Adam Martin

Reading Summaries

“Ornament and Crime” by Adolf Loos

The basic argument here is that human beings, both on an individual and societal scale, inevitably progress; further, that we (as early 20th century European men) have progressed beyond the need or desire for ornamentation. This is as true for cigarette cases as it is for buildings. As an empirical fact, we the well-reasoned individuals simply don’t want to buy things that have ornament.

He makes some moral claims about this phenomenon. Since ornamentation takes time and is unnecessary, insisting upon it wastes the maker’s time and also costs him money through opportunity cost. Inversely, if society’s ornament-loving stragglers went away, makers could work less and make more money. Furthermore, producing things without ornament increases their longevity and therefore their value because these things don’t risk going out of style.

Apparently, there are some people whom we should expect will cling to ornament because they have not reached a higher order of being. For them, we should not root out ornament because it’s the best they have. They couldn’t produce or appreciate something like Beethoven’s 9th, so we’d better let them have they frivols. Their multitude will decrease over time due to the inevitable march of progress.

Finally, architecture and art should be separate. To combine them is a waste of labor. It is the task of art to be beautiful; it is the task of architecture to function.

“Leaving Traces: Anonymity in the Modernist House” by Hilde Heynen

This article points out the ways in which prevailing notions of modernity pushed back at ideals of coziness, dwelling, and possession. It also points out some critiques of that phenomenon from within the field.

In the 19th century, the home was about dwelling. It was conceived of as a shell for its inhabitants, and the inhabitants would leave traces of their patterns of living within it. This implies privacy, domesticity, and possession.

Many of these ideals are at odds with 20th century modernism. Modernism, at least as it’s commonly understood, stresses public living, community, transparency, and cold functionalism. All of this is tied up with the political movements of the time, including “novyi byt” which went so far as to suggest the destruction of the nuclear family. This is the backdrop for the transparent, open buildings of Mies van der Rohe.

The article posits a gendered element here. It holds that the ideals of modernity are in line with traditional masculinity and that coziness and domesticity are traditionally feminine. In that sense, the push to make the home less homey is an appropriation of femininity’s standard place in the world. The Rietveld Schroder house is a good case study for blending these two ideals: modern and adaptable, but inhabitant-centered and usually very messy.

Within modern architecture, people like Sibyl Moholy-Nagy say that homes need to help us identify ourselves and give us a place in the world. As such, they should offer different spaces with different possibilities.

Critical Response

For me, the throughline of these readings is how we conceive of “progress” and how far we’re willing to go to demonstrate our progression.

Adolf Loos suggests that progress is inevitable and that we should just help it along, but he sure is able to point to a lot of examples of people who don’t match his notion of progress. The obvious counter to Loos, then, is that it is a mistake to assign primacy to one’s own version of modernity. I also can’t help but wonder why he feels the need to so forcefully evangelize for progress if it’s going to happen on its own anyway.

I think that there is something useful in Loos’s discussion of the longevity of objects. The most sustainable building is the one that doesn’t get torn down, so putting an emphasis on durability over fashion is an important tool for conservation.

I appreciated the way in which Heynen presented the nuances of the modern architectural movement. I think that we often view these movements as monolithic, and in many ways, they are not. Her discussion of push back both at Harvard’s GSD and from Sibyl Moholy-Nagy shed some light on the discussions within the field.

I think that many contemporary houses strike a good balance between functionality and coziness. Doing away with ornamentation and allowing flow between certain spaces doesn’t necessarily mean that we need to do away with privacy and the nuclear family. Most contemporary practice has settled on this happy medium.

Application

Rosales Quijada House; Chicureo, Chile

This family home embodies the best of both worlds: modernity and domesticity.

There are many ways in which it is modern. The facade features enormous glass sheets affording unobstructed views of the home’s public space. The entryway flows into the other public areas on the first floor and is also open to a mezzanine area above. While these spaces are clearly defined by various elements–changes in floor level, stair railings, hallways–they allow the flow of space between them.

The materials are also modern, honest, and tectonic. The concrete core is expressed as such. Wood is wood.

Form follows function. The purpose of each “room” dictates its placement in the overall plan. The desire for separate sleeping areas naturally leads to the distinctive second floor cantilever. Windows are not placed specifically for symmetry or scale; they are based on the needs of each individual room.

However, this home is centered on domesticity. I hinted at this above, but the entire second floor plan and resulting form is based on the separation of personal space. There is a primary bedroom on one end (with a door and window shades, I might add) and two bedrooms (literally labeled “kid’s rooms” on the building plan) on the other end. The family’s barbeque grill is prominently featured in several shots of the backyard.

I know that the house was obviously staged for photographs, but one can really imagine its modern interior cluttered up by “the mess of life.” I think that’s a beautiful thing that ought to be cherished.

Key Takeaways

• Progress means different things to different people.
• The idea that progress is one inevitable forward march away from tradition is fraught.
• Modernism, even when specifically considering 20th century modernism, is not monolithic.
• Modernism and domesticity are not necessarily at odds.