So, who are these influences? To find out I will take a brief look at how some of the architects mentioned in the historical study earlier, as well as other, so far unmentioned, pertinent designers, that I feel have had an impact on my ethos (philosophy?), and evaluate if their practice has influenced my design direction in more ways than just with respect to architecture itself.
Study has so far highlighted that perhaps there is no single person who has taken the same direct route as me, i.e. the route of conversion of industrial building design or atmospheres in to the medium of furniture as I have tackled, but it is still worth taking a look at these designers and their practice and take from it any pertinent keys that I have adhered to in my design philosophy.
2. Early influences, origins, Hoffmann Behrens and the Jugendstil
The roots of my interest in works apart from factory architecture lie in the home of industrial design and craft or furniture design itself. It is worth taking a brief look at the work of early twentieth century makers in Europe as in the work of the Jugendstil workshops where some of my early influences have stemmed.
Although this movement was to some point concerned with standards of craftsmanship rather than industrial production, with its connections to the art nouveau scene, it became an important stage in the background movement of functionalism . Whilst the art nouveau movement primarily in France and Italy followed the path of creating sinuous designs with flowing organic forms, in Germany it was to take a different course.
In Munich with the work of designers such as Peter Behrens, the curvilinear forms took on a more subdued and controlled look, later taking on more formal compositions of geometric elements. This development was further enhanced by such people as Joseph Hoffman , known as “Right Angle “or “Quadratl” Hoffman, who designed a range of perforated iron sheet artefacts dominated by a rectangular grid (figure 5.1).
This type of work has always appealed to me within my practice, its simple geometry born in a time of perhaps extreme opposites with the strong flowing organic lines of such work as in the designs of Henri Van de Velde for example. Van der Velde
although he was said to appreciate engineering forms aesthetically he was convinced that art and industry could never mix because art, being alien to the profit motif, would be smothered. I have lent perhaps more towards the thoughts of one of their contemporaries, Herman Muthesius, who thought that “function need no artistic cladding”, with his “Sachlichkiet” theories.
Behrens later was appointed, as mentioned in the history texts, as artistic adviser to the German electrical giant AEG . He was, as a designer turned architect, given full reign over the company’s visual image from letterheads to buildings, in effect a “corporate identity”. Behrens, along with the already in house company designer Michael van Dolivio-Dobrawolsky, worked on a range of new lines with interchangeable parts. The most well known being a range of kettles where the components were produced in three shapes, three sizes, three materials, and three surface finishes. Out of eighty one possibilities, thirty were marketed. This stands alongside my philosophy of work in my practice following the same ethos of interchangeably and adaptability for differing elements of my furniture.
As mentioned in earlier texts Behrens was also to produce the design for the AEG Turbine factory of from which I have taken inspiration, and at his time was working in the offices of Walter Gropius, designer of the Fagus Shoe last factory for which I have also taken design keys.
3. A Plastic reality
We can move on now to a later movement that stemmed out of Europe, known as the “De Stijl”. Examples of notable members are Piet Mondrian , the artist, and Gerrit Rietvelt , a trained architect, but more often known for his furniture designs. Their ideas were influenced by the work of the theorist M.J.H. Shoenmackers whose ideas stressed the mathematical order of the universe and formal composition became restricted to the fundamental elements of the horizontal and vertical line alongside the use of primary colours.
This movement sought to compose the conflicting elements of line, plane and colour into an image of equilibrium and proportion as a symbol of universal harmony.
Mondrian foresaw this universal harmony bringing “the end of Art as a thing separated from our surrounding environment which is the actual plastic reality…….by the unification of architecture, sculpture and painting, a new plastic reality will be created” and “beauty will have ripened in to a palpable reality” A most noted example of this “palpable reality” from this movement being Rietvelt’s “Red, Blue and Yellow “chair (figure 5.2) which he saw as an example of his furniture as “condensation” of a universal special system.
The chair made of machined wood section and plywood, screwed together without joints or rebates and painted in primary colours, became a structural re definition of the chair without precedent. His experiments with furniture design and architecture culminated in the creation of the Schröder house at Utrecht in 1924, where he was commissioned to produce a “total image for modern living” (figure 5.3). Here the functional organisation and formal elements of the house and complete furnishings and fittings were fused into an integrated environment with spatial flow and interplay of lines planes and colours.
