1 Applied Arts Geared towards Mass Consumption
Art education faces perpetual calls for reform, as each societal shift prompts a reevaluation of art’s practice and function, which remain inseparable from its institutional frameworks. The transformation of art education in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, particularly through the influence
In Germany, the “Lehr- und Versuchsateliers für Angewandte und Freie Kunst” (Teaching and Experimental Studios for Applied and Fine Arts), established in Munich in 1902 by Hermann Obrist and Wilhelm von Debschitz and widely known as the “Debschitz Schule,” was among the pioneering art schools to incorporate practical workshop training into its curriculum.1 Other notable examples of this integration of craft training into art education include the Frankfurt School of Art, formed through the merger of the autonomous “Städel Schule” with the practical elements of the municipal School of Arts and Crafts; the reorganized teaching studios on the Mathildenhöhe in Darmstadt, which evolved from the artists’ workshops; and the Burg Giebichenstein Art Academy in Halle, founded in 1915, which transformed the “Gewerbliche Zeichen- und Handwerkerschule” in alignment with the ideals of the Deutsche Werkbund and the “Bauhütten” ideal.2 The early Bauhaus, with its rallying cry, “Architects, sculptors, painters—we all must return to craftsmanship!,” epitomized this movement as a synthesis of a school of arts and crafts and an art academy. Emerging during an era when mass production driven by industrialization signaled the decline of traditional craftsmanship, the Bauhaus of this time represented a continuation and culmination of these reformist ideals.
William Morris (1834–1896) and John Ruskin (1819–1900), pioneers of the Arts and Crafts Movement, staunchly opposed machine production, which they deemed deficient in design integrity. By the mid-19th century, they were already critiquing industrial production for stripping craftsmanship of its essential skills. They argued that the serial, machine-based production system, reliant on the division of labor, inherently precluded the conditions necessary for quality workmanship.
At the same time, Morris’s assertion, “I don’t want art for a few, any more than education for a few, or freedom for a few” (Pevsner, 1975, p. 22), exemplifies the liberal and socially inclusive ethos underpinning their philosophy. The Deutscher Werkbund, established in 1907 by Hermann Muthesius (1861–1927) and Henry van de Velde (1863–1957), echoed this commitment to socially grounded quality but diverged from the Arts and Crafts Movement by embracing mechanical production as an opportunity for innovative design for the broad
The issue of typification emerged as a focal point of heated debate within the Deutscher Werkbund. Muthesius championed typification as a pragmatic alignment with the economic realities of mass production, advocating for a compromise with capitalist imperatives. In stark opposition, van de Velde vehemently rejected this approach, declaring: “As long as there are artists in the Werkbund, and as long as they have influence on its fate, they will protest against any suggestion of a canon or typification” (Velde, 1962, p. 365). Van de Velde’s resistance underscored the enduring tension between artistic autonomy and the pressures of industrial standardization driven by capitalized efficiency and consumerism.3 This debate reflected the broader dilemma of the economic dispositif—a core issue that had also driven the Arts and Crafts Movement to rebel against the negative impact of industry on artistic creativity, the cultural alienation of modern society, urban neglect, and the commercialization of public life.
From the mid-1920s the Reimann’s teaching, adapted to post-war economics, profoundly influenced not only the call for a modern style in Britain, but from 1928 display education. (2024, p. 133)
The Reimann Schule thus emerged as a pivotal force in aligning art education with the dynamics of commercial and consumer culture. In 1913, the Reimann
Albert Reimann consistently emphasized that his schools provided “workshop rather than art school training” (Reimann, 1936, p. 20). This approach echoed the emerging workshop schools of the Arts and Crafts reform movement, which prioritized a synthesis of craft and utility. However, unlike many contemporaries, Reimann—a member of the Deutsche Werkbund—readily embraced the use of machines. His pragmatism was evident in his belief in the equal value of aesthetic function in both artworks and everyday objects, and was further demonstrated by the school’s active participation in applied and industrial arts exhibitions. Yet, despite sharing certain objectives with broader reform efforts, the Reimann Schule’s profit-driven ethos set it apart.4 As Prussia’s first private “Kunst- und Kunstgewerbeschule,” it operated on explicitly commercial principles, consistently aligning itself with the trends of the cosmopolitan metropolis. This strategic market alignment fostered what the school termed a “modern formal idiom” (neuzeitliche Formensprache) (Schule Reimann, 1912, p. 4), underscoring its innovative contribution to art and design education within a capitalist framework.
