Design Works: Henry van de Velde and early-Modernism | Geoffrey Bunting Graphic Design

Summary

The 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

00:00

🍵 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.

05:06

🎭 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.

10:08

🏛 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.

Keywords

💡Modernism

Modernism refers to a cultural movement that emerged in the early 20th century, characterized by a rejection of traditional forms and a pursuit of new styles and techniques. In the context of the video, Modernism is central to understanding the artistic shift towards functional, mass-produced designs, as seen in the teapot's chrome finish and Bauhaus-like aesthetic. The video discusses how Henry van de Velde's work both predates and influences this movement, suggesting that he is an originator of the aesthetic that the Bauhaus later adopted.

💡Bauhaus

The Bauhaus was a German school of design that combined crafts and fine arts, emphasizing functionality and the 'form follows function' principle. The video uses the Bauhaus as a point of comparison for the teapot's design, noting similarities in the pursuit of a modern aesthetic. However, it distinguishes van de Velde's work by highlighting the ornate handle, suggesting a blend of Modernism and Art Nouveau.

💡Art Nouveau

Art Nouveau is an international style of art, architecture, and design that developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, known for its organic, flowing lines inspired by nature. The video positions van de Velde as one of the earliest practitioners of Art Nouveau, and the teapot's ivory handle, shaped like a leaf, exemplifies this style. It also contrasts Art Nouveau's artistic nuances with the more industrialized approach of Modernism.

💡Henry van de Velde

Henry van de Velde is a Belgian artist and architect mentioned in the video as a significant figure in the transition from Art Nouveau to Modernism. His teapot, created in 1904, is used as a symbol of his artistic vision, which sought to balance industrial production with artistic integrity. The video discusses his role in founding the Deutscher Werkbund and his influence on the development of Modernism, despite being less recognized than other figures.

💡Deutscher Werkbund

The Deutscher Werkbund was an association of artists, architects, and industrialists founded in 1907, aiming to unite art and industry. The video discusses van de Velde's involvement with the Werkbund and his advocacy for maintaining artistic individuality within mass production. The Werkbund's debates on standardization versus artistic autonomy are highlighted as a turning point for Modernism.

💡Mass Production

Mass production is the process of making large quantities of goods efficiently, often at the expense of individual craftsmanship. The video explores van de Velde's views on mass production, noting his belief in its potential to make art and beauty accessible to all. It contrasts this with the Arts and Crafts movement's opposition to industrialization and the eventual standardization within Modernism.

💡Aesthetic Autonomy

Aesthetic autonomy refers to the idea that art should be valued for its own sake and not for its utility or moral lessons. The video discusses how van de Velde resisted the loss of autonomy in art due to industrialization, arguing for the importance of artistic individuality. His teapot's ornate handle is presented as a symbol of this resistance.

💡Standardization

Standardization in the context of the video refers to the process of making products uniform in design and function, which was a key aspect of the Bauhaus and later Modernist movements. The video contrasts van de Velde's views with those who favored standardization, leading to a pivotal debate within the Werkbund that influenced the direction of Modernism.

💡Nationalism

Nationalism is highlighted in the video as a factor that contributed to van de Velde's lesser recognition in the history of Modernism. As a Belgian working in Germany, van de Velde faced nationalistic biases that downplayed his contributions, especially during the rise of German nationalism before and during the World Wars.

💡Influence and Legacy

The video discusses the influence of van de Velde's work on the development of Modernism and his legacy as a precursor to the movement. Despite his significant contributions, van de Velde's name is not as well remembered as other figures like Gropius, Le Corbusier, or Mies van der Rohe. The video argues for a reevaluation of his place in history, noting the subtle but enduring signs of his artistic voice in modern design.

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.