The Form of Socialism Without Ornament

Journal of Design History Vol. 19 No.2 doi:10.1093/jdh/epl001 The Form of Socialism without Ornament Consumption, Ideology, and the Fall and Rise of Modernist Design in the German Democratic Republic Eli Rubin Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16, 2012 Industrial designers who inherited the Bauhaus legacy experienced a dramatic reversal of fortunes in the socialist German Democratic Republic. The height of the Stalinist era in the Soviet Bloc, 1950–1953, meant a near complete shutdown of modernist and functionalist design and architecture. However, modernist designers found a niche later as the East German economy needed to mass-produce goods without sacrificing quality and with a particular modern appeal, in order to keep up with the shifting and competitive context of the Cold War and to satisfy the postwar generation of East German consumers. Eventually, heirs of Bauhäusler Mart Stam, such as Martin Kelm, found their way into positions of considerable power in the economic planning bureaucracy. The strange confluence of modernist designers and post-Stalinist socialism leads to one of the central questions of the article: is modern design – at least partially—inherently well-suited for the socialist command economy? Keywords: consumer products—East Germany—functionalism—kitsch—ornament—Planned Economy In 1950, less than a year after the founding of the German Democratic Republic, the industrial designer Mart Stam, who had studied at the Dessau Bauhaus in the 1920s and 1930s, returned to East Berlin to found the Institute for Industrial Design at the College of Applied Art in Berlin-Weissensee1. Like many others who held left-wing views before the war, Stam saw in the newly founded socialist republic a chance to build the kind of utopia that had informed his design philosophy as a member of the Bauhaus. Along with many others in the socialist intelligentsia, including the playwright Bertold Brecht, he was soon to be deeply disillusioned by the Stalinist reality of the GDR. His aesthetic vision of egalitarian, functional modernism was shared by many of his students, and although he left the GDR, many of them stayed, in limbo. Twenty years later, these same students, who had stayed true to Stam’s original vision, found themselves in positions of considerable economic and political power as industrial designers, with profound influence over the production of consumer goods and architecture and thus the aesthetic meaning of everyday life in East Germany. The intervening twenty years, from 1952 to 1972, are the focus of this article, and it is my contention that the initial downfall and the subsequent rise of a Bauhaus-informed design philosophy in the planned economy of East Germany speaks as much to an understanding of East Germany as it does to the nature of the Bauhaus legacy.2 When Stam returned, the fledgling East Germany was still largely a product of Soviet military occupation. In the previous five years since the end of the war, Soviet occupation authorities had been eager to suppress anything that referred aesthetically to 155 © The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Design History Society. All rights reserved. almost all design was being practised at educational institutions such as these. or People’s Own Factory. architects and artists were largely without any real power when it came to control of the economic means of production. these designers.Eli Rubin German nationalism. as it came to be called.8 the Burg school in Halle. This meant that decisions on product design were made mostly by workers and engineers. had launched a propaganda campaign against West Germany. however. Müller had been a professor of metal design at the College for Art and Design at the Burg-Giebichenstein in Halle. Günter Reissmann and Albert Krause.9 and Dresden where a number of designers including Brandt were based. the East German communist party. as will be discussed below.oxfordjournals. arrived first in Dresden at the College of Visual Arts in 1949 and then two years later moved to Stam’s Institute of Industrial Design as a designer and lecturer. but who had advocated serial. but rather the cadre of students he trained.12 Stam’s real legacy in East Germany. which the SED claimed was Downloaded from http://jdh. found his way back to Dresden to help plan the reconstruction of the city. or Mies van der Rohe. Gropius. and almost all in these four places. was not exhibitions. that would provide a crucial bridge between the past and the future of design in the GDR. an interior architect and freelance designer since the 1920s. and worked on designs with Gropius. many former Bauhäusler were welcomed back to East Germany. who studied architecture and woodwork with Ludwig Hilbersheimer and Mies van der Rohe at the Dessau and Berlin Bauhaus from 1929 to 1933. In this context. other former Bauhäusler or designers who had worked or studied at the Bauhaus or the related Deutscher Werkbund before the war were filtering back to East Germany. they conglomerated around these four poles: Mart Stam’s Institute of Industrial Design in Berlin-Weissensee. who had not formally studied or worked at the Bauhaus but who had worked with Bruno Paul from 1929 to 1933. who were more concerned with solving technical problems of production rather than any particular aesthetic or cultural agenda. or Soviet state-owned factories). objects of poor taste churned out by modern industrial means for cheap gain. Virtually none of the SAGs (Sowjietisch Aktiengesellschaft. the Bauhäusler.6 And finally.5 Horst Michel. As these designers and architects scattered throughout the GDR.3 Franz Ehrlich. such as Martin Kelm.7 It was his continued presence. Poelzig and Mies van der Rohe. and the early products of East German industry attested to its total lack of concern for the consumer. especially art and architecture that was informed by ‘völksich’ sensibilities. who studied and worked at the Bauhaus in Dessau with the artist El Lissitzky. who had not formally worked with any of the main Bauhaus or CIAM figures such as Paul. The heirs of the Bauhaus. Marianne Brandt. By 1953. At the same time that Stam arrived in the GDR.4 Selman Selmanagic. 2012 156 . Stam’s students had to endure several years of official hostility towards their design ideas. there was Karl Müller. who was briefly leader of the metal workshop at the Bauhaus in Weimar and Dessau and who worked with Bauhaus founder Walter Gropius from 1928 to 1929. later called VEBs (Volkseigene Betrriebe. were limited largely to putting on exhibitions. such as the one that Stam organized in 1952 at his newly founded Institute dedicated to displaying what he considered to be kitsch. would be the focal point of design in the GDR. although through out the Third Reich and the early years of the GDR it remained a small school mostly devoted to traditional arts and crafts. factories run by the East German state) employed product designers. reproducible design for metal products since the 1930s. The ‘Burg’. moved to Hellerau to become one of the main designers there.