The German Art History Journal „Kunstchronik“ now published in the volume 72/4 a review article by Nanobasvhili and Grossmann about the past architecture exhibition „Hybrid Tbilisi“ in the German Architecture Museum Frankfurt. The article is dealing with the main theses of the exhibition on Georgian Architectural History from the Russian Occupation since the 19th century till the current times. The exhibition was part of a couple of major events during the Frankfurt Book Fair 2018, where the Republic of Georgian was the Guest of Honor with the slogan „Georgia – Made by Characters„.
Talking about Soviet art in the public sphere isn’t quite new. Since a quarter of a century went by, the research is just beginning to evaluate and explore the era of communism in Georgia in different projects like the Georgian SovLab is doing it. As contrast on daily life from nowadays and in former times, or as a newly discovered part of nation’s own story, the historization of the time between 1921 and 1991 in the South Caucus is sometimes highly political.
Likewise this counts for art history, even if the art of the past declared to be apolitical. A new book about mosaics in Soviet Georgia demonstrates these two sides of a coin with emphasis.The new catalogue “Art for Architecture. Georgia – Soviet Modernist Mosaics from 1960 to 1990” edited by Nini Palavandishvili and Lena Prents came out at the end of last year at DOM publisher in Berlin. It is a combined book with essays and more than hundred mosaics as examples, which are well illustrated by a lot of past and contemporary photographs. So first, this book with around 270 pages is readable as a classic catalogue. But second, all mosaics are also coordinated on different maps and are virtually marked with QR-code, which is usable with a smartphone and connected to a map.
The volume from Palavandishvili and Prents is a documentation for many of the Soviet mosaics in Georgia between the 1960s and 1990s. The authors cluster the book into two parts, the first section is about the Soviet modernist mosaics in Tbilisi, the second one about the regions (or let’s say whole Georgia without the capital city). Mosaics are shown in different contexts, from i.e. “Sport and Health”, “Industry”, “Housing” or “Services” or else. The index with persons and another one with places plus five maps in different scales help the reader to use this publication in multiple ways.
It is also worth to mention, that the print, the paper quality, and the haptic of the book is very valuable. DOM publisher did great job, it combines high quality in printing with precious content. Thus it is a book, which I really like to have in hands. Its format is so handy, that you can even carry it when you travel in Georgia. At this point it is also helpful to refer to another book in this manner from the DOM publisher house, which came out last year as well: it is an architecture guide throughout Tbilisi by Heike Johenning and Peter Knoch. These complementary boos are highly recommended book for visitors of Georgia, which are interested in art history, especially in architectural history. Unfortunately the city guide is only in German right now, but perhaps that is coming soon.
Anyway I’d like to strengthen one point, which is mentioned by Palavandishvili and Prents, but not followed much (p. 14). From the point of social history, the rise of the art of mosaics in Soviet Georgia has a coincident with the regime change from Khrushchev to Brezhnev very much, so it is also reconnected with politics.
Khrushchev denied and forced to building more economically and not in a kitsch way, like he argued the Stalinist architecture is characterized. He called in 1954 i.e. for less ornaments and more industrial construction in architecture. After Khrushchev lost power in 1964, the rise of the mosaic art started as well. I would argue that here is a very close connection, that mosaics at architecture were a kind of compromise from the post-Khrushchev men in power to the society, especially the so-called nomenclature. In this way new buildings don’t had to be bare, but they were also detached from the architecture in the Stalin era. It seems, that the mosaic art was from this point of view for the Soviet men in power a kind of compromise between different internal fractions. Thus mosaics become an essential part of architectural negotiation in the South Caucasus.
Quite fascination is also the argument by Palavandishvili and Prents, that there is a close connection between Soviet Georgia an Mexico. It is a kind of left folk art bounds together both regions over the globe. I cannot judge this thesis, so I am looking for forward to other reviews and scientific feedback on this catalogue on Georgian Soviet Mosaics.
Mein Buch „Von der Berufung zum Beruf: Industriedesigner in Westdeutschland 1959–1990 – Gestaltungsaufgaben zwischen Kreativität, Wirtschaft und Politik“ ist am 3. September 2018 im Transcript-Verlag erschienen. Das Buch ist mit der ISBN-Nummer 978-3-8376-4361-9 veröffentlicht und im Buchhandel erwerbbar.
Ich zeigte dabei in einer sozialhistorischen Untersuchung der bundesdeutschen Industriedesigner, wie sich die Gestalter gegenüber Fragen im Zuge der Ölpreiskrisen, Postmoderne und Globalisierung neu positionierten: Sie übernahmen zunehmend die Rolle eines Krisenmanagers – denn trotz des »Eisernen Vorhangs« blieben die Beziehungen auf der industriellen Ebene zwischen Ost und West erhalten. Mit der BASF AG, Siemens AG, Rosenthal AG und MAN AG werden vier Firmen beispielhaft betrachtet.
Ich wünsche eine angenehme Lektüre! Über Anregungen, Bemerkungen, Hinweise und Kritik freue ich mich natürlich ebenso.
Im Jahr 1969 trafen sich die Vertreter von 27 Ländern auf der ICSID-Generalversammlung in London. Unter dem Rahmenthema „Design, Gesellschaft und Zukunft“ diskutieren die Industriedesigner über den eigenen Beruf und dessen Zukunft. Der ICSID-Präsident Tomás Maldonado war es, der mit dem Versuch einer verbindlichen Designdefinition auf der Generalversammlung für eine erste große Kontroverse innerhalb der Produktgestalter sorgte.
Die Diskussion um eine neue Definition für Industriedesign war besonders davon geprägt, die ältere stark anglo-amerikanisch geprägte Vorstellung durch eine zeitgemäßere Formulierung zu ersetzen. Neben der Definition von Maldonado wurde ebenfalls über einen sowjetischen Vorschlag von Juri Solowjew diskutiert. Beide Ansätze versuchten dabei, die Bedeutung der Produktgestaltung für die Gesellschaft und zugleich der sozialen Verhältnisse für das Design zu erfassen.
Die von Maldonado vorgeschlagene Definition lautet übersetzt:
„Die industrielle Formgebung ist eine schöpferische Tätigkeit mit dem Ziel, die Formqualitäten von industriell hergestellten Gegenständen zu bestimmen. Diese Formqualitäten umfassen nicht nur die äußerlichen Merkmale, sondern im Grundsatz auch diejenigen baulichen und funktionellen Wechselbeziehungen, die – gesehen vom Standpunkt sowohl des Erzeugers als auch des Benutzers – aus einem System eine zusammenhängende Einheit machen. Industrielle Formgebung erstreckt sich über alle Aspekte der von der industriellen Produktion geschaffenen Umwelt des Menschen“.
Währenddessen wählte Solowjew folgende Formulierung:
„Industrial Design ist eine schöpferische Tätigkeit mit dem Ziel der harmonischen Gestaltung einer gegenständlichen Umwelt, die die materiellen und geistigen Bedürfnisse des Menschen möglichst vollkommen befriedigt. Dieses Ziel wird angestrebt durch eine Bestimmung der formalen Eigenschaften von Industrieprodukten. Unter formalen Eigenschaften sind nicht nur äußerliche Merkmale zu verstehen, sondern jene strukturellen Beziehungen, die einem System eine funktionelle Qualität und Kohärenz verleihen und gleichzeitig zur Steigerung der Produktivität betragen“.
Ähnlich wie bei den zeitgenössischen Debatten über die sogenannte Umweltgestaltung, folgte auf dem ICSID-Kongress 1969 die Richtungsdiskussion, inwiefern die Tätigkeit der Designer nicht mehr durch Arbeitsmethoden und -ergebnisse zu bestimmen sei. Die Gegenposition definierte Design vielmehr in einem gesellschaftlichen Gesamtsystem, in dem ebenso soziale Fragestellungen durch die Gestalter einer Antwort bedürfen. Die vorgeschlagenen Industriedesign-Definitionen wurden in London ausgiebig im Plenum besprochen. Jedoch fand sich letztendlich keine Mehrheit, sodass die unterschiedlichen nationalen Designauffassungen durch eine einheitliche Begriffsbildung nicht neu gefasst wurden.
Eine Arbeitsgruppe bearbeitete daraufhin eine Neuformulierung, sodass auf der Generalversammlung 1971 auf Ibiza erneut über das Thema gesprochen wurde. Soweit es aus den Akten ersichtlich wird, geschah dies letztlich aber nicht mehr. Die Gründe hierfür sind unklar. Deutlich wird dabei aber, dass Diskussionen über eine Designdefinition kein Phänomen der Gegenwart sind.
 Bonsiepe, Gui (1969): Störungsfrei um den heißen Brei, in: form (48), S. 4.
 Bericht von Jürgen Hämer zum ICSID-Kongress 1969 in London, S. 1 und Unbekannt (1969): ICSID-Aktivitäten, in: form (48), S. 56.
German Industrial design in the holy land was quite unthinkable after 1945. But since the 1960s designers from Israel and Germany came again in touch. In this short overview I will discuss the relations of the West German Industrial designers to Israel from the 1960s to the 1980s. I will argue, that personal relations were much more important than institutional connections, as one might think.
The beginning of the diplomatic relations between Israel and the FRG in the year 1965 was a kind of a breakthrough. After the Shoah relation with Germany, as the country of the enemy, was a controversial topic in the Israeli society. With the first steps of the Reparations Agreement from 1952, Adenauer and Ben Gurion laid the basics for diplomatic relations in the future. They came thirteen years later by a diplomatic agreement between Bonn and Tel Aviv. With this it became easier for privates or economical connections between West Germany and Israel. It is also important to mention that East German design was hardly unknown, because the GDR had no connections to Israel. East Berlin supported the so-called PLO, like the USSR and other countries from the Eastern Block did, and had no diplomatic relations to Tel Aviv.
Industrial Design was far away from being the post important point at the cultural or economical relations between the two countries. But anyhow, in the 1960s the design connections started growing. They are an interesting point for a transnational design history to study, how the relation between two states came in touch. I will show in the following two parts, that the relationship between these two countries was more based on personal than on institutional connections.
First a lot of West German politicians, industrialists, and designers in the 1960s were very much interested in a connection. Looking into the historical sources, the national socialism, the Shoah or the Second World War, were neither not used as a references nor even mentioned. The Germans as well as the Israelis were much more interested in a design exchange of ideas and goods, bounded with an economical connection. Even after Israel became a member of the International Council of Industrial Design Societies in 1969, the industrial designers of both countries came regularly together.
But after the Six-Day-War in 1967 things went more difficult for German design in Israel. After that, many West German companies were frightened to present their consumer goods in Israel, because they expected as a result a boycott by Arabian states. The Yom Kippur War from 1973 made things even worse, so West German companies and authorities became more careful with their engagement in Israel.
This is also example to show, that a design network had not to go via institutions but can use the personal networks. Because the personal than the institutional connections characterized more the design relations between Israel and the FRG. For example the German Design Council – as state founded institution – planed to show an exhibition in Israel since the end of the 1960s.1 The financial support should come from the Federal Foreign Office in Bonn. In particular Gustav Stein – managing director of the German Design Council and member of the West German Parliament – pushed the idea of a design exhibition in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem forward. But the idea was postponed many times. The background was the fear of a boycott by Arab countries, if companies would present their goods in Israel. So they asked the authorities in Bonn and the German Design Council to postpone the exhibition until the idea was dropped. Till the end of the Berlin Wall, there was no Israel or German design exhibition, it first changed after the German reunification.
Now in the second part, I will give some example how a personal network between Israel and the FRG brought the industrial designers from the two states together. This is important, because as I would argue, most of the connections between Israeli and West German since the 1960s came on a personal way via designers themselves. In the following I will give three examples from each decade to visual this.
In the year 1965 the “form” – the most important West German magazine at that time – published a first reportage on Israeli design. In it Moshe Kohen described the current status of industrial design in Israel. The country was characterized by a lot of migration, thus the Israeli authorities had to build fast but with quality a new livelihood for newcomer in the Holy Land. Following the author design had a very strong position in fulfilling this task. Beside that, the reportage informed the West German readers about the institutions, universities, and the economical situation, the Israeli designer were dealing with in the 1960s.2 It was remarkable, that historical references of design history – one might immediately think about the Bauhaus architecture in Tel Aviv or German architecture sights in Jerusalem or Haifa – were not mention in this article or else where later.
The design connection between Israel and West Germany put on current issues and not reflection history. For example, the article author Moshe Kohen was part of the most important design school in the FRG. Kohen graduated in 1963 at the Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. His diploma thesis in the field of product design was on dishes, supervised by Gert Karlow, Leonard Bruce Archer and Horst Rittel.3 Thus Kohen was an design expert, who was trained in Southwest Germany and worked later in Israel. So Kohen is one example for the personal network between both countries. It is a pity, that his binational design biography is not in the focus of the design history till today.
Another prominent example is the visit of 1973 by Julius Posener – by this time head of the German Werkbund – together with Wend Fischer – director of the Neue Sammlung in Munich – and Wilhelm Wagenfeld – a famous German product designer.4 The three important German designers were invited to an exhibition vernissage in Jerusalem, where the design by Wagenfeld was shown to an Israeli audience. All three were also guests at the new permanent exhibition on Israel design in the Israel Museum. Posener wrote fascinated about the welcome address by Teddy Kollek, the famous major of Jerusalem by that time. Especially the biography of Posener could be worth to have a look at, because he was forced to emigrate after 1933 to Palestine due to the National Socialism in Germany and later came back to Germany. Via Posener there could be a strong connection between i.e. the German Werkbund and Israel, but this needs more archival research in the Posener Archive in the Academy of Arts Berlin.
The last example is the personal exchange in design education. The Siemens designer Jens Reese gave in the end of the 1980s a design seminar series at the famous Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem. In these seminars he taught his ideas of creativity methods. Especially his visual permutation methods – a kind of elemental design method – were widely asked by the Israeli design students. Reese was also interviewed by the “form” on his impressions about Jerusalem, Israel and the design there. He gave an interesting overview on Israel design education, difference between continental Europe and the Holy Land as well as his experiences from the design courses at Bezalel.51 Rat für Formgebung, Tätigkeitsbericht 1970, pp. 15.
2 Kohen, Mosche (1965): Briefe aus Tel Aviv – Design in Israel, in: form (31), p. 10-11. Very similar to that was the article Steiner, Simon D. (1966): Design in Israel, in: Industrial Design (5), pp. 68-71.
4 Posener, Julius (1973): Besuch in Jerusalem, in: Werk und Zeit (7), p. 7.
5 See Unknown (1986): Spinner gesucht, in: form (114), p. 78 and Reese, Jens (1988): Mit traumwandlerischer Sicherheit gestalten… in: form (121), pp. 23-25.