Latest / Soft Ratios Research / The newspaper that stood up (on Josef Albers)

Transcript

The newspaper that stood up (on Josef Albers) · Soft Ratios Research

• 0:09
  Figure: Soft Ratios Research.
• 0:12
  Ground: The voices are synthetic [pause] no act, just the thinking.
• 0:19
  Figure: Hoyd Breton, a designer at Soft Ratios Studio, teaching himself in the open [pause] which works better with a reply. [pause] If this is interesting, write a review with your thoughts.
• 0:30
  Ground: One subject at a time, twice a week [pause] Tuesday and Thursday. [pause] Today, Josef Albers’s standing newspaper.
• 0:39
  Ground: A newspaper lies across a table. Lift it and it sags. Its edges flutter. Then someone presses one long crease into it, opens the two halves, and sets it down on those thin edges. The sheet stands. [pause] Nothing has been attached. Nothing has been removed. The paper itself hasn’t become thicker or stronger. Still, it has gone from lying there to occupying the room. [pause] That little change is almost too neat. It looks like a lesson designed backward from its moral: use less, understand more.
• 1:18
  Figure: The scene comes from Hannes Beckmann, who took Josef Albers’s preliminary course at the Bauhaus in 1928 and 1929. Beckmann remembered Albers arriving with newspapers and asking the class to make something more of them while respecting the material. [pause] Students made masks, boats, castles, airplanes, animals, little figures. One unnamed young Hungarian architect folded a sheet lengthwise, opened it like a screen, and stood it on its two long edges. [pause] Albers preferred that response. The crease stiffened a pliable sheet, and standing it up brought both faces into view. Almost no labor had produced several consequences at once.
• 2:02
  Figure: But Beckmann published the memory in 1970, more than four decades after the class. He introduced the speech as Albers saying something like this. It’s testimony, not a transcript.
• 2:14
  Ground: So the first problem isn’t how the paper stood. It’s whether this beautifully compressed scene stood quite as remembered. [pause] The interval matters. Memory keeps the clean fold and lets the heap of awkward attempts blur around it. A classroom becomes a parable because the winner is easier to carry than the afternoon. [pause] Later tellings made it cleaner still. The screen became a tent. One unnamed student became someone who always appeared. The sheet acquired a soul and a polished speech to explain it.
• 2:50
  Figure: Tom Wolfe’s 1981 retelling added those sharper details. They belong to the legend, not to Albers’s documented words. Yet the lesson underneath doesn’t depend entirely on Beckmann. [pause] In 1928, Albers described teaching that began with material and restricted tools. It deliberately reversed the familiar treatment of paper as a flat surface pasted onto something else. He wrote about standing paper upright, strengthening it through folds, using both faces, and making the edge conspicuous. [pause] He also judged success by the relation between expenditure and effect. Material and labor were to be used sparingly, then pushed toward the greatest result.
• 3:31
  Ground: That rescues the principle. It doesn’t recover the afternoon.
• 3:35
  Figure: No. The pile of newspapers, the exact sequence, the rejected objects, and the Hungarian student remain Beckmann’s recollection. Albers’s own writing establishes the method around the scene, not every detail inside it.
• 3:50
  Ground: Then the question worth keeping is narrower. What can that crease actually prove?
• 3:57
  Figure: Start with the sheet before it’s folded. Stand it flat on a thin edge and it has almost no resistance to bending sideways. A slight disturbance makes it bow. Once it bows, its own weight helps the bend grow. [pause] Open a lengthwise crease and the section becomes a V. The panels meet at an angle, so each restrains the other. To bend the whole form sideways, more of the paper has to stretch, shear, or rotate around the crease. [pause] The fold gives the sheet structural depth without adding substance. Its two lower edges also spread into a footprint. Geometry calls on capacities that the flat arrangement barely used.
• 4:36
  Ground: It’s tempting to say the fold reveals strength already hidden in the paper. That makes discovery seem innocent, as though the hand merely pulled away a curtain. [pause] But the hand injures the sheet. Fibers yield along a narrow path. The paper remembers pressure, and that damaged strip becomes a hinge. The act that strengthens the whole also weakens one line on purpose. [pause] The crease isn’t found. It’s imposed. Paper and gesture meet, and a third condition appears between them. [pause] That makes the little screen less pure and more interesting. Its capacity belongs neither to untouched newsprint nor to geometry alone. It belongs to this sheet after this touch.
