Dissertation - Alena Leelanipawan

ORNAMENTATION, DECORATION AND CLUTTER: CONTROL FOR THE DOMESTIC WOMAN IN THE MODERN PARADIGM

Alena Leelanipawan

Bachelor of Interior Architecture Third Year Dissertation INTA2411

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Built Environment

Individual Plagiarism Declaration z5163836 Student Number

INTA 2411 Course ID

T3 Y3 Session & Year

LEELANIPAWAN Family Name

Alena Other Names

Dissertation Course Name

Third Year Dissertation INTA 2411 Title of the Assessment Task to which this Declaration applies

Sing D'Arcy Lecturer

NB. if, by prior agreement, this work is being submitted for assessment in more than one course, you must list all those other course IDs in the above boxes …

I declare that: • this assessment item is my own work, except where acknowledged, and has not been submitted for academic credit elsewhere; • all reasonable care has been taken to ensure that no other person has been able to copy this work either in paper or electronic form.

I acknowledge that the assessor of this item may, for the purpose of assessing this item: • reproduce this assessment item and provide a copy to another member of the University; and/or, • communicate a copy of this assessment item to a plagiarism checking service (which may then retain a copy of the assessment item on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking).

I certify that I have read and understood the University rules in respect of Student Academic Misconduct.

02/12/19 Signature

Date

Plagiarism is the use another's work pretending that it is your own. More specifically, in an educational context, plagiarism is endeavouring to obtain academic credit in a course of study for work that is either not individually prepared by you or prepared by you, but for some other purpose, whether paid or unpaid.

The following web sites expand more fully on the nature and consequences of plagiarism and must be read prior to submitting this declaration. https://student.unsw.edu.au/plagiarism https://intranet.be.unsw.edu.au/student-intranet/assignments-and-plagiarism

Abstract Ornamentation, Decoration and Clutter explores why women in the modern paradigm began to use interior decoration in the home. The application of decoration and clutter became a symbol for women to detach themselves from modernity, an attempt for emancipation.

A literature review will provide hindsight on the position of modernist architecture and interior decoration in the home to contextualise the masculine agenda of that period. A theoretical comparison between the masculine and feminine attitudes concerning interior decoration and domesticity in the modern home will emphasise the emancipatory attempt of women using interior design and applying principles of ornamentation, decoration and clutter as a reclamation of space. It will set the foundation for the final chapter, where a series of interiors will be visually analysed and dissected to emphasise the differences in principles between masculine and feminine. The works of Adolf Loo’s Villa Müller, Philip Johnson’s Glass House, Diana Vreeland’s New York apartment and Anna Wintour’s Long Island home will evaluate the aesthetic differences and how they have influenced the behaviour of men and women in the modern paradigm.

However, despite stereotypical understandings of masculinity and femininity in the domestic sphere, the evolution of modernity has shown that the role of interior decoration and clutter can be viewed as a form of liberation and power for women.

1

Acknowledgements I would like to firstly express my gratitude towards my supervisor, Belinda Dunstan, who has shown nothing less than continual support and encouragement throughout the course of writing this dissertation.

To my family, friends and colleagues who have given great amounts of time and effort to assist me in the writing of this dissertation, I would like to thank them wholeheartedly.

And to thank the other supervisors of this course for giving me the opportunity to further my education.

2

List of Illustrations 2.1

Edith Wharton’s drawing room in The Mount, Lenox, Massachusetts (2019) https://www.edithwharton.org/discover/the-main-house/

2.2

Edith Wharton’s Red Toile Room in The Mount, Lenox, Massachusetts (2013) https://adirondackgirlatheart.com/edith-whartons-estate-lenox-ma/

2.3

Edith Wharton’s library in The Mount, Lenox, Massachusetts (2019) https://englishatwaterloo.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/1643/

3.1

Adolf Loos’s Villa Müller living room in Prague, Czech Republic (n.d.) https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/villa-mueller/

3.2

Adolf Loos’s Villa Müller library in Prague, Czech Republic (n.d.) https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/villa-mueller/

3.3

Adolf Loos’s Villa Müller boudoir in Prague, Czech Republic (n.d.) https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/villa-mueller/

3.4

Adolf Loos’s Villa Müller kitchen in Prague, Czech Republic (n.d.) https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/villa-mueller/

3.5

Philip Johnson’s Glass House plan (2010) https://www.flickr.com/photos/swee10/4632404981

3.6

Riccardo Bianchini’s photo of Philip Johnson’s Glass House’s interior (n.d.) http://theglasshouse.org/explore/the-glass-house/

3.7

Eirick Johnson’s photo of Philip Johnson’s Glass House’s desk (n.d.) http://theglasshouse.org/explore/the-glass-house/

3.8

Champion Picture’s photo of Diana Vreeland’s apartment living space (n.d.) https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/diana-vreeland-new-york-apartmentarticle

3.9

Champion Picture’s photo of Diana Vreeland’s apartment dining room (n.d.)

3

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/diana-vreeland-new-york-apartmentarticle 3.10

Champion Picture’s photo of Diana Vreeland’s apartment dressing table (n.d.) https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/diana-vreeland-new-york-apartmentarticle

3.11

Champion Picture’s photo of Diana Vreeland’s apartment writing desk (n.d.) https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/diana-vreeland-new-york-apartmentarticle

3.12

Mark D. Sikes’s photo of Anna Wintour’s home in Long Island, living room (n.d.) https://www.thisisglamorous.com/2018/01/places-anna-wintours-summer-homeforge-river.html/

3.13

Mark D. Sikes’s photograph of Anna Wintour’s home in Long Island, living room https://www.thisisglamorous.com/2018/01/places-anna-wintours-summer-homeforge-river.html/

3.14

Mark D. Sikes’s photograph of Anna Wintour’s home in Long Island, library https://www.thisisglamorous.com/2018/01/places-anna-wintours-summer-homeforge-river.html/

3.15

Mark D. Sikes’s photograph of Anna Wintour’s home in Long Island, master bedroom https://www.thisisglamorous.com/2018/01/places-anna-wintours-summer-homeforge-river.html/

4

Table of Contents

6

Introduction

8

Chapter 1: Literature Review

16

Chapter 2: Theoretical Comparison

25

Chapter 3: Case Studies

36

Conclusion

38

List of References

42

List of Websites

5

Introduction The subject of women in modernity has posed the question “what will a woman build if left to her own devices? In the construction of Western culture why must we restrict her so severely?” (Bergren 1996:77). As such, this dissertation will reexamine the function ornamentation, decoration and clutter ha d in the modern home with the intention to highlight its purpose as a symbol of female emancipation and reclamation of space.