Thus, only at first glance did the modern orientation of the Reimann Schule correspond to that of the Bauhaus. While the Bauhaus was primarily interested in developing new material and functional solutions, this was hardly the driving force for the Reimann Schule. As former student Natasha Kroll observed, “The Bauhaus gave a hard-working and experimental impression, while the Reimann, an expensive school, was a bit like a finishing school with many female students.”5 Under Walter Gropius, the Bauhaus’s labor-intensive, experimental approach often resulted in costly products accessible mainly to an elite clientele, a model not built for economic viability.6
Even during the brief, socially-minded tenure of Hannes Meyer as director (1928–1930), whose slogan was “People’s Needs Instead of Luxury Needs,”7 the overlap with the Reimann Schule remained minimal. This was largely due
The entrepreneurial ethos of the Reimann Schule is evident in its strategic targeting of economically affluent demographics as prospective enrollees. Albert Reimann explicitly criticized educational models overly focused on trades, arguing that “the lack of social prestige of the trades prevented many parents from higher social classes from sending their children to a trade school” (Kuhfuss-Wickenheiser, 2009, p. 35). By continuously expanding and differentiating its curriculum, the school successfully positioned itself as an attractive option for the middle class. This differentiation included specialized courses in fashion design, fashion illustration, fashion drawing, garment drawing, and fashion studies, all supported by the expertise of renowned fashion designers such as Annie Offterdinger, Rolf Nitzky, and Kenan. These figures were prominently featured in leading German fashion publications, including STYL and Die deutsche Elite, thereby reinforcing the school’s reputation and appeal. The Reimann Schule also provided career counseling services, further enhancing its attractiveness to prospective students.
There is a great need—not only in Germany—for tasteful and technically trained advertising aids; department stores and specialty shops, manufacturers and workshops, in short, companies of all kinds need artistically trained people who can also meet practical requirements. So it is not “artists”
who are needed, but tasteful practitioners who can adapt themselves and their work to the needs of the business. […] Experience has shown that only a small percentage of art students succeed in the purely artistic field. […] It is important, therefore, to give all art enthusiasts the opportunity to use their work to the full extent of their abilities, for their own benefit and for the benefit of the economy. (Growald, 1914, pp. 137–138)9
Since not only the retail trade, but also the industry and especially the branded goods industry are increasingly moving towards the creation of type shop windows for their customers and thus towards the realization of advertising appropriate and tasteful shop window designs, the profession of the commercial advertiser should have good prospects for the coming period. (Reimann, 1934, p. 35)
Max Hertwig, Reimann Schule poster for the recruitment of new students, c. mid-1920s. Poster print. The slogan “Der Weg zum Beruf” (The Path to a Career) encapsulates the school’s market-oriented pedagogy. Source: Farbe und Form: Ein Bildprospekt der Schule Reimann (1934)
2 Shop Window Design
This market-oriented ethos found its most potent expression in the school’s focus on shop window design, a discipline Reimann strategically elevated after incorporating the “Höhere Fachschule für Dekorationskunst” (Higher Vocational School for the Decorative Arts) on January 1, 1912 (Schule Reimann, 1927, p. 9). The integration was a strategic masterstroke that cemented the Reimann Schule’s commercial and pedagogical identity. Founded in 1910 by a consortium including the Deutscher Werkbund, the absorbed school pioneered a dual curriculum of artistic and commercial window dressing, an approach Reimann would leverage to achieve global renown (Reimann, 1927, p. 16; Kuhfuss-Wickenheiser, 2009, p. 222). He consistently promoted the “art of decoration, with special emphasis on window dressing,” as a core pillar of his institution, implementing a pedagogical model that paired theoretical instruction with direct, practical application in the retail stores of Berlin and beyond (Wickenheiser, 1993, pp. 321–322).
