You are on page 1of 25

Hellerau As a Product of

Heinrich Tessenows Writings

Stefanie Opitz
Cultural Inquiry II
Kimberly Elman Zarecor
May 8th, 2006
In the summer of 1909, the corner stone for the first garden city in Germany was

laid. Striving to propagate new forms of communal living, Au am Heller was founded

based on an artistic foundation. The German architects Richard Riemerschmidt, Hermann

Muthesius, and Heinrich Tessenow were the key forces in designing this community.

Focusing on an architecture that would be cohesive with nature and fit into the hilly

landscape, small houses, workshops, and markets were connected by winding roads (see

figure 16). At the center of this town is the Festspielhaus, designed by Tessenow and

built in 1912. Placed at the northwestern-edge of the town, the Festspielhaus is the

cultural center of the garden city, housing the Institut Dalcroze as well as being the

location for community festivals.

This paper will evaluate the continuity between Heinrich Tessenows extensive

writings and his built projects. During his lifetime, Tessenow wrote profusely on various

matters concerning the built environment and established himself as a life-reformer.

However, in actuality Tessenow built very few projects, and most of those were not of a

magnitude that would reform society. Whereas his writing focused on forward-thinking

notions for life and the built environment at large, his few built projects were rarely the

sort that would carry such a reformative impact. In an effort to compare Tessenows

writings with his built projects, I have broken down his writings into various sections, to

then collect the pieces with comparisons to photographs of his built projects.

Heinrich Tessenow (1876 1950) was a German architect, who has been praised

to be one of the great architects of the 19th century. Starting his education as an

apprentice carpenter and later studying at the School of Building in Leipzig, he became a

teacher. Descendent from a long line of farmers and craftsmen, he had a strong sense for

1
nature and an understood sense for the simplistic. This is the origin for what is generally

viewed to be the basis of his all encompassing thinking of the visible as well as the

invisible (that which is easily comprehended, but difficult to explain).

As an architect, Tessenow built only a few projects, but focused his energy on

writing about the topics that concerned him. Described as a loner, he concentrated on the

question of the ideal form for houses and furniture. He also worked on determining a

form for housing schemes that would provide the setting for lives lived with a purpose.

Especially so after World War I, Tessenow was focused on how the built environment

could return society to a cohesive whole. He strove to define a living environment that

would lead the younger generation to finding a coherent meaning in the future.

In his writings, Tessenow discussed a myriad of things and focused on some very

specific details. Living in a time period of extreme turmoil impacted by the First as well

as the Second World War his concerns for the built environment did not exhibit a

significant change, however, a new sense of urgency seemed to infiltrate the latter

writings.

First published in 1916, Hausbau und Dergleichen (House-building and the Like)

explores the manner in which people inhabit space and what he considers to be key

aspects of buildings. In the midst of the World War I, Tessenow discussed his views on

middle-class housing and industrial work. 1 Considering the importance of this aspect of

life, he strove to appraise its input in our daily life. What he considered to be the general

1
It is important to note here that when Tessenow discusses the industrial, the German
word gewerblich is rather loosely translated, as it is meant as an all-encompassing
statement for trade, business, manufacture, professions, crafts, as well as the
mechanization of production. Note: all translations are made by the author, unless noted
otherwise.

2
lack of knowledge and understanding that permeates all aspects of our life, he saw to be

leaving a destructive imprint on our living and working culture. Declaring that every

object entails far too many unnecessary details, he demands that we must cut down

everything except that which is essential and most dear. This, however, is what we can no

longer adequately identify. 2 Focusing on order, symmetry, and the cleanliness and

neatness as primary aspects, Tessenow endeavored to re-focus society on what he views

as the essential aspects of life.

Evaluating the necessary order this Tessenow stated as a freestanding noun,

simply referring to order as a surrounding aspect of life he linked it to uniformity and

regularity (or repetition). Quoting Friedrich Nietzsche to have said, there must be chaos

so that a star can be born, he declared that the world can expect the largest, most

beautiful star to form from our lives and work, for here the requisite chaos is very well

developed. 3 4

This theory carries over into Tessenows discussion of order. Order is most

effectively shaped through uniformity, and just as industrial work requires order to

prosper, so it also requires uniformity. In order to cope with the world, or in order to

recognize it when dealing with uniformity, it is necessary to concentrate our senses on the

finer details. By recognizing the uniformity of our work and the less we require our work

2
Heinrich Tessenow, House-building and the Like, trans. by ME
(Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1986), 15.
3
Ibid., 20.
4
Tessenow carries this same thought through to other aspects of his thinking as well. In
The Small and Large City, he discusses this same quote in relation to world-culture.
Stating that the more passionate a world-culture is in believing in the coming of a shining
world-culture, it knows or senses that first chaos must be present in order to give way to
this shining, new world-culture.

3
to be entirely new, the more refined it will become in its formation. This refinement will

cut away all the unnecessary factors that currently inhibit our life.

Tessenow also considered the economical facet of order, which would be an

immense material benefit: imagine setting apart the essential recurrent aspects of the

design of a house and doing without any of the individual specialties that characterize our

dwellings. The economic effect of creating just a few types of houses would be extensive.

The idea of widespread uniformity in industrial work is not as extreme as it might at first

seem. Earlier works are a good testament to equality and prove that it is possible on

practical terms. Furthermore, uniformity is already an accepted aspect for items such as

tools, lighting fixtures and the like. Tessenow insisted that repetition can be a powerful

tool for an effective sense of uniformity (and therefore order). Though it is important that

the repetitive element touches on something powerful a sentiment to give it richness.

The challenge is to determine what this correct quality in buildings pieces is.5

Another important aspect of the built environment is symmetry. Following along

the same lines of repetition and regularity, Tessenow associated symmetry with endowing

strength to an object. Symmetry, however, is not something that becomes part of a

building by itself. If the designer of a house considers only practical factors such as

environmental impacts, the design will come out asymmetrical. Tessenow saw this as the

inevitable result for most objects where only practical and sensible solutions were desired

lop-sided and crooked. Symmetry is, in every respect, a matter of the centre line or the

axis of symmetry and, so to speak, it knows it. At any rate it always ensures that we take

5
Heinrich Tessenow, Hausbau und Dergleichen (House-building and the Like),
(Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1986), 15.

4
a special interest in it, just as, amongst other things, a circle is always eager to have us

search for its centre. 6 (see Figure 1a)

An unwanted side effect of symmetry is its inherent rigidity that can appear

unpleasant. Tessenow evaluates varying degrees of complexity concerning symmetry,

concluding that combining various elements enlivens the symmetry: If we side-step the

demands of the axis slightly, and propose new images to the side of the axis, then our

interest in the axis remains alive, but it is divided into interest in the axis, and interest in

the new elements of the image, with the effect that our eyes will oscillate, so to speak,

between the axis and the new elements, so that the overall plane is set in motion and

becomes alive. 7 Tessenow concludes that the greater the difficulty in finding its axis, the

better the symmetry. (See figure 1b)

Cleanliness (or purity) relates directly to ornamentation the piling on of

additional, unnecessary features. 8 In 1916, Tessenow discussed the positive aspects of the

cleanliness of industrial work and how it clearly communicates on a daily basis. This sort

of thinking operates along the same lines as Adolf Loos, who wrote his Ornament and

Crime in 1908. The parallels can be drawn even more clearly when considering

Tessenows chapter on ornaments, where he states:

Our thinking and feeling which deliberately allow us ornamentation are,


it has been said, tired. They are not serious. Thus ornamentation is not for
children; it is altogether un-childish. A child always takes its work very
seriously indeed. When it (the child) is tired, it will, if possible, stop
working and go to sleep. The child wants the sensual, and thus ornament

6
Heinrich Tessenow, House-building and the Like, trans. by ME
(Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1986), 28.
7
Ibid,. 26.
8
These same points on building are described in 9H on Rigor (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1989), 27. Here it is used to describe Tessenows traditional training as the
foundation of the development of his own style.

