design, with all the institutional divisions of an autonomous college, will cease to exist in Ulm as of 30 September 1968.” The true reasons for the end of the HfG were political, not financial. It was the foundation, the government, the Landtag, and the federal government that were to blame. The press statement by the HfG on the same date ends with the following summary: “The founding idea today is given a cynical ambiguity. The foundation that bears the names of Hans a nd Sophie Scholl is selling out the political and pedagogical independence of the School of Design.” 1420 The ultimatum had been delivered, the separation from the foundation had been voiced, the guilty had been named, and first steps had been taken toward creating a myth: in actual fact, of course, the foundation had decreed the end of the present HfG as far back as 18 December 1967. But because HfG members identified the HfG only with their voluntary assemblage of the community of teachers and students, they could also assert that it was they alone who decided when the HfG existed and when it ceased to do so. The foundation‘s council was unable to stop this movement of secession. Further documents to cement their own position followed. Even the title of a File on the preparation of the end of the HfG , dated 4 March 1968, suggests who is the innocent party. The file begins with 1967, 1967, when – so it claims – the federal subsidy was suddenly cut. Supposedly the result of the expert opinion by the Troeger Commission was the reason for this discontinuation of the subsidy, which allegedly came from one day to the next. There is also not a single mention of the fact that the Landtag had decided as far back as 1966 not to give a higher subsidy to the HfG and not to nationalize it. The report of the ministry of state to the Landtag, which had been passed by the cabinet on 20 February 1968, was no longer considered by the members of parliament. On 7 March 1968 it was published as a Landtag document. 1421 The day before, the HfG had asked the Landtag’s council of elders to get at least the standing committee to work on it 1422, but the council of elders rejected the request, “because in this parliamentary term there w ould no longer have been enough time for a consulta-
381
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
382
tion in committee and the Landtag was not asked for a resolution. The council of elders feels it is important to note that the Landtag’s silent acknowledgement of the government report in appendix 5858 is not taken to mean agreement.” In other words, the decision had to be made by the new Landtag. This meant that the HfG did not have its parliamentary supporting structure to help it use the whole force of its ultimatum in order to thwart the cooperation plan. There was no longer anyone in parliament who was responsible for matters relating to the HfG, no one who c ould be pressured; they grasped at thin air. The next Landtag would not be elected until 28 April 1968. It was easy to see that the new members of parliament would not be able to deal with the HfG’s future until the summer break had already started a t the HfG. The HfG no longer had time on its side. But within the HfG the faculty no longer concentrated on working out concrete plans. Instead they first spent time on fundamental politico-educational and societal issues that they felt urgently needed to be solved before it would make sense to talk in detail about the HfG’s future. Thus a team for autonomous nationalization now devoted itself to the general political parameters that in their opinion determined the situation of the HfG. A resolution by the team dated 8 March 1968 illustrates the extent to which its members had moved away from pressing day-to-day business and how trapped they were by patterns of thought and empty phrases of the contemporary student movement. They interpreted the existential crisis of the HfG in terms of the movement’s clichés, which of course could not possibly fit the actual situation. The clichés, though convincingly formulated, could never bring about the kind of behavior that would help prevent the imminent end of the school. Here is a lengthy excerpt: “The crisis of the HfG is not a crisis of this institution, let alone a financial crisis. Rather, it is a symptom of the crisis of the education system as a whole in the schools, professions, colleges, and universities of the Federal Republic of Germany and over and above that in all industrial nations of the earth. […] However, as long as education, in the hierarchy of priorities, is ranked under ‘also-rans’ and even funds can be cut as soon as there‘s a financial shortage, while at the same time expenditures for the military stay constant or even go up, there can be no comprehensive reforms. Nonetheless these reforms are crucial for the continued existence and development of a humane, future-oriented society. […] The goal of training is to enable the designer to distinguish between socially irrelevant and relevant problems. […] Social conditions and the ruling powers, with goals they have defined, influence even the science that is called in to solve problems. It is ex-
tremely important to recognize these connections between social structure and the work of scientists and to take this fact into account in the work designers do. […] The only acceptable solution for the HfG would be autonomous nationalization. […] Only as a democratic, autonomous institution institution does the HfG have the opportunity to develop an awareness of socially relevant problems. Social consciousness, or rather social responsibility, a humanistic impulse can materialize only when an institution is independent of economic and political manipulations. Only as an autonomous entity can the HfG function as a compensatory organization between the interests of society and of industry.”1423 The quotation clearly shows how painful the collision between the reality of circumstances at the HfG and the unreality of the needs of its students must have been. In mid-March the ministry of education and the arts for the last time tried to fulfill its function, calling for cooperating dialogues between the HfG and the School of Engineering. Herbert Ohl refused to take part. 1424 At the same time he stated that he did not intend to implement the economy measures the foundation‘s council had decided, on 12 February 1968, were necessary. 1425 The foundation, in his opinion, had simply ”reached rock bottom”, and therefore it was no longer necessary to consult with managing chairman of the foundation‘s executive board Hans Zumsteg about a way out of the crisis. 1426 The latter had outlined an unconventional and creative proposal. According to his calculations the foundation’s assets, conservatively estimated, estimated, totaled totaled DM 4.5 million. Its long-term liabilities were DM 900,000 for construction, with annual payments (interest and amortization) of close to DM 75,000. Its shortterm loans added up to another DM 500,000, which would eat up about DM 41,000 0 00 in interest in 1968 alone. The foundation, he suggested, should first sell a piece of land valued at those DM 500,000. Secondly, in order order to save adminisstrative costs, the foundation and college were to be combined. And thirdly, he wanted to revive not only the Society of Friends but also connections with trade and industry, in order to generate income once more. Fourthly, the only subsidy increases needed would be an extra DM 50,000 from the city and DM 100,000 from the Land. Hans Zumsteg reached the following conclusion: “Based on these considerations, the independence of the HfG would continue to be ensured. This way the problem of affiliating with the School of Engineering is no longer applicable. All avenues would also remain open to the future plan of one day incorporating the HfG in a comprehensive university plan.” 1427 This paper is the only example after 1964 of an initiative by the weary foundation that did not focus on increasing government subsidies.
Unfortunately Hans Zumsteg did not pursue his idea. Perhaps he felt it was already too late, since no further opportunity for an HfG that would continue to be independent and privately sponsored offered itself in Ulm and in the Land. As announced, Herbert Ohl did not respond to the invitation by the ministry of education and the arts to come to the first cooperation dialogue on 14 March 1968. That meant these plans were definitely no longer on the agenda. The ministry of education and the arts stopped its efforts and announced at the press conference that it was now the HfG’s turn. Up to that point, claimed the ministry, the HfG had refused to take part in working on resolving the situation. Now it must come up with concrete proposals for its future organization, structure, administration, and concomitant costs.1428 It had barely three months to do this: On 18 July 1968 the summer break of the newly electedLandtag would begin, and the HfG’s summer interim began as early as 1 July 1968. Concrete arrangements for the future of the HfG definitely needed to be made by then, for a large part of the notices of dismissal went into effect on 1 October 1968, and it was hardly conceivable that the faculty and staff involved would return voluntarily for the new academic year full of good hope that a happy solution would be found. No doubt the students felt much the same. It all boiled down to one thing: If the future of the HfG remained uncertain until July 1968, a regular new academic year was unimaginable. Any meaningful effort to keep the HfG going had to take into account this timeframe. At the Stuttgart Landtag on 18 July 1968; center: student representative Rolf Lohbeck. Photo:Simon Resch Archive: Südwestpresse
When the ministry of education and the arts handed over to the HfG the responsibility for drawing up its own clear and detailed proposals for the future of the college, the second phase in 1968 development began. The members of the HfG, however, did not diverge from the path they had taken up to that time; they still had no concrete plans as to how to solve the current crisis, and continued to indulge in discussions of fundamental socio-political issues; as their radicalism grew, so did their scorn for compromise. They lost sight of what
was most important, because their focus was on peripheral matters. During the following months, from mid-March through mid-July 1968, the decline of Kuhberg community continued. There was no sign of concerted action, no integrating force or idea; the motley mix of explosives had gone off. The members of the HfG were split into lecturers, assistant lecturers, and students, and these groups in turn were not unified. The revolt against the foundation as a legal statutory corporation was about to reach its peak. At the same time this phase ended with the students refusing to recognize the currently existing executive organs of the HfG, because they felt these were one-sidedly dominated by the lecturers. Up to 18 July 1968, when the newly elected Landtag plenum met for deliberation, the students and the lecturers worked on future plans that competed with each other. On 19 March 1968 the students in their plenary assembly unanimously voted to petition the extended senate that a new college entity (“college council”) be created, whose members would have equal representation and which would replace the senates, stand above the rector, and work out new HfG bylaws by 15 June 1968. Not until then, they claimed, was it possible to think of drawing up plans for the future of the HfG. Also, separation from the foundation was to be completed: “The prerequisite for constituting the college council: The GSS as a constituent power is to be abolished effective immediately and is no longer to be recognized. […] The GSS has shown itself to be incapable of making useful, constructive proposals for the continuation of the HfG. It demonstrated its incompetence and ignorance when it proposed that the HfG be merged with the Ulm State School of Engineering without hearing the HfG’s views on the proposal. […] The many erroneous decisions and almost criminal actions of the GSS are not listed here, but may be verified in the team’s report ‘Description of a black book’. […] The goal of the college council is to form a new, progressive, effective structure that will be based on new bylaws. The existing, defective structure of the HfG with its rigid teaching system does not fulfill the demands the students make on this system. […] As soon as the college council has completed the task assigned to it, its work will be finished. It will then disband and hand over its task to the committees of the newly formed system. […] The makeup of the college council will be fundamentally different from the traditional decision-making bodies of the college, i.e., it will be based on the principle of equality. […] The kind of structural planning that takes into account the interests of all members of the HfG can be developed only in nonauthoritarian discussion. Only in an organ
383
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
384
whose members have equal rights, i.e., parity, can nonauthoritarian discussion become possible.” 1429
The kind of exemplary specialized training the HfG had provided since 1953, it was claimed, was no longer necessary: “In the Federal Republic of Germany alone, designers are now being trained at 10 institutions, so that demand for these specialists in industry and commerce should have been more than met” (an argument that the HfG’s opponents would subsequently enjoy quoting). In the future, in a two-year program of postgraduate studies, the college was to concentrate on research and development, or, in other words, on grounding “environmental design” both theoretically and in practice.1432 In the future, work was to be “problem-oriented”, i.e., address projects that would involve research and development. “Research” meant the following: “The general gaining of knowledge in the field of environmental design, where empirical and theoretical research are possible at the same time. ‘Development’ means the production of practical results.” 1433
When the extended senate met on 25 April 1968, tensions between lecturers and students grew. The students had intended to turn the organization of the HfG topsy-turvy, the goal being “minimalization of the authority of individual persons or groups over others. At present group conflicts within the college increasingly prevent the tasks and goals of the college from being formulated and implemented.” Because Herbert Ohl had dismissed the students’ attempt at a constitutional revolt by referring to existing regulations regarding cooperation at the HfG, they asked the rest of the lecturers and assistant lecturers to show their solidarity: “Therefore we choose this way to criticize the conduct of the rector and at the same time appeal to all members of the extended senate to dissociate themselves from the biased and authoritarian behavior of the rector toward student representatives at the 25 April meeting – regardless of whether his On 15 May 1968, representatives of the HfG and decisions were legal.” 1430 the foundation met with Egbert-Hans Müller, one Subsequently they stepped up their pace in of Wolfgang Donndorf’s colleagues from the Stuttorder to overcome constitutional barriers encoungart ministry of education and the arts, who had tered up to this point in a second round, and to also recently begun devoting himself to the HfG. push through their interests. On 2 May 1968 the Herbert Ohl believed that from the HfG’s perspecstudents passed a protest resolution against the tive there was one preferable solution: “a federalecturers and their current position within the HfG tive association with the University of Stuttgart bylaws: “The students do not accept the extended and a concentrated teaching and research prosenate’s 25 April 1968 decision regarding changes gram as advanced postgraduate training with in the HfG bylaws. […] If the students’ demand for increased attention to applied research”. 1434 a resolution and renegotiation is not met, the stuEgbert-Hans Müller was not unaware of the dent body will in the future act as an independent signs of disintegration in the HfG community: body of the HfG and reserve the right to take the “During this conversation I had the impression following steps: 1. Representation of student interthat people at the School of Design are still not ests outside the extended senate and in opposition quite clear as to how they see the HfG’s future.” 1435 to the newly appointed bodies of the extended and The shift of perspective to the University of Stuttinner senate. 2. Information of the interested pubgart, of which the HfG now wished to be a part, lic regarding student objectives and the way sturequired that the university must also be involved dents are treated by the college’s administrain the negotiations. Thus one more organization tion.“1431 joined the dialogue, and the HfG was running out of time, because all employees of the foundation On 9 February 1968, of course, a commission had had been given notice effective 17 May 1968. 1436 been formed at the HfG that consisted of a rotatOn 26 May 1968 the results reached by the ing group of three members each from a mong the group of nine were summarized so that the exlecturers, assistant lecturers, and students of each tended senate could pass the binding HfG propoof the three departments (“the commission of sal at its 27 May 1968 meeting. 1437 Then a further nine” or “group of nine”); moreover, the heads of split became evident: Norbert Kurtz, the representhe workshops were represented in it. From initialtative of the assistant lecturers, told Rector Herbert ly general topics the commission finally turned to Ohl before the meeting that the assistant lecturers working out concrete proposals regarding the con- could no longer accept the “domination” of the tinued operation of the HfG. In mid-May 1968, dislecturers over all other members of the HfG, which cussions intensified. One suggestion went as folwent back a long way: “At present positions on the lows: The present structure of the HfG with four extended senate are filled in a very one-sided way (actually only three at this point) departments of by one group [he means the lecturers; author’s specialization and the four-year program of studies note]; this does not allow a development of objecof the Ulm model should be replaced by one that tives that does justice to all groups at the HfG. The addresses the tasks of “environmental design”. assistant lecturers of the HfG therefore feel there is
no justification for the extended senate deciding on the results of the work of the commission of nine. The representatives of the assistant lecturers therefore refuse to take part in today’s meeting of the extended senate.” 1438 Nevertheless the members of the extended senate stuck to their claim that they could decide the fate of the HfG. They agreed on the “preferable solution for the HfG”: It should be nationalized as a college for postgraduate studies, teaching, and research, and be associated with the University of Stuttgart. Its interdisciplinary task was in the area of environmental design focusing on building, product design, and visual communication. The structure of the college was to be in accordance with the categories of design, planning, and research. 1439 On the following day Herbert Ohl sent this result to the ministry of education and the arts. 1440 The students and the assistant lecturers felt they had been passed over by the entire last development. They claimed the lecturers had not taken into account their interests to the extent they wished. Admittedly this would have meant the lecturers would largely have to give up their power and hand over authority they had held until that time to college committees that had yet to be formed. The lecturers were not willing to do so. Furthermore the factual ideas of lecturers on the one hand and students and assistant lecturers on the other differed substantially on important points. In the center was the question of the money that would be generated by industrial commissions: However, HfG members were unable to reach agreement as to the organization of these commissions and on how fees would be shared. Out of protest the students and the assistant lecturers resigned from the commission of nine and announced that they were working out a counterproposal: “The assistant lecturers are not willing to take part in working on a document in which the different views as to the continued existence of the HfG are to be submitted to the foundation‘s council. Instead they themselves together with the students, whose views they share, will present their ideas to the foundation‘s council.“ 1441 The proposal of the students and assistant lecturers was also based on the intention that the HfG should be nationalized in association with the University of Stuttgart, where it would remain as independent as possible. Both plans fundamentally differed regarding the regulation of the institutes (for work on industrial commissions), participation in decision-making, and hiring policies for the planned interdisciplinary work. 1442 It is surprising, however, that the foundation‘s council, contrary to what everyone had stated, was accepted as the authority in charge with whom the oppositional plan was to be discussed.
Since then the foundation‘s council had met twice. At its 16th meeting on 1 April 1968, members still reeled from the sharp confrontation between the college and the foundation. 1443 In response to accusations regarding financing expressed in the HfG resolution, the president of the Landeszentralbank (Land Central Bank) told the HfG representatives who were present that he would resign if the HfG did not publicly disassociate itself from its accusations: “Since the GSS has been the school’s sponsoring organization from the start, it is quite clear that no other organization is responsible for the assets and thus the debts as well. No one else would have given the college a loan. And thus it is also quite clear that there is no other possible debtor. And why did it contract debts? Solely for the HfG. Simply to prevent the operation of the college from having to be restricted much earlier. I think it’s pretty irresponsible to reproach the GSS for this, because we did nothing but try and save the college. I’m sure it’s too much to expect to be thanked for work one has done for years on a voluntary basis. The least one can expect is for the facts to be described accurately. They tell us we’ve contracted debts. Our fiscal policy has always been to make available to the HfG as large a sum as possible, one way or another. We have seen to it, in constant agreement with the executive board and also with the representatives of the college, that the funds were found. I cannot – if only because of my profession – take these accusations lying down, accusations that for 15 years I’ve responsibly belonged to a committee that pursues an irresponsible fiscal policy. And in an honorary capacity, too. I don’t see why they have to make us into their enemies.” Actually, one must not forget that a foundation that included less influential representatives of industry and trade and of public subsidy providers would certainly have had to get along on less money. And the college itself was not legally responsible, of course. – When Otto Pfleiderer asked what would have been the right thing for the foundation to do, Herbert Ohl a nswered: It should have discussed the planning of the budget with the school. That had only been introduced by Friedrich Rau, he added. Herbert Ohl’s answer showed that he was not aware of the real connections or wanted to divert attention from them. For after all it was precisely as a result of this financial planning that control over college spending rapidly decreased, that the HfG no longer lived up to its responsibility and disregarded the financial limits it had agreed to observe, and that the foundation had to contract debts to make up the resulting deficits. – A second attempt began to find someone to blame, and this time Thorwald Risler was supposedly the scapegoat. Günther Boulanger refuted this by pointing out that in 1959 the Land’s subsidy had totaled DM 180,000, while
385
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
386
in 1966 it was DM 900,000, not to mention the funds from the city, the federal government, and industry and trade. Was this the result of a disastrous fiscal policy, as the HfG members stated in their resolution? Hans Zumsteg added that the debts were balanced by assets, and that the first debts for construction had already been almost paid off. Later in the discussion the members of the foundation‘s council clarified the complicated background of HfG financing, primarily for the benefit of the student representative. The foundation‘s council sent away the HfG representatives, asking them to work out proposals for the continued operation of the college, which the foundation planned to submit to the ministry. For DM 900,000 to be reinstated in the next Land budget, these plans had to be discussed by the foundation‘s council in May. The minutes of student representative Alfred Grazioli show that the students no longer regarded the HfG as an entity, but distinguished between the student body and the lecturers: “Proposals for the continuing development of the HfG were to be submitted by 8 May. The students must do this work and after the senate meeting [in which a decision is to be made whether the resolution will be retracted; author’s note] they must decide whether this will be discussed with the lecturers or whether the students should go directly to the GSS meeting.”1444 On the other hand, this process of disintegration, which also led to a split of the faculty into lecturers and assistants, did strengthen the foundation. As we have seen, the foundation‘s council was soon accepted once more as the body responsible for negotiations with the ministry of education and the arts. At the subsequent meeting of the foundation‘s council on 8 May 1968, the division in the HfG had become obvious. 1445 Herbert Ohl presented five possible models of the HfG’s future: 1. affiliation with the School of Engineering (categorically rejected by the HfG); 2. autonomous nationalization of the HfG, its status being that of an academy; 3. nationalization and association with the University of Stuttgart; 4. nationalization and association with the University of Stuttgart as a postgraduate program (favored by Herbert Ohl and the lecturers); 5. continuation as the Max Planck Institute, i. e., without a teaching program, for research and development only. Rolf Lobeck, on the other hand, demanded in the name of the students that the HfG and foundation ought not to address the preparation of a proposal for the continuation of the college yet. First, the
students wanted an analysis of the actual situation of the HfG to be done in order to note potential undesirable trends and unfulfilled expectations. Then goals were to be formulated. And only after that were the structure of the organization and a possible merger with the University of Stuttgart to be studied. “For working out these basic stages the students would like a commission to be formed consisting of representatives of the lecturers, assistant lecturers, and students.” Rolf Lobeck’s initiative convinced the foundation‘s council. A commission of four was formed. It included Günther Grzimek (foundation), Herbert Ohl (lecturers), Norbert Kurtz (assistant lecturers), and Rolf Lobeck (students), and met with the ministry of education and the arts on 15 May 1968. The basis for its discussion were pedagogical and organizational models that the three HfG groups had promised to prepare beforehand. As a result of this discussion, Egbert-Hans Müller proposed to Wilhelm Hahn, the minister of education and the arts, that the plan for fusion with the School of Engineering be officially given up and that association with the University of Stuttgart now be pursued. The ministry was to request that the university study the HfG’s affiliation plans. 1446 On 29 May 1968 Otto Pfleiderer, who had already stayed away from the last foundation‘s council meeting, informed Mayor Theodor Pfizer that he was resigning from the council because there had been no reaction to his demand that the HfG resolution be retracted. On 4 June 1968, separated into students, assistant lecturers, and lecturers, the representatives of the HfG each presented their respective preferred solutions to the foundation‘s council; all proposals were based on the same premise: that association with the University of Stuttgart be pursued and that training at the HfG be organized as a postgraduate program. The foundation‘s council welcomed this fundamental agreement – in spite of all differences in individual details – as a favored proposal, and authorized the HfG to form a commission that would negotiate details with the university. The summer break of the Stuttgart Parliament began on 18 July 1968. By then the college and foundation needed to know whether, for 1969, they could again count on the DM 900,000 Land subsidy they had been receiving to date. The ministry of education and the arts was therefore supposed to ask the council of ministers to make a motion to the finance committee to that effect. The result of the finance committee deliberations was then to be discussed by the plenum. The cabinet submission gave the reasons for the HfG’s persistence in opposing the government’s affiliation plans. The question whether the founda-
tion could expect continued Land subsidies for 1969 led the cabinet to make a preliminary decision regarding the continuing existence of the HfG, for: “The existence of the HfG is assured [ …] through 31 December 1968. But the HfG will have to stop its work as of the end of the current academic year (30 September 1968) if the GSS cannot expect a Land subsidy for 1969 that is at least as large as previous ones. Whether it can expect that is still open. As a precautionary measure the GSS has therefore given notice to its entire personnel effective on that date. The efforts of the Landtag and Land government become illusory if the GSS is not in a position to retract the notices before the summer break and to promise students that they can continue their studies at least one more academic year. […] The ministry of education and the arts asks that the Land government make a binding promise before the summer interim that in 1969 the GSS will aga in receive a Land subsidy of DM 900,000, as in previous years; if need be, it asks that the Land government approach the Landtag and request that the Landtag agree to such a promise.” 1447 The Stuttgart cabinet under Hans Filbinger discussed the request on 11 June 1968. It is true that Land politicians had not failed to notice signs of disintegration on Kuhberg in Ulm. They suspected that the HfG was simply trying to play for time to wind up operations by requesting a subsidy for 1969, because it had the impression that influential lecturers were engaged in the self-destruction of the HfG, a process that had only been slowed down due to student pressure. That was why the ministers agreed on a resolution that for 1969 the foundation would receive a subsidy only if by 31 December 1968 the definitive organizational structure of the HfG and its financing had been settled. The Landtag was to give its consent to this resolution.1448 The message the council of ministers was thus sending to the members of the foundation and college was unmistakable: If by the end of the year they agreed on a clearly defined model, if the HfG was again recognizable as a structured entity, they could count on continued support from the Land. At any rate, this decision did not stand in the way of a subsequent nationalization of the HfG; on the contrary, it opened up a realistic possibility for its continued operation. At least money and thus time would still be available in 1969, and details could be discussed at leisure – if the HfG and the foundation would both agree on a plan. And it was precisely this agreement that seemed more remote than ever. Within the HfG there was now pressure, a mixture of nerve-wracking uncertainty, lack of time, growing impatience, and the need to arrive at an agreement. The HfG could not
withstand this pressure. The members of the HfG had become antagonists who defined themselves by their status as students, assistant lecturers, and lecturers. They continued to spend their time primarily obsessing about the opposite side instead of searching for a common way out. On 12 June 1968, the day after the meeting of the council of ministers, a number of HfG members took an initiative whose objective was the split of the HfG and its partial transfer to Paris: “During the last month, representatives of the lecturers, a ssistant lecturers, and students have been working very intensively on a new plan for the HfG. It became apparent that the views of lecturers on the one hand and assistant lecturers and students on the other remained irreconcilable on basic issues. […] Since the academic year ends on 28 June, and in view of the uncertain situation in Baden-Württemberg, a group of members of the HfG considers the school administration’s policy of waiting for Land decisions to be a mistake, and has taken its own initiative. An initiative committee (which does not recognize the school administration) has been formed; it is dealing intensively with issues relating to Paris. Because it is dissatisfied with the situation of the HfG, the group that is interested in Paris is determined to avail itself of the Paris offer, regardless of the decision of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag. […] We therefore ask you to let us know whether you are interested in carrying out this pro ject as a lecturer or guest lecturer (or assistant lecturer), and whether you know of other persons who should be considered for this p roject.” 1449 At the next meeting of the inner senate on 19 June 1968, the lecturers discussed opportunities to follow the call of a number of cities in Germany and abroad. There were offers from Ingolstadt and Frankfurt am Main, as well as from Olten in Switzerland and from Paris. Also, the current, and last, issue of the HfG publication ulm , no. 21, had just appeared. This too, gave rise to a dispute at the HfG: “Mr. Kapitzki asks that deliveries of the issue be stopped, and feels it is very damaging to publish it in the present situation. His reasons for this request are that the introductory statement does not fit the facts and that descriptions are partly garbled. The editor [Gui Bonsiepe; author’s note] took it upon himself to interpret according to his opinion that Ulm was closing and that the intellectual existence of the HfG was thus blotted out. […] The rest of the senate members believe, among other things, that the tenor of the ‘end of the HfG’ is not justified and that the editor did not stick to democratic rules, or rather tried to bid a journalistic goodbye to the HfG.” 1450 On 20 June 1968, i.e., a good week before the beginning of the summer break, there were still no
387
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
388
Using lowercase for initial letters was no longer explicit enough in 1968. When the HfG was renamed in October 1968, Ulm was in the best of company: Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt had been given the honorary title Karl Marx University (during demonstrations against the adoption of the emergency laws at the end of May 1968).
In 1968 souvenir hunters managed to get hold of the metal letters spelling out the HfG name.
Photo: Simon Resch Archive: Südwestpresse
concrete proposals for the Landtag to negotiate. A survey of HfG members was even done to find out which of them intended to continue their studies at the HfG. 1451 However, the large majority of the students who held their plenary meeting on 25 June 1968 demanded that the survey be stopped. “In view of the months of ineffective negotiations about the restructuring of the HfG, the students consider your letter of 20 June unacceptable. The interests of the students are totally disregarded by this action.” They expected the promise that they would be able to continue their studies as of 1 October 1968 on condition that there would be an extensive reorganization of the HfG (in terms of structure, pedagogy, and course of studies). 1452 But the inner senate had a very different idea of how the acute crisis could be temporarily defused. In the coming academic year of 1968/69 the lecturers planned to work with two groups of students only: those who were just then in their second year of studies were supposed to take a year’s break beginning 1 October 1968; in other words, the regular third year of studies would have no
students. Students who were still in their first or third year of studies were to go on taking their second and fourth year of studies as usual. And for one year no new students were to be admitted. The students, however, did not want to accept this inner senate decision under any circumstances. In their plenary meeting on 27 June 1968, on the academic year’s last day of classes, they once more took the initiative against the lecturers and dealt the entire present concept of the HfG an energetic blow: “The students consider the HfG’s
administration incapable of directing an institution like the HfG, and therefore make a motion of no confidence toward the rector and the inner senate. […] Starting immediately the students of the HfG will strike until the school administration gives in to their demands. In addition, they will turn to the interested public to discuss the problems of the HfG and its future. […] The naive idealism of the HfG’s founding phase, namely the intention to change society by changing objects in the human environment was immediately co-opted by industry and exploited economically to serve its interests. Braun appliances, once the most exclusive evidence of how progressive the HfG was, are today featured in the catalogues of Neckermann and Quelle, and are used as demonstration ob jects in teaching basic courses at arts and crafts schools. Making cosmetic changes in mass-produced goods, as was practiced at the HfG at this time and is being practiced more and more, leaves out of consideration the entire complex of production, consumption, and demand. […] The arbitrary and unimaginative way an individual product is
developed and designed here becomes evident in the overemphasis on formal aspects, used as isolated criteria to judge a design. […] The number one function of the institutes was to make money on commissions for the lecturers, whose letterheads bore the name of the school. The need for a lecturer to complete orders must necessarily lead to his neglecting his teaching. […] The fact that a student who has to prove his worth is willing to work is exploited as a means of oppression . […] Recently these tendencies have increased by leaps
and bounds, leading to intense criticism among the student body. This criticism and the students’ willingness to bring about progressive change in the HfG was systematically boycotted in recent years by the lecturers. The lecturers used the external crisis situation as a means of suppressing internal conflicts and changes. Repression of student activity by lecturers was constantly linked with the argument that if the internal crisis became known, the school’s existence would be jeopardized. […] The students make a motion of no confidence toward the rector and the lecturers, and are no longer prepared to cooperate with them. They demand that all students registered since October 1967 be allowed to continue their studies; that rooms be made available to operate an HfG engaged in critical analysis; that new lecturers proposed by the student body be appointed. The students turn to the public because they feel it is irresponsible that this deplorable state of affairs and these manipulations within the HfG be kept from the public any longer.” 1453 On the following day, 28 June 1968, the 1967/68 academic year at the School of Design ended with its members unable to come to a n agreement on a joint proposal for the future of the HfG. The Landtag had already carried the cabinet’s motion and sent it on to the finance committee for deliberation.1454 That is why Herbert Ohl sent the lecturers’ proposal to the ministry of education and the arts, knowing that the students had definitively rejected it in essential points – except for the fundamental idea that an attempt should be made to bring about an association with the University of Stuttgart. 1455 And from their conduct up to this time it was unmistakably evident that they made no secret of their rejection. They wrote a position statement and sent it off to all and sundry: “The views quoted in the lecturers’ proposal prove that their endeavors are not aimed at a progressive transformation of the HfG, but rather at protecting their own existence by unrestricted powers and increasing and enhancing their personal prestige and their economic circumstances. Students and assistant lecturers most sharply protest against this interest-driven policy and reject the lecturers’ proposal as a subject for discussion regarding the continuing development and future of the HfG.” 1456 In the meantime, the thinking of the two opposing poles had crystallized. First, the students accused the lecturers of virtually wanting to divide the HfG into two colleges: one to train students and one as an autonomous design institute in which research and development projects would be carried out. 1457 Secondly – a sign of the times – they were against
retaining the present HfG structure, for in the inner and extended senate, lecturers, assistant lecturers, and students did not have equal representation, and they believed the sciences were underrepresented (one of four planned depa rtments). One lecturer (at least) agreed with this student view. 1458 The result of the students’ resistance was that the inner senate’s plan to have only two classes of students in the coming academic year was not pursued further. 1459 But Herbert Ohl was not willing to bow to student wishes without resistance. He The empty lecture room, November 1968. Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
noted: “During the past months student leaders have proved that they by no means represent a separate, independent, progressive group, i.e., one that acts realistically and objectively; looking out of the corner of their eye at the demands and problems of other colleges and universities, which are partly necessary and perhaps justified, they would like to transfer them sight unseen to the HfG. […] These students, and sometimes non-student functionaries of political groups used by this student leadership, thoughtlessly see the work of the HfG, the work and achievement of trade and industry and of society as meaningless; they look at it in a politically sectarian, undemocratical, propagandistical manner camouflaged as elitism. […] [These are the] anarchistic traits of ideologized groups.“ 1460 In the same tone he informed student representative Rolf Lobeck in the form of an ultimatum on 11 July 1968: “I ask the student body and each individual student to retract immediately their slanderous and defamatory insinuations regarding the lecturers […], among other things particularly the unqualified and personal accusations that refer to the lecturers’ researchand development-related work. […] If these insinuations are not immediately retracted or these assertions are not factually proven, I shall draw the appropriate conclusions for those members of the student body who continue to stand b ehind these assertions and thus dissociate themselves from the academic community.“1461 On Kuhberg the summer interim term had begun two weeks earlier, and this meant that the constitutional groups at the college did not have a quo-
389
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
390
rum. Weariness set in. The extended senate had to change a meeting they had c alled into an informal gathering because six members were absent, and realized with resignation: “However, the student body is divided, for some students want to work in the workshops, others are interested in working with the lecturers on their diploma projects, and yet another group has declared in writing that they wish to continue studying here in the next academic year under the entrance conditions as long as the financial basis of the HfG is secure. But over and above that the HfG is split into two camps: into lecturers and students. While the assistant lecturers would like to act as mediators, they are on the side of the students. On the one hand every effort is made to save the HfG, but on the other everything is being ruined. Accordingly Mr. Ohl has little hope that the institution can continue in operation.”1462 It is quite true that at this time there were scant prospects that HfG members would soon settle their differences of opinion and might again be able to join forces to pursue a common goal – and this was the sine qua non for the continued existence of the HfG. But at this moment the vagaries of Land politics offered the HfG an unexpected opportunity. The Landtag elected in Baden-Württemberg on 28 April 1968 now included the right-wing National Democratic Party, which had received 12 seats. Its electoral successes between 1966 and 1969 in seven Länder were a reaction by ordinary citizens to the economic recession and rising unemployment figures in 1966/67, to the big coalition in the federal government (CDU/CSU, SPD) in 1966–69, and finally also a response to the student revolts of 1967/68. Conversely it seemed that the appearance of right-wing representatives in the parliaments proved the almost hysterical suspicion of students and intellectuals that the democracy of the Federal German Republic was in danger of an insidious takeover by rightist authoritarian forces, to repel which it was permissible to disregard even the bounds of law. 1463 At its third meeting on 16 July 1968 the Landtag’s finance committee considered the Land government’s motion: The foundation was to receive a subsidy in 1969 as well if the future of the HfG was settled by the end of the year. 1464 The member who submitted the committee’s report to the Landtag plenum was newly elected member Lothar Späth (CDU). The achievements of the HfG in the area of design and design training were unreservedly appreciated by the parliamentarians. And the representative of the government shrewdly argued that the need for subsidies had risen in recent years only because personnel costs had been unavoidably brought into line with increases in the civil service. However, in the government
budget no other educational institution was penalized for this unavoidable rise in personnel costs . The representatives of the Social Democrats felt that if the government motion, which only referred to a transition period, was not supported, this would mean the instant end of the HfG. Those who wanted this, they challenged, should say so directly. Characteristically, there was something uncomfortable about the HfG; that was part of it, as it was part of the liberal constitutional system of the state. The closing of the Bauhaus, an alleged parallel to the closing of the HfG, was also mentioned. But the representatives of the Christian Democrats were not convinced by such arguments, they insisted that the HfG should not receive a Land subsidy: Its training program could be incorporated in the schools of arts and crafts; the HfG’s claim that it was the only institution doing this kind of work must be regarded as self-glorification (an argument provided by the students’ pamphlets). Now, this cannot have been the only reason for rejecting an institution whose work and achievements were expressly acknowledged in the same breath. On the other hand one thought was foremost in people’s minds – it was irresponsible to spend government funds on an institution that lacked all semblance of order. On this point the CDU and the NPD were in a greement, and together they outvoted HfG supporters by 14 to 10. 1465 This first exchange of blows between the supporters and opponents of the HfG was followed two days later by the debate in the plenum. But in the meantime the press had unleashed a storm of indignation about the finance committee’s negative decision. The HfG was only considered to b e the occasion, or rather, the first occasion when the collaboration people had feared between the CDU and NPD proved to be a fact. The HfG suddenly turned out to be a victim in danger of being eliminated by reactionary forces. After all, all collaboration of the political parties with the right wing should have been out of the question. The government party could not leave headlines like CDU and NPD stop government or CDU and NPD use identical arguments hanging, for they made it seem highly likely that this was merely the prelude to a creeping coalition between the CDU and the NPD in the new parliamentary term. 1466 Preconditions for the 18 July 1968 HfG debate in the Landtag, the last day of sessions before the Parliament’s summer break, were thus a great deal better than anyone could have foretold only two days earlier. The Christian Democrats now tabled a new motion – gnashing their teeth, one may suspect; in this motion they no longer demanded the end of the DM 900,000 subsidy, but rather asked that it be continued. True, this was to be tied to certain conditions: The organization and
financing of the HfG – in particular regulations regarding sideline activities by the lecturers, academic regulations and examination regulations, regulations concerning the appointment of faculty, entrance requirements – would all have to be in place by 1 December 1968, the city of Ulm would need to continue its participation, the Land subsidy must not increase, and no additional debts should be contracted.1467 These conditions were acceptable because they meant time had been gained for negotiations regarding the nationalization of the HfG. They also did not go beyond what the Landtag had decided ba ck in 1966; quite the reverse – now the way was even open to nationalization. The Social Democrats, the Free Democrats, and Ulm Mayor Hans Lorenser (CDU) moved that Parliament approve the government bill, in which conditions for the HfG subsidy were not defined as exactly.1468 But even these members of parliament wanted the organization of the HfG to be newly regulated and to have the Landtag’s b lessing before the foundation would receive DM 900,000 for 1969.1469 Heinrich von Hacht (SPD) commented on the voting behavior of the political opponents in the finance committee: “If a very negative attitude toward this School of Design is adopted, particularly by the right wing of the Landtag, […] we are not surprised, for the background and mentality of NPD representatives make it inevitable that they should have a negative attitude toward this school. […] Debates about a similar institution in the Weimar period and the fate of the Bauhaus in Dessau show quite clearly that this matter involves important political issues, but also questions that have to do with culture, education, and the arts.” The Christian Democrats firmly rejected the dangerous accusation that they had formed a coalition with ideologically like-minded cohorts. They said they had felt impelled to vote the same way as the NPD in the finance committee for completely different reasons: “The unanimous stance of the members of the CDU faction in the finance committee was in no way directed aga inst the School of Design per se, but rather against the conditions, against the circumstances, and above all against the way the wishes of the Landtag in past years have been ignored, and against the fact that no changes have been made in the organization and the whole internal structure of the college. […] Since then we have ac cepted in silence the fact that the school has been taking money from the Land but has negated our wishes in every way.“ That is why the CDU motion contained these explicit conditions; they were actually already included in the government bill itself, but CDU members wanted to list them expressly one more time. Even previously strict opponents of the HfG in the CDU, who only a short time ago had wanted to close the HfG, now felt the petition was worth sup-
porting. In this respect public attention because of the CDU’s “like-minded coalition” with the right wing in the finance committee had led to a complete CDU turnabout. In fact even the minister of finance praised the HfG’s achievements and its international significance. And still the CDU and NPD agreed, for they approved of design but at the same time rejected the organization, administration, and fiscal conduct. Therefore there needed to be objective reasons why the Christian Democrats now steered a far friendlier course vis-à-vis the HfG: “The Ulm HfG and its sponsoring foundation have been aware of their financial situation for a long time, and after the federal subsidy was discontinued, the new income situation was well known. Therefore it is not proper to reproach the Landtag of Baden-Württemberg at this point for wanting to deal the HfG the deathblow. We’re looking at a development that has taken many years. […] We also tolerate – and we even welcome – the nonconformism and also the ad versarial position of the Ulm students or lecturers, for instance. […] Don’t you see, the point is whether the college itself is capable of finally ending its everlasting internal quarrels, its disagreements, so that orderly work as well as orderly creation becomes possible. The point is to end these constant disagreements and the struggle of everybody against everybody else, which we read about all the time in those leaflets that land on our desks almost every day. And now added to this of course there’s also the order of the finances and of the organization. […] Let us remind you that the students themselves have touched on a sore point that is also the subject of the motion. The students themselves write that the lecturers are too involved in making money on the side, that they are betraying their educational mission, and there is even a printed report, which Mr. Peter von Kornatzki has circulated, that funds were misappropriated by the foundation.” All parties agreed that there must be a n end to the HfG crisis and that the situation must be settled to the satisfaction of all those involved. They all felt the Landtag’s deadline and pressure were absolutely necessary so that something would change on Kuhberg. Thus this second phase of the year 1968 ended with a last chance. That was exactly the understanding of the extended senate of the HfG as well. On 23 July 1968 they adopted their position statement regarding the Landtag’s resolution: “The extended senate of the School of Design welcomes the Landtag’s resolution to grant another DM 900,000 subsidy in 1969 and recognizes this decision as a first contribution to the continuing operation of the School of Design. […] The extended senate considers the conditions named by the Landtag to be fundamentally acceptable, since they are in the college’s own inter-
391
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
392
est and have in part been practiced at the HfG for years.”1470 Here it must be said in no uncertain terms that the Baden-Württemberg Landtag no longer dealt with the HfG after this meeting. It is therefore not a fact that in November 1968 the Landtag passed a resolution to close the HfG. 1471 Apart from the fact that this abridges the legal continuity – only the foundation was capable of c losing the HfG. This is one of two of the most widespread myths ab out the history of the HfG. (The other is that the HfG suddenly got into financial difficulties because no federal subsidy was received in 1967.) The Stuttgart Landtag did not close the HfG; quite the reverse, it approved its full subsidization for 1969 as well. The HfG did not reject the conditions on which the subsidy was contingent because, as quoted above, they were “in the interest of the college”. The third phase of 1968 began with the above Landtag resolution. Now the fate of the college was in the hands of the HfG’s members alone. The foundation‘s council had given them far-reaching negotiating powers and was content with remaining passive. The Parliament’s conditions simply boiled down to a speedy agreement between HfG members and the University of Stuttgart, and among themselves. Both in Stuttgart and at the HfG, obstacles needed to be cleared out of the way. It was hardly conceivable that the internal fragmentation could be healed. A few days after the Landtag debate, the extended senate observed: “The students said that they no longer wanted to cooperate with the lecturers and no longer recognized the competent bodies of the institution.” 1472 In the middle of the summer holidays, they said, the members of the HfG had to gather again and find their common goal. Not only had the Landtag set a deadline (1 December 1968), but among students and lecturers there was also a great deal of uncertainty whether classes would resume on 1 October 1968. In any case, the HfG was supposed to come to an internal agreement by 15 September 1968 and present a joint plan to the foundation‘s council – such was the valiant wish of the foundation‘s council. There would then still be chances that the government might be ab le to pass on this proposal to the Landtag in a timely manner.1473 Of course, at the same time the HfG’s ideas needed to be discussed with the University of Stuttgart. But the university’s decision-making branch, the extended senate, could not discuss the matter until mid-November. That was actually too late, because the Stuttgart officials already needed the documentation two weeks earlier. 1474 Otl Aicher had largely retired from the HfG some time ago, but was still a lecturer there. Probably
this circumstance – the fact that he had left the HfG and no longer intervened in what was happening – was the reason that a basis for negotiations again developed within the HfG. At the end of July 1968 he managed to get the students to begin negotiations with the lecturers and assistant lecturers again.1475 At his suggestion a new sixmember commission was formed (two students, assistant lecturers, and lecturers each), who would work out a proposal in good time – by 9 September 1968. The work involved details only, for all those involved had been certain of the general direction months ago: The School of Design was to be associated with the University of Stuttgart, be nationalized, and offer a p ostgraduate program.1476 The foundation‘s council again approved this plan. 1477 But this did not completely meet requirements for the continued existence of the HfG. For firstly: “Essential differences in the new plan still exist only as regards the handling of private commissions.” This so-called “institute issue” still split the HfG into lecturers and students; the assistant lecturers sided with the students. HfG members still needed to agree on this point. And secondly, the University of Stuttgart still had not agreed to the Ulm plan. On 25 September 1968 there was an initial discussion between representatives of the university, the HfG, the foundation‘s council, and the ministries about the modalities of affiliation. The result gave cause for optimism, even though time was very pressing: “Subject to consent by the extended senate, the department representatives who are present and the student representative of the university in principle approve the affiliation of the Ulm School of Design with the University of Stuttgart, with the proviso that the university will have the same right to a say in the appointment of lecturers at the School of Design as in the appointment of professors to individual departments (of the university). In the opinion of all those present, incorporation of the School of Design into the University of Stuttgart is not possible at present for various reasons. The definitive opinion of the university will be given by the extended senate, […] whose next meeting is on 13 November 1968.“ 1478 Herbert Ohl officially opened the 1968/69 academic year in the presence of a small circle of HfG members who had made their way to Ulm on 2 October 1968. The foundation had not retracted its termination notices because up to that point no one could assume responsibility that sufficiently large subsidies would be approved for 1969. Thus the HfG’s administration was decimated; there were only seven lecturers still present (with 12 fulltime positions) and two assistant lecturers (with 9 full-time positions), and of the approximately 110
students who were still supposed to be registered, about half had taken a leave of absence. 1479 In the name of the lecturers and students, Herbert Ohl declared: “The lecturers of the HfG, after careful consideration, feel that at present they are unable to take upon themselves the responsibility of offering quality teaching at the HfG at the start of the 1968/69 academic year. Developments during recent weeks have led to an ongoing disintegration of the structure of the teaching personnel, so that it is not possible to pursue a course of studies that will qualify graduates professionally.” 1480 With a resolution on the following day, the vestigial HfG tried at the same time to keep the school going and to continue the Ulm experiment: “In the first quarter of the 1968/69 academic year, the members of the HfG will attempt to develop new, collective forms of studies or to try them out. With this aim in view, all members of the HfG (lecturers, assistant lecturers, technical teachers, and students) will join together in a plenum. The purpose of the plenum is to organize studies at the HfG during the above-named period.” 1481 Naturally, the fact that the HfG was reduced to organizing work did not mean that existing d ifferences of opinion had been settled. Quite the reverse – the students and lecturers, in spite of time pressures, were hardly willing to compromise as far as the institutes were concerned. 1482 During deliberations by the foundation‘s council on 15 October 1968, they had no choice but to state that “the opinions of the students and lecturers diverge substantially on the issue of separation between pure development and fundamental research on the one hand and studies and work on real research projects on the other hand. As far as the work of the institutes is concerned, it w ould be necessary to work out a version that both lecturers and students can agree on.” The work of the lecturers, which, as “development”, had up to this time had the same status as research and teaching, was now forced out of the context of the traditional HfG program, being referred to as a “sideline”. This term was borrowed from the civil service. The choice of w ords shows what was actually meant by the seemingly objective designation. For if there was supposed to be a sideline, there must also be a main occupation: research and teaching. Of course the mentality that produced this separation had no connection with the motives of the founders, in which it was precisely practical activity, work on projects, that had played a central part. Now the HfG mentally retreated to an ivory tower that was removed from practical experience, when it had so far given a wide berth to this way of thinking. Those lecturers who wanted to continue to test the quality of their achievements on industrial projects were apparently supposed to feel conscience-stricken for not
spending more time on their main occupation. – This institute work was supposed to be possible according to the same regulations as those in effect for the civil service. One could hardly expect anything else from a nationalized HfG. Yet there was one remaining contentious issue: the question whether the institutes should be located on campus (as the lecturers believed) or off (as the students thought). In this last question the threads by which the HfG’s fate was hanging converged. From the lecturers’ perspective the institutes should belong directly to the college. They resisted the idea that their practical work, which had already been devalued by being called a sideline, would be forced off the HfG’s campus spatially as well. Then it would no longer take much to come to the obvious conclusion and banish the institutes from Kuhberg conceptionally as well. The students, on the other hand, feared “the danger of a split between an institution of institutes and an educational one. […] One should eliminate the risk of having an institute turn into a business enterprise.”1483 Because of this ongoing dispute it was highly probable that the disease which had plagued Ulm so long – “no concessions” –, which had so often heightened tensions and given the HfG a bad name among politicians, had not been cured by the HfG’s own efforts now that the very existence of the school was threatened, and could not be cured in the future if there was no fundamental change. At the meeting of the council of ministers on the following day, minister of education and the arts Wilhelm Hahn therefore announced that there were reservations against the HfG’s affiliation with the University of Stuttgart. Subsequently, in the cabinet, regrets were expressed that the merger with the School of Engineering had not happened as the cabinet had planned a year earlier. In no case should the government be blamed, they said, if coordinating talks between the HfG and the university should fail. The government had given the HfG a helping hand, and if the affiliation should fail, those responsible should be found at the HfG. 1484 But for the moment the ministers were waiting to see the foundation’s documentation. The foundation’s proposal was two weeks late in arriving. Identical with the HfG’s plan, it reached the ministry of education and the arts at the end of October 1968. The dispute regarding the institutes had not been settled in the documents either. It was conceivable, of course, for the foundation‘s council to decide on one of the two perspectives. But the members of the foundation‘s council were no longer willing to be so actively involved on behalf of the HfG, which had so often snubbed them. 1485 That is why the plan for the HfG’s future the minis-
393
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
Ludwig Erhard and Franz Wiedemeier at a CDU event during the Landtag election campaign, 8 March 1968. Photo: unknown Archive: Südwestpresse
394
try of education and the arts received documented the discord of its members. An energetic position statement by the foundation‘s council at this point would undoubtedly have steered events in a different direction. Instead, in November 1968, the remaining lecturers and students tore each other to pieces shortly before the University of Stuttgart was to discuss affiliating with the HfG. Even those who had up to that point been conspicuous by their reasonable behavior and unbiased argumentation fell prey to cannibalism. By the end of the four weeks that followed, no part of the HfG remained alive. On 5 November 1968 the lecturers sent supplementary material to the ministry of education and the arts. In it they explained their position on research and development work: “The lecturers of the HfG regard it as a constitutional right that, as is the practice at other institutions of higher learning, they be able do independent research and development work in addition to teaching. This right to personal free professional work is a prerequisite for doing the kind of teaching that is constantly renewed. Above and beyond that, this right to professional growth is an important requirement if highly qualified people are to be recruited and retained as teachers at the HfG. Until now this work has been possible at the HfG within the framework of the institutes and development teams, and has accounted for the international reputation of the HfG and made important contributions to the German economy. […] The research groups, which are at present still decentralized and are recognized by the public and by trade and industry, are being joined together into an independent interdisciplinary, federative organization, an association of institutes. […] The Institute of Design, located on campus and in the college complex of the HfG, is self-supporting, requires no personnel, and gives itself its own bylaws.” 1486 In addition to this position statement, the ministry of education and the arts also received a draft budget that diverged from the foundation’s – an impressive substantiation, particularly in this situation, of the suspicion that the HfG was financially disorganized and unpredictable. The students responded two days later, on 7 November 1968. They also sent their remarks on the regulation of the HfG lecturers’ additional work to the ministry of education and the arts. 1487 They gave reasons for their opposition to institutes on the HfG campus: The institutes exploited students financially and creatively, the foundation was being financially exploited, and because it was necessary to keep projects confidential, nothing flowed back into the HfG from a pedagogical perspective: “The long-term controversy regarding this issue
bert Ohl, and emphasized that they would abide by their vote of no c onfidence. The escalation of the pamphlets culminated in a telegram by Herbert Ohl to the extended senate of the University of Stuttgart. The senate was meeting on 13 November 1968 to consider affiliation with the HfG. Into the middle of the deliberations burst the HfG rector’s announcement that this hearing was no longer necessary: “The students declare that in the future they are no longer willing to cooperate with lecturers, and demand a different faculty if there is to be affiliation with the University of Stuttgart […]. These foreground actions conceal a diversionary tactic from various sides:
between the lecturers and the students makes this question incalculably important for the HfG. It is a central problem that determines the success or failure of a future HfG. […] The lecturers intend to combine the separate institutes and development teams that presently exist at the HfG into a federative association of institutes with bylaws of their own. This institute is to be autonomous, independent of the HfG, and not controllable by it, but located in the immediate area of the HfG campus. Here, the lecturers are deliberately covering up the actual facts, i.e., the regulation of their sideline work, and speak of the work of the institutes. Those are two entirely different sets of circumstances. As far as the lecturers’ sideline work is concerned, it is acceptable on condition that it is regulated according to civil service regulations. […] The ‘institute work’ of the lecturers that has been practiced so far and is planned for the future, in other words, means nothing other than the sideline work they perform while using the facilities and nominal advantages offered by the HfG: a privilege enjoyed at no other educational institution. […] While at one time the lecturers’ title of ownership and their claim to power still referred in part to a realm of ideas, that is, to their sole determination of the HfG’s curricular development, the lecturers are now at the point where they put the safeguarding of their material interests above collective educational interest and above the actual survival of the HfG. Thus the Institute of Design planned by the lecturers must be understood as a commercial enterprise which, although dependent on the HfG, will act as a foreign body within it and against it. […] In spite of this, the students regard the overall plan of postgraduate studies at the HfG in association with the University of Stuttgart as a desirable solution, provided that a different type of faculty is created for it.” In their position statement, the students repeated their bitter accusations against the lecturers, especially against Her-
1. Since for the students in their efforts at reform the actual adversaries in cultural and educational politics are inaccessible, they use the lecturers as surrogates for their a ggression. 2. In the foundation‘s council, which is responsible for the financial disaster of the HfG a nd therefore for the crisis that threatens its existence, people see this as a welcome opportunity to distract the public from the council’s own failure. […] 3. The ministry of education and the arts averts attention from its responsibility by making the public believe that the crisis (for which it shares the blame) has been caused by the disagreement between the students and the lecturers. […] 4. The Landtag will scapegoat the lecturers now that it has resolved, by a very narrow margin and primarily for political and tactical reasons, to grant the HfG a demonstrably inadequate subsidy. Owing to this development the HfG has been plunged into anarchy and vandalism. […] The HfG’s objectives and outcomes were largely determined by the lecturers. A purported rehabilitation of the HfG by eliminating inconvenient lecturers is therefore tantamount to the dissolution of the HfG. The anarchy and lack of direction, which was controlled and promoted from the outside, make the continued operation of the HfG pointless and impossible.”1488 – Hardly had Herbert Ohl thrown in the towel than the first accusations began. It was the undignified end of a surreal year. It is true that the rector of the University of Stuttgart described this telegram as a “rash action”, and the extended senate continued its deliberations: “The present, critically ailing condition of the HfG must not affect our deliberations. […] The extended senate’s resolution approves a future involvement by the University of Stuttgart.” 1489 Yet the image of an ailing HfG that must urgently be cured already described the perspective from
which people at the University of Stuttgart would henceforth regard the HfG: The HfG would not manage to regain its health by itself. And the diagnosis identifying what exactly ailed the HfG had been generally accepted for some time at the ministry of education and the arts, the Land government, and at the university. Herbert Ohl and Herbert Kapitzki reaffirmed that impression with their last remarks, addressed to the valiant Theodor Pfizer. Herbert Ohl wrote, his tone matter-of-fact, the content anything but: “Because all members of the School of Design have now been given notice by the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung effective 31 December 1968, I’d like to say that as of 1 January 1969 the HfG will conclude its w ork and its existence as a teaching institution.” 1490 And Herbert Kapitzki made absurd accusations, which, because they were untenable, only reflected badly upon himself: “In conclusion I’d like to add that your conduct – that of the various members of the GSS and of the administrative director – has not helped to remedy the existential and politico-educational problems that have shaken the HfG recently. On the contrary, it has fueled the students’ incompetent accusations. These facts might lead one to conclude that the GSS deliberately drew public attention to these events in order to divert it from the foundation’s own problems, which brought on the HfG’s crisis in the first place.” 1491 The officials of the ministry of education and the arts were faced with a mess they did not want to clean up. For the 27 November 1968 government meeting they had prepared a presentation that included not only the foundation’s proposal but also the two pamphlets by the lecturers and the students.1492 The contentious issue of the institutes was clearly demonstrated. There was also the fact that the foundation and the lecturers had submitted competing budgets, which did not help increase trust in the HfG. For interestingly the foundation had worked out that the needed Land subsidy totaled DM 1,053,300, while the HfG lecturers asked for almost DM 100,000 more. There was a simple reason for this: “The higher estimate in the HfG’s budget plan is based essentially on higher salaries for the lecturers and more personnel positions.” Since the students had insinuated that the lecturers were interested in personal gain, and the financial organization of the HfG had shown itself to be incompetent, it also looked as though the lecturers wanted to be put in a higher income bracket and hire more auxiliary staff – which the ministers and officials considered to be outrageous. At least it was not diplomatic, since the touchy situation would have demanded that every word and every mark be carefully weighed. Accordingly, in their response, the officials of the ministry of education and the arts came to the
395
The rectorships of Aicher, Maldonado and Ohl
396
conclusion that the HfG had not completely met the Landtag’s conditions. The question of organizational structure had not been completely resolved, since the lecturers and students disagreed on the question of the institutes. And above all: “With the importance given to this question by both lecturers and students, it cannot simply be taken care of with a decision coming from the ministry of education and the arts.” Also, the ministry stated, the kind of administration the HfG would have had been left open. Another factor that prepared the session of the council of ministers was a statement to the press by the ministry of education and the a rts: It described Ohl’s repeated statements in the press that the HfG was defunct as incomprehensible. The ministry, to quote the statement, welcomed the proposal that in the future the HfG would offer a postgraduate program and wanted to be affiliated with the university of Stuttgart. “The reason Rector Ohl’s statements are inexplicable is that they quite unnecessarily aggravate the atmosphere in the public and in parliament.” 1493 Indeed the atmosphere was now so poisoned that the council of ministers lost its patience with the HfG. It is true that a last-minute telegram arrived announcing that the students and lecturers had agreed on the institute question. 1494 And minister of education and the arts Wilhelm Hahn also tried to convince his government colleagues that this announcement completely fulfilled the Landtag conditions. However, he said the lecturers had resisted until the end against control of their sideline activities and had not agreed to their being regulated until the last minute. He thought the government should probably accept this result, even if he had come to believe that the Land government would have saved itself a great deal of trouble if the HfG had disbanded by itself. A refusal by the Land government would have dire political consequences. But minister of finance Robert Gleichauf had different views. He questioned the value of the telegram announcing internal agreement at the HfG because there was also a telegram from Ohl in which the latter announced that the HfG had disbanded. The Landtag’s conditions had not been fulfilled, including the unresolved question as to the HfG’s administration. He wondered whether the subsidy should be cut, even at the risk of being blamed for the end of the HfG. That was why he pleaded that the Land government should propose to the Landtag that the subsidy for the HfG include a note that it was blocked. This meant that after 31 December 1968 the foundation could not continue running the HfG. Instead, a new institution should be founded to document the interest of the land in the HfG; it could begin its work in the 1969/70 winter semester.
The Land government felt this plan had two advantages: A reliable and workable organization might be created – even if this new organization would cost more than the HfG, but if its structure was solid, this could be justified – and the personnel situation could be sorted out. The officials of the ministries in charge of this matter also no longer had any hopes that the present HfG could successfully continue its work. For one, there had been practically no more classes since 1 October 1968, and there were a mere 35 students now. Thus they were faced with the question whether under the circumstances one could even say that the HfG still existed. Secondly, almost all the lecturers were concentrating their energy on fighting against the foundation. No plan could be made with these lecturers; the old controversies would surface again, and that was why old accusations should be laid aside so that a successful new beginning could be made. Thirdly, the most recent telegram had been signed by only four lecturers; one was against it, and the remaining three had not yet voiced their opinions because they had not been present. – Although all participants at this discussion were aware that the Land g overnment was being blamed for the end of the HfG, the cabinet passed the resolution that the HfG had not fulfilled the conditions of the Landtag and that the planned Land subsidy was to carry a note that it was blocked.1495 – This meant that the politicians took upon themselves the charge – to use the handy formula – that they were to b lame for closing the HfG. Their counterargument that the HfG had not fulfilled the conditions imposed upon it no longer got a hearing. And of course, as we have seen, it only served as a pretext. Herbert Ohl commented on this resolution, again demonstrating how out of touch with reality he was. He declared, “in reference to the liquidation of the college by the Land of Baden-Württemberg”: “The intention that has often been expressed over the years to gradually liquidate the HfG by division – individual departments, individual faculty members, or the cooperation of the academic community itself – is now complete, although in spite of all these attempts the HfG was in the end able to keep alive a joint and unanimous will for its preservation and renewal. After a year during which the government, parliament, and sponsors treated the institution as an outlaw, the HfG and its members could not hold back these destructive outside forces.” 1496 The HfG as a balanced ideal entity had no longer been in existence since spring. Now the end of the HfG as a functioning unit had also been sealed. All that was left were the buildings and grounds. On 3 December 1968 the council of ministers put its ideas in concrete form: The DM 900,000 Land
subsidy would be blocked for 1969 with the condition that a committee of experts should work on reorganizing the institution. In line with the foundation’s proposal the HfG’s successor institution would offer a postgraduate program. There needed to be a study whether it would be most practical for such a program to be offered by a separate institution or in affiliation with an existing institution of higher learning. Classes were expected to resume in winter semester 1969/70. The cabinet approved this proposal with 18 votes in favor, two against, and two abstentions. 1497 On 11 December 1968 the ministry of state informed the Landtag of this resolution. 1498 Because all employees of the foundation had been given notice effective 31 December 1968, the foundation‘s council no longer needed to react. Exhausted and weary, Theodor Pfizer summed up: “Our task is to maintain things, but to close the present school.” The foundation thus stated that the School of Design was officially suspending its operation on 31 December 1968. 1499 At the ministry of education and the arts, the HfG had been the responsibility of the department of fine arts, since a concrete program had been involved. Now this responsibility reverted to the department of higher education, as had been the case in the very beginning, when the HfG existed only as a vague, distant idea. 1500 The absurdity of all the developments in this final phase is graphically illustrated by the fact that the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung ended the 1968 fiscal year with the biggest surplus since 1954.
397
Profit and loss statement of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung 1950–1968
398
up to 31March 1953 1953/54 1954/55 1955/56 1956/57 1957/58 1958/59 1959/60 1960/61
Personnel expenditure as per budget
Personnel expenditure actual
Materials expenditure as per budget
Materials expenditure actual
Total expenditure as per budget
Total expenditure actual
Total income actual
Surplus or deficit income/ expenditure
Increase or decrease in assets
Total surplus or deficit in figures
— — — — — 355,700.00 410,700.00 543,900.00 658,700.00
68,140.20 127,044.61 172,781.26 247,937.26 243,237.00 358,690.18 422,827.46 528,266.27 690,815.64
— — — — — 322,800.00 281,800.00 331,700.00 372,600.00
57,714.04 59,608.47 210,948.28 292,816.97 274,739.73 280,528.26 328,306.20 499,256.13 524,023.15
— — — — — 678,500.00 698,500.00 875,600.00 1,031,300.00
125,854.24 186,653.08 383,729.54 540,754.23 517,976.73 639,218.44 751,133.66 1,027,522.40 1,214,838.79
1,909,929.67 183,803.19 369,786.42 583,821.41 612,253.36 641,878.00 739,178.14 1,027,522.40 1,200,215.88
1,784,075.43 -2,849.89 -13,943.12 — — -9,808.50 -21,764.02 — -14,622.91
— — — 43,067.18 94,276.63 -90,816.98 -23,872.36 21,066.61 62,985.21
1,784,075.43 -2,849.89 -13,943.12 43,067.18 94,276.63 -100,625.48 -45,636.38 21,066.61 48,362.30
482,289.12 (361,716.83)
1,110,000.00 (842,000.00)
1,369,849.57 (1,027,387.20)
1,356,180.00 (1,017,134.85)
-13,669.80 ( -10,252.35)
1,788,142.39 2,194,517.17 1,693,003.08 1,762,049.64 2,481,550.23 1,523,457.95 1,294,084.35
1,879,229.96 2,027,951.76 1,679,240.50 1,514,003.51 2,397,878.91 1,411,857.21 1,397,585.88
80,835.22 -85,730.19 -13,762.58 -248,046.13 -83,671.32 -111,600.74 103,501.53
— 415,390.14 -81,065.53 -155,683.03 60,252.48 -255,670.57 -98,222.82
80,835.22 329,659.95 -94,828.11 -403,729.16 -23,418.84 -367,271.31 5,278.71
1961
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968
815,644.10 (611,733.01) 972,800.00 944,000.00 777,600.00 832,000.00 956,650.00 845,730.00 905,100.00
825,693.79 925,383.89 950,058.40 971,250.37 1,036,405.23 866,860.10 847,476.14
537,300.00 541,000.00 677,400.00 652,000.00 1,323,700.00 572,770.00 539,900.00
962,448.60 1,269,133.28 742,944.68 790,799.27 1,445,145.00 656,597.85 446,608.21
1,510,100.00 1,485,000.00 1,455,000.00 1,484,000.00 2,280,350.00 1,418,500.00 1,445,000.00
Alle data in deutsche mark. They are based on the auditing reports of Max Horn, except for the last column, which is a simple addition of the two preceding columns. The following references elucidate points that are not clear:
Decrease in assets: Under this heading the auditor included the deficit created when more money was spent for nonbudgetary items than was earned for nonbudgetary items. Up to 31 March 1953: Income, including the McCloy funds, is reported as totaling DM1,037,685.88; the surplus quoted also refers to this total. However, in calculating earnings and losses, a higher amount has been entered, because as a result of part of the donations being deposited in bank accounts for many years there was interest. Up to 1956/57: Up to 31 March 1957 there was no budget examination using actual figures. 1957/58: In that year the auditor added two items totaling DM12,468.06, which represent a carry-forward of the losses, to total expenditure. This results in the shortfall, where normally, on the basis of the bill of receipts and expenditures, a small suplus would have been calculated.