• 5:29
  Figure: Then the claim has to change. The exercise didn’t disclose an eternal truth of paper. It set up a condition in which one of paper’s possible behaviors became visible. [pause] Modern crease mechanics supports that distinction. A fold has its own rest angle and stiffness, shaped by pressure, indentation, speed, time under the hand, spring-back, and earlier movement. Repeated opening changes the hinge again. [pause] So even a construction that looks nearly effortless contains a history of force. Economy doesn’t mean the means disappear. It means their effects are unusually concentrated.
• 6:06
  Ground: And the concentration is visible. The sheet rises. One face turns toward the light while the other turns away. The center line becomes a ridge. A wedge of air opens between the panels. [pause] The bottom edge, almost irrelevant when the newspaper lay flat, becomes the place where the whole thing meets the table. The boundary begins carrying weight. [pause] Then the shadow leaves the sheet and extends the event into nearby space. The smallest physical change makes the room participate.
• 6:41
  Figure: Beckmann explicitly remembered the stiffness and the activation of both faces. He didn’t mention shadow. That has to remain an interpretation, though it has support. Surviving photographs of Albers’s paper exercises use light to emphasize narrow edges, alternating planes, and strong cast shadows.
• 7:00
  Ground: The photograph complicates the economy. A modest object can look monumental when the camera lowers, the background disappears, and darkness gives every fold another plane.
• 7:12
  Figure: Most of those exercises were temporary. Hundreds weren’t preserved as permanent objects. Their historical presence often comes through carefully lit images, so the record contains both the construction and the way it was made visible.
• 7:26
  Ground: The shadow isn’t false, though. It’s conditional. Like the stiffness.
• 7:32
  Figure: There’s the useful limit. Every effect has conditions. Good economy gathers several compatible effects without pretending they’re permanent properties.
• 7:41
  Ground: The famous rule is usually stated more severely: no glue.
• 7:46
  Figure: The accurate version is no glue at first. Albers withheld the familiar adhesive joint so students couldn’t let paste settle the structural question before they’d tested the sheet in other ways. [pause] They folded, slotted, interlocked, bound, sewed, riveted, wedged, balanced, and used pressure. In stricter single-material exercises, the parts had to stay together through the material’s own arrangement. [pause] But Albers wrote that this reversal wasn’t a matter of principle. After other methods had been tried, paper could be glued sparingly. The restriction had an order and a duration.
• 8:23
  Ground: An adhesive gives an answer too early. Two surfaces touch, the paste cures, and the joint no longer has to explain much about balance or friction. [pause] Still, glue isn’t dishonest. A pasted book can be exact. A laminated sheet can expose capacities that a loose sheet can’t. Banning one method forever would turn curiosity into taste. [pause] The temporary refusal is stronger because it has somewhere to end. It delays the obvious move long enough for less familiar joints to become thinkable.
• 9:05
  Figure: The sequence matters more than the prohibition. Albers wasn’t setting up a moral order with pure folds above contaminated paste. He was interrupting habit, then letting technique return under closer scrutiny. [pause] The restriction made joining perceptible. A slot shows where edges press. An interlock shows opposing movement. A balanced piece shows what gravity is doing. The support becomes an account of how it supports.
• 9:35
  Ground: There’s a bodily difference too. Glue lets a connection be made and left alone. Balance remains tense. A person can sense that the object is still negotiating with weight.
• 9:47
  Figure: This brings us back to economy. It wasn’t a look of bare white surfaces or a fondness for inexpensive things. Albers used the German terms for expenditure and effect. The measure was relational: what had been spent, and what had become possible because of it. [pause] Expenditure included stock, discarded areas, tools, cuts, folds, handling, trial time, and execution time. He advised planning before costly work, testing at a small scale, using inexpensive material during trials, avoiding offcuts, and choosing simpler operations when they achieved the intended result. [pause] Effect could mean strength, flexibility, load capacity, balance, height, volume, an active edge, a useful void, or several new relationships among parts.
• 10:38
  Ground: So one crease isn’t economical because the count is one. A single careless fold that produces a weak, awkward lump has spent little and achieved little. [pause] A complicated construction may be economical if every cut, joint, and surface earns several consequences. The numerator can rise when the return rises faster. [pause] This is where visual restraint gets confused with material economy. A sparse object can waste effort. A dense object can be exact. Appearance alone doesn’t disclose the ratio.
• 11:19
  Figure: Albers’s class needed comparison for that reason. Results were placed together and criticized. Students had to defend the relation among material, procedure, and form. Counting parts in a photograph couldn’t certify economy. [pause] The newspaper screen succeeded because the same action supplied stiffness, a base, vertical presence, two visible faces, an accented ridge, divided space, and changing illumination. Its effects reinforced one another.
• 11:49
  Ground: But the rejected masks and boats bother me. The story can make recognition sound childish and abstraction sound intelligent. That’s a familiar way for a classroom preference to dress itself as material truth.
• 12:03
  Figure: The objection wasn’t firmly against representation itself. In Beckmann’s examples, the subjects supplied the ingenuity while the newsprint remained interchangeable. A boat could’ve been copied in another substance without changing the idea.
• 12:18
  Ground: A folded screen is also a familiar object. Calling it wings doesn’t erase association. Why is that resemblance permitted while the castle isn’t? [pause] Perhaps the difference isn’t between abstract and representational. Perhaps it’s between a resemblance that follows the operation and a shape that commands the material in advance. [pause] The little building begins with a building and recruits paper as imitation stone. The standing sheet begins with paper’s bending. Only afterward does it happen to resemble a screen, wings, or a tent.
• 12:58
  Figure: The boundary can sit there. Albers distinguished making something merely different from finding a different method. The question was whether the form grew convincingly from the behavior being tested. [pause] Still, that judgment can’t be automatic. A representational form might disclose a material with great precision. An abstract form might merely repeat a fashionable vocabulary. The screen earned its place through the relation between means and results, not through nonrepresentation alone. [pause] So I’d withdraw the claim that the figurines failed simply because they depicted things. Within Beckmann’s account, they failed because they didn’t make newspaper necessary to their conception.
• 13:39
  Ground: The lesson then becomes harder to copy. Repeating the winning fold would miss it immediately.
• 13:45
  Figure: It would restore the recipe the exercise had removed. Albers avoided giving a model solution because severe limits were meant to produce varied discoveries. The exemplary sheet calibrated judgment. It wasn’t a pattern for the next class to reproduce.
• 14:01
  Ground: That changes how economy feels. It isn’t obedience to fewer gestures. It’s attention sharp enough to notice when a gesture has begun doing several jobs. [pause] And it asks for patience before reduction. The final action may take seconds. Reaching it can require an untidy field of crushed corners, collapsing panels, mistaken cuts, and forms that stand only until the hand moves away. [pause] The elegant result depends on waste of another kind: attempts that never become objects. Hide those trials and economy starts to look like effortless taste.
• 14:42
  Figure: Albers allowed for that. He described experimental learning as a longer route with detours, errors, and dead ends. Shortening the work process came later, after behavior had been discovered and compared. [pause] Exploratory time was an expenditure, but it could produce knowledge that made later execution more exact. Economy wasn’t haste. It placed effort where it generated the largest return.
• 15:08
  Ground: Then there are two newspapers. One is the finished screen: quick, spare, almost obvious. The other is the floor of attempts around it, which taught the class why the screen mattered.
• 15:21
  Figure: Neither is complete without the critique. A form standing for a moment might be luck. Its relation to the brief, its behavior under touch, the absence of waste, and the clarity of its operation had to be examined beside alternatives.
• 15:39
  Ground: We’ve reached the middle of the problem. Is the standing sheet evidence of paper’s nature, or only evidence that one arrangement happened to work in one room?
• 15:48
  Figure: It’s evidence of a conditional capacity. Paper has real constraints: aligned fibers, finite thickness, yielding, fracture, moisture-sensitive bonds, and memory after deformation. Geometry and circumstance decide which constraint becomes dominant. [pause] Machine-made paper is uneven by direction. Its fibers tend to align during manufacture, so stiffness along one direction can differ substantially from stiffness across it. Rotate the same sheet and the panels and hinge won’t respond in the same way. [pause] Moisture changes it again. Newsprint absorbs water from the air. As moisture rises, stiffness falls, creep changes, and uneven expansion can cause curling or buckling. A screen that stands in dry conditions may slowly lean elsewhere.
• 16:39
  Ground: The hand can feel some of that before any measurement. One direction resists. Another accepts the fold. A damp sheet seems to carry its own fatigue. [pause] But touch can also deceive. A form can feel firm because it’s small. Enlarge it in the same stock and it may sag under a weight that has grown faster than its thickness can answer. [pause] Scale is where the charming demonstration loses its innocence. A crease across a desk isn’t yet a roof, a wall, or a chair. Similar shape doesn’t promise similar behavior.
