Pre-reading Discussion

1. Do you agree with the following statement: “the question of colouration is an aspect of urban planning”?

2. Why do you think different epochs use different colours?

3. How can colour express an architect’s mood?

The debate about the use of colour in building has a long and motley history. At the beginning of the 20th

century, with the shift of focus from individual buildings to housing as part of an urban context, the question of

coloration was increasingly regarded as an aspect of urban planning, it therewith assumed a political dimension

as well. In architectural discussions at that time, colour was more than just an aesthetic consideration; it revealed

an architect's philosophy of life and perception of his role.

Colour has always been used as an aesthetic argument in social discourse, as the present essay seeks to

show; and in architecture, colour concepts are usually directly related to social and political ideas. As early as Fritz Schumacher recognised that it is extremely difficult to add colour to a building if the coloration has

not formed part of the overall planning from the outset. The architectural critic Adolf Behne, who cited the example

of Bruno Taut’s Falkenberg Garden City in Berlin, defined the role played by colour in building.

Behne argued that coloration was used in that scheme to lend expression to different house types, thereby creating

a sense of orientation and identification among residents. In other words, it helped to overcome the danger

of uniformity. In this "paint-box estate", as it was called, Taut juxtaposed brilliant white surfaces with facades

in red and olive-green, in blue and yellow-brown.

Behne's arguments were often polemical, and he played colour off against white. But there was also a scientific,

objective approach to the subject, as the systematic preparation of a colour manual shortly before the

After the war, however, the discussion between advocates of pure white architecture

and those in favour of coloration became increasingly polarised. Through its identification with images of

cleanliness and purity, white became the preferred colour of the conservative middle classes. It was associated

with marble and classical antiquity, and thus evoked qualities like intelligence and education; but it was also

identified with an adopted style, the "tyranny of a cultured foreign form". Writing in "Bauwelt", Behne

argued that the educated bourgeois art lover feared that colour was not noble enough: "White and pearl grey are

noble. Blue is commonplace. Red is gaudy. Green is harsh.... Colourlessness, on the other hand, is a token of

refinement; white is comparable to the colour of European skin."

Behne, Taut and Gropius advocated colour as an expression of a social, indeed

socialist, Utopia, as a manifestation of individuality, joie de vivre and internationalism. The notion that

colour might be a substitute for ornament - cheap decoration for the masses - receded behind these psychological

implications.

The Dutch architects and artists of the De Stijl group were less concerned with aspects of social reform associated

with colour. They were far more interested in applying it in the service of Utopian goals. Mondrian

declared that painting detached from architectural construction (i.e. panel painting) had no further justification.

The concept of the equality of architectural surfaces that was so important to De Stijl architects led to

the abandonment of the formal idea of a main facade. The combination of white with both bold and subdued

colours, as employed by Taut in his early garden city project, was also a feature of many Bauhaus buildings. In

Weimar, at a time when Gropius and Taut were advocating "colour in building", its use was possible only internally.

In Dessau, in contrast, it was used both internally and externally. Today, the refurbished master houses

provide proof of the lively and varied coloration implemented at that time. A comparison with the Weissenhof

Estate demonstrates that the shift to a white aesthetic and the dictum of a "white Modern Movement" are more

closely linked with Mies van der Rohe than with the Bauhaus in general. Mies wanted an off-white coloration

for Weissenhof, but not all the architects followed his wishes. Le Corbusier, for example, gave detailed instructions

for the use of colour in his buildings. His subtle coloration may also be found in the interior of the Villa

La Roche in Paris. Nevertheless, the overall impression one has of Weissenhof is of a white estate. This, combined

with the flat-roofed form of construction, led to the name "Little Jerusalem" which was applied to this

scheme in hostile right-wing and anti-Semitic circles. To what extent brown and beige dominated the scene in

Germany in the years of Nazi rule can be seen in Konrad Gatz's large work "Farbe und malerischer Schmuck

am Bau", published in Munich. The book shows that colour design was also of great importance under

the National Socialists. Not surprisingly, a reversal took place after the Second World War, when white was

again identified with modernity. The exhibition "The International Style", organised in America by Henry-

Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson, had an enormous influence on attitudes towards coloration. Although

Hitchcock and Johnson drew a distinction between the coloured and white phases of the Modern

Movement, they clearly felt no great attraction to colour.

