Systemdesign: Die Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm und das Unternehmen Braun
26. Oktober 2019
Beitrag zur Ausstellung im San Telmo Museum, San Sebastian, 26. Oktober 2019 bis 12. Januar 2020
+++
Virtues and limitations of Otl Aicher’s design approach
[Fig. 1]
The basic problem is a question. It is a question with two facets, one verbal and one visual: What should we show, what can we say? [Fig. 2]
The question is not: What do we want to hear, what do we want to say? When we ask for it, it’s about our impression. But the problem is expression. What should we show, what can we say? Nor is the question: What do you want to hear, what do you want to tell me? These are the questions that sellers, social media and propaganda deal with. Think! Convince me! Prove it to me! This is the categorical imperative of enlightenment. Think because you can! The reasonable use of the mind leads to a humane life. Ratio should dominate, that is a moral commandment. Then we are mature. The use of the mind is a commandment of responsibility. For if feeling dominates, the irrational, then we let ourselves be carried away. Overpowering. Manipulate. We submit to the momentary mood. We are minors. Willless. Then there are felt truths. Facts felt. Then there is murder and manslaughter, screaming and ecstasy from calculation. Because not everyone is stupid enough to rely on their feelings: they like to use emotions and manipulate others for their own purposes. [Fig. 3]
Otl Aicher was born 1922 in Ulm, he died 1991 in Günzburg. He was one of the most important designers of the industrial West of the 20th century. His relevance stems from four factors: (1) his achievements as a designer, (2) his commitment to the foundation and operation of the Ulm School of Design and thus to the formation of the still current professional profile in design, (3) his contributions to design theory and (4) his influence on current designers. [Fig. 4]
Otl Aicher was born during the Weimar Republic (1918 to 1933). It was the phase of the first democracy in Germany. The cruel experiences of the First World War (1914 to 1918) had profoundly shaken German society. The slogans of radical parties stirred the mood; their supporters battled each other on the street. Thus, most people’s everyday life at the time of Otl Aicher’s childhood was marked by violence, economic uncertainty and political extremes. Otl Aicher was ten years old when the National Socialists came to power. Throughout his youth, their physical brutality, their inhuman recklessness, and their intellectual incapacity were omnipresent. [Fig. 5-7]
The children of the Scholl family in Ulm were among Otl Aicher’s childhood friends. Sophie Scholl he later described as his childhood sweetheart. Sophie and her older brother Hans Scholl joined the resistance group „The White Rose.“ They distributed flyers in the University of Munich. In February 1943, they were arrested. A few days later, the Nazis murdered them. Otl Aicher narrowly escaped his own arrest ̶ and probably his murder ̶ only by luck. [Fig. 8-9]
After the end of World War II (1939 to 1945), German society lay in ruins. The houses were destroyed, the streets and city squares full of rubble and ashes. The country was occupied and divided by the four leading victorious powers. The destruction was almost total. It was not limited to the physical environment. Families and friends mourned their dead and missing. In addition, the spiritual foundations of society were fundamentally damaged. All societal values that had hitherto been taken for granted now seemed questionable, because they had not helped people to resist the Nazis. [Fig. 10]
Without this prehistory, the history of the Ulm School of Design and the work of Otl Aicher cannot be not fully understood. The Ulm School was not founded to remedy an aesthetic deficit. Otl Aicher, Inge Scholl and Max Bill, the founders of the Ulm School, were not primarily interested in designing beautiful posters and lamps. They wanted to contribute to the development of a peaceful, democratic and free society. Because the world had changed so fundamentally through the Nazi regime, Otl Aicher was deeply convinced that the Germans could not pick up seamlessly where they left off in 1933. Otl Aicher believed that the traditional dominance of art for any given form of design was a mistake. He wanted to emancipate the valuation of everyday objects from the standards that were applied to art. Aicher’s goal was to formulate independent criteria for the design of equipment and information aimed at a broad population. That is why he was not interested in the embellishment of fine holiday porcelain. He believed that modern people need dishes for every day of the year that are not only practical and affordable, but also have their own particular form. Aicher rejected all references to historical authorities and sentimentality as backward and politically irresponsible. Therefore, it was out of the question for him to imitate the appearance of elegant luxury goods. Modern commodities should not be identifiable by a designer’s personal style, by an artistic hand in the sense of a signature; nor should they pretend fine materials or precious workmanship through ornament. Modern mass media should clearly and precisely inform: from Aicher’s point of view, a legible train timetable and a factual educational poster about the need for healthy food were more socially relevant than artistic painting. [Fig. 11]
Aicher aimed at a design based on reason, because feeling had no claim to legitimacy as a framework for evaluation: because the Nazis had constantly appealed to people’s emotions, this dimension was, for Aicher, discredited. [Fig. 12-13]
Aicher demanded that design not manipulate people with tricks, but should rather persuade by conclusive argumentation. Better results should be drawn from better reasonable foundations, not from the loud and shrill, the short-term surprising and the fashionable effect. He vehemently rejected any tendency to disguise, to deceive and to lie by means of design. He rejected the concept of style: He did not want to develop a new style for a new era, as it had been regularly propagated since the Arts and Crafts Movement, creating such absurd labels as Bauhaus-style or machine-style for the purpose of short-term sales promotion. [Fig. 14-17]
Aicher insisted that societal responsibility was the basis for responding to questions regarding the shaping the world. What contribution must design make to resist the temptations of a tyrannical, inhuman regime? So that something like the Nazi era would not be possible again? Aicher’s creative answer to these questions could therefore be described as an aesthetic of rational objectivity and of the morally appropriate. [Fig. 18]
In place of symbols and slogans, Aicher proposed the sober, convincing argument. Design should be an activity based on reason. It was not about inspiring and bubbling ideas, but about freedom from prejudice and a thorough exploration of the context of a task; objective weighing and balancing of the analysis results; systematic and interdisciplinary production of systems instead of unique pieces. Science and technology, however, did not seem to him an end in themselves; within them lay the potential of an efficient instrument for a democratic, liberal society. To lift this society up, technicians, scientists and engineers must not be one-track specialists who, disinterested in social contexts, accumulate their specialized knowledge in isolation. [Fig. 19]
These considerations were based, firstly, on the diagnosis that the (Western) world had become technical since the mid-nineteenth century through the historic process of industrialization, and second, on the assumption that this world could be shaped. In contrast to the avant-garde movement of Modern Art from Arts and Crafts to the Bauhaus, Aicher concluded that technical civilization must be managed on the basis of a new understanding of culture: culture is not that, which is created only on Sundays as a special dress and concerns only a few areas of life (in particular poetry, theater, opera, classical music, painting, sculpture and philosophy), but has long encompassed all machine-made objects and everyday actions. The design of these things and their connections within industrial society must therefore be treated as a cultural task. He coined the programmatic formula: the cultural mastering of technical civilization. [Fig. 20-22]
So far, so good. These are the general indications. If we now take a closer look at Aicher’s reception, a homogeneous, conclusive overall picture of Aicher’s design emerges. The cliché, so to speak, of Aicher’s design. [Fig. 23]
It could be articulated as the thesis of the „geometric man“: Because rationally justified and systematically executed design seems morally necessary to him, Aicher always bases his work on a general construction grid, from which his concrete solutions then logically and inevitably result by themselves. They are almost objective results based on scientific knowledge. Aicher is the designer for whom even the dachshund is the result of a rational program. [Fig. 24]
We have to examine this picture from two perspectives: To what extent does the thesis of „geometric man“ coincide with the reality of Aicher’s design practice? And to what extent are there statements in his own theoretical contributions that support this thesis? [Fig. 25]
I grew up in a household with technical drawing equipment. My father had an engineering office, we had drawing boards, rulers, rapidographs, transparent paper and razor blades. As a design-enthusiastic and mission-conscious student, I wanted to place Otl Aicher’s pictograms at school. But the school did not want to buy the originals from ERCO. Doesn’t matter, nothing is easier than drawing yourself. [Fig. 26]
The operating instructions are unsurpassed in simplicity and logical stringency. Democratic design at it’s best. Simply construct a grid of 10 squares, which are halved lengthwise and vertically and crossed by diagonals at an angle of 45 degrees. Why did I have drawing boards, rulers, rapidographs and transparent paper? Let’s start with the soccer player. First the leg, it hangs on the two diagonals that cross in the center. Then the second leg. Widths, lengths, radii and distances inevitably result from the grid. The angled arm with shoulder. The upper body and the second arm. Head and ball. Done. All elements are nicely neat and strict in the grid. I could be satisfied. Perfect. A real Aicher. The copy template was ready. [Fig. 27]
My girlfriend at that time, my wife today, saw the result. Her devastating verdict: »Terrible. It doesn’t look good.« She said: »An insult to the eye.« That was true, because she didn’t know that this sentence was literally a statement by Aicher (expressed in another context), but I knew it very well. But I was prepared for argument. My answer was obvious: »Look here. It must be beautiful, because it is right. Because it can’t be ugly, which is logical.« My girlfriend replied: »You confuse background and foreground. You only pay attention to the grid. But the grid is only the background, that’s not the point. It’s about the figure. You have to pay attention to the figure, and it looks horrible. The original by Aicher is much more elegant, by the way.« I beg your pardon? What was that supposed to mean? There could be no difference between Aicher and me! But when I compared my pictogram and his I had to realize that he did not stick to his own rules at all. Gross. Look at the short leg where that is placed. Also the upper body. And the outstretched arm. The head. The ball. Unbelievable, for me as a teenager who had just discovered and devoured the writings of Aicher… I don’t want to say that a world collapsed, but the pillars of the earth had now received a few veritable breaks. [Fig. 28]
