Course title:

Centre for visual and cultural studies

Name:

GiGi

The required submission date:

09/12/2005

The task question:

To what extent did Modernist architecture and interior design suppress domesticity? Critically discuss this comment using specific examples from the work of two or three architects or interior designers.

The task name and a title relevant to submission: 

Building Modernism: the suppression of the domestic?

Word count:

1800

Building Modernism: the suppression of the domestic?

The term modernism usually refers to an emphasis on impressionism and subjectivity in visual arts. ‘Domesticity is an invention of the modern age’[1] and it refers to the quality or condition of home life. In this essay, I am going discuss the relationship between domesticity and modernism and discuss whether Modernist architecture and interior design suppresses domesticity or not.

In a lecture on ‘Building Modernism: the suppression of the domestic’ says, ‘the house used to be understood as a place that incorporated both work and habitual activities of living sleeping and eating and by 19^th century the home became distinguished from the space of work and exclusively a place for eating, sleeping, raising children and enjoying leisure.’ It follows that; domesticity should be a private and comfortable family life which is different to the work place.

Modernist architecture and interior design is functional and standardized. Modernism favoured progress, democracy, new technologies, new materials, simple lines, rational forms, abstract and geometrical shapes and rejected history, elitism and unnecessary decoration.[2] Moreover, modernist architecture and interior design has generally several different smart systems that function in different ways. For example, one system is the physical plant, such as heating, ventilation, plumbing air conditioning, electric, and so on. ‘Domesticity is a specifically modern phenomenon, a product of capitalist economics, breakthroughs in technology and Enlightenment ideas on individuality.’[3] It should offer the domestic interior and home as a place for social interaction, familial ties, and leisure.[4] As a result, domesticity is deeply linked to modernism. However, modernity and domesticity often seem to be in opposition.

Modernist architecture and interior design do suppress domesticity as domesticity should be separated from the work place and focus on the family. It can be argued that Modernist architecture has a mechanical and inhuman quality. Scientific advances point to a startling conclusion: The nonliving world is very much alive with our enslavement to machines.[5] Although, machines can help life to become easier, in fact it can be also lead people to be indolent, without doing any housework as the machine can do all. "The biggest blockade to the emergence of living technologies could be the very phenomenon Living Machines are intended to solve, namely, the estrangement of modern cultures from the natural world," Dr. John Todd [6] wrote. The technology can makes us do ridiculous things. For instance, Mon Oncle[7], one of Jacques Tati’s movies, shows a story satire of man against machine. The film shows the central family living in an ultra-modernized home where everything is button operated. They make lots of jokes about living in a modern house as the machines go wrong when guests visit. ‘They step on separate little stepping stones in the garden and the hilarious stepping stone ballet of the party guests looks like circus animals performing in the designer-heavy yard of the film's modern house. Tati’s work is all about how our modern lives interlock like gears of a large machine and illustrate the mechanisms behind our modern world.’[8]As this demonstrates, machine can be complex and sometimes can be also appear wrong. It probably makes life even more complicated if you do not know how to use it. Thereby, domesticity became the antithesis of modernity.

Modernist architecture and interior design usually provided high technology security systems. This security system is functional and alert. The alarm would ring when someone broke in. It sounds like a perfect machine. However, it appears problematic because of its alert.  For instance, when insects like spiders or flies pass across the x-ray transmitter of the security system, the alarm rings. It happens when the wind hits the windows strongly as well. Thus, instead of ensuring a safe space, this security system makes the home more perplexing in some cases.

Furthermore, modernist architecture and interior design offer no privacy as instead of having useful curtains, modernist architects built glazed windows. For example, Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth House is ‘enclosed by sheets of plate glass which extend from floor to ceiling and from column to column’[9]. People can actually see though the interior from outside though the long window as the house is transparent. In the Farnsworth house, distinctions between public and private, outside and inside often disappear.[10]

Moreover, modernist architecture is not individual and makes a crowded environment. On the contrary, people will not experience alienation. However, modernist architecture is noisy as the walls and ceiling are thinner than the ‘old buildings’ and the materials of the walls and ceiling are not soundproofed. Sometimes people can even hear their neighbours’ conversation. This influences private domesticity very much. As modernist architecture does not have consummate noise insulation, neighbours are mutually affected; for example, people can not sleep well if someone is having a party at home. It can be argued that modernist architecture makes the neighbourhood become worse.

In addition, a major disadvantage of modernist architecture is the problem of the cold in the winter. Obviously, the large glazed windows lead to a cold interior as glass does not deflect cold and draughts come from the gap between the windows and the frames. The material of the wall does not keep warm. Instead of having carpets on the floor, modernist architects used cold materials such as tiles or timber on the floor. Likewise, they used heating radiators rather than using stoves in the house and it was impossible to have fire in the modern house. To sum up, the big window areas, inadequate central heating and use of materials which do not prevent cold in modernist architecture and interior design makes a cold and uncomfortable house to live in during the winter.

An example of modernism architecture is “De Mandrot Villa, Le Pradet, near Hyeres in France” which was designed from 1929 and finished in 1931 by Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret.[11] The exterior of the house, the main construction is a combination of masonry and isolated post construction. When we move into the interior, the south wall is transparent, the sheets of glazing, translucent and opaque panels. In addition, it is similar to Le Corbusier’s other work in that in the living room, the placing of fireplace and chimney were designed away from the wall to avoid the traditional massive effect and to make the whole house looks modern and professional and save more space for people to live in. Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret also tried to bring as much light into the house as they could invoke, giving a natural feeling of being and organizing every interior product to enlarge the whole space. In fact, they have achieved what they hoped as the windows surround the space. Following that, the modernist architects started from a coherent idea of designing a domestic house and makes more convenient for the domesticity life. However, the much they have done, the problems do cost the house more. Stucco was used to cover the walls, but this material is very inflexible so it easily became cracked. In this case, it could be a freezing and uncomfortable house in winter time.

Undoubtedly, those problems of De Mandrot Villa’s are similar to Le Corbusier’s work Villa Savoy which was designed a year earlier in Paris, France, 1930. The biggest problem is the organization of the interior and furniture within the house. Their starting point is to make more space for people to live; however, they made the house more inconvenient to live. Because they tried to hide as much furniture and products as possible, the residents have difficulty finding what they need.

Obviously, the modernist architecture is incongruous with domesticity and makes domesticity inconvenient and uncomfortable. As a result of De Mandrot Villa’s problems, modernist architecture and interior design seems to be opposite to domesticity.

In addition to De Mandrot Villa’s house, another example of modernist architecture which does suppress domesticity is the Kaufmann Desert House, situated in Palm Springs, Southern California. This was designed by architect Richard Neutra and built between 1946 and 1947[12]. The house is set in a desert landscape and it is considered a summer holiday home. The Desert House maintains a very low visual profile and is built from modern materials such as steel and concrete, stucco finish and dry-joint stone walls, wood and glass. Neutra's choice of those modern materials is not sound absorbing and it could be cold. ‘The house was designed with layers of horizontal planes, maintaining the harmony with nature with patios and porches that made the surrounding landscape appear to be part of the houses themselves.’[13] In this case, the transparent glass walls work against the privacy and the sense of security. ‘The house was conceived to lessen the distinction between the interior and the exterior, and between house and landscape.’ Nevertheless, the house is like a mirage on the desert and it looks more like a hotel or museum rather than a house to live in.

To conclude, this kind of house is not universal and it is difficult to afford. It could be noisy and lack privacy and it is not suitable for domestic life.

In these case studies, modernist architecture has been couched in terms of the anti-domestic.

On the other hand, after more than one hundred years of dispute, some people still argue that Modernist architecture and interior design do not suppress domesticity as modernist architecture is functional and addresses human needs. ‘Cultural diversity, an understanding of materials and regional character, a sensitive use of modern technology, and innovative yet aesthetic concepts all merge to produce stunning architecture’.[14] The modern home is iconoclastic and saves time for work rather than spare it for housekeeping. Some useful universal machines such as dish washers and Hoovers can help make life easier and lead to good hygiene. R. Weston describes, ‘a machine to provide us with efficient help for speed accuracy in our work, a diligent helpful machine which should satisfy all our physical needs: comfort.’[15] Accordingly, Modernist architecture defines the avant-grade[16], thus, the clean and healthy environment in the modernist architecture has expressed its own symbolic language. Modernist architecture and interior design is generally simple without the useless mobility embellishment. Some people believed modernist homes are prototypes for everyone as transparencies and translucent and opaque surfaces in the modernist architecture makes the living spaces more closed to the nature. For instance, it brings nature light to the space and residents can see the variations of landscape views though the large windows.

In summary, people have argued about whether modernist architecture and interior design suppresses domesticity for a long time and both expound and give examples to prove their points. My attitude is modernist architecture and interior design does suppress domesticity as my investigation proved that there are a number of disadvantages to living in a modern house.