Ornamentation and Crime

Summary:

In 1908, Adolf Loos, an Austrian architect, described in Ornament and Crime how ornamentation is not fitting for the modern world. He believes that we must remove ornamentation from functional objects for society to evolve. There are a few reasons for this. First, economic ornamentation hinders economic growth. It wastes materials and producers’ time and provides no extra source of income for those who create those time-consuming pieces. It is a hindrance for the producer.  He argues that a simple object that the designer spent menial time on will sell for the same or even more money than an adorned item that took much time to complete. The next point he clarifies is that ornamentation is wasted labor, which means wasted health, and wasted material is wasted capital. Loos goes on to explain ‘wasted capital’ by comparing the ever-changing styles of a ball gown to that of a desk. If a producer were to create an ornamented desk, it would quickly go out of style just as the ball gown would versus creating a simple, functional style desk that will stand the test of time. As long as the item can still hold structurally, it should still be functional and valuable, and an adorned item will often no longer be significant and go out of style, and the consumer will want to replace it. He mentions that although he believes ornamentation does not add anything to architecture, he does not believe in the complete removal of it, only that as society naturally progresses and moves away from ornamentation creators, namely architects should not try to remake ornamentation as it feels insincere and unnecessary. Loos recognizes that the aristocratic approach is necessary for artistic expression and ornamentation. Explaining that taking away the creative expression of those who cannot replace that with anything is cruel, and one of the opposing points he makes to ‘ornamentation is bad’ is that if it makes another individual happy and if they have nothing to replace that happiness, it should continue. 

Critical Response:

Loos has a harsh opinion of ornamentation and how it hinders societal growth. Often, ornamentation is present to celebrate and represent something of meaning, often culturally. Most of the time, it has great significance and importance. However, where I do, on some level, agree with Loos that as ornamentation has naturally evolved and disappeared in some aspects, it’s hard to bring it back and recreate it in the same way that had a lasting effect on people long ago. I also oppose this view because architects have used adornment in successful modern buildings without it being overly intrusive, and adornment often tells a compelling story. His opinion on wasted labor is that producers put in a lot of time to create these ornamented items and don’t sell for the cost of their labor time. He says that simple objects often sell for more or the same and take less labor. Although this can be true in many instances, plenty of people, in fact, a vast population, find beautifully and individualistically crafted items to be much more exciting and valuable than a simple design, and many individuals will pay a lot of money for those items. 

Application and Interpretation:

The Green Edge House in Japan exemplifies what Loos might say is a thriving modern design. It incorporates no ornamentation; Its simple, practical design is functional and will last. His article celebrates plain white walls; the Green Edge House embodies this with the floating white wall surrounding the residence. Loos argues in ‘Ornamentation and Crime’ that architects are “incapable of creating a new form. But architects keep on attempting the impossible and keep on failing.” Loos would be somewhat proud of mA-style architects for their creative modern design. Still, I also believe that even without ornamentation, he might have criticized the use of too much creativity with the floating wall and the many green spaces between the glass and the white wall. He might think it’s too ‘out there’. As he explained, architects tend to shoot for the stars and often fail, so he might think that over time, the creative design aspects of the Green Edge House will become insignificant and unnecessary. Applying this space to ‘Leaving Traces’ and modernity in a home, I think it is a lovely example of how a modern design can look moveable and uninviting but can truthfully be an enjoyable space and feel like home. I think it successfully incorporates the outdoors, the greenery, the light, and the warm wood floors. So even though it may look like “boxes on moveable rods, but also like ships” (Ernst Bloch), it is set into its environment. The Green Edge House embodies “openness and flexibility,” which Walter Benjamin associated with the new dwelling style, the modern one.

Green Edge House

‘Leaving Traces’: Anonymity in the Modernist House

Summary:

Hilde Heynen explains that modernity is no longer designed to be fixed and stable but moveable and ever-changing. This directly correlates with the idea that society must progress and move forward to become better. However, when faced with designing homes, this idea is challenging as typically and traditionally, a dwelling is structured and safe, but with this movement, new approaches to creating homes would have to be explored. Walter Benjamin saw the new dwelling style as open and flexible. In Moscow, they played with the idea of taking away the cozy aspect of a home so that you can give up a private life to live a collective life. This then translates to overarching modernity and the new push for “openness and transparency” in design, reflecting the push for society to also take this transparent approach in life.  This approach is also supported by the idea that society is the supportive aspect of individual life. The push for society to be the warmth that a home one had provided was seen at this time. There were two viewpoints to this new approach. The first is that this is a good idea, that in order to live your life authentically, you must strip your most private space down to the most simplistic aspects and “bravely embrace the bareness of naked interior.” The opposing view was that bare space is so anonymous that anyone could live there, and it does not function as a private space for the user if not personalized. This was often seen as the masculine and feminine viewpoints, the masculine being the bare bones interior versus the feminine one, wanting those customized touches. In the opposing view, Sibyl Moholy-Nagy points out that the desire for individualism and inflation in people is so vital that anonymous spaces cannot fill that need. She says privacy and identification should be respected, and a home should reflect the user. Heynen wraps it up by explaining that the opposing viewpoints in this piece show that not all modernist architects took the bare bones home path, and actually, the most interesting home designs come from combining multiple of these different modernist ideas.

Key Take-Aways

• Ornamentation can sometimes lead to stylized objects that might get thrown out well before the product is no longer usable
• A home should be unique to the user of the space and identification should be respected