Design as creative problem solving, evolves due to, and is a solution for, conflict and when a society is in need of change; WWI and the Russian Revolution of 1917 were events that largely influenced innovative Design in the early-mid 20th Century
Position: That original
Design shifts towards ideals such as the Bauhaus and constructivism only occur through extreme conflicts
“Together Let us desire, conceive and create the new building of the future, which will embrace architecture and sculpture and painting in one unity and which will arise from the hands of a million workers like crystalline symbol of a new faith”[1]
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; new arts were called upon to reflect the new direction. Modernist design, reacting against the early romanticism, called for change in society after the disconcerting events of the War, the Bauhaus was that call put into practise and influenced profoundly modernist and constructivist thought and theory. The Bauhaus was about that need for a return to handicraft, the mass produced products of the past, and the romanticism of the 19th century had to be swept aside for a modern era. WWI was a time people never wanted to return to. The reaction to WWI was the ‘new’, the modernist movement, driven by architects such as Walter 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 a free country for the worker people, New art was used to express the direction of the new communist government, one of dynamism, direction and power; Constructivism, founded by the works of artist and architects and driven by the monumentality of their ideals. It’s means mirrored Modernism in a way, striving for a new direction and an eclipse of the past in the shadow of the disconcerting Wars
“Buildings justified their existence in symbolic terms” (Smock). Americans built University campuses that resembled English Universities. Buildings were in an overabundance of symbolism, a nest of it. And soon the symbolism became Cliché, with Gothic facades ‘glued’ onto gyms or power plants. Many Buildings of the post war Western World got the Gothic treatment. A building’s function was hidden under ornamentation and fruitless decoration and industrially designed household items followed suit. Early romanticism design of Victorian ages was overdone, Rather than disperse light, Lamp shades blocked it, giving a room an eerie glow where light was very sparse. Light was seen as destructive, to art and materials, so it was contained, the common sight of the classicism living room with its sparse windows and overstuffed armchairs perturbed the Modernist, and therefore its artistically romantic deformation of functionality and design was revolutionized. Everything, the very symbolism was re written.
“A novel was no longer a good yarn. A concerto did not move anyone to tears. A painting no longer recreated a moment in the past. A dance did not reinforce noble ideals of love and honour”[2] (Smock 21)
This was a viewpoint shared by modernist in all fields of the arts to ‘sweep out 19th Century romanticism’ (Smock). Which was seen as fake, symbolism had lost its meanings and design was a nest of the clutter of eras past. Design needed something new, something modern. Mies van Der Rohe and his contemporaries promised ‘a new’.
Modernist buildings were full of light; Mies van Der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion lets in adequate light in while still providing shade from the Spanish summer. Modernist promised to deliver daylight and fresh air. They took nature and function as guiding perspectives, not the glory of God or authority of the State. Engineering advances dictating form was seen as ‘a tribute to human reason’ (Smock)
Robert Venturi’s book “Learning from Las Vegas” is Venturi’s study on the Las Vegas signage’s impact on architecture, symbolism has become so in your face and crude that to define what a building does you place a massive sign out front, and soon that sign evolved into the building. A giant duck shaped building sells … well, ducks.[3]Many designers and architects saw WWI as 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, 1923, 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 surroundings[4].
Founded by Architect Walter Gropius in Weimar 1919, the Bauhaus was a response to the boom of industrialization created just after the World War. Instead of being horrified by mass production of the industrial age they attempted to control and perfect it. Its goal was to develop a modern architecture that enhanced every aspect of life. Bridging the chasm between architecture, applied arts and technology in order to break the barriers separating art and Industrial Design. Modern artist obeyed an inner prompting, Bauhaus artist like Klee and Kandinsky were modern artist. Kandinsky painted simply how he felt at the moment; it existed for its own sake and did not tell a storey, a bold rejection of post-war values of art where a painting should tell a storey of a scene from the past, Kandinsky painted the very present.
Bauhaus student Lyonel Feininger created his wood carving: “The Cathedral of Socialism” in 1919 round the time Bauhaus was introduced. Feininger’s woodcarving was the visual counterpart to Walter Gropius’s Bauhaus manifesto statement at the opening of Bauhaus in 1919; through both this conception and Gropius’s manifesto the artist would ‘serve society through a return to the handicrafts, rather than designing for mass production.’ (Smock)
The Russian Revolution was symbolized by the murder of the Tsar; it was the murder of all the traditions of the Tsarist regime as well, its art, architecture and direction. 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 the people, no longer solely for the rich to admire on a wall.
