Following the formation of the Deutsche Werkbund movement and the subsequent establishment of high-quality materials and techniques, Muthesius argued that the movement’s work had just commenced. In his 1911 paper, Mathesius asserted that for a piece of architectural work to be complete, its form should be considered of higher importance than its purpose, materials, and technique. In 1914 at the Cologne Conference that was organized by the Werkbund Movement, Muthesius called for the introduction of standards and standardization in architecture. Meanwhile, Van de Velde had an antithesis that portrayed an artist as a creator who requires freedom to express his thoughts. In addition, Van de Velde rejected the introduction of standards because they would only choke and put restrictions on what should be expressed freely. This paper explores standards and standardization in architecture in respect to the Werkbund Movement and the subsequent Mathesius and Van de Velde’s antitheses.
According to Muthesius, standardization was meant to authenticate the quality of the materials and techniques in architecture. This approach would entail moving away from heterogeneous and unspecified conditions to the more disciplined and organized systems, which are governed by set rules and principles. Within these principles, the ‘architectonic’ sense of a nation would be incorporated into any piece of work. Muthesius’ efforts were directed towards a successful avoidance of formlessness. In addition, Muthesius’ main objective was to give form the respect it deserves and contribute towards the production of works that possess the highest sense of architectural form. According to Muthesius, this approach would translate into a cultural achievement. To Muthesius, standardization holds the key to the production of universally valid products. Therefore, universal acceptance must be the key driver in the creation and production of any product or work of art. For a product to be universally valid and popular, it should have a beneficial concentration of high-quality materials and encompass high-level technique and skill. Consequently, the Deutscher Werkbund movement had the great task of creating the preconditions that were to be met in industrial arts. Muthesius has pointed out that the Deutscher Werkbund movement was successful because it relied on the creative development stage. The creative stage is the most urgent principle in architecture and any relapse by the movement would render all the beneficial ingredients in a work of art useless.
Henry Van de Velde paints the picture of an artist who is a spontaneous creator and one who always seeks to follow his own free will. For Van de Velde, standardization only serves as a mask that covers or dignifies incapacity in an architectural firm. The artist is coerced into the acceptance and adoption of the practice of beneficial concentration for the purpose of producing universally valid products and industrial works. To Henry Van de Velde the establishment of standards and standardization in architecture as specified by Werkbund’s movement was premature. Standardization and standards would only have choked and put to waste the untapped pool of personal brilliance in the course of making art and handicrafts. The artist who works and seeks to follow set principles will always have to create only those forms that correspond to the spirit of that particular age. Furthermore, following set standards would only result in the suppression of an artist’s free will as his/her thoughts are extinguished and they cannot be expressed to reveal individuality.
Hermann Muthesius points out that there is a need for universally accepted standards that the Werkbund movement should seek to create and pursue. On the other hand, Henry Van de Velde considers the establishment of standards and standardization to be premature. According to Van de Velde, the creation of standards should only be considered about an era that allows for individuals’ self-expression in works of art. Consequently, the resulting period of endeavors would give rise to the formation of a new architectural style. While Muthesius considers this as an opportune time for the establishment of standards for export-market products, Van de Velde compares this approach to the desire of getting an effect before a cause. Van De Velde goes even further and poses a rhetorical question of whether there is an individual who would be so blinded by the need for standards and standardization just to get quick results.
The premature effects of standardization would not have the intended influence on a world market that has enjoyed the good taste of old traditions and cultures for a long time. According to Muthesius, Germany has advanced in applied arts and works of architecture and has matured because of standards and standardizations. In response to this claim, Van de Velde called these advancements gifts of the invention that an advantaged Germany possessed and that other comparatively older cultures had lost. Muthesius envisioned the German movement as an example to be used when bringing together the gains achieved through the quality of materials and when transferring these advantages to works of art. Van de Velde on the other hand saw the movement as an example that could be used in the cultivation of the existing creative elegance and the refined quality in individual manual skill.
Concerning the export of art, Hermann advocated for products that could meet export requirements. To achieve these requirements, there exists a need to design works of art with large business concerns in mind as opposed to products whose aim is to fulfill an individual’s need. In response, Van de Velde asserts that nothing has ever been created principally for the purpose of exportation. Quality work can only be created with a small group of end-users in consideration. From this narrow group, then a national and worldwide clientele body can be established. Van de Velde’s argument is that the uniqueness and quality of a product start with its commissioners’ acceptance. Van de Velde points out the mistake in designing products for the world market instead of focusing on the satisfaction of the internal needs first and then offering the same to the larger group. To support his claim, Van de Velde cites exclusive products and wonderful works of art such as Tiffany glasses and the books of Cobden-Sanderson.
After 100 years since the Werkbund movement’s exhibition conference, the argument put forth by Hermann Muthesius (that of standardization) bears the most relevance to architecture. This assertion is true considering the fact that standardization seeks to expound and bring out the issues that are in support of solving the usual problems encountered in an era that is preoccupied with the idea of mass production. In essence, the idea of mass production seeks to solve the issue of high demand in consumer products, residential facilities, and other public utilities due to the ever-growing world population. Standardization seeks to impart the aspects of uniformity, uniqueness, and ensure the production and availability of high-end products. Standards can impart to products the much sought after and universally recognized high-taste levels.