“How I wish I had been an architect!” Hitler
“Concrete is the second most widely consumed substance on earth, after water.” US National Building Museum
Young Adolph Hitler was rejected twice by the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (1907–1908), citing "unfitness for painting," and was told his abilities lay instead in the field of architecture. When Hitler’s rejection by the art community was fully realized, he turned to “painting” and “designing” more than just a 2D work but an entire race of “beautiful” living “works:” the Aryan race. However, his love for architecture never left him. Hitler was entranced by the monuments of ancient Rome, considering Rome to be an Aryan civilization. Hitler envisioned creating a world of beautiful people in beautiful homes who paid homage to him and his regime through the awe of impressive, beautiful monuments. German romanticism fueled this vision of architecture. The German architects of the school of Pragmatism realized their architectural vision was diametrically opposed to the Romantic and Baroque vision; that is, concrete, simple rectangular forms verses the dramatic, monumental Romanticism of Nazi architecture. Hitler saw architecture as “the word in stone," a method of imparting a message to the people. Perhaps the subject of another post: a discussion of the difference between the Stone becoming Word and the Word becoming Flesh.
So what does this have to do with concrete? Well, the title of this post is a bit misleading. Hitler did not exactly hate concrete. He hated architecture that was built simply to fulfill a basic function, and thereby lacked beauty. Hitler would use any material in order to fulfill his grand design of making buildings “words in stone.” But the pragmatists, fleeing Germany, brought the dream of a New Concrete Modern World with them. Why? Because concrete is the most pragmatic building material in the world. It is terribly cheap compared with other materials. When it is reinforced with steel, it is virtually impregnable. In other words, the perfect building material of the Pragmatic school of architecture—and incidentally, perfect for the Communistic ideals of the time. Cheap. Conformist. Ugly.
After living in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina for a year, I pondered what the city would look like had Hitler won the war. I imagine that instead of the shrapnel-pocked cement monstrosities that fill the mountainous valley, the valley would look more like a German village strewn with gaudy, monuments of eagles in celebration of the Third Reich.
I cannot imagine which is more hideous.
Mark
Thanks to Chris Pipkin for your insight and ideas about Hitler
2 comments:
Incidentally, my first idea in response to the topic of concrete was to do something about the pock marked building fronts of Sarajevo. Of my two week stay there back in 2002, those images are still the first I call to mind when I think of the city. Since I didn't have any of those images handy, I decided to find inspiration elsewhere (see my post on Doris Salcedo's Shibboleth).
I wonder as the reconstruction efforts progress whether there will be some significant changes to the face of the city. How do the newer buildings look?
Interesting that I find myself agreeing with Hitler that art and architecture do and should convey messages.
[Chris said:]
I highly doubt Hitler would have made it as far as he did if he hadn't had SOME good ideas, though he was, in Tolkien's words, a "ruddy little ignoramus." People aren't deceived by a liar who only tells lies. He must mix in some truth as well. Even Hitler got some things right. If we deny this, we're oversimplifying things in the same way he did--making one man or one race responsible for all of OUR evil. I will be, hopefully, taking the "concrete" discussion in a similar direction to Jason and Mark in a day or two.
Post a Comment