In 1919, Walter Gropius, putting on his best hierophant's voice, declared that the goal of the Bauhaus was

to help create a new unified art (reaching its apogee in Gropius' own discipline, architecture) which will rise one da towards heaven fro! the hands of a !illion wor"ers li"e the cr stal s !bol of a new faith#$ In the process, architecture and the 'fine arts' would be restored to a state of grace fro! which the had fallen# %he would be rescued$ fro! their respective isolation$ in the Goshen of the salon$ and given bac" their architectonic spirit#$1 &lthough this procla!ation, which was acco!panied b ' onel (einiger's woodcut, )athedral of *ocialis!,$ was !ore headil !essianic in its tone than was t pical for Gropius, it was dealing with issues that had alread concerned hi! before the Ger!an +evolution, before even the first world war, and which would continue to concern hi! all his life# In %he %heor and ,rgani-ation of the Bauhaus,$ written four ears after the .rocla!ation,$ Gropius once again returned to the sub/ect, !ore s ste!aticall and at greater length# 0ere we learn that the 'acade! '$ shut off the artist fro! the world of industr and handicraft, and thus brought about his co!plete isolation fro! the co!!unit # In vital epochs, on the other hand, the artist enriched all the arts and crafts of a co!!unit because he had a part in its vocational life### With the develop!ent of the acade!ies genuine fol" art died awa # What re!ained was a drawing roo! art detached fro! life# Worse, the lac" of all vital connection with the life of the co!!unit led inevitabl to barren aesthetic speculation$ on the part of fine artists# (or Gropius, art has suffered a disastrous secession 1 fro! the wor"ada life of the people$ so that our entire aesthetic life is i!poverished#2 In registering this i!poverish!ent, Gropius was standing in an honourable and, b then, well established tradition stretching through the architect and designer, 0enr van de 3elde and going at least as far bac" as Willia! Bla"e# &lthough the issue is rarel spo"en of in the dire apocal ptic ter!s of a Bla"e or a Gropius, it is in fact an an4iet that continues to be felt to this da ,
1 2 Walter Gropius, %he (irst .rocla!ation of the Wei!ar Bauhaus$ in Bauhaus 1919-1928 ed# 0erbert Ba er, Walter Gropius, and Ise Gropius (Boston5 )harles %# Banford )o!pan , 1969), p# 17# Walter Gropius, %he %heor and ,rgani-ation of the Bauhaus$ in Bauhaus 1919-1928 ed# 0erbert Ba er, Walter Gropius, and Ise Gropius (Boston5 )harles %# Banford )o!pan , 1969), pp# 21829#

and several atte!pts have been !ade to e4plain its e4istence which cut rather deeper than Gropius'# %err :agleton suggests that the retreat of art fro! life into an autono!ous e4istence is a "ind of pressure release valve for hu!anit 's aesthetic i!pulses which are not easil acco!!odated b the narrow (and t picall philistine) instru!entalit of co!!odit production# (or :agleton, &rt co!es to signif pure supple!entarit , that !arginal region of the affective;instinctual;non8 instru!ental which a reified rationalit finds difficult incorporating#$ But this occurs precisel via art's integration into the capitalist !ode of production$ because when art beco!es, in and of itself, a co!!odit , it is released$ fro! its older ties to the world#< :sther 'eslie, channelling Walter Ben/a!in, suggests that the retreat of art into itself can be understood in ter!s of a schis! within the bourgeois class#$ %he isolated artist is here the figure of the critical bourgeois bohe!ian$ in defiance against philistine seg!ents of the class$ who co!e to regard the producers of art as redundant$ and perhaps too devoted to ideals to be =uite trustworth #9 Both authors e=uate this pheno!enon with the !o!ent of !odernit #$6 It is clear that an s ste!atic histor of the divorce of art fro! life would have to ta"e into account both these argu!ents, a!ong others# >evertheless, what both 'eslie and :agleton show is that the divorce of art fro! life is a structural tendenc for our aesthetic life under capitalis!, although one which unfolds unevenl and over ti!e# %o historicise this further, it is surel significant that even in Ger!an the two people generall credited with bringing attention to this divorce are :nglish5 ?ohn +us"in and Willia! @orris7# :ngland had had its bourgeois revolution long before Ger!an finall overthrew the Aaiser, and it was also in :ngland that the Industrial +evolution began B it is hardl surprising, therefore, that :ngland would also engender the first protests against that period's effects upon the aesthetic life of its people (although it is true that @orris would onl gain the theoretical fra!ewor" with which he thought through this protest via
< 9 6 7 %err :agleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic (,4ford5 Basil Blac"well, 199C), pp# <7D8<7E# :sther 'eslie, Walter Benjamin: O er!o"ering #onformism ('ondon5 .luto .ress, 2CCC), p# 1E9# :agleton, Ideology of the Aesthetic, p# <7E# 'eslie writes @odernis! begins in this period of coerced !arginali-ation$ B which she dates as being around 1E62 in the (rance of >apoleon III (p# 1E9)# %he are e4plicitl na!ed in %he %heor and ,rgani-ation,$ p# 21#