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. at which Müller had been somewhat of an outsider. originally from Yugoslavia. The rapidly deepening crisis of the cold war in the early 1950s put an end to Stam and his new class of students’ ideas about developing a modern. Nonetheless. Horst Michel’s Institute for Interior Design in Weimar. in 1951 founded and led the Institute for Interior Design at the College of Architecture and Construction in Weimar.10 In the early years of the GDR. from Buchenwald to a disciplinary battalion at the end of the war. Ehrlich had been arrested in 1934 for high treason and had spent the entire 12 years of the Third Reich in various incarcerations. functional style. and who worked for the anti-fascist resistance during the war as an employee of the state film studio UFA.11 However. or ‘cool rationalism’ as Stam termed it.13 These students were schooled in the aesthetic of modern functionalism. and taught how to blend modern style with an overriding concern for mass production and modern technology. the SED. led by Liebknecht. and the ‘inhumanity’ and ‘complete break with national heritage’ that this style entailed. renaissance. though much of the West German design discourse at Ulm or among the members of the West German Design Council made it clear that they viewed American mass production as particularly corrosive. architecture and design. as before. not Biedermeier). cold. 23 At the Moscow Downloaded from http://jdh.22 Furthermore.15 Formalism.16 Cultural work in East Germany ought to imitate Rococo. or DBA. Chippendale (although for reasons never made clear. cosmopolitan or modernist trends. the Party at this point conceived of the goal of their ideology as returning the cultural heritage of Germany back to the workers and the farmers.20 The Stalinallee project. a furniture design and production factory. proving that it was the FRG that was the ‘inauthentic’ state. such as van der Rohe’s Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. begun in 1951. the United States. was easy enough to draw for the East German Party leaders. national in form’. Liebknecht and his allies pointed to the fact that the Bauhaus legacy in West Germany was linked to the United States and its cultural foreign policy after the war. anti-formalists declared that art. The Bauhaus and the CIAM had been elements of the German past favoured by the US occupation authority. and Mart Stam was compelled to change the name of his school from the ‘Institute of Industrial Design’ to the ‘Institute of Applied Art’. soon came to be the defining statement of this early anti-formalist vision. especially in art. as Ulbricht himself thundered.18 In addition. or Bauhäusler. Kurt Liebknecht.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. The CIAM and Bauhaus styles fitted the needs of American capitalism. had emigrated to the United States where their ability to transfer a modernist vision of architecture satisfied the demand for cost-effective mass architecture with a dose of sophistication. the ‘degeneration’ (Entartung)21 of formalism. they represented precisely the kind of internationalist liberalism from the Weimar era that the United States wanted to retrieve from the German past. rejected ‘pure functionalism’ in apartment design. the successor to the Dessau Institute stranded on the eastern side of the border. when the Party proclaimed that formalism was ‘foreign to the people’ (volksfremde) and even ‘hostile to the people’ (volksfeindlich). Even the term ‘industrial design’ itself was taboo.14 This attack had begun at the 3rd Party Congress of the SED in 1950.oxfordjournals. This was in large part a point of view inherited from the nineteenth-century Socialist movement. The anti-formalists. which was in reality any art. the ‘international style’ of rectangular. which was led largely by Soviet architects and intended to show West Berliners the ability of communism to quickly marshal resources in the service of magnificent and dominating architectural projects. flinging open the doors of the palaces and art museums and aristocratic salons to those who had been oppressed and exploited by the owners of this heritage for so long. baroque. many of the former Bauhaus members. was ‘form without ornament’. head of the East German architectural association. 2012 157 . simple. because ‘function cannot be the single determining element in furniture design. architecture or design resembling the Bauhaus or the CIAM. Architecture was a particular target for the antiformalists because of its high visibility to visitors from the West as well as because it posed the chance to reflect the industrial and material superiority of socialism. Such an architectural development broke with the national tradition. Instead. To discredit the Bauhaus and West Germany. cubist (kastenartige) furniture …’. that the Bauhaus style was international and cosmopolitan and a weapon of imperialism. as evidenced by the American High Command’s joint underwriting of the Ulm Institute. The verdict from the DBA also criticized the Bauhaus-influenced Deutscher Werkstätten in Hellerau. the connections between former Bauhäusler or modernists and the great imperialist class enemy. led a vicious assault on what he and other Party elites called ‘formalism’. most famously van der Rohe.17 Rather than conceiving of East Germany as a chance to build a new society. in a way that served the workers and the farmers.19 Nonetheless. A central part of this propaganda campaign was an attempt to prove to East and West Germans that the GDR was the ‘true’ or ‘authentic’ Germany. efficient. they officially declared. Their slogan was ‘socialist in content. They are building. This attempt ruled out any cultural embrace of international. architecture and design in East Germany should draw upon past German styles.The Form of Socialism without Ornament an Americanized puppet of international monopoly capitalism. prefab housing blocks going up in West Germany in the 1950s provided a clear example of what the antiformalists in the Party and the DBA did not want in the GDR. Kosel would soon take over the leadership of the DBA from Liebknecht.oxfordjournals. rococo or Grunderzeit. was thoroughly impractical for these new apartments. there were not enough of the building materials used. These had been scientifically designed. mostly in rural farmland surrounding the decaying city centres. even in the area of housing construction’. which called for a total of 750.29 Most of the apartments would be built as ‘settlements’ (Siedlungen) in prefabricated ‘satellite’ cities. The design of the new furniture had to be modern. From that point on East Germany left Stalinism and began a transformation to what historian Konrad Jarausch calls the ‘welfare dictatorship’.Eli Rubin All Unions Building Conference in 1954. both for the practical needs of mass production. resulting from the physical and economic devastation of the war. mass-produced block housing and increased consumer goods production. Ulbricht promised to build 100. Ulbricht claimed that ‘the box-homes that are being built in West Berlin. Initial attempts at the programme. The traditional aesthetic of furniture. each room calculated for precisely how Downloaded from http://jdh. whether imitative of baroque. Ernst May and Hans Poelzig who had pioneered functionalist. no frills housing blocks. This resolution then became the basis of the housing programme of the third FiveYear-Plan (which subsequently became the SevenYear-Plan. it was clear that this was an impossible goal. Until that point. two simultaneous crises developed in the GDR which would lead to the declining influence of Liebknecht and his allies by showing how out of touch their cultural vision was with the realities facing the Party. Yet. 1953. 1958–1965). modern housing blocks worked wonders for the GDR’s housing programme. the housing crisis could not be solved using the present architectural and design aesthetic. covering the entire housing needs of all citizens in the GDR. such as marble and hardwood. a former student of Bauhaus architects Bruno Taut. in Stuttgart and Hamburg’ were based on the American model.25 and many of his students migrated to ideological ghettos such as the Burg-Giebichenstein school of art and design in Halle or the Institute of Interior Design in Weimar where they existed far from the centre of economic. the SED had conceived of the people as existing for the state—the uprising caused a complete change.000 apartments to be built by 1965. Among these was Gerhard Kosel. crossed paths in the area of furniture and house wares.000 apartments by 1959.