![That’s the Style: Markets and Modernism](https://www.econlib.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Parliament.jpg)
Less is more — Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Less is a bore — Robert Venturi
In a recent post, Alex Tabarrok discussed the problem of modern architecture. Why do architects no longer produce the sort of beautiful old buildings that we see in many European cities? Alex cites an article by Samuel Hughes, which dismisses one popular explanation—the theory that rich ornamentation is increasingly costly, especially as there are fewer craftsmen trained to produce beautiful sculptural details. Hughes shows that this explanation doesn’t hold, and that modern technology would allow for ornamentation to be produced at relatively low cost. Instead, he makes a sort of “market failure” argument. Ugly, boring and sterile buildings have been foisted on the public by a group of elite intellectuals back in the 1920s:
to exaggerate a little, it really did happen that every government and every corporation on Earth was persuaded by the wild architectural theory of a Swiss clockmaker [Le Corbusier] and a clique of German socialists, so that they started wanting something different from what they had wanted in all previous ages. It may well be said that this is mysterious. But the mystery is real, and if we want to understand reality, it is what we must face.
In this post, I’ll argue that there is no market failure. In some sense, modernism is what the public actually desires. And not just in architecture, but in almost all aspects of life.
Hughes’s theory is not new. Back in 1981 Tom Wolfe made a similar argument in From Bauhaus to Our House. Unfortunately for Wolfe, the “problem” was not confined to architecture, and thus he had to write another book (The Painted Word) explaining why beautiful old styles of realistic painting were being replaced with abstract art. Here are a couple examples from the Netherlands.
In the case of architecture, tourists generally prefer the more richly ornamented old buildings of Amsterdam to the modernist edifices of Rotterdam, which replaced buildings destroyed in WWII. But buildings are not built for tourists, they are built for residents and workers.
Even two Tom Wolfe books are not enough to fully explain modernism, which has affected (infected?) virtually all areas of contemporary life. A person with absolutely no education in art theory can immediately recognize the difference between more complex and ornamented traditional styles and more simple and streamlined modern styles. Thus, consider how Coca-Cola containers have evolved over time:
Even the name has been simplified: “Coke”. I’ll show that a similar change has occurred in almost all areas of life. But first we need to clarify a few concepts. People often contrast the “modern” with more “classical” styles. Here classical means “from the past”. But art historians are more likely to use the term classical to represent a simple, elegant and symmetrical structure, whereas romanticism represents various forms of complex, asymmetrical and highly ornamented structures.
The British Houses of Parliament were built in the mid-1800s, whereas the Jefferson Memorial was built in the 1940s. But the Jefferson Memorial is classical whereas the Houses of Parliament are a form of romanticism (specifically neo-gothic.) Indeed Brazil’s ultra-modern government buildings (see below) are much more “classical” than Pugin’s 19th century masterpiece.
Tabarrok and Hughes are correct that in at least some respects people prefer more traditional styles of architecture. Consider San Francisco’s famous “painted ladies”:
But traditionalists understate the degree to which modern styles have impacted even residential choices of consumers. More than 100 years ago, Frank Lloyd Wright revolutionized architecture by replacing vertically oriented boxy houses full of strictly separated rooms with a more free flowing horizontal style where the public rooms seamlessly flow into each other. Few people are rich enough to afford a masterpiece like the Martin House in Buffalo, but Wright’s approach influenced the postwar preference for “ranch houses” with big picture windows and open floor plans.
The term “painted ladies” is a reminder that modernism has also affected women’s fashions. Back around 1900, wealthy women wore extremely ornate outfits. By the 1920s, (the era of Le Corbusier), women’s fashions had greatly simplified—become more “modern”. In his memoir entitled “The World of Yesterday”, Stefan Zweig sees this evolution as a positive change, and links it to wholesome changes in culture that allowed young men and women to socialize in a more natural and freer fashion. Thus, old fashioned corsets and cumbersome dresses were a sort of metaphor for painfully restrictive social mores.
