Health &
Habitat
THE GOETHEANUM
The unheard "house of speech"
​
Jean-Marie Gobet
Art is not desecrated by our
carryings-on. It does not
lose sight of its own origins
because of them. And each
time and in each mode of use
it sheds on us a portion of
its secret inner light.
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.. 3
THE CONCEPTION.. 4
RUDOLF STEINER, A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY.. 4
ANTHROPOSOPHICAL VIEW OF ARTS.. 4
THE BIRTH.. 7
THE BUILDING.. 7
THE MATERIAL. 8
THE BUILDERS.. 10
THE REACTIONS.. 11
THE MISINTERPRETATION OF ITS MEANING IN ARCHITECTURE LITERATURE.. 11
ITS INFLUENCE ON XXth CENTURY ARCHITECTURE.. 14
CONCLUSION.. 16
BIBLIOGRAPHY.. 18
INTRODUCTION
Shaking away the materialistic chains of the 19h century was one of the driving forces of change in the art world of the beginning of the 20th century, and one of the leading figures of this spiritual movement was Rudolf Steiner. He seems to have been the unrecognised shadow of most of those people who were standing in the light of History, people like W. Kandinsky Piet Mondrian, Frank L. Wright, Le Corbusier and countless others have been strongly influenced by his philosophy his lectures and his buildings, have benefited from them and have even brought forward the materialization of their deepest meaning.
Rudolf Steiner is considered by many to have been the Leonardo da Vinci of our century and, as the awareness of his works slowly unfolds, appears the relevance of his teachings.
He is seen by W. Pehnt as "a charismatic figure, the sort of man who in an earlier age would have been a saint or the founder of a religious order".[1]
Apart from being a doctor in philosophy, a natural scientist and a biologist, R. Steiner's field of knowledge and interest was exceptionally wide. He was an educator, author, dramaturgist, sculptor, painter, mathematician and philologist. He was also involved in agriculture, medicine, astronomy and architecture. Though R. Steiner had no professional training, as an architect he showed an exceptionally intuitive talent. He exposed his views on architecture through conferences given on the site of the first Goetheanum and edited into a book entitled "Towards a new style in architecture".
As the founder of the Anthroposophical Society R. Steiner wanted to house the society in an edifice which would promote the state of mind necessary to receive spiritual teachings, as well as to display these spiritual concepts within its forms. The first of these buildings called "the Goetheanum", as an acknowledgement of R. Steiner's admiration for Goethe's works was built entirely out of wood on a reinforced concrete podium: it was unfortunately destroyed by fire in 1922. The building now standing in its stead was started in 1924 and, though not completed, was officially opened in 1928. For the last 100 years it has been generally avoided by the spotlights of the world scene of architecture. It is a wonder that R. Steiner, this figure of great importance has been either misunderstood or ignored by most, though we could see this as just another symptom of his genius. This essay proposes to explain the meaning and the purpose of the Goetheanum II through the writings of R. Steiner and the anthroposophist literature.
THE CONCEPTION
RUDOLF STEINER, A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY
R. Steiner was born the 27th of February 1861 in Kraljevec, a small town on the border of Hungary and Croatia. His father, Johannes Steiner, Austrian by birth was working there as a telegraphist in the railroad station. Later the family moved to Modling near Vienna and then to Pottschach where R. Steiner was to spend his early schooling years. Being very bright, his teachers encouraged R. Steiner's father to provide his son with a higher education, he was then sent to Wiener-Neustadt technical college. In 1879 Johannes Steiner was promised a post in Inzerdorf so that his son could attend the lectures of the Polytechniques School of Vienna. There, R. Steiner studied mathematics, biology, chemistry while studying at the same time, German literature and philosophy at the University of Vienna. In Rostock, in 1891 he submitted his thesis, "Essay of an explanation of the human consciousness with itself", to Heinrich Von Stein the author of "Seven books on Platonism" which R. Steiner had read and very much admired. R. Steiner explained in his autobiography, how since his early years "the reality of the spiritual world was as much a certainty as the sensible world. However (he) needed to justify somehow this way to Look at the world".[1] He wanted to show to himself that these experiences were as real as the sensible world. Being raised in a very traditionalist environment, he never divulged his secret to anyone until he was an adult, and then his highly scientific training at the Vienna Polytechnique School gave him the ability to translate spiritual experiences into a clear philosophy.
He was later called to Weimar to manage and edit the archives of Goethe's scientific works, of which he already had a good knowledge. He was particularly interested in Goethe's work on light and biology. Weimar was at the end of the 20th century, a capital and a thriving artistic centre: R. Steiner shared in the wealth of new ideas from philosophy to music and literature, as well as being an active participant himself. He was the editor of the "Literary review".
