“Arbeitsrat für Kunst” Art and Architecture Group in Germany

The Arbeitsrat für Kunst, or Work Council for Art, was a radical German art and architecture group founded in Berlin in 1918. Formed in the revolutionary aftermath of the First World War, it brought together architects, painters, sculptors, writers, and reform-minded cultural figures who believed that art should no longer serve only private taste, state prestige, or academic tradition. Instead, art and architecture should become public, social, and democratic forces.

Although the Arbeitsrat für Kunst existed for only a short period, from 1918 to 1921, its ideas helped shape the moral and institutional climate from which the Bauhaus emerged. Its programme joined expressionist architecture, craft reform, public education, and social idealism. For design history, the group is significant because it placed the unity of art, craft, and architecture at the centre of modern cultural reconstruction.

Arbeitsrat für Kunst: Definition and Purpose

The name Arbeitsrat für Kunst may be translated as “Work Council for Art” or “Workers’ Council for Art.” The title deliberately echoed the workers’ and soldiers’ councils that appeared during the German Revolution of 1918–1919. This political language was not accidental. The group wanted art to take part in the rebuilding of society after imperial collapse, military defeat, and social upheaval.

Founded under the leadership of Bruno Taut, the Arbeitsrat für Kunst sought to gather progressive artistic forces into a public movement. It aimed to connect architecture, painting, sculpture, craft, education, museums, and civic life. Its members rejected the idea that art should remain an isolated luxury. Instead, they argued that art and people should form a unity, and that the arts should be gathered “under the wings” of a new architecture.

Post-War Germany and the Revolutionary Cultural Context

The Arbeitsrat für Kunst emerged from a moment of deep uncertainty. Germany had lost the First World War, the monarchy had fallen, and the Weimar Republic was being formed amid political violence, inflation, and cultural experimentation. Many artists and architects believed that pre-war institutions had failed morally as well as politically. They saw the old academies, official art commissions, and monument culture as symbols of a society that had become rigid, hierarchical, and detached from modern life.

In this environment, the Arbeitsrat für Kunst shared concerns with the Novembergruppe, the Deutscher Werkbund, and other avant-garde circles. These groups differed in style and emphasis, but they all questioned inherited divisions between fine art, applied art, architecture, industry, and public culture. The Arbeitsrat für Kunst was more than an exhibition society. It was a cultural pressure group that wanted reform in artistic education, patronage, public access, and the built environment.

Bruno Taut, Walter Gropius, and Key Members

Bruno Taut was the central founding figure. His expressionist architectural imagination gave the group much of its visionary language. Taut believed architecture could embody collective renewal, not merely provide shelter or display technical progress. His interest in glass, colour, crystalline forms, and communal building made him one of the most powerful voices in post-war German architectural idealism.

Walter Gropius became an important figure in the group and assumed leadership in 1919. This matters because the ideals of the Arbeitsrat für Kunst flowed directly into his early Bauhaus programme. The Bauhaus proclamation of 1919 called for architects, sculptors, and painters to return to the crafts and to create a new unity of the arts through building. That language strongly echoes the Arbeitsrat’s belief in architecture as the organising framework for collective artistic work.

Other figures associated with the Arbeitsrat für Kunst included Otto Bartning, Max Taut, Adolf Behne, Erich Mendelsohn, Hugo Häring, and other progressive architects and artists. The wider circle also intersected with German Expressionism, the Novembergruppe, and later modernist networks. Several members or sympathisers became important to modern architecture, design education, and the theoretical foundations of the Gesamtkunstwerk ideal.

Manifesto and Programme of the Arbeitsrat für Kunst

The Arbeitsrat für Kunst programme called for a fundamental reorganisation of artistic life. Its demands included broader public access to art, reduced state domination of artistic institutions, reform of museums, and the removal of monuments considered artistically poor or culturally obsolete. It also argued for public recognition of building as a social responsibility rather than a purely private matter.

One of the group’s most important ideas was that architecture should become a unifying social art. This did not mean architecture in a narrow professional sense. Rather, architecture stood for the collective organisation of space, craft, material, form, and public life. In this respect, the Arbeitsrat für Kunst continued ideas already present in the Arts and Crafts movement and the Deutscher Werkbund, while giving them a sharper revolutionary edge.

The group opposed the separation of artistic disciplines into isolated academic categories. Painting, sculpture, architecture, and craft should work together. This principle became central to Bauhaus thinking. The MoMA Bauhaus catalogue later described the Bauhaus as a school that brought together architecture, housing, painting, sculpture, theatre, photography, industrial design, pottery, metalwork, textiles, advertising, and typography within a modern philosophy of design.

Architecture as Social Art

The Arbeitsrat für Kunst treated architecture as the most public of the arts. Buildings shaped everyday life, organised social relations, and gave visible form to collective values. For this reason, the group’s architectural vision was both symbolic and practical. It included housing, community buildings, cultural centres, exhibition spaces, and new civic environments where art could reach a wider public.

This position helps us understand why the group belongs not only to architectural history but also to the history of decorative and applied arts. Its members did not imagine architecture as an isolated shell. They thought in terms of interior space, furniture, murals, glass, sculpture, craft, ornament, public education, and urban culture. Their ideal was not simply a new style but a new relationship between artistic labour and everyday life.

Expressionism, Craft, and the Idea of the New Building

The Arbeitsrat für Kunst belonged to the expressionist phase of German modernism. Before the cooler functionalism of the later 1920s, many German architects imagined the future through crystalline forms, utopian buildings, and communal artistic labour. Bruno Taut’s architectural imagination, especially his interest in glass and colour, reflected this atmosphere. Expressionist architecture was not only a visual style; it was a language of moral renewal.

At the same time, the group remained deeply connected to craft. Like William Morris before them, Arbeitsrat members distrusted the social emptiness of art made only for elites. However, unlike the more medievalist strand of Arts and Crafts thinking, German reformers also had to confront industrial production, mass housing, and modern urban life. The Arbeitsrat für Kunst therefore sits at a transitional point between romantic craft idealism and modern design reform.

Arbeitsrat für Kunst and the Bauhaus

The connection between the Arbeitsrat für Kunst and the Bauhaus is central to its legacy. When Walter Gropius became director of the new Bauhaus in Weimar in 1919, he carried forward several ideas that had circulated through the Arbeitsrat: the unity of the arts, the return to craft, the rejection of academic isolation, and the belief that architecture should gather artistic disciplines into a collective project.

The famous Bauhaus idea that the “complete building” was the final aim of the visual arts did not appear in a vacuum. It belonged to a wider post-war debate about the social purpose of art. The Arbeitsrat für Kunst helped give that debate organisational form. Its programme anticipated the Bauhaus emphasis on workshops, collaboration, and the abolition of rigid barriers between artist and craftsman.

Nevertheless, the Bauhaus later moved beyond the Arbeitsrat’s early expressionist atmosphere. By the mid-1920s, the school increasingly embraced industry, standardisation, typography, product design, and functional design. Yet the deeper ethical ambition remained: design should shape modern life, not merely decorate it.

Publications, Exhibitions, and Cultural Advocacy

The Arbeitsrat für Kunst promoted its ideas through manifestos, programme statements, exhibitions, public debate, and printed ephemera. Getty Research Institute records describe surviving Arbeitsrat printed material from 1918–1919, including manifestos, programme statements, exhibition announcements, and woodblock illustrations. These documents are important because they show how the group used print culture as a vehicle for reform.

Its advocacy was not limited to buildings. It argued for museums as educational institutions, for wider public participation in culture, and for the rethinking of state artistic authority. The group’s printed materials also reveal the importance of graphic form in early modernist activism. Manifestos, seals, pamphlets, and exhibition announcements helped translate abstract ideals into public visual culture.

Design Significance for Applied and Decorative Arts

From an applied and decorative arts perspective, the Arbeitsrat für Kunst matters because it challenged the hierarchy between “fine” and “applied” art. It placed craft, architecture, public art, and visual communication within a shared social mission. This was a decisive shift. Rather than treating decorative arts as secondary embellishment, the group saw them as part of a larger cultural organism.

The group’s programme also helps explain why twentieth-century design education became increasingly interdisciplinary. Furniture, glass, textiles, metalwork, mural painting, typography, and architecture were no longer separate decorative categories. They became parts of an integrated design problem: how should modern people live, work, gather, learn, and see?

This intellectual shift is visible across later modernist design. The Bauhaus workshops, the International Style, the social housing movement, and later design schools all inherited some part of this ambition. They did not always preserve the Arbeitsrat’s expressionist symbolism, but they carried forward its conviction that art and design had public responsibilities.

Disbandment and Legacy

The Arbeitsrat für Kunst disbanded in 1921. Lack of funds, shifting politics, competing priorities, and the difficulty of sustaining revolutionary cultural organisations all contributed to its short life. Its practical political influence remained limited. Yet its historical importance lies precisely in the intensity of its programme and the way its ideas migrated into other institutions.

Its legacy can be traced through the Bauhaus, expressionist architectural networks, the Novembergruppe, and later modernist debates about public art and design education. The Arbeitsrat für Kunst did not create a unified style. Instead, it created a cultural argument: that art, architecture, craft, and public life must be reconnected. That argument remains central to modern design history.

Why the Arbeitsrat für Kunst Still Matters

The Arbeitsrat für Kunst still matters because it reminds us that modern design was not born only from machines, factories, and functional efficiency. It also grew from social crisis, ethical ambition, and the desire to make art meaningful for ordinary people. Its members asked difficult questions that remain relevant: Who is art for? Who controls public space? How should design education connect hand, mind, material, and society? What responsibilities do architects and designers have during periods of political and social upheaval?

For Encyclopedia Design, the group belongs within the larger story of Art Nouveau, the Arts and Crafts movement, the Bauhaus, Gesamtkunstwerk, and modern architecture. It stands at the point where utopian art, social reform, and modern design education meet.

Related Articles

• Nieuwe Kunst: The Dutch Art Nouveau Movement
• Parker 51 Fountain Pen – The World’s Most Wanted Pen
• Fabric Samples of Bauhaus Students, 1921-31. 
• Exploring the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture
• Rat für Formgebung – The German Design Council

Sources

Bayer, H., Gropius, W., & Gropius, I. (Eds.). (1938). Bauhaus, 1919–1928. The Museum of Modern Art.

Getty Research Institute. (n.d.). Arbeitsrat für Kunst printed ephemera, 1918–1919. Getty Research Institute Research Guides.

German History in Documents and Images. (n.d.). Bruno Taut, Program of the “Arbeitsrat für Kunst” (1918).

Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Arbeitsrat für Kunst. In A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. Reproduced via Encyclopedia.com.

More on Design Associations