MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020619595 · doi:10.1353/aq.2006.0060

Educating the Eye: Body Mechanics and Streamlining in the United States, 1925-1950

2006· article· en· W2020619595 on OpenAlex
Carma Gorman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Quarterly · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautyProduct (mathematics)Quarter (Canadian coin)CashAdvertisingVisual artsArt historyEngineeringBusinessArtHistoryAestheticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educating the Eye:Body Mechanics and Streamlining in the United States, 1925-1950 Carma R. Gorman (bio) During the second quarter of the twentieth century, many writers on industrial design noted that, prior to about 1925, attractive appearance was not designers' or consumers' priority, at least not in the product categories that a Fortune magazine writer defined in 1934 as the "formerly artless industries": aluminum manufactures, baby carriages, sleds, railroad cars, cash registers, clocks, electrical appliances, food packaging, automobiles, eyeglasses, pens, refrigerators, scales, sewing machines, stoves, and washing machines. 1 Consultant industrial designer Harold Van Doren, writing in 1940, stated that in contrast to the fields of ceramics, glassware, textiles, silverware, jewelry, wallpaper, and furniture, in which products "are sold, and always have been sold, largely on appearance," "in the manufacture of engineered products like typewriters, utility and price were the prime concerns of manufacturer and purchaser alike until a few years ago." 2 Similarly, Van Doren's contemporary Raymond Loewy, writing in 1951, noted that in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, American consumers had been satisfied with "engineered as you go" mechanical products that were characterized by a "haphazard, disorderly look" (see, for example, fig. 1a). 3 Both period commentators and historians have agreed that after 1925, however, consumers began to demand beauty even in those products for which there had been, as Van Doren put it, a "lack of an educated demand for attractive appearance in years past." 4 In an era when refrigerators or washing machines in a given price range could be expected to work and to wear about equally well, newly professionalized American industrial designers acknowledged that they were "designing for the eye"—trying to lure consumers with products that were distinguishable from one another stylistically more than technologically. 5 Particularly during the Depression, it was widely acknowledged that "the sales curve would not respond to the old forms of pressure . . . [and] the product had to be made to sell itself" through attractive appearance. 6 The clean-lined [End Page 839] style that consultant industrial designers developed to meet consumers' demands for beauty in the formerly artless industries went by the name "streamlining" (for example, fig. 1b). 7 The origins of the term streamlining lie in hydro- and aerodynamics, but most industrial designers—even proponents of scientific streamlining such as Norman Bel Geddes—admitted that in the 1930s, streamlining was primarily an aesthetic device rather than an aerodynamic one, and further claimed that their aesthetic was derived primarily from the form of the human body. 8 Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 1. Raymond Loewy, McCormick-Deering cream separator, before (a) and after (b) Loewy's redesign (1945), from Raymond Loewy, Industrial Design (Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 1988), 121. Reproduced with permission of Laurence Loewy. Period observers and historians have both offered many different explanations for how and why this post-1925 shift in tastes and demands occurred, and for the rise of the popularity of streamlining. 9 Many of the well-known explanations are "supply-side" ones, in which particular designers or exhibitions or manufacturers or merchandisers are understood to be the drivers of stylistic change. Consumers, in this paradigm—when they are understood to affect the design of products at all—do so by adopting new styles after seeing them in exhibitions, magazines, movies, and department stores. Designers then are presumed to cater to consumer tastes by making more products that look like [End Page 840] the ones that have already sold well. The problem with this model is that it assumes two things: first, that consumers develop taste preferences primarily through informal means (such as skimming a magazine) rather than through formal ones (such as undergoing a required course of study at school), and second, that consumers develop ideas about and tastes for consumer goods only by looking at other consumer goods. Both assumptions are unwarranted. Between 1925 and 1950, there were at least two important formal mechanisms for the teaching and acquisition of taste that had implications for the appearance of the artless industries: "related art" and "body mechanics" training. These forms of education, which flourished in elementary, high school, and college classrooms, have clear implications for the...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it