The Mid-Century Showroom: Knoll, Herman Miller and the Retail Exhibition of Modern American Design

Although occasionally illustrated and referenced in contemporary histories of modern furniture and design, there is surprisingly little critical discussion or consideration of the role of the showroom in the promotion and dissemination of modern design during the mid-twentieth century. In these years, when the American lifestyle was popularly articulated and forcefully propagandized, the furniture showroom served as a principle site of professional and public indoctrination. Appropriating display techniques from modern exhibition design to showcase the American lifestyle as an abstracted, spatially integrated art form, the showroom provided an unencumbered landscape ideally suited to camera’s lens and the public’s imagination. Leading modern American furniture manufacturers, such as Herman Miller and Knoll Associates collaborated with major cultural institutions as well as department stores and retailers to maximize exposure and consumer demand for their products. Through such integrated marketing and merchandising strategies, showrooms also contributed to the broader social project to educate American consumers about modern design and the advantages of modern living. Related to the many model home programs and “good design” exhibitions of the 1950s, the furniture showroom occupies a unique place within the history and discourse of the postwar era. The peculiarities of the furniture showroom and its position as a point of intersection between the trade and the consumer, the commercial and the cultural, and the aesthetic and the ideological form the focus of this study.

Asia literate schooling in the Asian century [Book review]

In her introduction to this edited collection, Christine Halse lays out the purpose of the book as being about addressing three questions for education in contemporary times: What does Asia literacy mean?; Why is it important?; and How might or ought schools do Asia literacy? As a literacy educator it was these three questions that led to my interest in first reading and then reviewing the book. On numerous occasions I’ve felt the expectation that an expertise in Asia literacy should be a part of my toolbox. And yet I’ve always considered Asia literacy to be the responsibility of those who profess to know about – or have some expertise in – history, politics, or studies of society. But here was an edited collection with chapters from a variety of scholars who have informed my work over many years, framing schooling as a noun that could be described qualitatively as more or less Asia literate. As such, I took on the challenge to open up to these ideas and to the opportunity to think again about literacy and the use of this term in pairings such as Asia literacy. I had my own question to add to those of the editor. Can, or even should, literacy be used to describe the skills, capacities and understandings required for citizens to “reflect and explore cultural differences in the Asian region” (Asia Literacy Teachers’ Association of Australia, n.d.) in ways that support engagement within and with Asian peoples and their cultures?