What is modern?
July 9th, 2008
I was surprised to see this post kick up so many comments. It shouldn’t though given Agave seems always to stir up emotions.
Duncan did kick up a topic at the end there that I’ve been thinking on and off about for many years: what is modern? And how do you conveyed that to others?
Modern seems to have a much wider umbrella than other styles. I certainly can think of principles which embody modernism but it is hard to pin down with certainty the same way you can with Victorian, Federal, or Colonial styles. It seems more often than ‘modern’ falls into the old “I know it when I see it” method of classification. Duncan pretty much implies the same here:
Modernism should be based on a set of design principles and not be considered a “style” so many homes rely on a series of aesthetic embellishments that complete the checklist to qualify as modern.
I agree with this but when it comes to communicating with other people or with the marketplace it gets blurry. One person’s modern is another craftsmen (well not really, but you know what I am saying). It is all too easy for developers and realtors to try to lack into the modern label.
For what is worth, I often post up listing that I feel aren’t really great examples of modernism but if I got too strict, there would be next to no content.
How do you describe modern design to others?
Entry Filed under: Modern Homes For Sale
7 Comments Add your own
1. scmtngirl | July 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I would define modern design as the conflux of minimalism, efficiency of space, practicality (or usefulness?), simplicity, and beauty, with nothing being unintended. Gee, a lot more adjectives than I anticipated on using, but I’m just a grunt who is fascinated by all things design, so what do I know! ;) I’ll be interested to know what others think.
As far as housing goes, I think people should buy what they like! I don’t need a label from some hot-shot realtor to know whether a house is fantastic and will suit me to a T.
2. charlene | July 9th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I wish I had my books that have an interesting take on this issue, but they’re all a truck somewhere…
For me Modern is child of Mid-Century Modern (and grandchild of Craftsman) emphasizing a simplicity of form and conscious reduction of ornamentation. Also I think it means in general that through the use of currently available technology, a home does not have to look or be built in a certain way to be considered well designed e.g. pitched roof or crown moulding.
But it depends on who you talk to. The term means anything that a developer or realtor wants it to. It’s kind of like the term “alternative” for music. In the late 80s and 90s it meant something very specific and was usually found on the very far left of the radio dial. By the mid-90s, record companies got their hands on it and it became pretty much everything you heard on the radio.
My tastes tend toward what I like to call “post-modern” or sometimes I call it contemporary (I’ve been aiming for minimalism with an experimental bent.). It depends on who I’m talking to. If I’m talking to a salesman at Jennifer Convertibles (one of the cheesiest furniture store chains on the East Coast) I know not to use the term contemporary because that’s what he calls an ugly overstuffed leather couch.
This kind of reminds me of an Ikea commercial from a couple of years ago where a woman says something about Ikea being too modern for her and marvels at their new, more traditional styles. I remember thinking Ikea isn’t modern enough for me!
3. David Mathias | July 9th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
For me, modern design/modern architecture is part of a larger set of cultural movements in art, literature, politics, etc. In painting, I think of Europeans in the late 19th century and other regions and times thereafter. In literature, I think of the same, from Miguel de Unamuno to James Joyce to T.S. Elliot. In politics, I think antebellum U.S., the rise of cities, mass movements, markets and political machines.
In architecture, modern evokes a concern for line over ornamentation, a search for authenticity of expression through the materials of construction, a reconsideration of how public and private spaces were treated in homes, and that which expressed the power of machines in our culture versus that which is produced through craft, guild or more domestic virtues.
Modern architecture for me has its definitive start with the designs and crafts of the Bauhaus, though some may argue that it more properly originates with Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright.
Now off to join the fistfight on the Agave thread!!! ;-)
4. Julie | July 10th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Some really great definitions from the folks above. I would use phrases like clean lines, free of clutter, a blending of the outside and inside, lots of light, airy. Also soaring ceilings and economy of space. That last one I see lost a lot on some of these gigantic McModerns that people are building in Travis Heights. To me (and I may be in the minority), you can have a 2500 sq ft + house that looks Modern, but it abandons the spirit of modernism first established in the MCM movement which thought about how best to use space.
5. MikeDinATX | July 10th, 2008 at 9:18 am
To me, another element of modernism is experimentation and pushing boundaries in pursuit of the clean lines and authenticity of expression. This can be both what is so exciting and refreshing about modern design and also what many find so maddening when it is ultimately a failed experiment in a floorplan or materials execution or even one that just doesn’t suit one’s particular taste.
This holds true whether you are talking about Agave or Stenger. I’ve been through a bunch of the Agave homes and said “wow! that was a clever idea” as well as “wow! that doesn’t make any sense at all!” Overall, though, I think the clever ideas outnumber the bad ones out there. And, every Stenger I’ve been through has felt at least 50% bigger than it really was b/c his layouts, I think, are fantastic. But who walked through the one on Brady Lane with the bathtub in master bedroom?? Is that “modern”? I guess…experimental? - yes….a bad idea? - most definitely (IMHO)!
6. mitch | July 12th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Two characteristics of 20th century architecture emphasized in my mid 1970s art history class were the rejection of historical “classical” influences, and the related introduction of new materials, particularly steel and reinforced concrete - whose capabilities could be exploited on their own terms, without imitating historical forms.
Now of course, architects have a vast catalog of “modern” precedent to either expand on or reject.
7. alana | July 14th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Who is to say there is one definition? One person may love a Warhol while another likes abstract expressionism and hates pop art. Does that mean one is the CORRECT modern art and the other can’t be part of the definition or movement? Of course not. They are two derivitives. They are ENTIRELY different.
Yet they are both within the realm of “modern art”.
Why push out one and say “the one I like best is THE way.” The ONLY way.
That’s like saying there is only one modern artist or one Renaissance artist.
Modern architecture or architects are no different. Just different “canvases”.
There are many modern art architects. Their styles can vary as much as an artist’s brush.
Or be as different as printmaking to oil.
yet…
they can all fall within the realm of modern architecture.
Why be so literal? So definitive? So “black and white and labled”?
That’s really the opposite of the entire modern movement.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed