8 CONSTRUCTS YALE ARCHITECTURE Prescience of Nelson

On November 9 and 10, 2012, the School of Architecture held the symposium “: Design for Living, American Mid-Century Design and Its Legacy Today” in conjunction with the traveling exhibition George Nelson: Architect, Writer, Designer, and Teacher.

This could not be a more propitious time to an American naiveté almost unfathom- reprise and re-appraise the contributions able today. For example, house paint was of George Nelson (B.A.1928; B.F.A. 1931). alleged to withstand the heat of a nuclear Designers, and those who study them, blast. Ad copy for a rhinestone pin, styled are increasingly critical of the limitations after the ellipses of the atomic symbol, read, of market imperatives that admit no other “As daring to wear as dropping the atomic values. As a result, we are seeing other bomb.” Mid-fifties promotional materials models of practice, such as those involved celebrated the ease with which radiation in the creative commons or service design, could be wiped from the flat surfaces of gaining a currency of a different order. These Modernist furniture. alternatives owe a debt to Nelson, a miscast While Gordon stopped short of midcentury Modernist. I say “miscast” suggesting that American Modernists because the dominance of celebrity and profited from the bomb, Donald Albrecht, branding in today’s design culture has had independent curator, pointed out that most the effect of reducing Nelson’s contributions Americans would have been introduced to a shorthand of icons: the Ball Clock (1949), to the modern long before the atomic age. the Bubble Lamps (1952), and the Marshmal- Prewar movies equated it with style (luxuri- low Sofa (1956). (No matter that two out of ous fashion and Art Deco glamour), while three, the clock and sofa, were designed by postwar films were more likely to register Irving Harper.) the disquiet of modern life. Movie credits, All the same, Nelson must shoulder just coming into their own, also projected some of the blame for today’s cult of design. the values of Modernism, salutatory and He cultivated brands, most notably Herman otherwise. The Modern had become a matter Miller but also that of the postwar United of sensibility, very often noir. Case in point, States. The government was one of his most The Misfits (1961), the jaded antithesis of the important clients. He relished the public face classic American Western. While noting the of authorship and rarely credited his collabo- Nelson office’s work on that film, Albrecht rators, including the aforementioned Harper. focused primarily on the work of Saul Bass, Nelson was also a vigorous champion of the highlighting the titles for North by Northwest, role of industrial design in increasing corpo- in which a gridded skyscraper becomes a rate profits which, admittedly, were not the cage for the credits. But where Bass used 1 sole prerogative of the one percent, as they style to convey the underlying sense of threat are today. That said, he fully understood the that hung over the atomic era, Nelson would caveat “Be careful what you wish for.” Nelson use language and the new medium of televi- had an uncanny ability to nip at the hands sion to express his ideas. that fed his practice, without sacrificing their Of course, the appearance of the sustain a contrarian stance while collecting the issue of storage in the Modern house. allegiance. He was the paradigm designer– Modern provoked anxiety well before his fees. (One of the most hilarious instances This was particularly problematic because cum–public intellectual. Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Cold War of his remarkable ability to straddle the fence Modernist spaces weren’t meant to accom- Last November, the Yale School of that followed. And, in one sense, those acts between collusion and critique appears in a modate clutter. However, even those Architecture hosted a symposium that took a of annihilation were not unrelated to the form 1956 television ad made for, and commis- philosophically committed to “less is more” major step in assuring that status to George that Modernism took. Both were a product sioned by, Herman Miller. In a parody worthy couldn’t dispense with all their possessions. Nelson. The world that made him, and that he of an ethos of purification. Since the begin- of Monty Python, Nelson shows an energetic So, Nelson organized them in the cavities of in turn shaped, came to life with a full-dress ning of the twentieth century, designers had young woman ineffectually trying to saw the wall. The words that conveyed that idea parade of historians, accompanied by a cadre been working to eliminate ornamental signs through an Eames Lounge Chair and tossing comprised, for all intents and purposes, the of his contemporaries in practice. Organized of class and bring their work in line with the its feathered stuffing into the air to extol its prototype for his groundbreaking Storage by Dietrich Neumann, Rauch Family Profes- zeitgeist of technological change. (Later in strength and comfort.) Wall for Herman Miller. Of the hundreds of sor of History of Art and Architecture at Brown the symposium, Murray Moss would cite the Appraising Nelson’s early career projects that Nelson directed and designed, University, the symposium was timed to era’s refusal of the irrational as the formative and formative travels, Yale professor Kurt none better illustrates Dean Robert Stern’s complement the traveling exhibition George influence on Nelson’s sensibility. In contrast Forster offered further insight into Nelson’s observation that “Nelson was a curator of Nelson: Architect, Writer, Designer, and to Rob Forbes, of Design Within Reach, who critical yet engaged position within the modern life.” Teacher, curated by Jochen Eisenbrand for all but channels Nelson’s aesthetic, Moss world of design, reaffirming his role as a Nonetheless, it was instructive to be the Vitra Design Museum, with the architec- conceded only one point of sympathy—that paradox. Forster claimed that “Nelson reminded by professor Margaret Maile Petty, ture aspect expanded by Neumann. meaning comes not from isolated objects but translated editorial thinking to the design of of Victoria University, New Zealand, that The logic to the proceedings was from relationships among them.) furniture.” I would argue that, even beyond there were other curators who could carry relatively straightforward, moving from back- Tempering the avant-garde’s ruthless the curation of ideas, it was the iterative that moniker with equal aplomb—in particu- ground to foreground: it unpacked Modern- pruning, progressive American furniture process of revising and editing that condi- lar, Florence Knoll. Petty’s comparison of the ism as a style and ideology, then examined manufacturers offered “livable” Modern- tioned Nelson’s approach to design as a Herman Miller and Knoll showrooms revealed the culture it produced and the responses ism—the subject of Clark University profes- process of questioning. What differentiated differing interpretations of “Modern.” Both that flowed from Nelson’s office. The only sor Kristina Wilson’s paper. Within the loose his critiques is that they extended beyond companies had embraced the idea of situat- cavil was the absence of the kind of trans- category of “livable,” Wilson identified the inner sanctum of the studio, ranging ing their pieces in a mise en scène. Florence disciplinary designer that Nelson would have affinities with the city and the suburb, along from the micro to the macro to the meta, Knoll with Herbert Matter, devised highly recognized, although Yale’s Ned Cooke did with individual and conformist ways of living from products to their social effects and the edited scenarios meant to “liberate the interi- his best to frame Marc Newsom in the experi- epitomized by and Russel ethical nature of design itself. Traversing or,” whereas Nelson staged Herman Miller’s mental mold of Nelson. Wright, respectively. Of the two, Rohde these scales, Nelson developed an integrat- furniture with found objects—in essence, Some of the sixteen featured speakers proved more critical to Nelson. Rohde ed approach to practice and theory at the restoring the everyday edited out of Knoll’s circled around the subject so broadly as to was his predecessor at Herman Miller and beginning of his career. Forster recounted brand of Miesian Modernism. all but leave Nelson out of the frame, while developed modular systems that prepared that Nelson had been educated as an While Nelson’s public profile is others spoke from an intimate perspective as the way for Nelson’s more ebullient work in architect at Yale, yet when awarded a 1932 firmly linked to that of Herman Miller, the veterans of the office and the era. Yet others the same terrain that would prove to be truly fellowship in architecture at the American twenty-seven-year relationship by no means presented prized discoveries that come only non-conformist. Academy in Rome, he directed his energy to made up the total of his practice. He never from highly focused research. A few speak- Museum of Modern Art curator Juliet writing. His interviews with European archi- abandoned architecture, nor did he move to ers offered revelations regarding Nelson’s Kinchin moved the conversation from issues tects for Pencil Points played a seminal role the Herman Miller headquarters in Michigan. achievements as well as fresh insight into the of middle-class norms to Nelson’s outright in introducing Americans to Modernism. In fact, he sustained several practices, all nature of the design itself. It is to these three skepticism about any attempts to codify Moreover, it was Nelson’s prose, not based in New York City. Teasing them apart overlapping paradigms—context, discovery, taste. She noted that design was not, as he his experience as a designer that would would be a disservice, as they formed the and insight—that I’ll address my comments. put it, a “social register.” It was not an authori- extend his practice into the domain of furni- synergy that energized the office. So it was One of the roles of scholars is to tarian museum’s pronouncement of quality. ture and graphics and, ultimately enlarge his a pleasure to hear Dietrich Neumann focus ensure that we don’t conflate contemporary Taking aim at MoMA’s exhibition Useful thinking about the constructive/destructive on the architectural dimension of Nelson’s circumstances and values with those of Objects Under $10 (1954), Nelson wrote that nature of design. Ralph Caplan—who said he practice and show how projects such as his the past. Given the remarkable lacunae in design “is a manifestation of the capacity of met Nelson first through Nelson’s writings— utopian schemes for “Tomorrow’s House” our memories, even of developments in the the human spirit to transcend its limitations…. recounted that in 1945, D. J. Dupree, then and his prefab housing experiments with twentieth century, their job is to construct It is a statement, not a gadget.” chairman of Herman Miller, offered Nelson Bucky Fuller embodied ideas larger than theory in a time machine. And here, we Undeniably, Nelson’s work (especially the post of director of design solely on the any one discipline. Nelson was essentially were delighted to enter with them. Curator for Herman Miller) benefitted from the synergy basis of a book chapter. asking, how do we want to live in the world? John Stuart Gordon, of the Yale University between museums, designers, and manufac- The chapter in question appeared in He was an early proponent of technolo- Art Gallery, offered choice selections from turers—a synergy that was a hallmark of the Nelson’s Tomorrow’s House (co-authored gies such as solar-energy capture, but, to his research on the nuclear age, revealing era. Yet with acerbic wit, Nelson managed to with Henry Wright in 1945), and it addressed paraphrase urbanist Jane Thompson, he 9 SPRING 2013

2

4

1. George Nelson, Storage 3. Cover of George Nelson Wall, Herman Miller. and Henry Wright’s Photograph courtesy of Tomorrow’s House, 1945. Vitra Design Museum. 4. George Nelson and 2. Lecture setup from Art-X, Gordon Chadwick, Spaeth an experimental foundation House, East Hampton, art course with Charles Long Island, 1956. Eames, University of Photograph by Ezra Stoller Georgia, 1953. Photograph © Esto. courtesy of the Vitra Design 3 Museum.

also believed that design operates in a that his picture of material abundance would Ernest Farmer, Irving Harper, and John Pile. demand; it is an active consequence of a “continuous exchange between the past- be an aspiration for Russian audiences, but it Less than generous in crediting individuals, culture of production and consumption, present and the future.” Nelson always saw was also a taunt. Describing the exhibition’s Nelson was more liberal in offering oppor- in which subjectivity is destroyed in the technology in the service of humanism, innovative (and seductive) multimedia strate- tunity. Over the years, he helped people making and using of things. Design was not the other way around. gies, Colomina cited two critical sources of see the world being made by unconscious clearly implicated. Without diminishing the value of inspiration: the sonic vibrations of crowds choices and helped to make it better by Unlike Schumpeter, however, Nelson projects such as the 1956 Spaeth House, in ancient Athenian stadia and the sensory conscious design. was a committed populist. His forum wasn’t an especially charming variant on American environment of the Ringling Bros. Circus. In charting Nelson’s transition from the university or the academic journal. In fact, Shingle Style, it’s fair to say that Nelson Nelson, along with the Eameses and Fuller, art direction to systems thinking, Makovksy it turned out to be television. In 1960, he was was more influential with the architecture of effectively deconstructed centuries of specta- offered a clue to Nelson’s disregard for invited to create a program for the CBS series exhibitions. Involving graphic design, film, cle for mid-twentieth century audiences. With specific achievement. For a man preoccu- “Camera Three.” Nelson’s chosen topic: “A products, walls, planes, and in some cases uncanny prescience, Charles Eames predict- pied with design as a meta-practice, incre- Problem of Design: How to Kill People.” His live actors, exhibitions allowed him far more ed that architecture would become a space mental successes must have paled against argument: weapons (products of design) latitude to do what he wanted—to stage and of information, and Nelson argued that the their cumulative effects. (Witness the film of transformed conflict between subjects stimulate experience. Here, Nelson’s most value of technology lay in its potential to draw the burning junkyard that he included in the (two equally vulnerable people) into conflict significant client was the U.S. government. relations among people, places, and things. 