Chapter 3: Le Corbusier and the “Woolen Wall” as Muralnomad

THREADING THROUGH THE INTERWAR: NOMADISM, TAPESTRY, AND THE REDISCOVERY OF MARIE CUTTOLI Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Art in Modern and Contemporary Art History by Kat Buckley Department of Art History, Theory, and Criticism The School of the Art Institute of Chicago Fall, 2017 Thesis Committee: Primary Advisor/1st Reader: Margaret MacNamidhe, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of the Art Institute of Chicago 2nd Reader: Annie Bourneuf, Assistant Professor, School of the Art Institute of Chicago 3rd Reader: Sandra Adams, Adjunct Assistant Professor, School of the Art Institute of Chicago Table of Contents Chapter Three: Le Corbusier and the “Woolen Wall” as Muralnomad ......................................... 1 Table of Figures Fig. 1. Le Corbusier. Villa Savoye (Les Heures Claires); From Northwest. Reinforced concrete supported by twelve round concrete pilotis, 1931; restored 1993. ....................................... 19 Fig. 2. Le Corbusier. Marie Cuttoli. Tapestry in wool and silk, 1936. ......................................... 20 Fig. 3. Photograph from Le Corbusier, “Tapisserie Muralnomad,” 60. ....................................... 21 Buckley 1 Chapter Three: Le Corbusier and the “Woolen Wall” as Muralnomad Buckley 2 Textiles Before Architecture In this chapter, I focus on Le Corbusier, an artist with whom Cuttoli worked, and one who is most pertinent to our examination of the tapestry and its role in architecture. I begin with the crucial question of why Le Corbusier concerned himself with tapestry. An immensely productive artist, Le Corbusier worked with a variety of media in his lifetime but is perhaps best known for his contributions to city planning and architecture. Le Corbusier’s name is synonymous with the interwar movement in western architecture known as International Style, primarily due to his book on the subject, entitled Toward a New Architecture (1923). However, Le Corbusier’s name also evokes a time in which the role of the architect expanded into a figure whose consultation was needed in every aesthetic decision. In the interwar period, the architect took on a variety of activities and interests—interests which included the potential of the tapestry. Let us first stress the lineage of architects who were drawn to textiles. German architect and art historian Gottfried Semper argued in 1852 that the textile was the “primordial field of art making” and therefore functioned as a precursor to the building itself.1 Art historian Rebecca Houze offers vital insight into Semper’s intellectual process. She writes that Semper’s theory of architectural dress can perhaps be best defined as tapestry. Houze goes on to suggest that in tapestry, we find a form that “mediates between building and spectator just as clothing mediates between the individual body and the wearer’s environment.”2 Nearly a century after Semper, a reverence for textiles among architects and designers continued to grow. The opinions of Wright Liebes, a textile designer we have already met, offer instruction. Writing in 1939, she noted that weavers had, “never before possessed so rich and varied a palette.”3 For Wright Liebes, the twentieth century textile offered an unprecedented opportunity to stitch together the ancient and Buckley 3 the new. Historically, the tapestry could occupy the dual space of both a practical and beautiful object. In this capacity, the textile industry welcomed technological advancements that allowed for more vivid and varied hues in wool dyes. During the 1930s, German actor and writer Alfred Auerbach also identified a “new aesthetic” which “[brought] the home environment into closer alignment with twentieth century life.”4 Auerbach emphasized that the architect felt the pull of two polarized ideals, “functionalism versus fantasy.”* In keeping with Wright Liebes’s emphasis on a potential equilibrium between opposites, Auerbach went on to observe that, “[n]either the Functional nor the Fantastic will ever be the sole answer for all people…For there to be a balanced mean we must have two extremes.”5 He further likens the design of a room to the company one may keep, writing, “[r]are indeed are the persons after whom we would pattern ourselves completely, but we do find people from whom we learn and others whose presence gives us enjoyment.”6 Here, Auerbach employs the term “learn” to reflect the utilitarian devices built with new manufacturing techniques, while his usage of “enjoyment” refers to the fantastical works of art which might be seen in a progressive mid-century home. We may ask why architects and designers of the early twentieth century gravitated towards a historicized medium to promote a futuristic agenda, one which was wholly devoted to modernity. What are we to make of these two polarities, the functional and the fantastical? Why would an artist put a historical artform in settings of progress and speed? Functional objects are those that emphasized the role of speed and productivity in the modern interior; fantastical objects were, for Auerbach, a balancing mechanism for an overabundance of functional design. * Functionalism has an additional definition in the context of Bauhaus design, which art historian Magdalena Droste defines as a “balance between purpose, material, and form [which] could be expressed verbally and then projected onto real objects.” She futther notes that so-called “functional” designs often resulted in an “aesthetic exaggeration of geometry.” For more, see Droste, Magdalena. Bauhaus, 1919-1933 (1990). 36-39. Buckley 4 Under these guidelines, the tapestry was a fantastical object, as it did not have a particularly productive purpose. Additionally, the tapestry lent itself more to the sensorial aspects of a room. Both, in Auerbach’s view, are integral achieving an inclusive harmony of all design elements. It seems only natural today to view these two kinds of aesthetic preferences, of functional and fantastical, as separate. Eidelberg writes that our contemporary view of these modes of thinking as divergent does not correlate with how they were considered at the time. He writes that, in the early twentieth century, “[t]his creative adaptation [of forms of craft] could be and indeed was inventive. One could look back to the past in order to create the future.”7 Past forms of art, such as the tapestry, thereby became contemporary. We can push Eidelberg’s assertion further by returning to Davies. Writing on the appropriation of craft and folk traditions in the early twentieth century, Davies states that, Designers had been taught by the aesthetics of cubism, fauvism, and other avant-garde models to see vernacular crafts as primarily formal models, and therefore they disregarded the symbolic content to a greater degree than their nineteenth century predecessors.8 For the artists and designers of the 1920s—who did not see a distinction between high and low art as we do today—a form such as the tapestry was to be learned from, while its previous symbolic content was replaced with forms more expressive of the avant-garde. Tapestry was looked at anew, through the modern lens, in a manner similar to how the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had seen painting reinvented. By these means, the humble tapestry could come to occupy the same space in the public’s imagination that streamlined metal did. All media, traditional and modern, were fair game when it came to representing technological progress. At this point, we must cast light on the other factors behind the mid-century appeal of the aesthetic oppositions advocated by Wright Liebes and Auerbach. This openness to Buckley 5 combining contrasting qualities, expressed so vehemently by these two authors, was behind Le Corbusier’s 1960 theorization of tapestry as a nomadic art form. He saw the medium as suited to movement, and thus as an ideal signifier for the twentieth century. Before analyzing the role of nomadic walls any further, we must place the role of the architect in the interwar period. In doing so, we will also take a closer look at the International Style of architecture which Le Corbusier practiced. Decorative Arts, Fine Arts: Eroding Boundaries My claim here is that, before the interwar elevation of tapestry, furniture occupied a place of prestige in the interwar home. By association, this reverence extended itself to decorative and woven flooring. The elevation of these common interior items was symbolic of this erosion of boundaries between decorative and fine art. In 1927, Robert Weeks de Forest, President of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, wrote, “[m]uch as I am interested in bringing art to the museum, I am more interested in bringing good art into the home.”9 Decorative art was seen as key to the democratization of fine art. It enabled all strati of society to understand artistic concepts. It thereby prepared the ground for an elimination of class distinctions between those who sought out high art vis-à-vis those who settled for low art. This marked a symbiotic relationship between art and architecture in both public and private spaces. Wearing away these traditional boundaries proved to be a success. Just two years after de Forest’s statements, in 1929, the Metropolitan held a show entitled The Architect and the Industrial Arts.* The show, “emphasized the versatility of contemporary architects in the design * The Architect and the Industrial Arts was actually a series of exhibitions from 1917 to 1940, organized by Richard F. Bach. Buckley 6 of decorative objects as well as architectural structures.”10 The Metropolitan thus sanctioned the role of the architect as artist just as the twentieth century entered its fourth decade. We can now say that the museum looked towards the architect, not the designer, for a harmonious balance between public and private space. The impact of this exhibit cannot be understated. The museum prominently displayed its support of the modern movement as found in the domestic interior.* At the heart of that support was the esteem afforded to the architect in the interwar period. The architect was responsible for a multitude of design elements in the domestic interior. According to design historian Janet Kardon, “[t]he architect was the key creative figure, and co-opted the interior designer’s territory in designing coordinated domestic or commercial environments for their buildings.”11 The architect’s duties thus expanded, and this newfound power gave him control over the disparate elements of both the exterior and interior.† He was thus in charge of all components which had bearing on the modern textile, including its function, surrounding, and the textures complementary to it.12 Wright Liebes wrote on the diffusion between the roles of the architect and the craftsperson during the interwar period. “The closest collaboration between the artist and the master craftsman is essential . . . Form and function are one, the result of the perfect unity between design and execution.”13 Wright Leibes thus highlights the emphasis on unity and harmony that occurred through the architect’s hand. The architect’s vision was present in both the design of the outside and inside of his structures. To better understand the role of the * I will further examine how the museum endeavored to reach the interior consumer in the following chapter. † I use “him” here as architects were often men during this period, a trend which unfortunately persists into a gender disparity in the field today. For more, see Stratigakos, Despina. Where Are the Women Architects? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, in association with Places Journal, 2016. Buckley 7 architect in the interwar period, I turn to architectural historian Siegfried Giedion. He writes, “[a]round 1920 the architect superseded the decorative artist . . . Now, for the first time since the eighteenth century, the room and its contents were felt as a single entity.”14 Giedion emphasized that mid-twentieth century architects held an inclusive approach to the home. American designer and pedagogue Shepard Vogelgesang echoed Giedion's response, writing that a, “room shows not only the association of one object to another, but the relationship of a whole unit to life.”15 To better relate interior objects to everyday life, these rooms favored objects that were in motion; they privileged nomadic walls. Still, we should not forget that the architect’s expanded role during the interwar period had deep roots. We have traced Le Corbusier’s enthusiasm for tapestry back to Semper, who identified textiles as anterior to architecture. Additionally, there are nineteenth-century origins for de Forest’s hope that “good art” would someday be found as readily in the home as in the museum. In 1840, twelve years before Semper’s meditation on the built environment, Edgar Allan Poe recognized the importance of the role of the carpet within the apartment. His essay, entitled “The Philosophy of Furniture,” has deep implications for the modern movement, as it foreshadowed de Forest’s concerns long before they were ever articulated. Poe wrote that, “[a] carpet is the soul of the apartment. From it are deduced not only the hues but the forms of all objects incumbent.”16 Just under a century later, Vogelgesang, in an essay entitled “Rooms” (1939), wrote that the notion of modern is: in spirit, a general understanding that good things of all periods live well together and that good things are timeless. Once the universality of art is understood—that authenticity is independent of period—a step is taken toward the establishment of valid standards for the Creative Decorative Arts . . . Artists, craftsmen and owners are beginning to know that taste is not a matter of keeping periods and chair legs straight in one room or designing entirely in blocks or completely in cylinders.17 Buckley 8 As I see it, Vogelgesang is saying here that the skilled artist is interested in all facets of a room coming together to form a united whole. In architecture and decoration, the artist does not allow one style to overshadow another. A successful room, for Vogelgesang, depended on the harmony of its elements. Similarly, writing in 1928 (a decade before Vogelgesang), the Frankl* noted that, “decorative arts and furniture design are already under the powerful modern architecture influence.”18 Architecture and decorative arts inspired one another in the free-flowing world of modern art. We can now say that, first, Le Corbusier did not see the distinctions between media that many still associate with the arts today. Second, it is possible to claim that the profession of the architect expanded to encompass a multitude of duties relating to design during the interwar period. Le Corbusier’s roles were many: he was an artist, designer, and craftsperson. We have traced this expansion back to Semper’s views from 1852. In his treatise, Semper showed that the versatility of the architect was in keeping with the pace of modern life.† Gideon’s observations help us to understand how Le Corbusier would view the function of interior design, and thus of tapestry, as integral to the harmony of his buildings. But shifting professional definitions were not limited to architects. The artist, the craftsperson, and the weaver were all similarly affected. These terms acquired a nomadic nature during the interwar period. We are not yet in a position to return to the theme of nomadism, nor to assess the import of Le Corbusier’s 1952 statements on the “woolen wall.” One more step remains: a brief examination of the degree to which the general understanding of Le Corbusier remains intertwined with the development of * † We will later return to Frankl’s vehement views on the department store exhibition. Semper wrote his essay just a decade before Charles Baudelaire’s diagnostic essay on modernity, “La Vie Moderne.” For more, see: Baudelaire, Charles. “Le Pientre de La Vie Moderne.” Le Figaro. November 1863. Buckley 9 the movement in interwar Western architecture that became known as the International Style. The International Style In this consideration of a major movement in twentieth-century architecture, the range of Le Corbusier’s activities remains central. It is the style of his buildings that influenced his thoughts on other aspects of their interiors. Le Corbusier’s involvement in International Style directly led to him coining the term muralnomad. Thus, situating International Style as a specific movement and realizing its objectives and goals can serve us in better understanding the role of the tapestry within Le Corbusier’s theories and interiors. Some broad characterizations can get our evaluation started. For example, the architectural historian Hassan-Udin Khan defines the International Style as “architecture not rooted to place but transmittable to all sections of the globe and embodying modern and universal principles.”19 The forms which make up International Style are block-like in nature. They can be manufactured for export, with their production originating in Europe. In the eyes of the architects who created these forms, they will ideally proliferate around the globe. This style of architecture was thereby predicated on industrialization. While Khan’s definition is enlightening, the original principles of the International Style were laid out by the interwar architectural historian, Henry-Russel Hitchcock. In his 1932 architectural treatise, he wrote: There is a new conception of architecture as volume rather than mass. Secondly, regularity rather than axial symmetry serves as the chief means of ordering design. These two principles, with a third proscribing arbitrary applied decoration, mark the productions of international style.20 This style is emblematic of the return to order seen after World War I, in which many European citizens hungered for normalcy. They embraced traditional artwork and forms in search of Buckley 10 stability. The return to order involved eschewing any sort of applied decoration, and streamlining shapes. Minimalist forms ruled supreme. They were a means of showing a straightforward view of life and the objects that surrounded their owner in the home. The role of tradition in this process should not be underestimated. Artists working under the framework of the return to order saw a need for stark geometry, for a return to basic shapes and forms.* A most relevant example of this type of architecture is presented in Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye (1931, Fig. 1). In this work, a reinforced concrete house with a rectangular base sits atop twelve round concrete pilotis. The rectangular home has several long, skinny rectangular windows. These stretch in a single, unbroken, horizontal line across its façade. The top of the home has an organic, undulating cylindrical block. Although this top form is curvilinear, thus allowing it to have dynamism, the rest of the building remains stagnant. It is firmly situated in space. Villa Savoye's block-like forms show its solidity; its stilted pilotis convey its relationship to the ground as rooted. These basic shapes combine to form a unique style of architecture, one which we have not seen before. And yet, it is built of the most basic elements, as if a child conceived of the structure while playing with building blocks. Villa Savoye is unadorned aside from its windows; its color palette is black and white. It is the return to order as Le Corbusier envisioned it. The home is an embrace of basic shapes and forms which nonetheless pushed architecture forward into uncharted territory. * Most notably, Picasso between the decade of 1914-24, took the time to focus more on realistic and traditional art forms, and to step away from cubism, a pioneering art movement which he had helped, with George Braque, to engineer. Instead, Picasso increasingly turned to neoclassical forms, falling in line with Jean Cocteau’s theorization on the period. For more, see Simonetta Franquelli’s and Kenneth Silver’s essays in Picasso: The Great War, Experimentation and Change (2016). Buckley 11 We are now left with two opposite phenomena. A new form of architecture emerges. And yet, simultaneously, there was a yearning for a return to tradition on the part of the European public. We must place International Style in its historical context to understand these conflicting forces. Writing on the effects of the Great Depression in Europe, which lasted from 1929– 39, Robert Gerwarth (whom we met in chapter one) says that the, “economic and political crisis of Europe after 1929 fatally undermined any remaining faith in democracy [in France and Spain] and promoted an intensified search for New Orders that could cure the ills of Western capitalism.”21 Using Gerwarth’s terminology, it is possible to see International Style as one such New Order based on formalized rules. Le Corbusier’s architecture is both a part of the return to order movement and an articulation of a "New Order." To sum up this excursus, we can say that the International Style’s geometric profiles are a simplification of earlier forms. They are a refusal of sorts to complicate architecture in any unnecessary way. International Style architects such as Le Corbusier had a “faith in mass production, which led to works that they intended to be built everywhere.”22 Architectural style, which had previously acted as a distinct signifier of time and place, was thus uprooted. Walls, or murs, were becoming nomadic. This examination of the International Style has been necessary for us to fully appreciate how bold and yet deeply rooted were Le Corbusier’s 1960 claims for the muralnomad. And yet, as tapestries are being grounded in