Anneli Xie
Prof. Alice Friedman
ARTH 321: Gender, Sexuality, and the Design of Houses
2019/02/19
Prof. Alice Friedman
ARTH 321: Gender, Sexuality, and the Design of Houses
2019/02/19
Reading response: Mid-Century Modernism and the Politics of Surveillance: Queering Categories
Despite appearing similar at first glance – both all-glass masterworks located
in semi-suburba natural settings in America – the Farnsworth House by
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and the Glass House by Philip Johnson are less
connected than they seem. In her comparison between the two, Friedman states
that while Johnson certainly derived some inspiration from Mies’ models for the
Farnsworth House, the Glass House differs not only in “a matter of architectural
‘composition’, but of architectural intent in virtually every aspect of form
and experience.” (175) For Mies, architecture was about being formal and
timeless, whereas for Johnson, architecture was about locating a lived
experience in history. (176)
In the chapter discussing the Farnsworth House, located in Plano IL, Friedman brings up the dilemma of the architect - client relationship that existed between Mies van der Rohe and Dr. Edith Farnsworth. Farnsworth was looking for a weekend retreat where she could relax from her stressful life as a doctor, and employed Mies “because she was bored and overworked.” (131) In Mies, Farnsworth found a friend. For Mies, this was great news; after a long hiatus (being forced to close the Bauhaus and emigrate to the United States), Mies found an American client and commission. As such, Mies chose to disregard some of his client’s wishes – having a rational approach that prioritized aesthetics higher than program (138) – and issues of power and control quickly came into question. However, as Farnsworth was a single woman, these were quickly blurred by gender roles especially problematized by 1950s America. (129) Whereas Mies viewed the house as a perfect embodiment of the Bauhausler “less is more,” attempting to blur the line between nature and human, Farnsworth was highly unhappy with the result. As a single woman and a member of the upper class, Farnsworth was very weary of what her house said about her (which ties back to some of the readings of the Victorian middle class that we read during the first week). For her, then, there were two main issues with the Farnsworth House: “uncertainty about the contradiction between family life and singleness, and concern with cultural values, particularly the choice between taste and ‘mediocrity’,” something that Mies paid no regard to. (133) As Colomina recalls, Farnsworth went as far as to compare her house to an x-ray for public surveillance of her and her body. (81) Similarly, Ockman compares the Farnsworth House to a fish bowl, referencing Farnsworth’s confinement and overexposure within a glass box. (47)
Very differently, instead of enabling a curious outside gaze, Johnson’s Glass House was much more concerned with exhibiting/screening a cultural commentary in regards to domesticity, gender, and sexuality. The difference in architectural intent – the idea of screening outwards instead of gazing inwards – may have something to do with Johnson’s identity as a gay architect, and the fact that he was serving himself as his client. Friedman likens Johnson’s Glass House site to the historic queer county estates, saying he too was subject to scrutiny and ridicule by his contemporaries. (170) The Glass House and its accompanying Guest House became a commentary of American culture frozen in the time of its build, 1949. As such, Johnson could view his building as not a formally perfect space, but a space in which to allow expression of American domesticity, incorporating everyday objects into the glass interior. (176) Once again, then, the Glass House brings the issue of (gender) performativity into question; especially as coupled with the Guest House, with its anonymous brick facade and camp interior allowing for complete privacy and non-surveillance of performance.
Lastly, both houses tie back to our first-week readings of morality and the middle-class value of the house being an expression of the self and the moral development of that self. Although the glass walls are meant to blur the lines between inside and outside/nature and man-made, they also inevitably become surrounded by an impending doom of surveillance and brings up the question of life as theatrical or performative.
Colomina, B. “Unclear Vision: Architectures of Surveillance.” In Engineered Transparencies, edited by Bell, M. and Kim, J. New York: PA Press, 2009.
Friedman, A. “People who Live in Glass Houses”. In Women and the Making of the Modern House. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
Friedman, A. “Front and Back of House: Staging Queer Domesticity.” In Performance, Fashion, and the Modern Interior, edited by Fisher, F et al, 169-181. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011.
Ockman, Joan. “A Crystal World: Between Reason and Spectacle.” In Engineered Transparencies, edited by Bell, M. and Kim, J. New York: PA Press, 2009.
In the chapter discussing the Farnsworth House, located in Plano IL, Friedman brings up the dilemma of the architect - client relationship that existed between Mies van der Rohe and Dr. Edith Farnsworth. Farnsworth was looking for a weekend retreat where she could relax from her stressful life as a doctor, and employed Mies “because she was bored and overworked.” (131) In Mies, Farnsworth found a friend. For Mies, this was great news; after a long hiatus (being forced to close the Bauhaus and emigrate to the United States), Mies found an American client and commission. As such, Mies chose to disregard some of his client’s wishes – having a rational approach that prioritized aesthetics higher than program (138) – and issues of power and control quickly came into question. However, as Farnsworth was a single woman, these were quickly blurred by gender roles especially problematized by 1950s America. (129) Whereas Mies viewed the house as a perfect embodiment of the Bauhausler “less is more,” attempting to blur the line between nature and human, Farnsworth was highly unhappy with the result. As a single woman and a member of the upper class, Farnsworth was very weary of what her house said about her (which ties back to some of the readings of the Victorian middle class that we read during the first week). For her, then, there were two main issues with the Farnsworth House: “uncertainty about the contradiction between family life and singleness, and concern with cultural values, particularly the choice between taste and ‘mediocrity’,” something that Mies paid no regard to. (133) As Colomina recalls, Farnsworth went as far as to compare her house to an x-ray for public surveillance of her and her body. (81) Similarly, Ockman compares the Farnsworth House to a fish bowl, referencing Farnsworth’s confinement and overexposure within a glass box. (47)
Very differently, instead of enabling a curious outside gaze, Johnson’s Glass House was much more concerned with exhibiting/screening a cultural commentary in regards to domesticity, gender, and sexuality. The difference in architectural intent – the idea of screening outwards instead of gazing inwards – may have something to do with Johnson’s identity as a gay architect, and the fact that he was serving himself as his client. Friedman likens Johnson’s Glass House site to the historic queer county estates, saying he too was subject to scrutiny and ridicule by his contemporaries. (170) The Glass House and its accompanying Guest House became a commentary of American culture frozen in the time of its build, 1949. As such, Johnson could view his building as not a formally perfect space, but a space in which to allow expression of American domesticity, incorporating everyday objects into the glass interior. (176) Once again, then, the Glass House brings the issue of (gender) performativity into question; especially as coupled with the Guest House, with its anonymous brick facade and camp interior allowing for complete privacy and non-surveillance of performance.
Lastly, both houses tie back to our first-week readings of morality and the middle-class value of the house being an expression of the self and the moral development of that self. Although the glass walls are meant to blur the lines between inside and outside/nature and man-made, they also inevitably become surrounded by an impending doom of surveillance and brings up the question of life as theatrical or performative.
References
Colomina, B. “Unclear Vision: Architectures of Surveillance.” In Engineered Transparencies, edited by Bell, M. and Kim, J. New York: PA Press, 2009.
Friedman, A. “People who Live in Glass Houses”. In Women and the Making of the Modern House. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
Friedman, A. “Front and Back of House: Staging Queer Domesticity.” In Performance, Fashion, and the Modern Interior, edited by Fisher, F et al, 169-181. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011.
Ockman, Joan. “A Crystal World: Between Reason and Spectacle.” In Engineered Transparencies, edited by Bell, M. and Kim, J. New York: PA Press, 2009.