sorry, it's from Bauhaus to Our House. (by Tom Wolfe)

Hitler was right, Bauhaus sucks, I would like to read the book.

Not exactly the response I was hoping for.
Wolfe starts off comparing it to the Vienna Secession, how they both had their own singular building, which was the center for the "compound" out of which all the rules and ideas came from.

His main critique is that it became so important and so highly regarded that an attempt at anything else was considered "bourgeois", and almost even spiritually wrong. (The book makes many religious references.) Another main point is how clients didn't ever actually like the designs they were paying for, but kept paying for them anyways, allowing the designers/architects to dictate to them what was good and bad.

It deals mostly with architecture, rather than type or any other art, but certainly the applications can be made. It talks about how even Philip Johnson used to like to be called "Mies van der Johnson" and that even the architects who realized the flaw of everything looking "bauhaus" had to become part of the system in order to be taken seriously and still move away from it (Robert Venturi.)

It has a really striking picure that I hadn't seen before of one section of Yale (a museum I think) which was done in gothic revival, next to an addition in bauhaus style, and it looks rather pathethic, even though it is "simple" and "clean" which is still how people like to describe "good" design, and think that if they say, "this is good because it is simple" that they are automatically justified.
And here's a random thought; I really hope the new WTC design isn't just another "glass box" but is instead something really creative. If we keep rebuilding mimics of the past we aren't really making much progress. (Maybe this relates to redoing old typefaces?)
Anyhow, good book. Would like to read others like it.

Hitler was right, Bauhaus sucks.

http://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/extrat/kaupunki/puretuttalot/puretuttalot.asp

I agree with Wolfe that the Bauhaus had mainly a disasterous influence in architecture. But in typography I think it has more of a mixed legacy - some good, some bad.

Gerald what else sucks, all people who don't think like you do? Don't be so harsh, paint with a smaller brush. My mother use to say to me "Its all about taste, and your taste stinks". It kept me aware that there are other opinions, and oh yes tastes.

Dan,

If you like Bauhaus! I would have to agree with your mother.

What is good about Bauhaus. Maybe you could show me here?

http://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/extrat/kaupunki/puretuttalot/puretuttalot.asp

Besides Dan, I don't tell people how to think. I just tell them what I think of what they think!

And, William I can't find anything in typography that Bauhaus has offered that I can't live without. The grand master of Bauhaus returned to traditional typography in his later days and denounced his previous works. I am not clear on whether that was ever published. I was privileged to a clear headed lengthy monologue by Hans Schmoller who worked for Penguin after Jan Tschichold.

Hans was a pretty interesting typographer in his own right. Certainly took a different approach than I. The results sometimes similar. As in good, real good.

By the way, most people pronounce Tschichold wrong. I don't.

http://www.lanstontype.com/EndPapers.html

"Hitler was right...." -

what is that??? where is the moderator??? there is no red line???




David Hamuel

David,

I am just speaking about Bauhaus. http://www.mindspring.com/~cliofilm/bauhaus/main1.htm

So don't take any particular offence. I think Hitler was more than a despicable creature. Also, my views about genocide are well posted. The very reason I criticize Israel about their treatment of the Palestinians are for the very same reasons I am critical of the German treatment of the Jews in the period of the last world war. I am against racism, violent racism even more so. Do you have a problem with that? I believe that Nazi's and the present Jewish politicians are anything but beyond criticism. Sorry for the reality, believe me.

But it is impossible to live an entire life never doing anything right. So you must learn to give credit when earned. Even Hitler.

But my comment has nothing to do with my opinions on those matters.

I like to quote myself, "Even stopped clocks are right twice a day." On this time of day Hitler was right, Bauhaus sucks.

Brian:
> It has a really striking picure that I hadn't seen before of one section of Yale (a
> museum I think)

Do you mean, The Yale Center For British Art, by Louis Kahn? If so...