This strategic positioning was enabled by the Decoration Department’s anomalous structure. As an entity within the private Reimann Schule, it
The curriculum enabled by this structure was, from its inception, unabashedly commercial. Its philosophy was clearly articulated by lead instructor Georg Fischer, who mandated that students seek every opportunity “in the sales sense that appear[ed] suitable for constantly increasing sales” (1927, p. 137). The school’s success was quantifiable: by 1925, over a thousand Reimann-trained decorators were shaping Berlin’s visual culture. Yet, the school professed a higher purpose, claiming the shop window “had the task not only of selling but also of educating taste” (Fischer, 1927, p. 137), thus positioning itself as an arbiter of modern popular aesthetics.
The school’s pedagogy was an early, practical formulation of what Guy Debord would later define as the “spectacle”—a social relationship between people mediated by images (Debord, 1967). While students in the workshop learned to assemble the idealized figures of consumer desire (Figure 2.2), a haunting archival image of dismembered mannequin torsos (Figure 2.3) serves as a potent metaphor: a look behind the curtain that exposes the raw artificiality of the very illusion the students were taught to construct.
Willy Pragher, Puppen-Stecken (Assembling Mannequins), 1931. A workshop scene from the Reimann Schule’s decoration department. Courtesy of the Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg, Staatsarchiv Freiburg, W 134 Nr. 003894, Willy Pragher Collection
Willy Pragher, Schaufensterpuppen (Harem), 1931. A storeroom scene from the Reimann Schule. Courtesy of the Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg, Staatsarchiv Freiburg, W 134 Nr. 003901, Willy Pragher Collection
It was precisely this climate of elite discontent that the Reimann Schule so brilliantly exploited. Its innovation was not to adopt the anti-commercial spirit of Osthaus and Westheim, but to replace the cluttered kitsch they despised with a more sophisticated form of commercial spectacle. This new approach, however, did not always align with the stark, product-focused objectivity that purists championed. Instead, the school’s imaginative, narrative-driven displays often perfectly exemplified the kind of artificial theatricality that critics like Osthaus satirized in his broader condemnations of the practice, such as his derision of “polar bear hunts with painted icebergs for fur displays” or “hams adorned with Raphael angels in lard” (1913, pp. 60–61).
Figure 2.4 exemplifies this critique, depicting a shop window design created by Reimann Schule students for dry wool. The display features a skier posed against a slope fashioned from wool threads, accompanied by a banner proclaiming, “and for winter sports only a sweater made of dry wool.” The skier’s sweater, represented merely by loosely arranged wool threads, was yet to be knitted. This tableau embodies precisely what Osthaus opposed: a nonobjective, narrative approach to window dressing that prioritized spectacle over substance, emphasizing whimsical storytelling rather than a clear presentation of the product’s qualities and utility. A similar, perhaps even more striking, example of this narrative-driven pedagogy can be seen in a display for shoes and stockings (Figure 2.5). Here, the story is dictated with prescriptive clarity: “the matching stocking for every shoe.” The display sells not a product, but a system of coordinated consumption. This focus on the narrative is so absolute that it becomes estranged from the object itself; the products are merely props in a scene that borders on the macabre. The use of fragmented, disembodied mannequin legs, arranged like parts in a machine, reduces the human form to a series of fetishized components,
Window display for dry wool by the Reimann Schule’s decoration department, c. early 1930s. Source: Farbe und Form: Ein Bildprospekt der Schule Reimann (1934), p. 33
Willy Pragher, Schuhdekoration (Shoe Decoration), 1931. A workshop scene from the Reimann Schule’s decoration department, showing the construction of a display for shoes and stockings. Courtesy of the Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg, Staatsarchiv Freiburg, W 134 Nr. 003896, Willy Pragher Collection
This focus on narrative spectacle was not confined to the classroom; rather, the pedagogy of the Reimann Schule blurred the lines between the workshop and the commercial street. The classroom became a direct laboratory for the application of these principles. Photographs from the school’s studios vividly document this process. Figure 2.6 shows a workshop where students construct the very decorative elements—such as a stylized grain emblem within a modernist circular design—that would later appear in commercial displays for products like Knäckebrot (Figure 2.7). The instruction thus moved seamlessly from the craft of making the props to the art of arranging them into a compelling commercial narrative.
