Ornament Use as a Right, Not a Crime - Essay Example

OR NT USE AS RIGHT, NOT A CRIME: ARCHITECTURE by Introduction In the modern world, architecture continues to be an embodiment of humanity’s cultures and traditions displaying both aesthetic and ethical positions. Both these positions and concepts are fundamentally related to the conceptualization and production of prevailing housing design and architecture. Through human evolution and civilization, specific themes and questions have arisen, being subjected to existing manifestoes, praxis and theories critical to the definition of contemporary and modern architecture. Ornament utility, also referred to as ornamentation, defines the art of decorative patterning that gives rise to some spectacular human creations. Human skill, mindset and imagination, are critical variables in the defining works of human creation, inclusive of the aspect of ornamentation. 1. Background to Ornamentation as an Art Form Trilling (1991), provides an impressive variety of ornament (artwork), defining human history; from the Paleolithic era, to the present; thus enabling human appreciation. The reader or audience is thus appreciative of both the historical importance, and the inherent aesthetic value of human architecture and ornament (85). Although the prevailing modernist emphasis, on the unadorned art form, pushed art ornamentation to the very margins of the West’s taste and preference during the 20th Century, a revival of the same is underway. This may be informed by the essence of human appreciation for art in terms of aesthetic beauty, ornament, heritage and functionality (Trilling, 1991:88). The selected authors are critical to the evaluation and understanding of ornament utility (ornamentation), concerning architecture and design. Their relevance is derived from accomplished work, data collection and research carried out. These select authors include James Trilling, Pevsner, Read and Worringer, amongst others. There will be a development of the thesis, formulated around the argument that ornament use is a right, and not a crime. This will entail a discussion of the pros and cons of the argument, through the thesis statement, which will be criticized in the form of an antithesis. Following will be a synthesis of findings, to be conclusively ended in a reflective way. A bibliography, will round up the work, basing it on the right of ornament use in architecture, and human design. Thesis A debate exists, as to whether ornament is a right, or a crime. It is the intention of this paper, to further provide proof, of ornament as a right; concerning architecture and design. This is from the past eras to the present, displaying various examples of buildings/ structures and periods, where utilization of ornaments in architecture was present. Imagery will be utilized in contextual manner, referring to given historical times and places. As a reiteration, ornament use is a human right, and not a crime. Humanity’s diverse nature, way of life and cultural socialization, throughout history, provides current generations with a huge array of appreciative culture, art, architecture and folklore (Worringer, 1953:21). a. Early Architecture and Ornament: A History In terms of architecture, the world is blessed with variance i.e. China’s Zhou dynasty inlaid vessels; the Mycenaean Greek architecture; the woven and carved ornaments of Native America, and Britain’s early Celtic bronze mirrors amongst others. to be noted, as Trigs (1902) alludes, is that this evolution was characterized by both individual and cultural styles; influenced by the dynamic nature of human society. through evolution and role-play, such artwork was further influenced across space and time; interlinked between cultures, in terms of patterns, design and heritage/value. Trilling, through his work – The Language of Ornament (2001) – provides a descriptive analysis of the evolution of ornament utility, from the past into this age of Modernism. Throughout history, humanity has not only embraced the core importance of ornament, but also its symbolic presence in human society (Trigs, 1902:37). during most of the past 20th Century, Western culture has gradually turned away from ornament use. this has not only been concerning the style in use, but the very essence of the ornament, as an entity itself. It became the object of taboo, hence making its recovery a great hurdle to overcome. It is on this platform that the utility of ornament use has been regarded as a crime. This holds true to the current day, where despite the resurgence; since the early 1970s, of luxury handicraft and ornamentation, architecture continues to suffer negatively the most (Trilling, 2001:189). b. Recent Influence and Effects Fundamentally so, has been the influence of cosmophobia as Brolin (1985) portrays, which regards the mistrust or fear of ornament, on the decorative