Modernism: Origins and Evolution

The physical nature and holistic style of 104 West 40th Street falls squarely in the tradition of Modern architecture generally, and of the International Style in particular.

Modernism represents the cultural movement of progressive art and architecture, music, literature and design which emerged in the decades leading to the First World War. It reflected the goals of a class of artists and designers who sought to rebel against late nineteenth-century academic and historicist traditions in order to embrace the emerging economic, political and social aspects of the modern world. Observers typically classify the era into both modern and postmodern periods (with the close of World War II as an axial turning point between the two), but also according to the component styles that have been constitutive of the larger movement.

Some observers of history see the evolution of Modern architecture as a social phenomenon, intricately related to the project of Modernity and by extension to the Enlightenment, which itself was a result of social and political revolutions. Other historians regard Modernism as a matter of taste and a reaction against both eclecticism and the lavish stylistic excesses of the Victorian Era and Edwardian Art Nouveau.

Modernism’s Philosophical Precursors and Stylistic Effects

Modernism has been deemed the pre-eminent design solution from about 1932 to 1984. Overlapping this period, Postmodern architecture is a movement whose influence is generally cited as existing from the 1950s through the present. It is generally thought to be heralded by the return of wit, ornament and reference to architecture in response to the formalism of the International Style of modernism and Victorian Era thought processes, as will be explored herein.

The first half of the nineteenth century had been marked by a series of wars and revolutions, accelerating the popularity of ideas and philosophies now associated with aspects of Romanticism. Before long, however, notions such as individual subjective experience, the supremacy of nature as subject matter for artistic expression, and individual liberty succumbed to a relapse toward the more practical philosophical and artistic ideals later associated with philosophical positivism. Foreshadowed politically by the failed Romantic Revolutions of 1848, history portended a decline in the importance of these artistic concepts and imminent displacement by a pragmatic “democratization of art” that would remain intrinsic to Western culture for generations to come. ¹

Certain developments had begun to give a new meaning to Modernism on the eve of World War I. It increasingly saw traditional forms and traditional social arrangements as hindering progress, and the artist or designer was recast as a revolutionary, overthrowing rather than enlightening. Such was the case in the artistic movement known as futurism. But in other respects, in philosophy for example, countervailing trends retained a semblance of the original pragmatism inherent in modernism in that many sought to rationalize disruptions and incongruous observations by process of thought. Politically, the human cost associated with World War I fused the harshly mechanical geometric rationality of technology with the nightmarish irrationality of myth. Eventually, however, there was an important shift from the movement’s earlier phase. Whereas in the beginning the movement was undertaken by individuals who were part of “the establishment,” the mood began to shift increasingly towards a replacement of the older hierarchy with one based on new ideas, norms, and methods.

The reductivist aesthetics of the modern period also gained traction in another important historical respect. Intertwined with these observations were the socioeconomic shifts, and their effects, which had accompanied the Great Depression in Europe (1929-39). The Fascists “sought a future in which the engineer was the new savior,” ² and industrial design—rather than handcraftsmanship and personal artistic endeavor—was generally being emphasized as the “new key element of design.” ³ It would seem as though World War II partially redefined the value of aesthetics as a benign and welcomed side effect to utilitarian design rather than as artistic object directly willed. It is also likely that the era of mass capitalism and manufacturing which emerged in the West after World War II played a major role in fomenting or renewing a commitment to pragmatic principles in many spheres beyond that of economics. And despite whatever adverse effect one might expect the war to have had on American design, there continued to be a great deal of continuity between prewar and postwar design in the United States. Notwithstanding the shortages of materials (which if anything might have initially contributed to later minimalist design) and the effects of military conscription, the war provided a useful period of time in which the innovations of the 1930s could be absorbed.

Like many historical conflicts, intermittent yet devastating large-scale unrest precipitated a cementing of that artistic departure. The outbreak of World War I and of the Great Depression later, unfolding simultaneously with the growing school of realism, hampered artistic creativity and encouraged a ‘rational functionalism’ that would come to be defined by several major principles. In fact, they would later be delineated retrospectively in Philip Johnson and Henry-Russell Hitchcock’s 1932 book, The International Style: Architecture since 1922.⁴ Those principles—functionalism, architecture conceived as spatial volume rather than as mass, regularity of planning without axial symmetry, the avoidance of applied decoration—would soon be attributed to a particular brand of modernism, the so-called ‘International Style,’ as coined by Alfred Barr, Jr.⁵ After the 1932 International Exhibition of Modern Architecture at the Museum of Modern Art, curator Philip Johnson and Hitchcock wove together several disparate ideas that they felt were stylistically similar and consolidated them into the International Style. These principles would become the “new commandments of design” over the ensuing decades. ⁶

