Scandinavian Design
and the Avant-garde
This essay will look at the position of the Avant-garde in design
and particularly, the work of two influential Scandinavian designers
in this context. Modern Scandinavian design has been defined as
beginning with the 1919 publication of Gregor Paulsson’s influential
‘Vackare Vardagsvara’ (More Beautiful Things for Everyday Use).
This pamphlet urged manufacturers to focus on low-wage earners
and incorporate better design aesthetic into utilitarian goods.
The expression ‘Avant-garde’ was originally a French military
term for the leading formation in an attack. It referred to those
first meeting opposition and whatever obstacles that lie in wait,
making things easier for the greater numbers to follow. In 1910,
the Daily Telegraph is credited with using the phrase to describe
artists defying expectations and producing works that challenged
the viewer (or listener).
The Telegraph may have been referring to the Cubists who were
active from 1907 to the 1920s. While small shocks have accompanied
art and design through history (there must have been a ‘first
landscape’) the Cubists must have faced enormous opposition when
they displayed their work. Critics, comfortable with assessing
work in minute variations from the photo-real, would have had
no vocabulary to describe the new style. Whether thought-provoking,
engaging or confrontational, the works ultimately gained acceptance.
This raises a few questions. Firstly, at some stage in the last
few thousand years, somebody must have bucked all trends and created
something entirely outlandish by contemporary standards? Why did
they fail while Braque and Picasso succeeded? Sheer determination
may not have been enough and I strongly suspect that communication
and transport advances resulting from the Industrial Revolution
permitted kindred spirits to unite, with obvious advantages.
Another issue raised is that once the Cubists made their stand
and refused to conform, the doors were thrown open. Can this be
said to be an event rather than a movement? After the outrage
of simultaneous perspectives and distortedcolour, the arrival of other schools of art through the same open
doors is greeted with something akin to expectation. I recall
a newspaper article about three small mounds of coal and a flag
appearing in the Tate. There was praise, vague amusement and some
eye-rolling but no shock. It is as though the world has become
so used to the winds of change that it leans into them reflexively
and is scarcely aware of doing so. Possibly, ‘Avant-garde’ has
come more to mean ‘unfamiliar’.
Event or movement, radical or institutional; the impact of the
Avant-garde is undeniable. Designers saw encouragement for leaps
of creativity where tolerance had scarcely existed and many took
advantage of the new freedom.
Scandinavia is the group of countries: Iceland, Norway, Finland,
Denmark and Sweden. The region is bordered to the east by Russia
and south by Germany. Iceland is geographically remote: north-west
of the British Isles. While a large area is covered, most of the
population is found in southern coastal areas and is relatively
sparse.
The far northern location makes for a harsh environment and long
dark winters while natural resources are scarce and hard earned.
Under these adverse conditions the Nordic cultures have not merely
survived but have developed an enviable reputation for affluence,
democracy and justice. Self sufficiency, economy and co-operation
are more than simply grudging concessions to a hostile landscape.
A reluctant balance may have existed in the distant past, but
has evolved into an inherent integrity characterised by the state
religion of Lutheranism which stresses the importance of honesty
and hard work. It may be that these assets have enabled the Scandinavian
countries to combine prosperity and socialism while elsewhere
the words are thought antonyms. Apart from occasional acts of
aggression by Russia on the Finnish borders, Scandinavia has had
very little involvement in armed conflict for nearly two hundred
years.
The Nordic countries experienced rapid industrialisation after
the First World War which polarised much of the design aesthetic
between primitive and modern styles. A balance has formed to bridge
these opposites, unified by a characteristic simplicity. Indoor
household items are a high priority in design; the climatic conditions
ensure they will be very much a part of Scandinavian life and
simple, well proportioned items are easier to live with than ones
that visually scream for attention.
A term synonymous with Scandinavian Design is ‘Humanistic Design’;
a parallel drawn not simply because the products are easy to live
with but because the underlying philosophy is less ego-driven
and more focused on making life better in a practical way. The
Scandinavians, through innate altruism, have come far closer to
achieving the Utopian intentions of the grand-scale town-planning
of Garnier et al.
Kaare Klint (1888-1954) was a Danish designer and architect
who established his own practice in 1920 and helped found the
Department of Furniture at The Copenhagen Academy of Art in 1924.
Klint was particularly influential in the evolution of the Danish
Modern style. The Danes have a long history of organised furniture
production - the Copenhagen Cabinetmakers Guild dates back over
four hundred years and remains relevant to Danish society. However,
the British Guild system, on which it was based, “spawned a progeny
of cranks and eccentrics, the “arty-crafty” with their aura of
the homespun”.
While the British appeared to use their legacy to isolate themselves,
Klint was quoted as follows: “An aversion for old things leads
to a loss of perspective and excludes the best help one can get:
building on experience acquired over hundreds of years. There
are no problems that haven’t been solved many times over”.
His aesthetic and choice of materials showed customary Nordic
economy and restraint, and borrowed heavily from 18th century
Scandinavian priorities of simplicity and fitness for purpose.
He showed a strong preference for locally available timbers and
a lampshade collaboration with his son relied on nothing more
exotic than folded paper. A project that typified his methodology
was a buffet he designed in the 1920’s which held as much as any
other buffet on the market, but was half the size. The key to
this reduction in bulk and materials was his approach of measuring
everything.