If it is really true that in architecture the old fashioned is beautiful and the modern is ugly, why doesn’t this also apply to women’s fashions? Did Le Corbusier also force women to discard richly ornamented outfits and replace them with simple black dresses? To be sure, there is a sense in which the Paris fin-de-siècle fashions were more beautiful than modern clothing. But is this what women want today? I don’t think so. They want to be modern. “That’s the style.”
How about autos? Why do people now buy simple streamlined styles, not the more ornate styles of the 1940s? I suppose you could argue that this partly reflects government fuel economy regulations, but there are too many other such examples to explain away.
I encourage people to go to an antique furniture store and look at all the richly ornamented (and often over-styled) items on display. You’ll see things like massive oak tables with carved clawfoot legs and heavy dark wood cabinets. Then walk out of the store and visit a furniture store with lighter Scandinavian teak wood designs. The furniture will immediately seem more “modern”. It will also seem more appealing to many people. Did Le Corbusier also foist modern furniture on the public? Was that streamlined furniture style forced by federal regulators? Obviously not. Why did consumers stop buying ornate silver teapots and switch to streamlined modern teapots? The examples of our modern preference for simplicity are nearly endless.
The guy that said, “Less is a bore” also wrote a book entitled Learning from Las Vegas. But isn’t one of the lessons of Vegas that it’s not easy to fit traditional styles to modern needs. Las Vegas is an extraordinarily ugly city. Surprisingly, however, it is least ugly when it is at its most modern. The ugliest parts of the strip are places where traditional styles are ineptly pasted onto monstrous hotels containing 3000 rooms, whereas the least objectionable Vegas buildings are a few minimalist streamlined modernist towers such as the Aria hotel. That’s not to say that buildings like the Bellagio are not interesting—as a tourist I’d much rather walk through its lobby than that of a sterile modern building. But it doesn’t really work as architecture. It’s much too big for its neo-Italian style.
This does not mean that traditional styles never work. The headquarters for Epic Systems just outside Madison is full of fanciful buildings based on various fairy tales. In contrast, Apple headquarters in Silicon Valley is a sleek circle, much in the style of its consumer products. In aesthetic terms, the Apple building is more successful. But the Epic campus is probably more fun. To each their own. Companies have an incentive to use architecture that allows them to attract the desired workforce.
Nor would I suggest that the more recent is always better. I prefer the best paintings of 1600-1670 or 1850-1925 over the best output of the past 100 years. I prefer midcentury modern architecture over the post-modern architecture of the 1970s and 1980s. I prefer the pop music of 1965-72 over the music of the past 7 years. I prefer the films of 1950-1980 over those of the past 30 years. Tastes vary, and your choices may differ.
But the fact that modernism has swept the field in such a wide range of areas suggests that it is not a market failure imposed by out of touch elite architects back in the 1920s. It is the style that best fits the modern world. And that’s true even if many of the older buildings are in some sense “better”. I wouldn’t want Gerhard Richter or Anselm Kiefer to copy the style of Velazquez or Vermeer. I wouldn’t want David Mamet to copy the style of Shakespeare. I wouldn’t want Beyonce or Taylor Swift to copy the Beatles or Bob Dylan. Each generation tries to find its own style. That’s the market at work.
READER COMMENTS
Laurentian
May 31 2024 at 4:33am
Is this the same with politics and government debt?
Scott Sumner
May 31 2024 at 10:29am
Some political changes are undesirable (as with the Nazis), even if they are in some sense a reflection of the times. This also might be true of aesthetics. Some new styles do not stand the test of time. But I would still insist that this is a market phenomenon, not a market failure. Modernism is what the public wants.