5
can be pleasant for a child; but equally a child desires the factual, it will
draw a house with a very red roof, or a tree with very green leaves. But a
child never wants ornament out of some original impulse, or it will never -
unless badly educated - love ornament as such, quite the reverse. Old
established people of high rank love ornament. People who are half done
with the world, old cultures, all those who altogether lack progress, or do
not believe in progress but still work. Today we have more of our
intentions rooted in the childish and beginnings than we want to think. We
believe strongly in an improvement, and for this reason deliberate
ornamentation is particularly offensive to us. 9

Tessenow continued to re-evaluate these same topics of order, symmetry, and

cleanliness and persists in stating their importance. His Geschriebenes: Gedanken eines

Baumeisters (Writings: Thoughts of a Building Master) re-iterates the same points as

discussed above, but relating it towards the relation between a village, small town, and

city (see Figure 10). Having written this book after the war, Tessenow linked his thoughts

to the human obsession with progress, nature and culture, and communal living at

varying degrees of density. He also discussed Germany after the war and the impact of an

artisan community such as Hellerau.

All of Tessenows built projects entail these key aspects, most notably exhibited

in the Institut Dalcroze at Hellerau (see figure 11). A school of rhythmic gymnastics

founded by Emile Jaques-Dalcroze, it is the focal point of the Hellerau community.

Tessenows design focused on the utopian notion that through rhythm the inhabitants of

Hellerau could be transformed into men of the future, culminating in a design that evokes

the image of a tall, white temple, 10 wherein all the details necessary to shape the new

community were incorporated. Tessenow expressed his wish for a harmonious

9
Heinrich Tessenow, Hausbau und Dergleichen (House-building and the Like),
(Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1986), 41.
10
Vicki Bilenker and Marco De Michelis. Theater, Theatricality, and Architecture.
Perspecta, Vol. 26 (1990): 168.

6
community through the purely symmetrical layout of the building and leaving its faade

devoid of ornaments. Capturing the spirit of this first Garden City, With the realization

of Hellerau, the birth of a new religion was announced, one that professed that happiness

should be useful and that inaugurated an era of good with Dalcroze, an era of utility

with Tessenow, the builder of houses. In the new religion of modernity, a city arises like

a work of art and, at the same time, like an army, under the reign of order. 11

About Tessenows building style, Karl Scheffler said, If other architects of our

time seek ambitiously to be classicists, then Tessenow with his buildings is, silently, a

classicist of discretion. That is: he has fundamentally investigated the living sense of

construction of our time, to the point at which the necessary becomes beautiful, the useful

is transformed into song. 12 This quotation captures the intention of Tessenows building

style, making the building stand as the artwork, without need for ornamentation:

Tessenow planned a complex of extraordinary simplicity. The main


body, dominated at the ends by two steep pediments and by two lower
wings, each as wide as the central nave. The two steep pediments contain
yin and yang medallions at their center which symbolizing dance and
equilibrium. Simple geometric figures constitute the faade the square,
the rectangle, the triangle their proportions under rigorous control and
with almost imperceptible irregularity. The intrados of the grand portico
forms a perfect square. The tympanum is half the height of the square as
are both side wings. The large horizontal windows that illuminate the two
entrance wings and the two small halls for exercise are interrupted exactly
at the center of the two elongated triangles. ... 13 (See figure 12)

Dalcroze himself reacted enthusiastically to design, exclaiming that with its harmony

and simplicity are perfectly adapted to the style of the rhythmic gymnastic exercise For

11
Marco De Michelis; Vicki Bilenker, Modernity and Reform, Heinrich Tessenow and
the Institut Dalcroze at Hellerau, Perspecta Vol: 26 (1990): 147.
12
Ibid., 148.
13
Ibid., 161.

7
the art that I intend, a renewal of the collaboration with space is absolutely

indispensable 14

Hellerau itself was designed with a specific community plan in mind. Separated

into production, low-cost housing, collective services, and a section of villas and single-

family housing zones, part of Tessenows challenge for the design of the buildings is

having the Garden City community take shape and character through these buildings.

