Frederick Kiesler the Bauhaus and the Bauhaus Stage

96 4 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 The Kieslers and the Tietzes from German.) She reiterated her disappointment in the entry for February 6: “The very next morning I abandoned my decision to call on Alma in the next few days and tell her of my literary disappointments (including Kiesler), and I wrote her a letter that I won’t.” Ibid., 202. (Translated from German.) Entry for March 8, 1924, ibid., 212 f. (Translated from German.) Entry for March 30, 1924, ibid., 220. (Translated from German.) Entry for November 3, 1923, ibid., 124. (Translated from German.) Entry for February 17, 1924, ibid., 205: “Very active yesterday. In the morning, the opening of the Russian exhibition (Neue Galerie), again no pictures, just graphic arts. Unimpressive. Audience divided, Dolbin, [Arthur] Stemmer, Kiesler— elated, the others rather abasso.” (Translated from German.) Entry for April 16, 1924, ibid., 225. (Translated from German.) Entry for November 26, 1923, ibid., 136. (Translated from German.) Tietze-Conrat uses the untranslatable term “kunstschmuserische Diskussion.” Entry for December 5, 1923, Caruso, Erica TietzeConrat, vol. I, 139. (Translated from German.) Entry for March 9, 1924, ibid., 213. (Translated from German.) A meeting of the Gesellschaft zur Förderung moderner Kunst concerning preparations for the Internationale Ausstellung neuer Theatertechnik took place in the apartment of art historian Fannina Halle. Oskar Strnad was to present his model of a Ringtheater at the exhibition in the fall, “a theater in the round conceived on the basis of a moderately historicizing mode of construction” (Lesák, Die Kulisse explodiert, 103). Halle, who was close to Paul Westheim, was a regular publisher in Westheim’s magazines, cf. Alexandra Caruso, “Leben in der Kunst – eine moderne Inszenierung, Hans Tietzes ‘Gesellschaft zur Förderung moderner Kunst in Wien’ (diploma thesis: University of Vienna, 2008), 113–116; Lutz Windhöfel, Paul Westheim und “Das Kunstblatt”: Eine Zeitschrift und ihr Herausgeber in der Weimarer Republik (Cologne: Böhlau, 1995), 240, 286. Entry for March 15, 1924, ibid., 214. (Translated from German.) Entry for August 31, 1924, ibid., 256. (Translated from German.) Cf. Fernand Léger, “Das Schauspiel. Licht / Farbe / Film,” in Internationale Ausstellung neuer Theatertechnik: Katalog, Programm, Almanach, ed. Frederick Kiesler (Vienna: Würthle & Sohn, 1924), exhibition catalog, 6. Entry for September 21, 1924, Caruso, Erica TietzeConrat, vol. I, 261. (Translated from German.) Stefi Kiesler, letter to Kurt Rathe, July 11, 1926: “What else is new in Vienna? What are the Tietzes, Laske, etc., doing,” University of Vienna, Institute of Art History, Institute archive, Kurt Rathe papers (1886–1952), Rathe 6. (Translated from German.) 97 Stefi Kiesler’s calendar, April 5, 1932 (“Dinner Dr. Hans Tietze & [Alfred H.] Barr”) and April 12, 1932 (“K. dinner with Tietze, [José Clemente] Orosco, [Alma] Reed”), both ÖFLKS, MED 103/0; and February 3, 1935 (“… 4h Dr. Tietze at our place / Dr. Bach at our place / Shapiro and Cheney”), April 18, 1935 (“8 p.m. dinner with Mrs. Tietze”) and May 8, 1935 (“Dr. & Mrs. Tietze here / for dinner”), ÖFLKS, MED 849/0. 36 Erica Tietze-Conrat, letter to Stefi Kiesler, n. d. [on board the Berengaria, Cunard Lines; postmark May 17, 1935], ÖFLKS, LET 2644/0. (Translated from German.) 37 Ibid. (Translated from German.) 38 Erica Tietze-Conrat, letter to Stefi Kiesler, August 10, 1935, ÖFLKS, LET 2645/0. (Translated from German.) 5 Frederick Kiesler, the Bauhaus and the Bauhaus Stage A Bauhaus Book That Never Was Torsten Blume In 1926 László Moholy-Nagy announced a publication by Frederick Kiesler dealing with “Neue Formen der Demonstration. Die Raumstadt” (New Forms of Demonstration. The City in Space) for the series of Bauhausbücher published in collaboration with Walter Gropius.1 This trailblazing series was obviously unthinkable without Kiesler. The Bauhaus masters and the main De Stijl artists had recently published books and the aim was now to add some new contributions. The specific reason for including Kiesler in the avant-garde universe was the spectacular Raumstadt exhibition design that he had built in 1925 to showcase the Austrian theater section at the Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes (International Exhibition of Modern Decorative and Industrial Arts) in Paris. Its impact was above all thanks to the manifesto that he published in De Stijl magazine the same year.2 Kiesler had impressively elevated his seemingly weightless exhibition installation to a vision for a new and open spatial design for entire cities. El Lissitzky had previously drafted comparable visions of spatial and urban development with his Wolkenbügel (Cloud Irons). There were also similarities with Lissitzky’s Proun 2, 5 room shown in 1922 at the Erste Russische Kunstausstellung (First Russian Art Exhibition) in Berlin and with designs for rooms and houses created by Theo van Doesburg or Piet Mondrian. Whereas Lissitzky, van Doesburg and Mondrian drafted their new sculptural spatial designs only in drawings, Kiesler also rendered his Raumstadt as a 98 5 Frederick Kiesler, the Bauhaus and the Bauhaus Stage practical model for a new, modern feeling of space and life. An enthusiastic comment by Maurice Raynal in Hans Richter’s G magazine referred to the “boundlessness, unconditional freedom of space” that “challenges the force of our feeling of life.” 3 The Raumstadt was a refinement on the Leger- und Trägersystem that Kiesler had designed for the Internationale Ausstellung neuer Theatertechnik (International Exhibition of New Theater Techniques) in Vienna in 1924. This freestanding system made up of L- and T-shaped beams was a three-dimensional structure open to all sides that showcased not only the exhibits, but also the space itself by means of linearity and asymmetrical arrangements. Regarded as active users of space, visitors were additionally encouraged to move around the exhibition.4 One reason that Kiesler’s Bauhaus book was ultimately not published may be that he had already left Europe for New York in 1926, the year it was announced, in order to organize the International Theatre Exposition. On the other hand, Lissitzky’s rejection of Kiesler may have induced Moholy-Nagy not to pursue the book project. Lissitzky, one of MoholyNagy’s most important friends, feared that Kiesler might “take advantage” 1 Kurt Schmidt, Mechanisches Ballett (Mechanical Ballet), watercolor and pencil on paper, 1923 [Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau] 5 A Bauhaus Book That Never Was 99 of the presentation of his Russian theater works at the New York show, calling him a “plagiarist” who made “great ideas petty.” 5 Van Doesburg, in contrast, was enthusiastic about Kiesler’s exhibition method, writing: This is the first demonstration of how to present related works suggestively in their relations … . This spatial exhibition method has … shown what the modern exhibition system for demonstrating collective works will be like in the future.6 Van Doesburg had met Kiesler in 1923 in Berlin after attending a production of Karel Čapek’s R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots) and praised Kiesler’s electromechanical stage design. Through van Doesburg, a tireless networker for De Stijl and the “Constructivist International,” 7 Kiesler was able to make contact with the local constructivist group in Berlin. The group included Hans Richter, Willi Baumeister, Werner Graeff, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Moholy-Nagy and also Lissitzky. The Bauhaus was doubtless one topic of conversation in these circles, but also in the Sturm group headed by the gallerist and publisher Herwarth Walden. Van Doesburg’s disappointment with Bauhaus affairs may have played a role in Kiesler’s decision not to go to Weimar, nor to try to connect up with the Bauhaus. He certainly was aware that the Bauhaus had presented itself at its first exhibition in August 1923 and with an extensive book publication. Kiesler was interested in the work of the stage department founded in 1921, headed first by Lothar Schreyer and as of 1923 by Oskar Schlemmer, as well as the theater experiments of Wassily Kandinsky and Moholy-Nagy. It may appear strange that Moholy-Nagy wanted to pay tribute to Kiesler at the Bauhaus with a book publication about his exhibition design as opposed to his works for the stage, but is understandable if you consider that the Raumstadt was essentially a performative staging of space and that the ultimate aim of Kiesler’s stage designs was not to renew theater in the stricter sense. Instead, as spatial art they were a station where one changes (Umsteigestation) 8 from representational art to architecture. The Bauhaus stage was equally involved in finding new ways of fundamentally renewing architecture as spatial art. The Bauhaus, Kiesler and many avant-gardists saw analyzing the three-dimensional possibilities of the stage, harnessing all elements of the stage set and stage machinery, and doing away with the proscenium stage in order to create 100 5 Frederick Kiesler, the Bauhaus and the Bauhaus Stage innovative spatial relations between the audience and the actors as a suitable way of testing concepts of space in theater that could be applied to exhibitions, house building and urban development. Exhibitors of the Bauhaus stage The local authorities of Vienna appointed Kiesler curator of the Internationale Ausstellung neuer Theatertechnik in 1924, a function in which he officially established contact with the Bauhaus. In a letter to Gropius of May 14, 1924 he invited “the theater department of the State Bauhaus in Weimar,” noting that he “would be particularly gratified at this cooperation.” 