SOME WRITINGS BY MIES VAN DER ROHE 1923: APHORISMS ON ARCHITECTURE AND FORM. We reject all aesthetic speculation, cll doctrine, oll for malism Architecture is the will of an epoch transloted into space; living, changing, new. Not yesterday, not tomorrow, only today can be given form. Only this kind of building will be creative, Create form out of the noture of our tasks with the methods of our time. This is our task. We refuse to recognize problems of form, but only problems of building, Form is rot the aim of our work, but only the result Form, by itself, does not exist Form’ as on aim is formalism; and that we reject Essentially our task is to free the practice of building from the control of esthetic speculators ond restore it to what it should exclusively be: buil ARCHITECTURE AND THE TIMES. Greek temples, Roman basilicos and medieval cathedrals are significant’ to us as creations of a whole epoch rather thon as works of individuel architects. Who asks for the names of these builders? Of what significance are the for- tuitous personalities of their creators? Such buildings are impersonal by their very neture. They are pure expressions of their time. Their true meaning is that they are symbols of their epoch, Architecture is the will of the epoch translated into space, Until this simple truth is clearly recognized, the new archi- tecture will be uncertain and tentative.” Until then. it must remain a choos of undirected forces. The question {95 to the nature of architecture is of decisive importance, It must be understood that all architecture is bound up with its own time, that it con only be manifested in living tosks and in the medium of its epech. In ne age has it been otherwise, It is hopeless to try to use the forms of the past in our orchitecture. Even the strongest artistic talent must fail in this attempt. Again and again we see talented archi- tects who fall short because their work is not in tune with their age. In the lost analysis, in spite of their grect gifts, they are dilettantes; for it makes no difference how enthu: siastically they do the wrong thing. It is o question of essentials. It is not possible to move forward ond look backwards; he who lives in the post connot advance, The whole trend of our time is toward the secular. The endeavors of the mystics will be remembered os mere episodes. Despite our grecter understanding of life, we shall build no cathedrals. Nor do the brave gestures of the Romantics mean anything to us, for behind them we detect their empty form. Ours is not an age of pathos; ‘we do not respect flights of the spirit os much as we value reason and realism, ‘The demand of our time for realism and functionalism must be met. Only then will our buildings express the potential greatness of our time; ond only a fool can say that it has no greatness. We are concerned today with questions of a general nature The individual is losing significance; his destiny is no longer what interests us. The decisive achievements in all fields are impersonal_and their authors ore for the most part unknown. They are part of the trend of our time foward anonymity. Our engineering structures ore examples. Gigentic dams, great industria instellaticns huge bridges are built’ as a matter of ‘course wit designer's name attached to them. They point ' technology of the future. If we compare the mammoth heaviness of Romea with the web-like lightness of modern cranes o° vaulting with thin reinforced concrete construct realize how much our orchitecture differs from ti the past in form and expression. Modern indurol have o great influence on this development It is less to abject that medern buildings are only If we discard all romantic conceptions, we con the stone structures of the Greeks, the brick ond construction of the Romans and the medieval cat all as bold engineering achievements. It can be taker gronted that the first Gothic buildings were viewed intruders in their Romanesque surroundings. Our utilitorion buildings con become worthy of the of architecture only if they truly interpret their + their perfect functional expression, 1927: A LETTER ON FORM IN ARCHITECTURE Dr RIEZLER. ; My attack is not again form, but against form as On ef in itsol. I’moke this ottock becouse of what | hove leorned Form as on end inevitably results in mere formal This effort is directed only ofthe exterior. Bul coy has life on the inside has living exterior. Only what has inteniy of life ean have intent of Every “how” is based on a “what” The un-formed is ro worse than the over-formed The former is nothing; the latter is mere appearance Real form presupposes real-life Bur no “hos been” or “would be”. ‘This is our criterion: We should judge not so much by the results as oy creative process. For iti just this thot reveols whether the form ie from life or invented for its own soke That is why creative process is £0 evento Life is whet is decisive for us. In all its plenitude and in its spiritual and material relat Is it not one of the most important tosks of the We to clarify, enclyse ond order our spiritual ond mat Situation and thus to Toke the lead? Must not cll else be left to the forces of creation? 