I do not profess to follow the complete ideal of all of this movement but I recognise and appreciate certain ideals expressed within and adhere to them somewhat in my design philosophy such as the adherence to mathematical proportional systems within my designs and also wishing to concentrate on the relationship and interplay of lines, planes, surfaces and the use of colour to express mood and to create ranges of furniture that could provide the look of an integrated environment.
4. Utopia to handlebars
The utopian ideas of the De Stijl group although not necessarily realised in the 1920s, were taken up by the teaching in a new school of design, the Bauhaus . Under the leadership of its first director, the aforementioned, Walter Gropius, it revolutionised the training of designers. The students were taught to search, probe, experiment with solutions that would fulfil functional requirements and be a rational result of the tools and material employed.
It was here that the future architect, Marcel Breuer experimented with his metal furniture inspired by the handlebars of his bicycle culminating in the production, 1925, of an armchair built with chromium plated steel (figure 5.4), which was perhaps the logical development from Rietvelt’s earlier example. Like Rietvelt, he emphasised structure in the design, relying on similar parallel and angular forms, but combining the use of lightweight materials, tubular steel and leather instead of upholstery. Marcel Breuer’s passion for lightness and simplicity for his designs can also be seen in his designs for the interior of the Piscator apartment, Berlin, 1927, where he displays furniture with a clarity and simplicity without superfluous detail (figure 5.5).
In 1927, Walter Gropius, displayed perhaps an early look at modular furniture ideal with his designs for the Feder Store in Berlin (figure 5.6). Here he proved that although mass production leads to standardisation, variety and interest can be displayed by the provision of a number of units on a modular basis which can be combined in a number of ways, colours, finishes etc., an ethos taken up by many future designers.
In 1928 the architect Mies van der Rohe brought perhaps this era of lightweight metal furniture to its height with the production of the Barcelona chair (figure 5.7), named after the venue of the exhibition where Mies designed the German pavilion in which the chair was displayed. The chair which is still produced today consists of two crossing curves of steel bar, the single curve of the back crossing the reverse curve of the seat to form an extremely elegant expressive shape.
With the designs illustrated in this section, I can again not necessarily take direct inspiration from the contenders, but moreover state the fact that I take on the essence of their ideals. Two of the designers, Gropius and Mies van der Rohe, have direct experience of factory design and clear connections can be seen in their architecture to the furniture design with the use of clean elegant lines, horizontal emphasis to their forms and lightweight atmospheres.
In this same period, in many European countries, architects were finding work as designers and finding roles in industry. In Finland Alvar Aalto began working with furniture as a partner in the firm called Artek. His designs such as the chair for the Paimio Sanatorium were a fascinating combination of constructivism and organic ideals (figure 5.8).
They were at first glance austere yet their use of the curved forms and real timber added warmth. The use of the then modern plywood enabled lighter sections to be utilised to give the piece a light and airy sense. The experiments with furniture were to provide him with inspiration for his architectural projects. The study of wood allowed him to come closer to a live natural organic material that offered him qualities that he was later to express in brick and stone.
I have also taken influence from this group of designers, not necessarily with their use of materials per se, but with their introduction to the ethos of producing minimal, de constructed designs, devoid of superfluous additions. The idea of modularity and interchangeably has also underpinned my efforts.
5.5. L’Ésprit Nouveau
In 1925 at the Exposition Internationale des arts Décoratifs in Paris , the architect Le Corbusier set up a display based upon his theories, in collaboration with his colleague Ozenfant , of his vocabulary of pictorial elements which combined Platonic ideals with notions of mechanisation and modernity.
These theories were entitled “Purism”, and they were to be elaborated in a journal founded in 1920 ,”L’Ésprit Nouveau” in which was (he) propounded a hierarchy of basic geometric forms and scales of colour based on the “Golden section” ratio which also determined the proportions, that in turn were related to each other by a modular system. The theories also proposed that the object that most completely satisfied human needs were to be designated “type Objects” and would be the culmination of a process of functional perfection and standardisation.
