Talk:De La Warr Pavilion

Art Deco or Modernist

Here's an idea - cite sources for both statements, and include both. Architectural style is in the eye of the beholder! Plrk (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some sources for my argument: The building's own page: http://www.dlwp.com/building/ which states: the De La Warr Pavilion was the UK‘s first public building built in the Modernist style and http://www.open2.net/modernity/ a page on the history of Modernism in Britain which even uses an image of the Pavilion as its logo. It definitely had an influence on art deco, but that's not the same thing as being it. The total lack of decoration, and Erich Mendelsohn's status as a classic continental Modernist would support it being pretty definitively Modernist. Mind you, I've got no problem with 'international style' as a compromise. I know this might seem petty, but it's fairly important as the first example of a real public acceptance of rigorous European Modernism in Britain, as opposed to the more compromised style of Art Deco, which had been appearing since the mid-20s.Owenhatherley (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but both interpretations of the statement are incorrect given that Hornsey Town Hall was completed and opened earlier in the same year. It isn't as pretty as the DLWP on the outside, being fairly severe a la Hilversum town Hall, but inside it has many Art Deco touches. It is larger than DLWP and served as the Civic Centre for the old Borough of Hornsey, in which Highpoint I was completed the same year - but that wasn't public. Straw Cat (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

- Well, my point was that there were a fair few deco public or semi-public buildings by this point, but *no* Modernist ones. It just looks clumsy now, really the original wording before deco (a fairly dubious term anyway) got incorrectly bandied about was much clearer. Never mind...Owenhatherley (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it the point, that we can't actually pinpoint what these finer differences are between Modernism (or the Moderne in the continental interpretation) on the one hand, and Art Deco as traditionally defined, on the other? It seems to me that Modernism is a catch-all definition which comprises so many different styles of the Twenties and Thirties, anything from styles that include Cubist elements, to the more minimalist and Bauhaus experiments with more modern materials, none of which necessarily compare with Art Deco. I can't really see how we achieve anything by stuffing everything of the period into this catch-all definition Modernism, which seems the case with so many recent interpretations. The point that Art Deco has more embellishments than Modernist designs have, is lost on me. Hasn't Modernism so many things, Art Deco as traditionally defined, never had? Dieter Simon (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

- Sorry, but you've got this completely upside down. Modernism is not a catch-all. Look at the Modern architecture page and it's quite clear about a definition. Also, 'Moderne' (as in Streamline Moderne) is usually used as a synonym (in the UK and US) for Art Deco, which, as you can see from that page is far more of a vague catch-all, ie people frequently describe any 30s architecture as deco. Modernism was a frankly ideological movement - and the Pavilion was represented at the time, in the architectural press and elsewhere (and since) as a victory for that movement - in a way that compromised Georgian Modernish buildings like Hornsey Town Hall just weren't. I really can't see any good reason - you haven't provided any, bar the caption on a Guardian article - for not changing it back to the original wording. Owenhatherley (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to convince anybody at all, Owenhatherley, I want you to convince us. James Stevens Curl, in the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture (1999) mentions Art Deco (European and American design and interior decoration (also known as the Style Moderne - as a style rather, granted. Then under "Modernist", he says 'architectural style of the 1920s and 1930s incorporating decorative devices that owed not a little to Art Deco, Aztec, and Ancient Egyptian styles...'

Then he has the following entries:

• "Moderne" is 'Art Deco style
• "Modernism" 1. see Modern Movement, 2. style of the 1920s and 1930s described as "Modernist"
• "Modern Movement" '(C20 architectural movement (also called Modernism) that sought to sunder all stylistic and historic links with the past.'. The article then leads on, how the movement was arrived at via Constructivism, Machine Aesthetic, Sachlichkeit, De Stijl, and above all Functionalism 'which was widely held to be ground on which all agreed'. Curl also describes various trends within the Modern Movement, which would be far too numerous for me to go into. While I agree that all these trends constitute the Modern Movement I can't really see why Art Deco can't be yet another trend within it, as Curl seems to indicate under Modernist.
• "Modern Style", last not least as another name for Art Nouveau.