1930: THE NEW ERA. (Speech delivered wt a Werkbund mesting in Vienna) The new era is o fact: it exists, irrespective of our 4 “no”. Yet it is neither better nor worse thon any: era. It is pure datum, in itself without value cont Therefore | will not try to define it or clarify its structure, Lat not sve undue Wrportahes mela standardization. let us accept changed economic and social condition a «@ fact, All these take their blind ond fateful course, .thing will be decisive: the way we assert ourselves in foce of circumstence. the problems of spirit begin. The important question ‘ck is not “whot” but “how”. What goods we produce chat tools We use are not questions of spiritual velue. the question of skyscrapers versus low buildings is led, whether we build of steel and gloss, are unimportant ans from the point of view of spirit. itis just the question of value that is decisive hat is right and significant for any ero—including ney ero— is this: to give the spirit the opportunity for ence, Bir rrank wove waiait, stomreciaion writion for the unpublished catalog of the Frank Lloyd aint Exhibition held at the Museum of Modern int of Now York.) About the beginning of this century the great European ic restoration instigated by Witiiom Morris, heving verrefined, graduclly began to lose torce” Distinct of exhaustion become manifest. "The ‘ttempt to architecture from the point of view of torm appeared be doomed. The lack of valid ‘convention ‘became rent, ond even the greatest efforts of the ortists of 20) cid not succeed in overcoming this deficiency. “Ther i, however, were testrcted to the subjective’ Since Seauthentic oppreach to orchitecture should clwoys be objective, we ind the only valid solutions of that time in thote cates where objective limits were imposed there wos no opportunity tor subjective leense, This true of the field of industrial building. It is enough to mrber the significant creations of Peter Behrens for the Weel industry. But in all other problems of erchitec- Wel creation the architect ventured into the dangerous tly of the historical. To some of these meno, revival ‘Classic forms seemed reasonable, and in the field of mental crchitecture even imperative course this was not true of oll early twentieth-century eet, particularly not of Van de Velde end Berloge remoined steadfast in their ideols, To the former, a deviation from c way of thinking once acknowledged be necessary wos impossible because of his Intellectuol Aeziy, 10 the latter, becouse of his almost religious ihn his ideols and the sincerity of his character.” For feosone the one received Our highest respect and ition, the other, our special weneration and love [ievertheless we young architects found ourselves in pain- dinner discord." Our enthuslostic hearts. demanded the qualified, and we were ready to pledge ourselves to an But the potenti! vitoliy of the architectural ideo of Ne period had by that time been lost. is then wos approximately the situction in 1910. this moment, so critical for us, the exhibition of the tak Fronk Lloyd Weight came to Berlin. ‘This compre- ive dipley and the exhaustive publiction of his works Jed vs to become really acquainted with the achieve. is of ths architect. The encounter wos destined to f great significance to the European development 3 work ofthis great master presented on architectural of unexpected foree, clarity of language ond discon- og richness of form, Here, finaly, wos a. master er drawing upon the veritable fountsinhead of archi fe; who with true originality lifted his creotions into fight” Here ogoin, ot fong last, genuine organic archi. sure flowered. “The more we were absorbed in the study k of these creations, the greater become our admiration for his incomparable talent, the boldness of his conceptions and the independence of his thought and action. The dynamic impulse emanating from his work invigorated a whole gene- ration. His influence was strongly felt even when it was not actually visible So after this first encounter we followed the development of this rare man with wakeful hearts. We watched with astonishment the exuberant unfolding of the gifts of one who had been endowed by noture with the most splendid talents. In his undiminishing power he resembles a giant tree in a wide londscape, which, year after year, attains a more noble crown, 1950: ADDRESS TO ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Technology is rooted in the post It dominotes the present and tends into the futur. Ir is real historical moverent— one of the great movements which shope and represent their epoch, It can be compared only with the Clossic discovery of man os a person, the Roman will to power, and the religious movement of the Middle Ages. Technology is far more than © method, it'is-o world in itsel ‘As a method it is superior in almost every respect. But only where it is left to itself os in gigontic structures of engineering, there technology reveals its true nature. There itis evident that it is not only a useful means, that it is something, something in itself, something that has'a meaning ond o powerful form— so powerful in fact, that it is not easy to name it. Is that still technology oF is it architecture? ‘And that may be the reason why some people are convinced thet architecture will be outmoded ‘ond replaced by technology Such @ conviction is not based on clear thinking the opposite happens. Wherever technology reaches its reo! fulfillment, it transcends into architecture, It is true that architecture depends on facts, but its real field of activity is in the realm of significance | hope you will understand that architecture hhas nothing to do with the inventions of forms. It is net @ playground for children, young or old. Architecture is the real battleground of the spi Architecture wrote the history of the epochs ‘ond gave them their names, Architecture depends on its time It is the crystallization of its inner structure, the slow unfolding of its form. That is the reason why technology end architecture. ere so closely related Our real hope is that they grow together, thot someday the one be the expression of the other. Only then will we have an architecture worthy of its name: Architecture as a true symbol of our time. 97