399
1958/59: In that year the budget contained a DM 6,000.00 deficit; this meant that there was a difference between the sum of budgetary personnel expenditure and expenditure in kind, and total budgetary expenditure. Also, the auditor counted the preceding year’s deficit against the current deficit. The result is a deficit that is higher than the difference between income and expenses. 1961: This fiscal year was only 9 months long. The corresponding audit report is not available, but it was definitely drawn up, for in 1962 the auditor offset a DM 10,252.35 deficit he had identified for the rest of 1961 with the calculated surplus for 1962, a total of DM 91,087.57, the difference between income and expenditure.* In order to compare data for 1961 with those for the other years, I gave the projections for 12 months and put the actual figures for 9 months in parentheses, if available. 1963: The actual deficit (DM 166,565.41) was set off against the preceding year’s surplus.
1965: In the year that followed, total income was later decreased by DM 39,130.20 by the auditor, and thus the deficit was raised by the same amount. This explains the difference from the audit report figures for 1965. 1967 and 1968: These data no longer include the film department.
Selected financial data from the profit and loss statement of the Geschwister- Scholl-Stiftung 1950–1968
400
up to 31March 1953 1953/54 1954/55 1955/56 1956/57 1957/58 1958/59 1959/60 1960/61
Income Student payments
Rents
Commissions/ Royalties
Donations
Other
Income total
Subsidies Land
City
Federal
Subsidies total
— 5,129,25 11,023,00 28,270,50 50,173,75 54,270,99 49,485,90 53,623,90 54,743,50
— — — 11,597,00 16,375,13 17,912,75 19,512,00 19,036,50 19,495,50
14,053,40 21,168,46 10,639,96 36,511,99 32,422,57 55,880,58 59,439,56 46,168,38 287,000,16
195,919,84 48,696,24 79,847,05 178,697,41 150,487,81 60,883,82 85,631,15 9,163,02 14,265,03
1,111,118,34 3,530,87 6,671,14 10,486,12 32,065,82 725,47 5,197,77 144,596,13 269,236,24
1,321,091.58 78,524.82 108,181.15 265,563.02 281,525.08 189,673.61 219,266.38 272,587.93 644,740.43
60,000.00 250,000.00 225,000.00 265,000.00 200,000.00 180,000.00 180,000.00 180,000.00 180,000.00
— 245,000.00 22,362.16 53,257.69 63,228.28 74,575.17 63,753.07 61,037.10 61,860.32
— 250,000.00 50,000.00 — 67,500,00 75,000.00 90,000.00 170,000.00 162,500,00
60,000.00 745,000.00 297,362.16 318,257.69 330,728.28 329,575.17 333,753.07 411,037.10 404,360.32
200,000.00 (150,000.00)
740,178.67 (555,134.85)
330,000.00 ( 250,000.00)
80,000.00 (60,000.00)
190,000.00 (152,000.00)
600,000.00 (462,000.00)
75,430,44 38,427,66 87,500,07 94,352,07 83,186,28 75,666,01 3,566,16
563,698.86 859,172.62 544,351.77 305,239.55 521,971.71 328,111.94 223,683.29
500,000.00 600,000.00 600,000.00 600,000.00 900,000.00 900,000.00 900,000.00
100,000.00 150,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00
295,000.00 269,550,00 246,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 — —
1961: 12 months (9 months) 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968
81,118,00 85,577,13 89,229,86 96,367,41 90,854,00 153,401,58 122,191,45
40,640,50 41,750,25 42,616,43 45,805,25 46,331,25 46,007,45 67,209,95
351,462,75 189,432,98 297,339,09 55,719,30 264,361,03 26,623,35 29,335,73
15,047,17 503,984,60 27,666,32 12,995,52 37,239,15 26,413,55 1,380,00
401
895,000.00 1,019,550,00 1,046,000.00 1,000.000,00 1,300,000.00 1,100,000.00 1,100,000.00
Alle data in deutsche mark. They are based on the auditing reports of Max Horn. The totals of earnings for the first three audit periods (through 31 March 1955) do not agree with the total earnings listed in the profit and loss statement because the auditor identified all public sector subsidies (HICOG, city, Land, federal) in the first audit (through 31 March 1953) as income, even if they had not actually been paid out. This chart, however, gives the actual income per year. Because of interest that could not be calculated at the outset, there are further differences. In 1955/56 the totals of own resources and subsidies (here) agree with total identified earnings (GV) (NB: deficits and decreases in assets must if applicable be added on).
Re the first reporting period: Under other income, only the McCloy donation is listed including interest identified in the 1955/56 audit. Re 1954/55: In effect only DM 20,000 were paid out by the federal ministry of the interior that year, while the remaining DM 30,000 plus DM 5,000 were paid out in fiscal year 1956/57 (i.e., the foundation received a total of DM 55,000 — and not just DM 50,000 as promised — from the federal ministry of the interior out of funds provided by the third Bundesjugendplan, the Federal Youth Plan).
Re 1961: This fiscal year was only nine months long. The corresponding audit report is no longer available. In order to compare these data with those from the other years, I gave the projections for 12 months, and put the actual figures for nine months in parentheses. The item “other” refers to the subsidy of the Stuttgart Land Trade Supervisory Department (i.e., the Baden– Württemberg ministry of economics) to the Institute of Product Design. In the two preceding years a large part of that item consisted of the respective subsidy by the Land Trade Supervisory Department to the institute.
Selected items from the financial statement of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung 1950–1968
Assets
402
up to 31 March 1953 1953/54 1954/55 1955/56 1956/57 1957/58 1958/59 1959/60 1960/61
Liabilities
Fixed assets
Current assets
Own resources
Liabilities
114,395.58 628,079.73 1,909,023.57 2,550,471.65 2,489,057.90 2,454,018.40 2,404,044.40 2,394,441.40 2,509,318.85
1,688,592.02 1,339,882.83 267,263.56 111,612.92 112,226.62 57,743.58 82,386.03 147,105.28 166,279.82
1,784,075.43 1,807,161.95 1,957,013.68 1,993,401.72 2,094,724.16 2,004,147.04 1,970,556.18 1,969,858.77 2,032,843.98
7,482.79 191,154.91 163,307.28 438,502.50 461,957.81 509,749.64 490,513.28 550,220.61 622,465.57
3,051,563.15 3,496,910.38 3,416,459.89 3,225,120.44 3,565,300.74 3,317,006.25 2,958,643.25
287,518.24 213,505.55 142,608.54 92,256.33 131,392.15 263,788.32 157,312.09
2,053,067.75 2,549,293.11 2,468,227.58 2,312,544.55 2,113,197.03 1,943,733.78 1,493,185.70
1,160,026.02 1,302,453.36 1,271,531.96 1,389,594.70 1,523,918.22 1,870,384.75 1,575,765.88
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968
Alle data in deutsche mark. They are based on the auditing reports of Max Horn. Fixed assets These include the value of such property as the site, the college building, student residences, other residential buildings, furnishings and equipment of buildings, land improvements. Current assets These include the value of such items as stock-in-trade, accounts receivable, bank deposits, cash in hand. Real property • not reported through 31 March 1956 • 1957/58 through 1958/59 value: 267,583.40 • 31 March 1960 value: 266,383.40 • 31 March 1961 value: 266,858.75 • after 1 April 1961 constant value: 265,146.25
403
HfG publications
Contemporary note paper, advertising and informational material shows a cross section of the design of publications between 1948 and 1968. The main focus of this haphazard, by no means representative selection is on designs from the HfG and those directly associated with it. In other words, this is work in which the HfG’s position regarding design had to be demonstrated in practice. We notice that over many years HfG letterheads that were consistently lowercas ed were used in parallel with others that used standard spelling. – This spectrum is only meant to give an impression and does not claim to be a scholarly appraisal. There may be minor deviations from the originals, since to a large extent reproductions of copies were used.
405
Der Graue Prospekt black-white 4 pages 210 x 210 mm 1952
Information black-white 2 pages 210 x 297 mm 1951
Reprint from idea 55 black-white 4 pages 210 x 297 mm 1955
HfG publications
Cover information 63 Cover colour orange pages black-white 21 pages 210 x 297 mm 1963
407
Information cover and double page black-white 28 pages 210 x 210 mm 1960
Information black-white 16 pages 148 x 210 mm 1956
HfG publications
409
Cover HfG curriculum black-white 16 pages 148 x 210 mm 1964/65
output no. 16 output no. cover and double page black-white 60 pages 210 x 210 mm 1963
HfG publications
Fragebogen black-white 2 pages 148 x 210 mm circa 1966
411
Erläuterungen zur g eforderten Vorbildung black-white 2 pages 148 x 210 mm 1964
Studienordnung black-white 4 pages 148 x 210 mm 1964
Fragebogen cover and double pages black-white 4 pages 148 x 210 mm 1964
HfG publications
413
Extracts from the information map of the development team 5 (E5) color each 4 pages 297 x 210 mm 1964
HfG publications
415
Extracts from the information map of the development team 5 (E5) color each 4 pages 297 x 210 mm 1964
Cover ulm no. 12/13 black-white 80 pages 210 x 297 mm March 1965
HfG publications
417
Information of the department of visual communication black-white 16 pages 210 x 297 mm 1967/68
Cover and double page ulm no. 21 black-white 60 pages 210 x 297 mm April 1968
HfG publications
Erklärung of members of the Bauhaus black-white 2 pages 210 x 297 mm 4 May 1968
419
Mordanzeige black on red paper 2 pages 210 x 297 mm February 1968
Aufruf black on red paper 2 pages 210 x 297 mm April 1968
In this study I looked at the Hf G from a perspective that addressed the basic conditions that made its work possible. I tuned out the a ctual work of the HfG almost completely, which is why the picture I have painted should be assumed to be only one aspect of the HfG’s history. For the HfG to be appreciated in its entirety, it must be examined first and foremost as a design institution — but that is not the subject of my study. Also, an analysis from a sociological standpoint and from the point of view of the history of mentality would be very instructive. My study is meant to serve as background information for such inquiries. I reached the conclusion that in the final analysis the HfG failed because of false reasoning. As the attempt was made to translate this false reasoning into real terms and as on the other hand attempts were made to prevent its implementation, there were errors in behavior. They were the factors in the historical process that together constituted the development of the HfG. These factors on the one hand led to the intended effects, but also produced unintended side effects. Human factors were also involved, and these could not be predicted in advance: character developments of individual people, and the development of the independent existence of institutions that in turn were run by human individuals. On the one hand the web of relation-ships between those involved became tighter, while on the other h and their circle expanded. This meant that many more, and more varied, cycles of actions and reactions were set in mo-tion; there were arguments and counterarguments, expectations and expectations based on expectations that were hard to assess or to control in detail, and whose overall effect could not be foreseen. Thus the process as a whole developed laws of its own, an energy of its own, and took a direction that ended in an outcome very few of those involved had wanted. What is more, this outcome was not in keeping with the power of those who wanted it, and contradicted the goals of those who did not have the energy to reach it. The false reasoning on which the HfG was based was a utopia, and it does credit to its originators that they took it upon themselves to turn this utopia into a reality: This was what the HfG experiment was all about. What I, from analyzing the HfG's history, describe as false reasoning, as the cause of the HfG’s failure, is the fact that its founders improperly combined ideas and standards from the realms of design and of social politics. For when it comes to the quality of design work, participatory peer-based decisionmaking and tolerance are not appropriate; Otl Aicher’s demand that the HfG be limited to a dogmatic design program was legitimate. It was equally legitimate that Otl Aicher wanted to apply the
social ideals on which his attitude toward design was based to the self-government of the HfG as well – but that was precisely what did not work at the HfG. He initially did this against the background of Hans and Sophie Scholl’s resistance, then as a countermove in opposition to the personality of Max Bill, and at the same time as a return to the idealistic aims of the founding phase. Thus this study may also be read as a long an swer to the question why the HfG no longer exists today. However, the question Hellmut Becker posed back in 1953 remains unanswered: Who will finance this cultural freedom?
421
Index of names
422
This index does not give the names of those persons who appear only in the list of references or the bibliography. Alvar Aalto 88 Hermann Josef Abs 88, 100, 107–108, 112, 114, 122, 160, 169, 181, 196–198, 427, 442, 449, 451–452 Konrad Adenauer 34, 39, 60, 123, 132, 302 Otl Aicher (i.e.Otto) 5–6, 10– 12, 16, 20–24, 26, 29–31, 33, 36–37, 40–43, 48–51, 54–55, 57–59, 64–65, 68–85, 87–96, 100, 102, 106–108, 110–114, 118, 121–122, 126–127, 130–131, 134, 141, 155–160, 162–163, 169, 171, 173–174, 182–185, 189, 192– 193, 196, 200–201, 204, 207, 209–210, 213–214, 216, 221, 224, 227, 230, 234, 2 38–239, 241, 245, 250, 252–276, 278–279, 304–316, 318, 321–337, 339– 342, 344, 349–350, 355–356, 363, 365, 381, 392, 421, 426, 430–431, 433–435, 439–453, 455–462 Inge Aicher-Scholl (see also s.v. Inge Scholl) 7, 29, 31, 50, 70, 95, 100–101, 122–124, 126–128, 130–135, 145, 154–156, 158, 160–166, 168–169, 171, 173–183, 186–189, 196–198, 201–206, 208, 210, 213–214, 216–218, 221, 223–225, 227, 230–231, 234– 235, 237, 246, 250–251, 255– 256, 258, 264, 267, 272–273, 306, 309, 312, 315–316, 326, 328–329, 332, 335, 340, 342– 344, 347, 351, 359, 370, 427– 428, 432–433, 441, 443–459 Ingela Albers 130 Josef Albers 154–156, 159, 169, 209, 213 Günter von Alberti 212, 222, 249–250, 427, 451 KarlheinzAllgayer 261 Elke Amberg 7, 427, 434, 441 Alfred Andersch 56, 58, 429, 444 Josef Andre 34 Kurt Angstmann 35, 113, 115, 154, 307, 310–311, 323, 460 Bruce Archer 255 Johann Dietrich Auffermann 32, 101, 230–231, 251, 268 Rudolf Augstein 306 Michael P. Balla 78, 119, 449 Reyner Banham 234–235, 355, 429, 431, 434, 438, 4 41 Hermann von Baravalle 217, 224 Klaus Barbie 107 Otto Bartning 100, 105–106, 112, 122, 181, 198, 429–430 Theodor Bäuerle 34, 90, 97, 446–447 Herbert Bayer 159, 216 Hanns Becher 88 Werner Becher 48 Peter Beck 304 ReinholdBeckelmann 304 Carl Heinrich Becker 91, 443, 447 Hellmut Becker 31–33, 44, 73,
85, 88, 91–92, 96, 99–102, 105– 108, 110, 112–114, 118, 122, 130, 133–134, 155, 160, 162–163, 182–184, 192, 205, 207, 210, 216–217, 223–224, 226, 230– 232, 235, 251, 264, 267–268, 270–272, 289, 300, 311–317, 328, 332, 334, 336, 338, 340, 342, 344, 351–352, 381, 421, 426–427, 429, 434, 441–443, 445–454, 456–459 Ludwig van Beethoven 55 Felix Beheim 142 Peter Behrens 13 Berthold Beitz 7 Ernst Benda 35, 431 Max Bense 156, 159, 173, 175, 194, 198, 203, 453 Wolfgang Benz 52, 434–435, 443–444 Brigitte Bermann-Fischer 32, 70, 90, 95, 112, 134, 174, 232, 235, 446, 455 Gottfried Bermann-Fischer 70, 427 Prinz Lennart Bernadotte 86 Prinz Sigvard Bernadotte 136 Josef Bernhart 48 Harald Berns 255 Binia Bill 175 Jakob Bill 7, 427 Max Bill 5, 7, 11–12, 14–15, 21, 23–24, 27, 29–31, 33, 36–37, 43, 59, 63–65, 72, 75–96, 100, 102– 103, 106–107, 110–114, 117–128, 133–135, 140, 146, 154–170, 172–176, 178–189, 192–194, 198–213, 216–219, 225, 228– 229, 231, 234, 250, 264, 267, 269–270, 273, 279, 282, 286– 287, 308, 312–314, 316, 329, 332, 340, 342, 352, 421, 427, 429–441, 444–454, 457–459 Paul Binder 177–178, 452 Acton Bjørn 139 Misha Black 346–347 Werner Blaser 207 Ernst Bloch 337 Franz Blücher 113 Fred Boerner 72, 75 Rodolfo Bonetto 340 Gui Bonsiepe 18, 243, 276, 317, 332, 346, 363, 371, 387, 426, 431, 440–441, 454, 458– 462 Christian Borngräber 28, 434, 440–441, 451 Hans Bott 30, 75, 126, 445– 446, 450 Günther Boulanger 32, 159, 169–170, 227, 232, 246, 249– 250, 332, 342, 352, 355, 361, 363–367, 375, 378, 385, 457 Margret Bovari 44, 429, 447 John Boxer 7, 78, 427, 446 Karl Brachat 34–35, 197, 305, 448, 452, 457, 459 Dr. Bradler 7 Margrit Brandel 7, 31 JohannBrandenburg 181, 195–198 Willy Brandt 302 Erwin Braun 27, 434, 441 Leonid Brezhnev 302 Franz Bullrich 166, 179 Ulrich Burandt 187 Beth Burchard 50, 431 Fred Burckhardt 213
Lucius Burckhardt 236, 327, 433–434 Bernhard Bürdek 23, 431, 434, 440–441 Ralph A. Burns 132 Otto Burrmeister 32, 133–134, 232, 451, 453 Benjamin J. Buttenwieser 78, 447–448 James F. Byrnes 47 John F. Capell 93–94, 443 Giulio Castelli 238 Pier Giacomo Castiglioni 238 Fidel Castro 190 Hadley Centril 213, 220 Oswald Glean Chase 178 Dr. Christmann 174, 452 Nikita Khrushchev 66, 302 Winston Churchill 302 Lucius D. Clay 45, 52 Sabine Cofalla 7, 33, 427, 435 Hans Conrad 7, 9, 29, 33, 128, 154–165, 167–170, 172–173, 175–179, 181–187, 189, 192– 209, 211, 214, 216–219, 221–227, 229–230, 238, 255, 268, 271– 272, 274, 277–278 Peter Cornelius 311 Raffaele Crespi 238 Josine de Cressonniere 346 Helmut Cron 32, 88, 133–134, 169, 180, 232, 235, 271, 430, 452, 457 Jörg Crone 7, 441 Gerhard Curdes 7, 13, 29, 427, 435, 441, 455 Susanne Curdes 7, 29 Hans Curjel 92, 170 Rolf Dahlgrün 35 Ralf Dahrendorf 291, 296, 366, 429, 434, 457, 461 Thomas Dawo 184 Hermann Delugan 271 Kurt Deschler 88, 130 Cl. Dietel 298 JohannesDinnebier 295 Walter Dirks 58, 95–96, 113, 428, 431, 447 Richard Döcker 110, 116, 129, 445, 448–449 Rudolf Doernach 25, 255, 266, 276, 279 Katja Dohrn 7, 427, 441 Klaus Dohrn 30, 32–33, 101, 233, 251, 268, 316, 334, 3 41– 342, 352, 362, 426, 447, 455, 457–459 Wolfgang Donndorf 32, 155, 159, 163, 168–170, 195, 212, 218, 222, 232, 246, 252, 274, 307– 308, 310, 312, 317, 332, 342, 345, 351–352, 361, 364, 366, 375, 384, 451–453, 455, 457– 462 Helmut Döscher 32, 232, 451 Alexander Dubçek 303 Jost Dülffer 7 Rudi Dutschke 373 Charles Eames 151, 166, 222– 223 Ray Eames 223 Elke Eckert 30, 441 Hans Eckstein 148, 348, 430– 431, 435, 440, 451, 453 Gerhard Eichhorn 205
Adolf Eichmann 190 Egon Eiermann 148, 296 Albert Einstein 88, 235 Dwight D. Eisenhower 122 Elizabeth II. 153 Ralph Waldo Emerson 119 Peter Emmer 304 Hans Magnus Enzensberger 20 Charlotte Erbe 7, 427 Walter Erbe 31, 101, 154, 171, 175, 196, 249, 312, 320, 339, 342, 355, 357–358, 362, 435, 451–452, 458 Ludwig Erhard 34–35, 103, 105, 174, 293, 296, 302, 394, 448, 450, 457 Michael Erlhoff 7, 29, 427, 435, 440–441, 451 Peter Erni 14, 435, 440 Jupp Ernst 116, 430–431, 436 Hans Frieder Eychmüller 7, 32, 100, 130, 134, 164, 234, 262–264, 312–313, 315, 329, 332, 338, 427, 457–458 Karl Eychmüller 48 Peter Fechter 191 Olivio Ferrari 185, 453 Eduard Fiedler 34 Hans Filbinger 35, 154, 357, 364, 371, 387, 461 Hans-J. Firgau 181 Florian Fischer 343 Hans Jörg Fischer 101 Klaus Fischer 101, 460–462 Kenneth Frampton 36, 441 Bernd-Gunter Franck 308 Klaus Franck 243 André François-Poncet 60 Franz Frank 32, 352, 459 Hans Frank 35 Hermann Frank 48 Karl Frank 34, 105, 113, 116– 117, 128–129, 178, 181, 311, 318, 323, 357, 449–450 Erich Franzen 203, 217 Enzo Frateili 238, 290 Gianfranco Frattini 238 Hans Frei 7, 33, 87, 426–427, 435, 441, 443, 445–446 Roland Freisler 42 Kurt Fried 49–50, 94 Elmar Frings 7 Anthony Froshaug 217, 224, 254–255, 265, 434 Günther Fuchs 147 Richard Buckminster Fuller 20, 218, 293 Roland Fürst 311–312,317– 318, 334, 337–341, 343, 355, 360 Wilhelm Furtwängler 70–71 Erich Ganzenmüller 312, 323, 356–359, 460 Charles de Gaulle 190, 302 Gerhard Gehle 157 Hugo Geisert 35 Sigfried Giedion 63, 433, 445 Dominique Gilliard 179, 427 John Gimbel 53, 435, 443, 445 Alexander Girard 151 RobertGleichauf 35, 366, 396 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 55, 388 Maurice Goldring 163–165,
185, 271, 451 Eugen Gomringer 29, 160, 164, 199, 433 Tomás Gonda 247, 434, 437 Alonzo Grace 62 Max Graf 7, 18, 156, 165, 427, 453 Alfred Grazioli 386, 462 HAP Grieshaber 68–69, 445 Will Grohmann 207, 431–433, 453 Walter Gropius 14, 30, 82, 84, 88, 93, 100, 112–114, 116, 121, 174–175, 208–210, 213, 231, 277, 312, 326, 344, 377, 379, 428– 429, 435, 437–438, 445–449, 452–454, 457–458 Günther Grzimek 7, 31, 33, 100, 112, 134, 234, 264, 312, 326, 329, 342, 352, 367, 386, 427, 437, 441, 457, 459, 461 Romano Guardini 48, 50, 70, 72–73, 88, 100, 112, 181, 429, 438, 443 Guido Guendisch 94 Che Guevara 303 Hans Gugelot 22, 24, 142, 156, 161–162, 169, 174, 192–193, 200, 213, 215, 218, 223–224, 227, 238–239, 241, 245–246, 252–255, 257–262, 267–268, 279, 283, 293–294, 30 4, 316, 328, 330–331, 335–336, 340, 348, 356, 426, 431, 439, 441, 451, 455, 459–460 Malke Gugelot 294 Franz Gurk 365 Karl Gussone 32, 233, 236, 249–250, 310, 332, 342, 348– 350, 352, 355, 454, 457, 459 Gustav VI. 139 Rolf Gutbrod 293 Max Guther 31, 33, 69, 72, 85, 101, 134, 163, 175, 208, 210, 234, 237, 256, 264–265, 267–269, 271, 273–274, 312–315, 332, 342, 352, 362, 452–457 Hermann Haan 205 Gottfried Haase 35 Heinrich von Hacht 391 Angela Hackelsberger 178 Theodor Haecker 40, 442 Siegfried Haenle 214 Ernst Hahn 7, 93, 166, 177, 427 Kurt Hahn 91 Wilhelm Hahn 35, 345, 364, 369, 381, 386, 393, 396, 434– 435, 460–462 Käthe Hamburger 20, 206 Hugo Häring 156, 451 Josef Harter 34 Fritz Hartnagel 58, 88, 130 Gustav Hassenpflug 88, 181, 429 HilaryHatch-Conrad 7 Otto Haupt 198 Wolfgang Haußmann 318 George P. Hays 106, 448 Martin Heidegger 235 Joachim Heimbucher 7, 33, 36, 426, 428, 431, 441, 461–462 GustavHeinemann 34, 66 Werner Heisenberg 85, 88 Willi von Helden 35 F. Helg 238 F. P. Hellin 88 Karl Max von Hellingrath 32,
88, 112, 134, 169, 208, 232, 235, 251 Fritz Helmstädter 35 Josef Hengartner 371–374, 461 Arno Hennig 122, 449 Jost Hermand 136, 436, 450 Eva Herrmann 7 Frank Hess 308 Theodor Heuss 30, 34, 39, 62, 73, 75, 77, 80, 117, 153, 155, 190, 226–227, 230, 429, 436, 445– 446, 449 Paul Hildinger 12, 20, 156, 189, 260, 266, 276, 309 Walther Hinsch 32, 105, 129, 169, 172, 174, 193, 198, 232, 3 42, 352, 448–452, 459 Karl Hipp 32, 353, 454, 459 Herbert Hirche 201, 236, 284 Stephan Hirzel 234 Hermann Höcherl 35 Mr. Hochstetter 446 Fred Hochstrasser 29, 157– 158, 174, 189, 427, 441 Kurt Hochstuhl 7 Herbert Hohenemser 58–59, 443–444 James E. Hoofnagle 157, 451 Bruno Horisberger 207 Max Horn 252, 268, 399, 401, 403, 459 Albrecht Hotz 4, 7 Edgar Hotz 32, 103, 112, 115, 232, 447–451, 454 Paul Egon Hübinger 181, 194, 232, 453–454 Bill Huff (i.e.William) 184, 312 Johannes Itten 20, 92, 156 Heiner Jacob 36, 436, 440– 441 Arne Jacobsen 143, 147 Fred Jaeger 7 Beryl Natalie Janssen 7, 427, 436 Karl Jaspers 57, 88 Walter Jens 332 Eugen Jochum 70–71, 88 Eckhard Jung 365 Ernst Jünger 90 Georg Friedrich Jünger 91 Alfred Jungraithmayr 252 Marcia Kahn 32, 100, 112, 134 Georg Kahn-Ackermann 180, 452 Joachim Kaiser 236 Gert Kalow 25, 240–241, 244, 247, 249, 251, 254–258, 265, 268–270, 276–277, 279, 311, 322, 324–325, 327, 431, 454– 456, 458 Wassily Kandinsky 433, 445 Herbert W. Kapitzki 293, 363, 365, 426, 431, 436, 461, 463 Marie Luise Kaschnitz 50 Erich Kästner 88 Edmund Kaufmann 34 Haya Kawa 241 Dieter Keller 85, 88 Petra Kellner 33, 436, 441 Thomas Kempf 7 John F. Kennedy 190, 302 Rudolf Kerscher 7, 427 Hanno Kesting 24, 217, 224, 230, 239–241, 277
Olaf Kiel 7 Kurt Georg Kiesinger 35, 302– 303, 356, 362, 369–370, 432, 460–461 Moselle Kimbler 109, 427 Max M. Kimental 122 Martin Luther King 303 Michael Klar 374 Beate Klarsfeld 303 Karl Klasen 32, 112, 134, 169, 231–232, 235 Paul Klee 145, 210 WilhelmKleinknecht 32, 232, 235, 451, 453, 455 Hans von Klier 290 Harm Klueting 6 Alexander Kluge 18, 314, 434– 435, 458–459 Richard Knobel 32, 233, 451, 455 Eva-Maria Koch 157, 163 Elke Koch-Weser 165, 179 Heinrich Köhler 34 Shinji Koike 346 Andreas König 7, 437, 441 Heinrich König 105, 430–431 Professor Kono 317 Hartwig Koppermann 363 Peter von Kornatzki 36, 391, 437, 441, 459 Norbert Korrek 36, 437, 440– 441, 443 Gisela Krammer 20 Martin Krampen 36, 327, 431, 437, 440–441, 446 Gert Krappe 101, 460 Walter Krause 34, 356 Karl-Heinz Krug 29, 450 Immo Krumrey 166, 173, 179, 181,203–20 4, 206–207, 212, 286, 431–432, 452–453 Stanley Kubrick 303 Erich Kuby 114, 433, 449 Heinz Küppers 122, 232 Norbert Kurtz 384, 386, 462 Gregor Lang 48 Robert Lehr 34 Robert Leibrand 34 Hans Lenz 286 Georg Leowald 215, 217–218, 225–227, 229, 254, 290, 330, 430, 454 Eduard Leuze 35, 318 Herbert Lindinger 7, 23, 28– 29, 36, 212, 238, 243, 270, 276, 309, 369, 426, 431, 437, 440– 441, 443, 456–457, 459, 462 Irm Lindström 72, 74, 130, 446 Sven Anker Lindström 74, 88 Rolf Lobeck 386, 389, 461– 462 Raymond Loewy 27, 429 Heinrich Löffelhardt 289 Hans Lorenser 345, 363, 368, 391 Konrad Lorenz 204 Erhard M. Löwe 7, 32, 427, 441 Heinrich Lübke 190 Paul Lücke 35, 460
Herbert Maeser 276, 310 Reinhold Maier 34, 98, 104– 105, 124, 443 Tomás Maldonado 5, 11–12, 20, 22, 24, 36, 155, 162, 166– 167, 169–170, 172, 174, 176, 181, 189, 192–193, 200, 205, 209– 213, 215–216, 218–222, 224, 226, 229–230, 234, 238–241, 245–246, 250, 254–255, 259– 261, 265–266, 270, 276, 279, 313, 320, 322, 324–325, 328, 331, 336, 339–342, 344–349, 355, 360, 363, 426, 429, 431– 432, 437, 4 40–441, 451–456, 458–461 Rolf Mangold 166 Horst Dieter Marheineke 7 George Marshall 58 Bruce Martin 207, 217 Bruno Mathsson 138 Peter Matthes 328 Almir Mavignier 157 Joe McCarthy 108 Ellen McCloy 72, 121–122 John McCloy 42, 60, 62–63, 72–73, 75–76, 78, 82, 93, 97–98, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110–111, 116, 118–123, 132, 174, 213, 361, 438, 444, 452 Clara Menck 28, 207, 209, 431 Axel Menges 7 Felix Messerschmid 48 Bernd Meurer 15, 429, 437, 440–441 Vera Meyer-Waldeck 88 Peter Michels 33, 36, 428, 441 Alexander Mitscherlich 91, 203, 312, 316, 428, 438, 447 Ernst Moeckl 282, 286–287 Laszlo Moholy-Nagy 114 Abraham Moles 15, 36, 334, 431, 440–441 Alex Möller 34–35, 107, 109, 111, 131, 177, 180–181, 307, 450, 452 Piet Mondrian 145 Henry Moore 146 Henry Morgenthau Jr. 44 William Morris 13 Bertus Mulder 212 Cornelius Müller 169 Egbert-HansMüller 384, 386, 458–459, 461–463 Gebhard Müller 34, 115, 155, 178 Gerd A. Müller 293, 299 Gerd H. Müller 117, 124, 126, 131, 133, 232, 449–451 Hermann Müller 35, 318 Rolf Müller 7, 29, 36, 427, 437, 441 HelmutMüller-Kühn 243 Clemens Münster 72 Carl Muth 40 J. Fr. Muth 88 Odd Nansen 70, 77, 83, 85, 88, 100, 112, 429, 445–4 46 Gloria Nauber-Gassmann 368, 370–371, 374 F. Neidenberger 88 Ralph Nicholson 62 Lutz Niethammer 46, 437, 442 Marcello Nizzoli 139, 145 Helene Nonné-Schmidt 20, 154–157, 162, 189, 209
Herbert Ohl 5, 7, 11, 20–21, 25, 29, 36, 205, 211, 215–217, 224, 238–241, 245, 255, 260, 262– 266, 276, 293, 310, 322, 328, 330, 336, 339, 358, 360, 362– 363, 365–366, 368–369, 374– 375, 378, 382–386, 389, 392– 393, 395–396, 426–427, 440– 441, 455–463 Benno Ohnesorg 303, 365 Andries van Onck 290 Hermann Oncken 62 Carl Orff 50 Mr. Oschatz 83 Dieter Östreich 214 Frei Otto 236, 293 Gudrun Otto 265–266, 276, 279, 305, 317, 327, 456–458 Verner Panton 294, 297, 299 Joe de Pas 238 Gregor Paulsson 65, 116, 199, 433, 445 Günther Baron von Pechmann 115–116, 206, 449 Herbert Pee 201, 340 Michael Penck 320–321 Mervyn Perrine 221, 240, 245, 253–256, 261, 265, 328, 331 Hermann Person 35 Karl Person 357 Walter Peterhans 154–156, 209, 451 Christian Petry 40, 148, 437, 441–442 Nikolaus Pevsner 65 Erich Pfeiffer-Belli 148, 431, 433 Eva Pfeil 140, 146, 453 Fritz Pfeil 32, 100, 133–134, 155–156, 158–159, 164, 189, 234, 264, 312, 329, 332 Theodor Pfizer 30–32, 72, 103–104, 107, 113, 121–122, 130, 134–135, 160, 168–171, 177–180, 194, 196, 205, 217, 220, 226– 227, 232, 235, 240, 254, 272, 275–276, 306–307, 309, 316, 322–323, 333–334, 337–338, 340, 342–343, 345, 349, 351– 352, 355–356, 359, 361–363, 366–367, 370, 375, 386, 395, 397, 432, 441, 443, 445, 448– 454, 456–463 Otto Pfleiderer 31–33, 112, 122, 134–135, 169–170, 223, 226, 231–232, 271, 315, 326, 340, 342, 352, 367, 385–386, 450, 454, 457–459 Albert Pflüger 154 Klaus Pfromm 257, 261, 263 Irmgard Philippi 166 Georg Picht 295, 429, 457 Giulio Pizzetti 221 Erich F. Podach 173 André de Poerck 346 Holger Poessnecker 33, 436, 441 Wolfgang Pohl 33, 437, 441 Professor Pollock 202 Ferdinand Alexander Porsche 20 Giancarlo Pozzo 238 Christoph Probst 42, 447 Harry Pross 7, 29, 36, 156, 277–278, 325, 327, 427, 438, 441, 451 Helga Pross 20, 170
423
Index of names
424
Arthur Pulos 346 Fritz Querengässer 155, 162, 169 Marcela Quijano 7, 30, 37, 441 Peter Raacke 329 Zvonimir Radic 346–347 Thomas Rago 205 Dieter Rams 7, 29, 137, 283, 427 Friedrich Rau 31, 101, 117, 304, 342–345, 347–351, 354–356, 359–362, 385, 432, 457–462 Herbert Read 88, 100, 112, 174, 213, 436, 445 James Morgan Read 75, 78, 85, 94, 102, 174, 213, 445, 448 Ms. Rebel 7 Dieter Reich 304 Ernst Reichl 294 Edgar Reitz 18, 314, 324, 459 Professor Rembeck 249, 455 Simon Resch 348, 380, 383, 388 Hans Rettich 272–274, 312, 317, 456–459 Ernst Reuter 110 Hans Werner Richter 5, 33, 56–59, 68–69, 71–75, 77–82, 84–88, 93, 95–96, 113, 252, 426, 428, 435, 437–438, 444– 448, 451 Toni Richter 7, 29, 33, 427, 438, 441, 446 Richard Riemerschmid 14 Albert Riester 42, 76, 106–107, 433, 447–448 Thorwald Risler 7, 29, 31, 91, 101, 211, 216–218, 220, 222, 224–225, 229–231, 234–237, 239–247, 249–253, 255–258, 261–276, 304–305, 307–309, 312–317, 322–329, 332–339, 341–345, 348–349, 359, 361, 385, 426–427, 453–459, 462 Horst Rittel 25, 210, 213, 219, 226, 238–241, 244, 254–261, 265–266, 270–271, 273, 276– 277, 279, 308, 327–328, 339, 433, 441, 454, 456 Gerhard Ritter 50, 438 Warren Robbins 202, 221, 240 Brian Robertson 60 Nick Roericht (i.e.Hans) 18, 33, 36, 218, 346, 438, 4 40–441 Ludwig Mies van der Rohe 156–157 Hugo Roller 249 Jules Romain 88 Eleonor Roosevelt 88 Franklin D. Roosevelt 44 AnnelieseRosenberg 7 HannesRosenberg 7, 51, 68, 70–71, 74–76, 79, 81, 84, 87–88, 90, 95, 103, 118, 174–175, 427 Johanna Rösner 112, 208, 369, 454–455, 457–462 Alfred Roth 161, 198, 433 Arthur Roth 160 Mr. Rothe 32, 232 Johannes Rother 7, 426 Ulrich Rothfuss 9 Bernhard Rübenach 130, 164, 170, 178, 180, 182, 186–187, 200, 204, 213, 221–222, 229, 243, 258, 320, 361, 371, 429
Werner Ruch 101, 362, 459– 460, 462 L. Rudolph 298 Mr. Rueß 162, 251 Sep Ruf 296 Hans Rupp 74 Wolfgang Ruppert 15, 28, 438, 440–441 John Ruskin 13 Joseph Rykwert 272 Eero Saarinen 65, 151 Mr. Sander 240, 256, 258 Pier Carlo Santini 430 Dieter Sattler 85 Walter Schaer 201, 207, 211– 212, 431–432, 438, 441, 453 Fritz Schäffer 34, 447 Ernst Scheidegger 88, 112, 173, 182, 195, 203, 450 Gotthilf Schenkel 34, 97, 99, 103, 105, 112–113, 115, 119, 124, 127, 130, 154, 178, 197, 447–450 Otto Schild 156, 257, 260 Friedrich von Schiller 14 Karl Schiller 35, 290 Josef Schlecker 12, 20, 155– 156, 189, 276, 329 Detten Schleiermacher 193, 310 Günther Schlensag 100, 108, 157, 159, 162, 165, 169–171, 177, 182, 186, 189, 200–202, 210, 226, 235, 448, 451–454 Carl Schmid 50 Georg Schmid 176 Hannes Schmidt 151 Jakob Schmied 42 Andrea Schmitz 189 G. Schmitz 88 Karl Schmölder 32, 230– 231, 233, 235, 251, 454 Kurt Schmücker 35 Franz Schnabel 50 Claude Schnaidt 7, 21, 23, 25, 29, 33, 36, 166, 178, 185, 201, 203, 243, 254, 271, 276, 308– 309, 323, 369, 372, 427, 438, 440–441, 457, 459–461 Franz Josef Schneider 95 Eberhard Schnelle 340 Herbert Schober 231 ElisabethScholl 58, 441 Geschwister Scholl(see also s.v. Hans resp. Sophie Scholl) 15, 61, 97,250–251, 431–432, 436, 444–448, 455, 461 Hans Scholl 10, 12, 40–43, 58– 59, 61, 69, 71–72, 78, 86, 108, 114, 119, 122–123, 128, 133, 154, 208, 251, 257, 270, 276–277, 330, 378–381, 421, 428, 436, 439, 441, 443, 447 Inge Scholl (see also s.v. Inge Aicher-Scholl) 10, 12, 27, 30–31, 33, 37, 40, 42–43, 48–51, 57–59, 62–65, 68–99, 102–104, 106– 114, 116–123, 126, 209–210, 308, 428, 431–432, 441–449, 451, 453 MagdaleneScholl 441 Robert Scholl 40, 48, 428, 441–443 Sophie Scholl 10, 12, 40–43, 58–59, 61, 69, 71–72, 78, 86, 108, 114, 119, 122–123, 128, 133, 154, 208, 251, 257, 270,
276–277, 330, 378–381, 421, 428, 436, 439, 441, 443, 447 Werner Scholl 42, 441 Rolf Schörken 13, 438, 440, 442 MathiasSchreiber 28 Gerhard Schröder 34 Peter Schubert 185, 446 Barbara Schüler 7, 73, 427, 438, 441–447 Hans-Otto Schwarz 35, 357, 364 Curt Schweicher 143, 296 Günther Schweigkofler 7, 29, 101, 235, 239, 255, 268, 272– 274, 305, 312, 317, 321–322, 324, 328, 339, 342, 361, 427, 455–459 Hans Schwippert 198 Carla Scolari 289 Eva von Seckendorff 52, 87, 199, 438, 440–443, 445–447, 449, 452 Kurt Seeberger 175, 452 Mia Seeger 199, 234, 341 Hartmut Seeling 29, 36, 438, 441, 443, 445–446 AdalbertSeifriz 32, 232, 372, 451, 454 George A. Selke 119, 122–123, 131,133, 445, 450 Gert Selle 28, 438, 440–441 Nathan Shapira 346 Ferdinand Sieger 90–91, 446 Ignazio Silone 100, 112 Wilhelm Simpfendörfer 34, 110, 181 Wolfgang Siol 199, 210, 213– 215, 220, 228–229, 234–236, 238, 240–241, 246, 258, 260, 264–265, 267, 276, 306–307, 309–310, 314, 317, 323, 325, 327–329, 332 Mr. Slater 221 Hans Jürgen Söhring 88, 95 Nikolaus Sombart 20, 57 Ettore Sottsass 149, 290 Lothar Späth 7, 29, 390, 427 Hans Eugen Specker 29, 439, 441–443 Hans-GüntherSperlich 205 Johannes Spörl 50 Margit Staber 15, 140, 143, 145–146, 151, 287, 293, 431– 433, 453 Joseph Stalin 38, 66, 123 Anton Stankowski 20 Christian Staub 25, 212, 217, 235, 241, 254–255, 257–258, 264–266, 276–277, 279 Eberhard Stauß 7, 427 Theodor Steinbüchel 48, 50 John P. Steiner 52, 61, 81, 85, 443, 445–446 Fedor Stepun 48 Gerhard Stoltenberg 286 Dominic R. Stone 439, 441 Shepard Stone 42, 62–63, 68– 70, 72, 74–75, 93, 95–96, 98, 108–109, 111–112, 118, 122–124, 127, 132, 157, 174, 213, 430, 434, 442, 445–447, 449 Margret Stone-Macdonald 7 Gerhard Storz 35, 178, 246, 249, 305, 312, 351, 457, 459 Franz-Josef Strauß 35, 190 Egidius Streiff 63, 433, 445 Ernst Stritzinger 333
Fritz Stuber 7, 427 Kohei Sugiura 334, 355 Christine Sztankovitz 157 Roger Tallon 346 Florian W. Thienhaus 189 Josef Alfons Thuma 32, 198, 227, 233, 342, 352, 454–455, 459 Roderich Count Thun 32, 88, 100–101, 112, 130, 134, 208, 210, 217, 225, 230, 232, 235, 250– 251, 253, 266–268, 270–271, 453–456 Manuela Tattenbach Thun 7, 427, 441 Arne Torgersen 47, 69–70, 72, 74, 88, 430, 445 Heinrich Troeger 174, 350 Harry S. Truman 44, 58, 60 CorneliusUittenhout 179, 189, 260, 298, 431 Fritz Ulrich 128 Basilio Uribe 346 Gino Valle 346 Georges Vantongerloo 65, 172 Manuel Villazon Vasquez 346 Hermann Veit 34, 128–129, 350, 448–450 Henry van de Velde 14, 65, 88, 92, 100, 112, 116, 433, 445 Herbert Vesely 222 Maria Viera 161 Johann Peter Vogel 267, 272– 273, 456–457 Clemens Vollnhals 46, 429, 439, 442 C.W. Voltz (i.e. Carl Wilhelm) 133 Friedrich VordembergeGildewart 24, 65, 162, 172, 174, 183, 189, 192, 200, 213, 216, 224, 227, 241, 244, 255, 257– 258, 260–261, 265, 276, 278– 279, 438, 451, 454–455 Wilhelm Vossenkuhl 29, 427 Karl Vossler 50 Arno Votteler 301 Christiane Wachsmann 7, 30, 37, 197, 427, 439–441, 443–445 Konrad Wachsmann 172, 193, 197, 205, 209, 215, 217, 271 Peter Wackernagel 32, 74, 76, 100, 112, 134 Wilhelm Wagenfeld 116, 155 Matthew Wallis 274 Elisabeth Walser 49 Martin Walser 343 Elisabeth Walther 20, 195, 203 Walter Weißwange 32, 194, 232, 451, 453 Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker 100, 112, 181 Ernst Baron von Weizsäcker 44, 91 Klaus Werner 340 Rainer Wick 7, 29, 439 Franz Wiedemeier 34, 94, 111, 131, 175, 345, 394 Herbert Wiegandt 49, 58, 74, 130, 428, 433, 443, 447 Norbert Wiener 172–173 Hermann Wild 34, 49, 104, 106, 115
Thornton Wilder 88 Claus Wille 244 Werner Wirsing 340 Alexandre Wollner 346 Carl Wurster 264 Toni Wyss-Verdier 95 Michitaka Yoshioka 346 Marco Zanuso 238 Walter Zeischegg 12, 32, 88, 100, 112, 133–134, 155–156, 159, 161, 167–169, 184, 189, 215, 224, 228, 234, 238–239, 241, 245, 254–255, 257–258, 260– 265, 270, 272, 275–276, 279, 304, 312–314, 328–331, 336, 339, 368, 426, 438–439, 441, 450–451, 455–456, 458–460 Werner Zinkand 7, 33, 36, 426–427, 439, 441, 446 Ellen Zinsser 60 George F. Zook 52 Alice Zuckmayer 69, 198 Carl Zuckmayer 70–71, 77, 85, 88, 95, 100, 112, 174, 181, 430, 445–446 Hans Zumsteg 31, 33, 101, 160, 164, 337, 339, 342, 352, 359, 375, 382–383, 386, 458–459, 461–462
425
Abbreviations
List of references
Letters to the author 426
The essential parts of this manuscript were completed in July 1996, and individual passages were revised up to July 2001. While recent publications were added to the bibliography up to 1 September 2000, it was not possible to use these, except in individual cases, to update the text. Where several essays from a collection were used, these are not listed individually here, but only the title of the collection. Whenever quotations from these essays were used, the exact reference follows in the respective footnotes.
AB AL E2
IPD RK
A b te i lu n gs b ea u ft r ag t er A bt ei lu ng sl ei te r Entwicklungsgruppe 2 des In stitu ts für Produktgestaltung (Produkt Design; head: Hans Gugelot) Entwicklungsgruppe 5 des In stitu ts für Produktgestaltung (Produkt Design; head: Walter Zeischegg) Entwicklungsgruppe 5 des In stitu ts für Produktgestaltung (Visual Communication; head: Otl Aicher) Entwicklungsgruppe 5 des Instit uts für Produktgestaltung (Visual Communication; head: Otl Aicher) Entwicklungsgruppe 6 des In stitu ts für Produktgestaltung (Visual Communication; heads: Tomás Maldonado; Gui Bonsiepe) Entwicklungsgruppe 6 des Instit uts für Produktgestaltung (Visual Communication; head: Gui Bonsiepe) Entwicklungsgruppe 7 (Visual Communication; head: Herbert W. Kapitzki) E n tw i ck l un g sg ru p pe L i nd i ng e r (Produkt Design; head: Herbert Lindinger) E n tw i ck l un g sg rp p e Ze i sc h eg g (Produkt Design; head: Walter Zeischegg) Forschungsstelle für optische Wahrnehmung resp. Forschungsstelle für Wahrnehmung und Design an der Hochschule für Gestaltung (head: Mervyn William Perrine) Gesellschaft der Freunde der Geschwiste r-Scholl-Stiftung e.V. G e sc h wi s te r -S c ho l l- S ti f tu n g Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Hochschule für Gestaltung e.V. H o ch s ch u le f ü r Ge s ta l tu n g Ul m Instit ut für Pro duktg esta ltung der Geschwister- Scholl-Sti ftung Instit ut für industrialisierte s Bauen (Industrialized Building; head: Herbert Ohl) Instit ut fü r Pro dukte ntwicklung und Design e.V. R ek to ra ts ko ll eg iu m
BHE CDU CSU DGB DM DP D VP FDP FWU GB Gestapo HICOG KPD NPD NSDAP OMGUS SPD
Bund der Heimatvertriebenen und Entr echteten Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands Christlich Soziale Union Deuts chla nds Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund D eu ts ch e M ar k D eu ts ch e P ar te i D e mo k ra t is ch eV o l k sp ar t ei F re i e De m ok ra t is ch e P ar t ei Freie Wählerg emeinschaft Ulm G es am td eu ts ch er B lo ck Geheime Staats-Polizei High Commission of Germany Kommunisti sche Partei Deutschlands Nationaldemokratis che Partei Deutschlands Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei Office of Military Government, Unite d States Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands
E3 E5 E5–A E6 E6–B E7–K E-L E-Z FoW
GdF GSS GzF H fG IfP IIB–O
Af S A PZ BE DA DR FZ HQ ICHS JDH KZSS LAA PM TAJB WZ
A rc h iv f ü r So z ia l ge sc h ic h te A u s Po l it i k u nd Z e i tg e sc h ic h te B il du ng u nd E rz ie hu ng D eu ts ch la nd -A rc hi v De si gn Re po rt Form + Zweck Hi gh Q ual it y Intern ational Congress of the History of Sciences J o ur n al o f De s ig n hi s to r y Kölner Zeitschrift für Sozio logie und Sozialpsychologie L‘a rchitecture d‘aujourd‘ hui D ie P ol it is ch e Me in un g Tel Aviver Jahrbuch für deutsche Geschichte We rk un d Z ei t
FS n .a. n. d. n .p.
Festschrift no author no date no place
BA BAZ BHA FTS H fG HStA HWR
B un de sa rc hi v, K ob le nz Bundesarchiv Berli n, branch Zehlendorf B a uh a us - Ar ch i v, B e rl i n F ri t z- Th y ss e n- S ti f tu n g H fG -A rc hi v, U lm Hauptstaatsarchiv , Stuttg art Stiftu ng Hans Werner Richter im Archiv der Akademie der Künste, Berlin P r iv at a rc h iv H e l m ut B e ck e r Parla mentsarc hiv des Landtags von Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart P r iv at a rc h iv K la u s D o hr n P r iv at a rc h iv Ha n s F re i Privatarc hiv Joachim Heimbucher P r iv at a rc h iv T h o rw a ld R i s le r Privatarc hiv Hans Werner Richte r Privatarc hiv Johannes Rother Pressearc hivdesSüdwestru ndfunks,Baden-Baden Pressearc hiv der Südwest-Presse, Ulm P r iv at a rc h iv W e rn e r Z in k an d S ta dt ar ch iv , U lm Archiv der Technischen Hochschule, Darmstadt Archiv der Technischen Hochschule München, Weihenstephan
PAB PABW PAD PAF PAH PAR PARi PARo PASF PASW PAZ S tU THD THM
Unpublished sources
Interviews
Hermann Josef Abs 29 Jan. 1993, 21 April 1993 Inge Aicher-Scholl 7 April 1992 + 12 Aug. 1993 427 AEG company’s archive 10 May 1996 Max Bill 16 Aug. 1993 I ng e A ic he r- Sc ho ll 2 7 Fe b. 19 92 , 20 J ul y 1 99 3, 16 Au g. 19 93 John Boxer 21Jan. 1997 Günter von Alberti 3 June 1996 Susanne and Gerhard Curdes 9 Jan. 1993 Elke Amberg 30 July 1996 Michael Erlhoff 20 April 1996 Hellmut Becker 8 Dec. 1993 Ernst Hahn 25 Nov. 1996 Volker Berghahn 6 AprilRolf 1997 Müller 22 May 1996 Gottfried Bermann-Fi scher 5 Feb. 1993 Herbert Ohl 30 Oct. 1996 Max Bill 14 June 1993 Harry Pross 23 Nov. 1995 Jakob Bill 8 May 1995 Dieter Rams 15 Aug. 1995 Angela Thomas Bill 30 Nov. 1994 Toni Richter 31July1996 Volker Brown 6 April 1997 Thorwald Risler 10 Jan. 1995 + 1June1996 Sabine Cofalla 20 Aug. 1996, 5 Sept. 1996 Anneliese and Hannes Rosenberg 1Aug.1996 Gerhard Curdes 19 Jan. 1994, 9 Jan. 2000 Claude Schnaidt 17April1993 Dartmouth College Library 6 July 1998 Günther Schweigkofler 24 April 1993 + 1June1996 Deutsche Bundesbank 6 Dec. 1994 Lothar Späth 23 Jan. 1996 DGB-Archiv im Archiv der sozialen Demokratie Eberhard Stauß 9 May 1997 der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung 18 July 1996 Wilhelm Vossenkuhl 28 Sept. 1995 D GB , L an de sv er ba nd B ad en -Wü rt te mb erg 2 5 J ul y 19 96 Werner Zinkand 1Aug.1996 Hartmut Dieterich 13 Feb. 1996 Katja Dohrn 3 May 1996 Ursula Dreher 1 March 1996, 7 March 1996 Charlotte Erbe 22 July 1996 Michael Erlhoff 10 April 1996, 7 June 1996 Hans Frieder Eychmüller 12 July 1996 Works of the HfG Archive Hans Frei 4 April 1993, 16 Nov. 1993 Dominique Gilliard 16 April 1999 Diplomarbeiten Hochschule für Gestaltung Max Graf 17 April 1999 Günther Grzimek 3 April 1996 Ulm 1953–1968 , Ulm 1992. Christian Guther 27 March 1996, 17 July 1996 Achim Heimbucher 21 Jan. 1993 Christiane Wachsmann: Auswertung der Personalakten des HfG-Archivs. Fred Hochstrasser 16 July 1996 Dozenten und Studenten, Ulm 1993. Beryl Natalie Janssen 1 July 1996 Rudolf Kerscher 7 Aug. 1996 Landesgewerbeamt Baden-Württemberg, 9 July 1996, 10 July 1996 Haus der Wirtschaft Landeszentralbank Baden-Württemberg 30 Nov. 1994, 19 Jan. 1996 Landeszentralbank Hamburg 1 July 1996 Moselle Kimbler 19 June 1998 Erhard M. Löwe 5 June 1996. 13 June 1996 Christopher Oesterei ch 2 July 1997, 11 Sept. 1997 Herbert Ohl 30 Oct. 1996 Annemarie Pfeiffer 26 March 1996 Harry Pross 31 Jan. 1995, 27 Oct. 1995 City of Recklinghausen, archive 23 July 1996 Rheinische Hypothekenbank 29 May 1996 Thorwald Risler 30 Jan. 1996 Dirk Scheper 22 Feb. 1995 H i ld e S ch m it t -S c hl a af f 1 8 J an . 1 99 5 , 27 J an . 19 9 6, 2 6 M a rc h 1 99 6 C la ud e S ch na id t 2 9 D ec . 19 92 , 9 De c. 19 93 , 5 Ja n. 19 94, 24 May 1995, 19 Jan. 1996, 1Feb.1996 Barbara Schüler 16 Feb. 1996 Günther Schweigkofler 1 June 1996 Lothar Späth 3 Jan. 1995 Margaret Stone Macdonald 22 June 1998, 23 June 1998, 2 July 1998, 30 Nov. 1998 Fr it z S tu be r 12 A pr il 19 99 , 2 4 A pr il 19 99 , 16 M ay 19 99, 2 June 1999, Manuela Tattenbach Thun 8 March 1996 Lene Thun 18 Feb. 1996 Ge org Th un- Ho he nst ei n 27 March 19 96 , 16 Apri l 199 6 City of Überlingen am Bodensee, 8 Aug. 1996 C it y o f Ul m, ar ch iv e 4 No v. 19 94 , 23 J an . 19 95 , 2 7 Ap ri l 19 95 24 July 1995, 21Nov.1995, Ulmer Volkshochschule 5 July 1993 Beate Voltz 2 Feb. 2001 Christiane Wachsmann 5 Oct. 1993 Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl 10 Dec. 1992 Herbert Wolf 5 June 1996 Carlos Zumsteg 11 June 1996
List of references
428
Published sources
Parliament documents
HfG publications
Collections of source materials
Minutes of the Deutscher Bundestag, 1st through 5th electoral period
Hochschule für Gestaltung / Forschungsinstitut für Produktform. Auszüge aus Gutachten und Briefen. 2 pages DIN A4. August 1951. Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm (Donau). 4 pages DIN A4. July 1952. Hochschule für Gestaltung. Ulm . 16pages DIN A5. 1956. Hochschule für Gestaltung. Ulm (Ulm School of Design). 16 pages DIN A5. 1956. Ulm Hochschule für Gestaltung . 28 pages 210 mm x 200 mm. 1959. Hochschule für Gestaltung. Information 63 . 21 pages DIN A4. 1963. Ulm. Hochschule für Gestaltung 1963. Katalog einer Wanderausstellung . 104 pages 105 x 105 mm. September 1963. Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. Abteilung visuelle Kommunikation . 16 pages DIN A4. 1967.
Abelein, Manfred (ed.), Deutsche Kulturpolitik – Dokumente , Darmstadt 1970. Aicher-Scholl, Inge (ed.), Sippenhaft. Nachrichten und Botschaften derFamilie inder Gestapohaft nach der Hinrichtung von Hans und Sophie Scholl , Frankfurt am Main 1993. Arnold, Heinz Ludwig (ed.), Der Skorpion. Herausgegeben von Hans Werner Richter. Jahrgang 1, Heft 1, Munich, Januar 1948 , Reprint Göttingen 1991.
Minutes of the Württemberg-Baden Landtag Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Verfassunggebende Landesversammlung Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1st through 5th electoral period
ulm 1–5 Vierteljahresbericht der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm/Quarterly Bulletin of the Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm/Bulletin trimestriel de la Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm Editor: Hochschule für Gestaltung October 1958 through july 1959 ulm 6–21 Zeitschrift der Hochschule für Gestaltung/Journal of the Ulm School of Design. Editor: Hochschule für Gestaltung October 1962 through april 1968 ulm report 1–4 Editor: Hochschule für Gestaltung October 1966 through october 1967 output 1–25 Editor: Studentenselbstverwaltung der Hochschule für Gestaltung March 1961 through 1964
Bauer, Ernst Joachim (ed.), Zusammenbruch und Wiedergeburt. Ulm und Neu-Ulm 1945– 1950. Eine Dokumentation in Wort und Bild. Mit einem Text von Robert Scholl , Ulm 1995. Bührer, Werner (ed.), Die Adenauer-Ära. Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949–1963 , Munich 1993. Deutscher Ausschuß für das Erziehungs- und Bildungswesen/Bohnenkamp, Hans, Dirks, Walter, Knab, Doris (ed.), Em pfehlungen und Gutachten des Deutschen Ausschusses für das Erziehungs- und Bildungswesen 1953–1965 , Gesamtausgabe, Stuttgart 1966. Deutscher Städtetag (ed.), Kultur politik des Deutschen Städtetages. Empfehlungen und Stellungnahmen von 1952 bis 1978 , (= DSTBeiträge zur Bildungspolitik , vol. 11) Cologne 1979. Fischer, Erika J., Fischer, Heinz Dietrich (ed.), John J. McCloy und die Frühgeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Presse berichte und Dokumente über den amerikanischen Hochkommissar für Deutschland 1949–1952,Cologne 1985. Fischer, Erika J., Fischer, Heinz Dietrich (ed.), John J. McCloys Reden zu Deutschland- und Berlinfragen. Publizisitische Aktivitäten und Ansprachen des amerikanischen Hochkommissars für Deutschland 1949–1952, (= Politische Dokumente, vol. 9) Berlin 1986. Froese, Leonhard (ed.), Bildungs politik und Bildungsreform. Amtliche Texte und Dokumente zur Bildungspolitik im Deutschland der Besatzungszonen der Bundesrepu blik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik , Munich 1969. Heimbucher, Joachim, Michels, Peter, Bauhaus HfG IUP. Dokumentation und Analyse von drei Bildungsinstitutionen im Bereich der Umweltgestaltung, unpublished diploma thesis, Ulm 1971. Hill, Leonidas E. (ed.), Die Weizsäcker-Papiere 1933–1950 , Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Vienna 1974. Kanz, Heinrich (ed.), Deutsche Pädagogische Zeitgeschichte 1945– 1959. Von der Bildungspolitik der Alliierten bis zum Rahmenplan des Deutschen Ausschusses , (= Päda gogische Zeitgeschichte, vol. 1) Ratingen, Kastellaun 1975. Kanz, Heinrich (ed.), Deutsche Erziehungsgeschichte 1945–1985 in Quellen und Dokumenten.
Contemporary monographs and collections of articles Pädagogische Chancen der pluralen Demokratie, (= Europäische Hochschulschriften , series 11, vol. 290) Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York 1987. Knoop-Graf, Anneliese, Jens, Inge (ed.), Willi Graf. Briefe und Aufzeichnungen , Frankfurt am Main 1988. Lettau, Reinhard (ed.), Die Gruppe 47. Berichte, Kritik, Polemik , Neuwied 1967. Lönnendonker, Siegward,Fichter, Tilman (ed.), Freie Universität Berlin 1948–1973. Hochschule im Um bruch. Teil 1: Gegengründung wozu? (1945–1949), Berlin 1973. Teil 2: K onsolidierung um jeden Preis (1949–1957), Berlin 1974. Teil3: Auf dem Weg in den Dissens (1957–1964). Berlin 1974. Meritt, Anna J. and Richard L. (ed.), Public Opinion in Semisovereign Germany. The HICOG-Surveys, 1949–1955 , Urbana, Chicago, London1980. Alexander Mitscherlich. Gesam melte Schriften VI–VII. Politisch publizistische Aufsätze, ed. Herbert Wiegandt, Frankfurt am Main 1983. Münch, Ingo von (ed.), Dokumente des geteilten Deutschland. Quellentexte zur Rechtslage des Deutschen Reiches, der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik , Stuttgart 1968. Neuhaus, Rolf (ed.), Dokumente zur Hochschulreform 1945–1959, Wiesbaden 1961. Neuhaus, Rolf (ed.), Dokumente zur Gründung neuer Hochschulen. Anregungen des Wissenschafts rates, Empfehlungen und Denkschriften auf Veranlassung von Ländern in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in den Jahren 1960– 1966 , Wiesbaden 1968. Probst, Hartmut, Schädlich, Christian(ed.), Walter Gropius. Vol. 3: Ausgewählte Schriften, Berlin 1988. Ruhl, Klaus-Jörg (ed.), Neubeginn und Restauration. Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945–1949, Munich 1982. Ruhm von Oppen, Beate (ed.), Documents on Germany under Occupation 1945–1954 , London, New York, Toronto 1955. Scholl, Inge, Die Weiße Rose, Frankfurt am Main 1955, 21993. Scharfenberg, Günter (ed.), Dokumente zur Bildungspolitik der Parteien in der BRD 1945–1975 . Vol.1: SPD. Vol. 2: CDU/CSU . Vol. 3: FDP . Berlin 1976. Scharfenberg, Günter (ed.), Dokumente zur Bildungspolitik der Parteien in der BRD 1945–1975 . Additional vol. 1: 1975–1980 , Berlin 1981. Schröder, Jürgen, Bonath, Brigitte, Salzmann, Bertram, Wischinski, Claudia, Wittman, Angela (ed.), Die Stunde Null in derdeutschen Literatur. Ausgewählte Texte, Stuttgart 1945. Schwab-Feli sch, Hans (ed.), Der Ruf. Eine deutsche Nachkriegszeitschrift , Munich 1962.
