GRGR(14) Ölsch's architecture (long, prolix)

[Jeremy Ludlow]

Buildings (and food)
--------------------
{a nod here to the German listers, to whom this may
seem a gross simplification.  This isn't supposed
to be a history lesson - just me thinking aloud, so
all corrections and amplifications gratefully received.
Ditto to the architects present}

Crucial, it seems to me, to the Nazis' rise to
power was the appropriation of traditional cultural
imagery.  It gave them a handle on the psyche of
the Volk, and in particular allowed them to
substantiate their claims for Destiny by treating
folk myth as Scripture.
This was Nationalism through Populism, or vice-versa
I suppose.

And you might argue that Pynchon accepts the validity
of this approach merely through his use of the same
motifs for his own metaphorical ends.  In describing
the process he perpetuates it (or am I not being
postmodern enough here?).

Music is an obvious area where the Germanic icons
of legend and folk-memory had explicitly been incorporated
into works (Tannhauser is the obvious ref in GRGR(14))
which could be championed by, and consequently lend
authority to, the regime.

Meanwhile, the plastic arts proved somewhat more problematic
but could not be ignored.  The populist move had been to brand
Modern art 'degenerate', but by perversely attacking it's 'intended
primitive crudeness' (297.18) they were tacitly suggesting that
it was somehow not contemporary enough.

" I am convinced that art, since it forms the
  most uncorrupted, the most immediate reflection
  of the people's soul, excercises unconsciously
  by far the greatest influence upon the masses
  of the people. "
                         [ - adolf hitler ]

is a quote cribbed from William Curtis's _Modern
Architecture Since 1900_; in which he poses the tricky
question: "what should a Nazi building *look* like?"

The fact that the Bauhaus was on his doorstep and pretty
much homegrown might have made its style ideal for Hitler's
purposes.  However (and despite Walter Gropius's appeasing
efforts), its philosophy and imagery were already associated
with foreign Socialism, and were therefore beyond the pale
even without Hitler's deep mistrust of the avant-garde.

[-aside- Curtis points out that because 'Modern Architecture'
did not take hold in Italy until Fascism was already
in place, it was received much more sympathetically
there.  The so-called 'International Style' was not
regarded as a subversive influence emanating from the
Communist East (cf. the Jesuits in M&D), nor as symbol
of previous dispensations. ]

Certainly it seems that Nazism could happily embrace the symbolism
along with the technology in areas where it was felt appropriate;
thus the overpass parabolas, the pride in the sheer modernity of
Herr Porsche's little car.  Modernism in architecture was tolerated
where it wasn't seen to conflict with the notion of continuity in
Teutonic Destiny: in the factories and other inferior types.
This is where Etzel Ölsch seems to have found his niche.
The Nazis had no desire to reflect the super-efficient industries
and rapid mechanization (on which their power was largely based)
in the buildings they hoped would represent their culture and
philosophy at home and to the world.

So, the New German Architecture (298.21) turned out not to be
a style as such but a pragmatic if unconvincing blend of the
pompously triumphal, the (Deutsche Werkbund) revival of handicrafts
and mysticism, and the pseudo-vernacular 'Heimatstil' of overhanging
eaves and comfortable domesticism.  Each applied where appropriate.

Albert Speer (like Gerdy Troost, Hitler's first architectural
advisor, before him) was predisposed towards the stripped
Classicism which easily mutates into the banal but
spectacularly monumental Grand Projets which are always
associated with the Third Reich.

' With the notable exceptions of Werner March's
  Olympic Stadium of 1936 and Bonatz's Autobahn
  bridges of the same date, the New Tradition
  degenerated into meaningless megalomania, '
[ - kenneth frampton ]

It is striking that Frampton (writing in 1980) picks the
same examples as Pynchon (at 298.25).  But this specifically
contradicts the notion that Ölsch would have been a follower of
Speer in the stylistic sense (the spiritual meanings of 'disciple'
may be another matter.  Mazdaznan, anyone?).  When it comes to
the 'allegorical statue' (300.15) stuff his only concern is the
manner of its collapse.  His real roots seem to lie in an
Expressionist school where, unlike some variations of Modernism,
the symbolism is not denied but acknowledged as a different
aesthetic.

' The problem of Futurist architecture is not one
  of finding another style of detailing, but of starting
  afresh on sound foundations, using every resource
  of science, abandoning all that is heavy and antique.
  Architecture has been worn out by traditions, and
  must be remade by force. [...]
  We must invent and remake the Futurist City like
  an immense assembly yard, dynamic in every part;
  the Futurist house like a giant machine, without
  painting or sculpture, enriched only by the innate
  beauty of its lines, extraordinarily brutal in
  its mechanical simplicity; and streets must be
  buried stories deep below the buildings, served
  by escalators and high-speed conveyors. [...]
  An end to monumental commemorative architecture!  '
         [ - antonio sant'elia, 1914 ]

Which brings us back to the architecture of the Raketen-Stadt,
the 'programming' of Borax streamlining, and perhaps those
mysterious 'Articles of Immachination' (297.36).
I got more if you want it.

JL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it's not a matter of life or death
but what is, what is ...
               [ - elvis costello; _hoover factory_ ]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~