The Shakers are/were a Christian religious sect formed in the late 18th century by Ann Lee in New York

State. They were protestant, puritanical, and saw work as means to heaven. They are similar in nature to the Mennonites or the Amish. All three sects lived in isolated communities, held a close/strict reading of the Bible, and held humility and plainness as divine virtues. However, with regards to architecture and design, the Shaker style has emerged to a higher degree as a nostalgic precedent for domestic design in America. Edward Deming Andrews has written two informative articles on the architecture and design of the Shaker communities: Communal Architecture of the Shakers and The Shaker Manner of Building. The Shaker style is characterized by plainness, orderliness, and neatness. The shakers worked extensively in wood and came to be known for a high level of joinery and craftsmanship. There is no additional ornament or superfluous elements. What you see is what you get. The theory that backed their designs was deeply rooted in their Christian faith. They believed in humility and piety, and saw work as a physical manifestation of ones faith. The Shakers were no doubt perfectionist. Beauty for the Shakers was a derivation of an objects order and use. Peter Dormer takes a more critical look at Shaker style in Why Do the Shakers Look Like Modernist? . Dormer compares and contrasts the Shakers of the late 18th century with the Modernist of the 20th century. On the surface, there are similarities. Both groups dismiss the use of ornament and applied decoration. In exchange, the Shakers and Modernist focus on function or utility. Beauty is derived from balance and proportion of the parts. Materiality is held in high regard. And with both groups there is deep theory that drives the design. Apart from the similarities stated above, the two groups are quite dissimilar. The two groups existed two centuries apart. The Shakers were heavily focused on the past, whereas the Modernist focused on the future. The Shakers lived in isolated communities, whereas the Modernist maintained connection to the masses. The Modernist were highly motivated by technological advancements, where as the Shakers were motivated by their faith in God. On the surface, the only traits that bind the Shakers with the Modernist are a lack of ornamentation and focus on function/ utility. However, it is at a deeper, more theoretical level that a lesson is taken from the Shaker/ Modernist juxtaposition. That is the existence and importance of a theory in order to drive a design. For the Shakers, theory was derived from the Bible. For the Modernist, the theory was a bit more diverse, but generally came from, as Dormer notes, the conceptual work of the de Stijl, the Futurist, and the Constructivist art and architecture movements. While both groups would no doubt make significant, while differing, contributions to domestic architecture in America, the true lesson is a value for theory. Without the theory or a deeper conceptual belief, design and style will remain at a weak and superficial level. Beauty without theory would be nothing but a fad, and fade quickly. However, it is the deeper concepts that keep the styles of the Shakers and Modernist relevant. Aesthetics with theory convey meaning. Without theory, aesthetics remain meaningless.

david johnson domestic architecture week 2