Design Works: Henry van de Velde and early-Modernism | Geoffrey Bunting Graphic Design
Summary
TLDRThe script explores the significance of Henry van de Velde, a pioneer of Art Nouveau and a forerunner to Modernism, whose 1904 teapot reflects the transition between these styles. Despite his contributions to the Deutscher Werkbund and the development of Modernist aesthetics, van de Velde's legacy is overshadowed by the Bauhaus movement he influenced. His struggle against standardization and his vision of 'total work of art' were overshadowed by the rise of nationalism and the Bauhaus's reductionist approach, leading to his underappreciated status in design history.
Takeaways
- 🫖 Henry van de Velde's 1904 teapot predates the Bauhaus and reflects early Modernism.
- ✨ The teapot's chrome finish and ornate ivory handle highlight van de Velde's balance between art and functionality.
- 🏛️ Van de Velde is considered one of the originators of Art Nouveau, blending beauty with industrial production.
- ⚙️ He saw mass production as a way to make art accessible to everyone, a departure from the exclusivity of the Arts and Crafts movement.
- 🎨 The 1914 debate at the Deutscher Werkbund divided artists like van de Velde, who supported artistic autonomy, from those favoring standardization.
- 🔨 Van de Velde's vision of Modernism was distinct from the later, more reductionist ethos of the Bauhaus, which focused on standardization and minimalism.
- 🇧🇪 His non-German background and opposition to full standardization hindered his recognition in Germany's artistic circles.
- 💼 Despite his influence, van de Velde's legacy has been overshadowed by figures like Gropius, Mies van der Rohe, and Le Corbusier.
- 🏙️ Van de Velde's architectural works in Brussels demonstrated his ability to merge modern and traditional forms.
- 🖼️ Although often forgotten, van de Velde's influence on Modernism is visible in the subtle artistic details seen in everyday designs today.
Q & A
What is the significance of the teapot exhibited in the Museum of Berlin?
-The teapot is significant because it represents a transitional piece in the history of design, embodying both the Modernist aesthetic and the artistic nuances of Art Nouveau. It was created by Henry van de Velde in 1904, predating the Bauhaus and Werkbund movements.
How does the teapot's design reflect the characteristics of Modernism?
-The teapot's design reflects Modernism through its chrome finish, which creates a metallic gradient, and its mass-produced, functional form. However, it also has an ornate ivory handle, showing a resistance to the complete reductionism of the Bauhaus.
Who is Henry van de Velde and why is he important in the context of Modernism?
-Henry van de Velde is a Belgian architect and designer known as one of the earliest practitioners of Art Nouveau. He is important in the context of Modernism because he played a major role in its development, influencing the aesthetic adopted by the Bauhaus.
What is the artistic significance of the teapot's handle?
-The teapot's handle is artistically significant because it is ornate and carved from ivory, symbolizing the artist's resistance to the industrial reductionism of Modernism. It represents van de Velde's belief in maintaining artistic individuality even within the context of mass production.
How did Henry van de Velde's views on mass production differ from those of the Arts and Crafts movement?
-Van de Velde accepted the value of mass production, positioning himself at odds with the exclusivity of the Arts and Crafts movement. He saw mass production as a means to make art and beauty accessible to all, rich or poor.
What was the Deutscher Werkbund and what role did Henry van de Velde play in it?
-The Deutscher Werkbund was an organization founded in 1907 to bring art and industry together. Henry van de Velde was a founding member and played a significant role in its mission to promote the integration of art and industry.
What was the outcome of the 1914 meeting that involved Henry van de Velde and Hermann Muthesius?
-The 1914 meeting resulted in a victory for standardization, which shifted the Modernist movement towards a more reductionist approach. Van de Velde's advocacy for artistic autonomy was overshadowed, leading to a significant change in the direction of Modernism.
Why is Henry van de Velde's contribution to Modernism often overlooked?
-Henry van de Velde's contributions are often overlooked due to his frequent alignment with the losing side of debates, his resistance to complete standardization, and his non-German identity in an increasingly nationalistic Germany. Additionally, his aesthetic became so influential that it became indistinguishable from the broader Modernist landscape.
How did Henry van de Velde's work in Brussels demonstrate his architectural prowess?
-In Brussels, van de Velde created buildings that harmoniously integrated with both traditional and modern architectural styles, showcasing his ability to blend the old with the new in a way that was both innovative and respectful of historical context.
What is the legacy of Henry van de Velde in the history of Modernism?
-Henry van de Velde's legacy in the history of Modernism is that of a progenitor whose work and ideas significantly influenced the movement, despite not being fully recognized or credited as one of its canonical fathers. His designs and philosophies laid the groundwork for the development of Modernist aesthetics and practices.
Outlines
🍵 The Teapot: A Symbol of Modernism and Artistic Autonomy
The first paragraph introduces a teapot from 1904, designed by Henry van de Velde, which is a precursor to Modernist design despite its Art Nouveau roots. The teapot's chrome finish and functional design reflect early modernist principles, but its ornate ivory handle sets it apart, symbolizing the artist's struggle with industrialization and the loss of individuality in art. Van de Velde, an Art Nouveau pioneer, embraced mass production as a means to democratize art and beauty, influencing the Bauhaus movement that followed. His work and ideas were a bridge between the artistic freedom of the past and the standardized, industrial future of Modernism.
🎭 The Struggle for Artistic Autonomy in the Age of Standardization
The second paragraph delves into the conflict between artistic autonomy and the rise of standardization within the Modernist movement. Henry van de Velde, advocating for a 'total work of art' as a form of artistic resistance, faced opposition from those pushing for strict standardization, like Hermann Muthesius. The 1914 meeting of the Deutscher Werkbund was a pivotal moment where standardization won out, shaping the future of Modernism. Van de Velde's views on art as a living entity and his subsequent marginalization from the movement are explored, highlighting his enduring struggle with the shift towards soulless, standardized art.
🏛 The Legacy of Henry van de Velde: A Forgotten Architect of Modernism
The final paragraph reflects on Henry van de Velde's contributions to Modernism and his subsequent obscurity. Despite his significant role in shaping Modernist aesthetics and his influence on figures like Gropius, Le Corbusier, and Mies van der Rohe, van de Velde's name is seldom mentioned in the same breath as these canonical architects. His work, though foundational, was overshadowed by the nationalistic and standardizing forces of his time. The paragraph also touches on the challenges he faced due to his Belgian nationality in Germany and the misperceptions about his actions during the Second World War. It concludes by acknowledging van de Velde's enduring influence, visible in subtle design elements that reflect his unique artistic voice.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Modernism
💡Bauhaus
💡Art Nouveau
💡Henry van de Velde
💡Deutscher Werkbund
💡Mass Production
💡Aesthetic Autonomy
💡Standardization
💡Nationalism
💡Influence and Legacy
Highlights
The Museum of Berlin exhibited a teapot from 1904, predating both the Bauhaus and Werkbund, which is a work of Henry van de Velde.
The teapot's chrome finish and modernist design contrast with traditional ceramic teapots, indicating a shift towards Modernism.
The ornate, ivory-carved handle of the teapot is a distinct feature, setting it apart from the reductionist designs of the Bauhaus.
Henry van de Velde, an Art Nouveau pioneer, is revealed as the teapot's creator, linking the piece to both Modernism and Art Nouveau.
Van de Velde's teapot embodies the transition from Art Nouveau to Modernism, reflecting his belief in the synthesis of art and industry.
The teapot's design is a symbol of early 20th-century artists' fears and acceptance of industrialization's impact on art.
Van de Velde's work is intrinsically linked to the development of Modernism, influencing the Bauhaus aesthetic two decades later.
He advocated for mass production as a means to make art accessible to all, challenging the exclusivity of the Arts and Crafts movement.
