Characteristics of Architectural Movements: Defining a Framework for Modernism

Modernist architecture has its roots in many of the various movements from the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.  Something that we learn day to day is the importance of precedent studies, because if we do not understand what came before, we will not be able to build upon it and develop new designs that take advantage of modern ideas.  The core principle of modern architecture is the idea that design must necessarily reflect the times we live in; this means we must apply new techniques, improve upon older ones, utilize new materials, and think creatively and innovatively to solve problems as best we can.  To describe modern architecture, it is easier to provide background on a few of the movements that can still be traced back to today.

The underlying theme of the Arts and Crafts movement, a movement which began in the British Isles, was that workers should be able to take pride in their work.  Good design was considered to be tied directly into good society, which members of the movement felt must push back against industrialization.  Opposed to the harsh and “uncivilized” conditions of factory work, Arts and Crafts sought to exemplify craftsmanship and skill.  Proponents of the movement, such as William Morris and John Ruskin, felt that mass production necessitated shoddy work and wanted to promote individuality and the inherent beauty of finely crafted work.  They felt that design should be for the people, by the people, and bring pleasure to both the consumer and the creator.  Ruskin, an architectural theoretician who I have discussed before, believed in the life and nobility of buildings, and believed this originated from the craftsmen, masons, and other laborers instead of the architects.  Arts and Crafts design tended to be relatively simplistic, rigid, rectilinear, and the process of how pieces were constructed was often still visible, stressing the natural motif associated with the movement.  The phrase “truth to materials” was a credo of this era, describing the importance of materiality to craftsmanship.

Red House, by William Morris, in the Arts and Crafts style.

Art Nouveau responded to “nature” in a different way than Arts and Crafts.  Instead of relying on the truth of materials or handmade craftsmanship, Art Nouveau was inspired by sensual curvilinear forms, such as could be found in flowers and other natural forms.  Although a departure from Arts and Crafts, this style still has ties to Ruskin’s theories.  As I mentioned, Ruskin felt buildings exhibited a life, and using nature to draw upon this life would likely have fit into his vision of ornament and craft.  However, Art Nouveau embraced industrialization, as above all else they wanted to establish new designs and not draw so heavily upon the past.  This movement eschewed the historical forms and insisted on exploring new designs; hyperbolas and “growing” figures were often employed to express the organic feel they desired.  They also desired harmony in materials, and sought to keep a recurring motif existing between all aspects of design, including doors, windows, mouldings, ironwork, etc.  However, there were variations on the movement in other countries.  The Vienna Secessionists, for example, often chose to reduce “superfluous” ornamentation in favor of clean, distinct linear ornamentation only on the surface of their structures.

An entryway, in the style of Art Nouveau, created by architect Alfred Morris.

Amsterdam Expressionism is largely characterized by the construction of decorative structures, like towers.  The shapes these buildings took were very organic, and clad almost entirely in brick with a concrete structure.  This technique allowed the structures to take on an innumerable number of shapes, especially rounded or curvilinear ones, resembling sculptures in their carefully crafted design.  The shapes of the exterior came first and foremost, and often the plans would adapt to fit the shape, whether or not it was functionally practical.  This resulted in many large interior spaces, often opening vertically fairly high.  Ultimately, the goal was to produce an elaborate architectural scheme, both inside and out, that integrated many different building elements, such as decorative masonry, artistic glazing, and wrought ironwork to create the finished “sculpture.”

Het Schip, in Amsterdam.  The sculpture-like quality of the masonry is indicative of Amsterdam Expressionism.

As much as the Arts and Crafts movement wanted to pull back from industrialization, the De Stijl movement wanted to embrace it.  De Stijl sought to incorporate the “machine,” and celebrate the industrial age by creating designs that both encouraged and were inspired by it.  The De Stijl philosophy was an ambitious and idealistic one, focused on functionality and rectilinearity.  Superfluous decorations, colors, and shapes were to be completely excluded; instead, the desire was to create practical forms which seemed to slide into place in a planar manner, emphasizing a refinement and sophistication of concept and technique.

