Key Design Movements and Groups, 1850–2000: Activist, but Where, and for Whom or What?
British Arts and Crafts [A&C]
Dates: 1850–1914
Motives and intentions: Opposed industrial mass production in favour of the ‘useful and beautiful’
Form-giving: Natural ornamentation, clear simple, structured forms, handcrafted with vernacular influences generating simplicity and utility
Target audiences: Art Academies and the Art and Craft Guilds, including the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society
Beneficiaries: Emergent design culture – Art and Craft Guilds, the emerging Deutscher (German) Werkbund and Art Nouveau movements, bourgeois middle-class socialists?
Sustainability elements:
Economic: Outputs from the A&C movement remained the preserve of the better off, not the masses
Ecological: Anti-industrial pollution
Social: Advocate better working conditions in factory production; artefacts with functionality, usefulness and beauty to improve life and encourage positive social change; believed in the social importance of craft and community Institutional: Progression of the Art & Craft Guilds but failed in the social experiment to return to handicraft production
Art Nouveau
Dates: 1895–1910
Motives and intentions: Rejected ‘historicism’ and poor quality industrial production; refined early Arts & Craft thinking for an artistic reformation of life from objects to architecture; heavily influenced by scientific discoveries about natural world
Form-giving: Stylized but organic natural or geometric forms – a style adopted by Belgium, France, Germany (Jugendstil), Austria (Sezesionstil), Italy (Stile Liberty), Spain (Modernista) and so regarded as the first international style
Target audiences: The old Art Academies
Beneficiaries: The rise of individual artists designing everything from glassware to furniture, interiors and complete buildings
Sustainability elements:
Economic: Brought new economic life to ceramics, glassware, furniture and architectur
Institutional: Helped promote individuals as new artists as institutions – the first auteur designers?
Vienna Workshop to Vienna Modern
[Koloman Moser and Josef Hoffman to Adolf Loos]
Dates: 1903–1920s
Motives and intentions: Reduction of décor to rejection of ornamentation and drawn to early geometric abstraction
Form-giving: Increasingly ‘modern’ pared down, objective designs, with functional styling
Target audiences: Rejection of Jugendstil and, ornamentation, especially by Loos
Beneficiaries: Stimulus for the German Werkbund and Bauhaus movements
Sustainability elements:
Institutional: Helped emerging institutions towards ‘modern’ industrial design and production
Deutscher Werkbund
Dates: 1907–1935 and 1945–present
Motives and intentions: Seeking a new path towards modern industrial design through the adoption of more formal approaches to function
Form-giving: Early functionalism, standardized furniture and household objects
Target audiences: Reform of industry and its methods of production – blending art, industry and handicrafts – towards mass production
Beneficiaries: Industry, the working class; the emergence of full-blown Functionalism and the Modern Movement
Sustainability elements:
Economic: The creation of inexpensive objects for the working class; utilitarian production methods realized while giving affordable quality by designers such as Richard Riemerschmid, Peter Behrens and Josef Maria Olbrich
Social: Improving people’s lives through improved household objects and furniture and living conditions; improved working conditions in factories, e.g. those designed by Walter Gropius and Peter Behrens
Institutional: Internal institutional tussle between the pro-standardization and industrialization advocates and the pro-individualization, craftsmanship advocates
Dates: 1909–1917
Motives and intentions: Adulation of technology, speed and abstraction of form, all in the name of progress
Form-giving: Forms suggested the dynamism of the ‘machine’, separated from nature and glorifying the city; expressive rather than conventional typographic designs
Target audiences: Other artists, designers and architects of the era who affirmed ideas of the Age of the Machine
Beneficiaries: All future design movements allied to the notion of technology for progress
Sustainability elements:
Social: Sought order through extreme radicalism and to upset the existing bourgeois culture
Constructivism
Dates: 1917–1935
Motives and intentions: Rejection of art and design’s traditional role of representation; a new culture of materials
Form-giving: Dynamic aesthetic of the Age of the Machine; utopian architecture and planning; anti-emotional, anti-personal; suprematists’ motifs – dynamic and modern
Target audiences: In service to a ‘new society’; propaganda for Soviet government; mass production; introduction of artistic aesthetic in production
Beneficiaries: Soviet mass-produced goods manufacturers
Sustainability elements:
Social: Aimed at more democratic production and distribution of goods by utilitarian ‘production art’ and architecture – in reality much of the output of the Constructivists was limited to exhibitions
De Stijl
Dates: 1917–1931
Motives and intentions: Absolute abstraction – form, surface and colour; a new aesthetic purity and philosophy in art and design
Form-giving: Search for a functional aesthetic – simplified geometric form; limited colour palette
Target audiences: Modernization of technical industrial production; radical change to art and design education
Beneficiaries: All future design movements, especially the Bauhaus and early Modern Movement
Dates: 1919–1933
Motives and intentions: A new educational structure to provide artistic advisory services to industry, trade and craft; to create a foundation for Modernism and Functionalism
Form-giving: Search for a functional aesthetic; unornamented forms of the modern style
Target audiences: Educational establishments of the day in the ‘creative arts’; industry – from ceramics, metalwork, furniture, lighting to architecture
Beneficiaries: The students and teachers at the Bauhaus; the lucky few that lived in the new affordable housing created by the Bauhaus; German industry in general; introduction of the concept of the ‘white-collar’ worker; all subsequent design movements and design education as the Bauhaus remains influential to the Modern Movement today
Sustainability elements:
Social: 1919–1925 ‘Weimar’ Bauhaus (director is Walter Gropius) – ‘making’ is an important social, symbolic and intellectual endeavour; design in the service of society. 1926–1932 Dessau Bauhaus (directors included Gropius, Hannes Meyer, Mies van der Rohe. Meyer was a Communist and believed in creating practical, affordable products for working class consumers. Inexpensive housing, and ‘apartment for minimum living standards’ for the masses was a key objective under Ernst May and architect Ferdinand Kramer; under Hannes Meyer. Weissenhof Settlement in Stuttgart 1927 – Gropius, Mies van der Rohe, Jacobus JP Oud and Le Corbusier
Institutional: Challenged the social and political structures of industry and kept ‘affordability’ at the forefront of the debate – this was perhaps most dramatically hijacked by the emerging fascist regime with the Volksempfänger ‘People’s Radio’ in 1928 and later the Volkswagen car in 1938
International Style
Dates: 1920–1980
Motives and intentions: Creation of an international language of form in architecture and design evolved directly from the Bauhaus and the Modernists such as Le Corbusier, JJP Oud, Walter Gropius and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Form-giving: Clarity of design, free of decoration and an emphasis on volume not mass; rationality and a Functionalist aesthetic that gave voice to a universal style able to transcend national (and cultural) boundaries
Target audiences: An emerging design cognoscenti and rich clients, especially the early transnational companies
Beneficiaries: Transnational companies and a few ‘iconic’ designers that worked in a trans-cultural environment opening the way for manufacturers looking for global solutions
Sustainability elements:
Economic: Transnational companies were able to create a recognizable style, a brand, that had international value
Institutional: Targeting of corporations as a style statement
Dates: 1920–1939
Motives and intentions: Reaction to the Functionalism of the German Werkbund – introduction of luxurious ornamentation and decoration from exotic sources
Form-giving: Luxury crafted artefacts and deliberate stylistic elements of decorative value taken up by industry to ‘sell a lifestyle’
Target audiences: The wealthy who could afford Art Deco ‘one-offs’; industry who found a new aesthetic to package their wares
Beneficiaries: Corporations who adopted the ‘style’ as a symbol of luxury and power; raised the aesthetic sensibility of the mass consumer; Hollywood glamour
Sustainability elements:
Economic: Industrial manufacturing of consumer ‘style’
Social: Affordable representation of luxury – selling the idea of well-being by consumption;
Institutional: Corporations’ realization of the power of design to brand products and the company
Streamlining
Dates: 1930–1950
Motives and intentions: A methodology of aerodynamic design later subverted to styling as ‘progress’ to facilitate mass consumption
Form-giving: Function and technology discreetly hidden by streamlined, ‘teardrop’ and biomorphic forms
Target audiences: The mass consumer – buying their way out of the Great Depression in the US
Beneficiaries: The manufacturing industry
Sustainability elements:
Economic: Product obsolescence by restyling and shortening the ‘product life cycle’ enabled industry to sell new generations of products
Dates: 1930–1960 and 1990–present