> which was done in gothic revival, next to an addition in
> bauhaus style, and it looks rather pathethic, even though it is "simple" and
> "clean" which is still how people like to describe "good" design, and think that if
> they say, "this is good because it is simple" that they are automatically justified.

Well, I've never been there, and I agree that this kind of 'automatic' link 'simple=good' is wrong. But this building designed by Kahn is certainly not 'pathetic'. IIRC, it has some great (complex) ceiling devices for natural lighting (it's a museum) in the intern spaces. The building is only apparently simple. And Kahn is far from the Bauhaus style, he was not a 'modernist'.

> If we keep rebuilding mimics of the past we aren't really making much progress.

Of course, completely agreed. (But then, what to say about 'post-modern' architecture? Robert Venturi? 'Learning from Las Vegas?' ;-)



William:
> I agree with Wolfe that the Bauhaus had mainly a disasterous influence in architecture.

I'm sorry, I don't recall reading this book by Wolfe. But anyway, I can't agree with this. The modern architecture (including the Bauhaus) represents a new way of understanding and organizing space. Which doesn't mean it didn't have its (big) problems... And it was not easy for me to understand the great contributions of modern architecture (I went to architecture school). This book, a collection of articles written by Colin Rowe, helped me understanding many questions, but I'm afraid it's a bit too 'heavy'/'academic' for non-starters.

> But in typography I think it has more of a mixed legacy - some good, some bad.

OK, I think I agree.
In any case, let me clarify this: Bauhaus architecture was one thing, Bauhaus typography was another. The contributions of Bauhaus to architecture are mostly exclusively related to architeture. And, FWIW, I think Bauhaus was more important to architecture than to typography...



Gerald:
> I don't tell people how to think. I just tell them what I think of what they think!

Sounds OK to me.

> Hitler was right, Bauhaus sucks.

Hmmm.
Anyway, this is interesting... Just a thought... What would've happened if Bauhaus continued to exist in Germany? I mean, because of the end of Bauhaus, those guys had to move to USA. And this was an important factor to the rising of the 'International Style', as we know it...

Hey Eduardo, you haven�t wasted your time as an architecture
student � sehr gut! The �international style� was the co-optation
of the principles � or merely the forms � of the European modern
movement, which originally was associated mainly with socialist
and utopic ideals, by American capitalism and Big Business.
Blame it on Mies! ; )

�mainly a disasterous influence in architecture�.

I recommend that you all read the essay by Tom�s Maldonado,
�Modern architecture and its critics� (in Three American Lectures),
where he shows how simplistic and false are the assumptions
at the root of most of the typical criticisms of modern architecture.

Rodolfo

Which example here do you like?

http://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/extrat/kaupunki/puretuttalot/puretuttalot.asp

Gerald. Too many thumbnails there. I won�t be clicking all of
them. Of the examples of old buildings replaced by �modernist�
ones there, I�d say that in some cases I prefer the older building,
in other cases I prefer the new one. When one thinks of buildings
in an urban context, context matters � I�m not sure I�d love to
see a glass box in the midst of Piazza Navona (yet I do like Pei�s
pyramid). Some times visual unity is what matters, some times
contrast is more interesting.

Rodolfo

You are more forgiving then the Bauhausians.

Where do you stand on serifs?

The biggest problem with 'Bauhaus' typography (and note that the biggest proponent of asymetric typography, Tschichold, was not involved with the Bauhaus) is that it is very hard to do well. Tschichold could do it well, and could also do classical typography well, and his realisation was that in the latter it was easier for the average craftsman to achieve an attractive result. Only a handful of people produced really good modernist typography: more of it was sterile. I suspect that the same is true of architecture, although in that field one should take into account materials and building techniques as well as aesthetics when one talks about what constitutes modern.

Pyramids have been around a long time, think Aztec, think Mid East.

http://home.globalcrossing.net/~kjohnson/

Now if the chap built his pyramid out of stone rather than glass he would certainly have something of great puzzling influence.

Glass buildings have also been around along time. There are beautiful glass railway stations in Hamburg for instance. Pei�s pyramid is interesting, but mudhif on the Eurphrates is more interesting. Mind you, the native Marsh people of the Nile were a good deal more cultured than Walter Gropius.

I thought we got over the "western pyramid cult" in the seventies. You weren't one of those guys who slept under one I hope.

Pei�s pyramid seems like an expensive way to keep out the rain. Not to mention heat prostration in the summer and a really big chill in winters. Think terrorist target. Remind me to avoid that place. Frightening! Form and function, oh yeah! In any event one must not get stuck on one single example that may or may not have merits, exceptions only prove the rule.

And this is the rule.

http://craton.geol.BrockU.CA/guest/jurgen/bau1.htm

So what are the merits of this nauseous beauty. Zero! Get my point. I have a conspiricy theory. Bayer was shareholder and of the same family that makes Bayer Aspirin. That Bauhaus was concocted by the advertising world to sell headache pills. Remember the old adds. Thump, thump, thump!

Eat too many of those and your serifs will go away!

John,

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568980841/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-2033747-3526428#reader-page

This book alludes to the fact that Tschichold was inspired by the Bauhaus. But it is true they followed him, more than he, them. I am not aware if he paid his club membership fees.

Your theory of his reasons for returning to classical typography conflict with mine however. Do you have source on that. I am very interested in him and his works. Also, as you know, Tschichold and I had a mutual friend.

John,

The biggest problem with 'Bauhaus' typography...

The discussion would be more fruitful if people took
the trouble to define what they mean by �Bauhaus
typography�. By your use of quotes I believe you�re
quite aware that the most characteristically modern
typography � the so-called �Swiss school�, for instance
� has little to do with the Bauhaus, and is even, in
some senses, opposed to it.

Gerald,

You weren't one of those guys who slept under one I
hope.

I still do.

Rodolfo:

Besides young Tschichold's common influence, it
was clear to me that the Swiss school had little
to do with the Bauhaus. But I have to tell you
it's the first time I've heard they're opposed,
even in some senses

Could you explain that?

Rodolfo, thanks for the book suggestion! I need something to determine how much weight to put on Wolfe's comments. His arguments seem correct, but he himself seems to poke fun at his own off-centered viewpoints.
GG, one of your links had a picture of the book in it. (don't know if you've read the book.)


I'm not saying I don't like Kahn or the Bauhaus overall. In fact, Paul Klee has been my favorite artist for quite some time, and I like what Peter Behrens for example did with sans, but mainly just because of when he did it.

After looking through several sites, it seems to me that Kahn's work does highly resemble the Bauhaus, even though he had a lot of spoken ideas that were different. This is another point the book was making...tons of ideas were going around, but everything still looked the same. Kahn talks about how going back to the beginning is where all the excitement is. If this isn't Bauhaus... I mean, that's straight from the mouth of Gropius. (O white god!)

kahn info (click the blue links on this page)
and
more kahn info (I apologize in advance for the massive amount of red you are about to see.)

I like many of Kahn's aspirations, particularly regarding artificial & natural light. But about other things I'm not sure: "Beauty was not within his immediate concerns." This is especially confusing when, for example, here it talks about Kahn saying how beautiful columns are, but his addition doesn't have any columns, does it? (maybe it does on the inside?) It's just a wall, with lines, that supposedly reveals the structure of the original. His connections between columns and bringing in light and dividing spaces is pretty brilliant though, and I see how the inside brings in light. But still confused on the outside.

It seems that Kahn's addition could have better related to its context. The context is an entire campus built in gothic revival. How does the International style fit in here? I'm not saying that it can't.. at this point I'm still asking questions, because it's not immediately obvious.