9 Gropius replied on May 19: Our stage department has recently completed a number of totally new works. … However, because the best way to present stage things is in actual productions, I would also like to ask if it might be possible to invite us to stage our Mechanisches Ballett [Mechanical Ballet] and the Triadisches Ballett [Triadic Ballet] 1 (Oskar Schlemmer) that we are convinced would be successful in Vienna … . It [the Triadisches Ballett] has shown that it retains its effect on any kind of audience thanks to its light-hearted elements. There appears to have been a great interest in this first opportunity to showcase the Bauhaus stage internationally, even if “the manner of participation in the exhibition [was] not yet quite clear” for Gropius and he offered “designs on a smaller scale” along with “smaller and life-size figurines and costumes and a number of peculiar sceneries.” Furthermore, Gropius announced “a book about our stage experiments so far with numerous illustrations” that “is certain to be finished in time for the exhibition in Vienna.”10 However, the organizational and financial circumstances of the participation proved to be extremely difficult on both sides.11 Kiesler’s visit to the Bauhaus, for example—announced several times—did not take place. On July 23, 1924 the Bauhaus administration therefore wrote to the exhibition management in Vienna: “Mr. Kiesler, whom you had announced, has yet to appear in Weimar. Mr. Schlemmer (the Director of the stage workshop) is going away tomorrow for at least one month so that we will not be able to present the costumes for the Triadisches Ballett that have been laid out since Mr. Kiesler announced his visit as they need to be packed up again. Only students from the stage workshop (K. Schmidt, 5 A Bauhaus Book That Never Was 101 G. Teltscher) will be able to show him the Mechanisches Ballett.”12 On September 11, 1924 Gropius was still unfortunately unsure about the participation “despite all our efforts,” stating that “no letters, telegrams or telephone conversations … have been able to clarify the whole affair as the financial question remains unsettled.” 13 In the end he did manage to send two crates of exhibits to Vienna after Kiesler had written on September 10, 1924 that “the reflektorische Lichtspiele [reflecting light games] … have been accepted for performance.” 14 The Bauhaus stage was well represented at the Internationale Ausstellung neuer Theatertechnik. Schlemmer showed stage designs for Paul Hindemith’s operas Das Nusch-Nuschi (The Nusch-Nuschi) (1921) and Mörder, Hoffnung der Frauen (Murderer, Hope of Women) (1922) along with designs for the Figurales Kabinett (Figural Cabinet) (1922) and the Triadisches Ballett (1922). The Goldkugel (Golden Sphere) 2 figurine from the latter was also exhibited. Moholy-Nagy featured with two score sketches for a Mechanische Exzentrik (Mechanical Eccentricity). On show were also designs and figurines for the Mechanisches Ballett by the students Kurt Schmidt, Georg Teltscher and Theodor Bogler 15 along with figurine designs and the score of Lothar Schreyer’s piece Kreuzigung (Crucifixion) (1921).16 2 Oskar Schlemmer, Triadisches Ballett (Triadic Ballet), dancer in the costume Goldkugel (Golden Sphere) [Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau] 3 Ludwig Hirschfeld-Mack, Farblichtspiele (Color-Light-Games), scene photo, c. 1924 [Photograph by Studio Eckner, Weimar, Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau] 102 5 Frederick Kiesler, the Bauhaus and the Bauhaus Stage 5 A Bauhaus Book That Never Was 103 But the performance of Ludwig Hirschfeld-Mack’s Farblichtspiele (Color-Light-Plays) 3 , 4 , accompanied by piano music, made the biggest impression at the exhibition opening on September 24, 1924. For this purpose, the apparatus was placed directly alongside or on Kiesler’s Raumbühne (Space Stage) in the present-day Mozart-Saal. Enthusiastic, the critic Alfred Sandt described it as follows: An astonishing beauty is revealed to the viewer. Not the harmony of color and sound is over whelming, but rather the unadorned form in its crystal-clear purity. A straight line, a wavy line, a circle, a cube, the simplest of shapes in the realm of natural creation are seen individually or combined, without serving any symbolic expression.17 The audience of the day did not realize that this was a successful interaction of a Bauhaus stage production with Kiesler’s Raumbühne, particularly as the Farblichtspiele were not presented explicitly as a contribution of the Bauhaus stage. They certainly did notice the Bauhaus contributions, however. Ladislaus Tuszynski’s cover drawing for the Illustrierte Kronenzeitung published on September 25, 1924 suggests as much.5 Captioned “Theater art of tomorrow,” sketches of three Bauhaus contributions featured prominently below the new caricatured exhibition projects: two figurine 5 Ladislaus Tuszynsky, Theaterkunst von morgen (Theater Arts of Tomorrow), in Illustrierte Kronen-Zeitung, September 25, 1924, caricaturing works by Lothar Schreyer, Kurt Schmidt and Oskar Schlemmer 4 Ludwig Hirschfeld-Mack at the piano next to the apparatus of his Farblichtspiele (ColorLight-Games) with Friedrich Wilhelm Bogler and Marli Heimann during a performance, 1924 [Photograph by A. & E. Frankl, Berlin, Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau] designs by Schreyer, a Mensch+Maschine (Human+Machine) drawing by Schmidt, and the Goldkugel figurine from Schlemmer’s Triadisches Ballett as a “Ballet Costume.” In the exhibition catalog, however, the Bauhaus stage was not as clearly recognizable as a single entity, with only one text by Lothar Schreyer about the “Bühne des Menschen” (The Human Stage)18 and scattered illustrations of the works on show. Instead, Germany featured in the form of texts from Sturm circles and the expressionist experiments of the Sturm stage. Herwarth Walden, for instance, wrote about the “Theater,” Wilhelm Wauer about the “Actor,” and Rudolf Blümner about the “Art of Speaking.” 104 5 Frederick Kiesler, the Bauhaus and the Bauhaus Stage Gropius nevertheless wrote to thank Kiesler on October 28, 1924: “Only now have I received the theater catalog, and I would just like to let you know how delighted I was with this work. My only regret is that you were not with us … I hear that you are under fierce attack. But this must only encourage your work. I am more than familiar with this and would thus … like to express my sincere sympathies with your work.”19 Kiesler thanked Gropius for this accolade on November 9, 1924, informing him “that Hirschfeld and his comrades have made excellent publicity for the State Bauhaus and aroused new sympathies for it.” At the same time, he regretted that he “had failed to get other Bauhaus events accepted despite fighting for months,” as “only very little money had been made available for events.” Kiesler stressed that he had “not omitted to draw the public’s attention to the works of Schlemmer, Hirschfeld and their comrades during the daily guided tours.” In conclusion, he asked Gropius to give his “best, most comradely wishes to Moholy-Nagy, Hirschfeld, Bogler and the two ladies who were in Vienna.” 20 Kiesler presented some more contributions of the Bauhaus stage at the International Theatre Exposition in New York in 1926. This time he exhibited a sketch by Marcel Breuer for Varieté, four works by the Bauhaus student Xanti Schawinsky (Drei Figuren [Three Figures], Tiller Girls, Die zwei Veroneser [The Two Veronese], Maschine gegen Stepptänzer [Machine versus Stepdancer]), and scene plans, sheets on dance theory, for the Triadisches Ballett and for Varieté by Schlemmer. Like those of Moholy-Nagy (Varieté, Partiturskizze [Score Sketch]) and Farkas Molnár (Das U-Theater [The U-Theater] and photographs), who were featured as representatives of Hungary, these exhibits were not identified as Bauhaus contributions.21 These may have been illustrations that were also printed in the Bauhaus book Die Bühne im Bauhaus (The Theater of the Bauhaus) published in 1925.22 Although Kiesler must have been familiar with this publication, it is not clear whether he propagated it in the exhibition. Stage totality As early as 1923 when Kiesler had proclaimed a “crisis of theater” in his first piece on theater, calling for a new “stage totality” and the collective fashioning of “the whole stage form,” 23 this had the ring of the tasks that Gropius had formulated for the stage department installed 5 A Bauhaus Book That Never Was 105 at the Bauhaus in 1921: “We are exploring the various problems of space, the body, movement, form, light, color and sound. We represent the movement of the organic and the mechanical body, the sound of language, music and noise, and build the stage space and the stage figures.” 24 Kiesler’s desire for a renewal of the stage “from the ground plan” and Gropius’s demand for a “cleansing and renewal of the modern stage” and its rebuilding “based on the primal foundations of its history” also bear an affinity in terms of content. We see another similarity when Gropius longed for a “common, all-uniting focal point” for the stage that “had lost the deepest relations to the world of human emotion” 25 and Kiesler felt that the theater “should be a dynamic factor of the times” and “grow out of the soil of time.” Kiesler hoped that theater would be renewed by productive “Werkkommunen” (work communes) such as Berthold Viertel’s cooperative theater company Die Truppe 26, for which he took on his second stage design in 1923, the German premiere of Eugene O’Neill’s drama The Emperor Jones. Starting out from a scholastic, experimental clarification of traditional theater material, the Bauhäusler focused on the fundamental question of “What is space, how can we apprehend and design it?” 27 Consequently, hardly anyone at the Bauhaus would have shared Kiesler’s provocative demand unchallenged whereby “the arts: painting, sculpture, architecture, music, words, dance, but particularly the representational arts [must] disappear from theater as individualistic forms of theater.” After all “creative work” that “[aims] to design space” was to form the foundation of the new school in order to reinvent architecture as spatial art (Raumkunst). For this purpose, Gropius had above all appointed avant-garde painters such as Lyonel Feininger, Wassili Kandinsky, Paul Klee and Johannes Itten as teachers. Their artistic compositions, elementary studies of the intrinsic value of colors, and the connections between movement, rhythm and form were intended to prepare students with regard to gradually developing innovative, holistic compositions of space. The aim “with all bodily organs” and by means of intuition as a “metaphysical force” was to “feel the immaterial space of appearance and inner vision,” the “connections between the instruments of its appearance, colors, forms, sounds” and to become aware of the inherent “laws, dimensions and numbers.” By combining the “intellectual idea” with “knowledge and skill” 106 5 Frederick Kiesler, the Bauhaus and the Bauhaus Stage 5 A Bauhaus Book That Never Was 107 that offered various “possibilities in terms of a synthesis of the arts.” He was willing to put its activities under the primacy of architecture and the envisaged renewal of architecture as the art of space. In September 1922 he noted in his diary: “The will to synthesis that dominates today’s art, that calls upon architecture to marshal the fragmented fields, so as to lead them to their own unity and to a universal unity, is equally taking hold of theater … .” 