During this period of his life R. Steiner was living an interior conflict, until then he avoided sharing his spiritual experiences: but as he wrote "Given the conformation of my interior life, I had to resign myself to introduce a new tune in my exterior activity. The forces which determined My exterior destiny could not anymore, as in the past, attune themselves with the interior orientations coming from My experiences in the spiritual field".[2] R. Steiner exposed his ideas in many conferences and articles. In 1902 he accepted to be the secretary of the. German branch of the Theosophical Society. Even though R. Steiner was a member of the Theosophical Society, he never felt himself to be a Theosophist as such he explained; "This. common culture of the spiritual life could be the only central point from which we could radiate Anthroposophy, using in the beginning the infrastructure offered by the Theosophical Society". [3] He was brought into the movement by the attraction towards an audience ready to understand his own insight into the spiritual world. His foundation of the Anthroposophical Society was not as much a secession date to a disagreement with the Theosophical Society as a concretisation of R. Steiner’s wish to have a movement integrating arts and education into his spiritual message. It must be specified that even though he expressed himself for 12 years within the Theosophical Society, R. Steiner had never ceased to give a Christic teaching independent of the oriental tendencies which prevailed in the Theosophical Society. R. Steiner died the 5th of April 1925 in Dornach, in the north of Switzerland, where he had been living since 1913 when the construction of the first Goetheanum started.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​ Rudolf Steiner
​
ANTHROPOSOPHICAL VIEW OF ARTS
To the public's numerous questions about the forms of the Goetheanum, and the difficulty of understanding them R. Steiner would answer "Do you think that those who never heard about Christianism would understand Raphael's Sixtine Madona" ... "The Arts have always sprung from the spiritual experience of the world, lived internally".[4]
The Goetheanum is the materialization of Anthroposophical principles, it is thus necessary to possess a minimum knowledge of these principles to understand the meaning and purpose of this architecture. To make all the following explanations about the Anthroposophical views on art unequivocal and to set them in the right context, it might be better to start with R. Steiner's conclusion to his book "The mission of the arts", he wrote, "Anthroposophy would like to find the way to the Spirit in the artistic field. and in each subject tries to develop the right element, Anthroposophy does not try to theorise on the subject of the arts, the arts i.e. not a theory; and searches for a way of life in artistic sensitivity even in the process of teaching it.
Such an orientation does not only lead to lectures about art but to a real enjoyment of the artistic creation".[5] The anthroposophist sees the arts as bringing down to earth the divine spirituality and also elevating the material forms towards the spiritual, "What is justified in art is what, in anyway, surpass the natural". R. Steiner strongly stated during the construction of the first Goetheanum that "What in the plastic arts deserves the name of Art has nothing to do with the imitation of Nature. everything borrowed from nature is secondary, accessory". Also, "any naturalistic sense is at the antipodes of the real artistical sense".[6] R. Steiner did not want to associate art with the idea of sentimentalism or intellectualism but with the union of all the man’s qualities and attributes, this integral approach enabled him to promote intuition as one of the main “tool" of the 20th century artist. According to R. Steiner the apogee of the art of imitation was reached with Michel Angelo and Raphael and everything since then has been a preparation towards an intuitive approach, "after having learned the automatisms, intuition is a sure guide".[7]
We are at a stage "where, in the field of the arts as in many others, the spirit is distinctly showing us new grounds to explore". To make alive abstract thoughts and concepts one must, like nature use art to express them; logic and ideas are dead and suffocate, the meaning under their contradicting weight. Contradicting because of the fact that with each exchange a concept is coloured by its new receiver with its own particular background. R. Steiner regretted the fact that, in contemporary occidental society, art is not regarded as having a vital importance and integrated in everyday life.
He wrote in "Towards a new style in architecture", "(Art is the manifestation of certain laws hidden in nature, which without it (art) could never be expressed) This saying from Goethe is absolutely obscure for our contemporary society, even though some believe that they understand it, because our age is obstinately attached to the most superficial natural laws, the most abstract to those resting on mathematics.
And one does not want to admit the existence of a deeper reality which would go beyond the Mathematical abstraction or what it represents. No wonder then that today has lost this living force of the soul without which there is no art, for which the structures of the universe are the substantial source where art must draw".[8]
R. Steiner stresses the importance of arts to counterbalance and fertilize sciences. He expanded on this subject in a conference given in May 1923. "A first", he said, "Art must be added to abstract knowledge to be able to establish a real universal knowledge ... this union of arts and sciences possesses within itself the religious feeling. This is what is attempted at the Goetheanum. And this is why friends ... from everywhere have asked that the name of Goetheanum be given to the edifice in Dornach because it is Goethe who said: "Who possesses science and art, possesses also religion: Who does not possess them Needs religion!"[9]
R. Steiner expanded on Goethe's studies on the nature of colours. "It is obvious" wrote Steiner "that forms by themselves are static; they remain motionless. But as soon as they are coloured, they come out of this state of rest with the interior movement of this colour; and this whirlpool of the universe, the whirlpool of the spirit takes possession of them. As soon as you colour a form you give it the life of what is "Soul" in the universe".[10] Many artists of that time showed much interest in R. Steiner's theory of colours and light. "Kandinsky read some of Steiner's books and heard some of his lectures and was clearly impressed. There is no doubt that the strong revival of interest in Goethe's theory of colour for instance is due largely to this contact between Kandinsky and Steiner."[11]
R. Steiner never wanted his ideas to become dogmas; he saw Anthroposophy as being "the living substance of our soul" and art as being "The direct expression of the spirit, not its abstract representation".[12]
It is difficult to articulate point by point the artistic principles of Anthroposophy, they are the manifestation of a way of life which involves intellectual understanding, faith and intuition.
RUDOLF STEINER, THE ARCHITECT
In “The Goetheanum" H. Biesantz wrote "A theory is not necessary to approach his (R. Steiner) architecture" as distinct from the modern movement for example, he goes on to write: "There is not such a thing as R. Steiner's aesthetics in the sense of a systematic proposition".[13] R. Steiner himself, repeated in his many conferences "Art must be lived, not thought" and he mostly wanted to inspire a process of creation rather than set standards to be followed; it would have been totally antagonistic to the anthroposophical ideals. At the root of these ideals were some of Goethe's theories concerning the organic world and the theory of metamorphosis which Steiner expanded in the Goetheanum. This theory assumes that there is no definite final shape, no beginning and no end, no seed and no fruit, but every organism is in perpetual state of change and contains within itself the forms it sprung from as well as the shapes to come.