• 17:19
  Figure: For curved sheets, gravity’s influence relative to elastic resistance grows sharply with length. Double a configuration without thickening the stock and gravity can become eight times more important in that comparison. Small success doesn’t enlarge by photocopying. [pause] A contemporary repetition would need a family of specimens. The same newspaper could be folded with and across the grain, at different angles and sizes, under recorded humidity. Pressure and hold time could vary one factor at a time. [pause] Standing would need a definition: for how long, within what degree of lean, under what added load. Each kind of collapse would need a name—base slip, hinge opening, panel bowing, local buckling, tearing, or overturning.
• 18:08
  Ground: That sounds colder than a class watching one surprising sheet rise from the floor.
• 18:13
  Figure: It trades immediacy for sharper boundaries. But the two approaches don’t have to cancel each other. The first fold opens curiosity. The controlled series shows where the effect begins and ends.
• 18:26
  Ground: I’d keep the collapsed forms in view. Measurement often favors the specimen that survives and clears away the others. Here, the broken forms contain the shape of the question. [pause] A panel that bows after four minutes says something different from one that slips at once. A hinge that relaxes slowly describes time. A torn edge records where concentrated efficiency became concentrated damage. [pause] The failed sheet isn’t the opposite of economy. It shows the price the successful one avoided under those conditions.
• 19:05
  Figure: That fits Albers’s comparative method. A negative result becomes useful when it locates a boundary and prompts the next altered trial. The aim isn’t to enthrone one solution. It’s to improve judgment among several. [pause] The wider history also keeps the newspaper from becoming a solitary invention. Folding had stiffened thin material long before that Bauhaus class. [pause] Henry Robinson Palmer’s 1829 British patent applied corrugated metal sheets to self-supporting roofs and described corrugation as already known. The gain came from shaping a thin surface rather than adding solid mass.
• 19:44
  Ground: So Albers’s lesson wasn’t that nobody had noticed folds before. Its force was in the teaching: an established structural fact became strange again in the cheapest object at hand.
• 19:57
  Figure: The mechanism underneath is almost embarrassingly simple. A flat sheet folds because one face stretches while the other compresses, and nothing stands far enough from the middle to resist that couple. Put a crease in it and the material moves away from its own bending axis. Depth starts doing the work mass used to.
• 20:18
  Ground: And that is why the fold works against multiplication. More layers would only add material. Shape changes what the existing layer can resist.
• 20:28
  Figure: The gain is not free, though, and the cost is paid in a currency the classroom rarely names. Every crease that buys stiffness spends flatness — surface that can no longer be printed, stacked, or cut without undoing the geometry that made it strong.
• 20:44
  Ground: Which makes the ban on glue feel less like purity and more like a return to visible forces. Fold, pressure, edge — each one legible, each one accountable.
• 20:57
  Figure: It also commits the sheet to a direction. A fold is stiff along its length and barely changed across it. Strength arrives with an axis attached, so the question stops being how much resistance the geometry buys and becomes which way it points.
• 21:12
  Ground: The classroom sheet and Palmer's roof share an ambition, not a scale. Both ask geometry to make a thin surface resist what flatness couldn't.
• 21:24
  Figure: And a fold keeps a memory of having been flat. Unlike a cast or a welded joint, the geometry that stiffens it can be run backwards. That reversibility is a structural property in its own right — one the newspaper on the desk never had any reason to use.
• 21:41
  Ground: So one crease can mean two things. A commitment, or a hinge. Which one it is depends entirely on whether anyone intends to undo it.
• 21:52
  Figure: Origami engineering makes the relation more adjustable. In 2015, Evgueni Filipov, Tomohiro Tachi, and Glaucio Paulino showed that zipper-coupled folded tubes could increase stiffness by two orders of magnitude while preserving one flexible mode for deployment.
• 22:10
  Ground: There the contradiction is cultivated: stiff in the directions that matter, willing to move in one chosen direction. Maximum effect isn’t maximum rigidity.
• 22:24
  Figure: Optimization methods turn the old classroom question into computation. Airbus reported that a generatively developed A320 partition was forty-five percent lighter—thirty kilograms—while meeting its required strength.
• 22:39
  Ground: But a lighter part doesn’t finish the accounting. It may demand harder manufacturing, more expensive stock, difficult repair, or an ending that leaves its materials inseparable. [pause] Material economy can move cost out of sight. Less mass in the object may mean more tooling in the factory. Less fuel in use may arrive with greater toxicity in production. A short bill of materials can still create a long burden. [pause] So the ratio needs a boundary. What counts as expenditure, over what lifetime, and for whom? Without that, economy can be made flattering simply by cropping the frame.
• 23:23
  Figure: The boundary has to widen. Albers’s criterion concerned material, labor, procedure, and effect within an educational and productive setting. It shouldn’t be renamed as environmental virtue without a full lifecycle account. [pause] And a boundary is never neutral. Whoever draws it decides which consequences belong to the object and which belong on somebody else's ledger — the supplier's, the repairer's, or whoever eventually has to take the thing apart. [pause] The standing newspaper remains unusually clean because its frame is so small: no added stock, no offcut, one local deformation, a temporary object, and several immediate effects. That clarity doesn’t automatically transfer to an aircraft or a building.
• 24:12
  Ground: Nor should the larger cases be forced back into the newspaper as proof that the classroom was secretly forecasting them. The fold doesn’t contain the future. It gives a precise way to look at means.
• 24:26
  Figure: The criterion outlived the exercise. At Black Mountain College, Albers kept teaching it for years, broadening the trials to combinations of materials and surfaces, while the question underneath stayed exactly the same. [pause] Harry Seidler studied with him there in 1946. He later called the pursuit of the greatest aesthetic and physical result for the least effort and material directly applicable to architecture. His Australia Square used repetitive precast elements in a program of constructional economy.
• 24:58
  Ground: The durable inheritance may not be a visual style at all. It’s the insistence that every operation answer two questions: what did it cost, and how many real consequences followed?
• 25:11
  Figure: The newspaper adds a third: could those consequences have come from the material’s arrangement rather than from another component?
• 25:18
  Ground: Its failed forms add a fourth: how long do those consequences last?
• 25:24
  Figure: Those questions keep economy from collapsing into cheapness. Scarcity gave the word its urgency, but the argument for fewer means was never an argument for inferior ones. Less was meant to meet more need without surrendering quality.
• 25:40
  Ground: Cheapness asks only how little can be spent before the object leaves someone’s hands. Economy keeps following the consequences after that point. [pause] It can require better material in a smaller quantity. It can justify extra time in a trial so repeated production wastes less. It can favor repair over replacement, or reject lightness when lightness shortens useful life. [pause] The least immediate effort and the least total effort are often different answers.
• 26:19
  Figure: That’s why Albers’s smallest-scale tests mattered. They moved uncertainty into inexpensive trials. The experiment could be lavish in attention while remaining modest in stock.
• 26:30
  Ground: The newspaper was already spent in another sense. It had carried yesterday’s information and sat near the bottom of its material value. The class didn’t redeem it by decorating it. It asked the sheet to behave differently.
• 26:45
  Figure: Economy here isn’t sentimental rescue. It changes the relation between means and capacity. The printed content recedes while the sheet’s thickness, grain, continuity, and foldability come forward.
• 26:59
  Ground: Yet the words don’t vanish. When the panels open, columns turn away from each other. Headlines cross the ridge. Structure breaks the act of reading. [pause] The surface carries two kinds of consequence at once: language from its first use and stiffness from its second. Even the exemplary solution can’t make the material innocent again.
• 27:23
  Figure: The object gains another surplus without requiring us to invent Albers’s intention. A used newspaper brings earlier work into the exercise, and the fold redirects rather than erases it.
• 27:35
  Ground: The scene feels less like a miracle now. A hand presses a line. Fibers yield. Two panels angle apart. Gravity tests them. Light separates them. Air takes shape between them. Memory later polishes the event.
• 27:57
  Figure: Proof enters at different strengths. Beckmann gives the vivid classroom recollection. Albers’s 1928 writing secures the economy of expenditure and effect. Period images show upright exercises, active edges, and dramatic shadows. Mechanics explains why folded geometry can stiffen a sheet.
• 28:17
  Ground: None of those accounts owns the whole newspaper. Together they keep it from becoming either a fable or a formula.
• 28:24
  Figure: Its lasting force lies in the unresolved ratio. Reduction has value only when it releases capacity. Intervention is justified only by what it makes newly perceptible or possible. The smallest move has no privilege until its consequences arrive.
• 28:42
  Ground: A fresh reenactment would begin with several matched sheets, not one ceremonial fold. Some would stand. Some would relax, bow, slip, or tear. Their shadows would still make each outcome look briefly complete. [pause] Placed together, the successful form would lose its air of inevitability. It would become one exact answer among nearby failures, dependent on pressure, direction, scale, moisture, time, and the patience to compare them.
• 29:19
  Figure: That returns the newspaper to the classroom floor, where economy wasn’t a finished appearance. It was a judgment made among consequences.
• 29:27
  Ground: What is the least change that lets an ordinary thing reveal more than it costs?