#architecturediscussions

[preoy-blog]

Ornament and Crime

"Ornament is wasted manpower and therefore wasted health,"quoted Adolf Loos. 'Is ornamentation truly not functional?' was what came to mind after my reading on Loos' readings on Ornament and Crime (1908). If ornamentation was really a degenerative act, what was to be thought of pre-existing history? Why did the Greeks and Romans spent such an immense amount of effort and time on decorating their architecture? There must obviously be a reason. Ornamentation was an indication of the historic civilization and social identity during the time, it is what differentiates each period from another, telling different tales and connoting different ambitions. Thus, with the stripping of ornamentation in Loos' perspective, what is to be portrayed during the 18th century?

To elaborate what Loos stated, that ornament was not only a waste of manpower, but also a waste if material and capital. It is undeniable that most ornamented objects costs more than simplistic objects, however I think that what lies in the labour and effort put into decorating and object pays off in the end, ornamentation gives people what is more important than functionality, by seeing innovative and creative ideas that may come in various shapes and forms it gives us excitement and pleasure that we humans need as creatures with feelings. However, the usage of ornamentation has a limit and when used too excessively it reaches the point of unencessity.

Moreover, I think that Adolf Loos' implication that “Ornament can no longer be borne by someone who exists at our level of culture” is rather extreme. I believe that there is no such thing as being totally stripped of ornaments. We, as humans or actually anything on earth are born different, ornamented by or slightly different facial features, of which makes it possible to differentiate individuals from one another. So, the act of implementing ornamentation as act of issuing identities and images for objects put there by man is somewhat possessed in human nature. Thus, to eradicate the total existence of ornamentation can be viewed as defying the nature of humanity. According to the text, Adolf Loos personified ornamentation as an 'it', which was interesting to me as it is in a way, for me suggesting that the act of applying ornaments is a variable, like human perspectives, saying that it can not be verified as necessary but people still chooses include it whether it was considered as an act of crime.

However, I do not object that the modern and simplistic lifestyle that Loos envisioned is at all unpleasing. I do think that it is rather reasonable to see things as he did and to promote functionality instead of forms as suited to the present context. Nowadays, people are exposed to more advanced technology and it is not surprising that minimal concepts are promoted. Especially in terms of architecture, I think that it is quite impractical to follow historic traditions with the construction of highly ornamented buildings as the context has evolved completely. The existing society has more to consider in terms of social and political views which are much too diverse to agree on one ideal, unlike earlier points in history when periods can be easily identifies such that pointing out the collective communities and different social priorities and virtues set. Thus, a simple design would be most ideal to satisfy and neutralise the multiple conflicting perspectives of individuals.

In the end, with the openness of society at the present, without judgement people are free to subject to their own preference, appreciating both simplicity and complexity as an expression of individual identity and personality.