back
59 comments
Rather than "mid-century", it's actually high modernism. Subsequent so-called "modernism" ads needless, structually questionable adornment and archaic features.

Similarly, high modernist poetry peaked in the 1940s and 1950s. Since then we've had some good poetry but nothing that attempts to meld form and function in the same way that modernist poets like Eliot and Stein were able to.

IOW there is nothing dated about it -- which is why we still love it. Until furniture starts being made out of more space-age fabrics (or perhaps poetry out of emoji) it's unlikely that modernity will have much more to offer to furniture design or poetry...

Postmodernism is the realization that modern ideals have been met and that some objective other than design and functionality can become the focal point. Often, ironically, it's nostalgia of some kind.

There is nothing nostalgic about choosing modern designs. They simply optimize form and function with current materials and technology. That materials and tech for furniture have plateaued is a separate issue. Largely, the innovations have been in production, distribution, and manufacturing. Someone is far more likely today to live in a space adorned by modern designs mass-produced by Ikea or Target.

On a separate note I just discovered startup furniture company "Joybird". Pretty nice stuff, mostly so-called 'mid-century modern'.

"IOW there is nothing dated about it"

I'm surprised someone thinks this. To me most of it looks obviously dated, and very much a spindly and kitschy consumer product of Cold War suburbia.

It has very little of the purity of real modernism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_furniture

As for Stein - not everyone was impressed by her contribution:

http://www.romanianculture.org/downloads/testimony_against_g...

> I'm surprised someone thinks this. To me most of it looks obviously dated.

I think this is mostly in the eye of the beholder. Is there really much difference in the use of materials and form/function? I'd argue it's a minor aesthetic difference.

Also, I'd also argue that a chair like this is postmodern in the same way as designing a server case out of wood would be: Nostalgia for wood and desire for modern structure, where other materials would do a far better job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eames_Lounge_Chair_Wood#/media/...

The Noguchi table and the Eames plywood chair in the "Modern Furniture" article you linked to would also be regarded as midcentury modern. (And check out the Noguchi "cloud" sofa: http://observer.com/2014/12/the-six-figure-sofa-mid-century-...). If this is kitsch, count me in.

In other words: It's a slippery slope from what you might call "high modernism" (e.g., Bauhaus) to midcentury modern. Trying to characterize one as pure and one as consumerist seems like a category error -- these adjectives pertain more to specific pieces or arrangements than to the whole movement.

Similarly, arguing about whether these pieces are "dated" seems beside the point. The works were a product of their time. Some of them continue to impress.

Another point of reference regarding the idiosyncratic ways that modernism presented itself is Alvar Aalto, the Finnish architect and designer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvar_Aalto). His furniture and interiors would also be regarded as modernist, and (being Finnish) very centered around wood. Some of it might look "spindly and kitschy", especially depending on how it is arranged in a room. But check out http://www.archdaily.com/85390/ad-classics-villa-mairea-alva.... Again, count me in.

> kitschy consumer product

That is only coincidental side effect of manufacturing and economic means that allowed these things to be cheaply copied and consumed.

Last link is a PDF.
> IOW there is nothing dated about it -- which is why we still love it.

"well, actually..."

Lots of modernist stuff feels very dated. And, uh, I've rarely met people who are really into the Modernist art look who are outside of art circles...

I think it's far past time to move on from modernism & "post-modernism" to find a clearer ideal for the 21st century.

There's a lot of bad midcentury modern. Some of it is even pictured in the article. But the Barcelona chair, also pictured, has stood the test of time.
I think the popularity of mid-century modern owes some to the bauhaus movement. Utilitarian, streamlined, functional with an aesthetic eye in mind.

Dieter Rams and company. It borrows from architecture, aerospace and futurism. Some of the aesthetic is captured in Winogrand's great photographic opus, "1964".

The Palm Springs of the world when people were moving from the city core to new cites which excited with future vision. JFK airport, the Streamliners and the Airstreams.

But eventually there was a backlash as interpreted by "The New Topographics" --all too clean and alienating, the exuberance of the midcentury was hiding a secret of failure to deliver on the dreams to the masses.

But now it's back with a vengeance and the height of good taste as pronounced by the tastemakers like the MoMA.

Joybird is nice stuff indeed. While acknowledging that they seem to be Thrive knockoffs, I did recently order a sofa and chair from them. Most of my case goods and tables are vintage though. It's amazing how well designed, well made 50-60 year old (mid-century) furniture still looks better than most things I can buy new, and probably still will in another 50 years.
Where do you get that it’s called high modernism?

Personally it’s my favourite style, but it is dated. And like everything else it was a product of new advances in manufacturing and production, not just a marriage of form and function which can be seen in furniture going back 100-150 years further.

Another option is imported original mid-century from Europe. In LA (where Joybird is) try Amsterdam Modern: http://amsterdammodern.com/about
Optimized? A lot of those chairs look pretty uncomfortable.
I find this style wholly garish. Thank you for giving me the vocabulary to describe it.

Mid-century modernism is whimsical, busy, distracting. More than anything, it belongs to our grandparent's generation; it's an admission that we didn't reach the sought after future of robots and space travel.

I would take sleek lines and monochromatic shades over this any day. This is just my personal opinion, of course. I'm very cognizant of the fact that many people appreciate this style and find my own to be bland and drab.

>it's an admission that we didn't reach the sought after future of robots and space travel.

Sought after by whom?

It's not something people particularly want (heck, most people don't even care for sci-fi enough to have a couple TV channels and quality Hollywood genre movies made)...

I think more parents-and-grandparents' generation. Grandparents' generation is a bit more decorative IMO.
I would like to congratulate curbed.com for finding a new level of annoyingness in ads. They have a sound ad that does not have a corresponding video window (at least i could not find any) where you can kill the sound or pause the whole thing. So while I am reading the article I get to hear the same inane chatter about barbecuing every couple of minutes. Thanks so much!
That's easy. All computers have a mute button.
I think, the reason why it is enduringly popular is that the designs are not just aesthetic, they are also intertwined with developments in technology, industry and the economy. 'Modern' design is essentially 'throw out all previous ideas, start with a blank piece of paper, and remake things using modern industrial methods and materials'. That isn't just a design or a fashion, it is the embracing of a new reality.
Eames, one of the most important pioneers of the mid-century modern design had a great motto: "The best for the most for the least." It was aimed merging great design with mass production so the everyday man could have affordably priced, well designed furniture. Not sure what happened, but these items are now priced for the wealthy.
I'd have to check but I bet, in real terms, those wanes chairs are around the same price as they were, adjusted for inflation. What has happened is the production of even cheaper mass produced furniture. What you're not looking at is the extinct hand made, ornate expensive furniture from the decades prior. Things that would be, if sold now, even more pricey than an eames chair.

Properly cared for, one of those chairs will last a lifetime. That cannot be applied to cheaper furniture.

It is interesting how modern, industrial arts seem to fall back on the old model of value. I feel the same with modern art, the way that it is still being bought and sold and exhibited in the same way as the old master, rather than an idea, or in general something which is not technically difficult to reproduce. I feel by now we should be having many more famous artists that solely produce prints, or works which are designed to be mass produced, not single pieces to go in a gallery or on an oligarch's wall.
I wonder why so many people love midcentury design. It's uncomfortable, angular, fragile, cold, expensive, inhuman...you name it. Perhaps the items are just social vectors into the design world, conferring a status of "social elite" onto its participants. Any thoughts?
I'm a huge minimalist, and there's basically nothing else that embraces the minimal aesthetic. I paid a lot of money (as a college kid) for a pair of dressers that were made by Komfort and are very similar to this dresser: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Danish-Modern-Teak-Bedroom-Dresser-b...

As a programmer and a reductionist it's very appealing to me. It's about as simple as it can be with no extraneous ornamentation. The drawer pulls don't stick out, and the glides are hidden too.

For some reason this really, really resonates with me in the same way that Maxwell's equations are incredibly elegant or a Fourier transform explains so much of the world in such a compact way.

At risk of sounding like a hipster, I liked "midcentury modern" before Mad Men was cool. I think that my brain has worked the way it does for quite a while. I'm predisposed to liking midcentury stuff because I'm always trying to find the most compact, minimal form. In my mind the whole mapper/packer article that made the rounds a while ago helps explain it; I'm always looking for a more compact truth and that's bled over into the way I look at the physical world too.

http://the-programmers-stone.com/the-original-talks/day-1-th...

There's nothing uncomfortable or angular about many of the good mid-century designs, things like the eames lounger, the womb chair, the papa bear chair, etc. Perhaps you're confusing more contemporary (80s?) modern design with mid-century. Some of this stuff is expensive though - even the knockoffs.

The wood goods though are not cold at all, and are very warm. Teak is arguably the quintessential mid-century material, and naturally has a nice warm orangey finish. The best mid-century teak goods also feature nice curves and are not at all angular. The price on vintage wood goods is pretty good too. Everything I own was purchased for less than it would cost to purchase similar new, much lower quality, new goods. Ex: My vintage Grete Jalk dining set: $600. The best equivalent (much lower quality) Ikea dining set (Stockholm): ~$1200.

My advice is to avoid the fancy/expensive designers, consider new items for fabric goods (sofas), favor vintage for wood/case goods.

Agreed—and frankly, even in the pro-modernism article the best-looking pictures had the modernist pieces arranged in what I would call a post-modernist style.

Modernism was brutalism; it was van der Rohe and La Corbusier; it was decades of architecture which, as HRH the Prince of Wales has noted, did more damage to London than did the Luftwaffe.

I'd love to see a neo-Edwardian movement: organic shapes, colour, ornament, pattern, design, delight. Or bring back the single most beautiful artistic movement in history: Jugendstil/Art Nouveau.

I agree, and I also think it's a fashion thing like all the other trends that return in waves. It will drop away in its time. It's popular because it's a current trend.

I think you can get longevity with any furniture (clothes, etc) if you resist purchases that are too easily defined by a style or era. That is, certain angles, patterns, shapes, etc.

Alternatively, you go for an eclectic mix or double-down on a particular style and ride it out for 20 years until it comes back!

uncomfortable, angular, fragile, cold, expensive, inhuman

And therefore hugely popular with businesses that embody those qualities.

More seriously, this stuff comes in cycles. In a few years it'll be Shaker chairs or chrome-and-leather or extravagantly coloured or something. Although the cycle is anchored slighly by IKEA, who produce modernish stuff that's cheap, reliable and ubiquitous.

> uncomfortable, angular, fragile, cold, expensive, inhuman

elegant, simple, pure, powerful, minimalistic, geometric, and if it seems cold, it can also be funny and daring (remember the egg shaped chair?)

I would like to see the design world move on from modernism. It tends towards the spare and geometric, and frequently divorced from the general concerns and oriented towards the artistic aspirations of the designer.

As a simple example, consider the the 'flat' stylings. In a number of cases in my experience, the flat style made it harder to use the program. That is aggravating - it was art change for the sake of art change, adhering to the tired old modernist ideas.

It's quite worth reading this debate: http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm

And I find I am wholly on Alexander's kind of side.

Did anyone hang in there long enough to get to the "Why?"
Tl;dr timeless design and familiarity.
no
"The World"?

Is it just me, or is it largely a US thing? I mostly see it from US sources, but that could easily be selection bias...

Anyone any insights?

Perhaps one thing about the US is that we were in the right place at the right time to experience a residential building boom just when MCM was the thing.

Disclaimer: I live in one of those houses, and enjoy the aesthetic. I've even carefully maintained the Nelson bubble lamps.

It’s been really popular recently in Scandinavia, more so than normal.

Personally most American furniture I see in real life is not up to the standard of design I see in and around Stockholm.

The article completely failed on the "why". It focused almost entirely on the "what".

So why? First, the post-WWII era was a tremendously successful one. The world was forward-looking and optimistic. Then, our pop culture was looking to a peaceful, hi-tech future in space. What are we looking at in pop culture today? Zombie apocalypse.

It was also the last strongly defined aesthetic. After its rococo climax in late 1960s psychedelia, art lost direction. The gloom and negativity of the 1970s didn't find much shape in any art form but cinema, and ultimately the Sex Pistols came along in 1977, pronounced modernism dead, and kicked its corpse.

After punk, the world of high art aesthetics turned to postmodernism, reassembling bits and bobs of history and multiculturalism into a shape that reflected the past, not the future. Then the Internet came along, and design focus shifted to the web. Out in the physical world, postmodernism degenerated into mere hipsterdom.

I'm kind of hoping that hipsters are to postmodernism what psychedelia was to modernism, and a new, popular aesthetic can rise - something that recognizes the constraints and strengths of the 21st century. A lot of new art styles come from new technologies, so maybe 3D printing will lead us somewhere magical. One can only hope.

"Some midcentury furniture designs, like the iconic Eames Lounge Chair, never went out of production, but many others had fallen out of production by the mid 90s."

A startup founder I worked with in the 90's filled the office with Charles Eames chairs and tables. A bit sparse but functional. The pieces were not that expensive, more expensive than say IKEA, this was a legal startup.

Trends come and go, this is a fruitless thing to worry about. Stick to what works for you, don't worry about things that don't and eventually the stars will align.
A lot of this can be explained by China.

They are kind of in their 1960's in some ways.

And China is where most of this stuff is made, so ...

Actually, the higher end mid-century furniture makers are pretty committed to US manufacturing. In particular, Herman Miller manufactures in Michigan and furniture from places like Room & Board are mostly sourced from Virginia, North Carolina and other traditional woodworking areas.
The term "midcentury" does not seem appropriate anymore. Y2K.
I wasn't born in that era, yet I am immediately conscious of the style being described. I think this is owed to both the cultural preservation afforded by film and photography as well as the nostalgia of the previous generation (there are undoubtably a disproportionate number of films set during this period).
The barcelona chair is a classic furniture from the bauhaus period designed in 1929, which is not even close to the "midcentury" period defined in the article.
".php" Hadn't seen one of those in a while.
Isn't this entirely off-topic for HN?
Why does it matter? If it makes it to the front page, isn't it de facto on topic?