anexo 1-appendix 1
DESCRIPTION
Boyaki, A. (2010). Alma Buscher Siedhoff: An Examination of Children’s Design and Gender at the Bauhaus during the Weimar Period. https://dspace.lib.ttu.edu/etd/bitstream/handle/2346/ETD-TTU-2010-05-421/BOYAKI- DISSERTATION.pdf?sequence=5.TRANSCRIPT
ANEXO 1: MUEBLES Y JUGUETES DISEÑADOS POR ALMA SIEDHOFF BUSCHER APPENDIX 1: TOYS AND CHILDREN’S FURNITURE DESIGNED BY ALMA SIEDHOFF BUSCHER
El presente anexo se ha extraído directamente del trabajo de investigación de Amanda
Boyaki “Alma Buscher Siedhoff: An Examination of Children’s Design and Gender at
the Bauhaus during the Weimar Period”, A Dissertation in Fine Arts submitted to the
Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
An extract from the searching work of Amanda Boyaki “Alma Buscher Siedhoff: An
Examination of Children’s Design and Gender at the Bauhaus during the Weimar
Period”, A Dissertation in Fine Arts submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech
University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
Boyaki, A. (2010). Alma Buscher Siedhoff: An Examination of Children’s Design and Gender at the Bauhaus during the Weimar Period. https://dspace.lib.ttu.edu/etd/bitstream/handle/2346/ETD-TTU-2010-05-421/BOYAKI-
DISSERTATION.pdf?sequence=5.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
113
Brendel was a furniture student and there is only the brief mention of Leudesdorff, a
student in the weaving workshop (Winkler, 2004). Originally, George Muche had the
children‟s room located on the opposite end of the house c. 1922, but it was moved to the
location between the kitchen and the woman‟s bedroom (Winkler, 2004). The floor plan
of the children‟s room was designed specifically so that almost the whole room could be
seen from either door‟s vantage point. One door opened into the kitchen of the Haus am
Horn, and the other door was connected to the woman‟s bedroom. The room contained a
wash basin with running water; and a door to the terrace outside (fig. 4.3). One wall was
painted with chalkboard paint so that a child could use the surface for drawing.
Furniture Designs of Alma Buscher Siedhoff
Children’s play cabinet [Kinderspielschrank] c. 1923
At the Haus am Horn, Buscher designed the children‟s room in this modest home
attached to the kitchen, where a mother could easily keep an eye on activities while going
about myriad tasks a household requires. She was making the most efficient use of space
possible; she designed the play cabinet to fit along the wall and into a corner, maximizing
its usage and space planning. This play cabinet (fig. 4.4) is a piece of furniture that could
be put in any room and used for other purposes, after the days of playing had ended. The
cabinet could serve as a display area, or for storage. There is a cut-out door that opens on
the right side cabinet to feature a puppet show. This opening could be used as a display
cabinet after the days of play and puppet shows had passed. The modular design allows
for the three pieces to be distributed to other rooms. The series of boxes could serve
double duty as storage containers and toys themselves or as impromptu seating cubes
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
114
later on. The versatility of the design fit into the scheme of the room that provided a
space for a child that belonged only in the realm of the child or children.
The play cabinet was covered in a smooth, white, linoleum veneer that provided a
durable surface. The linoleum was “attached to all seats and stepping areas and allows it
to appear at purchase somewhat more expensive, but during the use it saves both children
and parents much trouble – the constant new
coat of paint and the really unnecessary
scolding on account of little scratches”
(Buscher, 1926). She was thinking about the
future use of the cabinet, not only for a child‟s
room but a piece of furniture that would stay in
the family and be used for years. The durable
linoleum and the neutral color white would
suite a wide variety of interiors for a
considerable period of time, making it a wise
purchase when choosing children‟s furniture.
For Buscher, the climate of the
consumer‟s attention was one paramount to
the success of her designs. Her emphasis and attention to the durability of the materials
she chose, such as linoleum for her play cabinet, and the quality of her designs would
have resonated with the bourgeoisie consumer audience. German consumers looked for
quality of materials, according to Reagin (2007), so much so that there is an old saying
Fig. 4.4. Children‟s play cabinet
[Kinderspielschrank] Alma Buscher Siedhoff
with Erich Brendel, circa 1923. Painted
wood. Three cupboards: H. 140 x 68.3 x 30
cm; H. 140 x 94.5 x 27.8 cm; H. 140 x 64.3 x
29.5 cm; 3 boxes: H. 30 x 48 x 32 cm; H.
29.8 x 48.4 x 32 cm; H. 30 x 48.4 x 32 cm; 2
blocks: H. 20.5 x 32 x 25 cm; H. 19.9 x 32.1
x 25 cm. Photograph courtesy of
Quittenbaum Art Auction House.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
115
“the best is the most expensive” (pp. 39-44).
Seven boxes of three sizes were built to sit flush against the front of the longest
section of the cabinet.94
These boxes were to serve as additional storage cubes, as steps
for a child to access the higher shelves of the cabinet, and as toys. The boxes could be
anything a child wished and the possibilities for creativity could change constantly.
Swedish psychologist Eva Noren Bjorn states that “the problem with … [some toys] is a
lack of creativity –„a log can become a boat or train or sofa; a wooden horse cannot ever
be more than a wooden horse‟” (Hagströmer, 1997, p. 191). It is this approach to child-
inspired creativity that Buscher used when she constructed her play cabinet. Rather than
presenting a possibility, she left the areas clean (“blank” would be another descriptor but
it implies that she was not considering the space and its limitless potential). The idea of
incorporating the aspect of play into the container, making that large piece of furniture in
the corner of the room an endless place to inspire the imagination, is one of its best
qualities.