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. especially in terms of providing a higher standard of living. A second event dramatically shook the foundations of the GDR—the uprising of 17 June. leading the SED to see the state as existing for the people.30 By the Fifth Party Congress in 1958. In 1954. because along with new and modern apartments. were so successful that by 1959 the People’s Chamber (Volkskammer28) passed a resolution calling for the construction of a minimum of 100. He boldly. East German citizens were going to need to buy things with which to furnish them.000 apartments annually.26 By 1956. predicted that East Germany would surpass West Germany in per-capita consumption by 1961. and the Ministry for Construction in the GDR started turning to the very ‘formalists’ that the Party had denounced a few years prior. including consumer goods.27 That same year. The switch to serially-produced. Frankfurt am Main. 2012 158 . but also to fit the spirit of the new apartments.24 This cultural deep freeze forced Stam back to the Netherlands at the end of 1952. famously proclaimed that the socialist housing industry needed to find ways to build ‘better. There was no way to turn out hundreds of thousands of furniture units to keep up with the production of apartments by relying on a craftbased production model. Nikita Khruschev. the ban on ‘formalism’ was officially lifted. at the same Moscow conference where he had denounced ‘cubist’ architecture. and the irony of workers revolting against a state run by a workers’ Party shocked and embarrassed the SED leadership to its core. The first of these crises was a deep and systemic housing crisis in East Germany. The uprising consisted mainly of workers upset with high work quotas and a low standard of living. faster and cheaper’. however. By 1955. and even the labour was lacking. The Stalinallee model was far too expensive.31 The two trends. General Secretary Ulbricht was staking the success of German communism on creating a consumer economy to rival the so-called economic miracle in West Germany. political and cultural decision-making in Berlin. and wrongly it turned out. begun in the town of Hoyerswerda. this fact made clear ‘West Germany’s role as an American protectorate. now in power in the USSR. at the same time that this reaction was reaching its apex. to help them build functionalist. modern mass housing in the 1920s and 1930s. cheaper. Initially denounced as ‘cubism’ and ‘degenerate’ by Party leaders. ‘P2’—these were machines for living.33 The rush to produce consumer goods did not fulfil the bombastic promise that Ulbricht had made.35 159 . especially the dual function sleeper sofas and shelf-wall units called ‘Schrankwände’. and another economy. because its design was so basic. The Hellerau furniture sets. cotton. however. became an omnipresent feature of life in the GDR. There was not enough alumin- Downloaded from http://jdh. from polyester clothes. The former Bauhäusler Selman Selamangic and Franz Ehrlich provided the modern socialist apartment with their model of functional. People wrote in to magazines. and one reason the GDR’s economy.oxfordjournals. functional furniture was not only a matter of aesthetic or functional preference. To some degree. named ‘intecta’. space-saving furniture that they had designed at the VEB Deutsche Werkstätten in Hellerau. 2012 Fig 1. The apartment models even bore technological sounding names. with headlines such as ‘every 21 minutes a living room’32 fulfilling Khrushchev’s dictate to produce better. Also. the regime tried to solve this with a massive investment in synthetics. producing far more for far less than traditional furniture makers. the wood used was all ‘pressed wood’ laminated with polyester resin. The streamlined. Hellerau designed furniture was hailed in the press. 5) ium. especially. which most people wore. which happened to fit nicely with the needs of the socialist economy. Hellerau was able to streamline production as well. steel and especially natural wood. became so widespread as to be synonymous with everyday life in the GDR. Plastics represented a major way for industrial designers to participate in creating a new aesthetic. By 1960. which sought to synthesize what it could not find naturally. owing to the embargo against the communist bloc. government bureaus and television stations asking how they could get Hellerau furniture. and the model was copied throughout the Eastern bloc. The illustration shows the variability of what were essentially the same pieces. p. rubber.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. including the most popular. the Hellerau furniture exploded in popularity. multipurpose. reducing their number of models from 80 to 5. Photo spread of ‘intecta’ furniture set (Kultur im Heim 1968–5. Plastics. such as ‘Q5’ or the most common. called the ‘Chemistry Programme’. These were the three basic colours and styles available to GDR citizens [1].The Form of Socialism without Ornament much space an average family would need. as design Horst Redeker’s pamphlet ‘Chemistry Brings Beauty’ from 1959 argued. begun in 1958. as Le Corbusier had originally envisioned. to plastic laminate used for most of the floors and surfaces in the new modern apartments. once introduced in the early 1960s. This inefficiency was of course exacerbated by the lack of materials. drawing from Grete Lihotzky’s original ‘Frankfurt Kitchen’. the kitchens designed for supreme efficiency. termed ‘Volkswirtschaft’ (‘people’s economy’)34 ran into problems was that it suffered from an inefficient use of resources. they belonged to another time. Antique or historicized furniture and domestic objects simply would not fit. faster. form + zweck (‘form and purpose’) became the font of design philosophy in the GDR. on display in the P2 in East Berlin. 1965–3. the Institute for Design and Development. an advisory body within the Ministry of Culture. The goal of producing a modern consumer society under socialism was neither crass production according Downloaded from http://jdh. 36 There Reissmann and Kelm developed a number of designs for industrial. and sought to advance the cause of aesthetic functionalism as a solution to the Volkswirtschaft and the larger project of socialism. The responses to Reissmann’s pieces were overwhelmingly positive. When these pieces were denounced as ‘formalistic’ by the official Party organs. a new world was going to be built. Kelm. and the foundation of that new world was to be economic rationalism. In 1962. such as a set of cylindrical porcelain vases designed by Burg School designer Hubert Petras. While other areas of the exposition. from silverware to kitchen appliances to vases and many others.oxfordjournals.39 The connection between modernist design and the project of state socialism in East Germany was fundamental. The title reads ‘Glimpse into the Future’ (Kultur im Heim. but it did confer official government status on Kelm. at the 4th German Art Expo in Dresden in 1958. namely in painting or sculpture. The Central Institute’s flagship journal.37 Fig 2. presenting a set of silverware stripped of all reference to baroque or rococo. former Stam students Martin Kelm and Günter Reissmann. In their years of ideological exile. in a small abandoned courtyard in a crumbling building in Halle. p.38 It was Kelm. 40) It was Reissmann who made the first public breakthrough of functionalism in consumer objects for everyday use. Their designs were notable not only for their aesthetic message of form that followed function. presented at the V Art Exhibition in 1962. as Kelm argued in form + zweck. more a bare bones studio than anything else.Eli Rubin Enter the Bauhaus-informed industrial designers who had been languishing in forgotten corners of the country such as Halle and Weimar: for example. as were the responses to other functionalist pieces at later Exhibitions. Reissmann’s silverware was a bold statement not only on how East Germans were going to be eating but on a major shift in the very raison d’etre of East Germany and the communist world: rather than redistributing the spoils of the past. mass-produced household items. and the Central Institute was the first official government body dedicated to industrial design. who took full advantage of this happy confluence of aesthetic modernism and economic rationalization and modernization. the Party had to register a tide of angry letters sent in by ordinary East Germans defending functionalist modernism as ‘exactly what they wanted and needed’. but of the care with which they took to incorporate into their designs their idea of where the modern socialist economy and society were heading [2]. Reissmann and others such as Manfred Heinzte and Albert Krause had taken up positions as faculty members at the school of art and design in Burg Giebichenstein in Halle. he returned to Berlin to found the Central Institute for Design. four years after starting the Institute for Design and Development. however. Kelm and Reissmann founded their own auxiliary institute. The Art Exposition provided crucial feedback from consumers and visitors concerning what kind of aesthetic and material world they wanted for a government that had no market mechanism to gauge what consumers desired. 2012 160 . still reflected the cheap imitation of past styles. The Ministry of Culture had no ability to control economic production in East Germany. Sprelacart (a polyester-laminate-surfaced wardrobe).org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. As a member of the DAMW. only partially empowered. nor the raw ‘provisioning’ or quota-fulfilment of the economic planning bureaucracy in the GDR. Kelm now had power over other ministers of the economy. and thus the Ministers’ Council. earning its producer. to an actual legal branch of the economic planning apparatus.000 Marks in 1959 to 2. needed to be part of the economic planning apparatus in order to create a new socialist personality through the aesthetic meaning of the consumer world of everyday life. The final coup was in June 1973 when a law was passed by the Ministers’ Council which required all factories not only to hire designers. special favour with the regime.) That same year the Central Institute’s name was changed to the Office of Industrial Design. and it had legal control over what goods could be made and what could not.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. designed for schools. the trays proved competitive for export. as was the case (he believed) under capitalism. The DAMW was a direct part of the powerful Ministers’ Council. and provided some of the evidence Kelm needed to persuade Mittag to take up the cause of industrial design with the all-powerful Ministers’ Council. Kelm and his allies from the ‘ ideological ghetto ’ in Halle now had the power to reject certain products. guided by the basic ideas of the Bauhaus. making him almost untouchable by any aesthetic criticism. More importantly. and was elevated to the position of State Secretary.44 The result of this drawing together of power in the hands of former Burg and Berlin-Weissensee designers was that a single aesthetic vision of modern industrial design in the service of the socialist planned economy was enforced throughout the Volkswirtschaft. Kelm enlisted the help of Günther Mittag.oxfordjournals.3 million Marks in 1963.900 in exported units between 1960 and 1963. Serving as Kelm’s dissertation committee Chair.43 The influence of the Central Institute. had risen in sales from 773. Rather. restaurants. This was more than influence. and Kelm.41 Kelm used the Central Institute to provide Mittag with numerous studies showing the beneficial effect on the economy that occurred when designers were present in VEBs and had some control over the economic decision-making process. completing its transition from an institute. but rather a process by which the socialist personality is created’40 (author’s emphasis). Kelm and his Central Institute could exert considerable influence over other branches of the government. but also because they did not conform to the design aesthetics of the Central Institute. industrial designers. In his dissertation ‘The Meaning of the Design of Industrial Products in the Developed Social System of Socialism’ Kelm stated that by ‘simply producing for material needs …Consumption in socialism is not simply a matter of needing something and getting it. or DAMW. but to ‘outsource’ their industrial designing work only to the Office for Industrial Design. for example. the military and even home use. who was much closer to Kelm personally (partially because Kelm was married to Honecker’s personal secretary. A series of plastic. This drawing together intensified yet further once Ulbricht was replaced in 1972 with Erich Honecker. claiming that the work of the Central Institute for Design was in keeping with the dictates of the 7th Party Congress. Kelm used his belief that functionalism aided the Volkswirtschaft to work the levers of power inside the Party.The Form of Socialism without Ornament to the uneducated whims of the market. offices. this was control. Mittag vouched for Kelm’s Party credentials. Mittag argued to the other members of the Central Committee and the Politburo that Kelm’s dissertation was in fact more genuinely in keeping with Lenin’s ideas about how to create the socialist personality than any previous consideration of consumption and product design in the GDR [3]. 2012 161 . stackable trays designed by Burg School and Central Institute designer Hans Merz in 1959 had proved to be very popular indeed. Kelm’s elevation was the spearhead of a drawing together of industrial designers and the economic planning apparatus. ostensibly because of poor quality. the Secretary of Economics in the SED’s Central Committee and one of the highest-ranking members of the Politburo.800 to 62. Mittag argued to his Party comrades that Kelm was advancing no less than a recreation of the aesthetic meaning of everyday life that would contribute to the creation of the new socialist personality. grew greater in 1965. VEB Auma. rising from 33. at least where the bureaucracy functioned as it was Downloaded from http://jdh. when it was moved from the Ministry for Culture to the German Office for Measurement and Product Testing. This shift was far more significant than it may initially appear.42 With the power of a heavyweight such as Günther Mittag backing him and his ideas. having multiple laws passed requiring all VEBs to employ designers. Kelm was able to show Mittag that the plastic trays. once on the receiving end of the anti-formalists’ totalitarian control over the economy and much of the cultural sphere. Individual artists and members of the VdBK were forced to supplicate at the offices of the Office of Industrial Design for a licence even to seek contracts through the Office. the ‘formalists’. The planned economy of socialist satellites such as East Germany was not airtight by any means. By the mid 1970s.oxfordjournals. the VdBK. finally. In many industries the traditional sentiment for handicrafts or kitschy knick-knacks resisted the Office of Industrial Design’s vision.Eli Rubin Downloaded from http://jdh. which had maintained more of a focus on traditional handicrafts and usually distanced itself from industrial mass production. mostly former students of Mart Stam and other Bauhäusler. 2012 Fig 3. 4) supposed to and did not succumb to intransigence and inertia. (Kultur im Heim 1968–1.