Using Adolf Loos Ornament and Crime - Essay Example

Adolf Loos’ Or nt and Crime Adolf Loos’ Or nt and Crime Adolf Loos (1870-1933), one of the most celebratedarchitects of the 19th century, is a man who many people consider as the father of modern architecture. His famous architectural designs, of the exotic style, stood the test of time, and many upcoming architects heavily borrowed from him. The palatial elevations of many beautiful places across Europe speak so much of Adolf Loos. Many of the buildings constructed even before the First World War borrowed heavily from the designs of Adolf Loos. Apparently, nobody knew that these architectural designs will be the basis of modern architecture. The subject on ornament and crime came into limelight in 1910 when Adolf Loos gave a public lecture in Vienna, Australia, and three years later, the speech was published. However, the publication of the essay drew various reactions across Europe. Just like in evolution where some things are left behind, the evolution of architecture came with some aspects. For example, the issue of ornaments in architecture came into sharp focus. Adolf was against the use of ornaments. He advocated for a contemporary approach rather than the progress of culture, which seemed futile, at least according to him1. Thesis Statement This paper discusses how modern architecture was a reaction against revivalist/ exotic styles of the 19th and 20th centuries. The essay of Adolf Loos is the basis of the discussion. In his essay that later led the path towards modern architecture, “passion for smooth and precious surfaces”, Loos went on to explain his personal philosophy. He highlighted how many objects decorated by ornaments looked out of shape, and thus become outmoded. In fact, the idea of ornamentation did not auger well with him. This is the reason why he chose to pen his personal philosophy on ornamentation. According to Loos, ornamentation took a lot of time to perform. Additionally, he added that there was no need to take so much time to do ornamentation yet, after a certain period of time, the object will circumvent its style. Loos participated in ostracizing ornaments as materials for decoration. The sustained attacks on the use of ornaments as decorating materials by Loos cemented a degenerate view resulting to its suppression in the modern society. These views that shaped modern architecture are the reaction against Revivalist/Exotic styles of the 19th and early 20th century. Introduction The twentieth-century can be characterized as the century without ornaments (exotic style). The history of human culture has been replete with a culture of ornamentation, and they formed a culture of their own. Many architects indeed agree that ornaments performed a vital role especially in decoration of objects. However, at the beginning of the twentieth-century, many people started treating ornaments as odd phenomena. Apparently, a new dawn of modern architecture had set precedence, and without any doubt, it was a new historical aberration. The ancient Greek and Roman structures highly decorated with cornices and friezes lost their value in the twentieth-century2. Talk of the Arabian mosques and the Gothic cathedras that were beautifully decorated using ornaments of different categories such as plaster and wood: the lively-sculptured buildings in other parts of Europe, they all lost their style in the twentieth-century. History reckons that ornaments added style and class to many objects to give them a splendidly ornate shape. Various cultures, in Europe, America, Asia, and even Africa knew the importance of ornaments. In fact, in many cultures, ornaments served certain purposes. While some cultures viewed them as materials for aesthetic purposes, others used them to decorate objects and buildings. Historically, ornamentation was imperative especially in decorating buildings and objects, and many people felt nice staying in magnificently ornamented buildings or owning decorated objects. In those times, it was the desire of every individual to ornament objects and buildings. The sudden halt of ornamentation in the twentieth-century signaled the end the decoration era, and the dawn of a new one. What is so amusing is that ornamentation ended on a high note after the final exhibition efflorescence popularly known as Art Nouveau. In this extravagance efflorescence showcasing, designers introduced modernist styles of decoration that were not only long-lasting, but also those that took long time to get out of shape. This modernist decoration styles first appeared in the limelight in 1890s. Twenty years down the line, they had spread across Europe and they became so common. Most designers embraced the new styles that many people had been hostile to and reluctant to adopt. Those who fervently disliked decoration, especially ornamental decoration, adopted the new decoration styles—modern architecture. A new dawn was here, with a new stark of designs.3 The critics of ornamentation became winners in the twentieth-century—Loss being one of them. Even those who had resisted change and instead embraced old-fashioned decoration styles such as ornamentation were now guilty of their actions. Since 1920, apparently the year when a new dawn of decoration struck, there has been no question regarding it. Instead, these types of decoration styles changed the views of people on decoration. Adolf Loos’ Ornament and Crime Indeed, Adolf Loos’ ornament and crime criminalization was the reason for modern architecture. His persistent criticism of ornamentation led to adoption f new and modern architectural designs as a reaction against the exotic styles of the 19th and early 20th century. The short essay he wrote caused rubbles and sensation in an effort meant to destroy the once super abundant decoration style. Though fashionable at that time, characterized by implausible flower-forms and sumptuous curves, Adolf felt it was nice to embrace modern styles with many flourishing colors. In his believe, Adolf believed that ornamentation together with its gaudy versions, had been overtaken by events and that many designers had gotten used with it. There was therefore an urge to change the exotic styles of architecture into modern architecture. In fact, many people refused to take Loos seriously and they even trashed his essay terming it a parchment of piled papers. Little did they know that Loos was not joking, and that he believed in his new found philosophy? There was a lengthened period of argument though, and many lovers of exotic styles felt that it was not yet time to embrace modern architecture. In the end, modern architecture prevailed. Since then, the design society has always believed in the words of Loos4. Many people might wonder what Loos said in order to warrant the change of architecture fro m the Revivalist/ exotic one to modern architecture of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is true that his words formed the basis of abandoning the Revivalist/Exotic styles of the 19th and early 20th century for modern architecture. Why Modern Architecture was a reaction against Revivalist/Exotic styles In trying to unravel this puzzle, the paper discusses various reasons drawn from Loos’ ornament and crime philosophy to show how modern architecture became a reaction against revivalist/exotic styles. In his easy, Loos mentioned a series of arguments, and many people agree that they are worthy and fanciful. These reasons formed the basis of adopting a new style in architecture, and it is true that many designers have no objections. First: Adolf argued that the oldest form of ornamentation at that time was tattoo. From his own observations, he realized that most persons peddling as criminal gangs were tattooed. Additionally, according to various statistics from state departments, about 80 percent of jailed persons were tattooed. In his own imaginations, he asserted that those who are tattooed and are free are dormant criminals or deteriorate aristocrats. To this end, he associated tattoos with criminal activities and moral dissoluteness. This was one of the best reasons to abandon exotic styles and instead, embrace modern architecture. Second: according to Loos, ornamentation was a bad omen waiting to explode. He associated it with a cross, which according to him, is an erotic sign. The cross has the vertical and the horizontal lines (+). “Adolf associated the vertical line with ignorance and the horizontal line with women”5. Amusedly, he went on to state that the inventor of the sign erred as it elevated the person to a Deity. His philosophy foresaw the future where people will use erotic signs and symbols at convenient places to do harm. In other words, if somebody wants to measure the uprightness of the society, you only need to look for certain places where graffiti are mounted for example, lavatory walls. According to Loos, ornaments lacked the necessary simplicity and social values. Next, Loos argues that the there is nothing new the exotic styles offer even after being in the limelight for so long. The art of coming up with new and distinct ornaments has never occurred and that there is no need of embracing a played out, pooped, and archaic style. Fourth: according to Loos, ornaments were economically wasteful. Talk of the amount of materials and time spent on designing an object. You will realize that you have spent more that what you have invested. The income generated from ornamentation is so meager and therefore, there was need to embrace modern architecture, which pays well. It is true that in the ancient times, ornament was of high demand. And, although so may people drew their revenue from activities related to exotic designing, the amount of money realized from the sell or objects was not enough to cater for the needs of the people. For instance, according to Adolf, a single chair took over 30 hours to design, while a plain chair took over ten hours to complete. The two sold at £100 and £200 respectively. Clearly, owing to the amount of time taken to design these objects plus the cost of the materials involved, the exotic style proved monkey business. Firth: according to Loss, “exotic styles such as ornamentation did not take into consideration the value of the materials used. Instead, styles debased materials; and rendered them not only impure, but also vaulted”6. Loos being an architect himself, only searched for materials with fine texture, and of certain colors such as grey, black and onyx. This therefore means that any material that that failed to meet these conditions was obsolete. The truth of the matter is that not all materials were classified as ornaments, and Loos hated this scenario. Sixth: Loos advocated for the separation of ‘art’ from decoration or design. To him, the exotic styles represented an obsolete art whose time had gone. He believed that exotic styles were of no value, and if by any chance a person decides to decorate a house or a building, then they should not stay there. He believed that ornamentation was meant for deserted places such as monuments or mausolea. Loos further argued that exotic styles offered no intriguingly sexist outlook and therefore, there was need to cuddle modern architecture. However, he had no problem with women adorning themselves with ornaments. Although women looked elegant in ornaments, in the realm of efficacy, they looked futile, outdated, and uncultured. Although these reason may seem flimsy, they actually served their rightful purposes. Loos managed to drive sense home, which led to the adoption of modern architecture. Although some designers were reluctant to leave the age-old style, the snit-ornamental fashion that followed later, forced them to give up. The message came at the right time and caught the mood of many designers who without hesitation embraced it7. Modern Architecture Exotic architecture lacked so much unlike modern architecture that embraces sadistic and political views. This was the main reason behind the move. Many designers believe that this was a journey of moving from scarcity to affluence. The fact that in the twentieth century the world had witnessed tremendous growth in science and technology meant that architecture was also supposed to undergo evolution. The political radicalism of the twentieth century went against dogmatic tendencies of the past. A new form of architecture was needed to make use of the new materials. Plus, the programmatic requirements in the design industry required modernist art rather than the obsolete ones. The radical spirit of modern architecture started in 1950s. The leading edge in aesthetic beauty and the progressive reform in the art industry changed the dominion of exotic styles. The very objects designed using exotic styles became artifacts. The buildings of the revivalist era were reduced to old slums and museums. A new era had dawn and spread its wings on a blighted horizon, and “new and modern architectural buildings rose up on new freeways and famous cities”8. Modern architecture became the status quo, and many people cuddled it. They started designing objects using this style. Instead of stones and ornaments, housed were decorated with long lasting materials such as steel and glass. These materials ensured the building do not get out of shape. The designers started making a lot of money from their modernist designs. And, although the social critics complained of a powerless and cultureless society and environmentalists cried foul on the destruction of the environment, modern architecture surpassed the unimaginable beauty. The adherents of the old style were now the very critics of it—perhaps the fiercest. It is imperative to note that by 1970, modernism had lost its value. Again, designers embarked searching novelties that will once gains leave many people surprised. Today, as we speak, we have a new art know as avant-gardism architecture. What started as a philosophy, has led to the development on novel styles suiting people of certain generations. After all, we live in a highly globalizing and advancing world. Conclusion It is true that the views of Adolf Loos were the reason behind the abandonment of exotic styles for modern architecture. The historic ornamentations are now history as they had nothing new to offer. As for modern architecture, we can see strikingly original designs that transcend with time. There is no doubt that modern architecture subverts exotic paradigms, and it has played a significant role in the superior progressive movement of the current century. Works Cited Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1992. Print. King, John. Architectural Curios Dazzling but Unsettling. San Francisco: San Francisco, 2007. Print. Loos, Adolf. On Architecture. California: Ariadne Press, 2007. Print. Royal Institute of British Architects. Adolf Loos: Life and Influence. Web. 20 June 2012.http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/Exhibitionsandloans/AdolfLoos/Lifeandinfluence/LifeAndInfluence.aspx Siegel, Charles. An Architecture for Our Time: The New Classicism. Web. 07 Novemenber 2012. http://www.preservenet.com/archtime/ArchTime.html Stern, Robert. Modern Classicism. New York: Rizzoli, 1988. Print. Stewart, Janet. Fashioning Vienna: Adolf Looss Cultural Criticism. London: Routledge, 2000. Print. Read More