UNIT 1 MODERNISM---
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Taking revolution toward traditional exquisite design, modernism emphasized on the function of design:
“ Function was seen to be very important by Modern Movement designers, who saw the new technologies in industrial and commercial architecture ultimately influencing the construction of ‘civic’ architecture. The new technologies were seen by Muthesius (and other) as breaking down cultural barriers, transforming traditional environments, and internationalizing culture.” (Christopher, 1999 pp.49)
In order to abstain from meticulous and luxurious design, modernism advocated of non-decorative forms. Clearly, Rohe’s Side Chair (image2) and Wegenfeld’s Tea service are good example, both of them have clear outlook without any complex decoration. Same as Hartwig’s Chess Set (image4), it made use of the geometric form and successfully created a modernism style Chess Set. Since modernism emphasized on “less is more” and endorsing non-decoration, geometric forms became mostly used in the design within this period of time.
“The language of geometry was seen as totally appropriate to the new machine age, particularly the straight line and the rectangle. Designed objects from the smallest kitchen utensil to the largest building were to be without decoration. There was a leap of logic in their pursuit of rationality though. Machine-led production was seem as possessing a sort of clarity and purity of form … “(Christopher,1999 pp.66)
Geometric forms simply made use of rectangle, circle which could be easily created less decorative design, like Rietveld’s End Table (image 1). Nevertheless, there is no absoluteness between geometric forms and non-decorative. According to Tim Benton’s “The Myth of Function”, it pointed out that there are no actually advocating a necessary relationship between function and form have held views which could be seen to have had bad aesthetic consequences (Paul,1997 pp.45). Rietveld’s End Table was not pure function that led him to design it as this geometric outlook. Looking into the aim of designing this table, it is easy to find that Rietveld designed it is to place on the upper floor of his Schöder House, in Utrecht. The Schröder House regarded as the best example of De-Stijl Architecture by a majority. There are several features obtained in the house, for example: there is no static accumulation of rooms, but a dynamic, changeable open zone. Also each component has its own form, position and color. What is more, colors were chosen to strengthen the plasticity of the facades, and there are a number of linear elements in primary color. In order to coordinate both inside and outside of the house, Rietveld designed a series of furniture, which in harmony with the outlook of Schöder House. The End Table is one of them, according to an article written by Scoot Burton in Art in America, noted that:
“…it is so satisfying formally, with its slight but sharp displacements, and coloristically. Notice its subtle concentricity of square and circle, its splitting of the vertical support into two not quite equal-size parts, its confinement of primary colors to top and bottom, its simultaneous expression and concealment of structure in the blue rectangle painted over the detail joining top and support…” (Alastair, 1998 pp153)
Obviously, when Rietveld designed End Table, he aimed at coordinate it with Schöder House more than non-decorative nature. The End Table would be understood best original integrated setting. By using a number of linear elements, e.g. furniture, wall color etc. in primary color to define different component and areas, which is quite decorative interior design. Decorative didn’t only mean full of complex ornamentation, using line and color could also create a decorative design. Although End table is quite decorative in someway, its sharp angularity and delineation of color provide an excellent example of De Stijl concept in isolation (Alastair, 1998 pp153).
Notwithstanding less decoration and functionalism were fundamental concept of modernism, some Modernists believed that what serves its purpose well is necessarily beautiful, or that beaut is of secondary importance, compared to use values (Christopher, 2006 pp155). On the ground that it is essential to bear in mind that modernism design could have decorative nature.