In his ca. 75 CE work The Life of Theseus, the Greek biographer, historian and Delphi priest Plutarch notes that the ship with which Theseus returned to Attica having slain the Minotaur in its labyrinth on Crete, "was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place", meaning that over time the ship of Theseus "became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."1
Is a ship that has had all its planks replaced the same ship?
Is a ship that has had one plank replaced the same ship?
When do ships change?
How do ships change?
Do ships change?
How do things grow?
The installation Mehr als echt (More than real) by Vienna based artist Jun Yang at Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau allows one to approach such and similar questions in context of Bauhaus and in context of furniture.......
Over its myriad existences Bauhaus was a great many things, it was a response to prevailing realities, was a hotbed of esoteric mysticism, an innovator, a target of political extremism, an early adopter of vegetarianism, a platform for avant-garde positions, a platform for social discourses, a "burden" on Weimar, a party location, a driver of novel positions on music, a partner for industry, a brake on gender equality, and, occasionally, a school, amongst many others. And across its existences, and whatever else it simultaneously was, Bauhaus was always a brand; between 1919 and 1933 Bauhaus was always very aware of actively projecting its identity, of being its identity, of explaining how it was to be understood and why that was important. From the earliest days in Weimar Walter Gropius was very aware of the value in the name and how that name could be used and exploited and monetised.
A Bauhaus brand that despite the fact with the closure of Bauhaus Berlin in 1933 Bauhaus as an institution ceased to exist, continued to exist.
A post-Bauhaus existence of the Bauhaus brand that, arguably, and if one's feeling particularly generous, is one of the reasons Gropius took such a casual approach to Lucia Moholy's claims of ownership of the glass negatives of her photos from and at Weimar and Dessau: it was all part of a Bauhaus branding Moholy had taken photographs in context of, and which was ongoing. And also, arguably, why when Gropius offered Inge Aicher-Scholl, Otl Aicher and Max Bill the opportunity to call their new college 'Bauhaus Ulm' they turned it down and opted for Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm, a name that not only indicated that it understood itself as conceptually different from the Bauhauses, was a new approach to creative eduction in a world altered by the NSDAP dictatorship, but also a name that didn't come with any of the baggage of the Bauhaus brand.
A post-Bauhaus existence of the Bauhaus brand that continues unabated despite all those associated with the schools no longer being amongst us.2 A Bauhaus brand which over time has become public property; is a brand defined and controlled by popular perceptions and that, we'll argue, not least on account of, and as discussed from Bauhaus and National Socialism at Klassik Stiftung Weimar, the unquestioned, unchallenged standard narrative of the (hi)story of the Bauhauses that has become universally established, which everyone can recite and thereby claim ownership of. An unquestioned, unchallenged (hi)story of the Bauhauses that in many regards begins with the Museum of Modern Art, MoMA, New York's 1939 exhibition Bauhaus: 1919–1928, yes those are the dates MoMA claimed for the Bauhauses existence, that then came back post-1945 to Europe and which today is repeated ad nauseam, ad infinitum in innumerable unquestioning, unchallenging, unthinking, profit orientated, coffee table books. A popular narrative of the (hi)story of the Bauhauses, a (hi)story which, obviously isn't, can't be, the whole truth but is blithely accepted as such, that enables 'Bauhaus' to be employed as one of the lazier design terms, allows the Bauhauses to be reduced to the undeserving ignominy of a 'style' 🙄
A post-Bauhaus existence of the Bauhaus brand that with time and with repetition has also seen the Bauhauses take on a near mythological status, with the school building in Dessau as its high cathedral; hallowed ground to which all pilger.
Similarly the furniture, lighting and accessories developed by the Bauhäusler are invariably talked about in the venerated hushed tones reserved for scared relics.
A mythologising of Bauhaus and its artefacts that while a Gropius may have approved, invariably would have approved, does make approaching 'Bauhaus' a lot more difficult. Certainly makes approaching furniture designed by Bauhäusler, be that at the Bauhauses or elsewhere, a lot more difficult.
Which in many regards is where Mehr als echt (More than real) enters the narrative of the (hi)story of the Bauhauses.
The origins of Mehr als echt (More than real) are to be found in Jun Yang's 2023 proposal, in context of an international competition, for the kitchen and dining room of the Muche/Schlemmer Meisterhaus in Dessau; a proposal in which Yang took inspiration from the work of Oskar Schlemmer, for all the theatre and ballet works of Oskar Schlemmer, and sought to develop a kitchen and dining room reflective of those works, while also seeking a kitchen and dining room that was a contemporary interpretation of the space as it was then, a space that wasn't nostalgic but had connections with the original; that connected then with now via Schlemmer.
And a space that very much needed furniture, thoughts which naturally took Yang to considerations on the furniture of the 1920s and 30s, the furniture at and of the Bauhauses, and thereby to questions of their contemporary reception, their contemporary existence, their contemporary reality, the image(s) we have of them today, their semantics, etc. Thoughts which became a conversation with the Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau and the invitation to develop such considerations and reflections into an exhibition.
The result is a collection of some 80 chairs at various locations throughout the Dessau Bauhaus building and in the foyer of the Bauhaus Museum Dessau; some 80 chairs composing a juxtaposition of licenced works through Knoll, Thonet and Tecta, including the B3 'Wassily' club chair by Marcel Breuer, the S533 R by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe or the D4 by Marcel Breuer, of plagiarisms of those licensed works, and also of alternative interpretations of those licensed works by furniture retail chains such as Ikea or XXXLutz and designers such as Jasper Morrison.
Some 80 chairs you are invited to sit on, and as you do to reflect not only on the all too obvious material and seating quality differences between the licensed and unlicensed works, but to reflect on the works of the 1920s and 30s in the 2020s, and also to pose questions on, and amongst a great many other subjects, originality, reproduction, evolution, and authenticity.
The latter a particularly popular buzzword these days, everything, but everything, must be authentic. But what is 'authentic'?
What is 'authentic' 'Bauhaus'?
What is 'authentic' 'Bauhaus furniture'?
What is the 'authentic' ship of Theseus?
Here is sadly not the time nor place for an expansive discussion on questions of 'authenticity', we wish it were, genuinely do, indeed we've just sacrificed thousands of carefully crafted words that until a few minutes ago stood on this very spot for that very purpose, but which took us far too far from Mehr als echt (More than real), and threatened to jam the internet, and so here can't be the place for the expansive discussion on such questions that we are yearning to have. A yearning Mehr als echt (More than real) underscores the urgent necessity of. And a discussion which will come.
Save to note that Mehr als echt (More than real) allows you to approach questions of 'authenticity' from a pleasingly wide variety of perspectives, including in context of Gropius's high cathedral to the Bauhaus brand.
And save to note that questions of 'authenticity' are important in context of the inquiry of the contemporary reception et al of the furniture of Functionalist Modernism, Functional Modernists, that is very much at the core of Mehr als echt (More than real). Are very much questions of 'authenticity' you are encouraged and challenged to pose by Mehr als echt (More than real).
As are questions of originality, of reproduction, of evolution, and questions of "things that grow" that concerned the philosophers of ancient Greece and which should concern us all today in a society where we are more acutely aware than we once were of the relationships between objects of daily use, including furniture, and the prevailing, and ever changing, technical, material, political, economic, environmental, et al realities in which they and we exist. A society in which we are aware that our objects of daily use "grow" over time, but in which we don't always question that growth, or perhaps more accurately, don't always question that growth to the degree we should. Don't always question the processes, drivers, influences and consequences of that growth to the degree we should.
Mehr als echt (More than real) is an invitation to pose those questions.
An invitation to question the steel tube furniture that dominates Mehr als echt (More than real), and dominates popular understandings of the furniture of the 1920s and 30s, yet steel tube that for all it was developed in the 1920s was barely used in the 1920s or 30s. Or not widely. While the Bauhäusler and their ilk used steel tube furniture the greater majority of the populace, and as previously noted in these dispatches, used wooden furniture throughout the 1920s and 30s. The popularity of steel tube furniture is a contemporary phenomenon. But why? Is that OK? What does that teach us? And what's the actual relationship between the Bauhauses as institutions and steel tube furniture, steel tube that is so often the basis for the disingenuous Bauhaus 'style'. The latter a question also posed by the inclusion in Mehr als echt (More than real) of the S 43 cantilever chair by Mart Stam through Thonet, a work without question of importance in context of the (hi)story of furniture and of Functionalist Modernism, but a work, as with all works of Stam, that has as much to do with Bauhaus as this blog. Or the furniture designs of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.
An invitation to question our fascination with the physical what of the object, or perhaps more accurately the objects, the limited number of objects that stand today as representative for 1920s and 30s Functionalist Modernism, rather than a fascination with the whys, hows and wherefores of the objects, their raison d'etre, their contribution to discourses.
