Marcel Breuer Gerald Summers
Wassily Chair 1928 Lounge chair 1934
Hugo Henrik Alvar Aalto, Finnish architect and designer didn’t share his European peers’ interest in tubular metal. He preferred instead to explore the potential of wood laminate and molded plywood. He attempted to prove that wood laminate was just as valid and modern a material as tubular steel with his all-wood constructions (Fiell 1991). This new technology allowed for a move away from traditional rigid wood furniture and produced a range of curvilinear furniture. Inspired by Aalto’s exhibition in London in 1933, Gerald Summers designed a lounge chair molded out of a single sheet of plywood in 1934. Post war design moved away from modernism’s strict principles, focusing instead on ergonomics. The molded wood laminate conveys a materiality paradox; curved wooden constructions of any size were not common outside of boat builders. After World War 2, war-related production methods, particularly the development of new processes of arc welding, casting aluminum and molding plastic unveiled a time when mass production of standardized furniture was a reality. Post-war military funded research into such technology allowed for mass production of certain designs, including many by Charles and Ray Eames, especially their designs for Herman Miller, one of the largest furniture companies in America. Charles and Ray Eames made the most of molded plywood, with a series of successful molded plywood chairs: the LCW (Lounge Chair Wood), the LCM (Lounge Chair Metal), the DCW (Dining Chair Wood), and the DCM (Dining Chair Metal) between 1945 and 1946. Charles Eames’ experience of working with molded plywood when developing splints and stretchers for the US Navy played a significant role in the growth of this technology in furniture production.
Modernism would draw its fair share of detractors by the late 1950s. The sleek architecture of corporate America was seen as one more example of the commoditization of our lives and the growing alienation between corporate and popular cultures. Various staunch opponents to modern design would declare that “it had degenerated since 1945 into an anonymous product for the biggest common denominator: visually impoverished, technocratic, large-scale and indifferent to people and context alike (Ibeling 1998). By the early 1960s, what Robert Venturi saw was architecture devoid of humanity .The stripping of surface embellishment, deliberate ignorance of historical and regional tradition, and the assembly-line aesthetic were an abomination for Venturi (Zwirn 1996). Key characters in establishing new movement include, Robert Venturi, Verner Panton, whose room installations in Bayer’s ‘Visiona2’ exhibition in Cologne were some of the most radical interior designs ever seen, and Aldo Rossi, architect and industrial designer. This became a precedent in anticipation of a new mainstream style that would be known as post-modernism, a term coined by Nikolas Pevsner in his publication, Studies in Art, Architecture and Design: Victorian and After, which was published in 1968.
Post-modern furniture design would be defined by the extensive use of plastics. In fact it’s hard to mention post-modern design without at least some mention of plastics and the connotations the materiality brought. With such a wide variety available to the designer, and an even more diverse ability to conform to what is required of it, whether soft and flexible to a rigid construction material, plastics were perfect for the outlandish designs of this era. A common theme throughout most of these designs is a narrative, either subtle or loud. The development of plastic technologies allowed for a much broader design vocabulary to be realistically produced. Utopian, futuristic interiors and curvy, free-flowing furniture were happily introduced to the unsuspecting public. Many pieces, as a reaction to the ‘dryness’ of modernism, have a quirky decorative tendency, with a defiant sense of aesthetic heavy with anti-historical bias. Beneath these glowing freeform acrylic shapes lies a deeper, more serious statement of purpose that sometimes does not come across as effectively as expected. Verner Panton used plastics to express the aesthetics of his pieces to great success. The obvious utopian theme through his work was strongly supported by the ability of the plastics technology to produce such items.
The attitude of Pop culture continued to influence design through to the 1980s. Designers like Jonathan De Pas, who designed the PVC inflatable Blow chair with Donato D’Urbino and Paolo Lomazzi, Gaetano Pesce with his Up series, a triumph in revolutionary marketing, and Pierre Paulin, designer of the audaciously formed Ribbon chair of 1965 would set the tone for an active argument against modernism. Post-modernism is, however, obsessed with modernity; and the issue of whether human societies have moved into a post-modern phase remains open. The avant-garde designers continued to experiment with the potential of anti-design, although by the 1970s, there was a higher social and political concern. This was in part due to the difficult economic situation, together with the energy crisis, necessitating the dominance of rationalism in the furniture industry (Fiell 1991). The energy crisis of the 1970s forced designers to consider other materials besides plastic (a petroleum derivative) or to use it cautiously, as scarcity of the material pushed prices up. In part, material choice in this case led to even more obvious political narratives and statements.
