On_Luxury_Jean_Michel_Frank_AA_Files_no

Prévia do material em texto

58
58
Mary Beard 3 Pompeii: The Art of Reconstruction
David Gissen 8 Debris
Martin Jameson 12 Project Runway
Reinhold Martin 14 History after History
Thomas Daniell 17 Living in aMaterial World
Joanna Merwood-Salisbury 20 On Luxury
Alessandra Ponte 28 François Dallegret in Conversation
Martino Stierli 42 The Power of Imagination
Brian Hatton 45 OutWhere? Venice Biennale 2008
William JR Curtis 50 Intersections: On Re-reading Le Corbusier
Shin Egashira 56 Border Vehicle
David Crowley 58 Love Among the Ruins
Colin Ashton 66 Once Upon a Looking Glass
Hajime Yatsuka 68 Autobiography of a Patricide:
Arata Isozaki’s Initiation into Postmodernism
Cédric Libert 72 Fictions
Sony Devabhaktuni 74 A Little Place Called Space
Kent Kleinman 78 An OpenWork
80 Contributors
aa files 58 21
In 1925 the youngFrench interior designer Jean-
Michel Frank instructedworkers inhis eight-
eenth-century apartment building on the rue
deVerneuil in Paris to strip thepaint from the
oakpanelling of its interiorwalls, leaving them
rawandunwaxed. Aphotograph from the time
shows a creasedwhite sheet over his Louisxiv
mahogany table and theoakparquet floor free
of any carpet or rugs, presentinghis newdining
roomasbare anddeserted as if its ownerwere
preparing toflee. This austere bachelor dwelling
was thefirst in a series of seemingly empty apart-
ments that Frankhaddesigned in collaboration
with the cabinetmaker AdolpheChanaux –first
for his friends and then soonafter for society
clients like theVicomte andVicomtesse de
Noailles – apartments thatwouldmakehis
name in fashionable circles as the ‘lastword in
modern’.1AsPierre-EmmanuelMartin-Vivier
notes in the introduction tohis recentmono-
graph, Jean-Michel Frank: TheStrangeandSubtle
Luxury of theParisianHaute-Monde in theArtDeco
Period, Frank’sworkdoesnot fit so easily into the
accepted rhetoric ofmodernism inwhichorna-
ment is overthrown in favour of utility and effi-
ciency, perhapsbecausehis clientswere very
wealthy, andhiswork is so obviously opulent in
itsmaterials andmanufacture. But despite
Frank’s relegation to the realmof interior design,
hisworkmayhold the key to an alternative archi-
tectural history, one that revolves not somuch
around thequestionof functionalismasof luxury.
During thefirst decades of the twentieth
century themeaningof luxurywasdebated at
all social and economic levels, from the fashion
magazines that published the apartments and
houses of the verywealthy to the architectswho
were concernedwith thedesignof theminimalist
dwelling. There is a correspondence, for example,
betweenFrank’s famousdeNoailles apartment
completed in 1925 andLeCorbusier’s Esprit
NouveauPavilion, his visionof a ‘standardised’
interior filledwithmass-produced ‘objet-types’,
displayed in the same year as part of the
Exposition Internationale desArtsDécoratifs et
IndustrielsModernes. The twodesigners shared
apassion for uncluttered rooms,whitewalls and
simple shapes, andboth focusedondesign for a
new ‘modern’ clientele, unencumberedby family
andpossessions.While Frank’s spare interior
designswere ‘poverty formillionaires, ruinous
simplicity’ (thephrase comes fromCocoChanel),
LeCorbusierwas explicit in attempting to create
anewkindof luxury for the commonman.
In a little-known1939 essay entitled ‘The
Dangers andAdvantages of Luxury’, the critic
andhistorian SigfriedGiedion summarised a
growing criticismofmodern architecture in its
seemingdisregard for beauty and emotional
expression in the face of anoverwhelmingneed
to serve the ‘strictly functional’.2 Instead, he
called for architecture to once again satisfy our
desire for luxury in a ‘legitimate and vitalway’.
Butwhile early histories ofmodern architecture
(ironically dominatedbyGiedion’s ownbook,
Space, TimeandArchitecture) assumed themod-
ern tobe characterisedby thedenial of luxury,
the termwasnot entirely absent fromdiscussion
anddebate at the timeand the concept doesnot
necessarily contradict accepteddefinitions of
modernismor even functionalism. Luxury, after
all, refers directly to the socio-economicdimen-
sionof design, an aspect close to thehearts of
themost radicalmodern architects. Itmight be
argued that luxury didnot cease tobe a central
concern in this periodbut simply tookonanew
form, that anewconcept of luxurywas central
to thephilosophy ofmoderndesign.
Luxury is a social signifierwithnofixed for-
mal definition. It is not an absolute condition
(‘luxurious’ and ‘not luxurious’) but a contin-
uum. Far frombeing stable and static, every cul-
ture andgeneration redefines luxury for itself.
In this sense it is a floating signifier attached to
different things indifferent times andplaces. As
such, it hashistorically been subject to continual
critique andeven legal restrictions in order to
maintain theproper display andacknowledge-
ment of social hierarchy. Traditionally, the archi-
tect has played a leading role inpolicing luxury,
determining that the size andornamental
schemaof a client’s house correctlymatches
their social standing. Alberti’s positionon the
matter, for example,was that ‘themagnificence
of thebuilding shouldbe adapted to thedignity
of the owner; and if Imay offermyopinion,
I should rather, in private edifices, that the great-
estmen fell rather a little short in ornament,
than they shouldbe condemned for luxury and
profusionby themorediscreet and frugal’.3
Theproblemof course (andone that perhaps
necessitates theprofessionof architecture) is that
standards keep changing. Luxury is perpetually
redefined inorder to keeppacewith cultural and
economic change. In earlymodernEurope, for
example, expenditure on luxury goods reflected
a rigidly hierarchical society, onewhere only those
of a particular aristocratic rank could exhibit cer-
tain formsof luxury in their dress, possessions
andhomes.Historianshave identified a transition
from ‘old’ to ‘new’ ideas of luxury in the seven-
teenth andeighteenth centuries, when thefixed
notionof luxury associatedwith the court pre-
ceded amorefluidonemadepossible by changing
patterns of production and consumption, in par-
ticular the rise of globalmarkets and the growing
social influence of thebourgeoisie.With this shift,
predetermined ideas of luxury gaveway to a taste
culturemeant to give pleasure by exciting the
senses.Oneprevailing taste no longer dominated.
Theproliferationofmass-produced luxury
goods in thenineteenth century necessitated
another paradigmchange. Tobe comfortable
and surroundedbypossessionswas tobehope-
lessly bourgeois. Both the avant-garde and the
fashion-consciousdesignerswho served the lux-
ury tradehada vested interest in rethinking the
meaningof luxury yet again. This reconsidera-
tion represented a challenge to the established
associationbetween thedisplay of luxury and the
economicmechanismsof consumption. For
thepolitically progressive, luxury in its traditional
formhadunwelcomeconnotations of class divi-
sion involving excessive consumptionon thepart
of thewealthy anddeprivationon thepart of the
poor. For the cultural elite, true luxury hadbeen
despoiledbymassproduction and the rise ofmass
consumption. The timewas ripe, simultaneously
at thehigh and lowendof themarkets, for anew
luxury aesthetic, onedefinedbyplainness rather
thandecoration, emptiness rather than abun-
dance, anonymity rather than individuality.
By 1925 this poverty formillionaireswas
explicitly targeted at anewgenerationof ‘mod-
ern’ urbanites. Frank’s earliest designswere for
his friends,manyof them (like theEnglishwriter
andpublisherNancyCunard, forwhomhe
designed a spartan, almost ghostly apartment
in 1924) artists andart patronswithprogressive
social views. Alongwith other early projects, the
Cunard apartmentwasdesignednot for a family
but for a single person (modernity in this sense
seemed tobewholly solipsistic and topreclude
family).Withher fascination for the arts and for
poetry, aswell as for various radical political
causes, Cunardwas representative of themodern
woman, unencumberedby relatives or posses-
sions.However Frank’s radicalredefinitionof
luxurywasnot directly politicallymotivated (his
avant-garde friends, notably AlbertoGiacometti,
despairedof his lack of interest in politics, even
asworld events forcedhim tofleeParis for South
America, then theUnited States). Instead, for
Frank, it was all largely amatter of taste.One
particularly important source of inspirationwas
the austere aesthetic sensibility of theChilean
society hostess andart patronEugeniaErrazuriz.
An early supporter of Picasso,MadameErrazuriz
was famed for her ascetic good taste. A devout
Catholic, late inher life she took religious instruc-
tionwearing robesdesignedbyCocoChanel
(perhaps exemplifying the commoncriticismof
Chanel’s iconic little blackdress that it wasnoth-
ingbut ahigh fashion versionof thenun’s habit).
In a 1938 article forHarper’sBazaar, Frank
described the influenceErrazuriz had exertedon
him: ‘In a salonofMadameErrazuriz –whether
On Luxury
Joanna Merwood-Salisbury
Jean-Michel Frank’s bedroom,
ruedeVerneuil, Paris, 1938
PhotoFrançoisKollar
DocumentationFélixMarcilhac, Paris
22 aa files 58
it is her little house inParis or her villa inBiarritz
– thewalls are always paintedwhite. Thefloor is
scrubbedwith soap andwater. There is a com-
fortable sofa andbig armchairs, somepieces
of severe Louisxvi, withbeautiful architectural
lines.On thewalls always onePicasso ormore.
At night a very clear light to accent theneatness.’4
Frank’s essay is accompaniedby aphotograph
of the front hall of Errazuriz’s Paris apartment
(thewingof ahousebelonging toComteEtienne
deBeaumont); ‘white, thefloor scrubbedand
shining. There is a plain oak armoire copied
fromanoldChinesepiece…Fordecoration she
hasused thehousehold implements that are
usually stowedaway inback-hall closets. A lad-
der and coat hanger painted iron gray. Awicker
trunk andbasket. Anumbrella, hangingona
hook, ready for use.’He concludesbyquoting
thewords thatmadeErrazuriz famous in inte-
rior design circles: ‘Elegancemeans elimina-
tion. Throwout andkeep throwingout.’ This
ideabecameamantra frequently repeated
andparaphrased, famously by that arbiter of
American fashion,DianaVreeland, andher
much-quoted aphorism ‘Elegance is refusal’.
Frank’s descriptionof Errazuriz’s front hall
displays all the characteristic tropes of high
modernism: simplicity, emptiness,whiteness,
the celebrationof everyday implements for their
aesthetic appeal, a desire for change andmobil-
ity, cleanliness, a lack of ornament anddecora-
tion. Following this formula, Frankmade a
name for himself as a society decorator.His con-
quest of the luxurymarket for interior design
was completewhen in 1925he renovated a series
of rooms in theHôtel Bischoffsheimat 13Place
desEtats-Unis, the sumptuous eighteenth-cen-
tury hôtel ofCharles andMarie-Laure, the
Comte andVicomtessedeNoailles. Patrons of
surrealist painters, sculptors andfilmmakers
including SalvadorDalí, Luis Buñuel and Jean
Cocteau, thedeNoailleswere thepreeminent
tastemakers for Parisian society. In 1923 they
established themselves as patrons ofmodern
architecture too,when they commissioned
RobertMallet-Stevens todesign their country
home, theVillaNoailles inBiarritz. The simul-
taneity of these twin commissions –Mallet-
Stevens for the rural residence andFrank for the
urbanone – reveals both the significance and
esteemwithwhichFrankwasheld. The fact that
onlyMallet-Stevens’ villamade itsway into
accounts of architecturalmodernism’s canonic
buildings seems to suggest that only half of its
history hasbeenwritten.
In takingon thedesignof thedeNoailles’s
salon, Frank aimed to challenge the ruling taste
in interior design inmuch the sameway as their
artist friends scandalised the artworld. Frank’s
self-described strategywas to ‘unfurnish’ the lav-
ishly decorated interiors, removingmost of their
furniture andobjects, replacing themwith a few
block-shapedpieces covered in rawmaterials
and stripping thewoodpanelling of its gilt and
paint so as to leave it exposed andunpolished.
