Deceit and Bruno Taut's Glashaus

The historical context surrounding Bruno Taut's Glashaus has been established through work of authors like Reyner Banham, Dennis Sharp and Ian Boyd-Whyte. However, these English language translations, are mostly derived from secondary sources such as Adolf Behne and Paul Scheerbart. Surprisingly, Taut's own writings largely do not feature in this prevailing account of his work. Since 1990, strong doubts have arisen about this conventional picture of Taut's Glashaus. Manfred spiedel, for instance, minimizes Paul Scheerbart's contribution to the design by arguing that Scheerbart met Taut only a few months before the construction of the Glashaus, that is, after Taut had finished his preliminary sketches. Kurt Junghanns goes further and asserts that the Glashaus design was complete beefore Taut and Scheerbart ever met. In 2005, Kai Gutschow published The Culture of Criticism: Adolf Behne and the Development of Modern Architecture in Germany, 1910 - 1914. Most startling, Gutschow asserts that Behne acts as the propagandist for the Glashaus by fabricating its link with Expressionism. This is particularly troubling because nobody contributed more to establishing the link between the Glashaus, Bruno Taut and Expressionism than Behne. As a result of this new evidence, this paper concurs that the established historical understanding of the Glashaus is flawed. By returning to Taut's own writings, a reinterpretation can be offered that strongly links the Glashaus to the Victoria regia lily and Strasbourg Cathedral. The significance of this approach is that it re-establishes Taut's own rational behind the design of the Glashaus, and thus contributes to the re-evaluation of the generally accepted histories of the Modern movement.

Natures muses in Bruno Tuat’s Glashaus

Constructed for the 1914 Werkbund Exhibition in Cologne, Germany, the Glashaus was both a seminal example of early modernist architecture and Bruno Taut’s signature building. Over time, metaphors have come to be applied to the Glashaus. Within the realm of nature these metaphors include cosmic, geological, botanic and sexual. However these metaphors, like the history of the Glashaus, are not a foregone conclusion. Recently it has been argued that the majority of our current knowledge regarding the Glashaus derives not from the perspective of Bruno Taut as the architect, but rather directly from perspective of the art critic Adolf Behne. This argument goes further and proposes that Behne’s official history of Glashaus is possibly fabricated propaganda. So, if indeed the official history of the Glashaus is questionable, then too are the natural metaphors commonly applied to the building. By revisiting Bruno Taut’s pre-1915 writings, this investigation reveals that botanic metaphors appear to have been Taut’s primary source of inspiration for the design of the Glashaus. Through the exposure of this fact, this research contributes significantly to the current debates surrounding Bruno Taut, the Glashaus and the re-evaluation of the official histories of the modern movement.

Fourth wall removed : womens' liberation or entrapment?

Australian dramatic literature of the 1950s and 1960s heralded a new wave in theatre and canonised a unique Australian identity on local and international stages. In previous decades, Australian theatre had been abound with the mythology of the wide brown land and the outback hero. This rural setting proved remote to audiences and sat uneasily within the conventions of the naturalist theatre. It was the suburban home that provided the back drop for this postwar evolution in Australian drama. While there were a number of factors that contributed to this watershed in Australian theatre, little has been written about how the spatial context may have influenced this movement. With the combined effects of postwar urbanization and shifting ideologies around domesticity, a new literary landscape had been created for playwrights to explore. Australian playwrights such as Dorothy Hewett, Ray Lawler and David Williamson transcended the outback hero by relocating him inside the postwar home. The Australian home of the 1960s slowly started subscribing to a new aesthetic of continuous living spaces and patios that extended from the exterior to the interior. These mass produced homes employed diluted spatial principles of houses designed by architects, Le Corbusier, Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe and Adolf Loos in the 1920s and 1930s. In writing about Adolf Loos’ architecture, Beatriz Colomina described the “house as a stage for the family theatre”. She also wrote that the inhabitants of Loos’ houses were “both actors and spectators of the family scene involved”. It has not been investigated as to whether this new capacity to spectate within the home was a catalyst for playwrights to reflect upon, and translate the domestic environment to the stage. Audiences were also accustomed to being spectators of domesticity and could relate to the representations of home in the theatre. Additionally, the domestic setting provided a space for gender discourse; a space in which contestations of masculine and feminine identities could be played out. This research investigates whether spectating within the domestic setting contributed to the revolution in Australian dramatic literature of the 1950s and 1960s. The concept of the spectator in domesticity is underpinned by the work of Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley. An understanding of how playwrights may have been influenced by spectatorship within the home is ascertained through interviews and biographical research. The paper explores playwrights’ own domestic experiences and those that have influenced the plays they wrote and endeavours to determine whether seeing into the home played a vital role in canonising the Australian identity on the stage.

The lily, client and measure of Bruno Taut’s Glashaus

The Glashaus is considered a significant exemplar of early modernist architecture and is generally accepted as having had Expressionist origins. However, current research has revealed that the design origins of this important building are not fully understood. While the historical record acknowledges the contributions of the bohemian poet Paul Scheerbart and the art critic Adolf Behne, the role of the Glashaus’ architect, Bruno Taut, has been moderated. In an attempt to rectify this situation this article proposes that the design origins of the Glashaus can be found in a strong architect-client interaction. It is argued that the Glashaus’ client, the Deutsche Luxfer Prismen Syndikat under the directorship of Frederick Keppler, exerted a significant influence on its design. In order to showcase the glazed products of Luxfer in the best manner possible, Keppler insisted that the design feature a glazed dome, electric lighting, a fountain as well as a cascade. Given the detailed stipulations of this brief, Taut had few options other than to offer interpretations of precedent that derived from the Victoria regia lily and Gothic proportioning. By expounding this architect-client relationship, this article expands our understanding of the Glashaus, and reinvigorates our understanding of this important early example of modern architecture.

Observations on the Architecture of Evil: A New Reading of Eichmann on Kant

En route from Birmingham to Syria in 2013, British-Jihadi neophytes aged 22, Yusuf Sarwar and Mohammed Ahmed purchased two books via Amazon to prepare for their mission in Syria after joining ISIS: The Koran for Dummies and Islam for Dummies. Journalists were swift to disparage their reading. The book’s author, Princeton University campus imam, Sohaib Nazeer Sultan remarked “Even though they may have ordered it, I don't think they read it.” In 1933, aged 27, Adolf Eichmann moved to Berlin to join the Sicherheitsdienst SD whereupon he read Immanuel Kant’s book the Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (The Critique of Practical Reason) for the first time. After his trial in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt of course dismissed Eichmann’s reading of the German philosopher as thoroughly vacuous. Ever since, writers have sought to undermine the veracity of Eichmann’s account. The global Jihadis are illiterate, a journalist recently commented: they’re not well read in the Qur’an, and if they have read it, they have thoroughly misunderstood it. He cited as evidence Abdul Raqib Amin’s YouTube rhetorical: Forget everyone. Read the Koran, read the instruction of life. Find out what is jihad. Eichmann on the other hand was not illiterate in his youth. Before Berlin, he had already read Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals ; he would also re-read the Critique of Practical Reason, and from his testimony and terminology we can infer he was familiar with Kantian concepts that extend beyond both books...