The Deutscher Werkbund, co-founded by van de Velde, aimed to unite art and industry, reflecting a progressive stance in early 20th-century Germany.
Van de Velde's vision of a 'total work of art' was a compromise between standardization and artistic individuality.
The 1914 Werkbund meeting marked a turning point for Modernism, with standardization emerging victorious and shaping the movement's future.
Van de Velde's defeat in 1914 and subsequent departure from Germany marked a significant shift in his career and influence.
His work in Brussels demonstrated his architectural prowess, creating buildings that harmonized with both traditional and modern structures.
Despite his significant contributions, van de Velde's name is often overlooked in the history of Modernism.
Van de Velde's aesthetic is so influential that it has become indistinguishable from the broader Modernist landscape.
The subtle Art Nouveau elements in his designs serve as enduring clues to his significant contributions to Modernism.
Transcripts
Until 1972, the Museum of Berlin exhibited, among other things, a teapot. From above it is
twenty-two centimetres long, thirteen-and-a-half centimetres wide, and thirteen centimetres tall.
Its chrome finish gives an oil-surface ripple to the reflections of objects
around it as it shifts from light to dark in a metallic gradient.
This isn’t the kind of teapot you’ve seen on elderly relatives’ coffee tables, however,
with their ceramic elephant trunks and floral finishes. The chrome surface and
stunted – almost resentment – of a spout place this teapot firmly in the sphere of Modernism.
Aesthetically it is indistinct from any other early-modernist piece of kitchenware:
it is mass-produced, purposefully unremarkable, and entirely functional.
The Bauhaus produced many similar pieces. Except, this teapot isn’t from the Bauhaus – it
predates it, and the Werkbund too. This piece, from 1904, is the work of Henry van de Velde.
Born in 1863, he is best known as one of the earliest practitioners of Art Nouveau.
The clue to the artist’s identity lies in the teapot’s handle.
Where the later, more anonymous, work of the Bauhaus had functional and non-descript
handles in keeping with its reductionism. This handle is ornate and a work of art itself.
Rather than the bare straight lines of the Bauhaus, this handle, carved from ivory,
tapers to a point in the shape of a leaf. It is at once a piece that looks forward
to the incoming wave of Modernism and also back to the artistic nuances of Nouveau.
The handle is not just a handle, rather it is an identifier of an artist for whom the
stark realities of Modernism were a warning of a loss of autonomy and identity. It is a
symbol of the fear felt by early 20th century artists towards the disintegrated and chaotic
urbanity of industrialisation. And yet, what is also apparent is van de Velde’s acceptance
of the industrial as a tool for synthesis – in which beauty and artistic individuality need
not be sacrificed to the machine nor the machine sacrificed for artistic integrity.
In one small, ostensibly inconsequential, piece we can see at once the inexorable development
of the Modernist aesthetic and the final gasping resistance of artistic autonomy before
it surrendered to industrial reduction. It is no coincidence that Henry van de
Velde’s work of the early-1900s bears a striking resemblance to the work of the Bauhaus two decades
later. Van de Velde is intrinsically linked to the development of Modernism and is arguably the
originator of the aesthetic the Bauhaus adopted soon after its founding. In an artistic landscape
still at the mercy of Morris and Ruskin, van de Velde realised that rejecting the machine was
a mistake: it limited art both aesthetically and economically. In mass-production, van de Velde saw
not an obstacle but a way in which to make art and beauty accessible to all – rich or poor.
It was a romantic notion. And in an era in which many of the old ways were falling out of favour,
especially in Germany, there was little room for romance.
Now, when we discuss the beginning of Modernism, Henry van de Velde is rarely a name that appears
in anything but the periphery – despite being a founder of Art Nouveau, a founding member of the
Deutscher Werkbund, director of the Grand Ducal School of arts and crafts in Weimar,
and an eminent architect in Europe through much of the first half of the 20th century.