32 Schreyer, on the other hand, followed on 6 Oskar Schlemmer and Bauhaus stage workshop, Formentanz (Form Dance), with Oskar Schlemmer, Werner Siedhoff and Walter Kaminsky (dancers), 1927 [Photograph by Erich Consemüller, Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau] with “all the natural laws of statics, mechanics, optics and acoustics,” the “space of vision” could be realized in the “material world.” 28 According to Gropius, stage work and architectural work are both beset by “a host of artistic problems” and those involved must put aside “their own ego” in order to achieve “a higher common vitality of the overall work.” Kiesler had the same basic idea, but worded it much more aggressively: “The arts … must … abandon their independent character in order to become part of a stage totality.” But above all he had demanded that this new “stage totality” 29—as “super-individual dynamic design of space”—be achieved to a significant degree by “bringing stagecraft to life.” 30 The Bauhaus had virtually no resources for largescale experiments for bringing the stage to life with technical equipment. Nevertheless, the Bauhäusler were keenly aware of debates and visions in this context. While Moholy-Nagy had envisaged transforming the stage into a “structural, dynamic system of forces” 31 with the aid of technical devices as early as 1922, Schlemmer took a more cautious approach in view of his particular interest in the human performer. Much like Gropius, Schlemmer, who had taken over management of the stage workshop from Schreyer in 1923, saw it as a special institution from his experiences with the Sturm stage, foundering in spring 1923 on his preference for expressionist word art. Having seen his Mondspiel (Moon Play), a Klangsprechen (sound-speach Play) staged together with students, rejected by the majority of the Bauhaus masters and students, he left the Bauhaus. Headed by Schlemmer, the focus now shifted to the human body as material and its relation to the space of the stage. Basing his work on the human being as a creature that sees and acts in three-dimensional space, he attempted to live up to Gropius’s expectations, following the ideas of the Romantic Philipp Otto Runge. According to Runge, emotion and order could be translated into holistic experiences of space by means of strict architectural rules. The ideal to be achieved would thus be sequences of movement in a harmoniously arranged spatial whole that enable us to reconcile the “will to internalization” and the “will to technology.” 33 It was not until 1926 that Schlemmer was able to put his ideas into practice on a specially designed studio stage in Dessau in the form of the Bauhaustänze (Bauhaus Dances) 6 , the “grammar of stage elements,” 34 and “mathematics of dance.” 35 Unlike Kiesler, who rejected the proscenium stage outright, Schlemmer acknowledged the proscenium as a form that had evolved over time and that served the “need for concentration.” Although he recognized the opportunity that the stage as “the arena for successive and transient action” could offer a “kaleidoscopic play” as “form and color in motion,” in this case it would, however, be an “absolute visual stage” that would only require the human being, if at all, at the “central switchboard.” 36 Schlemmer would no doubt have agreed with Kiesler that the stage would be “an elastic space.” 37 His aim, however, was to realize the elasticity of the stage space with “man as dancer … trans-formed through costume” 38 rather than by means of technical apparatuses and “bringing stage machinery to life.” 39 For Schlemmer, a format that 108 5 Frederick Kiesler, the Bauhaus and the Bauhaus Stage ranges between “Man as Dancer” and stage machinery was the “art figure”; an apparatus or a machine in human form. By “relating the figure of natural … Man to the abstract figure, both … experience an intensification of their peculiar natures.” 