The empty roomsandunexpected textures that
madeup the apartment, includingparchment,
snakeskin and straw,were thedesign equiva-
lents of surrealist artmadeby their friends.
AnticipatingMéretOppenheim’s fur tea-cup and
saucer (LeDéjeuner enFourrure, 1936), Frank’s
signature style playedoff the clashbetween the
inappropriately opulent and the everyday, and
came to include straw-coveredwalls, raw rock
crystal lamps, cubic ‘comfortable’ sofas covered
inwhite leather, u-shaped coffee tables, glass
cube vases, patinabronze andnatural silk fin-
ishes anda limitedpalette of colours running
the gamut fromwhite to beige.
FollowingFrank’s successwith thede
Noailles apartment, ‘unfurnished’ rooms lined
withunusualmaterials and leachedof colour
became thenewest style. The lastword in
Parisian luxurywasnot to imitate the ornamen-
tal style of Louisxvi, but to remove it altogether.
And yet the obviousparadox of all this removal
was that this new stylewas very expensive to
create. As thewriterMartinduGardobserved
in 1922, ‘Simplicitywasbecoming fashionable,
but in fact it cost the earth’.5
Sitting inher grandly empty salon, the
Vicomtessebecameanexpert in thenewmodern
style inher own right.6Alongwith Frank she
was invited to submit her philosophy ofmodern
decoration inHarper’sBazaar (her statement
immediately followed that ofMies vanderRohe).
‘I have a great feeling forwood’, shewrote, ‘all
sorts ofwood innatural surfaces, or plainly
painted;walls that have a very clean effect, pale
in colour andbeautifully kept… I amobsessedby
cleanliness…Therewouldbe a scarcity of furni-
ture, perhaps, though I love tufted-satin things,
or even chintz. Butmore than this I like the sim-
ple “kitchen” type of furniture – clean andneat.’7
TheVicomtesse’s descriptionof her ideal inte-
rior is not sodifferent from that self-appointed
arbiter ofmoderndesign, LeCorbusier, who
described a ‘pretty room’ as onewith ‘white
walls, awickerwork orThonet chair, a good
well-polished lamp, somecrockery ofwhite
porcelain… it is healthy, clean, decent.’ 8
BothMarie-LauredeNoailles, the society
tastemaker, andLeCorbusier, themaster archi-
tectural publicist, emphasised the sameaes-
thetic of cleanliness, emptiness and simplicity.
Howeverwhile the aristocrat publicly allowed
this aesthetic to be seen as a formof radical chic,
the architect attempted to remove from it any
hint of the capricious, fashionable or aesthetic
(their shared love for surrealism remainedunac-
knowledgedonapublic stage). For LeCorbusier,
this surrealism is best demonstratedbyhis
irresistible butmaddeningly elusiveBeistegui
apartment – abuilding conversion from1931
enigmatically capturedby ahandful of photo-
graphs inhisOeuvreComplète, showing amod-
ernopen roof terrace ‘decorated’ by anornate
fireplace andmirror, its grassed roof surface
recast as an absurdistal fresco living-roomcar-
pet – an exercise in exterior/interior designper-
hapsnowunderstandable through its clear
references to Frank’s owndesigns andparallel
architectural history. But despite this obvious
connection, for LeCorbusier thenew interior
wasnot the latest style but an essentially class-
less formof design answering to theuniversality
of basic humanneeds. Tobe luxurious in the
twentieth century, he argued,was to employ the
most progressive industrial design, aimedat
health, hygiene andefficiency. In the opening
chapter of his 1925bookTheDecorativeArt of
Todayhedescribed twomuseums: a traditional
museumfilledwith objects frompalaces and
elegant country houses, and amodernone con-
tainingwell-made everyday objects.
Let us put together amuseumof our ownday
with objects of our ownday; to begin; aplain jacket,
a bowler hat, awell-made shoe. An electric light
bulbwithbayonet fitting; a radiator, a table cloth
of finewhite linen; our everydaydrinking glasses,
andbottles of various shapes…Anumber of bent-
wood chairswith caned seats like those inventedby
Thonet of Vienna…Wewill install in themuseuma
bathroomwith its enamelledbath, its chinabidet,
itswashbasin, and its glittering taps of copperand
nickel.Wewill put inan Innovation suitcase and
aRoneofiling cabinet…Wewill also put in those
fine leather armchairs of the types developedby
Maples… in thiswayonewould come toappreciate
anewphenomenon characteristic of this period,
namely that the objects of utility usedby the rich
and thepoorwerenot verydifferent fromone
another, andvariedonly in their finishandmethod
ofmanufacture.9
These twomuseums illustrate old andnew
definitions of luxury. Theymark the transition
fromamiddle-class luxury thatmimics aristo-
cratic taste to anew luxury createdby and for a
classlessmodernman. LeCorbusier redefined
luxury not in termsof ornament anddecoration
but as anewphysical comfort via design that
exactlymeets bodily needswith theprecision
of amachine. ‘Trash is always abundantly deco-
rated’, hewrote, ‘the luxury object iswellmade,
neat and clean, pure andhealthy, and its bare-
ness reveals thequality of itsmanufacture.’10
The simultaneous expressionof high and
low versions ofmodern luxury led to some truly
startling claims formoderndesign. For example,
a 1929 article in theAmerican interior design
journalGoodFurniture andDecorationused
Frank’swork to illustrate the veryCorbusian
idea that:
For thefirst time inhistory a ‘style’ hasdevel-
opeddictatedby the economic requirements of the
averageman–not by the caprices of the privileged
few.Thenewmovement is deliberately class-con-
scious, but the roles havebeen reversed.Whereas
in thepast almost anymodest homehasbeen
aa files 58 23
designed inminiature on themodel of somemore
palatial residence, today thehomeof theaverage
man is scientifically designedwitha view to the
averageman’s requirements…Simplification
designed tomeet the requirements ofmass produc-
tion is thenatural outcomeof ademocratic age.11
Bizarrely, thephotographs chosen to accom-
pany this egalitarian ideal are of thedeNoailles
drawing room. Frank’s luxuriously empty interi-
ors for verywealthy patronswereused to illus-
trate amodern style that other architects hoped
wouldbe auniversal future condition.While the
rhetoric is confused, the implication is plain: the
homeof the aristocrat today is thehomeof every-
man tomorrow.
Lyingbeneath all discussions ofmodern
design, the future provisionof universal luxury
has longbeen a staple of religious texts, social
tracts andutopian visions. It defines
every sacreddescriptionof heaven
or the afterlife. Thepossibility of
universal luxury here on earth, how-
ever, is a definingprinciple of the
modern era. In eighteenth-century
Enlightenment philosophy, reli-
gious faith in a futureheavenly
realmwas replacedby thepossibil-
ity of an immediate good life on
earth,madepossible by industriali-
sation andurbanisation. The
rational organisationof a society
and its resourceswould relieve the
burdenof basic subsistence.
Luxurywasdeployed todescribe
the comfortable physical environ-
ment available to all in a reformed
society. For example, thefirst chap-
ter of AdamSmith’s economic trea-
tise,Wealth ofNations (1776), ends
withpraise for thedivisionof
labour andargues for a ‘universal
opulence that extends itself to the lowest ranks
of thepeople’. This universality of opulence
meant the satisfactionof fundamental physical
wants likenourishment,warmth and shelter.
For Smith it included ‘awoollen coat, a linen
shirt, shoes, a bed, a kitchen-grate and its coals’
and ‘kitchenutensils, furniture, knives and
forks, pewter plates, bread, beer, glasswin-
dows’.12This list is a catalogueof thebasic
accoutrements of humancomfort, as it was
defined in eighteenth-century England.
Thedreamof universal luxury continued to
expand in scale as the industrial era progressed.
Early nineteenth-century utopians took the
ideabeyond small householdpossessionswhen
they described thephysicalmake-upof a future
collectivist society.While eighteenth-century
religiousutopiaswere agrarian and rustic, and
rather dour anddrab in termsof design (built
as theywere around the satisfactionof basic
needs), nineteenth-century utopias like those
ofHenri Saint-SimonandCharles Fourier
attemptednot only to gratify basic desires but
to amplify them. In 1825 Saint-Simonwrote,
‘present circumstances favourmaking luxury
national. Luxurywill becomeuseful andmoral
when it is enjoyedby thewholenation. The
honour andadvantage of employingdirectly, in
political arrangements, theprogress of exact sci-
ences and thefine arts…havebeen reserved for
our century.’13 In these communities, not only
are basic physicalwants fulfilled, but all citizens
becomeparticipants in a culture and economy
of taste. Fourier’swas autopia of sophisticated,
urban (or at least suburban) pleasures.His
Phalanstery, or ‘unitary dwelling’, wasmodelled
after the aristocratic palace, nowgivenover to
thepeople. Inhis descriptionof its designhe
refers directly to theLouvre, theKing’s palace, in
particular itsmagnificent galleries.He adapted
thismodel into apublic ‘street gallery’, a contin-
uous enclosed sidewalk thatwouldprotect the
inhabitants of thePhalanstery in all weathers,
and referred to it as a ‘compoundor collective
formof luxury’.
Enlightenment thinkers fervently believed
that science and technologywouldmore than
supply all humanwants, leading to anatural
‘over-plus’ of luxury for all. FromSmith’s descrip-
tionof theworker’smost basic domestic needs
to Fourier’s appropriationof the royal palace as
anurbanmodel for collective dwelling,modern
architecture anddesignwerebornout of the
rationalisation andmassdisseminationof luxury.
This involveddefining it absolutely – giving it
very real formal andmaterial characteristics.
Universal luxury in this sensewas characterised
by anoverabundanceofmaterial comfort and
a reduction inhuman labour through the appli-
cationof technology to social needs. Reducing
labour andmaximising comfort, raising the
‘standardof living’ so that all are providedwith
slightlymore than enough, involves formalising,
cataloguing andquantifying the elements
of luxury. The acceptable standardof living is
amoving target, continually changing asnew
technologies are introduced andnewsocial
standards created.
Oneof themost famous attempts to quan-
tify, list, describe anddefine the spatial and
material characteristics of universal luxury
occurred inFrankfurt in 1929. In the same year
thatGoodFurniture andDecorationpromoted
thedeNoailles apartment as amodel for ‘the
homeof the averageman’, the sec-
ondciam conference convened to
address the topic of the ‘minimal
dwelling’, the infamous ‘existenz-
minimum’.Despite the austerity
implied in the title, the existenz-
minimumwas all about luxury.
The ideawasnot that the standardi-
sation and rationalisation associ-
atedwith theminimal dwelling
would lead tominimal lives, but
rather that apartments planned
using theseprinciples allowed for
theprovisionof luxurious accom-
modation for all. Though the
designs shown in the related exhi-
bitionwereundoubtedly small in
size by themiddle-class standards
of theday, they provided amenities
lacking in contemporaryworker’s
housing inmost European cities
(indeedmanyof the apartments
basedon this newhousingmodel,
including thosebuilt under thedirectionof Ernst
May outside Frankfurt, were too expensive for
most everydayworkers to afford, evenwhen sub-
sidisedby the government).However, efforts to
make individual homeswell designed andafford-
ablewere only onepart of thepuzzlewhen it came
to socially progressive visions of universal luxury.
The idea that luxury in the old sense of aesthetic
splendourwouldmoveout of theprivate realm
and into thepublic onewas also central.
Theminimal dwelling espousedbyciam
waspredicatedon themaximisationof commu-
nal public life. As hedescribed it inhis lecture
to the secondciam congress,WalterGropius’
concept of themodern lifestylewasmadepossi-
ble by a social transformation inwhich the tradi-
tional familywould cease tobe theprimary
social unit.With thedissolving of the tight socio-
economicboundsof family, an expanded social
and intellectual lifewouldproliferate outsidethehome.14While thehomeand family lifewere
reduced to aminimumin termsof space, the
Smoking room in theHôtel Bischoffsheim,home
ofCharles andMarie-LauredeNoailles, 1926
PhotoManRay
©Réuniondesmuséesnationaux, Paris
CourtesyRizzoli
Jean-Michel Frank’s bedroom,
ruedeVerneuil, Paris, 1930
DocumentationFélixMarcilhac, Paris
aa files 58 25
statewould take over theprovisionofmany
aspects of social life, providing themona lavish
communal scale outside of thehome in the form
of largepublic buildings like theatres,museums
and libraries. It was only becausepublic life
became so luxurious that the individual apart-
ment couldbe reduced in size.