Ergonomics is now accepted as an indispensable factor in design.
It incorporates physics, engineering, medicine, psychology and
sociology but was never seriously considered until the British
wanted better efficiency from their munitions workers in the First
World War. Little further recognition was given to the subject
until July 1949 when the British Admiralty began to discuss its
advantages in earnest, even then it took them until February of
the following year to come up with the term ‘Ergonomics’.
Klint, however had developed his own research into ‘Anthropometrics’
early in his career; his interest in proportion quite probably
fueled by his early education as a painter. The undated sketch
above may predate Le Corbusier’s ‘Modulor’ and is certainly more
specific than da Vinci’s ‘Vitruvian Man’. The field has grown
and broadened in scope and has also undoubtedly contributed to
the study of Ergonomics.
While many of his contemporaries were experimenting with the
best technology could offer in terms of materials, Klint was combining
immutable concepts of proportion with timeless craftsmanship and
his own research into Anthropometrics. The results include the
‘Model no 4699 Deck Chair’ below.
Though it lacks the grandeur of Mies van der Rohe’s ‘Barcelona
Chair’ throne, it loses nothing in fitness for purpose for the
more egalitarian Scandinavians.
Another Dane, Poul Henningsen (1895 – 1967) is more readily
associated with Modernist theories, editing the ‘Kritisk Revi’
magazine from 1926 to 1928. As well as the design oriented periodical
he also worked as a reviewer and journalist on fine art and left-wing
political publications. His political beliefs were tied strongly
to the prevailing Social Democrat sentiment.
Without the benefit of a central European education which directly
exposed some of his contemporaries to the Avant-garde, Henningsen
pursued an interest in exploiting materials disregarded by other
designers such glass and copper. Minimal design, new technology
and limited, multipurpose components which exemplify Modernist
principles were evident in his Snake Chair of 1932.
Despite this, Henningsen was not interested in the rejection
of the old for the sake of conforming to Modernist ideals. Speaking
on Thonet’s bentwood chairs he is quoted as saying: “If an architect
makes this chair five times more expensive, half as comfortable
and a quarter as beautiful, he can make a name for himself”.
His most recognisable contribution to design is undoubtedly the
PH range of lighting based on a shade inspired by a plate, a bowl
and a cup stacked on top of each other. Capitalising on his media
employment he expounded: “The aim is, by working scientifically,
to make lighting cleaner, more economical, and more beautiful.”
He succeeded in concealing the light source while permitting maximum
diffused light to escape and allowing adequate ventilation.
His influence is as much concerned with his insistence on ‘democratic
products’ suitable for mass production as the vast number of designs
he left after his death, including the fittings below, far from
his homeland.
While the world would undoubtedly be a far less interesting place
had the Avant-garde never challenged the public imagination, their
direct impact on the Scandinavians is less obvious.
The information I have presented is limited in its scope in that
Scandinavia can boast many designers. However, the examples of
Klint and Henningsen were randomly chosen among designers of the
period, so it is unlikely that they were exceptions to generally
accepted philosophies.
Much of the modern Scandinavian design school’s development appears
to part of their natural trajectory. There was never a radical
move to reject their past. Unlike the British, haunted by Guild
system anachronisms; the Scandinavian Guilds remained current
and part of commercial life. In contrast to the Russians and Germans,
there was no despised regime to overthrow and from which to recover.
With a few exceptions like Nokia and Ericsson, the Scandinavians
appear unremarkable in terms of innovation (possibly technologically
‘disadvantaged’ in having few wars to fight). Instead the Nordic
cultures seem to have quietly gone about trying to make life more
pleasant for their people. The Avant-garde and Modernism in general
were positive influences, but the overwhelming impression I have
gained of the Scandinavians is that they would have effectively
disregarded any influence that was otherwise.
Bibliography
Books
Fiell, C. and Fiell, P. 2002. Scandinavian Design. Taschen. Köln
Garner, P. 1980. Twentieth Century Furniture. Phaidon. Oxford.
Hard Af Segerstad, U. 1964. Modern Scandinavian Furniture. Studio Books. London.
Harrigan, K. et al. 1987. The NCSA Ergonomics Primer. National Safety Council of Australia. Brisbane
Mang, K. 1978. History of Modern Furniture. Harry N. Abrams. New York.
Osborne, D. J. 1982. Ergonomics at Work. John Wiley. New Jersey.
Pile, J. 1990. Dictionary of 20th Century Design. Roundtable Press. New York.
Sembach, K. Leutäuser, G. & Gössel, P. 2002. Twentieth-Century Furniture Design. Taschen. Köln
Whiting, R. 1992. Leonardo: Portrait of the Renaissance Man. Sandstone Books. Leichhardt
Web
Kane, L. 2001. ‘Kaare Klint’. R 20th Century Design. Retrieved http://www.r20thcentury.com/bios/designer.cfm?article_id=60
Osborne, H. 2006. ‘Avant-garde’. Oxford Companion to Western Art. Grove Art Online. Retrieved 30 April 2006 from http://www.groveart.com/shared/views/article.html?from=search&session_search_id=680182124&hitnum=1§ion=art.990241
Albertslund - still going strong. 2004. Retrieved 30 April 2006 from http://www.louis-poulsen.de/main5.asp?lang=de&page=archive |