I’ve been peddling this little observation ever since. I often use the image in discussions about the applicability of mathematical rules or scientific laws to design. I then usually experience two reactions: First, silence. Staggered silence. And second, the suspicion: Mr. Spitz, that’s not true, you manipulated this image. Then I show the picture of the original Aicher pictogram, which the fans immediately identify as authentic. The figure stands on the grid. Not in the grid. The grid of the construction lines is the frame, the figure is framed. We see both the grid and the figure, but we only perceive the grid. We could say: we perceive only the theory and not the practice. We perceive the verbally expressed intention according to which the design should be logically founded. But we do not perceive the actual implementation. The grid has the effect of a smoke candle to distract from the actual blurriness or arbitrariness of the work. For there is no construction formula that prescribes the shifts of the individual elements in this picture. The result in this design process does not result from a calculation, we could say today: from an algorithm. This observation is repeated: The appearance of Lufthansa. The crane and the lettering are on the grid. They are not in the grid. The grid does not provide any information on how the crane is to be constructed, how the circle is arranged and how the two elements relate to each other. [Fig. 29-30]
The same applies to the coloured grounding of the Olympic rings. The five rings are not the same thickness. The yellow ring has the greatest line thickness, the black the thinnest, and the three others are in between. But the exact dimensions do not result from a calculation, but from Aicher’s subjective perception of colour. Here, for example, it is not 0.9, but 0.92. We see Josef Albers‘ „Interaction of Color“ in practical application. [Fig. 31-32]
Just like with the mascot Waldi. [Fig. 33]
Just like with advertising for Herman Miller Collection. [Fig. 34-36]
Undoubtedly: Aicher’s subjective interventions in the objective raster are precisely what create the decisive aesthetic quality. This intervention cannot be objectified. It is both the virtue and the limitation of Aicher’s design practice. It is what is specific for Aicher. Let’s take a brief look at Aicher’s theoretical statements. In 1962, Otl Aicher wrote a text in the HfG Ulm which summarizes his design theoretical considerations like no other. This text has not yet been published. Aicher himself has reproduced it as a typoscript under the title „zur situation der hochschule für gestaltung 1962“. This text is so remarkable because in it Aicher presents central statements about design in a few words and with extreme sharpness. The conciseness and fundamental nature of the arguments as well as the lack of evidence for the statements lend them the character of axioms. Otl Aicher literally describes his statements as doctrine. These are normative statements, which means: Aicher formulates what should be. Aicher postulates that the designer is an equal partner of the engineers and scientists, and that only rational methods make conceptual thinking legitimate: „Design [is] no longer possible without working through scientific and technological foundations […]. […] The designer [cannot] not sit on the artist’s throne. He needs training that makes him an equal partner of the engineer and scientist. Rational methods make conceptual thinking legitimate in the first place“. Aicher is not content with placing design in relation to science and technology. Rather, the nature of this relationship must be defined: „A concept that generally postulates a classification of design, science and technology is too general. Science and design stand in a relationship that can only become fruitful if their differences are made clear and clearly distinguished from one another. Aicher maintains that the essential difference between design and science lies in the degree of abstraction: „Science, including applied science, seeks generalizable insights, laws of a general nature, while design seeks objects of a concrete nature. […] Design proves itself in the individual decision, in the individual object, not in the finding of truth. Its goal and its yardstick is the individual product result. In this respect, science and design are diverging activities as those that flow into abstraction, this into the concrete case. Aicher argues that the thought process in design and science is different: „Science progresses from derivation to derivation, it draws conclusions. Design is a design activity that does not end with a conclusion, but with a concept that has been built up from ideas. Design and law are also different in themselves“. Aicher explains that the criteria for success differ from those of science and design: „An insight can be true or false. Design, on the other hand, is based on the criteria of probity and correctness. How everything can be proven by the success of the application“. For Aicher Design, therefore, this is a „process that has more to do with invention than investigation“. As Aicher puts it, „The world doesn’t just want to be recognized, it also wants to be made“. Aicher notes that design does not consist in the collection and processing, but in the interpretation of facts. Design is based on qualitative judgements beyond quantitative methods: „Design, however, is based precisely on reasons of meaning and purpose that cannot be given with the help of statistical-mathematical methods. Today, very few designers can do without data collection and data processing. But collecting facts does not explain the demands and necessities. Facts have to be included in the design, but facts do not yet result in a concept. Design consists precisely in interpreting them, in inserting them into a concept that is not satisfied with the fact that something exists, but why and why. In this respect, value should be placed on a qualitative presentation of facts.“ Aicher claims for design that it is a moral, evaluative activity based on a cultural and social value system. For Aicher, this results in „the necessity of a precise design doctrine“: „Design is to a large extent a statement and thus a moral activity. It is based on both cultural and social values. It includes objectives, evaluations and commitment. In the other case, it must degenerate into opportunistic styling. The design is in an educational position from the outset. It does not design what is wanted, but what should be. Freedom of value is the self-abandonment of design, regardless of whether it is sacrificed to the market, public taste or corporate strategy. […] Value-free design becomes worthless.“ The result of my review is as follows: Aicher’s design is based on the foundation of meaning and purpose. It is ultimately a moral, judgmental activity based on cultural and social values. Aicher’s doctrine does not contain a formal aesthetic definition, which is why it would be wrong to presume him to be subservient to a particular style. [Fig. 37-39]
Neither in Aicher’s practice nor in his theory is there any evidence that it would be justified to label Aicher as a purely scientific or rational designer. Aicher rather appears as an artist who did not want to be one, as Max Bill said. We can regard this as tragic, because his social goals cannot be seamlessly translated into a design theory of design. The aesthetic qualities that Aicher preferred cannot be produced algorithmically. Design is not a simple input-output calculation. [Fig. 40-42]
However, I see less tragedy, I see a circle that Aicher himself has closed. It begins with art and philosophy as a source of resistance against the Nazis. He develops answers for socially responsible design. And at the end of his life he works as a sculptor out of his memory on a bust of Sophie Scholl. On the day he completed this work, Otl Aicher was run over by a motorcycle. [Fig. 43]
List of figures Fig. 1: Otl Aicher: Die Küche zum Kochen. Das Ende einer Architekturdoktrin. Munich 1982, p. 17 Fig. 2: Otl Aicher, Gabriele Greindl, Wilhelm Vossenkuhl: Wilhelm von Ockham. Das Risiko modern zu denken. Munich 1986, pp. 3 + 123 Fig. 3: Source: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/buch-mit-historischen-berichten-warum-ich-ein-nazi-wurde-100.html Fig. 4: Otl Aicher, 1956. Photo: Hans G. Conrad [no. 4512]. Copyright: René Spitz Fig. 5: Otto Dix. Der Krieg. Berlin 1924. Source: Jürgen Holstein (ed.): The Book Cover in the Weimar Republic. Cologne 2015, p. 126 Fig. 6: Ivan Ilyin (ed.). Welt vor dem Abgrund. Berlin 1931. Source: Jürgen Holstein (ed.): The Book Cover in the Weimar Republic. Cologne 2015, p. 136 Fig. 7: Tacitus Redivivus (pseud.). Die große Trommel. Leben, Kampf und Traumlallen Adolf Hitlers. Berlin/Zurich 1930. Source: Jürgen Holstein (ed.): The Book Cover in the Weimar Republic. Cologne 2015, p. 142 Fig. 8: Hans Scholl. Copyright: Florian Aicher Fig. 9: Sophie Scholl. Copyright: Florian Aicher Fig. 10: Source: Mark Holt: Munich ’72. The Visual Output of Otl Aicher’s Dept. XI. London 2019, 44 Fig. 11: Otl Aicher’s design for Inge Scholl’s book about the »White Rose«, Frankfurt am Main 1955 Fig. 12-13: Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher in Ulm’s adult education center / Ulmer Volkshochschule, 1949. Photos: Ike and Hannes Rosenberg Fig. 14-17: Otl Aicher: Posters for Ulm adult education center / Ulmer Volkshochschule, 1946–1960. Source: Martin Krampen: Otl Aicher – 328 Plakate für die Ulmer Volkshochschule. Berlin 2002 Fig. 18: Otl Aicher: Poster for European elections, 1979. Copyright: Julian Aicher Fig. 19: Otl Aicher: Poster for HfG Ulm touring exhibition, 1965. Copyright: HfG-Archiv Ulm Fig. 20: Otl Aicher: Braun Exporter (1954). Photo: Hans G. Conrad. Copyright: René Spitz Fig. 21: Dieter Rams/Braun Design Team: Braun T3 (1958). Copyright: Braun Design Archiv, Kronberg im Taunus Fig. 22: Jonathan Ive/Apple Design Team: iPod (2001). Copyright: Apple Inc. Fig. 23: Wolfgang Schmittel: Braun logo construction, 1952. Illustration: René Spitz Fig. 24: Otl Aicher, Elena Winschermann: »Waldi« mascot of the Olympic Games, Munich 1972. Copyright: IOC, Lausanne Fig. 25: Otl Aicher teaching at HfG Ulm, 20 February 1956. Photo: Hans G. Conrad [no. 0032-4]. Copyright: René Spitz Fig. 26: Otl Aicher, Gerhard Joksch: 43 sport pictograms of the Olympic Games, Munich 1972. Source: Mark Holt: Munich ’72. The Visual Output of Otl Aicher’s Dept. XI. London 2019, 158. Copyright: IOC, Lausanne Fig. 27: Illustration: René Spitz Fig. 28: Otl Aicher, Gerhard Joksch: Soccer pictograms of the Olympic Games, Munich 1972. Source: Mark Holt: Munich ’72. The Visual Output of Otl Aicher’s Dept. XI. London 2019. Copyright: IOC, Lausanne Fig. 29-30:Otl Aicher, HfG development group 5: Study »1400/0«, Lufthansa Aesthetic, October 1962. Copyright: Lufthansa AG, Frankfurt am Main Fig. 31-32: Otl Aicher/Dept. XI design team: Standards and Norms of the Olympic Games, Munich 1972. Copyright: IOC, Lausanne Fig. 33: Otl Aicher, Elena Winschermann: »Waldi« mascot of the Olympic Games, Munich 1972. Copyright: IOC, Lausanne Fig. 34-36: Otl Aicher, Tomás Gonda: Herman Miller Collection advertising campaign, 1961/62. Source: ulm 6/1962, p. 15 Fig. 37-39: Otl Aicher: Posters for the city of Isny, 1977 ff. Source: Otl Aicher’s Isny. London 2017 Fig. 40-42: Otl Aicher: Posters on Wilhelm von Ockham for Bayerische Rück, 1986. Source: Otl Aicher, Gabriele Greindl, Wilhelm Vossenkuhl: Wilhelm von Ockham. Das Risiko modern zu denken. Munich 1986 Fig. 43: Otl Aicher working in rotis at a bust of Sophie Scholl, 26 August, 1991. Photo and Copyright: Hans Neudecker
+++
Wenn Sie dazu mehr wissen möchten, können Sie mir gerne eine E-Mail senden.
