‘Leaving Traces’: Anonymity in the modernist house

From: Designing the modern interior: Victorian to today Hilde Heynen (2009)

(LA Dilloway – Critical Presenter)

Philosopher Heidegger – “Man has lost the knowledge of how to dwell”

Metaphorical “homelessness” as it relates to simple design lacking adornment

Theodor Adorno – “dwelling is now impossible – the house is past.”

Ø the idea that modern architecture isn’t cozy
Ø Purist and masculinist logic of the abstract interior

Mies van der Rohe – transparent glass / lack of privacy, in4macy – exposure, domesticity

Walter Benjamin – “Glass is the enemy of secrets.”
> Governmental “Big Brother” watching its ci1zens / 1984 / “Live in the Light, citizen!”

HOME: warmth, enclosure, togetherness, colorful, knickknacks, adornment

Ø Mirror of abundance
Ø Coziness being bougie
Ø “Assault of commodity”

Heynen suggests that modern buildings have a predetermined feeling of departure. Some spaces are so uninviting, that they cannot be inhabited. A purification of what keeps people nostalgic: pictures on the walls, cushions on the sofa, ornaments on the mantel. Function surpasses creature comforts, essentially erasing the traditional idea of home. Life called for a “negotiation between modernity and domesticity.”

Thus, we as a modern society are “homeless” without leaving a trace of our existence by way of material possessions. In an ideal society, we don’t need things and all our essential needs have been met. With digitized memory and online evidence, what is the purpose of keep sakes?

Examples of William Morris // Josef Hoffman // Muthesius

How has the idea of design and adornment become inherently feminine?

When did “making a home” become the sole job of women?

Ø Single beds favored over the double bed, for space and func6on

Reitveld Shroeder house (1924)
>Widow Truus + 3 children
>Warnings against neutrality and transparency as dominant characteristics of the home >Expression is for the community

Rigid ideas of bare minimalism- as if comfort, nostalgia, color and patterns were all too radical. To conceive at the time, conservation was to be favored, especially by Soviets. Misery reflected in society should also be reflected in your dwellings.

Sibyl Moholy-Nagy said, “The inner and outer world should be fully meshed. Humans have a need for identification … privacy, and different spaces.”

Truus & Sibyl disregarded the masculine modernity by “the interven4on of feminine sensibili4es that make them more complex, more layered, and ultimately – more inhabitable.”

When did comfort become bougie? I feel like Richard Leplastier would have agreed that you don’t need adornment – you don’t even need windows or walls! Or a comfortable bed.

An interesting take on post-Covid isolation – that bare spaces are meant to be le/, and not enjoyed. Expression and adornment should be saved for public enjoyment. Can there be other sources of comfort in a modernist house?
Is this idea of “purifying the home” just paving the way for white-washed gentrification, and ultimately ended up in another dystopia?

Loos, Ornament and Crime

Adolf Loos (1870 – 1933)

Austrian Architect

Considering his time, he could have been a radical. In the opposite direction from what is socially acceptable – but a radical none the less. With a divorce of form and function, his cold ideals speak volumes to a seemingly loveless childhood, lacking warmth and excess to the point of demonization. His Nationalist and Soviet mentality of classicism also supported his rigid notions of racism. Did one create the other? Or perhaps they simply go hand in hand.

Similar Leaving Traces, Loos’ ideals of rigid minimalism contrasted to any cozy idea of comfortable living. Despite his Aristocratic arrogance, Capitalist ignorance – it was an unfortunately widely shared reflection of the West vs. Non-West ideals.

“Ornamentation should be eliminated. / Cannot be restored”

“Ornamentation supports the stagnation of society”

“Loving ornamentation is a sickness / wasted energy”

His reason being that ornamentation hinders societal and economic growth, a waste of capital and labor efforts, no cultural significance. Time won’t be restored as Capitalism and technology improves. True, time and cost are a major factor in being able to add ornamentation. That’s how we’ve ended up with the dark side of soulless fast fashion and mass-produced crap from Ikea, cookie-cutter suburbia and endless mounds of plastic waste. Would Loos approve of such commodities? Granted, Loos would have had no idea about the time production takes in our century, and the quality, passion, and craftsmanship that goes into such lost ornamentation of our current buildings. God forbid anyone actually enjoy their surroundings… Loos would have hated the Arts & Crafts Era. Forcing the community to be purely functional, without any ornament – kills independent thought and creativity. It never works. Blatant racism and disregard for others in a shared community influence a militant design approach to “equal, but separate.” That’s a fast track to Big Brother and 1984.

Longevity is achievable without shunning style. Some argue that no style is a style (minimalism) but I disagree in terms of taste. While I appreciated his striped building design, all others felt cold, demure, and prison-like. His demeaning attitude towards inhabitants and community at large left a bad taste after reading.

Take Aways

  • Ornament becomes luxury: quality, time, cost, effort
  • Nostalgia and Sentiment are perfectly acceptable in the home
  • Coziness doesn’t have to become bougie
  • To each their own style
  • Men are also entitled to “making a home”
  • Anyone named Adolf is bad news