Vollnhals, Clemens (ed.), Entnazifi zierung. Politische Säuberung und Rehabilitierung in den vier Besatzungszonen 1945–1949, Munich 1991. Winkler, H.J. (ed.), DasEstablishment antwortet der APO. Eine Dokumentation , Opladen 1968.
Andersch, Alfred, Deutsche Literatur in der Entscheidung. Ein Beitrag zur Analyse der Literarischen Situation, Karlsruhe 1948. Anger, Hans, Probleme der deutschen Universität. Bericht über eine Erhebung unter Professoren und Dozenten , Tübingen 1960. Arbeitskreis Universität Ulm (ed.), Universitätsplan Ulm, Ulm 1961. Bartning, Otto (ed.), Mensch und Raum.Darmstädter Gespräch 1951, Darmstadt 1952. Becker, Hellmut, Quantität und Qualität. Grundfragen der Bildungspolitik , (= FreiburgerStudien zu Politik und Soziologie, vol. 6) Freiburg im Breisgau 1962. Die Berliner Volkshochschulen 1945–1960, (= Schriften zu Volks-
hochschulfragen , vol. 27) WestBerlin 1960. Bill, Max, Wiederaufbau. Dokumente über Zerstörungen, Planun gen, Konstruktionen, Zurich 1945. Bill, Max, Form. Eine Bilanz über die Formentwicklung um die Mitte des XX. Jahrhunderts, Basel 1952. Bovari,Margret, DerDiplomat vor Gericht , Berlin, Hamburg 1948. Der Bundesminister für gesamtdeutsche Fragen (ed.), Verglei chendeDarstellung des Bildungswesens im geteilten Deutschland , Bonn 1959. Burg Rothenfels 1955. Romano Guardini zum 70. Geburtstag, n.p., n.d. (Rothenfels 1955). Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (ed.), Zwischen Freiheit und Ordnung. Zur Kultur p olitik der CDU/CSU , Bonn 1964. Dahrendorf, Ralf, Arbeiterkinder an deutschen Universitäten, (= Recht und Staat in Geschichte und Ge genwart , vol. 302/303) Tübingen 1965. Emmerling,Erich, 50 Jahre Volkshochschule inDeutschland , East Berlin 1958. Katalog zur Ausstellung „Die Form“ des deutschen Werkbundes in Stutt gart, 1924 , (= Bücher der Form, vol. 1) Stuttgart, Berlin, Leipzig 1924.
Die Form ohne Ornament .
schule für Politische Wissenschaften München, vol. 24) Munich 1952, 53–80. Gropius, Walter, Architektur. Wege zu einer optischen Kultur , New York 1955, Frankfurt am Main 1956. Guardini, Romano: „Die Situation des Menschen“, in: Romano Guardini, Unterscheidung des Christlichen. Gesammelte Studien 1923– 1963 , Mainz 21963. Die Gute Form . Wanderausstellung des Schweizerischen Werkbundes, (= Wegleitung des Kunstgewer bemuseums Zürich, vol. 183) Zurich 1949. Hassenpflug, Gustav, Das Werk kunstschulbuch. Handbuch der Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Werkkunstschulen e.v , Stuttgart 1956. Hatje, Gerd (ed.), Idea 53. Internationales Jahrbuch für Formgebung , Stuttgart 1953. Hatje, Gerd (ed.), Idea 54. Internationales Jahrbuch für Formgebung , Stuttgart 1954. Hatje, Gerd (ed.), Idea 55. Internationales Jahrbuch für Formgebung , Stuttgart 1955. Heimpel, Hermann, Probleme und Problematik der Hochschulreform , (= Schriften des Hochschulverbandes, vol. 8) Göttingen 1956. Heuss, Theodor, Kräfte und Grenzen einer Kulturpolit ik , Tübingen, Stuttgart 1951. Hochschulgesamtplan BadenWürttemberg . Empfehlungen zur
Reform von Struktur und Organisation der wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen, Studienseminare, Kunsthochschulen, Ingenieurschulen und höheren Fachschulen. Bericht des Arbeitskreises Hochschulgesamtplan beim Kultusministerium Baden- Württemberg, (= Schriften reihe zur Bildungsforschung, Bildungsplanung, Bildungspolitik , series A, vol. 5) Villingen-Schwenningen 1967. Hochschulgesamtplan II für Baden-Württemberg . Entwick -
lungsplan für einen in Gesamthochschulen gegliederten Hochschulbereich , ed. Kultusministerium Baden- Württemberg, (= Schriften reihe zur Bildungsforschung, Bildungsplanung, Bildungspolitik , series A, vol. 27) Villingen-Schwenningen 1972.
Gedanken zur Hochschulreform .
Das Hochschulgesetz – Eine Chance für die Hochschulreform, ed. Kultusministerium Baden-
Neugliederung des Lehrkörpers. Denkschrift des Hofgeismarer Kreises , Göttingen 1956.
Württemberg, (= Informationen über das Bildungswesen, series B, vol. 6) Stuttgart 1968.
Gegenwartsfragendeutscher Kulturpolitik . Deutscher Kulturtag,
Jahrestagung Hamburg 1957 , (= Schriftenreihe des deutschen Kulturtages , vol. 1) n.p. 1957. Gerber, Hans, Hochschulgesetz gebung in der Nachkriegszeit. Eine entwicklungsgeschichtliche Übersicht , n.p. 1958. Gillen, J.F., The Special Projects Program of the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany , Bad Godesberg-Mehlem 1952. Gillen, J.F., State and Local Government in West Germany 1945– 1953 , Bad Godesberg-Mehlem 1953. Glum, Friedrich, Kulturpolitik in der Bundesrepublik , in: Politische Bildung (= Schriftenreihe der Hoch-
Industrie und Handwerk schaffen neues Hausgerät in USA, Stutt-
gart 1951. Internationale Bauausstellung Berlin GmbH (ed.), Interbau Berlin 1957. Berlin 1957. Kaufmann, Edgar, Introductions to Modern Design. What is Modern Design? What is Modern Interior Design? (= Introduction Series to the Modern Arts, vol. 3) New York 1950, 21953, Reprint 1969. Killy, Walter, Deutscher Kitsch.Ein Versuch mit Beispielen, Göttingen 1962. Koch, Alexander (ed.), Deutsche Werkkunst. Arbeiten deutscher und oesterreichischer Künstler auf der
„Werkbund-Ausstellung“ Cöln a.Rh., Darmstadt, Leipzig 1916. Kommission für die Finanzreform, Gutachten über die Finanzreform in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , Stuttgart, Cologne 1966. Kultusministerium Baden-Württemberg (ed.), Das Hochschul gesetz – Eine Chance für die Hochschulreform , (= Informationen über das Bildungswesen, series B, vol. 6) Stuttgart 1968. Lee, Guy A., Guide to Studies of the Historical Division Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany , Bad Godesberg 1953. Litt, Theodor, Der Bildungsauftrag der deutschen Hochschule , (= Schriften des Hochschulver bandes, vol. 2) Göttingen 1952. Loewy, Raymond, Häßlichkeit ver kauft sich schlecht , New York 1953, Dusseldorf 21992. Lohse, Richard Paul, Neue Ausstellungsgestaltu ng.Nouvelles conceptions de l’exposition.New design in exhibitions. 75 Beispiele neuer Ausstellungsform. 75 exem ples des nouvelles formes d’exposition. 75 examples of the new form of exhibitions, Zurich 1953. Luchtenberg,Paul, Wandlung und Auftrag liberaler Kulturpolitik , Bonn 1960. Maldonado, Tomás: „The Problem of all Problems“, in: Reyner Banham (ed.), The Aspen Papers. Twenty Years of Design Theory from the International Design Conference in Aspen , London 1974, 121–125. Meinecke,Friedrich, Die deutsche Katastrophe. Betrachtungen und Erinnerungen , Wiesbaden 1946. Meißner, Else, Qualität und Form in Wirtschaft und Leben, (= Volkswirtschaftliche Zeitfragen, vol. 9) Munich 1950. Moras, Joachim, Paeschke, Hans (ed.), Deutscher Geist zwischen gestern und morgen. Bilanz der kulturellen Entwicklung seit 1945 , Stuttgart 1954. Nansen, Odd, Von Tag zu Tag, Hamburg 1949. Neue Wege zur Hochschulreform,
Differenzierte Gesamthochschule – autonome Universität. Dokumenta tion der 26. Tagung des Bergedorfer Gesprächskreises zu Fragen der freien industriellen Gesellschaft , (= Bergedorfer Protokolle , vol. 20) Hamburg, Berlin 1967. Nitsch, Wolfgang, Gerhardt, Uta, Offe, Claus, Preuß, Ulrich K., Hochschule in der Demokratie. Kritische Beiträge zur Erbschaft und Reform der deutschen Universität , Berlin 1965. Noelle, Elisabeth, Neumann, Erich Peter (ed.), Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung 1947–1955 , Allensbach 1956. Noelle, Elisabeth, Neumann, Erich Peter (ed.), Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung 1957 , Allensbach 1957. Noelle, Elisabeth, Neumann, Erich Peter (ed.), Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung 1958–1964 , Allensbach, Bonn 1965. Noelle, Elisabeth, Neumann, Erich Peter (ed.), Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung 1965–1967 , Allensbach, Bonn1967.
Noelle, Elisabeth, Neumann, Erich Peter (ed.), Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung 1968–1973 , Allensbach, Bonn 1974. Nordwestdeutsche Ausstellungsgesellschaft (ed.), Große deutsche Rundfunk-, Fernseh- und Phono-Ausstellung Düsseldorf, 26. Aug. – 4. Sept. 1955 , Dusseldorf 1955. Offizieller Katalog der deutschen Werkbund-Ausstellung Cöln 1914 . Mai bis Oktober , Cologne
1914, Neudruck 1981. Picht, Georg, Die deutsche Bildungskatastrophe. Analyse und Dokumentation , Freiburg im Breisgau, Olten 1964. Pilgert, Henry P., The West German Educational System, n.p. 1953. Raiser,Ludwig, Die Aufgaben des Wissenschaftsrates , (= Schriften der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes NordrheinWestfalen , vol. 111) Cologne, Opladen 1963. Raiser,Ludwig, DasBildungsziel der heutigen Universität , (= Frei burger Universitätsreden, neue Folge, vol. 38) Freiburg im Breisgau 1965. Rat für Formgebung (ed.), Interna tionaler Kongress für Formgebung Darmstadt + Berlin 1957 , Information A–Z. Frankfurt am Main 1957. Richter, Werner, Was heißt und zu welchem Ende treibt man Kultur politik? (= Bonner akademische Reden, vol. 14) Bonn 1955. Rübenach, Bernhard, Der rechte Winkel von Ulm. Ein Bericht über die Hochschule für Gestaltung 1958/59, ed. Bernd Meurer. Darmstadt 1987. Schelsky, Helmut, Schule und Erziehung in der industriellen Gesellschaft , Würzburg 1957. Schelsky, Helmut, Die skeptische Generation. Eine Soziologie der deutschen Jugend , Dusseldorf, Cologne 1957. Schelsky, Helmut, Einsamkeit und Freiheit.Idee und Gestalt der deutschen Universität und ihrer Reformen, (= Wissenschaftstheorie, Wissenschaftspolitik, Wissenschafts planung, vol. 20) Dusseldorf 1963, 2 1971. Schelsky, Helmut, Auf der Suche nach Wirklichkeit , Dusseldorf 1965. Schelsky, Helmut, Abschied von der Hochschulpoliti k. Oder: Die Universität im Fadenkreuz des Versagens, Bielefeld 1969. Schönheit der Technik 1953 – Die gute Industrieform . Gedan-
ken und Bilder zu einer Ausstellung desLandesgewerbeamtesBadenWürttemberg , Stuttgart 1953. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1967 und 1968 , Bonn 1969. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1969 und 1970 , Bonn 1971.
429
List of references
Articles in newspapers and magazines 430
Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (ed.), Kultur und Politik in unserer Zeit. Dokumentation des Kongresses der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands am 28. und 29. Oktober 1960 in Wiesbaden, Hannover 1960. Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (ed.), Bildungspoli tische Leitsätze der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands, n.p., n.d. (1964) Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (ed.), Programme und Entschließungen zur Bildungs politik 1964–1975 . Dokumentation , Bad Godesberg n.d. (1976). Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund (ed.), Hochschule in der Demokratie. Denkschrift , Frankfurt am Main 1961, 31972. Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der BundesrepublikDeutschland(ed.), Kul turpolitik der Länder 1960 , n.p., n.d. (Munich 1961). Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der BundesrepublikDeutschland(ed.), Bedarfsfeststellung 1961–1970. Bedarfsfeststellung 1961 bis 1970 für Schulwesen, Lehrerbildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung, Kunst und Kulturpflege, Stuttgart 1963. Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der BundesrepublikDeutschland(ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1961 und 1962, Cologne, Opladen 1963. Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der BundesrepublikDeutschland(ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1963 und 1964 , Bonn 1965. Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der BundesrepublikDeutschland(ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1965 und 1966 , Bonn 1967. Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der BundesrepublikDeutschland(ed.), Der Ausbau der Ingenieurschulen 1958–1968 , (= Dokumentation , vol. 28) Bonn 1969. Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft (ed.), Zehn Jahre Stifterverband 1949–1959, n.p., n.d. (Essen 1959) Stone, Shepard, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Stiftungen, Berlin 1964. Tellenbach, Gert, Der sibyllinische Preis. Schriften und Reden zur Hochschulpolitik. 1946–1963 , ed. Reinhard Mielitz, Feiburg im Breisgau 1963. Tiemann, Karlgeorg, Die Werk kunstschule in Westdeutschland , (= Berufserziehung im Handwerk , vol. 2) Cologne 1953. Torgersen, Arne, „… nach ihnen, Herr General!“ Humanitäre Abenteuer eines Norwegers im Nach kriegseuropa , Stuttgart 1971. Ulmer Volkshochschule (ed.), Programmheft 1946 , n.p., n.d. (Ulm 1946). Ulmer Volkshochschule (ed.), Der Geist weht, wo er will. Kalender für das Jahr 1949, Ulm 1948.
Universität neuen Typs? Vorträge
einer Tagung in der evangelische Akademie Loccum, (= Schriften des Hochschulverbandes, vol. 11) Göttingen 1962. Universitätsstadt Ulm, n.p., n.d. (Ulm 1967). Verband Deutscher Studentenschaften (ed.), Studenten und die neue Universität. Gutachten einer Kommission des Verbandes Deutscher Studentenschaften zur Neu gründung von wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen , Bonn 1962, 21966. Verband württembergischer Volkshochschulen (ed.), Fünf Jahre Volkshochschule in Württem berg, Stuttgart 1952. Villiger, Rudolf, Industrielle Form g estaltung. Eine betriebs- und absatzwirtschaftliche Untersuchung , (=Diss. Oec. St. Gallen 1956) Winterthur 1957. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrates zum Aus bau der wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen , n.p. (Bonn) 1960. Wissenschaftsrat, Anregungen des Wissenschaftsrates zur Gestalt neuer Hochschulen, Tübingen 1962. Wissenschaftsrat, Abiturienten und Studenten. Entwicklung und Vorschätzung der Zahlen 1950 bis 1980 , n.p. (Bonn) 1964. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrates zur Neu gliederung des Lehrkörpers an den wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen , Bonn 1964. Wissenschaftsrat, Bericht des Vorsitzenden über die Arbeit des Wissenschaftsrates 1961–1964 . Bonn 1965. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrates zum Aus bau der wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen , Tübingen 1965. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrates zum Aus bau der wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen bis 1970 , n.p. (Bonn) 1967. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrates zur Struktur und Verwaltungsorganisation der Universitäten , n.p. (Bonn) 1968. Wissenschaftsrat, Wissenschafts rat 1957–1967 , n.p. (Bonn) 1968. Wissenschaftsrat, Wissenschafts rat 1967–1982, n.p. (Cologne) 1983. Zentner, Kurt, A ufstieg aus dem Nichts. Deutschland von 1945 bis 1953. Eine Soziographie in zwei Bänden , Cologne, Berlin 1954. Zentner, Kurt, Grohne, Jürgen (ed.), 1948–1958. Die ersten zehn Jahre, Munich 1958. Zink, Harold, The United States in Germany 1945–1955 , Princeton 1957. Zuckmayer, Carl, Als wär’s ein Stück von mir , Frankfurt am Main 1969.
Abschnitte Friederich, Peter, Nicht Hochschule – Mittelschule . 5/1963. Allgemeine Wochenzeitung der Juden in Deutschland n.a., Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 5 June 1953. n.a., Die Hochschule für Gestaltung . 15 June 1953. The American-German Review Germany’s New Institute for Industrial Design. 2–3/1958. Architektur & Wohnform Rasch, Emil, Probleme der Zusammenarbeit zwischen Künstler und Industrie. Vortrag vor dem Arbeits kreis der Geschmacksgüterindustrie im Bundesverband der deutschen Industrie. 3/1952 fachliche Mitteilungen *16 f. König, Heinrich, Großindustrie der Welt berät Fragen der modernen Formgebung . 3/1952, fachliche Mitteilungen *17 f. Augsburger Allgemeine Upi, Alltägliche Dinge – An einer Hochschule gestaltet . 30 Oct. 1959. BadischeZeitung Ko, Die Würfel über die Hochschule für Gestaltung gefallen? 20 Feb. 1968. Bauen und Wohnen Eckstein, Hans, Die Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. 12/1964, XII 2– 4. A icher, Otl, Das Ulmer Konzept . 12/1964, XII 4. Baukunst und Werkform Leitl, Alfons, Anmerkungen zur Zeit . 1/1947, 3–8. Bartning, Otto, u.a., Ein Aufruf: grundsätzliche Forderungen. 1/1947, 29. Leitl, Alfons, Zum Thema Werkschulen. Ein Querschnitt durch die Arbeit der wichtigsten Werkschulen. 2+3/1952, 8–13. Ernst, Jupp, Haben die Werkschulen noch einen Sinn? 2+3/1952, 13– 22. Leowald, Georg, Das Stich- und Schlagwort . 2+3/1952, 23–27. Schaefer,Herwin, Eine Qualitätsausstellung Auf der amerikanischen Messe . 2+3/1952, 28–30. Bahrdt, Hans Paul, Der erschöpfte Mensch kann nicht mehr wohnen. Gedanken über den schlechten Geschmack und das Wohnen. 2+3/1952, 30–35. Fuchs, Heinz r., Die gute Industrieform. Zu einer Ausstellung in der städtischen Kunsthalle Mannheim . 4/1952, 47 f. Ensinger, Ulrich, Bedenkliche Zahlen aus Stuttgart . 5/1952, 53 f. Kadow, Gerhard, u.a., Die Schule Krefeld . 6+7/1952, 65–81. Hoff, August, Die Kölner Werkschulen . 8/1952, 40–48. Pieper, Josef, Wie lernt der Mensch wieder sehen? Der Werkschule Münster gewidmet . 11/1952, 9–22. Leitl, Alfons, Anmerkungen zur Zeit . 12/1952, 2–4. Ders., Wohnkultur der westlichen Völker. Wir bauen ein neues Leben. 12/1952, 39–50.
Bauwelt n.a., Gestern, heute, morgen . 17/1960, 471. BremerNachrichten klz, In welcher Form? 20 Feb. 1968. Bundesanzeiger n.a., Dritte Verwaltungsanordnung der Bundesregierung über die besondere Anerkennung steuerbe günstigter Zwecke und Einrichtun gen vom 30. Mai 1951. 3/106, 6 June 1951, 2 f. n.a., „ Rat für Formgebung“ gebildet . 4/210, 16 Oct. 1952, 3. Christ und Welt j.h., Humboldt-Ersatz an der Donau. Das „Ulmer Modell“ als Wende punkt der medizinischen Forschung . 18 May 1968. Bauer, Heinz, Spiel mit schwarzen Petern . 20 Dec. 1968. Härlin, Franziska, Die neuen Schneider von Ulm. 20 Dec. 1968. Schön, Wolf, Aus Ulm und aus Ulm heraus . 14 July 1972. The Christian Science Monitor Brücher, Hildegard, Ulm Adult Education Experiment offers Pattern for German Study of Democracy . 2Dec. 1950. Communità Santini, Pier Carlo, La Scuola di Ulm. 13. Jg., Nr. 72, August/September 1959, 48–60. DarmstädterEcho Holz, Peter, Gegen die falsche Bescheidenheit . 13 Sept. 1952 n.a., Das Bild öffnet eine Welt . 25March 1969 DesignQuarterly Eitner, Lorenz, Industrial Design in Postwar Germany . 40/1957, 1-27. Meldungen der deutschen Presseagentur dpa n.a., Gründung einer übernationalen Lehr- und Forschungsstätte für “Gute Form” . 12 July 1951. Ms, Kultivierung des täglichen Bedarfs. Hochschule für Gestaltung der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung in Ulm. 24 Sept. 1955. Funk, Hanns, Braucht die Bundes republik eine HfG? 31 Dec. 1967 Hellmann,Manfred, Kunst und Krach . 15 July 1968. Deutsche Studenten-Zeitung Gh, Hochschule entläßt ihren Schöpfer . 8 May 1957. Deutsche Tagespost Dt, Unfrieden an der Hochschule . 27Dec. 1968. Deutsche Universitätszeitung Bill, Max, Bauhaus-Chronik. Vom Bauhaus in Weimar zur Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. 23– 24/1953, 14 f. Deutsches Volksblatt n.a., Neuer Weg für Ulmer Hochschule. 1 June 1962. Deutsche Zeitung und Wirtschaftszeitung Cron, Helmut, Das Bauhaus lebt weiter . 18 May 1955. Cron, Helmut, Ohne Minister . 5 Oct. 1955.
Kotthaus,Marianne, Krise auf dem Ulmer Kuhberg. 23 Sept. 1963. Elseviers Weekblad Buffinga, A., Unelegant . 17 Aug. 1957. Form Gugelot, Hans, Meine Zusammen bau-Möbel aus serienmäßig her gestellten Teilen. 2/1958, 43–45. Staber, Margit, Zu neuen Gestaltun gen von Max Bill . 4/1958, 21–29. Bill, Max, Der Modellfall Ulm. Zur Problematik einer Hochschule für Gestaltung . 6/1959, 18–19. Redaktion, Industrial Design Education USA. Diskussion über die Ausstellung . 6/1959, 32–34. König, Heinrich, Erstes Welttreffen der Industrial Designer in Stockholm. 10/1960, 54–55. Pfeiffer-Belli, Erich, Gute Form aus Deutschland . 10/1960, 38–44. Maldonado, Tomás, „Design Education“. Vortrag auf der World Design Conference am 14. Mai 1960 in Tokyo. 12/1960, 36–39. Krumrey, Immo, Eine Außenleuchte wird gemacht . 13/1961, 36–38. Bill, Max, Über die Güte der guten Form. 15/1961, 32–33. Eckstein, Hans, Hans Gugelot – ein Ulmer Dozent . 15/1961, 19–27. Lindinger,Herbert, Ein neuer U-Bahnwagen. 15/1961, 5–11. Redaktion, Die Ulmer Schule. 15/1961, 2. Redaktion, Notizen zu einem Produkt. Das Kompaktgeschirr TC 100: ein neuer Typ Gebrauchsporzellan. 15/1961, 12–18. Bonsiepe, Gui, IBM 72 Selectric. 17/1962, 34–42. Redaktion, Ein deutsches Design Centre? 17/1962, 42–48. Lindinger,Herbert, Nähmaschine 1962. 18/1962, 32–43. Redaktion, Ein deutsches Design Centre? Fragen an Max Bill . 18/1962, 44–46. Bonsiepe, Gui, Sanktionierte Häßlich keit. Kritische Bemerkungen zu einigenDIN-Normen. 19/1962, 44– 52. Ernst, Jupp, Staatliche Werkkunstschule Kassel . 19/1962, 2–4. Oestreich, Herbert, Zur Ausbildung der Gestalter industrieller Produkte . 19/1962, 16. Uittenhout, Cornelius, Tradition – Ein Hindernis der Gestaltung? 19/1962, 18. Redaktion, Projekt F 3. Das Ergebnis eines Karosserie-Wettbewerbs. 21/1963, 20–23. Bill, Max, Bauhaus heute. 22/1963, 48–51. Bonsiepe, Gui, Katechismus für Konstrukteure . 22/1963, 10. Bonsiepe, Gui, Tonbandgeräte . 22/1963, 26–34. Bonsiepe, Gui, Kesseltreiben gegen die HfG. 22/1963, 45–47. Brenzinger,Erich, ICSID. Internationaler Kongreß und Generalversammlun g. 23/1963, 52–54. Seeger,Hartmut, Zur Wanderausstellung der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. 22/1963, 44–45. Bonsiepe, Gui, Armaturentafeln in Automobilen . 24/1963, 38–45. Lindinger,Herbert, Das 19. Jahrhundert. Materialien. 26/1964, 18–25. Bonsipe, Gui, Potpurri der Technik. Weltausstellung der Technik New York 1964 . 27/1964, 8–10.
Eckstein, Hans, Unsere Gegenstände. Zur Eröffnung der DesignDocumenta . 27/1964, 2–3. Hartmann, Horst, Seeger, Hartmut, Zur Diskussion „Technische Form gestaltung“ im VDI . 27/1964, 58– 60. Lindinger, Herbert, Zur europäischen Produktgestaltung vor der Französischen Revolution. 27/1964, 26– 32. Sieber, Peter, Die Ausbildung des technischen Gestalters aus der Sicht der Industrie. 27/1964, 60. Bonsiepe, Gui, Nachsatz zum Katechismus . 28/1964, 60 Bonsiepe, Gui, Produktgrafik . 28/1964, 44–49. Lindinger, Herbert, Betrachtungen zur Antike. 28/1964, 37–43. Barnes, W. Die Vermessung des Schönen. 29/1965, 28–29. Bonsiepe, Gui, Konstruktion und Komplexitä t. Überlegungenzur strukturellen Analyse von Produkten an Hand der VDI-Richtlinie 2225 „Technisch-wirtschaftliches konstruieren“ . 29/1965, 16–19. Lindinger, Herbert, Handgriffe – Kunstgriffe – Imponiergriffe. 29/1965, 30–31. Redaktion,Was verlangt die Industrie vom Designer? 29/1965, 20– 23. Bonsiepe, Gui, Ein Kühlschrank . 30/1965, 24–29. Bonsiepe, Gui, Konstruieren und Gestalten. Marginalien zu den Referaten „Engpaß Konstruktion“ . 31/1965, 12–13. Gugelot, Hans, Resonanz: Was verlangt die Industrie vom Designer? 30/1965, 10. Lindinger, Herbert, Produktformen von 1850 bis 1965 . 30/1965, 37– 44. Schaer, Walter, Warum und wie bilden wir Designer aus? 30/1965, 13–1. Maldonado, Tomás, Die Flut der Produkte hat uns überschwemmt … 31/1965, 5 4. Banham, Reyner, Im Dienst der Öffentlichkeit. Auszug aus dem Einleitungsvortrag vor dem ICSIDKongreß Wien 1965 . 32/1965, 15– 16. Bill, Max, Sinn ohne Sinn? 32/1965, 37–38. Bonsiepe, Gui, Trivialdesign. „Internationaler Salon Souvenir“. 32/1965, 40–43. Friedenberg, Jürgen, Häuslicher Wohlstand in Zahlen. 32/1965, 46. Lindinger, Herbert, Hans Gugelot . 32/1965, 2–3. Redaktion,5 Tage in Wien. ICSIDKongreß, Design und Öffentlichkeit . 32/1965, 12–13. Redaktion, Autonova. Ein Gespräch über ein Experiment . 32/1965, 26– 29. Redaktion,Die Wiener Schule. Akademie für Angewandte Kunst, Abteilung Industrial Design. 32/1965, 20. Redaktion,Erkenntnisse und Vorschlägeder ICSID-Arbeitsgruppe „Erziehung“ . 32/1965, 19. Bonsiepe, Gui, Taschenfeuerzeuge . 33/1966, 40–45. Redaktion,Stadtlinienbusse für Hamburg. Ergebnisse eines Wett bewerbs. 34/1966, 3–7. Redaktion,Der Designer in der Industrie. 50 Fragen an 94 Designer . 34/1966, 49–50.
Frank, Peter, Theorie und Praxis im Müller-Krauspe, Gerda, Opas FunkRoyal College of Art . 35/1966, 9– tionalismus ist tot. Der Standort 12. des Industrial Design – gestern, Kapitzki, Herbert W., Icograda – heute und morgen. 46/1969, 29– Meinungen und Irrtümer . 35/1966, 33. 31–32. Seeger,Hartmut, Syntaktik und Semantik. Zur Praxis und Pädagogik Müller-Krauspe, Gerda, Design = Design? Plädoyer für zwei Fremddes Design. 46/1969, 34–36. Bürdek, Bernhard E., Bemerkungen worte. 35/1966, 26–27. Shadowa, l., Sowjetische Impreszum Industrial Design heute. Obsosionen bei einer Reise durch die leszenz, Aufstig und Fall des IndusBundesrepublik . 35/1966, 60–62. trial Design. 47/1969, 36–37. Rolli, Wendel, Design im Stadtbild . Müller-Krauspe, Gerda, Styling – Das Prinzip der Diskontinuität. Der 35/1966, 64. Standort des Industrial Design – Wille, Klaus, Das Erscheinungsbild der Lufthansa. 35/1966, 14–19. gestern, heute und morgen. Bonsiepe, Gui, Glanz und Lange47/1969, 31–35. weile der Designmethode (1). Bonsiepe, Gui, Störungsfrei um den heißen Brei. Beobachtungen am 36/1966, 10–13. 6. ICSID-Kongreß 1969 in London. Lindinger, Herbert, A uswege aus einer Sackgasse. Gegen inflationis48/1969, 4–5. Müller-Krauspe, Gerda, Industrial tische Tendenzen in der Ausbildung von Industrial Designern. Design morgen – Alternativen. Der 36/1966, 14–16. Standort des Industrial Design – Tendenzen und Prognosen. Müller-Krauspe, Gerda, Butter, Reinhart, Erst wählen, dann drücken? 48/1969, 9–13. Zur Gestaltung von WarenautomaRedaktion, Zum ersten Mal: Bundesten. 36/1966, 17–21. preise für „Gute Form“. AchtundBonsiepe, Gui, Glanz und Langezwanzig Staatspreise für Designer weile der Designmethode (2). und Hersteller. 48/1969, 31–34. 37/1967, 22–26. Kapitzki, Herbert W., Design für FrankfurterAllgemeineZeitung Rundfunk und Fernsehen. Ein EleA ndersen,Paula, Vermittler zwischen ment für die Kennzeichnung einer Zivilisation und Kultur. 4 Oct. 1955. Rundfunk- und Fernsehstation und Menck, Clara, Abenteuer auf dem ihres Erscheinungsbildes. 37/1967, Q-Berg. 6 April 1957. 34–38. n.a., Zum Abenteuer auf dem Q-Berg. 17 April 1957. Bonsiepe, Gui, Design Analyse Messer, Gabel, Löffel. 38/1967, 28–33. A icher, Otl, In freier Übereinkunft . Krampen, Martin, Computer im De17 April 1957. sign. Ergebnisse und MöglichkeiBill, Max, Eine Stellungnahme von ten der Computer-Gra fik . 38/1967, Max Bill . 17 April 1957. 6–12. Grohmann, Will, Ulm – Ein notwenLindinger, Herbert, Mode und Dediges Experiment . 17 April 1957. sign. Mode, Wechsel und Industrial k.w., Eine U-Bahn der reinen VerDesign . 40/1967, 10–12. nünftigkeit . 20 Jan. 1961. Moles, Abraham, Die Krise des FunkMenck, Clara, Hochschule als Dauertionalismus. Notizen aus einem kongreß . 7 Oct. 1963. dpa, Meldung. 31 Oct. 1963. Seminar an der Hochschule für n.a., Hochschule für Gestaltung. Gestaltung . 41/1968, 36. Redaktion Form, Ist Ulm am Ende? 6 Nov. 1963. Zur Situation der Hochschule für e.g., Das Beispiel Ulm. 16 May Gestaltung . 41/1968, 37–40. 1964. Meldung. 5 Nov. 1965. Bonsiepe, Gui, Umweltgestaltung – Frank, Bernhard, Das neue 1,187Was ist das? Zur Abgrenzung eines Begriffs. 43/1968, 40–41. Gramm-Baby . 14 Feb. 1966. Müller-Krauspe, Gerda, Umwelt n.a., Abschied aus Ulm. 31 July gestaltung – Was ist das? Versuch 1967. einer Deutung. 43/1968, 41–42. Kalow, Gert, Ein pädagogisches Modell. 8 Nov. 1967. Nehls, Werner, „Die heiligen Kühe des Funktionalismus müssen genn, Ulmer Hochschule . 9 Dec. 1967. opfert werden.“ 43/1968, 4. Meldung. 19 Dec. 1967. Seeger, Hartmut, Funktionalismus im Beaucamp, Eduard, Kunsthochschu Rückspiegel des Design. 43/1968, len in der Zerreißprobe. 15 Feb. 10–11. 1969. Heimbucher,Joachim, Ulm löst sich n.a., Ein rationaler Idealist der Tat. auf. Zur Situation der Hochschule 29 Oct. 1988. für Gestaltung. 44/1968, 36–37. Pehnt, Wolfgang, Die Regel macht Sack, Manfred, Aichers Olympia. das Spiel. 3 Sept. 1991. Mischke,Roland, Kein Verständnis Anmerkungen und Details zum Erscheinungsbild . 44/1968, 5–9. für Design. 18 Nov. 1991. Krumrey, Immo, Design: Markt mit Leydecker, Karin, Gemeinsam nutzen Zukunft? Glanz und Elend eines statt einzeln brauchen. 19 Oct. jungen Berufes. 45/1969, 40. 1992. Redaktion, „ Die Designidee geht um Adam, Konrad, Bankrott . 22 Oct. 1992. die Welt.“ BundeswirtschaftsminisMarquart,Christian, Von Ulm aus ins ter Schiller zu Fragen des IndustrieDesign . 45/1969, 48–50. Fegefeuer der Postmodern e. Steinacker,Peter, Die Studenten 17April 1993. schließen sich zusammen. Unmut Adam, Konrad, Rechte, nicht Vorüber festgefahrene Designer-Aus rechte . 17 May 1993. Adam, Konrad, Schwieriger Dialog. bildung . 45/1969, 39–40. Lindinger, Herbert, Transportzeichen. 16 Oct. 1993. Olivetti schlägt ein internationales Tietenberg,Anette, Hausarbeit ange Zeichensystem vor . 46/1969, 18– nehmundleicht gemacht .26 Jan. 21. 1996.
Benda, Ernst, Es kommt darauf an, eine Partei nicht zu wählen. 1 Feb. 1996. Matthiesen,Helge, Eine tödliche Intrige. 15 March 1996. FrankfurterHefte Dirks, Walter, Der restaurative Cha rakter der Epoche. 9/1950, 942– 954. Fulbrighter‘s Report n.a., The Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm – Donau. 1 Jan. 1957. General-Anzeiger Fischer, Wend, Eine Hochschule will das Alltagsleben verschönern. 7Oct. 1955. Handelsblatt Baehring,Bernd, Ein Experiment nimmt seinen Lauf . 7 Oct. 1955. Altenmüller, Georg Hartmut,Die Ulmer Hochschule kann weiterleben. 6 Aug. 1968 Industrial Design n.a., Design ‚Hochschule’ emerges. The Ulm Design School becomes a focal point of central european design and planning. 3/1957. Information Bulletin. Monthly Magazine Of The Office Of US High Commissioner For Germany Burchard, Beth, Inge Scholl, Schoolteacher . April 1950. Die Innenarchit ektur Glasenapp, Walter, Gestaltungindustrieller Erzeugnisse. Eine neue Kunstgattung . 2/1953, 33 f. Lindauer Zeitung pn, „HfG“ statt „Geschwister Scholl“. 26 June 1985. Magnum Bill, Max, Vom staatlichen Bauhaus in Weimar zur Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. 1/1953, 59 f. Wendt, Ernst, Die wilden Männer aus Ulm. 46/1963, 43. Mannheimer Morgen c/lsw, Ulmer Hochschule soll „leben und nicht sterben“. „Der Landtag wird sie auf jeden Fall nicht abmurksen“ . 11 Oct. 1968. Wieder, Carl, Ulmer Flucht in die Öffentlichkeit als „letzter Aufschrei“ . 17 Oct. 1968. Münchner Merkur ebp, Ein „Bauhaus“ aus dem Geist der Geschwister Scholl. 18 July 1950. Neu-Ulmer Stadt- und Landanzeiger n.a., Max Bill verläßt Ulm. 22 March 1957. Neu-Ulmer Zeitung san., Krach auf dem oberen Kuhberg. 21 Dec. 1962. n.a., „Neue Phase der Stabilität …“ sagt die HfG. 8 Jan. 1963 der, HfG-Debatte im Stuttgarter Landtag, Diadochenkämpfe müssen endlich aufhören! 1 June 1963. san-, HfG soll Voraussetzungen erfüllen . 15 Nov. 1963. ld, HfG – Treffpunkt der Welt. 5 Oct. 1967.
431
List of references
Audio-visual sources 432
Neue Württembergische Zeitung von Kardoff, Ursula, Eine Hochschule für unser Jahrhundert. 24 Aug. 1951. Die Neue Zeitung n.a., McCloy bekundet erneut sein Vertrauen zur Demokratie in Deutschland . 28 Jan. 1950. Liebes, Peter, Neue Wege zur Persönlichkeitsbildung . 9 Feb. 1950. Bill, Max, Bei uns kann man nicht Maler werden … Gedanken zu einer Hochschule für Gestaltung . 11 Sept. 1951. Pädagogische Rundschau Richter, Ingo, Der Deutsche Ausschuß für das Erziehungs- und Bildungswesen. Institutionelle Betrachtungen . 19/1965, 622–633. Publik Schmidt, Doris, Das Ausland zeigt sich interessiert . 20 Dec. 1968. Quadrum Staber, Margit, Das Experiment Ulm. Anmerkungen von Max Bill . 3/1957, 87–92. Rheinische Post h.-j.k., Erste Gesamthochschule in Ulm? 9 Dec. 1967. n.a., Exodus in Ulm? 20 Feb. 1968. Rheinischer Merkur Schweizer, Hans, Retter gesucht. Ulmer HfG – Ende einer Dauer krise? 13 Dec. 1968. Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung Scholl, Inge, Ulmer Hochschulpläne ohne Fortschritt . 17 Aug. 195.0 gk, „Ein gesunder Kern geistigen Lebens” . 14 Aug. 1951. by, „Keine bessere Tradition als die der Geschwister Scholl” . 24 June 1952.. Aschenbrenner, Margot, Anknüpfung: Arbeit des Dessauer Bauhauses . 28 June 1952. w, Wo der Kaiser zu Fuß hingeht. 28June 1952. w, Heranbildung von Gestaltern der Industrieprodukte . 2 July 1952. n.a., Kultminister zu den Ulmer Hochschulplänen . 1 Aug. 1952. w, Bonn knüpft Hoffnungen an Ulmer Hochschulplan. 6 Aug. 1952. -lr, 1953 Baubeginn für Ulmer Hochschule. 29 Oct. 1952. A icher-Scholl, Inge, Finanzgebaren wird sorgfältig überwacht. 28 Jan. 1953. n.a., Stürmische Debatten um Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 30 April 1953. -t, Erziehung zum Sehen und Gestalten. 19 Aug. 1953. Staber, Margit, Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. Die Grundlehre. 9April 1955. Staber, Margit, Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. Abteilung visuelle Gestaltung . 28 May 1955. -t, bis jetzt 219 000 DM Erschließungskosten . 9 July 1955. A icher-Scholl, Inge, Bill, Max, Staber, Margit, Eröffnung der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. 2 Oct. 1955. n.a., Finanzausschuß lehnt höhere Zuschüsse ab. 10 Dec. 1955. Schaer, Walter, Nochmals Hochschule für Gestaltung. 9 April 1957.
Krumrey, Immo, Was die andere Seite dazu zu sagen hat . 12 April 1957. Grohmann, Will, Ulm – Ein notwendiges Experiment . 18 April 1957. Maldonado, Tomás, Die Ulmer Hochschule und ein Gegenspieler. 2 Nov. 1957. n.a., „Abschied von der Etappe des Aufbaus“. 8 April 1959. gk, Ulmer Hochschuldozenten in Brasilia . 9 Oct. 1959. w., Neue Verfassung – Neuer Rektor. 21 Dec. 1962. n.a., Aus permanenter Krisensituation heraus. 22 Dec. 1962. w., Hochschule für Gestaltung als Rundfunkthema. 9 Feb. 1963. w., Ulm im Landessender. 9 Feb. 1963. Sander, Helmut, „Die permanente Krisensituation der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm“ . 16 Feb. 1963. w., Vae Victis – Wehe den Besiegten. 19 Feb. 1963. w, Aus dem Feld der Polemik heraustreten . 23 March 1963. w, Die Aufgabe: Heranbildung von Produktgestaltern . 6 April 1963. w, Neuer Beitrag zur HfG-Diskussion: „Die ungestalte Hochschule für Gestaltung“ . 14 May 1963. w, Plus- und Minuspunkte für Ulm im Landtag. 31 May 1963. w., Die Stadt Ulm und ihre Hochschule . 8 June 1963. Bill, Max, HfG – Ein lebendiges Experiment . 18 Oct. 1963. n.a., Landesregierung: HfG ist förde rungswürdig . 30 Oct. 1963. n.a., Bedingungen für den Staatszuschuß . 5 Nov. 1963. n.a., Abgeordnete reagieren scharf. 15 Nov. 1963. w, Kann der Landtag den Zuschuß streichen? 15 Nov. 1963. n.a., Das Thema HfG wurde ausgeklammert. 19 Nov. 1963. w, Ein Weg aus der Krise aufgezeigt . 21 Nov. 1963. w., Arbeitskreis Universität soll sich wieder zu Wort melden. 21 Nov. 1963. w., Neuer Start der Hochschule für Gestaltung.5 Feb. 1964. n.a., Zuschuß für HfG freigegeben. 14 March 1964. w., E5 als Paradestück . 3 April 1964. n.a., HfG soll Lehrkörper ergänzen. 14 July 1964. w., Veränderungen in der HfG. 19Sept. 1964. n.a., Neuer Rektor der HfG . 26 Sept. 1964. w., Hauptsorge: Neue Dozenten. 6 Oct. 1964. -gi-, Ulm greift für die HfG tiefer in den Beutel . 21 Nov. 1964. w., Neuer Vorstandsvorsitzender der Geschw.-Scholl-Stift. 9 Dec. 1964. w., HfG in einer Phase der Konsolidierung. 24 Feb. 1965. Dörner,Joachim, Vietnam-Wirbel in der Hochschule. 3 July 1965. Moré, Gustav, Fehlgriff . 3 July 1965. n.a., Stiftungsrat wünscht genaue Untersuchung . 14 July 1965. n.a., CDU zur Vietnam-Sammlung an der HfG. 15 July 1965. Malonado, Tomás, Rau, Friedrich, Rektor Maldonado und Dr. Rau distanzierensich. 19 July 1965. gk, „scharfe Rüge” für Urheber der Vietnam-Sammlung . 28 July 1965. -ner, 40 Prozent der Studierenden kommen aus dem Ausland . 5 Oct. 1965.
Pfizer, Theodor, Zehn Jahre Hochschule für Gestaltung . 13 Oct. 1965. ge, HfG-Studentenschaft will Stimm recht behalten. 4 Dec. 1965. Kiesinger, Kurt Georg, „Empfehlun gen im wesentlichen berücksichtigt” . 27 Dec. 1965. ge, Gute Nachricht auch für die HfG . 10 Feb. 1966. n.a., Weniger Geld für die HfG? 11March 1966. kü., Die HfG darf nicht sterben. 16March 1966. n.a., Gebrauchsgraphik . 1 April 1966. n.a., Doch mehr Geld für HfG. 27May 1966. -ner, Dr. Rau überzeugte die Volksvertreter . 11 June 1966. Dörner, Joachim, Muß die Hochschule 50 000 Mark zurückzahlen? 18 June 1966. n.a., HfG-Beitragbleibt ungekürzt. 18 Nov. 1966. -pp, Das Haus war voll . 6 June 1967. Studentenschaft der HfG, Verant wortliche in Berlin abberufen . 7 June 1967. bmg., Kein Echo in der Bevölkerung . 8 June 1967. bmg., Basis der HfG ist zu schmal. 6 July 1967. Dörner, Joachim, Muß eine HfG Abteilung schließen? 15 Sept. 1967. Dörner, Joachim, „Studentenbuden“ sind teurer geworden. 28 Sept. 1967. Dörner, Joachim, Rektor Ohl: Hochschule verstaatlichen . 4 Oct. 1967. n.a., Innenminister schaltet sich ein. 13 Oct. 1967. -nfp-, Finanzierung gesichert. 13O ct. 1967. gé, Bestand der HfG gefährdet . 31 Oct. 1967. -ner, HfG-Studenten sind dem Stiftungsrat gram. 9 Nov. 1967. l., Bilanz erscheint im täglichen Leben. 25 Nov. 1967. n.a., Zukunft der HfG noch ungewiß. 1 Dec. 1967. -fk/-ner, Fusion die einzige Hoffnung der HfG? 8 Dec. 1967. -nfp-, Die HfG ist kein neues Bauhaus. 11 Dec. 1967. -fk, HfG-Studenten gegen Fusion. 16 Dec. 1967. fk, Schützenhilfe für die HfG. 18 Dec. 1967. SchwäbischeZeitung Nachricht . 10 July 1954. n.a., Bizarre Neubauten über dem Donautal . 23 Sept. 1954. Vogel, Thomas,Das aktuelle Thema. 30 Sept. 1995. Schwarzwälder Bote hh, Ulmer Schicksal jetzt besiegelt? 17 July 1968. yd, Doppelte Quittung. 17 July 1968. yd, Bessere Einsicht. 19 July 1968. Social Research Ulich, Robert, The Problem of German Reeducation. 5/1944, 152– 167. Der Spiegel n.a., A uf dem Kuhberg. 12/1963, 20 March 1963. Leserbriefe. 15/1963, 10 April 1963. Leserbriefe. 16/1963, 17 April 1963. n.a., Ulm up. 9/1968.
Staatsanzeiger für Baden-Württemberg n.a., Die Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. 29 June 1963. n.a., Liquidation der HfG Ulm. 4 Dec. 1968. n.a., „Konstruktive Arbeit ist jetzt nötig“. 7 Dec. 1968. n.a., Eine Modellhochschule für Gestaltung . 10 May 1969. n.a., Wohin kommt die HfG? 17 May 1969. n.a., HfG bleibt in Ulm. 24 May 1969. n.a., Der neue Status der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 2 July 1969. Der Städtetag A icher- Scholl, Inge, Eine Volkshochschule und ihre Stadt . 9/1953, 452f. StuttgarterNachrichten n.a., Staatszuschuß für Ulmer Hochschulpläne . 30 Nov. 1955. Bill, Max, Zuschüsse, Stipendien, Verständnis. 24 Dec. 1955. g.k., Optimismus in Hochschule und Theater . 9 Dec. 1957. Plünnecke,Elisabeth, Was passiert auf dem Kuhberg? 25 April 1958. uw, Hochschule für Gestaltung bucht Erfolge . 27 Feb. 1961. n.a., Ulmer Hochschule schafft Grundlehre ab. 4 Oct. 1961. lsw, Rücktritt des Rektoratskolle giums. 22 May 1962. n.a., Die neue Krise an der Ulmer Hochschule. 24 May 1962. n.a., Ulmer Studenten protestieren. 3 Jan. 1963. w, Hochschule für Gestaltung protestiert . 9 Feb. 1963. lsw, Spannungen an der Ulmer Hochschule. 23 March 1963. Wild, Winfried, Die ungestalte Hochschule für Gestaltung. 11 May 1963. n.a., Diskussion um die Hochschule für Gestaltung. 31 May 1963. lsw, Hochschule für Gestaltung weiterhin Förderungswürdig. 30 Oct. 1963. n.a., Mittel für Ulmer Hochschule sollen gesperrt werden. 5 Nov. 1963. n.a., Der Zuschuß unter Sperrvermerk . 22 Nov. 1963. lsw, Neuer Leiter der „GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung“ . 14 Jan. 1965. dr, Ulmer Hochschule hat Sorgen . 16Dec . 1967. u, Was wird aus der Hochschule für Gestaltung? 17 Jan. 1968. Stark, Maria, Schicksalsstunden für den Ulmer Kuhberg. 1 Feb. 1968. u, Kritik an der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 5 Feb. 1968. dr, „Ermordet wird die HfG“. Vor der Entscheidung über die Zukunft der Hochschule . 20 Feb. 1968. Krewinkel, Heinz W., Was sie ist und was sie will . 23 Feb. 1968. ms, Name und Selbstverwaltung bleiben . 8 March 1968. Krewinkel, Heinz W., Hilfe für die HfG in Ulm. 28 March 1968. c, Am Kuhberg werden die Koffer gepackt . 1 June 1968. mth, Staatshilfe für Ulmer HfG. 28June 1968. lsw, Ulm vor neuen Schwierigkeiten. Noch keine Entscheidung über Landeszuschuß an HfG. 17 July 1968. e, Ein bildungspolititsches Selbsttor . 18 July 1968.
c, Ulmer Hochschule für Gestaltung in Klausur . 6 Aug. 1968. dsch, Schock-Therapie für Ulmer Hochschule für Gestaltung. 30 Nov. 1968 . ar, Experten beraten über Neu beginn der HfG. 6 Dec. 1968. c, Max Bill: Ich weiß von nichts. HfGStudenten wollen weitermachen. 19 Dec. 1968. lsw, Niemand glaubt an Neugründung. 28 Dec. 1968. n.a., Filbinger: Neue Form der HfG. 30 Jan. 1969. StuttgarterZeitung -itz, Lotsen in eine bessere Zukunft. 9 Feb. 1950. by, Eine „Hochschule für Gestaltung“ in Ulm. 14 July 1951. Lindemann,Helmut, Hochschule für Gestaltung.17 Aug. 1951. Biedrzynski, Richard, Im Zeichen der Askese. 1 Oct. 1955. e., Die äußere Ordnung konsolidie ren. 8 March 1956. n.a., Rache an Ulm. 25 Sept. 1957. r.b., Der neue Kurs in Ulm. 9 Oct. 1957. n.a., Zukunft der Hochschule für Gestaltung gesichert . 3 Dec. 1957. ci., Fahrt in die Zukunft . 18 Jan. 1961. lsw/iu, Zusammenrottung und Proteste. 21 Dec. 1962. n.a., Ulmer Hochschule für Gestaltung und die Pressestimmen . 26 March 1963. sw, Pläne für die Hochschule für Gestaltung . 29 April 1963. Schütze,Christian, Flurbereinigung auf dem Kuhberg. 22 May 1963. eru, Hochschule oder nicht? 31 May 1963. lsw., Zuschuß freigegeben. 14 March 1964. iu., Die äußere Ordnung konsolidieren. 23 Nov. 1964. agk, Neuer Vorstandsvorsitzender für die Hochschule für Gestaltung. 14Jan. 1965. e., Ulmer Hochschule soll bestehen . 8 Dec. 1967. lsw, Besorgnis um die Hochschule für Gestaltung. 19 Dec. 1967. n.a., Konkurs in Ulm? 19 Feb. 1968. Gruppe„HfG-Idee“, Studentenselbstverwaltung der HfG, Bauhaus Weimar: Exodus 1. HfG Ulm: Exodus 2 . 20 Feb. 1968. Studentenschaft, Studentenvertre ter der HfG, Mordanzeige. Ermordet wird die HfG. 20 Feb. 1968. e, Letzter Versuch für Ulmer Hochschule . 18 July 1968. eru, Ulmer Bewährungsprobe. 19July 1968. mth, Die letzte Chance für die HfG. 19 July 1968. dr. Bessey, Hilfestellung. 6 Aug. 1968. eru, Für Hochschulliaison Stuttgart – Ulm. 13 Sept. 1968. sk., Einigkeit über HfG-Konzept. 24 Oct. 1968. e, „Ende einer reaktionären Politik“. 4 Dec. 1968. eru, Filbinger bemüht sich um HfG. 6 Dec. 1968. Groß, Helmut, das „Zwei-MillionenDing“ kommt der Universität zugute. 28 April 1975. Süddeutsche Zeitung Pfeiffer-Belli, Erich, Ulmer Hochschul-Sorgen. 8 June 1963. Meyer, Claus Heinrich, Ein Mann, der unsere Zeit geprägt hat . 2 Sept. 1991.
Südkurier m.s., Kultur für den täglichen Bedarf – nicht „hohe“ Kunst . 13 Jan. 1952. Südwest-Presse th, Landtag unter Beschuß. 16 Feb. 1968 gé, Nicht diese Töne. 20 Feb. 1968. fk, Ulmer Professoren verteidigen Pool-Modell . 29 Feb. 1968. Bill, Max, Die künstliche Krise. 1March 1968. n.a., VDS plant HfG-Neugründung. 7March 1968. Kuppel, Walter, „ Mord“ sagen die einen – „Selbstmord“ die anderen. 16 March 1968. k.f./gé, Paris verhandelt mit der HfG. 25 May 1968. -ner, Keiner überzeugte den anderen. 31 May 1968. gé, Anti-Koalition . 17 July 1968. Studentenschaft der HfG, „Zynismus und Schizophrenie“. Stellungnahme der Studentenschaft der HfG zu einem Bericht von Rektor Ohl. 20July 1968. HAP, Interesse für HfG-Baumethode. 4 Aug. 1968. gé, Der Gradmesser. 3 Oct. 1968. gé, Gold für Standhaftigkeit. 3 Oct. 1968. gé, Voller Studienbetrieb vorderhand nicht möglich . 3 Oct. 1968. Zaugg, Roland, Bar-Pereg, Josef, Manipulierte HfG-Studenten? 21Dec. 1968. Time n.a., The Good … and the Bad. 27Feb. 1950. Tribune de Genève Berchet, Henri-F., Architecture et Création: la Hochschule d‘Ulm à Genève? 28 March 1968. Ulmer Forum Vol. 5/1968. Ulmer Monatsspiegel Aicher, Otl,Bildung hat ihre Nachteile . 9/1950, 3 f. Wiegandt, Herbert, 10 Jahre Ulmer Volkshochschule . 8 April 1956, 92ff. UlmerNachrichten n.a., Wird Fort Oberer Kuhberg neue Hochschule? 11 Feb. 1950. n.a., Um die Erhaltung der Ulmer Festungswerke . 16 Aug. 1950. w., Ulmer Hochschulpläne machen Fortschritte. 16 Aug. 1950. Riester, Albert, Kann in Ulm eine Hochschule errichtet werden? 14Dec. 1950. Dr.Müller-Schöll, Zwischen Hochstimmung und rauher Wirklichkeit. 24 June 1952.. h.b., Wenig Neuigkeiten um die Hochschule. 29 Oct. 1952. Aicher, Otl,Über Beschluß „befremdet“. 13 Nov. 1963. Die Welt n.a., Meldung. 11 Aug. 1953. Kuby, Erich, Auch Experimente müssen reifen. 13 June 1958. r.k., Ende des Ulmer Methodenstreits? 16 Nov. 1963. Erde, Johannes, Werkststatt für den jungen deutschen Film. 14 April 1967. n.a., Studenten appellieren an den Landtag. 27 Dec. 1967. r.k., Staat übernimmt Ulmer Hochschule. 22 Feb. 1968.
uhl, Ulmer Hochschule kann weiterleben. 19 July 1968. la, Was wird aus den HfG-Studenten? 21 Dec. 1968. Die Weltwoche Allemann, Fritz René, Gefährdetes Ulmer Experiment . 26 Jan. 1968. Werk Bill, Max, Wassily Kandinsky . 4/1946, 128–132. Streiff, Egidius, Formgebung in der schweizerschen Industrie. 5/1946, 138–154. Giedion, Sigfried, Stromlinienstil und industrielles Entwerfen in USA. 5/1946, 155–162. Haefeli, Max Ernst, Die neue Spitaltoilette. Beispiel einer Modellentwicklung . 5/1946, 163–167. Bill, Max, Erfahrungen bei der Form gestaltung von Industrieprodukten. 5/1946, 168–170. Bill, Max, Ausstellungen. Ein Beitrag zur Abklärung von Fragen der Ausstellungs-Gestaltung . 3/1948, 65 bis 71. Schmidt, Georg, Max Bills „Kontinuität“. Eine Freiplastik in der Züka . 3/1948, 76–77. Bill, Max, Die mathematische Denkweise in der Kunst unserer Zeit. Zu der Ausstellung Pevsner – Vanton gerloo – Bill im April/ Mai 1949 im Kunsthaus Zürich. 3/1949, 86–91. Bill, Max, Schönheit aus Funktion und als Funktion. Vortrag bei der Tagung des schweizerischen Werk bundes in Basel am 23/24 Oct. 1948 . 8/1949, 272–274. Brogle,Theodor, Der Qualitäts- und Formgedanke in der schweizerischen Industrie. Vortrag bei der Tagung des schweizerischen Werk bundes in Basel am 23/24 Oct. 1948 . 8/1949, 259–260. Paulsson, Gregor, Die soziale Auf gabe im kunstindustriellen Unter richt. Vortrag bei der Tagung des Schweizerischen Werkbundes in Basel am 23/24 Oct. 1948 . 8/1949, 260–271. van de Velde, Henry, Die reine zweckmässige Form. 8/1949, 247– 250. Gomringer, Eugen, Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. 8/1954, 326 f. Roth, Alfred, Der Pavillon der Stadt Ulm an der Landesausstellung Baden-Württemberg in Stuttgart (Juli bis Oktober 1955). 9/1955, 287 f. a., Die gute Form. Sonderschau in der Vorhalle 8 der Schweizer Mustermesse Basel 1955 . 9/1955, 289 f. Gerstner, Karl, Ausblicke in die Zu kunft. 11/1955, 384–391 Roth, Alfred, Eröffnung der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. 11/1955, *221–*222. Bill, Max, Umweltgestaltung nach morphologischen Methoden. 11/1956. Grohmann, Will, Max Bill und die Synthese . 7/1957, 247–249 Bill, Max, Ein Denkmal . 7/1957, 250254. Gomringer, Eugen, Max Bill: Vielfalt und Einheit der gestalteten Welt . 8/1960, 289–291. Staber, Margit, Die Anfänge der kon kreten Kunst. 10/1960, 367–374. Burckhardt, Lucius, Ulm anno 5. 11/1960, 384–386.
Rittel, Horst, Zu den Arbeitshypothesen der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. 8/1961, 281–283. Andritzky, Michael, Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm – scheinheilig liquidiert? 3/1968. n.a., Aufruf für Ulm. Die Hochschule für Gestaltung soll weiterbestehen! 10/1968, 685. Mühlestein, Erwin, Halbzeit in „Ulm“. 10/1968, 685–686. Andritzky, Michael, Die Konzeption des „Instituts für Umweltplanung“. 2/1970. Württembergische Zeitung Röttger, F., „Hinrichtung“ einer Hochschule? 8 March 1968. Die Zeit Bongard, Willi, Die Schneider von Ulm. 25 Oct. 1963. Jungmann, Peter, Letzte Chance. 22 Aug. 1967. Sack, Manfred, Vater der Moderne. 13 May 1983. Herbort, Heinz Josef, Geburtshelfer einer neuen Kultur. 12 April 1991. Zodiac Staber, Margit, Max Bill und die Umweltgestaltung. Über die Wechselwirkung von Theorie und Praxis. 9/1962, 61–95.
Deutsche Wochenschau 1950, 1952, 1955. Edition Disegno, Experiment mit Zeitzünder. Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm 1955–1968. Entstehungsgeschichte und Wirken, Video, Munich. Edition Disegno, Designlegende HfG. Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm 1955–1968 (–1988). Spurensuche, zwanzig Jahre danach. Video, Munich. SüddeutscherRundfunk, Es erinnert sich: Inge Aicher-Scholl . Radio broadcast Stuttgart 12 April 1989.
433
Bibliography
434
Archithese (Niederteufen) 15/1975: HfG Ulm.EinRückblick.UneRétrospective . Casabella (Mailand) 435/1978: Tre Scuole: Bauhaus–Vchutemas – Ulm . Rassegna (Mailand) 19/1979: Il Contributo della Scuola di Ulm. The Legacy of the School of Ulm . 25 Jahre Baden-Württemberg.
Daten und Informationen, ed. Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 1977. Erfahrungen mit einem Umbruch, Neue Rundschau 2/1993.
1968 revisited.
Abelein, Manfred, Die Kulturpolitik des Deutschen Reiches und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Cologne, Opladen 1968 (= Ordo politicus, vol. 8). Abelshauser, Werner, Wirtschafts geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945–1980,Frankfurt am Main 1983. Abelshauser, Werner, Die langen fünfziger Jahre. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949–1966,Dusseldorf 1987 (= Historisches Seminar , vol. 5). Ahlberg, René, Ursachen der Revolte. Analyse des studentischen Protests, Stuttgart, Berlin, Mainz, Cologne 1972. Aicher, Otl, Innenseiten des Kriegs, Frankfurt am Main 1985. Aicher, Otl, Die Welt als Entwurf, Berlin 1991. Die Akademie der bildenden Künste in Nürnberg, ed. Gesell-
schaft der Freunde der Akademie der bildenden Künste, Nürnberg 1983. Albers, Willi, Oberhauser, Alois, Michalski, Wolfgang, Thiel, Eberhard, Schmitz, Enno, Sozialprodukt, öffentliche Haushalte und Bildungsausgaben in der Bundesrepublik. Eine Projektion bis 1975, Stuttgart 1969 (= Deutscher Bildungsrat – Gutachten und Studien der Bildungskommision , vol. 5). Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung (ed.), Alexander von HumboldtStiftung 1953–1993,Bonn 1993. Amberg, Elke, Der eigene Weg der Abteilung für Filmgestaltung an der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm, unpublished master’s thesis, Munich 1989. Andersen, Arne, Der Traum vom guten Leben. Alltags- und Konsum geschichte vom Wirtschaftswunder bis heute, Frankfurt am Main, New York 1997. Anweiler, Oskar, Fuchs, Hans-Jürgen, Dorner, Martina, Petermann, Eberhard (ed.), Bildungspolitik in Deutschland 1945–1990. Ein histo risch-vergleichender Quellenband, Opladen 1992. A nthony Froshaug. Typgraphy and texts. Documents of a life, ed. Robin Kinross, London 2000. Arnold, Rolf, Marz, Fritz, Einführung in die Bildungspolitik. Grundlagen, Entwicklungen, Probleme, Stuttgart u.a. 1979. Arts and crafts – eine außer gewöhnliche Kunstbewegung,
London 1987, Hamburg 1988.
Backes, K., Hitler und die bildenden Künste. Kulturverständnis und Kunst politik im Dritten Reich, Cologne 1988. Bänsch, Dieter (ed.), Die fünfziger Jahre. Beiträg zur Politik und Kultur, Tübingen 1985 (= Deutsche TextBibliothek , vol. 5). Bahro, Horst, Becker, Willi, Bildung und Erziehung, Wissenschaft und Forschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, n.p. (Bern) 1979 (= Wissenschaftspolitik Beihefte , vol. 21). Bangert, Albrecht, Die 50er Jahre. Möbel und Ambiente, Design und Kunsthandwerk, Munich 21990. Banham, Reyner, Design by choice. Ideas in architecture, London 1981. Bartels, Heiko, Fischer, Gerhard, Hüskes, Charly, Hullmann, Harald: „Kunstflug über Ulm und anderswo“, in: Kunstforum international 82, Dezember 1985, 85. Bartov, Omer: „War, memory and repression. Alexander Kluge an the politics of representation in postwar Germany“, in: TAJB 23/1994, 413– 432. Bausch, Ulrich M., Die Kulturpolitik der US-amerikanischen Information Control Division in WürttembergBaden von 1945–1949. Zwischen militärischem Funktionalismus und schwäbischem Obrigkeitsdenken, Diss. Phil. Tübingen 1991, Stuttgart 1992 (= Veröffentlichungen des Archives der Stadt Stuttgart , vol.55). Bauer, Rudolf, Bundestag und Kultur politik. Untersuchung und Darstellung der Entwicklung, Zusammensetzung und Arbeit des Kulturpolitischen Ausschusses des Bundestages 1949–1965,Diss. Phil. Erlangen-Nürnberg 1968. Bauhaus:Dessau – Chicago – New York, ed. Margarete Tupitsyn,
Georg-W. Költzsch, Cologne 2000. Bauß, Gerhard, Die Studentenbewe gung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und West-Berlins 1966–1968, Diss. Phil. Marburg an der Lahn 1977. Becker, Hellmut, Bildungsforschung und Bildungsplanung, Frankfurt am Main 1971. Becker, Hellmut, Auf dem Weg zur lernenden Gesellschaft. Personen, Analysen, Vorschläge für die Zukunft, Stuttgart1980. Becker, Hellmut: „Bildung und Bildungspolitik. Über den Sickereffekt von Reformen“, in: Martin Broszat (ed.), Zäsuren nach 1945. Essays zur Periodisierung der deutschen Nach kriegsgeschichte, Munich 1990, 63– 68 (= Schriftenreihe der Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte , vol. 61). Behnken,Klaus, Wagner,Frank(ed.), Inszenierung der Macht. Ästhetische Faszination im Faschismus, Berlin 1987. Benz, Wolfgang (ed.): Die Bundes republik Deutschland. Geschichte in drei Bänden. Vol. 3: Kultur, Frankfurt am Main 1983. Benz, Wolfgang, Die Gründung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Von der Bizone zum souveränen Staat, Munich 21986. Benz, Wolfgang, Die Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Vol. 1: Politik . Vol. 4: Kultur, Frankfurt am Main 1983, 21989.