1961 MoMA exhibition U.S. vs. Us.) Writing between subjects and objects (people with Vitra curator Jochen Eisenbrand asked why The ability to synthesize information in 1976, Nelson expressed this ambivalence weapons aiming at otherwise human targets). Nelson would knowingly allow himself to and re-interpret it to the public wasn’t just a about design. While the program is generally viewed as a be used by the government for what was matter of theatrical performance; for Nelson, critique of the Cold War mentality, Harwood clearly Cold War propaganda. (This ability it was a matter of principle. Yale graphic- “The myriad categories of design are suggested that Nelson’s real point was to both to work for and be critical of the govern- design professor Christopher Pullman (MFAG another example of the proliferation of reposition design as a form of mediation ment was also raised by Yale professor Joel ’66) brought the point home with particular specialties split off from once-unified between people and peoples, not a means of Sanders, who said it was a position worth poignancy. While he was Nelson’s head of disciplines . . . . We live in a technological distancing them from each other. In addition re-examining, especially now, when govern- graphics from 1969 to 1972, Pullman worked Tower of Babel where each individual to decrying the immorality of impersonal ment is being demonized by the right.) on the redesign of Social Security claim is full of answers, but unable to pass them push-button warfare, Nelson also drew atten- Nelson’s most consequential commis- forms. It was notable but characteristic that on to anyone outside the specialty.” tion to the limitations of things themselves— sion from the U.S. Information Agency was Nelson would take on this pedestrian project (ManTransforms, Cooper-Hewitt Museum.) especially when they are conceived as the 1959 American National Exhibition, in a career otherwise marked by prestigious solutions, not elements of situations shaped in Moscow. There, Soviet premier Nikita exhibitions and supported by corporate Nelson was troubled by the loss of perspec- by designers and users alike. Khrushchev and U.S. vice president Richard largess. Nelson’s brief to Pullman was that tive that came with the professionalization When I met him as a Smithsonian Nixon had their legendary “kitchen debate,” this wasn’t to be a redesign of a form but a of design. He was equally concerned about Fellow in 1984, just two years before his surrounded (and provoked) by Nelson’s consideration of how people request benefits the proliferation of scientific subspecialties death, Nelson was adamant that designers display of American goods. Ralph Caplan via a form—in this case, one fraught with that effectively occluded and distracted turn their attention from objects to systems. explained that this event is where the actors intimidating bureaucratic caveats. Pullman’s from matters of human and planetary He said we should be working on the scale of came in: Nelson hired Russian-speaking recollection of working with Nelson— survival. In what was the most stimulating the Alaska pipeline, not decorating the planet American students to “inhabit” his jungle- hammering out first principles together and paper of the conference, Oberlin professor with bar stools and chairs. Had he been with gym installation and demonstrate what these realizing them independently—described John Harwood laid out Nelson’s growing us last November, I suspect he would have new commodities did, besides equating a process that deliberately confounded understanding of design and technology been dismayed by the degree of environmen- freedom with consumption. According to attempts at attribution. as intertwined forces of deadly capacity. tal degradation it has taken to start heeding Eisenbrand, Nelson believed that better This was the issue explored by Like Damocles’ sword, the atomic and his words, but heartened that design is finally understanding between the two nations’ Metropolis editorial director Paul Makovsky, hydrogen bombs were and are suspended widening its scope to match the breadth of peoples could be facilitated by showing who painted a portrait of a restless intel- over the possibility of a future. Simultane- his thinking. what they had in common—the activities of ligence always excited by the next project, ously, designers were and are engaged in everyday life. Instead of missiles and politi- not the one at hand. While some certainly creating resource-consuming products and —Susan Yelavich cal speeches, Nelson proffered toys, sports saw him as a gadfly, it is inarguable that behaviors that lead to wars in the first place. Yelavich is an associate professor and equipment, appliances, and furniture. Nelson the impresario had excellent radar It was in this context that Harwood explored director of the Design Studies MA at Parsons Princeton professor Beatriz Colomina for gifted collaborators, from a little-known side of Nelson’s intellect, The New School for Design. put it more succinctly (and prophetically) with to . However, noting that he was particularly affected by the observation, “We are the same, but we Makovsky offered narratives of lesser-known the writings of Austrian economist Joseph have more stuff.” Indeed, capitalism would figures who were actually more central to Schumpeter (1883–1950). who argued prove to be less an ideology than a bottom- the day-to-day operations of the office, that the “creative destruction” of capital- less shopping cart. Nelson may have thought notably Ron Beckman, Lucia DeRespinis, ism is not a passive function of supply and