Reading

Cold War Hothouses
Beatriz Colomina
Cold War Hot-Houses looks at how the Cold War effected design, in particular the field of architecture.
The first part of the paper focuses on the domestication of space. The author uses the examples of the automobile, drive-in theaters and national parks as public spaces which are treated as domestic spaces.
When discussing this paper in class, I had found it difficult to decide whether I agreed with the author’s statement of public spaces becoming domestic or not. The arguments within the text are very strong. My issue was the fact that I act differently in my house, in our car, and in public places like school or in a movie theatre. They have different levels of domestication and I react accordingly.
However, this experience may not contradict her argument because I am living in a slightly different time and culture may have changed and, more importantly, I am not living in America.
The second part of this paper, still with a focus of domestication, talks about the Cold War being fought through standards of living as opposed to military fighting. It talks about the technology that was used and borrowed from World War II to create everyday objects -- for example, the forecast program of ALCOA, which looked at new ways of using aluminum for home use. They also borrowed ideas from the military – for example, ideas of logical and changeable layouts were used to divide spaces in office buildings. Ideas of the importance of compatibility and portability were used in all sorts of products such as tables, picnic, shelters, etc. It affected all parts of the American post war culture down to toys – even the kite design was borrowed from the military. Also things that came in kit sets from furniture to houses to toys all had military influence.
This quote sums up her conclusions: “The entire Cold War blurs the distinction between work and play, business and entertainment, appliances and toys, buildings, and dollhouses.”