Systemdesign: Die Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm und das Unternehmen Braun
Beitrag zur Ausstellung im San Telmo Museum, San Sebastian, 26. Oktober 2019 bis 12. Januar 2020
+++
Virtues and limitations of Otl Aicher’s design approach
[Fig. 1]
The basic problem is a question. It is a question with two facets, one verbal and one visual: What should we show, what can we say? [Fig. 2]
The question is not: What do we want to hear, what do we want to say? When we ask for it, it’s about our impression. But the problem is expression. What should we show, what can we say? Nor is the question: What do you want to hear, what do you want to tell me? These are the questions that sellers, social media and propaganda deal with. Think! Convince me! Prove it to me! This is the categorical imperative of enlightenment. Think because you can! The reasonable use of the mind leads to a humane life. Ratio should dominate, that is a moral commandment. Then we are mature. The use of the mind is a commandment of responsibility. For if feeling dominates, the irrational, then we let ourselves be carried away. Overpowering. Manipulate. We submit to the momentary mood. We are minors. Willless. Then there are felt truths. Facts felt. Then there is murder and manslaughter, screaming and ecstasy from calculation. Because not everyone is stupid enough to rely on their feelings: they like to use emotions and manipulate others for their own purposes. [Fig. 3]
Otl Aicher was born 1922 in Ulm, he died 1991 in Günzburg. He was one of the most important designers of the industrial West of the 20th century. His relevance stems from four factors: (1) his achievements as a designer, (2) his commitment to the foundation and operation of the Ulm School of Design and thus to the formation of the still current professional profile in design, (3) his contributions to design theory and (4) his influence on current designers. [Fig. 4]
Otl Aicher was born during the Weimar Republic (1918 to 1933). It was the phase of the first democracy in Germany. The cruel experiences of the First World War (1914 to 1918) had profoundly shaken German society. The slogans of radical parties stirred the mood; their supporters battled each other on the street. Thus, most people’s everyday life at the time of Otl Aicher’s childhood was marked by violence, economic uncertainty and political extremes. Otl Aicher was ten years old when the National Socialists came to power. Throughout his youth, their physical brutality, their inhuman recklessness, and their intellectual incapacity were omnipresent. [Fig. 5-7]
The children of the Scholl family in Ulm were among Otl Aicher’s childhood friends. Sophie Scholl he later described as his childhood sweetheart. Sophie and her older brother Hans Scholl joined the resistance group „The White Rose.“ They distributed flyers in the University of Munich. In February 1943, they were arrested. A few days later, the Nazis murdered them. Otl Aicher narrowly escaped his own arrest ̶ and probably his murder ̶ only by luck. [Fig. 8-9]
After the end of World War II (1939 to 1945), German society lay in ruins. The houses were destroyed, the streets and city squares full of rubble and ashes. The country was occupied and divided by the four leading victorious powers. The destruction was almost total. It was not limited to the physical environment. Families and friends mourned their dead and missing. In addition, the spiritual foundations of society were fundamentally damaged. All societal values that had hitherto been taken for granted now seemed questionable, because they had not helped people to resist the Nazis. [Fig. 10]
Without this prehistory, the history of the Ulm School of Design and the work of Otl Aicher cannot be not fully understood. The Ulm School was not founded to remedy an aesthetic deficit. Otl Aicher, Inge Scholl and Max Bill, the founders of the Ulm School, were not primarily interested in designing beautiful posters and lamps. They wanted to contribute to the development of a peaceful, democratic and free society. Because the world had changed so fundamentally through the Nazi regime, Otl Aicher was deeply convinced that the Germans could not pick up seamlessly where they left off in 1933. Otl Aicher believed that the traditional dominance of art for any given form of design was a mistake. He wanted to emancipate the valuation of everyday objects from the standards that were applied to art. Aicher’s goal was to formulate independent criteria for the design of equipment and information aimed at a broad population. That is why he was not interested in the embellishment of fine holiday porcelain. He believed that modern people need dishes for every day of the year that are not only practical and affordable, but also have their own particular form. Aicher rejected all references to historical authorities and sentimentality as backward and politically irresponsible. Therefore, it was out of the question for him to imitate the appearance of elegant luxury goods. Modern commodities should not be identifiable by a designer’s personal style, by an artistic hand in the sense of a signature; nor should they pretend fine materials or precious workmanship through ornament. Modern mass media should clearly and precisely inform: from Aicher’s point of view, a legible train timetable and a factual educational poster about the need for healthy food were more socially relevant than artistic painting. [Fig. 11]
Aicher aimed at a design based on reason, because feeling had no claim to legitimacy as a framework for evaluation: because the Nazis had constantly appealed to people’s emotions, this dimension was, for Aicher, discredited. [Fig. 12-13]
Aicher demanded that design not manipulate people with tricks, but should rather persuade by conclusive argumentation. Better results should be drawn from better reasonable foundations, not from the loud and shrill, the short-term surprising and the fashionable effect. He vehemently rejected any tendency to disguise, to deceive and to lie by means of design. He rejected the concept of style: He did not want to develop a new style for a new era, as it had been regularly propagated since the Arts and Crafts Movement, creating such absurd labels as Bauhaus-style or machine-style for the purpose of short-term sales promotion. [Fig. 14-17]
Aicher insisted that societal responsibility was the basis for responding to questions regarding the shaping the world. What contribution must design make to resist the temptations of a tyrannical, inhuman regime? So that something like the Nazi era would not be possible again? Aicher’s creative answer to these questions could therefore be described as an aesthetic of rational objectivity and of the morally appropriate. [Fig. 18]
In place of symbols and slogans, Aicher proposed the sober, convincing argument. Design should be an activity based on reason. It was not about inspiring and bubbling ideas, but about freedom from prejudice and a thorough exploration of the context of a task; objective weighing and balancing of the analysis results; systematic and interdisciplinary production of systems instead of unique pieces. Science and technology, however, did not seem to him an end in themselves; within them lay the potential of an efficient instrument for a democratic, liberal society. To lift this society up, technicians, scientists and engineers must not be one-track specialists who, disinterested in social contexts, accumulate their specialized knowledge in isolation. [Fig. 19]
These considerations were based, firstly, on the diagnosis that the (Western) world had become technical since the mid-nineteenth century through the historic process of industrialization, and second, on the assumption that this world could be shaped. In contrast to the avant-garde movement of Modern Art from Arts and Crafts to the Bauhaus, Aicher concluded that technical civilization must be managed on the basis of a new understanding of culture: culture is not that, which is created only on Sundays as a special dress and concerns only a few areas of life (in particular poetry, theater, opera, classical music, painting, sculpture and philosophy), but has long encompassed all machine-made objects and everyday actions. The design of these things and their connections within industrial society must therefore be treated as a cultural task. He coined the programmatic formula: the cultural mastering of technical civilization. [Fig. 20-22]
So far, so good. These are the general indications. If we now take a closer look at Aicher’s reception, a homogeneous, conclusive overall picture of Aicher’s design emerges. The cliché, so to speak, of Aicher’s design. [Fig. 23]
It could be articulated as the thesis of the „geometric man“: Because rationally justified and systematically executed design seems morally necessary to him, Aicher always bases his work on a general construction grid, from which his concrete solutions then logically and inevitably result by themselves. They are almost objective results based on scientific knowledge. Aicher is the designer for whom even the dachshund is the result of a rational program. [Fig. 24]
We have to examine this picture from two perspectives: To what extent does the thesis of „geometric man“ coincide with the reality of Aicher’s design practice? And to what extent are there statements in his own theoretical contributions that support this thesis? [Fig. 25]
I grew up in a household with technical drawing equipment. My father had an engineering office, we had drawing boards, rulers, rapidographs, transparent paper and razor blades. As a design-enthusiastic and mission-conscious student, I wanted to place Otl Aicher’s pictograms at school. But the school did not want to buy the originals from ERCO. Doesn’t matter, nothing is easier than drawing yourself. [Fig. 26]
The operating instructions are unsurpassed in simplicity and logical stringency. Democratic design at it’s best. Simply construct a grid of 10 squares, which are halved lengthwise and vertically and crossed by diagonals at an angle of 45 degrees. Why did I have drawing boards, rulers, rapidographs and transparent paper? Let’s start with the soccer player. First the leg, it hangs on the two diagonals that cross in the center. Then the second leg. Widths, lengths, radii and distances inevitably result from the grid. The angled arm with shoulder. The upper body and the second arm. Head and ball. Done. All elements are nicely neat and strict in the grid. I could be satisfied. Perfect. A real Aicher. The copy template was ready. [Fig. 27]
My girlfriend at that time, my wife today, saw the result. Her devastating verdict: »Terrible. It doesn’t look good.« She said: »An insult to the eye.« That was true, because she didn’t know that this sentence was literally a statement by Aicher (expressed in another context), but I knew it very well. But I was prepared for argument. My answer was obvious: »Look here. It must be beautiful, because it is right. Because it can’t be ugly, which is logical.« My girlfriend replied: »You confuse background and foreground. You only pay attention to the grid. But the grid is only the background, that’s not the point. It’s about the figure. You have to pay attention to the figure, and it looks horrible. The original by Aicher is much more elegant, by the way.« I beg your pardon? What was that supposed to mean? There could be no difference between Aicher and me! But when I compared my pictogram and his I had to realize that he did not stick to his own rules at all. Gross. Look at the short leg where that is placed. Also the upper body. And the outstretched arm. The head. The ball. Unbelievable, for me as a teenager who had just discovered and devoured the writings of Aicher… I don’t want to say that a world collapsed, but the pillars of the earth had now received a few veritable breaks. [Fig. 28]
I’ve been peddling this little observation ever since. I often use the image in discussions about the applicability of mathematical rules or scientific laws to design. I then usually experience two reactions: First, silence. Staggered silence. And second, the suspicion: Mr. Spitz, that’s not true, you manipulated this image. Then I show the picture of the original Aicher pictogram, which the fans immediately identify as authentic. The figure stands on the grid. Not in the grid. The grid of the construction lines is the frame, the figure is framed. We see both the grid and the figure, but we only perceive the grid. We could say: we perceive only the theory and not the practice. We perceive the verbally expressed intention according to which the design should be logically founded. But we do not perceive the actual implementation. The grid has the effect of a smoke candle to distract from the actual blurriness or arbitrariness of the work. For there is no construction formula that prescribes the shifts of the individual elements in this picture. The result in this design process does not result from a calculation, we could say today: from an algorithm. This observation is repeated: The appearance of Lufthansa. The crane and the lettering are on the grid. They are not in the grid. The grid does not provide any information on how the crane is to be constructed, how the circle is arranged and how the two elements relate to each other. [Fig. 29-30]
The same applies to the coloured grounding of the Olympic rings. The five rings are not the same thickness. The yellow ring has the greatest line thickness, the black the thinnest, and the three others are in between. But the exact dimensions do not result from a calculation, but from Aicher’s subjective perception of colour. Here, for example, it is not 0.9, but 0.92. We see Josef Albers‘ „Interaction of Color“ in practical application. [Fig. 31-32]
Just like with the mascot Waldi. [Fig. 33]
Just like with advertising for Herman Miller Collection. [Fig. 34-36]
Undoubtedly: Aicher’s subjective interventions in the objective raster are precisely what create the decisive aesthetic quality. This intervention cannot be objectified. It is both the virtue and the limitation of Aicher’s design practice. It is what is specific for Aicher. Let’s take a brief look at Aicher’s theoretical statements. In 1962, Otl Aicher wrote a text in the HfG Ulm which summarizes his design theoretical considerations like no other. This text has not yet been published. Aicher himself has reproduced it as a typoscript under the title „zur situation der hochschule für gestaltung 1962“. This text is so remarkable because in it Aicher presents central statements about design in a few words and with extreme sharpness. The conciseness and fundamental nature of the arguments as well as the lack of evidence for the statements lend them the character of axioms. Otl Aicher literally describes his statements as doctrine. These are normative statements, which means: Aicher formulates what should be. Aicher postulates that the designer is an equal partner of the engineers and scientists, and that only rational methods make conceptual thinking legitimate: „Design [is] no longer possible without working through scientific and technological foundations […]. […] The designer [cannot] not sit on the artist’s throne. He needs training that makes him an equal partner of the engineer and scientist. Rational methods make conceptual thinking legitimate in the first place“. Aicher is not content with placing design in relation to science and technology. Rather, the nature of this relationship must be defined: „A concept that generally postulates a classification of design, science and technology is too general. Science and design stand in a relationship that can only become fruitful if their differences are made clear and clearly distinguished from one another. Aicher maintains that the essential difference between design and science lies in the degree of abstraction: „Science, including applied science, seeks generalizable insights, laws of a general nature, while design seeks objects of a concrete nature. […] Design proves itself in the individual decision, in the individual object, not in the finding of truth. Its goal and its yardstick is the individual product result. In this respect, science and design are diverging activities as those that flow into abstraction, this into the concrete case. Aicher argues that the thought process in design and science is different: „Science progresses from derivation to derivation, it draws conclusions. Design is a design activity that does not end with a conclusion, but with a concept that has been built up from ideas. Design and law are also different in themselves“. Aicher explains that the criteria for success differ from those of science and design: „An insight can be true or false. Design, on the other hand, is based on the criteria of probity and correctness. How everything can be proven by the success of the application“. For Aicher Design, therefore, this is a „process that has more to do with invention than investigation“. As Aicher puts it, „The world doesn’t just want to be recognized, it also wants to be made“. Aicher notes that design does not consist in the collection and processing, but in the interpretation of facts. Design is based on qualitative judgements beyond quantitative methods: „Design, however, is based precisely on reasons of meaning and purpose that cannot be given with the help of statistical-mathematical methods. Today, very few designers can do without data collection and data processing. But collecting facts does not explain the demands and necessities. Facts have to be included in the design, but facts do not yet result in a concept. Design consists precisely in interpreting them, in inserting them into a concept that is not satisfied with the fact that something exists, but why and why. In this respect, value should be placed on a qualitative presentation of facts.“ Aicher claims for design that it is a moral, evaluative activity based on a cultural and social value system. For Aicher, this results in „the necessity of a precise design doctrine“: „Design is to a large extent a statement and thus a moral activity. It is based on both cultural and social values. It includes objectives, evaluations and commitment. In the other case, it must degenerate into opportunistic styling. The design is in an educational position from the outset. It does not design what is wanted, but what should be. Freedom of value is the self-abandonment of design, regardless of whether it is sacrificed to the market, public taste or corporate strategy. […] Value-free design becomes worthless.“ The result of my review is as follows: Aicher’s design is based on the foundation of meaning and purpose. It is ultimately a moral, judgmental activity based on cultural and social values. Aicher’s doctrine does not contain a formal aesthetic definition, which is why it would be wrong to presume him to be subservient to a particular style. [Fig. 37-39]
Neither in Aicher’s practice nor in his theory is there any evidence that it would be justified to label Aicher as a purely scientific or rational designer. Aicher rather appears as an artist who did not want to be one, as Max Bill said. We can regard this as tragic, because his social goals cannot be seamlessly translated into a design theory of design. The aesthetic qualities that Aicher preferred cannot be produced algorithmically. Design is not a simple input-output calculation. [Fig. 40-42]
However, I see less tragedy, I see a circle that Aicher himself has closed. It begins with art and philosophy as a source of resistance against the Nazis. He develops answers for socially responsible design. And at the end of his life he works as a sculptor out of his memory on a bust of Sophie Scholl. On the day he completed this work, Otl Aicher was run over by a motorcycle. [Fig. 43]
List of figures
Fig. 1: Otl Aicher: Die Küche zum Kochen. Das Ende einer Architekturdoktrin. Munich 1982, p. 17
Fig. 2: Otl Aicher, Gabriele Greindl, Wilhelm Vossenkuhl: Wilhelm von Ockham. Das Risiko modern zu denken. Munich 1986, pp. 3 + 123
Fig. 3: Source: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/buch-mit-historischen-berichten-warum-ich-ein-nazi-wurde-100.html
Fig. 4: Otl Aicher, 1956. Photo: Hans G. Conrad [no. 4512]. Copyright: René Spitz
Fig. 5: Otto Dix. Der Krieg. Berlin 1924. Source: Jürgen Holstein (ed.): The Book Cover in the Weimar Republic. Cologne 2015, p. 126
Fig. 6: Ivan Ilyin (ed.). Welt vor dem Abgrund. Berlin 1931. Source: Jürgen Holstein (ed.): The Book Cover in the Weimar Republic. Cologne 2015, p. 136
Fig. 7: Tacitus Redivivus (pseud.). Die große Trommel. Leben, Kampf und Traumlallen Adolf Hitlers. Berlin/Zurich 1930. Source: Jürgen Holstein (ed.): The Book Cover in the Weimar Republic. Cologne 2015, p. 142
Fig. 8: Hans Scholl. Copyright: Florian Aicher
Fig. 9: Sophie Scholl. Copyright: Florian Aicher
Fig. 10: Source: Mark Holt: Munich ’72. The Visual Output of Otl Aicher’s Dept. XI. London 2019, 44
Fig. 11: Otl Aicher’s design for Inge Scholl’s book about the »White Rose«, Frankfurt am Main 1955
Fig. 12-13: Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher in Ulm’s adult education center / Ulmer Volkshochschule, 1949. Photos: Ike and Hannes Rosenberg
Fig. 14-17: Otl Aicher: Posters for Ulm adult education center / Ulmer Volkshochschule, 1946–1960. Source: Martin Krampen: Otl Aicher – 328 Plakate für die Ulmer Volkshochschule. Berlin 2002
Fig. 18: Otl Aicher: Poster for European elections, 1979. Copyright: Julian Aicher
Fig. 19: Otl Aicher: Poster for HfG Ulm touring exhibition, 1965. Copyright: HfG-Archiv Ulm
Fig. 20: Otl Aicher: Braun Exporter (1954). Photo: Hans G. Conrad. Copyright: René Spitz
Fig. 21: Dieter Rams/Braun Design Team: Braun T3 (1958). Copyright: Braun Design Archiv, Kronberg im Taunus
Fig. 22: Jonathan Ive/Apple Design Team: iPod (2001). Copyright: Apple Inc.
Fig. 23: Wolfgang Schmittel: Braun logo construction, 1952. Illustration: René Spitz
Fig. 24: Otl Aicher, Elena Winschermann: »Waldi« mascot of the Olympic Games, Munich 1972. Copyright: IOC, Lausanne
Fig. 25: Otl Aicher teaching at HfG Ulm, 20 February 1956. Photo: Hans G. Conrad [no. 0032-4]. Copyright: René Spitz
Fig. 26: Otl Aicher, Gerhard Joksch: 43 sport pictograms of the Olympic Games, Munich 1972. Source: Mark Holt: Munich ’72. The Visual Output of Otl Aicher’s Dept. XI. London 2019, 158. Copyright: IOC, Lausanne
Fig. 27: Illustration: René Spitz
Fig. 28: Otl Aicher, Gerhard Joksch: Soccer pictograms of the Olympic Games, Munich 1972. Source: Mark Holt: Munich ’72. The Visual Output of Otl Aicher’s Dept. XI. London 2019. Copyright: IOC, Lausanne
Fig. 29-30:Otl Aicher, HfG development group 5: Study »1400/0«, Lufthansa Aesthetic, October 1962. Copyright: Lufthansa AG, Frankfurt am Main
Fig. 31-32: Otl Aicher/Dept. XI design team: Standards and Norms of the Olympic Games, Munich 1972. Copyright: IOC, Lausanne
Fig. 33: Otl Aicher, Elena Winschermann: »Waldi« mascot of the Olympic Games, Munich 1972. Copyright: IOC, Lausanne
Fig. 34-36: Otl Aicher, Tomás Gonda: Herman Miller Collection advertising campaign, 1961/62. Source: ulm 6/1962, p. 15
Fig. 37-39: Otl Aicher: Posters for the city of Isny, 1977 ff. Source: Otl Aicher’s Isny. London 2017
Fig. 40-42: Otl Aicher: Posters on Wilhelm von Ockham for Bayerische Rück, 1986. Source: Otl Aicher, Gabriele Greindl, Wilhelm Vossenkuhl: Wilhelm von Ockham. Das Risiko modern zu denken. Munich 1986
Fig. 43: Otl Aicher working in rotis at a bust of Sophie Scholl, 26 August, 1991. Photo and Copyright: Hans Neudecker
+++
Wenn Sie dazu mehr wissen möchten, können Sie mir gerne eine E-Mail senden.