Motives and intentions: Contemporary art of 1940s and 1950s expressing ideas of biomorphic, organic forms were introduced into the design world with a holistic approach – to extend the choice for the consumer by reinterpreting spatial and form arrangements
Form-giving: Organic, fluid, anthropomorphic forms where the overall effect is greater than the sum of its parts, capturing the spirit of nature
Target audiences: A growing design cognoscenti willing to acquire designs to differentiate status
Beneficiaries: Organic popular forms of late 1960s designs and 1990s onwards with advent of computer-aided design, CAD; middle- to high-end furniture and lighting manufacturers Sustainability elements:
Economic: Specialist sectors of the manufacturing industry, especially furniture
Ecological: The context of the surrounding environment was integrated into design considerations
Social: Desire to connect users with the functional, ergonomic, intellectual and emotional dimensions of the artefacts, often through choice of natural materials, to enhance quality of life
Post-War: Utility Design and Good Design
Dates: 1945–1958
Motives and intentions: A phenomenon linked to the establishment of the UK’s Council for Industrial Design (later the Design Council) to promote good design values
Form-giving: A combination of Functionalism, Rationalism of production, light- weighting and simplicity – endorsed by the Good Design label, a mark of quality
Target audiences: British industry and the emerging consumers
Beneficiaries: Middle and lower income consumers; some manufacturers; Good Design was similar to and influenced ‘Good Form’ in Germany
Sustainability elements:
Economic: Specialist sectors of the manufacturing industry, especially furniture Social: Affordable, durable and reliable design for the masses
Post-War: Good Form and Bel Design
Dates: 1945–1958
Motives and intentions: Introduction of rationalization in the mass production of consumer electronic/electrical goods, furniture and lighting
Form-giving: Combining advances in manufacturing technologies and materials (especially plastics) with new functional aesthetics
Target audiences: German and Italian manufacturing industries; European consumers
Beneficiaries: European manufacturing and consumers
Sustainability elements:
Economic: Growth and differentiation of manufacturing industries in Europe Social: Increased consumer choice
Dates: 1958–1972
Motives and intentions: Rejection and critique of post-war Functionalism and Modernism by virulent and pluralistic counterculture initiatives; drawing from a palette of ‘low art’ contemporary life; initially socially conscious later became its own consumerist fiesta of everyday products
Form-giving: Fusion of pop and commercial art, fashion and experimental, exotic forms using a new generation of plastics, often eliciting an ephemeral or gimmicky ethos
Target audiences: New visions of mass consumption via counterculture
Beneficiaries: Mass manufacturers, retailers and consumers; contributed to early ideas of pluralism so vital to the emergence of Postmodernism
Sustainability elements:
Economic: Manufacturing and retailing industries
Social: Initially a flourishing of inexpensive consumer choice replaced by mass production of cheap, poor quality products
Anti-Design
Dates: 1968–1978
Motives and intentions: Italian-led counterculture movement with many Radical design groups (see below) with critical philosophical, political and social consciousness; rejection of ‘Bel design’ and its use as a status symbol and an attempt to revalidate individual creative expression
Form-giving: Disruption of existing form patterns by exaggeration of size, abstraction of shape, or other means influenced by Surrealism
Target audiences: The design and political ‘establishment’; art and design educational institutions
Beneficiaries: Early Postmodernists; specialist manufacturing companies in Italy; individual designers and certain design groups; the root of the ‘designer’ label cachet
Sustainability elements:
Social: Queried the relationship between artefacts and human existence; anti- consumerist position
Radical Design Groups
Dates: 1968–1978
Motives and intentions: A more theoretical, radicalized and experimental example of Anti-design promoted by groups such as Archizoom, Superstudio, UFO, Gruppo Strum and Global Tools. Focus on utopian projects to reposition the meaning of Modernism – questioned the validity of Rationalism, advanced technology and consumerism
Form-giving: Eclectic, experimental, ‘provocative projections’, borrowing from
everything from Pop design to the classics and Arte Povera
Target audiences: Design and consumer culture
Beneficiaries: The proto-Postmodernists
Sustainability elements:
Social: Examined user interaction and participation through ‘happenings’ and installations in an attempt to bring some spontaneity back into consumer–product relationships
Institutional: Queried the purpose of design in contemporary culture within design and cultural institutions
Alternative Design
Dates: 1970–1980?
Motives and intentions: Social critique of design by a range of individual designers and groups promoting ideas of appropriate technology, recycling, permaculture design and questioning the implicit rationale of consumerism
Form-giving: Experimental and recycling aesthetic – overt use of materials obviously reused or recycled; practical systems drive aesthetic considerations
Target audiences: Consumer, manufacturing and design culture
Beneficiaries: The designers and design groups themselves; mainstream social and commercial life little affected
Sustainability elements:
Ecological: Recycling, redesign, alternative manufacturing methods
Design for Need
Dates: 1965–1976
Motives and intentions: Social, economic and ecological critique of design; early critique of globalization
Form-giving: Alternative and appropriate technology; light-weighting; efficient resource use; form for ‘well-being’; ergonomics that were inclusive and universal access
Target audiences: Design culture and disadvantaged groups
Beneficiaries: Certain disadvantaged sectors of society – people with disabilities; Postmodern ecologists; and much later ‘eco-design’
Sustainability elements:
Economic: Suggested new models of manufacturing
Ecological: Localization, use of local materials
Social: Improvements in quality of life for disadvantaged sectors of society; refocusing from ‘form’ to ‘content’
Institutional: Suggested significant institutional change was needed in design education, practice and policy development
Dates: 1969–present
Motives and intentions: Critique of design that does not consider ecological factors or limitations or the strength of local cultural and social knowledge; early critique of globalization
Form-giving: Form strongly influenced by site, locality, local culture
Target audiences: Design culture
Beneficiaries: Other Postmodern ecologists and a raising of the general consciousness of design culture to environmental issues
Sustainability elements:
Ecological: Site and bio-regional considerations balanced with global impacts Social: Welfare and well-being of users
Postmodernism
(Postmodern Design)
Dates: Started 1960s, emerged mid-1970s and continues to the present day
Motives and intentions: Egoistic, self-interested and elitist control of ‘good form’ and Functionalism, as represented in late 20th century Modernism, rejected by those who saw a ‘classless’ society with pluralistic tastes; influenced by the emerging field of semiotics – the study of signs and symbols in cultural communication
Form-giving: Pluralism – any form you want is OK; borrow from any historical, traditional or contemporary source and hybridize new forms to create ambiguity and social friction, e.g. rich ornamentation with minimalist forms; explosion of new electronics and ICT offered new options for form-giving; forms speak to a globalizing world economy
Target audiences: Design and mass consumer culture; the design cognoscenti; design-led manufacturers
Beneficiaries: Design and mass consumer culture; manufacturing industries for consumer markets who exploited the aesthetics of Postmodernism to sell ‘status’ – especially to the elite who could afford them. Early Postmodernists, e.g. Studio Alchimia, Italy, tried to genuinely forge a new, more meaningful, relationship between people and products thereby humanizing design’s impacts; however, their outputs remained the preserve of the elite and intellectual design world
Sustainability elements:
Institutional: Triumph of capitalism over the social ideology of the Modern Movement signalling another surge in mass consumption fuelled by credit borrowing
Dates: 1980–1990?
Motives and intentions: Celebration of diverse metropolitan life, one-offs to small batch production to remain independent of industry
Form-giving: Eclectic, searching for new subverted forms of Functionalism
Target audiences: Design culture and design cognoscenti and design-led manufacturers
Beneficiaries: Some emerging ‘iconic’ designers, e.g. Starck, Arad
Sustainability elements:
Ecological: Promotion of the use of recycled, reused and durable materials by some designers
High-Tech Design
Dates: 1972–1985 and 1995–present
Motives and intentions: Celebration of the progress of science and technology
Form-giving: Stylistic convergence to show the technology ‘on view’ in everything from electronic products to buildings driven by miniaturization, computerization and high-tech materials
Target audiences: Industry and consumer culture
Beneficiaries: Technology-led companies
Sustainability elements:
Economic: Growth of electronic and eco-tech manufacturers
Ecological: Early explorations in renewable power for public and consumer markets
Design for the Environment
Dates: 1986–present
Motives and intentions: Design awakens to its responsibilities and duty of care to the environment
Form-giving: Embeds eco-efficient feature through high-tech solutions and/or light-weighting, use of recycled or recyclable materials
Target audiences: Industry and design culture
Beneficiaries: Helping industry meet increasing regulatory pressures and position ‘green marketed’ products
Sustainability elements:
Economic: Economic gains through being eco-efficient
Ecological: Reduction of impacts on the environment
Institutional: Encouraging shift to more responsible manufacturing and design practices
Fiell, C. and Fiell, T. (1999) Design of the 20th Century, Taschen, Köln
Hauffe, T. (1998) Design: A Concise History, Lawrence King, London
Jencks, C. and Kropf, K. (eds) (1997) Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary
Architecture, Wiley-Academy, Chichester
Starke, P. (1987) Design in Context, Guild Publishing, London