While all this may be clear to architectural historians, for the person who consults an encyclopaedia to find out, all this 'Modern Movement/e/ist/ism seems to open a can of worms rather than explain where Art Deco exactly fits in. Yes, I can see that it is part of modernity, could it not be part of the Modern Movement with a form and function all of its own? So while a lot of people are not at clear what the difference is between Art Deco and the Modern Movement, and the reader keeps coming across references to Art Deco in this connection, he/she will not be enlightened by calling the style Modern, with any of its endings, but nonplussed by it. They will wonder why some call it Art Deco and others won't have any of it.

Dieter Simon (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to use the Wikipedia pages to convince you! I've certainly never heard the first definition of 'Modernist' you provide. The definition of the 'Modern Movement' however fits entirely what I'm talking about. The Modern Movement, from Constructivism to De Stijl to Functionalism, was an essentially unified movement (through groups like the CIAM and Der Ring, the latter of which had the architect of the Pavilion as a member) with certain common features, i.e:

Modern architecture is usually characterised by:

   * an adoption of the principle that the materials and functional requirements determine the result
   * an adoption of the machine aesthetic
   * a rejection of ornament
   * a simplification of form and elimination of "unnecessary detail"
   * an adoption of expressed structure
   * Form follows function

Meanwhile, we find that art deco is a very general term, characterised by the following:

the so called, "primitive" arts of Africa, Ancient Egypt, and Aztec Mexico, as well as Machine Age or streamline technology such as modern aviation, electric lighting, the radio, the ocean liner and the skyscraper. These design influences were expressed in fractionated, crystalline, faceted forms of decorative Cubism and Futurism, in Fauvism's palette. Other popular themes in art deco were trapezoidal, zigzagged, geometric, and jumbled shapes, which can be seen in many early pieces. Two great examples of these themes and styles are in Detroit, Michigan: the Fisher Building and the Guardian Building. Corresponding to these influences, Art Deco is characterized by use of materials such as aluminium, stainless steel, lacquer, inlaid wood, sharkskin (shagreen), and zebraskin. The bold use of stepped forms and sweeping curves (unlike the sinuous, natural curves of the Art Nouveau), chevron patterns, and the sunburst motif are typical of Art Deco. Some of these motifs were ubiquitous — for example, sunburst motifs were used in such varied contexts as ladies' shoes, radiator grilles, the auditorium of the Radio City Music Hall, and the spire of the Chrysler Building.

I appreciate that to a general reader this all seems like nit-picking, but if you read any history of Modern Architecture (such as those by Manfredo Tafuri & Francesco dal Co, J.M Richards, Kenneth Frampton, Jonathan Glancey etc) you will find a straightforward distinction made between the Modern Movement - puritan and ideological - and Art Deco, often called Moderne and Modernistic - based on decoration (this is not irrelevant: bear in mind here that for Modernists, following Adolf Loos, 'ornament is crime'), eclecticism and an anti-purist, opulent aesthetic. Obviously it shares certain characteristics like the machine aesthetic and the use of concrete etc, but I hope you see there is a clear distinction here. Finally, the sources used in the original article said quite clearly that 'this was the first Modernist public building in Britain', something backed up elsewhere (here http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/delawarr/index.htm for instance) and the change to 'art deco' just seems arbitrary, especially now it includes Hornsey in the same sentence, proving the statement to be wrong if it includes deco (hell, Arnos Grove station comes before Hornsey town hall, so that should probably make the sentence even longer). Anyway, as per your last point, you're no doubt correct that 'Modernist' might be causing more problems than it solves, so what I'd propose is either replacing it with 'Modern Movement', which would make it less vague (as clearly art deco is part of 'modernity, though so is neoclassicism) or with the more limited definition International Style which also stops things getting too confusing. As it is though, this is a mess. Owenhatherley (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the reader who wants to find out about the DLWP, and who is being told about the Modern Movement on the one hand and Art Deco, on the other in other websites, I am concerned with. It is the DLWP he wants to know about not a general architectural history of the various trends and movements around that time. So we should make allowances for her/him but show all opinions published on the Web.

