Industrialization and Modernity in the Structures of Our Lives - Essay Example

Industrialization and Modernity in the Structures of our Lives Throughout history, the spaces humans use for private and social activity has been defined primarily by the ‘bricks and mortar’ structures we’ve erected for that purpose. Industrialization impacted this development as new materials were brought into play and structures could be built in a fraction of the time with new technologies and machines to facilitate the process. However, the modern day conception of dwellings following full industrialization has undergone evolutionary transformation. Social spaces are no longer mere tangible structures constructed with an eye to budgets alone, but now represent social harmonisation, interaction and innovation. The concept of architecture has evolved from mere designing of concrete structures to an understanding that the design contributes an element of social interaction. The intimate relationship of spaces with their occupants forms the background philosophy of modern architecture. Thus, a kitchen or a living room is not merely a square space but is instead an area where families have some of their most intimate moments. Thus, industrialization, through the introduction of the concepts of modernism, reveals the link between space and society as it is actively pursued in modern architecture, but the way it does this is often a mystery. Modernity as a movement growing out of the industrial revolution is often described as a collection of studies into the social processes that order the world we live in while remaining in a constant state of flux. If one is speaking with Marshall Berman, modernity is described as “a mode of vital experience—experience of space and time, of the self and others, of life’s possibilities and perils—that is shared by men and women all over the world today. I will call this body of experience ‘modernity’” (Berman, 1982). The concept encompasses the social changes that are constantly taking shape in the wake of rapid changes occurring as a result of industrialization, the way in which these changes are experienced by the population at large and the reflection of these experiences in various circles. It is a world of definition and ambiguity, a world of static definitions and constant change. For Marshall Berman, the contradictions of modernity are characterized by a tendency to try to order space and time while simultaneously promoting their ruination and failure. In bringing the concept down to the individual level, Berman says “they [the individual] are moved at once by a will to change – to transform both themselves and their world – and by a terror of disorientation and disintegration, of life falling apart” (Berman, 1982). Through this statement, it is easy to see the conflicting emotions of an individual undergoing change of any kind. Relating it to everyday life, an individual might desire relocating to a new city, but at the same time be paralyzed by the fear of this new venture regardless of whether it succeeds or fails. Either way, it represents a change in the way things have been. “To be modern is to live a life of paradox and contradiction. It is to be overpowered by the immense bureaucratic organizations that have the power to control and often to destroy all communities, values, lives; and yet to be undeterred in our determination to face these forces, to fight to change their world and make it our own. It is to be both revolutionary and conservative: alive to new possibilities for experience and adventure, frightened by the nihilistic depths to which so many modern adventures lead” (Berman, 1982). Writing about the architecture of the industrial age, British art critic and social thinker John Ruskin (1819-1900) claimed that Classical architecture, after which much of the new designs of the industrial age were tending, was the architecture of slavery. He said this because this type of architecture was designed based upon strictly defined rules and calculations that could not be varied if it were to remain considered a perfect structure, which was the classical ideal. However, this format established a system in which there was no more room for creativity, serendipity or innovation. Thus, his approaches were in opposition to the standardized processes of industrialization. To create architecture in this format required nothing more than dogged effort but no artistry or understanding. Instead, architecture must be imperfect in some way, what Ruskin termed ‘savage.’ Savage was created through a careful combination of the gothic and the concepts of changefulness. According to Ruskin, the gothic craftsman allowed his own imperfections to be represented within his art as well as worked to capture the imperfections of his subject through a close observation of its natural forms. Changefulness refers to the idea that things don’t have to always be symmetrical or predictable as in nature they rarely are either. “It is one of the chief virtues of the Gothic builders, that they never suffered ideas of outside symmetries and consistencies to interfere with the real use and value of what they did … if they wanted a window, they opened one; a room, they added one; a buttress, they built one; utterly regardless of any established conventionalities of external appearance, knowing … that such daring interruptions of the formal plan would rather give additional interest to its symmetry than injure it … Every successive architect, employed upon a great work, built the pieces he added in his own way, utterly regardless of the style adopted by his predecessors” (Ruskin, 1849, p. 179). By focusing upon the usefulness of architectural elements rather than only the external appearance, Ruskin suggests this type of architecture is the most versatile and therefore the most rational form of architecture for the modern world. The new movement opened up the boundaries of the classical periods, freeing up the rules and enabling architects such as Voysey, Baillie Scott and others to adopt new approaches to architectural design that hadn’t been fully explored at any previous time. These architects developed three main ideas that contributed to the transformation of the architectural work of the period. “First, and the most obvious, the Arts and Crafts emphasized the artistic potential of everyday objects. Second, vastly higher standards of craftsmanship were applied to these objects, and the ideal of craftsmanship was realized much more widely than had been possible before. … Third, new stress was given to the importance of function in the creation of forms” (Aslin, 1962, p. 68). This is fully in keeping with Ruskin’s ideas regarding the savage as well as the natural in its insistence that decorative elements not be added for decoration alone but that it should have some point, some reason for being there. For many of the architects working in this period, these concepts were generally formed in response to their consideration of the environmental surroundings where the structure was to be built and the needs of the average person to be using this structure. The basic idea for many of these designs was to keep the basic forms simple while also working to incorporate as much of the craftsmanship of the past as integral parts of the finished design. The end result was to provide a sense of fully integrated harmony between past and present, new materials and old techniques, repeatable processes and modest individuality of finished form. Industrialization shifted our concepts regarding the purpose of building design away from the strict perfection of the classic age into a more organic, integrated form with the environment and the intended use of the space. An influential architect of the period, Augustus Pugin, proclaimed that there are “two great rules for design … that there should be no features about a building which are not necessary for convenience, construction or propriety [and] that all ornament should consist of the essential construction of the building” (Pugin, 1841, p. 72). In all projects, the materials and other elements to be used in its production were expected to both reflect what they were actually created out of at the same time that they provided ornament and decoration to any design irregularities. “Arts and Crafts people were a highly individualistic lot but all shared Morris’ affection for simplicity, truth-to-materials, and the unity of handicraft and design” (Davey, 1997, p. 9). This included Ruskin. In Ruskin’s view, an important concept of these ideas was the general avoidance of machine-prepared materials of any kind although other theorists of the time recognized the several advantages that machines offered if they were utilized in the correct manner as tools rather than as creative replacements. As it developed, modernity in the area of architecture then can be considered as the concept of legitimising emotions with space as a means of addressing and humanizing the processes of industrialization. It is the identification of social spaces within the home as shifting spaces for community interaction. It represents the individual with specific reference to the greater society (Massey 2000, p.49). Scholars define modernity as the relationship between a dwelling and architecture or as “a condition of living imposed upon individuals by the socioeconomic process of modernisation” (Heynen 1999, p.4). In this context, modernity is not merely a conceptual framework based on the individual but reflects the condition of the society as a whole. It can be comprised of intellectual ideas, movements and processes of modernisation. While this is one aspect of modernity, modernism can be understood through a range of dimensions. In the study of architecture and interior design, modernity could be perceived as the “dialectical relationship ... which modernism consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively reflects the effects of capitalist development” (Heynen 1999, p.4). Modernism therefore has historical, sociological, philosophical, and cultural contexts that are interwoven into the fabric of society. Modernity’s primary influence on architecture was evident during the early to mid-1900s as the excitement of industrialization and new materials inspired new design in association with new philosophies regarding society and man’s place within it. Modernist designers emerged to reflect on several of the different spheres of thought such as those mentioned above. Some focused on form in pursuit of the aesthetic instinct, while others planned towns and cities based on the new sociological pathways under discussion, and some worked to resolve social dwelling problems. The rationale behind modernism is complex, and cannot be pin-pointed to one particular reason. It is fundamental as well as aesthetic, involving ethics, progress, knowledge and techniques. It is defined by man’s need for shelter, social interaction, and a fascination with the machine age. According to Tim Putnam, modern art and architecture has been a process of amalgamation of the domestication of art practice and the art of home-making. He suggests that contemporary styles radically opposed the bourgeoisie and patriarchy of the past. Instead, it allowed art and craft to permeate the public realm and redefine the culture of reduction as modern. Transformations in the aesthetics and orientation of the home-makers have been influenced by the diffusion of cultural change. Change includes the ideology associated with social democracy and the relationship of art with design (Painter, 2002). By contrast, the classical style had been a demonstration of grandeur in structure and material use. Little consideration had been given to the dwellings of the individuals while much emphasis had been put into the stylistic city. These elements did not reflect the high cost of living, the limited spaces for dwellers or the expensive social lifestyles incurred on its citizenry in the name of public spirit. The exceptional municipal display of public baths and amphitheatres of antiquity thus had been the reflection of the emperor’s ability to transcribe his personal touch to masonry work but not the reflection of the population (Pile 2005, p. 41). On the other hand, modernism, according to Malcolmson (2006), had been the reflection of the search for “a better place for all citizens at all social levels after the appalling carnage of the Great War” (p. 410). It was the search for a utopia which combined the artistic and aesthetic movements important to the common man. Mies van der Rohe’s grand but mystical skyscraper designs and Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye denoted the age of the citizenry. Frank Lloyd Wright was the pioneer of modernism but it had been Gropius, Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe who truly led the modernism movement in architecture. Their designs have been the epitome of logic, clarity of structure, use of space as fluid planes, and surfaces as fine materials throughout Europe. Le Corbusier, for example, pioneered the designs of the 20th century in developing the ideology of colours in abstractions, materials such as bottles, pitchers and glasses as well as floor plans and elevations in buildings. The Bauhaus designers furthermore have been driving contributors to the art of employing straight lines and the inventive use of materials in household items (Barr 1954, p. 220). Modernism in Gold’s (1998) view has been “developed in the background of war, revolution and social dislocation” (p.21). Architects during this era have been in the social position to radically change the choice of establishments, home-making culture, and reorganisation of the core social space – the dwellings themselves. Early modernist architects looked to their past for inspiration and trends, while later ones developed original and radical ideas of form. The common themes of modern architecture comprised of the master plan, layouts of structures in geometric harmony with boundaries of different zones of land use within its surroundings. The interiors were characterised by the lifestyle of the owners and depiction of every day activity (Gold 1998). Le Corbusier developed three layers of needs to address man’s need for dwellings. First is the pure physical need for living space which man needed for protection and function. To satisfy this aspect, Le Corbusier believed modern architecture should incorporate modern lifestyle and the need for sun, space and vegetation in the physical dwellings. This should be used as the logic for construction. Some features included glass walls, solarium terraces and so on. The second level of need was comprised of the psychosomatic comfort which can be achieved by regulating air conditioning. The inclusion of ventilation, and sonic ventilation in the form of adjustable openings to create air systems, and shutters in glass walls of windows were considered essential elements for achieving the second level of needs. The third layer of comfort was based on culture which Le Corbusier believed to be the basis for activities within the dwelling-space. Services within an infrastructure of a city like automatic laundry, shops, schools, gymnasiums and theatres should be included to serve the modern man. Similarly, in individual dwellings, functional but spacious units should reflect particular individual culture and style (Choay 1960). Indeed, Le Corbusiers conception of the relationship between creatures and nature was not interpretation but rather the “assertion of man in the face of nature.” According to him, the landscape was as important to architecture design and logic as its dwellers. Elements like windows, roofs and terraces helped structure the unit within the framework of the landscape. His theory also included the use of modern materials and carpentry techniques (Choay 1960). Modernism from its historical context was a by-product of industrialisation. By the end of the 19th century, the modernity concept came into being due to the ills of industrial society. The concept and idea of an avant-garde movement was created based on the utopian ideology of modernism. In reality modernism was not a new phenomenon in the sense that modernists believed them to be. Historically, whenever architectural transformation took place, its theoretical framework usually followed the notion that the ‘new’ was modern while the old form was classic. As social trends changed due to changing human needs and aspirations, so did architectural designs and plans. The relationship of man with dwelling units were more defined and refined in later contemporary eras than they were during the ‘classic’ eras. This led to the understanding that architectural designs and interior designing of space was directly linked with the social form. Whereas in Roman eras communal living was the style of the time, modernism was more focussed on individual choice and styles. These ideas are reflected in modernist works such as those brought forward by Le Corbusier which denoted the need for space, greenery, sun and privacy within one dimension of a unit. Works Cited Aslin, Elizabeth. Nineteenth-Century English Furniture. London, 1962. Barr, Jr. A. Masters of Modern Art. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954. Berman, Marshall. All That is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity. New York: Penguin Books, 1982. Choay, F. Le Corbusier. New York: G. Braziller, 1960. Davey, Peter. Arts and Crafts Architecture. London: Phaidon House, 1997. Gold, J. R. The experience of modernism: Modern architects and the future city. Taylor & Francis; 1 edition, (April 21, 1998). Heynen, H. Architecture and Modernity: A Critique. Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, England: MIT Press, 1999. Hitchins, Christopher. “Marshall Berman’s Love Affair with Marx.” The Village Voice. (November 17-23, 1999). July 26, 2009 Malcolmson, P. From Bauhaus to Our House: Modernism, 1914-1939. Queens Quarterly. Volume: 113. Issue: 3. Fall Issue, (2006), pp. 410+ Massey, D. “Space-time and the politics of location.” Architecturally Speaking: Practices of Art, Architecture, and the Everyday. Alan Read (Ed.). London: Routledge, 2000. Painter, C. Contemporary Art and the Home. New York: Berg, 2002. Pile, J. F. A history of interior design. Laurence King Publishing, 2005. Pugin, Augustus Welby. The True Principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture. London, 1841. Ruskin, John. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. London: Smith Elder, 1849. Read More