The House setting at the exposition, entitled “Pavilion de L’Ésprit Nouveau” (figure 5.9) would be used to illustrate these theories. The setting was a stand representing a small house, intended to make best use of the restricted space available, and by utilising to the fullest possible extent standardised components and fittings to provide an image of the possibilities of modern living. The structural frame, the walls, windows and floors, were all of standardised units. The fitted cupboards and units all corresponded to a modular system which regulated and unified the proportions.
Corbusier reduced all furniture to three categories, chairs , tables and open or closed shelves and went on to design standard forms or each category including a multiuse table, standardised sectional table and chairs for various purposes including working, relaxing, ,an easy chair and a fauteuil. This range could then be used in any of his architectural settings and would in fact contribute to its architectonic effect. This unified approach to the same range of furniture suiting many situations contrasted with the earlier furniture design for specific locations as expiated by such architect designers as Charles Rennie Macintosh in the U.K or Frank Lloyd Wright in the USA. Lloyd Wright saw each house as an individual creation and designed the interior furniture and fittings to suit each occasion.
Although I may not follow faithfully the ideals of Corbusier I have carried these theories into my design practice. The relationship to ideals of proportional systems have also played a large part in my design ethos alongside the wish to produce furniture based on standard elements which can be easily reproduced to form a coherent look and range. This theory has also sat comfortably with my reference to the factory system and allusion to multiple production units.
5.6. “Remove and subtract to embellish”
A contemporary of Corbusier was Charlotte Perriand who came to form one part of a trio with Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret and worked together for 10 years from 1927-37. She was to work with them on the Purist Villas projects where the noted “Fauteuil grand confort “, the “Fauteuil à dossier basculant” (figure 5.10) and the “Chaise longue à basculante” were seen for the first time (Figure 5.11). It was whilst working in this group that she developed her ideas of the use of clean lines, “remove and subtract to embellish, don’t add” in which she displayed in her “storage wall” cabinet designs (figure 5.12)
A later companion of Charlotte Perriand , who although not mentioned in the earlier industrial History texts, is definitely worth a mention here as possibly the closest designer who has followed a similar route to myself, but obviously in a more pronounced way, and has to some point remained as a pertinent influence, is the French architect and designer, Jean Prouvé . As yet although being connected to Charlotte Perriand and thereby Le Corbusier remains virtually unknown outside of design circles.
5.7. “The Poetics of the technical object”
Prouvés work as a whole is far too comprehensive for a study of this size; however it is worth mentioning some examples of his work to illustrate their relevance to my design theories. His work as a designer architect ranged from such things as a letter opener, door fittings, lighting furniture, facades for buildings, prefabricated houses, modular building systems and large scale buildings such as exhibition halls. In fact virtually anything that he deemed suited for industrial production.
He was one of the early pioneers of series production furniture prefabricated building construction including some industrial buildings. The primary aim of his design and development work was to unite the aspects of utility, material authenticity, and economy via the minimal use of materials and simple construction methods with the sometimes complex requisite of series production.
His building work whether for a shed, for example his “Maison Portiques” 1939 (figure 5.13), or industrial building, as in the “Aero club Roland Garos” 1935, (figure 5.14) often displayed characteristics of much larger factory details such as girder shapes and obviously bolted together elements to give a knock down impression The modular nature of these buildings allowed both ease of modification and adaptation for change of use.
His furniture, often made from metal section and plywood, as in the “Standard Chair” 1934 (figure 5.15) and “classroom table” 1936 (figure 5.16) displayed similar details and quite often combined details of or allude to mechanical objects or workings alongside a simplicity and frugality of materials giving them perhaps a naive elegance. His garden furniture (figure 5.17) for the U.A.M (Union of Modern Architects) Pavilion at the “Exposition Internationale des Arts Techniques”, Paris 1937, displayed an overt homage to industrial building with its perforated steel frame sections accompanying the use of new “Rhodoid” plastic moulded seating.
