In Cars and Jars: L’Esprit Nouveau and a geometry of the city, Gronberg writes of Le Corbusier’s ideas and philosophies regarding design in the modern city of Paris. Le Corbusier argued against the individual decorator creating all hand-made objects, and instead offered the concept that the home and it’s furnishings should be industrially designed. He likened this method of industrialization to that of the automobile as a standardized method of assemblage and shape. Much like mens fashions, which also had an unadorned, uniform look, Le Corbusier described the car as an extension of the masculine ensemble. Indeed, the car becoming less of a luxury item and more of a tool. By standardizing construction, the domestic living space would lose the “feminine” varied, decorative aspect, and gain masculine geometric forms.
In Walter Gropius’ Bauhaus manifesto, so too does it state a similar goal of reinventing the domestic space and it’s furnishings, using a more standardized, geometric forms that could be mass produced.
Le Corbusier’s philosophies of standardized urbanization are visualized in his 1925 exhibit of La Pavilion de L’Esprit Nouveau. A ‘modern’ home outfitted with objects and architectural motifs designed to act not only as a unified whole of the house, but as a mechanical extension of the owner. “Human-limb objects” as he described it. In this home, only artworks are a decorative element. unobstructed by distracting handmade items, the artwork is better able to engage with the viewer in a ‘contemplative gaze’.
Plans for urbanizing the city of Paris by Le Corbusier are also on display.
The Bauhaus manifesto outlines how it too will revolutionize the way in which traditional household objects are used, what they are made of, and how they are made. This process of industrialization is meant to artisans create and shape quality items that explore the beauty in the material rather than cover it with adornments.
Gronberg points out and interesting irony to Le Corbusier’s likening of masculine geometry to the automobile. Being a luxury item, advertisements and publicity of the car seemed to describe them as a fetishized object. Women celebrities often had as much media coverage of the car they arrived in as of the cloths they were wearing. Advertisements emphasized a slim, gracefulness to the automobile.
Later in the article, Gronberg relates the tales of Le Corbusier’s travels abroad, telling of at least one example of the handmade item of the folk being replaced by industry. Handmade clay pots being replaced by recycled petrol cans, a far more durable container created by industry.
Le Corbusier argued that nostalgia of the folk is useless, and dwelling on the past acts as a distraction to thinking toward the future. The clay pot also acts as an example of the feminine curvilinear shaped handmade pot being replaced by a industry and the industrial object.
With the lessons learned of modernism from Le Corbusier, does Gropius and the Bauhaus’ philosophies work together with Le Corbusier? By replacing ‘cheaply produced’ items with well designed mass produced items, does the Bauhaus too forget the craftsmanship of the folk?
I found Le Corbusier's remarks about women and modernity to be an interesting part of the article. Mainly, the comparison of the consistant geometry of menswear, versus the variation in curves of women's clothing. Since Le Corbusier regarded geometry as the most important aspect of urban planning and organization and, "Geometry and Gods sit side by side", then where does this place modern women?
ReplyDeleteIn the photograph of the Sonia Delauny car, a woman is standing beside the car to convey a sense of fashion associated with driving. This photo might be considered a degrading representation in which the woman in it are subject to the male gaze, as the geometry of the car is an extension of the male body.
Conversely, I think this photo can also be about female empowerment, expression, and independence. The woman standing next to the car is taking Le Corbusier's idea of the geometry of a car and masculinity and turning it on its ear by wearing a matching geometric print to the car.
I found the article presented Le Corbusier as a bit of a caricature. It did not provide context for his vision. For example it said that Le Corbusier wanted to perform surgery on Paris and that he wanted large-scale replanning. It also said that he believed the home was a vital component and that it should be mass-produced. I found it interesting that the article did not give this context and that it did not mention his commitment to solving a big issue in Paris at the time which was improving living conditions for those living in the overcrowded streets. I’m not saying he was Mother Theresa but this as a motivator helps me read some of his comments about urbanisme perhaps more generously. For him, it was a serious issue versus tinkering with street art.
ReplyDeleteLe Corbusier’s focus on male standardized dress and some of his comments almost made him sound a little misogynistic; but, in trying to focus people on an important issue and on a way forward (via the machine versus “made to measure”), creating distance with haute couture and possibly the frivolous, as defined at that time, makes some sense to me. He truly wanted to uplift the city.
Jacqueline
I hate the word "standardized." While I can see value in some forms of standardization, i.e. a 1L milk carton always contains the same amount of milk, other forms of standardization at work light a fire for me. One example of this that comes readily to mind is kitchen counter height. Who decided standard kitchen counter height would be 36"? As someone who is only 5'2" tall that height is uncomfortable to chop vegetables at. It is also too low for my partner who measures over 6' to comfortably work. If Le Corbusier was pushing for a home that works like a machine than ideally, my home would have two counters of different heights specific to the needs of my family, no?
ReplyDelete