The largest of these boxes was originally designed with a shelf inside for a child
to sit on, with four small metal wheels and a lid (fig. 4.5).95
In fact, it has a seat inside it
for a child to use and let the imagination transform it into any type of vehicle. Two
notches were cut out of the sides at the top of the box so that the lid could be easily
removed.
94
The measurements I took of the reproduction are: large box 19 11/16” x 12 ½” x 9 7/8.” The
measurements in metric of Alma Buscher Siedhoff‟s sketch (Siebenbrodt, 2004) are 32 x 30 cm. The
smaller boxes measure 32 x 20 cm and 12 5/8” x 9 7/8” x 9 7/8” made from 5/8” medium density fiber
board. 95
The metal wheels were not incorporated in the reproduction piece created by Vitra for its Kid Size
exhibition that will be discussed later.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
116
Color was a crucial part of the design of the play cabinet. The boxes were painted
yellow, red and blue. This coincided with the three fundamental colors of the Bauhaus
theories (Wick, 2000). These colors were also assigned shapes according to Johannes
Itten. The influence of Kandinsky, Theo van Doesberg and the de Stijl movement is
evident (Droste, 2002; Siebenbrodt, 2004; Will 1997).
Cleaning up after playtime was to be instigated by the child. The box with wheels
also functions as a storage chest. Since the child could arrange and place the toys,
Buscher was promoting self-sufficiency and a subtle approach to visual training. The
boxes form a stage platform that a child could use to access the higher shelves without
assistance, putting toys away and making the room
tidy. In this regard, Buscher specifically designed the
height of the shelves in the cabinet for children. The
boxes that accompany the shelves serve a crucial role
as steps to access the higher shelves. She designed
the cabinet to be of a full height comparable to other
book and storage shelves available. Wingler‟s (1969)
critique of the play cabinet states:
In designing furniture for children Alma Buscher
always considered the latest psychological and pedagogical findings. The toy
cabinet was made for the children to play and “build” with; most of it was
arranged to be taken apart. The box units (in front) could be used as tables and
chairs. Wheels were fixed to one of the boxes so that it could be used as a cart.
Fig. 4.5. Detail of box on wheels. H.
46.5 x 64 x 31.8 cm. Photograph
courtesy of Quittenbaum Art Auction
House.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
117
The cut-out in the upper part of the door on the right section of the cabinet was
designed to serve as a stage for a Punch and Judy show. The (impractical) shelves
in the left section were meant for toys. (p. 311)
The parentheses that surround the word “impractical” could be a translation
notation that stayed through the printing process. For the purpose of this analysis,
Wingler‟s choice of adjective will stand as it is printed and Wingler‟s opinion of the
shelves can be dissected. The height of the shelves might be construed as impractical for
a child due to the height. What Wingler perceives as an impractical storage solution
reflects the adaptability of this cabinet that Buscher designed.
Clothing cabinet [Kleiderschrank] 1924
A second cabinet that has survived from this period and the Bauhaus Exhibit is
the clothing cabinet from 1924.96
German bedrooms do not normally contain built-in
closets, even today. A traditional cabinet that can be taken apart and moved from
location to location is a very common piece of furniture in a German home. The clothing
cabinet that Buscher designed with Marcel Breuer has a lacquered exterior. Below the
cabinet were two drawers. One door handle and two drawer pulls were large round
handles. They are the same as the handles on the changing table Buscher designed for
the room and the handles on some other pieces Marcel Breuer had designed for the Haus
am Horn. The cabinet was photographed in 1924 but it is unclear if it was built in time
for the Bauhaus Exhibit.
96
The cabinet was featured in the Neu Welt für Kinder exhibit in 2006.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
118
Crib [Kinderbett] 1924
Buscher designed a crib for the Haus am Horn children‟s room that differs from
the crib photographed and published in the Bauhaus catalog (1925) (fig. 4.6). There is
little information about either crib she designed. The sketch of the original crib featured
large disk wheels and curved handles (fig. 4.7). A photograph of the crib credited to
Buscher does not feature these details. There is an inconsistency in the original design of
the crib featured in the photographs of the Haus am Horn children‟s room and one in the
sketch of the room. The photograph shows the corner of a crib that does not match the
side of the crib that is photographed and attributed to Buscher.
The side featured in the photograph that shows the expanse of the room from one
door through to the other provides a
side view of vertical slats (see fig. 4.3).
This differs from the solid sides of the
crib that are featured in the later
photograph that dates to 1924.
This indicates a different crib was built
for the Haus am Horn children‟s room.
No Buscher designed crib has yet
surfaced.
Fig. 4.6. Crib/children‟s bed [Kinderbett] circa 1924.
Painted wood, cork, canvas and metal. Silver gelatin
print. 163 x 200 mm. Bauhaus University Weimar. ©
2010 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-
Kunst, Bonn.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
119
It is unknown who instigated the design changes from the crib produced for the
Bauhaus exhibit and the crib attributed to Buscher. Other cribs were built at the Bauhaus,
notably one designed by Peter Keler. Johannes Itten commissioned a crib for his son as
well (Von Seckendorf, 2000).97
Assuming she designed and made the one shown in the photograph of the
children‟s room, the wooden crib featured in the Bauhaus product catalog would be
Buscher‟s third version. It demonstrates a stronger link to the bold De Stijl features
lacking in the first crib. The later crib was painted white and joined in a staggered
manner demonstrating a subtle Cubist influence that was part of the De Stijl. It is
especially noticeable in the legs. The crib also had a unique mesh screen made out of
corks. These bottle corks form a lattice that lets in
light and air. The back of the crib was fashioned out
of a piece of canvas cloth and would have faced the
wall of the children‟s room in the Haus am Horn.
Buscher‟s crib represents both practical
forethoughts as well as innovation. While Buscher
created a barrier, at the same time, she allowed for an
97
Often Bauhaus sources display the crib that Peter Keler designed due to its unusual and provocative
approach to a traditional rocking cradle. The triangle shape wedged in a circle that is a metal cylinder
running along the base of the crib functions as the rocker, this crib was designed to rock back and forth and
has a weight system in the from cylinder located in the bottom and acute angle of the triangle. Some people
might feel uncomfortable placing a rambunctious infant in this crib. Itten also designed a crib because he
and his wife had recently given birth so “in the carpenters workshop a cradle was made, hand carved and
covered with colorful mystical symbols” (Adams Teltscher, 1968, p. 194).97
It is visually heavy with deep
carvings and a height that requires the adult to walk up to the crib in order to view the child. Keler‟s crib
would demand constant adult supervision. Hahn (2002) provides a photograph of one crib whose designer
is unknown, but this dates to 1929.
Fig. 4.7. Sketch of crib from original
children‟s room design. © 2010 Artists
Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG
Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
120
unobstructed view to the entire interior of the crib. With one quick glance, a person can
see if a child was awake or asleep. At the same time, the child has a wide of view of the
room. The cork grid represents Buscher thinking about materials that were readily
available. Corks were one of the “war related materials” collected during World War I
for recycling and reuse by the government (Reagin, 2007, p. 75). Since all manner of
materials continued to be scarce and expensive during the Bauhaus and Weimar years,
Buscher used a common material in an economical and functional manner. Other more
practical matters were considered in the use of this material. The cork edges would be
soft, and the grid allows for maximum light. The corks could be easily replaced if one
were to become torn or damaged.
A commission by an orphanage in Weimar called for the production of 120 cribs
in September 1924, a sobering reminder of the lasting effects of the war. (Rowland,
1988). The Bauhaus wanted to promote social change
through the vehicle of good design. Orphanages would have
had strong links to the leftist social agendas, and would
order from the Bauhaus (Winkler, 2003). These connections
would not help Buscher when she had trouble promoting her
works after she left the Bauhaus as the political climate
changed from the Weimar government into the Third Reich.
Ladder Chair [Leiterstuhl] c. 1923
Continuing her vision of multifunctional furniture,
Buscher also designed a ladder chair (fig. 4.8). Only
Fig. 4.8. Ladder chair [Leiterstuhl]
circa 1923. Gouache and graphite
on paper. 124 x 195 mm. Collection
of Joost Siedhoff. © 2010 Artists
Rights Society (ARS), New York /
VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
121
drawings have survived of the originals, although the chair was reproduced for the exhibit
in Velbert in 1997. The ladder chair functions as a high chair, in a booster fashion. It
could be brought by the child from the children‟s room to the adjacent dining room for
each meal, and returned with ease by a small child or an adult. It has two small metal
wheels attached to it for mobility, similar if not identical to the metal wheels on the play
cabinet box. As children need to climb to reach many items, it could be used as a
stepladder. Buscher also had in mind the idea of the ladder chair transforming into a toy
as well. Since it had wheels and was mobile, a child and a little imagination could turn it
into any number of possibilities: a car, wagon, dragon, etc. It could be laid down long
and flat or a child could stand it upright. The ladder chair was humorously described by
art critic named Paul Westheim during the Bauhaus exhibit: “A very sympathetic
solution is in the children's room a modern [Rollstühlschen] in shape of a cubic box. So
from the beginning the modern child awakens in Kubus” (Winkler, 2003, p. 28).98
Wollsdorf (2006) described it as “not entirely harmless” (p. 2) because of the wheels and
its mobility.
Changing Table [Wickelcommode] c. 1924
Buscher designed a changing table or Wickelcommode in 1924. It is included in
the sketches for the children‟s room of the Haus am Horn from 1923. The changing table
(fig. 4.9) is the original, and it has survived. 99
The changing table was covered in
98
Eine sehr sympathische Lösung ist im Kinderzimmer ein modernes Rollstühlschen in Gestalt eines
würfelförmigen Kastens. So wächst das neuzeitliche Kind von Anfang an in den Kubus hinein. 99
The changing table was in the collection of Hinnerk Scheper and Lou Scheper and was loaned to the
Bauhaus archive collection (Will, 1997). Scheper was a student at the Bauhaus left Weimar in 1922 was in
wall painting workshop and returned as head of it in Dessau (Naylor, 1985). It was featured in the Neu
Welt für Kinder exhibition of 2006, prominently displayed.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
122
durable lacquer and painted in gray, red and blue details, along with white. Buscher
came up with a design that would blend together in a collaborative manner with Breuer‟s
previous design of the kitchen cabinet from 1923. The changing table has a modular
influence prevalent in the furniture workshop. It provided a large amount of storage for
clean linens and separate compartments for soiled
linens. A stool offers a place to sit or an impromptu
shelving location. The stool could be pulled out, or
pushed up under the cabinet if a person chose to
stand instead. She wrote in her diary that this piece
could be converted into a desk later on by removing
the center drawer (Siebenbrodt, 2004). Since
Buscher did not have children at the time, she
probably designed and built based on her study of the
needs of children and their parents. Buscher was accommodating what was the first
generation of upper middle class and wealthy women who had to run a household on
their own without the assistance of a servant.
Light Fixture [Deckenleuchte] c. 1923
Buscher collaborated
with Ludwig Hirschfield Mach
on a light fixture in the
children‟s room. The light was
positioned over the corner of
Fig. 4.10. Sketches featuring the original design of the light
fixture. Colored pencil on paper. 132 x 142 mm; 120 x 147 mm;
157 x 132 mm. Collection of Joost and Lore Siedhoff. © 2010
Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
Fig. 4.9. Changing table with stool
[Wickelcommode mit Hocker] circa
1924. Painted wood. 95, 2 x 140 x 62,
8 cm. Bauhaus Archive Berlin on loan
from the collection of the Scheper
family. © 2010 Artists Rights Society
(ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst,
Bonn.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
123
the room above the play cabinet. The ceiling fixture was a white circle of glass attached
to the roof with four long metal rods. It had gels of color that could be changed. In this
regard, she sketched out three vignettes: the first contains the animals rooster, hen,
chicks, cats and more. The other two are vague, containing shadowy figures (fig. 4.10).
The children‟s room exhibit sketch no. 2 (Siebenbrodt, 2004, p. 74) features the light with
red, yellow, blue and violet sections. The photograph of the completed room is in black
and white, it is impossible to tell how the final product turned out. The light fixture
appears as a gray circle affixed to the ceiling (fig. 4.4).
Stool/Table and Children’s Bench [Tisch/Sitzbank, Kinderbank] c. 1924
The theme of creating a piece of
furniture with multiple functions continued with
the stool table she designed sometime around
1924 (fig. 4.11). Will had this piece reproduced
for the 1997 exhibit. The table top is red
lacquer on top of four white legs that have been
turned to show the flat side of each leg facing
outward. The underside of the round table top is
a square piece of wood painted blue. The legs
are positioned for maximum weight stability, as
it functions as a stool.
Buscher built a small bench for her children sometime after she left the Bauhaus
that was exhibited in Will‟s Entwürfe für Kinder am Bauhaus in Weimar exhibition. This
Fig. 4.11. Reproduction of Stool/table,
[Tisch/Sitzbank] circa 1924. Painted
wood. Reconstruction. Deutsches
Schloss Beschlägemuseum Velbert. ©
2010 Artists Rights Society (ARS),
New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
128
would be a tough sell to convince a woman who had been told to avoid trendy materials
to buy the Bauhaus-associated children‟s furniture.
Toy Design
The concept of designing, building and selling toys at the Bauhaus first began
when the women of the weaving workshop made toys for the traditional Christmas booth.
These toys were made from cloth donated to the Bauhaus in the early Weimar years
(Baumhoff, 1994; Wortmann Weltge, 1993). The Christmas booth of the women‟s
workshop was the most successful in sales compared to the other workshops. Wortmann
Weltge (1993) suggests that this may have partly been because the “people who donated
the material probably bought the toys that were made from them” (p. 54). Additionally,
Bauhaus artists such as Lyonel Feininger, Paul Klee, Oskar Schlemmer and Gunta Stölzl
made toys for their children (Seidel, 2004; Stölzl, Radewaldt, I., Stadler, M., & Thöner,
1997). At any rate, after the
Bauhaus Exhibit ended in October
1923, Buscher began completing
her toy designs.
Building Blocks: The Ship
[Bauspiel: Ein Schiff] c. 1923.
Buscher‟s building blocks or
building game are usually depicted
in photographs as a ship. The
painted wooden blocks are
Fig. 4.13. Ship building blocks [Schiffsbauspiel] c. 1923.
Painted wood. Box dimensions 27.5 mm x 6.5 mm x 4.5
mm. Reproduction from collection of author. Photograph
by author.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
129
packaged in a cardboard box. The set originally came in two sizes. The blocks are cut in
several shapes and painted white, yellow, blue, green, and red. They are often referred to
as the “building game” [Bauspiel] and first appear in 1923 (Siebenbrodt, 2004; Will,
1997; Wingler, 1969; Winkler, 2003). The blocks have been manufactured by the Swiss
toy company Naef since 1977 (Siebenbrodt, 2004). In 1965, Hans Maria Wingler and
Kurt Naef began negotiations regarding the Bauhaus copyrights to the toys. The building
blocks were the second toy to go into production (Von Büren, 2006).101
The blocks are
currently sold in the Bauhaus museum gift shops in Berlin and Dessau and are also
available on the internet (Siebenbrodt, 2004).
The building blocks sat enjoyed great success during the time it was produced at
the Bauhaus. Georg Muche, Adolf Meyer and Lázló Moholy-Nagy all purchased the
building blocks (Siebenbrodt, 2004). Paul Kohlhaas Company of Bad Berka was the first
to produce the blocks in collaboration with the Bauhaus along with Buscher‟s Bützelspiel
[bundle toys] in 1924 (Müller, 2009). In March of 1924, 50 block sets were made in the
Bauhaus workshop, and an additional 35 were ordered in the month of September
(Rowland, 1988). In April 1924, 30 small and 15 large sets were sold (Siebenbrodt,
2004). Unfortunately, Paul Kohlhaas Company became a victim of the economic
101
Von Büren (2006) provides a short biography on Alma Buscher (p. 155) along with information that
comes from Will (1997). There is no source cited. Von Büren states that Naef was interested in producing
other toy designs but “heirs made exorbitant claims that would have made them impossible to produce for a
profit” (p. 49). He also notes that it is museum and design collectors that purchase Bauhaus Naef toys.
According to Joost Siedhoff (2006) neither he, nor his sister Lore, receive any funds from the sales of these
toys and never will because the Bauhaus holds the rights. Von Büren‟s statement is not directed at Alma
Buscher Siedhoff‟s heirs. Recently, Naef began reproducing two of Margarete Reichardt‟s toy designs, a
jumping jack [Hampelmann] and some peg dolls [Steckpuppen] that she created at the Bauhaus between
1926-30 (www.naefspeile.ch). Reichardt was a weaving student who is noted for her metallic, sound
absorbing and light reflecting fabric designs (Baumhoff, 2000).
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
130
Fig. 4.14. Detail of blocks inside box and box lid. 27.5 mm L x 6.5 mm.
struggles and went bankrupt in 1925. Bauhaus GmbH took over the manufacturing of
the blocks completely. In 1925, 319 building block sets were built for the Bauhaus
GmbH that were to be sold for one Deutsche Mark each; Buscher received 25 cents per
unit sold (Seidel, 2004; Siebenbrodt, 2004; Will, 1997). Once the Bauhaus had moved to
Dessau the rights changed to Bauhaus Dessau GmbH, and the Pestalozzi-Fröbel
Publishers in Leipzig carried on the production of the building blocks (Siebenbrodt,
2004).
Buscher‟s blocks are rectangles, thin and thick squares, taller pie shaped pieces
and a larger rounded quarter slice of a circle. The large set had 39 pieces, and the small
set had 22. The packaging for the blocks is a long and narrow box reflecting a precise
economy of design. Of course this presents the daunting question as to whether the
happy new owner will be able to return them all into their original spots. The blocks fit
so that reassembling them back into the box is designed similar to a jigsaw puzzle. The
package design is
deliberate.
Several of
Buscher‟s objects
are designed for
fun and play, but
her blocks and
particularly her
play cabinet take
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
131
into account both space planning and how a child would be motivated to tidy the space
(fig. 4.13).
Art supplies were difficult to acquire in any of the workshops, but there would
have been small scraps of wood in the woodcarving and cabinetmaking workshop. It
took the right person to look at a pile of scraps and see the opportunity. Rowland (1988)
notes that when the blocks were first marketed in Switzerland, a representative asked that
the color be changed and that some sort of instructions be provided. Buscher responded
by adding the label to the top of the box that displays her name and provides four
possible forms to build with the blocks: a sailboat, a mountain and valley with railroad, a
gate or door, and an animal. According to the picture, the animal might be a dragon or
stegosaurus (fig. 4.14). In reality, Buscher encouraged creativity, and, for her, the
sailboat was just the beginning of the possibilities for her group of blocks. Buscher had
observed that children demonstrated a hesitance, not knowing where to begin playing
with the blocks. The picture of the sailboat launched them toward creative possibilities
(Schneider, 2000 as cited in Luyken, 2004). By following the examples shown on the
box, a child could build his/her confidence up by creating the dinosaur or ship, and then
try other shapes.
The influence of German reform pedagogy movement is evident in the blocks
when they are compared to Friedrich Fröbel‟s blocks. Will (1997) and Siebenbrodt
(2004) wrote about the theory based processes of learning behind the designs. Fröbel
„gifts,‟ or aufgaben, were a series of blocks for children to learn and build with designed
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
132
to promote learning.102
There are similarities between Buscher‟s blocks and Fröbel‟s:
Both block sets fit into a box, and it is an extra challenge or puzzle to return the blocks
back to their storage space. However, Fröbel‟s blocks were to be given to a student in a
sequence as the child adapted and learned the colors and shapes (Efland, 1990). Hence,
his toys were task driven, each level of understanding building upon the previous. This is
very different from Buscher‟s intent that was more about freeing innate creativity.
Bundle Toys [Bützelspiel] c. 1924
Buscher described her design as “a ball game for the very little ones to knock
over figures to aim at and upset with the balls” (Siebenbrodt, 2004, p. 53). She provided
detailed instructions of the game:
They are bare blocks and bare balls, just big enough for a child to hold, but too
big for the child to put in its mouth – the child is allowed to lick them. They are
bare and smooth. The square blocks have indentations so that the balls will lie
still if put on top of them. That‟s the joy, to build high, they can make figures or
fat women. The big ball moves and everything falls apart. The child laughs! 103
(Siebenbrodt, 2004, p. 53)
She described it as a sort of bowling game designed for children who are still
learning and developing their hand and eye movements. This toy would be especially
ideal for preschoolers, because throwing is a much easier movement than catching (fig.
4.15). The pieces, not being large, make the consequence of falling not damaging to the
102
Today the words hausaufgaben refer to homework for students, literally (and laden with dry German
humor) meaning “a gift for home.” 103
Translation by Svenja Menschig.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
133
floor or any other items that might be in close proximity. There was a small knitted mesh
bag in which some of the balls could be placed, appearing too small to fit the whole
group inside. The stacking and falling of the toy would aid a child in practicing balance
on a small scale. Buscher encouraged the joy of contact and of knocking something over.
Such an act is normally frowned upon in most situations, particularly in the days before
Superglue.
Buscher had a keen awareness of
allowing a child to be a child, to play and
be young. With so much war and
hardship around her during the Weimar
period and immediately following the end
of World War I, this concept means much
more. The little joys of childhood are
over so fast to begin with, the day-to-day
living with children often means taking
for granted the wonders of learning and
new experiences. It is often difficult for
adults to stop and realize, in the hustle of daily activities, that many actions we do day in
and out are brand new to a small child. She described herself like a small child as well in
her diary stating: “People wonder how I understand children and that they understand
me. The answer is easy, I am still a child and maybe always. Primitive thinking, intuitive
Fig. 4.15. Bundle toys [Bützelspiel] circa 1924. Painted
wood. Collection of Joost and Lore Siedhoff. © 2010
Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-
Kunst, Bonn.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
134
Fig. 4.16. Ball toys [Kugelspiel] circa 1924. Painted wood.
Ausstellung Stiftung Weimarer Klassik und Kunstsammlungen
Bauhaus museum Weimar. Bauhaus Bücher no. 7. Photo credit:
The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston; Hirsch Library.
acting, and producing immature things. That‟s the child” (Siebenbrodt, 2004, p. 51).104
The Bützelspiel were produced and sold by Pestalozzi-Fröbel Verlag from 1926-1933
and sold for 4 marks each (Siebenbrodt, 2004).
Ball Toy [Kugelspiel]
c.1924.
The third set of
building blocks or “ball toy”
Buscher designed were a
variation of the Bützelspiel
but on smaller scale for older
children. Each block was
drilled with a small hole for
a bead-like treatment (fig.
4.16). The set came with
wooden pins or dowels that had a tab on the end for ease of removal and insertion.105
There were 40 Kugelspiel that had been finished being painted by the painting workshop
in April 1924 (Siebenbrodt, 2004).
Action Dolls [Wurfpuppen ] c. 1924 “
You had to sign a contract that your patents would go to the Bauhaus-whatever
you developed – they could sell it, but you got nothing.” Gerhard Richter (Lange, 1988,
104
She might have also been echoing the criticism she and other female artists received from Bauhaus staff
regarding her work in Bauhaus classes. Translation by Svenja Menschig. 105
I have found no proposals, descriptions or photographs depicting how the Bützelspiel, Kugelspiel or
Wurfpuppen would be packaged for sale.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
135
p. 43)
The action dolls, a male and female, were designed and created in 1924 (4.17).
The bodies are woven from rope to form two arms and two legs, with a batch of straw
pulled through the bead that indicates the face and head. The bodies are woven from
rope to form two arms and two legs, with a batch of straw pulled through the bead that
indicates the face and head. Buscher calls her dolls action dolls. They are a clear
indication of her beliefs in the creative process. Totally different from a passive voice –
she is promoting creative play, encouraging the child through the title of her toy to
animate it and give it life. Many toys are gender specific. Dolls are a category that is
more clearly defined. A teddy bear is gender neutral. A baby doll is not. Both of the
action dolls were assigned gender, and even race. The female doll has two braids of
straw for hair and wears a skirt. The
male action doll is not assigned any
specific indications of gender. The
clothing consists of a pair of trousers
and a long sleeved shirt. It is the
viewer‟s assumption that indicates
the doll is male, as the opposite of
the more gender specific female
doll. The female is assigned distinct
feminine features – braided hair and
a woven dress. These distinctions of
Fig. 4.17. Action dolls [Wurfpuppen ] circa 1924. Wood,
straw, chenille. 48 L x 53 cm. Ausstellung Stiftung
Weimarer Klassik und Kunstsammlungen Bauhaus
museum Weimar. © 2010 Artists Rights Society (ARS),
New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
136
the female doll are the differences to indicate the male doll.
In the Bauhaus archive in Berlin, the files of Buscher contain a copy of a design
patent she was awarded for her Action Dolls and a letter from Gropius dating to the time
of the Dessau move, circa April 21, 1926 (see Appendix E). There is a stamp that the
patent was issued on March 16, 1927. There is also a letter in this file from Gropius
dating March 28, 1925, presumably to the patent office but containing the directive to Dr.
N/Bo. in the upper left hand corner. This document states that the patent should be
registered to Fräulein Buscher, and that there had been no mistake in the name for the
patent.106
Gropius continues, saying that, although the manufacturers and distributors
were no longer available due to economic hardships, the Bauhaus would not be
transferring the rights to the patent, instead retaining the rights. Obviously, even though
money was always an issue at the Bauhaus, Gropius managed to pay for the patent. This
letter serves as evidence of a very clear case of misunderstanding the use of the female
address and its correctness.
106
Dr. N. refers to the Bauhaus Syndikat or business manager Dr. Necker (Rowland, 1988). I cannot
decipher what the letters Bo represent. The document written by Gropius states:
“Unter nummer 106/1 & 2 wurde dem Staalichen Bauhaus Weimar beim Amtsgericht in Weimar ein
Musterschutz auf Spielzeuge erteilt. Der Musterschutz wurde irrtümlich nicht auf den Namen von Fräulein
Buscher eingetragen. Außerdem muß das Herstellungs – und Vertriebsrecht nach Kündigung durch
Fräulein Buscher an Fräulein Buscher zurückfallen. Da wirtschaftliche Vorteile weiterhin nach einer
Kündigung des Herstellungs und Vertriebsrechtes nicht mehr vorhanden sind, überträgt das Bauhaus die
Recht aus diesem Musterschutz hiermit auch Fräulein Buscher. Solange der Musterschutz auf den Namen
des Bauhauses eingetragen ist, erfüllt das Bauhaus gegen Ersatz aller entstehenden Kosten die nötigen
Formalitäten für eine Verlängerung des Musterschutzes.”
“Under number 106/1 & 2 Weimar was given the Staatliche Bauhaus in the district court in Weimar a
pattern protection on toys. The pattern protection was not registered erroneously in the name of Miss
Buscher. Moreover, manufacturers must fall back on to distributorship after notice through Miss Buscher.
Because economic advantages were no longer available after further notice of the manufacture and
distributorship, the Bauhaus transmits the rights out of this pattern protection and with this also Miss
Buscher. As long as the pattern protection was registered in the name of the Bauhaus, the Bauhaus against
replacement of all emerging costs fulfills the necessary formalities for an extension of the pattern
protection.”
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
137
The patent describes the materials applicable, like straw for the limbs and the
wooden beads. There is no mention anywhere about gender specifications, only the word
for the hairstyle Bubikopf. Here is the place where Buscher found a way to bring in a
look at gender with her action dolls. The girl has on a skirt and has a long braid of straw
for hair. In the patent description that is filed, it is the Bubikopf hairstyle that is
described.107
This hairstyle was the bob or pageboy haircut that was a striking symbol of
the New Woman or Neu Frau in the Weimar culture.
