.: _
I

  
   

33333333 '.3s.q
3333.3 333

3 . I.

3333-?” .e. 3 e

333 - 3» 33'3 33333333 33 333333333333

3 . I w ..

333 33”
333.333 33‘3I3 3333333333 3
I 3”1 3 Hhflmfi ' ...
'3 3.3.3333

3"33 3w 33'. 3

     

w...—

33333 3
I

 

___. ._J"=_._.._-' —~.~=’
. .

   

 

...

'.—.—.0—4x
.- .5.

333
33 :3 333 333333 I
333331333333333. .3 333 3'3.

 

  
 
   

     
  
     
     
 

 

   
 

 

3.. 3 33.3 , ‘33:»

3335333333"; H '33; W 3.3333333“ 3333‘

333'1"..I(-3.3 3 333II33 3'. 3

ry$flrbq 3 33 “fl; 3 333MHW§VW IHfl 3L

3% ‘ wmflhw 33333 333333333333333 36331

I3W$3333iuhw3wWWI%HH%3333 3 333W3H333

3131:;1‘3323313333l 3333333333333333333333333333.3333333333333 3333 33333 333 I! 3333

. 75133333933333" 3.333335313332333!33333333 3333333533 3333’ 33 3 33

n 3 33333333333333333333JI33$33333331333333333333333333133‘33 3 33333.3 33 3333
II’I’3I‘I'I? 3-1.3?333333333333333.3. 3333 33333333? H3333 3f 33 333333 3333
33 3 3'33 33 3333333 333333 333 33:23.3: 3533‘ 33333.3 33 33 3

'3' 3333:3333’3' 3 333 3 3;: 33333333333133 33333333: 33 3‘“ 3333333

.3 33:33:" Iewwe. III
I3
'33333' 3 33333" I""33“‘3
:3 III 33“333333333333I I3 33 "‘w

W3W333m m3 fiWfi¢MfihW3hv ”3.3%

2 ;. 33 3343 3.33333 33; 33333333313413 33II3 333333)

. I 3331333; 333313 33' 33 3133333333333113 3333 33“
I I33 33330 I333 3"..‘1‘2‘233113333; (333333331339

.I3333 33 333 33333331.! 333333333 3333 I32 3333333 33333 333333333333 333333

I 3 3333333 ;;; 3 3
3333 333 33333
13‘ :13} .I1 I!

33 . 333;. 133
33333 '31

33333. 3 333m
33; 3‘333 “333333 33333

333 3333333: 3 3333

 

 

          
  
  

2“.
m.—:
—-— ‘

333‘
333.3 333333"
33333333 2333333 I333. 3333
1|; {‘1

3333 I

E

33h ku

......

THESIS

Date

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A STUDY OF RUDOLF STEINER'S
FIRST GOETHEANUM

presented by

Bernadette (Becky) Schwartz

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master _Q_f__Ar_tS__degree in iii—W53 Art

Q

 

7“ Major professor

1 August 1983 Eldon VanLiere

 

0-7639

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

)V1531_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LJBRARJES remove this checkout from
Ail-(SIHIL your record. FINES will

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

9&—

w:

1
a

 

.1.

pm me (WU

 

 

 

 

A STUDY OF RUDOLF STEINER'S FIRST GOETHEANUM

BY

Bernadette (Becky) Schwarz

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Art

1983

ABSTRACT

A Study of Rudolf Steiner's First Goetheanum

BY

Bernadette (Becky) Schwarz

The First Goetheanum, a double-domed structure near
Basel, Switzerland, was an architectural expression of Rudolf
Steiner, an Austrian scientist, mystic and educator. Begun in
1914, it was destroyed by arson in 1923.

Steiner edited the works of Goethe, and lectured in the
Theosophical Society of Germany prior to breaking from that
group to form the Anthroposophical Society in 1912. In 1914,
‘with architectural assistance, he designed for his followers
a meeting place, the Goetheanum. Steiner's artistic style
drew from Goethe's writings on metamorphosis.

My examination of this building, and its charismatic
creator, focuses on their art historical context. Steiner's
theories remain a mystery to me; I question why the
Goetheanum was ignored by the art critics of its day despite
its standing in the heart of western Europe. I have sought to
link Steiner's architectural style with the artistic modes of
his contemporaries. Finally, I have attempted to clarify the
intended relationship between Steiner's spiritualism and the

future of architecture.

To Papa...
who taught me to live...
to learn...

to love...

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the
members of my thesis committee, Drs. Webster Smith, Fred
Graham, and especially [mu Eldon vanLiere for his patience,
encouragement and insight as well as for his friendship.

I appreciate greatly Andrea Schwarz's multi-lingual
translations. A special debt of gratitude is owed to my
husband Tom, my son Gabriel, and to Mary and Dick Schneider
fior their constant support in a multitude of circumstances.
Thanks is also due to Nina for her "soul support", and in
particular, I would like to thank Eileen, without whose way
with words and love this writing could never have been

accomplished.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O V
I NTRODUCT I ON 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 1
Chapter
I. RUDOLF STEINER:

BIOGRAPHY, AESTHETICS, AND THE

DEVELOPMENT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY. . . . . . . 9

II. STEINER'S RELATIONSHIP
TO GOETHE O O O O O O O O O O O O O 19

III. THE BUILDING OF THE FIRST GOETHEANUM . . . . 23
IV. THE INTERIOR OF THE FIRST GOETHEANUM . . . . 53

V. STEINER'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL MILIEU OF HIS TIME . . . . . 75

CONCLUSION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 90
NOTES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 93

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O I O O O O O O O O O 99

iv

Figure

11.
12.
l3.
14.
15.
l6.

l7.

18.

LIST OF FIGURES

Aerial view of First Goetheanum

Exterior of double dome of First Goetheanum
West wing, exterior

Model sketch of Johannes Building - 1912

First Goetheanum with Boilerhouse and Glass
Studios

Design for Steiner's ellipsoid centralized
floor plan

Malsch model building at Karlsruhe, View eastward
from entrance

Double dome design by Steiner

Floor plan for double dome structure

Eurythmy performance

Drawing of Steiner's double dome for Schmid-Curtius
Pentagram analysis of Steiner's plan

Interior of Steiner's model for the First Goetheanum
First Goetheanum under construction - 1914

First Goetheanum roofing ceremony - April 1, 1914
West wing entrance to First Goetheanum

Central figure of the wooden sculpture "The
Representative of Humanity"

Full frontal View of sculpture grouping

V

19.

20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.

28.

Skull drawing by Rudolf Steiner

Schematic expression of Earth Will and the forces
of Life

Wood carving of capitals

Capitals and architraves in the large rotunda
Capital of the sixth column in the large rotunda
South terrace

Foyer and staircase

Watercolor painting in small rotunda

Watercolor painting detail

Stained glass window in First Goetheanum

vi

INTRODUCTION

131.1914, there arose above the landscape of a small
Swiss village in the Jura Mountains, a wondrous and awesome
sight: tau) domes scintillating brilliantly at dawn like twin
amorphous jewels, glowing with blinding luminescence in the
midday sun, and dulling to a forbidding grey by nightfall.
(Fig. 1) This amazing daily visual transformation dominated
the subdued countryside which lay around it with the force of
a coup d'etat, a dominion rendered all the more powerful by
its location in its submissive Swiss environs.

These two domes of unequal diameter closed in upon
themselves like shells, extending their reach as close to the
rugged terrain as their drooping eaves would permit. Like
liquid silver, the slate shingles oozed across the roofline
and overhung the edges of a large building made of several
types of carved laminated hardwoods. (Fig. 2) Because of the
constantly changing patterns of sunlight playing upon the
domical slate surface, certainly the entire structure must
have appeared to be alive, moving and fluidly organic, yet
contradictorily solid in its mass which blended with the rock
surrounding it.

The double-domed edifice, with its appendages of

anterooms and curvilinear dormers, rested on a concrete base

 

1 Aerial view of First Goetheanum

Fig.

 

Fig. 2 Exterior of double domes of First Goetheanum

set upon a plateau in the rockbound terrain outside Dornach
near Basel. (Fig. 3) This building was called the Goetheanum
and was unique in the Western world. It was the culmination
of a lifetime's work---the spiritual quest of Rudolf Steiner.

An architect neither by training nor by experience,
Steiner employed the talents of many designers and laborers
in order to create the physical embodiment of his philosophy.
Never before had he constructed any building, but his
inspiration for a center for his spiritual activities grew
steadily from his preceding career and thought. At age
fifty-three, he had finally realized the completion of the
first Goetheanum, a building which underscored the
philosophical conclusions of a man beset for most of his life
with the esoteric task of reshaping the soul sphere of
Western mankind.

My personal interest in Rudolf Steiner has its roots in
the history and heritage of my family. My father's aunt, Lina
Schwarz, was a devoted supporter of Steiner during the
initial days of his prominence in the early years of this
century. Her enthusiasm for Anthroposophy spread to several
other family members in my father's own generation. My father
himself was introduced to Steiner's ideas during his
childhood, and he continued what was to be a lifetime
fascination with the man and his philosoPhy. However, due to
:my father's inquisitive nature, he never fully accepted, but

rather was, to his deathbed, merely intrigued by Rudolf

 

Fig. 3 West wing, exterior

Steiner.

Like my father, I too am a seeker. I was raised in an
environment rich in a variety of spiritual traditions, an
awareness of AnthrOpOSOphy among them. In my travels in
Europe, I visited the Second Goetheanum. My formal studies
in art history subsequently afforded me the opportunity to
further explore the background of this structure and its
architect. As a result, I am not yet fully convinced of all
to which Steiner attested. It is, however, undeniable that
his architecture bore an ethereal quality which is not
completely explainable in rational architectural terms.

In completing a thorough investigation of the
architecture of the first Goetheanum, it would seem highly
unrealistic, if not impossible, to sever the relationships
between the building, the ideological viewpoint of the
builder, and the context of the turbulent end of the
nineteenth century. The era in which Steiner worked was
rampant with quasi—mystical sects and cults, as well as an
almost obsessive search for the great spiritual.

A sense of spiritual awakening had directly preceded the
growth of Expressionist architecture and had subsequently
deeply influenced the beginnings of the Bauhaus in
Germany.1 Despite the general acceptance of the spiritual
references made by Kandinsky in 1909, in his treatise 9935

das Geistige in der Kunst,2 (Concerning The Spiritual In

 

 

Art), the actual shift of art and architecture toward

Expressionism was gradual. However, it clearly can be noted

that some of Steiner's contemporaries in the art world sought
visual harmonies which were strikingly similar to those of
Steiner in his building design. The aesthetics of
Expressionism embodied by the Austrian architect Otto Wagner
for example, who lived and worked at the same time as Steiner
created works of architecture to simulate the soul-experience
by virtue, merely, of the intermingling of their forms in new
and expressive ways. But to claim that spirituality was
their center point stretches reality too far.

The strikingly unique element in Steiner was that the
concept of the existence of a higher world and this was a
basic and formative underpinning of all of his work, in
architecture as well as in his many other areas of study.
Although one could feasibly highlight solely his
architectural activities, one could not possibly comprehend
more than the physical details by doing so. In order to
understand the first Goetheanum, it is mandatory that the
historian comprehend Steiner's deep belief in the world of
higher knowledge, and the undeniable influence of his beliefs
upon his activities. 'Steiner...believed in a perception of
higher worlds and in the visibility of spiritual states and
circumstances behind physical reality, and he was convinced
that this transcendental realm was revealed in 'spirit
organs' in man."3

The building itself as a symbol and a medium for
mystical thought, was an inspiration given tangible form

through the unflagging energy of Rudolf Steiner and the

dauntless devotion of his followers. The first Goetheanum
rose from a wellspring of hope, from the discovery of a
"spiritual science“ in Steiner's philosophy called
Anthroposophy, which was to answer the needs and aspirations
of the twentieth century. As it was a culmination of
spiritual meaning in its lifetime, perhaps too, this building
can also be seen as a harbinger of the destruction which was
to dominate our time. For as the new century ushered in an
epoch of global violence, the first Goetheanum met own
destruction in a fire purportedly set by a hostile arsonist

on the dawn of on New Year's Day, 1923.