Willy Pragher, Students of the Hertwig Class, 1931, A workshop scene in the Reimann Schule’s decoration department, showing students constructing the practical elements for commercial displays. Courtesy of the Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg, Staatsarchiv Freiburg, W 134 Nr. 003898, Willy Pragher Collection
Willy Pragher, Fenster für Uhren (Window for Clocks), 1931. A student in a workshop constructs a display juxtaposing modernist motifs with a commercial product. Courtesy of the Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg, Staatsarchiv Freiburg, W 134 Nr. 003902, Willy Pragher Collection
But after only a week or two, a typical symptom that appears almost regularly in all students is severe depression, and they begin to sigh that it is
impossible to learn in eight weeks what is necessary to become a good window dresser in our sense of the word. Unfortunately, in the majority of cases, the financial circumstances of the individual student do not allow for a greater extension of the duration of the course, so that our task can only be to explain to the individual in broad strokes what is really important in the endeavors of our technical school. (1912, pp. 105–106)
This testimony suggests that the condensed, financially constrained training necessitated a focus on easily digestible, high-impact compositional techniques rather than a deeper, more time-consuming education in design theory. This practical limitation finds resonance in Nina Schleif’s later analysis of the school’s output. Comparing two window displays, Schleif concludes that the “Reimann style alludes to modern art trends, but processes them in a way that was not intended to promote and educate the understanding of art in passers-by, but rather to defuse art for the broad masses in a way that was pleasing to the eye” (2004, pp. 44–45).
This strategy of “defusing” art for mass consumption marks the fundamental chasm between the Reimann Schule and the truly radical avant-garde, particularly the Berlin Dadaists, whose programmatic anti-art stance was a rebellion against precisely this kind of commodity fetishism. In stark contrast to the Dadaist critique of production and media, the Reimann Schule’s pedagogy catered to a desire for spectacle, fully aligning itself with commercial interests. While both the Arts and Crafts Movement and the Werkbund also aimed to elevate public taste, they did so through refinement and institutional education, such as museums and exhibitions.12 The Reimann Schule, on the other hand, with its primary goal of awakening and satisfying the needs of a capitalist, commodity-driven society, contributed to the development of a commercialized mass taste and the culture of mass entertainment.
The discrepancy between the avant-garde and the specific modernity of the Reimann Schule becomes even more apparent when one recalls the socio-critical, ethical goals of the original Arts and Crafts and Life Reform Movements, which vehemently opposed “the big city with its sensations and corrosive influences” (Andreesen, 1925, pp. 4–5). Yet, it was Osthaus himself who acknowledged the powerful new reality of the market. He argued that the “regeneration of taste” was continuing productively through the shop window and that, consequently, “The shopkeeper has thus become an educator of the people, or at least a mediator on whom the fate of taste depends in wide circles” (1913, p. 69). The Reimann Schule, more than any other institution, took on this role, albeit in a manner that the purists would have found deeply ambivalent.