arts; thus further serving the ideal that ornament use is a crime. Ornament, in its variant forms, was able to survive the onslaught, largely through neglect. This is symbolized in the art and artwork in our lives, which go unrecognized as art and ornamentation i.e. dinnerware, textile design, gift-wrappings and wallpaper amongst others. To a majority of individuals, such items due to their en masse production are disqualified as art; thus relegating the appreciation of human taste in art and ornament. The Western mainstream thus, experienced an era in which art and ornament receded to the background. A granted explanation is based on the explosive extend of machine-based industry during the 19th and early 20th Centuries, which was augmented by bad taste in art production (Brolin, 1985:34). The omnipresent taste and preference of the time destroyed not only the skills requisite to good ornament production, but also the critical ability of recognizing such art and ornamentation. The difference brought about by en masse production of cheaper versions, resulted in the replacement of skilled artistry by mechanical routine production. Influential was the fact that demand was always on an increase, year-in year-out, from an uneducated public, with either no money and time; or with no time but too much money. This state of affairs was to however, necessitate the contribution of a determined group of reformers i.e. William Morris amongst others, towards carving out a place for ornament utility in the modern world. they endeavored to promote artisanship of a high-quality nature an anti-dote to the tastelessness of industrial machine production (Trigs, 1902:52). Their efforts, though small were more of a symbolic nature, resulting in a gradual resurgence of ornament use. For the above to work, there was need for art/craft to produce items, which were either impractical or impossible to produce en masse (factory-produce), as Levy (1972) eludes. This was rooted in the fact that industrial business, as well as designers and engineers employed, were focused more on the production of all kinds of goods. This was in terms of quicker output that was cheaper than handicrafts in terms of quality and esthetic beauty (73). Thus the domain of craft became increasingly eroded, such that by the late 19th Century, only luxury arts were able to compliment the efforts of handwork. Subsequently, both the rarity and cost of such artwork put such items out of reach of a majority of the people who essentially had the most to learn from such items. Thus, only a tiny segment of the elite was able to experience craft, thereby affecting the preservation of craft as both an aesthetic and moral imperative (Levy, 1972:77). For the future of such artwork, it was, and still is the responsibility of artists to humanize existing industrial design. Anti-thesis Ornament as crime, as Pevsner (1949) provided, encompassed around the notion that good design refers to functional design, having little if any ornament. This was decisively set forth in the year 1908, when the work – Ornament and Crime (by Adolf Loos) – openly called for a rejection of all ornament. Thus, began the gradual advance of the modern movement in both design and architecture, with artists rallying towards the banner of functionalism. This was both in architecture and designs in essence all human artwork/ form. Citing ornament at its best being irrelevant and at its worst as crime against good sense and taste, forward looking artists proposed a ban to ornament utility (Pevsner, 1949:54). A few exceptions did however exist, most notably the 1920s art deco, which has been deemed as being more literal-minded, in terms of incorporating modernization and dynamic, sharp-edged artwork. This was unfortunately, a try at enhancing the compatibility of artwork, with human design and functionality. the inherent aspect of such modernist ideals is on the forms created, being naturally undefined with little if any artist contribution. Artistic control is present, especially after the selection of materials for their aesthetic value with the aim of deliberate shaping to suggest existing unpredictability (Read, 1934:29). This is as shown in figure 1. There is thus a complementary interaction, successfully having co-existed throughout the 20th Century. There was a reflection of modernist distrust of anything deemed ‘artificial’; their successful removal from traditional ornament further bolstering modernist thought. This was informed by the existing antipathy to the presence of ornament in all forms within modernist architecture and design (Trilling, 1991:124). Synthesis The ‘death of ornament’, was the prelude of modernist ideals, rhetorically referring to the fact that ornament never really died away. Rather, Adolf did call for the eradication of ornament, for less dogmatic and more complex reasons. To be