MarkW
May 31 2024 at 7:16am
The idea that historical styles are all highly ornate and that this was only swept away with 20th century modernism seems questionable. This is also true of historical styles of women’s dress — which have gone through periods of complexity followed by returns to simplicity and ‘naturalness’. The US has had many residential architectural styles in its history, with varying levels of ornamentation. And modernism has not really had much staying power in residential architecture. In my neighborhood, there have been a number of teardowns, and the houses most at risk seem to be the mid-century moderns (the only two on my own block have been demolished in the last decade). That is in contrast the to older craftsman, colonial, and cottage style houses, which are more likely to be lovingly maintained an upgraded. It would be very hard, I think, to find any new subdivision of tract homes in Bauhaus or mid-century modern styles — or even ranch houses, for that matter. Maybe a Bauhaus style tract development is being built somewhere, but I’ve not seen it. Presumably because that’s not what sells. As for product labels, there’s been an explosion in craft distilling — check out some of those labels. Rejecting ‘high modernism’ doesn’t require adopting a Victorian or Rococo level of ornamentation.
Scott Sumner
May 31 2024 at 10:32am
Good comment. Here in California you still see new homes in the modernist style in places with high levels of education.
Also note that lots of McMansions that try to emulate traditional styles end up looking quite ugly.
MarkW
May 31 2024 at 11:43am
Yes, you still see some new modernist architect-designed homes here (there’s an unfortunate recent example visible up the hill from my back yard). But no subdivisions are built in that style, and really not even any spec houses (even at the high end of the market). You will see a few higher end spec houses that could be described as contemporary, but nothing really close to Bauhaus. ‘High modernism’ is a taste found almost exclusively among the wealthy and educated, but even there it’s a minority taste.
I’m no a fan of subdivision architecture either, but it’s apparently what people are willing to spend their money on and a clear signal that we’re not actually all modernists now.
Scott Sumner
May 31 2024 at 12:39pm
Agreed, but many modern houses have been influenced by modernism, even if they have moved away from its purest form. Post-modernism would not have been possible without modernism. I live in a post-modern house, and the previous owner added some crown molding (the “ornament” that traditionalists love) and it looks ugly.
Rajat
Jun 2 2024 at 6:44pm
When I first read this post, I was all set to write something similar to (but less informed than) MarkW’s response. But having thought about it a bit more and researched the styles of architecture adopted in new housing estates in my area, I think I have come around to Scott’s view. New housing estates in Australia could be described as ‘post-modern’. Most of the styles are not very good and date quickly, but the styles does seem to reflect what people want. The highly-valued period homes in inner suburbs that get periodically restored and expensively-renovated are highly-valued because they are genuinely old and have a scarcity value. If someone tried to build a new Victorian terrace or even a row of them in a new housing estate, no-one would consider them comparable to the 1890s terraces in the inner-city Melbourne and they would be seen as kitsch and tacky.
Perhaps one area where there is a market failure of sorts in home design is in the use of cheap construction practices, where taking a long term view of liveability might promote better and more expensive design. I’m thinking of things like high ceilings (which almost everyone likes and which period homes typically offer) and double brick construction (which aids in temperature- and sound-insulation, especially here where building standards in these areas are traditionally very low). But yes, virtually everyone these days wants open-plan living and lots of light (not to mention multiple ensuites and walk-in robes), not the small dark rooms of traditional Victorian and Edwardian houses.
MarkW
Jun 6 2024 at 2:25pm
The (regrettable) new style being built here is the ‘modern farmhouse’ — traditional peaked roof, gabled forms but with a stark black/white color scheme (white siding, with black framed mullioned windows). Is this traditional? Post-modern? Or does it harken back to the austere New England ‘saltbox’ style?
<i>But yes, virtually everyone these days wants open-plan living and lots of light (not to mention multiple ensuites and walk-in robes), not the small dark rooms of traditional Victorian and Edwardian houses</i>.
Well nobody wants small windows (that was driven by high costs in the past) or small rooms (ditto). But because of work-from-home, things are reportedly trending away from full open-floor plan homes (as the execrable open floor plan office was on its way before the office in general started to be outdated).
<i>If someone tried to build a new Victorian terrace or even a row of them in a new housing estate, no-one would consider them comparable to the 1890s terraces in the inner-city Melbourne and they would be seen as kitsch and tacky.</i>
Nobody around here is building new Victorian style, gingerbread-encrusted houses, but there many examples of new houses in historical styles (albeit with modern amenities when it comes to room sizes, bathroom count, walk-in closets, and the like). There have been some local examples of condos built in row-house style, too. But I wouldn’t expect Australian and American preferences to be the same (not least because of the differences in climate). Although I did see ‘modern farmhouse’ at the top of the first list I googled for ‘most popular Australian new house designs’.
Henri Hein
May 31 2024 at 2:04pm
That could be because they are distinct. Not necessarily because they are popular.
MarkW
May 31 2024 at 5:23pm
That could be because they are distinct. Not necessarily because they are popular.
I don’t think so. Each of these styles is pretty common in the area. And brand new houses in these styles have been built recently (either infill or after teardowns). It’s not immediately obvious if homes like these are 15 or 90 years old.
The midcentury houses here have a bit of a cult following, but it doesn’t seem to be enough. They are generally smaller than the older houses and apparently harder to update. I have a friend who is just about to put one on the market (he remarried and they bought a new house together). He’s even won an award from the city for historic preservation, but he thinks it’s likely — given the neighborhood, the small size of the house — that it’ll end up being yet another tear down.
Jim Glass
May 31 2024 at 5:47pm
The Coke “bottle versus can” example is simple. The can is high technology, superior as to manufacturing cost, shipping, product preservation, customer convenience, etc. Providing consumers with a better product at lower price. It didn’t take 50 years to go from bottles and tin cans requiring “church key” openers to today’s cans for no reason.
In fact, “the secrets of the Coke can” were the subject of a recent notable criminal failed Chinese attempt at industrial espionage. See Bloomberg, “The $120 Million Coke Can Heist”.
There are lots of interesting attempts to attribute the evolution of men’s and women’s fashion styles across changes in technology, sociology, and random fashion movements. I went to law school across the street from Lincoln Center and the crowds then going into the Philharmonic and Opera wore an interesting mix of formal-wear & gowns, and sports shirts & jeans (me when I had discount tickets) — democracy rising.
When I was a kid my father’s employer, a transportation company, made good money from a hat store it operated in Grand Central Station (go figure). Men universally wore hats since forever until the 1970s, then – snap – only baseball caps remained. What happened? All the above.
Scott Sumner
May 31 2024 at 6:28pm
To be clear, I was more interested in the modernist style in which the Coke can was decorated than in the fact that it was a can.
Craig
Jun 1 2024 at 10:31am
My calculus teacher in high school enjoyed pointing out, while performing his favorite max/min problem, that the cylindrical shape of the Coke can is not the shape that minimizes surface area and hence aluminum. He even told us that he told the Coca Cola company this and honestly I just assumed at the time that they probably knew and had some other reason for the shape of the can. But now I wonder if there’s something about the can which is optimal albeit not optimal in terms of input materials?
steve
Jun 2 2024 at 11:43am
It easy to hold, the same shape most of our glasses use.
Steve
Anonymous
Jun 5 2024 at 12:39pm
It’s also the highest strength shape for a pressure vessel, although I suppose soda is not at very high pressures. That is why airplane cabins are shaped cylindrically.
Ryan
Jun 6 2024 at 4:30pm
That seems like a bad criticism of the can shape. Obviously a sphere has the highest volume to surface ratio area but nobody is drinking out of a sphere (would it just roll away?) and packing/shipping/shelving efficiency are just as important. There is no reason to think that soda cans are not highly optimized.
kangaroo
Jun 6 2024 at 2:31pm
Scott: great work! My only issue is the claim that modern buildings are ugly. They aren’t “ugly” or “beautiful”. Only the whine and cheesy artsy set thinks of them that way. What they are is *functional*. They allow us to manage important business without being offensive, so we can get on to doing the things we enjoy.
