11

In Defense of the CurveProvoked by ReasonBy Brandon Clifford

p Mies van der Rohe (Armour In-stitute, 1938) drafting exercise . first

year students

In a conversation between Mies van der Rohe and Hugo Häring,

Mies inquires, “our steel beams, they have been born straight haven’t

they?” he then argues, “It takes a great deal of effort to bend them”.1

Implicit in this pointed attack is a requirement to justify the use of a

curve; ironically, Mies just justified his use of the line. This attack on

the curve is not an isolated one, but one that is pervasive throughout

the scales of design – architecture, urban, and furniture. While subtle

variations in argument between scales occur, what remains constant

is a general understanding that the curve needs justification. Com-

bating these attacks from the rationalists are designers motivated to

validate the curve. This argument is not about renouncing the use

of a curve, or advocating for the line, but rather a brothers quarrel.

Both sides argue for structural clarity, honesty of materials, techno-

logical advancement (mass production), and origins of form. This

paper will explore justifications argued for the curve versus the line

at three general scales -- the building scale, the regional scale, and the

product scale.

22

p Mies van der Rohe friedrich-straße office building, 1922. competi-tion entry. perspective sketch

p Mies van der Rohe friedrich-straße office building, 1922. competi-tion entry. floor plan

t Hugo Häring friedrichstraße of-fice building, 1922. competition entry. plan of first design

t Hugo Häring friedrichstraße of-fice building, 1922. competition entry. floor plan

u Hugo Häring friedrichstraße of-fice building, 1922. competition entry. perspective sketch

The most common attack on the curve is the claim of arbitrariness, a

rationalist critique which takes full advantage of the social tendency

towards scientific proof. The curve does after all denote an author-

ship a universal geometry would not. Adolf Behne rejects Henry

Van de Velde’s use of the curve in favor of Hugo Häring’s function-

alist curve. He attacks Van de Velde’s curve as being merely illustra-

tive and arbitrary. Behne then defends Haring by combating the line

stating “the rectangular room and the straight line are not functional

but mechanical creations.” He then goes on to argue the rectilinear

room is nonsensical as a functionalist argument because the corners

of the room are useless. “If I were to outline the areas in a room that

are actually used and walked upon, then I would inevitably arrive at a

curve”.2 By separating Häring and Van de Velde, Behne walks along-

side a large sum of people defending the curve in rationalist terms.

He is now speaking the same language as the rationalists, which sug-

gests Van de Velde was a casualty, not the enemy.

Behne later defends Van de Velde’s use of the curve for its consistent

emphasis on functional form. He goes on to explain the real ad-

vancement of this work is its use of movement “as a force plastically

organizing the building from the inside. [Behne states Van de Velde]

arrives at curves and flourishes, at forms that could be true once only,

i.e., they are valid in only one context”.3 This defense points to a

common difference between rationalist and organic theories – the

universal vs specific.

2 32

In the Friedrickstraße High-Rise competition of 1922, both Mies and

Häring submitted designs advocating their positions in this core argu-

ment. In an attempt to apply a universal technique to the site, Mies

only makes an accommodation to the irregular site in the corner op-

posite the Bahnhof. He makes no attempt to recognize the main pe-

destrian approach while Häring (as described by Peter Blundell-Jones)

generates an “axial thrust into the approach corner and spread[s] in

the opposite direction towards the riverfront. The centre of vertical

circulation, still on axis, is shifted towards the approach corner, short-

ening the axial wing and extending the other two to produce a bell-

shaped space between.”4 Each of these particularities of the design

not only embrace the curve, but respond to specific problems of the

project, rejecting Mies’ assumption that this is not a sited project.