If he would have said that the building was about contrast, I might at least see where he was coming from. But he says his building "revealed the structure" of the gothic one next door... I need to see how. Is putting something plain (possibly boring) next to something exciting revealing the structure of anything? The book does mention that the interior made use of some clever innovations. [pic of the lighting] That's really nice! Except, still, I don't see how it relates to gothic architecture. Another museum he did used long vaults (long hallways were an international style thing) and I see how that relates, but that was in texas, and later on.

One more link:
Kahn summary
A quote from Kahn on this page...
"A museum seems like a secondary thing, unless it is a great treasury. A treasury, a guarded love for your source. Oh, what a place that would be! Not just an accumulation crowded together. You go through halls and halls and halls. The Museum of Cairo is a confined building that looks more like a storage house than it does a museum."

which is this:

>The modern architecture (including the Bauhaus) represents a new way of understanding and organizing space.

I am willing to accept from you, Eduardo, that there is a lot to be learned from the experiments of the Bauhaus. My experience is that their actual buildings, though, are emotionally cold and inhospitable. Tom Wolfe's book, which this thread started with, argues that the Bauhaus people where so good at convincing people of their superior taste that they paid for buildings that very few people liked, and many detested.

In the US, when the Bauhaus influence started waning - I guess by the end of the 70's - new buildings started looking a lot better. To me the Bauhaus is a period of bad taste and bad buildings, and kind of inverse Victorianism, which I also dislike.

I haven't studied the history, either in architecture or typography, but of course we are surrounded by the stuff in one way or another. I not infrequently see some very spare, bare bones typography looking good, but very rarely architecture.

The use of Sans serif titling faces with serif text faces is I am guessing an indirect legacy of Bauhaus, and it often works well.

sans rule, serifs drool.

Besides young Tschichold�s common influence, it
was clear to me that the Swiss school had little
to do with the Bauhaus. But I have to tell you
it�s the first time I�ve heard they�re opposed,
even in some senses :-)

Could you explain that?


Hugo, first let me try to explain what may be misleading in what
I wrote: not �opposed to the Bauhaus�, but, in some senses, to
Bauhaus typography. And when I mentioned �Swiss typography�
(a term almost as loaded as �international style�...) was as a
conspicuous example of a more general spirit. The �Swiss school�
itself, BTW, was not monolithic (one of the things Maldonado advises
against is the monolithical assessment of modern architecture,
and we should take the same care when talking about typography).

To answer you, let me quote one of the leaders of the modernists
of the fifties, Max Bill [ from a �dialogue� of texts that happened
in 1946: Bill, in his �On typography�, attacked Tschichold for his
ideological about-face, Tschichold then responded with his �Glaube
und Wirklichkeit� (�Faith and reality�). Both texts are fundamental,
and, even though I side with Bill ; ) I recognize that Tschichold�s
is brilliant. ] Anyway, on to Bill. He attacked the modernists of the
twenties and thirties, Bauhausians also, for, among other things,

�that which constituted fashionable accessories: the thick rules,
the fillets, the huge bullets, the overdimensioned folios, and other
such attributes [...] all these elements are useless and superfluous
when the disposition itself is correctly organized, when the groups
of words are placed in just relations of proportion.� (sorry if this
sounds convoluted � I�m freely translating from a French translation
of the German original).

And I add: for justified composition (the Bauhausians didn�t do
unjustified setting): the �perfect rectangle� was seen as an
inheritance from the old typography, and a purely formalist device,
since it goes against the natural, organic spacing of letters and
words.

In a nutshell: the Bauhausians were seen as formalists by the
later modernists, who saw themselves as functionalists. The same
reasoning used for typography can be applied to type design: while
one can easily (but not very accurately) associate the Bauhaus with
Paul Renner�s Futura, or (somewhat more correctly) with Bayer�s
and Joost Schmidt�s experiments, the geometrical sanses were
rejected by the later modernists as formalist, �artistic� letterforms.
They would prefer the anonymous �jobbing� grotesks of the late
19th century. And while Emil Ruder, for instance, saw the release
of Univers almost as a holy grail of typography � a grotesk with
high design qualities �, there were still those who would regard
it as being too �authored�.

Hope that helps.

Thanks a lot for those references. I'm very
curious about the books you read that stuff.

Everything I've read from Max Bill until now is
related to Architecture and Concrete Art.

I'm planning to spend a few bucks on his book
"Typography, Advertising, Book Design". It's
a bit expensive so I hope it's worth buying...

BTW I think I've heard Wollner saying that
"Futura is not a font, it's a sculpture
of a font".

Your theory of his reasons for returning to classical typography conflict with mine however. Do you have source on that. I am very interested in him and his works. Also, as you know, Tschichold and I had a mutual friend.

In what I've read of Tschichold's own writing, he never rejects asymetric typography; rather, he rejects his early ideological insistence on asymetric typography, and acknowledges that both asymetric and classical typography have their place, with the latter being most appropriate for books. I think it is important to look at the kind of material Tschichold was designing at different points in his career, and that the move to classical typography coincides with a move from advertising and what we would now call 'identity' design (e.g. stationery) to book design -- and book design of a specific kind: predominantly literary texts in octavo format.

I have an interesting German book that combines Tschichold's writings -- illustrated with samples of his work -- from both halves of his career. Most English language publications, excepting Ruari Maclean's not very good biography, deal with either his asymetric typography or his classical book design, as determined by the interest/bias of the translator or publisher. The German book is better, I think, because it conveys the consistency of Tschichold's attention to detail and quality, and makes one realise how this, not apparently opposing styles, is really key to understanding what Tschichold was about. In his early career, he developed asymetric typography to a very high level, and wrote books urging other typographers to follow suit. In his later career, he applied exactly the same level of quality to classical typography, and wrote what amount to style guides that would enable other typographers to achieve pleasing results. This is why I think the relative ease of achieving such results in the classical style, compared the more difficult task of achieving beauty in asymetric typography, was an important factor in Tschichold's volte face, especially as it is expressed in pedagogical efforts such as the essays in The form of the book. The fact that he developed his classical book design techniques in the context of the Penguin publishing programme is also interesting, and suggests a context in which mass-production of attractive typography, achievable by designers and printers following style guides, would become preferable to more difficult works requiring individual genius of the kind Tschichold himself had demonstrated in his early career.

John,

Although I misunderstood your original post I am thankful that I did. Your effort has not been wasted on me.

I have been exposed to Tschichold from different directions. Not only Hans Schmoller but also Nick Schwabe. Nick was the master Swiss printer that gave me his book. The one we had talked about where the Church developed a peculiar habit of beheading people like me.

Nick belongs to the famous Schwabe printing family. He was a shareholder of the Schwabe publishing firm responsible for printing many books Tschichold designed, and some of which, he wrote. I would guess you will find Schwabe, the firm, indexed in books about Tschichold.

http://www.lanstontype.com/PrivatePress.html

Most remarkable is how different Tschichold is described by different tradesmen within the same industry.

Hans Schmoller of Penguin was an interesting designer himself but for that matter so was Nick Schwabe. Nick's work was decidedly Swiss Style. But once in a while Nick would express his classical typography. He was good. Also Nick was certainly the finest pressman I have ever had the pleasure to work with.

I am telling you about Nick because I have no reason to believe he has passed away and probably still lives in British Columbia.

But I have a little story about Swiss training. Nick taught me how to set type. Part of which is, sadly I report, distributing types correctly back into their case.

Certainly this is not the end of the story but it is as far as I dare tell.

If you value your life you will not ask Nick the end of my story of how hand setting types was taught in Switzerland.

Morality aside, it worked very well. I got pretty good at it.

Gerald,

That is not fair. First you offer us some candy
and then take it away.

Don't be shy.

Hugo,

Does Brazil welcome wayward printers into their country? Pemanent like!

How is that for not shy?

