no utopias
“ Memphis does not propose utopias. It does not set itself up, as the radical avant-gardes did, in a critical position towards design;”
4
Bibliography Foster, Hal. Ed. The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture. Seattle: Bay Press. 1987. Radice, Barbara. Memphis. Rizzoli. 1984. Brown, Becky. “Koenig and Clinton and Joe Sheftel: Memphis Group” Art in America. 1 April 2015, Vol. 103 Issue 4, p109-110. Howarth, Dan. “Postmodern design: Carlton bookcase by Ettore Sottsass” Dezeen. 3 August 2015.
3 5 CONTENTS 04 Timeline 06 Functionalism 10 Interview with Ettore Sottsass 12 Designing without Constraint 24 A New Synthesis 30 Interview with Lee Broom
“Memphis does not propose utopias�
6
no utopias
1800s
Emphasis is placed on oranment and decoration. Bare design is seen as being in poor taste. The value of a piece of design is found in its elaboration. The harder a piece is to produce, the better.
1920s
Functionalism rejects the imitation of stylistic and historical forms and seeks an establishment of functionality in a piece. Value shifts from ornament to pure pracitcality and ease of production.
7
1980s
Postmodernism reintroduces skepticism, irony and rejects the grand narratives and ideologies of modernism, often calling into question various assumptions of Enlightenment rationality.
2020s
Design today respects Modernism’s principles and celebration of progress, understanding the importance of its structures and philosophies, but equally it is about play and about humanity. It does not propose utopias.
“ When I was young, all we ever heard about was functionalism, functionalism, functionalism. It’s not enough. Design should also be sensual and exciting.”
Dogma and Absolutes
01.
8 no utopias
The B5 chair, Marcel Breuer
dogma and absolutes 9
10
no utopias
Postmodernism as a design and architectural movement, emerged in the second half of the twentieth century, as a reaction to and a critique of Modernism. The designers of Modernism believed strongly in using design to instill morality into people. They stripped design back to pure functionality, believing in an intrinsic moral goodness found only in order and discipline. Prior to the modernist design movement, there was an emphasis on furniture as an ornament. The length of time a piece took to create was often a measure of its value and desirability. The origins
“ They stripped design back to pure functionality, believing in an intrinsic moral goodness found only in order and discipline.�
11
dogma and absolutes
Wassily chair (white), Cantilever chair, B5 chairs and Wassily chair (black), Marcel Breuer. First floor, Images #003-7
of design can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution and the birth of mechanized production. With new resources and advancements, a new philosophy emerged, one that shifted the emphasis of objects being created for decorative purposes to being designs that promote function. This philosophy of practicality came to be called Functionalism. It became a popular catchword and played a large role in theories of modern design. Functionalism rejected the imitation of stylistic and historical forms and sought an establishment of functionality in a piece. Functionalist
designers would consider the interaction of the design with its user and how many of the features, such as shape, colour, and size, would conform to the human posture. Western design generally, whether architectural or design of furniture, had for millennia sought to convey an idea of lineage, a connection with tradition and history. However, the modern movement sought newness, originality, technical innovation, and ultimately the message that it conveyed spoke of the present and the future, erasing what it saw as the flaws of the past.
12 10
no utopias no utopias
INTERVIEW
ETTORE SOTTSASS that the intellect would succeed in controlling design all the way through. What I think is that, first of all, we read the world sensuously. We also catalogue it and intellectualize it, but the source of everything remains the senses. To a Functionalist, the surface of this table is a geometrical square; to me, it’s a piece of plastic, warm or cold. Did you try to redesign some social aspects of the design profession?
So you revolted against Functionalism?
In a sense, yes. We hoped to have a gallery we could use to hold exhibitions, to present our work together, without too many constraints. In the end, we found a gallery, but the gallery owner happened to be a big steelmaker, so those extremists objected, “We can’t work in this gallery because we’ll be conned by the steelmaking capitalist.”
Not against it. We tried to go beyond it. We were never against anyone. I come from the Functionalist school— Gropius, Le Corbusier. When I was young, they were my myths, and I’ve never forgotten them, I’ve never despised them. But I’ve always thought all this wasn’t enough, that we could go much further. Associating gold with laminated plastic is a poetic statement, for example. You explode the myth of gold and raise the status of laminate. To those generations, the word “functional” meant ergonomics more than anything else: the relation between the human body and physical space, a relationship based on measurement. But to me, functionality often involves issues that can’t be measured.
There always appeared this sense of resistance to priorities, to the exaggerated importance of the visual sense in our culture. More than the visual sense, it was resistance to the priority and the predominance of the intellect over the senses. The whole of Functionalism, as the word itself shows, was a hope
dogma and absolutes
“ They taught me a distrust of systems and ideologies. Any kind of art or architecture eventually crumbles. Architecture isn’t a monument; it’s a series of places.”
13
“ Memphis does not propose utopias. It does not set itself up, as the radical avant-gardes did, in a critical position towards design;�
Designing wihtout constrsaint
02.
14 no utopias
15 9 Nefertiti tea pot. Matheo Thun
designing without constraint
16
“ It calls out modernism for how seriously it takes itself. It does not champion discipline as Modernists believed design ought to, but rather fun and humour.”
no utopias
The “Carlton” bookcase, designed by founder Sottsass in 1981. It displays the classic Memphis style: simple geometric shapes, vibrant colours and bold black accents. It is made of laminated medium density fibreboard, featuring various colours. The bright, clashing colours act purely for decoration. It rejects any teachings of “good taste’’ regarding colour, especially in contrast to the pure and pared back colour of modernist furniture design. The piece is of ambiguous form. It could equally be a bookcase, room divider, dresser or sculpture. Rather than being its function and nothing else, the piece charismatically
designing without constraint
17
Carlton The Carlton bookcase, Ettore Sottsass First floor, piece #004
embodies all functions and none - being more its aesthetic than anything else. As a bookshelf, one could argue that it is far from the most practical form for the function. It is composed of a stack of horizontal, perpendicular and angled pieces. These slanted and tilted shapes are completely ornamental, and have little use. The entire form is centred on dynamism and playfulness, rather than prioritising order or practicality. The playfulness of the piece is a clear reaction to the austerity of modern design. It calls out modernism for how seriously it takes itself. It does not champion discipline as Modernists believed design ought
to, but rather fun and humour. Sottsass has created a piece to be entirely individual, injecting humour and personality into the design in an exaggerated way. The critic Justin McGuirk5 noted, “The design collective he founded in 1981 not only defined the look of that decade, it was the loudest battle cry yet rattled against Modernism – a multi-coloured, no-shapes-barred assault on the idea of functionalism and all it stood for.�
no utopias
Royal
18
This plastic laminate and fabric upholstery chaise lounge, called “Royal,” was designed by Nathalie du Pasquier with some work by George Snowden, both founding members of Memphis. Du Pasquier was a primary textile designer for the group, and this day chair exemplifies her contribution of colour and pattern. The seat is upholstered in her fabric “Cerchio”, and the cushion and armrest in “Quadro” by Snowden. This piece showcases a hallmark of the Memphis aesthetic—busy and clashing pattern. The use of the bold black line is also once again seen, as well as strong primary and secondary colours. Geometric shapes are employed in
almost every aspect of the work, forming the structure of the bed as well as the pattern of the textiles. This piece is a complete and total rejection of the modernist ideal. The blatantly superfluous use of pattern is an argument for Kitschy ornament and arbitrary decoration. Intended to surprise and challenge the viewer, the chaise refuses to adhere to the sleek ideal of the International Style. Rather than a piece of furniture whose purpose is its function only, it stands as an ornament and art work in itself. The design does not shrink into the background, relegated to the service of a greater and, perhaps to the Modernist, more “moral” purpose, the
designing without constraint
19
The Carlton bookcase, Ettore Sottsass First floor, piece #004
function of the object. As Sottsass put it, Memphis “...allows the surface to send more sensorial information and tries to separate the object from its schematic idea of functionalism…” It is brash and loud, and exists for its own sake. It embraces the humanity of disorder. The play and the fun involved in the piece is evident, and lends it the ephemerality which makes it such a break from anything done before.
“ Memphis, which allows the surface to send more sensorial information and tries to separate the object from its schematic idea of functionalism…”
“ The design collective he founded in 1981 not only defined the look of that decade, it was the loudest
18 20 no utopias
battle cry yet rattled against Modernism – a multi-coloured, no-shapes-barred assault on the idea of functionalism and all it stood for� designing without constraint 19 21
22
no utopias
The “Nefertiti” was a glazed and enameled earthenware tea set, and was available in two colour options. The pieces take the traditional shapes of a teapot, cup and sugar bowl and exaggerate them to create a dynamic and playful set. The handle of the teapot is extended to an almost unusable height, with a sharp angle. The handles of the teacup are too small to be of use. Both of these features are designed with almost purely aesthetic considerations. Thun has taken the forms as his main focus, letting the function become secondary. The set is not as useful as it could be, but for Postmodernism,
Nefertiti tea set, Matheo Thun First floor, piece #008
“Shedding the aversion to anything imperfect freed the Postmodernists to remix and experiment with anything they encountered in the visual world.”
23
designing without constraint
perfection is not the goal. Rather than being the platonic ideal of tea set the way a Modernist may design it, the piece exists as a suggestion of what a set could be—not what one should be. Founding member Radice says, “Memphis does not propose utopias. It does not set itself up, as the radical avant-gardes did, in a critical position towards design;� Memphis design was a design of openness, where they saw modernism as being closed. This piece is an example of the symbolism and referential work favoured by Postmodernists. The design is reminiscent of Art Deco and Aztec designs, such as the
stepped details on the cup and bowl and the repeated use of triangles. The pattern and use of colour references 1950s Kitsch. This mixture of pastiche, historical and contemporary references embodies the spirit of the postmodern and of Memphis. Shedding the aversion to anything imperfect freed the Postmodernists to remix and experiment with anything they encountered in the visual world. When not restrained by dogmatic ideals, the whole world became fair game as a visual source.
Nefertiti
24
no utopias
Designed by Peter Shire in 1981, the “Brazil” table is a whimsical example of the Memphis use of colour and geometry. The “Brazil” console table epitomises the abandonment of functionalism and the embrace of delight that was a mainstay of the Memphis work. The dynamic use of strong angles and curves is striking, demanding attention for itself. Like any Memphis piece, it is design that exists for its own sake. It rejects the idea that good design is unnoticed design, and instead captures the imagination. Every piece of the table is lacquered in a different colour, each more vibrant than the last. These colours
do not serve any higher purpose, they are there for us to enjoy; they are decoration for people. This arbitrary decision making is what surprises and delights so much about Memphis design. It connects to childish enquiry—experimentation with no constraints. It unburdens design of its obsession with itself. As said by Matteo Thun, designer of the “Nefertiti,” “A ceaselessly enquiring mind can generate new extremes of language as the alternative to predictable and unimaginative functionalism.” This piece leaves behind all assumptions about a table’s form, and reinvents the basics.
Brazil
Brazil table, Peter Shire First floor, piece #0012
25
designing without constraint
Balancing delicately on two mismatched legs, the unique and bold forms create an entirely new proposal for a table. It reopens the conversation about fundamentals designers had come to take for granted. Ultimately, this is the point the Memphis designers were working to communicate. The practice of design is open and endless, and no restriction is absolute or binding. This continuous searching for more and for bolder is what allowed them to shake the design world as completely as they did.
“ A ceaselessly enquiring mind generates new extremes of language as the alternative to predictable, unimaginative functionalism.�
“ We do not live in a postmodern world. Rather, we live in a world in which aspects of postmodernity are in constant tension with aspects of modernity and premodern existence... in which many of the qualities that characterized modernity have become conditions in postmodernity�
A New Synthesis
03.
26 no utopias
27
a new synthesis
Crystal Bulb, Lee Broom
28
no utopias
“ Design today is about play and about humanity. Modernism gave the design world structure and principles, but Memphis reminded it how to ignore them.�
a new synthesis
29
30
no utopias
At the time of the emergence of Modernism, it was much needed. It is essential not to dismiss the necessary rebellion of Modernism. It liberated design from ornament and established essential principles we still use today. It stripped back the unnecessary so designers could see what was important. Postmodernism could never have reintroduced us to play and ornament and rulebreaking if Modernism hadn’t stripped it away. As is always necessary, postmodernism came to challenge the challenger. What exists then, between Le Cobusier and Sotsass, is a synthesis of ideas. In “Practices of Looking,” Cartwright states that
“We do not live in a postmodern world. Rather, we live in a world in which aspects of postmodernity are in constant tension with aspects of modernity and premodern existence... in which many of the qualities that characterized modernity… have become conditions in postmodernity…” It is a fundamental aspect of Postmodernism that it is modern. The effects of Memphis design are lasting. It injected play back into design, and challenged rules designers had been taking as unbreakable. The aesthetic of the group may not have become lastingly ubiquitous, but the
31
a new synthesis
“ We do not live in a postmodern world. We live in a world in which many of the qualities that characterized modernity have become conditions in postmodernity.�
arguments it raised changed the approach of designers since. Memphis was ephemeral, entirely of its time. Sottsass and his colleagues had not intended to create a new International Style, and write their own rules. They challenged the concept of rules or timelessness in itself. The group moving on is a lesson that design should always move on, and continue to explore and question. The rejection of dogma that so shocked people in 1981 is the legacy of Memphis. Design today is about play and about humanity. Modernism gave the design world structure and principles, but Memphis reminded it how to ignore them.
no utopias
32 30
INTERVIEW
LEE BROOM When did you know you were a designer? Like as soon as I saw that I could draw—seven, eight? My dad owned a printing factory but he was a very good amateur artist, a draftsman. I remember him teaching me the techniques you could use to draw, and I would draw every night at home in my bedroom. I would mainly draw apartment blocks, shopping malls, cities. Sometimes I’d do the interiors that I would imagine I would be living in my 20s. I loved opulence but I loved modernist design as well. You can kind of see that in my work now. Your marble tube lights are incredibly elegant, technically complicated, but also really sculptural. It speaks in a way that’s different, more grand. Which you also mention, this sense of “opulence.” Traditionally when you think of opulent, it’s incredibly ornate. I kind of like that border line between crassness and taste. That marble collection, I call Nouveau Rebel because marble when I was growing up felt very nouveau riche: a tacky, opulent material. Now it has a reputation for being honest, natural material. So I like the idea of nouveau riche, nouveau rebel—changing that up a bit without forgetting that it went through that period. Opulence is
kind of using material that is opulent and putting it into something that’s sculptural, contemporary. That [Tube] piece is reflective of a classic, ugly fluorescent tube that we’re all used to seeing in garages, warehouses. But to create exactly the same light fixture in a very luxury, handcrafted material appeals to me. Even the Crescent light—it’s taking the very classic Art Deco globe that we all know, and slicing it in a simple way, shifting it. There’s opulence, there’s modernism, there’s taking things you’ve seen before and presenting them in a different way.
a new synthesis
33
“ When people see my work, they do have a familiarity with it already. They already have a relationship with that product because they’ve never seen it before, but they have.”