Ornament and culture
Modernism and the rejection of ornament
The word ‘ornament’ is most generally used today to refer to objects of no particular use that give pleasure simply by their presence as an addition to their surroundings” Ornament a social history. Ornamentation is viewed as an unnecessary feature. In classical design ornamentation was used almost as a language. The designs would tell a story or symbolize something. In modern design Form follows function.
At the start of the 20th century, Adolf Loos a German Architect once suggested that, ‘ornament is crime’ because it symbolised not only the slave-works of an oppressed working class with the rise of the Industrial Revolution but also it meant an immaturity in the society’s attitude towards aesthetics, loos himself aggressively sold the belief that ornament was for the uncivilised. If ornament is wasted labour and money is it a crime? It could almost be considered a robbery to make people pay for something that is unnecessary. If this is true, a modernist design would be superior because they form follows function focusing in the function instead of the decoration. In theory the costumer would be receiving exactly what they paid for and not wasting their money on the decoration.
Buildings are often stripped down to showcase the architectural design of the buildings focusing on the space itself, rather than the décor or details that have no relevance to the over all design. Modern design is known for simplicity and clarity. Modernist believe Homes should be clean, functional, and simple. There are varying degrees of Modernism while some will opt for the strict design and the sense of true Minimalism, others prefer to incorporate the minimalist aesthetics of Modernism in conjunction with their own personal style. Choosing your own design elements in the way of colours, textures, and interesting furnishings will help create a more unique Modern style.
However, isn’t this ornamentation. As much as Modernism rejects ornament it could never fully rid itself of ornament. Creating a internal battle of the true modernist style and that which compromises with the use of ornament to decorate the design. “Physiological interpretation of ornament had continued in an attempt to explain seemingly irresistible urge of human beings to decorate the objects around them.”
Architectural ornament can be implemented in many ways including carving into stone, wood or precious metals, it can be formed with plaster or clay, or painted or impressed onto a surface as applied ornament. Many of Adolf Loos’s work although he claims to be very much against ornamentation.
inside, Villa Müller, Czech Republic, 1930. Figure 1
Inside, Villa Müller, Czech Republic, 1930. Figure 2
Villa Müller, Czech Republic, 1930. Figure 3
Villa Mullar was Completed in the same year as Le Corbusier‟s Villa Savoye in Paris and Mies van der Rohe‟s Villa Tugendhat in Brno, the Villa Müller is Loos‟s defining modern house in an era when rich, progressive industrialists were the source of modernist commissions. Loos continually attacked ornamentation and fought to be freed of it. Loo often referred to the use of ornamentation criminal. However even in his design he didn’t steer from ornamentation completely. Down to his use of wood in the interior to the ornaments themselves. The exterior of Villa Mullar is a very modernist design clean flat non ornamented, However the inside of the home and Loos use of the wood to create a homely feel. His choice of wood is specific with prominent grains. This natural ornamentation although it is not manmade is still ornamentation.
Ornament still exists in modern architecture. The Modern Architect, uses the figurative and representational ornament, either by choice or necessity, they began to exploit other means of ornament. Adolf Loos found himself denied the use of any ornament that was not culturally derived. How was he, as an architect, going to manage this loss of what some might term the very essence of architecture? Loos used many principles to offset this loss of traditional representational ornament. Materiality was however the strongest and most powerful use of ornamentation. Loos utilized his skill and love of materials in a manner that transcended the mere act of application and instead wove together architecture and culture
The Karntner Bar in Vienna is comprised of three different ornamented elements, a sign that reads “American Bar”, A glass prism that represents a stylized American Flag with the inscription “Karntner Bar” and finally four pillars of reddish marble. The marble of these pilasters is colored in such a way that they seem to naturally have a gray base and a red shaft Enabling a subtle reference to the traditional architectural orders. The veins in the marble are intricate and seem to float within the material itself, giving them a three dimensional quality. Loos continually condemns ornament especially in his essay “Ornament and Crime” Loo seems to condemn the use of ornament in architectural practice. Although Loos did not condemn all ornament, Loo only condemned ornament that was not culturally derived. Undoubtedly, Loos felt that classical ornament, used properly, was allowable. ‘The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from utilitarian objects. I believe that with this discovery and I pass it on to the world; it has not thanked me’
The exterior pillars of the Karntner Bar in Vienna which are in fact not structural. Therefore, if these pillars are not structural they must be ornamental. This marble is colored in such a way that they naturally have a grey base and a red shaft, the structure of these column’s have a subtle reference to the classical order of a column. These pillars are simple in form and have no ornamentation except Loos had to hand pick these pillars from a quarry. In turn Loos making this decision is equal to loo designing them himself. He purposely chose a marble with a prominent vein, one can only assume this was for the design purpose, even though these veins are natural to the material, they still instil a sense of ornamentation on the viewer. (See fig 4)
The Karntner Bar, Vienna Figure 4
The Karntner Bar, Vienna inside Figure 5
Inside the Bar Loos uses dark green marble and beams as a way to divide the space of the inside of the bar divide the space into three equal areas. The ceiling is covered in a white marble that has darker veins. The lack of the marbles lacks of relationship to the furniture identifies these elements as interior décor. The marble represents a noble culture this stems back to Loos connection with classical architecture. Loos used marble as ornamentation in many of his projects including Villa Karma, the Duschnitz Villa, the Strasser Villa and the Villa Muller. In all his designs they were not used as a structural element. (see fig 5)
Loo also used wood as ornamentation as a design element within his designs. He used wood primarily as a decoration for the interior walls. These woods usually took the form of a panelling, but sometimes were used on the entire wall, such as the music room in the Villa Moller. Just like the Marble Loos used the wood as a decorative element to his design. Wood was also typically used in the beams of the public rooms, although, like the marble that he so often used, these beams were in fact rarely structural and were instead used in a symbolic way rather than a strictly functional way.
