A delightful feature that distinguishes Machines for Living from other works on domestic modernism is Rosner’s interarts approach. Rosner establishes a descriptive baseline of the modernized home in the introduction: fewer children; less live-in labor; moving the kitchen inward from the periphery; and the new hygiene, conveniences, and obligations afforded by appliances, electricity, and plumbing. She then follows “the transformation of modernist ideas as they move among different areas of technical and aesthetic practice” (21). This interdisciplinary tracking of transformations is organized into five chapters, three of which deal closely with architecture.
In Chapter 2, “Minimum Writing,” Rosner describes aesthetic austerity as a principle for design shared between literature and architecture, with special attention to ways that writers in both domains ascribe value, often of a moral character, to practices that eliminate ornament. Rosner describes such attachment of value to the minimal in familiar writings on aesthetics of Adolf Loos and Le Corbusier as well as in writings aimed at more practical things, such as domestic labor and housing crises, by such figures as Adolf Behne and Karel Teige. She locates temporal and formal variations in minimal writing and relates them to architecture through traces of functionalism and the shared notion that new forms of art could usher in new forms of living.
Chapter 3, “‘Fear in a Handful of Dust’: Modernism and Germ Theory,” describes how domesticity was altered by the eventual acceptance of pathogens as causes of disease, which damaged the relation of vision to danger. Even though germs were known to be microscopic, domestic design emphasized the hygienic superiority of perceptually clear environments, as though the aesthetic cleanness of distinct contours and unadorned surfaces were an adequate stand-in for the cleanliness that produces bacteriological safety. Rosner notes several existing accounts of the modernist empowerment of perceptual faculties (via fast cars, cinema, and the like) and adds to these her own description of how the acceptance of germ theory undercut the status of the senses as guarantors of health and safety.
The last chapter, “The House that Virginia Woolf Built (and Rebuilt),” demonstrates, for me, what Rosner’s interdisciplinary, interarts approach can yield. If not for Rosner’s inclusion of literary scholarship and Woolf’s private writings, we might fall back on a too-easy reification of A Room of One’s Own.