The architecture too was abandoned, it was now architecture of new 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 Alexander Rodchenko[6] 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. (Cook 1984: 67) Artist during the Russian Revolution responded by abandoning easel painting for a private clientele and began producing revolutionary propaganda instead.
Fig 8 El Lissitzky, Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, 1920
El Lissitzky, Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, 1920, uses ‘constructivist theme of abstract forms, seen from above, floating in space to produce an image resembling a battle plan’. (Kennedy) Lissitzky reflected the society of the time through his works, Lenin Tribune, with the photo Montage Lenin towering over the people from his speaker booth.
After 1933 Lissitzky’s work suffered official eclipse once constructivism fell through and Stalin opted for a soviet architecture.
‘Various forces of political action and reaction that isolated Lissitzky and terminated the international socialist movement in Europe culture also closed the Bauhaus and caused it to move in a decimated form to the U.S.’ (Frampton 121)
Lissitzky in his book An Architecture for world revolution proposed new rules for the revolutionary architecture: The rejection of art as mere emotional, individualistic and romantic affair. Objective work,
undertaken with the silent hope that the end product will eventually be regarded as a work of art. Goal directed work in architecture, which will have a succinct artistic effect on the basis of criteria. (Lissitzky) Such architecture will raise general standards of living, by razing ideals of styles past and creating new values from the ashes of the old, as described by Lissitzky like the process of melting down old iron and forging it into new steel. (Lissitzky: 71)
Vladimir Tatlin’s Proposal for the Monument to the Third International (Fig 10) 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 because of funding due to economic struggle.
Constructivism would break past the barriers and restrictions of old, it was the ‘new’ that modernism was built on similarly, 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 in hindsight would create hotspots for poverty living, in its elevated internal streets. Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago 1962 was a
Fig 11: Corbusier, Le, Contemporary City for 3 million,[9]
Fig 12: CHA, Robert Taylor homes, 1962complex of 28 high rises apartment blocks creating by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) that was pulled down after it became slums, housing drug addictions and violent crimes, just three years after completion reports were published that shocked readers on conditions within. Robert Taylor Homes was ultimately a symbol of housing and modernist utopian failure. Surveys were even set up to determine the effect of a ‘lack of green space’ on the human condition. A new way to approach housing problems by Modernism had failed utterly. Le Corbusier’s proposals had been put in practise and caused a major setback for Modernism becoming an answer to social problems. William Morris’s designs for wallpapers create an Art Nouveu like interior with its brilliant curved patterns and organic shapes, believing nicer spaces create nicer people, he led the arts and craft movement and believed society needed to be fixed[10] (MacCarthy 49), but there is still a lot of controversy about such philosophies and many argue against them.
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 (Cook 1984: 127) True innovative thought went into each style at the time of two important events, founding of the Bauhaus in Weimar, 1919 and the Russian Revolution of 1919. 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; Vladimir Tatlin and artist Alexander Rodchenko and El Lissitzkey drove constructivist propaganda. 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, winning competitions and were causing 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 pre determined direction, towards a utopia for the realistic world of ‘today’, 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, whether through the Russian propaganda of El Lissitzkey or Le Corbusier’s Contemporary City, they are both proposals to problems, intuitively created during a time in need of answers after the catastrophe of a World war
Bibliography:
Written References
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 (Vers Une Architecture), 1923
Darley, Gillian, Factory, London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 2003
Frampton, Kenneth, Labour, Work and Architecture, New York: Phaidon Press Limited, 2002
Gmurzynska, Galerie, Alexander Rodchenko: Spatial Constructions, Germany: ERSCHIEN IM, 2002
Hannah, Gail, Elements of Design: Rowena Reed Kostellow and the structure of visual relationships, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002
Kennedy, Andrew, Bauhaus, London: Flame Tree Publishing, 2006
Lissitzky, El, Russia: An Architecture for World Revolution, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1970
MacCarthy, Fiona, William Morris: a life for our time, New York: Knopf, 1995
Meuser, Phillip, New Revolution in Russian Architecture, Singapore: Page One, 2006Saunders, Gill, Wallpaper in Interior Design, London: U&A, 2002
Smock, William, The Bauhaus Ideal: Then and Now, Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 2004
Electronic Reference
CHA. Change. Chicago Housing Authority. 2007
<http://www.thecha.org/housingdev/robert_taylor.html>
CNET Networks Australia Business. 2008
<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3945/is_200104/ai_n8939181>
Bauhaus-archiv Museum of Design - Bauhaus 1919 - 1933 – manifesto.
<http://www.bauhaus.de/english/bauhaus1919/manifest1919.htm>
Peter Lindberg. Le Corbusier’s The City of Tomorrow and its Planning. 2005
<http://tesugen.com/archives/04/06/corbus-city-of-tomorrow>
William Morris
<http://www.ragnarokpress.com/artype/morris/main.html>
Answers Corporation, Answers.com, 2008
http://www.answers.com/topic/william-morris
Images References
Title Image: Fig9
Title Image Bauhaus: <http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ecs/>
Fig 1: “Feininger, Lyonel, “The Cathedral of Socialism” 1919”, Kennedy
Fig 2: “Example of a Victorian styled armchair. This one is from 1890” Found on eBay, <http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rare-Style-Victorian-Armchair-Arm-Chair-circa-1880_W0QQitemZ150231013710QQihZ005QQcmdZViewItem>
Fig 3: “Example of ‘horrific clutter of what an over decorated early 19th Century home looked like” Real Estate Magazine
Fig 4: Mies van Der Rohe, Ludwig, Barcelona Pavilion, Barcelona 1928-29, <http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/spain/barcelona/mies/pavilion.html>
Fig 5: Morris, William, Leading designer for Arts and Crafts Movement, Organic patterns, <http://www.ragnarokpress.com/artype/morris/main.html>
Fig 6: Feininger, Lyonel, The Cathedral of Socialism, 1919. (Kennedy)
Fig 7: Malevich, Kasimir, Black Square and Red Square, 1915, <http://www.duke.edu/~ach11/writing20/images/black%20square%20and%20red%20square.jpg>
Fig 8: El Lissitzky, Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, 1920 (Kennedy)
Fig 9: Russian Soviet Propaganda collage
<http://x-factor-e.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html>
Fig 10: Tatlin, Vladimir, Monument to the third International, 1919
<http://www.siggraph.org/publications/video-review/sig99/132.shtml>
Fig 11: Corbusier, Le, Contemporary City for 3 million
<http://blog.roughtheory.org/2007/04/25/utopian-cities/>
Fig 12: CHA, Robert Taylor homes, 1962
<http://www.thecha.org/housingdev/robert_taylor.html>
Fig 13: Design for Windrush printed textile, 1881-83
<http://www.answers.com/topic/william-morris>
Footnotes
[1] Walter Gropius: Bauhaus manifesto, 1919 (Kennedy) Extract from opening statement of the Weimar Bauhaus
[2]See Bauhaus Ideal by William Smock page 21 for further detail about the transition various modernist artist including Jazz musicians and prominent authors made from early 19th Century Romanticism to the clean minimalistic spaces of modernist art.
[3] Robert Venturi’s book is a reaction against Le Corbusier’s Vers Une Architecture where he describes how the machine aesthetic, predominantly the automobile will shape Design, architecture and the arts. In the section Automobile: Eyes which do not see, he talks about Handicraft being replaced by mass producing factories, such a transition would have been widely influenced by the World War.
[4] See Fig 5 and Fig13
[5] It expresses a desire to reach new limits of design, arts & crafts and architecture by combining techniques and images of architecture and spirituality
[6] Alexander Rodchenko worked with spatial constructions and paved the way for the constructivist ideal that was to follow form his work, he was not an architect or industrial designer, he was an artist. (Gmurzynska)
[7] Collages like this one depict Lenin at the forefront of revolution, leading the industry, people and county itself.
[8] This indeed was a political proposal, the monumental building was a propaganda tool, human scale is lost and the individual is lost by its sheer size.
[9] Le Corbusier’s first attempt at city planning came with his Contemporary City for 3 Million, it was essentially a plan to solve Paris housing problems by clearing half of inner Paris and building a series of high rise apartment blocks. Notice on the map The Eiffel Tower is not there. This was an early example of Industrial Capitalism destroying the historic city, a clean slate for the future.
[10] William was even involved in politics, calling for British intervention against the Turks, and wrote his book: To the Working Men Of England, 1877
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Essay Draft Ideas process
Essay Draft
“Together Let us desire, conceive and create the new structure of the future, which will embrace architecture and sculpture and painting in one unity and which will arise from the hands of a million workers like crystal symbol of a new faith”
Walter Gropius: Bauhaus manifesto, 1919
Why we need a change.