Henry van de Velde is the progenitor of the Modernist style and yet we do not remember
his name or afford him the kind of credit we allow the canonical fathers of Modernism.
Art Nouveau has its roots in the Arts and Crafts movement.
Inspired by natural forms and structures, particularly the curved lines of flowers,
it was a reaction to the rigid and academic art of the 19th century.
Henry van de Velde found some refuge for his ideals in arts and crafts, but in accepting the
value of mass production he positioned himself at odds with its founding tenets. In many ways,
Art Nouveau was an ineffectual movement. It was neither capable of making great changes in the
artistic landscape nor of moving those that appreciated it. Theodor Adorno suggested that
“its lie was the beautification of life without its transformation; beauty itself thereby becomes
vacuous and, like all abstract negation, allowed itself to be integrated into what it negated.”
Beauty for beauty’s sake. And this could not move van de Velde sufficiently, so, after years as an
artist, he decided to pursue the applied arts; motivated by the aspiration to apply art to life.
In 1907, artists including van de Velde, Adolf Loos, Hermann Muthesius, and Peter Behrens founded
the Deutscher Werkbund. Its aim was to bring art and industry together and, in so doing,
push Germany forward and away from the traditional trappings that many felt were holding it back.
Yet, while the members of the Werkbund all accepted the role industry would play
in art, for some time they were uncertain how exactly to use it.
In this confusion van de Velde found both allies and adversaries to his ideals. In the power of
mass-production he saw a potential to uphold the virtues of Arts and Crafts while rejecting
the exclusivity of the movement and providing affordable and repeatable quality products to
the masses. The grounds for his opposition to the growing momentum of standardisation were artistic,
not moral. He had no problem with the idea of a reiterating model – but that model needed a soul.
In 1849, Wagner had proposed a unification of art as a revolutionary opposition to the capitalist
division of labour. Van de Velde, however, proposed his total work of art almost as a
compromise to the hard-lines of standardised Modernism. It was a resistance, of sorts, but
also seen as an opportunity to provide a therapy to anxiety-driven consumerism of industrialisation
with the redemptive powers of art and beauty. But, for the growing voice of standardisation, nothing
less than a complete rejection of the Arts and Crafts and adoption of a set paradigm would do.
As a result, Henry van de Velde found himself at odds with the establishment, which led to his,
and the Werkbund’s, greatest conflicts. At a 1914 meeting, the debates and contradictions
that plagued the organisation came to a head. On one side was Henry van de Velde
and the supporters of artistic autonomy, on the other Hermann Muthesius and those who felt
that standardisation was the only way forward. The debate was a turning point for Modernism,
paving the way for a set of standards to be developed that would govern Modernism for decades.
To hear van de Velde tell it, it was a monumental struggle that saw “thunder
and lightning sounding outside” as he ”demanded the rights to free, independent, creative work…”
Whether van de Velde’s rather dramatic account, written in his nineties,
can be relied upon is uncertain. However, there is no doubt that the result of the debate sent shock
waves through the burgeoning Modernist Movement. Standardisation’s victory saw the movement shift
from a confused mix of concepts to the more familiar reductionist movement we know today.
For van de Velde the loss of autonomy was a cruel blow – an offense even. The idea of soulless art
was one he could not countenance. Art was a living breathing thing created by living and
breathing human beings, as Aldo Rossi echoed, “it does not make much sense to talk about the
interior and exterior of a building, because the entire construction is determined by a single,
synthetic conception... through floors and spaces … the conception of the house
becomes a concept of life.” That is what Modernism meant to
van de Velde, not the “machine for living in” ethos that would be practiced at the Bauhaus.
Henry van de Velde’s defeat in 1914 stayed with him. After leaving Germany in 1917 he
moved to Switzerland and then back to his native Belgium. There he resurfaced in the
1930s as Belgium’s eminent architect and designer. While his work abroad spoke of
a movement to come – The Werkbund theatre and, in particular, the Kroller-Muller Museum – it
is with the structures in Brussels that Henry van de Velde demonstrated his true prowess.