his engage!ent with the ideas of a Ger!an revolutionar 5 Aarl @ar4)# &nd it is in @orris' life, wor" and writing that Gropius, as well as the rest of the staff and students at the Bauhaus, would have had the first !odel for the reunion between creative artists and the industrial world$D which was so sought after# @orris gives three closel interrelated reasons for what he regarded as the degraded state of the so8called decorative arts,$E the first is capitalist alienation which !a"es labour into a drudge and so obviates the ver possibilit of art in its products (@orris, after +us"in, defines art as !an's e4pression of his /o in labour#$)# &ccording to @orris, the !odern state of societ ,$ is therefore founded on the art8lac"ing or unhapp labour of the greater part of !en#$9 %he second has to do with the priorities of capitalist production B put briefl , profits# &nd the third is the net result of the develop!ent of the division of labour, aided b the particular for! in which capitalis! develops the forces of production (especiall !achiner )# @orris predicted that the full develop!ent of this s ste! would lead to production owned b a ruling class blind to ugliness and indifferent to beaut and !anaged b technicians directing a labour process so thoroughl routinised that no space could be re=uired (or even desired) for the labourer's s"ill and intelligence#1C @orris' solution to this was the fa!ous wor"shops of the (ir! of @orris F )o# in which the division of labour was reduced to a !ini!u! and ever wor"er trained to be s"illed in as !uch of the production process as possible11 B that is to sa , @orris' solution was craft wor"# &lthough craft was also to pla its role in the Bauhaus, the si!ple factor of ti!e and develop!ent !eant that
D E Ibid# 0e defines these in contradistinction to Intellectual$ art, which addresses itself wholl to our !ental needs 1 the GHecorative &rtsI, though so !uch of it as is art does appeal to the !ind, is alwa s a part of things which are intended pri!aril for the service of the bod #$ Willia! @orris, &rt Jnder .lutocrac $ in $olitical Writings of William %orris ed# &#'# @orton (>ew Kor"5 International .ublishers, 19D<), p# 69# 9 Ibid# p# 7D# %his is one of those instances where the fashion of using '!an' as a stand8in for the species is not onl irritating, but actuall obscures the !eaning# *hould we translate his definition as hu!anit 's e4pression of /o in its (collective) labour$ or as a hu!an being's e4pression of /o in their labour$L %his is an elision of so!e i!portance# It would be nice to e4cuse this phallocentricis! on his ti!es, but, in point of fact, @orris was a se4ist even b the relativel low standard set b the socialist left of the 1EEC's# 1C Ibid# p# DC8D2# 11 :#.# %ho!pson, William %orris: &omantic to &e olutionary 1st &!erican edition (>ew Kor"5 .antheon Boo"s, 19DD), p#1C981C6#

<

handiwor" could not possibl be i!agined as a co!!erciall viable basis on which to build a unification of art with life that would have an !eaning for the aesthetic life of the Ger!an people# @orris' !odel, which never produced affordable wor" in !ass =uantities, could not reasonabl be transplanted into the Ger!an of the 2Cs# Gropius created a school centred around craft wor"shops under the twin direction of a for! !aster and a craft !aster, with the intention of allowing students to s nthesise the abilities of both in their own practice# Gropious, who in the .rocla!ation$ wrote, &rchitects, sculptors, painters, we !ust all turn to the crafts,$ probabl thought of this process in ter!s of art beco!ing productive B but in fact, it would be !ore accurate to sa that it tried to !a"e production into art# It is clear enough fro! the wa the Bauhaus was run that Gropius regarded craft as being aestheticall e!pt # %he purpose of the craft !asters was to provide what was thought of as purel technical "now8how for the wor"shops, the were not included in the @asters' )ouncilM the had no votes, and were consulted onl as occasional advisers#$12 :va (orgacs even =uotes Gropius as sa ing the co!position corresponds to the historical evolution of the Bauhaus, which owes its concept and inception not to crafts!en but to artists 1 &nd this is a spiritual, not a technical, concept#$1< %he role of craft training is therefore !erel to fa!iliarise the students with the nature of !aterials and processes so that the would possess in the!selves a total understanding of production B the better to design for production# (or Gropius, the craft wor"shops GshouldI develop into industrial laboratories5 fro! their e4peri!entation will evolve standards for industrial production#$19 %he obviousness of this solution prevents us fro! seeing its true audacit # Gropius was thoroughl aware of the an4ieties regarding division of labour in the factor 5 %he principal difference between factor production and handicraft lies 1 in the fact that in the factor each operation involved in !anufacturing a product is perfor!ed b a different !an, whereas the craft product is !ade entirel b one person#16
12 :va (orgacs, The Bauhause Idea and Bauhaus $olitics %rans# ?ohn Bat"i (Budapest5 )entral :uropean Jniversit .ress, 1996), p# 97# 1< Gropius, &n die Wer"stattenleiter', 22 &pril 1922, Bauhaus &rchiv, Berlin, Gropius docu!ents, unit no# D;6, =uoted in ibid# p# 9D# 19 Gropius, %he %heor and ,rganisation$ p# 26# 16 Ibid# p# 26#

But if @orris believed that this division of labour was partl responsible for the sorr aesthetic =ualit of its products and therefore needed to be resisted, Gropius solution is to follow this division all the wa through# 0e was essentiall theorising a new branch of labour e!erging at this ti!e within the total social division of labour5 aesthetic labour# .arado4icall , it is precisel b accepting the reif ing logic of capitalist production which threatened to e4punge art fro! ever da life that art's place there could be guaranteed# %he for!al i!plications of this strateg are perhaps best e4e!plified in the chairs of @arcel Breuer# 0is tubular chairs in particular (figure 1), which he began to develop in 1926, represent a high water!ar" for clean and efficient !odernist design# %he are constructed fro! e4truded and bent !etal tubes, !a"ing use of no !ore nor less !aterial than was strictl re=uired for co!fort and stabilit , and stretched fabric !ade fro! steel8thread for the seat and bac" rest# %he Bauhaus' insistence on fa!iliarit with !aterials and techni=ues is clearl on displa in the soundness of its design and the innovative use of the chro!e8plated tubes, while its pleasing and unassu!ing neatness displa an elegance and facilit with for! that is still i!itated toda # >o doubt with such ob/ects in !ind, (orgacs clai!s that the Bauhaus ob/ects !ade$ in this period are fle4ible,$ graceful,$ and possess an aesthetic appeal$17 B she is wrong on two counts# %he first is in her definition of 'aesthetic appeal' which here can onl !ean roughl 'nice loo"ing#' *he is thus operating under a fairl careless understanding of the aesthetic (which I have also had to !a"e so!e use of in this essa ), but if b 'aesthetic appeal,' we were to !ean instead an appeal to the affective or the libidinal (which :agleton suggests we should), then it would have to be pointed out that this is precisel what the designers of the Bauhaus had !anaged to e4punge fro! their designs b the !id to late twenties# *econdl , she is !a"ing an ontological error# %o understand this, and in order, further!ore, to understand the transfor!ation that art underwent in its attach!ent to industrial design at the Bauhaus, it is useless to loo" at a single chair5 Breuer's chairs do not have a singular e4istenceM we
17 (orgacs, The Bauhaus Idea, p# 2CC#