Economic forces had also been at work since the nineteenth century and would contribute to a similar design tendency. Steam-powered industrialization enabled the construction of taller buildings, and the availability of cast iron facilitated railroads and changes to urban landscapes. Whatever the causes, by the 1940s Modern architecture had been consolidated and identified as the ‘International Style’ and became the dominant way of building for the following several decades. Generally speaking, Modern architecture is usually characterized by the following:

• a rejection of historical styles as a source of architectural form (historicism)
• an adoption of the principle that the materials and functional requirements determine the result
• an adoption of a “machine aesthetic”
• a rejection of ornament
• a simplification of form and elimination of “unnecessary detail”
• an adoption of expressed structure

The International Style

The International Style was a major architectural trend of the 1920s and 1930s, usually traced to the buildings and architects of the formative decades of modernism before World War II. The term originated from the name of the 1932 book The International Style: Architecture since 1922, which identified, categorized and expanded upon the stylistic characteristics common to modernism across the world.⁷ The basic design principles of the International Style constitute a part of modernism.

The style blossomed in 1920s Western Europe. By this time, the most important figures in modern architecture had established their reputations, including Le Corbusier in France, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius in Germany.⁸ The style is commonly characterized by the following: radical simplification of form, a rejection of ornament, adoption of glass, steel and concrete as preferred materials, the transparency of buildings and construction, acceptance of industrialized mass-production techniques and the ‘machine aesthetic,’ acceptance of the automobile, design decisions that logically support the function of the building, and a vague yet exciting sense of the future. ⁹

Four slogans are generally held to summarize the style’s commercial implications: ornament is a crime; truth to materials; form follows function; and, Le Corbusier’s description of houses as “machines for living”. The slogan “form follows function” was last popularized by Chicago architect Louis Sullivan in the early twentieth century. He believed that a building's size, massing, spatial grammar and other characteristics should be driven solely by the function of the building.

So far as American commercial architecture is concerned, the International school found its origins in Europe prior to the 1930s and was indisputably the dominant style from the 1950s through the late 1970s. After World War II the International Style matured into modernism, with SOM and HOK perfecting the corporate practice, and it remained the dominant approach for decades. Pragmatic utilitarianism had become the driving force behind the style’s flourishing in the first major post-war building boom of 1948-49. The identifying features of the International Style included the use of modern structural principles and materials that had become available after the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century—particularly concrete for the floors and interior supports, glass for facades, and steel for exterior support—while allowing for the outward appearance of skeleton-frame construction and the rejection of nonessential decoration, with balance and regularity admired and fostered.

Functionalism

A central tenet of much modern and postmodern design, functionalism espouses the principle that architects should design buildings based on the intended purpose of those structures. It has been said that the place of functionalism in building can be traced back to the Vitruvian triad, where utilitas (variously translated as ‘commodity,’ ‘convenience,’ or ‘utility’) stands alongside venustas (beauty) and firmitas (firmness) as one of three classic goals of architecture. In the mid-1930s functionalism began to be discussed as an aesthetic approach rather than as a matter of design integrity. The idea of functionalism was conflated with lack of ornamentation, and this has caused substantial debate and disagreement over the trajectory of that which should rightly be termed ‘modern’ today. American Phillip Johnson also defined the modern movement as an aesthetic style, rather than a matter of political statement.

Significance of Geometry

A prominent characteristic of the International Style is its stark, rectangular geometry, sometimes pejoratively mocked as “uncompromising.” The style, however, is consistent with many of the movement’s esteemed personalities. Le Corbusier, for example, described buildings as “machines for living,” and so it is not surprising that such an attitude persisted toward the practical value of simple and angular shapes in both the functionalist style of buildings and in the logical layout and design of interior settings. ¹⁰

Streamlined Modern and Biomorphic Modern

Streamlined Modern was a late branch of the Modern Art Deco style. The style emphasized curving forms, long horizontal lines, and sometimes nautical elements in exterior design and on facades, including railings and porthole windows. It reached its height in 1937.¹¹ It was the branch of Modernism that combined the principles of aerodynamic engineering with the functional geometry of the International Style. Individual elements could be found within the canon of the International Style, as there were occasionally curved walls and canopies in International Style buildings.¹² The inherent similitude between ‘Streamlined’ and ‘Biomorphic’ is one that will be examined.