An invitation to question the relationships between the objectification of a chair and its plagiarisation, to question why plagiarisms of Marcel Breuer's B3 'Wassily' club chair, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's S533 R and his Barcelona chair stand in Mehr als echt (More than real) but there are no plagiarisms in Mehr als echt (More than real) of, for example, Marcel Breuer's Lattenstuhl, Alma Siedhoff-Buscher's modular children's furniture system, or the steel tube armchair Carl Fieger designed for his own Dessau apartment. Indeed no plagiarisms of such works in general. And where are the plagiarisms of steel tube furniture from outwith the Bauhaus sphere such as those 1920 and 30s works by the likes of Karel E. Ort, Josef Havlíček or Ladislav Žák as seen in Hej rup! The Czech Avant-Garde at the Bröhan Museum, Berlin. Or where are the plagiarisms of the steel tube furniture of an Erich Dieckmann, a Bauhäusler who worked with Breuer in the carpentry workshop in Weimar, greatly contributed to the early Bauhaus brand, left before 'Bauhaus' became steel tube, and who designed steel tube works for Ohrdruf based manufacturer Cebaso, steel tube works that go their own way, ignore the quadratic of a Breuer or Stam. When is it worthwhile to plagiarise a chair design? How does that moment arise?
An invitation to question contemporary changes to works of the 1920s and 30s, to question if one can make changes? Must one make changes? And what if you must make changes, but don't? A question arguably most loudly posed by the S 43 DR by Thonet, a work that, essentially, is the seat from Mart Stam's S 43 cantilever chair on a mobile five star castor base. Is that in keeping with what Stam wanted with the work? Is that in keeping with the whys, hows and wherefores of Stam's work? Is that in keeping with contemporary requirements for furniture, of updating then in context of now, of updating then for a now then couldn't have predicted? Is that in keeping with the monetisation of the mythological Bauhaus Stam had no durable connection with? Is an S 43 seat on a mobile five star castor base the same as an S 43 seat on a cantilever base? And if it is? And if it isn't? And why is there a plagiarism of the S 43 DR beside a Thonet S 43 DR? When did it become worthwhile to plagiarise the S 43 DR? How did that moment arise?
Questions of change also posed by the Conferstar chair by Rudolf Horn that stands next to a plagiarism of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's Barcelona chair in the foyer of the Bauhaus Museum. A Conferstar chair by Horn that, as oft discussed in these dispatches, was developed after Horn sat on a Barcelona chair, found it uncomfortable and thus redesigned the base to achieve the comfort he sought, while maintaining the seat form to underscore the relationship.
Whereby we're not sure if the Conferstar chair on display in the Bauhaus Museum is a Rudolf Horn Conferstar chair: the construction is wrong, very, very, very, wrong. As, we'd argue, are the materials of the base. Nothing about it makes sense. According to the sign attached to it, it was bought on ebay, and we believe, without having any actual proof, just a very strong hunch, it may be an excellent example of the sort of work that regularly turns up on platforms such as ebay claiming to be a much sought after piece of furniture from a previous epoch, but actually isn't; or put another way, we believe it is a DDR era work claiming, whether consciously or unconsciously, to be a Conferstar chair it isn't, which Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau as a trusted source, as a Gatekeeper, as a prescriber of value beyond the monetary, are now bequeathing an 'authenticity' it doesn't posses. Which, if we're correct, would make it meta, as in self-referential, not the self-centred, self-important, self-deceiving, vacuity of Facebook, Instagram et al. And certainly makes it a valuable addition to Mehr als echt (More than real)
Questions of change that are also at the structural and construction scale: Can? should? must a contemporary manufacturer make changes to how a chair is constructed? Can, should, must contemporary technologies and processes be employed where available? And if they do, if they are, what does that mean for the work? Questions that remind of the history of the EW 1192 by Horst Heyder the, in all probability, most widely sold chair in the DDR, a work that, as we all recall from Der ungesehene Designklassiker at the Deutsches Stuhlbaumuseum, Rabenau, a Deutsches Stuhlbaumuseum whose permanent collection is awash with late 19th/early 20th century Thonet bentwood plagiarisms made in Sachsen on machines bought from Thonet, machines which once produced Thonet bentwood chairs, that conceptually wouldn't be out of place in Mehr als echt (More than real), and a moment in the (hi)story of furniture design and production in Sachsen to which we shall return, but we digress... as we all recall from Der ungesehene Designklassiker at the Deutsches Stuhlbaumuseum, Rabenau the numerous factories who produced the EW 1192 realised their own version of, realised their own interpretation of Heyder's design, changed the EW 1192 structurally and constructionally according to their production facilities and capabilities. Must machine production only result in exact reproductions? Should machines produce variability? Must a work designed in 1924 be produced as an exact replica in 2024?
Must a work designed in the 1920s be exactly replicated in the 2020s? Must a work designed in the 1970s be exactly replicated in the 2020s?
In context of the EW 1192 Jacob Strobel didn't think so and redesigned it, and that not least because, as he told us, "it was designed 50, 60 years ago, for 50, 60 years ago, was designed for the shortage economy, designed for the kitchen, and I think it would be false romanticism to do everything exactly the same again now. If it is produced now then not with a glorified nostalgic gaze, but according to the standards of what is currently technically possible, what corresponds to the spirit of the times today and to contemporary needs. And, I think, it does justice to the attitude of the designers back then when I design for our present based on their example, because they absolutely designed for their present".
Similarly of late Vitra have introduced versions of numerous chair designs by Ray and Charles Eames at new, higher, sitting heights, a change reflective of the fact the average human is taller in the 2020s than they were in the 1960s, that the works of the Eames were "designed 50, 60 years ago, for 50, 60 years ago". Should they stay the same? Or should they be "designed for their present"?
A Charles Eames who, when asked about plagiarisms, answered, and as one would expect him to and want him to, "what you really worry about in the design of furniture or in architecture are the bad copies, when your idea is used in a kind of booby way. You don't mind if someone carries your idea further in a better way, although at first your nose may be a bit out of joint"3
Is the S 43 DR by Thonet a carrying of Mart Stam's idea "further in a better way"? Is Rudolf Horn's Conferstar chair a carrying of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's idea "further in a better way"? Is Jacob Strobel's EW 1192 a carrying of Horst Heyder's idea "further in a better way"? Is the EVO-C by Jasper Morrison from 2020 for Vitra, that also features in Mehr als echt (More than real), a carrying of the ideals of Functionalist Modernism "further in a better way"? Is Tobias by Carl Öjerstam from 2016 for Ikea, that also features in Mehr als echt (More than real), a carrying of the ideals of Functionalist Modernism "further in a better way"?
Is Tobias by Carl Öjerstam for Ikea a carrying of Yrjö Kukkapuro's idea "further in a better way"?
As discussed from Yrjö Kukkapuro - Magic Room at Espoo Museum of Modern Art, EMMA, in the late 1960s Kukkapuro put a transparent plexiglass shell atop a cantilever base to create a work that, arguably, approaches Breuer's vision of us one day sitting on a "resilient column of air"4 closer than anyone else had come to at that point. And arguably since. And which is very much echoed in Tobias, if we'd argue with a lot less grace and poise than Kukkapuro achieved. Is Yrjö Kukkapuro's 1969 chair a carrying of Marcel Breuer's idea "further in a better way"?
Questions of change, of change for the better, of change for the worst, that are also question of materials. The 1927 version of Marcel Breuer's D4, then B4, combined a steel tube frame with horse hair upholstery, the contemporary Tecta D4 combines a steel tube frame, albeit crafted from a very different steel tube from that a Marcel Breuer would have had access to, with leather, various wool mixes and also in an edition by artist Kerstin Bruchhäuser which replaces the monochromatic materials normally employed with tapestry embroideries depicting various sceneries in glorious multicolour. Can? Should? Must one change the materials? And if you do, what does that mean for the work? Similarly over the decades the material used to produce the Eames plastic shells has switched from fibreglass to polypropylene to a plastic based on recycled household waste. What if over the centuries the wood of the ship of Theseus had been replaced by steel or carbon fibre?
Questions amongst a great many other questions stimulated by the intervention that also make Mehr als echt (More than real) an invitation to question how the principles and positions of then exist today? How the principles and positions of then are understood, interpreted and expressed today? How much we've learned from then. If we've learned from then. What can we still learn from then?
An intervention at various locations throughout that Bauhaus school building and Museum, Mehr als echt (More than real) is an invitation to question to which one continually returns, that one continually meets with new perspectives inspired by that which you have seen since you last stood before chairs that may be by Bauhäusler, or may not be, but could have been. Or possibly couldn't have been.
An intervention that not only breaks the taboo of placing plagiarisms in a museum context but the taboo of placing plagiarisms of furniture designs in direct discourse with licensed examples of those furniture works, and thereby, and as whenever and wherever taboos are broken, enables differentiated perspectives; differentiated perspectives on the works of the 1920s and 30s that allow for a more nuanced questioning of them than is normally available, empowers one to pose questions in wider contexts than one normally does.
A wider more nuanced questioning supported by the considerations enabled on and of the marketing language employed in contemporary furniture retail: all the objects included in Mehr als echt (More than real) carry a bilingual German/English name tag which in addition to telling you the manufacturer and purchase details also contains a snippet from the marketing text employed to entice you to purchase said object, snippets that regardless of whether for licensed works or plagiarisms make the same associations, focus on the same aspects, use the same adjectives, develop the same imagery, promise you the same, are indistinguishable from one another. Which while, yes, could be considered a form of plagiarism in its own right, is also a consequence of, we'll argue an inevitable, predictable consequence of, focussing on the what not the whys, hows and wherefores, of reducing discourses on furniture down to a series of marketing led buzzwords, of reducing furniture (hi)story to a scale that allows it to be fit on the constraints of social media, of reducing Bauhaus down to an ignominious 'style' 🙄, rather than manufacturers and retailers encouraging and advancing serious discussions on furniture, on discussing furniture as the cultural good it is and must be appreciated as. Custody of the legacy of the past comes with responsibilities that need to be taken more seriously than they currently are.
A wider more nuanced questioning further supported by the presence of a B 9 by Marcel Breuer, a B 9 that one notes was developed as, and used as, a stool at Bauhaus Dessau that is now a side table, which poses questions of its own, questions of change as being conceptual, contextual, as much as physical, the B9 changed from a stool to a table, Theseus's ship from a mode of transport to a mode of questioning... the presence of a B 9 by Marcel Breuer produced in 1994 by L&C Stendal alongside a contemporary Thonet B 9, and also by a 1983 B3 'Wassily' club chair by Marcel Breuer by Stima Stendal alongside a contemporary Knoll B3; a Stima Stendal that was the DDR incarnation of an L&C Stendal that traces its (hi)story back to the late 19th century, and an L&C Stendal that in the 1930s was one of the largest producers of steel tube furniture, including producing and distributing a great many works by Marcel Breuer. A reality that underscores that while the manufacturer is without question important, they are freely interchangeable; however, the designer is critical. Without the designer you have no product, without the questions, positions, approaches et al of the designer there is no product for a company to sell: the design wholesale and retail industries are dependent on individual creative energy. A dependence on individual creative energy that needs to be better rewarded than it often is today.
And also underscores the importance of the manufacturers relationships with the designer, the manufacturers relationships with the designer's positions, with the designer's intentions, which arguably is, and to bring us back to the 'authenticity' we're not discussing here, a key component of questions of 'authenticity' of works by designers no longer amongst us: spirit and feeling.5 Is the work realised in the spirit of the designer and sensitive to the designer's positions and intentions? See also "if someone carries your idea further in a better way". And see also "does justice to the attitude of the designers". And see also the whys, hows and wherefores of an object, it's raison d'etre, its contribution to discourses. And see also "logical question of things that grow".
Thoughts which if considered in context of one another could lead you to a possible answer to the paradox of Theseus's ship: don't get caught up on the wood, it's a distraction, the physical ship is irrelevant. As is the physical chair.
What is the ship of Theseus? What is a chair? What is Bauhaus?
As a project Mehr als echt (More than real) can very much be located in Jun Yang's wider oeuvre, not least in projects such as, and amongst others, 2015's Jun Yang meets Jun Yang with it reflections on identity, branding, the question of who or what is real, not least in a contemporary society of mass machine production and the smoke and mirrors of social media; or Jun Yang's various Paris Syndrome projects rooted in the tourist gaze and the inevitability that when you find that which you have long sought, find that which you have long objectified, it disappoints, a concept inspired by the invariable disappointment Japanese tourists feel when they arrive in Paris and realise it isn't that place they've long longed for, long objectified. Much as Lucius Burckhardt teaches us that Switzerland isn't only mountains, forests and lakes. If you believe it is, you'll be disappointed. See also Rudolf Horn's first time in a Barcelona chair. Or, as previously noted, Philippe Starck's extreme disappointment at the seating quality of the B3 'Wassily' club chair. And which ended up in his garden.
Disappointment that wouldn't exist, wouldn't be possible, without the mythologising and objectification, be that of the B3 'Wassily' club chair, Barcelona chair, Paris, whatever; a mythologising and objectification that has long been part of the human psyche, which became inflated with the rise of serial machine production, and professional marketing, which is dangerously out of control in our contemporary social media echo chamber, our contemporary reality where the staging of our interiors is a public contest based on a limited, standardised, vocabulary.
Disappointment that wouldn't exist, wouldn't be possible, with a focus on the whys, hows, wherefores of an object, city, country rather than the whats we're all encouraged to focus on today; wouldn't exist, wouldn't be possible, with a focus on the conceptual rather than the physical, with an open, questioning rather than an unquestioning, blithe, acceptance of, and repetition of, a standard narrative, be that of the B3 'Wassily' club chair, the Barcelona chair, Paris, Switzerland, 'Bauhaus', whatever.
Mehr als echt (More than real) admonishes you to shift your focus.
And does so at an important moment: in 2025/26 Bauhaus Dessau celebrates its 100th birthday.
As Bauhaus Weimar did in 2019. A centenary of Bauhaus Weimar that, as previously opined, for all that it was popularly discussed and projected as a celebration of the long extant, unquestioned, unchallenged standard narrative of the (hi)story of the Bauhauses, was popularly a further fortification of that narrative, many of the exhibitions, and much of the research undertaken by way of for preparing for Weimar's centenary, opened the door to the real possibility of the writing of a more probable narrative of the (hi)story of the Bauhauses via a more critical, probing questioning of, for example, and amongst other subjects, gender equality at the Bauhauses, the heterogeneity of the Bauhauses or relationships between the Bauhauses/Bauhäusler and the NSDAP, Bauhaus and National Socialism at Klassik Stiftung Weimar being very much a manifestation of that movement, and itself an important moment in the development of that movement, and so the hope must be that, building on from Weimar 100, the Bauhaus Dessau centenary celebrations can be undertaken without the mythologising. Without the objectification. Without a (hi)story of the Bauhauses that is mehr als echt (more than real).
Thereby enabling real delight at the institutions existences, real delight in the buildings of the Bauhaus ensemble, real delight in the furniture developed at the Bauhauses and by Bauhäusler, real delight in the furniture of the 1920s and 30s that has nothing to do with the Bauhauses but currently feels obliged to pretend it does, and also a long overdue redefining of the Bauhaus brand. Allowing the Bauhaus brand to grow as it must if it is to remain vital, vital and vital. And for all to grow naturally rather than trained in the unforgiven trellis it has been confined by for far too long.
Mehr als echt (more than real) by Jun Yang is an accessible and instructive tool to begin dismantling that trellis.
Mehr als echt (More than real) by Jun Yang can be viewed at the Bauhaus school building, Gropiusallee 38, 06846 Dessau-Roßlau and the Bauhaus Museum Dessau, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Platz 1, 06844 Dessau-Roßlau until....... we've no idea. It's not listed on the Bauhaus Dessau website, also the information flyer doesn't mention a run time. Yes, we could have asked, probably should have, but we're assuming no-one knows, assuming that it will run until it doesn't. So let's assume it's on for '2025'. And almost certainly also '2026'.
More details on Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau, and the plans for Bauhaus Dessau 100, can be found at https://bauhaus-dessau.de
1Theseus by Plutarch, translated by John Dryden, The Internet Classics Archive https://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/theseus.html The Theseus Paradox was the basis for a presentation by Jun Yang at the opening of Mehr als echt (More than real), we liked it, enjoyed the comparison and so took it up as a framework for this text. Which may or not be plagarism. We hope it isn't. Apologies if it is.
2We are assuming, apologies if that's not the case.
3Owen Gingerich, A Conversation with Charles Eames, The American Scholar Vol. 46, No. 3 (Summer 1977), Washington, D.C.
4Marcel Breuer, eine bauhaus-film. füng jahre lang, bauhaus 1, December 4th, 1926
5Spirit and feeling are two of the attributes listed by UNESCO in order to "meet the conditions of authenticity" in context of listing as a World Heritage Site. Of which the Bauhaus ensembles in Dessau, Weimar and Bernau are. A list of attributes which served as a basis for our reflections on the 'authenticity' of Bauhaus and Bauhaus furniture. Which proved very helpful. But arguably was the reason we initially wrote far too much. However as an exercise it is well worth undertaking. See UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Paragraph 82, available via https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ (Accessed 08.12.2024)
