Leseprobe

285 H Hellerau has a reason, a desire to teach. In all its facets, the Hellerau project is suffused with aspirations towards, ideas about and attempts at pedagogical reform, and also with wilful intent and manipulation. Hellerau, as a whole, must be understood – a priori – as an educational mission. Around, and especially after 1900, the Machine Age, the age of the masses and of mass itself, seems to lead inevitably to an era of new teaching – across the board, even including instruction with a raised forefinger. Images of a longed-for, more humane way of life flicker with interleaved images of impending doom, of a certain self-abandonment – a melange of dreams and nightmares soon to be further amplified by war and its aftermath. Somehow or other, worship of the light, of the sun, of nature – even physical culture – all survive into the 1930s. There is a clear demand for prophets pointing in this or that direction, a longing for leadership figures and at the same time a rejection of such leaders, a need for each individual to make their own decisions and take their own action. The publishing scene for manifestos of the goals of individual and collective self-reform – in a range of fields, often written with exuberance, with pathos, but also with a certain expectation of redemption – can only be characterised as ‘inflationary’. As reform pedagogue Paul Geheeb, who was involved at an early stage in the Hellerau project, admonished: “Salvation comes from the children!” Outline I: Thoughts, ideas, pointers – from Naumann to Migge Friedrich Naumann – a behind-the-scenes influential, social-liberal source of inspiration – was one of the experts who, at an early stage, drew the attention of the general public to the interrelationships between schooling and the Machine Age. In a lecture entitled Volksschule und industrielle Entwicklung (Elementary School and Industrial Development), probably given in 1904 at the then active Leipziger Lehrerverein (Leipzig teachers’ association), he postulated the inevitability of schoolbased “mass education” as a cultural form. Progress at and with the machine was “only possible if it is accompanied by corresponding progress in the human being who stands at the machine [...] The more complicated the machine becomes, the more thoroughly massaged the brain must be [...].” His summary: “School is demanded by those above, because trained workers are needed; and demanded by those below, because workers want to become subjects.”1 Thus, according to Naumann, children should be educated, with the “power of education”, to become active members of society. Around the same time, Naumann reflected, in a further contribution to the Erziehung zur Persönlichkeit im Zeitalter des Großbetriebes (Education for the Personality in the Age of the Large Factory), that the role of elementary schools was to nurture “the ego in the masses”.2 The consequences of machine work and industrialisation also seemed to call for every human existence to be “spiritualised” – in other words, there was a need for an emotionally oriented, meaning-oriented side of education. Joseph August Lux, head of the proprietary technical college of the Deutsche Werkstätten (German Workshops), was basically positive about industrial development, but: “[...] it will never replace the artistic spirit of inspired manual labour.”3 The social-ethical goals of Naumann’s circle – the hope of achieving social balance across the whole class spectrum from entrepreneur to working man – also characterised the thoughts and actions of the Hellerau project’s leading personalities, even though these differed in their individual educational intentions. For Naumann, like the majority of his contemporaries, the nationalist moment – pride in a strengthened Germany, the “belated nation” – was an imperative element in every consideration. The Deutscher Werkbund (German Association of Craftsmen), which was founded definitively in line with Naumann’s and Deutsche Werkstätten company owner Karl Schmidt’s stipulations, saw itself as an “educator” for the purpose of the “ennoblement” and “spiritualisation” of industrial work, and, according to Hellerau patron Wolf Dohrn, as a body of experts spanning the fields of “art, ethics and business”.4 Accordingly, one of its mission statements was to provide far-­ reaching education regarding aesthetic quality. This took place primarily through exhibitions and publications, but also through the product catalogues and company publications of the Deutsche Werkstätten – in which Naumann famously mused about the “ghost in the furniture”.5 Another channel was the Gemeinnützige Vertriebsstelle deutscher Qualitätsarbeit (community distribution agency for German quality products), a Hellerau-based consumer-protection establishment set up by Ferdinand Avenarius, editor of the arts journal Kunstwart and founder of the Dürerbund (Dürer Association), a society of reformist writers and artists. Most certainly in line with Friedrich Naumann’s objectives, architect and designer Richard Riemerschmid recommended the compilation of a “Baedeker of quality products”, and, from 1911 onwards, he and Avenarius wrote to each other regularly.6 In February 1914, regarding the forthcoming publication of this “Baedeker”, the Deutsches Warenbuch (German Product Catalogue), Riemerschmid addressed his opinion to Karl Schmidt that “The product catalogue must [...] contain nothing but the best and most excellent mass-produced articles in Germany [...].”7 The Deutsches Warenbuch was finally published in 1915, by the Dürerbund-Werkbund-Genossenschaft (Dürerbund-Werkbund cooperative), with the intention of equipping consumers – potential buyers – with guidelines to influence their purchasing decisions.8 Joseph August Lux – who in 1907 became the first director of the Deutsche Werkstätten’s technical college – demanded the involvement of both “heart and head in the performance of the hand”, while at the same time declaring that school instruction was given “neither in schematic, schoolmasterly nor catheter-­ like form, but in friendly contact with the learners by way of discussion, questioning, positive work and the prudently guided exercise of their growing powers”.9 Wolf Dohrn and Karl Schmidt themselves taught at the technical college, and, on occasions, artists like Karl Gross and Otto Gussmann – both furniture designers – even taught the actual workers at the Deutsche Werkstätten. In 1908, Lux affirmed that Schmidt always “endeavoured to interest his workforce intellectually in

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMyNjA1