Summary: Ornament and Crime, Adolf Loos

Adolf Loos attempts to define the hallmark of a culture’s evolution: the direct correlation that a more evolved culture has no ornamentation on its everyday objects. 

Loos believes a true modern, civilized person is “beyond ornament”. He claims this ideal is not immediately attainable for most, impossible for some, and that the speed of cultural development is not a unified progression: that it is “hampered by the stragglers” and depending on the person and where they are, they could be in “1912, 1900, 1870, or the fourth century”. 

Loos expands by discussing the economics of ornament: “Ornament means wasted labor and therefore wasted health. That was always the case. Today, however, it also means wasted material, and both mean wasted capital.” While conceding the associated changing of trends does provide employment for millions, he calls out the strange sentiment it reflects, similar to reacting “thank god” to a report of a house on fire. 

In declaring form should last as long as the object itself. Loos takes an odd shot at an art nouveau contemporary named Hoffman, saying his work will be “unbearable” in a short time whereas Loos’ would be “unbearable only when the carpentry work begins to fall apart”

Loos concludes describing Aristocracy as the peak of humanity, claiming they have intelligence and an understanding of those at the bottom, that as they are “above ornamentation” they are intellectually stronger, and can use ornaments as they see fit.

Summary: Leaving Traces: Anonymity in the Modernist House, Hilde Heynen

Heynen examines the two sides to contemporary interior settings: one of velvet, privacy, and intimacy, and one of glass, openness, and flexibility. She suggests the two reflect prewar and postwar attitudes, with the latter’s focus “a heroic pursuit of a better life and a better society, which is basically opposed to stability”: change is the only constant. 

Heynen draws parallels between the champion of these “homeless” houses Mies van der Rohe and the painter Edward Hopper. In images of work from both, figures are not ‘nestled’, enjoying themselves, but “waiting for the moment to depart”, the places themselves looking “ready to leave”. 

In investigating old vs. new modes of dwelling, Heynen cites Walter Benjamin’s exploration of Russia and “novyi byt”; the complete dissolution of the nuclear family. Separate beds, Separated children, the private sphere being a thing of the past: architecture reinforcing “bare interiors and its open plans, instruct people material belongings were less important than a social spirit”. 

Heynen emphasizes then the gendered overtones in the battle for abstract interiors: “tradition and convention on the feminine side versus modernity and progress on the masculine side”. There is an inherent value in the feminine and sentimental, “the caring for things invested with memories or cultural significance, the transmittance of private meanings… to the next generation”

Some modern homes do walk the line between the binary well. In Rietveld’s Schroder house, the structure reflects de stijl, modern ideals but with interior furnishings having a “shabby” quality- still an “abstract” modern interior, but with the rare traces of human life. An observation by a visiting couple resolves instead focusing on the underlying importance: “To accept the state of things as they are: a painting by Van der Leck and underneath, the mess of life. Nothing you can do about it.”

Critical Response: Loos

There is apparently a not so fine line of a work being “reflective of its time” and being blatantly condescending and racist. The valid points of ornamentation costing more in the long run were obliterated by unnecessary examples of “savagery” from cultures around the globe and a sad grasp to position western / “modern” ideals above the rest of the world. What could be a philosophical, societal, or aesthetic argument throws “hobgoblin” and hierarchical attitudes at naysayers claiming that de-ornamentation is a matter of intellect. I’m mostly just perplexed by Loos’ claim that aristocrats “understand the bottom” when they are literally the most removed they possibly could be from society. To end it all, Loos contradicts the entire idea of higher society being above ornamentation by suggesting that they are the only social stratum that has the correct judgment to use ornamentation anyways as they see fit. 

Application: Jorn Utzon Residency 

Designed by the architect himself, Utzon distilled his work and travel experiences from all over the world to build a new house in his hometown outside of Copenhagen in 1952. While the building undoubtedly adheres to a modern construction and materiality of concrete and glass, the addition of brick and the interior makes the house notably warmer than most examples of the international school. The compromise between the two different types of interior planning Heynen illustrates in Leaving Traces with the Schroder house has striking similarities to Utzon’s home: a blend of the stark with the soft, timeless yet also ‘do-it-yourself’. 

Takeaways  

• Historical hierarchical attitudes towards ornamentation and the lack thereof dictated early modern architecture development and in turn have affected societal attitudes/ conventions
• Interior architecture styles are their own form of rebellion or hallmarks of wider societal changes
• There are always exceptions to the rule within the very strict guidebook of modern architecture