In a trulymodern society, Gropiuswrote,
people could live as individualswithmuch
more freedomandmobility. Everybodywould
beprovidedwith a light, airy and comfortable
‘roomof one’s own’ (as the critic Roger Lannes
wrote of Jean-Michel Frank’swork, ‘La solitude
est bonne conseillère’15). The kindof self-reflec-
tive lifestyleGropius andother avant-garde
architects of the sameperiodpromotedwas
the kindof lifestyle that only thewealthy could
afford: likeNancyCunard, for example, an
emancipatedwoman living alone inher expen-
sively empty Paris flat.
In the rhetoric ofmoderndesignbetween
1925 and1929, true luxurymeant relief from
family ties and from theworld of things rather
than a simplemultiplicationof possessions
within the confines of the traditional home.
Luxury in the old sense of accumulationwas
stifling and corrupting. This viewwas supported
by turn-of-the-century economists and sociolo-
gistswho criticised contemporary luxury on the
grounds that displays of personalwealthpro-
moted cultural andnational degeneration. This
critique centredon the collapse of luxury into
the culture of consumption, a culture that ruined
not only thosewho could afford topurchase such
goods, but also thosewhowere condemned to
produce them. In thisway the emptymodern
interiorwas a reactionnot only to the over-stuffed
nineteenth-century bourgeois interior described
byWalter Benjamin andSigfriedGiedion, but
also to JacobRiis’ famousphotographs of sweat-
shops inNewYork’s LowerEast Side, showing
crowded tenement roomsfilledwithworkers
producing cheap items thatmimicked luxury
goods. These are roomsand lives swallowedup
bothby the consumptionof things andby the
economic system that produced them.
Modern architects definednew formsof
luxury formodernpeople, emancipated from
burdensomepossessions and regressive social
ties. Social critics like theAmerican economist
ThorsteinVeblen echoed this call for anew
formofmodern life characterisedby sober
asceticism.His famous critique of ‘conspicuous
consumption’ inTheTheory of the LeisureClass
(1899) reliedupon the argument that theuse
of ornament anddecoration for personal
aggrandisement reflected the collapse of old
social forms and the corrupting rise of a selfish
rather than emancipating individualism.He
claimed that the social andpolitical value of
luxury that Alberti haddescribed in termsof the
classical idea of ‘magnificence’, or the responsi-
bility of a good citizen todisplay hiswealth and
position,wasnow reduced to vulgar displaywith
no contribution to thewider social good, that
modern affluence creatednot community but
exclusiveness and elitism.Now rootedfirmly
in the eighteenth-century concept of ‘taste’,
or individual sensibility, luxury had come
unmoored from its social significance in away
that seemed toundermine rather than reinforce
social cohesion.While Veblen’s chief criticism
was amoral one (disguised as economic and
sociological), it was also aesthetic. Like other
progressive critics, he sawmiddle-class luxury
as profoundly ugly.Hewasparticularly scathing
about the fashion for theArts andCrafts, which
hedescribed as the ‘exaltationof thedefective’,
a formof luxury that flaunted its ownclumsy
manufacture and lack of fitness to its purpose.16
Thedenial of this defective andoutmoded
idea of luxury involved freedom fromconsump-
tion. Formodern luxury to be truly universal
it had tobe removed from the economic and
psychological pressures of consumer culture.
LikeVeblen, theGerman sociologistWerner
Sombart tied theproblemsof contemporary
luxury directly to the rise of capitalism. Inpartic-
ular he identified the increasing social desire
for luxury goodswith the increasing social and
political influence ofwomen. Prefiguring
LeCorbusier’s disdainful critique of the ‘false
taste’ of the ‘shopgirl’ in her ‘cretonneprint
dress’, andhis descriptionof thepassion for
decoration as an ‘abominable little perversion’,
Sombart coupled thebirth of personal luxury
to the growing and increasingly dangerous
influence ofwomen in society, in particular
locating the origins ofmodern luxury culture in
thefigure of the eighteenth-century courtesan,
awomanof such importance in courtly society
that shebecame the supremearbiter of taste.17
LikeAdolf Loos, Sombart assigned a sexual
motive to thedesire for finely craftedpersonal
possessions. Luxury goods satisfy thedesire
for sensuality, which is related to sexuality, he
argued. ‘In the last analysis’, hewrote, accom-
modating the theories of that other Viennese,
SigmundFreud, ‘it is our sexual life that lies at
the root of thedesire to refine andmultiply the
meansof stimulating our senses, for sensuous
pleasure and erotic pleasure are essentially
the same. Indubitably theprimary cause of the
development of any kindof luxury ismost often
tobe sought in consciously or unconsciously
operative sex impulses.’18For Sombart andoth-
ers, the growthof luxury tradeswas seen as
evidence thatGerman societywasbecoming
‘effeminate’ and, by implication,weak. The
desire for luxury goodswas enervating and
emasculating. The answer to theproblemwas
clear: thebanishment of ornament and comfort
in favour of asceticismand restraint.
The idea of abandoningornament in favour
of utility is often interpreted as a rejectionof
luxury. As Loos forcefully argued inhis famous
manifesto,OrnamentandCrime, the only solu-
tion to theproblemofmoderndesignwas to
repress thedecorative expressions of personal
desire.With thephysical remnants of an earlier
evolutionary periodnowoutgrown, thedesire
for richly decoratedmaterial goodswouldbe
sublimated into a love for thehigher arts.
This essay, foundational to the rhetoric ofmod-
erndesign, is often interpreted as a calling for
thebanishment of luxury altogether. In fact,
aswehave seen, thiswas simply part of the
modernproject to redefine luxury innew terms,
to give it new formsandnewpurposes.Modern
designerswere encouraged to turn their atten-
tion away fromconsumption and towards
production. The collective act of industrial pro-
ductionwas the true genius ofmodern society.
