May 20, 2025 | 1960s, 2020s, Week 8
Reading Summary/Takeaway
In “The Lens of Race: Whiteness and Architectural Photography at Case Study House #22”, the author, Dianne Harris, studies Julius Shulman’s photograph of Case Study House #22 from 1960. Because of the image, Harris argues that many projects reinforce racial hierarchies by presenting an idealized vision of white domesticity. She also states how the repetition of white families and/or people in a home enforce the idea that other races are basically invisible. The women dressed in elegant dresses inside a rich, modern house also represent an idea of exclusivity that only white people can afford to be a part of. By dismissing the inclusion of any racial diversity, the image holds a narrative that relates modernist architecture to white people which marginalizes other racial and cultural experiences.
Application
Figure 1 shows an installation at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, where a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. is shown as a call for justice flowing “like a mighty stream.”
Stay Arlington
One current case that relates to “The Lens of Race: Whiteness and Architectural Photography at Case Study House #22” is the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C., designed by David Adjaye. The museum actually challenges the narratives of Harris’s piece as its architecture incorporates elements that reflect African American heritage. By including cultural aspects into its design, the museum counters against the narrative of exclusion towards other races and instead holds a narrative emphasizing inclusivity and the significance of African American contributions to the nation’s history.This case instead aligns with Harris’s want for more critiques of how architecture and its portrayal can either encourage or challenge societal power structures.
This argument connects to the November House Beautiful article shown. The article “Especially Recommended… 6 Heavenly Rooms” shows 6 rooms; one with no people at all, 4 with white families and/or people, and one with a cat which also happens to be white. With every person pictured being white, it reinforces the same racial and cultural ideal Harris critiques. These 1960s interiors are all colorful and put together but essentially represent cleanliness and domestic happiness that only the white middle class are able to enjoy. Just like Shulman’s photo, the women shown in each room are framed as women who are effortlessly living with no cares or troubles in the world.
Comparison
The House Beautiful article and the National Museum of African American History and Culture represent two different approaches to architecture, design, and cultural representation. One is associated with midcentury whiteness while the other represents historical visibility and cultural reclamation. The House Beautiful article shows domestic interiors designed in order for the audience to feel a sense of modernity and comfort. Unfortunately every model shown in the pictures is white, idealizing the image of white domestic life. On the other hand, the National Museum of African American History and Culture specifically focuses on Black identity, culture, and history in its architecture. The museum draws from African architectural traditions and its exhibitions highlight centuries of African American experience and achievements. Rather than excluding, the National Museum of African American History and Culture creates a cultural monument challenging the assumptions made in the House Beautiful article and Julius Shulman’s photograph.
May 1, 2025 | reaction paper, Week 5
Hilde Heynen’s article “Leaving Traces” is simultaneously a history lesson revolving around the concept of a home, and a critique of the gendered, capitalist nature of the heavily decorated home designs of the 19th century. As the modernists began to take footing in the world of residential design, they sought to eliminate the connection between wealth, ornament, and the concept of the home. The new modern home design would be removed from the nuclear family. The home would no longer serve as a vessel for one’s own wealth or material possessions, but rather as an abstraction of one’s own identity. The “abstract interior” was heavily criticized for its apparent coldness and lack of the elements that are frequently associated with what makes a dwelling a home. The modernists appeared to be of the mind that in removing the nuclear family, they could step forward into the future. However, removal of the nuclear family from the equation did not remove their own sexist biases. They associated many of the elements they sought to remove with femininity, and the elements they wanted to emphasize with the masculine. In contrast to this, Rietveld’s designs were meant to adapt to the inhabitants, women and children included, something many of the modernists felt was unnecessary in the face of “good” design. Although not all modernists agreed with these ideas, they were certainly at the forefront of the modernist movement.
I agree with a majority of Heynen’s points. However, as this article was written in 2009, there is no way they could have predicted the level of consumerism that would come to be in the 2010s and 2020s. Contemporary interiors have frequently shifted in their expressions of wealth and identity throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. I would be curious to see Heynen’s perspective on the matter in the post-Amazon Prime world. The middle class Americans of the last 15 years consume more frequently now than ever before thanks to the ease and cost of shipping and manufacturing. Although, a general theme I have noticed through lived experience is the lasting association of interior design and femininity. Although men have equal access to the same means of decorating their dwellings, masculinity in American culture prioritizes electronics or “utilitarian” possessions over decorative elements. The key difference between this masculine expression in the home and the modernist approach is the intent and execution. The modernist sought to eliminate decor as a means of emphasizing the architectural elements of the dwelling. The young man of today does so, generally speaking, because he sees no value in the home. There is no need for expression of identity in the home, unless that expression is a means of displaying masculinity.
