Ornament and Crime by Adolf Loos - Term Paper Example

Adolf Loos’ writing style in Or nt and Crime Adolf Loos (1870-1933), the Austrian architect, was born in Brünn (Brno), now in the Czech Republic but then in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, on December 10, 1870. Loos has often been regarded as an architect who brought modernist movement in architecture and the author of some controversial essays. His writing as well as the architectural styles have widely acclaimed despite his physical ailment, hearing –impairment, all through his life. Loos’ constructional style was well approbated that his buildings were noted with prefect interior designs and related decorations. Many regard him as an architect who has contributed his own style architecture and the one devoted entirely for art and architecture. For him, art is a way for updating people’s life styles to adapt with the modern trends. He was also keen in justifying his architectural works on the grounds of reasons and insisted that they should be enlisted in rational grounds. This is quite evident from the writings of Loos that he could find a significant difference between art and architecture. What makes him different from other architects is his incomparable method of creating buildings. He devoted himself for his profession and one can see the same devotion and perfectness in composing essays. It may be this peculiar style in art and architecture that stands him aloof from other architects and writers of his time. The reading of his essays will help one to explore his writing style, especially his controversial essay entitled, “Ornament and Crime.” An overview of this essay reveals that Adoph Loos’ resorts a simple writing style corresponding to the simple and varied style he followed in his theories of design. When regarding the writing style of Loos in “Ornament and Crime” and other essays in common, it is noteworthy that did not directly address architecture. A close reading of “Ornament and Crime” exposes the cultural transformation of man to a sophisticated being when he lessened the usage of ornaments. Though Loos’ essay are the criticisms of a wide range of social evils, they can also be considered as his observations on the excess of decoration in both traditional Viennese design and in the more recent products of the Vienna Secession and the Wiener Werkstatte (Adolf Loos : architect biography). It is this disagreement with the Noveau Movement; the international movement of style, art, architecture and applied art, that led Loos to write “Ornament and Crime” in 1908. The article entitled; “Adolf Loos: architect biography” has rightly observed the outlook of Loos with regard to ornamentation in architecture. The article writes, “To Adolf Loos, the lack of ornament in architecture was a sign of spiritual strength” (Adolf Loos : architect biography). However, it is noticeable that Loos was commenting over the abuse or wasting of materials, rather than referring to abstract moral lessons. When referring to the evil effects of ornamentation, Loos has identified that too much concentration on the ornaments will discourage an employee from concentrating on his work, and it may hamper the smooth functioning of a cultured life. Therefore, Loos has commented that such employees could not be paid a negotiable amount for their work. The simple and persuasive writing style of Loos is clearly identifiable at the very outset of the essay. He begins the essay by inviting the attention of the readers the transformation occurring in man when from the tender age itself. According to him, the transition of a child to man is so complicated and human sensations are equal to those of a new born dog (Adolf Loos). For him, a two year old child and a Papuan have similar behavior or they are uncivilized. This interpretation of Loos makes one infer that it is through simple and systematic way he tries to prove the relation between ornament and crime. Here the author establishes this relation by observing that “The child is amoral” and “To us the Papuan is also amoral” (Adolf Loos). The Papuan have the habit of tattooing everything related to them and this is comparable to the tattoos found in majority of the prisoners. The persuasive style of the author has been clearly expressed in these words where one can find Loos’ endeavors to help support his thesis. Many regard Adolf Loos as the one who opposed the florid style of the Vienna Session. He observes it as an old-fashioned system. He could not find out any value in art as it is the mere representation of the original. He has identified that “The urge to ornament ones face, and everything within ones reach is the origin of fine art” (Adolf Loos). As the study progresses, Loos is presenting more and more evidence to prove the relation between ornament and crime. Analyzing the essay, it is quite noticeable that the essayist is keeping the persuasive style till the end. Loos then attempts confirm his arguments through various examples. According to him, the cross had an erotic origin, that is, it is concerned with human sexuality. For him, the feeling of the creator of cross and Beethoven’s feeling when he composed the Ninth Symphony. The main problem which the writer identifies in this book is the mentality of the people who portraying the erotic symbols or ornaments to satisfy inner urge of the criminals or the degenerate. However, it is clear that such erotic symbols can either be included or excluded in a particular piece of writing. The way of presenting the main argument of the essay is also very notable. By arranging it in the beginning of a new paragraph, the author could maintain the smooth flow of the essay. Furthermore, the statement is italicized and it sates, “The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from objects of daily use” (Adolf Loos). Here the writer has identified that the removal of ornament had a decisive role in the evolution of culture. It is also visible that “The immense damage and devastation which the revival of ornament has caused to aesthetic development could easily be overcome because nobody, not even the power of the state, can stop the evolution of humanity!” (Adolf Loos). This statement also underlines the previous comment that ornament and crime are interrelated and are complimentary. The study has helped the researcher to explore certain factors with regard to the Adolf Loos and specifically about his essay, “Ornament and Crime.” An overview of Loos’ essay has helped the researcher a great deal to unveil his writing style and the way of narration. The study proves that the dominant feature of Loos’ writing style is simplicity, simple diction and the use of sentences with a simple structure. Another feature of his style is the arrangements of the things in a systematic order. It is very clear while going through the essay where the essayist invites the attention of the readers to how ornaments leading to crime or criminal activities. The use of various examples to prove the thesis of the essay is also appreciable. After reading through his essay, it is understood that Adolf Loos is him different from other architects and he was notable for his incomparable method of creating buildings. His devotion and sincerity to his work is highly appreciable and it is the same devotion and perfectness in composing essays. To conclude, one can infer that the style of writing in the prescribed essay fulfills the readers’ perceptions about ornament and crime. Furthermore, it is simple, persuasive as his theories of design and it will be really helpful for those who are looking for the relation between ornament and crime. Reference List: “Adolf Loos, Excerpts from Ornament and Crime” http://architect.architecture.sk/adolf-loos-architect/adolf-loos-architect.php (accessed 5 December 2010). “Adolf Loos : architect bibliography.” http://architect.architecture.sk/adolf-loos-architect/adolf-loos-architect.php (accessed 5 December 2010). Read More