Otto Wagner was appointed professor at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna in 1894. Throughout his professional career he published a number of works, from textbooks to essays. For awhile, he sought to explain why the 19th century did not have an architecture to call its own. Later he focused on defining a modern architecture, rooted in the spirit of the times. He condemned historicism, praised the experimental spirit of the Viennese Secession and challenged the validity of current "styles". Because there are the two distinct aspects to Otto Wagner's work, namely his built work and his written work, I feel that my analysis of his projects must take both into account.
The question that I ponder, then, is: which should be looked at first?
Leopold Bauer, a student of Otto Wagner, wrote an essay about Wagner after his teacher's death. In it, he wrote that the actual works of artists (and architects) should be considered the most important, as their writings are often retrospective attempts to justify their artistic whims (Bauer, L. Der Architekt, XXII, 1919, p.9-21). So the writings of architects, especially when published after the completion of a building, can be seen as the explanation and defense of their creation. It seems to me that where architecture is concerned, because it is an art form that must be legible and accessible to all who might use it, an impartial critique is the most valid one. This is where the distinction between the "architect's architect" and the "people's architect" is made. In my opinion, a work should be analyzed, at least at first, purely from the standpoint of the user. Only if it is successful in this respect as well as under the scrutiny of theoretical critique, may it be considered great.
However, since the users for whom Wagner designed his buildings were citizens of 19th century Vienna, deeply ingrained with the social, economic, political and artistic spirit of the world they lived in, and I am a college student of the i-pod age, for whom the Viennese dialect is still a challenge, I cannot claim to be able to experience the building as it was meant to be experienced. Some explanation is necessary for me to understand why Wagner's Postsparkasse was revolutionary, even though it provided no client parking.
Perhaps the best option would be to look at the theory and the built work side by side. By immersing myself in the built work and the ideas behind it at the same time, I put myself not in the position of the user, but in the position of the architect, striving to free himself from that which is expected and create something better, more functional, and distinctively belonging to the current world. Studying how each of Wagner's works got him progressively closer to his ultimate goal is of great interest to me.
The question that I ponder, then, is: which should be looked at first?
Leopold Bauer, a student of Otto Wagner, wrote an essay about Wagner after his teacher's death. In it, he wrote that the actual works of artists (and architects) should be considered the most important, as their writings are often retrospective attempts to justify their artistic whims (Bauer, L. Der Architekt, XXII, 1919, p.9-21). So the writings of architects, especially when published after the completion of a building, can be seen as the explanation and defense of their creation. It seems to me that where architecture is concerned, because it is an art form that must be legible and accessible to all who might use it, an impartial critique is the most valid one. This is where the distinction between the "architect's architect" and the "people's architect" is made. In my opinion, a work should be analyzed, at least at first, purely from the standpoint of the user. Only if it is successful in this respect as well as under the scrutiny of theoretical critique, may it be considered great.
However, since the users for whom Wagner designed his buildings were citizens of 19th century Vienna, deeply ingrained with the social, economic, political and artistic spirit of the world they lived in, and I am a college student of the i-pod age, for whom the Viennese dialect is still a challenge, I cannot claim to be able to experience the building as it was meant to be experienced. Some explanation is necessary for me to understand why Wagner's Postsparkasse was revolutionary, even though it provided no client parking.
Perhaps the best option would be to look at the theory and the built work side by side. By immersing myself in the built work and the ideas behind it at the same time, I put myself not in the position of the user, but in the position of the architect, striving to free himself from that which is expected and create something better, more functional, and distinctively belonging to the current world. Studying how each of Wagner's works got him progressively closer to his ultimate goal is of great interest to me.
