The Notion of Type and its Importance in the 20th Century Essay

The Notion of Type and its Importance in the 20th nose candy - Essay ExampleDeutscher Werkbund was established in 1907 by Hermann Muthesius and Friendrich Naumann in order to consolidate art and persistence . The grapples surrounding Werkbund focus on Muthesius concept of Typisierung. According to Muthesius, mass return denoted standardization however, he combine the economic concept of standardization with Platonic ideal types. Muthesius ideas were heavily criticized by a number of artists and architects. The debate between him and Van de Velde was not slightly mechanization, scarcely on the role of the artist. Whereas Muthesius asserted that the artist was scattered and abstracted from the production process, Van de Velde advocated the artistic freedom and creativity . Muthesius and Werkbund did not care much about the Fordist aspects of the mass production, rather they tried to bring organization to the otherwise chaotic world of the mass production ruled by fashion, indi vidualism and arbitrariness. Peter Behrens designs for AEG, which were called Types, epitomized the various tendencies within the Werkbund. Behrenss work dwelling house in Berlin has become an artists workroom for many young architects including Walter Gropius, Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, who would shape the Modern Movement. They learned architecture directly from Behrens. As Curtis noted Le Corbusier practicality and idealism was enhanced through his work for Peter Behrens, who saw mechanization as a vital force in creation of the modern culture.5 Figure 1, Peter Behrens, Types, AEG, 1912. The Werkbunds approach was prestigious until the end of World War I. However, later on, both Gropius and Le Corbusier abandoned the theoretical approaches of the Werkbund. Before 1914, debates were focused on the design of commodities. After 1920, the architectural issues have increasingly become the focus. Adolf Loos holds a special place in the history of modern architecture, not just as a pioneering figure of the Modern movement, but also as a critic of the Werkebund. In his influential article Ornament and Crime (1908) he argued that elimination of ornaments from the useful objects was beneficial to culture reducing the time spent on manual childbed and releasing energy for the life of the mind6. This article can be regarded as an attack to the Werkebund in a sense that it was unacceptable for Loos to give the artist a form-giving role7. He did not believe that the artist is the creator of everyday useful objects8.According to him, style was the outcome of several economic and cultural conditions. Hence he also criticized Muthesius on the ground that he substituted form for ornament9. As Kenneth Frampton indicated , for Loos all culture depended on a certain continuity with the past above all, on a consensus as to a