40 It was against this background, for example, that he designed giant mechanical figures such as “Die beiden Pathetiker” (The Two Solemn Tragedians)—mounted “on wagons” and with technically amplified voices—as a contrast to “natural Man” performing on the same stage. From mechanical to total theater Even if Schlemmer always regarded the human form as the center of any theatrical action, he was nevertheless involved in various “mechanical theater” projects. These included, above all, a Mechanisches Ballett as an apparently mechanical performance of dancing flat shapes devised by Kurt Schmidt, Friedrich Wilhelm Bogler and Georg Teltscher, and an apparatus for Reflektorische Lichtspiele by Ludwig Hirschfeld-Mack that put light itself on stage as a “performer.” Schlemmer’s own contribution to “mechanical theater” was the Figurales Kabinett (Figural Cabinet), a quasimechanical, kinetic relief consisting of automatons, apparatuses and colorful geometric figures that he presented at the Bauhaus carnival party in February 1922. This apparatus, in which colorful two-dimensional figures were moved around the stage on conveyor belts, performing grotesque motions, never really worked. Even the performance for the Bauhaus Week at Stadttheater Jena in 1923 was only saved from failure by invisible dancers carrying the figures across the stage and Andor Weininger distracting the audience as master of ceremonies. Schlemmer described this quasi-mechanical pantomime as “half shooting gallery, half metaphysicum abstractum” and as a medley “of sense and nonsense, methodized by Color, Form, Nature, and Art; Man and Machine.” 41 Schlemmer’s Figurales Kabinett never sought to compete with Kiesler’s electromechanical scenery for R.U.R. Kiesler had established himself as an “engineer of stagecraft”42 with the aim of “allowing the energies of the stage machinery themselves to play.”43 Compared with Schlemmer’s shooting-gallery-style play of shapes and colors, his backdrop was therefore a veritably gigantic optomechanical futuristic mise-en-scène. What is more, Kiesler had ingeniously deployed various electromechanical and optical effects to enlarge space so that 5 A Bauhaus Book That Never Was 109 the audience had the impression of seeing not only events on stage, but also what was going on beyond or far away. Kiesler’s second stage production for Berlin, the scenery for The Emperor Jones for Die Truppe, was announced not as a stage design, but as a “Raumbühne,” a Space Stage.44 He had originally planned to create a mechanical, constantly transforming spatial scenery echoing the metamorphosis of a forest that takes place several times in the course of the play, with the forest consisting of wooden slats, cross-beams, and drapes suspended from the ceiling. Because this was not possible with the available resources, and because the performance thus had to be interrupted by long interludes for stage changes, Kiesler later visualized his idea by assembling photos of scenes to create a kind of film strip suggesting a seamless sequence of events.45 7 László Moholy-Nagy, Kinetic-Constructive System. Structure with Movement Tracks for Play and Conveyance, drawing and photo collage over blueprint, ink, watercolor on cardboard, 1922– 1928 [Theaterwissenschaftliche Sammlung, Universität zu Köln] 110 5 Frederick Kiesler, the Bauhaus and the Bauhaus Stage Moholy-Nagy also designed a similar display for a mechanical stage transformation in 1924 as a Partitur-Skizze einer Mechanischen Exzentrik für ein Varieté (Score Sketch for Mechanized Eccentric for a Varieté) 7 . It illustrated his essay “Theater, Zirkus, Varieté” (Theater, Circus, Variety) 46 published in the fourth volume of the Bauhaus books in which Moholy-Nagy described theater as an “articulated experience” in which “sound, color (light), motion, space, form (objects and persons)” combined to form a “concentration of action.” Just as in painting it was not the content as such which was essential but “the interaction of colors,” so too in literature “it was … the effects which arose from the word-sound relationships” which “belonged in the foreground.” For “the logical-intellectual content (das Logisch-Gedankliche) of a work of literature was far from its primary aim.” 47 The human being had no place in a “synthesis of dynamically contrasting phenomena (space, form, motion, sound, and light)” and could “at best only [have] a certain range of action, dependent entirely on his natural body mechanism.” 48 Moholy-Nagy thus considered overcoming the inadequacy of human eccentricity (Exzentrik) by means of a Mechanische Exzentrik as a crucial step towards developing the “Theater of Totality.” In this theater, the human being would no longer be pivotal but ultimately a medium of expression that would take its place on an equal footing among all other stage media. In some cases, however, “man as co-actor is not necessary, since in our day equipment can be constructed which is far more capable of executing the purely mechanical role of man.” 49 When Moholy-Nagy tries to describe “how … the theater of totality [shall be] realized,” citing “mirrors and optical equipment … used to project the gigantically enlarged faces and gestures of the actors” as one of many examples, then this appears to hark back to those mirror and projection apparatuses already used by Kiesler in his R.U.R. stage. But he also indicated the idea of “[projecting] films onto various surfaces and further experiments in space illumination,” as developed by HirschfeldMack and Schwerdtfeger for Aktionen des Lichts (Light Actions) 50 since 1922, as possible contributions to a “Theater of Totality.” Moholy-Nagy shared Kiesler’s vision of a theater revolutionized by innovatively organized motion for which the “proscenium stage [was] not suitable.” In this form of stage, he maintained, “stage and spectator are too much separated … to be able to produce creative relationships 5 A Bauhaus Book That Never Was 111 and reciprocal tensions.” And when he writes: “In place of today’s periphery of orchestra loges, a runway joined to the stage could be built to establish—by means of a more or less caliperlike embrace— a closer connection with the audience,” 51 then this sounded almost like a description of Kiesler’s Raumbühne. Film projections were to play a key role in enlarging the stage by means of technical equipment. Kiesler himself had done this to some extent in the R.U.R. production, using film and other optical devices to break through the traditional static of the stage set. Gropius was the first person to adopt these ideas for an entire theater as an architectural apparatus, developing the Totaltheater (or “Design for the Piscator stage”) for Erwin Piscator as from 1926/27. Piscator’s objective was a “proletarian” and “revolutionary” theater that made use of simultaneous scaffold stages, elevators and conveyor belts. This architectural theater apparatus was intended to break down the boundary between stage and auditorium. In addition, he had already been collecting film projections, title cards, and stage sets by George Grosz, John Heartfield and Moholy-Nagy since the mid-1920s. With the aid of “mechanical means” the aim was to be able to transform the auditorium/stage constellation even during a performance. Gropius stressed that “in a dark stage space … one can build with light,” not limiting the possibilities of “light protection” to projecting films. Similar to Moholy-Nagy in his deliberations for “Das Kommende Theater: Das Theater der Totalität” (The Coming Theater: The Theater of Totality), he emphasized that light still needed to be developed as a medium for artistic representation. The goal of Piscator’s Totaltheater was literally to “overwhelm the audience” by means of simultaneous actions and by means of projections of light and film. Each member of the audience was to experience himself as a united social community, as a collective mass. Piscator was without doubt familiar with Kiesler’s Raumbühne and the intention of abolishing the auditorium and the stage. Today it is virtually impossible to tell to what extent Kiesler was involved in Piscator’s project. In a telegram of July 24, 1927 to Herbert Ihering, Kiesler claimed that his “variations of perfect theater [ideales Volkshaus] for Piscator [were] finished” and that he was willing to “collaborate with Gropius.” 52 The performance of Hirschfeld-Mack’s Farblichtspiele in or on Kiesler’s Raumbühne could be seen in this context as a joint full-scale 112 5 Frederick Kiesler, the Bauhaus and the Bauhaus Stage mock-up (Bauprobe) for the Totaltheater, as a combination of a stage structure open to all sides and sophisticated light effects. As a perfect example demonstrating the theatrical encounter of Space Stage (Raumbühne) and Bauhaus stage, this subsequent aggrandizement of meaning would no doubt have appealed to Kiesler. 5 24 25 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 In J. J. Oud, Holländische Architektur, Bauhausbücher, vol. 10 (Munich: Albert Langen, 1926). Frederick Kiesler, “Vitalbau-Raumstadt-Funktionelle Architektur,” De Stijl 6, no. 10/11 (1925), 435–37. Maurice Raynal, “Stadt in der Luft,” G: Zeitschrift für elementare Gestaltung, no. IV (1926), 10. (Translated from German.) Frederick Kiesler, “Ausstellungssystem Leger und Träger,” De Stijl 6, no. 10/11 (1925), 138–141. El Lissitzky, letter to Til Brugman, February 5, 1926, quoted after Almut Grunewald, “Friedrich Kiesler. Seine Skulpturen und sein offenes künstlerisches Konzept” (PhD diss., Technische Universität München, 2014), 21. (Translated from German.) Theo van Doesburg, “Das Problem einer aktiven Ausstellungsgestaltung,” Neues Wiener Journal, (October 31, 1924), 5. (Translated from German.) Cf. Bernd Finkeldey et al., eds., Konstruktivistische Internationale Schöpferische Arbeitsgemeinschaft 1922–1927. Utopien für eine europäische Kultur (Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz, 1992) exhibition catalog, 169–177. El Lissitzky coined the phrase in 1923 in reference to his Proun concept, describing it as a “station where one changes from painting to architecture.” David Josef Bach and Frederick Kiesler, letter to Walter Gropius, May 14, 1924, Landesarchiv Thüringen – Hauptstaatsarchiv Weimar, staatliches Bauhaus, No. 185, 000127. (Translated from German.) Walter Gropius, letter to David Josef Bach, May 19, 1924, ibid., No. 185, 000128 and 000129. (Translated from German.) Cf. Walter Gropius, letter to David Josef Bach, September 11, 1924, ibid., No. 185, 000142. Bauhaus syndicus, letter to David Josef Bach, July 23, 1924, ibid., No. 185, 000134. (Translated from German.) Walter Gropius, letter to David Josef Bach, September 11, 1924, ibid., No. 185, 000142. (Translated from German.) Frederick Kiesler, letter to the State Bauhaus Weimar, September 10, 1924, ibid., No. 