need to view the! en masse (figure 2)# In their !ultiplied, reiterated, e4istence, the chairs beco!e abstractions of the!selves# %he ob/ects, as it were, are not the real thing# Breuer's 'chair' would not be di!inished b the destruction of a single unit, nor b an nu!ber of units, nor b ever last tubular chair in e4istence# Breuer's chair is not in the ob/ectl chair, but in its design, which has ac=uired a .latonic, !etaph sical e4istence that !a"es the actual chairs the e=uivalent of so !an (e4actl identical) flic"ering shadows on the walls of a cave# Whatever char!s it !a possess belong properl to this essence, the concrete ob/ects are rather the !ediu! b which we access these char!s# %he technical re=uire!ents of elevating the idea of an ob/ect into its unalterable code that !ust be transcribed without error or !utation b !aterial production, !eans that as a technical practice, the develop!ent of design itself co!es to !irror the develop!ent of !achiner under capitalis! alread touched on in the discussion of @orris' production philosoph # &s 0arve Braver!an points, out under the rule of capital, @achiner co!es into the world not as the servant of hu!anit ,$ but as the instru!ent of those to who! the accu!ulation of capital gives the ownership of the !achines# %he capacit of hu!ans to control the labour process through !achiner is sei-ed upon b !anage!ent fro! the beginning of capitalis! as the pri!e !eans whereb production !a be controlled not b the direct producer but b the owners and representatives of capital# %hus, the unif ing feature of !echanisation in the factor is the progressive eli!ination of the control function of the wor"er, insofar as possible, and their transfer to a device which is controlled, again insofar as possible, b !anage!ent fro! outside the direct process#1D (or Braver!an, therefore, (as for @orris) the develop!ent of !echanisation in the factor e4acerbates the reification of labour precisel because !achiner ta"es the for! of capital B b definition, an instru!ent for the do!ination of labour# Gropius and the Bauhaus designers turned this into a virtue# &s @arcel (ransiscono observes,
1D 0arve Braver!an, 'a(or and %ono!oly #a!ital: The )egredation of Wor* in the T"entieth #entury (>ew Kor"5 @onthl +eview .ress, 19D9), pp# 19< and 212#