“Buildings justified their existence in symbolic terms”. Americans built University campuses that resembled English Universities. Buildings were in an overabundance of symbolism, a nest of it. And soon the symbolism became Cliché, with Gothic facades ‘glued’ onto gyms or power plants. A building’s function was hidden under ornamentation and fruitless decoration and industrially designed household items followed suit, the early romanticism of Victorian ages was overdone, armchairs were overstuffed to accentuate comfort when a well designed chair could be equally comfortable yet contain less material. Rather than disperse light, Lamp shades blocked it, giving a room an eerie glow where light was very sparse. Light was seen as destructive, to art and materials, so it was contained. Modernist art and design changed everything, the very symbolism.
“A novel was no longer a good yarn. A concerto did not move anyone to tears. A painting no longer recreated a moment in the past. A dance did not reinforce noble ideals of love and honour” [Reference me].
This was a viewpoint shared by modernist in all fields of the arts to ‘sweep out 19th Century romanticism’ [Reference me]. Which was seen as fake, symbolism had lost its meanings and design was a nest of the clutter of eras past. Design needed something new, something modern. Mies van Der Rohe and his contemporaries promised ‘a new’
Robert Venturi’s book “Learning from Las Vegas” is Venturi’s study on the Las Vegas signage’s impact on architecture, symbolism has become so in your face that to define what a building does you place a massive sign out front, and soon that sign evolved into the building. A giant duck shaped building sells … well ducks.
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 Walter 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 surroundings.
The 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.
Why they needed a new direction
Bauhaus
Founded by Architect Walter Gropius, the Bauhaus was a response to the boom of industrialization. Instead of being horrified by it they attempted to control and perfect it. Combining Art and Crafts the Bauhaus abolished the line between pure art and applied art in their teachings.
Modern artist obeyed an inner prompting, Bauhaus artist like Klee and Kandinsky were modern artist. Kandinsky painted simply how he felt at the moment, it existed for its own sake, it did not tell a storey.
Walter Gropius denoted art for art’s sake as sterile self-indulgence. Gropius was an architect and saw art as something to be applied to a problem.
Modernist buildings were full of light; Mies van Der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion lets in adequate light in while still providing shade from the Spanish summer. Modernist promised to deliver daylight and fresh air. They took nature and function as guiding perspectives, not the glory of God or authority of the State. Engineering advances dictating form was seen as ‘a tribute to human reason’ [Reference me].
“Together Let us desire, conceive and create the new structure of the future, which will embrace architecture and sculpture and painting in one unity and which will arise from the hands of a million workers like crystal symbol of a new faith”
Walter Gropius: Bauhaus manifesto, 1919
Why we need a change.
“Buildings justified their existence in symbolic terms”. Americans built University campuses that resembled English Universities. Buildings were in an overabundance of symbolism, a nest of it. And soon the symbolism became Cliché, with Gothic facades ‘glued’ onto gyms or power plants. A building’s function was hidden under ornamentation and fruitless decoration and industrially designed household items followed suit, the early romanticism of Victorian ages was overdone, armchairs were overstuffed to accentuate comfort when a well designed chair could be equally comfortable yet contain less material. Rather than disperse light, Lamp shades blocked it, giving a room an eerie glow where light was very sparse. Light was seen as destructive, to art and materials, so it was contained. Modernist art and design changed everything, the very symbolism.
“A novel was no longer a good yarn. A concerto did not move anyone to tears. A painting no longer recreated a moment in the past. A dance did not reinforce noble ideals of love and honour” [Reference me].
This was a viewpoint shared by modernist in all fields of the arts to ‘sweep out 19th Century romanticism’ [Reference me]. Which was seen as fake, symbolism had lost its meanings and design was a nest of the clutter of eras past. Design needed something new, something modern. Mies van Der Rohe and his contemporaries promised ‘a new’
Robert Venturi’s book “Learning from Las Vegas” is Venturi’s study on the Las Vegas signage’s impact on architecture, symbolism has become so in your face that to define what a building does you place a massive sign out front, and soon that sign evolved into the building. A giant duck shaped building sells … well ducks.
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 Walter 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 surroundings.
The 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.
