Modernism

After World War I the design community did seem to have the same connection with everyday people as they had before. “Manufactures considered design, as during the nineteenth century, as endless variations on traditional decorative patterns applied to furniture, lighting fixtures, silverware, ceramics, wallpaper, and fabrics” (pile 94). With the change in design taste in 1925 at the world’s fair the style Art Deco was introduced. The style was both praised and criticized by its viewers at the fair. The United States didn’t have the same take on the style as Europe did, in that instead of incorporating the new modern style in homes the US designed skyscrapers with it’s ideals. Including the interior furniture. With the new Zoning law in New York City’s the need for skyscraper technology advancements was at it’s high (pile 100). Because of the expense of the modern design everyday Americans weren’t able to afford it thus leaving the style to be seen in large expensive skyscrapers and hotels in the cities.

It wasn’t until the Great Depression would the new modern designs become more affordable for everyday people, only because they would be forced to. During this time it was so important that designers find an alternative way to make design more affordable because in national crisis such as the depression design is not seen as a necessity but more as a luxury. The automobile is a prime example of the changed made to make the product more affordable. Originally the building of a car was very labor intensive using “composite bodies of sheet metal on wooden frames,” then moving towards innovations of  “all steel bodies stamped in huge presses” (Pile 104). With the Great Depression Industrial Design was introduced and with it industrial designers. These designers were the ones that could make a product affordable for the consumers as well as keeping the product equally attractive.

How does this situation relate to today? Are we going to have to become industrial designers ourselves? Is our current economy today equally as bad? What about green design that seems to becoming more popular today, how will it have to change?

Modernism

Modernism II

The Bauhaus was a school of design located in Weimar, Germany which began in 1919. The German word “bauen” means “to build”. The school supported artistic freedom and individuality. It showed little interest in design standards and industrial movements in technology. Their main objective was a concern for the equality and collaboration between the artist and the craftsman. They were attempting to overcome any opposition between the fine and applied arts and to achieve a spiritual association with the creative process. It was all about “the craft” . The school believed that there was no such thing as “professional art”. They believed that “An artist is nothing more than an exalted artist.” According to their philosophy, the buildings of the future were to be a combination of architecture, sculpture, and painting. All three would be used to create a singular form. (Raizman 181) Professors, or “masters” taught all first year students under a common set of classes called the “Vorkurs” These classes taught students to draw connections between artistic activity and the discovery of unconscious reality. After this, students split up into areas of expertise. An example of the student’s work is the Sommerfield House in Berlin. Though it no longer exists, the house was an example of the early Bauhaus emphasis upon the integration between construction and ornamentation.
The school struggled for adequate resources because they were suffering criticism from both the government and other designers associated with the Constructivism movement. This movement was very different from that of the Bauhaus. They were structured around the practice of mechanized industrial production. The school responded to this negativity by shifting the focus of their mission and curriculum. This “shift of focus” turned into a complete 180 degree change in philosophy. This turn of events came about when Constructivist Laszlo Moholy-Nagy was appointed as the new director of the Vorkurs program. No as you remember, I mentioned the constructivists earlier on. The constructivists were the designers with a completely different philosophy who had been criticizing the Bauhaus. So as you can imagine the impact he played on the school. Naturally, when taking over the Vorkurs classes he brought in his industrial focus. He also brought in his strong commitment to mechanized mass production. He also reduced the importance of craft specialization and traditional workshop training. The spiritual association with the creative process was no longer considered important. The new philosophy was focused on an appreciation of the aesthetic potential of new industrial materials. Moholy-Nagy stated, “Constructivism is not confined to the picture frame and the pedestal. IT expands into industrial design, into house, objects, forms. It is the socialism of vision - the common property of all men (Raizman 184) .” He believed that this new theory would broaden the professional horizons for the students. And he believed that this philosophy compensated for the sacrifice of individuality. A structural example of the new curriculum is the student built Haus-Am Horn. It consisted of a large living room surrounded by smaller rectangular rooms, each intended for a specific domestic function. It was constructed of prefabricated material and was intended to be the prototype of future, cheap, quick, public housing.
Even after all of these changes, even after the original philosophy completely changed to that of the critics, the government was still not pleased and the philosophy of the Bauhaus was again repainted with new faculty and curriculum again and again. Reading this blog, what opinion have you formed regarding the philosophy of the original Bauhaus vs. the revised? Do you feel Moholy-Nagy’s ideas were beneficial, even called for. Do you believe that the Bauhaus started of with the right idea but was then corrupted?

