Why the World Is Obsessed with Midcentury Modern Design
curbed.com
curbed.com
Similarly, high modernist poetry peaked in the 1940s and 1950s. Since then we've had some good poetry but nothing that attempts to meld form and function in the same way that modernist poets like Eliot and Stein were able to.
IOW there is nothing dated about it -- which is why we still love it. Until furniture starts being made out of more space-age fabrics (or perhaps poetry out of emoji) it's unlikely that modernity will have much more to offer to furniture design or poetry...
Postmodernism is the realization that modern ideals have been met and that some objective other than design and functionality can become the focal point. Often, ironically, it's nostalgia of some kind.
There is nothing nostalgic about choosing modern designs. They simply optimize form and function with current materials and technology. That materials and tech for furniture have plateaued is a separate issue. Largely, the innovations have been in production, distribution, and manufacturing. Someone is far more likely today to live in a space adorned by modern designs mass-produced by Ikea or Target.
On a separate note I just discovered startup furniture company "Joybird". Pretty nice stuff, mostly so-called 'mid-century modern'.
I'm surprised someone thinks this. To me most of it looks obviously dated, and very much a spindly and kitschy consumer product of Cold War suburbia.
It has very little of the purity of real modernism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_furniture
As for Stein - not everyone was impressed by her contribution:
http://www.romanianculture.org/downloads/testimony_against_g...
I think this is mostly in the eye of the beholder. Is there really much difference in the use of materials and form/function? I'd argue it's a minor aesthetic difference.
Also, I'd also argue that a chair like this is postmodern in the same way as designing a server case out of wood would be: Nostalgia for wood and desire for modern structure, where other materials would do a far better job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eames_Lounge_Chair_Wood#/media/...
It's very practical, relatively cheap, reasonably strong, easy to process, and easy to recycle. For instance, IKEA which is well-known for its expressly inexpensive and minimalist furniture offers a lot of wooden furniture, kids toys, etc.
Also, every day I take a few NYC subway trains. Each car has its electric power collector mounted on a wooden plank. This is probably done because of practical reasons (wood is cheap, strong, and is a good electric insulator), not nostalgic.
That is only coincidental side effect of manufacturing and economic means that allowed these things to be cheaply copied and consumed.
In other words: It's a slippery slope from what you might call "high modernism" (e.g., Bauhaus) to midcentury modern. Trying to characterize one as pure and one as consumerist seems like a category error -- these adjectives pertain more to specific pieces or arrangements than to the whole movement.
Similarly, arguing about whether these pieces are "dated" seems beside the point. The works were a product of their time. Some of them continue to impress.
Another point of reference regarding the idiosyncratic ways that modernism presented itself is Alvar Aalto, the Finnish architect and designer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvar_Aalto). His furniture and interiors would also be regarded as modernist, and (being Finnish) very centered around wood. Some of it might look "spindly and kitschy", especially depending on how it is arranged in a room. But check out http://www.archdaily.com/85390/ad-classics-villa-mairea-alva.... Again, count me in.
"well, actually..."
Lots of modernist stuff feels very dated. And, uh, I've rarely met people who are really into the Modernist art look who are outside of art circles...
I think it's far past time to move on from modernism & "post-modernism" to find a clearer ideal for the 21st century.
Modernism just means optimizing the materials for the function -- good design in the way that some Apple products are.
In the 1500s, modernism was far different but still had the same definition.
As materials and manufacturing techniques improve, it will be fascinating to see what kinds of designs become possible.
Have you met many people into ANY particular art look who are outside of art circles?
Dieter Rams and company. It borrows from architecture, aerospace and futurism. Some of the aesthetic is captured in Winogrand's great photographic opus, "1964".
The Palm Springs of the world when people were moving from the city core to new cites which excited with future vision. JFK airport, the Streamliners and the Airstreams.
But eventually there was a backlash as interpreted by "The New Topographics" --all too clean and alienating, the exuberance of the midcentury was hiding a secret of failure to deliver on the dreams to the masses.
But now it's back with a vengeance and the height of good taste as pronounced by the tastemakers like the MoMA.
Personally it’s my favourite style, but it is dated. And like everything else it was a product of new advances in manufacturing and production, not just a marriage of form and function which can be seen in furniture going back 100-150 years further.
Mid-century modernism is whimsical, busy, distracting. More than anything, it belongs to our grandparent's generation; it's an admission that we didn't reach the sought after future of robots and space travel.
I would take sleek lines and monochromatic shades over this any day. This is just my personal opinion, of course. I'm very cognizant of the fact that many people appreciate this style and find my own to be bland and drab.
Sought after by whom?
It's not something people particularly want (heck, most people don't even care for sci-fi enough to have a couple TV channels and quality Hollywood genre movies made)...
Properly cared for, one of those chairs will last a lifetime. That cannot be applied to cheaper furniture.
As a programmer and a reductionist it's very appealing to me. It's about as simple as it can be with no extraneous ornamentation. The drawer pulls don't stick out, and the glides are hidden too.
For some reason this really, really resonates with me in the same way that Maxwell's equations are incredibly elegant or a Fourier transform explains so much of the world in such a compact way.
At risk of sounding like a hipster, I liked "midcentury modern" before Mad Men was cool. I think that my brain has worked the way it does for quite a while. I'm predisposed to liking midcentury stuff because I'm always trying to find the most compact, minimal form. In my mind the whole mapper/packer article that made the rounds a while ago helps explain it; I'm always looking for a more compact truth and that's bled over into the way I look at the physical world too.
http://the-programmers-stone.com/the-original-talks/day-1-th...
http://scene7.targetimg1.com/is/image/Target/17214249_Alt01?...
It's basically a box frame on a pedestal. That's a pretty classically styled MCM dresser design, and it doesn't get much more minimalist than that: a box set on legs. But outside of the MCM era, that pure of a design was nowhere to be seen for the prior decades. In a typical house right now you're much more likely to find something like this (random from Google):
http://homesteadfurnitureonline.com/images/Dressers/master-d...
A mishmash of design elements from various periods. To me, the average MCM piece is more minimalist.
But Google images suggests minimal is pretty loose! I guess it's relative.
I think you can get longevity with any furniture (clothes, etc) if you resist purchases that are too easily defined by a style or era. That is, certain angles, patterns, shapes, etc.
Alternatively, you go for an eclectic mix or double-down on a particular style and ride it out for 20 years until it comes back!
The wood goods though are not cold at all, and are very warm. Teak is arguably the quintessential mid-century material, and naturally has a nice warm orangey finish. The best mid-century teak goods also feature nice curves and are not at all angular. The price on vintage wood goods is pretty good too. Everything I own was purchased for less than it would cost to purchase similar new, much lower quality, new goods. Ex: My vintage Grete Jalk dining set: $600. The best equivalent (much lower quality) Ikea dining set (Stockholm): ~$1200.
My advice is to avoid the fancy/expensive designers, consider new items for fabric goods (sofas), favor vintage for wood/case goods.
And therefore hugely popular with businesses that embody those qualities.
More seriously, this stuff comes in cycles. In a few years it'll be Shaker chairs or chrome-and-leather or extravagantly coloured or something. Although the cycle is anchored slighly by IKEA, who produce modernish stuff that's cheap, reliable and ubiquitous.
Modernism was brutalism; it was van der Rohe and La Corbusier; it was decades of architecture which, as HRH the Prince of Wales has noted, did more damage to London than did the Luftwaffe.
I'd love to see a neo-Edwardian movement: organic shapes, colour, ornament, pattern, design, delight. Or bring back the single most beautiful artistic movement in history: Jugendstil/Art Nouveau.
elegant, simple, pure, powerful, minimalistic, geometric, and if it seems cold, it can also be funny and daring (remember the egg shaped chair?)
As a simple example, consider the the 'flat' stylings. In a number of cases in my experience, the flat style made it harder to use the program. That is aggravating - it was art change for the sake of art change, adhering to the tired old modernist ideas.
It's quite worth reading this debate: http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm
And I find I am wholly on Alexander's kind of side.
Is it just me, or is it largely a US thing? I mostly see it from US sources, but that could easily be selection bias...
Anyone any insights?
Disclaimer: I live in one of those houses, and enjoy the aesthetic. I've even carefully maintained the Nelson bubble lamps.
Personally most American furniture I see in real life is not up to the standard of design I see in and around Stockholm.
So why? First, the post-WWII era was a tremendously successful one. The world was forward-looking and optimistic. Then, our pop culture was looking to a peaceful, hi-tech future in space. What are we looking at in pop culture today? Zombie apocalypse.
It was also the last strongly defined aesthetic. After its rococo climax in late 1960s psychedelia, art lost direction. The gloom and negativity of the 1970s didn't find much shape in any art form but cinema, and ultimately the Sex Pistols came along in 1977, pronounced modernism dead, and kicked its corpse.
After punk, the world of high art aesthetics turned to postmodernism, reassembling bits and bobs of history and multiculturalism into a shape that reflected the past, not the future. Then the Internet came along, and design focus shifted to the web. Out in the physical world, postmodernism degenerated into mere hipsterdom.
I'm kind of hoping that hipsters are to postmodernism what psychedelia was to modernism, and a new, popular aesthetic can rise - something that recognizes the constraints and strengths of the 21st century. A lot of new art styles come from new technologies, so maybe 3D printing will lead us somewhere magical. One can only hope.
A startup founder I worked with in the 90's filled the office with Charles Eames chairs and tables. A bit sparse but functional. The pieces were not that expensive, more expensive than say IKEA, this was a legal startup.
They are kind of in their 1960's in some ways.
And China is where most of this stuff is made, so ...