185, 000140. (Translated from German.) That the show in Vienna not only included designs but also figurines for the Mechanisches Ballett is evidenced by a telegram from Oskar Schlemmer, who wrote on September 20, 1924: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 “Do not dance Bogler.” Apparently he wanted to prevent a dance production that he considered unfinished and more like student antics from harming the reputation of the Bauhaus stage. Oskar Schlemmer, telegram to Frederick Kiesler, September 20, 1924, Landes archiv Thüringen – Hauptstaatsarchiv Weimar, staatliches Bauhaus, No. 185, 000145. (Translated from German.) Although only an auditor at the Bauhaus, and a friend of Hans Richter’s, Gert Caden also exhibited three drawings in Vienna that, similar to Kiesler’s built Raumbühne, presented a linear, helical form of movement running around a central structure. The drawn project was called Excentrik Operoid and can be seen as one of many other spatial, sculptural experiments shown at the exhibition that, in one form or another, might be regarded as prototypical anticipations or as parallel variations of Kiesler’s Raumbühne. Alfred Sand, “Vorführungen auf der Raumbühne,” Wiener Morgenzeitung (October 2, 1924), 7. (Translated from German.) Frederick Kiesler, ed., Internationale Ausstellung neuer Theatertechnik (Vienna: Würthle & Sohn, 1924), exhibition catalog, 46–47. Walter Gropius, letter to Frederick Kiesler, October 28, 1924, Landesarchiv Thüringen – Hauptstaatsarchiv Weimar, staatliches Bauhaus, No. 185, 000146. (Translated from German.) Frederick Kiesler, letter to Walter Gropius, November 9, 1924, ibid., No. 185, 000147. (Translated from German.) Frederick Kiesler and Jane Heap, eds., International Theatre Exposition (New York, 1926), exhibition catalog. Oskar Schlemmer, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy and Farkas Molnár, eds., Die Bühne am Bauhaus (Munich: Albert Lange, 1925). English translation: Oskar Schlemmer, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, and Farkas Molnár, The Theater of the Bauhaus, Walter Gropius and Arthur S. Wensinger, eds., trans. Arthur S. Wensinger (Middleton, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1971). Frederick Kiesler, “Das Theater der Zeit,” Morgenausgabe Berliner Tageblatt, June 1, 1923, in Barbara Lesák, Die Kulisse explodiert. Friedrich Kieslers Theaterexperimente und Architekturprojekte 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 A Bauhaus Book That Never Was 1923–25 (Vienna: Löcker, 1988), 42–44, 42. (Translated from German.) Walter Gropius, “Die Arbeit der Bauhausbühne” (1922), in Hans-M. Wingler, Das Bauhaus 1919–1933. Weimar, Dessau, Berlin und die Nachfolge in Chicago seit 1937 (Cologne: DuMont, 1968), 72. (Translated from German.) Walter Gropius, “Die Bühne am Bauhaus,” in Staatliches Bauhaus Weimar, ed. Karl Nierendorf (Weimar: Bauhaus-Verlag, 1923). (Translated from German.) The Bauhaus students Friedl Dicker and Franz Singer had previously designed stage sets and costumes for Berthold Viertel in 1921. Dicker had begun studying in the Textile class at Vienna’s Kunstgewerbeschule in 1914, additionally attending courses held by Franz Čižek. A student at Johannes Itten’s private art school in Vienna since 1916, she followed him to the Bauhaus in Weimar in 1919. From 1923 to 1925, Dicker and Singer ran the “Werkstätten Bildender Kunst” in Berlin, also building set designs for Viertel. Walter Gropius, “Idee und Aufbau des Bauhaus,” in Nierendorf, Staatliches Bauhaus Weimar. (Translated from German.) Ibid. Kiesler, “Das Theater der Zeit,” 42. Ibid., 44. László Moholy-Nagy and Alfréd Kemény, “Konstruktiv-Dynamisches Kraftsystem,” Der Sturm 13 (December 5, 1922), 186. (Translated from German.) Oskar Schlemmer, diary, September 1922, in Oskar Schlemmer. Idealist der Form. Briefe, Tagebücher, Schriften 1912–1943, ed. Adreas Hüneke (Leipzig: Reclam, 1989), 95–97, 96. (Translated from German.) Oskar Schlemmer, speech at the opening of the exhibition Herbstschau neuer Kunst in Stuttgart, 1919, ibid., 335. (Translated from German.) Oskar Schlemmer, “Mensch und Kunstfigur,” in Schlemmer, Mohology-Nagy, and Molnár, Die Bühne im Bauhaus, 36. (Translated from German.) Oskar Schlemmer, “Tänzerische Mathematik,” Vivos Voco 5, no. 8/9 (1926), 279–81. (Translated from German.) Schlemmer, “Mensch und Kunstfigur,” 13. English translation: Oskar Schlemmer, “Man and Art Figure,” in Gropius and Wensinger, The Theater of the Bauhaus, 22. Kiesler, “Das Theater der Zeit,” 43. (Translated from German.) Ibid., 44. (Translated from German.) Schlemmer, “Man and Art Figure,” 28. Ibid., 19. Ibid., 40. Kiesler, “Das Theater der Zeit,” 42. (Translated from German.) Ibid., 43. (Translated from German.) Cf. Lesák, Die Kulisse explodiert, 85. 113 45 Kiesler, Internationale Ausstellung neuer Theatertechnik, 24. 46 László Moholy-Nagy, “Theater, Circus, Variety,” in Gropius and Wensinger, The Theater of the Bauhaus, 49–70. 47 Ibid., 52. 48 Ibid., 52–54. 49 Ibid., 60. 50 Ibid., 67. 51 Ibid., 68. 52 Frederick Kiesler, telegram to Herberg Ihering, July 24, 1927, Herbert-Ihering-Archiv (1694), Akademie der Künste Berlin.