Usage of ornaments and traditional aspects vs. Simplicity and no ornaments - Essay Example

? Usage of or nts and traditional aspects vs. Simpli and no or nts Introduction The world is rapidly evolving and the field of architecture has undergone transformation over the years. In a fast urbanizing and globalizing world, the demand for architectural designs has grown enormously. Growing urban areas, especially in the rapidly developing cities, have become arenas of many contradictory forces associated with the growing of commercialism and consumption attitudes, architectural fashions and professional egoism, and many misconceptions regarding progress and modernization. Essentially, there is a potent discourse between building of simple and minimalist structures and doing away with the traditional aspects of architecture that lay emphasis on ornamental prowess. The big question is whether architecture, in its modern or traditional form, stands in harmony with the culture and environment (Trilling, 2001). Cities have thus become a symbol for the neglect of organic, cultural traditions and the destruction of the identity of places. Respect of traditions and factors specific to certain places is, however, of highest importance for a symbiotic development of the human environment relationship. As individual characteristics are different so it should be with cities, with urban planning. In the modern world, architecture has changed the values that it portrays. It reflects different set of values from the traditional local ones; buildings and space are symbols for economic and political power, importance and status, achievement and wealth, ours and theirs, poor and rich. The prerequisites are visibility and surprise; the creation of a distinct image in the observer’s mind for capturing his attention. This goes to the extent of borrowing symbols and motifs from earlier periods or other culture in order to legitimize a new social order. In the traditional aspects of architecture, ornaments were highly appreciated. Going back to the ancient times of Roman and Greek structures with their impressive decorative capitals, it is easy to understand why ornamental architecture held sway. The Arabian mosques were also designed with intricate combination of wood and plaster to produce stunning works. The Indian and Chinese architecture was also highly ornamental with distinct decorative aspects. It is evident that ornamental architecture added to the visual appeal of architectural designs and also helped make people to easily relate to the buildings around them. However, the advent of modern architecture in the 1920s spelt death for the once popular ornamental architecture. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, it has been normal to assume that good design has to be plain and simple. Ornamentation was renounced because proponents of modern architecture believed that the decorative aspects of design were unnecessary and not cost effective (Loos, 1998) . The origins of modern architecture can be attributed to the social and political revolutions of that time. Advances in technology and engineering gave rise to new materials such as iron and steel which encourage minimalist design. The advent in modern architecture has given prominence to the concept of “internationalization”. In this regard, the design of buildings has become uniform regardless of the cultural background. This is evident considering that it has become a norm to have almost generic high rise block buildings in almost every city in the world. This paper seeks to analyze make a comparison between two architects. This is in respect to the traditional ornamental architecture and the modern non ornamental simple architectural design. It should be noted that architecture is an evolving discipline and thus modernity was bound to happen. However, the major issue is to evaluate the impacts of modern architecture and the how recent advances in architecture have shaped the society. The implications of discarding traditional ornamental architecture will also be evaluated. This is essential to assess the overall impact of lack of ornaments in architecture. Modern Architecture: Adolf Loos In 1908, Adolf Loos published an essay titled “Ornamental Crime” that set the stage for modern architecture. His arguments were basically aimed at giving opposition to the neo traditional architectural movement of that time. Loos referred excessive ornamentation as criminal. He argued that the wastage of labour and materials in the design of ornamental buildings was inappropriate especially during the times of modern industrialization. He stated that since ornaments were no longer a manifestation of culture, the workers who produced them are not properly compensated for their labour. Proponents of modern architecture also argued that ornaments masked the true nature and beauty of materials used in the design of the building (Meiss, 1991). The point of contention was that ornaments covered the more important materials of the design that represent the true value of any architectural piece. Therefore, the outside of a building should remain plain and dumb and if there is any need for decoration, then lavish interiors will serve the function. A contentious in the philosophies of design is the relationship between art and architecture. Modern architecture emphasizes more on function rather than the general aesthetic aspects of a building. It reduces the architecture of a building to a purely technical concept that merely deals with the assemblage of materials. Suffice to say, art is considered as a kind of personification of a piece of work. Most buildings are meant everyone therefore there is no need to go overboard with ornamentation since this would only serve to please only an individual (Rhodes, 1995). It is also imperative to note that Loos, in his modern architectural design, preferred to make lavish interiors to his building. Loos designed the Cafe Museum in 1899 which showed his departure from ornamental architecture. The design of the cafe asserted his theory that technique should be of a higher dominance in comparison to stylishness. Loos also tried to realize a balanced equation between beauty and utility. Every object that was used in the design of the cafe had to have a useful function. According to Loos, every decorative object must also serve as a utility. In the design of the cafe, the ceiling was made of strips of brass which were concurrently utilized as electrical conductors. The design of the cafe clearly manifested the aspect of minimalist design that is a common characteristic of modern architectural design. One of the most famous and controversial works of the Adolf Loos was his work known as Looshaus in Vienna. The building was a unique design that aimed at relating history of the city and the invention of a new city based on modern architecture. The building itself was extremely minimalist with not even a single trace of ornamental plastics. The design of the building was based on an absence of all ornament and laid emphasis on simplicity of design. So controversial was the design of the building that it resulted in intense public furore. Although the project was halted for some time, construction resumed after Loos agreed to add some windows to the building in an attempt to appease the masses. Modern architecture has evolved since its advent in the twentieth century. In the early days, modern architecture was characterized by a concept whereby form followed family (Rhodes, 1995). The construction of houses was in tandem with the aspects of maintaining family links and minimal deviation from the norms. For the duration of up to 1990, the mantra of modern architecture was that form followed function. Buildings were designed to serve a practical purpose. In this sense, very little concern was given to the ornamental aspect of design. From the 1990s to present day, architectural designs were based on finances whereby form followed finance. This era has been characterized by rapid real estate developments and continuous government investments in housing projects. In the Arabic world, especially countries such as Bahrain experienced rapid developments in their architectural designs. Previously, elaborate Arabian architectural designs that were highly ornamental donned the towns and cities in the country. Urban form started to be influenced of what Willis (1995) termed as “Form Follows Finance”. Bahrain Diyar Al Muharraq and Amwaj Islands in Muharraq; Financial Harbour, Reef Island, Lulu Towers, City Center, Manama Lagoon, Bahrain Bay in Manama; and Bahrain International Circuit, Durrat Al-Bahrain, Al Areen Desert Resort and Al Salam Resort in the rest of Bahrain are visible signs and symbols of a massive architectural / urban production in the age of globalization (El-Masri, 2003). The defining characteristic of these buildings is their lack of ornamental architecture. The buildings are tall glass structures devoid of the allure of decorative ornaments. Modern building forms and urban grid systems, with no relation to the local culture and architectural heritage, developed under the increase influences of external forces; the pressure for modernization and rapid construction; and the inability to develop institutional frameworks and traditional architecture to keep pace with the needs of a growing and changing society In the new Millennium, the Arabian Gulf Countries were be faced serious challenges due to fast population growth and escalating needs for urban infrastructure; housing and employment opportunities. Among these bottlenecks are the inefficiency and non-transparency of their land markets; shortage of affordable housing; lack of effective institutional coordination among agencies concerned with the delivery of services as well as agencies responsible for the protection of the urban environment which will be threatened by city rapid growth. These bottlenecks gave rise to rapid adoption of modern architectural designs that were simplistic and cost effective. The issues that have impacted on modern architectural designs include rapid urbanisation and increasing pressure on the little available land. It seems that the only way to satisfy the increased demand for housing is by making high-rise buildings that are not expensive. It is understood that decorations in buildings beautify of the structure but inevitably inflate the final costs. A typical example is the Bahrain cities of Muharraq and Manama whose architectural heritage does not only share many of the physical characteristics of the Arab Islamic cities but also suffers from the same problems and pressures caused by rapid urbanization. Since the second half of the 20th Century in the Arab region, modern foreign planning and building systems had rapidly replaced the traditional local processes. Desire for modernization, pressure for rapid building, lack of institutional frameworks and expertise, and the recent globalization phenomenon are, to name few, some of the reasons. According to Giradet (1996), the traditional and modern processes are of opposite ways with no relations: organic dynamic pattern versus grid rigid system; local materials technologies and skills versus modern imported ones; mix uses of functions versus zoning and separation, social/cultural values versus professionals' preferences and building regulations. Traditional Ornamental Architecture: Louis Henry Sullivan In architecture, ornament is any element that is added to a structure in order to improve its aesthetic appeal. Ornaments can take various forms depending on the culture of the society in question. Inadvertently, ornaments have been part and parcel of architecture since ancient times this is evident in light of the past architectural pieces from ancient civilizations such as China and Europe (Jones, 1982). The decorations can be derived from actual elements and materials or embossed as motifs. Indeed, architecture has benefited immensely from ornaments. Single buildings were considered as part of a whole piece and not as single pieces. The concept of consistent repetition of a number of architectural typologies produced the appealing unity of built form. Buildings did not embody only functional and economic values but they reflected many intangible cultural symbols and meanings. By the use of local materials and skills, and meaningful forms and elements, a visual subtle language was established which people could easily understand, relate to and communicate with. In the case of Arabian cities different parts of the city were linked together by an interesting organic network of alleys and hierarchical spaces from public to semi-public to private. The networks defined districts each having a strong family/tribal identity. In this sense, districts were physical expressions of the social fabric reinforcing community and territorial identity. The collective identity allows for an individual personalization within the acceptable social norms and values (Sankovitch, 1998). Such old urban areas display a great sense of tranquility and equilibrium, unity and order, and character and charm within an interesting variety of wide and narrow, low and high, light and dark, public and private, residential and commercial, and natural and man-made environments. Designing contextual architecture, which incorporate the culture and ecology of the place, puts people at the centre aiming to humanize the city, to provide a vibrant environment, and to address the problems of space disharmony, estrangement, and disorientation. Translating the previous concepts into actions has to overcome many challenges because it necessitates many changes and adjustments of existing processes and practices. They are clear expressions of the shared values and attitudes, and the common pattern of life styles. Lieven (1999), states that the any intended change on the structures would cause what would compromise the architectural design and attraction of the structures. This is a potent statement to show just how much ornamental architecture has impacted the society. According to Bloomer (2000), decorations have been part of the tradition of architecture throughout history. The proponents of ornamental architecture proclaim that its beauty has seen it serve humankind from generation to generation. In a sense, ornamental architecture evolved over the years in cognizance of the changing times. The kinds of materials that are used as decorations to architectural designs have changed from the traditional ones. Advances in technology have made it possible to utilize plastics and other materials to serve as beauty enhancements to buildings in the global perspective. Art Nouveau is an International style that captured a moment at the turn of the 20th century. The style was a very ornamental design using curvilinear lines and floral patterns. It was this movement that spurred Alfred Loos into creating his Essay “Ornament and Crime” talking about how negative an effect ornament has on design. Art Nouveau was a very popular style between (1890-1905) having a short longevity, due mainly to the rise of the modernist ideals. In the recent past, the inclusion of additional details to add beauty to structures has gained momentum after a fad of minimalistic design. An article (Salingaros, 2000) presented concrete scientific reasons for why ornament is necessary in the design of buildings. Systems theory requires ordered substructure on all scales of a complex form so as to attain visual coherence. Liking a building depends on establishing visual and tactile connections with it on top of the utilitarian aspect. It is worth noting that ornaments provide an important aspect of forming this connection. Louis Henry Sullivan One of the most recognized architects of ornamental aspects in design of structure is one Louis Henry Sullivan. Sullivan held the view that buildings needed to have an outside appeal and blend well with the environment. One his notable works involved the reconstruction of Hooley’s Theater in Chicago. Sullivan designed stunning ornamental elements that were widely acclaimed. He used carefully designed light fixtures to act as overhead decoration in an even and balanced manner. The theater design was novel and it gave him fame and a solid reputation as a leading architect of the time. His other leading work was the design of the Auditorium building in 1886. Sullivan designed a lavish interior that featured elliptical arches with ivory panels. He creatively used lighting to offer not only illumination but also to act as decorative elements. The details of the walls and ceilings were unique and dramatically intertwined triangles offered striking visual appeal. The ornamental aspects of the design were in complete harmony with the acoustic requirements of the Auditorium. In fact, on admirer of this work commented that “the auditorium rivaled the work of creation”. Sullivan believed the three principal functions had to be considered in a harmonious way. He postulated that the design of buildings needed to be striking and act as works of art rather than as passive works. His themes were inclined towards giving life to buildings and designing them in such a way that they could create a bond with people. Sullivan asserted that form follows function and that all things found in nature had shapes. Therefore, it was imperative that buildings were given shapes and forms that could give the buildings life. The inner life of a building was intrinsically related to its ornamental aspect. In all his designs, Sullivan emphasized the essence of ornament and some his works such as “the Golden Doorway” at the Transportation Building give credence to this claim. Such a firm believer in ornaments, Sullivan said that a building’s identity lies in the ornament. This implies that essentially, a building is defined by the nature and use of ornaments in its design. He argued that ornaments are not separate from architecture; they form an integral part of architecture. In this sense, he further stated that human beings invariably feel more comfortable in structures that are decorated as compared to plain structures. To lend credence to his views, Sullivan clearly endeavored to design structures that were visually appealing by encompassing artistic ornaments. Conclusion The arguments posed against traditional ornamental architecture include issues concerning costs. Loos argues that the use of ornaments is a waste of materials and resources. He postulates that the use of ornaments is just exorbitant and thus advocates for the modern simple architecture. However, Angus (2008) argues that ornaments make economic sense since the decorations add value both to the building and also the designers of the ornaments. Secondly, the proponents of modern architecture hold the view that ornaments serve to obstruct the real materials of the building. They pose that the materials used in construction of a building should remain visible and unobstructed. As such, their works are plain and lacking in any aspect of ornamental additions. The counter argument to this view from the traditional aspect of ornamental architecture is that every building has to include basic decorations; no matter how simplistic the architect claims to be. Further on, modern architecture proposes that there should be a complete divorce between art and the works of architecture. According to Loos, art should not have any relationship to the creation of objects that are supposed to serve as utilities. Ornaments do not have any practical function therefore their inclusion in practical buildings is completely unnecessary. Curiously, he says that ornaments can be tolerated in in buildings that are not supposed to serve any function such as mausoleums and cemeteries. This argument is brushed off by ornamental architects given that buildings are supposed to be lively. They argue that functional buildings inherently need ornaments in order to create a relationship with the inhabitants of the building. They argue that works of art are important to captivate the users of a particular structure as this helps to create meaningful connections. It is evident that ornaments once served as important aspects of architecture. This could be attributed to the fact that back in the days, ornaments were handcrafted and very expensive. The use of ornaments was a show of wealth and power in the society. However, the advent of mass production of ornaments and their consequent cheapness made them less desirable. The other reason for the decline of ornamental architects is that contractors used them to hide defects and poor workmanship. The crisis of contemporary architecture is clear in the diversity and contradictory interpretations of its meanings by the different school of thoughts . One may consider it as richness, but the miserable, faceless and soulless states of our cities tell another story: the “professionals” most of the time get it wrong. Even modernism ideals are rejected, by many, to be followed by another fancy slogan of the post-modernism. Architecture becomes a fashion laden with many fallacious stylistic ideological cliches. It ignores the urgent needs of an increasing urban population, the cultural values and the environmental demands. The few scattered successes of contemporary architecture are far more outweighed by the mistakes. Many icons of modern architecture and winning prizes projects are dynamited because they fail the test of time. In the housing sector, the problems and their implications are immeasurable. The professional vandalism, done in the name of modernity, has transfer cities, throughout the world, into faceless, depthless and placeless environments. The loss of orientation and identification and the impoverishment of sensual perceptions are of grave psychological impacts on the part of the inhabitants. People cannot identify themselves and cannot be identified; they are strangers into their own localities. Furthermore, focus has been paid to physical aspects rather than developmental which incorporate social, cultural, economic and environmental variables. International grid system has been employed emphasizing on road networks, land use and building regulations. Planning has been a reaction to a crisis and intolerable conditions, a dream of professionals and policy makers more than directing growth and anticipating future growth. As such there is much disregard to cultural values, and in the same token to natural conditions and developmental considerations Traditionally Arab cities, as many others in the world, were evolved after a long process of refinements, adjustment and innovations. They were clear expressions of how the societies interacted with natural environment, and organized and consumed available materials to response to a complex set of interrelated requirements: social, cultural, spiritual, religious, economic and physical. Therefore, a strong unity was established between the culture and the built environments, and between man-made and natural environments. Buildings did not embody only functional and economic values but they reflected many intangible cultural symbols and meanings. By the use of local materials and skills, and meaningful forms and elements, a visual subtle language was established which people could easily understand, relate to and communicate with. The urban fabric, evolved with time, was organic and compact displaying a harmony with the prevailing cultural and natural requirements. Different parts of the city were linked together by an interesting organic network of alleys and hierarchical spaces from public to semi-public to private. The networks defined districts each having a strong family/tribal identity. In this sense, districts were physical expressions of the social fabric reinforcing community and territorial identity. The collective identity allows for an individual personalization within the acceptable social norms and values. In a fast-urbanized and globalized world, the issue of identity and its implications are increasingly complex and multi-dimensional. Traditionally, people were able to maintain strong identity in their buildings and spaces because everything was locally influenced, produced and managed. This is not the case of our modern cities, because the power of decision flows between the different groups of capital (commercial, industrial, international, small businesses), the central government, local government and coalitions of special interest groups. Cities are also internationalized through global trade, media, economic connections and free exchange of people, ideas and money. The current rejection of internationalism and mounting problems of present cities require new approaches to urban design and planning in the pursuit of identity. In conclusion, it is evident that architecture has evolved over time. The issues of cost saving and rapid urbanisation have made modern simplistic architecture gain traction in recent times. However, it should not be lost that ornaments add life to structures and thus they should not be neglected. There needs to be a concerted effort to balance between the demands of modern times and the aspects ornamental architecture in designing structures. Bibliography Bloomer, K. 2000. The Nature of Ornament. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Devas, N. & Rakodi, C. 1993. Managing Fast Growing Cities. Harlow: Longman. El-Masri, S. (ed.). 2005 Al Muharraq: Architectural Heritage of a Bahraini City. Bahrain: Miracle. Girardet, H. 1996. Cities: New Directions for Sustainable Urban Living. London: Gaia Books Limited. Jones, O. 1982. The Grammar of Ornament. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Loos, Adolf. 1998. Ornament and Crime. Trans. Michael Mitchell. Riverside, CA: Ariadne. Meiss, P. 1991. Elements of Architecture: from Form to Place. London: Chapman & Hall. Rhodes, R. 1995. Architecture and Meaning on the Athenian Acropolis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sankovitch, A. 1998. Structure/Ornament and the Modern Figuration of Architecture. The Art Bulletin, Vol. 80, No. 4 Trilling, J. 2001. The Language of Ornament. New York: Thames & Hudson Willis, C. 1995. Form Follows Finance: Skyscrapers & Skylines in New York & Chicago. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Read More