In early 1920s Europe, in the aftermath of the Russian revolution a variety of new artistic ideas linking art and architecture evolved, fostered by artists such as Kasimir Malevitch, Wassily Kandinsky and El Lissitzky. among them, a young woman named Katarzyna Kobro developed her artistic understanding and shaped her own idea of the „Unistic Sculpture“, which lead to her concept of sculptures shaping space. She composed her sculptures with the pre-existing forms of Suprematism, such as the circle and the cross, which she often connected by a metal band. These hanging structures formed closed waves appearing in a constant dynamic movement, thus referring to other concurent artistic approaches to overcome gravity. Kobro coated most of these Unistic series in a white monochrome paint, thereby disguising her use of wood and metal. She further dematerialized her work through her stringent composition — offering a clear concentration on the structure. Kobro's sculptures addressed the emerging scientific, philosophical and artistic concepts about multidimensional space and space-time. They were composed to define the seeming inconceivability of the infinity of space, which in her opinion did not define objects but was their essence and affecting their forms.
Once asked about her thoughts on art, she replied, „Sculpture is neither literature, nor symbolism, nor individual psychological emotion. Sculpture is nothing but the shaping of space. Sculpture addresses all people and speaks to them in the same language. Its language is form and space. Hence the objectivism of the most economical expression of form. There are no multiple solutions — there is only one — the simplest and the most appropriate. A sculpture is part of its ambient space. That is why it should not be separated from space. A sculpture enters space, and space enters it in turn.“[1] She intended to give her sculptures an organic character, which supersedes the sculpture’s ability to be solely a body in space and challenges it to be a spatial phenomenon. Kobro’s theory of sculpture as a spatial expansion into the infinity of space was directly linked to her endeavors to choreograph the movement of viewing. Her sculptures' dynamic character derived, on the one hand, from the structure and its own movement in space and, on the other hand, from the viewer moving around the sculpture. According to the artist, a sculpture is defined not only by its appearance in space, but also by viewing, and the temporal process of perceiving it.
Kobro worked together with her husband Wladyslaw Strzeminski, one of her biggest supporters and partner in thinking, to experiment with three-dimensionality in search of a reciprocal influence between space and sculpture. As a result, Kobro’s series of „Spatial Compositions“ is characterized by its architectonical style. All made of metal that folds up in space, the compositions were thought to be „anti gravitational“ as they have no traditional base or fixed position in space. Each composition's construction is proportional and open to space. They consist of a combination of a right angle metal band and an arch in the three primary dimensions: height, depth and width. Or in other words, for the two artists, these compositions created their own „sculptural zones“ following mathematical calculations of the artists to determine the limits of the shaped space. The antagonism of „the closed“ and „the open“ drove them to monitor and experiment with the characters of sculptures and through this the composition of space. A way of thinking in which they still remain pioneers. A colleague recalls that „their studio looked funny at that time. The whole interior was crammed with boxes, sheet metal, sawdust, and glass articles. This was the palette of Constructivism.“[2]
Together with architect friends they formed the group PRAESENS, which explored architectural issues in the form of a published journal and various exhibitions. One exhibition was co-organized with the De Stijl Group, in which Kobro's work was highly discussed and well received. Her sculpture „Spatial Structure 3“ shows her interest in architecture and can be seen above all as an architectural design. The growing disagreement between the architects, who followed mostly their technical interest and their orientation towards functionalism, and the artists, who cardinally pursued the concept of sculptural aspects of architecture, most probably lead to the breakup of the group. Still Kobro's artistic thoughts continued to be driven by the organization of space and led to an „architectonization of sculpture“[3]. In her search for new forms and a flexible principle of proportionality of dimension for a harmonic relation of forms, she turned to the laws of nature and mathematical approaches such as the Pythagorean doctrine and the Golden Section. Kobro not only formulated her own theories about this approach and brought it to form in her objects, but also tried to apply her thoughts in two more practical attempts at architectural design, which were both for public spaces.