noted is that he did not actually practice what he told, but rather engaged in the introduction of his own version of ornamentation. He essentially utilized natural ‘patterns’ of both wood and stone, to fundamentally influence artists during the late 19th and 20th Centuries. This was subsequently adapted to every form of decorative art, while upholding puritan ideals of modernism. The modernist ornament, in the entire art history, is the only style regarded as entailing no form of ornament at all (Sankovitch, 1998:79). It does not escape notice that there is some form of contradiction, as the term suggests. First is the fact that there is the selection of raw materials, for the aesthetic value and functionality, to be molded with the least of artist intervention. Through wood and stone pattern architectural representation, there is present a lesser aspect of ornament due to the presence of focus on minimalist artistic intervention (Nikolenko, 2013:450). A resurgence somewhat rhetoric in nature, of ornament in both architecture and design, was experienced however during this era (Raizman, 2010:156). This is informed by the survival and even the flourish of ornament; overshadowed by modernism as shown in figure 3. This was only possible through the former’s ability to adapt, and hence fuse into the ideal of modernist perspective. Essential to the success of modernist ornament, was the influence of changes in what society expected from artists and art as a field. Of core concern was the contribution and involvement of artisanship, which had hitherto been regarded as extinct within the modern world. though trying to turn away from craft, it has been seen that modernist art does have representation, just as pre-modernist art possessed (Pevsner, 1949:78). This is as shown in figure 2. Essentially, the latter was based on the ability to draw, which even in the modernist viewpoint, continues to be ascribed to. Reflective Conclusion The modernist ornament, in the entire art history, is the only style regarded by most artists as possessing no form of ornament at all. This in fact sounds contradictory as the form of ornaments come directly from technical processes or natural materials. The only differing aspect is that there is minimal artistic intervention. There is the aspect that materials of processes can be selected, for their inherent aesthetic potential with the forms being controlled in the most generalized of ways (Brolin, 1985:89). the mastery, in terms of technique and input, of drawing and artisanship, was viewed as adversarial to modernist ideals and role. With the craft revival doing little to change this, by way of downplaying the importance of technical mastery, modernist ideals continue to undermine; and hence view ornament as a crime. Thus, there is no need to shun the old testing of mastery and artisanship. Rather modernist makers should not only seek inspiration from both the art/craft process and material, but also utilize available artisanship. This is towards imposing their will on the material; utilizing both skill and technical knowhow, to rejuvenate the essence of ornament (Bordeleau, 2009:470). As Matisse’s ornament displays, the shaping of forms does not necessarily require a perfect finish, as the imperfection preserved his spontaneous nature (Trilling, 2001:203). As he insisted on the absolute nature of his forms, with all imperfections incorporated, so should be the modernist approach. Ornament utility, regardless of its place within society, plays an indeterminate role in human society influential in connecting different human cultures and traditions to modernist forms of art. Thus, ornament use is a right, and not a crime. Bibliography Bordeleau, A 2009, Charles Robert Cockerells architecture and the language of ornaments. The Journal of Architecture, 14(4), 465-491. Brolin, BC 1985, Flight of Fancy: The Banishment and Return of Ornament. New York. Levy, M.J 1972, Modernization: Latecomers and Survivors. London and New York. Nikolenko, N 2013, Ornament as a Symbol of Intercultural Communication. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 17(4), 444-454. Pevsner, N 1949, Pioneers of Modern Design. New York and Harmondsworth. Raizman, D 2010, History of Modern Design (2nd Ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall. Read, H 1934, Art and Industry (Eds.). London. Sankovitch, A 1998, Structure/Ornament and the Modern Figuration of Architecture. The Art Bulletin. Trigs, OL 1902, Chapters in the History of the Arts and Crafts Movement. Chicago. Trilling, J 1991, Modernism and the Rejection of Ornament: The Revolution that Never Happened. Common Knowledge, 3(2): 79-100. Trilling, J 2001, The Language of Ornament (World of Art). Thames & Hudson. Worringer, W 1953, Abstraction and Empathy. New York. Appendices Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Read More

 

Read More