In 1922 theGermancritic Adolf Behne expressed
the idea in thisway: ‘Theundivided, circum-
scribed craftwork,whichwas always theworkof
an individual, dividedpeople into classes, rank,
guilds and individuals. But a divisionof labour
that is aidedby themachineworking for every-
oneunites people. Thus themachinewill con-
tribute to the formationof anewhuman
community.’19
In these terms, truemodern luxury lay in the
appreciationofmachine-madeprecision and
the collective advancement it provided. In this
newphilosophy, a cult of finelymilled, seem-
ingly industrially-producedobjects superseded
the cult of thehandmade. EileenGray once
claimed that ‘thepoverty ofmodern architecture
stems from the atrophy of sensuality’, but in fact,
as her ownwork amply demonstrates, anolder
standardof sensualitywas simply replacedby
anewone. Thehard, smooth and shinyfinishes
associatedwith technology became thenew
standards of luxury, andwith it thedisdaining
handof the educated consumer, someonewho
can feel andappreciatemachine-madequality,
replaced the roughhandof the craftsman
fetishisedbyRuskin andMorris. And it is in
these terms that Jean-Michel Frank’s austere
interiors fail tomeet the criteria of themod-
ernist canon, giving thema secondary place in
histories ofmoderndesign.While he embraced
the sleek formal aesthetic, Frankdidnotrepeat
themodernist exaltationofmachine-produc-
tion.Where LeCorbusier celebrated the virtues
of commonwhitewash, or ripolin, Frank
employed amore refined versionof this limited
palette described in aVogue feature as ‘oyster
white, goldengrey, soft yellows and tans, dull
gold, opaqueor translucent glass or crystal, gilt
bronze andothermetals’.20WhereLeCorbusier
used standardRoneooffice furniture inhis inte-
riors, Frankdesigned anofficedeskhandbound
inHermès leather.Where LeCorbusier cele-
brated standard-type objects likemass-pro-
ducedThonet chairs and laboratory glassware,
Frank’s use of the glass automobile radiator case
as a vasewasmore a formal joke than any argu-
26 aa files 58
1. GeorgeCayeaux, ‘TheModernismof
Jean-Michel Frank’,HouseandGarden,
September 1929, pp124, 166, 170.
2. SigfriedGiedion, ‘TheDangers and
Advantages of Luxury’, Focus (London),
vol 1, no 3, Spring 1939, pp34–39.
3. LeonBattista Alberti, Book9,Chapter 1,
TenBooks onArchitecture (De reaedific-
toria, 1452), trans. JamesLeoni
(London: AlecTiranti, 1955), p 187.
4. Jean-Michel Frank, ‘MadameErrazuriz
atHome’,Harper’sBazaar, no 2705,
February 1938, p 53.
5. Pierre-EmmanuelMartin-Vivier, Jean-
Michel Frank: TheStrangeandSubtle
Luxury of theParisianHaute-Monde in
theArtDecoPeriod (NewYork: Rizzoli,
2008), p 85.
ment in favour ofmassproduction. As emblem
to thesedifferences, in 1929Frankorganised a
costumepartywith the themeof ‘materials’, at
whichMarie-LauredeNoailleswore a supremely
non-functional dressmadeout of Frank’s signa-
ture sharkskin, acknowledging thatmodern
design involved sensuality, display andhumour
asmuchas itwas a serious attempt to engineer
the future. Although sleek andmodern in its
appearance, hiswork continued to rely on a cen-
turies-olddecorative traditionof craftworkshops
for itsmanufacture, a fact henever disguised.
In thiswayperhaps Frankwas simplymorehon-
est thanmanyof his contemporaries. After all,
the so-called ‘machine-made’ prototypes pro-
motedby the avant-garde consisted largely of
handmade facsimiles representing thepossibil-
ity rather than the actuality of industrial progress,
approximations of a future technical precision
not yet achieved.
Jean-Michel Frank’s expensively empty
Parisian interiors of the 1920s, then, are impor-
tant artefacts in thehistory of luxury. As such,
they are absent from thehistories ofmodern
design that define their subject in termsof lux-
ury’s absence.However, aswehave seen, the
contemporary debate over themeaningofmod-
erndesign involved theprovisionof anew form
of universal luxurywheremodernmenand
womenwould live like aristocrats. This debate
occupied early twentieth-century designers
just asmuchas thedebate over functionalism.
Although voiced in adifferent context,
Errazuriz’s aphorism, ‘elegancemeans elimina-
tion’, expresses the same sentiment as ‘less is
more’. Luxury didnot disappear, rather, plain-
ness and simplicitywere its newest guises.
alternative to thephysically fit and sexually
unambiguousuniversal inhabitant imagined for
modern architecture. Thepervasiveness of this
tragedy also consumedFrank’s extended family
– both elder brothers diedon the frontlinedur-
ing theFirstWorldWar; heartbroken at their
loss, his father committed suicide; andhis first
cousin, thediarist AnneFrank, later sufferedher
own tragic end. In 1941Frankhimself commit-
ted suicideby leaping fromanapartment build-
ingwindow inNewYork.While a fewpieces of
his furniture remain, the greatmajority of his
interiors have themselves been stripped away,
demolished, eliminated. They live ononly in
evocative but ghostly black andwhite photo-
graphs. And thoughhis brief life continues to
be celebratedwithin thepractical traditionof
interior design – a tradition that continues to
acknowledge the importance of luxury – it is all
but forgottenby architects. The carefully stage-
managed1925photographof his ruedeVerneuil
apartment seems, in this sense, to be eerily pre-
scient –what hasdisappeared from this interior
is not only an ingrained aesthetic traditionbut
also thedesignerwho initiated its removal and
thepresence of that designer in all subsequent
histories of design. The enduring, tragic even,
irony of Jean-Michel Frank, therefore, is of a life,
a body ofwork andahistory of thatwork charac-
terisedbybrief yet opulent overabundance
followedby immediate erasure and loss.