It can be said that modernism was traditionally seen primarily as masculine, where the men were in charge and given more power over feminine bodies. Chapter one delivers a literature review outlining the masculine role in modernism regarding the system of architecture and domesticity. It will contextualise the modernist approaches that oppressed the self-expression of women in the system of architecture and interior design where the modernist maxim “form follows function” (Sullivan 1896; Sparke 1999; Yanow 2010) was used to criticize ornamentation and decoration, previously characterised as feminine. Although the emergence of consumption during the postbellum decade marginalised and restricted the women to the domestic realm and instigated the dominance of masculinity in the home, the consumption of materialistic objects for the home presented women a way to reclaim that space (Heynen 2005).

The notion of ornamentation and decoration is reframed as a method of liberation and reclamation of space for women in chapter two. A theoretical comparison between the masculine agenda of chapter one and the feminine agenda of modernity will reflect how the changing of role of interior decoration was applied as an emancipatory attempt to help the modern woman reclaim her space within the domestic realm. Modernism offered women opportunities of self-expression as the 6

evolution of the Arts and Crafts movement encouraged women to reclaim the domestic environment (Stankiewicz 1992) which was once seen as devoid of warmth and comfort (qualities of masculine architecture) and reestablish a presence in the home that reflected feminine qualities such as connectedness, grace and self-identity (Melchionne 1998:197; Lico 2001:39; Leslie & Reimer 2003:309; Havenhand 2004:38).

Therefore, chapter three will be a visual analysis of four modernist interiors examining the functional and aesthetic differences between the masculine and feminine agendas in the domestic environment of the modern period. Adolf Loo’s Villa Müller (1930) and Philip Johnson’s Glass House (2007) will reflect on the modernist, masculine maxim “form follows function” and further link masculinity to materiality. As a contrast to the masculine agenda, Diana Vreeland’s New York apartment and Anna Wintour’s Long Island home will reveal the aesthetic differences that have been applied as a result of chapter two’s discussion.

7

Chapter One This chapter will provide insight on the initial role of men in the Western Modern society and the domestic environment in relation to spatial architecture, introducing the emergence of consumption and its influence on domesticity. The aim of this chapter is to highlight the modernist attitude concerning masculinity being more dominant within the home in contrast as to why femininity was confined and oppressed.

Modernity become the byproduct of 17 th century and 18 th century Renaissance’s answer to the Industrial Revolution as Australian philosopher Andrew Benjamin (1952) conceived late German Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin’s (1892 -1940) theory of modernity as two distinct concepts: modernity as the current state of progress and modernity as an interruption – “a break not only with the past but also with the present” (Mack 2008:59). Influenced by early Romanticism, the essence of modernity formed as a force prompting the re -evaluation of existing practices and systems to focus on self-origination and emancipation (Leslie & Reimer 2003; Heynen 2005; Mack 2009; Garrett 2018) for the modern society. The desire for progress depicts modernity as a heroic pursuit for the betterment of oneself and one’s environment (Heynen 2005; Fernald 2008).

Consequently, many feminist authors drew connections between modernity and masculinity, reason being that Western philosophy has invariably associated itself with masculinity (Lloyd 1984; Scott 1990; Heynen 2005). The opp ression of femininity allowed the notion of masculine hegemony to imprint itself into modern society recognizing within the canon, artists, authors, and architects to be predominantly men such as Adolf Loos (1870-1933), Walter Gropius (1883-1969), Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (1886-1969), Le Corbusier (1887-1965) and Philip 8

Johnson (1906-2005). Professor of Architectural Theory, Hilde Heynen (1959) argues that modernity embodies masculine subjectivity and conceptualises itself to also embody the struggle for progress, rationality and authenticity. She links philosophers’ Martin Heidegger’s (1889-1976) and Theodor W. Adorno’s (19031969) perspectives of the modern man and dwelling to conclude both are unable to coincide and be reconciled (2005:2). However, as the modern man began to demonstrate a heroic disposition to pursue betterment, the “masculine modernism that dominated the headlines and the early decades of criticism focused on heroism over housework” (Fernald 2008:828). Thus, men were placed in the public sphere of work and power to achieve masculinity found away from the home, whilst women were placed in the private realm – within the context of family and home (Wolff 1985:37; Agrest 1988:29; Franck 1989:202; Lico 2001:37; Havenhand 2004:38; Heynen 2005:10). Hence, domesticity become a construct of the 19 th century (Heynen 2005).

Yet, the home which was associated with the feminine did not reflect the feminine agenda of modernity as objects in the home were more often than not “objects of virtue” promoting industrial production (Stankiewics 1992:165), depicting how masculinity in the home was influenced by patriarchal power and male anthropomorphism (Agrest 1988:29; Sanders 1996:11; Lico 2001:33; Baydar 2012). It was argued that designs should embody the modernist principle of “form follows function” (Sullivan 1896; Sparke 1999; Yanow 2010), stripping itself of ornamentation and clutter (Dingle & O’Hanlon 1997:34) which many renowned modernist architects have applied this maxim into their profession such as Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959) and Philip. Professor of Architecture, Diana Agrest (1945) argues the foundations of Western architecture which will be referred to as the “system of architecture” defined not only what was to be included but exclude d.

9

The system of architecture suppressed gender roles in the domestic sphere – more precisely

femininity,

through

phallocentrism

(1988:29 -30)

and

modernists

encouraged the system of architecture to adapt to the machine age of industrialism (Dingle & O’hanlon 2008:34). Similarly, modernist discourses concerning domesticity were heavily influenced by postwar; capitalism and industrialism became the trigger for increased consumption for women who became confined to the household as employment opportunities became scarce with the introduction of machinery taking over the secondary jobs of women (Bilston 2019:74).

Coincidentally, Heynen explains in the architectura l discourses, eclecticism was criticised for depicting effeminacy with masculinist architects pushing for simplicity, authenticity and integrity in contrast to the already sentimental, ornamental and ostentatious pretensions associated with eclecticism (20 05:3). As such, the western modern society marginalised women and femininity from the system of architecture. If a woman – who was confined to the private realm, was seen on her own in the public sphere, ran the risk of being labelled prostitute, widow, le sbian, etc. (Wolff 1985:41). Likewise, Agrest states: Society establishes a certain kind of symbolic order where not everyone has an equal chance of fitting. Those who do not fit have to find their place between symbolic orders. […] These are the people of ten […] labeled neurotics, ecstatics, outsiders, witches, or hysterics. […] Woman has been allowed to surface from the space of her repression as a witch or hysteric […] the woman has been repressed in architecture (1988:30) Professors Deborah Leslie and Suzanne Reimer deduce modernism as a set of cultural practices and their associated ideologies and institutions, whilst modernity denotes economical, technological, sociological and experiential changes because of Western industrialism and capitalism (2003: 295). They break the notion of 10

modernism into three distinct characteristics: a program of political reformation based on principles of collectivism, standardization and social egalitarianism (1) (Sparke 1995:7), a celebration of Neoplatonic geometry (favo uring shapes made by the lathe, ruler and square (Parr 1999:125) and embracing progressive possibilities (2), and an antagonism towards ornamentation and stylistic change (3) (2003:296). Similarly, Le Corbusier implies “styles are no more than an accidenta l surface modality, superadded to facilitate composition, stuck on to disguise faults, or duplicated for the sake of display” (1987:115) they become repugnant and controversial commodities (1987:89) Architect Robin Boyd (1919-1971) also supported the modernist maxim “form follows function”, through an article published in Victorian Modern (1947), he states: The real architecture has little use for applied ornamentation of any sort. Its decorative qualities are inherent. Its expression is complete in the bas ic structure. Its appeal is derived from the intrinsic beauty of natural materials, the play of sunlight through openwork and of shadows on an unbroken plane, the pattern of windows across a wall, clarity of line and sharp delineation of form, colour. (1947:12) This alluded additional elitism in modernist discourses that claimed decoration and ornamentation (the feminine) evoked inferiority to materials and construction (Le Corbusier 1987:87). Modernism conceptualised an opposition to femininity, ephemerality and commercial aesthetics; the so called “feminine taste” was a modernist construct of opposition comprised of frills, unnecessary display, ornamentation and glitter (Sparke 1995:74) giving it the term “Others”.

To give precedence on ornamentation in the modern paradigm, masculine bodies considered ornamentation as a threat to architecture (Lico 2001:34), affecting the

11

longevity of styles, claiming it caused objects to become out -of-date and degenerating (Loos 1908); Loos illustrates the example where i f he were to tattoo himself, in the eyes of western culture he would be named a degenerate. Assistant Director Debra Roth expresses how body adornment has an inevitable effect on interior organisation – as another way for individuals to express themselves, influencing the way they make act, decorate a space, etc. (2006:181). This has relevancy to interior decoration as an examination of the dynamics of home furnishing (specifically furniture) represented gendering in modernist design.

Additionally, The Theory of the Leisure Class defined the American woman as “the embodiment of “conspicuous consumption” – her purpose was ornamental: to display the wealth and power of her family” (Thorstein 1899). Professor of Contemporary Architecture Ann Bergren (1942-2018), reiterates that the masculine design of the women makes her a parodic imitation of himself – constructing the woman’s realm from the innermost recesses of her mind and body (1996). Professor of Architectural History Vanessa Chase adds, women w ere merely flexes of power from the hard earn wealth of men; even though the house was expressive of a woman, the real body displayed through the house, was of the man’s (1996:135). Professor of Arts Mary Ann Stankiewicz explained the Aesthetic movement where industrialisation was widespread, played a small part in the Western consumerist culture regarding ornamental manufactured objects (1992).

Change became a necessity in modernist culture coincidentally, this sparked the development of the Arts and Craft movement, a succession from the Aesthetic movement (Stankiewicz 1992). Art historian Lawrence Levine’s (1933 -2006) explanation of aesthetic reformation responded to the chaos of industrialisation where the men were influenced by the constant changes in st yle and thus heavily

12

consuming material goods which affected the attitude of women in the household (Stankiewicz 1992): to retreat into their own private spaces whenever possible; to transform public spaces by rules, systems of taste, and canons of behavi or of their own choosing; and, finally, to convert the strangers so that their modes of behavior and cultural predilections emulated those of the elites (1988:177) Domesticity can be discussed as legal arrangements, spatial settings, behavioural patterns, social effects and power constellations (Heynen 2005:7) forming what novelist Ann Douglas called a “feminisation of culture”. She alludes to the continuation of industrialism in the late 19 th century as the growing number of middle-class women became the main consumers of cultural products: books and decorative objects (Heynen 2005). The consumption of cultural objects contributed to not only the changing roles of women but the children and the men. Only towards the end of the 19 th century were domesticity and masculinity seen as oppositional – the values of intimacy, nurturing and comfort were threating the reproduction of masculinity (Heynen 2005:9).

Modernists marginalised the practice of interior designer as it was associated wi th the feminine and instead coined the term “design” to be more masculine (Leslie & Reimer 2003). Leslie and Reimer explored modern furniture design, post -war consumption, and their connection to establishing a feminine representation in art and design and argued that the gender of modernism was not that of masculinity but viewed as contradictory and ambiguous (2003:299). Women in the modernist scheme were highly involved in furniture consumption for the house (Parr 1999) but were indifferent about “modern” furniture claiming it was informal, child friendly and required little maintenance (1999:161). During that time, modern design

13

encapsulated machine aesthetics, functionalism, timelessness and the virtues of a minimalist aesthetics which were labelled as masculine. An account from a male design store owner in London, selling mostly modern pieces claimed men made up more than half of his customer base and suggested: It’s the men that want to linger […] the men seem to be interested in looking at things and I think that’s very good […] In a sense there’s a male aesthetic in the store. I have a black sofa because I like it, it happens to be from the fifties or the sixties but it’s really simple. I don’t know how to use upholstery.

