Loos, Adolf. 1998 [1908]. “Ornament and Crime.” In Ornament and Crime : Selected Essays. Riverside, Calif. : Ariadne Press.

With fire and brimstone from his pulpit, Loos, decries the use of, and need for ornamentation in the modern mans (not Womans) life. But if one looks past the rhetoric, it appears Loos greatest concern is the devaluing of a laborer’s work, and the waste of materials, brought on by needlessly ornamenting every-day items. This “fast fashion” in a sense does harm to both the worker and the consumer. An un-ornate shoe may last as long as its material, but an ornate shoe lasts only as long as its fashion does. Despite Loos vehemence towards ornamentation, he is in favor of classical architectural being taught in architecture schools citing the order and common language it brings to its students.

Heynen, Hilde. 2009. “‘Leaving Traces’: Anonymity in the Modernist House.” In Designing the Modern Interior: From the Victorians to Today., edited by Clive Edwards, Trevor Keeble, Penny Sparke, and Anne Massey, 22:119–28. Oxford ; New York.

Modernism in architecture was not limited to office buildings or museums. As the modernist ideals made their way into the residential dwelling they came into direct conflict with the 19th century bourgeois way of living. For Benjamin Walker, this was a good thing. He saw the overly personalized, cluttered and “cozy” houses of this time to be classist and a trademark of capitalist values. Modernism in the home would support a new class-less society and remind people about what is really important: social spirit not material objects. While inspiring, in retrospect, many of modernity’s ideals in the home can be seen as masculinist and alienating. Sybyl Moholy-Nagy critiqued the work of modernism in the home reminding us that people have a need to create meaningful spaces that they can identify with, and different genders have different needs when it comes to home-making.

Leaving Traces: Anonymity in the Modernist House Argument Continued:

I would continue the argument of Sybyl Moholy-Nagy on the importance of personalization and identification and how the abstract and anonymous aesthetics of the modern movement worked against that. As humans, I believe we seek to surround ourselves or choose to be in places that remind us of values we embody, or aspire to become like. If a certain aesthetic (modernism), tied with certain values (purity of form, function) is being prescribed as necessary for all, for all time, even in the home, it is going to create dissonance within those who do not prize those values. While I can see the argument for certain types of building (a courthouse) or space (a commercial kitchen) to be prescribed with a style or values which are representative of its function, I don’t believe that argument should apply to private spaces, and especially their interior.

House on Santa Cruz Street, Sao Paulo

The House on Santa Cruz Street, Sao Paulo by Gregori Warchavchik is an excellent case study on the modernist ascetic aesthetic coming to Brazil.  Its purity of form (a block), with an un-adorned façade and ribbon windows are very reminiscent of the Le Corbusier ‘s Villa Savoye. The interior featured smooth white plastered walls and large open spaces, embracing the anonymity of modernity.

Takeaways

• Ornamentation has a cost
• To be modern is to be in flux
• Social spirit over materialism
• Abstraction & anonymity also have cost