SUMMARIES

Ornamentaion and Crime

Loos describes how, in the modern age, the process of ornamentation stagnates the “evolution” of culture and society, and describes ornamentation as a crime. The foundation of his argument hinges on the idea that the world is trending toward the plain, simplistic objects and designs that were developed either for or as part of the process of modern day manufacturing. By removing style from practical objects, the objects’ become timeless in a way, and last as long as the they are able to physically perform their function. In contrast, an ornamented object lasts only as long as its style is desirable, which is far lesser than the duration of time the object is capable of performing its function. Previously, ornamentation itself was used as an expression of culture, however, in the modern culture that celebrates efficiency, practicality, and form over decoration, ornamentation is not an expression of culture, and actually acts as opposition to it. Devoting resources toward ornamentation therefore is a waste of labor and capital, and this is why ornamentation is a crime.

Leaving Traces

Heynen describes the characteristics of a modern home as being devoid of ornamentation, exhibiting an open floor plan, and embodying this idea of transparency. It can also be described as lacking warmth. Previously, homes would exhibit detailed pieces of art and ornamentation, and valued private spaces. The modern home goes against all of this, instead choosing to favor functionalism. She attributes these characteristics to being a product of the needs of modernist, classless society which no longer needs people to separate themselves from one another, while also emphasizes new technologies for efficient use of materials and does not value the art or decoration of times prior.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Despite how appalled I was with Loos’ blatant derogatory statements of racism, classism, arrogance, and just plain ignorance, I was shocked to find myself agreeing with some parts of his argument, even in contemporary times. I’d always known objects (clothes, among other things) go in and out of style every now and then, and I believe Loos does a good job of describing this phenomenon. By giving an item ornamentation or style, it adds another purpose to that item beyond simply performing its function: adhering to the style of today. When society moves on from that style, that ornamented item suddenly becomes less desirable, even though it may still be capable of performing its practical function. On a large scale, this phenomenon does result in a waste of labor and resources, which hurts societal efficiency as a whole. I can see why he could deem this as a “crime” to society, though I myself would hesitate to take it this far.

APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION

Contemporary Manufactured House

One application of Loos’ argument against ornamentation is the modern day manufactured home. Though very basic in style or ornamentation, manufactured homes continue to be popular across the U.S. solely for their functional purpose. They are the embodiment of cheap and efficient use of materials and labor with no added bells or whistles, that have a lifespan that exactly corresponds with how long they are able to continue to function as a home. If someone is buying a manufactured home, it is not because of its architectural style or cultural expression, but rather because it perfectly embodies contemporary society’s solution to over population problems with efficient use of modern technologies that do not overly burden the producer’s with unnecessary labor. If he were still around today to see them, Loos would be proud.

TAKEAWAYS

• Ornamentation directly opposes the ideals of post-industrial modern society
• Ornamentation, or style in general, shortens the lifespan of practical items by reducing it to the duration it is desirable instead of the duration it is functional
• The openness of modern homes is a result of the elimination, or at least growing insignificance, of societal classes