The Design District
Is Modernism About Over?
I saw this article in the NY Times yesterday about Richard Driehaus, a Chicago man who feels the Modernist movement and “less is more” mantra we seem to have loved in this century is “leading to a less interesting” Chicago, and he’s hell-bent on reversing “what he sees as a century of dehumanization in architecture.”
His opulence, though, seems such a dramatic pendulum swing toward the neo-Classical movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. I, for one, find the interiors unlivable and stuffy, but do have to agree that some modern buildings are just not aesthetically as beautiful and interesting as they were in the turn of the century.
But, that’s Chicago. What about Portland? Is Modernism leading to our city being less interesting? Are our stark interiors and exteriors dehumanizing? Do you prefer Hive Modern and Design Within Reach to ornate 19th-century antiques? Or is there some sort of happy medium between cold spareness and over-done lavishness? I’m curious what you think.
By Mike O'Brien on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 05:43PM PST
Modernism really arose after WWI in reaction to the association between over-encrusted buildings and upper class status. In olde days, one could not be a proper noble or captain of industry without lots of gilded putti to bless your social position.
Today in Portland, much design seems to arise from our local culture of living sustainably and integrating human needs with society and the environment. Good examples are the Armory and Jean Vollum/Ecotrust building. To me this seems much healthier.
Portlanders also seem to recognize that delight and fun are necessary, even critical, for serious endeavors. Some buildings and interiors recognize this principle.
The last remaining but stubborn fragment of Modernism is a devotion to strict geometry and glossy surfaces, which are today’s version of the Victorian, more about creating the right impression than a livable or workable space.
By Rachel DeSchepper on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:48AM PST
Hi Mike—thanks for the insight. I agree that Portlanders do have a way to put fun into less serious design … you think it’s much different here than anywhere else? I’d argue that Portland cares more and maybe puts more thought into the line between high design, sustainability and livability.
I guess what I am turned off by in the strict sense of Modernism is just what you touch on: how it can tend toward unlivable. Comfort and beauty are key to me, and I think they can go hand-in-hand. And maybe that’s what Driehaus is trying to get at—however, he swings way too far in the other direction, causing another, albeit different, level of unlivable.
I think you and I are essentially arguing the same thing.
By Double J on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 12:09PM PST
Nothing is over… it is just pluralism now
...the death of modernism almost as tired as “Painting is Dead”
it’s all comparative aesthetics… there is interesting/salient modernism and derivative posturing. Anything done with conviction makes its own weather.
By Rachel DeSchepper on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:51AM PST
By pluralism, do you mean Modernism and what Driehaus is arguing can co-exist in architecture and interior design?