The Source
The history of architecture and design gives us a perspective on what’s truly new — and more importantly, of what came before. It is the past that creatives draw from for inspiration, whether it’s architecture, furniture or fashion. Rather than simply reproducing the past, the best of them take ideas forward in order to give people a new insight: a different way of dressing, living, seeing or working.
Unfortunately, in our current design world, the past is often ignored; wherein schemes that are heralded as groundbreaking are simply re-worked ideas that offer very little true innovation. This may not be intentional, given the flood of images one receives on a daily basis via the internet. But how can one design anything without knowing history, whether it’s in the field of architecture or the broader design sphere?
As a writer in this field, history is paramount. Certain periods, such as Le Corbusier’s architectural modernism from the early twentieth century or the Bauhaus movement that started in Wiemar in Germany, are regarded as major paradigm shifts worldwide. But too often I encounter a lack of knowledge, or even worse, a lack of interest in the past. I still recall sitting in an architect’s office looking at the plans for the refurbishment of a 1960s house in Melbourne. Original elements had already been removed to create a contemporary abode. When I enquired as to the provenance of the house, given I could sense there was something special, the architect went to retrieve the original plans. In one corner, the name of the original architects read Chancellor & Patrick. Surely this should have been known from the outset! Does one really think that a few glam finishes and fittings can improve on a Chancellor & Patrick design? Even if the clients were uninformed, surely the architect should have explained the home’s provenance. It appears to be a world where the ‘me’ generation thinks design starts with them and what they decide to create. A more informed architect may have made changes to the Chancellor & Patrick house, but would have done so knowing the history of the place. Those that were uninformed could have easily made a call to a heritage architectural practice at the very least.
Sometimes, when interviewing architects, I may suggest there’s a familiarity with another project from either the past or the present. It could be a curvaceous staircase with detailing that evokes the work of the late architect Harry Seidler or a contemporary. This practice of ‘adopting’ or ‘being inspired by’ isn’t unusual. However, these features should be pointed out in an interview. I prefer to hear from the outset a conversation something to the effect of, “I visited Rose Seidler House (designed by Seidler and completed in 1950) and this inspired the floor plan.” If I have to mention the source, this already sets up an awkward moment. One needs to be transparent!
This writer is not a designer, nor pretends to be. But I do find that too often history is ignored and sometimes blatantly dismissed. If one took the time to delve into design history, one would be surprised to find how fruitful this is to one’s own practice, irrespective of the field. The 1970s has made a strong return and it’s clear that ‘velvet is the new black’. But why not look further than this material? Pick up a book on the work of Marion Hall Best, a legend of Australian interior design in the late 1960s and ‘70s. She was known for her highly vibrant interiors, many of which included lacquered ceilings and mirrored walls. Knowing her work will make the discussion with the client that much richer and the result more impressive.
When information is now so accessible, at the touch of a button, why is there still a resistance to look to the past — not with the idea of replicating, but with the intention of learning, renewing and moving forward?