| The Theory of Pure Design, devised primarily by Denman Waldo Ross (1853-1935) but also associated with Arthur Wesley Dow (1857-1922), provides an important instance in the tendency towards abstraction in design and architectural education in the United States c. 1900. By abstracting universal principles of design--harmony, balance, and rhythm--grounding them in geometry, and illustrating them through exercises with dots, lines, outlines and color, Pure Design offered a means to step behind stylistic preference in aesthetic judgment. It was not a style itself nor was it an attempt to negate style in art and architecture. Rather, it is best considered a pedagogical method or approach to design: it centered on educating the creative faculties of students to appreciate "Beauty" in any style. It was formalist, and in Ross's hands particularly, drew on scientific methods and investigations in physiological-psychology for objective grounding.;The second chapter examines the aesthetic context for Ross's work. It focuses upon the dual role science played in Ross's aesthetic: his attraction to its method, and his knowledge of investigations in physio-psychology. Ross's reliance on theories of perception and formalism is discussed in relation to the work of George Santayana, Hugo Munsterberg, Bernard Berenson, Geoffrey Scott, and Roger Fry. It closes with the criticisms of John Dewey and Albert Barnes.;The third examines Ross's teaching at Harvard. Ross taught his architecture students exercises in Pure Design and insisted they study original works of art. His students took his teachings nationwide and he received support from architects such as Claude Bragdon, John Carrere, H. van Buren Magonigle, and Fiske Kimball.;The fourth chapter focuses on architectural educator Emil Lorch. Lorch studied with Ross and became one of the staunchest supporters of his methods. Devoting a lifetime to the improvement of American design through architectural education, Lorch promoted Pure Design in Chicago, in Philadelphia as an instructor at Drexel, and finally as chairman of the architecture department at the University of Michigan (1906-1937). As chairman, he incorporated Pure Design into the curriculum as a fundamentals course in the first year requirements.;The first chapter provides an explication of Pure Design. Both Dow and Ross attempted to get beyond training in the historical styles by emphasizing the composition of design elements. Both retained the appreciation of Beauty as the aim of art, both relied upon a knowledge of art history, and both hoped to provide a method that encouraged the creative faculties of the student. The difference lies in method: while Dow retained a degree of subjectivity, Ross employed scientific methods to obtain objectivity. |
