In Adolf Loos’ literature concerning Ornaments and Crime, he chooses to focus on how the world in the recent years has emerged to deny imagination and expression of feelings through art, defined by ornaments which has defied a chance to take course. He strongly criticizes how much the culture of yester years in the early centuries has been flashed down the drain, despite the fact that it entirely expressed the thought and mind of the artists, and many people could relate to it. Furthermore, Adolf Loos he goes ahead and develops an aesthetic purism which clearly elaborates his reasons for why he elaborates in precise concesion how judgmental people in recent years have become on those who value ornaments.
In short, he clearly states that ornaments have emerged to be related to crime, and that the society today identifies the people who showcase ornaments such as tatoos, as thieves and degrates that are criminal in nature. He goes ahead, and talks of the fine-shaped building edges that Architects should focus on building and this according to him would be one of the good practices done by the architects. The sole reason for choosing this piece of work to base a good part of my manifesto is because Adolf insists on the right mechanisms to adopt as compared to other architects who only talk about the varying designs that one can produce. Most architectures choose to elaborate on the design skills, yet Adolf Loos’s talks of the right culture and mechanisms that most of us should get adapted to. It is in this deep and well thought perspective of Adolf Loos that I came to the conclusion of adapting this article that is well elaborated.
Adolf Loos in his article has expressed an unperceived nature of the ornamental art and the general art not only among artists in general, but by the entire society of today. In his article, he sees the ornamental art as being that which is defined as immoral, unacceptable, and disguised by the society today as opposed to yester years. For instance; he describes an ornamental display in one of the artistic museums where a woman is engraved in a horizontal manner whereas the woman is engraved in a vertical manner penetrating the women. This was viewed as a sign of expression of feelings in those years where the inner desire was expressed in an ornamental way commonly described to as gravity.
In today’s world, this would be perceived as perverted and condemned as being immoral in the strongest terms possible by the society without giving an artistic look that existed in the olden days of the 12th Century onwards. He goes ahead to say that today, those people who have tattoos on them are being associated with criminal gangs and other illegal activities, where for instance; a man or lady with a graffiti is seen as a thief or robber, and worse still as a murderer who is on the verge of making life of people in the surrounding community miserable. It is describe that modern day thinking perceive the tattooed people as those whose lives are defined by murder, that if they have not murdered anyone yet, they are bound to do so before they die.
Adolf Loos’ essay on Ornament and Crime simply advocates for a clear surface and smooth contrast decorations that existed in the early years of artistic innovation with the recent lavish decorations that are constituted with the aesthetic principles of modernity, with two basic descriptions that cuts across; Fin de siècle and the Vienna Secession. Loos being a pioneer and moderator of the modern architectural theories, strongly criticizes the direction it took and the strong deviation it has made from the early ages architecture that surrounded ornamental designs. This is all a clear standing by Adolf Loos, but he forgot to put into perspective the effects of modernization and how it can influence not only people’s way of viewing art and other classical perceptions, but also their entire way of living and reasoning. It is absolutely true that people have deviated from the early perceptions of expressions of views through art in public displays, but what was deemed right then may not be the same today due to various factors that surround modernity such as Christianity and technological advancements. For instance; dressing of the ancient people was in a way that was majorly defined by ornaments, where they could wear robs and pierce their bodies alongside engraving tattoos on themselves as a way of defining beauty, but today beauty is defined by the clothing design worn by people.
In his age of existence, there was a sharp contrast between his century and the previous one in regards to cultural practices and what a view. But the 21st Century has tried to adopt the ancient culture of ornamental acceptance and adoption. This is in the sense that, tattoos which in the ancient years were very popular and highly acceptable have become fashionable, unlike in the 19th Century when Adolf Loos did the piece on ornaments and crime. This is deemed as a way of people turning a blind eye to his view of things surrounding art and architecture and the ornamental acceptance by the society.
The 20th Century and the 21st Century has seen a huge adoption of ancient culture, and now tattoos have been accepted as a way of expressing the inner self, and bringing to light what was deemed unacceptable, immoral, and disgraceful. In the years of Adolf Loos, people went to the lavatories to express their ideologies, feelings, and perception of things, where graffiti was done in the dark unlike in ancient times, where it was mounted on public places and museums for the public to see and relate to it in their personal way. He saw his years as that which is marred with fear of expression and brainwashed by modernity that was been effected in full. If he was living today, he would be so impressed with the direction art and architecture in general has taken, not to mention the olden perception on ornamental art being associated with crime having been erased, though not in totality, but significantly in the mind and school of thought of the society as a whole.
Today’s society has moved from an era marred with judgment to that which is defined by freedom of expression. Though it is not as it used to be in the ancient years, it is a step ahead from the 19th Century days of doom in regards to art and architecture not laying basis to ornamental expression. Other from the medieval focus that has been placed on specific form of art, the world today, that is the 21st Century has engaged diversity, where the society is now diverse with views and has learnt to appreciate and adopt change as it emerges, more so in the world of art and architecture. The design community has widely engaged the ornamental art in its effervescence mode of design, where pattern making and delectation of an equal stature has been made part and parcel of today’s definition of art. Graffiti have emerged in public places, expression of views and an inner desire despite its not so ancient way of display. In terms of building and construction, Adolf Loos expressed his criticism of the fact that during his age, people had shifted from the traditional way of loving furniture that has an artistic impression to those that are just plain and boring, for instance; he described how in the ancient years furniture were inscribed with artistic impressions and designs that described in great accord the value of ornamental design but in his years of modernity people had done away with those designs and opted for furniture that was plain and also simple in its design. In today’s world the perception of the modernity era in which Adolf Loos existed has been eradicated and the society has moved towards the ancient designs and learnt to accept inscriptions and designs in their furniture and also in their houses as well. It is in this view that Adolf Loos’ article may not purely describe the 21st Century in which we live in despite the fact that we are not as open and free as the society of the ancient times around the 12th Century.
In accordance to Adolf Loos, he takes it that elimination of ornaments leads to a reduction in working hours and a resultant raise in wage. This is evident especially while the comparison between the American Laborer and the Chinese Carver. Moreover, he thinks that if ornaments were not around for any men, then the need to work four hours each and every day would be insignificant. He insists that, “As ornament is no longer organically related to our culture, then it is no longer the expression of our culture. (Loos Adolf, 1908)” By this, he means that it does no relate to us in anyway. He feels that the modern ornament producers are left behind and for this reason the ornamented products given by the producers seem to be useless in terms of their utility as time progresses.
Lastly, the Australian decorators and promoters that produce furniture think that ornaments have led to the increase in employment cases. Moreover, the think that fire is an actual producer of work. Ironically, Adolf Loos goes ahead and talks of burning of the whole Australian Empire. Furthermore, he goes on to compare the pay for money and the value he gets from the same quality boots. From this, he insists that ornamented objects can well be bearable and well accommodated if and only if they are produced in a shabbily manner. Finally, he talks of the absence of ornaments that appears to have raised the other kinds of arts. It is through ornaments that arts such as the Beethoven symphonies has scaled greater heights. He feels that though ornaments are at some point overrated in most artworks, the lack of those ornaments also shows intellectual power on the other hand.
References
Loos, Adolf. 1908. "Ornament and Crime." Adolf Loose: Ornament and Crime. June 12. Accessed April 27, 2016.
Moussavi , Farshid, and Kubo Michael. 2006. The function of Ornament. Barcelona: Actar.
Rumiez, Agnieskza. 2013. "Fractal Architecture." Architecture and Art 45-49.
Schiermer, Bjorn. 2015. "On the Ageing of Objects in Modern Culture: Ornament and Crime." Theory, Culture & Society 19-22.
Wisniewska, Bozenna. 2006. "Ornament and Modernity: Crime or No Crime." What is Modernism 59.
Appendix:
