After reviewing the images we talked about in class today, I started to think about how the Red/Blue chair by Gerrit Rietveld interacts in a space today. As Hannah mentioned, the one in the library that is similar to it isn't all that comfortable.
In most family homes, you would probably never see a chair like this, but you'd almost definitely see a chesterfield or a lazyboy. So even though the form of the Red/Blue Chair has been abstracted to its very essential parts, it's still not very utilitarian. No way would I want to curl up with a novel in this chair.
The same could be said for Marianne Brandt's teapot: nice to look at and everything, but could you really see yourself using it?
So I'd like to ask you all, do you think Modernist and Bauhaus domestic objects abstracted form so much that they were rendered non-functional by the average person? And, do you think that modern objects were destined for either obsolescence or non-use from the start?
Folks, you are awake. But you do need to write daily--get into it, it is not a bad habit like going to school until you're 35 like I did.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Gabe because I grew up with cheap copies of the Breuer chair --they were functional enough. The teapot by Brandt and the chair by Rietveld are of a different ilk--they are trying hard to make a mark --an exclamation point. And they are very different: go to an antique store and you will find many teapots that are so small you might see them as "non-functional." But that is due to a shifting idea of ceremony.
Next volunteer? Can we pursue the question of whether Sonia Delaunay should be valued as a Modernist in light of today's discussion?
I don't think modernist/Bauhaus objests have been abstracted to the point that they lose their functionality. I think that's the perception because of the aesthetics at first glance. However, upon further investigation we find that due to various reasons, they might very well be more useful to us than objects which seem to be superior in that sense at a glance.
ReplyDeleteI think the issue of modernist objects "failing" has more to do with the lack of nostalgia and our own unwillingness to embrace change than them being usless objects.
Re: Sonia Delaunay
ReplyDeleteThe discussion today around geometric designs and the modernists' view of geometry as a universal visual language creates a framework for viewing Delaunay's work, for example the decorated car, as Modernist. Also the fact that she chose to decorate a car versus another object does also point to the Modernist celebration of speed and technology.
I certainly think of geometric abstraction as Modernist but her simultaneous designs (decorated car with models clothed in the same pattern) seem almost tongue-in-cheek from today's viewpoint. Perhaps she was having some fun, on the one hand; while, on the other, making a serious statement about her colour experiments and theories: all media is fair game! The fashion presented in this photo is certainly unlike anything else in its time and perhaps since. It certainly points us toward a new way of seeing fashion and new possibilities.
Le Corbusier's vision, although perhaps more clearly Modernist, does not seem as sustainable over time as Delaynays in that it supresses the desires of the human spirit to create, play and uplift, whereas Delaynays does all of these.
Modernist/Bauhaus are designers that seem to be exploring for that "essence" we discussed about earlier today. And indeed, in an exploration one is bound to encounter duds or canundrums here and there.
ReplyDeleteBut is this chair by Gerrit Rietveld a dud? Well, maybe not. All it would take is to change the seat part to something more cushy to avoid the "numb-bum" phenomenon. And with the teapot by Marianne? Well, if we made it bigger to make more tea then it's not so bad or impractical at all: not THESE days anyway.
Functionality is met at least to a small degree. Yet Gabe asked a great question. How do we know when it's been worked over enough? Can we over work it? It's kind of like a drawing that's been worked too much. In the end you miss what the heck you're looking at.
Then again, to find essence of form, one sometimes needs to be patient. It will come, but it may not appear initially by the first efforts. Are we sure that these objects have been refined enough?
I would say Delaunay could be valued as a Modernist in a few ways.
ReplyDeleteShe provided designs for women designed by a woman which tied in with geometry and turned its back on natural forms.
Creating Simultaneaous fashion which alluded an association to be made between wearer and technology, dynamism, speed, by the use of geometrical forms.
Delaunay brings women into commodty culture with luxurious fashion often matching other luxury items (autos) and stirs up themes (present in Le Corbusiers methedology but also views present with Art Nouveau) relating to ornament and femmininity.
Hailed as one of the women responsble for creating the 'modern woman', her designs pay hommage and compliment the machine and progression.
The deisngs themselves are functional as clothes, but then there is the question of what is neccesary....
I don't think the ergonomics of the chair are as big of an issue as the aesthetics. If the material were to be changed, for example the chair here, to, say, split logs, it might look more inviting (albeit, more rustic, heh ;) ). In this way, we would be still exploring 'truth to materials' (using just the ornament of the raw wood), but ignoring the principle of quality items that represent technology and industry. (That, and it might collapse on itself)
ReplyDeleteI think how functional something is depends on a personal standard set for oneself. As for the Rietveld chair, it did function as a chair, perhaps an uncomfortable chair but a place to sit all the same. Funny enough, as I’m writing this I’m sitting on a small black fold out chair that is extremely uncomfortable, and yet I still use it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as being designed for non-use, I’m struggling with that idea. De Stijl and neoplasticism demanded abstraction and essential form (vertical and horizontal directions). Which begs the question: if we start with a comfortable chair, and abstract it to its bare bones, should it even be expected to be comfortable? Yesterday we were discussing how the sharp edged seat looked like it would be irritating to sit on, and how if it were curved it would be easier on the legs. However, the intention of the design is to use only squares and lines, not be curved… not be comfortable? It seems the Rietveld chair is designed for use within the parameters of neoplasticism, and on its own it may be very useful. But, much like the chair I’m sitting on now, compared to a puffy recliner it seems to have no use as popular furniture.
Re:Sonia Delauney
ReplyDeleteI think in terms of yesterdays discussion, Delauney can be viewed as a modernist-as Jacqueline points out, she decorates a car, and the simultaneous fashions are unlike any costuming for women... To me, it seems she is extending Corbusier's analogy of the car being an extension of a man in a very tongue and cheek way. Le Corbusier argues that men are modern, their dress is modern and their homes should be modern. Delauney counters with "Women are modern too," despite the associations with ornament. By extending ornament to cover not only her models bodies, but their vehicle as well she poignantly asserts that not all ornament is superfluous... or is she asserting that like ornament, technology is superfluous? Her work brings up a lot of questions, and I think it is just as interesting to look at today as it would have been in the 20s.