for Gropius the advantage of G!echanisationI lies /ust in its assurance that the designer's intentions will be carried out to the last detail and not left to the !ercies of inco!petent or indifferentl !inded artisans#1E Breuer's tubular chairs, built fro! ho!ogenised !aterials along a regular and !achine for!ed geo!etr , are designed precisel to allow and to de!and e4act repetition at ever step of the production process#19 &nd although this is in one sense an understandable desire on the part of an artist eager to preserve the integrit of his wor" B we should re!e!ber that the choice to accept the role of 'aesthetic labourer' as separate fro! !aterial production was a deliberate one on the part of the Bauhaus#2C (urther!ore, although this choice was !ore or less inevitable given their goal to bring art into industr , this goal itself was not entirel innocent# It was in fact part of a liberal nationalis! which wanted =ualit wor",$ at least in part because this was necessar in order to co!pete in foreign !ar"ets#$21 It see!s, therefore, that the betrothal of art to industr effected b the Bauhaus ca!e at a heav price B and this has to do, in part, with the inabilit of its theoreticians to see the possibilities of craft as a distinct aesthetic practice and strateg # %he progression of Bauhaus chairs once again offers a de!onstration of this# In 1927, Breuer prepared a tongue8in8chee" fil! strip which he titled & Bauhaus @ovie lasting five ears,$ and listed the author as life de!anding its rightsM$ a different chair is in each fra!e of the strip and ever chair is attached to a ear (figure <)# %he first is his oppressivel solid &frican chair$ of 1921M this is followed b the !uch !ore pleasant and co!fortable loo"ing chair with coloured wool straps,$ which he !ade with Gunta *tol-l dated
1E @arcel (ransiscono, Walter +ro!ius and the creation of the Bauhaus in Weimar: The ideals and artistic theories of its founding years (Jrbana5 Jniversit of Illinois .ress, 19D1) p# <<# 19 %his issue offers an opportunit to discuss a related one, that of handiwor"# 0andiwor" is often fetishised B e#g#5 ?ohn +us"in or Bernard 'each# I don't thin" it is sustainable to clai! that i!!ediate !uscular contact with !aterials is b its ver nature superior to labour !ediated b tools or !achines# *till, it is the case that !ost !achines and !an !odern !aterials are designed precisel to cut the direct producer off fro! their product, whereas certain !aterials and processes (while certainl not banishing the possibilit of alienation and reification) are b their nature less ho!ogenised and !ore recalcitrant# Wor"ing with such !aterials and processes necessaril !eans that each act of production is so!ewhat distinct fro! ever other# %his in turn re=uires the direct producer to !a"e certain decisions afresh ever ti!e B in other words, to appl their s"ills and "nowledge to the subtl different proble!s posed b each distinct act of production# It is this character which !a"es the! relativel resistant to total reification and open to variabilit # *uch processes are obviousl not suited to 'total !anage!ent' b people standing above the wor"force and so are co!parativel unattractive for capitalist industr # (or this reason, it has generall been left to the crafts and artisan labour to e4plore their aesthetic potential# I suspect that this, probabl !ore than an thing else, is the rational "ernel behind the ro!anticis! surrounding the hand# 2C (orgacs, The Bauhaus Idea, p# 1C9# 21 (ransiscono, Walter +ro!ius, p# 19#

1921 NM followed b one of Breuer's eas chairs,$ 1929M then b :rich Hic"!ann's "itchen chair,$ which shares the ear 1926 with the chair that follows itM one of Breuer's earl Wassil chairsM$ and the final fra!e is an i!age of a wo!an sitting cross legged, suspended in the air, given the date 19LL# %wo parallel, and I believe intertwined, progressions are apparent in the fil! strip# %he first is the increasing de8!aterialisation of the chairs, cul!inating in the i!age of a wo!an sitting on nothing at all# %he second is the !ove!ent fro! craft to industrial design# %his begins with the &frican chair, fol" , !aw"ish, ostentatiousl a craft ob/ect (if not a ver good one) is followed b the three lighter constructions (or perhaps, deconstructions) !ore and !ore borrowing the spare, geo!etric vocabular of !odernist design but still produced b the artists the!selves, and finall ends with the industriall !anufactured Wassil chair# %he lin" between these two progressions is provided b Breuer hi!self, who wrote5 & piece of furniture is 1 in itself i!personal, it ta"es on !eaning onl fro! the wa it is used or as part of a co!plete sche!e# 1 It !ust be able to serve both those needs which re!ain constant and those which var # %his variation is possible onl if the ver si!plest and !ost straightforward pieces are used###22 (or Breuer, therefore, furniture's onl goal is functionalit # It acco!plishes this goal, as we have seen, via the instru!entalised efficienc of its production, but also b being itself unobtrusive, invisible (and what better wa to achieve this than b replacing the chair with airL)# %he "ind of relationship to the wor" re=uired to produce such an aesthetic is, in ! view, precisel one which alread sees the wor" as essentiall un8!aterial# What is re=uired is that such ps chological invest!ent as the artist !a"es is placed not in the e4ecuted ob/ects but in their intellectual conception# )raft wor"s ver !uch in contradistinction to this# (orgacs opines that crafts!anship is not !erel st le and techni=ue, but an a!!roach as well, a worldview e!braced b the traditional fol" artist, and craft !ethods cannot create an thing
22 @arcel Breuer, Bibl# no# 16$ in Bauhaus 1919-1928 ed# 0erbert Ba er, Walter Gropius, and Ise Gropius (Boston5 )harles %# Banford )o!pan , 1969), p# 127#