The anti-design principles of Pop were reiterated with an intellectual objective by Studio Alchymia. Founded by Alessandro Mendini, Studio Alchymia’s members included Ettore Sottsass and Andrea Branzi. Central to many of their designs was a tongue-in-cheek humor, attempting to demonstrate that the intellectual content of design can be derived solely from ornament. They successfully achieved this by redesigning ‘classic’ pieces of furniture, such as Mendini’s 1983 reinterpretation of Breuer’s Wassily chair (Fiell 1991). Post-modernism, sadly, is characterized by the widespread rise of kitsch adulterations that proved derogatory to the movement, rather than being remembered as a design era that encouraged designers to push all limits.
Jonathan De Pas, Donato D’Urbino Pierre Paulin
and Paolo Lomazzi Ribbon chair 1965
Blow chair 1967
60 years on, supermodernism brings us full circle. We could say of super modernity that it is the face of a coin whose obverse represents post-modernity: the positive of a negative (Auge 1995). The fanciful, freewheeling designs of the 1970’s and 1980’s had given way to something harder-edged and retro-modern. This neo-modern architectural and design movement introduced a new breed of designs that are no longer over-concerned with hidden meanings and political statements. Glass and steel buildings that will fit in seamlessly almost anywhere, decorated with furnishings and finishes that share the same quality. Many publications in the early and mid 1990s deals with the aesthetic minimalism that has been gaining prominence since the beginning of the 1990s and places it in the context of the visual arts and history of architecture.
Dematerialization had become the watchword of industrial designers - think the shrinking cell phone, the lighter, thinner laptop, and the transparent iMac. With the iMac, the computer suddenly metamorphosed from work tool to fashion accessory (Bartolucci 2000). Again, the spotlight is on an abstract design that is self-contained; minimalist, undefined, boundless and neutral notions can be seen as a reaction to the preceding dominance of post-modernist principles. (Ibeling 1998) In the 1990’s, this sense of casualness, informality, and ambiguity grew even more ubiquitous as the boundaries between life and work, home and office became even blurrier. Miniaturized, portable technology has allowed us to be mobile and remote, to disengage from place. People work from home, in cafes, or live at the office. This phenomenon is increasingly global, a quintessential culture of self-invention and bastion of casualness is leading the revolution. As a result, a tendency towards simplicity, openness, and utter practicality dominates this work. Production of interchangeable designs then work together to help in the integration of this ‘complete’ package that is essentially neutral in image, stripped to essentials with that pieces can thus slide from one context to another (Bartolucci 2000).
A new generation of hip new designers such as Karim Rashid, with designs such as the Space Chaise, Asym chair and the Oh chair, Jeff Covey with his self-titled stool, and Lloyd Schwan, with his Skeleton chair now leads a fresh approach to design, away from the disillusionment of post-modernism into a movement that reflects the mood of this era. Operating from modest-sized shops, designing, fabricating and assembling, packaging, promoting and distributing their products in-house allows a far more flexible production schedule as their designs are made in limited runs. While there are wild new material choices in the 21st century, there are 4 or 5 new metals to work with that has been developed by the aeronautics industry alone, not to mention composites, an overall preference for older, more traditional materials. Due to their hands-on involvement of production, these designers tend to lean towards technology and materials that are more familiar and deliberately low-tech. Die-cutting, molding, welding and casting of plywood, metal, glass and concrete minimize complexity, ensuring the freedom to directly manipulate materials in any way. The desire to invoke the inherent qualities of the materials is a key issue in these designers’ design intent.
Contemporary design had synced with a faster paced society driven by the universal denominator of globalization. While not the ideal aspired to by the socially progressive early moderns, global consumerism has encouraged this infinite, often incoherent cacophony of styles. Yet a fresh stirring, inspired by the technological tradition of the current generation might hold the key to establishing this neo-modern movement. It is
said that 90% of all good ideas have been done. Even if the current batch doesn’t pick up on the last 10%, they’re doing an excellent job rehashing the previous 90%.
Jeff Covey Karim Rashid
Covey stool 2000 Oh chair 2000
Bibliography:
-
Auge, Marc. Non-places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Super Modernity. New York, 1995
-
Bartolucci, Marisa. Contemporary American Furniture. New York: Universe Publishing, 2000
-
Doordan, Dennis P. ‘On Materials’. From Design Issues, Vol. 19, No.4, Autumn 2003
- Fiell, Charlotte. Modern Furniture Classics: since 1945. London: Thames and Hudson, 1991
- Fiell, Charlotte. Modern Furniture Classics: postwar to post-modernism. London: Thames and Hudson, 2001
-
Ibeling, Hans. Supermodernism: Architecture in the Age of Globalization. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 1998.
-
Margolin, Victor (Ed). Design Discourse: history, theory and criticism. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.
-
McQuillan, Martin (Ed). Deconstruction: a reader. New York: Routledge, 2001.
-
Wall, Roland Sean. ‘Behind the Looking Glass: a delirious journey through the biotechnological backdrop of wonderland.’ Edited within De Omslag
-
Zwirn, Robert. ‘The passing of post-modernism: Cultural influences in design’. National Forum. Baton Rouge: Spring 1996. Vol. 76, Issue. 2.
