anexo 1-appendix 1

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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.”


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.


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.


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


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


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



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


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.


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


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.

anexo 1-appendix 1

Documents

childrens furniture

display cabinet

design fit

weimar period

furniture student

modular design

piece of furniture

cutout door