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. as did the need 162 . It is worth considering. the Union of Visual Artists. found itself completely out of power. The rival design and artists’ group to the Central Institute/Office for Industrial Design. now held a similar degree of power [4]. one of the more impressive achievements of modern industrial design and economic planning in the GDR. what this kind of power meant. often to no avail. p. The kitchen as a machine for living in East Germany: the ‘Ratiokücke’ modern kitchen. would it not be better for everyone if you could control all the furniture or all the desk lamps produced? There was. the bureaucracy itself was terribly dysfunctional. Still. such as eating wares. by Dresden and Berlin-Weissensee student Klaus Kunis. Mart Stam had defined his goal as the creation of a new German style. a ubiquitous piece of everyday design in the GDR in the 1960s. not because angels or gnomes are inherently wrong. replete with scratch resistant plastic surfacing [3]. And what then? One might ask if there is not some similar hidden desire among designers in the free market to have that kind of control: after all. kitschy designs from being produced. tasteful. however. What lay behind this drive for aesthetic control? Was Martin Kelm simply a megalomaniac.45 In addition. more than simply the validation of seeing their preferred aesthetic radiate into an aesthetic regime of everyday life at stake in this battle for political and economic power. Gaining control of the DAMW and a seat at the Ministers’ Council meant that Kelm and his allies could effectively prevent bad. were also kitsch. A polystyrene watering can.oxfordjournals. ‘if no kitsch is produced. that were designed in a wasteful way. Many former East Germans still have these products in their P2 apartments to this day. which. even though the Office of Industrial Design was able to exert so much control over the production bureaucracy in the GDR. For many designers. more functionally necessary ends. if your design vision is worth buying. On countless magazine pages. such as rococo Meissen porcelain.46 Kitsch was defined not merely as bad or coarse taste. thrived on the psychological irrationality and false consciousness of consumers. as are the modern kitchens.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. 1970s and 1980s. where the demand was for unique or traditional goods from Saxony or Thuringia. useful modern designs. Any porcelain plates. Making East Germans go ‘cold turkey’ from their Grunderzeit and baroque furniture and forcing them to adopt—even as an ‘acquired taste’— the Bauhaus-inspired functionalism was for these Downloaded from http://jdh. it is inherently superior to other designs. eventually their entire existence would be defined by this aesthetic. for many of the Burg and Office of Industrial Design members. 2012 163 . The Hellerau furniture sets are a prime example of this. at the founding of the Institute of Industrial Design in Weissensee. A more effective route to eliminating kitsch than persuasion was economic control—as many designers noted. many believed. but as anything that wasted the resources of the Volkswirtschaft. and their critique of capitalism. Many of their designs became omnipresent fixtures in the everyday life of the GDR during the 1960s. no kitsch can be bought’. designers engaged in the battle against ‘kitsch’ by attempting to ‘educate’ East Germans into understanding modern design and why they should not buy kitsch. From the very beginning of modern design in East Germany. the ‘Ratioküche’ designed as part of the ‘factory for living’. Breaking citizens of their attachment to sentimental and wasteful things was crucial to their critique of capitalism. the meaning of consumption in a socialist society. for example with excessive ornamentation. often unable to translate designs into products. mass produced at the VEB Glas-bijouterie in Zittau to export to Western countries for hard currency. exhibitions and television shows. not only Kelm. including Meissen plates. After all. and as such. or was there more to the rise of modern design in the GDR? Part of the answer lies in the connections that East German industrial designers drew between ‘kitsch’. their overriding goal was a battle against kitsch. and the ever deepening economic crises of the socialist bloc after the mid 1970s meant that options for design and production were ever more limited in the GDR. one cleansed of kitsch. what power these designers had was considerable. and the old vestiges of unwanted tradition would fade as their physical traces disappeared from everyday life. pre-dating the GDR.The Form of Socialism without Ornament Fig 4. and thus prevent people from buying them.47 That is. if the only things people in the Volkswirtschaft could buy were functionalist. but because porcelain was needed for more important. porcelain figurines depicting angels or gnomes or other sentimental forms were kitsch. 2012 164 . but rather that consciousness had to be altered through direct means of education and re-education to overcome the ‘retarding moments’ and ‘ingrained habits’. But were they more committed to socialism or to modernism in design? Absolutely. simply producing correct products would not by itself alter people’s consciousness. and I think that one has to dismantle this in order to free the human being from it. had been made before after all. were the architect Jakob Jordan. yet both of them found little obstacle in sliding from their design philosophy into a critique of the capitalist society of the West that contained little trace of the coerced and formulaic language of the usual Party propaganda. The designers of the Central Institute dovetailed perfectly with this same vision. Jordan. They for the most part belonged to the Party. They needed a consumer economy but did not want. For Krause as well. it is the duty of the socialist cultural revolution to use this acquired wealth and time for the perfection of human life. putting them on display. that disturbed concepts that had previously remained stable. with exceptions such as Krause. This connection. the mind of the consumer needed guidance. explained the connection between the pathology of taste and the importance of correcting it in a socialist society: I believe [the existence of kitsch] has much more to do with the capitalist world. of worthless kitschy trinkets and luxury items. mistakenly called ‘needs’ in many areas but definitely in the area of one’s surroundings.oxfordjournals. and use was determined by economic transaction and process.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. Whereas the technological development rashly raised the material wealth of the society and created leisure possibilities for the people to enjoy [this wealth]. and Krause was not even a member of the Party. What makes this particular discussion so fascinating is its linkage of psychoanalysis with a critique of aesthetics in a capitalist society to produce a rationale for the legitimate use of the apparatus of a totalitarian planned economy by industrial designers. psychology and capitalism. He noted that ‘the kitsch drive (Kitschtrieb) is an emotionally based need. but they found that in order to establish the kind of modern consumer economy they needed for their regime’s own legitimacy. even though taste was determined by use. democratic and capitalist societies after the Second World War. Werner Sütterlin. their limited resources to be wasted on the whims of fashions and fads. and in fact found itself particularly well suited to the aims of communist dictatorships that sought to shape society through control of economic production and to some extent consumption. it will always manifest itself. And we will need the help of psychologists along with aesthetic experts and cultural scientists’. This is how I explain to myself the existence of kitsch. but comparatively little has Downloaded from http://jdh. having their designs taught in classes and covered in the press. the Bauhaus vision was what they had to turn to.49 So Jordan argued that while economic conditions were responsible for this pathology. by both the Bauhaus and the Frankfurt School.Eli Rubin designers a sine qua non of moulding the collective socialist personality and severing all sympathy for the false illusion of capitalism. going back