In the 1950s, after the years of "brown" politics, the identification of white with purity came to assume an

important role again. In the early years of the economic recovery and reconstruction of Germany after the war,

there was also a new awareness of the significance of colour. Heinz Loffelhardt's book "Wie Wohnen", published

in 1949, discusses colour in and around the house, making reference to America, which by that time was

seen as a model of progress. Loffelhardt's work, which is typical of the spate of literature on this subject in the

post-war years, pleads for more coloration. The 1950s were, indeed, distinguished by a large number of coloured

facades and the use of many different materials in building. On the other hand, the refined quality of

white modernism had lost none of its old attraction. Max Bill, a pupil of the Bauhaus in its last phase and the

founding rector of the University for Design in Jim, was regarded as a moral authority in questions of style in

the young Federal Republic of Germany. He believed that colour had no place in architecture. Just as Henry

Ford thought a car could have any colour, as long as it was black, so Bill was in favour of all colours - as long

as they were white.

In the 1950s, therefore, the polarity between the refinement of white and the cheapness of coloration that

had emerged in the 20s reappeared. From the post-war years down to the present days, advertising and commercial

interests have done little to advance the cause of colour. A slogan by facade designer Friedrich Ernst

von Garnier may be cited as a case in point: “Friendly colours for a world that is becoming increasingly hard.”

The use of colour in buildings therewith reduced to a mere finishing coat applied for the sake of harmony, as

Ulrich Conrads remarked. The return to the coloration in architecture during the period of pop art and postmodernism

was loud and clear. People were shocked by the pop colours used in the Markishes Viertel in Berlin in

1968, but it was still possible to relegate the scheme to the category of “coloured public housing”. The Centre

Pompidou, 1977, was a different kettle of fish altogether, a colourful freestanding structure located in the motley

grey of Paris. Although it exploited the colours of technical information systems, the Centre Pompidou was

set with signal effect in its urban surroundings. After “beton brut” and a fascination for graphic structures, it

was the new understanding of conservation - and a number of ebullient refurbishment schemes - that finally led

to the reintroduction of colour in entire streets in Germany.

Although the legendary architectural biennial of 1980 created a feeling that anything was possible, with the

increased acceptance of bold coloration and ornament, it took some years before a heightened awareness of the

use of colour in building really made it felt. In 1994, Donald Judd argued that colour is in the nature of a material.

Today, it is a topic for discussion, but hardly a matter of dispute any more. Buildings by architects like

Otto Steidle or Behnish und Partner, who have developed colour designs in collaboration with the artist Erich

Wiesner, have long rendered the old dichotomy between material and colour redundant: both may coexist in a

dialogue with each other.

New technologies and coating methods developed in recent years have allowed the use of new colours in

facade and interior design. Examples of this may be found in the work of Matthias Sauerbruch and Louisa

Hutton as well as that of Will Alsop. Rendering as an external facade finish is also experiencing something of a

renaissance. If one looks at the projects undertaken by the Viennese colour consultant Oskar Putz, who has collaborated

with a large number of architects, one sees that a rendered surface can possess a lively texture, which

can, in turn, act as a screen for coloured projections - with different daylight conditions creating constantly

changing impressions. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Megaplex cinema in Vienna, on which Oskar

Putz worked with Rudiger Lainer. The concept of cinema is illustrated through the projection of coloured light

from outside - through windowpanes of different tones - on to the internal wall opposite; and conversely

through coloured light radiating out at night. As one sees in the spatial installations of artists like Dan Flavin

and James Turret, the theoretical discussion of space versus surface has been resolved. As a result, it has been

possible to realise an idea formulated by Theo van Doesburg in 1928 and the dream of many artists; namely, to

set people within a painting instead of in front of it.