3
While the school’s commercial practices offer a clear historical narrative, its intellectual underpinnings place it at the center of a much broader debate on liberalism and mass culture. The limited body of literature on the Reimann Schule predominantly addresses its trajectory within the context of the Nazi regime and the subsequent cultural transfer during its reestablishment in British exile (Breakell, 2021; Kuhfuss-Wickenheiser, 2019; Suga, 2014). This discourse highlights the school’s significant role within the Jewish diaspora and its influence on global art and design cultures. Undoubtedly, Reimann set pluralistic cultural trends in Berlin, facilitated by the international scope of his institution, reflected in its diverse roster of teachers and students.13 In this regard, the Reimann Schule distinguished itself not only through its commercial orientation but also its cosmopolitan outlook, setting it apart from the traditional German art and applied arts schools. Unlike these institutions, which were often steeped in national values and aligned with the Arts and Crafts Movement—despite its international reach and national romanticism (most notably represented by Lars Israël Wahlman)—the Reimann Schule embraced a more global perspective.14 As a private institution, it followed contemporary trends, contrasting sharply with the elitist academicism that often characterized Prussian institutions, which were frequently criticized for their resistance to reform and their perceived backwardness. However, as discussed in the preceding section, the liberalism of the Reimann Schule—while opposed to conservatism—was also an economic liberalism and thus warrants a critical examination.
The inherent contradictions in “liberalism” lead directly to the critical theories that diagnose its effects on the culture industry and corresponding social systems. This economic liberalism, embraced by the Reimann Schule, is a core feature of a broader societal shift analyzed by Jean Baudrillard, where consumption is no longer oriented toward use value but toward “symbolic exchange value, the value of social prestation, of rivalry and, at the limit, of class discriminants” (Baudrillard, 1981, pp. 30–31). The Reimann Schule’s success, therefore, can be read as a masterful capitalization on this new logic, where its “cosmopolitan outlook” became a marketable sign of modernity.
While thinkers of the Frankfurt School, such as Theodor W. Adorno, sought to shield autonomous art from the culture industry’s reach (Adorno, 1974), a more fundamental assault on modern mass society was being mounted from a different intellectual tradition. Originating with the political theorist Carl Schmitt, this critique targeted not just mass culture, but the very processes of neutralization inherent in liberal democracy.15 It was Leo Strauss who later
This profound skepticism toward the homogenizing effects of mass culture finds a direct parallel in the aesthetic sphere. In a significant overlap with Strauss, Clement Greenberg saw the decline of aesthetic standards as a direct result of the democratization of culture (1997, p. 439). These critiques—which characterized mass culture as accessible to the “worst abilities” with minimal intellectual or moral effort—resonate powerfully with the Werkbund dispute and Osthaus’s condemnation of shop window displays. Strauss’s demand for a democracy that requires “dedication, concentration, breadth, and depth” (1995, pp. 4–5) mirrors Osthaus’s insistence on an awareness of production processes as a precondition for style preservation.
The transformative change wrought by this logic of the sign extended into the domain of fine arts, where Pop Art exemplifies the tension between mass culture and the art industry. Richard Hamilton, educated at the Reimann School in London and a key figure in Pop Art, highlighted these dynamics by exploring this interplay. Similarly, Andy Warhol, initially trained in practical arts, transitioned into fine art by adapting the strategies of commodification and fetishization inherent in mass-produced goods. His work ultimately blurred the boundaries between mass culture and fine art, situating him as a central figure within the culture industry’s art market—the processes of market liberalism and Baudrillard’s “system of objects” brought to their logical conclusion.
Notes
Although the focus here is on German-speaking educational institutions, since the article concentrates on the Schule Reimann and the new type of school was most widespread in Germany and Austria, from “Werkstattschulen” to “Kunstgewerbeschulen,” similar schools were also established in other countries by the end of the 19th century, such as the School of Arts and Crafts (Škola uměleckých řemesel) in Brno or the Academy of Decorative Arts (la instituţii de învăţmînt) in Bucharest.
Among the artists with practical experience who worked in the field of applied art and were then able to take up a corresponding teaching position are the book and poster artist Johann Vincenez Cissarz and the ceramist Jakob Julius Scharvogel (see Buchholz, Theinert, & Ihden-Rothkirch, 2007, pp. 23–25). For the history of Burg Giebichenstein Art Academy, see for instance Dolgner, Schneider, and Gründig (1993).
Arts and Cafts exhibitions in which the Reimann Schule participated were, for example, the “Kunstgewerbeausstellung” in Dresden in 1906, in the same year in the exhibition halls at the Berlin Zoo, and in 1909 it took part in an exhibition at the Stuttgart Museum of Decorative Arts.