contrar to the craft worldview, or transcending it#$2< &part fro! the la- e=uation of craft with fol" art, I a! not reall sure what an of that is supposed to !ean# *he see!s, in effect, to be accusing craft of being ineluctabl reactionar B but whatever the clai! e4actl is, an surve of conte!porar studio crafts would probabl convince her that it is less than accurate# What she gets right, however, is that there is an ethos indigenous to craft production and which is distinct fro! the ethos apparent in the "ind of industrial design e4e!plified b Beuer# %he contrast between this design ethos and the one which Gropius hi!self attributes to craft production could not be !ore star"5 %he crafts!en sit between the doors of their stalls and GtheirI wor"# When a stranger as"s about the price of their wares, the answer in a sullen !onotoneM for the are in love with their wor" and will not be disturbed# %he part onl unwillingl even fro! their finished wor"#29 Because craft lac"s the division between the one who conceives and the one who e4ecutes the wor", it is necessaril devoted to the !aterial production of ob/ects# Gropius' craft wor"er, in fact, is so invested in the ob/ects the produce (via their unalienated labour), and is apparentl so little ena!oured of functionalit , that the are hardl willing to sell the! at all5 a step which would be necessar if the ob/ect's potential to function is ever to be activated# Without ta"ing the e4aggerations of the fable too seriousl , the point still stands5 contrar to popular belief, craft, as an aesthetic practice, does not necessaril fetishise functionalit # (unction is not its goal, it is its idio! and the t pical arena in which it does its aesthetic labour# It wor"s precisel b what it does in e,cess of functionality-26 In fact, with its obdurate refusal of industrial divisions of labour, craft processes are b definition obsolescent in relation to the average standards of capitalist productivit B it alread re=uires an invest!ent of labour greater than the average# @ore i!portantl , precisel because its
2< (orgacs, The Bauhaus Idea, p# 1C6# 29 Walter Gropius, Baugeist oder Ara!ertu!L$ )ie .chuh"elt (.ir!asens), no# <D (,ctober 16, 1919), p# E21# in @arcel (ransiscono, Walter +ro!ius and the creation of the Bauhaus in Weimar: The ideals and artistic theories of its founding years (Jrbana5 Jniversit of Illinois .ress, 19D1) p# 19# 26 I a! not aware of an theorist of craft that has put this case =uite this baldl # %he closest appro4i!ate to this for!ulation that I have co!e across is %heodore &dorno's clai! that purposefulness without purpose is ### reall the subli!ation of purpose$ fro! &dorno (unctionalis! %oda $ in #raft in Theory ed# Glenn &da!son (,4ford5 Berg, 2C1C) p# <9E#

aesthetic wor" e4ists in its ob/ectl self and not in its design or conception, it cannot afford to be invisible# )raft ob/ects !ust insist, as the 'fine arts' do, upon a response to the! that is conscious and operates at the level of the affective;instinctual;non8instru!ental$ which :agleton insists belongs to a !ore full developed aesthetic life B but which, unli"e the operation of the 'fine arts,' is situated in the 'wor"ada life' of its users# %hat such a production practice would be absolutel incapable of penetrating widel into people's general lives under capitalis! !a at this point be ta"en for granted# It see!s therefore that we are left with two alternatives to art's divorce fro! ever da life# %he first, is a design practice which rescues the aesthetic for life, but onl at the e4pense of truncating it drasticall B and which, !oreover, is dependent (to var ing degrees) upon capitalist reification# %he second, is a studio craft practice which resists reification and atte!pts to prefigure in so!e di! wa an aesthetic life un!ar"ed b art's retreat fro! the world but which is fro! the beginning incapable of actuall producing that life at a general level# Gropius banned politics at the Bauhaus,27 in so doing he cut the school off fro! participating in the onl process that could have bro"en the Gordian Anot presented b these two alternatives# It is te!pting and a!using to argue, in !oralistic fashion, that the Bauhaus should have raised a slogan such as '>either craft nor design, but social revolution,' but the truth of the !atter is that this would not have saved Ger!an fro! (ascis! nor the bungling leadership provided b the revolutionar wing of the Ger!an wor"ing class (the various anarchists, left co!!unists, and *partacists) or the disastrous advice of the )o!intern#2D %he !ost li"el result of greater radicalis! on the part of the Bauhaus staff is si!pl that the would have been shut down sooner# What we got instead was one of the !ost productive e4peri!ents in industrial design of the twentieth centur B and the one which !ade all subse=uent e4peri!ents possible# Whatever else one !ight thin" of the Bauhaus, its politics, its ethos, or even