to at least Walter Benjamin. The larger point to draw from the story of modernist design and architecture in the GDR is that the Bauhaus legacy did not only live on in liberal. As long as the cause. and could not afford. who participated in a number of the modern housing projects and Burg school member Albert Krause.48 The significance of controlling people’s tastes through controlling the availability of certain products is perhaps best highlighted in an interview with several designers and architects on the issue of kitsch and socialism published in Kultur im Heim in 1964. The kitsch-need (Kitschbedürfnis) is a symptom of the deformation of the aesthetic consciousness. responding to Sütterlin’s discussion of kitsch. measured by the fast development of productive powers in technology and also culture. Among those interviewed by the magazine’s editor. Note here that Jordan was not in any way a member of the Party’s old guard. between the production of kitsch and capitalism’s supposedly sinister hypnosis of the oppressed masses. Against this there are ‘retarding’ moments in the form of ingrained habits. They ended up as petty tyrants able to change drastically the design of hundreds of thousands of goods with the stroke of a pen from a government office. It lived on in the communist world as well though in somewhat different form. Much has been written about the notion of fascist aesthetics. the deformation of consciousness is not sublimated (aufgehoben). Martin Kelm and others began their careers as designers with little power to influence the world around them other than through making prototypes. they used socialism as much as socialism used them: the powersthat-were were not committed to the Bauhaus legacy in an aesthetic sense. Central Institute for Design (Zentralinstitut für Formgebung): the first official state design bureau. and making its director Martin Kelm a State Secretary. which provides the key to understanding how Mart Stam’s disciples rose from enforced obscurity to positions of powerful control in the German Democratic Republic. DBA: Deutsches Bauakademie (German Architectural Academy). The change corresponded to a Ministers’ Council law passed in 1973 requiring all factories to hire industrial designers approved by the Office of Industrial Design. Eli Rubin Assistant Professor. This is not to conflate modernism or functionalism in any way with state socialism. This was an extremely powerful office under the Ministers’ Council—meaning it answered to no other interests than the most powerful in the state and therefore held sway over individual industries—responsible for inspecting the quality of industrial production in the GDR. more powerful design bureau created when the original was moved from the Ministry of Culture to the DAMW in 1965. The Institute produced much of the innovative. Department of History Western Michigan University Downloaded from http://jdh. This was the alternative organization to the Central Institute-Office of Industrial Design. It is the suggestion of this article that at least part of the Bauhaus legacy contained a moment of economic totalitarianism. especially with regard to the proliferation of kitsch. College of Architecture and Construction (Institut für Innengestaltung an der hochschule für Architektur und Bauwesen). created as part of the Ministry of Culture in 1963. the Central Institute-Office for Industrial Design was able to stop production of kitsch by proclaiming it low quality. including Kelm. modernist work that later became the blueprint for economic planning throughout the GDR. Weimar founded by former Bruno Paul student Horst Michel in 1951. However. at least as it appeared after the early 1960s. name changed in 1953 when the concept of ‘industrial design’ was considered politically suspect. the antipathy to uncontrolled mass-production. Office of Industrial Design (Amt für industrielle Formgestaltung): the new name of the Central Institute for Design as of 1972.The Form of Socialism without Ornament considered whether modernism and functionalism had a role in constituting a kind of communist aesthetic. College of Applied Art (Institut industrielle Gestaltung/ Institut angewandte Kunst. Institute of Industrial Design/Institute of Applied Art. Petras. Designers who remained in the VdBK generally did not work in modernist and Bauhaus-inspired themes. Reissmann. Central Institute for Design (Zentralinstitut für Gestaltung): the new. which remained affiliated with the Ministry of Culture and therefore had little power in economic decision making. which formed much of the Bauhaus mission. Krause and several others. The strength of conviction concerning the link between taste and morality that lived on in the industrial design community of East Germany was easily translated into the acceptance of totalitarian power over the choices of citizen consumers in the power structure of the command economy. and provided much of the architectural design for state building projects in East Germany. almost dictatorial powers over design aesthetic in the GDR. This was the state-run architectural association in the GDR.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16.und Warenprüfung (German Office for Measurements and Goods Testing). Through the DAMW. but focused on folk art and more ‘traditional’ aesthetics. found new life in the same kind of anti-capitalism during the years of the second German Dictatorship. Berlin-Weissensee: Design institute founded in 1950 at the College of Applied Art in the north-east section of Berlin by Mart Stam. Institute for Design and Development (Institut für Entwürf und Entwicklung): a small design studio set up in a vacant back courtyard or ‘Hinterhof’ apartment near the Burg School in Halle by Martin Kelm and Günter Reissmann in 1958. VdBK: Verband der Bildenden Künstler (Union of Visual Artists). Hochschule angewandte Kunst).oxfordjournals. Martin Kelm. Halle: applied arts college that produced the core of modernist designers in the GDR. making it a branch of the Ministers’ Council. Appendix of design-related institutions in the GDR Burg-Giebichenstein College for Art and Design. Institute for Interior Design. with Martin Kelm as director. The Office’s new status thus gave its director. in pre-war capitalism. 2012 165 . DAMW: Deutsches Amt für Messwesen. 38. ‘Industriedesign’ in Luckner-Bien 75 Jahre.. Wohnungsbau als soziokulturelles Programm’. 2004).und Umweltgestaltung im Bereich Produktion’ in 75 Jahre Burg Giebichenstein 1915–1990. in Luwig. Hirdina was a designer in the GDR at the time. p. ‘Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Sektion Produkt. The Authority of Everyday Objects: A Cultural History of West German Industrial Design (Berkeley. Architekten in der DDR. pp. ed.oxfordjournals. The Bauhaus was a direct target of the Nazis and the various völkisch right wing groups who found the so-called ‘formalist’ or ‘functionalist’ or even ‘international’ style to be an abomination. see Klaus Weber’s exhibition catalogue. Die hallesche Kunstschule von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Halle: Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung Staatliche Galerie Moritzburg Halle. Such representations of modernity. p. 1988. Tempolinsen und P2. however. he apparently radically changed his ideas while spending the years 1937–1945 in the USSR with many other future SED leaders such as Ulbricht. 46. p. February 9–April 20. 18 Paul Betts. 8 For more on Stam and his return to Weissensee. ‘P2 Macht das Rennen.. Gestalten. 5 Ibid. Berlin. For more on the Weimar school see Institut für Innengestaltung an der Hochschule für Architektur und Bauwesen Weimar. No. 1993). For reference please see appendix to this article. ‘P2 macht das Rennen. 17 Hirdina. 22 Gruner. For an excellent overview of the architecture of the Third Reich see Kathleen JamesChakraborty German Architecture for a Mass Audience (London: Routledge. p. the lifestyle. and their response to the formalism ‘debate. Thus. as well as Simone Hain. 16 Michael Suckow. 