Biomorphic is a term applied to objects and artifacts featuring “strangely rounded and pierced shapes,” a prevalent phenomenon of design in the postwar era with precursors in the prewar years as far back as 1915.¹³ The style’s origin lay in automatism, the surrealist suspension of the conscious mind to release spontaneous subconscious images and shapes, and was pioneered in part by the German-French sculptor Jean Arp whose jigsawed/layered wood pieces were prototypical of the modern three-dimensional biomorphic style.¹⁴ One of the first instances of the style’s interplay with functionalist design could be seen in the metal shop worktables on display in 1923 at the Weimar Bauhaus (a European school/association concerned with reconciling craft tradition and industrial technology), the shapes of which were advantageous for studio craftsmanship. It was not, however, until the mid-1930s that the style emerged identifiably in the decorative arts and was coined by its current name. It was then that Biomorphic furniture came into vogue via the imagination of Alvar Aalto, one of “the most prolific architects and designers in [mid-century Modernism].” Other prominent applications of the style in that decade would include vases and household decor. ¹⁵

As an autonomous style, Biomorphism resembled Streamlining in that it reined in the more angular or rectilinear tendencies of the International Style. In fact, some have implied that Biomorphism can be conceptualized as the analogue of Streamlined architecture in the arenas of interior decor, sculpture and painting. It was distinct, however, in that the style was generally employed with respect to independent objects and not intended to be used throughout a setting to create a holistic theme; furnishings were considered unique ‘sculpturesque’ pieces or accents in and of themselves that typically graced an interior otherwise engineered to be thematically consistent. Although Biomorphism had become passé by the mid-1950s and was soon judged to have been a misguided trend, its significance in contributing to “the postwar emphasis on curvilinear design” should not be ignored.¹⁶ At the same time, some have acknowledged confusion in assessing the style, saying “the role of Biomorphism in the decorative arts has not been properly charted.” ¹⁷

Modern Pattern and Ornament

One of the most notable characteristics of postmodernist design is an aversion to traditional surface patterning, whether it be on furniture, drapery, or upholstery. This is the case, anyway, so far as artificial patterning is concerned. On the other hand, naturally occurring textures and surface colors are implicitly accentuated in lieu of manufactured patterns. Philip Johnson, albeit on the topic of one’s personal home, cited the grain of wood furniture, the raw silk of the drapery, and even the seams of leather couches as ample substitutes for the strictly patterned environs of old.¹⁸ Before World War II natural textures and tones of a more aesthetically exotic type—such as zebra-skin upholstery—were exploited for purposes of decor, but afterwards more naturally conservative exterior surfaces became prevalent. So while modernism expressly rejected ornamentation as a tenet of design, it alternatively embraced and propped up the natural beauty of functionalist, pseudo-decorative surroundings and furnishings. ¹⁹

Modernism in the Commercial Office Setting as an Adjunct of These Ideas;
Associated Stylistic Approaches: Shapes, Forms, Materials

The Seagram Building, completed in 1958, exemplifies many of the essential attributes of Modern architecture. It is hardly surprising that structural elements are prominently featured, as Philip Johnson was a major collaborator in its design. The use of a steel frame and non-structural glass walls conveyed this intention, and non-structural bronze-toned I-beams were even used to artificially suggest structure when it was realized municipal building codes required that all structural steel be covered in fireproof material (usually concrete). Visible from outside the building, they run vertically through the glass windows.

Furthermore, the building’s decor was fundamentally compliant with the tenets of the International Style, especially in its use of natural building materials. In fact, “the use of expensive quality materials and lavish interior decoration including bronze, travertine and marble” made it the world’s most expensive office tower at the time. Even seemingly unimportant aspects of the building were manipulated to ensure compliance with stylistic standards and geometric regularity. The chief architect used blinds that only worked in three positions (fully open, halfway open and closed) to help maintain a somewhat uniform exterior façade for outside viewers.

All these aspects illustrate a careful adherence to Modernist design principles. As noted above, the physical nature and holistic style of 104 West 40th Street falls squarely in the tradition of Modern architecture generally, and of the International Style in particular.

It would seem, based on the observations contained throughout, that certain conclusions can be made about how internal improvements should be made so as to reflect the building’s holistic design philosophy. For instance, at least some surfaces and perhaps a majority of paneling should feature geometry and flooring consistent with the macroscopic style of the building as a whole. That is to say the angular, rectangular, or otherwise linear should generally be favored over the curvilinear, the circular, the ovular and the oblique.

As dictated by the International architectural ethos, natural materials should generally take precedence over artificial surfaces and fixtures, especially those of a pedestrian or non-utilitarian nature. Unstained woods, metals, non-patterned fabrics and carpeting all seem more likely to comport to the outlined overarching design vision than would plastics and other objects derived from molding the amorphous and willfully shaping existing materials.

Regarding form, we also see clearly that there ought not to be aversion to revealing the bare functionalist inner-workings of interior appliances. Repetitious geometric themes would also seem a welcome technique, as they may represent one of the few acceptable “patterns” that the International Style permits, as they can be simultaneously angular and interlocking.