Pierre-EmmanuelMartin-Vivier
Jean-Michel Frank:
TheStrangeandSubtle Luxury
of theParisianHaute-Monde
in theArtDecoPeriod
Rizzoli, 2008
While LeCorbusier decried ‘gilt decoration
andprecious stones’ as ‘thework of the tamed
savagewho is still alive inus’,21he recognised
the continuedneed for emotional expression
indesign, because ‘at every level of society there
is a concern forwhat is amatter of sentiment:
adorningone’s surroundings tomake life less
empty’.22 In a strangewayhewas interested
in encouragingonekindof emptiness to replace
another: the emptiness of spiritual vacuity could
be eliminatedby the emptiness of awhite room
where one could truly think and feel. For Le
Corbusier, as for Frank’s society clientele,mat-
erial denial represented a search for universal
personal freedom.Themodern formof luxury
emphasised solitude inplace of family life;
simple comfort in place of ornament anddeco-
ration; andpublic rather thanprivate display.
Ultimately, Frank’s overtly sensual aesthetics,
andhis associationwith anolder decorative
tradition, fails tomeet the accepted criteria of
canonicalmodernismnot because of its formal
qualities but because of the lack of heroic rheto-
ric surrounding it; an absence of heroism that
extends even to Frankhimself. A Jewishhomo-
sexual disabled sincebirth, hepresented a tragic
6. OnMarie-LauredeNoailles see
LaurenceBenaim,Marie Laurede
Noailles: La vicomtesse dubizarre
(Paris: Grasset, 2001).
7. ‘I Don’t Like aHouseThatWags its
Tail’,Harper’sBazaar, op cit, p 55.
8. LeCorbusier,TheDecorativeArt
of Today (1925, reprint London:
Architectural Press, 1987), p 90.
9. Ibid, pp 17–18.
10. Ibid, p 87.
11. DorothyTodd, ‘Interiors by Jean-
Michel Frank’,GoodFurniture and
Decoration, vol 33, September 1929,
pp129–32.
12. AdamSmith,Chapter 1,Wealth of
Nations (1776).
13. Henri Saint-Simon, ‘Sketchof theNew
Political System’ (1825) inKeithTaylor
(ed),Henri Saint-Simon1760–1825:
SelectedWritings onScience, Industry
andSocialOrganisation (London:
CroomHelm, 1975), p 203.
14. WalterGropius, ‘The Sociological Prem-
ises for theMinimumDwelling ofUrban
Industrial Populations’, inTheScope
ofTotal Architecture (NewYork, 1950),
pp 104–18. This is the text of his lecture
presented at the secondciam confer-
ence in Frankfurt in 1929. SeeEric
Mumford,TheciamDiscourse on
Urbanism, 1928–1960 (Cambridge,ma:
mit Press, 2002) and ‘TheNewDwelling
and its Interior Structure’ exhibitionby
theFrankfurtHousingOffice.
15. Roger Lannes, ‘Exégèsepoetiquede
Jean-Michel Frank’,Art etDécoration,
January 1939, p 4.
16. ThorsteinVeblen,TheTheory of the
LeisureClass (1899, reprintNewYork:
Prometheus, 1998), pp 162–64.
17. Werner Sombart, LuxuryandCapitalism
(1913). This bookwas a companion
volume tohis 1902Marxist economic
critique,ModernCapitalism.
18. Ibid, p 95.
19. Adolf Behne, ‘Art, Craft, Technology’
(1922) in FrancescoDalCo (ed), Figures
of Architecture andThought (NewYork:
Rizzoli, 1990), p 336.
20. ‘ModernRooms inBrownandBeige
(Decorationsby JMichael Franck [sic])’,
Vogue, 2March1929, p 73.
21. LeCorbusier, op cit, p 10.
22. Ibid, p 186.
Dining room in Jean-Michel Frank’s apartment,
ruedeVerneuil, Paris, 1925
DocumentationFélixMarcilhac, Paris;
Opposite: Portrait of Jean-Michel Frank, 1935
PhotoRogi André,©BibliothèqueNationale
CourtesyRizzoli
MaryBeard is Professor ofClassics atCambridge, a fellow
ofNewnhamCollege andClassics editor of the tls. Her
books includeTheRomanTriumph (2007) andPompeii:
The Life of aRomanTown (2008). Shehas recently given the
Sather Lectures at theUniversity ofCalifornia, Berkeley
on ‘RomanLaughter’.
DavidCrowley is a senior tutor in thedepartment ofHistorical andCritical Studies at theRoyalCollege of Art in
London.He teaches aspects of cultural history in thenine-
teenth and twentieth centurieswith aparticular focus on
theway everyday objects are inscribedwith ideology.His
courses, taught as part of theHistory ofDesignprogramme,
explore theway inwhich currents likenationalismshape
material culture.Hehasbeen the recipient of research
grants from theBritishCouncil, theArts andHumanities
ResearchCouncil and theBritishAcademyandwas curator
of the 2008 ‘ColdWarModernDesign: 1945–1970’ exhibition
at thev&aMuseum inLondon.
William JRCurtis is a historian, critic, painter andphotogra-
pherwhohas taught inmanyuniversities around theworld.
He is the author of numerousbooks includingModern
Architecture Since 1900 (1982), LeCorbusier: IdeasandForms
(1986),BalkrishnaDoshi: AnArchitect for India (1988) and
Denys Lasdun: Architecture, City, Landscape (1994).He
contributes regularly to international journals such as
ElCroquis andTheArchitecturalReview andhis drawings
andpaintingshavebeen exhibited at theMuseumof Finnish
Architecture, theCirculodeBellas Artes and theCarpenter
Center,HarvardUniversity.Hismost recent publication
is Structures of Light (2007) a catalogueof an exhibitionof
his ownphotographs at theAlvar AaltoMuseum inFinland.
FrançoisDallegret is an artist and architectwhowasborn in
Morocco, studied architecture at theÉcole desBeaux-Arts
inParis, and left France in 1963, first forNewYork and then
Montreal, Canada,wherehe currently lives andworks.
Over the last 50 years hisworkhas encompassed thedesign
of outlandish automobiles, rockets andmachines; tempo-
rary structures for Expo67 inMontreal; a science-fiction
western; a drugstore, gallery anddiscotheque; andnumer-
ous other installations andobjects. Since thefirst, pioneer-
ing exhibitions of his ‘mechanical drawings’ at the IrisClert
Gallery inParis in the early-1960s, hehas continued to
exhibit atmuseumsandgalleries all over theworld. A selec-
tionof hiswork is currently on showat theCanadianCentre
for Architecture,Montreal as part of the ‘Total Environment:
Montreal 1965–1975’ exhibition.
ThomasDaniell is a practising architect, critic and educator
based inKyoto, Japan.He is anAssociate Professor at
Kyoto SeikaUniversity, a Visiting Fellowat thermit Spatial
InformationArchitecture Lab anda frequent guest speaker
and juror at universities and symposiumsworldwide.Widely
published, he is currently a correspondent and editorial
advisor for theDutchpublicationsArchis/Volume andMark,
andwaspreviously on the editorial boardof theArchitectural
Institute of Japan Journal. Hismost recent book is an anthol-
ogy of essays,After theCrash: Architecture inPost-Bubble
Japan (2008).
SonyDevabhaktuni is an architect living inParis.He is
currentlyworkingonadegree in Indian studies at the
Sorbonne, Université deParis iiiwherehis research focuses
on the relationshipbetween the architectural treatise and
built workwithin the Jain tradition.
ShinEgashira isUnitMaster ofaaDiplomaUnit 11. Before
coming toLondonheworked as an architect inTokyo,
Beijing andNewYork.Hehas exhibited artwork andarchi-
tectureworldwide and is the author ofBeforeObject, After
Image (2006), whichdocuments theworkshophehas organ-
ised in the remote Japanese village ofKoshirakura each
summer formore than adecade.
DavidGissen is Assistant Professor of ArchitecturalHistory
andTheory at theCaliforniaCollege of theArts, San
Francisco. The essay in this issue of aa Files is fromhis forth-
comingbook, Subnature: Architecture’sOtherEnvironment.
His other recentwriting, for ad, Log andGreyRoom,advo-
cates new formsof geographical and experimentalmethods
in architectural history.
BrianHatton teaches at theaa, GreenwichUniversity and
Liverpool JohnMooresUniversity.He is theLondon corre-
spondent for Lotus andhaswritten as ahistorian and critic
onboth art andarchitecture forArt Forum,BuildingDesign,
the Journal of Architecture andTheArchitecturalReview, for
whomheguest edited a special issue onLiverpool in January
2008.He is particularly interested in interdisciplinary activi-
ties between art andarchitecture, andhaswritten studies
on site-specific art,monuments,DanGraham,Langlands&
Bell,montage and theproblemsofmuseumexhibition.
KentKleinman is theGale and IraDrukierDeanof
Architecture, Art andPlanning atCornell University. In 1992
hewas aVisitingProfessor at the Institut fürWohnbau,
TechnicalUniversity, Vienna,wherehemet JanTurnovský.
Cédric Libert is aBelgian architectwhograduated from the
isall Liège and theaa’sdrlprogramme.His practice
anorak hasbeen exhibited inChina, France, theuk, Italy
and theNetherlands. Alongsidehis professionalworkhe
teaches at the isacf LaCambre School of Architecture in
Brussels, andbetweenNovember 2008 and July 2009he
hasbeen curating a cultural seasonof events inParis titled
‘Espèces d’Architecte’, which consists of a series of exhibi-
tions, performances and talks. ‘L’AlibiDocumentaire’
(elements ofwhich are shownhere in aa Files) was one
of those exhibitions, exploring the relationshipbetween
architecture andphotography.
ReinholdMartin is Associate Professor of Architecture in the
Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, andPreservation
atColumbiaUniversity, wherehedirects the phdprogramme
in architecture and theTempleHoyneBuell Center for the
Study of AmericanArchitecture.He is a founding co-editor
of the journalGreyRoom, a partner in the researchpractice
Martin/Baxi Architects andhaspublishedwidely on thehis-
tory and theory ofmodern and contemporary architecture.
He is the author ofTheOrganisationalComplex (2003) and
the co-author,withKadambari Baxi, ofMulti-NationalCity
(2007).His newbookonpostmodernism, titledUtopia’s
Ghost, will be published in 2010.
JoannaMerwood-Salisbury is Assistant Professor at Parsons
TheNewSchool forDesignwhere she lectures on architec-
ture, urbanismand interior design.Her book revaluating the
early history of the skyscraper,Chicago1890:TheSkyscraper
and theModernCity, is forthcoming inMarch2009.With
KentKleinmanandLoisWeinthal she is currently compiling
an anthology of contemporarywriting on interior design
titledAfter Taste.
AlessandraPonte is professeure agrégée, École d’architec-
ture,Université deMontréal, andhas taught history and
theory of architecture and landscape at Pratt Institute in
NewYork, PrincetonUniversity, Cornell University, theeth
in Zurich and the InstitutoUniversitario di Architettura in
Venice. Shehaswritten articles and essays innumerous
international publications, publishedbooks onRichard
PayneKnight and the eighteenth-century picturesque
and co-edited,withAntoinePicon, a collectionof essays,
Architecture and the Sciences (2003). She is currently complet-
ing researchon theAmericandesert andpreparing an
exhibition for theCanadianCentre for Architecture titled
‘Total Environment:Montreal 1965–1975’ (March2009).
MartinoStierli is an art historianwhosework focuses on
modern art andarchitecture.He is a postdoctoral fellowat
thenccr ‘IconicCriticism’ (eikones) project at theUniversity
of Baselwith a researchproject on collage in architecture.
Co-curator of the international travelling exhibition, ‘Las
Vegas Studio’, he teaches at theUniversity of Zurich and
ateth Zurich, and is currently preparing thepublication
of his phd thesis onVenturi, Scott Brownand Izenour’s
Learning fromLasVegas.
HajimeYatsuka is a Japanese architect and critic.Hewas edu-
cated at theUniversity of Tokyo, studyingunderKenzoTange
andSachioOtani. After graduating in 1975, heworked for
Arata Isozaki from1977 to 1981 and then establishedhis
ownoffice,upm, in Tokyo in 1982. Since 2003hehasbeen
Professor of Architecture at Shibaura Institute of Technology.
His built works include theAngelloTarlazzi shop (1987),
aMediaCentre in Shiroishi (1997) anda folly inEchigo
National Park (1998). As a critic hehaswrittenbooks on the
Russian avant-garde,metabolismandMies vanderRohe
in addition to contributing tonumerous international jour-
nals, includingOppositions,ElCroquis,Archis andCasabella.He is currentlyworkingonabook andexhibition titled
MetabolismNexus.
Contributors