Photo from Green House Good Life.
As I put this list of Modern commandments together and reflected on it, I
realized that many of these commandments have been (thankfully) assimilated by
many other architectural genres through the years such that one could adhere to
the first eight commandments and have a house that doesn’t “look” Modern. For
example, a contemporary Craftsman house, such as the one around the corner,
meets all the “commandments” of Modern discussed thus far:
- lack of ornamentation: check (there a wee bit, but it's wee)
- form follows function: check
- honesty in materials and design: check
- embracing the environment: check
- eager adoption of new materials and technology: check
- a place for everything and everything in its place: check
- a focus on the human condition: check
- less is more: check (there's a wee bit "more", but it's wee)
Some of these are checked because of what arts and crafts
represents and others are checked because of the assimilation of Modern tenets
into an older architectural style. But is that house big m Modern? No. And
here’s where style and the machine aesthetic comes in.
The Machine Aesthetic...
The early Modernists vehemently rebelled against classifying
Modern as a style. They saw Modern, not incorrectly, as a new way of thinking
about architecture, not a style to be disposed of when it fell out of fashion.
However, Modern definitely adopted its own aesthetic: smooth surfaces, flat
roofs, walls of glass, metallic sheens, and manufactured perfection. This is
the machine aesthetic of early Modern. As Modern grew, it loosened the
aesthetic dogma, but you know a Modern house when you see one (although there’s
a continuing debate over what is Modern and what is Contemporary; more on that
later). Like it or not, O Classic Modernists, Modern is a style as well as a new way to think about
architecture.
In the 1930s, Henry-Russell Hitchcock dubbed the new
architecture the “International Style”. Although Modern architects of the time
hated that he did this, he was absolutely correct. Modern was indeed a style,
and it was international, arguably the first international style. Hitchcock and
Philip Johnson served to further define and restrict the style, which
influenced subsequent work if the architectural adherents wanted to be “in the
club”. And architects generally wanted to be in the club because being in the
club meant recognition and important commissions. This was unfortunate because
Hitchcock and Johnson were more about aesthetics (they worked for the Museum of
Modern Art, after all) than function. Frank Lloyd Wright, R.M. Schindler, and
others of their ilk continued to do their own thing, but even they were
influenced by the critics’ barbed tongue (see Wright’s Fallingwater and much of
Schindler’s late 1930s work).
Old style and new style...
As far as Modern versus Contemporary goes, my opinion is
that if a building meets the “commandments” listed thus far, it is Modern. Some
suggest Modern only existed for a defined period of time back in the day and
everything afterwards is Contemporary (or some later-defined sub- or post-style).
Others further restrict Modern by color (it has to be white) and materials (no
natural materials). However, this neglects that most of the earliest Modern
structures had color (see Le Corbusier) and natural materials (see Ludwig Mies
van der Rohe). Architects that take a full step away (or skydive out of the
plane) from one or more of these commandments perhaps become Contemporary. For
example, Frank Gehry is not a Modernist. His buildings are transcendental and
inspiring, but there’s so much structural ornamentation that he’s more of a
neo-expressionist (and lately a deconstructivist) than a Modernist. Or perhaps
he’s just Contemporary. We need Hitchcock and Johnson to tell us what’s what…
What would Hitchcock do?
Photo thief.
ReplyDeletessshhhh..... I don't want the owners to find out!
Delete