I don’t know how to use colour personally. I like clean and minimal […] So there is a coldness and a starkness to the store that maybe appeals to a man. (Leslie & Reimer 2009:302) It was an indication that modern furniture appealed to the masculine as it defined an opposition to the feminine upholstery, decoration and colour (Leslie & Reimer 2009:302). Professor of Architecture Gerard Rey A. Lico reiterated that within architecture masculinity was seen as genuine whilst femininity was factitious as the sensuality of ornamentation created a deception, masking reality (2001:34-35). He identified masculine interiors such as men’s clubs and bars possessed architectural properties associated with masculinity – hard, cold and crystalline attributed through glass, steel and stone (2001:35).

The first chapter summarises the masculine agenda in the modern paradigm relevant to gender roles, domesticity and architecture, confirming that masculinity in

architecture

oppressed

the

feminine

characteristics

of

ornamentation,

decoration and clutter within architecture and the home. This serves as a foundation for chapter two where the association of ornamentation, decoration and

14

clutter, and femininity is reframed as an act of liberation and reclamation of space in the domestic sphere.

15

Chapter Two Chapter two confronts the traditional beliefs of modernist masculinity through methods of how women in the domestic sphere applied ornamentation and decoration of clutter to liberate themselves and reclaim the space they were confined to, as an attempt for emancipation of modern women. The outcome of understanding the implications of modern, domestic interior design emphasises the initial opposition to femininity in the home as the interior deco ration was still adhered to masculinity – the husband or head of the household, but how the home then becomes a space for the woman to liberate and control.

Bergren questions, “what will a woman build if left to her own devices? In the construction of Western culture why must we restrict her so severely?” (1996:77); which introduces the discourse of feminist movement. The social reality of modernity offered women opportunities of freedom and social reformation (Heynen 2005; Fernald 2008; Garrett 2018), having literature during that period become agents for female emancipation, deviation from patriarchal supremacy (Garrett 2018:289) and the stability of binary opposition (Havenhand 2004:41). Senior Academic Michael Mack further describes modernity as an attempt to rescue those who have been marginalised and forgotten (2009:60-61). Similarly, although art critic and writer John Ruskin describes the modern woman to be kep t within the confines of the home, in his book Sesame and Lilies (1865), he portrays: the woman’s power is for rule, not for battle, – and her intellect is not for invention or creation, but for sweet ordering, arrangement and decision. [. . .] The man, in his rough work in open world, must encounter all peril and trial; [. . .] But he guards the woman from all this; within his house, as ruled

16

by her [. . .] need enter no danger, no temptation, no cause of error or offense. This is the true nature of home – it is the place of Peace (1865:21) Houses became the space of women: where they live, where they have power (Chase 1996:132; Van Der Werf 2009:181). The decoration of the house becomes a metaphor for the woman who creates and inhabits it, a symbol of her power and self-expression (Chase 1996: 132). The Arts and Crafts movement provided women at the end of the 19 th century, an active agent of opportunity (McNeil 1994:632, Bilston 2019:74), expanding their repertoire of feminine pursuits to cover decoration, gardening, woodwork and metalwork (Garrett 2018). Wharton believed interior decoration and gardening ought to similarly follow principles of harmony, proportion and decorum as was seen in architecture – reason being that arts of decoration and gardening were neglected from the discipline of architecture which was seen as a purely masculine profession, decoration and gardening were viewed as women’s diversion (Chase 1996:133). Architectural historian Annmarie Adams (1960) argued that English writer Jane Ellen Panton (1847-1923) promoted “spatial feminism”, encouraging women to take control of the domestic environment, rearranging the space to suit their needs (1997). The house was generally dictated by social, economic and architectural order (by the man) ho wever, American novelist Edith Wharton (1862-1937) was the dominant figure in her house thus, the spatial decoration and arrangement followed the agenda of a woman who is in control (Chase 1996). Establishing herself as an advocate for the creation of domestic interiors that allowed men and women to interact on equal grounds, Wharton’s architectural strategies prevented the gender repression of modernist society (Chase 1996).

The British campaign “Chuck out your chintz” however, prompted consumers to diverge away from the feminine style, showcasing women in a video, ripping off 17

chintz pelmets and wallpaper, throwing flowery sofas, chairs and beds; they sing “we’re battling hard and we’ve come a long way, in choices and status, in jobs and in pay” which highlighted the liberating potential of redecoration as the traditional chintz was set up as oppressive and the modern style was deemed as liberating (Leslie & Reimer 2003:303). Modern design however, remained strongly associated with the masculine, identified as clinical and cold, often emotionless and minimalist (Lico 2001:35-39; Leslie & Reimer 2003) whereas the designs women produced and appealed to, embodied grace, warmth, comfort and an attachment to self identity (Melchionne 1998:197; Lico 2001:39; Leslie & Reimer 2003:309; Havenhand 2004:38) as it was believed men often forgot the comforts of life where the womanly touch was missing (Crommelin 1903). The womanly touch defined the home as an extension of the inhabitant and a space for connectedness and inclusion through nostalgia and knowing (Havenhand 2004:38 -39; Berry 2005:72).

Professor of Environmental Psychology Karen Franck identified the characteristics that constitute to the women’s way of knowing breaking it down into three distinct qualities: desire for connectedness and inclusion (1), the ethics of care and value of everyday life (2) and the desire for complexity and flexibility (3) (1989). The combination of these three characteristics emphasised the role of femininity in interior design as the focus on intimate movements, needs and emotional concerns were more recognised by women (Havenhand 2004:40). In a statement by Loos, he delineates architecture from art stating: The house has to please everyone, contrary to the work of art, which does not. The work of art is a private matter for the artist. The house is not. The work of art is brought into the world without there being a need for it. The house satisfies a requirement. The work of art is responsible to none; the

18

house is responsible to everyone. The work of art wants to draw people out of their state of comfort. The house has to serve comfort. (1910:108) It was implied by Loos that architecture should focus on the home dealing handling domesticity and forge the framework for everyday living (Heynen 2005:15).

Additionally, Heynen claimed modern architecture provoked a revolution in dwelling culture, introducing themes such as open plan, transparency, hygiene, efficiency and ergonomics (2005:16).

Johnson’s Glass House contradicts the Western association of dwelling, where in the hyperorganised environment rather than inhabiting the house, the house lives in the inhabitant through a habit repertoire (Melchionne 1998:192 -193). Professor of Aesthetics Kevin Melchionne deduces the art of domestici ty to instigate homemaking, claiming the domestic practice becomes the art of maintaining the discipline of implication in the order, of more or less forcing habit to follow aesthetic conception – explaining that formal and hyperorganised spaces felt uncom fortable to the occupants (1998:193). The lack of comfort within the Glass House is a mistake of modern architecture and design – style at the cost of functionality and comfort (Rybczynski 1988). However, Melchionne argues that even though the Glass House may be unliveable to the majority, interior decoration implies repertoires of habits, linking to the process of calibration to form the art of domesticity (becoming accustomed to the home) (1998:194). Interior decoration was also linked to labour and habits where cleaning a room clarified the sense of order in the domestic space. The art of tidying then bears a connection to design (Melchionne 1998:194). The aesthetic of clutter - “density” referred to the number of objects and the complexity of textile pattern that can be tolerated in any given era (Thornton 1984:8-9; Melchoinne 2000:195), with low density being favoured amongst modernist designers.

19

Yet Professor of Philosophy Thomas Leddy discovered how some people preferred clutter to the extreme neatness of modernist culture, regarding clutter as a design strategy: decoration of collection (Melchionne 1998:195). Leddy recognises that clutter and mess evoke feminist attributes, although women were taught to clean and be accustomed to neatness, there is aesthetic delight in seeing clutter in the home (1995:261); distinguishable from tolerating clutter, Melchionne proposes clutter is the sign of liberation (1998:195). This liberation allowed feminists to recognise the importance of female emancipation in the public sphere therefore limiting domestic practices unfortunately, other femini sts seek to highlight the contribution of traditional female role(s) (domestic labour) (Melchionne 1998).

In the 1880s, English writer Jane Ellen Panton advocated a form of “spatial feminism” which encouraged the domestic woman to take control of the interior environment by rearranging the space to suit their needs (Garrett 2018). Through “spatial feminism” (Garrett 2018:299), women began to decorate the home with furniture and household objects that reflected their identities and values (Leslie & Reimer 2003; Berry 2005). Garrett claimed many scholars argued that the Arts and Crafts movement and the Aesthetic movement enabled women to progress in the interior design profession (2018:297). The distinction between these two movements was that the Aesthetic movement used natural motifs as ornamentation on surfaces whereas the Arts and Crafts movement created organic forms to reflect the characteristics of the materiality (Stankiewicz 1992:170) . Where having a minimalist space required maximum resources and cont rol (Leslie & Reimer 2003) was masculine, cleaning the space was the duty of the woman (Leddy 1995) which implied masculinity in modernism was still associated with feminine characteristics.

This new form of architecture liberated women in the domestic sph ere removed the burden of domestic chores to allow flexibility for women in the home (Heynen 2005).

20

For the modern woman, the freedom to pursue interior design as a profession gave her more opportunities to include herself not only within the decoration of the home, but to acknowledge her person within the social context (Stephenson 2010:1099).

The liberating potential of decoration (Leslie & Reimer 2003:303) gave women a “second skin” to facilitate the functional, emotional, personal and spiritual needs of its “wear” (Havenhand 2004:40). English author Sarah Bilston (1973), reiterated how the act of layering wallpaper, putting down rugs and placing knick -knacks was conceived as women’s way of subjugation, civilization and control (2019:82).

It was at the time, the modernist principles that emphasised the sacrifice of colour and implemented heterogeneous ornamentation (Wharton 1897) saw the design of mouldings, architraves and cornices as insignificant thus created a rift between interior decoration and architecture. The Decoration of Houses (1897) by Edith Wharton argued rooms could be decorated in two ways: “by a superficial application of ornament totally independent of structure, or by means of those architectural features which are part of the organism of every house, inside as well as out” (Wharton 1897:xix). The book comprises of design principles regarding walls, doors and windows down to the fireplaces and bric -a-brac seen in drawing rooms, boudoirs, the library and the office. For the modern American family, the drawing room having spent thought and money failed to fulfil its purpose, often left unoccupied after dinners causing to become a room where the women fled to avoid social duties. As modern furniture did not have a strong presen ce in the home – its design weak and details too finikin, the drawing room must have its gilt chairs covered, its vitrines full of modern Saxe, guipure curtains and velvet carpets to accentuate the wealth of the man and his family (Wharton 1897:122-133).

Wharton’s drawing room in her country house in Lenox, Massachusetts (refer to image 2.1) harboured characteristics of feminine decoration and ornamentation not 21

only through the furniture but the architectural elements – ceiling, walls and door frames.

Image 2.1 View of Edith Wharton’s drawing room in The Mount, Lenox, Massachusetts (1902) Source: edithwharton.org

The boudoir (a small sitting room), when given to the mistress of the house, became the room where she was able to project herself and highlight feminine values through decoration of accessories – screens, andirons, appliques, and door and window fastenings. Although the boudoir was generally a small room, decoration to the walls featured paintings or stucco ornamentation and small objects of art such as prints, mezzotints and gouaches were displayed to their best potential as within the small scale of the room, none of the details on delicate wood carvings and other objects are wasted in comparison to if it were placed in a larger room. The progression of needs and wants of modern society transformed the once decorated boudoir to account for servant interviews and paperwork, adding in a lounge or chaise (Wharton 1897:122-133) (refer to Image 2.2).

