April 07: Spectacular Shrine, Horrible House

2016/04/07 § 2 Comments

In this month during 1953 editor Elizabeth Gordon published the essay “The Threat to the Next America” in House Beautiful.

The CliffsNotes version of 1950s architectural history is all about the triumph of Modernism: at long last, The Frame was Released From Bondage; meretricious, irrelevant ornament was at last cast into the pit from whence it had been belched by some hellbeast of an earlier, more effete, less heroic, infinitely artificial age.  With Corb and Grop, the other horsemen of the apotheosis, Mies van der Rohe galloped across Europe and America, the obvious conclusion to everything that had ever happened, and the world was blessed with Truth and Honesty in Architecture.  At last!

If only it was that simple, but the past never is, so history is definitely never so tidy.  Indeed, there is a triumphalism about Mies’ work that speaks volumes, especially about the American capitalist ascendency that paid for so much of it.  But Mies’ work was not the only Modernism out there, and his schtick was not swallowed by everyone.

Gordon was a smart critic and a keen writer.  Neither lady of the Painted Ladies nor devotee of chintz, she established a long relationship with Frank Lloyd Wright that illustrates her interest in contemporary design–and humane architecture, traditional materials, ornament (those long-standing values that were anathema to Modernists)–as does the long series of articles she wrote for House Beautiful, which was, in many ways, a more realistic indicator of the “Advent of Modernism” than you will read in, say, Peter Blake or Carl Condit or for sure the great propagandist, Sigfried Giedion.

The issue that was published in April 1953 was part of Gordon’s broad campaign against the International Style’s priests (Corb, Gropius, Mies et al.) and acolytes (Hitchcock, Barr, Johnson ditto), whom she called “a self-chosen elite who are trying to tell us what we should like and how we should live.”  The article was particularly topical in the years that Mies was taken to court by his client, Dr. Edith Farnsworth, over the problems of the house that he designed (ostensibly) for her in Plano, Illinois.  In short, the house, which appears to be a hymn to technological prowess, was nonfunctional to the point of unlivable–the fireplace didn’t work, air circulation was inadequate, insects were completely free to roam inside.  (Dr. Farnsworth addressed the latter charge by installing screens that were still in place when the house was documented by HABS).

As feisty and well-reasoned as Gordon’s articles were, they were no match to the  propaganda machine that trumpeted the alleged achievements of Modernism which did, eventually, shape a tremendous proportion of individual buildings and landscapes during the mid-century building boom.  Gordon was ignored by the self-appointed heralds of the movement; Farnsworth was ridiculed as a lovelorn spinster.  The house at the center of the debate is now a showcase of its designer’s most pure and unadulterated ideals, full of Mies-designed furniture that Farnsworth never had in the house.  It is a monument to Mies, not a house museum in the traditional sense, or any sense.  Even as its staff acknowledges the technical “shortcomings” of the house when it was first complete, they are eager and willing to forgive Mies any culpability in the expensive and devastating floods that have washed through the property at least six times in the last sixty years.

The Modern Movement provides so many interesting ironies–an anti-historical approach that is now a fundamental tradition in practice; future-seeing practitioners who are forgiven completely for not having the foresight that development might change the flooding patterns of the river mere steps from a threshold–one feels as if engaged in a game of intellectual Twister if she muses on it all too long.

Image: Dr. Edith Farnsworth, understandably exhausted, after making as many changes as she could to make her Mies-designed house comfortable (from this source)


Tagged: , , , , ,

§ 2 Responses to April 07: Spectacular Shrine, Horrible House

  • osakajoe says:

    I knew someone who owned a Frank Lloyd Wright house. They swore that the roof kept leaking like a sieve, that it was extremely expensive to maintain in a livable condition, and that it was apparently built for midgets.

    Still, Frank Lloyd Wright.

    • JAA says:

      What your friend must not appreciate is that FLW designed his homes to accommodate the perfect male form (guess whose). Likewise, we are all to bow down to architects who push the limits of their art and science so much that the building will eventually sag, leak and basically break before you’ve got the mortgage paid off. “The physician can bury his mistakes, but the architect can only advise his client to plant vines”–FLW ca. 1931.

Clio loves comments! Please leave a reply.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading April 07: Spectacular Shrine, Horrible House at Clio’s Calendar: Daily Musings on Architectural History.


%d bloggers like this: