hi i'm attempting to write an essay for college on discussing the similarities and differences of the arts and crafts movement to bauhaus... can anyone help?? i've made a start but i'm getting a little lost!

You couldn’t find two movements that fall farther apart on philosophy. The A&C movement had roots that went well back into the 19th century that opposed the dehumanization of the machine age, the mass production of second rate merchandise, the reduction of creative manufacture to production line monotony. The emphasis was on the importance of handcrafted objects, the elevation of craft to art, and the simplification of lifestyle that harkened back to a supposed ideal of medieval times. The approach was idealized and not a call to forsake all modern conveniences, but to try to instill a sense of worth and importance to things well made and well designed. As a revolt from the excess of the Victorian age, the objects were simplified and unadorned with the function and structure clearly displayed. Also of importance was the accessibility for anyone to be able to afford and enjoy the objects.

The Bauhaus, mainly a European movement, was founded on the theory that machine production would free the worker from the drudgery of hand production and result in a clean and healthy lifestyle, with ample leisure time to enjoy the fruits of the industrial arts. Design was based on reduction of objects to pure functional forms with the simplicity and elegance based on streamlined design. The intent was also for these objects to be readily and inexpensively produced so that all everyone could have and benefit from the aesthetic.

Although the sources of the movements were polar opposites, the intents were similar. Both intended to benefit the larger population. Both were moving against the over-decorated and oppressive weight of the Victorian era. Ironically, both movements failed for the same reasons.

Tastes change, consumers are fickle. It turned out that people want excess in their environment. When soldiers came home from the Great War, they wanted what they had seen in Europe. Historical revival became the style of the day. The simple A&C principles could not supply the need to feel historically connected and have the feeling of being more well to do.

Much the same happened to the Bauhaus, only during the Second War. The founders and best designers of the movement rebelled against the Nationalist movement and the Nazis and left for either America or England. This resulted in the Modern Movement that continued to influence mainly commercial and municipal architecture and design.

The one common goal the both movements aspired to was the affordability of the products they produced. But in both cases, most of what was made by the major players was above the income of the average person. Cheaper knock-offs became the norm, and these did not last like the better made original pieces. This also had an effect on the consumers and they looked to other styles.

The same is true today. Original Stickley/Limbert/Roycroft and original Gropius/Mies, etc are priced well above the average person. They are ART and not everyday items readily available to the public.