27 (orgacs, The Bauhaus Idea, p# 91# 2D %he best histor of the defeat of the Ger!an +evolution is .ierre Broue, The +erman &e olution: 191/-19201 trans# ?ohn &rcher ('eiden5 Brill, 2CC6)

1C

its products B that is no !ean achieve!ent# Work cited: &dorno, %heodor# (unctionalis! %oda $ in #raft in Theory- :dited b Glenn &da!son# ,4ford5 Berg, 2C1C# Braver!an, 0arve , 'a(or and %ono!oly #a!ital: The )egredation of Wor* in the T"entieth #entury- >ew Kor"5 @onthl +eview .ress, 19D9# Breuer, @arcel# Bibl# no# 16$ in Bauhaus 1919-1928- edited b 0erbert Ba er, Walter Gropius, and Ise Gropius, 127# Boston5 )harles %# Banford )o!pan , 1969# Broue, .ierre# The +erman &e olution: 191/-1920- %ranslated b ?ohn &rcher# 'eiden5 Brill, 2CC6# :agleton, %err # The Ideology of the Aesthetic- ,4ford5 Basil Blac"well, 199C# (orgacs, :va# The Bauhause Idea and Bauhaus $olitics- %ranslated b ?ohn Bat"i# Budapest5 )entral :uropean Jniversit .ress, 1996# (ransiscono, @arcel# Walter +ro!ius and the creation of the Bauhaus in Weimar: The ideals and artistic theories of its founding years- Jrbana5 Jniversit of Illinois .ress, 19D1# Gropius, Walter# %he (irst .rocla!ation of the Wei!ar Bauhaus$ Bauhaus 1919-1928- edited b 0erbert Ba er, Walter Gropius, and Ise Gropius, 2C829# Boston5 )harles %# Banford )o!pan , 1969# Gropius, Walter# %he (irst .rocla!ation of the Wei!ar Bauhaus$ in Bauhaus 1919-1928- edited b 0erbert Ba er, Walter Gropius, and Ise Gropius, 17 Boston5 )harles %# Banford )o!pan , 1969# 'eslie, :sther# Walter Benjamin: O er!o"ering #onformism- 'ondon5 .luto .ress, 2CCC# @orris, Willia!s# &rt Jnder .lutocrac $ in $olitical Writings of William %orris- :dited b &#'# @orton# >ew Kor"5 International .ublishers, 19D<# %ho!pson, :#.# William %orris: &omantic to &e olutionary- 1st &!erican edition# >ew Kor"5 .antheon Boo"s, 19DD#

11

I!ages5 2igure 1: %arcel Breuer1 #hair 3B0041 192/-28 02 15617 , 19 5617 , 25 0688 .ource: The collection of The %euseum of %odern Art

2igure 2: Bauhaus Auditorium1 chairs (y %arce Breuer- 1927*ource: Bauhaus 1919-1928- edited b 0erbert Ba er et al# 2igure 0: A Bauhaus %o ie lasting fi e years *ource5 Bauhaus 1919-1928- edited b 0erbert Ba er

12