With Strzeminski, she collaborated in 1928 on an architectural draft for an open competition announced by the Warsaw authorities to re-organize the city’s architecture. Kobro pushed the idea of sculptures serving as a basic understanding of architectural and urban spaces. She wanted to understand the city as a functional organism through the prism of contemporary art, science and technology. In one essay she endorses that „the essential basis of sculpture is space and the manipulation of this space, the organization of the rhythm of proportions, the harmony of form, bound with space. Sculpture should reflect the organizational and technical possibilities of its time. Our cities suffocate because of the lack of organization and urban planning. Our sculptures stand in city squares like stone markers of guilt serving to commemorate and decorate this chaos.“[4]
Both chain-smokers, Kobro and Strzeminski designed a movable kiosk for the sale of tobacco, which consisted of a light framework of walls easy to install and remove, which protected the customer and salesman from weather conditions. The inside was equipped with a couple of shelves to store and display the merchandise. The only remaining photograph of the sketch is in black and white but shows clear contrasts, which leads to the conclusion that the planar walls were painted according to Kobro's color theory.
Whereas Kobro's Unistic Sculpture Theory demanded monochrome white to avoid the perception of a sculpture as a complete body in space and therefore separate and independent from its surrounding space, she claims however that the composition of space requires colors. The colors for spatial composition have to have great energy and intensity, such as red, blue and yellow and also black and white. Color nuances, which only differ slightly from each other, were considered useless and passive. Her color theory, as well as her use of straight lines and correct angles, follows aspects of Mondrian's use of primary colors and non-colors. Two opposite elevations displayed the offered wares of „Cigarettes“ and „Tobacco“. The flexible and purposeful design was awarded and stood out from all other proposals with its simple construction, but apparently it was never manufactured.
The second, and this time solo, architectural attempt by Kobro was the „Project for a Functional Nursery School“ in 1932 - 1934. From this project only two photographs of the model remain, both of which are from two different angles allowing for a closer analysis of the model.
The nursery is composed as a closed system with walls, flat roofs and big windows protecting the inside, but at the same time the structure opens to the „ambient space“ of- the garden and outside area. The building is an oblong with one part elevated with windows stretching from the ground to the roof. The lower part is crested by an arched shape with rectangular windows covering the sides. This arch strongly recalls the metal bands in her sculptures bringing the forms into relation. Two almost freestanding walls are attached to the main building; one is supporting the name of the building resembling a billboard, and the other seems to function as a separation wall towards the back of the building with painted or engraved forms on one side.
It is unknown on which occasion this project was developed and why it was never built. The fact that her only architectural model is a nursery school can be understood by the context of her engaging motherhood for her premature daughter, her teaching in various schools, and her interest in functionalist buildings and conditions of working. Her sculpture “Spatial Composition 8“ served as a skeleton for the nursery school model. For Kobro „the spatial composition, in becoming architecture, organizes the rhythm of human movement in space. The rhythm of a work of art then becomes the rhythm of movement of crowds and individuals.“[5] Her approach of transference of artistic understanding into real life and especially the implementation of these ideas in buildings of daily life are also visible on a smaller scale in her classes on „interior aesthetics“ and her understanding of fashion.
The model can be seen as an aspiration to fulfill the artist's desire to treat a work of art equal to an architectural model and thereby address certain formal problems. In Kobro’s understanding, architectural models should be the result of formal considerations, which did not necessarily have to be realized in a building but should serve as an organization of social space. The model thus need not obey rules of usability or functionalism but can be rather seen as conferment of artistic experiments into another field. Kobro was devoted to the idea that sculpture should become an architectural issue— a „laboratory experiment into methods of resolving space.“[6] The possibilities provided by art in understanding the organization of space ought to challenge the organization of urban space as a functional organism. Yet it should not be forgotten that her artistic approach was strongly supported by Utilitarianism, one of the doctrines of Functionalism.