Both designed in 1911, the Einfamilienhaus (one-family home) and the Patenthaus

(Patent-home) demonstrate the same strict symmetry and lack of ornamentation. (see

figure 2, 3)

His general outlook towards spatial relations is probably best represented with the

example of the ideal chair (see Figure 4), as described in Die Kleine und Grosse Stadt

(The Small and Large Town). In this book, Tessenow posed a wide range of questions to

further explore that, which is our home. The home as a whole in itself is a creation, which

many people worked on. Made up of an innumerable amount of different objects, a list of

questions pages long could be compiled, trying to determine where each part originated,

what it derived from, who made it, etcetera. This myriad results in a whole world of

itself, a scaled down version of all that surrounds us. Therefore, with the number of

professions that strive to understand the world around us, equal energy should be put into

understanding our dwelling and our interaction with it. 15

14
Marco De Michelis; Vicki Bilenker, Modernity and Reform, Heinrich Tessenow and
the Institut Dalcroze at Hellerau, Perspecta Vol: 26 (1990): 165.
15
Heinrich Tessenow, The Small and Large City (Munich: Georg D.W. Callwey, 1961),
34.

8
Tessenow strove to do just that exploring in order to understand what it is that

makes our home, and how it contributes to living. As part of this, Tessenow designed his

ideal chair:

It appears to me that the most important aspect here is to develop the


correct chair for all the rooms of the house; it may be just a chair, that with
some sympathetic modesty still has something cozily comfortable and is
equally suitable for the various rooms, such that, for example, one could
move all the chairs of the house into the dining room, when such is used as
an auditorium and a large number of chairs is required, and having them
all fit well together. Furthermore do the chairs provide an unquestionably
important factor for the appearance of all the rooms depicted here. After
such and similar considerations, I recommend this chair which I have
especially drawn here, as the main chair; I have already had a prototype
built for myself, and it is in every way absolutely good and it is also
relatively light and cheap to produce.
As a side note, it is assumed that the wooden-seat receives a thinly padded
pillow, that is connected to the chair with the simplest binding and whose
covering (lightly colored linen) is accommodated so that it is easily taken
off and (in larger timeframes) may be washed. 16

With this short passage, Tessenows careful attention to the details of all the parts of an

object is exhibited. Written in 1923, it appears that the war did not change his outlook on

craft and building. He viewed the home dcor (more accurately translated from the

German Wohnkultur as culture of living) as one of the answers to the most important

questions of building. Home dcor is part of what makes a house livable, and inversely,

as these questions on building become more numerous the building becomes less

livable. 17 Furthermore, this passage offers an insight into Tessenows reasoning. Aside

from having us recall his background as an apprentice carpenter, this meticulous attitude

clearly demonstrates his penchant for that intangible aspect that shapes the built space.

He spent an enormous amount of time on creating this chair, from which point on the

16
Heinrich Tessenow, Die Kleine und Grosse Stadt (The Small and Large Town)
(Munich: Georg D.W. Callwey, 1961), 36.
17
Ibid., 37.

9
shape and comfort of the chair would be taken for granted. But the look that a uniform

collection of chairs produces must have been key to him. The different psychology

behind collecting a number of random chairs from about the house versus having a large

number of the same chair carries a distinct image with it. This uniformity, order, and

repetitiveness are key aspects to building, which he also analyzed carefully.

It is also worth considering the implications of the concept of a Gesamtkunstwerk,

which is implied in the above paragraph. Interwoven with Tessenows discussion on

ornamentation, his demand for the objects to be a form of artwork in themselves

emphasizes the whole of the creation as a work of art. Focusing on the chair as an integral

part of his Kunstwerk along with his tendency for bare walls and specific furniture

placement (see figure 5-7), his Gesamtkunstwerk resulted in a very specifically designed

space. This space mayhap even over-designed space does not mesh with his image of

the German vernacular. Simplifying the forms and spaces, and appealing to that simple

drawing of a child (see Figure 3), Tessenow creates a look of a simplistic building. What

this building entails (and hides), however, is extreme attention to detail, which is

juxtaposition to its seemingly effortless faade.