Your point about furniture is a good one, but I have an issue here too: “antique” was the term people used for heavy, gaudy out-dated furniture when it was valuable. Now we call that kind of furniture “junk”. The downtowns of the small towns engulfed by Seattle’s exploding suburbs over the last forty years are full of “antique” stores. They are full of old heavy furniture and empty of people. Chances are good they turn less revenue than the vape stores on the same block.
Cheers sir, and don’t forget to vote Trump. You don’t have to tell anyone.
John Brennan
Jun 6 2024 at 3:59pm
You had me at Frank Lloyd Wright.
D Work
Jun 6 2024 at 5:13pm
Modern buildings are generally a better experience from the inside (so as you point out, if you’re optimizing for functionality and the experience of a worker/resident and not that of a passerby, you have good reason to choose modern, with larger windows, more spacious rooms, etc).
Residential modern construction tends to be more expensive, so I think this is part of the reason that you don’t see it as much in subdivisions. A builder can tack up a strip of molding much more cheaply than they can make a smoothly plastered wall meet the floor or ceiling with no flaws. Simple lines usually require better materials and technique to look beautiful. Our house is modern, because we thought it ridiculous to build something else in the 2010’s (and because we like clean lines and big windows), but it was definitely a luxury preference and not one that someone building our home on spec would likely have chosen.
Phil H
Jun 7 2024 at 10:59am
Yes to all of this. One way to think about that ornamentation is as a solution to the technical problem of using lots of material. In architecture, they didn’t have light, strong concrete yet, and buildings had big thick stone walls. They added ornamentation to stop them looking so heavy and ugly. Wooden houses were not so ornamented, because they were lighter and nicer to look at.
With women’s clothing, the technical problem was that you had to cover up every square inch of skin with lots of material, but westerners didn’t go for the burqa aesthetic, do we made the dresses frilly to compensate. Permit a little more freedom in style, and slinkiness becomes possible, so the need for frills diminishes.
Frank
Jun 7 2024 at 1:35pm
If people want modernism, why aren’t video game worlds modern? In architecture? In portraiture? In fashion?
With the exception of GTA V (which needs to have a lot of modernism because half the fantasy of the game is fucking up the modern world), is there a video game world where PCs buy brutalist homes and portray their character as a cubist freak who wears color block clothing? I can’t think of one. But are there video game worlds where PCs buy Gothic/classical/Tudor/etc. architecture while dressing like a sapeur and looking like a Praxiteles Tom Cruise with tattoos by Da Vinci? Sure, a zillion. So what is the model for that?
Kevin
Jun 8 2024 at 5:58am
Interesting view, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. If it is not fully a market failure, it would be interesting to think what is the psychology behind people not preferring ornaments for the first time in History.
Donald
Jun 8 2024 at 3:43pm
Most people in the past never had an ornate silver teapot. Generally ornate isn’t cheap.
So in the past, rich people spent a fortune on ornate silver teapots in part in order to flaunt their wealth.
Nowadays, flaunting your wealth in front of the less wealthy is embarrassing. Rich people want products that give at least some level of plausible deniability. Sure the teapot of the modern billionaire might cost $5,000, but show it to the man on the street, and they will guess $20.
Imagine an article titled “Elon Musk’s solid gold toilet”. Is that an article Elon musk wants written? No it isn’t.
onsoc63
Jun 13 2024 at 9:18am
I think you can actually explain all by taste. we are in the simple, sleek, sporty design lifestyle. and all other choices cater to this. and since its difficult now for new tastes to emerge and gain a following, hence this has become the standard.
when viewing images, people regularly chose more ornate cars, furniture, and architecture. but they don’t want to look out of place in their neighborhood. and they chose the common denomination.
Comments are closed.