This brings her understanding of sculpture closer to architecture and therefore the sculpture's „usability“ for people — in contrast to other sculptures of mere art objects. In one of her many essays she states, „Functionalism is not a tendency in art for art’s sake. Its aim is to allow the forms of art to influence the shape of everyday life, according to the principles of the scientific organization of work (...) the main principles of Functionalism are: 1) utilitarianism; 2) economy; 3) planning.“ To be more precise, for her this utilitarianism involves „the direct organization of life by means of regulating current utilitarian production (architecture, in the sense of organizing individual and group movement).“[7] Because Kobro's architectural drafts were never built and therefore never fully realised, her achievements in theory never stepped out of their utopian concept to be ultimately approved by reality.
[1] Kobro „Sculpture and solid,“ EUROPA, no. 2/1929
[2] Janusz Zagrodzki „Inside Space“ in the exhibition catalogue „Katarzyna Kobro 1898-1951“ published by the Henry Moore Institute, Leeds, 1999
[3] ibid.
[4] Kobro „For people unable to think...“, in : FORMA, no. 3/1935
[5] Kobro „A sculpture is...” Glos Platyców, no 1-7, p. 42-43
[6] Kobro „For people unable to think...“ ibidem
[7] Kobro „Functionalism“, FORMA, no 4/1936
Source : Published in PETUNIA #3
HERE
Kobro worked together with her husband Wladyslaw Strzeminski, one of her biggest supporters and partner in thinking, to experiment with three-dimensionality in search of a reciprocal influence between space and sculpture. As a result, Kobro’s series of „Spatial Compositions“ is characterized by its architectonical style. All made of metal that folds up in space, the compositions were thought to be „anti gravitational“ as they have no traditional base or fixed position in space. Each composition's construction is proportional and open to space. They consist of a combination of a right angle metal band and an arch in the three primary dimensions: height, depth and width. Or in other words, for the two artists, these compositions created their own „sculptural zones“ following mathematical calculations of the artists to determine the limits of the shaped space. The antagonism of „the closed“ and „the open“ drove them to monitor and experiment with the characters of sculptures and through this the composition of space. A way of thinking in which they still remain pioneers. A colleague recalls that „their studio looked funny at that time. The whole interior was crammed with boxes, sheet metal, sawdust, and glass articles. This was the palette of Constructivism.“[2]
Together with architect friends they formed the group PRAESENS, which explored architectural issues in the form of a published journal and various exhibitions. One exhibition was co-organized with the De Stijl Group, in which Kobro's work was highly discussed and well received. Her sculpture „Spatial Structure 3“ shows her interest in architecture and can be seen above all as an architectural design. The growing disagreement between the architects, who followed mostly their technical interest and their orientation towards functionalism, and the artists, who cardinally pursued the concept of sculptural aspects of architecture, most probably lead to the breakup of the group. Still Kobro's artistic thoughts continued to be driven by the organization of space and led to an „architectonization of sculpture“[3]. In her search for new forms and a flexible principle of proportionality of dimension for a harmonic relation of forms, she turned to the laws of nature and mathematical approaches such as the Pythagorean doctrine and the Golden Section. Kobro not only formulated her own theories about this approach and brought it to form in her objects, but also tried to apply her thoughts in two more practical attempts at architectural design, which were both for public spaces.
With Strzeminski, she collaborated in 1928 on an architectural draft for an open competition announced by the Warsaw authorities to re-organize the city’s architecture. Kobro pushed the idea of sculptures serving as a basic understanding of architectural and urban spaces. She wanted to understand the city as a functional organism through the prism of contemporary art, science and technology. In one essay she endorses that „the essential basis of sculpture is space and the manipulation of this space, the organization of the rhythm of proportions, the harmony of form, bound with space. Sculpture should reflect the organizational and technical possibilities of its time. Our cities suffocate because of the lack of organization and urban planning. Our sculptures stand in city squares like stone markers of guilt serving to commemorate and decorate this chaos.“[4]
Both chain-smokers, Kobro and Strzeminski designed a movable kiosk for the sale of tobacco, which consisted of a light framework of walls easy to install and remove, which protected the customer and salesman from weather conditions. The inside was equipped with a couple of shelves to store and display the merchandise. The only remaining photograph of the sketch is in black and white but shows clear contrasts, which leads to the conclusion that the planar walls were painted according to Kobro's color theory.
