九州大学学術情報リポジトリ Kyushu University Institutional Repository Rigor and Relevance in the International Picture Language Rudolf Modley’s Criticism against Otto Neurath and his Activity in the Context of the Rise of the “Americanization of Neurath method” Ihara, Hisayasu http://hdl.handle.net/2324/20302 出版情報：Proceedings of IASDR2009, 2009-10 バージョン： 権利関係： Rigor and Relevance in the International Picture Language Rudolf Modley’s Criticism against Otto Neurath and his Activity in the Context of the Rise of the “Americanization of Neurath method” Hisayasu Ihara Faculty of Design, Kyushu University Japan, [email protected] Abstract: Rudolf Modley, known as the person who took over the idea of Otto Neurath’s Isotype in the USA, wrote a text critical of Neurath in the 1930s. In this text Modley pointed out that the rigid nature of Neurath’s International Picture Language caused difficulty in propagate it in the USA. His criticism seems to be concerned with the theme of “rigor and relevance in design” in to- day’s context of so-called “Glocalization.” The purpose of this paper is to clarify his contribution to the argument about this theme through investigation into his criticism and activity. For this pur- pose, this paper interprets the criticism in the context of the “Americanization of Neurath method” that rose after them. The conclusion in this paper is that Modley’s attempt in the 1930s can be rec- ognized as a search for the actual method for propagating picture language into the public within this context, and thus his activity suggests the fact that rigor and relevance of design always de- pends on its historical and cultural context. Key words: Rudolf Modley, ISOTYPE Movement, Otto Neurath, the 1930s, The USA 1. Introduction Rudolf Modley is known as the person who took over the idea of Otto Neurath’s Isotype in the USA and worked toward the international standardization of pictorial symbols in the postwar period. But, how he succeeded to this idea has never been examined with a few exceptions such as studies by Bolton (1998) and Crawley (1994). More specifically little attention has been given to the fact that he strongly criticized Neurath in the 1930s. His criti- cism appeared in How to Use Pictorial Statistics published in 1937. In this book, Modley pointed out that the rigid nature of Neurath’s picture language and its design principle set up for International usability led to the difficulty in propagating it in the USA. His criticism seems to be quite understandable in today’s context of so-called “Glocalization” and under its catch phrase of “Think Globally, Act Locally.” So when we think about rigor and relevance in design from the stand- point of compatibleness of internationality and locality, his argument should be worth revisiting even today. This paper, in order to assess his significant contribution to this problem, considers Modley’s argument and his practice in the context of the rising of the so-called “Americanization of Neurath method.” For this purpose, First of all, I briefly describe his activity up to his critical enunciation, and then show the large extent to which the Neurath method was accepted as a useful idea during the New Deal era in the USA. Finally, I focus attention on 1 the main questions: “Why did Modley have controversy with Neurath, and How did he practice his own work based on his belief?” 2. Rudolf Modley’s Career to 1937 Modley, according to his description, took a hand in the “Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsmuseum in Wien” (here after abbreviated GWM) established by Neurath starting in his high school days. He recalls it as follows: “When I was still in high school, I became acquainted with Otto Neurath’s isotype. I went all out for him. Through high school and university years, I spent all my spare time working for him and with him” (Modley, 1959, n.p.). The latest year when he could have been in high school is 1923, and this is the year Neurath established the Set- tlement Museum which was the institution that preceded the GWM. So Modley had involved himself in Neurath’s activity starting in the very early days. In 1928 he became a part-time staff member at the museum, and worked there as an instructor for foreign visitors to the GWM half a day (Stadler, 1982, p.248). In 1930 Modley left for the USA. One of the purposes of his visit was to work on the exhibition design in the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago as a staff member from the GWM. He worked about two years there. After that, when Neurath visited the USA in 1933 for the purpose of setting up the “Organizing Committee for the Institute of Visual Education”, Modley took part in this institution as field secretary. The purpose of this institute was to “promote an interest in and the use of the Neurath method in the United States” (Neurath, O., c.1933). However it is not clear how this institute worked, and there is no evidence that suggests any Modley activity there. Instead, he established a for-profit company called Pictorial Statistics Inc. in New York in 1934, starting the operation in August of that year. In this way, Modley started his work which was independent of Neurath. Though his firm was characterized as “the only organization in the United States which does pictorial work in all fields – commercial, educational, or otherwise” (Modley, 1937, p.134), its major work seems to have been in making the chart designs for government projects, which were undertaken by the New Deal, such as Mississippi Valley Committee Report (1934), National Resources Board Report (1934), and Electric Power on the Farm for the Rural Electrification Administration (1936). By 1938 Pictorial Statistics Inc. already had grown to be a stable firm with nine staff members, and earned $ 30,000 in this year working solely at producing pictographs (Ma- loney, 1938, p.15). Why did Modley take such a different path than Neurath in spite of his enthusiasm for Neurath in his youth? I think that there could be at least three reasons. First, there was a sudden change in Neurath’s circumstances. In Vienna, the Social Democratic Party was made illegal in February 1934, and the GWM was closed. As a result Neurath was forced into exile in Hague, Holland. Surely, any GWM branches established abroad, including the Institute for Visual Education, would be confronted with difficulty in continuing their work. Secondly, along with the start of the New Deal, an increase in work for governmental agencies would be anticipated. So he might have regarded it as a business opportunity. Finally, through his four years of experience in the USA, Modley would begin to have a different opinion from Neurath about his methods. In any case, Modley set his face toward 2 developing a pictorial method suited to American needs, which was sometimes referred as “Americanizaiton of Neurath method” in contemporary literature. 3. Background of Modley’s Criticism –– the Rise of the Americanization of Neurath Method Modley published his book How to Use Pictorial Statistics three years after establishment of his firm. This book became not only the first book which developed a comprehensive study on pictorial statistics in the USA, but also a polemic book which included “Neurath-Modley controversy” as one contemporary reviewer called it (Hagood, 1939, p. 596). Before turning to a closer examination of this controversy, we should draw attention to the background of Modley’s criticism against Neurath, because he described the claim as not from him alone. He writes: “None of the organizations which work in the United States at the present have adopted Dr. Neurath’s system to its full extent. Most of them feel that his approach is too rigid to permit general adoption of the method” (Modley, 1937, p. 130). What were the “organizations” mentioned here? Modley, in sketching a brief history of pictorial statistics from its European beginnings to its present degree in the USA, referred to the following five major organizations: (1) the Graphic Unit of the Works Progress Administration (WPA); (2) Sociographics, Philadelphia; (3) Relief and Works Project group in Teachers College, Columbia University; (4) the National Education Association (NEA); (5) Department of Popular Education of the Foreign Policy Association (FPA). Because they have been neglected by any literature on design history, I should like to glance over each of them: (1) Graphic Unit of Works Progress Administration (WPA) This unit was established in the division of social research in WPA probably in 1934 when it was formerly Fed- eral Emergency Relief Administration (FERA). This office regularly employed half a dozen men who served to make charts for a number of research monographs, pamphlets, and reports of the WPA (Modley, 1935, p. XX6). (2) Sociographics, Philadelphia This group was established by 19 unemployed architects in Philadelphia. Its central figure was Philip E. Ragan, a graduate of the Department of Architecture, University of Pennsylvania. After 1934 this group started making charts, illustrations mainly for bulletins of the Pennsylvania State Department of Labor and Industry, aided by the Civil Works Administration (CWA) (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1934). (3) Relief and Works Project group in Teachers College, Columbia University In Teachers College of Columbia University, “Graphic Standards Project” was undertaken by few educational researchers for the purpose of “an analysis of chart needs in education” (Schwarzman 1935, p. 153). Their re- search included some comparative tests between the Neurath method and conventional graphs. This project seems to have been promoted by Marguerite E. Schwarzman who was one of the people who introduced the Neurath method to the USA.