R. Steiner's knowledge of the world of the arts and of architecture was-very wide. He travelled in Europe and visited the most important museums. Of that period, he wrote, "The study of the development of architecture was for me particularly important; the calm display of the genesis of the styles awoke in my soul feelings that I could later on transmit to the Goetheanum".[14] He was not an architect as we understand it today a specialist ordering tradesmen, he was himself a painter, a sculptor, a poet, a man of theatre and an architect.
"When man leaves this world, he sheds his physical body. As a soul, he expands in the forms of space and instinctive clairvoyance could not accept that this soul be sent back to cosmic space without being enveloped in the forms by which it wishes to be welcomed. To leave the soul to chaos would rip it apart; the soul's desires, when out of the body, spread in the universe according to regular shapes".[15] Thus R. Steiner defines the very beginning of architecture as the funerary architecture, the architecture of tombs and mausoleums. To see architecture from this point of view permits us to gain insight into the purpose of the Goetheanum. Architecture being the expression of the soul's expectations for its after life, it can be perceived in the Goetheanum that R. Steiner is proposing a new image for these expectations, an image more in touch with nature and the universe.
About contemporary architecture R. Steiner wrote "I can think of many recent constructions in which the architects have displayed their genius. Some which do not present any new style, in which no spiritual seed has been thrown, are nevertheless bright architectural creations. But they carry a common characteristic; one can admire them outside one can find them beautiful insider - one does not feel enveloped as one feels enveloped by one's own sensorial organs. Why? Because these edifices are mute, because they do not speak".[16] R. Steiner, later, called the Goetheanum the "House of speech", where a man can vibrate in harmony with what is artistic in the construction. It is how the form of a building can speak of its function". The role of functionalism in the sense of the spirit is to find for each construction the particular form to which it corresponds".[17] R. Steiner's architectural message stresses the ties between the material and the spiritual, “The art of building and architecture are the projection in the exterior space of the human body’s order of laws".[18] But he also warned, “We must rediscover the way to the spirit without cultivating a dried-up symbolism or an abstract allegorism. Symbolism and allegorism are anti-artistic". [19]
THE BIRTH
​
THE BUILDING
The Goetheanum is not only the materialization of a spiritual message, it is also an attempt to realise the ideal of a "community of work" and the integration of different art forms, in one enterprise.
The site/ which overlooks Dornach, a Swiss village within 10 miles of both France and Germany, was offered to the Anthroposophical Society to build its spiritual centre.
Since the 1907 congress of the German branch of the Theosophical Society, when he set out to decorate the conference hall to enhance the spiritual atmosphere of the meeting, R. Steiner wanted to design a more permanent hall and theatre, he thus designed the "Johannesbau" which was to be erected in Munich but never received the building permit. He prepared the model for the first Goetheanum after having been offered a site in Dornach. The common characteristic of these projects was that they were all designed from the inside. When it was decided to rebuild the Goetheanum, R. Steiner wanted to show, on the exterior as well the qualities that he had previously developed for the interior. The forms were to reveal to the outside the will of Spiritual forces to the enemies as well as to the friends of Anthroposophy. And the reinforced concrete would hopefully avoid a repetition of the arson of 1922.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​First Goetheanum
​
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​The building comprises and auditorium seating 1000 persons and a great stage under which there is a smaller theatre for rehearsal and conferences. There are numerous offices, lecture theatres, a library and a bookshop; it is standing on an east west axis, the stage being oriented towards the west. "This 'simpler spiritual home'", as Steiner's wife called the new building, "is in actual fact one of the most magnificent pieces of sculptural architecture of the twentieth century. Its monumentality derives not from absolute dimensions but from the all-inclusive volumetric treatment of the building", wrote W. Pehnt in "Expressive architecture".[20]
As mentioned above, R. Steiner designed the second Goetheanum from the outside, he studied it and shaped it in a lump of reddish clay on which he worked feverishly for three days without any real pauses for rest, reports his personal physician. And just as R. Steiner saw man, nature, the spiritual world and sciences, as a whole, indivisible, he modelled this building to encompass all the activities in one shell. "In opposition to the prevailing doctrine of the twenties the most diverse functions are accommodated under one roof". [21] R. Steiner wished that "without sinning against the architectonic laws of mechanics, geometry, symmetry etc. the building forms should be translated into organic forms".[22] This approach had its shortcomings, some of the spatial relations are not very successful and some compromises had to be found as the interior planning was subjected to the design of the shell. However, W. Pehnt points out that "In the five decades of its existence this gigantic mass, with its many almost 'biological' openings, has developed a unique kind of flexibility based not upon the addition of further units, but upon the exploitation of what is already there, by the adaptation and conversion of existing rooms and left over spaces".[23]
Like a mountain, the Goetheanum changes its appearance in the infinite play of lights and shadows; from every point of view a new building is revealed, reminiscent of the whole but offering a new perception of its character. As the eye slowly, ascends its facade, an evolution of the forms used is perceived; from the angular, root like podium, a metamorphosis occurs within the structure of the walls. The shapes are still the same but become more flowing, less angular, less attached to the ground. Inside, the same phenomenon can be noticed. Also, the spaces could be expected to be cold and overbearing in an edifice of this size, they never make one feel diminished in any way: there is everywhere a sense of intimacy and peace with, at the same time, a call to adventure and discovery, not only of the building, but of oneself
​​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
THE MATERIAL
The second Goetheanum was the biggest reinforced concrete building of that period as well as a pioneer in the field.
The formwork was obviously very complex, and many new techniques had to be devised on the site. After the destruction of the first Goetheanum R. Steiner resolutely turned towards the future and proposed to build again in what he called the "material of the future" which could easily be moulded into desired shapes and had the added advantage of being less subject to fire damage than the first wooden edifice. R. Steiner's friend, the Basler Ernst Fiechter, then professor of architecture history in Stuttgart, formulated the anthroposophist theory of reinforced concrete. "Qualified as a "gruel like mass" the concrete is transmuted into a mineral by its reinforcing; it tends to be Monolithic. Its plastic nature makes it an organic agent”.[24]
The Anthroposophical Society commissioned the firm of engineers Leuprecht and Ebbell in Basel, and, recalls Ebbell, gave them great freedom in their work. Although the fortress like appearance of the Goetheanum might suggest a massive type of construction, the walls and roof are never more than 150mm thick and supported by trusses whose delicate calculations were done by Ernst Suter. R. Steiner was not inhibited by the fact that the building techniques associated with reinforced concrete were far from the level of complexity offered by the Goetheanum. However, he did not intend it to remain as it is the walls were meant to be coloured with the transparent organic pigments developed during the building of the first edifice, this is to be done, still. Although most people have grown used to the raw grey surfaces which have inspired many architects.
Talking about the possibilities of reinforced concrete R. Steiner said in 1923 “Concrete forms must be quite different. On the one hand much will have to be done to master this intractable material so that the eye of the human soul can follow its forms artistically. On the other hand, it will be necessary to create much that will appear to be decorative but in reality, arises from the substance of concrete itself in order to reveal just this material in an artistic light, through painting or sculpture.
I would ask you to consider this germinal thought, as he reality from which the Goetheanum should grow. I have urged that, as far as the artistic planning of the Goetheanum is concerned, I be allowed to work independently. It will not be possible to take much account of suggestions or advice drawn from other sources, such as have already been offered - naturally with the best of intentions. It will be no help to say to me, here or there buildings have been put up in concrete, here or there a factory functions rationally, etc.
If the Goetheanum is to be realised as a concrete structure, it must have an original conception, and everything achieved up to now in concrete construction offers in reality no basis for what should arise here".[25]
To understand the use of reinforced concrete at that time, a comparison can be made with the church of St Anthony is Basle.
Designed by Karl Moser, it stands less than 20km from Dornach and the work was carried out on both sites simultaneously, though the church of St Anthony was built between 1926 and 1927, a much shorter period than the time needed for the erection of the Goetheanum, even considering the fact that the church is much smaller. Karl Moser, defender of Le Corbusier's United Nations project and president of the C.I.A.M. during the first congress at La Sarraz, expresses certain plastic tendencies of the "new architecture".[26]
He planned the church of St Anthony for economy and optimum utilisation of the site. He determined a simple system of construction; the vault and the horizontal wings are built with caissons resting on slim columns and the exterior walls. Moser proceeded with combinations of cubic volumes.
THE BUILDERS
R. Steiner died in 1925 and the construction was achieved without him, however he left a model and many sketches as well as directives. He expressed his intentions concerning the second Goetheanum in January 1924, "What I would like to achieve is the following. In a similar way to that by which concrete will make its own demand on us, we have here a space roofed over by a series of descending planes, and these are experienced by the eyes as exerting a definite pressure. I would like to have this pressure, as far as the eye is concerned, taken up by the portal and the window surrounds. At the same time, I would like it to be apparent that inwardly, spiritually, we are dealing with something that receives us into a portal, or takes in the light as a window, in order to usher it into the inner space. By means of such forms, I would moreover, like it to be clear that the Goetheanum should be a kind of shelter for those who come here seeking the spiritual".[27]
R. Steiner was clearly the generator of the project, but at all times ideas were discussed with him, he relied on his co-workers creativity to feel their own way into the construction and enrich the edifice with their experience, he did not treat them as uncomprehending subordinates, “He had faith in a process of ripening. Thus, he did not intrude too soon nor unnecessarily into the process, but just at the right moment contributed a new design solution, a new impulse, in order to help things along."[28]
Ernst Aisenpreis, who had already worked on the first Goetheanum, was the architect in charge of the second Goetheanum, he led a team composed of Hermann Ranzenberger and Albert von Baravalle. There has been also a great contribution from non-architects, like the sculptors Carl Kemper and Oswald Dubach, and the painter Henny Geck who studied the grouping of the windows on the eastern wall of the stage block, the work was carried out according to his sketches.
The carpentry work involved in the building up of the formwork demanded a capacity of spatial visualisation above the ordinary, for this job Aisenpreis called on Heinrich Liedvogel, a master craftsman who had worked on the first Goetheanum.[29]
Rex Raab notes that "A major talent Of Arsenpreis, as architect in charge, showed itself in the skill with which he drew together a team of architects, engineers, sculptors and workmen who owed their artistic inspiration and activity to the creator of the Goetheanum; the completion of the building could be carried out in his spirit".[30]
The processus of construction has been recorded in detail in the books of Biesantz-Klingborg, "The Goetheanum" and Rex Raab’s “Eloquent Concrete".
​
THE REACTIONS
​
THE MISINTERPRETATION OF ITS MEANING IN ARCHITECTURE LITERATURE
Through the few articles concerned about the Goetheanum, rare in comparison of the abundant literature about the chapel of Ronchamp for example, one can see the image
of this building coming through, often distorted and misunderstood. Although some serious attempts have been made to document R. Steiner's architecture, many articles and comments show a lack of knowledge of his aims, philosophy and basic anthroposophical precepts.
Though Dennis Sharp readily admitted that "the expressionist work of R. Steiner defies normal critical evaluation"[31] most architects and critics judge the Goetheanum with their preconceived ideas, usually ideas inspired by the theories of the modern movement.
As with the Rorschach inkblot test (The inkblot test devised by the, Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach, the shape of the blot can serve as a stimulus for free association of ideas; in fact, almost any shape can spark off the associative process)[32], any building can suggest a set of ideas or be taken as a symbol. However, expressionist architecture and the Goetheanum for that matter are particularly subjected to this type of fancy associations of ideas.
In "Bizarre architecture", C. Jencks writes that "R. Steiner makes use of anthropomorphic images for his Anthroposophical buildings. We approach the Goetheanum aware that it is some kind of face; perhaps that of a horseshoe crab or the helmeted visage of a German Sten-gunner. There are eyes, nose and hair, more or less where they should be, and as usual in this sort of building, a mouth door. But the eyebrows are all over the place and shoulders have merged with the head and besides the whole thing is a lumpy turtle anyway, mixed in concrete. Just as we are trying to decide between the two types of ambiguity, seven more raise their ugly heads to mock our simple-minded explanations.
This concrete lump is a pill box, and baroque facade, silver grey dome and free form sculpture, opening plant and bristling cactus and frozen custard. What these metaphors have in common is not much except an organic quality. The general theme of living matter seems to run through the inert concrete calling out for anthropomorphic metaphors yet denying any particular one".[33] R. Collins in "Fantastic architecture" follows the same train of thought when he writes that "The building’s various elements suggest human organs, brain, heart, lungs, and through them one is led from the physical world outside, to the interior where music, dance, theatre and architecture combine to enlighten the visitor and deepens his spiritual world. Metamorphosis is a key concept in the Goetheanum, shapes and textures flow together and they are used symbolically in accordance with Steiner's philosophy".[34]
One finds the same point of view in an article in the R.I.B.A. where it is written that 'the interior of the Goetheanum II was also rich with organic metaphors, with bare cavernous spaces in concrete like the ventricles of the heart."[35]
R. Steiner often warned against looking at the Goetheanum with the intellect only or with the feelings only, the whole man is supposed to participate in the act of assimilating the meaning of the edifice. He particularly stressed the point that it is not an exercise in symbolism. He said in a conference in 1907, "One will not reach a real understanding of these things (the meanings of the forms of the Goetheanum) if one's observation of the forms only considers the explanation given by the rational thought. One must, with all one's artistic sensitivity, melt into the contemplation of these forms and let the (capitals) act on oneself as forms.
He, who does not know this, will believe he is facing allegories or in the best cases, symbols. One would be, then, completely wrong". [36]
According to R. Steiner the organic shapes of the building suggest the materialization, or rather, are the materialisation of the "spirits of forms" speaking through the concrete. They are to be seen as the shaping impulsions of matter and not a mere copy of human, animal or vegetable forms.
"In Dornach" R. Steiner explained "the attempt has been made to pursue this living element to a point where the merely static, axial symmetrical character of earlier building forms has really been made organic. I am well aware how much can be levelled against this translation of geometrically derived forms into organic forms, into forms otherwise only to be found in organic beings. Yet nothing has been directly and naturalistically adopted from some organism or other, but the attempt has been made to feel one's way into the organic creative principle of nature. Just as it is possible to feel one's way into the forces of load and support where a beam in resting on a column, or into the lofty Gothic system with its ribbed vault etc., it is possible to sense the innate shaping process at work when organic forms are brought forth."[37]
Apart from stating that "the second Goetheanum evokes a man opening to the sun", Ricardo Porro in an article about romantic architecture, writes that "Steiner projects all his strength and his fears in his architecture, and here he is twisting himself; his romanticism is completely submerged in the dark forces of the world".[38]
To compare R. Steiner to the stereotype of the tortured artist like Van Gogh or Rimbaud is to show a considerable lack of knowledge of the man, as for R. Steiner's art being submerged in the dark forces of the world it is a sweeping statement disregarding the anthroposophical context and philosophy.
An article entitled “Concrete interlude" in 'Architectural Design" goes somehow deeper into the criticism of the Goetheanum by quoting R. Steiner's conferences, unfortunately these quotations have been taken out of context and misinterpreted.
The author of that article writes, "A whole cosmology and esoteric symbolism, it seems, was evident to the initiated in the plan and forms of the great Goetheanum. But being built out of wood, it burned to the ground on December 31, 1922. Steiner determined at once to replace it with an even more extravagant building, this time in concrete. “The Dornach building” he declared “must be exactly like what in Vienna is called a Gugelhupf'" a gastronomic analogy indeed expressive of the final form. He was quite clear as to his intentions, “A Gugelhupf is a special cake, with a special shape, baked with flour and eggs and other lovely things. It is baked in a mould. The mould must be very precise because it is from the mould that the Gugelhupf takes its form”.[39]
These words were said by R. Steiner, not after the burning, but during the construction of the first Goetheanum. Every day after the work was done on the site, all the participants, artists, carpenters, masons etc., would gather in the workshop to listen to R. Steiner. This audience was not composed exclusively of highly educated people but a cross section of the community, thus, to be understood by all R. Steiner had to bring the level of his, conference to the lowest common denominator. He often used images and simple example to illustrate his ideas. In one of these conferences, given on the 7th of June 1914, R. Steiner explained, "... it is necessary, to understand the forms which dress interiorly our hall, or, if I can use this word, which must decorate it, to discern from which principle they are issued. I have used here a very familiar comparison which only needs to be understood, because it expresses well what I want to say. If one wishes to grasp what is expressed in our hall, in these two halves or three-quarter domes attached together, one should remember the principle of the cake mould in which we make the Gugelhupf. When one extracts the Gugelhupf from the mould, one sees on the surface of the cake all the forms which are in negative on the surface of the mould.
