Essay Draft

When society needs to be rebuilt on new principals a visual aspect is used to drive the thinking of the ‘new’, a call for this can happens due to wars or changes in government, WWI and the Russian Revolution of 1917 were events that largely influenced innovative design in the early-mid 20th Century, when a new art is called upon to reflect the new direction, and Design, as creative problem solving evolves due to and is used as a propaganda tool for conflict and war. WWI was a time people never wanted to return to, so a new design was used to reflect this new ‘rational’ society. The reaction to WWI was the ‘new’, the modernist movement, driven by architects such as Alter Gropius and Le Corbusier. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a time when the old Tsarist regime was overthrown and all the ‘old ways’ were tossed aside to create free country, a new art was used to express the direction of the new communist government, one of dynamism, direction and power; Constructivism, founded by Kasimir Malevich by works like Black Square and Red Square and driven by such as Vladimir Tatlin.

Many designers and architects saw WWI was a loss of rationalization, where people simply ‘lost their heads’ which they thought may have been attributed to the common style of the time, with a largely ornamented style of pointless decoration full of eclecticism that cluttered and complicated the life of the working man. Therefore they wanted to change the way of thinking through design, and to wipe clean the slate of society and start anew, a ‘New Architecture’ expressed by Le Corbusier’s work Towards a New Architecture led by architects and Designers who tried to rationalize their art to create a more rational society, as they believed that a person could be changed by his surroundings. William Morris created Art Nouveau like flower designs for Wallpapers which he believed could create better morale people by creating better surroundingsThe Russian Revolution was symbolized by the murder of the Tsar, it was the murder of all the traditions of the Tsarist regime as well, the art was no longer for the rich to admire, Art was to be free, free from the burden of the object, free from the denotations of class, it would be integrated into the lives of all, including the working man. The architecture too was abandoned, it was now an architecture of direction, design without fruitless ornament or cluttering decoration, Art was stripped down to its basic geometric proportions, free from the object and expressed pure emotion of human nature, as constructivist artist Aleksandr Rodchenko demonstrated in his various illustrations where he dismissed ‘pure art’ for an art that became a social tool, widely used as propaganda by the new communist government. Vladimir Tatlin’s Proposal for the Monument to the Third International
Would pave the way for constructivism and set the mark for what constructivist would aim for, to pierce the heavens and strive for direction. Although like many early Soviet projects it never made it past the planning stage. Constructivism would break past the barriers and restrictions old, it was the ‘new’ that modernism was built on too, both had similar means but to different ends. Constructivism was to symbolise a new direction of their country and a new Government, Modernism was to reflect a rational society, free from such inhumane acts as war and was seen as a solution for poverty, although put in practise, some of Le Corbusier’s urban city designs created hotspots for poverty living in its; elevated internal streets. Maison Radieuse (Radiant City) was a complex that was pulled down after it became the slums of Rezé. William Morris’s designs for wallpapers, believing nicer spaces create nicer people, but there is still a lot of controversy about such philosophies.


Both containing roots in each other, Modernism and constructivism, were new, original, and at their time extremely radical due to the ideas they rejected and principals behind the design philosophy. These styles originated due to the reaction of a major conflict or huge social upheaval, they abandoned all the styles before them, no more borrowing from the past styles of eclectic decoration and ornament, both Russian Constructivism and Modernism looked only forward. Yet they were accepted because they were driven by a few leaders of the movements, Walter Gropius, Le Corbusier, and William Morris found themselves in a public spotlight as city planners and established designers, where their designs were getting out, and winning competitions and were controversy, were able to express the new movement and pave the way for modernism design. This group of fathers of Modernism wanted to steer society in their direction, they were shocked by the world war and wanted to fix society to avoid such a catastrophe again, which meant the old style of thought wasn’t working; it failed when WWI started, so something new was needed. Constructivism was a solution to another problem, but ultimately similar to modernism in that it rejected styles of the past, and aimed for a new direction, but the difference is, Constructivism symbolises the new direction, Modernism is what is being used to create the new direction.

True innovation arises from a problem. Design is creative problem solving, as when there is a conflict in society. It can be used to symbolise, direct and express using design for architecture, furniture, wallpaper and art, and reflects greatly the society it portrays, and greatly influences the mindset of that society. Design and architecture, as social tools and not pure art, adapt and reflect society to express meaning and significance, giving solutions to such social conflicts.

Bibliography: Cook Catherine, Fantasy and Construction, London, Architectural Design, AD Editions, 1984 Cook Catherine, Russian Constructivism & Iakov Chernikov, London, academy group, 1989 Corbusier, Le, Towards A New Architecture, (1923) Meuser, Phillip, New Revolution in Russian Architecture, Singapore, Page One, 2006 Saunders, Gill, Wallpaper in Interior Design, London, U&A, 2002