“I am interested in clear structure.” – Mies van der Rohe5

“The Rationalist who does not manage to produce architec-

ture fails not because of an excess but rather because of a

lack of true reason.” – Eladio Dieste6

Structure is a topic of high contention in this argument. While both

argue for structural clarity, the results are polarizing. For Mies, struc-

tural clarity is the distilment of elements down to a simple and ra-

tional structural model. A beam is a beam and a column is a column

44

q Eladio Dieste iglesia de atlan-tida, 1958. construction image

q Mies van der Rohe illinois insti-tute of technology, crown hall 1952. perspective

-- each performs its own task and maintains a separation. By adher-

ing to these separations Mies is able to continue the deeper argument

about universality.

In opposition to such a rigid thesis, such architects as Eladio Dieste

argue structural rationalism is not limited to the line. Eladio’s mar-

riage of architecture and structural engineering develops a reciprocal

process between the two professions that is more forgiving. In his

Iglesia de Atlantida, Dieste’s interest in structural experimentation is

testament to this counter argument. By undulating the walls and roof,

he demonstrates that a linear brick wall would be incapable of such

a structural feat without a significant thickening of the walls. This

corrugation, or curving of the line is in itself structurally clear. While

Eladio also differentiates between vertical and horizontal structure,

the results are variations of each other and not distinctly new defini-

tions. Corrugation is the answer for both wall and roof, but the wall

begins with a line, where the roof has to span from wall to wall and

requires a consistent structural depth.

The use of the line is intriguing in the Iglesia de Atlantida. It is some-

how unnecessary, but present as nothing more than a reference. Is

it possible Dieste is suggesting a curve is only powerful in relation to

the line? By saddling up to pure forms, he argues not for a whimsi-

cal use of curves, but rather a calculated and scientific approach that

responds to forces – structure, space, program, gravity. This is not

simply a speculation on structure, but an integration of structure,

materials, and methods.

Mies has a conception of structural clarity irrespective of materials.

In order to make an argument for universality, structure is abstracted

to a level of representation. While one could argue both Mies and

Dieste are being structurally expressive, Dieste’s expression is towards

a larger goal, while Mies’ expression through details could be con-

sidered diagrammatically beholden and patronizing. By utilizing this

structural expression through a collaborative process between engi-

4 54

p Eladio Dieste iglesia de atlan-tida, 1958. perspective

u Eladio Dieste iglesia de atlan-tida, 1958. plan

u Eladio Dieste iglesia de atlan-tida, 1958. structural plan

66

p Michel de Klerk het schip, 1920. perspective

neering and architecture, Dieste’s work results in an architecture of

the specific.

Dieste’s focus on integrating multiple aspects of these separate argu-

ments was not a unique one. Häring argued “before the advent of

geometry, man’s inventive spirit explored with real success the poten-

tial of the many building materials provided by nature.”7 This could

be viewed in contrast with this quote from Der Stil; “Every material

[has] conditions that distinguish it from other materials and that de-

mand a technical treatment appropriate to it.”8 Both of these argu-

ments exemplify a focus on the importance of materials in architec-

ture; however, their approach could not be further from each other.

Rationalists argue each material contains its own unique proper-

ties. These properties are self-determined and inherent in the mate-

rial. The architect is to apply these materials in a manner that best

exemplifies these properties. When defending the curve in material

terms, many architects and theorists have capitalized on this unwaver-

ing interpretation. Van de Velde claims “every material carries within

itself forces and possibilities whose dramatic meaning and intensity lie

within the graph that leads the material from the point of inanimate

rigidity to life, from death to life!”9 This comment resonates with the

work of Michel De Klerk whose expressive use of brick as a material

ran counter to the rationalist tendencies of the Amsterdam School

set in place by Berlage. De Klerk’s experimentation with the material

proved he was not slave to one pre-conceived notion of the material’s

property.