22

Image 2.2 View of Edith Wharton’s Red Toile Room in The Mount, Lenox, Massachusetts (1902) Source: Diana (2019)

The library showcased distinct differences between masculine and feminine design where before, books were treated as treasure and were often fully concealed by a deux corps when designed by men. For the women, the spine of the books contributed to the decoration of the room and therefore, either ornate bookcases or the a deux corps with the wooden panels replaced with glass were ideal for displaying a collection of books (Wharton 1897:145-154) (Image 2.3).

Image 2.3 View of Edith Wharton’s library in The Mount, Lenox, Massachusetts (1902) Source: J. Harris (2013)

23

It is now understood that the home became the space of the woman as “spatial feminism” encourage the modern woman to take back control of the home . The opportunity for woman to jump back into the field of interior decoration and gardening allowed them to slowly take back what could have been the domain of the woman. Despite masculinity once being more dominant in the home, women expressed the qualities known as a “woman’s touch” and diminished the preconstructed cold and clinical characteristics of masculine architecture through ornamentation, decoration and clutter in the domestic realm.

24

Chapter Three A visual analysis of three modernist interiors reveals the aesthetic differences between the masculine and feminine within the modern agenda. Adolf Loo’s Villa Müller and Philip Johnson’s Glass House reveals masculine influences in interiors whereas Diana Vreeland’s apartment in New York and Anna Wintour’s home in Long Island will contrast the proclaimed masculinity through ornamentation, decoration and clutter, presenting a form of liberation and reclamation of domestic space.

Defined as the epitome for the modern home by Loos himself (wikiarquitectura.com n.d), he stated in his book Ornament and Crime (1908), that ornamentation should be comprised of only the natural grains and textures of woods and stones, and not in the knick-knacks as design should be primarily strong, solid and stripped back (phaidon.com 2018). This is translated in the Villa Müller where majority of the materials consisted of marble and stone travertine – both notable for their textural qualities (refer to image 3.1), as Loos emphasised fine materials over ornamentation. This approach towards architectural masculinity was further applied to the library, also known as the gentleman’s study, where the use of dark mahogany wood and leather seating emphasises the masculine properties of being naked and unadorned (Lico 2001), as depicted in image 3.2. Similarly, leather has been associated with the masculine as it offered more functionality and austerity in male clothing and was linked with activities generally performed by men (Diego n.d.). In contrast, the feminine boudoir composed of an upholstered floral -patterned French cretonne and honey-colour walls made from lemonwood seen in image 3.3, making it the only room in the house which the materiality was applied to. This established distinct gender-oriented rooms where the men and the women spent most of their time in. The same could be said for the kitchen space where the

25

cupboards lack any form of visibility into the inside (refer to image 3.4) reflecting the notion that whilst men need to see to know where things belonged, the women would already know where something belongs.

Although Loos saw ornamentation as an unnecessary element in the interior, he was able to clearly design a space for the woman with architectural characteristics associated with the feminine, giving them some freedom to reclaim that space for their own.

Image 3.1 View of Adolf Loos’s Villa Mßller living room in Prague, Czech Republic (1930) Source: wikiarquitectura.com (n.d.)

26

Image 3.2 View of Adolf Loos’s Villa Müller library in Prague, Czech Republic (1930) Source: wikiarquitectura.com (n.d.)

Image 3.3 View of Adolf Loos’s Villa Müller Mrs. boudoir in Prague, Czech Republic (1930) Source: wikiarquitectura.com (n.d.)

27

Image 3.4 View of Adolf Loos’s Villa Müller kitchen in Prague, Czech Republic (1930) Source: wikiarquitectura.com (n.d.)

Influenced by Loos, who was the pioneer of the International Style of architecture, Philip Johnson’s Glass House was a canonical example of high modernist architecture but although it was regarded as a high modernist masterpiece, it was criticised for being unliveable due to the inconsideration towards domestic practises, focusing on aesthetic pleasure. Due to the gradual erosion of hierarchies in modern society, households became less reliant on servant work and introduced open plan interiors and large expanses of glass; it evoked masculinity in the home comprised of only the bare essential spaces – the kitchen, dining room, bathroom, study, bedroom and living room (refer to image 3.5). Even within these spaces, the sparseness of the interior as a result of a lack of decoration or furnishing, is an acknowledgement to minimalist aesthetics (refer to image 3.6). For Johnson, the 28

views of the exterior landscape acted as a visual extension of the interior space and the glass panes were considered an “expensive wallpaper” (theglasshouse.org n.d.). An editorial in The Guardian (1997) supported Johnson’s views, argued “people don’t want to be weighed down by layers of textiles, overstimulated by abundant patterns or crowded out by endless knick-knacks” (Leslie & Reimer 2003). The 360-degree glass view, constructed through industrial steel beams, dismissed domestic privacy and presented all views of the outside in which left the inhabitants exposed and self-conscious of being watched.

Image 3.5 Philip Johnson’s Glass House plan (1949) Source: sweeten.com (2010)

As spoken by Melchionne, the Glass House lacks liveability (comfort and casualness) and a certain degree of familiarity which made it fail as a full -fledged interior design (1998:191). The connection between repertoire of habits is linked with living in harmony with the house to have simultaneou sly achieved two things: it allowed one to do everything one normally does in a home and our habits ensure that we always do these things in a way that respects and reflects the artistic integrity of the space. He further argued that the art of interior design in the home should provide an aesthetic and functional solution to the organisation of the environment in which we cook, sleep, bath and lounge in to facilitate an 29

environment worthy of aesthetic attention and admiration ( Melchionne 1998). This alludes to how men used the domestic space to flex their wealth through what was being displayed. To continue this notion of exhibition, the furnishing and bric-abracs of the house have been marked with their original location (Melchionne 1998:191-192) which pressures the occupants to return the item back to its correct location and as a result, makes the space feel far from homely (refer to image 3.7).

Image 3.6 View of Philip Johnson’s Glass House’s interior (1949) Source: Riccardo Bianchini (n.d.)