Whereas Kobro's Unistic Sculpture Theory demanded monochrome white to avoid the perception of a sculpture as a complete body in space and therefore separate and independent from its surrounding space, she claims however that the composition of space requires colors. The colors for spatial composition have to have great energy and intensity, such as red, blue and yellow and also black and white. Color nuances, which only differ slightly from each other, were considered useless and passive. Her color theory, as well as her use of straight lines and correct angles, follows aspects of Mondrian's use of primary colors and non-colors. Two opposite elevations displayed the offered wares of „Cigarettes“ and „Tobacco“. The flexible and purposeful design was awarded and stood out from all other proposals with its simple construction, but apparently it was never manufactured.
The second, and this time solo, architectural attempt by Kobro was the „Project for a Functional Nursery School“ in 1932 - 1934. From this project only two photographs of the model remain, both of which are from two different angles allowing for a closer analysis of the model.
The nursery is composed as a closed system with walls, flat roofs and big windows protecting the inside, but at the same time the structure opens to the „ambient space“ of- the garden and outside area. The building is an oblong with one part elevated with windows stretching from the ground to the roof. The lower part is crested by an arched shape with rectangular windows covering the sides. This arch strongly recalls the metal bands in her sculptures bringing the forms into relation. Two almost freestanding walls are attached to the main building; one is supporting the name of the building resembling a billboard, and the other seems to function as a separation wall towards the back of the building with painted or engraved forms on one side.
It is unknown on which occasion this project was developed and why it was never built. The fact that her only architectural model is a nursery school can be understood by the context of her engaging motherhood for her premature daughter, her teaching in various schools, and her interest in functionalist buildings and conditions of working. Her sculpture “Spatial Composition 8“ served as a skeleton for the nursery school model. For Kobro „the spatial composition, in becoming architecture, organizes the rhythm of human movement in space. The rhythm of a work of art then becomes the rhythm of movement of crowds and individuals.“[5] Her approach of transference of artistic understanding into real life and especially the implementation of these ideas in buildings of daily life are also visible on a smaller scale in her classes on „interior aesthetics“ and her understanding of fashion.
The model can be seen as an aspiration to fulfill the artist's desire to treat a work of art equal to an architectural model and thereby address certain formal problems. In Kobro’s understanding, architectural models should be the result of formal considerations, which did not necessarily have to be realized in a building but should serve as an organization of social space. The model thus need not obey rules of usability or functionalism but can be rather seen as conferment of artistic experiments into another field. Kobro was devoted to the idea that sculpture should become an architectural issue— a „laboratory experiment into methods of resolving space.“[6] The possibilities provided by art in understanding the organization of space ought to challenge the organization of urban space as a functional organism. Yet it should not be forgotten that her artistic approach was strongly supported by Utilitarianism, one of the doctrines of Functionalism.
This brings her understanding of sculpture closer to architecture and therefore the sculpture's „usability“ for people — in contrast to other sculptures of mere art objects. In one of her many essays she states, „Functionalism is not a tendency in art for art’s sake. Its aim is to allow the forms of art to influence the shape of everyday life, according to the principles of the scientific organization of work (...) the main principles of Functionalism are: 1) utilitarianism; 2) economy; 3) planning.“ To be more precise, for her this utilitarianism involves „the direct organization of life by means of regulating current utilitarian production (architecture, in the sense of organizing individual and group movement).“[7] Because Kobro's architectural drafts were never built and therefore never fully realised, her achievements in theory never stepped out of their utopian concept to be ultimately approved by reality.
[1] Kobro „Sculpture and solid,“ EUROPA, no. 2/1929
[2] Janusz Zagrodzki „Inside Space“ in the exhibition catalogue „Katarzyna Kobro 1898-1951“ published by the Henry Moore Institute, Leeds, 1999
[3] ibid.
[4] Kobro „For people unable to think...“, in : FORMA, no. 3/1935
[5] Kobro „A sculpture is...” Glos Platyców, no 1-7, p. 42-43
[6] Kobro „For people unable to think...“ ibidem
[7] Kobro „Functionalism“, FORMA, no 4/1936
Source : Published in PETUNIA #3
HERE