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.