German aesthetic theory: the history of architecture as a sense of spaceiv
Roughly translated as The Essence of Architectural Creation, August Schmarsow’s text was presented at his inaugural Professorial lecture (in art history) at the University of Leipzig in 1893.v He began with a critique of Semper’s ideas, and argued that architecture had been marginalised into mere decoration, and then passed off as an act of dressing (Bekleidung), Schmarsow contended that:
...[the] historical treatment of architecture had always followed two patterns—neither of which did it justice. The traditional aesthetic point of view did not consider architecture truly an art, for it was implicated with a purpose; it therefore had to be classified with tectonics and the handicrafts as an unfree art. The second perspective, that of ‘thoughtful architects’, saw architecture as the ‘art of dressing’. They view their activity as little more than superficial composition of a purely technical and decorative kind, the pasting up of inherited styles on the framework of a functional construction, during which process even the best of them is at a loss to summon up any creative enthusiasm...vi
Schmarsow’s thesis considers that architecture is both a science and an art. He compares the mathematical science of space (Raumwissenschaft) against the art of space (Raumkunst) to produce an idea about space that is experiential.vii He maintained that architecture could not be understood except from within, and so distinguished between the spatial idea and the spatial form of architecture. For Schmarsow, space was more than shelter that fulfilled a purpose. It was a ‘playroom’ (Spielraum) as well, which meant that it incorporated the tactile, mobile, and visual aspects of space.viii The ‘creatress of space’ (Raumgestalterin) was a composite idea that was able to fuse the viewer’s ‘sense of space’ (Raumgefühl) with their own cultural ‘spatial imagination’ (Raumphantasie) and the object of ‘spatial creation’ (Raumgestaltung).ix
Schmarsow’s text on the Creatress of Space occurred in the same year as Hildebrand’s Das Problem der Form in der bildenden Kunst, but made a more direct connection between space, form and architecture, where Schmarsow insisted: “the essence of every architectural creation since the beginning of time is not its form but the fact that it is a spatial construct.”x
Schmarsow’s key idea was that the art of architecture evolved as a history of space, as a growing history or ‘genetic explanation’.xi He offered ‘rhythm’ instead of Semper’s ‘direction’,xii and contrasted between architecture an external form, viewed stylistically, against an architecture that was a consequence of space.xiii Schmarsow’s theories of space realigned architecture with early phenomenology, and emphasised the individual subject (beholder) in the overall construct of space.
He combined psychology, empathy, and cultural symbolism, to come the closest to offering a new direction for the history of architecture.xiv
An understanding of architecture was derived from either Gottfried Semper or Karl Bötticher, and many of these early aesthetic theories were proposed by non-architects: aestheticians, cultural philosophers, art historians, artists or sculptors. The inclusion of the new discipline of psychology meant that the role of the subject began to increase in importance; no longer was the object viewed in isolation. The location and the position of the viewer came to be considered equally, as well as the movement in relation to a static whole. Although space had
previously been considered together with mass, many of these new propositions isolated either, space or mass (form).
Harry Mallgrave draws our attention to the work of Carl Stumpf (1848 – 1936), whom he believes influenced Schmarsow’s interest in space, particularly the earlier work of 1873: Über den psychologischen Ursprung der Raumvorstellung (On the psychological origin of spatial imagination).xv Stumpf argues that one perceives the whole visual field in three-dimensions, even if it is only experienced piece by piece. Through this process of acquisition (by movement) he concluded many spaces give way to one continuous space.xvi Stumpf’s theory would have enabled Schmarsow to form a physical connection between the subject, occupying a predominantly vertical axis, and space—although Schmarsow’s interest was not so much in the vertical dimension, but rather in the enclosure of the subject.xvii
Also underpinning the origins of German aesthetic theory were F. T. Vischer and R. Vischer’s: Lebensgefühl and Einfühlung, symbolism and empathy respectively, which established a basis for understanding spatial perception.xviii In his book, Der Symbol-Begriff in der neusten Aesthetik (The Concept of the Symbol in the most Recent Aesthetics, 1876), psychologist Johannes Vorkelt (1848- 1930) developed a translation of empathy using artistic symbolism.xix Although he did not further Robert Vischer’s position of empathy, Vorkelt acknowledged that Vischer had discovered the crucial condition that: “... objects are not perceived as ‘dead configurations of lines’ but as pregnant with movement and force.”xx
Vorkelt made the connection between the physical movement of the viewer and the viewer’s perception of space life-symbols. He showed how symbols were seen through movement, in relation to the body’s position, and formulated a two-fold process for the successful symbolisation of spatial form where: the spatial form first needed to be seen through movement, and secondly, the movement had to be recognised by the senses.xxi