43. 117. 1990). 1997). 15 Hirdina. Horst Michel. regardless of how useful they proved to be to capitalism. or excessively modern. Gestalten. the term ‘degenerate’—in the sense of not simply having lost touch with tradition but actually having lost touch with a biological or organic lineage—came to apply to forms of modern architecture that rejected tradition. Burg-Giebichenstein.’ p. 6 Ibid. Trotzdem. Once the tide turned against his ideology he was replaced as head of the DBA in 1961 by Gerhard Kosel. but a cultural angle. Gestalten. popular entertainment such as Disney cartoons. 1992. p. Museum für Gestaltung. using the same terminology. 67.. or metal and glass architecture. 10 For more on the Dresden circle. and to some extent within Germany as well. such as jazz or swing. ‘… spezifisch refomistisch bauhausartig …’ mart stam in der ddr 1948–1952. p. Gestalten. 2012 166 . 88.’ ‘Jewish’ or ‘communist’. because ‘Entartung’ can be translated as ‘degeneration’ or ‘alienation’. the fashion. Industrieformgestaltung: Beispiele aus der Arbeit des Instituts für Innengestaltung an der hochschule für Architektur und Bauwesen Weimar. form und zweck 1992. p. Vom Baukünstler zum Komplexprojektanten. 373. 20 The most authoritative account of architecture in East Germany is Joachim Palutzki’s Architektur in der DDR (Berlin: Riemer. 235. Ökonomie und Industriedesign in Ostdeutschland’. mentioned in this article. 14 Liebknecht was the nephew of the KPD leader Karl Liebknecht. mainly because the leader of the Weimar Institute.) A good source on the history of the Dresden academy in the GDR is Rainer Beck and Natalia Kardinar. 2 The most authoritative account of East German industrial design is Heinz Hirdina’s Gestalten für die Serie: Design in der DDR 1949–1985. whose work at the Bauhaus receives less attention that it should. p. Dresden: VEB Verlag der Kunst. Hildtrud (ed. lends more evidence for an argument that historians need to rethink the relationship between the Third Reich and the GDR. etc. and despite being a remarkable account has not been translated into English and remains fairly unknown outside Germany. 24 Palutzki. 3. Renate Lückner-Bien (Halle: Hochschule für Kunst und Design. 2000).. who saw the architecture.. For more on Brandt. 371.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. because of snowfall) was judged to be ‘cosmopolitan. Zur Wiedereröffnung der Akademie der bildenden Künste Dresden. governmental as well as academic. (Dresden. see Ebert. 13 Ibid. This translation deserves special mention. p. and so the book is more of a primary than a secondary source. 2000). offended the mystical and holy sense of the ‘Volk’ held by Nazis and other radical right wing groups in Germany. p. Anything that was utopian. the food. 10. Dokumente zur Geschichte der Kunsthochschule Berlin-Weissensee 1946–1957. In the context of the Nazi cultural programme. 88. made his most lasting impact on GDR design nationally. Deutschland Archiv 28 (1995). ed. 388. 1997). ed. Berlin. 470–471. (Erkner: Dokumentenreihe des Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung. Die Metallwerkstatt am Bauhaus. 25 See Holger Barth. p. Neuanfang 1947 : zur Wiedereröffnung der Akademie der Bildenden Künste Dresden.) Drei Kapitel Weissensee. Downloaded from http://jdh.. 14. 2000). 1136.Eli Rubin Notes 1 There are a proliferation of East German design-related institutions. (Published in conjunction with the ‘Ausstellung im Bauhaus-Archiv’. whereas the most important work done by people associated with the Berlin-Weissensee and Burg schools was done in conjunction with the artistic and design communities there.’ see Rainer Beck and Kardinar Natalia (ed. 23 See Jörg Roesler. p. 4 Hirdina. and although he studied with modernist architect Hans Poelzig before the Nazi takeover. 383. who was a radical proponent of standardized mass housing.. ‘Geschichte und Gegenwart. not from a political. or even flat roofs (a fundamental of Bauhaus architecture and criticized by Hitler himself because Nordic roofs had to be slanted. University of California Press.) Trotzdem.. (Dresden: Verlag der Kunst. 19 Ibid. eds. Nordic or Hellenic-Roman civilization. Berlin: Kupfergraben. Die Burg Giebichenstein nach 1958’ in Burg Giebechenstein. Thomas Topfstedt et al. p. urban. 12 Hirdina. Architektur in der DDR. 11 Renate Luckner-Bien. 9 The Weimar Institute is not covered in as much depth here as the Berlin-Weissensee and especially the Burg-Giebichenstein Institutes. p. it was used specifically to refer to art or architecture that had lost touch with traditional Aryan. 7 Johannes Langenhagen. That the Party-backed architects in the DBA attacked the same target. of the Volk as one and the same as the actual eugenic heritage carried by the blood of the Volk. 39. Neuanfange 1947. 21 Petra Gruner. 1996. 1992. Beiträge zur Geschichte. whether musical. I think. 3 Hirdina. ‘Politik. ‘Chemistry Brings Bread. rather than a racial community. Konsum und regionale Identität in Sachsen 1880–2000: Die Regionalisierung von Konsumgütern im Spannungfeld von Nationalisierung und Globalisierung (Stuttgart. Franz Steiner Verlag. as numerous attempts have been made to define it. University of Wisconsin-Madison.’ For more on the actual specifics of the newly minted Office for Industrial Design (AiF) and its achievements after 1972 with its new powers. Architektur in der DDR. 27 Palutzki. ed. 38 The criticism of Petras’ cylinders was made by Manfred Hagen in the Party organ Neues Deutschland. and defend it. ‘Designförderung in der DDR’ in Amt für industrielle Formgestaltung. have an impact on questions of aesthetics.1999). and in multiple contexts. Wunderwirtschaft. 40.. p. p. Deutsche Kunstausstellung: Vorbereitung. 32 ‘Alle 21 Minuten ein Wohnzimmer’ Möbel und Wohnraum 1960–1. Eigensinn (Ch. 21. Berlin: Institut für Angewandte Kunst. He does not take into consideration enough the requirements of industrial form under socialist conditions’. Consumer. Chemie bringt Schönheit. Mittag ‘Bericht zum ökonomischen Nutzen der Industrieformgestaltung’ VVB Plastverarbeitung. 2004) and Rubin. pp..The Form of Socialism without Ornament 26 Gruner. the Volkswirtschaft. Fortschritt. The term was borrowed from the slogan of the Chemistry Programme. consumer society. the collective was an economic project. Stiftung Archiv der Parteien und Massenorganisationen (SAPMO) DY 30/IV A 2/2. eds. p. p. ‘The Bauhaus in the German Democratic Republic—between Formalism and Pragmatism’ in Jeannine Fiedler and Peter Feierabend. ‘Plastics and the New Society: The German Democratic Republic in the 1950s and 1960s’ in David Crowley and Susan Reid. 2012 167 . 38. 1999). 37 Günter Reissmann in interview with the author. ed. 11. Norm. 40 Barch Dahlwitz-Hoppegarten (BarchDH) DY 30/IV A2/2. ‘Gutachten zur Dissertationsschrift von Martin Kelm ‘Die Bedeutung der Gestaltung industrieller Erzeugnisse im entwickelten gesellschaftlichen System des Sozialismus’ 3. 1999). 2000) pp. ‘Quer: form + zweck’ in Simone Barck. with comments such as ‘I saw the exhibit of industrial design and liked it. Durchführung’ p. 36 Suckow. 1959. 139. and so a common theme of totalitarianism is normally drawn between the Third Reich and the GDR. Wealth and Beauty’. ed.oxfordjournals. was essentially a rubber-stamp congress. Consuming Germany in the Cold War. the needs of the economic collective. p. Parteitages der Sozialistischen Einheitspartei Deutschlands (Berlin: Dietz Verlag. 29 Palutzki. 41 Ibid. Hagen is … too subjectively colored. ‘Industriedesign’. the logic of the collective pervaded most aspects of life. ‘Alltag und Kultur in der DDR. Fachhochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin. Also ‘Wohnraumkultur trotz Standardisierung?’ Möbel und Wohnraum 1960–1. 45 See Manuel Schramm’s excellent book on consumption in Saxony.’ p. See also Ray Stokes. 1999). 53–73. Design and Cultural History’ (Ph. In the case of the GDR. Links. Dictatorship as Experience: Towards a Socio-Cultural History of the GDR (New York: Berghahn Books. which have led to a very fragmented sense of what Downloaded from http://jdh. 474. Also see Betts. p.. however. This is not to say that political economy did not also play an important role in the Third Reich (or that there was no racism or antiSemitism in East Germany. The guest books to the conference were overwhelmed with support for Petras.11. 28 The Volkskammer. See Bundesarchiv Berlin-Lichterfeld (Barch-BL) DR 1 (Ministerium für Kultur) ‘V. Berlin. 34 The similarity of the term Volkswirtschaft to the term used by the Nazis. which there was) and for some the difference between a racially versus an economically based collective is significant. p.. 1959). Probleme musealer Darstellung’ (Diplomarbeit.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. design and architecture. 46 Hirdina. eds. In both cases. p. ed.021/366 Büro G. Bauhaus (Könemann Verlag. from Kelm’s point of view. and Silvia Rückert’s ‘Spürbare Moderne—gehemmter Fortschritt: Plaste in der Waren—und Lebenswelt der DDR’ in Andreas Ludwig. VVB. 2.D Dissertation.021/376 Büro Günther Mittag. ‘The Order of Substitutes: Plastic Consumer Goods in the Volkswirtschaft and Everyday Domestic Life in the GDR’ in David Crew. Volksgemeinschaft (‘People’s Community’) is important to keep in mind.4. 10–22. 30 Konrad Jarausch ‘Beyond Uniformity: The Challenge of Historicizing the GDR’ in Jarausch. see Kelm. 43 An example was the law from 1965 passed by the Minister’s Council entitled ‘The Law About the Rights and Duties of the People’s Own Factories’ that required all VEBs to employ industrial designers. 33 Marc Schweska and Markus Witte ‘Revolution aus Tradition? Das Montagemöbelprogramm Deutsche Werkstätten (MDW)’ in Neue Gesellschaft für Bildende Kunst. as is our attempt to understand its usage. 39 See Jorg Petruschat. Links. and the laws it enacted were usually handed down from the Central Committee or the Politburo. streamlined.12. 82. Martina Langermann and Siegfried Lokatis. Neues Deutschland 10. ed. much the same way that the ‘health’ of the racial community. ‘Plastics and Dictatorship in the German Democratic Republic: Towards an Economic. 47 The use of the term ‘kitsch’ by East German designers is fraught with problems. 3. 65–80. 89. The Chemistry Programme and the resulting ‘wave of plastics that rolled over the land’ (as form + zweck editor Jorg Petruschat described the influx of plastic consumer goods in the wake of the Chemistry Programme in the 1960s and 1970s) helped create a momentary consensus among the population that the autarkic economic project of the GDR could deliver a modern. 269–276. The article from Mr. 81.1969. The literature and discourse on kitsch is long. ‘Bemerkungen zu den Gastbüchern’. This thesis is developed more fully in Eli Rubin. or Volksgemeinschaft. 116. Both terms present a kind of collective to which the wills of individual citizens were subordinated. 44 BarchDH DF 7 82 Press release from Martin Kelm to Pressamt regarding the Ministers’ Council decision. ‘Massnahmen zur Verbesserung der Arbeit der Ministerium. 2002. affected questions of architecture. 68. p. For the purposes of this article. pp. (1986?) pp. 31 Ulbricht in Protokoll der Verhandlungen des V. Also see Silvia Rückert. ‘P2 Macht das Rennen. although its delegates were ‘elected’ in supposedly democratic elections. art and design under Hitler. Kombinate und Betriebe sowie des Handels für die Erhöhung des Niveaus der Gestaltung industrieller Erzeugnisse. VEB Auma. see Hagen ‘Hinter dem Leben zurück’. 35 Redeker. April. Architektur in der DDR. 2003).1962. Zwischen ‘Mosaik’ und ‘Einheit’ (Ch. Style and Socialism. 42 Barch-BL. Design in der DDR. 1991). Kitsch. 2012 168 . if the kitsch involves the use of endangered wildlife. 1–14. condescending and thus it becomes itself the ethical problem. Most discussions of kitsch. Janet McCracken. But in a planned economy. 2001). authors such as Hermann Broch and Ludwig Giesz have attempted to define kitsch in terms of philosophical notions of aesthetic judgement. it is bad ‘taste’ in a moral or ethical sense. the personal tastes of each citizen happen to be very much the business of every other citizen. 1996). it is not an ethical question. and it is this connection that I believe is most helpful here in assessing the role of ‘kitsch’ in the planned socialist economy of the GDR. Hermann Broch. Avant-Garde. ‘Sweet Kitsch’ in Matei Calinescu (ed. and Robert Solomon’s defence of what Harries originally designated ‘sweet kitsch’ (mawkish. Here morality. Duke University Press.oxfordjournals. and we often consider this ‘kitsch’ or ‘gaudy’. Taste and the Household: The Domestic Aesthetic and Moral Reasoning (Albany. Phänomenologie des Kitsches (Munich. 1968). 48 An excellent example of this critique of kitsch and capitalism can be found in Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s essay ‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception’ in Adorno and Horkheimer. however. Thomas Kulka Kitsch and Art (University Park. 49 ‘Was ist eignetlich mit dem ‘Elfenriegen’? Eine Runddiskussion der Redaktion Kultur im Heim’ Kultur im Heim 6–1968. merely aesthetic. capitalist context. 1987). eds. and the state as well. and the praxis of everyday life combine to form a category of aesthetic judgement that is clear to all but the most unaware. Obviously. (New York: Continuum.org/ at University of Michigan on June 16. That is. cultural or historical concepts empty. The Dialectic of Enlightenment. and one could argue similarly if it contributes to making important religious. at which point. Wilhelm Fink Verlag 1971). economics. as Solomon argues. Solomon’s defence of kitsch does not apply here. often including the person intentionally violating the category. and aesthetic judgements are driving consumption and thus production and thus the allotment of resources that are to be used ideally for the good of the whole. and the connection of ethics and morality to kitsch is key to understanding why it was of such concern to the state and the industrial designers who worked for the state. Decadence. 1968). a Volkswirtschaft. take place assuming a Western. ed.Eli Rubin kitsch actually is. for example a fashion outfit replete with the skins and furs of endangered species with extremely expensive jewellery to boot. it remains an ethical question. State University of New York Press. trans. see Ludwig Giesz. because the collective is essentially an economic collective. ‘Notes on the Problem of Kitsch’ in Kitsch: The World of Bad Taste. Karsten Harries’ chapter on Kitsch in his The Meaning of Modern Art (Evanston. Gillo Dorfles. Postmodernism (Durham. Downloaded from http://jdh. the question here comes down to whether other people’s aesthetic judgement or lack thereof is in any way a threat to you yourself. such as a plastic Jesus or a plastic Elvis. but harmless.) Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism. Kathleen Higgins. (New York: Universe Books. So. Penn State University Press. John Cumming. Drawing off classic works of aesthetic philosophy by Kant and Nietzsche. Robert Solomon. any disapproval of kitsch becomes elitist. ‘On Kitsch and Sentimentality’ in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49–1 (1991) pp. If not. art that one might never choose for one’s own home but cannot feel threatened by in others’) as divorced from ethical considerations is a plausible defence only in a free market society. where the purchases of all consumers affect all other citizens. Bad taste in an aesthetic sense and bad taste in a moral sense often overlap. For more on the connections between kitsch and aesthetic judgement and ethics and morality. Karsten Harries has argued that in fact kitsch is more than bad art. Northwestern University Press.