His most well known chair, still in production today by the Vitra Company in Switzerland, is possibly his most elegant too. The “Cité” chair (Figure 5.18) 1931 stands with almost an aircrafts stance with its use of a slender frame and low slung seating. This chair, designed for the Cité Universitaire at Nancy, was conceived to use the least possible material expenditure during production giving a lightweight design relatively inexpensive to manufacture. The hollow core seat unit sits relatively low, the armrests are adjustable leather straps.
The discovery of Prouvés work arrived late within my design projects so he hasn’t had as yet a great influence into my design ethos although with the brief study that I have afforded him he is definitely worth further evaluation to investigate more deeply his design philosophies and working methods. His ideas of using metaphors and even actual use of industrial imagery is obviously allied to my design work allied to his desire to bring a design down to its minimal, frugal level ,yet at the same time creating a simple elegance, which hopefully, I can aspire to in practice.
5.7. Crossing borders, the flow of ideas to Britain and beyond.
The flow of ideas started to spread across Europe in the latter part of the interwar years and eventually made their way to Britain. This was partly via exhibition such as the display of Finnish furniture at Fortnum and Masons in 1933, mostly by Aalto, and partly by immigration in such cases as Gropius and Breuer who came to the u.k in 1934. Here Breuer worked with the London firm of Isokon , where he produced a series of Aalto style bent wood reclining chairs and a set of stacking tables in which he displayed an ingenious solution and economy of materials.
This rational approach and international style was later introduced to the USA by such people as Richard Neutra and when Gropius and Breuer finally emigrated there in the years approaching the Second World War. During the following years furniture design was influenced by the work of two architects when they won a competition run by the Museum of Modern art in New York for “Organic designs in Home furnishings”, namely Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen. Their chair designs, the “Conversation chair” and “Lounging shape”, (figure 5.19) were revolutionary with their uniting of the seat,
backrest and armrests formed in a single shell of veneer and glue laminated with in a mould. The final shell form was covered with foam and then upholstered. This brought to a head the trend of the reduction of parts as developed earlier in Europe.
Saarinen and Eames also collaborated in a series of table and cupboard designs for which they also won a prize. The units were based on an eighteen inch module system which made them adaptable for a variety of uses (figure 5.20). The cupboard cases were designed to stand on a series of standard bench elements which could be adapted for other uses therefore adding to the versatility of the range. The approach of war sadly stifled the arrival of these design and they were not perhaps properly appreciated till the return of peace.
9. Post war enlightenment, surplus materials
Moving to the emergence of the post war era Eames produced one of his famous chair designs developed from the earlier prize winning versions (figure 5.21). The use of rubber mounts as an innovation added to their comfort and the standard design was available in a variety of finishes to suit setting the idea of versatility and adaptability came to fruition for Eames when in 1948 he won another prize for his new moulded fibreglass chair (figure figure 5.22), the latest development of his and Saarinen’s original designs of 1940.
Adaptability was displayed here again with a variety of bases, legs, pedestals or rockers, of varying heights so that one basic core design could serve a multitude of uses. Here Eames was taking advantage of the newly developed material fibreglass as used by the US Airforce in the Second World War.
Two other designers who won first prize at the same competition are worth noting here, Robin day and Clive Latimer , from England, for their storages cases of moulded plywood hung from metal tubular supports (figure figure 5.23). The cases were interchangeable with either drop flap design or sliding doors adding to their versatility.
Eames further developed his ideas of versatility with his range of storage units (figure figure 5.24) built up of standardised parts which could be assembled in a variety of ways for differing purposes. In place of tradition cabinet making methods and jointing,
Eames used aluminium section and metal rods to form the frame. Horizontal slabs of plywood slide in to form the shelves to which coloured panels or drawers can be added. All the components come from stock industrial production but are assembled with care and a feeling for proportion that creates a series of units with a sense of style.
Once again although Eames as an architect was perhaps not well known for his work in industrial architecture, if any, his domestic architecture had the same atmosphere as some perhaps “cool box” factory designs as mentioned earlier in this unit. This look was translated in the style of his emerging designs in the 1950s such as the storage units where I have appreciated his ethos regarding the use of standardised components within a piece of furniture to create an adaptable range for a variety of potential uses. His experimentation with new materials and the fact that he did not rely on traditional furniture making techniques has also been an inspiration in my work.
10. “People sit differently today….” and the “Womb”
Saarinen, who worked with Eames, on the other hand is noted for his industrial architecture with buildings that lay in the “cool box” style of work. Examples such as his Dynamometer building mentioned in the contextual study earlier, also the General Motors technical centre and his Irwin Miller house , stand out in their use of symmetrical square blocks. However in his furniture design he followed on from his competition success with Eames and chose a more organic looking approach as in his architectural style of his Trans World Airlines terminal 1956-62,( figure 5.25).
He drew on his experience with Eames and produced what is known as the Womb chair in 1947/8 (figure figure 5.26). A descendant of the prize winning chair in 1940 it is of moulded plastic and rubber with an upholstered cover on a base of metal rods. The idea was to give maximum comfort with minimum weight and bulk. An ottoman was designed to complement the chair and both are still in production today.
With the womb chair Saarinen created three dimensional statement of his personal conception of seating for the post war citizen. Comfort, technological innovation, and individual self expression, were the three pillars of his design. “People sit differently today than in the Victorian era”, he once stated .
The design was later followed by his 1956 Tulip chair, (figure figure 5.27), an elegant shape composed of a shell of plastic mounted on a single pedestal made of aluminium. The tulip chair sat as a manifestation of his search for an uninterrupted form to fulfil basic functions on the scale of the human body as he stated in his comment “I wanted to make the chair all one thing again” .
Here was demonstrated an example of the fusion of architecture and furniture design, the Tulip chair and the TWA terminal building shared a similar concept that is the fusion of structural elements into a single self determined form. Saarinen believed he could help to provide a formal unity to the twentieth century environment by the concept of architecture and design as being an integrated activity fashioning artefacts or buildings with the same ethos but of varying scale to suit usage.
Saarinen maybe possibly stands a little closer to my ideals with his philosophy rather than his furniture itself. The ethos of attempting to fuse the images and concepts of architecture with those of his furniture to provide an integrated look definitely stands alongside my thoughts and ideals. However the look of his “cool box” architecture is definitely more akin to my design style than the look of his organic furniture. Although even here, his philosophy of bringing down design to its simplest form, without complication may possibly be compared with examples found within my design direction.
5.11. Rover chairs and sand dunes
We come to the point now, which is perhaps at the end of the nineteen fifties, moving into the sixties where there is less influence on my design practice, possible partly to do with the earlier period being more in keeping with the emergence of my design philosophy. I have delved into the period from the 1960s until approaching the millennium within the historical contexts but only as a completion exercise and to give the fuller picture to my design study.
There are pertinent architects from this latter period that have had influence on my design with their building activity, such as Nicolas Grimshaw, Frank Gehry etc . However at his period there seems to be little evidence as yet to state that they have ventured unlike the earlier period of architect designers into the furniture realm. Further study may enlighten this.
There are notable exceptions such as the creator of the BMW factory in Leipzig, Zaha Hadid with her organic pieces of moulded furniture based on the inspiration of sand dune shapes (figure 5.28), but with respect to her designs, which I appreciate for their form and interest, they have had no perceivable bearing on my design portfolio, in fact being some ways the anti thesis of my angular work.
Similar could be said regarding Ron Arad perhaps, the architect designer, his “Rover chair” (figure 5.29) could perhaps be allied to my use of industrial metaphor perhaps, but with, maybe the exception of this design and perhaps such works as his “Tom Vac” stackable Chair (figure 5.30) with its use of industrial style corrugated metal seat, and his RTW storage unit (figure 5.31) that has the appearance of a factory ventilation grill, his work has remain in the background of my design work.
Norman Foster , with his Sainsbury arts centre , that I have referenced in earlier design work and many other later works where he has become arguably the master of the space frame has as far as recent research unearthed only delved into one furniture project. His Nomos office furniture system (figure 5.32), for his aforementioned Renault distribution centre in Swindon, where he uses the idea of lightweight metal elements in tension, supporting the work surfaces, echoes his architecture and would be worth further study and evaluation.