Rather than the grey tombstones of the Bauhaus, van de Velde created buildings as much at home
on a skyline pierced by church steeples as they were beside the most modern skyscraper.
How then can a man whose work pre-empted the aesthetic of Modern Art and Design
and who played a major part in laying the foundations for its development be so nameless in
the history of Modernism? In truth, Henry van de Velde found himself too often on the losing side.
Progressive though his views may have been, he was also keen to uphold many
traditions that just didn’t fit into the artistic landscape of pre-war Germany.
The old clichéd adage rings true: history is written by the victor. Muthesius’ standardisation
won out and van de Velde’s unwillingness to drop the mantle of artistic individuality
proved a major factor in his undoing. And yet, he also suffered for not being
German in an increasingly nationalistic Germany. Throughout his career he was
referred to as “The Belgian van de Velde” and though he had founded the Grand Ducal school,
the Grand Duke of Weimar made no secret of his distaste for a non-German running his college.
Had van de Velde not been forced to leave Germany at the outbreak of the First World War,
there is little doubt he would have been replaced as director of the school by a German native.
As nationalism erupted around the country the contributions of the Belgian were downplayed – not
least by Walter Gropius, his successor. Gropius made a concerted effort to deemphasise
Henry van de Velde’s achievements and assert his own position at the Bauhaus exhibition of 1923.
But in speaking of the “total work of art” and “an orchestral unity” being “inherently related to
architecture” he succeeded only in echoing van de Velde’s own treatment of the Modernist question.
Then there was van de Velde’s record in the Second World War and the perception – albeit
spread by resentful colleagues – that when, like many of his compatriots,
he was obliged to help the occupying Germans he was, in fact, collaborating. Unfounded as it was,
the allegation stayed with him until he retired to Switzerland after the war to write his memoirs.
And it was there, an expatriate once again, that Henry van de Velde died in 1957.
Perhaps our purpose is not to exalt Henry van de Velde above others as father and inventor. After
all, there are many contradictions in Henry van de Velde: the artist, industrialist, and
socialist; Arts and crafts and the Werkbund; the individualist and the mass-producer; the Belgian
painter and the German architect. Ostensibly these appear paradoxical, but this is a view afforded by
hindsight. In looking at the context of all these things we can see an intrinsic link between them:
progression from one to the other in which van de Velde played a major part.
Despite attempts to limit his involvement in retrospect, van de Velde’s name looms large
over the passage of Modernism. So, perhaps our purpose is to highlight those that were never
sanctified by the International Style in the way Gropius, Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, and
Frank Lloyd Wright were. Henry van de Velde and, arguably, Adolf Loos and Peter Behrens with him,
represent a vital but forgotten part of Modernism. They’re not wholly lost to history but are rarely
given their proper due. They are the masters of masters, whose tutelage laid the groundwork for
Modernism’s canonical fathers to flourish. Their work was no less revolutionary or innovative,
but it came in a period of confusion; where the rules of the game had not yet been established.
But there is an illegibility to Henry van de Velde’s credo that hindered him and much as he
was never German, he was never entirely Modernist either. Be it nationalism, individualism,
or his place of birth – a great deal has worked to wipe van de Velde from the history of Modernism.
But really, even his own work conspired against him. Where other designers are remembered for
their stylistic signatures, van de Velde’s aesthetic is so replicated, so influential,
that he is now indistinguishable from the rest of the modern landscape.
It is a testament to his lasting influence that his designs of the Modernist period
are so familiar today. And though he has disappeared into the fabric of our daily lives,
for those who know where to look there remain signs of van de Velde’s particular artistic voice:
a handle, a leg, the curve of a gable – subtle shades of Art Nouveau that serve
as clues to his great contribution and that have endured long after his name has been forgotten.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)