This observation is from an interview with former student Natasha Kroll (1998, January 30), cited in Suga (2014, p. 13). From 1933 to 1936, Kroll studied poster design with Else Taterka and window dressing with Georg Fischer; from 1937–1940, she was a teacher in the display department at the London Reimann School.
The weaving/textile workshop was one of the few Bauhaus workshops that was economically sustainable and able to make a profit for the school (see also Schuldenfrei, 2018).
The Bauhaus had turned to industry at this time.
The Reimann School in London also integrated the concept of students doing paid work in the school’s studios during their education (see Kohfuss-Wickenheiser, 2019, p. 90).
See also Growald (1914).
A dedicated brochure titled Der Weg zum Beruf (n.d.) was also produced.
Oppler-Legband’s critique was informed by significant industry experience. A noted craftswoman and fashion designer, she had created the window displays for Berlin’s prestigious Wertheim department store from 1904 to 1909 before being hired by Reimann for the decoration department faculty.
This educational model finds a key precedent in the South Kensington Museum (founded in 1852), which was conceived as a public teaching institution. The tradition was continued by the Werkbund exhibitions, conceptualized as showcases of cultural achievement starting in 1911. For a detailed analysis of the importance of museum foundations as educational institutions and nuclei for schools of applied arts, see Buchholz, Theinert, & Ihden-Rothkirch (2007, pp. 15–16).
Kuhfuss-Wickenheiser (2019, p. 87) states that of the more than 1,000 students around 1930, a third came from abroad.
The Bauhaus as an international school in terms of its teachers, its students and its design program was one of the few exceptions in this respect.
While Strauss and Schmitt arrived at their critiques from different political and philosophical starting points, their shared diagnosis of liberalism’s tendency to devolve into mass relativism and technocracy is a significant point of convergence. Strauss, who was deeply familiar with Schmitt’s work, can be seen as continuing this line of anti-liberal thought in a different context.
References
Adorno, T. W. (1974). Ästhetische Theorie. Suhrkamp.
Andreesen, A. (1925). Das Landerziehungsheim: Rückblick auf die Tagung am 18. - 21. Mai 1925, Zentralinstitut für Erziehung und Unterricht zu Berlin. Leben und Arbeit, 17(1), 4–6.
Baudrillard, J. (1981). For a critique of the political economy of the sign. Telos Press. (Original work published 1972)
Breakell, S. (2021). Memory’s instruments and its very medium: The archival practices of émigré designers. In E. Shapira (Ed.), Designing transformation: Jews and cultural identity in Central European modernism (pp. 238–251). Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
Buchholz, K., Theinert, J., & Ihden-Rothkirch, S. (Eds.). (2007). Designlehren: Wege deutscher Gestaltungsausbildung. Arnoldsche Verlagsanstalt.
Debord, G. (1967). La société du spectacle. Buchet/Chastel.
Dolgner, A., Schneider, K., & Gründig, R. (Eds.). (1993). Burg Giebichenstein: Die Hallesche Kunstschule von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Staatliche Galerie Moritzburg Halle, Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe & Burg Giebichenstein Hochschule für Kunst und Design Halle.
Greenberg, C. (1997). Modern und postmodern. In K. Lüdeking (Ed.), C. Greenberg, Die Essenz der Moderne: Ausgewählte Essays und Kritiken (C. Hollender, Trans.) (pp. 429–455). Verlag der Kunst. (Original work published 1980)
Fischer, G. (1927, April). Höhere Fachschule für Dekorationskunst: Schule für praktisches Dekorieren. Farbe und Form: Monatsschrift für Kunst und Kunstgewerbe. Special volume: 25 Jahre Schule Reimann: Ausstellung Kunst-Gewerbe-Museum, Prinz Albrecht-Str., 1. - 14. April 1927, 12(4), 137.
Growald, E. (1914). Die Kunst im Dienste der Reklame. In P. Ruben (Ed.), Die Reklame: Ihre Kunst und Wissenschaft (pp. 89–96). Verlag für Sozialpolitik & Hermann Paetel.
