Edo period, late 18th century
Last week I visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art - the first visit in awhile. I had a good experience (aside from a supposed upgrade to the coat check that entailed a time-wasting data entry session on an iPad rather than the give-a-jacket-get-a-number standard method).
One of the exhibits I had wanted to see was on "The Infinite Artistry of Japanese Ceramics." As expected, the exhibit was full of pottery, fabrics and wood prints. I was struck by one very nice-looking modern piece. Being open minded, I said to myself, "That's great, they're having some modern stuff along with the old stuff. It's a really wonderful contrast between old and new." But then I took a closer look at this "modern" pottery and discovered, much to my surprise, that was 250 years old! A lot of pieces on display were just like that: modern design in appearance, but in fact actually centuries old. This phenomenon can be a real source of double-takes, because it turns on its head what it means to say "modern" as opposed to "new." After all, usually when talking about design, when someone says, "This is a very modern piece," they also mean it's new and cutting edge. Certain designers like Gerrit Rietveld have designs from the 1920's that don't look dated. But I wouldn't exactly call them "modern." I would say Rietveld's furniture doesn't look like most current furniture that would be considered modern today. In the case of modernist Danish 20th century design, Ikea has commonly co-opted everything, and increasingly anything that's sort of Danish style is assumed to be mass-market and probably cheap junk. But it's not, and it doesn't have to be.
But seeing this Japanese pottery and not identifying the style as modern makes no sense to me. Sure, you can say it's from such and such a period, and such and such an artist, but it still looks modern. Also notable: this style didn't really catch on. Most of the other pieces in the show, some quite beautiful, certainly look of their time period. NYC has several Japanese supermarkets (and Korean and Chinese markets that stock Japanese items) in which some of the same patterns of the not-so-modern goods are still on offer. But we wouldn't call those designs "modern." Is it possible that the word "modern" means "different from the standard of the time" rather than new per se? If the style catches on and everyone copies or riffs upon it, then the style will get its own name. For example, "mid-century modern" defines a specific genre in a specific style. Eventually the style became more accepted, and then more simplified, until it became (in the popular consciousness anyway - and I say this as someone who once owned a Wim & Karen bed) as "Ikea" or "Ikea-style." Rietveld's furniture, nearly a hundred years on, still looks pretty avant-garde. But it never really became a thing. The Bauhaus design movement (1919-1933), which eventually evolved in many respects to mid-century modern Danish furniture, was designed from the get go be be factory made and lent itself to a popular genre - even if later designs aren't directly connected with the Bauhaus. (And perhaps Bauhaus nowadays is best known as the name of the British goth band.) Reitveld, on the other hand, designed his furniture to be made largely by hand so anyone could built his designs from common wood materials. But most of his work would be fussy on an assembly line and his style never caught on.
I'm wondering if 300 years ago in Japan, a potter produced a pot, and his friend said "That's a really modern pot!" and the potter replied, "Yeah, shame nobody likes anything new." That potter used a design vocabulary of his region and most of what he made would be in that design vocabulary because that's what people wanted - the definition of a popular style. Doing anything new and different would make the creator an outlier - and outliers are the modernists of their time. And it seems that, at least back then in Japan, a potter's idea of a modern design would be pretty much what we would call modern today. And now, like then, people still mostly prefer traditional designs (simplified for manufacture) not modernism.
Early 17th century
Changing anything for anyone making products is always a risk. You need to convince people that the conventional style, which is by definition what is popular, is just one option, and other options are different and better in a meaningful way. That's not easy to do and this problem has been true from centuries.
N.B. Before you accuse me of drawing conclusions without enough evidence, let me remind you that for centuries archeologists have been postulating civilizations and taxonomy based on the survival of a single bone. So I am in good company! The furniture in museums isn't usually representative of what most people had. Rather it represents what donors and other rich people used - and what managed to survive.
Edo period, ca. 1670-90
Cast iron and Bronze. Onishi Gorozaemon mid-17th century
Joel's Blog
Built-It Blog
Video Roundup
Classes & Events
Work Magazine