CHAPTER I
RUDOLF STEINER: BIOGRAPHY, AESTHETICS AND THE DEVELOPMENT

OF ANTHROPOSOPHY

Rudolf Steiner was born in Kraljevic, Hungary (now
Yugoslavia), in 1861, at a time when the European world had
been consumed by the industrial revolution, a period which
generated a surge of interest in technology and applied
science. He spent his childhood near Vienna, and from his
earliest years showed an affinity for mathematics amd
classical languages. He attended primary school at Vienna,
Wiener—Neustadt, and continued his studies at the Technical
University of Vienna, where he took courses in science and
mathematics. There, he was introduced to the writings of
Goethe by Professor Karl Julius Schroeder. Steiner's father
had wanted him to become a civil engineer and, while
following the course of study for that professor, he
supplemented his required curriculum with courses at Vienna
University in philosophy and the humanities. He was involved
in several political, educational and social circles, and met
people with diverse interests in the arts, theatre,
literature and philosophy.

It may be recalled that the city of Vienna itself had
undergone since 1858 a period of reconstruction in the
central area of the Ringstrasse. Steiner was certainly aware
of the architecture which shaped his local environment, and

the Ringstrasse comprised an extraordinary variety of

10

the Ringstrasse comprised an extraordinary variety of
architectural styles. The Neo-Gothic Rathaus by Friedrich
Schmidt, the Votivkirch, and the University of Vienna itself
(where Steiner studied) by Heinrich von Ferstel, represented
some of the many divergent motifs of the leading Historicist
architects of the day.

When Steiner designed the first Goetheanum, he addressed
in speeches his feelings that contemporary architecture did
not adequately express the nature of man. These statements
seem incompatible with his acknowledgement of Joseph Baier, a
student of Gottfried Semper, as one of his architectural
teachers.l For the theories of Semper led directly Unthe
unorthodox modern architecture of Otto Wagner, which embodied
striking similarities in outlook to Steiner's first
Goetheanum. Wagner's urge for 'contemporaneity', ”truth", and
”honesty to materials"2 were coincidental with elementscmf
Steiner's own philosophy.

By 1883, at the age of twenty-one, Steiner had been
chosen to edit Goethe's scientific writings in Weimar,
Germany. From Goethe, he absorbed the notion of the duality
of the physical and the spiritual in nature, an idea which
was to fascinate him throughout his life, and which was
represented in his architecture. By 1886, Steiner was
associating himself with the literary circles of Weimar and
by 1890, he had moved to Weimar to work at the Goethe
archives there. During the following decade, he devoted much

of his energy to formulating a "spiritual science” which he

11

carried with him into the highly regarded literary groups in
Berlin. There, he held the editorship for a periodical called

Magazin fur Literatur, from 1897 to 1900. He visited

 

Nietzsche, wrote introductions to the works of Schopenhauer
and became well versed in philosophy, as well as being active
in several philosophical, scientific and literary societies.
During these years, he also became heavily involved with the
left-wing Arbeiterbildungsschule At this time, he also
initiated an interest in the study of Theosophy.

The turn of the century in Europe had also engendered a
great deal of spiritual upheaval which carried in its wake
many cults and quasi-religious associations in response to
metaphysical aspirants in European society. The Theosophical
Society had been founded by Madame H.P. Blavatsky and had
established a theosophical library in Berlin. There, Steiner
absorbed much theosophical thought into his own expanding
spiritual consciousness. In 1902 at the age of forty-one,
Rudolf Steiner was appointed general secretary of the German
section of the Theosophical Society.

The theosophical message that Steiner adopted at the
time was expounded at length in Madame Blavatsky's book 53y

To TheOSOphy.3 The basic accomplishment of the theosophists

 

was to link East with West, binding the culture of India with
our own. Basing their methods on ancient wisdom, the
theosophists and their philosoPhy were further elucidated by

Steiner in his book Theosophie.4 The paths of knowledge were
5

 

written about by Steiner in the periodical Lucifer Gnosis.

 

12

Between 1902 and 1912, he wrote six books, numerous
articles and made over two thousand lecture appearances. His
public activities were commonly known among educated members
of German society, and his work became increasingly
recognized in the sphere of higher learning. Although the
evolution of Steiner's concept of a “spiritual science“ was
innovative, it did not arise unprecedented in a German
culture which was to produce such contemporary literary
figures as Herman Hesse and Thomas Mann, both of whom looked
to the East as a source of inspiration for Western
spirituality. Because he was born into the established
traditions of German thought and had been educated in a
thorough European scholarly awareness of philosophy,
literature, the arts and natural sciences, it is by no means
an abherration but rather a natural outcome that Steiner's
own philosophy, which he called Anthroposophy, should arise
in the time and place that it did.

By 1911, Steiner had gathered around him many followers
who were growing discontented with some elements of the
TheOSOphical Society. In the ambience of their mutual
spirituality within the Society, Steiner had developed the
first of what was to be a series of four mystery dramas.
These four plays traced the development of human destinies
which were believed to be linked through a succession of
earthly lives. They demonstrated how spiritual pilgrims who
travelled the road of self-knowledge were guided to the

threshold of the spiritual world. The dramas were entitled

13

”The Portal of Initiation" (1910); “The Probation of the
Soul” (1911); "The Guardian of the Threshold” (1912); and
"The Souls' Awakening” (1913).6 Steiner and his followers
held the View that things experienced in the present time
'were also windows upon the Middle Ages, to Ancient Egypt and
other significant civilizations. It followed that the Mystery
Dramas were considered to be Steiner's revelations of the
spirit of past epochs, presented in an art form, In time,
they were felt by his breakaway followers to contain all the
knowledge of Steiner's writings about human destiny,
presented in dramatic form.

The first of the mystery plays had been staged before
1907 within the context of the Theosophical Society. Steiner
was assisted by Marie von Sivers, who was the moving spirit
behind the early theatrical productions of what was to become
the Anthroposophical Society. Trained as an actress in St.
Petersburg, Russia, she had been about to launch her stage
career when, from a spiritual search, she encountered
Theosophy and met Rudolf Steiner. She became his devoted
co-worker and companion as well as, in 1914, his wife.‘Wm1
Sivers had translated Edward Schure's reconstruction of the
Eleusinian mystery dramas, which Steiner then edited for a
theatrical presentation. The text of this drama was then
added tn) the annual program of the TheOSOphical Society
during its Fourth Annual Congress of its European branches in
1907.

The linking of both the Theosophical Society and

l4

Steiner's eventual Anthroposophical Society with actual
artistry and with architecture was a point of great
importance to Steiner. He sought a bond with the ancient
mysteries, but even more intentionally, he intended to unite
his metaphysical philosophy with the reality of artistic
expression.

By 1911, Steiner had planned to build a twin-domed
meeting hall for his spiritual entourage to be located in
Schwabing, a suburb of Munich. Prior to the design of this
building, the early productions of the mystery dramas were
held in various theatres around Munich: Theater am
Gartnerplatz, Volkstheater, and Schauspielhaus. However,
Steiner felt a growing need for a stage beyond the ordinary
theatre provisions for his mystery dramas, ”a need for a
building in which these productions could be housed in an
atmosphere that was in harmony with their spiritual nature."7

This structure was to be named the Johannesbau,
literally John-building, a name derived from a character in
one of Steiner's mystery dramas. Steiner sought to provide a
stage for the presentations of the mystery dramas, and also a
focus for spiritual and Theosophical activities in Germany.
Steiner's architectural design included an inside meeting
room which was screened from the outside world in two ways:
through a foyer with emanating passages, and by a complex
surrounding the building which was to consist of storehouses
and homes for his followers (Fig. 4). Steiner had completed

all the plans, but local building authorities interfered with

15

the actual initiation of work on this project.

Because the man Rudolf Steiner was an extremely complex
person whose influence extended to a vast variety of areas of
life, it is impossible to examine his architectural endeavors
in isolation from his philosophical outlook. In 1912,
Steiner's involvement with the TheOSOphical Society and his
leadership of the German branch of that organization came to
an abrupt ending precisely because of ideological conflicts.
The primary objection which Steiner had with the
Theosophists, and particularly with Madame Blavatsky,
centered on the quintessential meaning for Steiner<nfthe
existence of Jesus Christ. Steiner's experience and thoughts
allowed for the influence and importance of Oriental
mysticism, much like the Theosophists, who welcomed the
meditative spirituality which sprang from Eastern sources.
But the Theosophists, with the strong influence of Blavatsky,
gave way to the Oriental outlook, to the point of accepting
the existence of the young boy Krishnamurti as an incarnation
of God Himself. This degree of openness was abhorred by
Steiner, who insisted upon the sole existence of Jesus Christ
as God's Son as the turning point of utmost importance to the
spiritual life of the Western world. It was not so much the
denia1.<xf the TheOSOphical point of view which was Steiner's
focus, but rather the affirmation of the tremendous
significance of Christianity for the cultures of the West.

This concern of Steiner's, if it is considered to be

16

 

Fig. 4 Model sketch of Johannes Building - 1912

l7

solely theological would have little bearing to the subject
of this writing. On the contrary, because Steiner felt this
concept should be embodied in material expression, it is of
utmost significance in the comprehension of the Goetheanum
building. The centering of his own spirituality in the
foundation of Christianity provided for Steiner an historical
context and an architectural heritage which was inextricably
bound to European tradition, and which afforded human)
invaluable asset in its general acceptability within the
traditional German social structure. The unique fusing of his
conceptual ideology with the corporeal presence of hns
building, both of them linked to tradition, surely must have
impressed and intrigued the general public.

In 1913, Steiner finally abandoned the Theosophical
Society to form his own Anthroposophical Society. The
movement he created derived its name from the Greek words
'Anthropos', meaning "man“, and 'Sophos", meaning "wise”; the
wisdom of mankind. In this way, Anthroposophy was to become
the study of the science of mankind. Steiner's own definition
stated that “Anthroposophy is the path of knowledge to guide
the Spiritual in the human being to the Spiritual in the
Universe. It arises as a need of the heart of the life of
feeling; and it can only be justified inasmuch as it can
satisfy this inner need.“ 8

Rudolf Steiner was a charismatic leader, a man who acted

18

in several roles toward his followers. He was, indeed,
revered by his students, and imbued with near-sainthood by
some for his achievements. Although he retained an inner
sense of modesty regarding his artistic vmnflc, he was highly
respected by many'cd his disciples 9. He himself sought
cooperation and technical assistance from architects, artists
and engineers in the construction of the first Goetheanum
building. It is, then, quite astounding that he received very
little reinforcement or support from the recognized art world
of his contemporaries.

The fact that Anthroposophy survived more successfully
than many of the cults which emerged during the period of
German Expressionism begs the question, “Why?" There were
many overwhelming pseudo-religious cults at this time which
are now extinct. The success of Anthroposophy was due largely
in) the person of Rudolf Steiner and the physical presence of
the Goetheanum. Steiner was a powerful and impressive
individual whose ideas and designs commanded a following.
"Almost apostolically, he sought to create a new order,
relating man and the world to a perception of rhythms of

time.” 10

CHAPTER II

STEINER'S RELATIONSHIP TO GOETHE

Steiner had edited the scientific writings of Goethe in

Joseph Kuerschner's Deutscher Nationalliteratur before 1888.

 

Judging from his commentaries and introductions to these
works, Steiner had no intentions of remaining objective
regarding this undertaking: he gave his unequivocal agreement
to, and support for, Goethe's approach to nature. During his
work at the Goethe Archives in Weimar, Steiner also wrote his

own studies which he entitled “Goethe als Vater einer neuen

 

Asthetiker', which he rewrote in 1909 following the influence

 

of Theosophy upon his life.

In 1897, Goethe's Weltanschaung was published by

 

Steiner, in which he again advocated a Goethean approach to
science as opposed to 'positivistic science."1 This was prior
to Steiner's interest in Theosophy, and his outlook was
considered to be ”a mixture of Goethean thought with the
romanticism of Schilling and the idealism of Lotze,"2 with
the theosophical influence appearing later.

Steiner's interest in the aesthetics of Goethe was based
on a specific choice of narrowly drawn statements fawn

selections of Goethe's Maxims and Reflections, and the essay

 

”Winckelmann." The basic thesis in Steiner's acknowledgement
of Goethe was that Goethe joined together the arts and the
natural sciences. Steiner felt drawn to the joining of the

arts and sciences in his own time. He had

19

20

discovered in Goethe a truth that works of art were produced
according to the divine necessity of true laws of nature,
exactly as works of nature are produced. For Steiner, this
was a momentous realization: the perfection of artistic
creation increased proportionally to the allowance for
natural laws to find their own expression in art. The artist
was to make real the ideas of nature, by showing what Nature
would look like were its inherent, invisible forces

3 Steiner asserted that

accessible to direct perception.
according to Goethe, "the Beautiful is a manifestation of
secret laws of nature which otherwise would have remained
hidden forever."4 On this basis Steiner felt thatan¢.was
potentially truer than nature, since it represented that
which Nature was attempting to become. Steiner claimed that a
work of art brought eternal ideas to the realm of the
physical world. Steiner attributed to Goethe the discovery
that “the beautiful is not, as (Platonic) art theory asserts,
an Idea in the form of a sensory occurence, but rather, a
sensory phenomenon in the form of an idea."5

The unity of art, religion and science was significant.
The connection with the Divine which was the legacy of the
artist was not only the opening up of self to allow the
Divine to flow into the world, but the raising of the
materials of art to the realm of the Divine. This directional

missive was the “cosmic mission of the artist.” 6

The appeal
‘which Steiner made in his essay on Goethe was a call to

artists for a new theory of aesthetics in the light of a

21

Goethean world view. With this knowledge, it is impossible to
ignore the impact which Steiner had on Kandinsky and that

artist's subsequent publication of Uber das Geistige in der

 

Kunst (Concerning the Spiritual in Art), which reflected

 

 

Goethean notions according to Steiner's interpretations. In
Steiner's view, Goethe had eliminated the Platonic dichotomy
between Nature and Art.

On August 28, 1911, Steiner spoke on Our Age and Goethe.

 

In this lecture, he stressed Goethe's relation to his own
teaching, saying that the contemplation of Goethe was the
point of departure for “spiritual science" (as he termed
Anthroposophy).7 "Much of what one may call true illumination
of our progress in the spiritual world, of our whole
spiritual science, indeed, may take as its point of departure
the contemplation of Goethe: because in Goethe everything is
sound...Goethe is to be counted among those spirits best able
to stimulate us in an Anthroposophical sense."8

Steiner referred to Goethe frequently in lectures he
gave, recalling both Faust and also Goethe's observation of
nature. Steiner felt that Goethe's endeavors awakened in
humanity a sense for the influence of the supersensible, and
it was upon this insight that he chose the name Goetheanum
for what he considered to be a building for humanity. The
principle of spiritual continuity, and its renewal through
continued searching and research, was greatly revered by
Steiner in Goethe.

Steiner's knowledge of Goethe stemmed from his having

22

edited Goethe's natural—scientific writings, his presentation
of Goethe's Faust as a part of the spiritual meetings of the
German Theosophical Society, and the subsequent lectures on
Faust which Steiner<gave annually. Already in 1884, before
his full acceptance of Theosophy, and prior to the
development of his unique Anthroposophy, Steiner had
designated Goethe and the concept of a "Goetheanum” center as
the heart of the ultimate continuity to culture which Middle
Europe of his time was destined to give to humanity. The
naming of the actual first Goetheanum building, thirty-three
years after Steiner edited Goethe's writings, did not merely
confer “honor upon a great person of the past, but designated
this building as a.working center for his spirit in the

twentieth century.'9

CHAPTER III

THE BUILDING OF THE FIRST GOETHEANUM

In the Spring of 1907, the European Section of the
Theosophical.Society, headed by Rudolf Steiner, had convened
a congress in Munich at the Tonhalle in Turkenstrasse. The
meeting hall, at Steiner's direction, was draped widrred
cloth and adorned with seven columns painted
illusionistically on boards, precedents for the eventual
seven pairs of columns in the first Goetheanum meeting room.
(Fig. 55) Each of the seven capitals of these painted columns
signified one of the planets, paired with an apocalyptic
seal. The impression of that hall on the associates of Rudolf
Steiner was great. A student asked Steiner for an
architectural motif which would incorporate TheOSOphical
symbols. Steiner drew an elliptical shape on an east-west
.axis (Fig. 6). Seven columns on either side of the axis
supported a dome in the form of a tri-axial ellipsoid,
surrounded by a roofed ambulatory, flanked by smaller
ellipsoid domes. The main dome was pierced by an elliptical
opening, the single light source of the building. Steiner
positioned this feature so that during the equinoxes of the
year, light would pinpoint a particular area of the inside of
the building.

E.A. Karl Stockmeyer built a small prototype of this
building, following the essential features of Steiner's

design, at Malsch, south of Karlsruhe, Germany, in 1908-09.

23

24

 

Fig. 5 First Goetheanum with Boilerhouse and Glass
Studios

25

 

Fig. 6 Design for Steiner's ellipsoid centralized
floor plan

26

Significant mathematical, statistical and practical problems
were encountered by Stockmeyer in this venture. The scale of
his building was very limited (to a total height of 1.74
metres), and the floor level was lowered so that one could
stand inside the building and experience the structure as a
larger space than it actually was. (Fig. 7) This small model
building Kunst have been an accurate reflection of Steiner's
architectural ideas in 1908; Steiner himself in a symbolic
gesture laid the foundation ”stone" of the model.1
During 1907, Steiner had also designed another
structure, this one featuring a double dome in place of the
center ellipsoid (Fig. 8). He eventually abandoned the
scheme, shown in Stockmeyer's model, for ellipsoid ambulatory
domes intersecting a single main dome. In the doublefdome
plan tine two main, interpenetrating domed sections were laid
out on an axis, the larger, auditorium section opening itself
to the smaller stage section (Fig. 9). This structure in two
sections, each shrouded by its own dome, was meant to serve
as the ambience for the dramatization of the four mystery
plays written by Steiner, and the conducting of eurythmic or
spiritual dance performances (Fig. 10). Steiner probably also
envisioned this building as a kind of spiritual center or
university, where the spiritual dimension of life could be
exercised and developed in many forms under his guidance.
Steiner's design which evolved into the first Goetheanum

was bi-partite, with the two intersecting circular spaces

27

 

Fig. 7 Malsch model building at Karlsruhe, view

eastward from entrance

28

 

Fig. 8 Double dome design by Steiner

29

 

Fig. 9 Floor plan for double dome structure

30

 

Fig. 10 Eurythmy performance

31

differing in size, one larger and one smaller, as already
seen in Figure 9. Both were designated by Steiner to have
equal importance in much the same way as the chancel and the
congregation in Christian churches are counterparts nocxm:

2 The difference in dimension indicated the greater

another.
conscious preoccupation in most people with the physical as
opposed to the spiritual.

It was this concept of a double-domed church-like
structure that Steiner presented to the architect Carl
Schmid-Curtius. (Fig. 11) Schmid-Curtius had been the
architect of the Stuttgart branch of the Theosophical
Society, and already in 1911, had built a model of
Stockmeyer's prototype discussed previously. It must be
recalled that in 1911, Steiner's affiliation with the
Theosophists was still active, and that he and Schmid-Curtius
had shared a spiritual affinity with one another,inuflJ.the
formation of the Anthroposophical Society. Schmid-Curtius
followed Steiner's charismatic lead when the Theosophical
Society turned its attention more and more to the East, while
Steiner insisted that the West needed to deepen its roots in
Western spirituality, and specifically, in Christianity.

Schmid-Curtius worked on a geometrical construction plan
to fulfill Steiner's designations. ”The points of
intersection and the radii of the two circles, as well as the
course of the inner circle of columns, were worked out on the

u 3

basis of a pentagram construction. (Fig. 12) It has been

deemed more than mere coincidence that these divisions

32

 

Fig. 11 Drawing of Steiner's double dome for
Schmid-Curtius

33

 

Fig. 12 Pentagram analysis of Steiner's plan

34

fell into the ratio of the Golden Section.4 Steiner also set
the absolute distance of a line between the center of the
auditorium and the center of the stage at twenty-one metres,
the identical number thought to be the length of King
Solomon's temple.5

On February 3, 1913, Steiner convened the first official
meeting of the AnthropOSOphical Society. On May 15-16 of that
year, Steiner went to Switzerland to inspect a building site
at Dornach near Basel, which had been made available byia
friend there, for the erection of a central building for the
.Anthroposophical Movement. A Swiss affiliate of Steiner's,
Dr. Emil Grosheintz, had donated the land in the midst of the
Jura Mountains overlooking Switzerland, Germany and France.

In the summer of 1913, on the hill at Dornach, there had
stood just one private residence, the House Brodbeck, where
Steiner had established living quarters for himself on the
first floor. There he created his first plasticine model of
the Goetheanum building itself. (Fig. 13) Also during that
summer, the first entering roads to the site were
constructed.

On September 30, 1913, at 6:00 p.m., the foundation
stone for the first Goetheanum was laid in a cylindrical pit,
accessible by nine steps. The foundation stone consisted of
two interpenetrating pentagonduodecahedrons, a larger and a
smaller'cnua, formed out of cepper. This form was placed

directly under the spot where the speaker's desk would

35

 

Fig. 13 Interior of Steiner's model for the First
Goetheanum

36

eventually stand in the finished building, ”from which the
word would pass out to human beings within the great domed

hall."6

It was put into the ground so that the larger
pentagonduodecahedron pointed toward the East, the smaller
toward the West, interchanging the eventual arrangement of
the building itself, which was to have the smaller dome on
the East end, the larger on the West. Within the stone was
enclosed an original document of information indicating the
day, the cosmic constellation of the hour, '...on the
twentieth day of September, 1880, after the Mysteryiof
Golgotha, that is, 1913 after the birth of Christ, when
Merkurius as the evening star stood in Libra..."7

At the beginning of the ceremony, Steiner invoked the
spiritual “hierarchies”, to be "protectors and guides” in the
dedication. He said, "...as a symbol of the human soul, which
is dedicated to our great work, we have formed this stone. It
is a symbol to us in its double-twelve form, of the striving
human soul enclosed as microcosm within the macrocosm,
anthropos, the human being, as he is guided here by Beings of
the divine---spiritual Hierarchies. Thus this foundation
stone of ours is a symbol of our own souls which we
incorporate into that which we consider to be the right
spiritual striving for the present time. Thus, we shall sink
this stone, which is formed in accordance with the cosmic
picture of the human soul, into the kingdom of the

elements."8

Following the completion of the roadways, an enormous

37

machirua tool shop called the "Schreinerei" was built. It was
a wooden structure intended as a temporary site for
materials, but which remained and was later used for lectures
and artistic events. During the construction of the first
Goetheanum, the Schreinerei was a depository for the
tremendous stores of lumber needed in construction. The
artisans who worked at the building numbered between 150 and
200, between the Fall of 1913 and Spring of 1914.

It is undeniable that in its time the Goetheanum, begun
in 1912, was idiosyncratic, original, eccentric. The only
contemporary structure which equalled it in size was the
Centenary Hall (1910—12) built of reinforced concrete by Max
Berg in Breslau, Poland. The vast interior space of that
meeting place consisted of a central circular area with four
radiating apses, a dome with four apsial semi-domes, the
fourth of which was coincidentally a theatre. In contrast to
the Centenary Hall, the first Goetheanum building designed by
Steiner was constructed completely of carved wood, founded on
a huge concrete substructure. (Fig. 14) That Steiner chose
wood to construct his first Goetheanum was evidence of his
personal affinity for nature and for organic elements. Wood
was a material of tradition, a living material; it came from
the earth and eventually returned to dust. It.was the
antithesis of modern, industrialized, anti-organic society.
The cfiuaice of a variety of hardwoods and slate for the first
Goetheanum was in itself a forthright statement by Steiner, a

declaration of the timeless nature he wanted his building to

38

 

Fig. 14 First Goetheanum under construction - 1914

39

have. How much greater, then, the pitiful irony of its
untimely demise!