The Schroderhuis, by Gerrit Rietveld.  One of the only houses designed entirely according to principles of the De Stijl movement.

The Bauhaus and other industrial architecture embraced industrialization similar to De Stijl, but not at the expense of hand craft.  It was believed architects and engineers must understand the craft of creation, as well as the ability to mass produce it.  Theoretically, this amalgamation of two schools of thought allows for industrial and future advancement, but not at the expense of craftsmanship and quality.  Of the theoreticians, this likely would have matched many of Eugene Viollet-le-Duc’s philosophies.  Viollet-le-Duc believed in the truth of materials, in advancement and modern techniques, but also believed in the importance of learning from the past.  The core tenet of this era was “form follows function,” emphasizing the need for buildings to promote practicality.

Walter Gropius' Bauhaus, in Germany.  A prime example of industrial architecture, the Bauhaus encapsulates the idea of "form follows function."

In the modern age, we can see elements of all of these movements, and more, in the architecture we see all around us.  While there is not an overarching style tying modernist structures together, there is certainly a theme which could be said unites the many school of thought: the strong desire to improve and innovate.  Architects today must study historical precedents, and learn what worked, what did not, and use these influences as well as our own judgment to discern what we feel is the best step for creating a future.  Pushing the boundaries of design, creating architecture that is simultaneously art and practical, considering the social impact of and on design, pioneering new techniques to increase sustainability – these are the job of the architect today.

Form Follows Function: Otto Wagner and the Art Nouveau Movement

Otto Wagner was born in 1841, and was an Austrian architect and visionary of the Art Nouveau movement.  One of the institutions he studied at was the Academy of Fine Arts, likely leading to the dichotomy between his initial historicist styles and what was to come.  He was trained in traditional design; more specifically he was trained in the manner of bringing the many disparate historical styles together.  However, ultimately he rejected this notion of historic eclecticism in favor of a more elegant simplicity, allowing programmatic and structural concerns to dominate his design efforts instead.  He did not entirely abandon his roots in historicism, but his belief that pragmatism was the key to design led him to forge ahead while drawing analogies to the past.  This modern way of thinking resulted in him becoming a prominent and influential member of Art Nouveau, heralding the era’s theme, “form follows function.” 

Landerbank, one of Wagner’s earlier works, was completed in 1894.  It resembles Renaissance styles as well as a basis for Wagner’s future Art Nouveau designs.

When drawing a conclusion as to who likely had the most influence on Wagner’s style (between theorists John Ruskin, Gottfried Semper, and Eugène Viollet-le-Duc), it is most clearly Semper.  Wagner himself identified Semper as one of his prominent influences, and it shows throughout his designs.  Semper promoted practical aesthetics and minimizing excess such as unnecessary ornamentation.  Some of the ways in which he preached this simplistic, but powerful doctrine were through the use of symmetry, directionality, and proportionality.  He believed that each variable affecting the success of a particular design could be boiled down to its basics, and then implemented in similar ways to achieve similarly successful results.  Wagner was extremely attracted to the sciences, and was likely attracted to the pragmatic and mathematical way Semper approached design.

However, Wagner’s designs also drew upon the tenets of Viollet-le-Duc’s theories as well, consciously or not.  Viollet-le-Duc was not unlike Semper in his rational approach to architecture.  Likewise opposed to florid ornamentation, Viollet-le-Duc believed each design decision should have a reason behind it and that it was important to use modern techniques and materials to express the function and rationale behind each building.  His approach differed from Semper’s, in that he looked to the past for answers.  He did not believe in the denial of past successes, and instead promoted the idea that one should learn from the past.  Designers should be able to draw analogies to past structures, but express them in more practical ways through the use of modern inventions, materials, and techniques.

