Bauhaus Under Fire: A Resurgence of Cultural and Political Battles in Germany

The Far Right's Attack on Modernism

In a Germany grappling with political tensions, the Bauhaus, a titan of 20th-century architecture, art, and design, finds itself unexpectedly under attack from the far right. Hans-Thomas Tillschneider, a member of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, has controversially linked Saxony-Anhalt's economic woes to the influence of Bauhaus modernism.

This surprising accusation comes as a direct response to the regional government's "think modern" campaign, which ironically highlights the Bauhaus movement as a beacon of local ingenuity and a driver for future investment.

A Clash of Ideologies: Modernism vs. Conservatism

Tillschneider's counter-argument is stark: "we do not need to think modern, we need to think conservatively." He dismisses Bauhaus ideals as tainted by communist ideology, echoing historical anxieties about national identity and sparking a renewed culture war.

Founded in Weimar in 1919 by architect Walter Gropius, the Bauhaus embraced material utopianism and innovative workshop-based teaching. This avant-garde approach placed the school on the political left, making it a target throughout the fragile Weimar Republic.

A Historical Tug-of-War: The Bauhaus and German Identity

In the post-monarchy era, the Bauhaus navigated a complex cultural landscape. While some embraced modern aesthetics like Impressionism and Expressionism, conservatives clung to an artistic nationalism, viewing art as a tool for cultivating loyal citizens.

This conservative view championed Weimar Classicism, a high-brow form of literature, theatre, and visual arts. The Bauhaus, in contrast, was anti-bourgeois, experimental, and focused on democratizing artistic access – a goal that, ironically, proved difficult to achieve in practice.

From Weimar to Dessau: A Story of Displacement and Resilience

Following funding cuts driven by conservative political parties, the Bauhaus relocated to Dessau in 1925. There, the school constructed a new building reflecting its modernist principles. Despite Gropius's attempts to depoliticize the institution, internal debates about architecture's role in society persisted.

The concept of "New Objectivity" (Neue Sachlichkeit), embodied in the Neues Bauen movement – characterized by modular, pre-fabricated construction – further fueled these discussions. Gropius's departure and the subsequent appointment of socialist architect Hannes Meyer in 1928 shifted the Bauhaus back towards the left.

The Rise of Nazism and the Bauhaus's Final Act

With the Nazis gaining power in 1931, the Bauhaus faced its ultimate existential threat. The Dessau school building was targeted for destruction, forcing another relocation to Berlin in 1932. Operating privately, the Bauhaus sought to avoid further conflict, but the Nazi's anti-socialist policies ultimately led to the school's closure in 1933.

Scattered across the globe, many Bauhaus members found refuge in the United States, where they continued the "Bauhaus spirit" within the burgeoning international modernism movement.

A Legacy Distorted: From "Degenerate Art" to Political Fodder

While the Bauhaus embraced diverse artistic influences, its post-war image has been simplified to geometric shapes, primary colours, and horizontal lines. Labelled "degenerate" by the Nazis, the Bauhaus legacy faced further criticism in East Germany, where it was deemed "cosmopolitan" and accused of abandoning national heritage.

Tillschneider's claims that the Bauhaus "denied man's connection to land and his cultural roots" represent a dramatic, though unsurprising, amplification of these historical critiques.

A Century Later: The Culture War Continues

The centennial of the Bauhaus's move to Dessau provides a backdrop for Tillschneider's re-ignition of a familiar culture war. By equating the CDU with a simplistic and arguably distorted portrayal of the Bauhaus – anti-crafts, anti-bourgeois, and internationalist – he implies his political rivals oppose German tradition.

This tactic, relying on nativist sentiment, preys on anxieties surrounding cultural and national identity. It's a strategy of political expediency, offering superficial gains at the expense of deeper understanding.