The year the Bauhaus opened was also an important year for the Suffragist
movement in Germany. Women were allowed to vote in 1919. The zeitgeist of equality
was one that Gropius publicly appeared to promote from the onset of the Bauhaus‟
opening but privately continued to maintain a system of gender barriers. The influence of
the new place women had in the post war culture became a visual symbol represented by
a new short hairstyle called the Bubikopf. Many women at the Bauhaus had a Bubikopf;
Annie Albers, Marianne Brandt, and Lily Reich to name a few.
Hair continues to be a symbol of femininity or rebellion. At the Bauhaus the
Bubikopf was most assuredly a symbol of the Neu Frau or “New Woman.” It is difficult
to tell from photographs if Buscher had a Bubikopf. It appears that she had long hair
pulled back. In one photo she was, unfortunately, wearing a hat. A self-portrait she drew
seems to indicate she wore her hair pulled back. A photograph of her at a Bauhaus party
shows her with the same hairstyle in 1923 (Siebenbrodt, 2004, p. 62). Photographs of her
and her husband Werner in 1934 clearly show that she had a Bubikopf (Siebenbrodt,
107
See line 18 in Appendix E.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
138
2004, p. 102; Will, 1997, p. 64).
Schneider (2000) points out that Buscher was thinking very deeply about the dolls
and how children could interact with them. Buscher‟s term “action doll” would help
young boys be more comfortable with the dolls (Luyken, 2004). Dolls are heavily
gendered toys. Buscher believed a title such as „action‟ would go a long way toward
easing the taboo of playing with dolls. Buscher‟s actions speak for her beliefs but her
views are to be found in her designs and writings. The action dolls are an example of
how she integrated the curious mind of a child with an opportunity.
There is also a third type of doll (Luyken, 2004; Siedhoff, 2009; Will, 1997)
called the Negerkind, meaning a “black child.” Siebenbrodt makes no reference to
this.108
The Negerkind action doll presents an insight into the approach Buscher took
when designing her objects. Views about Africans and black people in Germany range
from odd curiosities to outright prejudice. Few Germans would have encountered any
Africans aside from the Völkerschauen, or traveling carnivals, “where dark skinned
where displayed like animals in zoos” (Weitz, 2007, p. 51). After World War II the
influx of American Jazz and soldiers brought more Germans into contact with what they
termed “Negroes” (Weitz, 2007).
At the Bauhaus there is little to be noted about the topic. Gropius uses a
euphemism to indicate what his own beliefs were (c. 1925-26). When describing the
American tendency to cover skyscrapers with gothic and renaissance facades he wrote
108
Will does not discuss an interpretation or meaning of the doll, she only mentions it briefly. I have seen
three Wurfpuppen: The two in the Berlin museum exhibition, and one in the Weimar Bauhaus permanent
collection.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
139
that this “made them as ridiculous as a Negro who wears fancy shirt cuffs with a loin-
cloth” (Gropius, 1925-6, pp. 134-47 as cited in Diefendorf, 2005, p. 31). One interesting
example of Bauhaus fundraising is found in a letter that is addressed to “Henry Ford,
William Randolf Hearst and others.” In this letter, Lyonel Feininger asks that these
wealthy individuals donate $3,000.00 to the project. “We make our appeal to yourself
who have the priviledge [sic] of living in the Land whose population is to-day in the act
of taking the reins of the Leadership of the White Race into its grasp…”(Whitford, 1992,
p. 153).
Buscher introduced her Negerkind doll and provided an opportunity for a child to
observe a variety of people and explore in their own way, through play, the meanings of
these rather profound differences and find the commonalities. Buscher was delving
further into the psychology of toys than merely gender. Everything she designed had to
have more than one function and therefore more than one meaning and use, both furniture
and toys. The action dolls were designed to appeal to boys and girls, but this is the first
step in the design process for Buscher. The introduction of race with the Negerkind doll
was a deeper connection. It offered children a place to explore differences and
similarities in a play atmosphere. Buscher was calculating a way to promote, in a very
quiet and subtle way, tolerance toward humanity; something that was taking a downward
spiral in Germany during this time.
Therefore, there must be one more than combination or possibility for the action
dolls – in this case it is two female action dolls. The one with the short hair, the
Bubikopf, represents the Neu Frau while the other doll that has long hair and a skirt
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
140
represents the more traditional woman. These two dolls could be read not as only male
and female, but as the dual aspects of Buscher‟s personality representing her struggle to
find acceptance in a male-dominated design field. They are an extension of her two
sides, a dual self-portrait. The evidence for the layered meaning is found in the patent
description that contains the word Bubikopf. It would have been written and submitted
by Buscher. She specifically chose this term, as she did using the term „action.‟ Gropius
was preoccupied with the administrative duties of the Bauhaus and the management of
his architectural practice (Franciscono, 1971; Kieren, 2000). While he oversaw which
items were to be patented, the task of writing out the description would fall on the
designer. It was her deliberate choice to use the descriptive/gender specific term to
describe the hairstyle. To a person taking a quick look at the dolls, it would not register.
In fact, Siebenbrodt (2004) describes this patent document in his catalogue and curiously
omits the sentence that contains this descriptive word entirely (p. 26).
Buscher was designing in gender conscious terms because shapes and colors had
specific gendered meanings at the Bauhaus. Both shape and color had been assigned
gender by Johannes Itten. This was one of the lessons taught in the Vorkurs. The square
was red and gendered female, triangles were yellow and the circle blue and gendered
masculine (Wick, 2000). Children would not associate the primary colors with the
Bauhaus‟ curriculum. There is an essential quality of the openness to play by either boys
or girls that is deeply underappreciated in Buscher‟s designs that has been overlooked by
scholars who see only the toys she is making, not the message behind the toys. Buscher‟s
own thoughts in her writings denote that she is delving deeply into more than just making
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
141
toys. Buscher wrote, “we shouldn‟t convict a child because s/he has little imagination”
(Luyken, 2004, p.37). This same philosophy could be applied to brief interpretations of
her work.
Puppet Theater [Puppettheater] c.1924.
Buscher designed a puppet theater complete
with small wooden building blocks in 1923. It was
recreated in 1997. The puppet theater is a simple
wooden box on a stand with a square opening in the
front. It is free standing on thin legs that are in an L
formation, maintain the balance of the piece both
visually and physically and ensuring that it is sturdy
enough for vigorous play (fig. 4.18). The
construction is painted in de Stijl colors of blue,
white, yellow and red. The resemblance to a
Mondrian painting goes further than just the theater
and extends to the backdrop and scenery as well as to
the abstracted puppet block forms. These wooden
blocks are circular, square, and triangular and painted
in the primary colors. The front door is featured as the red square that can be raised and
lowered, with a traditional reference to the red curtains of a theater.
Fig. 4.19. Puppentheater [Puppet
theater] design circa 1924
reproduction 1997. Painted wood.
48 x 58 x 45 cm. Deutsches Schloss
Beschlägemuseum Velbert. ©
Artists Rights Society (ARS), New
York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
Fig. 4.18. Puppet theater
[Puppettheater] design circa 1924.
Reproduction 1997. Painted wood.
48 x 58 x 45 cm. Deutsches Schloss
Beschlägemuseum Velbert. © 2010
Artists Rights Society (ARS), New
York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
142
Fig. 4.19. Paper toy crane [Bastelbogen Krahn]
circa 1925. Color lithograph book print. 80 mm x
22mm. Reproduction from collection of the
author. © 2010 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New
York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
An undated letter from “Karl” (Carl Schlemmer?)109
described the designs of the
puppet theater and possible solutions to a design problem Buscher was trying to work out
regarding how the front and back doors would close. Karl also compliments her toy
blocks, saying that he thought they were “brilliantly thought out and am convinced they
will be popular” (Siebenbrodt, 2004, p. 54).110
Apparently, she sent him some sketches
to critique because he offers two possible modifications for the doors opening on the left
and right sides without having the trim of the wooden closure stick out and ruin the
proportion and lines of the piece.
Paper Toys: Mechanical Crane and Sailboat [Bastelbogen] c. 1925
Buscher designed a sailboat and a
mechanical crane out of thick paper that
was to be cut out and assembled, like a
paper doll (figs. 4.19-22). The use of paper
was one that was popular at the Bauhaus
Vorkurs, when taught by Lazlo Moholy-
Nagy and Josef Albers (Schmitz, 2000).
The constant shortage of materials and
funding made the Vorkurs an ideal place to
introduce students to ordinary materials and
their possibilities. Moholy-Nagy and Albers both assigned students to create sculptures
109
Carl Schlemmer was the brother of Oskar Schlemmer who was the master of the theater workshop. Carl
is a controversial figure because he was dismissed from the Bauhaus for insubordination. He was a
workshop leader in the wall painting workshop but went against Gropius (Whitford, 1984). 110
Translation by Svenja Menschig.
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
143
Fig. 4.21. Paper sailboat [Bastelbogen Segelboot] circa 1925. Color
lithograph book print. 80mm x 22mm. Reproduction from collection of the
author. © 2010 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst,
Bonn.
Fig. 4.20. Assembled Paper toy crane. Color lithograph.
19.05cm x 10.48cm x 23.18cm. Reproduction from
collection of the author. © 2010 Artists Rights Society
(ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
out of paper, believing that this
engaged students with the strong,
abstracted forms of positive and
negative space using the tensile
strength of paper.
The long tradition of paper
dolls is the historical reference for
Buscher. She designed the sail
boat (1926) and the mechanical
crane (1927) to be free-standing
units that could stimulate the child
to assemble and build. These
paper models would open up the imagination to the possibilities of what a crane could lift
and its operation. Both
the mechanical crane and
building blocks have been
manufactured through
Walther König printing
company since 1997
(Siebenbrodt, 2004). The
Otto Maier Publishing
Company [Verlag] in
Texas Tech University, Amanda Boyaki, May 2010
144
Fig. 4.22. Assembled Bastelbogen Segelboot
[Paper sailboat]. Color lithograph. 21.59cm x
6.35cm x 21.59cm. Reproduction from collection
of the author. © 2010 Artists Rights Society
(ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
Ravensburg, the original firm, was to have printed her crane and sailboat as well as her
guides to painting. Sadly, it went out of business before production could commence
(Will, 1998).
The crane and ship were designed to go to together as is illustrated on the cover of
the crane (fig. 4.19). The ship is featured
to the right of the crane. It is lowering
cargo into the ship and drawn from
perspective of the back of the ship. Both
the crane and the ship require a straight
edge, a pencil and glue. With the
exception of the ship‟s sail, each element
of the ship and crane has a double layer
of card stock for strength, designed as
side A and B. The double paper also
allows for a clean line, hiding the
connections. In its assembly Buscher
calls for a pencil that paper would be wrapped around to form the tapered mast.
However, a dowel would be preferable since the standard pencil is too short for accuracy.
The crane requires additional parts that are not included in the kit: some sort of string or
cable and more wooden dowels or tubes for the wheels of the crane. The crane‟s boom
rotates and it will also retract and unwind the string as a functioning cable.