Its not modern (1945) and its not clever, but i really like the simplicity of it. Back to my Janet and John view of T/Wells. The simplicity means that the idea is immediate rather than trying to look past fancy rendering covering up an average design (i am very much speaking to my self here). i am not saying i like the utilitarian design (form follows function), but there is a certain honesty about it. Plus the instructive Gill Sans font, very ‘KEEP OFF THE GRASS’.
Or am i talking blather?
Harry Wingfield illustrated books of the period, very idealistic.
But would it stand out in a 'pin-up'?
Interesting to see an amphitheatre.
Probably not, (against todays fashion/technology expectation), but that is down to a subjective judgment. I suppose all rendering has a historical context, ie renaissance rendering would the art and social history of the time.
Where as 1945 was all about, Bevin and a new post war start with the state bringing in a new order thus the utilitarian design. So the expressionism is minimal, its all representative/idealistic. Just found myself thinking how we are all victims of the fashion of the age we live in. A case of influence rather that original idea's.
Thes style is very much of its time- I picked up some old architectural drawings at a car boot recently, all in this style. Gill sans, ay? really sets the tone!
It could work in a contemporary setting- and I'm not talking about the design itself, just the presentation style- as a kind of parody of post war utilitarianism (parallels with our own contemporary era of austerity).
Think these designers like irony- all about layers, see. Or was that ironing?
Post war, post crash, yep get your point.
Its good for the soul to go without after a period of excess. Makes one appreciative of the simple things in life. Even that word that disappeared from our language, 'community'.
it would be fun to do a design of a contemporary garden the style of the above with perspective sketches done in the style of Harry Wingfield (illustrated the Early Ladybird books, inc. Peter and Jane). Not sure if Jamie would find the irony amusing though.