this new form of architecture, we cannot leave International Style behind just yet. Although tapestries were an essential part of interior design in the early twentieth century, they seem to go against the starkness and rigidity of International Style. They run counter to Le Corbusier’s own theories, in which “nonessential or historically derived ornament compromise design purity, and luxury objects are socially irresponsible.”23 But it is only right that we draw these parallels between International Style Buckley 12 architecture and tapestry, especially as Le Corbusier is the herald of the muralnomad and a key contributor to Maison Myrbor. Tapestry and the Expanded Role of the Architect As we have seen, the interwar period articulated its instability through International Style architecture, which acted as both a return to order and a new movement. I now turn to Le Corbusier’s formulation of the muralnomad. At the outset, I should note how the nomadic concerns that place textiles at the forefront of arts in the interwar period is curiously understudied. Art historian Romy Golan dedicated her entire 2009 book to the concept of Muralnomad.24 And yet, most of the book is an analysis of the role of the mural in the interwar period. The Le Corbusier essay, from which Golan’s book gained its title, is not discussed until the final chapter, at which point Golan engages in an analysis of a single tapestry by the artist. This is to say that Golan does not attempt an in-depth examination of the term muralnomad as it relates to tapestry, as the artist who coined the word envisioned its application. Similarly, textile historian Virginia Gardner Troy has published an essay analyzing the life of Marie Cuttoli, as well as her contributions to the modern weaving. But, frustratingly, Gardner Troy stops short of analyzing why Le Corbusier considered the medium of the tapestry to be a form of moveable walls.25 A close reading of Le Corbusier’s 1960 essay, “Tapisseries Muralnomad,” is long overdue. The essay is constantly cited and not interrogated. Additionally, this artist's writing holds insight to the concerns of the interwar period. Art historians thus far have been wary to interrogate the term of muralnomad. It is relegated to an interesting historical aside, but not one worthy of deeper examination. But in writing on behalf of the “nomads” of “modern times,” Le Corbusier hits upon the idea which has defined much of modern art: moving Buckley 13 from place to place. I aim to answer why there was this interest in the woolen wall that lent itself to moving, and how this curiosity in the medium was articulated by Le Corbusier’s statement as well as in his work for Maison Myrbor. Le Corbusier designed cartoons for the Myrbor tapestries, and including a woven portrait of Marie Cuttoli in 1936 ( Fig. 2).26 In “Tapisseries Muralnomad,” Le Corbusier reflects on his time executing designs for Maison Myrbor. He writes: The destiny of today’s tapestries appears: it becomes the ‘mural’ of modern times. We have become ‘nomads,’ living in apartments equipped with common services, we move. We cannot have murals painted on the walls of our apartments. This ‘woolen wall’ can be detached, rolled, carried under one’s arm, travel to be hung elsewhere. This is why I have decided to call it Muralnomad.27 Implicit in this passage are four factors which explain what otherwise appears as a leap to an entirely new term. The first two factors are related. First, there is the insistence that modern life is predicated on movement. But this movement isn’t organized, it can happen at any time. Second, there is an assumption that movement is always speedy and efficient. We may have to now move at will, and do so rapidly. The third factor is one we have touched on before: the century-long rise in the appreciation of tapestry, even though our history of the International Style showed a clear incongruity between architecture as a fixed form, and the International Style’s appreciation for the inherently portable. Fourth, there is the factor with which I end this chapter: Le Corbusier’s own relation to trans-nationalism. We will see, in due course, how Delueze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus implicitly critiqued this aspect of Le Corubiser’s thought. To draw out these four factors, I return to the Rebecca Houze. I propose that we adopt aspects of Houze’s scholarship to help explain Le Corbusier’s fascination with a “woolen wall.” Buckley 14 I believe it is likely that Le Corbusier saw the textile in the same way as Semper in 1852: as a means of bringing the architecture of one’s interior into alignment with one’s body. Tapestries are walls which can move in space, just as their owner. They thus generate a more connective and fluid relationship than the walls of a traditional building. But, even though we can all agree that International Style architecture ushered in a new age which encouraged the appreciation of textiles as architectural elements, we need to go beyond this familiar formula. The separation between the body and walls should be one that is flexible, allowing for easy transport within a space. Moveable walls, henceforth referred to as muralnomads, are representative of an allencompassing approach to condition of the apartment as a space for living. This approach, in turn, is shaped by the ideas of nomadism. These ancient forms would serve as facilitators of movement. They would become nomadic murals; artworks/walls which could travel with their owner. The passage written in 1960 by Le Corbusier evokes the connection between the myriad means of transportation that arose in the twentieth century and the role of the tapestry as an outlet for artistic expression. Le Corbusier never completely abandoned painting for tapestry. It is my belief Le Corbusier recognized that paintings and tapestries could be used towards accomplishing different ends in the modern interior. Le Corbusier correctly perceived that one could not simply swap paintings and tapestries in the home. They could not be used interchangeably, as they served intrinsically different purposes. Once again, I turn to Dorothy Wright Liebes. She noted that, “[w]e should regard tapestry as a bona fide textile expression, not a painting.”28 This is precisely what Le Corbusier lays out in his “Tapisseries Muralnomad” manifesto, through his articulation of clear guidelines for the creation and viewing of the tapestry. He states his rules for tapestry display as such: “[a] tapestry should never cover a buffet or service table. It is not a Buckley 15 painting, even if it can be large or small. Tapestry should open itself up to the eye, and as such, it should be the height of man. It can (and should) touch the ground.”29 As I see it, Le Corbusier is arguing in favor of the inclusion of the tapestry in architectural thought, as well as in our concept of the graphic arts. The tapestry is a wall to him, and should be considered in both architectural design and interior décor as an essential element. In “Tapisseries Muralnomad,” Le Corbusier continues on with a detailed account, accompanied by photographic illustrations, of the production of nine tapestries for hanging in Changridah High Court and Parliament in India.30 Of particular concern for Le Corbusier in his account is how individual workers facilitated the layout of the textiles. The article was written with an eye towards how to replicate this type of system elsewhere (Fig. 3). Like the exportable architecture conceptualized by Le Corbusier in the International Style, this manufacturing of textiles was recounted with an eye towards how other iterations of its production may look, globally speaking. Thus, homes and tapestries alike designed by Le Corbusier could be exported by the architect. Le Corbusier engaged in the creation of buildings whose production, inside and out, was under his control. Houze’s work allows us to see how Le Corbusier can evoke the speed of the modern age in the same essay, while simultaneously invoking an architectural precedent—that of the relationship of the textile to the inhabitant in the home—from over 100 years ago. As this chapter continues to show, we can no longer be surprised that Le Corbusier turned to the handmade craft of weaving in the mid-twentieth century. These two preferences for the interior, nostalgia on one hand, and speed on the other, were not mutually exclusive. Le Corbusier felt pulled to a form that embodies the past over the present. Frankl bolsters the claim Le Corbusier incorporated aesthetic forms emblematic of the Buckley 16 past into his new, International Style homes. Frankl wrote in 1928 that, “[m]odern is only a relative term. New things may be old-fashioned and they may be modern. But for that matter old things may often be considered very fresh.”31 Thus, the textiles designed during this age reflected the same global nomadism that architecture did. Additionally, tapestry was now appreciated as an object which emphasized previous design efforts. It was revered as a handcraft which had the ability to temper other streamlined, mechanized forms in the domestic interior. This formulation of old and new represented an innovative concept of interior space as ruled by temporality. Golan makes a further claim in respect to this development, writing that, “[b]y being (at least potentially) nomadic, joyful, and at the same time resonant of displacement and strife, these tapestries bring forward the function of disclosure.”32 Suffering from the lasting effects of World War I, people carried their scars into their interiors. They embraced forms which were not transitory in a literal sense, but were designed according to a new acceptance of a transitory condition as one which held generative potential. Le Corbusier’s “Tapisseries Muralnomad” was written in 1960. It is a post-war text, in which the artist is reflecting on the interwar period. We thus have a series of time periods layered upon one another: Le Corbusier creates weavings for Maison Myrbor in 1936. He writes a reflection on his time doing so in 1960, after World War II, and tries to reimagine why he turned to the tapestry during the interwar period. Le Corbusier’s essay is written in the present tense. He includes an analysis of his production of several later weavings, occurring in 1960, with his reflections. It is difficult to find out whether the artist is referring to the interwar tapestry consumer or the post-war consumer as his audience. Due to his retrospective viewpoint, the artist has the benefit of looking back on that time in a way that his peers did not. The term “nomad” arose for Le Corbusier as emblematic not only for the medium of tapestry but for the general Buckley 17 lifestyle at that moment. His International Style architecture, made for export, would imply that he meant for readers to take the term “nomad” literally. There is, however, another aspect to Le Corbusier’s backward gaze. As I have shown, we can view Le Corbusier’s usage of the term “nomad” within a framework devised by two poststructuralist philosophers. We understand “nomad” today through A Thousand Plateaus (1983), which reflects on the “modern” period. Through lifting these successive veils, we learn not only how the tapestry was viewed during the interwar period, but how we can today grapple with these objects and the terms that surround them. Have we ever understood the system of interwar production through its own time? The framework I have built throughout this chapter aims to understand the terms laid out by Le Corbusier himself as both a theorist and artist. At the same time, my discussion was open to our contemporary understanding of the nomad. A layering of time periods has been crucial to my account. In the case of “Tapisseries Muralnomad,” a retrospective gaze that spans nearly fifty years is at issue. Close consideration of a handmade production system in the mid-twentieth century can help advance our art historical understanding of this time and the all-encompassing nature of “art” as a term. Le Corbusier’s modernist dream of a nomad, one who could easily move between massproduced (International Style) buildings, was not realized. His concept of a nomad who would roll up and transport his/her belongings, and move from one mass produced building to the next with relative ease and comfort, never came to fruition. Therefore, to address these larger considerations as we move toward a conclusion, it seems appropriate to ask: who was the audience of this publication? Was it written for Le Corbusier himself, who hoped to advance all styles into the International realm? My answer here is that Le Corbusier is speaking of Buckley 18 the international nomad, one for whom nation boundaries are no obstacle. Le Corbusier remained defiant, ever-obsessed with his dream of the international nomad who could comfortably move between mass produced structures, no matter where, and always feel at home with his/her transitive furnishings. For me, any interrogation of Le Corbusier’s essay reveals the hollowness of the modernist dream. How else are we to explain the death of the nomad? It is a term which Deleuze and Guattari use mockingly; those who believe they are nomadic are restrained in more ways they can perceive. By this logic, we may disregard the stability of the geometry of International Style architecture in favor of the interior truths which this style offered in its privileging of transitory objects such as the tapestry. These interiors emphasized the dualistic nature of handmade and mechanized forms. They are interiors predicated on nomadism. International Style architecture was created for export; its forms are forever mobilized in that sense. Le Corbusier is directly implicated in this mechanical progress. He “desired a progression from the organic to the inorganic, from the natural to the artificial, from the random uncertainties of life to the reliability of the perfect machine.”33 The interior of the early twentieth century features shapes created with an eye towards future movement. The nomadic life was embraced in the traumatic aftermath of World War I. Tapestry is chief among the possessions that the modern nomad owns. The exterior of the home says to outsiders that the inhabitant is firmly rooted here. And yet, its interior fixtures betray a psyche fixated on speed and ever-ready to move with prized possessions should the need arise. By the postwar era, this dream of free movement was obviously dead for anyone who wished to see it. The problem lies in the fact that, as shown in “Tapisseries Muralnomad,” Le Corbusier could not accept the death of his international dream. Buckley 19 Fig. 1. Le Corbusier. Villa Savoye (Les Heures Claires); From Northwest. Reinforced concrete supported by twelve round concrete pilotis, 1931; restored 1993. Photograph by J. L. Vedet. Available from: Artstor, http://artstor.org (accessed 9 February, 2017). Buckley 20 Fig. 2. Le Corbusier. Marie Cuttoli. Tapestry in wool and silk, 1936. 57 3/4 x 68 3/4 in. (147 x 175 cm). Fondation Le Corbusier. Available from: Dressen, Anne, ed. Decorum: Tapis et Tapisseries D’artistes [Decorum: Carpets and Tapestries by Artists], 63. Buckley 21 Fig. 3. Photograph from Le Corbusier, “Tapisserie Muralnomad,” 60. Buckley 22 Endnotes 1 Houze, “Hungarian Nationalism,” 7. 2 Ibid., 27. 3 Wright Liebes, “Contemporary Decorative Arts,” 27. 4 Auerbach, “Modern Furniture,” 47. 5 Vogelgesang, “Rooms,” 11. 6 Ibid. 7 Eidelberg, “Modern Historicism,” 121. 8 Davies, At Home in Manhattan, 23. 9 de Forest, “Current Topics of Interest,” 116. 10 Davies, At Home in Manhattan, 89. 11 Kardon, “Craft in the Machine Age,” 26. 12 Wright Liebes, “Modern Textiles,” 93. 13 Wright Liebes, “Contemporary Decorative Arts,” 7. 14 Vogelgesang, “Rooms.” 15 Ibid., 10. 16 Poe, “The Philosophy of Furniture.,” 243. 17 Vogelgesang, “Rooms,” 10. 18 Frankl, New Dimensions, 56–57. 19 Khan, International Style, 8. 20 Hitchcock, The International Style, 10. 21 Gerwarth, The Vanquished, 250. 22 Khan, International Style, 13. 23 Davies, At Home in Manhattan, 20. Buckley 23 24 Golan, Muralnomad. 25 Troy, “Easel Tapestries,” 8. 26 Dressen, “L’Art Transgenre Du Tapis et de la Tapisserie,” 63. 27 Le Corbusier, “Tapisseries muralnomad,” 57. 28 Wright Liebes, “Modern Textiles,” 92. 29 Le Corbusier, “Tapisseries muralnomad,” 57. 30 Ibid. 31 Frankl, New Dimensions, 15. 32 Golan, Muralnomad, 247. 33 Bach, “Machine Aesthetics,” 29. Buckley 24 Works Cited Albers, Anni. On Weaving. First Edition. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1965. Anscombe, Isabelle. A Woman’s Touch: Women in Design from 1860 to the Present Day. New York, NY: Viking Penguin, 1984. Art Vivant, Inc. The Art of Aubusson Tapestry. Art Vivant, Inc. in association with the Arts Club of Chicago, 1972. Published in conjunction with the exhibition Calder Tapestries, shown at the Arts Club of Chicago. Exhibition Brochure. Available from: The Newberry Library, Midwest.MS.Arts Club, Box 78, Folder 916. Arts Club of Chicago. “Midwest.MS.Arts Club, Series 1: Exhibitions, Modern French Tapestries (Wildenstein and Co.; Cuttoli, Marie; Winterbotham, Joseph; Etienne Bignou) Folder 1 of 2.” Arts Club of Chicago, 1941. Newberry Library. ———. “Midwest.MS.Arts Club, Series 1: Exhibitions, Modern Tapestries Designed by Modern Painters Executed Under the Direction of Madame Paul Cuttoli (San Francisco Museum of Art; Eisendrath, William N.; Museum of Modern Art; Sweeney, Jim; Golden Gate International Exposition) Folder 2 of 2.” Arts Club of Chicago, n.d. Newberry Library. Assemblee Nationale. “Paul Raymond, Maxime Cuttoli - Database of French MPs since 1789.” Assemblée Nationale. Accessed August 9, 2016. http://www2.assembleenationale.fr/sycomore/fiche/(num_dept)/2091. Auerbach, Alfred. “Modern Furniture.” In Decorative Arts; Official Catalog, Golden Gate Exposition, 47. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Bay Exposition Company; H.S. Crocker Company, Inc.; Schwabacher-Frey Company, 1939. Bach, Richard F. “Machine Aesthetics.” In Twentieth Century Limited: Industrial Design in America, 1925-1939, 19–38. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1979. ———. Museums and The Industrial World. New York, NY: The Gilliss Press, 1926. Baldwin, William H. “Modern Art and the Machine Age.” The Independent (1922-1928); New York, NY, July 9, 1927. Barthes, Roland. “La Mort de l’Auteur.” Manteia 5 (1968): 61–72. Baudelaire, Charles. “Le Pientre de La Vie Moderne.” Le Figaro. November 1863. Bellow, Juliet. Modernism on Stage: The Ballets Russes and the Parisian Avant-Garde. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2013. Benjamin, Walter. “Painting and the Graphic Arts.” In Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, First Harvard University Press paperback edition, 2004-2006., 82. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1917. Buckley 25 Bergdoll, Barry. “Bauhaus Multiplied: Paradoxes of Architecture and Design In and After The Bauhaus.” In Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity, edited by Leah Dickerman, 41–61. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2009. Bloom, Jonathan. Islamic Arts. London, UK: Phaidon, 1997. Bonney, Thérèse, and Louise Bonney. Buying Antique and Modern Furniture in Paris. New York, NY: R.M. McBride & Company, 1929. Boorstin, Daniel J. The Americans: The Democratic Experience. First. New York, NY: Random House, 1973. Bourneuf, Annie. Paul Klee: The Visible and The Legible. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2015. California Insurance Associated Agencies. “Insurance Estimate.” Arts Club of Chicago, 1941. Midwest.MS.Arts Club, Series 1: Exhibitions, Modern French Tapestries (Wildenstein and Co.; Cuttoli, Marie; Winterbotham, Joseph; Etienne Bignou) Folder 1 of 2. Newberry Library. Campbell, Thomas P., Pascal-François Bertrand, Jeri Bapasola, and Bruce White, eds. Tapestry in the Baroque: Threads of Splendor. New York, NY; New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art; Yale University Press, 2007. Cantor, Jay E. “Art and Industry: Reflections on The Role of The American Museum in Encouraging Innovation in The Decorative Arts.” In Technological Innovation and the Decorative Arts, edited by Ian M. G Quimby and Polly Anne Earl, 331–54. Charlottesville, VA: Published for the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum by the University Press of Virginia, 1978. Chapon, François. “A Portrait of Jacques Doucet.” In Jacques Doucet, Yves Saint Laurent: Vivre Pour L’Art, edited by Jérôme Neutres, 169–75. Paris, France: Flammarion: Fondation Pierre Bergé-Yves Saint Laurent, 2015. Cincinnati Art Museum. Contemporary French Tapestries: [An Exhibition at the Cincinnati Art Museum]. Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Art Museum, 1955. Cocteau, Jean. Rappel À L’ordre: Discipline et Liberté. Paris, France: Delamain, Boutelleau et cie, 1926. Coleman, Elizabeth Ann. “Myrbor and Other Mysteries: Questions of Art, Authorship and Émigrées.” Costume 34, no. 1 (January 1, 2000): 100–104. doi:10.1179/cos.2000.34.1.100. Conn, Steven. Museums and American Intellectual Life, 1876-1926. University of Chicago Press, 2000. Buckley 26 Dana, John Cotton. “Dana to Bach,” March 31, 1917. Metropolitan Museum of Art archives. ———. “The Use of Museums.” The Nation 115, no. 2998 (October 11, 1922): 374–76. Davies, Karen. At Home in Manhattan: Modern Decorative Arts, 1925 to The Depression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Art Gallery, 1983. Day, Susan. Art Deco and Modernist Carpets. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books, 2002. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. First. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. Mille Plateaux. Capitalisme et schizophrénie. Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1980. Dressen, Anne, ed. Decorum: Tapis et Tapisseries d’Artistes [Decorum: Carpets and Tapestries by Artists]. Paris, France: Musée d’Art de La Ville de Paris-ARC: Skira Flammarian, 2013. ———. “L’Art Transgenre Du Tapis et de la Tapisserie (Ou Le Retour de Minoré) [The Transgenre Art of Carpet and Tapestry (Or the Return of the Minor)].” In Decorum: Tapis et Tapisseries d’Artistes, 25–30. Paris, France: Musée d’Art de La Ville de ParisARC: Skira Flammarian, 2013. Droste, Magdalena. Bauhaus, 1919-1933. Köln, Germany: B. Taschen, 1990. ———. “Beruf: Kunstgewerberlerin: Frauen Im Kunsthandwerb Und Design 1890-1933 (Women in the Arts and Crafts and in Industrial Design 1980-1923).” In Frauen Im Design: Berufsbilder Und Lebenswege Seit 1900 (Women In Design: Careers and Life Histories since 1900), edited by Angela Oedekoven-Gerischer, 174–90. Stuttgart, Germany: Design Center Stuttgart, 1989. Eidelberg, Martin P. “Modern Historicism.” In Design 1935-1965: What Modern Was: Selections from the Liliane and David M. Stewart Collection, 120–21. Montreal, QC, Canada; New York, NY: Musée des arts décoratifs de Montréal; H.N. Abrams, 1991. ———. “Modern in the Past Tense.” In Design 1935-1965: What Modern Was: Selections from the Liliane and David M. Stewart Collection, 10–11. Montreal, QC, Canada; New York, NY: Musée des arts décoratifs de Montréal; H.N. Abrams, 1991. Ferriss, Hugh. The Metropolis of Tomorrow. Ives Washburn: New York, NY, 1929. First National Bank of Chicago. The Art Collection of the First National Bank of Chicago. Chicago, IL: First National Bank of Chicago, 1974. Buckley 27 Forest, Robert W. de. “Current Topics of Interest.” Good Furniture Magazine 32 (March 1929): 116. Forest, Robert W. de. “Foreword.” In An International Exposition of Art in Industry: From May 14 to May 26, 1928 at Macy’s., 3–6. New York, NY: Macy’s, Inc., 1928. Foucault, Michel. “Qu’est-Ce Qu’un Auteur?,” 113–38. La Société de Française de Philosophie, 1969. Frankl, Paul. “Merchandising the Modern Idea in Decoration.” Advertising & Selling, December 26, 1928. Frankl, Paul T. Form and Re-Form: A Practical Handbook of Modern Interiors. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1930. ———. New Dimensions: The Decorative Arts of Today In Words & Pictures. New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1928. Franquelli, Simonetta. “Double Play: Cubism and Neoclassicism in Picasso’s Art.” In Picasso: The Great War, Experimentation and Change, edited by Mariah Keller. New York, NY: Scala, 2016. Friedman, Marilyn F. Selling Good Design: Promoting The Early Modern Interior. New York, NY: Rizzoli, 2003. Galerie Beyeler Bâle. Teppiche [von] Arp, Bissier, Bissier̀ e, Calder, Ernst, Vieira Da Silva, Klee, Laurens, Léger, Miró, Picasso. Basel, 1961. Gan, Anne Marie, Zannie Giraud Vauss, Lisa Phillips, Christine Anagnos, and Wade. “The Gender Gap in Art Museum Directorships.” New York, NY; Dallas, TX: Association of Art Museum Directors; National Center for Arts Research, March 7, 2014. https://aamd.org/sites/default/files/document/The%20Gender%20Gap%20in%20Art%20 Museum%20Directorships_0.pdf. Gebhard, David. “The Moderne in the US.” Architectural Association Quarterly 2, no. 5 (July 1970): 7. Gerwarth, Robert. The Vanquished: Why the First World War Failed to End. First American Edition. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016. Golan, Romy. Muralnomad: The Paradox of Wall Painting, Europe 1927-1957. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. Greenhalgh, Paul. “The Struggles within French Furniture, 1900–1930.” In Modernism In Design, 54–81. Critical Views. London, UK: Reaktion Books, 1990. Buckley 28 Gronberg, Tag. Vienna: City of Modernity: 1890-1914. 1 edition. Oxford, England; New York, NY: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, 2007. Guilbaut, Serge. How New York Stole The Idea of Modern Art: Abstract Expressionism, Freedom, and The Cold War. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Harris, Neil. “Museums, Merchandising, and Popular Taste.” In Material Culture and the Study of American Life, edited by Ian M. G. Quimby, First., 140–74. New York, NY: Published for the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, DE, by Norton, 1978. Hedlund, Ann Lane. “Tapestry Translations in the Twentieth Century: The Entwined Roles of Artists, Weavers, and Editeurs.” Textile Society of America Symposium Proceedings, 2004, 306–15. Heller, Alfred. World’s Fairs and The End of Progress: An Insider’s View. Corte Madera, CA: World’s Fair, Inc., 1999. Hitchcock, Henry Russell. The International Style: Architecture Since 1922. First. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1932. Houze, Rebecca. “Hungarian Nationalism, Gottfried Semper, and the Budapest Museum of Applied Art.” Studies in the Decorative Arts 16, no. 2 (2009): 7–38. doi:10.1086/652503. Howard, Vicki. From Main Street to Mall: The Rise and Fall of the American Department Store. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14jxw65. Iversen, Margaret. “Desire and the Diagrammatic.” Oxford Art Journal 39, no. 1 (March 1, 2016): 1–17. doi:10.1093/oxartj/kcv030. Janneau, Guillaume. “The Revival of the Tapestry in France.” In French Tapestry, edited by Andre Lejard, 97–108. Paris, France: Les Editions du Chene, 1947. Joly, Pierre. L’architecte André Lurçat. Paris, France: Picard, 1995. Jones, Caroline A. The Global Work of Art: World’s Fairs, Biennials, and the Aesthetics of Experience. Chicago, IL; London, UK: University Of Chicago Press, 2017. Kardon, Janet. “Craft in the Machine Age.” In Craft in the Machine Age, 1920-1945, edited by Janet Kardon and Rosemarie Haag Bletter, 22–35. The History of Twentieth-Century American Craft. New York: H.N. Abrams in association with the American Craft Museum, 1995. Keegan, John. The First World War. First American edition. New York, NY: A. Knopf, 1999. Khan, Hasan-Uddin. International Style: Modernist Architecture from 1925 to 1965. Köln, Germany: Taschen, 2001. Buckley 29 Kiesler, Frederick. Contemporary Art Applied to The Store and Its Display. New York, NY: Brentano’s, 1930. Kingdon, Frank. John Cotton Dana: A Life. Newark, NJ: The Newark Museum, 1940. Krauss, Rosalind E. “The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths.” October 18 (Fall 1981): 47–66. Laidlaw, Christine Wallace. “The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Modern Design: 19171929.” The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts 8 (1988): 88–103. Le Corbusier. “Tapisseries muralnomad.” Zodiac, no. 7 (1960): 57–63. ———. Towards A New Architecture. New York, NY: Praeger, 1923. Lupton, Ellen, and J. Abbott Miller, eds. The ABC’s of [Bauhaus]: The Bauhaus and Design Theory from Preschool to Post-Modernism; Exhibition 8 April - 11 May 1991. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991. Lurçat, Jean. Designing Tapestry. London, UK, 1950. Lussier, Suzanne. Art Deco Fashion. First paperback. London, UK: V&A Publications, 2009. MacLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. First. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Macy’s. An International Exposition of Art in Industry: From May 14 to May 26, 1928 at Macy’s. New York, NY: Macy’s, Inc., 1928. Mascheck, Joseph. “The Carpet Paradigm: Critical Prolegomena to a Theory of Flatness.” Arts Magazine 51, no. 1 (September 1976): 82–109. Massumi, Brian. “Translator’s Foreword: Pleasures of Philosophy.” In A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, ix–xv, First. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Matet, Maurice. Tapis Modernes. Paris, France: H. Ernst, 1929. McNeil, Peter. “Designing Women: Gender, Sexuality and the Interior Decorator, C. 18901940.” Art History 17, no. 4 (December 1994): 631. Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Architect and The Industrial Arts: An Exhibition of Contemporary American Design. New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art; Plandome Press, Inc., 1929. Meyer, James Sampson, ed. Minimalism. Themes and Movements. London, UK: Phaidon, 2000. Buckley 30 Moholy-Nagy, László. The New Vision: Fundamentals of Bauhaus Design, Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture. New York, NY: Norton, 1938. Morgan, Edith. “Modernism?” Edited by Edna (1914-1951) Woolman Chase. Vogue 73, no. 10 (1929): 104, 105, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 172. Moynihan, Jeanne Patricia. “The Influence of The Bauhaus On Art and Art Education in The United States.” Northwestern University, 1980. Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, ed. Les tapisseries de Le Corbusier: exposition, Genève & Paris, juinnovembre 1975. Genève, Switzerland: Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, 1975. Newark Museum, ed. Newark Museum: Selected Works. London, UK; Newark, NJ: Scala Publishers; In association with Newark Museum, 2009. Newark Museum of Art. “List of Items in Floor Covering Exhibition.” Newark Museum of Art, 1930. Newark Museum of Art Library. Nichols, Christopher McKnight, and Nancy C. Unger, eds. A Companion to The Gilded Age and Progressive Era. First edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2017. Ozenfant, Amédée, and Le Corbusier. Après Le Cubisme. Paris: Paris: Editions of the Commentaries, 1918. Parton, Anthony. Goncharova: The Art and Design of Natalia Goncharova. Woodbridge, UK: Antique Collectors’ Club, 2010. Paulvé, Dominique. Marie Cuttoli: Myrbor et l’invention de la tapisserie moderne. First. Paris, France: Editions Norma, 2010. Paz, Octavio. Alternating Current. New York, NY: Viking Press, 1973. Petropoulos, Jonathan. The Faustian Bargain: The Art World in Nazi Germany. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. Poe, Edgar A. “The Philosophy of Furniture.” Burton’s Gentleman’s Magazine and American Monthly Review (1839-1840); Philadelphia, May 1840. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Art for the Public: The Collection of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. New York, NY: The Authority, 1985. Richards, Charles R. Industrial Art and the Museum. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1927. http://archive.org/details/industrialartmus00rich. Richardson, John. A Life of Picasso. First Knopf paperback. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Buckley 31 Rydell, Robert W. “Introduction: Making America (More) Modern: America’s Depression-Era World’s Fairs.” In Designing Tomorrow: America’s World’s Fairs of The 1930s, edited by Laura Burd Schiavo, Robert Bennett, and National Building Museum (U.S.), 1–21. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. San Francisco Bay Exposition. 1939 Golden Gate International Exposition on San Francisco Bay, February 18 - December 2. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Bay Exposition, 1938. Schoeser, Mary. “Textiles, Surface, Structure, and Serial Production.” In Craft in the Machine Age, 1920-1945, edited by Janet Kardon and Rosemarie Haag Bletter, 110–21. The History of Twentieth-Century American Craft. New York, NY: H.N. Abrams in association with the American Craft Museum, 1995. Shanahan, Maureen G. “‘Tapis/tapisserie’: Marie Cuttoli, Fernand Léger and the Muralnomad.” Konsthistorisk tidskrift (Journal of Art History) 83 (January 2014): 228–43. Shattuck, Roger. The Banquet Years: The Origins of the Avant-Garde in France, 1885 to World War I. Salem, NH: Ayer, 1984. Shaver, Dorothy, and Samuel W. Reyburn. An Exposition of Modern French Decorative Art. New York, NY: Lord & Taylor, 1928. Shifman, Barry. “The Studio Saint-James, Jacques Docuet’s Masterpiece.” In Jacques Doucet, Yves Saint Laurent: Vivre pour l’art, edited by Jérôme Neutres and Fondation Pierre Bergé-Yves Saint Laurent, 50–57. Paris: Flammarion : Fondation Pierre Bergé-Yves Saint Laurent, 2015. Silver, Kenneth. “Picasso and Cocteau in Wartime : A Tricolored Alliance.” In Picasso: The Great War, Experimentation and Change, edited by Mariah Keller. New York, NY: Scala, 2016. Slesin, Suzanne. Over the Top: Helena Rubinstein: Extraordinary Style, Beauty, Art, Fashion Design. First. New York, NY: Pointed Leaf Press, 2003. Smith, T’ai Lin. Bauhaus Weaving Theory: From Feminine Craft to Mode of Design. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2014. Staniszewski, Mary Anne. The Power of Display: A History of Exhibition Installations at The Museum of Modern Art, 2001. Stratigakos, Despina. Where Are the Women Architects? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, in association with Places Journal, 2016. Troy, Virginia Gardner. “Easel Tapestries: The American Reception of the Marie Cuttoli Tapestries 1930s to 1950s.” TEXTILE, December 13, 2016, 18. doi:10.1080/14759756.2016.1264118. Buckley 32 ———. The Modernist Textile: Europe and America, 1890-1940. Aldershot, UK: Lund Humphries, 2006. Vogelgesang, Shephard. “Rooms.” In Decorative Arts; Official Catalog, Golden Gate Exposition, 10–11. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Bay Exposition Company; H.S. Crocker Company, Inc.; Schwabacher-Frey Company, 1939. Wells, K. L. H. “Artistes Contre Liciers: La Renaissance de la Tapisserie Française [Artists Versus Weavers: The Renaissance of French Tapestry].” In Decorum: Tapis et Tapisseries d’Artistes, edited by Anne Dressen, 55–59. Paris, France: Musée d’Art de La Ville de Paris-ARC: Skira Flammarian, 2013. ———. “Rockefeller’s Guernica and the Collection of Modern Copies.” Journal of the History of Collections 27, no. 2 (July 1, 2015): 257–77. doi:10.1093/jhc/fhu029. Wendt, Lloyd. Give the Lady What She Wants! The Story of Marshall Field & Company. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1952. Wilson, Kristina. The Modern Eye: Stieglitz, MoMA, and The Art of The Exhibition, 1925-1934. New Haven, CT; London, UK: Yale University Press, 2009. Woodham, Jonathan M. Twentieth Century Design. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1997. Woolman Chase, Edna (1914-1951), ed. “Advertisement.” Vogue 71, no. 5 (1928): 9. ———. , ed. “Fashion: Early Paris Openings.” Vogue 60, no. 7 (1922): 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. Wright Liebes, Dorothy. “Contemporary Decorative Arts.” In Decorative Arts; Official Catalog, Golden Gate Exposition. San Francisco, CA, 1939. ———. “Modern Textiles.” In Decorative Arts; Official Catalog, Golden Gate Exposition, 92– 93. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Bay Exposition Company; H.S. Crocker Company, Inc.; Schwabacher-Frey Company, 1939.