It is no secret that men have overshadowed women in architecture and the design industry for centuries. From the highly praised Le Corbusier with his “International Style” to Mies van der Rohe, they have overshadowed their design partners and reduced the span of their influence on the design world. This series of case studies will be highlighting some of the hidden women and giving their work a voice.
In a world of men, the women in this series of articles have fought for recognition of their work but some have fallen short and have been lost to their male counterparts. Celebrated designers in the 20th century are predominantly men, and it is known that they are given credit for work that is not theirs. What connects these women is their determination and strength to keep working in a world designed to forget them and praise their masculine colleagues. As architecture historian Beatriz Colomina has noted, “it is like a dirty little secret that we or architects keep, something that we all know, that we all see but we don’t bring ourselves to talk about.” The question of whether the conversation of women in design is still unravelling today is evidently true as they are still swept under the carpet and lost to history.
Living to 98 is a feat for anyone, but for Eileen Gray, it granted her the opportunity to feel celebrated as a designer who became famous at the age of 94. This was due to the selling of a table which was part of her earlier pieces. As a designer who kept to herself, Gray didn’t see much to her own work and dismissed the sale suspecting it was a knock off with added gaudy embellishments.
"One must be grateful to all those people who bother to unearth us and at least to preserve some of our work. Otherwise, it might have been destroyed like the rest.” – Eileen Gray to her biographer.
For Gray, architecture did not become part of her portfolio until she was in her 40’s. With no formal architecture
training, she designed a villa for her and her lover, Romanian architect and critic, Jean Badovici in 1929 named E-1027, an abstracted combination of their initials. The credit of course going to her partner and even Le Corbusier as
the building was inspired by works of an aesthetic akin to his. She believed in designing for purely comfort and to
provide “the atmosphere required by inner life.” Before Le Corbusier coined the “International Style,” Gray designed
this house using similar principles loosely using existing architectural advances as inspiration. Understated parallel
fenestrations gave the home glass curtains depicting scenes of the French Rivera landscape. Designing for
adaptability and flexibility of the space allowed for more organic circulation.
The masterpiece Gray had created grew attention quickly in the architecture world much to the dismay of Le
Corbusier. The conflicting theories of whether the house was a “machine for living” (Le Corbusier) or its own “living
organism” established a rivalry between herself and Le Corbusier. He was furious that someone had replicated his
style, let alone a woman. He built a holiday cabin next door and a decade after the completion of Gray’s building he
vandalised the exterior confessing: “I admit the mural is not to enhance the wall, but on the contrary, a means to
violently destroy [it].”
The pure example of domestic architecture has remained timeless even with Le Corbusier’s leud adjustments.
The second woman highlighted is unlike the rest, their platonic relationship was established in an unconventional
way. Then she was fortunate enough to have a successful solo career subsequent to working with Le Corbusier.
“We don’t embroider cushions in my atelier” was the response when Charlotte Perriand asked Le Corbusier for a job.
Her portfolio being metal based work complimenting his International Style, he soon realised his mistake when
visiting her showcase, Bar Sous le Toit (“Bar in the attic”). Exhibiting an aesthetic leaning towards advancements in
technology and mechanical elements much like Corbusier.
The author for Le Corbusier’s “Equipment for living” has gone with little credit for long enough, he argued not to
have time for menial work like furniture design consequently passing it on to assistants. One piece in particular: the
Chaise Longue, with a tubular metal structure and leather finishing it was created as a “machine for relaxing.” The
curved steel complimenting the angle in which the user would be lying. She went on to create a collection aptly
described as “the equipment of a modern dwelling” encapsulating the visions of Le Corbusier to harmonize with the
architecture they would inhabit. She worked with Le Corbusier at his studio from 1927-1937, the only employee dedicated to interior design. This was a time where men assumed they were in the driver’s seat when it came to
architecture, so it may not be a surprise that Perriand was demoted to works of the interior.
"The extension of the art of dwelling is the art of living — living in harmony with man's deepest drives and with his adopted or fabricated environment." – Charlotte Perriand
In 1929, Perriand aided in founding the French response to Bauhaus, the Union des Artistes Modernes, where
Interior designers and architects sought to establish a place separate from the Societé des Artistes Décorateurs
(SAD) as their fundamentalist views were limiting designer’s creative potential. She was among a small handful of
women, including Eileen Gray, who were challenging the outmoded design actions. Her modernist, Avant-garde style
becoming a model for other designer’s work.
“Kitchen for an apartment in Le Corbusier’s Unite d’Habitacion” was assigned to Perriand in 1945 where there was a
shortage for housing and limited resources due to the Second World War. Building en masse to fulfil the needs of the
population was deemed the best option and quickly became a trend. The structure itself was a prototype created to
inject a new lease of life into the bombed neighbourhood and designed to be a “vertical garden city” with shared
amenities for the residents. The Perriand kitchen was designed to be adaptable with functionality being the main
priority as Le Corbusier insisted: “the kitchen in Marseille should become the centre of French family life.” She
configured the kitchen in a way to reduce housework for presumably the maternal figure of the household by
utilising the “work triangle” creating a free-flowing cooking space, with her own experience of motherhood being a
point of inspiration and that being the heart of the family is demonstrated in her work. It was around this time that
Le Corbusier unveiled “The Modulor.” His response to the golden ratio - the silhouette of a man represented in many
of his works. The stoic-looking figure is meant as a universal set of proportions to marry mathematics, architecture,
and the human form. It is divided into the “golden section” to allow it to be scaled to any dimension using the
Fibonacci sequence. Although he sought to achieve a “range of harmonious measurements to suit the human scale,
universally applicable to architecture and to mechanical things,” the method is flawed. Choosing the height of six
feet he has excluded a wide demographic, especially women and children. Women were “only belatedly considered
and rejected as a source of proportional harmony.” If this were implemented in the Unite d’Habitacion kitchens they
would not be fit for purpose. The countertops would be too high, and the cabinets would not be functional as the
average person would not be able to reach items on the shelves; especially since the period of its creation it is
assumed women would be expected to do the majority of the housework. “The Modulor” can also be seen as an
allegory for Le Corbusier’s treatment of Perriand and him feeling superior therefore refusing to carry out menial
work, like interior or furniture design.
Perriand’s solo career thrived after Le Corbusier’s atelier, her portfolio became a passport which took her to vast
corners of the world. Her most famously being the Alps where she created works like Les Arcs, a French ski resort,
and a collection of furniture in Japan where she married European and Japanese design principles. After her death
Perriand’s daughter, Pernette Perriand Barsac who is a curator of her mother’s work, said in an interview: “You have
to wait fifteen or twenty years after the death of an artist to understand fully their place in art history.” Sadly, she is
correct, but unfortunately Charlotte Perriand has still been relegated in the field of architecture. It is rumoured that
she still has not received recognition for her efforts.
With Colomina calling design partners: “happy ‘marriages,’” it is seen that the chemistry between collaborators was
at times more than just a professional connection. Architecture becoming an introduction to their romantic
relations. Unfortunately, the title “Mrs” in the world of collaboration in these next two cases were assumed to be
“bystander” and not worthy of shared credit.
He left her behind and took all the glory.
Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe was the director of the Bauhaus at the time when the Nazis closed the school for their
forward-thinking modernist design philosophies. The school’s focus at the time was architecture because of his
influence. Lilly Reich was the second female Bauhaus Master who specialised in weaving and interior design, leading
to an early end to her career. It was no secret that Mies and Reich were romantically involved at the time of her
arrival at the school in 1932. She conceived new interior design workshops using her design prowess to inspire. Her
strengths are seen in her use of tubular steel in furniture, which she is only now famous for. She challenged the idea of women not being allowed in metal workshops. Her pieces compliment the architecture created by Mies in this
period which is why it is questioned as to whether she is due credit for “his” designs.
Prior to the Second World War, Mies fled to America to revolutionise the architectural landscape with the
International Style and his “less is more” principles. He left Reich behind. She had expected to continue in her studio-turned-shop, but it was turned to rubble in 1943, destroying some of her work records and notes in the process.
Shortly after, she was captured and forced into a work camp where she suffered ill health, leading to her untimely
death in 1947. Only after her demise did she become famous where she was finally given recognition for her
partnership with her highly praised collaborator. She still goes unrecognised for some of her pieces even as they are
sold today under Mies’ name, buried under his legacy.
The last duo to be highlighted is again a story of husband and wife. The next woman in the spotlight is Ray Eames
who was assumed to be a homemaker; it was the 50’s after all. She conformed to the ideals of the period to make
sure her husband received credit for the work they created even though it meant she was pushed aside.
With a vast shared portfolio demonstrating innovations in furniture design, architecture, and film - the “Eames
partnership” was described as a duo who saw the world in a way many people couldn’t. The pair met in 1940 whilst
Bernice Alexandra Kaiser, also known as Ray, was studying painting under Hans Hoffman in New York. While
studying, she signed her pieces in her maiden name and it has been reported that artwork has been left uncredited
due to this.
Soon after meeting, the pair married and established a home studio where Ray explored the use of plywood using
scraps from Charles’ MGM studio job. Giving a new life to the materials, the wood was developed into leg splints
which were popularised and are now collected for museum exhibits for their example of durability and ergonomics.
Case Study House No. 8, the residence where they eventually settled in Los Angeles in 1949 was originally designed
for a study using new technologies produced during World War Two. It is an example of modernist architecture
designed to be prefabricated and not interrupt the landscape. It is possible to see Mondrian features influencing the
rectangular fenestrations. Contrasting with the metal exterior, the interior is warm with wooden flooring linking it to
the nature they are trying to protect.
Their work is said to be “like a message of hope from another planet” by their friend and admirer, Peter Smithson,
also an architect of the same period. The Eames’ collaborated with simplicity in mind, not intentionally conforming
to any design movement. One of Ray Eames’ famous quotes is, “I never gave up painting, I just changed my palette,”
when she was asked about how shifting her attention to other design practices. This can be clearly seen in her work.
The “Lounge Chair” and an abstract artwork from her time studying can be seen as having the same author. The
organic shapes are translated through her work no matter the medium. The transecting lines can be seen in each,
where she changes colour in the painting and in the wooden panels in the chair.
“'Eames' chairs belong to the occupants, not to the building. Mies' chairs are especially of the building and not of the occupant.” - Beatriz Colomina, Couplings (1999)
Although Ray was pushed aside in what was the masculine world of design, she featured with her husband in many
press interviews. Unfortunately, Ray was made to look like the supportive, doting wife during publicity interviews.
One instance was NBC’s “Home” show (1956) where they were unveiling the “Lounge Chair.” In the studio, the actor
demonstrating the chair with his feet on the accompanying stool so he can relax. She is depicted as submissive and is
perched on the edge of the ottoman in the scenario, just as Ray was expected to behave.
Charles was merely the charismatic spokesperson, and Ray was the genius behind the operation, as he was quoted
saying, “Anything I can do, Ray can do better.” They died ten years apart to the day. With Ray said to be working on
“various design projects” after his death; in fact, she was revolutionising the design world solo, just as Charles would
have wanted.
Eclipsed by their male peers it is apparent from these case studies that women in the 20th century who tried to make
their way in the architecture world felt their voices were falling on deaf ears. Reflecting on them now, it is apparent that these women frontiered the approach to gender equality within in the architecture and design industries and
created the platform for women to be successful today.
Comments