Due to the restriction against moving the furniture let alone the small objects, the Glass House remains a work of art rather than a space which can be inhabitant by humans. Only when the inhabitant can coexist with the concept of hyperorganisation to maintain the original composition of the space , can one inhabit the Glass House, and the art of maintaining becomes a domestic practice where the body is dictated by the space.

30

Image 3.7 View of Philip Johnson’s Glass House’s desk (1949) Source: Eirick Johnson (n.d.)

However, the aesthetic differences between masculine and feminine are reflected within Vreeland’s New York apartment through the bold décor on the walls, furniture and memorabilia. Vreeland’s request to make her apartment look “like a garden, but a garden in hell” (Lawford 1975) translated to an overwhelming abundance of red: the flamboyant scarlet-flowered cotton walls, carpets, red-lacquered doors, closet linings, pictures frames, etc. which left no corner of her apartment subdued with décor (refer to image 3.8). This approach is carried into the dining room where the walls are adorned with bold stripes running down onto the matching couch and cushions, imitating a look akin to a preppy tent (refer to image 3.9). The overall atmosphere of the apartment evoked warmth, smoothness, comfort and privacy.

31

Image 3.8 View DianaofVreeland’s Diana Vreeland’s apartment apartment in New York, in New York, living space during the 1970s living space Source: Champion Pictures (n.d.)

Image 3.9 View of Diana Vreeland’s apartment in New York, dining room during the 1970s Source: Champion Pictures (n.d.)

Vreeland’s apartment became the embodiment of herself as women used interior decoration as a form of self-expression, seen through the abundance of memorabilia scattered throughout her home. Architectural Digest editor Valentine Lawford revealed that within Vreeland’s apartment, there is rarely any item big or small that has a nostalgic connection with its owner (1975). Vreeland’s redlacquered Chinese writing desk was submerged in memorabilia (refer to image 3.10) which emphasised the feminine notions of attachment – emotional and subjectivity (Havenhand 2004), so is the case for her dressing table seen in image 3.11. The apartment space is filled with flora of her liking, being green nicotiana and zinnias, old fashioned French striped roses, like tigers and piebald ponies (Lawford 1975) those of which reflect the elegance and grace she sees within human beings. “Grace” as Melchionne explains it to be, is when the homemaker seeks to accentuate the domestic dimension without destroying (1998:197) however, Vreeland presents herself as a colourful personality like her apartment which enables her to provide a reflection of herself within the private realm of the home.

32

Image 3.10 View of Diana Vreeland’s apartment in New York, dressing table during the 1970s Source: Champion Pictures (n.d.)

Image 3.11 View of Diana Vreeland’s apartment in New York, writing desk during the 1970s Source: Champion Pictures (n.d.)

On the opposite spectrum of colour choices, Wintour’s home comprised mainly of muted greys and blues with accents of patterns and like colours and although the interior was not as bold as Vreeland’s apartment, both spaces shared characteristics associated with the feminine agenda of modernism.

The living room although not small, featured stucco ornamented walls seen in image 3.12 which Wharton expressed as a form of decoration in the feminine drawing room. Additionally, the furniture and decoration in Wintour’s home reflected previously discussed feminine elements in the domestic realm, such being florals and chintz, repetitive patterns and ruffles. Rather than using netural, solid coloured blinds, sofas and cushions, a level of aesthetic interest is apparent within her home through the distinct patterns which also emphasises her role in taking charge of the domestic space and expressing herself as an individual.

Similarly, the library draws back on the concept of book spines being a form of ornamentation. In image 3.13, the floor to ceiling height bookcase provided the opportunity for the head of the house to flaunt their wealth of knowledge however , it also gave the woman freedom to have a reclamation of space within the library.

33

It should also be noted that throughout all the spaces within her home, there is a medium to high density amount of clutter on the tables, the fireplace lintel and at the end of the bed (refer to image 3.14 and 3.15), a reference to Leddy’s principle of clutter as a sign of liberation and reclamation of space.

Image 3.12 View of Anna Wintour’s home in Long Island, living room (1820) Source: Mark D. Sikes (n.d.)

It is evident between the first two masculine interiors and the later two feminine interiors that there was an visual aesthetic difference however, by connecting design elements within the case studies and the approaches explained in chapters one and two, it can be deduced that women who began to pursue interior design

34

used ornamentation, decoration and clutter within the home as a form of reclaimation of space and self-identity.

Image 3.13 View of Anna Wintour’s home in Long Island, living room (1820) Source: Mark D. Sikes (n.d.)

Image 3.14 View of Anna Wintour’s home in Long Island, library (1820) Source: Mark D. Sikes (n.d.)

35

Image 3.15 View of Anna Wintour’s home in Long Island, master bedroom (1820) Source: Mark D. Sikes (n.d.)

Conclusion The comparative study between the masculinity and femininity of the modern paradigm demonstrated the social and aesthetic differences of ornamentation, decoration and clutter within the home. It is revealed that the masculine agenda dominated the system of architecture through the maxim “form follows function” with a large crowd of architects being men. Further shown were men being the dominant figure in the home, as the home became a method to exhibit wealth and power.

Women were seen only as imitations of their male counterparts and family. Yet as the identity of modernism changed, so did views on femininity in the home and its relation to ornamentation, decoration and clutter. It is elucidated in chapter two that clutter can be viewed as a sign of liberation from the oppression that modernism placed upon them. The term “spatial feminism” was then adapted into the home to encourage women to pursue reclamation via ornamentation to highlight control over her space. It is expressed that women do have the qualities to create a home rather than a cold, emotionless place to return to after work as they can deliver the warmth and comfort a home needs through ornamentation, decoration and clutter.

It is through the visual analysis of the four case studies that the aesthetic differences reveal a distinct rift between the modern masculine interior and the feminine. Where the first two homes are devoid of decoration and clutter to portray the naked and unadorned characteristics of masculinity, the following two homes portray femininity through visible decoration and clutter.