Wagner’s Majolika Haus, one his most notable works.  Completed in 1898, it clearly demonstrates the structural and geometric simplicity inherent in Art Nouveau, as well as ornamental designs displayed on the façade, which many of his contemporaries disapproved of.

At its heart, Art Nouveau was a push against historic, or archaic, traditions deemed outdated and obsolete by the artists and architects of the movement.  Jugendstil, or “Youth Style” as it was known in Germany, intended to overturn the frivolous use of ornamentation and return to the methods of good craftsmanship.   Academia had dominated artistic expression for centuries, and considered painting and sculpting to be higher forms of art than craftsmanship, which members of the Art Nouveau movement believed to be detrimental to future development.  To modernize design, Art Nouveau enthusiasts rallied to the credo, “form follows function.”  An import facet of the Art Nouveau movement is that it spread rapidly across Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, and then was abandoned nearly as quickly in the early twentieth century.  What makes this such an interesting characteristic is that it was not so much a large collection of people moving as one to create a new style, but rather it was more a concerted effort produced by a variety of individuals in their own separate way, united only in their similar thought processes.  This is important because Wagner, though an influential member of the movement, differed from many of his peers in the way he approached modernity.  Interestingly, his departure from more commonplace Art Nouveau styles was also a departure from the theories of both Semper and Viollet-le-Duc.  Or, perhaps it would be better termed a “modification.”  A common way in which Wagner would draw his parallels to the past resembles Ruskin’s teachings; Ruskin believed ornamentation and good craftsmanship were not mutually exclusive.  Wagner would often modify his designs by decorating his facades in a classical manner.

Wagner’s Karlsplatz Stadtbahn Station, completed in 1899, the result of winning a competition for the city design plans of Vienna.

In 1883, Wagner won first prize (one of two first prizes awarded) for a competition for the “general regulation plan of Vienna.”  His personal motto throughout the Vienna city plan design was “Artis sola domina necessitas.”  This motto, derived straight from the influential Gottfried Semper himself, is Latin for “necessity is the only mistress of art.”  In the end, only Wagner’s railway designs were used in Vienna’s city plans but this success likely strengthened Wagner’s resolve that modern architecture required the embrace of new sciences, materials, and design methods.

Wagner’s Austrian Postal Savings Bank, completed in 1906.

By 1894 he was appointed director of the school of architecture at Vienna’s Academy of Fine Arts, and published his book, “Modern Architecture,” extolling the virtues of moving forward in design, not drawing only on the past.  His revolutionary ideas, and position as professor and director, allowed him to spawn several more visionary minds who continued in his footsteps.  Furthermore, in 1897 Wagner joined the Vienna Secession group.  The Secession group was a collaboration of artists who objected to the pervasive conservatism inherent in academia.  Instead of the historicism venerated by academic institutes such as the Association of Austrian Artists, they insisted not only upon the necessity in exploring more modern artistic concepts, but in the complete and total freedom to explore the possibilities that lay outside of academic tradition.  This desire was encapsulated in their motto, “Der Zeit ihre Kunst. Der Kunst ihre Freiheit" ("To every age its art. To art its freedom.”).  Architects in the Secession, such as Wagner, similarly insisted upon modernity.  These architects often used linear ornamentation on their buildings, believing a purer, simplistic geometry to be more in line with the quest for function over more gaudy displays.  Wagner’s personal marriage of unobtrusive ornamentation with form and function, however, eventually led to a split between Art Nouveau purists and others, like Wagner.

Sources:

Wolf, Justin.  “Art Nouveau.” The Art Story.  TheArtStory.org.  6 February, 2013.  Web.

“Otto Wagner, The Academy of Fine Arts.”  The Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute.  Clarkart.edu.  6 February, 2013.  Web.

“Vision of Modernity.”  Museum Postsparkasse.  Ottowagner.com.  6 February, 2013.  Web.

Photos from www.greatbuildings.com