Gerald,

I guess every printer in Brazil is kind of
disobedient, in the worst sense. Maybe that
happens because here it's too hot to stay in
the workshop while one can lay on the beach.

What about visiting and giving us a try?

Anyway, I'm still curious about your swiss
typesetting training course. At least you hadn't
a sunny day tempting you there.

Rodolfo:
> Blame it on Mies! ; )

He designed some awful buildings, yes, but he was a great architect anyway. Some of his projects have amazing subtleties. I'd blame Philip Johnson instead.


John:
> it is very hard to do well. [...]
> I suspect that the same is true of architecture, [...]

I think you're right.


Brian:
> it seems to me that Kahn's work does highly
> resemble the Bauhaus

I don't think Kahn's buildings look like Bauhaus. Kahn was more sensible and subtle than the Bauhausians. See the materials, for example.

> even though he had a lot of spoken ideas that
> were different. This is another point the book
> was making...tons of ideas were going around,
> but everything still looked the same.

Good point. I must say, the greatest architects were usually pretty bad at expressing themselves through words. :-(

> It seems that Kahn's addition could have better
> related to its context. The context is an entire
> campus built in gothic revival. How does the
> International style fit in here? I'm not saying
> that it can't.. at this point I'm still asking
> questions, because it's not immediately obvious.

Very good question.

> But he says his building "revealed the structure"
> of the gothic one next door... I need to see
> how. Is putting something plain (possibly
> boring) next to something exciting revealing the
> structure of anything?

Those horizontal lines in the facade correspond to the floors of the old building (which match the floors of his new building too). Kahn's addition also has the same height of the old building. Maybe these 'tricks' don't 'reveal' anything, but anyway, he was able to create some subtle visual links between the two parts.


William:
> My experience is that their actual buildings,
> though, are emotionally cold and inhospitable.

I understand. And if you were talking about the post-Bauhaus 'International Style', I'd have to agree with you.

> Tom Wolfe's book, which this thread started
> with, argues that the Bauhaus people where so
> good at convincing people of their superior
> taste that they paid for buildings that very few
> people liked, and many detested.

Ok, this might have been true, but after the end of Bauhaus, the 'glass-and-steel-box' style became popular, the big companies wanted it. This is what we usually call 'International Style' in architecture. This 'International Style' borrowed the superficial look of the modern architecture, but the great spatial explorations of the modernism were left behind.

I went to the library today and found Wolfe's book. I gave it a quick glance, and noticed he says good things about Johnson's project for AT&T. To me, this building is 'International Style' too. It's another 'cold glass-box', with a fancy thing at the top...

I don't know how they deal with disobedient printers in Switzerland or Brazil, but this taken from Savage's A dictionary of the art of printing, London 1841:

Every chapel [a kind of local guild of typesetters and printers working together in a single printing office] is haunted by an imaginary spirit, named Ralph; and when any person refuses to obey it's mandates, this spirit begins to walk as it is termed. The first act is, in general, to hide the offender's composing stick; if this does not answer, his galleys are secreted; then the page cords, which secure his work, are cut, and his labour rendered more than useless, because he has to distribute his pie [spilled type] as well as recompose his matter; if he still remains contumacious, the whole of the types in his case are transposed, so that he cannot proceed in his business; and if he should still set the chapel at defiance, he is smoked, all the members of the chapel surrounding his frame; each with a lighted match of brimstone, and singing a doleful ditty...

And from Moxon's Mechanick Exercises, 1683:

...and the Penalty for the breach of any of these Laws and Customs is in Printers Language called a Solace. ... But if the Delinquent prov'd Obstinate or Refractory, and would not pay his Solace at the Price of the Chappel, they Solac'd him. The manner of Solacing, thus. The Workmen take him by force, and lay him on his Belly athwart the Correcting-stone, and held him there while another of the Work-men with a Paper-board, gave him 10l. and a purse, viz. Eleven blows on his Buttocks; which he laid according to his own mercy. For Tradition tells us, that about 50 years ago was one Solaced with so much violence, that he presently Pissed Blood; and shortly after dyed of it.

To further address the 'What has Bauhaus done for me?' discussion:

I've always been partial to Johannes Itten's The Art of Color. Now, I can't say that I'm 100% in line with his ideas, but he certainly contributed positively to the world of visual expression. And, as it's been pointed out, most everyone has contributed something positive in their lives. And what can replace the entertainment of seeing Bauhaus (the font) pop up in the weirdest places?

John,

That is definately better that any self-imposing
functionalist doutrine.

I hope someone could find Jakob Nielsen's
usability articles in the future and understand
him as Ralph's grandson.

> Blame it on Mies! ; )
He designed some awful buildings, yes, but he was a great
architect anyway.

Eduardo, lest I be misinterpreted, let me say that I think
Mies was one of the greatest, of course. And I don�t remember
those �awful� buildings by him ... well, I�m not an architect
anyway.

In any case, I was talking about ideology, rather than
architecture.

Hugo,

Thanks a lot for those references. I'm very
curious about the books you read that stuff.

These two texts in particular I�ve read from a copy of RSI
(Revue Suisse de l�Imprimerie), the French section of TM.

I'm planning to spend a few bucks on his book
"Typography, Advertising, Book Design". It's
a bit expensive so I hope it's worth buying..

In http://youworkforthem.com/product.php?sku=P0016
you can see reproductions of some pages from it � maybe
you could check whether it will be to your taste.

John,

Thank for supporting my theory that the Church suffers from "improper potty training".

Been to Boston lately?

Spank me!

In any event,

Bauhausians, nutusians.

1) "destruction of the old representational image in order to achieve new experiences, a new wealth of optical expression." DESTRUCTION!

2.) Bayer disliked the use of serifs. What radical new thought would that be? Cough, cough.

Admittedly there are no serifs but there is two alphabets. He's a liar, liar pants on fire. This will make you wish you were blind http://www.p22.com/products/bauhaus.html

3.) Read Bayer's typographical inanity link!
http://people.ucsc.edu/~gflores/bauhaus/type.html
Pay special attention to his discussion of one alphabet and look back you will count two alphabets.
http://www.p22.com/products/bauhaus.html

Where was the Church when we needed them? Hitler was right, Bayer was a liar, liar pants on fire and Bauhaus sucks.

By the way, I find Pei�s pyramid interesting but it is not Bauhaus.

Gerald, the printers' 'chapel' had nothing to do with the Church: it was a self-regulating body set up by printers working together. The name is probably a reference to 'sitting in chapel', i.e. coming together as a group.

The printer's chapel does "not" have anything to do with the Church, not directly at least. There were strange industry culthood rituals that ran amuck. Printers' devils are probably losing their status. I made a great little devil.

Frankly I enjoyed the paper stretcher. Was that ever a great prank. I remember hauling that thing to Cambie by bus from Victoria Street. What an idiot.

But keep in mind all printer's initiations and pranks were not funny. Few in fact.

I am surprised more people don't read about the trade. I am glad you do.

Hi Brian

I too very much like Bauhaus-inspired architecture, but I also loved Tom Wolfe's book. It's a really fascinating and well-developed argument.

Another book you may like is Prince Charles'
"A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture." Here's a couple of lines I got off Amazon's website about it: "The Prince's central point is that modern architecture has lost sight of its surroundings. Rather than creating structures that harmonize with their location, using local materials and respecting the history of the site, many modern buildings seem determined to draw attention to themselves -- or rather, to their architects. Like any art, architecture is a matter of taste. But while you can hide a bad statue or painting, an ugly building is a blot on the landscape that's darn hard to avoid."

I read this book way back when it was published -- I think in the mid 1980s. It caused quite a stir at the time, but now his argument seems pretty sensible. The book also includes some fairly decent drawings by the prince himself.

Troy