Recognising how the role of ornamentation, decoration and clutter can add gender and identity to a space, it grants the understanding that clutter was not the result 36

of an unorganized behaviour but rather the attempt of modern women to express themselves in a society where they were previously oppressed in. The modern woman is no longer a copy of her husband and family but a person who can dominant and control her space through the ephemerality of clutter.

37

List of References Agrest, D.I. 1988, ‘Architecture from without: Body, Logic, and Sex’, Assemblage, No. 7, pp. 28-41.

Baydar, G 2012, ‘Sexualised productions of space’, Gender, Place and Culture, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 699-706.

Bergren, A 1996, The Sex of Architecture, Harry N. Abrams, New York.

Berry, F 2005, ‘Designing the reader's interior: Subjectivity and the woman's magazine in early twentieth-century France’, Journal of Design History, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 66-79.

Bilston, S 2019, ‘"Art at Home": WOMEN AND THE SUBURBAN INTERIOR’, The Promise of the Suburbs, pp. 64-113.

Chase, V 1996, ‘Edith Wharton, The Decoration of Houses, and Gender ’, Architecture and Feminism, 1 st edn, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

Crommelin, M & Shaw, C 1903, ‘Furniture and Decoration’, Some Arts and Crafts, pp.1-139, Chapman & Hall, London.

Dingle, T & O’Hanlon, S 1997, ‘Modernism versus domesticity: The contest to shape Melbourne's homes, 1945-1960’, Australian Historical Studies, Vol. 27, No. 109, pp. 33-48.

Fernald, A.E. 2008, ‘The Domestic Side of Modernism’, MFS Modern Fiction Studies, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 827-836, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland.

Franck, K 1989, ‘A Feminist Approach to Architecture: Acknowledging Women's Ways of Knowing’, Architecture: A Place for Women, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 38

Garrett, M 2018, ‘Interior decoration and domesticity in the women's penny paper/woman's herald’, Victorian Periodicals Review, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 289-306.

Havenhand, L.K. 2004, ‘A View from the Margin: Interior Design’, Design Issues, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 32-42.

Heynen, H 2005, ‘Negotiating domesticity: Spatial productions of gender in modern architecture’, Negotiating Domesticity: Spatial Productions of Gender in Modern Architecture, Routledge, Abingdon.

Le Corbusier 1961, The Modulor: A Harmonious Measure to the Human Scale Universally Applicable to Architecture and Mechanics , trans: Peter de Francia and Anna Bostock, Faber & Faber, London.

Leddy, T 1995, ‘Everyday Surface Aesthetic Qualities: "Neat," "Messy," "Clean," "Dirty"’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, Vol. 3, pp. 259-268.

Leslie, D & Reimer, S 2003, ‘Gender, modern design, and home consumption’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 293-316.

Lico, G.R.A. 2001, ‘Architecture and Sexuality: The Politics of Gendered Space ’, Humanities Diliman, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 30-44.

Lloyd, G 1984, The Man of Reason. “Male” and “Female” in Western Philosophy, MN: University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Loos, A 1971, Ornament and Crime, Innsbruck, reprint Vienna.

Mack, M 2008, ‘Modernity as an Unfinished Project: Benjamin and Political Romanticism’, Walter Benjamin and the Architecture of Modernit y, pp. 59-75.

McNeil, P 1994, ‘Designing Women: Gender, Sexuality and the Interior Decorator, c. 1890–1940’, Art History, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 631-657.

39

Melchionne, K 1998, ‘Living in glass houses: Domesticity, interior decoration, and environmental aesthetics’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 56, pp. 191200.

Parr, J 1999, ‘Domestic Goods: The Material, the Moral, and the Economic in the Postwar Years’, Histoire sociale / Social History, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 548.

Roth, D 2006, ‘Adornment as a method of interior design’, Studies in Gender and Sexuality, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 179-194.

Rybczynski, W 1987, Home: A Short History of an Idea, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Scott, B.K. 1990, The Gender of Modernism. A Critical Anthology, Indiana University Press, Bloomington Sparke, P 1999, ‘Nature, craft, domesticity, and the culture of consumption: The feminine face of design in Italy, 1945–70’, Modern Italy, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 56-78.

Stankiewicz, M 1992, ‘National Art Education Association from the Aesthetic Movement to the Arts and Crafts Movement’, Art Education, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.

165-173.

Sullivan, L 1896, ‘The Tall Office Building Artistically Conidered’, Lippincott's Magazine, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 406.

Thorstein, V 1899, The Theory of the Leisure Class, Macmillan, New York.

Van Der Werf, E 2009, ‘"A woman's nature is like a great house full of rooms": Edith Wharton's personal and fictional representation of homes ’, Home Cultures, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 179-197.

Wharton, E 1897, The Decoration of Houses, Pavilion Books, London.

40

Wolff, J 1985, ‘The invisible flâneuse. Women and the literature of modernity ’, Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 37-46.

Yanow, D 2010, ‘Form Follows Function?’, Public Administration Review, pp. 156158.

41

List of Websites Diego n.d., Leather in Masculine Interiors: A Beautiful Tradition , Diego Correa Interior Design, Accessed 30/11/19 <http://www.diegocorreainteriordesign.com/leather-in-masculine-interiors-abeautiful-tradition/> Lawford, V 1975, Former Vogue Editor Diana Vreeland's New York Apartment , Conde Nast, Accessed 23/11/19 <https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/diana -vreeland-new-york-apartmentarticle> Phaidon 2018, Philip Johnson’s Glass House – inside and out, Phaidon, Accessed 23/11/19 <https://au.phaidon.com/agenda/architecture/articles/2019/july/08/philip -johnsons-glass-house-inside-and-out/> The Glass House n.d., The Glass House, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Accessed 23/11/19 <http://theglasshouse.org/explore/the-glass-house/> This is Glamourous 2018, Décor Inspiration | Places: Anna Wintour’s Summer Home, Forge River, This Is Glamorous, Accessed 30/11/19 < https://www.thisisglamorous.com/2018/01/places-anna-wintours-summer-homeforge-river.html/> Wiki Arquitectura n.d., Villa Mueller, mirlostudio, Accessed 23/11/19 <https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/villa-mueller/>

42