Benz, Wolfgang: „Postwar society and national socialism: remembrance, amnesia and Rejection“, in: TAJB 19/1990, 1–33. Benz, Wolfgang, Zwischen Hitler und Adenauer. Studien zur deutschen Nachkriegsgesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main 1991. Benz, Wolfgang: „Deutsche Geschichte nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Probleme und Tendenzen zeitgeschichtlicher Forschung in der Bundesrepublik“, in: TAJB 16/1987, 398–420. Berger, Thomas, Müller, Karl-Heinz, Lebenssituationen 1945–1948. Materialien zum Alltagsleben in den westlichen Besatzungszonen, Hannover 1981, 21983. Berghahn, Volker, Unternehmer und Politik in der Bundesrepublik, Frankfurt am Main 1985. Berghahn, Volker: „Wiederaufbau und Umbau der westdeutschen Industrie nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg“, in: TAJB 19/1990, 261–283. Bergsdorf, Wolfgang, Gröbel, Uwe, Bildungs- und Wissenschaftspolitik im geteilten Deutschland, Munich, Vienna 1980 (= Dokumente unserer Zeit , vol. 2). Bewegung – Tomás Gonda an der HfG Ulm. Ein interaktives Projekt
über seine Arbeit und Dozententätig keit in den Jahren 1958 bis 1966, (CD-ROM) Schwäbisch Gmünd 1998. Die Berliner Volkshochschulen 1945–1960, West Berlin 1960
(= Schriften zu Volkshochschulfra gen, vol. 27). von Beyme, Klaus, Der Wiederauf bau. Architektur und Städtebau politik in beiden deutschen Staaten, Munich 1987. von Beyme, Klaus, Schmidt, Manfred G. (ed.), Politik in der Bundes republik Deutschland, Opladen 1990. von Beyme, Klaus, Durth, Werner, Gutschow, Niels, Nerdinger, Winfried, Topfstedt, Thomas, Neue Städte aus Ruinen. Deutscher Städtebau der Nachkriegszeit, Munich 1992. Bildungspolitik mit Ziel und Maß.
FS Wilhelm Hahn, Stuttgart 1974. Die Bildungsreform – eine Bilanz.
Contributions of Hellmut Becker, Ralf Dahrendorf, Peter Glotz, Klaus Maier, Stuttgart 1976. Bill, Max: „Vom Bauhaus bis Ulm“, in: DU 6/1976, 12–21. Bill, Max: „Fortsetzungnotwendig“ in: EckhardNeumann (ed.), Bauhaus und Bauhäusler. Erinnerungen und Bekenntnisse, Cologne 1971, 21985, 286–289. Bird, Kai, The chairman. John J. McCloy: The making of the American establishment, New York 1992. Birke, Adolf M., Nation ohne Haus. Deutschland1945–1961, Berlin 1989. Blanke, Bernhard, Wollmann, Hellmut (ed.), Die alte Bundesrepublik. Kontinuität und Wandel, Cologne 1991 (= Leviathan Sonderhefte, vol.12) Blankertz, H., Bildung im Zeitalter der großen Industrie, Hannover 1969. Bode, Peter M., „Vom Bauhaus bis ins Elend“, in: art 5/1983, 62–67. Böhm, Winfried, Tenorth, HeinzElmar (ed.), Deutsche pädagogische Zeitgeschichte 1960–1973. Von der Diskussion um den Rahmenplan zum Bildungsgesamtplan, Kastellaun 1977.
Bookmann, Hartmut, Wissen und Widerstand. Geschichte der deutschen Universität, Berlin 1999. Borchers, Hans, Vowe, Klaus W., Die zarte Pflanze Demokratie. Ame rikanische Re-Education in Deutschland im Spiegel ausgewählter politischer und literarischer Zeitschriften (1945–1949),Tübingen 1979. Bormann, Manfred, Bildungsplanung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. System und Grundlagen, Opladen 1978 (= Studien zur Sozialwissenschaft , vol. 39). Borngräber, Christian, Stil novo. Design in den 50er Jahren. Phantasie und Phantastik. Frankfurt am Main 1979. Borowsky, Peter, Deutschland 1963–1969,Hannover 1983. Botz, Gerhard, Weidenholzer, Josef (ed.), Mündliche Geschichte und Arbeiterbewegung. Eine Einführung in Arbeitsweisen und Themen bereiche der Geschichte „geschichtsloser“ Sozialgruppen, Vienna, Cologne 1984 (= Materialien zur historischen Sozialwissenschaft , vol. 2). Bracher, Karl Dietrich (ed.), Nach 25 Jahren. Eine Deutschland-Bilanz, Munich 1970. Brackert, Helmut, Werfelmeyer, Fritz (ed.), Kultur. Bestimmungen im 20. Jahrhundert, Frankfurt am Main 1990. Für Erwin Braun, n.p. , n.d. (1981). Braun-Feldweg, Wilhelm, Industrial Design heute. Umwelt aus der Fabrik, Reinbek 1966. Brenner, Heinz A., Dagegen. Widerstand Ulmer Schüler gegen die deutsche Nazi-Diktatur. Leutkirch n.d. Breuer, Gerda, Die Erfindung des modernen Klassikers. Avantgarde und ewige Aktualität , Stuttgart 2001. Bröhan, Torsten, Berg, Thomas, Avantgarde Design 1880–1930. Cologne 1994. Broszat, Martin (ed.), Von Stalingrad zur Währungsreform. Zur Sozialgeschichte des Umbruchs in Deutschland, Munich 1988 (= Quellen und Darstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte , vol. 26). Ein Buch der Freunde, Shepard Stone zum Achtzigsten, Berlin 1988. Bungenstab, Karl-Ernst, Re-Education nach 1945. Die amerikanische Besatzungspolitik in Deutschland nach 1945, dargestellt an Beispielen aus dem Bildungswesen in der ame rikanischen Zone, Diss. Phil. Berlin, Dusseldorf 1970. Bührer, Werner, Ruhrstahl und Europa. Die Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen- und Stahlindustrie und die Anfänge der europäischen Inte gration 1945–1952, Munich 1986 (= Schriftenreihe der Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte , vol. 53). Bürdek, Bernhard E., Design. Geschichte, Theorie und Praxis der Produktgestaltung, Cologne 1991. Burckhardt, Lucius (ed.), Der Werk bund in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Form ohne Ornament, Venedig 1977, Stuttgart 1978. Burg Giebichenstein, Halle, Karlsruhe 1993.
Campbell, John, Der deutsche Werk bund 1907–1934, Princeton, New Jersey 1978, Stuttgart 1981, Munich 2 1989. Cofalla, Sabine (ed.), Eine kommentierte Auswahledition der Korrespondenz Hans Werner Richters, Diss. Phil. Berlin 1997. Cofalla, Sabine, Der „soziale Sinn“ Hans Werner Richters. Zur Korres pondenz des Leiters der Gruppe 47, Berlin 1997, 21998. Cofalla, Sabine (ed.), Hans Werner Richter – Briefe, Munich 1997. Conze, Werner, Lepsius, Rainer M. (ed.), Sozialgeschichte der Bundes republik Deutschland. Beiträge zum Kontinuitätsproblem, Stuttgart 1983 (= Industrielle Welt , vol. 34). Conze, Eckart, Metzler, Gabriele (ed.), 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik. Daten und Diskussionen, Stuttgart 1999. Conrad, Ulrich u.a. (ed.), Die Bauhaus-Debatte 1953. Dokumente einer verdrängten Kontroverse, Wiesbaden 1994 (= Bauwelt Fundamente , vol. 100). Curdes, Gerhard, Die Abteilung Bauen an der HfG Ulm. Eine Refle xion zur Entwicklung, Lehre und Pro grammatik, Ulm 2001. Dannenmann, Christopher (ed.), Bildung und Bildungspolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Aspekte, Probleme, Tendenzen, Neuwied, Berlin 1973. Daten zu Wirtschaft-GesellschaftPolitik-Kultur der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1950–1975. Mit Ver-
gleichszahlen EG-Länder und DDR, ed. Franz Neumann, Baden-Baden 1976. Demarcq, Jaques (ed.), Les années 50, Paris 1988. Derbolav, Josef (ed.), Grundlagen und Probleme der Bildungspolitik. Ein Theorieentwurf, Munich, Zurich 1977 (= Erziehung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, vol. 25). Derbolav, Josef (ed.), Fehlentwicklungen…? Kritische Streifzüge durch die politisch-pädagogische Landschaft der deutschen Bundesrepu blik, Würzburg 1984. Der schöne Schein – das Jahrhundert des Design, Hamburg 1995
(= Spiegel-Spezial 6/1995). ed. Volker Albus, Reyer Kraas, Jonathan M. Woodham, Munich 2000. Design-Dimensionen. 40 Jahre Form – 40 Jahre Alltagskultur, Frankfurt am Main 1997 (= FormSpezial , vol. 1). Design of the 20th century, ed. Charlotte J. and Peter M. Fiell, Cologne 2000. Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission (ed.), Kulturförderung und Kultur pflege in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Pullach 1974. Deutscher Bundestag (ed.), Die Bundesversammlungen1949–1979. Eine Dokumentation aus Anlaß der Wahl des Bundespräsidenten am 23.Mai 1984, Bonn 1984. Design! Das 20. Jahrhundert,
Deutschland unter alliierter Besat zung 1945–1949/55. Ein Hand-
buch, ed. Wolfgang Benz, Berlin 1999. „Die Augen sind hungrig, aber oft schon vor dem Sehen satt“. Otl
Aicher zum 75. Geburtstag, Ulm 1997 (= HfG-Archiv Ulm Dokumentationen, vol. 6).
Diefendorf, Jeffry M., „Berlin on the Charles, Cambridge on the Spree: Walter Gropius, Martin Wagner and the rebuilding of Germany“, in: Helmut F. Pfanner (ed.), Kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Exil – exile across cultures, Bonn 1986, 343– 357 (= Studien zur Literatur der Moderne, vol.14). Diefendorf, Jeffry M., Frohn, Axel, Rupieper, Hermann-Josef, American policy and the reconstruction of Western Germany 1945–1955, Washington, D.C., Cambridge (Mass.) 1993. Diner, Dan (ed.), Ist der Nationalsozialismus Geschichte? Frankfurt am Main 1993. Doering-Manteuffel, Anselm, Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland in der Ära Adenauer. Außenpolitik und innere Entwicklung 1949–1963, Darmstadt 1983, 21988. Doering-Manteuffel, Anselm, Wie westlich sind die Deutschen? Ameri kanisierung und Westernisierung im 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen 1999. Dolff, Helmuth (ed.), 25 Jahre deutscherVolkshochschulverband, Gütersloh 1978. Drei Jahrzehnte Umbruch der deutschen Universitäten:
Die Folgen von Revolte und Umb ruch1968–1974, Munich 1996 (= Abhandlungen zum Studentenwesen, vol. 7). Dröge, Franz, Müller, Michael, Die Macht der Schönheit. Avantgarde und Faschismus oder die Geburt der Massenkultur, Hamburg 1995. Droste, Magdalena, Bauhaus. 1919– 1933, Cologne 1990, Neudruck 1993. Düwell, Kurt, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1945–1961). Eine do kumentierte Einführung, Cologne, Vienna 1981. Dumbach, Anette, Newborn, Jud, Die Geschichte der Weißen Rose, Freiburg im Breisgau, Basel, Vienna 1986, 21994. Durth, Werner, Gutschow, Niels, Träume in Trümmern. Planungen zum Wiederaufbau zerstörter Städte im Westen Deutschlands 1940– 1950. Vol. 1: Konzepte . Vol. 2: Städte, Braunschweig, Wiesbaden 1988. Ebner, Jörg: „100 Jahre Royal College of Art“, in: DR 5/1996, 52–55. Eckstein, Hans, Formgebung des Nützlichen. Marginalien zur Geschichte und Theorie des Design, Dusseldorf 1985. Eder, Klaus, Kluge, Alexander (ed.), Ulmer Dramaturgien. Reibungsverluste. Stichwort: Bestandsaufnahme, Munich 1980 (= Arbeitshefte Film, vol. 2/3). Ellwein, Thomas, Krisen und Reformen. Die Bundesrepublik seit den sechziger Jahren, Munich 1989. Ellwein, Thomas, Die deutsche Universität. Vom Mittelalter bis zur Ge genwart, Königstein 1985, Frankfurt am Main 21992. Emge, Richard Martinus, Auswärtige Kulturpolitik. Eine soziologische Analyse einiger ihrer Funktionen, Bedingungen und Formen, Berlin 1967. Erlhoff, Michael: „Das Bundes-Bauhaus“, in: Westermanns Monatshefte 7/1985, 22–30. Erlhoff, Michael (ed.), Deutsches Design 1950–90, Munich 1990.
Ermarth, Michael (ed.), America and the shaping of German society 1945–1955,Oxford 1993. Erni, Peter, Die gute Form. Eine Aktion des schweizerischen Werk bundes. Dokumentation und Inter pretation, Baden 1983. Eschenburg, Theodor, Zur politischen Praxis in der Bundesrepublik. Vol. 1: Kritische Betrachtungen 1957–1961, Munich 1964. Vol. 2: Kritische Betrachtungen 1961–1965, Munich 1966. Eschenburg, Theodor, Jahre der Besatzung 1945–1949,Stuttgart, Wiesbaden 1983 (= Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , vol. 1). Fachhochschule Dortmund (ed.), Stationen der Fachhochschule Dortmund. Ein Lesebuch, Lünen 1990. Fecht, Tom, Weißler, Sabine (ed.), Plastikwelten, Berlin 1985. Fels, Gerhard, Der Aufruhr der 68er. Zu den geistigen Grundlagen der Studentenbewegung und der RAF, Bonn 1998. Findeli, Alain: „Design education and industry: The laborious beginnings of the Institute of Design in Chicago in 1944“, in:JHD 4/1991, 97–113. Fischer, Friedhelm: „German reconstruction as an international acitvity“, in: Jeffry M. Diefendorf (ed.), Rebuilding Europe‘s bombed cities, New York 1990, 131–144. Fischer, Erika J. and Heinz-Dietrich, John J. McCloy. An American architect of postwar Germany. Profiles of a trans-atlantic leader and communicator, Frankfurt am Main 1994. Fischer-Defoy, Christine, Politik Macht Kunst? Zur Geschichte der Kunst- und Musikhochschulen im Nachkriegsberlin (1945–1975), Berlin 1996. Fitzgibbon, Constantine, Denazification, London 1969. Fohrbeck, Karla, Wiesand, Andreas, Von der Industriegesellschaft zur Kulturgesellschaft? Kultur politische Entwicklungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Munich 1989 (= Perspektiven und Orientie rungen, vol. 9). Form ohne Ornament? Angewandte Kunst zwischen Zweckform und Objekt, ed. Barbara Mundt, Babette Warncke, Berlin 1999. Foschepoth, Josef, Steininger, Rolf (ed.), Britische Deutschland- und Besatzungspolitik 1945–1949, Paderborn 1985. Frank, Hartmut (ed.), Nordlicht. 222 Jahre. Die Hamburger Hochschule für bildende Künste am Lerchenfeld und ihre Vorgeschichte, Hamburg 1989. Frayling, Christopher, Claire, Catterall (ed.), Design of the times: One hundred years of the Royal College of Art, London n.d. (1996). Frei, Hans, Konkrete Architektur? Über Max Bill als Architekt, Diss. Phil. Zurich 1985, Baden, Genf 1991. von Friedeburg, Ludwig, Hörlemann, Jürgen, Hübner, Peter, Kadritzke, Ulf, Ritsert, Jürgen, Schumm, Wilhelm, Freie Universität und politisches Potential der Studenten. Über die Entwicklung des Berliner Modells und den Anfang der Studentenbewegung in Deutschland,Neuwied, Berlin 1968 (= Soziologische Texte, vol. 57).
von Friedeburg, Ludwig, Bildungs reform in Deutschland. Geschichte und gesellschaftlicher Widerspruch, Frankfurt am Main 1989, 21992. Friedländer, Saul, Kitsch und Tod. Der Widerschein des Nazismus, Munich, Vienna 1984. Frieß, Peter, Steiner, Peter M. (ed.), Deutsches Museum Bonn. Forschung und Technik in Deutschland seit 1945, Munich 1995. Fuchs, Hans-Werner, Pöschl, KlausPeter, Reform oder Restauration? Eine vergleichende Analyse der schulpolitischen Konzepte und Maßnahmen der Besatzungsmächte 1945–1949, Munich 1986. Fuchs, Heinz (ed.), Produkt Form Geschichte.150 Jahre deutsches Design, Berlin 1985. Führ, Christoph, Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ein Überblick. Weinheim, Basel 1979 (= Studien und Dokumentationen zur vergleichenden Bildungsforschung, vol. 12). Die Fünfziger. Stilkonturen eines Jahrzehnts. Italien, Skandinavien, Frankreich, Deutschland, USA, Polen, England, Niederlande, Munich 1984. Fuerst, Margot, Grieshaber. Der Drucker und Holzschneider. Plakate, Flugblätter, Editionen und Akzidentia, Stuttgart1965. Fürstenau, Justus, Entnazifizierung. Ein Kapitel deutscher Nachkriegs politik, Diss. Phil. Frankfurt am Main 1955, Neuwied 1969 (= Politica , vol. 40). Füssl, Karl-Heinz, Kubina, Christian: „Die amerikanische Umerziehungs- und Neuorientierungspolitik in der Retrospektive ihrer Akteure“, in: BE 10/1987, 201–226. Füssl, Karl-Heinz, Kubina, Christian, Die Umerziehung der Deutschen. Jugend und Schule unter den Siegermächten des Zweiten Welt kriegs 1945–1955, Paderborn 1994. Gamm, Hans Jochen, Führung und Verführung. Pädagogik des Nationalsozialismus, Frankfurt am Main, New York 21984. Garner, Philippe, Sixties Design, Cologne 1996. Gau, Doris, Kultur als Politik. Eine Analyse der Entscheidungsprämissen und des Entscheidungsverhaltens in der kommunalen Kulturpolitik, Diss. Phil. Cologne 1989, Munich 1990 (= Beiträge zur Kommunalwissenschaft , vol. 32). Gehring, Hansjörg, Amerikanische Literaturpolitik in Deutschland 1945– 1953. Ein Aspekt des Re-Education programms, Stuttgart 1976 (= Schriftenreihe der Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte , vol. 32). Gesamthochschule Kassel (ed.), Kunst und Architektur. Eine Selbstdarstellung der Fachbereiche Kunst, visuelle Kommunikation, ProduktDesign und Architektur, Kassel 1990. Geschichte des Wohnens. Vol. 5: 1945 bis heute. Aufbau, Neubau, Umbau, ed. Ingeborg Flagge, Stuttgart 1999. Giesecke, Hermann, Vom Wandervogel bis zur Hitlerjugend, Munich 1981. Gilcher-Holtey, Ingrid, „Die Phantasie an die Macht“. Mai 1968 in Frankreich, Frankfurt am Main 1995.
Gilcher-Holtey, Ingrid (ed.), 1968 – vom Ereignis zum Gegenstand der Geschichtswissenschaft, Göttingen 1998 (= Geschichte und Gesellschaft , vol. 17). Gimbel, John, Amerikanische Besatzungspolitik in Deutschland 1945– 1949, Stanford 1968, Frankfurt am Main 1971. Glaser, Hermann, Die Kultur geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Vol. 1: Zwischen Kapitulation und Währungsreform 1945– 1948, Munich 1985. Vol. 2: Zwischen Grundgesetz und großer Koalition 1949–1967, Munich 1986. Vol.3: Zwischen Protest und Anpassung 1968–1989.Munich 1989, Frankfurt am Main 21990. Glatzer, Wolfgang, Zapf, Wolfgang (ed.), Lebensqualität in der Bundes republik. Objektive Lebensbedingun gen und subjektives Wohlbefinden. Frankfurt am Main, New York 1984. Görtemaker, Manfred, Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Von der Gründung bis zur Gegenwart, Munich 1999. Grauzonen/Farbwelten. Kunst und Zeitbilder 1945–1955, Berlin, Vienna 1983. Grasskamp, Walter: „Das gescheiterte Gesamtkunstwerk. Design zwischen allen Stühlen“, in: Kursbuch 106/December 1991. Grasskamp, Walter, Die unästhetische Demokratie. Kunst in der Markt gesellschaft, Munich 1992. Grebing, H., Die Nachkriegsentwicklung in Westdeutschland 1945– 1949, Stuttgart 1980. Grohn, Christian, Die Bauhaus-Idee. Entwurf, Weiterführung, Rezeption, Berlin 1991. Gronert, Siegfried: „Das Schöne und die Ware. Zur Produktion von Gebrauchsgegenständen und Waren“, in: Der westdeutsche Impuls 1900– 1914. Kunst und Umweltgestaltung im Industriegebiet. Vol. 2: Die Mar garetenhöhe. Das Schöne und die Ware. Essen 1984, 96–142. Grosser, Alfred, Deutschlandbilanz. Geschichte Deutschlands seit 1945. Munich 1979. Gründung und Entwicklung. 1878– 1978: 100 Jahre Kunstgewerbeschule der Stadt Zürch, Schule für Gestaltung. Auftrag: Bilden und Gestalten für Mensch und Umwelt, Zurich 1978. Grüning, Michael, Der WachsmannReport. Auskünfte eines Architekten, East Berlin 1986, 31989. Grüttner, Michael, Studenten im Dritten Reich, Paderborn 1995. Günther, Sonja, Design der Macht. Möbel für Repräsentanten des „Dritten Reiches“, Stuttgart 1992. Günther, Sonja, Die fünfziger Jahre. Innenarchitektur und Wohndesign, Stuttgart 1994. Hafner, Thomas, Vom Montagehaus zur Wohnscheibe. Entwicklungslinien im deutschen Wohnungsbau 1945– 70, Basel 1993. Hahn, Peter, 50 Jahre Bauhaus, Stuttgart 1968. Hahn, Ulla (ed.), Walter Erbe – Liberaler aus Passion, Baden-Baden 1987. Hahn, Wilhelm, Ich stehe dazu. Erinnerungen eines Kultusministers, Stuttgart 1981.
435
Bibliography
436
Halbritter, Maria, Schulreformpolitik in der britischen Zone 1945–1949, Diss. Phil. Karlsruhe 1977, Frankfurt am Main 1979 (= Studien und Do kumentationen zur deutschen Bildungsgeschichte, vol. 13). Hamilton, Richard, Collected Works 1953–1982,London 1982. Hans Mayer zu Ehren. Mit Beiträgen von Max Bill u.a. Frankfurt am Main 1977. Hanser, Richard, Deutschland zuliebe. Leben und Sterben der Geschwister Scholl. Die Geschichte der Weißen Rose, Munich 1979, 21984. Hardach, Gerd, Der Marshall-Plan. Auslandshilfe und Wiederaufbau in Westdeutschland 1948–1952, Munich 1994. Hasselbach, Gabriele, Von handwerklicher Fortbildung zur künstle risch-wissenschaftlichen Ausbildung. Unveröffentlichte Chronologie der HbK Braunschweig, manuscript n. p., n.d. Haude, Rüdiger, Dynamiken des Beharrens. Die Geschichte der Selbstverwaltungder RWTH Aachenseit 1945. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der Reformprozesse, Diss. Phil. Aachen 1993. Haupt, Heinz-Gerhard, Kocka, Jürgen (ed.), Geschichte und Vergleich. Aufsätze und Ergebnisse international vergleichender Geschichtsschrei bung, Frankfurt am Main, New York 1996. Hay, Gerhard (ed.), „Als der Krieg zu Ende war“. Literarisch-politische Publizistik 1945–1950, Munich 1973. Hay, Gerhard (ed.), Zur literarischen Situation 1945–1949, Kronberg 1977. Hearnden, Arthur, Bildungspolitik in der BRD und DDR, Dusseldorf 1973. Heckel, Erna u.a., Kulturpolitik in der Bundesrepublik von 1949 bis zur Gegenwart, East Berlin, Cologne 1987. Heinemann, Manfred (ed.), Umerziehung und Wiederaufbau. Die Bildungspolitik der Besatzungsmächte in Deutschland und Österreich, Stuttgart 1981 (= Veröffentlichungen der historischen Kommission der deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft , vol. 5). Hein-Kremer, Maritta, Die amerikanische Kulturoffensive. Gründung und Entwicklung der Information Centers in Westdeutschland und West-Berlin (1945–1955), Cologne 1996. Held, Jutta (ed.), Kunst und Alltags kultur, Cologne 1981. Held, Jutta (ed.), Kunst und Kunst politik 1945–1949. Kulturaufbau in Deutschland nach dem 2. Weltkrieg, West-Berlin 1981. Held, Jutta (ed.), Kultur zwischen Bürgertum und Volk, West-Berlin 1983 (= Argument special vol. 103). Henke, Klaus-Dietmar, Politische Säuberung unter französischer Besatzung. Die Entnazifizierung in Württemberg-Hohenzollern, Stuttgart 1981 (= Schriftenreihe der Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte , vol. 42). Henke, Klaus-Dietmar, Die ameri kanische Besetzung Deutschlands, Munich 1995 (= Quellen und Darstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte , vol.27). Herbst, Ludolf (ed.), Westdeutschland 1945–1955. Unterwerfung, Kontrolle, Integration, Munich 1986.
Herbst, Ludolf, Bührer, Werner, Sowade, Hanno (ed.), Vom Marshallplan zur EWG. Die Eingliede rung der Bundesrepublik in die westliche Welt, Munich 1990 (= Quellen und Darstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte, vol. 30). Hermand, Jost, Kultur im Wiederauf bau. Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945–1965,Munich 1986. Hermand, Jost, Die Kultur der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1965– 1985, Munich 1988, West-Berlin 2 1990. Hermann, Armin: „Science under foreign rule. Policy of the alliies in Germany“, in: ICHS 18/1989, 75– 86. Herwitz, Harold, Die Stunde Null der deutschen Presse. Die amerikanische Pressepolitik in Deutschland 1945– 1949, Cologne 1972. Herz, John H., „Bürde der Vergangenheit oder: wie die Deutschen mit der Nazi-Hinterlassenschaft fertig wurden“, in: TAJB 19/1990, 13– 32. Hettlage, Robert (ed.), Die Bundes republik. Eine historische Bilanz, Munich 1990. Heuss, Theodor, Anton Dohrn, Tübingen 1940, 31962. Hiesinger, Kathryn, Marcus, George H. (ed.), Design since 1945, New York 1983. Hildebrand, Klaus, Von Erhard zur Großen Koalition. 1963–1968, Stuttgart 1984 (= Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , vol. 4). Hillgruber, Andreas, Deutsche Geschichte 1945–1982. Stuttgart 4 1983. History of industrial design. Vol. 3: 1919–1990. The dominion of design, Mailand 1991. Hochschule für angewandte Kunst Wien (ed.), Die Hochschule für an gewandte Kunst in Wien. Zu Beginn der 90er Jahre, Vienna 1989. Hoenisch, Michael, Kämpfe, Klaus, Pütz, Karl-Heinz (John F. Kennedy-Institut für Nordamerikanische Studien, Freie Universität Berlin) (ed.), USA und Deutschland. Ame rikanische Kulturpolitik 1942–1949. Bibliographie, Materialien, Dokumente, Berlin 1980 (= Materialien, vol. 15). Höhne, Ernst, Der Neuaufbau des Schulwesens nach dem Bildungsgesamtplan der Bund-Länder-Kommission. Einführung in die Probleme und kritischer Kommentar, Bamberg 1973. Hoffmann, Hilmar, Perspektiven der kommunalen Kulturpolitik. Beschrei bungen und Entwürfe, Frankfurt am Main 1974. Honnef, Klaus, Schmidt, Hans M. (ed.), Aus den Trümmern. Kunst und Kultur im Rheinland und Westfalen 1945–1952. Neubeginn und Kontinuität, Cologne, Bonn 1985. Hübner, Herbert, Die soziale Utopie des Bauhauses. Ein Beitrag zur Wissenssoziologie in der bildenden Kunst, Diss. Phil. Münster 1963. Huch, Ricarda, In einem Gedenkbuch zu sammeln … Bilder deutscher Widerstandskämpfer, ed. Wolfgang M. Schwiedrzik, Leipzig 1997. Huck, Gerhard (ed.), Sozialgeschichte der Freizeit. Untersuchungen zum Wandel der Alltagskultur in Deutschland, Wuppertal 1980.
Hüfner, Klaus, Naumann, Jens, Karpen, Ulrich (ed.), HochschulfinanKonjunkturen der Bildungspolitik in zierung in der Bundesrepublik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Deutschland. Eine Einführung, Vol. 1: Der Aufschwung (1960– Baden-Baden 1989. 1967), Stuttgart 1977. „Kathedrale der Zukunft“. Zur GrünHüfner, Klaus (ed.), Bildungsdung des Bauhauses vor 80 Jahren, Weimar 1999 (= Thesis , 45. Jg, geschichte als Sozialgeschichte, FS Heft 4/5). Franz Pöggeler, Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York 1986 (= Erzie Kellermann, Henry J., Cultural relahungsphilosophie , vol. 8). tions as an instrument of foreign policy. The educational exchange ProHüppauf, Bernd (ed.), „Die Mühen der Ebenen“. Kontinuität und Wandel gram between the United States and in der deutschen Literatur und GeGermany, 1945–1954, Washington, D.C. 1978 (= Department of state sellschaft 1945–1949, Heidelberg publications , vol. 8931). 1981 (= Reihe Siegen, Beiträge zur Literatur- und Sprachwissenschaft , Kellner, Petra, Poessnecker, Holger, Produktgestaltung an der HfG Ulm. vol. 17). Versuch einer Dokumentation und Hüttenberger, Peter: „Zur Technik Einschätzung, Hanau 1978 derzeitgeschichtlichenBefragung“, in: Der Archivar 22/1969, 167–176. (= Designtheorie, vol. 3). Kemper, Peter, Langhoff, Thomas, Sonnenschein, Ulrich, „Alles so Ideen und Initiativen von Lehre schön bunt hier.“ Geschichte der und Forschung, Informationen Popkultur von den Fünfzigern bis und Kontakte. Die Fachhochschule Düsseldorf stellt sich vor, ed. Fachheute, Stuttgart 1999. hochschuleDusseldorf,Dusseldorf Kentgens-Craig, Margret, Bauhaus1993. Architektur. Die Rezeption in Amerika 1919–1936, Diss. Phil. Bochum Institut für Buchkunst Leipzig (ed.), 1955–1995. Vierzig Jahre Institut für 1992, Frankfurt am Main 1993 Buchkunst an der Hochschule für (= EuropäischeHochschulschriften , Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig, Leipseries 28, vol. 180). Kermer, Wolfgang, Daten und Bilder zig 1995. Internationales Design Zentrum zur Geschichte der Staatlichen AkaBerlin (ed.), „ … daß diese ganze demie der bildenden Künste StuttGeschichte in Ulm losgegangen ist, gart, Stuttgart 1988. das ist überhaupt ein Irrtum …“ Kinross, Robin: „Herbert Read‘s art IDZ Protokolle HfG Ulm, Berlin 1987. and industry: A history“, in: JDH 1/1988, 35–50. Jacob, Heiner: „HfG Ulm: A personal Kinross, Robin: „Hochschule für view of an experiment in democraGestaltung Ulm: Recent literature“, cy and design education“, in: JHD in: JDH 1/1988, 249–256. 1/1988, 221–248. Klaus, Martin, Mädchen im Dritten Reich. Der Bund deutscher Mädel, Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf, Dollinger, Hans (ed.), Die deutschen StudenCologne 1998. Kleemann, Ulla, Der Erfolg wissenten. Der Kampf um die Hochschulreform. Eine Bestandsaufnahme, schaftlicher Politikberatung auf dem Munich 1969. Gebiet des Bildungswesens in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, darJaffé, Hans Ludwig C., Vordem berge-Gildewart. Mensch und Werk, gestellt am Beispiel des deutschen Ausschusses für das ErziehungsCologne 1971. und Bildungswesen, Diss. Phil. Jahnke, Karl-Heinz, Weiße Rose Gießen 1974. contra Hakenkreuz. Der Widerstand Klein, Käthe, Aus der Geschichte der der Geschwister Scholl und ihrer Freunde, Frankfurt am Main 1969. Folkwangschule für Gestaltung. Essen wird Folkwangstadt. Nach den Janssen, Beryl Natalie, Die Abteilung visuelle Gestaltung/Kommuni- Archivakten und zeitgenössischen kation an der Hochschule für GestalBerichten, Essen 1965 (= Schriftentung in Ulm, unpublishedmaster’s reihe der Folkwangschule , vol. 26). thesis, Bochum 1996. Kirchberger, Günther, Die „Weiße Jarusch, Konrad, Deutsche StudenRose“. Studentischer Widerstand ten 1800–1970, Frankfurt am Main gegen Hitler in München, Munich 1984. 1980. Jarausch, Konrad, Siegrist, Hannes Kleßmann, Christoph, Die doppelte Staatsgründung. Deutsche Ge(ed.), Amerikanisierung und Sowjetisierung in Deutschland 1945– 1970, schichte 1945–1955, Bonn 41986. Frankfurt am Main, New York 1997. Kleßmann, Christoph: „Das Haus Jens, Inge (ed.), Hans Scholl und wurde gebaut aus den Steinen, die Sophie Scholl. Briefe und Aufzeichvorhanden waren – Zur kulturge-snungen, Frankfurt am Main 1984. chichtlichen Kontinuitätsdiskussion Johnston, Howard Wright, United nach 1945“, in: TAJB 19/1990, States public affairs activities in Ger159–179. Kleßmann, Christoph, Wagner, many. 1945–1955,Diss. Phil. Columbia 1956. Georg (ed.), Das gespaltene Land. Jungwirth, Nikolaus, KromschröLeben in Deutschland 1945–1990. Texte und Dokumente zur Sozialgesder, Gerhard, Die Pubertät der Republik. Die 50er Jahre der Deutchichte, Munich 1993. schen, Frankfurt am Main 1978. Klönne, Arno, Jugend im Dritten Reich. Die Hitler-Jugend und ihre Jupp Ernst – Werk und Lehre. 70Jahre Designgeschichte,ed. Gegner, Munich 1990. Thomas Schriefers and Ekkehard Knierim, Alfred, Schneider, JohanErnst, Hagen 2000. nes, Anfänge und Entwicklungstendenzen des Volkshochschulwesens nach dem 2. Weltkrieg (1945– Kapitzki, Herbert W., Gestaltung. Methode und Konsequenz. Ein bio1952), Stuttgart 1978. Knierim, Alfred, Die Entwicklung des grafischer Bericht, Stuttgart 1996. Karasek, Hellmuth, Go west! Eine hessischenVolkshochschulwesens Biographie der 50er Jahre, Frankfurt im Zeitraum von 1945 bis 1952, am Main 1996. Frankfurt am Main, Bern 1982.
Knipping, Franz, Le Rider, Jacques (ed.), Frankreichs Kulturpolitik in Deutschland, 1945–1950. Ein Tübinger Symposium, 19. und 20. September 1985, Tübingen 1987. Kocka, Jürgen: „1945:Neubeginn oder Restauration?“, in: Carola Stern, Heinrich A. Winkler (ed.), Wendepunkte deutscher Geschichte 1848–1990, Frankfurt am Main 1979, 21990, 157–192. Koebner, Thomas, Janz, Rolf-Peter, Trommler, Frank (ed.), „Mit uns zieht die neue Zeit“. Der Mythos Jugend, Frankfurt am Main 1985. Köhler, Helmut, Der relative Schulund Hochschulbesuch in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1952 bis 1975. Ein Indikator für die Entwicklung des Bildungswesens, Berlin 1978 (= Materialen aus der Bildungsforschung, vol. 13). Köhler, Helmut, Trommer, Luitgard, Quellen der Bildungsstatistik auf Länder- und Gemeindeebene, Berlin 1981 (= Materialen aus der Bildungsforschung, vol. 19). König, Andreas, Günther Grzimek. Ein Landschaftsarchitekt der Nachk riegszeit. Berufliche Entwicklung, Konzepte und Arbeiten, unpublished diploma thesis, Munich/Weihenste phan 1996. Koetzle, Michael: „Nur ein kurzer Traum. Anläßlich der Gründung der Ulmer Hochschule für Gestaltung vor 30 Jahren“, in: Zoom 10/1983, 12–14. Koetzle, Michael (ed.), Twen. Revision einer Legende, Munich 1995. Koetzle, Michael, Wolff, Carsten M., Fleckhaus. Deutschlands erster Art-Director, Munich, Berlin 1997. Konstanzer, Eberhard, Die Entstehung des Landes Baden-Württem berg 1945–1952. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Landes Württemberg-Hohenzollern, Diss. Phil. Tübingen; Karlsruhe 1969. von Kornatzki, Peter, Müller, Rolf: „Die Abteilung visuelle Kommunikation an der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 1951 bis 1968“, in: HQ 29/1994, 58–77. Kowalczuk, Ilko-Sascha: „Die studentische Selbstverwaltung an der Universität Berlin nach 1945“, in: DA 26/1993, 915–926. Korrek, Norbert: „Versuch einer Biographie. Die Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm“, in: FZ 6/1984, 29–45. Korrek, Norbert, Die Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm: Dokumentation und Wertung der institutionellen und pädagogischen Entwicklung der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm unter besonderer Beachtung der zeitbezogenen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Rahmenbedingungen in der Bundes republik Deutschland, Diss. Ing. 1986, Weimar 1987. Korrek, Norbert: „Die Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm“, in: Amt für industrielle Formgebung (ed.), Das Schicksal der Dinge. Beiträge zur Designgeschichte, Dresden 1989, 295–308. Koselleck, Reinhard: „Einige Fragen an die Begriffsgeschichte von „Krise““, in: Krzysztof Michalsky (ed.), Über die Krise, Stuttgart 1986, 64–76. Krampen, Martin: „Die Ulmer HfG der Stuttgarter Universität“, in: Werk 8/1969, 512.
Krampen, Martin, Kächele, Horst (ed.), Umwelt, Gestaltung und Persönlichkeit. Reflexionen 30 Jahre nach Gründung der Ulmer Hochschule für Gestaltung, Hildesheim, Zurich, New York 1986. Kraushaar, Wolfgang, Die ProtestChronik 1949–1959. Eine illustrierte Geschichte von Bewegung, Widerstand und Utopie, Hamburg 1996. Kraushaar, Wolfgang (ed.), Frankfurter Schule und Studentenbewe gung. Von der Flaschenpost zum Molotowcocktail 1946 bis 1995, Hamburg 1998. Kraushaar, Wolfgang, 1968 – das Jahr, das alles verändert hat, Munich, Zurich 1998. Krauss, Marita, Nachkriegskultur in München. Münchner Städtische Kulturpolitik 1945–1954, Munich 1985. Krönig, Waldemar, Müller, KlausDieter, Nachkriegs-Semester. Studium in Kriegs- und Nachkriegszeit, Stuttgart 1990. Kubitz, Peter Paul, Der Traum vom Sehen. Zeitalter der Televisionen, Dresden 1997. Kult der Form. Ein Streifzug durch die Welt des Designs am Ende des Jahrhunderts, Hamburg 1997 (= ZeitPunkte 5/1997). Kunst, Kommunikation, Kultur,
FSAlp hons Silbermann, Frankfurt am Main 1989. Latour, Conrad F., Vogelsang, Thilo, Okkupation und Wiederaufbau. Die Tätigkeit der Militärregierung in der amerikanischen Besatzungszone Deutschlands 1945–1947, Stuttgart 1973. Lechner, Silvester, Das KZ Oberer Kuhberg und die NS-Zeit in der Region Ulm/Neu-Ulm, Stuttgart 1988 (= Die NS-Zeit in der Region Ulm/ Neu-Ulm. Vorgeschichte, Verlauf, Nachgeschichte, vol. 1). L‘école d‘Ulm: Textes et manifestes, Paris 1988. Leist, Friedrich: „Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Widerstandes an der Universität“ , in: Die deutsche Universität im Dritten Reich. Acht Beiträge, Munich 1966, 175–213. Leonhardt, Gero, Stock, Manfred, Bildung, Bürger, Arbeitskraft. Schulentwicklungund Sozialstrukturin der BRD und der DDR, Frankfurt am Main 1997. Lettau, Reinhard (ed.), Die Gruppe 47. Bericht, Kritik, Polemik, Neuwied 1967. Lill, Rudolf (ed.), Hochverrat? Die „Weiße Rose“ und ihr Umfeld, Constance 1993. Lindinger, Herbert (ed.), Ulm … Hochschule für Gestaltung. Die Moral der Gegenstände, Berlin 1987, 21991. Lönnendonker, Siegward, Freie Universität Berlin. Gründung einer politischen Universität, Diss. Phil. 1987, Berlin 1988. Löwenthal, Richard, Schwarz, Hans Peter (ed.), Die zweite Republik. 25 Jahre Bundesrepublik – eine Bilanz, Stuttgart 1974, 31979. Löwenthal, Richard: „Kulturwandel und Generationenwechsel im westlichenNachkriegsdeutschland“, in: James A. Cooney, Gordon A. Craig, Hans-Peter Schwarz, Fritz Stern (ed.), Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Politische, soziale und wirtschaftliche Beziehungen im Wandel, Stuttgart 1985, 55–86.
Loewy, Hanno, Moltmann, Bernhard (ed.), Erlebnis – Gedächtnis – Sinn. Authentische und konstruierte Erinnerung, Frankfurt am Main, New York 1996 (= Wissenschaftliche Reihedes Fritz-Bauer-Instituts, vol.3). Lohmar, Ulrich, Wissenschaftsförde rung und Politik-Beratung. Kooperationsfelder von Politik und Wissenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Gütersloh 1967 (= Wissenschaftstheorie, Wissenschaftspolitik, Wissenschaftsgeschichte, vol. 7). Maase, Kaspar, Bravo Amerika. Er kundungen zur Jugendkultur der Bundesrepublik in den 50er Jahren, Hamburg 1992. Maenz, Paul, Die 50er Jahre. Formen eines Jahrzehnts, Stuttgart 1978, Cologne 21984. Mahlberg, Hermann J. (ed.), Kunst, Design & Co. Von der Kunstgewer beschule Barmen/Elberfeld – Meisterschule – Werkkunstschule Wup pertal zum Fachbereich 5 der Bergischen Universität Gesamthochschule Wuppertal; 1894–1994,Wuppertal 1994. Maldonado, Tomás: „Industrial Design: Some Present and Future Queries“, in: JDH 6/1993, 1–7. Marcus, George H., Functionalist Design. An ongoing History, Munich 1995. Marquart, Christian, Industriekultur – Industriedesign. Ein Stück deutscher Wirtschafts- und Designgeschichte: Die Gründer des Verbandes Deutscher Industrie-Designer, Berlin n.d. (1993). Massen, Kultur, Politik, Berlin 1978 (= Argument specialvol. 23). Max Bill: Typografie, Reklame, Buch gestaltung, Sulgen, Zurich 1999. Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, Arbeitsgruppe Bildungsbericht (ed.), Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Daten und Analysen. Vol. 1: Entwicklungen seit 1950. Vol. 2: gegenwärtige Probleme, Reinbek 1980. Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, Arbeitsgruppe Bildungsbericht (ed.), Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ein Überblick für Eltern, Lehrer, Schüler, Reinbek 1990. Mayntz, Renate, Nedelmann, Renate: „Eigendynamische soziale Prozesse. Anmerkungen zu einem analytischen Paradigma“, in: KZSS 39/1987, 648–668. McClelland, C., Scher, S., Postwar German Culture. An Anthology, New York 1974. McDermott, Catherine, Design A–Z, London 1997, Munich 1999. Meggs, Philip B., Tomás Gonda – A life in Design, Virginia 1993. Mehnert, Klaus, Jugend im Zeit bruch. Geschichte des sozialistischen deutschen Studentenbundes SDS, n. p. 1976. Mehringer, Hartmut, Widerstand und Emigration. Das NS-Regime und seine Gegner, Munich 1998. Meier, Christian: „Fragen und Thesen zu einer Theorie historischer Prozesse“, in: Christian Meier, KarlGeorg Faber (ed.), Historische Prozesse, Munich 1978, 11–66 (= Theorie der Geschichte, vol. 2).
Meurer, Bernd, Vinçon, Hartmut, Industrielle Ästhetik. Zur Geschichte und Theorie der Gestaltung, Gießen 1983 (= Werkbund-Archiv , vol. 9). Meurer, Bernd: „Modernity and the Ulm School“, in: Jocelyn de Noblet (ed.), Industrial Design. Reflection of a Century, Paris 1993, 226–237. Michalsky, Krzysztof (ed.), Über die Krise. Castelgandolfo-Gespräche 1985, Stuttgart 1986. Mohr, Arno, Politikwissenschaft als Alternative. Stationen einer wissenschaftlichen Disziplin auf dem Wege zu ihrer Selbständigkeit in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945– 1960, Diss. Phil. Heidelberg 1985, Bochum 1988 (= Politikwissenschaftliche Paperbacks, vol. 13). Mohr, Reinhard, Cohn-Bendit, Daniel, 1968. Die letzte Revolution, die noch nichts vom Ozonloch wußte, Berlin 1988. von Moos,Stanislaus, Industrieästhetik, Disentis1992.(= ArsHelvetica, vol. 11). von Moos, Stanislaus: „Max Bill, die Kunst und die Gestalterei“, in: DR 3/1995, 66–71. Morsey, Rudolf, Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Entstehung und Entwicklung bis 1969, Munich 1990 (= Oldenbourg Grundriß der Geschichte, vol.19). Mündliche Geschichte im Rheinland, Cologne 1991 (= Landschafts-
verband Rheinland, Archivhefte, vol. 22). Münch, Richard, Die Kultur der Moderne, Frankfurt am Main 1986. Müller, Klaus Jürgen (ed.), Der deutsche Widerstand 1933–1945, Paderborn 1990. Mundt, Barbara, Hettler, Ines, Netzer, Susanne (ed.), Interieur und Design in Deutschland 1945–1960, Berlin 1993 (= Bestandskatalog des Kunstgewerbemuseums Berlin, vol.19). Nationalkommitee Denkmalschutz (ed.), Architektur und Städtebau der fünfziger Jahre, Bonn 1987 (= Schrif tenreihe des Nationalkommitees Denkmalschutz , vol. 33). Nave-Herz, Rosemarie (ed.), Wandel und Kontiunität der Familie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Stuttgart 1988 (= Der Mensch als soziales und personales Wesen, vol. 8). Nerdinger, Eugen, Beck, Lisa, Dreihundert Jahre Schule für Gestaltung in Augsburg. Von der Reichsstädtischen Kunstakademie zum Fachbe reich Gestaltung der Fachhochschule Augsburg, Augsburg 1987. Neubronner, Eberhard, Ulm in Trümmern. Bilder einer vergessenen Zeit, Pfaffenhofen 1991, 1992. Neunzig, Hans A. (ed.), Hans Werner Richter und die Gruppe 47, Munich 1979. Neuss, Beate, Geburtshelfer Euro pas? Die Rolle der Vereinigten Staaten im europäischen Integrationsprozeß 1945–1958,Baden-Baden 2000. New Bauhaus, Chicago, Berlin 1987. Nicolauss, K., „Restauration“ oder Renaissance der Demokratie? Die Entstehungder Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945–1949, Berlin 1982. Niethammer, Lutz, Die Mitläuferfabrik. Die Entnazifizierung am Beispiel Bayerns, Berlin, Bonn 1968, 2 1982.
Niethammer, Lutz (ed.), Wohnen im Wandel. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alltags in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, Wuppertal 1979. Niethammer, Lutz (ed.), Lebenserfahrung und kollektives Gedächtnis. Die Praxis der „Oral History“, Frankfurt am Main 1980, 21985. Oestereich, Christopher, Produkt gestaltung und gesellschaftlicher Wandel in der Nachkriegszeit, (= Diss. Phil. Cologne 1997) Berlin 2000. Osietzki, Maia, Wissenschaftsorganisation und Restauration, Cologne 1984. Over, Albert, Die deutschsprachige Forschung über Hochschulen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine kommentierte Bibliographie 1965– 1985, Munich 1988. Palm, Günter, Die Kaufkraft der Bildungsausgaben. Ein Beitrag zur Analyse der öffentlichen Ausgaben für Schulen und Hochschulen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1950 bis 1962, Olten, Freiburg im Breisgau 1966 (= Texte und Dokumente zur Bildungsfoschung, vol. 19). Pakschies, Günter, Umerziehung in der Britischen Zone. Untersuchungen zur britischen Re-Education-Politik 1945–1949 unter besonderer Be rücksichtigung des allgemeinbildenden Schulwesens, Diss. Phil. Göttingen 1977, Frankfurt am Main 1978 (= Studien und Dokumentationen zur deutschen Bildungsgeschichte, vol. 9). Partsch, Karl Josef, Die zoologische Station in Neapel. Modell internationalerWissenschaftszusammenar beit, Göttingen 1980 (= Studien zu Naturwissenschaft, Technik und Wirtschaft im neunzehnten Jahrhundert , vol. 11). Petry, Christian, Studenten aufs Schafott. Die Weiße Rose und ihr Scheitern, Munich 1968. Pfeiffer, Heinrich, Ausländische Studenten an den wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen in der Bundesrepublik und West-Berlin 1951–1961, Wiesbaden 1962. Pike, David, The Policy of Culture in Soviet-Occupied Germany. 1945– 1949, Stanford 1992. Pfuhl, Kurt, Kulturpolitik für Europa. Planungsansätze europäischer Stiftungsarbeit, Bonn 1977 (= Europäische Schriften des Instituts für euro päische Politik , vol. 49). Pohl, Wolfgang (ed.), Industrial Design – Ein neues Studienmodell an der Hochschule für bildende Künste Hamburg, Hamburg 1971 (= Hochschuldidaktische Materialien , vol. 29). Pörtner, Rudolf, Kinderjahre der Bundesrepublik. Von der Trümmerzeit zum Wirtschaftswunder, Dusseldorf, Vienna, New York 1989, Nachdruck Munich 1992. Pottmann, Maik, Zickermann, Peter, Die Werkkunstschule Bielefeld in den fünfziger Jahren, unpublished manuscript, Bielefeld 1992. Prinz, Friedrich (ed.), Trümmerzeit in München. Kultur und Gesellschaft einer deutschen Großstadt im Auf bruch 1945–1949, Munich 1984.
437
Bibliography
438
Probst, Hartmut, Schädlich, Christian, Walter Gropius. Vol. 1: Der Architekt und Theoretiker, Werkverzeichnis, Teil 1, Berlin 1986. Vol. 2: Der Architekt und Pädagoge, Werkverzeichnis, Teil 2, Berlin 1987. Pronay, Nicholas, Wilson, Keith (ed.), The Political Re-Education of Germany and her Allies after World War II, London, Sydney 1985. Pross, Harry (ed.), Deutsche Presse seit 1945, Bern, Munich, Vienna 1965. Pross, Harry, Memoiren eines Inländers, Munich 1993. Provokation und Toleranz,
FS Alexander Mitscherlich, ed. Sibylle Drews, Frankfurt am Main 1978. Pütz, Helmuth, Innerparteiliche Willensbildung. Empirische Untersuchung zum bildungspolitischen Willensbildungsprozeß in der CDU, Mainz 1974 (= Beiträge zu Wissenschaft und Politik , vol. 8). Quartier, Ulrike, Ritschke, Maria, Chronik einer Schule in Bielefeld 1907–1971,unpublished diploma thesis, Bielefeld 1992. Rat für Formgebung (ed.), Design kultur 1953–1993. Philosophie, Strategie, Prozeß, Frankfurt am Main 1993. Rattemeyer, Volker, Helms, Dietrich (ed.), „Typographie kann unter Umständen Kunst sein“. Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart. Typogra phie und Werbegestaltung, Wiesbaden 1990. Rauh-Kühne, Cornelia, Ruch, Michael (ed.), Regionale Eliten zwischen Ddiktatur und Demokratie. Baden und Württemberg 1930–1952, Munich 1993. Rehberg, Karl-Siegbert: „Auch keine Stunde Null. Westdeutsche Soziologie nach 1945“, in: Walter H. Pehle, Peter Sillem (ed.), Wissenschaft im geteilten Deutschland. Restauration oder Neubeginn nach 1945? Frankfurt am Main 1992, 26– 44. Reinhardt, Brigitte (ed.), Kunst und Kultur in Ulm 1933–1945, Tübingen, Stuttgart 1993. Reuter, Wolf D., „Einleitung“, in: Wolf D. Reuter (ed.), Horst W. J. Rittel: Planen EntwerfenDesign. Ausgewählte Schriften zu Theorie und Methodik, Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne 1992, 1–9 (= Facility Management , vol. 5). Richter, Hans Werner (ed.), Almanach der Gruppe 47. 1947–1962, Reinbek 1962. Richter, Hans Werner (ed.), Bestandsaufnahme. Eine deutsche Bilanz 1962, Munich, Vienna, Basel 1962. Richter, Toni, Die Gruppe 47 in Bildern und Texten, Cologne 1997. Ritter, Gerhard A., Niehuss, Merith, Wahlen in Deutschland 1946–1991. Ein Handbuch, Munich 1991. Roericht, Nick/Arbeitsgruppe HfGSynopse (ed.), HfG-Synopse. Ulm 1982, 21986. Romano Guardini. Der Mensch, die Wirkung, Begegnung, Mainz 1979. Rosenzweig, Beate: „Die Umerziehung zweier besiegter Nationen. Die Re-Educationpolitik der Amerikaner in Deutschland und Japan. Ein Vergleich“, in: BE 43/1990, 449–458.
Roth, Hans Georg, 25 Jahre Bildungsreform in der Bundesrepublik. Bilanz und Perspektiven, Bad Heilbrunn 1975. Rückerl, Norbert, Die Strafverfolgung von NS-Verbrechen 1945–1978. Eine Dokumentation, Heidelberg, Karlsruhe 1979. Rückerl, Norbert, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht. Versuch einer Vergangenheitsbewältigung, Heidelberg 1982. Rüegg, Arthur, Tropeano, Ruggero (ed.), Wege zur „Guten Form“. Neun Beiträge zur Geschichte der schweizer Produktgestaltung, Basel, Boston, Berlin 1995. Rütten, T., Der deutsche Liberalismus 1945–1955,Baden-Baden 1984. Ruetz, Michael, 1968 – Ein Zeitalter wird besichtigt, Frankfurt am Main 1997. Ruge-Schatz, Angelika, Umerziehung und Schulpolitik in der französischen Besatzungszone 1945– 1949, Frankfurt am Main, Bern, Las Vegas 1977 (= Sozialwissenschaft liche Studien, vol.1). Ruhl, Klaus-Jörg, Die Besatzer und die Deutschen. Amerikanische Zone 1945–1948,Dusseldorf1980. Rupieper, Hermann Josef, Der besetzte Verbündete. Die amerikanische Deutschlandpolitik 1949–1955, Opladen 1991 (= Sozialwissenschaftliche Studien, vol. 95). Rupieper, Hermann Josef, Die Wurzeln der westdeutschen Nachkriegsdemokratie. Der amerikanische Beitrag 1945–1952,Opladen 1993. Ruppert, Wolfgang: „Ulm ist tot. Es lebe Ulm! Rückblick auf die Hochschule für Gestaltung“, in: Kursbuch 106/1991, 119–138. Ruppert, Wolfgang: „Zur Geschichte der industriellen Massenkultur. Überlegungen zur Begründung eines Forschungsansatzes“, in: Wolfgang Ruppert (ed.), Chiffren des Alltags. Erkundungen zur Geschichte der industriellen Massen kultur, Marburg 1993, 9–22. Ruppert, Wolfgang (ed.), Um 1968. Die Repräsentation der Dinge, Marburg 1998. Sannwald, Daniela, Labor der Nach kriegsmoderne. Zur Theorie und Praxis der Filmausbildung an der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm 1958–1968,Diss. Phil. Berlin 1995. Sauer, Paul, Demokratischer Neu beginn in Not und Elend. Das Land Württemberg-Baden von 1945 bis 1952, Ulm 1978. Scanlon, Theresa M., Student Aid in Western Germany 1945–1971: A Study with Particular Reference to the Honnef Scheme, Diss. Phil. Manchester; Cologne, Weimar, Vienna 1993 (= Studien und Dokumentationen zur deutschen Bildungsgeschichte, vol. 46) . Schaer, Walter: „Die Ulmer Schule im Grenzgebiet des Zeitgeistes“, in: Hellmuth Gsöllpointner, Angela Hareiter, Laurids Ortner (ed.), Design ist unsichtbar, Vienna 1981, 209–216. Schallück, Paul, Deutschland. Kultu relle Entwicklung seit 1945, Munich 1969. Schepers, Wolfgang, ‘68 – Design und Alltagskultur zwischen Konsum und Konflikt, Cologne 1998. Schepers, Wolfgang, Schmitt, Peter (ed.), Das Jahrhundert des Design. Geschichte und Zukunft der Dinge, Frankfurt am Main 2000.
Schildt, Axel, Sywottek, Arnold (ed.), Modernisierung im Wiederauf bau. Die westdeutsche Gesellschaft der 50er Jahre, Bonn 1993. Schildt, Axel, Moderne Zeiten. Freizeit, Massenmedien und „Zeitgeist“ in der Bundesrepublik der 50er Jahre, habilitation‘s thesis 1991, Hamburg 1995 (= Hamburger Beiträge zur Sozial- und Zeitgeschichte, vol. 31). Schildt, Axel, Sywottek, Arnold (ed.), Massenwohnung und Eigenheim. Wohnungsbau und Wohnen in der Großstadt seit dem ersten Welt krieg, Frankfurt am Main, New York 1988. Schildt, Axel, Ankunft im Westen. Ein Essay zur Erfolgsgeschichte der Bundesrepublik, Frankfurt am Main 1999. Schlander, Otto, Re-Education. Ein politisch-pädagogisches Prinzip im Widerstreit der Gruppen, Diss. Phil. Frankfurt am Main; Bern 1975 (= Eruditio, vol. 1). Schmädecke, Jürgen, Steinbach, Peter (ed.), Der Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus. Die deutsche Gesellschaft und der Widerstand gegen Hitler, Munich 1985. Schmid, Claudia: „StaatlicheHochschulpolitik in der Bundesrepublik. Daten, Strukturen und Tendenzen“, in: APZ B 3–4/1984, 11–23. Schnaidt, Claude: „Ulm“, in: LAA 143/1969, 61–66. Schnaidt, Claude: „Den Schreibern unserer Geschichte gewidmet“, in: FZ 5/1983, 24–29. Schnuer, Günther, Die Deutsche Bildungskatastophe. 20 Jahre nach Picht – Lehren und Lernen in Deutschland, Herford 1986. Scholtz, Andrea, Hand und Griff. Ausstellung Wien 1951, Walter Zeischegg, Carl Auböck, Cologne 1995. Schörken, Rolf, Jugend 1945. Politisches Denken und Lebens geschichte, Opladen 1990,Frankf urt am Main 1994. Schorb, Alfred Otto: „Dokumente der Hochschulplanung und Hochschulgesetzgebung“, in: Civitas 8/1969, 147–174. Schraab, Meinrad (ed.), 40 Jahre Baden-Württemberg. Aufbau und Gestaltung 1952–1992, Stuttgart 1992. von Schrenck-Notzing, Caspar, Charakterwäsche. Die Politik der amerikanischen Umerziehung, Munich 1981. Schröder, Hans-Jürgen (ed.), Marshallplan und westdeutscher Wiederaufstieg. Postitionen – Kontroversen, Wiesbaden 1990. Schröder, Jürgen, Bonath, Brigitte, Salzmann, Bertram, Wischinski, Claudia, Wittman, Angela (ed.), Die Stunde Null in der deutschen Literatur. Ausgewählte Texte, Stuttgart 1995. Schüler, Barbara, Von der Weißen Rose zur Eule der Weisheit. Die Anfänge der Ulmer Volkshochschule, Ulm 1996. Schüler, Barbara, „Im Geiste der Gemordeten …“: Die „Weiße Rose“ und ihre Wirkung in der Nachkriegszeit , (= Diss. Phil. Stuttgart 1998) Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Zurich 2000 (= Politik- und kommunikationswissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Görres-Gesellschaft , vol.19).
Schulz, Bernhard (ed.), Grauzonen, Farbwelten. Kunst und Zeitbilder 1945–1955,Berlin, Vienna 1983. Schulz, Eberhard: „Zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Gropius“, in: Bauwelt Archiv 3, Berlin 1978. Schulze, Winfried, Der Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft 1920– 1995, Berlin 1995. Schwabe, Klaus (ed.), Deutsche Hochschullehrer als Elite 1815–1945, Boppard 1983 (= Deutsche Füh rungsschichten in der Neuzeit , vol.17). Schwartz, Frederic J., Der Werk bund. Ware und Zeichen 1900–1914, New York 1996, Dresden 1999. Schwartz, Thomas Alan, Die Atlantik-Brücke. John McCloy und das Nachkriegsdeutschland, Diss. Phil Harvard 1985, Cambridge (Mass.), London 1991,Frankfurtam Main,Berlin 1992. Schwarz, Hans-Peter, Die Ära Adenauer 1949–1957: Gründerjahre der Republik, Stuttgart, Wiesbaden 1981. Schwarz, Hans-Peter, Die Ära Adenauer. Epochenwechsel 1957– 1963, Stuttgart 1983 (= Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , vol. 3). Schwarz, Hans-Peter: „Modernisierung oder Restauration? Einige Vorfragen zur künftigen Sozialgeschichtsforschung über die Ära Adenauer“, in: Kurt Düwell, Wolfgang Köllmann (ed.), Rheinland-Westfalen im Industriezeitalter. Vol. 3: Vom Ende der Weimarer Republik bis zum Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Wuppertal 1984, 278–293. Schwarz, Karl (ed.), Bibliographie der deutschen Landerziehungsheime, Stuttgart 1970 (= Aus den deutschen Landerziehungsheimen, vol. 8). Schwenke, Olaf, Sievers, Norbert (ed.), Kulturpolitik ist Gesellschafts politik, FS Alfons Spielhoff, Hagen 1982 (= Dokumentationen der kulturpolitischen Gesellschaft , vol. 15). von Seckendorff, Eva, Die Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. Gründung (1949–1953) und Ära Max Bill (1953–1957), Diss. Phil. Hamburg 1986, Marburg 1989. von Seckendorff, Eva: „Vordemberge-Gildewarts Lehrtätigkeit an der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm“, in: „Typographie kann unter Umständen Kunst sein.“ Vordem berge-Gildewart, Typographie und Werbegestaltung, Wiesbaden 1990, 83–91. Seeling, Hartmut, Geschichte der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm 1953–1968. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung ihres Programmes und der Arbeiten im Bereich der visuellen Kommunikation, Diss. Phil. Cologne 1985. Selle, Gert, Design-Geschichte in Deutschland. Produktkultur als Entwurf und Erfahrung, Cologne 1987, 2 1990. Serfas, Günther, „Lieber Freiheit ohne Einheit als Einheit ohne Freiheit“. Der Neubeginn der demokratischen Volkspartei in WürttembergBaden 1945/46, Heidelberg 1986. Siefken, Heinrich (ed.), Die Weiße Rose. Student Resistance to National Socialism 1942/1943. Forschungsergebnisse und Erfahrungsberichte, Nottingham 1991.