Another element in loos work that was ornamentation rather than structural was his use of textiles. Loos used curtains to divide rooms as in his own apartment and the main room of the Steiner House to name a few. The most singular use of textile in Loos’s work came actually in one of his earliest works, the bedroom for his wife Lina. The parquet floor of Boudoir of Villa Muller 444 Rebuilding this room was covered with a pale blue wall-to-wall carpet, above which a large Angora rabbit fur rug lies. This rug occupied most of the floor and continued up over the bed. Loos saw fur as the original textile; it was the first fabric that man used. The walls were completely covered to the door height by white curtains in “Batist rayee”. There were soft wood cabinets that were hidden behind these curtains. This bedroom, which Loos used until the end of his life, was the ultimate intimate space and was so direct and immediate in addressing an archaic drive and instinctive needs.
Loos in 1924, wrote Ornament and Education ”: “I affirmed twenty-six years ago that the evolution of humanity would cause ornament to disappear from functional objects, an evolution which would allow its ineluctable and logical path…But I never thought like the purists who pushed this reasoning to the absurd, that ornament should be systematically abolished. It is only where the passage of time makes it disappear that it cannot be reborn.” 2. Adolf Loos, “Ornament e education” (1924) in Malgre tout, p. 289
It is difficult to separate ornament from architecture particularly classical architecture. On some level Loos was always a classicalist. This conflict in Loos to be accepted into noble society and classic architecture. In his work you can see the influence of classical design.
Scheu House, Larochegasse 3, Vienna, Austria
Adolf Loos 1912
The Scheu house was built for Gustav and Helen Scheu. The house was to be located in the Hietzing area, the building authorities resisted the building from the planning stage because of its alien features that were to be built. The suburb of Hietzing is a wealthy neighbourhood where most of the houses are symmetrical and feature the neo-classical style. The residents were shocked by the new aesthetics that the house would bring into their area. Loos remained firm behind his decisions within the design of the building. Loos compromised a little and agreed to plant ivy on the garden façade to make the change less severe. The planning authority asked Loos to draft proposals for the lot next door, showing how the design of the house could fit with the surrounding houses. In the end the the Scheu house was built.
The Scheu house is different to the surrounding area and stand out. There are two main parts to the building, the main house and a renting apartment. The door at the right side of the building, which looks like the main access, is actually the private door to the small apartment. The main entrance of the house is on the left side. Because of the stepped form, each of the east-facing bedrooms gains a generous balcony in front.(see fig 6) The terraces recede four meters, and the building is 16 meters long in total, with all the different size windows based on the combination of a single module.
Scheu House, Larochegasse 3, Vienna, Austria, Figure 6
This building is probably the first in which a flat roof was used as an outdoor terrace. What is certain is that these terraces played an important role in the development of 20th century architecture in a time where the use of flat roofs was subject to a great deal of controversy.
Again Loos uses natural material to implement ornamentation within the interior the walls covered in dark oak. Loos divides the social areas and wood painted white in the bedrooms. This distinction of the spaces between public or private interiors reflects the notion of spatial domesticity that Loos had developed.
Scheu House, Larochegasse 3, Vienna, Austria, Figure 7
In conclusion Adolf loos professed that ornamentation should be removed as it was unnecessary and a waste of money. He continually used ornamentation within his designs. I believe this is because although modernism rejected ornamentation, It is the language in which architects speak through. Loos knew this referring back to classical architecture within his designs, he wanted to be accepted by nobles but was also a classicalist at heart. The two need each other.