Circling back to this concept of wealth and expression of identity in the home, it is interesting to see how this idea evolved over time. The modern, contemporary home has little decor, much like the modernists of the 20th century. However, wealth must still be displayed in these homes.
Photo by Phillipe Bollard. Taken from Divisare.
House Beautiful, May 1922.
Take for example, the photo above is a French apartment renovation completed in February 2025 by Brunet-Lecomte Eisenlohr architects. The ornamental elements were not removed entirely, but they were painted over to make each wall a monolith of white. Although there is very little decor, what is there speaks volumes to the wealth of its inhabitants. The Togo chairs, currently priced around $6,000 each, in addition to the custom casework shows the value of this home with three simple elements. Compared to this article from House Beautiful, May 1922 issue, the concept is very similar. Both seek to say a lot with “simple” designs. However, the key difference between the House Beautiful example and this French apartment is in what they seek to emphasize. The French apartment seeks to emphasize the simplicity of its bare-bones design. The House Beautiful example seeks to emphasize the simplicity of the architectural elements by complementing it with a few strong decorative elements.
Apr 30, 2025 | 1940s, Week 5
Reading Summary/Takeaway
One key takeaway from “‘Leaving Traces’: Anonymity in the Modernist House,” by Hilde Heynen is the discussion that modernist architecture in domestic spaces played a big part in erasing identity in order to promote functional design instead. A modernist house is a space with a lack of decoration and personal expression but obtains a great amount of simplicity and order. This idea promoted anonymity as it took away spaces that held memories and family values. Heynen also highlights how this effect was reflected into society with the goal of reform instead of identity and expression. Le Corbusier is one architect who advocated for minimalism and organization in domestic spaces with the goal of spatial purity and minimal ornamentation, and discouraging any personal belongings that could “leave traces” of life from the person occupying the space. This idea was promoted from a belief that maintaining a simple and minimalistic space would result in a more efficient society.
Application
Figure 1 shows a very minimalist family home with the use of IKEA furniture
IKEA
“How to create a minimal family home – IKEA”
One current example that reflects these ideas is the rise of popularity to use minimalist and modular pieces of furniture from brands like IKEA. IKEA emphasizes clean lines, neutral colors, and universal functionality which are all features that align with the modernist goals of simplicity and standardization. Another reason why IKEA follows the idea of minimal ornamentation with a great amount of simplicity is in order to achieve mass production with their pieces. Furniture pieces like these are perfect examples of furniture with a lack of personality and/or identity but promote the purpose of functionality. While furniture pieces like these are able to make a space more flexible, it becomes unknown how personal identity is expressed within these uniform environments.
Figures 2 and 3 show a selection of modern furniture and interiors illustrating the emphasis on clean lines, functional forms, and unity between architecture and furnishing
House Beautiful, Summer 1941, vol. 83 pt. 2, pg 22 & 23
“The Design is MODERN”
The 1941 Summer House Beautiful article “The Design is Modern” supports the argument in Hilde Heynen’s “‘Leaving Traces’: Anonymity in the Modernist House” by showing how modern design was framed as a necessary evolution for prioritizing function, standardization, and unity across furniture and architecture. The piece connects closely with Heynen’s claim that modernist domestic spaces play a part in diminishing personal expression in favor of anonymity. Maas discusses how he appreciates modern design for being logical and also notes that furniture is no longer separate from architecture since it becomes part of the space as it is. This connects Heynen’s argument that modernist homes discourage occupants leaving “traces” left from decoration.
Comparison
The House Beautiful article and the IKEA example both show how modernist ideals continue to shape environments within the home. In the House Beautiful article, modern design is portrayed as progressive and intellectually driven and has an approach where architecture and furniture work together to be part of the space. This idea connects with the goal to avoid leaving the individual “traces” in favor of a new standard of taste. In contrast, IKEA represents a later evolution of this idea. IKEA’s simple furniture completely takes away from the designers of the furniture as their pieces are clean, simple, and functional. IKEA’s furniture is mass-produced, intended to fit into nearly any home while House Beautiful viewed the modern movement as an artistic movement.