However, to come back to our little controversy, as I was saying, the Oxford DoA states that the Modern Movement was "arrived at via" Constructivism, Machine Aesthetic, Sachlichkeit, De Stijl and Functionalism. These various streams were at times pointing the way, not necessarily there at all times. We are not talking about a peer discussion but trying to enlighten the general reader who tries to learn but then sees other websites stating something different.

As a Wikipedian, perhaps I should make my position somewhat clearer, such as that of an encyclopaedist who also adduces those opinions which may be different from the more orthodox voices. While some commentators may insist on calling the DLWP Modernist or Modern Movement, others may call them - still - "Art Deco", rightly or wrongly, and hold on to these opinions so definitively stated that a reader who compares the two has no way of telling which is the correct one. I fear we would have to include those heterodox voices in Wikipedia, because if we didn't we would leave the reader in the wilderness of not knowing what these other opinions are he/she sees in various articles, but which are calling the building Art Deco. Once someone has published his opinion in the public domain it is there for all to see, and all we can do is to accept those heterodox opinions. Since we are unable to alter the text of the page on a different website seen by people, we will have to include it in our article, whether we like it or not and possibly comment on it. It is no good pretending these other opinions out there, don't exist. Not to include them in our article would be parti pris in the extreme. Comment on them by all means, but show them. That is what makes an encyclopaedia function properly

The other point I should like to make that some of the trends and movements weren't quite so straightforwardly Modern Movement or Art Deco as we would like them to be.

Again Curl in the article on Art Deco, mentions late Art Deco designs were "often concerned with aerodynamics, speed, and streamlining to emphasize the style's (Art Deco's) Modernist pretensions". So Art Deco does have pretensions on designs normally claimed by the Modern Movement.

In the Modern Movement article of the ODoA we find that controversy often raged: "While idealistic iconoclasm allied with leftist attitudes, was endemic, the more extreme protagonists advocated violence and revolutions to achieve their objectives, but slogan making and polemics all too often replaced rational argument. Functionalism was widely held to be ground on which all agreed, but even that faced objections in the search for an architecture freed from the constraints not only of the past and aesthetics, but from use as well. Some elements within the Modern Movement advocated that the purest architecture was that which remained on paper, or even in the mind, uncorrupted by the processes of being built, let alone used by untidy humanity." So we have once again so many controversial trends that it seems rather forced to claim that one style was so irrefutably different from the other. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, saying that there was controversy within the Modern Movement is by the by: it still excluded art deco. The question is - is this an art deco building? I have provided evidence that it is not, and have some expertise in the area, irrelevant as this apparently is. I would find all this a bit easier to take if you provided any authoritative evidence that anyone other than yourself or Guardian subeditors considers this a specifically art deco building. I've already said I don't mind removing the general rubric of 'Modernism' in favour of the very specific International Style, which this building fits very precisely. I can see no good reason not to do this. But if you're totally intractable then can we change it at least to '...is according to some Modernist and according to others an art deco building' (regardless of the fact that none of these others seem to have any knowledge of architectural history) and remove the 'first/second major UK public building' bit? As that makes the statement untrue. Owenhatherley (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, my greatest concerns were with the reader who sees websites which tell him/her on the one hand the DLWP is Modern Movement and others say it is "Art Deco". How can he tell that one knows what it is talking about and the other hasn't that much knowledge about the matter. The best thing is to let them know that both opinions are out there but the Art Deco advocates' opinion might need to be qualified, which we can easily do. This is encyclopaedia speak of course. That's all I want to say at this stage. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm just going to remove the Hornsey reference and then I'll leave it alone.Owenhatherley (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

But that would leave the plainly historically incorrect assertion by its admirers that DLWP was the first major Modernist building heading up the article. It simply wasn't, proved by reference to the dates, and the issue can't be fudged by a claim that HTH was not Modernist by appeal to a vague assertion that it is "compromised". Look up the cuttings: the choice of a plainly modern, Cubist, almost brutalist entry for the Hornsey competition was just as much a cause celebre for austere modernism, and as much if not more of a Loosian ornament-is-crime statement against the usual beaux-arts municipal mediocrity as was DLWP. It was just as much criticized in the press, as resembling a gas or electricity power station thana a traditional town hall (which was true, and a badge of honour for Loosians). And the RIBA waded in on the side of the modernists by awarding its young architect a medal.

... and, yes, Modernism was a position. But not all modernist architects in the Lloyd Wright or Loosian camp felt any ornament in an individual building was criminal - Lubietkin for one didn't mind risking having his collar felt for the Highpoint II caryatids. Straw Cat (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with the 'cuttings', and if you read Richards, or go back to Johnson & Hitchcock's defining International Style book, then you find that the International Style expressly disassociates itself from Dudok's Hilversum buildings and the milder style they entail (there are so many examples of Dudok-influenced public buildings in 1930s Britain, far more than in the purist Gropius/Corbusier manner - Liverpool Philharmonic, Greenwich Town Hall, Charles Holden's tube stations). So I'm going to tweak it a bit, because it might be well unfair to say that Hornsey is not Modernist, but it's definitely not International Style. And then I'm going to unwatch this page! Owenhatherley (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying the building is "Art Deco" is surely just a way to make it more understandable and attractive to the general public? The press has turned "Modernist" into an ugly term in the nation's eyes by associating it with Brutalism and using that as a negative term. Have you ever read a positive article about a "Modernist" building? I don't think I have. They usually call it "early 20th Century" or "1930s" if they want to say something positive. "Art Deco" conjures up a much more friendly and inoffensive image of Clarice Cliffe and Mackintosh (although Mackintosh was not really Art Deco either, but arguably Arts & Crafts...!) On a slightly different topic: the pronunciation of the name. I have lived in Sussex most of my life and have never heard anyone pronounce "De La Warr" as "Delaware" like the US State. Everyone has pronounced it like "war". I don't know how the Earl's name was supposed to be pronounced, so perhaps the name has changed via colloquial use...? I don't know if this is worth mentioning though.Trinketbox (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "pronounced" part because I've been a local in Bexhill for almost 30 years and have yet to hear anyone say "delaware". I don't believe the article should teach people to pronounce it different than the "norm", especially if the locals would think you're talking about somewhere in the USA ;) 109.149.20.52 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to this modern building

It would be interesting to know, and include in the article, whether there was opposition to what locals would have probably called "this ultra modern building", especially in a small conservative town like Bexhill. Perhaps some local historians can provide details and citations from the Bexhill Observer or another source. Mikeo1938 (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a modern building. I would´t be surprised if Mendelsohn visited the Stockholm exhibition in the year 1930. Architect Gunnar Asplund created something similar in his building "the Paradise" at that exhibition. /Sorry, if my English is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.30.47 (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De La Warr Pavilion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090918155436/http://www.delawarrpavilion.com/default.aspx to http://www.delawarrpavilion.com/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

In Popular Media

The Pavilion was featured in the Agatha Christie's Poirot TV adaptation with David Suchet in the episode "The ABC Murders" which takes place in Bexhill-on-Sea and features the De La Warr Pavilion as workplace of one of the murder victims instead of the Ginger Cat, as the café is named in the original novel. 84.56.100.95 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Even if many aren't familiar with the pronunciation of the family name, a reference to the fact that it correctly sounds like "Delaware" might be helpful. A member of the De la Warr family gave his name to the American city, where the spelling was altered in line with the traditional pronunciation. 2A00:23C6:CB80:6F01:C4DC:DAC2:39F8:52E3 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)