Blog

By Rick Lightburn, Class of 2008

“Less is More” is a phrase many attribute to Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe.

Mies’s aesthetic stripped architecture of its ornaments, its festoons, swags, brackets and pediments. He celebrated the simplicity of structure as a thing of beauty in itself.

But was Mies the first to say, “Less Is More”? Or does this concept have older roots?

While I don’t know who originally said “Less is More” it — and I’ve looked — I do know that the phrase shows up much earlier than Mies.

In a dramatic poem from 1855, the English poet Robert Browning puts that phrase in the mouth of the Italian renaissance painter Andrea del Sarto in Browning’s poem of that same name.

Andrea del Sarto (1486-1531) was an Italian Renaissance painter of substantial renown. You’ll find his name among the greats on the Art Institute entablature and some of his works are on view there in Gallery 205.  Del Sarto was considered the consummate draftsman, but his work was eclipsed by his contemporaries Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, or Raphael.

In Browning’s poem, del Sarto lovingly addresses his wife Lucrezia — who often was his model — musing that while the better draftsman, he is the lesser artist. Michelangelo and Raphael may be lesser draftsmen but still greater artists: less is more.

I do what many dream of, all their lives,
Dream? strive to do, and agonize to do,
And fail in doing. I could count twenty such
On twice your fingers, and not leave this town,
Who strive — you don’t know how the others strive
To paint a little thing like that you smeared
Carelessly passing with your robes afloat —
Yet do much less, so much less, Someone says,
(I know his name, no matter) — so much less!
Well, less is more, Lucrezia: I am judged.
There burns a truer light of God in them,
In their vexed beating stuffed and stopped-up brain,
Heart, or whate’er else, than goes on to prompt
This low-pulsed forthright craftsman’s hand of mine.

For Browning’s del Sarto, art requires both mastery of technique as well as something deeper: a ”truer light” beyond whatever inspires a “low-pulsed forthright craftsman.”  I suspect that’s what Mies was driving at: don’t judge the quality of architecture only by its mastery of technique, for while one design might have more technique, it could have less inspiration.

When looking at art, you can appreciate BOTH the idea expressed AND how that idea is expressed. Architecture is an art. So, when you interpret architecture, you can address not just the bronze or terra cotta or whatever, but the idea that the design communicates. Design does matter.

Mies said something else besides “Less is More.” He said:

“It is true that architecture deals with facts, but its real area of activity is the realm of significance.”

I assume that by “facts” Mies means something like facts and data, i.e., the cost of steel beams, the engineering, materials and techniques required to support a load under different circumstances and the constraints of local building codes. Every competent architect can tell you the facts and building developers obsess about them. Docents can tell fascinating stories about all this.

But great architects go beyond these detailed facts to consider the overall significance of the structure. They design the structure to emphasize, articulate or accommodate that significance.

For example, consider Chicago’s Federal Center on Dearborn Street between Adams and Jackson.  Mies designed this space in the early 1960s and it was built between 1964 and 1974. It’s chock full of fascinating details: its module is applied throughout with a surprising consistency, the balance of its proportions is delightful, and its asymmetry makes it sit on the ground in a wonderful way.

Sure, we all learned that Mies’s International Style is supposed to be universal. The simplicity of its design, materials as well as its geometric regularity, meant that you could put this type of building anywhere in the world and it would look like it belonged.

But, to my eyes Mies’ designs are very Chicago and very American.  I can see how many aspects of its design can represent the idea of the relationship between the citizen of the United States and the Federal Government. So here the design of the complex supports its significance of the Federal Government’s relation to U.S. citizens.  So yes, the “facts” of Mies’ Federal Center are fascinating bits of architecture.

CLICK HERE for more stories on The Bridge.