Relevant to all Architects and designers of the 20th century were the

issues of industrialization and the process of mass production. Both

sides of the curve debate used the processes of mass production to

frame their arguments. This debate stems around one fundamental

difference – standardization vs. technological potential. Rationalists

appropriated standardization (in the topic of materials) as an alibi for

maintaining the purity of the line. This common conception among

6 76

q Mies van der Rohe brick country house, 1923. plan

q Hugo Häring country house, 1923/1924. elevation

q Hugo Häring country house, 1923/1924. plan

rationalists that mass produced objects required a standardization

that refuted curvature was a point of contention. In response Häring

stated by “impos[ing] geometric figures on things means to make

them uniform, to mechanize them. But we do not want to mecha-

nize things, only to mechanize their production. To mechanize things

means to mechanize their lives – and in consequence our lives, which

is to deaden. But to mechanize their production is to win life.”10

Häring revolts against the standardized construction unit in favor of

a process that would not limit the spirit of design. Industrialization

proved to be the pivot of revolution. Defenders of the curve argue

mass-production does not limit formal exploration.

Arguments around origins of form are slightly more complicated

as they are not grounded in functionalist theory. The Rationalist

movement was born under a strong foundation of social embrace

with scientific discovery. Their claim that basic geometries could

somehow bring the architecture closer to god is baffling consider-

ing this assumes a belief in something outside the realm of scientific

proof. For all their reliance on scientific enlightenment thought, the

rationalists were relying heavily on old Greek thought, (Platonism,

the purity of certain ideal forms) while those using organic forms

were actually more based in relevant and current science. Defenders

of the curve appropriated an increasing focus on the life sciences,

birthing biomorphism. Häring directly confronts the rationalist

platonic allegiance stating “under and during the reign of the geo-

metrical culture, formal expression was derived from laws which were

contrary to life, to the creation of life, to movement and to nature,

laws recognized in purely geometrical forms. We have since discov-

ered that purely functional things have forms which can satisfy us in

terms of expression, and indeed some forms created solely out of

functional necessity become more satisfying in terms of expression

as they become functionally purer.”11 By making a direct connection

with nature, Häring is able to confront the rationalists with scientific

discovery that nature also uses curves. This quote as well as his work

88

q San Fransisco peak locations in san fransisco require curve mediations. aerial images

speaks to a characteristic Häring exploits with the curve. Häring’s

country house of 1924 is generated from a torque in plan that evokes

a movement through the individual spaces of the project. While

these spaces are organically woven together through movement, they

respond to each other as an integrated whole. Each room nests next

to its neighbors without an impression of dominance. These spaces

are also developed with function in mind as furniture demonstrates in

the plan. Mies’ Brick Country House on the other hand once again

embraces an ambiguity and abstraction where the relations between

spaces and functions are blurred. Clearly, applying curves to this

project would have confused the matter. In the hands of Häring,

abstraction is converted to specificity. Is it possible the application

of curves without specific forces would result in an architecture no

one could defend.

The building scale argument hovers between a functionalist and a sty-

listic one. When moving to the urban scale, the human psyche enters

as a factor in decision making.

In his theory of the meander, Le Corbusier examines how a river

becomes a curve when it meets an obstacle. “Following the outlines

of a meander from above, I understood the difficulties met in hu-

man affairs, the dead ends in which they get stuck and the apparently

miraculous solutions that suddenly resolve apparently inextricable

situations.”12 For Corbusier, the curve is a solution to a problem.

Here is an argument not simply for a formal approach, but rather

for a method of responding and interacting. Corbusier is suggest-

ing there is a quality in society (and nature) of resilience to forces

through inventive solutions.

Implicit in his theory is that a river would begin as a line and become

a curve as the result of a force. This theory is suspect when applied

to mountainous regions. The velocity and strength of the water

overpowers its terrain and obliterates obstacles in its path. It isn’t un-

til the river makes its way down stream to the floodplain that it begins

8 98

q Fredrick Law Olmstead ansley park, 1904. development plan

q suggested redevelopment of a subdivision plan in the booklet planning profitable neighborhoods, technical bullitin no. 7 (fha, 1938)

u contemporary suburbia - results of the federal housing administra-tion guidelines of the 1930’s

to meander where there are relatively weaker obstacles to overcome.

It would also be possible to argue the curve is the result of internal

weakness or sluggishness. A relative comparison of force vs obstacle

once again results in an argument about function.

In San Francisco, for example, a grid is stubbornly applied to the

variable terrain. This grid is irrespective of peak, valley, or ridge. It

denies acknowledgement of external forces and results in extremely

steep streets. Some areas of the city are so steep; a curve is required

to navigate the impossibilities inherent in the grid application. Each

of these curve moments in San Francisco exhibits a specific response

in contrast to the universality of the grid. These curves are solutions

to tangible problems.

While many examples are solutions to tangible problems, there are

other examples of designers responding to social and cultural forces.

In 1904, Fredrick Law Olmstead designed Ansley Park, a subdivision

of Atlanta, with curving roads in order to give a sense of leisure and

tranquility as one rode their carriage down the street. This specula-

tive project birthed a guideline by the Federal Housing Adminis-

tration in the 1930’s that “promoted the curvilinear layout of new

suburban communities”. This time the force as play to promote the

curve was not experiential, but rather as a way of “mitigating the

uniformity of the mass-produced houses that made single-home

1010

ownership affordable;”13 -- a reality rationalists would distain. Coun-

ter to resolving specific natural conditions, this curvilinear solution

is suburbia is pervasive. The curve is so prolific that it is no longer a

response to a specific force, but rather a universal solution. It is, of

course, possible for the curve to be used arbitrarily.

While urban design grappled with the legitimacy of the curve on a

natural, political, and social scale, at the level of furniture design the

argument focused more closely on the scale of materials and process

methods. In designing ‘the Red Blue chair’, Gerrit Rietveld claimed

“the aim was to keep each part simple, preserving the form inherent

in the original use and character of the material, the form that most

easily leads to a harmonious entity based on a standard module for all

the separate elements.”14 This description is in keeping with rational-

ist theory and the execution of the chair represents the Constructivist

language of the De Stijl movement.

While Rietved never on principle rejected the use of curves, his

theory and practice clearly advocate for a universal and impersonal

palette that would not accommodate the use of a curve. Rietveld was

beholden the abstractions of artists Mondrian and Van Doesberg and

desired to design without deformations; therefore, curves would be

considered impurities.

Rietveld (like Mies) makes all attempts to maintain the purity of indi-

vidual elements. While the rails of the “chair cross at traditional right

angles, they do not intersect but extend beyond the point of junction,

and for aesthetic rather than structural reasons.”15 As a way of justi-

fying this sobering design, Rietveld makes a couple of arguments in

defense of his line. Each of these arguments stem around a central

argument that promotes mass production. He first claims by extend-

ing the rails beyond each other, it is possible to adjust the dimensions

of the chair as if each connection is a slip joint. Rietveld is essential-

ly utilizing flexibility as an alibi for the use of primitive forms. This

technique of slipping is a stylistic gesture implemented to solidify the

10 1110

t Gerrit Rietveld red-blue chair, 1917-19.

t Gerrit Rietveld red- blue chair, detail connection

t Mies van der Rohe farnsworth house, 1951. detail

q Michael Thonet bending forms incorporating a metal strip.

independency of each element and “approach the laconic splendor

of a line drawing,”16 a tendency he shares with Mies.

Rietveld also makes the claim that the factory process determines

these primitive units and the standardization required of mass pro-

duction. In this argument, Rietveld reinforces Mies’s claim that

beams are born straight. His assumption is that mass production

generates standardized units, and therefore, these units exhibit the

inherent nature of the material. By making this claim it is apparent

his concern is not with the material, but with the result of the factory

process. If the factory were making sticks out of plastic, the result-

ing chair would remain in its configuration. We can see in two ex-

amples where Rietveld’s fundamental theories can be accommodated

for through the use of a curve.