Why they needed a new direction
Bauhaus
Founded by Architect Walter Gropius, the Bauhaus was a response to the boom of industrialization. Instead of being horrified by it they attempted to control and perfect it. Combining Art and Crafts the Bauhaus abolished the line between pure art and applied art in their teachings.
Modern artist obeyed an inner prompting, Bauhaus artist like Klee and Kandinsky were modern artist. Kandinsky painted simply how he felt at the moment, it existed for its own sake, it did not tell a storey.
Walter Gropius denoted art for art’s sake as sterile self-indulgence. Gropius was an architect and saw art as something to be applied to a problem.
Modernist buildings were full of light; Mies van Der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion lets in adequate light in while still providing shade from the Spanish summer. Modernist promised to deliver daylight and fresh air. They took nature and function as guiding perspectives, not the glory of God or authority of the State. Engineering advances dictating form was seen as ‘a tribute to human reason’ [Reference me].
Bibliography
Bibliography:
Books
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 (Vers Une Architecture), 1923
Darley, Gillian, Factory, London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 2003
Hannah, Gail, Elements of Design: Rowena Reed Kostellow and the structure of visual relationships, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002
Kennedy, Andrew, Bauhaus, London: Flame Tree Publishing, 2006
Meuser, Phillip, New Revolution in Russian Architecture, Singapore: Page One, 2006Saunders,
Gill, Wallpaper in Interior Design, London: U&A, 2002
Smock, William, The Bauhaus Ideal: Then and Now, Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 2004
Websites
CHA. Change. Chicago Housing Authority. 2007
<http://www.thecha.org/housingdev/robert_taylor.html>
CNET Networks Australia Business. 2008
<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3945/is_200104/ai_n8939181>
Bauhaus-archiv Museum of Design - Bauhaus 1919 - 1933 – manifesto.
<http://www.bauhaus.de/english/bauhaus1919/manifest1919.htm>
Books
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 (Vers Une Architecture), 1923
Darley, Gillian, Factory, London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 2003
Hannah, Gail, Elements of Design: Rowena Reed Kostellow and the structure of visual relationships, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002
Kennedy, Andrew, Bauhaus, London: Flame Tree Publishing, 2006
Meuser, Phillip, New Revolution in Russian Architecture, Singapore: Page One, 2006Saunders,
Gill, Wallpaper in Interior Design, London: U&A, 2002
Smock, William, The Bauhaus Ideal: Then and Now, Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 2004
Websites
CHA. Change. Chicago Housing Authority. 2007
<http://www.thecha.org/housingdev/robert_taylor.html>
CNET Networks Australia Business. 2008
<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3945/is_200104/ai_n8939181>
Bauhaus-archiv Museum of Design - Bauhaus 1919 - 1933 – manifesto.
<http://www.bauhaus.de/english/bauhaus1919/manifest1919.htm>
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Bauhaus
Founded by Architect Walter Gropius, the Bauhaus was a response to the boom of industrialization. Instead of being horrified by it they attempted to control and perfect it. Combining Art and Crafts the Bauhaus abolished the line between pure art and applied art in their teachings.
Modern artist obeyed an inner prompting, Bauhaus artist like Klee and Kandinsky were modern artist. Kandinsky painted simply how he felt at the moment, it existed for its own sake, it did not tell a storey.
Walter Gropius denoted art for art’s sake.
Mies Van Der Rohe and contemporaries
Modernist buildings full of light, modernist promised to deliver daylight and fresh air. They took nature and function as guiding perspe
“A novel was no longer a good yarn. A concerto did not move anyone to tears. A painting no longer recreated a moment in the past. A dance did not reinforce noble ideals of love and honour”
Founded by Architect Walter Gropius, the Bauhaus was a response to the boom of industrialization. Instead of being horrified by it they attempted to control and perfect it. Combining Art and Crafts the Bauhaus abolished the line between pure art and applied art in their teachings.
Modern artist obeyed an inner prompting, Bauhaus artist like Klee and Kandinsky were modern artist. Kandinsky painted simply how he felt at the moment, it existed for its own sake, it did not tell a storey.
Walter Gropius denoted art for art’s sake.
Mies Van Der Rohe and contemporaries
Modernist buildings full of light, modernist promised to deliver daylight and fresh air. They took nature and function as guiding perspe
“A novel was no longer a good yarn. A concerto did not move anyone to tears. A painting no longer recreated a moment in the past. A dance did not reinforce noble ideals of love and honour”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
