International Modernism

The phrase “international modernism” was first coined by Philip Johnson to describe the architecture of the International Style Exhibition at the New York Museum of Modern Art in 1932. The phrase is self explanatory in that it refers to the fact that, during the first half of the twentieth century, modernism had found a place for itself in the newly conceived national styles across the globe.

The design of this era (per Raizman) was founded upon the use of new materials such as glass and concrete, the implementation of new technologies for production, recognition of the factors of comfort, importance of fitness to purpose, and the respect of individual expression, Visually, (per Johnson), evident was an expression of volume instead of mass, reliance upon balance instead of preconceived symmetry, and, most definitively, the abandonment of ornament.

The emergence of international modernism can largely be credited to the shared desire of nations across the world to create their own national identity within the global community. These identities were meant to demonstrate the status and power of a nation, to its citizens and to the world, at economic, technological, cultural, and political levels. Design was used as the “commercial face” of the identities, thus resulting in national styles. In order for nations to be able to “stand their ground” within the international marketplace, their style had to be one not only of function and efficiency, but of beauty and appeal as well. Thus, the successful national styles can be described as that of a “marriage of industry and art” which, in turn offers a definition to what is modern. This expanded at an international level as a marriage of “commerce and culture”. Conclusively, international modernism was a result of national identities, shaped through modern design, to offer international appeal.

The International Style, mentioned earlier, was an extreme version of international modernism with strict Rationalist principles. The public buildings designed by Mies van der Rohe (Miles if your Josh) exemplifies this style. They are essentially floating, glass boxes and technically all look the same. They demonstrate the style’s essence in that, design solutions were indifferent to location, site, and climate. There were no historical ties, nor any vernacular qualities. They could literally be built anywhere.

Frank Lloyd Wright’s theory pertaining to the relation of the interior to the exterior was in direct opposition with that of the International Style. Site and location were central to his designs, and his ability to create architecture as the manmade extension of the land played a big part his success.

So, who wins? Was the indifference of the International Style a strength, or weakness? Is a universal solution the best solution, or a limited one? Does the anonymity of the International Style undermine it origins as a symbol for patriotism and nationalism? Give your opinion and reasoning.

Art Deco & Industrial Design, II

Industrial design emerged as a response to the lack of diversity found in products like Ford’s Model T. Although the use of Fordism did much to revolutionize production, even leading to American industrialization as “the basis for prosperity and economic recovery” in other counties, as the 1920’s loomed on it became evident that Ford’s success, built on the idea of every product being the exact same, was not going to last. People had begun to opt for used Model T’s, because they were in fact the same as the new ones being produced. A solution to this problem was found by another car manufacturer, General Motors, who began to offer their vehicles in a variety of colors and to use the principle of “planned obsolescence” which hinged off the idea that new colors or styles would be preferred over older, out-dated ones. This idea, along with heavier advertising, brought about the position of the industrial designer. More than just designing a product the industrial designer was said to fill the middle ground “between advertising’s concerns for consumer appeal and planned obsolescence, humanistic concerns with progress through improved performance and social responsibility, a desire to work closely with the engineering in the organization of a product’s working parts, and individual creative expression.” Notable industrial designers include Bel Geddes, who was hired to redesign kitchen ranges to create more consumer demand and chose to tackle the issue of ease of cleaning; and Walter Dorwin Teague, who redesigned cameras for Kodak and was able to incorporate elements of design that also served functional purposes. This idea of designing products for usefulness is seen even more with the occurrence of WWII, when it became an issue of “shortages, restrictions, and the retooling of industries” to meet production needs of the war effort.

The industrial designer started out solving the problem of “how do we sell more of a product?” but developed into a person who deals with all facets of the product from the design down to the how it effects the of quality of life. What effect do you think the development of the profession of the industrial designer has had on the world today in terms of what is produced and, also, how do you think it relates or has shaped what is required of us as interior designers.

Modern Movement II

The move to modernism was not only a shift in styles but also the killing off of others. The art nouveau style, infiltrating furniture, architecture, and fine arts, was planted to grow into a revolutionary movement. Although debatably it did revolutionize design. It never reach its full maturity in growth as it was cut down.
Although it can’t be pinpointed, the short life of art nouveau has been attributed to competition from antique dealers and cheap departments stores. Leading to a deprivation of the exclusive audience wanting and consuming modern style.
In the beginning stages of the art moderne development there was a balance between representing classical and other styles in a more abstract way, often constrained by principles that the style holds. (Abstracted forms, symmetry, and lines) There started to form an appreciation for the function of items and the best form to show that. This was often done by stripping styles down to some basic elements and principles.
That is show well in Henri Matisse’s quote,
“What I dream of is an art of balance, of purity and tranquility, devoid of troubling subject matter, an art which could be, for every mental worker, for the businessman as well as for the man of letters, for example, a soothing balm, a mental calmative, something akin to a good armchair which eases his physical fatigue…”
This brings me to my discussion of conformability and modernism/art moderne/deconstructivism. Is modern design comfortable? That is the overall question I ask. Is the stripping of furniture, for example, to a bare form going to be more comfortable because it eases your fatigue through tranquil, simplified design? Have we sacrificed out comfort for design? To what extent have we or have we not? What fields of design? Examples could include cars, transportation, furniture, and space.

"Modern Movement I"

The ideas of modernism began to spread when Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson organized “The International Style,” an architectural exhibition in 1932. Seventy-Five projects were presented and many of them shared the same characteristics that are mentioned in Pyle’s text: Flat roofs, smooth, white walls, large spans of glass, asymmetrical plans, and the absence of ornamental or historical detail. These projects were considered to be designed under the idea of function, rather than what is just aesthetically pleasing. Eleven of the projects were highly based on interiors, here noting a key principle of modernism – That the design of architecture be first based on the interior arrangement of a space, ultimately leading to the exterior's design. Hitchcock and Johnson describe the new modern style as abstract, cubistic, and representative of the “machine age.” In its simplicity, modernism also lead to further exploration in form through steel and concrete.
Because of the new approach to design, others viewed it as very progressive thinking. Putting the past behind and moving forward. Many countries, particular in Europe, were uncomfortable with these new ideas, limiting progressive thinkers, and opposing everything that was not eclectic or an imitation of history. Modernism was the belief that design should be for and used by everyone. Therefore, it developed in areas where democracy and social idealism flourished. With its evolution, do you see modernism as a result of politics, a style driven only by technology and engineering developments, or just a matter of taste? Maybe, perhaps, none of these apply to what you perceive. In what ways do you see the principle of modernism used today?

Eclecticism

Traditional or Modern? Why not have both?!

This question often popped up in the nineteenth. People were sure you MUST make a choice on whether to implement techniques of the past or completely turn away from them. Eclecticism changed the way people thought about design. Literally “selecting what appears to be the best in various doctrines, methods or styles”, eclecticism allows design to take the best of what was from all “period styles” and implementing them in the best combination. With the rise of eclectic architecture, it is said also came the first emergence of the Interior Decorator. Someone needed to make the choice of what interior style would best suit the architecture of a specific building. Supply and demand. A demand for decoration of space surfaced, so therefore people with such talent began to carve a niche for the Interior Decorator. Trained in all period styles, decorators had to know how to create a space for any style architecture. They also held expertise in antiques and artworks that would complement specific designs. Decorators of this period also assumed the role of salesperson, buying and selling items such as furniture, rugs, and accessories. Personality played key in the success of these decorators, they needed to be able to schmooze their clients, as well as easily adapt designs to their liking.

While Interior Designers today encompass many more skills, it seems that the characteristics of the first decorators still prove essential. Knowledge, business sense, and tact.

Did “eclecticism” define the role of interior designers? Why or Why Not?

Art Nouveau & Vienna Secession

The Art Nouveau movement and Vienna Secession intersect in the early 20th century . Even though these movements overlapped they were both very different in style and popularity. While items produced in the style of Art Nouveau were organic in shape and detail, items produced during the Vienna Secession were fully geometric in design and pattern. Art Nouveau allowed people to experience and feel design rather than just viewing it.
Emile Galle played a very influencial role in the development of the Art Nouveau movement. Galle looked for inspiration from nature. Also he liked to include symbolism. He wanted the viewers interpretation of the piece to be both from an artistic and psycological stand-point. His glass work set the pace for renewing the world's interest in such artistic pieces. Unlike Art Nouveau the Vienna Secession was lead by a specific group rather than individuals. The Wiener Werkstatte organization was founded in 1903. It's purpose was to bring aesthetic design to Austria. This was achieved through producing everything from furniture to clothing. A common motif seen in these pieces was a series of cuttouts creating a pattern. For example, in Josef Hoffmann's Skyscaper Basket, small squares are cutt out and evenly spaced to add an aesthetic appeal. Without these cuttouts the basket would still serve the same purpose, but it would not be as appealing. Also the use of color was crutial to the final design. In Hoffmann's Gaming Chair a pattern in apparent in the structure of the chair, but is emphasized even more because of the placement of the black squares.
Both Art Nouveau and the Vienna Secession changed the world of aesthetic design and have greatly influenced today's styles. Because of the difference in the two styles which style do you feel was more influencial and still seen today?

The Aesthethic Movement

The Aesthetic movement was a rebellion against the heavy ornamentation and mass production of goods that was introduced after the Industrial Revolution. The first two key players of the Aesthetic Movement were John Ruskin and William Morris. They both beleived that all of the technology and new furnishings of the Victorian had caused a great seperation between the art and the artist. They felt that the true beauty of crafting a piece of furniture or creating an original design had been lost to the machine. The new designs of the Aesthetic movement were very referential to nature and not to the latest fashion of displaying how much wealth someone possessed through the amount of ornamentation and fabric draped on anything that would stand still.
John Rustic was mainly a writer on the theory of arts and crafts, while William Morris was one of the designers who actually implemented these theories. He is most known for his furniture design as well as patterns. In addition to his designs , Morris was greatly involved with rebelling against capitalists whom he believed to have created the unequality between classes due to the mass production of goods.
Furthermore, I belive that at some point "stuff just becomes stuff" unless there is something meaninful about where goods come from or how they were created. I believe that William Morris and John Ruskin had great ideas about reuniting the artist with the art.
I think a perfect comparison to the Aesthetic movement's rebellion against the Victorian Era, is today's rebellion against unsustainable buildings as well as unrenewable products. The Victorian Era brought so much happiness to the people that were finally able to afford things they never dreamed of and became the new "middle class". People came to realize that possessions do not hold as much meaning when they are so easily accessible. Today, we have every demand at such convience that we forget the simple things in life. We have become so advanced that we forget that nature is the only reason we are here in the first place. We have all been so comfrotable with today's convientient technology that we forget about the issues it brings, much like the loss of craftsmenship. I wonder what John Ruskin and William Morris would think off today's world and where they would steer design because of our environmental issues? What do you think?

Victorian Era

The Victorian Era
Quantity VS Quality

The Victorian Era allowed many middle class people to afford many goods previously enjoyed only by the rich. However, the ornate rugs, draperies, and richly decorated objects that were once all handmade and of the highest quality were now being produced in quantity. The craftsmanship suffered and the cost went down but the quality of life for many people went up. Today nearly everything in mass produced because it is efficient and cost effective. Many of the small items that are produced can be made for very little cost but in turn have very little value or use. If you wanted you could have five hundred Frisbees, plastic whistles, or visors with your company logo imprinted on it, no problem. But how many of those would actually be used for more than a day? With it being so easy to produce goods and put them onto the market think how much goes to waste. Do you think we are moving forward with mass production or are we just becoming more efficient at producing junk?

Vacuum

I thought the discussion of the effects of Marketing and the role "Visualizers" played in marketing in class today was interesting. We saw vaccuums cleaners that were advertised in old print and the new Dyson vacuum was mentioned by Estee. I just had to look it up!

http://www.bcrfcure.org/part_promo06_dyson.html

PS:
Hope this is ok Megan.

Industrial Revolution, part I

A step forward or step in the wrong direction?

As we have discussed in class, historians relate the Industrial Revolution to that of the Neolithic Revolution, when humans became an agrarian community versus nomadic (Tate & Smith, 1986, p. 219). There is no doubt that because of the Industrial Revolution we have benefited from its many inventions, advancements and improvements. Without it, our lives as we know it would be non-existent. As a person that belongs to middle class society, I would not have had the opportunities which I enjoy today if it were not for mass production and technology. In addition, very few individuals would know and understand the same comfort and luxuries we expect today. Still, history shows that the ancient Romans (before the fall of Rome) were a very advanced society and had invented many processes and materials to make life easier and more secure. Unfortunately, these methods were lost or forgotten with the fall of the Roman Empire. It took many years before these techniques were revived and improved upon. However, these “improvements” employed different methods than what was originally utilized, and since 1850 we now have 35% more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (CBS evening news, August 2007). Sooner or later our idea of “comfort” will have to become compromised in the interest of the world’s future. The effects of this change are sure to bring about a new revolution; one that is perhaps more healthy for our environment, but (as some feel) could be detrimental to our way of life.

Considering global warming, do you believe that the Industrial Revolution, specifically the discovery of coal and other fossil fuels, was a necessary step forward or a “misstep” in the advancement of modern man? Do you think we would have found the same quality of life if we had continued to develop the technology we were already using (such as wind and water mills)? Explain your answer.