Modernism, part 1, A

 

            Variable elements stemming from the aftermath of World War I, such as economical, social, and political conditions, helped shape and develop the concept and practice of modernism, which was a reaction to the tension of the aforementioned war. This style encompassed industrialism by using new methods (cubism, futurism, dynamism) and materials (glass and metal) and the designer’s role that was more thoroughly coming into understanding. Even though it is thought to have emerged by French artists and designers, the beginnings of Art Moderne can be traced to years before the war, when French organizers wanted to have and international exhibition of modern decorative arts, planned in 1915 but eventually taking place in 1925 (The Paris Exposition of 1925).

            A veteran of World War I, Walter Gropius, became director of Bauhaus, an influential advocate of ambivalence towards mass production and industrialization. (Raizman, pg. 140) A new theme of Art and Technology was launched from this institution. Mass media and the printing industry flourished during this time. New typefaces were developed, such as the one being used to type this post, Times New Roman. World War I was very influential in the time as well by the use of the government enlisting help from artists and illustrators to produce mass media of posters and billboards. Thus, trying to recruit soldiers, create a sense of national solidarity, and so forth. Another service of this mass media was for advertisement, which was being more commonly seen.

Contrasting recent previous styles, Modernism focused more on a machine-made environment (Raizman, pg 158) as a source of inspiration instead of the world of nature. Thus, creating new forms and techniques that would strive to liberate emotion and action by being dynamic. How was the reaction of current events evident in Modernism? And with that without those events, do you think design would have ever evolved into the industrialist ways it did? How has this style influence future designs and designs of our time?

Modernism, part 1, B

Following the demise of Art Nouveau and the years right before World War I, a new style called Modernism slowly developed. Although French designers were not ready to give up the reputation for individuality and originality they had acquired through the years they were able to find new sources of inspiration. By looking to influences from contemporary paintings and sculptures, original adaptations of late eighteenth-century Neo-classical furniture design and fashion, as well as sensational entertainments in Paris such as the Ballets Russes, these designers were able to create a more bolder style than ever seen before. According to art historian Nancy Troy, “designers during this time seem to have consciously pursued a less ‘coordinated’ esthetic in which variety of color, texture, and shape mirror the disjointed character and hectic pace associated with the experience of modern urban life” (Raizman 146).
Along with finding new inspirations and influences Modernism is also credited for challenging designers in using new materials and techniques, such as interior furnishings and working with glass and metal (Raizman 147). An example of this can be seen in Armand Albert Rateau’s chaise lounge made of patinated bronze. This piece of furniture exemplifies characteristics that differ from the meandering curves of Art Nouveau.
With the examination of glass design on the rise designers were very interested in experimenting with a variety of techniques to permit individual and original expression in the medium (Raizman 148). A few of these techniques include “verre soufflé” of “bubble glass”, the idea of etching with acid to achieve contrast and textured effects, and an enameling technique called “pate de verre”. Early French glassmakers drew their inspiration from Emile Galle by examining the imperfections and techniques previously used. An important early twentieth century glassmaker is Rene Lalique who was originally trained as a jeweler and is recognized as creating some of the most celebrated examples of Art Nouveau jewelry design. He later gave up his precious gems and began experimenting with glass, transforming the ordinary and inexpensive material into a highly original work. Lalique’s glass designs are now recognized and admired for their purity and brilliance (Raizman 149).
With experimentation playing a huge role in Modernism design, how do you think this style has impacted our current designs? Do you think that evidence of this style is still visible today? If so, where?

Eclecticism, Part A

Eclecticism can be defined as the enthusiasm for the imitation of work of the past through historicism, revivalism, and traditionalism (Pile, 301). The overall idea of Eclecticism was that originality was forbidden and only an imitation of the past was acceptable (Pile, 302). This was a movement in which designers looked to the past for stylistic influences of periods such as Victorian, French-Renaissance, and Gothic and included monumental figures such as Richard Morris Hunt, McKim, Mead, & White, and George Herbert Wyman. Many of these important people came from a very influential school of architecture: The Ecole des Beaux-Arts, Paris. This particular school paved the way for future design school curriculum's, including our very own University of Kentucky.

Under this method, students were given a written "program" of requirements for a building desired by some imagined client. Each student then prepared designs under the direction of a "critic" who operated an atlier or studio. On a given date, all of the designs by the many students in a class were presented in the form of elaborate drawings to be criticized and judged by a "jury" of established professionals. High marks in many such judgements could earn a diploma that certified a high level of achievement and skill. The Beaux-Arts method was so successful it attracted students from all over the world, and the kind of design encouraged at the Ecole came to be called Beaux-Arts style. (Pile, 302)

The program at Ecole can also be defined as a "rigorous and organized program, which included classroom lectures on history, construction, and other specialized topics" (Pile, 302). Richard Morris Hunt studied at Ecole and brought back his Parisian training to New York. His eclectic viewpoint made it possible for him to work in any style that suited a particular project or taste of a particular client (Pile, 302).

