Body Constructs Exhibition at the MoMA – Manon Tobia
On the 3rd February 2024, I went to the “Body Constructs” exhibition at the Museum of Modern Arts (MoMA) in New-York City. This gallery explores the relation between modern architecture and the human body through “two seemingly opposing yet complementary design tendencies that developed after World War II”1. The modern architects and designers focussed both on the creation of new buildings or objects, and on “the bodies that would inhabit and use them”2. On one hand, there was the emergence of “scientific” disciplines that aimed to “establish objective principles for measuring the body and improving its performance”3, such as anthropometrics and ergonomics. On the other hand, the body became a way to contest, question and oppose such attempts to normalize the body.
This exhibition invites us to consider the body as “a contested site from which to examine modernism’s frictions with questions of gender, race, and disability that persist in architectural practice today”4. The body is often at the core of social and political issues, in which it plays a double role. It is both subject to structural discrimination and oppression, and a tool for liberation and resistance. In this article I will talk about four items that particularly held my attention, and I will consider how these works either impose “design” on the human body, using technologies to impose limits on the normative human self, and/or challenge that imposition.
“Josephine Anthropometric Chart” (fig.1) is a wall chart by Henry Dreyfuss, an US industrial designer. He first introduced Joe and Josephine in his 1955 book: Designing for People. These characters were drawn by his colleague Alvin R. Tilley “to specs representative of the 50th percentile of all men and women”5, embodying the “average” 1950s American couple. In his book, Dreyfuss explains that his job is “to make Joe and Josephine compatible with their environment”, through the process “known as human engineering”6. Henry Dreyfuss is in fact a pioneering theorist of what is known now as human-factor engineering, or ergonomics. Human-factor engineering is defined as a “science dealing with the application of information on physical and psychological characteristics to the design of devices and systems for human use”7. This process therefore aims to design machines or environments that integrate humans into their systems. Thus, we can assume that the human engineering process that is supposed to make the environment fit the user, and not the opposite. Indeed, the figures designed by Tilley and Dreyfuss were used by designers to think their products according to them. However, only Josephine Chart was exhibited at the MoMA, which is why I am going to focus only on this image.
“Josephine Anthropometric Chart” is a “life-sized” wall chart portraying a two dimensional woman, with every measurement and every proportion of her body annotated. Her size, weight and proportions are therefore presented as the median of all women’s bodies. Consequently, she represents a certain standard, even an ideal. However, there are elements in this image that contradict the accuracy of such a representation of women’s bodies. First, she is perfectly symmetrical, which doesn’t render the reality of human anatomy. This suggests that symmetry is a kind of ideal, although a perfect symmetry of the face, or the body would certainly look disturbing. Then, she is supposed to represent the average woman’s body, while we know that there is a large variety of morphologies, which suggests that the environment that is thought based on this figure is actually not designed for everyone. This standardization of the body suggests more that the human body is the one who has to adjust its environment, and not the opposite. In this way, the body is viewed as a machine that is measured, weighed, designed. I think that this work imposes design on the body using technology, more than it challenges the imposition of norms on the body.
There is something very disturbing about this representation: all the lines and measurements that criss-cross the body give the impression that it’s enclosed and compressed in this image, which totally dehumanizes the body. What’s more, there are no backdrops, which prevents us from imagining what kind of environment Josephine would be compatible with. There’s a total absence of life in this drawing, which reduces the human body to a purely mechanical function, a body that we design as a consumer product. She looks more like a pattern for a doll design, than a living person destined to inhabit a certain environment. This image reminds me of eugenics, and suggests an ideal woman’s body that is supposed to adjust to certain standards in order to “fit” in its environment.
Yet, it seems easier to design environments than people’s bodies, since there are things that cannot be modified because they are genetically determined. The idea of a disciplined body is implied in this image, which is an issue we still face today. Discipline is often valued, and we often think that we are meant to be disciplined in order to be perfect, and achieve the ideal body. It seems interesting to consider the implications of using this type of representation of “average” bodies to design people’s environments, as it suggests a uniformity of the human body and sets aside the specific differences of each human being, which constitute our uniqueness. Moreover, it can contribute to the belief that it’s the body that must adapt to the environment and to certain standards, that it’s merely a machine to be programmed in order to achieve perfection.
The second item is Malcolm Bailey’s 1969 painting Hold, Separate but Equal (fig.2). This painting particularly caught my attention because of the horror of the scene depicted. It refers to a late-eighteenth-century engraving that diagrammed a ship transporting slaves from Africa to Jamaica. The MoMA website provides us with some context, explaining that by “[revealing] the brutal treatment of Africans as freight to be packed as tightly as possible for transport, the engraving became one of the most widely circulated abolitionist images of its day”8. The horror of this image cannot but grip the viewer, especially the coldness with which the men are represented, placed like numbers or merchandise in the hold. It is interesting to consider the double meaning of “hold” here, which both refers to the place where Africans were stuffed, and the physical sensation of being “contained” in a small space.
However, the particularity of this painting is the fact that on one side there are black men, and on the other, white men. Of course, this is not a historical representation of slave ships, but certainly a reference to segregation. As mentioned on the MoMA website, “[this] ‘separate but equal’ arrangement refers to the 1896S US Supreme Court decision upholding the legality of segregating public facilities for white and Black Americans”9. With this painting Bailey denounces the persistent racism in US society, perpetuating the legacy of slavery.
In this picture, there is a symmetry between the black men and the white men. They are arranged “equally” on both sides of the boat, hence the painting’s title. Yet, even if we could imagine a certain equality, and maybe hope, in this painting, we notice that bodies are represented more as objects of science, as parts of a technological object. The boundary between human and technology is further blurred here, as the bodies seem to form a backbone, as if all these bodies were forming one, or two, bodies. And, at the same time, they seem rather to structure the body of the boat, which is an object that symbolizes economy and technology. Another interpretation might be that the struggle for equality demands the investment of both white and black people, that all of them must be involved because it concerns them all.
The third item is Niki de Saint Phalle’s 1974 oblong accordion fold titled Réalisations, projets d’architectures [Realizations, Architecture Projects] (fig.3). I found this piece interesting because it allows us to witness the progression of Niki de Saint Phalle’s several artworks, with her own comments regarding those. On this accordion fold she explains the context of these sculptures: who ordered them, for which reasons. What I really like about her work is that she challenges the imposed design of the human body, especially the female body.
The first work she describes is Hon- en katedral (in English She- A Cathedral), and on this fold she calls it “Elle”, which means both “she” and “her” in French. The fact that she explains the context of the creation of “her”, really gives humanity to this sculpture, and for every sculpture she describes here, we really have the impression that she is speaking about actual human beings. Her sculptures also come to live with their functions, and/or with the persons exploring them. In Elle’s case, the viewer is able to visit the interior of the sculpture representing a pregnant woman, colorful on the outside, then warm and dark on the inside.
She challenges the formalist aesthetics of the female body, giving her generous and colorful shapes, reclaiming the body as a site of pleasure and not of the male gaze and voyeurism. Her work is not only to be observed but to be experienced, visited, inhabited. As it is the case with the project she describes on the fifth page. She writes “Rainer asked me to build him three habitable sculptures in Africa”. It is really interesting to see the relation between the body and technology here, embodied by a habitable sculpture that takes the shape of a female body. I think this accordion fold, as well as Niki de Saint Phalle’s artworks in general, is a good example of how art can challenge the designs imposed on the normative human self.
The last work is April Greiman’s 1986 lithograph: Does It Make Sense? (fig.4), designed for a two-sided fold-out issue of Design Quarterly magazine. In this image we can see a woman’s body stretched out, as if for an autopsy. We don’t really know whether she is dead or alive. Her body seems to be cut into pieces, and different elements are added to it. There is a head attached to her feet, hands that surround the body, as well as non-anatomical elements such as an atom, or a picture of a dinosaur. Many elements related to science are present, like a brain, symbols representing the planets —or astrological signs—, a moon, a vortex, and other elements that are difficult to identify. On the bottom of the image there is a measuring scale the same length as the body, which may suggest that this is an instrument to measure it.
However, the units of measurements written on the scale are not very common when it comes to measure a body: “proton, neutron, electron, moron, milli, micro, nano, pico, kilo, mega, giga, tera, order, chaos, play, dream, dance, make sounds, feel, don’t worry, be happy.” Some of these words are units of measurements, but some others just seem off-topic. The expressions “Play,” “dream,” “dance,” “make sounds,” “feel,” and “don’t worry, be happy,” sound more like commands, which reminds me of the idea that women should “smile” and look “happy” in every circumstance. This image seems to display the woman as a spectacle, scrutinized under every aspect, as if her body didn’t really belong to her anymore.

Fig.4: April Greiman, Design Quarterly #133: ‘Does It make sense?’, an experimental digital collage, 1986
In this image there is a sort of tension between physical and spiritual world, between science and imagination, and the sentence “live where you can,” written on her right leg, is maybe a way to say that we should try to find happiness wherever we can, whether it be in the material world, or in the spiritual world, or our imagination.
Manon Tobia – Master 2 Études anglophones
Bibliography
- “417: Body Constructs | MoMA”, The Museum of Modern Art, available at: https://www.moma.org/calendar/galleries/5668, accessed 13 Apr. 2024.
- DREYFUSS, H., Designing for People, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1955.
- _______, “Henry Dreyfuss”, in Encyclopedia Britannica, February 2024, available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-Dreyfuss, accessed 13 April 2024.
- HOLSTEIN W. K., and CHAPANIS A., “human-factors engineering”, in Encyclopedia Britannica, March 2022, available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/human-factors-engineering, accessed 13 April 2024.
- GAMBINO M., “The Smithsonian Design Museum Tells the Story of User-Centered Design Through 120 Beautiful Products,” in Smithsonian Magazine, December 2014, available at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/smithsonian-design-museum-tells-the-story-of-user-centered-design-through-120-beautiful-products-180953559/, accessed 13 Apr. 2024.
- “Malcolm Bailey. Hold, Separate but Equal. 1969 | MoMA”, The Museum of Modern Art, available at: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/79590, accessed 16 Apr. 2024.
1 “417: Body Constructs | MoMA.” The Museum of Modern Art.
2 ibid.
3 ibid.
4 ibid.
5 GAMBINO, M., “The Smithsonian Design Museum Tells the Story of User-Centered Design Through 120 Beautiful Products.”
6 DREYFUSS, H., Designing for People, p. 27.
7 HOLSTEIN, W. K., and CHAPANIS, A., “human-factors engineering.”
8 “417: Body Constructs | MoMA.” The Museum of Modern Art.
9 “Malcolm Bailey. Hold, Separate but Equal. 1969 | MoMA”, The Museum of Modern Art
OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
mastersfdl (19 juillet 2024). Body Constructs Exhibition at the MoMA – Manon Tobia. Investigatio. Consulté le 20 avril 2026 à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/121vi





