藝術
不該被遺忘的「包豪斯女性」
報道 2013年04月27日
Bauhaus Archive, Berlin
1926-1927年格特魯德·阿恩特在包豪斯學校期間的自拍照。
柏林——格特魯德·阿恩特(Gertrud Arndt)當時一定非常樂觀。1923年她來到包豪斯(Bauhaus)藝術設計學校時，是一個才華橫溢、生氣勃勃的20歲的年輕人，她獲得了獎學金。她在一個建築事務所當了幾年學徒之後，就下定決心要學建築。
可惜她沒有機會去學。包豪斯當時處於動蕩之中，因為它的創始總監，建築師沃爾特·格洛皮烏斯(Walter Gropius)，和其中最有威望的一位老師約翰內斯·伊頓(Johannes Itten)長期不和。後者想把學校變成自己的工具，用來實現他准宗教式的藝術設計手法。阿恩特被告知沒有建築學的課程可供她學習，她被分到了紡織講習 班。
不只她一個人受到了這樣的待遇。其他大部分女生也被迫學習“適合女性”的專業，比如紡織或者制陶工藝。柏林的包豪斯檔案館為了對這些女生在校期間被
邊緣化表示歉意，舉辦了“包豪斯女性”(Female Bauhaus)系列展覽，以表彰她們的作品，最近的一次展覽是關於阿恩特的。
阿恩特的展覽中不僅有她的紡織習作，還有她的攝影作品，她在包豪斯學院就讀期間開始練習攝影，以後從未間斷。她的展覽持續到4月22日。她是系列展 中的第三位，前兩位分別是紡織設計師貝妮塔·科赫-歐特(Benita Koch-Otte)，以及洛烏·舍佩爾-伯肯坎普(Lou Scheper-Berkenkamp)，她在離開學校之後在舞台設計、插畫和色彩理論方面成就了一番事業。包豪斯檔案館計劃將來繼續推出這個系列的更多 展覽。
“包豪斯女性”展覽的前三位都有出眾的才華、毅力和智謀，但她們每一個都感到自己在職業道路上遇到的障礙比男同行們要多——不管是在包豪斯學校，還是在之後的職業生涯中。她們這種感覺不是沒有根據的。大家一直以為這所學校很先進，可是它為什麼如此重男輕女呢？
包豪斯學校1919年成立，1933年解散。它不總是對女性不公。只是在開頭的幾年，女生會被分到特定的專業，儘管格羅皮烏斯在學校的宣言中聲稱，該校歡迎“任何有良好聲譽的人，不限年齡和性別”。
“包豪斯有先進的理想，但是男性管理者們代表着當時社會的普遍態度，”凱瑟琳·因斯(Catherine Ince)說。她是最近在倫敦巴比肯藝術中心舉辦的展覽“包豪斯以藝術為生命”的聯合策展人。“離實現普遍公正還有太遙遠的距離。”
這種情況後來得以改善。1923年，格羅皮烏斯把伊頓趕走了，代之以激進的匈牙利藝術家兼設計師拉茲洛·莫霍伊-納吉(Laszlo Moholy-Nagy)。莫霍伊不僅確保女生得到更大的自由，還鼓勵其中一位女生，瑪麗安·布蘭德(Marianne Brandt)，加入金屬講習班。在20世紀30年代，她成了德國最重要的工業設計師之一。
http://hcbooks.blogspot.tw/2010/06/experiment-in-totality-by-sibyl-moholy.html
但是阿恩特、科赫-歐特和舍佩爾-伯肯坎普就沒那麼幸運了，她們在校的時候，莫霍伊還沒來。科赫-歐特是三人中唯一一個堅持最初專業的人，她最終在 紡織設計和藝術教育兩個領域都成了有影響力的人物。相反，舍佩爾-伯肯坎普在與一個同學結婚之後就退學了，幾年之後，她丈夫回校當老師，她就在包豪斯劇院 幫忙。同樣地，阿恩特在1927年完成學業之後也放棄了紡織學，但是她在30年代初又與包豪斯有了一種非正式的聯繫——她丈夫接受了在該校教書的職位，他 們也是在該校就讀時相識的。
即便如此，這三位女士最後的工作領域在男性主導的設計體系中被認為不像建築或工業設計那麼重要，部分原因是這些領域被看作是由女性獨佔的領域。關於 這些領域的書籍和展覽比其他學科要少。甚至連包豪斯最成功的紡織學畢業生，包括安妮·阿伯斯(Anni Albers)、岡塔·斯特爾茲利(Gunta Stölzl)和科赫-歐特，在該校的歷史中也不如那些“更重要的”學科的男校友們那麼顯要。
包豪斯對性別的偏見不是她們遇到的唯一的職業問題。就像因斯女士指出的那樣，學校在初期對女性的矛盾心態反映了那個時代的偏見。她們三個每個人都像 其他職業女性一樣，面臨同樣的挑戰——在家庭責任和事業之間周旋。她們遇到的問題還嚴重，因為她們有可能被在類似領域工作的丈夫蓋過風頭。
可以說，她們以及她們的丈夫們因為在二戰期間留在歐洲，而不是像格羅皮烏斯以及其他著名的包豪斯畢業生那樣去美國避難，從而在事業上遇到了挫折。他們留在歐洲不僅脫離了格洛皮烏斯的圈子——這個圈子一直主導着對包豪斯歷史的講述——而且還得應付20世紀中期歐洲殘酷的政治環境。
情況最糟的是科赫-歐特和她的丈夫，納粹禁止她的丈夫在德國任教，他逃到了布拉格。不幸的是，他因一次意外事故離世，留下她獨自一人回到德國重新開 始生活。阿恩特和舍佩爾-伯肯坎普都沒有像科赫-歐特或者布蘭德（她最後留在了東德）那樣遭受那麼多磨難，但是她們和她們的家人經受了在納粹德國生活的心 理創傷和艱辛。
“包豪斯女性”系列展以一種感人的方式承認了她們的成就以及她們在求學過程中以及之後的職業生涯中遇到的困難。它也反映出新一代的設計歷史學家和策展人對女性設計師（不管是否畢業於包豪斯）的作品表現出日益濃厚的興趣，比如因斯女士。
這些人於3月28日和29日在紐約的“國際性別設計網絡”(International Gender Design Network)大會的開幕式上相聚，討論一個同樣有爭議的話題：對包豪斯學校早期造成負面影響的性別歧視，在如今的設計界還保持着多大程度的破壞力。
BERLIN — She must have felt so optimistic. When Gertrud Arndt arrived
at the Bauhaus school of art and design in 1923, she was a gifted,
spirited 20-year-old who had won a scholarship to pay for her studies.
Having spent several years working as an apprentice to a firm of
architects, she had set her heart on studying architecture. 可惜她沒有機會去學。包豪斯當時處於動蕩之中，因為它的創始總監，建築師沃爾特·格洛皮烏斯(Walter Gropius)，和其中最有威望的一位老師約翰內斯·伊頓(Johannes Itten)長期不和。後者想把學校變成自己的工具，用來實現他准宗教式的藝術設計手法。阿恩特被告知沒有建築學的課程可供她學習，她被分到了紡織講習 班。
阿恩特的展覽中不僅有她的紡織習作，還有她的攝影作品，她在包豪斯學院就讀期間開始練習攝影，以後從未間斷。她的展覽持續到4月22日。她是系列展 中的第三位，前兩位分別是紡織設計師貝妮塔·科赫-歐特(Benita Koch-Otte)，以及洛烏·舍佩爾-伯肯坎普(Lou Scheper-Berkenkamp)，她在離開學校之後在舞台設計、插畫和色彩理論方面成就了一番事業。包豪斯檔案館計劃將來繼續推出這個系列的更多 展覽。
“包豪斯女性”展覽的前三位都有出眾的才華、毅力和智謀，但她們每一個都感到自己在職業道路上遇到的障礙比男同行們要多——不管是在包豪斯學校，還是在之後的職業生涯中。她們這種感覺不是沒有根據的。大家一直以為這所學校很先進，可是它為什麼如此重男輕女呢？
包豪斯學校1919年成立，1933年解散。它不總是對女性不公。只是在開頭的幾年，女生會被分到特定的專業，儘管格羅皮烏斯在學校的宣言中聲稱，該校歡迎“任何有良好聲譽的人，不限年齡和性別”。
“包豪斯有先進的理想，但是男性管理者們代表着當時社會的普遍態度，”凱瑟琳·因斯(Catherine Ince)說。她是最近在倫敦巴比肯藝術中心舉辦的展覽“包豪斯以藝術為生命”的聯合策展人。“離實現普遍公正還有太遙遠的距離。”
這種情況後來得以改善。1923年，格羅皮烏斯把伊頓趕走了，代之以激進的匈牙利藝術家兼設計師拉茲洛·莫霍伊-納吉(Laszlo Moholy-Nagy)。莫霍伊不僅確保女生得到更大的自由，還鼓勵其中一位女生，瑪麗安·布蘭德(Marianne Brandt)，加入金屬講習班。在20世紀30年代，她成了德國最重要的工業設計師之一。
Experiment in Totality by Sibyl Moholy-Nagy拉茲洛·莫霍利-納吉
Experiment in Totality by Sibyl Moholy-Nagy拉茲洛·莫霍利...http://hcbooks.blogspot.tw/2010/06/experiment-in-totality-by-sibyl-moholy.html
但是阿恩特、科赫-歐特和舍佩爾-伯肯坎普就沒那麼幸運了，她們在校的時候，莫霍伊還沒來。科赫-歐特是三人中唯一一個堅持最初專業的人，她最終在 紡織設計和藝術教育兩個領域都成了有影響力的人物。相反，舍佩爾-伯肯坎普在與一個同學結婚之後就退學了，幾年之後，她丈夫回校當老師，她就在包豪斯劇院 幫忙。同樣地，阿恩特在1927年完成學業之後也放棄了紡織學，但是她在30年代初又與包豪斯有了一種非正式的聯繫——她丈夫接受了在該校教書的職位，他 們也是在該校就讀時相識的。
即便如此，這三位女士最後的工作領域在男性主導的設計體系中被認為不像建築或工業設計那麼重要，部分原因是這些領域被看作是由女性獨佔的領域。關於 這些領域的書籍和展覽比其他學科要少。甚至連包豪斯最成功的紡織學畢業生，包括安妮·阿伯斯(Anni Albers)、岡塔·斯特爾茲利(Gunta Stölzl)和科赫-歐特，在該校的歷史中也不如那些“更重要的”學科的男校友們那麼顯要。
包豪斯對性別的偏見不是她們遇到的唯一的職業問題。就像因斯女士指出的那樣，學校在初期對女性的矛盾心態反映了那個時代的偏見。她們三個每個人都像 其他職業女性一樣，面臨同樣的挑戰——在家庭責任和事業之間周旋。她們遇到的問題還嚴重，因為她們有可能被在類似領域工作的丈夫蓋過風頭。
可以說，她們以及她們的丈夫們因為在二戰期間留在歐洲，而不是像格羅皮烏斯以及其他著名的包豪斯畢業生那樣去美國避難，從而在事業上遇到了挫折。他們留在歐洲不僅脫離了格洛皮烏斯的圈子——這個圈子一直主導着對包豪斯歷史的講述——而且還得應付20世紀中期歐洲殘酷的政治環境。
情況最糟的是科赫-歐特和她的丈夫，納粹禁止她的丈夫在德國任教，他逃到了布拉格。不幸的是，他因一次意外事故離世，留下她獨自一人回到德國重新開 始生活。阿恩特和舍佩爾-伯肯坎普都沒有像科赫-歐特或者布蘭德（她最後留在了東德）那樣遭受那麼多磨難，但是她們和她們的家人經受了在納粹德國生活的心 理創傷和艱辛。
“包豪斯女性”系列展以一種感人的方式承認了她們的成就以及她們在求學過程中以及之後的職業生涯中遇到的困難。它也反映出新一代的設計歷史學家和策展人對女性設計師（不管是否畢業於包豪斯）的作品表現出日益濃厚的興趣，比如因斯女士。
這些人於3月28日和29日在紐約的“國際性別設計網絡”(International Gender Design Network)大會的開幕式上相聚，討論一個同樣有爭議的話題：對包豪斯學校早期造成負面影響的性別歧視，在如今的設計界還保持着多大程度的破壞力。
No chance. The Bauhaus was in tumult because of the long-running battle between its founding director, the architect Walter Gropius, and one of its most charismatic teachers, Johannes Itten, who wanted to use the school as a vehicle for his quasi-spiritual approach to art and design. Arndt was told that there was no architecture course for her to join and was dispatched to the weaving workshop.
