Reading
this chapter made me realize something that haven’t caught my eye before, I don’t
know why, but until a few days ago I associated Mies van Der Rohe with modern
design, but Alvar Aalto for me was in the category of Scandinavian design (a
hole bubble apart for me) which is correct but at the same time Aalto was a
huge exponent of modernism also. This last part was the one I’ve never made the
connection. I used to look modern design as elegant, luxurious, and like a
piece of art and Finnish design as contemporary design, youthful, simple , and with
a less expensive look. But why? Why did I used to do that? If both of them are
part of the same movement, why couldn't I make the connection? What was the
difference between them…
So then I got
my question how both of them being part of the modern movement can have such a
different way to get to people, to connect? Why does Scandinavian design looks
so approachable compared with German design if both of them reflect the same
principles?
Finnish
design (Sweden + Finland) is really a boom right now, especially in single
person houses, you can see from lighting fixtures, tables, chairs, posters,and
so on . After my reading I learned that back in the times the designs of Aalto and the Scandinavian design (Finland ,Sweden
and Norway) made a breaking point because it was a representation of the modern
movement in a less industrial way.
Aalto
designs made a huge impact along with the Scandinavian design because they
respond to the same principles ,but what
was different was the main material that they used for making their pieces.
Scandinavian didn't use steel like the traditional German modern movement, they
used wood. They were able to recreate softly curvy lines but with the use of
wood , specially plywood, as main material, that added warm to their designs.
There is where I got my answer Scandinavian
design is modern design, has clean lines, is simple, functional and its mass
produce but it looks approachable thanks to the wood! , by the other hand
German modern designs like the ones Mies van der Rohe use to make, where all
about steel, and more expensive materials like leather, with looks more
elegant, made for a higher class.
His designs
have the personality of someone that
evaluates you according to your class level, knowledge of design, and style,
they want to talk with you about design, discuss about it, but hearing your points
of view, while the personality of Aalto´s designs do not judge anyone, they
make me feel like they are welcoming you to try them , to experiment, they want
to teach you about design not to discuss with you about it. In other words,
Mies van der Rohes designs are proud, and the ones from Alvar Aalto are humble.
Here is an
example: if you compare the Alvar Aalto Paimio Armchair and you put it right
beside Barcelona chair from Mies V der Rohe chair you can perceive first that
they have much thing in common like the shape, the simplicity of both of them,
but then you get the materials and can actually see what they evoke . The
Paimio armchair is made with bended plywood, by the other side we get stainless
steel and leather in the Barcelona chair. Although both chair are around the
$4.000 USD , Aalto designs seem much more friendly and can make a closer connection
with people.
Personally
I think that the use of wood made the design look approachable for the
medium class, but also it is about how it looks, pretty much everyone may
desire a piece of Scandinavian design because it can reach different styles of
persons, by the other hand German modern design is more focused in the “high
class” look, so it has a more specific target. Don’t get me wrong im not trying to paint a
bad picture on German design and a saint on Scandinavian, I just wanted to find
out why they evoke such different concepts, and find out the reason of why
until know I had put Scandinavian design in a total different bubble. The good
thing about any of them is that no matter from where it is , modern design is
timeless.
F!
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment