Modern Design Does Not Need Ornament

Author(s): Edgar Kaufmann, Jr.

Source: College Art Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Winter, 1946), pp. 140-142
Published by: College Art Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/773296 .
Accessed: 05/01/2015 11:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to College Art
Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:50:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MODERN DESIGN DOES NOT
NEED ORNAMENT
By Edgar Kaufmann Jr.

G. HAYDN HUNTLEY has raised the points, can ornament again

become part of good design and, can design today satisfy mass mar-
kets without using ornament (C.A.J. VI, 1). In order to discuss these
points a number of related ideas need to be reviewed. Has the survey of
history given us any clues to the meaning of ornamentin human societies?
What are the basic conceptsbuilt up by a centuryof practiceand theory in
modern design? Do these concepts leave room for the purposes fulfilled
by ornament?Have modern designers, rejecting ornament,attemptedother-
wise to fill its roles? Is there any indicationthat the indifferenceof the wide
public to the best moderndesign is causedby the absenceof ornament?
Ornament,from primitive tribes to industrializedsociety, has been an
augmenting, a deepening of the intrinsic value of the decoratedobject. It
has often been rooted in peculiaritiesof materialsand processes,it has often
expressedthe exuberantmasteryof the craftsman,its purpose has ever been
to increasethe usefulnessof the object as a sourceof daily enjoyment,as an
agent of cult and custom,as an object of tradeor a symbol of social position.
In the pre-industrialworld, ornament was not added to objects any more
than rites were added to daily existence-the latter were functionallyincom-
plete without the former.
Modern design has had a centuryto evolve a practiceand theory suited
to the industrializing,democratizingworld that has been taking shape. Influ-
enced by science, modern design has held that each problem indicates its
own solution, that full investigationof the needs will reveal the necessary
form. Influencedby romanticism,modern design has believed that the neces-
sary, inherent form is more beautiful than any willfully contrived form,
however artful, novel, or however embellished with extraneous symbols.
Influencedby democracy,modern design has given precedenceto mass pro-
duction as a means of spreadingthe good things of life. In good modern
design, the peculiarities of materials and fabrication, the expression of
masterlyforming are as influentialand recognizedas ever. Visual emphasis
of an object's function, of its meaning in organized society as well as its
simple use, has not been ignored by modern designers and never less than
140

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:50:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MODERN DESIGN DOES NOT NEED ORNAMENT 141
now. Modern designers express these factors in terms of inherent form and
most often in terms of mass productionmethods. The careful chasing of an
ormulu mount has been replaced by the unsuspectedrichness of rotary-cut
veneers, festive carved rose-garlandsby picture windows that frame the
seasons, and painstaking inlays by miraculously thin die-stamped shells.
Imaginationhas remainedthe source of expressivedesign.
If the functions of ornamentare paralleled in modern design, and if
modern design is so oriented to mass production,why does the wide public
continue to ignore good modern design and buy mass produced,ornamented
caricaturesof handcraft ("Chippendale") or alternatelygross, ornamented
caricaturesof engineering ("streamlining")or flat patternsinsanelyrepeating
a misunderstoodmotif from Mondrian, Matisse or Gris, or some ghastly
hybridof all three? Could it be that the wide public has a set of values less
pure and more confused than those that guide modern design? Could it be
that the wide public is bewilderedby the loud meretriciousslogans of trade,
exploiting the sentimentality,snobbery and gullibility that counterbalance
the insecuritiesand artificialitiesof the modern world? If such be the case,
the course of good design, and of design as a factor in the welfare of the
community, will lie in clarifying the values of the wide public and in
counterbalancingthe influencesthat hinder this clarification.
What could be expected from the course Mr. Huntley suggests in his
paper, wherebythe feeblest, most synthetictype of patternwould be spread
over "engineering"shapes to tempt the mass of purchasers?This is as arti-
ficial a styling as that which produceswhat they now buy; in its hand-me-
down attitude about "good taste" it contradictsthe democraticaspirations
that alone justify the painful growth of modern techniques; it reverses a
centuryof thought and experiencein modern design. The old mass market
of handcraftdays producedfolk art; today this is paralleledby the popular
enthusiasmfor engineering.Engineeringis one of the principle enthusiasms
that shaped the InternationalStyle which should therefore be capable of
further popular development on its own grounds without resorting to the
shallow tricks of streamlining.
The InternationalStyle is not as limited in its resourcesor in its effec-
tiveness as Huntley states. It has continued,as he admits in one passage, to
be powerful in shaping the taste of our day; twenty-fiveyearsof style leader-
ship in a free enterprisesocietycould not be maintainedwithout some funda-
mental soundnessand some flexibility.Often Huntley seems to think of the
InternationalStyle as if the nineteen-thirtieshad never brought a renewal
of humanizingtendencies,naturalmaterialsand free forms, as if the doctrine

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:50:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
142 COLLEGE ART JOURNAL
had been frozen with the publication of certain books by the Museum of
ModernArt. In fact both the authorsquoted,Alfred Barrand Philip Johnson,
were perfectlyawarein their publishedtexts of the limitationsof the accom-
plishmentsprior to 1932 and welcomedthe thought of a richerdevelopment.
Huntley is quoting experience when he says that the most antiquated
and doctrinairedesign of the InternationalStyle is not sufficientlyexpressive
or varied to suit the long-range needs of mass markets; but he has not en-
visaged any of the actualfactorswhich will lead to a more satisfactorydesign
for these markets.What can be done and should be done is considerable
work on the psychologicalimpact of design in daily life and considerable
discussionof the expressivequalities availablein the materialsand processes
natural to mass fabrication.Out of these two basic elements a design far
richer than the InternationalStyle could be produced; but it would be and
should be a direct descendent of the International Style not a reaction
against it, certainly not a mere decalcomania.Nor should we forget that a
portion of today'smass market is supplied by handcraftarticlesproducedin
small quantityfor local needs. The varietyof design availableto the masses
of purchasersnever has been and likely never will be limited to the proper
expressionof machinefabrication.
The future courseof good modern design lies straightahead on the line
set by a centuryof work and thought, no returnto the comfortablenaivetis
of our grandfathers'era can suffice either for the sake of the mass public,
or the sake of honest design. Ornamentin the sense of applied pattern is
dead; ornamentin the sense of expressiveemphasisis a permanentelement
of design.
Museum of Modern Art, New York

This content downloaded from 200.89.140.130 on Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:50:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions