Nov 8
2010
In the design world it’s an article of faith that Modernism has been the dominant cultural style for decades. Designers, Architects and Artists are, in large part, solidly planted in the modern world, but the rest of America may not be as convinced. For American institutions of real power, Modernism is still an unaccepted and possibly dangerous concept. Look at our currency, consider iconic Washington; is any president likely to commission a modern rug for the Oval Office? Is there a single news or talk show set or baseball stadium that has embraced modern design? With the possible exception of banking, why is it so subversive to be modern?
What will it take for America to fully embrace Modernism?
Michael gave the final word
The corporate towers of Park Avenue have all been faithfully built to the models established by Mies and Bunshaft. (According to Tom Wolfe, it’s the utopian principles of worker housing married to every CFO’s mania for value engineering.) Yet the New World does yearn for the prestige of the Old(e). Hence Ralph Lauren; most pages of Architectural Digest; and the “Commissioners Club” at Meadowlands Stadium in which one can view the 21st century proceedings of the Jets and Giants in a paneled enclave not too different from that which housed the board of directors of Standard Oil circa 1912. Is Mad Men our only hope?
Tuesday, November 9 at 8:34pm
It indeed seems that designers (myself included) are more sentimental than the general public about “Modernism” and that it is still a challenge for preservationists today to convey it’s value to a broader audience. A recent article details this emerging struggle in Boston, and efforts by the National Trust for Historic Preservation to create a dialogue on the subject and educate the public about the city’s modern architecture: The Boston Modern Module
As for how the US approaches design in the coming years, I agree that it is in our best interest to look towards the future and embrace modern concepts, but it is also important to preserve some of the past as well. Stylistic choices of Grecian columns, or circa 1970’s brown velour upholstery should not distract us from the larger goal of designing new systems, infrastructures and ways of making life in this country better.
Tuesday, November 9 at 1:04pm
But what fuels transformation?
e.g. the Bauhaus was closed in 1933 by a regime that considered modern art degenerate. Even Mies couldn’t convince them that modern architecture should be the style of the Reich.
But 75 years later the Reichstag has a Norman Foster glass dome [http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/reichstag/index.htm] and is surrounded by modern Parliament buildings. The ‘establishment’ has adopted Modernism as a suitable expression of power. Why?
Here we have the UN, which is really just the Vatican of New York City; not really a part of the US, boasting a design that no US governing body would embrace.
Tuesday, November 9 at 7:15pm
Michael gave the Final Word
The corporate towers of Park Avenue have all been faithfully built to the models established by Mies and Bunshaft. (According to Tom Wolfe, it’s the utopian principles of worker housing married to every CFO’s mania for value engineering.) Yet the New World does yearn for the prestige of the Old(e). Hence Ralph Lauren; most pages of Architectural Digest; and the “Commissioners Club” at Meadowlands Stadium in which one can view the 21st century proceedings of the Jets and Giants in a paneled enclave not too different from that which housed the board of directors of Standard Oil circa 1912. Is Mad Men our only hope?
Tuesday, November 9 at 8:34pm
As much as Mad Men may have already spurred many to refocus their nostalgic yearnings from Spanish Revival or the likes to Mid-Century Modern, the problem remains the same- many people view modernism through the lens of aesthetics…Mad Men is still beautiful people in beautiful clothing in beautiful spaces sitting on beautiful furniture. This aspirational imagery hasn’t helped much in making the case for modernism yet only this thinnest layer is apparent to most (even Shulman unwittingly participated). Until it is successfully revealed that modernism is integrated into all meaningful aspects of our day to day lives it will not be embraced.
If I were crazy enough to ask a new client if they want a modern house or building, I’d wager I’d get a confident “No”…as modernism is difficult for many to define, and the aesthetic imprinting alone is often negative. As Arthur Erickson said “Builders eventually took advantage of the look of modernism to build cheaply and carelessly.” However, when I ask them if they are interested in a house or building that addresses water and energy conservation, economy of structure and costs, encourages a healthy environment for their kids or workers, provides a strong connection to sunlight and the natural environment, facilitates education, reflects and encourages a given lifestyle, and increases awareness and connectivity to the issues of our time then they always say “Yes”. It seems easier and faster to demonstrate the potency of modernism, rather than explain it or educate people about it.
Modernism is still too often portrayed in our culture as a movement offering the new, the bold, and the defiant to a constituency that often cares not to be or does not see themselves as new, bold or defiant. As cultural values change, this is good news for modernism. Sustainability may be the lost leader of modernism, the desire to lead a healthy life may be the gateway drug to appreciating modernism…modernism has many new faces on many new heads and this insatiable ninja-sword toothed hydra will hopefully create an emotional connection to modernism, rather than just an antiquated (and misunderstood) rational manifestation of socio-technological progress.
We just need to seduce, not sell…a lesson from the real Mad Men.
Wednesday, November 10 at 6:46pm
This makes modernism the inevitable result of a society in which no one is being asked about aesthetics, just function. The idea that clients say no to modernism, but yes to it’s embedded values strikes me as ‘stealth modernism’. We, designers, see modernism as the answer to the functional questions you pose (and is there any answer to those questions but ‘yes, please’)? If modernism is simply our default style, but not a conscious choice for consumers, it is really accepted, or just acceptable?
Friday, November 12 at 11:11am
I can’t say what it will take for America to embrace modernism, what with being in England. But I would like to ask if you are sure if it hasn’t already?
About five years ago the BBC ran a series on ‘Living with Modernism’ looking at six modernist houses, what they were like to live in and asking whether the concept of modernism changed the way we build now. Superficially the answer was a resounding no. But I think they dismissed one architect, Sir Leslie Martin, too quickly.
John Leslie Martin became head of architecture at London County Council in 1953. He had already built the Royal Festival Hall but he was now to deal with the postwar rebuilding of London. Martin had a private practice pre war and was undoubtedly a modernist, both in style and philosophy. In 1937 he co-wrote Circle, a collection of essays on modernism and all its influences, with Naum Gabo and Ben Nicholson.
Martin was the architect of many public buildings but what went unrecorded was the huge amount of housing designed by him and his team. Much of this housing had to be built quickly and cheaply and he took the modernist approach, simplify and standardise. And what worked in London was quickly copied. Martin’s department was sending standard details to County Architects up and down the country. So within a decade modernist housing estates were appearing allover England. Whilst this solved the problem of housing, the new estates were often criticised for being too harsh, unsympathetic to the local vernacular and sometimes, just plain ugly. Gradually the fenestration changed to make the houses more ‘cottagey’ and front doors gained little gabled porches and eventually, the modernist style was lost. But they were still modernist underneath. Martin had standardised everything. Windows were made in factories in their thousands and they would fit into any opening, anywhere. Same with doors, roof trusses, lining panels etc. I think that most of what we build now in the UK is unarguably modernist, it just doesn’t look like it because it has been covered with, frankly crap, to make it look like something else.
Using Sir Leslie Martin as an example might actually be irrelevant here because this sort of standardisation had already started within building, it just needed a large project to make it happen. And I suspect that had any other architect had taken that job in 1953 they would have done the same because there was a groundswell within industry and politics towards standardisation and mass production. And furthermore, this was happening in all industries, standardisation and mechanisation was the ethos of modernism.
I think that we forget now that it was as much a philosophy as a style. The modernist style may have had its day, despite the occasional renaissance, but the philosophy is still a profound influence and I think evident in much of the best modern design.
It’s interesting that you mention coinage because I have never liked the British currency. It’s almost like the Royal Mint haven’t noticed the end of Empire and our coins are covered in symbols like the Unicorn and the Lions Rampant or Britannia. Except on the reverse of our new £20 note is Adam Smith, a leading figure of the Scottish Enlightenment and advocate of the Division of Labour, so maybe modernism is deeply engrained in the British philosophy. But it still looks like it was printed in the last century and I mean the 19th.
Wednesday, November 10 at 5:26am
This is a beautiful account of the ‘quiet modernism’ that the UK does so well. Rather than the Seagrams building you have the Economist building(s). We have the Guggenheim and you have the Leicester Engineering Building. And while we have ‘housing projects’ you have eminently livable ‘council flats’. There has always been the handmade/craft dimension to British building, and Modernism seems to have incorporated some of that to it’s benefit. Rather than being ‘twee’ it shows real care in construction.
in 1907-ish Thomas Edison designed a system of solid concrete houses [http://flyingmoose.org/truthfic/edison.htm] poured into a single massive mold. The houses were the most modern imaginable construction system cloaked in the most nondescript imaginable traditional forms. Edison virtually invented the modern world (lightbulbs, motion pictures, phonographs, electrical distribution, telecommunication, fluoroscopy, and one-piece concrete houses!) but Modernism was never a part of his modernism.
Friday, November 12 at 12:43pm
To be frank, I find the defining theories on Modernism as still abstract even for designers. If I might ask, is it an utopian plural culture, visualized in mute, articulated & influenced by the Japanese Zen and the Bauhaus-ism (International) style, or is it a symbol of high watermark for humanity in all its glory?
Just like America, Malaysia & many other countries have the same problems in embracing modernism. If it isn’t Hollywood’s fault (of hideous classical misinterpretations), we blame politicians. As how branding were taught and used to define corporate culture, we should be able to define these aesthetics and functions of modernism when the culture is right. As of now, I think, a re-interpretation of modernism should be done holistically, as a statement of good design equates good society.
Is modernity a good measure for society? Can anyone answer that?
Thursday, November 11 at 8:51am
Muhamad Razif Nasruddin
Design Futurist.
1
Have real opinions/discussions on what will forward America if those traditions are transformed. Not just mere bank notes design, just like re-branding, the monetary system must also re-designed. This idea of modernity must be executed from restructuring its value (or values). What will it take for America to fully embrace modernity is to start to forward its old age monetary system. That will change the not only America, but also the world in general.
Tuesday, November 9 at 1:33am