Image found here
Now for France, people embraced this style. They wanted to stay above the curve of design and so introduced schools to teach Art Nouveau. Many people thought that the style helped with living conditions. It was then configured into the design of private buildings.
Image found here
Though Germany was searching for that national identity, they did not gain it with Art Nouveau. The movement of Art nouveau there was called the Jugenstil (young style). These young people focused on the interrelations of designer, craftsman, and manufacturer. This eventually led to the inspiration of the Bauhaus school. Germany was also like America in the fact that this style had a minimal effect on architecture and more on artifacts.
All of these nations, whther focusing on architecture or more on accessories, they began with quite fluid, moving, curvilinear non symmetrical aspects and transition in 1900 to having more straight linear moments within the design. Some of them (like the Glasgow School of Art's library shown below) even to the point that I could hardly tell they were considered to be during this era.
Image found here
2. Originating at the Bauhaus and in the work of LeCorbusier, the so-called Modern movement deeply influenced design and architecture of the twentieth century. The great debate raised by this new approach to design involved the presence of the machine in the design process and final products. SPECULATE about the implications of “machines for living” and the famous dictum “less is more” on design today. Use at least one ARTIFACT, SPACE, or BUILDING in your answer, providing a salient image (cited) and annotation to help bolster your argument.
To figure out today, we must first look back to past years to Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. He designed the German Pavilion in 1929, around the sole fact that less is more. Harwood states that Mies’s stlye is “severely plain, geometric…that relies on careful proportions, precise details, and opulent materials rather than applied ornament for beauty.” I think this is stated quite well and depicts the intention of the space. I think that Mies possibly wanted to show that even through this time of depression, things could still be beautiful without lavish furnishings and decorative accessories, things people could not easily obtain during this time. Looking now to the present, I believe we strive for this same concept; at least I do. I would rather save and live comfortably than splurge on big ticket items or many various items. I make do with the things I have and try to use them as efficiently as I can. I would love to do this in design, as I have seen already. I believe there is a show on HGTV that incorporates using the same things one already owns to revamp a space. Reusing your things to save big!
Machines help to save time and money. In the German Pavilion, machines were used as we learned in class to help form the onyx walls. I am sure it saved money by the pieces being manufactured, but someone, a person, still had to install these pieces, therefore ultimately requiring human help. Some machines, like stoves or even microwaves allow us to get things done faster that would have taken longer a few centuries ago and required actual burning wood. In this case, without these machines, how would we go about our daily lives? How could we cook without them?