Not that she was alone. Most of the other female students had been forced to study the supposedly “feminine” subjects of weaving or ceramics too. The Bauhaus Archive in Berlin is now trying to make amends to the women like them, who felt marginalized at the school, by celebrating their work in the “Female Bauhaus” series of exhibitions, the latest of which is devoted to Arndt.
As well as her student work in textiles, Arndt’s exhibition, through April 22, includes the photographic experiments she began at the Bauhaus and continued for the rest of her life. She is the third female Bauhaüsler to be featured in the series that started with a fellow textile designer Benita Koch-Otte and Lou Scheper-Berkenkamp, who forged a career in theater design, illustration and color theory after leaving the school. The Bauhaus Archive plans to continue the series with more shows in the future.
All three of the first “Female Bauhaus” subjects were unusually talented, determined and resourceful, yet each would have been justified in feeling that she faced greater professional obstacles than her male contemporaries both at the Bauhaus and afterward. Why did a supposedly progressive school turn out to be so misogynistic?
The Bauhaus, which ran from 1919 to 1933, was not always unfair to women. It was only in the early years that female students were relegated to particular courses, despite Gropius’s claim in the school’s manifesto that it welcomed “any person of good repute, without regard to age or sex.”
“The Bauhaus had progressive aspirations, but the men in charge represented the prevailing societal attitudes of the time,” said Catherine Ince, co-curator of the recent “Bauhaus Art as Life” exhibition at the Barbican Art Gallery in London. “It was simply a step too far to bring about equality across the board.”
The situation improved after Gropius succeeded in ousting Itten in 1923 and replaced him with the radical Hungarian artist and designer Laszlo Moholy-Nagy. Having ensured that female students were given greater freedom, Moholy encouraged one of them, Marianne Brandt, to join the metal workshop. She was to become one of Germany’s foremost industrial designers during the 1930s.
But Arndt, Koch-Otte and Scheper-Berkenkamp were unfortunate in having joined the school before Moholy’s arrival. Koch-Otte was the only one of the three to persevere with her original course of study, eventually becoming an influential figure in both textile design and art education. Whereas Scheper-Berkenkamp dropped out after marrying a fellow student only to help out at the Bauhaus Theater when he returned to the school as a teacher several years later. Similarly, Arndt abandoned weaving after completing her course in 1927 but forged informal links with the Bauhaus at the turn of the 1930s when her husband, who she had also met as a student, accepted a teaching post there.
Even so, all three women ended up working in areas that the male-dominated design establishment did not deem to be as important as, say, architecture or industrial design, partly because they were seen as female preserves. Fewer books and exhibitions have since been devoted to them than to other disciplines. And even the most successful Bauhaus textile graduates, including Anni Albers, Gunta Stölzl and Koch-Otte, have featured less prominently in histories of the school than their male counterparts, who studied “weightier” subjects, have done.
Not that gender stereotyping by the Bauhaus was the only professional problem they faced. As Ms. Ince pointed out, the school’s initial ambivalence toward women reflected the prejudices of the time. Each of the trio faced the same challenges as other working women in juggling domestic responsibilities with their careers. For them, those problems were aggravated by the risk of being overshadowed by their husbands, who worked in similar fields.
Arguably, they and their spouses also suffered professionally from staying in Europe during World War II, rather than seeking refuge in the United States like Gropius and other prominent Bauhaüslers. Remaining in Europe not only isolated them from Gropius’s circle, which has since dominated historic accounts of the Bauhaus, but left them to deal with the brutal consequences of the continent’s mid-20th century politics.
Worst off were Koch-Otte and her husband, who were banned from teaching in Germany by the Nazis and fled to Prague. Tragically, he died in an accident there, leaving her to return to Germany to rebuild her life. Neither Arndt nor Scheper-Berkenkamp suffered as severely as Koch-Otte, or Brandt, who ended up on the East German side of the Iron Curtain, but they and their families faced the trauma and hardship of life in Nazi Germany.
The “Female Bauhaus” series is a touching way of acknowledging their achievements and the difficulties they faced during and after their studies. It also reflects the growing interest in the work of female designers, both inside and outside the Bauhaus, by a new generation of design historians and curators, like Ms. Ince.
A group of them is to meet at the inaugural International Gender Design Network conference in New York March 28 and 29 to discuss an equally thorny issue: the degree to which the sexism that blighted the early years of the Bauhaus persists in design today.
沒有留言:
張貼留言