Evaluating Tessenow from a more political standpoint, his anti-Nazi stance was

the cause for loosing his teaching post at the Berlin Technische Hochschule when Hitler

came to power. Before his teaching post was taken away, his most infamous student

Albert Speer attended his seminars. Adopting the look of Tessenows German

nationalism, small-town style, Speer is the reason for why most associate Tessenow with

the Nazis. With historians returning to re-evaluate the value of Tessenows work, the

stance is that Tessenow strove to maintain architectural and cultural continuity by

10
appealing to the memory that is said to be lodged in essentialization of traditional

architectural typologies. 18

Hays also compares Tessenows architecture to that of Adolf Loos. In his texts,

Tessenow separates architecture from art and proposes the elimination of ornament.

These ideas corrolate closely with Loos 1908 essay, Ornament and Crime. Loos built

his Steiner House, which demonstrates the same typological reduction of the house to

geometrically simple volumes as Tessenows single-family house project of 1913. 19

Hays goes on to argue that both Tessenow and Loos employ employ traditional

construction techniques and suppress any idiosyncratic expressiveness. 20

Hays further compares Tessenows architectural style of the Hellerau Institut

Dalcroze where in both his preliminary schemes as well as the final building the

combination of classical and vernacular references are obvious.

In the final building, which can be understood as a synthesis of the


previous two projects through allegorical procedures: first, the
appropriation of the depleted classical image the portico and the
columns; second, the superimposition or doubling of the visual text by a
second text the vernacular roof and the details resulting in a double
patrimony of the classical and the communitarian. Consequently, there is a
shift in attention away from the original signified the classical or the
vernacular to a new allegorically framed meaning, a total system of
communication affiliated with both the authority of the classical and the
vernacular, but presented as something new. While Looss operations of
appropriate and radical discontinuity emphasize the multiple levels within
the cultural field of the modern, and while, at the same time, the objects
mute existence makes apparent the extra-objective, external factors
determining the work and the conditions under which it is used and
perceived, Tessenows appropriation is a liberal reconciliation and
successful mastery of the conflict between high mimetic art and popular
vernacular images. The function of Tessenows allegory is to dispose of

18
K. Michael Hays, Tessenows Architecture as National Allegory: Critique of
Capitalism or Protofascism?, Assemblage No.: 8 (Feb., 1989): 105.
19
Ibid., 106.
20
Ibid;, 107.

11
the very ground for conflict between divergent signifying practices and
orders of knowing, to naturalize representation, to present constructed and
disputable meanings produced in a special and partial social practice as if
they were self-evident and inherent in everyday life. 21 (see figure 13,14)

Although Tessenows specific ideas for the built space did not change with the

First World War, his later books demonstrated a much more intense desire to reform

society. With his writings, Tessenow depicted his vision of an architectural reality that

would return society to the organic small towns away from villages as well as large

cities. He established himself as a humanist, and with his own background as apprentice

carpenter argued for an architectural style driven by craft. In his book Handwerk und

Kleinstadt (Craft and Small town) Tessenow reasoned out his call for the return to small

towns. Written in 1918, he considers the recent war and its ramifications on the built

environment as well as the human intellect. He sums up the relation between humans and

craft in that if the craft flourishes, society flourishes. Going back to the medieval times,

the focus of craft was on the church and castle: in the center of town. As the artisans have

moved to the perimeters of cities, the center of towns (and life) has turned to commercial

and materialistic concerns. According to Tessenow, this causes humans to turn to war. He

further argues against sprawling cities, as they are not the right type of environment for

the arts to flourish. According to Tessenow, this demands the return of the artisans with

their craft to the center of living, so that society can return to a peaceful and balanced

state of living.

This balanced state of living depends on the balanced being of a person, for which

Tessenow uses the analogy of a sphere (the form that appears as the most complete) for

the human intellect:

21
Ibid., 116-117.

12
The sphere has the resilience of a soap bubble, which is still as it is in balance and simply

radiates its colors. However, as other factors surround the sphere it loses its balances and

starts to react.