The Goetheanum's tremendous size measured 272 feet in
length, 243 feet in width at the widest point, with a height
(If 111 feet at the peak of the larger dome. The dimension of
its inner area measured 65,000 cubic meters. (Fig. 15) The
axial plan was oriented from East to West, and contained two
circular rooms, an auditorium and a stage, covered by
intersecting domes of two sizes, the larger of which covered
the seating space, and the smaller of which covered the
stage. Emerging from the larger central area were three
smaller hooded semi-domes which covered the entranceways
(Fig. 16).

The large section which was to accommodate the audience
was to embody a sense of "the physical“, while the smaller

9 Steiner's

was to express the 'spiritual-supersensory'.
architectural aim was to represent the union of form and
function. This was accomplished by, among other means, the
interaction of the twin domes which expressed dualities such
as actor-audience and speaker-listener.lo

laistorically, the contrasting forms of the longitudinal
and centralized plans have both served the need of providing
a large interior space for spiritual functions. One of the
notable historical gathering places in Greece was the square
centralized plan of the Telesterion designed by Iktinos for

the production of Mystery Dramas in Eleusis near Athens in

the Fifth Century B.C. During the course of Christianity,

40

 

Fig. 15 First Goetheanum roofing ceremony
April 1, 1914

41

 

Fig. 16 West wing entrance to First Goetheanum

42

both the longitudinal and centralized forms provided the
media for much, if not all, religious architecture, with the
longitudinal basilica format leading the participant inn)
active motion proceeding toward the altar, and the rotunda
plan having the effect of quietude by its centering. There
seem to be undeniable correlations between the altar in
Christian churches and the speaker's rostrum (both sources
for the Word), the crucifix and the sculptural grouping, as
well as the Mass itself and Steiner's dramatic enactments. In
Steiner's estimation, the double-domed building could only
generate a ”new experience of freedom in spatial perception,
which is generated when the rotunda and cupola effect is
brought into a fluctuating equilibrium with the longitudinal

"11 The reason for this assessment was that the

axis effect.
person who participated in such a building could be drawn
from the entranceway forward, toward a sculptural grouping to
be located at the far end of the second, smaller rotunda and
thus to the words spoken from the speaker's rostrum. Or, he
could maintain the restful, harmonious stance of being
integrated into the first circular cupola. The visitor could
choose for himself which experience he wanted to receive, and
thus confirm the effect of flexibility and spatial freedom in
the buidling.

It is also significant to note that the double—dome
construction carried with it an Eastern flavor which was

congruent with the influence of Theosophy in Steiner's

philosophical outlook. The dome was a much more prevalent

43

feature of Eastern architecture, and certainly the turning of
the Theosophists toward the East for their inspirathmm
awakened in Steiner a new consciousness of that form.

As for a precedent for twin domes of unequal radii, the
precursor is not quite as apparent. However, since the
central focal point in the history of the Cosmos was Christ,
in Anthroposophical terms, it can be recognized that looking
toward the non-Christian East alone would not suffice for
Steiner. In examining Christian precedents for this abberant
design, it behooves the author to consider the Church of
Hagia Sophia in Constantinople with its single dome
intersected by two horseshoe half-domes. Perhaps even more
significant was the design for the original Church of the
Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which was purported by Eusebius
in the Third Century to consist of two domes of unequal
dimension linked by a long narrow basilica. I find it
unusually coincidental that the smaller of the twin domes in
this church was to enshrine the actual tomb of Christ, while
the larger was to be a meeting hall for the gathering of the
faithful. It is fascinating to note that the numbers of
colunuus in the Holy Sepulchre rotundas matched exactly those
numbers chosen ”intuitively” by Steiner.12

Steiner's terminology for the two distinct aspects of
being was that of two principles which were in tension with
one another. He named them Ahriman and Lucifer. The Ahrimanic
principle was named for the Zoroastrian god of darkness and

stood for that aspect of self which was closed. The

44

Luciferian principle named for Lucifer was the symbol of
openness. These two contrasting principles which represented
the polarities in human nature were to be reconciled in the
symbolism of the first Goetheanum and the point of
reconciliation in Steiner's scheme was the figure of Christ
as "The Representative of Humanity”. It was for this purpose
that Steiner himself eventually modelled from plasticine and
then carved from elm wood an over-life-sized (nine meters
high) sculptured group consisting of the three figures,
Christ, Lucifer and Ahriman. (Fig. 17)

The sculpture, which was to create equilibrium between
the two poles of man's nature, combined the talents of Edith
Maryon, an anthroposophical sculptor. The figure of Christ
lifts its left hand, while the right hand points downward.
(Fig. 18) Lucifer, at Christ's right hand, surges upwanfl,
while at Christ's left hand, Ahriman reaches toward the
ground. Lucifer represents desire while Ahriman embodied
intellect. The lines of the sculpture flow in asymmetrical
concavities, extended and cramped forms. Because this piece
was unfinished and housed in a nearby sculpture workshop at
the time when the first Goetheanum was destroyed by fire, it
was spared destruction, and now stands in the second
Goetheanum building.

Steiner's choice of the twin dome for his building
according to anthroposophical writers was derived from his
subliminal consciousness. Although his preparatory drawings

are rough, it is apparent that one interpretation of the

45

 

Fig. 17 Central figure of the wooden sculpture
"The Representative of Humanity

46

 

Fig. 18 Full frontal view of sculpture grouping

47

interpenetrating circles is the outline of a skull. (Fig. 19)
This idea gains credence when it is complemented by Steiner's
sketch of his comprehension of man's position in the
universe, which includes the force of the "earth-will” (Fig.
20), which he deemed to emanate from within the earth out
into the expanses of cosmic space. He professed that there
were not merely physical but also spiritual forces which
permeate the body of man when he attains an upright position.
Since we are born with no ability to control our bodies, we
are confined to a horizontal positionq lurt as we become
erect, we join in the direction of the Earth-Will. In
opposition to the forces of the Earth-Will are the forces of
the Moon-Will which, in Steiner's estimation, at one thma
worked outward from the moon, and which, in the process of
evolution caused the hardening of the bones of the skull. The
diagrammatic explanation which Steiner gives for these forces
bears a striking resemblance to the eventual design of the
first Goetheanum.13

In addition, Steiner himself linked the explanation of
these cosmic forces to his architecture when he referred, in
the same lecture, to the densification of the body as we
become upright. As man passed through seven life periods
(ages one to seven, seven to fourteen, etc.), new lines were
supposedly formed within the body, indicating the different
forces which passed through the body. These lines were called
pillars, and they were added in pair every seventh year in a

person's life. The different pillar formations

48

 

Fig. 19 Skull drawing by Rudolf Steiner

49

 

'Fig. 20 Schematic expression of Earth Will and the
forces of Life

50

within man which developed over the passage of his life every
seven years were to bear his skull. Steiner then said, "When
we have understood this, we shall have a living conception of
the larger section of our building. We enter at the West and
say to ourselves: 'up to the first pair of pillars we see how
man develops in the first seven years of his life; the second
pair of pillars denotes his development to his fourteenth
year; then on to the twenty-first year and so on. And the
etheric sheath of the head is always around us. Man the
living being is poured out into the forms AS AN ETHERIC
BEING."'l4

The intention of the building was expressed by Steiner
when he stated, “We should feel the walls as the living
negative of the words that are spoken and the deeds that are

15 It is evident in this quotation that

done in the building.“
Steiner as architect was inseparable from Steiner as
philosopher, and consequently that this building was
constructed solely for the purpose of edifying the cult and
<culture of the Anthroposophical movement. The architectural
and design qualities which were chosen by Steiner for the
Goetheanum are intimately linked with the activities for
which the building was intended.

For Steiner, art held great significance beyond its mere
physical presence. He stated that "...art is born from the

depths of man's being..." and continued by saying that it was

the development of clairvoyance which could lead man to the

51

16 In this regard art was

realm beyond the sensory world.
given a spiritual significance and a link with the divine
which was articulated and definite.

By the first of April, 1914, the two domes were
enclosed, and a roofing festival was held. Also on April
first, Steiner himself had moved to “House Hansi', another
construction based on Steiner's architectural and spiritual
ideals, on the grounds, and had begun to work in a studio
attached to the Schreinerei. It was there that he began the
modelling of his greater-than-life-size statue of Christ
between Lucifer and Ahriman. Construction work on the
Goetheanum building up to this point was directed by the
architect Dr. Schmid-Curtius. There appears to have been a
philosophical rift between Steiner and Schmid-Curtius at this
time, which caused a dissolution in their relationship, and
precipitated an ending to Schmid-Curtius' further
participation in the construction of the first Goetheanum.
The differences between the two men were never elaborated in
any text which I have read. Without explanation, it was
written only that in Spring, 1914, Schmid-Curtius transferred
his authority to a group of architects of whom Ernst
Aisenpreis and Herman Ranzenberger remained connected with
the building. The follow-through on the construction was done
by Aisenpreis, who also supervised the construction of the
second Goetheanum. Included in the group of architects who
continued to work for Steiner was Albert von Baravalle. By

.July of 1914, the domes had been covered; the gray slate had

52

the effect of "sparkling brilliantly in.tflua sun, which wove
the building like a living being into the changing light
reflections of the atmosphere."17

Later, Steiner invented other ideas for geometrical
plans for his Goetheanum which would have divided the length
of the axis into two, three, four, five, seven, and twelve
equal parts. Each of these numerical divisions carried with
it its own distinct and rich mystical and symbological
content. At the same time, Steiner emphatically denied that
the Goetheanum embodied any secret mysticism whatsoever. He
maintained that the proportions of the building had simply

acted in harmony with the underlying principles of the

creative cosmic world.

CHAPTER IV

THE INTERIOR OF THE FIRST GOETHEANUM

The interior of the first Goetheanum building was both
decorated and supported by a series of oversized hand-carved
wooden columns, architraves, and capitals, which had been
carved by a number of different artists simultaneously. (Fig.
21) Each of the bases and capitals were sculpted in motifs
derived by Steiner from Goethe's morphological studies. (Fig.
22) The principle underlying Goethe's work was that basic
motifs exist in nature, and those motifs "alter their form,
according to the situation and circumstances in which they
occur."1 There were seven pairs of supports in the larger
room, which recalled ”the rhythm of human life, the epochs of
civilization and the souls of the various peoples on earth."2
In the smaller room were twelve columns with capitals,
recalling the symbols of the plants. But despite the obvious
interpretation of these phenomena, Steiner disregarded any
relationship between his design and generally accepted
symbolism.

In a scientific text of Goethe, which Steiner had edited
during his days in Weimar, there ran a quotation: '...Nature
has neither core/Nor surface/Nature is everything at once."3
Steiner felt the surface image which an object presented
could not be separated from the actual object being
signified.

This is a highly crucial point in the understanding of

53

54

 

Fig. 21 Wood carving of capitals

55

 

Fig. 22 Capitals and architraves in the large rotunda

56

Steiner and of AnthrOposophy, and of the Goetheanum. Although
it may seem arbitrary, to Steiner it was imperative U3
understand that art was a medium which could reflect the
objective and quantifiable reality of nature, and the cosmic
laws which governed nature. Steiner spoke of a ”homogeneous
world...in which the material reflects the spirit, and the
spirit is revealed in the material."4 In essence, all
elements in natural phenomena, from their tangible reality to
their intangible cosmic origins to their external symbols,
were, to Steiner, a unified whole, and could not be relegated
to the arbitrary divisions of symbols versus reality.

To be truly outstanding, a work of art must be able to
contain its merit within the experience it carries. It must
transcend all other interpretations, such as those derived
from symbolism, logic, the discovery hidden meaning and the
summation of parts,ia11 of which are as much a function of
the interpreter's subconscious as they are of the artist. In
architecture one must be able to enter into the space and
experience the artistry, grace, strength and harmony which
spring forth from its forms. Form, then, does not merely
folltnv function, but rather it serves to enhance, enrich and
nourish the person if it is to be more than merely
utilitarian.

Rudolf Steiner sought to express his own experience of
the concept of metamorphosis in the world of nature when he
built the first Goetheanum. It was not intended to be

interpreted in the wide variety of ways which art historians

57

and critics are prone to do. On the contrary, it was intended
to be aur immediate experience for those who entered into it.
Steiner was neither an architect nor a theoretician. He was a
person with an impulse to create, and specifically to
organize space in a particular way which emerged from his
inner experience of the natural world, his studies of that
world, and from his spiritual self.

The principles of natural growth expressed in the
interior of the first Goetheanum were comparable to the
stages of growth in plants, but the forms and shapes used in
its motifs were not precise plant forms copied from nature.
Instead, they resulted from the inner experience of
metamorphosis which occurred in the mind of Rudolf Steiner
(Fig. 23). From an architectural point of view, it is the
interior of the building which should be stressed in this
regard. inns interior expression of these principles appeared
to be more cohesive and encompassing than the exterior of
this first architectural undertaking. By way of contrast, the
exterior was not totally successful in its attempt at a
unified expression of the growth principle. This lack of
complete realization is exemplified by the somewhat awkward
overhanging eaves which draped the entranceways and seem to
be an afterthought added later by Steiner. The main theme of
the rounded, sculpted forms was repeated on the West, North
and South ends of the building, and this form was certainly
innovative in building architecture in the early part of this

century. (Fig. 24) Similar organic plant forms were utilized

58

 

Fig. 23 Capital of the sixth column in the large
rotunda

59

 

Fig. 24 South terrace

60

utilized by other architects of the era, including Victor
Horta in Brussels, Antonio Gaudi in Barcelona, and Antoine
Guimard in Paris.

But Steiner's interior application of organic shapes
had, as its base, a singular striking difference from the way
such shapes were enmdoyed by others at the time. It was
perhaps this foundation, which cast Rudolf Steiner into an
entirely different realm from that of his artistic amd
architectural contemporaries, and which prevented his work
from receiving much attention from the world of contemporary
art criticism for years following the construction of the
first Goetheanum. The radical difference which lay between
Steiner and any of his fello iartists of his time was the
single element of the spiritual, which he experienced deeply
in his life. The personal truth which he insisted upon, which
was rooted in his sensation of the life forces in this world,
was a deeply felt spiritual fact.

The motifs which he then chose to express his experience
were those he felt in nature rather than those he knew in
nature; his process of arriving at forms was intuitive,
rather than intellectual. His intuitiveness was exemplified
in many ways in the first Goetheanum's interior. When one
entered into the vestibule of the structure, one went into
the coat room, then turned back into the entryway before
turning left or right to ascend a staircase on either side.
(Fig. 25) This cross-circulation, which had been criticized

as congestive and overcrowding of the entry space by some,

61

 

Fig. 25 Foyer and staircase

62

was directly and pointedly intended by Steiner.

The need for neighborliness, for the connection of one
surface with another, was an integral part of the entire
building, and it began with and echoed the experience of
meeting one another for the participants. No element in the
structure could be complete in and of itself. Each needed
balance, a neighbor, a complement in the other parts of the
building, to create an inner harmony.5

For example, in the capitals of the fourteen columns
which surrounded the auditorium rotunda, Steiner began by
carving the wood in facets or faces, intending that each be
dependent upon the next to lead one around the circumference
of the column. Within each capital, beginning with the most
simple at the entranceway of the West end, the forms of
upward support and downward thrust are contrasted, echoing
the actual function of the column as an intermediary between
the floor and the dome. The balance between both upward and
downward forces was one which Steiner and we could appreciate
readily in the growth of plants in nature. The development of
this language of forms which was intended to enrich our lives
was motivated from these most basic discoveries in nature.

The forms on the lower part of the capitals move
progressively to come between the expanding forms reaching
out to them from the upper part of the capital. Gradually, in
the last of the columns toward the two intersecting rotundas,
these lower-placed forms open up, reminiscent of the

metamorphosis of a blossoming plant. Never do the forms

63

attempt to duplicate any specific plant; instead, they serve
to awaken in the viewer the echoes of his inner experience
with this growth cycle in nature.

In addition, the columns in the auditerium.space were
positioned on a sloping ground line. In order to resolve the
inconsistency'in spatial levels from the entranceway columns
to those at the intersecting midpoint of the two rotundas,
Steiner arrived at an innovative solution. He abandoned the
traditional unifying groundline which would have been a
resolution inconsistent.wdth the actual descending level of
the floor. In its place, he expanded the comparative lengths
and widths of each of the columns, so that, from the entrance
point moving around the rotunda in either direction, there
was a series of seven columns with each of these columns
being proportionately longer and thicker than the one
preceding it. This gradation in size had the intended effect
of making the viewer entirely comfortable with the sculptural
progression, although in fact, the viewer was confronted with
seven columns of different lengths and widths in one
harmonious line, the final one being forty percent larger
than the first. It was a strange contradiction which was no
cause a harmonious effect: in isolation, it would seen that
seven columns of unequal measurements in a line would be
mismatched and discomforting, but in the reality of Steiner's
design, the very opposite result was evident. The seven
columns appeared instead to be a metamorphosis of forms, each

one by itself appearing to contain and hold its forebears in

64

the progression, by virtue of its ever increasing size. Once
again, the spirit of neighborliness set the balance in
Steiner's design.

The columns which encircled the space of the stage in
the smaller rotunda expressed this sense of metamorphosis in
a bit more complicated and less clear manner. Perhaps this
was attributable to the use of corresponding, progressive
geometric forms, rather than plant forms, in this smaller
circular area. It is almost as if Rudolf Steiner, whose
concept of the spiritual so thoroughly permeated his life
experience, sensed precisely the same order in mathematics as
he did le'the botanical realm. For, on the bases of the
columns in the stage area, geometric forms were carved,
ranging from the simple triangle to the square, the pentagon,
the hexagon, and then, in descending order from that with the
most sides to the triangle again. In Steiner's View, these
were not merely a series of representational, symbolic
shapes, rich in the history with which our analyses have
imbued them. Rudolf Steiner urged us to experience as he did
the organic evolution of geometric shapes from the simplest
to the most complex, in exactly the same natural
metamorphosis as that which occurred in the life of plants
from seed to blossom. Each of the fourteen columns was
hand-carved from a different sort of wood, with a sensuously
asymmetrical carving unique to each one.

Inside the building, line was continually in motion. The

interior concaved surface of the domes was painted in bright,

65

transparent watercolors (Figs. 26, 27). These paintings were
supervised by Steiner himself, and depicted the succession of
the generations of civilization. All the epochs of history
centered upon the painted Christ figure, which dominated the
smaller dome. 6 This focal point was the direct expression of
Steiner's conviction that Christ was the turning point in the
history of civilization. It was apparent that Steiner
repeatedly stressed the significance of Christ in all of the
media in which he worked.

Steiner was apparently aware of Goethe's color theory,
and the element of translucent color was of great importance
to Steiner's building design. Stained glass windows were
intended to join the outer and inner worlds of the
Goetheanum. (Fig. 28) Each window was created of a.single
color, with all the distinct colors being utilized in various
parts of the building. The glass was designed so that each
pane had areas which were thick and thin, in order to allow
light to shine more strongly in some areas than in others. To
Steiner, this signified the "connection between spirit and

”7 When describing the windows of the first

matter.
Goetheanum, Steiner attempted to unify the arts. He used
metaphors from speech and music, saying that the windows
expressed “spiritual, musical harmony of the outer with the

inner world."8

The openings in each wall which allowed the
entrance of light and color were to admit the presence of the

Spirit.

66

 

Fig. 26 Watercolor painting in small rotunda

67

 

Fig. 27 Watercolor painting detail

68

 

 

Fig. 28 Stained glass window in First Goetheanum

69

If there were to be given any reason or rationale for
his understanding and its expression in architecture, I think
it would be that the place in which the community share its
highest thoughts and actions demanded an environment as fully
human and harmonious as possible. Rudolf Steiner created the
Goetheanum from an acute need he felt for an active spiritual
center. His intention for this entire>building was that it
should embody integration, a harmonious joining together, a
meeting of creative forces, both architecturally and
humanistically.

If one imagines the experience, though short-lived, of
the first Goetheanum, one can experience this unity. The
architecture surrounded the person, while the sculpture
created for the center of the rear of the stage in the figure
of the Representative of Humanity came forward figuratively
to meet the person. The painting in the domes above covered
the person, and the colored glass lit.the interior through
windows at one's sides. The music exuded from the organ loft
behind. Above the entranceway echoed the theatrical speech
and drama of the stage ahead. In sum, one could be fully
within the experience of the total integration of the arts.

In Steiner's thought, the hidden laws of life were
revealed through the services of the artist and the seer;
"artistic fantasy and sagacious insight point tc»a hidden
power behind them in the human soul in which they both are
cnua.”9 In his 1907 introduction to the German translation of

French Theosophist Edouard Schure's Les grands inities,

 

70

Steiner attempted to combine Goethe with Theosophy, and in
doing so, made considerable reference to psychic and
spiritual ”research" as proofs that there would be an

10

eventual synthesis of science, religion and arts. Madame

Blavatsky's Key to Theosophy also referred to visual images,

 

exemplified by her comparison of Theosophy with a ray of
white light which incorporated seven prismatic colors
symbolizing the seven religions of humankind.

The TheOSOphist viewpoint was that Light (or TheOSOphy)
equalled Truth, a Truth which had been, at times, masked by
human inadequacy, but which was present in all religions and
philosophies and even more so in the doctrines of the
initiates. It was certainly possible to extract the Truth
from its imperfect manifestations in the history of the
world, and the Theosophists believed that the evolution of
humanity had reached a turning point wherein eternal Truth
could finally be manifested. In Steiner's publication

Theosophie, and in his articles in Lucifer-Gnosis, he

 

 

expounded the theosophical position of color-mysticism. He
described how clairvoyants were able to see ”thought—forms"

and "human auras”.ll

The impressions of higher worlds
received by these seers were analagous to the colors observed
in the physical world. As viewed with the spiritual eye,
people were surrounded by a halo of light. This aura was
organized into color areas whose patterns represent the inner

aspects of each person's life. With each color was associated

a meaning: red indicated thought emitted by the sensual life;

71

yellow was linked with the intellect; blue was indicative of
spirituality.12
Steiner also linked theosophical color theory with

Goethean Taten und Leiden of light and in another series, he

 

described the three stages of initiation (Preparation,
Illumination, Initiation), with their supersensible

13 The origins of Steiner's

counterparts in colors and tones.
occult color theories are undeniably present in two earlier

theOSOphical works, Thought Forms of 1901 by Annie Besant,

 

and in C.W. Leadbeater's Man Visible and Invisible of 1902.

 

These authors find their roots in Madame Blavatsky, as they
describe the seven bodies of man, beginning with the physical
body which we share with the mineral and vegetable worlds,
the astral body shared with animals, the mental body which is
uniquely the domain of humanity, and the four higher bodies
on a spiritual plane.

Each body belonged to a plane of nature which had a
color significance from the brown tones at the base, to the
violet on the Fifth Plane of Nirvana, and ending with the
pure light of the two highest planes.l4 These theories were
to have a direct application in the color scheme of the first
Goetheanum's interior.

In the interior of Rudolf Steiner's first Goetheanum,
one was able to discover, or to rediscover, plasticity,
proportion, grace and strength. Beyond these material
qualities, it was the experience of life and light of the

Spiritual which distinguished Steiner's work in architecture

72

from any of the concurrent constructions of its time.0ften,
in his talks to his followers, Steiner would reiterate his
ideal of the union of the spiritual with the material in art,
and specifically in his own architecture, by using the words
"etheric" and “spiritual“, as well as ”living" to describe
the very walls themselves.15 Inevitably, Steiner's view of
the Goetheanum was an organic one, which forbade any
dissociation whatsoever of the spiritual from the material,
of the interior from the exterior, etc. A wall had meaning,
for instance, only when it was considered as an outgrowth of
the entire building. ”The wall is living, just like a living
organism that allows elevations and depressions to grow out

of itself. The wall lives..."l6

Once again, the language used
by Steiner conjured the plastic, sculptural qualities of the
architecture. He insisted that the interior be ”one plastic
form, a continuous relief sculpture on the capitals, plinths,
architraves. They grow out of the wall, and the wall is their
basis, their soil, without which they could not exist."17

There was a great deal of relief carving in the interior
of the first building. This carving represented the evolution
of plant and animal life, although it did not emulate
directly any motifs which can be visually attained in nature.
Instead, the motifs were merely representative of the
artist's interpretation of the continuous progression of
evolution.

There is no doubt in my mind that Steiner and his

followers were inspired by a spiritual calling, both in the

73

philOSOphy they espoused, and in the artistic expression they
chose. The difficulty in writing a scholarly text based on
these matters is the unavailability of prOper documentation,
an issue, however, which would have been quite beside the
point as far as Steiner would be concerned. His speeches were
apparently directed toward those who would listen, and listen
spellbound, not to those who would not, or could not, accept
or comprehend them. Steiner believed intensely in the
inherent organic inspiration which moved him to speak and to
create, and neither he nor his associates appeared at any
jpoint to doubt the validity of the inner spiritual nature of
the world they perceived. This is not a matter for the critic
to accept or deny; it is simply a matter to be acknowledged
and to be constantly considered when one is attempting no
understand the architectural achievement of Rudolf Steiner.
In one of his speeches to his co-workers, he openly
stated: "I did not intend to-night merely to speak of matters
which may help to make art more intelligible. I have spoken
as I have because I pray that something of what I feel may
flow from my heart to yours. I want your hearts to be
lovingly permeated with a feeling inwardly vibrant with the
sense of the holiness of this work. We dedicate this house of
labour most fitly if as we leave the doors we concentrate
with all the forces of our hearts on love for the world of
than and of spirit, to the end that the way to the Spirit may
be found through what is accomplished here...There have been

swelling places of the Gods, sanctuaries of the community,

74

and there yet will be an organ of speech for the Spirit, a
building which points out the way to the Spirit. The God
dwelt in the Greek Temple; the spirit of the community may
dwell within the Roman or Gothic edifice; but THE WORLD OF
THE SPIRIT ITSELF MUST SPEAK THROUGH THE BUILDING OF THE

FUTURE."18

CHAPTER V

STEINER'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE ARCHITECTURAL MILIEU

It has been acknowledged that Steiner's architecture was

1 The

virtually without precedent in the history of art.
origins of his buildings cannot be linked directly to any
identifiable source, and have since inspired no tradition in
the mainstream of the art world. Since Steiner himself, the
man and the architect, was adulated by his proteges as a
mentor in both the spiritual and material realms, he and he
alone appeared to be the precursor of Anthroposophical
architecture which followed his example. Nevertheless, it is
useful to construct the possible contemporary artisth:
connections which must have, to some degree, affected
Steiner's cultural development.

During the years when Steiner lived in Vienna, the
architectural milieu consisted almost entirely of old masters
of schooled historicism.2 Austrian architecture as a field
was dominated by such men as Thophil Hansen and Heinrich Von
Ferstel. Otto Wagner, who together with his followers had
designed a domed building, the Palace of Scientific
Associations for Occultism in Paris, began to teach in Vienna
in 1894 after Rudolf Steiner had moved to Weimar, so his
influence, although perhaps stylistically related, remains
only hypothetical.

The first architect to formulate the concept of the

"working together of the various arts, demanding a synthesis

75

76

<3f the arts”3 was Henry Van de Velde, in 1885. This idea was
visible in his own works and in his writings. He said in
1902: "...only'those works of which all parts are in harmony
give the impression that they are eternal and produce an
unparalleled shock to those who are ready for it. Alone
through those works we are allowed to experience eternity and
the blessing of all that is unchangeable and enjoyable."4
Architecture was often used as a framework for attempts
toward ”integration of the arts" (houses, railroad stations,
government buildings, museums, theaters, etc.). Into the same
category belonged the attempts by Rudolf Steiner in the
building of the first and second Goetheanum in Dornach.fmua
concept of an ”integration of the arts” or of a ”work of art
as a whole (a 'complete art')” had to be born from a longing
for the lost. It did not create anything new, something that
had never existed before. Rather, it emphasized the
recreation and repetition of something that had been created
previously. Whenever this concept was considered, epochs«of
the past were called to mind by Steiner: Greek cultural
buildings, the gothic cathedral, the church or castle
building of the Baroque era, etc. Whenever the question arose
for the reasons of the ”disintegration of the arts”, the
culture of the 19th Century itself seemed to be responsible.
It was obvious that the high points of ”disintegration”
happened during the 19th Century, a time of accentuated
individualism. Around the turn of the century, several

European architects tried to break away from an unidentified

77

style or a mere melange of diverse style elements. At that
time, a new style was created: the joining of traditional
”free art" and applied art with technical construction (as
exemplified by Semper).5 This development affected all the
technical aspects of design, fashion, theatre and lifestyle
as a whole. This style was considered by Steiner's followers
to be the connecting, integrating power which should have
been the basis to any expression of the time. Often unspoken,
but sometimes visibly formulated, it was the aim of the
Anthroposophists to create a new style in the arts which
succeeded in merging several major art forms. In the first
Goetheanum building, Steiner designated that in order to
achieve a 'Gesamtkunstwerk' (integrated work of art), a
specific spiritual basis was necessary to keep in mind: a
”Weltanschauung' that the building would be a place of
gatherings for a closely knit community's spiritual
experience as well as a place for the arts to flourish.
‘Therefore, in the two senses of the word, it would be a
"Kultbau”---a culture building, as well as a cult-building.6

’Even if one were a stranger to Steiner's teachings, one
conclusion would be inescapable: that certain spiritual
precepts were necessary for the creation of this
architecture. The organic nature of its appearance gave way
to an expression of some form of knowledge of the spiritual
and supernatural world. This knowledge, in Steiner's
viewpoint, was to be achieved through a planned schooling of

the intellect, through contemplation and meditation. These

78

activities would bring the disciple to the knowledge of a
higher world. The first Goetheanum was originally a gathering
center and a stage for artistic performances, but beyond that
it became the central point of a kind of anthroposophical
university.

The key to understanding Steiner's vision may
nevertheless lie in a broader comprehension of his time.
Although he may very well have envisioned himself a harbinger
of a new style in architecture, he was undeniably a product
of the western world in the late 19th and early 20th
Centuries, a time of tremendous spiritual and material
upheaval. Perhaps it is due to the shakiness of a world in
the throes of the turn of the century and on the verge of the
largest, most devastating global war to that date, that many
of Steiner's contemporaries sought some solace in new
artistic patterns which struggled against the status quo.

Certainly the Symbolists, who turned their artistic
attentions in painting toward the expression of the spiritual
world beyond visible reality, are related in their concerns
to Steiner. Their reaction toward the formlessness and the
objectivity of Impressionism, and their integration of
material from mythology, dream and fantasy, were similar to
Steiner's creation of new fluid, organic wooden forms in the
first Goetheanum, which were entirely subject to his
philosophical and spiritual outlook.

The Goetheanum also appeared to adapt some of the

elements of Cubism, which centered on the conceptscfifthe

79

shattering or penetrating of objects. Steiner had the
advantage of utilizing a three-dimensional medium in
architecture, which certainly was simpler to manipulate than
canvas, but in a sense, his building entertained the
multi-leveled planar quality which was inspired by the
Cubists. Beginning with Cezanne, the manipulation of planes
in real objects had been used to reshape a structure of form.
The Cubists altered the color breakdown of material reality
by imposing their own, mostly monochromatic, color planes on
the object. The ideas which inspired the representation of
intersecting planes spread quickly to become the primary
artistic influence on visual design in our time.

Steiner's distortion of conventional forms was anarchic
as well as organic. For example, mouldings on his Boiler
House at Dornach, which was built at the same time as the
first Goetheanum, were applied upside down, lintels in the
first Goetheanum were set at eccentric angles, roofs and
corners were rounded. The clashing of curving surfaces and
bulbous shapes with straight lines and specific angles
demonstrated a possible influence of the general tendency of
Cubism. In particular, Steiner seemed to shatter any
predictable architectural image, replacing it with his unique
forms. The first Goetheanum was an assemblage of surfaces,
from its wide concrete base to its upper story, topped by its
mushroom-lidded roof. The deep crevices and sculpted windows,
as well as the overhanging rounded cornices, represented

clearly the organic forces of nature.

80

Steiner was concurrently manipulating planes in an
architectural and a sculptural context. The sharp, twisting
movenmnrts which mesh the interior and exterior dimensions of
the buildings adds a similar intensity to that of the Cubist
tradition. Additionally, the time in which Steiner designed
and worked on his building was coexistent with the years of
the Fauves, who had rediscovered the creative impulse of
African sculpture, with its divisions into geometrical
planes. The doorways of the first Goetheanum, however
subliminally, appeared to give way to oversimplified faces,
similar in effect to the flangelike, abruptly planar faces of
African masks. In the doorways were sharply deformed
piercings which evoked strangely human features, swollen and
distorted, reduced to elemental form, and not immediately
recognizable as derivatives of nature.

The subconscious roots of Steiner's architecture were
visible, although cryptic. In his romanticism, he imbued some
forms with a symbolic content, while others remained static
in their inherent symbolism. All of his forms appeared to be
inspired by nature, and much of his sinuous lines appeared to
this author to be erotic, which would also constitute a
connection with nature. The erotic line of Steiner is similar
also to the rounded forms in the sculptures of primitive
artists, and Steiner gave some credence to this analysis when
he stated: "Many of the forms to be found in primitive art
can only be understood when we realize that they were the

outcome of the primordial clairvoyant consciousness."7

81

Steiner's deliberate relationship with the past and with
jprimitive societies was most likely intended to validate his
philos0phical outlook with the support of historical
precedence.8 But the curved line was at its roots inspired by
nature. Hector Guimard, August Endell, and Victor Horta
exhibited a similar inspiration to that of Rudolf Steiner,
with time result being an architectural rendering of forms in
nature.

The influence of Art Nouveau, and in particular, the
Jugendstil movement in Germany, upon Steiner's design is
clear: the asymmetrical nature of Art Nouveau, as well as the
emphasis on line as a force of movement, had emerged as a
European decorative style around 1892. Because of its
widespread national interpretations, I believe it is safe to
assume that Steiner's artistic awareness included the vast
influence of this style, although this contention is
repeatedly denied by Anthroposophical followers of Steiner.
My assumption is augmented by the fact that one of the most
significant characteristics of Art Nouveau is ”...the
balanced relation between ornament and surface, while at the
same time the ornament appears to fuse with the structure of
the object it ornaments. Consequently the various elements in
a design seem to flow into one another."9

The interpretation of Art Nouveau in the German and
Austrian schools had a distinctively constructive and
geometric form, and this uniquely Jugendstil characteristic

flourished during the exact years when Steiner was

82

formulating his own philosophical and architectural
principles. Because of its prominent interest in a
unification of expression, the idea of the integration of
sculptural elements into architecture was encouraged.‘This
unification was certainly attempted by Steiner in his acute
attentiveness to the details of his building. It was evident
from observation that the window mouldings, door jambs,
knobs, and keyholes were outlined by Steiner, along with
their specific symbolic reference. This attention to
integration of details in design was elucidated by an
anecdote which told of Steiner's pursuit of a triangular key
as the solely appropriate shape for the door opening of the
Goetheanum, because of its historic significance.

In addition, the Art Nouveau style influenced the

external form language of architecture.10

The shape of the
gently flattened arch which was rounded off slightly at its
base was the most often-used arch in Art Nouveau, although it
‘was not entirely new at the turn of the century. It was
precisely this arch, with its rounded edges, that Steiner
cast into three dimensionality in his first Goetheanum. The
form was reminiscent of German military helmets at the time
of World War I, with its softly rounded arch united with an
undeniable assymmetry in the mismatched twin domes of the
Goetheanum.

Asymmetry, which was a cultivated characteristic in Art

Nouveau, appeared to be absorbed into Steiner's aesthetics,

and into the foundations he relied upon in nature. Art

83

Nouveau symmetry reflected also the tendencies found in
Romanticism, the nee-Baroque, and in Japanese prints. For
Steiner these trends could only have reinforced the impulse
toward asymmetry which he had discovered for himself time and
again in nature. The Art Nouveau style accelerated a general
development which had preceded its time, and Steiner's
architecture elaborated upon the form-language and relation
of surface to decoration within that style.

The first Goetheanum can be viewed as a merging point
for architecture and sculpture, a union which had never been
fully realized in Art Nouveau. Depending upon the critic's
outlook, the building could be recognized as a curious hybrid
or a meaningful synthesis of ideas. The union of the material
with the spiritual world had been an objective of most
religious architecture throughout history; the expression of
the wordticof the divine through physical evidence had been a
motivating force in the creation of many buildings for the
purpose of worship. Steiner's eclectic blend of personal
influence with material and spiritual elements perhaps
accounted for the strikingly unique character of the
Goetheanum.

To Steiner, the erection of this building was not an end
in itself; rather, it was a means toward an end. He began
with the basic spiritual nature he felt was present in man,
and with the need to strengthen and develop that nature. The
Goetheanum was to be a sort of "spiritual workshop", where

knowledge, art and social life could together be mutually

84

enhanced. It was also to be a place for celebration of
festivals which were born out of human creativity and
profound spiritual insight. The building was founded upon a
specific philOSOphical outlook which generated human activity
based on spiritual understanding.11

It was because of this basis in an integrated spiritual
and physical life that Steiner's building was to be
considered as a sort of anti-materialist materialism. Steiner
believed strongly that the design of a building must have a
close and direct.cmniespondence to the function of that
building, to the activities it would house. inns function of
the building is then inextricably bound on one hand to its
philosophical concept, and on the other hand to the stylistic
elements chosen to express that philosophy. The stylistic
elements had to allow for both the function and the
philosophy. All that was material in this building must have
been seen as symbolic of the ”inner principle”. The shapes
and forms of the Goetheanum were shaped and carved from
material, but they pointed toward the spiritual. In this
dimension, they call to mind the temples of other great
civilizations which aspired to the spiritual of their time:
the shrines of the Greeks and the great cathedrals of Gothic
times are echoed in the spiritual sentiments of Steiner. This
intent was expressed by Steiner in the words, “We should feel
the walls as living negative of the words that are spoken and

"12

the deeds that are done in the building. Obviously, as

architect Steiner believed that the architecture and

85

environment had a powerful effect on the human beingsrflu>
entered into it. If the spaces were developed "right", they
could strongly enhance the work performed within; if they
were “wrong”, they would hinder the activities within, if
only iJi.subtle and insiduous ways not immediately noticeable
to the occupants.13

It was obvious from appearances alone, casting aside any
regard for its philosophical foundations, that the Goetheanum
represented, to a great extent, the inner mind of Rudolf
Steiner. Beyond both the practical considerations of
architecture and the aesthetic treatment of sculpture,
Steiner's own observation and intuition of life forces, which
he maintained were born out of tangible, apparent phenomena,
were the added differential in the creation of the first
Goetheanum.

The artistic future of which Steiner was such a
significant harbinger, manifested itself in the likes of Paul
Klee, Franz Marc, and Wassily Kandinsky, all of whom made
serious attempts to express the spiritual world, and
particularly musical forms, in a non-objective manner. Each
of these artists made pilgrimages in the realm of Theosophy;
each was cognizant of Steiner's writing. The subsequent
development of the Bauhaus was continually factionalized by
the countering concerns for the spiritual in art and the
technical in art. Painters Johannes Itten and Oskar Schlemmer
joined the spiritual factions and respected the alternative

disciplines of astrology, phrenology, graphology, etc. The

86

abstract artist Kandinsky utilized several of Steiner's
thoughts as a basis for his spiritual philosophical thesis on

art, Uber das Geistige in der Kunst.

 

Kandinsky had wanted to express ”Kosmos der Geistig
Wirkenden Wesen", (Cosmos of the Spiritually Influencing
Being)14 and in Steiner, he had discovered vivid portrayals
of ”Geistige Wesenheiten' (spiritual existences).15
"Steiner's descriptions depict a spiritual world where freely
floating colors and forms, detached from material objects,
reveal the feelings, ideas and thoughts of spiritual beings,
a world where the observer feels himself in the midst of the

'16 The illustrations Steiner

creative laws of the Cosmos.
included were based on just such spiritual encounters, and
were executed in anon—objective manner at least ten years
prior to the first non-objective watercolors by Kandinsky.
Kandinsky's appreciation of Steiner went beyond his
admiration for the Theosophists in general, primarily because
of Steiner's unique combination of the Theosophic gnosis with
the aesthetic tradition of Goethe and the German Romantic
painters. Steiner had stated that artistic awareness was the
key to spiritual awakening since artistic sensitivity
“penetrates through the surface of things, reaching their
secrets.”17
In Steiner's first Goetheanum, the "cosmic laws" of
Theosophy were given an aesthetic application, while the

Goethean ”laws of nature" were given a graphic expression in

the form of a combined material and spiritual vision of

87

free-flowing colors and forms. Because Steiner felt that the
world of his time was at the threshold of a new spiritual
era, he asserted that the time was ripe for higher
consciousness to become manifest in humanity. The experience
of the spiritual through material but abstract artistic
expression was to continue to be a demand of the world of the
future.

Globally, prior to World War I, nature had been of some
importance in architecture, as well as in the other visual
arts. The expansion of industry had a distinct influence on
construction. In the United States, Louis Sullivan designed
large commercial buildings and retained in their
ornamentation a decided respect for the laws of nature. He
had indicated that the construction of a skyscraper
paralleled the natural laws which governed the growth cycles
of a tree. His instincts toward observation of nature and
harmony with nature were followed by his student, Frank Lloyd
Wright.

Because of its blending of sculptural and architectural
arts, Antonio Gaudi's Casa Mila (1903-07, Barcelona, Spain)
can be considered in relation to the Goetheanum, although it
is impossible to link Gaudi and Steiner geographically.
(There is no substantiation of which I am aware, of the
knowledge of one architect by the other.) Not a straight line
‘was apparent in either the Casa Mila or the Goetheanum. The
curvaceous sculptured forms in architecture contributed

decidedly to the turmoil and activity of both structures and

88

evolved in both cases from the comprehension of the laws of
nature. Significantly, both architects utilized materials
which clearly are those of sculpture, not architecture: Gaudi
employed cut stone, marble slabs and marble fragments, as
well as glass chips for his facade and roof with sculpted
chimneys, while Steiner chose many varieties of wood for his
Goetheanum. Both architects were uniquely creative geniuses,
as well as spiritual mystics, whose inspirations and
illuminating form language traversed the boundary between
utilitarian building and artistic three-dimensional design.
The question of the distinction between architecture and
sculpture rises to importance aS‘we identify the undeniably
modelled quality of the Goetheanum.

The German 'Werkbund' Confederation of Designers and
Ckaftsmen had made its unequivocal stamp upon the future of
Western European architecture in the first decade of this
century. Peter Behrens' tendency toward classicism was
evident in the industrial halls he designed for Siemens in
Berlin. Behrens' most recognized student was Walter GrOpius,
‘who followed in the linearity which had been espoused by his
teacher. But beyond line, the startling innovative genius of
Gropius was exhibited in the design he made for his factory
known as Fagus Works, in Alfeld/Leine. In this building, and
in subsequent designs, Gropius felt a discernable urge to
utilize various materials such as glass, for purely aesthetic
purposes.

This attention paid by Gropius to the union of

89

architectural and aesthetic qualities seems to me to be
related in an intuitive sense to the architectural instinct
of Rudolf Steiner. The turn of the century was granted an
access to materials never before possible in the history of
the arts. It was by no mere coincidence then, that simpLe
function could give rise so readily to a new awareness on the
part of architects to aesthetics, and to the creative
qualities beyond structure which were yet to be imagined in
contemporary materials.

The result of industrial expansion for late 19th Century
architects was a liberation which allowed them to explore the
qualitative experiences of substances used in their work. In
France, August Perret designed buildings in reinforced
concrete. In Poland, Max Berg had utilized the same medium,
in the bold structural design of the interior of the
Centenary Hall at Breslau.

For the exhibition of the Werkbund in 1914, in Cologne,
Bruno Taut had created a glass house consisting of a concrete
base with a braced steel wall construction filled by glass
bricks and topped by a glass dome. This work was contemporary
with work of the poet and architect Paul Scheerbart, who
envisioned glass as a medium symbolizing both eternity and
the morality of the future. The history of our own century in
architecture certainly springs from such innovative efforts

in cast concrete, steel and glass.

CONCLUSION

“The Goetheanum, as a finished structure in all its
beauty, was able to speak its message to humanity only for a
few short years. The full wonder of it was revealed to but a
small group of people, although day in and day out crowds of
eager sight-seers wound up the hill, there to open their
hearts to the breath of the Spirit, in curiosity, wonder,
admiration, emotion, and-—-richer by yet another
longing---once again to wend their way back to the world of
banality. For a short span of time certain human souls had
gazed at wonderland, had been raised above themselves, while
others were seized by the forces of hatred and anger. Nobody
was left indifferent. To those, however, who had learnt to
understand the language of the forms, who had actually
moulded them from the substance of wood with all its earthy
solidity and at the same time ethereal flexibility—--to those
and to their companions in this work of regeneration, were
revealed ever deeper, ever vaster world-connections under the
mighty sweep of the architraves, between the capitals and
plinths of the columns, whose motifs stood out with sudden
boldness and novelty in the process of metamorphosis. There
they wound, in and out each other, striving organically from
primordial simplicity to complexity of form, and then back in
a decrescendo to an inwardly deepened simplicity.

”It was an architecture that developed onward like a

symphony, flowing into harmony---an architecture condensed

90

91

into earthy substance from ethereal worlds, sending forth
into space formative forces which were bound to take tuxhi of
the creative impulses of man and transmute them. The
proportions of this architecture rendered it a dream in wood,
too fair to endure, too pure not to be hated to its
destruction, yet strong enough to call the new, of like
nature with itself, into being.”1
Although Steiner is not easily cast with a particular
art historical movement, his first Goetheanum could have been
the focal expression of the tumultuous times in which it
existed, had it not been eradicated. Pathetically, and
significantly enough, the European culture which entered this
century with such potential met with nearly fatal devastation
in the ravages of World War I. The spiritual upheaval of the
latter 19th Century had given birth to much creativity in a
tremendous variety of philosophical and artistic outlets.
Rudolf Steiner and.Anthr0p050phy were products of this
explosion of creative force. Together with their dynamic
cultural and social milieu, they were destined for a fateful
destruction which seemed prophetic of the turbulent century
to follow. The burning to the ground of the first Goetheanum
building early in the morning on New Year's Day in 1923
paralleled relentlessly the shattering of European politics
and culture which resulted from the first global war.
Nevertheless, Steiner's followers doggedly persisted. A
second Goetheanum was being constructed when Rudolf Steiner'

died at Dornach on March 30, 1925. Curiously, as if in sheer

92

defiance, the second Goetheanum was constructed of cast
concrete and glass, the very materials which were ushered
into use by the Twentieth Century. It stands today on the
site of the first Goetheanum.1ike a bizarre fortress, armed

and shielded to resist, at all cost, the horrors of our time.

NOTES

NOTES
Introduction

1 Wolfgang Pehnt, Expressionist Architecture (London:
Thames and Hudson, 1973): P. 137.

2 Wassily Kandinsky, Uber das Geistige in der Kunst
(Concerning the Spiritual in Art), fifth edition, (Berne,
Switzerland, 1956), cited by Sixten Ringbom, ”Art in the
Epoch of the Great Spiritual”, Journal of the Warburg and
Courtauld Institutes, V. 29, (1966), p.388.

3

 

 

 

 

 

Pehnt, Expressionist Architecture, p. 137.

 

Chapter I
Rudolf Steiner:
Biography, Aesthetics, and the Development of Anthroposophy

l Pehnt, Expressonist Architecture, p. 137.

 

2 Peter Vergo, Art In Vienna, (Phaidon Press, London,

1975).

 

3 Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Key To Theosophy, cited by
Ringbom, “Art in the Epoch of the Great Spiritual”, p.394.

4 Rudolf Steiner, Theosophie, Einfuhrung in Ubersinnliche
Welterkenntnis und Menschenbestimmungp (first pub. Berline,
1904), cited by Ringbom, "Art in the Epoch of the Great
Spiritual", p. 394.

5 Lucifer Gnosis was published in book form as Wie
erlangt man Erkennt der Hohren Welten (1909).

6 Rex Raab, interview held during conference on
”Architecture and Human Values”, Cranbrook Academy,
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, February, 1983.

7 Johannes Hemleben, Rudolf Steiner: A Documentary
B'ography. (East Grinstead, Sussex, England: Henry Goulden
Ltd., 1975), p. 106.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 93

94

8 Rudolf Steiner quoted in “Rudolf Steiner and
Anthroposophy”. (Anthroposophical Society of Great Britain,
node), p. 10

9 Arild Rosenkrantz, A New Impulse In Art. (East
Grinstead, Sussex, England: New Knowledge BookS), p. 34.

 

Chapter II
Steiner's Relationship To Goethe

1 Ringbom, “Art in the Epoch of the Great Spiritual", p.
389.

2 Ibid., p. 390.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., p. 391.

6 Rudolf Steiner, Goethe als Vater einer neuen Aesthetik,
p. 41, cited by Ringbom, ibid., p. 391.

7 Guenther Wachsmuth, The Life and Work of Rudolf
Steiner, p. 160.

8

 

 

Steiner, cited by Wachsmuth, ibid.

9 Ibid., p. 322.

Chapter III
The Building of the First Goetheanum

1 Pehnt, Expressionist Architecture, p. 139.

 

2 Rudolf Steiner, Ways to a New Style in Architecture,
authorized translatibn ed. by H. Collison (Anthroposophical
Publishing Co., London, and Anthroposophic Press, New York,
1922), p. 24.

3

 

Pehnt, Expressionist Architecture, p. 140.

 

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Wachsmuth, The Life and Work of Rudolf Steiner, p. 210.

 

95

7 Steiner, cited by Wachsmuth, ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Pehnt, Expressionist Architecture, p. 139.

 

10 Floyd McKnight, Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy (New
York: Anthroposophical Society in America, n.d.), p. 23.

11 Steiner, quoted by Hagen Biesanz and Arne Klingborg in
The Goetheanum: Rudolf Steiner's Architectural Impulse
(London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1979). P. 18.

12 Molly T. Smith, interview, Michigan State University,
February, 1983.

13

 

 

Steiner, Ways to a New Style in Architecture, p. 34.

 

14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Wachmsuth, p. 226.

Chapter IV
The Interior of the First Goetheanum

1 Pehnt, p. 140.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Rudolf Steiner, Mein Lebensgang, seventh edition
(Dornach, Switzerland: Anthroposophic Publishing, 1962). P.
11.

5 Rex Raab, interview held at Cranbrook Academy, February,
1983.

6

 

Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Edouard Schure', Die Grossen Eingeweihten, second
edition, (1911). p. IV, cited by Ringbom, p. 395.

 

96

10 Ringbom, p. 395.

 

11 Ibid., p. 397.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid., p. 398.
15 Steiner, Ways to a New Style, p. 24.
16 Ibid.
17 .

Ibid., p. 25.
18 Ibid.

Chapter V
Steiner's Relationship to the Architectural Milieu

l

Pehnt, Expressionist Architecture, p. 137.

 

2 Ibid., p. 138.

3 Willy Rotzler, ”Das Goetheanum in Dornach als Beispiel
der Integration der Kunste", Werk 47:August, 1960, p. 282.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., p. 283.

ON

Ibido’ p. 2850
7 Steiner, Ways to a New Style, pp. 42-43.

8 Dennis Sharp, “Rudolf Steiner and the Way to a New Style
in Architecture,“ Architectural Journal V. 78, June, 1963,
p. 373.

9 Stephen Tschudi-Madsen, Sources in Art Nouveau, (New
York: DaCapo Press, 1975), p. 430.

10

 

 

 

Ibid., 446.

ll Rex Raab, interview, February, 1983.

12 Steiner, Ways to a New Style, p. 25.

 

97

13 Rex Raab, interview, February 1983.
14 Ringbom, ”Art in the Epoch of the Great Spiritual”, p.
404.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
Conclusion
1

Marie von Sivers, introduction to Ways to a New Style in
Architecture.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Bachman, Wolfgang, Die Architekturvorstellungen der
Anthroposophen: Versuch einer Deutung und Wertung.
Stuttgart, G.F.R. Dissertationen zur Kunstgeschichte,
in association with Bohlau Verlag, Cologne, G.F.R. and
Vienna, Austria, 1981.

 

 

Behrendt, Walter C., Modern Building, Its Nature,
Problems and Forms. New York, NY, 1937.

 

 

Boos-Hamburger, Hilde, The Creative Power of Colour.
The Michael Press, London, 1976.

 

Harwood, A.C., ed., The Faithful Thinker: Centenary
Essays on the Through and Work of Rudolf Steiner.
Hodder and Stoughton. London, 1961.

 

 

Harwood, A.C., The Recovery of Man in Childhood.
Hodder and Stoughten. London, 1958.

 

Harwood, A.C., The Way of a Child. Rudolf Steiner
Press. London, 1967.

 

Hemleben, Johannes, Rudolf Steiner: A Documentary
Biography. Henry Goulden Ltd. East Grinstead, Sussex,
England, 1967.

 

 

Hitchcock, Henry-Russell, Architecture: Nineteenth
and Twentieth Centuries. Penguin Books, Inc.
Baltimore, Maryland, 1963.

 

 

 

Kemper, Carl, Der Bau: Studien. Verlag Freres,
Gerslesleben.
Madsen, Stephen Tschudi, Sources of Art Nouveau.

 

DaCapo Press. New York, NY, 1975.

McKnight, Floyd, Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy.
Anthroposophical Society in America. New York, NY,
1967.

 

98

99

Pehnt, Wolfgang, Expressionist Architecture. Thames and
Hudson. London, 1973.

 

Raab, Rex, ”Architecture - Buildings for Life". Work
ArisingyFrom The Life Of Rudolf Steiner. Rudolf
Steiner Press. London, 1975.

 

Raab, Rex, Arne Klingborg, Ake Fant, Eloquent Concrete:
How Rudolf Steiner Employed Reinforced Concrete.
Rudolf Steiner Press. London, 1979.

 

 

Rath, William, The Imagery of the Goetheanum Windows.
Rudolf Steiner Press. London, 1979.

 

Rosenkrantz, Arild, A New Impulse in Art. New
Knowledge Books. East Grinstead, England, 1967.

 

Schindler, Maria, Goethe's Theory of Colour Applied.
New Knowledge Books. East Gfinstead, England, 1964.

 

Sharp, Dennis, Modern Architecture and Expressionism.
Longmans. London, 1966.

 

Steiner, Rudolf, Architectural Forms Considered as the
Thoughts of Culture and World Perception.
AnthrOposophical PubliEhing Company. London, 1919.

 

 

Steiner, Rudolf, Art in the Light ongystery Wisdom.
Rudolf Steiner Press. London, 1970.

 

Steiner, Rudolf, The Arts and their Mission.
Anthroposophical Press Inc. New York, NY, 1964.

 

Steiner, Rudolf, Colour. Rudolf Steiner Press.
London, 1971.

Steiner, Rudolf, The Course of My Life.
Anthroposophic Press Inc. New York, NY, 1951.

 

Steiner, Rudolf, The Foundation Stone.
Anthroposophical Publishing Company. London, 1957.

 

Steiner, Rudolf, Il Goetheanum nei suoi dieci anni di
Vita. Stabilimento d'Artii Grofiche Codara. Milan,
Italy, 1923.

 

Steiner, Rudolf, Knowledge of Higher Worlds. How Is It
Achieved? Rudolf Steiner Press. London, 1969.

 

 

Steiner, Rudolf, The Life, Nature and Cultivation of
Anthroposophy. AnthrOposophical Society in Great
Britain, 1963.

 

 

100

Steiner, Rudolf, Occult Science - An Outline. Rudolf
Steiner Press. London, 1963.

 

Steiner, Rudolf - 'Stilformen des Organisch Lebendigen”.
(Two conferences given in December, 1921.)
Philsophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag am Goetheanum,
Dornach, 1933. (Posthumus publication)

Steiner, Rudolf, Theosophy - An Introduction to the
Supersensible Knowledge of the World and the Destination
of Man. Rudolf Steiner Press. London, 1973.

 

 

Steiner, Rudolf, The Threefold Social Order.
Anthroposophic Press Inc. New York, NY, 1972.

 

Steiner, Rudolf, Ways to a New Style in Architecture.
Authorized translation ed. by H. ColIison.
Anthroposophical Publishing Company, London, and
AnthropOSOphic Press, New York, 1922.

 

Steiner, Rudolf, 'Wege zu einem neuen Baustil”.
Dornach, 1926. (Posthumus publication)

Steiner Rudolf and Owen Barfield, The Case for

AnthropOSOphy. Rudolf Steiner Press. London, 19 0.

 

 

Vergo, Peter, Art in Vienna. Phaidon Press, 1973.
London.

 

Wachsmuth, Guenther, The Life and Work of Rudolf
Steiner.

 

BI BLIOGRAPHY

Periodicals

Baravalle, Albert, ”Das Goetheanum in Dornach”,
Schweizerische Technische Zeitschrift, No. 42, (1945).

Birknew, Othmar, I'Das Goetheanum Rudolf Steiners
by Karl Balmer', review, Werk 59. (December, 1972)
:736.

Brunati, Mario and Sandro Mendini, “Il Primo Goetheanum
a Dornach". Architettura 6. (May, 1960):58-63.

 

Brunati, Mario and Sandro Mendini, 'Il Secondo
Goetheanum a Dornach“. Architettura 6. (June, 1960)
:130-135.

 

Brunati, Mario and Sandro Mendini, “Edifici Minori a
Dornach". Architettura 6. (July-August,
l960):202-207 and 276-279.

 

Games, Steven, “The Spiritual Sculpture of Rudolf
Steiner". RIBA Journal 87. (March, 1980):42-45.

 

Gignon, Fernand, "Dornach: Quelques reflexions sur
l'architecture anthroposophique." Oervres 8.
(1935):42-45.

 

Gubler, Jacques, 'Betonet architecture, trois
propositions des annees 1925". Werk 55. (1971).

Kimball, Maulsby, "Kandinsky and Rudolf Steiner".
Arts 34. (March, 1960):7.

Leti Messing, Vittorio, "Il pensiero dietro
l'architettura a cinquant'anni della morte di Rudolf
Steiner.“ L'Architettura: Cronache e Storig 21, Number
'8. (December, 1975):481-495.

 

Long, Rose Carol Washington, ”Kandinsky and
Abstraction: the Role of the Hidden Image”. Artforum

101

102

Meades, J., 'Steineresque: the Royal Institute of
British Architects, London“. Architectural Journal
171. (January 30, l980):222.

 

Pevsner, Nicholas, ”Earth Bound Architecture“. Review
of The Faithful Thinker, ed. by A.C. Harwood.
Architectural Review 130. (September, 1961):153.

 

 

Raab, Rex, “Rudolf Steiner as Architect".
Architectural AssociationguarterlylZ, Part 3.
(1980):48-55.

 

Reese, Ilse Meissner, ”Steiner's Goetheanum at
Dornach". Progressive Architecture 46. (September,
l965):l46-153.

 

Ringbom, Sixten, ”Art in the Epoch of the Great
Spiritual: Occult Elements in the Early Theory of
Abstract Painting.” Journal of the Warburg and
Courtauld Institutes 29. (l966):386-4l8.

 

 

Rosenkrantz, Arild, “Rudolf Steiner the Artist".
Drawing and Design 5. (February, 1926):314-315 and
324.

 

Rotzler, Willy, ”Das Goetheanum in Dornach als beispiel
der integration der Kunste'. Werk 47. (August,
l960):28l-285.

Rume', Guy, "Rudolf Steiner”. Architecture Mouvement
Continuite 39. (June, l972):23-29.

 

 

Semper, Gottfried, Der stil in den technischen und
architektonischen kunsten. Volume I and 11. Frankfurt
am Main, 1860.

 

 

Sharp, Dennis, ”Rudolf Steiner and the Way to a New
Style in Architecture". Architectural Association
Journal 78. (June, l963):372-383.

 

 

Zimmer, Erich, "Rudolf Steiner Als Architekt von Wohn
und Zweckbauten". Verlag Freres, Geistesleben.
Stuttgart, 1970.