The bentwood fabrication technique of Michel Thonet was born of

the same mass production spirit of Rietveld’s motivations; however,

it was originally conceived of as a solution to the problem of carving

curves as ornament in wood. Thonet began his career (1930’s) carv-

ing wood furniture in a traditional technique and found it impossible

to carve curves entirely in the direction of the grain since it ran in a

straight line. To design with large curves in wood, it was required to

aggregate smaller curves into a larger one, a lengthy process incom-

patible with mass-production.17 Thonet is a great example of a curve

1212

t Michael Thonet no. 14 chair, 1859-60

t Adolf Loos cafe museum chair, 1908

being generated in the fabrication process towards a goal of mass

production. While Thonet’s process was developed with an orna-

mentation motive, we can reference Adolf Loos’s implementation

of Thonet’s production method in his un-adulterated café museum

chair. Loos applies two functionalist arguments in defense of the

curve – structure and program.

A classic problem of chair design is that the connections are the

weakest moments. Designers are faced with the balancing act be-

tween a refined chair that will not sustain the brunt force of daily use,

and a bulky chair that survives forever. Loos ingeniously applies a

curve to each moment connection, navigating the horizontal and the

vertical. This technique, made possible by Thonet’s method, main-

tains the refined character of the chair, while reinforcing its structural

integrity.

Loos also exhibits a reciprocity between form and function that

doesn’t exist in Rietvelds design. Take the back support for example.

In the Red Blue chair, a single rigid plane is supplied at an angle -- the

12 1312

p Charles and Ray Eames leg splint, 1941

u Charles and Ray Eames body splint, 1941

u Charles and Ray Eames leg splint, 1941. demonstration

only suggestion of comfort for the occupant. In a subtle variation

on the Thonet chair, Loos bends the back supports in response to

the curve of the back. This reciprocity between an objects produc-

tion and its purpose transcends such categories as organic, function,

and form.

This reciprocity can also be seen in the work of Charles and Ray

Eames. Their integration of method, materials, and purpose into fur-

niture design is strangely reminiscent of theories previously provided

by Rietveld, but to an end that could be considered in opposition.

“The idea was to do a piece of furniture that would be simple and yet

comfortable. It would be a chair on which mass production would

not have anything but a positive influence; it would have in its ap-

pearance the essence of the method that produced it. It would have

an inherent rightness about it, and it would be produced by people

working in a dignified way.”18 Eames touches on all the same aspects

Reitveld does – mass production, simple, honesty. The Eames’s were

associated with the Organic movement and had entered into a local

climate that embraced the curve. It is important to note that it is not

simply the curve that interested the Eames, but the freedom to apply

them to various forces. This can be seen in their leg splint design,

where two major forces inform the resulting design – the means and

methods of production and biomorphism.

1414

t Charles Eames casting fiber-glass

p Charles and Ray Eames lcw chair, 1945 - plywood process

p Charles and Ray Eames plastic armchair, 1950-53 - fiberglass process

Like Thonet, the Eames’s were highly invested in process and materi-

al experimentation. Through this research they were not just accept-

ing a post consumer product as the inherent property of the material,

but rather pushing the limits to discover the latent potential of mate-

rials. Bent plywood not only performs well structurally, (as Loos ex-

hibited) but is capable of responding to the body as well. For the leg

splint project, the design process began with a plaster cast of Charles’

leg proving the Eames’s dedication to the organic and biomorphic.

The process for their chair designs are similar. “Both the leg splint

and the chairs were meant to conform to the human body – that was

their defining purpose – by necessity, they emerge from the shape of

the living body, they are ‘biomorphic’. The mid-twentieth-century

interest in ergonomics – the science of designing an object to fit its

use by the body – naturally led to forms that were biomorphic.”19

One further point in comparison with the Red Blue chair is while

Rietveld’s design is irrespective of the material used, the Eames de-

signs changed form depending on material. When working with bent

plywood, they were constrained by the constructability of complex

curvature in wood, resulting in ruled surfaces. If a compound curve

was required – as the biomorphic force requested – a dart or break in

the surface was cut to allow the geometry to bend in two directions.

14 1514

Moving forward chronologically, the Eames’s began experimenting

with fiberglass and plastics that would allow for compound curva-

tures, and the subsequent chair designs exhibited those geometries

they considered inherent not just in the material, but in a combina-

tion of the material, its processing, and the final use of the object.

The nuance variations of argument at each scale highlight the various

forces that appear as scales shift. Urban design requires a response

to social, political, and geographical forces resulting in arguments

revolving around topological systems that can be applied at a large

scale. Justifications quickly change their focus to materials, methods,

program, and structure when the scale drops. Throughout the scales,

while the particularities vary, the most prevalent concept used in

justifying the curve surrounds function. Functionalist theory, while

ironically agreed upon by both sides of the argument, acts as a non-

confrontational, tangible, and verifiable alibi. Defenders of the curve

utilize these topics to combat rationalist accusations of arbitrari-

ness. By responding with the same justifications the rationalist use to

justify their lines, defenders of the curve are able to match apples to

apples. Epistemological arguments are also introduced by defenders

of the curve, although they were generally disregarded by the opposi-

tion for being incompatible with their root beliefs in universal design.

Ultimately, the argument between the curve and the line was really

one of universality versus specificity.

1 Mies van der Rohe “Mies Speaks: I Do Not Design Buildings.” Architectural Review, No. 862, December 1968: 452.

2 Behne, Adolf “No Longer Shaped Space But Designed Reality.” Modern Functional Building, CA, Getty Research Institute, 1996: 121.

3 Behne, Adolf “No Longer Shaped Space But Designed Reality.” Modern Functional Building, CA, Getty Research Institute, 1996: 111.

4 Blundell-Jones, Peter. Hugo Häring the organic versus the geometric. Stutt-gart: Ed. Axel Menges, 1999: 40.

5 Mies van der Rohe “Mies Speaks: I Do Not Design Buildings.” Architectural Review, No. 862, December 1968: 452.

1616

16 1716

6 Pedreschi, Remo. Eladio Dieste (The Engineer’s Contribution to Contempo-rary Architecture). Nashville: Thomas Telford Ltd, 2000: 66.

7 Blundell-Jones, Peter. Hugo Häring the organic versus the geometric. Stut-tgart: Ed. Axel Menges, 1999: 85.

8 Forty, Adrian. “Form.” Words and Buildings A Vocabulary of Modern Archi-tecture. London: Thames & Hudson, 2004: 161.

9 Velde, Henry van de. “Animation of Materials as a Principle of Beauty.” Trans. Kathryn Schoefert and Spyros Papapetros. Essays (Leipzig, 1910): 238.

10 Blundell-Jones, Peter. Hugo Häring the organic versus the geometric. Stut-tgart: Ed. Axel Menges, 1999: 78

11 Haring, Hugo “Approaches To Form.” Form and Function, New York, Granada, 1980: 103

12 Le Corbusier “American Prologue.” Precisions, 1991: 5.

13 Filler, Martin “Building Organic form.” Vital Forms American Art and Design in the Atomic Age, 1940-1960. By Rapaport Brooke Kamin. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2001: 134

14 Rietveld, Gerrit Thomas. Gerrit Th. Rietveld, 1888-1964 the complete works : Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 1992. Utrecht: Centraal Museum, Distrib-uted by Princeton Architectural, 1992: 74

15 Eidelberg, Martin. “Charting the Iconic Chair.” The Eames Lounge Chair An Icon of Modern Design. London: Merrell, 2006: 12.

16 Cadwell, Michael. Strange Details (Writing Architecture). New York: MIT, 2007: 114.

17 Vegesack, Alexander Von. Thonet classic furniture in bent wood and tubu-lar steel. London: Hazar Pub., 1996: 61.

18 Neuhart, John. Eames design the work of the Office of Charles and Ray Eames. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1989: 53.

19 Kevin, Stayton L. “Introduction.” Vital Forms American Art and Design in the Atomic Age, 1940-1960. By Rapaport Brooke Kamin. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2001: 27-28.