When examining UK's design program, how do you relate the teaching method of Ecole to our curriculum? What would design be like in today's world if there was no individualism? How would this affect our learning method at UK? Why is it important to have knowledge of past styles just to move on with the present/future? Here's a thought: Without past styles, how would we ever know what "modern" is?

Eclecticism, Part B

The height of the Eclecticism Movement came towards the end of the 19th century until the middle of the 20th century. During this time, instead of producing completely new design, designers were looking to the past to get inspiration. “In design, it (eclecticism) has come to mean the practice of selecting from historical precedents whatever seems suitable or attractive for a particular project” (Pile, 301). Although Eclecticism thrived in both Europe and America, it seemed to expand more in America. Americans viewed the idea of incorporating history into their designs as producing culture and status. In Europe, the major incorporation of Eclecticism was in the Paris Ecole, the first true professional school of architecture. Students produced drawings of historical buildings as part of their schoolwork. This way of designing at Ecole became known as the Beaux-Arts style. One key difference between European and American Eclecticism is that in Europe, students and designers studied historic buildings in order to understand their attributes, not to imitate them. During this time in America, the idea was that “originality was forbidden; only imitation of the past was tolerable” (Pile, 303). This led to cities and towns being developed with various styles and unrelated buildings. Styles that were used in America included French Renaissance, Late Victorian, and Roman Classicism. A style known as American Renaissance was introduced and included buildings such as The New York Public Library and New York’s Grand Central Station. Interior designers also had to take historical precedents and incorporate those interior designs into the buildings or homes they were decorating. Should designers of this time have looked to past precedents for inspiration? This was a time of new ideas and new ways of thinking. Does referring to the past seem counterproductive? How do you come up with a new idea if you are always looking back in time? Or was that their goal?

Art Nouveau & Vienna Secession C

During the Art Nouveau Movement, the skyscraper became a more important aspect of architecture. It was a relatively new arrival in America, dating to 1874 with the New York Tribune Building; however this was only considered a high building. The first actual skyscraper was the Wainwright Building by Adler& Sullivan (Morrison 111). Sullivan became one of the most influential designers of the time. He was the first to attempt to solve the problems of the new architecture of the skyscraper. His solutions and answers to these problems are evident in the Wainwright Building and the Union Trust Building. He believed that this problem of skyscrapers contained and suggested its own solution (Morrison 122). As seen in these two buildings, Sullivan believed that the main entrance should attract the eye and from there each level should have a more simple design yet have an esthetically appealing façade. He also believed in finding ways to ornament even the tallest of buildings (Morrison 135). Sullivan believed in finding the practical use out of the height and volume of a tall building. This is seen again in both the Wainwright Building and the Union Trust Building with the open court formed by a U shaped design. His designs’, as seen in these two buildings were coherent, direct, and suitable (Morrison 137). Do you feel that today with such advancements in sustainable design, that we are more focused on the practicality of design rather than the ornamentation? Do you feel that some designers have the ability to meet both the sustainable design and still develop ornamentation as Sullivan did? If yes how are these designs developed, and if no why is it so hard to accomplish?

Art Nouveau & Vienna Secession, A

Secession Design proved to be the most influential aspect of Art Nouveau. While florid curves of Belgian and French Art Nouveau came to be regarded as unconventional and willfully decorative, the more geometric forms of the Vienna work were more easily related to modernism. The movements of honesty through materials, and emphasis on puristic simplicity definitely carried into the modern world.
Two individuals were highly influential in the confining of the role of Art Nouveau in America. These two people were Sullivan and Tiffany. Neither were opposed to ornament as they both used much of it in their designs. Sullivan was known as the pioneer of modernism, and was the advocate of “form follows function”. (Pile, 295) Sullivan’s actual personal term of Art Nouveau was related to detail. Interiors and details continued to use nature based, florid ornament. He based his design around Curving art nouveau forms, which was later changed by one of his most significant students, Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright took his ideas and began to incorporate a more geometric design of his own. (Pile ,298) Tiffany used ornament through stained glass design. His designs were used in “residences, clubs, and similar locations his landscapes, floral, and semi abstract themes showed increasing similarity to French Nouveau work in glass.” (Pile, 296)
American Art Nouveau was looked at by many as a “style that failed”, or to dismissing it as “frivolous, tasteless, and even overly decorative.” (Pile, 299) But it wasn’t until World War II when the style was rediscovered and new studies brought it back into it’s rightful place. Do you think that Art Nouveau was a crucial step in the development of modernism and design today? Do you think that the ideas of these men of ornament and aesthetics are overshadowed by function in any cases today? How has recent interest in the Art Nouveau era established these designers as major figures in the movement?