Siegrist, Hannes, Kaelble, Hartmut, Kocka, Jürgen (ed.), Europäische Konsumgeschichte. zur Gesellschafts- und Kulturgeschichte des Konsums vom 18. bis 20. Jahrhundert, Frankfurt am Main, New York 1997. Sontheimer, Kurt, Die Adenauer Ära. Grundlegung der Bundesrepu blik, Munich 1991. Sparke, Penny: „Peter Reyner Banham“, in: JDH 1/1988, 141 f. Sparke, Penny, Design im 20. Jahrhundert. Die Eroberung des Alltags durch die Kunst, London 1998, Stuttgart 1999. Specker, Hans Eugen (ed.), Tradition und Wagnis. Ulm 1945–1972,Ulm 1974 (= Forschungen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ulm, vol. 12). Specker, Hans Eugen (ed.), Ulm im zweiten Weltkrieg, Ulm 1995 (= Forschungen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ulm, Reihe Dokumentation , vol. 6). Spies, Werner E., Bildungsplanung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Entwicklungen, Probleme, Neuansätze, Saarbrücken, Kastellaun 1976. Spitz, René: „RaumschiffRechter Winkel“, in: DR 2/1994, 84–87. Spitz, René: „Die Wurzeln der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm (HfG)“, in: Internationales Jahrbuch der Erwachsenenbildung 23/1995, 137– 142. Spitz, René, Die politische Geschichte der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm (1953–1968). Ein Beispiel für Bildungs- und Kulturpolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Diss. Phil. Cologne 1997. Spitz, René: „Hagiographie und Selbstbild. Marginalien zur Geschichte der HfG Ulm“, in: Form 163, 3/1998, 78. Stach, Reiner, 100 Jahre S. Fischer Verlag 1886–1986. Kleine Verlags geschichte, Frankfurt am Main 1991. Stadt Gelsenkirchen, Städtisches Museum (ed.), Gelsenkirchener Barock, Gelsenkirchen1992. Steffahn, Harald, Die Weiße Rose, Reinbek 1992. Steinbach, Peter, Tuchel, Johannes (ed.), Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus, Bonn 1994 (= Schrif tenreihe der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, vol. 323). Steindorf, Gerhard, Von den Anfän gen der Volkshochschule in Deutschland, Osnabrück 1968 (= Beiträge zur Erwachsenenbildung, vol. 16). Steinel, Kurt (ed.), Vom Handwerk zur Kunst. Die Geschichte der Hochschule für Gestaltung Offenbach am Main, Offenbach 1984. Steininger, Rolf, Deutsche Geschichte 1945–1961. Darstellung und Do kumente in zwei Bänden, Frankfurt am Main 1983, 21996. Stiftung Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm (ed.), Freundschaft und Begegnung. Erinnerungen an Otl Aicher, Ulm 1997. Stone, Dominic R., The Ulmer Hochschule für Gestaltung: Ideology and Methodology, unpublishedmaster’s thesis, London 1989. Strzelewicz, Willy, Wissenschaft, Bildung und Politik, 1980. Stürzebecher, Jörg: „Zwischen Waldi und Walkman. Designgeschichte der 70er Jahre“, in: DR 10/1994, 80–87. Stürzebecher, Jörg: „Zwischen Weltempfänger und Space-Design. Designgeschichte der 60er Jahre“, in: DR 11/1994, 70–79.
Stürzebecher, Jörg: „Kalter Krieg und Künstlermöbel. Designgeschichte der 50er Jahre“, in: DR12/1994, 66–75. Stürzebecher, Jörg: „Kriegsgerät und Staatsdesign. Designgeschichte der 40er Jahre“, in: DR 1–2/ 1995, 82–89. Stürzebecher, Jörg: „Luxusdesign und Serienreife.Designgeschichte der 30er Jahre“, in: DR 3/1995, 72– 79. Sturmi, Hermann (ed.), Geste und Gewissen im Design, Cologne 1998. Sudrow, Otto: „Skizzen zur Geschichte der Designausbildung. Außer Bauhaus und HfG nichts gewesen?“ in: WZ 3+4/1984. Sünker, Heinz, Timmermann, Dieter, Kolbe, Fritz-Ulrich (ed.), Bildung – Gesellschaft – soziale Un gleichheit. Internationale Beiträge zur Bildungssoziologie und Bildungstheorie, Frankfurt am Main 1994. Teichler, Ulrich (ed.), Faktoren und Zielvorstellungen der Hochschulreform in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bericht und Dokumentation über eine Tagung im UNESCO-Institut für Pädagogik in Hamburg vom 9. bis 13. Juni 1969, Hamburg 1970 (= Internationale pädagogische Studien, vol. 24). Teichler, Ulrich, Hartung, Dirk, Nuthmann, Reinhard, Hochschulexpansion und Bedarf der Gesellschaft. Wissenschaftliche Erklärungsansätze, bildungspolitische Konzeptionen und internationale Entwicklungstendenzen, Stuttgart 1976. Teichler, Ulrich: „DasHochschulwesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – ein Überblick“, in: Ulrich Teichler (ed.), Das Hochschulwesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Weinheim 1990, 11–42. Tent, James F., Mission on the Rhine. Reeducation and Denazification in American-Occupied Germany, Chicago, London 1982. Tent, James F., Freie Universität Berlin 1948–1988. Eine deutsche Hochschule im Zeitgeschehen, Berlin 1988. Thränhardt, Dietrich, Bildungspolitik in der Bundesrepublik: eine historisch-strukturelle Analyse der Entwicklung seit 1945“, in: Dietrich Thränhardt, Gerhard Gerdsmeier (ed.), Schule. Eine berufsvorbereitende Einführung in das Lehrerstudium, Weinheim, Basel 1979, 91–134. Thränhardt, Dietrich: „Bildungspolitik“, in: Klaus von Beyme, Manfred G. Schmidt (ed.), Politik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Cologne, Opladen 1991, 177–202. Thomae, O., Die PropagandaMaschinerie. Bildende Kunst und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit im Dritten Reich, Berlin 1978. Thron, Hans Joachim, Schulreform im besiegten Deutschland. Die Bildungspolitik der amerikanischen Besatzungs-Militärregierung nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg, Diss. Phil.Munich 1972. Roderich Thun. Ein Leben, n.p., n.d. Tippelt, Rudolf, Bildung und sozialer Wandel. Eine Untersuchung von Modernisierungsprozessen am Beispiel der Bundesrepublik Deutschland seit 1950, Weinheim 1990. Thränhardt, Dietrich, Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949– 1989, Frankfurt am Main 1995.
Trees, Wolfgang, Whiting, Charles, Omansen, Thomas, Drei Jahre nach Null. Geschichte der britischen Besatzungszone 1945–1948,Dusseldorf 1978. Ueberschär, Gerd, Der Nationalsozialismus vor Gericht. Die alliierten Prozesse gegen Kriegsverbrecher und Soldaten 1943–1952,Frankfurt am Main 1999. Vaillant, Jérôme, Der Ruf. Unabhän gige Blätter der jungen Generation (1945–1949). Eine Zeitschrift zwischen Illusion und Anpassung, Munich 1978 (= Kommunikation und Politik , vol. 11). Vaillant, Jérôme. (ed.), Französische Kulturpolitik in Deutschland 1945– 1949. Berichte und Dokumente, Lille 1981, Constance1984. Vinke, Herbert, Das kurze Leben der Sophie Scholl, Ravensburg 1980, Frankfurt am Main 21993. Vollnhals, Clemens (ed.), Entnazifizierung. Politische Säuberung und Rehabilitierung in den vier Besatzungszonen, Munich 1991. Vom Mythos des Funktionalismus,
Cologne 1997. Vordemberge-Gildewart – The Complete Work, ed. Dietrich
Helms, Munich 1989. Voy, Klaus, Polster, Werner, Thomasberger, Claus (ed.), GesellschaftlicheTransformationsprozesse und materielle Lebensweise, Marburg 1991 (= Beiträge zur Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , vol. 2). Wachsmann, Christiane (ed.), „Design ist gar nicht lehrbar …“ Hans Gugelot und seine Schüler. Entwicklungen und Studienarbeiten 1954–1965,Ulm 1990 (= HfG Archiv Ulm Dokumentationen , vol.1). Wachsmann, Christiane (ed.), Objekt + Objektiv = Objektivität? Fotografie an der HfG Ulm. 1953– 1968, Ulm 1991 (= HfG-Archiv Ulm Dokumentationen, vol. 2). Wachsmann, Christiane (ed.), Kartoffelchips im Wellflächenquadrat. Walter Zeischegg, Plastiker, Designer, Lehrer an der HfG Ulm 1951– 68, Ulm 1992 (= HfG-Archiv Dokumentation, vol. 3). Wachsmann, Christiane (ed.), Bauhäusler in Ulm. Die Grundlehre an der Ulmer HfG zwischen 1953 und 1955, Ulm 1993 (= HfG-Archiv Ulm Dokumentationen, vol.4). Wachsmann, Christiane (ed.), „Fangen wir an, hier in Ulm“. Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm – die frühen Jahre, Ulm 1995 (= HfG Archiv Ulm Dokumentationen, vol. 5). Walker, John A., Design-Geschichte – Perspektiven einer wissenschaftlichen Disziplin, Munich 1992. Wege zur „Guten Form“. Neun Beiträge zur Geschichte der Schweizer Produktgestaltung, ed. Arthur Rüegg, Ruggero Tropeano, Basel, Boston, Berlin 1995. Wehling, Hans-Georg (ed.), BadenWürttemberg. Eine politische Landeskunde, Stuttgart 1975.
Weidenfeld, Werner, Zimmermann, Hartmut (ed.), Deutschland-Hand buch. Eine doppelte Bilanz 1949– 1989, Dusseldorf 1989 (= Nord rhein-Westfälische Schriften zur Geschichte und Politik , vol. 1). Weinacht, Paul-Ludwig (ed.), Die CDU in Baden-Württemberg und ihre Geschichte, Stuttgart 1978 (= Schrif ten zur politischen Landeskunde Baden-Württembergs, vol. 2). Weinacht, Paul-Ludwig, Mayer, Tilman, Ursprung und Entfaltung christlicher Demokratie in Südbaden. Eine Chronik 1945–1981, Sigmaringen 1982. Weinberg-Staber, Margit, Design – Formgebung für Jedermann. Typen und Prototypen, Zurich 1983. Weinberg-Staber, Margit, Max Bill – Leben und Sprache, Zurich 1988 (= Schriften der Stiftung für konstruktive und konkrete Kunst , vol. 6). Weik, Josef, MdL – Die Abgeordneten der Landtage in Baden-Württem berg 1946–1978, ed. Landtag von Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 1978. Weik, Josef, Der Landtag von BadenWürttemberg und seine Abgeordneten von 1952 bis 1988, ed. Landtag von Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 3 1984. Weissler, Sabine (ed.), Design in Deutschland 1933–1945, Gießen 1990. Weisz, Christoph (ed.), OMGUSHandbuch, Munich 1994 (= Quellen und Darstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte, vol. 35). Die Weiße Rose. Ausstellung über den Widerstand von Studenten gegen Hitler.München 1942/43 , Conzept: Otl Aicher and Hildegard Vieregg, Munich n.d. Die „Weiße Rose“ und das Erbe des deutschen Widerstandes.
Münchner Gedächtnisvorlesungen, Munich 1993. Whitford, Frank (ed.), The Bauhaus: Masters and Students by Themselves, London 1992. Wichmann, Hans, System Design Bahnbrecher: Hans Gugelot 1920– 1965, 1984, Basel, Boston 21987 (= Industrial Design-Graphic Design, vol.3). Wick, Rainer K., „Dem Bauhaus fern entrückt: die Ulmer Hochschule für Gestaltung nach Max Bill“, in: Gerda Breuer, Andrea Peters, Kerstin Plüm, Die 60er. Positionen des Designs, n. p., n.d. (Cologne 2000), 22–31. Wierlacher, Alois, Neumann, Gerhard, Teuteberg, Hans Jürgen (ed.), Kulturthema Essen. Ansichten und Problemfelder, Berlin 1993 (= Kul turthema Essen, vol. 1). Wildt, Michael, Am Beginn der „Konsumgesellschaft“. Mangelerfahrung, Lebenshaltung, Wohlstandshoffnung in Westdeutschland in den fünfziger Jahren, Diss. Phil. 1991, Hamburg 1994 (= Forum Zeitgeschichte, vol. 3). Wildt, Michael, Vom kleinen Widerstand. Eine Konsumgeschichte der fünfziger Jahre, Frankfurt am Main 1996. Wilharm, Irmgard (ed.), Deutsche Geschichte 1962–1983. Dokumente in zwei Bänden, Frankfurt am Main 1985. Wilke, Jürgen (ed.), Medien geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Cologne 1999.
Wingler, Hans Maria, Das Bauhaus. 1919–1933. Weimar, Dessau, Berlin und die Nachfolge in Chicago seit 1937, Bramsche 1962, 31975. Wingler, Hans Maria, Bauhaus in America. Resonanz und Weiterentwicklung. Repercussion and further Development, Berlin 1972. Winkel, Harald, Geschichte der Württembergischen Industrie- und Handelskammern Heilbronn, Reutlingen, Stuttgart/Mittlerer Neckar und Ulm 1933–1980. zum 125jährigen Bestehen, Stuttgart 1980. Winkeler, R., Schulpolitik in Württem berg-Hohenzollern 1945–1952, Stuttgart 1971. Winter, Friedrich G., Gestalten: Didaktik oder Urprinzip? Ergebnis und Kritik des Experiments Werk kunstschulen1949–71 , Ravensburg 1977. „Wir sind wieder wer“. Die Fünfziger, ed. Deutsches Historisches Museum,Frankfurt am Main 1996. Wittmann, Reinhard, „Auf geflickten Straßen“. Literarischer Neubeginn in München 1945 bis 1949, Munich 1995. Wolfe, Robert (ed.), Americans as Proconsuls. United States Military Government in Germany and Japan, 1944–1952,Carbondale, Edwardsville 1984. Wolfe, Tom, Mit dem Bauhaus leben. „From Bauhaus to our House”, Frankfurt am Main 1981, 31990. Woller, Hans, Gesellschaft und Politik in der amerikanischen Besatzungszone. Die Region Ansbach und Fürth, Munich 1986 (= Quellen und Darstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte , vol. 25). Wünsche, Konrad, Bauhaus: Versuche, das Leben zu ordnen, Berlin 1992. Zauner, Stefan, Erziehung und Kulturmission, Munich 1994 (= Studien zur Zeitgeschichte, vol. 43). Zapf, Wolfgang, Lebensbedingungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Sozialer Wandel und Wohlfahrtsentwicklung, Frankfurt am Main 1977 (= Sozialpolitisches Entscheidungsund Indikatorensystem, Schriften reihe, vol.10). Zeittakte 1791–1991. Überlegungen zu 200 Jahren Kunst und Design Hannover, ed. Fachhochschule Hannover, Hannover 1991. Zeller, Bernhard (ed.), „Als der Krieg zu Ende war“. Literarisch-politische Publizistik 1945–1950, Stuttgart, Munich 1973 (= Sonderausstellun gen des Schiller-Nationalmuseums , vol. 23). Zink, Harold, The United States in Germany 1945–1955, Princeton 1957. Zinkand, Werner, Max Bill und die Ulmer Schule, unpublishedmaster’s thesis, Munich 1985.
439
References
440
1 A basic orientation about work and life at the HfG is provided by Herbert Lindinger (ed.), Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. Die Moral der Gegenstände , Berlin 1987, 21991, and Nick Roericht (ed.), HfG-Synopse. Eine synchronoptische Darstellung der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm , Ulm 1982. It is from these publications that most works about the HfG draw their figures and data. – On the sources of the illustrations in this book: All photos printed here come from my archive, except for those where the archive is indicated in the list of illustrations. This list also includes, whenever possible, the catalog number of the respective archive. – Every attempt was made to locate all those holding rights to the photos printed here. I should like to ask anyone who was nevertheless not acknowledged to contact me at the following e-mail address:
[email protected]. – A note regarding these annotations:At the end of each reference I have listed the abbreviation of the archive in which the document is kept. Cf. the list of abbreviations. 2 HfG insider jargon referred to women and men registered at the school as “Studierende“. I did not use this awkward term, preferring the word “student“, whose grammatical gender automatically includes both women and men. 3 Wolfgang Ruppert: “Ulm ist tot. Es lebe Ulm! Rückblick auf die Hochschule für Gestaltung“, in: Kursbuch 106, December 1991, 119–138, here: 120. 4 Rolf Schörken, Jugend 1945. Politisches Denken und Lebens geschichte , Opladen 1990, Frankfurt am Main 21994, 21. 5 Cf. Gert Selle, Design-Geschichte in Deutschland. Produktkultur als Entwurf und Erfahrung, Cologne 1987, 21990. 6 Walter Grasskamp: “Das gescheiterte Gesamtkunstwerk. Design zwischen allen Stühlen“, in: Kursbuch 106, December 1991, 67–84, here: 78. 7 On the Werkbund: John Campbell, Der deutsche Werkbund 1907–1934 , Princeton 1978, Munich 1989. 8 Peter Erni: Die gute Form. Eine Aktion des schweizerischen Werk bundes. Dokumentation und Inter pretation , Baden 1983, 109. 9 Of the extensive literature on the Bauhaus, we refer only to: Gert Selle (cf. fn. 5) 139–240; Hans M. Wingler, Das Bauhaus 1919–1933. Weimar, Dessau, Berlin und die Nachfolge in Chicago seit 1937 , Bramsche 1962, 31975; Herbert Hübner, Die soziale Utopie des Bauhauses. Ein Beitrag zur Wissenssoziologie in der bildenden Kunst , (= Diss. Phil.) Münster 1963; Christian Grohn, Die Bauhaus-Idee. Entwurf, Weiterführung, Rezeption, Berlin 1991; Konrad Wünsche, Bauhaus. Versuche, das Leben zu ordnen, (= Kleine kulturwissenschaftliche Bibliothek , vol. 17) Berlin 1992; Rainer K. Wick, Bauhaus. Kunstschule der Moderne, Stuttgart 2000;
Michael Siebenbrodt (ed.), Bauhaus Weimar. Entwürfe für die Zukunft , Stuttgart 2000; Georg-W. Költzsch, Margarita Tupitsyn (ed.), Bauhaus: Dessau, Chicago, New York , Köln 2000. 10 Cf. Peter Erni (see note 8), and Arthur Rüegg, Ruggero Tropeano (eds.), Wege zur „guten Form“. Neun Beiträge zur Geschichte der schweizer Produktgestaltung, Basel 1995; Christiane Wachsmann: “Das Universum der guten Form. Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm: Zeit und Ort ihres Entstehens“, in: ibid. (ed.), „Fangen wir an, hier in Ulm“. Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm – die frühen Jahre (= HfG-Archiv Ulm Dokumentationen , vol. 5) Ulm 1995, 28–45. 11 Peter Erni (see note 8) 11. 12 Peter Erni (see note 8) 5f. 13 On “Gelsenkirchen baroque“ cf. StadtGelsenkirchen,Städtisches Museum (ed.), Gelsenkirchener Barock , Gelsenkirchen 1992. 14 Peter Erni (see note 8) 109. 15 Max Bill’s remarks in: Internationales Design Zentrum Berlin (IDZ) (ed.), “… daß diese ganze Geschichte in Ulm losgegangen ist, das ist überhaupt ein Irrtum …“. IDZ-Proto kolle HfG Ulm, Berlin 1987, 24. 16 In: Schweizerischer Werkbund (ed.), Die gute Form. 6 Jahre Auszeichnung „Die gute Form“ an der Mustermesse Basel , Winterthur 1957. 17 Cf. Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 120. 18 Kathryn Hiesinger, George H. Marcus (eds.), Design since 1945 , New York 1983, xvi. 19 For instance, Gert Selle (see note 5) 266; ibid.: „Das Produktdesign der 50er Jahre: Rückgriff in die Entwurfsgeschichte, vollendete Modernisierung des Alltagsinventars oder Vorbote der Postmoderne?“, in: Axel Schildt, Arnold Sywottek (eds.), Modernisierung im Wiederaufbau. Die westdeutsche Gesellschaft der 50er Jahre, Bonn 1993, 612–624, here: 618. 20 Bernd Meurer: “Modernity and the Ulm School“, in: Jocelyn de Noblet (ed.), Industrial Design. Reflection of a Century , Paris 1993, 226– 235, here: 229. 21 Margit Weinberg-Staber (ed.), Design – Formgebung für Jedermann. Typen und Prototypen , Zürich 1983, 155. 22 Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 122.
staltung , Hildesheim 1986, 34–41, here: 40 f. 24 Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 122. 25 Christiane Wachsmann: Letter to the author. 5 Oct. 1993. 26 Cf. René Spitz, Die politische Geschichte der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm (1953–1968). Ein Beispiel für Bildungs- und Kulturpolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , Diss. Phil. Köln 1997, 10–15 f. – Source of the statistics: Christiane Wachsmann, Auswertung der Personalakten des HfG-Archivs , unpublished typescripts 1993. 27 Herbert Ohl: “Das Bewusstsein, das Ulm geschaffen hat“, in: Archi these 15/1975, 19–25, here: 20. 28 Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 120. 29 The term “Ulm model“ as used by Otl Aicher: “Die Hochschule für Gestaltung. Neun Stufen ihrer Entwicklung“, in: Archithese 15/ 1975, 12– 18, here: 14; Herbert Lindinger in: ibid. (ed.) (see note 1) 11; Gui Bonsiepe ibid. 266–268; Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 127; Norbert Korrek, Die Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm: Dokumentation und Wertung der institutionellen und päda gogischen Entwicklung der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm unter besonderer Betrachtung der zeitbezo genen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Rahmenbedingungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland . (= Diss. Ing. 1986) Weimar 1987, 11. – The term “Ulmer concept“ as used by Otl Aicher: “Das Ulmer Konzept“, in: Bauen und Wohnen 12/1964, xii 4; Tomás Maldonado in his remarks in IDZ-Protokolle(see note 15) 34 f.
41 Norbert Korrek (see note 30) 28 is based on this, but he only counts 7stages; Herbert Lindinger: “Herausgeberg espräch:Konflikte und Widersprü che“, in: ibid. (ed.) (see note 1) 48–60, reduces the phases to 6 instead of 8, but feels the curricular development had a comparable structure; Michael Erlhoff: “Das Bundes-Bauhaus“, in: Westermanns Monatshefte 7/ 1985, 22–30, counts 5phases; reduced even more to 3stages, while Martin Krampen offers a similar interpretation: “Der A nteil des wissenschaftlichen Unterrichts an der Schulwerdung der Hochschule für Gestaltung“, in: ibid., Horst Kächele (ed.) (see note 23) 7– 31, here: 25 (revised version of his article in Rassegna 19/1984). 42 Martin Krampen (see note 23) 8. 43 Kathryn B. Hiesinger (see note 18) XI. – On the significance of the HfG within the international evolution of design: Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3); Gert Selle (see note 5); Hans Eckstein, Formgebung des Nützlichen. Marginalien zur Geschichte und Theorie des Design, Düsseldorf 1985;. Heinz Fuchs, François Burckhardt (eds.), Produkt Form Geschichte , Stuttgart 1985; unconventional:ChristianBorngräber: “Nierentisch und Schrippendale. Hinweise auf Architektur und Design“, in: Dieter Bänsch (ed.), Die fünfziger Jahre. Beiträge zu Politik und Kultur , Tübingen 1985, 223– 258; ibid.: Stil novo. Design in den 50er Jahren. Phantasie und Phantastik , Frankfurt 1979. 44 Bernhard E. Bürdek, Design: Geschichte, Theorie und Praxis der Produktgestaltung . Cologne 1991, 39. 45 Cf. Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 121, François Burkhardt (see note 43) 86.
30 Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 127.
46 Bernhard Bürdek (see note 44) 46.
31 Otl Aicher in Archithese (see note 30) 14.
47 Cf. René Spitz (see note 26) 408f.
32 Christiane Wachsmann: Letter to the author. 5 Oct. 1993. 33 Tomás Maldonado in his remarks in IDZ-Protokolle (see note 15) 34. 34 Tomás Maldonado: “Ulm revisited“, in: Rassegna 19/1984, translated from the Italian by Frank Spadaro, no page references at end of journal. 35 Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 128. 36 Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 131. 37 Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 128.
39 Claude Schnaidt: “Ulm 1955– 1975“, in: Archithese 15/ 1975, 5–11, here: 8. 40 Otl Aicher: in Archithese (see note 30) 12–18.
bach, Bonn 1965, 168–181; ibid. (eds.), Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung 1965–1967 , Allensbach, Bonn 1967, 101–104.
Baden-Württemberg: Letter to the author. 25 July 1996. City of Recklinghausen, city Archive: Letter to the author. 23 July 1996.
57 See also Otto Sudrow: “Skizzen zur Geschichte der Designausbildung. Außer Bauhaus und HfG nichts gewesen?“, in: Werk und Zeit 3+4/ 1984,
74 Max Bill, Zum „Vermerk über mit Herrn Bill zu klärende Fragen“ , 10Se pt. 1957, BHA, HfG records, folder 122;Inge Aicher-Scholl, Ver merk über mit Herrn Bill zu klärende Fragen, 25 July 1957, BHA, HfG records, folder 122. – Toni Richter in her conversation with me specifically referred to the memo regarding the Stuttgart discussion of 12 July 1950. Cf. also the article in the Deutsche Studenten-Zeitung of 8 May 1957, Hochschule entläßt ihren Gründer ; the value of this document is, however, dubious because its author was obviously trying to create an apologia for Max Bill and attacked the Aichers; on the other hand, it also contains much background information that is correct and is mentioned nowhere else.
88 LandesgewerbeamtBadenWürttemberg, Haus der Wirtschaft: Letters to the author. 9 July 1996, 10 July 1996.
58 These data are based on a projection: In 1987 the Club Off Ulm, which keeps a database of the addresses of former HfG members, published questionnaires received from all 240 persons who responded to the club’s questions as to their address and profession. Of these, 84 stated they were teachers by profession (mostly in higher education). Cf. the private reprint available in the HfG Archive: Club Off Ulm, Ulm 21987. 59 Bernhard Bürdek (see note 44) 47. Cf. also Michael Erlhoff (see note 41) 24. 60 François Burkhardt (see note 43) 78. 61 Bernhard E. Bürdek (see note 44), Gui Bonsiepe in Herbert Lindinger (see note 1). 62 Guido Lambeck has been the only person so far to attempt to sketch the influence of the HfG on a school of design: “Kunsthandwerk und ‚Design‘. Anmerkungen zum Einfluß der HfG Ulm auf die Entwicklung des Fachbereichs industrial Design“, in: Hartmut Frank (ed.), Nordlicht. 222 Jahre. Die Hamburger Hochschule für bildende Künste am Lerchenfeld und ihre Vorgeschichte, Hamburg 1989, 269–282. 63 Herbert Lindinger’s remarks in IDZ-Protokolle(see note 15) 33. 64 Inge Aicher-Scholl: “Letter to Erwin Braun“, in: Für Erwin Braun zum 29. August 1981. n.p, n.d., 7–9, here: 8.
75 Max Bill in conversation with the author, 16 Aug. 1993. It is questionable, however, where Max Bill obtained this information, for at the time he himself no longer had direct access to the administration of the HfG and to that of the foundation then in office. Only from these two positions was it possible to judge whether the files were complete. 76 Fred Hochstrasser in conversation with the author, 9 May 1997. 77 Hans Eugen Specker in conversation with the author, 20 May 1996. 78 Cf. City of Ulm, HfG Archive (ed.), Jahresbericht 1989/90 , Ulm 1990; Jahresbericht 1991/92, Ulm 1993. 79 Cf. Elke Eckert, Bestandsverzeich nis Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm im Bauhaus-Archiv Museum für Gestaltung , typescript Berlin 1991. 80 Mr. Vollmer, Landeszentralbank Baden-Württemberg: Letter to the author. 30 Nov. 1994. Dr. Pohl, Deutsche Bundesbank: Letter to the au-thor. 6 Dec. 1994. Hilde SchmittSchlaaff: Letter to the author. 18Jan. 1995.
48 Hans Eckstein (see note 43) 165.
65 François Burkhardt (see note 43) 84.
49 Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 121.
66 Christian Borngräber in Dieter Bänsch (ed.) (see note 43) 252.
50 Herbert Lindinger: “Herausgebergespräch: Die Suche nach den Gründen und Systemen“, in: ibid. (ed.) (see note 1) 82–86, here: 83 ff.
67 Michael Andritzky’s remarks in IDZ-Protokolle(see note 15) 15.
81 Dr. Wischnath, Eberhard-KarlsUniversität Tübingen: Letter to the author. 16 July 1996.
68 Herbert Lindinger’s remarks in IDZ-Protokolle(see note 15) 41.
82 Carlos H. Zumsteg: Letter to the author. 11 June 1996.
69 Michael Schreiber’s remarks in IDZ-Protokolle(see note 15) 38 ff.
83 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 28 Dec. 1964. PAB
70 Kathryn B. Hiesinger (see note 18) x.
84 Lene Thun: Letter to the author. 18 Feb. 1996. Manuela Tattenbach Thun: Letter to the author. 8 Mar. 1996. Georg Thun-Hohenstein: Letters to the author. 27 Mar. 1996, 16April 1996.
51 Bernhard Bürdek (see note 44)46. 52 Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 120. 53 Gert Selle (see note 5) 271. 54 Heiner Jacob: “HfG Ulm: A personal view of an experiment in democracy and design education“, in: JDH 1/ 1988, 221–248, here: 227.
38 Herbert Ohl (see note 27) 22. 23 Abraham Moles: „Was für Verbindungen hatten die Mitglieder der Hochschule für Gestaltung mit ihrer Institution? Welche Rolle hat sie in ihrem Leben gespielt?“, in: Martin Krampen, Horst Kächele (eds.), Umwelt, Gestaltung und Persönlichkeit. Reflexionen 30 Jahre nach Gründung der Ulmer Hochschule für Ge-
56 See also Christopher Frayling, Claire Catterall (eds.), Design of the Times: One Hundred Years of the Royal College of Art , London 1996.
55 Peter Hahn, Lloyd C. Engelbrecht (eds.), 50 Jahre New Bauhaus. Bauhaus-Nachfolge in Chicago , Berlin 1987. On the influence of the New Bauhaus on pedagogy at the HfG cf. Eva von Seckendorff: “HfG: Außer Bauhaus nichts gewesen? Das New Bauhaus, Chicago, und die Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm“, 87–91.
71 Wolfgang Ruppert (see note 3) 120. 72 Gert Selle in Axel Schildt, Arnold Sywottek (eds.) (see note 19) 612 ff. 73 Elisabeth Noelle, Erich Peter Neumann (eds.), Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung 1947–1955 , Allensbach 1956, 108–112; ibid. (eds.), Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung 1957 , Allensbach 1957, 107–115; ibid. (eds.), Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung 1958–1964 , Allens-
85 Katja Dohrn: Letter to the author. 3 May 1996. 86 Erhard M. Löwe: Letters to the author. 5 June 1996. 13 June 1996. 87 DGB Archive in the Archiv der sozialen Demokratie of the FriedrichEbert-Stiftung: Letter to the author. 18 July 1996. DGB, Landesverband
89 Claude Schnaidt: “Ulm. (Dernier épisode d‘une affaire de récidives.)“, in: l‘architecture d‘aujourd‘hui 143/ 1969, 61–66. 90 Claude Schnaidt: “Den Schreibern unserer Geschichte gewidmet“, in: Form + Zweck 5/1983, 24–29. 91 Joachim Heimbucher, Peter Michels, Bauhaus HfG IUP. Dokumentation und Analyse von drei Bildungsinstitutionen im Bereich der Umweltgestaltung , unpublished thesis Ulm 1971. 92 Wolfgang Pohl (ed.), Industrial Design – ein neues Studienmodell an der Hochschule für Bildende Künste Hamburg, (= Hochschuldi daktis che Materialien, vol. 29) Hamburg 1971. 93 Petra Kellner, Holger Poessnecker, Produktgestaltung an der HfG Ulm. Versuch einer Dokumentation und Einschätzung , (= Designtheorie , vol.3) Hanau 1978. 94 Nick Roericht (ed.) (see note 1). 95 Hans Frei, Konkrete Architektur? Über Max Bill als Architekt , (= Diss. Phil. Zürich 1990) Baden, Geneva 1991; Norbert Korrek (see note 29); Eva von Seckendorff, Die Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. Gründung (1949–1953) und Ära Max Bill (1953–1957), (= Diss. Phil. Hamburg 1986) Marburg 1989; Hartmut Seeling, Geschichte der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm 1953–1968. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung ihres Programmes und der Arbeiten im Bereich der visuellen Kommunikation, Diss. Phil. Cologne 1985. 96 Additional works by Norbert Korrek on the HfG: “Versuch einer Biographie. Die Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm“, in: Form + Zweck 6/ 1984, 39–45; reprinted in: Dagmar Lüder (ed.), Das Schicksal der Dinge. Beiträge zur Designgeschichte, Dresden 1989, 295–308; Kontinuität und Wandel. Zur Rezeption der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. Lecture to the Club Off Ulm , Ulm 1989. 97 Werner Zinkand, Max Bill und die Ulmer Schule, (unpublished master’s thesis) Munich 1985. 98 Herbert Lindinger (see note 1). Besides the articles of Michael Erlhoff, his interview with Max Bill (65– 68), and the “Herausgebergespräche“, this work also contains articles by Reyner Banham: “Retrospektive“ (26 f.); Horst Rittel: “Das Erbe der HfG?“ (118 f.); Otl Aicher: “Bauhaus und Ulm“ (124–129); Herbert Ohl: “Industrielles Bauen in Ulm“ (197–199); Claude Schnaidt: “Architekturund wissenschaftlich-technische Revolution“ (214–217); Tomás Maldonado: “Ulm im Rückblick“ (222–224) and Gui Bonsiepe: “Das
Ulmer Modell in der Peripherie“ (266–268). 99 Max Bill: “Vom Bauhaus bis Ulm“, in: DU 6/1976, 12–21; Walter Schaer: “Die Ulmer Schule im Grenzgebiet des Zeitgeistes“, in: Hellmuth Gsöllpointner, Angela Hareiter, Laurids Ortner (eds.), Design ist unsichtbar , Vienna 1981, 209–216; Margit Weinberg-Staber (see note 21); Bernd Meurer (see note 20); Bernhard E. Bürdek (see note 44); Otl Aicher: “Krise der Moderne“, in: ibid., Die Welt als Entwurf, Berlin 1991, 15–26; Bernd Meurer, Hartmut Vinçon, Industrielle Ästhetik. Zur Geschichte und Theorie der Gestaltung, (= Werk bund-Archiv , vol. 9) Gießen 1993. 100 Stanislaus von Moos: “À propos Ulm“ (2–4); Claude Schnaidt: (see note 40); Otl Aicher (see note 30); Herbert Ohl (see note 28); Kenneth Frampton: “Ulm: Ideologie eines Lehrplanes“(26–42). 101 Tomás Maldonado: “Ulm rivisitato“ (5); Marina Bistolfi: “La HfG di Ulm: Speranze, sviluppo e crisi“ (6– 19); Martin Krampen: “Il contributo dell‘insegnamento scientifico alla HfG“ (20–24); Giovanni Anceschi, Piero G. Tanca: “Ulm e l‘Italia“ (25– 34). 102 The essays of Martin Krampen and Abraham Moles in: Martin Krampen, Horst Kächele (eds.) (see note 23); also: Abraham Moles: “Der Funktionalismus des Bauhauses in der Gesellschaft des Wirtschaftswunders. Die Ulmer Hochschule für Gestaltung“ (85–89); Harry Pross: “Umwelt, Gestaltung und Persönlichkeit auf einen Begriff von Kommunikation gebracht“ (46–52). 103 Heiner Jacob (see note 53); Dominic R. Stone, The Ulmer Hochschule für Gestaltung: Ideology and Methodology , (unpublished master’s thesis) London 1989. 104 IDZ-Protokolle (see note 15). 105 Peter von Kornatzki, Rolf Müller: “Die Abteilung visuelle Kommunikation der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. 1951 bis 1968“, in: High Quality 29/1994, 58–77. 106 Elke Amberg, Der eigene Weg der Abteilung für Filmgestaltung an der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm , (unpublished master’s thesis), Munich 1989; sketchy and not very careful: Daniela Sannwald, Labor der Nachkriegsmoderne. Zur Theorie und Praxis der Filmausbildung an der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm 1958–1968 , Diss. Phil. Berlin 1995; Beryll Natalie Janssen, Die Abteilung visuelle Gestaltung/Kommunikation an der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm, (unpublished master’s thesis), Bochum 1996; Andreas König, Günther Grzimek. Ein Landschaftsarchitekt der Nachkriegszeit. Berufliche Entwicklung, Konzepte und Arbeiten, (unpublished thesis), Munich/Weihenstephan 1996; Jörg Crone, Die visuelle Kommunikation der Gesinnung: Zu den grafischen Arbeiten von Otl Aicher und der Entwicklungsgruppe 5 für die Deutsche Lufthansa 1962, Diss. Phil. Freiburg im Breisgau 1998: unfortunately the
selection of sources and bibliography is extremely limited, as is the way the author views Otl Aicher’s perspective;very helpful:Christopher Oestereich, „Gute Form“ im Wiederaufbau. Zur Geschichte der Produktgestaltung in Westdeutschland nach 1945 , (= Diss. Phil. Cologne 1999) Berlin 2000; exemplary:Barbara Schüler, „Im Geiste der Gemordeten …“: Die „Weiße Rose“ und ihre Wirkung in der Nachkriegszeit , (= Politik- und kommunikationswissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Görres-Gesellschaft , vol. 19) Paderborn 2000; Gerhard Curdes, Die Abteilung Bauen an der HfG Ulm. Eine Refle xion zur Entwicklung, Lehre und Pro grammatik , Ulm 2001. 107 Christiane Wachsmann (ed.), “Design ist gar nicht lehrbar …“ Hans Gugelot und seine Schüler. Entwicklungen und Studienarbeiten 1954–1955 , (= HfG-Archiv Ulm Do kumentation , vol. 1) Ulm 1990; Christiane Wachsmann (ed.), Objekt + Objektiv = Objektivität? Fotografie an der HfG Ulm 1953–1968 , (= HfG Archiv Ulm Dokumentation, vol. 2) Ulm 1991; Christiane Wachsmann (ed.), Kartoffelchips im Wellflächenquadrat. Walter Zeischegg, Plastiker, Designer, Lehrer an der HfG Ulm 1951–1968 , (= HfG-Archiv Ulm Do kumentation , vol. 3) Ulm 1992. – See also Andrea Scholtz, Hand und Griff. Ausstellung Wien 1951, Walter Zeischegg, Carl Auböck , Cologne 1995. – Christiane Wachsmann (ed.), Bauhäusler in Ulm. Grundlehre an der HfG 1953–1955 , (= HfG-Archiv Ulm Dokumentation, vol. 4) Ulm 1993; ibid., Brigitte Reinhardt (ed.) (see note 10); „Die Augen sind hung rig, aber oft schon vor dem Sehen satt“. Otl Aicher zum 75. Geburtstag (= HfG-Archiv Ulm Dokumentation , vol. 6), Ulm 1997; Marcela Quijano (ed.), HfG Ulm: Programm wird Bau. Die Gebäude der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm, Stuttgart 1998. 108 Robert Scholl: 13 April 1891– 25Oct. 1973; Magdalene Scholl: 5 May 1881–31 Mar. 1958; Inge Scholl: b. 11 Aug. 1917; Hans Scholl: 22 Sept. 1918–22 Feb. 1943; Elisabeth Scholl: b. 27 Feb. 1920; Sophie Scholl: 9 May 1921–22 Feb. 1943; Werner Scholl: b. 13 Nov. 1922, missing since June 1944. For what follows cf. also Inge Aicher-Scholl (ed.), Sippenhaft. Nachrichten und Botschaften der Familie in der Gestapo-Haft nach der Hinrichtung von Hans und Sophie Scholl , Frankfurt am Main 1993. 109 Basic: Christian Petry, Studenten aufs Schafott. Die Weiße Rose und ihr Scheitern, Munich 1968. Incl. final references to older literature: Heinrich Siefken (ed.), Die Weiße Rose. Student resistance to National Socialism 1942/1943. Forschungsergebnisse und Erfahrungsberichte , Nottingham 1991; Christiane Moll: “Die Weiße Rose“, in: Peter Steinbach, Johannes Tuchel (eds.), Wider stand gegen den Nationalsozialismus, (= Schriftenreihe der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung , vol. 323) Bonn 1994, 443–467. 110 Cf. the exemplary discussion of this topic now: Barbara Schüler (see note 106).
441
References
442
111 Kurt Sontheimer: “Der studentische Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus“, in: Heinrich Siefken (see note 109) 183–194, here: 183. 112 Cf. Arno Klönne: “Bündische Jugend, Nationalsozialismus und NS-Staat“, in: Jürgen Schmädecke, Peter Steinbach (eds.), Der Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus. Die deutsche Gesellschaft und der Widerstand gegen Hitler , Munich 1985, 182–189; Hildegard Vieregg: “Die Weiße Rose und die Rebellion der Jugend gegen das NS-Regime – der studentische Widerstand als Fanal“, in: Heinrich Siefken (see note 109) 77–115, especially 93–96; Rudolf Lill (ed.), Hochverrat? Die “Weiße Rose“ und ihr Umfeld , Constance 1993, 182. 113 Hans Mommsen: “Der deutsche Widerstand gegen Hitler und die Wiederhers tellungder Grundlagen der Politik“, in: Jürgen Schmädecke, Peter Steinbach (eds.) (see note 112), here: 212. 114 Christiane Moll (see note 110) 460. 115 Clemens Vollnhals (ed.), Entna zifizierung. Politische Säuberung und Rehabilitierung in den vier Besatzungszonen , Munich 1991, 58. 116 Cf. Heinrich Siefken: “Die Weiße Rose und Theodor Haecker. Widerstand im Glauben“, in: ibid. (see note 109) 117–146; Hans Maier: “Christlicher Widerstand im Dritten Reich“, in: Die “Weiße Rose““ und das Erbe des deutschen Widerstandes. Münchener Gedächtnisvorlesungen , Munich 1993, 116–131; Barbara Schüler: (see note 106) 10–12. 117 Christiane Moll (see note 110) 464. 118 Christian Petry disagrees (see note 109) 147 ff., but see Kurt Sontheimer, Die Adenauer-Ära. Grundlegung der Bundesrepublik , Munich 1991, 192. 119 Hans Mommsen (see note 113) 213. 120 Inge Scholl, Die Weiße Rose, Frankfurt am Main 1955, 21993, 99– 102. 121 Otl Aicher: 13 May 1922– 1Sept. 1991. 122 Christian Petry (see note 109) 117f. 123 Otl Aicher, Innenseiten des Kriegs , Frankfurt am Main 1985, 153 ff. Cf. Hellmut Becker: Letter to Hermann Josef Abs. 23 Apr. 1952. BHA, HfG records, folder 20. 124 Cf. Wolfgang Frühwald: “Antigones Tat. Die ‚Weiße Rose‘ und der Traum vom anderen Deutschland“, in: Die „Weiße Rose“ und das Erbe des deutschen Widerstandes, (see note 116) 61–80; Christiane ToykaSeid: “Der Widerstand gegen Hitler und die westdeutsche Gesellschaft: A nmerkungen zurRezeptionsgeschichte des ‚anderen Deutschland‘ in den frühen Nachkriegsjahren“, in: Peter Steinbach, Johannes Tuchel (eds.) (see note 109) 572–581.
125 Gotthard Jasper: “Schwierigkeiten und Zumutungen des Widerstandes in Deutschland“, in: Die „Weiße Rose“ und das Erbe des deutschen Widerstandes, (see note 116) 177–197, here: 195 f. 126 On the military connection, see the detailed account by Klaus-Dietmar Henke, Die amerikanische Besetzung Deutschlands, (= Quellen und Darstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte, vol. 27) Munich 1995, 789 ff. 127 Eva von Seckendorff (see note 96) 17. 128 Hubert Fink: “Der Ulmer Gemeinderat im Spannungsfeld zwischen Repräsentation und Verwaltung“, in: Hans Eugen Specker (ed.), Tradition und Wagnis. Ulm 1945– 1972, (= Forschungen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ulm, vol. 12) Ulm 1974, 137–163. 129 Klaus-Jörg Ruhl, Die Besatzer und die Deutschen. Amerikanische , Düsseldorf 1980, Zone 1945–1948 40. 130 Cf. the essays of Hans Eugen Specker: “Grundlagen der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung“, Gerd Albers‘: “Planung und Aufbau“, and Walter Buzengeiger’s : “Not überwinden, nicht verwalten!“, in the collection Tradition und Wagnis (see note 128) edited by Hans Eugen Specker; also Robert Scholl: “Bericht über den Wiederaufbau in Ulm“, in: Ernst Joachim Bauer (ed.), Zusammenbruch und Wiedergeburt. Ulm and NeuUlm 1945–1950. Eine Dokumentation in Wort und Bild , Ulm 1996, 3– 22. 131 Rolf Schörken (see note 4) 51. 132 See, for instance, David Schoenbaum: “Deutschland als Gegenstand der amerikanischen Nachkriegsplanung“, in: Ludolf Herbst (ed.), West deutschland 1945–1955. Unterwerfung, Kontrolle, Integration, (= special issue of Schriftenreihe der Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte ) Munich 1986, 27–36; Hans-Werner Fuchs, Klaus-Peter Pöschl: Reform oder Restauration? Eine vergleichende Analyse der schulpolitischen Konzepte und Maßnahmen der Besatzungsmächte 1945–1949, Munich 1986, 22–39; Lutz Niethammer, Die Mitläuferfabrik. Die Entnazifizierung am Beispiel Bayerns , Berlin, Bonn 1968, 21982, 32–68; Petra Bigman-Marquardt: “Amerikanische Geheimdienstanalysendes Nationalsozialistischen Deutschlands“, in: TAJB 23/1994, 325–344.
which went into effect on 11 July 1947.
151 Clemens Vollnhals (see note 115) 20–22.
135 Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung eines Dritten Weltkrieges durch Deutschland , 4 Sept. 1944. Reprinted in: Klaus-Jörg Ruhl (ed.), Neubeginn und Restauration. Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945– 1949, Munich 1982, 24–27.
152 Clemens Vollnhals (see note 115) 23.
136 Elmer Plischke: “Denazification in Germany. A Policy Analysis“, in: Robert Wolfe (ed.), Americans as Proconsuls. United States Military Government in Germany and Japan, 1944–1952, Carbondale, Edwardsville 1984, 198–225, here: 207.
155 Karl-Ernst Bungenstab, Re-education nach 1945. Die amerikanische Besatzungspolitik in Deutschland nach 1945, dargestellt an Beispielen aus dem Bildungswesen in der amerikanischen Zone. (= Diss. Phil. Berlin) Düsseldorf 1970, 18.
137 Hans-Werner Fuchs, Klaus-Peter Pöschl (see note 132) 38.
156 The thesis that the democratization policy produced restorative effects as well, in: Diethelm Prowe: “German democratization as conservative restabilization: The impact of American policy“, in: Jeffry M. Diefendorf, Axel Frohn, Hermann Josef Rupieper: American Policy and the Reconstruction of Western Germany 1945–1955 , Washington, D.C., Cambridge/ Mass. 1993, 307–329.
153 Clemens Vollnhals (see note 115) 23. 154 Clemens Vollnhals (see note 115) 55–64.
164 Henry P. Pilgert, The West German Educational System , n.p. 1953, 9 f. 165 James F. Tent: “Education and Religious Affairs Branch, OMGUS und die Entwicklung amerikanischer Bildungspolitik 1944 bis 1949“, in: Manfred Heinemann (see note 161) 68–85, here: 74 ff.
178 Alfred Knierim, Johannes Schneider, Anfänge und Entwicklungstendenzen des Volkshochschulwesens nach dem 2. Weltkrieg (1945–1952), Stuttgart 1978, 41.
166 Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155), 117–131.
179 Alfred Knierim, Johannes Schneider (see note 178) 37.
167 Cf. James F. Tent, Mission on the Rhine. Reeducation and Denazification in American-Occupied Germany , Chicago, London 1982, 316.
180 Alfred Knierim, Johannes Schneider (see note 178) 46.
168 James F. Tent (see note 167) 73.
138 Official announcement about the Potsdam Conference , 2 Aug. 1945. Excerpted in: Klaus-Jörg Ruhl (see note 135) 112–123. 139 On denazification: Clemens Vollnhals (ed.) (see note 115); Lutz Niethammer (see note 132); Conrad F. Latour, Thilo Vogelsang, Okkupa tion und Wiederaufbau. Die Tätigkeit der Militärregierung in der amerikanischen Besatzungszone Deutschlands 1945–1947 , Stuttgart 1973; JustusFürstenau, Entnazifizierung. Ein Kapitel deutscher Nachkriegs politik , Diss. Phil. Frankfurt am Main 1955. (= Politica , vol. 40) Neuwied 1969. – A critique of Lutz Niethammer in: Klaus Dietmar Henke: “Die Grenzen der politischen Säuberung in Deutschland nach 1945“, in: Ludolf Herbst (ed.) (see note 132), 127–133. – The communiqué of the Yalta Conference (11 Feb. 1945) is excerpted in Klaus-Jörg Ruhl (see note 135) 49–51. 140 On the additional measures cf. Elmer Plischke (see note 136) 211 ff. 141 Cf. Beate Ruhm von Oppen (see note 133) 50–58 and 97–102. 142 Clemens Vollnhals (see note 115) 8. 143 Clemens Vollnhals (see note 115) 12. Cf. Elmar F. Ziemke: “Improvising Stability and Change in Postwar Germany“, in: Robert Wolfe (ed.) (see note 136), 52–66, here: 62 f. 144 Gesetz Nr. 8 der Militärregie rung der amerikanischen Zone, 26 Sept. 1945“, in: Klaus-Jörg Ruhl (see note 135) 275 f. 145 Elmar Ziemke (see note 143)63.
133 Printed in: Beate Ruhm von Oppen (ed.), Documents on Germany under occupation 1945–1954 , London, New York, Toronto 1955, 40–50.
146 Clemens Vollnhals (see note 115) 12 f.
134 Direktive des Generalstabs der Streitkräfte der Vereinigten Staaten an den Oberbefehlshaber der Besatzungstruppen der Vereinigten Staaten hinsichtlich der Militärregierung für Deutschland (Direktive JCS 1067), 26 April 1945. Reprinted in: Beate Ruhm von Oppen (see note 133) 13–27. Directive JCS 1067 was replaced by Directive JCS 1779,
148 Elmar Ziemke (see note 143) 63.
147 As quoted in Elmar Ziemke (see note 143) 63.
149 Gesetz zur Befreiung von Nationalsozialismus und Militarismus , 5 Mar. 1946. Excerpts appear in: Klaus-Jörg Ruhl (see note 135) 279– 284. 150 Clemens Vollnhals (see note 115) 17.
157 Hermann Josef Rupieper, Die Wurzeln der westdeutschen Nach kriegsgesellschaft. Der amerikanische Beitrag, Opladen 1993, 8. 158 Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 8. 159 Cf. Henry J. Kellermann: “Reflections on German reorientation“, in: Michael Ermarth (ed.), America and the Shaping of German Society 1945–1955 , Oxford 1993, 190–194, here: 191–193. – Henry J. Kellermann was the alter ego of Shepard Stone and his colleague at the State Department in Washington: When Shepard Stone was the director of the HICOG public affairs department in Germany, Henry J. Kellermann headed the department by the same name at the Bureau of German Affairs. He summed up experiences regarding his main concern, the HICOGexchange program, in: Cultu ral relations as an instrument of foreign policy. The educational exchan ge program between the United States and Germany, 1945–1954 . (= Department of State Publications, vol. 8931) Washington, D.C. 1978. 160 Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 10. 161SWNCC 269/5 , adopted on 16May 1946. – Cf. Jutta-B. LangeQuassowski: “Amerikanische Westintegrationspolitik, Re-education und deutsche Schulpolitik“, in: Manfred Heinemann (ed.), Umerziehung und Wiederaufbau. Die Bildungspolit ik der Besatzungsmächte in Deutschland und Österreich, (= Veröffentlichungen der historischen Kommission der deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft , vol. 5) Stuttgart 1981, 53–67, here: 56. 162 Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 31 f. 163 Excerpts reprinted in Klaus-Jörg Ruhl (see note 135) 448–453 and Beate Ruhm von Oppen (see note 133) 152–160.
lition 1949–1967 , Munich 1986; Vol. 3: Zwischen Protest und Anpassung 1968–1989, Munich 1989, Frankfurt am Main 21990. Here vol. 1, 164 f.
169 Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155) 112. 170 On 11 Apr. 1948 Robert Scholl lost in the final ballot of the first free mayoral election since 1929 to Theodor Pfizer, who then remained mayor until 1972, i.e., the entire period the HfG was in existence. This continuity was very beneficial for the HfG, for it meant constant support due to the far-reaching politico-culturalcommitment of Theodor Pfizer. 171 Hans Frei (see note 96) 17. 172 Information Bulletin, April 1950. 173 For details regarding the following see Barbara Schüler (see note 106) 17–25. – Romano Guardini (17 Feb. 1885–1 Oct. 1968), Catholic theologian, spiritual leader of the Catholic youth movement in the Weimar Republic, head of the then most important Catholic seat of learning in Germany, Burg Rothenfels, sponsored by the Quickborner Bund; Prussian minister of education and the arts Carl Heinrich Becker appointed him professor of Catholic philosophy of religion and world view at the University of Berlin, the then stronghold of Protestant scholarship; after 1939, exiled in Allgäu; in 1945, professor in Munich, where he was well-known for his Sunday sermons at the Universitätskirche St. Ludwig; he was awarded many prizes including the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade, the Order Pour le Mérite for Arts and Sciences, and the Praemium Erasmianum. Cf. Burg Rothenfels 1955. Romano Guardini zum 70. Geburtstag . n.p., n.d. (Rothenfels 1955). 174 .Sabine Hanslovsky: “‚Fangen wir an, hier in Ulm‘. Die Ulmer Volkshochschule und die Entstehung der Hochschule für Gestaltung“, in: Christiane Wachsmann (ed.) (see note 10), 12–27, here: 26 fn. 2. 175 Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155) 131. 176 Cf., for instance, the 1946 catalog of the Ulm Adult Education Center. 177 Hermann Glaser, Die Kulturgeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland : Vol. 1: Zwischen Kapitulation und Währungsreform 1945– 1948 , Munich 1985; Vol. 2: Zwischen Grundgesetz und Großer Koa-
181 Inge Aicher-Scholl shared this information about the “first“ Ulm adult education center with me in a conversation on 12 Aug. 1993. 182 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 20.5.1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 183 Otl Aicher: “Bauhaus und Ulm“, in: Herbert Lindinger (ed.) (see note 1) 124. 184 Eva von Seckendorff (see note 95), 17, and in agreement with her Norbert Korrek (see note 29), 69, mistakenly mention 27 April 1946, a Saturday, as the beginning of the opening week, while Herbert Wiegandt: “Das kulturelle Geschehen“, in: Hans Eugen Specker (ed.) (see note 128) refers to 24 April 1946, a Wednesday. According to the Ulm A dult Education Center, the latter date is correct (5 July 1993 letter from the Ulm Adult Education Center to the author). 185 Ulm Adult Education Center. Catalog. Ulm 1946, 22. 186 Barbara Schüler, „Im Geiste der Gemordeten …“: Die „Weiße Rose“ und ihre Wirkung in der Nachkriegszeit , Diss. Phil. Stuttgart 1998, 12. A detailed discussion of this topic: ibid. 12–17. 187 Ulm Adult Education Center. Catalog. Ulm 1946.
195 In 1949 a number of Ulm dignitaries denied that Otl Aicher specifically was qualified for this position when John F. Campell asked them about it. It is doubtful whether those who had such a low opinion of Otl A icher’s abilities had ever actually visited the Adult Education Center. 196 Eva von Seckendorff (see note 95) 18. 197 “Education was a notoriously neglected step-child of United States military government.“ Harold Hurwitz: “Comparing American reform efforts in Germany. Mass media and the school system“, in: Robert Wolfe (see note 136) 321–341, here: 329. 198 Cf. Harold Hurwitz (see note 197) 329 f. 199 Harold Hurwitz (see note 197) 323 f. 200 Wolfgang Benz: “Postwar society and National Socialism: Remembrance, amnesia and rejection“, in: TAJB 19/1990, 1–33, here: 1. 201 Harold Hurwitz (see note 197) 330. Cf. James Tent (see note 167) 316 f. 202 Josef Henke, Klaus Oldenhage: “Office of Military Government for Germany (US)“, in: Christoph Weisz (ed.), OMGUS-Handbuch , (= Quel len und Darstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte , vol. 35) Munich 1994, 1– 142, here: 112. 203 Regarding the following cf. Wilfried Schöntag: “Office of Military Government for WürttembergBaden“, in: Christoph Weisz (see note 202) 455–595, here: 464–503. 204 On 24 Sept. 1945 the military governor appointed Reinhold Maier minister-president of Württemberg Baden and also appointed a Land government.
190 Barbara Schüler (see note 186) 20.
205 Beginning Mar. 1946 John P. Steiner worked for the military government as a civilian. After 1949 he was taken over by HICOG. – The Education and Religion Division was renamed Education and Cultural Affairs Division in April 1947; in May 1948 it became the Education and Cultural Relations Division.
191 When I spoke with Inge AicherScholl on 12 Aug. 1993, she referred, for instance, to the then editor of the feature page of the Münchner Mer kur , Herbert Hohenemser, and to Pamela Wedekind, who brought the cultural VIPs of Germany to Ulm, arguing that it was a moral duty to support the adult education center that was directed by the sister of Hans and Sophie Scholl.
206 Erziehung in Deutschland. Bericht und Vorschläge der amerikanischen Erziehungskommission , Munich 1946. Partially reprinted in: Heinrich Kanz (ed.), Deutsche päda gogische Zeitgeschichte 1945– 1959. Von der Bildungspolitik der Alliierten bis zum Rahmenplan des Deutschen Ausschusses, (= Pädago gische Zeitgeschichte, vol. 1) Ratingen, Kastellaun 1975, 37 ff.
192 Hartmut Seeling (see note 96) 16
207 Alfred Knierim, Johannes Schneider (see note 178) 27.
193 Otl Aicher in: Blätter der Ulmer Volkshochschule 1. Ulm 1946.
208 Cf. Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 115–117. Also includes references to the pedagogical origins of these American reformers : The concept of educational philosopher John Dewey that democracy is not a form of government but rather a way of life.
188 Der Städtetag 9/1953. 189 Information Bulletin , April 1950.
194 Barbara Schüler also mentioned, and rightly so, the characteristic and clear structure of the curriculum as a reason for the school’s success: Barbara Schüler (see note 186) 22.
209 Alfred Knierim, Johannes Schneider (see note 178) 29. 210 Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155) 134. 211 John Gimbel, Amerikanische Besatzungspolitik in Deutschland 1945–1949, Stanford 1968, Frankfurt am Main 1971, 311.
tik, Re-education und deutsche Schulpolitik“, in: Manfred Heinemann (ed.) (see note 161), 53–67, here: 55. 219 Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155) 163. 220 Hansjörg Gehring (see note 214). 221 John Gimbel (see note 211) 321.
212 In Elmer Plischke (see note 136) 208: 11.7.1947 Veröffentlichung von JCS 1779. – Richtlinien der amerikanischen Regierung an General Clay (JCS 1779), excerpted in: Klaus-Jörg Ruhl (see note 135) 375–382, where the deadline is given as 17 July 1947. 213 Jutta-B. Lange-Quassowski (see note 161) 59 f. 214 Cf. Hansjörg Gehring, Amerika nische Literaturpolitik in Deutschland 1945–1953. Ein Aspekt des Reeducationprogramms , (= Schriften reihe der Vierteljahreshefte für Zeit geschichte , vol. 32) Stuttgart 1976. 22. 215 Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 118. 216 Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155) 18 f. – On British and French reorientation and education policy cf. Maria Halbritter, Schulreformpolitik in der britischen Zone von 1945 bis 1949, (= Diss. Phil. Karlsruhe 1977; Studien und Dokumentationen zur deutschen Bildungsgeschichte, vol. 13) Frankfurt am Main 1979; Falk Pingel: “Wissenschaft, Bildung und Demokratie – der gescheiterte Versuch einer Universitätsreform“, in: Josef Foschepoth, Rolf Steininger (ed.), Die britische Deutschland- und Besatzungspolitik 1945–1949, Paderborn 1985, 183–209; Kurt Jürgensen: “Zum Problem der ‚political re-education‘“ , in: Manfred Heinemann (ed.), Umerziehung und Wiederaufbau (see note 161) 114–139. – In the same volume are the essays of René Cheval: “Die Bildungspolitik in der französischen Besatzungszone“, pp. 190–200, and of Jérôme Vaillant: “Was tun mit Deutschland? Die französische Kulturpolitik im besetzten Deutschland von 1945 bis 1949“, pp. 201–210; Angelika Ruge-Schatz, Umerziehung und Schulpolitik in der französischen Besatzungszone 1945–1949, (= Sozialwissenschaft liche Studien, vol. 1) Frankfurt am Main, Bern, Las Vegas 1977; Jérôme Vaillant,Französische Kulturpolitik in Deutschland 1945–1949. Berichte und Dokumente, Lille 1981, Constance 1984; Franz Knipping, Jacques Le Rider (eds.), Frankreichs Kulturpolitik in Deutschland, 1945– 1950. Ein Tübinger Symposium, 19.und 20. September 1985 . Tübingen 1987. 217 Cf. Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155) 18 f., whose study provides a detailed definition and delimitation of the terms “reeducation“, “reorientation“, “democratization“, and “Umerziehung“. I shall not discuss this topic because it takes me too far away from the subject of this study. 218 Jutta-B. Lange-Quassowski: “Amerikanische Westintegra tionspoli-
222 John Gimbel (see note 211) 314 f. He disagrees with an interpretation of American reeducation policy that regards “the realization of this goal, the introduction of ‘real democracy’ on an institutional and intellectualmoral level,“ as the “core of American occupation policy in Germany“, to quote Hansjörg Gehring (see note 214) 17 f. 223 Older literature on this topic in Karl Heinz Füssl, Die Umerziehung der Deutschen. Jugend und Schule unter den Siegermächten des Zweiten Weltkriegs 1945–1955 , Paderborn 1994. 224 Christoph Kleßmann, Die dop pelte Staatsgründung. Deutsche Geschichte 1945–1955 , Bonn 41986, 92. 225 Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155) 30. 226 John Gimbel (see note 211) 322f. 227 Cf. Jutta-B. Lange-Quassowski (see note 161) 60 ff. 228 John Gimbel (see note 211) 317. 229 Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155) 164. 230 Christoph Kleßmann (see note 224) 98. 231 U.S. Information and Exchanges Survey Mission, quoted from Henry P. Pilgert (see note 164) 18. 232 Josef Foschepoth: “Zur deutschen Reaktion auf Niederlage und Besatzung“, in: Ludolf Herbst (see note 132) 151–165. 233 Hansjörg Gehring (see note 214) 31. 234 Hansjörg Gehring (see note 214) 31. 235 Christoph Weisz (ed.) (see note 202) 496; after May 1948 John F. Capell was liaison officer in Ulm (ibid. 503). 236 Ulrich M. Bausch, Die Kultur politik der US-amerikanischen Information Control Division in Württem berg-Baden von 1945–1949. Zwischen militärischem Funktionalismus und schwäbischem Obrigkeitsdenken, (= Veröffentlichungen des Archivs der Stadt Stuttgart , vol. 55; Diss. Phil. Tübingen 1991) Stuttgart 1992, 21. 237 The American military initially felt suspicious even of Inge Scholl: Inge Aicher-Scholl reports that her name had to be removed from one of the first catalogs of the Ulm Adult
443
References
444
Education Center after it had already been printed, because she – like her brothers and sister – had once been a member of the Hitler Youth. Her application for membership in the NS-Frauenschaft (NationalSocialist women’s organization) : NSFrauenschaft, Gau WürttembergHohenzollern, Ortsgruppe UlmSchwörhaus: Aufnahme-Erklärung Nr. 1661657 . n.d. 1938. BAZ. 238 Jutta-B. Lange-Quassowski (see note 161) 55 f. 239 Hansjörg Gehring (see note 214) 80. 240 Cf. Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155) 116. 241 Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157)113. 242 Control Council Directive no. 54 , 25 June 1947, reprinted in: Beate Ruhm von Oppen (see note 133) 233–234. 243 Wolfgang Benz, Zwischen Hitler und Adenauer. Studien zur deutschen Nachkriegsgesellschaft , Frankfurt am Main 1991, 189. 244 Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155) 150. 245 Quoted from Hansjörg Gehring (see note 214) 86. 246 Hansjörg Gehring (see note 214) 20. 247 Christoph Kleßmann (see note 224) 99. 248 The first event took place in October 1949; cf. Sabine Hanslovsky (see note 174) 20. 249 Cf. Jérôme Vaillant, Der Ruf. Unabhängige Blätter der jungen Generation (1945–1949). Eine Zeitschrift zwischen Illusion und Anpassung, (= Kommunikation und Politik , vol. 11) Munich 1978. – For the larger context cf. Bernhard Zeller (ed.), „Als der Krieg zu Ende war“. Literarisch politische Publizistik 1945– 1950 . (= Sonderausstellungen des Schiller-Nationalmuseums , Catalog No.23) Stuttgart, Munich 1973; Hans Borchers, Klaus W. Vowe, Die zarte Pflanze Demokratie. Amerikanische Re-education in Deutschland im Spiegel ausgewählter politischer und literarischer Zeitschriften (1945– 1949), Tübingen 1979; Jürgen Schröder, Brigitte Bonath, Bertram Salzmann, Claudia Wischinski, Angela Wittman (eds.), Die Stunde Null in der deutschen Literatur. Ausgewählte Texte, Stuttgart 1995. – Bernhard Adam, Dieter Müller: “Amerikanische Literaturpolitik und Literatur“, in: Dieter Bänsch (ed.) (see note 44), 147–168. 250 Christoph Kleßmann (see note 224) 157. 251 Hans Werner Richter: “Wie entstand und was war die Gruppe 47?“, in: Reinhard Lettau (ed.), Die Gruppe 47. Bericht, Kritik, Polemik , Neuwied 1967, 41–176, here: 47. On the program of the editors of Der Ruf cf. Jérôme Vaillant (see note 249) 82–
105; Bernhard Zeller (see note 249) 100–108. 252 Hans Werner Richter: “Fünfzehn Jahre“, in: ibid. (ed.), Almanach der Gruppe 47. 1947–1962. Reinbek 1962, 8–14, here: 14. 253 Hans Werner Richter (see note 252) 10. 254 Kurt Sontheimer (see note 118) 135. – In contrast to this interpretation of the current situation there were others, who, under the effect of the catastrophe the country had just survived, looked backward, finding their bearings with the help of the culture of German classicism. Friedrich Meinecke, Die deutsche Katastrophe. Betrachtungen und Erinne rungen , Wiesbaden 1946. Cf. also Bernd Hüppauf: „Die Mühen der Ebenen“. Kontinuität und Wandel in der deutschen Literatur und Gesellschaft 1945–1949, (= Reihe Siegen, Beiträge zur Literatur- und Sprachwissenschaft , vol. 17) Heidelberg 1981, 104–109. 255 Anselm Doering-Manteuffe l, Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland in der Ära Adenauer. Außenpolitik und innere Entwicklung 1949– 1963 , Darmstadt 1983, 21988, 206.
