In architectural fields, it is often unclear where to draw the line between Modernism and Postmodernism that often represent political debates between the ideology of orthodox modernity and the anti-ideology movement against Modernism as a social and political movement, because architectural forms result from complex and multi-layers problem solving. This paper argues that a particular architectural style or vocabularies in these two eras could be described as architects’ idiosyncratic aesthetic tastes. Therefore, this study reveals two different architectural styles of two renowned architectural designs, the Eames House and the Vanna Ventri House that each represents Modernism and Postmodernism. This paper demonstrates that Eames’ ideal image of home is depicted within a universal vocabulary and that Venturi’s idiosyncratic interest, curiosity of historical contexts, is revealed in a new neoclassical appearance in Mannerist manner. Also, this study reveals that the idea and presentation of the Eameses’ house, representing their “love of objects”, is not only related to Venturi’s idea of complexity and contradiction, but also depicts a historical connection by “functioning decoration” for “extra cultural surprise”.
　　Keywords: Modernism, Postmodernism, the Eames House, the Vanna Venturi House, architectural style, architecture history
　　 Introduction
　　Many times, especially in architectural fields, it is unclear where to draw the line between Modernism and Postmodernism. In many artistic languages, such as music, painting, and the performing arts, political and cultural values reflect the values of humans and society. However, because architectural forms result from multi-layered problem solving, justifying cultural and artistic values is more difficult because of the practical uses of space. If one sees architectural movement as architectural vocabularies, rather than as depicting social and cultural values, it might become much easier to identify Modernism and Postmodernism. Therefore, this paper reveals two different architectural styles of two renowned architectural structures representing Modernism and Postmodernism.
　　The Eames House, completed in 1949, and the Vanna Venturi House, completed in 1964, have significant meanings in architectural history. First these houses represent the particular architectural styles of Modernism and Postmodernism, respectively. Along with these ideal images, both houses have elicited their own vocabularies and we can notice differences between the two architectural movements within their contexts. Moos(1987) criticized the Vanna Venturi House that “has come to play a role in postmodern architecture that is comparable to that played by Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye in the International Style” (p. 241).
　　Second, the Eames House left a significant possibility upon Modernism in architecture. Using prefabricated industrialized materials, not only did Eames create a highly personalized space, but he also provided a historical connection within his space. McDonough (1989) applauded Eames’ work as “the mood, the feel, the ability of the Eames’ version of Modernism to accept layers upon layers of non-modern, non-industrial enhancement, to be a foundation, a starting point for a prescient, inclusionist view of the future” (p. 22). From this standpoint, it is necessary to revaluate Modern architecture.
　　Therefore, this study will demonstrate that Eames’ ideal image of home is depicted within a universal vocabulary and that Venturi’s idiosyncratic interest, curiosity of historical contexts, is revealed in a new neoclassical appearance in Mannerist manner. Also, this study will demonstrate that the idea and presentation of the Eameses’ house, representing their “love of objects”, is not only related to Venturi’s idea of complexity and contradiction, but also depicts a historical connection by “functioning decoration” for “extra cultural surprise”.
　　 Modernism vs. Postmodernism
　　Significant reasons exist for selecting these houses. First, each house plays an important role in the career of its designer. Second, as a single-family house, each architect experimented with his ideal home image. Moos cited Scully’s observation in his book, Venturi, Rauch & Scott Brown: Buildings and Projects (1987), “Like lyric poetry, single-family houses most openly mirror the character and feelings of their architects” (p. 240).
　　To distinguish Eames’ work from that of conservative Modernism, it is necessary to address the critique of Postmodernists on Modernism. Postmodern architects and architectural critics, because of the heroic, rigid, innovated, and universal vocabulary of Modern architecture, have constantly condemned Modern architects who utilized highly selected pure, simple, and unornamented forms. Jencks (1996), architect and architectural writer, drastically condemned Modernism by stating, “Modern Architecture died in St Louis, Missouri on July 15, 1972 at 3:32 p.m. … Modern architecture had failed to remain credible partly because it did not communicate effectively with its ultimate users and partly because it did not make effective links with the city and history” (pp. 470-472).
　　However, one should compare these comments from Jencks with the critique of Postmodernism by Venturi, who Jencks considers to be a Postmodern architect. Ironically, Venturi (1982), author of Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (1977), which Postmodernists consult to criticize Modern Architecture, denounced Postmodernists in the following manner:
　　Postmodernism has in my opinion proclaimed in theory its independence from Modernism-from the singular vocabulary and the rigid ideology of that movement-but has substituted, in practice, a new vocabulary that is different in its symbolism from that of the old, but similar in its singularity and as limited in its range and dogmatic in its principle as the old. The new movement does not provide the diverse symbolism and cultural relevance appropriate for our era. In this respect it is not different from the previous. (p. 117)
　　Moreover, he (1982, p. 118) wanted to qualify his attitude toward the Modern movement and distinguish it from that of many of the Postmodernists.
　　From this standpoint, one can compare Eames’ House with Venturi’s House. If both Eames and Venturi are Modernists, although their attitudes toward Modernism are different from those of conservative Modernists, their vocabulary revealed in each house could be idiosyncratic. If Venturi is a Postmodernist, as Jencks proclaimed, and if his theory in Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture is an accepted guideline for Postmodernists, we can define major distinctions between the architectural style of Modernism and Postmodernism, because the vocabulary in Eames’ House is related to Venturi’s Theory in Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. The author is not criticizing Modernism and Postmodernism as cultural movements; rather the author is focusing on architectural styles revealed in each house as a representation of each movement.
　　 Characteristics of the Eames’ House
　　Eames’ House, located in Pacific Palisades, California, is officially known as Case Study House #8 sponsored by Arts & Architecture, a magazine mouthpiece for Modernist ideas and a platform for the California avant-garde (Kirkham, 1995, p. 101). The aim for the Case Study House Program, which began in 1945, was to promote the ideals of Modernism and ideal home styles during postwar periods to fulfill social debates and provide a high quality of life with new industrial technologies.
　　Piet Mondrian, Mies van der Rohe, and Japanese aesthetic influence the house design. The vocabulary of the house is undoubtedly Modernistic—the minimal appearance of fa?ade, pure artistic Mondrianesque composition, and Miesian style of steel structure. For the house to be artistic and warm, Ray Eames, Charles Eames’ wife and business collaborator, played an important role by decorating the interiors. During her school years (1933-1939), she was educated by Hans Hofmann and inspired by foreign painters, including Picasso, the Bauhaus abstractionists, and Mondrian (Kirkham, 1995, p. 38). Her artistic sense of decoration and background of fine art enhanced their beautiful and warm home. However, their usage of modern language revealed the house was very significant for Modernism. Kirkham (1995) stated:
　　Two aspects of the “machine aesthetic” are brought together in this house: the use of mass-produced parts and the geometric forms and abstraction of De Stijl. With its vibrant exterior coloring and its “additive” aesthetic, the fa?ade of the Eames House stepped outside what had become the dominant tradition of modernist heroes. (p. 116)
　　To discuss Venturi’s theory, “complexity and contradiction” revealed in the Eames House, we need to discuss(1) the Eameses’ lifestyles and personalities; and (2) similar characteristics between the Eameses and Venturi.
　　First, the Eameses’ love of objects was revealed in their collection and their joy of life was reflected throughout their life as husband and wife and as business partners. They illustrated their personalities and views of the ideal home in their proposal:
　　For married couple both occupied professionally with mechanical experiment and graphic presentation. Work and recreation are involved in general activities: Day and night, work and play, concentration, relaxation with friend and foe, all intermingled personally and professionally with mutual interest. … This house-in its free relation to the ground, the tree, the sea-with constant proximity to the whole vast order of nature act re-orienteer and “shock absorber” and should provide the needed relaxations from the daily complications arising within problems. (Kirkham, 1995, p. 110)
　　In addition, Eames Demerios, Charles and Ray Eames’ grandson, recalls:
　　They were simply my grandparents, not the icons of design history when I was with them. They were an incredible amount of fun and I have great memories. I have pictures of me with my grandfather out in the meadow where we were trying to find spider web. (Rotenberk, 2000, p. 35)
　　The Eameses’ characters were obviously depicted in their “functioning decoration” inspiring “extra-cultural shock” appearing in their house. Indeed, it is complex, contradictory, and balanced.
　　Second, both the Eameses and Venturi were interested in historical contexts. Venturi’s way of seeing architecture came from his conscious sense of the past. To him, self-consciousness was the largest part of creation within Modern contexts. On the other hand, the Eameses’ curiosity of the past and collecting exotic cultural objects was a part of the ongoing serious fun activities throughout their lives. “Eameses considered that many objects, particularly old objects, to have an integrity in and of themselves which related to the materials, the processes of production, the care, and the skill with which they were made” (Kirkham, 1995, p. 143). Moreover, both Venturi’s and the Eameses’ architectural elements are hybrid. Whereas Venturi’s pluralistic languages are derived from Classicism and Mannerism and Modernism, Eameses’ vocabularies are derived from De Stijl, Miesian, and Japanese style.
　　In Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, Venturi criticized Modernists’ heroic expressive simplicity by using the term “Less is Bore”. His term “both-and” has played an important role within his theory. He (1977) proclaimed that “An architecture of complexity and contradiction has a special obligation toward the whole: its truth must be in its totality or its implication of totality. It must embody the difficult unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion” (p. 16).
　　Like Venturi proclaimed, the characters of “complexity and contradiction” were achieved in the Eames House. “The objective of Eames house was to emphasize the structure, exposing as much of it as possible and to create a light and open interior space using readily available industrial materials” (Miers, 1989, p. 111). It was possible to make the structure cold. But, by accumulating Japanese and Miesian flavors, and by using transparent, translucent, and wired glass, they not only fused coldness of industrial character, but also created the strong artistic character of the house.
　　A contradiction exists between the house’s inorganic structure and its surroundings.
　　Rather than denying the surroundings of the house, Eames saw these inorganic materials as being complementary to them because the texture of the ceiling, the metal joints, the repetition of the standard sash, the change of glazing from transparent to translucent… all add to the architectural relationship of house to nature. (Steele, 1999, para. 13)
　　By placing the house behind a row of eucalypt trees, not only did they create privacy space, but they also fused the monopoly of a strong fa?ade. Trees, meadows, and flowers, as well as geometric forms, are part of design vocabulary. As Ray later put it, “It is wonderful to see all the changing seasons in it—even in South California. … In July it is yellow and dry whereas in spring it is high and full of flowers. We cut it only once a year, in late May or June” (Kirkham, 1995, p. 114).
　　The complexity was also achieved by cultural and historical contradiction. Joy of objects, so called“functioning decoration”, reflected this contradiction and complexity.
　　They use this term to describe their carefully composed arrangements of disparate objects, some of which were quite small, within interior space. The aesthetic was one of addition, juxtaposition, composition, changing scales, and“extra-cultural surprise”. The word “functional” validated “decoration”, which was usually regarded as non-functional.(Kirkham, 1995, p. 164)
　　To the Eameses, “extra-cultural surprise” was the highly idiosyncratic function and the aesthetic function representing their joy of life.
　　The structure is composed of the 1,500 square-foot house and the 1,000 square-foot studio. The interior of the house includes a large vertical two-story living room; a lower floor, which contains the dining area, a small seating alcove with built-in sofas, a kitchen, and a utility room; a second floor, which contains two bedrooms and two bathrooms; and a spiral staircase lighted by a skylight. The bedroom can be opened and closed off by sliding diffusion screens. The studio includes a two-story studio, a dark room for filmmaking, a bathroom, and a storage area on the second floor. The appearance of the interior as a building structure is minimal and neutralized, but vertical strips of birch on the west wall and natural light by transparent and translucent glass give the space warmth. Moreover, the Eameses’ “functioning decoration” give the house the most remarkable character, “Victorian clutter”.
　　Kirkham describes the interior as “Aladdin’s cave”. Toys, collections of shells, folk arts, candles, masks, plants, pillows, mats, sculptures, chairs, pots, etc., are all objects of the subjects of their fun activities. These activities have:
　　Roots in two related developments of the late 19th and the early 20th centuries: the Art and Craft movement and new educational theories related to creative play. The Art and Craft movement, which admired the material culture of “simpler”preindustrial societies, promoted handicrafts as character-building as well as utilitarian. (Kirkham, 1995, p. 147)
　　Throughout the interior, these extra-cultural objects are carefully displayed. Hofmann’s paintings and Japanese lanterns hang from the ceiling, a glass crystal candelabrum sits on a table, mats decorate the living room, plants adorn the rooms, small folk arts are found under the staircase and at the entrance door, and eucalypt trees are outdoors, all cultural contradiction and complexity. The “functioning decoration” is “double functioning” and“both-and”.
　　 Characteristics of the Ventury House
　　To Venturi, his mother’s house was also his experiment laboratory. Because of his curiosity of forms and aesthetics, the house had a different meaning than the Eames House. His idiosyncratic character upon forms, especially in terms of house design, is revealed in his article 15 years after completion of his mother’s house.
　　I claim that my approach and the substance of my work are Classical, and have been from the beginning of my career. My mother’s house in Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia, the second building of my design to be built, is an explicitly Classical building in the substance of it plan and form and in the ornament of its elevation. (Venturi, 1982, p. 118)
　　Venturi also played with symbolic images of conventional forms. As such, symbolism is very important to communicate with his architectural vocabularies of house.
　　To Venturi, the image of conventional house comes from traditional Western architecture. The representation of traditional chimney and gable, fireplace, doors, and windows is depicted in Mannerist manner within modern technology. Distortion of fa?ade within symmetrical appearance, location of the main entrance with large cutout opening, and width of the stair backside of the fireplace reflect his Mannerism. Using Mannerist attitude, he created tension throughout the house.
　　The architectural complexities and distortions inside are reflected on the outside. The varying locations and sizes and shapes of the windows and perforations on the outside walls, as well as the off-center location of the chimney, contradict the overall symmetry of the outside form: The windows are balanced on each side of the dominating entrance opening and chimney-clerestory element in the front, and the lunette window in the back, but they are not symmetrical. (Venturi, 1977, p. 118)
　　Historical contexts are also important vocabularies of Venturi’s architecture, as he mentioned. His depiction of Classicism was abstract and ambiguous within composition of geometric forms to achieve the essence of Classicism.
　　Comparison of the interiors of Venturi’s House and the Eameses’ House provides interesting information. Ironically, the Eameses’ interior is full of historical and extra-cultural objects, whereas Venturi’s interior is quite modern, except one small piece of furniture.
　　 Conclusions
　　In conclusion, the idiosyncratic character of the Eameses’ House is that their joy of life is depicted by hybrid modern vocabulary with “functioning decoration” that deficts Eameses’ interest in cultural and historical contexts. On the other hand, the idiosyncratic character of Ventri’s house is that his curiosity of historical architectural forms is depicted by hybrid symbolism within Modern contexts reflecting the conventional form of house, as well as Classicism with Mannerism.
　　Both architects established enrichment of architectural languages. From this standpoint, if Eames and Venturi are both considered Modernists, their Modernism should be different from conservative and orthodox Modernism, because they did not limit their architectural languages. At the same time, their approaches toward form are idiosyncratic in taste.
　　If Venturi is considered a Postmodernist and Eames is considered a Modernist, the difference between Modernism and Postmodernism in architecture is the difference in use of architectural vocabulary. In this case, the character of Modernism would be universal and straightforward, whereas the character of Postmodernism would be the ambiguity of Classicism and Mannerism. Moreover, a piece of architecture is not only the result of the artistic vocabulary of a designer, but also of solving multi-layered complex problems reflecting the values of a society and the functions of the architectural piece.
　　 References
　　Goldberger, P. (1976). Venturi and Rauch. Global Architecture, 39.
　　Jencks, C. (1996). The death of modern architecture what is post-modernism?. In L. E. Cahoone (Ed.), Modernism to postmodernism: An anthology (pp. 469-480). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
　　Kirkham, P. (1995). Charles and Ray Eames: Designers of the twentieth century. Cambridge: MIT Press.
　　McDonough, M. (1989). The house that Eames built: A status report. ID: Magazine of International Design, 36(Sept./Oct.).
　　Mead, C. (Ed.). (1989). The architecture of Rovert Venturi. Albuquerque, N.M.: University of New Mexico Press.
　　Miers, C. (Ed.). (1989). Eames design: The work of the office of Charles and Ray Eames. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc..
　　Moos, V. S. (1987). Venturi, Rauch & Scott Brown: Buildings and projects. New York: Rizzoli International Publications.
　　Rotenberk, L. (2000). Charles and Ray Eames: Pioneers in design. Inland Architect, 117(1), 34-36.
　　Somol, R. (1998). Still crazy after all these years. Assemblage, 36, 84-92.
　　Steele, J. (1999). Charles and Ray Eames; Eames house. Twentieth-century house: Frank Lloyd Wright, Fallingwater; Alvar Aalto, Villa Mairea; Charles and Ray Eames, Eames house. London: Phaidon.
　　Venturi, R. (1977). Complexity and contradiction in architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
　　Venturi, R. (1982). Diversity, relevance and representation in historicism, or plus ca change…. Architectural Record, (June), 114-119.
　　Webb, M. (1999). Charles and Ray Eames: Leaving nothing to chance. Graphis, 55(Mar./Apr.), 102-107.