Growald, E. (1928, August). Künstlerische Werbehilfen. Farbe und Form: Monatsschrift für Kunst und Kunstgewerbe, 13(8), 137–138.
Jäckh, E. (1914). 6. Jahresbericht des Deutschen Werkbundes 1913/1914. In Der Verkehr, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Werkbundes 1914, Vol. 4 (pp. 87–104). Eugen Diederichs.
Kuhfuss-Wickenheiser, S. (1993). Die Reimann-Schule in Berlin und London (1902–1943): Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Mode- und Textilentwurf [Doctoral dissertation, University of Bonn].
Kuhfuss-Wickenheiser, S. (2019). Reimann School and Studios, London 1937–41. In M. Bohm-Duchen (Ed.), Insiders outsiders: Refugees from Nazi Europe and their contribution to British visual culture (pp. 87–96). Lund Humphries Publishers.
Kuhfuss-Wickenheiser, S. (2009). Die Reimann-Schule in Berlin und London 1902–1943: Ein jüdisches Unternehmen zur Kunst- und Designausbildung internationaler Prägung bis zur Vernichtung durch das Hitlerregime. Shaker Media.
Meakin, K. (2024). The professionalization of window display in Britain, 1919–1939. Bloomsbury Visual Arts. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350427501
Oppler-Legband, E. (1912). Die Höhere Fachschule für Dekorationskunst. In Die Durchgeistigung der Deutschen Arbeit: Wege und Ziele in Zusammenhang von Industrie, Handwerk und Kunst. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Werkbundes 1912, Vol. 2 (pp. 105–110). Eugen Diederichs.
Osthaus, K. E. (1913). Das Schaufenster. In Die Kunst in Industrie und Handel. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Werkbundes 1913, Vol. 3 (pp. 59–69). Eugen Diederichs.
Pevsner, N. (1975). Pioneers of modern design: From William Morris to Walter Gropius. Penguin. (Original work published 1936)
Reimann, A. (1927, April). 25 Jahre Schule Reimann 1902–1927: Ein Bericht von Albert Reimann. Farbe und Form: Monatsschrift für Kunst und Kunstgewerbe. Special volume: 25 Jahre Schule Reimann: Ausstellung Kunst-Gewerbe-Museum, Prinz Albrecht-Str., 1. - 14. April 1927, 12(4), 15–17.
Reimann, A. (1934). Höhere Fachschule für Dekorationskunst, Schaufenstergestaltung, Advanced School of Display, Show Window Dressing. Farbe und Form: Monatsschrift für Kunst und Kunstgewerbe [Ein Bildprospekt der Schule Reimann. Private Kunst und Kunstgewerbeschule. An Illustrated Prospectus of the Reimann School Berlin], 33–36.
Reimann, A. (1936, January). Untitled. The Journal of Decorative Art, 56(1), 4.
Schleif, N. (2004). Schaufensterkunst Berlin und New York. Böhlau.
Schuldenfrei, R. (2018). Luxury and modernism: Architecture and the object in Germany 1900–1933. Princeton University Press.
Schule Reimann. (1912). Schule Reimann: Freie Kunst – Kunstgewerbe [school brochure] (p. 4).
Schule Reimann. (1927, April). Verwaltung der Schule Reimann. Farbe und Form: Monatsschrift für Kunst und Kunstgewerbe, 8–9.
Schwartz, F. J. (1996). The Werkbund: Design theory and mass culture before the First World War. Yale University Press.
Strauss, L. (1995). What is liberal education? In L. Strauss & A. Bloom (Eds.), Liberalism ancient and modern (pp. 3–8). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1968).
Suga, Y. (2014). The Reimann School: A design diaspora. Artmonsky Arts.
Van de Velde, H., & Curjel, H. (Eds.). (1962). Geschichte meines Lebens. Piper.
Westheim, P. (1911). Schaufenster und Schaufensterdekorateure. Kunstgewerbeblatt, 22(7), 131–132.
Wingler, H. M. (1977). Kunstschulreform 1900–1933. Gebr. Mann.