This relationship is worsened as the sphere searches for more outside (earthly) forces in

order to rediscover its equilibrium. This is how Tessenow sees individuals: having lost

their balance in the world, each one strives to find particular pieces to balance out the

other impacts. This situation further develops with the human intellect as she is torn

between the intellectual and the emotional, depending on the type of person.

Generally speaking, the current society resembles a soap bubble being pulled in many

different directions,

whereas the ideal is to simply live harmoniously. 22

22
Heinrich Tessenow, Craft and the Small Town (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1919), 52.

13
Understanding the human being in this form, Tessenow saw World War I as the

evidence that we must change the way in which we live and work. The theoretical,

utopian desire for world peace resulted in a strife that reduced individual nations

independence, and ultimately tried to force this peace through weapons. The world peace

that was so characteristically discussed was based on materialistic concerns and based on

one nation who could dictate with force upon the others. Tessenow argues that what is

missing is a world peace theory that focuses on a way of life and working that is

applicable to the largest portion of humans, one that balances out all the opposing

differences. 23

This returns Tessenow to his initially stated point: the return to crafts and the

small town. He saw the craftsman as an individual whose work satisfies his individual

thinking, desires, and ability. In the metropolis one can only work intellectually and in

the village one can only work physically. It is in the heimlich (homely) small town

setting where the craftsman can work with Leib und Seele (body and soul), only the

Handwerk (craft) can fulfill the whole psyche.24 Furthermore, the small town, as

compared to a village or large city, is mainly self-sufficient and does not rely heavily on

the outside forces. As it is capable of building its own little world, it views individual

freedom as self-evident and in that same way is active in the world and politics at large.

The important aspect is that together, the craft and the small town, complete each of the

individually important needs and eliminates the need for war. 25

23
Heinrich Tessenow, Craft and the Small Town (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1919), 61.
24
K. Michael Hays, Tessenows Architecture as National Allegory: Critique of
Capitalism or Protofascism?, Assemblage No.: 8 (Feb., 1989): 114.
25
This is a stance toward the small town Tessenow takes repeatedly, primarily so in his
book Craft and the Small Town but also in Writings: Thoughts of a Building Master.

14
In Die Kleine und Grosse Stadt (The Small and Large City), Tessenow explores a

similar train of thought, discussing the impact of culture versus nature on a persons

being. In sketches of various dwellings, Tessenow demonstrates a desire for simplicity. In

most of his drawings, he includes a bit of nature, as his writings also reflect upon his

desire for balancing between nature and the built environment. He poses a wide range of

questions to further explore that, which is our home. This discussion recalls the point

earlier stated of the different pieces that make up a house.

Evaluating the apparent appeal of Tessenows architecture, Hays asserts that

Tessenows anti-industrial, anti-metropolitan polemic, Handwerk (craft) and the

Kleinstadt (small town) were highly regarded because they seemed to guarantee

subjectivity, interiority, and contact with the Vlkisch (folkish), the soil from which the

culture of the future would spring. Indeed Tessenows houses were said to be like fold

songs at a time when an increased use of dialects and an increase in provincialization

were regarded as positive. Tessenow sought to reconstruct meaning in architecture by

claiming rarefied bits of the outside world, pressing them into service inward, and

fabricating a unified image of reality for the individual bourgeois self in the house in the

Kleinstadt (small town). 26

Further evaluating Tessenows style, Hays finds that redemptive and romantic

capitalism that provides an initial characterization of the architecture of Tessenow. We

will come to see that Tessenows modernism, but also his protofascism, can be

Tessenow also evaluated the differences between the village, small town, and city in his
book I followed certain thoughts Village, Small Town, City what now? (SEE FIG $)
26
K. Michael Hays, Tessenows Architecture as National Allegory: Critique of
Capitalism or Protofascism?, Assemblage No.: 8 (Feb., 1989): 113.

15
understood as just such a protest against the reified experience of an alienated social life,

in which the human subject, against its will, remains locked. 27

Another built project that did carry some reformative impact with it was

Tessenows design for the Landesschule in Klotzsche, built in 1925. For this school

building, his design was driven by symmetry and order. Integrated with some natural

features (such as trees in the courtyard), this clearly reflects Tessenows intention of

reforming society with the built environment as his tool. (see figure 8-9) Although this

appears to be a more effective attempt than Hellerau, the overall impact on society would

still be minimal. This could imply that Tessenow was in fact a realist and chose to rely on

his writings to carry forth his ideas, however, the assertive nature of his writings does not

support this. Seeing this school as Tessenows endeavor to reform society starting with

the school children, it stands to reason that what prevented him from accomplishing more

of these projects was the Nazi party coming to power.

Ultimately, with Hellerau as the primary example, this demonstrates that

Tessenow never succeeded in carrying over his ideas from his copious writing into his

built architecture. Hellerau as the first German Garden City, inhabited by artisans, was

strongly influenced by his architecture; however, it did nothing to further his ideals.

Therefore, whereas his primary theoretical concerns for the appearance of the built

environment order, symmetry, and purity were thoroughly integrated into his few

built projects, his over-lying concern for returning society to the small town setting was

never realized.

27
K. Michael Hays, Tessenows Architecture as National Allegory: Critique of
Capitalism or Protofascism?, Assemblage No.: 8 (Feb., 1989): 107.

16
Bibliography:

Bilenker, Vicki and Marco De Michelis. Theater, Theatricality, and Architecture.


Perspecta, Vol. 26 (1990): 143-170.

9H on Rigor. Ed. by Richard Burdett and Wilfried Wang. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1989.

Hays, K. Michael. Tessenows Architecture as National Allegory: Critique of


Capitalism or Protofascism? Assemblage, No. 8, (Feb., 1989): 104-123.

Heinrich Tessenow Ein Baumeister. 1876-1950. Leben Lehre Werk (Heinrich


Tessenow - a Building-Master. 1876-1950. Life Teachings Works). Heinrich-
Tessenow-Gesellschaft. Essen: Richard Bacht GmbH, 1976.

Krieger, Jan. Das Kleine Haus eine Typologie. (The Little House a Typology).
Sulgen, Switzerland: Verlag Niggli AG, 1995.

Tessenow, Heinrich. Geschriebenes: Gedanken eines Baumeisters (Writings: Thoughts of


a Building Master). Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1982.

Tessenow, Heinrich. Ich verfolgte bestimmte Gedanken : Dorf, Stadt, Grosstadt was
nun? (I followed certain thoughts : Village, Town, City what now?). Schwerin,
Germany: Helms, 1996.

Tessenow, Heinrich. Die Kleine und Grosse Stadt (The Small and Large City). Munich:
Georg D.W. Callwey, 1961.

Tessenow, Heinrich. Hausbau und Dergleichen. Reprint der 4. Auflage von 1953.
(House-building and the like. Reprint of the 4th Edition from 1953).
Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg, 1986.

Tessenow, Heinrich. Handwerk und Kleinstadt (Craft and the Small Town) Berlin: Gebr.
Mann Verlag, 1919.

Gutschow, Kai K. Moderne Architektur in Deutschland 1900 bis 1950, Reform und
Tradition (Modern Architecture in Germany 1900 until 1950, Reform and Tradition).
The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Sep., 1993): 347-
349.

Muthesius, Stefan. Deutsche Gartenstadt-bewegung/Kulturpolitik und Gesellschafts-


Reform (German Garden city-movement/cultural policy and Community Reform).
The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 37, No. 2 (May, 1978): 120-
121.

17
Figure 1 a and b: Symmetry

Figure 2: Einfamilienhaus (one-family home)


Figure 3: Patenthaus

Figure 4: the chair


Figure 5-7: room interior
Figure 8-9: Landesschule in Klotzsche, Dresden

Figure 10: Village / Small Town / City


Figure 11: Institut Dalcroze at Hellerau

Figure 12: Institut Dalcroze


Figure 13: Institut Dalcroze, 1st design

Figure 14: Institut Dalcroze, 2nd design


Figure 16: Plan of Hellerau