This principle is to be applied in the interior decoration of our building except that it is not a Gugelhupf that one will find here but living and acting the Word and the spiritual science in its own form. What is enclosed here, contained in the forms of the place, what will be said and done here, must adapt itself to the forms themselves, like the Gugelhupf dough takes the shape of the mould. In what will ornate the walls, one must feel the living negative of what must be said and done inside. This is the principle of our interior decoration".[40]
The 21st of November of the same year R. Steiner gave further explanations using the same example, we could believe at first that, in this edifice, the essential is this part of space which is filled with wood. Not at all, the essential is where apparently there is nothing. To see what our edifice is in reality, one should, with an enormous block of wax, make an imprint of the interior and then look at that imprint. The space where you stand when you have entered the edifice, that space that you cannot see but that you must feel, is really what is important ... What is important in a Gugelhupf mould is not the mould but the cake ... It is the same for our edifice, the essential is not the envelope, but what is inside, and inside there will be the feelings and the thoughts of those who are in the building. And this, thanks to the fact that one will see the contours of the edifice, that one will feel the forms and “that one will take in the thought forms. It is here, I would say, the crucial point of the evolution where we find ourselves; it is all about, excuse the expression, leaving the "mould" to get into the "cake". To stay in the "mould", that is materialism; to get into the "cake", that is what we call spiritualism, and this is what we are working towards. If one does not see this, one will not be able to give a correct judgement on the art as we practice it here. If one criticises our building with the criteria of ancient art one will say "for God’s sake, your mould is really not beautiful!"
Because one will not know that the important is not the mould but the Gugelhupf".[41]
Another comparison favoured by R. Steiner was that of the nut and the nutshell; the shape of the nut calls for the shape of the nutshell, the nut being the activities, feelings and thoughts which have to be housed in a certain building envelope. The examples above were given to explain the interior of the first Goetheanum.
When designing the Second Goetheanum R. Steiner applied these principles to the exterior as well. He wanted to make a more definite statement about the nature of Anthroposophy to his follower's as well as to the public at large. The second building being made out of concrete, he felt more secure about it attracting the attack of its enemies (the first Goetheanum having been the victim of an arsonist).
The same article in "architectural design" goes on to say, "R. (Steiner) ignored completely the role of the shuttering. He was opposed to orthogonal architecture, preferring absolutely the curve and the discontinuous, broken line."[42]
First, it might be due to this very ignorance that Steiner was uninhibited to tread new grounds and to give the world this unique construction. As for being opposed to orthogonal architecture, a good look at the electric transformer, built in 1921, will show that it is not so.
"Its form are rectilinear; its arms are as if projected towards the exterior. The door lintel shows an angle in its middle, like the effect of a sudden downward pressure.
This construction houses the operations of electric commutations. Its form was to express something completely different from the boiler house, tied to the process of coal and water. The cold abstract and sub natural character of electricity finds its expression in the abrupt and inorganic motion of the transformer".[43] This shows that the functionalism in the spiritual sense, proposed by R. Steiner, is not limited to "cultural" projects like the Goetheanum, but is also valid for a technical and industrial architecture, which he treats from an artistic point of view. One might perceive, in the light of R. Steiner's own comments, that the building does not merely bring forth thoughts and feelings from its beholder but is these very thoughts feelings and activities held within an envelope which should have such a shape as to enclose them perfectly and thus enhance their strength and efficiency. One might now wonder what envelope, or shapes would be called forth by different activities or different thoughts and feelings. What shapes would be called forth by a supermarket, a bank or a school for example. One is left with the "tool" of intuition as proposed by R. Steiner. It might be that this "spiritual functionalism" could be the way to "transparency" or "honesty" so often claimed by the Modern Movement.
ITS INFLUENCE ON XXth CENTURY ARCHITECTURE
Between the opinion of Tim Benton who, in "Expressionism", remarks that "While the first Goetheanum must be accounted too early and probably too remote to have had much
influence on German expressionism, he second building was far too late".[44] and the opinions of Rex Raab or Arne Klingborg, who are followers of R. Steiner, thus promoting the idea of the great importance of the Goetheanum, there must be a middle ground supporting a more realistic point of view. Apart from the fact that the Goetheanum has been, rightly or not disregarded, overlooked and misunderstood, by the mainstream of architecture history, one may now remark that it has been a growing focus of interest and inspiration for many people. This process has been well explained by R. Raab who wrote, "Many remarkable edifices of our, century, seen in the mirror of architecture publications, appear like an annual plant which flowers rapidly and magnifically but wither just as quickly and is then forgotten; on the other hand, the Goetheanum behaves like a bush as hard as winter which, at everybody's astonishment develops ceaselessly new flowers and reveal itself to be carrier of prolific seeds. A bush must often dig its roots for a long time before showing the richness of its possibilities".[45]
Within the mainstream of architecture history, expressionism stands as the poor parent and within expressionism the Goetheanum remains misunderstood. Most specialized publications overlook it, or when there is a comment, it is often misleading. However, many great architects of this century and the last, owe R. Steiner a debt.
In 1962, during the construction of the Philharmonic Hall is Berlin, Hans Sharoun, of whom Ilse Meissner Reese wrote that the Goetheanum “could easily have served as an inspiration for his concert hall",[46] declared that "Steiner's architectural work ... was to (me) a revelation a real discovery". He considered the second Goetheanum to be "the most significant building of the first half of the century".[47]
In 1926 C. E. Jeanneret (Le Corbusier) of La Chaux-de-Fonds, which is about 50km from Dornach visited the site of the Goetheanum. According to Ebbell, the structural engineer, Le Corbusier was speechless, Ebbell goes on to say, "Someone like that doesn’t forget an experience of that sort so soon; it sinks in. I am convinced that he carried it around with him for
decades and that it emerged in his chapel".[48] The chapel, here mentioned is the chapel of Ronchamp which is, architecturally and geographically, very near the Goetheanum.
Frank Lloyd Wright was another architect, impressed by the works of R. Steiner. Like Steiner he is one of the few architects who had the opportunity to exercise a near absolute control over form and function in his planning, Taliesin West is a good example. An assistant of F. L. Wright, Walter Burley Griffin, was also influenced by R. Steiner; he worked with F. L. Wright between 1900 and 1905, he won the first prize for the Canberra project in Australia, he later became a member of the Australian branch of the Anthroposophical Society and his collaborators, "Lippincort in California and Eric Nicholls in Sydney pursued an anthroposophical activity."[49]
More recently Frank Gehry, after his visit to the Goetheanum, expressed his admiration for R. Steiner’s work, and Steiner’s influence is easily noticeable in Gehry’s numerous projects.
Through these few examples one can perceive underlaying the evolution of the 20th century architecture, the emergence of the discreet but powerful fertilizing role of R. Steiner's ideas.
CONCLUSION
How can a movement such as expressionism, and, within it, the organic architecture of R. Steiner, known and admired by many of the masters of our century, be ignored by the
majority of the architecture establishment.
In an article, entitled "the other tradition",[50] Peter Davey writes "Expressionism is a stream of twentieth century architecture that is long overdue for reassessment. Largely a German approach, with a touch of English essence and the odd Dutch, French and Spanish flavouring, Expressionism seems to have been almost systematically suppressed by those immensely influential Germanic historians and propagandists of the Modern Movement, Giedion and Pevsner. Giedion decried the results of the Expressionist approach as "Transitory facts rather than constituent ones". It could be argued here that in the light of History, any architectural movement is a "transitory fact", including the modern movement, seen from the eighties. Peter Davey writes on “Pevsner was more explicit. Writing in 1960 when he saw the late work of Le Corbusier and "The Brazilians" as reawakening a dangerous ghost, he attacked Expressionist buildings as "attempts to satisfy the craving of architects for individual expression; the craving of the public for the surprising and fantastic, and for an escape out of reality into a fairy world." This is, in the words used by Pevsner, what R. Steiner expressed but in a different terminology and a totally different set of values.
"R. Steiner called for diversity, for individual creation. The foundation of his new architectural impulse on art, calls for the utilisation of forms in styles and plastic languages always renewed. The unity must come from the creative impulse, from the method - research of a functional form - from the thought of metamorphosis and from the will of a living organic architecture".[51]
And what Pevsner dismisses as "an escape into a fairy world”, R. Steiner defines as the enrichment of man's materialism with spirituality, inspired by the anthroposophical architecture. Pevsner and Giedion cannot be held solely responsible for the failure of the expressionist movement to make a stand on the ground of what is called, today, "international architecture". The public at large might have accepted expressionist architecture since, as writes D. Watkins "We know that our inclinations to enjoy a thing precedes any attempt to rationalise or defend that enjoyment".[52]
The architecture establishment was quick to dismiss the complicated theories of the expressionist masters, often at odds with the materialistic philosophies of the occidental Societies, and to grab the simplistic and easily understood theories of the modern movement.
This argument is brought up in an article about Hugo Haring by Peter B. Jones[53] "At La Sarraz in 1928" he explains " (Hugo Haring) tried unsuccessfully to propagate his idea of new building in opposition to Le Corbusier. No precise record exists of the proceedings, but one can guess the nature of Haring’s argument from his various theoretical writings which show that he held a consistent point of view from 1925 onwards". P. B. Jones goes on to say, "Looking back 50 years, it is all too easy to see why Haring lost his battle with Le Corbusier at La Sarraz, for while Le Corbusier offered a striking new image backed up with a simple formula for its achievement in the "five points" Haring spoke only of attitudes and methods: his buildings could only be understood within their own specific terms and were impossible models for imitation. His complicated, somewhat mystical view of the world must have held an almost medieval obscurity for those basking in the clear white light of the New Objectivity, who sought salvation through science.
Today, our way forward is more difficult, for we have awoken from the Utopian dream which became a nightmare and are having once again to face the issue postponed in 1928".
A parallel can be drawn with what D. Watkin sees as the way historians have dealt with Lutyens and the way R. Steiner has been ignored for the last 60 years. D. Watkini writes in the conclusion of his book “Morality and architecture”, “Lutyens was one of the two or three most brilliant and successful architects England has ever produced, yet he completely ignored all the current orthodoxies and conventions which most modern critics tend to suppose will necessarily be reflected in twentieth century culture. Thus, even Professor Henry-Russel Hitchcock, whose work does not usually reveal a belief in the normative claims of the Zeitgeist, was reduced to writing the following palpably empty sentence about Lutyens, "Lutyens, one feels, in a different time and place might have been a greater architect". So out of date, so inexpressive of the Zeitgeist was Lutyens that Professor Pevsner fails to mention him at all in "an outline of European architecture".[54]
R. Steiner was very much aware that he was sowing the seeds of a new artistic manifestation for a new spiritual age or "Zeitgeist" and Wassily Kandinsky also wrote on the same subject, "To each spiritual epoch corresponds a new spiritual content which that epoch expresses by forms that are new, unexpected, surprising and, in this way, aggressive".[55]
R. Steiner was no more and no less part of the Zeitgeist of the beginning of this century than what is regarded as the "Modern Movement". Rather, it seems that historians have focused their attention on one particular manifestation of that Zeitgeist, represented mainly be Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe etc. ... and the other manifestations of that same Zeitgeist, "unexpected, surprising and aggressive" as qualified by Kandinsky have been largely ignored or ridiculed.