269 Marcel Reich-Ranicki: Eine kleine Unsterblichkeit“, in: Hans A. Neunzig, Hans Werner Richter und die Gruppe 47 , Munich 1979. 33–39, here: 37.
287 Inge Scholl: Brief an die Freunde der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, n. d., Jan. 1952. HfG, unlisted file; on the currency reform cf. Beate Ruhm von Oppen (see note 133) 292–294.
300 Re this and the following cf.: Harold Zink, The United States in Germany 1944–1955 , Princeton, Toronto, London, New York 1957, 49–52.
ities: Max Bill, Wiederaufbau. Dokumente über Zerstörungen, Planun gen, Konstruktionen, Zürich 1945; ibid.: “Wassily Kandinsky“, in: Werk , vol. 33, 4/1946, 128–132.
270 Anselm Doering-Manteuffel (see note 255) 219. – On Gruppe 47 cf. Hans Werner Richter (ed.) (see note 252), particularly 8–21; Hans A. Neunzig (ed.) (see note 269); Helmut Heißenbüttel: “Literarische A rchäologie der fünfziger Jahre“, in: Dieter Bänsch (see note 44) 306– 325, especially 310–315.
288 Barbara Schüler (see note 186) 24.
301 When the responsibilities of OMGUS were taken over by HICOG, the Education and Cultural Relations Division (ECR) was merged with the Office of Public Affairs, HICOG in accordance with General Order no. 44, OMGUS, dated 3 Sept. 1949. Josef Henke, Klaus Oldenhage (see note 202) 114.
319 Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 10Aug. 1949. PAF; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 5 Oct. 1948. PAF; Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 10. Oct. 1948. PAF; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 9 Feb. 1949. PAF; Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 12 Mar. 1948. PAF; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 17 Mar. 1949. PAF; Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 17 Mar. 1948. PAF; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 18 Mar. 1949. PAF; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 21Apr. 1949. PAF; Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 10 May 1948. PAF; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 12 May 1949. PAF; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 12 Aug. 1949. PAF.
271 Hans Werner Richter (see note 252) 8. 272 Bernd Hüppauf: “Schwierigkeiten mit der Nachkriegszeit“, in: ibid. (ed.) (see note 254), 7–20, Here: 12. 273 Cf. Helmut Müller: “Der ‚dritte Weg‘ als deutsche Gesellschaftsidee“, in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 27/1984, 27–38. 274 Hans Werner Richter (see note 252) 10. 275 John McCloy held the opposing pedagogical view that the HfG ought to teach a large number of students, but he did not insist on this.
256 Bernd Hüppauf (see note 254) 96 f. – The first programs for a Geschwister Scholl College also have this nebulous quality; perhaps they would have vanished into thin air, as happened with Studio Null, if Max Bill had not given them solidity.
276 Cf. Hans Werner Richter (see note 252) 88.
257 Rüdiger Bolz: “Ansätze einer Universitätsreform im Spiegel deutscherNachkriegszeitschriften“, in: Gerhard Hay (ed.), Zur literarischen Situation 1945–1949, Kronberg 1977, 63–83, here: 63.
278 Alfred Andersch, Deutsche Lite ratur in der Entscheidung. Ein Beitrag zur Analyse der literarischen Situation , Karlsruhe 1948.
277 Friedrich Minssen in the February 1948 issue of Frankfurter Hefte, quoted from Reinhard Lettau (see note 250) 30.
259 Rüdiger Bolz (see note 257) 67.
279 Heinz Ludwig Arnold (ed.), Der Skorpion. Herausgegeben von Hans Werner Richter. Jahrgang 1, Heft 1, München, Januar 1948 . Reprint Göttingen 1991.
260 Karl-Ernst Bungenstab (see note 155) 116.
280 Reprinted in: Beate Ruhm von Oppen (see note 133) 195–199.
261 Rüdiger Bolz (see note 257) 76.
281 Vorschläge des amerikanischen Außenministers Marshall zur ame rikanischen Hilfeleistung für die europäischen Länder (Rede in Harvard), 5.6.1947, in: Klaus-Jörg Ruhl (see note 135) 368–371.
258 Rüdiger Bolz (see note 257) 65.
262 Rüdiger Bolz (see note 257) 77. 263 Bernd Hüppauf: “Krise ohne Wandel. Die kulturelle Situation 1945–1949“, in: ibid. (see note 254) 47–112, here: 90.
283 Sabine Hanslovsky (see note 174) 19.
265 Hans Werner Richter: “Fünfzehn Jahre“, in: ibid. (ed.) (see note 252), here: 11.
284 This and the two following quotations: Otl Aicher, Herbert Hohenemser, Inge Scholl, Studio Null , n.d., 1947/48, in: Barbara Schüler (see note 186) 67.
267 On the licensing of postwar periodicals see Hans Borchers, Klaus W. Vrowe (see note 249); on DerRuf note especially 50–54. 268 Bernhard Adam, Dieter Müller: A merikanischeLiteraturpolitik und Literatur“, in: Dieter Bänsch (see note 44) 147–168, here: 152.
290 Cf. Rüdiger Bolz (see note 257) 81; Rudolf Walther Leonhardt: “Die deutschenUniversitäten1945– 1962“, in: Hans Werner Richter (ed.), Bestandsaufnahme. Eine deutsche Bilanz 1962, Munich, Vienna, Basel 1962. 291 Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 139.
302 It was headed by: Dr. Alonzo G. Grace; after January 1950 Dr. James Morgan Read; then George A. Selke. 303 Henry Pilgert (see note 164) 25. Re what follows cf. 80–105. 304 Henry Pilgert (see note 164) 93.
292 About John J. McCloy (31 Mar. 1895–11 Mar. 1989): Kai Bird, The chairman. John J. McCloy: the making of the American establishment , New York 1992; Thomas Alan Schwartz, Die Atlantik-Brücke. John McCloy und das Nachkriegsdeutschland , (= Diss. Phil. Harvard 1985) Cambridge/Mass., London 1991, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin 1992; Klaus Schwabe: “Fürsprecher Frankreich? John McCloy und die Integration der Bundesrepublik“, in: Ludolf Herbst, Hanno Sowade (eds.), Vom Marshallplan zur EWG. Die Eingliederung der Bundesrepublik in die westliche Welt . (= Quellen und Darstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte , vol. 30) Munich 1990, 517–533; Erika J. and Heinz-Dietrich Fischer: “Initiativen und Begegnungen des Hochkommissars McCloy im zeitgenössischen Presseecho“, in: ibid. (eds.), John J. McCloy und die Frühgeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Presseberichte und Dokumente über den amerikanischen Hochkommissar für Deutschland 1949–1952. Cologne 1985, 13– 49. 293 Cf. John J. McCloy: “From military government to self-government“, in: Robert Wolfe (see note 136) 114– 123. 294 Das Besatzungsstatut für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland , 10.4.1949, in: Klaus-Jörg Ruhl (see note 135) 479–481.
305 On Shepard Stone: Ein Buch der Freunde. Shepard Stone zum Achtzigsten. Berlin 1988. 306 Erika J. und Heinz-Dietrich Fischer (see note 292) 25–28. 307 J. F. Gillen, The Special Projects Program of the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany , Bad Godesberg-Mehlem 1952, 2 f. 308 J. F. Gillen (see note 307), 4. 309 Cf. Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 110. 310 Henry Pilgert (see note 164) 13. 311 Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 126 f. 312 John Gimbel (see note 211) 318. 313 Werk , Vol. 33, 5/1946. Articles by: Egidius Streiff: “Formgebung in der schweizerischen Industrie“ (138– 154); Sigfried Giedion: “Stromlinienstil und industrielles Entwerfen in USA“ (155–162); Max Ernst Haefeli: “Die neue Spitaltoilette. Beispiel einer Modellentwicklung“ (163–167); Max Bill: “Erfahrungen bei der Formgestaltung von Industrieprodukten“ (168–170). 314 Barbara Schüler (see note 106) 33; cf. Hans Frei (see note 95) 34. 315 Hans Frei (see note 95) 34.
282 Hermann-Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 22.
264 Michael Streich: “Politisch-literarische Publizistik“, in: Christoph Kleßmann (see note 224) 161–171, here: 168.
266 Michael Streich (see note 264) 168.
289 Cf. Henry P. Pilgert (see note 164) 79; Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 137.
285 Bernd Hüppauf (see note 254) 90. 286 This and the following quotations: Studio Null, Fangen wir an, 16.8.1948“, in: Christiane Wachsmann (see note 10) 82 f. The consistent use of lowercase initial letters indicates that Otl Aicher was the author.
unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Gespräch mit Wolfgang und Marianne v. Eckardt . n.d. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Gespräch mit Boerner . n.d. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Undat. summary. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Undated summary. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Gespräch mit Professor Guardini . 28 Nov. 1949. HfG, unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Gespräch mit Herrn. Torkersen am 18.11. 18 Nov. 1949. HfG, unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Gespräch mit Herrn Torkersen und Frau Zuckmayer am 20.11.49. 20 Nov. 1949. HfG, unlist. file; Inge Scholl: Besprechung mit Oberbürgermeister Pfizer und Stadt baurat Guther . 24 Nov. 1949. HfG, unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Norwegische Europahilfe. n.d. November– December 1949. HfG, unlisted file.
295 Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 123. 296 Henry J. Kellermann, Cultural relations as an instrument of foreign policy. The educational exchange program between the United States and Germany, 1945–1954 . (=Department of State Publications, vol. 8931) Washington, D.C. 1978, 191. 297 Cf. also Thomas Alan Schwartz: “Reeducation and democracy: The policies of the United States High Commission in Germany“, in: Michael Ermarth (see note 159) 35–46. 298 Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 20. 299 Henry Pilgert (see note 164) 11.
316 Max Bill: “Ausstellungen. Ein Beitrag zur Abklärung von Fragen der Ausstellungs -Gestaltung“, in: Werk , vol. 35, 3/1948, 65–71. 317 Max Bill: “Schönheit aus Funktion und als Funktion. Vortrag bei der Tagung des schweizerischen Werkbundes in Basel am 23./24.10. 1948“, in: Werk , vol. 36, 8/1949, 272–274. Reprinted in: Gerd Hatje (ed.), Idea 53. Internationales Jahr buch für Formgebung, Stuttgart 1953, XVI–XVIII. 318 Max Bill: “Die mathematische Denkweise in der Kunst unserer Zeit. Zu der Ausstellung Pevsner-Vantongerloo-Bill im April/ Mai 1949 im Kunsthaus Zürich“, in: Werk , vol. 36, 3/1949, 86–91. – Additional documentation of his many-sided activ-
320 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 5Oct. 1948. PAF 321 Ulmer Volkshochschule (ed.), Der Geist weht, wo er will. Kalender für das Jahr 1949, Ulm 1948. Re Max Bill, see: Week 25, 12–18 June 1949. 322 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 9Feb. 1949. PAF 323 Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 10Aug. 1949. PAF; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 17 Mar. 1949. PAF; Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 17 Mar. 1948. PAF; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 21 Apr. 1949. PAF; Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 10 May 1948. PAF; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 12 May 1949. PAF; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 12 Aug. 1949. PAF 324 Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 10May 1948. PAF 325 Cf. Max Bill’s book, which includes some of the illustrations: Form. Eine Bilanz über die Formentwicklung um die Mitte des XX. Jahrhunderts , Basel 1952. 326 Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 10Aug. 1949. PAF 327 Henry van de Velde: “Die reine zweckmässige Form“ (247–250); Theodor Brogle: “Der Qualitäts- und Formgedanke in der schweizerischen Industrie“ (259–260); Gregor Paulsson: “Die soziale Aufgabe im kunstindustriellen Unterricht“ (260– 271). 328 Inge Scholl: Letter to Shepard Stone. 8 Dec. 1949. HfG, file 433. 329 Cf. Inge Scholl: Ausgangspunkt . N. d. May 1950. HfG, unlisted file; Exposé zur Gründung einer Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule (Arbeitstitel) . n.d. December 1949. PAH, DOK 2; Inge Scholl: Kurze Zusammenfassung über die Vorarbeiten zur Gründung der GeschwisterScholl-Hochschule . n.d. December 1949. PAH, DOK 1; Inge Scholl: Die Ulmer Volkshochschule gilt als eine der besten Volkshochschulen in Deutschland. n.d. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Gespräch mit Carl Zuckmayer, München 11.12.1949. 11 Dec. 1949. HfG, unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Norwegische Europahilfe. 18 Dec. 1949. HfG,
330 This and the two following quotations are from: Inge Aicher-Scholl: Bericht über die Vorarbeiten von 1949 bis 1953 . 27 Jan. 1954. HfG, unlisted file. 331 Hans Werner Richter: Anfänge der „Geschwister Scholl“ Hochschule. n.d. PARI. 332 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 5 Oct. 1949. HWR. 333 The Norwegian Aid for Europe was founded by Odd Nansen (6Dec. 1901–27 June 1973), the son of Fridtjof Nansen, the Norwegian polar explorer, diplomat, and 1922 Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Odd Nansen was an architect. In 1936 he founded the Nansen Aid for Refugees and Stateless Persons; from 1941 to 1945 he was interned in Germany and in 1946 founded this aid organization. – On Arne Torgersen’s experiences cf. his memoirs: „Nach Ihnen, Herr General!“ Humanitäre Abenteuer eines Norwegers im Nachkriegseuropa , Stuttgart 1971, especially 75–131. 334 On Otl Aicher’s contacts with HAP Grieshaber starting in 1948, cf. Margot Fuerst, Grieshaber. Der Drucker und Holzschneider. Plakate, Flugblätter, Editionen und Akzidentia, Stuttgart 1965, n. p. 335 Inge Scholl: Die Ulmer Volkshochschule. n. d., 1949, reprinted in: Christiane Wachsmann (see note 10) 54–66, here: 66. 336 It is amazing that here it is already possible to recognize the board of trustees and the advisory board of the later foundation, whose third body, the administrative council, was only included in the statutes at the urging of the ministries. 337 The fact that the plans discussed here include printing workshops for refugees is not solely due to the foundation’s sense of mission and their need for a way of carrying their conviction into the world or their need to fulfil the ideal that theory and practice should complement each other: The Norwegian Aid for Europe supported only institutions that cared for refugees; cf. Hellmut Becker: Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 11 Sept. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19.
338 Inge Aicher-Scholl:Bericht über die Vorarbeiten von 1949 bis 1953 . 27 Jan. 1954. HfG, unlisted file.
355 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 22 May 1950. BHA, HfG records, folder 19.
339 Inge Aicher-Scholl: “Offen für neues Denken – offen für Experimente“, in: Ein Buch der Freunde (see note 305), 13–16, here: 13.
356 Inge Scholl: Letter to Theodor Heuss. 27 Jan. 1950. BA.
340 Cf. Hermann Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 49. 341 Max Bill: Letter to Richard Döcker. 19 Nov. 1951. HfG, file 556. 342 Exposé zur Gründung einer GeschwisterScholl-Hochschule (Arbeitstitel) . n.d. December 1949. PAH, DOK 2; Exposé zur Gründung einer GeschwisterScholl-Hochschule (Arbeitstitel) . n.d. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file; Geschwister-Scholl Stiftung zur Errichtung einer Geschwister-Scholl-Schule . n.d. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file. 343 Geschwister-Scholl Stiftung zur Errichtung einer Geschwister-SchollSchule. n.d. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file. 344 Exposé zur Gründung einer GeschwisterScholl-Hochschule (Arbeitstitel) . n.d. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file. 345 Hans Bott: Letter to Inge Scholl. 4 Apr. 1950. BA; Ministerial Councillor Dr. Rupp: Aktenvermerk H 1091. 11 May 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 5. 346 Cf. Inge Scholl: Kurze Zusammenfassung über die Vorarbeiten zur Gründung der GeschwisterScholl-Hochschule . n.d. December 1949. PAH, DOK 1. 347 Inge Scholl: Kurze Zusammenfassung über die Vorarbeiten zur Gründung der Geschwister-SchollHochschule . n.d. December 1949. PAFH doc 1. 348 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Bericht über die Vorarbeiten von 1949 bis 1953 . 27 Jan. 1954. HfG, unlisted file. 349 Inge Scholl: Gespräch mit Boerner . n.d. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Undated summary. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file.
357 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 10 Jan. 1950. HWR. 358 Regarding this and the following cf: J. F. Gillen (see note 307) 4 f. 359 The J.F. Gillen book states that at the time he interviewed John H. Boxer on 1 July 1951, the latter was with the Office of the Land Commissioner for Bavaria, Public Affairs Division, Education and Cultural Relations Branch, Information Centers Section. 360 Cf. Erika and Heinz-Dietrich Fischer (eds.), John J. McCloy. An American architect of postwar Germany. Profiles of a trans-Atlantic leader and communicator , Frankfurt am Main 1994, 157. See also Inge Scholl: Letter to Mr. Boxer. 2 Feb. 1950. HfG, file 433. Wrong: 18 Jan. 1950 in Inge Scholl: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 10 Jan. 1950. HWR; also mistaken is Hans Frei (see note 95) 24, who dates this meeting as 22 Dec. 1949, agreeing with Hartmut Seeling (see note 95) 32. – Cf. Eva von Seckendorff (see note 95) 30, and Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 12 June 1950. BHA, Gropius Estate,correspondenceBill-Gropius: Shepard Stone, Max Boerner, and John H. Boxer (secretary of the Special Projects fund), James Morgan Read (head of the Education Branch), John P. Steiner (head of the Education and Cultural Affairs Branch, Württemberg-Baden, Stuttgart). See also Ulrich M. Bausch (see note 236). 361 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 26 Jan. 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 362 HICOG: Press Release No. 183. 27 Jan. 1950. HfG, file 433. 363 It is worth noting that the high commissioner spoke of a “day institution“, i. e., something along the lines of a day adult education center.
350 The person referred to is the American HICOG staffer James Morgan Read, not the British art historian Sir Herbert Read.
364 Cf. Inge Scholl: Gespräch mit Herrn Torkersen am 18.11. 18 Nov. 1949. HfG, unlisted file. Cf. also Anette Dumbach, Jud Newborn, Die Geschichte der Weißen Rose, Freiburg, Basel, Vienna 1986, 21994, 203.
351 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 23 Dec. 1949. HWR
365 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 26 Jan. 1950. HfG, unlisted file.
352 Dating as in Hans Frei (see note 95) 24, as opposed to Eva von Seckendorff (see note 95) 35 ff., who assigns the date April 1950 to this outline. – The term “yellow program“ (= Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule . undated. January 1950. BA) was also used by recipients at the time: Cf. Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Hans Bott. 25 May 1950. BA.
366 Cf. Inge Scholl: Letter to John Boxer. 31 Jan. 1950. HfG, file 433.
353 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 29 Dec. 1949. HWR. 354 Inge Scholl: Letter to Theodor Heuss. 27 Jan. 1950. BA.
367 Inge Scholl: Letter to John Boxer. 31 Jan. 1950. HfG, file 433. 368 Cf. Inge Scholl: Gespräch mit Herrn Torkersen am 18.11. 18 Nov. 1949. HfG, unlisted file and Inge Scholl: Norwegische Europahilfe . n.d. November–December 1949. HfG, unlisted file. 369 Cf. Inge Scholl: Gespräch mit Carl Zuckmayer, München 11.12. 1949. 11 Dec. 1949. HfG, unlisted
445
References
446
file, Inge Scholl: Undated summary. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file; and Inge Scholl: Undated summary. December 1949. HfG, unlisted file. 370 Cf. Inge Scholl: Letter to Mr. Boxer. 28 Feb. 1950. HfG, file 433. 371 Inge Scholl: Letter to Theodor Heuss. 27 Jan. 1950. BA. 372 Inge Scholl: Letter to Mr. Boxer. 28 Feb. 1950. HfG, file 433. In this letter there is a difference of DM100,000 between the sum total of listed items and the final total given. Either the Ulm group made a mistake, which cannot be ruled out but is unlikely, or expected donations in kind that made up the sum total were included, without being listed a second time. 373 Cf. Barbara Schüler (see note 186s) 33. 374 Cf. the Adult Education Center calendar 1949. 375 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 21Feb. 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 376 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 6Mar. 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 377 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 13Mar. 1950. HfG, file 556. 378 Re this and the following cf. J.F. Gillen (see note 307) 5–7. 379 Along with other GARIOA matching funds, German newspapers were granted start-up credits totaling DM 15 million. Cf. Erika J. and HeinzDietrich Fischer (see note 360) 35. 380 Shepard Stone “… called me back to the I. G. Farben building in Frankfurt, to manage the Special Pro jects fund, designed to finance joint A merican-Germancultural projects. The first was Inge Scholl‘s for industrial design in Ulm, hundreds followed.“ John H. Boxer: “Dear Shep …“, in: Ein Buch der Freunde (see note 305), 48 f. 381 Contradictory: J.F. Gillen (see note 307), 6, lists these eleven members, but: “Each of the six voting members had an equal voice in determiningawards.“ 382 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 20 Mar. 1950. HfG, file 556, Geschwister Scholl Hochschule . n.d. Mar. 1950. HfG, unlisted file and Inge Scholl: Kuratorium . 20 Mar. 1950. PAF. 383 Irm Lindström: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 13 Mar. 1950. HWR and Inge Scholl: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 14 Mar. 1950. HWR. 384 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 25Mar. 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 385 Otl Aicher: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 23 Mar. 1950. HWR. 386 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 2 May 1950. BHA, Gropius estate,correspondenceBill-Gropius. 387 Cf. Martin Krampen, Horst Kächele (see note 23).
388 Inge Scholl: Letter to Theodor Heuss. 27 Mar. 1950. BA; cf. Inge Scholl: Letter to Hans Bott. 13 Apr. 1950. BA and Ferdinand Sieger: Letter to Inge Scholl. 19 Apr. 1950. BHA, HfG records, folder 18. 389 Inge Scholl: Letter to State Councillor Wittwer. 31 Mar. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 1 and Inge Scholl: Letter to minister of education and the arts Theodor Bäuerle. 31 Mar. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 3. 390 See above for remarks on his lecture to the Swiss Werkbund. 391 Otl Aicher: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 27 Mar. 1950. HWR. 392 Otl Aicher: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 30 Mar. 1950. HWR. 393 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 24 June 1950. HWR. 394 This worsening of the situation and decision between Max Bill and Hans Werner Richter exists in two versions by Hans Werner Richter: In the first, told to Hartmut Seeling, the scene was a lobby or anteroom in John J. McCloy’s villa, where the Ulm group along with a few helpers (Max Bill, Hans Werner Richter, plus Brigitte Bermann-Fischer) and American HICOG staffers waited chatting until all except for Hans Werner Richter were asked to come into the conference room. Cf. Hartmut Seeling (see note 95) Fn. 65. – The second version is the one Richter reported to Werner Zinkand (as told by Werner Zinkand on 1 Aug. 1996 in conversation with the author): Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher, Max Bill, Hans Werner Richter, and Jürgen Söhring were waiting in a Frankfurt hotel; first, Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher were invited by phone to come to Bad Homburg, then so was Max Bill. Hans Werner Richter was not asked to join them. Cf. Hans Frei (see note 95) 39. 395 An additional reference to the fact that the date for the decision is wrong: The telegram by Walter Gropius to Shepard Stone to which Max Bill was referring cannot have been available on 25 April 1950, as Hans Frei (see note 95) 39 writes, because Max Bill first turned to Gropius as regards the college project on 2 May 1950: Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 2 May 1950. BHA, Gropius estate,correspondenceBill-Gropius. 396 See below; cf. also Toni Richter’s oral report and Hans Werner Richter: Anfänge der „Geschwister Scholl“ Hochschule . n.d. PARI and Inge Aicher-Scholl: Aktennotiz zum 2.7.1988 . 2 July 1988. PARI. . 397 Entwurf der Werbeschrift „Geschwister-scholl-stiftung“ . 9 Nov. 1950. HfG, unlisted file; Inge Scholl: Letter to Oberregierungsrat Hochstetter. 9 Nov. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 13. 398 John P. Steiner: Letter to Inge Scholl. 27 Apr. 1950. HfG, file 433.
399 On the influence of HICOG on iestablishing political and social sciences at Federal German universities cf. Arno Mohr, Politikwissenschaft als Alternative. Stationen einer wissenschaftlichen Disziplin auf dem Wege zu ihrer Selbständigkeit in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945– 1960 , (= Diss. Phil. Heidelberg 1985; Politikwissenschaftliche Paperbacks , vol. 13) Bochum 1988. 400 Hermann-Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 78 f. 401 Thomas Alan Schwartz (see note 292) 127. 402 Thomas Alan Schwartz (see note 292) 130 f. – Cf. Norbert Frei: “‚Vergangenheitsbewältigung‘or ‚renazification‘? The American perspective on Germany‘s confrontation with the Nazi past in the early years of the A denauer era“, in: Michael Ermarth (see note 159) 47–59. 403 Cf. Hermann-Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 66–70. 404 John J. McCloy: cover letter to Secretary of State Dean Acheson regarding the quarterly report 1 Apr.– 30 June 1950, in: Erika J. and Heinz-Dietrich Fischer (see note 292) 98–102, here; 100. 405 J.F. Gillen (see note 307) 7f. – On 11 Feb. 1951 the administrative council raised the sum total to DM 54 million. 406 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 15 May 1950. HfG, file 556. 407 The architect, designer, and Bauhaus founder Walter Gropius is an outstanding example of modernism, which emigrated from Germany to America in the 1930ies and exerted its influence back on Germany in the 1950s. In August 1947 Walter Gropius was the first of a series of “visiting consultants“ whom OMGUS invited to come to Germany to hear their views on matters relating to (architectura l andurban-planningrelated) reconstruction. He saw Berlin, Hannover, Frankfurt am Main, Stuttgart, and Munich. See: Friedhelm Fischer: “German reconstruction as an international activity“, in: Jeffry M. Diefendorf (ed.), Rebuild ing Europe‘s bombed cities, New York 1990, 131–144; Jeffry M. Diefendorf: “Berlin on the Charles, Cambridge on the Spree: Walter Gropius, Martin Wagner and the rebuilding of Germany“, in: Helmut F. Pfanner (ed.), Kulturelle Wechselbeziehun gen im Exil – Exile across Cultures . (= Studien zur Literatur der Moderne, vol. 14) Bonn 1986, 343–357; ibid.: “America and the rebuilding of urban Germany“, in: ibid., Axel Frohn, Hermann-Josef Rupieper (see note 156) 331–351. 408 Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule Ulm Graduate School of Design. n.d. May 1950. BHA, Gropius estate, correspondenceBill-Gropius.
409 Inge Scholl: Ausgangspunkt . n.d. May 1950. HfG, unlisted file , Geschwister Scholl Hochschule. n.d. March–May 1950. HfG, unlisted file and Inge Scholl: Letter to Odd Nansen. 8 May 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 410 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 22 May 1950. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 411 See Peter Schubert in the film documentation Edition Disegno, Otl Aicher – der Denker am Objekt , V HS-Video, Munich. 412 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 16May 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 413 Both were translated into Max Bill’s terms: Politics was kept on as part of general education at the HfG, while the department of information eked out its existence. 414 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 23May 1950. HfG, file 556. This letter also contains a remark about a term that is in vogue today: “It seems to me that your concept of information to a large extent corresponds to that of communication, which you used once. Communication seems to be more correct. Information is essentially a mediation where one does not join in oneself. Communication includes the sharing of personal things as well. Communication is the personal relationship to the totality in the interest of the group as a whole.“ 415 Walter Gropius: Letter to Max Bill. 28 May 1950. BHA, Gropius estate,Bill-Gropius correspondence. 416 Cf. Eva von Seckendorff: “HfG: Außer Bauhaus nichts gewesen? Das New Bauhaus, Chicago, und die Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm“, in: Peter Hahn, Lloyd C. Engelbrecht (see note 54), 87–91. 417 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 1 June 1950. BHA, Gropius estate,Bill-Gropius correspondence. 418 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 5July 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 419Fragebogen. n.d. July 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 420 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 24 June 1950. HWR. 421 Hermann-Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 47 f. 422 Ergebnis der Stuttgarter Besprechung am 12.7.1950 . 12 July 1950. PARI. 423 Geschwister Scholl Hochschule . n.d. July 1950. PAZ and Geschwister Scholl Hochschule . n.d. July 1950. PARI 424 Cf. Shepard Stone: “The founding of the Federal Republic of Germany – an assessment of the role of the U.S.A., 1945–1949 and beyond“, in: Michael Ermarth (see note 159) 203–210. 425 Hermann-Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 71.
426 Ergebnis der Stuttgarter Besprechung am 12.7.1950 . 12 July 1950. PARI. 427 Walter Gropius: Programm des staatlichen Bauhauses in Weimar . April 1919. PAH, DOK A. 428 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 25 July 1950. HfG, file 556. 429 Inge Scholl: Offizieller Antrag an das HICOG. 7 Aug. 1950. HfG, file 433 and Inge Scholl: Vorentwurf des Antrags an HICOM [!]. 1 Aug. 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 430 Eva von Seckendorff (see note 95) 39. 431 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 21Feb. 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 432 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 22 May 1950. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 433 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 21 Feb. 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 434 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 6 Mar. 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 435 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 22 Mar. 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 436 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 25 Mar. 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 437 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 30 Mar. 1950. HfG, file 556. 438 Up to August 1954 the ministry was called the Kultministerium. Only after that date was it referred to as the Kultusministerium . Vgl. Leonhard Müller:„Das Schulwesen“, in: Meinrad Schraab (ed.), 40 Jahre BadenWürttemberg. Aufbau und Gestaltung 1952–1992, 497–528. 439 About Carl Heinrich Becker (12Apr. 1876–10 Feb. 1933) cf. Hellmut Becker: “C.H. Becker – Portrait eines Kultusministers“, in: ibid., Auf dem Weg zur lernenden Gesellschaft. Personen, Analysen, Vorschläge für die Zukunft , Stuttgart 1980, 31–45. 440 Literature on this topic has been compiled in: Karl Schwarz (rev.), Bibliographie der deutschen Landerziehungsheime , (= Aus den deutschen Landerziehungsheimen , vol. 8) Stuttgart 1970. 441 Hellmut Becker: “Alexander Mitscherlich – ein Kampf für FreiheitSozialismus-Psychoanalyse“,in: ibid. (see note 438) 61–79, here: 61. 442 Alexander Mitscherlich,Gesammelte Schriften VI-VII. Politisch-publizistische Aufsätze . Ed. Herbert Wiegandt. Frankfurt am Main 1983; Provokation und Toleranz. Festschrift für Alexander Mitscherlich zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Ed. Sibylle Drews et al. Frankfurt am Main 1978. 443 Cf. Leonidas E. Hill (ed.), Die Weizsäcker Papiere 1933–1950 . Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Vienna 1974; Margret Bovari, Der Diplomat vor Gericht , Berlin, Hamburg 1948.
444 Cf. Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 26 Feb. 1955. BHA, HfG records, folder 22. 445 The zoological station was founded in 1870 by Anton Dohrn and then run by the Dohrn family; Anton Dohrn’s son Harald was in contact with the White Rose and on 13 July 1943 was acquitted because of lack of evidence by the special court of Munich District Court 1, but continued to speak out against National Socialism, was denounced in 1945, arrested and shot in Perlach Forest together with other political prisoners on 29 April 1949; his stepson Klaus Dohrn, an Austrian Catholic journalist, published writings against National Socialism, but must not be confused with the banker of the same name from the same family, who was the chair of the Society of Friends after 1961; Harald Dohrn’s daughter Herta was married to Christoph Probst, who was executed together with Hans and Sophie Scholl on 22 Feb. 1943. – Karl Josef Partsch, Die zoologische Station in Neapel. Modell internationaler Wissenschaftszusammenarbeit , (= Studien zu Naturwissenschaft, Technik und Wirtschaft im neunzehnten Jahrhundert , vol. 11) Göttingen 1980. 446 Ministerial Councillor Hassinger: Aktenvermerk . 14 Apr. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 4. 447 Ministerial Councillor Dr. Rupp: Aktenvermerk H 1091. 11 May 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 5. 448 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 6July 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 449 Inge Scholl: Letter to the Württemberg-Baden ministry of education and the arts. 8 July 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 4 and Inge Scholl: Verfassung der Stiftung „Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule“ . 8July 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix to document 4. 450 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 5July 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 451 Inge Scholl: Errichtung der gemeinnützigen Stiftung „GeschwisterScholl-Hochschule“ . 14 Sept. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 7; Inge Scholl: Verfassung der Stiftung „Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule“ . 8 July 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix to document 4; Inge Scholl: Errichtung der Stiftung „Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule“ . 11 Sept. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 8a; Inge Scholl: Errichtung der gemeinnützigen Stiftung „GeschwisterScholl-Hochschule“ . 9Oct. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 9a and Inge Scholl: Errichtung der gemeinnützigen Stiftung „Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule“ . 25 Oct. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 12. 452 Inge Scholl: Errichtung der gemeinnützigen Stiftung „GeschwisterScholl-Hochschule“ . 9 Nov. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix to document 13 and Inge Scholl: Errichtung der gemeinnützigen „Ge-
schwister-Scholl-Stiftung“ . 5 Dec. 1950. BHA, HfG records, folder 29. 453 Inge Scholl: Letter to the Württemberg-Baden ministry of education and the arts. 11 Sept. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 8. 454 The sections refer to the authorized version of 5 Dec. 1950. 455 Inge Scholl: Letter to the Württemberg-Baden ministry of education and the arts. 11 Sept. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 8. 456 Inge Scholl: Verfassung der Stiftung „Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule“ . 8 July 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix to document 4. 457 Inge Scholl: Letter to the Württemberg-Baden ministry of education and the arts. 11 Sept. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 8. 458 Inge Scholl: Letter to Shepard Stone. 7 Aug. 1950. HfG, file 433. 459 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 17 Aug. 1950. BHA, Gropius estate,Bill-Gropius correspondence. 460 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 5 Oct. 1950. HfG , file 556. – On the kreis liaison officers cf. HermannJosef Rupieper (see note 157) 83– 109. 461 Re this and what follows cf.: J.F. Gillen (see note 307) 10 f. 462 Cf. Ulrich M. Bausch (see note 236) 149–152. 463 Presumably the Dr. Albert Rester quoted in the expert opinion and wrongly described as “editor of Ulmer Nachrichten “ is identical with the subeditor of this paper, named Dr. Albert Riester, whose smear campaign damaged the college project considerably in the summer of 1951.
472 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 26Sept. 1950. HWR. – Inge Scholl’s remark on 13 Dec. 1950 also shows how uninvolved Hans Werner Richter was in the planning sessions after that date: “The foundation has been authorized by the ministry of education and the arts, you’ve no idea what that involves.“ Inge Scholl: Letter to Hans Werner Richter. 13Dec. 1950. HWR. 473 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 5 Oct. 1950. HfG, file 556. 474 Walter Dirks: “Der restaurative Charakter der Epoche“, in: Frankfurter Hefte 9/1950, 942–954. 475 Inge Scholl: Letter to Shepard Stone. 5 Oct. 1950. HfG, file 433. 476 Hans-Peter Schwarz, Die Ära Adenauer 1949–1957: Gründerjahre der Republik , (= Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , vol. 2) Stuttgart, Wiesbaden 1981, 211. 477 Kurt Sontheimer (see note 118) 136. 478 Anselm Doering-Manteuffel (see note 255) 210. 479 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Inge Scholl. 17 Oct. 1950. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 480 Wissenschaftliche Arbeit an der „Geschwister-Scholl-Hochschule“ . n. d. 1950. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 481 Cf. Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 27 Nov. 1950. HfG, file 556 and Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 23 Nov. 1950. HfG, file 556. 482 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 17Oct. 1950. HfG, file 556.
465 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 7 Sept. 1950. HfG, file 556.
483 Ministerial Councillor Dr. Rupp: Betr.: Geschw. Scholl-Hochschule . 19 Oct. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 11; WürttembergBaden ministry of education and the arts: Aktenvermerk U I 2799. 27 Oct. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 12a and WürttembergBaden ministry of education and the arts: Zu U I 2799. 11 Nov. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 12b.
466 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher. 7 Sept. 1950. HfG, file 556.
484 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 29 Dec. 1950. BHA, HfG records, folder 19.
467 Otl Aicher: “Bildung hat ihre Nachteile“, in: Ulmer Monatsspiegel 9/1950, 3 f.
485 Theodor Bäuerle: Verfügung. 13Dec. 1950. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 16. – Theodor Bäuerle as the assistant department director at the ministry of education and the arts had given the opening address at the Ulm Adult Education Center on 24 Apr. 1946. My thanks for this information to Barbara Schüler.
464 Inge Scholl: Letter to Shepard Stone. 5 Oct. 1950. HfG, file 433 and Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 5 Oct. 1950. HfG, file 556.
468 Inge Scholl: Letter to Shepard Stone. 5 Oct. 1950. HfG, file 433. 469 Kongreß für studentische Gemeinschaftserziehung und Studium generale: Denkschrift über die Arbeiten und Ziele des Kongresses für studentische Gemeinschaftserziehung und Studium generale. n.d. October 1950. HfG, unlisted file. 470 Hans Werner Richter: Anfänge der „Geschwister Scholl“ Hochschule. n.d. PARI.
486 Benjamin J. Buttenwieser: Letter to Inge Scholl .29 Dec. 1950. HfG, file 433. 487 J.F. Gillen (see note 307) 8; for what follows, see 16. 488 J.F. Gillen (see note 307) 20.
471 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Aktennotiz zum 2.7.1988 . 2 July 1988. PARI.
489 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to the Friends of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. 30 June 1952. BA. 490 Cf. René Spitz (see note 26), 446–451. 491 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 9 Jan. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19.– On the cultural involvement of the National Association of German Industry BDI cf. Werner Bührer: “Der Kulturkreis im Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie und die ‚kulturelle Modernisierung‘ der Bundesrepublik in den 50er Jahren“, in: Axel Schildt, Arnold Sywottek (eds.) (see note 19) 583–595. 492 Edgar Hotz: “Erste Ausstellung neuzeitlicherGebrauchsgeräte aus USA“, in: Industrie und Handwerk schaffen neues Hausgerät in USA. Catalog of the exhibition in the Landesgewerbeamt Stuttgart 20 Mar.– 25 Apr. 1951. Stuttgart 1951, n.p . 493 The application itself has not been preserved. As to its date, cf. Fritz Schäffer: Letter to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 30 May 1951. HfG, unlisted file. 494 H. Heinrich: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 11 Jan. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 495 Inge Scholl: Letter to Ministerial Councillor Dr. Rupp. 12 Jan. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 17a. 496 Dr. Rupp: Letter to Inge Scholl. 24 Jan. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 20 497 Bundesanzeiger 106/6 June 1951, 2f. 498 Fritz Schäffer: Letter to the Geschwister- Scholl-Stiftung. 30 May 1951. HfG, unlisted file and Fritz Schäffer: Letter to the Geschwister- Scholl-Stiftung. 30 June 1951. HfG, unlisted file . 499 Permanent conference of the Federal German Länder ministers of education and the arts: Letter to the Württemberg-Baden ministry of education and the arts. 7 Feb. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 24; Dr. Wende: Letter to Ministerial Councillor Dr. Kaufmann. 21 Feb. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 26 and Dr. Löffler: Letter to Dr. Wende. 1 Mar. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 27. 500 Gotthilf Schenkel: Letter to the federal ministry of the interior. 21 Feb. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 25. 501 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Erich Wende. 13 Feb. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19 and Dr. Wende: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 8 Feb. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 502 Inge Scholl: Letter to Gotthilf Schenkel. 5 Mar. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 28. 503 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Total cost estimate . 15 Feb. 1951. HfG, file 433.
447
References
448
504 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Gesamtkostenplan . 15 Feb. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix to document 28 and Inge Scholl: Letter to Gotthilf Schenkel. 5 Mar. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 28.
522 Cf. City of Ulm: § 800 Geschwister-Scholl-Sti ftung, Unterstützung ihrer Pläne zur Errichtung eines Forschungsinstituts für Produktform und einer Hochschule für Gestaltung . 24 July 1951. STU, B 005/5, vol. 369, fiche 10, pp. 68–80.
505 Inge Scholl: Letter to Gotthilf Schenkel. 5 Mar. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 28.
523 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to the Württemberg -Baden council of ministers. 27 June 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, attached to document 39.
506 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 16 Mar. 1951. BHA, Gropius estate,Bill-Gropius correspondence; and Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 13Apr. 1951. HfG, file 556. 507 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 20.5.1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 508 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 23 May 1951. HfG, file 556. 509 Cf. Walther Hinsch: Letter to Hermann Veit. 21 June 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 37, enclosure 2. 510 John J. McCloy: Cover letter to Secretary of State Dean Acheson with 1 Jan.–31 Mar. 1951 report, in: Erika J. and Heinz-Dietrich Fischer (see note 292) 113–120, here: 118. 511 James Morgan Read: Former commissioner for education in Connecticut, graduate (Ph. D.) of the Philipps-Universität Marburg, professor of education and, beginning in Jan. 1950, head of HICOG’s dept. of education and culture. Cf. HermannJosef Rupieper (see note 157) 141. 512 Hermann-Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 141 f. 513 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 20 May 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 514 Benjamin J. Buttenwieser: Letter to Inge Scholl. 23 May 1951. HfG, file 94. 515 Inge Scholl: Letter to Gotthilf Schenkel. 12 June 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 30. 516 DVP: renamed DVP/FDP as of Mar. 1952, and FDP/DVP as of 20 Nov. 1952. 517 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 4 June 1951. HfG, unlisted file. 518 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung:Der finanzielle Aufbau der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung . n.d. 18 June 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 34, enclosure 1. 519 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung:Der finanzielle Aufbau der GeschwisterScholl Stiftung. n.d. 18 June 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 34, enclosure 1. 520 Edgar Hotz: Letter to Gotthilf Schenkel. 15 June 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 31. 521 Gotthilf Schenkel: Letter to Ludwig Erhard. 25 June 1951. STU, H Pfizer, HfG.
524 Gotthilf Schenkel: Letter to the ministries of Württemberg-Baden. 26 June 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 37. 525 Württemberg-Baden State Chancellery:Twenty-fourth session of the council of ministers . 29 June 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix to document 37; and Theodor Pfizer: Anruf von Herrn Rupp . 30 June 1951. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 526 Undated memo. July 1951. HfG, unlisted file. 527 Inge Scholl: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 10 July 1951. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 528 Cf. Inge Scholl: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 10 July 1951. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 529 City of Ulm: § 800 GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung, Unterstützung ihrer Pläne zur Errichtung eines Forschungsinstituts für Produktform und einer Hochschule für Gestaltung . 24 July 1951. STU, B 005/5, vol. 369, fiche 10, pp. 68–80. 530 Ludwig Erhard: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 22 June 1951. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 531 Dr. Kitz: Letter to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 17 Aug. 1951. STU, H Pfizer, HfG.
HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 53 and Dr. Linder: Letter to Dr. Burkhard. 3 Sept. 1951. HfG, file 433. 539 George P. Hays: Grant-in-aid award . 28 June 1951. HfG, file 433. 540 Cf. Hellmut Becker: Anmerkun gen für Unterredung Inge Scholl und Herr Bill in Stuttgart am Freitag den 19. Okt. 51. n.d. October 1951. HfG, file 556; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Haushaltsplan . 20 Nov. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix 3 to document 88 and 3438. 541 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 30 Sept. 1951. HfG, file 556. 542 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 30 Sept. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 543 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 30 Sept. 1951. HfG, file 556. 544 Dr. Frank: Letter to the Württemberg-Baden Ministries of State and of Education and the Arts. 4 Sept. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 54. 545 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 30 Sept. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 546 Foundation‘s council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung:P roto koll . 26 Sept. 1951. HfG, file 524. 547 Personal data on the informer cf. Inge Scholl: Wer ist Dr. Albert Riester? n.d. Sept. 1951. HfG, file 524; Inge Scholl: Erklärung zu einer anonymen Denunziation gegen die Familie Scholl . 25 Sept. 1951. HfG, file 524 and Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Otto Lenz. 20 Oct. 1951. HfG, file 524. 548 Albert Riester: “Kann in Ulm eine Hochschule errichtet werden? In: Ulmer Nachrichten , 14 Dec. 1950.
532 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Heinrich Röhreke. 11 Aug. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19.
549 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 9 Jan. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19.
533 Walther Hinsch: Letter to Hermann Veit. 21 June 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 37, appendix 2.
550 (Riester, Albert): Zusammenfas sung über Oberbürgermeister a.D. Scholl und Tochter Inge Scholl . 19Sept. 1951. HfG, file 524; (Albert Riester): Bericht. Geheim! 27 Sept. 1951. HfG, file 524.
534 Mr. Burkart: Letter to Gotthilf Schenkel. 13 July 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 45. 535 Hellmut Becker: Telefongespräch mit Ministerialrat Hinsch, Bonn. 14 July 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 536 Cf. Hans Werner Richter: Anfän ge der „Geschwister Scholl“ Hochschule . n.d. PARI. 537 Dr. Linder: Letter to the Württemberg-Baden ministry of state. 1 Sept. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 51. 538 Württemberg-Baden ministry of state: Thirty-second session of the council of ministers . 3 Sept. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix to document 52; Dr. Franz: Letter to the Württemberg-Baden representative agency in Bonn. 3 Sept. 1951.
551 (Albert Riester): Abschrift ! n.d. September 1951. HfG, file 524. 552 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 24 Nov. 1951. HfG, file 556; Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Otto Lenz. 20 Oct. 1951. HfG, file 524; Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Dr. Kitz. 7 Dec. 1951. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 553 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Inge Scholl. 12 Dec. 1951. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 554 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 8 Dec. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 555 Cf. Inge Aicher-Scholl: Draft. 1 Sept. 1952. BHA, HfG records, folder 20.
556 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Betr.: Entwicklung der Beziehungen der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung zur Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen- und Stahlindustrie in Düsseldorf . 29 Nov. 1952. BHA, HfG records, folder 20. 557 Hellmut Becker: “Begegnungen“, in: Ein Buch der Freunde (see note 305) 22–26, here: 23f. 558 Axel von den Bussche: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 3 June 1953. BHA. HfG records, folder 21. 559 Cf. the memo about a conversation on 27 Nov. 1953 (= Inge AicherScholl: Aktennotiz . 27 Nov. 1953. HfG, file 524). 560 Günther Schlensag: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 22 Feb. 1954. BHA, HfG records, folder 22. 561 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Sigismund Baron von Braun. 29 Mar. 1952. BHA, HfG records, folder 20. 562 City of Ulm auditing office: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 23 Nov. 1951. STU, B 310/21/1. 563 Dr. Rupp: Letter to Inge Scholl. 16 Oct. 1951. PAF. 564 Karl Brachat: Letter to Gotthilf Schenkel. 30 Oct. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 62. Cf. Max Bill: “Bei uns kann man kein Maler werden“, in: Die Neue Zeitung, 1 Sept. 1951. Response to the article: Hermann Brachert: Letter to Max Bill. 25 Sept. 1951. HfG, file 556. 565 Richard Döcker: Letter to Inge Scholl. 5 Nov. 1951. HfG, file 556. 566 Württemberg-Baden ministry of education and the arts: Betr.: Geschw. Scholl-Stiftung. 20 Oct. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 59. 567 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 9 Nov. 1951. HfG, file 556. 568 Reprinted in Erika J. and HeinzDietrich Fischer (see note 292) ca. 155 ff.
pended to document 67; Hellmut Becker: Anmerkungen für Unterredung Inge Scholl und Herr Bill in Stuttgart an Freitag den 19. Okt. 51 . n.d. October 1951. HfG, file 556; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Auf bauetat . 20 Nov. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appended to document 67; Inge Scholl: Letter to the Württemberg -Baden ministry of education and the arts. 22 Nov. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 67; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Haushaltsplan . 20 Nov. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix 3 to document 88; Inge Scholl: Letter to minister Hermann Veit. 20 Nov. 1951. STU, H Pfizer, HfG 574 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 24 Nov. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 575 Inge Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 24 Nov. 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 576 Max Bill: Letter to Edgar Hotz. 30 Nov. 1951. HfG, file 556. 577 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 24 Nov. 1951. HfG, file 556. 578 Württemberg-Baden Landtag, 1st electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage 900 . 5.12.1951. PABW; finance committee of the Württemberg-Baden Landtag: Auszug . 8 Jan. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 82. 579 Inge Scholl: Letter to Gotthilf Schenkel. 1 Feb. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 21. 580 Inge Scholl: Berufung des Bei rats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 22 June 1951. HfG, file 564. 581 Advisory board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung;Beschluß des Beirats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 24 June 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. In the foundation and the HfG there seems to have been uncertainty later as to who was part of the complete board of trustees, because in its publications a vague “et al.“ was usually placed at the head of the list.
588 Geschwister- Scholl- Stiftung: Hochschule für Gestaltung / Forschungsinstitut für Produktform / Auszüge aus Gutachten und Briefen. n.d. August 1951. HfG, unlisted file. 589 Otl Aicher: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 29 Jan. 1951. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 590 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 9 Mar. 1951. BHA, Gropius estate, Bill-Gropius correspondence. 591 Eva von Seckendorff (see note 95) 42. 592 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 13Apr. 1951. HfG, file 556. 593 Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 17Apr. 1951. HfG, file 556. 594 Inge Scholl emphasized Hermann Josef Abs‘ support of her pro ject because “he had the courage to trust us even in the early beginnings, in 1950; and it is to him (handwritten: mostly ; author’s note) that we owe the great success of the fundraising campaign among the private sector“; Inge Scholl: Letter to the Friends of the Geschwister-SchollStiftung. n.d. January 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 595 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Director Pirker. 15 May 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 596 Erich Kuby: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 24 June 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19. 597 Walter Gropius: Letter to Max Bill. 13 Mar. 1951. BHA, Gropius estate,Bill-Gropius correspondence. 598 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 16 Mar. 1951. BHA, Gropius estate,Bill-Gropius correspondence. 599 Walter Gropius: Letter to Max Bill. 28 Nov. 1951. BHA, Gropius estate,correspondenceBill-Gropius. 600 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 23 Apr. 1952. HfG, file 556. 601 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 24 Apr. 1952. HfG, file 556.
569 John J. McCloy: Cover letter to Secretary of State Dean Acheson with the 1 July–30 Sept. 1951 report, in: Erika J. and Heinz-Dietrich Fischer (see note 292) 113–120, here: 118.
582 Inge Scholl: Letter to Shepard Stone. 31 Dec. 1951. HfG, file 433. 583 Dr. Kitz: Undated memo. October 1951. STU, H Pfizer, HfG.
602 Otl Aicher: “Bauhaus und Ulm“, in: ibid., Die Welt als Entwurf (see note 99), 87–115, here: 87.
570 Hans-Peter Schwartz (see note 475) 350.
584 Gotthilf Schenkel: Letter to the Württemberg -Badenministry of finance. 3 Dec. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 69.
603 Württemberg-Baden Landtag, 2nd electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage II 956 . 11 Jan. 1952. PABW.
585 Dr. Albrecht: Letter to J.C. Cunningham. 28 Dec. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appended to document 89.
604 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 2nd electoral period, 47th plenary session, 16 Jan. 1952, page 1832. PABW.
586 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1st electoral period, 43rd plenary session, 5 Dec. 1951, page 1696. PABW.
605 Gotthilf Schenkel: Letter to John J. McCloy. 21 Jan. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 77.
571 Hermann-Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 170 f. 572 Cf. Inge Aicher-Scholl: Besprechung im Bundesbahnhotel Ulm am 8.10.195 1. n.d. October 1951. HfG, file 433. 573 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Haushaltsplan . 20 Nov. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appended to document 67; Geschwister-SchollStiftung: Erläuterungen zu Ziff. II a des Etats 11. April 1952–31. März 1953 . 20 Nov. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appended to document 67; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Gesamtkostenplan . 15 Nov. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, ap-
587 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Hochschule für Gestaltung. Forschungsinstitut für Produktform . n.d. June -August 1951. HfG, unlisted file; as regards dating cf. Erich Kuby: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 24 June 1951. BHA, HfG records, folder 19.
606 Günther Baron von Pechmann: Betr.: Geschwister Scholl-Stiftung, Ulm a/D – Kultministerium Württem berg-Baden. 23 Jan. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 87. 607 Günther Baron von Pechmann: Stellungnahme . 16 Feb. 1952. HStA,
EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix 2 to document 88. 608 Richard Döcker: Letter to the rector of the Technische Hochschule Stuttgart. 4 Feb. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix to document 84. 609 Re what follows cf. Inge AicherScholl: Letter to Gerd H. Müller. 12 Oct. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 110. 610 Until March 1952 the party was called DVP; through 20 Nov. 1952 it was called DVP/FDP, and finally FDP/DVP. 611 Cf. Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Gerd H. Müller. 3 Nov. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 115. 612 Württemberg-Baden ministry of education and the arts: Betr.: Geschwister Scholl-Stiftung . 16 Jan. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 76. 613 Carl Schaefer: Letter to the Württemberg-Baden ministry of education and the arts. 18 Feb. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix 1 to document 88. 614 Gerd H. Müller: Letter. 12 Jan. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 75. 615 Walter Bauer: Letter to Theodor Heuss. 20 Feb. 1952. BA. 616 Theodor Heuss: Letter to Walter Bauer. 22 Feb.1952. BA. 617 Geschwister- Scholl-Stiftung: Daten zur Besprechung mit Finanzminister Dr. Frank . 26 Feb. 1952. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 618 The federal minister for the Marshall Plan informed the ECA special mission for Germany on 28 Dec. 1951 that a total of DM 300,000 would be made available to the foundation from federal budgetary appropriations and ERP funds of the third section; cf. document 2055. Subsequently the Mutual Security Agency MSA authorized that the federal ministry receive the requested DM 200,000 for the Marshall Plan from the ECA investment program, research division, 3d section. The foundation was given the ECA number 377; cf. F.L. Mayer: Letter to Dr. Albrecht. 27 Mar. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix to document 95. 619 Walther Hinsch: Letter to the Württemberg-Baden minister of finance. 25 Jan. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix to document 89 and Gerd H. Müller: Letter to Inge Scholl. 12 Mar. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 90. 620 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Erklärung . 3 June 1953. HfG, file 433 and In ge Scholl: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 26 Feb. 1952. STU, H Pfizer, HfG.
623 Inge Scholl: Letter to Inge Scholl. 21 Mar. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 91. 624 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Max Bill. 22 Mar. 1952. BHA, HfG records, folder 20. 625 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 16 Apr. 1952. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 626 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 27 Mar. 1952. HfG, file 556. 627 Hermann-Josef Rupieper (see note 157) 110. 628 Regarding what follows cf. Erika J. and Heinz-Dietrich Fischer, Reden (see note 292) 205–211. 629 Inge Scholl: Letter to Michael P. Balla. 15 Jan. 1952. HfG, file 433. 630 Gotthilf Schenkel: Letter to John J. McCloy. 21 Jan. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 77. 631 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 25 Feb. 1952. HfG, file 556. 632 John J. McCloy: Letter to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 9 Apr. 1952. HfG, file 433 and Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 17 Apr. 1952. HfG, file 556. 633 Cf. Erika J. and Heinz-Dietrich Fischer (see note 360) 293. 634 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 15 Apr. 1952. BHA, Gropius estate,Bill-Gropius correspondence. 635 Cf. Erika J. und Heinz-Dietrich Fischer (see note 360), 297. 636 Max Bill: Fragen von Mr. McCloy . 15 Apr. 1952. BHA, Gropius estate,Bill-Gropius correspondence. 637 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 18Apr. 1952. HfG, file 556. 638 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 18 Apr. 1952. BHA, Gropius estate,Bill-Gropius correspondence. 639 Max Bill: Antworten auf 5 Fra gen von Mr. McCloy und 4 ergänzende Punkte. 18 Apr. 1952. BHA, Gropius estate, Bill-Gropius correspondence and Max Bill: Fragen von Mr. McCloy . 15 Apr. 1952. BHA, Gropius estate, Bill-Gropius correspondence. 640 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Unterlagen für die Besprechung mit Mr. McCloy . n.d. April 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 641 Inge Aicher-Scholl:Erfahrungen . n.d. March-April 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 642 Inge Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 24 Apr. 1952. HfG, file 556.
621 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 11Jan. 1952. HfG, file 556.
643 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to the friends of the Geschwister-SchollStiftung. 30 June 1952. BA and Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to the foreign friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 15 Sept. 1952. HfG, unlisted file.
622 Max Bill: Letter to Inge Scholl. 22 Jan. 1952. HfG, file 556.
644 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Arno Hennig. 4 May 1952. BHA, HfG
records, folder 20 and Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 2 May 1952. BHA, Gropius estate, Bill-Gropius correspondence. 645 Cf. Inge Aicher-Scholl: Akten bericht zum Besuch Mr. Selke‘s am 8.Dezember 1952 in Ulm. 8 Dec. 1952. HfG, file 433; John J. McCloy: Stiftungsurkunde . 23 June 1952. HfG, file 433; John J. McCloy: Stif tungsurkunde . n.d. 1952. HfG, file 433; and Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Kostenvoranschlag . 10 May 1952. HfG, file 433. 646 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 7 June 1952. BHA, HfG records, folder 20. 647 Otl Aicher, Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to friends and acquaintances. June 1952. BA. 648 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Angaben für die Presse durchgegeben an Mr. Kimentahl, HICOG, mehlem. 20June 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 649 Ansprache des amerikanischen Hochkommissars, Mr. John J. McCloy, anläßlich der Überreichung einer Geldspende zur Unterstützung der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. 23 June 1952. PABW. 650 Phone conversation with the author, 21 Jan. 1997. 651 31 July 1952, in Erika J. and Heinz-Dietrich Fischer (see note 292) 147–157. 652 Hans-Peter Schwarz: Die Ära Adenauer (see note 475) 164. 653 John J. McCloy: Stiftungsur kunde. 23 June 1952. HfG, file 433 and John J. McCloy: Grant-in-aid award . 23 June 1952. PAH, DOK 8. 654 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to the Friends of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. 30 June 1952. BA. 655 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to the foreign friends of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. 15 Sept. 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 656 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 13 June 1952. HfG, file 556. 657 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Gotthilf Schenkel. 1 July 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73; Inge AicherScholl: Letter to Gerd H. Müller. 2 July 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 100. 658 Gotthilf Schenkel: Letter to the Württemberg-Badenministry of state. 9 Apr. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 88a. 659 Karl Frank: Letter to the Württemberg-Baden ministry of state. 5May 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 94. 660 Dr. Schlösser: Letter to Württemberg-Baden ministry of education and the arts. 24 Apr. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 93. 661 Cf. Eberhard Konstanzer, Die Entstehung des Landes Baden-Würt-
449
References
450
temberg 1945–1952. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Landes Württemberg-Hohenzollern , (= Diss. Phil. Tübingen) Karlsruhe 1969; Theodor Eschenburg: “Die Entstehung Baden-Württembergs“, in: Hans-Georg Wehling (ed.), BadenWürttemberg. Eine politische Landeskunde , Stuttgart 1975, 41–63.
Selke’s deadline for the release of the DM 925,000 (20 Jan. 1953). For this, he also asked for documents about German matching funds (DM 700,000) and the Land subsidy; Inge Aicher-Scholl: Aktenbericht zum Besuch Mr. Selke‘s am 8. Dezember 1952 inUlm. 8 Dec. 1952. hfg,akte 433.
662 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm (Donau). n.d. July 1952. HfG, unlisted file.
679 Ludwig Erhard: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts. 24 Sept. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 105.
663 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Hochschule für Gestaltung / Forschungsinstitut für Produktform / Auszüge aus Gutachten und Briefen. n.d. August 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 664 Max Bill: Outline. 12 Apr. 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 665 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Hans Bott. 10 July 1952. BA. 666 Max Bill: Undated position paper. August–December 1952. HfG, file 556, incidentally the only document written by Max Bill I know that is not entirely in lowercase. Because of the content and his signature, there is no doubt that Max Bill is the author. 667 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Gerd H. Müller. 4 Oct. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 107. 668 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 8 Sept. 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 669 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 11 Sept. 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 670 Max Bill: Letter to Inge AicherScholl. 19 Dec. 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 671 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 24 Dec. 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 672 Gotthilf Schenkel: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of state. 20 Oct. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 111. 673 Karl Frank: Letter to the BadenWürttemberg ministry of state. 31 Oct. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 114. 674 Gerd H. Müller: Notiz für Gotthilf Schenkel . 15 Nov. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 121. 675 Karl Frank: Letter to the BadenWürttemberg ministry of state. 7N ov. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 116.
680 Dr. Schlösser: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts. 18 Nov. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 127 and the Baden-Württemberg ministry of state: Auszug aus dem Protokoll der Ministerratssitzung vom 17./18.11.1952. 18 Nov. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 128. 681 Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Für den Haushaltsplan . n.d . 18 Nov. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, appendix to document 130. 682 Cf. Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Tätigkeitsbericht für das Quartal Oktober–Dezember 1952. n.d. January 1953. HfG, unlisted file. 683 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Gotthilf Schenkel. 26 Nov. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 130. 684 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Besprechung über Terminplanung zwischen Hellmut Becker, Inge AicherScholl und Otl Aicher in Anwesenheit von Walter Zeischegg und Ernst Scheidegger in Stuttgart am 11.12. 1952. 11 Dec. 1952. BHA, HfG records, folder 20. 685 The association was registered in the register of associations of the Ulm district court, vol. 6, page 175, no. 287, published in the Staatsan zeiger für Baden-Württemberg no. 6 dated 24 Jan. 1953, p. 1 and in the Amtsblatt für den Stadt- und Land kreis Ulm no. 412 dated 22 Jan. 1953. Cf. Gesellschaft der Freunde der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Satzung. Niederschrift über die Gründungs-Versammlung . 17 Dec. 1952. HfG, file 504. 686 Hellmut Becker: Notiz über die Zeitplanung . 13 Nov. 1952. BHA, HfG records, folder 20.
676 Hermann Veit: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of state. 10 Nov. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 117.
687 Cf. Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Daten zur Besprechung mit Finanzminister Dr. Frank . 26 Feb. 1952. STU, H Pfizer, HfG and Finance committee of the Württemberg-Baden Landtag, 2nd electoral period: Auszug. 8 Jan. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, document 82.
677 Karl Frank: Letter to the BadenWürttemberg ministry of state. 17 Nov. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 122.
688 City of Ulm: § 2 Beitrag an die Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 16 Jan. 1953. STU, B 005/5, vol. 373, fiche 1, pp. 8–14.
678 Walther Hinsch: Letter to Edgar Hotz. 11 Nov. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, appendix to document 118. The next example is George A.
689 Cf. City of Ulm: § 2 Beitrag an die Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 16Jan. 1953. STU, B 005/5, vol. 373, fiche 1, pp. 8–14 and Hellmut
Becker: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 14Jan. 1953. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 690 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Vortrag vor dem Gemeinderat am 16.1.1953 . 16Jan. 1953. HfG, unlisted file. 691 Cf. City of Ulm: § 2 Beitrag an die Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 16Jan. 1953. STU, B 005/5, vol. 373, fiche 1, pp. 8–14.
706 Cf. Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Kostenvoranschlag nach cbm um bautem Raum. 9 Apr. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, appendix to document 155. 707 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Aktenbericht über die Besprechun gen mit Herrn Bill v. 27.2.–6.3.53 . 13 Mar. 1953. HfG, file 556.
692 Cf. Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 21 Jan. 1953. HfG, file 556.
708 Max Bill: Letter to Inge AicherScholl. 16 Mar. 1953. HfG, unlisted file.
693 Cf. Otto Pfleiderer: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 1 Dec. 1952. STU, H Pfizer, HfG.
709 Gerd H. Müller: Letter to Edgar Hotz. 5 Jan. 1953. BHA, HfG records, folder 21.
694 Cf. Gerd H. Müller: Letter to the Baden Württemberg ministry of finance. 24 Dec. 1952. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 135. – When the new state of Baden-Württemberg was formed, it had no adopted budget for fiscal year 1952/53, which ended on 31 Mar. 1953. Cf. Gerd H. Müller: Letter to George A. Selke. 15 Jan. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 142.
710 Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll . 20 Apr. 1953. HfG, file 504.
695 Cf. Otto Pfleiderer: Aktenver merk . 10 Jan. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, docume nt 141. 696 George A. Selke: Letter to Gerd H. Müller. 21 Jan. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 143. 697 Otto Pfleiderer: Letter to Paul Vowinkel. 12 Jan. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, appendix to document 141. 698 Karl Frank: Letter to Alex Möller. 9 Mar. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, appendix to document 153. 699 Hearings of the legislative assembly of the Land of BadenWürttemberg, 29 Apr. 1953. PABW. 700 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 16 March 1953. BHA, HfG records, folder 21; cf. Gerd H. Müller: Letter to Inge AicherScholl. 13 Mar. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 151. 701 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 9 Feb. 1953. BHA, HfG records, folder 21 and Walther Hinsch: Letter to the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. 26 Jan. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, appendix to document 149.
711 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Otl Aicher. 20 Apr. 1953. HfG, unlisted file. 712 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll . 25 Apr. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, appendix to document 157. 713 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll . 25 Apr. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, appendix to document 157. 714 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Finanzierungsplan . 1 Apr. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, appendix to document 157. 715 Gerd H. Müller: Betr.:Sitzung des Verwaltungsrates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 24.4.1953 in Ulm. 30 Apr. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 158. 716 Hermann Glaser (see note 177) vol. 2, p. 127. – All the illustrations in this and the following appendix are from the periodical form, which has been commenting on developments in design since 1957, and has in the process itself come to play a major role in design history. For his extraordinary support, I should like to express my special thanks to KarlHeinz Krug, himself an HfG graduate and longtime co-editor of form. 717 Jost Hermand, Kultur im Wiederaufbau. Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945–1965 , Munich 1986, 299. 718 ibid. 300 f.
702 Dr. Zinkahn: Letter to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 14 Mar. 1953. BHA, HfG records, folder 21. 703 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to George A. Selke. 17 Feb. 1953. HfG, file 433. 704 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to George A. Selke. 10 Apr. 1953. HfG, file 433. 705 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Überschlägige Finanzaufstellung zur Errichtung der Bauten. 4 Mar. 1953. HfG, file 556 and GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung: Aufstellung über die deutsche Gegensumme. 4 Mar. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, appendix to document 148.
719 ibid. 301. 720 Hermann Glaser (see note 177) vol. 2, p. 121. 721 Jost Hermand (see note 717) 300. 722 Hermann Glaser (see note 177) vol. 2, p. 120 f. 723 Spring 1949: the Home Decoration Export exhibition in New York; the 1951 Milan Triennale: the first foreign exhibition officially sponsored by the Federal Republic of Germany; cf. Karlgeorg Tiemann, Die Werk kunstschule in Westdeutschland , (= Berufserziehung im Handwerk , vol. 2) Cologne 1953, 19.
724 Hans Eckstein (see note 43) 161.
koll . 7 Sept. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75.
725 Michael Erlhoff (see note 41) 25. 726 Hans Gugelot: Referat Tokio. n. d. May 1960. HfG, unlisted file. 727 Inge Scholl: „Eine neue Gründerzeit und ihre Gebrauchskunst“, in: Hans Werner Richter (ed.) (see note 290) 421–427, here 427. 728 Christian Borngräber (see note 43) 228. 729 Karlgeorg Tiemann (see note 723) 24. 730 Hearings of the Land legislative assembly of Baden-Württemberg, 29 Apr. 1953. PABW; Gerd H. Müller: Betr.: Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 30 Apr. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 159. 731 Gerd H. Müller: Betr.: Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 30 Apr. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, document 159. 732 Max Bill: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 25 Mar. 1952. HfG, file 556. 733 Max Bill: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 25 Mar. 1952. HfG, file 556. 734 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 30 Aug. 1952. HfG, file 556. 735 Max Bill: Letter to Inge AicherScholl. 2 Sept. 1952. HfG, unlisted file. 736 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Peterhans. 8 Jan. 1953. BHA, HfG records, folder 120. 737 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Aktenbericht über die Besprechun gen mit Herrn Bill v. 27.2.–6.3.53 . 13 Mar. 1953. HfG, file 556. 738 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Tätigkeitsbericht für das Quartal Januar–März 1953 . 30 Apr. 1953. HfG, unlisted file. 739 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: „Hochschule für Gestaltung“ . 14May 1953. HfG, file 444. 740 Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher and Inge Aicher-Scholl. 3 July 1953. HfG, unlisted file. 741 Harry Pross: Letter to Max Bill. 7 July 1953. HfG, file 556. 742 Hochschule für Gestaltung: Übergangslehrplan für das Studien jahr 1953/54 . n.d. June-August 1953. HfG, unlisted file. 743 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to the members of the Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 1 Sept. 1954. BA. 744 Max Bill: Aushang . 11 Aug. 1953. HfG, file 556 and Max Bill, Mies van der Rohe, Hugo Häring: Auszüge aus den Ansprachen zur Eröffnung des Unterrichts der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 3 Aug. 1953. HfG, file 556. 745 Cf. Administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Proto-
746 James E. Hoofnagle: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 13 Aug. 1953. HfG, file 433. 747 Günther Schlensag: Letter to Max Bill. 18 Aug. 1953. HfG, file 556. 748 Günther Schlensag: Lebenslauf . 14 May 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. 749 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 19 May 1953. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 750 Administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Proto koll . 8 June 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. – Wolfgang Donndorf replaced Gerd H. Müller on the administrative council as the representative of the ministry of education and the arts. He and Günter von Alberti often exercised their mandate. 751 The federal ministry of the interior had transferred its seat on the administrative council to the federal ministry of housing construction, town and regional planning, which was represented by Helmut Döscher. 752 Administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Proto koll . 7 Sept. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. 753 Construction continued until 15 Dec. 1953, when there was a winter break because of frost; Theodor Pfizer: Ansprache zur Einweihung der HfG-Gebäude. 2 Oct. 1955. HfG, unlisted file and Geschwister-SchollStiftung: Tätigkeitsbericht für das Quartal Oktober–Dezember 1953 . 25 Jan. 1954. HfG, unlisted file. 754 Günther Schlensag: Letter to Max Bill. 15 Sept. 1953. HfG, unlisted file. 755 Max Bill: Richtlinien . 3 Oct. 1953. HfG, file 556. 756 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 30 Nov. 1953. HfG, unlisted file; cf. also Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Max Bill. 21 Dec. 1953. HfG, file 556. 757 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 11Jan. 1954. HfG, unlisted file. 758 Günther Schlensag: Besprechung zwischen Herrn und Frau Aicher und mir mit Herrn Bill am 19.1.1954 . 19 Jan. 1954. BHA, HfG records, fold er 117. 759 Administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll . 27 Oct. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. 760 Günther Schlensag: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of finance. 16 Nov. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. 761 Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of finance. 2 Dec. 1953. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75.
762 For the Society of Friends Dr. Küppers replaced Otto Burrmeister as the representative of the German Trade Union Federation (DGB); Burrmeister had not taken part in any of the meetings of the administrative council. Dr. Küppers was a member of the federal executive board of the DGB and headed the education department. He appeared at the HfG as rarely as Otto Burrmeister and as his own two successors, Wilhelm Kleinknecht and Richard Knobel.
and modern urban development; one example of its work is the so-called Charter of Athens, 1933.
763 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, Max Bill: Dienstvertrag . 4 Feb. 1954. BHA, HfG records, folder 117; cf. Max Bill: Vereinbarung über meine weitere Zusammenarbeit mit der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 29 Feb. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 117.
781 Administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Proto koll . 9 Aug. 1954. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75.
764 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, Max Bill: Schiedsvertrag . 4 Feb. 1954. BHA, HfG records, folder 117.
783 Cf. letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of employment. 14Apr. 1955. HfG, unlisted file; Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Undated letter to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. June 1955. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75; Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of employment. 19 Apr. 1955. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75 and Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of finance. 11Aug. 1954. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75.
765 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, Otl Aicher: Schiedsvertrag . 2 Feb. 1954. HfG, file 426. 766 Günther Schlensag: Letter to Helmut Döscher. 11 May 1954. HfG, unlisted file. 767 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Aktennotiz über eine Besprechung mit Herrn Bill und Herrn Schlensag. 27 Apr. 1954. HfG, file 556. 768 Administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Proto koll . 8 Feb. 1954. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. 769 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Zusammenstellung . 1 March 1954. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. 770 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Max Bill. 4 May 1954. BHA, HfG records, folder 22. 771 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Tätigkeitsbericht für die Zeit vom 15.März–30. Juni 1954 . 20 July 1954. HfG, unlisted file. 772 Günther Schlensag: Vermerk . 23J une 1954. BHA, HfG records, folder 117. 773 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Tätigkeitsbericht für die Zeit vom 15.März–30. Juni 1954 . 20 July 1954. HfG, unlisted file. 774 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to the members of the Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 1Sept. 1954. BA.
779 Tomás Maldonado: Lebenslauf . n.d. 1954. THD, 71/5, file 14; Tomás Maldonado, Max Bill , Buenos Aires 1955. 780 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to the members of the Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 1Sept. 1954. BA.
782 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Max Bill. 7 Sept. 1954. HfG, unlisted file.
795 Cf. Günther Schlensag: Vermerk . 14 Apr. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 796 Main department of the Ulm municipal council: A uszug aus der Niederschrift über die Verhandlun gen der Hauptabteilung des Gemeinderats: § 114 Beiträge an die Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung für die Hochschule für Gestaltung und das Forschungsinstitut für Produktform . 4 Feb. 1955. STU, B 310/21/1. 797 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 9 Apr. 1955. HfG, file 556. 798 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Undated letter to Hermann Josef Abs. March 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 799 Günther Schlensag: Aktenver merk über eine Besprechung bei Herrn R.A. Becker . 7 Mar. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 800 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 26 Feb. 1955. BHA, HfG records, folder 22 and Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Tätigkeits bericht für die Zeit vom 1.10. bis 31.12. 1954 . 25 Jan. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 801 Walther Hinsch: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 20 Apr. 1955. HfG, file 456.
784 Inge Aicher-Scholl, Max Bill: Announcement. 18 Sept. 1954. HfG, unlisted file.
802 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Hermann Josef Abs. 18 May 1955. HfG, file 532.
785 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Tätigkeitsbericht für die Zeit vom 1.10. bis 31.12.1954 . 25 Jan. 1955. HfG, unlisted file.
803 As the representative of the Land ministry for economics, Adalbert Seifriz was the successor of Edgar Hotz; Walter Weißwange of the federal ministry of housing, town and regional planning took the place of Helmut Döscher.
786 Maurice Goldring: Letter to Max Bill. 12 Dec. 1954. BHA, HfG records, folder 121. 787 Max Bill: Letter to Max Bill. 8 Dec. 1954. BHA, HfG records, folder 121. 788 Maurice Goldring: Letter to Max Bill. 12 Dec. 1954. BHA, HfG records, folder 121. 789 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Ordnung für das Studium an der Hochschule für Gestaltung (Studienordnung). 8 Jan. 1955. HfG, file 444. 790 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Ordnung für das Studium an der Hochschule für Gestaltung (vorläufige Studienordnung) . 17 Jan. 1955. HfG, file 444.
775 Hans Gugelot: Lebenslauf . 4 March 1954. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75.
791 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Ordnung für das Studium an der Hochschule für Gestaltung (Studienordnung). 2 Feb. 1955. HfG, unlisted file.
776 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to the members of the Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 1Sept. 1954. BA.
792 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Tätigkeitsbericht für die Zeit vom 1.1.–31.3.1955 . 25 Apr. 1955. HfG, unlisted file.
777 Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart: Undated curriculum vitae. 1954. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75.
793 Inge Aicher-Scholl,Tomás Maldonado: Dienstvertrag . 4 Feb. 1955. THD, 71/5, file 14.
778 The CIAM was an international association of architects between 1928 and 1959, and organized 10 conferences on modern architecture
794 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Zeischegg. 29 Mar. 1955. HfG, unlisted file.
804 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Auszug aus dem Protokoll der Sitzung des Verwaltungsrates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung Ulm am 4.Juli 1955 in der Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm. n.d. July 1955. HfG, file 486. 805 Günther Schlensag: Vermerk . 5July 1955. HfG, file 564. 806 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts. 26 July 1955. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. 807 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Hermann Josef Abs. 8 July 1955. HfG, file 532. 808 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Walter Erbe. 2 Aug. 1955. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 809 Günther Schlensag: Note. 3Aug. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 810 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Tätigkeitsbericht für die Zeit vom 1.4.–30.6.1955 . 20 July 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 811 Max Bill: Letter to the members of the Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 11 Jul. 1955. THD, 71/5, file 14. 812 Students of the School of Design: Internes Memorandum der
451
References
452
Studierenden an die Schulleitung der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm / Donau. 12 Aug. 1955. BHA, HfG records, folder 195. 813 Immo Krumrey: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 13 Aug. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 814 Max Bill: Aufbau des Rektorates. 5 Sept. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 815 That is why John McCloy could not take part in his own admission to the board of trustees of the foundation as its eleventh member; Cf. Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Geschäfts bericht für das Rechnungsjahr 1955/56 . 1 June 1956. HfG, file 559. 816 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Ansprache zur Einweihung der HfG-Gebäude. 2Oct. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 817 Walter Grop ius: Die Notwendig keit des Künstlers in der demokratischen Gesellschaft. Ansprache zur Einweihung der HfG-Gebäude. 2Oct. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 818 Max Bill: Ansprache zur Einweihung der HfG-Gebäude.2 Oct. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. – The rest of the speakers were Mayor Theodor Pfizer, Walter Erbe (chair of the Landtag’s politico-cultural committee), Assistant Director Walther Hinsch (federal ministry of economics) and Director Christmann (ministry of education and the arts); cf. Dr. Christmann: Ansprache zur Einweihung der HfGGebäude. 2.10.1955. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75; and the adresses of Walther Hinsch, Walter Erbe, and Theodor Pfizer. HfG, unlisted file. 819 Schwäbische Zeitung, 23 Sept. 1954. 820 Stuttgarter Zeitung, 1 Oct. 1955. 821 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , 4 Oct. 1955. 822 Handelsblatt , 7 Oct. 1955. 823 Kurt Seeberger: Tageschronik . 3O ct. 1955. HfG, file 442. 824 Günther Schlensag: Memorandum. 28 Nov. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 825 Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Aktennotiz des Kultusministeriums Baden-Württemberg betr. Geschwister-SchollStiftung (Hochschule für Gestaltung) ulm. 24 Oct. 1955. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. 826 Cf. Walter Erbe: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 12.10.1955. HfG, unlisted file and Geschwister-SchollStiftung: Besuch und Sitzung des kulturpolitischen Ausschusses des Landtages in Ulm am Montag den 31.10.1955 . n.d. October 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 827 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1st electoral period, 81st plenary session, 9 Nov 1955, page 3934. PABW. 828 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Walter Erbe. 17 Nov. 1955. HfG, unlisted file.
829 Günther Schlensag: Note. 17Nov. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 830 Paul Binder: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 28 Nov. 1955. HfG, file 554. 831 Finance committee of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1st electoral period: A uszug aus der Niederschrift über die Sitzung des Finanzausschusses des Landtags am 9. Dezember 1955 . 9 Dec. 1955. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. 832 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Paul Binder. 6 Dec. 1955. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 833 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Paul Binder. 6 Dec. 1955. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 834 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Paul Binder. 6 Dec. 1955. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 835 Finance committee of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1st electoral period: A uszug aus der Niederschrift über die Sitzung des Finanzausschusses des Landtags am 9. Dezember 1955 . 9 Dec. 1955. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 75. 836 Cf. Mr. Schröder: Letter to Georg Kahn-Ackermann. 22 Nov. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 837 Georg Kahn-Ackermann: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 25 Nov. 1955. HfG, unlisted file. 838 Re the following: Helmut Cron: Besprechung mit Herrn Dr. Alex Möller am 11.Januar 1956 in Stutt gart . 11 Jan. 1956. HfG, unlisted file. 839 Landtag of Baden-Württemberg, 1st electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage 2210 . 31.1.1956. PABW. 840 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: An die Abgeordneten des Landtags von Baden-Württemberg . n.d. January 1956. HfG, file 450. 841 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Walter Erbe. 30 Jan. 1956. HfG, unlisted file. 842 Cf. Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1st electoral period, 2Feb. 1956, pp. 4482/83. PABW.
848 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 5 Jan. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folde r 121. 849 Re what follows cf.Tomás Maldonado: Besprechung Bill-Maldonado über Verfassung. 13 Jan. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 121. 850 Max Bill: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 28 Jan.1956. BHA, HfG records, folde r 121. 851 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 16Feb. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 121. 852 Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 20 Feb. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 121. 853 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 24 Feb. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 121. 854 Max Bill: Vereinbarung über meine weitere Zusammenarbeit mit der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 29 Feb. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 117. 855 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Entwurf . 6 Mar. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 117 and Hellmut Becker: Entwurf . n.d. March 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 117. 856 Inge Aicher-Scholl, Max Bill: Vereinbarung . 14 Mar. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 117. 857 Inge Aicher-Scholl, Max Bill: Schiedsvertrag . 14 Mar. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 118. 858 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Gesamtkostenplan . 15 Nov. 1951. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 73, appendix to document 67. 859 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 14 Mar. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folde r 121. 860 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 14 Mar. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folde r 121. 861 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Geschäftsbericht für das Rechnungs jahr 1955/56 . 17 June 1956. HfG, file 559. 862 Cf. Max Bill in his letter to the editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ ), 17 Apr. 1957.
843 ibid. 844 Cf. Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 1st electoral period: Landtagsdrucksache Beilage2276 . 2.2.1956 PABW. 845 Immo Krumrey: Letter toTomás Maldonado. 17 Dec. 1955. BHA, HfG records, folde r 121. 846 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Undated position statement on the college bylaws. 1956. HfG, file 444. 847 Hellmut Becker: Undated draft of the contract between the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung and Max Bill. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 121.
863 School of Design: Ordnung für das Studium an der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. 25 April 1956. HfG, unlisted file. 864 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums Donnerstag, 24, Mai 56/15 Uhr . 11June 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 133. HfG bylaws: School of Design: Vorläufige Verfassung der Hochschule . 24 May 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 112. 865 Tomás Maldonado: Geschäftsordnung des Rektoratskollegiums. 24 May 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 133.
866 Günther Schlensag: Letter to Max Guther. 20 Mar. 1956. THD, 71/5, fil e 14.
886 Günther Schlensag: Zum Fall Bill . 7 Mar. 1957. HfG, file 526.
867 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 20 April 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 121.
887 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzungdes Rektoratskollegiums Dienstag, 6-2-57 um 10 Uhr . 6 Feb. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 133.
868 Walther Hinsch: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 24 Mar. 1956. HfG, file 496.
888 Günther Schlensag: Vermerk . 8.2.1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 119.
869 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Paul Hübinger. 11 Apr. 1956. HfG, file 554.
889 Günther Schlensag: Vermerk . 9 Feb. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 119.
870 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Finanzierungsplan . 15 June 1956. HfG, unlisted file.
890 Günther Schlensag: Zum Fall Bill . 7 Mar. 1957. HfG, file 526.
871 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Haushaltsplan für das Rechnungs jahr 1956/57 . 26 Mar. 1956. HfG, unlisted file. 872 Stuttgarter Zeitung, 8 Mar. 1956. 873 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 2nd electoral period, 40th plenary session, 11 Dec. 1957, appendix 4: Schriftlicher Bericht des Berichterstatters Brandenburg über die Beratungen des kulturpolitischen und des Finanzausschusses. PABW. 874 Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to the School of Design. 23 May 1956. HfG, file 486. 875 Rectorate of the State Academy of Fine Arts, Stuttgart: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts. 30 June 1956. HfG, file 486. 876 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 20 Sept. 1956. Stu H Pfizer, HfG. 877 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Walter Erbe. 6 Nov. 1956. HfG, unlisted file.
884 Inge Aicher-Scholl, Max Bill: Vereinbarung . 14 Mar. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 117. 885 Max Bill: Aushang . 6 Apr. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 121.
905 Inge Aicher-Scholl, Max Bill: Vereinbarung . 12 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 118.
907 Inge Aicher-Scholl,Tomás Maldonado: Einladung. Mittwoch, 13. März 1957, 17,30 uhr (Seminarraum 4). 13 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 117.
893 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 12Feb. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 119.
908 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Pfizer . n.d. M arch 1957. BHA, HfG records, fold er 117.
894 Max Bill: Letter to the governing board of the School of Design. 20 Feb. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 119.
909 Cf. Inge Aicher-Scholl: Aktennotiz . 6 Apr. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 121.
895 Günther Schlensag: Zum Fall Bill . 7M ar. 1957. HfG, file 526; cf . also Günther Schlensag: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 22 Feb. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 22 and Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums, Mittwoch 20-2-57 um 10 Uhr . 22 Feb. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 133. 896 Walter Schaer: Letter to the governing board of the School of Design. 23 Feb. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 195.
898 Günther Schlensag: Zum Fall Bill . 7 Mar. 1957. HfG, file 526.
883 Eva von Seckendorff (see note 95) 162– 171.
921 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 25 Apr. 1957. BHA, Gropius estate, Bill- Gropius correspondence.
892 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzungdes Rektoratskollegiums Dienstag 12-2-57 um 14,30 Uhr . 12Feb. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 133.
879 Re this and what follows cf.: Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 2nd electoral period, 40th plenary session, 11 Dec. 1957, appendix 4: Schriftlicher Bericht des Berichterstatters Brandenburg über die Beratungen des kulturpolitischen und des Finanzausschusses. PABW.
882 Cf. the detailed documentation in the Monatsschrift des Deutschen Werkbundes : Werk und Zeit 11/ November 1956.
904 Students of the Bill Atelier of the School of Design: Betrifft: Die allgemeine Vertrauenskrise innerhalb der Hochschule. 7 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 119.
891 Günther Schlensag: Rektorats kollegium . 11 Feb. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 119.
897 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Schaer. 26 Feb. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 195.
881 Landtag of Baden-Württemberg, 2nd electoral period, Beilage II 863 . 20.3.1957. PABW.
920 Roderich Count Thun: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 11 Apr. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 121.
906 Max Bill: Letter to Inge AicherScholl. 13 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 118; Inge AicherScholl, Max Bill: Vereinbarung . 12Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 118 and Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill, 13 Mar. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 195.
878 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Hermann Josef Abs. 14 Dec. 1956. HfG, file 532.
880 Karl Brachat: Letter to Otl Aicher. 7 Feb. 1957. HfG, unlisted file.
903 Max Bill: Letter to Inge AicherScholl. 5 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 119.
899 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Bill. 1 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 119. 900 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Ansprache vor den Studierenden der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 1 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 195; Walter Schaer: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 8 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 195 and Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 24 Feb. 1956. BHA, HfG records, folder 121; cf. also Otl Aicher’s handwritten draft for a declaration by Maldonado to the students that Maldonado did not make: Otl Aicher: Entwurf Erklärung Maldonado an die Studierenden. n.d . March 1957. HfG, unlisted file. 901 Max Bense: Letter toTomás Maldonado. 3 Mar. 1957. HfG, file 526. 902 Günther Schlensag: Zum Fall Bill . 7 Mar. 1957. HfG, file 526.
910 29 students of the School of Design: Letter to the administrative council, the executive board, the administrative director of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, and the governing board of the School of Design. 14 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 195. 911 Max Bill: Letter to Inge AicherScholl. 22 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, fold er 121. 912 Günther Schlensag: Betr.: Pressemeldungen über das Ausscheiden von Herrn Bill . 26 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 121 and Inge Aicher-Scholl: Presse . 22 Mar. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 121. 913 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to G.B. von Hartmann. 1 Apr. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 23. 914 Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 8Ap ril 1957. 915 Otl Aicher and the members of the Governing board, Max Bill and Will Grohmann in the Frankfurter All gemeine Zeitung17 Apr. 1957; Immo Krumrey in the Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung 9 Apr.1957; Otl Aicher and the members of the Governing board and Will Grohman printed in the Schwäbische Donau Zeitung 18Apr. 1957. 916 Max Guther: Letter to Max Bill. 7Ap r. 1957. THD, 71/5, file 14. 917 Max Bill: Letter to Max Guther. 9Ap r. 1957. THD, 71/5, file 14. 918 Max Guther: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl and Otl Aicher. 8 Apr. 1957.THD, 71/5, fi le 14. 919 Students of the Technische Universität Berlin: Anrisse . 6 Dec. 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 88.
938 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur außerordentlichen Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Samstag, den 14. Dezember 1957 um 10,00 uhr . 16 Dec. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 134.
925 Roderich Count Thun: Letter to Günther Schlensag . 18 May 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 122.
939 Administrative council: Proto koll . 1 Aug. 1957. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 76. With this meeting Paul Egon Hübinger (federal ministry of the interior) replacing Walter Weißwange (federal ministry of housing construction, town and regional planning) and Wilhelm Kleinknecht replacing Otto Burrmeister (both German Trade Union Federation; as representatives of the Society of Friends) became members of the administrative council. Cf. Geschwister- Scholl-Stiftung: Entwurf . n.d. April 1957. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 76.
926 Günther Schlensag: Letter to Max Guther. 17 May 1957. THD, 71/5, file 14.
940 Tomás Maldonado: Ansprache zur Eröffnung des Studienjahres 1957/58 . 3 Oct 1957. PAH, DOK 53.
927 Roderich Count Thun: Letter to Günther Schlensag . 21 May 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 122.
941 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 15 Jan. 1958. PAR.
922 Walter Gropius: Letter to Max Bill. 5 May 1957. BHA, Gropius estate, Bill- Gropius correspondence. 923 Max Bill: Letter to Inge AicherScholl. 7 Apr. 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 121. 924 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Günther Schlensag . 18 May 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 122.
928 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 22 May 1957. BHA, Gropius estate, Bill- Gropius correspondence. 929 Walter Schaer: Letter toTomás Maldonado. 27 May 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 195. 930 Walter Schaer: Memorandum die Situation der Hochschule für Gestaltung betreffend . 2 June 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 195. 931 Tomás Maldonado: An alle Studierenden der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 5 June 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 195. 932 Tomás Maldonado: Letter to the students of the School of Design. 12June 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 119. 933 Otl Aicher: Letter to Hans Eckstein.16 July 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 23. – The eight students were Peter Disch, Olivio Ferrari, Max Graf, Peter Hofmann, Eva Pfeil, Walter Schaer, Rolf Schröter und Margit Staber. Thanks to Max Graf for this hint (Letter to the author, 17 Apr. 1999). 934 Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to the student representatives of the School of Design. 24 June 1957. HfG, unlisted file and Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Aktenvermerk . 5 July 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 195. 935 Max Bill: Letter to Wolfgang Donndorf. 18 July 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 122. 936 Cf. Inge Aicher-Scholl: Bericht über die USA- Reise von Frau Inge Aicher-Scholl vom 23.4.–29.5.1957 . n.d. 1957. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 76. 937 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Finanzbedarf für den Bau von weite ren Studentenwohnheimen und Dozentenwohnungen (einschl. Einrichtung der Heime). 22 Jan. 1957. HfG, file 532.
942 Gesamtdeutscher Block/Block der Heimatvertriebenen und Entrechteten. 943 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 2nd electoral period, 47th plenary session, 19 Feb. 1958, page 2313. PABW. 944 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Roderich Count Thun. 26 Feb. 1958. HfG, file 514. 945 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 24 Feb. 1958. STU, HPfizer, HfG. 946 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 3 Mar. 1958. STU, HPfizer, HfG. 947 Roderich Count Thun: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 1 Apr. 1958. HfG, file 514. 948 Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 5 Mar. 1958. HfG, file 486. 949 Tomás Maldonado: Bericht von Herr Tomás Maldonado in der Verwaltungsratssitzung am 21. April 1958 . PAB. 950 Theodor Pfizer: Undated letter to administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. December 1958. HfG, file 554. 951 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Aktennotiz . 4 Mar. 1958. HfG, unlisted file. 952 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Dienstag, 11-3-58 um 11 Uhr . 11Mar. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 134. 953 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Aktennotiz . 10 Mar. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 134. 954 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Dienstag, 11-3-58 um 11 Uhr . 11Mar. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 134.
955 Otl Aicher: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Dienstag, den 15. Juli 1958 um 9,00 Uhr (3. Feriensitz ung). 15 July 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 134. 956 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Mittwoch, 8-1-58 um 16 Uhr . 10Jan. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 134. 957 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Dienstag, 10-6-58 um 10 Uhr . 11June 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 134 958 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Entwurf einer vorläufigen Verfassung. 28 Sept. 1957. HfG, file 444; Geschwister- Scholl-Stiftung: Vorschläge zum Entwurf einer vorläufi gen Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung vom 30.10.1957 . n.d. November 1957. BHA, HfG records, folder 29; Geschwister- Scholl-Stiftung: Entwurf einer vorläufigen Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 14 Dec. 1957. HfG, file 444; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Entwurf einer vorläufigen Teilverfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 20 Dec. 1957. HfG, file 444; GeschwisterScholl- Stiftung: Entwurf einer vorläufigen Teilverfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 9 Jan. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 29; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Vorläufige Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 25 Feb. 1958. HfG, file 444; Inge Aicher- Scholl: Vorläufige Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 7 Mar. 1958. HfG, file 444 and Geschwister-Scholl- Stiftung: Vorläufige Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 28 Feb. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 29. 959 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums Montag, 24-2-58 um 11 Uhr . 24Feb. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 134. 960 Inge Scholl: Errichtung der gemeinnützigen „Geschwister-SchollStiftung“ . 24 Apr. 1953. HfG, unlisted file. 961 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Vorläufige Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 7 Mar. 1958. HfG, file 444. 962 Tomás Maldonado: An die Mit glieder des Kleinen Konvents. 28Feb. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 29; Tomás Maldonado: Proto koll zur Sitzung des Kleinen Konvent am Freitag, den 7. März 1958 um 11,00 Uhr . 7 Mar. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 113. Günther Schlensag: Bekanntmachung . 7 Mar. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 113. 963 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Dienstag, 11-3-58 um 11 Uhr . 11Mar. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 134. 964 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 7 May 1958. PAR. 965 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 28 May 1958. PAR.
453
References
454
966 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Aktennotiz . 24 June 1958. HfG, file 549; Erwin and Max Braun: Letter to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 24 June 1958. PAR; Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 21 May 1958. PAR and Tomás Maldonado: Proto koll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskolle giums am Dienstag, 17. März 1959. 17 Mar. 1959. BHA, HfG records, folder 135.
pated in the deliberations of the administrative council at its 15th meeting. Cf. administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll . 12 Dec. 1958. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 76.
967 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Roderich Count Thun. 23 July 1958. HfG, file 514.
979 Max Bill: Letter to Inge AicherScholl. 19 Dec. 1958. HfG, file 564.
968 Administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Proto koll . 14 May 1958. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 76. 969 Administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Proto koll . 7 Aug. 1958. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 76. – This was the first time Josef Alfons Thuma participated in a council meeting (as president of the Land Trade Supervision Dept.) qua the successor of Adalbert Seifriz. He had previously already represented his predecessor Adalbert Seifriz and the latter’s predecessor Edgar Hotz on the administrative council. Cf. Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Geschäftsbericht für das Rechnungsjahr 1957/58 . 3 July 1958. HfG, file 559. 970 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Entwurf eines Antrags an das Wirtschaftsministerium Baden-Württem berg. 11 Oct. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 2. 971 Dr. Würth, Baden-Württemberg Trade Supervision Dept.: Betreff Antrag der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung vom 14. Oktober 1958 „Institut für Produktgestaltung (IfP)“ . 16 Oct. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 2. 972 Federal ministry of the interior: Stellungnahme zu dem Antrag der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung an das Bundesministerium des Innern vom 10. Dezember 1958 . 10 Dec. 1958. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 80. 973 Günther Schlensag: Vermerk . 30De c. 1958. HfG, unlisted file. 974 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Kleinen Konvent am 16.Juni 1958 um 10,00 Uhr . 16June 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 113. 975 Tomás Maldonado: Auszug aus dem Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rekto ratskollegiums am Dienstag, 30. Sept. 1958 . 30 Sept. 1958. BHA, HfG records, folder 135. 976 School of Design: Geändertes Programm . 28 July 1958. HfG, unlisted file. 977 Professor Karl Schmölder was a member of the executive board of the Rheinische Hypothekenbank Mannheim (which had given the foundation a mortgage on the residential buildings) and member of the executive board of the Bundesverband des Privaten Bankgewerbes (National Association of Private Banks). Cf. Otto Pfleiderer: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 14 Aug. 1958. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. He first partici-
978 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to the advisory board of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. 15 Jan. 1959. HfG, file 564.
980 Max Bill: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 6 Feb. 1959. HfG, file 527. 981 Max Bill: Letter to Inge AicherScholl. 6 Feb. 1959. HfG, file 564. 982 Cf. René Spitz (see note 26) 422–426. 983 Max Bill: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 6 Feb. 1959. HfG, file 527. 984 Max Bill: Letter to Walter Gropius. 10 Feb. 1959. BHA, Gropius estate, Bill- Gropius correspondence. 985 Walter Gropius: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 31 Mar. 1959. HfG, file 525. 986 Max Bill: Letter to Roderich Count Thun. 17 Feb. 1959. HfG, file 527. 987 On this and the following cf. Advisory board of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Beirats der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung, Ulm, am Freitag, den 6. März 1959. 7 Mar. 1959. HfG, file 564 and Advisory board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Proto koll über die Sitzung des Beirats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, Ulm, am Freitag, den 6. März 1959. 7 March 1959. HfG, file 564. 988 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Großen Konvents am Dienstag, den 7.4.1959 um 11 Uhr im Rektorat . 7 Apr. 1959. BHA, HfG records, folder 112. 989 Thorwald Risler: Letter to the executive board of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. 7 Apr. 1959. PAR. 990 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Geschäftsbericht für das Rechnungs jahr 1958/59 . 25 Aug. 1959. HfG, file 559. 991 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Großen Konvents am Dienstag, den 7.4.1959 um 11 Uhr im Rektorat . 7 Apr. 1959. BHA, HfG records, folder 112. 992 Inge Aicher-Scholl, Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Baden-Württemberg ministry of economics. 5 Mar. 1959. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 77, document 22. 993 Roderich Count Thun: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 20 May 1959. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 994 Roderich Count Thun: Auszug aus dem Protokoll der Mitgliederversammlung vom 10.12.1956 . 10 Dec. 1956. HfG, file 504; Roderich Count Thun: Letter to the members of the
Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 15 Dec. 1956. THD, 71/5, file 14; Roderich Count Thun: Protokoll . 10 Dec. 1956. THD, 71/5, file 14; Roderich Count Thun: Letter to the members of the Society of Friends of the Geschwister-SchollStiftung. 24 Nov. 1956. THD, 71/5, file 14; Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Sat zung. 10 Dec. 1956. HfG, file 490. The statute change of 10 Dec. 1956 was entered in the Ulm register of associations, vol. vi, no. 387 on 16 Jan. 1957. Cf. Ulm District Court: To the association. Letter to the Society of Friends of the Geschwister-SchollStiftung. 16 Jan. 1957. HfG, file 504. 995 Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Mitglieder . 16 May 1958. PAR. 996 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to members of the Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 20 Sept. 1958. THD, 71/5, file 14. 997 Roderich Count Thun: Letter to members of the Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 27 Oct. 1959. THD, 71/5, fil e 17. 998 Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Sat zung. 10 Dec. 1956. HfG, file 490. 999 Inge Aicher-Scholl, Theodor Pfizer: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of economics. 5 Mar. 1959. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 77, document 22. 1000 Karl Hipp: Betreff: Antrag der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 23 Apr. 1959. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 77, document 24. 1001 Thorwald Risler: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of economics. 3 Dec. 1959. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 77, document 46. 1002 Karl Gussone: Letter to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 18 May 1959. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 77, document 37. 1004 Re this and what follows cf. administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll . 15 Jan. 1960. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 78, document 57. – This is the first meeting in which Karl Gussone participated instead of Paul Egon Hübinger as the representative of the federal ministry of the i nterior. 1005 Theodor Pfizer: Gehaltsord nung für Dozenten (gültig ab 1.4. 1959). 12 Nov. 1959. HfG, unlisted file. 1005 More detailed in: René Spitz (see note 26), table on page 175; Sources: Theodor Pfizer: Gehaltsord nung für Dozenten (gültig ab 1.4. 1959). 12 Nov. 1959. HfG, unlisted file and Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Dozenten-Gehälter der Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm. n.d. September 1959. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 74, appendix 2 to document 43. 1006 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Business report of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung for fiscal year 1959/60. 25 Oct.1960. HfG, file 559.
1007 On the cause for gaps in the numbering one may speculate that E1 was probably reserved for Georg Leowald (product design) and E4 for Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart (visual communication). 1008 Re this and what follows see Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Kleinen Konvents am Samstag, den 6. Juni 1959, von 10,00– 12,00 und 15,00–18,00 . BHA, HfG records, folder 113. 1009 Re this and what follows cf. Mr. Pickert: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Kleinen Konvent am Sonntag, den 7.6.1959 um 10 Uhr und um 15 Uhr im Rektorat . 7 June 1959. BHA, HfG records, folder 113. 1010 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Dienstag, 8. dez. 1959, 16 Uhr . 10 Dec. 1959. BHA, HfG records, folder 136. 1011 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Max Guther. 14 Dec. 1959. THD, 71/5, file 17. 1012 Gert Kalow: Protokoll zu den Sitzungen des Rektoratskollegiums am Dienstag, 14.6.60, um 11,00 Uhr und 14.45 Uhr . 20 June 1960. BHA, HfG records, folder 136. 1013 Finance and employment contract committee of the administrative council: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Finanz- und Dienstvertrags Ausschusses des Verwaltungsrates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 5. Dezember in der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. 24 Dec. 1960. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 79. 1014 Thorwald Ri sler: Aktennotiz . 3M ay 1960. BHA, HfG records, folder 136. 1015 Horst Ri ttel: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums Donnerstag, 12.5.60, um 9 Uhr . 12 May 1960. BHA, HfG records, folder 136. 1016 Tomás Maldonado: Letter to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung and to the governing board of the School of Design. 31 May 1960. BHA, HfG records, folder 136. 1017 Thorwald Risler: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Kleinen Konvents am 7.Juni 1960 um 13,00 Uhr . 7 June 1960. BHA, HfG records, folder 113. 1018 Thorwald Ri sler: Protokoll . 7J une 1960. BHA, HfG records, folder 136. 1019 Cf. Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Max Guther. 13 June 1960. THD, 71/5, file 17. 1020 Gui Bonsiepe et al.: Offener Brief . 21 June 1960. BHA, HfG records, folder 9. 1021 Cf. René Spitz (see note 26) 416. 1022 Gert Kalow: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums Freitag, 23.9.60 um 9,00 Uhr . 27 Sept. 1960. BHA, HfG records, folder 136.
1023 Cf. Gert Kalow: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Freitag, 28-10-60, 9.00 Uhr . 3 Nov. 1960. BHA, HfG records, folder 137. 1024 Cf. Günther Schweigkofler: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of economics. 25 Aug. 1960. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 78, document 105. 1025 Cf. Finance and employment contract committee of the administrative council: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Finanz- und Dienstvertragsausschusses am 15.12.1961 in der Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm . 7 Apr. 1961. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 79, appendix 4 to document 153; administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll . 28 Dec. 1960. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 79, document 132; and finance and employment contract committee of the administrative council: Proto koll über die Sitzung des Finanzund Dienstvertrags-Ausschusses des Verwaltungsrates der Geschwister-Scholl-Sti ftung am 5 . Dezember in der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. 24 Dec. 1960. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 79. 1026 From Land and federal funds, as part of the 2nd Federal Youth Plan, the foundation could count on DM 250,000 in 1961 for the second student residence, but it had applied for DM 300,000; however, it was still possible to get a loan for this from special Land funds. Cf. Dr. Rooschüz: Letter to the North Württemberg regional council. 1 July 1960. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 78, document 94. 1027 Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart. 2 Nov. 1960. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 78 and Tomás Maldonado: Proto koll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskolle giums am Dienstag, 23. Juni 1959, 13,30 . 24 June 1959. BHA, HfG records, folder 135. 1028 Alfred Rietzsch: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 16 Aug. 1960. HfG, unlisted file. 1029 Cf. René Spitz (see note 26) 410–412. 1030 Gert Kalow: Referat des Rekto ratsvorsitzenden der Hochschule für Gestaltung, Gert Kalow, anläßlich der Sitzung des Verwaltungsrates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, Ulm, 5. Dezember 1960 . 5 Dec. 1960. HfG, unlisted file. 1031 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 3rd electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage III 614. 19 Jan. 1961, issued 24 Jan. 1961. 1032 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 3rd electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage III 886 , issued 21 Mar. 1961. Cf. Finance and employment contract committee of the administrative council: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Finanz- und Dienstvertragsausschusses am 15.12.1961 in der Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm . 7 Apr. 1961. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 79, appendix 4 to document 153. 1033 Professor Rembeck took part in this meeting as a deputy of adminis-
trative council member Josef Alfons Thuma, the president of the Stuttgart Land Trade Supervision Department. 1034 Finance and employment contract committee of the administrative council: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Finanz- und Dienstvertragsausschusses des Verwaltungsrats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 12.4.1961 in der Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm. 25 Apr. 1961. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 79, appendix 1 to document 152. 1035 Cf. Günther von Alberti: Erwä gungen zur Feststellung des „richti gen“ Zuschußbedarfs für die Hochschule für Gestaltun g. n.d. April 1961. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 79, appendix 2 to document 153. 1036 Cf. Finance and employment contract committee of the administrative council: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Finanz- und Dienstvertragsausschusses des Verwaltungsrats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 12.4.1961 in der Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm. 25 Apr. 1961. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 79, appendix 1 to document 152. – In the subsequent 18th meeting of the administrative council Richard Knobel as the chair of the Baden-Württemberg Land association for the first time represented the German Trade Union Federation on the administrative council; he was the successor of Wilhelm Kleinknecht. Cf. administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll . 3 May 1961. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 79, appendix 1 to document 157. 1037 Roderich Count Thun: Meine sehr persönliche Einstellung zu den Zielen der „Geschwister Scholl Stiftung“ . Undated letter to Inge AicherScholl and Otl Aicher, January 1961. HfG, file 514. 1038 Roderich Count Thun: Letter to Thorwald Risle r. 13 Mar. 1961. HfG, file 514. 1039 Roderich Count Thun: Letter to members of the Geschwister-SchollStiftung. 10 Apr. 1961. HfG, unlisted file. 1040 Society of Friends of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Sat zung. 31 May 1961. HfG, file 490. 1041 Klaus Dohrn: Über die konstituierende Sitzung des Vorstandes der Gesellschaft der Freunde der Geschwiste r-Scholl-Stift ung e.v. am 20.7.1961 in Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim . 20 July 1961. HfG, file 496. 1042 Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Letter to Baden-Württemberg ministry of economics. 19 Sept. 1961. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 80, document 184. 1043 Cf. Finance and employment contract committee of the administrative council: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Finanz- und Dienstvertrags-Ausschusses des Verwaltungs rates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am Mittwoch, den 18.10. 1961 in Stuttgart . 27 Oct. 1961. HStA, EA
3/203, bundle 80, appendix 2 to document 198. 1044 Cf. Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die 19. Sitzung des Verwaltungsrats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am Montag, den 30.10.1961, in der Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm. 2.11.1961. HfG, file 463. – The 19th administrative council meeting on 30 Oct. 1961 was the first time Klaus Dohrn as the successor of Brigitte Bermann-Fischer represented the Society of Friends. 1045 Otl Aicher: „Hans Gugelot“, in: Systemdesign, Bahnbrecher. Hans Gugelot 1920–1965 . Basel, Boston 2 1987, 19–25, hier 20. 1046 But this contract had not been adopted yet: At its meeting on 15Feb. 1961 the finance and employment contract committee of the administrative council had discussed it; the acounts code structure the contract was based on was already being used, but the final wording had not been settled yet. Cf. Finance and employment contract committee of the administrative council: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Finanz- und Dienstvertragsausschusses am 15.12.1961 in der Hochschule für Gestaltung, Ulm . 7 Apr. 1961. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 79, appendix 4 to document 153. 1047 Mervyn William Perrine: Letter to Otl Aicher. 20 Feb. 1961. HfG, file 391. 1048 Mervyn William Perrine: Letter to Klaus Drewes. 24 Feb. 1961. HfG, file 393; Mervyn William Perrine: Kri tische Stellungnahme zu den wichtigsten Abschnitten der „Richtlinien über die Abwicklung von Entwicklungsaufträgen“ . 23 Feb. 1961. HfG, file 393; Mervyn William Perrine: Bemerkungen zu den „Richtlinien über die Abwicklung von Entwicklungsaufträgen“ . 23 Feb. 1961. HfG, file 393; and Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Kleinen Konvents am Mittwoch, 22. Juni 1960 . 22 Feb. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 113. 1049 Tomás Maldonado: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Dienstag, 8. dez. 1959, 16 Uhr . 10 Dec. 1959. BHA, HfG records, folder 136. 1050 Gert Kalow: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Dienstag, 11.4.1961. 17 Apr. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 137 and Thorwald Risler: Letter to the governing board of the School of Design. 20 Apr. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 141. 1051 Inner council of the Ulm School of Design: Empfehlungen an das Rektoratskollegium der HfG gemäß Sitzung des Kleinen Konvents am Dienstag, 18. April 1961. 18 Apr. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 146. 1052 Karl-Heinz Allgayer: Resolution der Studentenschaft der HfG, beschlossen auf einer außerordentlichen Versammlung der Studentenschaft am 20. April 1961 13 Uhr . 20Ap r. 1961. HfG, fil e 391.
1053 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Gert Kalow. 24 Apr. 1961. HfG, unlisted file. 1054 Thorwald Risler: Letter to the governing board of the School of Design. 20 Apr. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folde r 141. 1055 Gert Kalow: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums Dienstag, 25.April 1961. 28 Apr. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 137. 1056 Herbert Ohl, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 52. (ausserordentlichen) Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 19.6.1968 . 24 June 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 103. 1057 Gert Kalow: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums Dienstag am 27. April 1961 um 16,55 . 27 Apr. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folde r 137. 1058 Strike meeting of the School of Design: Streik-Erklärung . 3 May 1961. PAH, DOK 15. 1059 Mervyn William Perrine: Letter to governing board, foundation executive board, and inner council of the School of Design. 7 May 1961. HfG, unlisted file. 1060 Otl Aicher: Verfassungskom mission . 9 June 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 30, and Inner council of the School of Design: An das Rektoratskolle gium zur Behandlung im Kleinen Konvent am 9. Juni 1961. n.d. J une 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 30. 1061 Gert Kalow: Protokoll zur Sitzung des erweiterten Rektoratskolle giums am 16-10-1961. 2 Nov. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 139. 1062 Gert Kalow: Letter to the inner council of the School of Design. 15 Oct. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 107. – Gert Kalow had already resigned from his position as chairman of the governing board on 15 Oct. 1961, but did not step down as its member until 3 Nov. 1961. Cf. Gert Kalow: Letter to the inner council of the School of Design. 3 Nov. 1961. HfG, unlisted file. 1063 Günther Schweigkofler: Proto koll über die Sitzung des Kleinen Konvents a m 10.11.1961. 10 Nov. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 115. 1064 Thorwald Risler: Vorstand . 20 Nov. 1961. HfG, unlisted file. 1065 Otl Aicher: Letter to Gert Kalow. 13 Nov. 1961. HfG, unlisted file. 1066 Cf. Gert Kalow: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg minister of education and the arts. 12 Feb. 1961. HfG, file 446 and GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung: Geschäftsbericht der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung für das Rechnungsjahr 1959/60 . 25 Oct. 1960. HfG, file 559. 1067 First-year students of the 1961/62 academic year: Denkschrift. 3 Feb. 1962. PAH, DOK 20.1; Firstyear students of the academic year 1961/62, department of visual communication: Denkschrift für den Vor-
stand der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung und das Rektoratskollegium und Festdozent der Hochschule für Gestaltung . PAH, DOK 20.2; firstyear students of the academic year 1961/62, dept. of product design: Denkschrift für den Vorstand der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung und das Rektoratskollegium und die Festdozenten der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 3 Feb. 1962. PAH, DOK 20.3; first-year students of the academic year 1961/62, dept. of building: Denkschrift für den Vorstand der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung und das Rektoratskollegium und die Festdozenten der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 3 Feb. 1962. PAH, DOK 20.4. 1068 Otl Aicher: Letter to the board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung and the governing board and fulltime lecturers of the School of Design. 12 Feb. 1962. PAH, DOK 21a. 1069 Gerda Krauspe, Reinhard Butter, Jan Schleifer: Betr.: Protestschreiben des ersten Studienjahres. 14 Feb. 1962. PAH, DOK 21.1. 1070 Thorwald Risler: Aktenvermerk über Besprechung mit dem RumpfRektoratskollegium VordembergeRittel am 13. Februar 1962, 17 Uhr . 13Feb. 1962. HfG, unlisted file. 1071 Otl Aicher, Walter Zeischegg: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl, Thorwald Risler, Max Guther. 13 Feb. 1962. HfG, file 564. 1072 Cf. B. Schweigkofler: Protokoll (Gedächtnisprotokoll) zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am 15.2. 1962 um 9.30 im rk . 15 Feb. 1962. BHA, HfG records, folder 194. 1073 Cf. Otl Aicher: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 19 Dec. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 30 and Gert Kalow: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Kleinen Konvents am Freitag, den 26.1.1962 um 10.00 im Rektorat . 31 Jan. 1962. BHA, HfG records, folder 115. 1074 Output no. 9. The first issue of the student newspaper appeared on 27 Feb. 1961; cf. Klaus Krippendorff: Letter to the Output editor. 27 Feb. 1961. THD, 71/5, fil e 17. – Gerhard Curdes in retrospect: “The comprehensive claim made in the founding prospectus (politics, urban planning …) was narrowed down by cutbacks in several departments (industrialized construction in lieu of urban planning) and further restricted even within this field. Such a small faculty could not meet these demands. And thus, as I see it, one reason the HfG failed was precisely because of the huge discrepancy between its initial claims and the reality of teaching. The students’ dissatisfaction regarding this discrepancy has probably hardly been documented. Still, it was one of the causes of inner conflicts after 1961.” Letter to the author, 9January 2000. 1075 Cf. Günther Schweigkofler: Protokoll über eine Zusammenkunft der in Ulm wohnhaften Mitglieder des Beirates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am Montag, den 19.2.1962, 18Uhr . 19 Feb. 1962. HfG, file 564.
455
References
456
1076 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. 29 Apr. 1960. BHA, HfG records, folder 29. 1077 Otl Aicher: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 12 May 1960. BHA, HfG records, folder 29. 1078 Otl Aicher, Herbert Ohl, Walter Zeischegg: Entwurf für die Änderung der vorläufigen Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 8 Nov. 1962. BHA, HfG records, folder 30; Otl Aicher, Herbert Ohl, Walter Zeischegg: Entwurf für die Änderung der vorläufigen Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 6 Nov. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 30; Otl Aicher, Herbert Ohl, Walter Zeischegg: Entwurf für die Änderung der vorläufigen Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 13 Dec. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 30. 1079 Otl Aicher, Herbert Ohl, Walter Zeischegg: Entwurf für die Änderung der vorläufigen Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 6 Nov. 1961. BHA, HfG records, folder 30. 1080 Students of the School of Design: Entwurf für die Änderung der vorläufigen Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 22 Dec. 1961. PAB. 1081 Advisory board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 28 Feb. 1962. HfG, file 564. 1082 Thorwald Risler: Protokollüber die Sitzung des Beirates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 27.2. und 28.2.1962. 14 Mar. 1962. THM, folder 9.
30M ay 1962. BHA, HfG records, folder 139.
1109 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 12 Sept. 1962. PAB.
1092 The representatives of the departments of industrialized building and of product design were Herbert Ohl and Tomás Maldonado.
1110 Johann Peter Vogel: Die Verfassungsänderung Aicher . n.d. 1963. PAB.
1093 Herbert Ohl: Erklärung zur Amtsübernahme des Rektoratskolle giums. 1 June 1962. BHA, HfG records, folder 149. 1094 Thorwald Risler: Letter to the administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 5 June 1962. HfG, unlisted file. 1095 Herbert Ohl, Günther Schweigkofler: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Kleinen Konvents am Freitag, den 8. Juni 1962, um 10,30 Uhr im Rektorat . 15June 1962. BHA, HfG records, folder 115. 1096 Gudrun Otto: Letter to the administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 24 June 1962. PAB. 1097 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Zusammengefaßter Geschäftsbericht des Vorstands der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung für die Rechnungs jahre 1961, 1962 und 1963 . n.d. May 1964. HfG, file 559; Institute of Product Development and Design: Protokoll über die Gründung des Vereins: Institut für Produktentwicklung und Design. 31 Jan. 1962. PAB. 1098 Johann Peter Vogel: Besprech ung des Vorstandes der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung in Darmstadt am 29. Juni 1962. 10 July 1962. PAB. 1099 Otl Aicher: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 11 July 1962. THD, 71/5, file 17.
1083 Cf. Thorwald Risler: Letter to Otl Aicher. 12 July 1962. THD, 71/5, file 17. – The trade fair booth is pictured in Herbert Lindinger (see note 1) 144 f.
1100 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Otl Aicher. 12 July 1962. THD, 71/5, file17.
1084 Max Guther: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 16 Apr. 1962. THD, 71/5, file 17.
1101 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Max Guther. 12 July 1962. THD, 71/5, file17.
1085 Thorwald Risler: Vorstand . 23May 1962. HfG, file 562.
1102 Gert Kalow: Letter to Otl Aicher. 6 July 1962. HfG, unlisted file.
1086 Cf. Thorwald Risler: Aktennotiz . 16May 1962. HfG, file 564.
1103 Gert Kalow: Erfahrungsbericht . n.d. June 1962. PAB.
1087 Cf. his lengthy tirade against Horst Rittel of 11 May 1962: Otl Aicher: Letter to administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 11 May 1962. TH D, 71/5, file 17.
1104 Herbert Lindinger: Zur Situation in Ulm. 25.6.1962. PAB.
1088 Gudrun Otto: Letter to the administrative council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 8 May 1962. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 80, document 220. 1089 Thorwald Risler: Aktennotiz . 16May 1962. HfG, file 564. 1090 Thorwald Risler: Beschluß des Kleinen Konvents der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 23 May 1962. HfG, unlisted file. 1091 Herbert Ohl: Protokoll zur Sitzung des Rektoratskollegiums am Mittwoch, den 30. Mai 1962.
1105 Horst Rittel: Letter to Roderich Count Thun. 28.6.1962. PAB.
1111 Hans Rettich, Günther Schweigkofler, Johann Peter Vogel: Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 9 Aug. 1962. PAB. 1112 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 10 Dec. 1962. PAB. 1113 Thorwald Risler: Letter to the advisory board of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. 5 Nov. 1962. HfG, file 564. 1114 Otl Aicher: Letter to the executive board of the Geschwister-SchollStiftung. 26 Sept. 1962. HfG, unlisted file; Thorwald Risler: Protokoll zur Besprechung des Rektoratskolle giums mit der Stiftung am Dienstag, 20. November 1962, um 8.45 Uhr . 22 Nov. 1962. BHA, HfG records, folder 140. 1115 Cf. Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Guther. 2 Nov. 1962. THD, 71/5, file 19. 1116 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Guther. 16 Nov. 1962. THD, 71/5, file 19. 1117 Thorwald Ri sler: Gedanken zum Brief Otl Aichers an Prof. Max Guther vom 2 .11.1962. 4 Nov. 1962. THD, 71/5, fil e 19. 1118 Max Guther: Letter to Otl Aicher. 14 Nov. 1962. THD, 71/5, file19. 1119 Otl Ai cher: Entwurf vom 16.11. 1962. 16 Nov. 1962. HfG, file 564. 1120 Günther Schweigkofler: Proto koll über die Sitzung des Beirats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stif tung am 17.November 1962. 7 Jan. 1963. HfG, unlisted file. 1121 Advisory board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 17 Nov. 1962. PAR. 1122 Advisory board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Über gangsbestimmungen zur Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 11 Dec. 1962. HfG, unlisted file. 1123 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 10 Dec. 1962. PAB. 1124 ibid.
1106 Cf. Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die 20. Sitzung des Verwaltungsrates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am Samstag, den 14.7.1962 in der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. 27 July 1962 PAB. 1107 Otl Aicher: Zukunft der Hochschule für Gestaltung / Bemerkun gen zur Krise 1962. 29 June 1961. PAB. 1108 Otl Aicher: Zur Situation der Hochschule für Gestaltung 1962 . n.d. Septemb er 1962. HfG, unlisted file.
1127 Thorwald Risler: Letter to the full-time lecturers, regular assistant lecturers, technical teachers, and the student representatives of the School of Design. 15 Dec. 1963. HfG, unlisted file. 1128 Gert Kalow: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 16 Dec. 1962. PAR. 1129 Cf. Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die 21. Sitzung des Verwaltungsrates der Geschwister-Scholl- Stiftung am 26. April 1963 im kleinen Sitzungssaal des Kultusministeriums in Stuttgart . 26Ap r. 1963. PAB. 1130 Thorwald Risler: Hochschule für Gestaltung . 20 Dec. 1962. BHA, HfG records, folder 98. 1131 Otl Aicher: Ansprache vor dem Kleinen Senat der Hochschule für Gestaltung . 20 Dec. 1962. HfG, unlisted file. 1132 To mention only a few introductory texts on the subject out of a glut of literature: Leonhard Froese: „Einführung. Motivation und Genese der Bildungsreformpolitik in Deutschland seit 1945“, in: ibid. (ed.), Bildungspolitik und Bildungsreform. Amtliche Texte und Dokumente zur Bildungspolitik im Deutschland der Besatzungszonen, der Bundesrepubli k Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik , München 1969, 13–74; Christoph Führ, Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepu blik Deutschland. Ein Überblick , (= Studien und Dokumentationen zur vergleichenden Bildungsforschung, vol. 12) Weinheim, Basel 1979; Ulrich Teichler: „Das Hochschulwesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – ein Überblick“, in: ibid. (ed.), Das Hochschulwesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , Weinheim 1990, 11–42. – This appendix is based on an analysis of the following documents and sources, which are not individually referenced: Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.), Kultur politik der Länder 1960 , n.p. (Munich) n. d. (1961); ibid. (ed.), Kul turpolitik der länder 1961 und 1962, Cologne, Opladen 1963; ibid. (ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1963 und 1964 , Bonn 1965; ibid. (ed.), Kultur politik der Länder 1965 und 1966 , Bonn 1967; Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1967 und 1968 , Bonn 1969; ibid. (hg.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1969 und 1970 , Bonn 1971.
1125 ibid. 1126 Thorwald Risler: An die Studentenschaft . 15 Dec. 1962. BHA, HfG records, folder 98. – The rector’s term in office was supposed to continue until 30 Sept. 1964, but already a year earlier, in September 1963, the rector was supposed to be elected for the period from 1 Oct. 1964 through 30 Sept. 1966. The term of office of the first vice rector was supposed to run through 30Sept . 1963 and his successor was also supposed to be elected for two years.
1133 Dietrich Thränhardt: „Bildungspolitik“, in: Klaus von Beyme, Manfred G. Schmidt (ed.), Politik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , Opladen 1990, 177–202, hier 178. 1134 ibid. 182. 1135 ibi d. 180. 1136 ibi d. 183. 1137 Hellmut Becker: „Bildung und Bildungspolitik. Über den Sickereffekt von Reformen“, in: Martin Broszat (ed.), Zäsuren nach 1945. Essays
zur Periodisierung der deutschen Nachkriegsgeschichte . (= Schriften reihe der Vierteljahreshefte für Zeit geschichte , vol. 61) Munich 1990, 63–68, here 63 f.
1151 Hellmut Becker (see note 1325) 66.
1138 Königsteiner Staatsabkommen der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland über die Finanzierung wissenschaftlicher Forschungsein richtungen , 31.3.1949, in: St ändige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1960 , o.o. ( Munich) o.j . (1961), no page ref.
1153 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 26 Jan. 1963. STU, B 310/21/1.
1139 Satzung des deutschen Ausschusses für das Erziehungs- und Bildungswesen, 5.2.1954, in: Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1961 und 1962, Cologne, Opladen 1963, 230 f.
1155 Neu-Ulmer Zeitung, 21 Dec. 1962: Krach auf dem oberen Kuh berg. Neuer Rektor gewählt – Studenten protestieren; Stuttgarter Nachrichten , 3 Jan. 1963: Ulmer Studenten protestieren gegen die Wahl des neuen Rektors; Neu-Ulmer Zeitung, 8.1.1963: „ Neue Phase der Stabilität…“ sagt die HfG.
1140 Abkommen zwischen den Ländern der Bundesrepublik zur Vereinheitlichung auf dem Gebiete des Schulwesens , 17.2.1955, in: ibid . 227f. 1141 Verwaltungsabkommen zwischen Bund und Ländern über die Errichtung eines Wissenschaftsrates , 5.9.1957, in: ibid. 231f f. 1142 Hellmut Becker (see note 1225) 64. 1143 Ralf Dahrendorf, Arbeiterkinder an deutschen Universitäten, (= Recht und Staat in Geschichte und Gegenwart , vol. 302/303) Tübingen 1965, 75. 1144 Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.), Bedarfsfest stellung 1961–1970. Bedarfsfeststellung 1961 bis 1970 für Schulwesen, Lehrerbildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung, Kunst und Kulturpflege , Stuttgart 1963. 1145 Ludwig Erhard, „Aufgaben der Bildung und Forschung. Auszug aus der Regierungserklärung vor dem Deutschen Bundestag am 18. Oktober 1963“, in: Zur Kulturpolitik der CDU/CSU , ed. Bundesgeschäftsstelle CDU, Bonn 1964, 9. 1146 In: Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.), Kultur politik der Länder 1961 und 1962, Cologne, Opladen 1963, 34 f. 1147 Georg Picht , Die deutsche Bildungskatastrophe. Analyse und Do kumentation , Freiburg im Breisgau, Olten 1964. 1148 Dietrich Thränhardt (see note 1221) 192. 1149 Gero Leonhardt: „Bildungspolitik und Schulentwicklung in der BRD“, in: Bernhard Blanke, Hellmut Wollmann (ed.), Die alte Bundesre publik. Kontinuität und Wandel , (= Leviathan Sonderhefte, vol. 12) Cologne 1991, 389– 408, here 396. 1150 ibid. 391.