All the energies and interests poured into the modern movement have brought it to fruition fairly quickly and thus revealed its shortcomings. As for the architecture of R. Steiner, it is still there to offer certain answers and propositions for the future, partly due to the fact that R. Steiner, rather than supplying readymade solutions, offers a processus of architectural creation always adaptable to new problems.
​
​
Jean-Marie Gobet ©
​
[1] Autobiographie Vol. I (R. Steiner) Page 29
[2] Autobiographie Vol II (R. Steiner) Page 109
[3] Autobiographie Vol III (R. Steiner) Page 189
[4] Mission cosmique de l’art (R. Steiner) Page 179
[5] Mission cosmique de l’art (R. Steiner) Page 179
[6] Vers un nouveau style en architecture (R. Steiner) Page 36
[7] Vers Un nouveau style en architecture (R. Steiner) Page 91
[8] Vers Un nouveau style en architecture (R. Steiner) Page 124
[9] Mission cosmique de l’art (R. Steiner) Page 149
[10] Vers un nouveau style en architecture (R. Steiner) Page 130
[11] The necessity of artifice (J. Ryckwert) Page 47
[12] Vers un nouveau style en architecture (R. Steiner) Page 133
[13] Le Goetheanum (Biesantz-Klingborg) Page 88
[14] Autobiographie Vol II (R. Steiner) Page 221
[15] Mission cosmique de l’art (R. Steiner) Page 133
[16] Vers un nouveau style en architecture (R. Steiner) Page 52
[17] Le Goetheanum (Biesantz-Klingborg) Page 34
[18] Le Goetheanum (Biesantz-Klingborg) Page 41
[19] Mission cosmique de l’art (R. Steiner) Page 171
[20] Expressionist architecture (W. Pehnt) Page 148
[21] Eloquent concrete (R. Raab) Page 47
[22] Expressionist architecture (W. Pehnt) Page 148
[23] AA Quarterly (page 53)
[24] Expressionist architecture (W. Pehnt) Page 148
[25] Eloquent concrete (R. Raab) Page 43
[26] Werk page 352
[27] Eloquent concrete (R. Raab) Page 46
[28] Eloquent concrete (R. Raab) Page 62
[29] Eloquent concrete (R. Raab) Page 80
[30] Eloquent concrete (R. Raab) Page 62
[31] A visual history of XX century architecture (D. Sharp)
[32] Man and his symbols (C.G. Jung)
[33] Bizarre architecture (C. Jencks)
[34] Fantastic architecture (R. Collins)
[35] RIBA Journal
[36] Le Goetheanum (Biesantz-Klingborg)
[37] AA Quarterly
[38] L’Architecture d’aujourd’hui
[39] Architectural design
[40] Vers un nouveau style en architecture (R. Steiner)
[41] Mission cosmique de l’art (R. Steiner)
[42] Architectural design
[43] Le Goetheanum (Biesantz-Klingborg)
[44] Expressionism (T. Benton)
[45] Le Goetheanum (Biesantz-Klingborg)
[46] Progressive architecture
[47] Eloquent concrete (R. Raab)
[48] Eloquent concrete (R. Raab)
[49] Le Goetheanum (Biesantz-Klingborg)
[50] Architectural Review (No 1022)
[51] Le Goetheanum (Biesantz-Klingborg)
[52] Morality and architecture (D. Watkin)
[53] Architectural Review (No 1022)
[54] Morality and architecture (D. Watkin)
[55] Concerning the spiritual in art (Wassily Kandinsky)
​
​
​
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Autobiographie I and II (R. Steiner)
Editions Anthroposophiques Romandes, Genève 1979
Aspects Spirituels de l'Europe du Nord (R. Steiner)
Editions Anthroposophiques Romandes, Genève 1981
Mission cosmique de l’Art (R. Steiner)
Editions Anthroposophiques Romandes, Genève 1982
Vers un nouveau style en Architecture (R. Steiner)
Editions “Triades", Paris 1978
Le Goetheanum, l'impulsion de R. Steiner en architecture
(H. Biesantz - A. Klingborg)
Editions Anthroposophiques Romandes Genève 1981
Expressionist architecture (W. Pehnt)
Thames and Hudson, London 1973
Fantastic architecture (R. Collins)
Thames and Hudson, London 1980
Man and his symbols (C. G. Jung)
Aldus Book, London 1972
Concerning the spiritual in Art (W. Kandinsky)-
Wittenborn Art Books Inc, New York
Bizarre Architecture (C. Jencks)
Rizzoli, - New York
Morality and architecture (D. Watkin)
Clarendon Press, Oxford 1977
A visual History of XXth century architecture (D. Sharp)
Heinanann Secker, Warburg 1972
The necessity of artifice (J. Rykwert)
Academy editions, London 1982
Expressionism (T. Benton)
Open university press 1975
Eloquent concrete (R. Raab - A. Klingborg - A. Fant)
Rudolf Steiner Press, London 1979
L‘architecture d'aujourd'hui No. 224 December 1982
Architectural Review No. 1022 Vol 171 April 1982
No. 1009 Vol 169 March 1981
Riba Journal No.3 Vol 87 March 1980
A.A.Quarterly No.3 Vol 12
Architectural design Vol 41 July 1971
Progressive architecture Vol 46 September 1965
Werk No. 8 Vol 47 August 1960
No. 5 Vol 58 May 1971