1152 Gero Leonhardt (see note 1237) 399.
1154 Gudrun Otto: Telegram to Karl Brachat. 20 Dec. 1962. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 82, appendix to document 3; Gudrun Otto: Telegram to Gerhard Storz. 20 Dec. 1962. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 82, document 4.
1156 Otl Aicher: Address, 7 Feb. 1963. 1157 Main Department of the Ulm municipal council: A uszug aus der Niederschrift über die Verhandlun g en der Hauptabteilung des Gemeinderats: § 353 beiträge an die Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 20Mar. 1956. STU, B 310/21/1; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung , 9 Feb.1963: Hochschule für Gestaltung als Rundfunkthema; Stuttgarter Nachrichten, 9Feb. 1963: Hochschule für Gestaltung protestiert ; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung , 16 Feb. 1963: „ Die permanente Krisensituation der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm“ . Complete reprint of the manuscript and Otl Aicher’s reply. 1158 Der Spiegel 12/1963, 18 Mar. 1963, 71 ff.: Auf dem Kuhberg. 1159 Otl Aicher: Rede an die Dozenten, Studenten und Mitarbeiter . 22Mar.1963. HfG, unlisted file; Herbert Ohl: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 20Oct. 1966. HfG, unlisted file; Otl Aicher: Letter to Gabor Gyimothy. 22Mar. 1963. HfG, unlisted file; Otl Aicher: Letter to Gudrun Otto. 22Mar. 1963. HfG, unlisted file; members of the School of Design: Erklärung . 27 May 1963. HfG, unlisted file; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 23 Mar. 1963: „Aus dem Feld der Polemik heraustreten“ ; Stuttgarter Nachrichten , 23.3.1963: Spannungen an der Ulmer Hochschule ; Stuttgarter Zeitung, 26 Mar. 1963: Ulmer Hochschule für Gestaltung und die Pressestimmen. 1160 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 3d electoral period: Beilage III 2909. 21 Mar. 1963. PABW. 1161 Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 23 Mar. 1963: „Aus dem Feld der Polemik heraustreten“ . 1162 Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 29 Mar. 1963. HfG, unlisted file. 1163 Thorwald Risler: Zur Beantwortung der Fragen des Verwaltungsrats an den Stiftungsvorstand . 18 Apr. 1963. HfG, unlisted file.
1164 Hochschule für Gestaltung: Etatentwicklung . 26 Mar. 1963. HfG, unlisted file. 1165 Ulm municipal council: Niederschrift über die Verhandlung des Gemeinderats: § 32 Hochschule für Gestaltung . 22 Mar. 1963. STU, B 310/21/4.
on the administrative council after 26 Apr. 1963, and no successor was appointed. Therefore the two general meetings on 12 June and 28 Nov. 1963 consisted of 22 persons. 1183 Otl Aicher: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 1 June 1963. HfG, unlisted file.
1166 Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 6 Apr. 1963: „ Die Aufgabe: Heranbildung von Produktgestaltern“ .
1184 Otl Aicher: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 1 June 1963. HfG, unlisted file.
1167 Stuttgarter Zeitung, 22 May 1963: Flurbereinigung auf dem Kuh berg; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 24 May 1963: Vor einer Flurbereini gung auf dem Kuhberg.
1185 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 4 June 1963. PAB.
1168 Peter Friederich: Nicht Hochschule – Mittelschule , in: Abschnitte 5/May 1963, no page ref.
1187 Hellmut Becker: Telefongespräch mit Professor Guther . 7June 1963. PAB.
1169 Stuttgarter Nachrichten, 11May 1963: Die ungestalte Hochschule für Gestaltung. 1170 Herbert Lindinger, Claude Schnaidt: Erklärung zu dem offenen Brief . 22 May 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 80, appendix 2 to document 280; Herbert Lindinger, Claude Schnaidt: Offener Brief an die sogenannten „opponierenden Dozenten und Studenten“ . 20 May 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 80, appendix 1 to document 280. 1171 Members of the School of Design: Erklärung . 27 May 1963. HfG, unlisted file. 1172 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 3rd electoral period, 30 May 1963, pp. 5860–70. PABW. 1173 Max Guther: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 24 Apr. 1963. PAB. 1174 Hans Rettich, Günther Schweigkofler, Johann Peter Vogel: Errichtung der gemeinnützigen „Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung“ . 13 May 1963. PAB. 1175 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Walter Gropius. 29 May 1963. PAF. 1176 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Otto Pfleiderer. 30 May 1963. PAR. 1177 Otl Aicher: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 29 May 1963. HfG, unlisted file. 1178 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Otl Aicher. 1 June 1963. PAB. 1179 Otl Aicher: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 1 June 1963. HfG, unlisted file. 1180 Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 3 Oct. 1963. BHA, HfG records, folder 125. 1181 Max Bill: Letter to Otl Aicher. 29O ct. 1963. THM; Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 19 Dec. 1963. THM. 1182 The general meeting of the foundation consisted of the advisory board (9 members, 3 of them from the foundation’s executive board) and the administrative council (14 members), i.e., a total of 23 persons. However, Helmut Cron was no longer
1199 Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Dokumen tation 2. n.d. July 1963. PABW. 1200 Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Dokumenta tion 2. n.d. J uly 1963. PABW. 1201 Manfred Wörner: Letter to Otl Aicher. 15 July 1963. BHA, HfG records, folder 125; on 19 Nov. 1963 there was a meeting of the politicocultural group of the Landtag SPD faction: Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 21 Nov. 1963: Ein Weg aus der Krise aufgezeigt.
1202 Otl Aicher: Rede Otl Aichers beim Empfang für FDP Landtagsfraktion im Ulmer Rathaus am 13.9.63 . 13 Sept. 1963. BHA, HfG records, folder 124; Ulm city council: Bericht über das Gespräch zwischen FDP/ DVP-Landtagsfraktion und Ulmer Vertretern des öffentlichen Lebens 1188 General meeting of the Geam 13. September 1963 im Ulmer schwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Presse mitteilung . 13 June 1963. HfG, Rathaus . 13Sept. 1963. BHA, HfG unlisted file; Theodor Pfizer: Protokoll records, folder 124. über die Sitzung der Hauptversammlung der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung 1203 Baden-Württemberg ministry of am 12.6.1963 im Kultusministerium education and the arts: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg in Stuttgart . Baden-Württemberg ministry of 28Oct. 1963. HfG, unlisted file. state. 11 Oct. 1963. PABW. 1186 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Max Guther. 4 June 1963. PAB.
1189 The members were Hellmut Becker, Günther Boulanger, Klaus Dohrn, Wolfgang Donndorf, Hans Frieder Eychmüller, Günther Grzimek, Karl Gussone, Theodor Pfizer, and Thorwald Risler. 1190 Thorwald Risler: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Beirates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 29. Juni 1963 im Bundesbahnhotel Ulm. 29 June 1963. HfG, file 564. 1191 Thorwald Ri sler: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Beirates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 19.7. 1963 . 25 July 1963. HfG, unlisted file; advisory board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll der Sitzung des Beirates der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung vom 5.10.1963 . 5. Oct. 1963. HfG, file 564. 1192 Otl Aicher: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 23 July 1963. HfG, unlisted file. 1193 Inge Aicher-Scholl: Letter to Otto Pfleiderer. 28 July 1963. THM, folder 9. 1194 Johann Peter Vogel: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 12 Oct. 1963. PAB. 1195 Klaus Dohrn: Letter to Otl Aicher. 9 Aug. 1963. PAB. 1196 Johann Peter Vogel: Letter to Hans Rettich. 4 July 1963. PAB. 1197 On this and what follows cf. Hellmut Becker: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 27 Aug. 1963. PAB. 1198 Otl Aicher: Brief an die Dozenten, die Vertreter der planmäßigen Assistenten und die der technischen Lehrer der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 24 July 1963. BHA, HfG records, folder 125; Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 3rd electoral period:
1204 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 3rd electoral period: Auszug aus der 85. Sitzung des kulturpolitischen Ausschusses vom 25. Oktober 1963 . 11 Nov. 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 87, document 50a; politico-cultural committee of the 3d Landtag of Baden-Württemberg: Empfehlungen des kulturpolitischen Ausschusses an den Finanz-Ausschuß. 5 Nov. 1963. PABW; Theodor Pfizer: Proto koll über die 22. Sitzung des Verwaltungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 11.11. 1963 im Kultusministerium Stuttgart . 21 Feb. 1964. PAB; Landtag of Baden-Württemberg, 3rd electoral period: Auszug aus der 87. Sitzung des kulturpolitischen Ausschusses am 4.11.1963 . 11 Nov. 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 87, document 51a. 1205 Otl Aicher: Memo. 5 Nov. 1963. BHA, HfG records, folder 15. 1206 Otl Aicher, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur außerordentlichen Sitzung des Großen Senats am 7.Novembe r 1963 . 12 Nov. 1963. HfG, unlisted file. 1207 Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 30 Oct. 1963: Landesregierung: HfG ist förderungswürdig; Stuttgarter Nachrichten , 30 Oct. 1963: Hochschule für Gestaltung weiterhin förderungswürdig ; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung , 5 Nov. 1963: Bedin gungen für den Staatszuschuß; Stuttgarter Nachrichten, 5 Nov. 1963: Mittel für Ulmer Hochschule sollen gesperrt werden. 1208 Hochschule für Gestaltung: Stellungnahme. 12 Nov. 1963. HfG, unlisted file. 1209 Theodor Pfizer: Protokoll über die 22. Sitzung des Verwaltungs rates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 11.11.1963 im Kultusministerium Stuttgart . 21Feb. 1964. PAB.
457
References
458
1210 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 13 Nov. 1963. PAB. 1211 Günther Schweigkofl er: Aktenvermerk . 13 Nov. 1963. PAB. 1212 Otl Aicher, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 6. Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 13. November 1963 . BHA, HfG records, folder 103. 1213 Otl Aicher: Letter to the members of the advisory board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 8 Nov. 1963. HfG, unlisted file; Advisory board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Resolution des Beirats zum Verfassungsentwurf der Verfassungskommission der Hauptversammlung vo m 11.11.63 . n.d. November 1963. THM, folder 9.
1228 Cf. Theodor Pfizer: Protokoll über die Hauptversammlung am 28.11.1963 im Kultusministerium Stuttgart . 26 Feb. 1964. HfG, unlisted file. 1229 Hans Rettich: Protokoll über die Sitzung der Verfassungskommission der Hauptversammlung der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 11.11. 1963 im Sitzungssaal des Kultusministeriums in Stuttgart . 16 Nov. 1963. PAR. 1230 Advisory board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Resolution des Beirats zum Verfassungsentwurf der Verfassungskommission der Hauptversammlung vom 11.11.63 . n.d. Novembe r 1963. THM, folder 9; cf. Otl Aicher: Bericht zu den Bemühungen um eine Änderung der Satzung der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 5Nov. 1963. BHA, HfG records, folder 15.
1244 Otl Aicher: Letter to Max Bill. 19 Dec. 1963. THM. 1245 Hellmut Becker: Telefongespräch mit Professor Guther . 7Jun. 1963. PAB. 1246 Egbert-Hans Müller: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 11 Dec. 1967. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 64, document 144. 1248 Otl Aicher: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 19 Dec. 1963. PAR. 1249 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Otl Aicher. 30 Dec. 1963. HfG, file 554.
1216 Cf. Thorwald Risler: Letter to Wolfgang Donndorf. 22 Aug. 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 69, document 1; Thorwald Risler: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 13 Nov. 1963. PAB.
1231 Advisory board of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Resolution des Beirats zum Verfassungsentwurf der Verfassungskommission der Hauptversammlung vom 11.11.63 . n.d. Novembe r 1963. THM, folder 9.
1250 The plan of the ministry of education and the arts, the German Film and TV Academy of Berlin, and the film instructors was that there would be film training on Kuhberg, but not in the form of an institute dependent on the foundation budget. For film training they wanted a separate institute independent of the HfG disputes, located near the foundation, but with its own budget, as a member of the German Film and TV Academy; under these circumstances the HfG refused to maintain film training as part of its program.
1232 Walter Gropius: Letter to Inge Aicher-Scholl. 22 Nov. 1963. PAR.
1251 Otl Aicher: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 13 Feb. 1964. PAR.
1217 Otl Aicher, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 5. Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 2. Oktober 1963 . 10 Oct. 1963. BHA, HfG records, folder 103.
1233 Gui Bonsiepe et al., An die Mit glieder der Hauptversammlung der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 25 Nov. 1963. PAR.
1252 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Otl Aicher. 28 Feb. 1964. PAR.
1214 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Otl Aicher. 18 Nov. 1963. PAR. 1215 Otl Aicher, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 3. Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 6. März 1963 . 8 Mar. 1963. BHA, HfG records, folder 103.
1218 Otl Aicher: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 8 Oct. 1963. BHA, HfG records, folder 15. 1219 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung, Siemens & Halske Inc.: Schenkungs vertrag . 18 Jan. 1963. PAB. 1220 Cf. René Spitz (see note 26) 427. 1221 Theodor Pfizer: Protokoll über die 22. Sitzung des Verwaltungs rates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 11.11.1963 im Kultusministerium Stuttgart . 21 Feb. 1964. PAB. 1222 Günther Schweigkofler: Aktenvermerk . 13 Nov. 1963. PAB. 1223 Otl Aicher, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 6. Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 13. November 1963 . 18Nov. 1963. BHA, HfG records, folder 103. 1224 Otl Aicher: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 14 Nov. 1963. PAR. 1225 Wolfgang Donndorf: Betr.: Hochschule für Gestaltung hier: Änderung der Stiftungssatzung. 4.12. 1963 . 4 Dec. 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 82, document 25.
1234 Gudrun Otto: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 26 Nov. 1963. PAR. 1235 Gert Kalow: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 27 Nov. 1963. PAR. 1236 Günther Schweigkofler: Überle g ungen zu der gegenwärtigen Krise auf dem Kuhberg. 25 Nov. 1963. PAR. 1237 Theodor Pfizer: Protokoll über die Hauptversammlung am 28.11. 1963 im Kultusministerium Stuttgart . 26 Feb. 1964. HfG, unlisted file. 1238 Wolfgang Donndorf: Betr.: Hochschule für Gestaltung hier: Änderung der Stiftungssatzung. 4Dec. 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 82, document 25. 1239 Wolfgang Donndorf: Betr.: Hochschule für Gestaltung hier: Änderung der Stiftungssatzung. 4Dec. 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 82, document 25. 1240 Cf. René Spitz (see note 26) 446–451. 1241 Hans Frieder Eychmüller: Letter to the general meeting of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 30Nov. 1963. PAR.
1226 Cf. Otl Aicher: Bericht zu den Bemühungen um eine Änderung der Satzung der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 5 Nov. 1963. BHA, HfG records, folder 15.
1242 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 3rd electoral period, 103rd plenary session, 30 Nov 1963, pp. 7056, 7080. PABW.
1227 Cf. Theodor Pfizer: Protokoll über die 22. Sitzung des Verwaltungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 11.11 .1963 im Kultusministerium Stuttgart . 21 Feb. 1964. PAB.
1243 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 3rd electoral period: Auszug aus der 92. Sitzung des kulturpolitischen Ausschusses am 16. Dezember 1963 . 16 Dec. 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 65, document 7a.
1253 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 28 Mar. 1964. PAR. 1253 Cf. René Spitz (see note 26) 417 f. 1254 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Klaus Dohrn. 12 Dec. 1963. PAB. 1255 Cf. Thorwald Risler: Vorüberle g ungen zu notwendigen Entscheidungen des Vorstandes der Gesellschaft der Freunde der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. n.d. April 1964. PAB. 1256 Thorwald Risler: Vorüberlegun gen über den eventuellen Aufbau eines Instituts im Rahmen der Geschwister- Scholl-Stiftung (Sitzung des Stiftungsrates vom 15.6. 1964). n.d. May 1964. PAR. 1257 Klaus Dohrn: Entwurf / 26.5. 1964 . 26 May1964. PAR. 1258 Otl Aicher,Tomás Maldonado, Herbert Ohl, Walter Zeischegg: Memorandum zur Vorlage an den Stiftungsrat . 15 June 1964. THM, folder9. 1259 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die 2. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung am 15.6.1964 in Stuttgart.. 13 July 1964. HfG, file 469. 1260 Otl Aicher: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 3 Jul. 1964. PAR. 1261 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 13 Aug. 1964. HfG, file 549. After Thorwald Risler’s resignation the foundation had a great deal of trouble fulfilling its obligations regarding the Siemens gift. The reason was a mixture of denial and delay policies on the part of HfG
committees, and the fact that the foundation‘s council was not assertive enough. This resulted in financial losses, though these went largely unnoticed in the general frenzy of 1967 and 1968. Cf., for example, the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Niederschrift . 9J uly 1965. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 69; Thorwald Risler: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 16 Jan. 1967. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 69, appendix 1 to document 34. 1262 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die 3. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung am 13.7.1964 in Stuttgart . 13 July 1964. HfG, file 473. 1263 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 13 Aug. 1964. HfG, file 549; Hellmut Becker: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 9 Aug. 1964. PAR; Chairman of the board of the Founders’ Association for German Science: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 30 July 1964. PAB. 1264 Cf. Otl Aicher: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 17 Apr. 1964. PAB. 1265 Günther Schweigkofler: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 24 Oct. 1963. PAB. The following were qualified for election: the 5 full-time lecturers Otl Aicher, Gert Kalow, Tomás Maldonado, Herbert Ohl, and Walter Zeischegg. Gerd Kalow had previously announced that he wanted to take a job as a visiting professor in Japan that year. 1266 Thorwald Risler: Bekanntma chung. 24 Oct. 1963. BHA, HfG records, folders 98 and 125. 1267 Otl Aicher: Letter to Thorwald Risler, 18 June 1964. PAR; Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 27 Nov. 1964. PAR. 1268 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die 3. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung am 13.7.1964 in Stuttgart . 13 July 1964. HfG, file 473. 1269 Otl Aicher: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 17 Oct. 1966. HfG, unlisted file. 1270 Otl Aicher, Günther Schweigkofler, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur (4.) ordentlichen Sitzung des Großen Senats am 25. Sept. 1964 . 30 Sept. 1964. BHA, HfG records, folder 99. 1271 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Walter Erbe. 30 Sept. 1964. HfG, file 562. 1272 Günther Schweigkofler: Aktenvermerk zu den Vorstandsakten. 5O ct. 1964. HfG, file 562. 1273 Alexander Kluge: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 27 Oct. 1964. PAB. 1274 Walter Erbe, Friedrich Rau, Hans Zumsteg: Letter to Tomás Maldonado. 8 Dec. 1964. HfG, file 562. 1275 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Otto Pfleiderer. 28 Aug. 1964. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 1276 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 9 Aug. 1964. PAR.
1277 Max Horn: Aktennotiz . 15 Mar. 1965. PAR; Max Horn: Letter to Hans Gugelot. 23 Mar. 1965. PAR; Hans Gugelot: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 25 June 1965. PAR; Max Horn: Letter to Hans Gugelot. 30 July 1965. PAR; Thorwald Risler: Letter to the members of the Institute of Product Development. 15 Sept. 1965. PAR; Max Horn: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 3 Sept. 1965. PAR. 1278 Institute of Product Development and Design: Letter to Ulm District Court. 18 Jan. 1966. PAR; Institute of Product Development and Design: Protokoll der ausserordentlichen Mitgliederversammlung am 18.1.1966 des Instituts für Produktentwicklung und Design e.v., Ulm. 18 Jan. 1966. PAR.
Klaus Dohrn in the latter part of 1963 concerning the question whether the independent members of the foundation‘s council should be nominated by the Society of Friends “in consultation with” or “in agreement with” the HfG. Cf. Otl Aicher: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 1 Jan. 1964. PAB. This is why Otl Aicher demanded that the rector should be given the same salary as the chair of the foundation's executive board. 1294 Otl Aicher:Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 13 Mar. 1964. BHA, HfG records, folder 15. 1295 Hochschule für Gestaltung: Protokoll der 6 Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 13.11.1963 . 18 Nov. 1963. HfG, unlisted file.
1279 Tomás Maldonado: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 7 Sept. 1966. HfG, unlisted file.
1296 Günther Schweigkofler: Letter to Hans Rettich. 10 Dec. 1963. HStA, EA 3/302, bundle 82, document 33.
1280 Tomás Maldonado: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 7 Sept. 1966. HfG, unlisted file.
1297 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 3rd electoral period: Auszug aus der 92. Sitzung des kulturpolitischen Ausschusses am 16. Dezember 1963. 16 Dec. 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 65, document 7a; Gerhard Storz: Letter to Karl Brachat. 16 Dec. 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 87.
1281 Theodor Pfizer: Aktennotiz . 14Jan. 1964. HfG, file 554. 1282 Thorwald Risler: Letter to Klaus Dohrn. 12 Dec.1963. PAB. 1283 Klaus Dohrn: Letter to Otl Aicher. 27 Dec. 1963. PAR. 1284 Klaus Dohrn: Letter to Otl Aicher. 27 Dec. 1963. PAR. 1285 Klaus Dohrn: Letter to Otl Aicher. 24 Jan. 1964. BHA, HfG records, folder 15. 1286 Klaus Dohrn: Letter to Hellmut Becker, Max Bill, Günther Grzimek, Otto Pfleiderer, Hans Zumsteg. 24 Jan. 1964. PAB. – Of these 6 government representatives, 2 were replaced by successors in 1968: Walther Hinsch remained until the 5th session (successor: Franz Frank) and Josef Alfons Thuma until the 8th session (successor: Karl Hipp). 1287 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die erste (konstituie rende) Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 6.2.1964 in Stuttgart . 20 Feb. 1964. HfG, file 469. 1288 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to the foundation‘s council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 17 Feb. 1964. PAR. 1289 Hellmut Becker: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 21 Sept. 1964. PAR. 1290 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 19 Oct. 1964. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 1291 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 27 Nov. 1964. PAR. 1292 Günther Schweigkofler: Letter to Hans Rettich. 10 Dec. 1963. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 82, document 33. 1293 Otl Aicher: Letter to Hellmut Becker. 7 Nov. 1963. PAB. Because Otl Aicher felt that the foundation and the HfG were of equal importance, there was an argument with
1298 Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 17Dec. 1963. PAB. 1299 Otl Aicher, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 8. Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am Mittwoch, 15. Januar 1964 . 17 Jan. 1964. HfG, unlisted file; Otl Aicher: Entwurf einer Stellungnahme gegenüber der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 20 Jan. 1964. HfG, unlisted file; Otl Aicher: Undated draft of a position statement on the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. January 1964. HfG, unlisted file. 1300 Foundation‘s council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Stel lungnahme zu den Empfehlungen des Landtages. 12 Feb. 1964. PAH, DOK 34; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die erste (konstituierende) Sitzung des Stiftungs rates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 6.2.1964 in Stuttgart . 20 Feb. 1964. HfG, file 469. 1301 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 3rd electoral period: Auszug a.d. 5. Sitzung d. KPA a. 13.3.1964.13Mar. 1964. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 65, document 11b. 1302 Günther Schweigkofler: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts. 30 Sept. 1964. HfG, unlisted file; foundation‘s council of the Geschwister-SchollStiftung: Verfassung der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 5 Nov. 1964. HfG, unlisted file. 1303 Foundation‘s council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Proto koll über die vierte Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 5.11.1964 in Stuttgart. 20J an. 1965. PAB; Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 12 Nov. 1964. PAB.
1304 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period, 20th plenary session, 9 Dec. 1964, page 845. PABW.
1966 . 2 May 1966. BHA, HfG records, folder 31;Tomás Maldonado: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 4 May 1966. BHA, HfG records, folder 31.
1305 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 26.7.1965 in Stuttgart . 13 Sept. 1965. HfG, file 427; also, at this meeting Inge Aicher-Scholl and Hellmut Becker were appointed as members of the foundation’s board of trustees.
1313 Tomás Maldonado, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 29. Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 2. Februar 1966 . 7 Feb.1966. BHA, HfG records, folder 105.
1306 Friedrich Rau: Letter to Tomás Maldonado. 18 Oct. 1965. HfG, unlisted file.
1315 Johanna Rösner: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 28 Oct. 1966. BHA, HfG records, folder 128.
1307 Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 6. ordentlichen Sitzung des Großen Senats am 5. November 1965 . 12. Nov. 1965. HfG, unlisted file; Friedrich Rau: Letter to Tomás Maldonado. 18 Oct. 1965. HfG, unlisted file; Tomás Maldonado: Beschlüsse des Großen Senats in seiner Sitzung am 5./6. November 1965 . 6 Nov. 1965. BHA, HfG records, folder 126; Foundation‘s council of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung: Aufgrund eines Beschlusses des Stiftungsrates der GSS vom 16.11.1965 erhält die Verfassung der HfG folgenden Wortlaut . 16 Nov. 1965. HfG, unlisted file; Friedrich Rau: Letter to Tomás Maldonado. 28 Nov. 1965. HfG, unlisted file; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll der 6. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 16.11.1965 in Stuttgart, Kultusministerium . 7 Dec. 1965. HfG, file 427. When this resolution was adopted by the inner senate, it became possible to finally appoint new full-time lecturers: Gui Bonsiepe, Herbert Lindinger, and Claude Schnaidt (all three former HfG students) as well as Alexander Kluge and Edgar Reitz (both film instructors): Minutes of inner senate, 10 Nov. 1965 –594:Tomás Maldonado: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 12 Nov. 1965. HfG, unlisted file.
1316 Cf. for instance:Tomás Maldonado, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 32. (außerordentlichen) Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 17.5.1966 . 3June 1966. BHA, HfG records, folder 105; Friedrich Rau: Bericht des Vorstandes der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung an den Stiftungsrat über eine Neufassung der Satzung der GSS . 27 Jan. 1967. HfG, file 479; Herbert Ohl, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 11. außerordentlichen Sitzung des Großen Senats am 23.2. 1967 . 27Feb.1967. HfG, unlisted file; Tomás Maldonado, Johanna Rösner: Proto koll zur 8. ordentlichen Sitzung des Großen Senats am 29.4. 1966 . 2 May 1966. BHA, HfG records, folder 31; Friedrich Rau: Letter to Werner Ruch. 24 July 1967. HfG, unlisted file.
1308 Foundation‘s council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Auf grund eines Beschlusses des Stiftungsrates der GSS vom 16.11.1965 erhält die Verfassung der HfG folgenden Wortlaut . 16 Nov. 1965. HfG, unlisted file. 1309 Peter von Kornatzki: Kommuniqué. 1 Dec. 1965. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 82, appended to document 51. 1310 Peter von Kornatzki: Letter to Tomás Maldonado. 8 Dec. 1965. HfG, unlisted file. 1311 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage IV 2246 , issued on 21 Dec. 1965. The ministry of education and the arts also wrongly noted that the Landtag’s conditions had been met: Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Betr.: Staatszuschuß an die Geschwister-SchollStiftung für die Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. 7De c. 1965. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 87, document 82. 1312 Tomás Maldonado, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 8. ordentlichen Sitzung des Großen Senats am 29.4.
1314 Friedrich Rau: Letter to Tomás Maldonado. 13 May 1966. HfG, unlisted file.
1317 Baden-Württemberg Audit Office: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts. 11Aug . 1967. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 66, document 122. 1318 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Niederschrift über die 9. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung vom 19.12.1966 in Stuttgart im Haus des Kultusministe riums, Neues Schloss, 10.00 Uhr . 18Jan. 1967. HfG, file 427; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Niederschrift über die 10. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung vom 8.2. 1967 in Stuttgart, Kultusministerium Baden-Württem berg, Neues Schloss, 14.00 Uhr . 15 Feb. 1967. HfG, file 427; Foundation‘s council of the Geschwister-SchollStiftung:Stellungnahme . 8 Feb.1967. HfG, file 427. 1319 Klaus Dohrn: Entwurf / 26.5. 1964. 26 May 1964. PAR. 1320 Klaus Dohrn: Letter to Thorwald Risler. 18 Nov. 1968. PAR. 1321 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die erste (konstituie rende) Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 6.2.1964 in Stuttgart . 20 Feb. 1964. HfG, file 469. 1322 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Ergebnisprotokoll der Sitzung des ständigen Ausschusses des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 2.6.1964 in Stuttgart . 6 June 1964. HfG, file 470. 1323 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die 2. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-
Scholl-Stiftung am 15.6.1964 in Stuttgart . 13 July 1964. HfG, file 469. 1324 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die Sitzung des ständigen Ausschusses des Stiftungs rates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 21.12.1964 im Haus der Landeszentralbank von Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart . 9 Feb. 1964. HfG, file 470. 1325 Otl Aicher: Bericht an den Vorstand der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung über das Ergebnis der vom Kleinen Senat eingesetzten Spar kommission für das 1. Studienquartal 1964/65 (okt.–dez. 64). 23 Sept. 1964. BHA, HfG records, folder 103. 1326 Otl Aicher: Bericht an den Vorstand der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung über das Ergebnis der vom Kleinen Senat eingesetzten Spar kommission für das 1. Studienquartal 1964/65 (okt.–dez. 64). 23 Sept. 1964. BHA, HfG records, folder 103. 1327 Re what follows cf. Friedrich Rau: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 13 Apr. 1965. HfG, unlisted file. 1328 Cf. Kommission für die Finanzreform: Gutachten über die Finanzreform in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , Stuttgart, Cologne 1966. 1329 Karl Gussone: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 14 May 1965. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 65, document 39. 1330 Egbert-Hans Müller: Letter to the federal ministry of the interior. 20Aug . 1965. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 65, document 43. 1331 Friedrich Rau: Letter to Karl Gussone. 24 May 1965. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 65, document 40. 1332 Cf. René Spitz (see note 26) 430f. 1333 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Anlage zum vorläufigen Entwurf eines Haushaltsplanes des GSS (Hochschule für Gestaltung) für das Rechnungsjahr 1966, i.d. f. vom Mai 1965 . n.d. May 1965. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 62a, document 43; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: 1965 Haushaltsplan . n.d. July 1965. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 62a, document 48. 1334 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll über die Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 26.7.1965 in Stuttgart . 13 Sept. 1965. HfG, file 427. 1335 Friedrich Rau: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts. 2 July 1965. HfG, unlisted file; only the development teams of Maldonado and Ohl still exist; Zeischegg terminated his in Dec. 1960, Aicher and Gugelot privatized theirs. On 30 Oct. 1960 there was a meeting at Dr. Horn’s with Otl Aicher, Hans Gugelot, Tomás Maldonado, Herbert Ohl, and Walter Zeischegg because of the general agreement –100 percent overhead costs to the foundation –, which was accepted only by Otl Aicher and Hans Gugelot; since then, there has been been no contractual regulation with Tomás Maldonado regarding
459
References
460
invoicing the development team; there is a separate one with Herbert Ohl; Walter Zeischegg has dissolved his. Cf. Tomás Maldonado: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 26 Nov. 1965. HfG, unlisted file. 1336 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll der 6. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 16.11.1965 in Stuttgart, Kultusministerium . 7 Dec. 1965. HfG, file 427. 1337 Tomás Maldonado: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 14 Jan. 1966. BHA, HfG records, folder 128. 1338 Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Letter to Kurt Angstmann. 4 Feb. 1966. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 65, document 58. 1339 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period: Protokoll der Sitzung des Finanzausschusses. 9Feb. 1966. HfG, unlisted file. 1340 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period, 50th plenary session, 15 Feb. 1966, pp. 2589, 2619/20. PABW. 1341 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period, 58th plenary session, 15 Mar. 1966, pp. 3184–3186, 3188–3191. PABW. 1342 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage IV 2557 . 9 Mar. 1966. PABW. 1343 A month earlier Kurt Georg Kiesinger still denied that he had spoken out vehemently against the HfG in the finance committee. Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period, 50th plenary session, 15 Feb. 1966, pp. 2589, 2619/20. PABW. 1344 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage IV 2558 . 9 Mar. 1966. PABW. 1345 Tomás Maldonado, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 29. Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 2. Februar 1966 . 7 Feb. 1966. BHA, HfG records, folder 105. 1346 The passing of the CDU motions meant that the HfG film department's application for DM 165,000 in subsidies was denied; also, the Landtag made it clear that neither the HfG nor its film department were to be nationalized in the future. 1347 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period, 61st plenary session, 30 Mar. 1966, pp. 3415–22. PABW 1348 Sources for this calculation: Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1960 , n.p. (Munich) n.d. (1961);. ibid. (ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1961 und 1962, Cologne, Opladen 1963; ibid. (ed.), Kulturpoli tik der Länder 1963 und 1964 , Bonn 1965; ibid. (ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1965 und 1966 , Bonn 1967;
Sekretariat der ständigen Konferenz der Kulturpolitik der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.), Kulturpolitik der Länder 1967 und 1968 , Bonn 1969; ibid. (ed.), Kultur politik der Länder 1969 und 1970 . Bonn 1971. 1349 Erich Ganzenmüller, at the 21st session of the 3d Landtag on 10 Dec. 1964, claimed that one student at the HfG cost the Land DM 8,000, while at a university the cost was only DM 4,000 and at a school of engineering it was DM 3,000. His calculation did not include, firstly, the hidden cost to the Land budget of state educational institutions (e.g., civil servants’ salaries and pensions; and the cost of construction and of building maintenance), and he confused the Land subsidy with the foundation’s total budget (which contained such hidden costs). The same accusation, once it had been stated and left unchallenged, was repeated in the Ulm municipal council on 21 Nov. 1964; cf. Stuttgarter Zeitung , 23 Nov. 1964: Die äußere Ordnung konsolidieren. 1350 Foundation‘s council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Proto k oll über die Sitzung des ständigen Ausschusses des Stiftungsrats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung am 9. Mai 1966, 15.00 im Hause des Kultusministeriums Baden-Württem berg in Stuttgart. 14 Jun. 1966. HfG, file 470. 1351 The official confirmation by the federal minister of the interior followed on 3 June 1966: Paul Lücke: Letter to Wilhelm Hahn. 3 June 1966. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 65, document 81. 1352 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll der 7. Sitzung des Stiftungsrats der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 4. Juli 1966 in Stuttgart, Kultusministerium Baden-Württem berg. 14 Sept. 1966. HfG, file 427. 1353 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Niederschrift über die 10. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung vom 8.2.1967 in Stuttgart, Kultusministerium BadenWürttemberg, Neues Schloss, 14.00 Uhr . 15.2.1967.HfG, file 427. 1354 Tomás Maldonado, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 32. (außerordentlichen) Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 17.5.1966 . 3 June 1966. BHA, HfG records, folder 105. 1355 Minutes of the Deutscher Bundestag, 5th electoral period, 44th plenary session, 26 May 1966, pp. 2096–98. – The term Hammel sprung (wether‘s jump; vote by division) refers to the costly procedure, used only rarely and in situations in which there is no clear majority, where members of parliament vote by entering the floor of the House through one of three doors, signaling consent, rejection, or abstention. – The SPD motion was accepted by a vote of 190 to 148. 1356 Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 10 Nov. 1966. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 63, document 86.
1357 Paul Lücke: Letter to Wilhelm Hahn. 3 June 1966. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 65, document 81. 1358 An unclear use of the term Bundesrepublik,suggesting national interest in the HfG. Presumably what is meant is Bundestag. 1359 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll der 8. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 14. November 1966, 14.30 Uhr, in Ulm, Rathaus, kleiner Sitzungssaal . 5 Dec. 1966. HfG, file 427; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Stenographisches Protokoll der 8. Sitzung des Stiftungsrats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 14 Nov. 1966. HfG, file 427. 1360 Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 7 Dec. 1966. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 63, document 93. 1361 Theodor Pfizer, Klaus Fischer: Protokoll der 2. Sitzung des Stiftungsrats der Geschwister-SchollStiftung vom 3.7.1967, Stuttgart, Kultusministerium Baden-Württemberg, Neues Schloss, 14.00 Uhr . 3July 1967. THM, folder 10. 1362 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Niederschrift über die 9. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung vom 19.12.1966 in Stuttgart im Haus des Kultusministe riums, Neues Schloss, 10.00 Uhr . 18Jan.1967. HfG, file 427; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Stenographisches Protokoll der 9. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. 19 Dec. 1966. HfG, file 427. 1363 Herbert Ohl, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 40. Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 12. Januar 1967 . 16Jan. 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 106. 1364 Extended senate of the School of Design: Einstimmiger Beschluß des Großen Senats der HfG zur Anfrage des Stiftungsrates der GSS vom 16. Januar 1967 . 25 Jan. 1967. HfG, unlisted file. 1365 Herbert Ohl, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 43. Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 17. März 1967 . 29 Mar. 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 106; Herbert Ohl: Betr.: Kommission für evtl. strukturelle Veränderungen der HfG, Abteilungsleiter der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 31 Mar. 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 109. 1366 Otl Aicher, Gui Bonsiepe, Herbert Ohl, Claude Schnaidt: Stellung nahme der Mitglieder des Kleinen Senats zur Grundstücksangelegenheit Parz. 1940 . 14 Apr. 1967. HfG, unlisted file. 1367 Theodor Pfizer, Klaus Fischer: Protokoll der 2. Sitzung des Stiftungsrats der Geschwister-SchollStiftung vom 3.7.1967, Stuttgart, Kultusministerium Baden-Württemberg, Neues Schloss, 14.00 Uhr . 3 July 1967. THM, folder 10. 1368 Friedrich Rau: Letter to Wilhelm Hahn. 15 Sept. 1967. HfG, file 479; Werner Ruch: Memo. 1 Oct. 1967. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 64, document 130.
1369 Cf. Theodor Pfizer, Heidi Werner: Protokoll der 13. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der GeschwisterScholl-Stift ung vom 2 0. Oktober 1967, Stuttgart, Kultusministerium Baden-Württemberg, Neues Schloss, grosser Sitzungssaal, 9.00 Uhr . 15Dec. 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 85. 1370 Klaus Fischer: Letter to Wolfgang Donndorf. 9 Oct. 1967. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 66, document 129. 1371 Tomás Maldonado, Gert Krappe, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 7.ordentlichen Sitzung des Großen Senats am 13. Dezember 1965 . 14Dec. 1965. BHA, HfG records, folder 99. Of 14 possible votes Herbert Ohl received 9; in accordance with the bylaws he immediately became vice rector through 30 Sept. 1966; from 1 Oct. 1966 through 30 Sept.1967, in accordance with the bylaws, Tomás Maldonado was vice rector. -On 17 Oct. 1967, by rotation, the rector was elected for the term from 1 Oct. 1968 through 30 Sept. 1970. Because Tomás Maldonado had resigned on 1 June 1967 effective 30 June 1967, it became necessary simultaneously to elect Tomás Maldonado’s successor as vice rector. The result was that Herbert Ohl was reelected, while Claude Schnaidt became vice rector. Cf. Herbert Ohl, Klaus Fischer, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 12. ordentlichen Sitzung des Grossen Senats am 17. Oktober 1967 . 18 Oct. 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 100. 1372 Herbert Ohl: Eröffnungsrede des Rektors der HfG (Herbert Ohl) am 2.10. 1967, Studienjahr 1967/ 68 . 2O ct. 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 123. 1373 His predecessor was Gert Krappe, who had been in office as a luckless administrative director from 16 Aug. 1965 through 31 Mar. 1967. Klaus Fischer held the same position beginning 1 June 1967. I did not manage to discover details of the biographies of the two administrative directors. 1374 Klaus Fi scher: Stellungnahme zum Prüfungsbericht des Rechnungshofes durch den Verwaltungsdirektor der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 10 Oct. 1967. THM, folder 10. 1375 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll der 13. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung vom 30.10.1967, Stuttgart, Kultusministerium Baden-Württem berg, Neues Schloss, grosser Sitzungssaal, 9.00 Uhr. 30 Oct. 1967. HfG, file 427; Geschwister-SchollStiftung: Stenographisches Protokoll der 13. Sitzung des Stiftungsrats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 30 Oct. 1967. HfG, file 427; Theodor Pfizer, Heidi Werner: Protokoll der 13. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung vom 20. Oktober 1967, Stuttgart, Kultusministerium Baden-Württemberg, Neues Schloss, grosser Sitzungssaal, 9.00 Uhr . 15 Dec. 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 85. 1376 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to the finance committee of the Baden-
Württemberg Landt ag. 31 Oct.1967. STU, H Pfizer, HfG; cf. Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung , 31 Oct. 1967: Bestand der HfG gefährdet ; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 9 Nov. 1967: HfG-Studenten sind dem Stiftungsrat gram. 1377 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage IV 5363 . 29 Nov. 1967. PABW. 1378 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: stenographisches Protokoll der 14.Sitzung des Stiftungsrats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 18 Dec. 1967. HfG, file 427. 1379 Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of state. 23 Nov. 1967. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 66, document 142; -Cf. Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage IV 5363 . 29 Nov. 1967. PABW. 1380 Re this and what follows cf. Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: steno graphisches Protokoll der 14. Sitzung des Stiftungsrats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 18 Dec. 1967. HfG, file 427; Baden-Württemberg ministry of state: Auszug aus der Niederschrift über die Sitzung des Ministerrats am 5. Dezember 1967 . 5 Dec. 1967. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 66, document 11. 1381 Otl Aicher: Letter to Tomás Maldonado. 28 June 1965. PAH, DOK 45; Otl Aicher: Auseinandersetzung um eine Sammlung für Vietnam in der HfG. n.d. July 1965. HfG, unlisted file; Friedrich Rau: Bericht über das Ergebnis von Nachforschungen über die Vietnam-Spendenaktion an der HfG. 21 July 1965. BHA, HfG records, folder 126; Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 7 July 1965. HfG, unlisted file; Tomás Maldonado: Ansprache zur Eröffnung des Studienjahrs 1965/ 66 . 4 Oct. 1965. PAH, DOK 44; Tomás Maldonado: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 1 Sept. 1965. HfG, unlisted file; CDU district association of Ulm: Letter to Friedrich Rau. 14July 1965. HfG, unlisted file; Friedrich Rau: Letter to the CDU district association of Ulm. 18 July 1965. HfG, unlisted file; Max Blum: Letter to Claude Schnaidt. 7 July 1965. HfG, unlisted file; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 3 July 1965: Vietnam-Wirbel in der Hochschule; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 3 July 1965: Fehlgriff; Schwäbische Donau Zeitung , 14 July 1965: Stiftungsrat wünscht genaue Untersuchung; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 15July 1965: CDU zur VietnamSammlung an der HfG; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung , 19 July 1965: Rektor Maldonado und Dr. Rau distanzieren sich; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 28 July 1965: „Scharfe Rüge“ für Urheber der Vietnam-Sammlung. 1382 Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 7 June 1967: Verantwortliche in Berlin abberufen; Schwäbische Donau Zeitung , 8 June 1967: Kein Echo in der Bevölkerung. 1383 Cf. Klaus Mehnert, Jugend im Umbruch. Geschichte des sozialisti-
schen deutschen Studentenbundes SDS , Berlin 1976. 1384 Johanna Rösner: 45. Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 12. Juni 1967 . 12 June 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 109; Herbert Ohl, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zu 45. Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 12. /13. Juni 1967 . 13 June 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 109. 1385 Herbert W. Kapitzki: Letter to the inner senate of the School of Design. 6 Dec. 1964. BHA, HfG records, fold er 111. 1386 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage IV 5425 . 29 Nov. 1967. PABW; Minutes of the BadenWürttemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period, 112nd plenary session, 7De c. 1967, page 6291. PABW; official notification of the minister-president on the results of the cabinet meeting: Hans Filbinger: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 22 Dec. 1967. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 66, document 157. 1387 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage IV 5425 . 29 Nov. 1967. PABW; Theodor Pfizer, Heidi Werner: Protokoll der 14. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung am 18. Dezember 1967 . 12 Jan. 1968. HfG, unlisted file; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 8 Dec. 1967: Fusion die einzige Hoffnung der HfG? Rheinische Post , 9 Dec. 1967: Erste GesamtHochschule in Ulm? 1388 Cf. Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Stenographisches Protokoll der 14. Sitzung des Stiftungsrats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . HfG, file 427; Foundation‘s council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Statement. 19 Dec. 1967. HfG, file 427. 1389 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Stenographisches Protokoll der 15. Sitzung des Stiftungsrats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 12 Feb. 1968. HfG, file 427. 1390 Herbert Ohl: Stellungnahme . 14 Dec. 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 127. 1391 Many periods of notice were for one calendar year. 1392 Baden-Württemberg ministry of state: Haushaltsplan 1968 . n.d. January-February 1968. PABW. 1393 School of Design: Undated budget draft. March 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 83. 1394 Kurt Georg Kiesinger: “Lebenshilfe als Ziel der Bildungsbemühungen. Auszug aus der Regierungserklärung von Ministerpräsident Kurt Georg Kiesinger“, in: Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (ed.), Zwischen Freiheit und Ordnung. Zur Kulturpolitik der CDU/ CSU , Bonn 1964, 67 ff. 1395 Sources: Kulturpolitik der Länder 1960 ff. (see note 1348) and, based on this, my own calculations. I established the relation between the sums expended by the Land of
Baden-Württemberg for its seven scientific institutions of higher learning during the above-named fiscal years and the number of HfG students for the academic years of 1959/60 (= 102), 1960/61 (= 129), 1964/65 (= 148) und 1965/66 (=143). If, in each case, one takes the following academic year as the standard for comparison, the “debit” for the HfG becomes even larger. 1396 Arbeitskreis Universität Ulm (ed.), Universitätsplan Ulm, Ulm 1961, 7.; cf. „Die Universität Konstanz. Bericht des Gründungsausschusses (1965)“, in: Rolf Neuhaus (ed.), Dokumente zur Gründung neuer Hochschulen. Anregungen des Wissenschaftsrates, Empfehlun gen und Denkschriften auf Veranlassung von Ländern in der Bundesre publik Deutschland in den Jahren 1960 bis 1966 , Wiesbaden 1968, 570–626; cf. Ralf Dahrendorf: „Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Hochschulgesamtplans für Baden-Württemberg 1966/67. Auch ein Beitrag zum Thema des Verhältnisses von Wissenschaft und Politik in Deutschland“, in: Bildungspolitik mit Ziel und Maß. FS Wilhelm Hahn, Stuttgart 1974, 138–163; Hochschulgesamt plan Baden-Württemberg. Empfehlungen zur Reform von Struktur und Organisation der wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen, Studienseminare, Kunsthochschulen, Ingenieurschulen und höheren Fachschulen. Bericht des Arbeitskreises Hochschulgesamtplan beim Kultusministerium Baden-Württemberg , (= Schriften reihe zur Bildungsforschung, Bildungsplanung, Bildungspolitik , series A, vol. 5) Villingen-Schwenningen 1967. 1397 Cf. Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Hans Dollinger (ed.), Die deutschen Studenten. Der Kampf um die Hochschulreform. Eine Bestandsaufnahme, München 1968, 21969; Gerhard Bauß, Die Studentenbewegung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Westberlins 1966–1968 , Diss. Phil. Marburg an de r Lahn 1977. 1398 In: Das Hochschulgesetz – eine Chance für die Hochschulreform, ed. Kultusministerium BadenWürttemberg (= Informationen über das Bildungswesen, series B, vol. 6) Stuttgart 1968. 1399 Herbert W. Kapitzki: Erklärung der Besprechung am 5.1.68 durch Herrn Kapitzki . 5 Jan. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 86. 1400 Herbert W. Kapitzki: Besprechung am 8.1.68 mit Herrn Staatsminister Dr. Seifriz im Staatsministerium Stuttgart . 22 Jan. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 130; BadenWürttemberg ministry of education and the arts: Betr.: Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. 8 Jan. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 83. 1401 Josef Hengartner: Letter to Egbert-Hans Müller. 11 Jan. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 64, document 161.
1402 Claude Schnaidt, Renate Kietzmann: Protokoll zur 14. außerordentlichen Sitzung des Großen Senats am 12. jan. 1968 . 18 Jan. 1968. HfG, unlisted file. 1403 Herbert Ohl: Letter to EgbertHans Müller. 15 Jan. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 64, document 162. 1404 Jens Feddersen: Notiz für Rolf Lobeck . 16 Feb. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 196. 1405 Students of the School of Design: Hochschule im Prozess der Demokratisierung . n.d. 3/4 Feb. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 94. 1406 Herbert Ohl: Letter to Rolf Lobeck. 12 Feb. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 92. 1407 Roland Zaugg: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 27 Dec. 1967. BHA, HfG records, folder 92. 1408 Claude Schnaidt, Renate Kietzmann: Protokoll zur 14. außerordentlichen Sitzung des Großen Senats am 12. jan. 1968 . 18 Jan. 1968. HfG, unlisted file. 1409 Herbert Ohl: Letter to Mr. Moré. 12 Feb. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 96. 1410 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Stenographisches Protokoll der 15. Sitzung des Stiftungsrats der Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung . 12 Feb. 1968. HfG, file 427; point of order: Grzimek claims he was not invited to this meeting. He objects (Günther Grzimek: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 25 Feb. 1968. THM, folder 10). 1411 Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts. 16 Feb. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 67, document 169. 1412 Students and lecturers of the School of Design: Feststellungen in Sachen HfG. 16 Feb. 1968. PASW. 1413 Herbert Ohl, Claude Schnaidt: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg Ministries of Education and the Arts, Trade and Commerce, and Finance. 19 Feb. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 83. 1414 Rector, lecturers, assistant lecturers, staff, and students of the School of Design: Letter to the editor of the Neu-Ulmer Zeitung.19 Feb. 1968. PASW. 1415 Hochschule für Gestaltung: Der Fall Hochschule für Gestaltung. Ein Schulbeispiel für die politische Entwicklung in der BRD. n.d. February 1968. HfG, unlisted file. 1416 Students of the School of Design: Referat der Studentenschaft der HfG Ulm anläßlich der Gedenkfeier zum 25. Jahrestag der Hinrichtung der Geschwister Scholl . 20 Feb. 1968. HfG, unlisted file. 1417 Wolfgang Donndorf: Betr.: Hochschule für Gestaltung . 21 Feb. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 67, document 185; Baden-Württemberg
ministry of state: Auszug aus der Niederschrift über die Sitzung des Ministerrats am 20. Februar 1968 . 20 Feb. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 67, appendix to document 194; Wolfgang Donndorf: Betr.: Hochschule für Gestaltung. 20 Feb. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 67, document 183. 1418 Undated press release. July 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 131. 1419 Hochschule für Gestaltung: Dossier zur Vorbereitung des Endes der HfG. n.d. February 1968. PABW. 1420 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Press release. n.d. February 1968. PABW. 1421 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 4th electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache Beilage IV 5858 . 7 Mar. 1968. PABW. 1422 Prof. Schoch: Letter to Speaker’s advisory committee of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag. 6Mar. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 67, document 196. 1423 Arbeitsgruppe autonome Verstaatlichung der HfG: HfG Ulm. 8M ar. 1968. HfG, unlisted file. 1424 Herbert Ohl: Letter to EgbertHans Müller. 8 Mar. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 103. 1425 Herbert Ohl: Letter to Klaus Fischer. 8 Mar. 1968. HfG, file 562. 1426 Herbert Ohl: Letter to Hans Zumsteg. 8 Mar. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 129. 1427 Hans Zumsteg: Notiz. 29 Feb. 1968. THM, folder 11. 1428 Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Pressever lautbarung . 14 Mar. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 67, document 198. 1429 Plenary meeting of the students of the School of Design: Antrag zur Vorlage bei der Sitzung des Großen Senats vom 20.3.68 . 19Mar. 1968. HfG, unlisted file 1482. 25 Apr. 1968 – 422, 416 1430 Rolf Lobeck: Anträge zur Vorlage bei der Sitzung des Großen Senats vom 25.4.68 betreffs Ände rung der Verfassung der HfG. n.d. Apr. 1968. HfG, unlisted file;J ochen Clausen-Finks et al.: Offener Brief an den Großen Senat der Hochschule für Gestaltung. 26 Apr. 1968. HfG, unlisted file. 1431 Students of the School of Design: Resolution der Studentenschaft vom 2. Mai 1968 . 2 May 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 130 and 101. 1432 Gui Bonsiepe: Vorschläge für die Weiterführung der HfG nach dem 30.9.68 (Zusammenfassung der Er gebnisse der Neuner-Gruppe vom 13.5.68). 13 May 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 130.
461
References
462
1433 Joachim Heimbucher: Neuner gruppe / 3. Sitzung, 15.5.68 17– 18.15 h. 15 May 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 81. 1434 Herbert Ohl: Letter to EgbertHans Müller. 21 May 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 83. 1435 Egbert-Hans Müller: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 21 May 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 84, document 5. 1436 Klaus Fischer: Letter to the staff committee of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. 17 May 1968. HfG, file 550. 1437 Joachim Heimbucher: Résumé der Arbeitsergebnisse der 9er Grup pe (Dozenten, Assistenten, Studenten). 26 May 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 131. 1438 Norbert Kurtz: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 27 May 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 130. 1439 Herbert Ohl: Vorzugslösung der Hochschule für Gestaltung für ihre Weiterführung. 28 May 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 101. 1440 Herbert Ohl: Letter to the foundation‘s council of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung. 28 May 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 130. 1441 Norbert Kurtz: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 28 May 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 92. 1442 Students and assistant lecturers of the School of Design: Vorschlag zur Weiterführung der Hochschule für Gestaltung mit einem neuen Modell eines weiterführenden Studiums . n.d. May 1968. HfG, unlisted files. 1443 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll der 16. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 1. April 1968 in Ulm, kleiner Sitzungssaal des Rathauses, 14.00 Uhr . 1 April 1968. HfG, file 427; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Shorthand minutes of the 16th meeting of the foundation‘s council of the Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung. 1 Apr. 1968. HfG, file 427. 1444 Alfred Grazioli: Protokoll zur Stiftungsrats-Sitzung vom 1.4.68 . 1Ap r. 1968. HfG, file 466. 1445 Cf. Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll der 17. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung am 8. Mai 1968 in Ulm, Rathaus, kleiner Sitzungssaal, 14.00 Uhr. 8 May 1968. HfG, file 427; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Entwurf . 8 May 1968. HfG, file 427; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Proto koll Stiftungsratssitzung 8.5.1968, Ulm, Rathaus, kleiner Sitzungssaal . 8M ay 1968. HfG, file 427; Foundation‘s council of the GeschwisterScholl-Stiftung: Beschluss der Stiftungsratssitzungvom 8.5.68 . 8 May 1968. HfG, file 466. 1446 Wolfgang Donndorf: Betr.: Hochschule für Gestaltung . 24 May 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 84, document 5a.
1447 Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Letter to the Baden-Württemberg ministry of state. 10 July 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 67, document 231. 1448 Baden-Württemberg ministry of state: Auszug aus der Niederschrift über die Sitzung des Ministerrats am 11. Juni 1968 . 11 June 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 67, document 232. 1449 Letter to all members of the HfG. 12 June 1968. HfG, unlisted file. 1450 Herbert Ohl, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 52. (ausserordentlichen) Sitzung des Kleinen Senats am 19.6.1968 . 24 June 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 103. 1451 Herbert Ohl: Letter to the students of the HfG. 20 Jan. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 131. 1452 Students of the School of Design: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 25J une 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 92; students of the School of Design: Ergebnis der namentlichen Abstimmung über die Erklärung der Stud.schaft vom 25.6.68 . 27 June 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 92; adopted with 55 yes votes, 10 no votes, 3 abstentions. 1453 Students of the School of Design: Erklärung der Studentenschaft der Hochschule für Gestaltung vom 27.06.1968 . 27June 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 131; Students of the School of Design: Resolution der Studenten vom 27.6.68 . 27 June 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 131. 1454 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 5th electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache V16 . 27 June 1968. PABW, sent on to the finance committee in the plenary session without discussion that same day. 1455 Lecturers of the School of Design: Vorschlag der Dozentenschaft der Hochschule für Gestaltung zur zukünftigen Weiterführung der Hochschule für Gestaltung nach dem neuen Modell „Weiterführendes Postgraduate -Studiumin Zuordnung zur Universtität Stuttgart“ . 28 June 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 84, appendix to document 12. 1456 Students and assistant lecturers of the School of Design: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 3 July 1968. BHA, HfG records, folde r 131. 1457 Once again, this plan by the lecturers shows something very ironic about the HfG’s history, for it boils down to a scheme that was very similar to Thorwald Risler’s plan in 1962/63 and that had led to a fundamental disagreement with Otl Aicher. 1458 Gui Bonsiepe: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 3 July 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 131. 1459 Herbert Ohl: Letter to Werner Ruch, Theodor Pfizer, Friedrich Rau, Hans Zumsteg, Klaus Fischer, Rolf Lobeck. 8 July 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 129.
1460 Herbert Ohl: Meine Einstellung zu den Vorgängen in der Studentenschaft und der Berichterstattung der Studentenschaft wie sie im Eigenbericht der Welt wiedergege b en wurde, ist folgende . 9 July 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 95. 1461 Herbert Ohl: Letter to Rolf Lobeck. 11 July 1968. BHA, HfG records, folde r 131. 1462 Herbert Ohl, Johanna Rösner: Protokoll zur 19. Sitzung des Grossen Senats am 12. Juli 1968 . 15 July 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 101. 1463 Cf. Gerhard A. Ritter, Merith Niehuss, Wahlen in Deutschland 1946–1991. Ein Handbuch, Munich 1991, 86 ff. 1464 Finance committee of Landtag of Baden-Württemberg, 5th electoral period: Auszug aus dem Protokoll Nr. 3 vom 16.7.1968 . 16 July 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 67. 1465 This becomes Landtagsdruck sache V 98 of 16 Jun. 1968: Proposal of the finance committee, which the Landtag takes note of only from the government’s letter. 1466 Südwest-Presse, 17.7.1968: Anti-Koalition ; Schwäbische Donau Zeitung , 17 July 1968: Kann das denn wirklich das letzte Wort sein? Stuttgarter Nachrichten, 17 July 1968: Ulm vor neuen Schwierigkeiten; Stuttgarter Zeitung, 17 July 1968: Todesstoß für die Ulmer HfG? Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 18July 1968: CDU-Abgeordneter stellt sich gegen Fraktion; Schwäbische Donau-Zeitung, 18 July 1968: Ulms CDZ sagt ja zur HfG. 1467 CDU motion: Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 5th electoral period: Landtagsdrucksache V105 . 18 July 1968. PABW. 1468 Motion by SPD, FDP/DVP and Dr. Lorenser CDU: Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 5th electoral period: Landtagsdrucksache V104 . 17 July 1968. PABW. 1469 Minutes of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 5th electoral period, 8th plenary session, 18 Jul. 1968, pp. 189–201. PABW. 1470 Extended senate of the School of Design: Stellungnahme des Grossen Senats der Hochschule für Gestaltung zu dem Beschluß des Landtages vom 18. Juli 1968 . 23July 1968. HfG, unlisted file. 1471 Herbert Lindinger (ed.) (see note 1) 25. 1472 Herbert Ohl, Renate Kietzmann: Protokoll zur 20. Sitzung des Grossen Senats am 23. Juli 1968 . 23 July 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 101. 1473 Wolfgang Donndorf: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 23 July 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 67, document 243. 1474 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll der 19. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-Scholl-
Stiftung am 29. Juli 1968 in Stutt gart, Kultusministerium 14.30 Uhr . 29 July 1968. HfG, file 427; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Sitzung am 29.7.68 – 14.30 h – Kultusministerium Stuttgart . 29 July 1968. HfG, file 427; Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll der 18. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der GeschwisterScholl-Stift ung am 4. Juni 1968 in Ulm, Rathaus, kleiner Sitzungssaal, 14.00 Uhr . 4 June 1968. HfG, file 427. 1475 Otl Aicher: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 31 July 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 131. 1476 Hochschule für Gestaltung: Vorschlag der Hochschule für Gestaltung „Aufbaustudium der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Zuordnung zur Universität Stuttgart“ . 9 Sept. 1968. HfG, unlisted file. 1477 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll der 20. Sitzung des Stiftungsrates der Geschwister-SchollStiftung am 12. September 1968 in Ulm, Rathaus, 10.00 Uhr . 12 Sept. 1968. HfG, file 473. 1478 Technical University of Stuttgart: Ergebnisprotokoll . 25 Sept. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 84, document 22. 1479 In the preceding academic year there were 140 registered students; 30 of these graduated from the HfG with a diploma at the end of the academic year. Of the remaining 110 students, between 50 and 60 returned. Cf. Stuttgarter Nachrichten, 3Oct. 1968: HfG vor dem Ende?Die Welt , 7 Oct. 1968: Hochschule für Gestaltung entwickelt neuen Studienplan. 1480 Herbert Ohl: Erklärung . 2Oct. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 95. 1481 Lecturers and students of the Ulm School of Design: Hochschulin terne gemeinsame Erklärung der Dozenten und Studenten der HfG über die Durchführung der Arbeit im 1. Quartal des Studienjahres 1968/ 69. 3 Oct. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 91. 1482 Cf. Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Joachim Heimbucher und Herbert Ohl. 16 Oct. 1968. STU, H Pfizer, HfG. 1483 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Sitzung am 14.10.68 – 9.30 Uhr im grossen Sitzungssaal des KM, Stutt gart . 14 Oct. 1968. HfG, file 473. 1484 Baden-Württemberg ministry of state: Auszug aus der Niederschrift über die Sitzung des Ministerrats am 16. Oktober 1968 . 16 Oct. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 67, appendix to document 265. 1485 Theodor Pfizer: Letter to Wilhelm Hahn. 29 Oct. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 85, document 26. 1486 Lecturers of the School of Design: Forschungs- und Entwicklungstätigkeit der Dozenten (Institutstätigkeit) (Auffassung der Dozenten). 5 Nov. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 80; Herbert Ohl: Letter to Egbert-Hans Müller. 11 Nov.
1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 84, document 24. 1487 Students of the School of Design: Anmerkungen zum Vorschlag der Studenten über die Regelung der Nebentätigkeit der Dozenten der HfG. 7 Nov. 1968. HfG, unlisted file. 1488 Herbert Ohl: Telefonische Durchsage des Textes eines Tele gramms von Rektor Ohl, Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm, am 17.11. 1968, 16‘00 Uhr . 17 Nov. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 84, document 22d. 1489 F. Leonhardt: Letter to Herbert Ohl. 14 Nov. 1968 . BHA, HfG records, folder 132. 1490 Herbert Ohl: Letter to Theodor Pfizer. 21 Nov. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 132. 1491 Herbert W. Kapitzki to Theodor Pfizer. 25 Nov. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 132. 1492 Egbert-Hans Müller: Betr.: Fort bestand der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. 26 Nov. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 84, document 25. 1493 Baden-Württemberg ministry of education and the arts: Der Rektor an der Ulmer Hochschule für Gestaltung – ratlos? 26 Nov. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 85, document 28a. 1494 Egbert-Hans Müller: Betr.: Fort bestand der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm; hier: Nachtrag zur Kabinettsvorlage vom 26. November 1968 . 26 Nov. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 85, document 30. 1495 Baden-Württemberg ministry of state: Auszug aus der Niederschrift über die Sitzung des Ministerrats am 27. November 1968 – ausführliches Protokoll –. 27 Nov. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 85, document 33. 1496 Herbert Ohl: Erklärung des Rektors der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm, Herbert Ohl, zur Liquidation der Hochschule durch das Land Baden-Württemberg . 1 Dec. 1968. BHA, HfG records, folder 95. 1497 Baden-Württemberg ministry of state: Auszug aus der Niederschrift über die Sitzung des Ministerrats am 3. Dezember 1968 . 3Dec. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 85, document 65. 1498 Baden-Württemberg Landtag, 5th electoral period: Landtagsdruck sache V 465. 11 Dec. 1968. PABW. 1499 Geschwister-Scholl-Stiftung: Protokoll zur Stiftungsratssitzung am 18. Dezember 1968, 10.00 h, im kleinen Sitzungssaal Rathaus Ulm. 24 Dec. 1968. HfG, file 473. 1500 Egbert-Hans Müller: Betr.: Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm; hier: Zuständigkeit innerhalb des Kultusministeriums . 19 Dec. 1968. HStA, EA 3/203, bundle 85, document 44.
465
